How can anyone respond to that, unless you cite your sources, when there has been such debate over time about pitch versus volume in Latin stress?Lucus wrote:I have seen sources through the years claim that "-que" and other enclitics might accentuate the previous syllable — but do those sources mean pitch accent or full, volumetric stress? I'd be delighted to be referred to the commentary therewith.
Lucus wrote:enclitics might accentuate the previous syllable
adrianus wrote:Salve LuceHow can anyone respond to that, unless you cite your sources, when there has been such debate over time about pitch versus volume in Latin stress?Lucus wrote:I have seen sources through the years claim that "-que" and other enclitics might accentuate the previous syllable — but do those sources mean pitch accent or full, volumetric stress? I'd be delighted to be referred to the commentary therewith.
His de rebus, tot disputationibus per saeculis eventis, quomodò tibi respondamus, nisi fontes das?
Lucus wrote:enclitics might accentuate the previous syllable
I have to say I'm surprised at this ("might"), because the rule has always been taught in schools according to Priscian: with enclitics -que, -ne, -ve -cum wordstress transfers as an acute accent to the penultimate syllable of the compound (the ultimate syllable of the first word), even if short!
Meâ parte, attonitus sum, quià semper in scholis regula secundùm Priscianum docebatur: "plerúsque pleráque plerúmque femininum enim, quamvis paenultima brevis sit, accentum tamen in eâ habuit acutum, sicut masculinum et neutrum" (Kiel, Priscian, V, 63)
Ergô, non "Lavínaque venit litora" sed "Lavináque venit litora".[/i]
Lucus wrote:Priscian is 500 AD. His word can hardly be gospel on the Classical pronunciation, though he does have much to offer us.
adrianus wrote:Lucus wrote:Priscian is 500 AD. His word can hardly be gospel on the Classical pronunciation, though he does have much to offer us.
Were it not rather late, your endorsement of Priscian would otherwise be reassuring to those who have spoken Latin in the 1500 years since his passing and following the same rule.
Post scriptum: Lucus is AD 2008. His word, by the same reasoning, is further removed from the gospel of Classical pronunciation, though he does have much to offer us.
Secundi millennii est Lucus, ideo is ulterior etiam ab evangelio sermonis Romanorum classicorum, etsi multum quidem habet quod nobis deferat.
calvinist wrote:Just my two cents, but what Lucus has said makes sense to me, and the example of 'itaque' I think is well worth noting. Isn't 'itaque' simply 'ita' + '-que' which was used so commonly it became it's own word? The short 'a' is not accented though, just as one would expect according to the normal accentuation rules. 'Qu' is considered a single consonant, so why would the normal stress pattern be changed with enclitics? As far as the point you brought up, Lucus, about 'filiaque', I have wondered the same thing with 'u' when it precedes a vowel. For instance in 'monuimus', following the normal rules we would accent 'u', which seems to feel a little awkward to me. Perhaps the 'u' becomes more 'v' (as the usual perfect marker is) and we have 'monvimus' which is accented on the first syllable? Just my thoughts.
Priscian wrote:ut itáque, quando adverbium est; quando vero conjunctio, ítaque dicimus
tamen enclitici vim servat: pleráque, ubíque, utráque, exceptis differentiae causa ítaque, útique; in his enim non solum conjunctio sed etiam praeposita ei adverbia vim propriae significationis convertunt composita.
