# διελθεῖν



## soplamocos

Hi all, this is from Xen. Anab. 5.4.34:

τούτους ἔλεγον οἱ στρατευσάμενοι βαρβαρωτάτους *διελθεῖν *καὶ πλεῖστον τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν νόμων κεχωρισμένους

Here a translation: They were set down by the Greeks who served through the expedition, as the most uncivilized people *whose country they traversed*, the furthest removed from Greek customs.

In general, I understand the meaning of this phrase, but διελθεῖν is giving me some problems. I don't recognize well its sintax function.

I don't know if I should think it as a determinative infinitive  from βαρβαρωτάτους, like saying "the most barbarous *in the march/journey*", something similar to δεινὸς λέγειν 'skilled in speaking'?

Or, if it is some strange case of "_oración completiva_" (completive sentence? I don't know the proper word) where the subject must be replace:

οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον τούτους βαρβαρωτάτους [στρατευσάμενους] *διελθεῖν
*
The soldiers of the army call them the most barbarous that [they] walked by.

.


----------



## Perseas

soplamocos said:


> I don't know if I should think it as a determinative infinitive  from βαρβαρωτάτους, like saying "the most barbarous *in the march/journey*", something similar to δεινὸς λέγειν 'skilled in speaking'?


I think this infinitive depends on "βαρβαρωτάτους", indeed. In Greek it's called "απαρέμφατο της αναφοράς" (infinitive of reference?). Cf. "θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι", "a marvel to behold".


----------



## soplamocos

I have been thinking on this... and I change my mind or, at least, I have a new idea.

I would call "infinitive of finality" to "θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι" ('a marvel to behold'). But I don't think that's meaning here, because the στρατευσάμενοι are not going to travel by the βαρβαρωτάτους. Instead they have already traveled by them, and that's why they call them like that.

Generaly in Greek I would understand a structure with acusative+infinitive as 'oración completiva' (completive sentence?), where the acusative generaly is the subject of the verb, although sometimes it may be a direct object. However, I don't understand the sentece in that way.

I thought in a "relative sentence" (a "oración de relativo" in Spanish), but I don't know if this kind of strucutre may be in Greek without a realitive marker. A "relative sentence" is an adjetival structure.

Could be that *διελθεῖν *a sentence of this kind by itself? It have sense to me to understand it like that, but I don't know if it's right.

οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον τούτους βαρβαρωτάτους *διελθεῖν*
The ones that have serve in the army called them the most barbaric *that they had walk through*

I wrote the last part in black because I understand it as whole structure: a noun+an *adjetive* (*a relative sentence)*


----------



## Perseas

This is another thought of mine:

τούτους ἔλεγον οἱ στρατευσάμενοι βαρβαρωτάτους διελθεῖν

the Greeks who served through the expedition said about them that they (the Greeks) had crossed (the country of) the most barbaric


----------



## Scholiast

Χαἰρετε ὦ φίλοι

In English-language manuals of classical Greek grammar and syntax, this kind of infinitive is called 'epexegetic' (i.e. 'explanatory').

Unfortunately I have not the bulk of my own library near to hand at the moment, so I cannot offer chapter-and-verse. But soplamocos (in # 1) has essentially understood it correctly.

Compare modern English 'This is the hardest job _to do_', or 'the steepest mountain _to climb_'.

The difficulty in the specific passage here cited from Xenophon is made partly worse by the fact that in (Latin and) Greek, _peoples_ are sometimes referred to synonymously with the _territory they inhabit_(_ed_), as is the case here. 'They were the most savage people _to go through_' is shorthand for 'They were the most uncivilised people _through whose territory_ one had to march'.

I hope this helps a little.

Σ


----------



## ioanell

soplamocos said:


> In general, I understand the meaning of this phrase, but διελθεῖν is giving me some problems. I don't recognize well its sintax function.





