Translating the “4th class conditional”

Greek Learning Greek
1

Here is a contemporary sample of translating the “4th class conditional [1]”

Euripides Trag., Iphigenia Line 834

{Αχ.} καλῶς ἔλεξας ἐν βραχεῖ τὰ καίρια·
αἰσχρὸν δέ μοι γυναιξὶ συμβάλλειν λόγους.
{Κλ.} μεῖνον – τί φεύγεις; – δεξιάν τ’ ἐμῆι χερὶ
σύναψον, ἀρχὴν μακαρίων νυμφευμάτων.
{Αχ.} τί φήις; ἐγώ σοι δεξιάν; αἰδοίμεθ’ ἂν
Ἀγαμέμνον’, εἰ ψαύοιμεν ὧν μή μοι θέμις.

the construction we are looking at is

αἰδοίμεθ’ ἂν
Ἀγαμέμνον’, εἰ ψαύοιμεν ὧν μή μοι θέμις.

where the apodosis αἰδοίμεθ’ ἂν Ἀγαμέμνον’ precedes the protasis εἰ ψαύοιμεν ὧν μή μοι θέμις. David Kovacs translates this:

“I would feel same before Agamemnon **if I touched what I had no right to.”

Notice the simplicity of the **protasis. There are no hedge words, no paraphrasing to emphasize the improbable nature of the scenario presented for consideration.

C. Stirling Bartholomew


[1]According to the customary classification “4th class conditional” has optatives in both the protasis and the apodosis. The protasis has EI + optative. The apodosis AN + optative or something else. This was considered intermediate New Testament Greek 20 years ago, found in two intermediate grammars, S .E. Porter:1992 page 263, R. A. Young:1994 page 227.

2

Perhaps you meant to quote my post from that thread?
If the “improbability” aspect was the focus here.

See, this is the kind of condition where the protasis is considered
less likely to to be true and the apodosis even unlikelier, the “less vivid” condition.
Your translation would fit into the “more vivid” one, ἐὰν + subj. » fut. ind. The speaker
wants to avoid death and does not think he/she deserves it, and so he/she frames it on the
off-chance he/she wouldn’t be able to avoid it.

I only regurgitated what I had been fed in class. That there’s always a difference
between the subjunctive and optative in conditional sentences, and that the former
is more probable, the latter only possible, as Smyth notes in 2322, yet
the following statement was never introduced in class (granted, I didn’t stick around
more than a year to find out):

The same thought may often be expressed in either form without any essential difference in meaning.
The only difference is, therefore, often that of temperament, tone, or style.

That said, Smyth usually translated such conditionals in should/(were to)…would (2329 ff.),
and David Kovacs’ translation suggests that sense of mere possibility as well.

3

If your focus is on the English words used to translate it: it’s worth considering that English has changed a lot since Smyth and these other grammar books were written. “Should/would” was the standard phraseology at that time; these days, most people express the same idea by saying, “If I did X” or “If I were to do X.” (Note that “If I did X” is ambiguous by itself; it could refer to either the past or the hypothetical future, but context almost always makes it clear.) These days, I think “should/would” is confined mostly to formal or written English. There area also differences between American and British usage.

4

Nate,

1Pet. 3:14 ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι. τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε,

Yes your post started me thinking about this. Contemporary English struggles a little bit with the greek optative. I looked at how a dozen English translations handled the protasis in 1 Peter 3:14 and saw that most of them included a word or two specifically indented to represent the optative. Often grammars will “over translate” for the purpose of illustrating the meaning of the original, for example Richard A. Young (Intermediate NT Greek 1994, page 227) which renders 1Pet. 3:14a “if perchance you should happen to suffer on account of righteousness …” but see in contrast S. E. Porter (Idioms of NT Greek 1992, page 263) “if you suffer because of righteousness …” which is a minimalist approach. Both Porter and Young are linguistically informed grammarians. Young’s rendering is perhaps useful for making the student pay attention to the optative. Porter on the other hand flattens it out.

