> 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