Help with the Potential Optative?

[pies]

The potential usage of the optative, from what I understand, is meant to be translated with an English modal auxiliary. In fact, having consulted several textbooks and writings, it appears that nearly all of the modal auxiliaries used in English can be used to translate the potential optative. This is probably due to my lack of understanding about the formal grammar of the English language, but how does this set of, what is in my opinion, completely unrelated verbs fit under the umbrella of "potentiality"?

Here's what I'm thinking:
I can/could go... (there is the possibility for me to go: I understand this)
I may/might go... (there is the possibility for me to go: I understand this)
I would go... (? No clue)
I must go... (? No clue)

I feel that if I knew about the logic that underpins the potential optative, translation would become a lot easier.
Many thanks!

[mwh]

Just think of the basic meaning as “would.” “I’d go” (if I could, if you begged me, wherever you want me to, etc. etc.).

opt. + ἄν = “would” (potential future)
aor.indic. + ἄν = “would have” (unfulfilled past)

May or may not be attended by an if-clause or equivalent.
“I’d learn better without a teacher” — opt. + ἄν
“I’d have learnt better without a teacher” — aor.indic. + ἄν.

PS. As for the logic of it: with “I would go,” ἔλθοιμι ἄν, my going is presented as a potential event, not as an actual one (“I will go,” fut.indic.).
The past equivalent (we could call it "past potential"), is “I would have gone [but I didn’t],” ἦλθον ἄν (aor.indic.+ἄν), as distinct from “I went”, ἦλθον.
ἄν is the modal auxiliary. It’s used much like “would” in English (“I’d like you to be my Valentine,” βουλοίμην ἄν …), but occasionally other English modal auxiliaries (“might,” “could,” even “will”) will better suit the context.

Important things to remember are:
# “Potential optative” is opt. plus ἄν. (And the past equivalent is aor.indic. plus ἄν.)
# If negatived, the negative is οὐ—not μή. (“I wouldn’t want to be kissed by Chris,” οὐκ ἂν βουλοίμην …)
# The opt. may be either aor. or pres. (according to aspect, a subtle distinction).

[pies]

Ah, I see. So 'would' plays to the idea of possibility as well.
Thanks for the help!