ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Discussion of Greek texts that do not fall into the other categories, including texts in other dialects or texts from other periods.
Forum rules
This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » October 17th, 2014, 9:33 pm

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 8 - Text and hints
“And when a person buys a horse he knows it will be useful to him [1], but if he receives an injury while falling [2] from it, the horse is not wealth to him, is it?”

“It truly is not if wealth only consists of good things.”

“Neither, then, is the land [considered] wealth to a man, who tends it in such a way that his work produces a loss. Nor indeed is the land [considered] wealth, if instead of yielding crops it produces hunger.”

[1] This was/is a lexical nightmare for me. This is a question that I am embarrassed to ask but will save me great amounts of grief and trial and error: where can I find what the abbreviations in LSJ mean? :oops: I have begun to recognize some of them by repeated (mis)use, but I can't flip to the front of a digital copy like I would in a book to find out.

Also of note, I have taken out the negative for reasons of style, but am still not sure that this is the "correct" way to take it. I understand it currently as "should it not be known to him to be useful," but I think I am wrong because I have had to rework it.

[2] Could this refer to repeated falls? If it doesn’t, I must admit I don’t know what to make of your hint.

Sorry, I have been so slow with this. I am trying to be more diligent. Unfortunately, that means I move more slowly. I am hoping that I am at least doing better than I was last summer.
0 x


Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 18th, 2014, 6:07 am

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 8 - Feedback for Wes Wood
Xenophon, Economics 1.8 wrote:κἂν ἄρα γέ τις ἵππον πριάμενος μὴ ἐπίστηται αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καταπίπτων ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κακὰ λαμβάνῃ, οὐ χρήματα αὐτῷ ἐστιν ὁ ἵππος; οὔκ, εἴπερ τὰ χρήματά γ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀγαθόν. οὐδ᾽ ἄρα γε ἡ γῆ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐστὶ χρήματα, ὅστις οὕτως ἐργάζεται αὐτὴν ὥστε ζημιοῦσθαι ἐργαζόμενος. οὐδὲ ἡ γῆ μέντοι χρήματά ἐστιν, εἴπερ ἀντὶ τοῦ τρέφειν πεινῆν παρασκευάζει. .
Wes Wood wrote:“And when a person buys a horse he knows it will be useful to him [1], but if he receives an injury while falling [2] from it, the horse is not wealth to him, is it?”

“It truly is not if wealth only consists of good things.”

“Neither, then, is the land [considered] wealth to a man, who tends it in such a way that his work produces a loss. Nor indeed is the land [considered] wealth, if instead of yielding crops it produces hunger.”
Wes Wood wrote:Also of note, I have taken out the negative for reasons of style, but am still not sure that this is the "correct" way to take it. I understand it currently as "should it not be known to him to be useful," but I think I am wrong because I have had to rework it.
Well, it seems my hint was wrong and misleading. I disagree with my previous way of taking this. I now take the first αὐτῷ as referring to the horse, and χρῆσθαι in sense of get some good use out of something, so ἐπίστηται means have the ability, be skilled at / or well acquainted with the use of.

I'm not strong on if/then constructions, but it seems that the subjunctive here is syntactical rather than independently grammatical - like the genitive in ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ - we wouldn't make something of it, "from of it", it helps us place things together correctly, rather than adding "should" to the meaning.
Economics 1.8 (part) wrote:κἂν ἄρα γέ τις ἵππον πριάμενος μὴ ἐπίστηται αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καταπίπτων ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κακὰ λαμβάνῃ, οὐ χρήματα αὐτῷ ἐστιν ὁ ἵππος;
There is more in the κἂν than meets the eye. "And if (it were the case that) ... the sense of it seems to carry over to the λαμβάνῃ too.
Wes Wood wrote:[2] Could this refer to repeated falls? If it doesn’t, I must admit I don’t know what to make of your hint.
I meant that the durative sense of the present seemed significant. ie that it was there to indicate the falls were repeated, rather than just being in that tense because of the regular demands of the construction. But now I am wondering if I was right or not... :roll: I now suspect that the present tense of λαμβάνῃ requires a present tense of καταπίπτων.
Wes Wood wrote:Sorry, I have been so slow with this. I am trying to be more diligent. Unfortunately, that means I move more slowly. I am hoping that I am at least doing better than I was last summer.
You saw my other post that I fell asleep and submitted before it was finished and later I deleted. Working through this should never be you top-most priority in an given day.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » October 18th, 2014, 8:07 am

Stephen Hughes wrote: You saw my other post that I fell asleep and submitted before it was finished and later I deleted. Working through this should never be you top-most priority in an given day.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. In the last sentence of that post I was hoping that my ability to translate has improved since last summer. It was even worse than normal writing on my part.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » October 18th, 2014, 8:57 am

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 9
“So then, are not sheep also like this situation? If one should suffer loss because that person is not skilled with how to use sheep, they shouldn’t ever be counted as wealth either?”

