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

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Wes Wood » November 5th, 2014, 8:17 pm

Chapter 1, sections 14-15 - Text and Hints
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1 wrote: [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.
Hints (Look at these if you need to)
πόρρω - far away

ἀπωθείσθω - let it be put aside

οὕτω πόρρω ἀπωθείσθω- What is the subject of this phrase?

ὥστε μηδὲ χρήματα εἶναι - Is the removal of money to a different physical location or the reclassification of an asset to a non-asset being considered?

τί φήσομεν αὐτοὺς εἶναι; - What does αὐτοὺς refer to?

νὴ Δί᾽ - Strong affirmation invoking a Jupiter. In this case it could be translated, “yes, by Jupiter.”

χρήματα - Remember that word also clarifies one man’s understanding of what friends are to the one who knows how to use them.

πολύ γε μᾶλλον ἢ τοὺς βοῦς - What is being compared with cattle here? (I admit I read into this text something slightly different than wealth here. The comparison doesn’t seem explicit enough to me to definitively rule out the possibility that something further is being implied.

οἱ ἐχθροί...εἰσι - enemies is most likely the subject of this verb rather than χρήματά. Note the presence of the article.

ἰσχυρότατά γε - This phrase is sometimes used in answers with the meaning “most certainly.” Here this signals a change in speakers. It seems to me that throughout this and the previous exchanges, Kritoboulus is giving brief replies while Socrates talks through and makes assumptions about different scenarios.

δὴ - This seems to me to be continuing Socrates dialogue. See the hint above.

Fair Warning: From this point on, I am even more unsure of myself
ὅσοι μὲν...ὅσοι δὲ - There is a connection between the elements introduced by these.

ὅσοι...οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν ηὐξημένοι εἰσὶν - maybe it would help to think of this phrase as ὅσοι οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν εἰσὶν ηὐξημένοι.

ἀπὸ πολέμου - how does this relate to the increase of the household?

τυράννων - What must be implied for this noun? (Remember ὅσοι μὲν...ὅσοι δὲ)
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 5th, 2014, 8:19 pm

I managed to finish before I had to leave. I hope to add to your latest thoughts when I get back.
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 6th, 2014, 4:00 am

Wes Wood wrote:Chapter 1, sections 14-15 - Text and Hints
I will intersperse my comments into your work in green and a little red.
Wes Wood wrote:
Xenophon, Oeconomicus Chapter 1 wrote: [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.
Hints (Look at these if you need to)
πόρρω - far away

ἀπωθείσθω - let it be put aside I think you could be more interpretative or creative with this, so as to give the meaning more clearly. Things that are in front of us are the ones that we use (can easily use, in fact). By pushing something to the side it is no longer available for us to use. The meaning is put into a place where we will not be so quick to use it. The third person imperative is not something that English speakers are familiar with, and using a fall-back translation of "Let them / it be... " is inadequate. Do you have a better way of dealing with it? I'd like to discuss this point a little after you've had a go at it.

οὕτω πόρρω ἀπωθείσθω- What is the subject of this phrase? In this and a few of the others below, you seem to be anticipating reader responses to the text, and then asking them to question their own assumptions. That is good. There is a certain ammount of self-confidence or bravado involved in speaking one's mother tongue with confidence that can trample on the idiom of a language that one is less familiar with. I have found that it is a better approach to teaching in this situation to be very subtle. A whole lot of warnings about the perils of cross-linguistic interference tend to impede acquistion of the new idiom. It is usually better to put up with a bit of misunderstanding and strange expression, which can then be corrected, rather than slowing them down in self-doubt.

ὥστε μηδὲ χρήματα εἶναι - Is the removal of money to a different physical location or the reclassification of an asset to a non-asset being considered? Smyth Section
Smyth chapter 2364 wrote:2364. Imperative.—““εἴ τις τάδε παραβαίνοι . . ., ἐναγὴς ἔστω” if any one transgresses these injunctions, let him be accursed” Aes. 3.110 (quoted from an ancient imprecation), ““τὸ μὲν δὴ ἀργύριον, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι, οὕτω πόρρω ἀπωθείσθω ὥστε μηδὲ χρήματα εἶναι” but as regards money then, if a man does not know how to use it, let him remove it so far from his consideration as not to be regarded even as property” X. O. 1.14. Cp. P. Hipp. M. 297e, L. 642 a.
τί φήσομεν αὐτοὺς εἶναι; - What does αὐτοὺς refer to? What.. Why are you asking that? For some readers it will be a challenge that they will rise to, but generally speaking it would be misleading. Perhaps it is better to use a leading question to achieve the result, rather than prove the mettle. Who...

