Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_BlankenborgR.Rhythm_without_Beat.2014.
2. The Grammatical Clause in Homer
2.1 Defining the Grammatical Clause
In Odyssey 1.1 the verb form ἔννεπε has a valency of 3: subject, direct object, and indirect object:
The resulting predicate frame is referred to as the nuclear predication. In Iliad 1.1 the nuclear predication is μῆνιν ἄειδε ‘sing of the wrath’. In Odyssey 1.1 it is ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε ‘tell me about the man’. The verbs ἄειδω ‘sing’ and ἐνέπω ‘tell’ are being used as transitive verbs here, but both may be applied as intransitive  with similar ease. In functional grammar, this difference in usage transitive-intransitive is seen as a difference in semantics, and described as a difference in predicate frames; a verb can be identified as being used with, or within, various predicate frames, depending on context.
εἰ δ᾿ ἄγε τοι κεφαλῆι κατανεύσομαι ὄφρα πεποίθηις
Of course, the expression of “time” can also refer to a specific duration or period.
Apart from the actual location, “place” encompasses the direction, the origin and the route as well.
νοστῆσαι Ὀδυσῆα πολύφρονα ὅνδε δόμονδε
Ἑρμείαν μὲν ἔπειτα διάκτορον ἀργειφόντην
νῆσον ἐς Ὠγυγίην ὀτρυνομεν κτλ.
These two examples from the first book of the Odyssey show that the pragmatic function setting, as does the semantic function purpose, creates the possibility to describe embedded predications. The syntax of the Homeric epic, however, is highly paratactic,  and allows for a strong progressive and adding tendency (as line 83 in the example Odyssey 1.82–85 clearly shows). I think this severely limits the application of setting, a pragmatic function that seems to me more convincingly identified in written, periodic style.
In addition, modal adverbs express the illocutive function of a clause, that is, the pragmatic function of the clause as a whole: what is the aim of the clause as a speech-act? what does the clause want the receiver to do in reaction? An example is the indication of the start of a question:
The particles κε (κεν) and ἄν also serve as disjuncts. 
In many instances, it is difficult to appreciate the opinion-based value of the adverbative element. Three aspects of this difficulty are worth mentioning:
- the actual opinion in the clause may be expressed by another word (in the example above ἐοικότι ‘that is his due’), and is merely strengthened, or at least not weakened, by the adverbative element;
- often in Greek, this type of disjunct will be expressed by a particle, but the meaning and value of various Greek particles remain in dispute. For an overview, see Denniston 1954, Ruijgh 1971. Clearly, analysis of, for example δή as a near equivalent of ἤδη turns many instances of the latter into opinion-based adverbative elements;
- identifying opinions and judgements in ancient Greek texts is the aim of studies into focalising and focalisors: if it is clear through the eyes of whom situations or actions are being seen, presented and judged, it will become clearer whether single words or combinations of words might or should be regarded as attitudinal. Fundamental research in this domain is presented in De Jong 1987.
ὅσσον ἐγὼ μετὰ πᾶσιν ἀτιμοτάτη θεός εἰμι
As in the examples given with setting above, the paratactic character of Homeric discourse makes it difficult to distinguish between clauses proper and clauses within a larger scale unit. If ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι ἔπι δέος is not interpreted as a parenthesis, ὄφρ᾿ εὖ εἰδῶ ὅσσον ἐγὼ μετὰ πᾶσιν ἀτιμοτάτη θεός εἰμι is merely pseudo-final.
ἡμετέρην γενεήν πολλοὶ δέ μιν ἄνδρες ἴσασιν
ἔστι πόλις Ἐφύρη μυχῶι Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο
ἔνθα δὲ Σίσυφος ἔσκεν ὃ κέρδιστος γένετ᾿ ἀνδρῶν
Again, as in the preceding example, it proves difficult to label seemingly subordinate clauses in the Homeric epic with semantic or pragmatic functions in relation to what would be called a main clause in written language. 