“It certainly seems so to me.” [1]

“You then, as it seems likely, believe that the things that are of benefit are wealth, but the things that are harmful are not wealth.”

“Absolutely.” [2]

[1] Or the exact opposite. I am not sure how to distinguish which one I should use.

[2] Original ≈ ([it is] thus.)?
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 22nd, 2014, 12:10 am

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 9

Sorry to take so long getting to this, I've been fiddling with a poor attempt at an index for two reasons. First, because there is such a distance often between the text and the replies and I want to get it indexed as I go, and second, because the older I get, the less I like to rush things at the last minute.
Xenophon, Economics 1.9 wrote:οὐκοῦν καὶ τὰ πρόβατα ὡσαύτως, εἴ τις διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπίστασθαι προβάτοις χρῆσθαι ζημιοῖτο, οὐδὲ τὰ πρόβατα χρήματα τούτῳ εἴη ἄν; οὔκουν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ. σὺ ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικε, τὰ μὲν ὠφελοῦντα χρήματα ἡγῇ, τὰ δὲ βλάπτοντα οὐ χρήματα. οὕτως.
Wes Wood wrote:"So then, are not sheep also like this situation? If one should suffer loss because that person is not skilled with how to use sheep, they shouldn’t ever be counted as wealth either?”

“It certainly seems so to me.” [1]

“You then, as it seems likely, believe that the things that are of benefit are wealth, but the things that are harmful are not wealth.”

“Absolutely.” [2]
  • ὡσαύτως - like this situation - applying the same logic (expressed in language) to sheep as we have done previously to other things. Like put the next type of fruit into the same juice extractor - if you wanted a game to play to understand ὡσαύτως. [I'm giving my thoughts here, not implying something about yours."]
  • ἡγῇ - the things that are of benefit are wealth - did you understand this verb ἡγῇ then simplify it? or did you gloss over it in the English?
  • δὲ - but - these are two grammatically positive statements. Did you go with the sense on this "but" or logically recognise grammatically positive statements and negative meanings. I mean, that I am suggesting you think on two levels - one after the other at first, and later at the same time - the first grammar and the second sense. My simple rule of thumb for English is that a negative conjunction with the same verb puts emphasis on (directs our attention towards) the nominal elements - usually (but not here) objects, while a negative conjunction with different verbs puts emphasis on the verbs - either with or without their objects, but conversely, a positive conjunction together with the same verb in your rendering would put emphasis on (direct our attention towards) the verb, and a positive conjunction with different verbs puts emphasis (directs our attention towards) the subjects.

    The Greek has the μέν ... δέ ... contrastive pair with the same verb in the second phrase. The Greek is clearly directing our attention towards the nominal elements here - so I agree that trivialisation of the verb ἡγῇ to the copula is possible and the "correct" English would be a negative conjunction.
    the things that are harmful are not wealth - the verb ἡγῇ is implied here, so ditto on the above question.
Wes Wood wrote:[1] Or the exact opposite. I am not sure how to distinguish which one I should use.
The question is whether one agrees with the statement or with the person. English agrees with the statement by repeating the positivity or negativity of the statement uttered. Here are examples of agreement...
  • Negative statement: "There are no apples in the fridge." "No, sorry (there aren't).
  • Negative question: "Doesn't he have suitable shoes?" "No, (he doesn't).
  • Positive statement: "She is good at maths." "Yes.".
  • Positive question: "Will it rain today?" "Yes"
The Greek "οὔκουν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ." and the other positive things seem to be agreeing with the person, rather than the statement. i.e. "Yes, (you've got that right)" (I agree with you - when you say that) rather than "Yes, (that is right)" (I agree with that - what you said). To put that into understandable English for the positive, is easy because one can just overlook the difference of perception between the two. But for the negative, it is a little difficult. The "εἴ τις διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπίστασθαι προβάτοις χρῆσθαι ζημιοῖτο, οὐδὲ τὰ πρόβατα χρήματα τούτῳ εἴη ἄν;" is a statement in the negative. Greek answer the person (agreement is positive statement directed at the speaker), but idiomatic English should show agreement by copying the negativity of the statement in the response. "It wouldn't be wealth." -> "No, it seems it wouldn't".

