Les subordonnées finales par hópōs en attique classique By Suzanne Amigues (review)

BOOK NOTICES 483 self before he could apply it to his word-order studies. Further, although his data base was limited largely to Latin, Greek, French, German, and English, his statements about more exotic languages are surprisingly well-informed; e.g., he recognizes the strict modifier-head order of Turkish, and he notes that Chinese (far from having 'no grammar', as non-specialists often say) has an elaborate fixed-constituent-order system. Scaglione has apparently chosen to reprint the translation rather than the original because of 'the updating it contains of Weil's references' (xiv). Super's translation is readable but, in places, slavishly literal (e.g., la marche des idées always comes out as 'the march of ideas'). The lack of an index in so loosely organized a work is unfortunate. [Michael A. Covington, Yale University.] Les subordonnées finales par hopös en attique classique. By Suzanne Amigues. (Études et commentaires, 89.) Paris: Klincksieck, 1977. Pp. 323. F 120.00. A's study of Gk. hopös as a subordinating conjunction, introducing final (purpose) clauses, is a well-documented analysis of occurrences from both literary and epigraphical texts written in the Attic dialect from the period between the Persian Wars and the death of Alexander. The somewhat similar study of temporal and causal use of epei and has in Herodotus by Rijksbaron (Amsterdam, 1976) focused on Ionic at a slightly earlier period. Both studies are primarily synchronic , but A's stands squarely in the philological tradition ofthe series in which it appears, while R's study is theoretically based on text grammar. A's philological work supplements standard grammars like Smyth's Greek grammar , Schwyzer's Griechische Grammatik, or Humbert's study of Greek syntax—and also differs theoretically from Lightfoot's formal syntactic study of mood (1979:81 ff.) The book is divided into three major parts: I, hopôs plus future indicative (17-93); II, hopös (án) plus subjunctive (97-197), and III, hopös (án) plus optative (201-92). Each part is subdivided into several chapters and a conclusion. The study begins with a description of the corpus (3-5) and an introduction (7-14), which describes the basic approach and findings; it ends with a general conclusion (293-8), a short bibliography , an index of examples (301-10), another of grammatical categories (311-16), and a detailed table of contents (317-20). Important findings concern the relation among final, complement, and circumstantial clauses; the value of the future tense; the moods with hopös; the value ofthe particle án, and the value of the governing verb in expressing cause. A's thesis is that the conjunction hopos itself is not intentional or ??f?ß??ß, but that its meaning is instrumental in origin; its neutral contexts thus express result (effect) and its means, rather than propose (cause). ??f?ßß is derivative from the context, which includes governing verbs of intention or effort (e.g. bouleúesthai 'deliberate ', dianoiesthai 'intend', diamákhesthai 'devise ', zètein 'seek, desire', mélein 'take care [that/how]', and phrontizein 'take thought, see to it [that]') as well as tense/mood, the particle án (optionally), and hopös. Of the final conjunctions which competed with hopös by the 4th century bc, hina was clearly replacing hopös in the spoken language (106), while alternation with has was stylistic (103). But the possible implication, that ??f?ße clauses developed from result clauses, is never explicitly stated; this underlines the primarily synchronic focus of A's study. Although this book is written for the Classical Greek scholar, its findings bear importantly on general linguistic issues—e.g., the nature of complementation in language and its relation to other subordinate constructions; historical changes in formal mechanisms for the expression of subordination in written language; and typological differences between older and newer forms of IE languages. For example, the oldest attested IE language, Hittite, did not have purpose clauses (cf. J. Friedrich's standard grammar ); and topicalization was more distinctive as a feature of its headless relative construction than nominal modification. Kuno (in Li [ed.], Subject and topic, 1976) argues that Ross' constraint on complex NP constructions is violated by certain constructions , and that...