Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Mijdrecht
- Contact:
Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting
Pharr states the following in paragraph 556:
?στί(ν) is written with an accent on the first syllable (ἔστι) when :
1) It comes at the beginning of a sentence or of a verse of poetry :
2) It denotes possibility or existence.
3) It is preceded by ο?κ, εἰ, καί, ὡς, μή, ἀλλ', or τοῦτ'.
But in paragraph 216 sentence 4 writes:
Χ?υσηίς οὔκ ?στι χε?είων Κλυταιμήστ?ης
And in 311, sentence 3:
Ἀγαμέμνων οὔκ ?στιν οἰνοβα?ής
This puzzles me. Am I overlooking the application of another rule? Also, that accenting of Χ?υσηίς is not what I would expect (I would have used the grave accent).
Can someone shed some light on this?
?στί(ν) is written with an accent on the first syllable (ἔστι) when :
1) It comes at the beginning of a sentence or of a verse of poetry :
2) It denotes possibility or existence.
3) It is preceded by ο?κ, εἰ, καί, ὡς, μή, ἀλλ', or τοῦτ'.
But in paragraph 216 sentence 4 writes:
Χ?υσηίς οὔκ ?στι χε?είων Κλυταιμήστ?ης
And in 311, sentence 3:
Ἀγαμέμνων οὔκ ?στιν οἰνοβα?ής
This puzzles me. Am I overlooking the application of another rule? Also, that accenting of Χ?υσηίς is not what I would expect (I would have used the grave accent).
Can someone shed some light on this?
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Munro (D. B. Monro, A grammar of the Homeric dialect, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1891) says that, in Paragraph 87,
“The general rule is that the accent is thrown back as far as possible; and the chief departures from this rule are found in the infinitives and Participles, which are in reality Nouns. In the forms of the Verb properly so called the following exceptions have to be noted:–
εἰμί and φημί . The 2 Sing. Imper. φα-θί is oxytone.
The disyllabic forms of the Pres. Indicative, εἰμί, ?σσί, φημί, φησί, &c., are enclictic, and, when they do not lose the accent altogether, are oxytone; but ἔστι is accented in the ordinary way when it occurs at the beginning of a sentence, or after certain words (ο?κ, καί, ὡς).?
Hoping that this is of some help to you...
“The general rule is that the accent is thrown back as far as possible; and the chief departures from this rule are found in the infinitives and Participles, which are in reality Nouns. In the forms of the Verb properly so called the following exceptions have to be noted:–
εἰμί and φημί . The 2 Sing. Imper. φα-θί is oxytone.
The disyllabic forms of the Pres. Indicative, εἰμί, ?σσί, φημί, φησί, &c., are enclictic, and, when they do not lose the accent altogether, are oxytone; but ἔστι is accented in the ordinary way when it occurs at the beginning of a sentence, or after certain words (ο?κ, καί, ὡς).?
Hoping that this is of some help to you...
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Mijdrecht
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Mijdrecht
- Contact:
I used this query:
http://www.google.com/search?client=saf ... 8&oe=UTF-8
Gave me 92 hits.
The combination that follows the rule (ο?κ ἔστι) gives me 24.700 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?client=saf ... 8&oe=UTF-8
Gave me 92 hits.
The combination that follows the rule (ο?κ ἔστι) gives me 24.700 hits.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Mijdrecht
- Contact:
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Music City, USA
- Contact:
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).
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Mijdrecht
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:06 am
- Location: Seattle WA
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?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).
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Music City, USA
- Contact:
You could tell by thumbing through it in a bookstore that they hadn't corrected any errors or typos?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.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library