NEGATIVE SENTENCES[*] 2688. The simple negative particles are οὐ and μή. οὐ is the negative of fact and statement, and contradicts or denies; μή is the negative of the will and thought, and rejects or deprecates. The difference between the simple negatives holds true also of their compounds οὔτε μήτε, οὐδέ μηδέ, οὐδείς μηδείς, etc. a. τὰ οὐκ ὄντα is that which does not exist independently of any opinion of the writer: τὰ οὐκ ὄντα λογοποιεῖν to fabricate what does not actually exist And. 3.35. τὰ μὴ ὄντα is that which is regarded as not existing, that which is dependent on the opinion of the writer, the whole sum of things that are outside of actual knowledge: τὰ μὴ ἐόντα οὔτε ὁρᾶται οὔτε γι_νώσκεται that which does not exist is neither seen nor known Hippocrates, de arte § 2; cp. τὸ μὴ ὄν P. R. 478b. b. The rarer οὐχί (οὐ-χί) denies with greater emphasis than οὐ. The form μηκέτι no longer is due to the analogy of οὐκ-έτι. [*] 2689. μή as the negative of will and thought is used in various expressions involving emotion, as commands, prohibitions, wishes, hopes, prayers, petitions, promises, oaths, asseverations, and the like; in expressions marking condition, purpose, effort, apprehension, cautious assertion, surmise, and fear; in setting forth ideality, mere conceptions, abstractions as opposed to reality or to definite facts; in marking ideas as general and typical; when a person or thing is to be characterized as conceived of rather than real.—μή is used not merely when the above notions are apparent but also when they are latent. Greek often conceives of a situation as marked by feeling where English regards it as one of fact; and hence uses μή where we should expect οὐ. a. μή corresponds to the Sanskrit prohibitive particle mā´, which in the Rig Veda is used with the independent indicative of an augmentless aorist or imper fect which has the force of the subjunctive; rarely with the optative. In later Sanskrit mā´ was used with the subjunctive, optative, and imperative. b. μή was originally used only in independent clauses; but later was employed in subordinate clauses, and with dependent infinitives and participles. On the origin of μή as a conjunction, see 2222. In Homer μή is used especially with the subjunctive, optative, and imperative (i.e. in commands and wishes); rarely with the indicative (in μὴ ὤφελλον, in oaths, in questions, after verbs of fearing referring to a past event); with the infinitive when used for the imperative after a verb of saying, etc. when the infinitive expresses a command or a wish, and when a dependent infinitive is used in an oath; with the participle only in connection with a command (Ξ 48) or a wish (δ 684). c. In later Greek (Polybius, Lucian, Dio Chrysostomus, etc.) μή has encroached on οὐ, generally by extension of usages occurring rarely in the classical language. Thus Lucian has μή after causal ὡς, ὅτι, διότι, ἐπεί; in relative clauses (sometimes οὐδέν ἐστιν ὅτι μή); with participles of cause (even ἅτε μή) or of concession; with participles without the article following an adjective; with the infinitive after verbs of saying and thinking. ὅτι μή appears in indirect discourse (complete or partial) where the classical language would use the infinitive or ὅτι with the optative or ὡς with the participle; so after verbs of saying and thinking, after verbs of emotion, and even after verbs of knowing.
[*] 2690. οὐ and μή are generally placed before the word they negative; but may follow, when emphasis is laid on a particular word, as in contrasts. ὑπολάβῃ δὲ μηδείς but let no one suppose T. C. 84, ““οἱ δὲ στρατηγοὶ ἐξῆγον μὲν οὔ, συνεκάλεσαν δέ” and the generals did not lead them out, but called them together” X. A. 6.4.20, ξύμμαχοι ἐγενόμεθα οὐκ ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει τῶν Ἑλλήνων Ἀθηναίοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερώσει ἀπὸ τοῦ Μήδου τοῖς Ἕλλησιν we became allies, not to the Athenians, for the purpose of enslaving the Greeks, but to the Greeks for the purpose of freeing them from the Mede T. 3.10, ““ἀπόλοιτο μὲν μή” perish indeed —may he not” E. Med. 83. a. A contrast must be supplied in thought when the negative precedes the article, a relative, a conjunction, or a preposition. Thus, ““εἰ δὲ περὶ ἡμῶν γνώσεσθε μὴ τὰ εἰκότα” but if you pass upon us a sentence that is unjust” T. 3.57, πολεμεῖν δὲ μὴ πρὸς ὁμοία_ν ἀντιπαρασκευὴν ἀδύνατοι unable to carry on a war against a power dissimilar in character to their own 1. 141, ἀμυνούμεθα τοὺς πολεμίους οὐκ εἰς μακρά_ν we shall shortly (lit. in no long time) punish the enemy X. C. 5.4.21, οὐ κατὰ κόσμον disorderly B 214. b. The order of the parts of a negative compound may be reversed for strong emphasis; as ἔτ᾽ οὐκ ὤν ( = οὐκέτι ὤν) S. Tr. 161, μίαν οὐκ ( = οὐδεμίαν) Hdt. 8.119. c. The negative may be placed in front of an infinitive when English transfers it to another verb in the sentence; as ““εἰ βουλόμεθ᾽ ἡμεῖς μὴ προσποιεῖσθαι πολεμεῖν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν” if we wish to assume that he is not waging war with us” D. 8.58, ““ἡμᾶς οὐδ᾽ ἐναυλισθῆναι ἐπιτρέπεις” you do not permit us even to take up our quarters” X. A. 7.7.8 ( = οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεις ῀ κωλύ_εις).
οὐ ADHERESCENT[*] 2691. οὐ adherescent (or privative) placed before a verb (or other single word) not merely negatives the meaning of the simple verb but gives it an opposite meaning, the two expressing a single negative idea; as οὔ φημι I deny, I refuse (not I say not). οὔ φημι is preferred to φημὶ οὐ as nego is preferred to aio non. [*] 2692. Adherescent οὐ is especially common with verbs of saying or thinking, but occurs also with many verbs of will or desire. In such cases οὐ goes closely with the leading verb, forming a quasi- compound; whereas it belongs in sense to a following infinitive if an infinitive depends on the leading verb. In Latin actual composition has taken place in nego, nescio, nequeo, nolo. ““οὐκ ἔφη ἰέναι” he refused to go” X. A. 1.3.8, οὔ φα_σιν εἶναι ἄλλην ὁδόν they say that there is no other road 4. 1. 21 (cp. φῂς ἢ οὔ; yes or no? P. A. 27d), τίνας δ᾽ οὐκ ᾤετο δεῖν λέγειν; who were those whom he thought ought not to speak? Aes. 1.28, ““ἃ οὐκ ἐᾶτε ἡμᾶς . . . ποιεῖν” what you forbid us to do” X. C. 1.3.10, ““οὐκ ἀξιοῖ . . . φεύγοντα τι_μωρεῖσθαι” he said that it was not right to avenge himself on an exile” T. 1.136. a. So with οὔ φημι and οὐ φάσκω deny, refuse ( = ἀπαρνοῦμαι), οὐκ οἴομαι, οὐ νομίζω, οὐ δοκῶ, οὐκ ἐῶ and οὐ κελεύω forbid (veto), οὐκ ἀξιῶ regard as unworthy, do not expect that, refuse, οὐχ ὑπισχνοῦμαι refuse, οὐ προσποιοῦμαι dissimulo, οὐ συμβουλεύω dissuade, advise not to, οὐκ ἐθέλω am unwilling, οὐκ ἐπαινῶ disapprove. This association often persists in participles, as οὐκ ἐῶν, οὐκ ἐθέλων. Homer has οὔ φημι, φημὶ οὐ, and οὔ φημι οὐ. [*] 2693. οὐ with the principal verb may be equivalent in sense to μή with a dependent infinitive; as οὐ συμβουλεύων Ξέρξῃ στρατεύεσθαι ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα advising Xerxes not to march against Greece ( = συμβουλεύων μὴ στρατεύεσθαι) Hdt. 7.46. [*] 2694. Analogous to this use with verbs is the use of οὐ with adjectives and adverbs. οὐκ ὀλίγοι ῀ πολλοί, οὐκ ἐλάχιστος ῀ μέγιστος, οὐχ ἧττον ῀ μᾶλλον, οὐχ ἥκιστα ῀ μάλιστα, οὐ καλῶς basely, οὐκ ἀφανής famous, οὐκ εἰκότως unreasonably, οὐ περὶ βραχέων on important matters (cp. 2690 a), regularly οὐ πάνυ not at all, as οὐ πάνυ χαλεπόν easy. [*] 2695. The origin of adherescent οὐ is to be found partly in the unwillingness of the early language to use the negative particle with the infinitive, partly in the preference for a negative rather than a positive assertion, and to the disinclination to make a strong positive statement (litotes, as in some of the cases of 2694), and partly in the absence of negative compounds, the development of which in adjectives and participles (2071 a) was in turn restricted by the use of adherescent οὐ. [*] 2696. Adherescent οὐ is often found in a protasis with εἰ and in other constructions where we expect μή. εἰ δ᾽ ἀποστῆναι Ἀθηναίων οὐκ ἠθελήσαμεν . . ., οὐκ ἠδικοῦμεν but if we refused to revolt from the Athenians, we were not doing wrong T. 3.55, ““εἰ οὐκ ἐᾷς” if thou forbiddest” S. Aj. 1131 ( = εἰ κωλύ_εις), εἰ μὴ Πρόξενον οὐχ ὑπεδέξαντο, ἐσώθησαν ἄν if it had not been that they did not receive Proxenus, they would have been saved D. 19.74, ““εἰ μὲν οὐ πολλοὶ ἦσαν” if they were few” L. 13.62 (emended by some to οὖν μή). ἐὰ_ν οὐ is rare, as ““ἐά_ν τε οὐ φῆτε ἐά_ν τε φῆτε” both if you deny it and if you admit it” P. A. 25b (cp. L. 13.76, D. 26.24). [*] 2697. But μή often does not yield to οὐ, as ““ἄ_ντ᾽ ἐγὼ φῶ ἄ_ν τε μὴ φῶ” both if I assent and if I do not” D. 21.205, ““οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως φῶ τοῦτο καὶ μὴ φῶ” I know not how I shall say this and not say it” E. I. A. 643, ἐὰ_ν μὴ . . . ἐᾶτε D. 16.12, and in many cases where μή goes closely with the following word, as ““εἰ ἐδίδου κρίσιν καὶ μὴ ἀφῃρεῖτο” if he were granting a trial and not taking it away” D. 23.91.
