this is supposed to be from συστατός, so why not συστατᾦ? (Τιμ, 33α)
With that accentuation, συστάτης
does not fit context
Chandler talks about verbal derivatives in -τος in 529-533 and calls the rules a mess. It’s possible that this was sometimes conceived of as a two-termination adjective, giving it the other accentuation.
However, there is an interesting rule sourced to Lobeck in 531: “all compound verbal adjectives in τος are oxytone when they indicate possibility merely, and are proparoxytone when they denote a completed act; thus διαλυτός capable of being dissolved, dissoluble, is oxytone, but διάλυτος dissolved, is proparoxytone, Lob. Par. 478.” It holds true “of very many words” but the exceptions are “countless and bewildering.”
κατανοῶν ὡς συστάτῳ σώματι θερμὰ καὶ ψυχρὰ καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα δυνάμεις ἰσχυρὰς ἔχει περιιστάμενα ἔξωθεν καὶ προσπίπτοντα ἀκαίρως λύει καὶ νόσους γῆράς τε ἐπάγοντα φθίνειν ποιεῖ.
In this context, the Lobeck rule works. The body is “constructed,” rather than “capable of being constructed,” before it can be destroyed.
then it should have been mentioned in dictionaries
Regardless of accent, συστατῳ could not be from συστάτης! As for συστατος, I don’t think a distinction of meaning can properly be drawn according to the placement of the accent. It’s an artificial doctrine.
What does “artificial doctrine” mean when there seem to be plenty of verbal adjectives in τος that were accented according to meaning in exactly this way, and when the rule goes all the way back to the ancients? Simply that the distinction never had a spoken reality? Maybe. But if so, then how much of the accentuation in our texts is simply the arbitrary rules of grammarians with funny ideas about etymology?
yes, of course, sorry for having forgotten to mention it.