εἰκάθω the aor. subj. is certainly most suitable here: Soph. Phil. 761 “βούλει λάβωμαι;” Soph. El. 80 “θέλεις ι μείνωμεν;” In such phrases the pres. subj. （implying a continued or repeated act） is naturally much rarer: “βούλει ἐπισκοπῶμεν” Xen. Mem. 3.5.1. As regards the form of εἰκάθω, Curtius （Verb 11. 345, Eng. tr. 505）, discussing presents in -θω and past tenses in -θον from vowel stems, warns us against “looking for anything particularly aoristic in the θ” of these verbs. In Greek usage, he holds, “a decidedly aoristic force” for such forms as σχεθεῖν and εἰκαθεῖν“ never established itself”: and he justly cites Soph. El. 1014 as a place where εἰκαθεῖν is in no way aoristic. He would therefore keep the traditional accent, and write σχέθειν, εἰκάθειν, with Buttmann. Now, while believing with Curtius that these forms were prob. in origin presents, I also think that in the usage of the classical age they were often aorists: as e.g. σχεθεῖν in Aesch. Seven 429 distinctly is.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
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.