Lysias' Λόγος ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου

Discussion of Greek texts that do not fall into the other categories, including texts in other dialects or texts from other periods.
Forum rules
This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Lysias 23 feedback

Post by Wes Wood » August 17th, 2014, 3:12 pm

1) The omission is due to a "scribal" error. I copied the greek onto notebook paper to save my phone's battery and missed that phrase.

2) "stone" Brief explanation: I don't envision the placement of toaster sized rocks. Extensively Boring Explanation: I wholeheartly agree with you that something else would be better for the translation. "Pebble" would be excellent for the purpose! My particular usage of "stone" may be a colloquialism or a general quirk of American English. If I were talking about two places that are geographically close, I might say, "they are within a stone's throw of each other." Obviously, the stone under consideration is small enough to be easily thrown, even if the distance it could be thrown is exaggerated. This is another one of those things that I hadn't thought about, but I would be more likely to call something a "stone" based on its characteristics . For instance, I would be far more likely to call rocks or boulders that have been shaped or smoothed by people "stones" regardless of their size. Also, I find the phrase "smooth stone" in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath (I Sam. 17) strange. I don't misunderstand what is meant, but I am 100 percent certain I would have written smooth rock. In this passage, I think of "pebbles" that have been shaped somehow, but this is only my imagination at work. Ergo, "stone."

3) I was looking at my English translation when I asked myself what "this" referred to and will admit I was lazy and did not go back and look at the text itself. Your humor is appreciated and the sting is deserved. :D

4) I have struggled throughout these readings with the flexibility of tugxanw. (Please, excuse the transliteration). I am not sure if it has the idea of obtaining a vote or if it needs an object to be supplied. I don't know if eithe1) The omission is due to a "scribal" error. I copied the greek onto notebook paper to save my phone's battery and missed that phrase.

2) "stone" Brief explanation: I don't envision the placement of toaster sized rocks. Extensively Boring Explanation: I wholeheartly agree with you that something else would be better for the translation. "Pebble" would be excellent for the purpose! My particular usage of "stone" may be a colloquialism or a general quirk of American English. If I were talking about two places that are geographically close, I might say, "they are within a stone's throw of each other." Obviously, the stone under consideration is small enough to be easily thrown, even if the distance it could be thrown is exaggerated. This is another one of those things that I hadn't thought about, but I would be more likely to call something a "stone" based on its characteristics . For instance, I would be far more likely to call rocks or boulders that have been shaped or smoothed by people "stones" regardless of their size. Also, I find the phrase "smooth stone" in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath (I Sam. 17) strange. I don't misunderstand what is meant, but I am 100 percent certain I would have written smooth rock. In this passage, I think of "pebbles" that have been shaped somehow, but this is only my imagination at work. Ergo, "stone."

3) I was looking at my English translation when I asked myself what "this" referred to and will admit I was lazy and did not go back and look at the text itself. Your humor is appreciated and the sting is deserved. :D

4) I have struggled throughout these readings with the flexibility of tugxanw. (Please, excuse the transliteration). I am not sure if it has the idea of obtaining a vote or if it needs an object to be supplied. I don't know if this helps to clarify what I have done, but let me try to restate the idea. "For what cause is there that I should obtain a vote against me from people like you."

Edited once to remove a typo I just couldn't live with. :lol:
0 x


Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Lysias 24.23 feedback on the feedback - projectile weapons

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 18th, 2014, 1:24 am

Wes Wood wrote:2) "stone" Brief explanation: I don't envision the placement of toaster sized rocks. Extensively Boring Explanation: I wholeheartly agree with you that something else would be better for the translation. "Pebble" would be excellent for the purpose! My particular usage of "stone" may be a colloquialism or a general quirk of American English. If I were talking about two places that are geographically close, I might say, "they are within a stone's throw of each other." Obviously, the stone under consideration is small enough to be easily thrown, even if the distance it could be thrown is exaggerated. This is another one of those things that I hadn't thought about, but I would be more likely to call something a "stone" based on its characteristics . For instance, I would be far more likely to call rocks or boulders that have been shaped or smoothed by people "stones" regardless of their size. Also, I find the phrase "smooth stone" in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath (I Sam. 17) strange. I don't misunderstand what is meant, but I am 100 percent certain I would have written smooth rock. In this passage, I think of "pebbles" that have been shaped somehow, but this is only my imagination at work. Ergo, "stone."
Thank you for the explanation. I'm probably not accurate with regards to Greek, there are gaps in my Greek which seemed to be filled by λίθος, but I seemed to have just simply mapped my understanding in English onto Greek. You can hold a pebble ψῆφος between your fingers, a stone λίθος in your hand, a rock (also??) λίθος (??) can be lifted with two hands (and effort), a boulder (also??) λίθος (??) can't be moved by a grown man, and rock (uncountable noun) πέτρα is embedded in the ground (and stable).

