The Athenaze II (Italian version) has a passage which contains a sentence taken from Plato’s Charmides:
ἀλλὰ τί οὐκ ἐπέδειξάς μοι τὸν νεανίαν καλέσας δεῦρο;
Clearly the sense is “why don’t you show off the youth calling him here.” Because of “δεῦρο” and because of the context it’s hard to translate the question is “why didn’t…”
Why would Plato have used an aorist indicative?
Mark
You haven’t quite got ἐπέδειξάς μοι. But why dont you call the young man here and show him to me?
The reason for the aorist is one of aspect. The action is in the past and completed. The context is provided by the previous sentence. Τοῦτο μέν, ἦν δ᾿ ἐγώ, ὦ φίλε Κριτία, πόρρωθεν ὑμῖν τὸ καλὸν ὑπάρχει ἀπὸ τῆς Σόλωνος συγγενείας. That, my dear Critias, I said, is a gift which your family has had a long while Back, through your kinship with Solon. (Loeb)
If he used the present it would mean something like why dont you keep calling him and keep showing him to me. The present tense is progressive and ongoing.
I think this is all explained in book 1.
Yes, the aspect here is “perfective.” The force of it could also be captured in English by “Why haven’t you…” which practically means the same thing in English as “Why don’t you…”
Thanks! I have to say that I can see Barry’s explanation, but not Seneca’s. Unless I’m confused an aorist in the indicative refers to the past except in the case of a gnonic aorist.
I just looked up the Aorist Indicative in Symth and found his answer in 1936 ‘Aorist for Present’ – the aorist is used in questions with τί οὖν οὐ and 'τί οὐ to express surprise that something has not been done. The question is here equivalent to a command or proposal.
I am sorry if I was not clear enough. it would have been better not have said “The action is in the past and completed.” But nevertheless the answer is that the aorist is not used here as a tense but because of its aspect. I dont think there is any surprise expressed here so I dont think the Smyth reference is relevant.
If you look at the beginning of Book 1 of Athenaze you will see an explanation of the different meanings of an aorist and present imperative. I think that’s what is at issue here in this question.
Aspect and tense are well explained in chapter 33 of the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek.
“Why don’t” and “why haven’t” are different questions. I would have expected αν with an optative for Seneca’s version.
I actually think Seneca and I are saying essentially the same thing, just with somewhat different metalanguage.