cwconrad wrote:There's no question that this usage exists in English; my memory is of my mother asking me, "Wouldn't you like to go to the store and pick up a loaf of bread," to which I replied, as I came regularly to reply to that kind of question, "No, but I'll do it for you." Older Greek uses the 2nd person "potential" optative in just the same fashion: Smyth §1830
The potential optative with ἄν may be used, in a sense akin to that of the imperative, to express a command, exhortation, or request: λέγοις ἂν τὴν δέησιν tell me (you may tell) your request P. Par. 126a, προάγοις ἄν move on P. Phae. 229b. This courteous formula is used even where a harsh command might be expected: χωροῖς ἂν εἴσω σὺν τάχει go within with all speed S. El. 1491.
The question before us at present is: what are the circumstances accounting for this usage of the infinitive in an imperatival sense. It's clear that the potential optative takes the edge off of a demand that one do something that is distasteful or laborious or time-consuming; what are the circumstances in which an infinitive may do the work of an imperative?
Exactly. I wasn't imagining that the use of the infinitive would be the same as the question for English. I was wondering precisely whether we could locate the pragmatic motivation for issuing a command with an infinitive. I don't have an answer for that...(but see below)
But equally importantly, I'm questioning the usefulness of the label. The English construction I referred to isn't a command. It's still very much a question. There's simply a mismatch between the form and the meaning--a deponency, if you will. If these usage of the infinitive is parallel, albeit with a different pragmatic function, then calling it an "imperatival infinitive" perhaps isn't the best approach to labeling.
The only guess I might put forward in terms of potential explanation of the pragmatics here would be this. BDF links these sorts of infinitives with ἵνα. And if that parallel is relevant, then perhaps an explanation similar to that of Margaret Sims on ἵνα in her dissertation would be in order here. Just a thought.
Robertson doesn't say much as to a ay of explanation, but he does reference Deissmann's
Light from the Ancient East, 75. Actually Deissmann doesn't say much either. He quotes an inscription:
Μηθένα ἀλλογενῆ εἰσπο-
ρεύεσθαι ἐντὸς τοῦ πε-
ρὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τρυφάκτου καὶ
περιβόλου. ὃς δʼ ἂν λη-
φθῆ, ἑαυτῶι αἴτιος ἔσ-
ται διὰ τὸ ἐξακολου-
θεῖν θάνατον.
He footnotes the infinitive and refers to his
Bible Studies, 344. That discussion is too large to quote, so I refer you to here, starting at page 341:
Deissmann's Bible Studies,341ff on Archive.org
The most relevant portion is this:
Deissmann, [i]Bible Studies[/i], 344 wrote:In reference to the absolute μηνύειν δὲ τὸν βουλόμενον of the Papyrus, the French editor remarks that the infinitive does duty for the imperative, as in similar formulæ generally. It would perhaps be more accurate, especially as the imperative infinitive is itself to be explained as a breviloquence, to make the infinitive depend upon a verb of command which the edict tacitly presupposes.
I think if any explanation is to be found, this would be a very good starting point.