# Stress before enclitic monosyllables in Ancient/Modern Greek



## bearded

Hello everyone
In ancient Greek, before enclitics a stress on the last syllable of the preceding word was necessary.  Example: éyrekès me  (you have found me). Now, I would like to know whether in modern Greek that rule is always and fully respected. For example: do you pronounce 'katàlavà to'? Do you pronounce 'vrìkà ton'? The reasons I am asking is, that sometimes I saw such forms written without that stress, for example: 'vrìka to'.
Thank you in advance for your kind replies.


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

bearded man said:


> Hello everyone
> In ancient Greek, before enclitics a stress on the last syllable of the preceding word was necessary.  Example: éyrekès me  (you have found me). Now, I would like to know whether in modern Greek that rule is always and fully respected. For example: do you pronounce 'katàlavà to'? Do you pronounce 'vrìkà ton'? The reasons I am asking is, that sometimes I saw such forms written without that stress, for example: 'vrìka to'.
> Thank you in advance for your kind replies.



Hi,
in Ancient Greek the rule is that the enclitic causes the preceding word to develop an extra acute accent on the last syllable IF a) the preceding word is accented on the third syllable from the end or b) the preceding word has circumflex accent on the 2nd syllable from the end. For example, a) εὕρηκάς με or b) δῶρόν τι. On the other hand, if the preceding word has acute accent on the 2nd syllable from the end or is accented on the last syllable, no extra accent develops, so for example "δόμά τι" is not possible, the correct is δόμα τι with one accent. 

Now in modern Greek, with stress instead of tonal accent, only a) is possible while b) is no longer possible, two adjacent syllables in the same word cannot be accented. This is why we say κατάλαβά το but βρήκα το, pronounced as they are written, at least in the dialects that still use this more ancient word order of verb and enclitic object pronoun (standard MG being το κατάλαβα, το βρήκα).


----------



## bearded

@ N.Kandidatos
And for case b), I suppose that a further reason is that anyhow with the modern writing one cannot discern any more when the accent should be acute and when circumflex (doma vs doron)...
S'efcharistò polì yia tin endhiaférousà sou exìghisi, ke
 Chrònia Pollà.


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

Not so much with modern writing - there is no way a change in writing conventions could have that kind of influence on the development of the spoken language - but the fact that the accent system of the spoken language changed in ancient times. If you think about δῶρόν τι, the circumflex accent denotes, as I believe, a high pitch at the start of the syllable, followed by a fall in pitch as the latter part of the syllable is no longer high pitch. Then there is a new rise in pitch at the second syllable, so that the pitch in the word δῶρόν changes approximately as follows: /| /. Rise-fall-rise so there is no monotony. If, however, you tried to pronounce δόμά τι with tonal accent, there would be simply two consequent rises or high pitches, something the language just doesn't permit. The same, in a way, would happen in modern Greek if you tried saying βρήκά το - the accent is now stress, not tonal, but again the language doesn't like having two accented vowels next to each other with no variation.

Τίποτα - επίσης Χρόνια Πολλά και Καλή Χρονιά!


----------



## sotos

I think that in some modern Greek local  accents they do preserve this kind of stress. Possibly in the Ionian islands or Cyprus. The rest of us we don't say "κατάλαβά το" but we say 'κατάλαβέ το" (hortative). It is also preserved in medieval language, e.g. "ετρώγασί τσι" (Tzànne Bugniali, The chronicle of the Candia War, 16th c.).


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

sotos said:


> I think that in some modern Greek local  accents they do preserve this kind of stress. Possibly in the Ionian islands or Cyprus. The rest of us we don't say "κατάλαβά το" but we say 'κατάλαβέ το" (hortative). It is also preserved in medieval language, e.g. "ετρώγασί τσι" (Tzànne Bugniali, The chronicle of the Candia War, 16th c.).



It can also be heard in Crete (the dialect Tzane Bunialis' Candian war is written (small correction - 17th century and renaissance rather than medieval, but Sotos' point is correct)). One Cretan I know well normally uses the common Greek construction but sometimes unconsciously "lapses" to this kind of syntax when e.g. angry.


----------



## bearded

Thanks again for the replies.  N.Kandidatos's explanation about tonal accent and stress in #4 is just fantastic.
Pollès efchès ap'tin Italìa ya òlous: Eftychisméno to néon étos!


