It is plainly absurd to wish that Odysseus, who has been on Phrygian soil these ten years, should perish in the future before he even treads upon it. Paley gets some sense by supplying ‘as a conqueror or permanent settler,’ but obviously we have no right to supply all that: nor indeed would any Greek poet have ever said such a thing as έπí γâν îχνος βαλεîν ώς νικŵν or εìσαεí. See also Mr. Porter's note in C.Q. XI. 160. My explanation may be hazardous, but such as it is it would be somewhat as follows:

In the first place, it is notorious that in early Greek poetry the optative, present and aorist, is used in constructions which in strict Attic require imperfect or aorist indicative. I need say nothing of Ȅνθα ŵεν αѷт àπÓλοιτο and the like. But consider optatives after εì Not only does Homer use εì with present optative instead of indicative, e.g. B 780 ώς εȉ τε νέμοιτο, ۸ 467 ώς έȉ β ςιώατο X 411 ώς έί δμύχοιτο, ψ 274 εȉ νȗν άεθλεύοιµεν but he even does at least once so use aorist optative for indicative, a fact which I have not seen noticed, κ 416 ώς εί ίκοατο ‘as if they had come.‘ At N 343 ôς is substituted for εί in the sentence μάλα κε θρασυκρδιςεȉ ηôς ȍϚ τότε ϒηθήσειεƲ = ήν άν ός έγήθσεν. And the important point for my purpose is that this use of ει with present optative is occasionally found in Attic, as everybody knows.