Pronomen Abundans and Pronomen Coniunctum. A ... - DWC

VERHANDELINGEN DER KONINKLIJKE NEDERLANDSE
AKADEMIE VAN WETENSCHAPPEN, AFD. LETTERKUNDE
NIEUWE REEKS, DEEL 82
PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND
PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
A contribution to the history of the resumptive pronoun
within the relative clause in Greek
w. F. BAKKER
NORTH·HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY - AMSTERDAM, LONDON - 1974

ISBN 7204 8248 8
llBRARY OF CONGRESS
CATALOGUE CARD NUMBER: 72-96838
AANGEBODEN IN DE VERGADERING
VAN 12 JUNI 1972

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. Definitions .
2. Main object
3. Plan.
9
9
9
PART I
ANCIENT GREEK AND KOINE
1. THE PRONOMEN ABUNDANS IN ANCIENT GREEK
1.1. The examples in Kühner-Gerth .
1.2. Some more examples
1.3. Common characteristics
1.4. Relative connection . .
1.5. Anaphoric or relative sense of the relative pronoun
1.6. The function of the pronomen abundans . . .
1.7. Pronomen abundans and the spoken language.
2. THE PRONOMEN ABUNDANS IN THE KOINE
2.1. Character of the Koine
2.1.1. Characteristics . . . . . . .
2.1.2. Frequency .. . . . . . .
2.1.2.1. Clearness and exactness .
2.1.2.2. Weakening of the relative pronoun
2.1.2.3. Relative connection. . . . . . . .
2.1.2.4. The frequency of personal pronouns
2.1.2.5. Vulgar texts . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Examples ...... .... .. . .. .
2.2.1. Examples similar to Ancient Greek . .
2.2.2. Examples different from Ancient Greek
2.2.3. A general survey of the examples. . .
2.2.3.1. Polybius. . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3.2. More examples from the period B.C.
2.2.3.3. "Fachprosa" (I A.D.) .
2.2.3.4. Pausanias
2.2.3.5. Papyri
2.2.3.6. Conclusion
2.3. Function and Use of the Pronomen Abundans in the Koine
2.3.1. Similarities with Ancient Greek
2.3.2. Differences with Ancient Greek . . . . . . . .
2.3.2.1. Polybius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2.2. The three other instances from literary texts
2.3.2.3. "Fachprosa"
2.3.2.4. Papyri .. . . . . . . . . .
2.3.3. Pronomen abundans . . . . . . .
2.4. Is the Pronomen Abundans a Semitism?
2.4.1. Introduction. . . .
2.4.2. Quantitative method
2.4.2.1. LXX .....
2.4.2.2. NT . . . . . .
2.4.3. Qualitative method
2.4.3.1. The function of the pronomen abundans in Greek
11
11
12
13
13
14
15
15
16
16
17
i7
17
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
25
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
31
31
31
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36

4 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.4.3.2. The function ofthe resumptive pronoun in the Semitic languages 36
2.4.3.3. The method . . 36
2.4.4. LXX . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.4.1. Essential claus68 . . 36
2.4.4.2. Nonessential cllmses 37
2.4.4.3. Apocrypha 38
2.4.4.4. Conclusion 38
2.4.5. NT . . . . 39
2.4.5.1. Mark . . 39
2.4.5.2. Matthew . 40
2.4.5.3. Luke 40
2.4.5.4. John . . 41
2.4.5.5. Paul 41
2.4.5.6. Apocalypae . 41
2.4.5.7. Conclusion . 42
2.5. Apocrypha of the First Centuries A.D. . 43
2.5.1. Nonessential claus68 43
2.5.2. Essential clauses . . . . . . . 43
2.5.3. Conclusion .. . ... .. .
2.6. Pronomen Abundana and Colloquial Speech
2.6.1. Cla.ssic period . . .
2.6.2. Period of the Koine . . . . .
43
43
44
45
PARTIl
EARLY MODERN GREEK
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The texts. . . .
1.2. The main purpose
2. OIIOY ...... .
2.1. Nominative . . .
2.1.1. Without antecedent
2.1.2. With antecedent . .
2.2. Genitive / Dative . . .
2.2.1. With pronomen coniunctum
2.2.1.1. Possessive genitive .
2.2.1.2. Comparative genitive .
2.2.1.3. Indirect object . . . .
2.2.2. Without pronomen coniunctum .
2.2.3. Conclusion ...... .
2.3. Prepositional Phrases. . . . . . .
2.3.1. With pronomen coniunctum . .
2.3.2. Without pronomen coniunctum .
2.3.3. Conclusion . . .... .
2.4. Accusative
2.4.1. With pronomen coniunctum ..
2.4.2. Without pronomen coniunctum .
2.4.3. Seeming exceptions .....
2.4.3.1. Essential clauses with a pronomen coniunctum .
2.4.3.1.1. The first or second person.
2.4.3.1.2. Comparisons . .
2.4.3.1.3. Exceptiona.l cases . . . . .
2.4.3.1.4. ErotocNtoa . . . . . . . .
2.4.3.2. Nonessentia.l clauses without a pronomen coniunctum .
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
50
51
52
52
52
53
53
54
55
55
55
55
56
56
57
58

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUlII
2.4.3.2.1. 14th-15th centuries
2.4.3.2.2. Erorocriros . . . .
2.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . .
2.5.1. The pronomen coniunctum in early Modern Greek
2.5.2. The pronomen coniunctum in Modern Greek
2.5.3. Remaining questions
3. TON THN TO . . . . . .
3.1. In Essential Clauses . .
3.1.1. With an antecedent
3.1.1.1. Nominative
3.1.1.2. Accusative . ..
3.1.1.3. Prepositional phrase.
3.1.2. Without an antecedent
3.1.2.1. Nominative
3.1.2.2. Accusative . . . . .
3.1.2.3. Prepositional phrase .
3.2. In Nonessential Clauses
3.2.1. Other texts . . . . . .
3.2.2. Chrono Mor. . . . . . .
3.3. Followed by a Resumptive Pronoun
3.3.1. Pronomen coniunctum . .... .
3.3.2. Pronomen coniunctum in the second instance
3.3.3. Pronomen abundans
3.4. Conclusion
3.5. Further History
4.0 JIOIOE
4.1. Origin
4.2. Use ..
4.2.1. Velthandros
4.2.2. Chrono Mor.
4.2.2.1. Nominative
4.2.2.2. In essential or nonessential clauses.
4.2.2.3. Relative connection .
4.2.2.4. Resumptive pronoun
4.2.3. As8Îzes . . . . . . . .
4.2.3.1. Nominative
4.2.3.2. In essential or nonessential clauses.
4.2.3.2.1. Nonessential clauses.
4.2.3.2.2. Essential clauses
4.2.3.3. Relative connection .
4.2.4. Machairas . . . . . . .
4.2.4.1. Nominative
4.2.4.2. In essential or nonessential clauses.
4.2.4.2.1. Nonessential clauses .
4.2.4.2.2. Essential clauses
4.2.4.3. Relative connection .
4.2.4.4. Resumptive pronoun
4.2.4.4.1. Exa.mples. . . .
4.2.4.4.2. "Exceptions". .
4.2.4.5. Astrange use of TO noi01l
4.2.5. Some later texts .
4.2.6. Conclusion

6 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
PART 111
BYZANTINE PERIOD
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Character of the period
1.2. The texts. . . . .
1.3. The main question
2. TUE PRONOMEN ABUNDANS
2.1. Examples. . . . . .
2.2. Semitisms. . . . . .
2.3. A remaining problem .
2.4. Later examples . . .
2.4.1. Alchimiae apparatio.
2.4.2. Byz. Alex.
2.4.3. Sphrantzes
2.4.4. Other texts
2.4.5. Influence of the pronomen coniunctum?
3. TUE ORIGIN OF OIIOY AS A RELATIVE PRONOUN
3.1. Broadening of the sense of ónov
3.1.1. In Ancient Greek
3.1.2. In the Koine . . . . . . .
3.1.2.1. Local sense . . . . . .
3.1.2.2. Sense involving occasion.
3.1.2.3. Causal sense . . . .
3.1.2.4. Some later examples . .
3.1.3. Conclusion .... . .. .
3.2. Earliest examples of ónov = relat. pronoun .
3.2.1. Rejected examples . . .
3.2.2. Examples . . . . . . .
3.3. Weakening of ónov = where
3.4. Other opinions.
3.4.1. Korais
3.4.2. Hatzidakis
3.5. Date of origin
4. TON THN TO
4.1. Attic .. .
4.2. Koine .. .
4.3. Byzantine period
4.4. Conclusion
5. RELATIVE CONNECTION
5.1. In Ancient Greek and the Koine
5.1.1. In Ancient Greek
5.1.2. In the Koine
5.1.2.1. Papyri
5.1.2.2. NT . . .
5.2. General survey
5.3. Byzantine period
5.3.1. Common examples
5.3.2. Set phrases . .
5.3.3. ·Oanç. . . . . .
5.3.4. Accompanied by a noun
5.3.5. Separated from the relat. pronoun
80
80
81
81
82
82
83
84
84
84
84
85
86
86
87
87
87
87
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
91
92
93
93
93
94
95
95
95
96
96
96
97
97
97
97
97
97
99
99
99
100
101
101

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
7
5.3.6. Without reference . . . . . . . . .
5.4. Causes of the high frequency of the relat.
5.4.1. The loss of particles . . . .
5.4.1.1. In the Koine . . . . . . .
connection
102
103
103
103
5.4.1.2. In the byzantine period 104
5.4.2. Weakening of the relat. pronoun 105
5.5. Is the relat. connection a literary or a vulgar element? 105
6. THE WEAKENING OF THE RELATlVE PRONOUN. 107
6.1. A complete survey 107
6.2. Some papyri 107
6.3. In early Modern Greek 108
7. CONCLUSIONS . • • . • • 108
7.1. "Oç(nç) -+ 8:rr.ov . . . 108
7.1.1. Weakening of 8:rr.ov 108
7.1.2. Weakening of 8ç(nç) 108
7.1.3. "OÇ(TLÇ) -+ 8nov 109
7.2. Relative Pronoun + Pronomen Abundans -+ "O:rr.ov + Pronomen
Ooniunctum? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2.1. Does it appear in the texts? . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2.2. Did the pronomen abundans occur in colloquial speech? 109
7.2.2.1. In Ancient Greek and the Koine. . . . . . . . . 109
7.2.2.2. In the late Koine 109
7.2.3. The absence of the pronomen abundans in texts of the 5th and
following centuries . . . . . 110
7.2.3.1. Causes ........ 111
7.2.3.1.1. The artificial revival. 111
7.2.3.1.2. A new way of thinking 111
7.2.3.2. Relat. pronoun -+ connective 112
7.2.3.3. Later examples of the pronomen abundan8 112
7.2.3.3.1. Alchimiae apparatio 112
7.2.3.3.2. The Byz. Alexander.poem 112
7.2.3.3.3. Sphrantzes . . . . . . . 113
7.2.4. Disappearance of lJ:rr.ov . . • . . 113
7.2.5. The situation in early Modern Greek. 113
7.2.5.1. Probable development . . . . . 114
7.2.5.2. The traditional relat. pronouns in early Modern Greek 114
7.2.5.2.1. The Byz. Alex. and Sphrantzes 115
7.2.5.2.2. The Ohronicle of Machairas. . . . . . . . . . . . 115
EPILOGUE
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A. Texts .
B. Studies
116
llS
N.B.
Cross·references are made by means of the numbers of the paragraphs.
If the number I, II or III is omitted, the reader is referred to a paragraph
within the part he is occupied with.
The reference 7.2 etc. signifies all the paragraphs starting with the numbers
7.2 ....

INTRODUCTION
1. Definitions. What is a pronomen abundans and what a pronomen
coniunctum 1 The pronomen abundans is a personalor demonstrative
pronoun which repeats the relative pronoun in a single-limbed relative
clause. A well-known example occurs in P. Oxy. I 117,12 tI. (Il-IIl A.D.)
lnef//'pa v!-'etV .. . éáxrJ ~o ..., è~ WV I5cóauç ro'iç natMotç aov lv t~ avrwv.
At a later point we shall have to decide whether this name is correct or not.
The pronomen coniunctum is an idiom that belongs exclusively to Modern
Greek. It is the personal pronoun by which the meaning of the rather
vague relative pronoun nov is rendered clearer. An example: Ais, on
eMe rij !-,rJdea !-,ov, nov l5èv r~ve Ueet, "He says that he has seen my mother,
whom he does not know (however)" *.
2. The main object of this paper is to find out whether there is any
relation between these two idioms and whether it can be proved that such
a clause as nov l5èv r~ve ~ieet is the result of a development of the idiom
occurring in the above-mentioned papyrus. But there are more questions
which should be answered. In following the development of the pronomen
abundans we shall also encounter problems such as is it a Semi ti sm (in
the LXX and the NT) and should it be regarded as being a vulgarism or not.
3. The subject-matter will be divided according to the following plan.
In the first part the period of Ancient Greek and the Koine will be discussed.
The second part will be devoted to a treatise on the pronomen coniunctum
in Modern Greek. The earliost instances discussed in this part originate
from the 12th century, as it is in texts of this time that (ó Jnov starts being
used as the normal relat. pronoun. Then there remains the period from
the 4th until the 12th century. One may wonder why this period is treated
in the third and not in the second part. Why not follow the chronological
order? There are two reasons, one positive and one negative. If there
exists any relation between the so-called pronomen abundans and the
pronomen coniunctum, the presence of it should be sensed in the Greek
used during this period. And if one is right in speaking of a change from
one idiom to the ot her , this change must have taken place in the course
of that time. So much as to the positive reason. The negative reason is
that we do not have available many texts in which we find traces of the
* In this relative clause the two syntactical functions which in Ancient Greek
are expressed by one word (ijv - and, for that matter, also in the more official
type of Modern Greek: .rJv óno{av) are denoted by two words: nov (which has a
connective function) and TljvE (by which the syntactical position of the "mother"
within the relative clause is denoted). From this viewpoint it becomes clear why
the phrase è~ aVrwv in the first example is considered as something redundant.

10 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN OONIUNOTUM
spoken language of that time. This applies especially to the period af ter
the 6th century. Unfortunately in these texts occur almost no instances
of either pronomen abundans or pronomen coniunctum! It is understandable,
therefore, that many of our observations on the language used during
this period must be suppositions based upon the factual situation in the
Koine and Modern Greek.

PART I
ANCIENT GREEK AND KOINE
1. THE PRONOMEN ABUNDANS IN ANCIENT GREEK
The Ancient Greek texts left to us do not give us the impression that
th is idiom was very popular among the authors. In the texts from Homer
until the 4th century B.C. only ten instances have been found. And thus
in the grammar of Kühner-Gerth only a note, an "Anmerkung" is devoted
to the subject 1.
l.1. The examples in K ühner-Gerth
Hdt. IV 44,1 ... f3ovÄ6ftevoç 'Ivè'Jov n07:aftóv, 8ç 'X[!o'Xoè'JeO.ovç è'Jev'te[!oç 0 {j't 0 ç
n07:aftwv náv'twv na[!éxe7:at, 'tov'tov 'tov no'taftov eiè'Jévat 'tti èç ()á).,aaaav è'Xè'Jtè'Jo ï . .. 2 •
PI., Phaedo 99B 8 è'J1} ftOt g;a{vov'tat 1p'fJ).,ag;wvuç olnoÀÀoi wane[! èv a'Xóut,
àÀÀo't[!tcp ovóftan n[!oax[!wftevot, wç atnov a'lho n[!oaayo[!evetv.
Xen., R.L. 10,4 Tóè'Je yè W;jV 'tov Av'Xov[!yov nwç ov fteyá).,wç açwv àyaa()­
ijVat; 8ç ènetè'J~ 'Xadfta()ev, ön ol ft~ f3ovÄ6ftevot lntfteA.eïa()at 'tijç à[!e'tijç OVX
[MVO{ eiat 'tàç na't[!{è'Jaç av$etv, è'Xelvoç èv 'tti Iná[!7:Tl ~váy'Xaae . ..
Eur., Phoen. 1595 ff.
. . . wç ft' 19;vaaç ä.e).,wv
'Xai 7:).,1}ftov', ............•..
8v 'Xai n[!iv lç g;wç ft'fJ7:[!OÇ è'X yovijç ft0).,eïv,
ayovov 'Anó).,).,wv Aatep ft' è()éantaev
g;ovéa yevéa()at na7:[!óç ... 3 .
On the question why authors use a pronomen abundans Kühner-Gerth
express themselves with great caution. They merely say that it is do ne
for clearness' sake, i.e. when the relat. clause is interrupted by another
clause or when the relat. clause itself happens to be long. Moulton 4
1 Kühner-Gerth Il, p. 433-4, Anm. 2.
2 They comment upon this quotation as follows: "Hier deutet das Demonstrativ
auf einen zu ergänzenden Gedanken hin: welcher - und zwar ist dies der zweite
unter allen Flüssen - ", comparing it to Hdt. I 25 àVÉ{}rl'~E (je bupvywv T~V vovuov
IJetTrEeOç OVTOÇ Tijç ol"{1'}ç TatlT1'}ç ••• "e1'}Tijea, "er weihte - und er war der zweite
aus diesem Hause - einen Krater". See also Kühner-Gerth I, pp. 660-1.
3 In Kühner-Gerth I, p. 642 we find among some other quotations Eur., I.A.
155-6 ucpeayi(ja qnJÀaulf' ijv inl (jÉÀTlP / T~V(jE "op.tt;uç. In such a case the demonstr.
pronoun T~V(jE cannot be viewed as a pronomen abundans . Whether a pronomen
abundans is really superfluous or not has still to be decided, but in a case like this
T~V(jE certainly is not. It has its usual demonstrative force, denoting something or
somebody who is present or (in a play, for instanee) coming on to the stage.
Cf. Hom. A 612 (Kühner-Gerth, l.c.), where the demonstr. pronoun occurs in an interrogative
clause: NÉUTOe' EeEW, / övTtva TOVTOV liyE! . See also Eur., Andr. 649-50 ... lJIà
yvvai"a f3áef3aeov, / ijv xefiv u' iÀavvuv T~V(j' vnee NelÀov éoáç . .., and 709-10 ... "al
naiç liTEXVOÇ, ijv Ö y' i~ TJp.wv yEywÇ / iMf. IJl' ol"wv T~V(j' imunáuaç "óp.1'}ç. See also note 8.
4 Moulton, Proleg., p. 95.

12 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
states that this idiom originated from anacoluthon. Blass-Debrunner
express themselves more explicitly 5: they speak of a case of negligence
("eine Nachlässigkeit") and a little later suggest that this idiom would
be something offensive. It is Tabachovitz 6 who combines all the previous
statements: "Es ist dies im klassischen Griechisch eine N achlässigkeit,
die einem Anakoluth sehr nahekommt: durch die Länge des Satzes ist
die volle Kraft des Relativpronomens abgeschwächt worden und verlangt
nach Verdeutlichung, was zur grammatischen Unregelmässigkeit führt".
Later we shall find occasion to discuss the previous statements. One
remark, however, should be made on the explanation given by Kühner­
Gerth : if it is correct, why do we not find more examples of this idiom 1
I do not think that anybody ever has made a count of all the relat. clauses
which are interrupted by another clause or are long just by themselves.
There must be many of them though! Yet we find only 3 or 4 examples
of a resumptive pers. or demonstr. pronoun 7! What caused the authors
to think that in all the other cases such a pronoun was not necessary 1
Were they not always interested in being clear 1 And there is something
else. One does find other examples, not mentioned by Kühner-Gerth,
where the distance between the relat. pronoun and the resumptive pronoun
is not great at all!
1.2. Some more examples
Soph., Trach. 132 ff.
flÉ:vet yCte oV'Z" aló),a
vv~ (JeoToïatv oVTe "ijeeç
OVTe n),ovToç, à),),' äfPae
{Jé{Ja"e, 7:('(> t/ lniexe-rat
xateew Te "ai aTÉeeaOm.
ä "ai ai Tàv ävaaaav lhtatv Uyw
Tá

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 13
Hyperid., Euxen. 3 div OV~8f1,{a ~~Jtov 'HOV aiTteov TOVTWV "OLVWVÛ 'HP
ûcrayyeÀn"ip VÓpqJ.
It is perfectly clear that in these examples the authors do not use a
resumptive pronoun for the sake of clearness. They must have had another
reason. The actual reason is, I think, that they want to refer to the antecedent
with great emphasis. This is very obvious, for instance, in Ar.,
Av. 1237: "It is to them, then, that we ought to sacrifice, and not, by
Jove, to Jove!" A similar emphasis may be present in two examples
quoted by Kühner-Gerth, PI., Phaedo 99B and Eur., Phoen. 1595 ff.
1.3. Common characteristics
When all the examples which have been discussed until now are put
next to each other, it appears that they all have one characteristic in
common: in each case the relat. clause is nonessential (nonrestrictive),
i.e. the clause is not essential to the meaning of the sentence, but merely
adds an idea. Such a clause does not determine the antecedent, but is
almost independent.
But again the same question arises: if the pronomen abundans occurs
only in nonessential clauses, why do we not find more examples 1 The
texts are full of such clauses, especially the texts of the classic period,
with their long periods and intricate syntax.
1.4. Relative connection
A Greek, however, did not think according to a pattern like "well,
this is a nonessential clause, so now I may use the pronomen abundans".
We should approach this problem in an altogether different way. A
nonessential (or independent) relat. clause + resumpt. pronoun may
originate in two ways: 1. the speakerjwriter wishes to grant a certain
independence to arelat. clause and adds, therefore, a resumpt. pronoun,
2. he wants to include a principal sentence in a broader context and puts,
therefore, arelat. pronoun in front of it. This is what usually is called
relative connection ("relativer Anschluss'~) .
Taking a closer look at our examples, we discover that they all are cases
of relat. connection. There are two seeming exceptions: Hdt. IV 44,1 and
Ar., Av. 1236-7. The fust of these is a parenthesis, i.e. an independent
sentence in the mid of another sentence. Thus the only difference with
arelat. connection is that there the relat. clause follows the sentence to
which it is linked. A parenthesis, therefore, introduced by arelat. pronoun
may be regarded as being a case ofrelat. connection. In the second example
the relat. clause may certainly be viewed as a principal sentence which is
connected with the preceding sentence by means of relat. connection.
It is not important, I think, that the editors punctuate with a comma
instead of a semi-colon or a period, the usual punctuation-marks in case of
relat. connection.

14 PRONOMEM ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
Each case where a pronomen abundans occurs is an independent principal
sentence connected with the preceding sentence by means of arelat.
pronoun 8 . This is why not every independent relat. clause contains a
resumpt. pronoun. This idiom does not have the relat. clause as its startingpoint,
but the independent principal sentence! Thus one reason why not
many cases of the pronomen abundans do occur is that it is used only in
cases ofrelat. connection. And it is a well-known fact that this construction
does not occur very of ten in Ancient Greek texts 9 .
Kühner-Gerth obviously did not choose the right spot for inserting
this idiom in their grammar. The spot they chose is a note following the
paragraph in which is treated the phenomenon of two relat. clauses of
which the second is not introduced by arelat. pronoun, but by a demonstr.
or pers. pronoun. It would have been more to the point, I think, ifthey had
inserted the pronomen abundans in a note af ter the paragraph on relat.
connection.
1.5. Anaphoric or relative sense ot the relative pronoun
Originally the relat. pronoun had an anaphoric sense lO • When we take
a look at what Kühner-Gerth say about the phenomenon of relat. connection,
we see something similar 11: "Das Relativpronomen dient .. . auch
zur Anknüpfung solcher Sätze, welche eigentlich als beigeordnete Hauptsätze
hätten ausgedrückt werden sollen. Das Relativpronomen vertritt
dann die Stelle eines Demonstrativ- oder Personalpronomens in Verbindung
mit éinem Bindeworte, wie xat, à.V.á od. M, rele, oVV, äea . ..".
This is an opportunity, I think, to discuss an example quoted by
Kühner-Gerth 12, which may be regarded as the most ancient instance
of a pronomen abundans .
Hom. r 3-5
~v-re nee x).arrT] reeávwv né)'u oveav6(h ne6,
al 't" Ènet oVV XUI,Uvva !pVrov xal àOé(J(pa't'ov oplJeov,
x).arrfi 't' a t re nÉ't'ov't'at Èn' 'Qxeavo io éoáwv . ..
This example is mentioned . by them in a series of instances where a
substantive or substantive pronoun at the beginning of the sentence is
repeated by a demonstr. or pers. pronoun later. In doing so they seem to
imply that the relat. pronoun al must be regarded as still having its old
anaphoric function. And they are right. The comparison, as it is standing
8 It is obvious now that the demonstr. pronoun T,p,«5e in Eur., I.A. 155-6 cannot
be a pronomen abundans : 1. it does not refer to the antecedent, but has its usua1
demonstrative function (see note 3), 2. the relat. c1ause has nothing to do with re1o.t.
connection, is not even independent, but is a normal essentio.1 c1o.use. This o.1so
o.pp1ies to the other instances mentioned in the same note.
8 See Kühner-Gerth Il, pp. 434-6.
10 See Kühner-Gerth Il, p. 226 o.nd Robertson, p. 953.
11 Kühner-Gerth Il, p. 434.
12 Kühner-Gerth I, p. 660.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 15
here, is made almost entirely independent and reminds one very much
of arelat. connection (in the form of a parenthesis) 13.
In the times of Homer the relat. pronoun still had its anaphoric force 14,
but since then this force has diminished. In the Greek of the 5th and
4th centuries B.C. the relat. pronoun has a more relative than anaphoric
force. This is also proved by the low number of relat. connection-constructions.
It is in this construction that the relat. pronoun has kept some
of its old anaphoric sense.
1.6. The function of the pronomen abundans
The Greek language had many ways of connecting principal sentences :
it could make use of a paratactical construction with 'Xat, of asyndeton,
it had at its disposal a whole series of connective particles. But a Greek
could also conneet his sentences by means of relat. connection. He did
not do so very of ten, but even less of ten did he use arelat. connection +
resumptive pronoun. What was he ab Ie to express by relat. connection ?
He pointed out that there was arelation between two sentences, while
he left it to the reader (hearer) to understand what kind of connection
was implied ('Xat, à)')'á, bÉ, yáe, ow, (J.ea: see the definition of Kühner-Gerth,
quoted in 1.5). If, however, he wanted to point out the object or person or
whatever it may be (the antecedent) in the preceding sentence more
clearly, then he must have feIt that the anaphoric force of the relat.
pronoun was not strong enough and reinforeed it by means of a pronomen
abundans. This reminds one of something Kühner-Gerth say in a different
(but not altogether different) context 15: "Hingegen haben die Personalpronomen
und die Demonstrativpronomen ovroç und avrdç sehr häufig au eh
zurückweisende Kraft, indem in demselben Satze nach einem vorausgegangenen
Substantive oder Substantivpronomen teils der Deutlichkeit
wegen, z.B. wenn zwischen dasselbe und das dazu gehörige Verb ein
längerer Zwischensatz getreten ist, teils des rhetorischen Nachdrucks
wegen ein solches Pronomen gesetzt wird, welches das vorausgegangene
Substantiv oder Substantivpronomen noch einmal aufnimmt und entweder
wieder ins Gedächtnis ruft oder Nachdrucksvoll der Aufmerksamkeit
vorhält". Exactly the same is done by the so-called pronomen
abundans, and for the same reasons: see l.1 and l.2. And we better caU
the resumptive pronoun the so-called pronomen abundans henceforward,
as it is clear now that it is not pleonastic at all, as it has a very definite
function in the sentence.
1.7. Pronomen abundans and the spoken language
Until now we have spoken only about its use in literary Greek. About
colloquial speech of, let us say, the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. in Athens
13 Cf. Kühner-Gerth 11, p. 434, Anm. 4.
14 See note 10.
15 Kühner-Gerth I, p. 660.

16 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
we do not know anything. And we surely are not informed ab out suoh
details of syntax as the use of the resumpt. pronoun. Yet it is important
to know whether this idiom is one of those nioeties of literary Greek
(so refined that we have found only ten examples!) or something that was
quite usual in oolloquial speeoh and aooidently penetrated in some of the
literary documents. The main reason why this questiQn is foroed upon
us is that both Blass-Debrunner and Tabaohovitz, by using terms as
"Naohlässigkeit" and "grammatische Unregelmässigkeit" (this last expression
only in the study of Tabachovitz: see 1.1), may be suggesting that
the so-called pronomen abundans is something that belongs to colloquial
and vulgar speeoh. It is certainly not a case of negligence in this sense
that the authors, af ter conneoting two principal sentenoes, forgot or rather
neglected to omit the pers. or demonstr. pronoun which they had in mind
of placing somewhere in the second sentence. It is possible that we may
have to reckon with that in Post-Classioal Greek, but in the examples
we have discussed this idiom has a justified function. It is true, of oourse,
that (making an exoeption for the very ancient example in Homer) all
the instanoes ocour in works of authors who may have drawn on the
riohness of oolloquial speeoh rather of ten : two historians, Herodotus 16
and Xenophon, one orator 17, a dialogue of Plato, and finally four examples
taken from plays. It is not, however, a strong argument : it is better to
wait until we are better informed about the further development of the
so-called pronomen abundans 18.
2. THE PRONOMEN ABUNDANS IN THE KOINE
Two remarks should precede: 1. the word "so-called" has been omitted
in the title - and will be omitted from now on -, because in this period
we shall have to accept the fact that the pronomen abundans was actually
superfluous, until the opposite has been proved; 2. in this ohapter examples
will be discussed originating from texts of the 3d century B.C. until the
3d century A.D. This choice has been caused by the nature of the examples
which we have at our disposal.
2.1. Oharacter of the Koine
It is not easy, if not impo88ible, to characterize the Koine in a few
words. Apart from the fact that Koine Greek, as any language, was
developing and thus changing in the course of the oenturies, the texts
la See, for instance, Kühner-Gerth I, p. 661, where they speak of "(das) Wesen
des Vortrages Herodots, der durchweg die mündliche Erzählungsweise wiedergibt".
17 See, for instance, U . Pohle, Die Sprache des Redner8 Hyperides in ihren Beziehungen
zur Koine (Leipzig 1928), p. 89: "Hyperides liebt es . .. sogar ein ganz
nahe vorhergehendes Wort oder einen ganzen Gedanken mit oVroç wieder aufzunehmen
und dadurch na.chdrücklich hervorzuheben ... eine schwerfällige Umständlichkeit
die gerade der Sprache des täglichen Lebens entspricht".
18 See 2.6.1 and III 7.2.2 etc.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 17
offer us so many divergent aspects of the Greek used during the long
period between the 3d century B.C. and the 3d century A.D. that it is
almost impossible to des cri be it in the terms of one and the same language.
There is quite a difference between the literary Koine of a Polybius and
the almost colloquial Greek of some papyri. The language of the NT is
of ten regarded as being a whoie, but, upon closer examination of the texts,
it will be found that there exist considerable differences in the language
of the different books, chiefly differences of style depending on the education
of each individual writer. Further the differences in language between
one genre and the other have to be taken into account: the style and
language of historians like Polybius and Diodorus are not the same as
those of a professional man like Pedanius Dioscurides.
2.1.1. Characteristics
The Koine in general has some qualities which at first sight may have
contributed to an extension of the use of the pronomen abundans :
1. Koine-authors aim at exactness and clearness rather than at beauty
and artistic perfection.
2. The relat. pronouns start getting weaker.
3. The frequency of the construction of relat. connection is very high.
4. People are fond of a frequent use of personal and possessive pronouns.
5. And finally, if the pronomen abundans is an idiom that belongs
rather to COllOquial speech than to literary language, then this is the
period where one should expect to find examples, as more texts close to
common speech are available.
2.1.2. Frequency
If we leave out the examples in the LXX and the NT (for reasons to be
indicated later), there are 26 instances, more, indeed, than in Ancient
Greek, but less than one would have expected af ter seeing the points
mentioned in 2.1.1. It may be good, therefore, to look at these points a
little closer.
2.1.2.1. And indeed, clearness and exactness belong to the highest aspirations
of Koine-authors 19. Is it not for clearness' sake th at Polybius (I 41 ,2)
says bLO xal náÀw lneeewa{}'YJaav bLà -rav-ra 1
2.1.2.2. Weakening ot the relative pronoun. In an example like the
preceding one one gets the impression that bLÓ, originally arelat. pronoun,
is conceived as a mere connective, which needs clarification and reinforcement
20. In his study on the language of Polybius Kaelker mentions an
19 See, e.g., Costas, p. 39 and Palm, pp. 76 and 115.
20 Cf. Jallnaris, § 1439.

18 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
even more striking example 21 : Polyb. VI 16,5 bul náv-rw" -rw" n(!oet(!'YJ­
",é"w" Xá(!t" bébte -rovç noAÄoVç . ..
In function and meaning the relat. pronoun may have been weakening,
it was strengthened in form: the nominatives ij, ol, ar were replaced by
the corresponding forms of aauç: ijuç, olu"eç, al-rweç. Many scholars just
mention the fact that oç and aauç were used indifferently 22, but there
are others who try to find the cause. It has been proposed that hiatu8
played an important part 28. Others think that the longer forms were
preferred as being stronger 24, and this may very weU have been one of the
reasons. The main reason, however, must have been the fact that the
replaced forms were homophonous with the nominatives of the definite
article 25. The result of this development has been a sort of new declination :
oç ijuç a, olu"eç alu"eç ä, the oblique cases being mostly denoted by
forms of aç. Whether this blending of relat. pronouns meant a reinforcement
in function and meaning is a question that remains to be seen.
It might suggest, anyhow, that at the time this development was completed
the old anaphoric sense of the relat. pronoun had been lost: aauç
never had it, being a new creation of the Greek language.
2.l.2.3. The construction of relative connection occurs more of ten in the
Koine than in Ancient Greek 26. Especially Polybius is fond of it: of the
90 relat. pronouns in the first 40 pages of his fust book 27 50 are used in a
relat. connection, i.e. 56%. Another historian, Diodorus, seems to like
this construction only a little less 28: in the first 40 pages of his fust book 29
92 relat. pronouns occur, of which 38 are used in arelat. connection, i.e
41 %. That these are extremes becomes clear on comparing them with
the texts of professional men like Antoninus Liberalis 30 (of the 32 relat.
pronouns 5 are used in arelat. connection : 16%) and Pedanius Dioscurides 31
21 Kaelker, p . 273.
22 Compernass, p. 13, Dieterich, p. 199, Vogeser, p. 21, Wolf, p. 47, Psaltes,
§ 312, Mayser II 1, p. 76, Pernot, pp. 163- 7, Reinhardt, pp. U8 and 150, von Stepski
Doliwa, p. 75.
23 Arnim, p. 105.
24 Kühner-Gerth II, p. 400.
25 As far as I know, Cadbury (pp. 152 ff.), refuting the opinion of Moulton
(Proleg., pp. 91-2) to the effect that, although ÖC1TIÇ occurred more of ten than
before, it still was used in accordance with the classic rule, was the fust to point
this out. See further Blass-Debrunner, § 293, Rydbeck, pp. 98-118 (he gives an
outline of the development) and Mussies, p. 174.
26 See Jannaris, § 1437b and Palm, pp. 68-70.
27 ed. W. R. Paton, Loeb, vol. I.
28 Cf. Palm, p. 70.
29 ed. C. H. Oldfather, Loeb, vol. I.
30 Me-capoecpwaewv avvaywY7/, ed. I. Cazzaniga, pp. 17-59.
31 De Materia Medica, ed. M. Wellmann, pp. 1-30.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 19
(30 relat. pronouns: 4 in relat. connection: 13.5%) 32. It is a fact, however,
that the number of relat. connections of even these texts exceeds that of
Xenophon's Anabasis 33: of the 90 relat. pronouns only 4 occur in arelat.
connection, i.e. 4.5%.
Considering the high amount of relat. connections and the weakening
of the relat. pronoun, discussed in the preceding paragraph, one would
expect to see a great number of instances of the pronomen abundans.
Polybius offers 10 examples, but is th is really such a great number, if
one takes into account the high amount of relat. connections and the size
of his History? And Diodorus causes us even greater problems: although
he seems to be almost as fond of relat. connection as Polybius is, his
work shows only one example of a pronomen abundans. One almost gets
the impression that this idiom was suppressed for some reason or other.
2.1.2.4. The Irequency ol personal pronouns is one of the striking characteristics
of the Koine (and of Post-Classical Greek in generai). One of ten
finds sentences like this 34 : (ivf}ewnoç ànà À-tfJóç flOV lVExóflEVÓÇ flOV àvan{nit ...
'" l' ,J; "_

20 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
elç ÈJ-lè ... , 7w-raJ-lOi È" 7:fjç "otAlaç aV7:0V éevO'ovO't'P 41 • This use of the pers.
pronoun occurs even in Ancient Greek 42. Such a pronoun is also placed,
when its grammatical function is not so clear, i.e. in cases where it repeats
a participle or substantive which is already standing in the correct case 43.
Some .scholars viewed this as an example of Semitic influence 44, but this
opinion has been rejected 45. Now it is recognized as a characteristic of
Greek itself (it occurred already in Ancient Greek, but far less frequently 46),
but again scholars are too much inclined to limit its use to common
speech 47. It is also found in texts which usually are not considered
"vulgar" texts, as, for instance, Diodorus 48 and Aeneas Tacticus 49.
Here follow some examples.
Diod. IV 40,1 IIeei éJè nvv > Aeyovav7:wv ... ol"ûov av et'fj éJte).f)eiv
:7teei aV7:wv.
Epict., Diatr. III 1,22 ovéJè yàe UOV7:t 7:0 7:VXOV {JotéJwv 7:0AJ-lfi. àv7:tO'7:fjva,
av7:Cp.
Aen. Tact. XI 7 ... avéJeaç éJVo ... :7toAeJ-llovç avnp "afHO'7:'fjO't'P aV7:ovç ...
P. Mich. Zen. 29 (256 B.C.) 7:0V bè :7tWAOV aV7:fjç MOO'UtAW O'Ot aV7:6v.
P. Oxy. II 299 (I A.D.) AáJ-l:7twvt J-lvo-&rje8V7:fi léJw"a aV7:qJ .••
P. Gen. 56,30 (IV A.D.) ee6éJweov eveov eV7:6v ...
Gest. Pil. 13,2 ijJ-lÛç à'XoVO'aJ-lev 87:t 7:0V ah'fjO'áJ-levov 7:0 O'wJ-la 7:0V > I'fjO'ov
Ève'XAelO'au a V 7: 6 v.
Is there any correlation between this kind of resumptive pronoun and
the pronomen abundans ? Kühner-Gerth 50 say that it is used for clearness'
sake (when, for instance, the sentence is interrupted by another sentence)
and for reasons of rhetorical emphasis. In 1.6 we have observed that the
pronomen abundans is used for the same reasons. But does what is said
by Kühner-Gerth about Ancient Greek also apply to the use of this idiom
in the Koine? The answer can be positive, for, looking, for instance, at
the quotation from Epictetus (lIl 1,22) ovéJè yà(! UOll7:t 7:0 7:VXOV {JotéJtOll
7:0AJ-lfi. àll7:tO'7:fjllat aV7:qJ, we may say that there is actually astrong emphasis
41 For more examples see Blass-Debrunner, § 466,4 and Ljungvik, Beitr., p. 8.
42 See Kühner-Gerth I1, pp. 105 ff.
43 See Jannaris, § 1401, Ljungvik, Beitr., pp. 6-8 and Blass-Debrunner, § 297.
44 See Wolf, p . 13 and Mitsakis, p. 90.
45 See Moulton, Proleg., p . 85 and Robertson, p. 683.
46 SM Kühner-Gerth I, pp. 66(}-1.
47 See Olsson, p. 207, Mayser II 1, pp. 63-4 and Lj ungvik , Stud., pp. 27-8.
See also Gignac, who first (p. 149) mentions it as a feature of common speech, but
later (p. 151) says that it "might receive a more adequate explanation as a tendency
inherent in Greek furthered by interference from Coptic, in which such a word order
is common". One may have to reckon with such influences, but it is good to point
out here that in early Modern Greek (see II 4.2.4.4.1) as weIl as in present.day
colloquial speech (SM Tzarlzanos, § 52,1) this phenomenon is quite common.
48 See Palm, p. 77.
49 See Behrendt, pp. 111-2.
50 Kühner-Gerth I, p. 660. See quotation in 1.6.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 21
on the word À.éOVTt. The answer, however, mayalso be negative: noticing
how many more cases are found in the Koine than in Ancient Greek - the
difference in number being so great indeed that a comparison between
the two seems almost ridiculous -, one has to admit that in the Koine
something else is going on. The idiom has spread so far that one, while
reading certain texts, can hardly avoid the impression that at that time
people had the idea that each verb had to be supplied with an object
and each noun with a possessive genitive, especially when the actual
object or possessor was placed at the beginning ofthe sentence. Apparently
people were not able any longer to span great distances in a sentence
and thus put close together everything that belonged to each other,
even when this only could be reached by repetition. Another cause,
closely connected with the preceding one, may have been the shift in
wordorder which began during the period of the Koine. A treatise on this
subject, however, would lead us too far 51.
Let us now return to our question whether this kind ofresumpt. pronoun
and the pronomen alJundans are in some way correlated. Blass-Debrunner
associate the two idioms with each other, for they say, speaking of the
pronomen abundans 52 : "Verwandt ist das pleonastische Pron. pers. nach
einem Ptz., das einem Relativsatz gleichwertig ist", mentioning as one
of their examples Apoc. 2.17 and 17 up Vl"WVTt, M)(J()) avnp. It does not
make any difference, I think, whether the first word of the sentence is a
participle or a noun. It is important that both of them are nouns, standing
at the beginning of the sentence. And thus we see two idioms: in the one
the senten ce begins with arelat. pronoun, in the other with a noun,
both of them being resumed by a pers. pronoun. The two look very similar,
and yet people living at that time do not seem to have seen a correlation
between them. How do we know that? The answer can be very simpie:
if they had seen a correlation between the two, why does the number of
51 See Hjalmar Frisk, Studien zur griechischen Wortstellung, Göteborgs Högskolas
Ársskrift 39 (1933,1). In this study Frisk shows by means of statistical tables that
in the Koine the wordorder object.predicate was preferred, whereas in Ancient
Greek this was exactly the opposite. In classical authors Frisk found for the sequence
predicate-object percentages ranging from 23,9 to 51,6%, but in Polybius 50%
and in Matthew even 77,8%. One of the consequences of th is shift may have been
that, when in the Koine for some reason or other the object, instead of being placed
af ter the verb, was put at the beginning of the sentence, people were inclined to
repeat this object af ter the verb by means of a pers. pronoun. There is reason to
think that this supposition is correct, but we cannot be sure until the wordorder
of more Koine-texts has been studied. It is a fact that in texts of the 12th and
following centuries the sequence predicate-object as weIl as the repetition of the
object by means of a pers. pronoun (in cases where the other sequence is chosen)
appears to have become a rule instead of a tendency. For the situation on this point
in Modern Greek see Tzartzanos, § 84,2, and for the phenomenon in general, Bakker,
Ontwikkeling, pp. 170-1.
52 Blass-Debrunner, § 297.

