Page images

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


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).

This pleonasm sometimes occurs as between two sentences; thus in the comparative μᾶλλον ἤ, the οὐ of the first clause is repeated in the second; as

ἥκει γὰρ ὁ Πέρσης οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον ἐπ ̓ ἡμέας ἢ οὐ καὶ ἐπ ̓ ὑμέας (Herod. IV. 118).

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

§ Χ. Οὐ and μή after Relatives and Relative Particles.

531 Οὐ 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) ὃς οὐ ποιεῖ ταῦτα = ὁ οὐ ποιῶν ταῦτα = ἅτε οὐ ποιῶν ταῦτα = is, qui non facit hæc.

(6) ὃς μὴ ποιεῖ ταῦτα = ὁ μὴ ποιῶν ταῦτα = εἰ 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,

(α) τάφου μεληθεὶς τῷδε, κἂν μηδεὶς ἐᾷ (Soph. Αj. 1184), de eo quod probabile est:


(6) εἰ τοὺς θανόντας οὐκ ἐᾷς θάπτειν παρών (Id. Ibid. 1131), de eo quod certum est-si, id quod facis, prohibes quominus sepeliamus mortuos (cf. below, 534).

Hence in Thucyd. I. 121, fin., we must translate εἰ οὐκ ἀπεροῦσιν, “ if they shall not refuse,” and εἰ οὐκ ἄρα δαπανήσομεν, "if we shall refuse to be at any expense.'

The same applies also to adverbs of place; thus,




μέλλουσι γάρ σ', εἰ τῶνδε μὴ λήξεις γόων,

ἐνταῦθα πέμψειν, ἔνθα μή ποθ ̓ ἡλίου

φάος προσόψει—de loco nescio quo

(Soph. Electr. 379):

ἄκοντά σ ̓ ἄκων δυσλύτοις χαλκεύμασι
προσπασσαλεύσω τῷδ ̓ ἀπανθρώπῳ πάγῳ,

ἵν ̓ οὔτε φωνὴν οὔτε του μορφὴν βροτοῦ
ὄψειde loco certo et præsenti

(Æschyl. Prom. 20).

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

532 The indirect as distinguished from the direct interrogation is followed by un when its reference is indefinite. Thus we say, in the direct interrogation, Asch. Agam. 540: τί δ ̓ οὐ στένοντες, οὐ κλαίοντες ἤματος μέρος; “in what part of the day were we not groaning, in what not weeping?" Soph. Trach. 191: πῶς δ ̓ οὐκ ἐγὼ χαίροιμ' ἄν; “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 ὅστις. Ibid. 439: οὐ γὰρ γυναικὶ τοὺς λόγους ἐρεῖς κακῇ, οὐδ ̓ ἥτις οὐ κάτοιδε τἀνθρώπων, because a particular person, Deianeira herself, is the antecedent of rs. But with an indefinite and general reference we have μή. Il. Αj. 748: ὅστις ἀνθρώπου φύσιν βλαστών, ἔπειτα μὴ κατ ̓ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ, because here the antecedent is τὰ περισσὰ κανονητὰ σώματα, in general. Similarly with ὅπως, we have οὐ, when the case is definite, especially in the phrase οὐκ ἔσθ' ὅπως οὐ; thus Ibid. 371: οὐ γὰρ γένοιτ' ἂν ταῦθ ̓ ὅπως οὐχ ὧδ' ἔχειν. But μή, when ὅπως means “any way in which, as in Id. Antig. 676 (quoted above, 528): ὅπως μὴ λέγεις ὀρθῶς τάδε οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην λέγειν, compared with Cd. Τ. 548: τοῦτ ̓ αὐτὸ μή μοι φράζ ̓ ὅπως οὐκ εἶ κακός.

533 As the article is intimately connected with the relative (386 sqq.), we find that the hypothetical μn 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 :

ἐᾶτέ μ',—οὔτοι φίλα τὰ μὴ φίλ ̓, ὦ κόραι,
κεῖσθαι πεσοῦσαν,

[ocr errors]

"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 piños is used in two senses-one referring to the intended friendliness of the

chorus, and the other to the wishes of Hecuba, and the latter is the Esch. Prom. 600; cf. the use of amicus

usage in Hom. Od. 1. 82; in Hor. II. Carm. VII. 2). That the principle is the same as the use of the relative, which has just been noticed, so that τὰ μὴ φίλα is equivalent to ἃ ἂν μὴ φίλα ᾖ, is clear from such passages as Eurip. Hec. 279: οὐ τοὺς κρατοῦντας χρὴ κρατεῖν ἃ μὴ χρεών; Id. Bacch. 448: ὅτι γὰρ μὴ χρεων οὐ χρεὼν παθεῖν.

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

[blocks in formation]

II. Of that which may or may not exist.

ἃ μὴ δυναίμην ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἂν ποιοίην.

εἰ μὴ βουλοίμην ποιεῖν, ἃ δυναίμην, οὐκ ἂν ποιοίην.

τοῦ ποιεῖν, ἃ μὴ δύναιο, φείδεσθαι δεῖ.

ὁ δυνάμενος ποιεῖν ποιοίη ἄν.

ποιεῖς, ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην ποι


[ocr errors]

εἰ μὴ εἴη, ἃ δυναίμην ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἂν ποιοίην.—οὐκ ἂν εἴη, ἃ δυναίμην ποιεῖν.

οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ δυνάμενος ἂν ποιεῖν.

III. Of that which is conceived as non-existent.

ἃ μὴ ἠδυνάμην ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἂν ἐποί

[blocks in formation]

ποιεῖς ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνάμην ποι


ποιεῖς, ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθην ποι


ἦν ἄν, ἃ ἠδυνάμην ποιεῖν.

οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ δυνάμενος ἂν ποιεῖν. have happened repeatedly.

ποιεῖς, ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνάμην ποι-
εῖν, ὁπότε βουλοίμην.

οὐκ ἦν ὁ (τότε) δυνάμενος ἂν ποι


(This use of the participle is rare.)

« PreviousContinue »