Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_BlankenborgR.Rhythm_without_Beat.2014.
5. Breaking the Measure: Grammatisation through Prosody
5.1 Audibly Continued Grammatisation
5.1.1 Audible connection
b) connectors to indicate the transition between clauses;
c) connectors to indicate the transition between sentences. 
All three types of connectors appear at verse end, as well as at positions of frequent word end within the verse. In the majority of these instances, there is no doubt about the continuation the connector provides. In chapter 2, I commented on the syntactic and prosodic “isolation” of transitional extra-clausal connectors. In this section I will approach the connectors from another angle, as syntactic and prosodic isolation needs to be refined now that the isolated constituent(s) have a role in the audible patchwork of pauses. Primary and secondary pauses suggest the level of “prosodic clisis” of the isolated constituent as a whole: prosodically, the isolated constituent regularly prepares for continuation of the discourse. In that case, isolation has to give way to reorganisation within a larger-scale phrasal domain.
ὧς φάτο Τυδείδης δὲ διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν
The last example, Iliad 8.167, seems to feature sense-pause  at position 2, the other at position 3. In both examples the sense-pause, the completion of a syntactic unit due to the appearance of a theme constituent, is muted. At position 5½ the theme of the subsequent syntactical unit has been introduced in one phonetic word together with enclitic δέ. The phonetic disruption before the announcement of the theme, is muted at position 3 in Iliad 1.259 through elision. At position 2 in Iliad 8.167, it is milder than any disruption at position 5½: at position 5½ there is clisis in addition to word end in a syllable. The “isolated” transitional constituent is remarkably strongly tied to the preceding syntactic unit.
This way, the phonetic-word metrical colon between positions 5 and 7 is not audibly realised as an independent phrase, but as a subphrase within a developing major phrase. Similar conclusions may be drawn from the usage of γάρ and ἄρα  when they form the closure of minor-phrase phonetic words. The phonetic word bridging the metrical gap may well be a chunk itself.  If it is considered too small to be an individual chunk, its prosodic character may still render the phonetic word more or less “prepausal”. This pause at the closure of the phonetic word is only slightly stronger, due to the closure through an (enclitic) appositive, than that of word end in a secondary pause earlier in the same line:
The syntactical break at position 2 of Iliad 8.167 is less audible than the “pause” at position 5½. Any additional word-final lengthening in the third foot turns the preceding phonetic word into a pragmatic constituent that “stages” the next theme of the checklist without interrupting the major phonological phrase.
αἰχμὴ χαλκείη :5 τὸν δὲ 7 σκότος ὄσσε κάλυψεν
The phonetic word that serves as a connective device is thus realised in two distinctive ways. Both realisations end in a secondary pause at best, but they may start from either a primary or a secondary pause. Both phonetic words prosodically determine continuation from their completion, but not necessarily at their beginning. When preceded by a secondary pause, the phonetic word provides phonological continuation until the first subsequent primary pause. Following a primary pause, the phonetic word may, to certain extent, be singled out as the start of a major clause. If the phonetic word does not equal a minor phonological phrase, it will give additional relief to the start of a unit.  If elided, the postpositive that forms the closure robs the phonetic word of this capacity. If extended with a periphery (for example [periphery underlined] δ᾿ ἄρα, δ᾿ ἐπεὶ οὖν, δ᾿ ἔπειτα), the capacity is maintained to an extent: I would argue that the extension is motivated by the prosodic realisation of the phonetic word as a subphrase (to be reorganised within a major phrase), and the audible consequences. The most important consequence is variety in the word-end shapes, and hence in phonetic disruption within the line. When I indicate major phrase termination with °, phonetic word end with ˺, and phonetic word end in an (enclitic) appositive (being more likely than mere phonetic word end on the arsis to become audible at slower rates of speech) with ˙˙, such variety can be made visible around the transitional constituents in, for example, Iliad 6.318–320:
ἔγχος ἔχ᾿ ἑνδεκάπηχυ ˺πάροιθε δὲ ˙˙λάμπετο δουρός
αἰχμὴ χαλκείη °περὶ δὲ ˙˙χρύσεος θέε πόρκης
The phonetic words ending in a postpositive, πάροιθε δὲ and περὶ δὲ, and the phonetic word ending in the extended postpositive, ἐν δ᾿ ἄρα, bridge the metrical gap between two positions of word end. πάροιθε δὲ bridges the gap between positions 5½ and 8, περὶ δὲ the gap between positions 5 and 7, and ἐν δ᾿ ἄρα between positions 8 and 10. The two metrical positions on both sides of each gap are identical with respect to the possibilities they offer for primary or secondary pause: both positions allow for a primary pause, or both allow for a secondary pause. Had the phonetic word end in these three instances been anything other than an enclitic, the two metrical positions would have been realised identically in terms of phonetics. If both positions of word end, on either side of the gap, were realised as audible pauses, their rhythmical realisation would have been identical. The occurrence of the (extended) postpositive frustrates such repetitive realisation.