22 PRONOMEN AlIUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
instances of the pronomen ahundans pale into insignificance besides the
great mass of examples of the other idiom? And, of course, there is a
difference: in a sentence where a pronomen abundans occurs one gets the
impression that the relat. pronoun is very weak and has to be reinforced
by the abundant pers. pronoun. When, however, the second idiom occurs,
it is the noun at the beginning of the sentence which is strong and the
resumpt. pronoun which is weak. Is this an actual difference and was it
feIt as such by the people living then or was the pronomen ahundans a
common idiom in the spoken language, being suppressed, however, in
the written texts? We shall find the final answer, if there is one, in the
third part of this study, in the chapter on relat. connection 53.
2.1.2.5. Vulgar texts. It has not been discovered yet whether the
pronomen ahundans is an idiom that belongs to common speech or not,
but is it true that the Koine offers us such vulgar texts? It is true, of
course, that almost all the Ancient Greek texts are literary and that we
have only a few sources by means of which we can get a very faint idea
of the spoken language of that period. Compared to this, the situation
in the Koine is much brighter: we possess masses of non-literary papyri,
the texts of the LXX and the NT and those written by professional men
(the so-called "Fachprosa"), all written in a rather simple and nonliterary
sort of Greek etc. etc. And there is something else: during the
classic period the literary language must have influenced colloquial
speech; it may have even slowed down its natural development. In the
Koine-period, especially aftar the Atticistic movement set in, a yawning
chasm started separating the higher intallectual classes from the lower
ones, and thus the spoken language was freed from the influences of the
literary language, being able now to follow its own course 54.
Are the so-called "vulgar" texts actually so vulgar? And what is meant
by the word "vulgar" ? It may be suspected that the term "vulgar text"
is used for all those texts which are commonly regarded as not belonging
to literature and where occur linguistic phenomena which are not found
in Classic Greek. Sometimes, however, one feels that these texts are being
considered as representing colloquial speech or, at least, something very
close to it. This would be wrong, for speaking thus we forget that colloquial
speech is spoken language and that what has been left to us of the
language used during the period of the Koine' consists of texts, and, therefore,
written language. Rydbeck, in his book on "Fachprosa", makes
similar objections 55 : "Was ich hier ausgeführt habe, bedeutet, das ich
weder die Papyri noch das NT, im ganzen, sprachlich-grammatisch
gesehen, als Volkstümliche Texte rubrizieren will", and "Der Versuch,
aus Schriftstüoken der Vergangenheit die lebendige Rede hervorzuziehen,
53 See III 5 etc.
54 See Trenkner, p. 60.
55 Rydbeck, p. 194.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 23
wird immer eine fast unmögliche Aufgabe sein. Für frühere Perioden gibt
es nul' Geschriebenes".
Rydbeek, therefore, rather uses terms like "Zwisehensehiehtsprosa"
and "sprachliche Zwischenschicht", terms which are defined by him as
follows 56: "Diese Ausdrüeke haben keinen Wertinhalt, sondern dienen
nur einem besehreibenden Zweek. Ieh meine mit ihnen Texte und Verfasser
aus früher Römerzeit, die in ihrer sprachlieh-grammatischen, stilistisehen
und allgemein literarisehen Haltung niveaumässig unter (a) den eigentliehen
Klassizisten, (b) den Vertretern einer mehr sehönliterariseh ambitiösen
hellenistisehen Literatursprache vom Typus Polybios-Diodoros
liegen". This "Zwischensehicht" should not be viewed, I think, as some
sort of "standard Koine", as a "linguistic sub-class", but rather as a very
large spaee, in between the literary Koine and the spoken language,
a space within which many varieties of language can be expected 57.
Needless to say that, exactly because it is a "Zwisehenschicht", it can
undergo influences from two sides, from above or underneath, and also
from both sides at the same time. This is exactly what makes research
in the Koine so difficult: it is very of ten almost impossible to decide
where the different influenees come from. The pronomen abundans constitutes
a good example. Instances of it are found in what is called by
Rydbeek "Zwischenschichtsprosa", but also in Polybius, a representative
of the literary Koine. Whether it occurred in colloquial speech, we do not
know. Thus one might be inclined to regard this idiom as a characteristic
of the literary Koine. Or does it perhaps belong to the spoken language
and did Polybius admit it in his text as some sort of personal usage?
Our conclusion may be that the Koine may provide us with a few
real vulgar papyri, where we find Greek as it actually was spoken, but
that for the rest we must be very careful with using words like "vulgar"
and "vulgarism" .
2.2. Examples
In this ehapter all sorts of examples will be discussed except those
occurring in the LXX and the NT, which, for special reasons, will be
dealt with in a separate chapter. It goes without saying that at the
transition from Classic Greek to the Koine - this is only a way of speaking
- the idiom of the pronomen abundans did not undergo any sudden
changes. One finds many examples which are very similar to the ones
occurring in Ancient Greek. There are, however, other instances which
seem to be different. They will be discussed in due time.
56 Rydbeck, p. 177.
57 These words are also meant as a criticism upon a review of Rydbeck's book,
written by H. Thesleff, Gnomon 42,6 (1970), pp. 551-5.

24 l'RONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.2.1. Examples similar to Ancient Greek
Polyb. XXIX 6,5 È~ dJV Sn pb yéyové -rtç È'Jrm').o"ij np IIseaû :rreoç -rOV
EVfLÉvrJ, (JL' ijv È:rrt -rOWV'l'OV IJ').Ào-retw-or;aav :rreoç av'l'ov 'PWfLaiot, :rreogJaviç
È" -rwv :rreOSte'YjfLévwv.
The expression È" 'l'WV :rreoSte'YjfLévwv may be regarded as being a pronoun :
Polybius is fond of using it for variety's sake instead of demonstr.
pronouns 58.
Polyb. I 20,15 Èv qJ Mj "ate0 -rwv KaeX'YJCJovlwv "a-rà 'l'OV :rrOe{}fLOV È:rravaX{}év'l'wV
av-roiç, "at ..., wau ..., TaV'l'rJ :rraeaCJslYfLan XeWfLSVOt -r6 'l'8
:rreoç -rav-r'Yjv È:rrowVv-ro -rijv . . . vav:rr'Yjylav ..•
This time the pleonastic phrase is not a pronoun, but an adverb.
Polyb. VI 10,3 "a{}á:rrse yà(! f1t&]erp fLiv lóç, ~v').Otç CJi {}el:rrsç "at -rse'YjCJóvsç
avWpvûç slat ÄVfLal, CJt' dJV, "dv :rráaaç -ràç Uw{}sv CJtacpVywf1t f3Äáf3aç, v:rr'
av-rwv tp{}eleov-rat -rwv avyysvofLévwv, -rov av'l'Ov -reó:rrov "at -rwv :rroÀtUtWV
avyysva-rat • . . é"áa'l'rJ ... nç "a"la.
It is clear that these three instances are quite similar to the ones taken
from Plato and Xenophon, mentioned in 1.1. In all of them the relat.
clause is interrupted by another clause, and thus one might say that the
pronomen abundans appears here for clearness' sake 59. In the third example
the fact that the attributive participle 'l'WV avyyevofLévwv needs the support
of a noun might be viewed as a second reason.
P. Oxy. I 95,16 (129 A.D.) ... CJovÀ'Yjç LJwa"OeOV'l'Oç wç ÈTwv "s àf111fLOV,
ijv ["'l'OU :rraeelÀ'Yjcpsv :rrae' av'l'ov Ó 'I oVÀwç rSefLavoç -ra V 'l''Yj V 'l'otav'l''Yjv
àva:rróeetcpov . .. , " ... of a slave named D .... , which slave was his by
purchase, having previously belonged to H .... This slave J. Germ. then
took from him just as she was ... " 60.
This use of the pronomen abundans may be compared with what is done
by Herodotus in IV 44,1: the function of Tav-r'Yjv is to support the phrase
-rotav'l''Yjv àva:rróeetcpov 61.
P. Amh. II 77,25 ff. (139 A.D.) 62 ••• È:rrol'Yjaáv fLs fLaanyova{}at elç 'l'O
àvaCJwval fLs aV'l'oiç -ro 'l'OV 'Ae:rrayá{}ov àvayeácpwv, S:rree cpavseov -rOv-ro
eyévs'l'o -roiç ... Èm-r'Yje'YjTaiç . ••
The use of the pronomen abundans -rOV'l'O may be considered as being
caused by emotional stress: from a juridical point of view this last fact is
of the greatest importance.
B.G.U. I 330 (153 A.D.) . .. Èyvwa-or; fLOt ocpelÀStV Mat'l'Ûa{}at :rraeà
LJelov ... {):rrse av'l'o 'l'OVTO v:rro:rruvw, " ... and that is exactly what I
suspect".
This example may be compared again with Hdt. IV 44,1 63 :
58 See KooIker, p. 269 and Palm, p. 76.
n See Kühner-Gerth I1, p. 433, Anm. 2.
60 The translation h88 been quoted from the edition.
61 See 1.1 and note 2.
62 Mitteis-Wilcken I 2, no. 277.
68 See note 61.
-rOV'l'O

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 25
serves as support of the determinative pronoun aVTÓ 64. The two last
examples are quite similar to, for instance, Ar., Av. 1237 ... olç {}vdov
a V TOt ç, ... : the authors of the two papyri want to refer to the antecedent
with great emphasis 65.
2.2.2. Examples different Irom Ancient Greek
Call., Epigr. 42,3
"A"e'fJTOç "at "Eewç /-l' 1}váy"aaav, rov ó /-lÈv a V T W v
dA"ev, 8 ó' OV" e'ta TijV :n:eo:n:éutav èav.
Polyb. VI 16,5 ÓtO :n:áVTWV TWV :n:eoete'fJ/-lévwv XáetV66 óéóte TOVÇ
:n:OAAOVÇ ...
Diod. I 79,2 èv /-lÈv yàe 'A"av{}wv :n:ÓAU :n:{{}ov elvat uTe'fJ/-l/-lévov, elç 0'11
TWV leeiwv é~~"oVTa "at Teta"oa{ovç "a{}' é"áaT'fJv TJ/-léeav vówe cpéeuv ei ç
aVTov è" TOV NetAOV.
Ped. Dioscur. III 8,1 xa/-lat),éwv Aev"óç, 8'11 ëvlOt iUav "aAoVat . .., (p "at
àv-rt /-laaT{X'fJç aVTijJ al yvvaï"eç xeWVTat.
Pausan. II 4,6 èç bij TOV ' A"eo"óetv{}ov TOVTOV àvlOva{v èaTtv "Iatóoç U/-lév'fJ,
/-lÈv Ilûay{av, TijV óÈ Aiyv:n:T{av aVTwv è:n:ovo/-láCovalv.
rov T~V
P. Oxy. I 117,12 f. (II-III A.D.) Ë:n:e/-l"Pa v/-leLV .. . eá,,'fJ óvo . . . , è~ rov
ówaetç TOtÇ :n:atMOlç aov lv è~ aVTwv.
These examples are not the only ones which are different from Ancient
Greek: this is just aselection! It is not difficult to discover why the instances
are different from the ones occurring in Ancient Greek: in none
of them the relat. clause is interrupted by another clause and the relat.
clause in none of the cases is extremely long (except, perhaps, in Diod.
I 97,2). Such relat. clauses also occur in Ancient Greek: we only have to
remind ourselves of Ar., Av. 1237! But do we feel the presence of emphasis
in these Koine-examples, just as we feIt it in the instances occurring in
Ancient Greek? This question is not easy to answer: emphasis is something
rather subjective: where someone feels the presence of emphasis, someone
else does not. Even if we keep th is in mind, it is impossible, I think, to say
that in examples like these any emphasis or emotional stress is present.
All these senten ces give mere factual statements (or orders: P. Oxy.
I 117,12 f.).
2.2.3. A general survey ol the examples
Before discussing the function and use of the pronomen abundans in
the Koine I shall give a review of all the examples. The material we have
to work with is so scarce that it will not take up much space. For ease
of survey the examples which have already been discussed will be included.
64 See also Ep. Gal. 2,10, discussed in 2.4.2.2.
65 See 1.2.
66 For the function of náVTwv nvv n(!oel(!TJp.Évwv Xá(!lV see Polyb. XXIV 6,5
in 2.2.1.

26 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.2.3.1. JDolybius
VI 16,5 bUl nánwv nov n(!ost(!'fJflévwv Xá(!tV bibts rovç noÀÀovç . ..
(see 2.1.2.2 and 2.2.2).
I 41,2 bLo ~at náÀw èns(!(!wa()'fJaav btà ravra . .. (see 2.1.2.1).
I 81,5 bLóns(! elç 7:aV7:a f3Àénwv ov~ av uç elnûv o~v~aetsv wç . .. Here
we see a pleonastic phrase, in the form of a participle + demonstr. pronoun.
I 20,8 ... w(!fl'fJaav ènt 7:0 avvsflf3a{vetv 7:0lÇ Ka(!X'fJbov{otç elç 7:~V ()áÀanav.
bLo ~ai 7:0V7:0 7:0 flé(!oç OVX ij~tará flS naf!Wf!flYJas not~aa(]()at flv~fl'fJv ènt
nÀûov 7:0V n(!ost(!'fJflévov noUflov, Xá(!tv 7:0V fl'fJbè rav7:'fJv àyvoela()at
7:~V à(! X~v, nwç ~ai nóu ~at bt' aç al7:{aç n(!w7:ov èvéf3'fJaav elç ()áÀa7:7:av
'JDwflalOt. I have also quoted part of the sentence before bto in order to
show that in this case bto is repeated by the clause following Xá(!tv.
V 35,12 ( bLo) mV7:'fJv flèv ovv r~v èmf3oÀ~v, wao' è~néflnetv aV7:ov flS7:à
XO(!'fJy{aç, ànsbo~{flaaav b t à 7: à ç n (! ast (! 'fJ fl é va ç a l7: {a ç. This bto is an emendation
by Kaelker 67 of the version of the Ms bLá. Other editors give different
versions: btà mvm flèv ovv 7:~V èmf3oÀ~v, ... (Büttner-Wobst), and btà
(mvm) mV7:'fJv flèv oVV r~v èmf3oÀ~v, ... (Paton). The correction of Kaelker
is the most plausible: Polybius is very fond of the word bto 68 and, secondly,
he does not seem to avoid - this is the least we can say! - pleonastic
expressions 69. If this is the correct version, it can also be placed among
those examples where the relat. clause is interrupted by another clause,
mentioned in 2.2.1.
From the preceding ex am pIes the reader should not gather that Polybius
always finds it necessary to reinforce bto by means of some pleonastic
phrase. There is a great mass of examples where bto is not reinforced.
Why, then, has bLo been reinforced in the 4 (or 5) cases which are mentioned
above 1 It is not possible to discover any difference between the cases
where it has been reinforced and where it is not.
I 20,7 S()sv óewvuç alû Mt fliiÀÀov elç é~áu(!a rà flé(!'fJ IJonàç Àaflf3ávovm
7:0V nÓÀsflov btà 7:àç n(!OSt(!'fJflévaç al7:{aç . .. The word S()sv used in
this way is identical with btó.
VIII 2,1 L1t' WV vnoÀaflf3ávw 7:0 noÀ).á~tç . . . el(!'fJflévov vVv b t' a V 7: W V
7: W v l (! y w V àÀ.'fJ()t~v À.aflf3ávstv n{anv.
II 12,4 WV avv7:eÀ.w()év7:wv Ó II Oa7:ÓflWç fl s 7: à 7: a V 7: a n(!saf3svràç l~anéautÀs
. . .
XXIX 6,5 è~ wv on flèv yéyové uç lmnÀo~~ . .. n(!ocpavèç è~ 7:WV
n(!ost(!'fJflévwv (see 2.2.1).
I 20,15 èv qJ &j ~at(!0 . . . mvrn na(!a&{y flau X(!WflSVOt 7: Ó 7:8 n(!oç rav7:'fJv
ènowVv7:o 7:~v . .. vavn'fJy{av (see 2.2.1).
67 Kaelker, pp. 273-4.
68 See A. Mauersberger, Polybi'!Ul.Lexikon (Berlin 1956 ff.), s.v. See also Palm,
p. 70.
69 See Kaelker , p. 272 : " . .. restat ut disputem de !'!UlO et nimis abundante dicendi
genere, quo utitur", and pp. 272-5.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 27
VI 10,3 xaOánee ... aVfupveïÇ elat ÀVflat, {U' djv, xav náaaç 'l'àç l~wOev
(jwqnJywat {3M{3aç, vn' av'l'wv q;OeteOV'l'at 'l'WV avyyevoflévwv, ... (see 2.2.1).
This last example is somewhat exceptional: the relat. clause is a senten ce
in parenthesis, whereas all the other instances are relat. connections 70.
2.2.3.2. More examples trom the period B.O.
Diod. I 97,2 lv fliv yàe ' Axavifwv nóÀet ntifov elvat ... elç OV ... {J(jwe
q;éeetV elç av'l'ov lx 'l'OV N etÀov (see 2.2.2). Diodorus is mentioned immediately
af ter Polybius in order to show how different the two historians
are in this respect: th is is the only example found in his work 71 .
CaU., Epigr. 42,3
... Axe1J'l'Oç xal ... Eewç fl' Ijváyxaaav, djv Ó fliv av'l'WV
elÀxev, 0 (j' ovx era 'l'ijv neoné-retav Niv.
P. Petr. II 13,19 (255 B.C.) 72 OV flijV ovifiv lflOl la'l'at fleïCov ij aov
neoa'l'a'l'fjaat 'l'OV lntÀotnov {3tov .... 0 lflOl fléyta'l'ov la'l'at xaÀwç aov
neoa'l'a'l'fjaat xal CWV'l'Óç aov xal elç ifeovç àneÀifóv'l'oç. The phrase xaÀwç
aov neoa'l'a'l'fjaat has a very obvious function: there is a double antecedent,
the one printed and .. . 'l'VXeiv ae náv'l'wv 'l'WV xaÀwv (sc. when you will
have died). The phrase x.a. neoa'l'a'l'fjaat etc. is repeated, so that there
will not be any misunderstanding about which of the two is meant:
not only the last one, but both of them: xal CWV'l'Óç aov xal elç ifeovç
ànûifóv'l'oç!
Anth. Pal. VII 72
Xa'iee, NeoxÀetè3äv M(jVfloV yévoç, djv Ó fliv VflwV
na'l'et(ja (jovÀoavvaç évaaif', Ó (j' àrpeoavvaç.
2.2.3.3. "Fachprosa" (I A .D.)
Pedo Dioscur. III 8,1 XaflatUwv Àevxóç, OV lvlOt l~tav xaÀovat ..., cp xal
àvû flaa-rtX1Jç avnp at yvva'ixeç xeWV'l'at.
Id. I 1,1 ij yàe ÀêVflà ij fl~ÀtVa ij noerpveii ij xvaviCov'l'a Óeii'l'at, öifev (jtà
'l'~V notxtÀiav ànetxáaif1J "Iet(jt 'l'f} oveavtq.. It looks as though the author
was af raid that the reader would not understand what öifev is referring to.
This is still another example of a redundant phrase, not of a pronomen
abundans.
Onas. Strat. 171-2 Ateeïaifw (ji ij'l'Ot avvé(jeovç, or fleifé~ovatv avnp náa1Jç
{3ovÀijç xal Xotvwv~aovat yvwfl1JÇ av-rov 0 t 'l'OV'l'OV elve xa àxoÀovif~ aovuç ...
This is actually not a genuine example of a redundant phrase within a
relat. clause: the phrase Ot 'l'. el. àxoÀovif-,]aov-reç is not a repetition of the
relat. pronoun ol or its antecedent. Onasander expressed himself rather
unfortunately and probably meant to say something like or fleifé~ovatv .. .
70 See, however, 1.4 (p. 13).
71 See 2.1.2.3.
72 Hunt-Edgar I 94.

28 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
xal ToVTOV elvexa àxo"'ov~O'OVO't'JI aVTqJ (TOVTOV elvexa refeITing to the two
functions of f-leTÉxetv and XOt'JIwveiv).
Asclep. Tact. I 3 TO f-lèvlyyv{}ev (f-laxóf-levov) ..., f-lax~oiç .•. Xf!Wf-lE'JIOV ...
Toiç Mf!aO't'JI, () xal 60f!aTorpÓf!OV TOVTO ••• nf!oO'aYOf!eVeTat 73.
We see that in this sort of texts the pronomen alJundans or any redundant
phrase is not very frequent. This, of course, may be caused by their rather
plain and unemotional style.
2.2.3.4. Pausanias
Pausan. II 4,6 lç 6ij TOV ' AXf!oxóf!t'JI'{}ov TOVTOV àvwvatv lO'Tt'JI "Iat60ç
uf-lév'YJ, div -riJv f-lèv IIeÄaylav, Tijv 6è AlyvnTlav aVTwv lnovof-lá!;ovO't'JI.
A similar example, where the relat. clause is split into two parts, is
CaU., Epigr. 42,3 in 2.2.3.2. In the example taken from Pausanias the
position of m3Twv (in the second part) seems more natural 74 .
2.2.3.5. Papyri
P. Ryl. 154,13 (66 A.D.) 75 • •• aeovf!at ÉnTà f'Jf-ltO'v Tha(!TOV, div yslToveç
T 0 V T W V VÓTOV nf!óuf!ov • H f!u>e"'el60v . . . x"'ijf!oç, fJof!f!ä . . . It is interesting
to compare this sentence with one occuITing a few lines later: 16-7
. .. yslTovsç 6è TOVTWV VÓTOV Baxxlovoç . . . x).ijf!oç, fJof!f!ä . . . In content
and form the two look v~ry much alike. The only difference is that the
fust is introduced by arelat. pronoun (foUowed by a pronomen abundans),
whereas the second is connected with the preceding sentence by means
of the connection 6è and the demonstr. pronoun TOVTWV.
P. Oxy. I 95,16 (129 A.D.) ... 60v).'YJç ..., fjv lXTOU na(!el"''YJrpsv ...
TavT'YJv TOtavT'YJv àvanóf!f!trpov .. . (see 2.2.1).
P. Amh. II 77,25 ff. (139 A.D.) 76 .•• onsf! rpaVSf!Ov TOVTO lyévsTO Toiç ...
È1I:tT'YJf!'YJTaiç ... (see 2.2.1).
B.G.U. I 330 (153 A.D.) ... onsf! aUTO TOVTO vnonuvw (see 2.2.1).
P. Oxy. I 117,12 ff. (II-III A.D.) lnsf-ltpa vf-leiv ... éáx'YJ Mo ..., È~
div 6wO'stç Toiç natMotç O'ov lv È~ aVTWV.
P. Bad. II 43,6 ff. (III A.D.) 77 lvsfJaMf-ls{}a elç TO n).oiov 'Uf!axoç TOV
nOAtTtUOv TOV cplAov aov , önov lltEVeç È,,{}áóe ä,,' (= ällw 1) tv Tij ol,,{q.
aVTOV, È"'alov fJá6ta TÉO'O'Sf!a. This time it is not arelat. pronoun, but a
relat. adverb which is clarified.
73 Oldfather changes 0 into b,' ö. Although he does deprive us of one of our
examples, it must be admitted that the text as offered by him is more plausibIe.
74 Cf. also Anth. Pal. VII 72 (see 2.2.3.2), which is similar to CaU., Epigr. 42,3,
at least as far as the position of the pronomen abundans is concerned.
75 HUDt-Edgar I 4. There is some chance that in this case (sentences like this
of ten occur in contracts) the presence of the pronomen abundans is due to influences
of the Coptic language. See note 413. For a treatment on these Coptisms see
G. Mussies, Egyptianisms in a Late Ptolemaic Document, P. L. Bat. XVII (1968; =
Antidoron Martino David), pp. 70 ff.
76 See note 62.
77 Quoted from Kapsomenakis, pp. 99- 100.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 29
2.2.3.6. Conclusion
From this survey we may conclude that Polybius, offering 11 out of
26 examples, has to be considered as an exceptional case and will need
special attention. There are four more instances which may be classified
as belonging to literary Greek: Diod. I 97,2, Call., Epigr. 42,3, Antk.
Pal. VII 72 (all in 2.2.3.2) and Pausan. II 4,6 (2.2.3.4). Thus 15 cases
originate from literary texts, among which 11 from the History of Polybius
only. It should be noted that the three last-mentioned cases are all of the
same structure 78.
In the professional texts not many cases appear: only four, and among
those there are two rather dubious ones.
In the papyri, finally, we have found 7 examples of the pronomen
abundans, 3 in private letters (including one dubious case: P. Petr. II
13,19 in 2.2.3.2), 2 in contracts and 2 in official declarations.
2.3. Function and Use of tke Pronomen Abundans in tke Koine
2.3.1. Similarities witk Ancient Greek
In 2.2.1 we have discussed some examples which impressed us as being
similar to ones occurring in Ancient Greek texts. We reached the conclusion
then that not only in Ancient Greek, but also in the Koine the
pronomen abundans is used for clearness' sake and in order to emphasize
a certain word.
There is still another similarity: all the relat. clauses in which appears
a pronomen abundans or another sort of pleonastic phrase are nonessential
and independent, just like in Ancient Greek. The similarity is even greater:
in the Koine the construction of relat. connection plays the same part.
Cases of genuine relat. connection are all the examples taken from
Polybius 79 and P. Petr. II 13,19 (2.2.3.2). All the other instances may,
although the relat. pronoun is not preceded by a period or semi-colon,
be viewed as cases of relat. connection: each one of them is so independent
that the relat. pronoun functions as a connection between two principal
sentences.
2.3.2. Differences witk Ancient Greek
In 2.2.2 we have seen some examples which, as far as we know, could
never have occurred in Ancient Greek texts: the relat. clause is not
extremely long, is not interrupted by another clause and nothing proves
the presence of emotional emphasis as in Ar., Av. 1237. What then is the
special meaning - and special it should be: there are only 26 instances! -
in these cases 1
78 See 2.2.3.4 and note 74.
79 Polyb. VI 10,3 is a parenthesis (Hit is by them, namely, that they are
destroyed"), which, as we have seen (1.4), rnay be viewed as arelat. connection.

30 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIDNCTUM
2.3.2.1. Polybius has on his account more than 40% of the instances
of the pronomen abundans found in the Koine. It is logical, therefore,
to see fust if we can discover kis special reasons for using it. One remark,
however, should precede: if one should have the impression that Polybius
used the pronomen abundans very frequently, he is only partly right.
Forty % is much, but if one takes into account the fact that Polybius has
astrong inclination to use relat. connection 80 and set phrases like !5tO
and ö#ev, it is rather surprising that not more examples are found.
As to Polybius the following observations can be made:
1. Polybius' sentence structure and style are generally characterized
by his ambition to be clear. One feels that he is always trying to mark
very strongly the relations between the sentences. This brings him to
using demonstr. pronouns at the beginning of the sentence. Kaelker
mentions some examples 81: V 10,3 . .. f-téx(!t -rov-rov noÄ.ef-twv "ai cptÄ.ovet"wv,
lwç -rov Ä.afJelv àcpo(!f-táç. IX 32,11 ... vnè(! av-rov -rov-rov neneu:1f-tÉvot !5eiv
TJf-täç notela#at -rovç Myovç, vnè(! -rov &t:~at &6n ... It is understandable
why the language of Polybius has always been compared with the language
used by officials, the official style ("Kanzleisprache") 82: these people,
too, are fond of clearness and exactness. Polybius' style, in short, makes
an impression of extravagance upon us 83.
2. In this way Polybius' fondness of the relat. connection can also
be explained 84: it is a very clear method of indicating that two sentences
belong together. And on the other hand, it marks, especially when a
pronomen abundans follows, the beginning of the clauses very strongly.
3. In almost all the examples the pronomen abundans follows a set
phrase, a prepositional clause 85. It is possible that these set phrases had
been and were used so of ten that they gradually grew weaker in meaning
and function and were reduced to mere connectives 86. This may be true,
but then it becomes rather problematic why this weakening should have
been feIt by Polybius and not by a man as Diodorus (or Agatharchidas,
for that matter 87)! And if Polybius had been aware of this, would he not
have used the pronomen abundans hundreds of times instead of a mere 11,
80 See 2.1.2.3.
81 KooIker, p . 274.
82 See Kaelker, pp. 298-9, Palm, pp. 175--6 and Lesky, p. 830: "Hinter dem
Stil des Polybius steht die Sprache der hellenistischen Kanzlei, wie sie sich in der
Zeit der Koine zu einem Instrument umständlichen und auf Genauigkeit bedachten
Aktenverkehr entwickelt hat".
83 See 2.2.3.1 and note 69.
84 See 2.1.2.3.
85 Robertson (pp. 721-2) makes the same observation with regard to the NT:
"Some of the abbreviated prepositional clauses come to be used at the beginning
of principal sentences like the free use of conjunctions and relatives". Cf. also Palm,
pp. 68-9.
86 See 2.1.2.2.
87 See Palm, pp. 68-70.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 31
he, the man who did not fear redundant phrases, but was af raid of indistinctness
?
It may be concluded that Polybius forms a special case: he made an
extreme use of the pronomen abundans, an idiom which in Ancient Greek
texts was used only in a few special cases and which occurred only seldom
in the writings of authors of his own period and of later times. He must
have written them down, stimulated by his fondness of marking clearly
and distinctly the connections between his long, interminabIe sentences 88.
2.3.2.2. The three other instanees trom literary texts look very much alike,
as we have already observed in 2.2.3.4. In CaU., Epigr. 42,3 as weIl as
in Anth. Pal. VII 72 (both in 2.2.3.2) and Pausan. II 4,6 (2.2.3.4) the
relat. clause is split into two parts by means of flèv and bi. There seem
to be no special reasons why a pronomen abundans should be used. In
the example from Pausanias its presence may be caused by the bipartition
of the relat. clause: in this way the two names are more conspicuous.
In the two other instances the pronomen abundans points to the antecedent
and strongly marks the connection between it and the relat. clause.
It must be admitted, however, that one almost gets the impression that
these are not cases of a connection of two principal sentences, but rather
of arelat. clause made independent, and thus more conspicuous, by
means of a pronomen abundans.
2.3.2.3. In "Fachprosa" only two genuine examples have been found:
Ped. Dioscur. III 8,1 and I 1,1 (both in 2.2.3.3). The second one is obviously
a case of fear of indistinctness : the phrase &à T~V 7WtUtAtav
recapitulates once again the antecedent and indicates the point of
comparison with great exactness. As to the first example, no special
reasons can be found. It is one of those examples where the difference
with Ancient Greek cases becomes obvious and where one becomes aware
of a possible weakening of the relat. pronoun.
2.3.2.4. In the papyri seven instances have been found. The one, discussed
in 2.2.3.2 (P. Petr. II 13,19) is a clear example of fear of indistinctness
and may be compared with Pedo Dioscur. I 1,1, mentioned above. In
P. Oxy. I 95,16 (see 2.2.1) we find an example where the presence of the
pronomen abundans gives great emphasis to the antecedent and its qualities.
With regard to two other examples, P. Amh. II 77,25 ff. and B.G.U. I 330,
discussed in 2.2.1, we arrived at the conclusion that the presence of the
pronomen abundans might be caused by some sort of emotional stress
upon what is denoted by the relat. pronoun. Tabachovitz holds a different
view. Speaking of the example in P. Amh. II 77,25 ff. and comparing
it with Ancient Greek cases, he says 89: "Eine Konstruktion wie one(!
88 Cf. Palm, p. 113, where he characterizes Polybius' sentences as "Mastodontbildungen"
, this in contradistinction with the sentences of Diodorus.
89 Tabachovitz, LXX und N.T., p. 105.

32 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
rpave(!O-JI -rOV-rO èyéve-ro lässt sich nicht als Anakolouth auffassen. Es handelt
sich vielmehr urn einen Vulgarismus, der damit zusammenhängt, dass
die alten Relative dem Schreiber nicht mehr ganz geläufig sind; er kennt
sie zwar aus der Kanzleisprache, hat aber kein rechtes Verständniss für
Sinn und Funktion derselben" . It is a fact, indeed, that in both papyri
the relat. pronoun öne(! is used, a pronoun which was in the course of
disappearing 90 and which, if it occurs, has a literary colour 91 and in
most cases is used with the sense of öç 92. In B.G.U. I 330 the determinating
function of önee has apparently not been understood: otherwise the
determ. pronoun av-rà would have been omitted. Tabachovitz goes even
further: with reference to the pronomen abundans in the Koine he
observes 93: " ••. Ie pronom relatif était en train de perdre sa pleine
valeur pour devenir de plus en plus une simple particule de liaison",
mentioning as evidence for this statement the same P. Amh. 11 77,25 ff.
The same has been suggested by us in 2.l.2.2 and 2.3.2.l. Although we
do not have enough evidence to prove this suggestion of Tabachovitz,
we have to keep it in mind, especially because the Koine-texts offer us
too many examples which cannot be explained in another way 94. His
supposition becomes even more plausible, if we remind ourselves of an
example discussed in 2.2.3.5: P. Ryl. 154,13. When the first sentence
d.iv yehoveç -rov-rwv ... is compared with the second one, yehoveç tJÈ
-rov-rwv, what eIsa is d.iv than a mere connective1
2.3.3. Pronomen abundans
In the chapter on Ancient Greek (l.6) we have decided that, as far
as the examples in Ancient Greek are concerned, the term "pronomen
abundans" is wrong. We did so, because in those cases this pronoun is
not at all redundant, but has a definite function.
In the Koine it is a different matter. We have tried to explain the
instances taken, for instance, from Polybius, but we could do that only
by pointing to the profuse character of his style. In such a case the term
pronomen abundans is appropriate, I think. If, however, we look at the
later examples, being aware of the possible weakening of the relat. pronoun,
we cannot say that the pers. or demonstr. pronoun is pleonastic. In such
oases a "pronomen abundans" has a definite function, viz. reinforcing
the relat. pronoun, which has been reduced to a mere connective. If it
is necessary to speak of a pronomen abundans, it is not the pers. or demonstr.
pronoun, but rather the relat. pronoun: it only serves as a means of
connecting two principal sentences.
90 The NT offers only a few instanees: Blass-Debrunner, §§ 64,3 and 293,4.
91 See Rydbeck, p. 115.
92 See Arnim, p. 105, Reinhardt, pp. 121 and 150, and Cadbury, p. 157.
93 Tabachovitz, Études, p. 14. See also Jannaris, § 1439.
94 Tabachovitz even makes his suggestion in reference to an example which,
according to our opinion, could be explained in another way!

