515 If in this last case the frequency of action requires a more distinct reference to the condition, the antecedent av may be appended to the imperfect indicative, to the frequentative in -σKOV (331, 351), and even to the aorist indicative; thus we may write, with nearly the same signification: εἴ τινας oùs } ἴδοι, ἐπῄνει ἐπαινέεσκεν ἄν (Ionic) When the apodosis alone appears, the student will generally find it easy to supply from the context the frequentative protasis. 516 Both the subjunctive and optative may appear in the protasis without any expression of the apodosis, and often without any relative word. Their signification in this usage is in strict accordance with their original meaning,—namely, the subjunctive commands or deliberates concerning that which is present: the optative wishes or prays that something may become present. (a) σπεύδωμεν, ἐγκονῶμεν· ἡγοῦ μοι, γέρον (Eurip. Hec. 505), "let us hasten, let us make all speed; lead me on, old man." Interrogatively: εἴπωμεν ἢ σιγώμεν; ἢ τί δράσομεν; (Id. Ion, 758), "must we speak, or hold our peace? or what shall we do?" (b) Without ei; ὦ παῖ, γένοιο πατρὸς εὐτυχέστερος, τὰ δ ̓ ἄλλ ̓ ὅμοιος· καὶ γένοι ̓ ἂν οὐ κακός (Soph. Aj. 550), "my son, mightest thou be more fortunate than thy father, but like him in all other respects, and then thou wouldest not be a bad man." With ei or ὡς : εἴ μοι γένοιτο φθόγγος ἐν βραχίοσι (Eurip. Hec. 830), "Oh! if I had a voice in my arms!" as ó Táde Toρav oλoiro (Soph. Electr. 126), "Oh! that he who has done these things were destroyed!" 517 In this sense the indicative is often used with ei, ei yáp, εἴθε, and especially in the case of ὤφελον, which appears either with or without these particles, and followed by the infinitive. This presumes, like the corresponding protasis (502), that the wish cannot be realized. Thus we find εἴθε σοι τότε συνεγενόμην (Xen. Mem. I. 2, § 46), "Oh! if I had been with you there!" (which I was not). εἴθ ̓ ὠφελ ̓ ̓Αργοὺς μὴ διαπτάσθαι σκάφος Κόλχων ἐς αἶαν κυανέας Συμπληγάδας ! (Eurip. Med. init.), "Oh! if the Argo had not been obliged (as it was) to fly through the Symplegades to the Colchian land!" 518 The mere wish is often expressed interrogatively by the optative with πs av, "Oh! how could it be done!" as πῶς ἂν ὑμὶν ἐμφανὴς ἔργῳ γενοίμην ὥς μ ̓ ἔθεσθε προσφιλῆ; (Soph. Phil. 531), "Oh! how could I show my gratitude by my actions!" S V. The Imperative in Conditional Propositions, 519 The imperative differs very little in any of its usages from the subjunctive. 520 It sometimes appears, like éáv with the subjunctive, as the conditional protasis of the future; thus, θάπτε με, ὅττι τάχιστα, πύλας ̓Αίδαο περήσω (Hom. Il. XXIII. 71), i. e. "the sooner you bury me, the sooner I shall pass the gates of Hades,” ἐάν με ὡς τάχιστα θάπτῃς, πύλας ̓Α, ὡς τ. περήσω. Also with caí interposed; as λαβέ, καὶ εἴσει (Plato, Theœtet. 154 c), " take it, and you will know,”i.e. ἐὰν λαβῇς, εἴσει, 521 In its more common use, as a hortative, deliberative, or imperative form, we have already seen that the subjunctive often takes the place of this mood, with this difference, that except in prohibitions, when both moods are employed, the subjunctive is used for the first person, and the imperative for the second. This appears most clearly when they are both used in juxtaposition or antithesis; thus, Α. σιώπα· Β. σοί γ' ὦ κατάρατε σιωπώ 'γώ ; "A. Hold your tongue, i. e. you must hold your tongue. B. What! must I hold my tongue for you?" σκοπῶμεν κοινῇ, καὶ εἰ κ.τ.