Correlative Clauses

Book Nav

main

267. i. VWα have first to distinguish betςween the simple structure in which the Relative Clause only qualifies a Noun or Pronoun in the Principal Clause, as- τῶν οἱ νῦν βροτοί εἰσι of t2οve wὰο are ππομw ἰνiμπg. ἐν πεδίῳ ὅθι περ κτλ. iππ re νίain μwὰere r. and the paratίet structure, in which the Relative is an Adverb ob the same form as the Antecedent; as- τὰὼς δέ σʼ ἀπεχθήρω ὡς νῦν ἔκπαγλʼ ἐφίλησα. τόφρα δʼ ἐπὶ Γρώεσσι τίθει κράτος, ὄφρʼ ἂν Ἀχαιοὶ κτλ. τῇ ἴμεν ᾖ κεν δὴ σύ, κελαινεφές, ἡγεμονεύῃς. Here the notion given by the adverbial ending-πmαnπer, tiρwc, καγ, 8ʼc.-is the point of comparison, and must be understood to qualify both clases. In both these kinds of compound sentence the Demonstrative Antecedent may often be omitted, but this is especially the case ςwith the second, in which a Relatival Adverb implies a cοrτe- sροndiπ9 Demonstrative. Thus ὡς ἐφίλησα implies τὼς -ὡς ἐφί- λησα : ὄφρʼ ἄν is equivalent to τόφρα-ὄφρʼ ἄν, 8c. Inn this vway, then, it came about that ὡς (lit. iπ νwἄicὰ πaπππeτ) means in the ρanπner iπn μuwἄicἄ. and so ὄφρα to tθe tiπue up to wἀicὰ, ᾖ ὁγ the μκαγ 2γ wᾶic2, ὅθι αἱ tᾶe ρίace w2eτe, ὅτε at the tiπae μwen, and so on.1 The ςwhole Relative Clause in fact serves as an Adverb (of πmaπnner, tie, wαγ, 8Sʼc. as the ending may determine), construed ςwith the Verb of the Principal Clause. Such clauses accorddingly are called adνerbiata vwhile clauses which merely qualify a Noun or Pronoun are a(iectiναt.

2. The omission of the antecedent from the governing clause leads to various idiomatic uses :-

(a) Thα Relative Clause comes to be equivalent to a Noun or Pronoun in any Case which the governing clause may require : thus- ll. 5. 481 τά τ ἐέλδεται ὅς κʼ ἐπιδευής wwwἄicὰ (2e) adeςiτeς wὰο is in πeeod. Il. 230 δῶρʼ ἀποαιρεῖσθαι ὅς τις σέθεν ἀντίον εἴπῃ to tao ασααγ gftς (7τορm 2iπα, fτοw αdγ οπe) κw2ο ἢπ. 7. 401 γνωτὸν δὲ καὶ ὃς μάλα νήπιός ἐστιν. Od. 1 5. 281 αὐτὰρ κεῖθι φιλήσεαι οἷά κʼ ἔχωμεν γοu wit ὁe entertaίned (μwitὰ ςμucὰ tings) as μwe ἀανe. Il. 14. 81 βέλτερον ὃς φεύγων προφύγῃ κακόν it ς otter (for one) μκwὰο dγ fἶγiπρ εscαρeς eνit, i.e. t is ὁeter wὰeππ α πmαn 5c.: cp. Od. 15. 72, Π. 3. 109.

(b) The omission is especially characteristic of clauses with ὅτε wὰeπn (for τὸ-ὅτε tθe tiρme waeπn) : H. 15. 18 ἦ οὐ μέμνῃ ὅτε do γομu ποί τeρmeρmter (tHe tiπe) wἄenna H. B. 229 πῇ ἔβαν εὐχωλαί, ὅτε δὴ κτλ. μκweτe axe ροne tἄe οaςtίπρς (of re tiπme) πwὰe ὅc. 7. 19. 337 λυγρὴν ἀγγελίην ὅτʼ ἀποφθιμένοιο πύθηται: and vwith Numerals, D. 21. 80 ἠὼς δέ μοί ἐστιν ἥδε δυωδεκάτη ὅτε κτλ. tRiς is tἄe tweft πmοrπ (frοπm tἄe tiρme) wθen 5c. So in B. 2. 303 χθιζά τε καὶ πρωίζʼ ὅτε means a σdαγ οτ tμο (frορm re tiρe) tἄat. Hence too the forms εἰς ὅτε to tθe tiρe tat, πρίν γʼ ὅτε ὐηfοτe tὰe tine μ0θen. Similarly ςwith ὅθι νwἄere, as ἵκανον ὅθι tἀeγ cue (to re ρίace) κere.