I will post some more examples from Tragedy when I get time.

Thank you for responding,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

5



Thank you Damoetas,

I agree. Things have changed since Smyth. Let’s see how R. C. Jebb (Elizabethan ?) version handles the 4th class conditional.

Soph. Ajax 1122
Μέγ’ ἄν τι κομπάσειας, ἀσπίδ’ εἰ λάβοις.

R. C. Jebb print edition:

“How thou wouldst boast, wert thou given a shield!”

R. C. Jebb Perseus modernization:

“How you would boast, if you had a shield!”

and compare John Moore half a century after Jebb:

“Think how he’d boast if he wore a warrior’s armor!”

At first glance, none of these renderings appear to highlight the distinctive character of the optative in the protasis. However, I am not sure if “wert” more specifically represents εἰ + optative than “If you were.” Jebb’s version does include “would” in the apodosis which perhaps casts an optative shadow over the protasis as well. Not sure about this.

John Moore’s translation contracts “he would boast” to “he’d boast” in the apodosis which reduces the salience of “would” somewhat. Again, no explicit encoding optative in the protasis.

I don’t have any contemporary versions on hand. Jebb’s archaic rendering isn’t even close to the hyper explicit rendering of optative in R. A. Young’s 1Pet. 3:14a:

1Pet. 3:14a “if perchance you should happen to suffer on account of righteousness …”

C. Stirling Bartholomew

6

More samples of 4th class conditional,

Aristophanes. Birds 197 εἰ ξυνδοκοίη in the protasis

Ἔποψ
ἰοὺ ἰού:
μὰ γῆν μὰ παγίδας μὰ νεφέλας μὰ δίκτυα,
μὴ 'γὼ νόημα κομψότερον ἤκουσά πω:
ὥστ᾽ ἂν κατοικίζοιμι μετὰ σοῦ τὴν πόλιν,
εἰ ξυνδοκοίη τοῖσιν ἄλλοις ὀρνέοις.



Epops
By earth! by snares! by network! by cages! I never heard of anything more cleverly conceived; and, if the other birds approve, I am going to build the city along with you.

Aristophanes. Birds. The Complete Greek Drama, vol. 2. Eugene O’Neill, Jr. New York. Random House. 1938.

Here, εἰ ξυνδοκοίη in the protasis and ἂν κατοικίζοιμι in the apodosis. O’Neill doesn’t highlight the optative in his translation. Nor does W. Arrowsmith

William Arrowsmith (1960s) “We’ll … build our city, provided the other birds agree.”

An interesting example is found in Aeschylus, Agamemnon line 1049:

Χορός 1047-1049

σοί τοι λέγουσα παύεται σαφῆ λόγον.
ἐντός δ᾽ ἂν οὖσα μορσίμων ἀγρευμάτων
πείθοι᾽ ἄν, εἰ πείθοι᾽: ἀπειθοίης δ᾽ ἴσως.

It is to you she has been speaking and clearly.
Since you are in the toils of destiny,
perhaps you will obey, if you are so inclined; but perhaps you will not.

H. W. Smyth, Ph. D., 1926

Here Smyth highlights the optative in apodosis “perhaps you will obey” and the protasis is a simple conditional clause “if you are so inclined.” He underlines the optative flavor by repetition of “perhaps” in the last clause.

Somewhat similar to this is

Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1393-1394

ὡς ὧδ᾽ ἐχόντων, πρέσβος Ἀργείων τόδε,
χαίροιτ᾽ ἄν, εἰ χαίροιτ᾽, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐπεύχομαι.



Since then the case stands thus, old men of Argos,
rejoice, if you would rejoice; as for me, I glory in the deed.

H. W. Smyth

While this has the formal requirements for a fourth class conditional, it doesn’t really sound like a conditional statement.