Do sling-stones travel fast enough for the accuracy of their path to be affected by their shape? Is 30 metres per second aerodynamically significant? In my imagination childhood imagination of that passage a rough stone would have caused more damage, but perhaps a smooth one would travel faster.

In ancient Greece, infantry using projectile weapons are skirmishers πελταστής - armed with (throwing) spears (sorry, I can't remember the differences in meaning between all the words for "spear" to give you the one that means "throwing spear", "javelin") for short-range combat (sometimes they even got into hand to hand, as they carried a short sword too), slingers σφενδονήτης firing cast lead sling-bullets μολυβδίς from a sling σφενδόνη for an effective range of up to 400 metres, and archers τοξότης armed with bow τόξον and arrows τόξευμα, at considerably less effective range than a slinger could. So far as I understand, the differences between throwing arrows, darts (βέλος, Ephesians 6:16) and spears are length and flexibility; an arrow is the shortest (limited by the bow's length and ultimate tensile strength of the materials from which the bow is made), a dart is longer than an arrow and of flexible material so as to be unsuitable (too flexible) for effective use in hand to hand (slow-moving weapon) combat, a throwing spear is longer and stronger, and could be used in hand-to-and combat too, while a spear proper is heavier and stronger and designed for hand-to-hand.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Lysias 24.23 feedback on the feedback - small errors

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 18th, 2014, 3:03 am

Wes Wood wrote:1) The omission is due to a "scribal" error. I copied the greek onto notebook paper to save my phone's battery and missed that phrase.
Wes Wood wrote:3) I was looking at my English translation when I asked myself what "this" referred to and will admit I was lazy and did not go back and look at the text itself. Your humor is appreciated and the sting is deserved. :D
1 Corinthians 11:31 wrote:εἰ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Lysias 24.23 f'back on the f'back - τύχοιμι and τοιοῦτος

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 18th, 2014, 3:13 am

Lysias 24.23 (Last part) wrote:διὰ τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ τύχοιμι τοιούτων ὑμῶν;
Wes Wood Lysias 24.23 First rendering wrote:For why should I receive [a lot] [5] like this from you?
Wes Wood wrote:4) I have struggled throughout these readings with the flexibility of tugxanw. (Please, excuse the transliteration). I am not sure if it has the idea of obtaining a vote or if it needs an object to be supplied. I don't know if this helps to clarify what I have done, but let me try to restate the idea.
Wes Wood Lysias 24.23 Rephrasing wrote:"For what cause is there that I should obtain a vote against me from people like you."
"For what cause is there that I should obtain (a vote against me from) (people) like you.".
Perhaps I should slow down here...

You have the general sense, but you are wanting to find a meaning in τύχοιμι, that is to be found in τοιούτων. You could re-look at the text in light of that / think about the implications of that statement for a moment before reading on.

You are right, there is definitely a difference in idiomatic usage of τυχεῖν from Classical to New Testament, which in classical time can mean many things, including "obtain" (as it does in the New Testament) and "light upon", "encounter (by chance)" (a concept that is debatably not in the New Testament), besides numerous others. Looking at the classical language more broadly still, τυχεῖν in the sense we see it here is more commonly expressed (explicated) by using the Classical ἐντυχεῖν "to encounter (by chance)" etc. As you know, however, ἐντυχεῖν has had its meaning limited to "intercede to" in the New Testament. In other words, I think that τυχεῖν here means "happen to find".