Dear Soplamocos,

I think the reason that misled you in regard with the understanding of the passage is that you accepted the verb “ἔλεγον” as “called/named” (with object “τούτους” and “βαρβαρωτάτους” as predicate of “τούτους”) instead of just “said”.

In order that you better recognize the syntactical function of the infinitive "διελθεῖν" I suggest that you see the infinitive with its subject “οἱ στρατευσάμενοι”, its object “τούτους” and the predicate “βαρβαρωτάτους” as a transfer of the words that the Greek soldiers said into the reported speech. The “στρατευσάμενοι”, talking to each other, said (in direct speech): "Διήλθομεν τούτους βαρβαρωτάτους", that is "We crossed them (=these people) most barbaric" and in more widened renditions "We crossed them (being them) most barbaric" and "We crossed the most barbaric people".

In Xenophon's reported speech (_instead of the possible alternative reported speech construction with a subordinate determinative that+clause, such as_ _“οἱ_ _στρατευσάμενοι_ _ἔλεγον_ _ὅτι_ _τούτους_ _βαρβαρωτάτους_ _διέλθοιεν”_), after the reporting verb (or “verb of dependence” in Greek) “ἔλεγον” , the past tense verb “Διήλθομεν” of the direct speech was converted into the determinative ("ειδικό" in Greek) past tense infinitive “διελθεῖν”.

Anyway, having in mind Scholiast's correct observation that “in (Latin and) Greek, _peoples_ are sometimes referred to synonymously with the _territory they inhabit_(_ed_), as is the case here”, we can see that most (modern) translations of the passage interpret the comparatively more condensed ancient speech in a more broadened and analytical way, as e.g. in Perseus's “They were set down by the Greeks who served through the expedition, as the most uncivilized people whose country they traversed, ...”

τούτους ἔλεγον οἱ στρατευσάμενοι βαρβαρωτάτους διελθεῖν

or in a modern more easy word order:

οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον τούτους βαρβαρωτάτους διελθεῖν 

See relevant comment on the passage in _Xenophōntos ta sōizomena: De expeditione Cyri commentarii. Editio 2. curavit ...p.352_: “Βαρβαρώτατον δ’ ἔφασαν οἱ στρατιῶται τοῦτο τό ἔθνος διελθεῖν” (Miror, cur Xenophon) and specifically notice: “ἔφασαν”   

Therefore, taking all the above into account, I think that a satisfactory translation of the passage would be as follows:

 “ The ones (=Greek soldiers) who took part in the expedition said that they (=the Mossynoecians) were the most barbaric (=uncivilized) people (whose country) they (=the Greek soldiers) had ever traversed,…”.

I hope this helps a little more


Here are some very, very rough points of Ancient Greek syntax regarding the cases used as the verb’s and the infinitive’s subject and object. These points might be useful for eliminating certain relevant misunderstandings:

Verb‘s subject: always in the nominative case                                                                                                                                                                  Verb‘s direct object: either in genitive or dative or accusative case (according to the verb category)                                                                                              Verb‘s indirect object: either in genitive or dative or accusative case (according to the verb category)                                                                                          Infinitive’s subject: in nominative case when it is the same with the verb’s subject (ταυτοπροσωπία), whereas in accusative case when it is different (ετεροπροσωπία) 
Infinitive’s object: either in genitive or dative or accusative case (according to the original verb category)


----------



## soplamocos

I will thought about yours answers a little later, but I don't want to let pass time without thank you all for your answers.


----------



## Scholiast

With the greatest respect: soplamocos' original question was lapidary.

But I find ioanell's answer here (# 6) far too complicated. The sentence is actually quite simple. οἱ στρατευσάμενοι (the  men who campaigned) said (ἔλεγον) that these (τούτους) were the most savage (βαρβαροτωτἀτους) _to go through_ (διελθεῖν).

Have I missed something?

Σ


----------



## soplamocos

I understand the transformation from direct to indirect speech, and it's a good point. 
Once the subject of διελθεῖν is explicited the sentece is more understandable (at least to me). 

