The definitive version is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com. See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-968X.12137.

On the third type of headed relative clause in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek1

Klaas Bentein and Metin BağrıaçıkGhent University

Abstract: It has been claimed that Archaic and Classical Greek had two main types of headed relative clauses: (i) postnominal externally headed relative clauses, and (ii) internally headed relative clauses (Perna 2013a, b; Fauconnier 2014; Probert 2015). In this article, we take a closer look at the semantic and syntactic properties of the second category in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek (I-VIII AD). Analysing a corpus of documentary texts, we show that a good deal of the examples in this period do not correspond to the established properties of internally headed relative clauses in the history of Greek. This leads us to propose that at least some examples that are apparently internally headed should be revised as a third relative clause type, namely prenominal externally headed relative clauses. We hypothesise that such examples came into existence through form-function reanalysis of internally headed relative clauses, a process which we suggest took place already in the Classical period (V–IV BC). In the last part of our article, we investigate the motivation for the choice of internally headed and prenominal externally headed relative clauses over the postnominal ones: we show that such examples occur strikingly frequently in formal texts such as contracts, petitions and formal letters. We propose that in such texts, internally headed and prenominal externally headed relative clauses, which are syntactically more complex, function as ‘transparent signifiers’ (Hodge & Kress 1988), serving as a marker of a higher social level.

Keywords: relativisation; internally headed relative clause; prenominal/postnominal externally headed relative clause; Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek; documentary writing

1. Introduction

In a recent article, Fauconnier (2014) has drawn attention to the existence of two major

strategies of headed relative clause formation2 in Ancient Greek,3 which she refers to

with the terms ‘postnominal externally headed relative clause’4 (hereafter Post-EHRC) 1 We are grateful to two anonymous referees for Transactions of the Philological Society for their constructive comments and insightful suggestions, which have substantially improved our initial submission. Needless to say, we take sole responsibility for all the remaining inadequacies. Klaas Bentein’s research was funded by The Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (Grant Nr 12B7218N), the Center for Hellenic Studies, and the European Research Council (Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Starting Grant Nr 756487). Metin Bağrıaçık’s research was supported by HERA (Humanities in the European Research Area) grant “MuMiL-EU” (HERA.15.029). 2 Ancient Greek headed relative clauses have been subject to a great number of studies, among which see Probert (2015) for Archaic Greek; Monteil (1963), Adams (1972), Brunel (1977) for Archaic and Classical Greek; Biraud (1980), Chanet (1980), Pieters (1980), Rijkbsaron (1981), Stelter (2004: 28-139), Perna (2013a, b), Luján (2014) for Classical Greek; Vierros (2003) for Early Post-classical Greek; Kriki (2013) for Post-classical Greek; Du Toit (1986, 2015, 2016), Boyer (1988), Culy (1989), Petersen (2001) and Kirk (2012: 177-224) for New Testament Greek. 3 Fauconnier’s (2014) study is concerned specifically with Classical Greek (V–IV BC). Studies on later periods of Greek (for which, see fn. 2), however, generally assume the existence of the same types of headed relative clauses. We, too, will start this article by assuming that the syntax of relative clauses in Classical and Post-classical Greek is similar. 4 Fauconnier (2014) does not explicitly argue that a relative clause whose head is external to the structure is postnominal; however judging by all the examples which she cites in her paper, it becomes clear that

1

and ‘internally headed relative clause’ (hereafter IHRC). These two types are illustrated

in (1–2) respectively.

(1) τῇ τύχῃ δ’, ἣν ὁ δαίμων ἔνειμεν ἑκάστοις,têi túkhēi d’ h nḕ ho daímōn éneimen hekástoisART:DAT fate:DAT PART REL:ACC ART:NOM Divine power:NOM allot:AOR.3SG each:DAT.PL

ταύτῃ κέχρηνταιtaútēi kékhrēntaiDEM:DAT experience:PERF.3PL

‘They experienced the fate which Divine power allotted to each of them.’5 (Dem., Orat. 18.208 (IV BC))

(2) τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν οὐχ ἣν οὑτωσί τις ἂνtoûto d’ estìn oukh hḕn houtōsí tis ànDEM:NOM PART be:PRES.3SG NEG REL:ACC so INDF:NOM PART

φήσειεν ἀτιμίανph seienḗ atimíanthink:OPT.PRES.3SG outlawry:ACC

‘This was not the outlawry which one commonly understands.’ (Dem., Orat. 9.44 (IV BC))

In both (1) and (2), the relative clause is introduced by the singular feminine form of the

relative pronoun in the accusative case, namely hḕn ‘which’. This pronoun is co-

referential with the modified head noun6 of the relative clause (cf. túkhēi ‘fate’ (1);

atimían ‘outlawry’ (2)), and shares the gender and number features with this head.

However, there are two remarkable differences in the linear syntactic structures of (1)

and (2): first, in (1), the relative pronoun hḕn ‘which’ and its associated relative clause

linearly follows the head túkhēi ‘fate’. In (2), on the other hand, the relative pronoun

linearly precedes the head atimían ‘outlawry’, which—at least linearly—can be argued

to be inside the relative clause. Second, in (1), the accusative case on the relative

pronoun is assigned by the verb inside the relative clause, éneimen ‘(Divine power)

allotted’, but the head noun co-referential with this pronoun is dative-marked—the case

assigned to the head noun outside the relative clause, more specifically by the matrix

verb kékhrēntai ‘they experience’. In (2), on the other hand, the head noun and the

she identifies externally headed relative clauses with postnominal relative clauses.5 Translations are our own unless otherwise indicated. For an overview of papyrus editions/translations, see https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist_papyri.html. For the sake of clarity, we have indicated the head noun and the relative pronoun in bold. 6 In this article, we refer to the (nominal) constituent that is semantically shared by both the relative clause and the matrix clause as ‘head noun’ or simply as ‘head’. A number of alternative labels have been chosen in the literature to refer to the same (syntactic) object as ‘head (noun)’, among which are ‘antecedent’, ‘pivot’, or ‘domain nominal’. For the purposes of this article, nothing hinges on these terminological differences.

2

relative pronoun agree also in case: both are marked in the accusative, which is assigned

to the pronoun and the head noun by the verb of the relative clause, àn ph seien ḗ ‘(one)

thinks, understands’. These two differences can be schematically represented as follows

(see also de Vries 2002: 20, his (23a, c)):7,8

(3) [matrix clause … HEADi [Relative clause rel proi …V…Øi ]…] (Post-EHRC, cf. (1))

(4) [matrix clause … [Relative clause rel proi …<V>…HEADi …<V>…]…] (IHRC, cf. (2))

Of these two types, IHRCs (2,4) have been argued to a have more restricted

distribution in Ancient Greek: in terms of frequency, there are only few examples in

Homeric Greek (Monteil 1963: 49-51; Rijksbaron 1981: 253, 257), and in Classical Greek

as well IHRCs occur infrequently.9 Syntactically and semantically, too, Ancient Greek

IHRCs have been argued to be subject to a number of restrictions, which we summarize

as follows:10

Semantics

IHRCs can only be interpreted as restrictive (Kriki 2013: 223; Fauconnier 2014: 143).

Syntax

(i) The head noun occurs inside the relative clause (Perna 2013a: 164). (ii) IHRCs cannot be used when the head noun assumes the subject function of

the relative clause (Kriki 2013: 223; Perna 2013a: 167-169, 2013b: 329; Fauconnier 2014: 143).

(iii) In IHRCs, the case marking of the relative pronoun and the head noun is identical, and depends on their function inside the relative clause (Kriki 2013: 223; Perna 2013a: 161, 2013b: 329; Fauconnier 2014: 143).

(iv) The head noun in IHRCs is formally almost always indefinite in the sense that it is never accompanied by definite articles or other determiners even when it is unambiguously interpreted as definite (Perna 2013a: 161, 2013b: 329; Kriki 2013: 222-223; Fauconnier 2014: 149–151).

7 With HEAD standing for ‘head noun’, rel pro for ‘relative pronoun’, i for ‘anaphoric relationship’, V for ‘verb’, and Ø for the gap/presumably deleted constituent at the relativisation site. 8 Compare Fiorentino (2007: 275-276) for this notation. The head noun assumes a grammatical function both within the relative clause, precisely at the relativization site, and outside of it. Very much in line with Fiorentino (ibid.), we assume that this is established with a double anaphoric relationship in the relative clause construction: (i) between the head noun and the relative pronoun, and (ii) between the relative pronoun and a ‘deleted’ constituent. 9 Perna (2013a: 162-163) notes that most examples come from Attic prose (Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, the orators) and poetry (the tragedians). This author finds about thirty examples in her corpus (Plato). 10 As we will see in §3, some exceptions against these restrictions can already be found as early as in Classical period. Since such exceptions are (very) rare, we follow Kriki (2013), Perna (2013a, 2013b) and Fauconnier (2014) in speaking about semantic and syntactic ‘restrictions’ (rather than ‘tendencies’ or the like).

3

It should be noted that the argument that relative clauses conforming to the schema in

(2,4) in Ancient Greek should be characterized as IHRCs is not exactly in line with

certain cross-linguistic definitions of IHRCs, according to which one major property of

such relative clauses is the absence of relative or resumptive pronouns (see Culy 1990,

Basilico 1996 and Cinque 2008 among others).11 One solution to this problem is to

suggest that Ancient Greek relative clauses of the type in (2) are not IHRCs as defined by

Culy (1990) and others but are rather ‘Internally Headed Free Relative Clauses’ (a term

coined by De Vries 2002, hereafter IHFRs), which do have relative pronouns. IHFRs have

been discussed extensively in Grosu (1994, 2002, 2009) and Grosu & Landman (1998:

155ff) as a type of free relative clause which involves a sortal head forming part of the

relative clause. An illustrative case is given in (5), in which the relative pronoun what is

accompanied by the sortal noun students:

(5) [What few students came to the concert] left before the encores began.

(Grosu & Landman 1998:155, their (76b))

In fact, this is the point defended by Probert (2015: 130-133) concerning Archaic Greek

relative clauses that conform to the schema in (2,4).12 More specifically, Probert (2015)

argues that IHRCs of the type exemplified in (2,4) in Archaic Greek always show

‘maximalizing’ semantics on a par with free relatives or IHFRs. In other words, rather

than restricting the class of entities evoked by the head to a proper subset of that class,

(i.e. being restrictive) or making a loose comment on the antecedent (i.e. being non-

restrictive), such relative clauses always refer to a unique entity, everything in a set, or a

complete lot of stuff (Probert 2015: 71-73). Whether or not IHRCs can or cannot have

relative pronouns cross-linguistically, and more specifically, whether or not Ancient

Greek IHRCs of the type in (2,4) are better referred to as IHFRs rather than IHRCs are

questions that are beyond the scope of the current paper. Relevant here are the claims

which have been made about IHRCs in Ancient Greek (regardless of the terminology

used by different authors), irrespective of the cross-linguistic background that these

claims have been supported by.

11 Perna (2013a: 166), who explicitly acknowledges that ‘this property [i.e. absence of relative pronouns] is the only one which is not present in Greek, since the relative phrase is introduced by the usual pronoun’ does not seem to make much of this issue. 12 To be exact, Probert (2015) refers to cases as in (2,4) as ‘free relative clauses’ (with an incorporated antecedent). Nothing hinges on this terminological difference, however.