In Iliad 1.13–14  the use of τε illustrates the problem of the verbal status of the predicative participle:
στέμμα τ᾿ ἔχων ἐν χερσὶν ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος
In 2.2 and 2.2.1 I argued that, under specific circumstances, the predicative participle can be understood as a predicate-centred grammatical clause in itself. Often, however, it tends to align with a finite verb within a clause. Homer’s use of τε in Iliad 1.13–14 subtly reminds the audience of both the possibilities and the restrictions of the clausal use of predicative participles. The connector τε serves the same function as καί in concealing the disturbing effect that additions may have on the phonology within the clause. If we compare, for example, Iliad 1.7 and Iliad 1.9, we see that both τε and καί form word groups that straddle position 3:
Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς υἱός
They differ in as much  that an addition introduced by καί, either within the clause (Iliad 1.9) or within an extra-clausal constituent (Iliad 1.7), does not emphasise the constituent that is being added. The mentioning of two heroes in Iliad 1.7 has already been prepared for; there is no need to remind the audience of the appearance of a second character. The application of τε throws Ἀτρείδης into relief before the utterance is interrupted by, and continued by means of an addition, after an audible pause at position 7.  In Iliad 1.9, there would have been no audible pause following the first foot, whereas the audible pause coinciding with the verse end of Iliad 1.8 is a strong one.  Again, it is the patchwork of pauses that causes the emergence of larger-scale grammatisation.
αἰδεῖσθαι θ᾿ ἱερῆα καὶ ἀγλαὰ δέχθαι ἄποινα
The use of τε aims at bridging: not only the phonetic-word end at verse end of Iliad 1.22, but position 3 of Iliad 1.23 as well. The elision makes the particle bidirectional.  Addition is the aim of καί: it helps the discourse straddle the third foot caesura. Connective καί could have done without τε in the first half of line 23, but not the other way around. Elided τε may seem useful for prosody though (metri causa). If the particle had not been there, position 3 would suffer from either shortening or hiatus. Shortening does not have to be avoided in the thesis, but hiatus does. But the usage of τε metri causa is not without syntactical consequences: it prepares for continuation, preferably without an intervening pause. Compare, by contrast, the use of καί in Iliad 1.15:
Here, resumption of the narrative by καί follows the pause in the third foot. The particle is a syntactical reset. It is in such examples that it becomes clear that it is not so much δέ, but rather καί that is best comparable with additive ‘and’ in English. 
ἔλθωσ᾿ ἐς κλισίην 5 Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
In the example Iliad 6.318–320, there are four verb-centred (parts of) major phonological phrases (a-d):
ἔγχος ἔχ᾿ ἑνδεκάπηχυ πάροιθε δὲ λάμπετο δουρὸς
αἰχμὴ χαλκείη περὶ δὲ χρύσεος θέε πόρκης
b χειρὶ ἔγχος ἔχ᾿ ἑνδεκάπηχυ
c λάμπετο δουρὸς αἰχμὴ χαλκείη
d χρύσεος θέε πόρκης
These four verb-centred units are linked by phonetic words that serve as connectors: ἐν δ᾿ ἄρα, πάροιθε δὲ, περὶ δὲ. As discussed above, the phonetic disruption at the end of these phonetic words is likely to be stronger than that of other phonetic words ending in a light segment or syllable: especially at slower rates of speech, the closing (enclitic) postpositive is a relatively strong demarcation of the accentual unit that is the phonetic word. If the passage is divided into phonological phrases along these criteria, the result is:
ἑνδεκάπηχυ (:) πάροιθε δὲ (] [) λάμπετο δουρὸς αἰχμὴ χαλκείη]
b [περὶ δὲ (][) χρύσεος θέε πόρκης]
The ‘(:)’ indicates the syntactical boundary at a metrical boundary that will go practically unnoticed in performance, as ‘(][)’ indicates the metrical boundary at a syntactical boundary that cannot be made audible. The ‘(] [)’ signals a syntactical boundary that may be audible as a secondary pause depending on rate of speech. A and b are (parts of) different major phonological phrases. Both contain connective phonetic words that seems to have possible audible pauses both before and after. At normal rates of speech, the connective phonetic word is itself only slightly phonetically marked, within the larger phonological phrase. It is phonologically and phonetically concluding, but most of the time only by means of a secondary pause: it is a unit, within a unit. As a performer chooses to realise nonbreathing pauses within the rhythmical phrase, the concluding character of the postpositives will make a mild pause following it (indicated as ‘(] [)’) preferable to a pause preceding it (at a position of frequent word end, indicated as ‘(:)’). The result is that at normal rates of speech the connective is the closure of the minor phonological phrase when preceded by a secondary pause. In other words, the connective prepares for continuations before the performer can take a breath.
ἶσ᾿ ἔθελε φρονέειν
Of course, the continuation is determined in a different way, from the prosodic point of view: καί is prepositive, περὶ δὲ is a separate phonetic word, allowing for a slight pause after δὲ. Serious phonetic disturbance, however, is avoided  after δὲ. Prepositive καί is truly “additive” as the continuation is not audibly prepared for: the previous phonological phrase has been completed without any clue concerning the type of continuation. Phonetic word περὶ δὲ prepares for continuation, but the preceding primary pause creates the opportunity to single out the connective. When starting from a secondary pause, the connective phonetic word is hardly singled out. Both syntactically and phonologically, continuation is being guaranteed. An example is πάροιθε δὲ in ἐν δ᾿ ἄρα χειρὶ ἔγχος ἔχ᾿ ἑνδεκάπηχυ πάροιθε δὲ λάμπετο δουρὸς αἰχμὴ χαλκείη cited above. This usage of the connective phonetic word may be compared to καί as the realisation of the second light segment in the foot’s double short:
5.1.2 Audible “subordination”
2. the correspondence between correlative adverbs, particles and pronouns;
3. the difference in usage of verbal modes.
