Off-topic: what did he say??
kdlitwak (kdlitwak@concentric.net)
Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:48:53 -0800
I know this is a very controversial statement in Greek, but I have
to ask for some basic help on Thucydides History of the Pelopenesian
War, 1.22: (this is actually of relevance potentially for understanding
what Luke-Acts is intended to be)
(WS DE AN EDOKOUN MOI (EKASTOI PERI TWN AIEI PARONTWN TA DEONTA MALIST'
EIPEIN, ECHOMENW (OTI EGGUTATA THS XUMPASHS GNWMHS TWN ALHQWS LECHQENTWN
(OUTWS EIRHTAI
My main problem is whether EDOKOUN is 1 sg. or 3 pl., because I
canmake an argument for each choice, given that this clause seems to be
missing something decisive anyway (Thucydides' doing). If I go with 1
sg.,like LCL, then the first clause says something like " And as it
seemed good to me each one concerning those who are present (PAREIMI
1)/those who come forward to speak (PAREIMI 2) to speak always above all
things which are fitting..." However, this has a problem. (EKASTOI is
nominative, and must be a subject. If EDOKOUN is 1 sg. then it suplies
a different subject for the clause, namely MOI. IN that case, it should
be something like, "it seemed good to me FOR each one..." but there is
no grammatical justification for "FOR". So what do we do with this
nominative?
Should MALIST be undestood here as a superlative "above all", "most
of all" or is there something else more DEON?
How did the LCL come up with its transaltion "Therefore the speeches
are given in the langauge in which, it seemed good to me, the speakers
would express". I don't see the words for that here, though I prefer it
because it allows for the interpretation I think is appropriate.
What does EChOMENWi meanhere/ I don't see whatit goes with or does.
By having him/it ???
Why the genitive case for XUMPASHS? What does it modify and what
kind of genitive is it? I would understand a nominative or an
accusative perhaps, but genitive?
Finally, is EIEHTAI from EIRW, pres mid/pass subj, ERW, perf mid.
ind, or less likely, EROMAI, pres mid. subj.?
Thanks.
Ken Litwak