Accented enclitic after a perispomenon

Greek Learning Greek
1

Hi,

This post of mine relates to a few questions I posted about the course book Alexandros (3rd ed.), which I have just started browsing.

I’ve noticed that at least in Chapters 1 and 2, albeit not always consistently, the author accents the second syllable of an enclitic if the enclitic follows a word with a circumflex on the ultima, as in

Ἡμεῖς οὖν ἐσμὲν Ἑλένη καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος,

where ἐσμὲν rather than ἐσμεν is used.

Now, this seems to contradict what Athenaze says:

‘[I]f a circumflex stands on the ultima of a word preceding an enclitic, the enclitc has no accent, e.g. ἀγρῶν τινων.’ (see Athenaze, 3rd ed., p. 331, letter b).

I was wondering if/how it is possible to account for this discrepancy between Alexandros and Athenaze and the only explanation I could come up with was that the lack of an accent on the enclitic prescribed by Athenaze in this environment is an exception to how contonation (usually) works, see e.g. Mastronarde’s Introduction to Attic Greek (2nd ed. p. 20):

‘the circumflex followed by two syllables in third example here [τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐστι)] is the conventional treatment but is anomalous in theory,’

since we have two morae, rather than at most one, after the contonation. Thus, I was wondering if the non-conventional(?) option chosen in Alexandros (i.e., the use of an accent on the enclitic) may just be a sort of ‘regularisation’ stategy employed by the author to avoid having an exception to how contonation works.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this (e.g., may my explanation be on the right track?) and/or references where this issue is discussed in some detail?

Many thanks.

Cristiano

2

The issue you are referring to (breaches of the rule that not more than one mora may follow the contonation, in certain cases involving enclitics) was worked on by various people in the previous century (Hermann, Vendryes, Tronskij, Sommerstein, etc.). The reference I have to all of this is Allen, Accent and Rhythm, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 1973, where it is discussed in some detail.

The “tradition” that Mastronarde follows is μεγάλοι τινές and παίδοιν τινοĩν for cases of disyllabic enclitic and main word paroxytone. But καλοῦ τινος and καλῶν τινων*. For the latter case, Hermann (in the 1920’s) proposed to accent the second syllable of the enclitic to make it consistent with the former case, but I guess it wasn’t accepted.

I would doubt that Alexandros is attempting to do this. It may simply be that Alexandros isn’t paying close attention to these details. I don’t know though as I don’t have the book.

* note also καλῶς πως (monosyllabic enclitic but two morae)

On a different matter, note that Mastronarde on page 108 gives, for example, the demonstrative τούσδε (claiming an accentual exception on page 111), while Allen says it should be τοῦσδε, following Vendryes.. So this is another area where dogma may vary.

3

Thank you very much for your help. This was most interesting.

Thanks also for pointing out the καλῶς πως case. I indeed came across a couple of examples so far (this time from the Italian Athenaze, Chapter 4) which seem to fall under this rubric and which made me pause in my tracks:

μεγάλαι δ’εἰσὶν αἱ ὑδρίαι,

οὐκ αἰτία εἰμὶ ἐγώ,

where εἰ should count as two morae immediately following the contonation.

EDIT: I think I got this wrong and this would be of the same type as μεγάλοι τινές, the point being that the moraic structure (i.e, one vs. two morae) of the first syllable of the enclitic is ignored.

Crtistiano

4

There’s a good and relatively straightforward discussion of enclitics in W.S.Barrett’s edition of Euripides’ Hippolytus, Appendix II; cf. the Excursus in M.L.West’s edition of Hesiod’s Theogony (more complcated). These are two expertly grounded and mutually independent discussions, with fundamental bibliography. Most textbooks have nothing but tralatitious fudge on problematic questions of accentuation, and there’s no end of inconsistency. I haven’t looked at the Alexandros book. My advice would be to just follow Mastronarde.

5

Thanks. I will do so. What I like about Mastronarde is that he tries to provide an explanation for what’s going on rather than merely cataloguing all possibilities. Still, his explanation (in terms of contonation plus one mora at most) is clearly a simplification because it can’t account for all enclitic cases, so I’d be interested in seeing an explanation of such cases as well. I think I’ll also have to consult Allen, as suggested in a previous reply.

Cristiano

6

By the way, I’ve know checked Allen 2009[1973]. He seems to account for the behaviour of enclitics by hypothesising that it is the number of syllables rather than the number of morae that counts when enclitics are involved. He claims that we may assume ‘a rule that not more than two unaccented syllables may follow the syllable containing the high pitch’ (p. 241). Still, unless of course I’m missing something, I can’t see see how this would account for δῶρόν τι, i.e. δῶρον τι should also be legitimate based on this rule?

There’s also more recent scholarship, which, however, may be very technical, couched as it is in the generative paradigm (e.g. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.ucsc.edu/dist/3/529/files/2017/12/Revithiadou2018-Ancient-Greek-Pitch-Accent-1zd9dbm.pdf). Something more promising (at least in terms of cognitive plausibility, in my view) may be

Probert, Philomen. 2006. Ancient Greek accentuation. Synchronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK,

which I haven’t consulted yet.

Cristiano

7

Yes I think Probert is still the go-to authority on accentuation. δῶρόν τι is unproblematic (as δῶρον τι would not be).

8

Thanks. I’ve now checked her 2006 book but she doesn’t discuss clitics there. She refers the reader to her New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek.

Cristiano