Accent

[Lavrentivs]

Unless there is an exception to the rules I know, the words quibusdam and quocumque are paenultimately accentuated. Is this correct?

I had a feeling they might be antepaenultimae. I would also like it if someone could confirm that utraque is an antepaenultima. (Is it permissible metonymically to name a word after its accentuated syllable?)

[adrianus]

quibúsdam quócunque utráque sic accentuntur, nisi fallor.

The enclitic (-dam -cumque -que) draws the accent to the ultimate of the attached word
Encliticum in ultimam partis praecedentis syllabam attrahit accentum.

In English, I'd be inclined to say "it's an antepaenultimate" rather than "it's an antepaenultima"
Non "antepaenultima" sed "antepaeultimate" pro substantivo anglicè dicitur, ut credo.

[Lavrentivs]

Gratias tibi ago, Adriane!

[Lavrentivs]

Tabulam encliticorum completam habesne?

In alio foro lexi -dam non esse encliticum. quibúsdam ita esset dicendum solam per syllabae quantitatem paenultimatae.

[adrianus]

En tabula encliticorum mea:
-ce -cum -cumque
-dam -dum -met -ne
-pse -pte -que -te -ve

Etiam haec:
-cumque -cunque -quomque
-nam -piam -quam
-vis -viscunque/viscumque/visquomque
-dammodo

Non minùs haec:
-autem -circ[um] -enim
-libet -modo -propter
-quand -tamen -vero

[Lavrentivs]

hoc significatne ut

Quod autem …

Quódautem …

dicendum sit?

[adrianus]

Sunt eorum vera obscura qua classicis in sermonibus enclitica verbo praecedenti conjuncta non reperiuntur, nisi fallor.
Vide hoc: http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/a20_11/plank/FocusCliticLatin=vii05.pdf

[Lavrentivs]

Ut videtur -cumque ut encliticum exceptionem facit a regula paenultimata.

[adrianus]

Ut dicis, et omnia enclitica monosyllaba (inter alia) cum vocabulum praecedens vocale correptâ terminatur. Per Google "quorúncunque" vel "quorúmcunque" vel "quorúmcumque" requiras.

[Lavrentivs]

Πάνυ μὲν οὖν, o Adriane.

[adrianus]

I have "small Latin and less Greek", Laurentius,—no Greek, in fact. "To be sure" or "certainly" you say in Greek, I think.
Tenerum Latinum, tenerius Graecum habeo, Laurenti,—nullum Graecum, fateor. "Iterùm" vel "Certum est" graecè dicis, nisi fallor.

[Lavrentivs]

Πάνυ μὲν οὖν solitum est responsum ad Socratem.

Quidém etiam estne encliticum?

[adrianus]

Not usually ('though usually it is postpositive) but apparently there must be instances. I can only now think of siquidem —ah, other examples I found are hicquidem quandoquidem tuquidem quiquidem.

Non cotidiè (at saepè postpositivum est) sed exempla exstare id videtur—haec inveni: siquidem hicquidem quandoquidem tuquidem quiquidem.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z4vI ... ic&f=false
says it shortens a preceding long syllable.
hic fons id correptam facere syllabam longam et praecedentem dicit.

[adrianus]

Quidém etiam estne encliticum?

How did you know to write "Quidém" so in your question, Laurentius, if you can remember?
Quomodo scis sic scribere "quidém", Laurenti, si quis eius memorare?

[Lavrentivs]

Not sure I understand the question. Etiam is, as you said, an enclitic, so « quidem etiam » must be pronounced « quidémetiam ».

If thought I was imitating some mediæval accentuation practice, that was not my intention. I merely wanted to make visible use of what you had taught me.

[adrianus]

I didn't say "etiam" was an enclitic, Laurentius. You accidentally proposed "quidem", which is in fact an enclitic (or can occur sometimes as one) that I had left out. You would more likely say "Etiam quidem", with "quidem" not beginning your sentence (unless the word was being emphasized to draw attention to itself as the word you were proposing, which is what the acute accent on the last syllable of an adverb signifies, coincidentally) and it's not an enclitic there, anyway, so it doesn't change the accent. Or at least I never read anywhere that a postpositive "quidem" counts as an enclitic and shifts the accent, but I'm still learning.

