Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting

Are you reading Homeric Greek? Whether you are a total beginner or an advanced Homerist, here you can meet kindred spirits. Besides Homer, use this board for all things early Greek poetry.
Post Reply
User avatar
perispomenon
Textkit Fan
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Pharr dissyllabic enclitic and accenting

Post by perispomenon » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:08 pm

Pharr states the following in paragraph 556:

?στί(ν) is written with an accent on the first syllable (ἔστι) when :
1) It comes at the beginning of a sentence or of a verse of poetry :
2) It denotes possibility or existence.
3) It is preceded by ο?κ, εἰ, καί, ὡς, μή, ἀλλ', or τοῦτ'.

But in paragraph 216 sentence 4 writes:

Χ?υσηίς οὔκ ?στι χε?είων Κλυταιμήστ?ης

And in 311, sentence 3:

Ἀγαμέμνων οὔκ ?στιν οἰνοβα?ής

This puzzles me. Am I overlooking the application of another rule? Also, that accenting of Χ?υσηίς is not what I would expect (I would have used the grave accent).

Can someone shed some light on this?

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:16 am

I think you caught some mistakes in Pharr.
It looks like he treats ouk as an enclitic.
(Accenting is not my strong point though.

jk0592
Textkit Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by jk0592 » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:21 am

Munro (D. B. Monro, A grammar of the Homeric dialect, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1891) says that, in Paragraph 87,
“The general rule is that the accent is thrown back as far as possible; and the chief departures from this rule are found in the infinitives and Participles, which are in reality Nouns. In the forms of the Verb properly so called the following exceptions have to be noted:–
εἰμί and φημί . The 2 Sing. Imper. φα-θί is oxytone.
The disyllabic forms of the Pres. Indicative, εἰμί, ?σσί, φημί, φησί, &c., are enclictic, and, when they do not lose the accent altogether, are oxytone; but ἔστι is accented in the ordinary way when it occurs at the beginning of a sentence, or after certain words (ο?κ, καί, ὡς).?

Hoping that this is of some help to you...

User avatar
perispomenon
Textkit Fan
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by perispomenon » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:40 am



Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:17 pm



Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:57 pm

Well, I tried Google too. I found several instances of ο?κ ἔστι but none of οὔκ ?στι yet.

User avatar
perispomenon
Textkit Fan
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by perispomenon » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:09 pm

I used this query:

http://www.google.com/search?client=saf ... 8&oe=UTF-8

Gave me 92 hits.

The combination that follows the rule (ο?κ ἔστι) gives me 24.700 hits.

jk0592
Textkit Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by jk0592 » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:58 pm

Here is an example, that is found in Iliad Ἰλιὰς Γ, 45

εἶδος ἔπ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ο?κ ἔστι βίη φ?εσὶν ο?δέ τις ἀλκή.

It shows that the rules given by both Munro and Pharr are followed. I would conclude that the two Pharr examples are typos.

User avatar
perispomenon
Textkit Fan
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by perispomenon » Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:40 pm

I am inclined to agree. Although, typo's? Oversights more likely.

jk0592
Textkit Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by jk0592 » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:03 pm

I think it is easy for both a printer and the author reviewing preprints, to miss accents in books such as these.
This would be compounded when combined with breathing.

I am inclined to think typo...

User avatar
edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:02 pm

Well, either way it seems curious that, if it is an error, it could go unnoticed and uncorrected for 65 years (the same sentence appears in both the 1920 and 1985/revised editions).
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

User avatar
perispomenon
Textkit Fan
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by perispomenon » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:26 pm

edonnelly wrote:Well, either way it seems curious that, if it is an error, it could go unnoticed and uncorrected for 65 years (the same sentence appears in both the 1920 and 1985/revised editions).
Yup, you are right. That's why I was/am inclined to think that it was me, missing some obvious rule.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:04 pm

Especially considering that you had no problem googling many other instances.

jk0592
Textkit Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by jk0592 » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:28 pm

I can imagine Pharr giving his classes with his book, giving errata notices to students, and may even have challenged students to find errors.

The errors, such as those you pointed out, may not easily come to notice since they occur in exercises not related to accenting rules. The emphasis of both paragraphs is to work with -mi verbs.

I am just trying to excuse Pharr; I am sure he did his very best. When I was a student, we did have books with typos...

Maybe we should hunt for typos/errors and set up a Pharr errata for all textkit users.

Arvid
Textkit Member
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:06 am
Location: Seattle WA

Post by Arvid » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:45 am

edonnelly wrote:Well, either way it seems curious that, if it is an error, it could go unnoticed and uncorrected for 65 years (the same sentence appears in both the 1920 and 1985/revised editions).
All I remember about the 1985 revised edition, from thumbing through it in bookstores (a long time ago) was that its main concern seemed to be eliminating most of Pharr's historical notes, and not correcting any errors or typos. So you could say they've stood for 87 years, instead of 65. Does the statute of limitations now make them correct?
phpbb

User avatar
edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:34 am

Arvid wrote:All I remember about the 1985 revised edition, from thumbing through it in bookstores (a long time ago) was that its main concern seemed to be eliminating most of Pharr's historical notes, and not correcting any errors or typos.
You could tell by thumbing through it in a bookstore that they hadn't corrected any errors or typos?
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

Post Reply