οὐκ εὐφημήσεις; φάναι τὸν Σωκράτη.
μὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ, εἰπεῖν τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην, μηδὲν λέγε πρὸς ταῦτα, ὡς ἐγὼ οὐδʼ ἂν ἕνα ἄλλον ἐπαινέσαιμι σοῦ παρόντος.
The clause I want to focus on: ὡς ἐγὼ οὐδʼ ἂν ἕνα ἄλλον ἐπαινέσαιμι σοῦ παρόντος.
Trial translation: for I would not praise even one other person [i.e. than you, Socrates] in your presence.
How to classify grammatically this use of the aorist optative, with ἂν, negated by οὐδʼ?
Hi Hugh,
It’s just a regular potential optative (opt.+ἅν, neg. οὐ). οὐδέ “not even,” just as you say (“not even a single other person”), and the aorist aspectual as usual (present opt. would be marked, e.g. “try to praise, start praising,” while the aorist is just a one-off action).
Or have I missed the point of difficulty?
You’re very helpful, Michael.
I’m using Louise Pratt’s Eros at the Banquet. Very often Pratt gives notes on such grammatical points as this, along with a reference to her accompanying grammar book, but this time I didn’t find one.
My knowledge of the precepts concerning the optative and subjunctive needs improvement. While it seemed to me that potential optative might work here, I was not at all confident.
Many thanks!
Glad to be of help Hugh. I don’t have the Pratt books, but an optative w/ ἄν will always be a potential optative—unless it’s the apodosis (main clause) of a conditional, with an if-clause in attendance. But there’s no real difference: a main clause is not affected by an attendant if-clause.
That’s to say, μένοιμι ἄν means “I’d stay”, just as μενῶ means “I’ll stay”, whether or not it’s accompanied by an if-clause (“if I could” εἰ δυναίμην, or “if I can” ἐὰν δύνωμαι).
Opt.+ἄν is negatived with οὐ. Ιf-clauses are negatived with μή.
ταῦτα οὐκ ἂν εἴποιμι εἰ μὴ ἀληθῆ εἴη.
Thanks for the tips, Michael. It takes much re-study for me to get positive knowledge of grammar. I forge ahead with reading happily, but attending to grammar & forms requires will power.