A curio - in my accent “fork left” and “four cleft” sound absolutely identical. I’ve enjoyed putting on a cockney accent to make it work like (were claik?) you’ve described. Perhaps we should just relax and enjoy ourselves when it comes to actualising Greek pronunciation so we can focus more on what’s in the text.
The example comes from Eleanor Higginbottom’s “Glottal Reinforcement in English” by way of Allen’s “Accent and Rhythm.” Her study was done on British RP speakers in the 1960s, and is noticeable enough in my American southwest accent. But of course that won’t be true for everyone.
As far as reasons to get the prosody right, you should read more W.B. Stanford, whom I had thought you were a fan of.
Oh, Joel, I don’t know, maybe you’re right. If I were teaching someone English so that they could read some early modern poetry I’d let them know about blank verse but wouldn’t really be concerned if they weren’t picking up on Shakespeare’s mastery of enjambment compared with Marlowe, or John Milton’s tendency to play with length to squeeze things into the pentameter, if they still had to look up half the words.
Prosody has a ludic interaction with meaning in poetry (and prose) which can enrich a reading but I’m not convinced it’s the linchpin you make it out to be, except in special cases. Did you notice my previous paragraph was all in blank verse? Does it matter? Was “Joel” two syllables or “you’re”? Did you enjoy my avant-garde line break at po/etry? How about the cheeky rhyme and half-rhyme? I know it’s a silly example but there’s meaning and enjoyment to be had even (whisper it) if we ignore prosody. And my previous post was only about pronunciation, not versification.
Sean, I am saying that the above syllabification scheme not be taught, as it’s wrong and dodgy, for the reasons listed. If you want to talk about about verse and enjoyment and how to teach it minimally, go ahead. You and I would likely agree on some things, disagree on others. But that last post seems to be an enormous full tilt against an opponent that is not there.
Well if the windmill has moved, go back to my original post - I’m not sure why you’re so concerned about phalakros and mwh corrupting the youth of Athens with a system that works and makes sense when reading Greek, or what benefits you think there are from your wild surmise. But anyway, I’m off to reinforce my glottis.
My scheme? You’ll have to outline it for me. I’ve missed it.
Apologies, updated. To summarise what I’ve said or implied above - learning about the sound of a language should reflect the level of the learner (from a teacher’s standpoint, if a learner wants to spend all their spare time reading about it they can knock themselves out) and the benefit they can get from that knowledge. There are obvious benefits to the learner from being able to scan Greek verse reliably, and there’s a clear system for syllabification and syllable length/weight described above that works when you meet consonant clusters. What the benefits might be for these students worrying about guttural reinforcement and peak aperture opening in terms of getting additional meaning or pleasure from a Greek text, I don’t know and you don’t seem willing to explain.
For more on the interaction between sound and meaning in Greek verse I heartily recommend the (guaranteed glottis-free) Sound, Sense, and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Poetry by Mark Edwards, which I’m reading at the moment and which is currently available free from Project Muse. There’s an excellent review here that points out some of its shortcomings as well as its successes.
I did enjoy this discussion, despite some of its parts being too nuanced for me to understand adequately.
As for this thread belonging to the “Learning Greek” part of the forum, I guess the name is a misnomer, because users here sometimes discuss the intricacies of Greek language that have little or no pedagogic significance. I am not complaining because, for the most part, I nevertheless enjoy what is being discussed.
Sean,
Learners don’t need to know about aperture or guttural reinforcement. Though they are simple enough concepts. But teachers, at whatever level, do need to be able to evaluate anything they put forward, and that discussion will be complicated. My argument here, aimed at teachers, is not to use the particular syllabification scheme that has been mentioned, which luckily is not found very frequently. There are plenty of references and textbooks that do not present it as argued here. Now I outlined my reasoning, which you might find a bit complicated and technical, and could quite easily be wrong, but I certainly am not suggesting that learners worry their heads about it.
However, I do think that this “shut down discussion to protect the babes” is antithetical to everything that Textkit is about. This is a place where we can hash things out. Academic reputations are not on the line, and people can be less reserved and careful. There are plenty of loopy opinions that get expressed here, and plenty of loopy individuals. I get a bit steamed sometimes at the narcissistic-cases, whose interest is not discussion, but playing internet professor. But they are still free to so it.
hairetikon: I’m glad it was helpful.
