The sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:32 pm
I salute each and everyone,
for quite some time now, I am trying to do a language analysis on a sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9, in order to demonstrate how ὁμόνοια is expressed by a dative and that the construction of ὁμόνοια with πρὸς plus accusative which LSJ give as standard, is not applicable in Arrian - meaning that this is not what Arrian uses (standard Greek). http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=7 ... rom-search
When I translate the sentence, ὁμόνοια is not constructed with a dative per se, or the idea is that it still needs a dative to be defined. But ὁμόνοια with dative is not what dative usually means; nevertheless, must be shown that what Arrian writes is equivalent with the Greek standard as shown by LSJ.
This is my take on this particular sentence:
(..) εὔχετο δὲ τά τε ἄλλα [καὶ τὰ] ἀγαθὰ καὶ ὁμόνοιάν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις (...) as: Alexander 'prayed for the other good things, and for Homonoia, and for partnership in the realm between Macedonians and Persians'. We do not have, in this particular scenario, a link between the substantive (ὁμόνοια) and a dative (whatever might that be); we have ὁμόνοια as a stand-alone substantive, yet there is a need for a dative because ὁμόνοια must be defined. We have: the dative of purpose and the dative of benefit, as purpose being ὁμόνοιάν τε κai κοινωνίαν itself and the beneficiaries being the Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις. At the end, in order to define it, it can be only ὁμόνοια for the Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις, since ὁμόνοιάν and κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς are linked by τε καὶ, as well as Μακεδόσι being linked with Πέρσαις by καὶ.
However, this does not answer to the first part of my post. I am respectfully asking for another opinion on the matter, someone who can understand ancient Greek better than I do (I am not an expert in this language) and who could indicate some other understanding.
TB
for quite some time now, I am trying to do a language analysis on a sentence at Arrian, Anab. VII: 11, 9, in order to demonstrate how ὁμόνοια is expressed by a dative and that the construction of ὁμόνοια with πρὸς plus accusative which LSJ give as standard, is not applicable in Arrian - meaning that this is not what Arrian uses (standard Greek). http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=7 ... rom-search
When I translate the sentence, ὁμόνοια is not constructed with a dative per se, or the idea is that it still needs a dative to be defined. But ὁμόνοια with dative is not what dative usually means; nevertheless, must be shown that what Arrian writes is equivalent with the Greek standard as shown by LSJ.
This is my take on this particular sentence:
(..) εὔχετο δὲ τά τε ἄλλα [καὶ τὰ] ἀγαθὰ καὶ ὁμόνοιάν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις (...) as: Alexander 'prayed for the other good things, and for Homonoia, and for partnership in the realm between Macedonians and Persians'. We do not have, in this particular scenario, a link between the substantive (ὁμόνοια) and a dative (whatever might that be); we have ὁμόνοια as a stand-alone substantive, yet there is a need for a dative because ὁμόνοια must be defined. We have: the dative of purpose and the dative of benefit, as purpose being ὁμόνοιάν τε κai κοινωνίαν itself and the beneficiaries being the Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις. At the end, in order to define it, it can be only ὁμόνοια for the Μακεδόσι καὶ Πέρσαις, since ὁμόνοιάν and κοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς are linked by τε καὶ, as well as Μακεδόσι being linked with Πέρσαις by καὶ.
However, this does not answer to the first part of my post. I am respectfully asking for another opinion on the matter, someone who can understand ancient Greek better than I do (I am not an expert in this language) and who could indicate some other understanding.
TB