4

In this article, we concentrate specifically on the use of IHRCs in Post-classical and

Early Byzantine Greek (I–VIII AD). As a number of studies have mentioned, in this

period, too, IHRCs form a minority: according to Culy (1989: 76), for instance, 95% of

the relative clauses in the New Testament are Post-EHRCs, exemplified in (1) and

schematically shown in (3).13 However, IHRCs are not entirely absent from our textual

sources (see further §2). By providing a syntactic and semantic account of these IHRCs,

we intend to assess to what extent the data from this period fit into the classification

proposed by Fauconnier (2014) and others for the Archaic and Ancient (Classical) Greek

relative clauses. Our study reveals that the data which could be categorised as IHRCs

according to Fauconnier’s classification do not form a homogenous category in this

period (§3), which leads us to recognize a third type of relative clauses, namely

prenominal externally headed relative clauses (hereafter Pre-EHRC), in which the

relative clause precedes its associated head which is found outside the relative clause

(§4). We propose that Pre-EHRCs came into existence through form-function reanalysis

of IHRCs, a process which we suggest took place already in the Classical period. Finally

we reveal that the choice for the use of Pre-EHRCs, IHRCs, or Post-EHRCs is

pragmatically motivated, and that there is a strong connection with formality of the text

type (§5).

2. The corpus

Our analysis is based on a corpus of documentary texts dating from Post-classical and

Early Byzantine Greek (I–VIII AD). Despite the fact that certain scholars, such as

Rijksbaron (1981: 252, referring to Mayser 1934: 98-104), have noted the remarkable

frequency of IHRCs in such texts, these IHRCs have received little to no attention, with

the exception of Kriki (2013). Unlike Kriki (2013), we have not systematically searched

all documentary texts (that is, Ptolemaic, Roman, and Byzantine texts) for relative pro-

nouns. Instead, we have done close reading of a manageable corpus of about two

thousand documentary texts. We have focused on so-called ‘archives’; namely groups of

texts that have been collected in antiquity by persons or institutions, either due to their

official purpose, or due to sentimental value attached to them (cf. Vandorpe 2009: 238-

13 Boyer (1988: 244), on the other hand, mentions that ‘there are 175 cases (less than 13%) in which the antecedent follows the relative’.

5

240). We have further taken into account three major text types: letters, petitions, and

contracts. The number of texts in the corpus belonging to each type is given in Table 1.14

TABLE 1 GOES HERE

Table 1 shows that the Middle Post-classical period is by far the best represented in

our corpus. For Late Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek, our corpus contains fewer

texts: among others, there are no petitions for the Early Byzantine period.

Table 2 further gives an overview of the number of Post-EHRCs and IHRCs that we

have encountered in our corpus. In this table IHRCs refer to all relative clauses of the

type shown in (2,4).15 As Table 2 shows, as in the Classical period, Post-EHRCs occur

more frequently than IHRCs. IHRCs are certainly not absent, though: the ratio is about

1:3.

TABLE 2 GOES HERE

While it has become easy to access documentary texts through the Duke Databank of

Documentary Texts,16 reading and understanding the texts is a much more difficult

matter (Lee 2016: 101-106). The texts are written in many different linguistic levels

(often using a specialized vocabulary and substandard spelling), are full of specialist

diacritical signs, and are isolated from their historical context. Nevertheless,

documentary texts also have a number of important advantages: they span a broad time

period, can often be dated, and represent many more linguistic registers than are known

to us from manuscript tradition. As they are contextually diverse, they allow the

researcher to scrutinize the social contexts in which particular linguistic features are

used, and to investigate the possible pragmatic motivation of language use (relative

clauses in particular), a line of research which has been neglected so far and which we

will explore in §5 of this article.

14 To be more specific, we have taken into account all letters and petitions, as well as contracts originating from Karanis and Oxyrhynchus archives. 15 We have not included relative adverbs such as hoû ‘where’, hóthen ‘from where’, and hóte ‘when’ (cf. Crespo et al. 2003: 380-381) and relative participles (Friberg 1982; Culy 1989).16 See http://papyri.info/.

6

3. IHRCs in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek (I–VIII AD)

In what follows, we discuss four key semantic/syntactic properties of IHRCs (cf. §1): (i)

semantics; (ii) case marking; (iii) syntactic function; and (iv) use of the article.

3.1. SemanticsAs mentioned in §1, IHRCs typically are restrictive in nature,17 a property which

Fauconnier (2014) relates to a ‘form-function correspondence’ between semantic and

syntactic integration:

In [IHRCs], the [head] is part of the relative clause. This implies that the [head] noun and the relative clause form one single syntactic unit that cannot be broken up. As a result of this tight syntactic integration, the relative clause can only be interpreted as directly modifying the [head]. External constructions, by contrast, can be analyzed as consisting of two units; the [head] noun and the relative clause are not so tightly integrated as in internal constructions.

(Fauconnier 2014: 153)

Perna (2013a: 164) notes that there are no examples of non-restrictive IHRCs in her

corpus of Classical Greek texts. Similarly, Probert (2015) shows that IHRCs in Archaic

Greek are always maximalising, hence are never non-restrictive. In our corpus, however,

this no longer seems to be the case.

As Boyer (1988: 235) notes, deciding whether a relative clause is semantically restric-

tive or non-restrictive is not always an easy matter. One context where this becomes

relatively easy is after proper names. As Fauconnier (2014: 152-153) notes, ‘[restrictive

clauses] are not expected to occur with proper names very often. Proper names have a

unique referent, and as a result they do not need to be delimited in order to be iden-

tified.’ Such examples can nevertheless be found in documentary texts:18

(6) καὶ ἐπιβεβληκέναι Τιβερίωι [Ἰ]ουλίωιΘέω̣νι ... οὓς προεῖχενkaì epibeblēkénai Tiberíōi Ioulíōi Théōni hoùs proeîkhenand fall upon:INF.PERF Tiberius:DAT Iulius:DAT Theon:DAT REL.ACC.PL have before:IMPF.3SG

ἔτι τοῦ πατρὸς περιόντος Κάρπον καὶ Ἀνδροσθένηνéti toû patròs perióntos Kárpon kaì Androsthénēnstill art:GEN father:GEN be alive:PTCP.PRES.GEN Carpus:ACC and Androsthenes:ACC

καὶἈγαθάγγελονἈβάσκαντον Ἀφρο̣δειτ̣οῦν kaì Agathángelon Abáskanton Aphrodeitoûn

17 For the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, see Fauconnier (2014: 151): ‘a restrictive relative clause delimits, or “narrows down” the domain of reference of the domain nominal, whereas a non-restrictive relative clause merely adds a “loose” comment about it’. See further Fabb (1990). 18 For a similar example from the New Testament, see Phm. 10, cited by Du Toit (2016: 60).

7

and Agathangelus:ACC Abascantus:ACC Aphroditous:ACC

‘That there have fallen to the share of Tiberius Julius Theon ... Carpus and Androsthenes and Agathangelus, Abascantus, Aphroditous, whom he already possessed when his father was still alive.’ (P.Oxy.44.3197, ll. 5-9 (111 AD))

In this contract from the Theones-archive, the same phrase, hoùs proeîkhen éti toû

patròs perióntos ‘which he had when his father was still alive’, is used three times with

personal names. This relative clause can hardly be considered restrictive: it does not

narrow down the domain of reference of the head nouns, since the people responsible

for this document are very well aware who is meant by Kárpon kaì Androsthénēn kaì

Agathángelon Abáskanton Aphrodeitoûn.19

Some other possible cases of non-restrictive IHRCs can be found in our corpus. Con-

sider the following example:20

(7) Σῦρος Σύρου ἐνεχείρισεν τῇ γυναικί μου Σαραεῦτι ...Sûros Súrou enekheírisen têi gunaikí mou SaraeûtiSyrus:NOM Syrus:GEN entrust:AOR.3SG ART.DAT wife:DAT 1SG.GEN Saraeus:DAT

ὃ ἀνείρηται ἀπὸ κοπρίας ἀρσενικὸν σωμάτιον, ᾧHò aneírētai apò koprías arsenikòn sōmátion hôiREL.ACC pick up:PERF.3SG from gutter:GEN male:ACC foundling:ACC REL.DAT

ὄνομα Ἡρακλᾶς ónoma Hēraklâs name:NOM Heraclas:NOM

‘Syrus, son of Syrus, entrusted to the keeping of my wife Saraeus ... a boy foundling named Heraclas, whom he had picked up from the gutter.’ (P.Oxy.1.38, ll. 3-7 (49-50 AD)) [tr. Grenfell & Hunt]

In (7), the head noun sōmátion ‘foundling’ occurs inside the relative clause introduced

by hò. It is indefinite, both formally and semantically: it is not accompanied by a definite

article and has not been mentioned previously in the text, hence its referent is not

‘given’. Due to this indefinite nature of the head it is difficult to make clear-cut

judgments, but one could argue that the relative clause modifying it (i.e. whom he (Syrus)

had picked up from the gutter) is a non-restrictive one: the fact that the boy was picked

19 One reviewer suggests that an analysis of the relative clause in (6) as a free relative clause with the proper names as a kind of afterthought, i.e. ‘…who(mever) he already possessed when his father was still alive, (that is) Carpus and Androsthenes and Agathangelus, Abascantus, Aphroditous’ should not be entirely excluded. Even though we acknowledge that this may indeed be the case, the evaluation of this assumption is rather difficult since no indication of a comma-intonation before the proper names is available in the manuscript. Furthermore, assuming that the relative clause is a free one would mean that it is inherently maximalising. However, we do not know whether Tiberius Iulius Theon possessed only Carpus, Androsthenes, Agathangelus, Abascantus and Aphroditou, which would be expected if the relative clause is a free (and maximalising one), or whether he had other servants as well. 20 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Fouad.26, ll. 45-46 (157-159 AD); P.Lund.4.1, ll. 25-26 (198 AD).

8

up from the gutter constitutes a loose comment, rather than necessary information to

identify the boy, especially given the fact that his name is also openly declared

immediately after the relative clause (hôi ónoma Hēraklâs ‘named Heraclas’). In this

instance, an IHRC may have been chosen because the head noun is accompanied by not

one, but two relative clauses21 (the second of which is a Post-EHRC, and is introduced by

hôi).

Even though it may not entirely be clear whether the relative clause in (7) is a

restrictive or a non-restrictive one, this example still suggests that not every IHRC in

our corpus of the type in (2,4) can be taken as an IHFR. If that were the case, we would

expect (7) to be a maximalizing one, under Grosu and Landman’s (1998: 155-163) and

Probert's (2015: 71-73) definition and analysis of IHFRs. However, the relative clause in

(7) does not receive the interpretation that the universe of discourse already contains a

unique definite boy foundling who was picked up from the gutter (and is to be kept by

Saraeus). In other words, the relative clause does not refer to a definite entity: ‘the boy

fondling’. Rather, the only available interpretation is that an indefinite boy foundling

was picked up from the gutter (and is to be kept by Saraeus). In this respect, this

example differs from the IHFRs discussed by Probert (2015), as it does not have

maximalizing semantics.22

This, however, does not mean that IHRCs in our corpus never have a maximalising

function. The availability of a maximalizing interpretation seems to be partly linked to

the type of relative pronoun that is used: IHRCs formed with hósper, h perḗ , hóper are

very frequently maximalising (8),23 and those with hósos, hósē, hóson always (9):24

(8) ἐνεγκὼν μετὰ \ /σεαυτο ῦ οὕσπερ ὀνοματίσαμένσοι ἄνδρας enenk nṑ metà seautoû hoúsper onomatísamén soi ándrasbring:PTCP.AOR.NOM with yourself:GEN REL.ACC.PL name:AOR.1PL 1SG.DAT man:ACC.PL

Having brought with you whichever men we named to you.’ (P.Lond.4.1339, ll. 3-4 (709 AD))

(9) καὶ ἔνδον γενόμενοι ὅσα μὲν πρὸςὑπηρεσίανKaì éndon genómenoi hósa mèn pròs hupēresíanAnd inside come:PTCP.AOR.NOM.PL REL.ACC.PL PART for domestic service:ACC

[ ]εἴχομε ν σκεύη συνέτριψαν

21 This is a claim which is in need of further investigation, as one of the reviewers notes. 22 We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us. 23 As in the Classical period, hósper, h per, hóperḗ can also be used to denote emphasis. 24 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Mich.9.554, l. 34 (81-96 AD); P.Mil.Vogl.2.70, l. 5 (II AD); P.Ross.Georg. 4.1, ll. 9-10, 24 (710 AD).

