previous next

[160] “εἰ .. οὐκ”. This is clearly a case like 15.162, 20.129, 24.296, etc., where the negative does not coalesce with the verb into a negative word, but applies to the whole sentence. The use of “εἰ οὐκ” with the indic. seems to be primitive, and only to have been ousted by “εἰ μή” through analogy. The use of “εἰ” with the indic. is to place a statement in the form of a supposition merely to the intellect, i.e. without any indication of wish or purpose on the part of the speaker; whereas “μή” appears originally to have indicated a ‘mood’ in the strictest sense, i.e. the active putting aside of a thought (prohibition); so that “εἰ μή” with the indic. was at first impossible. We find “μή” with the indic. without “εἰ” in the phrase “μὴ ὤφελον”, and also 15.41, 10.330, 19.261 (?) (H. G. § 358), where the speaker not only denies a fact, but repudiates the thought of it: a categorical expression not suited for hypothetical clauses. (See the notes there and H. G. §§ 316, 359 c, where Vierke's rule is given. viz. that ‘with “εἰ” and the indicative “οὐ” is used when the clause with “εἰ” precedes the principal clause,’ except in Od. 9.410. The custom is probably due to the fact that this is the older order, and the more primitive expression of thought, and is thus associated with the older construction; “εἰ μή” with indic. is a use which grew up later by analogy, and was employed in the more artificial order of ideas.)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (7 total)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: