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