§428.
ὤφελον, ἐβουλόμην, ἔμελλονなどが直説法と共に使われる場合(目次)
- §424. 未完了過去のὤφελλον, ὄφελλον, ὀφέλλω(叙事詩におけるὀφείλω)およびアオリストὤφελον, ὄφελονの直説法での用法
- §425. 直説法未完了過去およびアオリストにおけるἄνを伴わないἔβουλόμηνの特別な用法
- §426. 可能性を示す直説法におけるἔβουλόμην ἄν
- §427. 不定詞を伴うアオリストのκινδυνεύωについて
- §428. 不定詞を伴う未完了過去のμέλλωについて
- §429. 不定詞を伴う未完了過去のἔφηνについて
- §430. リューシアース12.60に見られる類推について
- §431. ἄνを伴い可能性を示す直説法において非現実を後文で表すのと等価な不定詞を用いないいくつかの文例
- §432. 修辞学的手法としてἄνを省略しながらも同様の意図を表現するいくつかの文例
英語原文
(a) The imperfect of μέλλω with the infinitive may express a past intention or expectation which was not realised, and so take the place of the verb of the infinitive with ἄν. E.g.
Ἧ μάλα δὴ Ἀγαμέμνονος φθίσεσθαι κακὸν ο῏τον ἔμελλον, εἰ μὴ … ἔειπες, i.e. I should have perished like A. (lit. I was to have perished), if thou hadst not spoken. Od. xiii. 383, Μέλλεν μέν ποτε οἶκος ὅδ᾿ ἀφνειὸς καὶ ἀμύμων ἔμμεναι· νῦν δ᾿ ἑτέρως ἐβόλοντο θεοί, this house was to have been rich and glorious ; but now the Gods have willed it otherwise. Od. i. 232, Οὐ συστρατεύσειν ἔμελλον, they were not going to join him, or they would not have joined him (in that case). Dem xix. 159 ; see xviii. 172. Ἧττον τὸ ἀδίκημα πολλῶν οὐσῶν ῎μελλε δῆλον ἔσεσθαι, the offence would have been less plain when there were many (olive trees). Lys. vii. 24. See Thuc. v. 38 μέλλοντες πρότερον, εἰ ταῦτα ῎πεισαν, πειράσεσθαι. Compare the Latin : Hoc facturi erant, nisi venisset, they were to have done this (would have done this), had he not come.1
(b) A single case of ἄν with ἔμελλον occurs in And. i. 21 : εἰ καὶ πατὴρ ἐβούλετο ὑπομένειν, τοὺς φίλους ἂν οἴεσθε … ἐπιτρέπειν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἂν παραιτεῖσθαι καὶ δεῖσθαι ἀπιέναι ὅπου ἂν ἔμελλεν σωθήσεσθαι ; i.e. to depart to a place where he would have been likely to be safe. Most critics repudiate this ἄν ; but it seems perfectly analogous to ἄν with ἔδει, χρῆν etc. (423).
1. This use of ἔμελλον with the infinitive corresponds precisely to the Sanskrit use of the past future tense in the sanse of the Greek aorist indicative with ἄν. Thus "if he had slain (avakṣyat) Indra" (Çat Brahm. i. 6, 310), where the two verbs are augmented past futures, meaning literally he was going to say and he was going to slay. See whitney's Sanskrit Grammar, §950.
日本語解釈