Forgotten Accents

Steve Lovullo SLovullo at etcconnect.com
Wed Nov 13 14:51:16 EST 2002


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ghilardi [mailto:qodeshlayhvh at juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:47 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: Forgotten Accents
> 
> 
> Steven,
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:54:00 -0600 "Steven R. Lo Vullo"
> <slovullo at mac.com> writes:
> > On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 01:14 AM, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear B-Greekers,
> > >
> > > I seem to have forgotten my accents!
> > >
> > > Jn 3:28 -- AUTOI hUMEIS MOI MARTUREITE hOTI EIPON [hOTI] OUK EIMI 
> > hO
> > > CRISTOS...
> > >
> > > In this verse why is OUK EIMI accented OUK EIMI\ in NA27 and not 
> > OUK
> > > EI/MI? According to Smyth 187b it should be accented OUK 
> EI/MI. Or 
> > does
> > > the difference in person make all the difference? And why?
> > 
> > Richard, Smyth 187b only applies to 3rd sing of EIMI. 
> Machen has the 
> > 
> > following:
> > 
> > "After OUK and certain other words the third person 
> singular present 
> > 
> > indicative of EIMI is accented on the first syllable. This does not 
> > apply to the other forms of EIMI."
> > ============
> > 
> 
> If Machen is correct, then the default rule should apply, eh? 
> A proclitic
> preceding an enclitic gets the accent, thus: OU/K EIMI not OUK EIMI\.
> Smyth 180d and 183e.

Richard:

I took a look at some different examples of OUK EIMI last night, but it was
getting pretty late, so I couldn't pursue it. What I did see, however, is
that OUK EIMI is accented both ways. I want to look at it a little more
closely when I get home today, but I do have an idea about the difference in
accenting. It seems to me that I remember reading that an enclitic will hold
its accent after a proclitic if the enclitic is emphasized. This would make
sense for examples of EIMI used in contrasts implied or explicit. This is
just a guess, though.

Steve Lo Vullo 



More information about the B-Greek mailing list