y 
 
SOUNDS AND INFLECTIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GREEK DIALECTS 
 
 IONIC 
 
 SMYTH 
 
HENRY FROWDE 
 
 Oxford University Press Warehousr 
 Amen Corner, E.G. 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE 
 
THE 
 
 SOUNDS AND INFLECTIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GREEK DIALECTS 
 
 IONIC 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT WEIR SMYTH 
 
 PH.D. UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN 
 PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 *^ OF THE 
 
 TJNIVERSITT 
 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 1894 
 
C)cfor& 
 
 PRINTKD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 BV HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 

 PIAE MEMORIAE 
 
 HENRICI LUDOLFI AHRENSII 
 
 SACRUM 
 
f^fl- 
 
 1 
 
71^ 
 
 s 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 It is now more than half a century since Ahrens laid the 
 foundations of Greek Dialectolog-y in a work which, by reason 
 of its sterling merits, has remained unsuperseded in part until the 
 present day. Had the original intention of the author of the 
 De Graecae I'mg^iae dialectis been carried out, an investigation of 
 Ionic would have followed upon that dealing with Aiolic and 
 Doric ; and the need of any other treatise on the subject would 
 have been less urgent. The deflection of his literary activity 
 to other dejiartments of philology bequeathed a legacy of 
 opportunity, of which his countrymen have been slow to avail 
 themselves. At the present time there exists no treatise on the 
 dialect which in its interest for the student of Greek language 
 and literature is second only to that wherein the masterpieces 
 of Athenian genius found expression. Maittaire's Graecae 
 Ihujuae dialecti, last issued in 1807, is out of date, and the 
 monographs at the disposal of the scholar cover only a limited 
 portion of the extensive territory. 
 
 As the author of the first attempt at depicting the Ionic 
 dialect as a whole, I may perhaps be pardoned for alluding to the 
 difficulties involved in such an Undertaking, difficulties that are 
 enhanced not only by the absence of minute investigations on 
 many questions of considerable importance, but also by the fact 
 that the sources of information are often accessible only in an 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 imperfect state. Much of Ionic literature is still inadequately 
 edited. Of Hippokrates, Aretaios, the philosophers (with the 
 exception of Herakleitos) and the logog-raphers, there 'are no 
 editions which record fully and faithfully the reading-s of the 
 MSS. In the case of the philosophers only was I able in part 
 to reconstruct my own text, thanks to such books as Diels' 
 tSinipIiciKS and Wachsmuth's Shhae^is. From the ordinary 
 Lexicons one docs not, it is true, expect much assistance in 
 dialect olog-ical matters. Yet, apart from errors of fact, their 
 failure to register the occurrence of ordinary words in much-read 
 authors is often the cause of serious inconvenience. Thus, for 
 example, that Herodotos (or Hippokrates) made use of 6ko^ is 
 not recorded in Stephanus, Liddell and Scott, or even in 
 Portus' Ae^iKov 'IcortKoV or Schweighauser's special Lexicon to 
 Herodotos. 
 
 The present work attempts to combine the two methods by 
 which dialectal phenomena may be studied — the philological and 
 the linguistic. Primary importance has been attached to the 
 point of view of Philology, which seeks, among other things, to 
 determine on the basis of tradition the forms proper to the dialect 
 of each author, the place occupied by him in the history of the 
 development of the dialect, the interrelation of the various 
 connected styles of literary composition, and the connection 
 between the language of artistic construction and the language 
 of the public and private documents preserved in the inscriptions. 
 So far as Ionic is concerned, these matters have been discussed 
 briefly in the Introduction, but the conclusions there presented 
 can be fully understood only by comparison wuth the detailed 
 investigation that follows. I have deferred to another occasion 
 a sketch of ancient dialectology, a discussion of the inter- 
 relation of the chief cantonal idioms, and an examination of the 
 principles that govern their appearance in a literature permeated 
 to a remarkable degree by artistic consciousness. 
 
 i 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 The method that has been pursued in treating' the forms as 
 purely linguistic phenomena calls for a few words of explanation. 
 As it has not been my purpose to write a Comparative Grammar 
 from the point of view of Ionic, I have rarely endeavoured to 
 trace the forms back to the pre-Hellenic stage. Ionic has 
 been compared throughout with other dialects, especially Attic. 
 Because of its juerptoTijs and KoivoTrjs, Attic is, and will continue 
 to be, the standard by which philologians measure the manifold 
 ^aberrations'' of dialects less highly developed, or less adapted 
 than itself to serve as vehicles for the expression of Hellenic 
 thought. To the mention of difficult forms I have added brief 
 explanations in the belief that these would prove of service to 
 English and American students of Greek grammar. Many of 
 these explanations refer to articles scattered up and down in the 
 various journals or in monographs not always easy of access. 
 The student may find here and there in the following pages 
 a contribution to the solution of some of these difficulties, the 
 existence of which has constantly been emphasized; but in 
 crossing the frontier of disputed questions I have attempted 
 only to bring the book to the level of the comparative grammar 
 of to-day, and, while confessing my inability to arrive at 
 a decision when the evidence seemed insufficient, to set forth 
 briefly and criticize existing theories. 
 
 As regards the collection of material, completeness was well- 
 nigh out of the question in the case of a dialect which has left 
 abundant traces of its existence for over a thousand years. 
 The evidence offered by the inscriptions and post-Homeric Ionic 
 lyric will, however, I think, be found to be reasonably complete. 
 I have made considerable use of the Ionic portion of Homer, but 
 it was alien from my intention to treat in detail this ' dialect,^ 
 since its artificiality often renders hazardous the delimitation 
 of Ionic from Aiolic. The fact that scholars already have at 
 their command such books as Monroes Homeric Grammar and 
 
 UNIVERSIT- 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 van Leeu wen's EncJiiridium cUctionis epicae warranted me in 
 devoting greater attention to the post-Homeric literature. In 
 dealing- with the literary documents, I have compared the 
 readings of the MSS. whenever it was possible. I venture to 
 believe that, without deserting the MS. tradition to any great 
 extent, I have disproved the theory that Herodotos made constant 
 use of Homeric forms as such. The depravation of the dialect of 
 Herodotos has been so great that it is often impossible to adopt 
 a form on the consensus oi AB and Rvs, which is the warrant of 
 the archetypal reading ; while it often happens that the correct 
 form is preserved in R alone. Convinced as I am that Herodotos 
 contracted e + e, e + r/ and e + et in etoo verbs, I do not hesitate 
 to rank R very high when it preserves the contracted forms. 
 The Atticisms of R are in fact often lonisms. C and P 
 represent the hyper-Ionic tradition more than other MSS. As 
 I have referred to C (the Florentinus of the eleventh century), 
 I take this ojiportunity to correct the statement on p. 93 where 
 A (the Florentinus of the tenth century) has taken the place of 
 C. In the case of Hippokrates the readings of 6 and A have 
 often been cited when they conflict with the vulgate or with 
 Littre's text. 
 
 eVepos ef krepov cro(f)d^ to re TrdXai to re vvv. Among the 
 books that were of greatest assistance, the place of honour 
 belongs to the collections of inscriptions and the comments 
 thereon by my former teacher, Prof. Bechtel of Gottingen. 
 The monographs of Renner, Merzdorf, and Lindemann, the Greek 
 ferhs of Veitch, and the grammars of Meyer and Brugmann have 
 proved especially serviceable. Bredow's book on Herodotos rests 
 upon incomplete and defective collations of the MSS., but is 
 invaluable so long as Stein's promised Lexicon remains unpub- 
 lished. Since the book went to press (in January, 1893), I have 
 added some matters of interest from Prof. Blass' edition of 
 \\\\\\WQV s Ansfu/irliclie G ram matik, &nd incorj^orated the important 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 forms occurring" in Herodas. Througli the courtesy of its author, 
 Meister's elaborate discussion of the dialect of Herodas reached 
 me shortly before the concluding- pages passed out of my hands. 
 It has contributed largely to the additions in the first appendix, 
 and thus rendered the treatment of the sounds and inflections 
 of Herodas tolerably exhaustive, Schulze's Quaesiiones epicae, 
 a book of great learning, but often over-subtle and devoid of 
 a proper regard for tradition, was of assistance at the same stage 
 of the progress of the sheets through the press. 
 
 My thanks are due to the Executive Committee of the 
 American Philological Association for permission to use the 
 paper on the Vowel System published in its Transactions. The 
 apparently egotistical reference on p, 5 to my own contribution 
 has its excuse in the fact that it chanced to be the only treatise 
 covering any part of the dialect as a whole. In the continuation 
 of this work it will be seen that the other dialects have received 
 ampler treatment at the hands of scholars, whose contributions 
 are mentioned in the forefront of my own discussion. To Prof. 
 Gildersleeve, the editor of the American Journal of Philoloff^, 
 I am indebted for permission to avail myself of a paper on 
 Digamma published in vol. xii, and for other evidences of his 
 friendship. Prof. Meister of Leipzig had transcribed for me the 
 observations on Ionic by Johannes Grammaticus in Aldus' 
 Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Korti Adonidis of 1496, a book that has 
 since come into my possession after a long search. Prof. Kirchhoffc' 
 generously allows me to cite his opinion on various points, 
 concerning which my information has been derived from his 
 ' Lectures on the Ionic Dialect,' placed at my disposal by the 
 kindness of a former pupil of the Berlin professor. The 
 references to the views of Prof. KirchhofE are indicated by the 
 mention of his name unaccompanied by the title of any of his 
 published works. It was a matter of no little satisfaction to 
 discover, upon the completion of my work, that the opinion of 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 the German scholar was in accordance with my own in respect 
 of many essential features of the dialect. 
 
 Finally, I desire to acknowledge my special indebtedness to 
 my collcag-ues and students at Bryn Mawr, w^ho have helped me 
 in word and deed; to Mr. Monro^ the Provost of Oriel, and to 
 E. S. Roberts, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Caius College, Cambridge, 
 for invaluable assistance in reading the proof-sheets ; to the 
 Delegates of the Clarendon Press for undertaking the publication 
 of the present work, which has outgrown the limits originally 
 set by the author ; and to the printers for their care in carrying 
 it through the press. 
 
 Bryn Mawk, Pennsylvania : 
 
 March 9, 1894. 
 
UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIST OF THE CHIEF WORKS CITED 
 AND OF ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 The titles o£ treatises dealing- with special departments of the 
 subject will be found on pp. 45, 66, 74, 78, 91, 101, no, and 
 in the Appendix to pp. 45^ 9 1 . 
 
 Ahrens = De Graecae linguae dialectis, I De dialeetis Aeolicis et 
 pseudaeolicis 1839, II De dialecto Dorica 1843, Gottingae. 
 This work is now rewritten and continued by Meister. 
 
 A. J. A. = American Journal of Archaeology, Princeton 1885^. 
 
 A. J. P. = American Journal of Philology, Baltimore i88off. 
 
 Allen Versification = Greek Versification in Inscriptions, Papers 
 of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 
 vol. IV. 
 
 American School = Papers of the American School of Classical 
 Studies at Athens (Archaeological Institute of America), 
 Boston 1882 ff. 
 
 Amph. = Amphipolis. 
 
 An. Bachm. = Anecdota Graeca e codd. MSS. bibl. reg\ Parisin. 
 descripsit Lud. Bachmannus, I-II, Lipsiae 1828. 
 
 An. Ox. = Anecdota Graeca e codd. MSS. bibliothecarum Oxo- 
 niensium, descripsit J. A, Cramer, I-IV, Oxonii 1835-37. 
 
 An. Par. = Anecdota Graeca e codd. MSS. bibliothecae regiae 
 Parisiensis, edidit J. A. Cramer, I-IV, Oxonii 1839-41. 
 
 A. P. A. = Transactions of the American Philological Associa- 
 tion, Boston 1869 ff. 
 
 Apoll. Dysk. = Apollonius Dyscolus edidit Bichardus Schneider 
 in the Grammatici Graeci, vol. I, Lipsiae 1878. 
 
xlv LIST OF THE CHIEF WORKS CITED 
 
 . , :, y = Arc'hilochos. 
 Archil, j 
 
 Arch. Zeit.=: Ai-chaeolog-ische Zeitung-, Berlin 1843-48, i868ff. 
 
 Aret. = Aretaios. 
 
 Arkadios = 'A/)Ka8tou nepl rovuiv, ed. Barker, Lipsiae 1820. 
 
 Arrian = Arrian^s 'lySt/c??. 
 
 Aseoli Krit. Stud. = Kritische Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 
 
 von G. I. Aseoli. Autorisierte Uebersetzung von Reinhold 
 
 Merzdorf, Weimar 1878. 
 
 Astr. ■= Lukian Trept rijs 'A orpoAoy itjs. 
 
 Athen. = Athenaeus edidit Kaibel, Lipsiae 1887-90. 
 
 ' A$r]v. = '' A6i]vaiov, <Tvyypaix\xa irepiohiKov Kara hifxr^viav iKbibofxevov, 
 
 Athens i872ff. 
 Aug-. = Grammaticus Augustanus in Schaefer^s edition of Gregory 
 
 of Korinth. 
 
 Baunack Stud. — Studien auf dem Gebiete des Griechischen und 
 der arisehen Spraehen von Johannes Baunack und Theodor 
 Baunack, vol. I, Leipzig 1886. 
 
 B. B. = Beitrage zur Kunde der indogermanischen Spraehen, 
 herausgegeben von Dr. Adalbert Bezzenberger, Gottingen 
 i877fE. 
 
 B. C. H. = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (Ecole Fran- 
 9aise d'Athenes), Paris and Athens 1877 ff. 
 
 Bechtel = Die Inschriften des ionischen Dialekts von Fritz 
 Bechtel, aus dem 348*®"* Bande der Abhandlungen der 
 Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 
 
 1887. 
 
 Bechtel Lautlehre = Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen 
 Lautlehre seit Schleicher, Gottingen 1892. 
 
 Bekk. Anecd. = Anecdota Graeca edidit I. Bekkerus, I-III, 
 Berolini 1814-21, 
 
 Bennett = On the sounds and inflections of the Cyprian dialect, 
 in the Studies of the University of Nebraska, vol. I, Lincoln, 
 Nebr. 1888. 
 
 Bergk = Poetae Lyrici Graeci recensuit Theodoras Bergk, ed. 4, 
 Lipsiae 1878-82. 
 
 Birnb. = Grammaticus Birnbaumius in Sturz^ Etymologieum 
 Gudianum, Lipsiae 181 8. 
 
 Blass = Ueber die Aussprache des Griechischen, 3te Auflage, 
 Berlin 1888. 
 
 i 
 
AND OF ABBREVIATIONS. XV 
 
 Blass M. E. = Miscellanea epigraphica scripsit Fridericus Blass, 
 in the Satura philologa Hermanno Sauppio oblata, Berolini 
 1879. 
 
 B. P. W. = Berliner Philolog-ische Wochensehrift 1881 ff. 
 
 Bredow = De dialecto Herodotea, Lipsiae 1846. 
 
 British Museum Inscriptions = The Collection o£ Ancient Greek 
 Inscriptions in the British Museum, Oxford, I 1874, II 1883, 
 III 1886. 
 
 Brugmann Gram. = Griechische Grammatik in vol. II of Iwan 
 von Miiller's Handbiicher der klassischen Altertumswissen- 
 schaft, 2te Aufl., Miinehen 1890. 
 
 Brugmann Grundr. = Grundriss der vergleiehenden Grammatik 
 der indogermanisehen Sprachen, Strassburg i886ff. 
 
 Cauer = Delectus inscriptionum Graeearum propter dialectum 
 memorabilium, iterum composuit Paulus Cauer, Lipsiae 1 883. 
 
 C. D. I. = Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften 
 herausgegeben von Collitz [und Bechtel], Gottingen 1884 ff. 
 
 3h. = chorus. 
 
 ihandler = Greek Accentuation, and edition, Oxford 1881. 
 
 ^, . ' , [ = Choerobosei Dictata in Theodosii Canones, edited 
 by Gaisford, Oxford 1843. 
 
 ]!hoirob. Orth. = Choerobosei Orthographia in An. Ox. II, 167- 
 28T. 
 
 I. A. = Corpus inscriptionum Atticarum, Berolini 1873 ff. 
 
 L I. G. = Corpus inscriptionum Graeearum, Berolini 1 828-1 877. 
 
 !31ass. Rev. = The Classical Review, London 1887 ff. 
 
 yurtius Et. = Grundziige der griechischen Etymologie, 5te Aufl. 
 1 von Windisch, Leipzig 1879. 
 
