THE NATURE AND USE OF THE PERFECT TENSE IN ANCIENT GREEK

1) Introduction:

This article explains the use of the Greek Perfect tense within the structure of Greek tense forms in general, and indicates how the Greek Perfect differs from the Latin Perfect tense.

2) Tense forms:

In both classical languages, and indeed in English, verb tense systems provide a combination of two dimensions: a) they indicate the time of the action which the verb describes, i.e. whether it is past, present or future time - in relation to time, verbs are either primary (present and future) or secondary/ historic (past); and b) the kind of action which has occurred, i.e. its nature or character - whether it is momentary or continuing, and whether it is completed or incomplete. The second of these dimensions in Greek grammar is known as 'Aspect', i.e. how the action of the verb is viewed. The name comes from the Latin verb "aspicio", I catch sight of, I look at. While in Latin the tense of a verb is most important, in Greek Aspect takes priority. For comprehensive details of the overall tense system, readers are referred to the article, "The Tense of Verbs; a suggested structure," published on this blogspot on 23rd November 2010. The rest of this article concentrates on Aspect and the Perfect tense.

3) Aspect:

In Greek verbs are differentiated into three Aspects:

i) The Progressive (or Imperfective), where the action is viewed as a continuing process, and thus incomplete, e.g. οἱ φύλακες τὰς πύλας κλείουσιν. (The guards are shutting the gates.)

ii) The Aorist, where the action is viewed as a simple event or fact, e.g. οἱ φύλακες τὰς πύλας ἔκλεισαν. (The guards shut the gates). Aorist means "indefinite" and comes from the Greek word "ἀόριστος" (unlimited). In the case of the Aorist Aspect, the action is considered incomplete, but only in the sense that it is happening at a particular moment in time and it is unclear whether it is continuing or will be repeated, or not. 

iii) The Perfective, where the action is seen as a state, and thus completed but with its result continuing, e.g. οἱ φύλακες τὰς πύλας κέκλεινται. (The gates have been shut.) The verb in this case is in the Perfect tense. The name comes from the Latin verb "perficio", (I finish, or I complete). However, in English Greek Perfects are often best translated by the Present tense, i.e. in the case of this example, "The gates are shut." (For further examples, see section 6  below.) 

4) The Perfect tense in Greek. 

The Perfect (or Present Perfective) tense in Greek denotes or records an enduring state or condition in present time which is the consequence of an action completed in the past. Most Greek verbs form their Perfect tense by "reduplication", i.e. repetition of the first consonant of the stem of their first syllable, and add "-κα" or "-α" to the stem. So the Perfect Active form of the paradigmatic verb "λύω", I loosen, I free, is "λελύκα", its infinitive is "λελυκέναι", and its participle is "λελυκώς, λελυκυῖα, λελυκός". The Perfect Middle or Passive of "λύω" also requires reduplication and has the ending "-μαι"; e.g."λέλυμαι", I ransom (Middle), I am freed (Passive), with an infinitive " λελύσθαι", and a participle, "λέλυμένος, -η, -ον". Here are some examples of the use of the Perfect tense:

a) οἱ δοῦλοι τοὺς βοῦς ἤδη λελύκασιν. The slaves have already loosened the oxen. (Indicative Active)

b) φοβούμεθα μὴ οἱ δοῦλοι τοὺς βοῦς οὐκ ἤδη λελυκότες ῶσιν. We are afraid that the slaves have not loosened the oxen. (Subjunctive Active)

c) ἤρετο εἰ οἱ δοῦλοι τοὺς βοῦς οὐκ ἤδη λελυκότες εἶεν. He asked whether the slaves had already loosened the oxen. (Optative Active)

d) λέγει τοὺς δούλους τοὺς βοῦς οὐκ ἤδη λελυκέναι. He says that the slaves have already loosened the oxen. (Active Infinitive)

e) εἶδε τοὺς δούλους τοὺς βοῦς οὐκ ἤδη λελυκότας. He saw that the slaves had already loosened the oxen. (Active Participle)

f) οἱ Βόες τῷ δούλω ἤδη λέλυνται. The oxen have already been loosened by the slave. (Indicative Passive.)

g) εἶπε τοὺς Βόας τῷ δούλω ἤδη λελύσθαι. He said that the oxen had already been loosened by the slave. (Passive infinitive.)

h) οἱ Βόες τῷ δούλῳ λελυμένοι ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ ἠλαύνοντο. After the oxen had been loosened by the slave, they were driven from the field. (Passive Participle.)

