Here's a question about translation. How should one render, in the argument at Republic 349b-350c, sentences such as the following?
ti/ de\ dh\ o( a)/dikoj; a)=ra a)cioi= tou= dikai/ou pleonektei=n kai\ th=j dikai/aj pra/cewj; (349c4-5)Here are some options:
“How about the unjust then? Does he claim to overreach and outdo the just man and the just action?” (Shorey)Of these, Griffith's and Shorey's make no sense: one can't assign any meaning to 'outdoing an unjust action'. Grube/Reeve supply a subject that doesn't exist in the Greek. And Jowett changes the verb.
"And what of the unjust --does he claim to have more than the just man and to do more than is just." (Jowett)
"What about the unjust man? Does he think it right to outdo the just man and the just action?" (Griffith)
"What about an unjust person? Does he claim that he deserves to outdo a just person or someone who does a just action?" (Grube/Reeve)
The problem is that if you take pleonektei=n to mean 'outdo', then it cannot intelligibly take an action as an object.
I have my own view of how this should be handled. I'll share this (and thoughts of a tie-in with Nic. Eth. 9.8) tomorrow. But what are your ideas?