νὴ Δί᾽ - Strong affirmation invoking a Jupiter. In this case it could be translated, “yes, by Jupiter.” "Too bloody right!" might recontextualise the same feeling.

χρήματα - Remember that word also clarifies one man’s understanding of what friends are to the one who knows how to use them. It is an abstraction of the idea in other words.

πολύ γε μᾶλλον ἢ τοὺς βοῦς - What is being compared with cattle here? (I admit I read into this text something slightly different than wealth here. The comparison doesn’t seem explicit enough to me to definitively rule out the possibility that something further is being implied. Why is this comparative of the adverb constructed synthetically? (rather than with πλείων, πλέων) - Anyway, rather than go on with an exchange, let me say what I think first and see if you agree - μᾶλλον ἢ is an adverb, and πολύ just makes it stronger, like "much". What do you mean by your last sentence?

οἱ ἐχθροί...εἰσι - enemies is most likely the subject of this verb rather than χρήματά. Note the presence of the article. Note the number of the verb.

ἰσχυρότατά γε - This phrase is sometimes used in answers with the meaning “most certainly.” Here this signals a change in speakers. It seems to me that throughout this and the previous exchanges, Kritoboulus is giving brief replies while Socrates talks through and makes assumptions about different scenarios.

δὴ - This seems to me to be continuing Socrates dialogue. See the hint above.

Fair Warning: From this point on, I am even more unsure of myself express this in the hints as "it seems to be", "it might be", "the logical way to take this is...", there is no shame in being unsure. Language is a human endeavour and as such will always be open to some degree of interpretation and uncertainty.

οἰκονόμου ἄρα ἐστὶν ἀγαθοῦ this is a very laconic phrase, what do you make of it? The copula requires a nominative, so let's supply one, "<The such and such> of a good manager is..." It is then followed by an infinitive phrase καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἐπίστασθαι χρῆσθαι, so it needs to be a noun that can be put with an infinitive of purpose. To my mind, words like "duty", "goal / aim", "requirement" would work better than "expectation" - which comes from outside himself, or "work" which of itself doesn't have goals, but that is more my understanding of the English words, so I have left them untranslated into Greek.

ὅσοι μὲν...ὅσοι δὲ - There is a connection between the elements introduced by these. Some readers will need to be prompted that the grammar of the first phrase is in effect repeated in the second by using this construction. Such as you would have needed to have been prompted to do if you had not had the reading experience that you have in fact had over the past 6 months or so.

ὅσοι...οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν ηὐξημένοι εἰσὶν - maybe it would help to think of this phrase as ὅσοι οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν εἰσὶν ηὐξημένοι. Why? Many readers will be unfamiliar with the usage of ὅσος how much, how many. It is like in the phrase, "Just imagine how many estates ...". If you were to just introduce it as, "How many... " most people would think that it is a question, but it is not - it is an exclamation or the like.

ἀπὸ πολέμου - how does this relate to the increase of the household? Perhaps estate would be a less ambiguous word - since war often entail the involuntary genetic enrichment of households by invading forces, and that is not what is meant here.

