Thus far in my Greek studies I have simply taken on faith whatever the grammars say, Holy Writ, as it were, I never thought to question certain things. I just struck me that the use of the seconday endings in the optative middle/passive seems counterintuitive, especially the future. I have not been able to find any lingnuistic reason for this. I would welcome any light that anyone can shed on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional#Fake_tense
“In many languages, counterfactuality is marked by past tense morphology … Fake past is extremely prevalent cross-linguistically,”
The optative isn’t contrafactual, it’s potential. Contrafactuality in Greek is in fact expressed by past tenses of the indicative, plus αν.
Charlie is referring to the fact that the personal endings of the present and future optative active appear to be modeled on the “primary” endings of the corresponding tenses of the indicative active, whereas the personal endings of the present and future optative middle appear to be modeled on the “secondary” endings of the imperfect indicative middle.
I think that the future optative middle is modeled on the present, but beyond that I don’t have an answer.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the future optative is used only to “represent” the future indicative in indirect speech in “secondary” sequence. I suspect ot was a fairly late addition to the cornucopia of Greek moods and tenses, only becoming common when complex prose narrative emerged. I can’t remember whether it occurs in Homer.
For historical background to the use of secondary endings in the optative, there is some discussion in Sihler, “New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin,” if you have it.
Section 419
“the endings in question were not specifically past tense, rather they are generic or unmarked endings.”
Section 538
“note that the use of ‘secondary endings’ in the optative implies no affinity with anterior tenses (the imperfect and aorist)”
Section 416 Discussing the injunctive mood in Vedic and Homer
“there are verbs that have the form of augmentless imperfects and aorists.”
“Some scholars, while doubting the existence of a distinct functional category on a par with the subjunctive and optative, use injunctive or conjunctive as a short expression for ‘augmentless past indicative forms with irreales force.’”
“Counterfactual” in the linked wikipedia article seems to be more encompassing than “counterfactual” in a Greek grammar.
Here’s the first example given.
Indicative: If Natalia leaves tomorrow, she will arrive on time.
Counterfactual: If Natalia left tomorrow, she would arrive on time.
In Greek I’d think that these would be:
ἐὰν ἀπέλθῃ ἡ Ναταλία αὔριον, ἐς καιρὸν ἀφίξεται.
εἰ ἀπέλθοι ἡ Ναταλία αὔριον, ἐς καιρὸν ἀφίξοιτο [or aorist?] ἄν.
Thank you, katalogon, for reminding us that the “primary” personal endings are actually marked versions of the “secondary” endings – marked for “here and now.”
Actually, the only distinctively “primary” ending in the present optative indicative active is 1st person singular -οιμι. The other endings are simply unmarked endings slapped onto the characteristic -οι marker of the present optative. (Optative 3rd plural is also “secondary,” i.e., unmarked for “here and now”: it doesn’t have the -ι “here and now” marker of the present indicative, -ουσι<-*οντι, )
With regard to the 1st person optative, Sihler in sec. 424a writes that -οιμι is “an importation of the primary ending bodily,” not a reflex of the original ending, which according to Sihler would have been *oya, later *oa, and finally *φέρω, homophonous with the indicative. So the active -μι ending seems to have been used to distinguish the optative from the indicative, with -οι- generalized from the 2d and 3rd persons, and then further applied to the aorist optative active.
In summary, the answer to Charlie’s original question seems to be that the aorist middle forms aren’t unusual in having “secondary” endings – which are really just unmarked endings; it’s the 1st person sing active forms in -μι that calls for an explanation.
One further point: I was wrong to insist that the optative is not used for contrafactuals. In Homer it is so used. But not in Attic.
Many thanks, my friends, for your insights.