21st Century Classical Greek -- who do the Korinthians think they are?

Book I section 43.

ἡμεῖς δὲ περιπεπτωκότες οἷς ἐν τῇ Λακεδαίμονι αὐτοὶ προείπομεν, τοὺς σφετέρους ξυμμάχους αὐτόν τινα κολάζειν, νῦν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν τὸ αὐτὸ ἀξιοῦμεν κομίζεσθαι, καὶ μὴ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ψήφῳ ὠφεληθέντας τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ ἡμᾶς βλάψαι.

[2] τὸ δὲ ἴσον ἀνταπόδοτε, γνόντες τοῦτον ἐκεῖνον εἶναι τὸν καιρὸν ἐν ᾧ ὅ τε ὑπουργῶν φίλος μάλιστα καὶ ὁ ἀντιστὰς ἐχθρός.

[3] καὶ Κερκυραίους τούσδε μήτε ξυμμάχους δέχεσθε βίᾳ ἡμῶν μήτε ἀμύνετε αὐτοῖς ἀδικοῦσιν.

[4] καὶ τάδε ποιοῦντες τὰ προσήκοντά τε δράσετε καὶ τὰ ἄριστα βουλεύσεσθε ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς.’.

Kolazein is one of those “due and owing” uses of the impersonal gerundive. Notice that there’s no particle for a purpose clause. The point is, not the purpose for which the Korinthians spoke, but the appropriateness of kolazein under certain circumstances. The Korinthians want those circumstances to apply now, but they didn’t have the Kerkyraean situation specifically in mind when they spoke back then.

As usual, Jowett turns the end of this subsection upside down. From kai mi on, Thucydides says “and not being helped by our vote, by yours we will be wounded.” The instrumental case used here has the -ois case of an inanimate agent.

Blapsai is another multi-assignment word. It’s imperfective eventive, but is it an i.g. or an epistemic? Well, as an i.g. it would again mean “due and owing” because this is not a purpose clause. As an epistemic, it falls in line with other uses of that form by the Korinthians. They not only don’t want to sign up to the truth of being harmed, they argue to keep it from happening.

But on the other hand, if blapsai is conjugated, it’s conjugated in the singular, and the pronoun is plural. So we have to go with i.g.; the Korinthians regard this harm as the due outcome of the  Athinaians not voting with them.

Antapodote is an imperative. What does it order? An action. But it’s an “aorist” and the only way you could consider this as a past tense is because it’s in Thucydides’ past. As reported speech, this ought to use the same “tense” as the original speech, but for the Korinthians to issue an imperative using a past tense in this situation is nonsense. Under an aspectual definition of verb forms, the imperfective eventive is the default verb form and you have to have special reasons for using a progressive or perfective.

Dekhesthe may be an imperative but it is progressive. That means it has a special nuance. Progressive means a situation, and it is negated. The Korinthians are saying don’t get into this situation. Now notice that the same argument against the eventive applies here as it did relative to the aorist: no grammarian of a tense system would seriously argue that the Korinthians told the Athinaians to avoid a past action, which this form would be if we called it imperfect tense.

The next verb, amunete, is the same thing, with the addition of a possible imperfective conceptual oblique. I think we can forget about it being oblique, in the interests of parallelism.

I’m going with progressive imperatives for getting into a situation, negated.

Now, remember, if you issue an imperative, it ought to be due to having authority over somebody. How is it that the Korinthians feel they can give orders to Athins? Is it just because they have a treaty? In fact, as we just saw, the treaty allows voting on what treaty members do. So this is pretty overbearing and supports the Kerkyraeans’ claim of ill treatment by the Korinthians.

Do the Athinaians consider the Korinthian vote (discussed in section 41) as a favor in return for which favors are due now? The Korinthians do. Or at least, they do now that they want something. I once had a millennial get mad at me because she gave me the chance to do her a favor (her expression) and I didn’t take her up on it. I don’t trade in favors anyway, and it was one of several signs that she and I had different ethical systems. So how different are the ethical systems of Athins and Korinth?

There are two seeming proverbs in this section. The question is, do all the city states have the same set of proverbs? If not, then the Korinthians are wasting their breath to quote proverbs instead of providing facts.

And they are dishing out orders right and left to an ally but not a subordinate, somebody at least equal to Korinth in naval power, and with a prospect of doubling that power whichever way Athins jumps. Ultimata are signs of weakness.

21st Century Classical Greek -- another stunning translation problem

Book I section 42.