9

eíkhomen skeúē sunétripsanhave:IMPF.1PL utensils:ACC.PL smash:AOR.3PL

‘And having gained entrance they smashed all the utensils that we had for domestic service.’ (P.Cair.Isid.75, ll. 11-13 (316 AD))

IHRCs formed with the standard relative pronouns hós, hḗ, hó are not always maxi-

malising (7), but they can be, as shown in the following example:25

(10) ἃ πόκια <ἔχῃς> παρακληθεὶς πέμψο̣ν̣hà pókia ékhēis paraklētheìs pémpsonREL.ACC.PL fleeces:ACC.PL have:SUBJ.2SG beseech:PTCP.AOR.PASS.NOM send:IMP.AOR.2SG

‘Please, send us whatever fleeces you have.’ (BGU.16.2622, l. 22 (ca. 21 BC–5 AD))

Furthermore, IHRCs in our corpus can also be used with a so-called ‘continuative’

function (cf. Boyer 1988: 235-236; Levinsohn 2000: 190-196; Petersen 2001: 6).

Continuative relative clauses ‘typically describe an event that involves the referent of the

relative pronoun and occurs subsequent to the previous event or situation in which the

referent featured’ (Levinsohn 2000: 191). In such cases, ‘the relative has the force of a

demonstrative or personal pronoun with a connective’ (Smyth 1984[1920]: 560),

making the relative clause equivalent to a co-ordinate clause. Such examples are quite

common in narrative, but can also be found in non-narrative discourse (cf. Levinsohn

2000: 191). For an illustration, consider (11):26

(11) ὁμολογῶ πεπρα[κέν]αιΣοι ἐπἀ̓γορᾶς τ̣οῦ {του}[Ὀ]ξ̣υρυγχ[ίτο]υ̣homologô peprakénai soi ep

’agorâs toû Oksurunchítou

agree:PRES.1SG sell:INF.PF 1SG.DAT in market-place:GEN ART.GEN Oxyrhynchite:GEN

ὄ̣νον ἄρρενον ... περὶ ἧς ἀριθμήσεως

ἐπερωτηθεὶς

ónon árrenon perì hês arithm seōsḗ eperōtētheìs donkey:ACC male:ACC concerning REL.GEN payment:GEN ask:PTCP.AOR.PASS.NOM

ὡμολόγησαhōmológēsaagree:AOR.1SG

‘I agree that I have sold to you in the market-place of the Oxyrhynchite nome a male donkey ... concerning which payment in answer to the formal question I gave my assent.’ (P.Oxy.43.3145, ll. 6-14 (300-325 AD)) [tr. Rea]

25 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Lips.2.128, ll. 36-37 (19 BC); P.Mich.5.260_261trpl, l. 6 (35 AD); P.Mich.5.355dupl, l. 12 (I AD). 26 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Oxy.14.1630, l. 10 (223 AD); SB.26.16722, ll. 6-7 (VI AD).

10

In this example, a full stop could have been placed before peri hês arithm seōsḗ : the rela-

tive pronoun functions as the equivalent of a demonstrative (anaphoric) pronoun: perì

hês arithm seōsḗ has the value of perì taútēs tês arithm seōsḗ ‘concerning this payment’.

3.2. Case markingCase marking is generally considered one of the core diagnostic tools to distinguish

IHRCs from Post- or Pre-EHRCs: In IHRCs the relative pronoun and the head noun both

have the same case marking, which depends on their function inside the relative clause.

Since the relative pronoun and the head noun are in the same case, in principle one

could argue either that the relative pronoun agrees with the head noun, or the head

noun with the relative pronoun. Studies of Ancient Greek are traditionally in favour of

the second position (e.g. Smyth 1984[1920]: 570), although they argue that in some, ex-

ceptional, cases the reverse is true. Consider the following example:

(12) διάγουσιν ἀξίως οὗ ἐν ἀνθρώπου εἴδει ἐβίωσαν βίου diágousin aksíōs hoû en anthr pou ṓ eídei ebíōsan bíoulive:PRES.3PL worthy REL.GEN in man:GEN form:DAT live:PRES.3PL life:GEN

‘[They] live in a manner worthy of the life they led in human form.’ (Pl., Phdr. 249a) [tr. Fowler] (cited in Perna 2013a: 174).

In (12), the relative pronoun hoû and the head noun fulfill the object function of the

relative clause verb ebíōsan, and therefore should have been encoded in the accusative

case. However, under the influence of the adverb aksíōs, which occurs in the main clause

and always assigns the genitive case to its complement, both the relative pronoun and

the head noun occur in the genitive case (hoû ... bíou). Probert (2015: 167-169)

compares such examples to examples of EHRCs where the case of the relative pronoun is

‘attracted’ to the appropriate to the head noun (what is known as ‘attractio relativi’): a

phrase such as diágousin aksíōs tou bíou hoû ebíōsan ‘[they] live in a manner worthy of

the life they led’ would not be uncommon in Classical Greek (see, for instance,

Rijksbaron 1981). One might consider that in (12) the order of the relative clause and

the head noun have been ‘reversed’.27 Under this interpretation, however, the question is

whether we are still dealing with an IHRC, since one of the basic requirements, namely

case being assigned internally to the relative clause, is not fulfilled, as noted by Perna

(2013a: 170): ‘[s]uch examples could also not be considered IHRCs to all intents and

27 Compare Rijksbaron (1981: 238), though he explicitly notes that an example such as (12) cannot be a converted version of a Post-EHRC with attractio relativi. For further criticism of such a position, see Probert (2015: 131).

11

purposes since one of the defining characteristics of this type of relative clause is

missing […] (our translation).’

This is a relatively minor issue for Classical Greek, where such examples occur

infrequently.28 In our corpus, however, these cases have become much more frequent.

Most examples with case assigned by the main clause fall into one of the following three

categories: when the relative clause forms part of (i) an adverbial phrase (as in (12–

13)), (ii) a prepositional phrase (14), or (iii) a nominal phrase (15).29,30

(13) ἔστησεν μεῖναι τῆι [γυναικ̣ ὶ μου ]τὴ ν κυρείανéstēsen meînai têi gunaikì mou t nḕ kureíanlay down:AOR.3SG remain:INF.AOR ART.DAT wife:DAT 1SG.GEN ART.ACC ownership:ACC

ἀκολούθως οἷς ἔχωι31 [ ]ὑπομνημα τισμοῖςakoloúthōs hoîs ékhōi hupomnēmatismoîsaccording to REL.DAT.PL have:PRES.1SG record of proceedings:DAT.PL

‘[He] laid down that the ownership should remain with my wife according to the record of proceedings which I have in my possession.’ (P.Oxy.49.3464, ll. 13-15 (ca. 54-60 AD)) [tr. Bülow-Jacobsen et al.]

(14) γ{ε}ίνωσκε ὅτι περὶ οὗ πέπομφας ἐπιστολίουὁgeínōske hóti perì hoû pépomphas epistolíou hoknow:IMP.PRES.2SG COMP concerning REL.GEN send:PERF.2SG letter:GEN ART.NOM

τοπάρχης ἀπόκρισιν ἡμῖν οὐ δέδωκενtopárkhēs apókrisin hēmîn ou dédōkentoparch:NOM answer:ACC 1PL.DAT NEG give:PERF.3SG

‘You should know that the toparch has not given us an answer concerning the letter which you sent.’ (BGU.16.2651, ll. 3-4 (9 BC))

(15) τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν πο̣ι̣ού[μ(ενος)] ὧν γεωργῶι προσοδικῶν

28 See for instance Perna (2013a: 175): ‘[…] the phenomenon is rather rare’ (our translation). Contrast, however, Fauconnier (2014: 159): ‘[t]he resulting hybrid construction […] recurs throughout Xenophon’s work, and is especially common after prepositions […].’ 29 As Du Toit’s (2016: 60) example (19b) makes clear, case is not always assigned by a constituent in the matrix clause in these three contexts, at least not in context (iii). Further research is needed on this issue. 30 For similar examples, see e.g.: adverbial phrase: P.Mich.5.276 l. 27 (47 AD); P.Oxy.8.1104, ll. 8-9 (306 AD); prepositional phrase: BGU.3.884, l. 5 (ca. 76 AD); P.Ammon.2.45, l.10 (348 AD); nominal phrase: P.Fouad.26, ll. 5-6 (157-159 AD); P.Mert.2.91, l. 2 (316 AD). 31 Note the use of the first person present indicative in -ōi in this and other examples as a form of hypercorrection.

12

t nḕ epískepsin poioúmenos hôn geōrgôi prosodikônART.ACC inspection:ACC make:PTCP.PRES.NOM REL.GEN.PL farm:PRES.1SG revenu:GEN.PL

ἐδαφῶν edaphônland:GEN.PL

‘As I was making an inspection of the revenue-land which I farm.’ (SB.20.15182, ll. 7-9 (28-30 AD)) [tr. Sijpesteijn]

In all of these examples, case marking is non-canonical: in all of them, the relative

pronoun and the head noun function as the object of the verb in the relative clause

(ékhōi ‘I have’ in (13), pépomphas ‘you have sent’ in (14), and geōrgôi ‘I farm’ in (15)),

and are therefore expected to bear accusative case; however, under the influence of

elements in the main clause, that is, the adverb akoloúthōs ‘according to’ in (13), the

preposition perì ‘concerning’ in (14), and the noun epískepsin ‘inspection (of)’ in (15),

they have received a different case marking.32

Examples of non-canonical case assignment are by far the most frequent when matrix

constituent selecting the relative clause is a preposition: one finds numerous examples

after prepositions such as antí, apó, én, diá, eis, ek, epí, katá, perí, hupér, etc. As Mayser

(1934: 99-100) notes, however, one should distinguish between those cases where the

preposition strictly forms part of the main clause, and others where it is also needed in

the relative clause. Consider the following example:33

(16) μένι̣ν̣ δὲ τῇ ... Ταορσε̣ῦ̣τ̣ι ...̣ τὴν ... ,δουλί̣α̣ν ἐφʼ ὃνménin dè têi Taorseûti t nḕ doulían eph’ hònremain:INF.PRES PART ART.DAT Taorseus:DAT ART.ACC service:ACC for REL.ACC

χρόνον περίεστιν ἡ ,Ταορσεῦς τῆςkhrónon períestin hē Taorseûs têstime:ACC be alive:PRES.3SG ART.NOM Taorseus:NOM ART.GEN

προγεγραμμένης δουλήας Θερμουθαρίουprogegramménēs doul asḗ Thermoutharíoumention before:PTCP.PERF.PASS.GEN slave:GEN Thermoutarion:GEN

32 The examples in (13–15) (and (17) below) fall under the generalization by Rijksbaron (1981), according to whom case marking of the head noun and the relative pronoun by the matrix clause in Classical Greek is obligatory if (i) the relativized constituent is a direct object (hence would be assigned accusative case within the relative clause), and (ii) the whole relative clause construction is assigned dative or genitive case by a matrix case assigner. As we will see below in (20–21), however, there are also examples in our corpus in which the two conditions of Rijksbaron are met but the same case is not assigned to both the head and the relative pronoun by a matrix case assigner. Similarly, we will see that in (25), what is relativized is the subject of the relative clause, hence one of the conditions of Rijksbaron is violated. The case of the head and the relative pronoun, however, is still assigned by a matrix case assigner. This means that while (13–15) (and (17)) follow an IHRC pattern that was already available in Classical Greek, further inspection reveals that in Post-Classical and Early Byzantine Greek there are deviations from this pattern (see §4 for more on this issue).33 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Brem.22 , ll. 10-11 (II AD); PSI.5.463, l. 20 (157-160 AD).

