To be clear, Aubrey’s work has focused so far on singular pronouns, many of which are mono-syllabic and can be unaccented. Aubrey notes that “Multi-syllabic clitics do not lose their accent the way mono-syllabic clitics do, thus it is completely possible for ὑμῖν to be a clitic and maintain an accent” (p.c.). Whether the plural pronouns are technically clitics or not, they still exhibit the propensity to follow the prosodic focus of the clause; they typically either follow the verb or the fronted focal constituent. This being the case, the pre-verbal presence of ὑμῖν would be to emphasize what precedes it, not the pronoun itself. The plural pronouns do not have an emphatic form like the 1st and 2nd person singular. So, mono-syllabic clitics can lose their accents, multi- ones do not. Is that any clearer, I think not.

I’m a little confused about one point. Is ὑμῖν a clitic pronoun here? Or could it be emphatic? I thought that clitics lost their accent, but the editors of the critical text don’t do that with ὑμῖν here.