Bert wrote:My misgivings about this translation are about [face=SPIonic]ei)[/face] followed by the verb in the future tense. The way I translated it, the Danaans will free the girl only if Apollo will avert destruction.
It makes more sense that Apollo will avert destruction only if the Danaans free the girl.
That is the correct sense. This is another one of those areas where Pharr could be a little chattier.
[face=SPIonic]ei)[/face] + future indicative, future indicative. If X happens, then Y will happen.
Note the tenses in English. This is often called the "future most more vivid condition" in older grammars, but at least two Dutch scholars consider this terminology silly, a fiction of grammarians.
Albert Rijksbaron in The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek
(I now consider this a vital grammar to have around), notes that the [face=SPIonic]ei)[/face] + fut. condition often has a connotation that the speaker considers the outcome undesirable. This may not apply so much to Homer, who is freer with his conditions.
But then I would have expected [face=SPIonic]ei)[/face] followed by a verb in the subjunctive mood.
I believe this is the most common phrasing of a future condition.
One more question about this line; [face=SPIonic] a)pria/thn [/face]and [face=SPIonic]a)na/poinon [/face]have very similar meanings. Is this an example of Epic fulness of speech?
Yep. It's also a unusual to have adjectives piled together without some connection, but poets get to break the rules from time to time.