Translation practice (into Greek)

[Pacifica]

I was thinking that it might be fun for those of us who are studying Greek to try to do a few translations into Greek now and then. We could for example take requests that were posted in the English-Latin forum and try to translate them into Greek as well, or anything else we feel like. More experienced Grecist who look at this thread could criticize them (in order that they may feel like doing so, it's better to keep the translations short).

I'll start with a recent translation request: "I will be the light that shines in darkness."

My attempt would be (without the accents as I haven't studied the rules): Έσομαι φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον.

I have a doubt here concerning the use or not of the article. I know that usually the predicate takes no article, but I feel like there could be an exception in this kind of cases. I was hesitating between the above, Έσομαι φωϛ ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον or Έσομαι το φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον.

 

[Callaina]

No doubt I'll come across this in good time in my textbook, but, well, feles curiosissima sum...

I looked up the relative pronouns in Greek and apparently they're different than the definite article. Why is το used for the relative clause here, then? (Or is this even a relative clause in the Greek translation?)

 

[Pacifica]

It isn't a relative clause in Greek. Where in English or Latin a relative clause would be used, Greek often uses participles instead (although relative clauses also do exist in Greek, but they're just used less often because of this construction with the participle).

For example "he who walks (or "is/was walking" depending on context)" = ὁ βαινων = literally "the walking (one)"; "the man who walks (or "is walking" etc.)" or "the walking man" = ὁ βαινων ἀνθρωπος (lit. "the walking man"), or ὁ ἀνθρωπος ὁ βαινων (lit. "the man the walking").

 

[Callaina]

It isn't a relative clause in Greek. Where in English or Latin a relative clause would be used, Greek often uses participles instead

I thought that might be it (we haven't done participles yet). But then why did you put the definite article after (not before) φωϛ?

Also, is φαινον a present or future participle?

 

[Callaina]

(although relative clauses also do exist in Greek, but they're just used less often because of this construction with the participle).

Don't they kind of have to for any clause where the relative pronoun would not be in the nominative? E.g. "The man whose book I borrowed yesterday is standing over there" -- I don't see how this could be done with any kind of participle...

 

[Pacifica]

I thought that might be it (we haven't done participles yet). But then why did you put the definite article after (not before) φωϛ?

If it were not predicate, it would have been either το φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον (lit. "the light the in the darkness shining") or το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον φωϛ (lit. "the in-the-darkness-shining light"), but as I said, I was not quite sure what to do with articles here as it's predicate. My theory was that maybe the light shouldn't take the article but the descriptive phrase should still, but wait for someone else to clarify that.

Also, is φαινον a present or future participle?

Present, since the action of shining will be contemporaneous to the main verb ("will be"), not posterior to it.

 

[Pacifica]

Don't they kind of have to for any clause where the relative pronoun would not be in the nominative? E.g. "The man whose book I borrowed yesterday is standing over there" -- I don't see how this could be done with any kind of participle...

Yes.

 

[Callaina]

If it were not predicate, it would have been either το φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον (lit. "the light the in the darkness shining")

How strange that the definite article is repeated like that (shouldn't a participle just act like an adjective?). What if it were just "the shining light" -- would it be το φωϛ το φαινον, or το φωϛ φαινον?

 

[Pacifica]

How strange that the definite article is repeated like that (shouldn't a participle just act like an adjective?).

Exactly the same thing happens with adjectives, actually.

E.g. "the good man" = ὁ ἀγαθoς ἀνθρωπος OR ὁ ἀνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθoς

would it be το φωϛ το φαινον, or το φωϛ φαινον?

I'm not sure the latter construction is permissible at all for the meaning "the shining light" (it would be for "the light, shining..."). I've never seen it. Wait for confirmation from someone more expert in case it could happen more rarely in poetry or so.

 

[Callaina]

Oh, ok. I guess I've never seen any situation in our textbook where the adjective is used after the noun. It still seems weird to have all those repetitive definite articles floating around, but I guess I can live with it

So couldn't your original sentence then also have been: Έσομαι το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον φωϛ.?

 

[Pacifica]

So couldn't your original sentence then also have been: Έσομαι το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον φωϛ.?

