Alan Bowen mailto:bowenalan03@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