Page images
PDF
EPUB

the purpose or motive, as iva, mws, ööpa; (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) uń in the protasis by the side of où in the apodosis, Plat. Phæd. 76 E: ei un ταυτά έστι, ουδε τάδε, «if what has been said is not the case, neither is what follows;” () uń in the prohibition by the side of où in the categorical negation, Eurip. Alc. 690: un Ovñox' ÚTrèp τουδ' ανδρός, ουδ' εγώ προ σου, « do not die for me, and I will not die for you;” (c) uń 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:

εγώ δ' όπως συ μη λέγεις ορθώς τάδε

ούτ' αν δυναίμην μήτ' επισταίμην 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."

[ocr errors]

& VIII. Mń in the Protasis.

[ocr errors]

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

(a) Indicative: ei un yiyvetal, “if it does not come to pass,” and so of the other tenses.

(6) Imperative: un KRÉTTE, “ do not steal" (in general).

(c) Subjunctive: μη κλέψης (more rarely μη κλέψεις), « do not steal” (this particular thing: above, 427, (cc), (a));

èàv us yévntai, " if it shall not come to pass.”

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

ei un yévoito, “if it were not to come to pass."

(e) Infinitive: θεοί πολίται, μη με δουλείας τυχεϊν, «let me not incur slavery;" yevéodal, “ the supposition that it has not come to pass;" μη γενέσθαι,

66

δεδοκται τας ναύς μήπω εκπλεϊν, “it has been determined that the ships are not yet to sail out.”

(See below, 594, 596).
(8) Participle: un opôv, “if he abstains from doing.”

Obs. 1 Mń with the participle signifies "if not" (si non), and generally accompanies a positive apodosis; ur où with the participle signifies “unless,” and is always attached to a negative apodosis; thus: orav 8° ίκηται, τηνικαύτ' έγω κακός μη δρων αν είην πάνθ' όσαν δηλοί θεός (Soph. @d. T. 76), i.e. si non faciam.

ουκ έξελεύσεσθαι έφασαν μη ου πλήρεος εόντος του κύκλου (Herod. VI. 106), i. e. nisi quum plena esset luna. And the same applies, when the main sentence is virtually negative; as

δυσάλγητος γαρ αν είην τoιάνδε μη ου κατοικτείρων έδραν (Soph. Ed. T. 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 negation see also below, 530, Obs., 603.

Obs. 2 Mń 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 an amounts to a prohibition; thus,

έκβαιν' απήνης τήσδε, μη χαμαι τιθείς

τον σον πόδ', ώναξ, Ίλίου πορθήτορα (Esch. Ag. 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, unréti ιάπτων after χαίρε, and Suppl. 793, μη ορών after έπιδε.

$ IX.

in the Categorical Proposition or Apodosis. 530 The following examples will show the use of où in absolute negations. (a) Indicative:

oùx oiós te cotív, “he is not able.” (6) Optative with åv: oủk åv yévolto, “it would not (under given circumstances)

come to pass. (c) Participle indicating a fact, i.e. a causal or concessive sentence: Spôv, “as abstaining from doing," either “because he does δρών,

it not” (615), or “although he does it not” (621). Obs. In the direct sentence, a repetition of où confirms the negation

ακούει δ' ουδεν ουδείς ουδενός (Εurip. Cycl. 120).

a

[ocr errors]

; as

This pleonasm sometimes occurs as between two sentences ; thus in the comparative μάλλον ή, the oυ of the first clause is repeated in the second; as ήκει γαρ ο Πέρσης ουδέν τι μάλλον επ' ήμέας ή ου και επ' υμέας (Herod.

ΙV. 118). So also when uń with the participle has a negative apodosis (above, 529, Obs. 1), and when uń with the infinitive follows a doubly negative word (below, 595, 603).

$ X. Où and after Relatives and Relative Particles.

531 Où is used after relatives when the antecedent is definite, because in this case there is an affirmation; but un follows the relative when the antecedent is indefinite, because in this case there is an hypothesis. Thus,

, (α) ος ου ποιεί ταύτα = ο ου ποιών ταύτα = άτε ου ποιών ταύτα = is, qui non facit hac.

(3) δς μη ποιεί ταύτα = ο μη ποιών ταύτα = si quis non facit hæc =qui hæc non faciat (above, 405, Obs. 2).

A similar consideration qualifies the general rule respecting the relative particle ei (529) ; thus,

) τάφου μεληθείς τώδε, κάν μηδείς έα (Soph. Α. 1184), de eo quod probabile est: but

(3) ει τους θανόντας ουκ έας θάπτειν παρών (Id. Ιbid. 1131), de eo quod certum est-si, id quod facis, prohibes quominus sepeliamus mortuos (cf. below, 534).

Hence in Thucyd. 1. 121, fin., we must translate ei oủk åteρούσιν, “if they shall not refuse,” and εί ουκ άρα δαπανήσομεν, « if we shall refuse to be at any expense.”