The genitive with τυχεῖν should be unremarkable. cf. Acts 26:22 Ἐπικουρίας οὖν τυχὼν τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, Having obtained divine help (in answer to a request made in a moment of need). It is not somehow like ὑπό + genitive.

The other element, τοιοῦτος "such a person" is, as you have (almost) correctly noticed, missing some sense of what such a person would do. Cf. Acts 26:29 Ὁ δὲ Παῦλος εἶπεν, Εὐξαίμην ἂν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ οὐ μόνον σε, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντάς μου σήμερον, γενέσθαι τοιούτους ὁποῖος κἀγώ εἰμι, παρεκτὸς τῶν δεσμῶν τούτων. I wish to God in prayer that everyone listening to me would become such a kind of persons, which I myself also am. So, then, to write the conditional relative clause (cf. Smyth 2566) out in full that you want to explicate, it would be διὰ τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ τύχοιμι τοιούτων ὁποῖοι καταγνοῖεν με (in the classical idiom).

ὑμῶν - I prefer partitive to apposition.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Lysias 24 - §24 - Wes Wood

Post by Wes Wood » August 18th, 2014, 9:23 pm

εἰ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα. :oops: *sweeps last #24 under the rug, walks away whistling* ;)

"When because of me has anyone ever been brought to trial [and?] it destroyed his substance? But no one could ever prove it. But [is it] because I am a busybody and rash and love to make enemies?"

Still not sure about the conjunctions. I am still laughing so hard at that last "effort" that my wife is laughing at the sight of me laughing!
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Lysias §25 Wes Wood

Post by Wes Wood » August 18th, 2014, 10:20 pm

"But I am not using such resources of life to obtain such things as these. But [is it] because I am greatly insolent and violent? But he himself has not ever said this, unless he wishes also to lie about this like the rest of the things. Is it because on becoming one of the thirty in power I did wrong to many of the citizens 1? But I fled with your crowd into Chalcis which is on the Euripo and it is lawful for me to be a citizen who is not in need with those people, but going out with you I chose to risk it."

1) I don't understand this sentence at all, but I believe the translation is reasonably close.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Lysias 24 - §24 - Wes Wood

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 19th, 2014, 3:42 pm

Wes Wood Apologising for the earlier attempt wrote:εἰ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα. :oops: *sweeps last #24 under the rug, walks away whistling* ;)
Lysias 24.24 wrote:πότερον ὅτι δι᾽ ἐμέ τις εἰς ἀγῶνα πώποτε καταστὰς ἀπώλεσε τὴν οὐσίαν; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς ἀποδείξειεν. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι πολυπράγμων εἰμὶ καὶ θρασὺς καὶ φιλαπεχθήμων;
Wes Wood The earlier attempt (now a lump under the carpet waiting to trip someone up) wrote:"When has anyone of the assembly ever lost your possessions because of me, who is in such a state? But neither could anyone prove it. But neither could anyone prove it. But because I am a busybody, rash, and love to make enemies [1]?

1- If we are guilty of a fallacy, can we be blamed?
What is this footnote "If we are guilty of a fallacy, can we be blamed?" referring to?
Wes Wood The new attempt wrote:"When because of me has anyone ever been brought to trial [and?] it destroyed his substance? But no one could ever prove it. But [is it] because I am a busybody and rash and love to make enemies?"
Wes Wood wrote:Still not sure about the conjunctions
I guess you mean the ἀλλ᾽s. I know people who speak like that, who like to throw and turn their speech from one opposite to the other. The expected construction would be like in this verse;
John 7:17 wrote:Ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς, πότερον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, ἐγὼ ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ λαλῶ.
If you are referring to the ὅτι's, that is to be found in the unstated second half of the
Stephen Hughes adding to the last phrase of Lysias 24.23 wrote:διὰ τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ τύχοιμι τοιούτων ὁποῖοι καταγνοῖεν με
That type of person would condemn καταγνοῖεν him because ὅτι he had done something to them in the past. His speech is a bit laconic.
Wes Wood wrote:I am still laughing so hard at that last "effort" that my wife is laughing at the sight of me laughing!
Don't try to copy my rushing to get these text up my a certain time. You would do more good for the greater part of your learning not to rush them. Even after reflection, you will still have errors. It seems that perfection is unachievable without input from without. I don't think my Greek is much different to yours, but being in the third-person observer position gives me a point of view (depth of perspective) that makes it seem like I have answers.