In English the Perfect tense is usually expressed by the use of the auxiliary verb "have". In complex sentences where the Perfect tense is used in the subordinate clause or phrase, it describes an action which necessarily occurred prior to the action of the main verb. Where the main verb is in a past tense, i.e. in examples c), e), g), and h) above, the Perfect is usually translated with the word "had".

Sometimes Greek Perfects emphasise strongly that the result of the action is continuing, e.g.

i) γέγραφα γέγραφα. What I have written, I have written (sc. so that's that).

j) ἔγνωκα. I have discovered (sc. and so now I know).

The Perfect Passive is more commonly found than the Perfect Active. This is probably because it often more important to indicate that the subject of passive action is still in an unchanged relation to the action than that the subject of the action is. For instance in the case of examples a) and f) above, the probable main focus of both sentences is the state or condition of the oxen rather than that of the slave, and it is perhaps more natural therefore to express the action in the Passive voice, i.e. in example f) than in the Active, i.e. example a).

5) The use of the Perfect tense in Latin.

The Latin Perfect does the work of what are in both Ancient Greek and in English the work of two separate tenses: 1) the simple Past tense which is used in recounting past events, but which has no implications in relation to continuance or repetition, i.e. what is usually called the Aorist in Greek and the Past Historic in English. 2) the Perfect tense as described above which states the present and enduring effect of a past action, i.e. the equivalent of the Greek Perfect. These two tenses are very different. 1) is a historic tense and refers to past time, whereas 2) is a primary tense and relates to present time. The words "Librum celavi" could, therefore, either mean "I hid the book" at some time in the past but it is unclear whether the book is still hidden or not; or "I have hidden the book", which implies that I have completed the act of hiding the book and it is still hidden. These two uses are sometimes distinguished as 1) the Past Perfect, and 2) the Present Perfect. Only the sense will make it clear in which of these two ways a Latin Perfect should be translated. In practice, though, the use of the Past Perfect appears far more often in classical Latin than that of the Present Perfect. This is because so much extant Latin, whether prose or poetry, is annalistic, i.e. it recounts past events, while the Primary tenses are likely to be more common in direct speech, of which little record survives.

The use of the Present Perfect, representing a present state resulting from a past action, is, in fact, relatively rare in Latin. In poetry, however, it is sometimes used to denote past existence which has now ceased, e.g. "Fuimus Troes; fuit Ilium". We have been Trojans (sc. and are no longer); Troy has been (sc. and does not exist any more) - Virgil's "Aeneid". Another famous example of this usage is Cicero's laconic statement after the execution of the five Catilinarian conspirators: "Vixerunt". They have lived, i.e. they are dead.

The regular need for Latin to use the Perfect tense to denote the simple past is clearly anomalous, since the essential meaning of "Perfect" is "completed", and there is usually no implication of completion in such statements of past events. The lack of a true Aorist tense in Latin is strange, and suggests perhaps the unexplained loss or disappearance of a Latin Aorist at some point in the distant past.

6. The employment of the Greek Perfect with a Present tense meaning.

To return to the Perfect tense in Greek, it is important to appreciate its use to express a Present tense meaning, and the way in which many Greek Perfects are often better translated into an English Present. A simple example of this is τέθαπται, which, if translated literally, means, "He has been buried", but is better translated, "He is buried". Another example is: αἱ πύλαι κέκλεινται. Literally, "The gates have been closed", but often translated, "The gates are shut".

The list below is of Greek verbs, the Perfect of which is often translated in the Present tense.

ἀναμιμνήσκω, I remind (someone). Perfect: μέμνημαι. I have reminded myself = I remember.

ἀποθνῃσκω, I die. Perfect: τέθνηκα. I have died = I am dead.

βαίνω,  I step. Perfect: βέβηκα. I have taken a step = I stand, I stand firm, I am set.

γίγνομαι, I become. Perfect: γέγονα. I have become = I am.

ἵστημι, I have made (someone) stand (transitive). Perfect (intrans.): ἕστηκα. I have stood up = I stand.

κτάομαι, I gain. Perfect: κέκτημαι. I have gained = I possess.

λύω,  I loosen, free. Perfect (Passive): λέλυμαι. I have been freed = I am free.