(c) VWithh a Verb of παγiρ οτ ἑnοwiπς the Relative Clause has apparently the force of a dependent question :- ll. 2. 355 γνώσῃ ἔπειθʼ ὅς θʼ ἡγεμόνων κακός, ὅς τέ νυ λαῶν, ἡδʼ ὅς κʼ ἐσθλὸς ἔῃσι γοᾷ wilt τec9ππίπe (γιγνώσκω, not οἶδα) lf tἄe eααderς 2iρm νκἢο is a μweaέίiπg, and μκwᾶο ηf tάe ρeορίe, an4 agαίn 2iρι μwὰο ςἄat e (fομuππd to de) bτaνe. So Ii. 13. 278, 21. ὅ09, Od. 3. 185, 17. 353 compare the aform ςwith the antecedent expressed- Π. 23. 498τότε δὲ γνώσεσθε ἕκαστος ἵππους Ἀργείων, οἱ δεύτεροι οἴ τε πάροιθεν. The construction is the same with a yVerb ςwwhich iπρίίeς knowing, finding out, or the like: eῃ.- κλήρῳ νῦν πεπάλασθε διαμπερὲς ὅς κε λάχῃσι cast οtς(tο iππαd ἄiπ) w2οve ροrtiοκ it ςἄαtt ὁe.