[*] 2698. οὐ is sometimes found in clauses introduced by εἰ (ἐά_ν). a. When οὐ is adherescent (2696). b. When there is an emphatic assertion of fact or probability, as where a direct statement is quoted. Thus, εἰ δὲ οὐδὲν ἡμάρτηταί μοι if (as I have shown) no error has been committed by me And. 1.33, εἰ, ὡς νῦν φήσει, οὐ παρεσκεύαστο if, as he will presently assert, he had not made preparations D. 54.29. Cp. X. A. 1.7.18, quoted in 2790. c. When εἰ (ἐά_ν) is used instead of ὅτι that (because) after verbs of emotion (2247). Thus, ““μὴ θαυμάσῃς εἰ πολλὰ τῶν εἰρημένων οὐ πρέπει σοι” do not be surprised if much of what has been said does not apply to you” I. 1.44. Here μή is possible. d. When εἰ (ἐά_ν) approaches the idea of ἐπεί since (cp. 2246, 2298 b). So εἰ τούσδε . . . οὐ στέργει πατήρ if (since) their father has ceased to love these children E. Med. 88 (often explained as οὐ adherescent). Here μή is possible. e. When a single εἰ introduces a bimembered protasis as a whole, the μέν clause and the δέ clause of that protasis may have οὐ. Such bimembered protases often depend on a preceding apodosis introduced by αἰσχρόν, ἄτοπον, δεινόν, θαυμαστόν ἐστι (ἂν εἴη) and like expressions of emotion (c). Thus, εἶτ᾽ οὐκ αἰσχρόν . . . εἰ τὸ μὲν Ἀργείων πλῆθος οὐκ ἐφοβήθη τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀρχὴν . . ., ὑ_μεῖς δὲ ὄντες Ἀθηναῖοι βάρβαρον ἄνθρωπον φοβήσεσθε; is it not then disgraceful, if it is true that whereas the Argive commons did not fear the empire of the Lacedaemonians, you, who are Athenians, are going to be afraid of a barbarian? D. 15.23, αἰσχρὸν γάρ, εἰ πατὴρ μὲν ἐξεῖλεν Φρύγας, ὃ δ᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ ἕν᾽ ου᾽ δυνήσεται κτανεῖν for it is disgraceful that, whereas the father destroyed the Phrygians, the other (the son) is not going to be able to destroy one foe E. El. 336, δεινὸν ἂν εἴη, εἰ οἱ μὲν ἐκείνων ξύμμαχοι ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ τῇ αὑτῶν (χρήματα) ““φέροντες οὐκ ἀπεροῦσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ . . . αὐτοὶ σῴζεσθαι οὐκ ἄρα δαπανήσομεν” it would be strange if, whereas their allies will not fail to pay tribute for their own enslavement, we on the other hand will not expend it for the purpose of saving ourselves” T. 1.121. N. 1.—The second member of such protases has οὐ if the verb stands in the indicative, but μή (in classical Greek) i<*> the verb is in the optative. In Aes. 2.157 οὐ κατάσχοιμι is due to indirect discourse. N. 2.—In such sentences εἰ may (1) have a conditional force in both clauses, as L. 30.16, 31. 24; (2) have a conditional force in the second member, but the force of ἐπεί in the first member, as L. 20.36, Is. 14.52; (3) have the force of ἐπεί in the first member, and that of ὅτι in the second member, as D. 8.55, Aes. 3.242; (4) have the force of ὅτι in both members, as T. 1.35, 1. 121, X. C. 7.5.84. f. A bimembered clause introduced by εἰ may contain a negative clause with οὐ directly opposed to a positive clause; as εἰ δὲ τῷ μέν, τοῖς δ᾽ οὔ D. 23.123. g. εἰ whether in simple and alternative indirect questions takes either οὐ or μή (2676 c, e). [*] 2699. Homer has εἰ and the indicative with οὐ (12 times) when the subordinate clause precedes the main clause; but usually εἰ μή, when the subordinate clause follows. Thus, εἰ δέ μοι οὐ τείσουσι βοῶν ἐπιεικἔ ἀμοιβήν, δύ_σομαι εἰς Ἀίδα_ο but if they will not pay a fitting compensation for the cattle, I will go down to Hades μ 382, ἔνθα κεν Ἀργείοισιν ὑπέρμορα νόστος ἐτύχθη, εἰ μὴ Ἀθηναίην Ἥρη πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν then in that case the return of the Argives had been accomplished against fate, if Hera had not spoken a word to Athena B 155. a. The Homeric εἰ οὐ with the indicative has been explained either as a retention of the original use, μή with that mood being an extension through the analogy of the subjunctive and optative; or because οὐ went with the predicate, whereas μή was closely attached to εἰ. [*] 2700. Homer has εἰ οὐ (adherescent) with the subjunctive in εἰ δ᾽ ἂν . . . οὐκ ἐθέλωσιν Γ 289, εἰ δέ κ᾽ . . . οὐκ εἰῶσιν Υ 139. [*] 2701. Herodotus has a few cases of εἰ οὐ with the indicative, as 6. 9; ἢν οὐ with the subjunctive is doubtful (6. 133).
GENERAL RULE FOR μή[*] 2702. μή stands 1. With the imperative. 2. In clauses with εἰ, ἐά_ν (exceptions, 2698). 3. With the subjunctive, except after μή lest, when οὐ is used. 4. With the optative, except after μή lest, or when the optative has ἄν or is in indirect discourse. 5. With the infinitive, except in indirect discourse. 6. With participles when they have a conditional or general force.
SIMPLE SENTENCES AND INDEPENDENT CLAUSES[*] 2703. Statements (2153) expressed by simple sentences and independent clauses take οὐ. Direct questions take either οὐ or μή (2651). The independent future indicative has μή only in questions. [*] 2704. In wishes μή is used with the indicative (1780-1781) or the optative (1814, cp. 2156). ““εἴθε σε μήποτ᾽ εἰδόμα_ν” would that I had never seen thee” S. O. T. 1218, μήποτ᾽ ὤφελον λιπεῖν τὴν Σκῦρον would that I had never left Scyrus S. Ph 969. ““μὴ ζῴην” may I not live” Ar. Eq. 833, ““ἀναιδὴς οὔτ᾽ εἰμὶ μήτε γενοίμην” I neither am nor may I become shameless” D. 8.68, ““οὔτ᾽ ἂν δυναίμην μήτ᾽ ἐπισταίμην λέγειν” neither could I tell nor may I be capable of telling” S. Ant. 686. a. That ὤφελον takes μή, not οὐ, shows that it has lost to a certain extent its verbal nature. In late Greek it even became a particle like εἴθε. b. Indirect expressions of wishing with πῶς ἄν and the optative (1832), βουλοίμην ἄν (1827), ἐβουλόμην (ἄν) with the infinitive, take οὐ (1782, 1789). c. The use is the same in dependent clauses; as ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἃ μήποτ᾽ ὤφελε (συμβῆναι) ““συνέβη” but when that happened which I would had never happened” D. 18.320.
SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN THE INDICATIVE OR OPTATIVE[*] 2705. In subordinate clauses μή or οὐ is used. a. Final clauses have μή, as ““φίλος ἐβούλετο εἶναι τοῖς μέγιστα δυναμένοις, ἵνα ἀδικῶν μὴ διδοίη δίκην” he wished to be on friendly terms with men in power in order that he might not pay the penalty for his wrong-doing” X. A. 2.6.21, ἔδει τὰ ἐνέχυρα τότε λαβεῖν, ὡς μηδ᾽ ει᾽ ἐβούλετο ἐδύνατο ἐξαπατᾶν quoted in 2185 c. b. Object clauses with ὅπως after verbs of effort have μή, as ““φρόντιζ᾽ ὅπως μηδὲν ἀνάξιον τῆς τι_μῆς ταύτης πρά_ξεις” see to it that you do nothing unworthy of this honour” I. 2.37, ““ἐπεμέλετο ὅπως μήτε ἄσι_τοι μήτε ἄποτοί ποτε ἔσοιντο” he took care that they should never be without food or drink” X. C. 8.1.43. c. Conditional clauses regularly have μή. Thus, ““εἰ μὴ ὑ_μεῖς ἤλθετε, ἐπορευόμεθα ἂν ἐπὶ βασιλέα_” if you had not come, we should be marching against the king” X. A. 2.1.4, ““οὐκ ἀπελείπετο αὐτοῦ, εἰ μή τι ἀναγκαῖον εἴη” he never left him unless there was some necessity for it” X. M. 4.2.40. So in concessive clauses (2369). On οὐ adherescent in conditional clauses see 2696. d. Relative Clauses, if conditional, have οὐ with a definite antecedent, μή with an indefinite antecedent (2505). μή is thus used when the case in question is typical of a class (μή ‘generic’). Thus, ““προσημαίνουσιν ἅ τε χρὴ ποιεῖν καὶ ἃ οὐ χρή” they signify beforehand what one must do and what not” X. C. 1.6.46, ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι what I do not know, I do not even think I know P. A. 21d. N. 1.—Homer has ὃς (ὅσος) οὐ with the indicative (μή B 301). N. 2.—οὐ is regular in relative clauses when an opposition is expressed (T. 1.11. 2), and when a negative clause precedes; as οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις (ὅπως) οὐ οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ, etc. （X. C. 1.4.25, X. A. 2.4.3). e. The expression τοιοῦτος, ὅς (ὅστις, etc.), when preceded by a negative, takes οὐ; as ταμιεῖον μηδενὶ εἶναι μηδὲν τοιοῦτον, εἰς ὃ οὐ πᾶς ὁ βουλόμενος εἴσεισι it is necessary that no one shall have (such) a storehouse that anybody who pleases may not enter it P. R. 416d. But even when no negative precedes, we have οὐ, when the relative clause makes an assertion or defines attributively; as ““συγγραφεὺς τῶν λόγων . . . τοιοῦτος, οἷος οὐδεὶς ἄλλος γέγονε” such a writer of speeches as no one had been” I. 15.35. When the antecedent is general or is thought of in respect of its character we have μή; as ““βουληθεὶς τοιοῦτον μνημεῖον καταλιπεῖν, ὃ μὴ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεώς ἐστιν” wishing to leave behind him such a memorial as would surpass human nature” I. 4.89; cp. 2705 g. f. Relative clauses of purpose take μή, as ““θαλάσσιον ἐκρί_ψατ᾽, ἔνθα μήποτ᾽ εἰσόψεσθ᾽ ἔτι” cast me out into the sea where ye may never see me more” S. O. T. 1411, ““κρύψα_σ᾽ ἑαυτήν, ἔνθα μή τις εἰσίδοι” hiding herself where no one might see her” S. Tr. 903. g. Clauses with a relative pronoun referring to an antecedent thought of in respect of its character (of such a sort) take μή. The use of μή characteristic comes from the generic meaning of μή, i.e. the antecedent is not regarded simply as a person who does something but as a person of such a nature as, one who typifies a class. In such cases ὃς μή may refer to a definite person or thing. So especially in relative clauses of cause and result, which ordinarily take οὐ. Thus, ““ταλαίπωρος ἄρα τις σύ γε ἄνθρωπος εἶ . . ., ᾧ μήτε θεοὶ πατρῷοί εἰσι μήτε ἱερά” a wretched being art thou then, who hast neither ancestral gods nor shrines” P. Eu. 302b, ““ψηφίσασθε τοιαῦτα ἐξ ὧν μηδέποτε ὑ_μῖν μεταμελήσει” pass such a vote that you will never repent of it” And. 3.41, ““τοιαῦτα λέγειν . . ., οἷς μηδεὶς ἂν νεμεσήσαι” to use language at which no one could feel just resentment” D. 21.161, ὁ . . . μηδὲν ἂν ὀμόσα_ς the man who would not take an oath 54. 40. Sophocles is especially fond of the generic μή. h. Consecutive clauses (and consecutive relative clauses) with ὤστε take οὐ with the indicative and optative. Thus, (Λακεδαιμόνιοι) εἰς τοῦτ᾽ ἀπληστία_ς ἦλθον ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἐξήρκεσεν αὐτοῖς ἔχειν τὴν κατὰ γῆν ἀρχήν the Lacedaemonians became so insatiate in their desires that they were not satisfied with their empire on the land I. 12.103, ““ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸν γνωρίσαιμ᾽ ἂν εἰσιδών” so that I should not recognize him, if I were to see him” E. Or. 379. On τοιοῦτος ὃς οὐ see 2705 e. i. Oaths and protestations in the indicative with μή express a solemn denial or refusal, or repudiate a charge. Thus, ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς . . . μὴ μὲν τοῖς ἵπποισιν ἀνὴρ ἐποιχήσεται ἄλλος let Zeus now know (i.e. I swear by Zeus) that no other man shall mount these horses K 329, μὰ τὴν Ἀφροδί_την . . . μὴ ᾿γώ σ᾽ ἀφήσω by Aphrodite, far be it from me that I should release you Ar. Eccl. 999. Cp. 2716.
μή WITH THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND IMPERATIVE[*] 2706. The subjunctive is a mood of will, and therefore takes μή. [*] 2707. Independent clauses take μή: the hortatory subjunctive (1797), the prohibitive subjunctive (1800), the deliberative subjunctive (1805), the subjunctive of doubtful assertion (1801). a. The anticipatory subjunctive in Homer takes οὐ (1810, cp. 1813). [*] 2708. Dependent clauses take μή: final clauses, as ““δοκεῖ μοι κατακαῦσαι τὰ_ς ἁμάξα_ς . . . ἵνα μὴ τὰ ζεύγη ἡμῶν στρατηγῇ” it seems to me advisable to burn the wagons that our baggage-train may not be our general” X. A. 3.2.27. Object clauses after verbs of effort, as οὐ φυλάξεσθ᾽ ὅπως μὴ . . . δεσπότην εὕρητε; will you not be on your guard lest you find a master? D. 6.25. So in conditional clauses with ἐά_ν, in conditional relative clauses and in relative clauses referring to indefinite time, place, and manner. a. After μή lest, οὐ is used (2221). [*] 2709. The imperative is a mood of will and therefore takes μή in prohibitions (1840). a. The future indicative after interrogative οὐ has an imperative sense (1918).
NEGATIVES OF INDIRECT DISCOURSE[*] 2710. The negatives of direct discourse are retained in indirect discourse introduced by ὅτι or ὡς. ““ἐνθυ_μηθῆναι χρὴ ὅτι οὐδείς ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων φύσει οὔτε ὀλιγαρχικὸς οὔτε δημοκρατικός” it must be borne in mind that no man by nature is disposed either to oligarchy or to democracy” L. 25.8. ““εἶπε . . . ὅτι οὐ περὶ πολι_τεία_ς ὑ_μῖν ἔσται ἀλλὰ περὶ σωτηρία_ς, εἰ μὴ ποιήσαιθ᾽ ἃ Θηρα_μένης κελεύοι” he said that the question would not be about your constitution but about your safety, if you did not accept the propositions of Theramenes” L. 12.74. a. In ““προεῖπεν ὡς μηδεὶς κι_νήσοιτο ἐκ τῆς τάξεως” he gave orders that no one should move from his position” X. H. 2.1.22 μηδείς is due to the fact that the main verb denotes a command. On the negative in indirect discourse with the infinitive see 2722, 2737, 2738; with the participle, 2729, 2737, 2738; and in indirect questions, 2676.
[*] 2711. The infinitive not in indirect discourse has μή; the infinitive in indirect discourse has οὐ, but sometimes μή. The articular infinitive has μή. On the use with μὴ οὐ see 2742 ff. a. The ordinary negative of the infinitive is μή, which could be so used since the infinitive was employed as early as Homer in an imperative sense. οὐ with the infinitive in indirect discourse is probably due to the analogy of οὐ with the indicative and optative in clauses of indirect discourse introduced by ὅτι (ὡς). οὐ became the natural negative of indirect discourse as soon as the infinitive came to represent the indicative or optative. [*] 2712. μή is used with the articular infinitive. ““παράδειγμα τοῦ μὴ ὑ_μᾶς ἀδικεῖν” a warning not to injure you” L. 27.5, ““ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ τὸ κελευόμενον ποιῆσαι” in order to avoid doing what was commanded” D. 18.204. On τὸ (τοῦ) μὴ οὐ, see 2744. 9. 10, 2749 b, d.
