From: Moon-Ryul Jung (moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr)
Date: Sun Feb 21 1999 - 08:11:54 EST
On 02/21/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
> --============_-1292523729==_ma============
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 5:21 AM -0600 2/21/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> >"Kai ouk echousin ti phago^sin".
> >"And they do not have what they might eat".
> >
> >My question is whether we should regard "ti phago^sin" as
> >indirect question or "ti" + relative clause. If the statement
> >were something like "they do not KNOW what they might eat".
> >then the first option makes sense. But in this context,
> >where the meaning is "they do not have anything to eat",
> >the second option seems to make better sense. But from the
> >viewpoint of syntax, I wonder whether "ti" + subjunctive clause
> >can be considered a relative clause. Is there any other examples
> >for such use?
>
> This is not quite an indirect question, but a sort of conflation of
> indirect question and deliberative, I think. I've been tempted hitherto to
> consider this a Latinism, inasmuch as it is a common Latin species of
> purpose clause. Compare:
>
> Mt 8:20 = Lk 9:58 hAI ALWPEKES FWLEOUS ECOUSIN KAI TA PETEINA TOU OURANOU
> KATASKHNWSEIS, hO DE hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU OUC ECEI POU THN KEFALHN KLINHi.
>
> Lk 12:17 KAI DIELOGIZETO EN hEAUTWi LEGWN: TI POIHSW, hOTI OUK ECW POU
> SUNAXW TOUS KARPOUS MOU.
>
> In Latin, these clauses may be introduced by an indefinite, an
> interrogative word, or even a pronoun, and have verbs in the subjunctive.
> They might have originated as independent deliberative subjunctives with
> interrogatives, but they appear to be constructions wherein the antecedent
> of a relative/interrogative functioning as an object in the main verb is
> suppressed or understood. Cf. English: "I don't know where to go" = "I
> don't know where I should go."
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics/Washington University
> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
> --============_-1292523729==_ma============
> Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 5:21 AM -0600 2/21/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>
> >"Kai ouk echousin ti phago^sin".
>
> >"And they do not have what they might eat".
>
> >
>
> >My question is whether we should regard "ti phago^sin" as
>
> >indirect question or "ti" + relative clause. If the statement
>
> >were something like "they do not KNOW what they might eat".
>
> >then the first option makes sense. But in this context,
>
> >where the meaning is "they do not have anything to eat",
>
> >the second option seems to make better sense. But from the
>
> >viewpoint of syntax, I wonder whether "ti" + subjunctive clause
>
> >can be considered a relative clause. Is there any other examples
>
> >for such use?
>
>
> This is not quite an indirect question, but a sort of conflation of
> indirect question and deliberative, I think. I've been tempted hitherto
> to consider this a Latinism, inasmuch as it is a common Latin species
> of purpose clause. Compare:
>
>
> Mt 8:20 = Lk 9:58 hAI ALWPEKES FWLEOUS ECOUSIN KAI TA PETEINA TOU
> OURANOU KATASKHNWSEIS, hO DE hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU OUC ECEI POU THN
> KEFALHN KLINHi.
>
>
> Lk 12:17 KAI DIELOGIZETO EN hEAUTWi LEGWN: TI POIHSW, hOTI OUK ECW POU
> SUNAXW TOUS KARPOUS MOU.
>
> <underline><fontfamily><param>Geneva</param><bigger>
>
> </bigger></fontfamily></underline><fontfamily><param>Geneva</param><bigger>In
> Latin, these clauses may be introduced by an indefinite, an
> interrogative word, or even a pronoun, and have verbs in the
> subjunctive. They might have originated as independent deliberative
> subjunctives with interrogatives, but they appear to be constructions
> wherein the antecedent of a relative/interrogative functioning as an
> object in the main verb is suppressed or understood. Cf. English: "I
> don't know where to go" = "I don't know where I should go."
> </bigger></fontfamily>
>
The conclusions seem as follows:
1. "ti phago^sin" ("ti" + subjective) has been originated from an
indirect question.
2. When used after a verb, it is considered a relative clause whose
antecedent is understood.
But this conclusion explains better the two examples cited above than
my example, which can be translated to "they do not have what they
should eat". "I do not have where I should go" may be the same as
"I do not have any place where I should go". But my example
"they do not have what they should eat" cannot be changed to
"they do not have anything what they should eat", which is not a
legal sentence either in English or in Greek. So, then, the above
conclusion
makes sense only partially.
Could we say, then, that both in "I do not have where I should go" and in
"I do not have what I should eat" (I have in mind the Greek equivalents),
"where" and "what" play the roles of the antecedents of relative clauses
"I should go" and "I should eat", respectively? Or might we say
that "where" and "what" are conflations of the relative pronouns and the
antecedents??? I like the second explanation.
Moon-Ryul Jung
Dept. of Computer Science
Soongsil University, Korea
Moon
It occurs to me that
> Carl W. Conrad
>
> Department of Classics/Washington University
>
> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
>
> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
>
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
>
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
> --============_-1292523729==_ma============--
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:17 EDT