Philomen Probert

Early Greek relative clauses

Acknowledgements General Abbreviations Abbreviations for Grammatical Categories Ancient Authors and Works, with Editions Used Epigraphic and Papyrological Publications Symbols 1. Introduction 2. Proto-Indo-European, Greek, and Primitive Languages: The Last 150 Years 3. Approaches to Proto-Indo-European Relative Clauses 4. What is a Relative Clause? 5. Definiteness and Related Concepts 6. Varieties of Greek Relative Clause 7. Matters of Case 8. Forays into Early Greek Relative Clauses in Non-epic Genres 9. Postnominal and Inherently Maximalizing Relative Clauses in Homer 10. How Does Homer Choose between Inherently Maximalizing Constructions? 11. How Does Homer Choose between omicron, eta, tauomicron, and omicronsigmaf, eta, omicron? 12. Homeric Relative Clauses in Direct Speech and Narrative 13. Cretan Inscriptions to 400 BC 14. Against Four Syntactic Relics and For One 15. Conclusions References Glossary of Technical Terms

Zeus on the stud farm? Against a Homeric instance of attractio relativi

The genitive ἧς at Iliad 5.265 is sometimes considered due to attractio relativi. Alternatively it is taken as a partitive or ablatival genitive, or emended. The question matters for Greek linguistic chronology because uncontroversial attractio relativi is not found until the fifth century BC. This paper addresses the question via a fresh examination of the syntax and sense of lines 265-269. The linguistically most plausible views are: (i) we should not understand eἰσίν with τῆς γάρ τοι γeνeῆς, nor punctuate strongly after 267; (ii) ἧς should stand, and is a partitive genitive; (iii) οὕνeκα means ‘because’. The resulting interpretation implies that Zeus accessed some pre-existing stock of horses, otherwise unknown to Greek literature. For many scholars this is a fatal objection to ἧς as a partitive genitive, with some concluding that ἧς is due to attractio relativi or corrupt, and others that ἧς is an ‘ablatival genitive’ (a suggestion that does not solve the perceived problem). This paper defends the partitive genitive analysis on the grounds that Homeric audiences could easily have imagined Zeus getting the horses from some pre-existing stock. Parallels support the plausibility of this background assumption. We do not have a Homeric instance of attractio relativi.