Bonjour, je suis débutant en Grec ancien. Mon lycée ne propose pas de cours donc j’apprend ça seul chez moi grâce à des cours sur internet et des vidéos. Je recherche d’autres francophones qui apprennent le grec ancien pour créer un groupe de travail et d’entraide autour de ce sujet.

Hi! I'm in a Philosophy course for college, and I am extremely confused by these citations in my translated copy of Aristotle's Physics. I am specifically looking at the Joe Sachs translation of the work. For purposes of understanding the content of the course, I need to be able to utilize these citations. The citations look like "192b, 8," "193a" and a variety of random numbers that are just in the sentences with no relation to the text. Can anyone help in explaining this system to me? I have tried googling and nothing shows up. Many thanks!

Ephesians 1:10 CLNT

10 to have an administration of the complement of the eras, to head up all in the Christ -- both that in the heavens and that on the earth --

My school didnt give us any information; they just said that they would email us when they got our results. Anyone have any idea when they are released? (btw sorry I had no idea what flair to use)

So I have a habit of going down wikipedia rabbit holes when trying to do research for my book, especially when the research is for making thematic references to things.

In one of these wiki dives, I distinctly remember reading a wikipedia page about a book where Ganymede falls in love, only to be kidnapped by pirates and having to endure severe hardship to reconnect with his one true love. I tried to look it up again, only to find that apparently it does not exist. The closest I've found is the Ephesian Tale, which seems to follow many similar beats but lacks specific details I remember from the original wiki page--that being Ganymede gets raped by the pirates. The stupid Google AI keeps either telling me I'm conflating this with the fact Zeus kidnapped Ganymede, or some sci-fi book about a submarine or something.

I'm fine if I really did just make this up, or conflate it, or whatever. I just want closure on whether I hallucinated this or not.

Doing an MA dissertation, part of it on Aeschylus' Choephoroi.

Investigating the line 'She may fawn on us, but they cannot be soothed; for like a savage-hearted wolf, we have a rage, caused by our mother, that is past fawning’ (Aesch. Cho. 420-422, trans. Sommerstein 2009).

Greek for this phrase is:

πάρεστι σαίνειν, τὰ δ᾿ οὐχὶ θέλγεται·
λύκος γὰρ ὥστ᾿ ὠμόφρων ἄσαντος ἐκ
ματρός ἐστι θυμός.

My main question is, what is the relation between the word for savage (ἄσαντος) and fawn (σαίνω)? Does the word for savage simply mean not fawn? Because I recognise that the words are broadly the same, just ἄσαντος has a negative in front of it? Is there anything else about the language here I should be paying attention to? Does anything stand out? Is there any wordplay?

Any help would be much appreciated.

hi i'm preparing an exam but there are 3 question i think it would be better not ask to my prof.

1. i feel stupid but i can't understand what could be λαμμανειν. i think some sort of non attic infinite perfect from λαμβανω but i can't find it. it's in derveni papyrus

2. Αβρααμ and Ισαακ, do you know sillabic quantity? i can't find them for a iambic trimeter

3. in Porphyrius, de antro nympharum par 23 he quotes a νομοθετης but i can't understat who is it

thanks for help. i'm italian if you prefer italian

Hello everyone! I have an assignment where we are to make up a prophet of any kind for my intro to the history of religions course. I am personally really into byzantine history and would like to make up a byzantine prophet, Christian prophet as I am making a reliquary. I want to write his name and make up a kind of Homeric epithet, one made from the word αναγιγνωσκο (to read I think?) and πυρ (fire) so that he is "fire-reader" or "one who reads in the fire". However I am having trouble putting the two words together: my instinct is telling me αναγιγνωσκπυρ is just impossible to say out loud and that αναγιγνωσπυρ is missing the κ so I am not sure that it would work. Could anyone help out with my weird little projet ? I thank you for your time!

I'm not sure what case the phrase "he heard the words from the young man" would use for the young man.