[*] 2713. μή is the regular negative after all verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and substantives, which take an infinitive not in indirect discourse. Thus, after verbs and other words denoting ability, fitness, necessity (and their opposites). Cp. 2000-2007. ““εἰκὸς σοφὸν ἄνδρα μὴ ληρεῖν” it is proper for a wise man not to talk idly” P. Th. 152b, ““τὰ_ς ὁμοία_ς χάριτας μὴ ἀντιδιδόναι αἰσχρόν” it is disgraceful not to repay like services” T. 3.63. [*] 2714. χρή (χρῆν, ἐχρῆν) takes either μή or οὐ. ““χρὴ μὴ καταφρονεῖν τοῦ πλήθους” one must not despise the multitude” I. 5.79, ““χρῆν οὔ σ᾽ ἁμαρτάνειν” thou oughtst not to do wrong” E. Hipp. 507, χρῆ δ᾽ οὔποτ᾽ ““εἰπεῖν οὐδέν᾽ ὄλβιον βροτῶν” it is not right ever to call any son of man happy” E. And. 100. a. For original οὐ χρή was substituted (for emphasis) χρὴ οὐ, where the οὐ was still taken with χρή; ultimately οὐ was felt to belong with the infinitive and hence came to be separated from χρή. b. δεῖ takes μή, as ““μὴ ὀκνεῖν δεῖ αὐτούς” they must not fear” T. 1.120. οὐ δεῖ may be used for δεῖ μή (2693). In ““δεῖ οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν” one must not speak in a general way” I. 15.117 οὐχ is adherescent. Note οἶμαι δεῖν οὐ, φημὶ χρῆναι οὐ, οἶμαι χρῆναι μή. [*] 2715. μή is used with the infinitive in wishes and prohibitions. Thus, ““θεοὶ πολῖται, μή με δουλεία_ς τυχεῖν” ye gods of my country, may bondage not be my lot” A. Sept. 253, ““οἷς μὴ πελάζειν” do not approach these” A. Pr. 712. [*] 2716. μή is used with the infinitive in oaths and protestations. Thus, ἴστω νῦν τόδε γαῖα . . . μή τί τοι αὐτῷ πῆμα κακὸν βουλευσέμεν ἄλλο let earth now know this (i.e. I swear by earth) that I will not devise any harmful mischief to thine own hurt ε 187. Cp. 2705 i. [*] 2717. μή is used with the infinitive of purpose (cp. 2719) or result (2260). Cp. 2759. On ἐφ᾽ ᾧ μή see 2279; on ὥστε οὐ see 2269. [*] 2718. μή is used when the infinitive stands in apposition (1987), and hence is like τὸ μή with the infinitive. Thus, ““τοῦτο ἕν ἐστιν ὧν φημι, μηδένα ἂν ἐν βραχυτέροις ἐμοῦ τὰ αὐτὰ εἰπεῖν” this is one of the things I maintain—that no one can say the same things in fewer words than I can” P. G. 449c. Cp. A. Pr. 173, 431, 435, P. R. 497b. Such cases are not to be confused with μή after verbs of asseveration or belief (2725). [*] 2719. μή is used with the infinitive introduced by verbs of will or desire (1991) or by verbs expressing activity to the end that something shall or shall not be done; as ““τὴν Κέρκυ_ραν ἐβούλοντο μὴ προέσθαι” they wished not to give up Corcyra” T. 1.44, ““φυλακὴν εἶχε μήτ᾽ ἐκπλεῖν . . . μηδένα μήτ᾽ ἐσπλεῖν” he kept guard against any one either sailing out or in” T. 2.69. [*] 2720. Verbs of commanding and exhorting (κελεύω, λέγω, βοῶ), asking (αἰτῶ, ἀξιῶ), advising (συμβουλεύω), and other verbs of will or desire of like meaning, take μή. ἐκέλευε . . . μὴ ἐρεθίζειν he ordered him not to provoke his wrath P. R. 393e, ““ἔλεγον αὐτοῖς μὴ ἀδικεῖν” they told them not to commit injustice” T. 2.5, ““ἐβόων ἀλλήλοις μὴ θεῖν” they shouted to each other not to run” X. A. 1.8.19, ἱ_κέτευε μὴ κτεῖναι he besought them not to kill him L. 1.25, ““συμβουλεύω σοι . . . μὴ ἀφαιρεῖσθαι ἃ ἂν δῷς” I advise you not to take away what you may have given” X. C. 4.5.32. [*] 2721. οὐ is used after verbs of will or desire only when it is attached to the leading verb or to some particular word; when it marks a contrast inserted parenthetically; where a compound negative takes up οὐ used with the leading verb; and when οὐδείς may be resolved into οὐ and τὶς, οὐ going with the leading verb. Examples in 2738.
[*] 2722. Verbs of saying and thinking take οὐ with the infinitive in indirect discourse. Here οὐ is retained from the direct discourse. ᾗ (ἀνάγκῃ) ““φαμεν οὐδένα θεῶν οὔτε μάχεσθαι τὰ νῦν οὔτε μαχεῖσθαί ποτε” we declare that no one of the gods either now contends with necessity, or ever will” P. L. 818e ( = οὐδεὶς . . . μάχεται . . . μαχεῖται), ““λέγοντες οὐκ εἶναι αὐτόνομοι” saying that they were not independent” T. 1.67, ( = οὔκ ἐσμεν), ““οἶμαι γὰρ ἂν οὐκ ἀχαρίστως μοι ἔχειν” for I think it would not be unattended with gratitude to me” X. A. 2.3.18 ( = οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι), ““ἡγήσαντο ἡμᾶς οὐ περιόψεσθαι” they thought that we should not view it with indifference” T. 1.39 ( = οὐ περιόψονται), ““ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκοῦσιν οὗτοι οὐ τὸ αἴτιον αἰτιᾶσθαι” but these persons seem to me not to blame the real cause” P. R. 329b, ““ἐνόμισεν οὐκ ἂν δύνασθαι μένειν τοὺς πολιορκοῦντας” he thought the besiegers would not be able to hold their position” X. A. 7.4.22 ( = οὐκ ἂν δύναιντο). [*] 2723. Verbs of saying and thinking take μή in emphatic declarations and expressions of thought which involve a wish that the utterance may hold good. So with φημί, λέγω, ἡγοῦμαι, νομίζω, οἶμαι. Cp. 2725. ““φαίην δ᾽ ἂν ἔγωγε μηδενὶ μηδεμίαν εἶναι παίδευσιν παρὰ τοῦ μὴ ἀρέσκοντος” but for my part I would maintain that no one gets any education from a teacher who is not pleasing” X. M. 1.2.39, ““πάντες ἐροῦσι . . . μηδὲν εἶναι κερδαλεώτερον ἀρετῆς” all will say that nothing is more profitable than bravery” X. C. 7.1.18, τίς δ᾽ ἂν ἀνθρώπων θεῶν μὲν παῖδας ἡγοῖτο εἶναι, θεοὺς δὲ μή; who in the world would think that they were the sons of gods and not gods? P. A. 27d, ““ἀπῇσαν . . . νομίσαντες μὴ ἂν ἔτι . . . ἱκανοὶ γενέσθαι κωλῦσαι τὸν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν τειχισμόν” they departed in the belief that they would no longer prove able to prevent the building of the wall to the sea” T. 6.102. a. Cp. P. Th. 155a (φημί), T. 1.139, 6. 49, P. R. 346e (λέγω), X. M. 1.2.41, D. 54.44 (οἶμαι), X. C. 7.5.59 (νομίζω), P. Soph. 230c (διανοοῦμαι). b. Cases where the infinitive is in apposition, or depends on an imperative, or occurs after a condition, do not belong here. [*] 2724. μή with the infinitive is often found after verbs denoting an oracular response or a judicial decision actual or implied. Cp. 2725. Thus, ““ἀνεῖλεν ἡ Πυ_θία_ μηδένα σοφώτερον εἶναι” the Pythian prophetess made answer that no one was wiser” P. A. 21a (in direct discourse οὐδεὶς σοφώτερός ἐστι). So after κρί_νω, as ἔκρι_νε μὴ Ἀρίστωνος εἶναι Δημάρητον παῖδα the Pythian prophetess gave decisior that Demaretus was not the son of Ariston Hdt. 6.66, ““κέκρισθε . . . μόνοι τῶν πάντων μηδενὸς ἂν κέρδους τὰ κοινὰ δίκαια τῶν Ἑλλήνων προέσθαι” you are adjudged to be the only people who would not betray for lucre the common rights of the Greeks” D. 6.10. So καταγιγνώσκω μή T. 7.51, X. C. 6.1.36. [*] 2725. μή is often used with verbs and other expressions of asseveration and belief, after which we might expect οὐ with the infinitive in indirect discourse. Such verbs are those signifying to hope, expect, promise, put trust in, be persuaded, agree, testify, swear, etc. The use of μή indicates strong assurance, confidence, and resolve; and generally in regard to the future. Cp. 2723. ἐλπὶς ὑ_μᾶς μὴ ὀφθῆναι there is hope that you will not be seen X. C. 2.4.23, ““ὑπι_σχνοῦντο μηδὲν χαλεπὸν αὐτοὺς πείσεσθαι” they promised that they should suffer no harm” X. H. 4.4.5, ““πιστεύω . . . μὴ ψεύσειν με ταύτα_ς τὰ_ς ἀγαθὰ_ς ἐλπίδας” I trust that these good hopes will not deceive me” X. C. 1.5.13, ““θαυμάζω ὅπως ἐπείσθησαν Ἀθηναῖοι Σωκράτην περὶ θεοὺς μὴ σωφρονεῖν” I wonder how the Athenians were persuaded that Socrates did not hold temperate opinions regarding the gods” X. M. 1.1.20, ““ὁμολογεῖ μὴ μετεῖναί οἱ μακρολογία_ς” he acknowledges that he cannot make a long speech” P. Pr. 336b, ““αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ καταμαρτυρεῖ μὴ ἐξ ἐκείνου γεγενῆσθαι” he proves by his own testimony that he is not his son” D. 40.47, ““ὤμοσεν ἦ μὴν μὴ εἶναί οἱ υἱὸν ἄλλον μηδὲ γενέσθαι πώποτε” he swore that he had no other son and that none other had ever been born to him” And. 1.126, ““ὤμνυε . . . μηδὲν εἰρηκέναι” he swore that he had said nothing” D. 21.119, ““ὀμοῦμαι μήποτ᾽ . . . ἀλεξήσειν κακὸν ἦμαρ” I will swear that I will never ward off the evil day” Φ 373. Cp. Ar. Vesp. 1047, 1281, And. 1.90, Lyc. 76. With ὄμνυ_μι the infinitive may refer to the present, past, or future. [*] 2726. Such verbs are hope ἐλπίζω; expect ἐλπίζω, προσδοκῶ, δοκῶ, οἴομαι, εἰκός ἐστι; promise ὑπισχνοῦμαι, ἐπαγγέλλομαι; swear ὄμνυ_μι; agree ὁμολογῶ, συγχωρῶ; pledge ἐγγυῶμαι; put trust in πιστεύω; am persuaded πέπεισμαι; testify μαρτυρῶ; repudiate ἀναίνομαι; threaten ἀπειλῶ, etc. a. μή is regular after verbs of promising; common after verbs of hoping and swearing. With ὄμνυ_μι, πιστεύω, πείθομαι, μαρτυρῶ, etc. there is an idea of deprecation. [*] 2727. ἐπίσταμαι and οἶδα usually take μή when they denote confident belief ( = I warrant from what I know; cp. πιστεύω μή, ὄμνυ_μι μή). Thus, ““ἐξίσταμαι μή του τόδ᾽ ἀγλάϊσμα πλὴν κείνου μολεῖν” I assure you this fair offering has not come from any one save from him” S. El. 908 (cp. Ant. 1092). In τοσοῦτόν γ᾽ οἶδα μήτε μ᾽ ἂν νόσον μήτ᾽ ἄλλο πέρσαι μηδέν so much at least I know—that neither sickness nor aught else can undo me (S. O. T. 1455) the infinitive may be appositional (2718). Cases of ἴσθι μή (be assured = I assure you) may have μή by reason of the imperative (2737 a). So S. Ph. 1329.
