Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

δέδοκται τὰς ναῦς μήπω ἐκπλείν, " it has been determined that the ships are not yet to sail out."

(See below, 594, 596.)

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

Obs. 1 Mý 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, Oтav 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 ἕδραν (Soph. d. 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 negation see also below, 530, Obs., 603.

Obs. 2 Mn 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 uý amounts to a prohibition; thus,

ἔκβαιν ̓ ἀπήνης τῆσδε, μὴ χαμαὶ τιθεὶς

τὸν σὸν πόδ ̓, ὦναξ, Ιλίου πορθήτορα (sch. 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. O in the Categorical Proposition or Apodosis.

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

(a) Indicative:

οὐχ οἷός τε ἐστίν, “ he is not able.”

(b) Optative with av:

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

[ocr errors]

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

sentence:

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

Obs. In the direct sentence, a repetition of ou confirms the negation; as ἀκούει δ ̓ οὐδὲν οὐδεὶς οὐδενός (Eurip. Cycl. 120).

This pleonasm sometimes occurs as between two sentences; thus in the comparative μâλov, the où 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 un 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 hac.

(5) ὃς μὴ ποιεῖ ταῦτα = ὁ μὴ ποιῶν ταῦτα = si quis non facit hæc qui hæc non faciat (above, 405, Obs. 2).

=

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

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

but

(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).

66

Hence in Thucyd. Ι. 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."

but

The same applies also to adverbs of place; thus,

(a)

(6)

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 τοῦ μορφὴν βροτοῦ
ove-de 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 μn when its reference is indefinite. Thus we say, in the direct interrogation, Esch. Agam. 540: Tí 8 où σTÉνοντες, 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 Tes. But with an indefinite and general reference we have μή. Id. Αj. 748: ὅστις ἀνθρώπου φύσιν βλαστών, ἔπειτα μὴ κατ ̓ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ, because here the antecedent is тà πeρισσà kȧvovητà σwμata, in general. Similarly with ows, we have où, 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): oπws μn 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,

"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 píos 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 usage in Hom. Od. 1. 82; Æsch. Prom. 600; cf. the use of amicus 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 χρεὼν οὔτοι 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 ποι

οίην.

ποιεῖς, ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην ποι

εἶν.

εἰ μὴ βουλοίμην ποιεῖν, ἃ δυναίμην, εἰ μὴ εἴη, ἃ δυναίμην ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἂν

οὐκ ἂν ποιοίην.

[blocks in formation]

ποιοίην.—οὐκ ἂν εἴη, ἃ δυναίμην ποιεῖν.

οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ δυνάμενος ἂν ποιεῖν.

conceived as non-existent.

ποιεῖς ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνάμην ποι

εῖν.

ποιεῖς, ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθην ποι

εῖν.

ἦν ἄν, ἃ ἡδυνάμην ποιεῖν.

οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ δυνάμενος ἂν ποιεῖν. have happened repeatedly. ποιεῖς, ἃ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνάμην ποιεῖν, ὁπότε βουλοίμην.

οὐκ ἦν ὁ (τότε) δυνάμενος ἂν ποι

εῖν.

(This use of the participle is rare.)

V. Of the undefined condition.

ἳ ἂν μὴ δύνωμαι ποιεῖν, οὐ ποιῶ, οὐ ποιήσω.

The apodotic sentence is wanting.

ἳ ἂν δυνηθῶ ποιεῖν, πεποιήσεται.

ἳ ἂν μὴ δύνωμαι ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἂν ποιοίην.

ὁ δυνάμενος ποιεῖν ποιεῖ.

§ 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 où onμ, not "I do not say," but "I say no," nego; οὐχ ὑπισχνοῦμαι, “I refuse;” οὐ θέλω, nolo; οὐκ ἐῶ, “ I forbid” (Thucyd. III. 48, cf. 531); ovк adúvaтos eiπeîv, " an eloquent man" (Id. iv. 84); où тŵv ådvvaтwτáτwv, "the wealthiest men among them" (Id. 1. 5); оvx кισтa, præsertim; oix äμeivov, “it is better not;" où πávv, omnino non; où diáλvois, "the prevention from breaking down;" ǹ où πеρiтeixiσis, "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. O 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,

åp oνê ẻσtiv ảobevýs; nonne ægrotat? Proculdubio (“he is ill, is he not? Yes").

The combination oùk ovv is very often used interrogatively, and the inference implied is so distinctly affirmative, that the note of interrogation is frequently omitted, and ovxoûv; = nonne igitur? is considered as equivalent to igitur, and the categorical oйKoVV, "not in accordance with what has been said" (below, 548, (31)), is distinguished from it by a change of accent.

As yap belongs to the categorical proposition (615), ǹ yáp; expects an affirmative answer.

« PredošláPokračovať »