νοῦσον ἀνὰ στρατὸν ὦρσε κακήν ὀλέκοντο δὲ λαοί
οὕνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμασεν ἀρητῆρα
The model thus described considers the predication as equal to the sentence as it is understood in written language.  With the exception of anacolutha, there is a hierarchical relation between the main finite verb and other verb forms within a complex sentence. The subordinate clause or clauses feature verb forms (and their predicate frame) with semantic or pragmatic functions vis-à-vis the main verb form: they are either argument to the main nuclear predication, or satellite within the complex predication as a whole. Their sub-position to the main predicate is reflected in terminology: they constitute embedded predications. These embedded predications, in turn, serve as the centre of their own nuclear predication and predication frame, possibly adorned with their own satellites and, in case of embedded predications with a finite verb, introduced by a conjunction. Schematic representation of a complex sentence or predication resembles a tree, with new branches representing embedded predications. Iliad 1.57–58 would appear as follows:
Figure 1: the complex predication
Still, the leap from clause to sentence is a giant one; and the denomination “clause” lies well outside the domain of semantic functions and values. Semantics determine the boundaries of the predications. Functional grammar does not consider an (embedded) predication as equal to a clause, for example (as in this case) to a subordinate clause.
2.2 The Grammatical Clause in Homer
- Both semantic values and pragmatic functions are considered as being confined in their scope  to the predication.
- Whereas semantic valuation is derived from the word groups’ informational value for the predicate, the pragmatic function of constituents organises and structures the presentation of information.
- The denomination “clause” as grammatical terminology signifies the smallest coherent predicate-centred unit. As such, the clause can be framed by structuring extra-clausal constituents with pragmatic functions as theme, tail or setting. Or, alternatively, by words or word groups with the semantic value connector or coordinator. The clause itself is free from text elements that are used to structure the complex predication.
- The clause itself is merely a grammatically coherent whole, without any regard for structuring value or effect. As a constituent, the clause itself can only serve in the pragmatic functions discourse topic and discourse focus. Primarily, usage of the denomination “clause” is solely on the level of illocutionary force, i.e. on the level of pragmatic functions for predicate frames or predications as a whole. Therefore, the clause must be a coherent, and to a large extent, independent and demarcated utterance.
Together, the above four working hypotheses lead to a strictly pragmatic definition of “clause” with a specific illocutionary force. As mentioned above, illocutionary force indicates the function of the type of predication  , always considered as an independent utterance. In Greek, there are four identifiable illocutionary types of predications: predications are either declarative (Iliad 1.2 ἣ μυρι᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκεν ‘that bestowed innumerable pains on the Greeks’), interrogative (Iliad 1.8 τίς τάρ σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι ‘who then of the gods brought these two together in strive?’), imperative (Iliad 1.1–2 μῆνιν ἄειδε θεά Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην ‘sing, goddess, of the destructive wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus’), or exclamative (Odyssey 1.64 ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγεν ἕρκος ὀδόντων ‘what a word has escaped the barrier of your teeth?’). Regularly, the illocutionary force is closely related to the type of predication:  declarative predications are assertive, interrogative predications are inquisitive, imperative predications are directive. The illocutionary force can be expressed or strengthened by the use of specific moods of the verb or modal adverbative elements.  It is likely that intonation was a determining factor for illocutionary force.
2.2.1 Homeric discourse and the Homeric grammatical clause
For Chantraine, the compositional principles of verbal autonomy and syntactical coordination and parataxis are clearly visible practically everywhere in Homer. Recent studies  show that the Homeric verbal autonomy and syntactical coordination are proof of its identification as spoken language. The written form in which we enjoy the Iliad and the Odyssey must not lure us into the trap of interpreting them as we would interpret written language. Both are material fixations of spoken language, be it of special speech, mainly due to the use of meter and formulas. As summarised in chapter 1, the analysis of Homeric discourse proves that it is largely appositional, and concerned with continuation despite the possibility of larger scale syntactical cohesion and completion.
ἡρώων αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι
Both additions, οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι and ἡρώων, are prosodically marked as phrasing or branching. From the syntactical point of view, there is no question that ἡρώων is to be understood as in hyperbaton to ψυχὰς. The syntactical coherence between οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι and preceding τεῦχε κύνεσσιν is equally clear. In these three verses, the predicative frames of προίαψεν and τεῦχε are not limited in size by the boundaries of the metrical cola. If positions of frequent word end, as metrical boundaries, would indeed be decisive, Homer’s compositional technique would result in a monotonous battering in performance, and needlessly disturbing enjambment.
