Page images
PDF
EPUB

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?"

σκοπώμεν 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, idov, &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 want."

corn, of which we are in

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. οἶσθά νυν ἅ μοι γενέσθω;

Θ. σὸν τὸ σημαίνειν τόδε.

1. 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 or, 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. 1V. 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,
φάσκειν ἔμ ̓ ἤδη μαντικῇ μηδὲ φρονεῖν

(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 εἰ, ἐάν, ἐπειδάν, ὅταν ; (3) after particles implying

the purpose or motive, as va, oπws, oppa; (4) after relatives and relative particles with an indefinite antecedent expressed or understood; (5) in all expressions of a wish; (6) in all prohibitions; and (7) with the infinitive as representing an adverbial sentence; whereas où is used in all other cases.

The following are comprehensive examples: (a) μn in the protasis by the side of où in the apodosis, Plat. Phæd. 76 E: ei μn ταῦτά ἐστι, οὐδὲ τάδε, “ if what has been said is not the case, neither is what follows;" (b) un in the prohibition by the side of où in the categorical negation, Eurip. Alc. 690: μǹ Ovñox' vπèρ τοῦδ ̓ ἀνδρός, οὐδ ̓ ἐγὼ πρὸ σοῦ, “ do not die for me, and I will not die for you;" (c) μn in the negation of a wish and in an indefinite relative sentence by the side of où with the optative in the apodosis, Soph. Antig. 676:

ἐγὼ δ ̓ ὅπως σὺ μὴ λέγεις ὀρθῶς τάδε

οὔτ ̓ ἂν δυναίμην μήτ ̓ ἐπισταίμην λέγειν,

i. e. "but I neither could be able, nor may I know how to say, in what way (i. e. any way in which, below, 532) you are not right in what you say."

§ VIII. My in the Protasis.

529 The following are special examples of μn in dependent sentences, implying an assumption, a wish, or a prohibition:

(a) Indicative: ei μǹ yíyveтai, "if it does not come to pass," and so of the other tenses.

(b) Imperative: μỶ кλéπтe, “do not steal" (in general).

(c) Subjunctive: μὴ κλέψῃς (more rarely μὴ κλέψεις), “ do not steal" (this particular thing: above, 427, (cc), (a,));

éàv μǹ yévηtai, "if it shall not come to pass."

(d) Optative: μn yévoiтo, "may it not come to pass" = "oh! if it could be avoided!"

ei μǹ yévoɩto, “if it were not to come to pass.'

[ocr errors]

(e) Infinitive: θεοὶ πολῖται, μή με δουλείας τυχεῖν, “ let me not incur slavery;"

Tò μǹ yevéolai, "the supposition that it has not come to pass;"

δέδοκται τὰς ναῦς μήπω ἐκπλεῖν, “ it has been determined that the ships are not yet to sail out.”

(See below, 594, 596).

(f) Participle: un Spwv, "if he abstains from doing."

Obs. 1 M with the participle signifies "if not" (si non), and generally accompanies a positive apodosis; un ou with the participle signifies "unless," and is always attached to a negative apodosis; thus: orav 8 ἵκηται, τηνικαῦτ ̓ ἐγὼ κακὸς μὴ δρῶν ἂν εἴην πάνθ' ὅσ ̓ ἂν δηλοῖ θεός (Soph. Ed. T. 76), i. e. si non faciam.

οὐκ ἐξελεύσεσθαι ἔφασαν μὴ οὐ πλήρεος ἐόντος τοῦ κύκλου (Herod. vi. 106), i. e. nisi quum plena esset luna. And the same applies, when the main sentence is virtually negative; as

δυσάλγητος γὰρ ἂν εἴην τοιάνδε μὴ οὐ κατοικτείρων έδραν (Soph. Cd. Τ. 12), i. e. "I should be devoid of all sensibility, I should not be humane, unless I pitied such a band of suppliants." On this abundance of nega

tion see also below, 530, Obs., 603.

Obs. 2 Mý is used with the participle without any direct implication of a condition, if the sense is carried on from an imperative, so that the participle with μn amounts to a prohibition; thus,

ἔκβαιν ̓ ἀπήνης τῆσδε, μὴ χαμαὶ τιθεὶς

τὸν σὸν πόδ ̓, ὦναξ, Ιλίου πορθήτορα (Asch. Αg. 879),

"descend from this mule car, and do not place on the ground thy foot, O king, seeing that it has trampled upon Ilium." Cf. Ibid. 493, μŋkéti ἰάπτων after χαῖρε, and Suppl. 793, μὴ ὁρῶν after ἔπιδε.

§ IX. Ov in the Categorical Proposition or Apodosis.

530 The following examples will show the use of oử in absolute negations.

(a) Indicative:

οὐχ οἷός τε ἐστίν, “ he is not able.”

(b) Optative with av:

Ouk av YÉVOITO, "it would not (under given circumstances) come to pass.'

(c) Participle indicating a fact, i. e. a causal or concessive

sentence:

où Spov, "as abstaining from doing," either "because he does οὐ δρῶν, it not" (615), or "although he does it not" (621).

Obs. In the direct sentence, a repetition of où confirms the negation; as

ἀκούει δ ̓ οὐδὲν οὐδεὶς οὐδενός (Eurip. Cycl. 120).

« PreviousContinue »