No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
It is curious how little recognition has been given by the authorities on Greek grammar to the persistent use of the future participle, except within very narrow limits. Goodwin,1 for example, recognizes its use mainly with expressions of motion (go or send) in the sense of purpose, and in indirect discourse, or with the article, or with ώς: the only quotation he gives which goes beyond these uses is one passage where 
is found with the nominative of the participle. Gildersleeve2 quotes only cases where it represents in indirect discourse the future indicative and refers to its use with verbs of motion. Monro3 recognizes the use with verbs of motion, and in the following cases, (i.) the isolated 
; (ii.) in 
in two passages, but with the suggestion4 that the form is not a future at all, but an aorist; (iii.) in Il. xviii. 309, 
and (iv.) in Od. xi. 608, 
. Even then he5 describes the usage in (iii.) as a use of the future participle, which is hardly to be defended. Kiihner-Gerth6 also give nothing further.
page 121 note 1 Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses, §§ 153, 826 840.
page 121 note 2 Syntax of Classical Greek, § 360.
page 121 note 3 Homeric Grammar2, § 244.
page 121 note 4 Ibid., §41.
page 121 note 5 Ibid., p. 58 note.
page 121 note 6 Ausführliche Grammatik, i. 185.
page 121 note 7 Altindische Syntax, pp. 372 sq.
page 121 note 8 Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax, p.61.
page 122 note 1 Journ. Phil. viii. 80. See e.g. Aesch. Ag. 67, and for ώς, Goodwin, § 864.
page 122 note 2 On Soph. Phil. 1191
page 122 note 3 Adam rightly prefers this to 
: the sense is clearly thus better in view of the future participle.
page 122 note 4 Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, p. 334.
page 122 note 5 Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses, pp. 44 sq.
page 122 note 6 Syntax of Classical Greek, § 441.
page 122 note 7 Ausfiihrliche Grammatik, i. 183.
page 123 note 1 Goodwin, p. 20; Kühner-Gerth, i. 177
page 123 note 2 Goodwin, p. 175. It is not rare. Cf. Thuc. vi. 6; Dem. xlv. 12
page 123 note 3 Goodwin, pp. 35, 36. Cf. Dem. iv. 51; Isocr. vii. 42; Kühner-Gerth, i. 184.
page 123 note 4 In his note ad loc. So also Curtius, Greek Verb, p. 6.
page 123 note 5 Goodwin, pp. 69, 71. He treats them all as equivalents of a future indicative with av, and (p. 66) recognizes certain occurrences of this in Attic Greek, both prose and verse. Cobet (Var. Lect., p. 93; Misc. Crit., p. 469) denies the Attic use of av with the future indicative, and therefore the occurrence of av, with the future infinitive and participle. But he does not consider the theory here suggested that av with the infinitive and the participle represents a future optative with av, a combination which Goodwin totally denies. Cf. also Küuhner-Gerth, i. 235, 236.
page 123 note 6 Richards, Class. Rev., vi. 336; cf. Adam, Republic, i. 277; Blass, Rhein. Mus., xxxvi. 221.
page 123 note 7 E.g. Blass in Dem. ix. 70; xix. 342. In some cases emendation is clearly right, but very simple—e.g., α for 0 in Dem. xviii. 168 (av 
); cf. 
for 
in Thuc. ii. 44
page 124 note 1 In Plat. Ap. 29 C, the ejection of av is easy because it follows 
, and the scribes thought that the apodosis required the particle, not understanding that in the protasis the opta-tive was in oratio obliqua. while in the apodosi the indicative is kept for vividness (cf. Goodwin, §§ 670, 690).
page 124 note 2 This fact accounts for the comparative rarity of moods of the future in Sanskrit: jipviset renders jivisyet as a rule needless. Cf. Whitney, §§ 948b, 1040; Speyer, § 157. For 
in Il. xViii. 309, Cobet wishes to read 
(cf. Curtius p. 575, n, 4), but Monro and Leaf prefer to see bes a byform of 
, the latter comparing 
in Il. x. 421.
page 124 note 3 Neither Kühner-Gerth, i. 235, 236, nor Gildersleeve, § 441, accept for Attic Greek any of the cases, though the latter allows that the construction is valid in later texts. Of course some of the cases cited may be mere blunders–e.g., Isae. i. 32. Gildersleeve, § 432, rejects the occurrence of av with the future indicative except i. in Plat. Rep. 615 D.
page 125 note 1 It is of course not contended that the metrical argument is conclusive; cf. Hall and Geldart's edition, Praef.
page 125 note 2 Kahner–Gerth, i. 235.
page 125 note 3 So Merry ad loc.; Goodwin, § 674.
page 125 note 4 For examples of this, see Goodwin, §§ 674, 691, 701.
page 125 note 5 E.g. Xen. Mem. i. l, 6:
; Cyr. Vii. 3, 10:
Hell, iV. 2, 10:
Isocr. ep. ii. 22: 
; Lycurg. 76: 
etc.