ὑπολαμβάνω, I understand. Perfect: ὑπείληφα. I have understood  = I suppose.

φύω, I grow. Perfect: πέφυκα, I have grown = I am by nature.

Apart from the above verbs, there are other verbs, the Present tense of which does not appear in Attic Greek, and where the Perfect tense takes its place:

(δείδω), I fear. Perfect form: δέδοικα: fear has come upon me = I fear, I am afraid.

(ἔθω), I am accustomed. Perfect form: εἴωθα, I am accustomed to + infinitive.

(εἴκω), I seem, I am like. Perfect form: ἔοικα, I am like, I am likely to + infinitive.

(ἰδ-), I see. Perfect form: οἴδα, I have discovered, I have found out = I know.

7. Other tenses in the Perfective Aspect.


Apart from the Perfect tense, there are two other Greek tenses that fall within the Perfective Aspect: a) the Future Perfect, which is a primary tense; and b) the Pluperfect, which is a secondary or historic tense.  A brief summary of the use of these tenses is provided below:

a) The Future Perfect. While the Future Tense usually expresses a momentary act in future time, e.g. κληθήσεται, literally "He will be called" = He will be given the name", the Future Perfect expresses a future state, e.g. κεκλήσεται, literally, "He will be called" = "His name will be". In Greek the Future Perfect is rare, and, indeed, in the Active Voice no distinctive future perfect inflexion actually exists. In Latin, the Future Perfect is used to express an action which will be complete in the future; if two future actions are spoken of, one of which will happen before the other, the prior one will be in the Future Perfect and the latter one in the Future, e.g. "ubi viderit, ridebit," "He will laugh when he sees (lit. will have seen)", and, as this example shows, the Future Perfect in Latin is frequently translated by the Present tense in English. In Greek the Future Perfect is concerned with Aspect not with the order of time. So, with regard to this last example, in Greek it would be expressed, "ὅταν ἴδῃ, γελάσεται", i.e. literally, "Whenever he sees, he will laugh", i.e. a Present Subjunctive rather than a Future Perfect, followed by a Future.

b) The Pluperfect (or Past Perfective) tense. The Pluperfect records an action or a state that existed in the past as the result of some other action which occurred at a time still more remote. In English it is usually translated with the use of the auxiliary verb "had". The Pluperfect can usually be identified by an augment denoting past time, and reduplication denoting the Perfective Aspect, e.g. ἐλελύκη (I had loosened, I had freed). Examples:

i) οἰ δοῦλοι τοὺς βοῦς ἐλελύκεσαν πρὶν καταδῦναι τὸν ἥλιον. The slaves had loosened the oxen before the sun set. (Pluperfect Active)

ii) οἱ βόες ἐλέλυντο πρὶν καταδῦναι τὸν ἥλιον. The oxen had been loosened before the sun set. (Pluperfect Passive)

While the use of the word "had" often denotes a verb in the Pluperfect tense, this use of "had" needs to be distinguished from its use to denote a verb in the Perfect tense which appears in a subordinate clause or phrase where the main verb is in a past tense. (See paragraph 4 above.)  

Although more common in Greek than the Future Perfect, the Pluperfect tense is still relatively infrequent in its usage. Whereas in Latin the Pluperfect is regularly used to denote the precise order of time relating to different events, the Greeks often found it unnecessary to draw such distinctions. e.g. while Latin would say, "ubi videram abii," When I had seen (i.e. a Pluperfect followed by an Aorist or Past Historic), I went away, Greek would say, ἐπει εἶδον, ἀπῆλθον, i.e. When I saw, I went away (i.e. two Aorists). English, however, often follows the Latin usage; therefore, Greek Aorists are often translated as Pluperfects in English. Where Greek does use a Pluperfect, as in examples i) and ii) above, it does so to emphasise either the significance of the time relationship or the state resulting from the prior action.

It is also worth noting that in the case where a Greek Perfect replaces a Present form, or is translated by a verb in the Present tense in English, a Pluperfect is used in place of an Imperfect, e.g. οἶδα, I know, ᾔδη,  I was aware; ἕστηκα,  I stand, εἱστήκη,  I was standing.

8. Conclusion. 

This article has sought to show a) the importance of the concept of Aspect in the use of Greek verbs, and how Aspect takes priority over Time; and b) how the so-called Perfect tense in Latin is usually performing the function of an Aorist verb.

