Æschyl. Αg. 1374 (where it is a distinct protasis) : Eurip. Electr. 900 (where εἴτε is followed by *) : Hom. Il. II. 349 (where it is followed by ἤ and οὐ): Soph. Αj. 178 (where εἴτε follows ἤ) : ἤ ῥα κλυτῶν ἐνάρων ψευσθεῖσ ̓, ἀδώροις εἴτ ̓ ἐλαφηβολίαις. 553 In general, the student will observe, that if the disjunetive retains its conditional force, it is followed by un; if it merely states contradictory alternatives, by οὐ; cf. Asch. Eum. 168: σύ τ ̓ εἰ δικαίως εἴτε μή, κρῖνον δίκην, with Thucyd. VI. 60 : εἴτε ἄρα καὶ τὰ ὄντα μηνῦσαι εἴτε οὔ. 554 The combination τε καί is used in the disjunctive sentence when it is intended to express that the two alternatives present themselves in close combination; as in Hom. Il. VIII. 168 : Τυδείδης δὲ διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν ἵππους τε στρέψαι καὶ ἐναντίβιον μαχέσασθαι. Æschyl. Αg. 807 : γνώσει δὲ χρόνῳ διαπευθόμενος τόν τε δικαίως καὶ τὸν ἀκαίρως πόλιν οἰκουροῦντα πολιτῶν. 555 The comparative or superlative co-ordination of τοσούτῳ (τοσοῦτον) -ὅσῳ (ὅσον) is of the nature of a copulative sentence with τεκαί, though it sometimes amounts to an illative, and sometimes to a causal sentence. Thus Plat. Resp. II. p. 372 D, ὅσῳ μέγιστον τὸ τῶν φυλάκων ἔργον, τοσούτῳ σχολῆς τῶν ἄλλων πλείστης ἂν εἴη δεόμενον, might be expressed by their work is the greatest, and therefore requires the greatest leisure" or "their work is so great as to require the greatest leisure." Without this mode of viewing the construction, the student would fail to understand several passages in Thucydides. Thus, ὅσῳ ἄμεινον follow οὐχ ἧσσον in I. 82; ὅσῳ καί follow οὐχ ἥκιστα = τοσούτῳ μάλιστα in I. 68 ; and οὐδενὸς χεῖρον = τοσούτῳ πάντων ἄμεινον in VI. 89. In VI. 11, oo kai, without any real antecedent, may be rendered "because" or "inasmuch as," and the particles have the same meaning in vI. 92, where there is a sort of antecedent in the particles σφόδρα and ἱκανῶς. In IV. 108, ἐψευσμένοις τῆς ̓Αθηναίων δυνάμεως ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὅση ὕστερον διεφάνη means “ they were mistaken in the power of the Athenians, by as much as that power afterwards appeared different from their notion of it," i.e. the emphasis falls on the preposition in διεφάνη. In VII. 23, τὸν παράλογον τοσοῦτον ποιῆσαι is followed first by a causal ὅσον, and afterwards by an illative ὥστε. 556 The comparative clause with is of the nature of a disjunctive sentence, though the sentence, in which the comparative appears, is in effect an antecedent: thus ovdèv креîσσov n pinos capns means "where there is a sure friend, there is nothing better." 557 In the emphatic sense of "even," "also," the Greeks used the copulative xaí, where the Latin prefers the disjunctive vel or the compound et-iam. Sometimes the force of this caí is best expressed by throwing an emphasis on the auxiliary in English; as in Tŵs kai diáλet', eiπé; (Eurip. Hippol. 1171), "say, how did he die?" In this emphatic sense, kai, followed by other particles, has many distinctive uses: thus we have καὶ δή, καί περ, καί τοι in concessive sentences; kai μnv in calling attention to a statement; kai dǹ κaí in making an important addition; and so forth. 558 "ET, which, under the form et, is the commonest copulative conjunction in Latin, generally appears in Greek as a temporal particle only. § IV. Distributive Sentences. 559 Distributive sentences, which are generally in some sense adversative also, are most frequently expressed by the particles μév and dé, signifying "first" and "second," when the opposition or distribution is in each case positive. But when a negative in the first clause is followed by a positive sentence, which corrects or explains it, the proper particles are oυk-aλλá, just as in German we have sondern instead of aber after nicht. Thus we have in the same passage (Eurip. Med. 555): οὐχ, ᾗ σὺ κνίζει,—σὸν μὲν ἐχθαίρων λέχος καινῆς δὲ νύμφης ἱμέρῳ πεπληγμένος ἀλλ ̓ ὡς κ.τ.λ. 560 One of the commonest forms of the distributive sentence is that, which has been mentioned above (390), when the article is used as a pronoun, for the purpose of distributing a number of persons or things into different classes. In this use we often find τοῦτο μέν—τοῦτο δέ for τὸ μέν—τὸ δέ. 561 When μév and dé are appended to the disjunctive, the compound becomes a copulative particle; thus nμév—ỷdé mean “both—and," or "as in the first place, so in the second place.' 562 Although Sé is the proper and most usual antithesis to μév, other particles sometimes take its place when the opposition is intended to be more distinct. Thus we find TOûT' ǎλλo (Soph. Ed. C. 605) and ToûT' avois (Iḍ. Antig. 167) opposed to ToÛTO μέν; and πλήν, γε μήν, ἀλλά, and ἀλλ' ὅμως are opposed to μέν alone. 563 Aé is often placed in a clause which is opposed to what precedes, although there may be no μév in the first clause (above, 390). This is particularly the case in the Platonic phrase Tò dé, which means "whereas, in truth," "whereas, on the contrary,' quum tamen (see Heindorf ad Theatet. § 37). 