incorporation and attraction

[Tugodum]

Dickey, Chapter 8, states that "if antecedent and relative pronoun are in different cases and cannot be brought into the same case by attraction, incorporation is not possible" (p. 86); which is why, according to her, "I love the general who was conquered" cannot be translated as "ἐρῶ οὗ ἐνικήθη στρατηγοῦ" but only as "ἐρῶ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ ὃς ἐνικήθη" (p. 229: "incorporation not possible because case difference cannot be resolved by attraction").
Yet on p. 86, she discusses the following example:
"αἰ πόλεις αἷς φόρος ἐτάχθη βοῦν ἀπάγουσιν [The cities for which tribute was determined are sending off an ox] becomes "
Here the respective cases of the antecedent, αἰ πόλεις, and the relative pronoun, αἷς, are different, and the difference cannot be resolved by attraction (if only because, as Dickey says [p. 84], for attraction to be possible, "the relative pronoun should be accusative," whereas here it is dative, and "the antecedent ... genitive or dative," whereas here it is nominative); yet Dickey gives this as an example of a sentence that can be transformed by incorporation, with the result being "αἷς πόλεσι φόρος ἐτάχθη βοῦν ἀπάγουσιν."
I'm not sure what to make of this. Thanks in advance for any help.

[Hylander]

I'll try to sort out this confusing topic.

On p. 84, Dickey writes: "Attraction is normally found . . . when the antecedent is genitive or dative and the relative pronoun should be accusative [emphasis added]." She means (I think) that when the antecedent is genitive or dative and the relative pronoun should be accusative, attraction usually occurs, but that doesn't necessarily exclude other situations.

αἷς πόλεσι φόρος ἐτάχθη βοῦν ἀπάγουσιν. This is not attraction of the relative pronoun into the case of the antecedent, but rather attraction of the antecedent into the case of the relative pronoun, which Smyth calls "inverse attraction" (sec. 2533):

2533. Inverse Attraction.—An antecedent nominative or (oftener) accusative may be attracted to the case of the relative. The attracted antecedent is often prefixed for emphasis to the relative clause, which thus separates it from the verb it governs or by which it is governed. Cp. urbem quam statuo vestra est, and “Him (= he whom) I accuse, By this, the city ports hath enter'd” (Shakespeare), where the antecedent is attracted into the case of the (omitted) relative.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007

See also Smyth secs. 2536-7 on incorporation:

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.

2537. A nominative, accusative, or vocative antecedent, when incorporated, usually conforms to the case of the relative.

εἰ ἔστιν, ἣν σὺ πρότερον ἔλεγες ἀρετήν, ἀληθής (for ἔστιν ἡ ἀρετὴ ἀληθής, ἣν) if the virtue which you were speaking of before, is real P. G. 503c, εἰς δὲ ἣν ἀφί_κοντο κώμην μεγάλη ἦν (for ἡ κώμη εἰς ἣν) the village at which they arrived was large X. A. 4.4.2, κλῦθί μευ, δ̀ χθιζὸς θεὸς ἤλυθες (for θεὸς δ̀ or ὦ θεός) hear me thou that camest yesterday in thy godhead β 262.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... thp%3D2536

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... thp%3D2537

Dickey assigns vast stretches of Smyth for reading at the beginning of each chapter and to some extent assumes familiarity, which is maybe a defect of her book.

Confusing? Yes, absolutely. But when you read a certain amount of Greek prose, you get used to these constructions.

[Tugodum]

Wow... Thanks a lot! Interestingly, Smyth says that:

An antecedent in the nominative or accusative is more frequently incorporated than one in the genitive or dative.

the latter being the only cases for which, per Dickey, direct attraction is possible, whereas the former, per Smyth, are the only cases for which inverse attraction is possible.

when you read a certain amount of Greek prose, you get used to these constructions

For the most part, I have an intuitive feel for them; but this is where I stumbled: "ἐρῶ οὗ ἐνικήθη στρατηγοῦ" seemed, intuitively, so fine to me that I actually penned it down while doing the exercise, even knowing that it violates a rule. Is there a less mechanical (=more intuitive) way to see this sentence as grammatically bad?