168 GREEK LANGUAGE 



In the syntax of the verb only a few isolated points will be touched 

 upon. First, as to tense : the dispute over the fundamental difference 

 between certain tenses is chiefly a battle of words, and I pass it by. 

 All will agree that a question between the imperfect and the aorist 

 is usually a question of the encroachment of the former upon the theo- 

 retical domain of the latter. "EAeye, "he was saying," "used to say," 

 or "he said"; but eiTre only "he said." So from the durative are 

 developed some special tense-relations not derived from the aorist. 

 The ingressive aorist of a verb denoting a state is not the same as 

 the imperfect that leaves an act in progress. When a purpose is im- 

 plied we hear of a conative imperfect if the voice is active : a-n-^XXva-av 

 /u,e; but it is equally conative in the passive: dTrwAAv/xT/v VTT avrwv, only 

 the grammatical subject does not make the attempt. In eo-w^o'/x^v vv 

 avrwv it would be doubtful who made the attempt. But this so-called 

 conative is the same as we find in Andoc. Myst. 114, avros /xev avrov 



avuXXvov Ti#eis rrjv iKerrjpiav, ecrw^oftT/v oe rfj rux#> where there is no 



attempt. Like this is the imperfect as the future of the past, as 

 Antiph. Tetr. A. ft. 3, <ave/>os yevoynevos airwXXvfjiTrjv. Andoc. Myst. 58, 



(frovevs ovv avrdv eyiyvo/XT^v eya> fir) CITTWV vfj.li/ a rjKovcra. en Se Tpia/coo't'ous 

 ' A.6ijvaiu)v ainaXXvov, /cat fj 770X15 Iv KaKots rots ju.eye'crrois eyiyvero. All these 



uses, the "conative," the "ingressive," the "future from the past," 

 were probably to the Greeks one and the same: at least some con- 

 vincing proof of the contrary would be welcome. The problematical 

 "conative aorist," the "conatus sine effectu," must be passed by. 



Omitting also the problems relating to the present and aorist of 

 the subjunctive, optative, imperative, and infinitive, let us consider 

 the supplementary participle not in oratio obliqua. Two cases 

 only will be mentioned. Verbs of physical perception, practically 

 opav and d/covciv, we are told, normally take the present participle, 

 especially so opav. It is true that we can see an act only in progress ; 

 but then we can see it through, and in that case we should expect 

 the aorist. In other words, did the Greeks never distinguish between 

 "I saw a tree falling" and "I saw a tree fall"? I am reluctant to 

 admit this. When the boy Cyrus saw a deer break cover, he gave 



chase : ws e?8ev eXa<ov eKTrrjorjo-acrav . . . eSiWev. The imperfect fSiaiKev, 



as it leaves him in pursuit, we should expect; and I must confess that 

 I should with Xenophon have written fK-n-rj^o-aa-av rather than eVTn?- 

 Swo-av. An exhaustive list of examples is desirable. 



Analogous to opav is dve'xecrflai. To endure an act properly belongs 

 to the time during which the act is in progress; but as -n-cpiopav 

 and tyopav may take the aorist as summing up the act, there seems 

 to be no a priori reason why av^crOaL should not take the aorist, es- 

 pecially since the act may be one which, for some reason, cannot be 

 resisted at the moment. We may refuse to submit to something al- 

 ready done. The examples of the aorist participle with a.v^a-do.1 are 



