RESULT CLAUSES (CONSECUTIVE CLAUSES)[*] 2249. A clause of result denotes a consequence of what is stated in the principal clause. [*] 2250. Result clauses are introduced by the relative word ὥστε (rarely by ὡς) as, that, so that. In the principal clause the demonstrative words οὕτως thus, τοιοῦτος such, τοσοῦτος so great, are often expressed. ὥστε is from ὡς and the connective τέ, which has lost its meaning. a. To a clause with οὕτως, etc. Herodotus sometimes adds a clause either with τέ or without a connective, where Attic would employ ὥστε; cp. 3. 12. [*] 2251. There are two main forms of result clauses: ὥστε with the infinitive and ὥστε with a finite verb. With the infinitive, the negative is generally μή; with a finite verb, οὐ. On the use in indirect discourse and on irregularities, see 2759. [*] 2252. Consecutive ὡς occurs almost always with the infinitive (chiefly in Herodotus, Xenophon, Aeschylus, and Sophocles); with a finite verb occasionally in Herodotus and Xenophon. With the infinitive, the orators and Thucydides (except 7. 34) have ὥστε. [*] 2253. Consecutive ὥστε (ὡς) with a finite verb does not occur in Homer, who uses coördination instead (cp. δέ in A 10). Two cases of ὥς τε occur with the infinitive (I 42; ζ 21 may mean and so), where the infinitive might stand alone, since Homer uses the infinitive to denote an intended or possible result. [*] 2254. A clause with ὥστε and the infinitive is merely added to the clause containing the main thought in order to explain it. The consequence is stated without any distinction of time and only with difference of stage of action. a. Since the infinitive expresses merely the abstract verbal idea, its use with ὥστε (as with πρίν) outside of indirect discourse cannot explicitly denote a fact. By its datival nature (1969), the infinitive is simply a complement to, or explanation of, the governing word. ὥστε is one of the means to reinforce this explanatory office of the infinitive. The origin of its use is suggested by the comparison with ὅσος sufficient for, οἷος capable of (2003) and the infinitive, which was not originally dependent on these words. [*] 2255. A clause with ὥστε and a finite verb contains the main thought, and is often so loosely connected with the leading verb as to be practically independent and coördinate. ὥστε may thus be simply introductory and take any construction found in an independent sentence. The consequence expresses distinctions of time and stage of action. [*] 2256. Result may also be expressed by relative clauses (2556).
[*] 2257. A clause of result with ὥστε stating that something actually occurred as a fact must be expressed by the indicative. [*] 2258. A clause of result with ὥστε stating that something may occur in consequence of an intention, tendency, capacity, and in general in consequence of the nature of an object or action, is regularly expressed by the infinitive. When a consequence is stated without affirming or denying its actual occurrence, the infinitive is in place. The infinitive may therefore denote a fact, but does not explicitly state this to be the case; and is, in general, permissible in all cases where the attainment of the result is expected, natural, or possible, and its actual occurrence is not emphasized; as it is emphasized by the indicative. a. ὥστε with the infinitive does not state a particular fact. The infinitive is preferred in clauses containing or implying a negative. ὥστε with the indicative is preferred after εἰς τοῦτο ἥκει and like phrases when affirmative (cp. 2265, 2266, 2274). [*] 2259. This difference may be illustrated by examples. ἔχω τριήρεις ὥστε ἑλεῖν τὸ ἐκείνων πλοῖον I have triremes (so as) to catch their vessel X. A. 1.4.8 (ὥστε εἷλον would mean so that I caught with an essentially different meaning), ““πάντας οὕτω διατιθεὶς ὥστε αὐτῷ εἶναι φίλους” treating all in such a manner that they should be his friends” X. A. 1.1.5 (an intended result, 2267), ““οὕτω διάκειμαι ὑφ᾽ ὑ_μῶν ὡς οὐδὲ δεῖπνον ἔχω ἐν τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ χώρᾳ” I am treated by you in such a manner that I cannot even sup in my own country” X. H. 4.1.33 (a fact), ὥστε πάροδον μὴ εἶναι παρὰ πύργον, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ αὐτῶν μέσων διῇσαν so that it was impossible to pass by the side of a tower, but the guards went through the middle of them T. 3.21, ““κραυγὴν πολλὴν ἐποίουν καλοῦντες ἀλλήλους ὥστε καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους ἀκούειν: ὥστε οἱ μὲν ἐγγύτατα τῶν πολεμίων καὶ ἔφυγον” they made a loud noise by calling each other so that even the enemy could hear; consequently those of the enemy who were nearest actually fled” X. A. 2.2.17. Here the fact that some of the enemy fled is proof that they actually heard the cries; but the Greek states merely that the noise was loud enough to be heard. Had the clause ὥστε . . . ἔφυγον not been added, we could only have inferred that the noise was heard.