Temporal and causal conjunctions in ancient Greek: with special reference to the use of ἐπεί and ὡς in Herodotus 9789025606749, 9025606741

Citation preview

TEMPORAL & CAUSAL CONJUNCTIONS IN ANCIENT GREEK

|

by

A.RIJKSBARON

νὴ ir ee κὰν:

or

ee

Pu fs s

ὶ

iR

ON

ieh muts

was

nr

anni duna:

Ve | un

tas art's

kauwt Uch

Soaralvelit

ga αὶ

an

kadiar

ta, Ue wereld

soon, ( |

ὴ πὰ

dann toot |)» ot

uwtitreds

ons

a

Waterss

‘TEMPORAL ἃ CAUSAL CONJUNCTIONS IN ANCIENT GREEK With spectal reference to the use of ἐπεί and ὡς in Herodotus

by

A. Rijksbaron

i ADOLF M.

HAKKERT

-

PUBLISHER 1976

—

AMSTERDAM

ISBN. 90 256 0674 1

To

my

mother

Voorwoord

Hooggeleerde melde ties den

duidelijk die

wij

stijgende Griekse

van

details

voor

de

hebt

voor

naast

ging

delde

teksten

stigheid

was

uw

dat

bare

wijze

zijds,

de

hoe

deze

figuren in

verza-

manipula-

Griekse gebied

en

woor-

als

de mede-

profiteren

proefschrift

beoordelen

dwong

van

later

kunnen mijn

te

mij

leidde

ook

van

het

Daarnaast en

telkens betoog

ben

ik

inzet

en

u

die

van

voor

behandelde.

hoe

en

hoogdravende

ik

wil

de In

vaak

de

uw

leidde

Dyskolos van

een

zeer u

al-

het

bijzonder

ís

bij

de

prettige tot

hoe

deze

gedicht

van

ander-

te

op

danken.

laten

u de ik

en,

Alkman

verbetering-

voorbij

bewonderde

behanbijkom-

onnavolg-

oordeel

waarop

te

Daar-

levendige

u op

neerzette

niet

nauwkeu-

hypotheses.

scherpzinnig

wijze

habitus

een

suggesties en

gelegenheid

inspirerende het

Een

herinneren

sfeer aan

belangrijk

uit.

waardevolle

zijn

van

betrokkenheid

Menarider's

aantal

is

en

zich

de

wetenschappelijke belang

invloed

zullen

proefschrift Leeman,

en

betrokkenheid

in

literatuur

het

opzichte

het

persoonlijke

slaagde

groot

zeggen

ten

groot

stimulerende

en

te

op

om

maar

onderwijs

hoe

grote

Een

Hooggeleerde

die

belangstelling

spekulaties

roepen.

u dank

aan

heb

mérites

bepalen

uw

te

mijn

zijn

u de

ik vervuld geraakt van een

assistent

bereidheid

persoonlijke

velen

u er

als

ruimschoots

interpretatie,

een

ben

bewijsmateriaal.

beseffen

visualiseringen;

ook

toen

mysterieuze

getoond.

wilde

van

via

vastzat

diskussies

te

Kamerbeek,

doen

door

deskundigheid

Uw

op

levendige

filologische

vrijwaren

uw

intussen

aangevoerde

mij

mij

kennen,

standpunt

Hooggeleerde rige

de

tot

erkentelijk

hebben

mé6r

te

voldoening.

mij

voor

er

deskundigheid

mijn

door

dat

die in

kollegedag,

goed voor

ik

eerste

kreeg

grote

tot

opnieuw

zo

de

ban

maken

Dat

alleen

tijd

te

uw

bewondering

mij

steeds niet

vanaf

in

dachten

taal.

werker geeft

het

Ruijgh,

eerstejaars

uw

gaan

Latijnse vermogen

Vill om

u

dat

in

nieuwe

het

poëzie

voor van

invalshoeken

de

studie

groot

Videe een

ut

alta

begrip

stet

is

de

recente

te

volgen

nive

Pinkster, uw de

voor Ik

waarbij

een

bewaar u

overtuiging

en

met

ontwikkelingen hun

bruikbaarheid

Soracte...

zal

name

binnen

voor

te mij

de

de toetsen.

altijd

gericht de

beste

krachtige

belang

dat

uit

is,

zijn

de

aard

voor

herinneringen dat

ik,

en

benadrukte

ontwikkelingen

kontakt

inspanningen

ook

binnen der

van

aan

het

om

bruggen

studie

van de

zaak

mij

buiten

de

het

der

kennis

huidige in

grote

nemen

betekenis

vakgebied,

en

linguistiek

aanzienlijke

stimulerende het

te

Klassie-

mate

geweest.

en

vriend-

steeds

had.

Tenslotte naast

de

Taalwetenschap

u het

van

vakgebied

schappelijke met

Algemene

maken

historisch

op

vanuit

literatuur

blijven.

tussen

Talen,

en

candidum

zeergeleerde

bruikbaar

stellen,

Latijnse

slaan ke

te

de

belang

literatuurwetenschap

op

van

de

gedragen.

wil reeds

ik

graag

mijn

genoemden,

dank

aan

uitspreken

mijn

aan

akademische

al

degenen

vorming

die,

hebben

bij-

Preface

This

study

Arts

of

pervision have the

was

the

led

submitted

University

of

Professor

time

evidence

and

Professor tions

and

I am vice My who to

is

are

more, L.

of

the

to

Plato;

the

also

due,

to

Dr.

H.

furthermore,

accepted

pages

task

to of

of

Faculty under

of

the

su-

judgments

argument

and

of

argument.

acumen many

Pinkster

having

read

earlier

an

has

been

valuable for

his

whom

I owe

the

design

too,

dyad)

μοι

Enlppodoc

je

francais, très

of

voudrais qui

utile

Sup6rieure,

pour

Amsterdam,

August

par

and

Miss

the

of

sugges-

expert

they

finished who

ἐπειδή,

Ste

was

so

English,

and

who

well;

of

to

H.

ad-

de

manuscript

who

as

Miss

Bode,

and,

that

task;

me

a pre-

sent and

ὡς

of

his

kind

as

to

under-

made

E.

many

Vester,

this

book

and

to

Miss

E.

Wouthuysen,

and

who

in

other

jacket

for

many

perfor

stito

respects,

ἦλϑεν. remercier

une

bourse et

la

hospitalité

1976

when

finally, the

ἃ Paris, son

my

A.

University,

ἐπεί,

version and,

Miss typing

Smith,

content

discussions;

Finalement,

to

N.S.H.

Anglicizing the

of

cheerfull

relating

on

to

task

Manchester

Mr.

remarks

mulating

the

still

tinent

séjour

has

the

that

contributed

he

the

penetrating of

of

philological

were

Inder

ment

support

and

Brandwood

print take

a reappraisal

in

Kamerbeek's

indebted

thanks

Mr.

whose

to

written

remarks.

cheerfully

what

was

improvements.

much

and

thesis It

Ruijgh,

to

forward

J.C.

assistance

a doctoral

Amsterdam.

C.J.

again

put

great

as

of

chaleureusement d'études Direction

le

gouverne-

a subventionné de

1'Ecole

un

Normale

généreuse. A. Rijksbaron

Contents

VII

VOORWOORD

IX

1.4. 1.5.

2.

THE

of of method General

1.3.2. 1.3.3.

Advantage of this approach in Methodological preliminaries

Choice A note

of on

FUNCTIONS

material editions

ADJUNCT

the

content

N

Choice 1.3.1.

W

1.3.

the

study

of

Greek

etc.

ausaL

AND

ADJUNCT

Objective of chapters two and Question-words: ADJUNCT oausar,

„EMPORAL

three

The reliability of τί as a causal question-word Some constructional possibilities of noun phrases the nominative and accusative 2.4.1. Nominative 2.4.2. Accusative tC in the functions listed in 2.4.2. τί as a causal question-word τί as a potentially ambiguous question-word The role of context and situation Conclusion Elements appearing in answer Adverbs Nouns, noun phrases Prepositional phrases Participial constructions

to

&

INTRODUCTION 1.1. The problem 1.2. A short sketch

Down

l.

=

PREFACE

in

τύ ("why") -questions

Φ

u

XII

2.16. 2.17. 2.18.

Subordinate Sentences Conclusion

2.19. 2.20.

Coordination-patterns: ADJUNCT CAUSAL Correlative patterns: ADJUNCT

2.21.

Conclusion

QUESTION-WORDS:

. πότε .

and

CAUSAL

ADJUNCT

other

Nouns,

noun

. Participial - Subordinate .

SEMPORAL

question-words

Answer-constituents

. Adverbs . Prepositional -

clauses

phrases phrases

constructions clauses

Sentences

- Conclusion 0. Coordination- patterns:

& e

1. 3.12. 3.13. 3.14.

ADJUNCT SEMPORAL

Restrictions on the coordination of ADJUNCTS TEMPORAL Correlative patterns: ADJUNCT Conclusion TEMPORAL General conclusion to chapters 1, 2 and 3

SOME SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF A NUMBER TEMPORAL AND CAUSAL SUBORDINATE CLAUSES IN ENGLISH Objective of this chapter After, when Because 4.3.1. General syntactic features 4.3.2. Because- clauses in questions 4.3.3. Non-adjunctive because-clauses 4.4. Since I: temporal 4.5. Since II: causal 4.6. As 4.6.1. As I: temporal 4.6.2. As II: causal 4.7. The semantics of since/as and because 4.8. Ae III: temporal and/or causal 4.8.1. Factors determining the interpretation 4.8.2. An ambiguous example 4.9. Now that 4.10. Conclusion

OF

4.1. 4.2. 4.3.

THE INTERPRETATION CONSTITUENTS

5.1. 5.2.

OF

ἐπεί-,

ἐπειδή-

Preliminary remarks ἐπεί 5.2.1. Factors determining

AND

of

as

of

£nel

énette-

67 the

interpretation

67

Examples to be discussed Discussion of examples The nature of the factors given in 5.2.1. Additional remarks on ἐπεί 5.2.5.1. Temporal ἐπεί 5.2.5.2. Inferential ἐπεί 5.2.5.3. Motivating ἐπεί ἐπεί and γάρ 5.3.1. The syntactic status of motivating Enel-clauses 5.3.2. Some constructional peculiarities of ἐπεί and 5.2.2, 5.2.3. 5.2.4. 5.2.5.

5.3.

γάρ

5.4.

5.5.

5.6.

THE 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4.

74 77 78 79

81

5.3.3.Conclusion Problems: temporal following énet-clauses 5.4.1. Preliminary remarks. Examples to be discussed 5.4.2. Recapitulation of the semantics of motivating ἐπεὶ 5.4.3. Discussion of Hdt. 6,137,4. Related examples 5.4.4. Are the examples of 5.4.3. indeed temporal? 5.4.5. Discussion of Hdt. 3,72,1. Related examples

83

5.4.6.

Discussion

93

5.4.7. 5.4.8. ἐπειδή 5.5.1. 5.5.2. 5.5.3. ἐπείτε 5.6.1. 5.6.2.

Conclusion Residual examples

5.6.3. 5.6.4.

6.

68 69 72

of

Hdt.

General remarks Additional remarks Problems

7,176,4

OF

85 86 89 90 93 94

on

ἐπειδή:

inferential

General remarks Additional remarks on ἐπείτε 5.6.2.1. Temporal ἐπείτε 5.6.2.2. Inferential ἐπείτε Problems Other usages of ἐπείτε 5.6.4.1. ἐπείτε τάχιστα and ἐπείτε... 5.6.4.2. ἐπείτε "ever since"

INTERPRETATION

85

95 96 98 99 100 101 101

τάχιστα

103 104

®¢-CONSTITUENTS

Preliminary remarks Factors determining the interpretation of ὡςconstituents Additional remarks on ὡς: temvoral More on @c-clauses as temporal adjuncts of simultaneity, circumstance and anteriority 6.4.1. ὡς + imperfect, expressing anteriority? 6.4.1.1. Powell's classification 6.4.1.2. Some cases where ὡς expresses simultaneity 6.4.1.3. A more problematic imperfect: ἐγινόμην 6.4.2. ὡς + imperfect and aorist, expressing circumstance 6.4.2.1. Powell's classification. Examples to be discussed 6.4.2.2. Discussion of examples. Definition of clauses of circumstance

107 107 108

109 110 111

112 114

XIV 6.4.2.3. Some final remarks concerning circumstantial ὡς ὡς + pluperfect, expressing anteriority and/or simultaneity Motivating @c-clauses Öc-clauses expressing "reported speech or thought' ‘Reported thought’ or temporal? 6.7.1. Preliminary remarks 6.4.3.

6.7.2.

Temporal

following

6.7.3.

Examples

where

temporal

interpretation

Residual examples 6.9. Conclusion 6.10. Appendix to chapter

@c-clauses

both

a

‘reported seem

thought’

and

ἐπεί

and

we

in

other

OTHER

TEMPORAL

Ste 7.1.1. \ 7.1.2.

of

AND/OR

énedv-adjuncts 'CAUSAL'

127 128

etc.

EXPRESSIONS

Similarities between Ste ly, ἐπεί Preceding Ste-clauses as

and

ὡς

and,

especial-

‘absolute’

temvoral

‘absolute’

temporal

Φ

u

I

oee

adjuncts

Following

oOte-clauses

as

e

e

e

.5.

=

e

©

@

©

ee

ok

μ

e

…

IM

Ce

Following inferential döte-clauses Motivating Ste-clauses A special usage of Ste: Ste 'explicativum' Conclusion εὖτε, ἦμος . ἡνίκα . εὖτε, ἧμος ther temporal conjunctions: ἕως and tv ᾧ Some general remarks on ἕως and ἐν ᾧ The semantics of ἕως The semantics of tv ᾧ

Me .

NN

oe

.

Ὁ ~~) an

eee

nd TP md md a} md

adjuncts

eo

7.1.

UO

7.

Place

121 121

a

con-

structions: énedv etc. 6.10.1. General characteristics

6.10.2.

117 119 119

123 124 126

possible

6.8.

6:

115

Some observations on other writers 7.3.4.1. Homer 7.3.4.2. Conclusion 7.3.4.3. Attic authors General conclusion to 7.3.4.

. General characteristics . Sti-clauses and circumstantial énet/ac-clauses . Preceding Öötı-clauses and inferential énetclauses . Following Stt-clauses and motivating énet/ O¢-clauses 7.4.5. Öötı-clauses following verba affectuum The causal adjuncts ὡς + participle and ἅτε + participle 7.5.1. General characteristics 7.5.2. Discussion of some examples

131 132 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 143 145 146 146 148 148 149 151 152

XV 7.5.3.

Conditions on the occurrence of ὡς + ticiple-clauses 7.5.4. A problem-case Causal expressions with ὡς and γάρ preceding main clause in direct speech

7.6.

8.

GENERAL

CONCLUSION

par155 156 the 156 159

NOTES

161

APPENDICES

209

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

of

passages

INDEX

of

subjects

SAMENVATTING

223

discussed

229 233 235

1

Introduction

1.1.

The

The

main

that,

problem objective

properly

any,

factors

that

are

a

these

is

not

tion or

extent, types

made

is

briefly

The On

they

state

what

is

expressed

with

in

this

whether

there

between

the

turns

in

ved

junctions

in

their

one

they

ἐπεί

main

section

are

ἐξ

possibly

conjunctions where

they Ste,

of

they

ὡς,

1) temporal ἐπεί

and

and/or On

in

these

the

main

adverbial others; 1

to

whose

other do

tradiin

grammar

be

on

ἐπεί

etc.

(2,445£ff.),

content raise

precedes

the

dealt question

syntactic

differences

the

hand,

other

one

may

of

conjunctions not

What

clauses

a discussion

They

group.

that

these

great

clauses

"Grundangebende

said

interpretation

the

some

and,

clauses

linguistic

Zeitbeziehung”

ἀφ' 00.3

this

remark is

der

semantic in

and

handling in

ὡς,

interpretation.?

the

provide

clause;

οὗ,

entitled

what

add

of

if

clauses

incorrectly,

a causal

introduces

the

are

way

a problem what,

Greek

ἐπείτε,

not

for

to

viz.

Ancient

philological

treatment

hand

answer

ἐπειδή,

or

the

of

and

responsible

in

(Grund)

are,

temporal

"Adverbialsätze

that

a chapter

(2,460ff.), cause

words

ἐπεί,

an

formulated,

the a

by

give

interpretation

traditional

the

to been

the

are

called

is

never

however,

exemplified

a chapter

where

receive

sense.

study

has

Traditionally,

factors

Kühner-Gerth. in

by

5te?!

clear,

which

other

this

determine

introduced

lesser

of

of

speaking,

ἐπεί

re-

Adverbials&tze" clauses clause.

clauses

2)so-called

express The

with

the

clauses

the

reason/ invol-

temporal

substantival

con-

clauses

with

the

lack

of

conjunctions clarity

in

ὅτι,

the

διότι

conjunctions)*,

it

is

up

of

possible

the

the

question

"substantival"

they

in

the

no

way

"purely"

The

topics,

Brandt

in

(1908); s.v.

(1907),

not

sages

who but

seem

to

His

also

The some a

interest,

velopment

these

To

conclude

1.2.

will

A

In

short

the

sions

in

(chapter

framework of

two

of

the

I

to

the

is

for to

that

minor

on

speci-

Monteil in

(1963);

Liddell-

formed

by

Nilsson

individual of

ἐπεί

further the

pas-

that

would

investigation.’

criteria

show

and

between

with

also

use

provide

but

remark

in

chapter

the

content

I will

fact,

shown

and of

not

clauses,

(1954);

on

bring

ἐπεί.

monographs

rule

starting-point

chapters be

that,

3,

since

points

5,

for

the

dif-

historical

investigate to

be

de-

time

we

their

do

result,

that

own,

be

this

and

be

done

which

ὡς-

expreswithin

that

of

the

expressions

It will be shown, Enel-clauses have

from

differs

éne(-

temporal

will viz.

find at all? that causal

could

with

2.4.

and

This

investigation,

etc.

whether

causal

respectively).

ἐπεί

connected

section

general

important

aspect

mantic

on

methodological

of

2 and

most

in

remarks

judgments

section

some

a more

cause/reason

give

and

the

not

finally,

found,

(1885);

to

is,

temporal also

Humbert

valuable

do

“temporal”

discriminate

is

Tietzel

is

to

the

temporal

clauses. 8

discussed

can,

grammars

many

etc.-

sketch

next

Clauses

"causal"

however,

this

be

the

overall

ἐπεί

ambiguous,

issue

and

Kühner-Gerth

exception

has

they

the

important

supposed

suitable

of

called

More

from

with

that

between

are

(1905);

Apart

clauses

we

Greek

only

only

ferentiation of

by

others.

again,

Schwyzer-Debrunner;

suggest

main

ἐπεί

Brackett

Scott-Jones

noticed,

clauses.

other

some (causal

differences

how

presented

e.g.

be

causal

temporal

modifications®, fic

to

indicate

picture

and

terminology

to a se("be-

ὅτι

e.g.

cause") -clauses. In of

chapter

English

4

try

I will

subordinate

a number

establish

to

expressing

clauses

of

characteristics

cause/reason

the objective being, mainly, to give an insight into phenomena involved in the analysis of such clauses. on

the

basis

to

three,

interrelated,

issues:

(i)

the

of

causal

énet-clauses;

(ii)

Chapter

most

5 will

important,

normal,

be

the

declarative

devoted,

their the

chapters

the

status; that

factors

interpretation

of

2,

time,

kind

of

3 and

semantic

particular

syntactic

of establishment speech,

of

and the

(iii),

4,

aspect and in

determine,

Ene (-clauses

as

causal

or

as

number

of

examples

parison

of

clause,

viz.

latively seen to

that

small

to

In

that

by

ἕως;

with 8

"for",

to

and

for

that and

connection points

and

(in

a com-

type

discussion

the

I will

of

of

factors

5.2.1.ff.),

chapter

important causal

a

that

would

re-

were

not

briefly

seem

discuss

ἐπείτε.

be

investigated,

€net-clauses to

an

involve

another

a

which

this

will

devoted

ἐπεί

ἐν ᾧ; ὅτι;

Chapter

of

ἐπειδή

conjunctions,

features

this Other

interpretation

sections

be

γάρ

passages

developed

7 will

In

examined.

of £nel-clause with

6 we-clauses

been

Chapter causal

of

the

introduced

have

type

number later

chapter

be

containing

determine

clauses

expressions.

will

a certain

apply. In

temporal

clauses

would

with

seem,

oc-clauses,

in

along

chapter other

lines

temporal

intuitively,

viz. Ste;

the 5.

to

ἡνίκα;

and/or

share

εὖτε;

some

ἦμος;

ὡς and ἅτε + participle,

presents

a

short

survey

of

the

main

results

of

the

investigation. Finally, ἐπειδή, the

present ὡς

Choice

1.3.1. This

of

study

tion.

is

index

of

Herodotus,

principles

written

This

the

occurrences

arranged

developed

Pinkster

the by

in

its

of

K.L.Pike

a,b)

and

in

of

ἐπεί,

according

chapters

5,

to

6

and

7.

framework S.C.Dik

turn,

has and

of

in

very his

the

so-called

his

1968

book

much

in

common

followers,

see

func-

Coordinawith

e.g.

Platt(1971).

description

information

of

of at

the

least

following four

sentences

different

will

types

have

(cf.also

(1972:4-5)):

(1)

ὁ

(2)

ὁ παῖς

διδάσκαλος

παιδεύεται

by

teacher")

the

ὃ διδάσκαλος

educated (1),

within

developed

grammar

(1967

provide

as

approach,

tagmemic

A grammatical

In

in

method

grammar,

Becker

(3)

ὅτε

General

tional

to

a complete

and

interpretational

1.3.

the

I

ἐπείτε,

παιδεύει ὑπὸ

παιδεύεται

by the

ὃ διδάσκαλος

τὸν

παῖδα

τοῦ

διδασκάλου

ὑπὸ

τοῦ

("the teacher educates

παιδός

("the

child

("the

is

teacher

the child") educated is

child") is

a

noun

phrase

(gategorig)

information);

it

designates

SUBJECT

in

nnn

mantic

a human

the

role;

for

—,—

mic

grammar

on

the

a

human

In

(2)

in

(1):

semantic

is

phrase the

has

to τοῦ

semantic

the

AGENT

(3)

ADJUNCT

can

Advantage

among

point

examples

the

are all

heading:

διά)

common

human

παῖδα,

designating and

the

other

and

it

it

hand,

has

with

being

however,

is

the

the an

has

τὸν

and

the

παῖδα

it

has

the

functions _as_ a prepositional

function

semantic

ADJUNCT

to

the

characterized

as

SUBJECT

approach

by

syntactic

the

study

and

adding

the

function,

AFFECTIVE

of

of

Greek

is

studied

point

of

view.

others,

that

are

of

in

formally

view,

are

similar treated

discussion

of

the

constructions

in

which

and

information,

index

lexical

a

that

tic-semantic

as

grammar

and

are,

be

this

the

expressions

instance,

(se-

and

6

ond

AGENT’

of

a morphological

on

and

AFFECTIVE

in

approach

is

In titagme-

τὸν

and

OBJECT

in

a

syntactically,

syntactic

as

(i)

it AGENT

AGENT.

and

Traditionally,

designates

information)

τοῦ

an

is

used).

phrase

function

characteristics

phrase,

διδάσκαλος παιδός

is

a noun

it

(1970:146).

meaning"

being

meaning), and

e. g. Halliday

syntactic

διδασκάλου,

role

Combining

1.3.2.

the

three

a noun

(categorial

labels

also

| role AFFECTIVE;

SUBJECT. . ὑπὸ

lexical

AFFECTIVE.?

δ᾽ παῖς

it

human;

"grammatical

while

fulfills

role

(is

(syntactic function) term cf.

term

hand,

being,

semantic

this

the

other

being

sentence

that

of

the

to

The

but

one

prepositions

cases

(e.g.

a great

extent

consequences

differ

under

διά

Greek

in

appears

a

such

syntacTypical

Kühner-Gerth

are

section

from

heading.

from

of

given

(for

under

one

"Akkusativ”,

1,293-331); (ii)

expressions

that

are

‚thought

of

as

belonging

under

totally

different

ance

in

Kühner-Gerth

sections:

and

Adverbialsadtze" the

section

on

the

in

causal a

(2,460ff.); διά

but

semantic

Compare,

expressions

section

Sti-etc.-clauses

different

same

headings.

of

yé0-clauses

enel-etc.-

formally

to

on

for in

"Kausale section

causal

διά

+ genitive

finally,

least

on the

be

discussed the

four

Beiordnung"

the

and,

intuitively are

instance, at

in

(1,480ff.),

may

sphere,

appeardifferent (2,330ff.);

"Grundangebende and

accusative

‘causal’

use

of

in the

dative

in

further

the

chapter

effect

that

discrepancies undertaken One

these

(see

also an

in

1.3.1.

ments

that

ly.

For

τὸν

παῖδα too,

(1) it

and

would

possible

than

other

to

as

of

1.3.3.

Methodological

On

more

the

tation tic

of

devices,

word?") be

said

of

it

of

languages.

of

obtaining

the

Pinkster

the

not

of

infor-

syntactic

types

and/or

formally

differ

brought

to

light for

In

the

case

of

causal

profitable

to

to

try

causal

of διά

the

take

to

on

ele-

systematical-

(3),

and

and,

between

and

present will

being

possible other

of

be

the

the

former

expresthe

syntac-

delimitate

such

as

expressions,

merely

issue,

be

made

that

after

of

this

together

viz.

of

the

interpre-

a number

of

heuris-

question-answer particular

elements?").

others

admitted

In

my

opinion

of

a

than

speakers like

the

differences

relationships

use

study

large

smaller

on

of

which

reliable

a

tests

of

hand,

(1)

instance,

chapter 4, are

for

marks

is

preliminaries

and

must

use

tably

“cause”

("which On

both

possi-

questionelements

more

can

will

be

developed

in

2.1.1]

living

native

use

coordination-possibilities

with

tests,

tests

when

for

is

no

even

this

in

more

mutual

item

4,

the

the

level

of

be

(2).

be

("which

these

chapter

to

important

that

the and

one

that

starting-point,

most

below,

Of

can

the

and

the

semantic

in

etc.-clauses,

coordinated

has

similarities

614.!°

specific ἐπεί

bilities

a

discuss,

usages

All

the

expressing

makes on

ὁ διδάσκαλος

seem

precisely rather

of

of

elements

and/or

ὁ παῖς

side

with

that

alike,

cf.

tic-semantic as

ways

that,

between

formally

latter,

in

is

syntactic

are

the

sions,

approach

similarities hand,

(1,438ff.).

discussion

different

of

other

dative

1.1.).

outlined

semantic

the

serious

advantage

mation

the

of

on

a

is

for a

dead of

connected

(1972:9££.)).

have

is

in

does

supported texts

not

those been

by

taken

-

entail

frequent into where

the

study

of

the

with

case

modern,

being

in

a dead

of

possibilities

attestations

consideration, the

especially

in

their

the

structures. (For some

with

and

connection

however,

language,

advantage,

question-answer

problems

this

language;

a modern

great

e.g.

they

- developed

results

corpus

used,

that

availability connection fundamental language,

are, ineviof

with resee

1.4.

Choice

The

of

author

material

chosen

a

1)

2)

a prose-text,

being

would

his

as

reasons:

hamper

the

3)

piled

J.E.Powell.

This

is

rodotus 5th-

and

As

for

as

an

very

the

from

reader

consent"

primarily extend to

be

on

drawn

and

be

in

his

comedies

on

edtttons

Only

into of

since

of

Plato

in

of

the

part.

these

phrase

Homer,

and

cautious.

a picture

the

but

later,

Taking heaving

subject,

concerning

is

limited

I will

the

occasionally

Homer

that

not

validity

will

of

examples

consideration,13 the

the

makes

He-

for

pro-

account

that

presents

claim

for

hold

case.

more

study

Odyssey.

taken

hope,

com-

writers,

and

Herodotus!?;

my

application

Aristophanes,

found

for

at

they

other

particular

he

are that

especially

of full,

this

be

that

synchronic

Iliad the

think

automatically

two works

conclude,

in

I will

used, viz.

that

detailed

I

in

authors,

authors

in a

corpus; that

arrived

is

general,

trust,

apply

were

results

number

graeca

following

uniform

lexicon,

claim

giving

will

does

that

heavily to

from

from

these

To

Historia

texts

good

the

my in

different

results

him;

a

not

a

suppose

checked

I do

to

I

a

the

and

peculiarities

poetic

writers

example, to

if

for

large

other

disposal

for

pre-5th-century

venture

and

therefore,

Hellenistic,

myself

rather

4th-century

the

means

notably

that only

however,

investigations; "silence

say

our

Xenophon's

refrain,

Herodotus,

a

metrical

at

valid

have,

and

will

to

be

I

Lysias,

have

early

saists. I

not

to

is

form

investigation

avoided; by

we

basis

Histories

question-answer

considerable him

test

relies

of

dialogues

number

particularly

suitable

for

this

purpose. 1.5.

A

Greek

note

authors

and

etc.

their

works

Liddell-Scott-Stuart Jones the

Iliad

letters, ding as

K-G

Odyssey

respectively.

to

The

and

L'année

grammars and

"Powell".

S-D, The

will

be

Kühner-Gerth

respectively; English

be

A

grammar

cited

referred and

of

the

and

accordance

to

by

capital

Bibliographie is

however,

and

periodicals

Lexicon

with

Lexicon; are

small given

Greek accor-

lingutettque.

Schwyzer-Debrunner

Powell's of

in

Greek-Engltsh

Abbreviations

philologique of

will

(LSJ),

will

be

cited

referred

to

as

Quirk-Greenbaum-Leech-Svartvik

will

be

cited

are

as

"Quirk

et

usually

either

borrowed

al.".

English

from

Conventional

signs

(ungrammatical)

and

"::"

(change

the

form

"Note

References the

present

of

chapter".

include:

"?"

Otherwise,

translations

Loeb-editions

of

or

(grammaticality

of 23"

Greek

based

examples

upon

them.

doubtfull),

"5"

speaker). have

the

to

be

read

chapter-nunber

as

"Note

will

be

23

in

added.

2

The

functions

ADJUNCT

and

CAUSAL

ADJUNCT „EMPORAL

2.1. The

Objective main

whether and

(1)

seem,

This

The

“question-word" in

and as

within

the the

constituents

out

following

device:

do

an

which

to

we

examine

ADJUNCT. of

a

find

in

investigation

heuristic

is,

devices!:

constituents

a particular

is

framework

carry

such

one

functions

are

possi-

question-word,

in

this

"when"-words?

with

semantic

following

which

following

and

the fulfil

done

"coordination"-device:

coordinated

(111)

the

the

“why-"

to

and can

be

viz.

way

of

answers

three

chapter

ble the

and

will

best

by means

case, (ii)

this

investigation,

functions?

it would

of

two

and’ @c-constituents

pe wpORAL’

general

these

chaptere

objective ἐπεί-

ADJUNCT

more

of

a certain

role

of

the

which

constituents

do

other

constituent,

the

latter

being

accepted

-a

we

find

function priori-

established?

the

"correlative

find

pattern"-device:

corresponding

to

a certain

which other

constituents

constituent?

do

we

(type

when... then) .2 2.2. The tC

Question-worde: following ("why");

ADJUNCT opysar

question-words διὰ

τί

("for

what

are

relevant

reason”,

for

"“why");

the

present

κατὰ

τί

inquiry:

("for

what

sar,

10

reason",

“why");

("what

for",

("what these

for",

The

Before tt

or

and

2.3.

ing

“why")

words

status

a

hibits

semantic

a wide

Some

range

open

the

such,

(la)

and

the

and can the

deal

τίνος ἕνεκα

to

less

their

Most

of

syntactic

clear.

question-word

at

reason

of

possible

some

length

for

possibilities rather

περὶ

τίνος phrases.?

as

is

causal

the

doing and

of

so

is

may,

different,

possibilities

answers with

follow-

the

use

that

τί

therefore,

be

interpretations."

noun

phrases

in

the

point

and

all

and

TIE

the

the

independent

of

view

accusative

τί

("who"),

as

can

neuter

which

a determiner

functions

accusative

-provisionally-

singular

that case

can with

can (at

be

form

be

of

used

both

a neuter fulfilled

present,

be

said

the

interinde-

noun.>® by

I will

only

use).

SUBJECT PREDICATIVE with the copula εἶναι ("to be") and MIT COMPLEMENT, 5 like. Some examples of τί in these functions are (SUBJECT): ἂν

τούτων

("For

γὰρ

what

could

(Lys.

2,73).

ἀνιαρότερον be

more

γένοιτο,

grieving,

fl τεκεῖν

than

to

μέν...

bring

As

nouns.

Nominative

τί

of ex-

accusative

attributively

nominative

prepositional problems

a discussion

other

lexeme

fulfil

a

I will

several,

pronominal

it

2.4.1.

the

of

to

nominative

consider

(11)

upon

a morpho-syntactic

be

as

"why");

“why");

t(,however,

τί

constructional

pendently,

(1)

aspect;

no

way",

way",

other

"why"-question-word;

rogative

in

some

of

what

what

present

then,

nominative

to

("in

("in

question-words,

potentially

From

and

phrases

entering,

as

τίνι

πῶς

reliability

these

2.4.

τρόπῳ

"why");

forth...?")

11 (PRED. (1b)

COMPLEMENT) τουτὶ

2.4.2.

τί

ἦν;

("what

Nouns

in

(1)

DIRECT OBJECT

(11)

the accusative

OBJECT

(111)

that?")

(Ar.V.183)

ADJUNCT it

may

bove

not

and

as

with

verbs

OBJECT,

be

immediately

I first then

certain

7

RESPECT

labels,

tions,

cgan function

COMPLEMENT

SECONDARY

_(iv) As

was

Accusative

give

some

clear

some

what

examples

instances

of

is of

meant

by

‘real’

(some

nouns

of)

in

the

these

a-

func-

τί.

(1) OBJECT (2)

κατεστρέψατο and

Of

the

course,

object

the

in

μὲν “Ιωνάς

Aeoleans...")

the

vast

they dispense

(11)

OBJECT

(3)

νόμιζε

majority

accusative

that

te

καὶ

Αἰολέας...

("he

subdued

the

Ionians

(Hdt.1,6,2) of

case;

verbs

in

Greek

have_

ir

K-G

found

this

apparently,

altogether

with

(obligatory) use

so

common

a list of examples.

COMPLEMENT τὴν

μὲν

πατόΐδα

olxov

("consider

your

country

your

home...)

(X.Hier.11,14) Next

to

a

noun

gatory- second noticed,

in

constituents ‘country To

is

this

the

fact,

that

appear

type

τοῦτο...

function

function,

in

considered

we (4)

in

also

called

the

(τὴν

verbs

nominative:

one's

home").

belongs,

πατρίδα)

we bavae-an-oblin.

here OBJECTCOMPLEMENT,®

when ‘these

Her οὐδὲν

OBJECT

For

are

ἡ

It should

passivized we

πατρὶς more

οἶκος

examovles

probably, a construction

have

the

νομίζεται see

K-G

be same

("one's

(1,318-9).

like:

7 ϑαυμαστὸν

λέγεις

("that

is

not

astonishing,

what

you

12 say

there",

(Pl. (111)

lit.

"you

say

that

as

SECONDARY

Ἡριππίδας laus

We

have

αἰτεῖ

for

here

struction,

what

As

when

functions

as

in

called

oo

from

the

the

asks

Agesi-

both

OBJECT

discussed

SEC

OBJ

coming

and

being

marked

that

in

back

in

Thus

the

passive

ὁπλίτας

ὑπὸ

᾿Ηριππίδου.

for

with

the

the

an

active

function

countervart

of

accu-

has

to

OBJECT

COM-

construction

(nominative), the

con-

(equally

this type

(ii),

SUBJECT

accusative” another

indicates,

under

constituent function

"double

OBJECT

the

consti-

OBJECT (5)

and

would

-also

concerned process

specifies of

fulfilled

ἀλγεῖν gards

number

state

precisely the

in and

in

verbs

a noun

other

transitive

a

of

be provided express

or

by

See

K-G

be:

(1,324ff.).!

ecpecr

verbs

verbs

(6)

OBJECT,

the

αἰτεῖται

that might

for

one

("Herippidas

the

function

takes

function

junct

and

ὁπλίτας

traditionally

SECONDARY

passivized

ADJUNCT

Certain

subject

astonishing")

----..

ὁ AynolAaoc

tal-

all

4,1,21)

SECONDARY

term

OBJECT

the

(X.HG

keeping the accusative.

(1v)

at

#-\

“Αγησίλάον

(obligatory)

the

distinguished

tuent

is

an

function

sative case. PLEMENT:

τὸν

hoplites”)

i.e.

obligatory)

be

not

OBJECT ——

(5)

something

Prot.318b)?

in

the

the

way

respect

some

the

in

this

(see

an optional, ad-

RESPECT.!! The

-often the

process

physical

function or

applies

function

1,315ff.

Examples

or

men-

ADJUNCT WESPECT

state

This

K-G

function).

take

label

predicates).!2

accusative in

can

semantic

constituent

rather

constituents

the

a general

what

(or

adjectives-

with

for are,

to

may

the

be

examples, with

in-

verbs:

τοὺς the

πόδας

feet")

("to have

painful

feet"

lit.

"to have

pain as re-

(X.Mem.1,6,6)

Se

(7)

οὐδὲν

διοίσεις

different concerned")

with

transitive

from

Χαιρεφῶντος Chaerepho,

(Ar.Nu.503)

verbs!3:

τὴν as

φύσιν

far

as

("you your

will

natural

absolutely disposition

not is

be

13 (8)

τί

τὸ

δέρμ'

(Ar.Pax

Sometimes (9)

we

find

ὅστις... of

2.5.

an

τί

After in

the

(1)

(11)

brief in

as

τί

listed

τί

suffer

as

regards

your

skin?")

Av

do

note

εὐδαίμονος (5.01

listed

2.4.2.

in

of

some

I will

examples you

in this

ὄλβου

1197)

by

function!", e.g.

("he...

won

the

prize

15

constructional

proceed

out

say?")

Enadov,

if...")

κατηγορεῖ

pronoun

vossibilities

giving

examples

of

tl

above.

Three

("What

undergone, (12)

πάντ'

accusative

OBJECT.

δ'

you

fortune")

enumeration

the

plc;

τί

did

"universal!

τοῦ

functions

functions

τί

(14

a neuter

ἐκράτησε

the

this

nouns

("What

all-prosperous

in

of

EnaSec;

746)

El...

many:

("What

(Lys.3,38)

(sc.uou):

of

(Ar.Lys.70)

("Of

(treatment)

should

I

have

5 what

does

she

accuse

me?")

(Ar.P1.1073)16 (11)

TC

in

the

function

OBJECT

COMPLEMENT

_

em

(13) (14)

τί

6'

εἶπας

τί

τόδε

again,

ἡμᾶς;

("What

δέρκομαι that

again")

veoxudv

I see?";

did

you

ad

τέρας;

lit.

"As

call

us?")

("What

what

do

I

(Ar.Ach.580) is

see

this this

new new

portent portent

(Ar.Th.700)17

(111) τί in the function SECONDARY. OBJECT (15)

τί

€6¢6aEdv

(iv)

tl

in

ti

γὰρ

(16)

this

the

oe;

function

ταῦτα,

differ

dv from

After

these

examples

I

give,

to

now

("What did ADJUNCT οὗτος what of

complete

they

τί the

you?")!®

„EspEcT

ἐρεῖ, his

teach

διαφέρει

opponent

being

used

picture,

("In

will

what

independently some

respect

say?")

examples

does

(Lys.10,12) in of

these τί

used

functions, attribu-

14 tively (17)

with ri

a

headnoun.

προσδοκῶσαι

advantage?")

ἔχει

δέ

(18)

μοι

advantage By

way

word, In

of

the

noun,

now

as

a

principle,

be

to

This

for

appears We

are,

the

following

the

τίνα

next

the

one

above

τί

for

nominal

by

a

was

nouns.!? of

compares

justified

striving

after

τί

to

By

to

in

ex.(16) τί

or

a

causal

what

dis-

of

as

section.

a

'real'

therefore

this

these

it

fact,

τί

functions,

nominative

with

question-

preceding

function

virtue

categories

calling

as

the

constituent;

a noun

e.g.

in

on

seen

advantage

1350)

conclusion

morpho-syntactic

then,

or

("What

(E.Ion

section,

a general

given

βλάβην;

me?")

characteristics

when

τί.

to

answered

the

for

have

substitute

be

have

marked

fi

this

provide

("Expecting

1311)

κέρδος...

functions

i.e.

said

τί

does

fl ϑηρώμεναι;

(E.IT

transition

I will

all

in

κέρδος

what

ex. (7),

pro-

can,

can

be

namely

to

and

accusative.

τὴν

φύσιν

a

pronoun.

This

is

not

still

alive?")

(Ar.Th.868)

versus

so

in

cases.

2.6.

τί

ae

a

causal

(19)

τί

οὖν

(20)

τέ

ποϑ'’ ἄνδρες

ἔτι

question-word

ζῶ;

("Why, οὐχ

then,

am

ἥκουσιν;

I

("Why

do

the

men

not

show

up?")

(Ar.Ec.877)

eee

(21)

In

τί

ταῦτα

of

that?")

(19)

ἥκω,

and

"double

these

pectively. that

to

(20)

we

object”,

τι; were

be

tions native

αἰτιώμεϑα;

("Why

find

and OBJ

τί

in

and

constructed

(21)

with

SECONDARY

functions

are

OBJ,

fulfilled

other

words,

τί

discussed

above,

does

not

in

where

τί

could

of

such

marked

for

the

examples

this

accuse

accusative entails

nominative

(19)-(21)

or

the

by

be

a

an

the

Laconians

intransitive

is τοὺς

here

any

in

accusative

terms,

as

these case.

could

not

be

answered

should

not

be

viewed

of

by

and the

the

ζῶ

with

viz.

Λάκωνας

viewed

noun

verb,

constructed

functional

fulfil

characteristics

or

we

that

here

the

of

do

with

a verb

with

noun,

All

In

Λάκωνας

(Ar.Ach.514)

respectively,

τινά

a

τοὺς

αἰτιῶμαι ταῦτα

substitute

Thus,

the

in

res-

functions

functions,

a noun

and

a

of

i.e. ques-

the

nami-

case. that

ti

here

as

an

inflected

form

15

of

the

pronominal ‚lexeme, LIE

chronically From

a

might That

Homoptionous

by

(22)

are

τί

με

δῆτ᾽

bring

me

„ygp

in

following

rather, the

point

ADJUNCT

justified

the

but,

with

syntactic-semantic

be labelled we

ted

is

of

as

neuter view

we

an

adverb,

nom.

and

acc.

have

here

a

that

syn-

of

ΤΙΣ. 20

function

that

ΟΣ ADJUNCT po RPOSE ‚2!

assigning

these

labels

to

τί

may

be

illustra-

examples:

ἔτικτες;

::

forth?"

ἵν’ ἐμοὶ...

::"In

order

napéxnc:

that

you

("Why

may

then

give

did

me...

you

")

(Ar.V.312)

(23)

τί

σκορδινᾷ

yawn

and

καὶ

are

δυσφορεῖς;

you

::

ὅτι

impatient?"

αὐτὸν

ἐξελέγχω;

::"Because

I

("Why

am refuting

do

you

him")

(Ar. Ra.922) In

(22)

éxnc;

we in

find, (23),

as the

an

answer

answer

to

is

τί,

in

the

the

purpose-clause

form

of

a causal

ἵνα...

ὅτι

nap-

("becau-

se-")clause.22 2.7. In

tl the

as

ristic

of

τί:

if

or

as

mentioned

instances

be

presented

ing

(I

clear give

interpretation (1) (24)

τέ as

a

καίτοι

that

in

It

below

in

one

of

el

appears one

be

their

of

τοῦτο ("Yet,

if

for

a causal

πείσει

τινὰς he

more)

to

of

the

these

end

in

esta-

charactein

isolation,

a questionthe

functions the

the cases

since

above

that

it is possible

sentences,2" are

remarks

of

be

unlike

ambiguity some

as

that,

ambiguity,

reserving

context

(or

a poly-

can

taken

taken

τί ((22) and (23)), speak

as

which

are

be

noticed

(potential)

isolation,

function of

to a general

should

fulfils

this

to

me

grammatical description

subject or as

ροῦσθαι...

τί τί

should

can

said

brings

which

of polysemous

examples them

This

in

be

interpretation

whether

(2.4.1-2).

to assign more than one Some

data.*?

constituent

above

will

exact

unclear

discussed

question-word

(23) τί can

the

sentences

often a

ambiguous

and

by contextual

rather

word,

(22)

question-word,

blished is

potenttally

examples

semous

it

a

this

the

on

follow-

their

final

section):

question-word. ὑμῶν,

should

ὦ

βουλή,

persuade

any

τί

με

of

you

κωλύει on

κλη-

this

point,

16 gentlemen”,

then

a

drawing

a lot for

(ii)

τί

as

lot

two

drawing

for

question-word.

I

found

have

no

Nevertheless,

does

of

not

τί

seem

"...

"Why

what

does

he

hinders

me

hinder

me

from fron

(Lys.24,13)25

complement

instances

it

or

elections?")

a predicative

causal

possibilities,

elections?"

with

being

εἶναι

and

the

interpretable

unreasonable

to

like,

in

assume

or

these their

as

two

a

ways.

existence.

E.g.:

(25)

τοῦτο "Why

(26)

τί

τί

Av;

was

("What

was

that?"

("What

has

e.g.

Ar.Ra.39;

possibly

sometimes

of

or:

did

that?")

τοῦτο

ἐγένετο;

become

that?"

"Why

this

happen?") (iii)ti (27)

as

τουτὶ

object τί

δρᾷ

drink-cup this?") The with

x.

τὸ

here

as

a causal

χαλκιδικὸν

do?"

or

question-word.

ποτήριον;

"Why

does

("What

the

does

Chalcidean

this

Chalcidean

drink-cup

do

(Ar.Eq.237)

alternatives τὸ

or

here

ποτήριον,

are or

(a) (Ὁ)

τί

object

τουτί

of

object

δρᾷ

of

and

δρᾷ

and

τουτί τί

attribute

causal

question-

word,26 (iv) τί (28)

as

τί

τί

τοῦτ᾽

I

τί as have

a

found

following

complement

ἔλεξας;

that?"

there?" (v)

object

τοῦτ’

say (29)

an

("What

-or: ἔχεις

or:

"Why τὸ

“Why

secondary no

clear

example

is

or

did

did

you

object examples not

say

say ("What

have or

a causal

you

you

σκληρόν; do

as

as of

completely

that

there”

that?") is

lit.

"As

what

did

(S.Ph.1173)

that

hard

a causal this

question-word

hard

thing?")

thing

you

have

(Ar.Lys.748)

question-word.

possible

unambiguous:

ambiguity,

but

the

you

17 (30)

αἰτοῦσιν for

then?" Notice, tence

οὐκ

"Why

however,

as

τί

κάμνεις;

you (ν11)

an

that

τί

"Why

2.8,

The

role

an

example

used

ti

and

Now,

as

I

have

presented called

in

σ΄ ἔπος;

do

I

have

said

ambiguous.

and

guous

in

actual

discourse.

ples,

by

taking

the

Example From

is

out:

is

the

not

for)

the

τί

δαί.27

first

sen-

lit.

"in

what

part

are

(Ar.Nu.708)?®

the

do

in

choice

is

I have to

between

an

at-

one:

to

speak

you?")

to

(Ar.Par

you?", 520)

beginning), their

course, This

does

will

context

all

context; not

be

mean

made

into

these

as

cases

such, that

clear

were

they they

now

for

could

are

be

ambi-

some

exam-

consideration.??

and

from

the

of

general

speaker's

opponent

of

course,

especially

to

his

very

opponent

probable

situation

tl...xwAveLt

which

here.

Cf.

is

as

not

in

a

it

"why

hindering lawsuit,

the

latter

also

note

him a

is

be-

does

he

hin-

and,

speaker

not

really

you

destroy-

25.

(28):

Philoctetes

says:

ed

have

the

ask

ask

question-word.

independent

a word

interpretation

something

this

Example me?

for

causal

pain?”

word

(2.7.

sentence an

ultimately,

impute

doing,

that

ruled

although may

don't

they

situation

omitted

preceding

clear

der”

(do

(24):

the

comes

rich

"What

ἀργύριον

sick?") where

without of

a

causal

speak

before

This,

a

("What to

context

isolation,

you

οὐκ

as

feel

I give

of

are

("The

::

alternative

or

you

"Why

προσείπω

of

first

respect do

δαί;

((Ar.Pl.156)

or:

tributively

or:

of

τί

unspecified)

presence the

("Where

sick?",

yonotol.::

that?")

the

adjunct

Finally,

(32)

is

ol asked

strongly "to

τί

(31)

(person

or:

points

(v1)

ἀργύριον

money”.

What

words

additional

quoted:

τί you tt

information

μ' ὥλεσας; done

to

τί u’elpyacar; me?”).

τοῦτ’ ἔλεξας; as

to

the

The They

exact

("Why

Chorus, should meaning

have

surprised, be of

taken

as

then

utters

asking

Philoctetes'

for.

ques-

18 tions,

not

for

answer

by

which

("If

you

ἄξειν have

the

me”

taps

discovers

σκληρόν; would

is

some

one

she

δίον

"a

boy”.

2.9.

Conclusion

baby

been were

in to

of

those

say

-

nominative

and,

cannot it

said

sative

The

how

is

to

be

case;

many

account,

the

Philoctetes'

εἰ

ob...u’fAnıoac

something

to

be

like

be

possible

to

be

marked

"you

it

that

is

should

dealing

the

substitute verbs

In

marked be

with

here

for

was

takenin

could

the

be

isolation,

interpreted

role

of

the

in

i.e.

context

a

cha-

can

be

- which such

is

quest-

catego-

noun(-phrase),

in

one

the

the way.

τί or

such

ADJUNCT

leaving in

e.g.

OBJECT-function

nominative

adverb

than

is

hand,

the

it

therefore,

termed

more

one

following

the

the

an

the

exhibits

you nat-

in other constructions

cases,

for

called

about

ἄρρεν

morpho-syntactic

where

such

this

thing

noun(-phrase)

answers

for

hard

On

τί

τὸ It

of

constituent: a

belly

ἔχεις

answer:

note 21) .3°

sentences

sentences.

a

fulfilled.

a pronoun are

as

the

where

for as

the

movement.

that

functions.

On the other hand,

intransitive

is

by

pronominal

substitute

viewed

with

of

on

τοῦτ’

specification

"What

OBJECT,

a

τί

some

confirmed

and

pregnant,

interpretation

for (1)

are

and accusative.

Cf-

natural

number

a

be

inside.

Lysistrate's

asks

in

SUBJECT

nouns

we

most

appear

only

all-important

those

of

-interrogative-

rather,

ti

counterpart

is

already

ypposp?

In of

also

which

to

hard

This

cases,

found

pretends

right.

like

possibly

is

function

JUNCT

with

alternative

accordingly,

functions) be

Cf.

questions:

something

Lysistrate

thus,

to

an

that

ries τί

spoken.

supplied).

that

be

shown

ions

when

are

earlier

me...",

who

is

which

functions

racteristics said,

woman,

finds; must

not

be

there

in

there",

has

take

linguistic

have

ti

to

therefore,

is

thing

there

to

has

that the

seem,

question the

they his

(29):

Lysistrate and

why

clarifies

expected

destroyed

Example

reason

he

(or

cannot

the

accu-

constructions.

CAUSAL

(or

context It

was

disambiguation

ADout shown

of

19 2.10. In

A

residual

2.7.

I discussed

“object”

and

a

particularly emotions). Mostly,

τινι

one")

a

we

find

etc.;

Εὐνίκα

This the

an

ical

to

we

td

when

te

γελᾷς;

this

is

ambiguous: lach

addressee ing.

is

between

the

blurred

in

from

thing

son

for

. Now

to

my we

the

using

thing

which

an

difficulty

is

(expressing

the

prepositional

something"),

sometimes

we

verb

yeAdw

phrases,

πρός

find

it

τινα

used

e.g.

("at

some-

transitively,

e.g. φιλᾶσαι

("Eunice

first

time

with

but

this

may

forms

with

infinitive

I,

laughed

at

me

when

20,1) a personal

be

mere

personal

object

chance.

In

subjects,

(cf. class-

e.g.

in

the

construction:

being

brother")

γελᾶσϑαι

the

(5.00

τοῦ

oldest,

am

κασιγνήτου being

πάρα

laughed

at

1422-3)

1066) may

be

object

comparable

speaker about,

laughed

or

like the

ask he

that

may

and

(That

Waarom

for

at/about"),

lach of

for

the for

daarom?,

"thing"

the

of

his

laugh-

distinction

laughing daarom

waarom

in

the

distinction

where and

a causal

waarom

possible

a possible

laughter

or

Dutch

reason

this

reason

is

je

the

with

specific

cases

the it

the

ask

in many

about

object

("what...

possibilities

may

discourse. is

with

the

however,

actual

come

matter,

between

This

have

laughing add,

this

ambiguous

affectuum

Theocritus

that

have

constructions

the

affectuum

being

verba

πρεσβεύοντ'΄ ἐμὲ / οὕτω

tt

We

je?:

I might

τί

((Pseudo-)

passive

(Ar.Paz

question-word.

But

loc.),

and

by

(35)

Waarom

ad

shame...

way

Consequently,

verba

interpretation.

this

object,

for

Gow

find

ἃ

this

into

ϑέλοντα...

accusative

is

of

so-called

someone,

s.v.

here

of

αἰσχρὸν... in

J

kiss ...")

attested

("It

(27),

constructed

about

pw’ ἐγέλαξε

authors

(34)

yeAdw

LS

commentary

following

with

(accusative)

tried

is

example,

so-called

question-word"

briefly

at,

see

(33)

I

go

with

starting-point.

("laugh

with

τί

wide-spread

as

i.e.

an

"causal

I will

("laugh") ent

problem:

is appears

designates

asks

for

a rea-

behaviour).°! back

to

ex.

(35),

I

think

we

have

here

an

example

where

20 the

two

but

in

notions

a

are,

in

non-specific

BoLßot.

Then

his

partner,

λᾷς;

wanting

to

ing,

lexical

expansion

know

("I

laughed

about

say

that

expresses

‘the

fierce

2.11. Having one

appearing at

of

find

the in

the

in

of

original

answers

of

(i)

adverbs

(ii)

nouns,

(111)

prepositional

phrases

+ NP,

+ NP)

(cf.

(cf.

participial

constructions

(v)

subordinate

clauses

(vi)

sentences

2.12.

Adverbs

priori,

class om

or

may

(cf. (i) ..

does

causal

Latin

be

Pinkster they

can

so-called

in

used Lat.

adverbs

consecutive

it

will

cause

γε-

specify-

πιϑήκοις

not

the

that

be

easy

to

expression

of

arise

question-word, this

chapter,

seems,

I

viz.

are

a

his

in

now

laughter.??

connection come

which

possible

case

because

to

back

to

elements

candidates:

for

ideo

of

following

Du.

existence to

view

door

of

Du.

a

daar-

these

words

characteristics

etc.)3"

pattern: etc.

the

+ NP,

instance

point

the

ending) of

expect

syntactic

on Latin daarom

ideo... to

special

+ NP,

others,

a correlative

omdat... are

a

comparable

From among

156-164) in

by for

unreasonable Greek,

exhibit,

also:

(om);

causal

seem

ideirco.?? to

(1972: be

quod;

opdat

not

adverbs

tdeo,

expected

tdeo... (11)

it

of

a

al-

τί

("why")-questtons

problems

it

(marked

(iv)

A

with

yaponotoı

about:

the

sounds, asks:

daarom)

phrases

vanwege

the

categories,

Du.

τί

causal of

replies,

which

laughing,

t(=questions?

Items

noun

a

of

is

sounds,

ffo8nv

laughed

to

of

as

question

to

following

some

then

A,

laughing

those

be called

answer

tt

A

object

as well

least

functioning

part we

could

some

sounds:

monkeys’"), the

person,

only

laugh.

former

fierce

Some

makes

heard

A

his

only

simply

has

made

of

'the

clarified the

blurred.

he

who

what

monkeys'

Elements

with do

it

fact,

manner:

Du.

With

daarom...

purpose

omdat;

clauses:

Lat.

Du.daarom

ut. be

distinguished from,

connectors:

Du.

daarom

and

dus;

can

Lat.

co-occur

ideirco

with,

igitur

.°5

21 (iii)

they

can

M(ember),

en

(iv)

can,

they

sal

occur

Traditionally, wing

and

"causal

γάρ

(ii)

ὅτι,

ordnung

"

der

in

of the

(i)-(iv)

There

however, viz.

τοῦτ᾽

ἀφικόμην,

that

I might...")

ταῦτα

that

δὴ

ταῦτ᾽

οὖν kind ses. of

οὖν

περί

(37)

£n.36) this

use

of

"cognate

In

their

Against

this

case

τί,

Now

as

and

a

separate

other

cf.

class

a discussion

others

the

on

cau-

of

the

cau-

follo-

("then"-consequence) ;

Beiordnung”

general

(2,317ff.);

framework

of

also

my

introduction

cannot

be

said

the

do

to

be

characteristics

exhibit

ταῦτα,

εὖ

reap

at

least

sometimes

(5.07

"Unter1.1.

Now

causal

ad-

described

un-

two

also

of

the

τόδε.37

I

above give

so-

regards

ἵνα

καλὸς

παρὰ

that

δέδοικε

μὴ

διαφϑαρῶ

preparative

(38)

we

have,

τοῦτο next

to

ἴω

go

my this

as

("for

that

a beautiful

causal

adverb

do

view

etc.,

object"-words τοῦτ΄ the see etc.

not

(1,310),

ἀφικόμην

ταύτην

("So

that's

(ταῦτα)

in

the

τοῦτο

τοῦτο

for for

coreason,

reason man

to

why

he

is

afraid

(Ar.V.1358)39

anaphorical

which

came

καλὸν

an

of

reason

"I

I might

of

analysis for

("The

lit.

(Pl.Smp.174a)938

have

in

te

good"

1005)

myself,

μου

we

πράξαιμί some

be ruined")

opinion

“abbreviation” of

that

τοῦτο

man")

I might

and

(cf.

in

exhibit

words

I might

a purpose-clause; nizing

they

I adorned

a beautiful

(36)

some

categories

ἐκαλλωπισάμην,

precisely

that

only

"Kausale

2,225);

ὅπως...

is

(38)

τοίνυν,

with

first.

ming

(37)

In

that

coordinated

omdat.

recognize

called

these

a coordination-pattern:

above.?®

are,

examples

(36)

of

sense

not

provide

also

be

(ook)

("because")

cf.

both

characteristics,

me

do

οὖν,

ἐπεί

(2,347ff.,

members

verbs,

ὡς,

en

instance,

a chapter

of

Mo.

position,

grammars (i)

member

eoque

initial

for in

M,

daarom...

words"

("for")

Ste,

the

K-G,

second

Lat.

in

Du.

Greek

adverbs.

the

Mj;

when

constituents;

sal

as

daarom

τὴν same

in

ἄφιξιν

ταῦτα.

them

K-G,

as

like

(36)

should

ἀφικόμην can

be

τί

while

("I put

in be

with

connector

adverbs,

just

arguments

correlation

consecutive

recog-

but

as

a

comparable cataken

came

this

forward

as

a

kind

arrival"). as

in

the

found

no

ex-

fn.30.%9 in

answers

to

ti-questions,

I

22 ample

of

this

expected

to

panded

by

:: for

this

e.g.

"daarom") English

use.

reason,

or

some

annoyed

Nouns,

It

generally (can

case,

by

a38ff.).

τί οὖν

ἔτι

τί

too

rejoinders

τοῦτο

the

same

the

cannot

they

("that's

ex-

why",

happen

answers

side

be

are

[Tva...("why...?

would

informative,

from

that

nouns

ADJUNCT

case-ending,

the

fact,

ζῶ; :: τῶν the

one with

such

can

of

the

function

usa)’ in

as

being

so-called

nouns

δὲ

κοράκων

depravity

of

Du.

as

are

in

mostly

addressee."!

the

causal

marked,

dativus

dative

modiin

that

causae.

(K-G

in

answers

to

am

I

alive?

would

expect

For

taGt'

προσδοκῶν

sqme

ἔδρασ' nadfito

posture,

in

πονηρίᾳ the

("Why

ravens")

then

still

(Ar.Th.868)

the

order

ὁ

of

prepositions (διά

in

them

this

mentioned

διὰ τί;

etc.)

is,

δεῖνα;:: In!

to

indeed,

did

this

fellow

that

the

audience

do

would

2.2.

attested,

ἀλαζονείας,

("Why

in occur

ἵν'

in

in

e.g.

ὁ ϑεατὴς

this?:: Through sit

con-

answers

down,

im-

expecting...")

(Ar.Ra.918-19) (41)

διὰ

τί

δ'

ἄν

προγόνους; cause τί

is

an

example

why") same

of

τις

ἀποψηφίσαιτο

("Why his

answered in

l,

τί-

phrases

“why"-questions

tl-questions.

(40)

simple

function

in

Prepositional

nection

a

not

etc.

unless

TÚ...;:: τοῦτο,

probably

such,

τοῦτο

e.g.

A priori, to

the

find,

:: Through 2.14.

that

questions,

type

With

acknowledged

dative

We

such

phrases

fulfil

questions,

(39)

noun

the

however,

ti-question, where

2.13. is

add,

after

that...").

a

Dutch,

by

fiers

would

readily

a purpose-clause,

after

followed

I

occur

by

with

answer

restrictions

should

τούτου;

acquit

πότερον...;

this

ancestors?")

