Jerneja Kavčič CDU 807.7-56 Ljubljana 
ON THE USE OF THE PARTICIPLE FUNCTIONING ASA FINITE VERBAL 

FORM IN THE CHRONICLE OF JOHN MALALAS 
It is a remarkable feature ofHellenistic and Byzantine Greek that sometimes a par­ticiple appears to be used in the function of a finite verbal form; in the Chronicle of John Malalas, this is a rather common feature, e. g.: 318, 8 1 ss: 'H 8e ~aoD.tcrcra 'AptaOVT) Ti 'tOU auwu Zl]VffiVO~ 'fUVTJ OE~aµE:vri napa 'tfl~ i8ia~ au'tfl~ µT)'tpo~ BT)ptVT)~ ypaµµma J.a0pi;x 1cat napEKcXAtcrE 'tOV ~acrtAEa ZlJVffiV<X, tva anoJ.uSft ano 'tOU Ka<J'tEAfou, 01tOU TJV U1tOKAttcrµE:vri Ti OE<J1t0tva Brip{va. In place of the participle OE~aµE:vri, which is not dependent on any finite verbal form in the sentence, a finite verbal form such as the aorist indicative would normally be expected. 
Especially when occurring in Byzantine Greek, this is commonly considered to be a mistake, influenced by the process of the participle retreating from spoken Greek, which is supposed to ha ve caused confusion between the syntactical functions of fini te and non-finite verbal forms 2 . 
However, severa! arguments could be raised against such explanation: 
1. 
It is questionable if no sense of distinction between finite and non-finite verbal forms existed in spoken Greek. Although the Ancient Greek participle was very likely in the process of retreating in that period 3 , it was never lost entirely, since it changed into the Modem Greek gerund -ov'ta~, its morphological and syntactical descendant4. Such a development does not seem to favour this explanation. 

2. 
The theory presumes that Malalas wrote, at least in some respects, a form of Greek that was very close to the spoken language, a view that can be held at least par­tially5. Horrocks 6 , on the other hand, basing his conclusion on the comparison of Malalas' language with the contemporary papyri, argues that the language of Malalas is still 'very much a written style' and discusses it in the chapter on Middle styles. A great deal of caution is therefore necessary in this regard 7 . 

3. 
The next fact to be considered in connection with the participle functioning asa finite verbal form in Malalas' Chronicle is the occurrence of analogous clauses in ear­lier Greek. They are rather common in Hellenistic Greek (in the Bible8 , papyri from the Ptolemaic period on 9 and in other literature 10), while sporadic use of similar forms can be traced back as early as the Classical period 11. 


Particularly the presence ofthe participle functioning asa finite verbal form in such an early period as, for example, the Ptolemaic 12 , is significant, since this period shows little evidence that the use of the participle in the function ofa fini te verbal form could be connected with the development of the Ancient Greek participle as presented above 13. 
Moreover, there are structural similarities to be noted between different sources of the participle in the function of a finite verbal form. No detailed research on the struc­ture of the clauses with a participle functioning as a fini te verbal form has been done, at least as far as Hellenistic Greek is concemed 14 . Nevertheless, the rather sporadic references in various sources suggest that at least one clause structure was quite fre­quent in Hellenistic and Byzantine Greek, i.e. the structure with the conjunction Kai connecting a participle and a finite verbal form. These references occur in: -Mayser ( 1926), 343 15 -on clauses with the so-called satztrennende Ka{(a term that 
goes back to Radermacher, cf. below), which were frequent in Ptolemaic papyri. 
Radermacher (1911), 177, 8, on the 'satztrennende Ka{' and on other 'satztrennen­
de' coordinating conjunctions (cf. below) 
Jannaris (19682), 405 (§ 1720), who clearly states that in Late and Byz. Greek the 
conjunction 1ca{ could connect a participle and a finite verbal form 16 -a fact which 
is obvious also from the examples quoted on pg. 505, where this structure 17 isto 
be seen in severa! cases l 8. 
Schwyzer (19592), 407, a briefmention (cf. footnote 21) 
In regard to Malalas' language, Wolf ( 1912) 78 noticed this structure to be frequent 
as well, but he undertook no further research. 
It also frequently occurs in Phrantzes, cf. below. 
This is only one of the possible structures (although a frequent one) in Hell./Byz. Greek; not ali the clauses with a participle functioning as a finite verbal form follow it: as mentioned above (footnote 17), another possibility is the use ofa participle with­out coordination. Moreover, the relevant information on the Bible is lacking. Neverthe­less, such structural similarities show that the use of the participle functioning as a finite verbal form could have been a feature of regular occurrence rather than an inci­denta! mistake. 
In Hellenistic Greek, as it is widely observed 19, the participle could function as a finite verbal form of the indicative or imperative mood. 
Some views regarding the participle functioning as a finite verbal form in earlier sources 
The theory that a participle can function as a finite verbal form is commonly attrib­uted to Moulton 20, who observed this use in the Bible. His views were followed or opposed by a number of scholars21 . 
But, as argued by Frisk 22 , the first question that has to be answered before taking sides is about the exact meaning of the term 'participle functioning as a finite verbal form' (PFFV), i.e. whether it means that the participle is used as a finite verbal form ("als Verbum finitum") or in the function of/instead of a finite verbal form ("statt Verbum finitum"). In the latter case, the feature discussed would pertain to the field of syntax, while in the former case the implication would be that the participle has changed semantically. 
1.) It is unlikely that the Ancient Greek participle would have undergone a semantic shift from a non-finite to a finite verbal form, for the reasons already discussed (see above) 23 . 
The problem has therefore to do with the field of syntax24 . This is also the point of view from which severa! solutions to the problem have been sought: The participle that functions as a finite verbal form is an anacoluthon -the most frequent interpretation 25. 
The definition of the anacoluthon as given by Schwyzer26 can be summarized as follows: -Every divergence from the logically correct way of expression, most commonly dis­
crepancies in case agreement, variations between infinitives and dependent clauses and the like. 
-The process that leads to an anacoluthon is triggered by severa! circumstances: in nat­ura! speech, when psychological factors prevail over grammatical rules (e.g. in Hero­dot), and in literature, when it is intentionally used as a figure of speech ( e.g. in Thucydides) or when it is intended to create an illusion ofnatura! speech ( e.g. in Plato). 