The question arises, as to whether you are translating or "rendering". Are you being literal to show you understand words, or idiomatic, to show you understand the sense? Your questioning your literal rendering indicates to me at least that you have flagged a point, rather than understood it (hence this explanation), but that is an assumption on my part (to save us going through a series of questions over the next few days).
Wes Wood wrote:[2] Original ≈ ([it is] thus.)?
οὕτως - Looking at this in the pronominal might help you understand... οὗτος draws our attention to a person we see in front of us and expresses him in a single word.
Matthew 3:17 wrote:Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.
"The guy that you just heard spoken of, saw baptised and upon whom you saw the spirit coming down on him" (=> οὗτος) is ...
So much for a nominal example. For the adverb οὕτως the complete set of verbal phrase that have just been expressed, are now taken into an adverb (really a pro-verb - but that is a wise saying, but anyway, like how a pronoun can re-express the meaning of a noun, so a pro-verb re-expresses all the meaning of the preceding verbs in a single word. You already have a feel for this phenomenon of pro-verbalising from ὡς, κάθως and obviously the ὡσαύτως what we discussed just now, I'm sure, from your years of careful reading.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » October 22nd, 2014, 9:27 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:ἡγῇ - the things that are of benefit are wealth - did you understand this verb ἡγῇ then simplify it? or did you gloss over it in the English?
When I translated this, I felt that the meaning of "ἡγῇ" overlapped with the sense of "think" from the verb "ἔοικε," so I reduced it. I believe I understand it unless this is not the case.
Stephen Hughes wrote:δὲ - but - these are two grammatically positive statements. Did you go with the sense on this "but" or logically recognise grammatically positive statements and negative meanings. I mean, that I am suggesting you think on two levels - one after the other at first, and later at the same time - the first grammar and the second sense. My simple rule of thumb for English is that a negative conjunction with the same verb puts emphasis on (directs our attention towards) the nominal elements - usually (but not here) objects, while a negative conjunction with different verbs puts emphasis on the verbs - either with or without their objects, but conversely, a positive conjunction together with the same verb in your rendering would put emphasis on (direct our attention towards) the verb, and a positive conjunction with different verbs puts emphasis (directs our attention towards) the subjects.
I did recognize this structure, and I am very pleased! :D This is one area where I can tell that my ability has definitely improved. Thanks for the insights about how to focus on certain elements in English.
Stephen Hughes wrote:The question arises, as to whether you are translating or "rendering". Are you being literal to show you understand words, or idiomatic, to show you understand the sense? Your questioning your literal rendering indicates to me at least that you have flagged a point, rather than understood it (hence this explanation), but that is an assumption on my part (to save us going through a series of questions over the next few days).
Your guess was accurate. I struggle with negative statements enough in English, let alone Greek. I have had this issue throughout this reading so far. I believe that I understand what you are saying, but request that you help me check up on these types of exchanges. For my part when they occur I will explain my rendering.

If you are amenable, I am going to give both my "literal" and "smoothed" translations. I am hoping that it will save you from having to guess about where I have messed up. You catch so many instances where I am unaware that I have erred that I only wonder how much you would catch otherwise.

Thanks!
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 22nd, 2014, 11:27 pm

Feedback on some points arising from section 9
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:ἡγῇ - the things that are of benefit are wealth - did you understand this verb ἡγῇ then simplify it? or did you gloss over it in the English?
When I translated this, I felt that the meaning of "ἡγῇ" overlapped with the sense of "think" from the verb "ἔοικε," so I reduced it. I believe I understand it unless this is not the case.
In terms of thought? ... ἔοικε seems to be being used by Xenophon, more for thoughts triggered by external factors, while ἡγῇ seems to be being use to refer to the outcome of reasoning from a basis.

It is not an easy thing to understand which thought processes are described by which verbs. To categorise ways of thinking involves understanding them too well. The majority of people I know have little understanding about what they think and even littler (sic.) interest in understanding it. It's easy to blow understanding bubbles - that will later burst - in this regard.

That being said, simplification to is and think is also not a good thing to do. A smudge of the pen in English to blur the distinctions in Greek doesn't help our understanding either.
Wes Wood wrote:Thanks for the insights about how to focus on certain elements in English.
It is not insight, it comes from re-expressing the equivalence between "and" and "is" - conjunction and copula - that we use in syntactic re-ordering - keep the main semantic meaning words and substitute "and" and "is" and still have the same overall meaning.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The question arises, as to whether you are translating or "rendering". Are you being literal to show you understand words, or idiomatic, to show you understand the sense? Your questioning your literal rendering indicates to me at least that you have flagged a point, rather than understood it (hence this explanation), but that is an assumption on my part (to save us going through a series of questions over the next few days).
Your guess was accurate. I struggle with negative statements enough in English, let alone Greek. I have had this issue throughout this reading so far. I believe that I understand what you are saying, but request that you help me check up on these types of exchanges. For my part when they occur I will explain my rendering.