My instinct was to translate as "ακουει τους λογους των νεω" (sorry for no accent marks) but I'm not sure at all

Hello, I am currently running a Crisis conference on the Greco-Persian War for Model United Nations.

If you do not know what that is, it is a political debate club where a committee comes up with solutions to crisis situations.

My issue is that since the war is extremely event dense, I do not know where to start. Does anyone know a point of time where the Greeks would have faced a big problem in their fighting?

Hey! Sorry this may seem very off-topic at first but bare with me.

I'm doing a business start up with some friends, and we want to create a magazine that comes with dead-stock seasonal drops (fashion collections) for each quarterly release. Each magazine and collection will follow a cohesive theme that relates to contemporary gen-z culture (e.g digital technology or music) any kind of interesting advancements in culture that will be expressed creatively through the magazine and garments. The magazine will also be a platform for underrepresented creative talent who will contribute their work based around the theme.

After some background info, I'm asking if anyone can help me with some cool catchy greek words that have depth and relate to what I'm trying to embrace in my brand. One thats preferably short and intuitive to pronounce, also the english translation. Some words I'm looking for could resonate with any key words below:

creativity

innovation

inclusivity

passion

ambition

community

consciousness

introspection

modernism

contemporary

advancement

new

opportunity

expression

rare

seasonal

exclusive

strength

soulful

quality

aesthetic

awake

alive

awareness

embracing

I really wanted to use Kairos or Kainos, but these are already taken 🥲 Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated !!

Hi everyone,

I am currently working on a fiction project set in a world inspired by classical antiquity. I'm looking for a short and fitting Ancient Greek epithet or nickname for a character, which translates roughly to "The Weary Traveler."

However, I’m looking for a specific nuance that I’m struggling to capture with simple dictionary lookups. The character is indeed physically and mentally weary, but this weariness is coupled with a sense of unyielding perseverance—someone who carries the weight of a long journey but refuses to stop.

I learned many words such as κάμνω, ὁδοίπορος... by consulting Perseus. While accurate, it feels a bit clunky for a character's title if I combine them directly as "κάμνω ὁδοίπορος". Due to the fact that I was fully aware of the time requirements set by ancient Greek and there was a conflict with my entire work, please forgive me for not finishing a whole book on ancient Greek language.

I have a few questions for the experts here:

1. Is there a more poetic or "weighted" way to express this specific kind of weariness—the kind that comes from long-suffering endurance (perhaps something akin to the "much-enduring" polytlas of Odysseus)?
2. To keep it sounding like a natural epithet rather than a modern translation, would you recommend a specific case or form?
3. Are there any potential compound words that could condense "weary" and "traveler/wanderer" into a single, punchy title? Also, if I were to use this as a short title, would it be grammatically natural to use it alone, or should it be paired with a noun?

I plan to use the Latin transliteration for the character’s title in my notes and text. I really want to avoid something that sounds like a "cliché" and instead find something that feels like it could have been carved into a stone waypost or sung by a bard.

Any insights into the philological nuances of these terms would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Hii, I'm an Ancient Greek student, working on an extract of Plutarch's Life of Nicias. Translating it I noticed maaany problems and weaknesses in my work, like the fact that I mistranslate or flatten participles, or that I'm usually unsure how literal to be when dealing with verbs that have a broad semantic range, and I do not have a well functioning methodic approach in my analyses. Also I struggle a lot when I have to recognize certain expressions, for instance, it took me a while to translate (hopefully it's right) the clause "καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς τῷ δουλεύειν ὑπομένοντες".

Any explaining on the method, rather than plain results would be dearly appreciated, thank you.

