Lucus Eques wrote:In Latin?
Well, no such thing is written (normally), but the Romans did associate a stressed long syllable, including a diphthong, with a circumflex accent, that is a rise and fall of pitch. Italian does something similar.
metrodorus wrote:such errors are inevitable.
Lucus Eques wrote:the Romans did associate a stressed long syllable, including a diphthong, with a circumflex accent, that is a rise and fall of pitch.
adrianus wrote:Lucus Eques wrote:the Romans did associate a stressed long syllable, including a diphthong, with a circumflex accent, that is a rise and fall of pitch.
According to the grammarians, Lucus, the accented antepenultimate syllable of polysyllables takes the acute tone no matter what, even if long by nature, and not the circumflex.
Metrodorus wrote:Having not read the entire book yet in detail, I cant answer for that.
But, for example, in quaerit, caecum, haec, to name a few examples culled from the book, Adler places the circumflex on the second letter of the dipthong. This is the convention.
Sometimes in the textbook, a word has all the accents left out - and occasionally, the wrong accent is used. In such a long and complex book, such errors are inevitable...
...A circumflex can never fall on an antepenult, and never does, not in Adler's textbook, nor in any other Latin textbook. There is no juggling. I am at a loss as to what you are referring to in Adler's textbook. Can you quote examples?
Metrodorus wrote:If the penult is long, two of the mora fall on the same vowel unit, be it a long by nature vowel, or a dipthong. The presence of two mora on one vowel, when followed by a single mora on the ultimate, gives rise to what is called the circumflex.
Having a circumflex on an antepenult would give the Latin word four stresses, however, the accent can only move back three, so an antepenultimate circumflex is an impossibility.
To an extent, indeed, but I have copies of the Kiel volumes and they are just wonderful to swim in because of the skill and quality of so many observations from these early centuries. Stick with the primary sources because they open your eyes and ears.Lucus wrote:I wonder if all these Roman pitch accent writings weren't just overstating the obvious
Were you to look in the 16th and 17th centuries, you would find quite a few. Anyway, the thread tells the story.Metrodorus wrote:...Adler's methodology, explicitly marking the circumflexes and acutes. (I have not yet come across another such)
And what accents does he mark incorrectly?Metrodorus wrote:So far I have read through 400 pages of Adler more or less microscopically.
Adrian wrote:Adler ... the tone rule ... Metrodorus doesn't understand him in this regard
Metrodorus wrote:Adler marks some vowels of hidden quantity with the acute. For example, a vowel before 'ns' in the penultimate, even when followed by a short vowel, will get the acute in Adler. I am not sure if it should get the circumflex, but logically, as the vowel is actually long, although of hidden quantity, to my mind, it should. The syllable is, I assume, not regarded as long by position, but long by nature..... I am not actually sure of what the correct rule is in this circumstance. I have asked around, and yet remain uncertain. How would you treat such a long vowel as long by nature (although hidden) - would you give it the acute, or a circumflex?
metrodorus wrote:I would not regard Adler's accentuation as in error.
Adler was using German philologic sources for his lexicographical information. He says quite explicitly that for quantity he relies on George's Lateinisch-Deutches Hand-Worterbuch (Leipsic 1855). The acute would be correct if one regarded these syllables as long by position. Some grammarians do (did?) so.
This is how I treat them in my reading - as long by nature, but of hidden quantity.
metrodorus wrote:Regarding the vowel before ns, Bennet quotes an ancient source ( I can't recall from memory whom) saying that words such as consul take the circumflex.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Qimmik and 51 guests