-Most commonly, it occurs in longer sentences, particularly in the sentences with a parallel structure, and near a pause; the anacoluthon most frequently occurs in the second part. 
By considering the PFFV in the light of this definition, certain observations can already be formed at this point: -At least as far as the cases with 1m{ are concemed, they do not belong into any ofthe 
typical groups of the anacoluthon (if the last possibility, 'and the like', is neglected). 
-Since the PFFV occurs mainly in non-literary sources, it is not likely to have been used as a figure of speech: and since its existence in spoken Greek in questionable, it is not likely to have been used to imitate natura! speech. 
2.) A participle functioning asa finite verbal form is a solecism 27• That a PFFV would be a syntactical mistake caused by ignorance 28 is a less prob­able explanation, for the reasons stated above. 
The origin ojthe participle functioning as a finite verbal form 
Regardless of whether the above constructions are labelled anacoluthic or solecis­tic, the question of their origin stili remains unsolved. There are severa! views on this point: 
Ellipsis ofthe verb 'to be': This is Radermacher's 29 view on the origin ofthe PFFV (i.e. on some ofthe types of the use, cf. below), as well as, in broad lines, Wolf' s ( cf. below). The source of the 
PFFV would therefore be periphrastic verbal forms consisting of participles and the verb 'to be'. A possible counter-argument, however, is that these forms were neither frequent enough in Greek nor generally identical enough with the non-periphrastic forms to make the explanation convincing. 
2. As it appears from Radermacher's discussion ofthe participle, one type ofclause is in any case excluded from the above explanation. Namely, a sentence30 where the conjunction Ka{ connects a participle and a finite verbal form (the participle thus func­tioning asa finite verbal form) is seen asa continuing line of development originating from sentences where the conjunction Ka{ (the so-called 'satztrennende Kat') connects severa! participial constructions in a 'grammatically correct 31 ' sentence. As examples of the latter he quotes two passages from Hellenistic literature (Polybius and Dio­dorus ), where such constructions were particularly popular ('beliebt'). Their structure is the following: related participle + 1mi + genetive absolute + finite verbal fonn. Further down he speaks of a 'satztrennende 6E:32' with similar functions as the 'satz­trennende Kat'. 
Ifthe first explanation is therefore considered to be a less plausible one, the cases with the 'satztrennende' coordinating conjunctions could be taken as the origin of the other types of the PFFV; subsequently, the participle would have been released from the sentence structure and used also in simple clauses without any ( coordinating) con­junction. 
In the absence of any more specific data on the frequency of such sentences as quoted by Radermacher, it is impossible to say if this theory can actually explain the Hellenistic use of the PFFV in general and even its earliest appearance in Ptolemaic papyri. But there is a note by Schwyzer33 which could be taken at least as a possible confirmation of it. According to this note, severa! participles could be joined together in one sentence as early as in Homer and Herodot, asyndetically at first and later with coordinating conjunctions. 
3. Another solution is suggested by Wo!f34. He sees the starting point in the spread­ing ofthe genetive absolute (GA), which is assumed to have appeared in the function of a finite verbal form first, as a consequence of being used instead of a related par­ticiple in the nominative case35. The use of the GA instead of the nominative form of a related participle would also be the cause ofthe nominative absolute (NA), which is supposed to have, under the influence ofperiphrastic verbal forms, lost the copula and caused the participle in the nominative case to appear in the function of a finite verbal form. 
The main weakness of the explanation is that the assumed development is con­firmed by no evidence. In the fina! analysis, it assumes an ellipsis as the fina! cause, at least as far as the nominative forms of the PFFV are concemed (on which cf. above ). Another problem is presented by the assumption that the NA appeared in Greek at a rather late stage; although a typical feature of post-Classical Greek, it can be traced back as early as the Classical period 36. 
However, at least the possibility that the GA functioning asa finite verbal form(due to its use instead ofa related participle) was the earliest and that it influenced the other forms ofthe PFFV is a possible line of development37_ 
Analysis ofMalalas' use ofthe PFFV 
In The Chronicle of John Malalas, the clauses with the participle functioning as a finite verbal form can be divided into the following classes: Class 1: the participle is connected to a finite verbal form with the coordinating conjunction Kat (38 cases): 
the participle precedes the conjunction and the finite verbal form (28 cases); 
the participle follows the verbal form and the conjunction (9 cases); 
a finite verbal form is placed between two participles (1 case). 
Class 2: the participle is used independently, i.e. without any finite verbal form occurring in the same clause (29 cases) Class 3: the participle and the fini te verbal form are connected with some other coordinating conjunction, i.e. with µEv...8t (1 case), 8t (5 cases) or ouv (1 case). Class 4: 2 clauses differing from the above types. 
Class 1 
The clauses of this class follow two basic rules regarding aspect and tense: 
-the PFFV is generally an aorist one38 
-the clauses regularly refer to the past, the finite verbal form being in the past tense39 -a feature that could have been caused by the specific nature ofthe genre as well. The participle occurs in different forms, the most common being a nominative form ofthe related participle (type 1), e.g. 169, 90: 
Kat retµ \j/ac; mpa'tTJYouc; µi::'ta ~011edac; AouKouA-A.ov Kat 116vnov, ofrt vi::c; EviKll<mv Ttypav11v wrrapxouv'ta aurflc; Kat €rroi 11cri::v aU'tTJV f:rrapxiav; cf. also 311, 8, as quoted at the beginning of the article. 
The second most frequent type is represented by the clauses with the GA function­ing asa finite verbal form (type 2). It is represented by 6 clauses, e.g. 72, 75: 1mt n:oU&v O"q>a''{EV"CCOV E~ aµq>O't:Eprov "CWV µEp&v, EV oit; Kat 6 Ilpro"CtcrtAaot; foq>ay11, rrp6µaxoc; ~ava&v, Kat ou rrapi::xrop11crav oi ~avao{. 
The type with the GA is therefore less frequent, a fact which proves one ofthe pos­sible views regarding the development ofthe PFFV (based on Wolf's theory, cf. above) to be less probable. The theory would be more convincing if the data on Malalas' use of the PFFV proved the second type to be more frequent than the first. 