However, it keeps being little strange. I don't know well why, but it seems odd to me. 

Why use the infinitive instead of the conjugated form διῆλθον? Is it an exageration? (like saying this are the most barbaric that ever has been traversed?)

τούτους οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον βαρβαρωτάτους διῆλθον / διελθεῖν


----------



## dmtrs

I am reading the very interesting posts in this discussion all this time and the whole thing puzzled me too. Some interpretations seemed better than others to me, but Scholiast's answers seemed quite right. I believe they have not been completely understood though, so I would like to add a detail that might shed a better light.
The infinitive of reference (as I understand _διελθεῖν _the whole time) does not connect to _στρατευσάμενοι _as its subject, but to _τινά_ (omitted, as it frequently is)_;_ therefore the translation is:
The soldiers said these were the most barbaric people (who's land) *one *could pass through...
(Note that the past infinitive is not necessarily linked with past time; it merely indicates a non continuous/repeated action.)


----------



## Perseas

Probably, "διελθεῖν" is what we call in Greek "απαρέμφατο της αναφοράς". I agree with dmtrs, and this was also my initial thought in #2.


soplamocos said:


> [...]like saying this are the most barbaric that ever has been traversed?


 Or the most barbaric to traverse.

Infinitives, which in Greek are called "της αναφοράς" ("of reference"), are used with adjectives that denote a quality or an ability. Those infinitives modify the meaning of the adjective.
For example: _Ἱκανός *λέγειν*.
Ἦν δέ ὁ Θεμιστοκλῆς μᾶλλον ἑτέρου ἄξιος *θαυμάσαι*._ (Themistocles was the most worthy of all to admire).
_Οἱ γάρ ἐν σοφοῖς φαῦλοι, παρ᾿ ὄχλῳ μουσικώτεροι *λέγειν*. _(Those who are of no account among the wise are often more inspired speakers before the mob).


soplamocos said:


> τούτους οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον βαρβαρωτάτους διῆλθον


No, it wouldn't be correct.
You could say, for example, "τούτους οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον βαρβαρωτάτους, *ὧν/ὅσων τήν χώραν διῆλθον*" (cf. the most uncivilized people *whose country they traversed*).


----------



## Scholiast

Ὦ φίλοι

Sirs, ladies: I think I have tracked down the root of the problem here. soplamocos, the OP, is a native Spanish speaker ('rioplatense'). Indirect speech in Spanish is almost always introduced by the conjunction 'que', and the concept of an Accusative subject for a subordinate clause is alien to Spanish altogether.
But older (like me) users of English will recognise the formulation:
'I believe *him *[Acc.] *to be* [Infin.] a fine cricketer'.
That takes care of the Indirect Speech issue (which schoolboys had to wrestle with for generations, when studying Latin or classical Greek).

But the 'epexegetic' Infin., like διελθεῖν here, is almost completely unknown in the Romance-legacy languages, though (oddly) familiar enough in English: 'it's hard *to do*', 'this is a risky thing *to undertake*' &c.

Σ


----------



## Perseas

Scholiast said:


> But the 'epexegetic' Infin., like διελθεῖν here, is almost completely unknown in the Romance-legacy languages, though (oddly) familiar enough in English: 'it's hard *to do*', 'this is a risky thing *to undertake*' &c.
> 
> Σ


Hello Scholiast

The same applies to Modern Greek. This type of infinitive doesn't exist in M.G., except for some rare set-phrases borrowed from the ancient language. It's not easy for a Greek to comprehend the function of "t*o do*" as an infinitive in ''it's hard *to do*''.


