§3.5.1ὁ μὲν οὖν λόγος συντίθεται ἐκ τούτων, ἔστι δʼ ἀρχὴ τῆς λέξεως τὸ ἑλληνίζειν· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν πέντε, §3.5.2πρῶτον μὲν ἐν τοῖς συνδέσμοις, ἂν ἀποδιδῷ τις ὡς πεφύκασι πρότεροι καὶ ὕστεροι γίγνεσθαι ἀλλήλων, οἷον ἔνιοι ἀπαιτοῦσιν, ὥσπερ ὁ μέν καὶ ὁ ἐγὼ μέν ἀπαιτεῖ τὸν δέ καὶ τὸν ὁ δέ. δεῖ δὲ ἕως μέμνηται ἀνταποδιδόναι ἀλήλλοις, καὶ μήτε μακρὰν ἀπαρτᾶν μήτε σύνδεσμον πρὸ συνδέσμου ἀποδιδόναι τοῦ ἀναγκαίου· ὀλιγαχοῦ γὰρ ἁρμόττει. ἐγὼ μέν, ἐπεί μοι εἶπεν (ἦλθε γὰρ Κλέων δεόμενός τε καὶ ἀξιῶν), ἐπορευόμην παραλαβὼν αὐτούς
. ἐν τούτοις γὰρ πολλοὶ πρὸ τοῦ ἀποδοθησομένου συνδέσμου προεμβέβληνται σύνδεσμοι· ἐὰν δὲ πολὺ τὸ μεταξὺ γένηται τοῦ ἐπορευόμην, ἀσαφές.
The discourse, then, is composed of these things, and the foundation of style is to speak correct Greek; and this lies in five points: First, in the connectives, if one renders them as they are naturally disposed to be prior and posterior to one another, just as some require; for example, as ‘on the one hand’ and ‘I, on the one hand’ require ‘on the other hand’ and ‘he, on the other hand.’ And one must correspond them to one another while they are remembered, and neither hang them far apart nor render a connective before the necessary connective; for this is appropriate only in few places. ‘I, on the one hand, when he told me (for Cleon came begging and demanding), went, taking them with me.’ For in these words many connectives have been inserted before the connective that is to be rendered; and if the interval before ‘I went’ becomes too great, it is unclear.
§3.5.3ἓν μὲν δὴ τὸ εὖ ἐν τοῖς συνδέσμοις, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ τοῖς ἰδίοις ὀνόμασι λέγειν καὶ μὴ τοῖς περιέχουσιν.
This, then, is one point: the correct use of connectives; second is to speak with specific terms and not with general terms.
§3.5.4τρίτον μὴ ἀμφιβόλοις.
Third, not using ambiguous terms.
τοῦτο δʼ ἂν μὴ τἀναντία προαιρῆται, ὅπερ ποιοῦσιν ὅταν μηδὲν μὲν ἔχωσι λέγειν, προσποιῶνται δέ τι λέγειν· οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι ἐν ποιήσει λέγουσιν ταῦτα, οἷον Ἐμπεδοκλῆς·
This applies unless one deliberately chooses the opposite, which people do when they have nothing to say but pretend to say something; for such people say these things in poetry, as Empedocles does.
φενακίζει γὰρ τὸ κύκλῳ πολὺ ὄν, καὶ πάσχουσιν οἱ ἀκροαταὶ ὅπερ οἱ πολλοὶ παρὰ τοῖς μάντεσιν· ὅταν γὰρ λέγωσιν ἀμφίβολα, συμπαρανεύουσιν—
"
Κροῖσος Ἅλυν διαβὰς μεγάλην ἀρχὴν καταλύσει
"
, —καὶ διὰ τὸ ὅλως ἔλαττον εἶναι ἁμάρτημα διὰ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ πράγματος λέγουσιν οἱ μάντεις· τύχοι γὰρ ἄν τις μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ἀρτιασμοῖς ἄρτια ἢ περισσὰ εἰπὼν μᾶλλον ἢ πόσα ἔχει, καὶ τὸ ὅτι ἔσται ἢ τὸ πότε, διὸ οἱ χρησμολόγοι οὐ προσορίζονται τὸ πότε. ἅπαντα δὴ ταῦτα ὅμοια, ὥστʼ ἂν μὴ τοιούτου τινὸς ἕνεκα, φευκτέον.