ἄγχι σχὼν κεφαλήν ἴνα μὴ πευθοίαθ᾿ οἱ ἄλλοι
Or even in a well-known formula like Odyssey 1.63:
Easily found are the comparable formulaic verses and expressions in which the non-descriptive “setting” ἀπαμειβόμενος is not present. Its presence would neither benefit nor harm the remaining formula.
As mentioned in chapter 1, Chantraine assumes that more complex syntactical organisation like subordination is in a stage of development in Homer. An indication of the development of verbal hierarchy is found in the usage of modes, other than indicative. I cannot subscribe to his point of view. Analysis of the various modes being used in the Iliad and the Odyssey does not show even a slight trace of “development” of paratactic clauses into verbal hierarchy within a predication. Chantraine comments: 
As Chantraine observes, the priority of formulaic usage of expressions and verses over the authentic meaning of the clause’s mode, hinders the constitution of verbal hierarchy. Possibly even to such extent that, combined with Homer’s archaism, both the usage of modes other than indicatives, and of conjunctions, merely shows the “remarquable souplesse”  of the progressive movement  of Homeric discourse:
Chantraine further  remarks that
It is noteworthy to point out that, apart from the lack of verbal hierarchy, the coordinators and connectors do not suggest a strong sense of hypotaxis:
When stressing the frequency of parentheses, Chantraine adds (353):
The paratactical apposition of verb-centred predications resembles the non-grammatical “flat” apposition of autonomous words. Coordinators and connectors do not “logically” tie predications together. On the contrary: their usage merely underlines the progressive tendency, the movement that characterises Homeric syntax. Next to the “finite” status of the predicative participle, the lack of syntactical hierarchy between individual verb forms is an indication for the independence of the individual grammatical clause as a syntactical unit.
2.2.2 “Isolating” transition
οὐλομένην ἣ μυρί᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκεν
πολλὰς δ᾿ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄιδι προιαψεν
ἡρώων αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
οἰωνοῖσι τε πᾶσι Διὸς δ᾿ ἐτελείετο βουλή
Regardless of its relation to a preceding protasis, connective δέ redirects the listeners’ attention to the next bit of information. In written discourse, there is a limit to the number of δέ-limbs that can be joined to a protasis. The resulting, more balanced alternation of protasis and connective (or adversative) δέ structures written discourse in a way quite unlike the effect of connective δέ in Homer. In written discourse, preparatory μέν and connective (and adversative) δέ contribute to a division of larger scale units into sentences; in Homer, μέν and δέ do not suggest a sentence-like internal division of discourse.
οἱ δ᾿ ἐπεὶ οὖν ἤγερθεν ὁμηγερέες τε γένοντο
In line 56 the subject is Hera who pities the Greeks, expressed in accusative case. The combination of pronoun and particle at the start of line 57 indicates the shift: from the start of line 57 the Greeks are the grammatical subject. In Iliad 1.47 below the shift is not as radical as in Iliad 1.57. The person referred to by means of the pronoun (in combination with the particle) was already the “subject” in the preceding participle clause:
αὐτοῦ κινηθέντος ὁ δ᾿ ἤϊε νυκτὶ ἐοικώς
In combination with pronouns the particles δέ, γάρ and ἄρα do not suggest any syntactical hierarchy. The usage of γάρ shows that interpretation of units as subordinate is more often than not highly conjectural. The localisation of γάρ resembles epic τε and the Aeolic particle κε. It also resembles their effectiveness as modifiers. The exact modification resulting from γάρ is immediately clear. What is not clear is whether the usage of γάρ results in parataxis or subordination.  The formal syncretism of the relative and personal / demonstrative pronoun makes the issue hardly relevant.  Still, there are noticeable differences when it comes to the exact localisation of the various connectors, and of the phonetic word groups they are part of (these differences will be discussed in chapter 5). The phonetic word that fills the metrical colon may well be a chunk itself.  The same holds true for the localisation of extended “subordinate conjunctions” (like δ᾿ ἐπεὶ οὖν in Iliad 1.57) in Homer. The continuation, the movement of Homeric discourse, is thus not only visible in the occurrence of discourse markers; it is audible in the isolating characterisation of discourse markers.
