# Accentuation of the Classical Greek verb εἶναι



## alfie1888

Hi everyone,

I've just started brushing up on my Classical Greek again, and like those who were confronted by Sophocles in Athens, I have arrived at an impasse .

The verb "to be" in the 3rd person present tense seems to be accented on the last syllable in conjugation tables (ἐστίν, εἰσίν) but I keep coming across it with just the smooth breathing mark and nothing else, with an acute sometimes added to the last syllable of the preceding word. Are there rules concerning this particular verb and its accentuation that I'm missing? If examples are needed, just ask.

Many thanks in advance. This is something I was curious about years ago but I never thought to ask! Looking forward to your responses.


----------



## ireney

Hello alfie,

The verb "to be" in ancient Greek is an enclitic, at least in the indicative. Enclitics "lose" their accent to the previous word and are (supposed to be) pronounced together. For more information on enclitics you can check this link to Smyth's grammar in Perseus Project.


----------



## Scholiast

χαῖρετε alfie1888

Well done for going for ancient Greek at all. I've been teaching it for years and years, but had to teach myself the accents as a student. This one - the accentuation of εἶναι - has always mystified me, and I don't think Smyth has ever enlightened me properly.

Your post encourages me to try again.

Σ


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again

I should have added: I have my own copy, hardbook, of Smyth before me as I write. Ireney means well, but does not understand the problem. It is perhaps explained in a German book I have somewhere, but it would take some time to find.

Σ


----------



## ireney

Hmm, how can I help then? What is exactly the problem?


----------



## Perseas

alfie1888,

do you mean for example_ ἁκατάληπτόν ἐστι _or_ ἄδηλόν ἐστι?_

I know that all the dissyllabic forms of the present indicative of εἰμί [εἰμί, ἐστί, ἐσμέν, ἐστέ,εἰσί(ν)] are _enclitics. _Enclitics are pronounced so closely with the word preceding them and their accent is transferred to the final syllable of the preceding word.
I think ireney said the same.


----------



## Scholiast

ireney said:


> What is exactly the problem?


The problem is, that sometimes forms of εἶναι are in fact accented. I pick four instances from a single sentence (literally, opening a page at random) in Aristotle's _Met. _(1004b8-17):

(1) έπεὶ ὥσπερ *ἕστι* καὶ ἀριθμοῦ ᾗ άριθμὸς ἴδια πάθη
(2) ὁμοἰως δὲ καὶ στερεῷ καὶ ἀκινήτῳ καὶ κινουμένῷ ἀβαρεῖ τε καὶ βάρος ἔχοντι *ἔστιν* ἕτερα ἴδια
(3) οὕτω καὶ τῷ ὄντι ᾗ ὂν *ἔστι* τινὰ ἴδια
(4) καὶ ταῦτ' *ἐστὶ* περὶ ὧν τοῦ φιλοσόφου ἐπισκέψασθαι τὸ ἀληθἐς.

First, if it is enclitic, why in each of these instances of ἐστι(ν) does not the accent fall back on the preceding word - granted, it could not be marked orthographically in (1), (3) or (4) because of the existing accentuation of that word, but in (2), why do we not have ἔχοντ*ί *ἐστιν?

And secondly, why is it paroxytone in (1), (2) and (3), but oxytone in (4)? There must be rules governing this, but they have never been adequately explained to me.

Σ


----------



## ireney

I see.

Well, I promise I'm going to reply to you tomorrow (today was really hectic and it's really, really late here right now). Let me just give you two links that may help you in the meantime.

A text on the basics of enclitics. Far easier to follow than Smyth.

A youtube explanation of the basics of enclitics. I really liked this one too.

Sorry for the delay in answering yoU!


----------



## Perseas

I copy the following explanatory notes from the Grammar book of Αncient Greek (Γραμματική της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής του Μ. Οικονόμου).
Ι 'll write them in Greek because I don't want to make any mistakes in translation:

Σημ. 1. Όλοι οι δισύλλαβοι τύποι της οριστικής του ενεστώτα του ρ. _εἰμί _είναι εγκλιτικοί_. _(I think alfie's question concerns this note)

Σημ. 2. Ο τύπος _ἔστι(ν) _ανεβάζει τον τόνο: 
α) όταν βρίσκεται στην αρχή της πρότασης: ἔστιν οὕτως 
β) όταν σημαίνει «υπάρχει»: γίγνωσκε ὅτι ἔστι δίκης ὀφθλμός 
γ) όταν σημαίνει «μπορεί» ή «επιτρέπεται»: τούτους ἔστιν ἰδεῖν
δ) όταν βρίσκεται ύστερα από τις λέξεις οὐκ, μή, εἰ, ὡς, καί, ἀλλ' (ἀλλά), τοῦτ' (τοῦτο): _οὐκ ἔστι, καί ἔστι, τοῦτ' ἔστι_ κτλ.
ε) στις φράσεις: ἔστιν ὅς (κάποιος), ἔστιν ὅπου (κάπου), ἔστιν ὅπως (κάπως) κτλ.