These three aspects, briefly discussed in chapter 1, can now be combined with two further arguments contradicting subordination, the former acknowledged by Chantraine: 
5. the combination of conjunction and postpositive particle into a minor phrase.
As a representative sample, the first 100 lines of the first book of the Iliad yields examples in addition to Iliad 1.6, 11, 37–38. I will discuss them briefly (numbered i–vii) to analyse the possibilities for prosodically motivated syntactical subordination in a sequence of autonomous grammatical clauses. As subordination appears to be due to the reorganisation of phrasal domains, both the prosodic and the syntactical isolation count as arguments to assess the level of subordination. In my analysis, prosodic isolation will eventually be decisive.
Agamemnon warns the priest not to provoke him σαώτερος ὥς κε νέηαι ‘that you may return the more safe’. The word σαώτερος starts from position 5½ and builds the verse up to position 8. With κε being a clitic itself, the combination  ὥς κε is proclitic to νέηαι (as in Odyssey 1.87). The remarkable position of the conjunction isolates σαώτερος on the right, possibly as a chunk all by itself. Syntactically, there is something wrong here: ὥς is in a chunk with κε νέηαι thus reducing its own value as a transitional constituent. What is worse, σαώτερος is left behind in another prosodically demarcated unit. This does not make sense: there is something wrong in prosody as well. There is one chunk-boundary too many here: the one between σαώτερος and ὥς. The prepositive character of ὥς κε must be denied: the combination is not built from prepositive ὥς + κε, but rather from postpositive and enclitic ὡς + κε (‘rather unharmed, as such you may then return’  ). Application of argument 5 above suggests that there is no subordination in this line. The grammatical clauses are juxtaposed to one another in a way that is better described as appositional.
That is, only ἤγερθεν ὁμηγερέες τε γένοντο is demonstrably a formulaic expression.  With that knowledge, this seemingly ordinary line contains a few interesting features. First, the introduction by οἱ δ᾿. This introduction looks like an elided theme constituent: if the verse had been introduced by non-elided οἱ δέ, the introductory phonetic word would have served as what Bakker calls a “staging” constituent. Its phonetic shape would have thrown it into extra relief. Next, there is the combination of a conjunction and a particle, resembling the “extended” particle: ἐπεὶ οὖν. The actual formulaic expression ἤγερθεν ὁμηγερέες τε γένοντο occupies the hexameter from position 3 onwards. The first phonetic word  of the verse, οἱ δ᾿ ἐπεὶ οὖν, up until position 3, shows a hierarchy in the usage of clause-introducing constituents: both the combination pronoun + postpositive particle, and the combination conjunction + particle are used as introductory or transitional constituents. The combination of the two different constituents reveals the adaptable nature of the theme constituent in reorganised phrasal domains. We have an abundance of examples that feature the non-elided theme constituent. Compared to those non-elided introductory constituents, the elided postpositive particle (δ᾿) in Iliad 1.57 prevents hiatus and, as a syllabic onset,  also does not end a separate minor phrase but allows the two introductory constituents to be combined into one minor phrase. The combination of two introductory constituents still results in an appositional introductory minor phrase, so the level of subordination here is not different from (i) and (ii).
ἂψ ἀπονοστήσειν εἴ κεν θάνατόν γε φύγοιμεν
εἰ δὴ ὁμοῦ πόλεμός τε δαμαῖ καὶ λοιμὸς Ἀχαιούς
The first εἰ, in line 60, is followed by κεν and an optative φύγοιμεν. The second, in line 61, is followed by future indicative δαμαῖ. Commentators  explain the optative in 60 as ‘a mere supposition, which is expressed as unlikely, remoter and less emphatic’. The speaker here, Achilles, presents the condition in line 61 as much more likely, maybe even as a fact (‘since war and plague together will destroy the Greeks’) than the condition in line 60. The condition in line 60 may as well be a parenthesis. Either way, it is remarkable that the combination εἴ κεν facilitates phonetic disruption due to the movable nu of κεν at position 7, as the end of the minor phrase. Though not-isolated due to the proclitic character of κεν, the transitional constituent provides for an emphatic second position  in the subsequent minor phrase for γε stressing θάνατον. The transitional constituent itself is part of a reorganised (major-)phrasal domain despite the appositional alignment of minor phrases. In line 61, εἰ is followed by δή, but combination of δή with the conjunction does not result in a phonetic disruption isolating the conjunction. On the contrary: the occurrence of ὁμοῦ leads to shortening of δή. There is word end at position 3: the minor phrase εἰ δὴ ὁμοῦ is prosodically isolated as an extra-clausal transitional constituent. The identifiable minor-phrase ending in an audible pause calls for even more caution when identifying a subordinate clause in Iliad 1.61. We may even have to come to the conclusion that, again, there is no subordination—not in line 60, and not in line 61.