[*] 2728. The participle has οὐ when it states a fact, μή when it states a condition. On μή due to the force of the leading verb, see 2737. οὐ πιστεύων since (as, when, etc.) he does not believe, μὴ πιστεύων if he does not believe, ““ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη οὐδενὸς κωλύ_οντος” he went up on the mountains since no one hindered him” X. A. 1.2.22, οὐκ ἂν δύναιο μὴ καμὼν εὐδαιμονεῖν thou canst not be happy if thou hast not toiled E. fr. 461, ὡς ἡδὺ τὸ ζῆν μὴ φθονούσης τῆς τύχης how sweet is life if fortune is not envious Men. Sent. 563. a. μή with the articular participle is the abridged equivalent of a conditional relative sentence. Thus, in ὁ μὴ ταῦτα ποιῶν ἄδικός ἐστι, ὁ μὴ ποιῶν is virtually the generic ὃς ἂν μὴ ποιῇ or ὅστις μὴ ποιεῖ compressed into a noun. [*] 2729. οὐ is used with a supplementary participle (in indirect discourse) in agreement with a noun (or pronoun, expressed or unexpressed) depending on a verb of knowing, showing, seeing, perceiving, etc. (2106-2115); and also with such supplementary participles (not in indirect discourse) after verbs of emotion (2100), etc. In most such cases ὅτι οὐ might have been used. ““οὐδένα γὰρ οἶδα μι_σοῦντα τοὺς ἐπαινοῦντας” for I know of no one who dislikes his admirers” X. M. 2.6.33, φανερὸν πᾶσιν ἐποίησαν οὐκ ἰδίᾳ πολεμοῦντες they made it clear to all that they were not waging war for their own interests Lyc. 50, ““ὁρῶσι τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους οὐ . . . ἀπιόντας” they see that their elders do not depart” X. C. 1.2.8, ““οὐδεὶς μήποθ᾽ εὕρῃ . . . οὐδὲν ἐλλειφθέν” no one will ever find that anything has been left undone” D. 18.246; ““Κύ_ρῳ ἥδετο οὐ δυναμένῳ σι_γᾶν” he rejoiced that Cyrus was unable to remain silent” X. C. 1.4.15. [*] 2730. ἐπίσταμαι and οἶδα denoting confident belief may take μή for οὐ. Thus, ““ἔξοιδα φύσει σε μὴ πεφυ_κότα τοιαῦτα φωνεῖν κακά” well do I know that by nature thou art not adapted to utter such guile” S. Ph. 79; cp. S. O. C. 656, T. 1.76, 2. 17. This use of μή is analogous to that with the infinitive (2727). [*] 2731. μή is used when the reason for an action is regarded as the condition under which it takes place; as οὐ τοῦ πλέονος μὴ στερισκόμενοι χάριν ἔχουσιν they are not grateful at not being deprived of the greater part of their rights T. 1.77 ( = εἰ μὴ στερίσκοντο). [*] 2732. The participle with ὡς, ὥσπερ, ἅτε, οἷον, οἷα (2085-2087) has οὐ; as ““ἐθορυβεῖτε ὡς οὐ ποιήσοντες ταῦτα” you made a disturbance by way of declaring that you did not intend to do this” L. 12.73. The use of οὐ shows that there is nothing conditional in the use of ὡς though it is often translated by as if. μή occurs only after an imperative or a conditional word (2737). [*] 2733. Participles of opposition or concession (2083) take οὐ; as ““πείθου γυναιξὶ καίπερ οὐ στέργων ὅμως” hearken to women albeit thou likest it not” A. Sept. 712. [*] 2734. The participle with the article has οὐ when a definite person or thing is meant, but μή when the idea is indefinite and virtually conditional (whoever, whatever); and when a person or thing is to be characterized (of such a sort, one who; 2705 g). Cp. 2052. ““οἱ οὐκ ὄντες” the dead” T. 2.44, οἱ οὐκ ἐθέλοντες the particular persons (or party) who are unwilling Ant. 6.26, ““οἱ οὐ βουλόμενοι ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν” the party of opposition” And. 1.9; ““οἱ μὴ δυνάμενοι” any who are unable” X. A. 4.5.11 ( = οἵτινες μὴ δύνανται or ὅσοι ἂν μὴ δύνωνται), ““ὁ μὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ παιδεύεται” he who gets no flogging gets no training” Men. Sent. 422, ““ὁ μὴ λέγων ἃ φρονεῖ” the man who does not say what he thinks” D. 18.282, ὁ μηδὲν ἀδικῶν οὐδενὸς δεῖται νόμου he who does no wrong needs no law Antiph. 288.
[*] 2735. οὐ and μή are used with substantives and substantivized adjectives with the same difference as with participles. Here the generic μή is much more common than οὐ. ““ἡ τῶν γεφυ_ρῶν . . . οὐ διάλυσις” the non-destruction of the bridges” T. 1.137, κατὰ τὴν τῶν χωρίων ἀλλήλοις οὐκ ἀπόδοσιν because of their non-surrender of the places to each other 5. 35 ( = ὅτι οὐκ ἀπέδοσαν), διὰ τὴν τῶν Κορινθίων οὐκέτι ἐπαναγωγήν because the Corinthians no longer sailed out against them 7. 36. Cp. non-regardance (Shakesp.), nonresidences (Milton). So even with concrete nouns: οἱ οὐχὶ δοῦλοι E. fr. 831. ““ἡ μὴ ἐμπειρία_” lack of experience” Ar. Eccl. 115, ὁ μὴ ἰ_α_τρός he who is not a physician (the non-physician) P. G. 459b, οἱ μὴ πλούσιοι whoever are not rich (the non-rich) P. R. 330a, ““οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς μὴ καλοῖς βουλεύμασιν οὐδ᾽ ἐλπίς” in schemes that are unwise there is no place even for hope” S. Tr. 725. a. The use of the negative here compensates for the absence of negative compounds. Cp. αἱ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖαι πόσεις unnecessary potations X. R. L. 5.4.
[*] 2736. οὐδείς, οὐδέν denote that which is actually non-existent or of no account; μηδείς, μηδέν denote that which is merely thought of as nonexistent or of no account. Both are used as the opposite of τὶς or τὶ (εἶναι) to be somebody (something, cp. 1269). The neuter forms are often used of persons; τὸ μηδέν (indeclinable) is used of persons and things. ὦ νῦν μὲν οὐδείς, αὔριον δ᾽ ὑπέρμεγας oh thou who art now a nobody (an actual fact), but to-morrow exceeding great Ar. Eq. 158, ““ὄντες οὐδένες” being nobodies” E. And. 700, οὐ γὰρ ἠξίου τοὺς μηδένας for he was not wont to esteem (those whom he regarded as) nobodies S. Aj. 1114, τὸ μηδὲν εἰς οὐδὲν ῥέπει what was thought to be nothing now inclines (shows itself) to be actually nothing E. fr. 532, ὅτ᾽ οὐδὲν ὢν τοῦ μηδὲν ἀνέστης ὕπερ when though naught thyself (a fact) thou hast stood up for him who is as naught S. Aj. 1231. So τὸ οὐδέν zero, actually nothing, τὸ μηδέν abstract nonentity. a. The construction may influence the choice between οὐδείς and μηδείς; as ἐὰ_ν δοκῶσί τι εἶναι μηδὲν ὄντες, ὀνειδίζετε αὐτοῖς rebuke them if they think they are something when in reality they are nothing P. A. 41e. Cp. 2737 b.