13

‘(And they agree) that the service of the slave Thermoutharion to ... Taorseus, for as long as she shall live, shall continue.’ (PSI.8.903dupl, ll. 15-17 (47 AD)) [tr. Husselman et al.]

In an example such as (16), case marking can hardly be considered non-canonical, since

the preposition eph (short for ʼ epí) ‘for’ is required in both the main and the relative

clause (as a Post-EHRC, this would be ménin … epí tòn khrónon eph’ hòn períestin ‘to

remain for the time during which she is alive’).

More strikingly, one also finds examples where the relative clause does not form part

of a prepositional, adverbial, or nominal group, and case marking of the relative pronoun

and the head noun in the IHRC is clearly determined by the verb in the main clause. Con-

sider the following example:34

(17) ἐπῆλθάν τινες κακουργοί, οὕσπερ ἀγνοῶ, ᾧepêlthán tines kakourgoí hoúsper agnoô hôiapproach:AOR.3PL INDF.NOM.PL evil-doer:NOM.PL REL.ACC.PL not know:PRES.1SG REL.DAT

ἔχω τόπῳ ἐν θησ̣α̣υ̣ρῷ κώμης Ναρμούθεω(ς) ékhô tópôi en thēsaurôi k mēsṓ Narmoútheōshave:PRES.1SG place:DAT in granary:DAT village:GEN Narmuthis:GEN

‘Some evil-doers who I don’t know came to the storage room which I have in the granary of the village of Narmuthis.’ (Pap.Choix.25, ll. 10-13 (III AD))

In (17), the relative pronoun and the head noun are both encoded in the dative despite

the fact that they constitute the object of the verb in the relative clause, ékhô ‘I have’,

which assigns accusative case to its object. Their case assignment directly depends from

the verb in the main clause, epêlthán ‘they approached’, which assigns dative case to its

object.

In a number of other examples, the case marking of the relative pronoun does not

even match that of the head noun. Consider the following four examples:35

(18) Ὀρσηυοῦς ... ὁμολογῶ ..μεμερικέναι.

τοῖς

Orsēoûs homologô memerikénai toîsOrseus:NOM acknowledge:PRES.1SG divide:INF.PF ART.DAT.PL

προγεγραμμένοις μου ... ὑειοῖς γεγονόσιprogegramménois mou hueioîs gegonósimention before:PTCP.PERF.PASS.DAT.PL 1SG.GEN son:DAT.PL come into being:PTCP.PERF.DAT.PL

μοι ἐκς ἧς σύνειμι ἐνγράφως γυναικ [ ]Ταορ σ ηῦτο

34 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Mich.5.346c, l. 6 (13 AD); P.Mich.Mchl.11, ll. 11-12 (II/III AD). 35 As one of the reviewers notes, three out of four examples of case mismatch involve datives, a case which was on the wane in the period that concerns us here (that is, Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek). This may have stimulated writers to employ the dative case even where it was not needed (as a type of hypercorrection), although below we suggest some more specific reasons for the (wrong) use of the dative.

14

ι ςmoi eks hês súneimi engráphōs gunaiki TaorsēûtosDAT.1SG from REL.GEN be together:PRES.1SG with contract wife:DAT Taorseus:GEN

‘I, Orseus ... acknowledge that I have made a division ... among my aforesaid four children born of my wife Taorseus ...with whom I live according to contract.’ (P.Mich.5.321, ll. 7-8 (42 AD)) [tr. Husselman et al.]

(19) παρέλαβον καὶ νῦν παρὰ σοῦ ... ὧν λόγον δώσωparélabon kaì nûn parà soû hôn lógon d sōṓreceive:AOR.1SG also now from 2SG.GEN REL.GEN.PL account:ACC give:FUT.1SG

οἴνου μ̣ο̣νόχω(ρα) τεσσαράκοντα

ὀκτὼ

oínou monóchōra tessarákonta oktṑwine:GEN monochoron:ACC.PL forty eight

‘I have received from you now 48 monochora of wine, of which I will give an account.’ (P.Flor.2.219, ll. 3-7 (253 AD))36

(20) ἐπελθὼν τῇ συμβίῳ μου [μεθʼ οὗ ]εἶ χενepelth nṑ têi sumbíōi mou meth’ hoû eîkhenassault:PTCP.AOR.NOM ART.DAT wife:DAT 1SG.GEN with REL.GEN have:IMPF.3SG

ῥωπ̣ά̣λω rōpálōclub:DAT

‘He assaulted my wife with a club.’ (P.Kell.1.21, ll. 13-14 (321 AD))

(21) ἐμοῦ ὄντος ἐργασζομένου ἐν ᾧ ...μεμίσθωμεemoû óntos ergaszoménou en hôi memísthōme1SG.GEN be:PTCP.PRES.GEN work:PTCP.PRES.GEN in REL.DAT rent:PERF.1SG

ἀμπελωνος ampelōnosvineyard:GEN

‘While I was at work in the vineyard which I have rented.’ (P.Mich.5.229, ll. 7-11 (48 AD))37

In all four examples (18–21), we are dealing with mixed case assignment: in the first

three examples, the relative pronoun is in the genitive and the head noun in the dative

case, and in the last example the relative pronoun is in the dative case, while the head

noun is in the genitive case. The motivation for this mixed case assignment seems to be

different, however: in (18), we seem to be dealing with some sort of compromise:38 the

head noun is in the dative, because of its function in the relative clause (as the

complement of the verb súneimi ‘I am together with’, which always assigns dative case),

whereas the relative pronoun is in the genitive, the case that the preposition eks ‘from’,

36 In this example, the ellipsis specifies on whose account the monochora are received.37 In this example, the ellipsis specifies who the vineyard is rented from.38 For similar examples, see P.Mich.12.633, l. 37 (ca. 30 AD); P.Mich.5.326, ll. 64-65 (48 AD). Compare also Kriki (2013: 223, 225-226).

15

always assigns to its complement. In (19), the situation is reversed:39 here the relative

pronoun hôn is in the genitive case, which is the default after the verb phrase lógon d sōṓ

‘I will give account’. The head noun, however, monóchōra tessarákonta okt ṑ ‘forty-eight

monochora’ is in the accusative, and seems to function as the object of the verb in the

matrix clause parélabon, ‘I received’. In (20), something different is going on: here, the

relative pronoun receives its case from the preposition meth’ (short form of metá) ‘with’,

which always assigns genitive to its complement noun.40 The head noun, however, is in

the dative and this case is assigned to it neither within the relative clause nor from the

preposition meth’, which the whole relative clause as its complement. Rather, the dative

seems to have been chosen because it can denote the same semantic role as meth’ with

the genitive, that of instrument. In (21), finally, we are dealing with general case

confusion, which is not functionally motivated: the dative case of the relative pronoun

hôi is assigned by the preposition en ‘in’; the head noun ampelōnos ‘vineyard’, however,

is in the genitive case, even though the genitive cannot generally be used to denote the

semantic role of place.41

3.3. Syntactic function A third property which we investigate here is the syntactic function the head can assume

within the relative clause. As Fauconnier (2014: 143) notes, IHRCs ‘[…] cannot be used

when the domain noun functions as the subject of the relative clause.’42 Fauconnier

(2014) notes that this is not a cross-linguistically established restriction on IHRCs;43

rather, building on Rijksbaron (1981), she explains it by arguing that ‘[…] there are two

different constructions that exclusively fulfill the function of restrictive relative clauses’

(Fauconnier 2014: 157), namely the noun phrase with a participle in attributive position

and the IHRC. In Ancient Greek, these two types are in complementary distribution: in

the former case, the noun always functions as the subject of the modifying participle

39 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Flor.2.224, ll. 4-5 (258 AD); P.Flor.2.234, ll. 7-10 (264 AD); P.Flor.2.235, ll. 5-7 (266 AD); P.Flor.2.228, ll. 10-12 (III AD).40 Note, however, that we are dealing with a reconstruction by the editor.41 Cf. Gignac (1981: 22): ‘[f]luctuation between -ου [-ou] and - ( ) [-ω ι ō(i)] in the gen. and dat. sg.[…] cannot be considered significant for morphology. It is caused partly by the confusion of [ου ou] and [ω ō] in the speech of some writers[…] and partly by a syntactic confusion of the gen. and dat. cases[…].’ 42 Perna (2013a: 167-169) refers to this restriction as ‘restrictions on the case of the internal head’ (our translation): since the head noun/relative pronoun cannot function as the subject, the nominative case is excluded. 43 Quite to the contrary: as Fauconnier (2014: 156), referring to Keenan & Comrie (1977), notes, ‘[…] the subject function is cross-linguistically most easily accessible to relativization […].’

16

(e.g. hoi propemphthéntes skopoí ‘the scouts who had been sent ahead’); with IHRCs, on

the other hand, the head noun is never the subject of the relative clause.

Already in the Classical period, isolated counterexamples can be found. Perna

(2013a: 168-169), for example, provides the following example:

(22) ἀναβάντες ἃ δὴ αὐτοῖς ὀχήματά ἐστινanabántes hà dḕ autoîs okh matá ḗ estinembark:PTCP.AOR.NOM.PL REL.NOM.PL PART DEM.DAT.PL vessel:NOM.PL be:PRES.3SG

‘They embark upon vessels provided for them.’ (Pl., Phd. 113d)

In this case, okh matá ḗ ‘vessels’ clearly functions as the subject within the relative clause.

As Perna (2013a: 168) notes, however, it is noticeable that in this example a neuter

form, okh matáḗ , is used, which can morphologically be both nominative and accusative.

The examples that are attested in documentary texts all share this characteristic.44

Consider, for example, (23–24):

(23) ἅπερ ἔργα ἐστὶν τῆς [ἀ μπέλου ]τ ι̣λμὸ̣ς ,καλάμουháper érga estìn tês ampélou tilmòs kalámouREL.NOM.PL work:NOM.PL be:PRES.3SG ART.GEN vineyard:GEN plucking:NOM reed:GEN

[ ]συλλο̣ γὴ καὶ [ ]μεταφ ο ρὰ ,τούτου ξυλοτομία ... δικαίαsullogḕ kaì metaphorà toútou ksulotomía dikaíacollection:NOM and transport:NOM DEM.GEN woodcutting:NOM proper:NOM

‘...which operations are, concerning the vineyard, plucking of reeds, collection and transport of them, proper cutting of wood... .’ (P.Oxy.14.1631, ll. 8-9 (280 AD)) [tr. Grenfell & Hunt]

(24) ἐ̣κτί̣σ̣ε̣ι̣ν̣ [αὐτῷ πᾶν ὃ ἂν γένηται ]βλά βοςektísein autôi pân hò àn génētai blábospay back:INF.FUT 3SG.DAT all:NOM REL.NOM PART happen:SUBJ.AOR.3SG damage:NOM

διπλο̣ῦ̣ν̣diploûntwofold:NOM

‘And he will give him back whatever damage happens twofold.’ (P.Dura.25, ll. 10-11 (180 AD), cited in Kriki (2013: 225))

Both érga ‘works’ (23) and blábos ‘damage’ (24) are neuter forms encoding either the

nominative or the accusative case.

