V. Of the undefined condition. ἳ ἂν μὴ δύνωμαι ποιεῖν, οὐ ποιῶ, οὐ ποιήσω. ἃ ἂν δυνηθῶ ποιεῖν, πεποιήσεται. ἳ ἂν μὴ δύνωμαι ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἂν ποιοίην. ὁ δυνάμενος ποιεῖν ποιεῖ. The apodotic sentence is wanting. § XI. Ov, when it negatives the primary Notion of a Word or Phrase. 534 O is sometimes so closely connected with a word or phrase, that it not only negatives it, but even affirms the contrary. Thus we have ou onμi, not "I do not say," but "I say no," nego; οὐχ ὑπισχνοῦμαι, “ I refuse;” οὐ θέλω, nolo; οὐκ ἐπ, “ I forbid (Thucyd. III. 48, cf. 531); ovκ ádúvaтos eiπeîv, "an eloquent man ἀδύνατος (Id. IV. 84); où тav advvaтwтáTwv, "the wealthiest men among them" (Id. I. 5); о3× ηкισтα, præsertim; ovx äμeivov, “it is better not;” οὐ πάνυ, omnino non; ἡ οὐ διάλυσις, “ the prevention from breaking down;" où πеρIтEίxious, "the stoppage of the blockade," &c. From these we must carefully distinguish the hypothetical phrases τὸ μὴ διαλυθῆναι, τὸ μὴ περιτειχισθῆναι, τὰ μὴ φίλα, &c. (529, (e), 533). § XII. Ov and pn in Interrogations. 535 As the direct question is inferentially equivalent to the categorical negation, it will follow conversely that, whenever où is found in an interrogation, a positive answer is expected; thus, åρ' ойк éσTI ȧolevýs; nonne ægrotat? Proculdubio ("he is ill, is he not? Yes"). The combination our oùv is very often used interrogatively, and the inference implied is so distinctly affirmative, that the note of interrogation is frequently omitted, and ovκoûv;= nonne igitur ? is considered as equivalent to igitur, and the categorical oйкovv, "not in accordance with what has been said" (below, 548, (31)), is distinguished from it by a change of accent. As yáp belongs to the categorical proposition (615), ỷ yáp; expects an affirmative answer. The combination aλλo Tɩ —; "is there any thing else than-?" necessarily anticipates an affirmative response. The is very often omitted, and aλλor alone is then equivalent to nonne? as in Plat. Resp. p. 369: ἄλλοτε γεωργὸς μὲν εἶς, ὁ δὲ oikodóμos, "of course one is a husbandman, and the other a builder." There is a great risk of missing this idiom in some passages, e.g. in Plat. Theœtet. p. 159 D: őτav dè ảσlevoûνтa, äλXOTI πρῶτον μὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔλαβεν; where the denial of identity suggests another rendering to the uninitiated student. 536 If a mere hypothesis is called in question, the answer expected is necessarily negative; thus, (a) "Exλŋν ποú éσT, "I suppose he is a Greek." (6) οὔτι που Ἕλλην ἐστί, “I suppose he is not a Greek. Hence interrogatively, (ε) ή που "Ελλην ἐστί; num Graius est? i.e. “ he is not a Greek, is he?" or "he is not a Greek, I suppose." "No!" 537 Since, therefore, un forbids or negatives an assumption, its appearance in an interrogation presumes a negative reply; thus, ȧpa μý éστiv ȧobevns; num ægrotat? i.e. "he is not ill, I suppose" or "he is not ill, is he?" In questions un is often combined with ovv under the form μov, and we have sometimes even μôv ovv, as Plat. Soph. 250 D: μῶν οὖν ἐν ἐλάττονί τινι νῦν ἐσμὲν ἀπορίᾳ, “ surely we are not in a less difficulty now?" And μov has become so entirely an interrogative particle, that it is followed by either μý or où, according as the answer expected is negative or positive; as Plat. Phædo, 84 c: μῶν μὴ δοκεῖ ἐνδεῶς λέλεχθαι; and Id. Soph. 234 Α: μῶν οὐ παιδιὰν νομιστέον ; 66 We have also the combination un où in questions both with the indicative and with the subjunctive, as Plat. Meno, p. 89 c: ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῦτο οὐ καλῶς ὡμολογήσαμεν, " but perhaps we have done rightly in making this admission;" Cratyl. 436 в: ảλλà μǹ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχῃ, "but perhaps this is not so." Here the interrogation is virtually lost, and un, like the later Greek μnToтe, means simply "perhaps." It is common to consider these phrases as elliptical or presuming the loss of φοβοῦμαι οι ὅρα (below, 538, 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. 111. 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 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 êxeyev; "he did not speak in jest, did he?" Answer, No!" But if we prefix öpa the negation is annulled, and the sense of probability is introduced, so that ὅρα-μὴ παίζων ἔλεγεν (Plat. Theœtet. p. 145 B) will signify "it is probable that he spoke in jest." (b) μn Dávw, "let me not die "—nego suppositionem me moriturum esse, vel pono me moriturum non esse. Sédoixa-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 poßoûμaι μý and ovк old el, 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 ἂν shows that our old ei is adverbial. 539 We may also say in the indicative usage, (a) öpa μǹ ovx oûтw Taût exei (Plat. Alcib. 11. p. 139 D), "perhaps this is not the case;" and with the subjunctive or optative, (b) poßoûμai-μǹ 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. § XIV. Construction of où μń. 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 oử μéveis; quin manes? "will you not remain?" i.e. "stop!" and it is expected that the person addressed will do so (535); ovk w; 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. Phoen. 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 σίγα; 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, "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 (ε) Οὐ and μή coalesce. Lastly, the Greeks were very fond of coupling the ov and μn, and prefixing them to a single verb used interrogatively, according |