Line 98 in itself is an added elaboration of the πρίν in Iliad 1.97:
Emphasising γε in line 98 is phonologically ineffective and metrically redundant because of original πρί̄ν.  Then why do we find this combination? The combination πρίν γε is based on πρί̆ν (compare Iliad 22.156 τὸ πρὶν ἐπ᾿ εἰρήνης πρὶν ἐλθεῖν υἷας Ἀχαιῶν ‘before, in times of peace, before the sons of the Greeks arrived’) and therefore a later development compared to realisation with a long vowel. More important is that combinations like πρίν γ᾿ ὅτε δή feature πρίν as an adverb. The use of πρίν γε as what looks like a conjunction in Iliad 1.98 immediately follows verse end.  Before it can be tied to the verbal form δόμεναι there is a primary pause at position 5—yet another reason to consider line 98 as the appositional juxtaposition of a minor phrase with a transitional constituent, and a minor phrase with (a part of) the grammatical clause.
5.1.3 Audible attribution
Whether or not the word group Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος constitutes a single spurt of vocalisation (or is it too short?) is hardly the issue. The listening audience will have understood the genitive case Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος as a coherent whole. The genitive case word group specifies the wrath that is going to be the central theme, if not of the whole epic, then at least of its opening scene.  As long as more information is being added concerning the wrath of Achilles, the theme of the wrath is still being further and further elaborated.  The continuing effect of this genitive case attributive element on syntax can be compared to the genitive case attributive elements in Iliad 1.7, Iliad 1.14, and Iliad 1.34:
στέμματ᾿ ἔχων ἐν χερσὶν ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος
βῆ δ᾿ ἀκέων παρὰ θῖνα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης
In Iliad 1.1, 1.14, and 1.34, the attributive element occupies the second half of the verse, from the third foot caesura to the verse end. The continuation that the attributive element provides seems to be consistent with the mildness of the trochaic caesura as an audible pause in Iliad 1.14 and 1.34. The second half-verses of Iliad 1.14 and 1.34 seem to qualify as metrical fillers: they extend the verb forwards to the nearest metrical boundary. Of course, ἐν χερσὶν ‘in his hands’ and παρὰ θῖνα ‘along the shore’ qualify as fillers as well: both occupy the metrical colon between positions 3 and 5½. Word end at position 3 in Iliad 1.34 allows for an audible pause (ἀκέων : παρὰ). The trochaic caesura hardly allows for phonetic disruption: syntactical continuation by means of an attributive element does not only extend the major phonological phrase but the filler as well. The result is not an extended metrical filler (ἐν χερσὶν ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος / παρὰ θῖνα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης) but a sizable phonological-phrase filler that consists of more than one metrical filler.
A demarcating word end at position 5 in this line would result in division of the word group ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν ‘lord of men’ into ἄναξ and ἀνδρῶν. Such separation may be seen as verse-internal enjambment, though, as mentioned before, the occurrence of enjambment at the caesura or verse-internal dieresis is not commonly accepted. If verse-internal enjambment were accepted, its poetic purpose in Iliad 1.7 is not immediately clear.  It is tempting instead to grant the attributive element ἀνδρῶν the effect of bridging the word juncture at position 5. As filler, ἀνδρῶν extends the minor phrase to the nearest pause, in this case the primary pause at word end at position 7. The genitive ἀνδρῶν is itself context-neutral, and innocuous with respect to the line’s content.  It qualifies as metrical filler. In the case of the word group ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν, word-final -ναξ leaves room for phonetic continuation through phonological sandhi. Word-final -δρῶν, as a superheavy syllable, leaves none. If rhythmical variety overrules metrical repetition, Iliad 1.7 features a primary pause at position 7. In Iliad 1.7, the attributive element phonologically bridges the third foot word end. The continuation that the attributive element provides is grammatical as well as phonological.
ἡρώων : 3
ταύρων ἠδ᾿ αἰγῶν : 5
But appropriate does not automatically mean that the verse end is ignored as an audible boundary: syntax does not count as proof for prosodic realisation. As I have shown in chapter 4 and in the previous sections of this chapter, it is the other way around: prosody may confirm what we find on the level of syntax.
At the same time, the elision of the phonetic word Διὸς δ᾿ avoids a repetitive (trochaic) rhythmical pattern. In Iliad 1.9  genitive Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς extends the missing verb backwards to the start of the line:
In Iliad 1.21, perhaps the model for Iliad 1.9, the same localisation (though in another case) of Διὸς υἱὸν (this time in a new phonological phrase, after a primary pause) extends the verbal form ἁζόμενοι forwards:
The nearest metrical boundary is position 5½; the first possible stronger audible pause, the verse end. In Iliad 1.19, genitive case attributive element Πριάμοιο is preparatory in bridging word end in the third foot in order to extend the verb ἐκπέρσαι all the way to position 7:
Many genitive case attributive elements appear as the final word of a metrical colon or the verse. Their localisation, especially with word end on the arsis (type: Iliad 1.19 Πριάμοιο), contributes to the bridging of positions of frequent word end.  It is tempting to assume a compositional principle underlying the audible signalling of Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος in Iliad 1.1. Is it an audible preparation for syntactical continuation, in this case by means of hyperbaton (μῆνιν … οὐλομένην)?