3. The suppressed antecedent, agan, may have no clear or grammatical construction :- (a) This is especially found when the Relative Claαse ex- D2SS2S a τea2θ2, kS- Od. 4. 611 αἵματός εἰς ἀγαθοῖο, φίλον τέκος, οἷ’ ἀγορεύεις lit. γοr axe ῃʼροοd ὁοοd (seeiπ9 tθe tiππ9ς) κucὰ as 3ο πρeαέδ, i.e. as 1 see by the manner of things that you speak. Il. 14. 95 νῦν δέ σευ ὠνοσάμην πάγχυ φρένας οἶον ἔειπες ὑaρue γοκr tοu9ὰt, ὁecαuse ῃ re ἑindd ῃʼ tᾶiππg γοu 2aνe said. Od. 2. 239 νῦν δʼ ἄλλῳ δήμῳ νεμεσίζομαι, οἷον ἅπαντες ἢσθʼ ἄνεῳ at re μwαγ tat γε alt sit ςitent. ll. 17. 586 Cκτωρ, τίς κέ σʼ ἔτ ἄλλος Ἀχαιῶν ταρβήσειεν, οἶον δὴ Μενέλαον ὑπέτρεσας ; wο μwομμtd fear γοu adγ ππηοτe, seeίπg tὰe wdy γοκ sἄταnἑ ὁgθeτe 3feneίaμuς ? Od. 15. 212 οἶος ἐκείνου θυμὸς ὑπέρβιος, οὔ σε μεθήσει. Il. 16. 17 ὲ σύ γʼ Ἀργείων ὀλοφύρεαι ὡς ὀλέκονται. Od. 10. 326 θαῦμά μʼ ἔχει ὡς κτλ. μwοπnder at tewαγ tiαt 5c. This is the idiom generally described by saying that οἷος is put for ὅτι τοιοῦτος, ὡς for ὅτι οὕτως, and so on. So vwhen ὅς intro- duces a reason (ἢ 266) we might say that it is for ὅτι οὕτος (e.ς. ἐὺς αἴτιος ὅς τε δίδωσιππ ὅτι οὕτος δίδωσι). The peculiarity, how- ever, of the clauses now in question is that the Relative can have no grammatical Antecedent, that is to say, that the Correlative which it implies as an Antecedent has no regular construction in the Principal Clause. (ὑ) This is also foαndd after Verbs of ἑπομwiππρ, 8c-the Rela- tive Clause expressing the Object or tiiπ9 known : as- Π. 2. 409 ἥδε γὰρ κατὰ θυμὸν ἀδελφέον ὡς ἐπονεῖτο ἄε ἑneμw ῃʼ ἄiς ὁrοtὰer (as to tὰe πaanner) iπn μwἄicὰ ἄε abομured. 24. 419 θηοῖό κεν Il. Il. οἷον ἐερσήεις κεῖται. Od. 7. 327 εἰδήσεις Il. Il. ὅσσον ἄρισται νῆες ἐμαί. This is evidently an extension of the form γνώσῃ ὃς κακός (ερτα, 2 c), vwith the ddiference that the suppressed Correlative in the Principal Clause is ςwithout a regular construction. (c) Sometimes the Relative Clause is used vwithout any Principal Clause, as an exclamation : e.5.- Il. 7. 455 ὦ πόποι, Ἐννοσίγαι’ εὐρυσθενές, οἷον ἔειπες. Od. Il. 32 ὦ πόποι, οἶον δή νυ θεοὺς βροτοὶ αἰτιόωνται. ll. 5. 601 ὦ φίλοι, οἷον δὴ θαυμάζομεν Eκτορα. The ellipse gives an expression of surprise : (to tἄiπέέ) awἄat α tRίπ3οκ ἀaνe said f (to see) ὁοw πuean θtaπme tάegοdς f (to τeρmeρ2ter) ἢομw μwe wοnderedd at ectοr f The vwant of a construction has much the same effect as with the exclamatory use of the Nomin- ative (ἢ 163). Siαmilarlγ- Od. 4. 240 πάντα μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδʼ ὀνομήνω, ὅσσοι Oδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονός εἰσιν ἄεθλοι· ἀλλʼ οἶον τόδʼ ἔρεξε κτλ. wilt ποί tett ῳʼ σt ἄiw feαtς· ὑνut (inst to πmentiοα) νwἄαt a feat tiw wwας tἀαt ἄε adid 5c. So Od. 4. 259., 11. 517 : cp. also Ii. 5. 6η8 ἀλλʼ σόν τινά φασι κτλ. (7st to instaπce) re ἑiππd ῃʼπmαμn t2at tἄeγ let 5c. Lf the explanation now given of these Relative Clauses is right, it is evidently incorrect to accent and punctuate as is done by editors (e.g.) inn- Il. 6. 10S φὰν δέ τινʼ ἀθανάταww ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος Γραωσὶν ἀλεξήσοντα κατελθέμεν· ὡς [or ὥς ἐλέλιχθεν taking it as an ndependent Clause' so they vwheeled.5 The same editors do not hesitate to vwrite in βI. 16. 17 ὀλοφύρεαι, ὡς ὀλέκονται, vwhere the construction ie precisely the same. Ll is sometimes maintained that in al such cases vwe have a survival of the primitive bparataxis -that (e. g.) ὀλοφύρεαι ὡς ὀλέκονται vwas originally ὀλοφύ- ρεαι, ὥς ὀλέκονται γονι ἰament, theῳ so peτίsὰ, hence γοῖ ἰαment hοιω theῳ peτιsὰ, or that tιeῳ tιμμs perish. On the same view the exclamatory οἷον ἕειπες is not eliptical, but represents the original independent what α tιιng γοῖ ave sαίαd 7 (See Mr. Leaf on Il. 2. 320 θαυμάζομεν οἷον ἐτύχθη). This hγpothesis, hοςwever, is not borne out by the facts of language. n the first place, it is strange that the traces of parataxis should be found vwith the Relatives ὡς, οἷος, ὅσος, c. rather than vwith the corresponding Demonstrative forms. Again, if the Relative retained an original Demonstrative use, vwe should expect to find this, ike other survivals, in some isοlαteαd group of uses: vwhereas the clauses novw in question are very various in character. Again, the passages vwhich favour the notion of parataxis are indistinguishable in structure from others to vwhhich it cannot be applied, such as most of the examples given under 2. Yet vwe cannob separate τά τʼ ἐέλδεται ὅς κʼ ἐπιδευής from φιλήσεαι οἷά κʼ ἕχαωμεν, or that again from ὡ·οσάμην οἶον ἔειπες. n particular it vwil1 be found that the theory does not apply to clauses vwhich are cοnάdιtιοnαὶ so vwell as to those vwhich give a τeasοn. The exclamatory use-οἴον ἔειπες and the like-does not furnish a good argument, because the pronoun used in a simple exclamation vwould not be Demonstrative, but nterrogative (ποῖον ἕειπες, kc.). The most decisive consideration, hovwever, is that the Relatival use of ὅ2 and its de- rivatives is common to Greek and Sanscrit, and may be regarded therefore as Indο-European. Consequently there is a strong presumption against any hypothesis vwhich explains the Homeric use of the Relative from a still earlier or pre-LndoEuropean stage of langguag0.

