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?)
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.
Gratias tibi ago, Adriane!
Tabulam encliticorum completam habesne?
In alio foro lexi -dam non esse encliticum. quibúsdam ita esset dicendum solam per syllabae quantitatem paenultimatae.
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
hoc significatne ut
Quod autem …
Quódautem …
dicendum sit?
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… hîc non jam est sed hîc: http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/plank/for_download/publications/139_Plank_2005.pdf
Ut videtur -cumque ut encliticum exceptionem facit a regula paenultimata.
Ut dicis, et omnia enclitica monosyllaba (inter alia) cum vocabulum praecedens vocale correptâ terminatur. Per Google “quorúncunque” vel “quorúmcunque” vel “quorúmcumque” requiras.
Πάνυ μὲν οὖν, o Adriane.
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.
Πάνυ μὲν οὖν solitum est responsum ad Socratem.
Quidém etiam estne encliticum?
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=z4vIAiQPfb8C&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=quidem+enclitic&source=bl&ots=Q8aI1XSqUn&sig=G2l7XfCK-6xplvqVN-0ctOcJpfE&hl=en&ei=rFNQTtXSHMK0hAfC3sTABg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=quidem%20enclitic&f=false
says it shortens a preceding long syllable.
hic fons id correptam facere syllabam longam et praecedentem dicit.
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?
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.
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.
Quomodo diceas « denique » ?
Dénique sonatur—prima syllaba accentum habet. Hîc “et” non significat “que”.
Ubi haec inveneris, dic benigne, quaeso.
Vide hoc (quod suprà jam indicavi): http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z4vIAiQPfb8C&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=quidem+enclitic&source=bl&ots=Q8aI1XSqUn&sig=G2l7XfCK-6xplvqVN-0ctOcJpfE&hl=en&ei=rFNQTtXSHMK0hAfC3sTABg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=quidem%20enclitic&f=false
et hoc: http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/plank/for_download/publications/139_Plank_2005.pdf
(et suprà citatum)
et secundum dictionarium de L&S vel grammaticâ de Allen et Greenough auctoribus pro tabulâ meâ.