THE TENSE OF VERBS: A SUGGESTED STRUCTURE

Of the various parts of speech, the verb is perhaps the most interesting. In their Finite forms (i.e. when verbal substantives and verbal adjectives are excluded) verbs are 'limited' or 'modified' by the concepts of Person, Number, Tense, Mood and Voice. This short monograph by Sabidius sets out to analyse the use and function of 'Tense' in the deployment of verbs with reference to English, Greek and Latin. 

Learners of Latin are familiar with the following six tenses in the Indicative Mood: Present; Future Simple, Imperfect, Perfect, Future Perfect, and Pluperfect, and are expected to be able to conjugate verbs with regard to these different tenses, to which Greek adds a further one: the Aorist. However, the names of these tenses are in fact a muddled or confused hangover of the real tense-system or structure which lies behind them. This article seeks to identify the 'ideal' structure which underpins our use of verbs in all three languages.

Besides expressing the time of an action, i.e. whether it occurred in the Past, Present or Future, the tense form also expresses the character of the action, i.e. whether it is completed or incomplete, and whether it is momentary or continuous. As will be demonstrated in the analysis set out below, English is more able than the classical languages to reflect these important differences of character in the deployment of its verb forms. In the case of the classical languages, and Latin in particular, it is often only through the context that one can determine how a particular verb form can best be translated. The structure suggested here provides examples in all three languages - it is regretted that the Greek words are shown in a transliterated form because the 'Symbol' font is not available to the user of 'blogspot' - and verbs exemplified are shown in the Active Voice for the sake of simplicity.

VERB FORMS: THE IDEAL REQUIREMENTS

1.  Past Incomplete Momentary = Past-Aorist.

    ( I did; epoiesa, feci.)

2.  Past Incomplete Continuous = Past-Imperfect.

   ( I was doing; epoioun, faciebam.)

3.  Past Completed = Past-Perfect (Pluperfect.)

   ( I had done; epepoipeke feceram.)

4.  Present Incomplete Momentary = Present-Aorist.

   ( I do; poio; facio.)

5.  Present Incomplete Continuous = Present-Imperfect.

   ( I am doing; poio; facio.)

6.  Present Completed = Present-Perfect.

   ( I have done; pepoieka; feci.)

7.  Future Incomplete Momentary = Future (Simple)-Aorist.

   ( I shall do; poieso; faciam.)

8.  Future Incomplete Continuous) = Future (Simple)-Imperfect.

   ( I shall be doing; poieso; faciam.)

9.  Future Completed = Future Perfect.

   ( I shall have done; poiekos esomai; fecero.) 

(In the above schema, you will note that, after the time and character of each tense, its correct title is shown, with its more familiar name being underlined.)     

N.B. 

i)  Neither Greek nor Latin can make a distinction between the Incomplete Momentary and the Incomplete Continuous in either Present or Future Time. This can only be identified by studying the context.

ii)  Latin equates the Past Incomplete Momentary (Aorist) with the Present Complete (Perfect). Once again, one has to derive the correct tense in translation from studying the context. Greek, however, does make this distinction in its verb forms. 

iii)  The Past Incomplete Momentary is variously known as the Aorist, the Past Historic, the Preterite, the Historic Perfect, or (with regard to Latin) the Perfect without 'have'. The word 'aorist' means 'indefinite' and so an aorist tense, in whatever time, has no implications of continuity or repetition. 

iv)  An alternative and emphatic form of the Present Incomplete Momentary (Present) 'I run' (for obvious reasons a different verb is used here as an example) is 'I do run'. In the same way in the case of the Past Incomplete Momentary (Aorist), the emphatic form of  'I ran' is 'I did run'. These emphatic forms are most likely to be an appropriate way of translating from Greek or Latin verb forms when direct speech is involved.   

v)  The Past Incomplete Continuous (Imperfect) is a tense which can legitimately be translated in a number of ways in English. Apart from the standard 'I was doing', one can say 'I continued to do'; 'I used to do'; and 'I proceeded to do'. In addition there is the 'Incipient Imperfect': 'I began to do'; and the 'Conative Imperfect': I tried to do'. In both Greek and Latin, only the Imperfect is available to express all these different shades of meaning. Again, the translator has to look up the context to determine the best way to translate an Imperfect, and it is not always clear.

vi) In English usage, it is possible, in respect of all three time dimensions, to add, by the use of modal auxiliaries, to the Perfect (Simple) a Continuous tense. Thus: 'I had been doing' (Pluperfect Continuous); 'I have been doing' (Perfect Continuous) and 'I shall have been doing' (Future Perfect Continuous). In the classical languages, it is necessary to employ adverbs idiomatically to express the same sense, e.g. 'iam diu feci', I have long been doing.

