Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:12:00.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Aorist in μή Clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2009

N. M. Holley
N. M. Holley
Affiliation:
Bedford College, London
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 3 , Issue 1 , March 1953 , pp. 2 - 3
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1953

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 In the Hippolytus passage a perfect indicative would be normal in syntax, but too emphatic for politeness. Could the indicative have been used in the other passages? The examples quoted (e.g. Kühner-Gerth, 553 b. 6) are always of present fears about the present or past. In an admittedly not exhaustive search I have not been able to find an instance in secondary sequence and should have thought that the pluperfect at any rate would be difficult to explain.

2 Van Herwerden proposed, although without manuscript authority, to read παρεῖπεν, on the analogy of Od. v. 300 δε⋯δω μ⋯ δ⋯ π⋯,νηα θε⋯ νημρτ⋯α εἰ πεν, but there the meaning is rather, ‘The goddess was right, I am afraid.’