Χαίρετε!
I am working on optatives and am supposed to translate the phrase,
“May you (s.) never forget. May the gods grant this.”
I wrote, “μήποτε ἐπιλανθάνοιο. οἱ θειό τοῦτο διδοῖεν.”
The answer book wrote, “μήποτε ἐπιλάθοιο. τοῦτο δοῖεν οἱ θεοί.”
I put it in the present because I thought it was an attainable wish. Can the aorist be used to
attainable wishes also?
Smyth 2156. WISHES distinguishes between future (optative), present (imperfect), and past wishes (aorist indicative). The use of aorist vs. present optative is one of aspect (i.e., whether the wish is seen as a single event or as some condition extending in time), rather than attainability.
With the optative, as with the subjunctive and the infinitive, the difference between present and aorist is not a matter of attainability but of aspect. Mastronarde no doubt discusses aspect.
διδοῖεν (present) is less appropriate than δοῖεν (aorist), if it’s a one-time gift that’s contemplated. Similarly with ἐπιλανθάνοιο vs. ἐπιλάθοιο.
(Crossed with bedwere)
Speaking of aspect, sometimes I still have trouble distinguishing between the imperfect and aorist. Dr. Mastronarde discusses subjunctives in Unit 32 but also introduces the sequence of moods. He gives an example of a past fear clause like this:
Secondary sequence: optative optional
ἐφοβοῦντο μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιθῆται.
Or ἐφοβοῦντο μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιθεῖτο [optative].
They were afraid that the king might attack.
He used the imperfect of fear. Sometimes I think fear in the past as something that was in progress in the past. Other times I think it was a one-time event. I think about it for quite a while and cannot decide for sure if it is imperfect or aorist.
Yes, those two examples of a past fear clause (when the verb of fearing is a past tense) are clear enough: the dependent clause is introduced by μή (cf. old English “lest”), and its verb will be either subjunctive (as in primary sequence) or optative (since it’s in secondary sequence).
Should the leading verb be aorist or imperfect? As always, that depends on whether it’s thought of as a single one-off event (as in “fear suddenly gripped them”: aorist), or as continuous and ongoing, as in “They were afraid” i.e. in a state of fear: imperfect.
You seem to understand this in principle. If you can’t decide which is appropriate, I hope it will become clear as you think more about it. Sometimes, of course, it could be either one, but the meaning won’t be quite the same in either case.
And whether the verb in the dependent μή clause should be present or aorist—that’s a matter of aspect. Mastronarde uses aorist in his pair of sentences (ἐπιθῆται and ἐπιθεῖτο) which suggests something like"launch an attack," a one-off event, cf. his ἐπιλάθοιο and δοῖεν in your previous pair. The present would be no less grammatical, but would suggest something more like “continue his attack” or "“set about mounting an attack.”
Michael that’s the best quick explanation of grammatical aspect I’ve seen so far, thanks!
So since:
then for example one might translate:
(1) ἐφοβοῦντο μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιθῆται.
(2) ἐφοβήθησαν μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιθῆται.
(3) ἐφοβοῦντο μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιτιθῆται.
(4) ἐφοβήθησαν μὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπιτιθῆται.
Of course other nuances of translation might also be possible depending on the context.
Is that about right?
Thanks Mitch. It’s a very rough and imperfect(!) summary, of course, but it should serve for the most part. Your subjunctives could be optatives, as you know, and you know not to confuse imperfective (aspect) with imperfect (tense), or perfective with perfect—such confusing terminology!