τυράννων - What must be implied for this noun? (Remember ὅσοι μὲν...ὅσοι δὲ) Your use of the word "implied" may be understood quickly by most or some readers, but aim to be as helpful and inductive about what you are writing. This is a non-profit situation, so the usual power stucture situation that requires us as teachers to convince the students that we know more than them, and that their money is being well-spent doesn't apply here. Respect can be gained by the successfulness of the reader's progress, rather than by showing how much we know. In other words, you might try saying, which parts of the grammar of the first phrase are carried across to the second. It could evern be spelt out in full with different colours or another way of differentiating what is being implied. Over helpful is better than under.
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 6th, 2014, 4:06 am

As for you translations / renderings of sections 14 and 15, would you like to have another look at them before I comment on them?
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 6th, 2014, 7:47 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:As for you translations / renderings of sections 14 and 15, would you like to have another look at them before I comment on them?
That would be great if you don't mind. There were things that I felt I needed to change by the time I had finished.
I will fix some things, make some responses to your prompts, and post this evening. Danke sehr!
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 6th, 2014, 11:54 pm

Smyth chapter 2364 wrote: Imperative.—““εἴ τις τάδε παραβαίνοι . . ., ἐναγὴς ἔστω” if any one transgresses these injunctions, let him be accursed” Aes. 3.110 (quoted from an ancient imprecation), ““τὸ μὲν δὴ ἀργύριον, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι, οὕτω πόρρω ἀπωθείσθω ὥστε μηδὲ χρήματα εἶναι” but as regards money then, if a man does not know how to use it, let him remove it so far from his consideration as not to be regarded even as property” X. O. 1.14. Cp. P. Hipp. M. 297e, L. 642 a.
I know it is hard to believe, but I did not see this as I was working through the text and hints. I had a some degree of difficulty with οὕτω πόρρω ἀπωθείσθω initially, but, by the time I finished writing my hints, I was confident about what the text was saying. To see this verification of that after having worked to that understanding is extremely encouraging to me. This is very similar to what I would’ve done, had I done my translation after I finished writing my hints.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Perhaps it is better to use a leading question to achieve the result, rather than prove the mettle.
I agree with you here.
Stephen Hughes wrote:"Too bloody right!" might recontextualise the same feeling.
I was under the impression that this particular phrase and the more standard way of expressing the thought in America is offensive to some speakers of English. I thought that the strangeness of the phrase I used would lighten the blow but still get the point across. I haven’t yet thought of a way to express this phrase that I am pleased with though, with your suggestion, I am becoming more confident that I understand it.
Stephen Hughes wrote:It is an abstraction of the idea in other words.
Yes. Once again this is a much better way to put it.
Stephen Hughes wrote:μᾶλλον ἢ is an adverb, and πολύ just makes it stronger, like "much". What do you mean by your last sentence?
I agree with you here. When I wrote the last sentence, I was wondering about all the ways that friends could prove to be more “wealth” than cattle and thought that even if one had friends that did not prove as lucrative as livestock might, they might be more useful in less tangible ways. I don’t know if that makes sense. It seems later than it is to me; I have had a long day.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Why is this comparative of the adverb constructed synthetically? (rather than with πλείων, πλέων)

I’m not really sure. I have wondered if this is why I feel like I am missing something here. I am glad I have been thinking about these things more. I think I would have glossed over this six months ago.
Stephen Hughes wrote:οἱ ἐχθροί...εἰσι - enemies is most likely the subject of this verb rather than χρήματά. Note the presence of the article. Note the number of the verb.
I am glad you mentioned this. I can understand why this plural would have a singular subject, but I am unfamiliar with the workings of many of these types of constructions. (singular noun with plural subjects and/or plural subjects with singular verbs and/or singular nouns for collective nouns) This verse in Galatians 5:22 planted the seed: ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη, χαρά, εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία, χρηστότης, ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις,
Stephen Hughes wrote:οἰκονόμου ἄρα ἐστὶν ἀγαθοῦ this is a very laconic phrase, what do you make of it? The copula requires a nominative, so let's supply one, "<The such and such> of a good manager is..." It is then followed by an infinitive phrase καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἐπίστασθαι χρῆσθαι, so it needs to be a noun that can be put with an infinitive of purpose. To my mind, words like "duty", "goal / aim", "requirement" would work better than "expectation" - which comes from outside himself, or "work" which of itself doesn't have goals, but that is more my understanding of the English words, so I have left them untranslated into Greek
This was an oversight on my part. I wasn’t pleased with my rendering here and meant to come back to it. That being said, I agree with you.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Some readers will need to be prompted that the grammar of the first phrase is in effect repeated in the second by using this construction. Such as you would have needed to have been prompted to do if you had not had the reading experience that you have in fact had over the past 6 months or so.
Point taken.
Stephen Hughes wrote:ὅσοι...οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν ηὐξημένοι εἰσὶν - maybe it would help to think of this phrase as ὅσοι οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν εἰσὶν ηὐξημένοι. Why?
I believe I meant to arrange this differently than I actually did. I’m not so convinced that it was the best idea. This stretch was the most difficult in the passage for me.
Stephen Hughes wrote:since war often entail[s] the involuntary genetic enrichment of households by invading forces, and that is not what is meant here.
:shock: I see how you got there, and I think your words here apply to me in this situation. “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.” You had the benefit of an overhead view :)
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 7th, 2014, 12:23 am