(Lys.30,26-27)

a

in

tndé-phrase

oÖvexa, to

one

see

t(-questions, as

τοῦτο

(40)

Ar.Ec.559. etc.

this

and As

a

τί,

Is

ἀλλὰ it...?

Suá-phrase

for

would

following

man?

διὰ

seem for

τοῦτο to

be

which

in

διὰ Or

τοὺς be-

(41).

For

("that

is:

subject

to

cf.

2.12.

the

23 2.15.

Participial

Participial

constructions

functions, So

they

in

fact,

(42)

their

may

tl

δὲ

you

also

another be

example

leading we

question

in

(43)

τί

διὰ

verb",

&'

about

see

Ar.Nu.239.which

thought

Goodwin

puts

of

that

or it

modified

example

τις

by

is,

should

(1889:342;

on

that

would

is

leave

the be

this

in

the

subject

these

will

πότερον

acquit

best

it

added

ὡς

more

may

stated

of

participial

said

in

ch.7.5.).

in

answer

to

ὡς

ἀνδρὸς

ἀγαϑοῦ

man?

a

τί-

Because"?

he

(Lys.30,26)

although

I have

is

a construction

in...?")

τούτου,

sure

εἴ

I consider

construction

"what of

ἅτε,

such

παραγεγενημένου

genitive". this

factors. which

παιδάριον

assertion

man

with

ὅτι

A participial

indicates

the

those

a brave

completely

ti-questions,

this?:: Because

has

taken

could

"probably"

should

not

be

napayeyevnuévov

as

be,

a

"participium

alternatively,

on

purpose,

constructed unmodified

an

since

solely by

ὡς,

I

am

with

but

this

is

impossible. comparable

ADJUNCT (44)

τί

δ'

fire I have is,

instance

Lu pposE’

("Why

the

Av

ἀγαϑοῦ...

to

different

contextual

(Ar.Nu.820)"2

as

an

laugh

τούτου;

been

many

on

ἐτεόν;:: ἐνθυμούμενος

you

one

ἀνδρός;

It

answers

("Why

"absolute

A

in

fulfil

depending

ἀποψηφίσαιτο

coniunctum"

not

occur

ὡς, as

and

have

principle,

παραγεγενημένου;

ἀνδρὸς

not

by

stated

constructions,

Probably

did

a child")

modified is

to

ἐγέλασας

be

in

e.g.

τοῦτ'

to

can,

interpretation

expected

actually

participle the

be

exact

attested,

("Why

For

constructione

ad

in ob

did to

found

πῦρ...

you

of

answer

take

wc+future to

a

ἔχων a

(sc.

fire

participle,

t{-question

ἀφίκου) ; ὡς

with

you?

yourself?")

(Ar.Lys.372)

no

of

among

fundamental

examples other

things,

difference

dte+participle possibilities between

is

the

functioning

provided σαυτὸν

(With

the

in

answer

like

participle

as

an

by ἐμπυρεύσων;

intention)

these in

to

to

set

T(-questions.

that Greek,

make

clear

and

that

24 in

e.g.

In

English

are

English or

or

excluded

Subordinate

Among

the

Taking

tors

be

will

amply,

(45)

τί

to

wicks"

wc,

γὰρ

δὲ

For ple,

ask

one is

ὅτι

the

set

is

far

K-G

German. construction,

(2,460-63;

cf.

also

important

qua

fre-

most

ἐπείτε),

for

and

ὅτι,

granted

chapters

5-7),

we

For

perhaps

(the

al-

subordina-

expect

ὅτι

this

τῶν

naxelwv

ἐνετίϑεις

::

Because

you

lamp))

these

is

attest-

(-)

διὰ

μοι.

(-) in

it

ἄν

why

ϑρυαλλίδων in

one

of

the

τίη

me.

τί

::

δή;

Why,

::

why

ὁτιὴ

Tpa-

then?

::

(Ar.Th.84-5)

δεδυστυχήκασιν,

yourself

::

for

seems,

questions. τί

put

(Ar.Nu.58-9)

traps

scarcer;

rhetorical

tre

(-)

ἄλλως one

public

An

φείσαιτο;

δὲ

κόσμιοί

should

life,

but

furthermore,

to

be

con-

example:

spare

πότερον

ὡς

εἰσι... (-).

otherwise

πρὸς

("You

Because

orderly

they

per-

(Lys.14,41) more

example

coordinated

looks

the

a very

of

following like

an

from Herodotus

ἐπεί,

::

have

unsuccessful

ὡς

and

in

punished?

into

χρή

πόλιν

indicative,

the data

or

pourquot.

tl-questions.

tragedies...")

in

sons...")

it

by

the moment

ἐπιβεβουλεύκασί

material

should

Lysias,

why,

seem

Ionic

extenso

I be

women

I make

τὴν

were

where

for

in

γυναῖκες

σκέψασθαι

is

Dutch

a participial

like

that

following

(sc.

Lysias,

μὲν

ture

view

will

("The

the

to

There

Latin,

of

causal

and

κλαύσομαι;

thick

fined

as

three

ἐπειδή

occur

δῆτα

Because

(47)

this

then

γῳδῶ

For

(with

("Why

ai

of

form

e.g.

διὰ

(46)

are

discussed

subordinators ed

viewed

there

ἐπεί

so öte.""

speak

the

clauses

1.1)

ὡς,

to

in

question-words

subordinators

Introduction

not

answers

following

2.16.

quency:

French,

French

material

,

a

ὡς

+ verb.

among

others,

equivalent

suggest."° available

problematic

finitum,

διὰ tl-question

one

at

with

of

Stu,

(cf. in

my

that.

in a

in

this

Lysias,

case viz.

Ötı-clause.

which

is

not

at

a

fu-

30,26-27, Thus,

in

all

what

ch.6.5ff). corpus

amounts

to

one

exam-

25 (48)

πρὸς

ταῦτα

ἐξ ἐπεὶ τὸν

υἱόν

blame

μὴ

τύπτ'

εἰ

σὲ μὲν δίκαιός ("Don't

beat

you,

and

μή,

not’

therefore;

why's

you

σαυτόν

ἐγὼ κολάζειν,

me,

yourself.:: And

chastise

δὲ

εἰμ'

if

that?::

your

son,

αἰτιάσῃ:: nal

od δ' you

Since

if

you

ἣν

do,

once

I have

should

πῶς;

γένηταί the

get

σοι,

you'll right

to

one")

(Ar .NWu. 1434-5) 6 This (1)

passage Taking ask

calls

πῶς

for

Does

a

as

for

some

a kind

reason

reason

reason

will

behalf

of

do

mean

you

for

by his

τί,

i.e.

may

ask:

the

uttering

καὶ

πῶς,

want

blaming

I blame

of

we

himself

myself?"),

Strepsiades by

equivalent

(cf.2.2.),

Pheidippides,

sible

comment.

of

for

that?",

or

the

is

very

perhaps

to

in

the

he

seeking

so?";

for

know

it

to

what?

the

pos-

("For

what

future

uttering

"How

supposing

reason

a motivation

of

these

Dutch

words

could

on ("What

use

11

—_

"Hoezo?"). For

the

(a)

ἐπεί

éne({-clause, is

a

αἰτιάσῃ

σαυτόν,

statement. clauses

(49)

nal

πῶς

why

is

too, which

Thus,

after

φεύγουσί it

there

subordinator,

σ'

that

has

the

πῶς,

are

the

two

whole

to

be

an

supplied

éne(-clause

could

analyses:

ADJUNCT

from

be

oausar,

the

to

preceding

compared

with

ὄὅτι-

e.g.

ἅπαντες;:: ὅτι

they

possible

being

avoid

βελτίους

you?:: Because

αὐτοὺς

I make

nord.

them

("And

better")

(Ar.PL.575-76)

(Ὁ)

ἐπεί

is

not

a

subordinator

provisionally too,

the

from

as

the

the

Semantically, juncts, still,

with for with

of

modifies

such reasons the

with

éne(-clauses

as to

Dutch ἐπεί

γάρ

(a),

the

be

behave

as

for

also

presented

("for").

that

but

immers

to

might

be

called

words."?

near

an

ch.4),

namelijk

English

as

or, or

this

disbetter

German

analysis

study

ydp-clauses,

sup-

adjunct,

below, if

case,

is

an

considered

or

called

as

comes

a detailed

like

which

not

what

be

this

be

compared,

For

In

Strepsiades'

I suggest,

adverb

could

could

αἰτιάσῃ,

however,

motive

(both be

what

(cf.fn.36).

σαυτὸν

a clause, or

rather,

context,

analysis gives

since

Syntactically, correct,

of

that

but,

connector

preceding

case

a disjunct, Clause

causal

éne(-clause

plied in

a

to

of

ja.

is

a number

put

it

brief-

26 ly,

see

Summarizing

chapter

the,

mark

that

(1)

it

(ii)

ἐπεί

may

be

tute

for

ὅτι

As

to

al

is

not

the

too

first

5 on

Taking clause (ii),

we

as

an

affirmative, However, this

I

example

is

for

to

answer

the

by

now

in

the

or

that

on

specific

original

too

perhaps

a

ydp-like

would

cause i.e.

énet-clauses

end

a

not

re-

be

substi-

connector.

an

exception-

interchangeable.

or

reason,

with

question

become

I

Cf.

ὅτι.

question,

have

as

it

discussion,

for;

being

commonly

7.4.

a

this

whether

will

add

chapter

asking

viz.

it

ὅτι

this

asking

reasons?), are

and

is

of

subordinator,

ἐπεί

and

results

πῶς

a

alternative,

answer

could

what

as

(metrical

ἐπεί

πῶς

as

meagre,

clear

viewed

substitute:

chapter

5.3.

rather

of

occur

clear

this

the

for

the

it

of

in

the

t(-questions.

exact

to

énel-

(a)

section

following

that

uncertain,

and

alternative

be

analysis

simply

of

admit-

ted as evidence. A

second

by

type

of

subordinate

purpose-cläuses,

side an

the

scope

of

with this

clause

ὡς,

following

ὅπως,

study,

ἵνα.

I will

tl-questions

Since

confine

these

clauses

myself

to

is

formed

fall

out-

presenting

example.

(50)

τί

με

δῆτ᾽

bring

me

ἐτικτες; forth?

::

::

In

Lv!

ἐμοὶ...

order

that

napéxnc you

("Why

might

give

then

did

me...")

you (Ar.

v.312) 2.17.

In

Sentences

all

the

exception that Now

the

very

often

(51)

which,

assess,

possible One

(48),

fulfil

sentence, to

instances

of

is

discussed can

function τί

is

certainly

out

δῆτα

ing?:: I

of

κλάεις; smell

be

above

said

ADJUNCT

answered

although

in coordination

example τί

τί

its not

an

with

to

((39)-(50)), be

answered

with by

the

possible

constituents

oaysar by

exact

an

=

adjunct;

other

independent

syntactic it

causal

is

- declarative

status not,

is for

difficult instance,

constituents."?

many: :: κρομμύων onions")

ὀσφραίνομαι (Ar.Ra.654)

°°

("Why

then

are

you

cry-

27 2.18.

The

Cenclusion

original

aim

constituents

turn,

was most

as

we

do

of

nouns

and

tested this

as

2.19.

to

pass

in

expect

case

the

different

("and"),

ἀλλά in

could,

The in

phrases,

ὅτι,

rarely

the

case

of

ways. (but

üc-

in

which

con-

result of

-

causal

was

be

that

oc,

con-

and

whole which

t(-questions, only

possible

üc-clauses

cf.fn.45),

-

establis-

adverbs,

the

while

its

a priori

participial with

following

Thus,

and

This,

fact,

énet-constituents,

two

ἐπείof

thought

with in

to

a brief

the

for

are

at-

énet-clauses

to

occur

existing

which

may

be

("but"),

some

fl

often,

however,

coordinations

stituents

involved,

prepositional

that

also

of

other

examples:

-

second

seen

to

fulfil

or

more

that

device

the is,

by

constituents

of

coordinators

are

corresponsive

te...xal

corresponsive

“zero-translation"

indeed,

attested

for

func-

in

- coordinated

relevant

("and");

a

co-

functions the

same

καί

("both...

uêv...6é (asyndeton)).

several

of

the

con-

e.g. phrase

ἃ

Stt-clause.

ἄλλων te πολλῶν ἄξιον ἕνεκα ὑμετέραις ἀρεταῖς χρῆται... duct...")

the

combination,

fulfilled

with

are,

were

in

two

(The te

of

ADJUNCT oa ysar

("or"),

authors

discussion

coordination-device.

constituents

These

Other

be

this

t(-questions

categories.5!

..and"),

many

questions.

might

exceptionally

of

in

viz.

Wa usar

ADJUNCT Oa san’

(52)

such

whether

question

prepositional

only

over

2.1.,

ADJUNCT

("...but",

general

that

arose

used the

ordination-pattern or

more

Coerdinatien-patterne:

may

tion

tl-questions.

unlikely.

how

mentioned

see

to

clauses

analysable

answers

seems

I will

We

be in

being

to

- constituents

phrases),

to

was

answer

following

Difficulties

especially

example

the

subordinate

appear

in

constituents

(noun

sentences. would

with

answer

structions,

section

used

find

the

suitable

hed:

this be

connected

stituents for

of

could

reasons

and

αὐτοῦ ("You

because

he

καταψηφίσασϑαι καὶ ὅτι ταῖς ought to convict him, for uses

your

valourous

(Lys.14,32). Lys.33.1;

Hdt.1,70,1;

2,182,2;

6,128,2.

con-

28 (53)

ὡς

+

"participium

ἃ ὡς + finite

διὰ

δ'

τί

Av

ἀγαϑοῦ ... (...) ἀλλὰ χάριτας;

(54)

τις

("Why

a brave

spent

money?

cause

he

should man's

will

Or

repay

+ participium

λύσονται

τῷ

Ππέρσῃ...

noun

Up

in

for

till

gories

lack

then,

ticiple,

ὡς

clauses,

unmodified

lacking:

adverbs

cf.

fn.49).

not

seem

ταῦτα

of

this

man?

(...)

of

ἃ

ὡς

ἀνδρὸς

then

he

has

because

ancestors?

he

(...)

Or

be-

(Lys.30,26-27)53 in

ὑμέων

the

will

dative

χήτεί

Athenians,

allies,

Because

But

his

noun

ὑπὸ

noun

in

perfect

TE

because make

ἃ participle

we

have

their

case.

συμμάχων

κατα-

you

them

make

peace

with

the

to

members

PREDICATE

καὶ

(and the

ὅτι...

subordinated (Hdt.2,112,

of

the

in

the

also

may

following

Sti-clauses,

nouns

missing

postulate

&

Stt-clause

constructions.

énet{-clauses are

ἃ

phrases,

verb-clauses,

adverbs

risky

dative

(Pl.Grg.515b),5%

found

participal

and

the

participle

prepositional

finite

That

too

prepositional

πότερον

favours?")

involve:

coordinated: +

ἃ

(Hdt.9,11,1)

dative

now,

because

("The

(Hom.460); the

acquit

ἀδικεόμενοι

coordinations

obvexa-clause

τούτου;

coniunctum

ὡς

Other

Sti-clause

in...?

your

δὲ and

one

part

(...)

Persian...")

(55)

ἀποψηφίσαιτο

Αϑηναῖοι suffer

ἃ

verb-clause.°?

παραγεγενημένου; (...) ἀλλ' ὅτι χρήματα δεδαπάνηκε; διὰ τοὺς προγόνους; (...) ἀλλ' ὡς ἀποδώσει τάς

taken

ὡς

2);

coniunctum”

phrase

dative,

Two

be

due

to

of

("For that reason

+ par-

odvexa-

categories

sentences,

existence

cate-

ὡς

of

are

course,

chance;

it

does

coordinations PREDICATE

like:

and

be-

cause...")55 As

for

€ne(-clauses,

ordination act

analysis,

even

if

apart

ted

does

tensive to For

as

a

an

not

and

necessarily

discussion

a

special detailed

of

διότι

is

of (or

possibly

one

6téti-clause, this are

exceptional

non-occurrence the

there

causal

however,

ἐπείτε

set

The

with

passage

entail

this

is

they

will

near-non-occurrence)

semantic discussion

and

syntactic

see

chapter

are of

5;

cf.

being

this of also

in

a co-

The

ex-

problems; can

be

coordina-

synonymous;

found

features

of

coordination

their

be

example

Hdt.9,7,Bl. without

this

(also,

that

passage

in not

coordinated, example

single

viz.

an

ex-

5.6.3.).

type

must

be

due

£nei-clauses. the

conclusion

29 of

section

2.18.

Finally, 2.20.

last

Correlative

Just

as

pect,

we

have

(and

like vice

device,

ἐπεί

and

of

correlative

ADJUNCT A, τοῦτο

ὡς

to

and

be

oa

56

διὰ

tobto...Stt

causal,

ἐπεί...

«διὰ

τοῦτο

versa).

The

construction

(and

vice

constructions

the

versa)

with

we

might

existence

of

and.wc...6t&

ὅτι

is

attested

ex-

construcτοῦτο

amply.

examples:

(56)

nal

νῦν

y'

ὅτι

γυναῖκες

(57)

δι'

Κλεισϑένη

(lit."And

thenes,

for

αὐτὸ

that

γάρ

tor

üc..., For

(58)

διὰ

an

τοῦτο

ἐπειδὴ...ὁ πᾶς τούτων

ὀλίγου for I

τὴν

or

καὶ

διὰ in

διὰ

because

changed

γίγνῃ

you

tobt' they

into

μέγας,

reason

οὐχ

ἐγένοντο had

seen

women")

ὁτιὴ

rise

τοῦτο to

makes

Cleis-

(Ar.Nu.355)

novnpdc...el

high,

because

examples διὰ

λόγον

καὶ

ἡ

("As

match

the

no

with

ποιεῖσθαι

speech

the.city

ὡς

ἱκανὸς

διὰ

πρόσταξιν a

tobto..., correlation

χρόνος

ἔργοις,

preparing

think,

they

this

dpäc,

see,

you

(Ar.Eq.180)57

énev&i-clause

τοῖς

you

τοῦτο for

are...wicked")

elSov,

now,

reason

(lit."Precisely

Of

that

patterns: ὅτι... «διὰ

assuming

tions Two

the

ἴσον

πόλις all

their

turned

up.

cf.:

παρασκευάσαι μοι

time at

δοκεῖ is

deeds,

appointment

have

τοῦτο

(-)

EF

insufficient

for

that

short

reason,

notice")

(Lys.2,1) As

a comment

would kind in

of

the

however,

stances From device

add

to

that

be

authors not

of

ὅτι,

I have

4,3

and

(56)

in may

later of

in διὰ

Hellenistic have

here,

to be used view

bearing

possibly

rather

I have

ἐπεί...,

point

a problem,

is ἐπεί

which

met

9,10. We

that was

and

of

used.°®

a methodological presents

example

possibly,

infrequently

of a type

example

this

(like,

equivalent

Ps.-Longinus

In

I

appear

also

this

upon

its

in

(58),

exceptional:

ex

(48)

found

in

one

ἐπειδή

2.16.),

other

a

example

tobto-constructions authors, then,

more

two

are,

e.g.

isolated

in-

regularly.59

correlative heuristic διὰ

cf.

τοῦτο

patternvalue. can

be

con-

30 sidered

some as

a

is,

a resumptive

expression causal in

only Take,

to

take

as

it

is

not

been

on

its be

a

similar

τοῦτο done

the

it

words

up

it

refers

with

really

(58)

διὰ

Apart

it

indi-

the

εἰ-

as

the

which

one

in

τοῦτο

refers,

referred

to

in

of

adjunct from

τοῦτο

εἴργασται

καὶ

διὰ

that

Eratosthenes

claimed

that

on this ground he

no

as

such,

be

διὰ

had

not is we

seem

to

of

a

question

there

taking

the

conclusive εἴ

occurrevidence

where

τις

not

these

τοῦτο

adjunct,

call

to

do

of

words,

Du.

give

whole

I

might διὰ

el = approximately

considerations,

to

as

speaks

one

be

a causal

reason,

expression

who

other

would

that

causally.

so,

In

for

the

instance

adjunct.

itself,

toOto-part,

expression

that

being

an

in

4.3.2.).

τοῦτο,

interpreted

This

than

ch.

the

the

own

which

also

(1972:157),

have

with

semantic

but

to

itself

more

(Cf.

like

its

would

by

ὅτι,

these

in

.εἴργασται,

on

causal

€neıön-clause

approximately

a causal

to

something

to

referred

anaphoric:

Pinkster

a cause.

marked

=

ex.(58)

has

to

overtly

in

up

Rather,

say

cause.

back,

we

up

the

a

indicates

referring

is

expressions

in

that

hair

takes

long),

("They

it

partially

whether ence

("One

his

τοῦτο

adjunct.

Eidxıora...nand

and

referring

therefore,

some

μισεῖν

wearing

(Lys.16,18)

τοῦτο

᾿Ερατοσϑένει..

label,

is

διὰ

σωθῆναι

express

only

since

totto as

τοῦτο

is

state, such

it causal

(Lys.12,89).

that

are

for

harm,

not

means

informal not,

agree,

action

but

anaphoric

him")

διὰ

hair

natural,

such

to

ἐπειδή (2) -

hating

a causal

one's

᾿Ερατοσϑένει

picks

etc.

which

that

as

back

ὅτι,

sentence:

διὰ

someone

supposed

an

ἀξιοῦσι

least

does

this

an

the

holds

escape")

τοῦτο

course,

does

ὡς

αὐτὸν

should

All

say

following

for

of

seems with

HOUR,

if

refers

means

clause.®!

λέγουσιν

daarom

τις

reason

to

for

the

εἴ

a

having

cause

this

not,

overtly

that

one's

Something

where

possible

own

(viz.

not

that

marked

sight,

that

by

possibilities

οὐκ

long,

the main

(60)

ἀλλ'

but

has

-

instance,

judge...,

clause

of

for

adjunct,

marked

first the

to

cates need

of

ought

Here,

causal

overtly At

one

xph...monelv,

that

is

adjunct.6°

fact,

expressions.

(59)

anaphoric

that

Koud

ἐπειδή in

(59)

&tu.62 is

also

a

syntac-

31 tic

phenomenon,

this Often,

sentences

exemplified (cf. a

that

e.g.

that

in

Pinkster

subordinate

analysis

neglects

the

fact

in

not

be

taken

2.21.

The

comparable is

up

the

heuristic

value

of

are

the

ὅτι,

that

which

διὰ

τοῦτο

viewed

main

(and

is

that

follows

διὰ

τοῦτο

corresponds

clause

will

as

as

tum).

which

however,

structures)

better

in

by

to

such

roughly

cum...

expression,

This,

pattern

analysed

must

not

other

entirely

be

do;

taken

such

an

ADJUNCT

„AusaL

clause

by

a kind

of

as

an

demonstrative

optional.

as

is

a

that

dummy-

Hence,

may

or

or

may

pro-

63

CAUSAL *

Coneluston

main

objective

constituents could

be

clauses

be

like to

there

διὰ

with

διὰ

lacking, and ‘ples

there

we

testify

ἐπειδή

these

second found.

cases have

the

then,

the

causal

commonness

of

generally

τοῦτο, all,

5.

to

be

then,

in 2.1.,

ADJUNCT

doubt

for

more

A complicating could

very the

viz.

oausar

be

or

by

was

among

causal ex-

possible, the

examcase

a number

of

tobto-clauses

were

διὰ

Lysias

τοῦτο,

rather

semantic the

value

ὅτι... as

was

that

means

of

in

isolated διὰ

equivalent

not,

factor

shown,

two

less is

it

quite

ἐπειδὴ...

the

anaphorical

unassailable

διὰ

here,

to

subordinate

scale;

question,

it

example

large

whether

t(-questions

question,

ὡς...

of

see

with

absolutely

which

this

beyond

Given

no

examples, chapter

function

were two

fairly

to

whether

first

be

in

in

a

but

to the

might

the

to

of

All

and

appear

clear

formulated

on ὡς,

was

following

patterns

would

value διὰ

sections possible

other

to

explicitly

net-constituents. type,

this

were

resp.;

that

As

with

As

be

each

τοῦτο.

some

two

to

correlative

toOto-clauses

but

Plato,

in

exemplify were

last

seen

used

an énet-clause.®"

ὅτι...

the

were

coordinated

fact,

ples

of

that

could

pressions

of

doubt

a correlative

introduced

τοῦτο.

dötı-clause

in

to

(1972:174ff.)on Latin

διὰ

the

of

us

(56)-(57)

with

expressions

ADJUNCT

exhibit

adverb-like

clause

ATTRIBUTE

in

induce

examples

demonstrative,

an

may

construction.

will the some

to be

exam-

of

ἐ-

tobtoὅτι made

heuristic other

uses

limited.

answer

can should

to

the

énetbe

first

half

of

the

and Öc-constituents that

€nel-constituents,

this

but

cannot

that

it

be

can

question

fulfil

the

established be

evidenced

32 for

®¢-clauses,

clauses .&5

these

possibly

being

stylistic

variants

of

ὅτι-

3

Q uestion-w ords: :

3.1.

πότε

The

and

other

appropriate

cation

("when").

This

onal

phrases

πότε

and

neral

way;

which

may

("year")

the

τίνι one

be

type:

χρόνῳ

may in

What

constituents actual

far

number ly,

of

when

question

do

we

Before

it

I

complicated

times

that

occurs

being

using

more

ἐν

of

asked

xpöwp

πότε

at or

is

all, less

specifi-

by

("in

too, which

more

nouns

like

ἡμέρα

with ("in

is

in

a

Of

course,

rather

detailed

ge-

information,

("day"),

the

πότε

prepositi-

time").

specification

ἔτει

a

for,

some

τίνι

for

event

have

in a

should than

asks

a certain

ἔτος

interrogative

which

year").

pro-

Also

hour”)!

find

giving

examples,

more

be

this

to

("at what

Answer-constituente

is

want

which

time

τίνι

for

e.g.

3.2.

some

ἐν

by

τίς,

is πηνίκα

a coverterm?).

may

ask

also

Greek

in

question-constructions

adjective

available

in

location

elicited

etc.

nominal

the

specification

of

ἐν

Emp ORAL

questton-words

question-word

concerning

ADJ UNCT

answer list add

for

nöte-questions

possible

that

an

no

is

33

is

into

because

strikingly

answer

rhetorical,

(to

candidates,

inquiry

tl-questions,

found

often

to

of

this

given,

matter

firstly

small,

particularly

use and

the in

and,

the

second-

nötetragedy.?

34 As

in

the

case

of

ADJUNCT

onysar’

we

may

expect

the

following

nu,

vandaag,

con-

stituents.

(i)

adverbs kort

(ii) (iii)

voor

(iv) (v)

noun

phrases

last vorig

marked,

year, jaar,

before

+ NP,

etc.).

in

next

Greek,

year,

volgend

subordinate

clauses

wannneer...?

Du.

day

tweede

in

binnen-

dag

1:

+ NP

case

of

English,

when...?

van

week

de

nor

etc.;

endings,

the

etc.;

week

in

After...;

toen...;

see

during

different

de

nadat...;

(questionable,

+ NP,

second

(not

(Engl.

::

by

the

jaar,

constructions

sentences

etc.).

Dutch). when...etc.;

als...,

etc.).

below).

Adverbs

have

Yet,

not

it

found

does

("today"), lowing (1)

of

seem

risky

xSéc

ol

στρατιῶται ::

(2)

ἀλλὰ

you

nap’

In

answer the

sons,

to

nöte-questions.

that

adverbs

viv

("now")

etc.

were

example

would

ἀφίξονται;

::

most

would

to

a

Av

εἴποιτε

outrageous say")

like

τήμερον

possible

fol-

be

αὔριον

("When

will

the

soldiers

of

ἐν

("But

things

tH

πόλει

when

been

γέγονεν;

have

done?

with During

Ent

τῶν

in

our

us, the

thirty,

(D.22,52)

nöte-question himself.

especially was

note...Ser.vdtat'

πάντες

speaker

reckoning

answer

suppose

phrases

ἡμῖν

the all

by

An

in

to

is

τριάκοντα, city,

adverbs

Tomorrow")

Prepositional example

too

("yesterday"),

néte-questions.

πότε

3.4.

examples

not

arrive?

An

presently;

(Engl.

tijdens

participial Du.

(vi)

tcday,

phrases

+ NP,

Engl. Du.

3.3.

now,

prepositional Du.

I

(Engl.

etc.).

For

we

authorities,

established,

have

this cf.

ἐπὶ

use by

K-G

of which

τῶν ἐπί a

1,496-7.

τριάκοντα, +

the

provided

genitive

calendar-like

of

per-

time-

35 3.5. No

Nouns,

noun

phrases

examples

were

found.

answer (3)

constructions

πότε

ol

the Besides be

στρατιῶται

soldiers noun

genitive 3.6.

to

and

the

no

following

(4)

πότε τὸν

ol

With (5)

were

οἱ

τῷ

παρελθόντι

μηνί

("When

did

month")

dative

case,as

with

found.

other

Again,

ἀφίκοντο

("When

Having

("When

the

occurred,

στρατιῶται

a genitive πότε

::

Last

question-

possible:

in

case

(3),

others

may

viz.

the

endings,

also

we

may,

I

think,

postulate

question-answer-type:

ποταμόν

(lit.)

::

that

were

constructions

examples

the

however, type

accusative.?

Participial

Again,

suppose,

following

ἀφίκοντο;

in

have

may

the

arrive?

phrases

supposed

We

of

did

crossed

the

τὸ

the

arrive

in

::

διαβάντες

their

camp?

::

river") "

ἀφίκοντο;

soldiers

στρατόπεδον;

soldiers

absolute-construction

στρατιῶται

did

εἰς

the

::

arrive?

as τοὺ

::

an

answer:

στρατηγοῦ

When

the

καϑεύδοντος

general

was

asleep") 3.7.

Subordinate

This

type

tors

following

is

clauses®

amply

attested.

I have

nöte-questions:

ἐπειδή

found

the

following

(combined

with

dv,

subordinawritten

ἐπειδάν), Ste (sometimes combined with dv, written ὅταν), ἡνίκ' (dv) ("when"), ἀφ' od ("after, from the moment that"); also πρίν + infinitive.6 Some examples: (6)

πότ'

οὖν

Δι"

ἀνάγκη

things? sooth,

(-)

πόϑ' τις

What some

ὦ

has

ἃ

χρὴ

("When to

urgency

πράξετε;

ἐπειδᾶν

then

when

will

you

(lit."When

what

occurs?")

occur? arises")

(-)

(D.4,10)

τί

γένηται; do

the

ἐπειδὰν

νὴ

necessary When,

for-

36 (7)

πότε

(sc.

νοστήσασα

᾿Αχαιούς, (is

she

went (8)

to

ξέν’,

now

in

(-)

("When

(9)

πότε

τὰ

our

we

have

πότε

it

We

have,

tive,

in

is

(sc.

become

πρίν

I

have

3.8.

Sentences

all

a

be

the

were

preceding note

2).

following that cf.

context. This

2.17. a

he

with

an

any

examples On

in

or that

should

the

οὗ

Greeks

ἀναγκαῖον

done?

When,

αὐτῶν

γε

(sc.

ἀνα-

ἄνϑρωποι

knowledge

of

γεγό-

them"

"surely

("When,

on

bribes") ὅταν

(sc. not

in

(9)

the

after

to

dp’

imperfect,

other

(Din.

with

referring

my

of

ἐπεί of

the

opinion,

to

be

artificial-

the

1,74)

the subjunca

οὗ

the

be

that

added,

(ADJUNCT

future

with

a

three

has

to

event?,

perfect

latter

re-

the

with

does

not

seem

in

Engl.,

in

occur

overt

as

to

and

tenses, (6)-(10)

constitu-

„EMPORAL'

sense of

in

to the

ch.

the

2,

we

saw

t(-questions case

matter):

specific

to

from

constituents

case

answers that

of

the

latter

exist

for

in

"supplied"

that the

past

above

ADJUNCT

in

Now

an

given

again,

could

with given

chance..

be

too

contain

to

to

compared

2.12-16.

ὡς,

has

used

when-questions

due

function

is be

possibility

or

examples

instances

fulfilled

sentences

etc.

basis

can

nóte-question

ἀφ᾽

and

infinitive,

ὅτε

Al’

be

learned)?

took

ἐπειδάν

cf.

(or

the

subjunctive,

(10),

νὴ

to

ἐπιστήμην

ἐδωροδόκει

When

(8),

has

δὴ

once

situation

This

when

the

(Pl.Phd.76c)

ὅτ᾽

and

τὴν

when

tt-questions,

independent

τοὺς

back)

event.

-attested it

πρὶν

stranger,

ὅταν

what

γὰρ

they

beings")

aorist

in

involved

te-questions to

an

stated,

PREDICATOR,

what

this?

(6)

do

ἡμῶν)

acquired

"futural"

found

can

In

do

nöte-questions.

this

ents

in

a past

not

::

come

(D.8,50)8

ψυχαὶ

ἔπραξαν;

they

and

to

o

ἐθελήσομεν;

ἔμαϑον) ; οὐ

human

αὖ...

with

indicative,

after

ai

“Having

did

τούσδε) ;

("(Having

Before,

to

necessary")

remember

then,

ferring

ποιεῖν

souls

δ’

::

willing

& note

so-called

(7)

be

( lit.

hand,

ἐστὶ

μολεῖν

palace)?

δέοντα

λαβοῦσαι

ναμεν

(10)

this

we

μιμνήσκονται do

οἴκους

τροίαν

(E.Hel.475-6) 7

will

forsooth,

κατ᾽

ἐς

Troy")

nót(e) ü

ὦ

an

of

πό-

answer

time-rela-

37

tor.!®

Accordingly,

smell you

onions")

crying?")

would

be

(11)

(cf.

πότε

ol

be

noticed,

(answers

relator)

but

πῶς

made

camp

is, and

of

ὀσφραίνομαι

κλάεις;

the

that

("Why

following

ol run

("I are

type

that

τὸν

ποταμόν

crossed

the

same

to

the

holds

contain

(*

"When

river") for

an

local

overt

place-

a question

στρατιῶται; e.g.

as

ποταμὸν τὴν

follows: ἐστρατοπεδεύσαντο

πόλιν

ἔβησαν

thereafter

have

of

overt

lacking

they

the in

the

τὴν

river

took

road

the

city")?!

the

to

question-answer of its

a certain "cause"

type,

answer

indication

of

with

and

when-

ταῦτα

the

with

second

μετὰ

crossed

between do

καὶ

("Having

situation to

recounted" any

διέβησαν (had)

Following

that

is

::

They

manner-adjuncts.

a distiction

be

::

for

questions

without

investigating

arrived

at

(1)

the

(ii)

often

(111)

of

the

number no

the

possible

(iv)

τί

i.e.

or

with

(Robinson “cause”

patterns event,

or

ἃ

on

they

that the

"manner",

on

why,

how,

and

Rackstraw

"manner",

a

one the

"a

(1972: poss-

where-questions.!?

Coneluston

While we

ἀφίκοντο;

incidentally,

and

those

can

ibility

construction

arrive?

spatio-temporal

With

process

κρομμύων

have

εἰς

thus, the

other.

like

question

a where-question

τὸν

τὴν

hand,

3.9.

could

ὁδὸν

involve

40)),

nor

διαβάντες

There

the

to

ἀφίκοντο

answer

(120)

a

στρατιῶται

soldiers

should

the

with

2.17.),

the

adjuncts

(12a)

an answer

possible

ungrammatical:

did It

whereas

is

the

answer-possibilities

following of

occurrences

answer

is

constituents answers,

following

of

πότε

is

rather

however,

that some

on

small;

given; could

were

in

indeed

principle attested,

actually found, did seem acceptable; ἐπεί, ἐπειδή (that is, without dv), ἐπείτε found;

nöte-questions

findings:

the

basis

of

attested

be

thought

others,

and

of

while

as not

ὡς

were

not

examples

with

ἐπειδάν

38 and

ὅτε

it

junctions 3.10.

As

is

feasible

could,

with

the

supposed

constituents

we to

may

nated

ADJUNCTS of

the

number

(13)

of

ὡς...

that

or

(14)

ὡς

is,

κατελαμβάνετο...

δὲ

οὐκ

μένων when

to

be

the

Greeks

these

con-

were

ADJUNCT.

seen

ADJUNCTS

can

be

There

to

used or

in

in

were a co-

more

fulfilled

are,

a usar,

or

coordiby

fact,

mem-

quite

possibility: ὡς got

stabbed,

καταιρεόμενος... caught...

too...")

(-),

("But

function

that

categories.

he

ἐκαλλιέρεε

πλεύνων

the

to be TEMPORAL a construction of two

καὶ

("When

with

pEMPORAL

fulfil

these

this

clauses

ADJUNCT

in

where of

that

constituents

different

instances

about

can

function

τηϑήσεσϑαι,... was

that

the

„EMpORAL

same

ADJUNCT

the

fulfil

suppose occur.!?

expect

ordination-pattern,

a

to

fact,

Coordinatton-patterns:

(c£.2.19.)

bers

in

and

(Hdt.

ἐπιρρεόντων he

did

not

streamed

on

and

became

he,

συγκενbeing

caught,

6,29,2) δὲ

when

ἔμελλε

when

τῶν

obtain

᾿Βλλήνων

good

more

nal

γινο-

omens...,

and

numerous,...)

(Hdt.

9,38,2) (15)

ἐπεὶ

τάχιστα

κρατίαν the (16)

army

ταῦτ᾽

Samos

γε

have,

(13),

ἡμεῖς ("But

then,

a

in

a participial

(16)

(14), and,

an

over

(-)

τὰ

had to

τῇ

all

Σάμῳ

the

σφῶν

power

democracy...)

πρέσβεις, ...

heard

did

ἐμαχόμεϑα not

have

this

χϑές,

battle

coordinated

consisting ἐπεῖ

finally,

Ev got

καὶ

ἐς

and

δημο-

after

(Th.8,90,1)

ἐπειδὴ

Κῦρον

and

after

they

ἀλλὰ

πρῴην

Ev

εἶδον

had

seen

1,4, 4)

®c¢-clause

(15),

they

yesterday,

at our departure")

a member

tions

ἐπειδὴ

as

gone

ol

οὐδενὶ

we

yesterday

with

had

ambassadors

ἀλλ’

καὶ

soon

ἀκούοντες

the

(X.HG

fore

in

("As

Cyrus...")

ρήσει

We

at

οὖν

("When

(17)

κατέστησαν

ἀπέστη

of

(τάχιστα)

-clause

construction in

(17)

two

a

but

τῇ

Aroxw-

the

day

be-

(Th.3.113,4) with

another ὡς -clause

genitive with

coordinated temporal

an

énevS4-clause

with

adverb

in

absolute-construcan

in

£neıörj-clause

coordinated

with

39 another cal

temporal

temporal

(Hdt.3,58,1)

a prepositional

an

comes

from

Ros

ples,

it

that

of

the

adverbs to

as

A

one

general

for

problem

the

be

by

John

not

some

detail,

coordination

of

coordinations to

due

to

lack

that

of

such

taking

of

is

grammatical

(1968:

ch.4

alone

is

This

can

be

and a

stone

hit

Bill

(See

Becker is

unacceptable

each

be

subject

(19)

John

(20)

A

et

only

is

the

as

(18)

role

involves

elements

ἃ

notice,

suggest, these

in

of

cause

material a

adverbs.

English

mem-

temporal resI will

examples

ADJUNCTS

that

the

coordinated

function,

and

see

not

sufficient

index)

illustrated

a point

.!"

by

SEMPORAL

mem-

discussed

Nevertheless,

for the,

a coordination by

now

almost

example

(18)*

The

correct;

(non-anaphorical)

on

Dik

acceptable.

in

(e.g.

participle

of

of

exam-

discussion.

equivalence

classic,

I

same

is

coordination

these

functions

that

aspects

equivalent

syntactic

the

viz.

the

coordi-

example

From

(16):

this

anaphori-

absolute

πλέονος)

two

of in

speaking,

instance

of

coordination-possibilities

this

extensively

(6.4.

This,

property

are

members

category,

(17)). the

indeed,

an

latter

ibid.p.417).

different

Generally

Restrictions

bers

or

specific

of

a basis

to

in

(cf.

discuss

3.11.

involves

same

some

triction now

a coordination

ἐπειδή)

also

(Ex (The

cf.

that

of

genitive

phrase

(Th.8,91,1).

(1938:401),

categories.

however,

but

ἃ

examples with

appear

„EMPORAL

ἐπείδή) bers

of

also

coordinated

ἐπειδή-οϊδυϑα

would

ἐπεί

are

and

with

(15):

There

(τότε)

nated

ADJUNCT

adverb.

adverb

1967b:

hit

stone

in

hit

this

al. 349ff.).

Pinkster

despite the

Bill

impossibility (for

58ff.;

the

frame

(with

a

(1972:114), fact

"...hit

that

Platt

John

Bill",

and

(1971:14)). a

etone

can

cf.

stone)

Bill of

(18)

notion

cf.

It

be

can

must

be

Halliday said,

for

due

to

a difference

(1970:148

and

instance,

that

in

passim), John

in

semantic Quirk (19)

40 has

the

semantic

INSTRUMENT,

Apparently, that

seem

(19)

these

to

to

come

reasoning

be

back

can

AGENT,

in

be

as

and

of

against

a

factors

constituents

are

which

is,in fact,

to

adjuncts,

temporal for

responsible

which,

combinable,

followed

stone,

is

(20).

semantic

a coordination

would Now

role

both

these.

on

for

syntactic

the

fact

grounds,

unacceptable. a comparable

Consider

the

line

of

following

examples: (21)

They

went

to

Italy

in

(22)

They

went

to

Italy

after

(23%

They

went

to

Italy

in

(24)

Last

year

I

bought

a

(25)

At

4 p.m.

I

bought

a book

(26)*

Last

Both

in

year (21)

filled

by

is,

both

in

tion we

in

examples to

and

in

this

at

and

(23),

we

the

best, my

to

event

and

to

some (25).

number

discrete The

of

an

latter

different

unit

of

entails

needed,

since

coordinations

(26).17

the other

On

role

to

whether

hand,

France!

the

role: "real"

the

(21)

The

the

as

holds

for

solution

general

semantic

time-reference

involves

TIME,

as

time-continuum

going

That

func-

same

unelegant,

RELATIVE

setting

ful-

France.

Nevertheless,

refine the

in

syntactic

coordinated.

time-adjuncts,

generally

visited

visited

the

it rather

(semantic

possibly, MILLENNIUM e.g. WEEKTIME, MONTH are

be

to

end to, stages,

categories

be

opinion,

a or

TIME.

The

according

had

semantic

(24)-(26). TIME,

ADJUNCT,

they

in

cannot

in

had

a book

a constituent

two

is,

France

they

temporal

after

the

problem

visited

after

bought a

by

have

with

and

I

have

(22)

cover-term relation

1962

had

book

we

in

cases

they

4 p.m.

(22)

1962,

ADJUNCT

see

and

1962

up

of

from

in

(as

a

rather

HOUR

TIME

in

(22)), (21),

large at

one

at the other, with, as intermediate TIME etc.!® All this is, in fact, between

excluded,

sentences

elements

as

appears

like

the

of

these

from

different

(23)

following

and

three

-

41 where

the

coordination

subclass

-

are

(27)

Yesterday

(28)

I

(29)

When

I

were

ready,

There

bought

is

a

and a

in

we

normal,

day

before

at

3 p.m.

found

my

point

As

elements

of

the

same

semantic

normal: yesterday

and

at

I

bought

a book

4 p.m.

raincoat,

and

when

all

the

others

left18

is

a hierarchical

(30)

to

be

made

remarked

by

in

connection

Quirk

relationship

non-contrastive

et

between

speech

the

al. "real"

more

with

these

(:486)

there

ex-

time-adjuncts:

specific

one

will

have

Cf.:

Yesterday

I bought

a book

at

4

p.m.

I

a

yesterday

against

(31)*

At

4 p.m.

They

do

not

where the

the to

normal,

(32)* Cf.

however,

element by

the (32)

element is

(33)*

in

refers below

feature

sentences to the

of

are

these

acceptable

a time-unit time-unit

front-position.

Thus,

that

that

in

is

whereas

re(30)

excluded:

I bought

a book

Last

month we

I add,

finally,

that

analysis

of

are

ADJUNCTS,

I

at 4 p.m.

bought

a book

confronted ΟΟΔΙ,"

(34)

I worked

in

Amsterdam

and

(35)*

I

in

Amsterdam

in

worked

another

those

immediately

in

the

about

only

in end-position

comes

Last week

also:

book

relationships:

hierarchy

ferred

bought

speak,

hierarchical

is

book

second

end-position.

as

the

finally

time-adjuncts. ists

involves

perfectly

in

with

Consider: Rotterdam

Rotterdam

on

Thursday!

similar

84

phenomena

42 (36)

I worked

in

Amsterdam

in

(37)*

I worked

in

Amsterdam

and

Apart

from

are

the

specific

subjected,

general

there

nature,

constituents clause.

that

Generally

universe

of

of

that

make

in

the

a

are

this

temporal

bound

to

condition,

belong

we

had

arrived

in

New

York

and

found

(39)*

After

we

had

arrived

in

New

York

and

the

course,

no of

general

of

which

and

the

the

3.12.

the

we

τότε

("when...,

(40)

are

is

for

then")

a

or

by

hotel...

had

con-

γὰρ

τούτῳ

ἡ

("For

when

terrible

mess,

at

being

pursued

which

the an

of

same

concerning addressee; the

the

for

type

téte(...)

elements

the also,

speaker/writer

in

once,

the

many

ἐπεί

(etc.)...

€Enel,

or

with

main

clause.

examples

(a

short

cf.

πολλὸν

νηῦς

that

by

in

type

are,

2,445-46);

καιρῷ

the one's

„pypoRrAL?22

the

preparative

ἐς ϑόρυβον

τῷ

context

the

principle.

upon

based

by

this

within

assumptions

instances of

there

K-G

for

falls

be

shared

ADJUNCT

are

᾿Αττικῆς was

same is

themselves.?!

and

constructions given

ἐπειδὴ ἐν

the (38)

Romans

given

to

one's is

and

find

patterne:

looking

has

upon

situation

anaphorical

such

list

and

be

element

another

knowledge

hearer/reader

What

Of

world

Correlative

other

as

this

overall

can

a particular

discourse

knowledge upon

to

not:

definition

whether

degree

to

the

Gaul...

decision

universe

more

subordinate

sentence

After

a

between

temporal

(38)

The

of

compatibility

whereas

Of

adjuncts

condition

acceptable,

quered

is

a

compound

they

Under

(39)

which

also

semantic

e.g.

speaking,

harbour?

to

course,

of

up

discourse.

harbour!?

constraints

is,

viz.

the

A

ἀπίκετο

troops very

τὰ

᾿Αρτεμισίης of

the

moment

Attic

ship")

the

βασιλέος ἐδιώκετο

king ship

had of

πρήγματα, ὑπὸ

got

νεὸς into

Artemisia

(Hdt.8,87,2)

ἃ

43 (41)

ὅτε

Ἕλληνες

γος

τοὺς

Ἕλληνας

had

given

battle

sailed

off,

(ἔπος)

(42)

᾿Αμαζόσι

ἐμαχέσαντο

νικήσαντας... to

having

the

τὸ

elne

“Aplotwyv

("(a

word)

the

had

slave

Amazons

been

γεγονέναι

τότε

Ste

news

then,

a

ἐξήγγειλε

had

of

("After

τότε

the

story

λό-

Greeks goes,

they

(Hdt.4,110,1)

ol

Aristo

the

parenthesis),

(...),

victorious")

that

brought

(long

ἀποπλέειν

ὁ

οἰκέτης

spoken

on

that

birth

of

a

the

παῖδα

moment

son")

when

(Hdt.6,

65,3) (43)

ἔφη

δὲ

Δίκαιος...

χώρη..., time

τυχεῖν

when

be...") In

the

example

δή).

example

ἐπεὶ

δὲ ἐν

my

this -a

sis, the in

a

οἱ

th

μὲν

when and

under

these

that

when...,

is

that

he

like

a more

nal

ἐλέγετο

ἡ

he...

then

expression, by

τότε

᾿Αττικὴ during

the

happened

to

expanded

by

the

τότε.23

etc.,

that

are

one,

viz.

οὕτω

neutral

(the

σχολαίτερα

εἶναι,

οὕτω

Spartans)

invader

was

circumstances

rather

indicates, than

going

to

were

ἐποίεον,

δὴ

marked (or

οὕτω

ὁ δὲ

ἐπιὼν

καὶ

ὑπεξεκομίσαντο

ever

longer

reporeted

to

they

(the

Athenians)

οὕτω

δή

case

or

then

it

may

far.

of

that have

take time

vague

which οὕτω

a

of

οὕτω

rather

interpretation Notice

I

the

too

semantically

protasis.

temporal

ἐκείρετο

be

and

already

in

πάντα...

slower

in

ac-

Boeotia,

withdrew

every-

(Hdt.9,6).

already

the

sacked...,

anaphorically

μακρότερα

they the

translation is

that

a preparative

up

there

Βοιωτίῃ

("But

priori-

said

is:

tion,

cumstances

ἐπείτε

expressions

temporal,

thing") As

have

taken

anaphorical as

δὴ

being

we

and

overtly

(44)

was

χρόνον, ("Dicaeus

(Hdt.8,65,1)

last

An

τὸν

ἐών...

Attica

éne(te-clause, Besides

τοῦτον τότε

is

"conditional"

besides

then.2"

could

syntactic

also

one

if...,

δή

varies

circumstantial

as

referring

ὑπεξεκομίσαντο;

after

also

of

to

the

following

semantic

Cf.

cir-

as

the

an

apodo-

nature

of

el-clauses;

aspect,

€nei-clauses.

the

perhaps

viewed

marker

according found

be

to

but

as

against

also

Engl.

44

3.13.

The

Coneluston

main

ADJUNCTS

nate

clauses

rical be

issue

amply be

are

that

altogether,

like

can

of

neral ions

a

time:

function

3.14.

General most

of

to the

English

the

seems

belong

to

to

the

conclusion result

coordination

small As

1,2

with

these

shown

such

excluded like

suggested,

have

here

a

certain

by

ge-

express-

members

of

subclass.

and

were

3 so

found

other

prepositional in

that

investigation

énet-clauses

attested

might

be

adverbs

was

the

the

causal

It

anaphocould

different-

be

temporal

we

semantic

or

however,

to

of

of

in

even

clauses.

requirement

chapters

or

cases,

"coordinatability”

to

nor

or

subordi-

this

could

a

same

Öötı-clauses were

of

be

questions, hand,

SEMPORAL

for

as

-categorically In some

that

far

preparative

involved

examples,

-as

criterion,

readily

subordinate

examples

ther

most

coordination

e.g.

assailable as

with

ADJUNCT

less

possibilities

used

second

first,

occur

concerning

striking

be

coordination-pattern.

with

there

a coordination

the

the

when

phenomenon of

for

for

a

the

to

correlation

As

the

appeared

number

in

τότε.

was

and

as

in

e.g.

sections

fulfil

("yesterday")

means

two

coordinated,

concerned-

combinable

χϑές

last

be

exemplified;

a coordination

The

the to

expressions

elements to

of

„EMPORAL

far

is

that

following

“causal”

phrases.

un-

("why")

expressions,

òc-clauses,

constructions,

no

tl-

albeit

on

in

such the

o-

a very

number. for

ἐπεί

questions, ἐπειδάν

too

attested

dv

were

following

Êne(-clauses being

without

these

such were

will,

and

not

@c-clauses

found,

questions possible

of

following

However, it in

course,

may

from be

answers

be

due

to

πότε

some

inferred to

("when")-

examples that

nöte-questions.

chance

(the

involving

ἐπειδή-

same

and

Their applies

not to

ὡς). For king

éne(-clauses

for

granted

nel-clauses, causality assumed

it

in to

must

the

have

this

that way a

has

there be

two is

said

that

e.g.

particular

important

a class

that

they of

Firstly,

"causal",

non-temporal,

in

principle

do

Ötı-clauses aspect

consequences.

of

do.

their

Rather,

own.

not they

Secondly,

ta€-

express may from

be a

45

syntactic clauses, sense

point

of

which

given

to

Accordingly, ing

both

their the

the

other

where sent).

no

clues

However,

a

number

to

be

set

do

this

notion

in

note

following

status. issue:

from

of

out

they

they

the

main

to

too,

that

particular

syntactic

tinguished

view,

means

devoted

are ones?

these (i.e.

discussing

and

4.1.

causal

be

of

be

"causal"

carried

"causal" in

or

to

out

in

the

establish-

in

will

English,

and

relation

declarative I

Ött-

in

€net-clauses,

coordinations

topics,

clauses

e.g.

€ne(-clauses

normal

adverbs these

with

adjuncts,

will

will

this

as 2.

All

interrogative

temporal inch.

chapters

grouped

chapter

aspect

how

before

2,

be

function

semantic

temporal like

cannot not

to

dis-

speech, are

first

for

be

to

pre-

turn

reasons

4

Some semantic and syntactic properties of a number of temporal and causal subordinate clauses in English

4.1.

Objective

This of

chapter

the

et of

phenomena

clauses,

dy

related

will

lead,

tioning uages ned

of

to

are

mainly

some

these

which those

of

The

main

problems

the

hope

cases,

in by

in

the

after,

met

get with

prove

the

same

(and notes).

elaboration clauses

an

insight

in

the

time,

for

the

The

of

the

of

stu-

the

modern

clause-types

because,

the

discussion

understanding other

in

into

analysis

fruitful

certain

when,

and

subordinate

to

precise

English

refer

introduced

is

will

At

a more

discussion

causal

are

this

Greek. to

clauses

that

that

in

and

objective

and

I will

a critical

temporal

questions

in

of

in

chapter

some

al. (1972).

these of

this

consists

treatment

Quirk kind

of

since,

as,

func-

lang-

concernow

that.!

4.2.

After,

I will as

to

when?

discuss their

problematic Clauses

after

and

when

syntax

and

of

group.

the

introduced.by

after

when-question

(cf.

Quirk

a

past

events,

sequence

simple

past

of

tense

verb

together,

semantics.

et

On

and

when

al.:483). be

followed

(ib.:783):

47

since

the

they

whole,

can

are

they

serve

They

can

by

either

as

both,

very

are a

similar

the

least

response in

a past

to

referring perfect

a to

ora

48

(1)

After}

he

{he

When With

a

verb, (2)

progressive when

When the

Note

he

when

2) in

not

in

his wife

the

work,

of his

cooked

dinner.?

main

clause,

or

a

stative

events: wife

(:426-8).*

was

(cooking

dinner)

in

and

the

upon

returned

would

seem

Quirk

et

al.)

presence

seems to

when-clauses

be

that

of

somewhat

the odd

impossible

as

1)

this

simple in

a

such

past a

con-

substitute

This

to

function

as

this

notion

by

Quirk

al.

to

name

only

the

that

they of

clause

given

means,

adjuncts

come

within

the

focus

in

alternative you

said

to

sense

be

Did

by

also

(2).

of

can

mentioned

had

after

specific

features

(3)

is

depends

after-

the

(1)

from

when-clause:

Both in

phrase

simultaneity

returned

(this

struction; for

home,

kitchen

also

the

verb

indicates

interpretation in

returned]

returned

see

of

can

the

scope

the

question.

be

most

et

important

syntactic

interrogation

This

will

most

adjuncts,

and

readily

can occur

interrogation:

John

when

you

were

in

Paris

or

after

you

returned

home? (ii)

can

come

focus

(4)

(iii) (5) (iv)

of

within the

another

item

I

did

see

I

returned

can Only can

not

be after be

the

scope

negation. in John

of

Thus,

alternative when

I

was

clause they

negation

can

be

and

can

contrasted

I the

focus

of

in

restrictive

returned

home

focus

additive

of

did

the

negation: Paris

but

(I

saw

him)

like

only

home

the

be with

I

adverbials see

John

adverbials

like

also:

after

49

(6)

I

also

(v)

can

(7)

It

be was

saw

John

the

focus

when

Furthermore and

-

tion,

Did

(9)

What

you

Notice

a

that

can

as

sentence

Paris not

occur

adjuncts

In of

clause such

in

do,

that

I

first

mentioned both

to

in

the

by

saw

Quirk

John et

al.

yes-no-questions

element

the

non-seeing

his

words, to

4.3.

in

the

or

is at

on

the

that

- afterand

contains

in the

ques-

these

Paris? home?

(3),

when

speaker

from

the

you

not were

event

in (3),

if

a

in

to

could by not

had

been

the

seeing

the

sections,

Paris

statement

it

made

that

exact

other

asked

moment is in

also the

time

of

the

not

the

the

when-

Thus, be

re-

addressee

too

is

for

of

information.

it

Paris is

the

referred

previous

concerns

next

information

John,

anaphorically; time,

for

in

of

the

that

asked in

(8),

used

in

to

rather,

presence

hand,

see

differently

returned

question;

other will

you

opposed

information we

after

or

then

concerning

were

as

known

by

you

(8),

a when-clause

placed

when

seeing

other

the

is

John,

you

the

seeing. focus

the

a cleft

feature

see

did

concerns

As

of in

in Paris

e.g.

(8)

On

I was

I was

when-clauses

wh-questions,

when

long

known this

before.

and seeing.

conjunctions

behave

an

a ques-

points.

Because®

4.3.1.

General

Clauses

syntactic

introduced

tion

with

(10)

Why

by

because

can

serve

::

Because

as

answer

to

why: did

you

not

join

Because-clauses

exhibit

tion

and

with

features

after

when

us?

the and

features may,

I was

mentioned

accordingly,

ill above be

in

said

connecto

func-

50 tion

as

(1)

adjuncts;

the

focus

they of

a

interrogation (11)

Did

they

save the

(12)

They

did of

the

(13)

Only

(iv)

the I

(v)

not

focus

also

out

of

panic

a

negation

retreat

of

focus

the

and

or

be

used

by

because

permit

because

restrictive I was

of

focus

ill

in

alternative

Quirk they

et

is

at

of

a

because

they

I

not

wanted

to

alternative

wanted

to

negation

save

lives

but

join

you

adverbials

home

because

cleft

I

expected

sentence

(also

helped

you

that

because-clauses

can

be

like

Perhaps

he

perhaps he

did

(unlike

some

guests

mentioned

not

join in

us

Because-clauses

Unlike

after-

and

when-clauses,

wh-questions,

nor

in

I'm

the

since/as,

4.3.2.

by

Quirk

because

prepared

focus

for he

of

to an

which was

help

What

did

you

do

him

attitudinal

cf.

below):

ill’

questions because-clauses

yes-no-questions,

unless

cannot they

because

you

were

ill?

occur

function

focus:

(17)*

al.:752)

adverbials

did

additive

stayed

Furthermore,

the

thus,

mentioned

al.:752)

disjunct (16)

and,

is

panic

also

It

of

because

et (15)

question

(this

retreat

focus

out

(14)

be

lives?

(14)

(iii)

can

- cf.ex. (9)

in as

51 (18)* Of

Did

you

course,

with

as

In

an

my

First by

(17)

because

mer

all,

taking

asking

then

no

Did

you

that

is,

with

clause

as

vious the by

solution. the

hearer

rather,

mentioned

by

linked or

someone

did,

tail

the

(a

at

it.®

the

event for

event

to

other

be way,

by of)

in

related and

as

is

did

for

inferred of

you

ignoring

Thus,

a

do? the

one

would

a because-clause

func-

put

made

to

and

at

I

to

to

that

which

may

to

"the

cause

already

is

inherent

case as

temporally

it to

bluntly:

because an

someone's is

an

other

time,

any

ill,

event

in

events.

causal

(19)

ask

To

clauses

ac-

what

is

an On

would

the en-

mentioned",

illness

inherent

is

event

precede, to

illness

by

just

to

statement

activities/events.

when it

pre-

aclue

the

that

of

that

because-

some

communication

normal

someone's

other

a

a certain

human

events

to

think,

knowledge

perfectly

the

back

refer

time

why

(19):

Yes/No)

focus,

Now

moment:

this

somewhat

(::

refers

was, of)

for

sentence

ill?

the

otherwise,

provides,

he

is

it

of

used

other

suggest -

to

that

common

it

framework

events,

amount

to

refers).

the

replacement

involved other

also

Thus

is

focus

What

were

(moment

a particular

reference

the

point that

the

number

speak, and, thus,

cause an

alia,

as

viz.

why

home

ill

effect

hearer

temporal

hand, that

were

the

follows.

accounted

functions

focus.

for-

case).

be

Or,

you

at

you to

as

be

the

that

may

second

modifier, latter

the

follow

acceptable

stay

inter with

company

other

to

when

The

refers

determined, is

When

may

because-clauses,

home

you

information?

(or,

to

Did

in

it

would

focus.

for

anaphorical

only

(18)

question

the

at

latter

question,

explained

(17)

focus,

a

the

the

cf.ex.(8)

simultaneously.

the

as

be

From

a

because...

remains

stay

an

already

-

stressed,

of

obligatorily

pendant,

(19)

can

ill?

but

of

be

consideration.

answers

obligatorily

there

focus

will

introducing

two

there

the

difference

with

were

acceptable,

as (what

has

and

for

However, is

are

you

unacceptability

(17)

focus

because

ill

this into

Now

continue

tions

(18)

because-clause

existing be

home

were

the

(18)

question. To

and

you

opinion,

a

at

echo-question

of

that

stay

property -

to

so

of

be

the

property

of

an

express

it

in

do

not

refer

52 to

causes/reasons,

(moments 9.3.3.

in

the

way

stretches

of)

time.?