Most commonly, the participle precedes its conjunction and its finite verbal form, in the cases with the GA functioning as a finite verbal form as well as in those with a related participle in the nominative. Less frequently, the participle follows the finite verbal form and the conjunction, e.g. 221, 7 5: 
Kat avayaywv EK 'tOU Tnpa<J'tcOOU 6 LE~T]poc; '"CO &yaA-µa 'tOU 'HA-iou Ecr'"CT]CTEV &vw8EV 'tOU iEpou, Kat K'"Ctcrac; 6 au'l:oc; ~acrtAEuc; Kat K<X'"CEVavn 'tOU iEpou Tfjc;' 'Ap'l:Eµtooc; Kuvfiytv µliya n:avu ... 
There is only one case (388, 25) where the GA functioning asa finite verbal form follows the finite verbal form and the conjunction Kal. In one case (332, 97), the finite verbal form is placed between two participles that function as finite verbal forms. As for the position of the participle and the finite verbal form, Malalas basically follows the same rules as Phrantzes (cf. below)4o. 
When the conjunction Kat connects the finite verbal form and the related participle in the nominative (type 1), the subject ofthe participle and ofthe finite verbal form is identical, while in the case of the GA functioning as a finite verbal form (type 2), the subject of the participle differs from the subject of the finite verbal form. However, in the latter case (i.e. in the case of different subjects), the participle and its subject can also have the nominative form, thus resulting in a construction ofnominative absolute (NA)+ Kat+ finite verbal form (type 3)4 1• There are 4 examples ofthis type ofclause, 
e.g. 355, 39: 
Kat n:liµ'Jfac; au'"Ctj) n:A-fi8oc; cr'l:panw'rffiv 6 ~acrtAEuc; 'Ioucrnvmvoc; Kat cr'l:pa'l:T]AcXwc; '!:pete; BT]Atcrapwv Kat KfipuKov Kat Eip11val:ov '"COV Ilavwotacr'l:TJV µE'l:a n:oAA-fic; ~OT]8Eiac; 'PwµmKfjc;, Kat cruyKpoucrav'l:E<:; n:6AEµov Errrnov E~ aµcpo'l:Epwv n:oA,A,ol. 
The participle regularly precedes the conjunction and the finite verbal form. 
Since the NA is a rather common feature ofMalalas' language 42 as well as ofpost­Classical Greek in general 43, this clause type as such presents -from the point of view ofByzantine Greek-the same problems as the types 1 and 2. However, it causes addi­tional difficulties with respect to the origin of the constructions with the PFFV, cf. below (Conclusions). 
Class 2 
The above division is partly based on a collection of linguistically significant pas­sages in the Chronicle made by Festugiere 44. Class 1 generally corresponds to the pas­sages quoted by Festugiere under the 'superflous Kal' (Kai surabondant) and Class 2 to Festugiere's passages under the 'participe pro verbo finito'. Ofthe other groups stat­ed above, only clauses with the conjunction oii (a subdivision of Class 3) occur in Festugiere as well, under the term 'the superfluous M' (oli surabondant). 
However, the division between the classes 1 and 2 is Iess clear than it seems. 
Thus passage 221, 75 (see above) is considered by Festugiere 45 as an example ofa participe pro verbo finito (corresponding to Class 2 in the above categorisation), although, in Dindorf's as well as in Thum's edition of the Chronicle, the participle is separated from the conjunction Kat and the finite verbal form only by a comma. On the other hand, a comma (and nota semicolon, cf. below) is placed between the par­ticiple and the conjunction 1mi followed by a finite verbal form in many other passages from Class 1 (or from the group Kai surabondant)46_ For this reason I attribute pas­sage 221, 75 to Class 1, together with ali the other cases of analogous punctuation. 
More importantly, classes 1 and 2 are connected by the following (structural) char­acteristics: a) In both classes, the same rules for the aspect 47 and tense 48 are observed. In Class 2, 
1 have found no cases ofthe present PFFV (norotherparticiples other than aorist ones). 
b) There are severa! clauses in Class 2 that could be considered as examples of the independent use of the PFFV (and thus as examples of Class 2); they are, howev­er, closely linked to the context and for this reason generally marked with a semi­colon at the end. Where the conjunction Ka{ is placed between the participle and a finite verbal form, the whole construction (the participle together with the con­junction Kai and the fini te verbal form) can be seen as an example of the structure belonging to Class 1. Class 2 as defined above could therefore be subdivided into examples belonging to the proper type of the independent use of the PFFV on the one hand, and into those of a type closely connected to Class 1 on the other. 
The proper type is unquestionably represented by passages such as 375, 84, where the whole paragraph consists of a clause with an aorist participle that functions as a finite verbal form 49: 
'O OE Ilepcr&v ~acrtJ.euc; KcoaoT]c; oe~aµevoc; 'EpµoyEVT]V µaytcr'tpov, Ev <ptAit;:( 1tptcr~eiac; 1teµ<p8EV'tCX. µe'ta KCX.t Mipcov 'tfjc; avayopd.lcrecoc; 'tOU ~acrtAECOc; 'Ioucrnvtavou EV µT]vt 'IouA,{q:i. 
The use of the participle Oe~aµevoc; as a PFFV is significant, since the participles of the same verb and ofverbs with the same or similar meaning frequently occur in Class 1, cf. below. There are 17 clauses representing the proper type. 
Ifali the structural possibilities regarding the position and form of the PFFV occur­ring in Class 1 are taken into account, the structure ofthe rest ofthe clauses previously attributed to Class 2 is analogous with the structure ofthe clauses belonging to Class l. 
Thus, neglecting the punctuation (cf. above), the following passage (253, 56) has the same structure as the clauses belonging to Class 1. 
Kat Ka-TE<p8acrEv 6 afrroc; 'IouA.tavoc; '!:O K1p1d1crwv Kacr'l:pov· Kat f:.acrm; 1ml. f:.v 'l:tj) Ktpl<'.T]Cl't(!) Kacr'l:p<:µ foouc; EUpEv EyKa8€wuc; cr'tpanro'tac; E~CX.KtCTXtAiou<;, npocr8Et<; au'tot<; Kat &J.J.ou<; 6nJ.iw<; &vopa<; 'tE'tpaKtcrxiJ.iou<; µeTa E~apxcov o-Go 'AKKaµfou Kat Maupou. 