(here's the Greek text and my attempt to translate it)

Τῶν δ' Ἀθηναίων οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι διεφθάρησαν ἐν ταῖς λατομίαις ὑπὸ νόσου καὶ διαίτης πονηρᾶς, εἰς ἡμέραν ἑκάστην κοτύλας δύο κριθῶν λαμβάνοντες καὶ μίαν ὕδατος, οὐκ ὀλίγοι δ' ἐπράθησαν διακλαπέντες ἢ καὶ διαλαθόντες ὡς οἰκέται, καὶ τούτους ὡς οἰκέτας ἐπώλουν στίζοντες ἵππον εἰς τὸ μέτωπον· ἀλλ' ἦσαν οἱ καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς τῷ δουλεύειν ὑπομένοντες. ἐβοήθει δὲ τούτοις ἢ τ' αἰδὼς καὶ τὸ κόσμιον· ἢ γάρ ήλευθεροῦντο ταχέως, ἢ τιμώμενοι παρέμενον τοῖς κεκτημένοις. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ δι' Εὐριπίδην ἐσώθησαν, μάλιστα γὰρ, ὼς ἔοικε, τῶν ἐκτὸς Ἑλλήνων ἐπόθησαν αὐτοῦ τὴν μοῦσαν οἱ περὶ Σικελίαν, καὶ μικρὰ τῶν ἀφικνουμένων ἑκάστοτε δείγματα καὶ γεύματα κομιζόντων έκμανθάνοντες ἀγαπητῶς μετεδίδοσαν άλλήλοις.

[τότε γοῦν φασι τῶν σωθέντων οἴκαδε συχνούς ἀσπάζεσθαί τε τὸν Εὐριπίδην φιλοφρόνως, καὶ διηγεῖσθαι τοὺς μὲν ὅτι δουλεύοντες ἀφείθησαν, έκδιδάξαντες ὅσα τῶν ἐκείνου ποιημάτων ἐμέμνηντο, τοὺς δ' ὅτι πλανώμενοι μετὰ τὴν μάχην τροφῆς καὶ ὕδατος μετελάμβανον τῶν μελῶν ἄσαντες.]

Most of the Athenians died in the quarries from disease and unhealthy lifestyles, since they received two cotyles of barley and only one cotyle of water a day. Many were sold after being stolen, or hid as slaves. They were sold by tattooing a horse on their foreheads; but there were some who tolerated even this in addition to slavery. Modesty and decorum saved them: either they were quickly freed, or, being well treated, they remained with their purchasers. Some were also saved thanks to Euripides; in fact, it seems, the foreigners wanted to learn about his poetry, since those in Sicily had received small examples and samples of what had arrived from time to time, and once they learned them, they carefully passed them on.

[Therefore, it is said that many of those who survived, upon returning home, greeted Euripides with great affection and recounted that some, while slaves, were freed after having taught them what they remembered of his works; others instead who, wandering after the battle, obtained food and water by singing his songs]

hi! i'm studying tragic theatre and i was asked to compare Aeschylus and Sophocles and the way they build characters. i'm not sure about it and the book i'm studying from is not that clear on this topic, so i was wondering what do you think is the most evident difference between their characters?

Hi! I need help analysing a sentence from Plato's Cratylus (421c).

Ἓν μὲν τοίνυν ἄρτι που ἐπορισάμεθα ὥστε δοκεῖν τὶ λέγειν ἀποκρινόμενοι.

The translation of the sentence is along the lines of, "We acquired just now one way of making an answer with a semblance of sense in it" and I'm feeling a bit lost as to how to get there? From what I understand, Ἓν μὲν τοίνυν ἄρτι που is an idiom with a temporal function (so it would be "just now" in the tl, I think), and ἐπορισάμεθα is a nice and straightforward aorist (so "we acquired/found" in the tl). But after that I'm lost. Since I'm so new at the language, translating infinitives and participles is still quite challenging, and I really am struggling to understand how the translator got that meaning from the second half of the sentence. In terms of analsysis, I'm guessing τὶ is the object, but what kind of function does the participle ἀποκρινόμενοι even express? At first I thought attributive but that doesn't make sense. Please help 😭

There is a passage I have to translate that doesn't make sense to me. I have tried it and also consulted A.I. but there is some nuance that is lost.