Non-adjunctive

Quirk of

or

et

al.

also

Are

you

to

They've

(22)

He's

draw

lit

fire,

(20)

holds

way

he

for

the

the

person

is

a

and

for

another,

post

office?

-

to

non-adjunctive,

because

use

I've

some

letters

He's

Such

because-clauses

4.4.

Since

drunk

(not

I:

(21)

-

note

d

when me

is,

to -

in

but, he

I

may

does first

the to

claim

the

last

sentence

not why

is

he

the

his

own

sentence

like

be called

because

cause

p.550). -

the

on

the

or

said

reason

what

statement.

brought

I

disjuncts

from (22)

the drunkenness

himself

be

that >

one

like

- here,

analysis,

a

rising

commenting

give

member

motivating

of

e.g.(22)

a

speaker

rather,

is

sake

the

he the

smoke

saw

This

out

him

of

he

expli-

staggering! °

of motive.!!

temporal

simple

Since

(For)

and

< and

appropriate

made

in

the

(23)

al.:485,

p.752,

that

the

staggering

that

words,

expanding

him

see

from

concerned

for

saw

can

said

referred

other

I

I

come

speaking,

can,

because

be

(20)

by

(25)

to

(21)

may

citly

(24)

the

because

it

event

in

feature

The

attention

to

drunk,

(Examples

when

refer

consider:

going

Semantically,

said;

clauses

send

(21)

same

temporal

because-clauses

because-clauses;

(20)

that

question-word when); and have

(for)

for how

temporal long

is

stnce-clauses

possible

too

is

since

(Quirk

et

486-7): you

given

the

orders?

::

Since

the

manager

foreman

how

long

have

you

been

collecting

stamps?

::

Since

I

53

was

a

child

Temporal

since-clauses

the

clause,

main

refer

to

a

present As

stretch

(Quirk

far

tactic

as

not

also

(nor

(26)

I can

??

Since

be (I

tability

been

since

(26),

habitual

Indeed,

one

cannot

Since

"Clauses clauses

II:

of

The

of

since

(27)

former

native (28)*

potentially

since-clauses

the

above

focus

simple

in

They

including)

of

a

the

temporal

additive

to

to

habitually

cause

most

since-clause)

a child)

in

may,

in

something

synthey

adverbial

another

the

the

in

main

from

since-clauses

referred

the

one:

investment

referred we

all

except

I was

good

occasions,

that

the with

since

are

event

exhibit

(4.2.),

and

stamps

they

activity

do

reason

or

because, reason

we

authors

be

perfect

clause.

the

clause

unaccep-

uniquely

main

respect

clause. of

two

dif-

or

as,

are

or

cause

commmonly

since".

in

Quirk

Thus et

introduced

opens

al.,

the

by

section

p.752.

Their

the

on

example

runs:

Since

evident to

present

causal!?

live

add

in

the

like

the

ability of

they

lives?

sea,

latter

more focus

the

we

since-clauses

the

questions”. Did

near

that

because-clauses:

the

the

subordinate

starting-points.

conjunctions of

learnt

infer

the

4.5.

(and

the a

different

specify ferent

as by

that

various

of

the

listed

collecting I

indicates

on

in

to

temporal

function

have

also

up

adjuncts

coordinated

also

occurred

time

see,

of

readily

and

of

typically,

also

et al.: 782).

features

will

contain,

sometimes

are

of

For

retreat

a healthy

differ

close

disjuncts.!?

cleft

enjoy

to

syntactically adjuncts

"This",

because-clauses, sentences

since out

of

they

and give

panic

or

climate

they but

(more (on

as

since

from

(cf.

above

continue, not

of

the

relevantly) see they

4.2),

"is others, of

alter-

to

save

below): wanted

54 For

a cleft

(29)*

It

is

According ted

claim,

cf.

since

helped

to

with

as)

sentence he

them,

this

differences

has

have

Opinion

tendency

a

rather

phenomena.

tion

ae.

with

Since-clauses other

defining

feature

you

that

to

to

follow

it.

from

focus

of

prepared

this

of

clause

as

it

is

be

with

him

connecthey

while

since

may!5,

in

lies

will

adjuncts,

negation;

help

Because,

difference

of

to

behaviour

clause,

that

because-clauses

characteristics

(ii):

main Be

semantic

A discussion

differ

I am

ae):

tendency.!*

the

precede

has

syntactic

positional

important

syntactic

example

different

in

a tendency

a

(their

behind

given

these

in

respect

(and

my connec-

to

the

too:

contrast

in

alternative

negation (30)*

They out

did of

(iii)

focus

(31)*

Only

(iv)

focus

(32)*

I

(33)*

I

not

of

Nor

can be

since

I was

they

wanted

to

stayed

stayed

at

at

home

- on

as

this

adjuncts

did

I

not

join

(35)*

Did

but

you

home not

since only

some

point in

a

I expected

because

some

I was

ill

did you

you

do

stay

at

since home

visitors but

also

visitors they

wh-

behave

or

as

like

because-clauses

non-focus

yes-no-question What

lives

adverbials

I expected

they

(34)*

save

adverbials

ill

of additive

also

used

since

restrictive

since

-

retreat

panic

you since

were

ill?

you

were

ill?

adjuncts

in

a

55 On

the

they

following

cannot

(36)* nor

(37)* in

did

you

then,

an

not

join

serve

as

stay it

a number

points

of

at

may

differ

from

because:

attitudinal

they

also

disjunct

like

perhaps:

us

was

since

an

he

answer

to a why-question:

home?

::

Since

indeed

be

said

of points

from

ill

I was that

ill

since-clauses

differ

because-clauses.!®

As

As,

while

similar

itself

a

easily

causal the

as

the

its

whole

than

one.

is

that

meaning

more

since

I will

moment,

causal to

come there

is

concerned,

problematic,

two

as

it

very may

interpretations,

back

to

are,

this

in

issue

fact,

two

a

lend

tem-

later,

as-

distinct

of as-clauses.!7 as I:

as-clauses When

seems,

temporal can

did

first

than

far

on

more

for

4.6.1.

(38)

as

since,

and

suming,

types

being,

to

far

poral

It

focus

easily

did

all,

on quite 4.6.

he

they

why

important

the

Perhaps

can

All

be

serve you

hear

an

answer

that

to

sound?

::

when,

synonymous.

In

that

with

will

occur

other

this

which

it

As

I

put

the

car

instances

into

many

contexts,

as

is

more

like

excluded

(39)

walked

the

through

frequently

in

interpretation

he

less

is,

while-type As

a when-question

gear however,

with

as

altogether

street,

he

while in

with

as

or

less

more

(nor

is

a

(38)):

noticed

some

remarkable

things Ultimately, roughly

the

when-

speaking,

ordinate and

main

on

or the

clauses.

the

whtle-interpretation

kind E.g.

of

verbs with

a

that

are

durative

will

used

depend, in

the

verb-phrase

sublike

56 walk

through the

able

one.

Temporal

since from

street

as-clauses

the whtle-interpretation function,

they

exhibit

the

features

going

through

all

the

as

far

as

I

listed

in

4.2.;

tests,

the

is

can

reader

the

see,

most

as

I will

may

suit-

adjuncts,

refrain

check

them

for

himself. 4.6.2. The

as

II:

example

(40)

As

causal

of

Jane

causal

was

the

Causal

as

tional

possibilities.

behaves,

As-clauses (41)* Like (1) (42)*

Why

Jane

Did

of

they

seems,

look

after

as

looked

serve

alternative

Quirk

exactly

as-clauses

retreat

by

she

easily

since-clauses, focus

given

eldest

it

cannot

did

as

et

al.(:752)

after

like

the

since

others in

as

an

answer

to

them?

::

As

was

cannot

be

she

runs:

its

construc-

why-questions: the

adjuncts.

eldest

Cf.:

interrogation they

wanted

to

save

lives

or

out

of

panic? (ii) (43)*

focus They of

of did

alternative

negation

not

as

retreat

they

wanted

to

save

lives

but

panic

(111)

focus

(44)*

Only

(iv)

focus

(45)*

I

of

as

also

restrictive

I was

of

ill

additive

did

not

adverbials

did

I

not

join

you

adverbials

join

you

as

I expected

some

visitors

out

57 (v)

focus

(46)*

It

Also,

was

like

with

of

a

cleft

not

as

because-

I was and

a causal

meaning

(47)*

What

you

(48)*

Did you

Finally,

did

they

sentence

stay

that

I did

since-clauses

-

do

ill

in

wh-

as

you

at home

and

not

they

join

you

cannot

be

used

-

i.e.

yes-no-questions:

were

ill?

as you were

cannot

function

as

the

he

not

us

as

111218

focus

of

perhaps

( cf.

since): (49)* Two

Perhaps issues

remain

since

and

tween

temporal

4.7. I

The

have

ee

as,

to

as

might

things

are

focus

discussed

causal since/as

that

the

and

of for

most

noteworthy,

viz.

can

I

now

(1)

ill

the

the

semantics

-possible-

of

causal

relation

be-

because! 9 between but

them.

In

(1)

since-

function

was

syntax,

responsible

cannot.

:

(2)

differences

a matter

a question,

he

as.

be

of

se-clauses

join

because;

of

merely

nomena

clauses

and

semantics

not

be

vis-A-vis

suggested

were

the

did

since/as

that

this

as

the

focus

try

to

because-clauses of

give

phe-

two

can

cannot;

perhaps, an

becau-

semantic

connection,

and as-clauses

will

and

some

serve

as

(2) becau-

since-

explanation

and

for

as-

these

differences.

When the

someone

reason

for

perhaps, holds Again, the

says

"not-joining" this

it

a is

speaker,

that

sentence known

and

providing

whether

thesis

confirmed,

by

Did

the a

this

he

ue

his

you

not for

is

the

this,

is

be

By

“did to

adding

yes

further

same

were

join

know

ill, a

The

you

not

answering for

by

involved.

because

wants

free

he wae

suggests

suggestion us

addressed

valid. way

Join

because

himself

could

person

reason

join

speaker

reasons

reason

no,

not

the

mitigates

other

like that

addressee is

he did

known,

behaviour;

indicating

for

Perhaps

is

ill?

us",

from

his

and

the

hypo-

question-

58 ing. be

The that

asked

for

Now as

essential is

from

he

was

ill

it that

said,

I

to

speak,

that

the

evident Of

i.e.,

Or

of

need

relation

not

as

is

the

be

the

such.

are

rather

powerful:

the

at

same

he

event he

only

presents

sincea

of

he

what

ting)

and

example

in

*Does

may,

not

answering

these

join

us

clauses

by since

you

is

to

ill?),

Quirk

on

is

that

ex-

the

words,

but

also means

the (or

an

in

content

asser-

attitudi-

questions

since

it

cannot

appear

et

(:517).

al.

some-

declarative

indeed,

they

for what

this

saying

occurring

were by

All

presince

other

comment

fact

not

that

noted

In

bound

involve,

their

of

effect,

relation.?!

in

who

with

surprising

and

his

self-

reason

place.

cause

is,

disjuncts as

a

not

a

conveyed

speaker

clauses

in

to

since-clause.?°

view

express he

the

as

doubt"

between is

natural, the

that, takes

this

a

provides

typically,

when

suggested

a question,

is

a

in

feaany

Their

fortunately

so

aspect

since-

and

about

with

may

also

as-clauses

a why-question

apparently

the

know

it?

(vs.

Fortunately,

he

knows

it)

uses

reason/cause between

are,

only

attitudinal

he

of

speaker

reason,

towards

is

is

between

doubt

"beyond

idea

in

causal

clause

normally,

That

attitudinal

tability a

main

is to

it

it

since/ perhaps

is

the

clause

speaker

us of

relationship

referred case;

join

aspect

expresses

that

suggests

relation

as-clauses

to

or

runs:

about This

the a

the

such

as-clause,

attitude

also

you

most

or

saying

is

*Did

position

(50)

own

something.

of

in

speaker

aspect

(e.g. ture

to

is

time

since-

asserts

his

speech:

nal

the

referred

not

that

the

seems

suggested

not

as-clause

Therefore,

but

did

perhaps or

main

event

as

in

semantic

the

that

clause

thing pressed

he

stnce-

in

reason

*Perhaps Since

a

the

constructions

the

that

specifically,

mentioned

this

the

since/ase. that

these

one. of

deduced

a main

consequence

course,

sents

of

infer

and

event

be

of

involved:

a possible

may

with

since-clause

feature

always

impossibility

clashes is

is

simply

the

what so

common

possibility

since

asked events

he or

for,

he

cannot as but

concerned

the

responsible

following asks

his

provide

intimate

for

the

unaccep-

why-questions:

addressee

one

addressee

also is

be

not

on

only

that

self-evident,

his

to own.

would

the which

when

provide Now give

a

by the

relationship not

only

is

59 not

what

the

suggest a

first

that

his

reason/cause,

nion

about

4.8.

As

4.8.1. In

:

temporal

section

and

a

this They

topic

present

in

a

and

time,

as

of

give

rise

ambiguity:

(51)

As

The

to

I do be

not

to

would why

even

asks

for

addressee's

opi-

provide.

of

remarks

in

as

connection

differentiate

too,

a

I

am

I will

the

close

sequence

of

afraid, use

engine,

This

he

the

must

the

tem-

will

be

discussion

(p.752).

and

that

cause.

with

between

starting-point of

remarks

on

as

as-clauses when

think

obvious

ae

and

dual

have

(I

by

tenses

terpretation

will

As we

live

modal

auxiliaries

causal

near

First, would

(4.6.1.

only

followed same

be

con-

since

are

position

can

realized

its

the be

the in

main

the

sea, the

interpretation:

"Ie

‘Because

Dal-

Dalrymple

designed

the

remarks I will

seem

and or

future

as-clause

a a

for

number role

of

in

ge-

the

in-

a number

of

contexts

temporal; indicative

generally

likely

we enjoy

correct,

this).

in as

clause,

most

play

to

2.),

are give

to

myself

interpreted

a present in

these

confine

clear

can

‘While

that

that

will

paraphrases:

or

below.

factors

become

has

following

presented

(1)

(iii)

as

the

the

of

(52)

well

engine...'

the

the

remarks,

temporal

the

terpretation

(11)

as

the

As

asked

to

Here,

add

engine...'". neral

some

these

designed

reasons

and

interpretation

able

al.

designed

which

capabilities".

authors

rymple

is

testimony

cause

Dalrymple

of

et

is

conjunctions

great

are

nature.

Quirk

"It

he

the

most

but

Briefly,

causal

we

as;

between to

cause

I will how

for,

reason/cause

and/or

tentative

remark:

nection

or

asking

superfluous.

of

causal

rather

the

determining

question

poral of

reason

was was

for

the

III

this

of

not

Factors

vexing

speaker

question

, and

with

a causal

in-

one:

a healthy will

climate??

generally

yield

a

60 (53)

As

John

his

(iv)

must

in many this As

at

cases

clause

(54)

have

behaviour

the

seems

verb

John

realized

to

type

of

preclude

designates

knew

the

what

he

was

doing,

I

did

not

like

all

a

city

verb a

used

in

temporal

state

or

fairly

the

subordinate

interpretation,

quality.

e.g.

when

Cf.:

well,

he

was

appointed

as

went

to

the

concert-hall

our

guide (55)

As

John

liked

(56)

As

Jane

was

(v)

conversely, -

probably

temporal

music, the

he

often

eldest,

with

she

other

also

in

looked

verbs

the

main

after

the

others

(non-stative?) clause

-

in

there

the

often

as-clause

will

be

a

interpretation.

(57)

As

John

walked

(58)

As

John

told

through his

the

story,

street,

Peter

he

realized

noticed what

some

fine

had

gone

he

houses

through 4.8.2. Of

An

ambiguous

course,

what

is

in

and

world:

one's

reason

for

ficulties As

As

I

walking

begin.

this

is

related

a possible through some

To

a

houses.

the

At

these,

engine,

he

conditions

relationship

street

illustrate

designed

to

causal

will this

not,

the

external

normally,be

point,

I go

determining in

however,

back

to

must

have

the

remarks

a

the

sentence

realized

dif-

(51):

its

capabilities said,

about obvious

this

I do

not

fully

sentence.

connection

certainly

there

end

not

noticing

Dalrymple

great

the

is

example

does

not

To

agree

begin

between apply

is no sequence

cause in

involved

with

with,

the

and case

here,

they

speak

of

in

Quirk

“the

et

temporal

sequence"

of

model-sentence

but

their

simultaneity.2*

al.

close Now

and this

In my

(51);

61 opinion

the

temporal ly

with

only,

so-called

sequence" after

e.g.

(59)

and

in

When

a

the

"obvious

plays when

a

with

perhaps

sentence

plane

connection

role

also

between

temporal with

cause

and

conjunctions,

as,

and

in

some

main-

contexts

like:

touched

the

ground,

some

aspects

everybody

sighed

with

relief An

extensive

discussion

of

temporal

conjunctions

ὡς,

6.4.2. Secondly,

tion, as Be

I

that

is,

in

as

situation did

it

right;

this?

A

new

its

great

the

latter,

To

expect

will

I

designed

as

it

will

overall

list

of

In

number

the

this

than

that

in

narrative

descriptive modifiers.

at

occur. 244

of

he

Thus,

least

be

But

( - also

be

the by

for

the

task, one

advance

will

of

con-

will

have

but

as

other two

relationships;

overall

in

be

realized

mot

indeed,

or

relationships

the

on

"What's

(- this

former,

only

well

come

in

while.

I will

as

(=have

confidence

causal

modifiers

thought quite

like:

Dalrymple

in

Dalrymple

interpretation,

context

any

by

favoured

"I

realized

exacting

texts,

that E.g.

stressed- ) must

that

interpretation

by

a

had as

replaced

a very

temporal

partly,

in

-

(51)

to

be

::"You're

A causal

because.

like

determined

engine.

have

and

as

will

before

new

nobody

temporal

persuasive the

likely

conditions

possible and

just

must

Notice may

possible

text

he

right.

connection of

largely

a new engine"

thought

capabilities".

(1)

said

as

sentence

interpretation

from

it,

a

Greek

of a simplifica-

on

decision

much

more

it,

that

be

implication on

somewhat

actual

will

capabilities". be

is

a

"That's

example

the

causal

chapter

discussion

denied

often,

been

the

designing

designed

:;

tation.

mined,

has

great

be

the

temporal

from

conclude:

an

a

or

engine?

one"

stressed- )

up

he

its hand,

structing

-

this

in

because

in

temporal A

of

found

with

cannot

or

much not

as

be

clear

As

context.

did

other

it

causal

known

realize)

the

may,

expect but

become

ambiguous.

is

is

not

will

paraphrase

has

it

and

Dalrymple to

as

fact,

whether when

their hope

of

be

of

smaller

may

text

partbus

frequent,

dialogues,

as-clauses

type

be

ceteris

more

in

set

hypotheses:

will (2)

to

interpre-

in

be

in

causal deter-

which

they

62

4.9.

Now

Now

that

that, the

it

occurs

sometimes

in

Now

which (61)

More as

I

any

may

in

be

see

I

any

more

saw

often,

in

of

this

requires the

clause;

It

sometimes

speech.

when

and

painting

a non-past

main after,

e.g.

again,

I do

in

tense other

both words,

functions

as

in not

like

it

that

it

that

more compared

When

and

direct

counterpart

that

much

normally

clause

typically

a presentic (60)

now,

subordinate

the

with painting

however,

it

again,

functions

I did

as

a

not

like

‘causal'

much

conjunction?5,

in

(62)

Now

that

ing

relegation

Now

that

has

but

also

some

Like

to

Why ::

and

(64)*

Are

the

match,

their

chances

of

prevent-

small

characteristics of

its

in

common

with

since

and

as,

own.

as-clauses,

their that

cannot their

they

have

have

won

Are

lost

are

features

are

they

have

now

that-clauses

cannot

serve

as

why-questions:

Now

Also,

(65)*

many

since-

answers (63)*

they

their

they

have

have

won

chances

they be

used

chances lost their

the

their

in

of

preventing

lost

the

alternative

preventing

match

or

now

relegation

small?

match interrogation:

relegation

small

that

nearest

their

now

that

rivals

match?

chances lost

of

have

the

of

preventing

match

match?

or

now

relegation

small

that

nearest

their

because rivals

63 Nor

can

ted

above

now

that-clauses (4.2.);

However, in

some

two

they

points

instances

interrogation main

clause

(66)

Will

or

trainer

the

season

also

will

lost

the

Secondly,

exactly

occur

in

Are

their

(70)

like

yes-no-

they

have

What

are

Now

the

chances

lost they

main

that

in

of

Firstly,

alternative

especially

they

acceptable ::

have

after

Now

that

when

the

lost

the

match

when-questions:

that

they

have

an

when-clauses,

now

that-clauses

e.g.

relegation

small,

now

that

the

lost

a

that

they

declarative

the

match,

present, is

speaker

open

now

have

lost

sentence

the

with

a

match? future

like

have is

do,

in

clause,

a condition

which

and

wh-questions;

to

aspect

With

that

preventing

going

they

clause

occur.

in

the match??2’

a conditional of

now

trainer?

after-

dinate basis

connection.

acceptable

is over?2&

the

and

furthermore,

in

this

seem

lis-

match.

can

tense

fire

in

constructions

adjuncts.

e.g.

marginally

they

other

constructions,

the

are

the

made

reference,

fire

?When

Notice,

temporal

future

when

(67)

(69)

be

they

clauses

in

therefore,

that-clauses

later,

Such

(68)

used not,

should

now

with has

be are

in

the

assumed

to

postulates

condition

the

they sense be

that

rough

will

fire

that

in

the the

fullfilled, something

equivalent

on else

of

(70)

trainer suborthe will would

be:

(71)

If

they

lose

This

brings

that

resembles

it

can

me

- unlike

to

the match, the

since since

they

semantics and and

as as

in

will

of many

- occur

fire

now

that.

respects. in

the As

trainer?® we

On

questions

have

the as

seen,

other a

now

hand,

non-focus

64 (c£.(68)

and

(69)),

conjunction. poral

In

relationship

sometimes

no

more

we

e.g.

in

(72)

Now

that

is

rapidly

a

strong

of

stnce

and it

in

not

occurs.2?

future

reference,

future

event:

clause event

live

view

the

the

the

main

to

sea,

the

nature

establish

after

and

However,

health

present,

that

is

some

the

this

tem-

when,

in

of

of

a

and contexts,

children

obligation, the

you

have

the

same

in

the

subordinate

event when

making event

that or,

that

is

the

infers

subsequent

which

expressed

hand, is

clause;

of

that

is

other

speaker

the

be

Now

(60).

what

speaker

pression

(73)

temporal

like

in

the basis of the

ought

to

the

of

amazing On

on

of.

the

always

events,

as

near

to

seems

two

that,

implication

clause

nate

that

between than

as:

is

testifies

now

improving

causal

clause,

the

which

fact,

clause

main

event e.g.in

the

match,

in

a prediction

this

one,

lost

to

the

referred

to

event

when

the

referred

the

to

in

will

main a

subordi-

followed

clause

expressed

you

be

that

has

the

will

main

the

as

in

as

has

an

by ex-

the

main

clause

to

fire

the

have

trainer In these

contexts,

inferential,30 feature

when

replace

now

tial

in

the

hearer

ity 4.1Q.

The

the

of of

the the

main in

more

referred

red ness

the that

meaning

event

now

that-clauses

I should

to

add

that

clause (70).

has

the

which

(in

has

opportunity

statement inference

a wide in

the

drawn

to now

from

that to

clause

sense)of verify

for

be

the

have

since the

fact

occurs

called

may

conveys

speaker

that-clause that

fact,

as, too,

reference;

due

subordinate

present the

now is

in

and

future

However,

strongly, in

could,

since

inferen-

that

or

this

could

has

the occur-

and

hearer.

Thus,

himself

the

correct-

and,

thus,

the

valid-

clause.3}

Conclusion

results

following

of schema

the

foregoing (I

give

only

discussion the

causal

may

be

summarized

conjunctions) ;

in

the

65 because

why

focus

of

restrictive

focus

of

additive

focus

of

cleft-sentence

focus

of

perhape

non-focus

these

attitude follows pare,

contains lar;

nate

main

clause.

an

event ‘and tude it

is

assumes

this

neutral the

the

-

-

+

tense,

in has

on

what

other

they

hand,

a causal do

not

relationship.32 in

value

this of

respect; e.g.

of

since;

sug-

when

the

lacks

these

(Perhaps

I

possibly

there

simi-

one

atti-

that

contexts

21).

ra-

features:

between say

are

is,

subordi-

speaker's

should note

the

a

clause

speaker

relationship the

to

main

something

the

all

com-

perhaps

in

also

he

clause;

adding

expressed

involve

cf.

a causal speaker's

that

express

reference

is

responsible

self-evidently

subordinate

contexts

future

be the

extent

clause

that-clauses,

from

the

the

main

the

to

establish

express

impossiblity some

establish

event,

in

argued only

also to

the

now

clause

only

but

in

expressed

inference

another

towards

-

-

not

relationship,

Causal

Because

because-clauses

cause

is

a present

drawing

-

-

were

as

events,

connection,

the

and

expressed

ae-clause.

when

ther,

is

what

this

or

that.

-

-

factors

since two

this

what

-

following

between

from in

since-

the

towards

that

now

adv.

differences:

relationship gests

adv.

in. questions

Semantically, for

as

|

negation

++

interrogation

alternative

+

alternative

as

since

+

to

+++

answer

bewhere

5

The interpretation of énet-, ἐπειδή- and énette-constituents

5.1.

Preliminary

In

this

chapter

determine

the

stituents. ἐπεί;

I will

discuss

interpretation

The

I will

greater

treat

as they differ 5.2.

remarks

part

the

from

the

of of

other

factors

énet-, this

that,

ἐπειδή-

discussion

conjunctions

in

in and

my

opinion,

Enelte-con-

will

be

general

devoted

only

to

insofar

£net.!

ἐπεί

5.2.1. This

Factors section

determining consists

of

the

by

a discussion

cases

factors to

provide The (i)

which an

main

of

of

for ἐπεί

the

interpretation

parts. the

factors

explanation

tense

two for

examples;

these

interpretation the

of

relevant of

the

of

Firstly,

I

interpretation

secondly,

I will

would

seem

their

not

different

depends

on

€nei-clause

the

and,

ἐπεί

give of

a

discuss

to

statement

ἐπεί,

followed a number

apply

and

try

of to

behaviour. following

more

factors:?

importantly,

of

the

clause;

(11)

the

relative

order

(iii)

the

referring

or

of

éne(-clause

non-referring

se.3 67

and

main

character

of

clause; the

é€net-clau-

68

5.

2.

The

2.

Examples

to

discussion

of

be

discussed

these

factors

will

proceed

from

the

following

examples (1)

ἐπεὶ

dv

ὁ

"Apnayoc the

summons,

νοέοντες

but

changed;

ἐπεὶ

totvuv

οὐ

("Now

pose

the

ἐπεὶ

δὲ

ἡμῖν his

—

(59

ἔχει

either that

ὀὅτω

μὲν

γοντες,

we

of

our

taspes

the

is

the that

Teaspes,

an

ob

purpose

to

λέγειν

τὰ

at

nal

καινὰ χρηστά,

man

any

μετὰ

first of

your

δὲ

ὧδε ex-

ἀναγκαΐως

of Tegea deeds,

time

has old

made and

achieved,

it

new,

needs

(9,27,1)

ὁ Τεάσπιος

("Thus

minds

ἐκϑεῖναι,

valorous

πρῶτον,

ψέλιά

ἐπεὶ

they

gold;

has

you...")

their

from

τε

τὸ

...EOHbAEVOV ("and

that the

ἄλλα

specious

(7,168,2)

κατέργασται

all

help,

ἃ

(1,112,2)

γε

story

ὁ at

the

δὲ

Καρχηδόνιοί

ἀνὴρ

knowledge

of

Libya

Carchedonians, for

Achaemenid,

he

εἰσι

ol

od

περι-

was

gain-

᾿Αχαιμενίδης

did

not

as

sail

for

stripped

for

τε

nal

ἐσθῆτός off

στρεπτοὺς

γε

ποικίλης (-)

many-coloured

armlets raiment

καὶ

τοὺς

λόγος and was

ἀκινίκας,

ἐγίνετο torques,

not

ἐόντας

οὐδὲ and

regarded

εἷς daggers

at

all")

—

(9,80,2) (7

τούτων

Sv

τῶν

καταλεχϑέντων

καὶ

ἄλλων

πολλῶν

συμβαλλομένων

λέ-

Sa-

around

(4,43,1)

χρυσέους, of

μὴ you

ἐγνώσθη

of

Libya...")

sending

Σατάσπης

next son

gave

παλαιά

nations to

βοηϑέειν

they

this:")

now

of

speed

ἔδει

ships")

move

χρόνῳ

("but speak

αὕτη

you

ἔλεγε

all

δὲ

πείϑειν

προέϑηκε

to

Διβύην...

The

do

with

("Thus

for

sixty

oe

παντὶ

prove

énel

ἔπλωσε

(6 )

τῷ

came

I cannot

δηλῶσαι

must

ed.

ἐν

business

which

δύναμαί

ὁ Teyeritnc

ἑκατέροισι

ἐπεὶ

ἑξήκοντα

time

ἀπίκετο,

came

(1,110,3)*

εὐπρόσωπα:

manned

then

naleduevog

cowherd

said:")

the

that

baby,

the

νέας

they

πολλῇ

when

οὕτω

when

were

ποίησον

—

μὲν

ἐπλήρωσαν

answer,

(3)

σπουδῇ

("So

Harpagus

ὑπεκρίναντο

(2)

(4

βουκόλος τάδε:

τὸ

69 σφέτερον γε

ὕδωρ

γίνεται ὁ Ἴστρος

Ev

πρὸς

Ev

then,

that

these

its

συμβάλλειν afore

tributaries,

cause

stream

the

for

ποταμῶν

ὁ Νεῖλος said

Ister

stream

rivers, Nile

the

has

ἐπεὶ

ὕδωρ

ἀποχρατέει.

and

becomes

the

μέγιστος,

πλήϑει

many

("Seeing,

others

greatest

a greater

of

too, all

are

rivers;be-

volume").

(4,50,1)

5.2.3.

Discussion

We

find

Ad

(1)

(1)

the

of examples"?

following

past

tenses,

clause

and

ind.aor. the

main

(ii)

the

Enei-clause

(111)

the

whole about

forms

the

The ὃ The

βουκόλος,

énet-clause

Ad

(2) past

(ii)

the

(111)

this

and

sentence, on

the

orders of

to

the

is

to

the

the

by

110,1

text,

ὧν

and

viz.

salvation. Harpagus

(ἄγγελον

éne(-clause

by

be

and

given in

definite

and

main

ἐπεί-

is

the

ἀπίκετο to

one

of

ἔπεμπε). here,

καλεόμενος;

furtheralso

by

article.

interpreted

ind.aor.,

as

a

temporal

respectively,

in

adjunct

the

ἐπεί

clause;

precedes too,

the main

forms

Corcyraean

ὑπίσχοντο

in

clause;

a narrative

exposure

reported

impf. the

respectively,

main

of

lexically

(1)

énec-clause

report to

to

thanks

tenses,

clause

the

part

function

in

impf.,

birth,

cowherds,

reinforced

anteriority.

is

Cyrus'

referring

of

(1)

precedes

sequel

Astyages'

and clause;

sentence

story

more,

characteristics:

part

of

activities.

πέμψειν

te

nal

clause; a narrative ἔδει

text,

βοηϑέειν

ἀμυνέειν

in

the

i.c.

refers

a

back

preceding

paragraph. The

Enel-clause

taneity, by

ἐπλήρωσαν

give

has

indicating occurred

the

function

of

that

the

action

at

the

time

a

temporal

of

when

the

adjunct

Corcyraeans

they

were

of

simul-

expressed

expected

to

help.5

From

the

£nel-clause

informational in

both

(1)

point, and

(2)

it

is

that

a characteristic what

is

stated

in

of

the

them

is

70 new,

although

with

ἀπίκετο

from

the

one of

on

the

informs for

basis

promised

Greeks

information

unconditioned

(8)

this

is

kind

ἀπίκετο

τοῖσι

Darius

son

ved...") Here,

the of

mation

forms the

for

Δαρεῖος

In

both

although

new

to

element.in

locate

main

ὁ

which

in

time

clause.®

I

("Now

Persia,

arrived,

cf.:

“‘Yotdoneog

ἐκ

Περσέων

ἐπεὶ

Sv

οὗτος

came

to

Susa

ὅπαρχος.

ἔδοξε...

from he

a

serves in

expect

continuative.

ὁ πάτηρ

Περσέων

after

in

the in

the

of

additional

of

the

information

like

cf.

μετὰ

information story

presented

but

in

€ne(-clause

παραγίνεται

desirable;

the

énet-clauses Ad

οἱ

Hystaspes, and

of an expression element

τῶν

restatement

the

(8),

BE

Σοῦσα

to

Corcyraeans

circumstances.

information

énet-clause,

ἦν

moment

entitled the

to

ἔδει

€nel-clause,

presented

get

which

six

his

father

Persians

was

resol-

(3,70,3)

recapitulation In

τὰ δὴ

information

succinct

ment

ἐς

of

(2),

a certain

that

the

énet-clause

γὰρ

of

vice-gerent;

of type

in

at

certain

in

(1), to

a messenger

were

information,

this

information

another

τούτων

under

earlier

turn,

...napayiverar ἥκων:

a

by

sent

we

in

expecting

(110,1);

statement

the

its

had

Corcyraeans

previous

context:

were

information

the

the

call

the

this

help

in

we

Harpagus

then,

conditioned

There

that

that

the

story;

preceding

in the mountains

us

the will

the

information

knew

help;

of

to

instances, being

we

by

the

herdsmen

asked

the

get

moment

BondeeLv were

conditioned we

the

is

etc.

about

also

ὦν).

not

new

(perhaps Darius'

It

is

at

all,

the

father

an

but

statemakes

elaborate

a

variant

ταῦτα.7 in

the

only main

énet-clause

serves clause.

to

does

locate

I will

in

call

not

form

time this

a new

the

infor-

type

of

resumptive.

(3)

(1)

non-past tively,

(ii).

the

(111)

this

tenses, in

the

€net-clause sentence

specifically, this

ind.present énet-clause

case

precedes forms

of

between

a

part

speech, the

and

and the

of

main a

main

we

aor.,

respec-

clause;

clause;

non-narrative

itself

βουκόλος

imperative

the

a part have

of

met

text,

or,

more

a dialogue, already

(cf.

in

71 ex.(1)),

As

is

by

Herodotus

by

one

for

his

wife.

of

himself

the

inferential

er

gives

an

evaluating

to

both

speaker

terpart now

of

that,

As

Engl.

the

and,

Ad

the

between

of

the

function:

report

the

the

οὐ

two

given

versons,

résumé

Thus,

nu

éne(-clause

δύναμαι

situation,

this

etc.

Du.

that

with

From

that,

in

I

cf.

the is

speak-

known

infers

looks the

func-

etc.

which

she

ἐπεί

etc.;

have

lack it

were

get

of

hand,

used

more in

chapter

used

the

like

speci-

a coun-

discussion

on

they

has

us

apply

to with

not

sense

been

rather

ultimately,

about

are

broad

“modifier”

(and,

connection

That 2,

term

for

information

rather

note

the

material

in

exact

the

2,

of

impossible

énet-clauses. even

example

(1)

very

tenses:

much

now the

the that

was

demonstrated

to

ἐπεί,

syntactic

adjuncts,

that

of rather

on

the

given in

to

this

chapter

2.9

the

énet-clause

(iii)

the

sentence

preamble the Apart and

the

€nel-clause,

this

is confined

Examples

but

act (5),

find

the

is

by

the

way

he

(6)

and

(7)

are

im-

the

text,

Athenians

the

speaker

i.c.

on

a

their

refers

to

Tegeans.

in

the As

the

éne(-clause, for

the

so-called

aorist

who,

examples

indic.aor. of

however,

(3)

in

the

the

"im-

say

that

clauses) .!°

speaker

in

é€ne(-clause,

clause;

clause;

aor.cf.S-D(281-282)

themselves;

the

non-narrative

features.

to main the

main

énel(-clause by

think,

this

main

the

of a

tense

same I

(for

Enel-clause

Athenians

cannot

the

in

in

speech

the

different

this,

past”

use

the

In

speech

below) the

part

lengthy

exploits.

exhibit

mediate

a

preceding

from (4)

precedes

forms

to

(3).

(sse

ind.present

(ii)

past

resembles

indic.aorist

parative-like

the

referring

of

(4)

This

In

suggest

ποίησον

makes

that

to

behaviour notion

I

hearer.

because

tests

thus,

other

scene

the

modifier®:

terminology,

speakers)

precise

of

résumé

by now

"disjunct"

native

ἃ

4.9.

for

than

and

formed

has

verbatim,

participants.

an

request

it

almost

interpretation,

as

fic

Again,

a restatement,

the

tions

and

it

summarizes from

this

describes of

in

the he

the

a different

situation

infers main kind.

that

in

which

they

clause. I will

dis-

72 cuss

them

(1)

together.

past

tense

clause, the

main

the

(iii)

in

all

tense three

ted This The

me

i.c.

upon

(part

τούτων...

to

can

be

the

Ister Nile

the

the

thought

three

that

be

for

order the

two

decisive.

"Under

(5)

and

the of

the

factors that

tenses There

all

this

clause

different

when

it

is

was

these

and

be

may

the

the is

English

for

(ch.4,

along

the

determine it

for

examples

the

might the

it

interbe

inter-

should,

how-

case. in

main

the

first

clause:

when

!"?,it is a motivating when

possibilities.

Here,

the

following

themselves

compare

a par

are);

the

rivers

€ne({-clause

5.2.1.

argued on

anticip-

deliberately

by

and

the

circumstances

it

interpreted

in

ex.(7)

these

the

compared

clauses

are

of

importance

of

not

role

all

nar-

clause

Herodotus if

4.3.3.)

treated

equal

if

one

gtven

interpretation

of

for

comment

of

such-and-such

can

discussion

éne(-clause

the main

presen-

The

to

case

(Idescribe

(see

(6)

the

be

The

story

participial

as it

Semantically, because

expression. In

is

would

river;

of

that

in

constituents,

own

the

water?”

they

clear

Crucial

S6wo.It "How

were

are

previously

these

his

of

biggest

factors

the

of

utterance.

presence

éne(-clauses

After

main

(1)-(4).!!

in

follows:

with

of

any

a motivating

their

day".

nature

of

pretation.

follows

as

qualification) for

clauses

The

pretation

are

this

the

tense

as a starting-point.!2 intervenes

the

forms

up

interpretation

the

as

in

in

(7).

éne({-clause take

tense

clause;

in examples

objection:

plain

main

they

preceding

11).!3 Examples lines.!4

lative

non-referring

clause,

the

the

functions

wins

motivating

ever

the

becomes

with

ever,

a

main

do

as

contribute

made

Since

éne(-clause,

the

non-past

καταβαλλομένων...

not

5.2.4.

the

ex.(7)

the

were

note same

tense

way

motivates

a possible

the

to

of)

ates

thus,

past

the

Herodotus,

enel-clause

éne(-clause,

in

follows

no

take

€ne(-clause

non-past

cases

in

I will

rator,

in

information,

brings

€nel-clause, tense (6);

€net-clause

element:

which

the past

clause,

non-past (ii)

in

(5);

options

it

the

the

re-

éne(-clause

expression precedes,

tense (i)

place

appears

(whatthere to

imperfect or

be ind.

73 aor.

in

énet-clause,

present

or

clause.

With

(11)

(i)

the

inferential

but

not

case

temporal

information giving

ative

clauses)

clauses). speaker

by

the

the

main

it

Finally,

some

contains

it

a

was

merely

a

of

that

elements.

new

in

either stage

restatement

anything

there

which

the

in

a

previous

(resumptive

is,

both

In the

(continu-

of

new

with

preceding,

information

énet-clauses

situation

seen

a

in main

(when/after),

referring

forms

indic.

tense

possibilities:

previous

addition

inferential

summarizes

two

(ii)

temporal

contain

are

to

the

clause;

non-past

is

éne(-clause

sequel

or

In

are

there

without

who

hearer

that).

éne(-clauses

the

information,

in

Enel-clause,

interpretation

ἐπεί

given

story,

tense

in

(now

following,

of

All

past

indic.aorist

typically,

he

and

a

the

involved.!5

this

can

be

schematized

as

follows: éne(-clause

preceding-referring main

It

should the

non-past

jnow

following-non-referring

In

(9), be

with

for

be

hit

we an

the

eriptions

above;

are

dealing

ADJUNCT man.

biguous,

In

that

that as

man

with

ἐπεί

the

the

stick

with

nsrrumenT other

cannot

e.g.

5.4.,

since

its

depends are,

thus,

be

words,

hit,

this

practically

different

ἐπεί

could

be called,

an

sentence ἐπεί,

interpretation,

more)

on no

in the

be

ambiguous, is

ambiguous:

with

adjectival has

two

however, the

Avoiding

neutrally,

the

stick

modifier

different the

majority

factors

éne(-clauses

descriptions.

more

to

example

ambiguity: or

For

unequivocally

(or

said

following

grammatical With

(cf.Kooij(1972:112-4)).

there two

sense,

the

different,

cf. below ceive

noticed

strict

He

may

is

when/after

clause

in (9)

past

des-

situation of

cases,

discussed that the

may term

polysemous.!®

ream-

74

5.2.5.

Additional

5.2.5.1. Not

temporal

seldom

temporal aor.:

a temporal

τότε

the

main

μετὰ

temporal,

cf.

τότε

ὧν

is

E.g.

οὕτω

οὕτω

3.12.);

τούτῳ

τῷ

δή

by

anaphorical

after

(8,108,1);

section Ev

(9,26,3);

followed

clause.

ταῦτα

(8,37,1;58,37,3);

(9,98,2);

énet!7

€net-clause

in

(7,1,1);

not

τούτῳ

on

ἐπεί

elements

perhaps ἐν

remarks

ἐπεί

δή

+

ind.

(9,108,2,

after

énet

χρόνῳ

(9,56,1);

(9,18,2);

(cf.

+

imperf.:

ἐνθαῦτα

also

section

3.12.}).}8 In

some

not

instances

refer

the

back,

in

éne(-clause,

the

strict

while

sense.

being

Consider

temporal,

the

does

following

ex-

amples: (10)

Βέρξης

δέ,

ἐπισχὼν

ἐπεὶ

ἐποιέετο: waited his

(11)

he

κακῶς

was

In

both

trated ry

that

ἔκ

τοῦ

hour

xes

was as

a

ἐποιήσατο,

πληϑώρην

at

sunrise

of

marketing

reigned

with

Sidon

ἐγένετο

ill

ἀπὸ

should

lamps

be

πρόσοδον

offered

for and

libations,

and

then

made

twenty-five Tyrus)

befall

him,

years

ἐπεὶ

προφάσιος...

In

(10),

"they

are

δέ

ol

("But

the

cause

when of

Something

similar

referring

to

set

lit”),

as

we

holds

for

phenomenon

(11): that

This

from have

the

περὶ

camp been

of in

the a

it

and

re-

be

up

illus-

the

λύχνων

about

that

libations because is

sto-

ἀφὰς

the

told

military

éne(-clause

people,

can

takes

information

activity

the

δὲ

never

offering

unconditioned

predictable,

éne(-clause

it.

(ὁρμέατο

forth The

the

in

ἀνατείλαντος

215

but

of

given

ἡλίου in

libations.

given

character

information

abandoned

natural,

the

special

of

been

preparing

presumably seen

the

kind

στρατοπέδου

when

Apries war

that

follows.

had

hour

σπονδὰς

μάλιστα

(2,161,3)

the

as

king

γενέσϑαι,

examples

in

having the

waged

fated

was...")

κου

(7,223,1)

Egyptian

ἔδεε

sides

about

ἀνατείλαντος

ἀγορῆς

("Xerxes,

till

which

it

ἐς

assault")

(The in

ἡλίου

χρόνον

Xer-

can it

is

campaign.

implicitly

especially

kings,

75 are

liable

to

end

Apparently, have

to

tain

a

refer

be

that

from

(and,

quite

to

to

indeed,

from

tion

of

main

from

the

the

the

while

a particular other

temporal

opinion.!?

not

necessarily

they

not

view,(11)

is

with

do

may

being

context.2°

of

interpretation

many

instances,

involved22; oOte

Note,

differs

essential we

for

have

con-

finally,

from

(10)

in

that

the

the

interpreta-

to

supply

κακῶς

(-

in

οὔτε

χρόνου

the

would

them

(—)

of

the

taneity.

It

which, same

make

of

οὐκ

is

not

is

the

so

imperfect

I have

sugges-

simultaneity.

cases

John

didn't

Note

that

such

clauses,

the

strict

he

him;

ἐπεῖ

just

the

we

although sense,

when

he

you

leave?

::

διὰ

ἔπειϑε

harmed

ever

makes

it

nor

supposed

could

that

not

move

during

which,

rather,

are

in

impossible

adjunct the

in the main

present

up,

οὐκ

neither

temporal

but,

a negated

show

a

time

expressed is

ἐλπίζων

δὲ

still

but

énel-clause

here,

and

᾿Αττικήν,

or

clause

English

When

simul-

the

moment

takes

clauses

predicate,

to

of

circumstances

place .?

with

a

e.g.:

left they

do

not. give

acceptable

in

temporal

answer

questions: did

holds

different

(9,13,2)

as

much

aspect

thv σφέας"

for

with

the

action

When

When

This

something

(sc.Mardonius)

involved

(13)

γῆν

off...")

in

conjunction

in

+

few

Attica,

terms

drew

semantic

temporal

a

ἐσίνετο

énel-clause

that

under which

not

("he

land

he

presence

interpret

€nei

expresses

ὁμολογήσειν

ὑπεξεχώρεε...

they

it

consider

τοῦ

harried

(14)

also

described,

€nei-clauses)

ἐγένετο

for

that but

ἐπήμαινε

παντὸς

mation,

Herodotus'

context:

that,

point

clause:

for

The

preceding

éne(-clause

(c£f.5.2.3.ex.(2))

at

in

éne{-clauses

tnel-clause.?!

a general

The

in

most

ted

(12)

badly,

event

normal

of

is

the

an

a grammatical

information

As

lives

preceding

back

reference

would

their

then,

John

didn't

show

up

to

infor-

when-

76 As

a general

term

circumstanee?"; be

covered

discuss Now

by

this

might

a causal are

be

term.?°

clause

by

Powell

(in

by

seeing

that.27

(The

Pythia δὲ

τιζε

μηχανὴν...

his

will

in

plan...") (16)

ἐπεὶ

There

δὲ

("so

of

clause

(5)

I

ἐδυνέατο

gave

they

ἐπεί,

although

Powell

all

is

implication

‘seeing the

imperf.

be ἐπεί

not

this strong

when...not).

or

preceding

it rarely:

as

causal;

to

of

clause) he

ren-

Clisthenes). ὀπίσω

suffer

him

strove

is,

(i)

to

ἐφρόνto

work

devise

some

that

fight")

the

in

are

in

the

no

(7,211,3) these as

the

clauses, in

the

the

ἐπεί-

English;

in

(16)

211,2).

In

any

in

following,

motivating,

with

these.

like

present

necessity to

(-),

gain

viewing

both

sentences is

yet

features

present

together

in

for

same

tenses

of

implication no

the

ἐφέροντο

them

ἐσόδου

could

context

πλέον

instances say

of

τῆς

(-)

reasons

past

assigning

(as

for

with

making

conjunction

Of

(12),

(15) Engl.

such

the

an

meaning

like.?®

these,

ἐπεί

out

elements

however, by

sections

from

+ pluperfect

to

Mépoat

exactly

classifies

causal

the

off

preceding

the

ol

Persians

compelling

οὐδὲν

not

There

Apart

and

given

(Loeb-translations):

not

back

£nei:

the

like

explicit

that!

no

refersto

are

drew

referring

case,

no

+ negated

ἀπελθὼν

would

the

exhibit

temporal

precedes,

(16)

are

be

examples

ὡς

answer

παραλαβεῖν

they

they

£nel-clause

course,

god

when

opinion,

causal,

(for

also

I will

rather

three

s.v.énelt)

παρεδίδου,

returned

ἐδυνέατο

approach,

‘regular ' cases

οὐδὲν

the

with

examples

οὐ

the

he

ὀπίσω

in my as

("when

that,

lexicon

ye

of

can

oc(6.4.2.),

should

of

those

unfavourable

τοῦτό

οὐδὲν

of

are,

examples

an

(12)

two

of

The

(12)

(5,67,2)

ἀπήλαυνον inch

gives

ὁ ϑεὸς

his

clauses

of type

detail.

fact,

many

I propose with

sentence

In

them

ἐπεὶ

in

that

(and

(13)

clauses

connection

clauses

argued

as

Greek

In

taken

(15)

In

clauses

that

interpretation . 2

+ negated

ders

and

such

circumstantial it

ἐπεί

for

I suggest

I only two

discussed

other

+ historical

(e.g.1,116,3).3°

ἐπεί

+

constructions

present See

indic.aor. are

met

(e.g.5,55)2°;

further

appendix

(ii) I.

and

with,

77 5.2.5.2. As

for

may or

Inferential the

be

characteristics

noted.

another

tative

Many

subj.,

or

of

clause

main

it

the

ought

to

person is

a

do,

-

or

he

is

νῦν

δὲ

one

ὑμεῖς

TE

ἐπεί

it

ing

you

Apart

from

cerns

an

from

other

speech never

the

and been

god");

of

of

god

on

by

the

same

of

conduct

to that

that

€nel-clause. instance

back

to

an

it

is

the

provided

same

think

that it

the

Persians

the I

as

but

the

i.e.

partner

future

future

first

behaviour

éne(-clause ch.4.9.).

γῆν

ὸ ϑεὸς

we

τὴν

ἡμέων ὑμῖν

their

land

and

since

are

but

they

καὶ

ὁμοίην

invaded

god,

ἄνευ

παρεδίδου,

permitted;

information that

it

just

involved; is

not

person,

"the

that

same

the

one

the

account

Persians

refer

the

third in

the

is

and

preceding

the In

that

differences,

is

his

or

to

himself,

and

the

requit-

manner")

a

means,

concerns,

ex.(72),

ἐγείρει,

the

€nel-clauses,

the

these

ϑεὸς

as

at the conclusion clause

ὡυτὸς

ὑμῖν

you

urged

in in

it

what

ἐσβαλόντες

χρόνον

refers

this

basis

ἐκείνων

ὅσον

time

fact

said

said that

now,

like

action

is

now

such

are in

in

or

an

viz.4,119,3.3!

τὴν

σφεας

present

is

characteristic

speaker

to

adhor-

there

further

the

as

("But

for

Persians

ἐς

A

ex.(3)),

(e.g.

some

ind.present

own

what

in

or

with

also

Περσέων

ἀποδιδοῦσι held

of

(cf.

exception,

ἐπεκρατέετε ἐκεῖνοι,

-

his

following

(like

obligation

expressed

inference

or

that

9,42,2)

or

addressee

an

do,

is

the

imperative

(cf.(4));

what

the

draws

will

clause,

an

indic.present.

consequence

only

ἔχει

that

indicates

natural

There

is

main

exhortation

an

either

speaker

(e.9.9,16,2;

(17)

others

briefly,

either

of

the

contain

ἀναγκαίως

in

the

of

examples

expression

ind.future,

put

ἐπεί

is

the

résumé that

are by

given

in

main

the on

then,

the

expressed

who,

has

same on

the arrives

the

what

the

of

the

speaker's is

€net-clause in

a

(it

envoys,

value

the that

of

of

ἴοο."2 In spite

semantic where

the

con-

differs

middle

by

Scythian

now,

clause too,

remotely

himself

the

consequence

is

in

urged

the

indicated,

the

only

speaker

examples

a natural

event

occurs context

god works

that

of

in

tnei-clause,

own

behaviour stated does

preceding

of

in not

context,

78 but

to

to

both

(18)

some

information

speaker

ἐπεὶ

and

Ζεὺς

κατελὼν Zeus

πέρσῃσι

by

ourselves In

Dutch,

Engl.

a

now

better.

Notice

referent

of

opinion, In

122

the

(19)

next

"Q

the by

possibly

τοι

But

e.g. have,

ἀρχῆϑεν

ἐρέω:

σὸ

ἔλεγον

τὰ

that

constrained how

tense

would

the

it

not

to

the

(&Andeln

χρήσασϑαι

ation

ἐπεί

we

of

have

ex. (3) main

here, and,

in

by

he the

too,

the

concerns - who

said king

is

was to

a

speaking

Motivating

In

the

that

and

to

now

(—)

you,

Cyrus,

take

to

(9,122,2) strange

(as

that

sentence,

might

wöuld

are

where

corroborate

IX,75-77)

the the

that

truly

the

reference these

examples

of

of

the

the

the

con-

£nel-, enel-clause

an

interpretI

think

e.g.

in

information

in

that

I

ch.101,3

present

speaker.

indicates

consequence

to

could,

clause

Still,

is

where the

I

I knew you.

(7,104,1)

features,

that

of

as

main

but

strange.

aspect

to

inferential

context

to

-

that

τοὺς

("King,

unwelcome as

ob

λόγων

Spartans")

with

the

here

be

the

fact

τῶν

Σπαρτιήτῃσι

would

occurs

χρεώμενος

λέγειν

speak

the

problem:

ἀληϑείῃ

to

behaviour

natural

Κῦρε,

seeing

a different

somewhat

semantic the

this

with

Due

is

the

speak

5.2.5.3. 3,9,2

that

or

(1954:tome

preceding

ἐκέλευε). now

especially,

clause

Demaratus what

as

rather

ὅτι

me

never

immediately

be

of

truth

ἐπειδήor Eneite-clauses) ; also, is

us

σοί,

better")

ἠνάγκασας

stands

lies

(this

let

since

κατήκοντα

you

peculiarity

is

lacking,

ἐπεὶ

you

the

that

Anıordunv

δ'

people,

low,

again,

told

a past

known

by Herodotus.33

since

tains

Persian

Legrand

first

Here,

the

is

the

have

("Seeing

peculiarity

we

ἀληϑεστάτους, from

δὲ

ἀμείνω

nu

is not

example

βασιλεῦ,

φίλα

otherwise

ἀνδρῶν

aangezien,

éne(-clause

expressed

chapter

be

σχώμεν

Astyages

with

think);

that

the

to

διδοῖ,

(sc.country)

translation I

to

bringing

one

that,

supposed

(-)

φέρε

lordship

men,

is

ἡγεμονίην

᾿Αστυάγην,

grants

among

that

hearer:

In his

pressure

other

the

words,

having put

that

on

said him

freely. ἐπεί

énet-clause

does

not

follow

the

main

clause,

properly

79 speaking,

but

complement

is

inserted

(ῥηθῆναι).

teristics

as

the

between

Apart

the

from

‘regular’

predicate

this

cases

of

it

has

(δεῖ)

the

following,

and

same

its

charac-

motivating,

€nel-

clauses. The an

non-causal example

(20)

τούτων

ἐπεὶ

δὴ

If

the

the

elvexa

two

δὴ

ἐπεί

5.3.1. In

order

junct', of

avoid

In of

First

the

the

the

the

to

same

say

level

giving

the

of

with the

motive

τούτων

these

(1,146,1)

it

modifies

made

that

as

As

cause/reason

énet-clause

too

Ionians")

(cf.2.19.). of

᾿Ιώνων...

Ionians

other

on

presence

status

rather

this

for

τούτων is,

τού-

ol

"Iw-

whole

this

of

state-

εἵνεκα.

beg

of

motivating

precise the

section

terms

question, in

énet-clauses

like

‘adjunct’

I have

spoken,

connection

I will

try

to

with

define

and up

following more

'dis-

to

now,

€nei-

exactly

the

clauses.

all,

it

clauses

under

cussion

of

chapters

clusion

to

these

a different

the

adjunct

expression!

these

of

than

ἐποιήσαντο,

τῶν ἄλλων

foolishness

coordinated an

for

would

‘motivating

clauses.

in

γάρ

which

Status

clearly

πόλιας

εἰσι

reason

but

ἐποιήσαντο,

syntactic

to

this

were

whereas

particular

The

appears

δυώδεκα

“Ιωνές

functioning be

as

elvexa...

and

Ἴωνες

οὗτοι it

was

functions

τούτων

5.3.

ol

Ionian...

would

ἐποιήσαντο, .in

énet-clauses

("For

for

truly

vec... ment,

καὶ

λέγειν

cities;

more

these

τι μᾶλλον

€nel-clause

εἵνεκα, των

εἵνεκα

πολλὴ

twelve

of

as

ὡς γέ

μωρίη are

nature

such

can

be

discussion 1-3

safely are

pointed

chapters

angle,

viz.

of

a class

in by

assumed,

not

I

adjuncts;

in

that

3.14.

This

comparing

think,

that

nothing

direction, can

be

the

the

dis-

cf.

the

con-

corroborated

éne(-clauses

énet-

in

with

from

motivating

ydo-clauses. The

existence

nized for

by

Denniston

saying

that

of

(1954:60)

which

has

motivating who

just

ydo-clauses

states:

been

said".

"rdp One

is

gives of

duly

the

his

recog-

motive

examples

80 runs: (21)

δέδρακε since not

As

you

points

because

resemblance

That cally

ἔργον;

are

to

and

γάρ

(22)

fiv..., ἥξει

out, the

the

ydp-clause

τοῦτο

δὲ

ἣν

παρὰ

σέ

lands

alike

defeat

us

ἤδη

ἡμέας

in

same

of

only

from

ἐπεί,

the

γίνεται

undone. and

the

is

For

question:

this

shows

discussed

semantically,

but

following

μὴ

πέσῃ

ὁ πέρσης

("if...,then

battle

long

what?

it

I do

"I a

in

lot

5.2.3..

also

syntacti-

examples,

where

constructions.?"

δεινὸν

be

"How

done

motivates

(5)-(7) not

καταστρέψηται

γε... will

asks:

"...has

Semantically,

appears

the

(Oedipus

559)

examples

in

ἐννοῶ

interrupts:

understand".

ydp-clauses

occur

ἐλπίσῃς,

γὰρ

éne(-clauses

like

ἐπεί

(5.01

I don't

motivating

οὐ

(Creon

understand")

Denniston

ask of

ποῖον

Lalus...?")

For

subdue

it

is

do

not

us,

to

he

πᾶσα

μάχῃ be

“EAAac.

feared

think will

ἡ

npatfioac, that

that

leave

if

γὰρ

οὐκὶ

all

the

you

μὴ ὡς

Greek

Persians

unassailed")

(7,157,3) (23)

el..., ἴδω

Spa

παντὶ

words

μὴ τῷ

you

have

it by plain (24)

ἀλλὰ who

tle

(25)

Av

οὐδ’

ἐπεὶ he

(26)

(27)

of

be

γὰρ

all")

(Ar.Nu.368) γνοίη ("...

told

by

Av γινώσκοι

not’ us;

idle

οὐδ΄

dc οὔτ’

to

ἂν

For

πρῶτον

inform

Εὐμβαλοιγεί

μὴ

would

know

nor

a guess")

οὔτε

εἶδε

οἰκήιον

("For how can he have knowledge,

learnt

nor

himself

...énel ("For

τέῳ how

ἂν

could

τρόπῳ

seen πελειάς

a dove

utter

what γε the

is

φέρε the

look

at

best")

ἀνϑρωπηίῃ speech

of

this

("But point

πύϑοιτ᾽ gather,

ἡμῶν" unless

(Ar.V.73)

[οὐδ]

for

us

ἁπάντων. on

ἐδιδάχϑη

ἐπεὶ

lest

let

me

have

J.

beware

(7,103,3)

ἀπόφηναι

have

nobody (for)

εἰρημένος then

boasting.

how...,")

will

which

οὗτος

("if...,

ἔμοιγ᾽

For

be

you

λόγος

but

light:

τουτὶ

εἴς

ὁ

ἄν...

rain?

Av

κῶς γὰρ

κῶς

spoken

τοπάζετε

would

κόμπος

reason's

ὕει;

does

first

μάτην οἰκότι:

καλὸν

οὐδὲν

who has neither

(3,81,2) φωνᾷ

φϑέγξαιτο;

man?")

(2,57,2)

81 (28)

ἐγὼ

δὲ

...

("And

(29)

of

Darius...")

ob

τὸν

the

have

γάρ

+

γάρ and

+

and

like

as

which has

given γάρ,

it

means

a further

be

...

the

ho

son

examples,

fact

said

it

is

a connector

view

are

ἐπεί

that

entitled,

I

τι of

all may

as it

to

or,

same the

be

preceding think,

and

ἐπεί

in

and γάρ and ἐπεί +

given

examples they

may

nature

are

occur

both

with

ἐπεί

of

inferred

these

that

distributional

syntactic

ἐπεί,

shown

that

from

both

speak

proper-

status

of

a coordinator,36

€nel-clauses to

the

characteristics.

possibly

can

ydo

clauses

be

+

subjunc-

because

the

may

the has

ἐπεί

(27))

indicatives

considerably, I

have

clause

has

it

(25)); and

accordingly,

ἐπεί

Since

from

and

indicative,

main

and

adhortative

((26)

then,

with

differ

&

front

unfriended

(22),

the

indication

that

ἄφιλος the

unblest,

(29)).

the

clauses?°;

be

of

For

whereas

the

point

in

((24)

and

with

clauses

syntactic

ἄϑεος

ontative

((28)

consequence.

