Hello all. I have a question.
According to the accent rule (if im correct) for a noun with two syllables,
if the penult is long and the ultima is short, then the proper accent is circumflex on the penult.
For example, οἷκος since οι is long and κος is short, thus circumflex on iota.
Here is my question. Why is ὁ καιρός has an accent on the final syllable although the first syllable
is long but the final short?
Thank you
Jun.
Greek nouns are persistent which means they want a specific accent in a specific position but then the rules cut in that often mean that nouns have to take second best.
καιρός wants an accent on the ultima.
The rule is that a word is always permitted to have an accent on the ultima but it must be acute if the syllable is short and must have a circumflex if long.
As in the nominative καιρός has a short ultima it gets what it wants by having an acute.
In the genitive the ultima is long but it keep the same position by changing the accent to a circumflex - hence καιροῦ.
οἷκος by contrast wants a circumflex on the penult.
The rule for the penult is that it can always have an accent and this will be a circumflex i_f the penult is long and the ultima is short_ but an acute otherwise.
In the nominative it does have a long penult and a short ultima so it gets a circumflex but when in the genitive the ultima is long it changes its accent to an acute - hence οἴκου.
You will notice that the rules would allow both those nouns to avoid changing the accent by moving them. However nouns will always prefer to change an accent rather than move it.
The rules are not different for verbs but verbs differ in what they want. That is to say a verb will try and move its accent as far back as it can go.
According to the accent rule (if im correct) for a noun with two syllables, if the penult is long and the ultima is short, then the proper accent is circumflex on the penult.
Almost true, but not quite. Should read “any words accented on the penult, with long penult and short ultima, have the circumflex.”
λῦε. Κῦρος. But not καιρός, since it’s accented on the ultima. καῖρος, accented on the penult, is a different word (notice that it’s circumflex because of the rule) – it means “the row of thrums” in the LSJ. My wife, the weaver, tells me that thrums are the loose ends of thread that get cut off at the end of your project.
The quote from Eustathius Thessalonicensis, from whom we get the tonal information about καῖρος:
καὶ καιρὸς μὲν κατὰ τόνον ὀξὺν ὁ χρονικός, καῖρος δὲ προπερισπωμένως τὸ μίτωμα, ὃ καὶ ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ δηλοῦται.
“And καιρὸς oxytone is the time, but καῖρος properispomenos is the thread, which is also shown in the Odyssey.”
The dictionary definition from Pausanias from whom we get the LSJ definition:
καῖρος· σειρά τις ἐν ἱστῷ, δι’ ἧς οἱ στήμονες διείρονται.
“καῖρος – A cord in a loom, through which the threads of the warp are passed.”
ΒΤW, Eustathius Thessalonicensis’s commentary seems very readable, and might be a useful addition to our Homer threads.
LSK provides some additional content not found in LSJ (unless it’s based on earlier editions of the lexicon?) with a different quote from Eustathius.
Konstantinidis himself then goes on to expand the definition:
(δένω = δέννω/δέω. μιτάρι = μιτάριον/μίτος.)
Agreed. Do you have a link to an on-line edition?
There seem to be some volumes on Google Books.
Search 1: inauthor:“Eustathius (Archbishop of Thessalonica)”
Search 2: inauthor:“Eustathius Thessalonicensis”
We’re way off topic now, but the fabulously lengthy Homer commentaries of Eustathius, 12th-cent. archbish of Thessalonica, consist mostly of material drawn from ancient commentaries as represented in the Homeric scholia. (We have his own autograph manuscript of his Iliad commentary, additions and all!)
The info re καῖρος comes from an ancient scholium on Od.7.107, καιροσέων δ’ οθονέων etc., a hapax.
Even further off-topic, I wouldn’t go anywhere near Eustathius.
He boasted that he never took a bath.