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

94 PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEM CONIUNCTUM
vorr{}W(Jtv on O..éx{}rwav xai lVOOVVTO Tóre àXó/1,'rj br:i Tomxijç a'Yjf-taa{aç, olov
2 - J! ' , ('?,') 315 ' \" J!
t::xetvoç u:n:ov ef-tayet(!evev = ev cp TO:n:cp ,etç TO O(!OÇ u:n:ov e l :n:ev
(= lv cp) 316, ij y(!aq;ij o:n:ov Uyet (= ij y(!aq;ij lv cp Xw(!{cp Uyet 317 )
X-rA.. ore é:n:of-tivwç ij yiveatç TOV o:n:ov = öanç (jèv àváye-rat elç TOVÇ 'E)')''Yjvo(!­
(!wf-taïxovç X(!ÓVOVÇ 318. As to the two last-mentioned examples he is right,
but we have Been that the fust certainly may be considered as an instance
of o:n:ov used as a substitute for oç. The instances discussed in 3.2.2. show
that Hatzidakis was not right in refuting this theory.
His own solution is as follows. Just like the interrogative :n:wç passed
into the specific :n:wç (= on), and other modal particles like f-t~:n:wç, aàv
and wç hecame specific, so the interrogative :n:OV changed into arelat.
pronoun. This must have happened, according to Hatzidakis, in indirect
questions, as, for instance, ytvwaxw :n:OV v:n:áyet aVToç and ywwaxw aVTov
:n:OV v:n:áyet 319. In such sentences :n:OV can be interpreted both as an interrogative
and as arelat. pronoun. This depends upon intonation and
context. There is, however, one difficulty: it is not :n:OV that we find used
as a relat. pron~)Un, but Ö:n:ov. Hatzidakis tries to solve this problem by
assuming that :n:OV and the old indefinite relat. adverb ö:n:ov were being
confused in indirect questions. It is a well-known fact that since the
Ancient Greek period öanç and o:n:owç etc. were used sometimes instead of
T{Ç and :n:oioç in indirect questions 320. I have not been ahle, however,
to find such examples of o:n:ov. Another reason to reject this theory is that
not even one of the examples discussed in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 can he interpreted
in this way.
3.5. Date ot origin
We have at our disposal the following facts to determine the date of
origin:
1. It does not occur in the papyri 321. There is one exception, the
papyrus discussed in 3.3, P . Bad. 11 43,6-11, where ö:n:ov still has alocal
sense, but is used af ter a personal antecedent 322. It is true, however, that
316 Leont., Joh. 46,18 (3 .2.2).
316 Mosch. 2914A (3.2.1).
317 Clem., Ep. Oor. I 23,3 (3.2.1).
318 Hatzidakis, "Onov, p . 53.
319 Hatzidakis, "Onov, p. 52.
320 See Blass-Debrunner, § 300,1: in the NT önolOr; and önwr; were used in this
way, ömLç never.
321 Cf. Dieterich, p . 201 and Hesseling, IJ OV, p. 220.
322 Kapsomenakis (p. 99) offers another example, but it is rather dubious:
P. Bas. 19,2-3 (VlfVII A.D.) ... 1Tr1)aa avn)v rome dna Ä-LOonÄ-Wewv nOLijae Ta
óaninv çrov ÈIJLaOwaw ... Kapsomenakis proposes Ta óaninv noV ÈIJLaOwaw,
saying: "Was ich in dem an dieser Stelle nicht deutlichen Faksimile lese, ist entweder
TOV oder nov, jedenfalls nicht aov. Wenn nov dasteht, so haben wir es hier mit
einem frühen Vorkommen vom m· und ngr. relativen nov zu tun". We may add that
there are earlier examples, but that in all of them the new relat. pronoun still has
the form of önov, not of the later nov.