[*] 2737. Where μή is used when we expect οὐ the negative expression usually depends on a verb that either has μή or would have it, if negatived. a. After imperatives. Thus, σάφ᾽ ἴσθι μή με θωπεύσοντά σε know well that I shall not fawn upon thee E. Heracl. 983, ““νόμιζε μηδὲν εἶναι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων βέβαιον εἶναι” consider nothing in human life to be secure” I. 1.42 ( = μὴ νόμιζέ τι κτλ.), ““ὡς οὖν μὴ μόνον κρί_νοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεωρούμενοι, οὕτω τὴν ψῆφον φέρετε” cast your ballots then in the belief not only that you are passing judgment but also that the eyes of the world are upon you” Aes. 3.247 (cp. 2732). See also 2086 b. b. After conditional expressions. Thus, ““εἰ δέ τις . . . νομίζει τι μὴ ἱκανῶς εἰρῆσθαι” but if any one thinks some point has not been sufficiently mentioned” And. 1.70, λύ_σετε δὲ οὐδὲ τὰ_ς Λακεδαιμονίων σπονδὰ_ς δεχόμενοι ( = ἐὰ_ν δέχησθε) ἡμᾶς μηδετ<*>´οων ὄντας ξυμμάχους and by receiving us, who are allies of neither, you will not be violating the treaty with the Lacedaemonians either T. 1.35. Cp. 2736 a. c. Other cases: ““κελεύει μεῖναι ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ μὴ διαβάντας” he ordered them to remain by the river without crossing” X. A. 4.3.28 (here μεῖναι, if negatived, would take μή, 2720), ““ὑπέσχετο εἰρήνην ποιήσειν μήτε ὅμηρα δοὺς μήτε τὰ τείχη καθελών” he promised that he would bring peace about without giving hostages or destroying the walls” L. 12.68 (here ποιήσειν, if negatived, would take μή, 2725). N.—But οὐ may assert itself even under the above circumstances; as μὴ ὅ γε οὐ χρὴ ποίει don't do what is really wrong P. Eu. 307b, ““ἢ ἀφί_ετέ με ἢ μὴ ἀφί_ετε ὡς ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἂν ποιήσαντος ἄλλα” either acquit me or do not acquit me in the knowledge that I should not act otherwise” P. A. 30b (cp. 2732), ““εἰ νομίζεις οὐχ ὑφέξειν τὴν δίκην” if thou thinkest not to suffer the penalty” S. O. T. 551 ( = οὐχ ὑφέξω), εἰ γνωσθησόμεθα ξυνελθόντες μέν, ἀμύ_νεσθαι δὲ οὐ (some Mss.) ““τολμῶντες” if we shall be known to have come together, and yet not to have the courage to avenge ourselves” T. 1.124 (it would be said of them: ξυνῆλθον μέν, ἀμύ_νεσθαι δὲ οὐκ ἐτόλμων, a contrast, cp. 2690). d. On μή in questions where we might expect οὐ, see 2676 b. [*] 2738. οὐ is sometimes used where we expect μή. a. Where οὐ stands in a clause introduced by εἰ or other words after which μή might be expected (2698). Thus, ““ὄφρα καὶ οὐκ ἐθέλων τις ἀναγκαίῃ πολεμίζοι” that every one must of necessity fight even though he would not” Δ 300 (cp. 2692 a). b. Where οὐ goes strictly with the leading verb though it stands with the infinitive. Thus, βουλοίμην δ᾽ ἃν οὐκ εἶναι τόδε I would fain it were not so (I should not wish that this were so) E. Med. 73, ““ὀμώμοκεν οὐ χαριεῖσθαι . . . ἀλλὰ δικάσειν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους” he has sworn, not that he will show favour, but that he will judge according to the laws” P. A. 35c (some explain this as the οὐ of direct discourse). c. Where οὐ in a contrast goes closely with a following word or words, or stands in a partial parenthesis. Thus, κελεύων οὐκ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ θεά_τρῳ τὴν ἀνάρρησιν γίγνεσθαι (he has violated the law) in demanding that the proclamation be made not in the Assembly but in the theatre Aes. 3.204, ““ὁμολογοίην ἂν ἔγωγε οὐ κατὰ τούτους εἶναι ῥήτωρ” I should acknowledge that I am an orator, but not after their style” P. A. 17b, ““ὑ_μᾶς νῦν ἀξιοῦντες οὐ ξυμμαχεῖν, ἀλλὰ ξυναδικεῖν” demanding that you should be, not their allies, but their partners in wrong-doing” T. 1.39. d. When a compound negative with the infinitive repeats οὐ used with the leading verb. Thus, (ὁ νόμος) ““οὐκ ἐᾷ εἰσιέναι, οὗ ἂν ᾖ ὁ τετελευτηκώς, οὐδεμίαν γυναῖκα” the law does not permit any women to enter where the dead may be” D. 43.63. e. When οὐδείς may be resolved into οὐ and τὶς, οὐ going with the leading verb. Thus, οὐδενὸς ( = οὔ τινος) ἁμαρτεῖν . . . δίκαιός ἐστιν there is nothing he deserves to miss Ant. 4. a. 6 ( = he does not deserve to miss anything), ““ἀξιῶ ἐγὼ ὧν ὀμωμόκατε παραβῆναι οὐδέν” I ask that you do not break any of the conditions to which you have sworn” X. H. 2.4.42 ( = οὐκ ἀξιῶ . . . παραβῆναι τι). Cp. S. Ph. 88.
REDUNDANT OR SYMPATHETIC NEGATIVE
I. With the Infinitive depending on Verbs of Negative Meaning[*] 2739. Verbs and expressions of negative meaning, such as deny, refuse, hinder, forbid, avoid, often take the infinitive with a redundant μή to confirm the negative idea of the leading verb. With this compare: “First he denied you had in him no right” (Shakesp., Com. of Er. 4. 2. 7); and “La pluie . . . empêche qu'on ne se promène” (Racine); “Verbot ihnen Jesus, dass sie Niemand sagen sollten” (St. Mark 9. 9). καταρνῇ μὴ δεδρα_κέναι τάδε; dost thou deny that thou hast done this? S. Ant. 442, ““ἀποκωλῦσαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας μὴ ἐλθεῖν” to hinder the Greeks from coming” X. A. 6.4.24, ““κήρῦκα προέπεμψεν αὐτοῖς . . . ἀπεροῦντα μὴ πλεῖν” they sent a herald to forbid them to sail” T. 1.29, ““εὐλαβήσεσθε μὴ πολλῶν ἐναντίον λέγειν” you will beware of speaking in public” P. Eu. 304a, ““ἀπέσχοντο μὴ ἐπὶ τὴν ἑκατέρων γῆν στρατεῦσαι” they abstained from marching upon each other's territory” T. 5.25. [*] 2740. The redundant μή is used after ἀμφιλέγω and ἀμφισβητῶ dispute, ἀνατίθεμαι retract an opinion, ἀντιλέγω speak against, ἀπαγορεύω and ἀπειπεῖν forbid, ἀπιστῶ doubt, ἀπογιγνώσκω abandon an intention, ἀποκρύπτομαι conceal, ἀπολύ_ω acquit, ἀποστερῶ deprive, ἀποστρέφω divert, ἀποχειροτονῶ and ἀποψηφίζομαι vote against, ἀρνοῦμαι (and compounds, and ἄπαρνός εἰμι, ἔξαρνός εἰμι) deny, διαμάχομαι refuse, εἴργω and ἐμποδών εἰμι prevent, ἐναντιοῦμαι oppose, εὐλαβοῦμαι beware of, ἔχω and ἀπέχω prevent, ἀντέχω, ἀπέχομαι, ἐπέχω, κατέχω abstain from, κωλύ_ω (and compounds) hinder, μεταβουλεύομαι alter one's plans, μεταγιγνώκω change one's mind, ὄκνον παρέχω make hesilate, φεύγω (and compounds) escape, avoid, disclaim, φυλάττομαι guard against, etc. [*] 2741. Also after the following verbs: ἀπαυδῶ forbid, ἀπεύχομαι deprecor, ἀποδοκεῖ resolve not, ἀπροσδόκητός εἰμι do not expect, ἀφαιροῦμαι prevent, ἀφί_ημι acquit, δέδοικα and φοβοῦμαι fear, ἐρύ_κω hinder, καταδεῖ lack, μεταδοκεῖ μοι change one's mind, παύω put an end to, ῥύομαι and σῴζω save from, ὑπεκτρέχω escape from, ὑφί_εμαι give up, etc. [*] 2742. When a verb of denying, refusing, hindering, forbidding, etc., is itself negatived, either directly or by appearing in a question expecting a negative answer, the infinitive has μὴ οὐ. Here both the introductory clause and the dependent clause have virtually an affirmative sense. οὐδεὶς πώποτ᾽ ἀντεῖπεν μὴ οὐ καλῶς ἔχειν αὐτούς (τοὺς νόμους) no one ever denied that they (the laws) were excellent D. 24.24, τίνα οἴει ἀπαρνήσεσθαι μὴ οὐχὶ καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπίστασθαι τὰ δίκαια; who, think you, will deny that he too understands what is just? P. G. 461c ( = οὐδεὶς ἀπαρνήσεται). But μὴ οὐ is not used after οὔ φημι, οὐκ ἐῶ, οὐκ ἐθέλω (2692 a). a. μὴ οὐ with the infinitive here, and elsewhere, is used only when the introductory word or words has an actual or a virtual negative. Since, in ἀρνοῦμαι μὴ ταῦτα δοᾶσαι I deny that I did this, μή confirms the negative idea in ἀρνοῦμαι, so in οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι μὴ οὐ ταῦτα δρᾶσαι I do not deny that I did this, οὐ after the strengthening μή confirms the οὐ prefixed to the leading verb. Cp. “Je ne nie pas que je ne sois infiniment flatté” (Voltaire). In the first sentence μή repeats the ‘negative result’ of ἀρνοῦμαι (single sympathetic negative, untranslatable); in the second sentence οὐ is repeated with the infinitive to sum up the effect of οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι (double sympathetic negative; both untranslatable). After verbs negative in meaning (deny, etc.) μή and μὴ οὐ cannot be translated in modern English (see 2739). After verbs not negative in character but preceded by a negative, and after virtually negative expressions, μή or μὴ οὐ has a negative force (2745, 2746). b. μὴ οὐ with the infinitive regularly indicates a certain pressure of interest on the part of the person involved. [*] 2743. After deny, speak against, doubt, etc., followed by ὡς or ὅτι, a redundant οὐ is often inserted. Thus, ““ὡς μὲν οὐκ ἀληθῆ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, οὐχ ἕξετ᾽ ἀντιλέγειν” that this is true you will not be able to deny” D. 8.31. a. Here the ὡς clause is an internal accusative (accusative of content) after ἀντιλέγειν. Originally the meaning seems to have been ‘you will not be able to deny in this way—this is not true’ where οὐ is not redundant. [*] 2744. Summary of Constructions after Verbs of Hindering, etc. After verbs signifying (or suggesting) to hinder and the like, the infinitive admits the article τό or τοῦ (the ablatival genitive, 1392). Hence we have a variety of constructions, which are here classed under formal types. The simple infinitive is more closely connected with the leading verb than the infinitive with τὸ μή or τὸ μὴ οὐ, which often denotes the result (cp. ὥστε μή) of the action of the leading verb and is either an accusative of respect or a simple object infinitive. The genitive of the infinitive is very rare with κωλύ_ω and its compounds. a. Some scholars regard the infinitive with the negative as an internal accusative, not as a simple object infinitive; and the infinitive without the negative as an external accusative. 1. εἴργει με μὴ γράφειν (the usual construction: examples 2739). 2. εἴργει με γράφειν (less common). Since the redundant μή is not obligatory, we have the simple infinitive as object (1989), as εἰ τοῦτό τις εἴργει δρᾶν ὄκνος if some scruple prevents us from doing this P. Soph. 242a, δ̀ν θανε<*>ῖν ἐρρυ_σάμην whom I saved from death E. Alc. 11, ““οἱ θεῶν ἡμᾶς ὅρκοι κωλύ_ουσι πολεμίους εἶναι ἀλλήλοις” the oaths sworn in the name of the gods prevent our being enemies to each other” X. A. 2.5.7, and so usually with κωλύ_ω (cp. 2744. 7). 3. εἴργει με τὸ μὴ γράφειν (rather common; cp. 1): εἶργον τὸ μὴ . . . κακουργεῖν they prevented them from doing damage T. 3.1, ““οἷοί τε ἦσαν κατέχειν τὸ μὴ δακρύ_ειν” they were able to restrain their weeping” P. Ph. 117c. 4. εἴργει με τὸ γράφειν (not uncommon; cp. 2): ““ἐπέσχον τὸ εὐθέως τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ἐπιχειρεῖν” they refrained from immediately attacking the Athenians” T. 7.33, ““ἔστιν τις, ὅς σε κωλύ_σει τὸ δρᾶν” there is some one who will prevent thee from the deed” S. Ph. 1241. 5. εἴργει με τοῦ μὴ γράφειν, with the ablatival genitive, 1392 (not so common as 3): πᾶς γὰρ ἀσκὸς δύο ἄνδρας ἕξει τοῦ μὴ καταδῦναι for each skin-bag will pre- vent two men from sinking X. A. 3.5.11. Other cases are: Hdt. 1.86, T. 1.76, X. C. 2.4.13, 2. 4. 23, 3. 3. 31, I. 7.17, 12. 80, 15. 122, P. L. 637c, 832 b, D. 23.149, 33. 25. Observe that this idiom does not have the logical meaning ‘from not,’ which we should expect. Some write τὸ μή or μή alone. 6. εἴργει με τοῦ γράφειν (not common, and very rare with κωλύ_ω, as X. A. 1.6.2): τοῦ δὲ δρα_πετεύειν δεσμοῖς ἀπείργουσι; do they prevent their slaves from running away by fetters? X. M. 2.1.16, ““ἐπέσχομεν τοῦ δακρύ_ειν” we desisted from weeping” P. Ph. 117e (cp. 3). 7. οὐκ εἴργει με γράφειν (not very common, but more often with οὐ κωλύ_ω; cp. 2): οὐδὲ διακωλύ_ουσι ποιεῖν ὧν ἂν ἐπιθυ_μῇς; nor will they prevent you from doing what you desire? P. Lys. 207e, τί κωλύ_ει ( = οὐδὲν κ.) καὶ τὰ ἄκρα ἡμῖν κελεύειν Κῦρον προκαταλαβεῖν; what hinders our ordering Cyrus to take also the heights in advance for us? X. A. 1.3.16, ““ταῦτά τινες οὐκ ἐξαρνοῦνται πρά_ττειν” certain people do not deny that they are doing these things” Aes. 3.250. 8. οὐκ εἴργει με μὴ οὐ γράφειν (the regular construction): οὐκ ἀμφισβητῶ μὴ οὐχὶ σὲ σοφώτερον ἢ ἐμέ I do not dispute that you are wiser than I P. Hipp. Minor 369 d, ““οὐδὲν ἐδύνατο ἀντέχειν μὴ οὐ χαρίζεσθαι” he was not able to resist granting the favour” X. C. 1.4.2, τί ἐμποδὼν ( = οὐδὲν ἐμποδών) μὴ οὐχὶ . . . ὑβριζομένους ἀποθανεῖν; what hinders our being put to death ignominiously? X. A. 3.1.13, τί δῆτα μέλλεις μὴ οὐ γεγωνίσκειν τὸ πᾶν; why pray dost thou hesitate to declare the whole? A. Pr. 627. 9. οὐκ εἴργει με τὸ μὴ γράφειν (since occasionally the sympathetic οὐ is not added; cp. 3): καὶ φημὶ δρᾶσαι κοὐκ ἀπαρνοῦμαι τὸ μή (δρᾶσαι) I both assent that I did the deed and do not deny that I did it S. Ant. 443, τίς . . . σοῦ ἀπελείφθη τὸ μή σοι ἀκολουθεῖν; who failed to follow you? X. C. 5.1.25. 10. οὐκ εἴργει με τὸ μὴ οὐ γράφειν (very common; cp. 8): ““οὐκ ἐναντιώσομαι τὸ μὴ οὐ γεγωνεῖν πᾶν” I will not refuse to declare all” A. Pr. 786, ““τὸ μὲν οὖν μὴ οὐχὶ ἡδέα εἶναι τὰ ἡδέα λὁγος οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητεῖ” no argument disputes that sweet things are sweet” P. Phil. 13a. Very unusual constructions are 11. οὐκ εἴργει τὸ γράφειν (““οὐκ ἂν ἀρνοίμην τὸ δρᾶν” I will not refuse the deed” S. Ph. 118). 12. οὐκ εἴργει μὴ γράφειν (οὔτ᾽ ἠμφεσβήτησε μὴ σχεῖν neither did he deny that he had the money D. 27.15). 13. οὐκ εἴργει τοῦ μὴ οὐ γράφειν (once only: E. Hipp. 48, where τὸ μὴ οὐ is read by some). On the negative after ὥστε, see 2759. [*] 2745. Any infinitive that would take μή, takes μὴ οὐ (with a negative force), if dependent on a negatived verb. Here οὐ is the sympathetic negative and is untranslatable. ““οὐκ ἂν πιθοίμην μὴ οὐ τάδ᾽ ἐκμαθεῖν σαφῶς” I cannot consent not to learn this exactly as it is” S. O. T. 1065. [*] 2746. μὴ οὐ with the infinitive thus often follows verbs and other expressions formed by οὐ (or α-privative) with a positive word and denoting what is impossible, improbable, wrong, senseless, and the like. ““οὐδεὶς οἷός τ᾽ ἐστὶν ἄλλως λέγων μὴ οὐ καταγέλαστος εἶναι” no one by speaking otherwise can avoid being ridiculous” P. G. 509a, ““ὑπέσχου ζητήσειν ὡς οὐχ ὅσιόν σοι ὂν μὴ οὐ βοηθεῖν δικαιοσύνῃ” you promised to make the inquiry on the ground that it would not be right for you not to assist justice” P. R. 427e, ““πάνυ ἀνόητον ἡγοῦμαι εἶναί σοι μὴ οὐ καὶ τοῦτο χαρίζεσθαι” I think it is utterly senseless for me not to grant you this favour also” P. S. 218c. [*] 2747. Such expressions are, e.g. οὐχ ὅσιός τ᾽ εἰμί, οὐχ ὁ̂όν τ᾽ ἐστί, οὐχ ἱκανός εἰμι, οὐκ ἔστι, ἀδύνατός εἰμι, οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστι, οὐχ ὅσιόν ἐστι, οὐ προσδοκία_ ἐστί, ἄλογόν ἐστι, οὐκ ἀνεκτόν ἐστι, ἄνοιά ἐστι, and many others. [*] 2748. Some expressions denoting repugnance to the moral sense involve a negative idea, and may have the same construction. Thus, ὥστε πᾶσιν αἰσχύ_νην εἶναι μὴ οὐ συσπουδάζειν so that all were ashamed not (i.e. felt it was not right) to coöperate zealously X. A. 2.3.11. So with αἰσχρόν ἐστι ( = οὐ καλόν ἐστι), δεινόν ἐστι. [*] 2749. Instead of μὴ οὐ we find also μή, τὸ μή, τοῦ μή, τὸ μὴ οὐ (but not τοῦ μὴ οὐ). a. μή (rarely; cp. 2744. 1): ““ἔλεγον ὅτι . . . οὐ δυνήσοιντο μὴ πείθεσθαι τοῖς Οηβαίοις” they said that they could not help submitting to the Thebans” X. H. 6.1.1, ““αἰσχρὸν . . . γίγνεται ἐμέ γε μὴ ἐθέλειν” it is disgraceful for me at least not to be willing” P. G. 458d. b. τὸ μή (cp. 2744. 3): ἔφη . . . οὐχ οι<*>῀όν τ᾽ εἶναι τὸ μὴ ἀποκτεῖναί με he said it was not possible not to condemn me to death P. A. 29c. c. τοῦ μή (cp. 2744. 5): ““ἡ ἀπορία_ τοῦ μὴ ἡσυχάζειν” the inability to rest” T. 2.49. d. τὸ μὴ οὐ (cp. 2744. 10): οὐ μέντοι ἔπειθέ γε τὸ μὴ οὐ μεγαλοπά_γμων . . . εἶναι he could not, however, persuade them that he was not a man who entertained grand designs X. H. 5.2.36, ““ἄλογον τὸ μὴ οὐ τέμνειν διχῇ” it is irrational not to make a two-fold division” P. Soph. 219e.
