I’d change the optative εἴη into subjunctive ᾖ at p. 116 of the Griechisches Comenianisches Vestibulum to have
καὶ τῷ καλλύντρῳ ἐκκοροῦμεν, ὁσάκις ἂν χρεία ᾖ.
Am i right? Thanks!
Hi Bedwere,
This isn’t so much an answer as another question:
For an indefinite temporal clause, the subjunctive plus ἄν would be used, so χρεία ᾖ.
On the other hand, do you suppose he considers “as often as it is necessary”(so oft wie es nötig ist) as requiring the potential optative? Note that the German clause is in the present indicative.
I don’t see it as potential optative, and I think present subjunctive is right–an indefinite clause in the present.
Thank you, gentlemen!
Looking at Smyth 2477 on the optative mood in comparative clauses, what exactly is the distinction being made between “a.” potential optative, and “b.” less vivid future condition?
I think the difference is in how the optative is used:
the potential optative is an independent use of the optative, whereas its use in a future less vivid conditional statement is a dependent use of the optative.
The apodosis of a “future less vivid” condition is essentially a “potential” optative. No difference. These are just pigeonholes that are sometimes useful in analyzing Greek syntax.
I’m with Hylander on this. As I put it more widely in the pinned Conditionals thread, “A main clause is not affected at all by whether or not there’s an if-clause with it.”
As for bedwere’s original query, the subjunctive is certainly what you’d expect (and that’s what you’d naturally use to translate “so oft wie es nötig ist”—ist not wäre). I don’t think the optative is really tenable. It could not well be defended by appeal to Smyth 2406 (επιχειρεῖ, ἡνικ’ αν ημεις μη δυναιμεθα …).
There’s no question that the subjunctive seems more appropriate; I’m just mystified that he used the optative in the first place and it’s clear that he intended it, as he references the use of the optative in his vocabulary list for that section. Perhaps I’m nitpicking, but for me the conundrum continues…
καὶ τῷ καλλύντρῳ ἐκκοροῦμεν, ὁσάκις ἂν χρεία εἴη.
καὶ τῷ καλλύντρῳ ἐκκοροῦμεν, ὁσάκις ἂν χρεία ᾖ.
It’s not obvious to me why one is more “appropriate” than the other. It seems to me these just differ in emphasis. And we brush these clothes with a brush, as many times as the need might arise (opt.) / as many times as the need shall arise (subj.).
It’s been an awfully long time since I’ve banged my head against a wall trying to understand the dizzying permutations (combinations? - my math is rusty too) of the optative with and without ἄν, in independent vs. dependent clauses, in Attic vs. non-Attic usage, etc. So could you all please help me understand, is the author’s use of the optative “illegal” (per some grammar you can cite)? merely unstylish? …?
Hi Randy,
To be honest, I don’t know whether the use of the optative here is invalid; I think both statements are fine. The problem is with the “Übersetzung”, the German translation: The Greek was provided by a Professor Schneider, the translation was provided by the author, Herr Damm. To match the Greek with the German, one would expect the subjunctive, as mwh pointed out.
In turn, Professor Schneider must have translated from Comenius’s Latin:
Atque scōpulā ēverrimus,
Quotiēs opus est.
Optative is not correct here. See Smyth 2567:
- Present general conditional relative clauses have ἄν with the subjunctive. The main clause has the present indicative or an equivalent.
νέος δ᾽ ἀπόλλυθ᾽ ὅντιν᾽ (= εἴ τινα) ἂν φιλῇ θεός ‘he dieth young, whome’er a god doth love’ Stob. Flor. 120.13, οὓς (= εἴ τινας) ἂν ὁοᾷ φιλοκινδύ_νως ἔχοντας πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους, τι_μᾷ whomever he sees zealous of danger in the face of the enemy, these he honours X. H. 6.1.6, ““γαμοῦσί τε ὁπόθεν ἂν βούλωνται, ἐκδιδόωσί τε εἰς οὓς ἂν ἐθέλωσι” they both get a wife from whatever family they please and give their daughters in marriage to whomsoever they choose” P. R. 613d, ““πατρὶς γάρ ἐστι πᾶσ᾽ ἵν᾽ ἂν πρά_ττῃ τις εὖ” for every land is a man’s own country wheresoever he fares well” Ar. Plut. 1151.
