Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T07:08:06.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Prosody of Greek Proper Names—a Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. H. Martin
Affiliation:
University of Leeds

Extract

Professor Skutsch has convicted me of one error—the inclusion of Eun. 465 in my list on p. 208. I do not feel, however, that he has proved that Phaedria (nom. or voc.) is a dactyl in Terence. The essence of his argument, as I see it, depends on the figures in the last two rows of the first two columns on p. 90, and may be stated as follows: ‘Forms undeniably dactylic, such as Pamphile, are always followed by a disyllabic thesis. The thesis after all critical examples of Phaedria is disyllabic. Therefore “Phaedria is proved to be a dactyl”.’ My objection to this argument is not that it is not a logical syllogism, but that it seeks to establish the prosody of Phaedria (3 examples only) without considering the prosody of the other Phaedria-typt1 names in Terence. These are listed on p. 208 of my article (but omitting Eun. 465). The following cases, I suggest, merit consideration:

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1956

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 197 note 1 I include Nausistrata and Philumena, since, like Phaedria, they have short penult and long propenult: their exclusion would not invalidate my argument