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

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONIUNCTUM 93
how many identical cases occur in the LXX, texts which were written
some centuries before, one starts doubting even ab out this one.
Or should these examples not be considered as cases of the pronomen
abundans, but as something new, a phenomenon caused only by the fact
that önov, when it had alocal sense, needed a reinforcing element? This
seems to be confirmed by the only example which has been found outside
of the atmosphere of the LXX :
P. Bad. II 43,6-11 (lIl A.D.) ÈvefJaAófld)a elç ia nAolov 'Ueaxoç ioiJ
nOAtTtXoiJ ioiJ g;lAov aov, önov (= at whose house) Ëfleveç Èv{)áfJe uv' (= uvw P09)
Èv in olxlq. aVioiJ, lAalov fJát5w Tiaaeea. The adverb is reinforced by
the phrase Èv in olxlq. aVioiJ, and thus it is similar to, e.g., Apoc. 17,9
önov . .. Èn' avnóv. They are different, however: the relat. clause in the
papyrus is nonessential : it forms a parenthesis.
There is still another objection against Hesseling's supposition: more
examples of this phenomenon do not occur. They do not occur even in
the texts of the 5th-7th centuries, when the sen se of önov was even
broader 310. And the situ at ion in Modern Greek is exactly the opposite
of what should have been expected: when önov has alocal sense, it is
not necessarily followed by a pronomen coniunctum 311 . It is exactly in
this case that the rule is looser applied.
It may be concluded that, ifthe local sense of önov actually has weakened,
this weakening has not had consequences for the development of the
language. It must be admitted, however, that for a short time people
may have feIt inclined to reinforce it. We cannot be positive of this,
as one papyrus is not enough proof.
3.4. Other opinions
There have been, as far as I know, two scholars who did not agree
with the theory discussed above. They had another opinion about the
origin of önov as arelat. pronoun.
3.4.1. Koraïs 312 believed that this phenomenon was a consequence of
Western influences. He thought primarily of the Italian relat. pronoun
che. That this theory cannot be correct is quite clear : 1. Italian influences
on the Greek language did not start until the 13th century, 2. the first
ex am pIes of önov used as arelat. pronoun in early Modern Greek stem
from the 12th century, 3. the examples mentioned in 3.2 occur in still
older texts, written in the 5th, 6th and 7th century 313.
3.4.2. Hatzidakis 314, disagreeing with the examples given by Jannaris
(see 3.2), said: "Tà ... vna ioiJ Ftávvae'YJ naeau{)évTa xwela t5vvav-rat và
309 Proposed by Kapsomenakis, p . 99, note 2.
310 See, e.g., the instanees discussed in 3.2.1.
311 See II 2.2.2.
312 A. Koraïs, "ATa~Ta I, p. 65.
313 Cf. Mavrofrydis, p . 612 and Hatzidakis, no 1l0V, p . 50.
314 Hatzidakis, ·01lov.