Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting

by **Bert** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:16 am

I think you caught some mistakes in Pharr.
It looks like he treats ouk as an enclitic.
(Accenting is not my strong point though.

by **jk0592** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:21 am

by **perispomenon** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:40 am

by **Bert** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:17 pm

by **Bert** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:57 pm

by **perispomenon** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:09 pm

by **jk0592** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:58 pm

by **perispomenon** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:40 pm

I am inclined to agree. Although, typo's? Oversights more likely.

by **jk0592** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:03 pm

I think it is easy for both a printer and the author reviewing preprints, to miss accents in books such as these.
This would be compounded when combined with breathing.

I am inclined to think typo...

by **edonnelly** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:02 pm

Well, either way it seems curious that, if it is an error, it could go unnoticed and uncorrected for 65 years (the same sentence appears in both the 1920 and 1985/revised editions).

by **perispomenon** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:26 pm

edonnelly wrote:Well, either way it seems curious that, if it is an error, it could go unnoticed and uncorrected for 65 years (the same sentence appears in both the 1920 and 1985/revised editions).

Yup, you are right. That's why I was/am inclined to think that it was me, missing some obvious rule.

by **Bert** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:04 pm

Especially considering that you had no problem googling many other instances.

by **jk0592** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:28 pm

I can imagine Pharr giving his classes with his book, giving errata notices to students, and may even have challenged students to find errors.

The errors, such as those you pointed out, may not easily come to notice since they occur in exercises not related to accenting rules. The emphasis of both paragraphs is to work with -mi verbs.

I am just trying to excuse Pharr; I am sure he did his very best. When I was a student, we did have books with typos...

Maybe we should hunt for typos/errors and set up a Pharr errata for all textkit users.

by **Arvid** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:45 am

edonnelly wrote:Well, either way it seems curious that, if it is an error, it could go unnoticed and uncorrected for 65 years (the same sentence appears in both the 1920 and 1985/revised editions).

All I remember about the 1985 revised edition, from thumbing through it in bookstores (a long time ago) was that its main concern seemed to be eliminating most of Pharr's historical notes, and not correcting any errors or typos. So you could say they've stood for 87 years, instead of 65. Does the statute of limitations now make them correct?

by **edonnelly** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:34 am

Arvid wrote:All I remember about the 1985 revised edition, from thumbing through it in bookstores (a long time ago) was that its main concern seemed to be eliminating most of Pharr's historical notes, and not correcting any errors or typos.

You could tell by thumbing through it in a bookstore that they hadn't corrected any errors or typos?

Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting

Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting

Who is online