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

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.