‘ὧν ἐνθυμηθέντες καὶ νεώτερός τις παρὰ πρεσβυτέρου αὐτὰ μαθὼν ἀξιούτω τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἡμᾶς ἀμύνεσθαι, καὶ μὴ νομίσῃ δίκαια μὲν τάδε λέγεσθαι, ξύμφορα δέ, εἰ πολεμήσει, ἄλλα εἶναι.

[2] τό τε γὰρ ξυμφέρον ἐν ᾧ ἄν τις ἐλάχιστα ἁμαρτάνῃ μάλιστα ἕπεται, καὶ τὸ μέλλον τοῦ πολέμου ᾧ φοβοῦντες ὑμᾶς Κερκυραῖοι κελεύουσιν ἀδικεῖν ἐν ἀφανεῖ ἔτι κεῖται, καὶ οὐκ ἄξιον ἐπαρθέντας αὐτῷ φανερὰν ἔχθραν ἤδη καὶ οὐ μέλλουσαν πρὸς Κορινθίους κτήσασθαι, τῆς δὲ ὑπαρχούσης πρότερον διὰ Μεγαρέας ὑποψίας σῶφρον ὑφελεῖν μᾶλλον (ἡ γὰρ τελευταία χάρις καιρὸν ἔχουσα,

[3] κἂν ἐλάσσων ᾖ, δύναται μεῖζον ἔγκλημα λῦσαι),

[4] μηδ᾽ ὅτι ναυτικοῦ ξυμμαχίαν μεγάλην διδόασι, τούτῳ ἐφέλκεσθαι: τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις ἢ τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας διὰ κινδύνων τὸ πλέον ἔχειν..

Why you have to watch out for the Word Tool: its assignments don’t match how we understand the grammar, even without the 21^st century stuff. WT has four entries for enthumithentes, two labeled passive (which is correct) and two labeled middle-passive. Why does it say middle-passive? It labels the “tense” as “aorist”, which never has a middle-passive. It also has two entries labeled “comp_only” for no reason that I can see. What, in fact, does “comp_only” mean? So on top of everything else, somebody doing the WT labeling used some incomprehensible assignment method.

At any rate, the dictionary entry for this verb ends in -mai; this is evidence that the base voice and passive in imperfective aspect of -mai verbs have identical morphology. What we have to figure out is which of them is appropriate. Because Thucydides uses enthumithentes with hon, clearly an object, we have to assign it to the base voice.  

Enthumithentes expresses the concept of thinking something over. There are non-mai verbs in Middle Liddle that have that idea. What Thucydides is going for is the root of the verb, thumos, soul or heart. It’s kind of late in the game for an appeal to hearts and minds, but the Korinthians are making a stab at it. It could be another rhetorical mistake: OK so you don’t think this is the logical thing to do, but there’s a morality beyond the law and that is what you have to consider.

The two words I have bolded are translated differently by Jowett and not just as a matter of noun case. This same type of error occurs in the horrible Septuagint. In subsection 1 Jowett has “neighbor”, in subsection 4 he has “like, similar”. I keep saying that you have to translate in accordance with the context, but what is the context?

In subsection 1, the phrase is akiouto tois homoiois himas amunesthai. All the old translators want this to mean a quid pro quo. Akiouto is an imperative in progressive conceptual, which ought to tell the Athinaions to immediately form a specific habit of thought.  It has a complement in amunesthai, which with the -ois case phrase should mean to defend those like the Athinaians. But for some reason the Korinthians stick in himas, “us”, in the -ous case. As the object of amunesthai, this should mean defending those like the Athinaians against the Korinthians, which is surely not what they plan to suggest.

The old translators don’t have a  problem with this, because they are used to thinking of the -ous case as the subject of an “infinitive”. However, we have already seen that this is not universally true, and that using himas implies an anti-passive structure. There is no prior verb which would take himas as an object. If it is supposed to be the object of aksiouto, then the context means to think it fit that the Korinthians be defended, but there’s no room for the tois homoiois unless it means “like yourselves”.

Taking it as meaning “quid pro quo” probably derives from the translators being trained to think of the -ois case as meaning “for”, but that’s another example of bad training. It means “for” in the sense of “for the benefit of”. “Quid pro quo” means “in exchange for” and in any case, Middle Liddell shows that it not only requires the -ous case, it also requires a form of didomi. In general, exchanges for something require the -ous case of the thing exchanged for, one example being Iliad 6.235-236. I have said before that the grammar books keying on one of several meanings produced mistakes; Jowett’s translation is an example of how the grammars have failed.