----------



## Scholiast

χαῖρετ᾽ ὦριστοι

Many thanks to Ireney and Perseas, whose remarks and links have certainly gone some way to help me (though I have to say I did not find Prof. Schwandt's graphics hugely illuminating).

If I understand correctly the rules given by Mr Oikonomou's grammar-book, ἔστιν retains its accent:
(a) when it stands at the head of a sentence (rather obviously, since there is no previous word for its accent to be thrown back to);
(b) when it means "exist";
(c) when it means "it is possible" or "it happens";
(d) when it follows οὐκ, μή, εἰ, ὡς, καί, ἀλλ' (ἀλλά), τοῦτ' (τοῦτο) [presumably also ταῦτα_, _ἐκεῖνα, τάδε κτλ? - but does this also apply to the plural forms after masc. or fem. demonstratives, οὗτοι, αὗται &c.?];
(e) and in certain set phrases [including, I am guessing, οἵος τε εἰμί?].

Now I have these further questions.
(1) Do all these principles [_mutatis mutandis_] also apply to εἰμί, ἔσμεν, ἐστέ and εἶσιν?
(2) When and why does the (retained) accent fall as ἐστί(ν) rather than ἔστι(ν)?
(3) Can I find anywhere, in print or online, an exhaustive list of the phrases mentioned in Oikonomou's category #5?
(4) Where is the best place to find a comprehensive account of the accentual behaviour of specifically εἶναι - given that I have no problem at all with the _principle_ of enclitics' behaviour, with particles or pronouns such as γε, με/μου/μοι, τις/τι &c., and it's only been εἶναι that I still wrestle with.

Renewed thanks,

Σ


----------



## Perseas

Hello,

first of all, sorry for a mistake in my previous post. I should have written _ἐστί__(ν), not __ἔστι(ν)_. So the correct is:


Perseas said:


> Σημ. 2. Ο τύπος _ ἐστί(ν) _ανεβάζει τον τόνο:


It means, _"the accent from the last syllable (ἐστί) is transferred to the previous syllable (ἔστι): when ..."_


Your translation is correct, just this note:



Scholiast said:


> (c) when it means "it is possible" or "it happens"


(c) when it means "it is possible" or "it is permitted, allowed"



Scholiast said:


> (1) Do all these principles [_mutatis mutandis_] also apply to εἰμί, ἔσμεν, ἐστέ and εἶσιν?


No, except for the enclitic behaviour which concerns all those disyllabic forms.




Scholiast said:


> (3) Can I find anywhere, in print or online, an exhaustive list of the phrases mentioned in Oikonomou's category #5?


I wrote everything as it is in Oikonomou's book, there aren't any other phrases in his book. If you still want this part from his book about the verb ειμί, I 'll try to send it online to you.


And something I found in another book :
In addition to the cases mentioned in Oikonomou's book,
_the accent is on  ε when ι is dropped (elision/έκθλιψη):ἔστ'_

These are all I could answer.


----------



## Scholiast

Thanks again Perseas, particularly for clearing up my minor misunderstanding of επιτρέπεται.

I'm sorry to be thick, but I still don't fully grasp when I should be writing ἐστί(ν) and when ἔστι(ν).

And may I reprise two specific implicit queries from my previous post? _viz._:


Scholiast said:


> (d) when it follows οὐκ, μή, εἰ, ὡς, καί, ἀλλ' (ἀλλά), τοῦτ' (τοῦτο) [*presumably also ταῦτα, ἐκεῖνα, τάδε κτλ?* - but does this also apply to the plural forms after masc. or fem. demonstratives, οὗτοι, αὗται &c.?];
> (e) and in certain set phrases [*including, I am guessing, οἵος τε εἰμί?*].



Σ


----------



## Αγγελος

Dear Scholiast, perhaps I can help. 
The ancient Greek for "is" is ἐστί. A final ν can be added for euphoniousness.
Now as to the accent:
It falls on the *first  *syllable when the verb means "exists" or "is possible" and in the other cases mentioned by Οικονόμου. In those cases the form is NOT enclitic.
It falls on the second syllable otherwise, and the form IS enclitic. This means that it loses its accent altogether and transfers it to the last syllable of the preceding word if that word is stressed on the third syllable from the end OR takes a circumflex on the next to last syllable. 
I remember a striking example from the New Testament: ...μαθητής μού ἐστιν (with the accent of ἐστίν transferred to the unaccented enclitic μου).

Ιn Οικονόμου's case (d) all the words enumerated are monosyllabic or elided. You should probably not presume to add ταῦτα, ἐκεῖνα, τάδε κτλ. , let alone οὗτοι and αὗται, to the list.
In οἷος τε εἰμί, the first word has a circumflex on its first syllable (since there is a long diphthong there and the final syllable is short). So the stress of the enclitic τε gets transferred to the final syllable of οἷος and the stress of the enclitic ειμί gets transferred to the τε. The result should be oἷός τέ εἰμι.

