Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:17:05.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Classification of Conditional Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

C. D. Chambers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , July 1895 , pp. 293 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1895

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It is curious that grammarians do not appear to recognize the obvious fact that εἰυ ποήσεις ἀδικσειςdiffers from ἐὰυ ποάσης ταυτα ἀδζκήσειςin precisely the same way that εἰ ἀδικεις differs from ἐὰυ ἀδικῇς viz. the former in each case is definite, the latter indefinite. Of course in the ‘present general’ the indefiniteness is habitually indefinite frequency, in the ‘more vivid future’ it is indefinite futurity (hence Goodwin's mistake, loc. cit.). The various ‘minatory,’ ‘monitory’ or ‘modal’ theories are attempts to find some other distinction between these two forms of future conditions; in so far as these distinctions exist, they are merely accidental. Does any one doubt that ‘if you do this tomorrow at 12 o'clock precisely’ must be ε ἰ ποήσεις? Yet it is certainly not minatory, or monitory or modal.