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 33
2.4. Is the Pronomen Abundans a Semitism?
Although it is a well-known fact that the LXX and the NT are full
of examples of the pronomen abundans, no instance from these texts has
been discussed until now. This has been done on purpose 95: it has always
been a problem whether this idiom belonged to the Greek language or
should be viewed as proof of the great influence of Hebrew and Aramaic
upon the language used in the LXX and the NT.
2.4.l. Introduction 96
The LXX is a translation of Hebrew texts, and the roots of the NT
are embedded in Semitic soil. It is understandable, therefore, that scholars
started collecting Semitisms from these texts. Everything that deviated
from the rules of Classical Greek was interpreted as a Semitism. This
also happened to the pronomen abundans. Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic
have the disposal of arelat. pronoun: both languages make use of an
indeclinable word, which is called the nota relationis. In Hebrew this
word is 'as~r, in Aramaic d~. Needless to say that such a nota relationis,
which may express any relation, is of ten not clear enough. For this reason
the Semitic languages used to clarify this word by means of a pers. or
demonstr. pronoun. And thus it happened that many scholars, seeing
that the strange idiom of the pronomen abundans in the LXX and the
NT was almost similar to the Semitic use, called it a Semitism 97. When,
through investigations in the masses of papyri which were found in
Egypt, it was discovered that many idioms which until then had been
regarded as being Semitisms could be proved to belong to the Greek Koine,
the opposite happened. There were many scholars who completely denied
the existence of any Semitisms and explained, for instance, the pronomen
abundans as an idiom belonging to the spoken language 98. Others again
did not go that far, but pointed out that the occurrence of a resumptive
pronoun in both languages was a coincidence 99.
And even now it is still customary for scholars of the Semitic languages
to point out as many Semitisms as possible in the LXX and the NT,
whereas the scholars of Greek do their best to deny it. Usually the two
groups find each other in the compromise that the pronomen abundans
95 See 2.1.2 and 2.2.
96 For a more extensive introduction into the notion of Semitism see Thumb,
HeU., pp. 120 ff., Moulton, Proleg., pp. 94 ff., Costas, pp. 33 ff., Blass-Debrunner,
§ 4, Beyer, pp. 7 ff. and Black, p. 1 ff.
97 See Winer-Schmiedel, p. 200, Jannaris, § 1439, Wolf, p. 13, Swete, p. 307
and Burney, pp. 84-5.
98 See Compernass, p. 10, Helbing, p. IV, Radermacher, Wiener St. 31, pp. 4-5,
Radermacher, Gramm., p. 217, Ljungvik, Stud., pp. 27-8 and Linnér, p. 83.
99 See Thumb, HeU., p. 128, Moulton, Proleg., pp. 94-5, 237, Pernot, pp. 152-3,
155, 157, 161, Blass-Debrunner, § 297 and Turner, p. 325.

34 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
is a Greek idiom, but that its frequency in the LXX and the NT is a
consequence of Semitic influence 100.
2.4.2. Quantitative method
In his Introduction Beyer says 101: "Falls eine Konstruktion im Semitischen
und im Griechischen in gleicher Bedeutung üblich ist, wird ihre
jeweilige Häufigkeit untersucht, ob sie gewöhnlich oder nur selten gebraucht
wird. Wenn die qualitative Methode versagt, kann so immer noch
mit der quantitativen (Statistik) semitischer Einfluss nachgewiesen
werden". In the following I shall give a short survey of the results attained
by following this method in a former study on this subject 102.
2.4.2.1. LXX. Let us start with giving some examples:
Gen. 28,13 ij yij, ècp' ~ç av "a-&evCu:tç in' alrl'ijç, aol {Jwaw alrcijv "al 7:0V
ani(!/"w7:{ aov. If one reads the Hebrew text 103, one sees that the Greek
text constitutes an extremely exact, literal translation : not only the
pronomen abundans in' aV7:ijç is an imitation of the Hebrew, but also the
nominativus pendens ij yij!
Lev. 11,32 niiv a"evoç, ö iàv notrr{}fj leyov iv aiJnp, elç i5{Jwe {Jarp~ae7:at ...
The translation is just as literal as in the former example. If the relat.
pronoun ö really is the correct version (an emendation into o'Ó would
solve everything!), this fossilized neutral form ö is absolutely unique :
something like this has not been found in Greek another time 104.
It has not been necessary to count all the cases of the pronomen abundans
in the LXX, because, when I had finished counting the cases in Genesis,
a total of 23 had been reached. This is enough evidence to show that in
the LXX there is something else going on than in the rest of the Koine,
where a total of 26 was found.
Is it correct to call this phenomenon in the LXX a Semitism? That
depends upon our definition of the term "Semitism" . If we regard only
phenomena which have been adopted by Greek from Hebrew (i.e. have
100 See, e.g., Robertson, pp. 94, 683, 722-3, but especially Black, p. 100.
101 Beyer, pp. 9-10.
102 See Bakker, Ontwikkeling, pp. 171-2.
103 I wish to express my gratefulness to Drs. P. W . van der Horst for his assistance
in interpreting the Hebrew texts.
104 This is not altogether true. In a translation of the Pentateuch into colloquial
Greek and written in Hebrew characters, executed in 1547 and edited by Hesseling
(see bibliography) we find something similar: the Hebrew nota relationis is rendered
by an indeclinabIe oç almost all the time! A few examples: Gen. 3,11 tin' TO t5ÉvTeo,
oç ÉnaeáyyetÀá ae và "'-YJ rpéj.ç àn' beeivo (LXX: ov .. . àn' athoii), Gen. 21,23
T-YJV 1jyij oç É'K.aTobeYjaeç elç aVT-YJv (LXX: fJ . •• Év aVTfl), Gen. 40,3 Ó T6noç oç ó Ioaerp
rpvÀa'K.w",Évoç É'K.ei (LXX: ov ... È'K.ei). The translator also used the modern (indeclinabIe!)
relative ónov, but mostly, and especially in cases where in the Hebrew
text the nota relationis is followed by a resumpt. pronoun, he made use of lJç, the old
relat. pronoun, which was out of use then since a long time, without dec1ining it. The
use of 0 in Lev. 11,32 is much more strange, for at the time when the LXX was
written the relat. pronoun oç 1) 0 was still in use!

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 35
become common property in the Greek language) as being Semitisms,
then even Lev. 11,32 would not contain a Semitism! We need a definition
which is a little more subtie and at the same time should consider the
following. A Semite, even when he is writing Greek, continues thinking
as a Semite and is always inclined to use Semitic phrases and constructions.
This inclination will be even stronger, when he is translating, especially
when he is translating the Holy Scripture. We have seen that in the
Greek Koine the pronomen abundans is not an unusual phenomenon:
it does occur now and then. What we find in the LXX is not unknown
to the Greek language, but, if one looks at it from the viewpoint of statistics,
the phenomenon breaks through its limits, or rather it stretches them
extremely far l05. We may, therefore, as far as the LXX is concerned,
concur with the view of Blass-Debrunner, who sayl06: "In vielen Fällen
hat eine im Griechischen nicht unerhöhrte, aber doch ungewöhnliche
Erscheinung, weil sie zum semitischen Gebrauch stimmte, volle Lebenskraft
erhalten ... ".
2.4.2.2. NT. The situation in the NT differs from the one in the LXX:
there are not so many instances of the pronomen abundans and many of
them are similar to examples which are found in the rest of the Koine.
Ep. Gal. 2,10 flÓVOV nov nTwxwv rva flv'YJflOVBVW!lfiV, 8 xal èanov(jaaa aVTo
Toiho notijaat. This use of the pronomen abundans is almost similar to
the one we have observed in B.G.U. I 330 (see 2.2.1).
Eighteen examples have been found in the NT against 26 in the rest
of the Koine. Eight of them occur in the Gospels: four in Mark, two
in Luke and one in both Matthew and J ohn. St. Paul presents one example,
which we have seen above. The highest amount is found in the Apocalypse:
nine! It is not a surprise that the majority of the cases occurs in the
Gospel of Mark and in the Apocalypse: these two texts have undergone
the greatest influence from Aramaic and Hebrew.
As far as the NT is concerned, we cannot go further than say that
Aramaic supports a tendency which already existed in the Greek language.
With great eagerness the Semitic authors - forgetting for a while that
Luke sooms to have been a Greek! - embraced an idiom that was in their
blood. As to the number of instances one may, considering the fact that
they were Semites, admire their self-restraint!
2.4.3. Qualitative method
If the qualitative method cannot be used, the quantitative method is
still there, but obviously one does not get very far with it. The results
which were attained in the foregoing pages are plausible, but not very
satisfying. We should try, therefore, to make use ofthe qualitative method,
105 Cf. Moulton, Proleg., p. 95. That such a phenomenon cannot be called a
Semitism is also observed by Trenkner, p. 59.
106 Blass-Debrunner, § 4,3.

36 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
basing ourselves on the qualifications known to us of the pronomen abundans
in Greek and the resumptive pronoun in the Semitic languages.
2.4.3.1. The function of the pronomen abundans in Greek is altogether
different from that of the Semitic resumptive pronoun. It has been observed
by Tabachovitz 107: "Man sollte jedenfalls nicht aus dem Gesicht verlieren,
dass die griechische Ausdrucksweise aus anderen Bedingungen
entsprungen ist und auch hinsichtlich der Form, da hier beide Pronomina
flektiert werden, sich nicht völlig mit der hebräischen deckt" . The difference
in form is clear, but Tabachovitz does not explain what he means, when
he speaks of "the other conditions". We know, however, that, notwithstanding
all the differences between the examples occurring in (Ancient
and Koine) Greek, they all have one characteristic in common: all the
relat. clauses in which occurs a pronomen abundans are nonessential
(nonrestrictive). The restriction can be made even more closely: they
may be viewed as cases of relat. connection 108. This means that in Greek
the relat. pronoun in a clause where a pronomen abundans OCCUl'S may
be viewed as forming the connection between two principal sentences.
2.4.3.2. The function of the resumptive pronoun in the Semitic languages
is, as has already been said, altogether different. In 2.4.1 we have seen
that the Semitic nota relationis is of ten followed by a pers. or demonstr.
pronoun in order to clarify its obscure sense. It is obvious that such a
pronoun is not redundant, but necessary.
2.4.3.3. The method which will be followed in the next paragraphs is
very simpie: when arelat. clause in which occurs a pronomen abundans
is essential (restrictive), it does not follow the rules of the Greek language
and must be considered as non-Greek, and therefore as a Semitism.
When such a clause is nonessential, the chance is great that the pronomen
abundans can be defended as something that is innate to Greek, but it
mayalso be considered as a consequence of Semitic influence.
2.4.4. LXX
2.4.4.1. Essential clauses
Gen. 38,30 è~ijM}ev ó àèJeÄIPoç airrov, ÈIP' 0/ 1}v bd "Cti xeLet av"Cov "Co
x6xxt'Vov 109. At fust sight the relat. clause seerns to be one not of definition,
but of description. If, however, the preceding passage is read weIl, it
appears that the relat. clause actually is essential.
Gen. 48,15'0 {}eóç, 0/ eVrjeéa"C1JCfav ol nadeeç t-t0V Èváv"Ctov av"Cov Af3eaat-t
107 Tabachovitz, LXX und N.T., p. 105 .Cf. also Wellhausen, p. 22 and Debrunner,
Grundfragen, p. 96.
108 See 1.3, 1.4 and 2.3.1.
109 Cf. Hesseling, Pent.: ... Ó à6eecp6ç TOV öç inl Tà xieL TOV Tà nv{!Vo"o""áTO.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 37
~al I aaa~ 110. The strange wordorder is a consequence of the translation :
it is so literal that even the word order of the Hebrew original has not
been changed.
Lev. 15,26 ~al :rtiiaav ~otT'YJv, üp' ijv av xotp:YJ{}fi h,' aii'rnç ... m. Here
the nota relationis 'as~r is translated by èq;' ifv. It can also be rendered
in a more vague manner, by the adverb ov:
Regn. III 13,15 ... ~al è)..á),'Yjaav èv Tfi nó),ct, ov Ó n(!oqJ'I}T'YjÇ Ó n(!eafJvT'Yjç
xaT(!>~et èv a'ÎJ'rfj 112. The adverb ov is also combined with another adverb,
è~ei:
Gen. 20,13 ... elç návTa Tónov, ov èàv elai).{}wf-lev èxel . . . 113. Sometimes
a prepositional phrase takes the pI ace of ov:
Gen. 35,15 Tà övof-la TOV Tónov, èv i[> è)'áA'Yjaev f-leT' aVTov è~e'i ó {}eóç 114.
2.4.4.2. N onessential clauses
Gen. 10,13-4 xal Mea(!atf-l èyévv'Yjaev TOVÇ Aovbllf-l •.. xal TOVÇ XaaAwvllf-l,
ö{}ev è$n),{}ev èxe'{{}ev rfJvAtaTllf-l, ~al TOVÇ Kacp{)O(!llf-l. The translation is as
Iiteral as in the above-mentioned cases, but there is one difference: this
time the relat. clause is nonessential and may be viewed as a parenthesis l15 .
A Greek could have written this (although no one has ever written such
asentence!), because this pronomen abundans occurs in arelat. clause
which has the right qualifications. This is not a genuine case of Semi tic
influence. Yet, I believe, it ows its existence to the Hebrew original:
a Hebrew and a Greek phenomenon find each other 116.
Is. 1,21 llwç èyéveTo nó(!v'Yj nÓAtç ntaTi} Etwv, nUJ(!'Yjç ~(!{aswç, èv ij btxawaVv'Yj
èxotf-l~fJ'Yj èv aVTfj, vVv bi cpovevm{. Moulton-Howard 117 mention this
pI ace as an example where "the construction is used in the Greek with
no corresponding use in the Hebrew". In this case the Hebrew original
actually does not have a resumptive pronoun. It may not be by accident
llO Cf. Hesseling, Pent.: ó fJeoç öç ÈnE(lnáTT};av ol yovot P.OV op.n(loaTá TOV •••
111 Cf. Lev. 15,4 and 24.
112 Cf. Regn. III 13,31 ... {}áljJaTÉ P.E È'v Tep TátpqJ TOtTrqJ, ov ó èiv{}(lwnoç TOV
{}EOV Ti{}anTat Èv aVTep. Cf. also Apoc. 17,9 discussed in 2.4.5.6, and Tob. 13,5
(ov Èàv al(O(lntafHjTE Èv aVToiç), Bar. 2,26 (ov ÈnEI().f){}T} TO ovop.á aov Èn' aVTep).
ll3 Cf. Gen. 31,13; 33,19; 40,3; Bar. 2,4 (ov &ÉanEt(lEV aVTovç I(V(lWç ÈI(Ei);
13,29 and 3,8.
114 Gen. 39,20 seems to be another example: ÈvÉ{3a).EV aVTov tlç TO oxv(lwp.a, Elç
TOV Tónov, Èv

38 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
that the relat. clause is nonessential and can be viewed even as arelat.
connection. The relat. clause is actually a principal sentence: the strong
emphasis upon the contradistinction between what Sion was before and
is now causes the relat. clause to be absolute.
2.4.4.3. Apocrypha
Thackeray 118 finds the pronomen abundans in all parts of the LXX,
where it "undoubtedly owes its frequency to the Hebrew original. But
the fact that it is found in an original Greek work such as 2 Mac .... and
a paraphrase such as 1 Esdras . . . is sufficient to warrant its presence
in the Kotv~".
It is interesting to see whether these examples have the
qualifications of the Greek Koine. Thackeray mentions the following
examples from Esdras I:
3,5 xat ov av q;avfj ro éfjfla a1rrov aoq;áJTeeov rov ÉtÉeov, bwaet avr0
Llaeeioç ...
4,54 l!yeatpev bi xat r~v ... [eeaTlx~v aroA~v, Èv rtVl Aareevovaw Èv avrfj.
The use of rtç instead of the relat. pronoun occurs more of ten in Koinetexts
119.
4,63 ... xat olxoboflfjaal 'leeoVaaA.-YJfl xat ro [ee6v, OV WVOfláafhJ ro ovofla
avrov Èn' avr0 ...
6,32 blà mvm xat ó xvewç, ov ro ovofla avrov È'nlXéxA'YJml Èxei, àq;avtaat
návm {3aatÄÉa ...
In all these examples the relat. clause limits the meaning of the antecedent
and is essential. Unconsciously Thackeray weakened his statement
of the presence of the pronomen abundans in the Greek Koine (which
in itself is perfectly right) by choosing the wrong examples. They all are
genuine cases of Semitic infiuence.
Thackeray mentions still another example: Mac. II 12,27. In the
edition of Rahlfs the pronomen abundans is omitted, but if we follow
the Ms A, the text runs as follows: ... Èneareárevaev xat Ènt Eq;ewv n6ALV
oxveáv, Èv fJ ( xauf>xel) náwpvAa Èv avrfj nA~fh;, veavtal bi éWflaÄÉol neo
u.óv relxéwv xafharwreç evewarwç ànefláxovro ... This time the relat.
clause is nonessential and even the presence of arelat. connection may
be considered. It runs then like this: "... next he marched upon Efron.
It was a strong city, for there were many nations in it and strong-bodied
young men formed the defence . . .".
2.4.4.4. Conclusion
Among the examples of the pronomen abundans in the LXX there are
some which follow the Greek rules. They are Greek in character and
spirit 120. In cases where the Hebrew original has a resumpt. pronoun, the
118 Thackeray, p. 46. See also Mouiton-Howard, p. 435.
119 See Blass-Debrunner, § 298,4 and the literature mentioned there.
120 I must admit that I am not too gure of the Greek spirit of Gen. 10,13-4.
See 2.4.4.2.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 39
presence of the pronomen abundans may still be considered as being
caused by Hebrew influence, but it remains within the limits set by the
Greek language, although from a statistical viewpoint they may be
stretched a little 121. In a case as Is. 1,21, where we can prove that the
Hebrew original did not exert any influence, we may say that the use of
the pronomen abundans is genuinely Greek. But here, too, we must not
forget that this sentence was translated by a Semi te, who with great
eagerness embraced this idiom with which he was so familiar 122.
All the other instances which are offered by the LXX are genuine
cases of this Semitism: none of them remains within the limits set by
Greek use; they do not even stretch them, but burst right through them 123.
I do not know how many of such cases occur in the LXX, but of the
23 examples in Genesis only one occurs in a nonessential clause 124!
2.4.5. NT
2.4.5.1. Mark
1,7 [eXfTal ó laxveóreeóç f..lov ontaw, ov ov'X êlftL l"avdç xtnpaç À'Üaat rov
tf-lávra nvv vno(J'YJf-lá-rwv aih:ov. The same senten ce occurs in Lk 3,16 and
Jn 1,27 only with a few minor alterations 125. The relat. clause is nonessential,
for it does not limit the word it modifies. It may be viewed even as
arelat. connection, which would have a causalor perhaps just a copulative
sense. It is difficult to say what exactly is the function of the pronomen
abundans, but this difficulty is also encountered in other Koine-texts 126.
It may have been used only to emphasize the importance of the content
of the clause.
7,25 àU' ev{)vç àxovaaaa yvv~ ne(!t aVTov, f;ç elXev Tà {)vyáT(!LOV aVTfjç
nvevf-la àxá{)a(!TOV, è).{)ovaa n(!oaÉneaev . .. This relat. clause is undoubtedly
essential.
9 3
\ \., ,-" '~(J ~ \ ~,~
, xat Ta tf-laTW aVTov eyeveTo aTtJ\ oVTa J\evxa J\WV, ow yvmpevç
\'
ent
\
TfjÇ yfjç ov (Jvvarat oihwç Aevxävat. It is difficult to decide as to whether
the relat. clause must be viewed as essen ti al or nonessential. The phrase
aTÎA(JovTa Aevxà Uav and the relat. clause may be considered as a unity,
but it cannot be denied that Mark may have used the pronomen (or
rather adverbium) abundans to emphasize the absolute whiteness of the
clothes. In that case the relat. clause detaches itself from the principal
121 Cf. 2.4.2.l.
122 Cf. 2.4.2.2.
123 Cf. 2.4.2.l.
124 The examples in Genesis, ex cept the ones mentioned in 2.4.4.1 and 2.4.4.2,
are the following: 1,11; 1,12; 2,19; 3,11; 3,17; 19,29; 21,23; 24,3; 24,37; 24,40;
24,42; 28,13 and 41,19.
125 See 2.4.5.3 and 2.4.5.4. The same sentence is found in Mt 3,12, but without
the pronomen abundans: Ó oÈ on{aw pov È(!XÓpêVO r; taxv(!Óu(!Ór; pov Èar{v, ov oll" elpl
["avor; Tà vnO/ltjpam {Jaará.aat. A similar case is Acta 13,25 àU' lóov ë(!XETat pET'
Èpè OV OU" elpl a';wç TO vnóoTJpa TWV noowv .Hiaat.
126 See, e.g., 2.3.2.4.

40 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
sentence and becomes more absolute. Yet a clause like this makes the
impression of being rather Semitic than Greek. Cf. also the next example.
13,19 laov-rat yàe al fJfléeat b,ûvat f})..''ljJtç, ola ov yéyovev -rotav-r1J

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 41
8,12 D oE ~è naeà Tijv ó~6v elatv oE à"ovaavn:ç, wv lexeTat ó ~tá{3o),oç "ai
aieet à:n:d TijÇ "aeMaç aVTwv Tdv )'6yov. The relat. clause must be viewed
as essential, oE à"ovaavn:ç being defined by what follows. The opposite
can also be defended : wv intro duces arelat. connection. In the ed. NestIe
the participle oE à"ovaavn:ç is also followed by a principal sentence:
elTa lexe'Wt ... If it is arelat. connection, it is a correct Greek sentence.
Only the combination of wv and lexe'Wt remains strange: would a Greek
ever say it this way 1
12,43 D fla"áetoç ó ~ov),oç è"ûvoç, OV è).{)wv ó "vetoç aVTov eve~aet aVTdv
notoVv'W OVTCOÇ. There is no doubt that the relat. clause is essential. This
is not correct Greek.
2.4.5.4. J ohn
1,27 ó on{aw /lov èeX6/levoç, 015 ov" el/li èyw á~toç lva ),vaw aVTov Tdv
E/láv'W TOV VnO~/laToç. See Mk 1,7, discussed in 2.4.5.1.
Burney 132 mentions two more cases, but these are examples of another
idiom, which also occurs in Ancient Greek 133, viz. of the transition of a
relat. into a demonstr. clause:
1,33 bp' OV dv Mfjç Td nvev/la "a'W{3aivov "ai /lévov èn' aVT6v,
Ó {3a:n:TÎCwv . ..
13,26 èuûv6ç èaTtv cJJ èyw {3á"Pw Td "Pw/l{ov "ai ~waw avup.
2.4.5.5. Paul
... I ,
OVTOÇ eaTtv
Ep. Gal. 2,10 /l6vov TWV nTwxwv lva /lv'YJ/lovevw/lev, 0 "ai èanov~aaa aVTd
TOVTO notijaat. This is a case of relat. connection and perfect Greek. It
may be compared with B.G.U. I 330 (2.2.1) and Hdt. IV 44,1 (1.1) 134.
Ep. Philem. 12 ... 'Ov~at/lov, Tdv ... evxe'YJaTov, OV àvéne/l"Pá aot, aVT6v,
TOVT' laTtv Tà è/là an)'áxva. Everybody will agree, I think, with Moulton­
Howard, who say 135: "Philem. 12 is not an instance, since aVTdv is
emphatic, with the following clause in apposition".
2.4.5.6. Apocalypse
3,8 Mov M~wua èvwm6v aov -&Veav ~vecpY/lév'YJv, fJv ov&iç ~vvaTat u),ûaat
aVT~v. Considered the whole context, this must be an essential relat.
clause.
7,2 uai luea~ev q;wvfj /leyáÀn Toiç Tiaaaeatv àyyéÀotç olç èM{}'YJ aVTo iç
à~tuijaat TijV yijv . .. : an essential clause.
7,9 uai l~ov 0X),oç no),vç, OV àed)/lijaat aVTdv ov~eiç è~vvaTo ...
The relat. clause forms an elaboration of no),vç and assists in defining
the antecedent. It is essential.
12,6 uai fJ yvvij lq;vyev elç TijV le'YJ/lov, onov lXet è u ei T6nov fJTOt/laa/lÉvov
132 Burney, p. 85. Cf. also Moulton-Howard, p. 435.
133 See Kühner-Gerth 1I, pp. 432-3, Winer-SchmiedeI, pp. 201-2 and Blass­
Debrunner, § 297.
134 Cf. Blass-Debrunner, § 297 and 2.4.2.2.
135 Moulton-Howard, p. 435.

42 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
à.nà 'Wv {}WV: an essential clause. For OV ... è"û cf. Gen. 20,13 (2.4.4.1)
and note ll3.
12,14 ... lva né-rrrrat elç riJv le'YJflOV elç .àv .ónov aviijç, onov .eüpeiat
è" ei "ateàv "ai "ateOVç ... This time onov may be viewed as introducing
arelat. connection, which has a copulative sense. For ov ... è"û see 12,6.
13,8 "ai neoO""vv~O"ovO"w av.àv návuç Ol "aiOt"OVvuç èni .ijç yijç, ov ov
yéyeaniat .à ovofla av.ov èv np fJtfJJ.üp .ijç Cwijç: an essential clause.
13 12 " , ' .0.' I - T '.0. '.CL,,' 1 I
, ... wa ne0O""vv'YJO"ovO"tV .0 'lf'YJelOV .0 new.ov, ov e'lfeeanevv'l 'YJ n/l'YJJ!'YJ
.ov {}avá.ov av.ov. The relat. clause defines the antecedent : cf. 13,3
"ai ij nJ.'YJY~ .ov {}avá.ov av.ov è{}eeanev{}r;. The clause is essential.
17,9 ai ln.à "ecpaJ.ai ln.à oe'YJ elO"{v, onov ij yvvi] "á{}'YJiat è n' a v. w v ...
The position of this relat. clause is very strange. As I understand it,
the antecedent is ai èn.à xecpaJ.ai defined by the relat. clause: cf. 17,3
'l~ ~ .CL,,' ".0." " 1 '
"
"at e uOv yvvat"a "av'lflEY'YJV ent 'lf'YJelOV "o,,"wov ... exov.a "ecpa/laç en.a ...
This understood, the clause is essential. For the combination of onov and
a prepositional clause cf. Regn. III 13,25 (2.4.4.1 and note ll2) and
Gest. Pil. A 15,4 (2.5.2).
20,8 ... O"vvayayeïv av.ovç elç .àv nóJ.eflov, wv ó àet{}flàç av.wv wç ij
uflflOÇ .ijç {}aJ.áO"O"'YJç.
number will be ...".
The relat. clause is nonessential: " ... and their
2.4.5.7. Conclusion
Among the 18 examples occurring in the NT (according to the ed.
NestIe) there are eight which follow the Greek rule, viz. Mk 1,7 = Lk 3,16 =
Jn 1,27, Mt 3,ll-2 = Lk 3,17, Ep. Gal. 2,10, Apoc. 12,14 and 20,8. If
the identical cases are counted as 2, the total is 5. For a text of the size
of the NT this is a number which would fairly correspond to the cases
of the pronomen ribundans in another Koine-text. Yet we must not forget
that these texts were written by people who were Semites or had undergone
the influence of the Semitic languages.
There are two dubious cases, which I am inclined to consider as
occasioned by Semi tic influence more than as ex am pIes of the genuine
Greek use: Mk 9,3 and 13,19 136 .
And finally there are those cases where a Greek would never have
used a pronomen abundans, but where it does appear in the NT. Their
total also amounts to eight: Mk 7,25, Apoc. 3,8, 7,2 ,7,9, 12,6, 13,8, 13,12
and 17,9 137 . It has been said before 138: it is not surprising that the Gospel
of Mark and the Apocalypse offer the highest number. And here we see
again that the only genuine cases of this Semitism occur in Mark (one,
but the doubtful cases may be added) and in the Apocalypse (seven) 139.
136 The examples Lk 8,12D and 12,43D may be included.
137 The examples Mt 10,llD and 18,20D may be included.
138 See 2.4.2.2.
139 Cf. Robertson, who says (p. 722): "Outside of the Apocalypse, which so
strongly bears the inftuence of the LXX, the usage is infrequent".

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
43
2.5. Apocrypha of the First Centuries A.D.
2.5.1. Nonessential clauses
Mart. Andr. alt. 64,10 'lrwovv XeU]'fÓV, qJ nebtet (JOL ná(Ja !5ó;a . ..
It is clear that this is a nonessential clause: the antecedent is definite.
The relat. clause is an exclamation in the form of a parenthesis.
Clem., Ep. ad Cor. I 21,9 ' Eeevv'Yj-c~ç yáe è(J-ctv èVVOlWV xai èvfJvfl1Î(JewV'
ov ij nvo~ av-cov èv ijfl"iv è(J-ctv, xai lhav 1JiA.n, àveÀe"i av-cijv 140: This is a case
of relat. connection. As far as I can see, there are no special reasons why
the pronomen abundans should be used.
Gest. Pil. A 9.1 [xw .. . BaeeafJáv, xai -cov-cov ... -cov ']'Yj(Jovv, elç OV
ov!5efltav al-ctav evet(Jxw èv aVHp. As the antecedent is a name, the relat.
clause is nonessential. The presence of the pronomen abundans may be
explained by the emphasis upon the innocence of Jesus as contrasted
with the wickedness of Barrabas.
2.5.2. Essential clauses
Mart. Matth. 217,2 F -co 0eoç önov ijfl'Yjv èxe"i: cf. Gen. 20,13 (2 .4.4.1),
note 113 and Apoc. 12,6 and 14 (2.4.5.6) .
Act. Thom. 29,13 ij new-c'Yj nÓA.lç èv ti el(J~A.1Joflev èv av-cfj.
Ex Act. Andr. 44,21 e'L&-ce !5t' èflOV [eya yeyovó-ca olç ovx Ëxe-ce àm(J-cij(Jal
av-co"iç, "Ihr habt dur eh mich Werken geschehen sehen, denen ihr den
Glauben nicht versagen könnt, geschehene Zeichen von der Art, dass wohl
selbst die stumme Natur darüber schreien würde" 141.
Gest. Pil. A 15,4 Kai !5tà -cov-co fWgJaA.t(Jáfle1Já (Je èv oixq> önov fJveiç ovx
~v èv av.ép, xai xA.eI!5aç xai (JgJeay"i!5aç bte~xaflev elç .àç 1Jvear; ... For
önov followed by a prepositional phrase see Apoc. 17,9 (2.4.5.6).
2.5.3. Conclusion
From the preceding examples it may be concluded that in the apocryphal
books the situation is similar to that in the NT: there are cases
of the pronomen abundans which may be considered as correct Greek,
but one mayalso find examples where Semitic influence is apparent.
It must be decided by others whether this phenomenon is caused by the
fa ct that the authors were Semites who had learned Greek or that they
made use of Semi tic sourees, be they written or oral.
2.6. Pronomen Abundans and Colloquial Speech
"Ebenso kann das Relativpronomen durch ein Personalpronomen
wieder aufgenommen werden. Auch dies ist als ein echt volkstümlicher
Zug der Sprache zu betrachten, der durch keinerlei fremden Einfluss
140 One more case of the pronomen abundans in Clemens occurs in 27,7 xal ovx
ûalv ÀÓyot ovt5i ÀaÀLai, WV ovXi àxovovraL al q:>wval avrwv. This, however, is a
quotation from the LXX ; Ps. 18,2- 4. It is an essential clause.
141 Hennecke-Schneemelcher , p. 290.

44 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
entstanden zu sein brauoht". This observation was made by Ljungvik 142
at the time when the struggle about the question whether the pronomen
abundans was a Semitism or not, was at its oulminating-point. A modern
soholar like Ljungvik denied this, but in denying it he immediately plaoed
the idiom under a different head: he called it a vulgarism. A younger
member of the Swedish sohool, whioh has done so muoh to enlarge our
knowledge of Post-Classioal Greek, however, has asked 143: "Kann ein
grammatisohes Phänomen in sioh "volkstümlioh" sein, kann also das
"Volkstümliohe" ihm als solohem anhaften 1"
In this ohapter we are not going to answer the question whether the
pronomen abundans had a oolloquial touch. I do not think that this is
very important right now. It is important, however, to ask whether this
idiom did occur in oolloquial speeoh or not.
2.6.1. Olassic period
It cannot be proved that the pronomen abundans was in use in oolloquial
speech during this period. lts ooourrenoe in the texts is not frequent
enough. On the other hand, the instances oocur in the kind of texts whioh
may have undergone some influenoe from the spoken language 144. It is
true that the instanoes are very few, but it would not be oorreot to think
that Greek was spoken in absolute aooordanoe with the "rules of grammar" .
We should not negleot the faot that this grammar has been based on
the language whioh is used in the texts. It is quite possible that this
"Nachlässigkeit" 145 ooourred more of ten in the spoken language and that
it penetrated into the texts just a few times, viz. only when the author
oaloulated for a oertain effeot. Thus the pronomen abundans may be
"one of those nioeties of literary Greek" 146 and at the same time an
idiom whioh was oommon in colloquial speeoh. And there is another proof
of the faot that it was not just a literary nioety. The pronomen abundans
is fairly frequent in the LXX and the NT. When we tried to explain the
frequenoy of its ooourrenoe, we said that the Semite translators and
authors eagerly embraoed this idiom 147. If this idiom was a literary nicety
whioh had appeared in the literary texts only ten times (or 50 times,
if neoessary, oounting all the texts lost to us), these Semites would have
never known of it! We have a distorted picture of the Greek language
of that period, but they had not: they had learned their Greek by hearing
and reading it. If these people actually had the idea that they were writing
Greek, when they wrote down a pronomen abundans, then they must
have got this idea from the spoken language.
142 Ljungvik, Stud., p . 27.
143 Rydbeck, p. 186.
144 Cf. 1.7.
145 Cf. 1.1.
146 Cf. 1.7.
147 See 2.4.2.2 and especially 2.4.4.4.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 45
2.6.2. Period ot the Koine
There is no factual evidence of the occurrence of the pronomen abundans
in the spoken language of the classical period. There are only suppositions.
The same suppositions apply to the period of the Koine: the idiom is
found in the texts, and the authors of the NT and the Apocrypha, if
influenced by the spoken language, were influenced by the speech of
their contemporaries. But is there any evidence? We have seen that
Ljungvik considered the phenomenon as a trait of colloquial speech 148,
and there were many others who thought the same 149.
Instanees of the pronomen abundans occur in literary texts (especially
Polybius is fond of using it), in "Fachprosa" -texts, in papyri and in the
LXX and the NT. One may be inclined to consider the fact that it is
used in papyri and in the LXX and NT as evidence of its occurrence
in the spoken language. In 2.1.2.5 it was observed that this is a very
weak piece of evidence, as everything which has been left to us has been
written, and will, therefore, be quite different from colloquial speech 150.
And there is something else: if we decide that the pronomen abundans
was used in common speech only on account of its occurrenee in papyri
and in the LXX and NT, then we would have to admit at the same time
that Polybius was strongly influenced by the spoken language and even
wrote his History in a Greek which was very close to colloquial speech:
it is in his work that we find the majority of the instanees!
It is wiser, I think, first to admit that this idiom occurs at all the levels
of the Greek Koine and then to ask, not at which level, but in what kind
of circumstances it is mostly used. Let us recapitulate in short what has
been discovered on this point 151. The pronomen abundans is used:
1. In order to mark strongly and distinctly the connection with the
preceding sentence. See 2.3.2.1, points 1 and 2.
2. Because of astrong inclination towards clearness. See 2.3.2.3 and
2.3.2.4.
3. Because of the reduction of the relat. pronoun to a mere connective
- supposed that this is a fact! - people were inclined to use still another
anaphoric word. See 2.3.2.1, point 3, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.2.4 and 2.3.3.
Considering the three preceding points, we must admit that there se ems
to be nothing against supposing that the pronomen abundans was used
in colloquial speech. The spoken language excels in using redundant
phrases. Emotion, emphasis and the inclination to say things as clearly
148 See 2.6.
149 See note 98.
150 See the quotation from Rydbeck in 2.1.2.5 (pp. 22-3) and the following
(Rydbeck, p . 196): "Ein normales Papyrusdokument ist etwas Geschriebenes, das
von einer Person mit normaler sprachlicher Schulbildung - also von jemand, der
gelernt hat Griechisch zu schrei ben - verfasst ist ...".
151 See 2.3 etc.

46 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
as possible are common traits of colloquial speech. And as to the possible
reduction of the relat. pronoun to a mere connective, it may be right
to suppose that this reduction has begun and has found its quickest
development in the spoken language. It is there that the really important
changes take place, not in the written language! There is one important
question left: if there are so many correlations between the use of the
pronomen alJundans and the construction of relat. connection, was this
oonstruction so popular in colloquial speech 1 We shall have to postpone
answering this question until the third part of this study 152.
152 See III 5.5.

PART II
EARLY MODERN GREEK
1. INTRODUCTION
The sudden transit ion from the Koine to Modern Greek may be surprising,
but is necessary, as it is impossible to study the eventual development
from the pronomen abundans to the Modern Greek pronomen
coniunctum without having any knowledge of the way in which the relat.
clause is formed in the modern language. It will not be, however, the
situation in the present-day language which will be studied. The investigations
will be confined to the texts ofthe 12th and following centuries.
1.1. The texts
The reason why we do not make use of earl ier texts is very simpIe:
it is not until the 12th century that the popular language formally appears
in literature. One gets, of course, glimpses of it in earlier texts - and we
shall see some of them in the third part of this study -, but one has to
wait until the 12th century before texts are found which have shaken
off the chains of the conventional Koine and Atticism. It is not until
this time th at the spoken language, which had been developing silently
and latently during many centuries, is able to break down the wall of
opposition erected against it. It should not be expected that the spoken
language appears in its pure form. The language used in the texts is
written language, and especially at this time this means that it is still
full of learned elements. The relat. pronoun 8ç ij ö, for instance, does still
occur, although we can be sure that it was obsolete in colloquial speech
sin ce a long time. The first texts written in a language which resem bles
in a higher or lesser degree (depending on the education and the scope
ofthe author) the spoken language are poetical. It is not until the 14th-15th
century that one finds prose-texts as, for instance, the Assizes and the
Chronicle of Machairas, which give a fairly good picture of the spoken
language of their period 153. It will be clear that this is a disadvantage
for one who is occupied with a study on the syntax of the relat. clause.
Relat. clauses do not appear in poetry as of ten as in prose, and, what is
even more important, the relat. clauses which do appear in poetry are
less complicated in structure. This is why the pronomen coniunctum is
not found so of ten in the earlier texts, whereas the texts of the 14th
and following centuries are teeming with ex am pIes of it.
153 Both works have been written in the local dialect of Cyprus. The island
was such an outlying district that it was free from the influence of the literary
language of Constantinople.