Here I'm not sure (again, I repeat, cf. my first post, lol), but if the light were not predicate it could be το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον φωϛ, yes. Either this or το φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον.

 

[Pacifica]

Basically, the general rule is that an adjective used with a definite noun comes either between the article and the noun or after the noun but in this case the article is repeated.

 

[Callaina]

Basically, the general rule is that an adjective used with a definite noun comes either between the article and the noun or after the noun but in this case the article is repeated.

Is there any good reason (that you've observed, I mean) for this? It seems so very cumbersome.

(The way Latin goes to the other extreme in not having any can also be sort of annoying, admittedly... )

 

[Pacifica]

Is there any good reason (that you've observed, I mean) for this? It seems so very cumbersome.

I don't know why it came to be that way.

There's possibly a difference in emphasis between the two constructions. There are also most probably some cases where the construction with repeated article is preferred when the modifying phrase is long and so it wouldn't look so good if it came between the article and the noun.

I personally like that construction with repeated article.

 

[Imber Ranae]

I'm surprised you haven't covered this yet, Callaina. The textbook I used taught it right after the definite article was introduced.

I looked up the relative pronouns in Greek and apparently they're different than the definite article. Why is το used for the relative clause here, then? (Or is this even a relative clause in the Greek translation?)

One complication you might like to be made aware of is that in the Ionic dialect the relative pronoun is replaced (except after certain prepositions for reasons of euphony) by definite article forms in every case but the masculine and feminine nominative. So there at least the relative pronoun and the article are frequently identical.

I'm not sure the latter construction is permissible at all for the meaning "the shining light" (it would be for "the light, shining..."). I've never seen it. Wait for confirmation from someone more expert in case it could happen more rarely in poetry or so.

For prose, the word φαινον in το φωϛ φαινον could only function as the predicate of an implicit ἐστί, I guess meaning 'the light is a shining one'. In much of Greek poetry (especially Epic) the articles are dispensed with altogether.

I personally like that construction with repeated article.

So do I; it can really tidy up an otherwise cumbersome prepositional or participial clause modifying the noun.

 

[Callaina]

I'm surprised you haven't covered this yet, Callaina. The textbook I used taught it right after the definite article was introduced.

Our textbook moves slowly. It took four chapters for them to entirely introduce the definite article (of course, they were covering a whole bunch of other things at the same time, like basic present-tense endings and 1st/2nd declensions). They seem to like to ration out knowledge drop by drop rather than simply giving students the grammatical tables and saying, "Memorize this". About two chapters in I gave up on that and just started flipping to the back and memorizing the tables.

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

I don't suppose it even uses terms like proparoxytone and perispomenon to avoid laborious periphrasis.

 

[Callaina]

proparoxytone and perispomenon

LOL, had I seen those words in isolation I would've thought the first was some kind of chemical solvent and the second an exotic fruit...

Anyway, sorry, nope. They've discussed words with an accent on the antepenult, etc, but only in the context of "accent rules" in general, and they didn't give them particular names.

 

[Pacifica]

Just a reminder that my initial post is still waiting for an answer:

"I will be the light that shines in darkness."

My attempt would be (without the accents as I haven't studied the rules): Έσομαι φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον.

I have a doubt here concerning the use or not of the article. I know that usually the predicate takes no article, but I feel like there could be an exception in this kind of cases. I was hesitating between the above, Έσομαι φωϛ ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον or Έσομαι το φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον.

 

[Aurifex]

I'll start with a recent translation request: "I will be the light that shines in darkness."

My attempt would be (without the accents as I haven't studied the rules): Έσομαι φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον.

I have a doubt here concerning the use or not of the article. I know that usually the predicate takes no article, but I feel like there could be an exception in this kind of cases. I was hesitating between the above, Έσομαι φωϛ ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον or Έσομαι το φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον.

Έσομαι φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον (with the article before φωϛ omitted) is permissible albeit rather uncommon compared with the alternatives Έσομαι το φωϛ το ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φαινον and Έσομαι το φαινον ἐν τῃ σκοτιᾳ φωϛ.

You could use a relative clause if you preferred.