Dickey states this rule matter-of-factly (p. 198) without discussing it thematically, so I’m wondering whether I got it right. Does it mean that a construction like “There stood a man, having looked at whom I fainted” is impossible in classical Greek? In any event, I would be grateful for any reference to a thematic discussion of this rule (which, I have to admit, seems counter-intuitive to me, as it is not in effect in modern languages, and I fail to see any rationale behind it).
First, this isn’t a rule–it’s a tip for reading and analyzing Greek. The relative pronoun sets up an expectation that a finite verb will occur at a later point in the sequence of words. Second, in your English sentence (which is awkward English but would not necessarily be awkward in Greek) the finite verb would be “fainted.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “without discussing it thematically”. It’s part of a discussion on how to read and analyze Greek prose.
Hylander nailed it. To put it in slightly different language, it’s talking about the verb that’s in the relative clause, not the main verb of the sentence (which is what your post seemed to imply about your understanding of Dickey’s statement). The relative pronoun is governed (i.e., gets it’s case) by the verb in the relative clause.
Hylander may have nailed it but I’m afraid Barry doesn’t when he says “The relative pronoun is governed (i.e., gets it’s case) by the verb in the relative clause.” The relative clause itself—like any clause—will have a finite verb (to restate what Dickey says), but the relative pronoun will not necessarily be governed by it. Its case may be determined by a preposition, for instance (e.g. πρὸς ὃν). And more pertinently, in “There stood a man, having looked at whom I fainted,” it would be governed by the participle within the clause, e.g. ὃν θεωρήσασα ἐλιποψύχησα, comparably with English but less clumsy.
It’s just the same with main clauses, e.g. τί βουλόμενος ἥκεις; (lit. Wanting what are you come? i.e. Why are you here?, What have you come for?).
You may be right but, when reading a text-book, I tend to take everything literally, and “always” literally means a rule (especially, as Dickey elsewhere does not fail to qualify here statements when she means them to be just tips, not rules; e.g.: “since adverbs normally precede their verbs, we can be reasonably confident that the the division [here] comes before the adverb” [the same p. 198]).
Have you actually looked into the Dickey passage to which I refer? The relevant context is too big for me to cite yet I have to admit that I fail to see how the finite word in a Greek analogue of my sentence could possibly be what she means here.
Oh, thank you so much! Am so glad that I asked this question as I would have learned a wrong lesson otherwise.
But what, then, is the rule to which de Strycker seems to be referring (Plato’s Apology of Socrates, p. 275) when he comments on 21 c3: “It does not seem possible to end the parenthesis after τῶν πολιτικῶν, as Croiset does. For then πρὸς ὅν would simply pick up τοῦτον; in Attic Greek, however, the relative pronoun does not have this function, which is normally fulfilled by οὗτος and a participle (here we would have had: πρὸς τοῦτον οὖν εγὼ σκοπῶν…” (my emphases)?
Does the following demonstrate attraction properly?
μὴ ἔμβλεπε ἐκείνῳ ᾧ ὑποβλέψασα ἐξἔθανον.
Tugodum, de Strycker means that in resuming the sentence after the parenthesis the relative pronoun would not be used. The antecedent of προς ον is not τουτον but τις των πολιτικων. Incidentally you’ll observe that προς ον εγω σκοπων τοιουτόν τι επαθον illustrates the point I was making. The relative pronoun “points to” a finite verb (επαθον), just as Dickey says (the clause cannot be complete without it), but προς ον is governed by the intervening participle (σκοπων).
Joel, I suppose so but it doesn’t read very well, and attraction is not the issue here.
My apologies for being so slow but I still do not understand. Dickey is using Plato Resp. 615 d-e to illustrate how her technique of analysis should work; in particular, regarding the phrase “οὓς οἰομένους ἤδη ἀναβήσεσθαι οὐκ ἐδέχετο τὸ στόμιον,” she states: “With οὓς more serious difficulties start to emerge. The opener is a relative pronoun, and relative pronouns always point to finite verbs, but the next two verb forms are not finite and therefore cannot be what the opener is pointing to” (my emphasis). I take this to mean that οὓς here cannot possibly be an object of either οἰομένους or ἀναβήσεσθαι not only for semantic reasons but, above all, for a purely grammatical one, namely, that “[these] two verb forms are not finite.” Is it not what she is saying here?
No, not quite. ους could in principle be the object of upcoming participles or infinitives (though here it’s not) but what it “points to” is the finite verb, εδεχετο. If you encounter a relative pronoun you know that a finite verb is to come (as Hylander indicated in his post). It’s as simple as that.
Got it, thanks. It still seems to me, though, that “pointing” is not a fortunate way to express this (given that the verb form to which pronoun primarily “points” is the one to which it relates as object).
Excellent clarification and correction. I was in a hurry and wrote hastily, meaning to say that it “often” governs the relative. More properly it should have been phrased that the relative pronoun gets its number and gender from its antecedent (although there are exceptions to this) but its case from its usage in the overall syntax of the sentence. It’s sometimes the case (!) that the verb in the clause will govern it, but as you point out, certainly not always.
