mwh wrote:Interesting question, implausible answer. What's A&G?
Look in Keil, then, if you want a better answer. I suspect that was A&G's source. See Servius in Keil, IV: 427. There is no basis for claiming a distinction is implausible.mwh wrote:That will have some bearing on the question - which, to repeat, is an interesting one, but not one to be definitively answered by reference to A&G.
mwh wrote:Yes I figured they got it from some ancient grammarian, and ought to have guessed Servius.
Non absumptum est tempus in legendo illius operis de Keil confactum.mwh wrote:..nor have I read everything in Keil even once (and if I had, I might not admit to it)
mwh wrote:When did itaque "and so = "therefore" get separated off from "and so = and in this way"?
adrianus wrote:Ultra, conjecturae et vacua.
mwh wrote:That is the most arrogant and (to be frank) stupid statement I have heard for some time. There are scholars who study latin prosody and the history of the latin language. Perhaps you are too busy reading Keil to be aware of them. But it is to them we must turn for instruction and enlightenment on questions such as this.
You are being rude, mvh. I don't know what age you are but that would be no excuse, so control yourself. I am not aware of instruction and enlightment on this question of how to pronounce itaque by any scholar I have read on this topic (which is one of my favourite topics for casual research), other than what has been garnered from the ancient grammarians. If you know of any, share it with us. What I say is that without primary evidence about pronunciation of itaque there is conjecture and there are also people pretending to know more than they do. That is neither a stupid statement nor an arrogant one. If anything, it's a criticism of arrogance.mwh wrote:That is the most arrogant and (to be frank) stupid statement I have heard for some time. There are scholars who study latin prosody and the history of the latin language. Perhaps you are too busy reading Keil to be aware of them. But it is to them we must turn for instruction and enlightenment on questions such as this.
I did not say that (everything you had written was conjecture and waffle), as anyone can read above.mwh wrote: The post to which it responded, merely repeating previous posts and peremptorily dismissing everything I had written as "conjecture and sometimes waffle,".
I had assumed that, when you were referring to the debate, you had read relevant books and articles. I see that I assumed wrongly.mwh wrote:Shenoute now rescues us from the impasse by very helpfully linking to two very helpful articles, esp. Tucker's. They amply confirm the main point that I had been trying unsuccessfully to get across, that the "Effect of enclitics on accentuation is tricky (scholars argue about it), and things are rather more complex than the A&G rules admit" (Oct.25 post)..
You judged it implausible because you hadn't read anything on the matter. No one on the pages you now have read who disagrees that enclitics attract the accent, says it's implausible.mwh wrote:They also tempt me to reinstate the "implausible" of my original post.
Devine and Stephens doesn't discuss this; Skutch doesn't discuss this. I have dozens of articles and books about Latin pronunciation and about enclitics and pronunciation and there are more I don't have. Many do mention itaque for reasons started above. These are more obvious places to start if you want to read about the debate. Some people love Allen's Vox Latina. Do a search for Latin Accent or Latin Pronunciation or Latin Prosody or Latin Accent and Enclitics, and you will find some of them at least. You should read them. They throw light on Laurentius's question and many acknowledge the conjectural nature of their investigations; none throw light on your question.mwh wrote:There will no doubt be more recent studies, but Latin being only peripheral to my main interests I can't give precise references. Jumping-off points for investigation might be Questa? (early Latin, empiricist), Devine and Stephens? (linguistics orientation)? I have very vague recollection of coming across some note specifically on itaque (whose semantic bifurcation makes it particularly interesting) but I don't remember where or what (perhaps by Otto Skutsch, in his Ennius commentary maybe??). .