Non clamavi "etiam" encliticum esse, Laurenti. Fortè posuisti "quidem" quod adverbium (a me primitùs omissum) verum encliticum est, vel id esse potest, etsi rarò sic reperitur. Non minùs, post "etiam" veniat hoc adverbium, vel id quam sententiam rarenter incipit (nisi vim habeat quod concursu acutum accentum in syllabam terminantem cadens significat). Praetereà, nec quidem nec etiam illîc encliticum; deinde neuter mutat accentum. Vel ego nusquàm legi quidem et adverbium et encliticum esse quod mutet accentum, at nova continuò disco.

[Lavrentivs]

Quomodo diceas « denique » ?

[adrianus]

Dénique sonatur—prima syllaba accentum habet. Hîc "et" non significat "que".

[MatthaeusLatinus]

En tabula encliticorum mea:
-ce -cum -cumque
-dam -dum -met -ne
-pse -pte -que -te -ve

Etiam haec:
-cumque -cunque -quomque
-nam -piam -quam
-vis -viscunque/viscumque/visquomque
-dammodo

Non minùs haec:
-autem -circ[um] -enim
-libet -modo -propter
-quand -tamen -vero

Ubi haec inveneris, dic benigne, quaeso.

[adrianus]

Vide hoc (quod suprà jam indicavi): http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z4vI ... ic&f=false

et hoc: http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/a20_11/plank/FocusCliticLatin=vii05.pdf
(et suprà citatum)

et secundum dictionarium de L&S vel grammaticâ de Allen et Greenough auctoribus pro tabulâ meâ.

[Lavrentivs]

I just found in Descartes, that one paragraph contains « siquidem » and the next « si quidem ». Could he have wanted to stress them differenty?

…, siquidem verum sit frigus nihil aliud esse quàm …

…; nam, si quidem sit falsae, hoc est …

[adrianus]

I just found in Descartes, that one paragraph contains « siquidem » and the next « si quidem ». Could he have wanted to stress them differenty?

I don't know, if you mean purely a matter of accenting ("síquidem" and "sí quidèm" can sound pretty much the same to me, unless he says "sí quídem") but you might mean otherwise. If by distinguishing "siquidem" and "si quidem" there is a subtle distinction in sense, it may be between "siquidem" with "quidem" in a concessive sense ("granted or given that") and "si quidem" with "quidem" in an emphatic sense of "if indeed/really" (after A&G §322e).

Id ignoro, si res accentum solum spectat ("síquidem" et "sí quidèm" similiter sonantur nisi "sí quídem" sonetur) at forsit aliter vis dicere. "Siquidem" et "si quidem" in distinguendo, nonnè sensûs discrimen significatur, inter concessivum et emphaticum, ut conjicio (secundum hoc locum: A&G §322e).

[MatthaeusLatinus]

Id ignoro, si ...

ſi licet corrigere, ſcribendum vero fuit "id ignoro, an ..." ſive "id ignoro, num ..." cum modo coniunctivo : ſpectet.

[adrianus]

Maximas gratias tibi ago quod me juvisti, Mathaee.

[adrianus]

Just a second...Doesn't "ignoro an" mean "I don't know whether..." but that is not the correct sense here: "If you are indeed asking about one thing, then I don't know about that thing".

Siste...Nonnè aliter dicere volo: non "ignoro an", sed "siquidem [nonnè peraptum hîc est! seu si quidem] de quâdam re rogas, istam rem ignoro".

[MatthaeusLatinus]

Actually "I don't know whether ..." is 'more' correct and proper than the if-version. Colloquially, it is done, yes, but the whether-version is preferred in writing.

Examples of ignoro an.

and here.

also here here.

Found one with si: ignoro

[adrianus]

Responsum meum non tenes, id mihi videtur, Matthaee.
I don't think you follow my response, Matthaeus.

