# Ancient Greek: I know the road



## siri_iris

Θελω να πω: “I know the road even when I don’t know” στα αρχαία ελληνικά.

My attempts:

A) Γιγνώσκω την ὁδό ἀκμή καί ὅταν οὐ γιγνώσκω
Β) Γιγνώσκω την ὁδό ἀκμή καί ὅταν οὐδείς την γιγνώσκω
Γ) Γιγνώσκω την ὁδό ἀκμή καί ὅταν οὐδείς γιγνώσκω

Οποιοσδήποτε ακούγεται πιο φυσικό, ευχαριστώ εκ των προτέρων!


----------



## Perseas

siri_iris said:


> Θελω να πω: “I know the road even when I don’t know” στα αρχαία ελληνικά.



A suggestion:
Γιγνώσκω τήν ὁδόν κἄν μή γιγνώσκω.


----------



## Scholiast

Χαῖρετ' ὦ φίλοι

For Classical Greek:

Think οἶδα τὴν ὁδόν, κἂν μὴ εἶδον.

Σ

Watch out, Perseas, for the changing accent!
Sorry, you are a great contributor!


----------



## Perseas

Hello Scholiast,

the verb οἶδα is a better choice, maybe, but shouldn't it be εἰδῶ (subjunctive) instead of εἶδον (aor. of  ὁρῶ) ?


----------



## Scholiast

ὦ φίλοι


Perseas said:


> the verb οἶδα is a better choice, maybe, but shouldn't it be εἰδῶ (subjunctive) instead of εἶδον (aor. of ὁρῶ) ?


Yes, this is certainly feasible, in the sense 'even if I could never see it before'
But for Classical Greek, although maybe I don't have the same 'feel' for the language as has Perseas (who starts with an advantage!), I'll stick with what I suggested, not least because aorist indicative verbs in the classical tongue (I was, and have, taught) can still bear counterfactual senses.
Σ


----------



## bearded

Scholiast said:


> κἂν μὴ εἶδον.


I think that Perseas's question was of purely syntactical nature (and I have the same...doubt): did  κἄν μή not require/govern the subjunctive mood in ancient Greek?
That 'kan' should be contracted (krasis) from 'kaì eán', which was constructed with subjunctive..


----------



## ioanell

siri_iris said:


> even when I don’t know



Ίσως θα μπορούσες να βοηθηθείς περισσότερο στην αναζήτησή σου, εάν η δευτερεύουσα πρόταση “even when I don’t know” γινόταν λίγο πιο σαφής. Μήπως θα μπορούσε να αναδιατυπωθεί ως “although I haven’t seen it”;



Scholiast said:


> Think οἶδα τὴν ὁδόν, κἂν μὴ εἶδον.



I think Scholiast’s “κἂν μὴ εἶδον” clause - although not syntactically correct - by using the verb "εἶδον" renders the correct sense, with which I agree. (see above). That’s for *siri_iris* to confirm or not.



bearded said:


> did κἄν μή not require/govern the subjunctive mood in ancient Greek?
> That 'kan' should be contracted (krasis) from 'kaì eán', which was constructed with subjunctive..



Absolutely correct. (κἂν<καί ἂν)


----------



## Perseas

siri_iris said:


> Θελω να πω: “I know the road *even when I don’t know*” στα αρχαία ελληνικά.
> [...]
> A) Γιγνώσκω την ὁδό *ἀκμή καί ὅταν οὐ γιγνώσκω*


 In Modern Greek it would be "Γνωρίζω την οδό/τον δρόμο, *ακόμη και όταν δεν την/τον γνωρίζω*", which looks so much alike with your attempt. Apparently you have confused (a little) Modern and Classical Greek. 



ioanell said:


> “although I haven’t seen it”


 Καλή σκέψη, αλλά η siri_iris ζήτησε τη μετάφραση του "even when I don't know".
'Οταν το διάβασα, θυμήθηκα το γνωστό "οὐ μέ πείσεις, κἄν μέ πείσῃς"! Μπορεί σκοπίμως να επιδίωκε την επανάληψη του ρήματος.


----------



## Scholiast

Καλημἐρα ὦ φίλοι!


Perseas said:


> shouldn't it be εἰδῶ (subjunctive) instead of εἶδον (aor. of ὁρῶ)?





ioanell said:


> “κἂν μὴ εἶδον” clause - although not syntactically correct - by using the verb "εἶδον" renders the correct sense



Still without access to my classical Greek syntax 'bible', Herbert Smyth's _Greek Grammar for Colleges_ (1920), I cannot easily check this. But from school days I seem to recall that remote, i.e. unfulfilled, conditions in the past ('If x had (not) happened, y would have...'), whether introduced with εί or ἐάν, including the contracted κἂν (μή), used the aorist indicative in both protasis and apodosis.

If this is wrong, I am only too happy to be corrected, and grateful. My Latin has always been better than my Greek!

Σ


----------



## ioanell

Hi Scholiast,



Scholiast said:


> remote, i.e. unfulfilled, conditions in the past ('If x had (not) happened, y would have...'), whether introduced with εί or ἐάν, including the contracted κἂν (μή), used the aorist indicative in both protasis and apodosis.



I’m not aware of Herbert Smyth's _Greek Grammar for Colleges (1920)_, but the conditions you are referring to are of the 2nd type (according to the standard classification), they denote something unreal (that is something unfulfilled, something which did not happen in the past), they are only introduced by “εἰ” and can have any past tense (not only aorist) of the indicative in the “ὑπόθεσις” and potential indicative (that is any past tense accompanied by the particle “ἄν”) in the “ἀπόδοσις”.



Scholiast said:


> Think οἶδα τὴν ὁδόν, κἂν μὴ εἶδον.



I’m afraid you interpreted the sentence as conditional, reading “οἶδα” as “εἶδον”, i.e. you read “I saw even if I did not see”. But “οἶδα” as you probably know means “I know” and the compound sentence here is not a conditional one, but a compound sentence consisting of a main clause + a dependent concessional clause introduced by the concession conjunction “κἂν”. In your sentence you used “οἶδα” (=I know) in the main clause, and “εἶδον” (=I saw), the aorist of the verb "ὁρῶ" (=I see), in the dependent one.



Scholiast said:


> εί or ἐάν, including the contracted κἂν



Condition conjunctions ἐάν, ἂν, ἢν and Concession conjunctions  ἂν (ἢν, ἐάν) καί, καί ἂν (→κἂν) only go with the subjunctive; that’s why Perseas suggested that you should have written “εἰδῶ”, i.e, the subjunctive of “οἶδα”, because of the introducing “κἂν”.



Scholiast said:


> protasis and apodosis



The dependent clause is called “ὑποθετική πρότασις” or simply  “ὑπόθεσις” and the main clause, which is defined by “ὑπόθεσις”, is called “ἀπόδοσις”, as you correctly say. The two clauses together make the “ὑποθετικός λόγος” (=conditional).

I hope the above have clarified some points.


----------

