Appendix I. (16/30)
英語原文
But why is it thought necessary or probable that γένοιτο and εἰ γὰρ γένοιτο should had the same origin ? If we can trust our feeling in the use of our own language, it is beyond doubt that our expressions of wish, like may help and O if help should (or would) come I are entirely independent constructions, and also that the latter is a condition with its conclusion suppressed. Why should we not accept the same simple distinction in the Greek forms, and admit that the Greek had two ways of expressing a future wish, one by the simple optative, the other by a protasis with its apodosis suppressed ? Absolute proof is, of course, impossible in such a case ; but it is surely samfe to maintain that no such strong presumption is established in favour of identity of construction in γένοιτο and εἰ γένοιτο in wishes, as to make it probable that εἰ γένοιτο in protasis was priginally a form of wish, in face of the fact that only a small proportion of Homer's undoubted protasis with εἰ and the optative express wishes.
日本語解釈