Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGolston, Chris
dc.contributor.editorMyers, Jamesen_US
dc.contributor.editorPérez, Patricia E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-01T18:53:15Z
dc.date.available2012-06-01T18:53:15Z
dc.date.issued1990
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/227262
dc.description.abstractThis paper looks at two recent approaches to accentuation in Ancient Greek, Steriade 1988 and Sauzet 1989. Both Steriade and Sauzet include treatments of enclitic accentuation in Ancient Greek which I will argue need to be revised. Steriade offers a metrical analysis that is consistent with most of the data but theoretically suspect. Sauzet 1989 offers a mixed metrical/autosegmental account that is theoretically more appealing but-fails to account for established generalizations about enclitic accentuation. I will adopt the general framework of Sauzet, which seems to be more in line with normal (non -enclitic) accentuation in Ancient Greek, but revise his analysis of enclitic accent. The result, I hope, will be a more insightful approach to enclitic accent than either Steriade's or Sauzet's. An added bonus of the present analysis is that it uses the same footing procedures that Allen (1973 ) has motivated independently for Ancient Greek primary and secondary stress- -this is true of neither Sauzet's nor Steriade's analyses.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherDepartment of Linguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesArizona Phonology Conference Vol. 3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPhonology in the Old Puebloen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCoyote Papersen_US
dc.subjectGrammar, comparative and general -- Phonologyen_US
dc.titleFloating H (and L*) Tones in Ancient Greeken_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of California, Los Angelesen_US
dc.identifier.oclc26728293
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-26T16:04:57Z
html.description.abstractThis paper looks at two recent approaches to accentuation in Ancient Greek, Steriade 1988 and Sauzet 1989. Both Steriade and Sauzet include treatments of enclitic accentuation in Ancient Greek which I will argue need to be revised. Steriade offers a metrical analysis that is consistent with most of the data but theoretically suspect. Sauzet 1989 offers a mixed metrical/autosegmental account that is theoretically more appealing but-fails to account for established generalizations about enclitic accentuation. I will adopt the general framework of Sauzet, which seems to be more in line with normal (non -enclitic) accentuation in Ancient Greek, but revise his analysis of enclitic accent. The result, I hope, will be a more insightful approach to enclitic accent than either Steriade's or Sauzet's. An added bonus of the present analysis is that it uses the same footing procedures that Allen (1973 ) has motivated independently for Ancient Greek primary and secondary stress- -this is true of neither Sauzet's nor Steriade's analyses.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
apc-iii-066-082.pdf
Size:
713.9Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record