2.2.3 Extra-clausal, intra-clausal, and inter-clausal transition
οὐλομένην ἣ μυρί᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκεν
πολλὰς δ᾿ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν
ήρώων αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
5 οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι Διὸς δ᾿ ἐτελείετο βουλή
ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε
Ἀτρείδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς
τίς τάρ σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι
Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς υἱός ὁ γὰρ βασιλῆϊ χολωθεὶς
10 νοῦσον ἀνὰ στρατὸν ὦρσε κακὴν ὀλέκοντο δὲ λαοί
οὔνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμασεν ἀρητῆρα
Ἀτρείδης ὁ γὰρ ἦλθε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν
λυσόμενός τε θύγατρα φέρων τ᾿ ἀπερείσι᾿ ἄποινα
στέμματ᾿ ἔχων ἐν χερσὶν ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος
15 χρυσέωι ἀνὰ σκήπτρωι καὶ λίσσετο πάντας Ἀχαιούς
Ἀτρείδα δὲ μάλιστα δύω κοσμήτορε λαῶν
A stop at the end of Iliad 1.16 is not coincidental: it coincides with a shift in discourse type.
The closure of the appositive group by means of an enclitic particle turns the “transitional” constituent into a separate phonetic word. When elided, the particle and the constituent preceding it are the initial part of a chunk. As appositive group, however, they remain “sentential-prepositive”: the appositive group is itself syntactically proclitic to the subsequent grammatical clause that is its scope (indicated as [ …])  :
It depends therefore on the realisation of the appositive group as an independent phonetic word whether it functions as extra-clausal transitional constituent, or, in case of elision of the particle, as constituent within a grammatical clause (intra-clausal). The provisional analysis of Iliad 1.1–16 should hence be modified with respect to line 5: the dislocated constituent in the line is in fact intra-clausal.
It is indeed hard to see what causal connexions underlie Iliad 24.66–70 (or, alternatively, Herodotus III, 80–82  ):
φίλτατος ἔσκε θεοῖσι βροτῶν οἳ ἐν Ἰλίωνι εἰσίν
ὣς γὰρ ἐμοί γ᾿ ἐπεὶ οὔ τι φίλων ἡμάρτανε δώρων
οὐ γάρ μοί ποτε βωμὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐίσης
λοιβῆς τε κνίσης τε τὸ γὰρ λάχομεν γέρας ἡμεῖς
The connective use of the combination γε and ἄρ is far more prominent than the causal value.  Rather, the combined use of the postpositive deictic particle γε and resumptive ἄρ highlighting the value of the preceding constituent, together explain the seemingly explanatory character of the subsequent clause. I argued that the particle is better described as “transitional”. Hence the ability of γάρ to turn the preceding word or word group into a theme constituent: it resembles a similar ability of δέ. The main difference between the two connectors, as the passages quoted from the Iliad show, is that γάρ implies topic continuation, whereas δέ results in topic shift. The topic continuing effect of γάρ stems from two aspects: the extra stress on the preceding constituent rendered by γε, but essentially the resumptive value of ἄρ, turning the preceding constituent into a continuing topic. On the other hand, δέ signals a change of camera-position.
2.2.4 “Subordinating” transition?
Κίλλαν τε ζαθέην Τενέδοιό τε ἴφι ἀνάσσεις
Σμινθεῦ εἴ ποτέ τοι χαρίεντ᾿ ἐπὶ νηὸν ἔρεψα
ἢ εἰ δή ποτέ τοι κατὰ πίονα μηρί᾿ ἔκηα
ταύρων ἠδ᾿ αἰγῶν τόδε μοι κρήηνον ἐέλδωρ
If it was not dependent on the imperative, alternative expectations are at first frustrated by the addition of another subordinate clause in Iliad 1.40–41a (ἢ εἰ δή ποτέ τοι κατὰ πίονα μηρί᾿ ἔκηα | ταύρων ἠδ᾿ αἰγῶν). Finally, there is no preparatory effort to create a correlation between the seemingly periodic subordinate clauses in lines 39–41a and the imperative κρήηνον in 41b, unless it were the use of εἰ itself as in, for example, εἰ δ᾿ ἄγετε. Then again, in that case the remaining clauses in lines 39 and 40 should be analysed as paratactic main clauses, as εἰ merely prepares for the imperative and not for a subordinate clause. There is not such a huge difference between this passage and passages with an independent  protasis. As a result it seems reasonable to consider the conjunction (in combination with an appositive particle) an extra-clausal constituent with an identifiable pragmatic function. 
