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

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.