Conflicted results of accentuation

[NateD26]

We're going through Athenaze chapter 2 and the issue of proclitic followed by enclitic words came up.
In their explanation, the 1st person sl. do not throw its accent on the proclitic but is accented on its ultima,
I am not strong = οὐκ εἰμὶ ἰσχυρὸς

however the 3rd person sl. is accented on its first syllable and the proclitic remains without accent.
He is not lazy = οὐκ ἔστιν ἀργός

Now. what I've learned in my university course is that all persons (aside from the non-enclitic 2nd.sl.) other than 3rd.sl.
are not accented but throw their accent on the proclitic,
I am not smart = οὔκ εἰμι σοφός
Τhey are not just = οὔκ εἰσι δίκαιοι

To make matters worse, if the 3rd person sl. has the meaning of existence, there is,
some say that it will not be accented on its first syllable but behave as the rest, throwing its accent
on the proclitic, οὔκ ἐστι σοφός = There is no wise man

So the mind boggles still.

please lay out clear rules as to when an enclitic preceded by prolclitic is accented and when the latter is.

[jaihare]

Good question. I'd like to know, too.

[annis]

All questions are answered here, though you may be sad to have asked: http://books.google.com/books?id=6KgNAAAAQAAJ

For the most part, editors are in agreement about what sort of accenting should happen when and where. There are certain edge cases, however, where things can get messy.

[NateD26]

Thank you, annis.
I'll begin reading it tonight.

[annis]

I'll begin reading it tonight.

Oy! This is a book to consult, not read. And I say this as someone who finds Sihler's comparative grammar a suitable bedside book.

[benissimus]

I'll begin reading it tonight.

Oy! This is a book to consult, not read. And I say this as someone who finds Sihler's comparative grammar a suitable bedside book.

I thought I was the only one!

[Bert]

I'll begin reading it tonight.

Oy! This is a book to consult, not read. And I say this as someone who finds Sihler's comparative grammar a suitable bedside book.

I thought I was the only one!

The reason I feel at home at Textkit is; I don't feel like I'm the only Geek. My wife says I must be the only person who takes a three ring binder for bedtime reading.

[jaihare]

So, to summarize, would you say that the forms οὔκ εἰμι and οὔκ εἰσι are correct or incorrect?

Thanks!

[annis]

So, to summarize, would you say that the forms οὔκ εἰμι and οὔκ εἰσι are correct or incorrect?

That depends on the authority you consult, at least as far as I can see.

Now, the 3sg. ἐστί has a bunch of rules unique to it, so that οὐκ ἔστι is the only correct form (Chandler 1882 §938). Several authorities say that all enclitic forms of εἰμί get an accent when following οὐ, ὡς or εἰ (Griffiths, p.16). I cannot find confirmation of this in Chandler.

[jaihare]

So, to summarize, would you say that the forms οὔκ εἰμι and οὔκ εἰσι are correct or incorrect?

That depends on the authority you consult, at least as far as I can see.

Now, the 3sg. ἐστί has a bunch of rules unique to it, so that οὐκ ἐστί is the only correct form (Chandler 1882 §938). Several authorities say that all enclitic forms of εἰμί get an accent when following οὐ, ὡς or εἰ (Griffiths, p.16). I cannot find confirmation of this in Chandler.

Do you mean the only incorrect form? How can οὐκ ἐστί be the only correct form when a majority of textbooks have οὐκ ἔστι?

One example is First Greek Book, §166, where it states in point 3: "When it follows οὐκ, εἰ, ὡς, καἰ, τοῦτο, and some other words, {it appears} as οὐκ ἔστι Κύρῳ πλοῖα, Cyrus has no boats."

Thanks.

[annis]

[Do you mean the only incorrect form? How can οὐκ ἐστί be the only correct form when a majority of textbooks have οὐκ ἔστι?

D'oh! I accented ἐστί like the other forms of εἰμί. Fixed.

[jaihare]

Thanks so much!

[jaihare]

Not to bring up a dead thread with vengeance, but we were discussing this on GreekStudy, and I would assume that the whole conclusion would be as follows:

(1) It's a complicated issue.
(2) ουκ εστι should be accented οὐκ ἔστι in all situations.
(3) The accentuation of ουκ ειμι and ουκ εισι is debated among the sources, some saying οὔκ εἰμι/εἰσι and others οὐκ εἰμί/εἰσί. It depends on the authority that you consult.

Would that be a pretty good summary of what we discussed in this thread?

Thanks again,
Jason