C. Stirling Bartholomew

7

Hey C. S.,

Wow, thanks for assembling all those quotations, looks like a lot of work! At several places in your posts, I see that you made comments like, “At first glance, none of these renderings appear to highlight the distinctive character of the optative in the protasis.” Or, “He underlines the optative flavor by repetition of ‘perhaps’ in the last clause.” Might I suggest a different way of approaching this? I think it’s more illuminating to ask, “How did Greek speakers talk about hypothetical conditions in the future which they were presenting as relatively unlikely to occur?” And, “How do English speakers talk about the same types of situations?” Because, the construction needs to be viewed as a whole; it’s not very fruitful to talk about the contribution of any particular word or even mood, in and of itself.

In regards to the original poster’s question, it is worthwhile to note that in the optative was going out of use in Koine Greek, so any instance of it is highly “marked.” The author of 1 Peter may have been stressing the unlikelyness of the situation; he may have employed the optative as a stylistic feature. However the case may be, I’m not sure it’s possible to convey the same nuance in an English translation.

Anyway, that’s how I see it…

8

What modern language in your view would convey that nuance?

Another example for your consideration.

Lysias’ On the Murder of Eratosthenes, section 1:

Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην, ὦ ἄνδρες, τὸ τοιούτους
ὑμᾶς ἐμοὶ δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος γενέσθαι,
οἷοίπερ ἂν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς εἴητε τοιαῦτα πεπονθότες·
εὖ γὰρ οἶδ’ ὅτι, εἰ τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην περὶ τῶν ἄλλων
ἔχοιτε, ἥνπερ περὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ὅστις οὐκ
ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἀγανακτοίη, ἀλλὰ πάντες ἂν περὶ
τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπιτηδευόντων τὰς ζημίας μικρὰς ἡγοῖσθε.

The entire sentence is hypothetical, and perhaps this was one of the reasons for using
exclusively the optative mood. That hypothetical tone would have been lost by using
any other mood.

Notice in the first line the use of articular infinitive, essentially functioning as the protasis
of Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην. Notice as well that in the attached qualitative relative clause
a participle replaces a similar protasis of εἰ + opt.

Also, the persistent use of the optative in the apodosis of the second part of the sentence,
with the repetition of ἂν in both clauses, as well as foregoing using the stronger, factual
οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις οὐκ, conveys that same sense of hypothetical statement.

Whether or not it is possible to stay true to the original meaning in translating it
into any language is a valid question, but any sort of translating is ultimately an approximation
and what I do right now, writing in a language that is not my native tongue and translating
my thoughts from Hebrew (although I often do find myself thinking in English :slight_smile: ) is also
an approximation, with any nuances and intonation present in my native tongue gone.

Here’s W.R.M. Lamb (1930) translation of the above passage:

I should be only too pleased, sirs, to have you so disposed towards me in judging this case
as you would be to yourselves, if you found yourselves in my plight. For I am sure that,
if you had the same feelings about others as about yourselves, not one of you but would be
indignant at what has been done; you would all regard the penalties appointed for those
who resort to such practices as too mild.

9

I agree in part, but the optative makes a contribution here and it think it is useful to try and isolate that contribution even though the total picture involves other elements.

In regards to the original poster’s question, it is worthwhile to note that in the optative was going out of use in Koine Greek, so any instance of it is highly “marked.” The author of 1 Peter may have been stressing the unlikelyness of the situation; he may have employed the optative as a stylistic feature. However the case may be, I’m not sure it’s possible to convey the same nuance in an English translation.

I agree that εἰ + optative is marked in Koine Greek, but marked for what? R. A. Young’s[1] rendering of 1Pet. 3:14a “if perchance you should happen to suffer on account of righteousness …” is also marked by the use of “perchance … should happen to” it doesn’t necessarily follow that the greek and english are marked for the same thing.

