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

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 1st, 2014, 3:15 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:That stuff about πρός is just straight from the dictionary.
The great unknown in my Greek is how cases with or without prepositions change or interchange when a sentence that could be expressed with a verb is reexpressed with a noun instead and vice versa. In crude terms, it seems that a one case with a preposition can almost mean the same as another case without it. It is something that I hope to understand better later, and am sure that I don't understand well now. In fact, it would cause me to rethink my current understanding of the genitive case in an expression of an amount of money - currently I understand it as an abstract external measure rather than a tangible handful of money - if this πρός + accusative were standing in place of that with approximately the same sense, in this phrase. The outcome of my reluctance to see the direct correspondence between them, is the explanation that I have given which assumes a non-equivalence - ie makes a difference - and suits the context while being a plausible sense of πρός.
Wes Wood wrote:I know, but your perceptiveness is not. I am greatly impressed at your ability to predict where I am going to struggle. If you don't mind a diversion, I will tell you more precisely why. I recently changed the way I work through these. First, I read the text out loud three times. After the third reading, I give myself a moment to attempt to make sense of the parts I don't understand. If there are any words from the reading that I am unsure about after this, I go to the dictionary and read through the relevant entries. I then look at the text and write out my initial translation.
When you say reading what do you mean? Do you eyes move at the pace of your mouth? That is not going to get you very far or at least it won't get you there quickly. Reading is a process of re-speaking the words of an authour. If you do that on a word-by-word basis you are not going to get very good phrasing. When I read, I look at the structure and then read part by part. The easiest things to notice are the conjunctions and prepositions, and I'm sure you are breaking up your reading in that way already. I usually go through a few back-flips and re-thinks about the structure as I read. One of the things that makes Xenophon so easy is that he tends to leave sentences quite straightforward.
Wes Wood wrote:This is as far as I got Wednesday before I ran out of time to work on it. Usually, I would have gone back to my resources and worked through parts that I felt would improve my understanding of the passage. I finish by looking at your hints and seeing where I can make improvements or I where need to adjust my previous understanding. I don't look at your hints before this point, because then my efforts are no longer my efforts. (I fear the observer effect.)
Realising quickly what you don't know is an interesting experience, I think. The recognition skills need time to become habituated. Think of it in terms of race. If you see a group of people of a racial group that you are not familiar with, then you will notice the similarity between them, more easily than the differences. Learning a new language is like that. You see Korean, Greek or Catalan, for example for the first time, and it all looks foreign. After some time, you can recognise what language the text is written in. That is a good and essential first step. With people, after some time your mind filters the similarity and concentrates on finding the differences. That is done in "big picture" mode. By reading word-by-word, if that is what you are doing, you are going to details too quickly. If you tried to recognise people by seeing first their eyes, then two seconds later their nose, then their cheeks. That makes recognition of the person very difficult and would make recognition of the overall appearance even more so. To make a comparision - rather than a recognition - your eyes would bounce back and forward between two people as you looked at details. You're still in your first decade as a teacher, but I'm sure by now that you would be more or less stereotyping students by now, instead of the initial emotionally draining feeling of seeing all individuals in front of you.

The effect of realising what you don't know changes over the learning process - specifically as you progress from not knowing more than you do know, to knowing more than you do know, and so on. Recognising what you don't know is based on patterns not individualities. You have expressed your understanding of this previously a few days ago in the PM I replied to, without realising that you expressed it. Those "What will the colour of the next bead be?" type exercises that we used to do are good for learning to anticipate things, and ordinarily the same skills are applied to our language learning and reading too. It is something that you could aim to be better at.
Wes Wood wrote:Sometimes, your hints sail right above or bounce off my thick skull, but frequently, even then, they predict where I have or am still struggling. Still, I wanted to acknowledge your hard work Wednesday. So, I read the hints anyway and let you know that I had not yet been able to interact with them. Unfortunately, I spent so much time looking at the optative on Thursday that I did not have time to look at the entry for πολεῖν either, though I knew both days that doing so would make that stretch of text more clear.
The work is not so hard, and it is what I enjoy doing. One of the steps in preparing hints (or any teaching material) is to anticipate student responses to the material, but you already know that. In the case of this reading, I am fortunate to know what words and structures readers of the New Testament are familiar with.
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 » November 1st, 2014, 5:46 pm

Chapter 1, section 13 - Text and Hints
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1 wrote:καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν τις ὠφελεῖσθαι δύναται, χρήματα εἶναι. εἰ γοῦν τις χρῷτο τῷ ἀργυρίῳ ὥστε πριάμενος οἷον ἑταίραν διὰ ταύτην κάκιον μὲν τὸ σῶμα ἔχοι, κάκιον δὲ τὴν ψυχήν, κάκιον δὲ τὸν οἶκον, πῶς ἂν ἔτι τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῷ ὠφέλιμον εἴη; οὐδαμῶς, εἰ μή πέρ γε καὶ τὸν ὑοσκύαμον καλούμενον χρήματα εἶναι φήσομεν, ὑφ᾽ οὗ οἱ φαγόντες παραπλῆγες γίγνονται.



