Hi all,
I have a question about aorist optatives: in the line οὐδ' ἂν διαλεχθείνην γ' ἀτεχνῶς τοῖς ἄλλοις ... ["I would absolutely not speak to those others...] (Aristoph. Clouds 425), does any one know why the verb διαλεχθείνην uses the aorist passive stem? I believe it is in the optative mood because it is part of the apodosis of a future less vivid condiation with an implied protasis. The verb itself comes from διαλέγομαι δεαλέξομαι, διελεξσάμην, διείλεγμαι, διελέχθην (I converse or speak with), so it's a deponent verb. Does that have something to do with the use of a passive stem in the optative, or is there another reason to use the passive, rather than the active, stem?
Many thanks!
aorist passive optative in a future less vivid apodosis
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:12 am
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4791
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: aorist passive optative in a future less vivid apodosis
διαλέγομαι is one of those verbs that prefers to use the passive form for its aorist (in all its moods), even though there is a middle form available (διελεξάμην). There are a number of “deponents” like that.
(Your διαλεχθείνην is apparently a typo for διαλεχθείην.)
Incidentally, your analysis of the clause as “the apodosis of a future less vivid condition with an implied protasis” is quite correct, insofar that that’s the way many grammarians would describe it. I just think of opt.+ἄν as equivalent to “would” myself. It doesn’t make any difference whether there’s an if-clause or not. Or that’s what I’d say. (Would you analyze “I’d say” as the apodosis of a future less vivid condition with an implied protasis?)
(Your διαλεχθείνην is apparently a typo for διαλεχθείην.)
Incidentally, your analysis of the clause as “the apodosis of a future less vivid condition with an implied protasis” is quite correct, insofar that that’s the way many grammarians would describe it. I just think of opt.+ἄν as equivalent to “would” myself. It doesn’t make any difference whether there’s an if-clause or not. Or that’s what I’d say. (Would you analyze “I’d say” as the apodosis of a future less vivid condition with an implied protasis?)