previous next

301. In most modern editions of the classics the subjunctive is not found in the construction of 297; and in many cases the first aorist subjunctive in -σῃς has been emended to the future, against the authority of the MSS., in conformity to Dawes's rule. (See 364.) Thus, in AR. Nub. 296 and 367 the MSS. have the subjunctive; and in 296,οὐ μὴ σκώψῃς” could not be changed to οὐ μὴ σκώψεις, as the future of σκώπτω is σκώψομαι. Elmsley's emendation σκώψει, which is adopted by most editors, requires a greater change than should be made merely to sustain an arbitrary rule, which rests on no apparent principle. If both constructions (295 and 297) are explained on the same principle, there is no longer any reason for objecting to the subjunctive with οὐ μή in prohibitions; and it seems most probable that both future indicative and subjunctive were allowed in both constructions, but that the subjunctive was more common in clauses of denial, and the future in clauses of prohibition.

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 Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: