Adestne

[Lucus Eques]

Saluete!

I was wondering where the accent would fall on adestne; I realize -ne is enclitic, but I never actually thought about its effect on pronunciation in a combined word like that. Quid putatis?

[Lucus Eques]

Come to think of it, what happens for something like rosa liliumque? Does the stress fall on the -um-?

[Cyborg]

I think it's adestne and liliumque.
that's because in lilium the iu are both short, so it cannot be a
diphthong. so when -que is used, the stress falls on "um" alone (not "ium").
in "adestne" I simply cannot see why would not the stress fall on "est".

anyway, that's just what I've read so far. let us both wait for the experts.

[Lucus Eques]

I think it's adestne and liliumque.
that's because in lilium the iu are both short, so it cannot be a
diphthong. so when -que is used, the stress falls on "um" alone (not "ium").

Okay, the relative stress was my question, not specifically regarding the "um" or "ium" — however, if the 'i' is short, it will act somewhat consonantally, more like an English 'y' than a completely distinct vowel. uide Italian pronunciation.

anyway, that's just what I've read so far. let us both wait for the experts.

Indeed.

[Cyborg]

liliumque sounds the strangest thing.

[benissimus]

The stress always falls before an enclitic. There is some argument as to what constitutes an enclitic for the sake of accent, but you're safe to put the stress immediately before an enclitic -que, -ue, or -ne. When you get a word like itaque or ubique, it is not as clear because the enclitic is inseparable from the word if you want to preserve its meaning.

[Deses]

Besides, in adestne and liliumque penults are long by position. Hence they should be stressed anyway.

[Cyborg]

The stress always falls before an enclitic. There is some argument as to what constitutes an enclitic for the sake of accent, but you're safe to put the stress immediately before an enclitic -que, -ue, or -ne. When you get a word like itaque or ubique, it is not as clear because the enclitic is inseparable from the word if you want to preserve its meaning.

You reminded me I read about this itaque case somewhere... I remembered: it was on A+G. Here it is:

a. when an enclitic is joined to a word, the accent falls on the syllable next before the enclitic, whether long or short: as, dea'que, amare'ue, tibi'ne, ita'que (and...so), as distinguished from i'taque (therefore). So (according to some) ex'inde, ec'quando, etc.

I just cannot imagine why would anyone need to append the -que to an "ita".

[mraig]

I just cannot imagine why would anyone need to append the -que to an "ita".

The same reason that we might say "and so" when we could just say "so". Sometimes you just want your meaningless connective to be two syllables instead of one.

[Lucus Eques]

The same reason that we might say "and so" when we could just say "so". Sometimes you just want your meaningless connective to be two syllables instead of one.

Mm, very well put. Locutus benissime.

[Cyborg]

Oh, I did not know -que could be used with adverbs too. I thought it were only for nouns.

[Magistra]

Benissimus quoted A & G:

ita'que (and...so), as distinguished from i'taque (therefore)

mraig wrote:

The same reason that we might say "and so" when we could just say "so".

The way I understand the A & G quote is that ita'que and i'taque have totally different meanings.

"Therefore" and "and so" are synonyms.

I understand that ita'que (and...so) is used when one wants to use the enclitic -que (and) as a conjunction and ita (so) as an adverb.

The ellipsis given in A & G between "and" and "so" indicate that in English other words intervene.

E.G. It was stormy, and it rained so heavily that flooding was likely. ("Therefore" or "(and) so" are not suitable here.)

Magistra