----------



## bearded

Today I have a question concerning the case where there is more than one enclitic.  In a Greek book I read a lullaby starting with verses written as follows (but I will write 'oy' as 'ou'):

_'Ypne, pou paìrneis ta paidià, éla, pàre kaì toùto,
mikrò mikrò sou tò 'dosa, megàlo fère *mou to.*

_I have no doubts that the final words must be pronounced 'moù to' (to rhyme with 'toùto), but I wonder if there must be an accent on 'mou' in this case. I understand that colloquially you would say ''fèr' mou to''.
Also I am not sure about accents in the above phrase 'mikrò sou tò (to?) 'dosa'.
Many thanks in advance for explaining.


----------



## Perseas

bearded man said:


> [...] _fère *mou to.*
> _ [...] but I wonder if there must be an accent on 'mou' in this case.


Yes, the grammar says it should be «φέρε μού το».



bearded man said:


> I understand that colloquially you would say ''fèr' mou to''.


No, it's still «φέρε μού το», but «φέρ' το μου» is more common.



bearded man said:


> Also I am not sure about accents in the above phrase 'mikrò sou tò (to?) 'dosa'.


«μικρό σου το 'δωσα». Here «σου» is not enclitic. If it were or if there was a chance that it could be confused with the enclitic, it should take accent, e.g._ ο πατέρας μού είπε = the father told me_ but_ ο πατέρας μου είπε = my father said._


----------



## bearded

Thank you, Perseas. Concerning the last two lines of your message, you seem to consider pronouns 'enclitic' only when they have a possessive meaning, and not when thay have a 'dative' function.  But in a phrase like 'dòs mou to psomì'  isn't 'mou' enclitic?  Since the moment when - due to the orthographic reform - you eliminated accents on monosyllables, it has become complicated for foreigners to determine when the accent should be present  in some cases (and also whether it is absent due to the reform or according to ancient accent rules...).


----------



## Perseas

bearded man said:


> But in a phrase like 'dòs mou to psomì'  isn't 'mou' enclitic?


Yes, it is._ Δώσ' μου το ψωμί_ (= _Give me the bread_)

_O πατέρας μού είπε (= the father told me):_ _μού is not enclitic here and it is accented, to be avoided the confusion with the enclitic of this example_: _ο πατέρας μου είπε (= my father said_).

About enclitics: in terms of accentuation they form a unit with the preceding word (o πατέρας *μου*, Δώσ' *μου*, ο πρόεδρός *μας*, φέρε *μού* *το*).


----------



## bearded

But above you wrote that in ''mikrò sou to 'dosa'', 'sou' is not enclitic. Why?  Is it not the same case as with  'mou' in ''dòs mou to (psomì)''? Sorry for bothering you, but as you can see I have a great many uncertainties concerning these accents.


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

bearded man said:


> But above you wrote that in ''mikrò sou to 'dosa'', 'sou' is not enclitic. Why?  Is it not the same case as with  'mou' in ''dòs mou to (psomì)''? Sorry for bothering you, but as you can see I have a great many uncertainties concerning these accents.



It's not enclitic, it's proclitic (same thing but forms a phonological word with the elements that follow rather than those that precede: σουτόδωσα counts as one phonological word)


----------



## Perseas

bearded man said:


> But above you wrote that in ''mikrò sou to 'dosa'', 'sou' is not enclitic. Why?  Is it not the same case as with  'mou' in ''dòs mou to (psomì)''?


No.
«μικρό» & «σου» do not form an accentuation unit. There is not a possibility that «σου» will be confused with its corresponding homophone enclitic, so it is written without accent. If I were to read/recite the verse «[μικρό] [σου το 'δωσα]», Ι would distinguish these 2 units;  «σου» is pronounced very closely with the following words, not with the preceding «μικρό».
On the other hand in «Δώσ' μου το ψωμί», μου is pronounced very closely with the preceding word, so closely that you think that «Δώσ' μου» were one word.

cross-posted with N. Kandidatos



Perseas said:


> If it were or If there  was a chance that it could be confused with the enclitic, it should  take accent, e.g._ ο πατέρας μού είπε = the father told me_ but_ ο πατέρας μου είπε = my father said._


I wanted to make a correction in post #9. It's impossible to edit this post now, so I 'm writing it here. Sorry if it was confusing.


----------



## bearded

Tòra katàlava.  Sas efcharistò ke pàli.


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

And just to clarify one last point: don't go trying to listen in order  to hear the difference, because there isn't one phonetically. We call  σου in 1) below proclitic and μου in 2) enclitic because semantics and  syntax require that σου be analyzed as belonging with το 'δωσα and μου  as belonging with δώσ(ε), like Perseas explained (they belong with the  verb). There isn't any phonological criterion to determine which one is  enclitic and which one is proclitic - to the greekless ear they're just lonely unaccented  syllables floating in the middle of it.