Next to these examples, we should also mention the existence of examples in our

corpus where the head noun functions as the syntactic subject inside the relative clause,

but is encoded in a different case than the nominative.

44 For this reason, Kriki (2013: 225) claims that they do not form counterarguments. See Kriki (ibid.) for further examples from documentary texts.

17

(25) σπουδὴ δέ σοι γενέσθω καὶ τὴν [ ]ὑ πηρεσίαν

τῷ

spoudḕ dé soi genésthō kaì t nḕ hupēresían tôieffort:NOM PART 1SG.DAT happen:IMP.AOR.3SG also ART.ACC service:ACC ART.DAT

[ ]φροντι στ ῇ παρασχεῖν σὺν ᾧ ἐπάγεται κτηνυδρίῳphrontistêi paraskheîn sùn hôi epágetai ktēnudríōiphrontistes:DAT furnish:INF.AOR with REL.DAT bring in:PRES.PASS.3SG cattle:DAT

‘Make an effort to also be of service to the phrontistes with the cattle that is brought in.’ (P.Stras.1.32, ll. 10-12 (261 AD))

In this example, ktēnudríōi functions as the syntactic subject of the passive verb in the

relative clause (epágetai ‘(it) is brought in’). Both the relative pronoun and the head

noun are encoded in the dative, however, under the influence of the preposition sún

(‘with’), which always assigns the dative.45

3.4. The articleIHRCs are known to feature an internal head that is not accompanied by a definite article

(Perna 2013a: 161, 2013b: 329; Kriki 2013: 222-223): compare, for example, our earlier

examples (1–2). That the head noun does not need an article with IHRCs can be

attributed to the assumption that the relative pronoun itself functions as a determiner.

In this context, Rijksbaron (1981: 247) compares relative clauses of the type toîs

déndresin hoîs ékopsan (Post-EHRC) and hoîs ékopsan déndresin (IHRC), both meaning

‘with the trees that they cut’ with noun-participle/participle-noun and

noun-adjective/adjective-noun orders, e.g. toîs déndresin toîs kopeîsin/toîs déndresin toîs

kaloîs (noun-participle/adjective) and toîs kopeîsi déndresin/toîs kaloîs déndresin

(participle/ adjective-noun) ‘with the trees that had been cut’/‘with the beautiful trees’.

As these examples show, a noun followed by a participle/adjective receives an article,

but a noun preceded by a participle/adjective does not. On the assumption that the

relative pronoun assumes a determiner function, IHRCs can be claimed to pattern with

the participle/adjective-noun sequence and Post-EHRCs can be claimed to pattern with

the noun-participle/adjective sequence.

Nevertheless, already in the Classical period some exceptional examples of IHRCs are

attested where the article is added in front of the head. Perna (2013a: 164-165)

mentions the following example:

(26) ἃς δὲ σὺ λέγεις τὰς σκέψεις περί

45 Another example might be P.Prag.1.112, ll. 4-5 (253-256 AD), but here it is unclear whether loipographē should be interpreted as a noun (loipographḕ) or as a verb ((e)loipográphē).

18

hàs dè sù légeis tàs sképseis períREL.ACC.PL PART 2SG.NOM say:PRES.2SG ART.ACC.PL consideration:ACC.PL concerning

τε ἀναλώσεως χρημάτων καὶ δόξης καὶ παίδων τροφῆςte anal seōsṓ khrēmátōn kaì dóksēs kaì paídōn trophêsPART spending:GEN money:GEN.PL and reputation:GEN and child:GEN.PL rearing:GEN

‘But the considerations you suggest, about spending money, and reputation, and bringing up my children.’ (Pl., Crit. 48c) [tr. Fowler]

Traditional grammars explain this phenomenon by claiming that the head noun—rather

than being drawn into the relative clause—is an epexegetic apposition to the relative

clause.46 Under such interpretation, (26) would be paraphrased as ‘what you say, that is,

the considerations about spending money… .’ As Perna (2013a: 165, fn. 60) notes,

however, ‘[…] an interpretation of this type […] does not take into account agreement in

number and gender between the relative pronoun and the noun in apposition’ (our

translation).

In our corpus, too, several examples can be found where the article is added to the

head noun in IHRCs. Consider the following two examples, both of which are from

contracts from the so-called archive of ‘Kronion son of Apion head of the grapheion of

Tebtynis’.47

(27) καὶ τῷ προγεγραμμένῳ υἱωνῷ Ψύφι Ὀννώφρεως,kaì tôi progegramménōi huiōnôi Psúphi Onn phreōs,ṓand ART.DAT mention before:PTCP.PERF.PASS.DAT grandson:DAT Psyphis:DAT Onnophris:GEN

ἃς προσενήνεχεν αὐτῷ ... Τετουσῖρις ...τὰς περὶ Κερκῆσινhàs prosen nekhenḗ autôi Tetousîris tàs perì KerkêsinREL.ACC.PL give before:PERF.3SG 3SG.DAT Tetosiris:NOM ART.ACC.PL near Kerkesis:ACC

λοιπὰς τοῦ κατοικικοῦ

κλήρου ἀρούρας τρῖς

loipàs toû katoikikoû kl rouḗ aroúras trîsremaining:ACC.PL ART.GEN catoecic:GEN allotment:GEN aroura:ACC.PL three:ACC.PL

‘And to the aforesaid grandson, Psyphis, son of Onnophris, the remaining three arourai of catoecic allotments near Kerkesis, which Tetosiris ... formerly gave to him.’ (P.Mich.5.322a, ll. 27-28 (46 AD)) [tr. Husselman et al.]48

(28) καὶ μενῖ κυρία ἣν καὶ οὐ πρότερον

λυτρώσονται

46 See e.g. Smyth (1984[1920]: 571): ‘[a] substantive, usually with the article, is often taken over into the relative clause, to explain, by a necessary addition, the idea conveyed by that clause […].’ 47 Mayser (1934: 99) also mentions such an example: P.Tebt.61, l. 113 (b). Another example is P.Mich.5.326, ll. 64-65 (48 AD), which is also mentioned by Kriki (2013: 226). 48 The ellipses in this example contain yet another relative clause. We have omitted it in order not to make the example too long or complicated. Furthermore note that the example does not have a matrix verb, which has to be retrieved from the beginning of the text (a division of property), where we read homologeî Psúphis … memerikénai ‘Psyphis acknowledges that he has divided’.

19

kaì menî kuría h nḕ kaì ou próteron lutr sontaiṓand remain:FUT.3SG valid:NOM REL.ACC also not earlier redeem:FUT.3PL

οἱ ( )δεδανισμέ νοι τὴν σημαινομένην μεσιτέαν hoi dedanisménoi t nḕ sēmainoménēn mesitéanART.NOM.PL borrow:PTCP.PERF.NOM.PL ART.ACC indicate:PTCP.PRES.ACC mortgage:ACC

‘And the said mortgage shall remain in force and the borrowers shall not redeem it.’ (P.Mich.5.333_334dupl, ll. 24-26 (52 AD)) [tr. Husselman et al.]

While in (27) the addition of the article could, perhaps, be attributed to the considerable

syntactic distance between the relative pronoun hàs and the head noun aroúras trîs

‘three arourai’, the same cannot be claimed for (28). Both examples do have another

prenominal modifier (the adjective loipàs ‘remaining’ (27) and the participle

sēmainoménēn ‘said’ (28)), next to the relative clause: it may be the case that the use of

the definite article is required when there are modifiers between the relative pronoun

and the head noun.

One crucial observation on the IHRCs in our corpus is the addition of the article

before the relative pronoun (for this phenomenon in Ancient Greek, see Kühner & Gerth

1966[1898]: 583-584 and Anagnostopoulos 1922: 188). Consider the following

examples:

(29) μενόντων [ ]σοι ,τῶν ὧν ὀφείλω ,σοι δραχμῶνmenóntōn soi Tôn hôn opheílō soi drakhmônremain:PTCP.PRES.GEN.PL 2SG.DAT ART.GEN REL.GEN owe:PRES.1SG DAT.2SG drachma:GEN.PL

χειλίων kheilíōnthousand:GEN.PL

‘Whereby the one thousand drachmae which I owe you remain for you’. (BGU.1.69, ll. 15-17 (120 AD))

(30) ἐπειδήπερτὸ αὐτῶν ὃ εἶχαν βουρδ̣ωνάριον

εἰς

epeid perḗ tò autôn Hò eîkhan bourdōnárion eissince ART.ACC 3PL.GEN REL.ACC have:IMPF.3PL mule:ACC for

ἐμὴν ὑπηρεσίαν κατέσχονem nḕ hupēresían Katéskhonmy:ACC service:ACC keep:AOR.1SG

‘Since I have kept for my own use the mule which they had.’ (P.Ryl.2.238, ll. 10-13 (262 AD)) [tr. Johnson et al.]

In (29), the editor seems to explain the addition of the genitive article tôn by putting the

relative clause between commas, interpreting it as a parenthesis.49 In (30), the addition of

49 Note that a previous edition had the form toútōn.

20

the article can, perhaps, be related to the insertion of autôn. It is worth noting, however,

that parallel examples become frequent in (Later) Byzantine Greek, which cannot be

explained in such a way (for further examples see Jannaris 1987[1897]: 321, §1219):

(31) ἀστοχήσαντες τὸν ὃν εἶχον σκοπὸν ὡςastokhésantes tòn Hòn Eîkhon skopòn hōsmiss:PTCP.AOR.NOM.PL ART.ACC REL.ACC have:IMPF.3PL aim:ACC as

χασμένοι ὑπέστρεψανkhasménoi Hupéstrepsanfail:PTCP.PRES.NOM.PL return:AOR.3PL

‘Having missed the aim they had, they returned back failed.’ (Alexiad., A. Metaphr., 359. 4; (XII AD)

It is possible that the fact that the regular article could also serve as a relative pronoun, a

possibility which already existed in the Classical period but which increased in fre-

quency in the Roman period,50 stimulated its use next to the regular relative pronoun.

Consider, in this regard, (32):

(32) ἐὰ[νδὲ] μὴ [ ]παραδ ῶ [ ]ἀ ποδοσο̣ ]τὰ ς ἔσχονeàn Dè mḕ paradô apodoso Tàs éskhonif PART not deliver:SUBJ.AOR.1SG pay:FUT.1SG REL.ACC.PL receive:AOR.1SG

δραχμὰς [ ] τρι ακοσ ίαςdrakhmàs Triakosíasdrachma:ACC.PL thirty:ACC.PL

‘If I fail to deliver it, I will pay the 300 drachmas which I have received.’ (P.Tebt.2.378, ll. 28-29 (265 AD))

Here, the definite article tàs is used instead of the expected relative pronoun hás,

functioning as the relative pronoun to the internal head drakhmàs triakosías ‘three

hundred drachmae’.

4. IHRC and/or prenominal EHRCs?

Given that IHRCs as a category in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek fail to meet

most of the restrictions mentioned in §1, one could ask whether we are still dealing with

IHRCs at all, or whether a third type of relative clauses, Pre-EHRCs, should also be

recognised. IHRCs share an important feature with Pre-EHRCs: with both types, the

relative pronoun occurs before the head noun.

In principle, two hypotheses are possible, a ‘strong’ and a ‘weak’ version:

50 Cf. Gignac (1981: 179), who notes that the phenomenon becomes especially frequent ‘[…] from the late third century A.D. on.’

