Part II. The Relations of Propositions One to Another, Especially the Way of Denoting the Mode or Manner of Predication, and the Time of the Thing Predicated.
Chapter IX.
Certain Particular Irregularities of Construction.
§ 214
The Verb understood.
In co-ordinate connected sentences, or in accessory sentences of the same kind which mutually correspond, the verb is often understood, to be supplied in one sentence from the other: Σὺ μὲν τιμῆς, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἡσυχίας ἐπιθυμοῦμεν. Οὐδὲ ταῦτα οἱ παραγενόμενοι πάντα, πλὴν τὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἕκαστος οἶδεν (Thuc. 7, 44). Ἱκανὸν τοῦτό μοι τεκμήριον, ὅτι ὡς ἀληθῶς μοι εὔνους εἶ, καὶ μήν, ὅτι γε οἷος παῤῥησιάζεσθαι, αὐτός τε φὴς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὃν ὀλίγον πρότερον ἔλεγες, ὁμολογεῖ σοι (Pl. Gorg. 487).
REM. 1. Sometimes merely the infinitive of the preceding verb is understood after a new verb: Τῇ αὐτῇ ἰδέᾳ ἐκεῖνά τε εἶχον οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε νῦν πειρῶνται (Thuc. 6, 76). Οὔτε πάσχοντες κακὸν οὐδὲν οὔτε μέλλοντες (Isocr. Panath. 103).
REM. 2. In some constructions, especially where the opposition between the other clauses of the sentence makes it plain how the words must be connected, the principal verb may be understood from the leading sentence in the accessory sentence (even the infinitive or participle, as in §§ 177, 178, may be thus understood from the verb finite in the principal sentence), rarely vice versa, i.e. from the accessory in the principal sentence: Ἀργεῖοι πολεμοῦσι μέν, ἐξ οὗπερ τὴν πόλιν οἰκοῦσι, πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόρους, ὥςπερ Λακεδαιμόνιοι· τοσοῦτον δὲ διαφέρουσιν, ὅσον ἐκεῖνοι μὲν πρὸς ἥττους αὑτῶν, οὗτοι δὲ πρὸς κρείττους (Isocr. Phil. 51). Φιλεῖν οἴεσθε δεῖν, οὓςπερ ἂν καὶ ὁ βασιλεύς (viz. φιλῇ. Isocr. Nic. 60). Ἀνεχώρησαν καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους εἶδον (viz. ἀναχωροῦντας, Thuc. 3, 16). Εἰ δή τῳ σοφώτερός του φαίην εἶναι, τούτῳ ἄν (viz. σοφ. εἶναι φαίην), ὅτι οὐκ εἰδὼς ἱκανῶς περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἅιδου οὕτω καὶ οἴομαι οὐκ εἰδέναι (Pl. Apol. 29). [1]
[1]: Σὺ νύν μ᾽, ἀδελφέ, μή τις Ἀργείων κτάνῃ, Eur. Or. 1037; κτάνε from κτάνῃ.
REM. 3. Sometimes the verb is understood, from the preceding sentence, in a sentence which is not grammatically connected with it, as in an appended remark in hypothetical form with ἄν (§ 139 c), or in an explanation and statement of the reason with γάρ. Τουναντίον ὑπομνήσω ὑμᾶς ἢ οἱ πολέμιοί σφισιν αὐτοῖς παρακελεύονται· οἱ μὲν γάρ, ὅτι περὶ πατρίδος ἔσται ὁ ἀγών, ἐγὼ δέ, ὅτι οὐκ ἐν πατρίδι (Thuc. 6, 68).
REM. 4. Sometimes in two connected (or opposed) sentences, the verb of the first member supplies to the second a verb of kindred meaning capable of being comprehended under the same general notion (zeugma): Πλάτων ὅδε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ Κρίτων καὶ Κριτόβουλος κελεύουσί με τριάκοντα μνῶν τιμήσασθαι, αὐτοὶ δὲ ἐγγυᾶσθαι (viz. βούλονται, Pl. Apol. 38).