Hints (Look at these if you need to)
εἶναι: Perhaps the meaning of this verb is modified by the prepositional phrase ἀφ᾽ ὧν.
ἑταίρα: this word refers to a female companion in opposition to a wife. This could range anywhere from a mistress to a prostitute.
οὐδαμῶς: This word is used frequently in answers and may here signal a change in speakers.
ὑοσκύαμον: henbane = stinking nightshade
παραπλήξ: mad or paralyzed
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 » November 1st, 2014, 6:01 pm

"Literal":
But you no longer seem to agree with me, from what things one is able to receive aid, it is wealth. Certainly if one possesses silver (money so that he is able to purchase for himself some sort of companion [and if] indeed on account of this companion he has a worse body, and a worse life, and a worse household, how is the silver (money) still [considered] useful to him?

In no way is it useful, unless indeed further we can also say that what is called stinking nightshade is wealth, by which people become mad/paralyzed after eating it.

Greek:
καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν τις ὠφελεῖσθαι δύναται, χρήματα εἶναι. εἰ γοῦν τις χρῷτο τῷ ἀργυρίῳ ὥστε πριάμενος οἷον ἑταίραν διὰ ταύτην κάκιον μὲν τὸ σῶμα ἔχοι, κάκιον δὲ τὴν ψυχήν, κάκιον δὲ τὸν οἶκον, πῶς ἂν ἔτι τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῷ ὠφέλιμον εἴη; οὐδαμῶς, εἰ μή πέρ γε καὶ τὸν ὑοσκύαμον καλούμενον χρήματα εἶναι φήσομεν, ὑφ᾽ οὗ οἱ φαγόντες παραπλῆγες γίγνονται.

Free:
But you no longer seem to agree with me that wealth consists of the things from which a person is able to receive aid. For if one has money and is able to buy himself some sort of mistress and, on account of her, he has a worse body, soul, and household, how can the money be considered useful to him?

In no way is it useful, unless we say that the plant called nightshade, which makes people become disoriented after eating it, is also wealth.

Notes:
I believe I understand ἀφ᾽ ὧν differently than you do. Given past experience this probably means that I am guilty of the conjecture which you predicted and am wrong. I am still clinging to hope, though. :|
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 » November 1st, 2014, 7:03 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote: περὶ τοῦ <<ταὐτὰ ... ὄντα ... αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις>>
What troubles me most about the text in question is the order in which the elements are introduced. I don't think I would have blinked if the text read "ἑκάστοις αὐτῶν" instead of "αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις."

In the example you cited I don't think I have had any trouble with it for this reason. "Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου, πάντες ὅσοι εἶχον ἀσθενοῦντας νόσοις ποικίλαις ἤγαγον αὐτοὺς πρὸς αὐτόν· ὁ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιθεὶς ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς."

I wonder if there are examples similar to this construction with the elements in the same order.
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 » November 2nd, 2014, 12:49 am

Chapter 1, Section 13
Wes Wood wrote:καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν - But you no longer seem to agree with me, - But you no longer seem to agree with me
pi is pi and tau is tau.
Wes Wood wrote:ἀφ᾽ ὧν τις ὠφελεῖσθαι δύναται, χρήματα εἶναι.- from what things one is able to receive aid, it is wealth. - that wealth consists of the things from which a person is able to receive aid. - I believe I understand ἀφ᾽ ὧν differently than you do. Given past experience this probably means that I am guilty of the conjecture which you predicted and am wrong. I am still clinging to hope, though.
Stephen Hughes wrote:You may need to explain the implied demonstrative here. Bringing out the idea case to ἀφ᾽ ὧν is another way of explaining this syntactic structure
It seems we have a similar understanding. The relative implies the demonstrative and that is in both your renderings. "Wealth is what you can get benefit from", would be how to render it without making the demonstrative explicit.

ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπό seems to be a regular construction with this verb. δύνασθαι is a more general word than ἐπίστασθαι, which signals a broadening of the dialogue.
Wes Wood wrote:, εἰ γοῦν τις χρῷτο τῷ ἀργυρίῳ ὥστε πριάμενος οἷον ἑταίραν διὰ ταύτην κάκιον μὲν τὸ σῶμα ἔχοι, κάκιον δὲ τὴν ψυχήν, κάκιον δὲ τὸν οἶκον, πῶς ἂν ἔτι τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῷ ὠφέλιμον εἴη; - Certainly if one possesses silver (money) so that he is able to purchase for himself some sort of companion [and if] indeed on account of this companion he has a worse body, and a worse life, and a worse household, how is the silver (money) still [considered] useful to him? - For if one has money and is able to buy himself some sort of mistress and, on account of her, he has a worse body, soul, and household, how can the money be considered useful to him?
πριάμενος could have a better translation than "buy". οἷον could do with a comment.

Wes Wood wrote:οὐδαμῶς, εἰ μή πέρ γε καὶ τὸν ὑοσκύαμον καλούμενον χρήματα εἶναι φήσομεν, ὑφ᾽ οὗ οἱ φαγόντες παραπλῆγες γίγνονται. - In no way is it useful, unless indeed further we can also say that what is called stinking nightshade is wealth, by which people become mad/paralyzed after eating it. - In no way is it useful, unless we say that the plant called nightshade, which makes people become disoriented after eating it, is also wealth.
Okay.
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 » November 2nd, 2014, 5:04 am

I will interline my comments with your hints.
Wes Wood wrote:Chapter 1, section 13 - Text and Hints
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1 wrote:καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν τις ὠφελεῖσθαι δύναται, χρήματα εἶναι. εἰ γοῦν τις χρῷτο τῷ ἀργυρίῳ ὥστε πριάμενος οἷον ἑταίραν διὰ ταύτην κάκιον μὲν τὸ σῶμα ἔχοι, κάκιον δὲ τὴν ψυχήν, κάκιον δὲ τὸν οἶκον, πῶς ἂν ἔτι τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῷ ὠφέλιμον εἴη; οὐδαμῶς, εἰ μή πέρ γε καὶ τὸν ὑοσκύαμον καλούμενον χρήματα εἶναι φήσομεν, ὑφ᾽ οὗ οἱ φαγόντες παραπλῆγες γίγνονται.
Hints (Look at these if you need to)
εἶναι: Perhaps the meaning of this verb is modified by the prepositional phrase ἀφ᾽ ὧν. No. The prepositional phrase goes with the over verb ὠφελεῖσθαι, the demonstrative that is understood with the relative goes with the εἶναι.
ἑταίρα: this word refers to a female companion in opposition to a wife. Money going to a wife stays within the same economic unit. This could range anywhere from a mistress to a prostitute.
κάκιον ἔχειν is the comparitive of κακῶς ἔχειν "to be in a bad (comparative -> worse) way"
ὥστε πριάμενος οἷον ἑταίραν διὰ ταύτην κάκιον μὲν τὸ σῶμα ἔχοι - the meaning of this phrase is clear enough "the sort of companion, through which his body is worse". The implication is that he should have some skill in choosing a companion, not only the money.
αὐτῷ - this dative goes with the adjective ὠφέλιμος

οὐδαμῶς: This word is used frequently in answers and may here signal a change in speakers.
εἰ μή - unless
ὑοσκύαμος: henbane = stinking nightshade
παραπλήξ: This is an adjective isn't it? mad or paralyzed
καὶ τὸν ὑοσκύαμον καλούμενον χρήματα εἶναι φήσομεν - I think you need to describe the structure here. The verb of speaking goes with two accusatives and a verb to be. There verb to call καλούμενον takes an accusative too. That is how the three accusatives here are arranged. We can see that from the word order too, i.e. it is not << ... τὸν καλούμενον ὑοσκύαμον ...>> "we will say that the plant that is called henbane is wealth"
I don't know why the μοι is put up in front of the δοκεῖς in the phrase καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν... Could you help me with that?
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 » November 2nd, 2014, 5:06 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: περὶ τοῦ <<ταὐτὰ ... ὄντα ... αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις>>
What troubles me most about the text in question is the order in which the elements are introduced. I don't think I would have blinked if the text read "ἑκάστοις αὐτῶν" instead of "αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις."

In the example you cited I don't think I have had any trouble with it for this reason. "Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου, πάντες ὅσοι εἶχον ἀσθενοῦντας νόσοις ποικίλαις ἤγαγον αὐτοὺς πρὸς αὐτόν· ὁ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιθεὶς ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς."

