Is itaque pænultimate?
A&G §12
ita’que = and so
i’taque = therefore
Interesting question, implausible answer. What’s A&G?
Cur incredibile, nisi inconstabilem illam grammaticam habeas? Idem, nisi fallor, in Keil (scilicet in volumine quodam seriei Grammatici Antiqui nomine) quopiam scribitur.
Why implausible, unless you feel A&G is unreliable? I remember this also from Keil (Grammatici Antiqui) in one of the volumes.
A&G = Allen & Greenough’s New Latin Grammar
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+12&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001
Thanks for the resolution of A&G (yes, of course) and the link. Effect of enclitics on accentuation is tricky (scholars argue about it), and things are rather more complex than the A&G rules admit (though I see they do acknowledge scholarly dispute over e.g. exinde). When did itaque "and so = “therefore” get separated off from “and so = and in this way”? (Obviously by the time itaque starts being used postpositively.) That will have some bearing on the question - which, to repeat, is an interesting one, but not one to be definitively answered by reference to A&G.
Look in Keil, then, if you want a better answer. I suspect that was A&G’s source. See Servius in Keil, IV: 427. There is no basis for claiming a distinction is implausible.
In illa volumina de Keil inquiras, si alium fontem (fontem A&G auctorum, ut suspicor) quaeras. Discrimen exstare inter modos sensuum sonandorum non improbabile est.
Yes I figured they got it from some ancient grammarian, and ought to have guessed Servius. No doubt the doctrine was true in his time, and perhaps in Vergil’s. But how much earlier?, when did itaque split into two? It’s a genuine question, which I’m too ignorant to answer. Plus of course Latin accentuation changed from Plautus to classical.
(I should add I haven’t yet looked up the Servius–but thanks for the reference–nor modern phonological/prosodical treatments. And I’m happy to withdraw “implausible” in the interests of fostering a spirit of communal enquiry rather than confrontation. I’m already catching enough flak on the Greek boards. 
)
I’ve read every volume of Keil and could not say as much because reading it once is only a start and there’s so much I haven’t grasped. Where does that insight come from? You are implying an expertise in Servius. Couldn’t another have mentioned that detail? And there is so much Servius doesn’t talk about.
Omne volumine de Keil lecto, ego tantum clamare non possum quod non satis est semel legisse et multum apud grammaticos antiquos malè capio. Unde oritur talis acuitas? Te peritum Servi esse denotas. Nonnè alius de illo vocabulo tractaverit. Et multa Servius praeterit.
You’re perfectly right. I’m no sort of expert on Servius, nor have I read everything in Keil even once (and if I had, I might not admit to it ). I’ve been known to confuse my Donati, and possibly my Servii (for can we be sure of authorship?). Please strike the sentence.
Fortunately it has no bearing on the question at issue, the historical bifurcation of itaque. That’s what I’d be interested in knowing about, and I suspect the ancient Latin grammarians are not going to be of help there. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
(I’m little surprised at your omne, incidentally, but I don’t presume to query it.)
Non absumptum est tempus in legendo illius operis de Keil confactum.
Time spent reading Keil isn’t wasted.
I understand your English, and I almost agree. But does it help with the itaque question?
Yes, reading Keil helps with Laurentius’s itaque question because, when you read it you find direct evidence that, at one point, the practice was to accent itaque in two ways. A&G drew attention to this practice. I drew attention to A&G and I drew attention to a source in Keil. There may be other places in Keil where itaque comes up but I can’t locate them just now. I recommend reading Keil. Beyond that I know of no other primary evidence on the question. That is the help I can offer. Beyond that is conjecture and sometimes waffle.
De Laurenti quaestione, juvat quidem Keil legere quod, eo lecto, vestigium invenitur quod monstrat duos sonandi modos olim constitisse. Itidem in grammaticâ de A&G scribitur, ut jam dixi, et unum fontem in Keil indicavi. Forsit alibi in Keil loci qui ad rem pertinent, at ei interibi me fugunt. In Keil inquirere suadeo. Alioqui, alios fontes pristinos ignoro. En auxilium quod profero. Ultra, conjecturae et vacua.