Contrast Smyth 2568:
- Past general conditional relative clauses have the optative. The main clause has the imperfect or an equivalent.
ἀεὶ πρὸς ᾧ (= εἰ πρός τινι) ““εἴη ἔργῳ, τοῦτο ἔπρα_ττεν” whatever work he was engaged in, that he always performed” X. H. 4.8.22, ἔπρα_ττεν ἃ δόξειεν αὐτῷ he always did whatever he pleased D. 18.235, ““πάντας . . . ὅσους λάβοιεν διέφθειρον” they used to destroy as many as they captured” T. 2.67, ““ἐθήρα_ ὅπου περ ἐπιτυγχάνοιεν θηρίοις” he used to hunt wherever they fell in with large game” X. C. 3.3.5, ἀνέκραγον . . . ἱκετεύουσαι πάντας ὅτῳ ἐντυγχάνοιεν μὴ φεύγειν they screamed out, entreating all they met not to flee X. C. 3.3.67.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D2568
οσακις is an indefinite relative adverb – “as many times as”, “whenever”, equivalent to οποτε.
Would the optative without ἄν, a sort of protasis, be acceptable?
Would the optative without ἄν, a sort of protasis, be acceptable?
With a main verb in the past tense it would be not just acceptable but wholly correct, but not with the main verb in the present tense. See Smyth above.
An indefinite/general relative clause is essentially equivalent to the protasis of an indefinite/general condition.
Whenever it’s necessary, we sweep the floor. subj + ἄν, present indicative
If it’s ever necessary, we sweep the floor. εαν + subj, present indicative
Whenever it was necessary, we swept the floor. optative without ἄν, imperfect indicative
If it was necessary, we would sweep the floor. ει + optative without ἄν, imperfect indicative
I thought that ὁσάκις made this a comparative clause, and is the reason why I referenced Smyth 2477 above. ὁσάκις/τοσάκις. Discussion of comparative clauses starting in 2462.
That said, I also did a TLG search, and ὁσάκις ἄν with the optative only occurs in some very late sources.
It’s not ὁσάκις/τοσάκις. It’s not a numerical comparison. ὁσάκις here is simply equivalent to οποτε. A numerical comparison – a focus on the actual number of times rather than just the repetitive action – would require the correlative τοσάκις.
As I suggested, I think the only way one could possibly make a case for opt.+αν here is by comparing επιχειρεῖ, ἡνικ’ αν ημεις μη δυναιμεθα … (Smyth 2406), and that is not really comparable. So it’s untenable (illegal, invalid, incorrect, wrong, …).
Plain opt. would be fine if εκκορουμεν were a historic present, but (a) it’s evidently not, and (b) that too would mean changing the given text.
So it’s a slip. Nothing unusual about that.
As to οσακις, of course it’s not exactly equivalent to οποτε. It’s “as many times as,” “as often as.” But the difference is minimal; the construction’s the same—just as it would be if it were a conditional clause.
(Note: I thought I already posted this, so apologies if I end up duplicating myself.)
Aetos, Bedwere - I’m not swayed by Comenius’ Latin and Herr Damm’s German, since with these things the different languages can be highly idiomatic, but
Hylander - I am persuaded by what you and Smyth have to say, in particular as you make me focus on what kind of clause it is. Thanks.
(msw - Is it a “slip”? I guess we’ll never know who Professor Schneider’s Smyth was, in 1731?)
msw - Is it a “slip”?
If this is addressed to me: Yes it is, though it may not have been recognized as such in 1731, any more than it was by you and Aetos in 2018. Even Germans have been known to make mistakes.
To sum up. Opt.+αν here is highly anomalous. I can find no parallel to it, or nothing closer than the quote I gave from Smyth 2406. It betrays an inadequate grasp of ancient Greek.
bedwere proposes to normalize it by changing it to the subjunctive. That’s what it ought to have been all along.