ἀλλὰ σοὶ ὦ μέγ᾽ ἀναιδὲς ἅμ᾽ ἑσπόμεθ᾽ ὄφ?α σὺ χαί?ῃς,
τιμὴν ἀ?ν?μενοι Μενελάῳ σοί τε κυνῶπα
π?ὸς Τ?ώων
1.158-160
Is “espometha” a gnomic aorist? if not, why is “chairhs” not in the optative mood?
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε λῆγ᾽ ἔ?ιδος, μηδὲ ξίφος ἕλκεο χει?ί:
ἀλλ᾽ ἤτοι ἔπεσιν μὲν ὀνείδισον ὡς ἔσεταί πε?:
ὧδε γὰ? ?ξε?έω, τὸ δὲ καὶ τετελεσμένον ἔσται:
1.210-212
Is τετελεσμένον ἔσται future perfect periphrastic?
It seems natural to me to read it as a normal aorist and I was going to say that the subjunctive is there just because the “sequence of moods” isn’t always observed. But I double-checked and saw that Monro says that subjunctive is not used to express a past purpose – either the aorist is gnomic or the purpose is still felt to belong to the future. So the meaning here would be something closer to “we have followed … so that you …”
Is τετελεσμένον ἔσται future perfect periphrastic?
That seems to be the case to me. I don’t see what other possibilities there are – well, maybe participle + εἰμί but I’m not sure that would really be any different.
so the aorist here is actually translated as a perfected because it expresses a present condition resulting from a past action (Smyth 1940)?
I’m not sure if in the Greek the aorist is actually being used as a perfect or if it’s just English grammar that forces you to use the perfect in the English equivalent. I think it’s the latter because I know in other languages which have an aorist/perfect distinction, you don’t use the present perfect even if the purpose is still thought of as being future. So I’d say that it doesn’t express a present condition and just acts like a usual aorist.