This usage is called the attraction of the relative into the case of its antecedent. Obs. 1 If an antecedent demonstrative pronoun is affected by a preposition, the antecedent may be omitted and the preposition transferred to the attracted relative; as μετεπέμπετο ἄλλο στράτευμα πρὸς ᾧ πρόσθεν εἶχε, for πρὸς ἐκείνῳ ὃ πρόσθεν εἶχε. Hence we have phrases such as ονεκα for τούτου ἕνεκα ὅτι; ἀνθ' ὧν for ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι, &c. Obs. 2 But if the antecedent is retained with its preposition, the latter is not repeated with the relative; as τὸν πλοῦν ἐποιησάμην ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ ᾧ Ἡρώδης οὗτος. Χ 403 The correlatives οἷος, ὅσος, ἡλίκος, when they should appear regularly in the accusative, may also be attracted into the genitive or dative; as τοιαύτας ἐπιδόσεις αἱ πόλεις οὐ λαμβάνουσιν, ἢν μή τις αὐτὰς διοικῇ τοιούτοις ἤθεσιν, οἵοις Εὐαγόρας εἶχεν (Isocr. Euag. 48). Μήδων, ὅσων ἑώρακα, πολὺ οὗτος ὁ ἐμὸς πάπε πος κάλλιστος (Xen. Cyr. I. 3, § 2). Obs. 1 As in the case of the other relatives (402, Obs. 2), the preposition of the antecedent clause is not repeated with the correlative; as οὐ περὶ ὀνόματος ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, οἷς τοσούτων πέρι σκέψις, ὅσων ἡμῖν πρόκειται. Obs. 2 The phrase οἷος εἶ, οἷός ἐστιν, is sometimes absorbed by attraction into the antecedent clause, and becomes a mere epithet; thus we have ἔραμαι οἵου σοῦ ἀνδρός for ἔραμαι ἀνδρὸς τοιούτου οἷος σὺ εἶ. And this attraction may be declined throughout the cases; as And if an antecedent noun is wanting, οἷος or ἤλικος is still placed in the case of the antecedent with the article prefixed; as τοῖς οἷοις ἡμῖν τε καὶ ὑμῖν χαλεπὴ πολιτεία ἐστὶ δημοκρατία (Xen. Hellen. II. 3, § 25), for τοιούτοις ἀνδράσιν οἷοί ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς τε καὶ ὑμεῖς. ἐκεῖνο δεινὸν τοῖσιν ἡλίκοισι νῷν (Arist. Eccl. 465), for τηλικούτοις ἀνδράσιν ἡλίκοι ἐσμὲν ἐγώ τε καὶ σύ. But Demosthenes (Fals. Leg. 421, 16), neglecting the attraction, writes: Σόλων ἐμίσει τοὺς οἷος οὗτος ἀνθρώπους. Obs. 3 The relative is similarly absorbed into the antecedent clause, and becomes a mere epithet, in ἔστιν ὅς, οἵ, ὅστις, οἵτινες = ἐστί τις ὅς, εἰσί τινες οἷ, which runs through the cases, and may be interrogative as well as categorical. Thus we have τῆς ἄλλης Ελλάδος ἔστιν ἃ χωρία (Thucyd. 1. 12), some places;” ἔστιν οὕστινας τεθαύμακας ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ (Xen. Mem. 1. 4, § 6); "have you admired any men for their wisdom?" The same remark applies to the past tense; as ἦν οὓς ἔλαυνεν (Xen. Anab. I. 5, § 7): and to adverbial constructions like ἔστιν οὗ or ὅπου, “ somewhere ;” ἐσθ' ὅτε, “ at some time ;” ἔστιν ὅπως, ᾗ or ὅπῃ, “in some way or other;” οὐκ ἔσθ ̓ ὅπως, “ in no way;” οὐ ἔσθ' ὅπως οὐ, “ in every way.” σε There is a similar omission of the antecedent in the phrases οσημέραι ὅσαι ἡμέραι εἰσίν, quotidie, “ every day;” ὅσα ἔτη, quotannis, " every year;” ὅσοι μῆνες, “ every month.” = Obs. 4 The relative sentence οἷός ἐστιν is omitted after τοιοῦτος in such phrases as οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἁρμονία γέ σοι τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ᾧ ἀπεικάζεις (Plat. Phed. 92 B, where some read ὅ) for τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, οἷόν ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο ᾧ ἀπεικάζεις. Obs. 5 The correlative ofos is sometimes repeated in the same clause for the sake of emphasis, when we should substitute the antecedent for one of the two; thus we have οἱ ἔργα δράσας οἷα λαγχάνει κακά (Soph. El. 751), "what a disaster he meets with after having done such deeds;" οἷος οἷων αἴτιος ὢν τυγχάνει (Plato, Symp. p. 195 Α), “ what kind of person he is to be the cause of such things;” πρὸς οἵαν ἐμπειρίαν καὶ τόλμαν μετὰ οἵας ἀνεπιστημοσύνης καὶ μαλακίας γενήσοιτο (Thucyd. v. 7), “ with what ignorance and cowardice it would have to contend against such skill and boldness." 