 IS ") 
 
 '* f Sf d ( ~ Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Gram- 
 matik, herausgegeben von Georg Curtius [und K. Brugmann], 
 Leipzig 1868-78. 
 
 urtius Verbum = Das Verbum der griechischen Sprache, 2te 
 Aufl., Leipzig 1877-80. 
 
 1> = Dindorf in Poetae Scenici Graeci, Lipsiae 1869. 
 'anielsson Epigraphica = Epigraphica scripsit O. A. Danielsson, 
 ! in the Upsala Universitets Arsskrift 1890. 
 d. I. = Greg. Kor. de dialecto lonica (irepl Trjs 'laSos biakiKTov). 
 
 IVERSlTTTi 
 
XVI 
 
 LIST OF THE CHIEF WORKS CITED 
 
 Delmun^sgesetz = Pas Delinungsgesetz der |riechischeii Com-! 
 
 posita von Jakob Wackernagel, Basel 1889. i 
 
 AeAr. ^px- or 'Apx- ^eAr. = AeAr^or ipxaioXoycKov, ^KStSoVcz^oz; iirhl 
 
 Tf,s- y6riK7'/9 icf^opdas rS>v apxatorifiTCOv, Athens 1 888 ff. « 
 
 Dem. ) ^ pemokritos' 'E^ucl. 
 Demokr. ) 
 
 Ditt. Sylk I _ Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum edidit Guilel-|: 
 
 mus Dittenberger, Lipsiae 1 883. 
 Drakon=Draconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeticis ed.l 
 
 Hermann, Lipsiae 1812. 
 p Y Q _ Pe derivatis verbis contractis linguae Graecae quaes- 
 
 tiones scripsit Karl Ferdinand Johansson, in the Upsala 
 
 Universitets Irsskrift 1886. 
 el. = elegy. 
 
 ®P" I = epode. 
 epod. J 
 
 ^P; I = epigram, 
 epigr. j 
 
 ep. with Hippokr. := Hippokrates' epistles. 
 
 Erman = De titulorum loniconim dialecto scripsit Guilelmu 
 
 Erman, in Curtius' Studien, vol. V. 
 Et. Gud. = Etymologicum Gudianum edidit Sturz, Lipsiae 181 8 
 Et. Mag. = Etymologicum Magnum ed. Sylburg, Lipsiae 181^ 
 
 ed. Gaisford, Oxonii 1848. 
 Eust. = Eustathii commeutarii, Lipsiae 1825-29. 
 'E(^r7,x. apx- = 'E(|)^Mfpi5 apxatoXoyiKifi, eKhtboix^vr^ virb Trjs h 'A^tj 
 
 vais apxatoAoyiK?]? kraipias, Athens 1883 ff. 
 Eick Spracheinheit = Die ehemalige Spracheinlieit der Indogei 
 
 manen Europas, Gottingen 1873. 
 Fritsch V. H. D.3=Zum Vokalismus des Herodotischen Dialekt( 
 
 von Dr. Adolf Fritsch, Hamburg 1888. 
 G. G. A. := Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1739^- 
 
 ^- ^- I = Greo-orius Corinthius edidit Schaefer, Lipsis! 
 
 Greg. Kor. ) "= A 
 
 1811. 11 
 
 G-. M. I = F Imhoof-Blumer's Griechische Miinzei;; 
 
 Griech. Miinzen j • i * n ;n ;i 
 
 none Beitrage und Untersuchungen, m the Abhamll. a< 
 Konigl. bayerischen Akad. d. Wissenschaften, vol. X\ II 
 Miinchen 1890. 
 
 
AND OF ABBREVIATIONS. XVll 
 
 Gomperz = Die Apolog-ie der Heilkunst bearbeitet &c. vou 
 Theodor Gomperz, extracted from the Sitzungsberichte der 
 Kais. Akademie der Wisserischat'ten in Wien^ vol. 130, 1 890. 
 
 Gott. Nachr. = Nachrichten von der Georg- Augustus Univer- 
 sitat, Gottingen i862ff. 
 
 Hartel Horn. Stud. = Homerisclie Studien, 2te Auflage^ Berlin 
 
 1873- 
 Hdn. = Herodian edidit Lentz, Lipsiae 1867-70. 
 
 Herod. 77. u. A. | tj j- v / x -^ 
 
 TT 1 . > - xierodian irepi ixov-qpovs ke^ecos. 
 
 Hdt. = Herodotos. 
 
 Hermes = Zeitsehrift fiir classiscbe Philologie, Berlin 1866 ff. 
 
 Hesych. = Hesycliii Alexandrini Lexicon recensuit M. Schmidt^ 
 lenae 1858-61. 
 
 H. E. V. A. = De Homericae elocutionis vestigiis Aeolicis scrip- 
 sit Gustavus Hinrichs, Leipzig 1875. 
 
 Hicks = Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford 1882. 
 
 Hiller = Anthologia Lyrica (the 4th edition of Bergk), Lipsiae 
 1890, 
 
 H. N. = Historia Numorum, by Barclay V. Head^ Oxford 1887. 
 
 Hippokr. } ^ Hippokrates. 
 
 Hoffmann = Die griechischen Dialekte, vol. I Der siid-achaische 
 Dialekt, Gottingen 1891^ vol. II Der nord-achaische Dialekt, 
 1893. 
 
 Hoffmann D. M. G. = De mixtis Graecae linguae dialectis, 
 Gottingen 1888. 
 
 Hrd. = Herodas. 
 
 Hsd. W. D. = Hesiod's Works and Days. 
 
 H. T. K. = Homerische Textkritik im Alterthum von Jacob La 
 Roche, Leipzig 1866. 
 
 Ib.= Ibykos. 
 
 I. F. = Indogermanische Forschungen, herausgegeben von Brug- 
 mann und Streitberg, Strassburg 1892 ff. 
 
 I. G. A. = Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae praeter Atticas 
 in Attica repertas edidit Hermannus Roehl, Berolini 1882. 
 
 Jahrb. = Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie, Leipzig 1826 ff. 
 
 b 
 
xviii LIST OF THE CHIEF WORKS CITED 
 
 ' , • 1 = Johannes Grammaticus in Aldus Manutius' 
 
 Jon. (xram. j 
 
 Thesaurus, Cornucopiae, et Horti Adonidis, 149'^- i 
 
 J. H. 8.= Journal of Hellenic Studies, London 1883 ff. 
 
 Joh. Alex. = 'Icoai'i'ou 'AXefai'Specos tovlko, irapayyikixaTa ed. 
 
 Dindorf, Lipsiae 1825. 
 Johansson Sprachkunde = Beitrag-e zur griechischen Sprachkunde, . 
 
 Upsala Universitets Arsskrift, 1890. i 
 
 Johansson De derivatis verbis, see D. V. C. i 
 
 Jordan Kritische Beitrag-e = Kritische Beitrage zur Geschichte 
 der lateinisehen Sprache, Berlin 1879. 
 
 Kalbel = Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta, Berolini 
 1878 (also cited as K. E.) t 
 
 Karsten = De titulorum lonieorum dialecto commentatio scripsit 
 Gualtherus Karsten, Halis Saxonum 1882. 
 
 I 
 K-B. = Grammatik der griechischen Sprache von R. Kiihner in 
 
 neuer Bearbeitung von F. Blass, Hannover i89off. 
 
 K. C. = The Principles of Sound and Inflexion in Greek and 
 Latin by King and Cookson, Oxford 1888. 
 
 Kirchhoff Alphabet = Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen 
 Alphabets, 4te Auflage, Giitersloh 1887. 
 
 Kirchhoff = Lectures on the Ionic dialect by A. Kirchhoff (see 
 Preface). 
 
 Klein Vasen = Die griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen 
 von Wilhelm Klein, 2te Auflage, Wien 1887. 
 
 Kum. = 'Attlktjs kinypo.4>aX eTrtryju/Stot by Stephanos Kumanudes, 
 Athens 1871. 
 
 K. Z. = Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem 
 Gebiete der indogermanischen Spraehen, begriindet von 
 A. Kuhn, herausgegeben von E. Kuhn und J. Schmidt, 
 Berlin, now Giitersloh, 1852 ff. 
 
 Latvschev I ~ Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti 
 
 Euxini Graecae et Latinae edidit Basilius Latyschev, vol, I 
 Tyrae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae &c., Petropoli 1885; 
 vol.. II Regni Bosporani 1890. 
 
 Le-Bas — Foucart = Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie 
 Mineure with commentary continued by Waddingtou and 
 Foucart ; vols. Ill (text) and 3 (commentary) deal with Asia 
 Minor, Paris 1847 ff. 
 
AND OF ABBREVIATIONS. XIX 
 
 Lex. Messan. = Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto in R. M. 
 XLVII 404 (1892). 
 
 Lindemann = De dialecto lonica recentiore scripsit Hugo Linde- 
 mann^ Kiel 1889. 
 
 Loewy = Inschriften griecliischer Bildhauer, Leipzig 1885. 
 
 L. S. = Liddell and Scott^s Lexicon, 7th ed., Oxford 1883. 
 
 Malilow = Die langen Vokale A E O in den europaeiscben 
 Sprachen, Berlin 1879. 
 
 Maxim. = Maximus. 
 
 Meerm. = Grammaticus Meermannianus in Schaefer's edition of 
 Gregory of Korinth. 
 
 ly- • , " 1 > = Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, ate Auf- 
 lage, Berlin 1888. 
 
 p -Aj J- = Die griechischen Dialekte von Richard Meister : 
 
 vol. I Asiatisch-aolisch, Bootisch, Thessalisch, Gottingen 
 1882, vol. II Eleisch, Arkadisch, Kyprisch 1889. 
 
 Meister Herodas = Die Mimiamben des Herodas, extract from 
 the 13th vol. of the Abhandlungen der philologiscb-bistori- 
 sehenClasse der Konigl. SachsischenGesellschaft der Wissen- 
 schaften, Leipzig 1893, 
 
 Mel. gr.-rom. = Melanges greco-romains tires du Bulletin his- 
 torico-philologique de P Academic Imperiale des Sciences de 
 St.-Petersbourg, 18552. 
 
 Menrad = De contractionis et synizeseos usu Homerico scripsit 
 Jos. Menrad, Monachii 1886. 
 
 Meyer Gram. = Griechische Grammatik von Gustav Meyer, 
 2te Auflage, Leipzig 1886. 
 
 Mitth. = Mittheilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts 
 in Athen, Athens 1876 ff. 
 
 Mitth. aus Oesterreich = Arcbaeologiscb-epigraphische Mit- 
 theilungen aus Oesten-eich, Wien 1877 ff. 
 
 Mnem. = Mnemosyne, Leyden 1852-62, j 873 ff. 
 
 Moiris = Moeridis Atticistae lexicon Atticum, em. ill. J. Piersonus, 
 denuo edidit Koch, Lipsiae 1830. 
 
 Mon. ant. = Monumenti antichi pubblicati per cura della Reale 
 Accademia dei Lincei, Milano 1890 ff. 
 
 Monro Horn. Gram. = A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, by 
 D. B. Monro, 2nd edition, Oxford 1891. 
 
 b2 
 
i 
 
 XX LIST OF THE CHIEF WORKS CITED 
 
 Movar. Kol jSiftX. = Movcrehv koL Bt/3Ato0?j/<Tj rijs EvayyeXiKv? 
 
 S^oA^s, Smyrna iSy^ff. 
 M. U. = ]Mori»holn(Tiseho Untersuchungen von Osthoff and Brug- 
 
 mann, Leipzig i'^75~9'-'' 
 Mus. It, = Museo Italiano di anticliita classica diretto da 
 
 Domenico Comparetti, Firenze 1885 ff. 
 
 ]\Iyl. = Mylasa. 
 
 Naukr. = Inscriptions from Naukratis^ cited partly from Bechtel, 
 
 partly from E. A. Gardner's collection in ' Naucratis/ edited 
 
 by Flinders-PetriC;, London 1886 ff. 
 
 Num. Cliron. = Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Nu- 
 mismatic Society, 1839-54, 1861 ff. 
 
 Orop. = Oropos. 
 
 Osthoff Forsch. = Forschungen im Gebiete der indogermanischen 
 nominalen Stammbildung, Jena 1875. 
 
 Osthoff Perfect = Zur Geschichte des Perfects im Indogermani- 
 schen, Strassburg 1884. 
 
 Pape = Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen von Pape und 
 Benseler, 3te Auflage, 3ter Abdruck, Braunschweig 1884. 
 
 Par. = Grammaticus Parisinus in Schaefer's edition of Gregory 
 
 of Korinth. 
 Paspates = Xtanbv yXcoa-adpiov by A. G. Paspates, Athens 1888. 
 
 Paton and Hicks = The Inscriptions of Cos by W. R. Paton 
 and E. L. Hicks, Oxford 1891. 
 
 Pezzi = La lingua greca antica, breve trattazione comparativa 
 e storica, Torino 1888. 
 
 Philol. = Philologus : Zeitschrift fiir das klassische Alterthum, 
 Stolberg and Gottingen, 1846^. 
 
 Philologischer Anzeiger, als Erganzung des Philologus, Gottingen 
 i869ff. 
 
 Phrjmichos = Phrynichi eclogae nominum et verborum Atticorum 
 ed. Lobeck. Lipsiae 1820, Rutherford (The New Phrynichus) 
 London i88r. 
 
 l^rokon. = Prokonnesos. 
 
 Reinach=3Traite d'epigraphie grecque, Paris 1885. 
 
 Renner = De dialecto antiquioris Graecorum poesis elegiacae et 
 iambicae in Curtius' Studien, vol. I. 
 
 Revue archeologique, Paris 1 844 ff . 
 
 R. M. = Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie, Bonn and Frankfurt 
 am Main, 1833^. 
 
 
AND OF ABBREVIATIONS. XXl 
 
 -p , ■ i = Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, part I, Cam- 
 bridge 1887. 
 Roehl = I. G. A. 
 Ross = Inscriptiones ineditae, Nauplia, Athens and Berlin, 
 
 1834-35- 
 Rutherford = The New Phrynichus, London, 1881. 
 
 Saussure Mem. = Memoire sur le systeme primitif des voyelles 
 dans les langues indo-europeennes par Ferdinand de Saussure, 
 Leipsick 1879. 
 
 Schmidt Neutra = Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen 
 Neutra von Johannes Schmidt, Weimar 1889. 
 
 Schmidt Vokalisnaus = Zur Geschichte des indogermanischen 
 Vokalismus, Weimar 1871—75. 
 
 Schulze Q. E. = Quaestiones epicae scripsit Guilelmus Schulze, 
 Gueterslohae 1892. This incorporates the Quaestionum 
 Homericarum specimen, Gryphiswaldiae 1887. 
 
 _,: ■ I = Simonides of Amorgos. 
 
 Sim. Am. j[ ^ 
 
 Simpl. = Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor 
 
 priores commentaria edidit Hermannus Diels, Berolini 1882. 
 
 Smyth Diphthong EI = Der Diphthong EI im Griechischen, 
 Gottingen 1885. 
 
 Spitzer = Lautlehre des arkadischen Dialektes, Kiel 1883. 
 
 Sprachwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen hervorgegangen aus 
 G. Curtius-' Grammatischer Gesellschaft, Leipzig 1874. 
 
 Stephan = De Herodiani technici dialectologia, Argentorati 1889, 
 
 Sterrett = An Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor, vol. II, and 
 The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor, vol. Ill, of the Papers 
 of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 
 Boston 1888. 
 
 Stes. = Stesichoros. 
 
 Stob. = Stobaeus edidit Gaisford I-IV, Lipsiae 1823-24, edidit 
 Wachsmuth I-II, Berolini 1884. 
 
 Stud. = Curt. Stud. 
 
 Struve Q-uaest. = Quaestionum de dialecto Herodoti specimina 
 III, Regimontii 1828-30. 
 
 Syria dea j 
 
 d. S. |> = Lukian irept Trjs '2vpLr]s 9eov. 
 
 d. d. S. j att-"^ Llbn,,; 
 
 (ID'NIVESlSI 
 
 V, OF 
 
XXll LIST OF THE CHIEF WORKS CITED. 
 
 Thai (i \ \ ~ Thasische Inseliriften ionisclien DIalekts im 
 
 Louvre von Fritz Bechtel, aus dem 32^*™ Bancle der 
 Abhandlung-en der Konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaf ten^ 
 Gotting-en i8(S4. 
 
