ὅπως δὲ ἢν ἀσθενήσωσι τὰ σύμφορα παρέσται, τούτου οὐ πάνυ ἐπιμελομένους ἑώρα:
does this opos means here ‘when’?
ὅπως δὲ ἢν ἀσθενήσωσι τὰ σύμφορα παρέσται, τούτου οὐ πάνυ ἐπιμελομένους ἑώρα
No. I don’t know the context, but just looking at that bit, it’s the normal “in order that.” Basically this: οὐκ ἐπεμελοῦντο ὅπως τὰ σύμφορα παρέσται
ok thankx now i got it but it seems not in the meaning ;in order that’ but ‘how’
“I have not seen them taking much care in order that, should they weaken, the beneficial things will still be present.”
“I have not seem them taking much care how, should they weaken, the beneficial things will still be present.”
To me, the mental image of the first English phrase points to the fact of the result, while the second points to the method of the result, and I feel like that first, the fact of the result, is what the Greek ὅπως + fut. points to. But there are other things that a translation could emphasize.
The future indicative shows that it’s not a purpose clause (“in order that”) but a straightforward indirect question (“how”). “He saw that people were not taking much care of how …” Sometimes a little grammar helps.
Though Michael says this, the LSJ contradicts such a forceful statement, saying that this ὅπως + fut. ind. after a verb of taking care, “easily passes into a final sense”. But I am certainly of very little grammar. All I can say is that here it doesn’t strike me as manner here.
It’s true that οπως with fut.indic. occasionally comes semantically close to being tantamount to a purpose clause, but the grammatical distinction inherent in the Greek is always to be made, and here there’s no reason to invest this with a final sense. When Joel said “just looking at that bit, it’s the normal ‘in order that’,” he clearly wasn’t taking the fut.indic. into account.
Could the grammatical distinction here be that we have an object clause after verbs of effort (using the future indicative answering the question what?) rather than a purpose clause (using the subjunctive answering the question why?)?
Smyth section 2214, and 2214a.
In some examples I can’t see any semantic difference between the two.
2211 I think is the better reference, to ὅπως with future indicative after a verb of effort. Smyth seems to translate it with “that” statements, of fact, not manner. My English does not differentiate “that” and “in order that” in this sort of statement, but perhaps it does for others. “How” would seem to be something entirely different though.
That is exactly my point. It seems to me that we have a grammatical distinction but not always a semantic one.
Putting 2214a into slightly different words:
The subject of the verb of effort can
- desire an object
or - have a purpose in mind.
Mastronarde on page 350 has an example of object clauses with verbs of effort:
παρασκευάσαντο ὅπως σιτία ἕξουσιν.
They made preparations so that they would have provisions.
Well, 2214 is saying that ὅπως sometimes gets the subjunctive construction, like a final clause. But here we’ve got the future indicative.
Michael is claiming that it should be translated “how”, which I would take as a statement about manner, and Smyth 2311 at least appears to take these statements as “that” statements.
LSJ provides more support than Smyth 2311 for Michael’s position, saying it could be either “how” or “that”. In fact, the “frequently interchanged…” statement is a condensed argument for the manner understanding. However, it does not provide support for his more categorical statements.
I felt the Michael’s initial criticism of your explanation was that you had said “in order that” and that this meant purpose clause. But you never said that we had a “purpose clause.”
My feeling is that you had not grammatically categorized this but that you had come up with the sense of it.
I am just pointing out that the use of the future indicative means that we do not grammatically have a purpose clause, but the sense may still be very close to “in order that” if we think of this as the grammatical categorization of “object clauses of verbs of effort.”
But I really don’t know because it seems to me that this might have something to do which verb is governing ὅπως, ἑώρα or ἐπιμελομένους.
From Michael’s intitial post, it seemed to me the he was taking this to be an indirect question and not a case of object clauses of verbs of effort, thus the “how.”
I don’t want to get embroiled in a debate here, nor to argue about taxonomical nomenclature, but I do want to retain the distinction (semantic as well as syntactical) between οπως + fut.indic. and οπως + subjunctive which was initially blurred here. I in my simpleminded way see the former as addressing a question of “how?”, specifically “how shall?”—as distinct from α deliberative subjunctive, say, or an expressly purpose clause. I say this without having referred to Smyth, but I don’t see purpose or intention as being intrinsic.
That’s true for independent sentences. Here we have ὅπως with ἐπιμελεῖσθαι.
I’ve spoilered Goodwin on object clauses in case anyone wants gory details.
Goodwin has in §43 (Smyth basically follows Goodwin for a lot of 2211-2214):
Object clauses with ὅπως or ὅπως μή after verbs of > striving> , &c. ; as σκόπει ὅπως γενήσεται, > see that it happens> ; σκόπει ὅπως μὴ γενήσεται, > see that it does not happen> . These clauses express the > direct object > of the verb of > striving> , &c, so that they may stand in apposition to an object accusative like τοῦτο ; as σκόπει τοῦτο ὅπως μή σε ὄψεται, > see to this, viz., that he does not see you. > They also imply the end or purpose of the action of the leading verb, and to this extent they partake of the nature of final clauses.
Goodwin has a remark, however, telling us not to mistake object clauses for final clauses (which I would have done before reading this):
Remark. Although the object clauses of the class B partake slightly of the nature of final clauses, so that they sometimes allow the same construction (the Subjunctive for the Future Indicative, § 45), still the distinction between these two classes is very strongly marked. An object clause, as we have seen, can stand in apposition to a preceding τοῦτο ; whereas a final clause could stand in apposition to τούτου ἕνεκα, as ἔρχεται τούτου ἕνεκα, ἵνα ἡμῖν βοηθήσῃ, > he comes for this purpose, viz., that he may assist us> . The two can be combined in one sentence; as σπουδάζει ὅπως πλουτήσει, ἵνα τοὺς φίλους εὖ ποιῇ, > he is eager to be rich, that he may benefit his friends> . Care must be taken not to mistake the nature of an object clause, when its subject is attracted by the leading verb ; as σκοπεῖν τὴν πόλιν ὅπως σωθήσεται for σποπεῖν ὅπως ἡ πόλις σωθήσεται, > to see that the city is saved.
Perseus gives Miller’s translation as:
but he saw that they made no provision at all for such things as would be serviceable in case of sickness.
Looks like it is object clause of verbs of effort embedded in indirect speech.
(Just before this there is another example:
παρασκευάζονται ὅπως ἕξουσι …
make preparations that they may …)
We seem to be at various cross-purposes here. I wasn’t referring to independent sentences, but to sentences such as these Xenophontic ones. Nor was I claiming that it should be translated “how,” rather that in such sentences that should be understood as its basic meaning (rather than purpose).
Having done myself some grammar-learning, my understanding from Goodwin is that we have a few different uses of ὅπως in Attic. The relevant ones to our discussion, I think:
-
Homeric ὅπως. Goodwin 344. Here we see the “how” pattern that Michael describes. Future indicative in indirect discourse, meaning or with the simple relative. It seems not to apply to later Greek.
-
Attic ὅπως adverb. Goodwin 313 quotes Thucydides: οὕτως ὅπως δύναται thus as they can. Made up example, σκοπεῖν ὅπως ἡ πόλις σωθήσεται to see how the city can be saved. This gets the future indicative.
-
Attic. ὅπως in indirect speech. Goodwin 706. Goodwin’s claim is that in this use, it has not entirely lost its meaning of “how” in Attic. An example that I’ve run into in reading recently:
ἵνα δὲ μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι οὐκ αὖ μανθάνεις, ὅπως ἂν τοῦτο γένοιτο ἐγὼ φράσω.
I will say how this could come about. [It can’t mean “that”.]
-
Attic ὅπως in final clauses. Goodwin 313. Final clauses denote the end or purpose of a verb. Goodwin describes an evolution with σκοπεῖν ὅπως ἡ πόλις σωθήσεται becoming [object clause] σκοπεῖν ὅπως ἡ πόλις σωθήσεται to see that the city shall be saved. Equivalently σκοπεῖν τοῦτο. From this it begins to get used as a final particle, with the subjunctive also appearing and the “how” faded from few. This are signaled in the grammar books as “in order that”, separate from “that”, though my English hardly distinguishes those two phrases. But I should not have said “in order that” in the first post.
-
Attic ὅπως in object clauses. Goodwin 339. Future indicative is most usual (340), but other moods can occur, as Goodwin describes. This is the bucket that contains our Xenophon passage, with ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τούτου equivalent to σκοπεῖν τοῦτο. The “how” is not part of the meaning in Attic.
-
Elliptical clauses with verbs of saying Goodwin 707, 708. But Smyth says that we can also see elliptical clauses with verbs of striving, Smyth 2213. Goodwin might talk about this somewhere, but I didn’t see it. These are also called “independent” by Smyth.
All Goodwin references from Syntax of the Moods and Tenses, the revised and enlarged 1899 edition.