[*] 2750. μὴ οὐ, instead of μή, is sometimes found with the participle after expressions preceded by οὐ or involving a negative, and usually when such expressions denote impossibility or moral repugnance. μὴ οὐ here denotes an exception, and has the force of except, unless (cp. εἰ μή, 2346 a). ““οὐκ ἄρα ἐστὶν φίλον τῷ φιλοῦντι οὐδὲν μὴ οὐκ ἀντιφιλοῦν” nothing then is beloved by a lover except it love in return” P. Lys. 212d, ““δυσάλγητος γὰρ ἂν εἴην τοία_νδε μὴ οὐ κατοικτί_ρων ἕδρα_ν” for I should prove hard of heart, did I not pity such a supplication as this” S. O. T. 11 (δυσάλγητος ῀ οὐκ οἰκτίρμων, μὴ οὐ κατοικτί_ρων ῀ εἰ μὴ κατοικτί_ροιμι).
[*] 2751. The use of μή and μὴ οὐ with the subjunctive is different from that with the infinitive. a. In doubtful assertions (1801-1802) expressing anxiety, suspicion, surmise, μή is used of that which may be true, μὴ οὐ of that which may not be true. b. After verbs of fear and caution, where μή means lest, μὴ οὐ means lest not, that not (2221, 2225). [*] 2752. μή and μὴ οὐ are used with the indicative in doubtful assertions (1772). In questions with μὴ οὐ the οὐ belongs to a single word (2651 d). On ὅπως μή, ὅπως μὴ οὐ with the future, see 1920, 1921, 2203.
[*] 2753. Redundant οὐ appears after the negative words πλήν, χωρίς, ἐκτός, ἄνευ except, without, and after πρίν (and μᾶλλον ἤ usually) preceded by a negative, which may be involved in a question. νῦν δὲ φαίνεται (ἡ ναῦς) . . . ““πλέουσα πανταχόσε πλὴν οὐκ εἰς Ἀθήνα_ς” but now it seems that the ship is sailing everywhere except to Athens” D. 56.23, πρὶν δ᾽ οὐδὲν ὀρθῶς εἰδέναι, τί σοι πλέον λυ_πουμένῃ γένοιτ᾽ ἄν; before thou knowest the facts, what can sorrow avail thee? E. Hel. 322, ““εὖ δ᾽ ἴστε ὅτι οὐ περὶ τῶν ἐμῶν ἰδίων μᾶλλον τι_μωρήσεσθε Πολυκλέα_ ἢ οὐχ ὑπέρ ὑ_μῶν αὐτῶν” but be assured that you will punish Polycles rather for your own good than for my private interests” D. 50.66. Cp. “j'irai vous voir avant que vous ne preniez aucune résolution,” “le bon Dieu est cent fois meilleur qu'on ne le dit.”
[*] 2754. οὐ μή, and the compounds of each, are used in emphatic negative predictions and prohibitions. a. οὐ μή marks strong personal interest on the part of the speaker. In its original use it may have belonged to colloquial speech and as such we find it in comedy; but in tragedy it is often used in stately language. οὐ μή is rare in the orators. [*] 2755. (I) In negative predictions to denote a strong denial. a. With the (first or second) aorist subjunctive, less often with the present subjunctive (1804). Thus, ““ἢν νι_κήσωμεν, οὐ μή ποτε ὑ_μῖν Πελοποννήσιοι ἐσβάλωσιν ἐς τὴν χώρα_ν” if we are victorious, the Peloponnesians will never invade your territory” T. 4.95, ““οὐδεὶς μηκέτι μείνῃ τῶν πολεμίων” not one of the enemy will stand his ground any longer” X. A. 4.8.13, οὔτι μὴ φύγητε you shall not escape (a threat) E. Hec. 1039, ““οὐ μή σοι δύνωνται ἀντέχειν οἱ πολέμιοι” your enemies will not be able to withstand you” X. Hi. 11.15. b. With the future indicative (first and third person). Thus, ““οὔ σοι μὴ μεθέψομαί ποτε” never will I follow thee” S. El. 1052, οὐ μὴ δυνήσεται Κῦρος εὑρεῖν Cyrus will not be able to find X. C. 8.1.5. In indirect discourse, the future optative or infinitive; as ““ἐθέσπισεν . . . ὡς οὐ μή ποτε πέρσοιεν” he prophesied that they never would destroy” S. Ph. 611, ““εἶπεν . . . οὐ μή ποτε εὖ πρά_ξειν πόλιν” he declared that the city would never prosper” E. Phoen. 1590. [*] 2756. (II) In strong prohibitions (cp. 1919). a. With the future indicative (second person singular). Thus, ““οὐ μὴ καταβήσει” don't come down” Ar. Vesp. 397. b. With the aorist subjunctive rarely (1800 N.). Thus ““οὐ μὴ ληρήσῃς” don't talk twaddle” Ar. Nub. 367. Many editors change the aorist subjunctive to the future indicative. [*] 2757. There are two cases in which οὐ μή is not used in conjunction, but where each negative has its own verb. a. A positive command in the future indicative (second person) may be joined by ἀλλά or δέ to a prohibition introduced by οὐ μή. Thus, ““οὐ μὴ λαλήσεις ἀλλ᾽ ἀκολουθήσεις ἐμοί” don't prattle but follow me” Ar. Nub. 505, ““οὐ μὴ δυσμενὴς ἔσει τοῖς φίλοις, παύσει δὲ θυ_μοῦ” do not be angry with thy friends, but cease thy wrath” E. Med. 1151. (In E. Bacch. 343 δέ with the future is followed by μηδέ with the future.) In such sentences the force of οὐ continues into the ἀλλά or δέ clause. Such sentences are generally printed as questions. b. A positive command with οὐ and the future indicative (second person) may be followed by the future in a prohibition introduced by μηδέ or καὶ μή. Here the clause with οὐ has the form of a question expecting the answer yes, while the whole sentence has the form of a question expecting the answer no. Thus, οὐ σῖγ᾽ ἀνέξει μηδὲ δειλία_ν ἀρεῖ; wilt thou not keep silence and not win for thyself the reputation of cowardice? ( = keep silence and do not get the reputation of being a coward) S. Aj. 75, οὐκοῦν καλεῖς αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ ἀφήσεις; will you not call him and (will you not) send him away? ( = call him and don't send him away) P. S. 175a. Here οὐ is to be taken also with the following clause. Some scholars make the question in the second clause independent of οὐ. [*] 2758. The origin of the use of οὐ μή is obscure and disputed. See Kvičala Zeitschrift für österreichische Gymnasien 1856, p. 755; Goodwin Moods and Tenses 389; Gildersleeve American Journal of Philology 3. 202, 23. 137; Jebb on Sophocles Ajax 75 (appendix); Chambers Classical Review 10. 150, 11. 109; Wharton o.c. 10. 239; Whitelaw o.c. 10. 239, 16. 277; Sonnenschein o.c. 16. 165; Kühner-Gerth Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 2. § 514. 8.