 Theodos. = Theodosii Alexandrini Canones edidit Hilg-ard, in the 
 first volume of the fourth part of the Grammatici Graeci, 
 Lipsiae 1889. 
 
 Theog. = Theognis. 
 
 Theogn, = Theognosti Canones in An. Ox. II, i-i 65. 
 
 tetr. = tetrameter. 
 
 tr. = trimeter. 
 
 Tryphon = Tryphonis Alexandrini f ragmenta collegit A. von 
 Velsen^ Berolini 1853. 
 
 Tzetz. == Tzetzae Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem edidit Hermann, 
 Lipsiae 1812. 
 
 unc. loc. = uncertain locality. 
 
 V A. ) 
 
 vit Auct j ~ Lukian's Vitarum auctio (B[cov irpacns). 
 
 Vat. = Grammaticus Vaticanus in Schaefer's edition of Gregory 
 of Korinth. 
 
 Veitch = Greek Verbs irregular and defective, new (4th) edition, 
 Oxford 1879. 
 
 Vita Horn. = Vita Homeri in Westermann's Vitarum scriptores 
 Graeci minores, Brunsvigae 1845. 
 
 Wagner = Quaestiones de epigrammatis Graecis ex lapidibus 
 
 collectis grammaticae scripsit R. Wagner, Lipsiae 1883. 
 W. F ) 
 
 Wesciier-Foucart | = Inscriptions recueillies a Delphes, Paris 
 
 1863. 
 Wheeler = Der griechische Nominalaccent, Strassburg 1885. 
 
 Wilamowitz Herakles = Euripides Herakles erklart von Wila- 
 mowitz-MoellendorfF, Berlin 1889. 
 
 W. K. P. = Wochensehrift fiir klassische Philolop-ie, Berlin 
 i884ff. "^ ' 
 
 z = Aldus' edition of Herodotos, 1502. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir das Gymnasialwesen, Berlin 1867 ff. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik, Berlin i874ff. 
 
EDITIONS OF THE CHIEF AUTHORS 
 
 CITED 
 
 1. Poets. 
 
 Homer : La Roche and Ludwich. 
 
 Homeric Hymns : Gemoll, who combines the two hymns to 
 Apollo. 
 
 Hesiod : Flach, but the citations from the scholia follow Gais- 
 ford's numbering (Poetae Minores Graeci, vol. II). 
 
 Lyric Poets (including Pindar) : Bergk *. 
 
 Scenic Poets : Dindorf, Meineke, Koch. 
 
 Theokritos : Fritzsche. 
 
 Herodas : Arabic numerals follow Kenyon_, Roman follow Bergk 
 (for the fragments not on the papyrus). 
 
 Phoinix of Kolophon \ 
 
 Aischrion of Samos > Schneidewin's Delectus. 
 
 Parmenon of Byzantion ) 
 
 2. Prose Writers. 
 
 Herodotos : Stein. 
 
 Hippokrates : Littre and Ermerins. The references are to the 
 pages of Littre (Kiihn a few times), except in the case of 
 the letters where Hercher-Boissonade's text has often been 
 followed (denoted by ej). and an Arabic numeral). 
 
 Herakleitos : By water. 
 
 Protagoras : in Plutarch, Consol. acl Apoll. "y^"^. 
 
 Demokritos and other Philosophers : Mullach's numbering is 
 adopted, but the MSS., not his text, have been followed. 
 
 Historians : Miiller. 
 
 Menekrates : Jacoby's edition of Dionysios of Halikarnassos. 
 
 Pseudo-Ionic letters : Hercher-Boissonade, except in the case of 
 Hippokrates (see above). 
 
xxiv EDITIONS OF THE CHIEF AUTHORS CITED. 
 
 Liikian : Jacobitz, and Sommcrl)rodt (for the Bmv 77pa<ns). 
 
 Arrian : Eberliard. 
 
 Aretaios : Kiilm, and a few times Ermerins. 
 
 3. Grammarians. 
 
 Apollonios Dyskolos^ Syntax from the pages of Behker (181 7). 
 
 The Pronoun and Adverb are sometimes cited by the old 
 
 numbering", sometimes by the pages of Schneider (Schn.). 
 Choiroboskos^ Dictata in Theodosii Canones follows Gaisford^s 
 
 pages throughout, as Hilgard's edition has not yet been 
 
 concluded. 
 
 I 
 
UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIST OF THE CHIEF MSS. 
 REFERRED TO 
 
 1. Herodotos (cf. § 88). 
 
 A = Florentinus (Mediceus), Laurentian Library, Florence (X 
 Century). 
 
 JB = Romanus (Passioneus), Angelican Library^ Rome (XI Cent.). 
 
 C = Florentinus^ Laurentian Library, Florence (XI Cent.), 
 
 P = Parisinus, National Library (XIII Cent.). 
 
 It = Romanus, Vatican Library (XIV Cent.). 
 
 d = Florentinus, Laurentian Library (XIV Cent.). 
 
 b = Venetus (Bessarion.), Library of St. Mark^s (XV Cent.). 
 
 q = Parisinus, National Library (XV Cent.). 
 
 r = Urbinas, Vatican Library (XIV Cent.). 
 
 s = Sancroftianus, Emmanuel College, Cambridge (XIV Cent.). 
 
 V = Vindobonensis, Vienna (XIV Cent.). 
 
 z = Aldus^ edition, 1 502. 
 
 L in Stein^s edition refers to the consensus of all the MSS. 
 
 2. HiPPOKRATES. 
 
 9 = Vindobonensis (X Cent.). 
 
 ^ = Vaticanus 276 (end XII Cent.). 
 
 Laur. 74, 7 (XI or XII Cent.). 
 
 Marc. 269 (XI Cent.). 
 
 A = 2253 (XI Cent.). 
 
 The above are the chief MSS. 
 D = 2254 (XIV Cent). 
 E = 2255 (XIV Cent). 
 F = 2144 (XIV Cent.). 
 G = 2141 (XIV Cent.). 
 
XXVI LIST OF THE CHIEF MSS. REFERRED TO. f 
 
 jy= 3142 (XIV Cent.). j 
 
 J = 2143 (XIV Cent.). 
 Z = 2145 (XIV Cent.). 
 
 M = 2247 (old). This is Littre's M, not the Marcianus (XI Cent.). 
 iN^= 2248 (old). 
 
 Q = 1297 (XIV Cent.). ; 
 
 A — Q are in the National Library at Paris. | 
 
 To facilitate reference to the tractates under the name of Hippokrates 
 is subjoined a table of the place occupied by each in Littre's edition. The 
 works starred are genuine beyond doubt. 
 
 I 570-637 TTtpi apXdl'V^ lr]TpiKTJS. 
 
 II 12-93 TTfpJ aipuu, vSaroov, tSttuv* ; I10-191 TrpoyvwariKdv* ', 224-377 ""^P^ 
 StaiTTjs o^eooy* ; 394-529 irepl Sialrris o^ewv {i'60a) ', 598-717 «irt5rj;uicS»' I*. 
 
 III 24-149 iTTLdrt/iiicoy III* ; 182-261 irepl rcov 4v K(^a\^ TpufiaTuv* ; 272-337 
 Kar IrjTpuov ; 412-563 nepl ayft-wv. 
 
 IV 78-327 irepl &pQpaiv ; 34C>-395 p.ox>^ik6v ; 458-609 acpopicrfiol ; 628-633 'dpKos ; 
 
 638-643 t'6fjios. 
 
 V 72-139 itri^-qixiZv II; 144-197 id. IV; 204-259 id.\ ', 266-357 id.Yl; 
 364-469 id. VII ; 476-503 Trepi x^A"^'' > 5io~673 TrpoppT\Ti.K.6v I ; 588-733 KoiaKai 
 ■KpoyvdxTus. 
 
 VI 2-27 irepX rixv7)s ', 32-69 Trepl (pvcrios avQpiiirov ; 72-87 trepX Sioirrys i^'yieirTjj ; 
 90-115 Trepl (pvcrwv ; 118-137 Trepl iiypGiv xp'h'fi-o^ j 14O-205 Trepi vovawv I ; 208- 
 271 irepl TttOci};' ; 2'j6--^^g irepl Tf^Trcoi/ rir /fara &v6pwT7ov ; 35-~397 ^epl tepTjs 
 j'(^(rou ; 400-433 Trepi eAKaJj/ ; 436-445 ■Trepl al/xoppotSoov ', 44S-461 Trepl avpiyyoiv ; 
 466-525 Trepi 5iaiT7)$ I; 528-589 id. II; 592-637 icZ. Ill; 64C-663 id. IV = 
 
 irepl iVVTTVMV. 
 
 VII 8-115 Trepi »'ou(r«»' II; 118-161 id. Ill; 166-303 irepl ruv ivrhs Traduv ; 
 312-431 TTfpl yvvaiKeir]s (pvfftos ; 436-453 ""epl eirraiJL-fjvov ; 452-461 Trepl oKra/jLTivov ; 
 470-485 Trepl 7o;/7Js ; 486-542 Trepl (pvcrios iraiSiov ; 542-615 Trepi vovaoov IV. 
 
 VIII 10-233 yvvaiKei<iiv I; 234-407 Z(Z. II; 408-463 Trepi a(p6pecv ; 466-471 
 irepl -irapdeviuv ; 476-509 Trepi e'Tri/cuTjcrjos ; 512-519 irepl iyKaraTOfirfs efj,Ppvov ', : 
 538-541 irepl auaro/xris ] 544-549 Trepi 6Soi/ro(pvi7]S ; 556-575 irepl dSeVoij' ; 584-615 
 irepl (XapKWV ; 634-673 irepl eySSo^aSoij'. 
 
 IX 6-75 irpopprjTiKSv II; 80-93 irepl KapSlris ; 98-121 irepl rpocpTJs ; 152-161 
 irepl 6^tos] 168-197 irepl ocTTfoiv (piiffios ; 204-221 irepl Irjrpov ; 226-245 irepl 
 fiKTxVfJ-ocrvvTis ; 250-273 Trapa7'yeA/a( ; 276-295 irepl Kpia-iwu ; 29S-307 irepl /fpicri- 
 /J-aiv ; 312-429 e'Trjo-ToAaf. 
 
 The chief tractates are sometimes abbreviated thus : 
 
 El = ilrtSTl/XMV TTpSiTOV. 
 
 E III = €TriSrjiJ.iuv rpirov. 
 
 HA = irepl afpwv, vSaToiy, Tiiroiv. 
 
 riAO = irepl Sia^TTjs o\iwv. 
 
 nXK = irepl Tuv iv KecpaK^ rpw^6.Twv. 
 
 n = TTpOyVCtXTTiKSv. 
 
 riK = trpoyvwaifs KoiUKal. 
 
LIST OF THE CHIEF MSS. REFERRED TO. xxvii 
 
 3. Theognis. 
 
 A = Mutinensis (X Cent.) National Library in Paris. 
 K = Vaticanus (XVI Cent.). 
 = Vaticanus (XII Cent.). 
 
 4. LUKIAN. 
 
 A = Gorlicensis (XIV Cent.). 
 
 51 = Vaticanus 87 (XII or XIII Cent.). 
 
 B = Vindobonensis 123 (X Cent.). 
 
 C = Parisinus 301 1 (XIII or XIV Cent.). 
 
 E = Wittianus (Marcianus) perhaps a source of X2. 
 
 r = Vaticanus 90 (XI Cent.). 
 
 4> = riorentinus (Laurentianus) 77 (of different dates). 
 
 * = Marcianus 436 (XIV Cent.). 
 
 12 = Marcianus 434 (XIII Cent.). 
 
 a — editio princeps (Florence 1496). 
 
 V = Reitz' edition (Amsterdam 1743). 
 
 Sommerbrodt's critical edition (vol. I, Berolini 1886-89) does 
 not yet include the Sj/ria dea or the Astrologia. 
 
 Inscriptions. 
 All Ionic inscriptions^ unless specially referred to other collec- 
 tions, are cited by the numbering of BechteFs Die InscJiriften 
 des ionischen Dialekts. Thasian inscriptions not included in this 
 work are denoted by Th. (Z-.), and refer to the numbering* of 
 BechteFs Thasische Inschriften ionischen Dialekts im Louvre. 
 The inscriptions from Naukratis are usually cited from E. A. 
 Gardner's collection in the two volumes of W. M. Flinders-Petrie, 
 but Bechtel's numbering- of three (139 A-139 C) has been fol- 
 lowed. All other dialect inscriptions, except when the contrary 
 is stated, are cited from C. D. I. C. I. A. IV refers to the first_, 
 C. I. A. IV B to the second, C. I. A. IV C to the third part of 
 the fourth volume of the Corpus inscriptionum Atticarum. The 
 date of an inscription is sometimes indicated by a Roman numeral 
 followed by the letter C, e. g. VC = fifth century b, c. 
 
 References have sometimes been made to notes in the text 
 as if these notes were numbered. These references are to be 
 understood as if made to paragraphs in smaller type. 
 
,i 
 
 ERKATA 
 
 Page 223, /or 167 read 219. 599, 9earf ei/ifva for d/xfva. 75,6, add Kaprjva 
 EuriiJ. frag. 541, TpiKoprjvov (MSS.) H. F. 611. 142,2,' rearZ In Naukratis also. 
 154 (§ 150), see now app. to p. 265. 1588, read 209. 163, read avs. 165 
 
 end and 166 top, read -yfvrjs. i/Oio from bottom, read kx^vdapos. 184;,, 
 
 read 420. 213,5, cf. § 534. 23614, AdceXfjOiv, though found in PRO, is scarcely 
 correct ; see § 219, 9. 2774, read twvt'. 281, the reference to foot-note 3 
 belongs at the end of 1. 2 f. b. [In two Eretrian inscrii^tions {'E<p. apx. 
 
 1890, 196, -200) we find airrjpiv, vaipiv, inidrjiAtajpLV, crvveXtvOepdjpaVTi']. 254,^, 
 
 read 2^6 for 245. 307,5 f. b., after and insert aa. 3?5i6 f- ^-t dele Compounds 
 .... 93. 388,2 f. b., dele i. 475i3 f- b., read I'lpripuadai. 487, f. n. 3, read 
 Abkandhingen for Untersuchungen. SS^g, read k$(6piov. 
 
 I 
 
CAUlfFaRMt^" 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 '^* The numbers refer to sections. 
 
 Introduction 1-118 
 
 Sources 1-3 
 
 Geographical Divisions . . 4-22 
 
 Chronological Divisions . 23-25 
 Ionic element in Homer, 
 
 Kelation of Old to Neio 
 
 Ionic 26-32 
 
 Homeric lonisms .... 33-41 
 Ionic element in Iambic 
 
 Poetry 44-5' 
 
 Ionic element in Trochaic 
 
 Poetry 52 
 
 Ionic element in Elegiac 
 
 Poetry 53-60 
 
 Solon 61 
 
 Ionic element in Melic 
 
 Poetry 62-70 
 
 Archiloehos 62 
 
 Anakreon 63 
 
 The Epigram and the non- 
 Ionic Melic Poets . . . 64-70 
 Relation of Old Attic to 
 
 Ionic 71-76 
 
 lonisms of Tragedy ... 77 
 
 lonisms of Comedy ... 78 
 
 Dialect of Ionic Prose, Pure 
 
 and Mixed Ionic . . . 79-^5 
 Transmission of the text of 
 
 the philosophers ... 86 
 The Style of Early Ionic 
 
 prose writing .... 87 
 
 Dialect of Herodotos . . . 88-93 
 
 Dialect of Hippokrates . . 94-103 
 
 Pseudo-Ionism 104-10S 
 
 List of Pseudo-Ionic Writers 1 oy- 1 1 1 
 Pseudo-Ionism of Lukian, 
 
 Arrian, Aretaios ... 112 
 Transmission of Early Ionic 
 
 texts in its relation to 
 
 Pseudo-Ionism .... 11 3-1 17 
 
 lonisms of Theokritos . . 118 
 
 Accent 119-126 
 
 Vowel System 127-324 
 
 Short Alpha 127-133 
 
 Epsilon 134-143 
 
 Short Iota 144-146 
 
 Omikron 147-152 
 
 Short Upsilon 153-155 
 
 Long Alpha 156-165 
 
 Eta 166-195 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Long Iota 
 
 Long Upsilon 
 
 Omega 
 
 AI 
 
 EI 
 
 OI 
 
 TI 
 
 AI 
 
 HI 
 
 ai 
 
 AT 
 
 ET 
 
 or 
 
 HT 
 
 nr 
 
 Vowel Contact 
 
 Contact of like Vowels . . 
 
 T + I 
 
 Contact of Unlike Vowels . 
 
 Combination of Vowels and 
 Dii^hthongs, and Diph- 
 thongs and Diphthongs . 
 
 Apocope 
 
 Elision 
 
 Aphaeresis 
 
 Consonantal System . . . 
 
 Liquids 
 
 Nasals 
 
 Gutturals 
 
 Dentals 
 
 Labials 
 
 Yod 
 
 2 
 
 Z 
 
 ^ 
 
 Combinations 
 
 F 
 
 Spiritus Asper 
 
 Assimilation of Consonants 
 
 Declension 
 
 Dual 
 
 Gendir .... 
 
 196-198 
 199 
 
 200-207 
 
 208-211 
 
 212-225 
 
 226-228 
 
 229 
 
 230 
 
 231-240 
 
 241 
 
 242-245 
 
 246-249 
 
 250-256 
 
 257 
 
 25S 
 
 259-260 
 
 261-270 
 
 271 
 
 272-302 
 
 303-321 
 322 
 
 323 
 324 
 325-411 
 327-335 
 336-340 
 341-354 
 355-358 
 359-364 
 365 
 366-376 
 
 377 
 378 
 381 
 
 382-386 
 
 387-397 
 398-410 
 
 411 
 412-572 
 
 412 
 
 413 
 
 A Declension 
 
 O Declension 
 
 Iota stems 
 
 Upsilon stems 
 
 Tjv/ev stems 
 
 ZeCs, crjDs, fiovs, ''Aprjs. 
 
 ut/oi stems 
 
 oiv/wf stems 
 
 Stems in -6S 
 
 Stems in -Os 
 
 Stems in -OS 
 
 Stems in -w 
 
 Stems in -os/-es . . . . 
 
 Stems in T 
 
 Stems in A 
 
 Stems in 
 
 6ffj.is, x°-P'-^ 
 
 Stems in Guttvirals . . . 
 Stems in Labials . . , . 
 
 Stems in R 
 
 Stems in N 
 
 Adjectives 
 
 Personal Pronouns . . . 
 Possessive Pronouns . . . 
 
 Article and o5e 
 
 ovros 
 
 avrSs 
 
 K€7vos 
 
 Eeflexive Pronouns . . . 
 Relative Pronouns . . . 
 Interrogative and Indefi- 
 nite Pronoun .... 
 
 OffTlS 
 
 Other Pronouns . . . . 
 
 Numerals 
 
 Patronymics 
 
 Conjugation 
 
 Dual 
 
 Augment 
 
 Reduplication 
 
 Personal endings . . . . 
 
 6e\co, e6e\ta 
 
 yiyvo/j-ai, yivonai .... 
 
 568 
 569 
 
 570. 
 
 571: 
 572 
 573-714 
 
 573 
 574-582 
 
 583' 
 584-586 
 
 588; 
 
 590; 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Active (n verb> 591-604 Note on Verbs in ou 
 
 in 
 
 Middle (fl verb) .... 605-632 
 
 Passive (n verb) . . . 633-636 
 
 Contract Verbs, remarks . 637 
 
 Active 638-668 
 
 Middle 669-685 
 
 Note on ee, eei 686 
 
 Note on xP'^o/j.ai .... 687 
 ' Note on Verbs in aw in 
 
 Herodotos 688 
 
 Note on Verbs in aoo in the 
 
 Pseudo-Ion ists .... 689 
 
 Herodotos 690 
 
 Verbs in MI 691-714 
 
 oTSa 702 
 
 6?Ati 703 
 
 fpVM-'^ 704 
 
 etjui 705-712 
 
 .... 713 
 
 .... 714 
 
 .... 715 
 
 Kfifxai 
 
 f\ixai 
 
 Prepositions 
 
 Conjunctions, Adverbs,Par- 
 ticles 
 
 716 
 
 Appendix I. Additions and Corrections 
 
 Appendix II. The Ionisms of the late Writers of Iambics and 
 Choliambics 
 
 Index or Forms . 
 Index of Subjects 
 
 PAGE 
 
 621 
 
 640 
 
 643 
 660 
 
 B 3 
 
UNIVERSITY 
 
 California- 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Sources of the Present Investigation. 
 
 Sjiyth : The Vowel System of the Ionic Dialed in the Transactions Amer. Philol. Assoc. 
 XX 5-138 (1889). 
 
 1.] Chief Literary Monuments. Of the lyric poets especial 
 attention has been devoted to those of Ionic blood, in the first 
 instance to the iambographers Archilochos of Thasos, Simon ides 
 of Amorgos, Hipponax of Ephesos and Ananios (or Ananias), 
 secondly to the elegists Kallinos of Ephesos, Mimnermos and 
 Xenophanes of Koloj^hon, Phokylides of Miletos. The dialect 
 of Tyrtaios, Solon, and Theognis has been treated in some 
 detail : Tyrtaios, a Lakonian by adoption^ but a representative 
 of the early Elegy as cultivated by a poet not of genuine Ionic 
 stock j Solon, in order to raise the question whether his Muse is 
 Ionic or Old- Attic or a combination of the two ; the Megarian 
 Theognis, that we may obtain a survey of the language of the 
 elegy to the end of the sixth century. 
 
 The newly discovered fragments of Herodas, though con- 
 taining some Dorisms, evince the persistence of the dialect of 
 the Ionic iambographers. 
 
 Anakreon is the chief native source of information concerning 
 the dialect in melic poetry. Simonides of Keos and the melic 
 poets not of Ionic stock, especially Pindar, have been drawn 
 upon in the discussion of the nature of the epigram, choral ode, &c. 
 
 Homeric forms, when of specifically Ionic texture, have been 
 utilized for the purpose of comparing the older with the later 
 dialect. 
 
6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [l. 
 
 The didactic epic of Parmenides and Empedokles has but rarely 
 been cited. 
 
 All the logographers have been studied, Hekataios of Miletos 
 yielding- more fruit than Charon of Lampsakos, Pherekydes of 
 Leros, Xanthos the Lydian, or Hellanikos of Mitylene. 
 
 Herodotos has been examined with special reference to the 
 interrelation of the MSS. Without a knowledge of the character 
 of their fluctuations no theory as to the complexion of early 
 Ionic prose deserves a hearing. 
 
 For the language of the philosophers the fragments of 
 Anaxagoras of Klazomenai, Diogenes of Apollonia, INIelissos of 
 Samos, the Moralia of Demokritos of Abdera, and Herakleitos .1|i 
 of Ephesos have been investigated. 
 
 The following treatises of Hippokrates, as least open to the 
 suspicion of spuriousness, have contributed chiefly to the study 
 of the older medical dialect : — 
 
 Trept eTnhrjiJiLwv to irpoirov. 
 
 irepl iTnbr]fxio}v to TpiTOV. 
 
 YlpoyvmcyTLKa. 
 
 Tiepl aepcov, vbaToov, tottcov. 
 
 TTcpl bLatT-qs o^ecav. 
 
 TTepl Tu>v iv KefpaXrj TpavixaTOiV. 
 
 Kcoa/cat Trpoyvcocreis (perhaps pre-Hippokratic). • 
 
 The 'A(popL(Tp.ni have been passed by as too full of* inter- 
 polations. Only occasionally is reference made to treatises of 
 the younger Hippokrateians [irepl Te)(vrj's, irepl (pvaios avOpd-jrov 
 of Polybos, 77epi. (pvaS^v, Trepl uprjs vocroV) &c.). 
 
 Of the pseudo-Ionists, Aretaios, Arrian, and Lukian are our 
 principal sources. A subordinate place is occupied by the sup- 
 posititious letters of Hippokrates and of the Ionic philosophers. 
 To discover whether the Trept tijs ^vpirjs Ocov and the ircpl aa-Tpo- 
 XoyCrjs are the production of the author of the jSCoiv Ttpacns, was 
 foreign to the immediate purpose of this treatise. On any view 
 they deserve a prominent place in the study of the Ionic 
 Renascence. Though convinced that the study of the pseudo- 
 lonists is barren of great results for the restoration of Ionic 
 forms in the texts of the early Ionic prosaists, the importance 
 of the revival of Ionic literature seemed to me sufficient to 
 justify a portrayal of the form assumed by pseudo-Ionism in 
 Aretaios, Arrian and Lukian. I have also placed under 
 contribution the fragments of Abydenos^ Assyrian History^ 
 Uranios, Eusebios (perhaps an imitator of Demokritos), and 
 Eusebios Myndios, that we may realize the more vividly how 
 persistent has been the influence exerted upon later prose by the 
 diction of its creators. 
 
3-] SOURCES OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 7 
 
 2.] The Inscriptions. 
 
 The treatises by Bechtel : Bie Inschriften des ionischen Dialekts 18S7, and 
 Thasische Inschriften ionischen Dialekts im Louvre 1884, have rendered antiquated, 
 so far as material is concerned, Erman Be titiilorum lonicorum dialecto (Curt. 
 Stud. V 249-310, 1872), and Karsten Be titulorum lonicorum dialecto 1882. Be- 
 sides the inscriptions in Beehtel's collections, I have made use of those in 
 Imhoof-Blumer's Griechische Milnzen, Head's Historia Numorum, and others 
 which have appeared since the publication of Beehtel's first-named work. 
 
 So far as seemed advisable, every inscriptioaal form pertinent 
 to a knowledge of Ionic phonolog-y and inflection has been 
 utilized. Wherever it was necessary to compare the date of any 
 
 [phonetic or inflectional change in Ionic with the date of a similar 
 change in Attic, the latter dialect, in its stone records, has been 
 drawn within the range of view. 
 
 Of the epigi-aphical monuments of the dialect incorporated in 
 BechteFs collection, there are in all at least fifty antedating the 
 introduction of the Ionic alphabet into Athens at the close of 
 the fifth century. These are equally divided between the sixth 
 and the following century. For the study of the earliest Ionic 
 prose it is unfortunate that no less than eighteen (of the twenty) 
 metrical inscriptions contained in BechteFs collection fall before 
 the year 400 B.C. ; thus materially reducing the number of 
 documents by which the prose of the historians and philosophers 
 may be illustrated. 
 
 From the fourth century there are about a dozen inscriptions 
 older than 350 B.C. when the integrity of the dialect is perceptibly 
 weakened by the inroads of Attic. Dialectal forms continue to 
 appear as late as the third centurj'- after Christ, though in the 
 latest period almost entirely in proper names. 
 
 3.] The Grammarians. We possess tractates on Ionic by : 
 
 The author of irepl bLaX^KToov e/c rutv ^Icodvvov ypaixfxaTLKov 
 TeyviKQiv, in Aldus Manutius' Thesaurus, C'onmcojnae, et 
 Horti Adonidis. 
 
 Gregorios of Corinth. 
 
 Grammaticus Leidensis, \^ ^ i c } tj- 
 
 n v^ +• T\/r • I Jtn fechaerer s edition 
 
 (jrammaticus Meermannianus, V f p . 
 
 Grammaticus Augustanus, ) ^ 
 
 Furthermore, excerpts from a Paris and from a Vatican MS. 
 (in Schaefer^s edition of Gregorios), and the Birnbaum excerpt 
 in Sturz^ Etymologicum Gudianum. 
 
 On the relation of Gregorios^ treatise to the lost work of 
 Johannes Grammaticus or Philoponos, on their sources, and on 
 the interdependence of all the above mentioned briefer sketches, 
 see the introduction to Aiolic § 8. y-''1^£'e'uBHA^^^~^ 
 
 /^ ^ OF THE ^ 
 
 (UNIVERSITY/ 
 
8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [3. 
 
 Completely lost, or preserved only in part by a process of 
 silent transmission, are the treatises dealing immediately with 
 the Ionic dialect and of a period far anterior to the work of 
 Johannes Philoponos, which falls in the sixth century of our 
 era. Besides the many works on g-losses and on dialects which 
 we cannot prove to have discussed either exclusively or mainly 
 the Ionic dialect^ there are the following whose titles have come 
 ddwn to us : 
 
 Philoxenos of Alexandreia nepl rrjs 'Id5o? btaXeKTov koI t&v 
 Ao677Wi', 77fpt tG)v TTup' '0/x7/p<{) ykciXTaon', Trypho irepl tu>v irap 
 'O//7//JOJ btaXiKToov Kol '^ip.utvibr] kol Ylivbapii) kul 'AXKfiavi, kol rot? 
 aAAot? XvpcKols, and Apollonios Dyskolos -nepl 'labos. That the 
 dialect of Eretria received attention is certain not only from 
 Plato, but also from a passage in Athenaios (A^II 284 B), where 
 mention is made of the ire pi biaksKTutv of Dionysios lambos, the 
 teacher of Aristophanes of Byzantium. Aristophanes in his 
 lexicon to Homer carried on the work which had been begun 
 by Demokritos (irepl 'Op.i]pcv dpOoeiretrj'i Kal irepl -yXuxTaicov) and 
 continued by the popular work of Philetas. Though these 
 Homei'ie lexica dealt rather vrith studies of the vocabulary of 
 the poet than with the inflectional and morphological aspect of 
 his diction, they may have contained much that was instru- 
 mental in defining the position of Old Ionic. Kallimachos 
 compiled a iriva^ tG>v A-qpiOKpiTov yXaxxaSiv. In later times 
 there were collections of Xe^fis, and treatises on Herodoteian 
 vocabulary, e.ff. Apollonios' e^7/y7/(Tt9 rwy "Hpoborov yXcDo-aMv. 
 
 In like manner side lights must have been cast upon the 
 structure of Hippokratic Ionic by the toov Trap' 'iTTTroKpdret Ae'fecoy 
 (Tvvayo)yri of Erotianos, the tQv tov 'l-mroKpaTOVs yXuxrarcov e^?^y?;crts 
 of Galen, and by the glossary of Herodotos Lykios. But little 
 seems to have drifted from the numerous commentaries upon 
 Ilippokrates into the later grammatical literature. Herodian 
 mentions Hippokrates twice only. 
 
 The Homeric glossary of Apio and the similar work of 
 Herodoros (or Heliodoros), both of which were based upon the 
 labours of Aristarchos, proved important sources of information 
 to Ilesychios and Eustathios; and show it to be possible that 
 similar, but more strictly phonological, treatises of the best period 
 of grammatical studies may have been placed under contribution 
 by Eustathios, the 'OpLi']pov kTnp.epi(TixoC, &c. The works of later 
 grammarians, for example Johannes Philoponos, Theodosios, 
 Charax, Timotheos and Choiroboskos (who wrote a treatise -nepl 
 hiaXiKTctiv), are based chiefly upon Herodian, whose observations 
 upon Ionic deal almost exclusively with Homer. It is to be 
 lamented that so much of Trypho's dialectological researches 
 has been engulfed by time. In having an eye for local 
 
3.] SOURCES OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 9 
 
 colour, Trypho had the preeminent virtue of a dialectologist. 
 Apollonios Dyskolos, so far as we can judge from the treatise 
 on the Pronoun, embraced in his researches the dialect of the 
 Ionic logographers and philosophers, though Homeric forms are 
 the chief point of attraction. 
 
 The well-nigh universal failure of ancient grammar to notice 
 
 the shading of sub-dialectal speech, and its neglect of the 
 
 existence in the living language^ of survivals from its dialect 
 
 life weigh heavily against a dialect covering so g-reat an extent 
 
 of territory as Ionic. The narrower range of Aiolic forbids the 
 
 I expectation that its minuter variations had attracted the atten- 
 
 j tion of a race of scholars whose dialectolog-ical studies were 
 
 pursued chiefly in connection with literature. In the case 
 
 I of Doric however, apart from the investigations of Trypho into 
 
 I the speech of Rhegion and Syrakuse (which followed in the wake 
 
 of the study of Ibykos and Theokritos), the dialects of Krete, 
 
 Lakonia, &c., were deemed of sufficient interest in themselves to 
 
 invite research. 
 
