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

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 91
Apophth. Patr. 300 D ovtJè yàe elXé nnou 'OV alwvoç .ov.ov VATjV el f-l~
éaep{tJa önov .à OáAAW saXlCl3v, " ... nisi acum unam qua palmas suas
scindebat", is Migne's translation. Jannaris, who, according at least to
his bibliography, also used the edit ion of Migne, has another version :
eiX13U .{nou. In that case it would be much easier to consider önov as a
substitute not of a prepositional phrase, but of arelat. pronoun (ij).
Jannaris' text-correction (1) must, however, be rejected.
Mal. 405,4-5 ... "at 13veéOTjaav ... elç .ov .6nov 'OV éevf-la.oç önov Uye.al
.0 BvOáetv. Although Niebuhr translates "qui Bytharium dicitur", I prefer
the more conservative attitude of Wolf, who says (p. 48): "An der Stelle
des Sundes, wo man's die kleine Tiefe heisst". He mentions the following
paralleis, where önov is replaced by the more learned svOa: 77,15-6 "at
Wtû06vuç Ot ' AeyovaVial elç .0 f-lav.ûov, svOa Uynal .à IIvOla 013ef-lá . ..
and 115,5-7 ... sepvyev ... elç aA;'o f-léeoç -rijç v~aov, .0 l5taepéeov'0 Kv,,;'wm,
svOa .à K V"Awma Uyl3ial 0eTj. It is striking to see how close this use of
önov and lvOa (= önov) is to wh at is usually denoted by arelat. pronoun.
Moseh. 2914 A .. . àV~AVOI3V elç.o oeoç önov av.oç I3lnI3V. Mihevc-Gabrovec
(p. 47) views it as a "relatif simpie". It is safer, I believe, to classify
it as a dubio us case 305.
In spite of the title of this paragraph, which sounds rather negative,
it is quite obvious that the above-mentioned examples prove that, if
önov was not used as arelat. pronoun yet, the time that it wouid be used
as such was very near. The most important reason why we are kept from
considering önov as arelat. pronoun is that the antecedents still indicate
locations and not persons or objects.
3.2.2. Examples
In the following examples we shall see how the development has been
completed. The antecedents are persons or (not local) objects, and thus
there is no reason to doubt that önov is used as a substitute for the relat.
pronoun.
Apophth. Patr. 300 B "at Aaf36vuç "at .ov àtJûepov önov elXe neoç av.ov
.~v ;'vnTjv, " .. . jratrem qui simultatem adversU8 eum habuerat (Migne)".
oldest, Ms A). This, however, can only be true on two conditions: 1. the Ms H
and the Syrian translation stem from the Ms A, 2. it must be considered as a lapse
of the scribe, as for the rest he writes oç ~ ö. It is obvious that all this is highly
improbable. I rather suppose that the translator rendered önov by quae just by
accident (the rendering quae being more to his liking than ubi), possibly influenced
by scriptura haec: "Longe sit scriptura haec a nobis, quae dixit . ..". A last possibility,
of course, is that a later scribe changed ubi into quae.
305 An instance which has to be rejected as such is offered by Gignac, who says
regarding P. Gen. 75,14 (lIl-IV A.D.) Tónov bi aVToîç naeáaX€ç nov p.ivwGtv : "I have
found one case of an indeclinable (italics by me) nov used in its Modern Greek relative
sense" . Here nov is not used as a pronoun, but as an adverb. For more examples
of interrogatives which are used in an almost relative sense see Blass- Debrunner,
§§ 298,4 and 368.