Frontmatter List of Figures and Tables General Abbreviations Ancient Authors and Works, with Editions Used Symbols Used in the Presentation of Texts and Translations 1. Introduction 2. Some History of Scholarship: An Unhelpful Question and Some Helpful Ones 2.1. Pitch or stress? 2.2. Why 'pitch or stress' is an unhelpful question 2.3.
Some helpful questions 2.3.1. An accent on the final syllable of prepositions and relative pronoun forms? 2.3.2. An accent on the syllable before an enclitic? 2.3.
3. An acute/circumflex contrast? 2.4. Questions that will not be pursued in this book 3. Ancient Greek Theory of Prosody: Some Relevant Characteristics 3.1. Ancient terms and concepts for Greek accentuation 3.2.
Two levels of description 3.3. 'Natural accents' as abstract entities 3.4. A second function for 'natural accents' 3.5. Discussion of accents in texts 3.6.
Alternative descriptions of the same facts 3.7. Distinctions can be reinterpreted as abstract 4. Latin Proclitics I: Late Antique Grammarians 4.1. Approach one: one level of description 4.2. Approach two: on an abstract level proclitics obey the 'penultimate law' 4.
3. Approach three: an acute on the final syllable, on an abstract level 4.4. Latin is not Greek: challenges for approach three 4.4.1. The scope of the lulling rule 4.4.
2. Proclitics with a long final vowel 4.4.3. Proclitics before enclitics 4.5. Conclusions 5. Latin Proclitics II: Earlier Stages of the Tradition 5.
1. P.Sorb. inv. 2069 on unde 5.1.1. Excursus: indefinite words in Priscian 5.
1.2. P.Sorb. inv. 2069 and Priscian on unde: a comparison 5.2. Aulus Gellius 5.
3. Velius Longus 5.4. Quintilian 5.5. Remmius Palaemon 5.6. Conclusions 6.
que, ue, ne, ce: Latin Grammarians on Enclitics 6.1. Approach one: one level of description 6.2. Approach two: a forward shift of accent 6.3. Approach three: one accent shifts forward and one is lost 6.4.
Approach four: the second accent shifts backwards and the first is lost 6.5. When is que not an enclitic? 6.6. Enclitics after prepositions 6.7. Latin grammarians on que, ue, ne, ce: a summary 6.8.
Whether to take the grammarians' principle seriously 6.8.1. Further evidence for the linguistic reality of the pair itaque ~ itaque 6.9. How far back can we trace the tradition? 6.9.1.
The common source of Diomedes and Donatus 6.9.2. Varro 6.9.3. Early Latin? 7. Latin Vowel Length 7.
1. Loss of distinctive vowel quantity in Latin 7.2. Vowel length in late antique Latin grammarians 8. The Latin Circumflex 8.1. When did Greek acutes and circumflexes stop sounding different? 8.2.
Early stages of the acute/circumflex distinction in the Latin grammatical tradition 8.2.1. Cicero 8.2.2. Varro 8.2.
3. Vitruvius 8.2.4. Quintilian 8.2.5. Aulus Gellius 8.
2.6. Early stages of the tradition: a summary 8.3. Late antique grammarians on Latin words that deviate from the penultimate law 8.3.1. Grecizing accents on final syllables 8.
3.2. Accents on final syllables of apocopated and syncopated forms 8.3.3. Wrong accents 8.3.4.
Abstract accents 8.3.5. ergo 'for the sake of' 8.3.6. insula 8.3.
7. Deviations from the penultimate law: a summary 8.4. The circumflex debate: a proposed resolution 8.5. A footnote: late antique grammarians and the 'slow' accent 9. 'For the sake of a distinction'? 9.1.
pone 9.2. ergo 9.3. Aeneid I. 32 9.4. Valeri 9.
5. Conclusions 10. Conclusions Endmatter References Index.