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

PART III
BYZANTINE PERIOD
1. INTRODUCTION
,In this third and last part the main question will be dealt with, viz,
whether there is any oorrelation between the idiom disoussed in part I,
the pronomen abundans and the idiom whioh has been studied in part 11,
the pronomen coniundum. It is not easy to answer this question. One
of the main oauses that this is so difficult is that this transition (if it
has actually taken plaoe) has ooourred in a period which, from a linguistic
viewpoint at least, is very obscure.
1.1. Oharacter ot the period
It is a period of transition. The spoken language is developing, but
on the other hand the influence of Atticism has been growing stronger
and stronger. And thus we see that many forma and constructions which
have been or are abandoned in colloquial speech are still being used in
the texts. 1'his cu stom to make use of old, fossilized forms and constructions
remains throughout the whole byzantine period. And thus one has to
wait until the 12th oentury (or even later) 258 before one can get a olear
picture of the changes and developments which had taken place in the
meantime.
Not every author employed the literary Koine. Someone who wanted
to write for the lower olasses oould not use the Atticistio literary language,
for he would not be understood. Other authors again were not able to
write in accordance with the ancient rules: their education had been
too deficient. Did these people use the spoken language then? They
oertainly did not. The difference between the spoken and the wI'itten
languages was not "official" as yet, as it is now between the Ka{}aeevovaa
and the L11JI-l0Tt"7). We know how difficult it is for the Greek of to-day
to keep these two types of the language apart, when he is writing and
even when he is speaking. This applies even more to people living in a
period when the split between the written and the spoken languages,
although it was becoming wider and wider, had not been established
yet in an official manner. There was not a real ohoioe between the two
types of language; there were many possibilities in between. Someone
who wanted to reaoh the common people did not use common speech,
mainly beoause he was writing. When writing, one used the written
language, not, of course, the "beautiful" literary Koine, but a simplified
!fiS Cf. 11 1.1.