Can anybody help out with this explanation of “potential clauses”?
Future – the optative (present or aorist as appropriate) with ἄν: τοῦτο οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο that would not happen.
etts, Gavin; Henry, Alan. Complete Ancient Greek:
The above example shows the aorist optative. When would tbe present optative be “appropriate” and what would be the difference in meaning?
Except in the indicative, the difference between present and aorist is aspectual, not temporal, and this applies universally in Greek (including infinitives and subjunctives), not just to potential clauses (opt.+ἄν). Very roughly speaking, the aorist denotes one-off events, the present an ongoing process. There have been a number of textkit posts on the distinction.
With ουκ αν γενοιτο (“it wouldn’t happen”), as with μὴ γένοιτο (“may it not happen!”), the aorist is generally more likely to be appropriate than the present (γίγνοιτο), which might mean something like “set about happening.”
I understand that there’s no difference in tense because both alternatives are supposed to indicate the future. I think he means that ἄν is supposed to be used in either case. So would “ουκ αν γίγνοιτο” also mean “it wouldn’t happen” but in reference to some general state rather than to a one-time action, like “the sky wouldn’t become red (if the forest weren’t burning)” or something? Or a better example might be: People wouldn’t grow old (if they all killed themselves)?
γίγνομαι is perhaps not the best verb to illustrate the aspectual difference between present and aorist. Here’s a more instructive passage that I take at random from the beginning of bk.7 of Xenophon’s Anabasis:
ἐκ τούτου δὲ Φαρνάβαζος φοβούμενος τὸ στράτευμα μὴ ἐπὶ τὴν αὑτοῦ χώραν στρατεύηται, πέμψας πρὸς Ἀναξίβιον τὸν ναύαρχον (ὁ δ᾽ ἔτυχεν ἐν Βυζαντίῳ ὤν), ἐδεῖτο διαβιβάσαι τὸ στράτευμα ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας, καὶ ὑπισχνεῖτο πάντα ποιήσειν αὐτῷ ὅσα δέοι.
στρατεύηται pres., embark on/engage in an expedition
διαβιβάσαι aor., take across
ὅσα δέοι pres., everything necessary.
But the participles are temporal (φοβούμενος pres., πέμψας aor.), as are the indicatives (ἐδεῖτο and ὑπισχνεῖτο both impf.)
I know I posted a lot of queries about present vs. aorist in the past, but now (finally!) I think I know the general difference, largely thanks to your excelllent previous explanations.
Despite my general understanding of the aspectual difference (i.e. aorist = a one-time/perfected action vs. present = an ongoing or repetitive action or general state), I’m still not clear on how that would apply to the specific case I asked about, namely the present vs. aorist optative of γίγνομαι + “ἄν” within the framework of the “potential future”. Anyway, the present optative in the passage you gave would be στρατεύοιτο and the aorist optative would be στρατεύσηται and the particle “an” is missing. I realize it’s a tall order to find a textual passage with the specific case I asked about, but can anybody please make up two simple sentences using both the present vs. aorist optative of γίγνομαι + “ἄν” by way of comparison to show which would be “appropriate”" when?
You have substituted στρατεύοιτο for στρατεύηται, but that’s still present tense not aorist, so makes no difference to the aspect. That’s the important point.
I think you’re more likely to find γένοιτο than γίγνοιτο, with or without ἄν, but γίγνοιτο ἄν could mean something like “would set about happening,” as I indicated, whether as a potential optative or as the apodosis of a conditional. You should be able to find examples. It wouldn’t be difficult to find examples of γένοιτο with αν. If you think more about the use of tenses in that little Xenophon passage you might understand why.
P.S. Here’s an instance of present γίγνοιτο with ἄν, from Plato’s Phaedrus: ἀρχὴ δὲ ἀγένητον· ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ἀνάγκη πᾶν τὸ γιγνόμενον γίγνεσθαι, αὐτὴν δὲ μηδ᾽ ἐξ ἑνός· εἰ γὰρ ἔκ του ἀρχὴ γίγνοιτο, οὐκ ἂν ἔτι ἀρχὴ γίγνοιτο (“… for if a beginning were to come into being from something, it would no longer become a beginning," or “a beginning would no longer set about happening”). That’s Plato for you!
Except in the indicative, the difference between present and aorist is aspectual, not temporal, and this applies universally in Greek
Except for the optative and infinitive in indirect discourse, and the participle most of the time.
Yes, well done Joel.
Thanks mwh, the citation from Plato has the construction I was looking for.
I also found this sentence, which is at the opposite end of the scale of complexity. Putting it in the form of a multiple-choice exercise:
iii ἐκ παντὸς ξύλου Ἑρμῆς οὐκ ἂν ___ (A Hermes status cannot be made from just any log)
a) γίγνοιτο
b) γένοιτο
Are both a) and b) possible? What are the selection criteria? I don’t care which is more common, I just want to know what any difference in meaning would be between the two, if both a) and b) are possible
I would guess the aor. opt. γένοιτο would work better than the present opt. γίγνοιτο, because 'the 'Hermes statute coming into being out of the log"" is more like a single action than an ongoing continuous action. Would .γίγνοιτο shock you in that sentence? Would it be translated differently?
Betts, Gavin; Henry, Alan. Complete Ancient Greek: A Comprehensive Guide to Reading and Understanding Ancient Greek, with Original Texts (Complete Language Courses) (p. 325). John Murray Press. Kindle Edition.
Yes both are perfectly possible, and I wouldn’t translate them differently but I think you now understand how the meaning does differ. Once you understand aspect you can grasp the difference with any given verb, whether or not in the optative.