Conclusion.


In the above structure, tenses are classified, firstly, according to the time of the action, whether Past, Present or Future, and then sub-classified according to character, that is, as to whether the action (the present tense is used only for the sake of exemplification) is completed or incomplete, and, if incomplete, whether it is imperfect (progressive) or aorist (indefinite). Under this system of classification, 'Perfect' means that the action is completed, 'Imperfect' that the action is incomplete and is continuing or recurring; and 'Aorist' that the action is incomplete only in the sense that it is happening at a particular moment in time and it is unclear whether it is continuing or not. While it is difficult not to continue to use these terms to describe the three specific tenses with which it is usual to identify them, it is worthwhile noting that, when used properly, they are generic terms relating to the character of the action rather than to time.  

QUESTIONS EXPECTING THE ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO'.

When, speaking English, we often ask questions which are looking for a simple, answer 'Yes' or 'No', and the manner in which we pose the question sometimes signals clearly to the respondent which answer we are expecting to receive, often indicating thereby the attitude or viewpoint of the questioner. Set out below is an analysis of the three types of such questions. Each example in English is translated into Latin and Greek. You will note that English has different forms of asking these questions, depending on the degree of emphasis the questioner wishes to inject. Readers with no previous knowledge of Latin, but who have heard references to 'Nonne' or 'Num' questions, will now be able to decipher what this distinction means.

(1) Simple question expecting either answer.

English: Do you wish to go home? OR Are you wishing to go home?

Latin: Visne ire domum?

Greek: ἆρ' ἐθελεις ἰέναι οἴκαδε;

(2) A question to which the expected answer is 'Yes'.

English: Don't you wish to go home? OR Surely you wish to go home? OR You do wish to go home, don't you?

Latin: Nonne vis ire domum?

Greek: ἆρ' οὐκ ἐθελεις ἰέναι οἴκαδε;

(3) A question to which the expected answer is 'No'.

English: Surely you don't wish to go home? OR You don't wish to go home, do you?

Latin: Num vis ire domum?

Greek: ἆρα μὴ ἐθελεις ἰέναι οἴκαδε;

N.B. The third type of the above questions does not always require an answer, since it is already felt to be 'No'.

P.S. 'Nonne' and 'Num' questions are sometimes called 'Negative Questions', and, indeed, when they are translated, most of them will contain the word 'Non' or another negative word. However, a 'Nonne' question, although it has a very negative look, can be translated without a negative, as the second example in the relevant section above indicates; on the other hand, if one's translation of a 'Num' question does not contain a negative, then an error will have been made, that is, if a literal translation is being attempted. A negative could, however, be avoided if the translator offered a free translation, such as "Surely you do wish to stay here?" Such free translations may of course then confuse the student reader, who, seeing 'Num' in the Latin text may then expect to find a negative in the English version. On the whole, therefore, it is probably better not to describe "Num" and "Nonne" questions as negative ones. Hence the title of this article!  

THE CLASSIFICATION OF GREEK CONDITIONALS WITH SOME COMPARISONS WITH LATIN.

Introduction: the analysis and purpose of conditional sentences.

In any language, the ability to construct or translate conditional sentences is amongst the more demanding challenges which grammar sets us. Conditionals are more complex than other types of adverbial clause, because in the sentences in which they occur, careful attention has to be given to both clauses. A Conditional sentence consists of two clauses: (i) a subordinate adverbial clause, called the 'protasis', which expresses the condition or premise; and (ii) a main clause, called the 'apodosis' or consequence, which states what stems from that condition and therefore naturally follows after it in order of time. The 'protasis', in English the 'if-clause', is dependent, and expresses a supposition or imaginary event; the 'apodosis' is the principal clause, and states what will be the outcome if the 'protasis' is realised.

The intention of this paper: how Greek Conditionals can best be classified.