48 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
1.2. The main purpose
The main purpose of this part will be to study the phenomenon of the
pronomen coniunctum in early Modern Greek. It is the resumpt. pronoun,
sometimes demonstrative, mostly personal, which is used to clarify the
meaning of the connective 8nov or ónov, which has taken the place of
the old relat. pronouns 8ç f} 8 and 8crclÇ ijnç 8n 1M • We shall therefore
begin with a discussion on the use of 8nov and shall oontinue by speaking
about two other relat. pronouns used in early Modern Greek, viz. -ro"
-r~" -ro and the more recent ó notoç 155.
2. "Onov
"Onov (or ónov) 156 is an indeclinable word, a connective, which reminds
one very much of the Semitic nota relationis l57 • It may denote the subject
of the relat. clause, but also the object (direct and indirect), the possessor
and even prepositional phrases. It is understandable that a "relat. pronoun"
like this causes indistinctness. And thus, in order to avoid this obscurity,
the pronomen coniunctum is used. It will be the subject of this chapter
to find out how and when this resumpt. pronoun is used. We shall do
this by reviewing all the cases which are denoted by it, beginning with
the nominative.
2.1. Nominative
This case is never clarified by the resumpt. pronoun. It is used with and
without antecedent. I shall restrict myself to giving some instances from
the earlier texts.
2.1.1. Without antecedent
Prodrom. III 187
Ai, -raovxxa ónov -rà lf3áa-raa8v!
Alex. Comn. 382-3
8nov OVfL6v8-ral no'uà Xl oey{C8-rat fL8yáJ..a,
fL6voç -rov y{V8t' UOlXOÇ .••
Kall. 1542-3
yij xal ovbÈv blxáC8aal xal fL6vov xa-rantvuç
ónoV fLäç lxov6f11JC18'V dl" aVfLf/Joeàv ÈTov-r1]v;
2.1.2. With antecedent
Mich. Glyk. 208-9
IIoÎo.Îo.à -rov [xw eVxale1]~V
8X8lVOV -rov yovÉav
ónov blM~n yeáfLfLa-ra nod -rov -ro naLMv -rov.
-----
164 Or better 8ç i/nç ö. See I 2.1.2.2.
155 The use and function of the relat. pronoun 8ç ij ö, which especially in the
earlier texts is UBed quite of ten , will be discussed in the third part of this study.
168 For its origin as arelat. pronoun, see 111 3 etc.
151 See, however, 111 1.3.

Alex. Comn. 162
lXêtÇ xai 7:~V
Dig. Akr. A 1517
PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 49
avvd,ll]atv, ónov ai ()O,' èUy~êt.
äUa~ov bi xai 7:àç a7:0.Mç, ónov '{3mpav &no 7:0 alfta . ..
2.2. Genitive I Dative
It is clear that, when ónov denotes cases like these, sorne kind of clarification
is needed. First we shall discuss sorne exarnples where a pronomen
coniunctum has been added.
2.2.1. With pronomen coniunctum
2.2.1.1. Posse8sive genitive
Velth. 81O-11
ftovaV7:a 7:01' èyvWetaêV Ö7:' lvt aV7:oç èXê tVOç
ónov &nijeê 7:0 {3êeyiv &no 7:àç xûeaç 7:0V7:ov . ..
Livistr. S 881-2
ntnáxtv ónov èbVvav7:o Ol Myot 7:0V 7:0Vç elXêv
và è~êeetCWaovv &n' èfti 7:iJv öÀTjv ftov xaebtav.
Ass. 41,5-6 ... xai và 7:à bwaT/ èxdvov, I} èxdvTjç ónov n7:0V 7:0 an{nv
èbtxóv 7: 0 v ... 158.
Mach. 642,4-5 ... ftTjbiv ()êÀ~aT/ và ftnfjç êlç 7:0 xetftav 7:0Vç Àuç aov,
önov ftéUêt và XêVW()fj 7:0 alftav 7:0Vç êlç 7:0 vTjaa{v aov 159.
Alex. rom. 67,26-7 ... xai èxû ()ÜêtÇ êVeêt ävbeêç ... epvÀaxwftévovç,
ónov elvat 7:0 epat 7:0Vç xai ~ Cw~ 7:0Vç &no vnwea . ..
Id. 73,28 ... 7:01' ()êOV ónov elftat xwfta 7:0V.
Pikat. 234-5
Xaeà Àotnov a7:ov äv()ewnov ónov aro anht 7: 0 V 'aal'
~éva, nrwxà xai àftáÀw7:a xai &no 7:01' {3tÓV rov èCovaav.
Erot. r 148-9
nwç và natvéaw a~ftêeO xûva nov 160 a aepovx(!ovftat,
nov 'v' ~ àex~ V7:Wç {3Àa{3ê~ Xt' ~ ftéa'fJ xoftnwftév'fJ 161.
2.2.1.2. Oomparative genitive
Livistr. N 2233 bdov .. . 1 ónov olx èepáv'fJ êlç 7:~V
7:OV.
yijv norè xaÀÀtW'l'êeÓç
158 Cf. 43,4 and 323,10.
159 An interesting case is Mach. 456,18-21 àp.p.è ÖXL và p.nfi "avÉVaç ànè TOVÇ
ämGTovç revovfJtaovç TOVÇ naeáfJovAovÇ, önov naea"aAovp.ev TOV {}eov và 'dfi TTJV
Tanetvwatv p.aç "al và a'YJ"waTi TTJV aovneentav TOVÇ. The connection önov, referring to
TOVÇ revovfJtaovç, is clarified by TOVÇ. The first part, ho wever, of the relat. clause
asks for another interpretation of önov, and thus its meaning must be more general :
"in regard to whom" or something like it.
160 Owing to its proclitic nature ónoV dropped its initial 0 and was reduced to
nov. See Jannaris, § 608b and Hesseling, IIov, pp. 218-9.
161 Cf. A 32, 74, 1303, B 452, r 319, 741-2, 1745-6.

50 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
Alex. rom. 62,19-20 ... rovç (iVflnaealovç rovç Ma"eMvaç, ónov elaat
"al èav OflOtoÇ avrovwv.
2.2.1.3. Indirect object
Ass. 157,13-4 à"óW/ èàv yév1'Jtat ovrwç, on è"ûvoç ónov rov èbó()1'Jv iJ
xáetç èreÄ.evirwev . .. 162.
Mach. 560,18-20 'Ag!' 81' áefláar1'Jv iJ "veà iJ 'EfP1'Jflla flè rol' ale TÇovàv
Eenà" ènoi"ev äUovç bvo vLovç . .. , onov và rovç bwan ó ()eoç !;w~v 163.
Id. 254,5-7 ... xal àvlawç bèv ro nw wç yotOV neénet, iJ àfPevná aov onov
aov èxáetaev ó ()eoç rol' vovv "a()aeov ()é).etç à"eo()ûv .r/v vnó()eatv ..•
It should be noted that onov does not refer only to the third person, as
in all the previously mentioned examples, but also to the second (and
the fust) 164.
Sachl. II 694
,,' iJ Ttá"ovfla rov T!;over!;ovvä ónov "aÀov rov ()é).ovv ...
Erot. B 1473-4
"H~U'lpev Xt' ó Llea"óxaeboç, nov rov 'bw"ev iJ fPVa1'J
rç à()ewnovç oÀovç và fltaä "t' ovb' [va v' àyan~an 165.
2.2.2. Without pronomen coniunctum
In the so-called "vulgar" texts of the period af ter the lIth century
I have found only the following instances of ónov denoting some kind of
genitive or dative and not resumed by a personal (or demonstr.) pronoun.
Ass. 111,11-2 ... xwel,ç flè .r/v e'tb1'JC1tv è"etvov ónov in ó roixoç ...
One may observe that it is quite obvious why ónov has not been resumed
here by means of rov or èbt"óv rov: the author must have thought that
the sense of ónov could be easily understood, because it is immediately
preceded by a genitive and because the relat. clause is not long and
complicated enough to admit another interpretation. The same can be
said of 36,19, 324,12 and 326,15. We have seen, however, in 2.2.1.1 that
this author did not always think this way: in Ass. 41,5-6 he says ... "al
, '.I: I " .l\" • -,J; , I '.I: I
va ra uwan e"etvov, It b
'I e"etv1'Jç onov ,(COl' ro ant1:tv eut"OV rov. may e
concluded that, if ónov was preceded by aposs. genitive, the author
did not find it necessary to use the pronomen coniunctum. He did use it,
however, if ónov was preceded by another case of è"ûvoç. There are two
cases which are exceptional, viz. 290,1-2 and 325,22, where ónov is not
resumed, although the antecedent (both times in the form of è"elvov) is
an indirect object.
The following case is quite different. The antecedent is not some form
of è"ûvoç and the relat. clause is not so simple as in the above-mentioned
instances.
162 Cf. 155,8-9, 275,5 and 288,29.
163 Cf. 354,28 and 490,2.
164 Cf. 326,31-3.
165 Cf. A 152, 2199, B 285, r 1039 and E 824.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 51
Ass. 321,9-12 . .. TO b{xawv óe{Cét {Ju Ó àrpévT'YJÇ, oiJ iJ xveà ónov ó ateyéVT'YJç,
oiJ iJ TCavneeÄáva ènoixev TOVTOV TO xaeánTwflav, èvdxeTaL và náen TO Nuxóv
TOV . .. The sense of the relat. clause would be clearer, if the author had
placed the pers. pronoun TOV af ter iJ TCavneeÀáva166. A plausible reason
for this "negligence" may be found in the preceding sentence: 'Eàv
y{veTaL ou elç (iv()ewnoç èxeáT'YJaev evav aeeyéVT'YJV, oiJ fl{av TCavneeÄávav, xai ó
ateyéVT'YJç, ov iJ TCavneeláva vnáyét ànai TO an{uv (ivev eïb'YJa'YJç TOV àrpévT'YJ
TOV, oiJ TijÇ xveäç TOV, xai na{eveL xavéva neäYflav TOV àrpévT'YJ, oiJ Tijç xveäç
rov, xai ó àrpévr'YJç, oiJ iJ xveá rov eve{axét èxetvov ro lxaaev ènávw xavevov
àv()ewnov, oiJ ènávw xaflfl{aç yVVaLXÓÇ, TO b{xawv xrÄ. At the moment that
the author arrived at the relat. clause he had made it so clear that the
servant and the servant-girl were in the service of either a man or a
woman, that for on ce he omitted the resumpt. pronoun.
Flor. 927-8
và TOVÇ novl~aw è~a{eerov xoeáawv, WeaLwflévov,
ónov xaflLà ovx èrpáv'YJxev eVflOerpodea elç xóaflov.
"Onov represents a compar. genitive, as we have seen in Livistr. N 2233
(in 2.2.1.2) or nae' ónov 167. 'Onov has kept its broad sense even until
to-day: in Modern Greek it is still used in a sense corresponding to a
prepositional phrase. Triandafyllidis gives some examples in his
grammar 168: TO aTarpVlL nov (= àno ro ónolo) xávovv TO xeaa{, and aVToç
elvaL ó Äóyoç nov (= yLà rov ónolo) neorlfl'YJaa và flelvw 169.
Alex. rom. 29,23-4 xai ovXi waàv èfléva rov (iv()ewnov, àfl~ onov ()éleL ó
()eoç và bwan bwe'YJfla, avroç èx rijç (ivw neovo{aç rpwrlCeTaL. The connective
önov represents an indir. object, and so the author could have written
và rov bwa'YJ. He probably did not do it, because he thought that the
preceding indir. object èfléva etc. made everything clear enough.
2.2.3. Conclusion
It may be concluded that, when ónov represented a genitive or dative,
it was followed by a pronomen coniunctum. There are a few exceptions,
but compared with the cases where the pronomen coniunctum does occur,
they do not carry much weight.
166 The observation that af ter a double antecedent (6 àrpivTrJÇ ot) 1) '

52 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEM CONIUNCTUM
2.3. Prepositional Pkrase8
An example taken from the Florios and discussed in 2.2.2 has given
occasion to a remark on cases where ónov represents a prepositional
phrase. We observed that ónov is still used in this way even now l70 ,
but we shall see in the following examples that in such cases the occurrence
of the pr07Wmen coniundum in the form of a prepositional phrase is quite
frequent.
2.3.1. Witk pr07Wmen coniunctum
Ass. 40,26-7 ... và ótaÀ,aA~an elç i1]V xweav

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 53
necessary: ÓJlOV combined with the preposition makes quite clear what
the authors have in mind. A resumpt. pronoun would be superfluous.
2.3.3. Conclusion
If ÓJlOV is not accompanied by a preposition, but is standing all alone
as a genuine connective should be, it is always followed by a pronomen
coniunctum in the form of a pers. (or demonstr.) pronoun combined with
a preposition.
2.4. Accusative
From the examples which have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs
it appears that ÓJlOV was nearIy aiways followed by a pronomen
coniunctum. There are a few exceptions : when ÓJlOV represents a nominative,
it does not need a resumpt. pronoun. No instances of such a use have
been found. We met some other exceptions in the paragraph on the
genitive and dative. They just give proof of the fact that iron ruies do not
exist in a language: there is always the chance that some person will
say or write something that sounds or looks unusual. Later we shall
observe some other examples to show th is 177. In this case we may rightly
say that the exception proves the rule, the rule being that ÓJlOV (or ÖJlOV
or Jlov) is always followed by a pronomen coniunctum except in the
nominative.
This rule does not apply, however, to cases where ÓJlOV represents an
accusative. One may find examples where it is followed by a resumpt.
pronoun and others where it is not. I shall give two instances:
Dig. Akr. A 755
Tà yeeá~ta > JlÓ fJ),meç elalv äeJlayeç dvbeeç . ..
Chrono Mor. 7272-5 P
> Qç rri5eav ön ij),(jaatv nore Ot Kam)'ávot,
ÖJlOV rovç wvop,áCaat MeyáÄ'YJ Evvreorptav,
è~e iae elç rov • A),p,veóv ...
The only difference between the two relat. clauses is that the first is
essential and the second is not: the subject of the first is not just "the
falcons", but "the falcons which you saw". The subject in the second
example is a group of well-known people, called the Catalans. Although
we know who are meant, the author finds it necessary to give us another
piece of information: peopie call them "the Great Company". This is a
nonessential, nonrestrictive communication.
In the next paragraphs it will become clear that in nonessential clauses
ÓJlOV is followed by a pronomen coniunctum and that in essential clauses
it is not.
177 See 2.4.3.1.4 and 2.4.3.2.

54 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.4.1. W ith pronomen coniunctum
Mich. Glyk. 202
1pVx~ flov, ónov a i f3À.énovatv "av "Pt xa ön àvanvéetç . ..
The vocative 1pVx~ flOV is a definite idea and is not restricted by the
relat. clause.
Ass. 317,18-20 ... "al ó ÈV"vTijÇ Mem TOV TO àfláXtv TOV X(!8(1)(peÀ.éT'YJ,
Tovr:ÉaTLV TOV ol"óv TOV ónov T 0 v lif3aÀe'JJ elç TijV Èv"vflaata ... The idea "his
house" does not need the relat. clause in order to be defined.
Chron. Mor. 1357-8 P
'0 "ÓVTOÇ Ó naeMevoç È"ûvoç TijÇ Taaflnávtaç -
önov T 0 v elna elç TijV à(!xijv hOVTOV TOV f3tf3Uov ... 178.
In this example the relat. clause is so obviously nonessential that it
is placed between dashes.
Id. 4365-7 HP
· .. elXe li),()et hór:e ó Miyaç KV(!'YJç
Èx TO (!'YJyéir:o Tijç (/)(!ay"taç - önov TOV elXev ar:etÀet,
· ..............., ó n(!ty"lJla FVÀtáfloÇ - 179.
Mach. 664,21-3 Nà aéiç etnw "al àno TOVÇ Àéiç &nov Èa"oTwaav elç TOV
xáflnov, Ot noiyot 'Î}TOV ,,', ónov ó ()eoç và TOVÇ àvanavaT/ 180. The difference
between the two relat. clauses beginning with &n01) and ónov (both of
them representing accusatives) is very illustrating.
Sachl. II 486 ij , AyyeUva Èniawaev ónov TijV ÈÇ'YJTovaav 181.
Alex. rom. 68,9-10 "Hq;e(!áv TOV "al TO ana()l TOV FoÀtà() Tov"EÀÀ'YJvoç,
ónov TO h(!ónwaev ó LJaf3lt5 . .. 182.
Man. Sklav. 85-6
Èvveà 1pVXaiç Èn)'á"waev, flávva, T(!ÛÇ ()vyar:É(!atç
ónov Ta iç È"avá"eve VV"Tatç "al Taiç ijfli(!atç.
IUv(). ()av. 354 ff.
· .. q;evyet Tijv àÓt"tav, / ... / ... /
no(!vetav "al äAJ..eç áfla(!niç, nov óiv Ti ç OVOfláÇw 183.
evata 1069-70
· .............................. elç Tij I:á(!(!a,
nov TijV fJq;ávta' ó "a'YJfloç "al TOV natÓwv ij T(!Oflá(!a 184.
178 The version of Ms H ö:n:ov aE ema must be incorrect: in such arelat. clause
the pronomen coniunctum is necessary. See also note 193.
179 See also 775H, 1542HP, 1724HP, 1760HP, 1973P, 2069HP, 2503HP, 3220HP,
4362HP, 5417P, 5747HP, 7273P (discussed in 2.4) and 8931H.
180 See also 82,15 ff., 254,19-21, 380,29- 30, 402,3-4,520,15-7, 532,1-2,548,35-7
and 572,35-574,1.
181 Cf. 530 1j Nt'KoUrra 'nÈa(J)a/3V ónov rTjv È'KOII-'TJIhJV • • •
182 See also 51,12-3, 58,25-6, 63,10-1, 68,12-4 and 72,4-6.
183 See also 153-5.
184 See also 461- 2.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.4.2. Without pronomen coniunctum
Ll1'l7Y. K(!aaonar. 100-1
Tov Povrpov elXa lar(!ov ~ai
È~dvovç onov yivv'Yjaev 0 yi(!wv C/>lÀoflovar'Yjç.
KalI. 1988-9
rov K(!aaontvá~lv,
ro ar(!wflav ro f3aalÀl~ov ~ai ro Àafln(!ov rp(!evr'árov
on' lar(!waev ~fle(!lVWç flerà Xa(!trwv oÀwv.
Dig. Akr. A 83 K' elç rà naÀárta rà Àafln(!á, onov bmaev È~eïvoç . ..
Id. 1248 Kai riJv Xa(!àv riJv linel(!OV, onov 'xaalv Ot MÀOl . ..
Livistr. E 806 ~ai Èyw fli rovç àyov(!ovÇ flOV rovç lxarov onov elXa ...
It is clear that rovç àyov(!ovÇ flOV is something definite, and thus the
relat. clause would be nonessential. The sense of this clause, however,
is nothing more than "my": it constitutes merely a repetition of the
poss. gen. flOV.
Ass. 27,4-5 ... oVlJè Ötà ro rá~lflov onov và rov ra~roVv ...
Id. 151,6-7 ... và rov ar(!bpn È~etv'Yjv riJv btarlfl'YjGlV ónov lÀaf3ev È~ avróv
rov . ..
Chrono Mor. 379 H fleyáÀwç eVxa(!tar'Yjaev riJv n(!a~lV onov Ènolfjaav.
In all these examples the antecedent needs some restrietion in order to
be definite (except maybe in Livistr. E 806, but here the relat. clause
itself does not add anything to the meaning of the sentence). The relat.
clauses are all essential.
2.4.3. Seeming exceptions
There are two sorts of exceptions imaginable: I. cases where a pronomen
coniunctum occurs in an essential clause, 2. cases where the relat. clause
is nonessential, but where the pronomen coniunctum does not appear
for some reason or other.
2.4.3.1. Essential clause8 with a pronomen coniunctum
2.4.3.1.1. Some instanees where onov denotes the first or second person
have been discussed previously. They are all instanees of a pronomen
coniuru:tum in a nonessential clause 185. There are examples where this is
not the case: onov, referting to an antecedent in the first or second person,
is followed by a resumpt. pronoun (of the fust of second person, of course),
although the relat. clause is essential, or rather seems to be so. A third
person, a "he", needs to be defined, but the speaker ("me") and the
hearer ("you") are definite. Arelat. clause, therefore, which refers to an
antecedent of the fust or second person may always be regarded as being
nonessential, even though it is essential in appearance. Some examples:
55
185 Some more examples: tPvÀÀ. ra(j. 63-4 ... Zwov TaÀab'tw(!ov û",at Èyw TOV
'XÓIJ",OV, / {Jnov ",è TaÀamW(!T}lJev àrpÉVTT}Ç Ó &'Xóç ",ov. Alex. rom. 78,3-4 'Eyw û",a,
L1á(!etoç Ó f3alJ'Àevç, ónov ",è Èn(!olJ'XvvovlJav noÀUç X'À,á(jeç àv{)(!wnwv.

56 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
Mach. 212,10-1 ... (JetXVetç nwç ÛCTat lvaç àfl'év'r1Jç önov CT' lvn1ÄwCTev
1] 'rVxr;.
Sklentz. a 22 xai(!e, ónov ol äyyeÄot CT'riJV Alyvn'rov CTF- CTuïÄa 186.
2.4.3.1.2. In comparis0n8 it is not only the genitive which is used in
order to express the resumpt. pronoun. The accusative also occurs. In
each of the following examples the relat. clause is nonessential, but
especially this sort of clauses are easily conceived as essential. For that
reason it is better to discuss them here.
Kall. 1148-9
äy(!vnvovç ~Äa"aç (Jewovç, ónov no-rè 'rotoihov
nO(!'rá(!1Jv elç 'riJv nÓ(!'rav 'rov "aveLç ov(JF-V lOé"ev.
The relat. clause does not give any further particulars about who
these watchmen are. It just elaborates on something we already know:
that they are exceptionally good.
Livistr. E 2378 ff.
I~ fJ ' I
• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . na(!Ella a 'r1]v "O(!1JV,
'riJv "Ó(!1JV önov, fl'tÄe p,ov, p,à 'r~v CTUVOXW(!ta p,ov,
à"óp,1J oV(JF-V lnó-ra;ev 1] yeveá p,aç öÄ1J
"a).ÄtÓU(!1JV, lp,o(!fl'1}u(!1Jv "Ó(!1JV wCTàv avutv1Jv 187.
It appears from the context who the girl is the poet is talking about.
The relat. clause merely modifies the antecedent, but does not define it.
Achill. 2-3 L
· . . . . . . . . . . . . lyévv1JCTeV nat(Jlv ........ .
ónov oV(JF-V 'rà yéVV1JCTEV no-rè äÄÄ1J yvvaï"a elç "ÓCTp,OV.
"She gave birth to a child. No other woman had ever bom such a
child". The relat. clause does not define the antecedent1 88 •
Alex. rom. 58,15-6 ... l,,(!á'r1JCTE 'riJv 7:tp,1}v 'r1Jç, ónov äÄÄ1Jv yvvaï"a d'rota
(JovÄeta ov(JF-V lnot1JCTE. Cf. Kall. 1148-9, discussed above.
2.4.3.1.3. There are some exceptional cases which are difficult to explain.
Ohron. Mor. 7296-7
• 0 nóÄEp,oç lytVE'rOV 1]p,é(!av yà(! (Jevd(!av,
CT'ràç (Je"anévu 'roV p,1Jvàç önov 'r à v Äéyovv p,á(!'r1Jv.
The relat. clause is clearly essential, for the antecedent is not definite.
They form a complete unity. Yet there is a pronomen coniunctum. lts
presence causes the relat. clause to be more independent (we shall see
some clear instances of this phenomenon in the next paragraph!), but
186 See a1so 2.3.1.
187 Cf. Flor. 927-8 in 2.2.2.
188 If, by the way, the pronomen coniunctum were 1eft out, the sentence would
have a very odd meaning : "She gave birth to a child which had not been born
yet by another woman (!)".

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 57
such an independence cannot be reconciled with the complete unity of
the antecedent and the relat. clause.
1 mber. 604-5
bu; ï ö;rcov è"da{)'YJ'uov .0 a.ywv flovaa.rietv·
è"ûvo ónov .0 g"naev ÓJeaîa ij Maeyaewva.
This is a similar case. There is reason to suppose that the presence of
the pronomen coniunctum has been caused by the wish of the author to
put great emphasis on the fact that this is actually the cloister which
was built by Margarona. I rather assume, however, that the text is not
correct: the first half of vs. 605 has been heavily corrected by the editor 189.
Alex. rom. 67,4-7 'EflûÇ [va {)eov mauvoflev "', ónov ènoî'YJae .ov
oveavov . .. "al ö).ovç óefi. "al av.ov oqJ{)a).floç oVCJèv ûCJev, oVCJè wdov .ov
if"ovaev . . . The word I!va should be emphasized, I think, so that the antecedent
is definite. But even if the relat. clause must be viewed as essential,
the pronomen coniunctum is necessary: the relat. clause consists of two
parts, of which the second needs arelat. pronoun in another case. This
sentence is an instance of arelat. clause passing into a demonstr.
sentence 190.
Id. 68,14-5 Kal ifqJeeáv .ov a"ov.áet GtCJeeü"ov àno I:1.vt"OV, ónov 1:1.).).ov
atCJeeov oVCJèv .0 ènieva ... This relat. clause seems to be essential, but
it merely modifies the antecedent; it does not define it. We discussed a
similar example in 2.4.3.1.2 (Achill. 2-3 L).
2.4.3.1.4. Erotocrito8. Some exceptional cases gave us occasion to
observe that iron rules do not exist in a language, and that a person
may play with these rules in his own subjective way 191 . Great authors
are apt to use their language in a freer and more subjective way than other
people who are endowed with less fantasy. When some time ago I occupied
myself with a study on the use of the pronomen coniunctum in the
Erotocrito8 of Cornaros, I discovered that his usage does follow certain
rules, but that, on the other hand, he plays with the patterns his language
offers him: if arelat. clause actually is not independent, he may make
it independent, and conversely.
We shall discuss some examples of essential clauses which were made
nonessential by Cornaros for some reason or other by adding a pronomen
coniunctum.
LI 923-4
vá 'nateva .ijv nae'YJyoetà "etv'YJ nov nateVet ij fláva,
aà Cwv-ravi"P'YJ .0 natCJl ónov ve"eo .0 f3yáva . ..
The relat. clause gives the impression of being essential. Cornaros,
however, wishing to show the sharp contrast between the fa cts that the
189 My proposal is to read 605 as follows: i"ûvo önov l"nGev wea{a 1] Maeyaewva.
Now there is as much hiatus in 605 as in 604.
190 See note 175.
191 See 2.4.

58 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
child was dead and that it returns to life, emphasizes this change by
adding the pronomen coniunctum.
r 1022-3
... ' AeeTovaa, "áTeXe nwç "'eO' Ó VOl"O"Ve'fJç
è"ûvoç ónov eéyoflal và aov T 0 v "áflW Tatel.
It is obvious that the antecedent Ó VOl"O"Ve'fJç è"ûvoç needs an (essential)
relat. clause in order to be determined. Yet the poet confers a certain
independence on this relat. clause by adding TÓV. The reason why he
does so is, I believe, that he wants to show that these words are pronounced
by the king with great emphasis. In this way he makes him underline
the contradistinction between his own plans and the following story
about the simpleton Pezostratis, who dared to speak of a marriage of
Aretousa and his son Erotocritos.
A 1443 fl' àç Ta' à"OAOVOä "al OéA.el &ï neáfla nov éJèv T' aAnt!;el . ..
Aretousa is so amazed and so happyabout what she found in the room
of Erotocritos that she cannot help emphasizing the content of the relat.
clause.
More examples of this kind are A 894, 1234-6, B 201-2 and r 1_2 192 .
2.4.3.2. Nonessential clauses without a pronomen coniunctum
2.4.3.2.l. 14th-15th centuries
Chrono Mor. 299 HP
( èaTeácp'fJ"e) aTov Tónov TOV vrè MovcpaeàvT ónov nOAAà èneOvfla.
Id. 4371 HP
ó àcpévT'fJÇ Tijç KaeVTalvaç 8nov noUà èneOvfla.
Id. 4516 P
Tà "áaTe'fJ "al rèç xweeç TOV önov noUà èneOvfla.
Id. 4836 PH
aTov M'fJ!;'fJOeäv ànéawaev 8nov noUà èneOvfla.
It is perfectly clear that in all these instances the antecedent is definite,
and thus the relat. clause need not be essential. Another thing which is
clear is that this (nonessential) relat. clause is a fill-up: it is used four
times and all these times it is not very meaningful. We have met another
example of such a fill-up in Livistr. E 806, discussed in 2.4.2 193 •
Mach. 172,9-11 ... [pyaAe àno riJv cpvAa"ijv TOV ale T!;á"o Te IIoAovta
TOV vOTáewv, ónovxev nbpew ó e~yaç CJlà flaVTaTocpóeOV elç TOV aovATávov "al
ècpvA-á"laév TOV wç ál&.
Machairas could easily have written ónov TOV elXev nbpew "d., but
192 Bakker, Some Remarka, pp. 317, 318 and 319.
193 The Chronicle offers us two more instances: 1357-8H '0 1eóvroç Ó :naeá~evoç
È1eeivoç Tfiç Taap.:návlaç - / ö:nov aè û:na elç T1jV àexiJv ËToVrov TOV f3l(3)..{ov. The Ms P
gives a more correct version: ö:nov TOV ... : see 2.4.1. 5416-7H ... Ólà v' à.Uax-r11 Ó
àrpÉvTTJÇ ó à&,lrpóç p.ov, / ó Ka{aaeTJç Tfiç Pwp.av{aç, ö:nov 1e(!aToiiv a-rYjv I1ó,lw . .. And
again the Ms P has the better version : :nov T 0 V 1e(!aToiiv .. .

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 59
he probably believed that one pronomen coniunctum in the second part
of the relat. clause was sufficient.
Id. 476,32 fr .... ~a;' ~o:ruáCs'l"B 'fli(!av ~a;' vv~rav ... /û ·dv-ra a~onà và
ná(!s'l"B -rà ~àa-r(!ov ~a;' -rà beAotnàv (!'fJyá-rov, onov và fliv aaç; Muvan ó (Jsóç;!
Id. 562,22 fr .... ~a;' àvtawç; ~a;' (Jûrwn và ná(!n -rà (!'fJyá-rov, exst -rà o-rOtfla,
onov ó (Jsàç; và fliv -ràv Muvan!
Such clauses which contain a wish are evidently nonessential and in
other cases are provided with a pronomen coniunctum. See, for instance,
380,30 onov và aov -ràv Xa(!V'JIn Ó (Jsóç; ... and 572,35-574,1 onov và -ràv
flav'l"BvtáCn Ó (Jsóç;! Only in clauses where Machairas uses the verb à~uf)'JIw
he does not clarify onov. In 562,22 fr. this may have been caused by the
wish to avoid the sequence ... -ràv -rà ...
Alex. rom. 51,10-1 "EfJyaÀav ~a;' -rà fliya ànavwepó(!t TOf} EoÀOflwv-roÇ;,
ónov elxsv ná(!ét ó fJaatAsvç; N afJovxoCJovóao(! è~ -r~'JI 'I s(!OVaaÀ~fl. In the
sequel the pronomen coniunctum has actually been placed: 12-3 ... ~a;'
CJwCJs~a arayóvta nOÀv-rtfl'fJra ÀdJa(!ónovÀa, ónov Tà elXS'JI fJáÀét ó EOÀwflWV
elç; -r~v áy{a'JI Etwv ... The pronomen coniunctum -rà may have dropped
out, especially because in similar cases the author always uses the resumpt.
pronoun: see 68,9-10 about Tà ana{}l Tof} rOÀtáfJ, 68,12-4 about Tà loCOVTá(!t
TOf} Eafltpof} and 72,4-6 about -rà àna'JIwepó(!t -rof} , E~s(!Uvov.
2.4.3.2.2. Erotocrito8. It has been maintained in 2.4.3.1.4 that man,
expressing himself by means of language, may play with it. In some
examples of (seemingly) essential clauses which nevertheless contain a
pronomen coniunctum we saw that a great poet as Cornaros of ten does so.
In this paragraph we shall discuss some examples of nonessential clauses
where Cornaros did not use a resumpt. pronoun.
L1 1265-6
'0 (!~yaç; fJávét Àoytaflà và nátpovv Ot noÀiflot,
-rà a'lflaTa loCt' ot aloCoTwflo{, nov oÀoç; ó ~óafloç; -r(!iflSt.
The relat. clause, which constitutes a close union with the antecedent.
gives the impression of being al most a fill-up: its only function is giving
a rather self-evident quality of the antecedent 194.
E 554-6
................. Tà flána -rà fJW(!of}at
nwç; elv' Tà CJa~-rv).{CJt'JI
-ra'fJ fli -r' àloC(!tfJà Caepet(!t,
nov ' CJw~s TOf} Pw-ró~(!t-rov ànà -rà na(!afJv(!t.
The poet should have written nov TÓ 'CJWloCS, as the relat. clause is clearly
nonessential and its content of great importance. Apparently Cornaros
had a different view. By choosing this form, he makes the relat. clause
contribute towards determining the antecedent: Aretousa does not only
see that this is her own ring, the ring with the sapphire, she also recognizes
the "Erotocritos-ring" in it, the ring which is particularly characterized
by the fa ct that once she gave it to her lover.
194 Cf. the instanees from the Ohron. Mor. in 2.4.3.2.1.

60 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.5. Conclusion
2.5.1. The pronomen coniunctum in early Modern Greek
It may be concluded that, when the relat. clause is independent and
nonessential, ónov (8nov or nov) is resumed by a pers. (or demonstr.)
pronoun, but, when it constitutes a complete union with the antecedent
and is essential, it is not. In 2.4.3.1.3 and 2.4.3.2.1 we have seen some
exceptions 195, but, as has already been observed before 196, the majority
of these exceptions can be explained and the rest may be considered as
exceptions to the rule. This ru Ie applies only to those cases where ónov
represents an accusative. In cases where it denotes a genitive, dative or a
prepositional phrase it is always followed by a resumpt. pronoun, whether
the relat. clause is nonessential or not. This means that there must be
examples of essential clauses where ónov is followed by a resumpt. pronoun,
in cases where ónov represents a genitive, dative or prepositional phrase.
We shall review all the instances which have been discussed and single
out those ones where the relat. clause is essential. In 2.2.1.1 : Velth. 81O-U,
Livistr. S 881-2, Ass. 41,5-6, Alex. rom. 67,26-7, Pikat. 234-5; in 2.2.1.2:
none; in 2.2.1.3: Ass. 157,13-4, Erot. A 33-4; in 2.3.1: Ass. 40,26-7,
Flor. 1643.
Our conclusion may be as follows:
1. • Onov is not followed by a pronomen coniunctum,
a. if it denotes a nominative.
b. if it denotes an accusative of the third person and is standing in an
essential clause.
2. 'Onov is followed by a pronomen coniunctum,
a. if it denotes a genitive, dative or prepositional phrase.
b. if it denotes an accusative of the first or second person (such
clauses are automatically nonessential).
c. if it denotes an accusative and is standing in a nonessential clause.
The question how and when this system originated wiIl be answered
in the third part of this study.
2.5.2. Thé pronomen coniunctum ~n Modern Greek
Since the time that the language which we now call Modern Greek
came into existence, some development has found place. That is natural
and to be expected. Notwithstanding that, I believe that the above
described system must be principally the same in the language as it is
now spoken and written 197.
Psichari appears to be of the same opinion regarding the use of the
pronomen coniunctum. At least, he says about an example given by
195 See also 2.4.3.1.4 and 2.4.3.2.2.
196 See 2.4.
197 Cf. Bakker, Some Remarlc8, n. 3.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 61
Moulton 198 (ó yta.eàç nov • à v Ë(]UlÀa) that it is incorrect, using a little
more courteous expression : "on dirait plutöt ici ó yta.eàç nov Ë(]UlÀa 199.
Psichari, being a Greek himself, must have feIt immediately that in such
an essential clause the presence of a resumpt. pronoun was not necessary
and against normal usage.
It is strange that scholars like Thumb, Triandafyllidis and Tzartzanos
have not given attention to the question in which circumstances the
pronomen coniunctum appears in the relat. clause. In their chapters on the
relat. pronouns they do discuss nov and the fa ct that it is sometimes
resumed by a pers. pronoun, but without even mentioning the question
when this happens 200.
In more recent grammars attention is paid to this question. The authors,
however, do not seem to agree on everything.
Kahane and Ward say that, when nov represents a genitive, dative
or prepositional phrase, the pronomen coniunctum may never be omitted 201.
As to the cases where nov represents the direct object, they observe th at
nov must be followed by a pers. pronoun, when the relat. clause is one
of description. About an example like xá{}ewl xai fllÀei ylà neáflaw nov
dèv ~Éeel (nov dèv .à ~Éeel) they say 202: " ... the word pu mayor may
not be followed by the personal pronoun ta in the object case ... ; the
Greek speaker may say the senten ce either way". This does not agree
with what has been found about the situation in early Modern Greek.
An essential clause like nov dèv Ueel usually would not have contained a
resumpt. pronoun.
Tzermias agrees with Kahane and Ward with respect to the cases where
nov denotes a genitive, dative or prepositional phrase 203. About relat.
clauses where nov represents the dir. object he has a different opinion 204:
"Bildet dieser (Relativsatz) eine unentbehrliche Bestimmung des Be-
198 Moulton, Proleg., p. 94.
199 Psichari, p. 858. The odd thing is that this example, af ter being contrived
by Moulton (or someone before him), started leading its own life. One meets it
everywhere: see Thumb, Handbuch, § 149, Hesseling, IJ ov, p. 222, Schwyzer­
Debrunner, p . 645. That everybody was confronted with an example which was
not very successful is unfortunate, but for Robertson it was disastrous. He misunderstood
the short remark of Psichari completely. On p. 723 of his Grammar he
says: "Psichari considers it rather far-fetched in Moulton to appeal to the modern
Greek vernacular, ó ytaT(!OÇ nov TOV [(]TE/Äa, "the doctor whom 1 sent for", since
the modern Greek vernacular just as readily uses nov without aVTóv". Psichari had
meant that a Greek would rather omit TÓV in this particular sentence!
200 See Thumb, Handbuch, § 149, Triandafyllidis, §§ 765-7 and Tzartzanos,
§§ 115-6. Hatzidakis and Mavrofrydis do not mention it either. In the grammar
of Simon Portius (Grammatica linguae graecae vulgaris, ed. W. Meyer, Paris 1889)
ónov or nov is not even mentioned.
201 Kahane-Ward, pp. 387-8.
202 Kahane-Ward, p. 388.
203 See Tzermias, §§ 359 and 360.
204 Tzermias, § 359.