As for the attempts at understanding (both on and under the carpet), let me say in all sinceriousness that they are good...
Have a look at the meaning of ἀπόλλυμι in these two verses:
Luke 15:9 wrote:Καὶ εὑροῦσα συγκαλεῖται τὰς φίλας καὶ τὰς γείτονας, λέγουσα, Συγχάρητέ μοι, ὅτι εὗρον τὴν δραχμὴν ἣν ἀπώλεσα.
I found the drachma which I lost (caused / allowed to go missing).
John 18:9 wrote:ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὃν εἶπεν ὅτι Οὓς δέδωκάς μοι, οὐκ ἀπώλεσα ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐδένα.
I have not cause / allowed one of them to perish (be lost)
In the case of the verb ἵστημι there is a whole nother aorist for this meaning (as you no doubt know or could look up at your leisure).
The subject of ἀπώλεσε here in Lysias 24.24 is τις. It is not an impersonal.
τὴν οὐσίαν - "substance" is accurate, but possibly misleading. In this usage, despite being from the verb to be, it is referring to something outside of a person's being; their property.
Luke 15:12, 13 wrote:καὶ εἶπεν ὁ νεώτερος αὐτῶν τῷ πατρί, Πάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. Καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. Καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ἀπεδήμησεν εἰς χώραν μακράν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ, ζῶν ἀσώτως.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Concerning the footnote.

Post by Wes Wood » August 19th, 2014, 5:28 pm

I was referring to φιλαπεχθήμων. I looked for this word on Perseus, and I did not find it, so I made a guess about its meaning based on its morphemes. Based on your definition with the "(me)" I incorrectly inferred that you had done the same. I assume now that I must have entered it incorrectly. When I looked it up just then, it was right where it should have been. Just another example of my feeble attempts to make sense of my perception of the world.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Lysias 24 - Re: Concerning the footnote - φιλαπεχθήμων

Post by Stephen Hughes » August 19th, 2014, 11:38 pm

Wes Wood wrote:I was referring to φιλαπεχθήμων. I looked for this word on Perseus, and I did not find it, so I made a guess about its meaning based on its morphemes. Based on your definition with the "(me)" I incorrectly inferred that you had done the same. I assume now that I must have entered it incorrectly. When I looked it up just then, it was right where it should have been. Just another example of my feeble attempts to make sense of my perception of the world.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
  • φιλαπεχθήμων - be fond of people hating you (me)
Your assumption was not incorrect. It was done in a rush and some time ago, but I remember now that I initially mis-read it as φιλ-απ-εχθρή-μων. When I realised that I had mistakenly supplied a rho to the word, I lost confidence and had to go to the dictionary. After searching for the word (without the φιλ-) I remembered that in the 2nd year of classical Greek, I had learned that the rho was not so consistently used in the Classical period as it was in the New Testament. I did do more than a usual amount of dictionary work on this word. The difference between my "hint"; "be fond of people hating you (me)", and LSJ's "fond of making enemies, quarrelsome", is that mine is more morphologically based. I hope that between the two definitions you can get a sense of the word, rather than just foppishly relying either renderings into English to get you through a translation exercise.

The "me" is to remind you that in this instance, the adjective is referring to the speaker (the speech's first person), not to the "you" which I gave in the hint.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Lysias §26 Wes Wood

Post by Wes Wood » August 20th, 2014, 11:31 pm

"And now, O Council, having done no wrong I do not wish to obtain the same things from you [that you gave] to others who have done many wrong things, but you will place the same pebble for me that the other councils did, remembering that I did not give an account before them about the goods which I administered on behalf of the city, οὔτε ἀρχὴν ἄρξας οὐδεμίαν εὐθύνας ὑπέχω νῦν αὐτῆς, but concerning an obol I am saying only these words."

I am still tinkering with the untranslated portion. I am familiar with the words, but I am not certain about how they are used in this context. I will post the rest of it tonight, if I am able to work it out soon enough.
0 x
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ

Post Reply