----------



## soplamocos

Oh, yes, in Spanish the indirect speech is almost always with 'que', and an acusative subject is also infrecuent, but I have found some examples of it in a spanish Greek grammar (which by the way also put some examples in English with 'to do'). I understand -or I belive understand- that use. A couple of examples of that grammar:

δίκαιος εἶναι μᾶλλον χρεστός ὁ σοφὸς ἔθελε
El sabio quería ser más justo que bénevolo [from Greek to Spanish]
The wise wanted to be more just than benevolent [from Spanish to English]

ἔξεστι σοι ἀγαθῷ γενέσθαι
Te es posible ser bueno.
It's possible to you to be good.

But what is really, completly, strange to Spanish is to have different kinds of infinitive. In Spanish there is only one to each verb, without changes by aspect or voice. One and only one. To have more is madness. I feel like a character of _Asterix _saying "these  R̶o̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ Greeks are crazy" 

And to have an aorist infinitive in that kind of structure (which in my head I usually translate as 'finality') is just a no sense to me, as I wrote in #3. I think that my problem with διελθεῖν is there.
I have look for a good explanation of this difference between the two spanish Greek grammar that I have, but couldn't find any (didn't check the english Greek grammars)  I think that I will have do some research about this.


----------



## soplamocos

soplamocos said:


> I feel like a character of _Asterix _saying "these  R̶o̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ Greeks are crazy"



I just remembered a joke of one of my teachers:

"Greek is an illogic language, where _σύν _means _con"
_
σύν sounds like Spanish '_sin_' (=without) and '_con_' is 'with'


----------



## Scholiast

saluete, especially Perseas and soplamacos
As dmtrs (Demetrios?) observed:


dmtrs said:


> (...the past infinitive is not necessarily linked with past time; it merely indicates a non continuous/repeated action...)


In classical Greek (this was drilled into me 50+ years ago) only in the indicative mood is any sense of time involved: infinitives, subjunctives and optative forms indicate aspect rather than tense. So διελθεῖν (as opposed to the 'present' tense διέρχεσθαι) will indicate a single, completed event (even in the future), as opposed to a continuous or repeated action, irrespective of when it takes place.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, there are no modern western European languages with similar conjugated forms for 'past' infinitives, though I believe some Slavic tongues still possess them.
Sadly, I am without my copy of Smyth's excellent _Grammar_ of classical Greek (1920) at the moment, but as soon as I can re-connect with it, I'll report back again.
Σ


----------



## Perseas

Hello to all again



soplamocos said:


> And to have an aorist infinitive in that kind of structure (which in my head I usually translate as 'finality') is just a no sense to me, as I wrote in #3. I think that my problem with διελθεῖν is there.


I think I understand what you say about the tense of διελθεῖν.
In "ὁ Θεμιστοκλῆς μᾶλλον ἑτέρου ἄξιος *θαυμάσαι*"_, _although "θαυμάσαι" an aorist infinitive, it's not difficult to understand that the phrase has a general meaning and doesn't refer to the past.
But in "τούτους ἔλεγον οἱ στρατευσάμενοι βαρβαρωτάτους *διελθεῖν*", it's not that easy again, considering that the soldiers have already gone through the most barbarian people. Also, the English translation is "as the most uncivilized people *whose country they traversed*", and it doesn't help to see that "διελθεῖν" does not refer to an action that took place in the past.


----------



## ioanell

Hello everybody,



soplamocos said:


> διελθεῖν is giving me some problems. I don't recognize well its sintax function.



My “far too complicated” answer in post # 6 above was mainly targeted at explaining the presence and the syntactical function of the infinitive “διελθεῖν”, an infinitive which caused a little puzzlement to Soplamocos, as he himself admitted above.



soplamocos said:


> τούτους οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον βαρβαρωτάτους διῆλθον


Such construction is incorrect and impossible in Ancient Greek.



soplamocos said:


> Why use the infinitive instead of the conjugated form διῆλθον?



