« PreviousContinue »
550 There are two modes of expressing the union of distinct propositions: (1) By the use of a relative with its indefinite antecedent, and then we signify that, where there is such an object, there also we find such another object; as ἄνδρες τε καὶ ἵπποι, "where horses, there men." (2) When the enumeration is expressed by a repetition of the same demonstrative or relative pronoun ; as καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ ἵπποι, οι ἄνδρες τε ἵπποι τε; and here the first conjunction may be omitted.
551 Practically there is no great difference between the uses of these copulative conjunctions: Kal and Te alone generally indicate mere addition; xaí repeated gives an emphasis to the enumeration; and Te Kal join the two statements or objects so closely together that they may be almost considered as one. As might be expected, the former clause, with the indefinite Te, is often less emphatic than that which contains the kaí. This is very apparent in the phrases τά τε ἄλλα καί, ἄλλως τε καί—, which mean "especially," i. e. "as well in other matters not worth mentioning, as," &c.
552 The commonest form of this disjunctive sentence is that in which the members are connected by - (originally né―né), the former being sometimes strengthened by To. As is a relative particle, originally identical with kai, this may be considered as a construction strictly analogous to xal-xaí, though the meaning conveyed is quite the converse; for καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ ἵπποι would mean "as well men as horses," quum viri, quum equi. But avdρes iππоι would signify "either men or horses," ubi equi, ibi non viri. That a negative was implied appears from the use of the Latin aut = haud in disjunctive sentences, and by the repetition of où after in negative comparisons (530, Obs.). But that does not itself contain any negative signification is clear. For it is used as a mere relative, quam, in positive comparisons, and is really synonymous with the copulative conditional eтe, by the side of which it sometimes appears; except that the conditional force is more fully retained in ere, which is generally followed by μn, while more usually requires où: cf. Soph. Antig. 38 (where ň could not stand):
καὶ δείξεις τάχα
εἴτ ̓ εὐγενὴς πέφυκας εἴτ ̓ ἐσθλών κακή.
Æschyl. Αg. 1374 (where it is a distinct protasis):
Hom. Il. 11. 349 (where it is followed by 1⁄2 and ov):
Soph. Αj. 178 (where εἴτε follows ) :
ἤ ῥα κλυτῶν ἐνάρων
ψευσθεῖσ', ἀδώροις εἴτ ̓ ἐλαφηβολίαις.
553 In general, the student will observe, that if the disjunetive retains its conditional force, it is followed by μn; if it merely states contradictory alternatives, by οὐ; cf. Esch. Eum. 168 :
σύ τ ̓ εἰ δικαίως εἴτε μή, κρῖνον δίκην,
with Thucyd. vi. 60 : εἴτε ἄρα καὶ τὰ ὄντα μηνῦσαι εἴτε οὔ.
554 The combination τεκαί is used in the disjunctive sentence when it is intended to express that the two alternatives present themselves in close combination; as in Hom. Il. VIII. 168:
Τυδείδης δὲ διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν
ἵππους τε στρέψαι καὶ ἐναντίβιον μαχέσασθαι.
Æschyl. Αg. 807 :
γνώσει δὲ χρόνῳ διαπευθόμενος
τόν τε δικαίως καὶ τὸν ἀκαίρως
πόλιν οἰκουροῦντα πολιτῶν.
555 The comparative or superlative co-ordination of τοσούτῳ (τοσοῦτον) -ὅσῳ (ὅσον) is of the nature of a copulative sentence with τεκαί, though it sometimes amounts to an illative, and sometimes to a causal sentence. Thus Plat. Resp. II. p. 372 D, oow μέγιστον τὸ τῶν φυλάκων ἔργον, τοσούτῳ σχολῆς τῶν ἄλλων πλείστης ἂν εἴη δεόμενον, might be expressed by their work is the greatest, and therefore requires the greatest leisure" or "their work is so great as to require the greatest leisure." Without this mode of viewing the construction, the student would fail to understand several passages in Thucydides. Thus, ὅσῳ ἄμεινον
follow οὐχ ἧσσον in I. 82; ὅσῳ καί follow οὐχ ἥκιστα = τοσούτῳ μάλιστα in I. 68; and οὐδενὸς χεῖρον = τοσούτῳ πάντων ἄμεινον in VI. 89. In vI. 11, oo kai, without any real antecedent, may be rendered "because" or "inasmuch as," and the particles have the same meaning in VI. 92, where there is a sort of antecedent in the particles σφόδρα and ἱκανῶς. In IV. 108, ἐψευσμένοις τῆς ̓Αθη ναίων δυνάμεως ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὅση ὕστερον διεφάνη means "they were mistaken in the power of the Athenians, by as much as that power afterwards appeared different from their notion of it," i.e. the emphasis falls on the preposition in διεφάνη. In VII. 28, TÒV παράλογον τοσοῦτον ποιῆσαι is followed first by a causal ὅσον, and afterwards by an illative ὥστε.
556 The comparative clause with is of the nature of a disjunctive sentence, though the sentence, in which the comparative appears, is in effect an antecedent: thus, ovdèv êpeîσσov ǹ pinos oaps means "where there is a sure friend, there is nothing better."