Gee. Yes, you answered the original question, in the terms in which it was asked. But you fail to see that the dogma you reported (as if it was gospel truth) entails a more interesting and fundamental question, as I have tried gently to point out:
That’s why I defined the question at issue as the historical bifurcation of itaque. (when -que shed its enclitic status)
Without an answer to that there is no hope of settling the question of the historical accent. You have been assiduously avoiding this and have done nothing but harp on Keil. And now you pronounce
That is the most arrogant and (to be frank) stupid statement I have heard for some time. There are scholars who study latin prosody and the history of the latin language. Perhaps you are too busy reading Keil to be aware of them. But it is to them we must turn for instruction and enlightenment on questions such as this.
The discussion between the two of us has clearly gone as far as it can (that is to say, nowhere). I hope others will come on board.
EDIT: I apologize for the exasperated tone of this post.
Then name these scholars and the studies we should refer to for instruction and enlightenment on this question.
You are being rude, mvh. I don’t know what age you are but that would be no excuse, so control yourself. I am not aware of instruction and enlightment on this question of how to pronounce itaque by any scholar I have read on this topic (which is one of my favourite topics for casual research), other than what has been garnered from the ancient grammarians. If you know of any, share it with us. What I say is that without primary evidence about pronunciation of itaque there is conjecture and there are also people pretending to know more than they do. That is neither a stupid statement nor an arrogant one. If anything, it’s a criticism of arrogance.
Inledipè scribis, mvh. Aetatem tuam ignoro at id non refert: te probè geras. Separatim illa de itaque sonando ex scripturis grammaticorum antiquorum a scholasticis lecta, ulla vestigia utilia ignoro etiamsi latè de hâc re amatâ legi. Si locos aptos scis, communices. Sine fontibus pristinis qui ad rem sonandi pertinent, conjecturam habemus, at sunt qui plus scire simulant. Nec stolidè nec superbè scribo, sed contra superbiam.
Post Scriptum.
I just saw Victor’s post and it’s a fair question. They usually refer to Keil.
Quaestionem Victoris justam modo animadverti. Plerumquè opus de Keil citant.
I also find mwh’s post(s) to be rather rude and discourteous. The point he raises is an interesting one but I fail to see how “a spirit of communal enquiry rather than confrontation” can be fostered in such a way.
That said, this article (from 1965) provides an overview of the topic. This other article (1908) could also be interesting.
I apologize for the tone of my last post. The post to which it responded, merely repeating previous posts and peremptorily dismissing everything I had written as “conjecture and sometimes waffle,” had brought it home to me that we were effectively stuck at the point where we’d started, and that I had to abandon all hope of meaningful dialogue and communal enquiry - unless others joined the discussion.
Shenoute now rescues us from the impasse by very helpfully linking to two very helpful articles, esp. Tucker’s. They amply confirm the main point that I had been trying unsuccessfully to get across, that the “Effect of enclitics on accentuation is tricky (scholars argue about it), and things are rather more complex than the A&G rules admit” (Oct.25 post). They also tempt me to reinstate the “implausible” of my original post. It is folly to fixate on itaque in isolation, just as it is folly to accept statements of late Latin grammarians on matters of pronunciation as definitive (see Tucker’s first two pages, to go no further). The primary evidence is the corpus of Latin literature (supplemented by Greek).
There will no doubt be more recent studies, but Latin being only peripheral to my main interests I can’t give precise references. Jumping-off points for investigation might be Questa? (early Latin, empiricist), Devine and Stephens? (linguistics orientation)? I have very vague recollection of coming across some note specifically on itaque (whose semantic bifurcation makes it particularly interesting) but I don’t remember where or what (perhaps by Otto Skutsch, in his Ennius commentary maybe??).
I’ll bow out here, unless I see an opening to make a positive contribution that won’t simply be brushed aside.
I did not say that (everything you had written was conjecture and waffle), as anyone can read above.
Id non dixi, ut omnes supra legere possunt.
I had assumed that, when you were referring to the debate, you had read relevant books and articles. I see that I assumed wrongly.
Falsè imaginavi te, qui de controversiâ locutus sis, fontes aptes legisse. Me ineptum.
You judged it implausible because you hadn’t read anything on the matter. No one on the pages you now have read who disagrees that enclitics attract the accent, says it’s implausible.
Sine fontibus aptis legis, rem habuisti incredibile. Nullus auctor in paginis paucis a te nunc lectis citatus, etiam qui a grammaticis antiquis dissentit, ut incredible clamat encliticum attrahere accentum.