Ancient Greek is no exception with regard to the relative complexity of Conditional sentences. Indeed, in Book II of their popular textbooks, 'Athenaze', Balme &Lawall (hereafter abbreviated to B&L) posit as many as nine types of Conditional sentence which can be found. On the face of it, this system of classification appears to be especially complex. This paper seeks to consider the extent to which such complexity is helpful, and looks particularly at the meaning and value of the description 'Open Conditions', under which B&L label six of their nine categories of Conditional sentence. In so doing, the classification and designations applied by B&L are compared with those used in the older grammar books of North & Hillard (hereafter abbreviated to N&H) and Abbott & Mansfield (hereafter abbreviated to A&M), and some parallel consideration is also given to the constructional analyses applied in a number of Latin grammar books to see how far these share or differ from the usages with regard to Greek Conditionals.

Similarities between the classifications of B&L and N&H.

In B&L, 'Open Conditions', whether these are 'Particular' or 'General', are described as those 'in which nothing is implied as to whether the condition is fulfilled or not'; these are contrasted with 'Contrary to fact or remote conditions, in which it is implied that the condition was/is not fulfilled or is not likely to be fulfilled in future time'. This distinction is maintained by N&H, but they make an initial, and thus an apparently more fundamental, distinction between Present and Past Conditions on the one hand, and Future Conditions on the other. Present and Past Conditions they divide between conditions 'Where we simply assume the condition without implying anything as to its fulfilment' and those 'Where we imply that the condition is not or has not been fulfilled'; Future Conditions they divide between those where 'We make a distinct supposition of a future case' and those where 'We may put the case less vividly, more "remotely", i.e. in a form which represents the condition as less likely to be fulfilled'. Although the term 'Open Condition' is not specifically employed by them, N&H's former type of condition, in both Present and Past Conditions and Future Conditions, is exactly equivalent to what B&L call an 'Open Condition'; and, at the same time, N&H's latter type of condition equates to B&L's 'Contrary to fact or remote condition'.

Where A&M's classifications parallel those of B&L and N&H.

A&M follow the same basic structure for conditionals as both B&L and N&H, and they follow the latter in making a basic distinction between 'Conditions in Present or Past Time' and 'Conditions in Future Time'. However, the nomenclature employed by A&M differs significantly from these other two grammar sources. What B&L call an 'Open Condition', they describe, in the case of Present and Past Conditions, as a 'Fulfilled Condition', where 'the speaker assumes the fulfilment of the condition, even though the words imply no knowledge about it'; and, in the case of Future Conditions, as a 'Distinct Future Condition', in which 'the Future Condition is distinctly and vividly pictured in the speaker's mind, as in speaking of a thing near and practical, and he states what will be the result, if something happens or shall happen'. These conditions are contrasted by A&M with B&L's 'Contrary to fact or remote conditions', but which they call 'Unfulfilled Conditions' (Present and Past), where 'the speaker implies that the condition is not (or was not) fulfilled, and states what would be (or would have been) the result in the case of its fulfilment'; or as an 'Indistinct Future Condition', where 'the Future Condition, being somewhat remote and unpractical, is less distinct and vivid to the speaker's mind, and he states what would be the result, if something should happen or were to happen'. Despite some differences in the labelling of the different types of conditional sentence, there appears to be a basic symmetry between the systems of classification adopted by all the three Greek grammar sources under consideration.

A&M's divergent view of 'Open Conditions'.

This happy convergence is then vitiated, however, by the statements in A&M that 'conditions in Present or Past Time ... either are or are not now fulfilled, but from their nature are no longer open' and that 'conditions in Future Time ... are still open'. Because of this distinction, A&M state that Conditional clauses in Present or Past Time require their verbs to be in the Indicative Mood, and those in Future Time have their verbs in the Conjunctive. From these statements, it is evident that the term 'Open Condition' represents something very different in A&M from what it means in B&L and, by implication, in N&H, athough they do not employ the label as such. To both of these two sources an 'Open Condition' is one in which nothing is implied as to whether the condition will be, is being, or has been fulfilled; to A&M, on the other hand, 'Open' appears to mean a Future Condition, whether its fulfilment is likely or not, since a Future Condition is still capable of fulfilment, whereas conditions in Present or Past Time either have or have not been fulfilled and therefore 'by their very nature' are no longer open. 'Open' conditional sentences, as defined by A&M, can therefore be identified by mood: the 'protasis' of a 'Distinct Future Condition' uses 'ἐὰν' and the Subjunctive; and the 'protasis' and 'apodosis' of an 'Indistinct Future Condition' use 'εἰ' and the Optative, and 'ἄν' and the Optative, respectively. In all other Conditional sentences in Present and Past Time, the mood of the verbs, whether in the 'protasis' or the 'apodosis' is Indicative. (Exceptions to this are in the case of 'General Conditions', which follow the rules of the Indefinite Construction, and in the graphic use of 'εἰ' with the Future Indicative in the 'protasis' of a Distinct Future Condition, which B&L call a Future Particular or Minatory Condition.)