21

i. Strong hypothesis: all cases of so-called IHRCs constitute Pre-EHRCs. ii. Weak hypothesis: some cases of what have been called IHRCs constitute Pre-

EHRCs.51

Although a number of studies on Ancient Greek relative clauses have mentioned the

possibility of Pre-EHRCs (e.g. Friberg 1982: 252; Culy 1989; Bianchi 1999: 193-194;

Petersen 2001: 29; Bakker 2009; Perna 2013a: 175-177), in general, the possibility is

discarded,52 based on the following objections:

i. Structural ambiguity (Culy 1989: 79). Since in most cases the relative pronoun and the head noun have the same function in the relative and main clause, there is structural ambiguity, and hence no possibility to prove that we are dealing with Pre-EHRCs.

ii. Limited attestations (Petersen 2001: 29, with regard to the New Testament). Most, if not all, of the clearly Pre-EHRC examples have either demonstrative pronouns or personal pronouns as their heads; in such cases, the relative clause can be interpreted as a free relative clause, and the pronoun as an anaphoric repetition.

iii. Syntax (Perna 2013a: 176). Syntactically, the position of the relative pronoun and the head noun in all of the examples considered is almost identical (that is, the relative pronoun occurring at the beginning of the relative clause, and the head noun at the end), which suggests that we are dealing with a single category.

iv. Shared case-marking (Perna 2013a: 176). In cases where the case marking depends on an element external to the relative clause, case is still shared by both the relative pronoun and the head noun. In theory, with Pre-EHRCs, case marking needs to be independently assigned to the relative pronoun and head noun.

v. Word order (Kriki 2013: 228). Supposed instances of Pre-EHRCs are really Post-EHRCs. They derive their linear order from fronting of the relative clause to a position to the left of the head noun, or by displacement of the head noun to a position to the right of the relative clause.

vi. Language typology (Kriki 2013: 224; cf. also Probert 2015: 52). Typologically, prenominal relative clauses are uncommon in V-O languages (Downing 1978: 391-392; Keenan 1985: 144; de Vries 2002: 131).

In the light of our weak hypothesis, these objections can easily be countered: with

regard to objections (i), (ii), and (iii), we can refer to examples such as (19), which struc-

turally look like an IHRC, but where case marking of the relative pronoun clearly de-

pends on its function in the relative clause, and case marking of the head noun depends

on its function in the main clause. With regard to objection (iv), we could explain the

shared case marking of the relative pronoun and the head noun in terms of case

attraction: as Rijksbaron (1981: 238) notes, with Post-EHRCs case attraction of the

51 More specifically those cases that violate the established restrictions for Ancient Greek IHRCs mentioned in §1.52 The most noticeable exception being Bakker (2009), who seems to consider all IHRCs in Classical Greek Pre-EHRCs, without, however, much discussion.

22

relative pronoun to the head noun occurs in the Classical period53 when the head noun is

in the genitive or dative and when the relative pronoun ‘normally’ would appear in the

accusative.54 Concerning (v), it is unclear how such a displacement/fronting takes place

(that is, whether this is a scope-discourse-driven movement, such as topic fronting etc.).

Moreover, in the examples that we have discussed so far, it does not seem possible to

establish such scope-discourse reading. As such, it seems more straightforward to

interpret them as Pre-EHRCs. As for the final objection (vi), which is different than the

previous ones as it is a typological one, rather than one exclusively concerning Greek, we

can refer to de Vries (2002: 408), who mentions several VO-languages with prenominal

relatives. Moreover, since we will argue that Pre-EHRCs first came into being in the

Classical period (when VO-word order was not standard), and that their use is socially

conditioned, this objection does not seem to form a major problem.

With regard to our strong hypothesis, a number of elements are in favour: (i) the fact

that those examples which are ‘ambiguous’ between an IHRC and a Pre-EHRC-inter-

pretation (cf. the structural ambiguity-counterargument) show semantic properties

which are incongruous with an IHRC-interpretation;55 (ii) the sheer quantity of non-

canonical IHRCs: out of a total of 350 examples, more than one third (121) occur with

non-canonical case-marking of the relative pronoun after a preposition; (iii) the fact that

there are no examples of the type illustrated in (2,4), where the case marking of the head

noun and relative pronoun is unambiguously assigned by its function in the relative

clause.

However, we believe there are two counterarguments to our strong hypothesis, that

is, the hypothesis that all of the (Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek) examples

constitute Pre-EHRCs. First, there is the existence of examples with mixed case marking

such as (18). In such cases, we see that at least the head noun receives its case marking

from its function in the relative clause, which is typical for IHRCs. Second, there is word

order. While in most examples the head noun occurs at the end of the relative clause,

this is not always the case.56 Consider the following examples (see also examples (10),

(11) and (16) above):

53 A problem, however, is that according to Rijksbaron (1981: 240) case attraction only happens with restrictive relative clauses. 54 Rijksbaron (1981: 238) specifies that the accusative pronoun has to function as the Goal, and that there has to be an Agent subject and a verb in the active voice in the embedded clause. 55 That is, they are used as non-restrictive relative clauses.56 Compare Basilico (1996: 500-501) on word order variation inside the IHRC.

23

(33) ἐξ ἧς δὲ ἡμέρας

ἐλήλυθα σὺν Ἀντωνίῳ τῷ

eks hês dè hēméras el luthaḗ sùn Antōníōi tôisince REL.GEN PART day:GEN come:PERF.1SG with Antonius: DAT ART.DAT

ἡμετέρῳ εἰμίhēmetérōi eimíour:DAT be:PRES.1SG

‘Since the day I came I have been with our Antonius.’ (P.Mich.8.493, ll. 16-18 (II AD))

(34) κακού[ρ]γων τινῶν ἐνπρησάντων ἣν εἶχαkakoúrgōn tinôn enprēsántōn h nḕ eîkhaevil-doer:GEN.PL INDF.GEN.PL burn:PTCP.AOR.GEN.PL REL.ACC have:IMPF.1SG

[ ]ἁλωνία ν περὶ [τ]ὴν [ ]α ὐ τὴν [ ] κώμ ηνhalōnían perì t nḕ aut nḕ k mēnṓgrain on threshing floor:ACC near ART.ACC same:ACC village:ACC

‘Because certain malefactors had burned the grain which I had on the threshing floor in the vicinity of the same village.’ (P.Cair.Isid.65, ll. 4-6 (298/299 AD)) [tr. Boak & Youtie]

(35) ἐνγράφως [ἐμα]ρ̣τυράμην

διʼ ὧν ἐπέδωκα [ ]βιβλ ίω ν

engráphōs emarturámēn di’ hôn epédōka biblíōnin writing testify:AOR.1SG through REL.GEN.PL submit:AOR.1SG petition:GEN.PL

τῷ τοῦ πάγου [πραιποσίτῳ ] Κ αστορίωνιtôi toû págou praiposítōi KastoríōniART.DAT ART.GEN pagus:GEN praepositus:DAT Kastorion:DAT

‘I presented written testimony through a petition which I submitted to Kastorion, the praepositus of the pagus.’ (P.Sakaon.38, ll. 15-16 (312 AD))

That the head noun can occur at the beginning of the relative clause (33) has been noted

by a number of studies (Mayser 1934: 98; Boyer 1988: 249; Kriki 2013): this is typically

the case with combinations that express an adverbial notion such as time (eph’ hòn

khrónon ‘the period during which’), reason (di’ h n aitíanḕ ‘the reason that’), or manner

(kath’ hòn trópon ‘the manner in which’).57 It can be explained by the close semantic

affinity the relative pronoun and head noun have. As examples (34) and (35) show,

however, the head noun can also occur in medial position in the relative clause, a fact

which has not been generally noted.58 Such examples present a problem for our strong

hypothesis: if all examples are prenominal, we would not expect the head noun to occur

in the middle of the relative clause. Note that (34) also presents a problem for our weak

hypothesis: if all examples that violate the established restrictions of IHRCs are to be

57 Note that this position is also standard when the relative clause has a continuative function, as in our example (11).58 Mayser (1934: 98), for example, claims that this would never be the case.

24

considered Pre-EHRCs, this example apparently forms an exception, albeit a rare one.59

(33) does not present a problem for the weak hypothesis, which can be analysed as an

IHRC, since it does not violate any restriction.

If we adopt the weak hypothesis suggested above, how can we explain the existence

of both IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs in Post-classical and Byzantine Greek? What we would like

to suggest is that a form-function reanalysis in the spirit of Langacker (1977); Harris &

Campbell (1995: 50-51); Haspelmath (1998) and Croft (2000) took place, whereby

structurally IHRCs were functionally re-interpreted as Pre-EHRCs of the type

schematically shown in (36):

(36) [matrix clause … [Relative clause rel proi …V…Øi ] HEADi …] (Pre-EHRC)

To be more specific, we hypothesise that examples where both the relative pronoun and

the head noun are encoded in the accusative, and hence are structurally ambiguous

between an IHRC- and a Pre-EHRC-analysis, have served as a bridging context60 for the

semantic and morpho-syntactic extensions we observed in §3. Given that various non-

canonical characteristics of IHRCs mentioned in §3 can already be found in the Classical

period, it seems likely that this process already started at an early time.

Fauconnier (2014: 158-160) has offered a somewhat different explanation for the

existence of ‘hybrid’ examples in the Classical period.61 She claims that non-canonical

case-marking occurred under the influence of the noun-attributive participle con-

struction: for example, after the example of sùn toîs parameínasin hippeûsi ‘with the

horsemen who had stayed with him’, where the article, the attributive participle and the

head noun all take the dative case (after the preposition sùn), we find sùn hêi eîkhe

dunámei ‘with the force that he had’, with the relative pronoun hêi and the head noun

dunámei 'force' in the dative case even though the verb in the relative clause eîkhe

assigns the accusative case. Fauconnier (2014) argues that this entailed a ‘dependency

reversal’: whereas normally in IHRCs the verb of the relative construction functions as

the ‘head’, and the head noun (what she calls ‘domain nominal’) as the dependent, in

cases of non-canonical case-marking the relationship is reversed, with the head noun

functioning as the head of the construction properly speaking (as is also the case with

the noun-attributive participle construction). While Fauconnier’s (2014) proposal seems

59 One which could, perhaps, be explained in terms of right-dislocation of a heavy constituent. 60 Bridging contexts are contexts of usage which invite two interpretations. See e.g. Heine (2002: 84-85).61 In terms of case marking, that is. Compare Perna (2013a: 176); Kriki (2013: 228).

25

attractive, especially when it comes to case marking, blending of the two constructions

does not explain most of the extensions we have discussed in §3: it does not explain why

IHRCs should be used as non-restrictive relative clauses, since the noun-attributive

participle construction is always used as the equivalent of a restrictive relative clause

(cf. Fauconnier 2014: 157); similarly, it does not explain the existence of examples with

mixed case marking, of examples where the head noun is accompanied by the article, or

where the head noun functions as the syntactic subject. As such, we consider an

explanation in terms of form-function reanalysis preferable.