In case these new criteria are applied, even analogous passages with the subject ofthe participle differing from the subject of the finite verbal form can be regarded as exam­ples ofClass 1, since the NA is one ofthe possible forms ofthe participle in this class. 
Thus the structure of passage 334, 31: 
Kat avEJ.8rov 6 ffU'toc; ~acrtJ.euc; 'Avacr'tacrwc; Ev Tij) i1moop6µq:i ti<; 'to Ka8tcrµa oixa Otaofiµmo<;· KCX.t 'tOU'tO yvouc; 6 ofjµoc; dcrfjJ.eev EV 'tij) t1t1ttK<j). is the same as the structure ofthe clauses in Class 1, type 3. 
By these criteria, there are 17 cases of the independent use of the PFFV, and 50 cases where a participle and a finite verbal form are coordinated. 
c) 	As mentioned above, some verbs seem to occur more frequently than others, lead­ing to the assumption that the PFFV was limited to certain verbs or verbs of certain semantic groups. Examples: The participle fo:~aµEvQ(;, found in one of the most certain cases of the independ­ent use ofthe PFFV, occurs also in Class 1 (311, 8, quoted initially)50; together with participles such as A.a~rov (2x in Class 1 and 1 x in Class 2), EV'tuxrov ( 1 x in C las s 1) and 7tapaA.a~rov (2x in Class 1 and lx in Class 2) it could form one of the semantic groups (represented by 9 cases). 
-The participle 7tEµ\jlac; occurs 5x in classes 1 and 2, ypa'Jlai; 4x, 7toti}crai; 5x and <'x.Koucrai; 4x: the last could form another group with participles such as iouprov, µaeci:Jv, i.>1roA.a~c0v and yvou~. Another peculiarity has to do with the broader context of how the above verbs are used. In passage 390, 85ss, a PFFV is used 3 times in 3 consecutive sentences (7tEµ'Jfai;, ypa'Jfai; and K<X't<X7tEµ'Jfai;), each tirne referring to the process of send­ing a letter. Moreover, the object of 8io~aµiovoi; in 311, 8, as well as that of Evrnxrov in 389, 57, is a letter (ypaµµma); the participle ypa'Jlai; is used in a similar con­text in 394, 20 ss. Thus the meaning, apart from merely imposing a constraint on the PFFV, could also 
represent the third link between classes 1 and 2. 
The figures, on the other hand, are not necessarily to be taken as conclusive, espe­cially as no comparison with other sources can be made due to the Jack of data. They could be a mere coincidence, caused by the length of the Chronicle and by Malalas' vocabulary, which is not particularly rich. Moreover, similar limitations could have existed in the other classes (3 and 4) as well, which are represented by far too small a number of examples. 
As far as the connection between classes 1 and 2 is concemed, the above observa­tions (under a) and b)) are therefore more conclusive. 
Class 3 
The examples in this group are much rarer and often disputable. As stated in Wolf51 , besides the conjunction Kat, also the coordinating conjunctions aA.A-a, 8t and ouv can connect a participle and a finite verbal form. 
I have found no examples of this use of the conjunction aA-A-a, neither are they quoted in Festugiere (or Wolf). 
In one case, a participle and a finite verbal form are connected by µEv ...8t. The par­ticiple (Ecr'tro'trov) has the meaning ofthe present aspect, although morphologically it is a perfect participle. The structure of the clause corresponds to some of the cases given by Schwyzer52 as examples of the anacoluthic use of the participle in Classical Greek. 
In addition to the conjunction µi:v ...M, M alone can connect a participle with a finite verbal form, e.g. 174, 78 
Kat tpacr8TJ ...wu ()f: Ilau/civou Sauµacravtoi;. 
Tothe three passages quoted by Festugiere53 two more can be added. As it appears from Festugiere's list, no rules regarding the verbal aspect seem to apply. Generally, such cases are too scarce to allow any specific conclusions. In Phrantzes, they occur just as rarely as in Malalas (4 occurrences). 
Festugiere provides no examples of ouv connecting a participle with a finite verbal form, neither does Wolf. Passage 180, 12, quoted below, can be, however, taken asa representative of the type. Here, the conjunction ouv connects a perfect participle (aKTJKOUta) with a finite verbal form (_E()paµov). The passage is exceptional for vari­ous reasons and it generally eludes the explanations of the other classes. No examples of this type ha ve been found in Phrantzes either. 
Class 4 
There are two clauses that do not follow any of the above princip les of the PFFV. The first is passage 217, 10, quoted by Wolf54 as the only example ofthe coordination of a participle and a finite verbal form in a dependent clause55. The conjunction Kat, however, does not connect a participle and a finite verbal form56 in this case; rather, it connects a participle ( cpopfoai;) and a pronoun ( au't6i;). It is not to be translated as 'and', but as 'too' 57. For this reason, this passage cannot belong to Class l. 
This clause seems particularly peculiar: it contains two successive participles that function as finite verbal forms, the first one being a present participle (unapxcov) and the second an aorist participle (cpopfoai;) without a finite verbal form in the (depend­ent) clause. No such groups are found among the clauses ofClass 2, where the passage could possibly belong. 
The second passage (180, 12) is the following: 
aKTJKoufo ()f: .. ffii; vioKpoui; t~avicr'tTJcrtV Kat 'tucp/coui; nalet v di; cpaoi; EAKcov Kat baiµovai; EK ~po't&v anioA.auvcov Kat nav'tai; A.6y0} Siopanioutt, npoi; au'tov ouv Kayro Ebpaµov. 
The passage is exceptional due to the following characteristics: -It is the only case where a participle and a fini te verbal form are coordinated by ouv. 
It could be considered as belonging to Class 1 (since it is the conjunction Kai that 
connects the participles with the finite verbal forms in the dependent clause ffii;), but 
it is excluded from the group by the following characteristics: -Ifthe participles EAKCOV and anio/cauvcov are interpreted as instances of the PFFV (and not as participial complements ofthe verb aKouco, which was a possibility in Classical as well as in post-Classical Greek 58), the passage does not follow the gen­eral rule for the aspect of the participle in this group. 
In the clauses of Class 1, the actions expressed by the participle and the finite ver­
bal form are generally consecutive59, which is not the case in this clause: here, the 
actions are simultaneous. 
The way the conjunctions 1mt connect the present participles (f.A-Krov and 
anf'.Aauvrov) with the finite verbal formsE~aVtCJ'tT]CHV and 8Epa7tEUEt (finite ver­
bal form + Kat + participle + Kat + participle + Kat + finite verbal form) does not 
correspond to any of the types of Class 1. 

-The instances ofthe PFFV occur in a dependent clause (cf. footnote 55). What distinguishes the passage from all the other groups is the fact that it is clear­ly a quotation from an earlier source ( cf. the opening phrase on page 180 (Thum 2000): ll'tu; Mricru; EtXEV ou't@;...). For this reason, the above peculiarities could be explained as reflecting a use of the participle that was more common in an ear­lier period. 
Comparison between Mala/as and Phrantzes 
Ifthe above characteristics are compared with the <lata on Phrantzes' use, offered 
by Stepski Doliwa60, the following conclusions are possible: Most commonly, the participle is a PFFV when it is connected with a finite verbal form by the conjunction Kat (Phrantzes: 98 cases out of 104). In the majority ofoccurrences, the participle precedes the conjunction and the fini te verbal form. 
-The only construction appearing in Malalas and not in Phrantzes is the coordination of the NA and a finite verbal form. Otherwise, the clause types are very similar. In regard to the verbal aspect, Malalas regularly uses the aorist participle in the function of a finite verbal form, while the relevant <lata for Phrantzes are lacking. 
Conclusions 
The majority ofthe clauses in the Chronicle ofJohn Malalas containing a PFFV can be considered as a class which follows two basic rules: a) The participle and the finite verbal form are connected with the coordinating con­
junction Kal. b) The PFFV is one ofthe aorist aspect, generally referring to the past; but the latter could have been partially or entirely caused by the specific nature ofthe literary genre. 
The definition of the PFFV as an anacoluthon seems less convincing. The follow­ing can be added to the previous remarks 61: as Malalas' text reveals particularly well, the use of the participle in the function of a finite verbal form in the above defined group was regular and subject to rather strict rules 62. It is therefore questionable whether it can be regarded as contradicting the logical way of expression and whether at least the examples in this group were felt as such. The fact that the participle tends to precede the finite verbal form does not seem to agree with the above definition of the anacoluthon, by which it is the second element of a structure that is commonly the anacoluthic one. 
As the comparison of Phrantzes and Malalas shows, this type of expression could be a feature of Byzantine historiography. The Byzantine historians could have been influenced by the non-literary writings ofLate Antiquity, where identical constructions can be observed, although no exact data exist. 
The origin of the PFFV: it is not likely that the use was influenced by the process of the disappearing of the Ancient Greek participle, as it cannot be concluded that it ever was a feature ofthe spoken language. As regards the origin ofthe cases with Kat, the best solution seems to be offered by Radermacher's views on the satztrennende Kai, especially if they are understood in a broader sense. A broader view is required for the following reason: in the 2 cases quoted by Radermacher as examples of coor­dinate participial constructions, it is a related participle in the nominative and a GA that are connected, a condition that seems unnecessary and, because of a present participle being used in one case ofthe GA, causes additional problems with respect to Malalas. It is more reasonable to assume all the cases with the conjunction Kat connecting sev­era! participles -such as quoted by Schwyzer from Homer and Herodot -to be the source of the PFFV, without restrictions on their form. Thus cases like Malalas 60, 21 -Kat OE~aµEvoc; 'ta ypaµµma Kat avayvouc; 'tCx ypa<pEV'ta a'\m$ Kat Eioffic; O 'Ico~a-rric;, on cruvE:cpayEv, drrEv... -can be understood as favouring such an explana­tion. 
This could account for the frequent appearance of the conjunction Kat near a PFFV. Moreover, an explanation could also be provided of the fact that the aorist par­ticiple is used so strictly. The aorist participle expressing a temporary action, the use of the conjunction Kat becomes more necessary when severa! actions expressed by aorist participles occur in one sentence, since it is the conjunction that makes the course of events clear. If, on the other hand, an aorist and a present participle are used together in a clause, there is less doubt about the exact meaning, since the latter expresses duration and the former perfective action as such. It is significant that among the cases quoted by Schwyzer on pg. 405 (19592), the conjunction Kat is the most fre­quent and commonly occurs with aorist participles 63 . Whether this is a coincidence or not could be made clear only through a research on the relevant passages in Homer and Herodot. 
The development as conceived by Wolf, on the other hand, does not give any clues to the basic features of the PFFV, which -together with the reasons already men­tioned64 -makes the explanation less probable. The same refers to the theory which assumes an ellipsis ofthe verb 'be' as the main cause. 
The fact that only the Kat was so widespread near the PFFV, in contrast to the other coordinating conjunctions, is stili not accounted for. It could be explained by the fre­quency of the Kat itself as the most common coordinating conjunction. The cases with other coordinating conjunctions follow, in terms of their frequency and structure, the lines of the analogous use of the participle in Classical Greek; they prove at least that they cannot be a consequence of the participle retreating from the spoken language. 
On the other hand, an explanation that goes back as early as the Classical period is confronted with some problems, such as the use ofthe nominative absolute in the func­tion of a finite verbal form, which could be explained by analogy in this case. 
In comparison with earlier cases of the PFFV, Malalas does not use the participle in the function of an imperative verbal form, a feature that might have been caused by the specific nature of the genre. 
Finally, there are also examples of the independent use of the PFFV. Connected by various characteristics to the main class, they might well be assumed to have their ori­gin in it, at least as far as the language of Malalas is concemed. 