Most translators of classical material (even the Bible), make the inevitable bad decision to copy familiar translations. I had to fight myself all the time when I wrote Narrating the Torah to avoid this, even though I knew that the old translators knew nothing of 21^st century grammar or the other concepts I was trying to express. The copying makes the work go faster, but it reproduces old errors. And the other location of homoiois or rather homoious in subsection 4 argues for a different meaning. The phrase is τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὁμοίους ἐχυρωτέρα δύναμις ἢ τῷ αὐτίκα φανερῷ ἐπαρθέντας διὰ κινδύνων τὸ πλέον ἔχειν, “not doing wrong to somebody like you is safer for power than by an instantaneous appearance being led through dangers to have more.”

In this case we also have an -ous case with an impersonal gerundive, but all the translators agree that it is an object, not a subject. The position probably promotes that interpretation, since it resembles English syntax. It does, however, make nonsense of Jowett’s translation of “neighbor”, which the other translators don’t use.

In any case, the Korinthians made a mistake in telling the Athinaians that the Kerkyraeans were not their like but the Korinthians were and should be supported in preference to the other party.

Knitting -- tunic with gored skirt and bottom up gored skirt

I worked a raglan top to use up some black yarn, and I put a Fana star at the yoke, then made short sleeves. When I got to the hem, I still had several skeins of yarn so I tried out a stitch count for a gored skirt that I found online. I can't find the pattern now but I transcribed the method into a file I have, so here goes. 

On the next round, P1 just after the marker on what will be the right side when you wear the piece, work to the front marker, P1 on each side of it, P2 at the left side marker, P2 at the back marker, and P1 in the stitch before the right side marker.

P1, K1 but don’t take it off the needle; now purl through the back loop by inserting the needle left to right and looping your yarn around the point, then push the point of the needle to the back to make the stitch (PTBL). Pull both this and the knit stitch off the needle. Knit to the center front and BEFORE the P1, K1/PTBL. Then P2, K1/PTBL. Repeat at the left side and back markers, and then K1/PTBL/P1 to finish that round.

Work 3 knit rounds, doing the P1 at every marker but NOT the PTBL.

Do an increase on the next round: P1 at the right side marker, KF/B after it, knit to the next marker and KF/B before it, P1, and repeat.

Repeat this increase every FOURTH round unless you want narrower gores, then every 10^th round.

For a tunic with a 7 inch skirt, at round 216 do your last increase, then work 1 round seed stitch PSSO to bind off the skirt. 

Notice that the P2s are in the center front in the photo; the ones on the sides and in back you can't see from this. You can make a solid gore at the front and back by putting the first P2 36 stitches AFTER the right side marker. Then K73, P2, K73, P2, K73, P2, K37.

Here is a list showing round number (skirt length) and stitch count at the bottom of the skirt:

224 (8 inch skirt): 432

232 (9 inch skirt) : 440

240 (10 inch skirt): 448

248 (11 inch skirt): 456

256 (12 inch skirt): 464

264 (13 inch skirt): 472

272 (14 inch skirt): 480

280 (15 inch skirt): 488

288 (16 inch skirt): 496

296 (17 inch skirt): 504

304 (18 inch skirt): 512

312 (19 inch skirt): 520

320 (20 inch skirt): 528

328 (21 inch skirt): 536

336 (22 inch skirt): 544

344 (23 inch skirt): 552

If you want to start at the bottom and make a 26 inch skirt, you need about 3000 yards of fingering weight yarn. Cable on 576 stitches to a size 3 32 inch circular needle, setting markers at stitches 144, 288, 432, and the end of the round. Knit around, working a P1 on each side of the marker and DECREASING beside the P1s every 4^th round, until you have 300 stitches left. Switch to a size 3 24 inch circular needle if you haven’t already done so. Now work the waistband of the skirt in K1/P1 rib and bind off in rib at the top.

For a 31 inch long skirt, cable on 616 stitches and set your markers at 154, 308, 462, and at the end. 

You can make the bottom-up skirt into a dress with a bodice of any pattern you want by not making a waistband, and continuing to knit from bottom to top in argyle, Fair Isle, Aran, houndstooth, brioche, Breton stripe, or a Norwegian traditional pattern. Depending on the yarn, you can do raglan, steeking, or faux set-in sleeves. The bodice and skirt can be in different solid colors with a tuxedo or cardigan that matches the skirt. 

For a summer dress, use linen or a fingering weight silk blend. You can make it sleeveless with a V neck and selvages on the edges. Then work a matching linen knit jacket with a selvage at the neck instead of a collar. Or top it with a lace shawl.

