> >Jim, the rule of accent is that if a word with an acute on the antepenult
> >(third from last syllable) or a circumflex on the penult (second from
> >last), it receives a second accent (acute) on the ultima (last syllable).
> This is true IF, AND ONLY IF, the word in question is followed by an
> enclitic (an accentless word that is deemed, for purposes of pronunciation
> and accentuation, an addendum to the preceding word). In Romans 1:9 the
> enclitic that follows is MOU. The reason for this is the instinctive horror
> felt by a Greek speaker for an accent (pitch-mark in reality) more than
> three syllables from the end of a word.
1. Well, this has been an enlightening experience. None of my grammars have
any information on this. Accenting is given short shrift in most of the
ones I've seen - although Dana and Mantey say that in order to be considered
to have a polished knowledge of Greek, one must pay close attention to the
accents. There's little fear that I am at the polishing level - I'm still
rough hewing! Not even BDF has anything to say on this. Where does one
find the little gems that Carl and Carlton tossed out so non-chalantly?
You guys blow me away! :-)
2. Ack. I just did some research and found roughly 736 instances of
double acute. My agony is now doubly acute, since this is the first
time I've noticed it. :-(
3. What about these cases:
Matthew 3:11 I)SXURO/TERO/S MOU/
Luke 8:46 H(/YATO/ MOU/
Acts 25:10 KAI/SARO/S E(STW/S
1 Cor. 10:19 EI)DWLO/QUTO/N TI/ . . . EI)/DWLO/N TI/
Rev. 19:10 SU/NDOULO/S SOU/
Rev. 22:9 SU/NDOULO/S SOU/
These don't seem to fit in with Carl's "if and only if" statement regarding
the necessity of a following enclitic.