I wonder if there are examples similar to this construction with the elements in the same order.
I hadn't noticed it before I read this post of yours. Is it significant?
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 » November 4th, 2014, 6:44 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:I hadn't noticed it before I read this post of yours. Is it significant?
I am not qualified to answer this question. Frankly, I do not know Greek well enough to say. I have looked for the better part of Sunday afternoon and this yesterday evening for parallels and have only found that is close. First Corinthians 12:18 "νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ μέλη, ἓν ἓκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καθὼς ἠθέλησεν." (I don't know of any way or have the tools to do greek searches but to look for myself.) This agrees more with Luke 4:40 than it does to our earlier reading "ταὐτὰ ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις χρήματά ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα:" I am afraid I am next to useless here.

Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't know why the μοι is put up in front of the δοκεῖς in the phrase καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν... Could you help me with that?
I can't answer this question either. I would not expect to see both of the pronouns before the verb or the subject in front of the peripheral pronoun. I suspect that there is some form of emphasis being made, but I have no idea what principles are governing it and which element is intended to be the focal point. They are not related at all, but what this phrase puts me in mind of most are the supposedly semitic "what to me and to you" questions in the new testament.

Sorry for the delays.
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 » November 4th, 2014, 10:16 pm

Chapter 1, section 14-15 - Text and Translation
"Literal":
“But indeed money, if one does not know how to use it, let it further be rejected, O Kritoboulus, as if it is not wealth. But friends whoever is able to use them so as to benefit from them, what shall we say they are?”
“By Jupiter, [they are] wealth,” was saying Kritoboulus, “and much more than cattle, indeed if they are far more beneficial than cattle.”
“And indeed the enemies then according to your account are wealth to the one who is able to benefit from them.”
Certainly, it seems to me.
“Then a steward is good also if he knows how to use the enemies in a way that he may benefit from them.”
“Most certainly.”
“What is more, O Kritoboulus, you also see,” Socrates was saying, “there are many who increase their own households from [the circumstances of] war and many from the princes.

Greek:
[14] τὸ μὲν δὴ ἀργύριον, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι, οὕτω πόρρω ἀπωθείσθω, ὦ Κριτόβουλε, ὥστε μηδὲ χρήματα εἶναι. οἱ δὲ φίλοι, ἄν τις ἐπίστηται αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι ὥστε ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, τί φήσομεν αὐτοὺς εἶναι; χρήματα νὴ Δί᾽, ἔφη ὁ Κριτόβουλος, καὶ πολύ γε μᾶλλον ἢ τοὺς βοῦς, ἂν ὠφελιμώτεροί γε ὦσι τῶν βοῶν. [15] καὶ οἱ ἐχθροί γε ἄρα κατά γε τὸν σὸν λόγον χρήματά εἰσι τῷ δυναμένῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὠφελεῖσθαι. ἐμοὶ γοῦν δοκεῖ. οἰκονόμου ἄρα ἐστὶν ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἐπίστασθαι χρῆσθαι ὥστε ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν. ἰσχυρότατά γε. καὶ γὰρ δὴ ὁρᾷς, ἔφη, ὦ Κριτόβουλε, ὅσοι μὲν δὴ οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν ηὐξημένοι εἰσὶν ἀπὸ πολέμου, ὅσοι δὲ τυράννων.

Free:
“But indeed let money be rejected as though it were not wealth if one does not know how to use it. But what if a man has friends that he is able to make use of and benefit from, what shall we say those friends are?”
“Wealth, most certainly, and they are much more useful [maybe?] than cattle if they are prove beneficial*." Kritoboulos replied.
“And indeed enemies are wealth, according to your logic, if a person is able to benefit from them.”
“It certainly seems so to me.”
“Then a steward is good also if he knows how to use his enemies so that he benefits from them.
“Most certainly.”
“What is more, Kritoboulos, you also see there are many who increase their own households from [the circumstances of] war and many [of these are*] from the princes.” Socrates said. *loose.

I hope to post the hints for these tomorrow after I get back from worship. I am attempting to cover a bit more ground each time. The readings are getting much easier for me, but preparing the hints takes me much longer than the difference. Thank you again for taking the time to do this.
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 » November 4th, 2014, 10:59 pm