1Pet. 3:14 ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[1] R. A. Young:1994 page 227

10

Taking a second look at this, I really don’t understand the objection. The optative in isolation is not being discussed. The “4th class conditional” is a complex pattern, not an isolated optative. The pattern isn’t fixed, generally it is εἰ + optative in the protasis and a number of options in the apodosis. The prototype is ἄν + optative. In the following example we see a variation which departs slightly from the prototype.

Soph. Ajax 167-171

τάχ’ ἄν, ἐξαίφνης εἰ σὺ φανείης,
σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι.



Jebb modernized:
perhaps, if you should appear,
they would quickly cower without voice in silence.



John Moore:
If you should only appear,
would make them cower and be still.

τάχ’ ἄν functions as a marker of a hypothetical scenario. εἰ σὺ φανείης is the protasis and σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι the apodosis.

thank you,
C. Stirling Bartholomew

11

Hi, Stirling. Do you read τάχ’ ἄν as completely isolated, as phrases like ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι, from the apodosis?
Smyth does include this phrase under ἄν without a Verb.
There are some cases where ἄν would be repeated, but perhaps the potential force in τάχ’ ἄν
was still present in σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι and there was no need for repetition.

Here is a case where Plato had been rather generous and repeated ἄν with each circumstantial
participle as well as with the finite verb. Not only that, the potential/hypothetical force of τάχ᾽ ἂν
was apparently not enough he’d included ἵσως for good measure.

Plato, Socrates’ Apology, 31a:

ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἴσως τάχ᾽ ἂν ἀχθόμενοι, ὥσπερ οἱ νυστάζοντες ἐγειρόμενοι, κρούσαντες ἄν με,
πειθόμενοι Ἀνύτῳ, ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἀποκτείναιτε, εἶτα τὸν λοιπὸν βίον καθεύδοντες διατελοῖτε ἄν,
εἰ μή τινα ἄλλον ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἐπιπέμψειεν κηδόμενος ὑμῶν.

My clunky translation based on W.H. Tyler’s notes:

You, perhaps, being annoyed, like those half-asleep men when they are awakened,
would strike at me, [and], believing Anytus, might rashly kill me; then, in your remaining life,
you would persist in your slumber, unless god should send you someone else to wake you from it.

12

Nate,

I found a more recent and more helpful translation:

I would be very grateful, gentlemen, if you, the jurymen in this case, judged me as you would judge yourselves, were you to go through the same sort of experience. For I am well aware that if you employed the same standards for others as you do for your own behaviour, there is not a single one of you who would not be furious at what has happened. In fact, all of you would consider the penalties light for those who practise such things.
— Caroline L. Falkner 2001


That is a long sentence and the syntax is complex. I don’t see any infinitive on the first line, I assume you are referring to γενέσθαι at the end of line 2. If we take τὸ on line one with γενέσθαι, then perhaps everything in between could be considered part of the infinitive complex. If we read the opening Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην as an apodosis, then the protasis needs to be found somewhere prior to εὖ γὰρ οἶδ’ ὅτι at the beginning of line four.

Your suggestion that infinitive is “essentially functioning as the protasis” sounds right to me, however the syntax structure between τὸ and the infinitive isn’t obvious. δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος looks like a complex adjectival constituent limiting ὑμᾶς. But the placement of ἐμοὶ makes me wonder if this right. τοιούτους could be joined with δικαστὰς which might require a different analysis. I am somewhat undecided about the syntax analysis.

On the question of the hypothetical nature of the discourse, I don’t know enough about the text to comment on this. Here is what Caroline L. Falkner had to say about it.