Newcomer, p.152,153 wrote:Corssen, Humphreys, and other writers have investigated the relationship of word-accent to verse-ictus. All agree that a conflict of accent and ictus in the fifth foot of dactylic hexameter is extremely rare. In Vergil there is less than one in two hundred (1/2 per cent.) or sixty-five cases in all. Now if such words as ármaque were pronounced armáque, as the ancient grammarians would claim for their time, Vergil would not so freely have placed them in the fifth foot, which demands the accent ármaque. But in fact he uses them much oftener in the fifth foot than in any other, though he uses them with perfect freedom in the first foot, as Cornu has pointed out (Verh. der 43. Vers., p. 156). In the article cited above Humphreys gives one hundred and fifteen cases in Vergil like promíssaque barba as hexameter endings and sixteen like líminaque alta. In spite of this evidence grammarians are loath to accent líminaque, scéleraque, though fácilius and cápitibus pass unchallenged. Since there is universal testimony for the form sceleráque in late Latin, it seems to me almost certain that a secondary accent was developed on the syllable preceding the enclitic sceleráque (cf. 'vOpwTroi re [mangled Greek here]), as Lane and others suggest. At a later period, when vowel-quantity grew less important and the accent became a more important element of the word, this secondary accent became the primary one: scèleráque, sceleráque. This latter change was greatly facilitated by such forms as scèlerúmque, scèleríque, in which the penultimate law would be an operative factor. After the accent sceleráque became regular, there might well follow by analogy itáque itáne bonáque, pyrrhic words with an enclitic added. Belláque would arise from analogy with both the preceding cases, while bellúmque would resist the analogy still less on account of the long penult, which would tend to take the accent according to the penultimate law. My conclusion therefore is that for the classical period we should accent pléraque, ítaque, béllaque, scéleraque; but, probably, bellúmque scelerúmque.
Not at all. I am not joking when I suggest that the statement "Priscian is 500 AD" is not an argument. If it were, then later points of view must have even less value! Hence the reference to "AD 2008." There is no excuse for not considering what Priscian is talking about and why he is talking about it. And he had access to, and read, many ancient works that are lost to us forever.cdm2003 wrote:However, Lucus brings up an excellent point in the fact that Priscian is half a millennium removed from the accent we're trying to reproduce.
That's not what I said, Chris. Out of the grammarians who have written about this, they mostly say the same. Incidentally, concerning the point "[it] does not mean there were not grammarians aplenty who argued the opposite", an uncheckable hypothesis of disappeared counter evidence doesn't stand up in court, even if it might be true.cdm2003 wrote:Also, the argument that it's difficult to find a Roman grammarian who disagrees with Priscian's sentiment in no way bolsters Priscian's conclusion. The fact that the preservation of ancient texts is both a process of selection and chance does not mean there were not grammarians aplenty who argued the opposite.
I think that's a very proper point to make. Consistency and homogeneity in pronunciation even within a period, never mind between periods, is so unimaginable that assertions to have found it are very suspicious.cdm2003 wrote:Perhaps this is a silly point to make, but look at the different accents and ways of pronunciation that exist within a language concurrently.
Ennius' poetry demonstrates an occasional elision of -s, a possible way of speaking which I've never heard suggested as a Classical rule, and he's closer to Cicero than Priscian was by half.
XLVIII.  Quid in verbis iunctis? Quam scite insipientem non insapientem, iniquum non inaequum, tricipitem non tricapitem, concisum non concaesum! Ex quo quidam pertisum etiam volunt, quod eadem consuetudo non probavit. Quid vero hoc elegantius, quod non fit natura, sed quodam instituto? Indoctus dicimus brevi prima littera, insatius producta, inhumanus brevi, infelix longa.
 Quin ego ipse, cum scirem ita maiores locutos esse, ut nusquam nisi in vocali aspiratione uterentur, loquebar sic, ut pulcros, Cetegos, triumpos, Cartaginem dicerem; aliquando, idque sero, convicio aurium cum extorta mihi veritas esset, usum loquendi populo concessi, scientiam mihi reservavi. Orcivios tamen et Matones, Otones, Caepiones, sepulcra, coronas, lacrimas dicimus, quia per aurium iudicium licet. Burrum semper Ennius, numquam Pyrrhum;
vi patefecerunt Bruges,
non Phryges, ipsius antiqui declarant libri. Nec enim Graecam litteram adhibebant, nunc autem etiam duas, et cum Phrygum et Phrygibus dicendum esset, absurdum erat aut etiam in barbaris casibus Graecam litteram adhibere aut recto casu solum Graece loqui; tamen et Phryges, et Pyrrhum aurium causa dicimus.
