εἴτ᾽ ἔνδον εἴτ᾽ οὐκ ἔνδον. Either “οὐ” or “μή” can be used in an indirect question introduced by “εἰ”: Plat. Gorg. 462 D “ἐρωτᾷς εἰ οὐ καλή μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι”: Theaet. 163 D “βουλόμενος ἐρέσθαι εἰ..μὴ οἶδεν”. The same rule holds when the indirect question is alternative (‘whether...or not’), and the second part of it is introduced by “εἴτε” (as here), or by “ἤ”. Plat. Crat. 425 B “εἴτε κατὰ τρόπον κεῖται εἴτε μή, οὕτω θεᾶσθαι”: Rep. 451 D “σκοπῶμεν εἰ ἡμῖν πρέπει ἢ οὔ”. When a writer uses “μή” in one such question, and then “οὐ” in another, the motive of the change may be his wish to mark (by “οὐ”) a negative fact (or what he conceives as such): Antiphon or. 5 § 14 “οὐ δεῖ ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγων τοὺς νόμους καταμανθάνειν, εἰ καλῶς ὑμῖν κεῖνται ἢ μή, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τοὺς τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγους, εἰ ὀρθῶς καὶ νομίμως ὑμᾶς διδάσκει τὸ πρᾶγμα ἢ οὔ”. ἐκφέρει: schol. “εἰς τέλος ἐξάγει”: ‘brings out,’ as from a labyrinth, to the desired goal. Cp. O. C. 98 “ἐξήγαγ᾽ εἰς τόδ᾽ ἄλσος”, (your guidance) ‘hath led me home to this grove.’ Plat. Phaedo p. 66 B “κινδυνεύει τοι ὥσπερ ἀτραπός τις ἐκφέρειν ἡμᾶς”.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.