μέν, a weakened form of μήν, and hence properly a particle of affirmation: truly, certainly, surely, indeed, —its affirmative force being weakened, yet retained most in Ionic, Epic, and Herodotus, and not wholly lost in Attic and Hellenistic writers (μέν ‘confirmative’; ef. 4 Mace. xviii. 18). Owing to this its original meaning it adds a certain force to the terms and phrases with which it is connected, and thus contrasts them with or distinguishes ther. from others. Accordingly it takes on the character of a concessive and very often of a merely distinctive particle, which stands related to a following δέ or other adversative conjunction, either expressed or understood, and in a sentence composed of several members is so placed as to point out the first member, to which a second, marked by an adversative particle, is added or opposed. It corresponds to the Lat. quidem, indeed, Germ. zwar (i.e. prop. zu Wahre, i.e. in Wahrheit [in truth]) ; but often its force cannot be reproduced. Its use in classic Greek is exhibited by Devarius i. p. 122 sqq., and Klotz on the same ii. 2 p. 656 sqq.; Viger i. p. 531 sqq., and Hermann on the same p. 824 sq.; al.; Matthiae ὃ 622; Kiihner ii. p. 806 sqq- 88 527 sqq-; p- 691 sqq.; ὃ 503; [Jelf § 729, 1, 2; §§ 764 sqq.]; Passow, and Pape, [and L. and S.]s. v. I. Examples in which the particle μέν is followed in another member by an adversative particle expressed. Of these examples there are two kinds: 1. those in which μέν has a concessive force, and δέ (or ἀλλά) introduces a restriction, correction, or amplification of what has been said in the former member, indeed... but, yet, on the other hand. Persons or things, or predications about either, are thus correlated: Mt. iii. 11, cf. Mk. i. 8 (where T Tr WHom. Lbr. μέν); Lk. iii. 16 (where the meaning is, ‘I indeed baptize as well as he who is to come after me, but his baptism is of greater efficacy’; ef. Acts i. 5); Mt. ix. 37 and Lk. x. 2 (al though the harvest is great, yet the laborers are few); Mt. xvii. 11 sq. (rightly indeed is it said that Elijah will come and work the ἀποκατάστασις, but he has already come to bring about this very thing); Mt. xx. 23; xxii. 8; xxiii. 28; Jn. xvi. 22; xix.32sq.; Acts xxi. 39 (although I am a Jew, and not that Egyptian, yet etc.) ; Acts xxii. 8 [R]; Ro.1i. 25; vi. 11; 1 Co.i. 18; ix. 24; xi. 14 sq.; xii. 20 RG Lbr. Trbr. WH mrg.]; xv.51[R GLbr.]; 2Co.x.10; Heb. iii. 5 sq.; 1 Pet. i. 20, and often. μέν and δέ are added to articles and pronouns: of pev...oit δέ, the one indeed ... but the other (although the latter, yet the former), Phil. i. 16 sq. [ace. to crit. txt.]; ὃς pev... ὃς δέ, the one indeed, but (yet) the other etc. Jude 22 sq.; τινὲς pev... τινες δε καί, Phil. i. 15; with conjunctions: εἰ μὲν οὖν, if indeed then, if therefore... εἰ δέ, but if, Acts xviii. 14 sq. RG; xix. 38 sq.; xxv- 111 Τ Tr WH [el μὲν οὖν .. . νυνὶ δέ, Heb. viii. 4 sq. (here RG εἰ μὲν ydp)]; εἰ pev... νῦν δέ, if indeed (conceding or supposing this or that to be the case) ... but now, Heb. xi. 15; κἄν μὲν. .. ef δὲ μήγε, Lk. xiii. 9; μὲν yap... δέ, 1 Co. xi. 7; Ro. ii. 25; μὲν ov... δέ, Lk. iii. 185 εἰς pev... εἰς δέ, Heb. 1x. 6 sq.; μὲν . «.« ἀλλά, indeed ... bul, although... yet, Ro. xiv. 20; 1Co. xiv.17; pév... πλήν, Lk. xxii. 22. [Cf W. 443 (413); B. § 149, 12a.] 2. those in which μέν loses its concessive force and serves only to distincuish, but δέ retains its adversative power: Lk. xi. 48; Acts xiii. 36 sq.; xxiii. 