of the Greek Tongue. 239 



Another point, of importance to notice, is a mistake in 

 the power of the optative mood, as if it was precatory, and 

 not merely votive, giving rise to the idea, that it must always 

 be rendered as a prayer to the Deity, and so introducing His 

 name (of the Deity) into the translation, as for example, turn- 

 ing /M,>} yevoiro by ** God forbid." Now, an accurate analysis 

 shews us that this mood contains not, in its peculiar character- 

 istic, or indeed in any part, anything which can in the least 

 be considered as denoting Deity ; for instance, in the active 

 voice optative, ruTrr-oi/xi, as the radix resides in ruTTT, the 

 power of the optative must be connected with ot/xi, which is 

 obviously a distinct, though unused verb in ptj, being the active 

 of oitAoci, to thinkf and also derived from the verb oiu, to carry t 

 which shews that, analytically, this mood denotes being men- 

 tally carried towards any object, which proves a votive, but 

 not precatory power. In like manner, in the passive voice, 

 analysing the optative rvnr-oiiAm, we arrive at oi/xojv, as that 

 part which is connected with, and expressive of, the power of 

 the mood : now, oi/xTjv is manifestly the imperfect of the verb 

 oipMti, as is clear from this mood adopting the rule of imperfect 

 tense, in terminating its third person dual in -wv, and not in ov, 

 like the second person. Now, the force of ot/xat and oipcajv is 

 obviously not precatory, but denotes the mind being carried to 

 think with desire or inclination in regard to any object. What 

 is here said about the optatives, as formed in oi/txajv, applies, if 

 possible, still more strongly to those in strjv, which seem, indeed, 

 analytically to partake more of the subjunctive than even opta-^ 

 tive character. 



I would here remark, that it appears to me that the gram- 

 mars are defective in not giving to the imperative mood a first 

 person plural in Greek as well as in Latin, for though the form 

 may be the same as that of the first person plural of the sub- 

 junctive, yet in the mode of application they are essentially 

 different. Thus we have ayw/xev, let us go, awo^avw/xsv, let us 

 die, &c. The form being the same is no more a reason for 

 omitting it in the imperative, than it would be a reason for 

 rejecting the second person plural of the present from the same 

 mood, inasmuch as it is found also in the indicative mood. 



Having thus had occasion to notice the unused verb oiu, I 



R 2 



