Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T07:19:58.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reply on 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

Mr. Hulton has made interesting comments (C.Q., N.S. vii (1957), 139–42) on my earlier article (ibid. xl (1946), 1–10), from which I note that he is in favour of the construction, and also sees emphatic meaning in some examples. I am afraid, however, that I do not find his arguments convincing. Perhaps some brief remarks on them may be helpful.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 9 , Issue 1-2 , May 1959 , pp. 78 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1959

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

1 Thus Schwyzer, , Griech. Gramm. ii. 305,Google Scholar calling them Modalpartikeln, says of them that they strengthen the pre-existent modal uses of the prospective subjunctive and potential optative; their use was originally optional, but then became indispensable. We may compare the use of prepositions, originally added to supplement the meaning of the cases, but eventually often indispensable.