ὁ for ὃς

[bedwere]

The translator of Comenius's Janua Linguarum writes:

825. Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει. τὸ γὰρ ἀσελγαίνειν θηριῶδες.
as a translation of
825. Castus est qui se libidine vel fanda vel nefanda non contaminat. Lascivire enim belluinum est.

Shouldn't it be Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὃς κ.τ.λ. ?

Thanks!

[jaihare]

It would best be ὁ... ἁγνεύων, but I think he wanted to avoid all of those -ων endings, which would cause confusion between the genitive plurals and the one instance of a masculine nominative singular participle. It looks odd to me, though following ἐστίν with ὁ... -ων seems more sensible than ἐστὶν ὃς... -ει (pres. ind. act.).

What do others thing?

[mwh]

The translator of Comenius's Janua Linguarum writes:

825. Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει. τὸ γὰρ ἀσελγαίνειν θηριῶδες.
as a translation of
825. Castus est qui se libidine vel fanda vel nefanda non contaminat. Lascivire enim belluinum est.

Shouldn't it be Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὃς κ.τ.λ. ?

Yes, unless ἁγνεύει should be -ων as Jason suggests. If this is really what the translator wrote, he must have slipped from the one to the other. But I don't know anything about the translator's behavior, nor whether there could be transmissional error.

I was not aware that Mongolian was understood by all the East Indies, as Wikipedia quotes Comenius as writing.

[Phil-]

The translator of Comenius's Janua Linguarum writes:

825. Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει. τὸ γὰρ ἀσελγαίνειν θηριῶδες.
as a translation of
825. Castus est qui se libidine vel fanda vel nefanda non contaminat. Lascivire enim belluinum est.

Shouldn't it be Ἁγνός ἐστιν ὃς κ.τ.λ. ?

ὁ ... ἀγνεύων sounds better to me too, except for the possible confusion with the endings. jaihare and mwh, do you think that possible confusion is a good enough reason to change it to something simpler like "ὁ ἀγνὸς ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει"?

I was not aware that Mongolian was understood by all the East Indies, as Wikipedia quotes Comenius as writing.

I didn't know that either! I couldn't find anything more via Google search.

[mwh]

do you think that possible confusion is a good enough reason to change it to something simpler like "ὁ ἀγνὸς ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει"?

No, not that. Ἁγνός ἐστιν is untouchable (~ Castus est). The choice is between changing ο to ος and changing αγνευει to -ων (unless we know the given text is actually what the translator wrote). Either one is acceptable. I'd imagine the latter (it's a very common sort of error), but it really depends on how literal the translator is.

[Phil-]

do you think that possible confusion is a good enough reason to change it to something simpler like "ὁ ἀγνὸς ἀφροδισίων ῥητῶν τε καὶ ἀῤῥήτων ἁγνεύει"?

No, not that. Ἁγνός ἐστιν is untouchable (~ Castus est). The choice is between changing ο to ος and changing αγνευει to -ων (unless we know the given text is actually what the translator wrote). Either one is acceptable. I'd imagine the latter (it's a very common sort of error), but it really depends on how literal the translator is.

I see, thanks! The latter sounds good.