As for the part with no pedagogical significance, it should be made clear that the basic method of dividing up syllables I discussed above is completely standard, in one form or other, among professional classicists. I teach it in my classes happily and I am “able to evaluate” its validity. Joel has a pet theory that he has brought up a number of times on these boards. It is fine if he wants to argue that the standard syllabification scheme is wrongheaded and “damaging.” But, again, this should be the subject of another thread. I would have been willing to talk about syllables, muta cum liquida, etc (all topics I’m interested in) if they had been brought up in a less acrimonious fashion and in an appropriate forum. As an example: instead of trying to clearly answer hairetikon’s question about syllable division, Joel said “σύν and ξύν are both short in isolation,” pivoting to the topic of word boundary and then not bothering to correct his, very understandable, confusion about ξυνός. This sort of thing makes it more difficult for learners to use this forum efficiently.
I’m sorry I needlessly prolonged it - I extend that apology to everyone who made it this far. You asked good questions and I’m glad you got some good answers.
Joel, you’ve got me. I tap out. I can’t take the self-satire any more.
Phalakre,
Again, threads can always be split up and moved around, and I have already offered to split this one up after it settles. Though I again recommend thinking of contributions here as ephemera, and the real point being the discussion.
Regarding what I thought was your most serious point, I’ve reviewed my posts in this thread, and don’t find anything that strikes me as acrimonious.
I earlier reviewed my post in another thread you complained about my dismissiveness towards you, and I did not see that there either.
Now on the subject of syllabification, I could certainly be wrong. But calling it my “pet theory” when there is pretty good back and forth between West and Allen in print on the matter, is a strange attack. And while I am unaware of what a poll of working classicists would show, I think that I would expect some diversity of viewpoints.
Finally, and this is certainly meant to Sean as well, Textkit is a community, not a textbook. And it is its members, not its threads, nor even the people wandering by on random Google searches. I think that we work better with more civility, less pretense, and good discussion. I violate this often enough myself, and regret it. Asides and tangents we can have and still be a good board. Sniping and incivility and pretense, we can’t.
Joel, you’ve got me. I tap out. I can’t take the self-satire any more.
You took the words right out of my keyboard. Thank you for your witty posts and the recommendation, both of Mark Edwards’ Sound, Sense, and Rhythm, which I’ve been wanting to get to for a while, and the detailed review by someone familiar. 
This is taken from Textkit’s mission statement:
To build and nurture safe and helpful online communities and networks where beginning learners of Ancient Greek and Latin can meet, seek assistance and learn together.
When I first came to Textkit, this is what I looked forward to and thanks to many of you, it’s what I’ve experienced. I think there are many of us who come here for help, not necessarily for discussion. For those of you feeling somewhat frustrated right now, please know your efforts are appreciated.
If anybody wants to read the whole statement, it’s available here:
https://www.textkit.com/about/
I appreciate that, Aetos. It is a good about page. I would hope that we could take the “helpfulness and good cheer” part of it to heart.
You’re welcome! I think you’ll get much more out of it, but I’m finding it very stimulating as an amateur. A tip of the chapeau to you for your excellent, well-presented explanations in this and other threads. You have a gift for clarity and a teacher’s eye for the important fact.
Joel, I’m genuinely sorry that what began as a bit of gentle fun veered into incivility by the end. I admit I thought you were quite rude above, but then tone is difficult to achieve on the internet and if I consider the beam in my own eye - vanity, pride, competitiveness, quickness to mockery - I should perhaps be less eager to find fault. Many thanks to Aetos, who not for the first time is the conscience of the board.
Where was I rude? I have re-read my posts twice now, once after Phalakros’ mention of acrimony, and now after this, and I am in the dark about what the two of you are reacting too. I admit that I did consider an angry reply after the “self-satire” line, repeated even, but Aetos’ post convinced me not to.
In the spirit of helpfulness and good cheer, I think it’s best not to dwell. If you say you weren’t being rude, that’s good enough for me and I apologise again for reading too much into it.