Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
Well, those are good questions, Eeli. To a certain extent, there is some artificiality in the accentuation convention. In my experience, however, it tends to overstate rather than understate the accents, especially for proclitics such as the article (in all cases) and prepositions. Of course, the original question in this thread is asking whether the first ποτε in Gal 1:23 should be accented, contrary to the accentuation of the Nestle-Aland edition, but in accordance with other editions and some medieval manuscripts. But ποτε belongs to a class of words that can be either accented or enclitic. It is nice that the oblique cases of the first person singular pronoun actual have a difference form ἐμοῦ ~ μου, ἐμοί ~ μοι, έμέ ~ με, but of the other variably enclitic words are spelled the same, except for the accent. οὐ is one of them, and there are cases of an accented οὔ in the NT, e.g. 2 Cor 1:17. There are other devices or an emphatic negation than just stress, however, such as using a stronger form οὐχί, or the collocation οὐ μή, or using ούδέν (which is the strategy that eventually led to the negation becoming δεν in Modern Greek). At any rate, the lack of graphic accents is not the only evidence for enclisis, position in the clause is too (see Wackernagel's Law), which does not seem to factor into Iver's understanding. Where Iver and I do agree, however, is the first position is the most prominent and this probably accounts for the large areas when we do agree.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
Stephen,Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, those are good questions, Eeli. To a certain extent, there is some artificiality in the accentuation convention. In my experience, however, it tends to overstate rather than understate the accents, especially for proclitics such as the article (in all cases) and prepositions. Of course, the original question in this thread is asking whether the first ποτε in Gal 1:23 should be accented, contrary to the accentuation of the Nestle-Aland edition, but in accordance with other editions and some medieval manuscripts. But ποτε belongs to a class of words that can be either accented or enclitic. It is nice that the oblique cases of the first person singular pronoun actual have a difference form ἐμοῦ ~ μου, ἐμοί ~ μοι, έμέ ~ με, but of the other variably enclitic words are spelled the same, except for the accent. οὐ is one of them, and there are cases of an accented οὔ in the NT, e.g. 2 Cor 1:17. There are other devices or an emphatic negation than just stress, however, such as using a stronger form οὐχί, or the collocation οὐ μή, or using ούδέν (which is the strategy that eventually led to the negation becoming δεν in Modern Greek). At any rate, the lack of graphic accents is not the only evidence for enclisis, position in the clause is too (see Wackernagel's Law), which does not seem to factor into Iver's understanding. Where Iver and I do agree, however, is the first position is the most prominent and this probably accounts for the large areas when we do agree.
Would you find it easier to accept if I rewrite the sentence as follows:
Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτέ ἐπόρθει.
I was reluctant to comment on the conventions and current theories of accentuation and clitics, because I consider them to be inaccurate and misleading - and I don't fully understand the conventions anyway. I do not believe in Wackernagel's Law as a valid principle nor do I accept that ἐμοῦ, ἐμοί and έμέ are a priori more emphatic than μου, μοι and με. I have said that earlier and did not intend to repeat it.
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
No, it doesn't for it accents the wrong ποτε. I've been reading through Chandler's Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation (1881), and it looks like some editors will only consider ποτε orthotone if it is first. The book notes a healthy debate among editors of Greek texts that is largely absent today.Iver Larsen wrote:Would you find it easier to accept if I rewrite the sentence as follows:
Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτέ ἐπόρθει.
Yeah, this makes it difficult to reach a meeting of the minds. I'm not sure what you mean by "a priori" but if you look at the distribution of (ἐ)μοι etc. in the first position, which we both agree is the most prominent, you'll find that the orthotone absolutely dominates the enclitic in that position. If that isn't evidence of whether the orthotone is more emphatic, I don't know what is.Iver Larsen wrote:I was reluctant to comment on the conventions and current theories of accentuation and clitics, because I consider them to be inaccurate and misleading - and I don't fully understand the conventions anyway. I do not believe in Wackernagel's Law as a valid principle nor do I accept that ἐμοῦ, ἐμοί and έμέ are a priori more emphatic than μου, μοι and με. I have said that earlier and did not intend to repeat it.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
What exactly is meant by first?Stephen Carlson wrote:No, it doesn't for it accents the wrong ποτε. I've been reading through Chandler's Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation (1881), and it looks like some editors will only consider ποτε orthotone if it is first. The book notes a healthy debate among editors of Greek texts that is largely absent today.Iver Larsen wrote:Would you find it easier to accept if I rewrite the sentence as follows:
Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτέ ἐπόρθει.