8 [here WH txt. om. Tr br. μέν]; 1 Co. i. 12, 23, Phil. iii. 1; Heb. vii. 8; ἀπὸ pev... ἐπὶ δέ, 2 Tim. iv. 4; ὁ μὲν οὖν (Germ. er nun [he, then,])... ai δέ, Acts xxviii. 5 sq.; ὃς pév... ὃς δέ, and one... and another, 1 Co. xi. 21; οἱ pev...6 δέ (he, on the contrary), Heb. vii. 20 sq. 23 sq.; ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν... ἡμεῖς δέ, 1 Co. ix. 25; ef μὲν otv... εἰ δέ, Acts xviii. 14 sq. [RG]; xix. 38; xxv.11 [LT Tr WH]; and this happens chiefly when what has already been included in the words immediately preceding is separated into parts, so that the adversative particle contrasts that which the writer especially desires to contrast: ἑκάστῳ... τοῖς μὲν Gyrotow... τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας etc. Ro. ii. 6-8; mas... ἐκεῖνοι pev..- ἡμεῖς δέ etc. 1 Co. ix. 25; add, Mt. xxv. 14 sq. 33; Ro. v. 16; xi. 22. 3. pev... δέ serve only to distribute a sentence into clauses: both...and; not only .«. but also; as well. ..as: Jn. xvi. 9-11; Ro. viii. 17; Jude 8; πρῶτον pev... ἔπειτα δέ, Heb. vii. 2; ὃ μὲν ..6 d€...8 δέ, some... some... some, Mt. xiii. 8; [ἕκαστος - - - ὁ pev...6 δέ, each... one ... another, 1 Co. vii. 7 LT Tr WH]; ὃς μὲν... ὃς δέ, one... another, Mt. xxi. 35; Acts xvii. 32; 1 Co. vii. 7[ RG]; of μὲν « «- ἄλλοι [L of] bé... ἕτεροι δέ, Mt. xvi. 14; ᾧ μὲν yap... ἄλλῳ de... ἑτέρῳ δέ [here T Tr WH om. Lbr. δέ], 1 Co. xii. 8-10; ἃ peév... foll. by ἄλλα δέ three times, Mt. xiii. 4 sq. 7sq.; ἄλλος μέν, ἄλλος δέ, 1 Co. xv. 39; τοῦτο μὲν ... τοῦτο δέ, on the one hand ... on the other; partly ... partly, Heb. x. 33, also found in prof. auth. cf. W. 142 (135). μέν is followed by another particle: ἔπειτα, Jn. xi. 6; 1 Co. xii. 28; Jas. 111. 17; καὶ νῦν, Acts xxvi. 4, 6; τὰ νῦν, Acts xvii. 30; πολὺ [RG πολλῷ] μᾶλλον, Heb. xii. 9. II. Examples in which μέν is followed neither by δέ nor by any other adversative particle (μέν “ solitarium’) ; ef. W. 575 (534) sq.; B. 365 (313) sq. These exx. are of various kinds; either 1. the antithesis is evident from the context; as, Col. ii. 23 (‘have indeed a show of wisdom’, but are folly [cf. Bp. Lehtft. in loc.]) ; ἡ μὲν « . . σωτηρίαν, sc. but they themselves prevent their own salvation, Ro. χ. 1 ; τὰ pév... δυνάμεσιν, sc. but ye do not hold to my apostolic authority, 2 Co. xii. 12; ἄνθρωποι μὲν [LT Tr Wilom. μὲν] . . . ὀμνύουσιν, se. ὁ δὲ θεὸς καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ὀμνύει, Heb. vi. 16. Or 2. the antithetie idea is brought out by a different turn of the sentence: Acts xix. 4 [ Rec.], where the expected second member, Ἰησοῦς δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἐρχόμενος, is wrapped up in τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν eis τὸν Ἰησοῦν; Ro. xi. 13 ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὲν κτλ.» where the antithesis παραζηλῶ δὲ «rd. is contained in εἴπως παραζηλώσω; Ro. vii. 12 ὁ μὲν νόμος xrd., where the thought of the second member, ‘ but sin misuses the law,’ is expressed in another form in 13 sqq. by an anacoluthon, consisting of a change from the disjunctive to a conjunctive construction (cf. Herm. ad Vig. p. 839), we find péev... τέ, Acts xxvii. 21; μὲν. - - καί, 1 Th. ii. 18; in distributions or partitions, Mk. iv. 4-8 [here RG μὲν - «« δὲ. καὶ. «« καί] ; Lk. viii. 5-8; or, finally, that member in which δέ would regularly follow immediately precedes (Herm. ad Vig. p. 839), Acts xxviii. 22 [yet see Meyer ad loc.; cf. B.