Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:38:23.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Prosody of Greek Proper Names–A Reply to a Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

O. Skutsch
Affiliation:
University College, London.

Extract

MR. MARTIN seems to have misread my table. He professes to summarize its last two rows, but he has got the last but one all wrong, and the last he omits altogether. My last row but one signifies: In the matter of a following disyllabic thesis Phaedria, Pamphilĕ, and Parmenō behave exactly alike: no argument here either for or against Phaedriā. The last row speaks plainly: If Phaedria were a cretic, we should expect to find it used as a cretic at least six times. Mr. Martin had found it so used once, and I noted that this one example was in fact an ablative–a strange coincidence. But this was not, as Mr. Martin says, the only ‘error’ of which I ‘convicted’ him. I also, and primarily, pointed out that what he called ‘the significant thing’, viz. that the scansion Phaedriâ was never inevitable, held no significance whatever, since all dactylic words were in the same case.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 52 note 1 Mr. Martin's argument, directed as it is against something which I never said or implied, needs no refutation.Google Scholar But does he really believe that Lindsay's printing tūi after Clinia in the diaeresis shows that Clinia is a cretic (Heaut. 695) ? Is Syré an iamb because Lindsay prints mīīs after it (ibid. 699)?