λ., ἀντίλεγε, καί σοι πείσομαι (Plato, Crito, 48), "let us consider the matter together, and if you can, confute me, and I will give way." 522 The imperative is often a mere exclamation, as in eiπé, ǎye, pépe, ïde, idoû, &c. And these imperatives are often prefixed to the first person of the subjunctive to urge the deliberation; thus, φέρε, τί σοι δῶ καταφαγεῖν, "come, what must I give you to eat!" 523 The future, which is the regular apodosis of the subjunctive and imperative, is often used to express the latter, chiefly, however, in interrogative-negative and in prohibitive sentences; as παίδες, οὐ σκέψεσθε; (Plat. Symp. 212 D), "slaves, go at once and see!" (below, 540), 524 From the interchange of the imperative, subjunctive, and future in other cases, arise some uses of the former which may remind us of the fact (above, 293), that the imperative differs from the indicative only in the form of the person-endings. Thus, on the one hand, we find constructions in which a question is followed by an imperative; such as οἶσθ ̓ οὖν ὃ δράσεις, ὡς ἀπαίρωμεν χθονός; ὅδησον ἡμῖν σῖτον, οὗ σπανίζομεν (Eurip. Cycl. 131—3), "dost know what thou must do, in order that we may sail away from this land? Furnish us with corn, of which we are in want." Or by a prohibition; as οἶσθ ̓ ὡς μετεύξει καὶ σοφωτέρα φανεῖ; τὰ χρηστὰ μή σοι λυπρὰ φαινέσθω ποτε (Id. Med. 600, 1), "dost know how thou must alter thy prayers and appear wiser? Let not good things ever appear grievous to thee." But, on the other hand, we find that the future of the relative clause in the question is attracted into the imperative which follows; thus we have οἶσθ ̓ οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον; μήτ ̓ ἀποσπασθῇς βίᾳ, κ.τ.λ. (Id. Hec. 225), "dost know what thou must do ?-neither be torn away by force," &c. And even with a sentence interposed: Ι. δεσμὰ τοῖς ξένοισι πρόσθες (Id. Iph. Taur. 1204), “I. Dost know what must be done for me? Th. Thou must tell me this. I. Put chains on the foreigners." The Latin comedian, from not understanding this idiom, has endeavoured to express it by a transposition, tange sed scin' quomodo (Plaut. Rud. III. 5, 18), which has misled Bentley and other scholars. 525 We find the imperative in deliberative interrogations, without any direct evidence of such an attraction; as τί οὖν ; ὃ πολλάκις ἐρωτῶ, κείσθω νόμος ἡμῖν; (Plat. Legg. p. 801 D), "what then?-according to my repeated question, must a law be laid down?" This probably arises from a transition, by means of ὅτι, from the direct to the oblique oration. This transition is distinctly seen in the following passages: ἴσως ἂν εἴποιεν, ὅτι, Ω Σώκρατες, μὴ θαύμαζε τα λεγόμενα (Plat. Crit. 50 c). By the side of the future: χρὴ δεῖξαι ὅτι, ὧν μὲν ἐφίενται, πρὸς τοὺς μὴ ἀμυνομένους κτάσε θωσαν, οἷς δὲ γενναῖον, κ. τ. λ., ἀνανταγώνιστοι ἀπ' αὐτῶν οὐκ ἀπίασι (Thucyd. IV. 92). § VI. The Infinitive as a Substitute for the Imperative. 526 The infinitive, or adverbial mood, does not take its place in the protasis, except as a substitute for the imperative. As an adverb, or secondary predicate, it is appended to the finite verb, which contains the main predication, as an explanatory adjunct (above, 468). In the same way, however, as the gerundive, or inflected form of the infinitive, assumes to itself a significance of obligation, which is properly conveyed by the substantive-verb (above, 423), the earlier Greek writers use the infinitive, without the substantive-verb on which it depends, as an imperative, to express what must or ought to take place. Thus, καὶ ταῦτ ̓ ἰων εἴσω λογίζου, καν λάβῃς μ' έψευσμένον, (Soph. Ed. T. 462). 527 Sometimes also as the expression of a wish or prayer; as ὦ Ζεῦ, ἐκγενέσθαι μοι Αθηναίους τίσασθαι (Herod. v. 105), where it cannot be said that the substantive-verb is necessarily understood; for we might say in English, "Oh! that it might be allowed to me, &c.," and the Latin utinam marks a similar dependent clause. § VII. The Negative Particles μý and ov. 528 The distinction between μn and où depends upon their respective applicability to the different members of a conditional proposition. For Mý belongs to the protasis; Ou to the apodosis or to the categorical proposition; in other words, Mý negatives a supposition, i. c. it prohibits or forbids; Où negatives an affirmation, i, e. it affirms that the case is not so; or, to express the rule according to the principles already laid down, un is used in all those dependent sentences which are virtually or formally hypothetical; consequently μn is used (1) with the participle in the hypothesis; (2) after particles expressing à condition or supposition, as ei, éáv, éπeidáv, őтav; (3) after particles implying |