§ 149,12 4.1. Or 3. the writer, in using μέν, perhaps had in mind a second member to be introduced by δέ, but was drawn away from his intention by explanatory additions relating to the first member: thus Acts iii. 13 (ὃν ὑμεῖς μέν ---- Ree. om. this pev —ete., where ὁ θεὸς δὲ ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, cf. 15, should have followed); esp. (as occasionally in class. Grk. also) after πρῶτον μὲν: Ro. i. 8; iii. 2; 1 Co. xi. 18; τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον «rd. where the antithesis τὸν δὲ δεύτερον λόγον κτλ. ought to have followed, Acts i. ls 4. μὲν οὖν [in Lk. xi. 28 T Tr WH μενοῦν], Lat. quidem igitur, [Eng. so then, now therefore, verily, etc], (where μέν is confirmatory of the matter in hand, and οὖν marks an inference or transition, cf. Klotz ad Devar. ii. 2 p. 662 sq.; [Herm. Vig. pp. 540 sq. 842; B. § 149, 16]): Actsi.18; ν. 41; xiii. 45 xvii. 30; xxiii. 22; xxvi. 9; 1 Co. vi. 4, 7 [here Tom. Trbr. οὖν] ; ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν, Phil. iii. 8 GL Tr; εἰ μὲν οὖν, Heb. vii. 11. 5. pev solitarium has a concessive and restrictive force, indeed, verily, (Germ. freilich), [ef. Klotz, Devar. ii. 2 p. 522; Hartung, Partikeln, ii. 404]: εἰ μέν, 2 Co. xi. 4; μὲν οὖν now then, (Germ. nun freilich), Heb. ix. 1 [ef. B. u.s. On the use of μὲν οὖν in the classics ef. Cope’s note on Aristot. rhet. 2, 9, 11.] 6. μενοῦνγε; 4. V- in its place. III. As respects the Position of the particle: it never stands at the beginning of a sentence, but yet as near the beginning as possible; generally in the second or third place, by preference between the article and noun, [exx. in which it occupies the fourth place are Acts iii. 21; 2 Co.x.13 Col. ii. 23; Acts xiv. 12 Rec.; the fifth place, Eph. iv. 11; Ro. xvi. 19 RWH br.; 1 Co. ti.15 RG; (Jn. xvi. 22, see below)]; moreover, in the Mevva midst of a clause also it attaches itself to a word the force of which is to be strengthened, as καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν λύπην μὲν νῦν ἔχετε [but LT Tr WH... οὖν viv μὲν λύπ.], Jn. xvi. 22; cf. W. § 61, 6. The word is not found in the Rey. or in the Epp. of John. Mewa or Μέννας, see Maivav.

μέν men 179x

a particle serving to indicate that the term or clause with which it is used stands distinguished from another, usually in the sequel, and then mostly with δέ correspondent, Mt. 3:11; 9:39; Acts 1:1; ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δέ, this ... that, the one ... the other, Phil. 1:16, 17; one ... another, οἱ μὲν ... οἱ δέ, some ... others, Matt 22:5; ὅλλος μὲν ... ὅλλος δέ, one ... another, pl. some ... others, Matt 13:8; 21:35; ὅλλος μὲν ... ὅλλος δέ, one ... another, 1 Cor. 15:39; ὡδε μὲν ... ἐκεῖ δέ, here ... there, Heb. 7:8; τοῦτο μὲν ... τοῦτο δέ, partly ... partly, Heb. 10:33

μέν, conjunctive particle (originally a form of μήν), usually related to a following δέ or other adversative conjunction, and distinguishing the word or clause with which it stands from that which follows. It is generally untranslatable and is not nearly so frequent in NT as in cl. Like δέ, it never stands first in a clause. Answered by δέ or some other particle: μὲν . . . δέ, indeed . . . but, Mt 3:11, Lk 3:16, al.; with pronouns, ὃς μὲν . . . ὃς δέ, one . . . another, Mt 21:35, al.; pl., Phl 1:16, 17; ὃ μὲν . . . ὃ δὲ . . . ὃ δέ, some . . . some . . . some, Mt 13:8; τοῦτο μὲν . . . τοῦτο δέ, partly . . . partly, He 10:33; μὲν . . . ἔπειτα, Jo 11:6; μὲν . . . καί, Lk 8:5.