ἐπεὶ

subjunctive

clauses,

above

énef-clauses we

γεγονώς

stands

subjunctive,

than

main

following ferential),

may

(5.01 660;transl.Jebb; for added)

can

that

Sun.

+ imperative

provide

the

...

I not

who

the

"potential!

introduces

Secondly, ties

in

would

From

γάρ,

ἐπεί

in subordinate

indicative

clauses.

this

rather

typically,

in main

by

optative

moods

Δαρείου For

ἽἍλιον"

doom...")

of

+

(wish)

these

ἐκ

him

‘prohibitive’

counterpart question

/

by

no,

here:

'cupitive' used,

host, utmost

(23);

εἴην

πρόμον ("No,

the

a direct with

Sedv

by

positive

γὰρ

accomplish...

(7,11,2)

ὀλοίμαν

heavenly

I die

tive

/

μὴ

will

πάντων

πύματον

We

ποιήσω.

I myself

of

γάρ, This

motivatinga

semantic

(temporal

two,

and

and

a

in-

homophonous,

enel's. 5.3.2. From

Some

constructional

peculiarities

the

above

discussion

one

in,

what

could

be

‘free

all

circumstances

same the

finally, the

of

ἐπεί

γάρ

presence

ἐπεί has

seems of

might

is possible, some

to

be

certain

ἐπεί

conclude

variation',

interchangeable.

contexts only use

called,

of

specific

This,

ἐπεί

These

is

exclusion over

γάρ

that

however,

to the

preferred,

that i.e.

advantages

particles,37

and

and

γάρ

occur

they

are

under

not

the

of γάρ,

γάρ,

differences

in

case:in

in others others,

have

to

do

with

82 γε The

combinations

ἐπεί

see

appendix.

to

(1954:141): use

with

speaker true

“An

or

from

ye

of

ye

being

(4

examples

ten

agree

this

and

causal

conjunctions.

not

concerned

means

with

not

nor

be

does

derived

what

like

ye

or

who

of

γε

γάρ.

(Perhaps

states

is

that

might

its

the

not

be

subordinate

much

by

Herodotus;

denotes

the

"that

ydp.

and

use

might in

replaced

*ye

from

γε

down

in

Denniston

limitative

laid

something

could

times

with

of

occur,

γάρ

occur

I

branch

ἐπεί

not

énet...ye

qualification

thus,

cases

does

reasons,

is the

ye,

these

and value

important

writer

clause"3%

kydp

ye

the

conditional

apart

In

As

is

sure".

The for

combination

etymological

ἄρ (α) 2). "0

καὶ ἐπεὶ

καί

the

former,

fact,

καὶ

ficult is

a

but γάρ

to set

has

Hdt.)

in

a

the

combination since. on

In

their

of

In

pretational

difficulties

on

being By

meanings the

the

of

consider

καὶ

an

the

of

the

καί

following

often (in

of

difit

fact);

particles

meaning

illustration

in In

occurrences

for

hand,

and

that

also.

are

its

meaning:

other

γάρ

means

that

number

connective

way

over

unambiguously

different

cases,

γάρ

(1954:108))."!

advantage

καί

approximately

other

(Denniston

the

a considerable

with

own,

has

latter,

number

distinguish.

possibly operate

in

not

also

these

example

inter-

from

Hero-

dotus: (30)

...

μίσγονται

ἐσέρχονται ἄλλα

κτήνεα-

γὰρ

τε

τοῖσι

Ev

temples

a

temple,

beasts

and

and...")

with before

with the

καί

Possibly,

ἄλλα

τῶν

leaving a man

(they

say)

γυναικῶν

ἀνιστάμενοι

ἀνϑρώπους

κτήνεα

νηοῖσι

holding

there

γάρ;

are

(ii)

have

is

ϑεῶν

the to

are

ὁρᾶν

be

καὶ

dpvidwv

they

like

seen

κατά

καί...

women

any

to

ἄλουτοι

εἶναι

τὰ

γένεα

(",..

have

unwashed

other

mate

περ

enter

inter-

animal;

both

possibilities

ἐπεὶ an

...

for

in

καί:

(1)

not

being

equivalent

to

also,

(iii)

is

coordinated

ὀρνίϑων;

both

then, to

three

it

before

dpviSwv:

imperative

τὰ

and

birds

ἀπὸ

for

temples

(2,64,2)

principle

unity

nal

νομίζοντες

καὶ

course

in

ἱροῖσι

ἱρόν,

ὀχευόμενα into

In

Ev

ἐς

it

it

forms

with

the

καί

and. καί

is

used

unambiguous

in καί

those =

also.

contexts For

an

a

coordinated

where example

it

was cf.

83 (31)

Nepoındv Ξέρξεω is

a

wife

δὲ

τὸ

Gdovtag

γυναῖκα

Persian

of

κατορύσσειν:

πυνϑάνομαι...

custom;

Xerxes...

for

I

ἐπεὶ

καὶ

"Αμηστριν

κατορύσσουσαν have

buried...")

heard

("To

that

bury

τὴν alive

Amestris,

too,

the

(7,114,2)"2

o06é"3 οὐδὲ

γάρ

being

(1954:111)), καὶ

γάρ.

the in

"negative

principle

Again,

it

is

οὐδέ

(32)

παύεσϑέ

μοι

βαίνειν

ὀρχεόμενοι

οὖν,

same

perhaps

ἐπεὶ

come

counterpart

the

to

of

καὶ

avoid

are

misunderstanding

as

that

with

we

have

in

out

ὀρχεόμενοι,

dancing

ἐπεὶ

("Cease when

οὐδ'

your

I played

ἐμέο

αὐλέοντος

dancing, to

for

you")

ἠϑέλετε

neither

ἐκ-

would

you

(1,141,2)

particles do

are

in

combination

from

giving

pages in Denniston (1954:445ff. (γὰρ οὖν), also ibid. pp.60-61, on motivating γάρ. "5

γάρ γάρ

see

mostly

since

it

which

seems

and

I τοι,

with a

give

be

in

information

in the

two

nov

the

on

refer

494

that

ἐπεὶ I

to

οὖν' and refrain

the

found

for

of δή

ἐπεί

τοι

different

and

γάρ are

occurring

rather

stands

a compound is

to

e.g.

Hdt.3, 36, 3;

somewhat

apart,

conjunction:

ἐπεί;

the

difficult

to

in the

possibilities

following

of

ἐπειδή,

additional assess.

motivating

schema’:

the

frequently,

énevén.*&

constructional

summarized

com-

both

Finally,

Concluston

The

rele-

(γάρ nov));

are

(1954:243ff.).

equivalent by

and

particles

conjunction, form

γάρ,

clauses.""

δή.

while

conveyed

section

γἄρ

Denniston

ἐπεί,

virtually

semantic

and

motivating

(1954:88,549),

temporal

only

examples 5.3.3.

οὖν

δή compare

as to

γάρ

of

ἐπεί:

δή

occurs

in

Denniston

γὰρ of

is,

section

with

For

combination albeit

this

and τοι

7,103,3.

examples

that

with

vant pare

conclude

occur,

found

nov

with

not

only

ἐπεί

For

(Denniston present

που

These

To

γάρ"

difficulties

ἐπεί

Cf.

the

84

γάρ

without

particle

δή καί τοι ἄρα

/

οὐδέ

+

85

5.4.

Problems:

5.4.1.

Preliminary

This

section

following seem

4,

to

ly, of

be is,

ἐπεί

is at

the

ἑωυτοὺς

δὲ

λέγουσι

᾿Αϑηναῖοι), ἐπεί

("The

as

temporal,

being

this

temporal, the

down

is

do

examples

in

as

and, not

of

would

5.2.1.

not

so

number

of

that

moti-

secondprecede

instances

of

ἐπειδή

and

sentences: τοσούτῳ ὅσῳ

σφεας

ἐκείνων

παρεὸν

ἔλαβον

than

by

have

killed

them,

after

would

not

so,

but...")

πρὸς

laid

why

discuss

Athenians,

rightly

this

a number

rules

viewed

I will

more

("To

the

Since

much

λέγει

of

interpretation

normal.

γενέσθαι

do

discussed.

time.

following

Πελασγούς,

be

an

firstly,

although

small,

same

be

a discussion

with

to

is

to

receive

show,

as

rather

ἀλλά...

(34)

have

clauses,

the

to

that

to

clause,

Consider (33)

devoted

they

Ênel-clauses

Examples

accordance

try

these

main

ἐπείτε

be

in

I will

why

remarks.

will

that

vating. their

following

éne(-clauses

not

and

temporal

ἀμείνονας

ἀποκτεῖναι

ἐπιβουλεύοντας, their

the

ἄνδρας

αὐτοῖσι own

Pelasgians,

they

had

οὐκ

showing, that

caught

ἐθελῆσαι,

dealt

when

them

(sc.

τοὺς so

they

might

plotting,

they

(6,137,4)

ταῦτα

᾿οτάνης,

ἐπειδὴ

Otanes

replied,

when

ὥρα

he

σπερχόμενον

saw

Darius’

Δαρεῖον

vehemence")

(3,72,1) (35)

ἐδέδμητο Αἰολίδα

τήν

We

built

περ

by

νῦν

the

these

came

from

they

now

then,

(-δή,

have

seen

£nel-clauses

is

-te), is

Phocians

of

that the

that

ἐκ

ἐκτέαται

we

main

they

to

Φωκέες

τὸ

wall

fear

of

dwell

τεῖχος

δεί-

οἰκήσοντες

γῆν

had

been

the

Thessalians,

in

the

τὴν

built(-).

Aeolian

It when

land

(7,176,4)

the

semantics

do

This

δὲ

Θεσπρωτῶν ("A

for

Thesprotia

here.

that

ἔδειμαν

FAsov

posses")

Recapitulation

claim,

(-).

Θεσσαλοὶ

which 5.4.2.

ἐπεί

τεῖχος

ἐπεὶ

was

My

δὲ

σαντες,

not

claim

have can

of

instances be

characteristic

give

motivating

additional

of

ἐπεί motivating

substantiated of

following,

information

as

follows.

motivating

which

ex-

86 plains

the

is

in

"I

say

form

fact this

additional text, it

as

is,

the

it

to

it

one

back

of

to

back

the

be

to

this

persons

(33)-(35),

why

it

paraphrased

as

is,

the

inferential,

information.

furnishes

indicates

can

information

refer

and

new

or

aspect

This

not

temporal who

is

come

does

words,

himself

clause,

semantic

(because)..."

that

other

cases

preceding

Its

preceding,

in

Now

for

in

Herodotus some

of

uttered.

In

fact,

con-

énef-clauses

most

do;

instances

additional

it

comment,

delivering

I will

in

preceding

is

in

a speech.

discuss

each

example

separately. 5.4.3. Ad

Discussion

of

Hdt.6,137,4.

examples

(33).

While

not

being

ἐπεί

should

have

no

be

need

Πελασγούς.

able

to

prove

taken

as

temporal.

to

give

They

are

ä-vis

the

poral

Pelasgian

modification

fits

known;

in

the

preceding

cf.,

φανῆναι

act

of

with

En!

planning We

Clause,

to

have,

dundantly

-

second

assuming

it some to

to

fact

that

the

ded,

subordinate,

énet-clauses, speak,

the

Athens").

no

the

temporal, presence clause. to

a context

the the

were

feature a

in

time

-

the

ἐπιχείρη-

caught is

in

is

of

wholly in

not

the

met

temporal

resumptive

information

locate

tem-

information

contrary,

however, of

vis-

a

ἐπιβουλεύοντας

This is,

reactions

given

temporal

in

the

somewhat

re-

event. question

stands of

Enei-clause

not

such

that

Athenians

napeôv....

their

say)they

here

new to

concerns

when

it

instance

serves

other

be

may be due

to

an

only

point it

they

think the

statement

sentence:

éne(-clauses;

then,

an

I

thing,

of in

but,

("(as

attack

doubt,

one

Further,

all,

(cf£.5.2.3.ex.(8)):

éne(-clause, A

αὐτοφώρῳ

in motivating

ones.

at

the

and

better.

new

For

account

conspiracy,

not

beyond

for

an

is

σιν

it

a motive giving

Êêne(-clause

so

Related

Sow,

itself There

functioning precede

the

why

the

Enei-clause,

this

unusual

or,

more

generally,

forms seems

as

of

in

part to

be

adjuncts

clause

they

of a to

place.

another

to

embed-

tendency

for

a non-main

modify

but

This, the

clause, to

follow

it.5° As for the explanation of this phenomenon I have no solution to offer5!; I will confine myself to giving some more examples (with additional commentary in the notes)?

87 (36)

ἐπεὶ

καὶ

ταῦτα

σάμενοι

τὸν

λέγεται,

Πέρσην

Λακεδαιμονίους σφίσι

εἶναι

another the

(37)

there

was

their

present

φὰς...

παϑεῖν

τὴν

From

(38)

δὲ

(40)

ἐπεκράτουν

τὴς

περιιόντι

σφῶν

οἱ

δὴ

that to

πόρος

lead

the

army

to take

τῷ

(ot

ϑέρει ἐπόνουν,

their

allies

were hard

λέγων

ὅτι

πειδὴ

παρέλαβον

vants

that

μοι

ruled

τὸ

οὖν ἰδίων

the

when

ol

I took τῶν

("remembering

those

men

lost

their

ob

οὐδ᾽

τούτων

did

ὥσπερ

τι

even

the

not

they

τῶν do

party

even

ἔνιοί

ἀπὸ

of

think

some

Phyle fit

nal

I

τῶν

the

τῶν

οἷς

and

an

army,

ἐκεκτήμην

any

é-

the

ser-

(Lys.7,34)5° κοινῶν

τῇ

ἐκεῖνοι

that

πόοἱ

both

each

those

of

us

(Lys.13,95)57

πολιτῶν

did,

all

horrors,

ἔπραττον

ἠξίωσε

take

ἐπεὶ

᾿Ακτίῳ

had

ἐπειδὴ

those

succeeding to

οὖς

that

all

citizens

Kopiv-

Corinthians,

ships

lives...")

ἐν

εὐτυχημάτων as

ἐπὶ

the plot")

and

τινες

Φυλῆς

οὗ

made camp near Actium )(Th.1,30,3)°°

ἐγένοντο

felt when

he

had

στρατιάν,

the

sent

δεινῶν

ἑκάστῳ. a whole

τοὺς

until

had

over

as

ἑώρων

καὶ

Sepdnovtec,

state

saw

he

when

(3,156,2)54

("...saying

ἁπάντων ὅσα

sea,

the

they

ἁλώσιος

precisely

ναῦς

pressed

εἰσὶν

ἐτελεύτησαν smote

not

τῆς

Κερκυραῖοι) ... μέχρι

summer

χώριον

I owned

τῶν

the

πάντες

ἀναμνησϑέντες

οὐδὲ

than

because

ἐστρατοπεδεύοντο

of

would

away,

πέμψαντες

course

τοίνυν

the

because

ol ἀπανιστάναι

it,

the city")

the

ἐπειδὴ

after

have

ἐφαίνετο

suffered

Corcyraeans)

that

is

was

badly,

not

συμβουλεύσαι

had

("(The

ἄνδρες

it

Hellas,

ended

rather

he

ϑαλάσσης

ξύμμαχοι

καὶ

there

that

(7,152,3)5?

οὐδεὶς

who

in

would

indeed

into

τοὺς

βουλόμενοι

seem

had

ἐπικαλεπρὸς

authors:

ϑιοι

λει

(41)

they

ταῦτα διότι

ἐπείτε

no way

other

when (39)

that

king

find

Persian

distresses")

and

the

the

Lacedaemonians

δὴ

("for

would

οἱ

σφι

πᾶν

λύπης it

ἦσαν

ἐπειδή

ἑστήκεε,

whereby

invited

nothing

("Saying...,

could

παρεούσης

the

στρατιήν,

advised

τῆς

who

against

᾿Αργεῖοι

Ελλάδα,

ἡ αἰχμὴ

current,

Argives

battle

ἄρα

τὴν

κακῶς

πρὸ

tale

ὡς

ἐπὶ

μετεβάλοντο, εὐτυχοῦντας,

μετασχεῖν who

in

their

share

("and

turned

in

so

about.

efforts; these

he when

he

succes-

88

ses...") (42)

(Lys.31,9)8

διήλασα

nal

ουνέμειξα

βασιλεὺς

ἀφίκετο,

drove

and

on

arrived,

met

after

βασιλεῖ

ἐπεῖ the

he

Ev

Κῦρον

king

had

τῷ

ὑμετέρῳ

ἀπέκτεινε

in

your

killed

camp,

Cyrus

στρατοπέδῳ,

καὶ... where

and...

Evda

ἐδίωξε... the

("I

king

had

pursuited...")

(X.

An.2,3,19)°° (43)

ἔλεγε

δ᾽

ὁ Πελοπίδας

ἡττημένοι

εἶεν

("Pelopidas been

not

from

clauses

the

be

fer

back

noted:

diately the

in

(37),

of

was,

(43)),

notes

together

(ex.

(43)).

with

someone

else's

in

case

sent

ken to

the

the give

order z.

the

own

Event they

((ii)

the

y, do

above)

when not

(the

had

Thebans)

(37),

have

In not

that

imme-

(38)

and

(40).

subordinate

author,

speech

does

not

some

of

to

has

the

was

a

that

is

re-

the

‘displacement’

in

author.

in points

to

indirect

structure

the

is,

the

occur

we

occur other

éne(-clause

for

words,

the

been

or

is

these,

immediagiven

being

from

the

restriction

the

necessity

order,

first.

rather,

whereby

In

Event

therefore,

a

x.

it

When

x,

apto

has

y.

wholes,

pre-

ta-

possible

narrative

then

self-contained

he

became

‘regular'

al-

concerned

viz.

other;

much

lacking

free

each

((33),

form

narrative,

simplified: have,

the

(39)),

the

is:

(42):

other

information we

Arcadians

two

that

and

changing

here

μάχῃ

παρέγενοντο

they

(36)

of

somewhat

they

information

liberty

Although and

to

to

main

a

of

examples

his

the

are

éne(-clause

relation

But

nomenon

is,

statements, of

cause

that

the

does

(33),

instances

that

In

οὐ

etc.-clauses

examples

main

in

is,

order

the

but

to

᾿Αρμάδες

clauses,

examples

these

of

and after

ἐπεί-

example

events

the

etc.

in

narrative

context

(see

few

of

reference

preceding

a

indeed,

continuing

the

these

as

a number

earlier,

plying

in

way

οἱ

αὐτοὶ

Argives

subordinate

clauses

(39),

the

moreover, tely

in

the

nal

ἐπεὶ

7,1,35)50

all

context;

these

(ii)

(36),

part

only

éne(-clause

clause;

(X.HG

that

same

preceding

Possibly, of

the

᾿Αργεῖοι

Lacedaemonians,

themselves

(1)

in

ol

that

the

up")

fact

are

ὅτι

Λακεδαιμονίων,

said

by

shown

that

may

also

defeated

had Apart

ὑπὸ

the

When

y,

where

then the

x.6!

occur

in

indirect

is

also

present,

sentences

with

the

I

speech, think,

énet-clause

the with

do

not

second

phe-

examples

form

part

(41)

of

89 a

continuing

ge

in

a

falls

narrative.

line

of

outside

ples)

the

In

short,

it

in

the

author

quotes

the

author,

he

is

free

5.4.4. final

(36)

(33),

be

difficult

τοίνυν

starts

statement

(see

also

a

about

notes

to

much

sense

ing,

admittedly

(1)

in

this

some

new the

stacamp

these

exam-

motivate

the

taken

rus

and

for

saying

(11)

not

have

form

mation rally

of in

seen

part

the

the

main

end

clause

fact that the clause

is uttered

tant

the

to

have

know

when

Herodotus'

case

I do

of

be

(42),

the

(ἐπεί

makes

follow-

semantic

that

as

will

it

meaning:"I

land

the

viewed

this

fn.60a):

general of

of

that

for also

a piece

in

cannot

dif-

peculiarity

(33),

think

(cf. on

the

of

not

*...servants,

of

5.4.3.)

indirect

narrative

view

clause

main

the

excluded

Similarly,

in

Accordingly, the

énet-clauses

expressions,

over

Sin-

narrative,

I

can

hardly

owned;

killing being

for

of

Cy-

a motive

arrived".

(cf.

of

in

the

interpretation be

speech.

own

information

illustrate

reasons

slaves:

pursuit

those

of

to

taking

of

had

to

motivating

out-

the

temporal?

yet

intuitive,

plot".

he

point

vague.

pressed

the

only

As

his

in

fall

when

indirect

£neldif-

passages

secondary

whether

given

doubt;

seems

subsequent

formational

as

possession

not

tndeed

question were

the

in

the

their

part

e.g.,

the

a motivating

(39)

"where

we

examples,

in over

the

as

them

happens,

that

for

the

and

temporal.°?

examples

E.g.

which

5.4.3.

fact

greater

primary

beyond

somewhat

of

the

developing

the

for/because")

grounds. had

view

nature for

not

which

prove

the

is

of

indeed, to

may

responsible

statement(s)

narrative.

are,

say

,

cases,

examples

be

these

the

own

only

overall

as

else's

these

(43),

not

narrative

concerns

to

the

his

to

of

to

οὐ

the

clauses

arrange

the

point

exx.

also

own

in

to

that

inasmuch

someone

from

Are

said

but

author's

ferently

be

occur,

ce

do

(42)

proper

subordinate

position, they

side

I

with

in

narrative

may

occur

ferent which

the

(41), ;

.€2

clauses

A

In

reasoning

this of a

e.g.

the

the an

temporal is

more

at all.

Argives

motive

of

has

-or

quite

speech

a number

but

author

also

himself.

consequence

indirect

E.g.

in

than (36)

it

invited

the

Persians

that

the

anonymous

of

that

the

of

From

an

is

tempo-

the

event

more

into

in-

infor-

a motivation is

above

others,

the

statement,

specification necessary

of

certain

the

impor-

Hellas,

narrator

exof

than

whom

90 Herodotus

is

quoting

here

-

for

saying

that

the

Argives

invited

them.

5.4.5. Ad

Discussion

of

Hdt.3,72,1.

Related

examples

(34)

I do

not

lowing not

think

have

need

the

for

the

semantic

occurrence

5.1.);

in

example

of

fact,

the

expressed,

lysis

correct,

is

One as

precede

might

having

such

an

be

One play (44)

a

have point

ἐσέβαλε Miletus ol

δὲ

ἔμελε,

᾿οτάνης.

position

of

of

temporal

clauses;

to

the

some

comes

effect

a few

other

the

why

of

the

this

in

a

where

éthis

£neiback

not

this

exana-

Êneuêf-clause πρὸς

éneu6f-clause, sentence

placement

examples

is If

no

(cf.5.2.

refers

expression

the

first

on

that

EneLör-clause,

situation).

anaphoric

displacement

naturally

entails

énet-clause

ourselves

the

This

is

motivate

circumstantial

(Darius'vehemence

in

ask

order

(circumstantial)

the

chapter

clause.

νυν

εἴ

τοῦτον Πέρσῃσι

κως

ἐπείτε of

like

after

he

δὲ

of

ταῦτα since

and

other

anaphora

that

μὴ

the μὲν

and

what

not

to

led

power”) nal

τὰ

ἐκλιπεῖν

out

was

opinion

αἰνέων

got

ἐπείτε

others,

διαφυλάξαιεν

coming

παῖδας

οὗτος,

the

ἐπεξελθεῖν

δὲ

ἐνίκα

walls,

nal

too,

“Ερετριέες

design

their

στρατιὴν

("He,

and...,

prevailing

(46)

to

have

to

μέν

βουλήν, no

There

in

could, elements.

seems

to

role:

Μίλητον...

(45)

for/because'.

kind

main

had

foldoes

this

as

view

for

ἐπειδή

this

we

to

words

of

the

the

outlined

other

say

implicit

tempted

in

possibly,

the

both

but

expression

might

in

case;

ταῦτα

or,

features

occasioned

therefore,

πρὸς

preceding

plicitly not

'I

from

the

the

characteristics

this

value

temporal

tense

of

in

information

apart

past end

semantic

λέγει

as

exhibits

clauses:

does

the apply

additional

πειδήbe taken

to

that

énet-clauses

μαχέσασϑαι

τὴν

they

πόλιν

the

οὐκ

ἐπαύετο,

καὶ

ἐτίμα

μάλιστα,

ἐπεὶ

("The

about,

city”)

τοὺς καὶ

τε

against

οὐκ

τούτου

whether

cared

ἔς

army

(1,14,4)

τείχεα,

fighting;

leave

ἦρξε, an

πέρι

Eretrians

they when

could it

was

had guard the

(6,101,2)

περιεόντας ἄξιος

ἐποιεῦντο

σφι

αἴνου

αὐτοῦ

Ev

μεγάλου

91 ἐγένετο and in

the

this

("But

very

Persia,

much On

Böync*

gave

great

after

praise")

other

kind

Boges to

Boges

had,

he

his

never sons

indeed,

ceased

who

shown

praising,

were

left

himself

alive

worthy

of

(7,107,1)6*

hand,

cannot

this honour

the

be

presence

the

of

decisive

an

anaphoric

factor,

expression

witness

the

of

following

example: (47)

We

πρὸς

ταῦτα

ὁ Γέλων,

τοῦ

Συάγρου,

τὸν

("Thereupon

Gelon,

words,

thus

and

them")

(7,160,1)

have

here

expression This

change

way

in

which

explain. of

a

that

in

ἀπίκετο

it

was

it

ends

it

should

73,3: be

ταῦτα

has

εἶπε

of

Δαρεῖος

εἶπε

(71,4)-(our

τοισίδε

(72,2) - λέγει

Γωβρύης

is

Herodotus

stuck

that

has

all

example,

to

the

&

I

explain overall

will

forms

This

éneftte

ἐς when

follows");

Gobryas"). the

"Said

(71,3)My

Now

sentences

ἀμείβεται

(73,1).

dis-

δὲ

("And

as

form:

structural

now

above,

“Otdvne

72,1)-

ταῦτα

this

spoke

of

etc.

the

τάδε

spoke

dialogue,

ταῦτα

μετὰ

σφι

he

to

might

others.

Darius:

("Thus

are

and

ἔλεγέ

this

πρὸς

that

remarked

by

mind,

Γωβρύης

speaker

viz.

anaphoric

as

speech

within

the

ἐξέφαινε

information,

Otanes

Syagrus'

mind

to

already

his

were

his

relation

Darius,

a

verb

factors

some

his

declare

that,

change

be

been

with

ταῦτα

thereafter",

other

must

after

main

λόγους

λόγον

unfriendly declared

ἀποιφαίνεσϑαι,

to

noticed

indicate

upon,

3,71,1

turn

the

for

between

γνώμην

Darius' in

as

how

time

τοὺς

ἐξέφαινε

immediately

presents

(34),

τόνδε

saw

last

look

Herodotus

ἀπεστραμμένους

σφι

before

There

discussion

ὥρα

he

the

and

we

order.

begins

Δαρεῖον

πρὸς

ταῦτα

Example

cussion

that

in

when

for

énev&r-clause

πρὸς

entails

the

part

an

ἐπειδὴ

τελευταῖόν

thereλέγει

Δαρεῖος

hypothesis

principle

in

our

example. As

ved. of

the etc. an!

for

In the

the

other

(44),

the

information

structure is

examples,

leading

μέν

intended

αὐτοῦ

ἄλλο

seems

νυν... to

ἔργον

be

here,

too,

principle to

have

ἀλλὰ... contrasted

ἐγένετο.

This

other

factors

controlling

been

γάρ with

that

(next

of

are

contrast,

οὐδὲν would

invol-

organisation

sentence):

(άλλ᾽)

contrast

the

witness

ἐσέβαλε γὰρ

not

μέγα

have

been

92 achieved It

with

is

recounting ating

a

his

has

just

to

Delphi;

of

Gyges'

indication event

event

z

about the

or

another

a positive or

in

sentence

sentence,

(48)

ol

have

without

διαφυλάξαιεν out

Finally

(46).

position

of

ἐπαύετο

in

pected

to

(ἐνόμισε Boges

fight. city,

There

the

forms

ayadöv,

clause

and the

the

a

was

are

two

of

preceding as

it

two

sentences

should

one

announces

the

not

refer

to

the

by

be

put

perhaps

as

Notice

ἀναϑή-

y,

but

a

role.

not

To

ἐπείτε

the

to

put

ἐνίκα

also)

we

the

tem-

etc. To

After

do,

first

opposition

βουλήν.

τὴν

with

make

following

οὐκ

πόλιν,

a

bit

remake

of

more

inevitable, as that

context;

the

I

think,

possible the in

unusual οὐκ

might

be

the

the

ex-

clause éne(-

story

that

together, words,

about

these

tneıdör-clause

other

to

ἄνδρα

latter

viz.

not

αἰνέων

important,

elaboration,

also

to

εἶναι the

εἴ to

walls")

elaboration upon

σφι not

opinion the

Firstly,

ἐνόμισε

closely

ἐποιεῦντο ἔμελέ

decided

guard

seem.

possible

was

again,

decided

contributing

would

an

preceding

once

to

this

and

then,

ÄpEe).

prevailing

sentence;

It

other.

the

of

followed

(ἀπέπεμψε

Eretrians

care

factors

as

time-

1,13,2).

event

μαχέσασθαι

("The was

it

closely

etc.).

nal

their

a

elements:

elaboration

Secondly, is

ἐπειδή

back

When

y

quickly.

ἐκλιπεῖν

τείχεα

it

kind

etc.).

(dc

μὴ

Ener -clause,

follow

itself

τὰ

have,

power,

about

spoken

put

only

etc.

something to

consider

ἐπεξελθεῖν ἐνίκα

was

ἐποιεῦντο

contrastive

δὲ

adds

y

offerings

previously

a misleading

οὐκ

happened,

he

event

clause

created

then

We

played, come

x,

sending

free

Eretrians

to

Event

not

enumer-

beginning.

(Not

(ἐπείτε

have the

have

“Ερετριέες

leave

to

x

is

gains

then y.

is

he

Gyges

he

the

(Gyges

event

μαχέσασϑαι

βουλήν. ἐπείτε go

x

circumstantial,

may

this

at

Herodotus

that

just

throne,

event

what

When

having

14,1), of

seems

nal

x.

about

than

Event

when

would

μὲν

what

κως

the

counterpart

rather

δὲ

of

that

sense

afterthought not

place

about

expect

clearer

an

beginning.

the

Event

and,

(τυραννεύσας,

poral,

ἐπεξελθεῖν

as

Elaboration

contrast

in

narrative

structure:

information

the

form:

his less

(ἐσέβαλε),

(45)

Gyges

usurpation

x

14,1).

In

notice

Gyges'®5;

in

ματα,

the

the

to

in

following

When

at

furthermore,

finished more

a campaign

the

€ne(te-clause

story

deeds

He

about

the

important,

it

since does does

93 not

form

a

Herodotus tablish

point

a

related

Discussion

sensu

this

earlier

on

examples.

I

of

while has

now

stricto,

clause

in

so

that

front,

information.

See

to on

es-

this

come

(33)

back

and

to

(34),

the

last

and

a

number

example

of

Hdt.7,176,4

a wall

describing

mentioned

in

the

natural, the

if

secondly, the

say

to

strange

here,

tion

the

had

of been

had

a

built

the

the

the

What

usual

structure

stead

of:

Event

x.

Event

x,

5.4.7.

When

in

have

of

built

was

built.

a

had

then

go

been

is

to

not further disrup-

place

a wall

the

Phocians

arrived,

then,

and,

Again,

rather

temporary that

way it

was

could

In

was

relation

it

have

caused

here,

x,

One

wall:??

sentences

event

who

in

Ther-

somewhat It

general

events

would

on,

a

therefore,

first.

have the

it

at

existence

the

exact

rever-

with

an

€Enei-clause;

event

y,

we

have:

in-

Event

x.

y.67

Concluston

appeared

that, seem

of

Thessalians we

the

event

series

would about

of

when

there.

firstly

énet-clause

this

After wall.

goes

mentioned

€nei-clause

information

built.

now got

a description;

preceding since

He

circumstances a

the

wall

indicate,

recounting

situation

sentence

pass. this

having

what

giving

place

that

the how

to

under

geographical

preceding

to

explain wall,

not

but

necessary and

a

or

is

other,

the

necessary,

of

when

author

each

to

not

existence

the

in

entrance

parenthetically,

It

text

put

(35)

mopylae,

se

to

with

discussion

examples,

Herodotus, of

narrative

viz.(35).

5.4.6.

Ad

a

obliged

5.4.4.56

this

5.4.1.,

of

not

relationship

also

After of

part

was

that

although entitled

be

expected

4.

They

to

it

is

My

on

the

to

were

receive be

often

a

followed

according

have

though aim

there

they

clause

a motivating

to

the

viewed,

principles

rather,

difficult

preceding

number®® the

pages

to

as

attain

has

been

of

ἐπεί (-δή,

they

-te)-clauses

modify,

did

interpretation, developed temporal

as

in

5.2.1.and

adjuncts,

certainty

on

to

what,

detect

not might al-

this

point. if

any,

94 factors

may

clauses. could

be

tioned

be

In

linked

as

an

5.4.3.).

In

overall form

of

free

present of

to

role

in

them 5.4.8.

the in

his type

some

cases

Although as

the

the

total

small

group

a

solution;

of

interpretation next

Residual φωνῇ

δὲ

αὐτῇ

ἀπὸ

but

spoken

ἐπείτε brook

power,

give

be

for

which

excluded.

of e.g.

explanation

think it

that

group.

at

(51))

I will

suggestions

the

the

a

simply in

lies,

Still,

I cannot and

some

briefly,

information,

them((49)

some

be

number

put

the

νομίζουσι

language in

its

failed δὲ

ἐπεὶ

τῶν

to

οὐ

of

the

purity learn

Σκυϑικᾷ, χρηστῶς

moti-

present notes.

from it

ἀδελφιδέων

nal

ἐγεύσατο

ἀρχῆς,

οὐκ

be

and

Κροτωνιῆται

up a

became

subject

said δὲ

and

when

he would οὐδένα

old,

ἔφη

then

he

had

φασῖ

no

ever

("But

the

ἀρχήν,

ἄλλων,

when

taste

longer") ξεῖνον

οἱ

since

τὴν

ὑπ'

Theras a

αὐτὴν

Scythian,

(4,117) 69

ἄρχεσϑαι

μενέειν had

is

παραλαβόντων

kings,

abide

σφίσι

of

rightly”)

ποιεύμενος

grew

σολοικίζοντες

ἐξέμαϑον

Sauromatae

δεινὸν

to

to this

of

a

I

of

two

to

displacement

rigorous far,

viz.,

not

author

information,

a

so

above,

ὁ θήρας

nephews

with

the

of

with

ἀρχαίου,

("The had

δὴ

to

the

behaviour

cannot

Σαυρομάται

τοῦ

αὐξηϑέντων οὕτω

of

examples,

section,

shown

arrangement

for

the

be

do

examples

οἱ

not

connected

discussed

anomalous

a

the

able

sketched

offer

in

not

examples that

with

behind

is

I am

deviant

be

they

fashion.

be

((44)-(46)):

seen

the

to

could

the

might

speech

in an unusual

func-

(cf.

that

concerned

consequently,

information

ἐπεί-

itself

clause

hypothesized

indirect

information

other

€net-clause

have

in

these

postponement

subordinate

narrative;

of

of

this

sentences

presentation

Amazons

(51)

I the

quotations

arrange

᾿Αμαζόνες

(50)

of

continuing

of

relation

vating

many

the

fact,

there

(49)

a

principle

moment

of

the

was

all

the

that

another

concerning

contrast. such

fact

the

postponement

suggested,

énet-clause

factors for

the I

within

being

also

the

for

cases,

addition,in 5.4.3.

too:

The

with

structure

part

of

adjunct

involved, was

responsible

a number

his

could of

not

supreme

(4,147,3)70

προσεπιλαβέσϑαι (-)

95 el

μὴ

KaAAinv

τήλυος

τοῦ

σφέας,

ἐπείτε

Κρότωνα no

for

ἐπείτε

δέ

over

say

by

of

them,

they

when

could

ϑυομένῳ were

(...), after

Sybaris,

Croton,

παρὰ παρὰ

χρηστὰ

that

Callias

to

τοιῷδε:

ἀπικέσθαι

get

and he

he, no

ἐπὶ

aided that

had

run

while

by in

the

away

sacrific-

favourable

Ev

τε

Δωδώνῃ

ἱτοὺς

[ot δὲ αὐτοῖσι

given

to

might

them

be

at

the

nal

Ev

προφήτας]

ἔφραζον] Dodona

cause

τοῦ

("And

Delphi,

their

ἐγίνετο,

αἴτιον

ὅτι...

and

of

Δελφοῖσι τὸ

when

present

παρεόντος

a declaration they

ill,

inquired

saying

(9,93,4)72

᾿Επειδή

5.8.1.

General

remarks

tneLör-clauses clauses.

For

section

5.2.1.

tational (53)

have the

to

ἐπειδὴ

and

4.

Ov

τίς

σφι

had

resisted

them...")

Past

tense

in

historical

present,

clause

refers

and

τῆς

δὲ

a

ἐς

give full

τὴν at

one

βάρβαροι

(to

Samos,

and

ἐπειδὴ

chapters ἐγίνοντο

᾿Αϑηναίης,

("But

when

the

of

Athene

greater...")

ot

of

each

examples Πέρσαι

bringing

lines

as

énet-

see

interpre-

see

appendix

κατάγοντες

Συλο-

("So

after

the

back

Syloson,

none

(3,144)

respectively);

Προναίης

of

same

interpretation

example

list

Σάμον

the

the

ἀνταεύίρεται...

Êneuôf-clause back

along

determine

χεῖρας

arrived

temple yet

I will

ἀπίκοντο

οὔτε

interpreted that

For

Persians

οἱ

be

factors

possibility.

σῶνα

(54)

προεχώρεε

come

despot

σφι

that...")

(a)

οὐ

only

had

ἐπειρώτων

κακοῦ,

5.5.

ἱρὰ

τρόπῳ

ἀποδράντα

(5,44,2)7!

nodgavta

what

the

τοῦτον

Crotoniats

he

victory

καὶ

τυράννου

save

way:

omens").

was

(-)

Telys,

ing

τὰ

the

stranger

from

μοῦνον,

οἱ

("But

following

(52)

(-)

Συβαριτέων

(ind.aor.

and

énevSr-clause

main

precedes

main

140

ἐπειδή

and

Pronaea, (8,37,2)

141);

ἐπειγόμενοι

ἐπιγίνεταί

foreigners

clause

σφι

κατὰ

τέρεα

came

with

all

they

were

visited

td

ἔτι

speed by

= after. ἱρὸν

μείζονα

near

to

miracles

the

IT.

96 (b)

Past

tense

in

énevS4-clause

historical

present,

clause

refers

(55)

and

νῦν

dv

thing, (c) in

back

the

is

no

give,

"immediate

unassailable in

ἐκείνου

περὶ

τοῖν

ἡμῖν I

Potential

all

optative

to the preceding As

is

the

case

sometimes the

main

οὕτω

δή

with

followed clause: (8,31, an

form

Dutch

etc.,

so",78

Cf.

5.5.2.

Additional

(57)

On

K-G(:2,117)

Βασιλεῦ,

ask

to: on

remarks

ἐπειδὴ

now

see

ἡμεῖς

this

indic.

clause

that

and

refers

(since).75

meaning below

ἐπειδὴ

καὶ

("So

that

what

us

clause,

in

he

"I

say

this

I

will

5.5.3.).

ἐπειδή

+

Ev

his

δοκεῖ

a point about

καὶ about these

many

other

3636)

temporal mostly

in

does

ἐπειδή-

not

refer

ind.aor. τῷ

énev&r\-clauses temporal ἐνθαῦτα

καιρῷ

("at

inferential

νῦν

(see

ex. (55)),

the

semantic

ἀληϑείῃ

is

exhibition

and

have

on

πολλὰ

back

= ον».77

hand,

Greek

αὐτῷ

indic.

clause

τούτῳ

other

ὅπως ἄλλα

thinks

perfect

main

ἐπειδή

may

GAA’

future

main

(Pl.Hipp.Min.

resumptive,

the

λόγου,

proposed

Avanudolunv

Enei-clauses, by

expansion nu,

ἐπειδή

told

follows

c£.3.12.);

may

to

has

main

after

8,87,2).

of

Av...

like

context;

moment”; now,

in

the =

1,45,2

sorts...")

éneubh-clause

main

(9,48,3)7%

ἐπειδή

τούτοιν...,

he

τοῦ not

Eneıör-clause,

ἐπιδέδεικται...

for

of

and

precedes

from Plato.7®

ἡδέως

should

man...;

things

clause;

οὖν

ἀνδροῖν

παντοδαπὰ two

(on

an example

περὶ

which...

in

example

Herodotus

have

precedes

context;

(imperfect

= when.73

τούτου

you

it")

past”

Ênetô-clause

therefore,

(56)

that

propose

clause

ἐπειδή

filoEate

now

we

preceding

for/because”

main

énetSry-clause

37,1).

ὑμεῖς

then,

will

clause;

to

There

of

(to

οὐκ

("Now yet

Aorist main

back

ἐπειδὴ

ἄρξομεν

and

respectively);

which value

are

expressions δή

(6,16,2);

that

very

énevr64-clauses like "this

English being

νῦν.

ἐπειδή:

inferential

διαχρήσασθαι

πάντως

κελεύεις

(-),

in

97

τῇ

Ἑλλάδι

now

that

(-),

in

πενίη

μὲν

αἰεί

(since)

you

bid

Hellas

poverty

κοτε me

is

by

σύντροφός

ἐστι...

all

speak

means

ever

native

that

what

to

the

("0 the

king,

truth

soil...")

(7,102,1) Here,

it

clause

makes

no

sense

follows

in

any

eneısti-clause exx. (3)

(for

and

(4)

questioned

to

this

and

whether

that

indicates

is

the more

the

tf

bid

speak

you

cf.

ἄγγελοι

τὰ

ἐν

ἠπείρῳ (-)

that

him,

had

all the

whole

has

to

that

the

is,

Hellespont had also

Apart

the

main

envoys

cannot

already the

cf. {1

have

but

clause

verb

of

speaker

a natural

speak

the

truth:

tell

you

the

now to

be

main the

similar

above

say

may

the

thus,

to

Engl.

5.2.3. it

usages

that

and,

and:

you,

now ask

of

probably that

you)

πάντα rtivde

hefore the to

ὡς

ὁ Πέρσης,

τὴν

ἤπειρον...

them,

telling

other their

ἐπειδή

κατέστραπται,

continent

("The how

was

continent,

ol

γέφυραν messen-

the

Persian,

subject

having

to

thrown

(4,118,1)

interpreted in

ἐς of

from

a reference

speaker,

ἑτέρῃ

over

deviates

5.2.5.2.).

languages

main

the

unexpressed

I will

translation

exactly

bridge...")

cf.

(

ἐκδιδάσκοντες τῷ

crossed

example

truth

subject

διαβέβηκε

laid

ἐπεί is

is

him

the of

up yesterday???

ἔλεγον

τῷ

now

the

the

show

ol

the

Modern

an

etc.,

for

in

fact,

etc.

is

Ἑλλάδι

conjunctions,

since;

contain

they

to

mention

not

Cf.

me

on

in

énev6r\-clause;

request

you

be

the

saying

ζεύξας

This

by

it

king's

often,

a

“EAAdS&t

the

corresponding

gers

tf

Rather,

said

content

cf.

4.9.);

his

why didn't (58)

ἐπειδή

clause

modified

: Hellas...".

(since)

of

is

the

that

of

you

truth >

from

that

consequence "Since

way

value

Engl.now

at all to the EneLön-clause. saying

say

natural

be

others,

to

from in

the this,

the

clause,

same that

a matter example

I

of

the

that

way

as

main

the own

(17),

the

(i.e. in

does this,

where

the

behaviour;

crossing

given

continent

(for

€neLör-clause

cases

his

Persian's

ἐπεί,

clause

hearer

those

amazement,

other

with

that

about the

the

and/or

think

speaks

indicate

subjected

similar

in

speaker

of

fact Asia).

5.2.5.2.

the that

98 (59)

νῦν τι

ὦν,

én’

("Now,

opinion,

you

ition

There

are

of

saying,

(ii)

hearer

nor

action

of

ural it

is

a

third

that

of

indicated

that

the

event

now,

now

that

(ef.

Dutch:

droomgezicht (But

perhaps

(see

15,2)

the

ik

does the

turned

to

renounce by

τινος the

better

your

exped-

a dream

sent

haunted

the

€neLör-clause

in

words

contain

in

the

gedachten

Cf.

also

consequence

visit

of

his

own

τετραμμέ-

not

clause

clause

to

the

but

an

seem

to

is

£neıörj-clause.

a nat-

Rather,

coincides

"...precisely

a dream

visits

me...”

etc.

veranderd

ben,

bezaekt

een

4.9.on

'non-causal'

force of

15,2:

does

verb

quotes, in

conduct,

main

main

not

this

a request

Éneuôf-clause: mind,

van

the

of

speaker

the

of

'causal'

that

own

the

of

Artabanus

not

in

does

complement

fact,

the

the my

the

speaker's

said

action

changed

usual

hints

are

μετιέν-

ϑεοῦ

is

the

present,

now in

dream-vision

changing

his

that.

that may

Xerxes

be

but

opinion).

Probleme

Consider (60)

nu

τοι

are

in

(iii)

is

the

mij...").

natural

5.5.3.

what

have

"net

otc

ὄνειρον

would

but

described

described I

(1) oc

Xerxes'

about

action

consequence

you

yo

clause

“person";

the

you

ὄνειρον;

form,

main

statement

with

the

- modify

ἐπιφοιτᾶν the

a

while

Greeks,

ἀμείνω,

(7,16,81)

different

etc.;

that

peculiarities.

viz.

τὴν

ἐπιφοιτᾶν

now

that

the

speaking

slightly

indicate

say

god...")

three

strictly

ἐπὶ

στόλον

then,

against

some

-

vp

τέτραψαι

Ἕλληνας

πομπῇ...

by

a

ἐπειδὴ

τὸν

ἔχω,

the ὦ

following ξεῖνε,

καταδικάζεις justice

example:

παρὰ

σεῦ

ϑάνατον

asks,

now

πᾶσαν

τὴν

("Friend,

that

you

I

deem

δίκην, have

ἐπειδὴ from

yourself

σεωυτοῦ

you

all

worthy

that

of

death")

(1,45,2) Since gued and

€nevdr\-clause it

in itself

from of

the that its

should this

position,

preceding,

be is the

follows

the

interpreted not

impossible.

€nevS4-clause

inferential

main as

ἐπεί (-δή),

clause

it

could

be

ar-

a motivating

expression

On

hand,

the

other

shows

the

since

it

apart

characteristics refers

back

to

the

99 immediately type

that

the

of

does

why

not

have

receives normal

actual

which

is

5.6.

not

The

of

things

be

it

emphasis,

excluded

the

while

of

with

main

think,

tend

the

ques-

(which for

this,

clause,

the

remarkable,

than

rather

admitting

a

of

clause

rather

I I

is

ἐπεί (-δή));

stands,

considered,

us

main

circumstances,

interpretation,

to

General

with

to

that

the

favour

a motivating

altogether.

remarke

interpretation

tors

as

with

tional

(61)

of

ἐπεί,

énette-clauses

cf.

possibilities

lacking®®

ἐπειδή

(for

I shall

ἐπείτε

δὲ καὶ

τε to

τὰ

5.2.1.

occur:

give

an

usage,

he

tense

@neite-clause

in

after (62)

ex.

same

As

ὁ Κροῖσος,

main

had

seems

in

the

he

came

clause

precedes

and

and

(ind.aor.

refers

ὁκό-

accorhe

and

back;

ἐπείτε

δὲ

παρῆσαν

tense

participle back; λέγει

ἔφη

his in +

ἀμφότεροι,

("When

eyes

on

Cyrus")

éne({te-clause imperf., ἐπείτε

πρὸς

they

and

βλέψας

were

both

πρὸς

τὸν

present,

imperf.

ἐπείτε

=

Κῦρον

ὁ

Astyages

said,

(1,115,1) main

respectively);

clause

(imperf.

€nette-clause

and

aorist

precedes

= when.8!

ταῦτα

“Otdvne

(-)°

ἐπείτε

ἡμέας

of

interpretations.

all who

to

case

ἐπυνϑάνετο done

fac-

interpreta-

ἐπείτε

(68)).

Croesus

whence

and

the

all

(when).

fixing

refers

by

not

of each of the remaining

ἐποίησε

€ne(te-clause

᾿Αστυάγης

Past

governed

However,

see

("After

inquired

(1,35,2)

Past

case example

εἴη...

was...")

is

4.

following-motivating

νομιζόμενα

τίς

respectively);

and

a possible

now

dev ding

(63)

degree

All

leaves the

inferential As

the

This

too,

("expression

“Enecte

5.6.1.

be

in

clause,

clauses

follows

with

offer.

is,

a greater

inferential

one

to

main

such

behaviour").

elsewhere

order.

The

with

EneLörn-clause

solution

of

context.

uncommon

this

occur

no

content

an

not

speaker's

tion I

preceding is

συνταχύνειν

and

100

ἀναγκάζεις

nal

("Thereupon will

brook

Non-past and

no

tense

back;

5.6.2.

Additional

in

aorist

have

in

an

τότε.

expansions

In

when...",

(64)

to

imperf. that

clause

time");

7,59,1,

9,26,2

to

ἐκείνου

ἐξ

since";

the

main

we (-)

have

and

taken

clause

and

χρόνου

this

value

évSeUtev (-)

on

the

the

we

In

main

face

of

an

we

τὸν

clause

énet te-clauses that

ἐπείτε

ἐπείτε

time

on,

cf.5.6.4.2.). +

ἑτεροιοῦτο word

found

after

τοῦτον

the

find

be

8,65,1

to

in

("from of

both

imperfect:

παρακελευσάμενοι ἤδη

passed

up

after

can

ταῦτα),

expansion

9,107,3

ἐνθεῦτεν

then

an

is

tod

ὁ στρατὸς

from

as

it

for

soldiers

work,

in

(ἐνθεῦτεν).

+

the

(indic.pres.

ἐπείτε

expressions

προϑυμότερον,

when

and

(since).

5,98,3

δὲ

us

(3,72,1)

precedes

énette-clause;

example

ἐπείτε το

main-clause

énette-clause

αὐτός...

compel

yourself...")

(μετὰ

"ever

one

and

ἐξήγεο

you

9,93,3

ἐπείτε

by

now

ἴϑι

that

ταῦτα);

("during

as

us

that on

ἐᾷς,

"Now

ἐπείτε

(μετὰ

the

now

remarks

temporal

6,84,2

χρόνον

In

=

Temporal

Resumptive

tell

énette-clause

énette

οὐκ

(-):

respectively);

refers

e.g.

said

delay,

in

imperative,

5.6.2.1.

ὑπερβάλλεσϑαι

Otanes

ἔργου

τὸ

and

went

the

fight

πρῆγμα more

elxov("But

zealously

changed")

(9,102,2) The +

presence

imperfect

sence

of

rative

of

that of

indicates in

to a

moment A

was

to taken

the

the

of the for

in

I

think,

so

to

situation

sets

functional granted

In

the

words,

here

thanks

something

to

this

a change;

other

way,

like

the

pre-

compaa new a clause

apparently to "at

the

presence

a certain

in".®2

equivalence in

tneite-clause due

since

contemporaneity, conveys

an

being

underwent

speak.

a different

that

after as

énette-clause,

situation

expresses

element

a change

in

formed,

interpreted

lexical

("thereafter")

explained,

that is

principle be

testimony

which

be

προϑυμότερον

starting-point has

ἐνθεῦτεν

can

of

foregoing

ἐπειδή

and

discussion,

ἐπείτε, can

be

101

found

in

5,99,1,

clause,

is

opening

clause

however, found

In

one

sion

Inferential we

exhortation:

τί

δὴ

οὐ

εἶναι

πρὸ

equal

μὲν

the

ners?") On

this

use

of

found

stance

in

Since

τί

in

τῶν

conjunction.83

the

time,

I have

main

clause

a particular

Ελλήνων

ὑμεῖς,

ἐπείτε

δὲ

τῶν

βαρβάρων

hinders

that

on

both being

οὐ

+

Attic

most

sides,

ἡμεῖς

we

you

their

not

the

and

expres-

δεδόξωσθδθε

ἴσοι

should

for

best,

ind.aorist authors

-

of

the

-

in in

πρὸς

fight for

ἴσους

with

Greeks,

we

urgent

fact,

see K-G(:1,65)

section cases

with

(5.4.)

that

since

the

requests,

this

and

ὑμεῖς

and

δὲ

ἐς

οὐδαμὰ

πᾶσαν

the

is

you

foreig-

the

which only

commentary

ἰσϑμοῦ

᾿Αϑηναίων

in

great

ἀρρωδίην

ἐλαυνόμενον

dread

of

the

ποιέεσϑε lest

we

of

is

in-

of

Stein

τὸ

an

τέλεϊ

("But should

you

however, so

far,

viz.

with

consider μὴ

ὁμολογήσωμεν

φρόνημα

διότι

ἐστί,

τεῖχος

καὶ

- who

make

are,

been

rele-

of following-motivat-

ἀπικόμενοι καὶ

the

é€ne(te-clause

ἡμέτερον

Ελλάδα, ἐν

There

already

to

discussion

First, τότε

have

reader

instance

5.6.1.8"

τὴν

ἐπείτε the

appendix. out

ἐξεμάϑετε

προδώσομεν

τῶν

the

left

of

refer

a coordination in

ἐπείτε

τοῦ

I

the possible

mentioned

πέρστι,

to

been of

cases

ἐπεί,

and

have

example

ἐπείτε,

τῷ

problematic

together

a 6.6tt-clause,

(66)

which

this

Problems

a possible ing

expanded,

ἐπεί.

the

of

Herodotus

discussed two

somewhat

ἐπειδή-

after

loc.

§.6.3.

vant

an

(9,48,4)

mainly ad

in

("What

name

and

with

parenthesis,

introducing

πρὸ

numbers

have

opens

long

ἐπείτε

ἄριστοι,

ἐμαχεσάμεϑα;

a

with

have

of

(65)

as

example

example

sentence

by

repeated

ἐπείτε

similar

5.8.2.2.

the

followed is

with

a

where

then

terms

δὴ

ὑμῖν

λόγον

sometime with

σαφέως,

οὐδένα

ago the

ὅτι διὰ

were

Persian

-

102 now

you

have

clear

knowledge

sure

that that

we

will

never

betray

wall

that

you

finished,

are

building

to-day

you

of

across

take

no

our

Hellas,

temper

and

the

and

are

because

Isthmus

is

account

of

the

seem

be

agreed

the

well-nigh

Athenians")

(9,7,B1) Editors

and

translators

éne(te-clause

and

énette~clause

is

the

"causal"

poral");

Stein

ἐπείτε".

Yet

this

reasons:

(1)

such

dotus

and

need

in

not

to

below);

for

(ii)

not

authors

decisive,unless

the

main

being

directed

to

present

with

addressee,

ἐπεί:

trary,

it

describes

the

the

reference

of

preceding

now in

that

slightly

being

with

τὸ

not

very

("now of

exist

ἡμέτερον

the

but e.g.

to

to

view

φρόνημα

and

I

διότι

difficulties

take

or is

not

makes

since

while

as

both

governed the

to

be also

con-

the

immediatewith

alternatives as

by

Cf.

the

translation

that

with

ὅτι,

coordinated

éFeudSete

coordination

should

nor-

infer-

On

coordinated

that

is

adressee®®; a

the

with

above.

(cf.

6185,

request. the

S6uótu-clause

("because")

this

that

think

discussed

Hero-

alternative

καὶ

of

zu

course,

after

διότι

the

in

of

feature

which

However,

-

but

clauses

order

the

"tem-

following

one

behaviour

8,144,

the

main

ێne(te-clause

to

or

attractive,

an

under

parallel

with

the

that

parallel

for

a plausible

lacks

express actual

peculiar.

causal,

that")

the

not

context

principle

both

does

it

"διότι

corpus,

beginning

and

gives

without

my

addressee-oriented

ential (111)

it

is

there is

clause,

the

Powell states:

of

that

coordinated

self-evident,

a coordination other

mally

ly

simply

wholly

to

are

(although

instance is

the be

generally

6tÓbtu-clause

of

accepted

in

chapter

- are

ἐπείτε spite

7,note

38.

Secondly, (67)

μετὰ

δὲ

χρόνον

λέγουσι, they

say,

(since)

the the

tentative In

this

people

they

τὴν

ἐπείτε

dove

woman

make

Dodona

about

spoke spoke

translation)

interpretation of

πελειάδα

ουνετά σφι

-

the

the

the

with

φωνῇ

a

human

αὐδάξασθαι

("After voice,

comprehensible

things

some

time,

for to

them"

-

(2,57,2) éne(te-clause

subject

human

ἀνϑρωπηΐθ

ηῦδα fh γυνή

of

speech

λέγουσι

of

the

gives -

for

the the

motive

of

assertion

dove-priestess

at

the

103 Dodona;

in

direct

φωνᾷ

ηὐδάξατο,

dove

spoke

speech:

ἐπείτε

with

a

human

prehensible

things

to

and

regard

this

as

Legrand causal

giving

spoke

that

qu'après

un

temps

la

femme

qu'alors

eux”.87

All be

naeans

of

when

some

time,

when

the

then,

Herodotus dove

began

say,

the

uttered

pretation. 5.6.4.

Other

Unlike

ἐπεί

(1)

with

moment

and

that'.

as

she

this,

7,

to

;éne(te... temporally

uttered

indicates

note

2].

χρόνον.88

(or

μετὰ

contrasted

foreign

too,

“After Perhaps,

μετὰ

γυνή

the - viz.

them". of

Dodo-

of

with

sounds"),

a

which

temporal

inter-

énette

ἐπειδή,

I will

the

indication

voice

chapter

(ii)

Êneíúte-clause of

voice:

is

τάχιστα;

pour

a human

a whole)

of

the

either

things

disent c'est

a temporal

a human

as

usages

that

with

etc.

also

intelligible

expansion

they

humaine,

with

that

Cf.

voix

why

speak

a delayed

as the

"S'ils

spoke

is

sentence;

is

to

observed

next

that

excluded;

comprehensible

long

least,

dove

be

("as

Godley

at

"Presently,

une

an

the com-

€nette-clause

I think

giving

should

ἐπείτε the

be

or,

(Legrand)

afterthought,

himself,

the

it

to

-

and

fagon

Yet,

time

spoke

namelijk).

the

avec

d'une

of

she

(Godley)

parla

means

they

ἐβαρβάριζε

opens

no

a kind

view

speech";

plausible.

énette-clause

Moreover ἕως

by

as

woman

the

χρόνον

is

viewed

or

moment

looks

use

understand,

colombe

ἀνϑρωπηίῃ some

fact,

motivating

to

human

s'exprimait

this

interpretation could

la

in

reason:

could

uttered

πελειὰς ("After

would

as

seem

or

ἡ

ηὔδα

for,

Dutch

they

they

dove

-

clause

motive

what

the

χρόνον

ἡμῖν

voice

us";

although

Herodotus'

woman say

-,

μετὰ

ovvetd

ἐπείτε with

is

the

briefly

used

in

meaning

discuss

still ‘ever

these

two

since’,

usages

in

other

ways:

'from the

the

next

section.89 5.6.4.1.

The

ἐπείτε

presence

pretation the on

action the

ple:

of

of the

τάχιστα

and

τάχιστα

in

sentence

described

action

in

described

ἐπείτε...

the as

the in

énette-clause

a whole, main

the

τάχιστα

clause

in

changes

that

it

followed

subordinate

the

inter-

indicates

that

immediately

clause.°

An

exam-

104

(68)

Κώην

μέν

γόντες had

νυν

Μυτιληναῖοι

κατέλευσαν

take

him

ἐπείτε

("So

Coes,

as

was

taken

out

over,

τάχιστα

παρέλαβον,

soon

as

the

by

them

ἐξαγα-

Mytilenaeans

and

stoned")

(5,38,1) 5.6.4.2.

ἐπείτε

Consider

the

(69)

τὸ

δὲ

αὐτῇ

the (70)

‘ever

since’

following "EAAnvındv

yAdoon

διαχρᾶται

same

τοῦτο

("But

language

τὸ

ἔχουσι

sentences:

πεδίον

τὸ

ἦν

to

have

supreme

the

the

μέν

ἐπείτε

its

βασιλέος

Chorasmians

(-);

it

has

αἰεί

κοτε

τῇ

has

ever

used

(-)

(1,58)

Χορασμίων

τοῦ

power,

stock

beginning")

κοτε

ἐστὶ

ἐγένετο

Hellenic

since

κράτος,

formerly

μὲν

the

(-)

ἐπείτε

("This

but

since

belonged

δὲ

plain

to

Πέρσαι

belonged

the

Persians

the

king")

(3,117,1) (71)

ἐγὼ μὴ

In

δὲ

ἐπείτε

it has

short")

(7,8,a2)

(69)

and

(70)

form

any of

generic

("always")

text

in

which

inferential of

events, but

‘action’ means

(ever)

own,

the

What

within

an

since

in has (cf.

refers

the to a

here,

took

as

so being

in

from

(69),

temporal

long

the

particular

clause

has

been

interpreted since

stretch

as:

4.4.).91 of

of

time

a

As

the

with

and the

pre-

succession

of

other

habitual

taking

to

a

series

from up

to

not

framework

main

from con-

back

is

they

e.g.

also

not

then,

some

general

preceding refer

this

to

that

from

the

larger how

far

exhibit

appears

and,

ὅκως

over

not fall

of be

Engl. to

do

given

important

ἐστί,

unlike

I

sentences

course,

they

expressed

the

most

of

Also,

indication

ἐπείτε

énette-clause

is

these

and

ἐφρόντιζον

since

how I shall

descriptions,

ultimately,

occur.

described

that

fact,

διαχρᾶται

and

τοῦτον,

ever

interpretations

in

general

they

context.

two

the

énet-etc.-clauses,

ceding

events,

of fail:

presents

alec

ϑρόνον

myself,

in my thoughts

their

non-narrative

τὸν

for

been

will

characteristics

or

("But

throne,

eneite-clauses

the

παρέλαβον

λείψομαι...

place. moment

since

(and

This that

the

potentially

105

including) For makes

ἀπ'

use

οὗ,

(72)

the

present.

expressing of

ἐξ

GAA’

οὗ,

ἐξ

οὔτε

temporal

ὅσου,

("I

hold

relationship

conjunctions,

Ion.

