κἄν ἅρα γέ τις ἵππον πριάμενος μὴ ἐπίστηται αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καταπίπτων ἀπ’αὐτοῦ κακὰ λαμβάνῃ, οὐ χρήματα αὐτῷ ἐστιν ὁ ἵππος;
Xen., Oec., 1. 8 If we use μη instead of οὐ, how would it change the meaning?
I think it would be a mistake, since μή is the appropriate negative for the protasis.
but this is rather a question, so me would anticipate the answer no, while ou the answer yes.
οὐ picks up ἅρα γέ (inferential), which applies to the utterance as a whole, not just to the if-clause. It doesn’t have to be punctuated as a question, though of course it can be. The sense is something like “then it’s not χρήματα for him, is it?,” anticipating a confirmatory response such as “Yes that’s right, it’s not.” οὐ is suited to the course of the discussion as μὴ would not be. With μὴ the sense would be “you don’t mean to tell me that it’s χρήματα for him, do you?”—quite the wrong meaning.
thank you, i can see it now
analogous ex.:ὁδὶ δὲ τίς ποτ’ ἐστίν; οὐ δήπου Στράτων; Ar, Ach. 122
Well, the οὐ itself has much the same function, but the precise sense is controlled largely by the particles.
“Isn’t it Strato? (Why yes, it is.)”
or
“It’s not Strato is it? (Why yes, it is.)”
English tends to use intonation to do what Greek does by means of particles.
However, if you translate the first ex into Latin, it would be something like: num equus ei ullo bono erit?
and the second example could be either: nonne hic Strato est?or num hic Strato est? coz it is not clear from the context who it really was.
I don’t think your trying to translate it into Latin is helpful. Your “However” suggests that you don’t like the explanations I’ve given. Tant pis. Perhaps they’ll be helpful for others.