Early Greek Relative Clauses

Description

Early Greek Relative Clauses contributes to an old debate currently enjoying a revival: should we expect languages spoken a few thousand years ago, such as Proto-Indo-European, to be less well-equipped than modern languages when it comes to subordinate clauses? Early Greek relative clauses provide a test case for this problem. Early Greek uses several kinds of relative clause, but all these are usually thought to come from one, or at most two, prehistoric types. In a new look at the evidence, this book finds that a rich variety of relative clause types has been in place for a considerable time. The reconstruction of prehistoric linguistic stages requires detailed work on the individual languages descending from them. A substantial part of the book is therefore devoted to a new look at the relative clause systems found in a wide variety of early Greek texts. It emerges that the same basic system is in use across all these texts. Different kinds of relative clause predominate in different kinds of text, however, because relative clause syntax and semantics interact with the needs of different kinds of text. Considering material as diverse as the Homeric poems, laws inscribed in stone on the island of Crete, and the philosophical prose of Heraclitus, the discussion remains clear and straightforward as Probert considers the uses and histories of different relative clause types. Cover......Page 1 Early Greek Relative Clauses......Page 4 Copyright......Page 5 Dedication......Page 6 Acknowledgements......Page 8 Contents......Page 12 List of figures......Page 18 List of tables......Page 19 General abbreviations......Page 20 Abbreviations for grammatical categories......Page 21 Ancient authors and works, with editions used......Page 22 Epigraphic and papyrological publications......Page 25 Symbols......Page 27 1.1 What this book is about, and how it is arranged......Page 28 1.2 Some things this book is not about......Page 30 1.3 The texts on which this book is based......Page 31 2.1 A comparison between Homer and Demosthenes......Page 33 2.2 A nineteenth-century view......Page 36 2.3 `There are no primitive languages´......Page 39 2.4 Oral and written language......Page 41 2.5 The apparent primitiveness of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European......Page 42 2.6 A new debate about primitive languages......Page 45 3.2 Relative-pronoun-based approaches......Page 48 3.2.1 Was (H)yo- a relative pronoun in Proto-Indo-European?......Page 51 3.2.2 Was *kwi/kwo- a relative pronoun in Proto-Indo-European?......Page 54 3.2.3 Were *(H)yo- and *kwi-/*kwo- syntactically and semantically different relative pronouns?......Page 59 3.2.3.1 Hettrich´s first typological oddity......Page 61 3.2.3.2 Hettrich´s second typological oddity......Page 65 3.2.3.3 Hettrich´s third typological oddity......Page 69 3.2.4 Hittite-style relative clauses in Greek and Indo-Iranian......Page 70 3.2.5 The ousting of one relative pronoun by the other: some difficulties......Page 75 3.3 Alternative approaches......Page 78 4.1 From traditional grammar to linguistic typology......Page 82 4.2.1 Relative clauses indicate the role of the modified element......Page 86 4.2.2 Relative clauses are subordinate clauses......Page 87 4.3 Restrictive relative clauses......Page 88 4.4 Non-restrictive relative clauses......Page 96 4.5 Relative clauses of the third kind......Page 98 4.6 Conclusion and a revised definition......Page 101 Chapter 5: Definiteness and related concepts......Page 103 5.1 Definiteness......Page 104 5.2 Maximality......Page 106 5.3.1 The kind of indefiniteness signalled by indefinite articles......Page 108 5.3.2 The kind of indefiniteness signalled by the `indefinite construction´......Page 110 5.3.3 The kind of indefiniteness signalled by indefinite relative pronouns......Page 125 5.3.3.1 The development of non-domain-widening uses......Page 131 5.3.3.2 The value of : summary and conclusion......Page 134 5.4 Generalization and epic τ......Page 135 5.5 A summary......Page 137 5.6 Why make these distinctions? A case study......Page 138 Chapter 6: Varieties of Greek relative clause......Page 146 6.1.2 ὁ, ἡ, τό......Page 147 6.1.3 στiota, τiota, τiota `whoever, whatever´......Page 150 6.1.4 Cretan ὀτεῖος......Page 151 6.1.7 Other subordinators built on the stem *(H)yo-......Page 152 6.2 Traditional `normal´ type of relative clause (postnominal relative clauses)......Page 153 6.3 Type with no expressed antecedent (free relative clauses)......Page 155 6.4 Type with antecedent `incorporated´ (more free relative clauses)......Page 157 6.4.1 Excursus: noun phrase plus free relative clause in apposition......Page 160 6.5 Relative clauses whose `antecedent´ is a cataphoric demonstrative pronoun (semi-free relative clauses)......Page 162 6.5.1 Relative clauses with cataphoric words for `all´ or `every´ as antecedents (more semi-free relative clauses)......Page 167 6.6 Relative-correlative sentences......Page 169 6.6.1 Relative-correlative sentences with an unexpressed correlative pronoun?......Page 171 6.7 Conclusions on postnominal and inherently maximalizing relative clauses......Page 172 6.8.1 Sentential relative clauses......Page 174 6.8.2 Indefinite free relative clauses......Page 175 6.9 Distinguishing between relative clauses and some other constructions......Page 176 6.9.1 Comparative constructions......Page 177 6.9.2 Indirect questions......Page 181 6.9.3 Unconditional clauses......Page 183 6.9.4 Main clauses with a demonstrative pronoun used anaphorically......Page 185 6.10 Main and minor varieties of Greek relative clauses: a summary......Page 188 7.1 Attractio inversa......Page 189 7.2 Attractio relativi......Page 194 7.2.1 Attractio relativi before Aeschylus?......Page 196 7.2.1.1 Attractio vetustissima......Page 197 7.2.1.2 Expressions of type nu θλ (μματα θλγiotanu)......Page 198 7.2.1.3 Subordinators of the type xi `since´......Page 199 7.2.1.4 Il. 5. 265......Page 203 7.2.1.5 Il. 23. 649......Page 205 7.2.1.6 Heraclitus fr. 1 DK......Page 206 7.2.1.7 An inscriptional example?......Page 207 7.2.2 Attractio relativi in fifth-century Cretan inscriptions?......Page 209 7.2.2.1 τiota or τiota: classic instances of the problem......Page 210 7.2.2.2 No attractio relativi at IC IV 41, iv 3......Page 212 7.2.2.3 No attractio relativi at Bile 1988, no. 12, A 7......Page 213 7.2.2.4 No positive evidence for attractio relativi at IC IV 77, B 10......Page 214 7.2.2.5 No positive evidence for attractio relativi at GL xi 50......Page 215 7.2.2.6 No relative pronoun at GL i 6......Page 216 7.2.2.7 No positive evidence for attractio relativi at GL iii 5......Page 218 7.3 Case matching, noun phrase accessibility hierarchy, and case hierarchy......Page 219 8.2 Mycenaean......Page 226 8.3 Alphabetic Greek inscriptions to 550 bc......Page 229 8.4 Early literary prose......Page 234 8.5 Iambics to 550 bc......Page 241 8.6 Monodic and choral lyric to 550 bc......Page 247 8.7 Elegy to c.550 bc......Page 254 8.8 Conclusions......Page 265 9.2 How are inherently maximalizing relative clauses used?......Page 269 9.2.1 Meaningful exclusivity in ordinary sentences......Page 271 9.2.2 Meaningful exclusivity in sentences that generalize across situations......Page 279 9.2.3 Emphatic inclusiveness......Page 284 9.2.4 Appositional structures......Page 285 9.2.5 A semi-free relative clause or a postnominal relative clause?......Page 287 9.3 How are postnominal relative clauses used?......Page 288 9.3.1 The antecedent heads a semantically indefinite noun phrase......Page 289 9.3.2 The antecedent heads a semantically definite noun phrase and the relative clause is non-restrictive......Page 295 9.3.3 The antecedent heads a semantically definite noun phrase and the relative clause is clarificatory......Page 302 9.3.4 The antecedent heads a semantically definite noun phrase and the relative