Would these "some editors" then agree with me that the ποτέ in ποτέ ἐπόρθει is orthotonic since it appears first in its unit, while the ποτε in Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε is not orthotonic, because it is not first?
If I get time, I'll try to read your reference.
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
I think first in the clause.Iver Larsen wrote:What exactly is meant by first?
No to the first question, because ποτε is not first in ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει.Iver Larsen wrote:Would these "some editors" then agree with me that the ποτέ in ποτέ ἐπόρθει is orthotonic since it appears first in its unit, while the ποτε in Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε is not orthotonic, because it is not first?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
But ποτέ is first in the relative clause: ἥν ποτέ ἐπόρθει. The relative pronoun has to come first as it marks the clause as a relative clause. The relative clause is a rankshifted clause and part of the noun phrase τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε/ποτέ ἐπόρθει.Stephen Carlson wrote:I think first in the clause.Iver Larsen wrote:What exactly is meant by first?
No to the first question, because ποτε is not first in ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει.Iver Larsen wrote:Would these "some editors" then agree with me that the ποτέ in ποτέ ἐπόρθει is orthotonic since it appears first in its unit, while the ποτε in Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε is not orthotonic, because it is not first?
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
The relative pronoun is first here because it is, well, first. The relative pronoun is accented and a prosodic word in its own right and therefore counts as a word; it is not a proclitic. I also think this is a non-restrictive relative clause, where it does not define but merely characterized the faith that Paul is now preaching.Iver Larsen wrote:But ποτέ is first in the relative clause: ἥν ποτέ ἐπόρθει. The relative pronoun has to come first as it marks the clause as a relative clause. The relative clause is a rankshifted clause and part of the noun phrase τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε/ποτέ ἐπόρθει.
ETA: If we are looking at a relative clause integrated into a noun phrase, then the ποτε would be third in the NP (counting τὴν as a proclitic).
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
Maybe it will become clearer if I first express the sentence without a relative but in two parallel clauses:Stephen Carlson wrote:The relative pronoun is first here because it is, well, first. The relative pronoun is accented and a prosodic word in its own right and therefore counts as a word; it is not a proclitic. I also think this is a non-restrictive relative clause, where it does not define but merely characterized the faith that Paul is now preaching.Iver Larsen wrote:But ποτέ is first in the relative clause: ἥν ποτέ ἐπόρθει. The relative pronoun has to come first as it marks the clause as a relative clause. The relative clause is a rankshifted clause and part of the noun phrase τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε/ποτέ ἐπόρθει.
ETA: If we are looking at a relative clause integrated into a noun phrase, then the ποτε would be third in the NP (counting τὴν as a proclitic).
νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν, ποτε ἐπόρθει τὴν πίστιν.
Would you agree that ποτε is first in its clause?
In order to avoid the repetition of the object, it is replaced by the relative pronoun which then links back to τὴν πίστιν.
When we talk about first in a clause, I assume we are talking about words that can be moved around. Obviously the relative pronoun is fixed in its position, regardless of the type of relative clause, so we only have two words to move around, and ποτε then comes first, before the verb it relates to.
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
Put a colon before the ποτε to be crystal clear, and, yeah, I would agree.Iver Larsen wrote:Maybe it will become clearer if I first express the sentence without a relative but in two parallel clauses:
νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν, ποτε ἐπόρθει τὴν πίστιν.
Would you agree that ποτε is first in its clause?