It's a lot of work. In the summer, you won't want all that yarn in your lap, even if it's linen. Use a chair with at least one arm and lay the finished part over the arm to get it out of your lap. Also it's heavy; your fingers will get a serious workout. And remember, to avoid repetitive motion problems, you can use continental hold or Irish pit hold, which should also speed up the work. 

21st Century Classical Greek -- a verb and some vocabulary

Book I section 41.

‘δικαιώματα μὲν οὖν τάδε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔχομεν ἱκανὰ κατὰ τοὺς Ἑλλήνων νόμους, παραίνεσιν δὲ καὶ ἀξίωσιν χάριτος τοιάνδε, ἣν οὐκ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες ὥστε βλάπτειν οὐδ᾽ αὖ φίλοι ὥστ᾽ ἐπιχρῆσθαι, ἀντιδοθῆναι ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ παρόντι φαμὲν χρῆναι.

[2] νεῶν γὰρ μακρῶν σπανίσαντές ποτε πρὸς τὸν Αἰγινητῶν ὑπὲρ τὰ Μηδικὰ πόλεμον παρὰ Κορινθίων εἴκοσι ναῦς ἐλάβετε: καὶ ἡ εὐεργεσία αὕτη τε καὶ ἡ ἐς Σαμίους, τὸ δι᾽ ἡμᾶς Πελοποννησίους αὐτοῖς μὴ βοηθῆσαι, παρέσχεν ὑμῖν Αἰγινητῶν μὲν ἐπικράτησιν, Σαμίων δὲ κόλασιν, καὶ ἐν καιροῖς τοιούτοις ἐγένετο οἷς μάλιστα ἄνθρωποι ἐπ᾽ ἐχθροὺς τοὺς σφετέρους ἰόντες τῶν ἁπάντων ἀπερίοπτοί εἰσι παρὰ τὸ νικᾶν:

[3] φίλον τε γὰρ ἡγοῦνται τὸν ὑπουργοῦντα, ἢν καὶ πρότερον ἐχθρὸς ᾖ, πολέμιόν τε τὸν ἀντιστάντα, ἢν καὶ τύχῃ φίλος ὤν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ οἰκεῖα χεῖρον τίθενται φιλονικίας ἕνεκα τῆς αὐτίκα.

This section mostly has some vocabulary that you’ve seen before.

Notice the hopos purpose clause in subsection 1.

Learn makros.

Go to Wiktionary and learn βοηθέω.

The last argument that the Korinthians make in this section is, again, unfortunate. The Kerkyraeans didn’t have a treaty with Athins, but they were not out and out enemies. The Korinthians had a treaty with Athins, but were threatening to become enemies if Athins helped the Kerkyraeans. Again, it’s shooting themselves in the foot to refer to how easily alliances can change; all it takes is the right circumstances.

21 Century Classical Greek -- what the grammarians missed

Book I section 40.3 has some grammar I want to point out.

[3] οὐ γὰρ τοῖσδε μόνον ἐπίκουροι ἂν γένοισθε, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμῖν ἀντὶ ἐνσπόνδων πολέμιοι: ἀνάγκη γάρ, εἰ ἴτε μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀμύνεσθαι μὴ ἄνευ ὑμῶν τούτους.

There are two issues here. First, examine the wording before the first comma. We have our categorical ou relating to toisde, our “benefit” -ois case, and then we have our an. Jowett translates this as a protasis, but an is supposed to mark the apodosis. So one point off there.

What Mr. T actually says is “not for those alone that you may become allies of…” The an marks off the switch in focus from “those” to “you”.

Genoisthe is the epistemic. The Korinthians don’t want the Athinaians to ally with the Kerkyraeans, and an oblique would admit that the Athinaians probably will.

Up to the colon, the Korinthians say “but [also] for us along with [“over against”] those who are part of the treaty, [you will be] enemies.”

The second issue is, do we have a conditional, “for it is necessary, if you go with them, [our] warding off them without you.”

Now, if Jowett had been smart, he would have tried to construe this as “if you go with them, then you become their allies,” which would be in line with all his other transpositions. But remember, Goodwin says that when the protasis has an indicative and there’s no evidence to contradict it, the apodosis should be a customary or repeated action or general truth.

The protasis does not express repetition; instead, we have a progressive for a situation.

There’s another problem, too. We can’t call this a “future less vivid” because that would require the protasis to be in the epistemic, but that’s in the an clause which would normally be an apodosis.

Remember, Thucydides is using grammar he learned on the street and in the literature available to him. We know that masses of Classical Greek literature have disappeared in the last 25 centuries – but to find things in Thucydides that are ignored in 25 centuries of grammar explanations, shows that 25 centuries of scholars haven’t done their job.