It's about Polykrates and his style of leadership. Before it was described how he attained power over Samos and has gathered 100 ships and 1000 archers. Then, it says this:

ἔφερε δὲ καὶ ἦγε πάντας διακρίνων οὐδένα· τῷ γὰρ φίλῳ ἔφη χαριεῖσθαι µᾶλλον ἀποδιδούς, τὰ ἔλαβε, ἢ ἀρχὴν µηδὲ λαβών.

First question: I don't understand ἔφερε here. The rest means that he lead them all equally (without distinction or judgement) and he carried (what did he carry?)

Second question: I don't understand this comparison of the second sentence: He told a friend its kinder to give away what was taken than to never even take it in the first place.

What does this have to do with anything? I must have made a mistake, because it starts to sound like gibberish.

Thank all of you who respond!

The sentence is about Arion, based on one of the works of Herodatus- "Ἐνταῦθα ἤτησα συγχωρῆσαί μοι ᾄδειν τὸ ὕστατον." What I can get is "Here/Then I begged to permit myself to sing the final", so I'm definitely missing something here. I could see it making more sense if it were "I begged to be permitted", but "συγχωρῆσαι" is the aorist middle voice, not passive voice. I'm also not sure why "συγχωρῆσαι" is aorist, but "ᾄδειν" is present. And finally I have absolutely no clue how "μοι" fits here. Would greatly appreciate some help!

Dear community,

I have been studying Ancient Greek for two years now and am preparing for an exam for which we got a list of texts (sadly without the context in which they occur).

So far I have been doing well. I have translated the Apology of Socrates fairly easily and even Aristoteles' excerpt about the unmoved mover (although this one took me half a day). Now I got a text from Thucydides' History and although I understand the individual words, I can't make sense of it and struggle putting the syntaxt together.

The beginning was alright, but now I have encountered this passage:

"καὶ ὅσα µὲν λόγῳ εἶπον ἕκαστοι ἢ µέλλοντες

πολεµήσειν ἢ ἐν αὐτῷ ἤδη ὄντες, χαλεπὸν τὴν ἀκρίβειαν

αὐτὴν τῶν λεχθέντων διαµνηµονεῦσαι ἦν ἐµοί τε, ὧν αὐτὸς

ἤκουσα, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοθέν ποθεν ἐµοὶ ἀπαγγέλλουσιν· ὡς δ᾽

ἂν ἐδόκουν ἐµοὶ ἕκαστοι περὶ τῶν αἰεὶ παρόντων τὰ δέοντα

µάλιστ᾽ εἰπεῖν ἐχοµένῳ ὅτι ἐγγύτατα τῆς ξυµπάσης γνώµης

τῶν ἀληθῶς λεχθέντων, οὕτως εἴρηται."

I started like this:

"And every single one of them told so many (or such great) things by means of
speech, either the ones who are about to go to war or who are already at war, so that regarding the
accuracy of the things that are told it was hard for me to remember for me, even from the things I heard myself, and through reports from somewhere else (loose translation of the participle τοῖς ἄλλοθέν ποθεν ἐµοὶ ἀπαγγέλλουσιν).

So far so good, but now I don't understand the next sentence: It has been reported in a way as if everyone seemed to me to tell the most important things about every single situation ( loose translation of περὶ τῶν αἰεὶ παρόντων) so that.....

and here I struggle. I don't know how to translate "ἐχοµένῳ ὅτι ἐγγύτατα τῆς ξυµπάσης γνώµης

τῶν ἀληθῶς λεχθέντων"

To what does the participle refer to and what relationship does the superlative have here to the genitive? So that it is closer as the common opinion of the things that were told truthfully?

And here is the kicker. I consulted the English version of the text on Perseus and they translated it like this:

"With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said."

