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

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.