A grammar of the Homeric dialect - Wilbourhall.org

244 PRONOUNS. [270.
by all the gods. So II. 8. 251 &oz>0' o T ap KrA. saw that fyc. ;
and with. II. ytyz^coo-KO), 5- 23 1 &c -
;
The existence of a distinct 5 TC with the meaning because or
that depends upon its being shown that in places such as those
now quoted the word cannot be either cm that or ore when. The
latter explanation of the reading ore (or 6Y) is often admissible,
of elision.
e.g. in II. 14. 7 1 a J?^ *V I JL y^-P T ^a ^ ^^ ^re C
> P' -^ I 5-
207 ZcrOXbv KOL TO TCTVKTCLL or . . etSrj, and instances in Attic, as
Soph. O. T. 1133 KCLToibev KrA. he knows well
?]/x,o9 of the time
when fyc.,
Eur. Troad. 70 018' VVLK Alas etAKe. But the supposition
of a distinct o re is supported by a sufficient number of examples
in Homer, e.g. II. 5. 331 yiy^coovccoi; o r' ava\Kis ZT]V Ocos,
and generally by the complete correspondence of meaning thus
obtained between o, 6, and o re. On the other hand it is extremely
improbable that the t of on was ever capable
In this respect cm that stands on the same footing as TI and on.
Moreover, the adverbial use of these words, which gives them the
character of Conjunctions, is only a slight extension of the ordinary
Ace. of the Internal Object ( 133). Hence if the Neut. of os
and 05 TIS is used in this way, it is difficult to see any reason why
the Neut. of the equally familiar os TC should be excluded. The
ancient authorities and the MSS. vary in some places between
ore and cm (as
in II. 14. 71, 72., 16. 35, Od. 13. 129), and on
such a point we have no good external authority.
270.1 o, cm, o re as Conjunctions. In a few instances it is
impossible to explain these Relatives by supplying an Accusative
TO in the principal Clause. Thus in
Od. 2O. 333 vvv 6' TI^T] ro'Se 877X01;, o r ov/ceri roVri/xo's eari
the Antecedent is a Pronoun in the Nom. Similarly in
II. 5. 349 r] o^x. dXis OTTI yvvalKas avd\mas ^TrepOTrevet? ;
the principal Clause is Impersonal, and the Antecedent might be
a Nom. it (is
not enough) or Gen. (is
there not enough in this), but
hardly an Accusative. Again in
II. 8. 362 ov8e TL T&V fi^Furqrat, o ot /otaAa TroAAaKis KrA..
17. 207 T&V iroivriv, o rot KrA. (as amends for the fact that)
the Relative Clause serves as a Genitive: cp. Od. n. 540 yrjtfoa-uvrj
o ot KrA., 12. . .
374 ayyeAo? r)\6tv o ot KrA.
Add II. 9. 493 r" fypw&tw o f*ot KrA., 23. 545 T^ 4 > P ov ^(tiV 0/n *
KrA. : and also Od. 2. 1 16 ra povtov