contonation and mora question

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
eliliang
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:20 pm
Contact:

contonation and mora question

Post by eliliang »

If an enclitic extends the word unit, then why would ἀγαθῷ τῳ not be accented as ἀγαθῳ& τῳ since the enclitic τῳ represents two morae?

Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Rhenen
Contact:

Post by Adelheid »

Good question. I don't have an answer but I reply in order to get a reminder when this topic is updated.

I am also curious about this.

Groet,
Adelheid

Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Post by Skylax »

According to J. Vendryes, 1945 [1903], the circumflex on ἀγαθῷ τινι should be seen as a mere graphic convention. Definitely not a sexy explanation :(

But there is also a tendency to save the accent of the accented word, that was, I suppose, part of the "image" of the word, hence also the accent on ἐλέγετό ποτε, where the first accent is theoretically unnecessary.

So Greek faced a contradiction : word + enclitic = a single word, yet two words on the other hand.

Lejeune [1948] describes also how Greek changed the indo-european enclitic system.

eliliang
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:20 pm
Contact:

Post by eliliang »

Skylax wrote:According to J. Vendryes, 1945 [1903], the circumflex on ἀγαθῷ τινι should be seen as a mere graphic convention. Definitely not a sexy explanation :(
Whose graphical convention? Aristophanes of Byzantium created the accentuation marks only in the 3rd century BC, so Attic Greek didn't even carry these marks. Was it the graphical convention of the later Greek's then? If it affects the pronunciation, then it can't be simply a graphical convention, can it?
Skylax wrote:But there is also a tendency to save the accent of the accented word, that was, I suppose, part of the "image" of the word, hence also the accent on ἐλέγετό ποτε, where the first accent is theoretically unnecessary.

So Greek faced a contradiction : word + enclitic = a single word, yet two words on the other hand.

Lejeune [1948] describes also how Greek changed the indo-european enclitic system.

Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Post by Skylax »

eliliang wrote:Whose graphical convention?
Well, who knows, ὦ βέλτιστε ? I only quoted Vendryes' comment.
Aristophanes of Byzantium created the accentuation marks only in the 3rd century BC, so Attic Greek didn't even carry these marks. Was it the graphical convention of the later Greek's then? If it affects the pronunciation, then it can't be simply a graphical convention, can it?
According to Lejeune [1947], Greek accent was still a pitch-accent, not yet a stress-accent, in the times of Aristophanes. In this case, there are two possibilities :

- Greek has broken the three morae limitation law in order to retain the original accent on ἀγαθῷ, and the written accent would reflect the actual pronounciation. After all, Attic retained the accent on the omicron in πόλεως after the change from πόληος.

- Aristophanes or someone else has recommended to retain graphically the circumflex accent even when it was pronounced as an acute.

Indeed, there is something apparently inconsistent here, because the apparently logical solution *ἀγαθῷ τινί, like in λόγοι τινές was never used. So Vendryes states that from the accent viewpoint ἀγαθῷ τινι is equivalent to ἐδηλώσατο "because the accented vowel is no final vowel anymore" after the enclitic was added. [French : "La dernière syllabe du mot orthotonique n'est donc pas en pareil cas une syllabe finale : elle cesse par conséquent d'être intonable et ne compte plus que pour un temps de brève" (J. VENDRYES, Traité d'accentuation grecque, Paris, 1945, § 88)]

eliliang
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:20 pm
Contact:

Post by eliliang »

Skylax wrote:
eliliang wrote:Whose graphical convention?
Well, who knows, ὦ βέλτιστε ? I only quoted Vendryes' comment.
Aristophanes of Byzantium created the accentuation marks only in the 3rd century BC, so Attic Greek didn't even carry these marks. Was it the graphical convention of the later Greek's then? If it affects the pronunciation, then it can't be simply a graphical convention, can it?
According to Lejeune [1947], Greek accent was still a pitch-accent, not yet a stress-accent, in the times of Aristophanes. In this case, there are two possibilities :

- Greek has broken the three morae limitation law in order to retain the original accent on ἀγαθῷ, and the written accent would reflect the actual pronounciation. After all, Attic retained the accent on the omicron in πόλεως after the change from πόληος.

- Aristophanes or someone else has recommended to retain graphically the circumflex accent even when it was pronounced as an acute.

Indeed, there is something apparently inconsistent here, because the apparently logical solution *ἀγαθῷ τινί, like in λόγοι τινές was never used. So Vendryes states that from the accent viewpoint ἀγαθῷ τινι is equivalent to ἐδηλώσατο "because the accented vowel is no final vowel anymore" after the enclitic was added. [French : "La dernière syllabe du mot orthotonique n'est donc pas en pareil cas une syllabe finale : elle cesse par conséquent d'être intonable et ne compte plus que pour un temps de brève" (J. VENDRYES, Traité d'accentuation grecque, Paris, 1945, § 88)]
Thanks for this info! Both of your alternatives seem rather possible.

Post Reply