5.1.4 Audible predicate extension
οὐλομένην ἣ μυρί᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκεν
The adjective seems to occupy a prominent place, using the “emphatic” first position in the line to extra effect.  It is a phonological continuation as well, as the verse end is muted compared to the sense-pauses at position 5 in Iliad 1.1, and position 3 in Iliad 1.2. The localisation of the attributive participle (choriambic ῥυθμός, descending-blunt verbal rhythm, progressing from a mild to a stronger audible pause) suggests extension of the verbal form  backwards: [Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος | οὐλομένην]. The result is a major phonological phrase that crosses the verse end:  Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην. Syntactically, the adjective has a continuing effect similar to, for example, a relative clause. Phonologically, the participle οὐλομένην is more closely tied to the preceding verse-final words, than the relative pronoun ἣ is to preceding οὐλομένην. The recurring phenomenon of the “run-over participle + relative pronoun”  (rhythmical result: muted verse end + audible pause at position 3  ) is an effective way to create rhythmical variety. At the same time, however, it is unlikely that this adjective in first position in the verse can be identified as an example of poetically effective enjambment. Of course, the adjective follows enjambment when run-over over the verse end is considered as definition of enjambment. Technically, οὐλομένην stands in hyperbaton,  but enjambment does not contribute: this hyperbaton is not “strengthened” by a pause at verse end. If in this case hyperbaton is strengthened by a pause at all,  it must be by the audible pause at position 5 in the first line. In every respect, the positioning of the adjective is more effective in continuing the phonological phrase at hand than is the verse end in creating a phonetic disturbance or poetically meaningful enjambment.
5.1.5 Audible apposition
In the words of Chantraine:  this appositional character of Homeric syntax is evident from the paratactic organisation of the discourse. Devine and Stephens consider the ‘rather flat, as opposed to hierarchical, phrase structure’  of the Homeric epic as illustrative for the “nonconfigurationality” of ancient Greek. At the same time, of course, Homeric discourse features manifold true, grammatical, appositions. These appositions have been viewed from different angles in the past century of scholarship. Many of them, especially the epithets, have been described as compositional fillers, and thus as the building blocks of the oral compositional technique. Analysis as metrical filler might be functional: when the epithet is used to fill the remainder of a verse in order to facilitate the usage of an audible pause, for example verse end, for discourse shift or sense-pause. The first examples the Iliad offers are Iliad 1.16, Iliad 1.21, and, even more evidently, Iliad 1.35–36:
ἁζόμενοι Διὸς υἱὸν ἑκηβόλον Ἀπόλλωνα
πολλὰ δ᾿ ἔπειτ᾿ ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἠρᾶθ᾿ ὁ γεραιός
Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι τὸν ἠύκομος τέκε Λητώ
In these examples, the grammatical appositions conclude a larger whole. Their appearance functions as an afterthought: the information in the apposition may well be meaningful in its own right, but the apposition itself does not prepare the audience for what is to follow. 
ἐκπέρσαι Πριάμοιο πόλιν ἐὺ δ᾿ οἴκαδ᾿ ἱκέσθαι
The appositional epithet Ὀλύμπια δώματ᾿ ἔχοντες of θεοὶ suits the metrical requirements of the verse up to verse end. At the same time, the epithet disrupts the developing wish that has been initiated, but not been brought to completion, in the first half of Iliad 1.19. Phonetically, the disturbance in Iliad 1.19 is minimal. Iliad 1.19 does not contain a strong audible pause; the first primary pause is the word end at position 3 in Iliad 1.20. Both the Iliad and the Odyssey abound in examples that are rhythmical parallels to Iliad 1.19–20.
Ἀτρείδης ὁ γὰρ ἦλθε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν
The patronymic Ἀτρείδης seems to function as the subject of Iliad 1.11. As such it extends the verbal form ἠτίμασεν ‘had dishonoured’ forwards to position 3 of Iliad 1.12. In his analysis of Homeric syntax, Bakker  labels such nominative case appositions “additions”. In his analysis, the verse end boundary renders such appositions tail-constituents to the preceding intonation unit.  The main purpose of the nominative case apposition lies in the staging or restaging of persons or objects. The syntactical checklist-structure is characterised by a certain degree of looseness between consecutive intonation units. Such looseness requires nominative case appositions for the purpose of “disambiguation” every once in a while.  Ἀτρείδης in Iliad 1.12 is identified as an apposition to the subject implicit in the verbal form ἠτίμασεν .  In translation, Iliad 1.11–12 may be something like:
The apposition itself may thus be seen as a separate intonation unit,  according to Bakker.
Ἀργείους τὶ δὲ λαὸν ἀνήγαγεν ἐνθάδ᾿ ἀγείρας
Ἀτρείδης ἦ οὐχ Ἑλένης ἕνεκ᾿ ἠυκόμοιο
ἦ μοῦνοι φιλέουσ᾿ ἀλόχους μερόπων ἀνθρώπων
Phonological phrasing, however, points at the fact that Achilles has not. If stylised metrical units  are indeed the compositional building blocks of Homeric syntax, as Bakker claims, the divergence between the audible pauses and metrical boundaries enables the phrases to surpass the metrical units. The stichic repetition of metrical units does not only allow,  but actually elicits “unhexametric clustering”. Syntactical continuation is prosodically determined.