 To the splendour of the Homeric poems ; to the general belief 
 of the ancients that Homer was a distinct personality, by birth 
 and residence an Ionian ; and to the wealth of grammatical 
 learning brought to the elucidation of his diction by the leaders 
 of the Alexandrian school, is due in great part the fact that 
 the Iliad and the Odyssey overshadow all other monuments 
 of Ionic genius as the repositories of information concerning 
 the Ionic dialect. Though to the rhetoricians of the empire 
 I Herodotos was the apiaros Kav(i>v of Ionic, yet both he and 
 the other Ionic prosaists awakened attention too late to be saved 
 from suffering comparative neglect at the hands of the earlier 
 scholars, whose authority was absolute in the view of the later 
 grammarians whose works have been directly transmitted to us. 
 The result of this supremacy of the Homeric poems in the 
 schools is clear. In almost every case in which we find in 
 the grammarians the unqualified statement that this or that 
 form is Ionic, it does not mean more to the modern dialecto- 
 logist than that the form in question is Homeric. To such 
 puerilities does this one-sidedness of view lead, that even tmesis, 
 apocope, hyperbaton, &c., are called Ionic. Tzetzes is the chief 
 sinner in this regard. 
 
 The value of grammatical literatm-e is not vitiated only by its 
 subserviency, as regards Ionic, to the composite and artificial 
 dialect of Homer and even of Hesiod. Words that are the 
 property of all the dialects, or words that are not Ionic at aU 
 
 ^ Very rare are such observations as ecus vvv irap' "laxnv ot KoXo^oKfpaTo. 
 Kpiol KoKoi KeyovTai, Schol. Veu. A on n 1 17. 
 
10 r THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [3. ll 
 
 are stamped as Ionic solely because tliey happen to occur in 
 a writer whose diction contains lonisms. Gregory (p. 522) says 
 that Osiris was Ionic for Dionysos. In utilizing* the testimonia 
 adduced in this treatise, the considerations here stated should 
 guard us against attributing undue importance to the evidence 
 of even such authorities as Herodian, 
 
 In the vic'W of Herodian no word was worthy of discussion unless it was 
 Hellenic, i.n. unless it occurred in literature or was used by the cultured 
 classes of his day. All other words were vulgar {fidpfiapa). A word was 
 Hellenic, if it occurred in but a single dialect author; a view that was disputed 
 by some of Ilcrodian's contemporaries and predecessors. On the other hand, 
 a word was non-Hellenic if it was the exclusive property of the popular 
 speech, or if it occurred in inscriptions. In all Herodian there are but three 
 references to inscriptions, and these are derived, not from the stones them- 
 selves, but from literature. (Ionic, Boric, AioKc, &c., scarcely ever include 
 non-literary words.) Herodian could not escape meeting with vulgar words 
 in the works on the manners and customs of different parts of Greece, or in 
 the geographers and glossographers, though these sources were rarely em- 
 ployed. But vulgar words need not conform to rule, and even if they do, 
 they are rarely employed in illustration of the principle under discussion. 
 Some grammarians possessed a more catholic spirit than Herodian, who 
 failed to develop the germ of truth in Sokrates' remark (Krat. 409) that 
 Hellenic words could be of barbarian origin. Herodian refused to derive 
 a Hellenic word from one of vulgar source. In studying Herodian's theory 
 of dialectology it must not be overlooked that he thought the language of 
 the epos was not that of an actual dialect. Choiroboskos and Gregory 
 never doubt that Homer is an Ionic author. But Herodian does not 
 refer exclusively to Homer when it is his intention to set forth the Ionic 
 character of a form. See Stephan, De Herodiani Technici dialectologia, first part. 
 Cf. note to § 25. 
 
 Though the ancient learning increases our knowledge of Ionic 
 by scarcely a single fact that we do not already know from a 
 study of the literary monuments of the dialect, it is fortunately 
 accessible in a form sufficiently earl}^, and thus sufficiently pure, 
 to control the aberrations of pseudo-Ionism. 
 
 In the preparation of this volume the testimony of the following 
 ancient grammarians, besides those mentioned in the beginning 
 of § 3, is adduced: — 
 
 Trypho, ApoUonios Dyskolos, Herodian, Hesychios, Etymo- 
 logicum ]\Iagnum, Etymologicum Gudianum, the Etymologicum 
 of Orion, Theodosios, Choiroboskos, Eustathios, Priscian's Syntax 
 in Maximus Planudes' Greek translation (Bachmann, An. II 
 105-166), the 'Oju7/pou e7rt/ixept(T/xoi (Cramer^s Anecd. Ox. vol. I), 
 Tzetzes' Exegesis of the Iliad, the minor tractates in the Anecdota 
 Oxoniensia, Parisiensia, in Bekker's and Baelunann's Anecdota, 
 the scholia on Hesiod (quoted according to Gaisford's lines), and 
 the scholia of Venetus A on the Iliad (Dindorf, vol. I and II). 
 
4-] GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS OF IONIC. II 
 
 Phavorinus I have passed over^ but the pseudo-Drakonian treatise 
 7re/3t ixerpcov '7tou]tlkS)V, dating- from 1545-55 ^^^ the work 
 of a Greek named Diassorinos, has been quoted here and 
 there for the purpose of showing- what views on Ionic were 
 possible under the Renascence. The Aldine edition was suc- 
 cessful in foisting upon Herodotos many non-Ionic forms which 
 tend to reappear in modern editions; and it can be shown 
 that the copyists of the Henascence have perverted the original 
 reading because of their theories as to the love of Ionic for open 
 vowels. The grammarians are quoted when they say outright 
 that a form is lonic^ not when their statements point merely by 
 implication to such an opinion. 
 
 Geograj)Tiical Divisions of Ionic. 
 
 4.] It is upon the evidence of the stone records alone that we 
 are justified in assuming a threefold division of the Ionic dialect. 
 
 (i) The Western Ionic of Euboia. 
 
 A. Chalkis and colonies : Kyme and Neapolis, Rhegion, 
 
 Terone, Olynthos, Amphipolis, Ainea. 
 
 B. Eretria with its colonies, Mende, Oropos. 
 
 C. Styra. 
 
 D. Kyme. 
 
 (2) Ionic of the Kyklades. 
 
 A. Naxos with its colony Amorgos (Arkesine or -es, Aigiale)^. 
 Keos. 
 
 B. Delos. 
 
 Paros with its colonies Thasos, Neapolis in Makedonia, 
 
 and Pharos. 
 Siphnos. 
 
 C. The remaining Kyklades : Andros, los, Mykonos. 
 
 (3) Ionic of Asia Minor. The lonians of Asia Minor were 
 the only division which in historic times bore the ethnic name 
 ' lonians.' 
 
 A. The Twelve Cities. 
 {a) Miletos, and colonies : Prokonessos, lasos, Leros, Kyzikos, 
 Zeleia, Parion (colonized from Miletos, Erythrai and 
 Paros), Sinope, Pantikapaion, Theodosia^ Olbia^ Istros, 
 Tomoi, Apollonia, Naukratis '•^. 
 Myus (or MyeSj cf. Steph. Byz.). 
 Priene. 
 
 ^ Amorgos was colonized by Naxians, Samians, and Milesians. Inscrip- 
 tions from Minoa are placed under Samos. 
 
 ^ The temple to Apollo was built by Milesians, the Hellenion by settlers 
 from Chios, Teos, Phokaia, Klazomenai, Khodes, &c. The temple of Hera 
 was the work of Samians. 
 
13 THE IONIC DIALECT. [5. 
 
 (Jj) Ephesos : 
 Kolophon and Smyrna (c£. Mimnermos 9). 
 Teos and colonies : Abdera^ Phanag-oreia. 
 Klazomenai, 
 
 Phokaia with colonics: Lampsakos, Hyele, Segesta ^, Massalia. 
 Inscriptions from Lebedos are wanting, 
 
 [c] Chios and Maroneia : 
 Erythrai (participated in the founding of Parion). 
 
 [tl) Samos and colonies : Minoa in Amorgos, Perinthos, 
 Samothrake, Naukratis, where the Samians erected a 
 temple to Hera. 
 
 B. Ionic cities in Karia : 
 
 Halikarnassos. Mylasa. Olymos. Bargylia. Keramos. 
 Aphrodisias. Tralles. 
 
 5.] Western Ionic has not abandoned the rough breathing. 
 Proper names derived from nXios agree with the Attic inscriptions 
 of the fifth century in ending in -KAe'r/s, not in -kKtis. -Kkij^ is 
 the older form upon the stone records of Attika. The genitive 
 of proper names, whose second component part is an iofa stem, 
 ends in -t8oj, not in -to?. Herein too Western Ionic is in 
 agreement with Attic. Whether this group had tt for aa of 
 Island Ionic and Asiatic Ionic, is doubtful (§ 371). 
 
 Until we come into possession of documents of an antiquity 
 sufficient to free their phonetical and inflectional system from 
 the suspicion of Atticism, we are not in a position to hold that 
 there are sharjDly marked differences in speech between the 
 Chalkidians, Eretrians and Styrians. In the present state of our 
 knowledge Eretrian Ionic seems to possess a more distinct 
 individuality than that of Chalkis or Styra. It alone ^ shows 
 examples of rhotacism, a phenomenon scarcely indigenous in Ere- 
 tria, though its ultimate provenance is still a matter of dispute. 
 
 In Eretria it was more usual than in the Chalkidian colonies 
 to substitute -ot and -et for final -cot and -?jt. Neither the Ionic 
 of the Kyklades nor that of Asia Minor shows any tendency to 
 permit this substitution, which comes to light in Western Ionic 
 about 400 B. c. Attic influence, at least so far as -et is concerned, 
 accelerated the change in Ionic, for in Attic we find well-attested 
 cases about 380 b.c. To the same cause are due the instances of 
 TT for aa in Eretria and Styra. 
 
 When Western Ionic differs from that of the other divisions, 
 
 > Cf. Kinch, Zcii. /. Num., XVI 187; Meister, B. P. W. iSoo, p. 672, PMM. 
 1891, p. 607. 
 
 ^ On Kr-npTvos an Eretrian, Styra 19439, see § 331. 
 
6.] GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS OF IONIC. J3 
 
 its preferences are, with the exception of rhotacism, in the 
 direction of forms of Attic complexion ^. 
 
 Western Ionic alone in the period of its dialect life under the 
 Ionic aristocracies was barren of literary offspring. The princely 
 houses of Chalkis fostered the cultivation of the epos. It was 
 Hesiod^s glory to have gained a prize at a contest instituted at 
 the funeral games of a Chalkidian. But whatever store of artistic 
 capacity the Euboians may have received with their Ionic blood, 
 so long as they remained in their Western home, they devoted it 
 in great part to the manufacture of vases or of arms (Alkaios 15). 
 It was only in the colonies sent out from Chalkis ^, in Leontini, 
 Himera and Rhegion, the homes of Gorgias, Stesichoros, and 
 Ibykos that Ionic genius, engrafting itself upon Doric, gave 
 birth to a literature which it was not allotted to Euboian Ionic 
 unaided to produce. There are indeed not wanting indications 
 that Attic tragedy stood in closer relations to Stesichoros and 
 Ibykos than to Pindar, SimonideS; and Bacchylides. 
 
 Two additional points have been emi^hasized in some quarters as charac- 
 teristic of Euboian Ionic : the retention of the original d and the preservation 
 of f. In § 157 the cases of d in the Ionic of Styra are submitted to an 
 examination. There is no proof that any quarter of Ionic in a pei-iod of 
 dialect autonomy has adopted the Attic d. The Chalkidian vases with their 
 inconsequent treatment of the dialects (X6pa C. I. G. 7459, Na^s 7460, Tapvf6vi)s 
 7582, &c.) are on a plane herein with some of Campanian origin. The 
 digamma in fido, 'nfariris, and Tapvp6yr]s is due to the possible mixture of 
 nationalities in Chalkis, as has been shown by Kretschmer in K. Z. XXIX 
 390. fotKecoy and foi in the inscription from Rhegion (Bechtel 5 = Rob. 
 I 180) may be ascribed to Doric iniluence (cf. Thuk. VI 5), since two 
 idioms have contributed their quota to the document in question. 
 
 6.] Ionic of the Kyklades. In the group consisting of Naxos 
 and Keos we observe that the palaeographic distinction, which 
 seems to denote an original difference in the pronunciation of 
 7; = IE ^ (written E) and r; = IE a (written B or H, see § 166), 
 was retained a century longer than was the case in the group 
 formed by Delos, Paros, and Siphnos. But since this variation 
 is merely chronological, and since there are no linguistic data 
 known to us justifying a separation of the Kyklades into two 
 sub-dialects, we may regard the dialect of these islands as one. 
 
 * The encroachment of isolated Attic forms such as |eVoy Oropos 189, is 
 to be distinguished from the constant displacement of Ionic. |eVos occurs 
 in Miletos loo,;, perhaps of the fifth century. I have not ventured to con- 
 stitute the use of is, els a criterion of sub-dialectal differentiation. Asiatic 
 Ionic and the Ionic of the Kyklades have es, while Western Ionic has both 
 i els and is, a juxtaposition that is found in Homer and in Attic. Cf. § 715. 
 ^ It may not be inappropi-iate to notice that Chalkis, preeminently the 
 literary centre of Euboia, was the birthplace of Isaios and of Lykophron. 
 
14 THE IONIC DIALECT. [7. 
 
 Retaining the rong-h breathing, which is well attested in the 
 case of the Parian Archiloehos ^, the Ionic of the Kyklades thus 
 forms the bridge which leads from Western to Eastern Ionic. It 
 has furthermore -k\tjs not -kX^i]s, -los not -ibos (§ 5)- 
 
 7.] Eastern Ionic is characterized chiefly by the early dis- 
 placement of the rough breathing. The evidence of literature 
 confirms to a considerable extent the testimony of the inscriptions, 
 which speak with no uncertain voice against the existence of the 
 asper save in compounds. Asiatic lonic^ like that of the Kyklades, 
 has -kA^s and -los (§ 5). Of less importance is the fact, that 
 of the few Ionic examples of -77 for -i-jl in the dative all are 
 found on the Asiatic mainland. 
 
 8.] Geographical Divisions of the Ancients. Among the 
 ancients the traces of a geographical and of a chronological 
 division of Ionic refer almost exclusively to the dialect of the 
 mainland of Asia Minor and of the adjacent islands. Euboian 
 Ionic and the Ionic of the Kyklades, which play an important 
 part in the modern classification of the sub-dialects, are, with 
 the exception of a few isolated and unsupported statements of 
 Lesbonax and some scattered notices as to Eretrian rhotacism, &c., 
 excluded from the ancient geographical and the chronological 
 division. From the point of view of literature they failed to excite 
 the attention of the grammarians, whose field of observation 
 rarely extended to an examination of local characteristics, and, if 
 so extended, did not enable the critic to shake off his fearfulness 
 in the face of authority -. Even if a strongly marked Nesiotie 
 or Euboian Ionic had existed in his time, the mention of 
 either by Herodotos, in the passage where he discusses the 
 speech of Ionia, would not have been imperative. When Euboia 
 comes within the horizon of Herodotos, it is to show that the 
 Abantes took part in the colonization of Ionia by the lonians ^ 
 (I 146), or to describe the colonies of the Chalkidians and 
 Eretrians (e.g. VIII 46). The Kyklades too are mentioned by 
 Herodotos chiefly with a view to showing that their Ionic colonists 
 came by way of Athens '* ; a theory that was confronted by the 
 imperial power of Athens in the fifth century, with its tendency 
 to dislodge the older legends and to affix to them an Attic 
 
 * Of the logographer Eudemos of Paros nothing has been preserved. 
 
 * See § 9, end, KapTjaos. 
 
 ^ Pausanias tells us that a Chian family traced its descent back to the 
 Abantes, under which name the Euboians appear in the Caialogue of Ships. 
 The Abantes W( iv Phokians who made Euboia a halting place on the way 
 to Chiits. Amiihiklos, who led the Hestiaians from Boiotia, found Abantes 
 in Chios. Strabo has nothing to say of the speech of Euboia except in X 44S 
 (rhotacism\ 
 
 * Siphnos Hdt. VIII 48, Keos VIII 46, Naxos ibid. 
 
 i 
 
9.] GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS OF IONIC. l5 
 
 colouring- (Hdt. VII 95, IX 106, Thiik. I 12, 4, Isokr. Pan. 43, 
 44, Marm. Par. 27, &c,). 
 