21st Century Classical Greek -- how not to argue your case

Book I section 40.

‘ὡς μὲν οὖν αὐτοί τε μετὰ προσηκόντων ἐγκλημάτων ἐρχόμεθα καὶ οἵδε βίαιοι καὶ πλεονέκται εἰσὶ δεδήλωται: ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἂν δικαίως αὐτοὺς δέχοισθε μαθεῖν χρή.

[2] εἰ γὰρ εἴρηται ἐν ταῖς σπονδαῖς ἐξεῖναι παρ᾽ ὁποτέρους τις βούλεται τῶν ἀγράφων πόλεων ἐλθεῖν, οὐ τοῖς ἐπὶ βλάβῃ ἑτέρων ἰοῦσιν ἡ ξυνθήκη ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις μὴ ἄλλου ἑαυτὸν ἀποστερῶν ἀσφαλείας δεῖται καὶ ὅστις μὴ τοῖς δεξαμένοις, εἰ σωφρονοῦσι, πόλεμον ἀντ᾽ εἰρήνης ποιήσει: ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς μὴ πειθόμενοι ἡμῖν πάθοιτε ἄν.

[3] οὐ γὰρ τοῖσδε μόνον ἐπίκουροι ἂν γένοισθε, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμῖν ἀντὶ ἐνσπόνδων πολέμιοι: ἀνάγκη γάρ, εἰ ἴτε μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀμύνεσθαι μὴ ἄνευ ὑμῶν τούτους.

[4] καίτοι δίκαιοί γ᾽ ἐστὲ μάλιστα μὲν ἐκποδὼν στῆναι ἀμφοτέροις, εἰ δὲ μή, τοὐναντίον ἐπὶ τούτους μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἰέναι (Κορινθίοις μέν γε ἔνσπονδοί ἐστε, Κερκυραίοις δὲ οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνοκωχῆς πώποτ᾽ ἐγένεσθε), καὶ τὸν νόμον μὴ καθιστάναι ὥστε τοὺς ἑτέρων ἀφισταμένους δέχεσθαι.

[5] οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡμεῖς Σαμίων ἀποστάντων ψῆφον προσεθέμεθα ἐναντίαν ὑμῖν, τῶν ἄλλων Πελοποννησίων δίχα ἐψηφισμένων εἰ χρὴ αὐτοῖς ἀμύνειν, φανερῶς δὲ ἀντείπομεν τοὺς προσήκοντας ξυμμάχους αὐτόν τινα κολάζειν.

[6] εἰ γὰρ τοὺς κακόν τι δρῶντας δεχόμενοι τιμωρήσετε, φανεῖται καὶ ἃ τῶν ὑμετέρων οὐκ ἐλάσσω ἡμῖν πρόσεισι, καὶ τὸν νόμον ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν θήσετε..

In subsection 2 the Korinthians make a mistake no legally savvy person would make. No court of law will go behind the text of an agreement to get at the intent of the parties without hard evidence of that intent. Or as Samuel Goldwyn famously said, a verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The Kerkyraeans allowed as how the Athinaians knew what the treaty said; if true, then it’s obvious that the Korinthians are lying.

 

Jowett mistranslates this. The beginning goes, “if it says,” using perfective conceptual aspect. This is the same aspect Thucydides uses about poets of prior times. So, “if it says in the treaty about going out to whomever they want, those cities not subscribed can go (using an impersonal gerundive), then it is not licit for those planning to harm others [that] the agreement is [about].

The next part is a little weird again and suggests somebody is making fun of how Korinthians are in the habit of speaking.

καὶ ὅστις μὴ τοῖς δεξαμένοις, and those will not accept as allies,

εἰ σωφρονοῦσι, if they are wise

πόλεμον ἀντ᾽ εἰρήνης ποιήσει: those who make war instead of peace:

ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς μὴ πειθόμενοι ἡμῖν πάθοιτε ἄν. Which now you, not persuaded, we, you may decide on.

The last part apparently means that the Athinaians, not having been persuaded by the Kerkyraeans, may decide to agree with the Korinthians. But himin is nominative and that an at the end of the subsection is just weird.

In subsection 5 the Korinthians make another grave error of logic. Kerkyraea refused to help rebellious underlings against their expelled leaders. Korinth tacitly approves that and shoots themselves in the foot about supporting those rebellious underlings. It is not possible for Athins to agree with Korinth about the Kerkyraeans based on the Korinthian argument.