Greek Optative Syntax

Uses of the Optative

Introduction

There are really only three uses of the optative:

(1) The true optative with εἴθε, εἰ γάρ, εἰ, or nothing:

εἴθε ταῦτα εἴποις

If only you were to say these things!

(2) The potential optative with ἄν:

εἴποι τις ἄν

someone would say

(3) The optative in historical sequence standing in for an original indicative or subjunctive:

ἔδειξε ὅτι οἴοιτο εἶναι σοφός

he revealed that he thought he was smart

The true optative and the potential optative are used in future less real conditions. The optative in historical sequence is used in past general conditions. See here for more <link>.

Intermediate

The three uses of the optative are as follows.

1. The True Optative

The true optative is also called the “desiderative” or the “optative of wish” or the “optative optative.” The main verb is introduced with εἰ γάρ, εἴθε, simply εἰ, or nothing at all, and expresses some future wish:

εἴ τις οἷός τ’ εἴη παιδεύειν ἀνθρώπους

If only someone were to be able to educate people!

—Plato, Apology 19e2, adapted

εἴθε πείθοιμι ὑμᾶς

Were I to persuade you!

—Plato, Apology 35d2-3, adapted

In more comfortable American English we might say “if only I could persuade you!”—or something of that sort. And forget the awkward “were to be able to…”! However awkward, though, it is worth retaining the translation “were to [verb]” (or for Brits: “should [verb]”), because this particular turn of phrase will make conditionals easier <link>.

2. The Potential Optative

The potential optative expresses a future possibility. It is accompanied by ἄν, which is translated “would” (or “could” or “might”):

θαυμάζοιμ’ ἂν

I would be amazed

—Plato, Apology 24a2

see here for an exercise on the true optative and the potential optative <culled from the Apology?>

3. The Optative in Historical Sequence

When a statement is subordinated in (or into) historical sequence, the mood of the verb in that statement, whether indicative or subjunctive, standardly becomes optative. Here, the optative is grammatical only, retaining the sense of its original mood. Consider the following sentence:

διερωτάω αὐτοὺς τί λέγουσι, ἵνα τι μανθάνω παρ᾽ αὐτῶν

I am asking them what they are saying so that I can learn something from them

The verb λέγουσι (λεγ/ουσι) is present progressive indicative in an indirect question introduced by τί, and μανθάνω (μα[ν]θ[ν]/ω) is progressive subjunctive in a purpose clause introduced by ἵνα. All of this is in primary sequence because the main verb of the sentence, διερωτάω (δια/ἐρωτα/ω), is present.

See what happens when we make διερωτάω past, turning the rest of the sentence into historical sequence:

διηρώτων αὐτοὺς τί λέγοιεν, ἵνα τι μανθάνοιμι παρ’ αὐτῶν

I was asking them what they were saying so that I could learn something from them

—Plato, Apology 22b4-5, adapted

The progressive indicative λέγουσι becomes progressive optative λέγοιεν (λεγ/οι/εν), and the progressive subjunctive μανθάνω becomes progressive optative μανθάνοιμι (μα[ν]θ[ν]/οι/μι). The change in translation from “they are saying” to “they were saying” and “I can learn” to “I could learn” is a matter of sequence of tenses <link to sequence of tenses>, not mood. In other words, “they are saying” and “they were saying” are both indicative statements that differ simply in terms of sequence. Likewise, “I can learn” and “I could learn” are both subjunctive statements that differ simply in terms of sequence.

Sometimes an original indicative or subjunctive will be retained in historical sequence for vividness or emphasis. Here, for instance, Herodotus keeps the subjunctive to emphasize the urgency of the situation:

οὐκ εἶχε πρὸς ὁκοῖον τῶν ὄνων πρῶτον τράπηται

He did not know which of the donkeys he should turn to first

—Herodotus 2.121δ, adapted

see here for an exercise on the subordinate optative

Advanced