.
.
\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