γενέσϑαι

ἐγένετο the

a

compound

Αἰγυπτίους

καλεομένῳ into

such

special

ἐξ

ὅτευ.

δοκέω αἰεί

being

with

the

Delta:

they

ever

(71)

raises

ἅμα

τε

rather

An τῷ

making

ἐξ.

the

of

existed

example

is:

οὗ

τῷ

which

since

οὗ,

ὑπὸ

men

γένος

did the

were

Ion.

᾿Ιώνων

ἀνϑρώπων

Egyptians

that

also

ἀφ'

Δέλτα

εἶναι

that

Greek viz.

not

come

Ionians first

call

made”)

(2,15,3)92 The

analysis

ἐπείτε

+

the

whole

his

doings.

differ

of

aorist-clause, being

a

In

from

sentences

énette-clause

and

/ when?

Indeed,

here.

One

could

takes

(73)

"Q

do I

that,

τε

over

your do

in

ἐπείτε

in

one

that

about

Harpagus our he

in

boy,

had

been

is

best as

knows

sets

out

to

the

other

a

in

the

better

not

in

of

interpretation

with

is

not

impossible where

child

kill

ἐβούλευον king,

σκοπέων

when

considered

between

out

in

how

(71) the

as

I

I

is

limitation

had

should

is

with the

concerning

his

in

reality, came past

daughter, had

with about. is

a the

recounting to

acquainted the

sentences

taking That

do

belong

Astyages'

to

to

speaker

of

how his disobedience

two

by

after.

has

Astyages"

but,

the

English

other

in

(71),

new-born Astyages

("O

unequivocally of

this

it

characteristics

construction,

and

brought

that

to

of

(1,117,3)

a question

that

some

asked,

παιδίον,

difference

since,

but

explain

hand,

thought

be

fits

ordered

Harpagus

I

νόον

and...")

/ actions the

similar

an

clause,

after: τὸ

case

vis-a-vis

a very

here

main

does

an

καί...

there

answers

to

be

interpretation

κατὰ

(73),

events

lead

same

παρέλαβον

eince-interpretation fact

the

have

the

recounts

may

ἐπείτε

can

We in

Xerxes it

ποιήσω the

think

where

to

as

pleasure

fact,

which

clause

point

problems.

imperfect

then,

this

ἐπείτε

σοί

taken

Yet,

main

βασιλεῦ,

ὅκως

in

respect,

after Powell

an

sentence

what

the

some

and

not

past: behaviwhom

killed.

this

fact;

he

In

(71),

on

lacking

or,

in

106 more has

positive had

time

since,

of

his

while

preferable. tense

in

29,1,

where,

by

τόδε

ἐς

terms,

- from

the

speech.

not The

Xerxes

a certain In

main

till

a

context,

for

given

the

time

πον").93

about

- up

absolutely

holds

clause

moreover,

("up

such

being same

speaks

moment

the by of

to

the the

an

occupations present,

interpretation

imperative, other Powell

does

example under

speaking

is

seem

with

since, given

he

i.e.

the with

to

be

a past viz.7, lexically

6

The interpretation Oc=constituents

6.1.

Preliminary

This the

chapter

will,

that

discussion

grosso

be

6.2.

Factors

The

main

way,

is

Indeed,

ways

both

lacking.?2

generally

‚there

more,

they

is

same a

a

will

number

of

interpretation

a role

relative

are

as

that

section

be

on

on

followed

the by

problematic

In

other

temporal

backwards

a

cases

interpretation

it

in

order

of

@c-clause

are

a

those always

clause

words,

an

rather

that the

of

the

unspecific and

main

follow

temporal,

and

the

clause ὡς

temporal

clause:

non-temporal.

for

main

inferential

éne(-clauses things

a very by

the

wg-constituents

pred-

is

(now

al-

that)

d¢-clauses

reference.

®¢-clauses only

in

of

be

temporal,

subordinate

function

no

small

are

much

number

of

less

simple.

such

clauses.

means

in

a uniform

is

motivating

(=

for);

especially

in

direct

where

form

short

ὡς

subgroup occurs

Like

following

with,

the

@cg-clauses

tense.

have

then

(cf.fn.1),

the

the

the

interpretation

plays

Öc-clauses

a past

For

that

of

have

detail.!

concerned

preceding

of

the

determining

that

modo,

énet-constituents:

examples;

in

factor

preceding icate

some

examined

@¢-clauses

of

determine

of

will

is

remarke

interpretation

factors

of

speech,

after

this,

To

begin

Further-

way.

There

is

it

would

seen,

imperatives

and

one other

108 expressions function make

of

matters

group

of

of

ἐπεί,

from

the

terms

of

ferring

ὡς

δὲ

ὁ

ὡς

δὲ

ur

the

passed

πέμπειν

δὲ χρὴ

ἐπίστασϑε a

great

we

shall

The

way

in

ked

with

of (1)

terms

which

the

(2)

of

Additional

For

a

In

the

1,27,1;

list

preceding +

with

and

infinitive

all

these

see

the

see

next

see

ὡς

will the

section.

-

to cases

position

I

refrain

groups,

clause,

in

or

lack

the of

re-

ma-

of

("When

ἐγένετο

send

ὡς

IV.3

too

be

(1)

the

5.2.3.

appendix

εἰ μὴ πέμψετε,

you

it,

and

(2)

concerning be

spoken

said

found

with

the

tenses,

e.g.

pluperfect

in

about

in

only

some

send that

are

corresponding

have

For

must

assured

also

infin.present

the

(5,12,3)

(7,172,2)

with

temporal

had

("When

aroused")

("But

will

Gyges

(1,11,2)

sentences

in

we:

τάδε:

Persian")

ὡς:

and

these

Δαρείῳ

not

on

appendix.

deviant

πολλήν,

more

I

comparable

wc-clause;

Πέρσῃ

compared

coordinated

aorist the

τῷ

remarks

is

the

main

was

ex. (3)

section

imperfect. also

the

τῷ

στρατιὴν

you

be

On

remarks

complete

ὡς

see ἐπεί.

γυνὴ

attention

with

can

have

following”)

®c-clauses

context

énet-clauses;

6.3.

and

make

appearance

of

the

To

small

their

and

to

very

motivating

ἐπιμελὲς

if

seems thought.

imponderables

of

ἡ

the

ὑμέας

for

how

and

ὁμολογήσειν

force;

the

and

nal

again

in

features

ἔλεγε

Darius'

ἡμέας

as

ὡς or

generalisations.

said

γυνή,

-

all

these

temvoral

ἀπίκετο,

ἡ

to

subordinate

making of

by,

to

all

character

woman

παρεξήιε

woman (3

now

Γύγης

arrived,

(2)

of

an

these,

specific

tense

forbids

speech

as

of

non-referring

examples

subgroup

which

arises

further

second indirect

finally,

for

Because

the

simply

Some

is,

wc-clauses

question

e.g.

a

of

temporally;

any

or

terial

(1)

there

explained.

giving

In

a marker

following

interpreted be

as

worse

be may

obligation.

rather

ὡς

examples 6.5.

+

aorist

pluperfect,

indirect

interpretational

lintypes

+

e.g.

imperf.,

speech;

for

problems

109 The following (i)

(temporal)

after ὡς + aorist

resumptive

ind.:

elements may be found

τότε(5,103,2)

9eütev("thereafter”,

e.g.5,116);

(7,225,2); (ii)

after ὡς + vluperf.:

(iii)

after ὡς + imperf.:

also

9,34,2;

argued

these

that

οὕτω

3;

3,75,1);

1,172,2); after

nominal, μεταῦτις

ἔτεσι

that”;

6.4.

More

δὲ

in (ii)

A

+

ὡς

(111) 6.4.1.

In

his

with

is

see

rather

the

6,9,1);

moment”,

sometimes

forms like

‘under

section

on

τηνικαῦτα

"then";

an

cir-

to

a

("thereafter";

ὕστερον

("at

9,44,1).

expansion

μετά

1,62,2);

πολλοῖσι

μετέπειτα

tovtwv("many,

temporal, e.g.2,119,

("afterwards”; many

years

and

related,

+

imperfect,

Powell's Lexicon

to

having

as

temporal

adjuncts

of

simultaneity,

anteriority which and

have

one

of

verb-forms,

+ pluperfect,

verbs

2,118,4;

tote (9,73,2);

presented which

was

much more frequently with ὡς.

imperfect

‘Qc

6.4.1.1.

occur

and

ὡς

ἐπεί,

imperfect +

third,

and

problems,

with

5.2.5.1., ὡς

very

("afterwards";

@¢-clauses

specific

(1)

(2,2,4;

6,140,1).

on

connection

ἥδη

some-

ὡς);

6n(1,190,1);

expression

κάρτα

etreumstance Two

interpretation

meaning

EvSaßta(e.g.5,34,3;

a w¢-clause or

the

circumstances':

that

adverbial

Ev-

and

imperfect: after ὡς + pluperfect and imperfect:

Conversely,

τὸ

in these cases of οὕτω δή it might

circumstantial

(v)

qua

SaGta(8,113,2); f6n(9,62,2); ev&aßtale.g.1,48,1; 1,126,1); οὔτω δή be

after ὡς + aorist

the

;

ἐνθεῦτεν

what elusive odtw 61(7,155,1; 233,1;al.);*" τὸ Ev9eütev(1,27,1); μετὰ tadta(8,110,2); Ev-

4,124,2;

(iv)

in the main clause:

évSaöra(le.g.1,76,3);

aorist

expressing verb-forms,

problem

themselves already

already

discussed

They have

to do

in

briefly

with:

anteriority;

expressing

circumstance

concerns

expressing

anteriority

expressing

and

simultaneity.

anteriority?

clasatfication Herodotus, imperfect

Powell with

has

aoristic

a

section

"(ὡς

force”,

in

+)

which

imperfect; he

col~

110 lects (1)

imperfects

of

four

γίνομαι;

(ii)

Av

of

(iv)

"phrases

Some

of

(4)

denoting

his

...anénmAce, λαγος

(*...he

he

bound

chus") ὡς

δὲ

ἀπὸ

they

(7)

ὡς

sat

δὲ

And

about

they

δὲ

had

κόσμῳ they

and

παρά

ter,

they

set

Some

In

What the in

of

her

that

ἴζομαι;

τὴν

κατῆκε

on

the

down

he

ἐς

sworn

ἐξόρ-

τὸ

high

into

had

πέ-

seas

the

sea

to

Etear-

is

or were

in

situation)

τάδε"

said,

as

Ξέρξης one

(he

Μαρδόνιον

after

(sc.

said),

(9,16,2) εἰρώτα...

another,

τὰ λοιπὰ αὐτῶν ("When

remained

elpdoSar

Persian

Xerxes

sent

(8,67,2)

κτείνοντες,

ὡς

examples be

in

they

their

expresses

ἤλαυνον

had

their

midst

and

περιβαλό-

fill

drove

of

slaugh-

them

to

(6,7,8)

simultaneity

the

interpreted

in

they

can.

This

(6)

(what

will

be

(8)

too,

and by

for

the

öc-clause

the

situation

the

Persian

of

question another

think

napfiv

expressed

πέρσαι

πέρσην...

the

asked...")

order

them...")

where

example

fiv

οἱ

Persians

(9,39,2)

cannot I

τὸν

dinner,

πέμψας

in

the

(5,18,2)°

another,

ἴζοντο,

εἶπαν

dinner,

διαπινόντων

seated

what

cases

fact,

by

guests that

came

διαπίνοντες

their

Μαρδόνιον...

these

they

of

he

let

oath

finished

asked

Mardonios...”)

cases

(iii)

ἀποσιεύμενος

διαδήσας

when

and

the

with

ἐπεξῆς

εἶχον

Clearly

and

ropes

ἦσαν, had

were

τε

neous.

πελάγεϊ, αὐτὴν

together")

one

μενοι

some

τῷ

ἐγίνοντο,

they

ὡς δὲ ἄδην

For

with

finished

drank

Mardonios

whether

away,

fulfilling

δείπνου

when

6.4.1.2.

ἐν

σχοινίοισι

sailed

drinking

("When

("When

(8)

ἐγίνετο

δείπνου

they

ἔφη)

ὡς

παρῆν);

(4,154,4)

("When

(6)

δὲ

duly

(i.e.

are:

᾿Ετεάρχου her

-thereby

(5)

ὡς

τοῦ

compounds

completion”.

examples

κωσιν

types: and

can

immediately

way,

be

viz.

illustrated

said

here

also

for

that

matter).

in

(6)

being

asked...".

Of

as

is

"at

‘after course

holds

arises simulta-

most

for

a certain

dinner‘. the

other time

Then

situation

(i.e. of

111 "being

well

after

may

teriority. ning

dinner"

have

had

He

implies

would

in

assigning

ὡς

δέ

that

in mind when seem the

to

a dinner

have

label

has

preceded;

he classified

(6)

followed

the

with

aoristic

"impf.

this

Po-

as expressing

same

an-

line

of

reaso-

force"

to

napfiv

in: (9)

οἱ

παρῆν

Harpagus

was

ὁ

Ἅρπαγος,

present,

Powell's

classification

quals

aorist-form,

(10)

an ὡς

δὲ

na, In

reality,

came

"to

action

of

that

an

the

other

hand,

that

is

implicit,

tain

activity,

words to

we

the

same

English

and

waren,

preceding

maakt

For

(11)

two

(9)

πᾶσαι

al

νέες,

ships

were

in

the

(9),

more

or

when

less

e-

or

coming is

clauses toen

the

implicit)

as

of activity,

problematic situation

preceded. present

world.

they

against:

Toen

stj

(10), that

end.

ways

of

may

on a cer-

In

compare

werk

other

referring

Toen hun

si-

implied

Aegina",

an

hun

situation

is

In at

ready,

met

it

is

to

One

were

waren

ensuing

less

come

Aegi-

a certain

expressed

alternative

imperfect: is

(6),

has

δὲ

(8,132,1)

course,

“being has

real

klaar

in

of

overtly

When

zij

as

again,

Aegina”

ἀπίκοντο

arrived

Ionians...")

just

here

linguistically in

the

("And

(1,117,2)

in

the

from

to

as:

more

all

what

"Sachverhalt"

(end

Αἴγιναν

situation,

Dutch

Du.

“Aotudyne

such

sij

klaar

(situation,

werk

afge-

implicit).®

Eyıvöunv

clear.’

First,

let

us

examine

ex-

(4).

Is in

A

the

"coming

activity

γίνομαι

ample

is

here

hadden

6.4.1.3.

have

whereas

especially

napfiv

present";

travelling

it viz.

have

τὴν

("When

we

be

ὁ

him")

that

messengers

however,

viz.

μιν

asked

in

ἐς

ἄγγελοι...

there

tuation,

suggests as

παρεγένοντο

"Iowv

εἴρετό

Astyages

there

any

difference

and

the

@c-clause

(4)

in in

interpretation an

(ἔλεγον...

᾿Αλέξανδρον...

ὡς

ἐν

ἐγένετο

γύπτιον

πέλαγος

τῷ Αἰγαίῳ, ("They

example ἀποπλέειν ἐξῶσται

told

me...

between

the

@c-clause

like ἐς

τὴν

ἑωυτοῦ)

ἄνεμοι

ἐκβάλλουσι

that

Alexander...

καί ἐς

μιν, τὸ

Al-

sailed

112

away

to

for

the

his

own

Aegean,

sea")

we

being

a prepositional

There

find

is

I

to

occurred to

to

its

having

the

not

kind

of

It

is

To ving in

a

does

this

‘time does

can

now,

a are

and

of we

will

the

greater

into

suggest

be

as

co-

rehaving

This

must

specifically, this

is

simultaneity

not

to

between

their

main

clause;

but

also

on

3,86,1

for

the

instance,

the

well

Powell's

covers

those

the

main

actions

clause

referred

follow

the

clause.12

that

with

category

too ὡς

wide

+

the

a

“verbs field;

impf.

of

ha-

only γίνομαι

warranted.!?

has

expressing Examples

to

concerned

indication

circumstance

having

of

temporal

this

confronted

with

causality',

meaning

grouped some

English

discussed

@c-constructions

elements

part

be

roughly

resumptive

temporal

equivalent

the

actions

etc.,

and

the

interpretation,

external

actions

seas.

All

(11) "sea"?®

after

viewed

high

clause, In

as

of

force"

aorist,

temporal

straightforward for

(5)

shown

seem

be

of

and for

rather

the

aspect.!°

subordinate

notably

or

the

γίνομαι

predicate

discussion

One

section

passing not

come

Egyptian

simultaneous.!!

example

be

temporal

when.

as

(4)

a word

év/tni

clause.

classification.

the a

main

the

to

γίνομαι

of

+

easily

coming

subordinate

aoristic

tmperfect

occurrence

ples

by

Powell's

till

In

of

in

to

cases,

receives

where

the

occurred

a relationship

impf.

the

classification +

of

the

and

number

or

came/had

into

otherwise,

semantic

be

have

cannot

the

viewed

that

it

Up

the

be

with

ὡς

after

easily

summarize,

6.4.2.1.

he

both

ἐν

action,

to it

in

of

the

put

xatfixe

on

participle

ὡς

to

nature

in

imperfect his

too,

with

the

depends

referred

6.4.2.

or,

never

containing

possible

the

action

may

only can

by

when

winds

expression

assumed

a momentaneous

information

actions to

seas?;

semantic

there

@¢-clauses this

he,

contrary

consisting

(4)

be

διαδήσας...

due

that

that

by

local

in

may

simultaneously

be say

think;

high

by

the phrase

κατῆκε)

the

ferred

ἐγένετο,

not,

(διαδήσας... to

and

driven

(2,113,1)

where

ming

country;

was

by

under

in

a group

is

the of

uncertain.

Powell the

under

heading

conjunctions).

Two

the

where meanings

meaning

main

is

clause.

@c-clauses These the

exam-

heading

‘causal’

(he

remarks

can

113 be

made

of

examples

about

many

other

they

are

e.g.

1,87,1

5,12,3 cond

instances

5.1.),

to

there

is

strong void

speak no

need.

this to

the

Μαρδόνιος ἐς

descend

ὡς

into

the

(15)

class

denied,

present

like, the

ol

plain,

Mardonios

τεῖχος

ὡς

of

ὅτι,

section

I

on

ἐπεί

(5.2.

of

for

ὡς-

which

hand,

that

wc-clauses; have

a

to

a-

suggested

which

Ἕλληνες

("And

when

sent

ἀποστέλλουσι...

("When

they

taken

and

δὲ τῷ had

τὸ

προτέρῳ

before,

I will

now

ἐς the

τὸ

πεδίον,

Greeks

against

them

πέμ-

did

not

all

the

πολλὸν ἔλεγε

cease,

the

then

τοῦτο τάδε

Darius

("The

prophecy,

οὐκ

ἐφαίνετο

EnuvSdvovto, wall,

the

Greeks

obtw

ἡ

᾿Ελένη,

δὴ

Helen

they

did

heard

believed

ἀλλὰ

τὸν

πιστεύσαντες...

it

not

show

abab-

up,

af-

the

same

declara-

and

sent

Menelaus

(2,118,4)

Δακεδαιμόνιοι me

other

these

'time incor-

examples:

Μενέλεων

πουσι...

the

‘circumstance’,

ἵππον

the

implicit,

‘temporal’

following

κατέβαινον τὴν

on with

and

term

is

ter

not

equivalent

also

se-

not

particular

τὸν

δὲ

is

this

ἐλοῦσι

πέα...

term

or

The terms

with

λόγον

ὡς

first

very

connection

...

as

Powell's

in

τὸν

tion

after).

(9,20)

himself...") (14)

οὐ

of

under

remarked

be

the

πᾶσαν

'contemporaneous')

P.

merely

that

‘causal’,

(see

is

general

δέ,

horsemen") (13)

cannot

or

do

for

of

headings,

causality'

by

be

not

what

Consider

αὐτοὺς

different

that ὡς 15 ἃ kind of

explicit

and

said

it

under

given

'causality'

'causal' group

Powell

will

already

It

choice

could

‘causal’. The

see,

implication

Powell's

since

into

justifiability and

can

make

elucidate.

πει

by

Firstly,

under

passing

suggests

I

one, him

ἐγένετο,

the

of

to

both

try

ol

have

is

by

‘time given

dc

as

causal

for

(12)

Soa,

latter

far

7.4.).As I

clauses

of

causality'

the

as

arbitrary

grouped

concerns

into

but

which, ὅτι

(ὡς

(ἐπιμελὲς

passing

classification.

a rather

examples,

point

rect,

Powell's

is

δέ,

ἐγίνετο ("But sent

ὥς

a

σφι

nal

when

*)

ἐπαύετο,

αἰεὶ

τὠυτὸ when

(5,63,2)

πέμψας

continued

horseman...

Lacedaemonians, sent...

οὐκ this

and

for

spoke

Δαρεῖος

long thus")

and

In-

did

(4,126)

πρόφαντον

ἐγίνετο,

πέμ-

they

received

the sa-

ever

114 (16)

Τόμυρις

δέ,

ἑωυτῆς not

listen

with

him")

6.4.2.2.

ὥς

the

of

all,

the

On

adjuncts,

the

is

rather

where The on

which

one

imperfect with

the

occurred

same too, on

So

seem

of

event

far,

event

of on

reaction,

the

of

no

special

main of

its

the turn,

sim-

and

alet).

that

it

@c-clause;

indeed

irrelevant.

in

(13),

φαίνεσθαι,

in

combination

that

the

where

non-appearance occasions;

Helen

and

again

unspecified,

occasions.

Here,

is

in

follows

posterior

"non-descending"

as

the

narrative

problems

are

not

@c-clause, based

but

it

continue,

What

"follow"

forms an

the

but

is concerned.!5

however,

simply

upon

may

involved.

character,

that

of

the

the

clause

"non-descending"

of

the

(12):

does is

sense the

far

process,

value

unspecified,

different

clause

As

imperfect

πολλόν

in

a

expres-

relatively

the

is

is

iterative

also

described

temporal below

this the

are an

have

display

as

aorist.!"

of

in

and

clause preceding

discussed

the

(15)

iterative

the

that

by

(cf.

main

with

precedes

concerned

be

posterior

verb

öc=clause to

role

and

exhibit

function

Note

the

specified

the

far

do

describe

series

for

main

as

their

that in

is

indicate

occasions;

then,

examples

battle

connection

the

back

to

events.

imperfect

the

several, the

is irrelevant,

these sense)

on of

these

an

otherwise

hold

way

(14)

momentaneous

to

and

in ex.(16),

similar

may

a

oc-clauses

in

the

they

concerned

further a

in

two

clause of

several,

occurred the

one

this

not have

negation, on

clauses

o¢-clauses

fact,

assess.

has

(i)

refer

the

in

viz.

to

main

the

then,

are

the

item

is we

of

would

Greeks

the

is

oc-clause

express

once,

here,

some

Possibly,

τὴν

would

joined

sentences

these earlier,

that

the

between

normally

on

and

that

@c-clauses and

they

difficult

of

power

πᾶσαν

Cyrus

of

noted

points,

instances

Greek

her

when

Definition

discussed

both the

only

think;

follows

(ii)

relation

event

be

those

oc-clauses,

that

other

I

as

these

formally

as

all

examples.

properties;

sequential

ple,

of

(iii)

in

συλλέξασα

("Tomyris,

collected

should

clause;

peculiar

sed

it

tense;

context.

ἐσήκουσε,

tance

temporal

main

a past no

her,

features

‘regular'

οὐκ Κύρῳ

(1,214,1)

Discussion

same

Κῦρος

συνέβαλε

to

etreums

First

ol

δύναμιν

is (in

a reaction

observation

gives that the to

on

the above

it;

the

this

part

115 of

the

subject

stand

that

serves

that

moment, these

of

the

think,

a

are

too

of

not

only

exists

its

main

clause,

now

is

expressed

a

said

to

of the main

to

those a

the

sible.

a

To

notions

some

way,

and

It

will

is

given

noted

This

that

of

is

not under (31

ce

negation

in

generally

be

is

such

were

the a @c-clause

occasion

number

have

the

event

not only

also

of

made

to

in

handled

be

:

to

based

of.

those

μανϑάνω,

subject

notions

three

asked,

examples

of

may

con-

be

ὡς oc-clauses

the

in

was

not

of

the

use

the of

chance,

for

‘time

passing

into

on a

57),20

temporal for

whom

I

(or

òc-clauses

to

interpretation someone

the

referred

in

due

Powell

circumstantial

-,

and

fn.16).

a I

that

should

which clause

interpretation

examples,

circumstantial

negation

a

treated

there

a reaction

circumstantial

temporal

it

I

main

clause

oc-clause, a rather

course,

pos-

and

intui-

under

what

appear.

involve of

by

Both

may

counted)

present.

have

the

etc.-

@¢-clause

but

dodw,

also

reaction:

viz.

ultimately

they be

I

overt-

notions,

when

of course

section, like

concerning

these

and

event,

main

this definition

straightforward

accordingly.

conditions (14)

section

the

this

ἐπεί a

a reaction

that

remarks

for

-

(cf.

that

presuppose

expresses

clause

in

Note

Both

follows:

between

also

of

perception,

ob-

some

expressed

they

(and

as

subordinate

circumstance

final

runs

circumstances

Under of

observation

reacts tive

of

account

observes

the the

under-

time

examples.

clause

subject

discussed

verb

foregoing

which

in

that

@c-clauses

®c-clause

not

to

of

he, at

clause.!®

relationship

the

are

that

are

and

main

it

we

period

observation.!®

other

the

by

like

for

the

in

e.g.

In

the

main

clause.!?

Some

this

the

taining

6.4.2.3.

in

(12) and

reaction

formulated;

express

clauses

and

but

clauses called

with

with

in

descending

present!’,

temporal

referred

be

E.g.

unspecified,

circumstantial be

an observation

event(s)

not

subject

present

may

may

are

implicitly

human

A definition

upon

some,

observation

clauses)

what

clause.

in accordance of

ly but are only of

main during

Greeks

reacts notions

presence

the

Mardonios

think,

the

the

that

the

when

majority fact, clause

clause,

is

examples

and

‘causal’

will of

οὐ

of

that

since

non-occurrence

example

negation

causality' in

subordinate of

four,

the

there a

presen-

entail will

certain

a

116 event

is

important

-

expectations

- which,

part

person.

of

that

firmative

that

for

the

act

in

of

such

same

viz.

An

‘subjective’

was

of

it

be

occurs

may

is

be

the

same,

also

in

called,

was

and

init

is

so

they

of

the

the af-

when

it

example

on of

that

(15):

same",

A clear

his

group

what

the

to

one

expressions

this

ever

judgment.

expression

least

is,

to

a reaction

contain,

that

judge

that

at

example

got

they

with

that

contrary

provoke

for

adverbs,

they

Lacedaemonians, accordance

instance,

will

holds

those

or

prophecy

for

turn,

judgments.?!

"the

a

be,

its

The

adjectives

personal

said

may

in

òc-clauses,

‘subjective' volve

it

the

re-

role

following

sentence: (17)

ὡς

δὲ...

Av

πέμψασθαι the

tent

of

Expressions In

activity said

on

the

to

they these

mentally,

brings

of

δὲ

ἠναγκάζετο, this

This

then,

part many

are

τέως

said")

is

a

clear

circumstantial

an in

that

one

may

μὲν but

I

in

ἔχειν

presently,

it

the

and

sent

presuppose

some

that

e.g.

to

the

to

For

thereby, an

μετὰ

kept put

be

confine

physically

and,

following

Croesus they

notions. even

-

that,

εἰρωτώμενον,

when

these

@c-clauses person

the

triggering

perhaps

behaviour.

time

some

observation,

can

referred on

compare

some

the

think

those

person's

σιγὴν ("For

or-

" When...

consequences,

too;

is

he

Pausanias).22

that

observer.

event

orders

which

meal ]

great"

is

said

influence

Pausanias

after

a-laughing

was

certain

present

μεταcaptured

(9,82,3)

this

be

luxury,

fell

Greeks")

has

γελάσαντα ([ Having

meal,

Spartan

contexts,

some

εἰπεῖν

its

a

(here,

the

always

point

make

may

other

- where

question,

he

it

of

all

Persian

difference

so

event

a change

this

Κροῖσον

the

some

Παυσανίην

Pausanias the

is

exerts

about

tration

"when this

of in

of

τὸν

στρατηγούς...

a

to

great,

generals

cases,

that

myself

was

whom

operate

prepare

servants

like

for both

to

own

ascertainment

(18)

with

his

person

or

Mardonios,

ders

the

μέσον, τοὺς

servants

for

τὸ

Ελλήνων

some

difference

May

πολλὸν

τῶν

illusexample:

δέ,

ὡς

silent

force

on

at him,

(1,86,4)

example semantic

of

the

aspect;.

combination

of

whereas

first

the

a

temporal is

and

a

explicitly

117 present

-μετά

formed pect

by is

only

ζομαι; a

thus

new

the

by not

main

the

ὡς

clause

ὡς

value

of

is

stance (20)

by of

the

ἐδέδμητο

By

this

and

a

it

δὲ

value,

with

τεῖχος

κατὰ this

of

story)

the

a pluperfect

ὡς

δὲ

The

anterior

οὗτοί

ol

ἄνδρας

straightway also

sumptive

1,27,1

terpret

the

(22)

δὲ

ὡς

stood

@c-clause ot

πάντες

arranged,

τὸ as

the

does

temporal,

in

κήρυκας...

as

("When

with

S-D

(22, 263-4

tac

certain

and

he

(had)

(1,77,4)

and/or

resulting

i.e.

in

sub-

least

ταύτας

to

provoked

between

state

simultaneity transitive

from

the

287-8).

action

A clear

in-

is: ἐσβολάς... it

was

("A

still

wall

had

there

at

(7,176,3)

form This is

may can

be be

ταῦτα

said

ἦσαν, ("After

in are

primarily

the

to

have

illustrated

prominent

Themistocles

Stetetdyato, he

is

messengers...")

value

merely

üc-clause

at

ἐνθεῦτεν

μετὰ

in

anteriority

ἀνεγνωσμένοι

as

not

asἀναγκά-

referred

event

to

story,

of

forms

event

the

ἀπέπεμπε...

with

elements

the

relationship

purely

entry",

side

thereafter

in

aspect

latter

the

some

this

across

‘simultaneous’ side.

τοκλέης

c£.

cf.

the

the

ἔπεμπε

expresses

circumstantial

referred

is

sent

stage

the

@c-clause

a person,

expressing

verb-stem;

moment

event

perfect-stem,

built

@c-clauses. (21)

the

the

new

semantic

which

but

clause

he

the

in

Σάρδις,

a pluperfect

been the

τὰς

Sardes,

that

to

with

on

+ pluperfect,

verbs?3, denoted

the

main

tc

at

due

expressed

when

and

ἀπίκετο

6.4.3.

being

influence

a

@c-clause-,

simultaneous,

228

any

introduces

the

narrative,

is

former.

arrived

The

the

clause

ordinate

of

event

in

involve

(19)

content implicit,

stage

the

unequivocally

the

in

sentences

αὐτίκα he

μετὰ

had

sent main

lacking,

an

from

won

ταῦτα them

men...")

napatveoe...

ὁ θεμισ(8,110,2)

Where

I

we

("When

(1,80,3)2*

in

over,

clause. think

use

like:

stative-simultaneous,

commanded...")

‘anterior' its

such

have

to

e.g.

they

all

in

rein-

118 In

this

connection,

ordinated with of

plupf.

the

(23)

with in

first

ὡς

δὲ

τοῦ

("When

In

one

two,

ταῦτα

that

(24)

ὡς

they

δὲ

τε

that

all

The it

is

can,

that

it

There γίνομαι (25)

Tov:

νυν

ἐνδεκάτη

οἵ

te

the

when over

in

debate

the

ten

and...

need

we

of

find

much

more...,

τηνικαῦτα

was and

te

ἐδόκεε

τηνικαῦτα

στρατηγοῖσι far

the

spent men

rode

and

wrapt

up...

ἐς

λό-

it

seemed

in

and

ef-

προσ-

deepest

sought

to

(9,44,1)

in

the

ἡσυχίη ὕπνῳ,

τοῖσι

night

action'

that

πολλά,

ἀπαλλάσσοντο...

money,

in

impf.

ἐν

camps

connected the

case

of

of

the

result

with

the

perfect-

προελήλατο; passing

still,

of

time

is

of

the

ἡμερέων

ἐγεγόνεε τῇ

days

pluperfect

of

-intransitive-

e.g.

Ἕλληνες

each

day

Mardonios

held...")

(9,41,1)

ἐπὶ

πλεῦνες

ἐνθαῦτα

past

no

had

come

other,

and

οὐδὲν

πλεῦν

ἐγίνετο

ἡμέρη ἀντικατημένοισι

πολλῷ

ἕδρῃ,

were

eleventh

against

number

of

that

καὶ

ἐδίζητο the

προσαναισέίμωτο

was

and

εἶναι

strange

περιημέκτεε

("Until

example

clause:

προελήλατο

the

δέκα

δὲ

δὴ

An

(5,34,3)2°

plupf.

examples

τῶν

once.?°

co-

impf.

time.

μέν

ταιῇσι,

ment

some

öòc-clause,

δόνιος

all

generals")

said

two

pluperfect

@c-clauses,

ἐνθαῦτα...

Alexander...

result

the

ὡς

but

at

also

in

in

hour

their

be

find

only

siege

main

when

somewhat

late

μέχρι

ly

of

perhaps, are

the

ἄνθρωποι

still

'stative

perhaps is

οἱ

that

we

eight

nal...

expended

the

νυκτὸς

("Now

speech

notion

stem

in

τῆς

at

σφι,

and

coordinated

was

slumber, have

had

᾿Αλέξανδρος...

ἐλθεῖν

plupf.

themselves...")

μάλιστα

ελάσας...

and

in

ἡ πολιορκίη,

aside,

moment'

γους

that

is

ἐδέετο

betook

πρόσω

καὶ

noting

imperfect

aorist

Persians

of

very

ναι

but

spent

example

‘at

worth

κατεδεδαπάνητό

the

been

then

is

possibility

πλεῦνός

had

it

-simultaneous-

and

chafed

ἐγεγόνεσαν

ἐς

more

λόγους was

from the at

Greeks the

καὶ

than

first had

delay,

πλαMap-

ἦλϑον...

done

their

τού-

ἐν

this; encamp-

grown there

greatwas

a

119 As

with

easy

to

or,

the

case

of

say

what

the

alternatively,

rist

(cf.6.4.1.).

6.5.

Motivating

As

already

finite

(3)

shall

δὲ

in

χρὴ

make

(26)

τοίνυν

have

any

far

as

meaning, ἐπεί,

as:

nificant

texts

in

which

seem,

has

the

data

after

an

a

be

this in

been

στρατιὴν τῷ

ἔχεις now

πολλήν,

πέρσῃ

d&c-clauses

Consider

the

is

not

example

imperfect

are

and

not

is,

or

ao-

the

of

ὡς it,

only

ὥρη

hour

two

to

examples

in

I

fail

ἐπεί

and

ὡς

and

occur Plato

obligation

the

case

of a number Possibly,

are

direct

expressing

following

4you

of to in

where

ὡς

for

motivating see the

any

the it

sig-

clauses

of Platonic ὡς,

is

its

dia-

con-

would

(at

least,

this

is

suggest)

and

occurs

most

often

(3

in

‘reported

sentence:

μὴ ("If

without

As

however,

different;

speech,

nal

it

example).??

fact,

for

we

(3,85,2)

In

words

that

ἔσται

practise

as

point.

send

assured

ἡμῖν

paraphrased,

this

πέμψετε must

μηχανᾶσθαι

other

(first

between

μὴ too

be

ὁ ἀγὼν

tomorrow")

3,85,2

in 6.2.((3)):

εἰ

you

with instances

(7,172,2)

ἡμέρης be

least some

because/for".

on

two

send

(at are

times

Hdt.,

Plato). "2 6.6.

it

an

given

("But

σόφισμα,

is

will

meaning

Herodotus

expression

has

ἐπιούσης

predilection

from

An example

an investigation

help

the

there

Persian")

there

Nor was much

but

the

8,108,3

difference of

the

öc-clauses

with

contest

could

logues?!

from

lacking,

will

τῆς

see,

say

concerned.?°

such

you

trick,

our

viz.

this

γίνομαι,

in

if

τοιοῦτον ὡς

such

I can

"I

are

ὑμέας

for

τι

for

motivating,

of

differs

ὁμολογήσειν

terms

ναβάλλεσϑαι, delay;

it

aorist

pluperfect

inferential

2)

καὶ

force;

is

and

the

way

6.2.

note

ἡμέας

Another

εἰ

what

dc-clauses.28

ἐπίστασϑε great

of

üc-clauses?”’

see

πέμπειν a

imperfect

value

in

stated

verbs,

of motivating

As

the

speech/thought'

12

times

what

in

120

(27)

ἐκάλεε

δὲ ἐπίστιόν

τε καὶ

καλέων

διότι

ἐλάνϑανε

φύλακα

συμπέμψας

on

Zeus

one

of

the

whom

he

the

quus

(of

could

"because",

not "I

and

not

the

the

author?",

be

is

(whether

only ὡς

than

our

may

a,

participles,

in 5,118,3?®, (28)

a

see

οἱ

μὲν

δὴ

σφι

καὶ

Ἕλληνες αἱ

Greeks

and

foreigners

ground

that

this

such

βάρβαροι

ὁ

islands

of

were

and

the

has

ὡς

would

ὅτι

+

latter,

inbut

person

than

that

would

the

seem

to

of

main

interpretation considered indirect

I

discourse

in the üc-clause?®), If

this ὡς,

a &c-clause

is

correct,

modifying

may

be

found

is possibly

ἔσπευδον

᾿Ελλήσποντος

alike

meaning

thoughts),

"causal"

an imperfect

οἱ

καὶ

(or latter

appears

7.5.

the

think,

subordinator.37

in

the

things

so-called

καλέων,

- direct

principle

other

I

obli-

of

between

some

marker

ind.

καὶ

νῆσοι

All a

section

with

ὥς

the

is

verb-form

future

an example

victory")

by

total

se.?5

the

man

indicating

respect,

that

indicates,

the

(27)

with

which

with

given

in

causal

second

the

as

with

in

difference indeed,

the

per

the in

subject

this

words

compared for

example

In

a cause;

ὡς

called first

optativus

ὡς

person's

Stt-like,

be

the be,

contexts

like

foe

simply

another

by

the

taken

the

expressing

cases

ὡς

he

hypothetical

ὡς

for".

a cause

such

not

in

/

may

by

"causal"

whereas

or not an optative

rather

An

seen,

secondarily,

clause,

that

ὡς

in

worst

course,

contained

expresses ὡς

given

- of

have

ὅτι:

his

so-called

have

+ optative

("And

Comrades,

traditionally

because

representing

+ ὡς

think

from ὅτι

we

this

necessarily

conveyed

verb

say

former,

without

as

the

ἐπίστιον

ἐταιρήιον

entertained...,

the

is

δὲ

(1,44,2)

a cause

that

easily

the

found

εὑρήκοι,

quoting

Note

of

protector")

after

is

differ

dicative

a

Zeus

had

τὸν μὲν

τὸν

πολεμιώτατον

unwittingly he

(-),

βόσκων,

εὑρήκοι

discourse)

since,

meaning

author

as

ἐταιρήιον

and

that

optative

Herodotus

to

had...

indirect

Croesus.??

seem

he

sent

that

the

Hearth

words

viz.

speech

αὐτὸν

the

because

with

Here,

δὴ...

eager

ἐς

ἄεϑλα for

Hellespont

τὴν

μάχην,

προέκειτο

battle, were

on

the

("So the

prizes

(9,101,3)

At

least

An

interpretation

is

the

only

with

ὡς

way =

I can "I

say

make this

sense because

of /

this for",

o¢-clause. not

very

of

12]

plausible

no

in

Nor

does

poral

it

below). case

in

for

and

6.7.1.

the

of

®¢-clauses

ject

of

the

main

examples

cation

that

following

is

at

least

following sary."! might

as

number

such

of

that

his

the

clauses

ὡς,

if

òc=clause

speech;

I

think,

is

the

as

that

temsee

represents

thinking

are

passage.

a postponed

for

it,

there

speech

öc-clause

of rendering

5,118,3,

than

or

in

some

or because,

temporal?

arises

whether

verb.""There an

optative,

dealing

thereis

a

The

as

a

a

as

I can

the

other of

see,

most

with

in

are

a

indi-

viz.

1,3,2;

tense

verb,

also

some

seems

other

and

three

interpretation

there

the

thought’

sub-

only

a past

thought' that

exanthe

reliable

interpretation

that

‘reported

any

thoughts

all

is

temporal

are

or

speech/thought,

‘reported

a consequence

between

is

group,

problem

a

far

reported

small

where

there

words

which

with

conceivable. as

the

are,

where

has

a

on the ground

way.

ög=clauses

hesitate

the

(For

that

non-direct

also do.3?

w¢-clauses This

view

representing

are

7,2,3;8,125,1.Still, of

in

inconvenience

narrative

remarks

with

we

also

question

ples other

best

thought'

Preliminary

course,

the

might

‘Reported

to

a

clause.

rather

thought

further

in

translation

is

thought

they

the

a ὡς

possible

my

this (28),

person's

Of

has

such

seem

As that

6.7.

for

(-circumstantial)

fact,

as

itself,

parallels

neces-

examples temporal

we inter-

pretation. 6.7.2. As

I

that these,

Temporal have to

the

following

explained. (29)

said,

all

ἦγον

we-clauses

there

a

are

small

number

have

to

be

interpreted

arises,

as

with

appearance question

énet-clauses,

as

to

how

Consider the following δή

μιν

BaBuAwv (wv heard

following

this,

(3,156,2)*?

ol

πυλουροΐ,

("The

before

the

their

general

following

ós=-clauses

temporally.

comparable deviant

For

instances

position

can

of be

sentences:‘2

ταῦτα

gate-wardens

the

of

ὡς

ἤκουσαν,

brought assembly

him, of

ἐπὶ when the

τὰ

κοινὰ

they

τῶν

(had)

Babylonians”)

122 (30)

τὸν

δὴ

τε μασι

Some

ὄλβιον

citizens,

and

the

(29).

ὡς

Except

δὲ

both

ceding

for

qua

ταῦτα

cases

receiving

withal")

(the

away

a

as

possible

in μιν

καὶ

χρή-

made men

him

to

a

be

their

(8,75,1)

tells

of

gate-wardens ly

satisfies

really with Ad

verb

Here,

too,

By

τόν

alone,

cf.

Denniston

that

are

responsible

modifies

embedded; question,

8,75££.,

and

a

for

ble conditions

(which

sentence of

added

come

reader by

on

ἥκουσαν

seems

to

emphasizes

the

(1954:218ff.)). for

the

postponement falls

(ii)

that of

somewhat

in

ἦγόν

the

This

of

δή

immediate"and

been

μιν

are the

emphatic

point: ol

clause

main

lost

πυλουροί...δ"

are:

(1)

a clause

narrative of

ὡς-

itself

compara-

about proper

a

than how-

the

that

under

remark

fashion

rather

factors,

€nei-clauses the

it

walls

a role; cf., again,

The

the whole

outside

the

have

whole

is,

how

run

make

the

author

postponement

clause,

to to

reaction

this

play

to

himself: how

the

would

factors,

a deserter.

adding

effect

this

(29)

related

order

the

reader

pre-

in

Darius

as

(1954:214),

ταῦτα

the (for

has

asks

putting and

to

gets

the

5.4.3.%5;

Sikinnos,

in

of

(1,90,4)

with

This

δὲ

relative the

cf. is

react?

emphasis

presence

ever,

δή

ὡς

the

clause

of

to

Denniston

order:

has

Δελφοὺς

@c-clause

He

is like:

men

contributing

city.

he

ἐς

sent

ταῦτα)

Babylonians

that

him...".

he

Herodotus

a plan

their the

the

Λυδῶν

the

two

made

suspense;

curiosity

brought

normal

(30).

in (cf.

the

they the

going

first

main

of

τῶν

there

example

continuative

does

are

the

gate-wardens,

gate-wardens the

to

capture

an

(cf.

are

sentence had

and

them...*)

back

then,

There

ex.(29))

situation

to

refers

Why,

öc=clause,

this,

charged

preceding

to

heard

Oc=clauses

position?

Darius

the

a

and

the

the (29)

πέμπων

Croesus

bogus-deserter for

creates

ὁ Κροῖσος,

ἐπεί).

the

of

between

@c-clause

on

(1)

Zopyrus

in

man

BeonLea

πολιήτας,

Themistocles

were

position

Delphi

thus,

a different

think;

the

("When

the

context;

have

is

events

structure,

to

cf.5.2.3.

the

Θεμιστοκλέης

θεσπιέες

Thespians

ἤκουσε

Lydians

term

and

οἱ

remarks.

the

I

πρηγμάτων

these

a wealthy

ἐνετέλλετο...

In

τῶν

ἐπεδέκοντο

("After

when

difference,

(31)

τούτων

ὡς

Thespian,

Ad no

Gotepov

ἐποίησε,

the man of

parenthesis;

123 (111),

in

relation

unconditioned, about

the

author

more

that

a preceding it

would

6.7.3.

After

have

fact

the

temporal have may

tion.

In

give

these

led

the

try

αὐτὸν

ὡς

an

we

one

the

say

Thespians

a

again

I now thought'

I must

contain

add

optatives,

interpreta-

temporal

confronted of

examples.

interpreta-

with

the

that which

thought’

a

postponement some

and

‘reported

possible.

favour

are

the for

τοῦ

χρησμοῦ

ἀνεύρισκον

πάριοι

the

need .

&c=clause;

Consider

the

δὲ

("and

πυϑόμενοι ϑεοπρόπους

πολιορκίης

that...,

although not

found

to

οὐκ

ἐξ

ἐδικαίωσαν

οὐδεμιῆς

remembering

deserve

that

to

my

ὡς...,

he

the

acted

Yay-

προνοίης

death,

had

to

Delphi,

βούλομενοί

πέμπουσι

ἔσχε"

desired

them...") In

μὲν

oracle

when

they,

without

in-

(2,151,3)

ρήσασϑαι

sengers

κτεῖναι

βασανίζοντες

Psammetichus examination,

tent...")

(32).

even

misleading,

@c-clauses

a

‘reported

partbus

for

ποιήσαντα... deemed

during

sent

seem a

ἀναμνησϑέντες

τῆς

perhaps

thought'

both

to

provide

the

other

possible

temporal

where

unambiguously case,

reason

sentences:

μήτιχον, they

following

not

latter

to

following

seem

do

explanation

this

of

is

information

slightly

action

‘reported

group

ceteris

wc-clause

a position

could

been

the

examples

perhaps

an

of

small

a

interpretation

that

tion,

rather

that

for in

One

have

the

earlier

previously."5

both

examples

to

would

Ad

of

of

to

citizens;

clause.

suggested

spoken

back

òs=clause

would

interpretation

a

(33)

main

where

the

(32)

the

temporal

back

I will

new

put

the

information

refer

Examples

and

to

to

“c-clause

been

these

come

the

not

receiving

preceding

already

(ii),

does

free

that since

it

Thespians

was

than

had

to

for

ἐς

ἔπεμπον punish

after

δέ...

her

they

μιν

Δελφούς, ("The

for

got

this

rest

ἀντὶ ὥς

τούτων

σφεας

Parians, and

from

they

the

learning sent

siege;

(6,135,2)

translation

circumstantial);

I have

given

nevertheless,

on

τιμω-

ἡσυχίη

when

(being

itself

the

ground

that

mes-

they

124 is possible,

ἴοο."7 Accepting

ponement

will

have

ponsible

are:

(i)

dvauvnoSévtegc

the

other

the

oracle;

deserve (11)

the

back

to

trial

of

greater

expect

question

of

factors

that

inasmuch

some

I

they

the

with refer

is

and no

this

may

have

made

the

rather

of

to out..."

not

refer

mention

@c-clause.

similar

not

found

does

been

to

res-

remembered

they

new

be

behaviour

Psammetichus

has

reference the

the

“they

„ when

post-

might

participle

there

again,

to

about

>)

wc-clause

the

the

deed:

deemed

expected

context;

Psammetichus"®,; mobility

after

information

be

of

as

Psammetichus'

might

preceding

illustration

the The

nevertheless

¢ as

information the

when

answered.

following

but

death

be

contrast,

we

kings

to

of

a

possible

a

For

ex.(45)

a

of

further

ἐπείτε

in

5.4.5.49 Ad

(33).

On

the ground

accept

after5®,

cannot

but

be

say

involved.

participle cf.

e.g.

viewed ding the

the

and

is,

far

are

to

(34)

ζῶσα

of

a

the

bred

First,

as

clear

factors

the

wc-clause

does

Perhaps make and

the

clear not

describe

to

not

should that

siege;

action

the

information

of

might the

impossible,

ög=-clause the

we

I

between

explicitly

during

If

for? that

seem

the

residual

γὰρ

temporal,

εὐλέων

worms; gods") far

be

additional

πρὸς

group

of

interpretational

(i.e.

some

τιμωρίαι the

to

possible.

accounted

the

be the

sen-

perhaps,

Parians

that

in

they

examples

present

with

πέμπουσι

also be

priestess.5!

but where yet others might ples,

any with

proximity

the

finally,

more

see

after

wanted

punish

Restdual

or

verb

occurred

to

to

1,109,1.

possible

conceivably

postponement

sentence

envoys

desired

There

a

afterthought,

Herodotus

one

fail

main

is

the

an

greatest

6.8.

I

itself

1,108,3

of

that

can

that

In and

as

also,

how

motivating

thought

ὡς

ἐπίφϑονοι

evidently

where

of.

I

or

shall

not

only

discussed

‘reported give

all

so

thought’), the

exam-

comments.

ἐξέζεσε,

ϑεῶν

examples

possibilities

ἄρα

ἀνϑρώποισι

γίνονται

over-violent

("her

vengeance

al

λίην

living does

ἰσχυραὶ body not

please

(4,205) as

ἄρα

is

concerned,

this

particle

is

classified

125 by

Denniston

(1954:35-6)

surprise

attendant

upon

event

presented

as

is

currence". our

Only

case,

I

the

think

than

“event"):

dant

upon

one

like

interpretation

ὡς,

which,

temporal

that

can

hardly

of

translation nor

est

vrat

Van

Deventer

que

commentary is

in

is

zoale,

his

gives an

as,

that

"in

the

way

(35)

γὰρ

ἁρπαγᾷ

ob

Αἴγυπτον, νεός: μὴ

δὴ to

captain child, so, away

par

was

they

with

translation the

with

Legrand his

she

lest

the

is

@c-clause the

and

Powell where

sing

into

ting

for

better atten-

then,

convey of

at

all

(but

a

not

clear

excluded: (in in

his

very

γίνονται). Lextcon

course,

note

that

Godley

Powell

and

Powell

puts

it

Legrand

has

tant

il

illuminative

as

his

view

of

translation to

Of

edition;

his

has

denn

to

zoals;

(sichtlich

give

hesitation,

view

the

Krüger

for

(for).

with

χρησαμένους τῷ

ἐν

"Apyei

ἔγκυος

αὐτὴν

ἄρα);

All I

as

under

in

ὡς.

his

finally,

in

have

®c-clause

all,

the

opted

a kind

ashamed

for of

manner

of

Godley's; the

if

did in

herself

parents

her

own

to

with

accord")

be

know

she

it,

λέγουσι,

Stein of

contrary

our

ὡς

adheres infin.

as

to an

to

his

Thus

the

he on

a

also

classification

instance same

ἃ @c-clause

and

(1,5,2)

correctly

latter

the

sailed

it

συνεκπλῶσαι.

her

with

of

and

ἂν

carry

Argos

should

condition,

ὡς

not

understand

takes

coordination

τοκέας,

intercourse

her

I

τοὺς

complement-clause

ἀγαγεῖν

(the

they

ἐς

τῆς

συνεκπλῶσαι,

that

her

αὐτὴν

ναυκλήρῳ

αἰδεομένη

perceiving

discover

Phoenicians

he

say

that

ἀγαγεῖν τῷ

Φοίνιξι

had

then,

should

as

ἐοῦσα,

τοῖσι she

ship;

λέγουσι ἐμίσγετο

("They

force:

causality"). the

might,

be

"surprise

interpretation

ὡς

infinitives

Lexicon,

ἄρα

would

is

the

σφέας

by

the

there

on

I

ἔμαϑε

of

principle"

ocin

depends

γένηται

Egypt

its

applies

also

one;

ἐϑελόντην

κατάδηλος

off

takes

δὲ

during

that...”

ἀλλ'

ἐπεὶ

οὕτω

an

all".

all

is,

the

of

definition

that

(sichtlich)

wie,

moment

expressing reality

"after

scholar

clause:

The

perhaps

Dutch

easy

some

this

say

"ἄρα

(-).

or

is

not

wie

only

not

is

at of

“general

is

Feix

which

the

choice

The

ἄρα

at

does

heading:

involved.

unfortunately,

"causal"),

Stein

(note

interpretation

no

part

"evidently",

the

the

apprehended

second

disillusionment"

something

give

under

disillusionment

of

"time

analysis, after

a

in

paspoin-

verb

of

126

saying

to

1,70,3

lutions.

E.g.

and

7,220,1.

Krüger

ad

χρησαμένους;

concinn

hier

für

Pl.pf.".

does

understand

If

we

das

take

that,

ὡς

since

ὅτι

δὲ

τάσσων

("But

Although

I am

ὡς

it

it

Das

not

analysis:

should

be

be

things

as

how

or

as:

being

so-

ἀρπαγῦ steht

clear

temporal

interpreted

viewed

other

neben

Imperfekt

very

as

considered

of is

due

be

quite are

of

the

two

they

them

on

he

"causal"? the

ground

equivalent

I prefer

the

ὥς

οὐδεὶς

σφεας

immediately

orders")

about

to

complement

the

interpretation, or

wrong.

E.g.

has

into

a kind

sense,

but

Godley of

elsewhere.

or,

rather,

presence

of

subordinate

be

On

interpretation does

since of

other

seem

in

his

think,

front

or

by

clear

ὅτι, ‘renor-

If the üc-

postponement

to

of

who

Powell

hand, a

its

éne(te-clause,

clauses

ὁ

ἐπεί

possible.

circumstantial, the

and

supported

the

not

I

commentators

equivalent

cannot

ἦν

noticed

(9,22,3)

translators

ὡς

the

meanings

temporal,

currence

sure

makes

these

ἐπόϑεσαν,

halted,

gave

that

making

to

they

nobody

speech/thought'

clause

αὐτίκα

when

not

thus

may

avoid

the

the

main

oc-

clause.53

Coneluston

the

first

motivating amples which ὡς.

of

of

these,

would

words

that of

claimed,

the

preceding

@g-clauses; and

seem

Secondly,

gued

be

clause subject

a cause

of

given

with

the ὡς

by

future

question as

the

by

whether

a marker

of

verb,

A

of

sneech',

in

other

with

an

there

could

possibly (or

ex-

motivating I

that

than,

similar

present

thought

four speech,

+ optative;

the

reported

only

direct

use

ὡς

rather

subject.

suggested,

indic.,

of

I discussed

are to

Plato's

‘renorted

main

this I

there

confined

example

expresses

with

I raised

an

(6.5.-6.8.)

that

are

confirmed

ples,

a

they

with

thought', was,

one

sections

suggested

that

I dealt

this the

to

I

‘reported

ples

all,

simply

reasons,

admittedly

examples

In

last

all

"causally"

because, which

6.9.

the

ἔστησαν,

when

various

ted

is

cannot

ἐπείτε absence

take

(-).

in

have

ἐμίσγετο

interpretation."2

(36)

for

"ὡς

μισγομένην

in

But

however,

remarks:

All

causally

it

"because".

clause

wäre

ὡς

Others,

loc.

as

ar-

is, is

the

usually

feature, two

viz.

other

exam-

imperfect.

be

other

speech).

Next,

exam-

There

127 might, also a

be

indeed,

be

some

argued

to

be

number

of

such

following

temporal

(-circumstantial) an

three

explanation examples

sometimes, As

a

final

later

had

remark

sections with

than

more

constructional See

6.10.

6.10.1.

Apart

to

from

ἄν

(

in

latter

with

&v),

ἐπεί

an

and viz.

Homer

and

type

division

This

brings

me

indicative

by

the

event and

of

of a

these,

Finally,

discussion

of

I there

could, ὡς

heterogeneous

reflects

the main

are

the

than

fact

any

and

ὡς

temporal

an

and

in

the

picture,

that

other

ὡς

far

has

conjunction

in

other

as

in

constructione:

aorist

‘be

regards

this

in

temporal ἄν,

rarely

of

the

main

frequently

an

imperfect

indicative

with

within

first

the

whether or

a

very these

the

with

of

these

brief,

adjuncts,

whether

they

is

in

of

the

what

with

dv

(the

main

reference.

adjuncts, their

other

we can make

future

behave

a

(sometimes

group

because

of

clause,

obligatory

verb

form

a

subjunctive

verb

the

above

mentioned

following.

In

all

three

groups

clause

may

follow

upon,

or

the

subordinate

forms

adjuncts

with

an

or

on

I am place

like

which

mainly in

ἐπεί

the

etc.

respect.

speaking,

by

contain

without

the

to

being

that

present,

constructed

interpretation

question in

used

also

for

most

adjuncts

(historical)

are

indicative the

a

also

they

As

is

I will

expressed

present

in

according

to

in,

the

Generally express

the

ἐπεί

"iterativum")55;

however,

sentence,

some

interpretations

rather

only

Herodotus

a present

interested

+

ὡς

this

a

matter,

if

a

6:

when

sometimes

is

other

imperfect,

optative.5"

ἄν

further

express

envisaged.

that

occurrence

so-called clause

doubt

characteristics

type, or

the

For

existence

2.

chapter

their

pluperfect,

writers)

be

possibilities

indicative,

different

without

could

the

etc.

General

aorist

this

ch.l,note

Appendix ἐπεάν

+

ἐπεί,

also

add

these

of

their deviant position.

presented

more Greek.

I

has

basis

that

still

to

however,

the

relationship.

for

where

indeed,

on

@c-clauses

proposed were

@c-clauses;

temporal,

in

the

be

clause,

subordinate

temporal the

adjuncts°®

event

expressed

simultaneous that

clause,

is,

with,

with

the

aorist

respectively.’

128

specific

Their

with

(1)

features

subjunctive

cative

present

with the

(111)

-

main

-

in

the

depending

on

iterative

events,

aorist

in

indicate

reference

example

of

each

+ ἄν

clause,

iterative

subordinate referring

main

indi-

events

and

with

clause,

to

clause:

contextual

the

to

the

forms

times

optative

subordinate

clause:

with-

time;°®

in

other

tors,

with

the

single

/ or

future

future,

some-

situational

reference

to

e.g.

events, future

factime;

59

subordinate

clause,

imperfect

or

in

clause:

iterative

events

the

main

past

time.

60

τοὺς

᾿Αρμενίους)

group:

(. ..ἀπελαύνουσι

(37)

the

the + ἄν

or

imperative

with An

follows:

in

to specific

subjunctive

indicative

as

in

out reference (11)

are + ἄν

ἐς

ὄνους

ἐλαύνοντες

τρόπῳ

τῷ

αὐτῷ

ἀπίκωνται

ποιεῦνται

ὀπίσω

πλοῖα

(-). ἐπεὰν

ἐς

τοὺς

("(...they

to

Armenia)

(-).

When

they

have

to

Armenia,

they

make

more

boats

driven in

the

δὲ

τοὺς

᾿Αρμενίους, drive

ἄλλα

them

their

asses

same

way")

back back

in-

(1,194,5)

(38)

τοι

γάρ

τοι,

ὦ μῆτερ,

ἐπεὰν

μὲν

ἄνω

κάτω

Stow,

δὲ

κάτω

ἄνω

("Therefore,

mother,

I will

turn

all

Egypt

down")

I

am

grown

ἃ

τὰ

man,

ἐγὼ

γένωμαι

ἀνήρ,

Αἰγύπτου

upside

τὰ when

(3,3,3) (ἥειρον

(39)

ἐπ' rest far

of

that

ative

In

the

clauses

ἑτέρην the

first

lever...")

the

Place sections

When

the

tier

of

clauses

referring

back

of to

€tnedv-adjuncte on

introduced

ὅκως

ἐτίϑετο stone

δὲ

ἀνίοι

("they had

steps),

it

ὁ

AlSoc

raised

been was

the

raised set

so

on

(2,125,3)

temporal

of

Aldoug...)

μηχανὴν

stones...)

to

clauses,

6.10. 2.