The same applies also to adverbs of place; thus,
(α) μέλλουσι γάρ σ', εί τώνδε μη λήξεις γόων,

ενταύθα πέμψειν, ένθα μή ποθ' ηλίου
φάος προσόψει-de loco nescio quo

(Soph. Electr. 379):
but
(6) άκοντά σ' άκων δυσλύτοις χαλκεύμασι

προσπασσαλεύσω τώδ' απανθρώπω πάγω,

[ocr errors]

ίν' ούτε φωνήν ούτε του μορφήν βροτού
öyrelde loco certo et præsenti

(Eschyl. Prom. 20).
And so in the case of other relative words (above, 396).

a

532 The indirect as distinguished from the direct interrogation is followed by uń when its reference is indefinite. Thus we say, in the direct interrogation, Esch. Agam. 540: τί δ' ου στένοντες, ου κλαίοντες ήματος μέρος ; “in what part of the day were we not groaning, in what not weeping ?” Soph. Trach. 191: πώς δ' ουκ εγώ χαίροιμάν; “why should I not rejoice?” But when we pass to the indirect interrogation, the rule of the relative immediately applies. Thus with a definite reference we have où after όστις. Ιbid. 439: ου γαρ γυναικί τους λόγους έρείς κακή, ουδ' ήτις ου κάτοιδε τάνθρώπων, because a particular person, Deianeira herself, is the antecedent of ήτις. But with an indefinite and general reference we have μή. Ιd. Αj. 748: όστις ανθρώπου φύσιν βλαστών, έπειτα μή κατ' άνθρωπον φρονεί, because here the antecedent is τα περισσα κάνονητα σώματα, in general. Similarly with όπως, we have oυ, when the case is definite, especially in the phrase ουκ έσθ' όπως ου; thus Ibid. 371: ου γαρ γένοιτ' αν ταύθ' όπως ουχ ώδ' έχειν. But μή, when όπως means “ any way

, in which,” as in Id. Antig. 676 (quoted above, 528): όπως μη λέγεις ορθώς τάδε ουκ αν δυναίμην λέγειν, compared with Ed. T. 548: τούτ' αυτό μη μοι φράζ' όπως ουκ ει κακός.

533 As the article is intimately connected with the relative (386 sqq.), we find that the hypothetical is always used with the article, when the reference is general and undefined. We have seen this with the infinitive (529, (e)). And the same is the case with nouns and other single words, except in the usage which will be noticed in the following section. The following passage of Euripides is perhaps the most striking example that could be found. Eurip. Troad. 468: . . . :

εάτέ μ',-ούτοι φίλα τα μη φίλ', ώ κόραι,

κείσθαι πεσούσαν, “suffer me to lie as I have fallen—verily that which is not pleasant or welcome is not at all an act of friendship" (where piros is used in two senses-one referring to the intended friendliness of the

[ocr errors]

.

chorus, and the other to the wishes of Hecuba, and the latter is the usage in Hom. Od. 1. 82; Æsch. Prom. 600; cf. the use of amicus in Hor. 11. Carm. VII. 2). That the principle is the same as the use of the relative, which has just been noticed, so that τα μη φίλα is equivalent to à åv un pina , is clear from such passages as Eurip. Ηec. 279: ού τους κρατούντας χρή κρατείν & μη χρεών; Ιd. Βacch. 448: ότι γάρ μη χρεών ου χρεών παθείν.

Obs. It has been proposed by C. Haeberle (de formis hypotheticis sententiarum relativarum, Landshut, 1831) to distinguish the relative sentence which admits un, and which he calls protatic, from the relative sentence which admits où and äv, and which he calls apodotic, according to the following scheme: Protatic sentences.

Apodotic sentences. I. Of that which is or is not. & μη δύναμαι ποιείν, ου ποιώ. ποιείς, και εγω ου δύναμαι ποιείν. & μη δύναμαι ποιείν, ουκ αν ποιoίην. ουκ αν ποιoίης, & εγω ου δύναμαι

ποιείν. α μη ηδυνάμην ποιείν, ουκ εποίουν. ποιείς, ά εγώ ουκ ήδυνάμην ποιείν. ο δυνάμενος ποιείν ποιεί.

ουκ ειμί και δυνάμενος ποιείν.

ΙΙ. Of that which may or may not exist. & μη δυναίμην ποιείν, ουκ αν ποι- ποιείς, ά εγώ ουκ αν δυναίμην ποιοίην.

είν. ει μη βουλοίμην ποιείν, α δυναίμην, ει μή είη, α δυναίμην ποιείν, ουκ αν ουκ αν ποιoίην.

ποιoίην.-ουκ αν είη, και δυναίμην

ποιείν. του ποιείν, και μη δύναιο, φείδεσθαι

δει. και δυνάμενος ποιείν ποιoίη άν. ουκ ειμι ο δυνάμενος αν ποιείν.

III. Of that which is conceived as non-existent. & μη ηδυνάμην ποιείν, ουκ αν εποί- ποιείς & εγω ουκ άν ηδυνάμην ποι

είν. & μη ηδυνήθην ποιείν, ουκ αν εποί- ποιείς, ά εγώ ουκ άν ηδυνήθην ποιησα.

είν. ει μη ήβουλόμην ποιείν, α ηδυνά- | ήν άν, αηδυνάμην ποιείν.

μην, ουκ αν ευτύχουν. και δυνάμενος ποιείν επoίει άν. ουκ ειμι ο δυνάμενος αν ποιείν.

IV. Of that which may have happened repeatedly. α μη δυναίμην ποιείν, ουκ εποίουν. ποιείς, και εγω ουκ αν ηδυνάμην ποι

είν, οπότε βουλoίμην. & μη δυναίμην ποιείν, ουκ αν εποί

ουκ ήν ο (τότε) δυνάμενος άν ποικαι δυνάμενος ποιείν επoίει (άν).

civ. (This use of the participle is rare.)

ουν.

Ουν.

« PreviousContinue »