When we talk about first in a clause with respect to the position of enclitics, I assume we are talking about full words that can bear an independent accent. It does not make a difference as far as phonology is concerned whether a word can be moved around (in the syntax, I presume). In fact, this notion didn't even occur to me as a relevant consideration until you mentioned it.Iver Larsen wrote:In order to avoid the repetition of the object, it is replaced by the relative pronoun which then links back to τὴν πίστιν.
When we talk about first in a clause, I assume we are talking about words that can be moved around. Obviously the relative pronoun is fixed in its position, regardless of the type of relative clause, so we only have two words to move around, and ποτε then comes first, before the verb it relates to.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am
Re: Is ποτε really enclitic in Gal 1:23
Well, I am not sure what you mean by independent accent. When ποτέ retains its accent, do you not count it as a word that can be moved around, that is, placed first or last or in some other position?Stephen Carlson wrote:Put a colon before the ποτε to be crystal clear, and, yeah, I would agree.Iver Larsen wrote:Maybe it will become clearer if I first express the sentence without a relative but in two parallel clauses:
νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν, ποτε ἐπόρθει τὴν πίστιν.
Would you agree that ποτε is first in its clause?
When we talk about first in a clause with respect to the position of enclitics, I assume we are talking about full words that can bear an independent accent. It does not make a difference as far as phonology is concerned whether a word can be moved around (in the syntax, I presume). In fact, this notion didn't even occur to me as a relevant consideration until you mentioned it.Iver Larsen wrote:In order to avoid the repetition of the object, it is replaced by the relative pronoun which then links back to τὴν πίστιν.
When we talk about first in a clause, I assume we are talking about words that can be moved around. Obviously the relative pronoun is fixed in its position, regardless of the type of relative clause, so we only have two words to move around, and ποτε then comes first, before the verb it relates to.
Following Smyth 184 (Since an enclitic, on losing its accent, forms a part of the preceding word) I can understand that you may not want to count an unaccented enclitic as a separate word, although it is written as a separate word with a space between. Most languages often have a conflict between what is called a phonological word and a grammatical word. I would think that an orthotonic enclitic because of its accent could be counted as a separate word, but maybe you never count enclitics as separate words? As we have seen, various Greek editions have decided to accentuate ποτέ in different ways, so it seems to be an area with no clear agreement among scholars.
The way I understand Smyth 187a is that when ποτέ (or other enclitics) is emphatic as in contrasts, it retains its accent and it is therefore called orthotonic. Now, if we go back to the original verse in question, it is written as follows in NA:
Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει.
You started out by saying that the first ποτε was in contrast to νῦν. I am saying that it is not the first ποτε that is in contrast with νῦν, but the second ποτε . My reasoning is that leftward movement implies emphasis of some kind, often contrastive. I know that some people have argued that the rightmost position in Greek can also be emphatic. I disagree for Greek, but agree for English. Greek has such a free movement of words, unlike English, that having both leftward and righward movement indicating emphasis makes no sense to me. Levinsohn's examples of rightmost emphasis can easily be analyzed differently. Furthermore, εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν and ἐπόρθει.τὴν πίστιν is a clear semantic contrast. Promoting the faith and destroying the faith can hardly be more contrastive, and it is Paul being spoken of here concerning his former and present life. The main clause with the main verb εὐαγγελίζεται does have a fronted subject: Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε. The focus here is on the persecutor, not on formerly. The formerly is added as an additional description. The contrast is not between a former persecutor and a current persecutor.
To close my thoughts, I am suggesting that the first ποτε is an enclicic that is not in first position, not orthotonic (with no accent) and not emphatic. Phonologically it may be counted as part of the previous word, but grammatically it is a separate word. The discussion was originally only focused on the first ποτε. I am suggesting that the second ποτε is emphatic, first in the relative clause, contrastive and orthotonic, so it ought to have an accent. Why the editors did not apparently mark it with an accent, I do not know, but I suspect it has something to do with the preceding relative pronoun. Maybe I am wrong, but this analysis makes more sense to me.