Bibliography 
BLASS/DEBRUNNERIREHKOPF (197614): Grammatik <les neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gottingen BROWNING (1969): Medieval and Modem Greek, London DEBRUNNER (1954): Geschichte der Griechischen Sprache II, Berlin DINDORF (1831 ): see Malalas (Dindorf 1831) FESTUGIERE (1979): Notabilia dans Malalas II, Revue de philologie LIII, pg. 227-237 FRISK (1966): Partizipium und Verbum finitum im Splitgriechischen, in: Kleine Schriften, Goteborg HORROCKS (1997): Greek, A History ofthe Language and its Speakers, London and New York HUNGER (1978): Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner !, Munich JAMES (1990): The language of Malalas, in: Studies in John Malalas, Sydney JANNARIS (19682): An historical Greek Grammar, Hildesheim JEFFREYS (1986): see Malalas (Jeffreys 1986) KAZHDAN (1991 ): The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium. Alexander P. Kazhdan, (ed.), New York-Oxford KRUMBACHER (18972): Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur, Munich MALALAS (Jeffreys 1986): The Chronicle of John Malalas, Sydney MAYSER (1926): Grammatik der Griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit JI, 1, Berlin und Leipzig MIRAMBEL (1961): Participe et gerondifen Grec medieval et modeme, in: Bulletin de la societe de linguistique 
XVI, pg. 46-79 MouLTON (1911 ), Einleitung in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments, Heildelberg RADERMACHER (1911 ): Neutestamenliche Grammatik, Tiibingen SCHWYZER (19592): Griechische Grammatik II, Munich STEPSKI DouwA (1935): Studien zur Syntax des Byzantinischen Historikers Georgios Phrantzes, Munich Tl:;<ipTl:;avos: Tl:;<ipTl:;avos ( 1991 2): NcoEA.A.11v1KiJ cruvm~1s A', 0rncmA.ovilCl) 
THURN (2000): see Malalas (Thum 2000) WEIERHOLT (1963): Studien im Sprachgebrauch <les Malalas, Symbolae Osloenses, fasc. Supplet. XVIII WOLF (1912): Studien zur Sprache des Malalas II, Munich 

Text editions 
MALALAS (Thum 2000): Chronographia loannis Malalae, New York and Berlin MALALAS (Dindorf 1831 ): Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, Bonnae 

Notes 
1 
The quotations follow the !atest edition ofthe Chronicle, Thum (2000). 
2 

Cf. one of the !atest discussions of Malalas' language, James ( 1990), 220: Decline in the use of participles, also noted above, led to confusion between its syntactical function and that of the fini te verb. (The decline is previously understood as the retreat ofthe Ancient Greek participles and the development ofthe gerund.); cf. a!so Wolf(l912), 77: "Nun gebraucht aber Malalas die alten Formen sehr hiiufig, aber in so konfuser Weise, dass man <len Eindruck gewinnt, der Mann hatte von der syntaktischen Verwendung und der Bedeutung des Partizips keine klare Vorsteltung mehr. Er gebraucht es .„ gleichberechtigt neben den Verbum finitum, in unzahligen Falten an Stelte eines Hauptverbums." 
3 	Such is basicalty the view ofBrowning (1969), 68, who dates the development into the Early Byzantine peri­od or earli er; cf. G. Horrocks (1997), 122 and Mirambel (1961 ); here, the development in alt its stages is dated into the period from 2nd century AD to 13th century. 
4 It kept the Ancient Greek participial function of an adverbial complement of the main verb, cf. for example Mirambel (1961) 57,8; Browning (1969), 68: „. the majority ofparticiples „. are circumstantial, adverbial in function, playing exact!y the same role in the sentence as the Modem Greek indeclinable gerund -ovi:a<; which is the continuation of earlier active participles. 
5 	cf. Krumbacher (18972), 327,8: "Es unterliegt keinem Zweifel, daJ3 wir in Malalas das erste grossere Denkmal der volksmaJ3igen Grazitat vor uns haben„. So sehr atmet das ganze Werk den vulgargriechischen Geist, dass sich mit geringen morphologischen und lexikalischen Anderungen Satz fur Satz ins Neugriechi­sche umgeissen !aJ3t. Alte spuren des Volkssprache .„ sind hier zum volten Rechte gekommen"; cf. also Hunger (1978), 323, where this view already seems to be slightly corrected (notice the term 'gehobene Umgangssprache'): "Damit gelang es ihm scheinbar miihelos dem Prokrustesbett des Attizismus zu entgehen und sein Sprachniveau etwa auf gehobene Umgangssprache einzustelten." 
6 	cf. Horrocks (1997), 180. 
7 	cf. James (1990), 218 (general remarks on the language of Malalas): Buta strong note of caution needs to be sounded on the difficulty of contrasting literary Greek with the coltoquial language. 
8 	cf. Moulton (1911), 284-88; 352-56; Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf(l976 14), 396 ss; Radermacher (1911), 167, 343. 
9 	cf. Mayser (1926), 340 ss. 
1O cf. footnote 18. 11 
cf. Schwyzer (19592), 406: Seit Homer kann eines von zwei koordinierten verbundenen Partizipien (selten das erste) anakolutisch durch ein verbum finitum vertreten werden. 12 
cf. Mayser ( 1926), 340 ss. As we may conclude from the quoted passages, the participle functioning asa finite verbal form appears in papyri as early as 2nd century BC, while Mirambel ( 1961) 50, 1, quotes the earliest signs of the participle deve!oping towards the gerund from 2nd century AD. 
13 
cf. footnote 3. 14 
Stepski Doliwa (1935), 258-262, on the other hand, gives very detailed information on the use ofparticiples that function as fini te verbal forms in Phrantzes, a historian from the Late Byzantine period ( 1 Sth century). A more detailed comparison between Phrantzes and Malalas will be made below. 
15 	As far as Ptolemaic papyri are concemed, Mayser opposes the possibility that the participle could function asa finite verbal form, but admits it in regard to Biblical and Byzantine Greek, cf. Mayser (1926), 340: "mag sie 
(i.e. Moulton 's theory on the participle functioning as a finite verbal form) auch in vereinzelten Beispielen fur <len neutestamenlichen Sprachgebrauch und spateren Perioden „. zutreffen, fur die Ptol. Papyri ist sie jedenfalts in keinem Punkte zwingend." The structural similarities, however, do not speak in favour of such interpretation. 
