Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Here ἐγὼ contrasts with the subject of μαρτυρήσεσθαί, which is ἄνθρωποι from above.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Thanks Joel. Clearly the dictum should be revised to exclude indirect statement (“I think that I too …”, “I know that I …, while you …”, etc.) but I fancy it should apply to temporal clauses, conditional clauses, etc. And to Latin. The original was on the lines of “When (επει) Proust got home he had a nice cup of tea,” perfectly normal in English of course. (I suppose that would likely be a participle in Greek, not a subordinate clause at all.)
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
OK, so naturally it doesn’t apply if the subject of the subordinate clause is independently stressed.
“Don’t bear a grudge, if(=since) you captured Phyle.” ει συ comes very close to συ γαρ in sense here.
μνησικακήσῃς is intransitive but that’s immaterial. And this is quite different from indirect speech, but the same qualification holds.
Excellent! Thank you—and welcome to Textkit Callisper. This is just the sort of exception I was after. Here it must be relevant that it continues the opening sentence, which began with Darius (Δαρειου και Π.τιδος γινονται παιδες δυο, κτλ). It’s as if Δαρειος is just slipped in after επει δ’ ησθενει, to clarify that it’s Darius we’re talking about while avoiding giving him undue prominence by putting him outside the επει clause. To have started with Δαρειος δ επει ησθενει would have given the impression that we’ve switched to a new subject (which of course we have but only grammatically), while putting Darius on hold till the επει clause was over would have kept us waiting too long to find out just who it was that was sick. (Not Cyrus!)
To exaggerate the effect: “when he got sick (Darius, that is) and …” (Perhaps you could call that tone, but it’s still syntax.)
So the immediate context has to be taken into account. Is anything left of my rule? I think so, but circumstances alter cases.
But is επει there introducing a real subordinate clause or is it only a simple conjunction?
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
It’s a real subordinate clause all right. (The conjunction is δὲ.) The main clause is ἐβούλετο κτλ. I was trying to explain the presence of the subject (Δαρεῖος) within the subordinate clause instead of in the main clause, where it would ordinarily be. It's an interesting point I think, if a rather recondite one.
Here’s the passage (two sentences, separated by colon and connected by δὲ). Δαρείου καὶ Παρυσάτιδος γίγνονται παῖδες δύο, πρεσβύτερος μὲν Ἀρταξέρξης, νεώτερος δὲ Κῦρος: ἐπεὶ δὲ ἠσθένει Δαρεῖος καὶ ὑπώπτευε τελευτὴν τοῦ βίου, ἐβούλετο τὼ παῖδε ἀμφοτέρω παρεῖναι. (Perseus’ colon represents an editor’s high stop, but it’s the syntax that shows this is a sentence in its own right.)