§ 215
Ellipsis of the Verb.
a) The verb ἐστίν or εἰσίν (third person in the indicative) is often omitted in short and pithy sayings, not only in the principal sentence, but also in simple and concise accessory sentences, e.g. declarative object-sentences, interrogative sentences, relative sentences (especially with ὅσος). Note in particular the frequent omission of ἐστίν with the gerundive (see § 84 a), and with adjectives in the neuter, and certain substantives with which it forms an impersonal expression to which an infinitive is attached, e.g. ὥρα, ἀνάγκη, ἐλπίς, οὐ σχολή. Οὐκ ἀσφαλεῖς αἱ μεγάλαι εὐτυχίαι. Ὅρα, εἴ σοι βουλομένῳ ἃ λέγω (Pl. Rep. 2, 358. On βουλομένῳ σοί ἐστιν, see § 38 d). Ἔνιοι τῶν πρεσβυτῶν τὸ γῆρας ὑμνοῦσιν, ὅσων κακῶν σφισιν αἴτιον (Pl. Rep. 1, 329). Ἀπὸ τῶν ἡρώων ἀρξάμενοι, ὅσων λόγοι λελειμμένοι, μέχρι τῶν νῦν ἀνθρώπων (Pl. Rep. 2, 366). Ἄξιον καὶ τῶν προγόνων τῆς ἀρετῆς μεμνῆσθαι. Οὐ σχολὴ κάμνειν (Pl. Rep. 2, 406). (Ἰωνία, Πελοπόννησος, νῆσοι, ὅσαι ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσου καὶ Κρήτης, Thuc. 2, 9. Ἀλκιβιάδης ἠρώτα, ὅπου Ἀγάθων, Pl. Conv. 212. Omission of ἔστι in the sense is in respect of place, is to be found, lies, &c.) (On οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ, see 105 b, R.)
REM. 1. In the first or second person εἰμί is rarely omitted, viz. in quite simple principal sentences: Σοὶ οὐκ ὀλίγοι τῶν νέων πλησιάζουσι, καὶ δικαίως· ἄξιος γὰρ τά τ᾽ ἄλλα καὶ γεωμετρίας ἕνεκα (Pl. Theæt. 143, for thou art worthy). (With the adjective ἕτοιμος it occurs more frequently: Λεκτέον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ σὺ ἕτοιμος ἀκολουθεῖν, Pl. Pol. 277.)
REM. 2. The subjunctive third person singular ᾖ is now and then omitted after the relative with ἄν: Παρὰ τούτων κομίζονται, ὧν ἂν αὐτοῖς χρεία (Pl. Rep. 2, 370).
b) Other verbs are omitted only in proverbs and similar expressions, where the object or some other accompanying definition points to the verb to be supplied: γλαῦκ᾽ εἰς Ἀθήνας (ἄγειν). Ἄνω οἱ ποταμοί. Also a verb denoting to do, or to be done, to happen, is omitted in certain frequent forms of interrogation with τί, e.g. Ἀλλὰ τί; (βούλει ποιῶ), and especially Τί δέ, εἰ --; as also an imperative which denotes in general an action or speech, with μὴ οὕτω, μή μοι οὕτω, and with μή μοι with an accusative (§ 32). (Μή, πρὸς σὲ γονάτων, § 77, 3 d.)
REM. 1. Especially note the omission of the notions of doing, or being done, with οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἤ (Οὓς φαμεν μανθάνειν, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ἀναμιμνήσκονται, Pl. Phæd. 76), whence this expression is sometimes used quite adverbially in the sense only, merely. (Τί ἄλλο ἤ --, what else than --? Ἄλλο τι ἤ --, ἄλλο τι --, see § 199 b.)
REM. 2. Quite distinct from the ellipsis of a single word in definite form, in the Greek as in other languages, are the phrases (derived from the language of common life) in which originally an entire clause of the thought present to the mind is omitted, but intimated by a single particle referring to it, or by some other word, or by the general form of the speech; as in Greek by τὸ δέ (§ 188, R. 7), by the use of ἀλλά in the beginning of a speech, or in certain constructions with other particles (οὐ γὰρ ἀλλά, &c.), by ὡς with the indicative future in replies with assurance (Ὡς οὔτις ἀμφὶ τῷδ᾽ ὑγρὰν θήσει κόνιν, Eur. Phæn. 1664; think, say, do, what thou wilt; for --), &c. Of such ellipses the Lexicon must supply the explanation.
§ 216
Anacoluthia.
