From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Feb 21 1999 - 06:48:15 EST
<x-rich>At 5:21 AM -0600 2/21/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>"Kai ouk echousin ti phago^sin".
>"And they do not have what they might eat".
>My question is whether we should regard "ti phago^sin" as
>indirect question or "ti" + relative clause. If the statement
>were something like "they do not KNOW what they might eat".
>then the first option makes sense. But in this context,
>where the meaning is "they do not have anything to eat",
>the second option seems to make better sense. But from the
>viewpoint of syntax, I wonder whether "ti" + subjunctive clause
>can be considered a relative clause. Is there any other examples
>for such use?
This is not quite an indirect question, but a sort of conflation of
indirect question and deliberative, I think. I've been tempted hitherto
to consider this a Latinism, inasmuch as it is a common Latin species
of purpose clause. Compare:
Mt 8:20 = Lk 9:58 hAI ALWPEKES FWLEOUS ECOUSIN KAI TA PETEINA TOU
OURANOU KATASKHNWSEIS, hO DE hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU OUC ECEI POU THN
Lk 12:17 KAI DIELOGIZETO EN hEAUTWi LEGWN: TI POIHSW, hOTI OUK ECW POU
SUNAXW TOUS KARPOUS MOU.
Latin, these clauses may be introduced by an indefinite, an
interrogative word, or even a pronoun, and have verbs in the
subjunctive. They might have originated as independent deliberative
subjunctives with interrogatives, but they appear to be constructions
wherein the antecedent of a relative/interrogative functioning as an
object in the main verb is suppressed or understood. Cf. English: "I
don't know where to go" = "I don't know where I should go."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:17 EDT