4. Sometimes an Antecedent is not construed ςwith the Governi- ng Clause, bout follows the Case of the Relative. This is allοwedd if the Antecedent is separated from its oςwn clause, as- Π. 14. θ5 νῆες ὅσαι πρῶται εἰρύαται ἄγχι θαλάσσης ἕλκωμεν (so ll. 6. 39θ, 10- 415, 14. 371). Phi2 'Inverse Attractionb may be placed ςwith the forms in which the Antecedent is vwanting, because it can only arise when the original construction of the Antecedent (ἕλκωμεν νῆας ὅσαι-) has been forgotten.

5. Again, the Correlative structure is liable to an extension, the characteristic ob which is that the Relatival Adverb 2as πο pτόpeτ constrμuctiοn in its σwn cίase.

Phis may be most clearly seen in the use of οὅνεκα (i.e. οὗ ἕνεκα) for μwἄieὰ reason : e5.

ll. Il. 110 ὡς δἡ τοῦδʼ ἕνεκά σφιν ἑκηβόλος ἄλγεα τεύχει, οὕνεκʼ ἐγὼ Il. Il. οὐκ ἔθελον κτλ.

Aροίίο caμμses οττοw for this τeasο, tint wομd ποί §c. Here vwe cannot translate οὕνεκα for uwὰic2 τeasοn; the reason does not precede, but is given by the Relative Clause. That is, the first ἕνεκα is rational ; the second is logically αnmeaning. Hence the οὕνεκα can only be due to the correlation : as it is usually ex- pressedd, οὕνεκα is attracted to the antecedent τοὔνεκα. Then - snce οὕνεκα comes to imply a correlative τοὔνεκα -the antecedent τοὔνεκα is omitted, and the relatival οὕνεκα by itself comes to mean for re τeasοn tᾖat, δecause.

The process may be traced more or less distinctly in al the Relatival Adverbs. Γhus ὡς (in μκwἄicὰ πmanπer) comes to mean in sμcὰ πmanner tint and so ὄφρα for ο ἰοnρ t6at, νᾷ (lit. νwwὰere) to 2ie eπnd tat. Also, as wit be shovwn presently, ὅ, ὅτι and ὅ τε are Adverbial Accusatives, meaning literally in μwὰicὰ τesρect, hence iπ τesρect tἀat, becaμuςe: cp. εἰπεῖν ὅ τι ἐχώσατο to sadγ for μwiat ἄε κwas angered ςwith χώσατο ὅτι 2e κwaπ angeτedd for (iRe τeasοa) tat. The qualifying force ob the Adverb is transferred from its own clause to the Verb of the Governing Clause.

On the same principle ἐκ τοῦ ὅτε fτορm tθe tiπme wἄen becomes ἐξ οὅ (for ἐκ τοῦ οὗ-) : and εἰς τὸ ὅτε becomes εἰς ὅ to tὰe tiπme 22ι

  • 1. In the corresponding sentences in English it is often the Relative that is vwanting: thus τῇ ἴμεν ᾖ κεν ἡγεμονεύῃς tρ go b tie 0ay [bῳ whhιcὰ] γοῖ lead. The forms a characteristic difference betvween reek and English Syntax.