I. General use.

1. Eliminative, substituting the true for the false.

(i) Here usually
(a) the clause (or sentence) is negative:
, , (P. Phdr. 229d) IIm loi I ii, Iq io
(P. Phdr. 260a) IoIo Io yy i Iq Io io, i Iq iu oi (Isoc. IV 1,
37)
(b) the clause to which it is opposed, is negative:
OIi ui, ui cu (S.Ant. 523) oiIoi y t ou oi oim
lu, IooIi I oi I Io (Th. I 2, 1) ... i,
oIm ... Iq oIi (D. I 5) ( Hdt. I 88; P. Ly. 223a)
(a) and (b) combined:
AiII o IoIo io o ii I yu o I i I, co Ii
o , 6 Ioi Iq c o I, Iq o I Ii
(P. Pt. 283e) ( P. R. 443c; P. Smp. 311e)
(ii) and
The distinction between the two theoretically resides herein, that, strictly speaking, e!presses the incompatibility o" two ideas, #$%&
merely adds a negative idea to a positive' Hence the "re(uent use o" in contrasting what )hapman calls *permanent opposities:
o o : miI loIi : iio I : yo q o.
Hence also, as )hapman observes, the *slackening o" interest in the clause, which merely restates negatively something already
stated positively : whereas #$%& adds something really new and important:
Koim g I6 (*and soon, too) (E. Herac. 270) o I y o
I (you can carry out an examnaton n a haf-hearted way) (P. R. 372a) g Ig IioIg
i I I uII q o uqI Ig uIIiq (*a cobber, and nothng more than
a cobber) (P. R. 397e) I IuyIo l y o q Io (P. Lg. 809a)
+n rhetorical (uestions the order o" relative importance is reversed, and the clause bears the stress:
q i u iui... IIu I IqoI I6 Im yiI
Iuyi; (P. La. 185a) ( P. R. 366c)
+n ,nglish, #$%& is usually best rendered *and not, *not' *+ want some blotting paper : red, and not too thick' *+ want some
blotting paper : red, not white' -reek, like ,nglish, o"ten dispenses with a connecting particle altogether: A Ai q ,
m (E. IT 369).
The above distinction between and #$%& is not, however, by any means always observed, even in the case o" *permanent
opposites' .eviations should be attributed, perhaps, to mere indi""erence rather than to any subtler motive:
io ... o q ii (S. Ph. 91) ymI ymIo (S. T 58) i I o (S.
T 1275) m o q Im (E. yc. 211) oq I o q (Hdt. III 25)
ti o o (Hdt. III 115) iI Im ... iI o oi - i
c y ... oioi c ... (P. Prt. 337b) (but there s no sense of substtuton here, oi beng
merey a parenthetca afterthought : hence nether nor o s reay approprate, and no connectng
partce at a s needed. So, beow, iI Im oiio, io - oioi c y
cIi ...) q u uyy ci o yiIoi I ii (P. R. 366c) mI
oI l oIq i oo6 o oIio (P. R. 454c) loi oii Iio o uq
Iq ii (P. R. 602b) Ii oI olI o o Io; (. An. II 1,10)
/ometimes and #$%& are used indi""erently in closely parallel and nearly situated passages:
(iii) )ertain varieties o" the use o" "ollowing a negative clause deserve special notice
(a) 0122 ( 3 456) ''' $& #$7
(b) +n some passages "ollowing a negative clause appears to mean *e!cept (like ) : as we say in ,nglish *no one but you
(c) Thucydides sometimes inserts a comparative adverb in the negative clause, and it has been said that in such cases has the "orce o" '
(d) The collo(uial 0 (8 09& ) : *;o, dont say that, but, *;o, rather
(e) < rhetorical (uestion o"ten takes the place o" a negative clause
!. "alan#ing, sometimes ans$ering a %&' in the (re#e)ing #lause
=n the main, a poetical use'
(i) >ithout preceding 0?2
(ii) 0@& 2 '''
*. +n)etermine) o((osition.
+n a great number o" passages, intermediate between (A) and (B), simply
e!presses opposition, and it is le"t undetermined whether the opposite ideas are, or are not,
incompatible' These e!amples occur most "re(uently in answers, less "re(uently in continuous
speech, where the milder #$7C% is more regular'
(i) +n answers, obDecting to the previous speakers words or behaviour'
(ii) +n continuous speech' )ommon in Elato and the orators, rare in unspoken Greek' Fsually, but not always, the
obDection is to the speakers own words'
(iii) The speaker anticipates an obDection which another is likely to make, *Gut, you will say'