Stephen Hughes wrote: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?
I am still working through this, but I will comment on one point that I might have missed due to the break in the text. "λέγειν ἔοικας, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ ἀργύριόν ἐστι χρήματα, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ. [13] καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν," As I look at this entire stretch, the transition to καὶ σὺ seems to be more of the result of a change in focus from εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ than an intended point of emphasis. Maybe μοι is fronted to suggest a subtle power dynamic of strength of position. "You seem to agree with me." What do you think?
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 7th, 2014, 12:32 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: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?
I am still working through this, but I will comment on one point that I might have missed due to the break in the text. "λέγειν ἔοικας, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ ἀργύριόν ἐστι χρήματα, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ. [13] καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν," As I look at this entire stretch, the transition to καὶ σὺ seems to be more of the result of a change in focus from εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο χρῆσθαι αὐτῷ than an intended point of emphasis. Maybe μοι is fronted to suggest a subtle power dynamic of strength of position. "You seem to agree with me." What do you think?
Half-right. καἰ σύ is in focus, the καί is non-conjunctive and is a focus particle here. The clausal clitic μοι however is just along for the ride. It is unaccented and thus phonologically non-prominent: as such, it is highly unsuited to convey emphasis.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

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

Re: ὁ Οἰκονομικὸς τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος (ἀναγιγνώσκωμεν)

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 7th, 2014, 2:00 am

Wes Wood wrote:
Smyth chapter 2364 wrote:Imperative...
I know it is hard to believe, but I did not see this as I was working through the text and hints.
:? It is actually not hard to believe, because I only added it to your hints later after you'd finished them.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:"Too bloody right!" might recontextualise the same feeling.
I was under the impression that this particular phrase and the more standard way of expressing the thought in America is offensive to some speakers of English. I thought that the strangeness of the phrase I used would lighten the blow but still get the point across. I haven’t yet thought of a way to express this phrase that I am pleased with though, with your suggestion, I am becoming more confident that I understand it.
The 19th century sounding, "By Jove, I think she's got it" (Henry Higgins), would be taken as more of an anachronism than an oath. A directed expression of emotion like this νὴ Δία is also not adequately expressed by any of the modern (I mean from the 16th century till now) vulgarisms that serve as expletives.

Another thing is that since it occurs in this type of reply marking role, it may have lost most of it's force. The secularisation of religious expressions is familiar enough to us. The allelujah in a psalm is different to the one at the end of a boring business meeting.

My example was a phrase where that process has for all intents and purposes taken place. I agree that for many people it is offensive and don't use it myself.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Why is this comparative of the adverb constructed synthetically? (rather than with πλείων, πλέων)
I’m not really sure. I have wondered if this is why I feel like I am missing something here. I am glad I have been thinking about these things more. I think I would have glossed over this six months ago.
Sorry. it was a trick question, like why is 2÷3 not the same as 3÷2. I was hoping you would think outside the box a little, relying on your sound knowledge. Despite what you have said about counting the way a friend is better than a cow, μᾶλλον is more naturally used of intensity (that is to say an overall thing), and πλείων of number (that is to say a group of individualities). They sort of sound similar in English, but they are different. As a side point the Modern Greek πιο (as in πιο γρήγορα more quickly from γρήγορα fast an equivalent of γρηγορότερα quicker) is derived from this adverbial πλεῖον. That represents a shift away from what I just said about the Koine Period.

