Alan Bowen <mailto:bowenala...@gmail.com>
25. November 2015 um 17:33
Hi, Wolfgang—
The lines from the file are:
\startextract <— LINE 43
\startparagraph
\startlines
.
.
\footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests
that something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly
adversative, as is the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening
the second paragraph. This is in line with the careful disposition of
the {\emph cola} in the whole introduction: independent, principal
clauses are always introduced by conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them
the subclauses in contraposition are regularly marked by the canonical
«{μέν \dots δέ}». Moreover, every «{μέν}» is answered by a «{δέ}». The
only exception is the «{μέν}» in this sentence [lines 23–24]: a clause
such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ οὔ}» (\quote{whereas epimeric do not}) is
surely missing due to scribal mistake. I regard the correction as
certain, given the strictly analogous structure of the immediately
following sentence. Nothing in the interpretation that I shall develop
depends on this textual detail, however.}
%
Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-}
νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ
μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-} <— LINE 62
νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ
%
\footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a
place where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a
determination of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly
less firm status of the assumed correspondence between notes and
numbers. Compare the more precise statement occurring on the second
line of the first paragraph: «{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ
λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».}
%
\Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν
τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ
λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04] ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-}
%
\footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very
likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the
mistake is a haplography or a dittography.}
%
μορίουϲ.
\stoplines
\stopparagraph
\stopextract <— LINE 80
Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.
Did you create a command with \definehighlight which is used in this
part of the document?
Wolfgang
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________