II. ,(e#ial uses.
1. -ollo$ing a re.e#te) suggestion or su((osition.
That which remains sub judice, and may still there"ore be true, is contrasted with that
which is already out o" court' >e may usually render Hwell or Hwell then'
(i) introduces, not a "resh suggestion, but a (uestion
(ii) The speaker himsel" o""ers an alternative suggestion, either a""irmative, interrogative, or imperative in "orm'
(iii) The use o" I in drama, and occasionally in prose dialogue, is similar, though here is adverbial
rather than connective'
(iv) Hypophora' <gan, the pro""ering and reDecting o" successive suggestions may be done by a single speaker,
who conducts, as it were, a dialogue with himsel"'
!. In the a(o)osis of a #on)itional (sometimes of a #ausal) senten#e.
contrasts the ideas e!pressed in protasis and apodosis: *i" J on the other hand,
*even thoughJ still'
*. / )evelo(ment of this use of 0 in a(o)osi is to omit the (rotasis,
the sense o" which can easily be supplied "rom the conte!t' *<t least, *<t any rate,
*>ell'
1. In #omman)s an) e2hortations.
3. In $ishes or (ra4ers.
This use is usually classed with (K), but (as regards (i)), it is essentially distinct'
(i) <n answer takes the "orm o" a wish or prayer
(ii) < wish or prayer is e!pressed, not at the opening o" a speech, but during its course'
5. /ssentient.
This use is at "irst sight diametrically opposed to the adversative' Gut in "act assent may
include the idea o" opposition in two contrary ways'
(i) Eractical consent, e!pression o" willingness to act in a re(uired way' )onsent may be implied without being
directly e!pressed:
(a) The enDoined task is described as easy or unobDectable
(b) < person asked to speak conveys his readiness to speak by speaking
(ii) <ssent, e!pressing agreement with a statement Dust made' This may be conveyed:
(a) Gy a "avourable Dudgement o" the preceding words'
(b) Gy a "orm o" words implying that what has been said is correct'
(iii) <gain, may e!press, neither willingness to act as re(uired, nor agreement with something stated or
suggested, but:
(a) <c(uiescence, ready or reluctant, in the attitude or declared intentions o" the previous speaker: *>ell, *Lery good
(b) < sympathetic reaction to the previous speakers words or actions: *>ell
6. >e may perhaps class as assentient those passages in which introduces the substantiation by
the second speaker o" an hypothesis or wish e!pressed by the "irst, con"irming as actual what has hitherto
been presented as imaginary'
7. In#e(tive. (8f. 9&, I.8.!.iii)
/peeches in Menophon o"ten open with '
(i) <dversative'
:. ;rogressive.
>e have observed above that , though normally a strong adversative, is
sometimes used where we should e!pect the weaker I?'
III. ;osition.
<s a strong adversative, naturally takes the "irst place in clause or sentence, while
I?, 0?2C% and 0N2 take the second'
I<. 0 #ombine) $ith other (arti#les.
1. 0 =>.
!. ?&.
*. .
(i) < negation (or (uestion e!pecting a negative answer), containing a word o" comparison
(some part o" 6), is "ollowed by an e!ception:
(a)
(b)
(ii) < negation, not containing a word o" comparison, is "ollowed by an e!ception'
(iii) +nstead o" a general negation, which has to be supplied in thought, a particular
sentence is given'
1. .
3. @ %A

' 0.
(i) -eneral adversative use'
(ii) +n .emosthenes and <ristotle 0N2 sometimes introduces a
supplementary argument which takes such marked precedence over the

previous argument that it is represented as contrasted with it, rather than as
rein"orcing it'
(iii) /ometimes the argument thus stressed represents the speakers second line o"
de"ence, o reserve position'
5. @ %&'B 0.
6. @ =

C 0.
/us gImageDea)er ges#anntE
presents singularly "ew diOiculties' +ts clear and unchallenged etymology ("rom the neuter plural o" 6,
with change o" accent
A
) is in complete accordance with its usage' The primary sense o" Hotherness, diversity,
contrast, runs through all the shades o" meaning, "rom the strongest to the weakest: "rom Hbut, or even Hno, to
H"urther, Hagain'
I. General use, as an a)versative #onne#ting (arti#le.
The adversative "orce o" is usually strong (eliminative or obDecting): less "re(uently, the particle is
employed as a weaker (balancing) adversative' The distinction in "orce between and I? is well illustrated in
El'P'QQR< C
&
2 I@
&
I# 2C$ 0?2, 2C$ I@
&
0N, I#@ 2 $
&
09
&
@ 2$% S72 : that between and 0?2C% in
El')ra'KQB<'
(A) ,liminative, substituting the true "or the "alse'
(i) Here usually, in the nature o" things, either
(a) the clause (or sentence), or
(b) the clause to which it is opposed, is negative'
(a) El'Ehdr'BBT. #@ U@2, # 2U?2I@, V4WU9 : BXY< # CZC52 @ 2$% C
&
4@7U@%2, # # C 6
9U@%6 : +soc'ivAQ[ C$ C$ 42C$ \?\2@ I%$
&
C9
&
2 0@C?V$2 2%$2, I%$
&
C9
&
2 #@72] IZ2$0%2'
(b) /'^nt'RBQ C% W]2?3U@%2, W]0S%@ 2 S]2 : Th'iB'l S$72@C$% \ $
&
V 2 2 $
&
6 #$20@
&
29 4$%
_@_$756 #]0?29, $
&
0@C$2$WCW@%6 C@ W$% C$
&
4V1C@V$ : .'i R 4@V%
&
I1`96J4@0 W%2,
2$WCW@56 ' ' ' C 6 4$CV7I6 : Hdt'i aa: El'by'BBQ<' (a) and (b) combined' El'Elt'BaQ, c%CC$
&
6 V$ C$ZC$6
W%6 #$%
&
#V72@%6 C 0@\] #$%
&
C W0%#V U@C?2, 3 6 S$0@2 VC% 4V
&
6 9$ 0
&
22 I@ 2,
W4@V 2 2 @V9C$% 0 2 C9
&
2 0@
&
2 4V16 9$ @#C?2, C9
&
2 I $ 4V
&
6 C
&
0@
&
CV%2 : P'KKQ)d /mp'BAA,'
(ii) and #$%
&

