This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
[*] 310. In like manner, the simple negative form of the pure final clause, as ἀπόστιχε, μή τι νοήσῃ Ἥρη (quoted above), was already established in Homer, the negative μή serving as a connective, so that the want of a final conjunction was not felt. Here also the feeling of dependence is shown by the subjunctive becoming optative when the leading verb is past; as in φεύξομαι μή τίς με ἴδῃ and ἔφυγον μή τίς με ἴδοι. But it is obvious that only negative purpose could be expressed by this simple form, in which μή could serve as a connective. We find, it is true, a few positive sentences in which a purpose is implied by the mere sequence of two clauses; as “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε νῦν ἰθὺς κίε Νέστορος ἱπποδάμοιο: εἴδομεν ῾συβjυνξτιϝἐἥν τινα μῆτιν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι κέκευθεν,” “i.e.go straightway to Nestor : let us know what counsel he buries in his breast” (Hom. Od. iii. 17) , and θάπτε με ὅττι τάχιστα: πύλας Ἀίδαο περήσω, burg me as quickly as possible: let me pass the gates of Hades ( Hom. Il. xxiii. 71). But these disconnected expressions, with no particle to unite them, could never satisfy the need of a positive sentence of purpose. To supply this want, several final particles were developed, and were already in familiar use in Homer. These are ἵνα, ὡς, ὅπως, and ὄφρα, which will be discussed separately.
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.