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.