4, 5, 10

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

4, 5, 10

Post by Constantinus Philo »

οὐδ᾽ ἂν σέ, ὦ Κῦρε, περὶ ἐμοῦ οὕτως ἀπρονοήτως βουλεῦσαι,
this inf stands for aor ind with an expressing unreality, doesn't it?
εἰ δὲ Κῦρος οὕτω γιγνώσκοι, οὐκ ἂν ὑμᾶς, ὦ Μῆδοι, ἐθελῆσαι οὕτως ἔρημον ἐμὲ καταλιπεῖν.
The first opt stands for imperf in oratio recta, and again, inf with an stands for unreal ao.
Semper Fidelis

phalakros
Textkit Fan
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Re: 4, 5, 10

Post by phalakros »

Yes, that’s right, though γιγνώσκοι is ambiguous between representing pres or imperf ind.

User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: 4, 5, 10

Post by Constantinus Philo »

in 2623 Smythe says that all past tenses with an remain unchanged. So maybe an should go with ᾤμην?
Semper Fidelis

phalakros
Textkit Fan
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Re: 4, 5, 10

Post by phalakros »

It’s true that past indicatives in subordinate clauses usually do not become oblique optatives in indirect discourse so as to avoid ambiguity. There are exceptions, though, and I think mainly in Xenophon. Rereading, however, I would actually take it as representing potential optatives not past indicatives. That is, direct speech would be:

εἰ δὲ Κῦρος οὕτω γιγνώσκοι, οὐκ ἂν οἱ Μῆδοι ἐθελήσειαν…καταλιπεῖν.

Post Reply