 9.] Mention is made of local divisions of Ionic in the following 
 passag-es : 
 
 (i) Western Ionic. Tlivik. VI 5, of the dialect of Himera : 
 KoX (pu)Vi] juey ixera^v rijs re XaXKibeoov koI Aoopibos eKpddr]. Les- 
 bonax (An. Ox. IV 270 ff.) : ol EvjSoels rots 67]XvkoIs ovoixaatv 
 ap(T€ViKa a-vvaiTTovcnv iiriOeTa' olov ' aXbs ttoAioio. o/xotto? Kal 
 rot? ovberepoLS oropaatv apaevLKa Kai drjXvKU liriOtra, Kai jLiero)(a? 
 apcreviKas re kol 6i]\vKds' olov, Kopiov KaX{X)i(Trri, p.€ipaKiov Kiyodv. 
 
 XaAKiSets ot kv YiV^oiq, rot? prip-aai rot? (ruyrafro-o/:>te'j;ot? hoTLKois 
 aiTiaTLKas trporepov €TrL(j)ipovT€s ra? 8ort/ca? (TvvdiTTovcnv' olov, 
 Alovvctlo^ 6 XakKibevs' ' Mvptvriv ti]v ' Ap.aC,oviba irepilBke^dixevos, 
 ib(OK€v avTut ra? aAAa? ApLa^ovLbas pLeraKaX^a-acrOaL. 
 
 XaAKtSei?" ra opia-TiKa t&v pripLaTcov ds /-leroxrji' dvaXvovac Kal 
 AirapKTiKov pijixa, Xiyoiv €.lp.L 
 
 Whether the statement : YLvp-aloov, to roh kviKol^ ovopacn 
 ■nXyjOvvTLKd'i eirdyeiv k-nK^opds' olov, t] tivXt] eKX(^e)Ladr](rav' avcrn]- 
 parLKCL yap ovra irpbs to voov\xwov e^et Tr]v dva(f)opav, w? Kat to, (o? 
 ^(j>acTav i) -nX-qOvs, refers to the Ionic Kymaians is doubtful. 
 
 On the ancient witnesses to rhotacism in Eretrian, see §§ 331, 
 
 332. 
 
 An. Bachm. II 2003^ (on Lykophr. Alex. 21): ot vavTai aTre- 
 
 ywpi(,ov, eXvov — Kat aTTo Trjs yrjs aTT^Tpexov — ev/3ot/c^ 57 8tdAeKro?* 
 
 (in the margin (Solcotlkov eo-rt to ia-xd(o(rav) ^. 
 
 (2) Island Ionic. Whether Lesbonax'' remark (An. Ox.IV 270), 
 that the islanders used the genitive instead of the dative (ttAovo-io? 
 r\v xpouo-ou), has any special reference to the lonians of the Kyklades 
 is entirely uncertain. 
 
 (3) Eastern Ionic. The locus classicus is Hdt. 1 142: yA wo- o-ay 
 5e ov T7]v avTi]v ovroi [ot "Iwre?] vevopLKaat., dXXa Tpotrovs Ticraepas 
 napayoiyioiv. 
 
 I I. MiArjros pxv avTecov irpdiTrj KeeTai ttoXls irpos pL€(Tap.l3p[r]v, 
 jnera he Mvov9 re Kat YIpLrivri' avTat p.\v iv tj] Kapirj KaTOLKrjvTai 
 KaTCL TavTO. hbaXeyojxevoL cripio-i, 
 
 2. atSe 8e iv tt] AvbLj], "E(/)eo-o?, KoXo(f)(av, Ae'/3e8o?, Te'co?, KAa- 
 CofxevaC, ^(aKata' avTai be al Tro'Ate? Tfjcn irpoTepov Xe\dei(jr\(n 
 ofxoXoyeovci KaTa yXuxraav ovbev, o"0to"t be 6p,o(Pu)veov(n. 
 
 eTL be rpet? vttoXolttol 'Ia8e? TToAte?, twv al bvo p.ev vrjo-ovs 
 oiKe'aratj 'Edp.ov re Kat Xtoy, ?/ 8e /xta ev rrj TjTretpw tbpvTUL, 'EpvOpai. 
 
 * Cf. Tzetz. on Lykophr. 252, Aristophnnes in Eust. 176130. For XaA/ciSatKrys 
 in An. Bachm. II 40,0, read Xa\Ki5iKrjs. In Bekk. An. Ill 1294, these forms 
 are called Chalkedonian (cf. An. Ox. IV i82ia\ doubtless throiigh confusion 
 with Chalkidian, because, on one view, Chalkedon was settled by Chalkidians. 
 These -a-av forms may have been borrowed from Boiotia. 
 
 ^ N t V E "R <^. T T T 
 
l6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [lO. || 
 
 3. Xioi fxiv vvv KoX 'Epy^patot Kara TOiVTo hiaX^yovrai. 
 
 4. 2aju.tot 8e e7r' ewyrwi/ [xovvol, ovtol yapaKTTjpe'i yXiacrarjs 
 Ticraepes yivovrai. 
 
 Constantin. Porphyr. tie Themat. p. 43 makes the colourless j| 
 statement: koI and [xev rfjs MiA?;roi; p.^XP'- tt]s 'E(perrLcov irokeuis, 
 Kal avrijs ^iJ.vpv)]9, /cat KoAoc/jwi'o?, 'Iwi'mv ecrrt KaroLKLa, oinves 
 rfi tQ>v 'Iwi'wr hiakeKTU) xP^yrat. Then he says that from P 
 Kolophon to Klazomenai and on the opposite island of Chios we 
 have Aiolic. Our inscriptions have no trace of Aiolism save in 
 Chios. The dialect of the Ephesians is referred to An. Ox. 1 19^3 
 on u(j)ap : Kal "Ico^'e? Kal ol 'E(/)eVtoi CKpapeL \eyova-LV, to €vdi(os Kal 
 aa-KOTTuts TTOtety tl, r) (pOiyyeadai ; I 447i8 ™ (TKvfSakcv <TKv[3(akov 
 TTJs 'E^eo-tou (-(av ?) biaXeKTov. Schol. on Tzetz. Ch'iUad. 64.2 in 
 An. Ox. Ill 3752.5' ^i^KKCtiv 8e 6 jip'uyMv, i]tol 6 ovos, irapd re 
 Av8ots Kal Tols Kar "E^ecroy "Icocrt Aeyerat. /3tAAo? Hdn. I 158^ ; on 
 i(ro->]v, see § 25, note. The remark of the Gramm. Leidensis § 8: 
 yeydvaai 8e avrfji /xeraTTTcocreis b' is the only trace of acquaintance 
 with the quadrilateral division of Herodotos preserved in any 
 Greek dialectologist. 
 
 Lesbonax (An. Ox. IV 270, ff.) Kka^opL^vw to TTopevopiai ets 
 aywra, TTopevop.aL avv ayStvL (pacTL. 
 
 KoAo0(oi'toy eaTi to '^xov ttjv boTLK'}]v arrl yevtKrjs ^ ' olov, tjjV 
 Ke(f)akijv TO) av6p(i)iT(i). 
 
 YletpLvOLKOv iariv to tj] alTLaTLKrj €~i<pGp€iv evOelav. . . . 
 liovMv tQ>v 6771 Kapta?, to to, yapa^ Kal kvTTrjS SrjAcortm p/jpara 
 yevLKjj crvvTaTT€Lv olvtI boTLKf]s' oXqv, \aipoi rov avbpo^, avrl tov 
 avhpC' Kai TO rw Kupiw Kat t<2 irpoariyopiK^ dv6p,aTL apBpa Tidevat,' 
 oiov, TOV rikaTcova tov (f)t.k6ao(pov' to Tidivai toXs pr]p.a(n irepL- 
 T(T)€V0V(Tav Ti]V €yu>v p.^ToyJ]V olov, arirevbeis €yu)v. 
 
 The Schol. Ven. A on M 20 says Tvpavvtcov o^vvei to Kapi-jaos 
 w? Ylapvaacros' ovtcos yap vtto KvCiKrjvQv dvopd^sa-Oai tov Trorap-ov. 
 o b\ ApiaTapyos j3apvv€L w? Kcw(jc>[3os. etiropiev be ev erepots on 
 ov iravTuis (ULKpaTel 1) dirb tcov kQvS>v xprjai^ Kal eirl ti]v 'Op.rjpLKi}V 
 dvayvcoaiv, ottoVc Ttepl tov FkicravTa (B 504) bi^kafiopLtv, dye 
 Aiov'jcnos [(TTopel rov^ eyx^ptou? ava-Tikkeiv to l Kal joir) ireptcnTav' 
 TO re AvKa(TT09 6 avTos taropet o^vveadat, rjpiCov dvayLVuxTKOi'TMV 
 l3apvT6v(09 (B 647). The h-iporac at Miletos bore the name 
 yipyrjOes, according to Eust. 14334., ; Cwp^i-ov was a Chian and 
 Achaian word, Et. M. 41I33. On Chian v for e, see § 155. 
 
 Si(b-I)ialects of Eastern Ionic. 
 
 10.] If we apply the criteria of phonology and inflection to the 
 Ionic of the Twelve Cities in the endeavour to test the accuracy 
 
 ' Such observations of the dialectal use of cases occur elsewhere, e.g. Schol 
 Apoll. Rhod. A 794, cf. Schol. Ven. A on Ci 58. 
 
la.] SUB-DIALECTS OF EASTERN IONIC. 17 
 
 of Herodotos' quadrilateral division, we find that tlie following 
 inscriptional forms have been held to constitute possible mint- 
 marks of the four sub-dialects. 
 
 11.] The Ionic of Miletos. i. Upeco Olbia C. I. G. 2058 Ag, 
 ^g,5j, = Beehtel 128 (third or second century), Tomoi in Arch.- 
 epigr. Mitth. VI S, no. 14, has been taken as a gen. of leprjs, also 
 the Arkado-Kyprian form of Upevs. Upeoo is, on this view, from 
 ^Uprjo. To the gen. Upeco in the dialect of a colony of Miletos 
 we have the nominative tepeco? in Miletos itself (Beehtel ico^). 
 Another explanation of the form tepecos (-nc) has been put forward 
 by Dittenberger {S^ll. no. 376), who maintains that in the same 
 manner as rjij.UKT€u>v is derived from kKvev^, so is ap)(tepews derived 
 from Upevs ; and that from dpxie'pecos the nom. lepecos could be 
 abstracted. Cf. § 477. 
 
 2. Aai//-erat Miletos loo^, and KaT(Kd({)9ri 1 1 3^ in Zeleia which 
 in all probability was settled by Milesians. Cf. § 130. 
 
 3. wp77 (not wprj) Miletos ico^. 5, g has been held to stand for 
 ovp/]. Cf. Merry and Schol. H. Q. on aoipoi ju, 89 : ' Api(TTap)(o<i 
 OLKCdXovs' Tovs yap "loivas Xiynv (f)aal ttjv K(o\rjv &pr\v koX ti>paiav^. 
 It is noteworthy that in no, 100 we have Kookijv 1. 4. The 
 comparison of wprj with ovpi^, upon which this peculiarity of the 
 Milesian has been based, is defective, ovpi] is derived from dpcr- 
 (O. H. G. ars), while &pr] = &pr] is probably to be connected with 
 Lat. sura (so Beehtel). A Milesian co for ov of the other sub- 
 dialects is at least not proven. 
 
 4. are[A]etrjf Kyzikos 108 B3, an exceedingly corrupt archaistic 
 inscription, scarcely older than the first century B.C., represents 
 an unsuccessful attempt at reviving the older document 108 A; 
 
 \ and is hence worthless as a source of information concerning 
 I sub-dialectal differentiations. Though we have elsewhere no 
 [trace of areAetrj save in Hdt., all the inscriptions, even Eryth. 
 1 I99g (after 394 b.c), having the Attic areAeta, there is no 
 ' reason for assuming that the idiom of Miletos or any other 
 quarter of Ionic territory had originally rejected the Ionic ending 
 , in this word. 
 
 5. /3rj(nAea)9, quoted by Karsten {^Be titnlorum Ionic, dialecto 
 p. 18) from a Milesian inscription edited by Rayet in the Heme 
 Arch. XXVIII 109, and proclaimed as a peculiarity of Karian 
 
 I Ionic, is nuUified by jBaatXevs Mil. 10O5. /Sryo-tAfws is indefensible, 
 1 and nothing more than an orthographical slip, the stone having 
 :BHBIAEf2S. 
 
 [ 12.] Lydian Ionic (Ephesos, &c.). The absence of inscriptional 
 f testimony of the fifth century from other portions of the territory 
 
 ^ See also Eustath. 171525. 
 i ' C " 
 
l8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [13. 
 
 of the Twelve Cities renders valueless the claim that in bvvdiKi, 
 Teos i,f;6 B 31, Ave have an instance of an inflectional peculiarity 
 of ' Lydian 'Ionic. See § 4<S8. The dialect of Teos alone sup- 
 ports a form Se'xo/xat (156 B 20, also in Amphipolis, where it may 
 be Attic). The unaspiratcd form is known to us solely from the 
 literary monuments. On (acn'jv, an Ephesian title, see § 25, note. 
 
 13.] The Ionic of Chios-Erythrai. 1. On the basis of Aeows, 
 Maroneia 196, i, and Aeovvbos, Eryth. 198, the claim has been 1 
 set up that this sub-dialect has e for i in this name. We have 
 bow^ever Aevvvao^ in Analcr. in ii and AEO, probably for 
 Aeovvo-abos, in Abdera 163, i, a colony of Teos. This argument 
 is as baseless as w^ould be the contention that, on account of 
 At€vv(TML, Amorgos 31, Island Ionic had e for o. 
 
 2. Gen. in -ev in the A declension, 'Ap'\x>iyir(v Eryth. 201, 
 narrow side 1. 6, dating from the fourth century. Other examples, 
 Eryth. 206 A ^^, B 9, C 35, are to be placed in the first quarter 
 of the following century. This form is however not confined to 
 Chios-Erythrai, since we have UvOev Smyrna 15325- 
 
 3. Gen. in -00 in the A decl. {'Awlkco 174 C 13, 'Ao-tco C 27, 
 TivOo) D 4, Av<Tu> D 17). But in Chios we have also -eco, and the 
 -co forms recur in Halik. e.(/. 240 A 38, B 3, and, when iota 
 precedes, also in Abdera 163^ 16. 
 
 4. TToAeoj? Chios 174 A 13, B 12, a form found also in 
 Xenophanes 29, 22- Cf. § 485. 
 
 5. 7ipf]xiJ-a Chios 174 B 17-18. But the variant ixvpix^iivas 
 Archil. 30 (in B) cannot belong to a Chian sub-dialect. Cf . also 
 eo"JU^;ptyju.e^'a^ jxeiJ-vpLcrixivaL in Hesychios. 
 
 6. avi]pidevTOL Chios 174 B 25-26, whereas avepCO^vros is the 
 usual form (cf. C. I. G. 2671 45, 2693 D 5). The absence of the 
 word from any other quarter of the Ionic of the mainland forbids 
 any argument on the question. 
 
 7. eakijs Chios 175, (epigr.) may well be a form known to 
 other quarters of the mainland. The absence of the 6 is attested 
 in Arkesine ^^, and in Aiolic and Doric. There is no reason for 
 holding it to be one of the Aiolisms of Chian Ionic. 
 
 8. Subjunctives in -et instead of -ijl: -noiria-ei Chios 174 
 A 12. The same proto- Hellenic termination comes to light 
 in Teos and Ephesos. 
 
 9. Subjunctives in -coto-t {XaftcoLo-iv Chios 174 B 16-17) ^^^'^ ^^ 
 -oio-i [iTpi'j^oLaLV 174 A 16-17, 20) are found in Chios alone. Since, 
 however, they are alien to the character of Ionic they must be 
 regarded as adventitious Aiolisms. 
 
 10. The genitives of the numerals; biKcov Chios 174 D 14, 
 Teo-o-[epa]K[d]i;r(jJi; 174 C 16, Tr€VTi]K6vTwv 174 D 8, h'evrjKorTcov 
 C 26. These genitives are, like the subjunctives in -coicrt and 
 
j6.] sub-dialects of eastern ionic. 19 
 
 -oto-t, Aiolic loan-forms and not merely local variations of normal 
 Ionic. 
 
 See also below § 17, for points of contact between Chios and 
 Erytbrai. 
 
 14.] The Ionic of Samos. brnjnopyos for brjixiovpyos 220^3. Cf. 
 aXopyrj 220jg and other forms § 297 III A, where it is shown that 
 one and the same dialect may possess both hjixiovpyos and 
 brjiJLiopyoi. Other divisions of the Ionic of the mainland may 
 thus have had the -opyos forms. 
 
