From helmadik@midway.uchicago.edu Fri Mar 10 14:02:36 2000 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id OAA07176 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:02:34 -0800 Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id OAA18575 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:02:34 -0800 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03054 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:02:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from [128.135.183.45] (classics3.uchicago.edu [128.135.183.45]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29803 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:02:30 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: helmadik@nsit-popmail.uchicago.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:57:20 -0600 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: Helma Dik Subject: Re: accentuation of demonstrative in "men"/"de" construction Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Mimnermus 2.5-7 contains a "he men", "he d'" construction. In my edition >(Campbell) the "he" before the "men" receives an accent, while the "he" >before the "d'" does not. The use appears to be demonstrative (cf. Smyth >1114), but then why does the d' not get an accent? > >Is there a rule for accentuation of a proclitic when "d'" is elided? > Hi Pamela, As you already know, ho men, ho de etc. are the remnants of the anaphoric pronoun you see all over in Homer, but which eroded to become the definite article in classical Greek. Usually these forms will be unaccented, but if an editor chooses to regard them as "really" relatives, then they're accented. As Smyth points out (1109), you find relatives instead of the article in later periods, but the invasion of the unambiguous relative forms is probably due to re-interpretation and false analogy (1114a). Accentuation of this ho and he should be the same as for the def. article. Proclitics can receive an accent when they're at the end of a phrase rather than the beginning (e.g., ou at the end of a sentence, prepositions following their noun); or when they're followed by an enclitic: h in h te gets accented. But de is not enclitic, merely postpositive, so you get h de or d' without accent. [You may have been thinking of the 'revenge of the accent' rule under elision, as in po/ll', ka/k', etc., where the elided syllable should have the accent but instead you get an acute on the preceding syllable, but this only happens to content, not function words, and besides, h itself is not subject to elision here] Anyway, I confess I don't understand why Campbell accents the h in h men. The TLG version (I didn't check which edition that is) does not. Hope this helps. In dealing with accents in a classful of eager undergrads you can get bogged down in ever more complicated permutations of proclitics and enclitics ("and what if you have another disyllabic enclitic with that?" sigh..) but I hope this covers it for now:-) Best HD Helma Dik Department of Classics University of Chicago helmadik@midway.uchicago.edu http://humanities.uchicago.edu/classics/ .