4 ms·
> Not sure about the first syllable of "poplitibus" Lewis and Short doesn't mark that o short or long. This also occurred with vexo, which I assumed was becaus
by thaumasiotes 8mo ago
> Not sure about the first syllable of "poplitibus"
Lewis and Short doesn't mark that o short or long. This also occurred with vexo, which I assumed was because the first syllable of anything starting with vex- is necessarily long (because the 'x' is two non-liquid consonants).
In the case of poples, 'l' is a liquid and a short vowel could be revealed by the syllabification po-ples (or po-pli-), but I guess this is never attested? This verse can't answer the question because the syllable is allowed to be long.
- amelung 8mo ago> is allowed to be long or even determined to be long? The descriptions of the Alcaic strophe I found specify the first syllables of the first three verses as anceps but the first syllable of the fourth as long. Skimming the other odes in the third book, I havenʼt found another example where that would be doubtful. Maybe the hiatus candidates Trōica in 3:3, Pīeriō in 3:4, but fīet in a Sapphic strophe of 3:14 is certainly long. But how is it long: - probably not by position, because of muta cum liquida after the vowel. (An example for V.pl instead of Vp.l is capta virum puerosque ploret in 3:3.) - the vowel length seems to be unclear, as indicated by Lewis / Short. I thought the etymology might help, but Walde / Hofmann tell that the etymology is unknown – and that a certain Muller Ait. W. 351 (?) is wrong to argue for a long o because it is clearly attested as short in verses by Accius and Lucretius. So I am puzzled.