You can find it here on Perseusοὔτε συνέγραψα ἐγὼ τοὺς Ἐπικτήτου λόγους οὕτως ὅπως ἄν τις συγγράψειε τὰ τοιαῦτα οὔτε ἐξήνεγκα εἰς ἀνθρώπους αὐτός, ὅς γε οὐδὲ συγγράψαι φημί.
I don't really have any problems here until the last relative clause:
It is here that I'm not sure why he decided to use a relative clause at all. I find it strange that ὅς is used to refer back to the same subject of the sentence, which is he himself. It almost seems like that relative pronoun is superfluous.ὅς γε οὐδὲ συγγράψαι φημί
The other issue for me is the negative and the infinitive inside of the clause:
It seems to me that since the negative,οὐδὲ, is sitting next to the infinitive(συγγράψαι ), it is negating the the infinitive rather than the finite verb, right? So it should be:οὐδὲ συγγράψαι φημί
"who affirms not having composed it"
"Who does not affirm having composed it"
(sorry for the quick and dirty translation)
So, if I had to categorize this infinitive, the best I can think of would be infinitive of indirect discourse. Does that sound right?
I'm not sure why I'm having trouble figuring this one out. It just seems strange to me for some reason.
Thanks for your help.