!6 	He cal!s it a solecism; Joe. cit.: Kal in T-B (i.e. Transitional-Byzantine Greek) sometimes connects a partici­ple with its goveming verb. For this solecism, see pg. 505. 
17 	The quoted passages are taken out of theological and technical writings from Late Antiquity, and Malalas. 
l 8 	In other cases, the participle is used in an independent clause, without any finite verbal form occurring in the same clause. 
19 	cf. Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf ( 1976 14), 397; Mayser (1926), 340, 1; Moulton ( 1911 ), 352: Dal3 das Partizi­pium statt eines lndikativs oder lmperativs gebraucht werden kann, scheint jetzt durch die Papyri ziemlich sichergestellt zu sein. 
20 	Cf. Mayser ( 1926), 340, Schwyzer ( 19592), 407; Moulton (( 1911 ), 284-88, 352-56, cf. also the above quo­tation) sees the participle functioning as a finite verbal form as 'a way of expression that comes into being, when indicative or imperative are for any reason set asi de' ( 1911, 354 ): "Diese Analogi en seien nur angefiihrt um zu zeigen, dass der Gebrauch des Partizipium, mit oder ohne Hilfsverbum, stets zur Hand war, so oft der gewohnliche Indikativ (oder weniger oft der Imperativ) aus irgendeinem Grunde beiseite geschoben wurde." 
21 	For a detailed list of authors, see Schwyzer (19592), 407; Mayser (1926), Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf (1976 14) and Frisk (1966) oppose Moulton's views, mainly by assigning the participle to the categories ofthe anaco­luthon (Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf, partially Mayser) and solecism (partially Frisk, Jannaris, cf. above ), and also by combining severa! possibilities (Mayser, Frisk), including scribal errors and various phonetic or syn­tactical interpretations. Schwyzer opposes Moulton's views too. As far as examples from Classical Greek are concemed, he assigns them to the category of the anacoluthon ( cf. footnote l l ), while the cases with the con­junction icai, mentioned on page 407, are interpreted as belonging under 5 on pg. 406. This interpretation, however, is unclear and confirmed by no examples. On the other hand, Stepski-Doliwa (1935), Radermacher (cf. below), and in some cases Frisk (1966), 62, 65 (on 'Nominalsatze'), agree with Moulton. 
22 
Frisk ( 1966), 432. 23 
Cf. also Frisk ( 1966), 432: es ist zu beachten, dass es nicht um eine Bedeutungsverweiterung des Partizipiums in dem Sinne handelt, dal3 das unmittelbare Sprachgefiihle eine partizipiale d. h. nominale Ausdrucksweise nicht von einer verbalen zu unterscheiden wul3te. 
24 
For this reason I use the term 'participle functioning asa finite verbal form' (PFFV). 25 
cf. Mayser (1926), 341, where some of the cases are considered to be anacoluthic; Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf (197614), 396-8, where the whole subject (Partizipium und verbum finitum) is discussed in the chapter Das anakoluth; on Schwyzer cf. footnotes 11 and 21. 
26 19592, 704,5. 27 cf. Frisk (1966) on some ofthe cases (pg. 434,5) and Jannaris (19682), 405; as mentioned above, these expla­nations most frequently occur in connection with cases of the PFFV from later periods. Another difficulty regarding Hellenistic Greek is caused by observations such as Moulton 's ( 1911 ), 354, that the use of the PFFV is not limited to the documents ofvemacular Greek: "Wir konnen beobachten, dass der eben besproch­ene Partizipialgebrauch in den Papyri durchaus kein Kennzeichen niederer Bildung ist." 28 Which is a solecism by definition, cf. for example Kazhdan (1991), s.v. 29 
(1911), 167. 30 
Radermacher (1911), 177: rrA.Eovaict<; µou yqpacp11ic6w<; crot rrEpt Z(l)iA.ou ical npa~iµaxou, ihav A.Et­wupyia rrpocrrrfon arroA.uEtv auwu<;, ical ou&Erro'tE urraicTiicoa<; iJµ'tv. In other sources, cases ofthat kind are generally considered to be a PFFV 
3 I i.e. from the point of view of the Classical grammar; the conjunction connects severa! participles dependent ona finite verbal form, and nota participle and a finite verbal form. 32 These clauses show analogous structure with the sentences containing µi:v „ lie, quoted by Schwyzer ( 19592), pg. 406 and 705. 33 
(19592), 405: Zwei oder mehr Partizipien konnen seit Homer koordiniert erscheinen, zunachst asyndetisch, dann durch icai o. a„ im Gegensatze durch µi:v „ lie verbunden. 34 
(1912), 77. 35 
It is a rather common feature of Malalas' language; for passages see Festugiere (1979), 235; cf. Weierholt (1963), 71, who also gives an explanation ofthe feature: Wenn er nun .„ eine Periode mit einem gen. abs. beginnt, ohne sich zuerst genau vorzustellen, wie er das Folgende konstruieren wird, ist es natiirlich der Gefahr ausgesetzt, sich in der klassichen Rege! vom part. coniunct. und dem gen. abs. zu verstandigen, was auch nicht ganz selten geschieht. 
36 cf. Schwyzer (1959 2), 403, Debrunner (1954), 131. 37 
Even though in this case the reasons why the GA could have appeared in the function of afinite verbal form in the first place are far from being clear. 
38 The only passage that can, in my opinion, be regarded as exceptional is 36, 46, quoted also by Festugiere (1979), 234, under 'Kal surabondant' (his quotation, 50, 21, follows Dindorf's edition (Dindorf, 1831) of the Chronicle). The way he quotes it (fj·t11; f.xoucra &.µa au'tji ATJCnptKTJV XEtpa Kal miv'ta<; wuc; 1mpt6vmc; .. EcpOVEUcrE), the presen! participle f.xoucra seems to be a PFFV. But when the passage is carefully read through, the participle f.xoucra tums out to be dependent on another participle in the sentence, Ka0TJµEvTJ. This participle, which is in the presen! tense as well, is indeed a PFFV, but coordinated with another PFFV in the sentence, cruvayayoucra, which has the aorist aspect. So the structure of the sentence is: cruva­yayoucra .. Kat Ka0TJµEVTJ .. f.xoucra .. Kat Ecp6vEucrEv; it represents an exception in any case. In this group 1 have found no cases of a presen! PFFV unaccompanied. As far as passage 254, 80 is concemed -also quot­ed by Festugiere under Kal surabondant (as 330, 18) -, the presen! participle ~ouA.6µEvoc; refers to the finite verbal form EcrKTJVOlcrEV and functions as a regular related participle; in this case, Kal might be understood as superfluous in some other sense; cf. also below on passage 180, 12, and footnote 57. 