μέν solitarium, answered by no other particle: πρῶτον μέν (Bl., § 78, 5), Ro 1:8 3:2, I Co 11:18; μὲν οὖν in narrative, summing up what precedes or introducing something further (Bl., § 78, 5), so then, rather, nay rather: Lk 11:28 (WH, μενοῦν), Ac 1:6 9:31, al.; μὲν οὖν γε (Phl 3:8, WH): v.s. μενοῦνγε.

μέν, an untranslatable particle, was originally a form of μήν (g.v.). The correlation μὲν... δέ, so common in classical Greek, is largely reduced in the NT (cf. Blass Gr. p. 266 f.). For μέν solitartum, i.e. μέν followed by no contrasting particle, as in Rom 1® πρῶτον μέν, a/., cf. BGU 11. 423? (ii/A.D.) (= Selections, p. 90) πρὸ μὲν πάντων εὔχομαί oe ὑγιαίνειν καὶ διὰ παντὸς ἐρωμένον (1. ἐρρωμένον) εὐτυχεῖν," 5 γράψον μοι ἐπιστόλιον πρῶτον μὲν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας σου, δεύτερον περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν pov. The combination μὲν οὖν in narrative, summing up what precedes, or introducing what follows (Ac 18, 9%, αἰ. : cf. Blass Gr. p. 273), is seen in such passages as P Petr II. 13 (19) (mid. iii/B.c.) (= Witkowski?, p. 19) μάλιστα μὲν οὖν τῆν πᾶσαν σπουδὴν πόησαι [το]ῦ ἀφεθῆναί σε διὰ τέλους, P Lille I. 26? (111,8...) (= Witkowski, p. 49) ἔγραψάς μοι περὶ τῆς εἰς τὴν σησαμείαν γῆς, μάλιστα δὲ περὶ τῆς ἐν ἸΠατῶντι" αὐτὴ μὲν οὖν ἐστιν παντελῶς ἀπηρί γἹμένη, and BGU III. τοορ (ii/B.c.) (= Witkowski*, p. 111) περὶ μὲν [ο]ὖν τῶν ἄλλων [οὔ σοι γέγραφα, Μ΄. . οἷς γάρ σοι σημα[ν]εῖ ἕκαστα. See also S.U. μενοῦνγε.

μέν (men) — on the other hand. μέν, Particle, used partly to express certainty on the part of the speaker or writer; partly, and more commonly, to point out that the word or clause with which it stands is correlative to another word or clause that is to follow, the latter word or clause being introduced by δέ. __A __A.I μέν used absolutely to express certainty, not followed by correlative δέ, indeed, of a truth, synonymous with μήν, as appears from the Epic dialect and Ionic dialect form ἦ μέν in protestations and oaths (where Attic dialect used ἦ μήν), καί μοι ὄμοσσον, ἦ μ. μοι πρόφρων ἔπεσιν καὶ χερσὶν ἀρήξειν [Refs 8th c.BC+]: also in Trag., ἀκτὴ μὲν ἥδε τῆς περιρρύτου χθονός [Refs 8th c.BC+]; γε μέν, compare γε [Refs] __A.I.2 an answering clause with δέ is sometimes implied, τὴν μὲν ἐγὼ σπουδῇ δάμνημ᾽ ἐπέεσσι her can I hardly subdue, [but all others easily], [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ὡς μὲν λέγουσι as indeed they say, [but as I believe not], [Refs 5th c.BC+]; καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἦν αὐτῷ πόλεμος (with no ἔπειτα δέ to follow), [Refs 5th c.BC+]; so νῦν μέν σ᾽ ἀφήσω I will let you go this time, [Refs 3rd c.BC+]: to give force to assertions made by a person respecting himself, wherein opposition to other persons is implied, ὡς μὲν ἐμῷ θυμῷ δοκεῖ [Refs 8th c.BC+]; δοκεῖν μέν μοι ἥξει τήμερον [τὸ πλοῖον] [Refs 5th c.BC+]: hence with the person pronoun, ἐγὼ μέν νυν θεοῖσι ἔχω χάριν [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐδέν (i.e. θέλω) [Refs 5th c.BC+]: with the demonstrative pronoun, τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι [Refs 5th c.BC+] great indeed has been the change, [Refs 4th c.BC+] __A.I.3 μέν is used alone in questions, when the answer is assumed, I take it, θέμις μὲν ἡμᾶς χρησμὸν εἰδέναι θεο; [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Ἕλλην μέν ἐστι καὶ Ἑλληνίζε; [Refs 5th c.BC+] __A.II μέν followed by δέ in the correlative clause or clauses, on the one hand, on the other hand; commonly in Classical Gr., less frequently in later Gr. (rare in NT __A.II.1 μέν.., δέ.. (or when