Anacolutha, or sentences which deviate from the strict continuation, in regular grammatical connexion, of the form in which they set out, are not rare in the Greek authors, though more frequent and harsh in certain authors who either (as Plato) imitate the freedom of oral discourse, or (as Thucydides) write, on the whole, in an embarrassed and perplexed style. They are caused, partly, by the circumstance, that instead of the form for which the beginning was calculated, in the further progress of the sentence, some other form is chosen as being more convenient and more impressive, or is induced through the use of other expressions; partly, by the intervention of side-remarks and parentheses, especially when these are carried to a greater length than usual, whereby the connexion of the discourse is obscured, or its continuation in the same form rendered difficult. Where the anacoluthon is caused in this last way, i.e. by an interruption through interposed matter, the last part is often attached to what goes before by repetition of some words from the beginning, or by repetition, in a different grammatical form, of what has been already said - often, at the same time, by the particles οὖν (then; as I was saying), δή (well then) or δέ, sometimes not so. Ἐπεὶ δὲ θορύβου τε ᾔσθετο Ξενοφῶν καί, σημαινόντων ἀλλήλοις τῶν περὶ Σεύθην, κατέμαθεν, ὅτι τούτου ἕνεκα τὰ πυρὰ κεκαυμένα εἴη τῷ Σεύθῃ πρὸ τῶν προφυλάκων, ὅπως οἱ μὲν φύλακες μὴ ὁρῶντο, ἐν τῷ σκότει ὄντες, οἱ δὲ προςιόντες μὴ λανθάνοιεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ φῶς καταφανεῖς εἶεν --, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ᾔσθετο, προπέμπει τὸν ἑρμηνέα κτλ. (Xen. An. 7, 2, 18 sqq. Repetition without change, merely because of the numerous interposed clauses. The δέ of the commencement repeated with it.) [1]
[1]: Repetition of a conjunction alone: Δέδοικα, μή, ἂν ἅπαξ μάθωμεν ἀργοὶ ζῆν καὶ ἐν ἀφθόνοις βιοτεύειν καὶ Μήδων δὲ καὶ Περσῶν καλαῖς τε καὶ μεγάλαις γυναιξὶν ὁμιλεῖν, μὴ ὥςπερ οἱ Λωτοφάγοι ἐπιλαθώμεθα τῆς οἴκαδε ὁδοῦ (Xen. An. 3, 2, 25).
Τὰ δ᾽ αὖ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὁπότε ἐνθυμοίμην ὅτι τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν πάντων οὐδενὸς ἡμῖν μετείη, εἰ μὴ πριαίμεθα, ὅτου δ᾽ ὠνησόμεθα, ᾔδειν ἔτι ὀλίγους ἔχοντας, ἄλλως δέ πως πορίζεσθαι τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ἢ ὠνουμένους, ὅρκους ἤδη κατέχοντας ἡμᾶς, -- ταῦτ᾽ οὖν λογιζόμενος ἐνίοτε τὰς σπονδὰς μᾶλλον ἐφοβούμην ἢ νῦν τὸν πόλεμον (Xen. An. 3, 1, 20. Repetition with change, and οὖν). Ταῦτά τε εὖ λέγεις, ὦ Σιμμία, καὶ τὰς πρώτας ὑποθέσεις, καὶ εἰ πισταὶ ὑμῖν εἰσιν, ὅμως ἐπισκεπτέαι σαφέστερον (Pl. Phæd. 107. Plato began as if he meant to say ἐπισκεπτέον, but then he has been led to say ἐπισκεπτέαι, because of the clause εἰ καὶ πισταί εἰσιν). Βουλόμενος δὲ Κῦρος κατάσκοπόν τινα πέμψαι ἐπὶ Λυδίας καὶ μαθεῖν ὅ,τι πράττοι ὁ Ἀσσύριος, ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ ἐπιτήδειος εἶναι Ἀράσπας ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦτο (Xen. Cyr. 6, 1, 31). Κακῶν δ᾽ αἴτιον φάναι θεόν τινι γίγνεσθαι, ἀγαθὸν ὄντα, διαμαχετέον παντὶ τρόπῳ μή τέ τινα λέγειν ταῦτα ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ πόλει, εἰ μέλλει εὐνομήσεσθαι, μή τέ τινα ἀκούειν (Pl. Rep. 2, 380; properly φάναι ought to have been followed merely by οὐκ ἐατέον, or a similar expression, but the whole is repeated and its sense developed more in detail). Κατανοῶν δὲ ὁ Κῦρος, ὡς εὐ μὲν αὐτῷ εἶχον οἱ στρατιῶται πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι στρατιωτικοὺς πόνους φέρειν, εὖ δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς πρὸς τὸ καταφρονεῖν τῶν πολεμίων, ἐπιστήμονες δ᾽ ἦσαν τὰ προςήκοντα τῇ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος ὁπλίσει, καὶ πρὸς τὸ εὖ πείθεσθαι δὲ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἑώρα πάντας εὖ παρεσκευασμένους, -- ἐκ τούτων οὖν ἐπεθύμει τι ἤδη πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους πράττειν (Xen. Cyr. 3, 3, 9; after κατανοῶν it ought properly to have gone on in the participle thus: καὶ πρὸς τὸ εὖ π. δέ -- ὁρῶν, but this is detached from the form with which the period commenced, and is put as a new principal sentence, whence the resumption is made by the words ἐκ τούτων οὖν). Ἔπειτα δέ -- ἀναμνήσω γὰρ ὑμᾶς καὶ τοὺς τῶν προγόνων τῶν ἡμετέρων κινδύνους, ἵν᾽ εἰδῆτε, ὡς ἀγαθοῖς τε ὑμῖν προςήκει εἶναι σώζονταί τε σὺν τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ἐκ πάνυ δεινῶν οἱ ἀγαθοί· ἐλθόντων μὲν γὰρ Περσῶν παμπλήθει στόλῳ ὡς ἀφανιούντων αὖθις τὰς Ἀθήνας, ὑποστῆναι αὐτοῖς Ἀθηναῖοι τολμήσαντες ἐνίκησαν αὐτούς (Xen. An. 3, 2, 11; the sentence commenced by ἔπειτα is quite abandoned, and its purport attached by the words γάρ (ἐλθόντων γάρ) to the parenthetic sentence. Cf. Pl. Rep. 4, 428 A, where after ὥςπερ εἰ the corresponding demonstrative clause does not simply follow). [1]
[1]: So, not unfrequently, a sentence begins with a participle in the nominative referred to the properly acting subject, though afterwards this comes to stand in a different case, especially with δοκεῖ, ἔδοξεν (e.g. Pl. Apol. 21).
REM. 1. A particular kind of anacoluthon consists in an inaccurate use of the co-ordinate connexion by τέ -- καί, οὔτε -- οὔτε, μέν -- δέ (besides the lesser deviations assigned in § 185 a, R. 5, § 188, R. 5, and § 208, R. 1). Sometimes, namely, there are attached to the first member such interposed sentences and remarks, that the connexion of the speech is broken, and the second member is then given in a different form: Οὔτε τοὺς πονηροὺς ὁρῶ φίλους ἀλλήλοις δυναμένους εἶναι· πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἢ ἀχάριστοι ἢ ἀμελεῖς ἢ πλεονέκται ἢ ἄπιστοι ἢ ἀκρατεῖς ἄνθρωποι δύναιντο φίλοι γενέσθαι; Οἱ μὲν οὖν πονηροὶ πάντως ἔμοιγε δοκοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις ἐχθροὶ μᾶλλον ἢ φίλοι πεφυκέναι. Ἀλλὰ μήν, ὥςπερ σὺ λέγεις, οὐδ᾽ ἂν τοῖς χρηστοῖς οἱ πονηροί ποτε συναρμόσειαν εἰς φιλίαν· πῶς γὰρ, κτλ. (Xen. Mem. 2, 6, 19; after Οὔτε τοὺς πονηρούς, κτλ., we should expect οὔτε τοῖς χρηστοῖς τοὺς πονηρούς or some similar form). In this manner it is not uncommon for the co-ordinate connexion of two members to be broken, which members should belong to a preceding principal sentence, and then