Appendix I. (4/30)
英語原文
The use of the subjunctive which strikes every one as coming next in simplicity to the Homeric construction just described is seen in exhortations, like ἴωμεν, let us go, and (in its negative form) in prohibitions, like μὴ ἴωμεν, let us not go, μὴ εἴπητε τοῦτο, do not say this. This use of subjunctive is found also in Sanskrit, and its negative is there generally (though not always) mâ´, the equivalent of μή. It thus appears that the marked distinction which is seen in the early Greek between ἴωμεν, we shall go, and ἴωμεν, let us go, in both positive and negative forms, was probably inherited from an ancestral language, so that we need not seek for the development of this distinction within the Greek itself. It is obvious that the future element is equally strong in both expressions, while the hortatory subjunctive also expresses will. Now it is much more natural to suppose that a future form expressing exhortation or prohibition originated in an form expressing mere futurity, than that the merely future form originated in the exhortation or prohibition. We connot derive οὐκ ἴδωμαι, I shall not see, from μὴ ἴδωμαι, let me not see. but it is by no means impossible that, in some language which was a common ancestor of Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, subjunctive (i.e. originally future) forms came to be used to express both commands and prohibitions ; that, when these imperative expressions became distinguished from the subjunctive in its ordinary future sense, they adopted the negative (the ancestor of mâ´ and μή) which was used with similar imperative forms, though this use of the negative might not at first be very rigid ; and that thus μή ἴωμεν, in the sense let us not go, became established in early Greek as opposed to οὐκ ἴωμεν, we shall not go. In Sanskrit, however, the use of mâ´ in such cases was less fixed, and here na´ (the equivalent of οὐ) is sometimes found with the subjunctive in prohibitions.1 This last is what we should have if in χειρὶ δ᾿ οὐ ψαύσεισ ποτέ, you shall never touch me, Eur. Med. 1320, we could substitute an Homeric subjunctive (e.g. ψαύσῃς) for the future indicative. The cases of μή with the future in prohibitions given in §70, like μὴ βουλήσεσθε εἰδέναι, do not wish to know, Dem. xxiii. 117, are too few to be of much wight in the discussion ; but they seem to show an abortive tendency to establish the future indicative with μή by the side of the subjunctive in prohibitons. What the future could do in an imperative sense is shown by examples like πάντως δὲ τοῦτο δράσεις, but by all means do this, Ar. Nub. 1352, and others quoted in §69 ; but the natural negative here was οὐ, not μή, as in οὐ ψαύσεις above.
1. See Delvrück, Conjuntiv und Optativ, p.112.
日本語解釈