Prenominal relative clauses in Koine?

Post Reply
nathaniel j. erickson
Posts: 71
Joined: May 16th, 2016, 9:27 am
Contact:

Prenominal relative clauses in Koine?

Post by nathaniel j. erickson »

I’ve been doing a little reading on relative clauses to get me through a stuck spot on my dissertation. Anyway, came to an interesting example in Acts of John 76:3 (estimated date of composition in mid to late 2nd century AD) that appears to be a prenominal relative clause:
ἀποσυλήσαντός μου ἤδη ἅπερ ἦν ἠμφιεσμένη ἐντάφια,

“and I had already stripped off the grave-clothes in which she was clothed” (trans. from Schneemelcher NT apocrypha vol. 2)
As per the standard accounts that I have looked at, these types of relative clauses don’t exist in Koine Greek. The vast majority of relative clauses in Greek are post-nominal (they follow their antecedent), with a minority being internally headed (their antecedent is incorporated within the relative clause; Smyth discusses these under the name “incorporation”). In the NT, this is ~95% to ~5%, as per both Culy and Hayes (Culy, Martin M. “A Typology of Koine Relative Clauses.” Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session 33, no. 3 (1989): 67–92; Hayes, Michael. “An Analysis of the Attributive Participle and the Relative Clause in the Greek New Testament.” Doctor of Philosophy, Concordia Seminary, 2014).

It would seem that this relative clause in Acts of John comes before its "antecedent," and that the "antecedent" is not part of the relative clause, thus not an internally-headed relative clause.

So, I guess my question is in two parts:
1. I would call this a prenominal relative clause, not an internally headed (aka incorporated) one. Would anyone else consider that a valid understanding?
2. Does anyone know any grammar which discusses this possibility and offers any other possible examples?

P.S. I've taken the language of internally-headed relative clause from Culy. He does not really explain it or justify the application of the title to the phenomenon in Greek, beyond saying, "[the phenomenon of incorporation] corresponds to the linguistic notion of an internally-headed relative clause." Stefanie Fauconnier has justified this approach in a recent article I found useful: “Internal and External Relative Clauses in Ancient Greek.” Journal of Greek Linguistics 14, no. 2 (2014): 141–62.
Nathaniel J. Erickson
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Prenominal relative clauses in Koine?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I think this is just a case of incorporation. After all, it ticks all the boxes mentioned in Smyth, even down to standing at the end of the clause anarthrously:
Smyth § 2536 wrote:2536. Incorporation.—The antecedent taken up into the relative clause is said to be incorporated. The relative and antecedent then stand in the same case, the relative agreeing adjectively with its antecedent. If the antecedent is a substantive, it often stands at the end of the relative clause, and commonly has no article. An antecedent in the nominative or accusative is more frequently incorporated than one in the genitive or dative.
I suppose the question is how to tell the difference. If the apparently incorporated noun actually stood outside the clause, shouldn't it take the article?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
nathaniel j. erickson
Posts: 71
Joined: May 16th, 2016, 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Prenominal relative clauses in Koine?

Post by nathaniel j. erickson »

Thanks. Should have read Smyth more carefully. This text threw me off because the NT examples of internally-headed relatives actually have the "antecedent" inside the relative clause, so to speak, usually occurring between the relative pronoun and the verb. I'm not sure if that is always the case in the NT, but it is in all the examples I've seen cited (unless I completely overlooked something, which is always a possibility, as testified by missing the whole "anarthrous at the end of the clause" note in Smyth). This example in Acts of John has the "antecedent" at the edge of the clause, so not unambiguously inside the relative clause.

Whether or not ἐντάφια ought to have the article if it stands outside the relative clause, I don't know for certain, but it would be sensible in the context. Give that internally-headed relative clauses are a thing in Greek and that their normal patterns can account for this instance, the prudent thing would be to analyze this as an internally-headed clause.
Nathaniel J. Erickson
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”