557 In the emphatic sense of "even," "also," the Greeks used the copulative kai, where the Latin prefers the disjunctive vel or the compound et-iam. Sometimes the force of this xal is best expressed by throwing an emphasis on the auxiliary in English ; as in Tos kai diλer', eiπé; (Eurip. Hippol. 1171), "say, how did he die?" In this emphatic sense, xaí, followed by other particles, has many distinctive uses: thus we have καὶ δή, καί περ, καί τοι in concessive sentences; kai μnv in calling attention to a statement; xai dn kaí in making an important addition; and so forth.
558 "ET, which, under the form et, is the commonest copulative conjunction in Latin, generally appears in Greek as a temporal particle only.
§ IV. Distributive Sentences.
559 Distributive sentences, which are generally in some sense adversative also, are most frequently expressed by the particles μév and dé, signifying "first" and "second," when the opposition or distribution is in each case positive. But when a negative in the first clause is followed by a positive sentence, which corrects or explains it, the proper particles are ovκ-aλλá, just as in German we
have sondern instead of aber after nicht. Thus we have in the same
passage (Eurip. Med. 555):
οὐχ, ᾗ σὺ κνίζει,—σὸν μὲν ἐχθαίρων λέχος
καινῆς δὲ νύμφης ἱμέρῳ πεπληγμένος
ἀλλ ̓ ὡς κ.τ.λ.
560 One of the commonest forms of the distributive sentence is that, which has been mentioned above (390), when the article is used as a pronoun, for the purpose of distributing a number of persons or things into different classes. In this use we often find τοῦτο μέν—τοῦτο δέ for τὸ μέν—τὸ δέ.
561 When μév and dé are appended to the disjunctive ž, the compound becomes a copulative particle; thus ἠμέν—ἠδέ mean "both—and," or "as in the first place, so in the second place."
562 Although dé is the proper and most usual antithesis to μév, other particles sometimes take its place when the opposition is intended to be more distinct. Thus we find Toûт' aλλo (Soph.
Ed. C. 605) and TOûT' avois (Id. Antig. 167) opposed to ToûTO μέν; and πλήν, γε μήν, ἀλλά, and ἀλλ' ὅμως are opposed to μέν alone.
563 Aé is often placed in a clause which is opposed to what precedes, although there may be no μév in the first clause (above, 390). This is particularly the case in the Platonic phrase Tò dé, which means "whereas, in truth," "whereas, on the contrary," quum tamen (see Heindorf, ad Theaetet. § 37).
564 If the same word or a synonym is repeated in the second clause, dé is also repeated, though there is no introductory pév; thus Soph. Ed. C. 1342:
ὥστ ̓ ἐν δόμοισι τοῖσι σοῖς στήσω σ ̓ ἄγων,
στήσω δ ̓ ἐμαυτόν.
565 We sometimes find that the introductory clause, which contains the μév, is, strictly speaking, dependent upon that which follows with the Sé. Thus in Demosth. Mid. p. 573, μn тoívvv av μὲν εἴπῃ τις παράνομα οὕτως ὀργιζόμενοι φαίνεσθε, ἂν δὲ ποιῇ μὴ λéyn πрaws diákelo0e, the meaning is "do not, while you give
such a manifestation of your anger in the case of illegal proposals, exhibit mildness of character in the case of those who act illegally without speaking:" for the orator certainly does not wish to deprecate the anger of the judges in the case of those who made illegal speeches.
566 Connected with this usage and the preceding, we find a double μév in the anterior or dependent clauses, followed by a double dé in the apodosis or quasi-apodosis. Thus in Plato (Apol. 28 E), deivà åv einv eipyaoμévos ei, öte μév μe oi äpxoVTES ŠTATTOV, τότε μὲν οὗ ἐκεῖνοι ἔταττον ἔμενον, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τάττοντος, ἐνταῦθα δὲ λίποιμι τὴν τάξιν, it is clear that the two sentences with μέν are dependent on those which follow with dé.
567 As a further result of the same usage, we find that dé sometimes stands, as it were, arbitrarily in the apodosis; as in Herod. v. 40: ἐπεὶ τοίνυν περιεχόμενόν σε ὁρέομεν τῆς ἔχεις γυναικός, σὺ δὲ ταῦτα ποίεε.
When μév stands by itself, without any corresponding dé, the latter, or some equivalent, is virtually implied, and μév looks forward to the completion of the sentence, just as oův looks back to what has been already said. Thus, when Socrates is going to catechize Meno's slave, he asks the master: "EXAηv μév éσтi kai éλλnvíče; "he is a Greek, I suppose, and talks Greek?" (Plat. Meno, p. 82 B); here an ei dè μn is obviously implied: “if he is not, he will not answer my purpose." This is particularly obvious in the combination μὲν οὖν. Thus, in the answer πάνυ μὲν οὖν, which is so common in the Platonic dialogues, there is a manifest suspension of part of the sentence: "you are right as to what you have said, but what follows?" (Tí & ETTEIтa;) So also in the corrective μèv ouv, where the main point is conceded, but some emphatic addition or correction is appended to the concession; thus in Esch. Ag. 1363,
τάδ ̓ ἂν δικαίως ἦν, ὑπερδίκως μὲν οὖν,
the justice is admitted, but its exceeding righteousness is proclaimed. And in the comical passage, Aristoph. Eq. 910,
ἀπομυξάμενος, ὦ Δῆμ ̓, ἐμοῦ πρὸς τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποψῶ,
the ἀλλαντοπώλης, by answering ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν, ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν, does not dissent from Kleon's servile proposal, but only wishes that the humble office may be transferred to himself.