B
' The distinction between the two theoretically resides herein, that, strictly
speaking, e!presses the incompatibility o" two ideas, #$%
&
merely adds a negative idea to a positive'
Hence the "re(uent use o" in contrasting what )hapman calls Hpermanent opposites : 4$V #
2$V : I5V%WC%
&
# $WC7 : 04@%V7$% 2 C?3292 : \$U$
&
#$#' Hence also, as )hapman
observes, the Hslackening o" interest in the clause, which merely restates negatively something already
stated positively: whereas #$%
&
adds something really new and important' ,'Heracl'B[Y e$752 V f
C 2I@ #Z# 6 0_6 (Hand soon, too) : El'P'Q[B< #$%
&
W#@4C?2 \@
&
#$%
&
#g 4#29C?2 (you can carry out
an e!amination in a hal"hhearted way): QT[,: 2 0
&
2 C C%$ZC 41@% C12 C@ W#]CC102 W#]CC102
@ VNW0@2 #$%
&
#]_@V2NC92 4V
&
6 C W#]CC07 (Ha cobbler, and nothing more than a cobbler) : bg'aYT<
C
&
2 2C]\322C$ 6 ?\0@2 #$%
&
09
&
#i2C$' +n rhetorical (uestions the order o" relative importance is
reversed, and the clause bears the stress' El'baAaR< 4@V%
&
W0%#V @WU@ 2]2 %
&
#%2I]2@Z@%2 ' ' '
4@V%
&
CZC] C #CN0$C6 C 2 0@C?V52 0?\%WC2 2 C]\32@ %d P'QXX)' +n ,nglish, #$%
&
is usually
best rendered Hand not, Hnot' H+ want some blotting paperd red, and not too thick' H+ want some blotting
paper: red, not white' -reek, like ,nglish, o"ten dispenses with a connecting particle altogether: ,'+TQXT ^ I ! 96
3%@]
&
6 2 " V , 3 j9?56' #
The above distinction between and #$%
&
is not, however, by any means always observed,
even in the case o" Hpermanent opposites' .eviations should be attributed, perhaps, to mere indi""erence rather
than to any subtler motive' /'Eh'TA 4V
&
6 _7$2 ' ' ' #$%
&
09
&
I1%W%2 : kTRa \25C$
&
## \25C$ : AB[R 4#%6
C@ #3 4$` : ,')yc'BAA 25 #$%
&
09
&
#C5 : Hdt'iii BR 00$2N6 C@ 5
&
2 #$%
&
SV@2NV96 : AAR 92%#
&
2 #$%
&
_V_$V2 : El'Ert'QQ[G 0%WC $2 C56 ''' @ I#%0C@ #$%
&
# 4$%2 WU@ : @ I #%0@ 2 0@
&
2 \$
&
V '''
4$%2@ WU$% I@
&
''' (but there is no sense o" substitution here, # 4$%2 WU@ being merely a parenthetical
a"terthought: hence neither nor #$%
&
is really appropriate, and no connecting particle at all is needed'
/o, below, 0%WC 2 $ C56g @ SV$%270@U$, 3 %I70@WU$ : @S0$72@WU$% 0@
&
2 \$
&
V WC%2 ''') : P'QXX)
4N2 4] W]\\2l092 3@% #$%
&
# V\7i@C$% C%6 & I7#%6 : KRK) 2@V5C2
1
kr rather loss o" accent' mor the presence o" a grave accent denotes nothing more than the absence o" an acute or circum"le! accent: see
>ackcrnagel, Beitrge zur Lehre vom griechischen Akzent, p' AR'
2
+ owe much here to .r' P' >' )hapmanns analysis o" Elatonic use'