Here I am just trying to explain why “διελθεῖν”: Xenophon  (or whoever else), who learned what the Greek soldiers had said, for reporting their words "Διήλθομεν τούτους βαρβαρωτάτους" in his writings and as long as the main verb (“verb of dependence” in Greek / “introducing verb” in English) of the reported speech was “ἔλεγον”,  (that is past tense), (he) had just two options (we take it or not, that was the Ancient Greek syntax): either use a subordinate determinative clause (with introductory conjunction “that”) the verb of which would be in the past tense of the optative and NOT of the indicative mood, that is “διέλθοιεν” and NOT “διῆλθον”, such as:

“οἱ στρατευσάμενοι ἔλεγον ὅτι τούτους βαρβαρωτάτους _(implied subject: οἱ_ _στρατευσάμενοι)_ διέλθοιεν”

or use a determinative past tense infinitive, as he finally did, such as:

“τούτους ἔλεγον οἱ στρατευσάμενοι βαρβαρωτάτους _(implied subject of the infinitive: οἱ_ _στρατευσάμενοι and NOT in the accusative "τούς στρατευσαμένους")_ διελθεῖν”

Either of these two alternative constructions would exactly give the same meaning.

As for the translation, an English translation reading more or less “the men who served through the expedition said that these people were the most barbarian (=uncivilized) _to traverse”_, uses a type of infinitive (“epexegetical”) which implies that something is possible to take place from the moment one is speaking on, a potential action in the present or the future, and this would be correct if we really believe that the Greek soldiers did not narrate their own experience and after what they saw and heard, sat to vaguely philosophise about a possible future event, about what an experience of crossing the Mossynoecians’ land might be. Undoutedly, the past infinitive is not necessarily linked with past time, but here Xenophon, with his past tense infinitive, describes what really happened in the past, a real fact. Be sure that all modern translations, some by eminent scholars, translations generally accepted, do not substantially differ from the one offered by “Perseus”, rendering “διελθεῖν” as something which really took place in the past.


----------



## dmtrs

(Response to ioanell's last comment.)
I (of course) totally agree with your second point.
But in your third one I think you are not taking into consideration the possibility the original phrase (in direct speech) might have been:
ΟΥΤΟΙ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΩΤΑΤΟΙ ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ
Therefore in indirect speech it would be:
ΟΙ ΣΤΡΑΤΕΥΣΑΜΕΝΟΙ ΕΛΕΓΟΝ ΤΟΥΤΟΥΣ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΩΤΑΤΟΥΣ (ΕΙΝΑΙ) ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ
In such a case ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ would remain unaltered, in form and in function, having always been an infinitive of reference; its subject would be ΤΙΝΑ and it would not refer to the past but to a possible future (in both sentences).
(Excuse my capitals, I used them as a means to avoid accents.)


----------



## ioanell

Dear dmtrs

After a relatively long absence from this interesting forum, I am here just to add a few last words concerning your view that the original phrase might have been: ΟΥΤΟΙ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΩΤΑΤΟΙ ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ and in indirect speech: ΟΙ ΣΤΡΑΤΕΥΣΑΜΕΝΟΙ ΕΛΕΓΟΝ ΤΟΥΤΟΥΣ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΩΤΑΤΟΥΣ (ΕΙΝΑΙ) ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ. This  possibility means that Xenophon, by depriving the reporting verb ΕΛΕΓΟΝ of its object ΕΙΝΑΙ and leaving just an infinitive of reference dominate his sentence, did not narrate the experience of the Greek soldiers itself, but simply cited their view about what an experience of crossing the Mossynoecians’ land might be. This, of course, shows that the content of the sentence does not describe the past, but generally refers to a future possibility. An absolutely respected view, if we accept that this was Xenophon’s intention, a view difficult for me to adopt. But could it be that way? Anyway, the field is open to different explanations as well and this is very good.

It was very nice that quite a number of fellow WordReferencers showed interest in, and followed this slightly controversial issue of the infinitive “διελθεῖν”.


----------



## dmtrs

I agree with you, ioanell. 
My point was, as you also say, we should take all (reasonable) _possibilities_ into account, excluding none. 
Only Xenophon would know for sure what he meant to say.


----------

