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

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.