I think this is an incorporation: εν ω γαρ αν τις πράγματι μη πειθηται τω ευ λέγοντι αμαρτησεται δηπου.
What do you mean by “incorporation?”
Invorporation is inclusion of the antecedent into its relative clause like here πράγματι is included into rel. cl. starting with ω.
Okay, I thought so, most grammars call it “attraction.” It would help if you posted more context with your questions:
ειʼ δέ τις πρὸς ταῦτα λέγοι ὅτι τῷ τυράννῳ ἔξεστι μὴ πείθεσθαι τοῖς ὀρθῶς λέγουσι, καὶ πῶς ἄν, ἔφη, ἐξείη μὴ πείθεσθαι, ἐπικειμένης γε ζημίας, ἐάν τις τῷ εὖ λέγοντι μὴ πείθηται; ἐν ᾧ γὰρ ἄν τις πράγματι μὴ πείθηται τῷ εὖ λέγοντι, ἁμαρτήσεται δήπου, ἁμαρτάνων δὲ ζημιωθήσεται.
And no, I don’t think it is, rather ἐν ᾧ … πράγματι, the relative is used adjectively with πράγματι.
Incorporation and attraction are not the same thing. See Smyth 2536-2538.
- Incorporation.—The antecedent taken up into the relative clause is said to be incorporated. The relative and antecedent then stand in the same case, the relative agreeing adjectively with its antecedent. If the antecedent is a substantive, it often stands at the end of the relative clause, and commonly has no article. An antecedent in the nominative or accusative is more frequently incorporated than one in the genitive or dative.
That is εν ω πραγματι is equivalent to εν τούτω πράγματι εν ω γαρ αν τις μη πειθηται…in this case it is invorporation.
Since this is a conditional or general relative clause, it would probably be εν πράγματι εν ω…
But yes this is incorporation without attraction.
Deleted as duplicating Hylander.
It would be a mistake to think of ἐν ᾧ γὰρ ἄν τις πράγματι μὴ πείθηται as in any way abnormal.
Exactly how I would have explained it, but apparently I’ve been using non-standard terminology, and so appreciate the clarification and the reference in Smyth as well.