Page images
PDF
EPUB

539). But the construction with verbs of fearing, being that of the indirect and dependent interrogative, must be subsequent to that of the direct question or prohibition.

§ XIII. My after Verbs of Fearing, &c.

538 These interrogations with μn and the indicative mood, like the prohibitions and deprecations with μn and the subjunctive or optative (529, (c), (d)), are appended to verbs of fearing and circumspection, with this difference:

(a) If the object of our fear or forethought is regarded as certain, we use the indicative.

(b) If uncertain, we use the subjunctive or optative.

Thus,

(α) μὴ ἀμφοτέρων ἡμαρτήκαμεν, “we have not lost both, have we?" Answer, "No!"

But by preferring poßoûμai, we do away with the negative, so that φοβούμαι μή signifes forsitan, " perhaps;” and φοβοῦμαι-μὴ ἀμφοτέρων ἡμαρτήκαμεν = " I fear we have missed both it is but too probable" (Thucyd. III. 55).

In the same way with a verb of circumspection:

μὴ δόκησιν εἴχετ ̓ ἐκ θεῶν, “ you had not a mere fantasm sent from the gods, had you?" Answer, "No!" But if we prefix σκοπεῖτε, we annul the particle μή, which had negatived the hypothesis, so that

σκοπεῖτε μὴ δόκησιν εἴχετ ̓ ἐκ θεῶν

(Eurip. Helen. 119)

will signify "look to it, if you had not some vision sent from the gods"-i. e. "it is more than probable that you had." Similarly μǹ πalswv čλeyev; "he did not speak in jest, did he?" Answer, "No!" But if we prefix opa the negation is annulled, and the sense of probability is introduced, so that ὅρα-μὴ παίζων ἔλεγεν (Plat. Theætet. p. 145 B) will signify "it is probable that he spoke in jest."

(b) μn Oávo, "let me not die "-nego suppositionem me moriturum esse, vel pono me moriturum non esse.

Sédoiκa-μn Oávw, "I fear I shall die-it is but too probable."

Similarly ἔφη δεδοικέναι μὴ θάνοι, " he said he was afraid he should die;" for the optative, being by nature an indeterminate tense, is properly used after other past tenses (above, 292, 513; below, 607).

Obs. There is the same difference between poßoûμai μn and ovk old' ei, as between forsitan and haud scio an: the former signifies that it is probable; the latter that it is unlikely; thus, ouk av old' ei dvvaíμnv (Plato, Tim. p. 263) = φοβοῦμαι μὴ οὐ δύνωμαι. The apodotic ἄν shows that our old' ei is adverbial.

539 We may also say in the indicative usage, (a) öpa μǹ ovx OUTW TaûT' exel (Plat. Alcib. II. p. 139 D), "perhaps this is not the case;" and with the subjunctive or optative, (b) poßoûμai-μn οὐ-θάνω, “I fear I shall not die;” ἐφοβούμην-μὴ οὐ-θάνοιμι, “ Ι feared I should not die," according to 534.

Obs. That these usages do not belong to the syntax of the illative or final sentence appears (1) from the sense, for the meaning is not "with the consequence that it is not so" (below, 602, (d)), or "to the end that it may not be so" (below, 611), but simply "whether it be so;" (2) from the omission of the particles wore or iva, oπws, &c.; (3) from the analogy of the Latin; for vereor ut veniat means "I fear how he can come," i. e. "I fear he will not come;" but efficio ne veniat for efficio ut ne veniat would mean "I manage to the end that he may not come;" so that the negative in the one case is expressed by ut alone, and in the other by ne for ut ne.

[blocks in formation]

540 (a) Ov with the Future or Subjunctive in Interrogations.

When the interrogative où is used with the future tense, the result is a positive command (523); when it is used with the subjunctive, the result is a deliberation nearly amounting to a resolve (521). The former construction most frequently occurs in the second person, the latter in the first; as

où μéveis; quin manes? "will you not remain?" i.e. "stop!" and it is expected that the person addressed will do so (535); ovk iw; nonne ibo? "shall I not go?" which implies "of course I shall."

541 (6) Mń with the Future Indicative or Aorist Subjunctive. But if we prefix un to the future indicative or aorist subjunctive, the result is, of course, a prohibition (529, (c)); thus,

(a)

λέξεις δὲ μηδὲν τῶν ἐμοὶ δεδογμένων

(Eurip. Med. 804),

"do not tell of any of the resolves which I have formed."

