Opt after sub or imper

[Constantinus Philo]

I don't know how to explain opt in the following final clauses. H 339 340: εν δ αυτοισι Πύλας ποιησομεν ιδέα οδός είη. Ο 475:μαρνσο τε τρωεσσι μη ελοιεν νηας. Isn't it weird?

[mwh]

It's Homer.

[Constantinus Philo]

Here is Herodotus 2, 93: αντέχονται της αυτής ίνα μη αμαρτοιεν της οδού. How can you explain this opt based on what Smyth says. There are other examples from Plato and Sophocles.

[cb]

Hi, just looking at the first e.g., I take this as an opt. of wish in a dependent construction. See Goodwin 1897 s168: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0065

Chantraine 1963 (i.e. vol. 2) s400 notes that the optative is attested in final constructions, and could originally come from a statement of wish (i.e. similar to how I'm taking it above I think).

I haven't tracked through your other e.g.s, but as a general rule worth checking in each case whether the opt. is due to something other than "sequence of moods".

Cheers, Chad