ἐπιλοίπους

ἐς

the

(1.6.

another Note

τοὺς

αὐτόν,

(37)

and

previous

are

continu-

etc.

temporal

ἐπεί

by

subordinators

these

(39)

information.®!

etc.

and

ὡς

it

was

generally

seen

that

precede

the

129 main

clause;

were

suggested

This

general

ἐπεάν

etc.

common

for

the

that

relatively might is

fully

this

point.

I

subordinators mine),

(in

rare

exceptions

responsible

picture

on

terminology

be

confirmed

give

only

Herodotus;

viz.

for

ἐπεάν

and

by the

various

the

the

behaviour

data

Powell's

factors

postponement.

for

the

of more

classification,

ὅκως:

preceding

following

ἐπεάν "Ευΐζυγ 8118"

30

4

"iterative"

79

1162

32

.}

141

16

"iterative" (see

fn.

special

group

61)

ὅκως

preceding

"iterative" As I

for

the

will Twice,

and

factors

it

2,153;

forms

some

an

that

of

occurs

for

may

those as

to

764%

an

Total:

56

responsible

relevant adjunct

comparable

expansion

be

1576?

following

49

give

Total:

for to

a

instances

for

the

relative

of

a prepositional

postponement,

“iterative” ἐπεί

ἐπεάν.

clause:

cf.

1,182,2

5.4.2;

adjunct,

ἀνὰ

once,

πάντα

it

ἔτεα:

2,132,2. Furthermore, 2,29,7; preceded

(second

by

take

example)

up

lar

to

otherwise

also that

this

statements down,

that then,

expressed δ᾽

but

ἐν

in

as

but

fn.

was

cf.

not

65), given

that

is

note

61).

to

for

for

for

can

be

and

some

the

possible

number

the

main

clause

σέβονται,...

do

they

do

form in

may

of

or

occur.®5 τιμῶσι,

as

are

part a

series

object.

moments

impli-

function

not

é-

particu-

which

items

person

the

neither

they

that

statements,

example, new

they

in

four

2,97,1

that

is,

nor

Rather,

following: latter

and

said

that

earlier,

isolated

the (the

2,19,1

predictable

characterize

ταύτῃ...

as

4,68,2,

it

temporally

are,

well

3,72,4;

non-referring,

event

specified

of

(ot

some

(for

a narrative,

(40)

τότε)

time-adjuncts

of

event

examples 2,73,2;

strictly

information

context

narrow

(cf.

are

refer

‘absolute’

not

these

preparative

nedv-clauses citly

for

4,69,2;1,183,2;

at

They which

the

An example

is:

μαντήιον...

HAT-

130

ἐστηκε), διὰ

honour..., send

στρατεύονται

ϑεσπισμάτων out

(2,29,7)

they armies,

δὲ

("The have

a

ἐπεάν

σφεας

ὁ ϑεὸς

of

this

place

of

divination...).

whenever

this

god

place

οὗτος

people

commands

κελεύῃ

worship..., them

And by

they

they oracle")

7

Other temporal expressions

In

this

other

chapter

pretation, troduced ned

or by

are

those

will

7.1.

are

those ὡς

that

ὅτε,

with

difiers

-

in

general

receive

with

The

ἡνίκα;

the

briefly

either

polysemous. and

the

a

subordinator

and

&te,

ola

ὅτι,

etc.

and

- discuss

temporal

latter

purely

subordinators

the

'causal'

is

or

the

case

temporal ἕως

and

the

cases

a

a

number

with

ᾧ, of

the the

inter-

clauses

expressions

ἐν

of

'causal'

in-

concer-

'causal'

ones

adverbial

mo-

+ participle.

ὅτε

7.1.1. To

I

expressions

and/or

Similarities

some

extent

ly,

ἐπε;

te.

First,

ὅτε

there the

Like

ἐπεί

and

i.e.

we

and

in

the

functions

are,

however,

some

ὡς

and,

same

especially,

way

usages

as

that

clause

precedes

used

in

narrative

find

ὡς,

past

tenses

in

ὅτε-

the

main

clause;

the

used

a

preceding

context

sents,

on

the

story,

which

ὅτε

and

basis

new

newly-introduced, the

ὅτε

ὡς seem

ἐπεί

and,

especial-

confined

to

6-

similarities.

ἐπεί),

further

between

of

is

is

some

element,

in

information

as

of

texts main

Ste-clause

the

appendix): 131

serves

main

to

clause.!

a

new

on

the

ὅτεto

i.e.

the it

element

locate An

5.2.3 back

adjunct,

information,

turn,

(see

clause; refers

continuative

earlier

its

and

in

time

example

pre-

in

the

the, (see

132 (1)

nal

ὅτε

in

such

More

some

next

a

An

τότε

he

ter

their

was")

as

not

ἐς

ten

what

contain

τοιόνδε

old,

it

γενόμενον

was

revealed

(1,114,1)

absolute’

as

αὐτὸν

years

any

adjuncts

temporal

(as

well

may

be

as

a

following

called

elements

occur

adjuncts

an

that

e.g.

at

refer

the

one,

see

‘absolute' back

very

time-

to

the

beginning

of

example: δὲ

ἀποπλέειν... Greeks

boy

Ste-clause

Such

πέρι

λόγος

the

πρῆγμα was

functions

does

Σαυροματέων (-),

ὁ παῖς, the

Ste-clauses

context.

narrative.

who

preceding

which

preceding

when

way

section)

adjunct,

(2)

δεκαέτης ("Now

Preceding often,

the

ἦν

μιν

7.1.2.

a

δὴ

ἐξέφηνέ

ὧδε

τοὺς

("The had

λέγεται.

Ἕλληνας

history

warred

victory

of

with

on

the

Ste

Ἕλληνες

νικήσαντας the

the

᾿Αμαζόσι

τῇ

ἐπὶ

Sauromatae

Amazons

Thermodon,

is

(-),

they

ἐμαχέσαντο

Θερμώδοντι as

then,

sailed

μάχῃ

follows. it

is

When

said,

away...")

af-

(4,110,

1) We

have

or

elsewhere,

nor

not

is

times

been

this

the

Herodotus,

with

then, (ii)

he

assumes

his

appears

from

is

7.1.3. We

μάχῃ,

Following a

in have

event

ἐπεί

rather

the

to

be

number

temporal

Ste-clauses

in

(3)

nal

ἄρμα

EvSa

τὸ

ἱρὸν

ἀπιὼν

οὐκ

riot

Zeus,

when

of

in

and the

this,

the

this

(cf.

Greeks

somehow

or

the

context,

the

Amazons; as

ch.

(once) .

in

with

context,

ἐπεάν

then...

expression on

preceding

war

is

fought

with

Interestingly,

other

main

Thermodon".

with

clause:

But

some-

6,fn.61).

such

this τῷ

an

the

however

war,

ἐπὶ

indica-

1,145.

dte-clauses

ἥλαυνε,

waged

acquainted

battle

large

(i)

done

definite

e.g.

immediately

ever

predictable

states: had

"the

in

the

(cf.5.2.5.1)

they

public

lacking

find

either Greeks

simply

when

as

Θερμώδοντι

the

particular

case

Amazons;

tion

told,

that

as 'absolute' (13)

following

was

such

tot

marching

e.g.

Διός,

("there

he to

adjuncts

'absolute',

position,

καταλιπὼν

ἀπέλαβε... he

of

temporal

Ste had

Hellas;

non-referring

in:

ἐπὶ

left but

τὴν the in

Ελλάδα sacred his

cha-

return

133 he As

received

in

3.,

the

esp.

case to

ning,

In

about

the

some

tional

a

new

example,

from

the

(4)

are An (5)

referring

This

by

item

in

a

the

series

of

unrelated

without

before

any

the

by

this

unprepared

as

time

is

is

events

removed

we

have

enumerating

by

of

the

com-

addi-

too,

is

a S5te-clause

e.g.

some

app-

itself,

example

war-

time

concerned,

(which

An

5.4. as

parentheti-

of

to;

Ste-clause

is

us,

(see

occur

far

vagueness

the

ἐπεί

e.g.

series

occurred

context).2

speaker

a

informs

as

temporal

preceding

in

that

remains,

provided the

ἡμέάς

how

Datis

think, also,

in

the

salient

follo-

events

the of

are

no

EpEav

ἐς

τὴν

ἐστρατήγεον,

dealt

with

Artaphrenes

σφετέρην [τὰ]

us

after

were

our

ἀποβάντας,

éntotacsé we

κου

landed

on

generals,

all

Ste

Adtic

πάντες their

of

shores,

you,

I

(7,8,83) presence

which

Following

some

ofa

they

and

know")

effect

There

is

such

᾿Αρταφρένης

("next,

7.1.4.

ματαλιπών

narrative as

statements,

items

Xerxes

where

δὲ

καὶ

when

Note,

new

of

generally

past:

δεῦτερα te

isolated

or

of

with

wing

form

examples

Ste-clauses

activity

information

modifying

- parallel these

instance,

unspecified.

unconnected

scarcer

which

xatadAindv

pletely

(8,115,4)

(42)),

narrative,

for

surrounding

earance,

ble

a

(3),

-

and

clauses in

again")

the

(41)

remarks,

events.

not

of

exx.

adjuncts cal

it

cf.

of

inferential

cases

of

instances

the

relative

pronoun

ola,

for

the

vossi-

Ste-clauses?,

but

there

5.4.3.. Öte-clauses?

preceding

that

look

inferential

like

following

inferential

Öte-clauses.

example: ἦ

δὴ

τοῦ

&

δας

ἔς

shall eee, back

te

οὐρανὸς

οὐρανοῦ be

now

τὰς

πόλις

beneath that

Evepde

καὶ...

ἔσται γε

κατάγειν the

you,

despotism

, ὅτε

earth

τῆς

γῆς

ὑμεῖς,

ὦ

παρασκευάζεσϑε and

the

earth

Lacedaemonians...

into

the

καὶ

cities")

ἡ

γῆ

μετέωρος

Λακεδαιμόνιοι...

are

("Verily

ὑπὲρ

,

the

τυραννίheaven

aloft

above

the

making

ready

to

(5,92,al)

heaven bring

134 My

reason

tics

cf.

for

fers

back speech

to

the

question

main

clause

for a

(6)

which

ταῦτα

of

the in

that

oracle,

long-haired

The

under

sentence

(6);

τότε

the

Persians

and

in

the

ὅτε

by

Alternatively, a more tion

of

it

temporal τότε,

the

δή

had

followed

the

only

one

example,

the

most

I

told in

is

made

feet

story

Herodotus

sets

particular follow

men

be-

for

what

the

pre-

τότε.

In

Persians

the

with author

washed is

otext

the

content

why

occasion:

one

men

events

wo-

given of

of

Mile-

the

thinks

many

other

Milesian

capture

he

the

κομήταις

by

the

taken

gives

the

of)

had

a certain

πολλοῖσι...

out

some

their

see

oracle to

of

οἱ

this

(but

for

be

μὲν

("All

explanation

the

of

will

ἄνδρες

(6,19,3)®

accordance

18),. ταῦτα

(then

part

an

that 19,2

ve

subscribe

gives

(the

to

Ste

κομητέων

oracle,

the

oracle

were

killed

that

are

in

oracle).

could

argued

that

the

interpretation,

viz.

as

e.g.

it

be

ἐόντων

back

that

to

particularly

was

whose

ch.

if

the

the

("verily").°>

seems

this

Persians

with

4

upon

ye-clause

long-haired

of

follows

(in on

part

which

chapter

mention

men"),

fulfilment

accordance

capture

refers

by to

been

that

tus came

and

wherein

the

Persians...") to

clause,

In

rather

on

Herodotus

Miletus.

follows

conviction forceful

of

for

that

for

we

this

concerning

("many

long-haired

have

As

as

re-

résumé

91." fact

κατελάμβανε,

Milesians;

(18)

and

the

Περσέων

the

main

and

τῶν

ye-clause

evaluating chapter

inferential,

be

than

speech

that:

interpretation,

Ste

is

seman-

to

of

Μιλησίους ὑπὸ

direct

an in

the

rather

due

there

at

the

the

this

men.

by

chapter

Miletus racle

upon

slain

Godley's

said

τοὺς

ἐκτείνοντο

came

In

one

it may

less

presence

Öte-clauses,

now

is

been

the

uncertain

δὴ

if this

(for

5.2.3.),

in

reported

strong

motivating

were

ceding

giving

Ste-clauses

τότε

is

context,

clause,

have

in

occurs

a very

also

inferential

ἐπεί

it

Motivating

rather

low).

that

Ste-clause,

main

might

cf.

πλεῦνες

For

the

the

as

of

Lacedaemonians

expresses

Ste-clause;

is

preceding

the why

precedes

and

the

of

than

As

Ste-clause instances

motivating,

the

speaker,

this

comparable

(following-)

7.1.5.

taking

the

"on

be

that

occasion

all

Ste-clause giving

an

this

came

should exact upon

be

given

specificathe

Milesians

135

when,

namely,

7.1.6.

A

There

special

is

one

are

found

may

be

Twice

other

as

have

e.g.

other

famous

what

The be

this

presence

of in

explains

principally

achieved

another

In

one

tion the (8)

case

to

a

firet οἴχοντο

καὶ μὲν ,

having

come

an

it

ἐπεί,

or

ὡς,

introduces,

what

this

ἔργον

he,

(7)

the to

killed

to

to

a

ὅτε

TEPL-

achieved

Athenians

an-

were

be-

Steé-clause main

not

func-

so-and-so,

attribute

like

information (in

-

this

achieved rather,

we an-

as

EEepyaouevov:

as

a

sounds

an

modified

λαμπρόν given

fact,

killed...

functions

he

actions.-but,

ἔργον

does

clause

an

it

sta-

of. 8

attribute

is

the

the

λαμπρὸν

the

he

ἐξεργασμένον, ("Sophanes

while

successive

when

content-complement

ἐφόνευσε

consists

that

of

example:

In

had

ἀπαλλασσόμενοι

καὶ

τέταρτον now

Μέγαρα

would

by

the

seem

somewhat

temporal

to

dte-clause

construction

explicative

by

δὲ for

τότε the

event

, and

the

fourth

ὅτε...

fourth

so-called

(-),

("They time

at

Megara

time

now,

explicative.claude (a

τέταρτον

κατοίκισαν

planted ἃ settlement

comparable

ses

with

when

(9,75)

evaluative

αὐτοὶ ὅτε

ὅτε...

when... A

-

he two

Ste-clause

etc..’?

like

he

odd) .?

clause

in

modifiers

rela-

like

time:

πρῶτον

they

kind

when

example:

a verb-phrase

viz.

λαμπρὸν

relation

feat,

parallels

modifier

ἔργον

an

our

a One

arms

when

λαμπρὸν

necessary

as

2,14,e4.

in

no

Αἴγιναν...

i.e.

clause

slain..."

clauses.

temporal

with

were

explicativum

killed...")

is

feat,

explicative

which

men

Herodotus),

noun.

of

Aegina,

'regular'

would

tes

feat

example a

for

Σωφάνεϊ

᾿Αϑηναίων

famous

other

ὅτε

functions

ἕτερον

their

ὅτε:

in

+ object

καὶ

leaguering

tion

ὅτε not

of

explicative

faciendi δὲ

of

of

a Öte-clause

ἔστι

part

usage

least,

κατημένων

The

most

usage

(at

called,

verbum (7)

the

ἀπικόμενοι

too

went

δὲ

καὶ

off

and

(-),

the

first

(-),

the

second

when...")

following

"event-noun")

δὴ...

δεύτερον

a is

noun found

time and

(-), τρίτον away,

when third

(5,76) phrase in:

that

expres-

136

(9)

στόλων τε

γὰρ

μήτε

μήτε

τὸν

all

the

ὅτε I

in

much

nor

expedition

Ste-clause

reveals

Ste-clause ture

is,

fy,

noted,

rather,

indicating

7.1.7.

ὡς-

that

they

were

the

none

of

explain

the

the

the

the of

it,

subdued

concerned

above

particular

("of

far

Scythians,

they...

clause.!°

consists

by

comparison

expedition

temporal

element

in

ὥσ-

φαίνεσθϑαι

ἐνέμοντο

was

against

when...

Scythian

in

this

aught led

Scythians

that

this

of,

ἐγένετο,

μηδένα

καταστρεψάμενοι

Darius

as a proper

what

were

and

resumptive, occur

but

or

seldom.

back,

statements

the

latter such

motivating too

some

and

con-

examples

does

Their

common

element

they

the

feamodi-

of ‚„10*

usages

event

in

the

very

Ste-clauses

part

of

usually

are

sometimes

the

Ste-clauses

one

in

at

the

that

are

appeared

and

not

than

cases

parallelled providing

to

in

the

main

of

(an

element

what

this

of

isolated

surrounding the

case,

only

does

statements,

the

that

narrative;

main

one

or to

narratiin

clause .!! Like

inferentially;

follow be

seem

some

the

Ste-clauses

especially

respect

indicates

in

would

for

used

to

use

beginning

follow

Just

continuative

main

however, clause.

example,

Of

and

a

that.

above

@¢c-clauses rather

this

Ste-clause,which,

at

form

there

temporal,

passages;

specification

not

characteristics.

as

Ste-clauses

referred it

the

a

stands

do

following

function

narrative

temporal

that

certain

Ste-clause, clause

a

the

they

often

@c-clauses

with

have

énet-clauses,

whereas

extent,

in

More

case,

énet-clauses,

Now

to

either

provides

is,

unlike

seen

énet-clauses adjuncts

refer

not

what

οὗτος

τοῦτον

Coneluston

Ste-clauses like

none

the

μέγιστος παρὰ

knowledge

that

then,

function

δὴ

Σκύϑας

Σκύϑαι...

that

of

(7,20,2)

πολλῷ

ἐπὶ

have

expedition

ruled...”)

sisted of. It will be

that

so

the

the

ἴδμεν τὸν

Σκυϑικόν,

neither

The

not

ἡμεῖς

Δαρείου

expeditions

greatest,

ve

τῶν

τὸν

the

by

a

may

of)

ἐπεί

it

and

compared,

main

modifies

ὡς, as

an

to

there

viz.

when

specification

functions the

be

éne(-clauses,

temporal

clause,

element

with

of

some are

the the

explicative

clause, consists

in

the of.

sense

137 7.2.

νίκα,

7.2.1.

εὖτε,

ἡνίκα

Alongside

ἐπεί,

roughly

the

ὡς

same

Historically, time/moment gative "at

its

πηνίκα

that

even:

primary

"how

occurs

Herodotus.

I will

others;

only

once

Among

an

used

a

have

s.v.)

whole,

Attic

been

this its

(x198)

writers,

on

τηνίκα

to

(Attic

the

the

interroused

is

totally

other

at

τηνικαῦτα)

is

distribution is

ἡνίκα.}}

"exactly

conjunction and

with

viz.

corresponding

Homer

with

canjunction

conjunctions,

to

moreover, in

example,

as

other

demonstrative

the

the

one these

seems 1968

and

On

is as

value

late”

especially

give

na-clause

there values

(Chantraine

than

popularity,

(10)

ὅτε,

hour/moment”.

it

difier,

and

semantic

when"

frequently from

ἧμος

less

rather

un-

absent

hand,

it

has

some

comment,

of

a

ἡἧνί-

‘causal'

mo-

the playwrights.!?

with

temporal,

some

additional

a circumstantial

and

a

respectively.

ἀλλ’

Avex’

ἤδη

when

I

my

(S.OC

had

μεστὸς fill

A

of

Sunobuevoc/ (-)

angryness

(-),

τότ’

then

ἐξεώϑεις... you

threw

me

("But out...")

768)

Comments. (i)

ἡνίκα

the

aorist;

(cf.

its

like

Ste,

is

not

much

is,

original

‘absolute’ ὅτε

7.1.2. like

ὅτε.

8);

also,

in

and

some

is

τῇ τόϑ’

ἡμέρᾷ...,

Ellendt's

remark

non

differt ἀλλ’

ab

he

could

contrived

of

In

after

temporal

of

two

it

but

At.1347

too,

just as

ἡνίκα

beha-

ὅτε,

like

168°

ἡμέρᾳ,

τῇ

when...";

tragicos

an

(cf.

(cf.

that day...,

with

used,

S.AT.1273

adjuncts

"apud

is

events,

respects,

than

simultaneity

Ph.269,571;

other

ἡνίκα:

imperfect

infrequently, linking

μνημονεύω,

Avix:..("on s.v.

the

note

E.Pho.5).!3

significatione

ὅτε".

ἡνίκ΄

ἔγκλημα

Not

S.At.271;

(iii)

found

expansions

(ii)

with

a conjunction

narrative,

e.g.

7.1.3.). It

frequently

primarily

meaning).

within

Cf.

(11)

more

then,

time-relator,

ves

e.g.

used it

οὐκ

ἔπειϑε

τὸν

μικρὸν

αἰτίαν

9°

not a

persuade small

the

charge

φυτοσπόρον, ἑτοιμάσας, father and

to

τὴν

παῖδα

Sobvar.../

ἐπιστρατεύει... give

accusation

his and

("But

daughter..., invaded...")

when he

138

(S.Tr .359) For

circumstantial

(12)

νῦν

δ’

is

not

ἡνίκ᾽

ἡνίκ’ any

οὐ

οὐκέτ’ longer

compare

ἔστιν, among

εἰς

the

ὡς

οὐ

σὲ

δὴ

living,

6.4.2.1. βλέπω I

("but

turn

my

now

eyes

that

to

he

you”)

(S.EL.954) Comments. The

Yvixa-clause

etc.,

since

the

same

main

clause

indicates

that

Engl.

now

himself

νῦν

When

nu);

αὖϑις,

εὖτε,

Avin’

γένος I

is

νῦν

ἡνίκα

of

νῦν)

are

followed

person:

the

but (cf.

con-

5.2.5.2.

try

the

Jebb's

Du.

twvlxa-clause,

τέ

welcome

translation,

do;

main

of

action a

simply

by

εὔνουν

now

again,

this

city

and

(5.00

het

when from

772)

I think (the moment

indicates

the

pers.

("and

away")

op

2nd

ξυνοῦσαν

ex-

speaker

is

from

have

the

an

μοι,

with

not

of

and he is right,

could then,

me

does

clause

μετασπᾶν

pluck

that

behaviour

πόλιν

πειρᾷ to

the

observation

of

kindly

hvixwa-clauses

clause

that

very

dat,

but

the

two

ἦμος (on

their

poetry.

examples there

with is

use

In

see

Homer,

indicative:

one

instance

below) they εὖτε of

are

are 18

ἦμος:

practically

rather

frequent.

examples, 4,28,3

"at

a

speaker

a natural ἐπεί

has by

simultaneous.!"

outside

Herodotus

or

simple

πᾶν,

have

also

conjunctions give

is

indic.,

a main

εἰσορᾷς

τὸ

you

will

the

are

existent In

e.g.

hvixa

that

7.2.2.

only

indicative

sons,

actions

Both

a

verb

her

first

(βλέπω)

present

addressee, the

all for

an

the

but

that

they

Avixa-clause

sometimes

when

see

minute

with

have

to

you

of

expansion

4.9.).

(12))

καὶ

whole

an

when

present

the

in

τ’

τήνδε

in

viz.

present

(13)

also

that

indic.

(as

indic.

the as

have,

behaviour

said

Enei-clauses

addressee, sing.

an

actual

is

a request

speaking, functions

énet-clauses

his

what

present

press

that

containing

of

Unlike the

hvixa-clause

value

sequence and

(or, properly

the

nonI

ἦμος

37.15

the

time

139 when,

in

the

examples,

season

two

subjunctive For

their

502

on

these

εὖτε

they

As

examples which

of

of

"now

that",

μος,

ὅτε

exhibit

has

it

main

clause

is

also

early-born

7.3.1. In

other

Some

5.2.2.

and

ὡς

ἕως,

ᾧ,

monograph in

on

corpus,

hand,

is so

very

on.

author,

as

primarily

because Roughly ἐπεί-

or

on

in

the

tote,

these

ἐν

frequent

is

with their show

to

Herodotus,

we with

it

would

ἦμος

this two

ye,

similar

exam-

of

εὖτε

clause,

seem

=

OC

84.

to

have

a

"physical"

time

is

&' ἠριγένεια

φάνη...

I discussed

way

as

μέχρι, by

ἐπεί

ἄχρι;

and see

as

found

in

Homer,

him,

but

does

not

will

say

aspect

that

in

imperfect,

ἐπεί

to

ἕως

2,445 are

their

ὄφρα, occur

may

ἐν

ᾧ,

are:

and

the

considerthe

other

Herodotus,

from

will

a

simul-

occurrence

on in

vary

and

are of

ὡς.17 These

There

discussion

concern

with

of

there

K-G

Fuchs(1902).

The

use

Now

a relationship

conjunctions

ἕως.

ᾧ

the

not

common

the

ἐν

simultaneity.

semantic

can

and

ἐν >

same

for

and

the most

speaking, Öc-clause

In

both with

for

main

to

emplois,

has

example

the

express

these

ᾧ

an

in

that

ὄφρα,

between

since”,

ἕως

and

of

conjunctions

e.g.

hope

ἕως

adjuncts

not

ὅσῳ,

are

ὅτε".

to

εὖτε;

as

des

Sophocles

where as

conjunctions:

I on

de

as

appeared...").

Moreover,

they

clauses

conjunctions

differences

our

and

ἐν

plan

has

but

respectively, as

although

Ev

able

6.2.,

other

taneity,

dawn

Monteil

on

features

Ph.1098);

also

clauses

remarks

imperfect

of

in

Homeric

general

He

Ste-like;

temporal

and

+

number

such

+

(4,78,3).

problems

le

that,

imperative

appearing

ἠώς

Two

an

"now

(Ai.716;

7.1.4.156.

ἄν

and

"Sur that

cf.

7.3.

peculiar

fidäle

expressed, ("Wnen

any

notice

by

with

ss.vv.

considerable

reflet

the

for

LSJ

to

the value

predilection

see

un

with

finally,

optative

comme

cf.

five

iterative

interesting

followed

are two

(1963:290):

εὖτε ye,

there

also, Ruijgh(1971:499-500,

not

is

εὖτε

7,209,2),

ἦμος).

present

Monteil;

toujours

follow

ples

authors

do

it

with

on

Monteil

apparalt

connection

other

290-295

(cf.

ἦμος),

use.

one

conjunctions

formation

on

in

εὖτε;

Of

(7,193,2;

6,27,1),

occurrence

Whereas

their

imperfect

(2,63,1;

(1963:286-90 their

when / in which".

with

be

author based

mainly,

him.!& a we

sentence have

to

containing see

the

an

action

to

140 (event)

expressed

moment x,

(then)

is

involved.

y.!9

portant stant is

by

indicated

is,

then,

With

ἕως

and

is

time):

that

the

that.

- one

may

find

such

in

this

any

grammar

connection

both

they

is,

at

give

least

as

for

is

the

on

the of

other

of

I

am

impression

only

ἕως

and

ἐν

translation

Herodotus,

as

I

Ex

τῆς

that

most

im-

that

these

conjunctions

it

of in-

here

these

is

be

gets

noted

from

synonymous: to

e.g.

for

("while"),

hope

not

conjunc-

should one

ᾧ are

when

never

während

incorrect,

the

for

However,

the

moment

saying

while

the that

of

hand,

dictionary. general

time)

(and

what

as

at

the

notion

aspect

course,

place

(at

time

translations

or

taking

the

semantic

Of

that

Kühner-Gerth(:3.445)

ᾧ,

stretch

general

time

in

as

clause:

primarily ἐν

of

the

tions

clause

subordinate

during

new

main

the

It

notion

in

the

in

which

show

present-

ly .20 Consider (14)

ol

the

δὲ

following

στρατιῶται

ποιηφαγέοντες could

get

alive

by

(15)

ἐν

ᾧ δὲ

(16)

ἐν

eating οὗτοι

in

ᾧ δὲ

him 7.3.2. It

The

is

the

ἐποίεε

is, more

By

of

thus,

time

main this

his

of

clause

that

I mean

is that

λαμβάνειν, as

Κορὲ

his

soldiers

themselves

(3,25,6)

this

καὶ

ἐς

τὴν

plight,

Κρότωνα

Democedes

ar-

he

he

was

was

all

ταῦτα,

ἐν

τούτῳ

doing

as

I

the

while

have making

(4,95,4)

ἕως (14), takes

that place

the

expressed

in

process.

this

dependent

on

process

in

the that

that

process

during

with

involved,

the

ἔλεγε

("While

doctrine,

example

feature

in

dwelling")

co-extensive

specific

they

ὁ Δημοκήδης

were

ἐποιέετο

(διέζωον) as

γῆς

long

when...")

ἔπασχον,

underground

in

earth,

καταλεχϑέντα

teaching

clause

Sé...("As

(3,136,2)

τὰ

semantics

elxov

the but

they

οἴκημα

indicated,

main

period

the

an

ταῦτα

te ἐπεὶ

grass;

Croton")

and

μέν

from

("While

κατάγαιον said

ἕως

διέζωον":

anything

ἀπικνεέται rived

sentences:

of

expressed

expressed

exactly

subordinate There

is,

the

clause;

process

the

subordinate διέζωον

it

however,

the

by

in

same a

described

clause.

finds

its

in

141 raison

d'être

survival action will

of

the

stop,

stances "but

of

when

English has

the

too,

is

ἕως

(μέν)

they

be

for

suggests

to

(μέν)

+

between also

seems

that

it

εἰ

subordinate

section

“clauses

Quirk of

of

and et

time"(:

of

clause

discuss but

see

in-

suitable

own

addition that

below.

In

sentences some

is

with

μέν

these

with

a

resemblance

containing

a condit-

course,

a dependency

is

present.??

as

also

all

combination

sentences

main

744)

its

its

semantically,

where,

al.

on

the clause

sentence?!:

most

dependency,

is,

in

important

examples

show,

etc.),

ἕως

if

main

but

The One

but

that the

following

as.

not

further

that

(ἐάν clause

Wooten(1975);

is

λαμβάνειν:

of

here

the

long

that

sentences,

only

in

interpretation,

especially

with

not

that

desert..."

so)

for

εἶχον...

implication

end,

-

sandy

imperfect-clause,

clause

-

(or:

contrast;

conditional

lonal

the

by

The an

Herodotus

as

this

characteristics,

to

explicit

to is

food.

comes

in

it

expressed

finding

made

came

made:

responsible

ἕως

process

Ewc-clause

equivalent

to

which

in

necessitates

also

long in

as

not

only

connection

(cf. in

with

the

tf

(:746.)). 7.3.3. In

The

(15),

verb

it

is

of)

nothing

more;

clause

poral

the

and

process there

ἐν

nature

and

tense

verb

no

Of

We

we

the

main these

have

main

clause

that

is

involved:

during

time

he

has

A

in

the

might

are of

but

somebody

not

the

clause, be

and

main

called,

with

the

verb,

tem-

semantic

historical

decisive

is

shown

a resultative-durative

still

it

speaks

unspecified

main

in

between

connected

imperfect

(ἐποιέετο), some

what

the

(or:

subordinate

momentaneous

features

by

during

whatsoever is

verb:

expressed

time

here,

this

the

the that

action

some

have,

course,

that

Here

the

at

dependency

coincidence for

in

that

expressed

is

of

ᾧ

place

g-clause.

However,

ex.(16),

ἐν

takes

coincidence.

present.

of

indicated

(ἀπιχνέεται)

course

by

semantics

men

is

for

only

some

temporal

time,

constructing

and

a house

him. 23 further

mation thus,

their

cover-term known,

semantic

presented

by

function - already

event.

As

for

feature

of

them

is

is

merely

spoken

év

$-clauses

always to

about,

Ewc-clauses,

known,

connect with mostly

is

they some

some

that are

event

other,

their

the

infor-

resumptive; as

to

use

yet

un-

information

is

a

142

known,

too,

but

ex. (14)

above

we

nowhere

have

from

the

All

are

in

been

all,

then,

idiolect.

7.3.4.

Some

above

on

is

discussion

There

18

are

39 a

latter,

I

here).

us

will

pendant +

in

7.3.2.2

whtle of

with

ἐν

ᾧ,

now

to

them

see

as

in

these

with

expressed As

for

thirteen

could

get

ἕως-

and

synchronic

as

add

will

be

some

whether

it

was

in

is

new,

anything ἐν @-clauses

level

of

Hero-

remembered,

brief

the

seen

the

as

value

con-

observations

role

of

be

with

to

over

its

there

are

fact

μέν

also,

with

Herodotus.

in

group

the

in

(while,

Du.

of

examples has

all

14

be

is

main

that

cases

no

mere

ἕως

the

ἕως

temporal

clause;

0390,

of

as:

outlined

following

valid has

the

sen-

that

(cf.7.3.2. value

coincidence. the

is

Fr.

indicating

longer

conᾧ

instances

μέν: were

ἐν

conjunc-

terwijl, 18

get

not

that

interpreted

ἐπεί,

examples,

will

other

these

with to

four

αὐτὰρ

expressing the

this reader

role

Ewc-clause

follow

but

that

like

remaining

cases,

ind. (the

+ present

course,

(μέν)

that

ἕως the

Now

Leaving

order

we

as,

remind

in

2,377,Anm.1),

characteristics

that

a word

of

etc.).

or

of

four

semantic

K-G

long

während). ἕως

elwe

until

two

I

means,

Ge.

the

see

and

this

spelled

meaning

imperfect

que,

the

(also

the

proceeding,

in

Ewc-clauses

ἕως

has

take

Note,

opens is

to

tandte

as,

Hdt.).

+

Homer;

153025;

long

on

e.g.

clause

writers

peculiarity,

with

imperfect

as

what

and

I will

of

Before

have

2327,

tence

ἕως

in

que,

ἕως

at

other

ἕως

it

Homeric

think,

attested

Y41,

the

with

where of

cern

of

between

least

primarily

instances

cases

6800,

tions

Q-clauses;

soldiers

at

on

on

important

instances

not

the

ἐν

subordinate

Homer?"

the

(e.g.

cf.

the

differences

Herodotus.

authors,

as

7.3.4.1.

out

the

observattons

solely

other

ἕως

so,

in

told ‚that

conspicuous,

dotus'

cerned

necessarily

information

earth.

rather

The

not

the

others

Two

none

has μέν after ἕως.27 Finally, there is one instance of a following Eoc-clause, where ἕως would seem to have the value as long as.2® I

have

which

in

checked

principle

these

also

results

has

for

Ewe

the values

with

while

another

and

as

conjunction

long

as,

viz.

143

ὄφρα. ed

There

eleven

curs

in

are

24

instances

times

by

μέν

a

following

and

clause,

parently

with

the

same

pare

μέν)

the

following

ἕως

αὐτὰρ

ἐπεί.

lowing

In

an

one

case

&ppa-clause

has

to be interpreted two

these

cases

of

features

tence)

is

ὄφρα

is

follow-

long

as;

it

twice

oc-

by

ἔτι

("still"),

as.

In

opens

these with

13

some

that

as an as or

is

μέν

αὐτὰρ

would

where

to

have

fol-

absent,

Finally,

although

énet-ovening

seem

like

found

is

long ae-clause.?°

Sgpa-clauses

ἔτι

still

fact

(com-

element

despite

the

ap-

instances

element

μέν,

ὄφρα

as

sentence-initial

following

(i.e.

present,

long

sentence

which,

are

+ imperfect.??

value

accompanied

as

this

still

the

being

value

there

of

of ὄφρα

has

in

the

none

next

value

as

the

main

senlong

as.31 In

the

clause,

rematning is

not

8

examples

accompanied

the

by

Óppa-clause

uév,

and

precedes

expresses.

temporal

coinci-

dence. 7.3.4.2.

It

Conclusion

could

ὄφρα

be

to

sence

be

or

second value

shown

absence

as of

with

has

μέν,

it

should

ἕως

and

ὄφρα to

The

from

authors;

writers

Thucydides.

a very

strong

tendency

ways,

depending

different

the

first

case

with

Herodotus

over

by

taken

does

not the

kept

in

occur

to

other

at

first

mind

ἔν

ᾧ

all

value

that

usages

of

and

the

pre-

as

long

as,

shows

that

the

also

in

which

Hdt.), remained

above the

ἕως

ἕως

on

(possibly

has

the

complete

as

for

and

ὄφρα

second

by

other

never

oc-

Of

apply

only

it as

the

intact.

remarks

picture,

in

would

well,

be

e.g.

cour-

to newith

äv. authors

presented

with.

in

imperfect;

and

a detailed

few

tic

+

speaking

cordance a

be

is

two

Comparison

whereas

Attte

picture

riety;

in

uév:

consider

subjunctive 7.3.9.3.

there

been

ὄφρα

se,

cessary

of

while. ἕως

conjunctions; curs

that

interpreted

very the

by

the

data

found

discussion, one

may +

it

in and

further

(regrettably, ἕως

Attic

generally,

he

imperfect

authors does

Homer give

and only

consult

does

not

occurs

is

not

deal

a to

bewildering be

Herodotus. some

Fuchs'

only

of

seem

I will

general ἐν

vain

of

the

ᾧ).

following

ac-

refrain

remarks

discussion

with in

quite

clauses,

on At-

144 three

times

are:

with

5,75,5;

to

be

only

of

dependency

there

can

three

long

as

a conjunction

as:

6,62,2; group:

@

+

following

Euripidee. 1391,

Lysias. 12,66;

νυν δέ one,

which

follows

24),

cf.

ἐπειδὴ are

adjuncts

of

of

of same

of

the

the

a

locative

one

of

ἕως

form

3,3,58

3,1,10;

ἐν

the

value

rop.6,1,1 main there

is

ἔζη,

=

the

5,4,34;

at

all;

are

nor

not

as,

EL.951l. ἕως

+

ἐν

either Temporal

impf.,

impf.

= as

long

four

as

ina

as:

of

them

long

ae;

one

as

μέν

(cf.

Of

the

IT

certainly

as

as,

somewhat

not

rather occur

than

as

μέν: tot-

ἐπειδὴ

long

functioning life),

with with

remaining

other

ᾧ does

does

found,

while.

effect

is

as

long

7,2,22;

cf.

τούτῳ

are,

preceding

4,7,3, lectio

in

the

rather tv

&

7,5,6;

three,

as

two,

(20,

5,1

and

redundant,

expressing

a

a conjunction,

8,2,2; Two

main

two

main

also

the

as

time

),

one

that;

of

only

ἕως

3,4,49; 2,1,1; of

ἕως

μέν,

Cyrop. 3,5,10;

the

μὲν

long as);

instances

clause,

clause

Euc).

HG

examples

(approaches

the in

examples

An.2,6,2:

Ages.1,37;

finally,

for

Twelve as:

Cyneg.1,11.

Cyrop.2,1,20

There

one

(HG

locative

The

Cyrop.8,3,38;

while,

a varia

tem-

moment

group.

while:

ἐν

a

sentence.

his

ἔν

Mem.1,2,24;

4,2,19.

clause

next

(during

fn.22):

ᾧ

very

as

have

sentence).

exhaustively).

S’Erı);

An.2,2,15;

to

("the

long

value

value

(cf.

occurs

group

imperfect,

with

ἕως

ἔζη

+ the

ἔτι,

4,8,37;

never

we +

searched

(wo

lacking, value:

while.

clause,

the

as

μέν =

oontrastive

Ewe

relative

=

(not

4,2,18;

seems

degree

this

ἔστε

value

ἕως

next

main

in

duration

Xenophon

ᾧ,

occur

Tr.601

ἕως

ἕως

not

μέν

the

with

dependency-relationship. as

are

semantic

function

(οὗ),

In

of

the

δέ... the

ἕως

of

none 32,9,

having

does

with

examples

20,33;

beginning

19,46,

of

examples

the

ἐν

there

some

a relative

τοῦτον

also

μέχρι

attested.

probably

Eight

(17,3), at

ὄφρα,

Hel.60;

17,5;

καιρὸν

imperfect

instance

Three

Hec.16,

+

not

clause,

the

as

instances

others

uév-clauses

for

only

ᾧ may

the

with

As

but

ἔν

in

ἕως

μέν

other

instances

which).

Ewe

One

While

the

these

5,75,5;

τὸν

course

8,78); of

3,98,1.

κατὰ

value.

imperfect

one

μέχρι

while),

like of

temporal

of

3,10,4;

in

Aristophanes.

Sophocles.

detected.

(i.e.

expressions

(that)",

ἐν

be

2,21,1;

relative

5,60,3; In

coincidence:

instances

as

ᾧ with

(4,67,4; 7,71,4.

temporal

are

poral

ἔτι

7,63,4;

type

ἔζη,Ησ 3,2,3,

of

ἕως

without

μέν

following

with

(Cythe

interestingly,

145

7.3.5.

General

This

survey

has

tus

concerning

ral

other

that

interpreted

action the

or

bly

from

the

that me

at

it

occurs

that

use

was as

the

in

the

of

ἕως it

be

ᾧ

is

as,

indicating,

there

is

in

choice

main

confirmed

remain of

the some

clauses

to

be I

while

with

ἐν

ᾧ,

the

by

ἕως

specifically, clause the

depends

data to

or on

as

from be

as

other

imperfect,

in

seve-

that

the

μέν

has

that on

that

other the

are

to

the of

authors.

answered,

where

long

the

Herodo-

found

think,

that

Ewc-clauses,

Conjunctional

preceding

by

viz.

questions

following

between

presented not

maintained,

long

expressed

coincidence.32

can

picture

ἐν

Herodotus,

clause,

the

neat and

for

as

moment.

7.3.4.

drawn

interpretation

determine

to

poral

this,

to

Still,

process

subordinate

Apart

shown the

writers.

conclusion be

coneluston

notafactors

not

hand,

expresses

clear

where

tem-

146

7.4.

ὅτι

7.9.1.

General

ὅτι

'the'

is

because,

characteristics

normal

Du.

causal

omdat,

Fr.

teristics

have

(1)

introduces

ὅτι

already

chapter (ii)

as

nouns (iii)

the

sitional

etc. I

(17)

δὲ

heavily to In

the

of

be

tn

its

chapters,

to

charac-

viz. see

of

Enei-

and

of

a

the

main

clause

and

main

clause

the

content

total

of

of

90

have the

context.?°

present

etc.),

with

reason",

prepo-

τοῦδε

elvexev

like

since/as-

and can

be

presumably ἔλαβε ἑωυτὸν

ἐκ

etc.

modified

by

etc. ϑεοῦ

εἶναι

section between

and,

attitudinal example

μεγάλη ἀπάντων

divine

he

omdat-

clauses

clear

νέμεσις

the

because

men")

A

ἀνϑρώπων

departure,

other

because-,

aangezten-

anger

supposed

is

Κροῖσον, ὀλβιὼfell

himself

(1,34,1)3"

I will

discuss

Stt-clauses

possible

and

the

diffe-

various

types

wc-clauses.

and

and

patterns

that

and ὡς."3

all

adjuncts

reason",

2.19.

just

presumably

this

similarities

cf.

causal that

ἐπεί

Solon's

beyond

"for

from

ἐνόμισε

Croesus,

other

Sti-clause,

οἰχόμενον

on

with τοῦτο

2.20.

opinton,

after

Out

the

my

("But

Str-clauses

as

modo

of

("why?")-questions,

on;

"for

@c-clauses,

ὅτι

7.4.2.

preceding

grosso

Many

earlier

correlative

it differs a

so

τοῦτο

cf.

unlike

Σόλωνα

remainder

'causal'

etc.

tt

(διὰ

and

in

(διὰ

and

blest

and

case

found

that

but

εἰκάσαι,

τατον

rences

are

€net-

μετὰ

dative

here

like

ὡς

phrases

reason");

-clauses,

disjuncts

in

coordinated

respects

add

surmise,

discussed

found

phrases

this

these

I might

equivalent

wetl

answering

are

Stc-clauses

In all

been

Gr.

clauses

preposition

in

“for

que,

2.16.

OSter-clauses such

subordinator,

parce

circumstantial

examples occur

in

a past

discussion

7

Stt-clauses

texts

verb.

refers

temporal is

are

narrative tense

Ötu-clause Since

there

tnet/oo-clauses

where

Moreover,

that

both in

6 cases

or

other

in

some

way

and,

more

importantly

concerned),

precede

5t.i-clause

circumstantial

to

the

(as

far

€nei-

and

147 @c-clauses rises ses

were

whether

and

not,

seen

there

circumstantial

in

my

opinion.

cumstantial earlier

ἐπεί-

are

continuative the

new of

case;

an

element in

such

cumstantial

On

x. the

(19) It

When

(x

back,

To

story

summarize, is

the

a

a

is

ne-

always adding

narrative

standstill,

general

the

of

this

without

are

cir-

(they

information

From to

of

basis

Stt-clauses

mentioned,

comes

there of

a narrative

their

information.3®

öc-clauses

+ y),

hand,

preceding

the

a-

65tt-clau-

majority

on

in

question

principle

the

they,

stage

been

In

of

that

new

refer

the

clauses.

the these

con-

any

point so

to

structure

of

cir-

form:

2.

preceding

Sti-clauses

generally

have

the

fol-

structure:

x. is

show

earlier

and

is

already

that

€net-

other

lowing

the

feature, between

feature

a

With

they

has

same

@c-clauses.

omc-clauses introduce

that

means

and

essential

clauses)

to

this

speak,

(18)

and

the

similarities

ἐπεί-

although

event

view

exhibit any

The

information,

ver cerns

to are

Because

only a

x,

under

high

y.

special

degree

conditions

of

similarity.

δὲ

ταῦτα

that

ὄὅτι-

Consider

and

the

énet/oc-clauses

following

senten-

ces: (20)

οὐ

βουλομένων

Θεμιστοκλέης

ὅτι

δὲ

ἐβώσθϑη

νικῶν μετὰ

ταῦτα

ἐς

("The

Greeks

were

too

fied

him

rious,

for

immediately

he

might

Κῦρος (-). τὴν

the

not

ἐπέων

φόμυρις ἑωυτῆς

δέ,

honour οὐδένα ὥς

δύναμιν

πρὸς

was

to

οἱ

he

betook

there") τούτων Κῦρος

συνέβαλε

ἐν Σαλαμῖνι adjudge

the

up

and

himself

being

fought to

(-);

Hellas)

he,

that

ὅμως

τιμηϑῆναι

prize

(all

because

them

(-)

σοφώτατος...

ναυμαχησάντων,

ϑέλων

But by

φϑόνῳ

ἀνὴρ...

ἀπίκετο

cried

man..

᾿Βλλήνων εἶναι

τῶν

jealous

honoured

afterwards

receive

μὲν

wisest

been

τῶν

ἐδοξώϑη

Λακεδαίμονα

Themistocles

had

κρίνειν καὶ

ἐτιμήϑη

αὐτίκα

vertheless

(21)

οὐκ

te

at

neglori-

victoSalamis,

Lacedaemon,

that

(8,124,1-2) ἀνενειχϑέντων

οὐκ Κύρῳφ

ἐσήκουσε, ("This

ἐποιέετο

λόγον

συλλέξασα

πᾶσαν

message

was

brought

148 to

Cyrus,

would

who

not

battle

with

The

similarity

the

latter

the

negative

first

no

7.4.3. The

direct

fers

to

event

in

the

that of

his

ought own, is

preceding however,

-

a

the

to

of

or

the

Thus,

do;

future,

refer

joined

do

there

an

from

as

to

the

with

ὅτι-

inferential

main

giving From

is

a

I

a

as

expressed

to

what

natural

consequence

the

preceding

context

in

speech,

direct

for

7.4.2.

"speaker" any

his

indicates

as

or

re-

of

is

he in

it

résumé

what

said

occurs

clause;

Now

basis

due

clause:

sentence

alternately,

occur

no

the

inference

“addressee” is

is

tnei-clauses

the

behaviour

not

known just

containing

hearer.

to

@¢-clause

a¢-clause.3’

context,

or,

back

notions

the

precedes

€net-clause.

St.i-clauses

here.

Cyrus

and

continuative

5.2.5.2.):

and

will

a

fully

sentences (see

preceding

or

the

inferential

draws

the

fortioriare

relevance

and

speaker

in

when

power

thus,

in

speaker

5tt-clauses these

added

the

actual

Tomyris, her

than

already

€net-clause

do

and

chapter;

both

to

said

is

is

follows

(immediately)

known

what

Cyrus

preceding

as

€net-clause

(-). all

rather

Sti-clauses

speech;

addressee

of

information

were

it

S5tt-clause

characteristics

the

an

the

the

Preceding

énet-clauses in

of

for

collected

a resumptive,

reaction

general

her,

(1,213-214,])

between

new

nothing

to

him")

being

sentence

clauses

cared

listen

most also; nor

of

any

comparison

with

énet-clauses.38 7.4.4.

Following

Sti-clauses

and

-

following

- motivating

ἐπεί,

wc-clauses Generally

speaking,

semantic

aspect:

that

is,

they

very

presence

motivating

"I say

give of

an

this

element

on

the

other

the

of

the

statement,

statement.?? be own

contexts meaning.

Of Cf.

hand,

course,

where

both by

and

a posteriori

(some

clauses, form

ἐπεί

way

the

present but

this

of

were (see

is not

for

preceding

the the

seen

cause

event

to are

illustration

say

or

that

have

and the

the

6.5.),

form

or

statement. reason,

referred

possible, the

to

5.2.3.

explanation

of)

clause-types of

ὡς

because/for"

to

there each

English

not in

the

ὅτιof

that

might

not

with

its

sentences:

149

(22)

Isn't

John

give (23)

coming?

some

Isn't

saw

John

him

::

lectures coming?

buy

brings

manuscript

authority.

(24)

φωνῷ

δὲ

Σαυρομάται

ἀπὸ

τοῦ

cf.

ol

("The its

had

failed

to

learn

has

leaving

terpretation."" putting

in

question itors

of

"Why

seem

script

to

In the

does;

half

the

language

not

pure

course,

(of

uncorrect

7.4.5. To

Ötı-clauses

conclude

clauses

(25)

this

following

pretations related the

a

are

αἴτεε

δὲ

so,

the

had

to

42),

section

(1)

ὅτι τί

in a

but

Amazons

5.4.8. (ex. (49);

temvoral

of be

interpre-

a motivating motivating

anticipating (But

fact,

slightly

arises

whether

sense.

In

Most

better ὅτι

I

think

ὅτι,

then,

would

seem

to

ancient

goes

back

or not

is

an

the

too

of it

Sauromatian

result

strange

edmanu-

the

fact,

the

in-

the

a possible

cf.fn.42).

why

-

to

be

a

varia

of

a

- pro-

gloss

on

ἐπεί.

affectuum shall

affectuum,

concerning

αὐτῇ

Scythian,

cause

I

ὅτι

αὐτὴν

the

the

but

ὅτι

is

since

for

would

makes

verba

on

and

ἐξέμαϑον

briefly

opted

has, in

it

following

verba

ever

possibility

facilior)

note

I

(4,117)

I

gives

ἐπεί

σολοικμίζοντες

Sauromatae

old,

question

whether

possible:

problems

following

which

lectio

(cf.

the of

Herodotus

Scythian."?

leetio

he

(because)

both

χρηστῶς

σολοικίζοντες,

simply

alternative,

οὐ

discussed

manuscripts

plausible bably

of

the

where

Σκυϑικμᾷ, ἃ)

there,

ἐπεί,

the

Herodotus

'ooAoınllovrec'?"

Even

of

for

to

rightly")

case,

say

St.i-clause is

it

participle

support.*l

other

Paris,

ὅτι

however,

prefer

went

from

been

that

do you

he

(aP:

fn.69);

open,

because

in

purity

already 5,

Paris,

language

in

chapter

went.to

νομίζουσι

ἐπεὶ

spoken

example

he

there

example

ἀρχαίου,

᾿Αμαζόνες

tation,

the

an

not

also

No,

for

have

This

to

::

ticket

This

οἱ

me

a

No,

there

where, =

that;

have

been

briefly in (ii)

discuss

principle, ὅτι

treated

= in

some

ὅτι-

two

inter-

because. 2.10.

Some

Consider

sentence ἐκ

συμβουλῆς

ἀνδρὸς

Αἰγυπτίου,

dc

μεμφόμενος

᾿Αμάσι

150 ἔπρηξε this

reason

he

(Amasis) is

possible

νος:

“who One

τῆς

as

and

blames

the

same

to

have other

7.5.

it

case

we

gives

a grudge.

functions blamed

as

asked

for

find

nominal

it

because...

in

this

Yet,

it

object

Amasis a

he

devised

Amasis,

St.i-clause

bearing

where

Αἰγινήτῃσι blamimg

the

of

not

to

case is

μεμφόμε-

having

τί

κλαίεις;

add

to a

with

a causal

that

e.g.,

is

sent

him

object

e.g.

I

I

the

with

two

think

do,

in

some

as

Of

I did

that

in

presence

object-interpretation

of

more

contexts of

for

not most

either

with

one

or

in

one

or

be

of

desirable

as

object,

them. a

ÖtıL-clause

the

two

possibilities,

less

the

same

and

interpretamay

which

a causal

occur, will

adjuncts

òg

+ participle

and

ἅτε

lead

adjunct

the other.*3 causal

to

"because

encounter

clause,

is

answer: would

Stti-clauses,

a

it

μέμφεται

a differentiation two

and

τί

functioning

cases

is

principle

opinion

matter: it

be

approximately

my

possible

be-

it

a Ötı-clause,

that

course,

Öötı-clauses,

adjunct;

will

(26)

fact,

to

in

may

a

because..."

that

for

for

In

refer

it

between

angry

stress

sentence with

great.

to

ἐξέλαhis

(6,88)

is

possible,

like.

for

etc.(cf.2.10.),

"He said

ἑωυτοῦ

Aeginetans

difference

very

ti-question,

affectuum,

the

is be

ἐξέλασιν;,

then,

the

(25).

may

two

unjust"or

that,

in

προτέρην

the

island...")

Nevertheless, the

of

a verbum

to,

The

the

τοῖσι

for..."

to

up,

or

for

(3,1,1)

("He, from

least

scope

except

an

away...")

interpretation,

between

as

Summing

one

at

examples

following

to

μὲν

Αἰγινήτῃσι...

thought

thanks

against

he

cases

("And who

bore

Sti-clause

to

the

someone

the

he

tion,

he

that-interpretation

possible

because

that

because

"Sachverhalt".

it

the

Egyptian,

Egyptian

νήσου...

qua

a

distinction

τοῖσι

the it

in

think,

"he

fully

ἐποίησε...

him

the

point

whether,

make

ἔκδοτον a certain

translation; for

banishment

course,

I

sent

μεμφόμενος ἐκ

former

not,

of

like:

σιν

cause-

had

that

may

οὗτος

asked

μιν...

a grudge

devised

μέμφομαι,

Of

of

/cause

also away".

ὅτι

council

Godley's

reason

(26)

the

by

Because the

ταῦτα by

+ participle

151

7.5.1.

As

I

General

have

already

function ciple, le

it

not as

a

ing

that,

just

ὡς,

and one

the

plicitly ter dote,

to

the ola

between

ὡς

it ἅτε

the

that being

is

inf. the

clear

by

after cause the

On

the

what

may

further

ἅτε,

sayand

arise par-

here;

that

adverbs

are

ὡς,

taking

consisting

ex-

ἅτε, the

of

itself

lat-

&te,

by

see

above;

of

the

by was

only

suitable; "some

other

thinking where

subject "leading"

of

the the

(=main)

cases

the

(ii) it

or

speaker I

do

modify the

is

oc-participle (e.g.

in

the

acc.

and

may

not

be-

immedia-

prominent an

not

a par-

transla-

not

with

a

the

correct,

infinitive, verb

it

οἷα

the mark

however,

do

that

Here

hits

or

some

emphasize

of

partially person

of

of

and

action.

etc.

(iii)

thought

that

"ἅτε, to

to shows

implying

-

Goodwin

points,

this

It

the

of

authority

that

causal,

saying,

the

an

ἅτε

are

as

or

used

of

and

perfectly

of

are

of

prefixed (-).

without

the

minor

be

stated

writer"

as,

a difference

purpose

ὡς

as)

may

verb,

ground on

some

that

tnasmuch

he

or

I think

on

is meant

or

merely

think

is

is

formulation

or

sentence,

inasmuch

there

"òc

leading

speaker

cause

stated

verb

subject

the

as,

possibly, given

the

the

the

:

participle

of

in

of

in

that

ground

the whole,

(as,

assumed

cause

in

mostly

a

and

group

or

a

not

is

&te

sentence";

ὡς

whole

de-

ἐπεί

a particular

the

mat-

is

with

participles

:342)

subject

I do

cause tely

been

definitions;

of

only

the

of

by

that

without

difficulties

those viz.

(1889

A.R.)

assigned

or writer"."®

tions

of

goes

pursued

follows

denoting

(i)

concern

be

parti-

particip-

for

clauses

value

not

Goodwin's

thought

ὥστε,

these

exact

will

nor,

a

a participle It

subordinate

considerable

the

will

prominent

the

ticiple

so,

issue

has

as

stated

agree:

of

of

data."

+ participle.

denoting

person

an

the

course,

olov.

is

with

case

discuss

of

cause

adjunct

causal

I will

runs

(and

as

olov."°.

what

οἷον

"absolute"

adjuncts,

and

participle

or

causal

assertion also

coniunctum"

interpretation

establish

fulfil

of

a

As

may

such,

as

and

participle

contextual

more

discussion

participles

is

the

representative

difference

other

by

this

Traditionally,

that

in

even

marked

οἵα, as

as

tries

The

whole,

a

ex. (47).

marked one.

However,

rather, ὥστε,

the

perhaps

ticiple.

2.15.,

see

"participium

temporal on

in

„usar’

explicitly

a

termined,

when

stated

ADJUNCT

be

is

ter,

characteristics

give

that

given

Xen.An.1,3,8).

152

7.5.2. To

Discussion

illustrate

and

other

of

these

some remarks

examples,

where

structions

appear

servations

concerning finally,

(27)

τοῦτο

μέν,

τὸν

“ASwv,

nal ἐς

τὸν

been

it

had

sufferred τὴν

a

heavy

blow

his (29)

to

τὸ

fell

ἄκρον upon

posing cause

(30)

ἅτε

they

δὲ

of

ob-

@c-

had

now

first

TTEPLTTÄEÖVTWV

ἐτέων for in

κου

μάλιστα

about

three

regard

essayed

to

of

sail

Athos

around

(7,22,1)

ἅτε

τῷ

πεζῷ

TE

homewards

since

the

Athos

a

it,

τοὺς

and

φύλακας...

κατέχοντες.

the

that

possess

πρώτων

τρίων

μεγάλως

army

con-

some

προσπταίσας

περὶ

Ἄϑων Brygi

blow

πρὸς

("... had

yet

he

dealt

heavier

to

(6,45,2)

καταλαμβάνουσι ὡς

τῶν

ναυτικῷ

his

two

present

occurrence

preparations

who

ὀπίσω τῷ

away

fleet")

his

he

the

Herodotean

the

problem-cases."7

ἐκ

shipwreck")

καὶ

host

on

some

all

they

στρατιὴν

his

of

all

that

Βρύγους

led

discuss

some

between I will

προσπταισάντων

making

ground

τοὺς

conditions

("First

the

discuss

next,

προετοιμάζετο

on

ἀπῆγε

the

ὡς

now

differences

clearly;

will

Αϑων

years

(28)

I

I will the

rather

clauses;

περὶ

examples

οἵ

guards...

they

had

thought

the

they

but...

ἐουσέων

and

")

fiveto

τὸ

ἔργον

sands

there

and

all

καὶ οὐ

stayed

summit had

αὐτοὶ

ἐνταῦϑ'΄

κατεῖχον, in

etc.

ἔμενον

ἀλλ"...

("they

there

themselves,

their

possession

).

However,

they

sup(be-

did

not

(X.An.4,2,5)

μυριάδων

μένου

δ΄

πολλέων

("Because men

wrought,

καὶ

παντὸς

there

were

many

ἀνδρὸς

tens

Epyalo-

the

work

grew

apace")

of

thou(8,

71,2) Comments. Ad

(27)

ry

of

forms same two

and the

(28). προσπιταισάντων,

first

expedition

part

of

this

event

as

npoontatodvtwy

is

that

in

(27)

story,

to

it

is

in

Greece,

προσπταίσας in

(27).

indicated

(27),

refers

related etc. The that

in

back

to

the

book

6.

Ex.

referring difference the

subject

back

sto(28)

to

the

between

the

of

προετοι-

153 μάζετο of

had

the

shipwreck

"προετοιμάζεσθαι",

ween

the

(ἀπῆγε)

shipwreck is

given

deserve

(1)

connection

In

Öc-clause the here: may

or

on

which

sound:

it

Athos."? data.

a

In

shipwreck,

the

see

my

The

fact

on

the

this the Ad

is

(29).

