Xenophon Anabasis 1

Notascooby

Active Member
Xaipe

Hoping someone could help me out here. This is from the Anabasis 1 2.21

te d' usteraia ekev aggelos legov oti leloipos eie Suennesis ta akra, epei estheto oti to Mevovos strateuma ede ev Kilikia ev eiso ton oreon, kai oti triereis ekoue peripleousas ap' Iovias eis Kilikian Tamov exovta tas lakedaimoviov kai autou kurou.

First off I hope my transliteration is okay.

My thinking is: On the next day a messenger came saying that Suennesis has abandoned the high ground since he realised that Menon's army was now in Cilicia within the hills and he heard that Triremes belonging to the Spartans and to Cyrus himself were sailing from Ionia to Cilicia.

is ekoue governing the oti clause and for some reason moved position? Is this why this oti clause shifted to the participial construction? Also what is Tamov exovta doing? Can't figure out for the life of me what it's doing.

Any help would be appreciated

ta
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
is ekoue governing the oti clause and for some reason moved position?
No. That oti means "because", introducing a second reason why Suennesis had abandoned the high ground.
Also what is Tamov exovta doing? Can't figure out for the life of me what it's doing.
My Greek isn't great and it not being posted in the original alphabet didn't help, but is it not just saying that a certain Tamos (no idea who that is) has triremes belonging to the Spartans, etc.?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I tried to look up the original (that is, in the original alphabet) but either the reference you provided is wrong or your source has things numbered differently from mine.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
But anyway, if Tamos is a river, I guess it just means that that river "had" those ships sailing on it.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I tried to look up the original (that is, in the original alphabet) but either the reference you provided is wrong or your source has things numbered differently from mine.
No, my bad. Silly me, I clicked the wrong Anabasis (that is, not Xenophon's but a certain Arrian's) on Perseus.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
The translation here treats Tamos as a person, not a river. Actually, what river would there be to sail between Ionia and Cilicia?
 

Notascooby

Active Member
Cushty

So τριήρεις πιριπλευσας is the object of Τάμων έχοντα?

Got myself a Greek keyboard, pretty cool.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member

Notascooby

Active Member
The commentary Does not say that the Ταμως is a river, sorry, don't know how I managed to think it was.:brickwall:
 

Notascooby

Active Member
Xenophon, Anabasis 1.3.7

όι δε στρατιωται οι τε αυτου εικεινου και οι αλλοι ταυτα ακουσαντες οτι ου φαιη παρα βασιλεα πορευεσθαι επηνεσαν

I'm reading this as: Both his soldiers and the others heard these things and approved (them) because he said that he would not march against the king.

My problem is the ότι clause. I'm reading it as causal and assuming that the optative is because of oratio obliqua. I want to read the ότι clause as if it were a Latin quod substantival clause but I'm not even sure if that's a thing in Greek?

Any help appreciated

Tally-ho
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I want to read the ότι clause as if it were a Latin quod substantival clause
Do you mean as in "they approved (of the fact) that he said..."? Take everything I say on this thread with the caveat that I'm not half as proficient in Greek as in Latin, but I think that interpretation is right.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I had also this idea at first, though that maybe the second tauta wasn't referring to the speech like the first tauta but was anticipatory to the oti clause, and that the meaning was like "hearing (these things, namely) that..."
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member

Notascooby

Active Member
That sounds good to me. It's like a double accusative except the second accusative is a οτι clause.

Whichever way we have explained it, it kind of results in the same meaning.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
It's like a double accusative
Not really. A double accusative is two different objects like te and linguam Graecam in magister ille te linguam Graecam docuit. What we've got here is more like one accusative (well, a clause that functions as an accusative noun) in appostion to another (tauta).
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
No. That oti means "because", introducing a second reason why Suennesis had abandoned the high ground.
Surely it is rather oti meaning "that", going with estheto?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
It seems more likely to be a causal clause to me. I mean, in theory it could be either but it seems more logical to me to say that:

Suennesis had left the hight ground 1) because he had realized that Menon's army was in Cilicia and 2) because he had heard that Tamos was leading ships to Cilicia

Than that:

Suennesis had left the high ground because he had realized 1) that Menon's army was in Cilicia and 2) that he had heard that Tamos was leading ships to Cilicia.
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
Oh, so you're taking it parallel with "epei"? I would think that Xenophon had intended it to be parallel with the other hoti and that he was just being loose/slightly weird with the construction, which sort of carelessness seems to happen a lot more in Greek than in Latin.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Oh, so you're taking it parallel with "epei"?
Yes.
I would think that Xenophon had intended it to be parallel with the other hoti and that he was just being loose/slightly weird with the construction, which sort of carelessness seems to happen a lot more in Greek than in Latin.
I guess that's possible.
 
Top