 Quin etiam, quod iam subrusticum videtur, olim autem politius, eorum verborum, quorum eaedem erant postremae duae litterae, quae sunt in optimus, postremam litteram detrahebant, nisi vocalis insequebatur. Ita non erat ea offensio in versibus quam nunc fugiunt poetae novi. Sic enim loquebamur:
qui est omnibu' princeps
non omnibus princeps, et:
vita illa dignu' locoque
non dignus. Quod si indocta consuetudo tam est artifex suavitatis, quid ab ipsa tandem arte et doctrina postulari putamus?  Haec dixi brevius quam si haec de re una disputarem—est enim locus hic late patens de natura usuque verborum—longius autem quam instituta ratio postulabat.
cdm2003 wrote:Furthermore, in suggesting that Priscian "had access to, and read, many ancient works that are lost to us forever," aren't you supplying us with "an uncheckable hypothesis of disappeared" supporting evidence which also wouldn't stand up in court?
adrianus wrote:I.2 Italiam, fato profugus, Lavináque venit (but maybe he does say Lavínaque)
I.16 posthabita coluisse Samo; hic illíus arma (maybe not for Virgil who says the second i in illius is short, but he also then says later I.251 navibus (infandum!) amissis, uníus ob iram with a long i in unius)
I.65 Aeole, namque tibi divom pater atque hóminum rex
I.127 prospiciens, summa placidum caput extúlit unda. (extulit said to have exceptional accenting as the u is short, but maybe not for Virgil)
I.177 Tum Cererem corruptam undis Cerealiáque arma (but maybe he does say Cerebáliaque)
I.248 Teucrorum, et genti nomen dedit, armáque fixit (but maybe he does say ármaque)
I.273 gente sub Hectorea, donec regína sácerdos (but sacérdos OK)
I.368 taurino quantum possent circumdáre tergo (Virgil has a short a in circumdare here so he says circúmdare)
I.472 ardentisque avertit equos in cástra, príus quam (although I say "priùs quam")
I.568 Seu vos Hesperiam magnam Saturniáque arva (but maybe he does say Satúrniaque)
I.593 argentum Pariusve lapis circumdátur auro (here V. likes a short a, so "circúmdatur")
I.640 ingens argentum mensis, caelatáque in auro (but maybe he does say Caelátaque)
I.105 dat latus; insequitur cumulo praerúptus áquae mons.
I.151 tum, pietate gravem ac meritis si forte vírum quem
I.498 Qualis in Eurotae ripis aut per júga Cynthi
I.719 insidat quantus miserae deus; at mémor ille
I.734 Adsit laetitiae Bacchus dator, et bóna Juno;
! How anyone might make sense of that collection of sounds surprises me; personally, I hear "atqu'hóminum". But if you say that's how it's pronounced, you must have good reason, no?"átqueminum," as it is pronounced
adrianus wrote:cdm2003 wrote:Furthermore, in suggesting that Priscian "had access to, and read, many ancient works that are lost to us forever," aren't you supplying us with "an uncheckable hypothesis of disappeared" supporting evidence which also wouldn't stand up in court?
Not really, Chris. The contents of some more ancient books we know of only through Priscian (according to the arguments of some scholars). And it is legitimate for a witness to give first-hand knowledge of disappeared evidence, although the credibility of the witness may then be a subject for examination. That's different from hypothesizing that there may be counter evidence that we are unaware of. We can judge what is available to us; we can't judge what isn't. Judgements, however, can never be certainties precisely because of what you say. All I'm saying is to treat Priscian seriously, and then reject him if you want.
Chris wrote:How can the credibility of any witness be a subject for examination if said witnesses' testimony is no longer extant?
Users browsing this forum: Qimmik and 32 guests