ὥστε

[Constantinus Philo]

ὁ Πειθίας πείθει ὥστε τῷ νόμῳ χρήσασθαι Thuc, 3., 70, 5
CGCG explains it as a redundant ὥστε, 51. 17. Does Smythe have anything to say about it or does he just omit this type of ὥστε?

[mwh]

No doubt Smyth mentions it. But you must realize that to call it redundant is no kind of explanation.

[Constantinus Philo]

so how does Sm explain this oste and where?

[Hylander]

Why does it need an explanation? That's what Thucydides wrote, and he knew Greek better than Smyth or the CGCG. LSJ has cites other instances of πειθω with ωστε.

[jeidsath]

He may have persuaded the Senate, but the τῷ νόμῳ χρήσασθαι doesn't actually take place, as they rush the Senate and kill Peithias. To me, the ὥστε seems to increase the distance from fulfillment just a tiny a bit, as in a regular natural result clause.

[Constantinus Philo]

so u think this is a result clause, am i right?

[seneca2008]

ὁ Πειθίας πείθει ὥστε τῷ νόμῳ χρήσασθαι Thuc, 3., 70, 5
CGCG explains it as a redundant ὥστε, 51. 17.

With respect you are not accurately quoting CGCG. It doesn't "explain it as a redundant ὥστε"

it actually says

" Sometimes, ὥστε is added to make explicit the consecutive value of a dynamic infinitive although it follows a verb belonging to one of the classes listed in 51.8. In such cases ὥστε is redundant(and need not be translated): "

It is clearly not redundant in Greek!

You can look at Smyth as easily as the rest of us.

[Constantinus Philo]

ok its Sm 2271a.

[Constantinus Philo]

No doubt Smyth mentions it. But you must realize that to call it redundant is no kind of explanation.

I mean interpretation to be sure.

[mwh]

I don’t think you meant interpretation either. You just wanted to pin a label on it, to assign it to some particular category. You don't seem to be interested in anything beyond that. Such atomization of the syntactical universe can inhibit a more holistic understanding, one that sees how everything is interrelated.

[Constantinus Philo]

i need more practice to get to that level

[Hylander]

i need more practice to get to that level

You seem to be jumping around from author to author and text to text, as if you are simply picking out short passages for syntactic parsing. Is that what you're doing?

I don't think that's a good way to reach the "holistic" level, where you are able to read fluently without worrying over every minor detail of syntax. I'd suggest picking texts that interest you and reading them in their entirety, or at least in large chunks, trying to make sense of them without worrying over every minor detail of syntax and vocabulary -- just take those details as they come, note them, and move along. Look up words you don't know in the dictionary.

You know the main syntactic structures of Greek; the fine points are for the most part obvious enough if you read a text in full context.

And never forget that grammars like Smyth are descriptive not prescriptive. They're based on and describe the usage of Greek texts -- they're not a compilation of rules that Greek texts must follow, and you shouldn't expect to find a rule for every bit of usage you encounter. Ancient Greek was a natural language, not a code.

[Constantinus Philo]

Im jumping around with CGCG i am reading now. When I finish , I will start with Plato's Timaios.

[Constantinus Philo]

they say there was a famous german philosopher, Gadamer or Heidegger I forgot who every morning all his life read the pre-Socratics in Greek. Obviously because it made him think clearer, Reading grammars , especially Gildersleeve ad Sm has the same effect on me.