Genitive Absolute and Aorist Aspect in an Unseen Translation
Maria is preparing a 40-line translation for the MATSEC AM Greek paper. The unseen passage begins: Ἐπεὶ δὲ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοὺς πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλαν, οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, οὐδεμιᾶς φυλακῆς οὔσης, τὴν χώραν ἐδῄωσαν. She produces: 'When the Athenians sent the ambassadors, the Spartans, since there was no guard, ravaged the country.' Her teacher marks two issues: she has taken οὐδεμιᾶς φυλακῆς οὔσης as a causal clause, but the participle could be concessive; and she renders ἀπέστειλαν as 'sent' although the tense is aorist and the context may demand 'had sent'. The teacher asks her to justify her choices rather than simply change them. A second sentence contains ἐὰν δὲ τοῦτο γένηται, νικήσομεν. Maria wonders whether to use 'if this happens' or 'if this were to happen.'
1. Explain how the case and function of οὐδεμιᾶς φυλακῆς οὔσης determine the range of possible translations, and state which reading you would adopt in this sentence. Justify with grammatical reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The phrase is a genitive absolute: its subject (φυλακῆς) is not the subject of the main verb, and the participle agrees with it. A genitive absolute can express time, cause, concession, or condition; grammar alone does not decide. Context does: the Spartans ravage because no guard exists, so causal 'since there was no guard' is the natural default. A concessive reading ('although there was no guard') would imply that a guard might have deterred them, which is militarily plausible, but ἐδῄωσαν is presented as an unopposed action and οὐδεμιᾶς is emphatic. I would keep the causal reading. Maria should note that 'since' is an interpretation, not a translation of a separate Greek word; the participle carries the relation, and the main clause supplies the evidence.
2. The teacher says 'had sent' is not licensed by the aorist alone. Explain the aspect of the aorist, and identify what further contextual or syntactic feature would justify the pluperfect rendering.
Read the worked answer
The aorist ἀπέστειλαν presents the sending as a single bounded event, not as prior to another past event. In an ἐπεί clause it is naturally prior to the main verb because the main verb is also past, but that priority is inferred from sequence, not from tense. English 'when they sent' is therefore accurate. 'Had sent' would require a clear prior reference point, for example 'when they had sent the ambassadors, they waited for an answer', where the sending is complete before a subsequent past action. Here the Spartans ravage after the sending, so 'when they sent' or 'after sending' is better; 'had sent' overtranslates. The teacher's point is aspectual: aorist equals bounded event; pluperfect equals anteriority relative to a past reference.
3. For ἐὰν δὲ τοῦτο γένηται, νικήσομεν, decide between 'if this happens' and 'if this were to happen', and explain the mood and tense combination.
Read the worked answer
The sentence uses ἐάν with the subjunctive in the protasis and the future indicative in the apodosis. This is the future more vivid, or future open, conditional: the condition is presented as a real possibility in the future. 'If this happens, we shall win' is correct. 'If this were to happen' suggests a remote or unreal condition, which Greek would express with εἰ and the optative (future less vivid) or εἰ and the imperfect or aorist indicative with ἄν (past counterfactual). The subjunctive γένηται does not signal unreality. 'If this should happen' is acceptable English for the same open future condition, but 'were to' imports a nuance not in the Greek. The particle δέ is transitional or adversative and need not be translated.