Translate the following into Latin:
Ita in sermones latinos tradas, amabo te:
"If that is what you are asking, then I don't know about that"

Then / tunc
"If that is what you are asking, I don't know about that"

Then/dein
"I don't know about that, if that is what you are asking."

[Lavrentivs]

Volebam in Allen et Greenough confirmare -cumque esse encliticum, non tamen hoc poteram. esne securus?

[Lavrentivs]

Volebam rogare an síquidem et sí quídem dicendum esset.

[adrianus]

Cum siquidem legas quo est -quidem encliticum, "síquidem" sones, ut opinor.
Cum "si quidem" legas quo non est encliticum, "si quidèm" vel "si quídem" sones.

[Lavrentivs]

Thanks. Did you overlook the question above? Can you prove that -cumque is an enclitic? It seems not to be.

In A & G's section on -cumque, there is no mention of it being an enclitic.

[adrianus]

Can you prove that -cumque is an enclitic?

What else can it be? It's attached to a preceding word that inflects. If you prefer, say "-cum + -que enclitic"
Quid aliter est? Conjunctum est verbo praecedenti quod declinat. Si praefers, "-cum" ante "-que" encliticum dic.

[Lavrentivs]

"What else can it be? It's attached to a preceding word that inflects."

You seem to assume that whenever the first part of a composit inflects, the last is an enclitic. Of which I fail to see the plausibility; there is certainly nothing a priori about such a rule. Why can't it be a mere composite? Treating the -que as the enclitic seems much better to me. Thus, quodcum´que, not quod´cumque.

[adrianus]

We must also remember that in Latin enclitics are of several different types, and that it is at least theoretically possible that these were treated differently with respect to accentuation. They may be listed as follows:

1. Inseparable enclitics, those which exist only in connection with a limited number of base-words, with no independent meaning of their own, where the resulting combination has a new and different meaning. The base-word and the enclitic may be said to have coalesced into a new word. Examples are -dam as in quidam, -dem as in Idem or quidem, -que (generalizing) as in quisque, -quis, etc. as in quisquis, -piam as in quispiam, and -cumque as in quicumque or ubicumque.

2. Separable, or movable, or optional enclitics, which may be attached at will to certain words, or to any word, when their specific meaning needs to be added. These are -que 'and,' -ve, -ne, -ce, -met and -te (as in tute), -pse and -pte, -nam, -dum. The first four of these are the classic examples usually cited by the ancient grammarians.

3. Normal words which may sometimes be used as enclitics; these are often difficult to identify, but still there are many cases where their enclitic character is unmistakable. Examples: various forms of esse and fieri, especially in the present tense; the personal and reflexive pronouns, and sometimes the demonstratives; cum; quis (as in siquis) ; per in parumper; inde as in deinde and proinde. (pp.450-1)

[Lavrentivs]

He says that enclitics may have been treated differently with respect to accentuation, but I had the impression that the enclitic were defined in terms of accentuation. If the accentuation is not enclitic, there is no enclitic, but a suffix, as far as I can see.

Question: If -inde in proinde is an enclitic, does that mean, it is to be pronounced: pro´i^nde?

[adrianus]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YleDNu0EglAC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=proinde+deinde+accent&source=bl&ots=2UOmLtFbdy&sig=DVAeab5N39EV9bVc2Wk8UFSosPk&hl=en&ei=dvNkTublFcqw8gOk7L2BCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=proinde%20deinde%20accent&f=false

[Lavrentivs]

This seems specific to the middle ages. The way he writes it, as if it is surprising, indicates to me that it deviates from the classical accentuation.

[adrianus]

He writes plainly. All he says is that this is the influence of the grammarians, or the schools. If anything, he says the tradition precedes the Carolingian Empire ("a grammatical tradition that was still current in the Carolingian period"—he references Priscian and Keil's Grammatici Antiqui) and draws attention to its continuance into the late Middle Ages ("and in rhythmic poetry—even that of the late Middle Ages—one occasionally finds some examples of these accentuations" [p.11]).

Clarum est quod is scripsit. Sic docent nonnulli grammaticorum antiquorum apud Kiel ante annum aevi communis octingentesimum, cuius ops per totum aevum medium manet.