The

by the

what

of is

signals

status ce

the

which

does

or

not

reason

guided

in

the

Under

nothing

their to

in

as

their

participle. κατέχοντες

this

semantic

certain

more

may

based

are at

while

contextual

the

subject

of

concerning motive

context

opinion

for

sheds,

in

expressed

opinion

rests

a quite

by

may

different

"κατέχειν" that

a cause

is

ὡς we

reason

given

imply

seen

subject

by

by

the

ὡς

indicates

Here, does

a

as

is

not

“supposing

fact. an

that

in

refer

it

to

the

as

here

of

the

(viz."yéverv")

unlike not

condition

because

that

overtly.

behaviour

implied

have

or

necessarily

by the participle.

prominent

interpret

finally,

is

hidden,

For

it

assumptions

opinion

the

expressed

by

is expressed

us

of

itself

opinion

that

this

the

shipwrecked

by

an

the

presents

author

presented

that

the

this

by

6,23,4.°

κατέχοντες

reveals

by

(b)

opinion

decided

of

that

subject

distinguished

was

another,

of

new.

the

(29).

were

the

Note,

on

e.g.

said

of

the

however,

modification

here

that".5l

bet-

verb

further

assumptions;

suggest

‘'realness'

cause

is

lead

activity

main

προετοιμάζετο

guided

not

that

features

to

be

is

of what

feature

only

reality,

See

the

expressed

ὡς

the

often

expedition

this

information

completely

by

example,

of

examples,

the

Only,

ἔμενον

is

the

connection

clearly

guided

can

is

case

for

first

a G&te-clause

of

also

(27), subject

in

on

that

verb.

false

assumpttons

remarks

not

subjects

had,

it

either

nothing

that).

authority

main

to

opinion

upon

seemingly

other

(the

(ii)

In the

is

upon

all

case

causal

author. "® Two

be

'really'

only

In

doubt

for

of, the

should In

the

was

and

òs=clause sound

undertook

referred

pretended

rest

that

there

activities.

be

may

of

he

was

the

some

the.

participle

things

expedition

(27),

his

+

or

‘real’.

fact

new

προετοιμάζετο

fact,

be

whether a

two

opinion

is

preparing

ὡς

assumptions.

not

the

he

(28)

action

a real

opinion

sound

may

when

in

authority

with

Now

the

upon

the

the

give

verb.

(a)

rest

mind

notice.

may

main

and

on

points

in

whereas

the

(27), back,

appears

it

that

factual

Of course,

this

following

senten-

All that",

instance

in

all

these

"thinking where

the

154 opinion

is

there Ad

is

(30).

(cf. of

based

no

Whereas

note

48),

their

hold ὡς

(at

&te

in

least of

the

be

an

just

as

the

is

completely

of

thousands

nothing by

not

be

indeed,

is

expressed To

can

that" in

sum be

(29), it

has

is

a

ἅτε

instance,

the

Gte-clause

after the

main

diagrammed

event

ὡς as

ἅτε

on

the

| because,

as,

It

will

be

by

this

diagram

ion

clear

expressed

question context.

can

semantic

to

that|

that,

by

the be

that ὡς

that

what of

below

7.5.3.

be

noted

that,

refer

back,

there

were

indicates what

is

is

expressed

opinion. this says

like

ot

it tens

that

of

that

valid,

a ὡς

see

after

sentence

features

of

ὡς

by

expres-

It

by

would

&te-clause, that

what

οὐ

xat-

δ'

and

ἅτε

+ participle

as the

participle

factivity

uncertain

supposing

that,

since

about

only

not

that

by

follows:

referred

ground

said

any

guided in

κατέχοντες.."3

fact ὡς

does

in-

clause-types

should

matter

not

have

been

modification

continue a

is

cannot have

factivity

to

with

an will

whereas

a

by

the

it

the

not

to

of

course,

But

indicates and

&te-clause,

by

to

due

consisting

it

been

not

replaced

is

that"-clause; (30),

preservation does

being

also

information

as

fact,

for

are allow

in

suggested

Of

could

not

there.

implied

I

here°?)

'real’;

pretended.

with

inanimate,

there

nowhere

working is

any

up:

its

as

ἅτε

verb. it

“supposing itself

of

fiveto,

being

do

was

certainly

with

which

But yet

or

this

ἔργον

by

"ἄνεσθαι". subject,

possible,

(29)

td

Epyov,

participle,

or,

values,

concerned

opinions

etc.

participle

in

are

nevertheless

it

(28),

impossibility

clause,

new:

sed

and

is

interchanged,

td

ὡς

the

etxov

we

(27) be

that

certain the

The

&te-clause

with

in

intransitive

of

ground

for

&te

an

animate

the

As

that

context

with or

activity

but

the

probably

ὡς

seen

considerations

“on

and

assumptions

semantic

main

readily

in

(30).

the

subject

the

ὡς

could

animate

have

false

respective

for

nature

on

indication

thinking

that

-far

as

ὡς

question

@c-clause answered

is by

is

concerned,

whether ‘real' taking

or into

the

nothing

ground

or

'pretended'. account

the

is

said

suppositThis whole

155 7.5.3. In

Conditions

the

with

middle

a main

someone's

the

ὡς

subject

will, 5% ;, in

ty.

In

an

respect,

like

‘on

The

the

ground

sentences

where

(31)

Supposing

activity has

that' main

if

due

to

subject

those

main

This

able

to

expressed control

by

from

'thinking

of

when his

predicaactivi-

subjects

the

cannot

have

that

of

latter

that'

from

we the

the

the

is

clauses

exert,

over

with

clearly

clause

the

sense.

is

that

expressing

that"-clauses

modify

differ

or

argued

permitted,

even

states°°;

appears

the

not

strict

subject

or

briefly

"supposing only

the

processes

non-agent-subject,

is

agent-subjects

difference

I

concerned

the

the

+ partictple-clauses

a dc-clause

But

or

may

in

upon

when

expressing

°°

that"

predicate

influence

lowed

opinions

they

ὡς

ἥνετο

inanimate.

agent,

the

of

section,

ἔργον

or

being

is

short,

fiers lish

τὸ

clause;

of

this

dicates

preceding

"on the ground main

subject

te

occurrence

like

ἔργον,

any

own

the

clause

τὸ

animate, whose

of

the

considerations

subject, modify

on

are

pre-

modi-

not

al-

following

has

an

agent-subject

stopped

he

rushed

Engand

a

respectively:

that

the

rain

had

out

into

the

garden (32)*

Supposing

that

the

rain

had

stopped

he

fell

into

the

gar-

den’? Similarly, cannot (33)

I

be

think

replaced οὐ

ἅτε

γὰρ

καὶ

παραχρεώμενοι

Egyptians them, Here, are

the not

rather, the of

that by

Greeks ἅτε

posing

the

had

agents have (to

as

were

subjects

they

the

πεπειρημένοι

they

the

in

be

result

following

πρότερον

διεφϑάρησαν yet so

no

utterly

sentence

διεφϑάρησαν the

could

ἅτε

be *"on

an

"on

the

despised

(4,159,6) the

Egyptians)

by

the

predicate;

context).

the

and

viz.

AFFECTIVE,

the

Ἑλλήνων

because

Greeks

expressed

role

from

never

that"-interpretation:

of

("For

("they”,

activity

supplied

Αἰγύπτιοι

destroyed...")

of

semantic

[ol]

οὕτω...

knowledge

of the

Greek

ὡς

the

ground

the With ground that

agents ὡς

that" they

being

instead or had

"supas

156 yet

no

knowledge

of

the

the

it

follows

From

above

Greeks

the

ground

that/supposing

the

number

of

be

found

7.5.4. In

with

A

this

wing

ἅπασαν

γὰρ of

who king")

with

an

of

may

äte-clauses

contexts

occur

may

is

where

more

occur:

ὡς

"on

limited

they

will

than

normally

agent-subject.

interesting

vroblem

sentence

is

presented

by

the

follo-

as

παρά

is,

I do

tn

as

by

μετά

("for a

all

the

man

was

Persia

and

an

agent;

"on

the

and all

for

hesitantly, wit,

the

mentioned

with

the

their

wc-

clause,

course,

that"

to

Mardonios, Boeotia

take

main

of

ground

agent,

to

the

and,

somewhat

an

here

of

the

is

hard-

ὡς

that one in

ἠχὼ

with

the

ὡς-

implied

the

pre-

laments,

because

man was dead.°?

with

the

two

to

whether

δέ,

βασιλέϊζ

inasmuch

possible subject

of

ὡς

I discussed

are

comparable

νῦν

ἀπολομένου

καὶ

esteemed

albeit

army

filled

a great

5.2.3.

Consider

ἀνδρὸς

and

γάρ

preceding

the

main

clause

speech

There

vestigate

the

expressions

chapter

most

the not

think,

they

dtrect

clauses.

ὡς

Πέρσῃσι

Boeotia,

seem

reasoning

i.e.

that

not

translation

the

fixd,

Causal

all

that":

fortiori, a

sentence:

7.6.

ἠχὼ τε

Mardonius

would

ground a

Yet

realized

over

to

it

the

it

they

heard

next

expresses

κατεῖχε

mally

κατεῖχε

(9,24)

and,

feasible.

ceding

BoLwrinv

was

was

"on

inanimate

(35)

clauses

λογιμωτάτου

analysis,

as

clause

τὴν

it

the first

In

an

Μαρδόνιον

dead

clause

by

destroyed".

number

problem-case

sound

ly

where

clauses

connection

γε

is

main

that"

were

the

example:

(34)

In

contexts

they

that

other

those

this

ὡς

οὔτω

bearing

your

army

with

preceding In

likeness

inferential

exhibit

this

is

matched

ὡς

τάχιστα

€net-

features

section by semantic

I will

speed")

στρατιὴν situation

in

(8,144,4)

mind,

éxnéunete you

should

forin-

similarity.

sentences:

present

all

of

€net-clauses.

ἐχόντων,

the

use

that

formal

following

now,

of

the

constructions

("But send

157 (36)

Tüyn, τῆς I

οὐ

γάρ

think,

beauty

of

her

naked")

It

ἐπεὶ

τοίνυν

οὐ

("Now

that

be

seen

predicate

of

modified

Ad

μοι

do

not

(-),

λέγοντι

ἐκείνην

do

περὶ

ϑεήσεαι

believe

τοῦ

εἴδεος

γυμνήν

what

I

you

so

contrive

πείϑειν

μὴ

ἐκϑεῖναι,

("Because

tell

you

that

you

about may

see

move

")

all

main

σε

cannot

examples

speech,

clause

is

your

occur

and an

a váp-

then,

from

où

δὲ

purpose

ὧδε to

noi-

expose,

(1,112,2)

the

+ ptcple,

arises,

you

in

that

in

imperative

and

a

non-narrative

all

the

second

an énet-clause,

whether

these

clauses

text,

examples

the

person;

this

is

respectively.®°

have

comparable

se-

characteristics.

(35).

bove

ὡς,

I

(7.5.2)

think,

viz.

that

vity

"ἐκπέμπειν"

of

count

what

which

the

is

never

made

to

known

to

in at

and

of

the

ὡς

value

words,

should

be

discussed

the

brought

speaker to

the

by

taking

+ participle-clause.

In

these

of

(cf. some

the

semantic

other

demanding

beginning

evaluated in

the

€xnéunete

context

hearer;

has

that.In

(the speaker)is

the

preceding

his

ground

that he

said

described

principle

the

subject

occur

the

in

on

dicates

has

I

this...

the

question

mantic

you

wife

in direct

by ὡς

ὅκως

δύναμαί

that

precisely,

The

that my

σον

will

πείϑεσθαί

ποίεε

(1,8,2)

then do you

more

δοκέω

(-),

Gyges,

the

(37)

σε

γυναικός

a

odtw

speech, in

situation

òc=clause

reference

(35)), or

this

wherein

event

that

situation

is

a-

in-

acti-

into

ac-

öc-clauses, is

always

the was

speaker un-

summarized

succinctly.δὶ Ad

(37) Summarizing

The

relevant

(cf.

also

beginning event

that

begins

to

enei-clause

of

a

is

known

in

speech,

speak; the

by

latter

ker Ad

the

situation

infers (36).62

the

or

of

an

speaker

gives

him

to

and

important to

from

event

event

and

he

in

or

at

feature

5.2.3. at

situation

the

time

such

situation

that

has

has

differ

been from

below.

On

énet-clauses in

the

main

of

éne((+

the or

when

that

and

the

a

in stands

is

see

expresses

inherent

of

however,

é€ne(-clauses to

normally

hearer

hearer

éne(-clauses.

outlined

a résumé

ydp-clauses,

referred an

the

with

been

which

thing,

some

request is

role

already

énet-clause,

point

and

it

important have

speaker

this

specific

Whereas

to

refers

+ participle-clauses of

the most

present .On

the

both

the

normally

in

plays features

5.2.5.2.):

curred the

also

semantic

he an

oc-

witnessed ὡς the

basis

the

spea-

clause.

present

or

158 aorist

indic.)

€ne€-clause is,

thus,

that

the

'now' used

of when

the

though

λέγοντι

1,8,1), the It may be γάρ,

to

and

in

both,

and

speaker

is

indicates

referred

speaker

that

it

occurred

known

event

mation

ὡς,

that

has

γάρ

to

is

gives, back

to

his

to

receive,

in

the

own

referred

speaker it

ydp-clause

Tdp-clauses

does

has

are,

to

and not

in

the

hearer

and

indicate

occurred

thus,

initiative,

hearer.®"

ὑπερετίϑετο...

statement οὐ... δοκέω concluded, then, that ἐπεί

event of

different:

on

new

the

present

the

hearer.63

completely refers

in

that

the

E.g.

some in

ὑπερεπαινέων

different

the

infor(36),

etc. as a whole is new. these causal expressions

principle,

in

typically al-

(end

of

with

interpretations.

8

General

Surveying

the

igation

are

conclusion

preceding

found

to

Traditionally, are

recognized.

the

terminology

valent ἐπεί in

to

aspects clause

ὅτι.

way

of

"inferential" in

the

or

ought

the

latter

tive.

This

that,

Du.

classe,

it (of

and

When

direct the

it of

has ἐπεί

etc.

(Ὁ) as

the

author

This Engl.

by

the

When if

for

performing of

ἐπεί

because

of

ἐπεί

the

may

are

of that

other

utterance

be

compared

('cause),

for,

159

in an

the

Du.

which with want,

will

the

main an

impera-

Engl.

now

the

main

provides

speaking,

precedes

the

similar

etc.

to

be,

of

it

is

an

referred

e.g.

use

i.e.

main

call

indic.fut.,

follows

person

the

event

obligation, with

however,

I

event to

equi-

semantic

what

this

ὡς

concerned,

correct.

not,

two

the

expression,

some

not

-

contains

of

or

is

precedes

referred

clause

énet-clause

the

more

this

expresses

compared

and

less

basis

event

a motivating

use

invest-

ὡς

contrary,

it

expression

or,

the

is

relationship

infers

main be

use

éne(-clause

the

the

the an

of

interpretation that

the

speech, on

may

results

causal

and

on

speaker

when

serves

person)

clause. γάρ,

(a)

a

shown

a causal

it

followed

when use nu,

motive that

be,

ἐπεί

has,

in

former

and

been

relationship:

to the

that has

main

"causal"

ὅτι;

éne(-clause,

clause,

the

express

own.

occurs

the

following.

temporal as

It

as

its

and

a

far

indeed,

same

the

suggests

e.g.

does, the

both As

chapters

be

the

of

the use

ἐπείof

160 For

it

"causal"

is

motivating where

is

oc¢(+finite

roughly ὡς

like

ὡς is

better

verb)

this.

occurs,

(a)

albeit

traditionally

taken

in

the

ὡς

is

seldom;

viewed

these

picture

not (c)

as

is

used

far

there

are

"causal";

cases

as

a marker

use,

it

is

less

clear:

inferentially; in

of

some

(b)

cases

fact,

however,

it

indirect

speech

or

to

up

large

thought. Concerning group main

of

clause,

tions ity pect,

I

and-effect

the

event

action Of

not

verb

which

at of

referred

course

some

these.

occasionally

full-scale ship

temporal

In

the is

the

is

of

the

in

an

which

appears is

In

anterior-

alongside this

the

semantic case

the

is

clause,

by

activity

an

as-

a cause-

however,

upon

the

conjunc-

established

when

subordinate

the

involving

again,

based

the

precede

additional

relationship

clause

the

these

appears,

absent,

present,

break

normally

sut

e.g. referred

observation

and

forms

a

of re-

event. questions The

been

between

one

there

aspect

main

remain

syntax taken

and into

investigation.

multi-purpose

In

“circumstantial”.

like

to

which

relationship,

other

never

called all

possible

w¢-clauses,

subgroups.

"circumstantial"

that

of

major

a purely

have

to

two

two

and

relationship

and

The by

ἐπεί-

aspect,

which

ὅτι.

temporal

simultaneity.

generts

the

in

establish

or

temporal

to

the

temporal

The

temporal/"causal" conju..ction,

in

to

be

answered.

semantics

of

consideration

same ὡς

holds and

γάρ, in

for

certain

particular

its

I will which this

the

in

study,

uses

only

only deserve

possible

other use

mention

have

a

relationof

manner

this adjuncts.

NOTES

163 Notes

|

to

chapter

I often

will

1

refer

to

the

whole

group

as

"£nel-etc.-clauses".

In the case of ὡς this is, of course, only part of the picture; this word appears in a large number of other constructions, with as many different interpretations, e.g. in order that + subjunctive / optative in purpose-clauses; as (manner)clauses; complement-clauses, with verbs of saying etc. A survey of the constructional possibilities of ὡς may be found most readily in Liddell-Scott-Jones. Possibly, there are also relationships between the above constructions, especially manner

ὡς,

the other here.

on

the

(cf.Eng.

one

hand,

as),

and

but

temporal

this

will

and

not

be

causal

ὡς,

pursued

on

further

Curiously enough, ὡς and Ste are lacking in this section on expressions of anteriority, whereas ἐπεί is lacking in the section on expressions of simultaneity. Both omissions are wholly unwarranted. See Brandt's criticism on the discussion in K-G (1908:sect.1). As Zycha(1882:82) notes, this terminology makes little sense in the case of ἐπείπερ, since this conjunction is never used to introduce a temporal clause, As translations K-G have for ὡς wie, inwiefern, da; for ἐπεί etc. quoniam, puisque, dieweil. Incidentally, for ὡς this would seem to imply that they did not consider temporal ὡς, but manner ὡς. Nor is it made clear in what way "causal" from substantival clauses proper. Cf.

however,

note

Ötu-clauses

differ

3.

Schwyzer-Debrunner give the title of his book(:661), but all appearance they have not profited from its content. Unfortunately,

the

second

part,

on

prose

authors,

was

to

never

published. As is not unusual in studies about hypotactic constructions, his claim is that €nei-clauses, originally having a rather unprecise meaning, became in the course of time ever more delimited. On the whole, the present study will not deal with such questions. A term used by Platt (1971:73). C£f. also Quirk et al.(:350),. who. speak about the "affected" participant: "a participant (animate or inanimate) which does not cause the happening denoted by the verb, but is directly involved in some other way". Occasionally, K-G have some remarks about such relationships. Cf. e.g.1,485 Anm. on διά + acc./ gen., and the "causal" dative; 2,461, Anm.l on ἐπεί and γάρ. 11

Of

course,

to

a

certain

extent

such

devices

are

"grammar-

independent”. In the present case, for instance, it cannot be said that e.g. the question-answer test is uniquely of use in functional grammar; or, to put it differently, any linguist will have to make use of some such tests. It should be noted, however, that the coordination-test has been used most

164

Notes frequently grammar.

133),

within Cf.

chapter

framework

(1967a),

of

1-2 functional/tagmemic

Dik(1968),

Pinkster

(1972:108-

Platt(1971:ch.8).

12

But

énet-clauses

13

The

examples

in is

the

Becker

to

expressing

discussed

by

simultaneity Nilsson(1907)

are

almost

generally

accordance with the material presented by interesting to notice that it was already

lacking.

seem

to

be

Herodotus. It in antiquity a

matter of dispute whether ἐπεύ ina2 should be interpreted temporally or causally; apparently Aristarchus was in favour of the former interpretation. Cf. Lehrs(1865:151).-The article by G.Melville Bolling(1960) has as its main objective a classification of €net-constituents according to order, in the sense that e.g. combinations of ἐπεί with other elements are discussed (αὐτὰρ ἐπεί etc.). Few indications are given on the semantics of ἐπεί, and doubtful ones at that; e.g. (1960: 33):"When

énet

+

indicative

is

used,

the

relation

between

the

I(mmediate) C(onstituents) is causal". The supplementary notes to this article by G.Knebel(1960:38-43) provide some correct observations on €nei-clauses that follow the main clause; see the present study chapter 5.3.

Notes

to

chapter

2

Ì

For the first two devices cf. Pinkster(1972:103ff.); for the third ibid. 156. For some methodological implications see

2

Only those constituents, then, that are possible in all three of the construction-types (i)-(iii) will be said to function as adjuncts. We will see later (chapter 4) that for English this definition can be further refined; for the heuristic procedure envisaged in the text the wider definition is suf-

fn.22

below.

ficient.

3

Henceforth, I will often speak of the whole group as: τίquestions or “why"-questions. Note that, just like Engl.uhy, τί and some of the prepositional wordgroups may ask both for a cause or reason and for a purpose; for ἐπὶ τί ("why", "what for") the latter is the only possibility. Cf. also 2.6. and note 23. On a much smaller scale the same holds for question-words and word-groups; thus, περί

at

all

speak

are τί

you may

in

some

(about

contexts, someone

speaking also

/

e.g.

when

something)":

the other causal τινος is not causal

constructed περὶ

with

τίνος

λέγω

λέγεις

"to

"what

about?".

function

as

an

questions instead of ὅτι; also Monteil(1963:154ff.).

interrogative cf.

e.g.

pronoun

Pl.Cri.48a

and

in

indirect K-G

2,516;

The formulation should be rather as follows: "nominal lexemes are marked for the morpho-syntactic category ‘nominative' when they fulfil the function SUBJECT" etc. The looser formulation in the text is due to the fact that τί as such is

Notes taken

as

the

Of course, only those is

of

to

chapter

2

starting-point.

this enumeration is not functions that are most

τί.

165

Not

discussed

are,

exhaustive; I have given relevant for the analys-

among

others,

the

following

uses (1)

(I give traditional labels): the accusative of content (cognate object). Type: πόλεμον πολεμεῖν ("to fight a war"); usually an adjective is added to the noun. Cf. K-G 1,304-307. (11) the accusative of "the way by which": τὰ δύσβατα nopeüεσϑαι ("to travel by difficult roads") (X.Cyr.2,4,27). cf. K-G 1,312-13. (111) the accusative of "the time during which": ἤκμαζε τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ("flourished during that time") (Hdt.6,127,1). K-G 1,314. For the last two groups τί does not seem the appropriate question-word; e.g. in (ii) the most plausible question-word is nj ("which way?"). As for the "cognate object" I am not sure; possibly, τί can have this function (cf. notes 15 and 28),

but

I

have

found

no

clear

examples

of

such

a

use.

For this term, and some English examples cf. Quirk et al. (:37); they call e.g. the chairman in: They make him the chairman every year, an object complement; cf. also ib. p.851-52. There is, however, a difference between examples (3) and (4): νομίζω has obligatorily both functions with it, whereas λέγω has only an obligatory OBJECT. Constructions like that of (4) seem to occur mostly in dialogues, where one speaker comments upon, or - in questions - asks for further details about, something said by another speaker. For the latter cf. ποῖον τὸν μῦϑον ἔειπες ("What kind of word did you say there?") (A552 al.). See K-G(:1,37, A.1 and 626, A.1). I am aware that the terminology is somewhat confused: is used in connection with two functions that are not tionally equivalent. This could perhaps be avoided by ducing indexes of semantic roles. A verb like altéw is provided with e.g. the following functional structure: active: SUBJECT, vens” OBJECT (the person who ked

)

OBJECT

AFFECTIVE

1

-_

asked

for),

Goar,

(the

(the

thing

person

ADJUNCT,

who

is

AFFECTIVE

asked

for);

asked),

when

OBJECT

passive

GOAL

(the

OBJECT funcintrothen when is as-

SUBJECT thing

Gens:

Or LIMITATION; cf. the tus / limitationis.

traditional

terms

accusativus

respec-

For the distinction between processes and states (and actions) cf. Chafe(1971:chapter 9); also chapter 7.5.3. of this study. Of course, only verbs expressing a physical or mental process or state that is open to further specification (admitting of a "whole and part"-relationship) may have such an adjunct. A verb-like dnodvdiomw ("to die") will not readily be found with such an adjunct, since the process affects the whole person. 13

This use is not recognized by K-G (or would they take τὸ δέρμα as an apposition? They discuss this topic in a separate chapter (:1,281f£., see especially 289-90), although intuit-

166

Notes

to

chapter

2

ively there would seem to exist a strong resemblance between constituents functioning as adjuncts of respect and appositive elements. S-D discuss them together (:84ff.)). 14

For

the

term

“universal

pronoun"

cf.

Quirk

et

al.(:

218-19).

I give example (9) with some reserve, since it gives rise to at least one difficult problem: ndvta could also be viewed as a so-called “cognate object". In fact, the distinction between

the

two

is

often

difficult;

cf.

K-G,

who

for

no

clear

reason, in one section view πάντα in πάντα εὐδαιμονεῖν as a "cognate object" (:1,309,A.5; equalling πάσας εὐδαιμονίας οὐδαιμονεῖν; approximately "to have all kinds of happiness") and in another the πάντα of our example as an “accusative of respect"

plays low). In

a

(2),

(:1,317,A.21).

role I

in

take

their τί

as

(The

notion

analysis

of

object,

as

“cognate

ti

in

"why";

object”

cf.

καταγιγνώσκω

also

note

30

τινός

be-

Te

and the like (just as in δίδωμι τινί te ("to give something to someone")) and the constituent in the genitive as dependent on xat(d). Cf. K-G 1,403,A.9, where also passive forms of this verb can be found, with the "ti-constituent" as subject,

e.g.

Th.1,95,3

sed of injustice", Alternatively, tne the

verb

as

a

ἀδικία

κατηγορεῖτο

αὐτοῦ

("He

was

accu-

lit. "Injustice was said against him"). genitive might be taken as dependent on

whole,

as

it

certainly

should

in

cases

where

the preverb and the remaining verbum simplex cannot be separated in a meaningful way, e.g. καταφρονεῖν τινος (“despise someone")

καὶ φρονεῖν

κατά

τινος.

See

K-G

ibid.

ti could also be taken attributively with veoxuòv - τέρας, yielding: "As what new portent did I see this, again". - Notice, comparing note 9, that both τί and ἡμᾶς in (13) are viewed as obligatory (Aéyw/elnetv τινά tt), whereas, in (14), δέρκομαι has only an obligatory OBJECT. Based upon the passive variant of πρῶτον ἐδιδάχϑης; ("what have you (Ar.Nu.786).

διδάσκω τινά te in:ti νυνὶ been taught right πον")

Of course this is not the only possibility. It may followed by a whole sentence and, e.g. after φημί, object-clause with ὅτι ("that"). 20

also be by an

I use the term ‘adverb’ in a rather loose way ("invariable form"); I am aware that this begs several questions, e.g. whether it is indeed impossible to see τί as an inflected form of τίς. For an extensive discussion of some problems involved cf. Pinkster (1972:45-70; esp. 63-70). In connection with Latin sane ("indeed") as opposed to sanus ("healthy") he remarks (1972:70) “adverbs and related adjectives often show a different semantic development". In his opi-nion,

to

which

non-inflexional,

I

subscribe,

view

of

the

this

supports

relations

a

derivational,

between

such

forms.

Notes

21 Or,

since

tions,

τί does

one

could

to

chapter

2

167

not differentiate set

up

one

between

function

these

ADJUNCT

prising both 'cause' in a more narrow sense, and ‘purpose'. Cf. the philosophical distinction ‘causa efficiens' and ‘causa finalis'.

22 The

argument

iscircular,

tt being

defined

two func-

oausaLITY'’

com-

between

in terms

of another

constituent, that in its turn is defined by τί (or, in this case, still has to be defined, see next section). Methodologically, this is not objectionable. See the pertinent remarks

23

of

Pinkster

In some

(1972:22);

transformational

also

treatments

Longacre

of

(1964:51,

the

clauses are viewed as derived from underlying cf. e.g. Hartung (1967:198); for Latin, Lakoff In

such

an

analysis,

in

order

that

would

note).

subject,

be

purpose-

cause-clauses, (1968:195-207). the

realisation

of underlying "because X wants”. - There are some instances that testify to the functional similarity between cause- and purpose-clauses, e.g. the coordination in καὶ ταῦτ΄ ἐποίουν οὐχ ὡς οὐ δεινὸν ἡγούμενος εἶναι Λακεδαιμονίοις μάχεσϑαι, GAA’ ἵνα... τυγχάνοιμι ("I acted in this way, not because I did not think it a serious thing to do battle with the Lacedaemonians, but in order that... I should get...") (Lys.16,17). From now on, purpose-clauses will only seldom be drawn into the discussion.

24 For

a detailed

study

of

some

problems

connected

with

ambi-

guity see Kooij (1971), especially pp.65-67 on assigning more than one description to the "same" sentence, and pp.117-146 on polysemy.

25 Presumably ble, τί dering.

26 For

the

second

κωλύει being Cf. LSJ s.v.

cases

like

τί

alternative a rather κωλύω 6.

γελᾶς;

see

set

below,

is a priori phrase,

2.10.

with

less the

- In the

plausifirst

last

ren-

res-

sort even τί in e.g. τί φής; (10) might be supposed to be sometimes a causal question-word, viz. when the object of otc is implied, having already been given.

27 There

is perhaps

τί δαί as an "what do you

even

idiomatic say?" Cf.

a third

possibility,

viz.

that of

expression of incredulity: Denniston (1954:262ff.).

taking

"what!?",

28

For the first alternative cf. Hdt.2,111,2 xaudvra... τοὺς doϑαλμούς ("as regards his eyes"). With the second alternative, if it may be taken causally at all, ti would ask specifically for the cause of the illness, not for its reason, since one cannot easily ask someone what reason he has for being sick (Dutch would use "waardoor?" or "Hoe komt het ἅδε"). Possibly there is still a third alternative, viz. viewing τί as a cognate object, asking for the kind of illness (τί = τίνα νόcov\; c£f.E.Reracli.990.

29

Cf. Kooij (1971:115): "The actual decision as a sentence does or does not have two meanings kers, depends on factors that are outside the

to whether (such) for native speadomain of a

168

Notes description

of

to

sentences

chapter in

2

isolation";

cf.

also

tb.p.6.

K-G would seem to consider τί “why” an accusative, being a kind of "cognate object". Cf. their analysis of τί δ᾽ fASec; as = τίνα ἴξιν (read: ἵξιν) ἦλθες (1,310 A.6.). This analysis is unsatisfactory, for at least three reasons: (a) tt is perfectly possible with a verb that has a proper cognate object with it, e.g. τί npooyeAdte τὸν πανύστατον γέλων; ("Why do you laugh your last laugh?") (E.M.1041) - to take τί here predicatively as = τίνα γέλων ("as what laugh") would be extremely far-fetched, I think; (Ὁ) ἴξιν, in the example given above, is not only very rare in this sense but is also never attested as a proper cognate object,

as:

ταύτην

τὴν

ἴξιν;

(c)

with

many

rogative cognate object seems possible completely "un-causal" interpretation.

ἔτι

have

ἔτι 31

ζῶ; (cf. to

ex.(19)

live

ζῶ;

Likewise

in

would

yet?",

("Why

am

mean

which

I

still

Greek,

τί

"which

is

clearly

verbs

an

inter-

which would have a Thus e.g. τίνα βίον

(kind not

of)

the

life do I

same

as

τί

alive?").

γελᾷς

τοῦτο;

does

not

seem

impossi-

ble. 32

33

With the verbs of this category, and also with some others, e.g. verbs of saying, tt may lead to still other interpretations. We have an example of this with κράζω ("scream") in Ar.Th.222: A: ὦμοι :: Β:τί κέκραγας; ἐμβαλῶ σοι ndttaλον... (A: "oh‚oh” :: B: "Why do you scream? I'll drive a peg into your mouth") where B. does not so much want to know why (or about what) A is screaming, - that he is not really eliciting an answer appears also from his immediately continuing with a new sentence - but, rather, expresses his annoyance with A's activity, as in the Dutch translation Wat gil je (nou)?! I omit

English

therefore,

since

causal

adverb,

comparable

e.g.

it

would

with

Du.

not

seem

daarom,

to

but

be

a

rather

a consecutive connector, like thus and so. Instead English uses mostly for this (that) reason or that ts why. For the characteristics of therefore cf. Greenbaum (1969:72-3). He calls therefore a conjunct which approximately = my (consecutive) connector. 34

This is not not be used reden).

35

I must confess, however, that at times they are almost indistinguishable, at least in Dutch, where dus may be simply a restatement of daarom, a not too strange phenomenon, when

a

speaker

to say that items from other word-classes cansimilarly, e.g. prepositional phrases (Du. om die

tries

to

persuade

his

hearer

of

some

causal

con-

nection. 36

On like

the

subordinating

obv,

τοίνυν

εἴο.

conjunctions see are

associated

in

below one

ch. class,

5ff.. in

Words K-G,

Notes

to

chapter

2

169

with καί ("and"), ἀλλά ("but"), ἔπειτα ("thereafter") and several other words that are considered as establishing relationships of "Beiordnung" between sentences. Generally speaking this is true, of course; all these words do connect sentences in one way Or other . By more refined syntactic standards, however, it can be shown that their behaviour is not homogeneous. It cannot be maintained, for instance, that ἔπειτα and xual are syntactically equivalent (i.e. that they are both coordinators). If they were, they would be mutually exclusive (cf. Dik (1968:34ff.)), which is not the case.. Compare e.g. Powell's index s.v. ἔπειτα, from which it appears that ἔπειτα is usually preceded by καί, and occurs but seldom alone. Assuming καί to be the coordinator, ἔπειτα could be called a connector; cf. Dutch en vervolgens, On the other hand, connective οὖν ("so", "thus") might be coordinator-like; it does not seem to co-occur with e.g. καί and δέ. 37

Possibly also reason, then, simply I.2;

as

of

course,

difficult to Uva-clauses, Some

39

Theoretically

scholars

in

as

cf. οὕτω Sv in Hdt. (perhaps for that Powell gives therefore, taking dv οὕτω;

with

ὡς,

cf.

s.v.odtw

its

exact

assess). Odtw(c) is as far as I know.

38

being,

odtw(c), although

reinforcing

that

take ταῦτα

case,

ταῦτα

as

could

a

also

not

"cognate be

a preparative

the

I.1.d

value

found,

is

and

s.v.

dv

often

very

however,

with

object". object

element

of

δέδοικε,

to μὴ διαφϑαρῶ.

40

As for the other two features of causal adverbs mentioned above ((iii) and (iv)): I have found no examples of these constructions. Perhaps, though, they are possible; this would yield constructions like M, καὶ τοῦτο M, ("... and that's why") or τοῦτο καὶ ὅτι ("for that reasén and because ..."). Usually, however, Greek will have M, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο M, and διὰ τοῦτο nal.... Cf. also 2.19.

41

Such an answer may convey two different attitudes vis-a-vis the addressee (i) "You are asking for something you know already”, (ii) "It is strictly impossible for me to give you the information you want".

42

LSJ s.v. yedAdw translate: "What is this you are laughing at?", taking ti predicatively as object complement. This is not very probable or, at least, the hearer does not take it that way.

43

Dutch

ἐς

Some

45

Perhaps, though, pect of its own.

"op

grond

others

are:

van

de

διότι,

overweging odvexa,

ὡς, while being It may indicate

dat..." εὖτε,

ὁπότε.

causal, has a semantic asthat the content of the

Notes

170

to

chavter

2

@c-clause represents the - hypothetical - thoughts or considerations of the subject of φείσαιτο; cf. the semantics of ὡς + participle (ch.7.5.) and also the discussion of possible cases of wo + finite verb expressing "reported thought or speech” in Herodotus (ch.6.6.). 46

The main point of Strepsiades' argument is not expressed; read: "Just as I have a right to chastise you, so you have a right to chastise your son, if you get one; < but if you beat me, you will run the same risk as I do now: he will

47

As it certainly would without καὶ πῶς intervening. In fact, the possibility is not to be excluded that Strepsiades simply takes no notice of Pheidippides' words and finishes the sentence begun with εἰ δὲ μή.-On the notion "disjunct" cf. chapter 4, fn.13.

beat

you

too).

48 I found no examples of Ste-clauses after ti-questions. 49 Cf. e.g. Engl.*Why are you crying :: I smell onions and

because I'm suffering pain.We could also say that the constituents of groups (i)-(v) are replacement groups, viz. for the

interrogative

adverb:

the

latter

can

be

exchanged,

so

to

speak, for a constituent like ὅὄτι.. «ἐνετίϑεις (ex. (45)); as a corollary this involves the change from question to declarative. Sentences, like that of ex.(51), on the other hand, cannot possibly be viewed as replacement groups. See also the next note; and cf. the remarks in Robinson & Rackstraw (1972:40). 50

Taking the English equivalents, the difference smell onions and because I smell onione, which sible,

of

course,

can,

in

a

different

context

between is also be

I pos-

illustrated

as follows. The because-clause may be used in alternative interrogation, e.g. with another because-clause: Are you crying because you are smelling onions or because you are suffering pain? This possibility does not exist for independent sentences: *Are you crying you are smelling onions or you are suffering pain? From this example it also appears that

a

because-clause,

but

not

a

sentence,

can

be

the

focus

of a yes-no-question: Are you crying because you are smelling onions? Thus, the semantic similarity between such clauses following a why-question is not matched by a comparable syntactic similarity. Cf. Quirk et al.(:420ff.). 51

For the possibility ries fulfilling the

52

Note that example (53) occurs in a context where also a ötı-clause is present. Given the rareness of such @c-clauses, it could be that it is deliberately used in this context, as a stylistic variant of a 8ti-clause. Of course, in other contexts, too, ὅτι and ὡς are toa large extent interchangeable, e.g. after verbs of saying. Compare, however, also the remark of fn. 45.

53

For the use of ἀλλά introducing a question following a rejected suggestion or supposition cf. Denniston(1954:9-11).

of items of formally different categosame function, see Dik(1968:ch.4, and

Notes

The with 5}

For see

chapter

a number of examples of Ross (1938:399-400). For book

forms

a

real

171

such coordinations in Thucydides other coordination-patterns, too,

storehouse.

In X.An.4,1,21 we have ταῦτ' ἐγὼ ἔσπευδον nal διὰ τοῦτό σε οὐχ ὑπέμενον ("That is why I hurried and for that reason I did not wait for you”). Note, however, that we have here two coordinated clauses, not a coordination of two causal adjuncts modifying the same predicate.

56

For

57

For an that")

58

Pl.Phd.98e (ἐπειδὴ... διὰ Note that in Hdt.8,116,2,

59

2

stylistic device of a speaker conducting a dialogue himself is called hypopkora (Denniston tbid.10).

this 55

to

some

fer

back

(ot

δὲ

Still

methodological

to

the

another,

and

see ἵνα

but

to

ἐστρατεύοντο

much

below. ("for

this

reason...

ταῦτα; ἐπειδή = since διὰ τὴν αἰτίην ταύτην

énet-clause,

ἀλογήσαντες...

by 2333-4, if lished beyond It

problems

example of διὰ ταῦτα... see Hdt.3,16,4.

earlier,

the

dua

or now that).does not re-

preceding

τῷ

example

sentence

Mépon). would

the analysis of this passage doubt, which, unfortunately,

be

provided

were to be is not the

estabcase.

runs:

Ἕκτορ, ἐπεί με nat! alcav ἐνείκεσας οὐδ' ὑπὲρ αἶσαν / τ τοῦνεκά τοι ἐρέω: ("Hektor, since you have chided me as is fit and not unduly, for that reason(?) I will speak to you”. Leaf, following Lehrs, prints a colon after ὑπὲρ αἶσαν, and does not consider τοῦνεκα as being in correlation with ἐπεί adding that "the useof τοῦνεκα to mark an apodosis is extremely doubtfull". Van Leeuwen suggests that 2334 is an addition made up from A76 (where, however, we have τοιγάρ, not toÖövexa).. Omitting 334, the énet-clause would have no regular apodosis;

this,

however,

Γ59,

y103,

ζ187,

N68,

has

many

parallels

in

Homer,

e.g.

8236.

60

"Overtly" is to be understood as "overtly in this particular context"; in other contexts, Stu, for example, may introduce an object-clause after a verb of saying.

61

εἰ + indicative-clauses express a simple supposition, implying nothing as to the degree of probability of the fulfilment of the condition. Thus, in Pl. Smp. 217b el ψεύδομαι, ἐξέλεγxe ("If I make mistakes, refute me") the speaker indicates that

he

may

or

may

not

make

any

mistakes.

Sometimes,

however,

the context and general situation make it clear that the condition is assumed to be fulfilled; (59) is an example of this. Particularly in such cases, it would seem, el-clauses come near to being causal clauses. Of course, on a more general level, there is in many sentences containing a conditional

clause

an

implicit

causal

connection,

in

that

upon

the

fulfilment of the condition the action expressed in the main clause will be. its consequence.- For Latin examples of st... tdetreo ("if...for that reason") cf.Kühner-Stegmann (1912: 2,427,6). 62

A further argument against taking éne( (54) as synonymous with ὅτι may be derived from the absence of διὰ τοῦτο( ταῦτα) ... ἐπεί, that is, when διὰ τοῦτο explicitly announces that an

Notes

172 expression 63

This

is,

of

cause

then,

an

to

chapter

/ reason

example

2-3

will

of

follow.

cross-reference

(Bloomfield

1935:193ff.). Typical examoles of this phenomenon in other fields are Lat. puer cantat "the boy he- sings" and French Jean où est-11? - There is also a more general argument against

64

taking

the

subordinate

clauses

concerned

utes: demonstrative pronouns would fication by any type of attribute.

not Cf.

Sentences

cf.note

65 For pect

Notes

were

lacking

the possibility

altogether,

that ὡς

has

as

attrib-

seem to allow of modiQuirk et al. (:203-204). 50.

an additional

semantic

as-

cf.fn.45.

to

chapter

3

IInvixa may also have the wider meaning of πότε (see also chapter 7.2. on ἡνίκα). - Of course, there will also have been question-words asking for the time duration, e.g. πόσον xedvov

("how

long");

these

will

not

be

further

taken

into

account. I have searched for occurrences of authors (with the number of cases with answer), Aeschylus (3 x , no no answer), Euripides (10 x , 2 x (3

x

,

no

answer;

twice,

however,

nöte in the following found): Herodotus (2 x , answer), Sophocles (1 x , with answer), Aristophanes the

speaker

answers

his

own question; e.g. πότε el μὴ viv (litt."When else than now?") yv. 402; cf. Lys.304; the third ex. is Av.920) Lysias (¢); Antıpnon (9), Andocides (9), Lycurgus (65, Aeschines (ß), Isocrates (#), Isaeus (8), Plato (a few examples, (15 x „

from some

Ast's lexicon; with answers),

some with Dinarchus

answer), (2 x „ 1

Demosthenes x with answer),

E.g. in (3) τοῦ παρελθόντος unvög.It is a problem whether these various cases always involve different semantics as well. Traditionally, the semantics of gen., dat. and acc. in time-adjuncts are given somewhat as follows: (gen.) the time within which; (dat.) the point of time at which; (acc.) the whole time during which, a certain event occurs (cf. K-G 1, 385ff.,445f£. and 314ff.). Such a clear-cut distinction may be questioned on several grounds. For one thing, the semantic

characteristics

of

the

verbal

lexeme

may

play

an

impor-

tant role in the interpretation of time-adjuncts: "durative" verbs like μένω ("stay", "wait") commonly have time-adjuncts in

the

accusative.

But

does

this

mean

that,

therefore,

the

acc. expresses "the time during which"? Rather we should say that the semantic feature "duration" is given with the verb, the accusative being the morpho-syntactic marker of the timeadjunct.

For

another

thing,

nouns

in

a

certain

case

may

be-

have otherwise than would be expected, given the general semantic aspect attached to that case. Nouns in the genitive, for instance, may be constructed with durative verbs, cf.

Notes

to

chapter

3

173

ἔνϑα τοῦ λοιποῦ διαιτᾶτο ("there he dwelled thereafter") (Hdt.3,15,1), just like τὸ λοιπόν. In this case, too, it would seem that the genitive serves only as a morpho-syntactic marker of the time-adjunct. All this is not to say that the different case-endings nowhere entail semantic differences; they are, however, much less clear than their treatmentin e.g. K-G would suggest. Cf. Rijksbaron(1972). 4

Cf.

5

On those with a verb detail in chapter 5.

participial

in

the

6

The

of

npiv

syntactic

Since

it

is

contructions

status followed

by a

in

answer

to

indicative is

I

somewhat

non-finite

ti-questions, will

come

difficult

verb-form,

2.15.

back to

it

in

assess.

cannot

be

grouped, properly speaking, with words like ἐπειδάν, which are followed by the - finite - subjunctive. Notice that in a comparable English case - before in before going - Quirk et al. call before a preposition (:318).

7

must

be

taken

which

πότε

has

to

be

8

Other ample

examples with ὅταν: D.10,26; with Avix' ἄν: E.HF1420.

9

ὡς ἄν + subj., referring to a future event does not occur, it seems, at least not in 5th-4th century Greek; it does, on the other hand, appear in later Greek (NT and papyri, see LSJ s.v.@¢). In Hdt.4,172,2 we have ὡς (without dv) + subj., not

with

the

as modifying

supplied

"futural”

from

the the

participle

preceding 58,59;

subjunctive,

νοστήσασα,

sentence. Pl1.R.492b;

however,

but

an

with

ex-

the

subjunctive of "indefinite repetition" or "distributive-iterative" subjunctive (for the latter term see Ruijgh (1971: 278 and index)). K-G's notes on ὡς dv are somewhat confusing. Firstly, in the index they give “ic ἄν c.coni. s(ehe) ὅταν unter

Ste".

If

one

looks

up

the

relevant

passage,

however,

(:2,447) ὡς ἄν is not found. Also, on the same page, they state "The conjunctions of 5566" (i.e. ἐπεί, Ste, ὡς and others) “are constructed, in normal speech in combination with ἄν, ep. κείν), with the subjunctive..." etc.. But in their examples ὡς ἄν is lacking. -An example of ὡς ἄν + subj. functioning as a manner adjunct may be found in D.25,1. 10

With the exception of temporal adverbs and temporal nouns/ noun phrases, which both form closed classes and are sufficiently characterized as temporal elements, this means - for English - that, in the case of the other groups: prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses, the presence of the preposition or the subordinator is, indeed, essential. Thus, whereas Last week is an acceptable answer to When were you there? *Last war is not. Cf. alsd Quirk et al. (:319).

11

Cf.

Robinson

12

The

more

tion

ἃ Rackstraw

"concrete"

seems

also

to

(1972:40)

character be

of

responsible

for

the

Engl.

latter

for

the

how kind

fact

and of that

why. quesyoung

174

Notes

children

ly

I did some

It

understand

than

not

may

when-

why-questions.

be

will

questioned

required.

In

Greek,

chapter

and

Cf.

investigate

instances

to

in

up

ἃ

full;

far

Rackstraw so

it

is

more

easi-

(1972:9).

possible

that

there.

whether at

where-questions

Robinson

Plato turn

3

functional

least,

there

are

equivalence

is

always

exceptions;

cf.

e.g.

Pl.Prot.336a: ἀπεμρίνατο διὰ βραχέων (manner adjunct) te αὐτὰ ta ἐρωτώμενα (direct object); cf. also below 5.6.3.

val

In some contexts a sentence like (23) would seem to be less strange. E.g. Did they go to Italy after they had visited France? :: Yes (they went to Italy after they had visited France),

and

(but)

a question-answer

also

in

1962.

construction

However,

is

in

possible

of the visit to France and the subsequent known to both speaker and hearer.

my

opinion,

only one

when

to

such

the

Italy

date

is

Cf., in another field of grammatical analysis, the distinction of eleven different functions SUBJECT, according to the semantic label attached to them in Becker (1967b:78-81) and the discussion on this in Platt (1971:11ff.). The argument is not contradicted, I think, by coordinations like now and tn 1974, since the shifter now will be automatically interpreted, in such a context, as referring to the year in which the moment of

this utterance is speaking in terms

made, and not of minutes or

to, e.g., hours.

just

In the light of the phenomenon discussed in the text the treatment of time adjuncts in Quirk et al.(:500ff.) is only partially correct. Having distinguished three subclasses of time adjuncts, viz. time when, time duration and time frequency, they add: "Time adjuncts in the same subclass can be coordinated. Time when: today and tomorrow, now or later, before or after,

in

1970

and

(in)

1971,

when

we

were

there

and

after-

wards". Of course, these examples are correct; but the implication is that coordinations like "Yesterday and at 4p.m." are also possible, since both belong to the same general subClass: 188

"Time

when".

Note that, in the temporal hierarchy, the days of the month come immediately below "month-time", not below "week-time": Last month I bought a book on the 28th. (As against * Last week I bought a book on the 28th.; this is only acceptable when on the 28th. is an-apposition to Last week, to be read as : < that is >, on the 28th.). Becker,

while

discussing

the

sentence

in Ann Arbor (1967a:113; 1967b:59) distinct locative adjuncts (or, in

tagmemes) :.

π

"perhaps

LOC, REA

and

I

live

at

2165

Newport

proposed to distinguish two his terminology, locative

LOCpoINT

"

* The

difficulty

with

such an analysis is that area and point are relative terms: Ann Arbor is area compared with 2165 Newport, but point when compared with the area Michigan etc. Ultimately, here, too, a rather large number of semantically different locative adjuncts

-

Notes

will 20

On

have the

to

other

be

lowing type are tively): (i) Ik Ich

by the

arbeitete

wel

and

omt

On

in

swar,

chapter

3-4

175

with.

coordination-like

constructions

fully acceptable (in werkte in Amsterdam, Amsterdam,

und

the

constituent

second

zwar

Dutch and en wel in im

Hafen.

As

gives

of

the

fol-

German, respecde haven; (ii) is

indicated

specification

to

former.

Por Greek οὗτος. 2

reckoned

hand,

to

equivalents

"universe

of

cf.

K-G

discourse”

2,246-7

cf.

Lyons

and

LSJ

ss.vv.

(1968:419;

καί

also

and

445,458).

Relevant to this topic are also questions of predictability of particular elements in certain contexts, cf. Lyons (1968:81-98). See also Robins (1967:67 ff.) on "collocation", and"mutual expectancy", applied by him especially to single words. Cf. finally, Quine's remark on because (1965:23): "truth of a “because” compound requires not only truth of the components but also some sort of causal connection between the matters which the two components describe". His example is: Jones needs quinine because he has malaria. 22

As

to

the

heuristic

value

2

us

cf. the remarks on ἐπειδή to apply also in the case (cf. also note 24).

24

the

correlative

pattern-device,

...6ta τοῦτο (2.20); they would seem of correlative temporal constructions

We find similar anaphorical expressions after participial constructions, e.g. ταῦτα ἐπαγγειλαμένου μετὰ ταῦτα οὐδὲν ἐγίνετο πλοίων σπανιώτερον ("After (the messenger) had delivered this message, thereafter there was nothing so hard to get as ἃ boat") (Hdt.8,25,1). Cf. also K-G(:2,83, Anm.5). In Homer τότε is sometimes Cf. K-G(:2,463,1).

Notes

1

of

to

chapter

found

after

an

el-clause,

e.g.

A36.

4

A full discussion of causal expressions would also have to take into account constructions with for, tnasmuch as, seetng that, non-finite clauses (of the type: Being a farmer...), preposıtıonal phrases (and possibly some other constructions), I will occasionally refer to these constructions. The remarks about after and noring possible differences and toen, Fr. aprês que and and als. According

to

Quirk

et

al.,

when would also seem to apply, igin the verb-forms used, to Du. nadat quand (also lorsque?), Germ. nachdem when

+

simple

past

suggests

that

the

176

Notes one

event

followed

to

chapter

immediately

on

4

the

other.

“

For Greek, I have proposed a rather different definition of adjuncts (cf.chapter 2, fn.2). This, to be sure, is not a matter of principle, but simply connected with the fact that the corpus I have chosen did not allow as precise a listing of relevant features in as simple a way as could be done for English. Taking this into consideration, I do, however, think that the constructions that were considered to be adjuncts in chapter 2 and 3, would also exhibit the features that are given for English adjuncts. Perhaps a thorough investigation of a far larger corpus would bring more clarity on this point.

5

The phenomena discussed could also be ference in presupposition: in (3), the saw

John,

in

(8):

You

were

in

Paris.

thought to involve presupposition is:

However,

since

the

a difYou term

“presupposition” is not, as yet, unequivocally used in linguistic studies, I will make no further use of it, in the hope that the term known will be sufficient for the analysis of the examples to be discussed. For a recent study on presupposition cf. Ducrot

(1972);

also

the

survey

in

Schmidt(1973:92-106),

who,

correctly, in my opinion, speaks about “implicit assumptions" in connection with presupposition (p.102-103). The phenomena we are dealing with in sentences like (3) and (8) do not seem to involve implicitness. 6

The equivalents in Du., Fr. and Germ, are, respectively: omdat; parce que; weil. For Du. omdat cf. de Vries(1971), who discusses a number of differences between omdat and want; for Germ. weil,and its relation to da, see the discussion in Harweg(1972a), for weil cf. also Harweg(1972b); the results, however, are not very clear. A number of psychological and philosophical remarks may be found in von Glasersfeld(1974), who uses as a starting-point the discussion of different causes in Aristotle, Physics,II. A.Michotte's work (1954) is, mainly, a psychological approach to mechanical causality, i.e., specifically, he is concerned with the causal impression produced when one object sets another object in motion. Cf. also: According to him, he did not join us because he was ill; Du.: Naar zijn zeggen had hij zich niet bij ons gevoegd omdat hij ziek was. (In (16), the because-clause may also be a disjunct, for which cf. 4.3.3.). For the notion "attitudinal disjunct” cf. Quirk et al. (:511ff.), As they put it "Adverbs as attitudinal disjuncts convey the speaker's comment on the content of what he is saying"; for the notion "disjunct" cf. also below note 13.

8

Such assumptions would seem to belong to what Schmidt(1973:103) calls "pragmasemantisch-referentielle Präsuppositionen”, further defined as "Diese Klasse von Präsuppositionen definiert das Wirklichkeitsmodell (=mögliche Welt), in dem ein geäusserter

Text

sinnvoll

ist / sein

soll".

In other words, for some event to be a cause or reason requires - generally speaking - mental processes of combining and deducing (but cf. end of this note), cf. in this connection a number of other phenomena: (i) To the following question-answer con-

Notes

to

chapter

4

177

struction: A "Why did you do this?” :: B "Because... ", A can make the rejoinder "That is no reason". But following : A "When did you do this? :: B "When... ", A may not go on with "That's no time”. (ii) Expressions of reason/cause, unlike temporal ones, typically require animate agents: *Why did the earthquake occur? - When did the earthquake occur?; (iii) only so-called controllable

verbs,

that

that can be tnfluenced sal expressions: * Why ble

verbs

see

Dik

is,

verbs

that

express

an

activity

by the subject, can be modified by caudid you lose your watch? (For controlla-

(1975),

and

also

ch.

7,

£n.55).

Possibly,

though, these phenomena are particularly connected with expressions of reason: after all an earthquake or one's losing one's watch may be caused by some event. If why is acceptable at all in cases like (ii) and (iii) it will be interpreted, I think, as "How does it come about, that...?" "How come...?"; Dutch: "Hoe

komt

het

dat?"

In

Dutch,

if

a

cause

rather

than

a

reason

is involved, one may use a special question-word and conjunction, waardoor and doordat, respectively. Cf. Nieuwenhuijsen (1973). Quirk et al. (:549-50) call this phenomenon semantic implication (the analysis given of because is mine, but (23) is borrowed from Quirk et al (:550)). 11

Quirk et al. (:752) call them disjuncts of reason. - Notice that this use of because is not, or only imperfectly, found in Dutch, French and German: Du. will have want or namelijk, rather than omdat; Fr. has car, but parce que is also possible; Germ., finally, has denn and ndmlich. In formal English for could also be used, cf. Quirk et al. (:676-7; also 559, note, and 552). Kac (1972) proposes another explanation for motivating because-clauses; according to him we should not speak of causality

ces

or

here,

but

merely

of

connection

between

two

utteran-

events.

In some cases since may be interpretable as either a temporal or as a causal conjunction, and thus, be ambiguous. I confine myself to noting this point; as, however, which has the same property on a far larger scale,in my opinion, will be discussed extensively. Disjuncts may be defined, somewhat negatively, as elements that do not allow any of the constructions listed above for adjuncts (4.2.). For some other features see Quirk et al. (:517). Generally speaking one can say that adjuncts are integrated in the structure of a clause or sentence and that disjuncts are peripheral

to

tive, as in Quirk

clause-structure

(being,

opposed to conjuncts, et al. (:421).

e.g.

also,

yet.)

primarily

See

the

This means that they regard because, since and the whole, semantically equivalent, which is to below.

as be

The connectioa that is made here between position behaviour is not found again anywhere else in the adjuncts and disjuncts.

non-connec-

general as, on doubted;

schema

see

and syntactic dicussion on

178 16

Notes

to

chapter

4

On the other hand, they may be coordinated, cf. "Since Jaeger and other scholars suggest that this notion was drawn from Greek medical theory, and because Aristotle frequently uses physiological analogy in the Ethics and Politics, the author undertakes a new approach...” (From the blurb of Th. Tracy, Physiological theory and the Doctrine of the Mean in Plato and Aristotle, The Hague 1969). As for Du., Fr. and Germ., the situation is as follows. Dutch has no counterpart of as (nor of since), 1.6. it has no conjunction that is potentially ambiguous between a temporal and a

causal

interpretation.

It

has,

however,

as

far

as

the

causal

side of as and since is concerned, an equivalent: aangezien (also, in formal language, daar ) . German seems to have an equivalent of as in da, which may have temporal ("while") as well as causal meaning. The same holds for French comme. French also has vu que, and attendu que, which only have "causal" meaning. It is noteworthy that these languages, unlike English, have also a connector-like element with, roughly speaking, the meaning of Engl. seeing (that), Du. aangezten: Du. immers, Fr. puisque, Germ. ja (puisque also functions as a subordinating conjunction; for puisque and parce que; cf. the discussion in Ducrot (1972: 118-122)). I should add, however, that Du. tmmers has some special features that are not present with aangezten; I hope to discuss this issue elsewhere. 18

Note that a temporal interpretation of (47) and (48) is not very likely, which may be due to the verb of the as-clause being stative. With non-stative verbs, temporal as-clauses would seem to be acceptable in questions (and in the other constructions); cf. also 4.6.1. and 4.8..

19

Quirk et al. (:752-3) have a section on what they call “clauses of circumstance", which are, in their opinion “half-way between conditional clauses and clauses of reason", to which they add (tnter alta): "they express a relation between a premise (in the subordinate clause) and the conclusion drawn from it (in the main clause)"..This shows some resemblance to what I will have to say about this question but on the whole I find their definition rather vague. Cf. also notes 21 and 28.

20

Cf. Jespersen (1940:392) "since may indicate an inference from the effect to the cause: ‘it must have rained since the ground is wet'". Also Curme on as (1931:314) "as is now as in older English particularly appropriate where it is desired to give an easy, almost self-evident explanation of the statement in the principal proposition".

21

It

is

not

clear

to

me

whether,

on

the

one

hand,

since

and

as

al-

ways convey this meaning and, on the other, because never does, or that - perhaps in particular contexts? - because may assume the extra meaning of since /as and, alternatively,. since and as may lose it. Quirk et al., in their section on."clauses of circumstance" remark that "because, since and as can (italics mine) convey this meaning (i.e. a relation between premise and conclusion, cited in note 19) as well as that of cause / reason". Regrettably, they give no further details. In their opinion the

Notes

to

chapter

4

179

only special "circumstantial" conjunction is seeing (that).Note that at least historically, but perhaps also synchronically, Engl. seetng that, Du.aangezienand Fr. vu que all three have an element of perception, which suggests that what is expressed in the subordinate clause is in some sense, visible for speaker

and

hearer,

and

may,

thus,

be

checked

by

the

hearer.

This, in its turn, may reinforce the suggestion that what is said in the main clause is a natural consequence of the content of the subordinate clause. Cf. also now that. Another problematic point concerns the question whether sentences with because- and stnce-/as-clauses differ as to the way in which

the

information

is

distributed.

As

we

have

seen,

in

the

constructions discussed in this section (4.7.) the content of the main clause with because-clauses is known, and the reason is given a posteriori, so to speak. This would be in accordance with

of in

the

remark

in

Quirk

et

al.

because (cf. 4.5.). Also, these same constructions,

formation

of

the

main

about

from the it might

clause

with

the

positional

tendency

impossibility of be inferred that

these

clauses

will

since /ae the in-

not,

normal-

ly, be known; perhaps, then, it is the content of since- and asclauses that is known (or at least this may be implied) (cf. also the end of the first part of this note). An answer to these questions demands a thorough examination of a large corpus. . 22

Many attitudinal disjuncts are not possible, it seems, after any type of question: *Does he know about it? :: Fortunately (as against: Fortunately, yes); *How did he know about it? Wisely. In fact, there does not seem to be any question-word that may elicit such an attitudinal disjunct.

23

This seems to be even more valid for clauses with present reference than for those with future reference; cf. As he leaves the building tomorrow, ask him what he wants, which is ambiguous.

24

Nor does it apply in the case of since; here, too, it taneity rather than simple sequence that is involved.