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I hadn't noticed it before I read this post of yours. Is it significant?
I am not qualified to answer this question. Frankly, I do not know Greek well enough to say. I have looked for the better part of Sunday afternoon and this yesterday evening for parallels and have only found that is close. First Corinthians 12:18 "νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ μέλη, ἓν ἓκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καθὼς ἠθέλησεν." (I don't know of any way or have the tools to do [G]reek searches but to look for myself.) This agrees more with Luke 4:40 than it does to our earlier reading "ταὐτὰ ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοις χρήματά ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα:" I am afraid I am next to useless here.
Computer searching gives a different way of looking at the text. Imagine a street that passes by or runs near your farm, which you are familiar with, and I will do the same for one either for Sydney, Benalla or the city I live in now. As we pass along familiar streets, and see things, we associate memories with them - so and so lives just behind that building / grove of trees; this is where I did / saw such and such some time ago, etc. Now, if someone showed us photographs of that same street, what happens to the thinking? For me at least, seeing the location without experiencing the journeying does two things; first, if I look at it briefly, I see details that I hadn't noticed before and if I look at it for a long time, my mind goes beyond the photograph and I can see things associated with what is shown in the photo, but not necessarily recorded in it. If we are shown features of a road that is not in an area that we are familiar with we are limited in our thinking and only look alternatively at the details and then overview features of what we see in the photo and build up an understanding of what we see in that way, as well as analogously comparing and associating it with other similar and dissimilar features we have seen in the past. Those same human thought processes seem to happen in using search programs.

That is to say that the texts which we have read many times appear different (in a subjective sense) in searches than the ones we simply get from a search engine, but have never seen before in our own reading. We are more likely to read our own (external to the context) thoughts into what we see - like what I described for what we do with a photo of an unfamiliar place.

I have prepared a concordance of this chapter we are reading now, but am unable to post it, because it exceeds the 60,000 character limit that the phpBB system allows, and of course it has only been indexed up till the present section that we are reading not to the end. Upon later seeing a snippet of this Xenophon which we will have read by then, we will be able to contextualise it to some degree and to associate it with a background. With wider reading, as with travel, our horizons will be extended and our minds broadened.

One valuable thing I learnt from Eddie (Edmund) my Polish teacher was the importance of memorising small well chosen grammatical examples, rather than just abstract rules, though we also had to learn and accurately reproduce conjugation and declension tables in the exams. Those snippets of language serves as points of reflection, and formed a basis for meaningful imagination and creativity with the language - rather than formalistic piece-by-piece construction of the language.

A couple of people on the forum have previously recommend Bible Hub --> click on the Alpha and Omega in the light blue (third line) to go to the Greek New Testament --> Click on "Greek" in the second line and scroll down to find the text-type that you are familiar with working with. Alternatively do a Google search for a word and then look for the returned result that comes from the Bible Hub site. I've heard that there are other programs that you can download and use offline, and I suggest you take a look or post your question about that in the Software sub-forum here on B-Greek.

Just a side note before moving on... Memorisation of course happens in different ways at different stages of the language early on it is rote, but after some time, we only remember the key words and the effect that the authour intended, next we remember the key words and the tense that they used and we construct some details of the language (marking), and then later remember a few of the key words and we construct the associated language ourselves - a variety of memorisation styles and stages of internalisation, as you will no doubt see in the writings of the Church Fathers at some point in the future.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't know why the μοι is put up in front of the δοκεῖς in the phrase καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν... Could you help me with that?
I can't answer this question either. I would not expect to see both of the pronouns before the verb or the subject in front of the peripheral pronoun. I suspect that there is some form of emphasis being made, but I have no idea what principles are governing it and which element is intended to be the focal point. They are not related at all, but what this phrase puts me in mind of most are the supposedly [S]emitic "what to me and to you" questions in the new testament.
Xenophon did travel into areas inhabited by Semitic and other peoples, but that was as a mercenary rather than a student of foreign languages, so it is unlikely to be due to Semitic influence on his language.

Well, if we both don't know... Then it is something that we can mark with a question mark now and remember its context and perhaps something similar will be noticed again later in the course of our journey with the language.

By marking with a question mark, I don't mean a look or bewilderment, but rather puzzlement. Let's set up some intelligent questions that when when the right key comes along the door to our understanding will finally open. Here are a few of my questions in my expexted order of probability, can you add others?
  1. Seeing as both the δοκεῖς and the συνομολογεῖν need to take the μοι, is it in that place because that is where it needs to be to go with both? Two propositions to test in relation to that are
    1. that it ought to have been in first place but the very emphatic καὶ σὺ is also given the position of prominence as well,
      ALTERNATIVELY
    2. that it ought to have been put first in the sentence, but due to some preference in the language, being an oblique case, it has been put after the nominative.
  2. Has it been brought forward of the δοκεῖς and been put between the verb and its explicit subject καὶ σὺ to get it away from the συνομολογεῖν, to make it clear that it is only with δοκεῖς?
Wes Wood wrote:Sorry for the delays.
Everybody has their things to do.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “Other Greek Texts”