404 Sometimes the antecedent is attracted into the case of the relative; as in Eurip. Orest. 1629 : Ἑλένην μὲν ἣν σὺ διολέσαι πρόθυμος ὢν where we have a sample of both constructions. as This sort of inverse attraction is very common in such phrases ἠμφιεσμένοι θαυμαστὰ δὴ ὅσα (Plat. Symp. 220 Α), and θαυμαστῶς ὡς ἐπείσθην ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ (Id. Phad. 92 Α). So in demonstrative particles: βῆναι κεῖθεν ὅθεν περ ἥκει (Soph. Ed. Col. 1227) for κεῖσε όθεν. 405 We find the same and similar peculiarities in the use of those correlative phrases which have emanated from the direct interrogative: for as the relative answers to the definitive sentence, so does the indirect to the direct question. Thus τίς ἐστίν; would be answered by οὐκ οἶδα ὅστις ἐστίν. And from the intimate connexion between the interrogative and the negative sentence, we find ὅστις after the negative οὐδείς, as in οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅστις οὐ, which may assume the case of the correlative throughout, the verb ἐστί being omitted; thus, and so on. Ν. οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐκ ἂν ποιήσειε ταῦτα for οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅστις οὐ κ.τ.λ. G. οὐδενὸς ὅτου οὐ κατεγέλασε for οὐδεὶς ἦν ὅτου οὐ κ.τ.λ. Compare this with interrogative sentences, such as τίνα οἴεσθε ὅντινα οὐκ ἀποστήσεσθαι; (Thucyd. III. 34) for τίς ἐστίν, ὅντινα οὐκ οἴεσθε ἀποστήσεσθαι ; Obs. 1 When this coalition of clauses takes place in comparative sentences, there is still greater harshness in the construction. Thus we have in Herodotus, VII. 145 : τὰ δὲ Γέλωνος πρήγματα μεγάλα ἐλέγετο εἶναι, οὐδαμῶν Ἑλληνικῶν τῶν οὐ πολλὸν μέζω, “ the power of Gelo was said to be great, much greater than that of any Greek state” (οὐδαμὰ ἦν Ἑλλη νικά, ὧν οὐ πολλὸν ἦν μείζω). And there is a still more remarkable passage in Sophocles, Ajax, 1416 : τῷδ ̓ ἀνδρὶ πονῶν τῷ πάντ ̓ ἀγαθῷ κοὐδενί πώ ποτε λῴονι θνητῶν Αἴαντος, ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ, where Hermann reads γ ᾧ τινι for πώποτε, and supposes that Sophocles meant καὶ οὗ οὐδεὶς λῴων ἦν θνητῶν, but having written by attraction ᾧ τινι, he was obliged to substitute Αἴαντος for οὗ. If this is the true reading and explanation, the attraction is carried to its utmost limit. Dindorf omits the line Αἴαντος ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ, and reads in the preceding line, κοὐδενί πω λῴονι θνητών, comparing Trach. 811, πάντων ἄριστον ἄνδρα τῶν ἐπὶ χθονὶ κτείνασ', ὁποῖον ἄλλον οὐκ ὄψει ποτέ. But the ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ seems to be supported by the Homeric phrase εἴ ποτ ̓ ἔην or εἴ ποτ ̓ ἔην γε (ΙΙ. III. 180, ΧΙ. 762; Od. xv. 268, xΙx. 315), which obviously means "when I (he) formerly existed," implying that this is no longer the case in the same sense or to the same extent. Obs. 2 The student must learn from the first to distinguish between those usages according to which the relative or adjectival sentence is attracted into or absorbed by the antecedent, and the converse practice according to which the antecedent loses its power, and the relative passes over into a primary predicate, and even into a secondary predicate, or adverbial phrase. Thus, we have seen above, that the qualitative relative olos may become by attraction a mere epithet (403, Obs. 2), and οδός ἐστι may be omitted between its antecedent τοιοῦτος and another relative (403, Obs. 4). But conversely, by an idiom which has passed from the Ionic into the Attic dialect, οιός τε, with an omission of its antecedent τοϊός τε, becomes a mere predicate, equivalent to δυνατός ; for οἷός τε εἰμί = δυνατός εἰμι = δύναμαι. Or, if τοιοῦτος, τοσοῦτος remains as the predicate, wore is substituted for olós re with either the finite verb or the infinitive, so that the relative becomes a mere adverbial adjunct, or secondary predicate. The apparent contradiction