Appendix I. (3/30)
英語原文
The subjunctive nowhere bears more distinct marks of primitive simplicity than when it appears in Homer as a simple Future ; as in οὐ γάρ πω τοίους ἴδον ἀνέρας οὐδὲ ἴδωμαι, for never yet have I seen such men, nor shall I ever see them, Il. i. 262, and in καί ποτέ τις εἴπῃσιν, and some one will say, Il. vi. 459, followed by ὥς ποτέ τις ἐρέει in vs. 462, referring to the same thing. See other examples in §284. In this sense it is negatived by οὐ, like an indicative ; and it may be modified by κέ or ἄν, like the future indicative in Homer, and thus acquire a potential sense (see §§285 and 286). It is seldom that any modal form (except a plain indicative) is found so free from associations which might affect its meaning and conceal its original character. It has, moreover, its exact counterpart in Sanskrit in the Vedic subjunctive, which is negatived by ná, the equivalent of οὐ1. This simple subjunctive has no element of will. It express what the speaker regrets as readily as what he is resolved to do. Thus in both the examples above quoted, the subjunctive expresses an act which is decidedly contrary to the speaker's will and wish. This subjunctive and the future indicative run parallel in all their constructions, and the former expresses will only so far as the latter does. The only character that is beyond question in this subjunctive is its reference to future time, and if we were left to this use alone, we should have no hesitation in designating the subjunctive as a form expressing futurity like a future tense. As this use cannot be deduced from the subjunctive as an expression of will, let us see whether the opposite process, the evolution from simple future meaning of the uses in which will appears, is any easier and does any less violence to the principles of the language.
1. See Delbrück, Syntaktishe Forschungen, i. (Conjunctiv und Optativ), pp.23-25
日本語解釈