>>>I think the reason you didn't find it (attraction from the
nominative) in Goodwin's grammar is that he distinguishes attraction
from assimilation. For Goodwin, as I understand it, attaction is a
syntactical modification -- the word order changes. Goodwin states
"1037. The antecedent is often *attracted* into the relative clause,
and agrees with the relative. [Example omitted due to length]"
The morphological modification under discussion, in which the case is
converted, is termed by Goodwin as "assimiliation." And he does cite
that "1033 .... [e]ven the nominative may be assimilated; as
BLAPTESQAI AF' hWN hHMIN PARESKEUASTAI, to be injured by what has
been prepared by us (for AP' EKEINWN hA), T[hucydides].7,67."
<<<
I vaguely recall having seen this discussion in Goodwin. It's been
several months, and the memory is a bit dim. Goodwin's distinction is
valid, and this, of course, is a good Greek sentence. The pronoun hWN
is serving double-duty, in a manner of speaking; it can't be in both
cases at once. I have no difficulty with such a sentence, and I
rather expect that we could find NT examples of the same sort.
Perhaps this assimilation is what Carl was talking about; if so, I
have no problem with it. The idea that is so jarring to me is that
you can have what would have been a nominative case pronoun attracted
to an oblique case in order to agree with an explicit antecedent. If
Carl didn't intend to intimate that such a construction is possible,
then I owe him an apology for misunderstanding him TWICE and I'll be
happy imitate Dan Wallace (I think it was) by crawling back into my
cave.
----------------------------
In Love to God and Neighbor,
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC
RLeedy@wpo.bju.edu
----------------------------