Accent Question

[kingbenlucas]

Hello.

I'm currently working through Don Carson's 'Greek Accents' book and am having trouble discerning my mistake. In the following sentence:

τί με πειράζεις, ὑποκριτά; τίνος ἐστὶν ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη;

Why is it incorrect to put τίνος ἐστιν?

Is it because:

(a) it counts as being at the head of its clause? (if this is the case I'm confused at what it means for a word to be at the head of its clause!)
(b) ἐστίν is being given emphasis here?

[Qimmik]

Smyth 183d:

183. The word preceding an enclitic is treated as follows: . . . d. A paroxytone receives no additional accent: a monosyllabic enclitic loses its accent (χώρα_ τις, φίλος μου), a dissyllabic enclitic retains its accent (χώρα_ς τινός, φίλοι τινές) except when its final vowel is elided (174 a).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0007

[kingbenlucas]

Thank you. That helps a lot.

I had got a little confused because in Attic one would accent a disyllabic enclitic which followed a word with a circumflex on the ultima. That is not true in Koine. I had also applied that rule to words with acutes on the antepenult.

[Qimmik]

in Attic one would accent a disyllabic enclitic which followed a word with a circumflex on the ultima

Where did you see this? I don't think it's correct. See the example in Smyth 183b at the link in my previous post:

b. A perispomenon keeps its accent: φιλῶ σε, τιμῶν τινων.

[kingbenlucas]

Hey,

Sorry for the delay, I have found the source . On pg. 48 of Carson's 'Greek Accents' he states:

...if the word preceding an enclitic has a circumflex accent on the ultima, then the disyllabic enclitic retains its accent, even though a monosyllabic enclitic loses its accent...

He goes on to state that this is against the standard of Koine, but represents Attic intonation accurately.

[Qimmik]

Philomen Probert, A New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek (2003) sec. 286, p. 148 writes: "A perispomenon full word retains the circumflex on its final syllable before any enclitic, and the enclitic again has no accent . . . " She gives examples of an unaccented disyllabic enclitic following a perispomenon. She notes that most of our evidence supports this, and standard editorial practice follows this rule. But she qualifies this by citing, without explaining, two secondary sources.

This is the standard rule. There may be grounds for questioning it, but this is what you'll find in modern editions of Attic authors.

Chandler, A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation, 1866, sec. 972, p. 280 cites Charax (an ancient grammarian) in support of this rule, noting that the 19th century scholar J. G. J. Herrmann argued against the rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Got ... ob_Hermann

https://archive.org/details/cu31924021602218

In short, the most widely accepted rule is that a disyllabic enclitic following a perispomenon word reamins unaccented, but there may be grounds for questioning this rule. If you're attempting to master Greek accentuation, I would suggest following this rule, which is what you'll find in modern texts, but you might explore this further if you have access to a reference library. I would recommend Probert's book, too.

[Qimmik]

Carson may well be right about 5th-4th century Attic accentuation, or at least there may be linguistic evidence for his claim that a disyllabic enclitic following a perispomenon word retained its accent in that dialect. But his comment seems more like an aside in a book that is apparently oriented towards NT koine.

Probert notes that the accentuation of texts today is based on koine practice, as described by the Alexandrian grammarians, although there is reason to believe that "in important respect the koiné retains the accentual system that operated at a much earlier period of Greek and was continued in Attic, the dialect on which the koiné is based . . . ." (sec 301, p. 158).

She also notes that the Alexandrian grammarians were aware of and provided information about some differences between Attic and koine accentuation--specifically, the accentuation of a small number of particular words--which suggests that "if there were substantial differences beyond the accentuation of certain words one would expect these to have been mentioned. We may conclude that, as one might have expected given the Attic foundation of the koiné, Attic and the koiné did not differ substantially in accentuation in the Hellenistic period" (sec. 316, p. 165).

Again, I would suggest learning the standard rules followed in modern texts, while keeping in mind that evidence about ancient Greek pronunciation generally and accentuation in particular is by no means beyond question.

[kingbenlucas]

Thank you again for the thoroughness of your response. I myself could find no mention when I searched the large grammars either.