62 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
ziehungswortes, so wird das Relativpronomen allein verwendet ... Stellt
hingegen der Relativsatz eine entbehrliche Einfügung dar, so wird dem
Relativpronomen oft 205 das entsprechende schwache Personalpronomen
hinzugefügt". His opinion is exactly opposite to that of Kahane and Ward:
according to him it is in nonessential clauses that nov mayor may not
be followed by the pronomen coniunctum. His statement does not agree
either with our findings for early Modern Greek: there the resumpt.
pronoun usually is present in a nonessential clause.
Householder c.s. do not deal with the question when a resumpt. pronoun
should follow and when not. They just observe 206 : "Whenever nov
corresponds to an oblique case (A,G), it is generally 207 accompanied by
the appropriate personal pronoun in order to render the meaning clearer".
Later, however, they give some examples of nov representing a direct
object where it sometimes is followed by a resumpt. pronoun and sometimes
not, without going into the question when this is done and when not.
That some of these examples are rather dubio us will be discussed in the
next cha pter.
2.5.3. Remaining questions
The preceding survey of what recent grammars say about the pronomen
coniunctum and its use in the language of to-day shows that there is no
general agreement on this question. None of them gives a conclusive
answer to the question when exactly the pronomen coniunctum is used
and when not. Neither do they pronounce an opinion on the question
whether there is such a rule or not. I shall conclude this chapter on ónov
by enumerating some questions which came up in my mind, while studying
these grammars.
1. Householder c.s. give the following examples 208: fJUnw avxyà Ta
"oelTat nov Ta fJánnae ó àc5eecpóç I-wv, and oi yieot nov TOVÇ à"ov!-,e yà
!-'aÀÀwyovy "áfh fJeác5v. These sentences, just as they are, out of context,
sound unusual. But if they do represent normal usage, why is nov followed
by a resumpt. pronoun ~
2. Another of their examples is 209: Ó ytaç TijÇ yvvai"aç nov fJà avyay­
T~aov!-,e ai ).tyo. Are we going to meet a man or a woman ~ Is it possible
to use a resumpt. pronoun (either Tay or T~Y) in order to avoid this indistinctness
~ An alternative might also be the use of the relat. pronoun
ó ónoioç. This is suggested by Householder c.s. themselves on p. 92, where
this problem is signalized in the example ~ "óe'YJ TOV cplÀov !-'ov, nov 1}TaY
!-,aCI !-,aç aT~y K~T'YJ, ûyat l1eewaT'YJ.
205 These italics are mine.
206 Householder C.S., p. 91.
207 The italics are mine.
208 Householder C.S., p. 91.
209 Householder C.S., p. 91.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 63
3. The example of Kahane and Ward xá/hwt xat fttÀû ytà n(2áftaw
nov IJsv ~É(2et (nov IJsv -rà ~É(2et) has already been mentioned 210. If the
second one is correct Greek, what is its special sense?
3. Tov -riJv -ró
Although it is the ma in purpose of th is paper to study the history of
ónov and the pronomen coniunctum, some attention will be paid to other
relat. pronouns which were in use in early Modern Greek. And thus this
chapter will be devoted to the use of -rov -riJv -ró, the postpositive article
as it is called sometimes.
J ust like ónov is -rov TiJV 1'0 present in the so-called vulgar texts ever
since the 12th century. Only the following forms do occur: -ro and -rà
for the nominative, and for the accusative TÓV, T~V, -ró, -rá, and very seldom
-rovç and dç.
3.1. In Essential ClauseB
The great majority of the cases occur in essential clauses, sometimes
preceded by an antecedent (it is especially popular af ter demonstr.
pronouns), sometimes without one.
3.1.1. Witk an antecedent
3.1.1.1. Nominative
Mich. Glyk. 298 ÈxêÏvo 1'0 ae anoxetwt xat -ro as ne(2tftÉvet . . .
Chrono Mor. 554 P ... -rà à(2xov-rónovÀa -rà ~aav -rijç lIoUov . .. 211.
3.1.1.2. Accusative
Prodrom. I 58 TiJv OáÀaaaav -riJv fte Hpe(2eç . ..
Alex. Comn. 370 ÈxêÏvov 1'0 vnoaxeOfiç . ..
Kall. 908 ... -rovç qmÀaxaç -rovç ellJev elç ÈXêÏvaç.
Mach. 646,30 ... IJtà lJovÀêÏeç ûç elXa.
Dig. Akr. E 987 ... IJtà -rà xáÀÀ7J -r7Jç, -rà {3Unoftev elç av-r7Jv . .. 212.
3.1.1. 3. Prepositional pkrase
Ass. 311,24-5 ... OÉÀw và xmaanv
elftat Èvxv-r~ç . . .
ro peerLUÓV flOV ànal 1'0 aov
210 See 2.5.2.
211 See also Ass. 44,7 and Mach., passim.
212 See also Prodrom. I 62 Tá, IV 80, 81 T6, IV 128, 236 n]l', Alex. Comn. 412 Tá,
583, 602, 629 T6, Mich. Glyk. 19, 150 T6, 372 Tá, Llt1}y. KeaaonaT. 67, 95 T6v, 82 T6,
A6y. IIae. 41, 729 Tá, 589, 646 T6, 662, 713 T6v, Kall. 2130, 2431, 2479, 2481 T6v,
2258, 2308 T1}V, 1064, 1228, 1522, 1627 T6, 1605 Tá, Velth. 431 T6v, 789, 882 T1}V, 558,
656, 981, 1042, 1313, 1340 T6, Ass., Ohron. Mor, Mach. and Dig. Akr. E, passim.

64 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN OONIUNOTUM
3.1.2. Without an antecedent
3.1.2.1. Nominative
Mich. Glyk. 294 ua}, Uyw -rà ovu lvMxoVTal ua}, -rà flè ovMv áefl6Covv.
Velth. 1065 ua}, -ro lVl àvafléaov flaç ... 213.
3.1.2.2. Accusative
Lll'l7y. Keaaona-r. 14 'Eyw bè -ro ÈndJvw"'iJ Oé).w và -r' àvayyel.Ä.w.
Kalt. 1686 Tov àyan~ç EveéO'YjUEV, àvéa-r'Yj -rov È~EVeUç ...
A6y. IIae. 735 àuovaaTE -rovç lO.Ä.njJEv àava-ra-roç ó xe6voç.
Velth. 846 wç b' 1]uOvaE -rà l.Ä.EyE Xevaáv-rCa bl' ÈuEivov . .. 214.
3.1.2.3. Prepositional phrase
Kalt. 1109 ... ua}, uovq;laflov elç -ro novEiç ua}, .Ä.vmv elç -ro náaxuç.
Ass. 167,18-9 ... -r{noTEç àna}, -ro C'Yj-r~.
Mach. 280,29 ano -ro flaç yeáq;ETE . ..
Id. 316,16 ... Èua-r'Yjy6e'YjaEv -rov nobéaTav blà -ro ÈY{VE-rOV 215.
3.2. In Nonessential Clause8
Only a very small minority of the cases occur in nonessential clauses,
so that one gets the impression that this relat. pronoun was reserved
for short and simple clauses. It is interesting to note that the few examples
of -rov -r~v -ro in a nonessential clause all occur in texts which have been
written in or about the 14th century. The majotity of these cases are
found in the Ohron. Mor. We shall first discuss the cases occurring in
the other texts.
3.2.1. Other texts
Livistr. E 2359 fr.
a~flEeOV eÏ.Ä..Ä.ov àv-r' ÈflOV btbw aaç {JamUav,
yaflneov ÈflOV navEvyEvov, éfjyav -rfjç yfjç Al{Jáv-reov,
..................... / ....... ........... .
-rov flU(!-rVeOvalv a~flEeOV -rfjç yfjç 'Aeyveouáo-reov
ua}, ÈaEiç ol neW-rOu(!XEVOVTEÇ, ol new-roavyyEl'EÏÇ flov.
Mach. 74,18-20 ... ua}, 'YjveEV -rov n-rwxov -rov ale TCovàv AOVflnáe, -rov
ElXEV máauv ó a},e Tovflaç TE MovvTE.Ä.lq; ...
It should be observed that Machairas did not have another choice. Ris
other possibilities, ónov -rov ... and -rov noiov ... , would have put too
much emphasis on the contents of the clause. This he could not do, as
213 See also Ass. 32,8 and Mach., passim.
214 See also Alex. Comn.169, 170, 176.6,33, 466.á, Mich. Glyk. 345 .á, A6y. IJ a(!.
586,587,617,618,619 .w, 584.6,17,694 .á, Kall. 2046 .6v, 871,1170, 1282, 1303,
1412,2136,2276.6, 1676.á, Velth. 866.6,212 .á, Ass. 47,18 and 152,27.6, Dig. Akr.
G 473 .6, E 150 .6, 338 .á, Ohron. Mor. and Mach., passim.
215 See also Alex. Comn. 70 and 372 Û, .6, Ass. 139,10, 163,12 dnal .6, 163,22
dnal .á, Mach. 1I and lIl, passim.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONlUNCTUM 65
he had told just a moment ago that this man had been arrested and
taken to prison.
Id. 96,17-9 ... Èf1:JT,Aáaav 'wiJ TCovàv 1'8 BS(JoiJvs, rov lnstpsv ó (J~yaç
và máan Àtiç rwv à(Jfl-árwv . ..
Id. 178,37-180,2 .. , xai w(Jlasv rov fl-lai(J TCovàv Movar(J~, rov ûxsv
{JáÀSLV xansrávlOV ûç rijv avrijv à(Jfl-arwa{av, và fl-iv axaÄétpn . .•
Id. 220,3-5 ... 1}À(hv Ó fl-lai(J TCovàv Blaxovvr'Yjç ofl-n(Jóç rovç, rov w(Jlasv
, '''{J \ I ",
SlÇ ro s ya rov va nat(Jvn axonov ro anlnv rov • ..
In each of the three preceding examples the relat. clause is preceded
by the name of a person and informs us about what is his function.
Machairas wanted to give this information in an unemphatic way and
could not, therefore, make use of ónov (+ pronomen coniunctum: it is a
nonessential clause!) or 'rov noiov.
3.2.2. Chron. Mor.
3983-5 H
ro n(Jwrov aç groAáÇWfl-SV wç n(Jénu rijv Cw~v
IwÇ,
xai &v1'8(Jov náÀs à:n:o avro ro lnalvoç rov xóafl-ov,
ro àyanovaLV oE änav1'8ç onov ö'(Jfl-ara {Jaarovalv.
As to the relat. clause beginning with ro some may doubt whether it is
actually a nonessential clause. The foUowing example will convince them:
5750-2 HP
(ó à((!évr'Yjç rijç KU(JVialVaç)
à:n:o áfl-a(Jr{aç balfl-ovlxfjÇ, blà yvvalxoç ayan'Yjv
ro ÈnáOaalv Xl ä.ÀÀOl noÀÀoi ((!(JÓVlfl-Ol xai ar(Janw1'8ç!
óxánolOv rov xa{JsÀÀa(J{ov yvva'ixa È(Jw1'8vr'Yj ...
It is quite obvious that the relat. clause in 5751 is nonessential. But
is it actuaUy arelat. clause 1 Does not ro have an altogether different
function 1 It may be a pers. pronoun as weU! It is a fa ct that in the
Chron. Mor. one sometimes gets the impression that the relat. pronoun
rov rijv ro and the pers. pronoun are confused. There are too many examples
of rov rijv 'ro introducing a nonessential clause as compared to the other
texts, where, as we have observed in the preceding paragraph, it is a
very exceptional phenomenon. One can have the same doubts with
respect to rov in Livistr. E 2359 ff., mentioned in 3.2.1.
6301-3 H
Aotnóv, ûç rovro Èavvrvxsv Ó ((!(Jovlfl-Óns(Jóç rovç,
oanç sV(JéO'Yj arijv {JovÀijv rov n(Jtyxtnoç Èró1'8,
rov lÀsyav Xl wvófl-aCav fl-lai(J NlxóÀa Vii .Eaivr 'Ofl-é(J.
In this case our suspicions are confirmed by the other Ms: the version
of P offers a principal sentence with 'rov functioning as a pers. pronoun:
fl-lai(J NlxóÀaov rov ëÀsyav, vd .Ea'rofl-i(J 'ro ÈntxÀ'Yjv 216.
216 A similar case is 8103H.

66 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
7993-4 H
'0 eijyaç TOV ànto'TetÀe'JI Tà neóaTayt.ta '" TTJ'JI IIovÀta'JI,
TTJ'JI UOV'V Ot fPeáY"Ot "0ftea{ov'JI, OVTWÇ TTJ'JI O'JI0ftáCov'JI.
It is perfectly clear that TTJ'JI is not arelat. pronoun, but a pers. pronoun.
The second part of the sentence proves it 217.
3.3. Followed by a Resumptive Pronoun
I have used the term "resumpt. pronoun" in the title of this paragraph,
because the word "pronomen coniunctum" is not really appropriate.
The resumpt. pronoun which follows ónov is necessary, but a declined
pronoun like Tà'JI TTJ'JI Tà surely does not need clarification. One would
almost be inclined to use the word "pronomen abundans" . Y et there are
a few cases of Tà'JI TTJ'JI Tà which remind us of what we have seen about
ónov and the pronomen coniunctum in the preceding chapter.
3.3.1. Pronomen coniunctum
I mber. 345--6
Kal ba'JI "O'JITàet OaVftaaTÓ'JI, q;et"TÓ'JI, à'JIéJeetwftÉ'Po'JI,
Tà oi;" èq;áYrJ"e'JI noTÈ d.UO'JI W a à 'JI è" ei 'JI ° 'JI • • •
The case is very similar to Livistr. E 2378 tI. (see 2.4.3.1.2), where the
phrase waà'JI ai;re{'JI1]'JI is preceded, however, by onov. It is clear that TÓ,
just like onov there, needs the phrase waà'JIl"û'JIo'JI in order to be understood.
I am not altogether sure of the correctness of the text 218.
Livistr. E 2536-7
"Exw noÀÀà naeMe'JIo'JI "al Mo'JI elç TTJ'JI "veá'JI ft0V,
Tà à"óft1] TÉTOto'JI elç TTJ'JI yij'JI noTÈ oi;éJÈ'JI evet01].
This case may be compared to Kall. 1148-9 (see 2.4.3.1.2), where ónov
is resumed by the words TOtoVTO'JI noeTáe1]'JI. Our conclusion may be the
same as in respect to the preceding example: the word TÉTOto'JI is absolutely
necessary.
Velth. 320-1
EléJe naÀána q;of3eeá, Tà oi; Mrvaftat àcp1]ye"iaOat
"aTà ÀenTà'JI Tàç xáetTaç TW'JI naÀadw'JI l"e{'JIw'JI.
This, of course, is not a case of a genuine pronomen coniunctum, but a
rather odd case of an anakolouth. In the mid of the sentence the author
changed his mind and began considering Tàç XáetTaç as his object instead
of Tà naÀána. The use of ónov would have been more common.
3.3.2. Pronomen coniunctum in the second instance
In a series of relat. clauses the pronomen coniunctum is not placed in the
fust clause, but in the second. There are a few examples of this phenomenon
in combination with Tà'JI TTJ'JI TÓ.
217 More examples of arelat. pronoun which may be regarded as a pers. pronoun
or vice·versa are: 1938H, 3098HP, 6404HP, 6422HP, 7963HP and 7998H.
218 A correction into ón' ov~ ltpáv1/~E'II may be plausibIe (the Ms N offers r6v, MB H óv).

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 67
Mach. 252,34-6 ... ó {twè(! Ti;ovàv Movar(!~ç, TClv è1p~ÀWaéV ó (!~yaç
"ai ó à{tt(!áJ..À'fJç rov g"naév, "ai àyánav rov nOÀÀá, ó noioç ~rov rp(!ÓVt{toç
"a{JaÀM(!'fJç, èvvotáar'fJv ...
One gets the impression that Machairas, when beginning this relat.
clause, had in mind only to inform the reader about the function this
man had, i.e. that he was an admiral 219 • While doing this he changed his
mind and started to give some more information. And so, following the
train of his thoughts, he continued by way of parataxis and used no
longer relat. pronouns, but pers. pronouns. Finally, however, he used
again arelat. pronoun ó noloç.
Mach. 632,9-11 ... "al 'fJv(!av rov I:a(!a,,'fJvov rov a"M{Jov rov è{Janrtaav
"al è,,(!á;av rov Tov{taa~v ...
The relat. clause is essential, because the subject of the story is "the
Saracene slave who had been baptized and called Thomas". It is not the
kind of clause where one should expect a continuation by way of parataxis.
Machairas may have been induced to doing so by his wish to emphasize
the name of the slave, Thomas, as the story continu es as follows: ó noloç
à(!v~O'fJ1I ro {Jánna{ta1l.
The following example is very similar to this one:
Dig. Akr. E 262-3
Tijv ÛXéÇ ûç rov ará{JÀov aov "al ÛXéÇ r'fJv "al a"M{Jav,
......... . ........ ènoi"éç r'fJv "v(!áv aov.
This clause is also essential and there is also strong emphasis on the
words ÛXéÇ r'fJ1I "al a"M{Ja1l.
3.3.3. Pronomen Mundans
Two examples have been found where r01l rij1l ro is followed by a genuine
pronomen coniunctum. In these cases this name is not appropriate, however,
because there is no need of clarification at all. The term "pronomen
abundans" suits this phenomenon better. I suspect that in both cases
the text is corrupt, and that f?r three reasons : 1. the relat. clauses are
both essential, 2. there is no further evidence of the possibility of rov
rij1l ro being followed by a genuine pronomen coniunctum, 3. in both cases
the text-tradition is not certain.
Velth. 259-60
Tov 0'13" èrpOáaav rov noTè rà {JéÀ'fJ nvv' E(!wrwv,
IW(!WXtÀw"ará15a(!rov éVOVÇ và rov not~aovv ...
The version of the Ms r01l 0'13" ècpOáaa1lra has been corrected by the
editor 220.
II ovÀoÀ. 89 "t àn' rijv m"(!tàv rijv ÛXéÇ r'fJv "ai nétvav, ranétvÉ {t~v .••
219 Cf. Mach. 96,17-9, 178,37-180,2 and 220,3-5, discussed in 3.2.1.
220 I prefer to correct the vers ion of the Ms into TOV ot!" lrpf)áaav-ro nOTf; ",J..
For rpf)ávOflat instead of rpf)ávw see Hatzidakis, Einleitung, pp. 195 ff. and MNE I,
p. 439.

68 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNOTUM
This text is taken from the edition by Krawczynski 221. Zoras who
published another version, offers the following text (83):

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 69
In the evu{a and the Erotocritos 'l'O and 'l'à are still quite common,
but 'l'OV and 'l'~V appear to have been pushed back by ónov: in the evu{a
'l'~V occurs 6 times, 'l'OV never, in the Erotocritos 'l'~V occurs 6 times, and
'l'OV 8 times 222. An even more important thing is that it appears to have
been used Ie ss and less in relat. clauses preceded by an antecedent. In
the evu{a there are 21 instances of this use, but in the much longer
Erotocritos this number has been reduced to a mere 10 223.
In the language of to-day it has been altogether replaced by nov. lts
use is restricted to some Southern dialects 224.
4. '0 noioç
Mter the discussion on ónov and 'l'OV 'l'~V 'l'O attention should be paid
to the third relat. pronoun which is in use during the early Modern Greek
period. This is ó noioç or ó notóç, also used in the forms ó önotOç, ó óno'ioç,
ó ónotóç, óno'ioç and ónotóç. Only a few words will be said about its origin,
the main purpose of this chapter being to find out how it was used.
4.1. Origin
The scholars agree on the date of origin: in the course of the 13th
century, af ter the crusades. Hatzidakis considers it as being brought
about mainly by the influence of the Western relat. pronouns il quaie
and Ie quel 225 • If it was meant as a substitute for ónov, arelat. pronoun
which was not even a pronoun and of ten needed the support of a pronomen
coniunctum, it has not been very successful. lts frequency in the texts
is very low, ex cept in the Ohron. Mor., the Assizes and the Ohronicle of
Machairas 226. And even in these texts ónov has not been pushed back by it:
it is not possible to establish that the use of ónov decreased in any of them.
4.2. Use
4.2.1. Velthandros
In this romance of chivalry only two cases of ó no'ioç occur, both in
the object-case and used in a nonessential clause:
462-3
uai 1; ÓJdta yveov neetuuá, À,dJaew'l'à uàueiva,
'l'à ónoia f-te'l'à f-t'YJXavijç èfJáu'l'a uá-rw ue{v'YJ.
222 Nine of the instances of the Erotoeritos occur in the set phrase TOV (TT/V) dyaná
or something similar .
223 For an enumeration of these examples see Bakker, Some Remarks, n. 4,
224 See .Jannaris, § 1438, Thumb, Hell., p. 87, Id., Handbuch, § 149, note 1,
Triandafyllidis, p. 298, note 1, Schwyzer-Debrunner, p. 643 and Browning, pp. 66-7.
225 Hatzidakis, MNE 1I, pp. 593-7. Different opinions have been voiced by
Simon Portius (see note 200), p. 171 and Mavrofrydis, pp. 611-2.
226 This phenomenon is explained by the fact that the authors of these three
texts lived in a country which was ruled by western princes.

70 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
1250-1
lIà UfJn, "Ve1j Uve p,ov, 8v ëxop,ev evvovxov,
ónoiov è;wrÉcn:uAev Po~óqJtAOÇ ó äva;.
4.2.2. Ohron. Mor.
Considering this and some other texts we shall discuss the following
topics: 1. Does the pronoun occur in the nominative? In other words:
was this pronoun so strong that it was able to drive out ónov even where
it had the strongest position? 2. Does it occur in both essential and nonessential
clauses? 3. Is it ever used in relat. connection ? Is it ever followed
by a resumpt. pronoun?
4.2.2.1. Nominative
5975-6 P
"al ËaTeljlav Tàv eóï Maq;eÈ eijyav Tijç Et"eAtaç,
ónoioç àq;tvTevev "t aVTóç, waàv "al ó naT~e 'lov . ..
6163-5 H
è"ómaaev aTijç 'E""A1jataç T1]V xeetav,
Tà önotQlI neäyp,a ()éAU elaTat np,1] "al oq;eA.óç TOV,
TWV xetaTtaVWlI àvcbtaljltç "t ÖA.1jç TijÇ 'E""A1jataç 227.
Among the 22 examples of ó noioç found in the Ohron. Mor. there are
4 oases of the nominative. We may be sure that in three of the cases the
choice of ó noioç (instead of ónov) was brought about by the faot that the
author wanted to make a combination of pronoun and noun. With ónov
this would have been impossible.
4.2.2.2. In e8sential or nonessential clause8
All the 22 examples which I found óccur in nonessential clauses. For
examples the reader is referred to the preceding and the following paragraphs
(it is obvious that clauses introduced by arelat. connection are
nonessential!). Apart from those, the following examples may be considered:
2381 HP (arèç önoteç), 7307 H (rèç önoteç), 8075 H (ànà TiJlI
önotall) and 8264 HP (T1]V önota( 11 )).
4.2.2.3. Relative connection
The number of times that arelat. connection (or what resembles it)
occurs is very high: 15 cases out of 22.
1330-2 H (Af ter a long enumeration of names the poet continues:)
"AAA.OÇ 1}TOll vrè Aean1jyyàç "al nA.ÛaTot äA.AOt ateytvreÇ"
óp,otwç "al äexovreç Pwp,aiot· èvép,etvav ,,' è"etvot,
ToVÇ ónotovç OU" ovop,áCw ae btà T1]lI noA.vyeaq;tav.
-----
227 There are two other examples, both neutral and accompanied by a noun:
2767H (t'à l571ma ~á(]TeTJ), 6258H (Ta l5nowv neäyp.a). This combination of pronoun
snd noun of ten occurs, especially in the phrase Ta l5nowv neäyp.a: 4942H, 5495H,
6751H, 7441HP (with the prepos. elç in front), and 8265H (Tav l5nowv Tóno).

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
71
4928-30 H
iOVÇ tPeáyuovç lua-ratpeóvrweç, &aio l{JÀeneç aUyovç,
Ul ov(jèv bp~tp'Y)aeç noawç nwç và iOVÇ nOÀep,~anç,
iO önoLOv n(2iiyp,a ov nOÀep,oiJv ol tpeÓVlp,Ol aieailw-ral.
8086 H (Speaking of a castie which someone had built, the poet says:)
To önoLOV lxaÀáaaaLV p,eià iav-ra ij Kovp,návla . ..
Not only the capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, but also
the version of Ms P make clear that this is a genuine case of relat. connection
: "Y aueov iO lxáÀaaav lUÛVOl ol K aieÀávol 228.
4.2.2.4. Resumptive pronoun
1331-2 P
uat äÀÀOl äexov-reç Pwp,aiol lvép,elvav lueiae,
iOVÇ önoLOvç ov vop,áCw iOVÇ (jlà i~V noÀvyeatp{av 229.
This is the only example occurring in the Chrono Mor. I have used the
term "resumpt. pronoun" in the title of this paragraph, because ó noioç,
which is just as declinable as any other adjective in -oç, can go without a
pronomen coniunctum.
4.2.3. Assizes
4.2.3.1. Nominative
Among the 35 examples of ó noioç which I found in the Assizes there
is only one case of a nominative. The clause is nonessential:
26,1-2 '0 {Jlauovvi'Y)Ç iijÇ xweaç ónoioç ëXel lnávw iOV {Já(2oç và (JÀen{an
iOV Àaóv . ..
4.2.3.2. In essential or nonessential clauses
Unlike the Chrono Mor., the Assizes offer examples of essential clauses
introduced by ó noioç. First some instances of nonessential clauses wil!
be mentioned.
4.2.3.2.1. N onessential clauses
119,31-120,2 ... iO lJtuaLOv Óe{Cel Oil öÀov và ëvn iOV avOivi'Y) iOV iónov
p,è lJtuaLOv iOV no{ov nétpiovv ià náv-ra 230.
279 , 22 - 4 ... TI • aytalç " eUUA'Y)atalç ." anal • \ i'YjV \ nota " Aap, {J avop,ev , ia \ p,vai'Y)ela ,
r:ijç ntaTEwç ... và Ëvn Ttf-l'YJIlÉvatç . .. 231.
228 More indtanees of relat. connection (or what resembles it) may be found in
2767HP, 3088H, 4942HP, 5256HP, 5495HP, 6258HP, 6751HP, 7441HP, 7558H,
7841HP, 8465HP, and 1332P, diseussed in 4.2.2.4.
229 Cf. the version of Ms H in the first example of 4.2.2.3.
230 More examples of the gen. or acc. of ó noïoç in nonessential clauses are:
148,21, 311,31 and 314,12.
231 More examples of aprepos. phrase in nonessential clauses are: 30,26
(ànal Tàç nolaç), 31,7 (id.), 108,29 (&à Ta no ïov) , 116,11 (ànal Ta no ïov) , 137,25
(id.), 142,2 (&à Ta noïov), 274,15 (ènávw ToU nolov), 325,4 (na(!à Tcl noïov). In
the majority of the cases (26 out of 35) ó noïoç is eombined with a preposition in
the A88ize8. In sueh phrases the author apparently found ónov not clear enough.
See also note 233.

72 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
4.2.3.2.2. Essential clause8
422 29 ' - - ',J; ., I 232
, ... e"ewoç iOV ;rwwv 'liOV 'YJ OL"La. . . .
293,4-6 ... l"eïvoç ó av()eW1l0ç, elç ia Ó1l0'iov ['liL lV"Vi1]ç . .. fJVJ-L1l0eeï
"aï.à và aov aree~an ia V1l0'vYL6v aov . .. 233.
330,3-6 Elç äv()ew1l0ç ... 1lU(!atJ{cJeL iOV xavLÉe'YJ iOV a' 'wvcJew ..., elç
ia 1l0'iov 'wvcJew ó Pevài lï.áAev ön e1Xev J-Léaa e' 1lée1lvea . .. 234.
4.2.3.3. Relative connection
Among the 35 examples of Ó 1l0ioç which I found in the Assize8 there
is only one which reminds me of arelat. connection.
166,14-6 "VeLe, lyw ày"aAw elç laévav i~V ~aJ-LoV nováva &à 1lée1lvea
,,' ià J-Lov lxewarev ó äv~eaç irJÇ, ia 1l0LaV 1lU(!a"aAw ae ön và J-LOV 1l0{anç
và J-LOV i à 1lA.eewaovv. . .
This example mayalso be considered as the only case of resumpt.
pronoun in the Assize8. The relat. pronoun ia 1l0L6v, which refers to
1lée1lvea (the author probably used the singular, because he had in mind
"the sum" , ia 1l0aav) is resumed, though much later, by the pers.
pronoun iá.
4.2.4. Machairas
The Ohronicle of Machairas is most interesting, as it is a rich source
of instances of Ó 1l0ioç. I do not know whether the period during which
Machairas was living may be regarded as the culminating-point in the
use of this pronoun, but his work certainly may.It differs in everything
with the two works which we have discussed above. We remembet, for
instance, that it was rather difficult to find an example of the nominative
in those texts. In the Ohronicle of Machairas a real break-through takes
place: one can find hundreds of examples! I shall quote a few of them
and mention some more in notes.
4.2.4.1. Nominative
66,20-1 ' ArpévirJ, 11~evee, ön elve áJ-LU(!iteÇ ol 1l0'ieç avYXweoVviaL J-Lè iav
rpvJ-LLai6v.
There is no reason why Ó1l0V should not have been used here. The
relat. clause is very simple and essentiaI 235 •
282 More examples of the gen. or acc. of ó noior; in essential clauses are: 30,12,
43,20 and 319,1.
238 More examples of aprepos. phrase in essential clauses are : 35,21 (dnal Tà
no ia), 111,8 (dnal TOVr; notovr;), 156,3 (!5là TTJv nolav), 280,20 (dnal Ta noiov),
284,4 (dnal Tà no ia), 284,17 (id.), 289,23 (el, T7}v nolav), 299,7 (!5là TOVr; nolov,),
302,26 (dnal Ta noiov), 310,14 (!5là Ta noiov), 315,26 (&à TOv noiov), 316,24
(m(}l TWV nolwv), 324,27 (dnal Ta noiov), 324,30 (id.) and 328,25 (nE(}l Tij, nota,).
284 Unlike the author of the Ohron. Mor., this one does not of ten combine ó noio,
with a noun. This is the only example I have found.
236 More examples of the nom. of ó noio, in essential clauses are: 220,19, 422,26,
468,33, 500,29, 504,7, 506,22 etc.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
73
Machairas is fond of combining this pronoun with a noun:
86,17-20 Kal MO (JaváTov TOV èbvaTvxi1pav Tà nau5,à .. , ó nOAic;
"al ó ... TBweYoc;' ó no ioc; TBweYoc; èa"óTwaBv av(Jewnov cic; T~V
, A/lÓXOVGTOV ...
The Ohronicle abounds in instanees of relat. connection 236, in which
ó notoc; is used very of ten 237.
4.2.4.2. In e8sential or none8sential clause8
4.2.4.2.1. None8sential clauses
656,6--9 Kal èntáaav TOV flaVTaTOcpÓeOV "al óTóaa TOV ènA'YJfleAÉ'rpav
8n lc5w"áv TOV (JávaTov ac5t"a "al antaTa, TO noiov c5iv ènoi"av flavTaTocpÓeOV.
That the relat. clause beginning with TO notov is nonessential is obvious:
it may be regarded as being even arelat. connection.
44,31-5 Móvvw ... và {3ABntaw ... TOV àcpévT'YJV ûjc; Tveov "aTà neóawna
naaa àv(Jewnov, èf3yáAOVTa TO "OefllV TOV àcpivT'YJ flac; TOV e'YJYóc;, TOV notov
e'lpBauv "eaTovflBVOt fli 8e"ov.
678,9-11 ... lcpBeBV nOAAovc; a"Aá{3ovc; MO TO Káeywc; "al MO T~V
, AAB~ávTeav' TOVC; nowvc; èc5öJ"av è"û Ol Xetanavol nOAAà "fJVX,,,á ...
4.2.4.2.2. Essential clause8
'0 notOC; occurs in essential as weIl as in nonessential clauses, just like
in the Assizes. There is one important difference: ó notoc; does occur in
essential clauses, but only in the nominative! All the other cases of
ó notOC;, when used in the genitive, accusative or in prepositional phrases,
occur only in nonessential clauses. One example of ó notoc; occurring in
an essential clause has been given: 66,20-1 in 4.2.4.1. 238 . Another one
will be mentioned here. The pronoun, as expected, is standing in the
nominative.
66,18 ... OVOfláCovv neáflaTa aneBna Tà nota c5iv ÛJ'B, "and (they are)
telling of things unseemingly and false" 239.
4.2.4.3. Relative connection
One example of arelat. connection has already been mentioned in
4.2.4.1: 86,17-20 240 . Another instance of the nominative of ó notoc; used
in arelat. connection is:
14,9-14 "E"ea~Bv OflneÓc; ·wv TOV flÉyav fláa-ceov TOV TtflnAov, "al ...
ûnBv TOV' " ... ". '0 noioc; BlnBv TOV' " ... 241.
236 Cf. what has been said about relat. connection in 4.2.3.3.
237 More examples of the nom. of ó 7toîoç, combined with a noun, in arelat.
connection, are: 48,9, 48,10, 82,9, 88,34, 90,31, 114,21, 116,7 etc.
238 See also note 235.
239 The translation is by Dawkins.
240 See also note 237.
241 More examples of the nom. of ó 7toîoç in arelat. connection are: 18,2, 18,24,
18,34, 32,11, 38,14, 38,23, 46,25, 50,9, 52,9, 56,25, etc.

74 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
For more examples (in other cases than the nominative) see the next
paragraph.
4.2.4.4. Resumptive pronoun
4.2.4.4.1. Examples
648,5-7 ... elXev lvav vwv . .. ovof-Lan Teweywv, "Cov notov Èvé[3'YJv "Cov
f-LeyáÀ'YJ àYM'YJ và náyn elç "Cà • IeeoaóÀvf-La ...
406,15-8 > Af-Lf-Lè nè "Cov er;yàç và f-Liiç (Jwan "C~v f-Lr;deav "Cov elç "C~v avv"Cl!0-
qJtav aov, "Cijç notaç ()é).etç "Cij ç "Cà naea(Jwaetv "Cà xáa"Ceov, xai xetv'YJ ()é).et
f-Liiç 1'à (Jwaetv.
238,34-5 ... àv1'eontaaev oVÀeç ûç xveá(Jeç 1'ijç Aevxwataç, ûç noteç elve
f-LeyáÀ'YJ àv1'eon~ và l' è ç àvof-La1'tawf-Lev.
528,19-21 Ó notoç 1'onoxeá1'we ?)1'ov Ó f-Laet1'Ciiç 1'ijç Pó(Jov, onov e1Xev
~
ee1'etV etç
>,
1''YJV
K' \ - , [3 I , , I
vneov' 1'ov nowv eqJo eetaav 1'ov xat eneOTeanaaav 1'ov . ..
The next two examples are very interesting: the resumpt. pronoun is
not so redundant as in the preceding examples, because it indicates the
actual syntactical function of the preceding nominativus pendens.
62,9-24 ... xai 1'~ vVx't'av lXÀe1pev 1'àv Cwonotàv ;vÀov ...• H nota "Àe1p{a
1'~v
Ènoixev ó naniiç elç 1'àv a1'aveàv hov, anr;' Xeta1'ov.
It should be noted that there is a distance of 15 lines between the point
where the theft is mentioned and the sentence beginning with • H nota
xÀe1pta .
684,4-6 . .. xai Ènó()avev xai ij f-L'YJdea 1''YJç of-Lneóneea 1'àv nadea 1''YJç
ijf-Léeeç 0', ij nota và 1'~v àvanavan xai xelv'YJv Mi xeivov xvewç ó ()eóç.
In the preceding paragraph on relat. connection I promised that the
reader would find ex am pIes of that phenomenon in this paragraph.
All the above-mentioned cases are evidently examples of relat. connection
(or, at any rate, examples of something that resembles it very closely) 242 .
Actually, all examples of ó noioç followed by a resumpt. pronoun are
examples of relat. connection, with the exception of one.
The following instance is not a case of relat. connection in its usual
form. It is a parenthesis, which, as has been stated before, may be regarded
as a variety of relat. connection.
296,31-3 ... lyea1pev 1'ov nMa lvav xae1'tv, 1'à noiov Èmáaav 1'0 xai
ÈqJéeav 1'0 lf-Lneoa1'Év 1'ov, xai aÀÀov elç 1'à e~yav 1'ijç $eayytaç . •. 243.
There is only one case which cannot be considered as an example of
relat. connection; it is just a nonessential clause:
518,2-6 ... wf-Lóaav . .. , on oÀa 1'à a1'otX~f-La't'a 1'à Ènoixev ó aie Tovf-Liiç
Te Ta1'avte f-Lè 1'ov xov1'oa't'avÀr;v, 1'à nota ij()e),ev 1'à (Jwaetv ó Mov/l1'oÀiqJ 1'ov
e'YJyóç, và 1'à xea1'~aovv xa),á . ..
242 More examples of ó :noioç followed by a resumpt. pronoun are: 8,21 ff.,
166,3, 238,12, 260,16 f ., 264,22 f., 288,3 f., 296,9 ff., 324,3 ff., 326,13 f., 382,16 ff.,
468,21 f., 502,23 ff., 508,12 f., 594,33-596,1, 628,14 ff., 628,16, 628,19 f. and 632,11 f.
243 More examples of a parenthesis are: 62,28 ff., 126,12 ff., 338,10 and 620,24.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 75
4.2.4.4.2. "Exceptions"
The title of this paragraph is somewhat surpnsmg and certainly exaggerated,
but if one considers that there are only a few cases of a nonessen
ti al clause introduced by ó notoç where a resumpt. pronoun does
not occur, it is at least understandable.
Some of these "exceptions" have been mentioned in 4.2.4.2.l. We
have se en 44,31-5, where the omission of a resumpt. pronoun may have
been caused by the author's desire to show that the antecedent and the
relat. cl au se form a close union (the relat. clause must be considered
then as essential). In 678,9-11, discussed in the same paragraph, the
resumpt. pronoun (r:ovç) may have been omitted, because otherwise the
reader would have understood "to whom the Christians gave ... ".
Machairas, however, had in mind (I quote from the translation by Dawkins)
"tor whom the Christians charitably sent much money to those places".
And now we see that the word è'Xû is actually a sort of resumpt. pronoun:
it clarifies somewhat the obscure relat. pronoun and sees to it that the
verb Èów'Xav is better understood.
Here follow some more "exceptional" cases:
32,6-8 )fEXët noÀÀovç a,1,Äovç önov ovbèv èq;aveewOijaav, 7:0Vç nolovç "al
r:ovç ëlvwfJsv và Jweu'XuÀOVftSV và JWeu'XuÀürovv 'Xvewv r:àv fJsàv và ...
A reason for the omission of a resumpt. pronoun may have been the
presence of the second object of nueu'XaÀovftsv, r:ovç avwfJsv.
262,2-4 ... 'Xat và ftá.ç óó1JYf!. 'Xar:à r:èç àalt;sç ftaç, r:èç noisç Ot fta'Xaetaftévot
e1Jyábeç . .. Ènoi'Xuv r:ovr:a r:à 'XaÀà avv1JfJla r:ov aViov e1Jyár:ov.
In this example the relat. pronoun is actually resumed, not by a pers.
pronoun (r:èç), but by the phrase r:ovr:a -r:à 'XuÀà avv1JfJla 'XiÀ. 244 •
There are some more "exceptional" cases, but I have kept them apart from
the other ones, because they constitute a limited group. These are cases
of ó noioç accompanied by a preposition. It appears that Machairas
never used the resumpt. pronoun in such cases.
346,9-11 'XUt Ëów'Xsv iOVÇ ftavr:aiOrp6eovç u' ftseu'Xàv ày'Xeiu àeyveà và
-r:à rpéeovv iOV e1Jy6ç ftéau elç r:à no ia Ëns1jJsv [vav nor:~etV àeyveàv ...
More examples are 88,20, 334,1l, 350,33, 474,28 and 532,l.
4.2.4.5. Astrange use ot r:à notov
The Ohronicle offers some instances where the neuter singular of ó notoç
is used in a very strange way. One gets the impression that r:à notov is a
fossilized word and has been reduced to a mere connective, for it does
not refer to an antecedent, neither does it play a part in the syntax of
the relat. clause. The only function it has is to connect the two senten ces
and to refer in a very general fashion to the foregoing. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the four examples I have found are all cases of relat.
244 Apart from 656,6-9, mentioned in 4.2.4.2.1, and the ones discussed above,
there are two more examples: 510,12 and 636,1.

