170 GREEK LANGUAGE 



been denied that the pure optative can be used interrogatively; but 

 airoXoifjLTjv may have the force of " I wish I may perish " as well as of 

 "may I perish." So the old servant (Med. 83) says oXoiro p.\v /ti/, 

 Seo-Tro-njs yap rr' e^os, where the particle p.tv shows plainly that ^77 is 

 not an afterthought, and the meaning is "Perish, indeed, may he 

 not," that is, "I do not, indeed, invoke a curse upon him." There 

 are other similar examples. This use clearly allows the interrogative 

 form, and so we find (Med. 754) TL 8' O/DKO> rwSe firj 'p.p.evwv -n-dOoLs. The 

 extent of this usage needs investigation. 



The question of av with the future (even in Homer) is still a battle- 

 ground, as is the question about the difference between the sub- 

 junctive and the optative in the future condition. Some discussions 

 of this latter question ignore a far-reaching phenomenon of speech, 

 not peculiar to Greek. When a state of affairs is, even theoretically, 

 assumed, it may, in the continuation, be treated as actually existent, 

 "If the laws were to appear before us and say" is theoretical or ideal; 

 but now the laws are here and we can say lav eiTroxrtv ot VO/ACH. Ana- 

 logously, "if a man shall steal (e'av cXei/a?), he shall return what he 

 stole (a tKXei/^v)," not necessarily a av K\e^y. Again, in the condi- 

 tion, a very practical case may, from modesty, courtesy, or other 

 cause, be placed in the theoretical form, as in the case of Virtue in 

 the Choice of Hercules, where Vice uses the practical subjunctive. 



The circumstances under which the future in protasis is abso- 

 lutely required in classical Greek I have never seen defined. It helps 

 little to say that it is really a present condition, the future being 

 equivalent to /xcXXo) with the infinitive (which sometimes is not 

 true). The future is used when the apodosis states something which 

 precedes in time the act of the protasis. But in later Greek the 

 subjunctive is sometimes so used; and I have never seen a history 

 of the origin and development of this usage. The extent of the totally 

 different use of the future in threats and warnings has been investi- 

 gated for some authors, but much remains to be done. I would here 

 note that the future is employed even with the first person when the 

 apodosis would be a threat or warning if it were in the second person. 



In treating final clauses, the distinction between Iva as a pure 

 final particle and the rest as relatives overlooks the fact that to the 

 Greeks this fva, even if, as some have attempted to prove, it had 

 a different origin, was the same as the relative Iva, though Iva as a 

 relative was not very familiar. The rule that it never takes the future 

 is certainly wrong, but I have never observed *va av with the sub- 

 junctive, How did Tva with the future sound to the Greeks, and 

 did they never use av with the subjunctive after it? 



The historical indicative in final clauses is confined to cases where 

 the unreality extends to and includes the purpose. If it is a wish, 

 for instance, the final clause is part in fact the main part of 