5. Motivating relative clause usage in Post-classical and Early Byzantine Greek

Few scholars have tried to motivate the use of different relativisation strategies in

Ancient Greek.62 Rijksbaron (1981: 252) explicitly brought the question to the attention

of the scholarly community, suggesting that there may have been pragmatic differences

between Post-EHRCs and IHRCs. At the same time, he noted that ‘[i]t is […] very difficult

[…] to detect clear, explicit instances of such differences.’ The few scholars that have

explored the question have suggested that ‘emphasis’ may be the pragmatic motivator:

Bakker (2009), for example, has recently suggested that

relative clauses precede the [head] noun if they are contrastive ... or otherwise the most salient element of the NP […], whereas they follow the noun if they lack a special pragmatic marking […] or if it is the noun that is marked. (Bakker 2009: 80)63

So as to be able to fit relative clauses into her overall analysis of the noun phrase, how-

ever, Bakker (2009) has to make the assumption that all relative clauses where the head

noun does not precede the relative pronoun are prenominal, a view which—despite the

controversy it raises—she does not further explore.64 Friberg (1982) comes to a similar

conclusion with regard to the New Testament, though making a distinction between

IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs: he suggests ‘emphasis’ as a motivation for Pre-EHRCs (‘a relative

clause can be put before its head for emphasis’; Friberg 1982: 252), and ‘abbreviation’ as

62 One notable exception being Probert (2015), who argues for a semantic difference between IHRCs and Post-EHRCs in Archaic Greek, the former being always maximalising.63 Compare already Kühner & Gerth (1976[1904]: 2.2.416). 64 Cf. Bakker (2009: 81): ‘[t]he traditional grammars […] seem to have misunderstood the construction […], for they consider the relative clause—instead of being prenominal—to have incorporated the head noun[…]. In their view, the antecedent of the relative clause, adjusted to the case of the relative clause and deprived of its article, is attracted into the relative clause.’

26

a motivation for IHRCs (‘incorporation is part of an abbreviatory action by which repe-

titious material is shortened’; Friberg 1982: 249).

These suggestions do not seem to have much explanatory value for the material that

is presented in this article: abbreviation seems to work for only part of the material

(that is, Culy’s 1989 ‘adverbial’ IHRCs), and a sense of emphasis can be found in few if

any of the examples. Overall, there does not seem to be much difference between exam-

ples that are clearly Pre-EHRCs, and other examples which can be analysed as IHRCs.

In this final section, we would like to suggest another, pragmatic motivation for the

use of both IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs. To be more specific, there seems to be a strong

positive correlation in our corpus between the use of these two relativisation strategies

and higher social contexts. This is a connection which has been explored by none of the

previous studies (including Kriki 2013),65 but which seems to have a strong explanatory

value. Consider Table 3, where we summarise the relationship between certain

relativisation strategies and formality of the source.66

TABLE 3 GOES HERE

Table 3 shows that while there does not seem to be a strong difference in use when it

comes to Post-EHRCs, for IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs such a difference does exist: more than

80% of the examples appear in a formal context. This difference even increases starting

from Late Post-classical Greek, when 89% of the examples are used in formal contexts.

In Early Byzantine Greek, no examples appear outside such a context. This diachronic

tendency indicates that IHRC- and Pre-EHRC-formation was slowly becoming obsolete.67

Further inspection of the formal social contexts in which IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs

appear (that is, contracts, petitions, and official letters) shows that IHRCs and Pre-

EHRCs were particularly frequently used in the Middle Post-classical period in petitions

and especially contracts. These relativisation strategies remain frequent in the Late

65 Blass & Debrunner (1976: 243, §294, 5) note that ‘[t]he inclusion of the head noun in the relative clause originates from the more educated speech […]’ (our translation). Studies on other languages have dedicated some attention to the sociolinguistic characteristics of relative pronouns/clauses. See e.g. Romaine (1980, 1981); Kytö & Rissanen (1983). 66 We consider contracts, petitions and official letters to be ‘formal’, and business and private letters to be ‘informal’ (compare Bentein 2015).67 Under the influence of the rigidification of word order, we hypothesise. See e.g. Horrocks 2007: 621, who notes that ‘[…] the Koine in its more practical varieties reveals a much more “modern” word order (with Verb-subject-Object and Subject-Verb-Object[…] predominating over verb-final structures) […]’. For the connection between general word order and noun-phrase syntax, see e.g. Antinucci, Duranti & Gebert (1979), and more recently Hendery (2012: 199-227, ch. 5).

27

Post-classical period in contracts, but decrease in frequency in other text types (see

Table 4).

TABLE 4 GOES HERE

To conclude, we would like to suggest that there are two fundamental characteristics

that rendered IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs likely to be used in higher social contexts: (i) first,

the fact that IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs already in Classical antiquity presented an oddity

(‘something special’, as Rijksbaron 1981: 252 notes); (ii) the fact that IHRCs and Pre-

EHRCs were syntactically more complex (see further below). These two characteristics

turned IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs into a ‘transparent signifier’ (Hodge & Kress 1988), signi-

fying higher social contexts.68

As Hodge & Kress (1988: 109) note, ‘“[h]igh” languages, in English as in other

languages, do tend to be marked by syntactic complexity, especially by what can be

termed “hypotactic structures”, that is, structures where clauses are subordinated in

larger wholes’. Consider the following examples:69

(37) ...φθάνω [ ]β ι βλία σοι ἐπιδεδωκὼς κατὰ [ ] [ ] [ ]Μ έλ α ν ο ςphthánō biblía soi epidedōk sṑ katà Mélanosdo before:PRES.1SG petition:ACC.PL DAT.2SG submit:PTCP.PERF.NOM against Melas:GEN

καὶ τῶν [ ]τού του ποιμένων περὶ ἧς [ ]κα τ αβεβρώκασινkaì tôn toútou poiménōn perì hês katabebr kasinṓand ART.GEN.PL DEM.GEN shepherd:GEN.PL concerning REL.GEN consume:PERF.3SG

[ἀ̣ φʼ ἧς] πεποίημαι [ ]σπ ο ρᾶς χόρτου ἀρούρης μιᾶςaph’ hês pepoíēmai sporâs khórtou aroúrēs miâsfrom REL.GEN make:PERF.1SG sowing:GEN green crop:GEN aroura:GEN one:GEN

‘I previously submitted to you ... a complaint against Melas and his shepherds concerning the one aroura of hay which (their sheep) consumed out of the area which I had sown.’ (P.Cair.Isid.79, ll. 3-6 (IV AD)) [tr. Boak & Youtie]

(38) οὗ ἀνέτεινα βιβλιδίου τῷ κρατίστῳ ἐπιστρατήγῳ Ο[ὐηδ]ί̣ῳ̣hoû anéteina biblidíou tôi kratístōi epistrat gōiḗ OuēdíōiREL.GEN submit:AOR.1SG petition:GEN DAT excellent:SUP.DAT epistrategus:DAT Vedius:DAT

Φαύστῳ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἧ[ς ἒ]σχον ἐπὶ σὲ ἱερᾶς ὑπογραφῆςPhaústōi kaì hês éskhon epì se hierâs hupographêsFaustus:DAT and REL.GEN have:AOR.1SG to 2SG.ACC sacred:GEN subscription:GEN

καὶ ἧς ἔσχον ἡγεμονικῆς κρίσεως περὶ ὁμοίουkaì hês éskhon hēgemonikês kríseōs perì homoíou

68 Via a conceptual metaphor of the type ‘more complex = higher social context’. For the connection between relative clauses, stylistic levels, and syntactic complexity, compare Romaine (1980, 1981). 69 For similar examples, see e.g. P.Ryl.2.142, ll. 12-16 (37 AD); P.Mich. 5 322a, ll. 27-28 (46 AD); P.Mert.2.91, ll. 2-3 (316 AD).

28

and REL.GEN have:AOR.1SG of the prefect:GEN judgment:GEN concerning similar:GEN

πραγματος

ἀντίγραφ̣ο̣ν ὑπέταξα

pragmatos antígraphon hupétaksamatter:GEN copy:ACC append:AOR.1SG

‘I have appended a copy of the petition that I submitted to the most excellent epistrategos, Vedius Faustus, and of his sacred subscription which I received for transmission to you, and of the prefect's judgment that I obtained concerning a like matter. ’ (SB.14.12087, ll. 2-4 (162 AD)) [tr. Youtie]

(39) μεθʼ ἃ ὃ ἵνʼ εἰδῇς [ἐκομισάμην παρʼ αὐτο]ῦmeth’ hà hò hín’ eidêis ekomísamēn par’ autoûafter REL.ACC.PL REL.ACC so that know:PERF.2SG receive:AOR.1SG from 3SG.GEN

ἐπίσταλμα ...

ἐπέσ]τειλά σοι

epístalma epésteilá soiorder:ACC send:AOR.1SG 2SG.DAT

‘After this, I have sent you the order which I had received from him, so that you know.’ (P.Eirene.1.6, ll. 3-5 (III AD))

In (37–39), we see some of the syntactic complexities which IHRC- and Pre-EHRC-

formation allow: in (37), two relative clauses are intertwined,70 complicating the identi-

fication of the head nouns of the two relative clauses (this is further complicated by an

additional genitive noun in between the two head nouns, khórtou ‘green crop’). In (38),

the identification of the head nouns is relatively straightforward, but multiple

consecutive relative clauses are used. (39) combines the word order techniques of the

two previous examples: here, two consecutive relative clauses are piled up onto each

other, and we find another subordinate clause (of purpose) inside one of the relative

clauses. This results in a rather daunting beginning of the clause, with four function

words (meth’ hà hò hín’).

All of these examples violate the cognitive principle of CLOSURE, according to which

‘[…] listeners (and speakers, for that matter) tend to expect that sentences, phrases, etc.

will be closed as soon as possible, once the requisite properties, be they semantic or

syntactic, have been satisfied’ (Prideaux & Baker 1986: 32). As Fiorentino (2007: 275)

notes71 with regard to relative clauses, this means that non-interrupting clauses such as

‘I gave a book to a man [who is a doctor]’ are cognitively preferred over clauses such as

‘The man [to whom I gave the book] is a doctor’. Clearly, however, the authors of our

70 On clause intertwining in Ancient (Classical) Greek, see further Allan (2012).71 Fiorentino (2007: 274-277) discusses two more cognitive processing-principles involving relative clauses, that is, NORMAL FORM and DEPENDENCIES DOMAIN.

29

three last examples were more concerned with making an impression than with ease of

processing.72

6. Conclusion

In this article, we have attempted to show that an analysis of Post-classical and Early

Byzantine Greek relative clause formation in terms of two major strategies, IHRC and

Post-EHRC is unsatisfactory. The examples of so-called IHRCs that we have analysed in

our corpus of documentary texts from the period I–VIII AD do not correspond well to the

semantic and syntactic restrictions proposed by Fauconnier (2014) and others for IHRCs

in Ancient Greek: the relative clauses in our corpus can be used with a non-restrictive

sense and/or a non-maximalising semantics, their case marking (of the relative pronoun

and/or the head noun) is often determined by elements in the main clause, their head

noun occasionally takes the article and can function as the syntactic subject of the

relative clause. We have therefore proposed that at least part of the examples should be

subsumed under a third major category, that is, Pre-EHRCs. The arguments that have

been proposed against such an interpretation cannot be upheld, at least not for Post-

classical and Early Byzantine Greek. Nevertheless, we do consider it beneficiary to

maintain that at least some examples represent IHRCs. Finally, we have argued that the

motivation for the use of IHRCs and Pre-EHRCs is similar, and largely pragmatic in

nature: we have shown that the large majority of the examples occur in higher social

contexts, that is, formal texts. This can be connected to a striving for syntactic

complexity, which serves as a transparent signifier. In terms of further research on

relative clauses in Ancient Greek, much remains to be done: some issues which we

consider particularly relevant are: (i) the use and diachrony of IHRCs in later Byzantine

texts, (ii) the social distribution of different types of relative pronouns,73 and (iii) the

connection between the syntactic function of the relative pronoun/head noun in the

relative clause and its social distribution.74

72 As one of the reviewers notes, Greeks of the time may have been less sensitive to Prideaux & Baker’s principle of CLOSURE than we are today. Nevertheless, the examples mentioned above are syntactically much more complex than what we find in the majority of documentary texts, and certainly must have made an impression towards their addressee. 73 For some early observations, see e.g. Cadbury (1923). 74 Romaine (1980, 1981), referring to Keenan & Comrie (1977), argues that relative clauses where the relative pronoun/head noun has syntactic functions such as ‘locative’, ‘oblique’, or ‘genitive’ are syn -tactically more complex, and therefore more likely to appear in higher linguistic levels. As far as we know, this has not been tested for Ancient Greek.