For the extensive roundabout phrasing deceives, and the audience experiences what the crowd does in the presence of soothsayers; for when they speak ambiguities, the audience nods along in agreement—‘Croesus, having crossed the Halys, will destroy a great empire’— —and because generally there is less error, soothsayers speak through the classes of the thing; for one would more easily hit the mark in games of odd-and-even by saying ‘even’ or ‘odd’ rather than how many one has, and that something ‘will be’ rather than ‘when.’ This is why oracle-mongers do not specify the ‘when.’ All these things, then, are similar, so that unless it is for some such purpose, they must be avoided.
§3.5.5τέταρτον, ὡς Πρωταγόρας τὰ γένη τῶν ὀνομάτων διῄρει, ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα καὶ σκεύη· δεῖ γὰρ ἀποδιδόναι καὶ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς· §3.5.6ἡ δʼ ἐλθοῦσα καὶ διαλεχθεῖσα ᾤχετο
. πέμπτον ἐν τῷ τὰ πολλὰ καὶ ὀλίγα καὶ ἓν ὀρθῶς ὀνομάζειν· οἱ δʼ ἐλθόντες ἔτυπτόν με
. ὅλως δὲ δεῖ εὐανάγνωστον εἶναι τὸ γεγραμμένον καὶ εὔφραστον· ἔστιν δὲ τὸ αὐτό·
Fourth, to distinguish the genders of nouns, as Protagoras did, into masculine, feminine, and inanimate; for these too must be rendered correctly: ‘She, having come and talked, went away.’ Fifth, in naming correctly the many, the few, and the one: ‘They, having come, beat me.’ On the whole, what is written must be easy to read and easy to deliver; and this is the same thing.
ὅπερ οἱ πολλοὶ σύνδεσμοι οὐκ ἔχουσιν, οὐδʼ ἃ μὴ ῥᾴδιον διαστίξαι, ὥσπερ τὰ Ἡρακλείτου.
This is not the case where there are many connectives, nor with things that are not easy to punctuate, like the writings of Heraclitus.
τὰ γὰρ Ἡρακλείτου διαστίξαι ἔργον διὰ τὸ ἄδηλον εἶναι ποτέρῳ πρόσκειται, τῷ ὕστερον ἢ τῷ πρότερον, οἷον ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ αὐτῇ τοῦ συγγράμματος· φησὶ γὰρ
τοῦ λόγου τοῦδʼ ἐόντος ἀεὶ ἀξύνετοι ἄνθρωποι γίγνονται
· ἄδηλον γὰρ τὸ ἀεί, πρὸς ποτέρῳ δεῖ διαστίξαι.
For to punctuate Heraclitus’s writings is a difficult task because it is unclear to which word a term belongs, whether to the following or to the preceding; for example, at the very beginning of his book, for he says: ‘Of this logos being always men prove uncomprehending.’ For it is unclear to which of the two one should attach ‘always’ by punctuation.
§3.5.7ἔτι τόδε ποιεῖ σολοικίζειν, τὸ μὴ ἀποδιδόναι, ἐὰν μὴ ἐπιζευγνύῃς ὃ ἀμφοῖν ἁρμόττει, οἷον ψόφῳ καὶ χρώματι τὸ μὲν ἰδὼν οὐ κοινόν, τὸ δʼ αἰσθόμενος κοινόν·
Further, this causes solecism, the failure to render what is fitting to both, if you do not yoke them with a verb that suits both. For example, to ‘sound and color,’ the term ‘seeing’ is not common, but ‘perceiving’ is common.
ἀσαφῆ δὲ ἂν μὴ προθεὶς εἴπῃς, μέλλων πολλὰ μεταξὺ ἐμβάλλειν, οἷον
ἔμελλον γὰρ διαλεχθεὶς ἐκείνῳ τάδε καὶ τάδε καὶ ὧδε πορεύεσθαι
, ἀλλὰ μὴ
ἔμελλον γὰρ διαλεχθεὶς πορεύεσθαι, εἶτα τάδε καὶ τάδε καὶ ὧδε ἐγένετο
.
And things become unclear if you do not express the main verb first when you intend to insert many intermediate things; for example: ‘For I intended, after having conversed with him about this and that, to proceed in this way,’ but not: ‘For I intended, after having conversed, to proceed, and then this and that happened.’