in these cases arises from the fact, that the pronouns TOLOÛTOS, TOσOÛTos, &c., however apparently definite, are, as expressing a kind or class, and not individuals, really indefinite antecedents. So that, in fact, the participle without the article may express this sort of consecutive or illative sentence. For ἔχων = τοιοῦτος WOTE xe may be expressed in Latin by qui habeat or talis ut habeat, and we shall see that the prolepsis, or tertiary predicate in the oblique case, may approximate to this. And here the English language is liable to a confusion; for "who has" is used indifferently for qui habet and qui habeat but this will not justify the teacher who allows his pupils to suppose that Greek syntax permits the same laxity. SV. The Noun as Subject. 406 The substantive, which forms the subject of a proposition, is often used (a) with an extension of its meaning even in the singular, (B) with a limitation of its meaning in the plural, (y) with a change of application in either number, (8) in the genitive as part of a periphrasis. (a) Singular for Plural. (a) This is effected in regard to the names of animals by prefixing the feminine article; thus ππоs signifies "cavalry,” Herod. 1. 80; similarly κáμηλos is "a troop of camels;" and ǹ Boûs, “a herd of oxen" (above, 166, (5)). (b) Without any change of gender names of materials may denote in the singular a collection of objects made from them; as ἄργυρος, χρυσός, χαλκός, “ silver-, gold-, copper-utensils;” κέραμος, "earthenware;" xápağ, “palisades," &c. Similarly éσ0ńs, “garments;" σтpoμm, "bedding;" äμπeλos, "vines," &c. (c) Ethnic names sometimes denote collective plurality; as ó IIépons, ó Makedov, "the Persian or Macedonian army." Similarly Πέρσης, Μακεδών, ὁ πολέμιος, ὁ πέλας, “ our enemies, our neighbours.” .(d) The singular name of an implement may implement may denote a collection of persons using it; as dópu, "an army;" domis, "a body of heavy-armed men;" wπn, "a crew of rowers." (e) In poetry inanimate objects often express plurality though the form is singular; thus kuua means "the sea;" dáxpv, “tears; artis, "the sun's light," &c. ἀκτίς, (8) Plural for Singular. Conversely, the plural is used where a single object is intended: (a) When something plural is implied; thus váμo means "a marriage-feast," i. e. the festivities of a marriage prolonged through several days; Tapai, "a funeral;" púπo, "filth," i. e. a collection of filthy objects; Tλoûтοι, “wealth," i. e. collected treasures; výkтes, "night," i. e. the midnight hours. Hence names of feasts, as τὰ Διονύσια, τὰ Ἐλευσίνια, are in the plural. (b) In the poets the plural is used to denote a single object; as γονεῖς καὶ τοκεῖς, of a father and mother; τὰ παιδεύματα, of a single child; và þíλTaтa, of a single relative; oi piño, of a single friend. (c) In the first person the poets use or imply nueîs when yo is intended; as Eurip. Herc. F. 858 : ἥλιον μαρτυρόμεσθα δρῶσ ̓ ἃ δρᾶν οὐ βούλομαι ; Id. Andr. 142: δεσποτῶν ἐμῶν φόβῳ ἡσυχίαν ἄγομεν; Id. Τroad. 904: ὡς οὐ δικαίως, ἢν θάνω, θανούμεθα. (d) Even proper names may be used in the plural to express persons of a particular class; thus, Γοργίαι τε καὶ Φίλιπποι, “persons like Gorgias or Philippus" (Aristoph. Av. 1701); opŵv av Þaídpovs, ̓Αγάθωνας, Ερυξιμάχους, Παυσανίας, ̓Αριστοδήμους τε καὶ ̓ΑρισTоpávas, "when I see here a Phædrus, an Agathon, &c." (Plat. Sympos. p. 218 A). (7) Change of application. Either in the singular or plural the name of an object may denote the place where it is sold; thus ixûs and oov mean “the fish-market;" λáxava, "the vegetable-market;" σidnpos, "the iron-monger's shops;" Xalov, "the oil-market;" μúpov, "the perfume-market." In Homer Okos signifies "an assembly," and Kóжρos, or, as some write it in this case, koπρós, "a farm-yard." (8) Periphrasis of the Subject. Single objects, especially persons, are designated by the Greek poets and sometimes by the prose writers in a periphrasis with the genitive. |