This short speech has attracted a great deal of interest as much for its author’s skilful presentation of argument and character, as for its details of Athenian law and life.
Euphiletos stands accused of the murder of Eratosthenes, his wife’s lover. According to Athenian law, if a husband caught his wife’s lover in the act of adultery, he could either kill him or demand financial compensation. The latter had become the more common type of settlement at Athens. Euphiletos found Eratosthenes with his wife and killed him in front of witnesses. He now has to prove that the killing was not premeditated murder, as Eratosthenes’ family has claimed, but both legal and understandable. To do this he must present himself as a credible character with a convincing account of events. Euphiletos appears honest, hard working, and perhaps a little gullible, in short, an ordinary Athenian with whom a jury of other, ordinary Athenians could be expected to sympathize.
— Caroline L. Falkner 2001

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

13

Nate,

On the question is τάχ’ ἄν completely isolated from the syntax of the following clause, I am not sure what complete isolation would look like. I don’t consider initial adverbs completely isolated, any more than I would consider a genitive absolute isolated. If τάχ’ ἄν marks the conditional/hypothetical nature of the following structure then its absence will be felt and thus it isn’t really isolated. Some folks using some variant of the early-Chomsky framework might claim we have a complete sentence or clause without τάχ’ ἄν but I don’t hang out with folks who say those sorts of things. We may not have a perfect example (prototype) of a “fourth class conditional” with τάχ’ ἄν near the beginning of a long structure, but the “fourth class conditional” is an arbitrary category used in grammars to facilitate discussion. The boundaries between prototype “fourth class conditional” and other hypothetical constructions are fuzzy.

In regard to Pl.AP 31a, Cooper states that ἄν is often placed early in its clause and has the ability to extend its force over large structures. I assume this would also apply to τάχ’ ἄν. I find no separate treatment for τάχ’ ἄν in Cooper. He also talks about the repetition of ἄν as a means of “hammering home” the idea expressed by the initial ἄν. So we have two facts about ἄν, it can render conditional/hypothetical a long complex structure and it can be repeated to make its presence known along the way through that same structure.

Thank you for keeping the discussion going,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

14

It is rather complex syntax of the parts dependent on the articular infinitive. I don’t know
exactly how to parse it either.

[1]…to have you so disposed towards me in judging this case as you would be to yourselves [W.R.M. Lamb (1930)]
vs.
[2]…if you, the jurymen in this case, judged me as you would judge yourselves [Caroline L. Falkner (2001)]
vs.
[3]…if in this case you are the same sort of judges towards me as you would be towards yourselves [S. C. Todd (2000)]

[3] is a nice rephrasing of [1], but [2] strips it down to its bare-bones.

I would try to parse it this way:
τὸ γενέσθαι = articular infinitive
ὑμᾶς = subject of infinitive
τοιούτους δικαστὰς = predicate of subject
ἐμοὶ = indirect object of predicate
περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος = prep. phrase with predicate (or a “free-floater” as in [2] & [3])

Something like this:
I should do very well indeed, if you would be the same sort of judges towards me in this case,
as you would be towards yourselves had you suffered the same lot.

15

I agree that such a narrow category cannot accommodate the various hypothetical constructions we
find.

This is a fascinating discussion, Stirling. Thanks for keeping it alive. :slight_smile:


Thanks for writing Cooper’s explanation of such repetition, Stirling. I remember asking about this
quote a few years ago. This explanation is the most appealing.

16

Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην, ὦ ἄνδρες, τὸ τοιούτους
ὑμᾶς ἐμοὶ δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος γενέσθαι,
οἷοίπερ ἂν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς εἴητε τοιαῦτα πεπονθότες·
εὖ γὰρ οἶδ’ ὅτι, εἰ τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην περὶ τῶν ἄλλων
ἔχοιτε, ἥνπερ περὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ὅστις οὐκ
ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἀγανακτοίη, ἀλλὰ πάντες ἂν περὶ
τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπιτηδευόντων τὰς ζημίας μικρὰς ἡγοῖσθε.

Yet another translation:
I would be very grateful, gentlemen, if you would behave towards me in this matter as you would to yourselves if you had suffered the same things. I know well that if you have the same opinion towards others as you have towards yourselves not one of you would fail to be vexed at these happenings
– Jo Willmott

Thank you Nate,

I identified my main problem with the first three lines, difficulty sorting out all the pronouns and other ambiguous elements.