The threefold classification of the Latin grammar books Kennedy and North & Hillard.

There is, therefore, a clear difference between A&M on the one hand, and B&L and N&H on the other, as to what constitutes an 'Open Condition'. In seeking to determine whose view is correct, it may be instructive to compare the position of these three Greek grammar sources with the views of their Latin counterparts as explained in grammar books of similar authority and status. In the cases of Kennedy and North & Hillard (hereafter abbreviated to N&H Lat.), conditions are not initially divided according to tense but according to the following threefold classification: (i) 'one that is open, i.e. nothing is implied about the fulfilment or the possibility of fulfilment' (Kennedy), or 'Open Conditions, i.e. those in which we assume the condition without implying anything as to its fulfilment' (N&H Lat.). (It is interesting to note that in their Latin edition N&H ascribe the label 'Open' to exactly the same type of condition where, in relation to conditions in Present and Past Time, this label is , for some reason, omitted in their Greek work); (ii) one that 'is conceded only as a supposition and is unlikely to be fulfilled' (Kennedy), or 'Conditions in which it is implied that the fulfilment of the condition is improbable but possible' (N&H Lat.); and (iii) 'one that is contrary to known fact' (Kennedy), or 'Impossible Conditions, i.e. those in which it is implied that the fulfilment of the condition is impossible' (N&H Lat.). This threefold classification adopted by both Kennedy and N&H Lat. is really identical to that of B&L in relation to Greek, who divide conditions into Open, Future Remote, and Past and Present Contrary to Fact conditions, and who, like these two Latin grammar sources, include some conditions in Future, Present and Past Time as 'Open'. Kennedy and N&H Lat. therefore define 'Open Conditions' in the same way as B&L, and not as they are defined by A&M, who see them as attributes of Future time and opportunity.

Wilding: analysis by Mood.

A further method of classifying Latin conditionals is that employed by Wilding, for whom 'Conditional sentences fall into two chief types, according to whether the Mood of the Main Clause is the Indicative (or Imperative), which we will call the Open type, or the Subjunctive, which we will call the Remote type'. There is, indeed, a certain similarity between the approach of Wilding and that of A&M in respect of Greek Conditionals, in that both see the mood of the verbs as identifying the nature of the conditions; but there is a considerable difference between the nature of the Conditional sentences in Greek which employ the Conjunctive and those in Latin which use the Subjunctive. In Greek, it is only Conditional sentences in Future Time in which the Conjunctive is employed (leaving aside General Conditions), whereas in Latin the Subjunctive appears in both the 'protasis' and the 'apodosis' in those sentences categorised as 'Remote'. This category includes those conditionals described by B&L as 'Contrary to fact', but in Greek these employ the Indicative Mood in both the 'protasis' and the 'apodosis', athough the fact that the 'apodosis' of 'Contrary to fact' Conditional sentences always includes the particle 'ἄν' does perhaps indicate a residual link to the Conjunctive.

Simpson and the 'closing door'.

Another Latin grammar source, Simpson, describes 'Open Conditionals' as sentences in which 'Nothing is stated except the logical connexion between two propositions, a connexion such as if the first of them is true then the second is true also'. Against these Conditionals he juxtaposes 'Other Conditionals', which he describes, interestingly, as follows: 'Other kinds of conditional arise when a writer or speaker changes the form of his clauses so as to throw doubt on either the probability or the reality of what is supposed in the Protasis, or if-clause. In doing this he might be said to shut, wholly or partly, a door which was previously wide open'. Simpson then draws 'a sharp distinction' between Future Conditionals which he calls 'limited' and Present and Past Conditionals which he calls 'unfulfilled'. About the former he says: 'A supposition about the former cannot fairly be represented as unreal, i.e. as contrary to existing fact, but it may be made to look improbable'; about the latter he writes: 'A supposition about either present or past, unlike one about the future, may be already "unfulfilled", because the facts of the case are not as presented in the if-clause. Here the door, left ajar in "limited" clauses, may be thought of as closed by hard fact'. Thus, Simpson follows Kennedy and N&H Lat. in drawing a distinction between 'improbable but possible' or 'limited' conditions and 'impossible' or 'unfulfilled' conditions, whereas Wilding effectively equates the two under the label 'Remote' conditions. However, all these four Latin grammar sources follow the B&L definition of 'Open Conditionals', and none follow A&M in equating 'Open' with Future.