If you are amenable, I am going to give both my "literal" and "smoothed" translations. I am hoping that it will save you from having to guess about where I have messed up. You catch so many instances where I am unaware that I have erred that I only wonder how much you would catch otherwise.
I'm amenable, so long as we don't get bogged down in pulling the lint from each other's navels. My amenability would be greatly aided if you could re-quote the Greek when you post the renderings or translations.

On the whole you do not mess up.

I wanted to write about προβάτοις χρῆσθαι yesterday too, but had no time, and now again my time is limited. Let me summarise: Simplified generic verb - lend itself to use euphemistically cf. Romans 1:27 ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας - understanding could be in a number of directions - "handle" sheep, or "tend" or "make money from" or left as a vague meaning. Well... I'll try to write this out in full later....
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 23rd, 2014, 11:55 am

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 10 - Text and hints

A general statement followed by an example:
Xenophon, Economics 1.10 wrote:ταὐτὰ ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις χρήματά ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα: ὥσπερ γε αὐλοὶ τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ ἀξίως λόγου αὐλεῖν χρήματά εἰσι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἢ ἄχρηστοι λίθοι, εἰ μὴ ἀποδιδοῖτό γε αὐτούς.
Hints (Look at these if you need to)
  • ταὐτὰ ὄντα - ταὐτὰ = τὰ αὐτὰ the same things being - while the things themselves don't change
  • αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις - (able to use) each one of them. It is dative with the χρῆσθαι and the genitive is partitive.
  • χρήματά ἐστι ... οὐ χρήματά (ἐστι) - these ἐστι are used with neuter plurals, and taken with a plural sense.
  • τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ ... τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ - the other elements of the first phrase are to be understood in the second phrase.
  • αὐλοὶ - pipe, flute, clarionet, often depicted on amphora as being played by female entertainers at symposia. The ones I remember seeing had two tubes not one.
  • τῷ ... ἐπισταμένῳ ἀξίως λόγου - worthily of mention - better than average skill is what is meant here I guess
  • ἄχρηστοι - useless
  • ἀποδιδοῖτό - middle form sell
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » October 23rd, 2014, 8:48 pm

Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1, section 10
“Literal”
Then these possessions to the one who indeed knows how to use them, to each [of these people] it is property, but to the one who does not know [how to use them], [it is] not property. Even as flutes to the one who indeed knows how to play them worthy of esteem are property, but to the one who does not know [how to use them] [they are] nothing more than useless stones, if, indeed, he doesn’t want to sell them.

Greek:
ταὐτὰ ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις χρήματά ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα: ὥσπερ γε αὐλοὶ τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ ἀξίως λόγου αὐλεῖν χρήματά εἰσι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἢ ἄχρηστοι λίθοι, εἰ μὴ ἀποδιδοῖτό γε αὐτούς.

“Loose”
Then these possessions are property to those who know how to use them, but they are not property to those who do not know how to use them: just like flutes are property to someone who knows how to play the flute, but to someone who does not, they aren’t any more useful than stones, except for the fact that a person could sell flutes.
Stephen Hughes wrote:My amenability would be greatly aided if you could re-quote the Greek when you post the renderings or translations.
Your request is not a problem at all; I would have done so sooner, had I known. If you want them each in a different order than I have put them in here or a different spacing, just let me know and I will do that also. Thank you!
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 23rd, 2014, 10:48 pm

An invitation to present
Stephen Hughes wrote: The text of Xenophon's Oeconomicus is available on Perseus. If you get really stuck for a form, you can click on it there. There is also an English translation of you are absolutely stuck for the sense.

We are at the half-way point of chapter one now, and we are in the first day of a new moon (one of the major φωστῆρες of Gen 1:14), so it seems like an auspicious day to make a change to the way we are doing things....

That quote contains the hyper-link to the text.

Please copy the text of section eleven from the Perseus site and present hints / notes to allow others to understand points of difficulty.

The expected readers strong points are that they are familiar with all regular conjugations and declensions in the Koine Greek New Testament and have a working vocabulary down to words occurring 10 times or more in the New Testament. Their weak points are that they have are so familiar with the New Testament text that they gloss over syntactic constructions because they already know the sense from the English, they lack skills in dealing with uncertainty, the optative, and "colloquial" expressions.

I expect that is shouldn't take more than double the time that you currently spend on translating / rendering. After you've had a try at that, we can come back and discuss it from this new point of view.

My advice for your preparation (look at this after you try):
  • Make the grouping of negatives and their verbs more obvious - especially when they extend the length of a sentence.
  • Point out the syntactic structures based on conjunctions - (both at a micro and a macro level).
  • Point out parallelism and contrast where it occurs - (verbal, nominal).
  • State obviously the understood elements in a phrase - (The things that a native speaker would understand)
  • Point out the change of speakers - (especially if personal names are not used).
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “Other Greek Texts”