5.2 Audible Punctuation as a Structuring Device
The occurrence of sandhi through elision ties the constituents in hyperbaton together in one phonological phrase.
The negation should, however, be connected to focus-bearing σε .  The verse may, but need not, go without audible pauses: the parenthetical vocative may be followed by a pause at position 3.  Either way, there is no hyperbaton without regard for phonological-phrase structuring.
The combination of word end at position 5½ and phonological sandhi ties the constituents in hyperbaton together in one phonological phrase. The most famous example, of course, is Odyssey 1.1:
Iliad 1.1–2 is the best-known example of configuration at, or rather over, the verse end. This is not to say that the two words in hyperbaton are tied together in one minor or major phonological phrase: up to position 5 Iliad 1.1 is a single major phrase, and there is a second major phrase starting from position 5 and ending at position 3 in Iliad 1.2. The latter contains two minor phrases, one ending at and one starting from the verse end of Iliad 1.1. The verse end, however, at least does not contribute to nonconfigurationaly here:
Nonconfigurationality, the lack of hierarchical organisation in Homeric syntax, cannot explain the hyperbaton in the following two examples, nor defend an audible pause at position 7. At the same time, Iliad 1.12 and Iliad 1.25 do have audible pauses verse-internally and at verse end:
ἀλλὰ κακῶς ἀφίει :5 κρατερὸν δ᾿ ἐπὶ μῦθον ἔτελλεν :12
The words in hyperbaton are closely tied together in one phonological phrase; so closely in fact, that the configuration is not at all that different from a ‘regular grammatical sequence’. Even if the words in hyperbaton are further apart, as they are in Odyssey 1.1 (ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε Μοῦσα πολύτροπον ‘tell me about the man of many ways, goddess’), the coherence of the phonological phrase points at the regularity of the configuration of the words in hyperbaton.
5.2.2 Discourse structuring elements
τῆι δεκάτηι δ᾿ ἀγορήνδε καλέσσατο λαὸν Ἀχιλλεύς
The adverbial expression ἐννῆμαρ μὲν prepares the audience for a contrast with, or a further elaboration of, the description of the horrible plague in Iliad 1.42–52. It looks as if the adverbial expression is the start of some sort of list that specifies αἰεί in Iliad 1.52. Another adverb of time (τῆι δεκάτηι ‘on the tenth’) shows that Iliad 1.53 was the concluding remark: concluding to the description of the effects of the disease, and dismissing the topic of dying as foil for a new topic in line 54, Achilles. For the audience, the concluding character of Iliad 1.53 was not an eagerly awaited surprise. There is no primary pause at the verse end of Iliad 1.53. On the contrary: any audible break between Iliad 1.53 and Iliad 1.54 is hardly noticeable. The verse end of Iliad 1.53 is being muted, allowing the major phonological phrase to extend forwards to the nearest primary pause. Prosody does not suggest a clear break to underline the concluding character of Iliad 1.53.
Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι τὸν ἠύκομος τέκε Λητώ
κλῦθί μευ ἀργυρότοξ᾿ ὃς Χρύσην ἀμφιβέβηκας
5.3 Prose-like Audible Punctuation
5.3.1 Opportunities for grammatisation through prosody
λήθετ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἀθανάτων
σχήσομεν ἔντοσθεν μεγάρων
φράζεο μή τις ἔπειτα θεῶν ἐθέληισι καὶ ἄλλος
πέμπειν ὃν φίλον υίὸν ἀπὸ κρατερῆς ὑσμίνης
Homeric syntax is still, to an extent, “loose”, but Homer phrases his narrative in grammatical clauses whose size is the poet’s choice. His appositional construction cannot in general be compared to the psychologically motivated nonconfigurationality of, for example, ballads from other centuries and places.  The pattern of Homer’s grammatical clauses shows clear syntactical organisation, regularly spanning an entire verse, or several verses:
Λάμπον τε Κλυτίον θ᾿ Ἱκετάονά τ᾿ ὄζον Ἄρηος
εὖ ἰησάμενοι ἠδ᾿ ἀγλαὰ δῶρα πορόντες
καρπαλίμως χαίροντα φίλην χαίροντες ἔπεμπον
Metrical structure makes it harder to accept larger scale syntactical organisation. The repetitive metrical colometry, paratactic in its own way, persistently suggests syntactical parataxis. As the Parryan approach shows, parataxis is most easily accepted at the verse end. Parry saw the compositional technique as juxtaposing of whole-verse metrical units. Syntactically and semantically, however, the subsequent verse is often an addition to the previous, instead of a new, whole clause. There is an abundance of complete lines that cannot stand on their own as clauses. Two examples to illustrate this:
There are equally many lines that contain a complete clause, and a metrical colon that is an addition to the previous line (or a preparation for the line to follow):
(Ἰλίου προπάροιθεν ἐμῆις ἐν χερσὶ βάληισι)
τῶι ἅμα πομπὸν ἕπεσθαι ἐέλδετο γάρ σε ἰδέσθαι
At the same time, clauses start and end somewhere within the line, leaving some metrical space to be filled with constituents that join the line to the previous or subsequent line:
κείομεν ὕστερον αὖτε μαχησόμεθ᾿ εἰς ὅ κε δαίμων
εὔχεο καὶ δὲ σὲ φασὶ Διὸς κούρης Ἀφροδίτης
λήθετ᾿ ἀπειλάων τὰς ἀντιθέωι Ὀδυσῆι
If the metrical colometry, and juxtaposition of verses, is considered evidence or reflection of compositional parataxis (or paratactic composition), I argue that the identification of semantically hierarchical and syntactically dependent metrical phrases must lead to incompatibility of metrical and syntactical phrasing, even in the process of composition. In performance, there is audible metrical colometry, next to a different type of audible phrasing; but even in composition, meter and syntax seem to get in each other’s way. The metrical phrasing, when analysed as paratactic juxtaposition of repetitive metrical cola, suggests that the incompatibility of metrical and syntactical phrasing is best described as a stylistic feature. It seems to be a deliberate incompatibility for poetic effect. As such, the “anomaly” is regularly characterised as evidenced in syntax: the syntactical features of the “run-over” into the subsequent line determine the stylistic effect of the anomaly, as the metrical boundaries and their paratactic demarcation are taken for granted. Are we supposed then to assume a theoretical incompatibility in the process of composition that was not, and could not be, exploited to poetic effect in performance?