The difference between Latin and Greek in classifying Conditionals.

What then is the most useful and instructive method of classifying Conditional sentences and Conditional clauses? In Latin, the simple approach of Wilding in dividing Conditionals into two camps, 'Open' and 'Remote', has much to commend it, because the appearance in English of the modal auxiliaries 'should' and 'would' almost always coincides with the Latin Subjunctive. In Greek, however, the appearance of the Conjunctive, whether Subjunctive or Optative, does not reflect remoteness or improbability, but simply Future Time. In Greek, therefore, the threefold analysis, adopted by the other Latin grammar sources Kennedy, N&H Lat. and Simpson works better, and this is well exemplified in the categorisation deployed by B&L of Open, Contrary to fact, and Remote.

General Conditions.

Another strength of the B&L ninefold classification is that it integrates 'General Conditions', both Past and Present, into the schema. These scarcely occur in Latin, but are much more common in Greek. In N&H these 'General Conditions' are confusingly omitted altogether from the section on Conditional Sentences, and have to be subsequently understood as falling under the Indefinite Construction. A&M do append to their section on Conditional Clauses a brief sub-section on 'General Conditions' which is helpful.

Conclusion.

However, this clarification of 'General Conditions' by A&M scarcely compensates for their surprising equation of 'Open' with Future Conditionals. This is surely an aberration, but it is one which has the capacity to confuse seriously any scholar who is seeking to understand the meaning of 'Open' in this context. On balance, the ninefold classification of conditionals adopted by B&L in 'Athenaze' Book II, while apparently complex, is convincing, and, if followed, will lead to understanding and precision in both translation and composition of Greek.

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY OF TEXTS REFERRED TO IN THIS PAPER.

A. Greek.

Maurice Balme and Gilbert Lawall, 'Athenaze', Book II, pages 192-194.

M.A.North and A.E. Hillard, 'Greek Prose Composition for Schools', pages 112-114,148.

Evelyn Abbott and E.D. Mansfield, 'Primer of Greek Grammar Syntax', pages 46-48.

B. Latin.

B.H. Kennedy, 'The Revised Latin Primer', pages 187-190.

M.A. North and A.E.Hillard, 'Latin Prose Composition', pages 156-157.

L.A. Wilding, 'Latin Course for Schools', Part 3, pages 113-114,118-119.

D.P. Simpson, 'First Principles of Latin Prose', pages 198-202, 205-206.

APPENDIX II. CLASSIFICATION OF GREEK CONDITIONALS FOLLOWING BALME AND LAWALL.

A. Open Conditions: Protasis: Apodosis.

i. Past Particular. εἰ  + Past Indicative: Past Indicative.

ii. Past General. εἰ + Aorist/Present Indicative: Imperfect Indicative.

iii. Present Particular. εἰ + Present/Perfect Indicative: Present Indicative.

iv. Present General. ἐὰν + Aorist/Present Subjunctive: Present Indicative.

v. Future Particular/Minatory. εἰ + future Indicative: Future Indicative.

vi. Future More Vivid. ἐὰν + Aorist/Present Subjunctive: Future Indicative.

B. Contrary to fact and Remote Conditions.

vii. Past Contrary to fact. εἰ + Aorist Indicative: Aorist Indicative + ἄν.

viii. Present Contrary to fact. εἰ + Imperfect Indicative: Imperfect Indicative + ἄν.

ix. Future Remote/Less Vivid. εἰ + Aorist/Present Optative: Aor./Pres. Optative + ἄν.

Examples in English.

A.i. If he said this, he was lying.

A.ii. If anyone (ever) said this, he was (always) lying.

A.iii. If he is saying this, he is lying.

A.iv. If anyone (ever) says this, he is (always) lying.

A.v. If you lie, you will be punished.

A.vi. If you say this, you will be lying.

B.vii. If he had said this, he would have lied.

B.viii. If he were saying this, he would be lying.

B.ix. If he were to say this / If he said this, he would be lying.