30

Klaas Bentein

Ghent University,

Department of Linguistics

Blandijnberg 2

9000 Ghent

E-mail: Klaas.Bentein@UGent.be (corresponding author)

Metin Bağrıaçık

Ghent University,

Department of Linguistics

Blandijnberg 2

9000 Ghent

E-mail: Metin.Bagriacik@UGent.be

31

References

Adams, Douglas Q., 1972. ‘Relative clauses in Ancient Greek’, in Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, & Gloria C. Phares (eds.), The Chicago which hunt. Papers form the relative clauses festival, 9-22. Chicago, IL: CLS.

Allan, Rutger J., 2012. ‘Clause intertwining and word order in Ancient Greek’, Journal of Greek Linguistics 12, 5–28.

Anagnostopoulos, Georgios. 1922. ‘Peri tou arthrou [On the article]’, Athina 34, 166–247.

Antinucci, Francesco, Duranti, Alessandro & Gebert, Lucyna, 1979. ‘Relative clause structure, relative clause perception, and the change from SOV to SVO’, Cognition 7, 145–176.

Bakker, Stéphanie J., 2009. The noun phrase in Ancient Greek: a functional analysis of the order and articulation of NP constituents in Herodotus. Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Basilico, David, 1996. ‘Head position and the internally headed relative clauses’, Language 72, 498–532.

Bentein, Klaas, 2015. ‘Particle-usage in documentary papyri (I–IV AD). An integrated, sociolinguistically-informed approach’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 55, 721–753.

Bianchi, Valentina, 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: headed relative clauses. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.

Biraud, Michèle, 1980. ‘La phrase relative en grec’, Cratyle 2, 2–9.

Blass, Friedrich, Debrunner, Albert, 1976[1896]. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Bearbeitet van Friedrich Rehkopf (fourteenth edition). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Boyer, James L., 1988. ‘Relative clauses in the Greek New Testament: a statistical study’. Grace Theological Journal 9, 233–256.

Brunel. Jean, 1977. ‘La relative grecque a la lumière de ses origines’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 72, 211–240.

Cadbury, Henry J., 1923. ‘The relative pronouns in Acts and elsewhere’, Journal of Biblical Literature 42, 150–157

Chanet, Anne-Marie, 1980. ‘Le groupe relatif et son cas (en attique classique)’, Cratyle 2, 10–24.

32

Cinque, Guglielmo, 2008. ‘More on the indefinite character of the head of restrictive relatives’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33, 3–24.

Crespo, Emilio, Conti, Luz, & Maquieira, Helena, 2003. Sintaxis del griego clásico. Madrid: Gredos.

Croft, William, 2000. Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.

Culy, Martin M., 1989. ‘A typology of Koine relative clauses’, Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 33, 67–92.

Culy, Christopher, 1990. The Syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.

Downing, Bruce T., 1978. ‘Some univerals of relative clause structure’, in Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 375–418.

Du Toit, Herman C., 1986. ‘Semantics of relative sentences in Ancient Greek’, South African Journal of Linguistics 4, 1–20.

Du Toit, Herman C., 2015. ‘Exploring the function of relative sentences in New Testament Greek’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71. Available at < http://hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/2981/html>. Last accessed: August 17, 2017.

Du Toit, Herman C., 2016. ‘Some syntactic features of relative constructions in the Greek New Testament’, Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 45, 49–75.

Fabb, Nigel, 1990. ‘The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses’, Journal of Linguistics 26, 57–77.

Fauconnier, Stefanie, 2014. ‘Internal and external relative clauses in Ancient Greek’, Journal of Greek Linguistics 14, 141–162.

Fiorentino, Giuliana, 2007. ‘European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type’, Italian Journal of Linguistics 19, 263–291.

Friberg, Timothy, 1982. New Testament Greek word order in light of discourse considerations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota dissertation.

Gignac, Francis T., 1981. A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods. volume II: morphology. Milano: Cisalpino.

Grosu, Alexander, 1994. Three Studies in locality and case. London & New York: Routledge.

Grosu, Alexander, 2002. ‘Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia’, Glot International 6, 145–167.

Grosu, Alexander, 2009. ‘A refined typology of internally-headed relative clauses’, Bucharest Working papers in Linguistics 11. Available at <http://www.tau.ac.il/~grosua/papers/Grosu_2009d.pdf>. Last accessed: August 16, 2017.

Grosu, Alexander & Landman, Fred, 1998. ‘Strange relatives of the third kind’, Natural Language Semantics 6, 125–170.

Harris, Alice C., & Campbell, Lyle, 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: CUP.

33

Haspelmath, Martin, 1998. ‘Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?’, Studies in Language 22, 315–51.

Heine, Bernd, 2002. ‘On the role of context in grammaticalization’, in Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–101.

Hendery, Rachel, 2012. Relative clauses in time and space. A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hodge, Robert & Kress, Gunther, 1988. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity.

Horrocks, Geoffrey, 2007. Syntax: from Classical Greek to the Koine. In: Anastasios-Foevos Christidis (ed.), A history of Ancient Greek: from the beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: CUP, 618-631.

Jannaris, Antonius N., 1987[1897]. An historical Greek grammar (second edition). Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.

Keenan, Edward L., 1985. ‘Relative Clauses’, in Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II. Complex constructions. Cambridge: CUP, 141-170.

Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard, 1977. ‘Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.

Kirk, Allison, 2012. Word order and information structure in New Testament Greek. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.

Kriki, Eirini. 2013. Morfosintaktiki neoterismi sti glossa ton mi filologikon papiron: I anaforikes protasis [Morphosyntactic innovations in the language of the non-philological papyri: The relative clauses]. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki dissertation.

Kühner, R. & B. Gerth. 1976[1904]. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 2er Band (third edition). Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.

Kühner, Raphael & Gerth, Berhhard, 1966[1898]. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 1er Band (third edition), Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.

Kytö, Merja & Rissanen, Matti, 1983. ‘The syntactic study of Early American English. The variationist at the mercy of his corpus?’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84, 470–490.

Langacker, Ronald W., 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 57–139.

Lee, John A. L, 2016. ‘The vocabulary of the Septuagint and documentary evidence’, in Eberhard Bons & Jan Joosten (eds.), Handbuch zur Septuaginta/Handbook of the Septuagint, vol. 3. Munich: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 98-108.

Levinsohn, Stephen H., 2000. Discourse features of New Testament Greek: a coursebook on the information structure of New Testament Greek. Dallas, TX: SIL International.

Luján, Eugenio R., 2014. ‘Relative clauses’, in Georgios Giannakis, Vit Bubenik, Emilio Crespo, Chris Golston, Alexandra Lianeri, Silvia Luraghi & Stephanos Matthaios (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics. Leiden: Brill, 224-231.

Mayser, Edwin, 1934. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, Band II (3) Satzlehre. Berlin & Leipzig: de Gruyter.

34

Monteil, Pierre, 1963. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa formation, son développement, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle A.C. Paris: Klincksieck.

Perna, Elena, 2013a. La frase relativa in greco antico. Analisi sintattica basata sul dialetto attico di Platone. Padua: University of Padua dissertation.

Perna, Elena, 2013b. ‘Typology of relative clauses in Ancient Greek’, Studies in Greek Linguistics 33, 320–333.

Petersen, Ulrik, 2001. Relative clauses in Koine Greek. A Role and Reference Grammar perspective, Unpublished Manuscript, Aalborg University. Available at <http://people.hum.aau.dk/~ulrikp/pdf/report-7.pdf>. Last accessed: Novem-ber 28, 2016.

Pieters, Joannes Th.M.F., 1980. ‘De relatieve zin in het klassiek Grieks’, Lampas 13, 99–110.

Prideaux, Gary D. & Baker, William J., 1986. Strategies and structures. The processing of relative clauses. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Probert, Philomen, 2015. Early Greek relative clauses. Oxford: OUP.

Rijksbaron, Albert, 1981. ‘Relative clause formation in Ancient Greek’, in Machtelt A. Bolkestein, Henk A. Combé, Simon C. Dik, Casper de Groot, Jadranka Gvozdanović, Albert Rijksbaron & Co Vet (eds.), Predication and expression in Functional Grammar . London & New York: Academic Press, 236-259.

Romaine, Suzanne, 1980. ‘The relative marker in Scots English: diffusion, complexity, and style as dimensions of syntactic change’, Language in Society 9, 221–247.

Romaine, Suzanne, 1981. ‘Syntactic complexity, relativization and stylistic levels in Middle Scots’, Folia Linguistica Historica 15, 71–98.

Smyth, Herbert W, 1984[1920]. Greek grammar (revised edition by Gordon M. Messing). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stelter, Katrin, 2004. Nebensätze bei Aristophanes: Syntax, Semantik, Pragmatik. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Vandorpe, Katelijn, 2009. ‘Archives and dossiers’, in Roger S Bagnall (ed.), Oxford handbook of papyrology. Oxford: OUP, 216–255.

Vierros, Marja, 2003. ‘Everything is relative: the relative clause constructions of an Egyptian scribe writing Greek’, in Leena Pietilä-Castrén & Marjaana Vesterinen (eds.), Grapta poikila I. Athens: Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 13–23.

de Vries, Mark, 2002. The syntax of relativization. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.

35

Table 1: Corpus overview (number of texts)

Letters Petitions ContractsMPG (I–III AD) 836 235 179LPG (IV–VI AD) 295 160 75EBG (VII–VIII AD) 203 0 20Total 1334 395 274

Key: MPG: ‘Middle Post-classical Greek’; LPG: ‘Late Post-classical Greek; EBG: ‘Early Byzantine Greek’.

36

Table 2: Overview of relative clauses attested in the corpus

Post-EHRCs IHRCsMPG (I–III AD) 753 287LPG (IV–VI AD) 193 50EBG (VII–VIII AD) 38 13Total 1024 350

Key: MPG: ‘Middle Post-classical Greek’; LPG: ‘Late Post-classical Greek; EBG: ‘Early Byzantine Greek’.

37

Table 3: Relativisation strategy and formality of the text

Period Post-EHRCs IHRCs/Pre-EHRCs

Formal Informal Formal InformalMPG (I–III AD) 405 (67%) 197 (33%) 174 (77%) 53 (23%)LPG (IV–VI AD) 209 (57%) 156 (43%) 72 (89%) 9 (11%)EBG (VII–VIII AD) 112 (30%) 256 (70%) 46 (100%) 0Average 54% 46% 82% 18%

Key: MPG = ‘Middle Post-classical Greek’; LPG = ‘Late Post-classical Greek’; EBG = ‘Early Byzantine Greek’ (Instances per 10000 lines)

38

Table 4: IHRCs/Pre-EHRCs in three types of formal documents

Contract Official letter PetitionMPG (I–III AD) 260 85 150LPG (IV–VI AD) 117 41 62EBG (VII–VIII AD) 50 46 0Key: MPG = ‘Middle Post-classical Greek’; LPG = ‘Late Post-classical Greek’; EBG = ‘Early Byzantine

Greek’ (Instances per 10000 lines)

39