(My understanding, based on a recent discussion here, is that “dative of possessor” is a misnomer; hence quotation marks)
Dickey has two sentences:
a. τούτῳ ἔστι μείζων οἶκος ἢ ἐκείνῃ. (p. 138)
b. τούτῳ ἐστὶν γενναιότερος πατὴρ ἢ ταύτῃ (p. 239)
I have two questions.
- Why is εστι(ν) accented differently in these two cases? Is one of these two versions more proper than the other? If so, which one and why?
- Why is movable ν retained before the consonant γ in (b)? I failed to find a rule to this effect.
Thanks in advance for your help.
a) seems to be wrong; according to LSJ ”with the dat., ἐστί μοι I have, freq. in Hom., etc.”
However:
Smyth 187b. ἐστί is written ἔστι at the beginning of a sentence; when it expresses existence or possibility; when it follows οὐκ, μή, εἰ, ὡς, καί, ἀλλά (or ἀλλ᾽), τοῦτο (or τοῦτ᾽); and in ἔστιν οἵ some, ἔστιν ὅτε sometimes. Thus, εἰ ἔστιν οὕτως if it is so, τοῦτο δ ἔστι that which exists.
A dative of possesion does, in a way, express existence, so I wonder if this distinction reflects actual practice or whether it’s just an academic convention. At any rate, Dickey’s mistake is understandable.