Sm says that ind is used in clauses of fear relating to past/present (when the object of fear really happened or is happening). In CGCG 43. 4 fear for uncertain past or present actions is expressed by present/pf subjunctive. It is confusing, and Sm does not mention pf subjunctive in fear clauses.
Sm should have probably mentioned these pf subjunctives in 2228 where he talks about future assessment.
Try looking at the examples and understanding the sense of the various constructions. You seem intent on finding contradictions between the grammars. I fear that’s a fruitless endeavor. (What would that sentence be in Greek?} If you disagree with anything in Smyth or CGCG, or think you find any actual discrepancy, you should expect to be wrong. Both these grammars are factually sound and intelligently presented.
Φοβοῦμαι μη ἄπρακτον ᾖ τοῦτο τὸ ἐπιχείρημα
I dont know why you worry about these things so much. CGCG note 1 to 43.4 says “perfect-stem subjunctives/optatives are, on the whole relatively rare in fear clauses.”
I will probably prepare a detailed review of CGCG and post it on the general board. As up to now, this grammar is not void of a certain degree of sloppiness.
Perhaps you should learn Greek before disseminating your wisdom about Greek grammars. Just a suggestion.
Your questions demonstrate that you have no more than a superficial familiarity with Greek and that you’ve never engaged with Greek texts to any degree.
These grammars should be written not only for perfected Hellenists but for a learner also, so I will write a review from a learner’s point of view.
Seneca: That note is referring to morphology (e.g., πεποιήκῃ/πεποιηκοίη vs. πεποιηκὼς ᾖ/πεποιηκὼς εἴη) not syntax.
The two grammars have slightly different terminologies, but they’re talking about the same things. The syntax portion of the Cambridge Grammar is stripped down to the basics. Smyth et al. will provide more detail.
Here’s one way of thinking about fear clauses:
(1) Fear for something in the future, usually with pres/aor subjunctive (opt in secondary sequence, but rarely after μὴ οὐ)
δέδοικα μὴ ψεύδηται (I fear that he may lie)
δέδοικα μὴ οὐκ ἀληθεύῃ
ἐφοβούμην μὴ ψεύδοιτο (/ψεύδηται)
ἐφοβούμην μὴ οὐκ ἀληθεύῃ (ἀληθεύοι not likely)
(2) Fear that something (present or past) may prove to be the case. Older grammars like Smyth call this “future assessment” or the like. These also take the subj/opt, usually present or perfect—you are right that Smyth should mention the frequency of perfect subjunctives here. The Cambridge Grammar calls it “fear for (uncertain) present and past action.” They are talking about the same thing. The different terminology is misleading you.
δέδοικα μὴ ψεύδηται (I fear that he may prove to be lying)
φοβοῦμαι μὴ ἡμαρτηκὼς ᾖ (I fear that he may prove to have erred)
κτλ…
(3) With the indicative: fear that something is now going on (pres ind) or has already happened (perf ind).
δέδοικα μὴ ψεύδεται (I fear that he is lying)
φοβοῦμαι μὴ ἡμάρτηκα (I fear that I have erred)
κτλ…
The difference between (2) and (3) can be minor. As the Cambridge Grammar helpfully suggests, sometimes the indicative is used as a kind of “hedging” (as could be applied to mwh’s exercise above: φοβοῦμαι μή πως ἀνωφελές ἐστιν τὸ τοιοῦτον).
(4) The infinitive as the direct object of a verb of fearing:
φοβοῦμαι ψεύδεσθαι (I’m afraid to lie) [mentioned in CGCG?]
There are other, less regular forms of fear clauses not mentioned by CGCG, e.g.,
δέδοικα ὅπως μὴ ψεύδηται/ψεύσεται (ὅπως μή + subj or fut ind; the latter is mentioned in the section on clauses of effort, but I don’t see the former)
δέδοικα μὴ ψεῦδος ἔλεγεν (μή + impf)
οὐ δέδοικα ὡς (/ὅπως) ψεύσεται (governing indirect discourse with ὡς or sometimes ὅπως; verb of fearing always negative)
Smyth will give you more detail about atypical constructions, exceptions, non-Attic authors, etc. Goodwin’s Syntax is even better. At least for the syntax section, CGCG is simplified—I think they started as classroom handouts—, which can be helpful for students so long as they understand that there’s more to the story. On the other hand, the CGCG treatment of phonology and things like word order and particles are linguistically updated and superior to many of the older grammars.
These sorts of inquiries are worthwhile, but really only after you have read a substantial amount of Greek literature. Before then, it can be a distraction.
That note is referring to morphology (e.g., πεποιήκῃ/πεποιηκοίη vs. πεποιηκὼς ᾖ/πεποιηκὼς εἴη) not syntax.
It’s hard for me to tell. The first half of note 1 is certainly referring to syntax, not morphology, though the second does look like it should be morphology with its reference to “perfect stem”. But then doing a search for classical examples of “<φοβέω/δείδω> … ᾖ” and hunting for perfect participles doesn’t turn up many examples. (The one already given, and then another from Sophocles, but that was all that my search found. Obviously not a complete search, but it should be indicative of how common it is.)
I think you’re right; scratch what I said about that note and for suggesting that Smyth should have added more about perf subjunctives in fear clauses. There are a few examples of non-periphrastic perf subjunctives/optatives in fear clauses included in Goodwin, but they are no doubt still rare. I suspect that perf indicatives, especially in fear clauses without an introductory verb of fearing, are more common than perf subjunctives (esp in post-Classical Gk)