 Upn]\rji. or UpLrjviJL, Samos 212, is the only example of -i]l from 
 an r]v stem upon Ionic soil. 
 
 15.] Testimony of literature as to the existence of sub-dia- 
 lects in Ionia. If we question the Ionic literature of the Asiatic 
 mainland, the fragments of Kallinos and Hipponax of Ephesos, 
 of Xenophanes and Mimnernos of Kolophon, and the remains 
 of the prose writers whose birthplace was Miletos, we discover 
 no trace whatsoever pointing" to a differentiation in phonology 
 I and in inflection between the sub-divisions of Ionic territory. 
 I Ionic literature, at least in its extant condition, refuses to own 
 ! the influence, save in the scantiest measure, of local form and 
 \ pressure. Hipponax must have reckoned upon an ephemeral 
 i effect. In him we might think to find indications of Lydian 
 i| phonology and inflection as well as words picked from the slums 
 i of Ephesos or Klazomenai ^. Yet his Billingsgate is inflected 
 I after the most orthodox Ionic fashion. 
 
 The dominance of Ionic in the literary world of Hellas must 
 
 . ! at an early date have proved an insuperable bar to the admission 
 
 ' into literature of word-forms not in accordance with the canons 
 
 I of a catholic taste. Had the epos pressed with less weight \ipon 
 
 j the development of Ionic lyric genius ; had Ionia been the home 
 
 I of a spontaneous and individual melic poetry unaffected by the 
 
 advent of Attic tragedy ; and had Ionia been spared the fall of 
 
 Miletos with the ultimate stagnation of its political and literary 
 
 ; aspirations attendant upon that disaster, then and then only 
 
 might we with reason have indulged the hope of discovering 
 
 in the monuments of Ionic literature some of those mint-marks 
 
 of sub-dialectal differentiation which can scarcely have failed 
 
 to exist in that long stretch of territory, extending from the 
 
 Aiolis to the Karpathian Sea, which had fallen under Ionic sway. 
 
 16.] It is then to the inscriptions as a court of last appeal 
 that we must turn in the endeavour to test the accuracy of the 
 
 ' The diction of Hipponax excited the attention of the grammarians only 
 less instantly than did that of Herodotos. Cf. Herodian II 282 7 = Et. M. 
 20428, p6\iTov- $6\^iTov Se'loifes, o'l rf aWot Kal 'iTriruva^, and see Stephan Be 
 Herodiani Tcchnici dialedologia, p. 23. On Lydian vocables in Hipponax see § 44. 
 
 C 2 
 
20 THE IONIC DIALECT. [17. 
 
 Herodoteian, or of any other, system of sub-division. Owing- to 
 the paucity of material at command, the evidence of the very 
 few phenomena, which seem to point in the direction of sub- 
 dialectal differences, is vitiated by the fact that it largely rests 
 upon the argument from silence. By far the larger portion of 
 the stone records represent, not the easy flow of the dialect 
 of the people in its unconstrained simplicity, but an official Ionic, 
 which, though perhaps not as formal as the decrees of some 
 non-Ionic states, is nevertheless impatient of the lingua rustica. 
 The fate of Ionia in ancient and mediaeval times, its exposure 
 to the political influence of Persia on the one hand, and, on 
 the other, to the sway in the domain of language exercised 
 by Athens, have alike contributed to the uprooting of the idiom 
 of the soil. Of all the phonetic and inflectional phenomena pre- 
 sented above there are but few which are sufficiently character- 
 istic to deserve the dignity of being accounted criteria of 
 sub-dialectal difference. 
 
 These are the forms of Aiolic texture in Chios, and certain 
 peculiarities of the dialect of Miletos. Is this scanty evidence 
 corroborated by other testimony ? 
 
 17.] Dialect of Chios-Erythrai. The only possible ground 
 for admitting the existence of a sub-dialect of Chios-Erythrai 
 is the presence of Aiolism. In § 13 we have seen that the sub- 
 junctive terminations -0010-1(2') and -oi(tl{v), and the genitives of 
 the numerals 10, 40, 50, 90 have been enfranchised in Chian Ionic. 
 Other traces of Aiolism are as follows. The name of the highest 
 mountain in Chios is Yl^Xivvaiov, though Meineke in Strabo 
 XIV 645 edits WiXi.vaiov. That the form with the geminated 
 nasal is correct is evident from YliXiwa, name of a city in 
 Hestiaiotis [Catalvgi'e Brit. Miis. Coins, Tliessab/, 38). Bo'Akto-o?, 
 name of a city on the west coast of Chios mentioned by Thuk. 
 VIII 24, 3, was by some regarded as Aiolic. See Steph. Byz. 
 
 All these Aiolisms are Chian. In Erythrai we have the epic 
 and Aiolic apyeirov in "Apyervov mentioned by Strabo XIV 645 
 (cLKpa Tiji ^EpvOpaLas). The geographical extension of this name 
 of a promontory is seen by its occurrence in the Troad, Lesbos, 
 and Sicily. ^Apyevvova-crai is supported by a good MS. Tbuk. 
 VIII lO], 3. An apy^Lvos appears never to have come into 
 
 vogue. 
 
 From the point of view of phonology the links between Chian 
 and Erythraian Ionic are exceedingly weak. Names of places, 
 unless bearing the distinct impress of a dialect and agreement 
 in vocabulary or in cult, prove but little in the case of con- 
 tiguous localities. With KavKaaa, name of a harbour of 
 Chios, KavKa(jt[a\'i upon a recently discovered Chian inscription 
 
X8.] SUB-DIALECTS OF EASTERN IONIC. 21 
 
 [BerL PJiU. WocJienscIir. 1889, p. 11 95), we may compare 
 Apollo Kav/cao-evs and Artemis KauKao-t's, Eryth. 206 A 19. 
 KotAa appears to have been a locality in both Chios and 
 Erythrai ('Atj-oAAmi/o? ey Kot'Aot? 206 B 29). Dittenberger has 
 6ug"g'ested {Jeuaer Litt.-Zeit. 1877, p. 569) that the x^'^^^^o''"^''" 
 a'Epv6pai[m^ C. I. G. 2168 B = C. D. I. 278 may point 
 to a closer connection between Aiolic and Chio-Erythraian. 
 Both the dialect of Chios (183 A 46) and that of Erythrai 
 (201 27) have retained the old word oirj village^, one of those 
 hidden treasures which are continually forcing" their way upwards 
 in the bosom of the earth in order to reach the lig-ht, and whose 
 possession by any one sub-dialect can never be proven. To the 
 joint possession of this word by the dialects of Chios and Erythrai 
 a fictitious importance may easily be attached, ahos was known 
 solely throug'h a passag-e in Hipponax and an Hesychian gloss, 
 until it appeared in an inscrii:)tion from Halikarnassos. 
 
 Until there are discovered prose monuments of the Ionic of 
 Erythrai equalling- in antiquity the Chian document no. 174, 
 which dates back to the fifth century, we must remain in 
 ig-norance as to whether the bond which united Chian and 
 Erythraian according to Herodotos was or was not the presence 
 of an Aiolic element. TTiVTriKovra and rpiriKovTa, each in com- 
 bination with a genitive, in Eryth. 202],;,j7 dating from about 
 350 B.C., do not disprove the existence of an Aiolic ingredient 
 in Erythraian. 
 
 Roehl (I. G. A. no. 381) noticed that Ka^wiffiv and Trpri^oiaiv were not 
 Ionic ; Schulze, Hermes XX 393, regarded as a matter of chance the agreement 
 lietween Ka^ioiffiv and Aiolic forms in -wiffiv. Bechtel, Ion. Inschr. p. 110, 
 remarked that Chios, so far from being originally Ionic, was Ionized only at 
 a tolerably late period. He might have noticed the obsei'vation of Pausanias 
 VII 4, 10 : oil fxivroi iKf7v6 ye etprjKe (Ion of Chios) Ka9' t^vtivu airlav X7oi 
 reXovcTiv ts''loovas. Though a colony of the Abantes of Euboia (see above § 8), 
 Chios must have contained both Aiolians and lonians, and have become 
 definitively Ionic under the pressure exercised by Miletos and the Panionion. 
 It is incorrect to imagine that Chios was first Aiolic, then Ionic. The 
 dialect must have been mixed at a very early period. 
 
 18.] Dialect of Miletos. Upon such a weak foundation as 
 the possession of tf'pecos, gen. te'peco and kdxj/^rat, KareXdcpOr] it 
 is futile to erect a Milesian dialect. And yet this is the sole 
 evidence to be extracted from the inscriptions. Upecos was Attic 
 as we learn from the scholiast on Dionys. Thrax in Bekk. An. 
 p. 1 197, and if Attic^ why not Samian as well as Milesian? 
 
 ' Cf. olairav' kcc/xijtwj'. olai yap at KcH/xai Hesych., Hdn. I 30^9. Cf. Attic 
 "Oa, "aa, an Attic dome of the tribe of Pandionis ; "Ov [^OiTjeey , a deme of 
 Oineis. See Kyprian § 38. 
 
22 THE IONIC DIALECT. [l8. 
 
 The mere fact that Herodotos has traces of the theme Aa^ 
 where we should expect Aa///3 (l)ixt cf. § 130), possibly of tepeco? 
 for lepevs or tpewj (§ 477), or that baa^a is Milesian (§ 167), can- 
 not lead to the belief that the diction of a native of Halikarnassos 
 was ]\Iilesian. That the lang-uag-e of Herodotos should have 
 been the Ionic of his native city, which early in the fifth 
 century abandoned Doric for Ionic, at least in its state-documents, 
 or that it should have been Samian Ionic, was impossible in view 
 of the overshadowing- influence of Miletos. If any sub-dialect 
 was elevated by the early prose writers to a position of supremacy 
 in literature, a Tuscan amid less polished idioms, there can be no 
 question that it was that of Miletos. 
 
 The influence of Miletos upon the pan-Ionic iravriyvpLs estab- 
 lished the orthodox creed that none should be regarded as genuine 
 lonians save those who accepted Kodrids as their oikists. Phokaia 
 had to purchase admission to the Ionic leag'ue at the price of 
 Kodrid rule. At Miletos were born Thales, Anaximander, 
 Anaximenes, Kadmos, Dionysios and Hekataios. Pherekydes 
 came from the neig-hbouring" Leros. Prokonnessos, the home of 
 Bion and Deiochos, and Lampsakos, wdience came Charon, were 
 both colonies of Miletos. Phokylides has the Milesians in mind 
 when he says :— 
 
 TToXkoL Tot hoKiovdL (ra6(f)poves e/xjueyat avbp^s, 
 
 Demodokos levels his blow at them : — 
 
 MtA.?/crtot a^vveroi {ikv 
 ovK eicTL, hpwaiv 8' old irep a^vveroi. 
 
 Anakreon wrote before the Ionic Revolt: — 
 TiaXai KOT i](Tav aXKifxoi MtA7/crtot. 
 
 In the struggle of the two ^ Ionic alphabets for mastery that 
 of Miletos gained the day as early as the sixth century, and 
 spread in course of time over all Ionia. The so-called ' Ionic ' 
 alphabet is in reality the alphabet of the chief city of Ionia. In 
 the field of numismatics we find that the electrum staters of the 
 Milesian standard were in vogue in the sixth century among 
 lonians not connected with ]\Iiletos by colonial ties ^. 
 
 * Sec Ilirsclifold Rliein. Mus. XLIV p. 467, who supposes the two groups to 
 liave been developed by the eighth century and that n was added by the 
 Milesians by the seventh century at the latest. 
 
 ^ To (ho later Greoks Miletos was naturally the centi'o of Ionic civiliza- 
 tion. Ilerakleides Pontikos calls the Milesians the representatives of the 
 Ionic race. In discussing the question of colonization and the transference 
 of the mother dialect to the colony, Miletos is the example chosen by tho 
 grammarians to represent Ionic. See An. Ox. IV 4235 = Choirob. 75T15, and 
 also Schol. ApoU. Khod. A 1075. 
 
 I 
 
20.] SUB-DIALECTS OF EASTERN IONIC. 23 
 
 The orig-in of an artistic vehicle of expression in Ionia must 
 be sought in a territory, whose political supremacy and whose 
 position as the rallying" point of intellectual activity rendered it 
 capable of becoming- the dictator in the development of a literary 
 dialect. The idiom of this locality, freeing- itself, as the 
 representative of the national culture, from the bondage of the 
 less polished local usages, might well in time become the organ 
 of the new prose literature. No city of Ionia can advance so 
 cogent a claim to be regarded as the starting-point and home 
 of this new literature as Miletos. The dialect of its cultured 
 classes was as essential a foundation for the literary dialect 
 of Ionia as was that of the cultured Athenians for the literary 
 dialect of Attika. 
 
 While it is tolerably certain therefore that the language of the 
 early logographers, more local in tone than that of Herodotos, 
 was the idiom of their native city, it may not be a baseless 
 theory to hold that the story of the downfall of Ionia was 
 told by Herodotos in the dialect of a city which was as 
 much the eye of Ionia as Athens was of Greece. If we find 
 in the development of Greek literature the operation of a law 
 of Hellenic art, whereby the language of the original home left 
 its impress upon any species of artistic composition, we shall be 
 loath to deny that Herodotos may have followed in the main 
 the norm established by his predecessors. 
 
 19.] Whatever probability may be attached on literary grounds 
 to the a priori assumption that of the four sub-dialects mentioned 
 hy Herodotos, one at least— that of Miletos — actually existed, 
 it is idle to disguise the fact that it is impossible to prove 
 Herodotos or his predecessors to have made use of that variety, 
 or to demonstrate its existence on the lines of difference in pho- 
 netics and in inflection. With the materials at present under our 
 c'ontrol, we are unable to cherish the hope of showing that there 
 existed any clearly stamped sub-dialectal differences in the tra- 
 ditional quarters of Ionic. In the case of Chios only we have 
 found that there is a stratum of Aiolic forms of sufficient authority 
 to warrant our setting apart Chian Ionic as provided with the 
 requisites of sub-dialectal differentiation. Erythraian Ionic, so 
 far as we know its structure at the present day, presents too 
 little Aiolic colouring to admit of being classed in the same 
 ■ategory as Chian. 
 
 20.] Now if Herodotos' quadrilateral division is based upon 
 the modern assumption that the only satisfactory tests of dialect 
 colouring are yielded by phonology and by schemes of inflection, 
 the historian would seem to err when he says that the language 
 of Ephesos, Kolophon, Lebedos, Teos, Klazomenai, and Phokaia 
 
 c 
 
24 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. [2 1. 
 
 is 'totally different^ from that of Miletos, Myus and Priene. 
 If we grant that the evidence might be increased by later 
 discoveries, we are nevertheless at present in possession of data 
 sufficient to warrant the conclusion that there was no radical 
 difference, at least in the inflections, between the Ionic of Lydia 
 and that of Karia. The inflections in the monuments discovered 
 outside of the territory embraced by the Ionic Dodekapolis 
 cannot be said to vary in any essential feature from those current 
 among- the original Ionic cities. Literary and inscriptional 
 monuments unite in proclaiming the fact that Ionic does not 
 offer such marks of dialect differentiation as meet us in the 
 investigation of other dialects, both those of wider and those of 
 narrower geographical extension. 
 
 21.] But does the delimitation of Herodotos rest upon the 
 modern conception that phonology and inflection determine 
 dialect character ? His system of division would assume a 
 totally different complexion, and at the same time lose much 
 of its apparent valvie, if he held that differences in vocabulary 
 constituted criteria of sub-dialectal differentiation, and that the 
 presence of sporadic loan-words from contiguous speech -centres 
 gave to a dialect its peculiar colour. On this view, which is 
 held to have been that of the historian by such eminent dialecto- 
 logists as Kirchhoff and Bechtel, Herodotos' second rpoTros 
 would be an Ionic interfused with Lydian, such as Ilipponax' 
 /3e^pos and koi'iVkc^. The Ionic of Miletos, Priene, &c., would 
 then contain an admixture of Karian words ^, and the Ionic of 
 Chios-Erythrai be interpenetrated with Aiolisms; while the dialect 
 of Samos alone wovild represent uneontaminated lonism^. 
 
 Apart from the intrinsic probability or improbability of the 
 view that Herodotos' theory of the nature of dialect differences 
 w^as different from that now in vogue, we know of no Karian 
 word (not a proper name) adopted either by the Milesian folk- 
 dialect or by literature. If, as seems probable, Karian belongs 
 to the Indo-European family, there is no trace in any Ionic word 
 of the adoption of a Karian deaspiration of I. E. ff//, d/i, and d//, 
 a deaspiration which Karian seems to possess in common with 
 
 ' The Jincient grammarians rarely cite Lydian words or Lydian usage of 
 Hellenic words. Cf. Eust. 108234 {ayve(ii' = Tropve7oi') and §j 9, 44. 
 