24a

25

Of

course,

just

like

Greek

ὡς

(cf.

chapter

1,

fn.2),

is as

simulappears

in many other constructions, e.g. in manner clauses; the semantic and syntactic properties of these clauses, and the - possible - similarities to and differences from temporal and/or causal clauses remain to be discussed. Just like its rough equivalents in Du. (nu), Fr. (maintenant que), Germ.(nun (da); jetzt da; interestingly, German may also use nachdem + present indicative, which, when followed by a past perfect, has the meaning after. See the discussion on Greek ἐπεί, chapter 5). Note that in some contexts now that gets a concessive interpretation, e.g. when there is a sharp contrast between the "world", so to speak, referred to by the subordinate clause,

is

and

beginning,

26

In (66) between

27

Now

that

he

referred

starts

to

by

buying

the

main

clause:

a slight causal implication still seems the first part and the now that-clause.

that-clauses

may

also

occur

Now

that

winter

summerclothes:

in

to

a why-question:

be Why

present are

their

180

Notes

chances of the match? 28

preventing

to

chapter

relegation

4-5

small,

now

that

they

have

lost

Something similar is stated by Quirk et al.(:752-3). However, according to them, all circumstantial clauses - as they call them - are "halfway between conditional clauses and clauses of reason",

that

is,

even

when

the

as. I think this only applies if re reference, where the possible what

is

expressed

in

the

conjunction

is

because,

since

or

the main clause contains futuconsequences are involved of

subordinate

clause.

I

fail

to

see

any-

thing conditional-like in the sentence given by them as an example: The weather having improved, we enjoyed the remainder of the game (Regrettably, they do not give examples with since, as or because). See also fn.2l. 29

Temporally, (72) presupposes a previous situation in which the "we" spoken about did not live near the sea. - Possibly, the semantic value we are dealing with here is related to the "causal implication” that was suggested was present with when and after; cf. 4.8.2. ex. (59). Of course, strictly speaking, it is the main clause that contains the inference; a more correct term would be "leading to an inference". I stick to "inferential" only for the sake of brevity.

31

32

Since and as may also be used in this way, but for them it is only one possiblity. - Cf. also the following remarks about the so-called "illative” conjunct now in Greenbaum (1969:73-4): “There is an illative conjunct now which might be paraphrased 'saince that is so', though temporal force is not entirely absent". Somewhat later: "The relationship to the conjunction now (that) will be noticed". I

have

confined

adjunct

Notes 1

to

myself

because-clauses

chapter

to

cf.

adjunct

because-clauses;

for

non-

4.3.3..

5

On the temporal suffix -te (cf. Ste, τό-τε etc.) see Ruijgh (1971:508-10) .ἐπείτε differs from the other two in that it is confined to Ionic. I will not take into account here ἐπεί etc. + ἄν (ἐπεάν, ἐπειδάν etc.) + subjunctive, or ἐπεί etc. + optative, where the subordinate clause is always temporal. I will discuss the relationship of these with ἐπεί etc. + indicative in chapter 6.10.. This list suggests that the three factors operate independently of each other, which is not the case. On this point more will be said below, 5.2.4.. Zycha (1882:96) distinguishes between "causale Nachsätze" where ἐπεί = γάρ "denn, nämlich"; and "causale Vordersätze", where ἐπεί = "weil, da". But he does not pursue this question any further.

Notes

to

chapter

5

181.

3

Unless stated otherwise, ferring back".

"referring"

»

Unless

the

bf

Some.additional comments and given in the next section.

5

For the énet-clause as an adjunct of simultaneity cf. also chapter 1, fn.3.- Sometimes, thanks to the semantic aspect of the verb in the énet-clause, this kind of clause would seem to come near to an adjunct of anteriority, e.g. 1,105,2: énette... éy{vovto...év... ("When they came in..."). However, the field of ‘anterior’ ἐπεί + imperfect - the same holds even more strongly for ὡς + imperfect - is not without pitfalls; cf. the discussion of ὡς, in chapter 6.4.1.

6

For the relation between predictability and meaningfulness of information cf. chapter 3, note 22. In traditional grammars it is often said that the contents of the subordinate clause is,

in

stated

fact,

otherwise,

‘subordinated’

examples remarks

(i.e.less

etc.

has

are on

to

taken

similar

important

or

be from

read

"re-

Herodotus.

examples

the

as

like)

are

to that

of the main clause, whereby a semantic interpretation is given of a syntactic phenomenon. Nevertheless, when viewed in terms of informativity, it could indeed be said that their contents are on different levels, in that the information in the subordinate clause - at least in the temporal ones of the type discussed in the text - is more predictable than that of the main clause. Note that, if we were to apply the terms given and new, as used by Halliday((1970:162ff.); cf. also Lyons(1968:335)), to the sentences under discussion, we would have to distinguish two types of 'new' information: conditioned 'new', as ἀπίκετο in (1), and unconditioned 'new', as ὁ "Apnayog ἔλεγε in (1). 7

For this cf. e.g. ὁ δὲ Κανδαύλης... ἤγαγε τὸν Γύγεα ἐς τὸ οἴκημα val μετὰ ταῦτα αὐτίκα παρῆν καὶ ἡ γυνή. ("Candaules brought Gyges into the chamber and immediately after that his wife appeared") (1,10,1).

8

For

9

For τοίνυν in the énet-clause cf. Denniston(1954:569-70): "In dialogue, introducing an answer, totvuv represents the answer as springing from the actual words, or general attitude, of the previous speaker". Sometimes other particles are found alongside ἐπεί: nep in 8,80,1; dv in 9,46,3.

10

In 5,18,2 we find an aorist of this kind coordinated with two indic. present. Note that once we have an imperfect in an inferential Enei-clause (4,136,4); and once an inferential perfect in direct speech (5,84,1).

11

But

this

in

text.

term

1,141,2 There

is

cf.

chapter

the a

4

fn.30.

énet-clause

similar

refers

example

with

back

to

ἐπειδή,

the

preceding

with

the

features as (3) and (4), viz. 1,45,2. In both cases choose between now that and for. See further chapter 12

On the below,

syntactic status of 5.3.1.. On the role

Go

gle

same

con-

semantic

we may 5.5.3.

the énet-clause more will be of ye in these constructions

said cf.5.3.2..

182 13

14

Notes It is cause

important to of or reason in

to

realize for the

(7),

the

chapter

5

that these clauses in no way give the action etc. referred to in the main

clause.

E.g.

biggest biggest

river, is not the cause or reason why the when all the tributuaries are counted.

fact

that

the

Nile

on

its

own

is

Ister

the

is

the

Sometimes, in the €tnel-clause an appeal is made to knowledge that, I gather, is supposed by Herodotus to be present among his public (unlike e.g. (6) where the information contained in the £Enel-clause may be assumed to be new for his public); when this is the case, the motivational force of the énet-clause is enhanced. For an example cf. μηχανῶνται... πρῆγμα εὐηϑέστατον, ὡς ἐγὼ εὑρίσκω, μακρῷ (ἐπεί γε ἀπεκρίϑη ἐκ narartépov τοῦ Bapβάρου ἔϑνεος τὸ 'EAAnvındv ἐὸν καὶ δεξιώτερον καὶ... ("they devised a plan... which, to my mind, was exceeding foolish (seeing that from ancient times the Hellenic has ever been distinguished from the foreign stock by its greater cleverness and...") (1,60, 3). (Here, Dutch could use immers). Cf. also 2,57,2. (Of course, it

will

"common -dotus

be

difficult

knowledge”

for

for

us

the

to

indicate

particular

what

was,

community

and

for

was

which

not,

Hero-

wrote).

Henceforth,

I

will

call

these

clauses

"following

£nei-clauses”.

As far as I can see, the referring or non-referring character of the Enei-clause does not play an independent role in the analysis of the examples so far. It is, rather, a concomitant feature of the "relative-place" factor. (But perhaps it is also possible to put this the other way round: when the éne(-clause does not refer back to the preceding context it has to be interpreted as a motivating expression; when it does refer back it gets a temporal or an inferential interpretation, according to the tense of main clause and subordinate clause. The first type follows the main clause, the latter precedes it (as, I think, elements which refer back usually will do)). Sometimes

mention

is

made

of

still

another

use

of

ἐπεί,

viz.

a concessive one, cf. e.g. K-G (:2,461 A.1). One of their examples is: Pl.Smp.187a ὥσπερ ἴσως nal Ἡράκλειτος βούλεται λέγειν, ἐπεὶ τοῖς γε ῥήμασιν οὐ καλῶς λέγει. In reality, however, we have here ἃ perfectly normal instance of motivating ἐπεί: "As perhaps Heraclitus, too, wants to say; ((I say "perhaps wants to say" deliberately)> for he does not express himself clearly in his words". Zycha (1882:97) rightly stresses that there is no need whatsoever to view ἐπεί here as concessive (K-G's remarks about these examples are rather confusing; they virtually suggest that a causal and a concessive interpretation amount to the same thing. E.g. in connection with the above example they interpret: "weil er sich ... nicht deutlich ausdrückt, wofür wir sagen: wiewohl er sich nicht deutlich ausdrückt"). Kraus (1970) discusses a number of such allegedly concessive énet-cases; he, too, advocates a causal interpretation. 17

For

a

complete

list

of

examples

cf.

Appendix

I.

Conversely, in 3,27,2 the €net-clause forms an expansion to the temporal adverb τότε. - In 9,58,2 the énet-clause is inserted between the main predicate and the complement of that predicate.

Notes 19

For

this

Another

"fatalism" example

cf.

with

a

to

e.g.

chapter 1,5,4.

similar

5

183

See

Immerwahr

subordinate

clause

(1966:153

ff.).

is

(with

4,79,1

ἐπείτε). Note that these énet-clauses cannot be interpreted "causally": they have the features of temporal, not of “causal” (inferential) £nei-clauses (to take them as ὅτι ("because") -like would be entirely ad hoc). There is also a general semantic objection against a "causal" interpretation: it is difficult to see why the particular ill befalling the persons involved should find its reason in the mere fact that ill should befall them. There are, to be sure, comparable sentences with a preceding γάρ ("since")-clause, e.g. 1,8,2 χρῆν γὰρ Κανδαύλῃ γενέσϑαι κακῶς; also 9,109,2; but these give a priori explanations for someone's actions triggering his misfortune, not for the mere fact that some ill struck this person. Thus, I think that a ydp-clause instead of the énet-clause in (11) would hardly have been possible: ?? But since it was fated that ill should befall him, it was caused by... The type of verb in the subordinate clause may also play a role, in that e.g. ἀπίκετο of ex. (1), will usually, at least in ä narrative, be preceded by an explicit mention of someone's leaving: there is no arrival without departure. This does not hold, I think, for a verb-phrase like σπονδὰς ἐποιήσατο; this does not form a pair, so to speak, with another concept, it can take place without implying a previous action.

2

This phenomenon 6.10.

u.

20

occurs

rather

The phenomenon discussed quently with ὡς. See the

2

Note that with the €net-clause seems to be present, for which

w

22

frequently

with

énedv-clauses,

in this section occurs much more extensive dicussion on

see

more freὡς in 6.4.2.

an element of anteriority also cf. the section on ὡς 6.4.2.2.

I have avoided the term ADJUNCT on purpose, since I am not able at the moment to check whether these clauses satisfy the same tests as simple when-clauses (for which cf. 4.2.).

2

Possibly also other clauses, without negation clause. See the discussion on ὡς 6.4.2..

σι

24

26

27

Just as it might be said that what is actually a causal relationship. In

for

his

the

translation

first

of

example

Herodotus,

as,

for

the

is

in

expressed

however,

second

the in

(Powell

one

temporal

sentence 1949),

he

(13) gives

when.

28

In 1,165,1 the subordinate clause, with ἐπείτε οὐκ ἐβούλοντο, is followed by a main clause introduced by anaphoric πρὸς ταῦτα; this may combine temporal ("thereupon", so Powell s.v. npöc) with “circumstantial” meaning ("in view of this").

29

Here the €net-clause has no backward reference; indeed, this will not easily occur with a historical present in a temporal subordinate clause, if, as is plausible, such a present signals a ma-

jor

event,

cf.

also

5.2.5.1.

and

6.10.

184

Notes

to

chapter

5

30

Also, in indirect speech, infinitives and optatives, 3,27,2. I will not discuss these separately.

3)

Also

32

In

one

with

7,18,3,

ἐπειδή,

too,

the

4,118,1, speaker

see

e.g.4,10,1;

5.5.2.

presents,

in

the

€ne(-clause,

some

information on his own account; but there ὡς οἶκε ("apparently") is added. Incidentally, it is worth noticing that in this example ms. D has a reading that makes this instance look more like the cases with an expression of obligation: instead of todnoμαι

καὶ

tive

τὴν

γνώμην

τράπωμαι,

μετατίϑεμαι

omitting

it

nal...

has

the

adhortative

μετατίϑεμαι

subjunc-

altogether.

33

Legrand's remark runs: “ici, le lien qui sin l'anecdote du chapitre 122 est d'une

34%

This was already noticed by K-G; they remark (:2,461,A.1): "die Griechen gebrauchten ἐπεί sehr haüfig auch da, wo der grundangebende Satz nicht ein untergeordneten Teil des Hauptsatzes bildet, sondern vielmehr die Geltung eines mit ydp beigeordneten Hauptsatzes hat (-)". Cf£. also Zycha (1882:98ff.).

35

For

these

moods

cf.

S-D(:313-344).-

In

rattache au texte voiexceptionelle ténuité".

one

type

of

clause

we

may

find subordinate and main clause characteristics combined, viz. those introduced by what is, formally, a relative pronoun or pronominal adverb. Here, the verb may be an imperative or any

of the other moods discussed in the text. One example: Hdt.1,89, 3 κάτισον... φυλάκους ol λεγόντων ("Set... watches, who must say."). For these clauses cf. the extensive discussion in K-G (:2,434-35). As for the potential optative + ἄν, this has still wider distributional possibilities (cf. S-D(:325)); it occurs also in purpose and conditional clauses; thus, it is rather the combination of direct question + potential optative that makes these 36

In

clauses

fact

I will ways

see

the

in

mention to

(26)

and

(27)

of

ydp

is

status

only

one

differentiate

whether

an

ordinator can been shown to

point

between

element

main

that

clauses).

itself

(cf.

rather

connectors

may

difficult

Dik(1968:34ff.)). and

tentatively

to

One

assess.

of

coordinators

be

regarded

the

is

as

to

a co-

co-occur with another element, that has already be a coordinator. If it can, it is not a coordina-

tor, but a connector (connectors may be defined, roughly, as elements that link clauses, but are not coordinators). Thus, from the acceptability of and yet it may be deduced, assuming and to be a coordinator, that yet is a connector. On the other hand, from the impossibility of *and but it may be inferred, under the same assumption as to the status of and, that but is a coordinator. Applying this test to Greek, there are some indications that γάρ is, indeed, a coordinator; it cannot, for instance, co-occur with the coordinator δέ. On the other hand, it may be combined with coordinating ἀλλά ("but"), which points to a non-coordinator status. For the constructional possibilities of γάρ cf. Denniston (1954:56-114); he himself uses the general term "connecting particle". See also chapter 2, note 11 for Engl. 37

Of

for.

course,

it

should

be

borne

in

mind

that

γάρ,

being

the

normal

Notes

to

chapter

5

185

causal coordinator (or connector), is far more common than ἐπεί. Thus, the non-occurrence of certain varticles with ἐπεί may be simply due to there being no need to use ἐπεί; γάρ, so to speak, could mostly manage alone. 38

I am not concerned here with the question whether €net ye and ἐπεί... ye (with one word intervening) are’ equivalent; possibly they are. Cf. Denniston (1954:141,146ff., esp.152) who considers e.g. δέ ye and δὲ... ye as one combination. Anyhow, the important thing for my discussion is that replacement of ἐπεί by γάρ in both cases yields an unacceptable combination, e.g. ἐπεί ye τοῦτο / ἐπεί τοῦτο ye> "τοῦτο γάρ γε (nor would "τοῦτό ye γάρ be acceptable). In Hdt.7,236,3 ἱκανοὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοί γε and Ar.Nu. 368 τουτὶ γὰρ Euoıy' I take ye to modify only ἐκεῖνοι and ἐμοί; cf. also Ar.Ec.577 where ms.R has γὰρ tot ye; ye modifies τοι (for the latter example see Denniston (1954:152); he does not mention the other two)).

39

As

we

have

seen,

there

are

strong

reasons

to

think

that

the

ἐπεί-

clauses we are dealing with here are not subordinate clauses.K-G(:2,175-176) would seem to imply that it is only by reason of ye that ἐπεί gets causal meaning, but this is not correct; cf. e.g.3,15,2 where ἐπεί certainly is 'causal' (=motivating), although

it

is

not

modified

by

ye.

40

Note that the eschewed; cf. a231: ἐπεὶ ἂρ

41

In answers καὶ γάρ may have yet further” (Denniston(1954:109)).

42

Of

course,

be

used,

(30)

is

on

this

combinations γὰρ ἄρα and ydp pa (Homer) are not Denniston (1954:56). (ἐπεὶ &o(a) occurs too, e.g. δή, however, not in a motivating expression).

with

e.g. not

a

different

πυνϑάνομαι also,

since

point,could

another

order

γὰρ

nal

of

used

words

ἐπεὶ

if

he

καί.

had

(Godley,

it seems, has so

has

γάρ

and

in

his

καί

Possibly,

καί be

to

I will

not

could

in clear

press

conclusively; but Denniston does not with καί = also.

chosen the first alternative, taking

Powell,

"and

wished

However

this point, for lack of a means to prove it it is to be noted, in this connection, that give any examples from Herodotus of καὶ γάρ a unity;

both

"Aunotpıv.-

Herodotus,

have

interpretation:

xal

ydp

as

translation).

43

The combinations of ἐπεί with ye, καί and οὐδε appear regularly in other authors, too, e.g. Lysias, Aristophanes, Thucydides (of the latter I have checked books I-IV and VI).

bbh

For 1

(Femporal) -

ἐπεὲ

οὖν

and

ὡς

οὖν

in

Homer

see

Denniston

(1954:

e

45

As for the question why ἐπεὶ οὖν and ἐπεί nov are not found cf. note 37. Note, however, that e.g. γὰρ ὧν in Hdt. is often preceded by an anaphoric pronoun, which tends to take the first place in a sentence: énet is less likely in the context of such an anaphoric pronoun I think: ?? ἐπεὶ dv τούτων... (vis-a-vis τούτων γὰρ ὦν..., 1,94,3).

46

For haos

an

example

also

of

motivating

Hdt.1,45,2

(section

ἐπειδή

see

5.5.3.).

Pl.Hipp.Min.363cl;

per-

186 "7

Notes

to

chapter

Based upon the authors referred Homer, Herodotus, Aristophanes,

+ δή

see

end

to in the above discussion: Lysias, Thucydides,Xenophon.

“8

On

ἐπεί

43

On

the

50

Sentences of the following type are only apparently counterexamples, I think: συνέπλεον... καὶ ἄλλοι συγκτίσται (-)" of ἐπείτε ἀπίκοντο..., ἀπέϑανον μάχῃ ἑσσωθέντες... ("Others too sailed... to found his colony(-); these, having arrived...,

advantages

were

overcome

have

here

of

5

of

and

slain

differs

preceding

ἐπεὶ

from

καί

in

e.g.

section.

and

a

ἐπεὶ

οὐδέ

battle...")

Sow

in

fact

a

tendency,

this

construction.

see

£n.53,

is

intended

Brackett

with

in

(1905:220),

in

ἐν τῇ τρέφεται ἐπεὰν φανῇ ὁ "Antic, way of a "stylistic reason". 52

In

5,4,2

by it

60a which modifies,

plement: Similar 53

Some

we ὅσα

find

an

énette-clause

that

clause It is,

examole

to reduce

5.3.2.

(5,46,1).

(33)

troduce a subordinate clause, but a main lative connection', see K-G(:2,434ff.)).

51 Conceivably

see

The

it

οἵ

does

we

not

in-

(so-called 'rehowever, in

(36).

the complexity connection

speaks

in

within

of the

with

an

2,153:

equally

a clause

vague

introduced

does not, stricktly speaking, follow the clause but is inserted between the main verb and its com-

μιν

Set

phenomenon

remarks:

(i)

ἐπείτε

with the

ἐγένετο

motivating

€neıörtj-clause

dvanAfioat ἐπεί

in

might

κακά.

Cf.

the

3,9,2. be

a

temporal

adjunct

to the following participial clause: πᾶν δὴ βουλόμενοι etc.; Godley takes this view; (ii) the €Eneıörj-clause refers back, albeit in a rather exceptional way: the reference seems to be to 6,75-83. See also next section; (iii) in 8,118,1 we have ...ὅδε λόγος λεγόμενος, ὡς ἐπειδὴ Ξέρξης... ἀπίκετο, ...from which it appears that in a subordinate clause the trei-clause does not necessarily follow the clause it modifies. Cf. also with et: γνοὺς ὅτι, ef... ("realising that, if...") in 9,89,2; (iv) note, finally, that the information about the Argives inviting the Persians stands in contrast with another story, reported in 150, to the effect that it was Xerxes who had sent an envoy. This feature, too, main clause.

5% Some

remarks:

may

have

(i)

For

favoured

δή with

the

ἐπείτε

putting

in

front

see Denniston

of

the

(1954:219-

220): "δή with relative temporal adverbs"; among his examples is (37); (ii) the €Eneite-clause refers to the situation in general, not to some previous statement about the Persians' inability to take Babylon; (iii) it might be argued that the ἐπείτεclause motivates the advice given in ἀπανιστάναι (e.g. Legrand), the whole in direct speech being: ἀπανίστη τὴν στρατιήν, ἐπείτε δὴ οὐδεὶς πόρος φαίνεται τῆς ἀλώσιος (said to the king; but then we would expect φαίνοιτο or φαίνεται rather than ἐφαίνετολ. With the interpretation given in the text, I take the éne(te-clause το e spoken to the Babylonians, modifying συμβουλεύσαι.- In ‚43,1 we find a following €neite-c lause modifying a verbless relative clause (ὃς πρῶτος ποταμῶν sc. Av).

55

ἐπεὶ... chapter.

ἐπόνουν

refers

back

to the opening

paragraph

of

the

Notes

to

chapter

5

187

56

As in (36) the reference of the énev&r\-clause is not mediately preceding context, but to some information been given earlier, viz. in chapter 4.

to the imthat has

57

The

dnéSavov.

58

Strictly speaking the information of it is only τοὺς ἀπὸ Φυλῆς that links ding context (ot ἀπὸ Φυλῆς κατῆλθον,

59

énev&\-clause

The

refers

énet-clause

Cyrus,

mentioned

back

refers e.g.

to in

to the

a

immediately

fact

preceding

the énevSt-clause is new; this clause to the precein 31,8).

that

is

known:

the

killing

of

1,9,1.

60

The

61

Note that, if this second factors are

62

In a way, the same can be said of (40) where the which the érneuôf-clause occurs does not continue begun story, but forms part of an appeal made to of the jury (the main verb being tıuwprioate).

63

In at least one case ((37)) a motivating interpretation seems in itself not implausible. See fn.54. I should add that, in principle, in the cases where the éne(-clause does not refer back to the immediately preceding context, or does not refer back at all, the possibility of a motivating interpretation is greater than in examples like (33), since motivating énetclauses, too, are non-referring.

64

Both in (45) and (46) Godley and Legrand provide terpretation of the €nei (te)-clause; wrongly, in See the discussion on the following pages.

65

καί ter

66

One might be tempted, especially by the presence of xai with ἐπεί, to view the Enei-clause as a motivating expression (Godley has indeed, Legrand en effet). In my opinion, however, there: was no particular need for Herodotus, who is relating facts, to explain why he says what he says, unlike e.g. in ex. (31) in 5.3.2., where Hdt., giving some judgment on a Persian custom,

for 67

Note,

information

of

the

énef-clause

is

analysis is correct, present in (33) and

completely both (37).

before οὗτος has to be taken as "like the him". See the commentary of Stein ad loc.

wants

to

corroborate

it.

But

I

admit

new.

the

that

first

and

the

sentence in a previouslythe members

a causal inmy opinion.

other

kings,

there

is

af-

room

doubt. also,

that

the

information

about

the

arrival

of

the

Thes-

salians does not refer back; to put it in front would have suggested that it does refer back. - I take the éne(-clause to modify everything from ἔδειμαν to the participle δείσαντες, as preceding énet-clauses also often do; cf. 5.2.2., ex. (2) and 5.2.5.1. ex. (10). There is another example that can be explained along the same lines as ex. (35), viz. 4,155,2.-2,56,3 is similar too; the €neite-clause does not contain a reference to previous

information

and

is,

thus,

more

mobile.

Furthermore,

the structure of this passage may have played a role, too. The main clause, χρηστήριον κατηγήσατο ("established an oracle", not “taught divination" (Godley)) forms part of a listing by Herodotus himself of the order of events connected with the ori-

188

Notes

to

chapter

§

gin of the oracle at Dodona, viz. his interpretation of a story provided by some Theban priests: first a woman came as a slave in Thesprotia; then she established a shrine to Zeus;, then she founded an oracle of Zeus, after she had learned Greek. It seems natural for the main clause to come before the ἐπείτεclause, given the list-like nature of the whole chapter. Cf. also 3,7,1; 4,43,7 where the ἐπείτε tdxtota-clauses do not form part of the main theme of the narrative. 68

69

A small number, it should be kent in mind. That the cussion has nevertheiess been very extensive is due that all the exceptional cases have been dealt with Since

the

€net-clause,

strictly

speaking,

modifies

above disto the fact separately. only

the

par-

ticiple σολοιμίζοντες and, thus, functions as an adjunct to another adjunct, it could be argued perhaps that it behaves in the same way as the examples, discussed in 5.4.3., of €net-clauses within another subordinate clause. If the £nei-clause is temporal, ἐπεί has to be interpreted as “ever since” rather than as "after" or "when", which is due to the participle σολοικίζοντες expressing a habitual action. For énette-clauses of this kind cf. 5.6.4.2. A motivating interpretation, however, does not

seem use

impossible; of

the

term

in

that

case

σολοιμίζοντες.

Herodotus Perhaps

would the

be

explaining

presence

of

his

the

qua-

lifying phrase οὐ χρηστῶς favours such an interpretation. There is here, finally, an interesting varia lectio, viz. ὅτι (class d manuscripts). This is not implausible and might go back to an original differentiation, ultimately going back to Herodotus himself. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that ὅτι was meant to be a (wrong) gloss on ἐπεί. See also 7.4.4., on ὅτι. 70

The €neite-clause forms an adjunct to an accusative ἃ infinitive construction, viz. ἄρχεσθαι ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων; also it occurs in an indirect speech-like construction. So it can perhaps be grauped with the examples discussed in 5.4.3.; see especially exx. (36) and (39),

with

subordinate

o¢/Stt-clauses

in

indirect

speech,

after

a verb of saying. Alternatively, the &neite-clause could perhaps also be taken to modify οὐκ ἔφη μενέειν, representing ἐπείτε ("now that") ἐγευσάμην ἀρχῆς, οὐ nevew in direct speech. 71

As my translation indicates I take the - circumstantial - ἐπείte-clause to modify the participal clause. Therefore, it can again be said that the €nette-clause forms an adjunct to a nonmain clause; it occurs, furthermore, in indirect speech. For the influence of both factors see section 5.4.3. Still, we could have a motivating expression here, which gives the reason why the Crotoniats - and ultimately Callias himself - say that Callias ran away: "he had come to them after he had run away from Telys; for he could get no favourable omens, while sacrificing for victory over Croton". Non liquet.

72

I will re are place, must

refrain from analysing this example in detail, since theso many textual uncertainties, énette itself in the first a conjecture of Reiske's for ἔπειτα (all manuscripts). I

say,

however,

that

the

text

as

given

by

Hude

and,

indeed,

all editions that have ἐπείτε, does not seem to exhibit any tures that might explain the place of the énette-clause: no

feaad-

Notes junct in

to

other

a

non-main

words,

we

to

clause, have

a

chapter no

5

189

indirect

regular

speech,

narrative

no

contrast;

here.

(Perhaps,

though, one such feature is the fact that the Éneite-clause does not refer back. Its information is completely new, which may have given it a greater mobility). 73

As in the case of ἐπεί (cf. 5.2.5.1.), there is sometimes ἃ reference not to the preceding context in the €tneLörn-clause, but to an event which, while not being expressed explicitly, is not unusual in the particular context in which the ἐπειδήclause

occurs;

an

example

is

9,72,1.

74

On

νῦν

see

75

On

the

aorist

76

Without necessarily implying that his use of ἐπεί all respects is similar to that of Herodotus.

77

The énevS4-clause does refer, however, to a well-known fact which makes in Dutch a rendering with immers better than one with want. Cf. also fn. 14 on ἐπεί.

78

On now see ch. 4, fn. 31. - Like énet- and énevd4-clauses, νῦν is often combined with an imperative (or another expression of obligation). E.g. viv dv ῥύσασϑε “Iwvac ("Now, therefore, save your Ionian kinsmen") (5,49,3). See K-G (:2,117).

79

An analogous example with ἐπείτε can be found in 7,161,2: Eneite (-) δέεαι τῆς ναυτικῆς ἄρχειν, οὕτω ἔχει tor ("Since (-) you would fain command the fleet, we would have you know how the matter stands"; Godley has made explicit the unexpressed "verb of saying").

80

This may be connected with the fact that ἐπείτε in principle is explicitly characterized, by the temporal suffix -te (cf. τό-τε, Ö-te), as a temporal conjunction, cf. Ruijgh ((1971: 508-09); his remark that ἐπείτε in Herodotus is simply synonymous with ἐπεί is not wholly correct).

81

On imperfects like παρῆσαν more also below 5.6.2.1., ex. (65).

82

Perhaps the semantic nature of ἔργου εἴχοντο plays a role, too. It seems that ἔχεσθαι in the sense "cling to" etc. is confined to pres./imperf. forms, the aorist forms (ἔσχοντο etc.) + genitive meaning 'desist from'. At least this is what the - scarce examples in Hdt. suggest. (See Powell s.v. ἔχω C.3 and 4). In other

words,

end

of cf.

the

this 5.2.3.

section. ex.

replacement

(4).

of

will

be

εὔχοντο

said

by

in

the

and

ch.

ἐπειδή

6.4.1.;

aorist

we

in

cf.

would,

properly speaking, expect here, viz. ἔσχοντο, would probably have entailed a radical change in meaning (not: "they went more zealously to work", but "they dropped their work more zealously").For other possible cases of "anterior"! ἐπείτε + impf. see 6.4.1. 83

In 5,115,1 and 6,76,1 we have a comparable phenomenon; there, the initial Eneite-clauses are taken up, after some parenthetical clauses, by participial clauses; e.g. 5,115,1 ἐπείτε ἔμαϑον (-), αὐτίκα (-) μαϑόντες ταῦτα ἀπέπλεον.

190

Notes

to

chapter

5-6

84

Cf.

85

καὶ δή "denotes the instant and dramatic following dosis upon the protasis" (Denniston (1954:253)).

86

Thus,

also

the

énette-clauses

ἐπείτε

is

not

of

strictly

examples

(49)

inferential.

and

(51). of

Rather,

it

the

apo-

indicates

that the event of the main clause follows on that of the énette-clause; yet there is a "hidden" causal implication, viz. that the behaviour of the addressee is based upon the event expressed in the subordinate clause. For a somewhat similar example with ἡνίκα cf.7.2.1., ex. (13). 87

Notice is not

88

Powell, both in his index and in his translation takes ἐπείτε in this wav: "But after a while, when the woman uttered things which they comprehended, they say that the woman spoke with a human voice". So, too, Feix in his translation (als).

89

In some instances manuscript tradition hesitates between £neite and ἐπεί: 3,58,1 and 8,27,1 (with τάχιστα); 3,117,1 (‘ever since'). I have followed Hude who in all three instances prefers ἐπείτε.

90

Of course, this is not to say that, when τάχιστα is not present, there is necessarily any interval between the two actions. Whe-

that Legrand introduces with present in the Greek text.

alors a temooral

element

that

ther there is or whether there is not is, from an informational point of view, irrelevant; what matters is that one action/event

follows another. - The idea of rapid succession of events is not only conveyed by τάχιστα, in the subordinate clause, but also when αὐτίκα ("straightaway”,"immediately") is present in the main clause;

e.g.

in

3,16,1.

91

Ruijgh (1971:508-09) argues that model of (Ionic) ἐξ οὗτε "(ever)

92

The other examples are: (ἀπ' οὗ) 2,44,3; 3; (ἐξ ὅσου) 2,98,1; (ἐξ Stev) 3,63,2.

93

The other examples of ἐπείτε 'since' present no particular problems; see the appendix. - In 4,118,5 we have ἐπείτε τάχιστα + ind. aor., but with an "actual! present indic. in the main clause which means that an interpretation with ever since or from the very moment that fits better than as soon as.

Notes

In

the

to

the

chapter

there

are

of

ὡς

many

ἐπείτε (ἐξ

is

οὗ)

formed

2,44,2;

on

the

6,109,

6

discussion

case

(Ionic) since".

below,

differs other

it

should

considerably uses

from these (cf. however discussion is based upon ‘causal’ gc.

of

ὡς;

in

always

be

kept

from

that

of

the

main,

I

in

ἐπεί, will

mind

that

in

that

abstract

6.8. below). Generally speaking, the Powell's classification of temporal and

Notes

to

chapter

6

191

But cf. also the interesting examples of 'causal' ὡς absolute, with an imperative in the main clause, ch. inferential ἐπεί cf. 5.2.3., ex. (3) and 5.2.5.2. There is also one example of temporal ὅκως + ind. and one of ὅμως + imperfect (ἐγίνετο) : 9,66,2.

+ genitive 7.6. For

aor.:

7,229,1;

For οὕτω δή cf. 3.12. - Cf. also 5,92,n3: ταῦτα δὲ de ὀπίσω ánηγγέλθη τῷ Περιάνδρῳ (-), ἰϑέως δὴ μετὰ τὴν ἀγγελίην κήρυγμα ἐποιήσατο ("When this message was brought back to Periander (-), immediately after he got the message he made a proclamation"). As in many other instances there is a varia lectio ἐγένοντο here. Brackett (1905:195ff.) went so far as to suggest that the aorist should be read throughout, even where no varia lectio occurs. As for (7), observe the following. If "to sit down" is the primary and only meaning of ἴζομαι, as Powell has it s.v., one has to assume indeed that the imperfect functions more or less as an aorist, since the action of the main clause in (7) clearly does not take place "when" or "while they sat down”. However, there is no need to assign to ἴζομαι only this meaning; it may also express the result of "to sit down", viz. "sit" or "be seated". This fits especially well in (7) where our ἴζοντο comes closely after another instance of the same word ἴζοντο (8,67,2), which clearly means "they sat down" (action, no state, as in the second case). The relevant examples are: impf. in temporal subordinate clause: 1,70,2; 1,105,2; 1,189,1; 2,103,2; 2,107,1; 3,86,1; 4,154,4; 4, 173; 6,14,1; 6,77,1; 7,197,4; 8,37,2; 8,44,1; 8,94,2; 8,126,2; 9,69,2; 9,98,2; aorist: 1,10,2; 1,105,1; 1,190,1; 2,60,2 (éneGv); 2,113,1; 3,25,3; 3,41,2) 3,45,1; 4,80,2; 4,179,2; 5,24,3; 5,33,1; 6,19,2 (ἐπεάν); 6,43,2; 6,118,1; 7,44; 7,77 (ἐπεάν); 7, 170,2; 7,207; 8,94,2; 9,4,1; 9,96,1. Totals: impf.:17; aor.: 22. Powell simply states that γίνομαι and also εἰμί, are ‘verbs with aoristic force"; which suggests that this holds for γίνοwat (and εἰμ.) tout court. This, however, is not the case; his examples involve either γίνομαι + local expression (as exemplified by (4) and (5)) or Υΐίνομαι + temporal noun as subject, such as ἡμέρη ("day"), νύξ ("night") etc. For the latter group the correctness of his classification may be strongly doubted; im examples like ὡς εὐφρόνη ἐγίνετο, ἀπέπλεον ὀπίσω ("When darkness

came,

relationship

they

of

sailed

back",

simultaneity

8,14,2)

there

may

between

the

two

very

well

be

a

clauses.

Of course the moment at which this occurred cannot be localized exactly; for where do the "high seas" begin? It might be thought that this feature has favoured the choice of the imperfect; possibly so, but it cannot have been decisive since (i) ὡς or ἐπεί ἐγίνετο is also found with precise local expressions, e.g. έν τῇ πόλι ("in the town" ‚105,2); (11) ὡς ἐγένετο is found with the same "inexact" local expressions, see ex. (11). In English, Dutch bij, in etc. have

and the

other languages verbs like come to, following two characteristics among

komen others:

192

Notes

to

chapter

6

(1) the action referred to by the verb cannot be interrupted, unlike e.g. that of durative verbs: *he stopped coming to the beach, as against: he stopped walking on the beach; (ii) they do not combine with - durative - temporal adjuncts like for two hours: *he came for two hours to the beach; as against: he walked for two hours on the beach. For the sake of completeness I must add that ἀπικμνέομαι ("to arrive") which also has a momentaneous semantic aspect never occurs in the impf. in Herodotus. But possibly there are differences between ἀπικνέομαι and γίνομαι + loc. expression; notice, for instance, that ärnıxνέομαι is not found with the same prepositional phrases as γίvonaı (see Powell). A possible difference between ἐγινόμην and ἐγενόμην might be that the aorist combines more easily with more precisely defined local expressions: out of a total of 22 cases of ἐγενόμην + local expression there are 9 instances of ἐγενόμην Ev, as against 3 cases of Eyıvdunv Ev (out of a total of 17). The other local expressions include, with Eyıvdunv: κατά + acc. (7); ἐπί + dat. (2); ἀγχοῦ + genit. (3); ἀγχοῦ alone (1); with ἐγενόμην: κατά + genit. (1); κατά + acc. (5); ἐπί + dat. (1); ἀγχοῦ + genit. (2); πρός + dat. (1); ἐξ + genit. (1); πέλας + genit. (1); tude (1). As for ex. (5), it could be argued that ἐγίνοντο functions here more or less as a doublet of ἦσαν (cf. ἦσαν in ex. (6)) and that I am laying far too much stress on the possible difference between γίνομαι and εἰμί. To support this, one might compare LSJ's treatment of παραγίνομαι and πάρειμι; for the former the first meaning given is "to be beside, by or near”, and for the latter "to be by or near". In other words, they view these words as practically equivalent. Cf. also Powell s.v. γίνομαι IV "simply equiv. εἶναι 1. aor. and pf. (where εἶναι is defective) (-) but also 2.pres. and impf." I admit that such a line of reasoning is

possible;

still,

I

think

it

preferable

to

maintain

as

much

as possible the difference that doubtless exists in principle between γίνομαι and εἰμί. Kahn (1973) is not very specific on this matter; cf. e.g. his remark (p.207):"(-) in many of their occurrences these verbs (i.e. become-verbs like γίγνομαι) tend to loose their aspectual contrast and to figure as more or less expressive substitutes for εἰμί." Possibly, however, there are other imperfects in temporal subordinate clauses which virtually express anteriority, notably those of verbs of perception, which also would seem to have a momenaneous semantic aspect. See 5,79,2, where ὡς énuvddvovto ("when they heard") is repeated in the main clause by the aorist participle ἀκούσαντες; also ὡς doa in 7,45.(The same would seem to hold for Engl. when he saw, had seen, Du. toen hij zag, zten had). Cf. also the "noteworthy case" as Brackett (1905: 190) puts it, of 7,146,3, where mss. a P read: ὡς... κατέλαβον καὶ ἦγον ἐς ὄψιν... , τὸ ἐνθεῦτεν πυϑόμενος En’ οἷσι ἦλθον (ἦγον is retained by many editors, but Hude reads ἤγαγον with the οther mss.; Brackett, too, prefers the aorist, perhaps rightly). In 6,86,8 we find dc ot οὐδὲ οὕτως ἐσήκουον, as far see without any clear difference in meaning between

as I can the imper-

Notes

to

chapter

6

193

fect here and the aorist οὐκ ἐσήκουσε in (16). There is, however, a difference in context, since οὐκ ἐσήκουσε takes up previous information, being, in fact, a restatement of οὐδένα... ἐποιέετο λόγον of 213; thus, oûx ἐσήκουσε refers to one single event. Probably, the imperfect in 6,86,6 conveys something like: "they persisted in their refusal" (the Athenians had been unwilling before ). See also the discussion on the imperfect forms of the other examples. Perhaps I should not simply say that the event of the main clause follows on that of the wc-clause, but, rather, that it follows on Mardonios' observation of the event referred to in the ὡςclause; see the next paragraph. Note that in (13) we find a verb of perception in the second half of the clause introduced by ὡς, after a first half that implicitly contains such a notion as "it is observed that". Cf. also 2,2,4: τὰ μὲν δὴ πρῶτα ἀκούσας ἥσυχος ἦν: ὡς δὲ... πολλὸν ἦν τοῦτο τὸ ἔπος ("At first, when he had heard this, he kept quiet; but when... this word occurred reqularly..."; i.e. when he heard it

more

often).

Brackett

(1905:189-90)

remarks,

in

connection

with 2,120,3 (ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ... ἀπώλλυντο... , αὐτοῦ δὲ πριάμου οὐκ ἔστι ὅτε οὐ δύω ἢ τρεῖς A καὶ ἔτι πλέους τῶν παίδων... ἀπέϑνῃσκον ("When many... were slain... and Priam himself lost by death two or three or even more of his sons... , he would have restored her... ") that "the imperfect (-) gives a strong causal coloring with indication of the spectator (i.e. when Priam saw that his sons were perishing)". Although the presence of the negation in the w¢-clause may condition an interpretation that makes use of the notions of observation and reaction; see below. Brackett (1905:194) uses the notions "disappointment" and "failure" in connection with ὡς od and ἐπεὶ oû-clauses; these terms are too narrow, I think. Possibly there are also sentences where, although no human subject is present in the main clause, a causal implication is still present, e.g. in: When it didn't stop raining, the crops failed. Interestingly, sentences with so-called anticipatory ydp-clauses can be given a similar interpretation. Cf. 9,87,1: καὶ ov γὰρ ἐπαύοντο σινόμενοι, εἰκοστῷ ἡμέρῃ ἔλεξε... Τιμηγενίδης Tide» ("And since the Greeks would not cease from devastating the country, when nineteen days were past, Timagenidas thus spoke... "). Note that here it is overtly indicated - by ydp - that the event of the ydp-clause forms the reason for that of the main

clause,

whereas

the

temporal

relationship

between

both

e-

vents does not find explicit expression. With @c-clauses it is just the other way round. Cf. also 9,93,3: nat οὐ γὰρ EdAade... ταῦτα γενόμενα, GAA’ ὡς ἐπύϑοντο. See also ὅτι in chapter 7.4.2. 20

My totals number of unclear.

are somewhat examples not

lower than Powell's (68), as circumstantial, but as

since I take a motivating or

194

Notes

to

chapter

6

2]

What is 'great' or 'beautiful' for one person, may be 'small' or 'uglv' for another. Adjectives and adverbs like ‘great' are usually spoken of as ‘relative terms', by which is meant, however, not that what is 'great' for one person may be small for another, but that what is termed 'great' may still be be 'small' when compared with something else. Cf. also the remarks in Aschenbrenner (1971:15ff.).

22

There is a wav to make this more explicit, viz. by introducing "became obvious" in the translation of the @¢-clause: "when it became obvious that the difference was great”.

228

When the referred 105,1

23

Probably, discussed

24

With

the

clause,

would 25

subject of the main to in the w¢-clause

and

mainly in the aorist the

only

event cf. 5,

with terminative/resultative verbs, like those text, e.g. build, win over, put in array, spend. διετάχϑησαν

result

have

7,193,1:

ὡς

wind

fallen

had

clause does not react to the a concessive aspect appears;

8,16,1.

of

been

ἐπαύσατό and

the

-

given te the

possible

verbal

in

action,

itself viz.

to

-

in

the

stand

ὡς-

in

array,

implicitly.

ὁ ἄνεμος waves

καὶ

had

τὸ

come

κῦμα to

fotpwto

rest").

("When

This

the

example

may well illustrate the difference between aorist and plupf.: by ἐπαύσατο the end of a process viz."to blow" is expressed and the subsequent situation of the calm is implicit; by ἔστρωτο, on the other

rest 26

The

hand,

is

it

öc-clause

present

is

overtly

finished in

has

3,56,1,

expressed

and

that

a

strong where

the we

sea

that

is

in

the

a

circumstantial find

a

strictly

process

state force.

of

of

This

temporal

coming

smooth is ὡς

to

rest. also

+

plupf.

clause (ὥς σφι τεσσαράκοντα ἐγεγόνεσαν ἡμέραι πολιορκμέουσι Σάμον, "when the fortieth day had arrived of their siege of Samos") coordinated with a circumstantial second half (... ἐς τὸ πρόσω TE οὐδὲν προεκόπτετο, "... and they were not successfull"), Cf. also 7,232 (ὡς ἡτίμωτο). 27

The general starting-point for the discussion of the following sections is that the instances of following @¢-clauses presented in them are taken, by Powell or by other scholars, either as 'causal', in an unspecified way, or as temporal (circumstantial); for the latter group, as in the comparable cases with ἐπεί, the postponement of the clause will have to be accounted for.

2

Powell (s.v. ὡς B VIII) simply calls them 'causal' together with e.g. examples like (17) of section 6.4.2.3. This suggests that they are more or less alike, which is clearly not the case.

29

In the latter case this is not even certain; the also be the object-clause to ϑυμὸν ἔχε ἀγαϑόν.

30

Syntactically, too, ὡς would seem ving the status of a connector or of a subordinator. Cf. 5.3.1. Crito,

Euthyphro,

Charmides,

òc-clause

to be comparable to ἐπεί, a coordinator rather than

Gorgias,

Respublica,

Protagoras.

may hathat To-

Notes

to

chapter

6

195

tal number of examples: 15. The relevant cases are: Crito 44b6; 4548; 46b4; 4863; Grg. 481b4; 521b2; Resp. 328d2; 33643; 337b3;

32

33

420e8;

44941;

536bl;

Charm.

had

examples

no

Prot.

32367;

33544.

Euthyphro

and

all.

The other examples involve a potential opt. + ἄν (Hdt.8,108,3); a conditional clause with εἰ + indicative (Pl.Grg.481b4; 521b2), and a wish-optative (Pl.Prot.310el). (For ἐπεί in Hdt. see appendix). I mention in passing that no case of dc ye was found among the

above

and

Grg.481b4.

Goodwin Croesus’ For

an

examples;

wg...

if

one

see

Goodwin

translates

ses as (27) this may that ὡς = because. Indeed

the

use

course;

see

fn.33

Powell

s.v.

under

ye

however

occurred

twice,

Crito

45d8

(1889:287) thinks that διότι... €AdvOave, too, represents words. This, while being possible, is not necessary. example

Thus,

37

310el;

at

ὡς

"causal".

of

be

the

by

because,

misleading

optative

and,

is

possibly,

B.I.2.c.

For

(1889:287).

ὡς

in not

ex.

lists

(27)

an example

with

as

as

he

far

said,

in

as

suggests

it

obligatory

in

such

ca-

indirect

dis-

(28).

under

ind.

"reported

pr.

speech",

cf.

not

7,2,1.

Note that in the exampies given by Goodwin (cf. fn.34) of ‘causal' ὅτι and ὡς + optative the main verb is a kind of verb of saying; this means in my opinion, that here, too, ὡς is a marker of indirect discourse, rather than the indirect pendant of a causal ὡς in direct speech; the same may even hold for ὅτι. In

5,118,3

case 39

of

Legrand

ὡς

Legrand

+

ind.

has

translates fut.

pensant

cf.

que

"dans

la

pensée

que".

For

another

Lys.30,27.

in

(28).

the whole

subject of indirect

discourse, in the widest sense, and the principles that the use of moods and tenses in such cases see K-G (:2,541-557; esp.548-49 on reported thought and 547, Anm.l on past tense indicatives in ind. discourse). See also Goodwin (1889:258-85). 40

Of course, I am not talking here about the large group of complement wc-clauses that express indirect discourse sensu stricto, e.g. after verbs of saying. For Hdt. cf. Powell s.v. ὡς B.I..

41

The picture would be still more complicated if ὡς could also mean "I say this because/for" in these contexts. So far, however, no certain examples of this use in narrative texts have turned up.

42

The

43

Of course, strictly speaking the main clause as a whole, but only

bh

In 8,137,5 the postponement of the ὡς ἥκουσαν tabta-clause has the effect of giving greater prominence to the reaction of Gananes and Aeropos to the words spoken by the Macedonian king (cf. here,

remaining

too,

whereby

the

the

examples

presence

contrast

will

of

δή

between

be

at

briefly

discussed

@c-clause does the main verb.

the.opening

their

reaction

of

and

in

the

not

the

notes.

follow

the

sentence),

that

of

the

child

196

Notes

becomes

more

clause

may

conspicuous. be

due

to

the

clause, that is,we may paring the way for the 45

But

perhaps

called

such main 46

this

is

"relative

to

chapter

In

9,13,1

presence

6

the of

postnonement

οὐδαμῶς

ἔτι

of

in

the

the

ὡς-

main

have an adverbial temporal adjunct pre@c-clause:"not any longer... after".

not

conclusive:

connection"

τόν

(K-G:

might

2,434),

in

the

a

so-

case

may

9,115 can be explained along the same here the information of the main clause

lines; (ἐς δὲ

note that it is τὴν Σηστὸν tavtnv...

συνῆλθον) that refers back to earlier (the Persians) were in Sestos", which ALöpneov). As I said (6.6.,end), I do

information (viz. to "they is implicit in Σηστὸν Enonot think that the wc-clau-

of

ex.

clause

(28)

does

clause,

is

not

might

pretation expresses

a

postponed

refer

have

back,

been

temporal so

more

that

clause.

it,

had

I

think

mobile,

precede

of

clause

se

a relative connection a temporal clause, cf. fns.50 and 53.

establish

and

the

Although

it

been

a

a

the

inter-

is excluded because of the meaning of προέκειτο; a state, being, in fact, almost equivalent to ἦν

will not easily be ing simultaneity.

combined

with

ὡς

in

a

temporal

oc-

temporal

temporal clause

it and

express-

47

Godley has for, thereby making this clause into a clause of explanation by the author himself. For the difficulties connected with such a view cf. fn.4l.

48

For this reason the particinle Bacavılovtrec may It does not take up earlier information about a an - essential - detail about the circumstances

49

Note

ἀνευρίσκειν that

took a

place.

'normal'

circumstantial

have been added. trial but adds under which the

order

@c-clause

would (I

yield

leave

an

out,

acceptable

for

the

sake

temporalof

the

ar-

gument, the participial clause ἀναμνησθέντες etc. and neglect the fact that the w@c-clause, when it precedes, modifies both the μέν and the &¢-clause, whereas actually it modities only the uév-clause): ὡς δὲ ἀνεύρισκον βασανίζοντες ἐξ οὐδεμιῆς προνοίης αὐτὸν ποιήσαντα, HTETναι μὲν οὐκ ἐδικαίωσαν Ψαμμήτιχον... . Cf. e.g. 7,212,2 ὡς δὲ οὐδὲν εὕρισκον ἀλλοιότερον... ἀπήλαυνον ("When they (the Persians) found nothing changed... , they drew off"). 50

For

a

reason

gives

a

which

better

unclear

at

this

principle, the same interpretational exist; I add some brief comments.

tion the

Temporal

would

not

because, postponement

four

me

probably, seem

as

to

he -

if

be

- rather but

it

a

is

moment,

problematic

as

"

"who

(cf.

temporal

-

soon

cases

possibilities

"reported

excluded:

thought...

the

as

after.

In

pair,

I mention

to

than

in to

1,79,2.

note

is

translation

thought" had

also -

,

this

7 is

seem

interpreta-

fallen

ch.

where,

would

into

£n.56). not

easy

des-

As

for

to

account for; perhans because it modifies a non-main clause? 5.4.3., esp. ex. (38); see also tne comparable - temporal-circumstantial

(cf. -

trei-clause in 8,4,1) 1,90,1. If we take it as a temporal-circumstantial clause, it will be difficult to indicate why the öc-clause follows the main

clause;the

only

factor

I

can

point

to

is

that

ταῦτα ἀκούυν... ὑπερήδετο

Notes

to

chapter

6

197

(i.e. participle + a form of ἥδομαι) seems to be a set construction, cf. Powell s.v. ἥδομαι. For a temporal-circumstantial ὡς eöönee-clause that precedes the main clause see 3,154,1. 7,173,4. On the ground that or supposing that is hardly possible after "what persuaded them was fear". So I prefer a temporal interpretation (Legrand has quand, Powell, when). Note that the exact status of the

in his translation, @c-clause is somewhat

unclear: what elements does it modify? The whole sentence looks like a concise way of saying: "... what nersuaded them was fear (viz. fear that had arisen) after they were informed..." etc. 7,229,1. When probably; the postponement may be due to the ücclause functioning as an adjunct to an element that is itself embedded, viz. the infinitive ἀποσωθῆναι, which is governed by the accusative-absolute construction παρεὸν αὐτοῖσι. For a similar phenomenon with £nei cf. 5.4.3. 52

In

direct

speech

the

words

of

the

Phoenicians

would

have

been:

οὐ γὰρ Aprnayfi χρησάμενοι ἠγάγομεν αὐτὴν ἐς Αἴγυπτον" ἀλλὰ ἐμίσYETO τῷ ναυκλήρῳ τῆς νεός. ἐπεὶ δὲ... etc., which looks completely acceptable. 53

If

I understandit correctly,

interpretation,

which

is

Legrand

rather

has

a completely

attractive.

He

different

seems

to

take

ἐπόϑεσαν as a kind of verbum sentiendi and the wc-clause as a complement-clause to this verb: tls constatérent avec regret que...

for 54

Unfortunately,

such

a use

subj.

without

found, ferent +

the

ἄν

are,

(4,172,2).

indefinite etc.

For

lemmata;

to

my

knowledge,

no

parallels

ὅκως

ὡς

(+

Herodotus,

cf.

also

ὅταν

+

optative,

opt.), see

+

on

subj.

too,

the

further

and

is

other

Powell

Ste

scarcely

hand, under

and

ὁκότε

is

well

the

dif-

(ὁπότε)

optat.

Other verb forms may occur in the main clause, e.g. in Ionic, with ὅκως + opt., an iterative-form of imperfect or aorist with the suffix -one/-oxo-. See the relevant pages in K-G (:2, 447-51).

56

Or,

possibly,

57

ΓΕ.

also

58

there

ποϑέω.

The frequency of these subordinators in these constructions may not be quite on a par with their frequency when used with the indicative. E.g. in Herodotus ἐπεάν is amply attested, Enειδάν and ἐπείτε ἄν are not; ὡς ἄν (+ subj.) is lacking altogether (that is, as a temporal adjunct) as it is in other classical authors (K-G do not give it in the relevant section (:2,447) although they mention it in the index; L S J give some examples from papyri and the Septuagint); there is one instance with a attested,

55

of

K-G

temporal-circumstantial. on

this

point

(:2,447-51).

These sentences occur, typically, in manners and customs. For English cf. use the as they

term call

repetition

of

general descriptions of Quirk et al. (:85); they

"habitual time statements" them, 'dynamic' verbs such

the

event.

Ruijgh

and remark that a present tense

(1971:278ff.)

uses

the

with, implies

term

"distributive-iterative", for these constructions, by which he means that each occurrence of the action of the subordinate

198

Notes clause is clause.

coupled

with

to

an

chapter

occurrence

6-7 of

the

action

in

the

main

59

These sentences occur ker outlines his - or

60

I am leaving aside the question of impf. and aor. in these sentences.

61

This is not always so; fairly often they do not take up other information but express some event that is completely new. An example is (38), where Cambyses says (i) I will (some time) be a grown man; (ii) when I am a grown man... . Sometimes the event expressed in the €nedv-clause, although being new, may nevertheless belong to a class of events such as might be expected in the context, cf. 3,69,3. (Cf. also 5.2.5.1. on similar cases of ἐπεί). In connection with “iterative' ἐπεάν Powell has set up a special group of such non-referring €nedv-clauses, see s.v. ἐπεἄν, II.2; they stand, mostly, at the absolute beginning of a description or narrative.

62

Including tween the verned by

2,19,1 and 2,97,1 where the énedv-clause stands bepredicate of the main clause and a complement gothat predicate.

63

Including

8,144,5

64

Including

1,11,1

typically in direct speech, when the someone else's - future behaviour.

(ἐπεάν and

tween the predicate of ned by that predicate. 65

Bredow,

6,121,2,

the

possible

ἐπειδάν

where

main

the

clause

differences

mss.),

and

a

between

omitting

Sxwe-clause

spea-

8,104.

stands

complement

be-

gover-

ΟΞ. the remarks about similar instances of ἐπεί + indicative, 5.4.2.1. In 2,97,1 (second ex.) the énedv-clause refers back to the preceding context, in 2,19,1 it expresses something that

is predictable in that particular context; in both cases the postponement, or, rather, the insertion of the énedv-clause between the main verb and its complement, may be due to reasons of emphasis, cf. in 2,97,1 the presence of ὦν after the main verb.

Notes

to

chapter

7

In 2,13,1 and 9,39,1 we find two resumptive Öte-clauses, which follow the main clause. Furthermore, thanks to the nature of the main clause, these sentences yield a peculiar semantic effect. In them two events are put into a temporal relationship, both of

which

have

been

mentioned

previously,

cation of any temporal relationship. tus relates how certain priests have our of the Nile ἐπὶ Μοίριος βασιλέος He

does

not

say,

another

way,

what

priests

told

him

however,

the this

when

temporal story

temporal information is then Motpt οὔκω Av ἔτεα εἰνακόσια

this

reign

location

was

but

without

any

indi-

Take e.g. 2,13,1. Herodotold him about the behavi"during the reign of Moiris".

vis-a-vis

of

was,

the

or,

to

moment

Moiris'

put

it

when

reign.

the

This

given by the next sentence: xal τετευλευτηκότι, Ste τῶν ἱρέων ταῦ-

Notes ta I

ἐγὼ

fixovov

heard

this

("Moiris from

the

to

was

chapter

not

yet

priests").

In

?

199

ninehundred 5,30,2

we

following resumptive Ste-clause; here, this an - appositive - relative clause to τοῦτον

years

dead,

have,

when

again,

a

clause functions τὸν χρόνον. This

as be-

ing so, it is not amazing that the event referred to in the ὅτεclause, although the verb of that clause is an aorist, does not precede the event (or rather, state) of the main clause (which has an imperfect), but falls within it. A similar semantic effect is present in 9,8,2 (where the, again, resumptive, ὅτε-

clause precedes the main clause): the ἀπικέσϑαι of Alexander falls within the state referred to by οὔκω ÄTETETELXLOTO, ἐργάζοντο δέ... That in these cases no sequence of events is involved is also to be connected with the fact that both our sentences are non-narrative; the former is possibly a parenthesis, the latter occurs in a personal comment of Herodotus on his story. Cf. also Brackett (1905:201). In to

3,131,3we find a Öte-clause of this ("this happened"), by which a set of

summed

up.

This

example

is,

however,

kind after ἐγένετο Toüforegoing statements is

somewhat

doubtful,

since

there are some interpretational problems in the whole final tion of ch. 131 (many editors bracket ἐγένετο... πρῶτοι (at end), see Hude's app.). But

Homer

has

a

number

of

such

clauses,

cf.

Ruiigh

secthe

(1971:813).

But ye would seem to have the same value it has in e.g. motivating énet-clauses; cf. Denniston (1954:141): "ye denotes that the speaker or writer is not concerned with what might or might not be true apart from the qualification laid down in the subordinate clause". - The Ste-clauses, here, too, with present indic. also refer back in 3,73,1 and 9,122,2, although not to something said or done by the addressee shortly before, but to an event that is known - or supposed to be known - to both speaker and addressee. In 9,122,2 we have xdéte... fl Ste ye... , proba-

bly

short

for

κότε...

ἢ

(viv),

Ste

ve;

in

3,73,1

where

we

find

κότε... ; ὅτε ye... (i.e. without fi before Ste ve), fl viv is perhaps implicit in ὅτε ye. On the other hand, in the latter example Ste ye could also be taken as "I say this because/for", that is, as motivating. For the same ambiguity with ἐπειδή cf. ex. (60) in 5.5.3. - In 2,125,7,the dSuöte-clause, with imperfect, probably has to be viewed as motivating, although it refers

back

to

the

preceding

context

too,

like

3,73,1

It can perhaps be said that in the above examples ferential and a motivating value are present. The postponement of to the main clauses

the Ste-clauses being questions

Unlike the cases discussed in the Ste-clause does not refer

discussed (κότε).

in

and

both fn.4

the preceding section back to the preceding

9,122,2.

an is

indue

(7.1.4) context.

Since τότε, under a natural interpretation, functions as an anaphoric adverb, I reject an interpretation that would view τότε as purely preparative to the Ste-clause.-In 4,120,1 where we have another case of a following Ste-clause, Godley has seetng that. I prefer, however, a temporal-circumstantial interpretation (cf. Legrand's dès lore que); note that the Ste-clau-

200

Notes

to

chapter

7

se is of the referring type. As to the auestion of the postponement of the Ste-clause, this may be due to the presence of the initial @¢-clause, after which an immediately following dÖte-clause might have been somewhat cumbersome, or might have given rise to ambiguity, inasmuch as the Ste-clause in that case could also have been taken as modifying the @c-clause. 8

Brackett (1905:201) calls them "epexegetic”. Similar examples in Latin are discussed in Kühner-Stegmann (1912:2,328ff.) in connection with so-called cum explicativum. This use of ὅτε is not, however, discussed in K-G. They only have a section on Ste-clauses

9

after

verbs

like

μέμνημαι

("I

remember"),

2,386ff.

(a

paral-

lel construction is attested in Latin with cum, K-St. (1912: 2,332,Anm.2)). K-St. remark, concerning "cum explicativum", that cum introduces here, properly speaking "Substantivsatze" (i.e., subject- or objectclauses) just like quod, which they connect with cum(