Have you actually looked into the Dickey passage to which I refer?
Yes, I did.
the verb form to which pronoun primarily “points” is the one to which it relates as object
Huh? Where did you get that?
I don’t think there’s anything unclear about what Dickey means, especially if you read the whole of Appendix C, which is encaptioned “Hints for analyzing Greek sentences” (emphasis added). I’m not sure you understand what she is doing in this section of her book, or else you didn’t read the whole appendix.
You should also read the “Important Note” on the page facing page 1: “ALMOST EVERY RULE PRESENTED IN THIS BOOK HAS EXCEPTIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE NOT MENTIONED.”
Tugodum, the primary thing about any clause is that it has a finite verb. A relative clause has a relative pronoun as “opener” (you can quibble with that term too if you wish) and like any kind of clause cannot be over till it gets to a finite verb (and isn’t necessarily over then). Objects don’t necessarily come into it.
Barry, never write hastily in response to Tugodum! Or indeed ever on Textkit. We do our best to avoid misinformation here (though I have been guilty of it myself).
I had read this more than once (first time in the book, the second when you cited it here for me a while ago). But how is this relevant now? Do you know any exceptions to the rule cited in the subject of this posting?
The rule, as I understand it now thanks to the responses given in this thread, is just that a sentence cannot end with a clause an object of which is a relative pronoun. Dickey mentions this matter-of-factly because this rule is not specific to Greek but applies to English and other modern languages as well.
Thus one can say: “This was a victim thinking of which she could not help crying”; or one can say: “This was a victim, she could not help crying thinking of it”; but one cannot say: “This was a victim, she could not help crying thinking of which.”
The LSJ points to Thucydides 2.13 for a case where the relative takes the infinitive in indirect speech.
ἔτι δὲ . . προσετίθει χρήματα οὐκ ὀλίγα, οἷς χρήσεσθαι αὐτούς (sc. ἔφη)
I was following up on the “things that can govern the relative” thought, since the antecedent had not been mentioned.
Thanks! Of course, the implied ἔφη here counts as an ending clause; yet this example seem to indicate that the rule as formulated by me above needs to be qualified to the effect that the the ending clause (at least, in Greek) can be not only explicit but, also, implicit.
Excellent advice sincerely appreciated.
“This was a victim, she could not help crying thinking of which.”
This seems to me, as a native speaker of English, to be a well-formed if awkward English sentence, though “whom” would be better than “which”, and there should be no comma after “victim.”
You still seem to be missing the point. You’re trying to formulate a rule out of what Dickey presents as a hint in analyzing and reading Greek: her point is simply that when you encounter a relative pronoun, you should generally expect a finite verb form to follow at some point, and the finite verb will be the main verb of the relative clause. If there is a rule in Greek, a relative pronoun can’t come at the end of the relative clause. I think that’s valid, but I won’t vouch for it.
This is not valid: “a sentence cannot end with a clause an object of which is a relative pronoun.”
The sentence Joel cites from Thucydides follows a pattern discussed at Smyth sec. 2631:
- In subordinate temporal and relative clauses the infinitive is often used for the indicative or optative by attraction to an infinitive standing in the principal clause after a verb of saying. In some cases ἔφη may be mentally inserted.
ἔφη . . . ἐπειδὴ δὲ γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ Ἀγάθωνος, ἀνεῳγμένην καταλαμβάνειν τὴν θύραν he said that, when he arrived at the house of Agathon, he found the door open P. S. 174d ( = ἐπειδὴ ἐγενόμην, καταλαμβάνω). See also the sentence quoted in 1228 b, end. So οὗτοι δὲ ἔλεγον ὅτι πολλοὺς φαίη Ἀριαῖος εἶναι Πέρσας ἑαυτοῦ βελτίους, οὓς οὐκ ἂν ἀνασχέσθαι αὐτοῦ βασιλεύοντος and they said that Ariaeus said that there were many Persians better than himself, who would not endure his being king X. A. 2.2.1 ( = πολλοί εἰσι ἐμαυτοῦ βελτίους, οἳ οὐκ. ἂν ἀνάσχοιντο ἐμοῦ β.). Here the relative is equivalent, in sense, to καὶ τούτους. The infinitive occurs even in clauses with εἰ (T. 4.98, and often in Hdt.), and with διότι (Hdt. 3.55).
a. The infinitive is rare in such relative clauses as ““διορίζουσι σαφῶς ἐν οἷς ἐξεῖναι ἀποκτιννύναι” they make a clear distinction in cases where it is permitted to kill” D. 23.74.
Ok, but does not “generally” =“as a rule”? Of course, rules have exceptions (one doe not need to read Dickey to learn this). Yet, if the case were not “generally” the way Dickey states (say, if it were equally possible that no finite verb follow a relative pronoun), her “hint” would be of little or no help.
I sure trust you yet have to admit that I’ve never encountered a sentence of an analogues structure in English, and in my native Russian it would be considered illiterate (even if understandable).