the second member enters as a principal sentence (sometimes with no particular inducement in the connexion of the sentence, but with the view of adding something to the second member, or to give it an easier form); especially in this manner after a circumstance denoted by a participle the second member follows as verbum finitum: Γενομένης ἐκκλησίας ἐλέχθησαν τοιοίδε λόγοι ἀπό τε ἄλλων, τῶν μὲν πιστευόντων τὰ περὶ τῆς στρατείας τῆς τῶν Ἀθηναίων, τῶν δὲ τὰ ἐναντία λεγόντων, καὶ Ἑρμοκράτης ὁ Ἕρμωνος παρελθὼν αὐτοῖς ἔλεγε καὶ παρήνει τοιάδε (Thuc. 6, 32; we should expect ἀπό τε ἄλλων -- καὶ ἀφ᾽ Ἑρμοκράτους τοῦ Ἕρμωνος). Ἐπεὶ παρεσκευάζετο ἤδη Κῦρος ὡς ἀπιών, παρῆν ὁ Γαδάτας ἄλλα τε δῶρα πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα φέρων καὶ ἄγων καὶ ἵππους δ᾽ ἦγε πολλούς, ἀφελόμενος τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἱππέων (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 29). Οἱ Βοιωτοὶ ἐστράτευσαν ἐπὶ τὸ Δήλιον καὶ προςέβαλον τῷ τειχίσματι, ἄλλῳ τε τρόπῳ πειράσαντες καὶ μηχανὴν προςήγαγον, ἥπερ εἷλεν αὐτό, τοιάνδε (Thuc. 4, 100). Οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι νόσῳ ἐπιέζοντο κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα, τῆς τε ὥρας τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ταύτης οὔσης, ἐν ᾗ ἀσθενοῦσιν ἄνθρωποι μάλιστα, καὶ τὸ χωρίον ἅμα, ἐν ᾧ ἐστρατοπεδεύοντο, ἑλῶδες καὶ χαλεπὸν ἦν (Thuc. 7, 47 = καὶ τοῦ χωρίου -- ἑλώδους ὄντος). (Often in poets, e.g. δυςχλαινίᾳ τ᾽ ἄμορφος ὀμμάτων τ᾽ ἀπὸ φόνου σταλαγμοὶ σὴν κατέσταζον γένυν, Eur. Hec. 240, and in Herodotus.) (Εὐφρονίου υἱὸς ὅδε ἐστίν, ἀνδρός, οἷον καὶ σὺ τοῦτον διηγεῖ, καὶ ἄλλως εὐδοκίμου καὶ μέντοι καὶ οὐσίαν μάλα πολλὴν κατέλιπεν. Pl. Theæt. 144 = καταλιπόντος. Transition from an adjective to an independent sentence.) [1] Sometimes, where a leading term common to both members precedes them both, the connexion is disturbed by the insertion of a new leading term instead of this in the second member: Οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐς τὴν Ῥόδον τὴν γνώμην εἶχον πλεῖν, ἐλπίζοντες νῆσόν τε οὐκ ἀδύνατον καὶ ναυβατῶν πλήθει καὶ πεζῷ προςάξεσθαι, καὶ ἅμα ἡγούμενοι αὐτοὶ δυνατοὶ ἔσεσθαι, Τισσαφέρνην μὴ αἰτοῦντες χρήματα, τρέφειν τὰς ναῦς (Thuc. 8, 44; where it might have been simply said: ἐλπίζοντες νῆσόν τε προςάξεσθαι καὶ αὐτοὶ δυνατοὶ ἔσεσθαι. So frequently in Thucydides. Often the new leading term is necessary, so that the partition by τέ -- καί or μέν -- δέ ought properly to have been applied to the two leading terms, not to the accessory definitions, e.g. here ἐλπίζοντές τε -- καὶ ἅμα ἡγούμενοι. Hence τέ seems to be transposed.) Ἐν τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ ἐκκλησία μετέγνωσαν Ἀθηναῖοι (the Athenians changed their mind and determined; § 210, R. 1), Κερκυραίοις ξυμμαχίαν μὲν μὴ ποιήσασθαι (to make indeed no public offensive and defensive alliance with the C.), ὥστε τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους νομίζειν (εἰ γὰρ ἐπὶ Κόρινθον ἐκέλευόν σφισιν οἱ Κερκυραῖοι ξυμπλεῖν, ἐλύοντ᾽ ἂν αὐτοῖς αἱ πρὸς Πελοποννησίους σπονδαί·) ἐπιμαχίαν δὲ ἐποιήσαντο, τῇ ἀλλήλων βοηθεῖν (Thuc. 1, 44).