Devine and Stephens doesn’t discuss this; Skutch doesn’t discuss this. I have dozens of articles and books about Latin pronunciation and about enclitics and pronunciation and there are more I don’t have. Many do mention itaque for reasons started above. These are more obvious places to start if you want to read about the debate. Some people love Allen’s Vox Latina. Do a search for Latin Accent or Latin Pronunciation or Latin Prosody or Latin Accent and Enclitics, and you will find some of them at least. You should read them. They throw light on Laurentius’s question and many acknowledge the conjectural nature of their investigations; none throw light on your question.
De re nostrâ non tractat istud opus de Devive et Stephens; nec tractat Skutch, nisi locus me fugit. Multos libellos voluminaque habeo qui de latino sonando ac prosodiâ tractant et sunt alii qui non legi. Sunt qui volumen Vox Latina nomine de Allen adorant. In interretem haec vocabula inquiris: “Os latinum” vel “Prosodia” vel “Accenta/enclitica”. Multa eorum inquisitorum de itaque et encliticis tractant, multa se conjecturas fatentur, multa illuminant Laurenti quaestionem; non illuminant quaestionem tuam.
You might want to reconsider “Sine fontibus aptis legis, rem habuisti incredibile” and “alii qui non legi,” if nothing else.
Date veniam, quod nihil dē rē ipsā scrībō (vestrum colloquium mē maximē tenet!), sed modo ad Latīnitātem Adriānī, quī semper nōs in subscriptō nūntiōrum suōrum petit, ut, quod prāvī vīdimus, statim corrigāmus (spērō mē male nōn facere et Adriānum īrātum ergā mē nōn futūrum 
):
-
imagināvī → imaginātus sum (melius; quia dēpōnēns) → mente fīnxī / mente concēpī (optimum)
(exstat et nōn dēpōnēns sed ita nōn ūsurpātur) -
ille,a,ud + substantīvum (velut in “dē illā grammaticā…” etc.) → licet profectō, at in linguā classicā potius cum substantivō prōnōmen “is,ea,id” vidēmus… (nisi dē locō procul sitō loquimur ubi “ille, a, ud” necessārium est) //Ita, vidēmus utrumque, sed is,ea,id plūs viget.
-
…de Keil confactum. → “confacio/confio” haudquāquam in linguā classicā vidēbis. Accentus, suō locō mūtātō, fuit quī effēcit ut “confacio” “conficio, ere, confēcī, confectum” fieret. Et ita potius nōs, quī in linguam classicam aemulī sumus, facere oportet. → confectum
-
Omne volumine de Keil lecto… → “omne” → “-e” semper accūsātīvus nōminātīvusve generis neutrī est (adj. & pronom.) nisi apud Christiānōs vel forsan ‘archaicissimōs’ (antīquissimōs) auctōrēs et īnscriptiōnēs. Maximī momentī est apud nōmina substantīva neutra, quae secundum “mare/exemplar (exemplāre) / animal (animāle)” dēclīnantur ubi aliud est “in mare(acc.) saluit” et “in marī(abl.) est”; “in exemplāre(=exemplar) trānscrībere” et “in exemplārī esse”; “in rēte incidere” et “in rētī captus esse”; “in animāle(=animal) mūtāre aliquem” et “in animālī sanguis est”. Idem valet ad adiectiva tertiae dēclinātiōnis ferē omnia (nisi “vetus, veteris”… etc) habēre “ī” in ablātīvō → “omnī volūmine (per)lectō”.
-
Si locos aptos scis, → classicē “scīrī” possunt potius rēs, quās tōtās in cerebrō/mente habēre potes. (rēs ‘abstractae/intangibilēs’ + sententiae subordinātae / īnfīnītīvī). Quae autem tangibilia sunt (rēs physicae vel persōnae), physicē cerebrō continērī nōn possunt, sed sōlummodo “scientia” eōrum continērī cerebrō potest. Tum dīcimus “nōsse”. (Fallerem, sī dīxissem semper discrimen esse tam clārum, ut profiteor, sed hoc discrimen potius adest quam abest) → locōs aptōs nōstī
-
In interretem → id verbum antīquum, ex quō hic neologismus orītur, est “rēte, rētis” (pl. rētia) = sīcut mare, maris, dē cuius accūsātīvō ablātīvōque prius disseruī → id interrēte → in interrēte(acc.)
Habē tē quam optimē et floreat Latīnum tuum!