76 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
connection. Mter each example the translation by Dawkins will be quoted
for clearness' sake.
8,8-10 "aL ly(!ot"rJUeY Ó Àaàç "aL lar(!ácp'fJaav elç ràç ol,,{aç rovÇ" rà noiov
fle:rá rovç 1}ÀOav "al noÄ.Ä.oL na(!oi"ot ..., "... Now with them came also
many serfs ...".
294,20-4 ... "aL Mw"av À6yov, nwç avv~(}tV lxovv oL flavrarocp6(!ot và
fleyaÀvv{a"ovv rovç àcpévuç rovç ... CJtà và yevfj IJ àyán'fJ OflO(!cp'fJ, "rà noiov
nÉcprofleY wç aetoç àcpévr'YJç ...", "... but in this we fall down ...".
510,21-2 ... "aL noWç CPO(!Èç lyv(!É'lpa và ràv a"orwaovv. Tà noiov
il' ~ I I I J- 1 ' " Tl P' 'P -
ueY exet "afl,av yevta va

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
77
B 2407-8
M' ~ç novfle'JI "ai T1]'JI "oPTaeà ónov 'ów"e "ai TOVTOÇ,
flÈ T1]'JI ónotà'JI è"éeóeae TOV uucpa'JItov TO nÀOVToç 249.
4.2.6. Conclusion
The following table gives a general survey of the use of ó noioç in the
Chrono Mor., the Assizes and the Chronicle of Machairas. The numbers
between brackets behind the titles indicate the tot al amount of cases
found in the texts 250.
Nom. + Prep. + Noun Ess. Noness. Rel. + Resumpt.
conn. pron.
Chrono Mor. (22) 4 (noness.) 3 8 0 22 15 1
Ass. (35) 1 (noness.) 26 21 (17 14 1 1
+prep.)
Mach. (passim) passim 11 passim passim passim passim 30
(ess. and
(only
noness.)
nomin.)
According to this table ó noioç begun as arelat. pronoun in nonessential
clauses: in the Chron. Mor. it occurs only in such clauses; even in the
Chronicle of Machaires, where its use is so extensive, it is used in essential
clauses only in the nominative 251 . The Assizes form an exception in this
respect, but it must be noted that 17 out of the 21 cases occurring in
essential clauses are prepositional phrases : only this relat. pronoun gave
this author the chance to denote the exact correlations between the
antecedent and the relat. clause. Clearness and exactness are qualities to
be expected in a book of law!
Not until later and very gradually has ó noioç penetrated into the
nominative case. At first there are only a few instances and these only
in nonessential clauses. Here ónov put up the strongest resistance. This
can be easily understood, when one considers that one of the causes of
the origin of this new pronoun must have been the indistinctness of ónov.
This obscurity was feIt most keenly in nonessential clauses and in all the
cases except in the nominative.
'0 noioç occurs primarily in nonessential clauses, but it is used preeminently
in the relat. connection 252: the Assizes form an exception 253,
but in the Chrono Mor. there are 15 instances out of 22, and in the Chronicle
249 See also r 1464 (p.i T-Y}V clnolá).
250 The numbers indicated for the Assizes should not be considered as the total
amount: this text has been taken into consideration only partly.
251 In a short text this would not be significant, because one has to reckon then
with chance. But when in such a long text as the Chronicle of Machairas cl noioç
does not occur in essential c1auses except in the nominative, this can only mean
that it was reserved for use in the nonessential c1ause only.
252 See also note 422 on the use of cl noioç in the Alchimiae apparatio.
253 See 4.2.3.3.

78 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
of Machairas the cases of relat. connection are just innumerable. '0 noioç,
apart from the Assizes and apart from the instances of the nominative
in the Ohronicle of Machairas, was used only in nonessential clauses.
This, combined with the fact that its use in the relat. connection is so
frequent, can mean only one thing: the sense of ó noioç was too strongly
anaphoric to be used in essential clauses. Sometimes, especially in cases
of relat. connection, one gets the impression that it resem bles more a
demonstrative than a relative pronoun! This feeling is only intensified,
when one considers the cases where ó noioç appears in combination with
a noun.
In the beginning there are only a few instances of ó noioç followed by
a resumpt. pronoun: one in the Ohron. Mor. and one in the Assizes.
This is not surprising : why should this declinable pronoun be followed
by a pronomen coniunctum 1 In the Ohronicle of Machairas the situation
has been changed entirely: 30 instances have been found! How can this
be explained 1 When we discover that 29 of these instances occur in
cases ofrelat. connection (4 cases of parenthesis among them) , our thoughts
fIy back to the period of the Koine (and before). We have seen that at
that time there appeared to exist a strong link between the phenomenon
of the pronomen abundans and that of relat. connection 254. And is not a
resumpt. pronoun preceded by a declinable relat. pronoun like ó noioç
also a pronomen abundans 1 Have we found here the link between the
pronomen abundans of Ancient Greek and Koine and the pronomen
coniunctum of Modern Greek 1
This supposition is incorrect, I think, and for the following reasons :
1. The previous history of the phenomenon is such that it is difficult
to believe that the occurrence of the resumpt. pronoun in the Ohronicle
of Machairas is the continuation of a use which was common so long ago :
why are there no more in stances in the Ohron. Mor. and the Assizes1
2. There are no instances of the nominative followed by a resumpt.
pronoun. Why not 1 In earl ier times one finds instances.
3. There are no instances of a prepositional phrase either. The texts
of the periods of Ancient Greek and the Koine do offer them.
Why then does the resumpt. pronoun occur primarily in cases of relat.
connection in the Ohronicle of Machairas (and in the two other texts) 1
This must have been caused by the strongly anaphoric, almost demonstrative
character of ó noioç itself. In early Modern Greek it is a very
common practica to repeat an object which for some reason or other has
been placed at the beginning of the sentence, by means of a pers. pronoun.
Some examples, taken at random from the text of Machairas, follow.
6,7-8 Tàv bi arav(Jàv TOV X(JlaTOV àrpij1Cev TOV elç Tà ayta nijv áytwv . ..
6,16-8 1CaL TO'Vç f3' aTav(Jovç... 1CaL Tà laT' aavtbla ... ëf3aA& Ta elç
\ ,
TO aeVTov1Ctv . ..
254 See I 1.4 and I 2.3.1.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM: 79
This practice was (and is now) so common that it is quite understandable
that Machairas also did it, when the object at the beginning of the sentence
was not a noun or a pers. or demonstr. pronoun, but the relat. pronoun
Ó noloç. There are three reasons to believe that this supposition is correct:
1. There are more reasons to believe that Ó noloç had a strongly
anaphoric sense (see above).
2. The resumpt. pronoun never follows the nominative of Ó noioç.
This does not happen either, when a noun or a pers. or demonstr. pronoun
begins the sentence. Only the object is repeated by a resumpt. pronoun.
3. The same applies to prepositional phrases.
Finally there may have been still another cause of Machairas' custom
to use a resumpt. pronoun af ter ó noioç; the influence of ónov! It also was
arelat. pronoun and, although it was quite different from ó noioç in
character, it was also followed by a resumpt. pronoun in nonessential
clauses, including the cases of relat. connection 255.
Mter the 15th century, it seems, ó noioç has lost ground. It sooms
that it has never again reached the frequency it had in the Chronicle of
Machairas. In a long work as the Erotocritos it appears only 5 times,
and all the instances occur in nonessential clauses! It seems to have been
pushed back into the atmosphere where it originally belonged.
4.3. Further History
Although the further history of ó noioç may be interesting, it is not
of any importance to this study. Having been picked up by the Ka()aeevovC1a,
it is intruding now into the LJ'YJfl0itx'fJ. That this causes new
problems is shown by the many remarks the modern grammarians feel
obliged to make as to how and when it should be used 256.
There is one more interesting thing. In one of his books Pernot 257
mentions the following example of the use of the modern Ó ónoioç: elvat
flta hateta TfjÇ ónotaç Tà xecpá).atá T'YJÇ elvat fleyáï..a. He adds that this is
not exceptional. If this is really true, then the same thing is happening
again as in the Chronicle of Machairas. The development has gone even
further: now ó ónoioç is followed by a resumpt. pronoun even in an essential
phrase! This time we can be sure that ó ónoioç is undergoing the influence
of nov.
255 See Mach. 354,28,402,3-4,520,15-7,560,20,572,35-574,1, 642,4-5, 664,21-2.
Cases of parenthesis : 82,15-6, 254,6-7, 254,19-21, 326,31- 3, 380,29-30, 456,19-21,
490,2 and 530,1-2.
256 See Triandafyllidis, § 768, Tzartzanos, § 114, Householder C.S., pp. 92- 3
and Tzermias, § 362. See especially E. Yannidis, r;.waa,~à IJá(!e(!ya (Athens 1932),
pp_ 31-2, P. Vlastos, 'H o.Ä1JV'~", ~al ,jf:(!,~èç äHeç ö'yÄwaaieç (Athens 1935),
pp. 209-13 (including A_ Pallis' study IJ ov - önov - ó óno ioç on pp. 229- 44)
and the review of it by Yannidis in NÉa 'Ecnia 17 (1935), pp. 593-5.
257 Pernot, p_ 152_

PART III
BYZANTINE PERIOD
1. INTRODUCTION
,In this third and last part the main question will be dealt with, viz,
whether there is any oorrelation between the idiom disoussed in part I,
the pronomen abundans and the idiom whioh has been studied in part 11,
the pronomen coniundum. It is not easy to answer this question. One
of the main oauses that this is so difficult is that this transition (if it
has actually taken plaoe) has ooourred in a period which, from a linguistic
viewpoint at least, is very obscure.
1.1. Oharacter ot the period
It is a period of transition. The spoken language is developing, but
on the other hand the influence of Atticism has been growing stronger
and stronger. And thus we see that many forma and constructions which
have been or are abandoned in colloquial speech are still being used in
the texts. 1'his cu stom to make use of old, fossilized forms and constructions
remains throughout the whole byzantine period. And thus one has to
wait until the 12th oentury (or even later) 258 before one can get a olear
picture of the changes and developments which had taken place in the
meantime.
Not every author employed the literary Koine. Someone who wanted
to write for the lower olasses oould not use the Atticistio literary language,
for he would not be understood. Other authors again were not able to
write in accordance with the ancient rules: their education had been
too deficient. Did these people use the spoken language then? They
oertainly did not. The difference between the spoken and the wI'itten
languages was not "official" as yet, as it is now between the Ka{}aeevovaa
and the L11JI-l0Tt"7). We know how difficult it is for the Greek of to-day
to keep these two types of the language apart, when he is writing and
even when he is speaking. This applies even more to people living in a
period when the split between the written and the spoken languages,
although it was becoming wider and wider, had not been established
yet in an official manner. There was not a real ohoioe between the two
types of language; there were many possibilities in between. Someone
who wanted to reaoh the common people did not use common speech,
mainly beoause he was writing. When writing, one used the written
language, not, of course, the "beautiful" literary Koine, but a simplified
!fiS Cf. 11 1.1.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 81
type, a kind of "Fachprosa", mixed, either on purpose, or by accident,
with new elements originating from the spoken language 259.
1.2. The texts used in this part belong to the so-called "vulgar" type.
They do not give us a picture of the language as it was actually spoken.
The texts of Ancient Greek literature may give us a clearer notion of the
spoken language of their period. At that time literary Greek was still
based on the language as it was actually spoken and the Greek of the
great literary masterpieces, on the other hand, still affected common
speech and may have even slo wed down its development 260. The life-line
between the two was not cut yet. The yawning chasm which separated
the written language from the spoken language later did not yet exist
then. The vulgal' texts of this period are works like the Apophthegmata
Patrum, the Historia Monachorum, the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius,
the works of Moschus, Leontius of Neapolis, Malalas and Theophanes
Confessol'. These are texts written in a more or less simple "written
language", mixed with elements from common speech. Sometimes these
elements were admitted into the text: people like, for instance, Moschus
and Leontius must have been quite ab Ie to write the atticistic literary
Koine. Another time the presence of these elements may be regarded as
being caused by intrusion : one gets the impression that a man as Malalas,
for instance, did not admit these elements on purpose, in order to be
better understood, but wrote them down accidentally.
In this part some other texts will be studied, which actually belong to
the Modern Greek period because of their time of origin. Their use of
language, however, is such that it seems better to discuss them in this part.
1.3. The main question which has to be answered in th is part has already
been answered by Jannaris, who said, referring to Mk 7,25 ... yvv~ ~ç
elXe -rà Ovyá-r(!wv av'l"ijç nvevfla àxáOa(!-rov 261: "This is apparently a
Hebraism initiated by the Septuagint, imitated by the NT writers, and
spread through their subsequent imitators to common speech". And
indeed, the Hebrew nota relationis + resumpt. pronoun is an exact parallel
of the Modern Greek nov + pronomen coniunctum 262. Jannaris, however,
did not take into account the fact that the idiom which he signalized in
Mk 7,25 also occurs in Ancient Greek and other Koine-texts. Those
cases cannot easily be considered as Semitisms.
Psichari denied that the Modern Greek idiom should be viewed as a
Semitism, but saw more in it than Thumb, who called it a "spontanes
Zusammentreffen" 263. He maintained 264: "Le grec de la Sept ante préludait
2:;9 Cf. Costas, pp. 50 ff. and Weierholt, pp. 10 ff.
260 See note 54.
261 Jannaris, § 1439.
262 Cf. Tabachovitz, LXX und N.T., p. 105.
263 Thumb, Hell., p. 128.
264 Psichari, p. 858.

82 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
déjà sûrement à l'usage qui a prévalu; nous en avons quelques précurseurs
dans Ie grec classique". Thus Psichari gave a positive answer to the
question we posed, but did this without giving any proof.
It was Wackernagel who put this fact on record, saying 265: " • .. die
Gleichartigkeit der relativen nov - Sätze des Neugriechischen mit biblischen
Sätzen nach Art von olç èbóO'fJ aVToiç scheint mir nicht erwiesen".
With the intuition proper to a great scholar he chose an example (Apoc.
7,2) which actually happens to be a Semitism 266. We shall, however, take
good Greek examples like P. Oxy. I 117,12 ff. U cIJv bwaetç Toiç nal(j[olç
aov tv U aVTWv 267 and see whether there is any correlation between
examples like these and the Modern Greek idiom.
2. THE PRONOMEN ABUNDANS
From the 4th century onward one finds less instances of the pronomen
abundans. Almost all of them stem from hagiographic texts, i.e. from
texts written for the lower classes. In literary texts it does not occur
any longer: Paus. II 4,6 (II A .D .) may be considered as the last one.
2.1. Examples
The following examples have been found 268:
Paisios 84,21 1}v nç àv~(! ovóf-lan IIo(!cpV(!wç, ovne(! !;wv Ó f-la"áewç f-lá(!TVÇ
elXev àyán'fJv f-leT' aVTov návv 269.
Marc. Diac., Porphyr. 14,11-5 ... "ai (lAAOÇ vn'fJ(!h'fJç vewTe(!oç ovóf-lan
B - tI '7 r- 1 "" 1 ~-~ , '1
a(!wxaç, OVTLVa EV(!eV f3'
0 f-la"a(!wç. " OVTa ev eaxaup "lVuuVep, "al Aa WV
avvrJyayev, "ai àvaAwaaç noAAà . .. ToiiTov vytij èno{rwev.
In this case the pronomen aburulans does not follow the relat. pronoun
immediately, but later, in the third instance. It is something quite normal
and also occurs in Ancient Greek 270.
Sym. Styl. 30,24 "ai lbov 1}v na(!a"e{f-levov qJ(!Éa(! nA'fJa{ov TOV f-lOVaaT'fJ(!{ov,
èv 0/ vbw(! ov" vnfj(!xev èv aVTep, nAfjOoç bi nvevf-láTwv à"aOáeTwv "aTep"et
èv aVTep.
Id. 48, 1 à(!XlATlaT~ç yÉyovev èv Tti Ev(!{q., TOvVOf-la 'AvT{oxoç, Ta bi
na(!wvvf-lOV aVTov rovaTàç èAiyeTo, oç èAaArJO'fJ èv OAep Tep "óaf-lep T à ne (! i
aVTOV.
One gets the impression that the author changed his mind in making
the subject of the clause not the man himself, but his deeds.
Act. Xanth. 75,16 f. ... 'I'fJaov, ov ij OA.'i1plÇ TWV èv ~eVlTe{q. "lvei n(!àç
evanAaxv{av, OV Ó "AaVOf-laç TWV èv alXf-laAwa{q. ènl yfjç ae èAOeiv èno{'fJaev •..,
nO{'fJaov "al vVv lAeoç.
265 He did it in a review of Psichari's study in Theol. Lit. zeit. 8 (1909), pp. 227-8.
266 See I 2.4.5.6.
267 See I 2.2.3.5 and 2.3 .2.4.
288 Most of them by Linnér, p . 83 and Ljungvik, Stud., p. 28.
289 Linnér (p. 83) mentions another example: Act. Marinae 16.24 ... fjv
yevvrr{}ûaav d.{}Vç :n:aeéc5wxev a V r iJ v elç dvareoqnJv.
270 See Kühner-Gerth II, pp. 432 f.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONJUNCTUM 83
The author must have written down this pers. pronoun, because he
thought that it was not clear any longer that the relat. pronoun referred
to J es us 271.
The Chronicle of Malalas offers two examples, but both of them are
quotations from the LXX :
147,11-2 M~ aè Wraiát"W Ó fJe6ç aov, èq/ cp 1te1WtfJwç el è1t' avnp, Uywv . ..
(= Is. 37,10, Regn. IV 19,10).
156,15-7 OViWÇ Uyet ~vewç Ó fJeoç iep xetanp fWV Kvecp, ou eXeái'YJaa
iijÇ i5eçtaç aViov iOV e1ta~ovaat ëft1teoafJev aViov ëfJv'YJ, ~ai laxvv f3aatUwv
i5taeençw (= Is. 45,1).
Act. Cart. 10,2 eli50v ávi5ea nvá, ou ëanÀf3ev {mèe iOV ifÀwv ~ ö'ljJtç aViov.
Doctr. Jac. 68,5 li50v èyw e1táyw e1t' aViovç ~a~á, eç d)v ov i5vvf]aovTat
eçeÀfJûv eç aViwv.
Vit. Euthym. 87,22 ... iO aûtpoç iWV ft'YJie01tOÀtiWV. eç d)v nveç aViwv
ov~ àvef3áÀoviO . ..
2.2. Semitism8
Are there any cases of Semitic influence among these examples? The
two quotations in the Chronicle of Malalas may be so, of course: we have
observed that the LXX teems with such cases 272. It is good to ask the
same question with regard to the other instances. They all stem from
hagiographic texts, which, partly at least, have been written by Jews.
Another reason why these examples should be investigated on this point
is that the writers of this kind of literature underwent astrong influence
from the LXX and the NT.
The following cases are, I believe, rather dubious. In the fust place
Doctr. Jac. 68,5, and further Act. Cart. 10,2. Another case ab out which
one may have one's doubts is Sym. Styl. 30,24, but in reading the context,
one has to admit that the content of the relat. clause is emphasized so
strongly that it seems better to consider it as nonessential. All the other
examples may be considered as cases of relat. connection (Act. Xanth.
75,16 f. is a parenthesis).
271 Ljungvik (Stud., p. 28) mentions two more examples taken from this text:
75,31 f. '16011 Ta nÀoiov nEel ou )(aTfJEIp.ev lvf)á&, lv cp TcfHIP.p.év1) laûv1pVxfJ lv aVTl/J
and 83,8 f. àvfJe Yele nç .. . nea xeóvwv nvwv . . . l)(1)eVTTE TOVTOV Ihóv, cp )(al nae{}évoç
nç maTEvaaaa, 'Ij)(oÀovifu aVTl/J. The last case mayalso not be considered as a case of
pronomen abundans : the relat. clause falls apart into two clauses, the relat. pronoun
cp depending upon maTEvaaaa, aVTl/J upon 'Ij)(OÀ06f}EI. A similar case occurs in
Mosch. 2976B: 'An1)À{}op.EV elç vQaalv, lv fJ yevóp.evol lifwaáp.E{}a aVTó{}1 p.Éyav
)(aTà {}Eav p.ovaxóv. The relat. pronoun belongs here to yevÓP.EVOI, aVTó{}1 to l{}waáp.E{}a.
272 See I 2.4.4.2 and 2.4.4.4. Actually, the pronomen abundans in 147,11-2
may be a Semitism: the relat. clause appears to be essential. As in the other instance
the relat. clause is nonessentiaI, it cannot be decided whether this is a case of Semitic
infiuence or not.

84 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.3. A remaining problem
Apart from the fact that the texts written during the period from the
4th until the IOth century 273 offer so few examples and that some among
these may be cases of Semitic influence, there is a question which must
be asked, although it cannot be answered as yet. Is it not strange that
authors who are generally considered as people who wrote a simple kind
of Greek and of ten admitted elements of common speech into their
writings, never used a pronomen abundans ~ I think of authors as Palladius,
Moschus, Leontius, Malalas 274, the author of the Ghronicon Paschale,
Theophanes Confessor etc. etc. Had the idiom become extinct perhaps
and must the examples we discussed in the preceding paragraph all be
regarded as being caused by the influence of the LXX and the NT ~
Or did this idiom not occur at all in common speech and was it actually a
nicety of literary Greek ~ 275.
2.4. Later examples
Some later examples prove that by no means the pronomen abundans
had become extinct. They stem from the 14th and 15th centuries.
2.4.1. Alchimiae apparatio
This is a collection of alchemical recipes, which form part of the Codex
Holkhamicus of the 14th century. The following instances of a very odd
use of Snee accompanied by a pronomen abundans have been pointed
out by Tabachovitz 276. '
F 6-8 Taxv àvaÄ:ve-rat eiç f5t5we elç -&eel-'~V xone{av TOV àMyov' Snee Tà
f5t5we aVTà oVTWÇ àvaAV61-'evov t5Vva-rat È'X TOVTOV yevÉIJ-&at Ó "Ae1Jç.
G 1-2 Tà t5i f5t5we TijÇ Cwijç yevviiTat àn' aVT6' Snee OVTWÇ y{ve-rat 'Ii IJ'XevaIJ{a
aVTov.
2.4.2. Byz. Alex.
3129-30
(nç à~e È'X TWV IIeeIJwv)
\, n {3 , \ - ~I ~ ,
1'0 Taxoç IJvAI'oal-' aveTat naea TWV ma'Xeuovwv'
öç 'AAe~ávt5eqJ naeaIJTáç, Uyet n(!àç TOVTOV OVTOÇ 277.
-----
278 The Vita Euthymii has been composed between 920 and 925 (see the edition,
pp. 9-10).
274 Cf. von Stepski Doliwa, p. 65, who also finds it "auffallend" that Malalas
offers the pronomen abundam only in two quotations from the LXX.
276 Cf. I 1.7.
278 Tabachovitz, Études, pp. 14-5.
277 More examples of oç in the nom., followed by a pronomen abundam, are: 437- 9
iE dxo)'áOTOV yde 'nvoç ly)evor; uV )eaTéOT1'Jç, / oç elç Tdç XEÏ(laç Tdç i/Aáç TaX{OTwç i,.mUJEÏTa"
/ )eall5"'1JV OUTOÇ • • • I5wUE' •.., 1657-9 UyOVTEÇ n(loç • AUEavl5(lov •••, / cór; MQ)eEl5óva l5ei
nva IIE(luóYv )ealhkiv )e(láTOÇ. / ·Or; )eal nE(l,xCJ(!'Yjr; aUTOr; YEVÓ/AEVOr; èx ToVrov, / dvél5(la/AE •..,
2263-6 W E(lxaa, .. • n(lounEudJv elç nól5aç • AkEávl5(lov, / .. • • or; 17(lEaTO )eal /Aé).or; /
••. neourpf}éyyEufhn .. . / ..., aUTOr; ).éyuv ..•, 4429-31 n).Vva, POV).ó/AEVOr; a1ÏTó
(lzli'vo'rde'xov) . • .. / 0 )eal p(laxEv ... )eaTE1;,wwlhJ / a1ÏTàr; Tdr; XEÏ(lar; èxrpvydv i)eE ivo
TOO /AayEl(lov .•.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
85
1003-5
IJ á(!ea7:t vijp ij ft?}r:'Yj(! ft0V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fj7:tç :n:U(!á"À'YjCTtV lftijv a V r: 'Yj :n:(!oabe~aftév'Yj
elaijÀ()ev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 278.
In this poem not only the nominative is followed by a pronomen abundans,
but also the accusative:
2479-80
· .. tar:àç ó :n:o(!qJV(!éïvoÇ" 8v à:n:à "Ó(!'Yjç e mov
yevéa()' è:n:{a'Yjft0v a v r: à v wç à:n:à r:ijç :n:o(!q;V(!aç.
3426-8
· ................ :n:(!oa?}vey"av 'AU~avb(!ov LJa(!etcp
wç äyyeÀoV" 8v "a7:tbwv lv ~évn ()ew(!{q.
:n:U(!'YjÀÀayftév'Yjv r:e aToÀijv TOVr:OV lv&bvftévov,
· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~yé(!()'Yj :n:(!oa"vvijaat.
4521-2
lmaToÀàç "0ft{Covr:eç· äç "al ÀafJwv elç xei(!aç
:n:(!oaér:a~e ftéaov aT(!aTOV T a V T a ç àvayvwa()ijvat.
2.4.3. Sphrantzes
160,10-11 ... Zw?} ... , ijv ()ij "al fteTà 7:tvàç ijfté(!aç ~vÀoy~()'Yj aVTijv
Ó bea:n:óT'Yjç ó "V(! LJ'Yjft~T(!toÇ 279.
302,14--6 avvey(!áVJaTO ftv()á(!ta •.., wv à:n:' aVTWV TijV à"a()U(!a{av "at
:n:(!ób'YjÀov f{JÀva(!{av Tà bt'Yjy~aaa()at aVTà raov lar:l T0 r:ijv r:ov Avyetov "ó:n:(!OV
l""oft{aat.
413,21 ... r:wv ... av()évr:wv "at à(!XÓVTWV, ovç l~eÀ()wv l"ei()ev "aTrp"taeV
avr:ovç lv Tij 'Ab(!tavov:n:oÀet . ..
26,26-7 (ed. Grecu) ... "al ër:e(!a :n:oÀÀá· ä "at ar:aÀûç lyw :n:U(!éÀafJov
r: a v r: a :n:a(!à r:OV é'Yj()évTOÇ :n:(!wr:oaT(!áTO(!OÇ.
Pseudo-Phr. 304, 25-7 (ed. Grecu) ... :n:U(!eyéveTo elç r:ijv IJóÀtv "al
ó ... (geóbw(!oç btà r:à elvat avr:àv lv Tij :n:óÀet btáboxov .... /) "al ó fJaatÀevç
l:n:e"v(!8t avr:à à"ova{wç . .. 280.
278 More examples of öanç: 1108-10 c]JIÀbvr,OV •.• · öurlÇ ..• / . .. / :m,xeooç
'>CaTEacpaylaaev othoç TOV IIavaavlav, 3558-62 djeov aVTov TOV nOTap.ov ... nÀ'T}p.p.veoi'nrra·
/ oinveç . • . / ... / vnÉure81jlav .•. '>Cal TC(!Oç .daeûov rjM'ov, / ûnóvnç OUTOI neoç amov
WTVX'T}P.' , AÀe;áv6eov.
279 See also 128,1 . .. wç naed TOU paalUwç ... neoanáxlhj, {j '>Cal 6",alwç OcpelÀop.ev
iJp.ûç notijaal aVTó, and 192,8-10 '>Cal Ó Nl'>Calaç neóe6eoç Év 'PÓ>p.n Èva:rcÉp.etve •.• , öv
p.nà TfJV TOU naTelá(!xov dno TooV (Me dno6'T]p.lav ó paalÀevç '>Cal iJ at5voooç aVTov ûç
naTe1á(!X1JV Èlp'T}cplaaVTo.
280 The majority of these examples have been adopted from the thesis of von
Stepski Doliwa. Among them she mentions three instances which, I think, cannot be
considered as cases of the pronomen abundans: 106,19-20, 193,4 and 390,23.
Sphrantzes does not employ aVToç as a pers. pronoun there, but in the function of
a determinative pronoun. On p. 67 she admits herself that amoç in 106,19-20 is
a. determin. pronoun.

86 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
2.4.4. Other texts
Velth. 465-6
lfJeve fJeva'fJ "aOaeá, no.V.à

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 87
3. THE ORIGIN OF O:reOV AS A RELATIVE PRONOUN
In the texts from the 12th century onwards the word önov occurs
more and more as arelat. pronoun. It is not employed as arelat. pronoun
then for the first time: too many instances occur in the texts, mixed
though they are with learned elements as oç, oanç and oa:reee. How and
when did önov, which originally meant "where" (and still does), come
into use as arelat. pronoun?
3.1. Broadening of the sense of ö:reov
This change did not come about within a short time. It has been a
development wich lasted many centuries and started in Ancient Greek.
3.1.1. In A ncient Greek
Already in Ancient Greek onov (and other relative adverbs) is sometimes
used instead of the adjectival rel. pronoun accompanied by a preposition.
Kühner-Gerth 284 ment ion the following ex am pies :
Hdt. IX 1 ö"ov

88 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
only actual meaning of onov must have been "where" in its broadest
sense 288.
3.1.2.1. Local sense. Even in Ancient Greek texts no difference is
made sometimes between "where" and "whereto". In the Koine this
difference has almost vanished: onot does not occur any longer in the
payri, nor in the NT. Some examples of onov instead of onot are Mt 8,19,
Jn 8,21, 22; 13,33, 36; 14,4, 5; 21,19; Apoc. 14,5 289 .
Examples where onov is employed instead of a prepositional phrase
are more frequent than before:
Mt 2,4 "at f-l~ mwáf-levot neoa'Yjvéy"at avri[> btà ràv Öx).ov ànearéyaaav r~1I
aréy'Yjv önov ("Ie toit sous lequel il était" 290), "at Uoev~avreç xa).wat rà1l
"eáf3aro1l onov ("upon which") ó naea).vn"àç "ará"etro.
Apoc. 2,13 ... ' Avnnaç ..., öç àne"rávO'Yj nae' vf-lïv, onov (= nae' vf-lïv)
ó aaravaÇ "arot"û.
Clem., Ep. Gor. I 25,3 ... a'teu ràv a'Yj"à1l è"ûvov, onov rà oara rov
neoyeY01l6roç èartv . .. (Latin translation : in qua) 291.
3.1.2.2. Sense involving occasion
P. Par. 47,8 ff. (± 152 B.C.) ... on èvf3éf3).'Yj"av Vf-laç (= ijf-laç) elç iJ).'Yj1l
f-leyá)''Yjv "at 015 bvváf-leOa ànoOavûv "al' lbfiç on f-lé).).of-lev awOfjvat, r6re
f3annCwf-leOa (-w- = -6-), "for they have plunged us into a deep mire in
which we may die ... 292. The relat. adverb 015 is sometimes used as a
learned substitute of onov. The same applies to l1l0a.
Epict. I 15,7 Ovbév, lq;'Yj, rwv f-leyá)'wv aq;vw ytveTat, onov ye ovb' ó f36r(!Vç
O'iJbè av"ov, " ... why, not even does the bunch of grapes, or a fig" 293.
The adverb denotes a very loose and vague connection. In the following
instance its sense is clearer :
Id. 20,8 óeare ènt rov vOf-ltaf-laroç, 8nov bo"û nelvat neàç ijf-laç ...,
"... in which it is feIt that we have some interest ...".
Ep. Gol. 3,11 ... 8nov ov" lvt "E)')''Yjv "at' Iovbaioç ..., "... in which
case ...". Ro bertson finds that 8nov is almost personal here 294.
Clem., Ep. Gor. I 26,1 Méya "at Oavf-laaràv oVV VOf-ltCof-lev elvat, el ó
b'Yjf-ltoveyàç ... àváaTaat1' not~aerat rwv óatwç avri[> bov).evaávrwv ...,
önov "at bt' oevéov bet"1IVatv ijf-lïv rà f-leya).ûov rfjç ènayyeMaç avroiJ;
This is a very free use: it must have a sense like "by means of which",
"in that way".
Id. 43,1 Kat rt Oavf-laar6v, el Ot èv Xetari[> ntarevO&reç naeà Oeov
288 Cf. Hesseling, Il ov, pp. 219-20.
289 Cf. Hesseling, Ilo V, p. 219 and Blass-Debrunner, § 103.
290 Pernot, p. 156.
291 For more examples see P ernot, pp. 153, 156, 158 and 161.
292 The translation has been borrowed from Hunt-Edgar I no. 100.
283 The translation of this and the following example has been borrowed from
Oldfather (ed. Loeb).
2t4 Robertson, p. 712.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 89
iieyov 'WtovrO "adaTrwav rovç neOete'YJ/.lÉVOVç; onov "al. Ó /.la"áetoç .. .
Movaijç rà btareraY/.lÉva avnp návra Èa'YJ/.leu»aar:o èv raiç [eeaiç (3{(3ÀOtç . . .
In this relat. connection onov has a similar meaning: "in exactly the
same way".
3.1.2.3. Causal sense
I have chosen two examples mentioned by Hesseling, who enumerates
a whole series of interpretations given by different scholars 295. It is
interesting to see how divergent these views are: another proof of how
much the sense of onov had been broadened.
1 Ep. Cor. 3,3 onov yàe Èv v/.liv CijÀoç "al. iietç, ovXl. aU(!"t"o{ Èare ... ;
2 Ep. Petr. 2,10-1 ... c5ó~aç ov reÉ/.lOvatv (3Àaaf{J'YJ/.l0vvreç, onovayyeÀot .. .
ov f{JÉeOVatV "al" avnvv naeà "ve{cp (3).áaf{J'YJ/.lov "e{atv.
I consider onov as meaning "whereas", rather than "since" or something
like that 296.
3.1.2.4. Some later examples
Mosch. 2949 B /.le7:à Ta "avaat avrov .av f{Jovevov ovx e'Ûeev iivOa
(= with what) wf{JetÀev af{Joyy{aat .av f{Jovevov.
The adverb ii1l0a is a learned substitute for the colloquial onov 297.
Leont., Sym. 1708 C ... elaeeXó/.le1loç ótà rijç nÓeT'YJç, onov nÀ'YJa{ov (= ne ar
to which) 298 Èaû1I ra aX0).{o1l ruw natbtw1I. From an example like this it
appears how the local sense of onov could change into that of what usually
is denoted by arelat. pronoun: here onov is even accompanied by an
adverb.
Id. 1717 A ov návraç ói rwnáaaTo, àÀ).' onov f; Oeov xáetç Èyvwetaev avnp.
"Onov might be regarded here as denoting ovç, or oaovç. It is better,
however, to view it as meaning something like "in each case that ... ,
whenever ... ".
3.1.3. Conclusion
It may be concluded from the foregoing examples that onov first was
broadened in its local sense and began to be used instead of all kinds of
prepositional phrases with alocal meaning. In some cases it lost even
its original local colour, which passed into a sense involving occasion
or time. It also developed a causal sense. Finally it became a connective
without a clear-cut sense, used to form a connection bet ween sentences.
Having become so general in use, it could easily replace another word
which connected sentences, the relat. pronoun 299.
295 Hesseling, IIov, p. 219. See also p. 220.
296 For more examples of ö;nov having a causal sense see Blass-Debrunner, § 456,3.
297 Cf. Jannaris, § 608, and 3.1.2.2.
298 For the position of :n;).TJGlov Rydèn refers to PaU., H.L. 152,16 ToVrov n).TJulov
KU7T.LTWV TtÇ l,.,.evev.
299 Cf. Dieterich, pp. 200 ff., Wolf, pp. 47-8, Psaltes, § 312 and Hesseling, IIov,
pp. 219 ff. For parallels in other languages see Hesseling, Ilo v, p. 220.

90 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
3.2. Earliest examples ot onov = relat. pronoun
Jannaris, Dieterich and Rydén 300 have signalized a series of examples
where, they maintain, onov was used instead of arelat. pronoun. They
stem from the lst, 5th or 6th, 6th and 7th centuries. Some of them should,
I believe, be rejected as such. They will be discussed first.
3.2.1. Rejected examples
Clem., Ep. Cor. I 23,3 n6eew yevéa()w àq/ iJftWV i} yeurpiJ ufJ-r'Yj, onov Uyet ...
Pernot ob serves 301: "N ous sommes bien près du relatif moderne nov".
In the lst century A.D. we are quite close, but not so close as Pernot
believes. The words onov Uyet do not mean "who says", but "where
it is said", or "where the Sctipture says", or "where God says". Blass­
Debrunner are clear about thaP02: "Bei den Zitierformeln Uyet usw.
schwebt als Subjekt ó ()eóç, i} yeurpiJ od. dgl. vor". See, e.g. Ep. Eph. 4,8

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 91
Apophth. Patr. 300 D ovtJè yàe elXé nnou 'OV alwvoç .ov.ov VATjV el f-l~
éaep{tJa önov .à OáAAW saXlCl3v, " ... nisi acum unam qua palmas suas
scindebat", is Migne's translation. Jannaris, who, according at least to
his bibliography, also used the edit ion of Migne, has another version :
eiX13U .{nou. In that case it would be much easier to consider önov as a
substitute not of a prepositional phrase, but of arelat. pronoun (ij).
Jannaris' text-correction (1) must, however, be rejected.
Mal. 405,4-5 ... "at 13veéOTjaav ... elç .ov .6nov 'OV éevf-la.oç önov Uye.al
.0 BvOáetv. Although Niebuhr translates "qui Bytharium dicitur", I prefer
the more conservative attitude of Wolf, who says (p. 48): "An der Stelle
des Sundes, wo man's die kleine Tiefe heisst". He mentions the following
paralleis, where önov is replaced by the more learned svOa: 77,15-6 "at
Wtû06vuç Ot ' AeyovaVial elç .0 f-lav.ûov, svOa Uynal .à IIvOla 013ef-lá . ..
and 115,5-7 ... sepvyev ... elç aA;'o f-léeoç -rijç v~aov, .0 l5taepéeov'0 Kv,,;'wm,
svOa .à K V"Awma Uyl3ial 0eTj. It is striking to see how close this use of
önov and lvOa (= önov) is to wh at is usually denoted by arelat. pronoun.
Moseh. 2914 A .. . àV~AVOI3V elç.o oeoç önov av.oç I3lnI3V. Mihevc-Gabrovec
(p. 47) views it as a "relatif simpie". It is safer, I believe, to classify
it as a dubio us case 305.
In spite of the title of this paragraph, which sounds rather negative,
it is quite obvious that the above-mentioned examples prove that, if
önov was not used as arelat. pronoun yet, the time that it wouid be used
as such was very near. The most important reason why we are kept from
considering önov as arelat. pronoun is that the antecedents still indicate
locations and not persons or objects.
3.2.2. Examples
In the following examples we shall see how the development has been
completed. The antecedents are persons or (not local) objects, and thus
there is no reason to doubt that önov is used as a substitute for the relat.
pronoun.
Apophth. Patr. 300 B "at Aaf36vuç "at .ov àtJûepov önov elXe neoç av.ov
.~v ;'vnTjv, " .. . jratrem qui simultatem adversU8 eum habuerat (Migne)".
oldest, Ms A). This, however, can only be true on two conditions: 1. the Ms H
and the Syrian translation stem from the Ms A, 2. it must be considered as a lapse
of the scribe, as for the rest he writes oç ~ ö. It is obvious that all this is highly
improbable. I rather suppose that the translator rendered önov by quae just by
accident (the rendering quae being more to his liking than ubi), possibly influenced
by scriptura haec: "Longe sit scriptura haec a nobis, quae dixit . ..". A last possibility,
of course, is that a later scribe changed ubi into quae.
305 An instance which has to be rejected as such is offered by Gignac, who says
regarding P. Gen. 75,14 (lIl-IV A.D.) Tónov bi aVToîç naeáaX€ç nov p.ivwGtv : "I have
found one case of an indeclinable (italics by me) nov used in its Modern Greek relative
sense" . Here nov is not used as a pronoun, but as an adverb. For more examples
of interrogatives which are used in an almost relative sense see Blass- Debrunner,
§§ 298,4 and 368.