χωόμενον κατὰ θυμὸν ἐυζώνοιο γυναικός
τήν ῥα βίηι ἀέκοντος ἀπηύρων αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἐς Χρύσην ἵκανεν ἄγων ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην
At the verse end, the poet creates a deliberate “mismatch” between the repetitive metrical unities of the verses, and the grammatical clauses. Metrically, the transition 428–429 resembles 429–430. Both transitions have word end coinciding with verse end. Both feature an utterance that is perfectly understandable if the reader’s text were to stop, for example due to damage, at the verse end: the lines are grammatically complete. At both transitions, the verse end seems to demarcate a break in grammar  that identifies the two lines, 428 and 429, as whole-line utterances. The terminology whole-line utterance points at the completeness of the grammatical and syntactical organisation within the single verse. It does not include any consideration for the perceptible phonological phrase. In verse 428 the grammatical clause τὸν δ᾿ ἔλιπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ‘him she left behind’ is “complete” at verse end; in 429 there is an expanded (κατὰ θυμὸν ‘in his heart’) verb form (χωόμενον ‘raging’) accompanied by a “causal” genitive (ἐυζώνοιο γυναικός ‘over the beautiful woman’). More interesting than the resemblances are the differences between the two end-stopped lines as indicated by phonology and phonetics.
5.3.2 Determination of grammatisation through prosody
μᾶλλον ἐποτρύνω καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω
εἰς ἀγορὴν καλέσαντα κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς
πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν οἳ τέ οἱ αἰεὶ
μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς
The whole-line utterance is not a persistent compositional device in these lines. The “rhetorical” punctuation in the edition of Stanford already suggests as much:
μᾶλλον ἐποτρύνω, καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω,
εἰς ἀγορὴν καλέσαντα κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς
πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν, οἳ τέ οἱ αἰεὶ
μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς.
Are all the printed comma’s more or less the same in the way the word end they mark is phonetically realised? Does printed punctuation indicate the primary or the secondary pause? Or no pause at all? Is there no third foot pause in 88, 89, 91 and 92? Is there no verse-internal pause at all in 90? Or does the inevitability of an audible third foot pause create some sort of meaningful verse-internal enjambment in 90? And what about verse-end enjambment? The verse end of 89 may coincide with the transition from one embedded predication to another. The verse end of 88 and 91 falls somewhere halfway the developing grammatical clause. Why would the clause οἱ υἱὸν μᾶλλον ἐποτρύνω signal the metrical boundary following υἱὸν? Are we supposed to forgive Homer for the fact that καλέσαντα is attracted into the construction of accusative and infinitive in stead of to οἱ precisely because “enjambment” is more than a theoretical acknowledgement? Is the participle phrase εἰς ἀγορὴν καλέσαντα κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς expanded into a whole line to grant verse-initial position to πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν so that any emphatic position for the clause’s verb ἀπειπέμεν would be further strengthened by the third foot caesura? What is the use of identifiable “enjambment” here?
μᾶλλον ἐποτρύνω,| καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω, ||
εἰς ἀγορὴν καλέσαντα | κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς ||
πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν | ἀπειπέμεν, οἳ τέ οἱ αἰεὶ ||
μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι | καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς. ||
The answer to the question does not necessarily have to be found in further sifting of the rhetorical punctuation:  we have to abandon the alleged “paratactic” juxtaposition of metrical phrases. After all, rhetorical punctuation can be visualised with similar ease in prose:
Together with metrical demarcation, rhetorical punctuation can be visualised when the text is divided into the chunks of spoken language, Bakker’s “intonation units” (a–l) as discussed in chapter 2:
c ὅφρα οἱ υἱὸν
d μᾶλλον ἐποτρύνω,
e καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω,
f εἰς ἀγορὴν καλέσαντα
g κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς
h πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν
j οἳ τέ οἱ αἰεὶ
k μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι
l καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς.