Ι ought to add that I am not a classicist, just a Greek old enough to have suffered through the time when all those rules were applied to modern Greek as well. Our schoolbooks actually displayed such unpronounceable monstrosities as "ἡ γλῶσσά μου". It's a good thing circumflexes and iota subscripta were done away with in 1982!


----------



## Scholiast

Αγγελος - ὦ ἄγγελἐ μου

Many thanks indeed for this - the best explanation I have had, here or anywhere else. And that after some thirty and more years of presuming to "teach" classical Greek myself. When I was at secondary school, we were only required to observe the accents in cases of ambiguity, such as τἰς/τις, ἄλλα/ἀλλά, though we always did learn the breathings and the iota subscripts, which of course Modern Greek has also now abandoned. When I got to university, I taught myself the accents as best I could, but somehow εἶναι always eluded me.

κῦδὀς σοι!

Σ


----------



## Αγγελος

Glad I could be of help. The point is that enclisis is very much alive in Modern Greek as well: we not only write άγγελέ μου to this day (though, since 1982, without the smooth breathing) , but actually pronounce it that way, with two equally strong stresses on the accented syllables. So the relevant rules make more sense to a Greek than to a foreign classicist who probably either stresses all words on the final syllable (if he is French) or applies the Latin rule of stress -- or ignores accents altogether in his efforts to correctly render vowel length.
Of course, vowel length, and therefore also the acute/circumflex distinction as well as all of ancient prosody, remains a total mystery to us modern Greeks. We learn, or used to learn, the rules intellectually, but they mean absolutely nothing to us. In fact, I have read somewhere that there are almost no languages featuring both phonemic vowel length distinctions and phonemic stress (as opposed to pitch accent, which coexists with length distinctions e.g. in modern Serbian.)


----------



## bearded

Αγγελος said:


> a foreign classicist who probably either stresses all words on the final syllable (if he is French) or applies the Latin rule of stress -- or ignores accents altogether in his efforts to correctly render vowel length.


Isn't yours an ''underestimation''? In our 'Classical Lyceum' in Italy, ancient Greek stress rules were/are very clearly explained and applied. While studying Modern Greek, I found no difficulties with accents (although I found it odd that you say ''I glòssa mou'' instead of ''I glòssà mou' !! ).


----------



## Αγγελος

bearded man, I was talking to Scholiast, who is British. In learning Ancient Greek in Italy, where did you stress words? Did you pronounce Athenâ, Sokrátes, Aristotéles, Kállistos, héroes (ἥρωες) etc. placing the stress where the ancient accent lay? If so, congratulations! It is my impression, however, that in countries where the dominant language doesn't really have free stress, the ancient accents are usually ignored.
In Modern Greek, we would have great difficulty pronouncing "ἡ γλῶσσά μου" as it used to be written, with two stresses on the same word in direct succession. It is simply not done. Similarly, we have great difficulty stressing any syllable beyond the antepenult, and even find it hard to believe that there are _parole bisdrucciole_ in Italian or that there exist languages, such as Hungarian, where it is the _first_ syllable that is systematically stressed.


----------



## bearded

Αγγελος said:


> I was talking to Scholiast


Yes, and sorry for interfering.



Αγγελος said:


> Did you pronounce Athenâ, Sokrátes, Aristotéles, Kállistos, héroes (ἥρωες) etc. placing the stress where the ancient accent lay?


  Sure we did, and that's why placing the right stress on words has not represented a big problem for me in Modern Greek.  The only thing we did - as pupils - not manage to do well, was pronouncing correctly long and short vowels - because in Italian we lack this feature, just as you do now.  And there was a discussion on whether omikron and omega represented respectively closed or open o sounds, and whether epsilon and eta(ita) represented respectively closed or open e sounds (you certainly know about the ancient text where sheep uttered 'beh' instead of modern pronunciation 'vi', so we wondered: if eta(ita) was an open e sound - like sheep sound undoubtedly is - how could it become i in later centuries...).



Αγγελος said:


> even find it hard to believe that there are _parole bisdrucciole_ in Italian or that there exist languages, such as Hungarian, where it is the _first_ syllable that is systematically stressed.


'Parole bisdrucciole' are rather common in Italian, especially as an effect of enclisis: e.g. _consegnatemelo _(= deliver it to me) with stress on the a.
And in German, most words are stressed on the first syllable (root): e.g. _Heiratsgeschenk _(= wedding present) with stress on 'ei' (pron:ai) and a secondary stress on -schènk.  On the other hand, please consider English words like _secondary, military..._all bisdrucciole!

By the way, may I congratulate you for your always instructive and exhaustive replies in this forum!


----------

