Cyr., 4., 2., 46
- Constantinus Philo
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm
Cyr., 4., 2., 46
οὐκ ἂν πρέποντα ἡμῖν δοκοῦμεν ποιεῖν.
I think this is one of Perseus' errors and it should be δοκοῖμεν.
I think this is one of Perseus' errors and it should be δοκοῖμεν.
Semper Fidelis
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 11:43 am
- Location: New Hampshire
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
Are you familiar with Loebolus? It allows you to download old out-of-copyright Loebs. They have both volumes of Cyropaedia.
Mark
Mark
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
No, Marchant [=OCT text on Perseus] and Miller [=Loeb] both have δοκοῦμεν (Dindorf’s emend.), which is clearly right. Some mss have δοκοῖμεν, a secondary correction. ἄν applies to ποιεῖν.Constantinus Philo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 5:07 am I think this is one of Perseus' errors and it should be δοκοῖμεν.
The syntax of the full sentence is a bit tricky. Yet again, a midway switch in construction in a speech. Predictably, Cobet (famed for his zeal in athetesis) deleted the last οὐκ ἄν…ποιεῖν clause (+ ἐμποδών).
- Constantinus Philo
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
what is the criterion by which one could judge to which ἅν refers, to the verb or the infinitive?
Semper Fidelis
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
Reading the text οὐκ ἄν…δοκοῦμεν ποιεῖν, ἄν can’t apply to a present indicative, so must apply to the infinitive.
How to decide between δοκοῖμεν in some mss and the emendation δοκοῦμεν? ἄν is often and idiomatically separated from its verb with an intervening δοκῶ, οἶδα, vel sim. The meaning should be “I think we would not be doing…” rather than “I would think that we are not doing…” A copyist, not understanding the construction, corrected to δοκοῖμεν. Probably.
How to decide between δοκοῖμεν in some mss and the emendation δοκοῦμεν? ἄν is often and idiomatically separated from its verb with an intervening δοκῶ, οἶδα, vel sim. The meaning should be “I think we would not be doing…” rather than “I would think that we are not doing…” A copyist, not understanding the construction, corrected to δοκοῖμεν. Probably.
Last edited by phalakros on Thu Jan 12, 2023 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Constantinus Philo
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
deleted
Last edited by phalakros on Thu Jan 12, 2023 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
deleted (posted by accident)
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 2:41 pm
- Location: Preston, UK
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
Where does ‘I think’ come into this? Why couldn’t it be ‘We don’t imagine we’d be doing things befitting to us’.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Cyr., 4., 2., 46
οὐκ ἂν πρέποντα ἡμῖν δοκοῦμεν ποιεῖν.
It’s true that δοκοῦμεν is plural, so “we" is arguably more accurate than “I”. But as to the negative, that’s where the word order comes into play. The fact that ουκ αν πρέποντα stands up front suggests that ουκ applies primarily to πρέποντα rather than to the unobtrusively embedded δοκοῦμεν; this better suits the context too. (Not that there’s a whole lot of difference between “we think it wouldn’t” and “we don’t think it would," but there is some, especially in Greek.)
It’s true that δοκοῦμεν is plural, so “we" is arguably more accurate than “I”. But as to the negative, that’s where the word order comes into play. The fact that ουκ αν πρέποντα stands up front suggests that ουκ applies primarily to πρέποντα rather than to the unobtrusively embedded δοκοῦμεν; this better suits the context too. (Not that there’s a whole lot of difference between “we think it wouldn’t” and “we don’t think it would," but there is some, especially in Greek.)