Re: Case Attraction of the Relative Pronoun

clayton bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:17:52 +0000

Rev. Craig R. Harmon wrote:

>>>>>>>>
It is interesting. It certainly makes it easier to identify its antecedent
(which is occasionally not immediately obvious, at least to me), even though
it muddies its case usage within its own clause. Could this not be a
plausible explanation, that the author (probably unconsciously) is making the
connection with the antecedent by keeping the same case? I notice also that
the reverse occassionally happens, at least classically. Goodwin (1892,
#1035) notes:

The antecedent occasionally is assimilated to the case of the relative, when
this immediately follows; as ELEGON hOTI PANTWN hWN DEONTAI PEPRAGOTES EIEN,
they said that they had done all things which (PANTWN hWN) they needed,
X[enophon] H[ellenica] 1.4. THN OUSIAN hHN KATELIPE OU PLEIONOS ACIA ESTIN
H TETTARWN KAI DEKA TALANTWN, the estate which he left is not worth more than
fourteen talents, L[ysias] 19,47.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Craig,

Yes, one can argue that having the relative in the case of the antecedent
makes it easier to locate the antecedent. However, when case attraction takes
place where the relative immediately follows the antecedent then this
argument seems to be undermined, because there is no difficulty in
identifying the antecedent.

Also the observed inconsistency of this phenomena undermines this argument. If
the reader can not count on the case of the relative being the same as the
antecedent, then this explanation of "attraction" is also cast into question.
What good is the attracted case of the relative for identifying the antecedent
if it only occurs sporadically?

********

I will throw out a semantic interpretation of this phenomena and see if anyone
is willing to debunk it. What if we assume that the speaker/writer of K. Greek
has the option (choice) of putting the relative in the case of the antecedent
or in the case that represents the relatives function in it's own clause. And
what if we assume that the user of K. Greek makes this choice based on a
desire to emphasize the role of relative in one of two domains. If the K.
Greek user wants to emphasize the role of the relative in the main clause,
that is in the clause of the antecedent, then the relative is put in the case
of the antecedent. If the K. Greek user wants to place emphasis on the role of
the relative in the subordinate clause, then the relative is put in the case
of it's function within the relative clause.

I have not tested this theory at all. It is probably something that I read
somewhere a while ago and now I am mistaking it for my own idea. This happens
often enough.

Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point