If τοιούτους is answered by οἷοίπερ then the syntax of infinitive clause might be:

ὑμᾶς —> γενέσθαι —> τοιούτους

ὑμᾶς … δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος: noun phrase, subject of infinitive

(alternative) τοιούτους … δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος

τοιούτους: object of the infinitive

ἐμοὶ: indirect object “for me, in my case”

οἷοίπερ: answers τοιούτους

εἴητε: main verb

τοιαῦτα πεπονθότες: modifies subject of verb εἴητε

just another stab at it, I noticed after posting how close my parsing was to yours. I read yours two days ago but not since and have revised mine a dozen time since then. I really had to do a lot of review of syntax to get over Lysias obtuse style.


C. Stirling Bartholomew

17

I like your reading of you, the judges of this case, as the subject of the infinitive; definitely
falls in line with the word order. :slight_smile:

18

A fourth class conditional without ἂν in the apodosis.

Sophocles Ajax 1175-1179

Εἰ δέ τις στρατοῦ
βίᾳ σ’ ἀποσπάσειε τοῦδε τοῦ νεκροῦ,
κακὸς κακῶς ἄθαπτος ἐκπέσοι χθονός,
γένους ἅπαντος ῥίζαν ἐξημημένος,
αὕτως ὅπωσπερ τόνδ’ ἐγὼ τέμνω πλόκον.

But if any soldier from the army should tear you by violence from this body, then for his wickedness may he be wickedly cast out of his country and get no burial, but be severed at the root with all his race, just as I shear this lock.
– R. C. Jebb Perseus modernization


protasis Εἰ τις … σ’ ἀποσπάσειε
apodosis ἐκπέσοι

I suspect there may be formal elements here that indicated a curse text.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

19

Hi, Stirling. Great find!

It seems to be an example of optative without ἂν in main clauses, the optative of wish.

20

Thank you Nate,

G. Cooper (v.3 2:54.11.0.C, p. 2444) claims a wish optative is sometimes used as an apodosis in a fourth class conditional where it is understood as a curse. He cites E.IT 750 as an example. Here the protasis* is presented by one voice as a question and the apodosis** in another voice as an answer. The curse here is self referencing in answer to an oath.

A second conditional uses a participle in the protasis τί δὲ σύ, μὴ σώσασά με; answered by an optative θείην in the apodosis.

Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris 746-758

Ιφ.} κἀγὼ σὲ σώσω κυανέας ἔξω πέτρας.
{Πυ.} τίν’ οὖν ἐπόμνυς τοισίδ’ ὅρκιον θεῶν;
{Ιφ.} Ἄρτεμιν, ἐν ἧσπερ δώμασιν τιμὰς ἔχω.
{Πυ.} ἐγὼ δ’ ἄνακτά γ’ οὐρανοῦ, σεμνὸν Δία.
750
*{Ιφ.} εἰ δ’ ἐκλιπὼν τὸν ὅρκον ἀδικοίης ἐμέ;
**{Πυ.} ἄνοστος εἴην· τί δὲ σύ, μὴ σώσασά με;
{Ιφ.} μήποτε κατ’ Ἄργος ζῶσ’ ἴχνος θείην ποδός.

Translation: Robert Potter, 1938*****
Iphigenia
And I will see you safely outside the dark rocks.

Pylades
What god do you do you swear by, as witness to your oath?

Iphigenia
Artemis, in whose temple I hold office.

Pylades
And I swear by the king of heaven, revered Zeus.

Iphigenia
[750] But if you leave off your oath, and wrong me?

Pylades
May I not return. What about you, if you do not save me?

Iphigenia
May I never set foot in Argos alive.

One minor issue, not certain about the referent of τοισίδ’. Is it the substance of the oath ?

τίν’ οὖν ἐπόμνυς τοισίδ’ ὅρκιον θεῶν;


C. Stirling Bartholomew