the correlative clause is negative, μέν.., οὐδέ.., [Refs 8th c.BC+], to mark opposition, [Refs 8th c.BC+]—The opposed clauses commonly stand together, but are frequently separated by clauses, parenthetic or explanatory; e.g. μέν in [Refs 8th c.BC+]; in [Refs 5th c.BC+] in <[Refs] __A.II.2 to connect a series of clauses containing different matter, though with no opposition, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; τότε μέν.., τότε δέ.., at one time.., at another.., [Refs] ὁ μέν.., ὁ δέ..; τὸ μέν.., τὸ δέ.., etc. __A.II.3 the principal word is frequently repeated, οἳ περὶ μὲν βουλὴν Δαναῶν, περὶ δ᾽ ἐστὲ μάχεσθαι [Refs 8th c.BC+]; χαλεπαίνει μὲν πρῳρεύς, χαλεπαίνει δὲ κυβερνήτης [Refs 5th c.BC+] __A.II.4 one of the correlative clauses is sometimes independent, while the other takes the participle or some other dependent form, ἐβλασφήμει κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ.., μάρτυρα μὲν.. οὐδένα παρασχόμενος.., παρεκελεύετο δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+] b. __A.II.5 μέν and δέ frequently oppose two clauses, whereof one is subordinate to the other in meaning or emphasis, [Refs 5th c.BC+]: so in an anacoluthon, [Refs 8th c.BC+] __A.II.6 μέν is not always answered by δέ, but frequently by other equivalent Particles, as ἀλλά, Refs 8th c.BC+] in Epic dialect, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; πρῶτον μέν.., μετὰ τοῦτο.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]; μάλιστα μὲν δὴ.., ἔπειτα μέντοι.. [Refs 5th c.BC+] —rarely by μήν with negative, οὐδὲν μὴν κωλύει [Refs 5th c.BC+] __A.II.6.b when the opposition is emphatic, δέ is sometimes strengthened, as ὅμως δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]; δ᾽ αὖ.. [Refs 8th c.BC+]; δ᾽ ἔμπης.. [Refs 8th c.BC+] __A.II.6.c μέν is sometimes answered by a copulative Particle, κάρτιστοι μὲν ἔσαν καὶ καρτίστοις ἐμάχοντο[Refs 8th c.BC+], etc.: rarely in Prose, τρία μὲν ἔτη ἀντεῖχον.., καὶ οὐ πρότερον ἐνέδοσαν [Refs 5th c.BC+] __B μέν before other Particles: __B.I where each Particle retains its force, __B.I.1 μὲν ἄρα, in [Refs 8th c.BC+] __B.I.2 μὲν γάρ [Refs 8th c.BC+] there is frequently no second clause, [Refs 8th c.BC+] __B.I.3 μέν γε, when a general statement is explained in detail, Κορινθίοις μέν γε ἔνσπονδοί ἐστε [Refs 5th c.BC+] __B.I.4 μὲν δή [Refs 8th c.BC+]: frequently used to express positive certainty, ἀλλ᾽ οἶσθα μὲν δή [Refs 5th c.BC+]; especially as a conclusion, τοῦτο μὲν δὴ.. ὁμολογεῖται [Refs 5th c.BC+]: in closing a statement, τοιαῦτα μὲν δὴ ταῦτα [Refs 8th c.BC+]; οὐ μὲν δή, to deny positively, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ἀλλ᾽ οὔ τι μὲν δή.. [Refs 5th c.BC+] __B.I.5 μὲν οὖν, see below 11.2. __B.II where the Particles combine so as to form a new sense, __B.II.1 μέν γε at all events, at any rate (not in Trag.), τοῦτο μέν γ᾽ ἤδη σαφές [Refs 5th c.BC+] __B.II.2 μὲν οὖν is frequently used with a corresponding δέ, so that each Particle retains its force, [Refs 8th c.BC+]: but frequently also absolutely, so then, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; especially in replies, sometimes in strong affirmation, παντάπασι μὲν οὖν [Refs 5th c.BC+]; also to substitute a new statement so as to correct a preceding statement, nay rather, κακοδαίμω; Answ. βαρυδαίμων μὲν οὖν! [Refs 5th c.BC+]; μου πρὸς τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποψῶ wipe your nose on my head: Answ. ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν.. nay on mine, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; compare οὐμενοῦν: in “NT” μενοῦν and μενοῦνγε", to begin a sentence, yea rather, [NT+5th c.BC+] __B.II.3 by μέν τε, if δέ τε follows, the two clauses are more closely combined than by τε.., τε.., [Refs 8th c.BC+]; by ἀλλά, αὐτάρ,[Refs 8th c.BC+]; perhaps by ἠδέ, [Refs 8th c.BC+] absolutely, when τε loses its force, as after ἦ, τίς, etc., [Refs 8th c.BC+] __B.II.4 μέν τοι in [Refs 8th c.BC+] always occurs in speeches, where τοι can be regarded as the dative of the pronoun: later, μέντοι is written as a single word, and is used: __B.II.4.a with a conjunctive force, yet, nevertheless, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; and sometimes stands for δέ, answering to μέν, see above [Refs 4th c.BC+] __B.II.4.b as an adverb, in strong protestations, οὐ μέντοι μὰ Δία[Refs 4th c.BC+]; in eager or positive assent, of course, φαμέν τι εἶναι..; Answ. φαμὲν μέντοι νὴ Δία [Refs 5th c.BC+]; why, are you not.. ? [Refs]; τί μ. πρῶτον ἦν, τί πρῶτον ἦ; nay what was the first? [Refs 5th c.BC+]; σὺ μέντοι.. [Refs 2nd c.AD+] only take heed.., [Refs 5th c.BC+] nay it would be absurd, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; summing up a long temporal clause, [Refs 5th c.BC+] __B.II.4.c μέντοι γε [Refs 5th c.BC+] stands first in the sentence, μ. οὐ θέλω [Refs 1st c.AD+]; also γε μέντοι [Refs 5th c.BC+] __B.II.4.d καὶ μ. καί is used to add a point to be noted, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; also καί.. μ., νῦν σοι καιρός ἐστιν ἐπιδείξασθαι τὴν παιδείαν, καὶ φυλάξασθαι μέντοι.. and of course to take care.., [Refs 5th c.BC+] __B.II.4.e ἀλλὰ μέντοι well, if it comes to that, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; well, of course, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; compare μέντον. __C for μέν after other Particles, see each Particle. __D Position of μέν. Like δέ, it usually stands as the second word in a sentence. But when a sentence begins with words common to its subordinate clauses, μέν stands second in the first of these clauses, as ἥδε γὰρ γυνὴ δούλη μέν, εἴρηκεν δ᾽ ἐλεύθερον λόγον [Refs 5th c.BC+]; οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐτάξαντο μέν.., ἡσύχαζον δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+], even when these do not stand first: sometimes however it precedes them, ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ οἶμαι [Refs 5th c.BC+]. It generally stands between the Article and Noun, or the preposition and its Case: but if special stress is laid on the Noun, this is sometimes neglected, as οἱ Τεγεᾶται μὲν ἐπηυλίσαντο, Μαντινῆς δὲ ἀπεχώρησαν [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἀνὰ τὸ σκοτεινὸν μέν.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]. __D.II μέν is frequently repeated: __D.II.1 when, besides the opposition of two main clauses, a subordinate opposition is introduced into the first, ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ τοιαῦτα μὲν πεποίηκε τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγει, ὑμῶν δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+] __D.II.2 in apodosi with the demonstrative pronoun or adverb, τὸν μὲν καλέουσι θέρος, τοῦτον μὲν προσκυνέουσι, τὸν δὲ χειμῶνα[Refs 5th c.BC+]; ὅτε μέν με οἱ ἄρχοντες ἔταττον.., τότε μὲν ἔμενον.., τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τάττοντος,.. ἐνταῦθα δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+] __D.II.3 μέν used absolutely is frequently followed by a correlative μέν, εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς μὲν.. ποιοῦμεν [Refs] __D.III μέν is sometimes omitted (especially in Poetry) where it is implied in the following δέ, φεύγων, ὁ δ᾽ ὄπισθε διώκων [Refs 8th c.BC+]