1) μικρό σου το 'δωσα
2) δώσ' μου το ψωμί


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

Perseas said:


> No.
> «μικρό» & «σου» do not form an accentuation unit. There is not a possibility that «σου» will be confused with its corresponding homophone enclitic, so it is written without accent. If I were to read/recite the verse «[μικρό] [σου το 'δωσα]», Ι would distinguish these 2 units;  «σου» is pronounced very closely with the following words, not with the preceding «μικρό».
> On the other hand in «Δώσ' μου το ψωμί», μου is pronounced very closely with the preceding word, so closely that you think that «Δώσ' μου» were one word.



Now I have an uncertainty of my own. How would you distinguish between an enclitic and a proclitic in pronunciation, Persea? Because I was sure (see the above post) there was no difference and your brain has to figure it out from the sense of the phrase. (Just like there is no difference between Ο πατέρας μού το 'δωσε / Ο πατέρας μου το 'δωσε in pronunciation). I tried saying the phrase out loud like I normally would. Then to counter my counter-argument that my native tag says Finnish not Greek, I gave it (and the πατέρας phrase as well just for good measure) to my wife who is a native to read it from a paper slip without telling her why, and she pronounced both just like I did. When I told her the reason, she said she couldn't feel any difference in pronunciation and agreed with me there shouldn't be any. And now I am mightily confused.


----------



## Perseas

Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> And just to clarify one last point: don't go trying to listen in order  to hear the difference, because there isn't one phonetically.


In general I agree with you. When we speak, the difference is usually not obvious. But if we want to make it clear, e.g. a teacher wants to teach his pupils the enclitics, then he should make a little pause after «Ο πατέρας μου» and then say «το 'δωσε». I hope I have understood your question below well. 



Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> Now I have an uncertainty of my own.  How would you distinguish between an enclitic and a proclitic in  pronunciation, Persea? Because I was sure (see the above post) there was  no difference and your brain has to figure it out from the sense of the  phrase. (Just like there is no difference between Ο πατέρας μού το  'δωσε / Ο πατέρας μου το 'δωσε in pronunciation). I tried saying the  phrase out loud like I normally would. Then to counter my  counter-argument that my native tag says Finnish not Greek, I gave it  (and the πατέρας phrase as well just for good measure) to my wife who is  a native to read it from a paper slip without telling her why, and she  pronounced both just like I did. When I told her the reason, she said  she couldn't feel any difference in pronunciation and agreed with me  there shouldn't be any. And now I am mightily confused.


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

Perseas said:


> In general I agree with you. When we speak, the difference is usually not obvious. But if we want to make it clear, e.g. a teacher wants to teach his pupils the enclitics, then he should make a little pause after «Ο πατέρας μου» and then say «το 'δωσε». I hope I have understood your question below well.



Perfectly!  Thank you. To me it seems obvious then that there is in fact no phonological difference, like I surmised. Hence the teacher (or anyone making an effort to speak more clearly than usual) is forced to make an "artificial" pause in order to explain the syntactic difference, as this of course brings out the constituent parts of the sentence and separates them from one another. If there were a phonological distinction, the kids wouldn't need this pause in order to understand the difference.


----------



## Perseas

Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> Perfectly!  Thank you. To me it seems obvious then that there is in fact no phonological difference, like I surmised. Hence the teacher (or anyone making an effort to speak more clearly than usual) is forced to make an "artificial" pause in order to explain the syntactic difference, as this of course brings out the constituent parts of the sentence and separates them from one another. If there were a phonological distinction, the kids wouldn't need this pause in order to understand the difference.



Another case could be when reciting a poem or a text, and then we should  take care of such details adapting each time our intonation.


----------



## Αγγελος

There can never be a pause between an enclitic and the word it depends upon, nor can another word be inserted in between (except in cases such as φέρε μού το or δωσ΄μου το = δωσ' το μου (pronounced δώζμουτο / δώστομου, with only one stress). 
If, however, somebody asked me for two things (say, two keys) of two different sizes, I could answer "Το μικρό σου το έδωσα χτες" (=I gave you the small one yesterday), and there would be a perceptible pause after "το μικρό". The 1982 official spelling rules would require a accent mark to be written on the word σου to distinguish this sentence from the one meaning "I gave your little one (=your young child) yesterday", even though that word is completely unstressed in both cases. I personally find this spelling rule rather silly, but the drafters of the 1982 spelling reform balked at the more logical solution that Prof. Κακριδής and others had proposed already before WWII, which consisted in joining the possessive enclitics to the preceding noun with a hyphen.


----------

