Here the adjective follows the noun, but (as before) there is no ambiguity, though there is much added emphasis due to the apparent afterthought. Similarly:
ἐν δὲ νομὸν ποίησε περικλυτὸς ἀμφιγυήεις
ἐν καλῇ βήσσῃ μέγαν οἰῶν ἀργεννάων.[8]
Homer Iliad xviii. 587, 588.
And in prose the dependence of a genitive may be quite clear, though the distance between it and the words on which it depends be great: e.g.
τῶν μὲν οὖν λόγων, οὓς οὗτος ἄνω καὶ κάτω διακυκῶν ἔλεγε περὶ τῶν παραγεγραμμένων νόμων, οὔτε μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς οἶμαι ὑμᾶς μανθάνειν οὔτ’ αὐτὸς ἐδυνάμην συνεῖναι τοὺς πολλούς.
Demosthenes de Corona § 111 (cp. § 57).
In prose, again, the extremely antithetic and artificial arrangement of words possible (without complete loss of clearness) in a highly inflected language may be illustrated from Thucydides:—
καὶ οὐ περὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἄρα οὔτε οὗτοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων οὔθ’ οἱ Ἕλληνες τῆς ἑαυτῶν τῷ Μήδῳ ἀντέστησαν, περὶ δὲ οἱ μὲν σφίσιν ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐκείνῳ καταδουλώσεως, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ δεσπότου μεταβολῇ οὐκ ἀξυνετωτέρου, κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ.
Thucydides vi. 76.[9]
The following sentence of Demosthenes, with its carefully chosen position for the main subject Φίλιππος and the main verb ἐπηγγείλατο, shows how well suspense and the period can be worked in such a language:—