The syntactical structure, however, is clearly built despite the metrical phrasing. More precise, its likeness to spoken discourse becomes visible not in metrical, but in phonological phrasing. Applying the criteria for primary and secondary pauses, as I presented them in the introduction to this chapter, brings out the phonological phrasing. I will start by marking all the minor phonological phrases, regardless of the strength of the phonetic disruption that starts or ends the phrase. As pointed out, phonetic disruption stems from phonetic-word end in a syllable as opposed to the phonological segment:
ii καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω,
iii εἰς ἀγορὴν
iv καλέσαντα κάρη
v κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς
vi πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν, οἳ τέ
vii οἱ αἰεὶ μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας
A number of issues calls for extra attention. The first minor phrase is very long and includes what seems to be a complete subordinate clause that straddles verse end. The second minor phrase, καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω, is a complete and completed grammatical clause. The third, εἰς ἀγορὴν, appears to be isolated in the way one would expect an additive chunk to be isolated, just like the two phrases that follow. In the sixth minor phrase, the transitional constituent providing continuation is included. The seventh minor phrase is long again and encompasses a grammatical clause that straddles verse end. Finally, the eighth phrase, βοῦς, is remarkable. It consists of a single monosyllabic word that is thrown into relief by the phonetic realisation.  Whereas word end in a heavy syllable always results in an anapaestic word end, phrasal metarrhythmisis to catalectic anapaests is twice in order here: at position 12 in Odyssey 1.90 Ἀχαιοὺς (AT[A]T), and at position 12 in Odyssey 1.92 βοῦς ([A]T).
ii °καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω,˙
iii ˙εἰς ἀγορὴν°
iv °καλέσαντα κάρη°
v °κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς°
vi °πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν, οἳ τέ˙
vii ˙οἱ αἰεὶ μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας°
The primary pauses are the start and end of major phonological phrases. At normal rates of speech, minor phrases will be reorganised into subphrases of the major phrase. This leads to six major phrases:
- ˙αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν Ἰθάκην ἐσελεύσομαι, ὅφρα οἱ υἱὸν μᾶλλον ἐποτρύνω,°
- °καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω,˙εἰς ἀγορὴν°
- °καλέσαντα κάρη°
- °κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς°
- °πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν, οἳ τέ˙οἱ αἰεὶ μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας°
The issue of the sentence and the clause (‘which of these two ought to be taken as the syntactical unit to judge the grammatical completeness of the whole-line utterance?’) is indeed no longer relevant in this approach.  In my opinion, however, it may be still. It is noteworthy that some grammatical clauses are tied together in, and by, a phonological phrase. On the other hand, if primary pause disrupting a grammatical clause is an indicator for (verse-internal) “enjambment”, there is remarkably often “enjambment” in and around much-used formulaic expressions (κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς, ἕλικας βοῦς). Earlier,  I pointed out that phonological phrasing tends to lead to remarkable phonetic disruption in and around well established formulas, particularly noun-epithet combinations. Especially in these combinations, I am inclined to lessen the disruptions caused by the primary pause somewhat, as the usefulness of the formula may have been felt as more important than the slightly awkward phonetics of the word group in performance. At the same time, rhetorical punctuation suggests the boundaries of smaller scale syntactical units that cannot be made audible as units. Punctuation, however, does not always indicate the start and ending of smaller units that can be made audible. The smaller scale units contribute to audible phrase variation: they are not characterised metrically, but phonologically. They do not reflect the coherence of the metrical unit, but reorganise metrical word-types along the lines of a different type of coherence. At times this coherence, determined by prosody, evidences the demarcation of larger scale units in Homer as visualised by means of rhetorical punctuation. Then again, the example Odyssey 1.88–92 shows that we must remain careful not to attribute too much importance to larger scale demarcation in Homer.  Any larger scale demarcation I have made identifiable, is no more than the identification of major phonological phrases comprising of one or more minor phrases. Larger scale is not a division into sentences: it is a division into perceptible units of variable size and internal shape. The importance of meter suffers most from the phonological-syntactical phrasing. “Rhetorical colometry”, including the abundant (verse-internal) “enjambment”, defies not only the verse end: there are other metrical boundaries that are observed or straddled, depending on syntactical analysis. Pure “syntactical chunking” (κατὰ διαστολάς) is confined between phonological boundaries, but seems to make the repetitive pattern of Homeric metrical phrasing less relevant:
καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω,
εἰς ἀγορὴν (…) καλέσαντα κάρη (…) κομόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς
πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν, οἳ τέ
οἱ αἰεὶ μῆλ᾿ ἁδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας (…) βοῦς.
This is as close to “prose-like” phrasing as Homer gets.
|Clause end*||“Enjambment”||Other**||Clause end*||“Enjambment”||Other**|
Table 6: Demarcation due to the primary rhythmical pause as percentage of total number of primary pauses.
* Including the right branch demarcation of the predicatively used participle.
** The right branch demarcation of a transitional constituent or a cluster of transitional constituents.