39 With regard to its aspect, the aorist prevails, but the imperfect and the historical presen! occur as well. 40 As expected, ali the examples in Class 1 also correspond to the clause structure mentioned above in connec­tion with the Hellenistic use of the participle functioning as a fini te verbal form. 41 
Cf. below on Phrantzes, where only types 1 and 2 appear. 42 Cf. Festugiere (1979), 232 and Weierholt (1963), 74. 43 It has also survived in to Modem Greek, cf. for example Debrunner ( 1954 ), 131 and Tl;cip'tl;uvoc; ( 19912), 334. 
44 Festugiere (1979); he quotes 22 passages under participe pro verbo finito, 16 cases under Kal surabondant and 3 cases under of: surabondant. Altogether, my figures are only slightly higher than Festugiere's, but much lower than those given by Wolf (1912), 77. He refers to 'approximately 20' cases ofthe GA functioning asa finite verbal form and 70 cases where a related participle in the nom. and a finite verbal form are coordinat­ed. Unfortunately, he does not quote the passages. 
45 	Who quotes it from Dindorf(1831) 292, 9. 
46 	Cf. for example the passages quoted above, as 72, 75 or 390, 90; 331, 55; or 296, 49. 
47 A passage such as 94, 20, where two present participles (oE6µEvoc; and cpf:prov) and an aorist participle (i>l\jlac;) are used in the clause without a finite verbal form, cannot be regarded as exceptional, since the pres­en! participles are dependent on the aorist participle; cf. Festugiere (1979), 232, for the same interpretation ofthe passage: 'pl\jfac; pour f.ppt\jfE'. 
48 cf. above on Class 1; in Class 2, the tirne reference can be deduced from the context. 49 
Like Phrantzes, Malalas occasionally uses the GA independently (2 cases) as well. 50 Cf. also passage 60, 21, quoted in Conclusions. 51 
1912, 78. 52 
19592, 406 and 705; in cases of µE:v .. oE: connecting a participle and a finite verbal form, quoted by Schwyzer, the participle occurs in the first pari as well; as we may conclude from Schwyzer's quotations, the use of the participle was not limited by the verbal aspect. 
53 	1979, 234; he quotes 2 aorist participles and 1 presen! participle. 
54 	1912, 78. 
55 	l have found no such cases except 180, 12, on which cf. below. 
56 	Which does not occur in the clause at ali. 
57 	cf. Jeffreys ( 1986), 153: He too wore ... The same refers to the Kal in 31, 115: Kal A.orn6v 6 nevedic; ayvo&v 'tO CJKEµµa, Kal au'toc; oA.lyouc; µEe' i:aU'tOV EA.a~EV iivopac;; it is a present participle, but the pas­sage is -due to the meaning of Kai -not to be taken as exceptional, as far as the aspect of the participle is concemed. Cf. Mayser (1926), 345 for similar cases in Ptolemaic papyri. 
58 
The problem with this explanation is, however, that the participles are used in the nominative and not in the genitive or accusative form, one of which would be expected with the verb aKouro. 59 cf. Stepski Doliwa (1935), 260, on similar observations about Phrantzes. 60 1935, 258-262. Since Stepski Doliwa categorises the clauses by criteria different from mine, the figures given below are deduced from the various groups in her categorisation. 
6 l cf. the chapter Some views regarding the participle functioning as a finite verbal form in eariier sources. 62 It is also the main feature distinguishing Malalas' use from the similar cases quoted by Schwyzer (19592) on pg. 405 and 704. Additionally, in one case, quoted on pg. 704 as an example of the anacoluthic use of the participle, the participle (in the form of the GA) and the fini te verbal form are connected with kaiv; however, a presen! par­ticiple alone ( oucrric;) occurs where a finite verbal form would be expected, on which cf. above, footnote 38. 63 
In the example of the satztrennende 1<ai quoted in footnote 30, a perfect participle is used; such use could have been influenced by the increasing loss of the distinction between the perfect and aorist tense in Hellenistic Greek; cf. for example Mayser ( 1926), 139: In der hellenistischen Zeit dringt das Perfekt immer mehr in die Sphare des Aor. ein und dient als erzahlendes Tempus. 
64 Cf. above, The origin of the participle functioning asa fini te verbal form, 3. 
Povzetek 

RABA PARTICIPA V FUNKCIJI OSEBNE GLAGOLSKE OBLIKE 
V KRONIKI JANEZA MALALASA 

V Kroniki Janeza Malalasa se v večini primerov v funkciji osebne glagolske oblike uporablja par­ticip aorista, ki je z osebno glagolsko obliko povezan s prirednim veznikom Kal. Stavki s podobno zgradbo so izpričani tudi v delu bizantinskega zgodovinarja Phrantzesa ter v helenističnih in pozno­antičnih neumetnih besedilih. Slednja bi lahko vplivala na bizantinske zgodovinopisce. Vsaj s stališ­ča Malalasovegajezikaje možno domnevati, da so takšni stavki vplivali tudi na samostojno rabo par­ticipa v funkciji osebne glagolske oblike; v tem primeru ni particip povezan z nobeno osebno glagol­sko obliko. Kar se tiče izvora participa v funkciji osebne glagolske oblike, je najbolj upravičeno izha­jati iz stavkov, kjer je več participialnih konstrukcij med sabo povezanih z veznikom Kai; pogosti so bili tako v klasični kot v helenistični grščini. V nekaj primerih sta particip in osebna glagolska obli­ka povezana z drugimi prirednimi vezniki; ti stavki so po zgradbi in pogostnosti primerljivi z rabe participa, ki je izpričana že za klasično dobo.