No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The construction of ἄν with the future has been hotly denied as impossible, so far as Attic Greek and indeed post-Homeric Greek generally are concerned. The opponents of the construction have had among their number such scholars as Dawes and Cobet; and of late, it seems, editors of texts generally. The view of Cobet is given on p. 469 of his Miscellanea Critica, with reference to Demosth. 9. 70 (128) πάλαι τις ⋯δέως ἂν ἴσως ⋯ρωτήσων κάθηται. Cobet, who has been followed by later editors, altered ⋯ρωτήσων (the universal reading of the codd.) to ⋯ρωτήσας, commenting ‘ubi semel Constiterit ⋯δέως ἂν ⋯ρωτήσω, ⋯δέως ἂν πεύσομαɩ aut simile quid pro ⋯ρωτήσαιμι vel πυθοίμην recte dici, turn demum librorum lectioni acquiescemus. quod equidem nunquam futurum esse satis scio.’ This view, which must of course be understood as excepting Homer from its scope, is nothing more than a blank denial of the possibility of the construction. We see more of an argument in Kühner-Gerth (Griech. Gramm. ii. 1. 209), where it is remarked that the construction, frequent in Homer, was later given up because ἃν with the optative was sufficient to express a future possibility; and that possibly emenders have done right to alter passages in Attic which contain it. This is not expressed with any great certainty. Nevertheless it has become to such an extent the prevailing view among editors that in modern texts it is extremely rare to find the construction allowed to remain.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 89 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.