Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:22:20.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An with the Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. C. Moorhouse
A. C. Moorhouse
Affiliation:
University College, Swansea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The construction of ἄν with the future has been hotly denied as impossible, so far as Attic Greek and indeed post-Homeric Greek generally are concerned. The opponents of the construction have had among their number such scholars as Dawes and Cobet; and of late, it seems, editors of texts generally. The view of Cobet is given on p. 469 of his Miscellanea Critica, with reference to Demosth. 9. 70 (128) πάλαι τις ⋯δέως ἂν ἴσως ⋯ρωτήσων κάθηται. Cobet, who has been followed by later editors, altered ⋯ρωτήσων (the universal reading of the codd.) to ⋯ρωτήσας, commenting ‘ubi semel Constiterit ⋯δέως ἂν ⋯ρωτήσω, ⋯δέως ἂν πεύσομαɩ aut simile quid pro ⋯ρωτήσαιμι vel πυθοίμην recte dici, turn demum librorum lectioni acquiescemus. quod equidem nunquam futurum esse satis scio.’ This view, which must of course be understood as excepting Homer from its scope, is nothing more than a blank denial of the possibility of the construction. We see more of an argument in Kühner-Gerth (Griech. Gramm. ii. 1. 209), where it is remarked that the construction, frequent in Homer, was later given up because ἃν with the optative was sufficient to express a future possibility; and that possibly emenders have done right to alter passages in Attic which contain it. This is not expressed with any great certainty. Nevertheless it has become to such an extent the prevailing view among editors that in modern texts it is extremely rare to find the construction allowed to remain.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , January 1946 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 1 That is, with the indicative; and with the optative, infinitive, and participle used in place of the indicative.

page 2 note 1 Unfortunately it is often doubtful whether we have to do with the future indicative or the sigmatic aorist subjunctive, not only in the 1st person sing, of the active (e.g. Il. 9. 262 εἰ δ⋯ σὺ μ⋯ν μευ ἄκουσον, ⋯γω δέ κέ τοɩ καταλέξω), but also in other persons, where Epic has the shortvowel subjunctive of the sigmatic aorist (e.g. Il. 22. 49–50 ⋯λλ' εἰ μ⋯ν ζώουσɩ μετ⋯ στρατῷ, ἦ τ' ἂν ἔπεɩτα | χαλκο⋯ τ' χρυσοû τ' ⋯πολυσόμεθ').

page 2 note 2 Agamemnon varies the expression by repeating the formula without κεν at the end of his speech, ⋯ς ποτέ τις ⋯ρέεɩ in l. 182.

page 3 note 1 Cf. l. 54, where Nestor tells Diomedes that his counsel is best among his equals in age; and again 11. 57–8, where he commends Diomedes' speech while impressing on him how very youthful he is.

pag 3 note 2 It is interesting to note that similar tones of irony are sometimes conveyed by ἄν with the subjunctive: cf. Il. 1. 205; 11. 387; 22. 505.

page 3 note 3 For us: and I might say for Homer's first audiences too.

page 4 note 1 ‘Ἄν with the future in Attic’, Richards, H., C.R. vi. 336–42Google Scholar.

page 8 note 1 One may compare the crescendo in Hom, . Od. 16Google Scholar. 437 οὐκ ἔσθ' οὗτος ⋯ν⋯ρ οὐδ' ἔσσεταɩ οὐδ⋯ γένηται.

page 8 note 2 See the examples in Monro, , Homeric Grammar, paras. 275–6 (subj.)Google Scholar; 299–300 (opt.).

page 9 note 1 The restriction of forms in Classical Greek was not (apart from μέλλω, which was also Homeric) compensated by the use of auxiliary verbs, to which English and French have made such extensive resort. See Jespersen, , Modern English Grammar, ivGoogle Scholar, chapter 18, 9 (2), and Meillet, , Linguistique historique et Linguistique générale, ii, 29–35Google Scholar. After the Classical period both the use of auxiliaries extended, and the subjunctive with future prospective and volitive sense returned to wider use: see Wackernagel, , Vorlesungen über Syntax, i, pp. 233–5Google Scholar; Moulton, , Grammar of New Testament Greek, pp. 184–6, 240Google Scholar. The search for forms which may be used as alternatives to the future proper, the fruit of which we observe in Homeric and post-Classical Greek, is a further example to be added to those which Meillet cites. Meillet sees the basic reason for the fluctuation in this, that we are not so anxious to be able to express ‘pure’ future time, as to express the various modal (affective) meanings associated with the future. This it was that led to the eventual disappearance of the Classical Greek future indicative, and its replacement by new form θ⋯ plus subjunctive: as also to the loss of the Latin future in the Romance languages, which have made new forms. Even Indo-European, so far as can be seen, had no distinctive future tense. In Classical Greek we see the future indicative in its heyday.

page 9 note 2 Unless Lucian was castigating the construction as a live idiom, but belonging to the vulgar speech of his day: on that aspect, see the remarks below. On either interpretation of Lucian's attitude in the Pseudosophista, it seems that we are forced to reject ἄν with the future participle in Asin. c. 26, t. ii, p. 595.