pronoun is a form of στiota......Page 307 9.3.5 The antecedent heads a semantically definite noun phrase and the relative pronoun is a form of σ(σ)......Page 309 9.3.6 The antecedent is accompanied by an adnominal demonstrative or article and the relative clause is `strongly´ restrictive......Page 312 9.3.7 Postnominal relative clauses in sentences that generalize across situations......Page 315 9.3.8 Further postnominal relative clauses in contexts allowing inherently maximalizing constructions......Page 318 9.3.9 Atypical sequences influenced by inherently maximalizing relative clauses......Page 320 9.3.10 Postnominal relative clauses: summary and discussion......Page 324 10.1 When does Homer choose something other than a free relative clause?......Page 327 10.2 Relative-correlative sentence versus semi-free relative clause: some questions......Page 332 10.3 An answer: relative-correlative sentences as a topicalizing strategy......Page 338 11.1 Introduction......Page 342 11.2 How is relative , , τ used?......Page 343 11.3 How is , , used on the spectrum of non-restrictiveness?......Page 346 11.4 Conclusions......Page 352 12.1 Introduction......Page 354 12.2 Why are postnominal relative clauses with , , τ associated with narrative?......Page 361 12.3 Why are inherently maximalizing relative clauses used much more in direct speech than in narrative?......Page 362 12.4 Why are postnominal relative clauses used more in direct speech than in narrative?......Page 367 12.5 Summary and conclusions......Page 375 13.1 Introduction......Page 377 13.2 How are inherently maximalizing relative clauses used?......Page 378 13.2.1 Three further inherently maximalizing relative clauses......Page 392 13.3 Postnominal relative clauses......Page 394 13.3.1.2 The matter about which they contend......Page 395 13.3.1.3 The charge with which they are charged......Page 396 13.3.1.4 The owner to whom the large animal belongs......Page 397 13.3.1.5 Sons and brothers who are qualified to testify......Page 398 13.3.1.6 The kosmos who deals with Rhitten......Page 400 13.3.1.7 Houses in which a serf does not live......Page 401 13.3.1.9 The stone from which proclamations are made......Page 405 13.3.2. The antecedent heads an indefinite noun phrase; the relative pronoun is......Page 406 13.3.3.1 The property which the judge swears the stranger helped her to pack off......Page 407 13.3.3.3 The property which someone possesses......Page 408 13.3.3.4 Her property which she came with to her husband......Page 409 13.3.4 The antecedent heads an indefinite noun phrase; the relative pronoun is στiota......Page 410 13.3.5 The antecedent heads a definite noun phrase; the relative pronoun is ττ......Page 412 13.5 Potential answer (i): antecedents are `left understood´ where possible......Page 413 13.7 Potential answer (iii): Why not?......Page 415 13.8 How do writers of Cretan inscriptions choose between inherently maximalizing constructions?......Page 416 Chapter 14: Against four syntactic relics and for one......Page 419 14.1 Anaphoric uses of ὅς , ἥ, ὅ......Page 420 14.2 Clause-final placement of postnominal relative clauses......Page 426 14.3 Verbless relative clauses......Page 434 14.4 Apodotic δέ......Page 441 14.5 A genuine syntactic relic: epic τε......Page 447 14.6 Further prehistoric free relative clauses?......Page 452 14.7 Conclusion......Page 461 15.1 A coherent synchronic system......Page 462 15.1.1 Inherently maximalizing relative clauses......Page 463 15.1.2 Postnominal relative clauses......Page 464 15.2 Why are there so many postnominal, non-restrictive relative clauses in Homer?......Page 466 15.4 A genuine relic phenomenon......Page 468 15.5 A more radical suggestion......Page 469 15.6 Orality, literacy, and on not extrapolating very far back in time......Page 470 15.7 What about Proto-Indo-European?......Page 471 Glossary of technical terms......Page 504 Subject Index......Page 510 Index Locorum......Page 519