(B)

ἀλλ ̓ ἐξερώτα· μηδὲν ἐνδεὲς λίπῃς

(Id. Phon. 385),

"but go on asking; leave nothing wanting."

542 (c) The Interrogative with où followed by the Prohibition with μή.

Since, therefore, the interrogative où commands, and μn without interrogation forbids, and that too with the same inflexions-the future or subjunctive-both constructions will be used when a command is followed by an equivalent prohibition; thus,

οὐ σῖγα; μηδὲν τῶνδ ̓ ἐρεῖς κατὰ πτόλιν

(Esch. Sept. c. Theb. 232),

"wilt thou not be silent? say nothing of this kind in the city.”

543 (d) Interrogation and Prohibition combined. Generally, however, the command and prohibition are brought under the influence of the same interrogation; thus,

οὐ σιγ ̓ ἀνέξει, μηδὲ δειλίαν ἀρεῖς ;

(Soph. Aj. 75),

"wilt thou not keep silence, and not conceive fear?" i.e. "be silent, and do not conceive fear."

ὦ δεῖνα λέξασ', οὐχὶ συγκλείσεις στόμα,
καὶ μὴ μεθήσεις αὖθις αἰσχίστους λόγους;
(Eurip. Hippol. 498),

“O thou that hast spoken dreadful words, wilt thou not close thy mouth, and not allow disgraceful sentiments again to escape thee?" i.e. "close thy lips, and do not speak such shameful words again."

544 (e) Οὐ and μή coalesce.

Lastly, the Greeks were very fond of coupling the où and μn, and prefixing them to a single verb used interrogatively, according

to this rule, that où un with the second person of the future (a) conveyed a prohibition; while with the other persons of the future (β), and with the subjunctive (γ), οὐ μή enounced a categorical negation; thus,

(α) οὐ μὴ δυσμενὴς ἔσει φίλοις (Eurip. Med. 1120),

"wilt thou not be not unkind to thy friends?" i. e. "be not unkind to thy friends."

66

οὐ μὴ προσοίσεις χεῖρα, βακχεύσεις δ ̓ ἴων (540),
μηδ' ἐξομόρξει μωρίαν τὴν σὴν ἐμοί (541),

(Id. Bacch. 343),

" wilt thou not not put forth thy hand, but go and play the Bacchanalian, and not wipe off thy folly on me?" i. e. "off with thy hand-go, revel, as thou wilt, and make not me a napkin for thy folly."

οὐ μὴ φρενώσεις μ', ἀλλὰ δέσμιος φυγών

σώσει τόδ' (540), ἤ σοι πάλιν ἀναστρέψω δίκην ;
(Id. Ibid. 792),

(516, (a))

“wilt thou not not advise me, but, having escaped from bonds, wilt thou not keep this: or must I again turn punishment upon thee?" i. e. "advise me not; but being free once more, keep this: or must I punish thee again?"

66

66

(β) οὔ σοι μὴ μεθέψομαί ποτε (Soph. Εl. 1052),

assuredly I will never follow thee."

οὔ τοι μή ποτέ σ ̓ ἐκ τῶνδ ̓ ἑδράνων,

ὦ γέρον, ἄκοντά τις ἄξει (Id. d. C. 176),

assuredly no one shall ever hale thee from this suppliant seat against thy will.”

(γ) καὶ τῶνδ ̓ ἀκούσας οὔ τι μὴ ληφθῶ δόλῳ

(Esch. Sept. c. Theb. 38), "having heard these tidings, I shall certainly not be caught by stratagem.'

οὔτε γὰρ γίγνεται οὔτε γέγονεν οὐδὲ οὖν μὴ γένηται ἀλλοῖον ἦθος πρὸς ἀρετὴν παρὰ τὴν τούτων παιδείαν πεπαιδευμένον (Plat. Resp. 492 Ε), “ for there is not, nor has been, nor, to say it all, can there

possibly be a different mode of thinking in reference to virtue, if it be formed according to the education given by these men."

545 This last construction was considered so entirely equivalent to the future, that it was used as the apodosis of éáv and the subjunctive (502, II); thus,

ἣν νικήσωμεν, οὐ μήποτε ὑμῖν Πελοποννήσιοι ἐς τὴν χώραν ἄνευ τῆς τῶνδε ἵππου ἐσβάλωσιν (Thucyd. iv. 95), “ if we shall have conquered them, there is no fear lest the Peloponnesians should invade your territory without the cavalry of these Boeotians."

« PreviousContinue »