klausnick/莫罗佐夫·尼科莱/профан (klausnick) wrote,

паки про знаки ударения у греков и римлян

An Essay on the Different Nature of Accent and Quantity:

With Their Use and Application in the English, Latin, and Greek Languages: Containing Remarks on the Metre of the English; on the Origin and Aeolism of the Roman; on the General History of the Greek; with an Account of Its Ancient Tones ...

Авторы: John Foster, John Taylor, Henry Gally, Jeremiah Markland, Marcus Musurus, Markos Mousouros




I cannot here omit taking notice of a great impropriety in the use of circumflex and acute marks in modern editions of Latin authors, in which we continually meet with these marks on the last syllables of words, as in adverbs doctè, ferè, (this final grave mark being understood, according to grammarians, to have the power of an acute) and oblique cases of substantives, as musâ, gradûs, in direct opposition to Quintilian’s declaration here, that neither the acute nor circumflex ever fall on the last syllable. There were some persons in his time who affected to depart from his rule, and would place the accent on the last syllable of some words, such as the preposition circùm, to distinguish the sense of them from that of homonymous words. But this practice he seems to think unnecessary, and contrary to the genius of the Roman language, derived from the Aeolian. The Aeolians drew the accent back in many cases, where other Greeks did not. Thus they altered the common futures of the fifth conjugation, as ρ, τελ which they made ρσω, τέλσω...    .


The Roman F was ϕ without the aspirate: and this letter too the common Greeks could not pronounce…

Римский звук F был греческим звуком [изображаемым буквой] фи, но без придыхания. И простые греки не могли его произнести.


...the system of Greek accents was not so simple and obvious, as that of the Romans. The latter was so plain, as to be easily learnt without much instruction, or exercise in reading. But in Greek, the case was different. Novices in that language, whether children or strangers, were obliged to pay a more particular attention to the accent of it, as we may conclude from what is here said by Dionysius Halic. and by Dionysius Thrax, as cited by Sextus, “Idem Thrax sex facit partes Grammaticae: exercitatam in accentu lectionem, expositionem per tropos,” etc.


The Romans did very seldom, if ever, use toniсal or accentual marks, an the Greeks did. Which Melanсhton however laments as a defect, and wishes, for the sake of preserving the genuine Latin pronunciation, that such had been used. " The most ancient Greeks," says he, " affixed no apices in writing, as may be seen in some ancient inscriptions, and is confirmed by Politian. The following age of scholars, having more practice and artificial skill in literature, added these marks to the tops of letters, as directions in pronunciation. And whoever at that time disregarded them, was looked upon as illiterate. I should have been glad, had the like attention been paid by the Romans to the observance and settlement of their tones; and I make no doubt, but, had that been properly done, the Latin pronunciation through former ages would have retained a much greater degree of purity."

We know, however, that the Romans, though they applied not the marks of tone, did occasionally use those of time, and placed a horizontal line, called an apex, over some long syllables to distinguish them from short ones with the same letters; as in sōlum the adjective, to distinguish it from solum the substantive; in āret of areo, as different from aret of aro ; which use of the apex is remarked by Quinctilian, afterwards by Scaurus, in the end of his Orthographia, and likewise by Caninios, who says, " Latini in longis vocalibus utebantur apicibus, pālus, mālus.”  These always denoted quantity. But in some ancient Latin inscriptions, mentioned by Dr. G. instead of this horizontal line over long vowels, an oblique ascending one, like the common acute mark mentioned and described by Diomede, is placed: as patro'no', cu'rione, pe'danio; which, as he says, " sheweth, that in the sense of those who engraved these inscriptions, a syllable was long, when it had such an elevation given to it, as is proper to an acute accent."   But does it shew that any syllable was ever by this acute mark denoted long in the sense of any scholar, or of any person except the blundering carvers or engravers, who did not know the different application of the apex of time, and accentual character of tone? For want of attending to this distinction, Cardinal Noris hath sadly perplexed himself in the last part of his Cenotaphia Pisana, where he confounds these two things; and misquotes Quinctilian, in saying that " apicem, seu accentum addi solitum, where Quinctilian says only “ apice distinguitur." We are sure the oblique marks were not applied by any scholar in the foregoing inscriptions, as the true marks of the real acute sound, because he would never have placed them over a praeantepenultima, as in pe'danio, cu'rione, nor two of them in one word, as in patro'no'; for he must have known, that one acute was never carried back beyond the antepenultima, and that two could not take place in one word. This mistaken use of these marks in some Latin inscriptions made the judicious Gerard Vossius say, " they were cut by such illiterate persons as to deserve not the least regard."

“Modum [pronunciationis] diversum accentu expresso Latini Grammatici non indicaverunt. Graeci indicaverunt. Res Latinis Graecisque communis: rei signum apud Graecos solos invenitur”. D’orvill. Crit. Vann. P. 332. See also Lipsius de pronunt. Ling.Lat. c. 19.

Латинские грамматики не обозначали различный способ [произношения] особым знаком ударения. Греки обозначали. Явление и у греков, и у римлян [наблюдалось] одинаковое. Но знак для обозначения этого явления обнаруживается только у греков.


[Меланхтон о соблюдении диакритик греками и о пренебрежении их римлянами.]