564 If the same word or a synonym is repeated in the second clause, dé is also repeated, though there is no introductory μév; thus Soph. Ed. C. 1342: ὥστ ̓ ἐν δόμοισι τοῖσι σοῖς στήσω σ ̓ ἄγων, 565 We sometimes find that the introductory clause, which contains the μév, is, strictly speaking, dependent upon that which follows with the Sé. Thus in Demosth. Mid. p. 573, μǹ тоívvv âv μὲν εἴπῃ τις παράνομα οὕτως ὀργιζόμενοι φαίνεσθε, ἂν δὲ ποιῇ μὴ Xéyn #paws diákelo0e, the meaning is "do not, while you give such a manifestation of your anger in the case of illegal proposals, exhibit mildness of character in the case of those who act illegally without speaking:" for the orator certainly does not wish to deprecate the anger of the judges in the case of those who made illegal speeches. 566 Connected with this usage and the preceding, we find a double μév in the anterior or dependent clauses, followed by a double dé in the apodosis or quasi-apodosis. Thus in Plato (Apol. 28 Ε), δεινὰ ἂν εἴην εἰργασμένος εἰ, ὅτε μέν με οἱ ἄρχοντες ἔταττον, oi τότε μὲν οὗ ἐκεῖνοι ἔταττον ἔμενον, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τάττοντος, ἐνταῦθα δὲ λίποιμι τὴν τάξιν, it is clear that the two sentences with μέν are dependent on those which follow with dé. 567 As a further result of the same usage, we find that dé sometimes stands, as it were, arbitrarily in the apodosis; as in Herod. v. 40: ἐπεὶ τοίνυν περιεχόμενόν σε δρέομεν τῆς ἔχεις γυναικός, σὺ δὲ ταῦτα ποιεε. When μév stands by itself, without any corresponding dé, the latter, or some equivalent, is virtually implied, and μév looks forward to the completion of the sentence, just as ovv looks back to what has been already said. Thus, when Socrates is going to catechize Meno's slave, he asks the master: "EXλnv μév éσti kaì êXXŋviče; "he is a Greek, I suppose, and talks Greek?" (Plat. Meno, p. 82 B); here an ei dè μn is obviously implied: "if he is not, he will not answer my purpose." This is particularly obvious in the combination μὲν οὖν. Thus, in the answer πάνυ μὲν οὖν, which is so common in the Platonic dialogues, there is a manifest suspension of part of the sentence: "you are right as to what you have said, but what follows?" (Ti S'ÉTEIтa;) So also in the corrective μèv ouv, where the main point is conceded, but some emphatic addition or correction is appended to the concession; thus in Esch. Ag. 1363, τάδ ̓ ἂν δικαίως ἦν, ὑπερδίκως μὲν οὖν, the justice is admitted, but its exceeding righteousness is proclaimed. And in the comical passage, Aristoph. Eq. 910, ἀπομυξάμενος, ὦ Δῆμ ̓, ἐμοῦ πρὸς τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποψῶ, the ἀλλαντοπώλης, by answering ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν, ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν, does not dissent from Kleon's servile proposal, but only wishes that the humble office may be transferred to himself. 568 In colloquial Greek the combination μèv ovv obtained a sort of ironical significance, equivalent to our "O yes” or “no doubt" (Arist. Ran. 241), especially with ou prefixed (Id. Ibid. 556). 569 The distributive sentence becomes emphatically copulative when οὐ μόνον or οὐχ ὅτι are opposed to ἀλλά, with or without καί. Thus, ὁ Σωκράτης οὐ μόνον σοφὸς ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγαθός is equivalent to ὁ Σ. σοφός τε ἦν καὶ ἀγαθός. 570 When for οὐ μόνον we have οὐχ ὅτι οr μὴ ὅτι, there is an ellipse of Aéyw or some such word in the one case, and of λéye in the other. But the effect is the same. So also, when the second clause contains a negation, as in Dem. c. Tim. 702, 2: ox ὅτι τῶν ὄντων ἀπεστερήμην ἄν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐδ ̓ ἂν ἔζην, “I do not only say that I should have been deprived of my property, but I should not even have been alive.” So in οὐχ ὅσον and οὐχ οἷον. 571 If however we have oux oπws in the former clause, it means "not only not;" Dem. c. Polycl. 1225, 12: dè yn ovx ὅπως τινὰ καρπὸν ἤνεγκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπέλιπεν, “ not only did the earth bear no fruit, but even the water failed." We have really the same idiom in Soph. Εl. 786: πεπαύμεθ ̓ ἡμεῖς, οὐχ oπws σe navooμev, "so far from being able to put you down, we are put down ourselves." 572 Sometimes the same opposition may be effected by un tí γε δή: as in Dem. Ol. II. 24, 21: οὐκ ἔνι δ ̓ αὐτὸν ἀργοῦντα οὐδὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἐπιτάττειν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τι ποιεῖν, μή τι γε δὴ τοῖς θεοῖς, "when a man is idle, not only can he not call upon the gods to help him, but he cannot even apply to his friends” (i.e. much less to the gods). § V. Temporal Sentences. 573 The temporal sentence is, strictly speaking, a periphrasis for the temporal adverb. Thus, "he came late" is equivalent to "he came when it was too late:" and so of other explanatory additions to the time indicated by the verb. It has been mentioned, that all indeterminate tenses presume such an addition (422). Besides the adverb, the cases of an inflected noun may be used to |