In Reading Greek section 4C-D exercise 7 students are asked to “de-elide’” some sentences. I have a problem understanding the accentuation.
Here are the questions with the suggested answers
κακός ἐσθ’ ὁ πόλεμος.
κακός ἐστὶν ὁ πόλεμος.
ἆρ’ εἴμ’ ἔμπειρος;
ἆρά εἰμι ἔμπειρος;
in 4 I understand that κακός remains oxytone because it is followed by an enclitic. And in 5 I understand that "ἆρά " has taken the acute from the enclitic “εἰμι” What I don’t understand is the different treatment of “ἐσθ’” and "εἴμ’ ". In 5 it looks like the acute from εἰμί has moved to the first syllable εἰμί → εἴμ’ but in 6 we have ἐστί(ν) → ἐσθ’.
CGCG in 24.40 says that if a vowel that would be accented is elided, that accent recedes to the previous syllable. The exceptions given are “most” prepositions or particles. if that is what has happened in 5 why not in 4?
As I have said on previous occasions I have a poor grasp of accentuation because in my first year of Greek it wasn’t taught and I struggled to catch up because later on it was assumed it had been.
Why is ἐστὶ(ν) accented in the unelided version of #4? It’s an enclitic, isn’t it? If ἐστι(v)is not accented, then neither §§ 24.40 nor 24.41 should apply, and κακός ἐστι > κακός ἐσθ’. The following ὁ is a proclitic, not an enclitic, so it’s treated as part of the next word and doesn’t cause enclitic ἐστι(ν) to become oxytone.
#5 observes both CGCG §§ 24.40 and 24.41.
ἆρά ειμι > ἆρ’ εἰμὶ consistent with § 24.41: grave added to second syllable of two-syllable word following elided word.
ἆρ’εἰμὶ > ἆρ’εἴμ’ consistent with § 24.40: elided vowel that would be accented results in accent receding to previous syllable as acute.
Just looking in here after spotting seneca’s cri de coeur. I’ve always cursed accent rules, which so often appear arbitrary, and I don’t understand these examples at all. If εἰμί is enclitic, as of course I’m happy to accept it is, why should it acquire an accent in ἆρ’ εἴμ’ ἔμπειρος? (To compensate for the unavailability of ἆρά εἰμ’ once ἆρά is elided? or is there a more satisfactory explanation?) And—Hylander’s query—why the accent on ἐστὶν in κακός ἐστὶν ὁ πόλεμος? (So as to have enough accents in a string of syllables? But what sort of accent is a grave anyway?)
And seneca, does Reading Greek really have that exercise? If so, it must be in a more recent edition. I’d remember if it was in the original one.
It’s many years since I struggled with Wackernagel, which I suspect still has to be starting point. I used to be persuaded by Barrettt’s appendix to his Hippolytus, forbidding acutes on two successive syllables, which seemed eminently sensible. But West muddied all that in his Theogony Excursus, and since then I haven’t known what to think. And I don’t now have CGCG, nor Probert’s big monograph. (I don’t remember if either of them actually deals with this sort of thing; it seems a rather artificial kind of enquiry.)
Yes it does - in the completely revised second edition- even though the discussion of accentuation is cursory at best. I also think that this is hardly the sort of thing that students need to do at this stage.
to be clear the printed text of the sentences to be de-elided are as follows:
κακός ἐσθ’ ὁ πόλεμος.
ἆρ’ εἴμ’ ἔμπειρος;
and the proposed answers are
4.κακός ἐστὶν ὁ πόλεμος.
5. ἆρά εἰμι ἔμπειρος;
I agree I think the proposed answer is wrong. it should be κακός ἐστιν ὁ πόλεμος.
So the proposed answer ἆρ’ εἴμ’ ἔμπειρος; is correct and results form a two stage application of the rules you refer to.
Sorry if I have made heavy weather of this but I want to be on firm ground when I have to explain this.
I will tell students that this is something they need not be overly concerned about. And as Michael puts it this is a very artificial exercise.