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

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.