Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting

[perispomenon]

Pharr states the following in paragraph 556:

á¼￾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 οá½￾κ, εἰ, καί, ὡς, μή, ἀλλ', or τοῦτ'.

But in paragraph 216 sentence 4 writes:

ΧÏ￾υσηίς οὔκ á¼￾στι χεÏ￾είων ΚλυταιμήστÏ￾ης

And in 311, sentence 3:

Ἀγαμέμνων οὔκ á¼￾στιν οἰνοβαÏ￾ής

This puzzles me. Am I overlooking the application of another rule? Also, that accenting of ΧÏ￾υσηίς is not what I would expect (I would have used the grave accent).

Can someone shed some light on this?

[Bert]

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

[jk0592]

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, á¼￾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 (οá½￾κ, καί, ὡς).â€￾

Hoping that this is of some help to you...

[perispomenon]

Hoping that this is of some help to you...

Unfortunately, no. I also checked Monro, same paragraph as you, and from that, I would still not expect οá½￾κ to steal the accent from á¼￾στί (or ἔστι), quite the contrary: I would expect οá½￾κ ἔστι, not οὔκ á¼￾στι.

Monro in fact states the same rule as Pharr in paragraph 556. But Pharr doesn't apply it in the examples I gave. And that is my question. I googled a bit, and did find the combination οὔκ á¼￾στι quite a lot.

[Bert]

I googled a bit, and did find the combination οὔκ á¼￾στι quite a lot.

I tried to use the Greek-Words-in-Context tool on Perseus but I couldn't get it to do anything for me.

[Bert]

Well, I tried Google too. I found several instances of οá½￾κ ἔστι but none of οὔκ á¼￾στι yet.

[perispomenon]

I used this query:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22οὔκ+á¼￾στι“&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Gave me 92 hits.

The combination that follows the rule (οá½￾κ ἔστι) gives me 24.700 hits.

[jk0592]

Here is an example, that is found in Iliad Ἰλιὰς Γ, 45

εἶδος ἔπ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ οá½￾κ ἔστι βίη φÏ￾εσὶν οá½￾δέ τις ἀλκή.

It shows that the rules given by both Munro and Pharr are followed. I would conclude that the two Pharr examples are typos.

[perispomenon]

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

[jk0592]

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...

[edonnelly]

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).

[perispomenon]

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.

[Bert]

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

[jk0592]

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.

[Arvid]

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?

[edonnelly]

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?