--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Ray Brown <ray.brown@F...> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, at 09:57 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@M...>
> > wrote:
> >> But if I'm not misremembering, that is not certain; there is
> > conflicting
> >> evidence with regard to the effect of -que on stress. In fact,
I
> >> believe that if you reverse the phrase to "puellae puerique",
then
> > there are
> >> actually three different possibly-correct placements of the
> > emphasis:
>
> Yes - I'd forgotten - must check out the evidence when I can.
>
> >> 1. puéllae púerique (no effect)
>
> I find that difficult to believe, at least for the Classical &
> post-Classical periods. Early Latin, as we know, did have word
initial
> stress (like the gaelic langs, Hungarian etc) so 1 would clearly
apply
> then. But when the stress shifted to the penultimate or
antepenultimate,
> depending on the quantity of the penultimate syllable, I find it
difficult
> to believe that púerique would survive.
As the stress of _pueri:_ on its own is _púeri:_, I would actually
find a doubly stressed *_púerí:que_ quite credible. It even has a
parallel in the double stressed clitic compounds (right phrase?) of
Greek such as _ántHro:pós tis_ and _sô:má ge_. Note that the two
stresses in these words are separated by an unstressed mora (sô:ma =
sóoma, except that the length affects the quality of the vowel.)
Richard.