Accent

[Lavrentivs]

In the key to the second exercise in NH Prose Composition, is the following sentence.

αἱ νῆες ἀσφαλεῖς εἰσιν ἐν τοῖς λιμέσι.

I thought that, as far as the accent is concerned, enclitics are one with the words on which they encline; but in that case, we should have ἀσφαλείς εἰσιν -- ?

[cb]

hi, ἀσφαλεῖς standing alone is perispomenon (i.e. has the circumflex on the last syll.)

an enclitic after a perispomenon loses its accent: see s972 of chandler here:

http://www.archive.org/stream/accentuat ... 0/mode/1up

cheers, chad

[Lavrentivs]

I know that, but combined with the enclitic it has the circumflex of the antepænult, which is impossible.

[cb]

hi, it's not quite right that the enclitic syllables are simply treated as extra syllables of the previous word for the purposes of the law of limitation - enclitics follow their own special rules, they don't absolutely form "one" with the previous word - that assumption would lead you down wrong paths, e.g. wondering why ὥστε isn't accented *ὧστε in accordance with the σωτῆρα rule (see my summary of the σωτῆρα rule on pg 3 of this old pdf http://www.freewebs.com/mhninaeide/pharrnotes.pdf) - best just to follow the specific enclitic rules for enclitics as a discrete category. cheers, chad

[jaihare]

I know that, but combined with the enclitic it has the circumflex of the antepænult, which is impossible.

You do not replace the circumflex with an acute. However, if there is a circumflex just before the last syllable, then you have circumflex and acute, one after the other.

οὗτοι οἱ ἄνθρωποι στρατιῶταί εἰσι.
These men are soldiers.

πέλτη τῷ πελταστῇ ἐστιν ἀγαθή.
The targeteer has a good shield.

In the second example, the accent of ἐστί(ν) is simply lost because it follows a circumflex. Do you see the difference?

[cb]

hi jason, i think laurentius was in fact talking about the law of limitation, and asking if e.g. you have χαῖρε but then χαίρετε (and not *χαῖρετε) because of the law of limitation, why doesn't the law of limitation also apply in the same way in the case of enclitics which simply add extra syllables to the previous word - but as i mentioned above enclitics don't simply add extra syllables to the previous word (so that all the accenting rules for words standing alone would also apply to compounds of words with following enclitics), but instead enclitics have their own specific accenting rules. cheers, chad

[jaihare]

hi jason, i think laurentius was in fact talking about the law of limitation, and asking if e.g. you have χαῖρε but then χαίρετε (and not *χαῖρετε) because of the law of limitation, why doesn't the law of limitation also apply in the same way in the case of enclitics which simply add extra syllables to the previous word - but as i mentioned above enclitics don't simply add extra syllables to the previous word (so that all the accenting rules for words standing alone would also apply to compounds of words with following enclitics), but instead enclitics have their own specific accenting rules. cheers, chad

Wow! I never even would have considered that! Did you know that this actually happens in Hebrew? For example, תִּשְׁמֹר can connect to the word following it with a makef (like a dash) that will make it lose its accent and reduce the long vowel to a short one: תִּשְׁמָר־נָא. I guess it's something similar, since a closed syllable in biblical Hebrew must have a short vowel, and connecting the two words together causes that final syllable to lose its stress, which forces the long vowel to reduce to a short vowel. I guess it's similar to what was being asked. I never would have connected this to Greek, though.

Interesting.