Vetustissmi Graeci nullos apices scripserunt, ut est in antiquis quibusdam inscriptionibus cernere, et confirmat Politianus. Postera aetas grammaticorum, artibus exercita, haec litteris adjunxit πιστλια, quasi notas pronunciationis, habitusque tum, qui ea contemneret, non sat politus. Vellem et Latinis par diligentia in observandis tonis fuisset; nec dubito quin mansisset integrior superioribus saeculis ratio loquendi.

Melanchton. Gramm. De tonis.

«Хотел бы я, чтобы и римляне соблюдали такое же прилежание для обозначения ударений. Не сомневаюсь, что в таком случае произношение [латинского языка] стало бы точнее известно в последующие века».


This mistaken use of these marks in some Latin inscriptions made the judicious Gerard Vossius say, “they were cut by such illiterate persons as to deserve not the least regard”.

Такое ошибочное применение этих знаков [апексов] в некоторых латинских надписях заставило рассудительного Фоссиуса заметить: «они вырезаны столь безграмотными людьми, что не заслуживают не малейшего внимания.»


What says Melanchton to this? “Time and tone are by no means the same qualities of a syllable. And accordingly the terms of one are not applicable to the other. You are deceived, if you say that acute and long, or grave and short, are the same. I must enlarge a little on this, because the generality of grammarians are apt to blunder wretchedly in this affair. All long syllables are not acuted; in Virgilius, vir is long, but not acuted. Nor are all acuted ones long; in Virgilius, gi is acuted, though short. We often in Latin pronounce the words philosophia, theologia, prosocida, with the i acuted; not that we imagine the i to be long, but because it is acuted in Greek; and the words themselves, being Greek, have not been so familiarized to a Roman tongue, as entirely to lose their original and native tone.”


132 (97)

“Veteres quidem Graeci (says Caninius) accentus pronunciabant, non scribebant. Quod ex Elenchis Aristotelis potest intelligi”.

Ибо древние греки (говорит Каниниус) произносили по-разному разные виды ударения, но не отмечали их на письме».


Аристофан Византийский.

Vossius называет его literator. Suidas называет его grammaticus. Введенные им знакиназываются προσδίαι.

Свида полагает, его время его жизни 145-ая Олимпиада, или за 200 лет до Р.Х. Витрувий полагает, что он жил при Птолемее Филадельфе.


Aristophanes Bysantinus προσδίαν sive accentus excogitavit. Non quod ad illam usque aetatem Graeca lingua accentibus et spiritibus caruerit: nulla enim potest lingua sine accentu et spiritu pronunciari. Sed quod ille ea, quae usus magister invexerat, ad certas normas et regulas deduxerit, signa et formas invenerit, quo loco essent constituendi accentus, docuerit. Montf. Palaeograph.Graec. 33.

«Я считаю Аристофана первым, кто ввёл знаки акцентов, на основании мнения Salmasius, Huetius, Monfaucon. Они не пишут, откуда они это узнали. Однако их авторитет велик и их мнение согласуется с предполагаемым временем введения акцентов.»

Те же самые знаки, с тем же названием упоминаются Аристоксеном, жившим веком ранее, а также Платоном, жившим полутора веками ранее.


Изобретение пунктуационных знаков также приписывается Аристофану.

Before his time the words were written uno ac perpetuo ductu, the letters of the same and of different words at exactly the same distance, without ant mark of a pause to distinguish either sentences, or members of sentences, or words from one another.

До него слова писали без интервалов между ними. Буквы как одного и того же слова, так и разных слов писались на одинаковом расстоянии между ними без пробела для различения предложений или членов предложения, или слов друг от друга.

Строчные буквы были неизвестны. Все буквы были заглавными. “Literae uncialesobservantur in libris omnibus ad nonum usque saeculum” . – Palaeog. Recens. P. 12.

Предложенные им знаки применялись его последователями (грамматиками) в Александрии для той же цели, для которой их использовал сам изобретатель. Но авторы и переписчики в своей массе пренебрегали ими вплоть до седьмого века н.э.

На стр. 219 своей книги Monfaucon воспроизводит текст рукописи Посланий Апостола Павла, относящейся к 7-му веку. В ней есть акценты, проставленные одновременно с самим текстом. Вероятно, эта древнейшая книга такого рода.

Но даже грамматики в те времена не всегда пользовались этими знаками. Но хотя они и не получили всеобщего признания, они были известны уже Геллию:

Quas Graeci προσδίας dicunt, eas veteres docti tum notas vocum, tum moderamenta, tumaccentiunculas appellabant. Lib. XIII. Cap. 6. (Геллий жил примерно тридцатью годами ранее Квинтилиана.)

В рукописях 8 и 9-го веков эти знаки применяются неизменно правильно.

Однако затем было много случаев неправильного их применения, когда проставление акута считалось знаком удлинения любого слога, над которым он ставился.

Неправильное применение акцентов в греческом последовало, видимо за словами, проникшими в латынь. Мы произносим Helēna из Ἑλένη и idēa из δέα: эти два слова, видимо, такого же рода, как и слова philosophía и prosodía, упомянутые Меланхтоном. То есть это слова, которые при переходе в латынь перенесли свой акут вместе с собой и сохранили его на penultima, хотя латинский метод акцентуации должен был бы естественным образом отодвинуть его на antepenultima.   

Tags: Аристофан Византийский, Геллий, Квинтилиан, апексы, греческий язык, знаки, латынь, обозначение ударения, пунктуация, ударение

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.