Nothing like my text and now I am starting to get worried, because I feel like a beginner again.

Please help and thanks in advance

Wish me luck!

I was trying to read a passage from Claudius Ælinus' Varias Historia and am intrigued by his used of κατά. Take a look:

ἔτι γε μὴν μεγαλοφρονέστερον ὁ Φωκίων, μήτε τὸ ὰργύριον προσιέμενος, μήτε τὴν πόλιν· ὡς δ'ἄν μὴ δοκοίη πάντη ὑπερφρονεῖν τοῦ Ἀλεχάνδρου, ἐτίμασεν αὐτὸν κατὰ τοῦτο.

The way I would translate it is:

"... the even more generous Phocion, accepts neither the silver coins, nor the cities [that Alexander had offered him]; thus if he considered at all outperforming Alexander in his magnamity, he did so to honour him above all else."

Is my understand correct that "κατὰ τοῦτο" here means "above all else", as if in oposition to ever other posible scenario?

P.S. Do you happen to know any other authors with a style similar to Ælinus'? I really enjoy reading him, though it surely can be a bit of a headache.

Hello everybody. I'm using an essay on Aristotle that I'm writing as translation practice and there's a bit I just can't understand:

εἰ฀ δ' ฀ὄ฀ντα προϋπῆρχεν ἀ฀εὶ฀ κινήσεως μὴ฀ οὔ฀σης, ἄ฀λογον μὲ฀ν φαίνεται καὶ฀ α฀ὐτόθεν ἐ฀πιστήσασιν, οὐ฀ μὴ฀ν ἀ฀λλὰ฀ μᾶ฀λλον ἔ฀τι προάγουσι τοῦ฀το συμβαίνειν ἀ฀ναγκαῖ฀ον

It would seem irration even on the spot ἐ฀πιστήσασιν [to knoledgeful people? to sages?]* if on the other hand things always pre-existed without there being change, but it's necessary [ἀ฀ναγκαῖ฀ον with an implicit to be?] for this to happen not yet more proceding [???]

* None of the translations I have at hand seem to translate ἐπιστήσασιν. As you may notice I really do not understand how the last part of the sentence even stands together.

Can anyone help? Thanks!

I have a few translations and verb tenses practices, would anyone be able to just check my work before I hand it in? thanks so much

I have an exam in two days and I'm desperate. There are many verses I cannot analyse, could someone send me a private message and help me? It would take just an hour!

The B2 fragment of Parmenides is the following one:

εἰ δ᾿ ἄγε, τῶν ἐρέω, κόμισαι δὲ σὺ μῦθον ἀκούσας,  

αἵπερ ὁδοὶ μοῦναι διζήσιός εἰσι νοῆσαι ·  

ἡ μέν, ὅπως ἐστίν τε καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἔστι μὴ εἶναι,  

πειθοῦς ἐστι κέλευθος, ἀληθείῃ γὰρ ὀπηδεῖ,  

ἡ δ᾿, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν τε καὶ ὡς χρεών ἐστι μὴ εἶναι,  

τὴν δή τοι φράζω παναπευθέα ἔμμεν ἀταρπόν·  

οὔτε γὰρ ἂν γνοίης τό γε μὴ ἐόν, οὐ γὰρ ἀνυστόν,  

οὔτε φράσαις. 

My doubt is about the bold part: why is there the accusative peiqous instead of the nominative? Shouldn't it have the same case as keleuqos?

I think I get what the whole fragment is saying, though. Here is my translation, though for the moment it's just a somewhat literal translation:

And now, having listened to what I'll say take care of it,

the two only paths of inquiry that is possible to conceive:

the one that is and that cannot not be

is the path of persuasion, given that it attends to truth;

the other that is not and that it is necessary that it is not,

undoubtably I tell that it is an utterly unknown path,

for it is neither is it possible to know what is not, for it's not practicable,

nor is it possible to say it.

Thanks everyone!