[1]: Οἱ ξύμμαχοι Ὀρχόμενον ἐπολιόρκουν, βουλόμενοι ἄλλως τε προςγενέσθαι σφίσι καὶ ὅμηροι ἐκ τῆς Ἀρκαδίας ἦσαν αὐτόθι ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων κείμενοι (Thuc. 5, 61, = καὶ ὅτι ἦσαν).
REM. 2. Sometimes an anacoluthon is caused by the circumstance that the writer, as he proceeds, has in his thoughts an expression, the sense of which is contained in what goes before, though the expression itself is not there used, and continues the passage conformably with this (the construction πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον, according to the thing signified, not according to the words, especially in poets and in complicated prose): Καὶ περὶ Πύλον ὑπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων κατὰ κράτος ἐπολεμεῖτο. Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν δυοῖν νεοῖν ἐναντίαιν ἀεὶ τὴν νῆσον περιπλέοντες τῆς ἡμέρας (τῆς δὲ νυκτὸς ἅπασαι περιώρμουν)· Πελοποννήσιοι δ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἠπείρῳ στρατοπεδευόμενοι καὶ προςβολὰς ποιούμενοι τῷ τείχει (Thuc. 4, 23; as if ἀμφότεροι ἐπολέμουν preceded). Καὶ τοῖς Συρακουσίοις κατάπληξις οὐκ ὀλίγη ἐγένετο, εἰ πέρας μηδὲν ἔσται σφίσι τοῦ κινδύνου· ὁρῶντες οὔτε διὰ τὴν Δεκέλειαν τειχιζομένην οὐδὲν ἧσσον στρατὸν ἴσον τῷ προτέρῳ ἐπεληλυθότα τήν τε τῶν Ἀθηναίων δύναμιν πανταχόσε πολλὴν φαινομένην (Thuc. 7, 42). Ἡ οἰμωγὴ ἐκ τοῦ Πειραιῶς διὰ τῶν μακρῶν τειχῶν ἐς ἄστυ διῆκεν, ὁ ἕτερος τῷ ἑτέρῳ παραγγέλλων ὥστ᾽ ἐκείνης τῆς νυκτὸς οὐδεὶς ἐκοιμήθη, οὐ μόνον τοὺς ἀπολωλότας πενθοῦντες ἀλλὰ πολὺ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἑαυτοὺς τὰ ἔσχατα πείσεσθαι νομίζοντες (Xen. Hell. 2, 2, 3 = πάντες διηγρύπνουν). Ὅτῳ γὰρ ὤφθην εὐτυχοῦσ᾽, αἰδώς μ᾽ ἔχει, ἐν τῷδε πότμῳ τυγχάνουσ᾽, ἵν᾽ εἰμὶ νῦν (Eur. Hec. 970 = αἰδοῦμαι). Οὐ λειπτέον τὴν τάξιν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν πολέμῳ καὶ πανταχοῦ ποιητέον ἃ ἂν κελεύῃ ἡ πόλις καὶ ἡ πατρίς, ἢ πείθειν αὐτὴν ᾗ τὸ δίκαιον πέφυκε (Pl. Crito, 51, as if ποιεῖν δεῖ, not ποιητέον, had preceded). Ἐννέπω σε ἀφ᾽ ἡμέρας τῆς νῦν προςαυδᾶν μήτε τούςδε μήτ᾽ ἐμέ, ὡς ὄντι γῆς τῆςδ᾽ ἀνοσίῳ μιάστορι (Soph. Œd. R. 350, as if it had first been said ἐννέπω σοι, I command thee, not σέ, I command that thou).
REM. 3. Now and then an interchange takes place between a remark to a leading sentence inserted with ὡς, and a principal sentence with object-sentence annexed: Ὡς ἐγώ, ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου χθὲς ἥκοντος πλοίου, ἤκουσά τινος, ὅτι Κλέανδρος ὁ ἐκ Βυζαντίου ἁρμοστὴς μέλλει ἥξειν πλοῖα ἔχων καὶ τριήρεις (Xen. An. 6, 2, 18 = either Ὡς -- ἤκουσά τινος, Κλέανδρος μέλλει --, or Ἤκουσά τινος, ὅτι -- without ὡς).