I just started Book II again. And almost immediately stumble on the use of the aorist, where I would expect a present tense:
line 25: κέκλυτε δὴ νῦν μευ, Ἰθακήσιοι, ὅττι κεν εἴπω·
What does the use of the aorist convey here, in this direct speech? The speaker is not referring to something he already said, he’s just starting to talk, so it can’t be the ‘constative’ use Rijksbaron talks about in his ‘The syntax and semantics of the Greek verb’ (8.3.1).
Can anyone enlighten me?
Well, εἴπω is subjunctive here, so it doesn’t really have a temporal reference, listen to… whatever I say.
I may have to let go of my stubborn conviction that aorist = temporal then.
line 25: κέκλυτε δὴ νῦν μευ, Ἰθακήσιοι, ὅττι κεν εἴπω·
What does the use of the aorist convey here, in this direct speech?
ἐν τῇ ὑποτακτικῇ ὁ μὲν ἀόριστός ἐστιν ὁ ἄσημος χρὀνος. ὁ δ’ ἐνεστώς ἔχει χρείαν τῆς ἐξηγήσεως.
{ In the subjunctive and other non-indicative moods, the aorist is the “unmarked” aspect. It’s the progressive that would need an explanation. }
Thanks. I know I am very shaky when it comes to the meanings of the moods, aspect and tenses. I will dive into my grammars again to straighten myself out.
It’s conveying aspect.