Ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς εἴκοσι ἐν ἄλλῳ βιβλίῳ τὸ ἀναγνωστικὸν εἶδος κατὰ σύνταξιν τῶν λέξεων παραδέδοται, ἀκολούθως μετὰ τὴν δήλωσιν τῆς καθ´ ἑκάστην προσῳδίας γινομένης διδασκαλίας περὶ διαστολῆς καὶ συναλοιφῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν παρακολουθούντων τῇ ἀναγνώσει, οἷον ὅτε τὸ Ζεύς ὀξυνόμενον οὐκ ἔχει τὴν ὀξεῖαν ῥωννυμένην ἐν τῷ «Ζεὺς δ´ ἐπεὶ οὖν Τρῶας» (Il. 13, 1), ἀλλ´ ἐγκλινομένην διὰ τὴν ἐπιφορὰν τοῦ δέ συνδέσμου. ἐν γοῦν τῷ «Ζεύς τε καταχθόνιος» (Il. 9, 450) ῥώννυται διὰ τὴν ἐπιφορὰν τοῦ τέ. ἡ δὲ οἱ ἀντωνυμία ἐν τῷ «οἷ αὐτῷ θάνατον» οὐκ ἐφύλαξε τὴν περισπωμένην ἐν τῷ «καί οἱ ἐπευχόμενος» (Il. 16, 829) τῆς συντάξεως τοῦτ´ ἀπαιτούσης τοῦ σημαινομένου. οὕτως ἔχει καὶ τὸ «μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ» (Ζ 124).
With respect to the twenty, in another book the reading-type has been handed down according to the syntactic arrangement of the words, in due sequence after the exposition of the instruction concerning separation and crasis and the other matters that accompany reading, which arises from the explanation of the accentuation that occurs in each case—for example, when Ζεύς, though accented with an acute, does not have the acute strengthened in «Ζεὺς δ´ ἐπεὶ οὖν Τρῶας» (Il. 13, 1), but encliticized because of the following particle δέ. Thus in «Ζεύς τε καταχθόνιος» (Il. 9, 450) it is strengthened because of the following τε. But the pronoun οἱ in «οἷ αὐτῷ θάνατον» did not preserve the circumflex in «καί οἱ ἐπευχόμενος» (Il. 16, 829), since the syntax of the meaning requires this. So too is the case with «μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ» (Ζ 124).