p.s. I am reading Dickey to learn, primarily, composition; for which purpose it is crucial to habituate oneself to more common ways of expression first; hence my attention to her indications of what “generally” is the case.
p.p.s. Speaking of “rules,” my goal is to spell out some rules, above all, for myself, so that keeping to them would help me to not go off track in terms of style (in particular, to avoid “awkward” constructions).
As I commented in your very first textkit thread, “No-one else would have been so patient with you or shown such forbearance” as Hylander. I’d advise you not to try his patience further, or to respond as you did then.
Dickey’s dictum is very simple, and has been exhaustively explained to you. Take another look at the translation of “having looked at whom I fainted” that I offered you, ὃν θεωρήσασα ἐλιποψύχησα. The relative pronoun stands at the head of its clause. In prose it always does, and—this is the point—it has to be followed by a finite verb to complete the syntax [or in particular circumstances by an infinitive representing a finite verb—jeidsath added that little twist].
Congratulations Joel you found the obfuscatory exception. In indirect speech with infinitives (with or without an expressed main verb) even subordinate clauses will sometimes substitute an infinitive for the finite verb. It’s a form of syntactical attraction.
This is my final post to this thread, possibly to Textkit.
This is exactly how I, eventually–thanks to responses in this thread, especially yours and Hylander’s–understood the “rule” (or whatever one prefers to call it).
I think I already expressed my gratitude to all respondents (Hylander included). If this was not clear I’m happy to say this again.
p.s. In pariticular, here is my mistake that Hylander helped me to see:
This should be, as I now understand, corrected to: a sentence (“generally”) cannot end with a clause an object of which is a relative pronoun unless this pronoun is an object of a finite verb.
This should be, as I now understand, corrected to: a sentence (“generally”) cannot end with a clause an object of which is a relative pronoun unless this pronoun is an object of a finite verb.
This is simply an incomplete, and indeed misleading, statement of the rule that a relative clause generally has a finite verb (with the exception noted by Smyth in 2631). It doesn’t matter whether the relative clause is at the end of a sentence or somewhere else in the sentence. And Dickey’s hint for reading and analyzing Greek follows from this: if you encounter a relative pronoun you should expect a finite verb to follow eventually.
My last post on this thread.
Perhaps I am confused in terms (but then the more I am in need of clarification, and it’s a pity that you’re losing your patience with me, though, of course, I am only to blame my own slowness for that): I thought that in mwh’s example:
“ὃν θεωρήσασα” is a relative clause (and a regular, not exceptional one at that); yet it does not include any finite verb.
It has ἐλιποψύχησα, 1st aor. sing. from λιποψυχέω (which is now my new favorite verb).
Quickly and briefly breaking my promise:
ὃν θεωρήσασα is not a relative clause. ὃν θεωρήσασα ἐλιποψύχησα is.
The sentence will also have a main clause (in your example, “There stood a man”). Cf. Pl. Ap.Soc. 21c: ἦν δέ τις των πολιτικων (main clause) προς ὃν εγω σκοπῶν τοιοῦτόν τι ἔπαθον (rel. clause).
That’s it. ὃ γέγραφα (rel.clause) γέγραφα (main clause).
Thank you so much! I mistakenly thought that the term “clause” applies to all subordinate units into which Dikckey teaches to analyze a sentence.
p.s. My search for a linguistic definition of relative clause, however, made me confused again:
“Relative clauses may be either finite clauses…or non-finite clauses. An example of a non-finite relative clause in English is the infinitive clause on whom to rely, in the sentence “She is the person on whom to rely”.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause#Finite_and_non-finite
That is an English construction, not an ancient Greek one. You’d save yourself (and others here) a lot of trouble, and spare yourself a lot of confusion, if you believed what Dickey (and others here) tell you. You are only making things difficult for yourself.
Over and out.