Godmy wrote: ille,a,ud + substantīvum (velut in "dē illā grammaticā..." etc.) -> licet profectō, at in linguā classicā potius cum substantivō prōnōmen "is,ea,id" vidēmus... (nisi dē locō procul sitō loquimur ubi "ille, a, ud" necessārium est) //Ita, vidēmus utrumque, sed is,ea,id plūs viget.
adrianus wrote:Grata mihi tua corrigenda, Godmy. Saepè erro et latinè meliùs scribere velim. De habilitate meâ, decipere nolo; dein, nihil hîc scribo sine et latiné,—porrò, placet et adjuvit mihi sic facere. Saepè incongruo modo scribo, scio; nonnunquam posteà errata animadverto, tunc corrigo.
adrianus wrote:Post Scriptum
Omni—per i ablativo casu singulariter,—dicis "semper", at non semper sed plerumque dicit A&G, §116, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D116. Erravi autem, fateor, quod inflectionis oblitus sum.
adrianus wrote:Godmy wrote: ille,a,ud + substantīvum (velut in "dē illā grammaticā..." etc.) -> licet profectō, at in linguā classicā potius cum substantivō prōnōmen "is,ea,id" vidēmus... (nisi dē locō procul sitō loquimur ubi "ille, a, ud" necessārium est) //Ita, vidēmus utrumque, sed is,ea,id plūs viget.
ille,a,ud + substantīvum (velut in "dē illā grammaticā..." etc.) = "the famous/well-known or 'The' x", is common to Latin and Gaelic and English, meaning "The [famous] Grammar" or "The [famous] O'Neill" or "The Stig" or "Winnie The Pu". It's actually more like a title.
Bonus, nisi fallor, hic usus et latinè et anglicè et goidelicé, qui epitheton vel titulus rem vel creaturam hominemve notum significat, ut "Winnie ille Pu" (non "Winnie is Pu", non "Winnie Pu").
It's true I did say "de illo vocabulo" instead of "de eo vocabulo" or "de isto vocabulo", which is more accurate, indeed; but "de illâ grammaticâ de A&G" = "Concerning A&G's well-known grammar book";
Verum est, de usu is ea id pronominis cum nomine substantivove, falsè interdum scripsi.
Godmy wrote:Obiter: Nesciō an felix titulus sit "Winnie ille Pu"... mihi anglicismus maximus vidētur articulum dēfīnītum convertere (transferre), cum in linguīs aliīs modernīs IndoEuropeīs, sīcut in linguā meā māternā, bohemicā, quae et dēclīnat et coniugat, conversio (=trānslātiō) hōrum librōrum semper sine articulō dēfīnītō trānslātō sit (neque aliter fieri posset.... stultum cum prōnōmine dēmōnstrātīvō esset).
Mihi aliquantulum "barbaricum" hīc vidētur, et in titulō "Hobbitus Ille" iam barbarismus maximus est (ipse liber terrībiliter conversus est, ut calamitātem linguae tuae patiāris, sī eum forte legās...)
adrianus wrote:Godmy wrote:Obiter: Nesciō an felix titulus sit "Winnie ille Pu"... mihi anglicismus maximus vidētur articulum dēfīnītum convertere (transferre), cum in linguīs aliīs modernīs IndoEuropeīs, sīcut in linguā meā māternā, bohemicā, quae et dēclīnat et coniugat, conversio (=trānslātiō) hōrum librōrum semper sine articulō dēfīnītō trānslātō sit (neque aliter fieri posset.... stultum cum prōnōmine dēmōnstrātīvō esset).
Mihi aliquantulum "barbaricum" hīc vidētur, et in titulō "Hobbitus Ille" iam barbarismus maximus est (ipse liber terrībiliter conversus est, ut calamitātem linguae tuae patiāris, sī eum forte legās...)
Sum et barbarus et felix, et anglicismus modernus non est sed antiquus et goidelicismus antiquior pro regis titulo. Classicum scribendi modum admiror, unâ cum aliis, praesertim modum Erasmi et serioris aetatis. De hoc, iterum tecum concurro: ineptum "Hobitus Ille" et inepta ista versio in quâ paucas paginas legi, reliquas neglexi.
Milne wrote:‘He’s Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don’t you know what “ther” means?’ ‘Ah, yes, now I do,’ I said quickly; and I hope you do too, because it is all the explanation you are going to get.’
Oxford Latin Dictionary wrote:ille ~a ~ud...4b...that famous, the well-known"
Users browsing this forum: Kachikawawa, katzenjammer, Ronolio and 137 guests