92 PRONOMEM ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
That 8nov is a substitute for 8ç becomes clear in 300 C . .. xai 1'011 àc5eÄ.IPoll
lX01l1'a 1'~1I AVn?]lI ...
Dan. Sket. 70,1 fJ fteOva1'(!ta 8nov elç 1'0 ftea{avAov lxet1'o . ..
The connective 8nov represents the relat. pronoun ij.
Leont., Sym. 1704 B ... 1'0'1' c5(!6ftov fJWÏJv, 8nov fJ(!~áfteOa xai 8nov iXA~O?]­
ftev vno 1'OV Oeov, elç 1'~v l(!?]ftov 'l'av1'?]V nA?](!WaWftev.
The fust 8nov may be regarded as representing 8'1', the second as representing
iIP' w, "to which we are called".
Leont., Joh. 46,18 ' Exe'ivoç 8nov iftaye{(!evell, i~ip .. Oev 1'(!Éxwv . . ., "The
man who used to cook for us . ..". It can by no means mean something
like "And he left the place where he had been cooking", 8nov representing
the phrase "from the pI ace where ...".
3.3. Weakening ot 8nov = where
Did the local sense of 8nov weaken or was it perhaps completely lost?
It would be understandable if this had happened : the meaning of 8nov
had widened so much that it ended in being a mere connective.
Hesseling observed the same thing and found some examples in the
Apocalyp8e where 8nov was reinforced by èxe'i or by means of a prepositional
phrase 306. It is good to consider these examples, while at the same time
we add some more.
Apoc. 12,6 . . . elç 1'ijv l(!'Yjftov, 8nov lXet ixe i 1'6noll fJ1'otftaaftÉlIov ..•
Id. 12,14 . " elç 1'0'1' 1'6nov av1'ijç, 8nov 1'(!ÉIPe1'at ixei . ..
Mart. Matth. 217,2 F 1'0 O(!OÇ 8nov 17ft?]V ixei . ..
We have seen more of such cases in the LXX. In I 2.4.4.1 some instances
of essential clauses were discussed, among which was, e.g., Gen. 20,13
.. . elç náv'l'a 1'6noll, 0-0 iàv elaüOwftell i x ei 307. In all these instances
Semitic influence is apparent.
The following examples may be compared with Regn. III 13,25 . . . 0-0
Ó n(!o~1'?]ç ... xanpxet ill av1'fj, which is also due to Semitic influence 308.
Apoc. 17,9 at Én1'à xeIPaAai Én1'à O(!?] ela{v, 8nov fJ yvvij xáO?]'l'at in'
av'l'löv.
Ge8t. Pil. A 15,4 ... iv oixep 8nov OV(!iç ovx 1}v iv av1'q>.
Can all these instances be considered as cases of Semitic influence?
If they are, they are valueless: then they do not give us any information
about the use and function of 8nov in Greek. We shall revue them:
Apoc. 12,6 is an instance (see I 2.4.5.6); 12,14 is not necessarily one (see
the same paragr.); Mart. Matth. 217,2 F is an instance (the relat. clause
is essential), and so are Apoc. 17,9 (see I 2.4.5.6) and Ge8t. Pil. A 15,4
(see I 2.5.2). Only Apoc. 12,14 may be considered as a genuine Greek
clause, at least according to the rule set by us. If one soos, however,
306 Hesseling, IIoiJ, p. 219. Dieterich had the same idea, it seems (p. 201):
"Wie man a1so sagte : T1)V aTÉyrJv 8:/tov *" konnte man auch sagen, entweder : T1)v
aTÉy1]V 8nov ÛÓOV oder: 1j aTÉy1] 8nov *' beû . .." .
307 See a.lso note 113.
308 See a.lso note 112.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 93
how many identical cases occur in the LXX, texts which were written
some centuries before, one starts doubting even ab out this one.
Or should these examples not be considered as cases of the pronomen
abundans, but as something new, a phenomenon caused only by the fact
that önov, when it had alocal sense, needed a reinforcing element? This
seems to be confirmed by the only example which has been found outside
of the atmosphere of the LXX :
P. Bad. II 43,6-11 (lIl A.D.) ÈvefJaAófld)a elç ia nAolov 'Ueaxoç ioiJ
nOAtTtXoiJ ioiJ g;lAov aov, önov (= at whose house) Ëfleveç Èv{)áfJe uv' (= uvw P09)
Èv in olxlq. aVioiJ, lAalov fJát5w Tiaaeea. The adverb is reinforced by
the phrase Èv in olxlq. aVioiJ, and thus it is similar to, e.g., Apoc. 17,9
önov . .. Èn' avnóv. They are different, however: the relat. clause in the
papyrus is nonessential : it forms a parenthesis.
There is still another objection against Hesseling's supposition: more
examples of this phenomenon do not occur. They do not occur even in
the texts of the 5th-7th centuries, when the sen se of önov was even
broader 310. And the situ at ion in Modern Greek is exactly the opposite
of what should have been expected: when önov has alocal sense, it is
not necessarily followed by a pronomen coniunctum 311 . It is exactly in
this case that the rule is looser applied.
It may be concluded that, ifthe local sense of önov actually has weakened,
this weakening has not had consequences for the development of the
language. It must be admitted, however, that for a short time people
may have feIt inclined to reinforce it. We cannot be positive of this,
as one papyrus is not enough proof.
3.4. Other opinions
There have been, as far as I know, two scholars who did not agree
with the theory discussed above. They had another opinion about the
origin of önov as arelat. pronoun.
3.4.1. Koraïs 312 believed that this phenomenon was a consequence of
Western influences. He thought primarily of the Italian relat. pronoun
che. That this theory cannot be correct is quite clear : 1. Italian influences
on the Greek language did not start until the 13th century, 2. the first
ex am pIes of önov used as arelat. pronoun in early Modern Greek stem
from the 12th century, 3. the examples mentioned in 3.2 occur in still
older texts, written in the 5th, 6th and 7th century 313.
3.4.2. Hatzidakis 314, disagreeing with the examples given by Jannaris
(see 3.2), said: "Tà ... vna ioiJ Ftávvae'YJ naeau{)évTa xwela t5vvav-rat và
309 Proposed by Kapsomenakis, p . 99, note 2.
310 See, e.g., the instanees discussed in 3.2.1.
311 See II 2.2.2.
312 A. Koraïs, "ATa~Ta I, p. 65.
313 Cf. Mavrofrydis, p . 612 and Hatzidakis, no 1l0V, p . 50.
314 Hatzidakis, ·01lov.

94 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEM CONIUNCTUM
vorr{}W(Jtv on O..éx{}rwav xai lVOOVVTO Tóre àXó/1,'rj br:i Tomxijç a'Yjf-taa{aç, olov
2 - J! ' , ('?,') 315 ' \" J!
t::xetvoç u:n:ov ef-tayet(!evev = ev cp TO:n:cp ,etç TO O(!OÇ u:n:ov e l :n:ev
(= lv cp) 316, ij y(!aq;ij o:n:ov Uyet (= ij y(!aq;ij lv cp Xw(!{cp Uyet 317 )
X-rA.. ore é:n:of-tivwç ij yiveatç TOV o:n:ov = öanç (jèv àváye-rat elç TOVÇ 'E)')''Yjvo(!­
(!wf-taïxovç X(!ÓVOVÇ 318. As to the two last-mentioned examples he is right,
but we have Been that the fust certainly may be considered as an instance
of o:n:ov used as a substitute for oç. The instances discussed in 3.2.2. show
that Hatzidakis was not right in refuting this theory.
His own solution is as follows. Just like the interrogative :n:wç passed
into the specific :n:wç (= on), and other modal particles like f-t~:n:wç, aàv
and wç hecame specific, so the interrogative :n:OV changed into arelat.
pronoun. This must have happened, according to Hatzidakis, in indirect
questions, as, for instance, ytvwaxw :n:OV v:n:áyet aVToç and ywwaxw aVTov
:n:OV v:n:áyet 319. In such sentences :n:OV can be interpreted both as an interrogative
and as arelat. pronoun. This depends upon intonation and
context. There is, however, one difficulty: it is not :n:OV that we find used
as a relat. pron~)Un, but Ö:n:ov. Hatzidakis tries to solve this problem by
assuming that :n:OV and the old indefinite relat. adverb ö:n:ov were being
confused in indirect questions. It is a well-known fact that since the
Ancient Greek period öanç and o:n:owç etc. were used sometimes instead of
T{Ç and :n:oioç in indirect questions 320. I have not been ahle, however,
to find such examples of o:n:ov. Another reason to reject this theory is that
not even one of the examples discussed in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 can he interpreted
in this way.
3.5. Date ot origin
We have at our disposal the following facts to determine the date of
origin:
1. It does not occur in the papyri 321. There is one exception, the
papyrus discussed in 3.3, P . Bad. 11 43,6-11, where ö:n:ov still has alocal
sense, but is used af ter a personal antecedent 322. It is true, however, that
316 Leont., Joh. 46,18 (3 .2.2).
316 Mosch. 2914A (3.2.1).
317 Clem., Ep. Oor. I 23,3 (3.2.1).
318 Hatzidakis, "Onov, p . 53.
319 Hatzidakis, "Onov, p. 52.
320 See Blass-Debrunner, § 300,1: in the NT önolOr; and önwr; were used in this
way, ömLç never.
321 Cf. Dieterich, p . 201 and Hesseling, IJ OV, p. 220.
322 Kapsomenakis (p. 99) offers another example, but it is rather dubious:
P. Bas. 19,2-3 (VlfVII A.D.) ... 1Tr1)aa avn)v rome dna Ä-LOonÄ-Wewv nOLijae Ta
óaninv çrov ÈIJLaOwaw ... Kapsomenakis proposes Ta óaninv noV ÈIJLaOwaw,
saying: "Was ich in dem an dieser Stelle nicht deutlichen Faksimile lese, ist entweder
TOV oder nov, jedenfalls nicht aov. Wenn nov dasteht, so haben wir es hier mit
einem frühen Vorkommen vom m· und ngr. relativen nov zu tun". We may add that
there are earlier examples, but that in all of them the new relat. pronoun still has
the form of önov, not of the later nov.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 95
examples as the ones discussed in 3.2.2 do not occur in the papyri of the
2d and 3d centuries; among these papyri there are some which are so
"vulgar" that the occurrence of önov in its new sense might have been
expected. It may be safely assumed, therefore, that it was not used as
a substitute for the relat. pronoun before the 5th century (the Apophthegmata
Patrum, which offer us the earliest example, date from around 500).
2. The relat. pronoun önov (ónov, nov) occurs in all the Modern Greek
dialects, even in the most conservative ones, as Pontian, Tsaconian and
the dialects of South-Italy 323. Thus it cannot be a recent development.
3. Of the examples mentioned in 3.2.2 those stemming from texts
written by Leontius of Neapolis are the last ones until the 12th century.
This means that from the 7th until the 12th century önov used as arelat.
pronoun does not occur. This fa ct would form a strong argument against
our theory, if we were not aware of the fact that the authors of the texts
written during those centuries may have suppressed it as a too vulgar
form 324. In a somewhat lesser degree the same has happened to the ot her
relat. pronoun, TOY T~Y TÓ 325. We mayalso remind ourselves of the fact
that judging from the texts we have to conclude that the pronomen
abundans, too, had been given up 326.
4. Toy T~Y TÓ
4.1. Attic
In the 4th cent. B.C. the ancient Ionian relat. pronoun (} 1] TO penetrated
into the Attic dialect, though only in those forms which begin with T- 327.
The coincidence of the relat. forms (} 1] oï aï and those of the article
ó ~ Ol al may have cooperated 328 . This pionoun has never been able to
work its way into the official language. It occurs only in some vulgar
inscriptions 329 :
CIA II 611,11 (300 B.C.) ... J)'JI Te aVToç f:x,v(!{evaey "al Tà n(!oç rovç
aÀ.A.ovç è~eAoy{aaTo 330.
4.2. Koine
From the Attic it entered into the Koine, but it does not occur in the
literary Koine, nor in "Fachprosa", nor in the LXX and NT. It is found
only in papyri 331 :
323 See Hesseling, II OV, p. 220.
324 It goes without saying that in the spoken language the traditional relat.
pronouns and 8nov (and TOV rYlv TO) have existed next to each other for some time.
One can only guess how long it lasted until 8nov got the upperhand.
325 See the next chapter.
326 See 2.3.
327 See Jannaris, § 1438 and Psaltes, § 312.
328 See Dieterich, p . 198 and Thumb, Hell., p. 87.
329 See Schwyzer-Debrunner, p. 642,7.
330 For more examples see Meisterhans, p . 156, note 1327.
331 See Brugmann- Thumb, p. 645 and Schwyzer-Debrunner, p. 642,7.

96 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
P. Giss. 97,6 ff. (II A.D.) Tà àa

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 97
5.1. In Ancient Greek and the Koine.
5.1.1. In Ancient Greek relat. connection does not occur very of ten:
see I 1.4 339 • All the examples where the pronomen abundans occurs are
cases of relat. connection.
5.1.2. In the Koine it occurs more frequently: see I 2.1.2.3, where some
percentages are mentioned. Especially Polybius is very fond of it (Diodorus
just a little less): for him it is a perfect method to indicate that sentences
belong to each other, something very important for an author who likes
to bring the shorter clauses together in big coherent complex es : see
I 2.3.2.1, point 2.
5.1.2.1. In the papyri relat. connection does not occur very of ten.
This is not surprising: this idiom is not at home in documents and letters,
it is more suitable to the story. That is why historians are so fond of it:
the relat. connection helps them in making clear to the readers what
exactly is the correlation between the present and the preceding sentences.
It is found more of ten in documents than in letters. In the centuries B.C.
there are not many examples, but later their number increases. Two
examples follow, one of a document, another one of a letter:
P. Oxy. 1273,18 ff. (260 A.D.) ... elVat ... T~V oÀ'YJv qJee~v xevaoiJ "OLVOiJ
flvaytaiov . .. návTa "eqJaÀalov olç ovbÈv neoaeyeáqJ'YJ, neei ~ç neO"elflév'YJç
qJeeaijç ... ~ è"CJóTtç ... WfloÀóY'YJaev ..., "... making the total of the whole
dowry 1 mnaiaion ..., a sum total to which no addition has been made;
and questioned about the aforesaid dowry ..." 340.
P. Flor. 137,2 ff. (264 A.D.) "ai aÀÀoTe vfliv èyeáqJ'YJ T~V neemol1jatv
ToiJ aet-rov ... b1jÀwaat, vfleîÇ bÈ ~fleÀfJaaTe ...· 8 "liv viJv not~aaTe ...,
"You were ordered once before to report the quantities of corn stored
up ..., but you neglected the order ... Do it this time, however ...".
5.1.2.2. The occurrence of the relat. connection in the NT differs along
with the different books: there are only a few examples in, e.g., Mark
and the Apocalypse, more in Luke, and a fair number in Acts. Two
examples:
Lk 11,53-12,1 ... ije~avTo oE Yf}aflflaTeîç ... CJeLVWÇ ÈvéXeLV ... èvebeevovTeç
aVTov {}'YJeevaal Tt è" ToiJ aTóflaToç aVToiJ. 'Ev olç ... ije~aTo UyelV ...
Acts 7,20 'Ev cp "ateip lyevv~{}1j Mwvaijç, "ai ~v àaTeioç Tip {}eip' 8ç
dveTf}áqJ1J ... lv Tip oi,,'!> ToiJ naTeÓç 341.
5.2. General survey
Before dealing with the use of the relat. connection in the byzantine
petiod, it is good, I believe, to review the history of the phenomenon
through the ages. This will be done by means of the adjoined tabie, in
339 See also Kühner-Gerth 11, pp. 434-6 and Schwyzer-Debrunner, p. 644,13.
340 The translation of this (no. 5) and the following papyrus (no. 144) is by
Hunt-Edgar.
341 For more examples see Robertson, pp. 721-2.

98 PRONOMEN ABUNDAN8 AND PRONOMEN CONlUNCTUM
which a series of texts is included ranging from Ancient Greek until
early Modern Greek. On a certain number of pages, varying from 30 to
40 in proportion to the size 342, all the relatives, in normal relat. clauses
as well as in cases of relat. connection, have been counted. The fust
figure in the table indicates the total number of cases of relat. connection,
the second the percentage of this number as compared to the total number
of relat. pronouns.
Xen., Anab., pp. 139-69 343 4 4.5%
Polyb., pp. 240-320 344 50 56 %
Diod., pp. 348-428 346 38 41 %
Exod., pp. 86-106 346 0 0 %
Mark, pp. 84--126 847 2 3.5%
Luke, pp. 138-80 347 9 10 %
Acts, pp. 297-337 347 29 26 %
Apoc., pp. 613-53 347 2 2.7%
Clem., Ep. Oor. I, pp. 35-68 348 18 26 %
Pedo Dio8cur., pp. 1-30 349 4 13,5%
Ant. Liberalis, pp. 17-59 860 5 16 %
Hiator. Monach., pp. 9-39 351 13 41 %
Pall., H.L., pp. 42-122 352 47 52 %
Marc. Disc., Porphyr., pp. 1-30 353 7 26 %
Malalas, pp. 316-46 364 25 76 %
Leont., Joh., pp. 1-30 855 11 33 %
Ohron. Pasch., pp. 546-82 356 15 66 %
Theoph. Conf., pp. 333-63 357 12 42 %
Vita Euthym., pp. 47-97 368 30 47 %
Byz. Alex., vvo 1-967 859 37 64 %
Sphrantzes, pp. 2-62 860 33 40 %
Mach., pp. 270-360 881 2ó 20 %
342 Rhe measuring of the length of the pieces has been done roughly. It is not
suited to statistical purposes.
843 Ed. C. G. Cobet-J. C. Vollebregt, Leiden 1949.
844 Ed. W. R. Paton (Loeb).
345 Ed. C. H. Oldfather (Loeb).
346 Ed. A. Rahlfs, Stuttgart 1949.
847 Ed. E. Nestie, Stuttgart 1952.
348 Ed. K. Bihlmeyer, Tübingen 1956.
34. Ed. M. Wellmann, Berlin 1958.
860 Ed. I. Cazzaniga, Varese-Milano 1962.
851 Ed. A. J. Festugière, Bruxelles 1961.
852 Ed. N. Bougatsos-D. Batistatos, Athens 1970.
368 Ed. H. Grégoire-M. A. Kugener, Paris 1930.
854 Ed. B . G. Niebuhr, Bonn 1831.
865 Ed. H. GeIzer, Freiburg-Leipzig 1893.
856 Ed. L . Dindorf, Bonn 1832.
857 Ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig 1883.
358 Ed. P. Karlin-Hayter, Bruxelles 1970.
369 Ed. S. Reichmann, Meisenheim 1963.
860 Ed. V. Grecu, Bucur~ti 1966.
361 Ed. R . M. Dawkins, Oxford 1932.

5.3. Byzantine period
PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 99
In the table we see that the texts written during the byzantine period
teem with examples of relat. connection. Before we try to discover why
the authors of this period are so fond of this idiom, some examples will
be given.
5.3.l. We shall begin with some common examples, common, because
one can find them in texts of all ages.
Histor. Monach. 389-90 ... "at "of-lwvalv aot eVÀoylaç aç vnode~áf-levoç
f-le-caÀ~"Pn avv av-coiç ...
Leont., Joh. 19,6-9 eVf}iwç oVv i"ÉÀevaev naeadofHjvat avnp lva Mf!xwva ...
IJv naf!aÀaf3wv i~ijMhv &nd ' AÀe~avdf!daç ...
Theoph. Conf. 58,3 -cóu ' A~aváawç é"ovalwç i~ijÀ~ev ' AÀe~avdf!elaç, f-l-YJ
avyxwf!OVV-COç -cov d~f-loV up aexovn i"f3aÀeïv av-cóv, öç "ai noÀvv xeóvov
i"evnu-co iv na-cewo/ f-lv~f-lan.
Tabachovitz' comment on this example is 362: "Ie pronom relatif perd
très sou vent son sens pronominal et devient principalement une particule
copulative, qui, parfois même, fait l'effet d'être employée pléonastiquement
... Il aurait suffi ici d'employer "ai seulement au lieu de öç "al . . .".
We have said the same about the use ofrelat. connection in earlier texts 363.
In this period this tendency of the relat. pronoun to be reduced to a
mere connective becomes only clearer.
5.3.2. This becomes especially clear in all kinds of set phrases, which
are placed at the beginning of a senten ce in order to show some kind of
vague correlation with the foregoing 364.
Pall., H.L. 138,16 EvvÉf3'YJ äpa ódev8lv ~f-läç &nd AWaç int -c-YJv Ai'yvn-cov . ..
iv olç 1}"v avv ~f-liv "ai ' Iovf3ivoç.
Tabachovitz, who has made many investigations into the subject of
relat. connection as it is used during this period, rejects, and rightly
I believe, any interpretation which tries to render such a phrase as iv olç
literally 365: "Clarke, qui enuntiatum posterius vertit: 'Among the party
there was Jovinus also with us', ad modum dicendi parum elegantem
descendit, ut qui non viderit, quid iv olç vere significaret, Lucot et hoc loco
et in ceteris ferme exemplis vocabula ea verbis 'entre autres' reddidit. Sed
nemo non videt non posse èv olç tali sensu praeditum esse. Quod si adhibuerimus
illud 'quo tempore' (germ. 'dabei') vel simile aliquid, quasi rectam
viam ingrediemur" .
Mal. 459,7-8 ... naeüaf30v nOAA-YJv av-cov XWf!av, iv olç naeeA~CP{}'YJ ~
nae' av-coiç Àeyof-lÉv1] TelnoÀtç ...
862 Tabachovitz, Étude8, p. Il.
363 See I 2.1.2.2, 2.3.2.1, point 3 and 2.3.2.4.
364 Cf. I 2.3.2.1, point 3.
365 Tabachovitz, Pall., p. 100.

100 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
The meaning of l/l olç must be just as Tabachovitz says: "dabei",
"at that time", "during that war" 366.
Theoph. Conf. 297,11-2 Ti[> 15' aVTi[> ËTu yéyove XUf-lwv f-léyaç návv, Q)0'T8
naywO'at T~V {}áAaO'O'av' lP olç xal lxi}Vç nOAvç è~eeetrprJ 367.
The adverb 8{}ev is used just as freely. In most cases it may be interpreted
as "thus", "then" 368.
Marc. Diac., Porphyr. 3,10-5 Evyyeá1pw !5è T~V èxelvov eVrprJf-ltav ov
x0f-lni[> AÓycp ..• "O{}ev xàyw {}U(!ewv elç Tàç áytaç WXàç TOV ele'fJf-lÉvov àv!5eelov
àv!5eoç neoO'éeXof-lat Ti[>!5e Ti[> O'vyyeáf-lan . ..
Mal. 371,13-7 xal èyéveTo èv KwvO'TavnvovnóAu Taeax~' elxov yàe nAij{}oç
rÓT{}WV xal XÓf-l'fJTaÇ ... 8{}ev elç rÓT{}OÇ . .• elO'ijA{}ev elç TO naAánov
To~evwv . ..
Leont., Joh. 10,1-3 ... Ti[> {}elcp AÓycp nU{}Óf-levot !5txeO'{}e Tàç nU(!' ~f-lwv
alr:~O'etç, wç èx {}eov xal ovx è~ àv{}eómov. 8{}ev TOVTO yLVWO'XWV vov{}e7:w
T~V Vf-ledeav àyM'fJV . ..
"O{}ev, meaning "thus" or something like it, is followed by the phrase
TOVTO yLVWO'XWV, which refers to exactly the same thing. It may be considered
as a pleonastic phrase, similar to those following the set phrases
!5tÓ, 8{}ev in Polybius 369. These relative phrases have become so insignificant,
so "divested of meaning" that such a phrase as TOVTO yLVWO'XWV
can be placed immediately af ter them.
5.3.3. The relat. pronoun 80'TtÇ occurs in the relat. connection extremely
of ten. Weierholt37o has counted 411 cases of 80'nç in Malalas, of which
314 are used in arelat. connection. The proportions for 8ç are 346 and 81.
Hi8tor. Monach. 202-5 ... xal &J g;avTaO'tav aVTi[> nU(!éxeTat neoç ÉO'néeav
yvvatxoç eVf-lÓeg;ov nAaVWf-lÉv'fJç xaTà T~V le'fJf-lov. fjnç eveovO'a T~V {Meav
, k~".1\ ' \ '1
avecpYf-lc"'IV enen'fJu'fJO'ev uç TO O'n'fJAawv . ..
Mal. 326, 13-6 M~Tà !5è TiJv {3amAelav KWVO'TavTtov è{3aO'tAevO'ev ' IovAtavoç
Ó nU(!a{3áT'fJç . . . • 80'nç è{3aO'tAevO'ev lT'fJ {3'. ?}v !5è èA).óytf-lOÇ' 8O'Ttç èXA~~
nU(!a{3áT'fJç, !5tón ...
From an example like this it appears why Weierholt says that 80'nç
of ten has the same sense as OVTOÇ 371.
888 See also Wolf, p. 84 and Weierholt, pp. 27-8.
887 For more examples of tv ol, see Tabachovitz, Studien, p. 20 and Id., Pall.,
pp. 99 ff.
888 Cf. Christensen, p. 395, where he makes the following observation on the
Byzant. Alexander-poem: "Ganz besonders aber erfreuen sich die beiden Wörter
IH)f:II und ÀOl3l:0V der ganz speziellen Vorliebe des Verf. Das erstere hat zwar auch
lokale, temporale und kausale Bedeutung, sehr oft aber dient es, ebenso wie ÀOI3l:6v,
nur zur Weiterführung und entspricht etwa unserm "nun" ". Cf. also Tabachovitz,
Étudea, pp. 12-3.
889 See I 2.2.3.1.
870 Weierholt, p. 20.
871 Weierholt, p. 20. See also Psaltes (§ 312): "Bei Mal. steht am Anfang der
Periode wnva und änva st. TOm-OV und Tam-a". Cf. II 4.2.6, where the same is said
about the use of ó :n:oioç by Machairas.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 101
Chron. Paseh. 553,6-9 ... UénefJ/lpév nva TlVV fl-eyun:ávwv a1TrOV ov6fl-an
Eov(!évav n(!oç TOV fJaalÄéa • PWfl-alwv ne(!l el(!~v'YJç alTwv "al be6fl-evoç. 8vnva
be~áfl-evoç àafl-évwç , IofJtavoç ó fJaalÀevç ènévevaev béxw{}al T~V n(!wf3elav
Tijç el(!~v'YJç. . .
Vita Euthym. 89,24-8 ... Toîç ... n(!oacpvyovat è"áÀBl ..., è~ mv "at
aT(!aT'YJyol bvo "al n(!WTOana{}á(!wl [-re(!Ol ... oZnveç èni xeî(!aç Tà Tlfl-la "ai
äx(!avra ~vÀa ènupe(!6fl-eVOl oi5Twç ëXBlV blefJef3awvvTo, wç . ..
5.3.4. The relat. pronoun is of ten accompanied by a noun, mostly the
name of a person 372.
Pall., H.L. 1-5 TOVTOV TOV O(!OVÇ yéyove "al Ó fl-a"á(!wç IJafl-fJw ... "Oç
IJafl-fJw elXe . ..
Mal. 329,16-8 ... TWV nÀolwv q;{}aaávTwv elç TOV Evq;(!áT'YJV nOTafl-6v.
mvnvwv nÀolwv vnij(!xev ó à(!l{}fl-OÇ XlÀtWV . ..
Chrono Paseh. 555,10-4 'Pwfl-alwv À'YJ' èfJaalÀevaev OvaÀevnavoç AvyovaToç,
EaÀovaTlov ... èmÀe~afl-évov TOV aVTov OvaÀevnav6v- 8vnva OvaÀevnavov
, IovÀtavoç ó na(!afJáT'YJç ... néf11paç 1}v elç E'YJÀvf3(!lav . ..
Byz. Alex. 752-5
ev{}éwç 'lnnoç TáXlara TOVÇ èf1n(!oa{}lovç n6baç
lTelve n(!oç , AU~avb(!ov, ......... .
bBl"VVWV TOVTlp bOVÀl"~V axéatv "a{}à bean6Tn·
öanç , AU~avb(!oç lbwv evyvwfl-oaVv'YJv 'lnnov . ..
5.3.5. Sometimes the noun is separated trom the relat. pronoun. Seeing
such cases, one beg ins to understand that this is not any longer the relat.
connection as we know it in Ancient Greek. The relat. pronoun has acquired
an altogether different function.
Mal. 107,8-12 ... 8anç è~é{}BTO "al TOVÇ n(!oT(!anévTaç vno' Ayaf1éf1vovoç
"at'M. eVBJ!.aov l' fJ aal/" 1 .. ewv... ' oanç " n(!o " naVTWV er;;W(!f1'YJaev , t ' 'A' yaf1ef1vwv ...
In other examples our interpretation could be "this Agamemnon"
but here this is not possible. Psaltes comments upon this phenomenon
that 8anç is superfluous here 373.
Tabachovitz 374 quotes the following example. It is similar to the
preceding one: two people are mentioned; because 8anç alone is not
clear enough, one of the two names is repeated.
Theoph. Conf. 130,15-8 IJ Ü(!CP bè Tlp Moyyip n(!o TijÇ elç , AÀe~ávb(!BlaV
ènav6bov è"üevae Z~vwv "Olvwvijaal Elf1nÀl"tcp Tip • PWf1'YJç "ai ' A"a"üp,
8anç "al ey(!a1pev ' A"á"wç Toîç , AÀe~avb(!eVal bé~aa{}al TOV Moyyov "al
, Iwávv'YJv ànofJaUa{}al.
In texts like those of Malalas and Theophanes there are not many
instanees of this odd use of 8anç. The Byz. Alexander-poem, however,
almost teems with examples.
372 For more examples see Tabachovitz, Études, pp. 13-4.
373 Psaltes, § 312.
374 Tabachovitz, Études, p. 14.

102 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
Byz. Alex. 171-4
è).{}e'iv av'tov NexuvafJw neoç lav't"YJv xe).evet·
öa't'tç t).{}wv xai xa'tu}wv evon'tov 'tav'l"r}v ovaav
Ó YÓ1Jç tnefJVp:rj(]e 'tov avyyevéa&at 't'av'tl1.
Id. 765-8
L1ea,uwv {)é 't'tç à.1t17yyetA.e rJ>tUnnep Tà neax&év-ra,
"Oç 'tov Xe1Ja,uov tm,uv1Ja&eiç 'tijç tv L1eA.rpo'iç IIv&taç
Ó rJ>t).tnnoç , A).é~av{)eov xa&vnav't'ij. -raXtaTwç .... 375.
It goes without saying that the instances discussed in this paragraph
may all be considered as cases of the pronomen abundans, or rather as
cases of pleonasm. 1 refrain from doing it, because for the phenomenon
of the pronomen abundans two things are needed: arelat. pronoun and
a pleonastic phrase of some sort. With regard to many earlier examples
I have expressed my doubts as to the function of the relat. pronoun.
In these cases, however, it is entirely obvious that the relat. pronoun
is not a pronoun any longer, but a connective.
5.3.6. Sometimes the relat. pronoun is used without reference. It is
Christensen who explains this phenomenon 3711: "Durch diese Art und
die Vorliebe für relativische Anknüpfung ist der Verf. (sc. ofthe Byz. Alex.)
dann weiter dazu gekommen, das Relativ an den Anfang ohne jede
Beziehung zu setzen ...".
Theoph. Conf. 46,33-47,4 ('IoVA.tavoç) ... ()táÓ1J,ua neet&é,uevoç ned 'tijç
Kwva'tav'ttov UA.BV'tijÇ elç lA.A.1Jvta,uov àvat{)wç è~e'teán1J. önee Kwva'táv't'toç
n).ûa't'a ,ue-ra,ueÄov,uevoç àné{)wxe 'to nvev,ua tnt 'te 't'lp yévovç q;óvep xai 'tfj
XatVOTo,utq. TijÇ ntauwç xai Tfj àvaeef]aet 'tov ànO(]'t'áTOV.
The pronoun önB(! has as weak a sense as önov has in the examples
discussed in 3.1.2.2: a sense involving occasion. One gets the impression
that these authors, while writing down the traditional relat. pronouns
öç, öa't'tç and önee, had nothing else in mind than önov. This word, however,
was suppressed, at least in the function of relat. pronoun: see 3.5,
point 3 377 •
In 2.4.1 some examples have been mentioned quoted from the Alchimiae
apparatio. They are also cases of önee, but have been mentioned there,
because they are followed by something which may be considered as a
375 For more examples see Christensen, p. 387.
376 Christensen, p. 387.
377 This may be proved by some instanees of a very odd use of önee in the
Ohron. Mor.: 7635-6H c5,aTlI 7}Tov elc; TJ1V tpv).a)(,J1v 1) v-rál'a Maerae{Ta, I önee rele
Tijc; leXeTOV Ta lrov,)(,ov è)(,EÏvo. The normal pronoun would be önotJ followed by the
pronomen coniunctum Tijç. Some more examples are: 1650H, 1973H, 6251HP,
7273H, 7274H, 7822HP, 7969H, 8479H and 8599H. Cf. also the use of a fossilized
Ta noiov in Machairas: II 4.2.4.5.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 103
pronomen abundans. The following example comes from the same source 378.
F 20-2 và èfJyá}"nç ra vee6' onee btfJaJ..J..oflÉvOV rov vt5aroç, èàv fJáJ..nç elç
avra ra vt5we • Eeflijv C wvra, ovrwç ev{}vç àafJearwveral.
The pronoun does not refer to an antecedent; it is just a connective 379.
Byz. Alex. 4258-60
Aomav àvaxw(!~aavuç náJ..w èu rwv èueïae
àv~xfh]flev elç lreeov rónoV' oç na(!avrtua
èui),evaa 7r;a(!eflfJoJ..~v èv rovup yeyovÉval 380 •
5.4. Causes of the high frequency of the relat. connection
The table in 5.2 has made it clear that in the Koine as well as in the
byzantine period relat. connection occurs very of ten. Some authors are
extremely fond of it, it seems. It has been said sometimes that this was
caused by Latin influence 381, but Werner has rightly rejected this theory 382.
In the following we shall discuss two phenomena which may have contributed
to the tendency to use the relat. connection.
5.4.l. The loss of particles
It has of ten been noted that the use of particles diminishes rapidly
in the Koine and in byzantine Greek. In the following two paragraphs
a survey will be given of the use of connective particles (not of the emphatic
ones, as they are not of interest for our subject), based upon some publications
on this matter.
5.4.l.l. In the Koine. In a study on paratactic ual mAttic Greek
Trenkner speaks of the fact that in the Koine paratactic ual has replaced
many connective particles, and adds 383: "On attribue cette portée du
ual au déclin progressif, aux temps helléniques, des autres particules,
Ie ual recueillant leur functions". In his study on the language of Diodorus
Palm observes the same 384. He discusses, however, the connective and
emphatic particles together, and thus it does not become clear, whether in
speaking of the paucity of particles, he means the connective particles
or not. And there are many others who speak of the scarcity of particles
in Post-Classical Greek in general terms 385.
In one of the most recent studies on this subject Blomquist gives us
some interesting information. He composed, for instance, a tabIe, which
shows that the particle ual occurs more of ten in Thucydides and Xenophon
378 Tabachovitz, Étudea, p. 15.
379 Other instances of this fossilized Snel} are found in G26 and 014.
380 For more examples see Christensen, pp. 387-8 and Tabachovitz, Étudea, p. 15.
381 See, for instance, Schwyzer-Debrunner, p. 644,13.
382 Werner, p. 275. Cf. also Tabachovitz, Pali., p . 99.
383 Trenker, p. 30.
384 Palm, pp. 37-8 and 116-7.
385 See Blass-Debrunner, § 107, Radermacher, Gramm., p. 37, Mayser II 3,
p. 115 and Schwyzer-Debrunner, p. 556.

104 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
than in Polybius and Diodorus. The proportions are 222 : 181 : 67 : 124.
These numbers prove in the fust place that Trenkner is right in maintaining
that paratactic xai is much more frequent in Attic, especially in the
historians, than is generally assumed 386. These numbers also say something
about Polybius and Diodorus. We have seen that they of ten used relat.
connection. Did they perhaps also do this in order to avoid the paratactic
xan With regard to asyndeton the numbers of Blomquist's table point
to the same: Thuc. (28), Xen. (24), Polyb. (10) and Diod. (15) . As regards
relat. connection and the use of

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 105
referred tothe tab Ie in 5.2: the relat. connection still occurs in Machairas!392.
Tabachovitz has a different opinion. He says 393: " . .. on est porté à
supposer que ceux des auteurs byzantins qui n'étaient pas assez bons
stylistes pour faire un juste emploi des particules de l'ancien grec si
finement nuancées, voyaient dans la liaison relative une compensation
commode du "at populaire, qu'ils cherchaient à éviter". It is a well-known
fa ct that the use of paratactic "at in the spoken language was (and is)
very frequent 394. Another fact is that in the hagiographic texts and
chronicals which I have studied the use of particles has been reduced.
This, of course, does not apply to each author alike. Writers of a more
literal type of Greek, as Marcus Diaconus and Leontius, use more particles
than, for instance, Palladius, Malalas and, particularly, the author of the
Byzantine Alexander-poem. This corresponds exactly with the figures in
the table (5.2): the authors who use the fewest particles offer more
cases of relat. connection. These authors also use paratactic "at more
often. It should be kept in mind, however, that this does not mean that
in colloquial speech only paratactic "at was used as a connective.
5.4.2. Weakening ot the relat. pronoun
Another reason why relat. connection was so popular must have been
the fact that the relat. pronoun, especially because it was used so of ten in
the relat. connection, had weakened so much that it had become a mere
connective 395. We have spoken about this process of weakening in regard
with examples in the Koine (see I 2.1.2.2, 2.3.2.1, point 3, and 2.3.2.4),
but the growth in number of relat. connection and the way in which the
relat. pronoun is used in all the above-mentioned examples can mean
only one thing. Another reason to believe that this process of weakening
had already gone very far is that the relat. pronoun could be replaced
by onov, and just in the period that this adverb had become a mere
connective 396.
5.5. Is the relat. connection a literary or a vulgar element?
Before trying to answer the above-mentioned question something must
be said which may help us, although it has been clear already for a long
time. The relat. connection appears to be quite suitable to the story,
and thus it is found primarily in historical texts (and not so of ten , for
in stance, in papyri 397). We are not surprised, therefore, when we see in
the tab Ie in 5.2 that the frequency of the relat. connection in authors
like Dioscurides and Antoninus Liberalis is rather low.
392 See also II 4.2.2.3, 4.2.4.3 and 4.2.4.4.
393 Tabachovitz, Études, p. 11 .
394 Cf. Ljungvik, Beitr., pp. 54 ff.
395 See Tabachovitz, Études, pp. 11, 14 and 15. Sometimes one even gets the
impression that the relat. pronoun is superfluous. Cf. Christensen, p. 374, note 2,
Psaltes, § 312 and Tabachovitz, Études, p. 11.
396 See 3.1.3.
397 See 5.1.2.1, but also II 4.2.3.3.