Anyway, back to the point we could write that out as; φίλους φήσομεν εἶναι χρήματα, (πολύ) μᾶλλον ἢ φίλους φήσομεν εἶναι τοὺς βοῦς, "We will much rather speak of our friends as being wealth than cows as being friends." :o :? Sorry, just toying with you. I'm sure you will be able to recompose that second phrase in a more sensible manner. The point of my playful composition is to answer your next point about whether the subject or the complement takes the article ...
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:οἱ ἐχθροί...εἰσι - enemies is most likely the subject of this verb rather than χρήματά. Note the presence of the article. Note the number of the verb.
I am glad you mentioned this. I can understand why this plural would have a singular subject, but I am unfamiliar with the workings of many of these types of constructions. (singular noun with plural subjects and/or plural subjects with singular verbs and/or singular nouns for collective nouns) This verse in Galatians 5:22 planted the seed: ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη, χαρά, εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία, χρηστότης, ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις,
It is something you could keep in mind as you read on further over the years. There are sections in grammar books that will give you some guidance about what too look for in your readings - don't take grammar books as answers, but rather guides.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:οἰκονόμου ἄρα ἐστὶν ἀγαθοῦ this is a very laconic phrase, what do you make of it? The copula requires a nominative, so let's supply one, "<The such and such> of a good manager is..." It is then followed by an infinitive phrase καὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἐπίστασθαι χρῆσθαι, so it needs to be a noun that can be put with an infinitive of purpose. To my mind, words like "duty", "goal / aim", "requirement" would work better than "expectation" - which comes from outside himself, or "work" which of itself doesn't have goals, but that is more my understanding of the English words, so I have left them untranslated into Greek
This was an oversight on my part. I wasn’t pleased with my rendering here and meant to come back to it. That being said, I agree with you.
It is somewhat flattering that you agree, but personally, I'm so not sure about my understanding of the Greek of the possible words for "duty", "goal / aim", etc. that I don't know whether they would be applicable here. I suppose it would come down to which nouns fit well with infinitives of purpose, and that is higher than my present pay-grade in Greek.
Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Wes Wood wrote:ὅσοι...οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν ηὐξημένοι εἰσὶν - maybe it would help to think of this phrase as ὅσοι οἶκοι ἰδιωτῶν εἰσὶν ηὐξημένοι.
Why?
I believe I meant to arrange this differently than I actually did. I’m not so convinced that it was the best idea. This stretch was the most difficult in the passage for me.
Are you understanding this as a periphrastic perfect?
Wes Wood wrote:You had the benefit of an overhead view :)
All points of view have their uses, some more valuable than others in any given situation.
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 7th, 2014, 2:42 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Xenophon, The estate manager, Chapter 1, §13 wrote:καὶ σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν,
The clausal clitic μοι however is just along for the ride. It is unaccented and thus phonologically non-prominent: as such, it is highly unsuited to convey emphasis.
Does the μοι need a special emphatic position to go with both verbs, or is commonsense that it should do, adequate suggestion that it in fact does?

If it not emphatic, I suppose it is together with δοκεῖς, in the sense of καὶ σὺ δέ μοι {ἀκούσαντι σου τὸν λόγον} δοκεῖς οὕτω συνομολογεῖν, and the prefixed συν- attracts to itself a dative, viz. the fully understood sense might be; καὶ σὺ δέ μοι {ἀκούσαντι σου τὸν λόγον} δοκεῖς οὕτω {μοι} συνομολογεῖν {εἰπόντι τὸν λόγον μου}.

The only three (dependent of which manuscript - two) instances in the New Testament where μοί is accented, is where it followed by ἐστιν
2 Corinthians 9:1 wrote:Περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους περισσόν μοί ἐστιν τὸ γράφειν ὑμῖν·
cf. Luke 9:38 and 1 Corinthians 9:18.

When you say it is unaccented, do you mean that for emphasis it should be like with words of the non-prodigal son;
Luke 15:29 wrote:καὶ ἐμοὶ οὐδέποτε ἔδωκας ἔριφον,
———
Another question arising from that search is at Matthew 11:27 et al.
Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22 wrote:Πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου·
Is the position here to avoid possible confusion about who is the agent of the passive?
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “Other Greek Texts”