2.3 The Grammatical Clause and Enjambment
These instances call for what Higbie calls “clausal enjambment”. She then sub-divides it into “clausal-internal enjambment” and “clausal-external enjambment”. Clausal-internal enjambment separates the constituents of a grammatical clause, though they are closely connected by means of correlative adverbs like οὔτε and ἤ / ἠέ. The verse-end straddling clause may be grammatically complete in itself:
οὔτε λόχονδ᾿ ἰέναι σὺν ἀριστήεσσιν Ἀχαιῶν
Clausal-internal enjambment is rare in Homer. Clausal-external enjambment, on the other hand, with a dependent clause preceding a main clause, is common:
One would expect a main clause to follow. Probably intonation supported the audience’s sensation that the end of Iliad 1.39 was by no means the end of the “sentence”. The same sensation was felt by the audience when they listened to Iliad 8.66:
For the audience, verse-initial ὄφρα (followed by μὲν in second position) and intonation of this line were probably indicators for a main clause to follow.  Such a sentence structure even seems to fit the definition “formulaic”.  Of course, subordinate clauses that end in clausal enjambment, that is, requiring a main clause to follow in a subsequent verse, are not always followed by a main clause to complete a meaningful sentence. Several lines in the Homeric poems apparently feature a “subordinate” clause without continuing into a main clause after enjambment:
Ζεὺς δ᾿ αὐτὸς νέμει ὄλβον Ὀλύμπιος ἀνθρώποισιν
Zeus himself, the Olympian, grants a share of fortune to humans
The speaking character, Nausicaa, proceeds with a general statement (Ζεὺς δ᾿ αὐτὸς νέμει ὄλβον Ὀλύμπιος ἀνθρώποισιν) that meets the syntactical requirement of the expected main clause but should, in the semantic and pragmatic approach, be explained as a parenthesis. In line 190 (καί που σοὶ τάδ᾿ ἔδωκε σὲ δὲ χρὴ τετλάμεν ἔμπης ‘I think he gave you this as well, and you must endure it till the end’) all hope of an appropriate main clause is lost since a new main clause starts. Nausicaa will actually start her “ἐπεὶ-sentence” once more, in line 191 (νῦν δ᾿ ἐπεὶ ἡμετέρην τε πόλιν καὶ γαῖαν ἱκάνεις ‘now since you have arrived at our citadel and country’), this time with a more appropriate continuation. One may assume that the force of the verse end as a clausal divider, preparing for a main clause to follow, was stronger than the compositional need for a logical and appropriate sentence here—both in the good MSS and in the testimonia: Plutarch (De profect. in virt. 82 e) cites, between 187 and 188, as 187a:
Plutarch almost quotes an existing line from the Odyssey,  to end in an apodosis.
εὐνῆς ἡμετέρης ἣν οὐ βροτὸς ἄλλος ὀπώπει
ἀλλ᾿ οἷοι σύ τ᾿ ἐγώ τε καὶ ἀμφίπολος μία μούνη
Ἀκτορίς ἥν μοι δῶκε πατὴρ ἔτι δεῦρο κιούσηι
ἣ νῶιν εἴρυτο θύρας πυκινοῦ θαλάμοιο
πείθεις δή μευ θυμὸν ἀπηνέα περ μάλ᾿ ἐόντα
This extraordinary example goes to show, I argue, what is evident throughout the Iliad and the Odyssey: when the subordinate clause precedes the main clause, the boundary between the subordinate clause and the main clause usually coincides with the verse end. Odyssey 23.225–230 further strengthens the idea that in such cases the poet will postpone the start of the main clause until the start of a verse. If that is indeed the case, the significance of the “clausal-external enjambment” is the same as that of the punctuation used in prose to mark the boundary between the subordinate and the main clause, and that of the audible pause in prose when read aloud and, in spoken language, the audible rise in tone at the beginning of the main clause after the audible fall of tone at the end of the subordinate clause. “Clausal external enjambment” serves the same structuring purpose as these phenomena in prose.  The intonation boundary is as audibly non-disruptive and—despite the verse end—as insignificant as these prose phenomena.
2.4 Conclusion: The Grammatical Clause is a Suitable Tool for the Analysis of Homeric Discourse