106 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
It does surprise us, however, that in typical stories as Exodus, the
Gospel of Mark and the Apocalypse relat. connection hardly ever occurs.
In Luke we find some more instances, and in Acts the percentage (26%)
seems to be normal for the period. Considering these proportions, one is
inclined to assume that relat. connection was a literary element in the
language, for exactly those texts in the NT which are regarded as being
more literary than books like the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and the
Apocalypse are the Gospel of Luke and, to a greater extent, the book of
Acts 398.
Another indication, which points to the same direction, is given by
Tabachovitz, who, trying to explain the frequency of relat. connection
in the early byzantine texts, speaks of "l'ambition des écrivains d'écrire
dans un style qui s'éloigne de la langue parlée" 399.
Finally the texts of Polybius and Diodorus, which are written in the
literary Koine, teem of instances of relat. connection.
The other part of the question, whether it belongs to colloquial speech,
is more difficult to answer. It has to be admitted that we do not know
whether it occurred in the spoken language or not. There are some indications,
though. Relat. connection hardly occurs in Exodus, nor in
Mark, nor in the Apocalypse. The connective which we find there is mainly
the paratactic "al. This is not surprising, for this "at is quite suitable to
the simple story 400. However the Semitic background of the translator
and the authors mayalso have exerted its influence. Luke uses "at less
of ten and more of ten the relat. connection. Perhaps he did not do th is
under the influence of literary texts, but only to write a better Greek,
"better" not in the atticistic sense, but in the sense of being more in
accordance with Greek idiom. When a Greek was telling a story, and
especially when he was writing one, he may have used both connections,
the paratactic "at and relat. connection (leaving aside the other connection,
the connective particles) 401.
As to the frequency of the relat. connection in the byzantine period,
it must be admitted that authors like Palladius, Malalas, and those of the
Ohronicon Paschale and the Byz. Alexander-poem use this construction
more of ten than must have been common practice. The only possible
reason for this behaviour has been indicated by Tabachovitz: the wish
to avoid paratactic "al. This does not mean, however, that the relat.
connection was only a literary element 402. It just is one of the ways in
398 Cf. Mussies, p. 175.
399 Tabachovitz, Études, p. H .
400 Just as it belongs in the simple story in Attic Greek: see Trenkner.
401 See Schwyzer-Debrunner, p. 644,13, who say that relat. connection is used
"in lebhafter Rede".
402 That relat. connection is not such a Iiterary element af ter all is shown by a
count of the relat. pronouns in some discourses of Dio Chrysostomus (ed. J. W.
Coloon, Loeb I, pp. 2-82). Only four cases of relat. connection have been found
(= 7%).

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 107
which a story-teller can connect his sentences. We know that it was used
in literary texts, but we mayalso assume that it occurred in common
speech, though less of ten.
Proof of this may be found in the fact that among the discussed examples
there are some where the author, while writing one,!, may have been
thinking of onov 403. And the use of onov was restricted almost completely
to the spoken language. As another piece of evidence may be considered
the fa ct that in works, written in so-called vulgar Greek, as the Chronicle
ol M orea and the Chronicle of Machairas the relat. connection is not
missing. Admittedly the language of these works does not represent
daily speech, for they are written. On the other hand, however, it must
be said that, if relat. connection is found there, it must also have occurred
in colloquial speech. This brings us to our last argument: one can also
hear relat. connection in the spoken language of to-day. How of ten does
not one hear onov, ono7:8 and forms of ó ónotoç at the beginning of a
sentence! 404.
6. THE WEAKENING OF THE RELATIVE PRONOUN
From many examples discussed in the preceding paragraphs it appears
that the traditional relat. pronoun was weakening and perhaps even
disappearing. Especially the instanees given in 5.3.5 and 5.3.6 are illustrative.
Are there any more indications?
6.1. A complete survey of the use of the relat. pronouns by one author
is what one needs in order to understand what was the situation of the
traditional relat. pronouns. Weierholt gives us such a survey of the
Chronicle of Malalas. It shows that not all the forms are in use any longer,
and that the majority of the used forms is employed in set phrases or in
simp Ie clauses. Weierholt's conclusion is 405: "Wir müssen es so verste hen ,
dass sich die Rel. sätze mit öç und oanç im Aussterben befinden. Zwar
halten sie sich in der Schrift, wie so viel anderes, der freie Gebrauch
davon ist jedoch bei Malalas sehr beschränkt".
6.2. Kapsomenakis quotes from some papyri relat. clauses in which the
relat. pronoun appears in the fossilized form of ov (to be considered
perhaps as a more learned form for onov 406) :
P. Mon. 101,25 (594 A.D.) ... aVÀijç, ov xat rà aÀÀo fjfllav fléeoç aVÀijç
àv~xelv (= àv~x8l) ijfliv.
The word avÀijç may be considered as redundant, inserted in order to
indicate the antecedent of ov.
403 See 5.3.6 and note 377.
404 All kinds of people do this, not only illiterate peasants (these even less of ten
than the more educated classes), on condition, of course, that they are telling something.
405 Weierholt, p . 2l.
406 Cf. 3.1.2.2.

108 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
P. Mon. 104,14 (590 A.D.) ... ol"taç ... , 01) "ai 'fO äAAo fjflUIV àV~"êL
, Ia"áJ{Jov.
Kapsomenakis adds the following remark 407: "In dieser Zeit ist das
Relativpronomen entweder erstarrt (01)) oder durch das Relativadverb
onov ersetzt".
6.3. In early Modern Greek. It is not surprlsmg that we do not find
many indications towards the weakening and extinction of the traditional
relat. pronouns in the texts of the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries. Even in
texts from a later period, when they were completely extinct in the living
language, they are used correctly. Only in some "vulgar" texts of a later
date (14th-15th century) some cases are found where they are used
rather oddly. Here follow some examples.
Chrono Mor. 7968-9 H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ó FVAtáfloÇ)
lmáa'f'YJ elç 'fT]v IIeAayovtav "ai 1}'fOV elç 'fT]V IIÓAtv,
l1.nee 'fOV l"eá'fet ó {JaatAiaç elç qroAa,,~v 'fOV ànéaw 408.
Alex. rom. 43,14-5 ... evxaeta'fOVfleV 'fT]V lma'fOA~V aov onee fläç
la'fêLAeç . . .
Id. 51,17-9 "Hrpeeav "ai 'fO aTÉflflav 'fijç {3aatAtaaaç ..., ónov 1}'fOV TÉ'fOtaV
TÉxv'YJ, (i drpf}aAflOÇ ov" elóev.
7.1. "Oç(nç) ~ onov.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Since the beginning of the Koine the development of the relat. pronoun
has proceeded along the following line: 1. the difference in meaning and
function of 8ç and oanç vanishes, 2. the forms ol, a~ and 1} are replaced by
olnveç, alnveç and fjnç 409, 3. although the relat. pronoun oç, fjnç, 8 is
perfectly clear now and should not be problematic any longer, it is supplanted
by onov. Why onov, arelat. adverb which had nothing in common
with the relat. pronoun 1
7.1.1. Weakening of onov. During the same period the relat. adverb
onov had gone through its own development. Gradually it was reduced
to a mere connection (although at the same moment it kept its old local
sense). This gradual change has been discussed in 3.1 etc. and 3.2 etc.
7.1.2. Weakening of oç(nç). This process of weakening becomes clear
especially in the relat. connection. Sometimes one gets the impression
that the relat. pronoun is not more than a connective. See I 1.5, 2.1.2.2,
2.3.2.1, point 3, 2.3.2.4 and III 5.4.2 and note 395.
407 KapBomenakiB, p. 99, note 2.
408 The MB Poffers TcWTav instead of llnee TÓV, the Ms T ö:rr;ov TÓV. For more
exampleB Bee note 377.
40g See I 2.1.2.2.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 109
7.1.3. "Oç(Tlç) ~ onov. As the sense of the relat. pronoun had become
weaker, onov, which meant as much or rather as little as oç(Tlç), was
able to obtrude itself. This penetration must have begun in simple clauses,
where onov gradually lost its local sense. This development has been
described in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 41 °.
7.2. Relative Pronoun + Pronomen Abundans ~ "Onov + Pronomen
Coniunctum?
7.2.1. Does it appear ~n the texts?
The texts do not give a decisive answer to the question whether this
development took pI ace or not. One does not find examples of onov followed
by a pronomen coniunctum in the texts of the 5th, 6th, or 7th centuries.
This is the crucial period in which the two idioms (or should we speak
of one and the same idiom 1) have met. If this meeting has not taken
place in the texts, it must have happened within the spoken language.
And here I touch the greatest problem of all, viz. th at the developments
around onov have taken place not in the texts, but within the spoken
language, and thus invisibly and unverifiably for us.
7.2.2. Did the pronomen abundans occur in colloquial speech?
The texts of the period and before the period when onov came into
use as arelat. pronoun do not offer many examples of the pronomen
abundans, not such a quantity at least and not in that kind of texts
(papyri, for instance) that it can be maintained with some certainty that
the pronomen abundans frequently occurred in the spoken language.
Only if that would be the case, could one say that people were so accustomed
to use resumpt. pronouns in relat. clauses that they continued
doing it, when onov came into use.
7.2.2.1. In Ancient Greek and the Koine. There are some reasons to
suppose that the pronomen abundans occurred in the spoken language of
the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. 411 . The classical authors used it very seldom.
There are stronger arguments for its occurrence in colloquial speech
during the Koine-period. Some of them have already been mentioned in
I 2.6.2. And there are two more: 1. a considerable weakening of the relat.
pronoun has actually taken place, 2. it appears that there is nothing against
assuming that relat. connection is also used in colloquial speech 412.
7.2.2.2. The examples of the pronomen abundans found in the late Koine
have been discussed in 2.1. The majority of them occur in hagiographic
410 Another argument supporting this theory is the fact that around the same
time (5th-6th century) the pronomen abundans disappears from the texts. This
must have been caused by an artificial revival of the traditional relat. pronoun,
which may be considered as proof of its disappearance from the living language.
See 7.3.1.1.
411 See I 1.7 and, especially, 2.6.1.
412 See 5.5.

110 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
texts, texts destined to be read by the lower classes and written in a
language which must have been close to daily speech. Why this idiom
does not occur in the later papyri, has been discussed in 2 etc. As to
the scarcity of instances in the papyri in general the following may be
said. It is not that this construction is suppressed, but the style used in
papyri generally is not such that one would expect the use of relat. connection
413. On the other hand, however, it should be noted that among the
17 cases of relat. connection occurring in 47 documents and 81 private
letters 414 there are three where a pronomen abundans is used. This is an
extremely high percentage, even when it is compared with Polybius! 415.
This can only mean that it is highly probable that the pronomen abundans
occurred in the spoken language.
7.2.3. The absence ol the pronomen abundans in the texts ol the 5th and
lollowing centuries.
Exactly in the period during which önov penetrated into the spoken
language and even made its way into the texts (a little later), the idiom
413 See 5.1.2.1. A very odd instanee of the pronomen abundans which has been
found by Gignac (p. 151) should be mentioned here: P. Oxy. VII 1070,22 ff. (lIl A.D.)
neei óè TijÇ aeaVTijç èmp.d.elaç xai rpeOVTióoç àvû navroç neOVÓT}aOV, önee xai neei TOVTOV
noÄ.Ädxlç aOI lreatpa, IJTJóevoç wv lxop.ev aVTwv rpetóop.f:vTJ. It is odd for two reasons:
1. the last clause wv lxop.ev aVTwv is an essential clause, the only example occurring
outside of the atmosphere of the LXX and the NT. Considering the fact that all
the instanees of the pronomen abundans, in whatever period of the Greek language
they occur, are found in nonessential clauses, I must agree with Gignac's suggestion
that this may have been caused by the influence of the Coptic language (on p . 151
of his article Gignac mentions some more phenomena where Coptic influence may
have been interfering. See also notes 47 and 75 of this paper). This, however, does
not have to apply to the other instanees which have been found in papyri: they all
occur in nonessential clauses (see I 2.2.3.5, but also note 75); 2. the first part of the
sentence offers another instanee of the pronomen abundans, this time in arelat.
clause that forms a parenthesis (and thus may be considered as arelat. connection) :
önee xai neei TOVTOV noÄ.Ädxlç aOI lreatpa. It is difficult to decide how this instanee
should be looked upon. Comparing it to Sym. Styl. 48,1 (see 2.1), one might say that
the writer changed his mind in the mid of the sentence as to how to denote the
object of lreatpa. It mayalso be compared to Lev. 11,32 (see I 2.4.2.1): önee may
be as fossilized a form as IJ there. And finally one may even think of instanees found
in texts of the 14th century, in the Alch. app. (see 2.4.1) and the Ohron. Mor. (see
note 377), but it must be admitted that in the 3d cent. A.D. one cannot expect yet
that a man, in using önee as where it a connective, was thinking of the connective
önov. I am inclined to regard th is use of önee as being caused by interference of the
Coptic indeclinabie relative (just as the translator of Leviticus used IJ under the
influence of the Hebrew nota relation'Ï8), but I do it with all reserve. We should not
lose sight of the fact that on the whole this letter is rather odd: the editors qualify
it as "a verbose and rather pompous epistie" .
414 Published in Hunt-Edgar I.
415 Among th~ 50 cases of relat. connection occurring on pp. 240-320 (ed.
W. R . Patton, Loeb, vol. I) there is only one where the relat. pronoun is followed
by a pronomen abundans (= 2%). For the papyri the proportion is almost 18%.

PRONOMEN ABUNDAN8 AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 111
of the pronomen abundans 8eems to have become a sporadically occurring
peculiarity, so that one might think that it had become almost extinct.
In 2.3 we have already wondered at the fa ct that the pronomen abundans
does not occur in works like the Historia Monachorum, the Historia
Lausiaca, the Apophthegmata Patrum, in the works of Marcus Diaconus,
Malalas, Leontius and Theophanes. This absence is strange for two reasons :
1. the relat. pronoun has been reduced to a connective, and 2. these
historical works teem with cases of relat. connection.
7.2.3.1. Causes
One might suppose that these people avoided an idiom which impressed
them as something vulgar. They certainly knew the LXX and many
books of the NT and may have noticed that the frequency of the pronomen
abundans was higher in the more vulgar writings 416. This supposition
is incorrect, I believe, and should be rejected. Their style and usage
do not prove at all that they assumed such an attitude towards the
language used in the Holy Scripture. The following causes are more
realistic.
7.2.3.1.1. The artificial revival of the traditional relat. pronouns is a
fact that needs our attention. A fact indeed! One can maintain even
that a man as Malalas, for instance, of ten uses 8ç and oauç, but mainly
oar:tç, as were they demonstI'. pronouns 417. The negative attitude these
authors assumed towards the new pronoun onov may be viewed as one
of the causes of this revival. At the time that önov began replacing oç(rtç),
they use it only a few times by accident. Later they manage to avoid
it completely, just like the other pronoun, rdv r~v ró. The main cause,
however, of this reinforcement is the following. In 5.4.1.2 a principle was
mentioned, a principle brought forward by Werner 418, viz. that the
extinction of a phenomenon in the spoken language brings with it a
revival in the written language. This is exactly what has happened to
oç( uç) and öan€(!: because of theit disappearance from the living language
they were revived in the texts.
7.2.3.1.2. A new way of thinking. At a certain time people must have
begun to use a pronomen coniunctum aftel' önov. We have no idea when
this began, but it cannot have been very late: önov by itself was not clear
enough. About that time people must have started thinking according
to a new pattern, viz. önov noods a pronomen coniunctum, of course, but
why should a declinable pronoun as oç(uç)? Needless to say that this has
not been the normal way of thinking: it may be supposed that in the
spoken language people intermixed önov and öç(uç) (at least in the be-
416 This, ho wever, is only true, because these writings contain more Semitisms!
See I 2.4.2.2 and 2.4.5.7.
417 See 5.3.3 and note 371.
418 See note 391.

112 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
ginning) and also used the pronomen abundans I coniunctum af ter both
of them. It was the unnatural way of thinking of writers, who had artificially
revived the traditional relat. pronoun.
7.2.3.2. Relat. pronoun ~ connective
In 7.3.1.1 it has been maintained that the relat. pronoun was revived,
so much that it sometimes even makes the impression of having the
strength of a demonstr. pronoun. This is contrary to something that has
been asserted earlier, viz. that the relat. pronoun had been reduced to
a connective. That this is a true fact has been made clear in instances
discussed in 5.3.2 and 5.3.6. Yet, these two phenomena can exist next to
each other. We have to keep in mind that the reduction of the relat.
pronoun is real and the result of a natural development in the living
language, whereas its revival is something artificial: in reality the relat.
pronoun remained as weak as it was. This becomes clear especially in
cases occurring in the later texts, where we find phrases as 1-'11 olç and
offev, and forms of oç(nç) and oanee evidently used as substitutes for
onov, a word which principally is just as fossilized 419.
7.2.3.3. Later examples ot the pronomen abundans
In 2.4. etc. we have seen that the pronomen abundans was not extinct
af ter all. It emerges again in the Alchimiae apparatio (14th cent.), in the
Byz. Alexander-poem (14th cent.) and in the Ohronicle of Sphrantzes
(15th cent.). For what reason is it used there, af ter such a long time
of successful repression 1
7.2.3.3.1. Alchimiae apparatio. It has been already observed in 2.4.5
that the instances of the pronomen abundans occun'ing in these recipes
must be considered as a consequence of the substitution of onee for onov.
Consequently it is bet ter to view them as cases of the pronomen coniunctum.
The only traditional relat. pronoun used by the author is a (fossilized)
onee 420. For the rest he employs ónov 421, ó nOloç 422 and the so-called
postpositive article 423 . In this he differs completely from the author of
the Byz. Alexander-poem and Sphrantzes, who use only the traditional
pronouns.
7.2.3.3.2. In the examples from the Byz. Alexander-poem (see 2.4.2) we
observe that the author of th is work had no notion any longer of how
to use the traditional relat. pronouns. The effect of the revival has lost
419 See 5.3.6 and note 377, and 5.5 (p. 107).
420 See 5.3.6.
421 'OnoV is only employed in essential clauses. Instances occur in D2, 11, 20,
E21, K9 and M15.
422 '0 noioç is used only in cases of relat. connection, preferably combined with
a noun: C9 (ónola fPláÀTJ), Cll (ónoioç nTJÀóç) F6 (óno{a aEÀTJVTJ), H14 (tlç 5nowv vEe6v) ,
017 (rà ónoia fPVÀÀa) .
423 It occurs only once, in L17 (r:6).

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 113
its strength, not in general, but only for this one person. The former
negative influence exerted by önov has lost its strength now. This new
weakening should not be considered as something caused by a development
in the living language. This person's training obviously had not been
good enough to enable him to follow the rules set out by tradition : his
language is of ten disfigured by obscurities caused by his faulty imitation
of Ancient Greek. The only relation of his use of the pronomen abundans
with the living language may have been the possible influence exerted by
önov + pronomen coniunctum. It has been observed in 2.4.5 that this has
been an indirect influence as far as his use of a pronomen abundans af ter
the nominative is concerned.
7.2.3.3.3. The historian Sphrantzes has a greater mastery of his relat.
pronouns. His usage is not so strange as in the above-mentioned work
and he never pI aces the pronomen abundans af ter the nominative 424.
In his case it is even more probable that he incidentally yielded to the
influence of O:ltOV 425.
7.2.4. Disappearance ot önov
A last argument that can be brought up against the supposition that
there exists a relationship between relat. pronoun + pronomen abundans
and önov + pronomen coniunctum is the fa ct that onov, af ter making
its appearance as arelat. pronoun in a few instances, disappears from
the stage, until it re-emerges five centuries later in the early Modern
Greek period.
Apart from the counterargument produced in 3.5 the following can be
said: onov did not disappear entirely: there are many instances of the
use of the traditional relat. pronouns 426 where one feels the presence of
onov in the background 427 .
7.2.5. The situation in early Modern Greek
The only positive evidence that can be produced in favour of our supposition
is the fa ct that at the time that the spoken language makes its
appearance in literature the system of clarification of onov seems to be
complete. The texts of the 12th and following centuries show that onov
is followed by a pronomen coniunctum, only when it denotes the lst or
2d person, a genitivejdative, a prepositional phrase 428, and finally an
accusative of the 3d person. In the last case the pronomen coniunctum
appears only when the relat. clause is nonessential. That onov is followed
by a pronomen coniunctum is not surprising, but that in one of these
424 For examples see 2.4.3.
425 See also 7.5.
426 See especially the instances discussed in 5.3.2 and 5.3.6.
427 See 7.2.3.2 and note 419.
428 There are onIy a few exceptions. See II 2.2.2, 2.3.2 and 2.4.3 etc.

114 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
cases it appears only in a nonessential clause needs an explanation. This
explanation may be given by the fa ct that at the time when the traditional
relat. pronouns were still in use in the living language, the pronomen
abundans appeared only in the relat. connection, i.e. in nonessential clauses.
7.2.5.1. Probable development
The development may have been as follows. At the time when onov came
into use as a substitute for the relat. pronoun there existed a tendency
to use incidentally a resumpt. pronoun af ter the relat. pronoun. This
was done only in nonessential clauses, or rather in cases of relat. connection.
When önov started being used in more complicated clauses and the
need was feIt to clarify it, this did not create any problems. The ancient
tendency had to develop into a system, because the new connective was
not a pronoun and needed a resumpt. pronoun in order to be clear. We do
not know when and how this development has begun. Our only certainty
is the result of the development, as we find it in early Modern Greek.
It is most safe to assume that originally önov was followed by a resumpt.
pronoun only in cases of relat. connection and that from that moment on
onov has followed its own course: the use of a resumpt. pronoun was not
a tendency any longer; it was growing into a system of clarification.
Thus its use af ter a nominative was discarded, as it was feIt that a
nominative in itself was clear enough; its use spread from cases of relat.
connection to all nonessential clauses; at a certain moment it spread
even to essential clauses, as it was realized that the casus obliqui caused
misunderstanding and always needed a resumpt. pronoun. Only the
accusative did not go along: it was followed by a resumpt. pronoun only
in nonessential clauses, as of old. People may have feIt that the syntactical
relations within an essential clause were clear enough. In early Modern
Greek the system is complete.
7.2.5.2. The traditional relat. pronouns in early Modern Greek
The system of clarification of önov does not seem to have affected the
traditional relat. pronouns: in the Assizes, the Kallimachos, the Digenis
Akritas-epic and the Chronicle ot Morea (and in many other works) one
can find instances of oç( nç) and öanee, used in nonessential clauses 429
but not followed by a resumpt. pronoun. This means that there has
never existed a general system of necessary clarification af ter every accusative
in nonessential clauses. The system concerned exclusively onov.
This becomes understandable, when one considers the fa ct that these
traditional pronouns did not any longer form part of the living language,
but had actually become extinct a long time ago. A dead part may stay
within a living organism, but it will not be affected by it. So the traditional
pronouns were not affected by the new system particularly in the language
429 Or in essential clauses, for that matter, when the relat. pronoun is standing
in another case than the accusative.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 115
of those authors who used onov and the traditional pronouns next to each
other. They must have been aware of the difference all the time. They
were aware of it that they were using forms as oç, oauç and oanee only
as learned substitutes of onov. Yet, there are exceptions. In 2.4.4 we
have discussed the instances Velth. 465-6 and Sachl. II 247-8. It is
obvious that in the first àq/ ov is a learned substitute of onov. Actually
this is not an exception, for the author did not just use an oldfashioned
pronoun, but wrote this clause, while having in mind onov and consciously
replacing it by the "better" word dg;' ov. Something similar must have
happened in the other instances 430.
7.2.5.2.1. The Byz. Alex. and Sphrantzes 431 are different. In these works
only the traditional relat. pronouns are used. In using the pronomen
abundans, the authors may weIl have been influenced by onov, without
their being aware of it.
7.2.5.2.2. The Ohronicle of Machairas is an altogether different case.
In this Ohronicle and in some other works, but mainly in the Ohronicle
we have discovered relat. clauses where another declinable relat. pronoun,
ó notoç, is followed by a resumpt. pronoun 432. This case is so different,
because ó notoç is arelat. pronoun which had just made its appearance:
it was a living part of a living organism. It is not surprising, therefore,
that at a certain moment it underwent the influence of what we have
called "the system which concerned exclusively onov". In this case this
exclusivism was actually broken.
EPILOGUE
It has been Wackernagel who maintained that he did not think that
the similarity of the two idioms of relat. pronoun + pronomen abundans
and onov + pronomen coniunctum had been proved 433. It still has not
been proved. As far as I can see, it is not possible to prove it. The period
during which everything must have happened is too obscure in that it
offers too little evidence to the linguïst. It may have become at best a
little more plausïble.
430 See 2.4.1 (and 2.4.5) for the instances from the AZchimiae apparatio.
431 See 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, and a1so 7.2.3.3.1 and 7.2.3.3.2.
432 See especially II 4.2.4.4 etc.
433 See 1.3.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A. TEXTS
Achill. = D . C. Hesseling, L'Achilléïde byzantine, Verh. d. Ak. v. Wet. Amsterdam,
Afd. Ltk., N.R. 1913, Amsterdam 1919.
Act. Oart. = Acta S. Oarterii Oappadocis, ed. J . Compernass, 1-11, Bonn 1902- 05.
Act. Marinae = H. Usener, Acta S. Marinae et S. Ohristophori, Jahrb. f. prot.
Theol. 13 (1887), pp. 247 fr.
Act. Thom. = Acta Thomae, ed. M. R. James, Apocrypha anecdota, Texts and
Studies 2,3, Cambridge 1893.
Act. Xanth. = Acta Xanthippae et Polyxenae: see the foregoing.
Alchimiae apparatio = O. Lagercrantz, Les recettes alchimiques du Oodex Holkhamicus
(Catalogue des manuscrits alchimiques grecs 111), Bruxelles 1924.
Alex. Comn. = 'Ale;lov KOIlVTJ1'OV notlJlla naealV/rrtl

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 117
Hennecke-Schneemelcher = E. Hennecke - W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche
Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, II. Band, 3e Auflage, Tübingen 1964.
Histor. Monach. = A. J. Festugière, Historia Monachorum in Aegypto, (Subs.
Hag. 34), Brussel 1961.
Hunt-Edgar = A. S. Hunt - C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri, Non.literary papyri I-Il,
London 1956-9.
Imber. = 'IpnÉ(!toç xai Ma(!ya(!wva, see Kriaras.
Kall. = Ka)"}'ipaxoç xai X(!vao(!(!ó1}, see Kriaras.
Kriaras = E. K(!ta(!á, BvCavTtvà' InnoTtxà MvfhaTo(!t)paTa" B.B. 2, 'Aihjvm 1955.
Leont., Joh. = Leontios' von Neapolis Leben des heiligen Iohannes des Barmherzigen
Erzbisschofs von Alexandrien, hrsg. von H. GeIzer, Freiburg-Leipzig 1893.
Leont., Sym. = L. Rydén, Das Leben des Heiligen Narren Symeon von Leontios
von Neapolis, Stud ia Gr. Upsal. 4, Uppsala 1963.
Livistr. = J. A. Lambert-van der Kolf, Le roman de Libistros et Rhodamné, Verh.
d. Kon. Ak. v. Wet. Amsterdam, Afd. Ltk., N.R. 35, Amsterdam 1935.
Aóy. Ila(!. = Aóyoç na(!1}yo(!1}Ttxàç nE(!t c5vaTvxiaç xat E'lhvXiaç, ed. Sp.
Lambros, Gollection de romans grecs, Paris 1880, pp. 289-32l.
Mach. = Leontios Makhairas, Recital concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus entitled
"Chronicle", ed. R. M. Dawkins, Oxford 1932.
Mal. = Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, rec. L. Dindorf (Corp. script. hist. Byz. 24),
Bonn 183l.
Man. Sklav. = Mavor,J.. Ex).á{Jov Evptpo(!à TijÇ K(!t)T1}Ç, ed. Wagner, pp. 53-61.
Marc. Diac., Porphyr. = Marc Ie Diacre, Vie de Porphyre, évéque de Gaza, Texte
établi, traduit et commenté par H. Grégoire et M.-A. Kugener, Paris 1930.
Mart. Andr. = Martyrium Andrae: see Tischendorf.
Mart. Matth. = Martyrium Matthaei: see Tischendorf.
Mich. Glyk. = E. e. TaoJ..ÓXo1}, MtXar,J.. rJ..vxá aTixot ovç ly(!atpE xaif'8v
xauaXÉif1} xat(!óv, eEaaaJ..ovix1} 1959.
Mitteis-Wilcken = L. Mitteis - U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der
Papyruskunde, Leipzig 1912.
Mosch. = Ioannis Moschi Pratum spirituale, Migne 87,3.
Paisios = Vita des ehrwürdigen Paisios des Grossen und Timotheus des Patriarchen
von Alexandria. Erzählung über die Wunder des hl. Grossmartyres Menas,
ed. J. Pomjalovsky, St. Petersburg 1900.
Pall., H.L. = Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius, I-Il,
Cambridge 1898-1904.
IlÉvif. ifav. = IlÉvifoç ifaváTov, Cwijç l-'áTatoV xai n(!àç eEàv ÈntaT(!otpt), ed.
r. e. Zw(!aç ('EmifEW(!1}atç PWp1}ç ,1', 1940, pp. 6-23).
Pikat. = E. K(!tU(!á, 'H Pipa e(!1}V1}Ttxr, TOV 'I wávvov Il tXaTÓ(!OV, 'En. MEa.
'A(!X. 2 (1940), pp. 20-69.
IlovJ..oJ... = '0 IlovJ..oJ..óyoç, ed. Wagner, pp. 179-198.
r. e. Zw(!a, '0 Ilov)..}.oJ..óyoç (xaTà vÉav na(!aJ..J..ayr,v), 'Atnjvat 1956.
'0 IlovJ..oJ..óyoç. Kritische Textausgabe mit Übersetzung sowie sprachlichen
und sachlichen Erläuterungen von St. Krawczynski, Beriin 1960.
P. Oxy. = B. P. Grenfell- A. S. Hunt - H. I. Bell and others, The Oxyrhynchos.
Papyri I-XVII, 1898 ff.
Prodrom. = D. C. Hesseling - H. Pernot, Poèmes Prodromiques en grec vulgaire,
Verh. d. Kon. Ak. v. Wet. Amsterdam, Afd. Ltk., N.R. 11,1, Amsterdam 1910·
Pseudo-Phr. = Pseudo-Phrantzes: Macarie Melissemos, Cronica 1258-1481, in
Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorie 1401-1477, ed. V. Grecu. Bucureêti 1966.
Sachl. = ETEtpávov TOV EaXJ..t)X1} (]Tixot xat É(!p1}vé.Ïm, in xat à'P1}yt)aEtç, ed. Wagner,
pp. 79-105.
Sklentz. = E. ,1. KaxovJ..ic51), Ilott)paTa TOV ' Avc5(!Éa ExUv-rCa, 'EJ..J..1)V. 20,1
(1967), pp. 107-45.

118 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
Sphrantzes Georgii Phrantzis Annales, rec.!. Bekker (Corp. script. hist. Byz. 23),
Bonn 1838.
Sphrantzes (ed. Grecu) = Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii 1401-1477, ed. V. Grecu,
Bucureljti 1966.
Sym. Styl. = Das Leben des hl. Symeon Stylites, ed. H. Lietzmann, Texte und
Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchr. Lit. 34,4, Leipzig 1908.
Theoph. Conf. = Theophanis Chronographia, rec. C. de Boor, I-Il, Leipzig 1883-85.
@va{a = r. Mtya, 'H @vaia TOU 'Apf!aáf', 'AiHivat 1954.
Tischendorf = C. Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, Leipzig 1853.
Velth. = Bo..{)av~f!oç "al Xf!vaánCa, see Kriaras.
Vita Euthym. = Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP., ed. P. Karlin-Hayter, Bibl. de
Byzantion 3, Bruxelles 1970.
Wagner = G. Wagner, Carmina Graeca Medii Aevi, Leipzig 1874.
B. STUDIES
Arnim = M. Arnim, De Philonis Byzantii dicendi genere, Diss. Gryphiae 1912.
Bakker, Ontwikkeling = W. F. Bakker, De ontwikkeling van het zogenaamde pronomen
abundans in de relatieve zin in het post· klassieke Grieks, Hand. v . h.
31ste Ned. Fil.-congres, pp. 169-72, Groningen 1971.
Bakker, Some Remarks = W . F. Bakker, Some Remarks on the Use ol the Relative
Pronouns in the Erotocritos, Kf!TJT. Xf!ov. 23,2 (1971), pp. 309-21.
Bauer = W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des neuen
Testaments und der übrigen urchrisuichen Literatur, Giessen 1958 5 •
Behrendt = Curtius Behrendt, De Aeneae Tactici commentario poliorcetico quaestiones
selectae, Diss. Königsberg 1910.
Beyer = K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax im neuen Testament, I, 1, Göttingen 1962.
Black = M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1967 3 •
Blass-Debrunner = F. Blass - A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentischen
Griechisch, Göttingen 1961 11 • Ergänzungsheft by D. Tabachowitz, Göttingen
1965.
Blomquist = J. Blomquist, Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose, Lund 1969.
Browning = R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, London 1969.
Brugmann-Thumb = K. Brugmann-A. Thumb, Griechische Grammatik, München
1913 4 •
Burney = C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin ol the Fourth Gospel, Oxford 1922.
Cadbury = H. J. Cadbury, The Relative Pronouns in Acts and Elsewhere, Journ.
of Bibl. Lit. 42 (1923), pp. 150-7.
Christensen = H. Christensen, Die Sprache des byzantinischen Alexandergedichtes,
Byz. Ztschr. 7 (1898), pp. 366-397.
Compernass = J. Compernass, De sermone graeco volgari Pisidiae Phrygiaeque
meridionalis, Diss. Bonn 1895.
Costas = P. S. Costas, A Short History ol the Greek Language, Diss. Chicago 1933.
Debrunner, Grundlragen = A. DebrwUler, Grundlragen und Grundzügen des Mchklassischen
Griechisch, Berlin 1954.
Dieterich = K. Dieterich, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache,
Leipzig 1898.
Gignac = F. T. Gignac, The Language ol the Non-Literary Greek Papyri, Amer.
Stud. in Papyrology, Vol. VII (1970), pp. 139-152.
Hatzidakis, Einleitung = G. N. Hatzidakis, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik,
Leipzig 1892.
Hatzidakis, MNE = Id., Meaatwvt"à "al NÉa 'EHTJv,,,á, I-Il, tv 'A{)7]va,ç
1905-7.

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 119
Hatzidakis, "Onov = ld., 11eei TijÇ àVTWVvftiaç önov, nov, 'A&7]và 26 (1914).
, Aex, pp. 55ff. (= Ae;. ' Aexeiov TijÇ ftéa7]ç l

120 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM
Radermacher, Gramm. = L. Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, Tübingen
1925.
Radermacher, Wien. St. = L . Radermacher, Besonderheiten der Koine·Syntax,
Wien. Stud. 31 (1909), pp. 1-12.
Reinhardt = L. Reinhardt, De Heronis Alexandrini dictione quaestiones selectae,
Diss. Münster 1930.
Robertson = A. T . Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research, New York 1914.
Rydbeck = L. Rydbeck, Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und neues Testament,
Studia Graeca Upsaliensa 5, Uppsala 1967.
Rydén = L. Rydén, Das Leben des heiligen NarrenSymeon von Leontios von Neapolis,
Stud ia Graeca Upsaliensa 4, Uppsala 1963.
Schwyzer-Debrunner = E. Schwyzer-A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik 11,
München 1950.
von Stepski Doliwa = Stephanie von Stepski Doliwa, Studien zur Syntax des
byzantinischen Historikers Georgios Phrantzes, Diss. München 1935.
Swete = H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the ald Testament in Greek, Cambridge
1914.
Tabachovitz, Études = D. Tabachovitz, Études sur le grec de la basse époque,
Uppsala-Leipzig 1943.
Tabachovitz, Pall. = D. Tabachovitz, In Palladii Historiam Lausiacam obser·
vationes quaedam, Eranos 30,4 (1932), pp. 97-109.
Tabachovitz, LXX und NT = D. Tabachovitz, Die Septuaginta und das N .T.,
Lund 1956.
Tabachovitz, Studien = D. Tabachovitz, Sprachliche und textkritische Studien zur
Chronik des Theophanes Confessor, Diss. Uppsala 1926.
Thackeray = H. St. J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the ald Testament in Greek accord·
ing to the Septuagint 1, Cambridge 1909.
Thumb, Handbuch = A. Thumb, Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache,
Strassburg 1910 2 •
Thumb, Hell. = A. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus,
Strassburg 1901.
Trenkner = S. Trenkner, Le style Kal dans le récit attique oral, Assen 1960.
Triandafyllidis = M. T(!lUVTatpv),).l6TJ x.a., NEOEUTJV1XfJ r(!al-'I-'aTlxfJ (TijÇ LJTJI-'0'
TIXijÇ), O.E.E.B., tv • A01jvalç 1941.
Turner = N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. lIl, Syntax, Edin·
burgh 1963.
Tzartzanos = A. A. TCaeTCávov, NEOEUTJV1KfJ EV'IITa~lç (TijÇ XOl'llijç 6TJI-'OTlKijÇ) ,
1-11, tv 'AD17valç 19462-19632.
Tzermias = P. Tzermias, Neugriechische Grammatik, Bern-München 1969.
Vogeser = J. Vogeser, Zur Sprache der griechischen Heiligenlegenden, Diss. München
1907.
Weierholt = K. Weierholt, Studien im Sprachgebrauch des Malalas, Symb. Osl.,
Fase. Suppl. 18, Oslo 1963.
Wellhausen = J . Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, Berlin 1911 2.
Werner = A. Wemer, Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes bei Genesios, Byz. Zschr. 31
(1931), pp. 258-323.
Winer-Schmiedel = G. B. Winer - P.W. Schmiedel, Grammatik des neutestament·
lichen Sprachidioms, Göttingen 1897-8 8.
Wolf = K. Wolf, Studien zur Sprache des Malalas, 11 Syntax, Diss. München 1912.