 ^ Karian was not an ill-sounding language according to Strabo (XIV 662), 
 who cites Philip, author of KapLKci, to the effect that it adopted many Hellenic 
 words. 
 
 =" No coincidences between the language of Hdt. and that of Samos (e. g. 
 Ipopyiai Ildt. V 83, Sam. aXopyd 2 20.j) suffice to rehabilitate Giese's view, 
 exploded half a century .ago, that the New Ionic of the historian was that of 
 Samos. It is noteworthy, however, that Giese defended the proposition that 
 the Ionic of Samos was ' less mixed ' than that of Lydia. {Der aeolische Dialekt 
 PP- '5', ^^i)- 
 
22.] SUB-DIALECTS OF EASTERN IONIC. 25 
 
 Balto-Slavonic ; nor do any of tte phenomena which indicate 
 that Lydian followed a different path from that followed by 
 Hellenic in its treatment of I. E. sounds occur in Ionic. 
 
 22.] The rhetoricians and dialectologists of antiquity did not^ 
 it is true, draw with sufficient precision the line between vocabu- 
 lary and style on the one hand, and phonetics and inflection on 
 the other, as dialectal standards. The rhetoricians, especially 
 Hermogenes, believed that the eKkoyi] ovofxaTcov was the chief 
 standard to be applied in the criticism of the dialect of the 
 Ionic prose writers. The ancient conception of TtoiKiXia, of the 
 difference between ' pure '' and ' mixed '' Ionic, and in part the 
 confusion between 'IcoytKw? and t:oiiitikG>s, have their root in 
 the belief that vocabulary and style are the mint-marks of a 
 dialect^. 
 
 Under the influence of sources in which the theories of the 
 rhetoricians are visible, Gregory of Corinth is not infrequently 
 led into quoting a word as Ionic, not because of its Ionic 
 complexion, but because of its occurrence in an Ionic author 
 (cf. § 79 ff. and above § 3). But if the grammarians of greater 
 calibre, and in the main even such magisteUi as Gregory, do not 
 lose sig'ht of the fact that phonetic and inflectional changes are 
 the essential points to be held in view, it must give us pause 
 before we assume that Herodotos, whose brain was not befog'ged 
 by the canons of the rhetoricians, should have been completely 
 in the dark. The merest boor, who says of a visitor from 
 another dialect district that he does not speak ' correctly/ refers, 
 not to the choice of words, but to the variations in sound and 
 inflection which stamp the stranger as less cultivated in his 
 estimation. Herodotos^ elder contemporary Aischylos saw clearly 
 enough what constituted dialect speech. In the Choeph. v. 563 
 Orestes says : — 
 
 a[j.(pu> be (p(x)vr]v rjcrofxev Ylapvqa-a-iba 
 yXtixra-qs avTrjv <P(OKLbos jLii/xof/xeVo). 
 
 And yet in the face, not only of the evidence of literature and 
 inscriptions, but also of the distinct statement of Herodotos 
 as to the complete difference in character between the speech of 
 Miletos and that of Ephesos, it is difficult to arrive at any other 
 conclusion than that the presence of Karian and of Lydian words 
 affixed to two of the Tpoirot their distinctive character. It may 
 not, however, be over-bold to maintain that, inasmuch as the exact 
 
 ' The preeminent position occupied by vocabulary in the rhetorical studies 
 of the Hadrianic age is evident from the attitude of Lukian in his critical 
 remarks on Thukydides. See below, § 25, note, for examples of the study of 
 Ionic vocabulary. 
 
 (UNIVERSITY 
 
26 THE IONIC DIALECT. [22. I 
 
 scale of pronunciation 1 current in different quarters of Ionia 
 is involved in obscurity; inasmuch as the laws of contraction 
 and crasis are treated with a freedom sufficient to yield varying 
 results ; inasmuch as our inscriptional material presents not a 
 sino'le instance of the occurrence of kcovT&v and congeners, of 
 K for 77 in KOis, k6t€, &c. — distinctiv^e features separating- Ionic 
 from all other dialects — and since we are confronted, even in 
 the few epigraphical documents at present known, with isolated 
 phenomena whose wider extension cannot be disproved ; it may 
 not, I say, be over-bold to assume that some of these matters 
 j)la3'ed a part in the system of sub-dialect division which has been 
 handed down to us by an Ionian. The student of the Greek dia- 
 lects has always to bear in mind the fact, too often neglected, that 
 contemporaneous evidence is of a peculiar value. Its conclusions 
 may be based upon shadings of vowel and consonantal sound too 
 'elusive to warrant graphical representation. Nor can it be em- 
 phasized too strongly that the different sections of Greece assumed 
 very different attitudes towards the graphical representation of 
 the sounds of their dialects. In those dialects which had j. 
 develoj^ed a literature at a very early period we find a thorough- I 
 going objection to phonetic spelling*; while in others, subject • 
 to the control of scarcely any literary monuments (as Boiotian), 
 or none at all (as Eleian or Arkadian), we find, even in the official j 
 documents, the widest divergence from the form adopted by the ' 
 language elsewhere. If the dialectologist of future generations, 
 endeavouring to establish dialectal divisions of the speech of 
 England or America, or seeking to mark the differences between 
 English and American, or German and Austrian, or Swiss pro- 
 nunciation, had a material as limited as the Ionic material in our 
 possession, could he by any possibility succeed in his attempt ? The 
 Herodoteian quadrilateral division, if it deserves any recognition 
 at the hands of modern dialectologists, must be regarded as 
 a division based upon observation of the distribution of phonetical 
 and inflectional phenomena. If it is false, we are for the present 
 at least unable to demonstrate the existence of any other. 
 
 Bechtel has suggested^ that augmented inscriptional material may ulti- 
 mately enable US to dispose the sub-dialects of Ionia as follows : — (i) South 
 Ionic (Miletos, Ephesos^ Samosi, free from the admixture of any Hellenic 
 dialect. (2) NoiOi Ionic ^^Chiosj, with Aiolic ingredients. (3) Halikarnassian 
 
 ' That the pronunciation of o-ff, for example, was not uniform, may be in- 
 ferred from the T = (ro- in Halikarnassos (2382),'Mesembria ^Rob. I, § 75\ Teos 
 (?Bechtol 156 B 23), and the interrelation between a-ff and tt in the allied 
 Attic dialect. 
 
 - Die Insrhri/fcn d. ion. Dial. p. vii. 
 
 •' Tlie Aiolic rpio'tai in Hipponax 51 is a puzzle if the speech of Ephesos is 
 pure Ionic. 
 
 I 
 
J3.] CHRONOLOGICAL DIVLSIONS OF IONIC. 27 
 
 Ionic, with Doric ingredients. Without further evidence, so tentative a 
 scheme, though plausible in itself, can scarcely be adopted. As yet we have 
 no inscription that might represent the third division ^ 
 
 Chronological Divisions of Ionic. 
 
 23.] The actual life of the Ionic dialect beg-ins in its earliest 
 ascertainable form with the Homeric epos and ends languidly 
 in the second ^ or third century after Christ, though its arti- 
 ficial life was prolonged by the canons of literary tradition to 
 a period considerably later. The retention of that ?; which is 
 specifically Ionic, the genitive in -los from stems in iota, and the 
 non-contraction, at least in writing-, of some forms of the adjectives 
 of material in -eos, were the most carefully guarded heirlooms of 
 the dialect. Their preservation in inscriptions in the latest period 
 of its existence is due solely to the conservatism of the lajjidary 
 style. 
 
 From about the middle of the fourth century before Christ the 
 
 I history of Ionic is a history of the gradual displacement of the 
 
 i dialect due to the vigour of its rival Attic. (In the fourth 
 
 [ century Aiolic could scarcely hold its own against the intruder 
 
 i which was sapping the strength of Ionic, and in the preceding- 
 
 j century the name Aiolian is merged in that of Ionian in 
 
 the public documents of Athens.) Though in the detailed 
 
 examination of the dialect care will be taken to delineate its 
 
 history as a living- idiom, from the time it first encountered 
 
 the strong hand of Attic till its final extinction, our interest 
 
 in the life of the dialect is necessarily centered in the period 
 
 when it was a controlling- force in the development of Greek 
 
 literature. Ionic was the dialect of the literary world ^ from 
 
 at least the eighth century until it was dislodg-ed from its 
 
 ! commanding position by the dialect of Athens. Ionic was in 
 
 all probability the ofiicial medium of communication adopted by 
 
 the semi-Hellenic world of Makedonia and by the barbarian 
 
 courts of Persia and Egypt ^. By the end of the fourth century 
 
 ' 'AAiKapj'aT(e«)i/ Becht. Halik. 238 2 = Rob. 1452 is the only possible ti'ace, 
 and that in a proper name, of Doric d. The same inscription has 'AAifcop- 
 vTiffaSv I. 41. In a Vienna papj'rus (Philohgus XLI 746 ff.) of the fourth 
 century b.c. we find (1. 3) TavToaavTo^v'), which suggests the possibility of the 
 writer being a Dorian from Halikarnassos (cf. 'ApTtfiia-ir] in 1. i\ Kretschmer 
 K.Z. XXX ,s72 suggests that Herodotos' &fj.Tra]Tts is a loan form from Doric. 
 Cf. § 715. 
 
 ^ Liikian, however (XXXIX 15), says of the language of a woman from 
 Smyrna that it was KaOapws '1wuik6u. Cf. XIV 1 3-1 5, XXI i, XXV 16 (Taueh. ), 
 and Lobeek Agkwx>h. II 997 ff., Tatian adv. Graec. p. 161. 
 
 ^ The lonisms of the supposititious letters of Pittakos indicate the belief of 
 the ancients that Ionic was the literary language before Attic. 
 
 * Cf. the spurious letters of Artaxerxes and Amasis. 
 
28 THE IONIC DIALECT. [23. , 
 
 Attic had become the lanf^uag-e o£ Philip, Alexander, and Anti- 
 pater in their state letters (Cauer no. 430). Until the rise 
 of Attic, every creative effort of Greek thoug-ht, save the 
 Doric choral ode and the Aiolic love and drinking- song-, found 
 expression in a dialect that was largely, if not wholly, Ionic. 
 The earlier Aiolic epos lost its outlines as it merged into the 
 Ionic poem under the hands of the bards, whose evanescent 
 personalities unite under the name of Homer ; the eleg-y, con- 
 scious of its source, did not disclaim its Ionic origin imder the 
 liands of Theognis or other non-Ionians ; the lampoon was 
 impatient of the admixture of a non-Ionic element. Ionic was 
 the language of science, philosophy, and history till almost the end 
 of the fifth century. All who would appeal through the medium 
 of prose to be heard in the world of Hellenic culture were com- 
 ])elled to write in Ionic, no matter whether their native city was 
 Kos, Mitylene, Pergamon, Syrakuse or Rhegion. Just so in the 
 early period of Teutonic literature, Hartmann, Wolfram and 
 other poets used the tempered Bavarian dialect though they 
 came from different quarters of Germany. At the period when 
 the power of Ionic was most autocratic, Doric prose was still in 
 swaddling-clothes which it was destined never to effectually cast off, 
 and Attic prose did not exist. But by the time that her alphabet 
 was becoming universally enfranchised throughout Greece, Ionia 
 was effete. When the Kenascence of the language of Herodotos 
 and Hippokrates came with the Hellene-loving Hadrian, Ionic 
 fell into the hands of Kappadokians, Bitliynians or Syrians, who 
 adopted it because of the fine archaic flavour it imparted or because 
 it had become the technical vehicle of expression for the medical 
 guild. Native lonians, caring nothing for tbe rehabilitation of 
 their mother tongue, wrote in the kolvti. 
 
 The creation of an idea, even in the narrower sphere of dialect 
 life, is attended by subsequent exhaustion or paralysis. When . 
 Ionic developed a prose literature, it had reached the last effort « 
 of an energy which for three centuries had been continuously 
 creative. But, as if in compensation for the loss of its dominant j 
 position in literature, we find that now the dialect is widening | 
 the area of its influence. When the g-enius of the Ionic people, | 
 together with its liberties, was extinguished, and when in its home 
 the dialect was succumbing more and more to the intrusion of i 
 Attic, we discover that other dialects are more and more display- 
 ing a tendency to adopt forms of Ionic colouring. Notably is 
 this the case in respect of ev for eo in Doric idioms. In the 
 third century other lonisms are found in Kos. But the ripple j 
 which then scattered memorials of Ionic upon Doric and Aiolic 
 shores, only followed in the wake of that more vigorous wave ' 
 which carried Attic forms into a position from which they could 
 
 I 
 
-] 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL DIVISIONS OF IONIC. 29 
 
 not be dislodged by the expiring" efforts of dialect life. Ionic 
 contributed a not inconsiderable conting-ent of forms and also of 
 vocabulary to the Koivrj. But it is as imprudent to claim that 
 the KOLvi] is nothing- more than a vulg-ar Ionic, carried throug-hout 
 the world by the lonians, the g-reatest of Greek colonists, and 
 afterwards elevated to the rank of an org'an of literature ^, as it is 
 ill-advised to g-ive undivided attention to Photios ^ when he tells 
 us that Ionic was Attic which had lost its ancestral flavour (r^s 
 biaXiKTov TO -ndTpiov) from contact with barbarians. 
 
 24.] The ancient grammarians divided Ionic ^, from the point 
 of view of its appearance in literature, into 77 apxaCa 'Id^- and 
 fj v€(OTepa or ixeTayevecrTepa 'lay. A two-fold division of this 
 nature was generally adopted in antiquity in the case of the 
 other dialects. 
 
 ap\aia 'Ids connoted in the opinion of the ancients either (t) 
 the dialect of the time of Homer, or (2) that of the period of the 
 Ionian migration eastwards while the colonies were founding 
 under Kodrid rule (Job. Gram. 242 'H jney ovv dp^aia 'las /^ere- 
 7re(re irapd ti]v t^v KaroiKOVvrcav irapaTpoTiriv, hUpiiv€ 8e ecus 
 
 €K€LVU)V TMV \p6vCtiV, 6t€ eiTOU](TaVTO "loOVeS TCLi ttTTOlKia? Kol buCTTTd- 
 
 prja-av eh irAeioyas to'ttovs, and so with slight verbal changes 
 Greg. Korinth. p. 490). On this second view Old Ionic does 
 not differ from Old Attic ; which was the opinion of Strabo VII 
 333- "^ovTcav (8taA.) 8' avTwv rerrdpcav ovaSiv ti]v p-ev 'Idba ttj 
 iraXata 'Ar^iSi T-i]v avTi]V (papev (/cat yap "loives kKaXovvTO ol Tore 
 ^Attlkol, /cat iKeWev elcriv ol Tr]v 'Aaiav l-noiKTqcravTes; "Icavts Koi 
 )(j)r](rdpivot rfj vvv Xeyopivy yAwrrTj 'IdSt)*. See below ^ ']l, 
 
 * Thus Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Verhandl. deutsch. Phil. 1878, p. 40. The 
 Koivf) adopted not only words whose use had been confined to Ionic wi-iters, 
 but forms which bear marks of Ionic phonetics, e. g. shifting of aspiration, 
 as KvOpiSiots in Clem. Alex., KvOpoyavAovs in Josephos. Cf. 'latrri" 'EWT^vKTri, 
 Hesych. The expression 'los Kotu-f], in which, according to a view of some 
 scholiasts, Theokritos XII and XXII are composed, is unique. It is unknown 
 as a division of Ionic, and has no apparent connection with the relations 
 of Ionic to the koivt). See § 118. 
 
 ^ Photios 640 8 on fdp/xdKos in contradistinction to Attic (papfiaKSs ; 6\tov fj 
 Pdp^apov ^ 'IaK6v,Ail. Dionys. in Eust. ii60ig. This theory of Ionic in some 
 form or other reappears from time to time. Sahnasius {Be Hellen. Chap. 7, 
 p. 427) held that lonians from Attika, corrupted by contact with the 
 0ap^apo(pcl!vots, Karians and Leleges, perverted their ancient speech until it 
 adopted eoivrSs, \6yoi<n, IlrjATji'aSeco, SeeTTrJrea, &c. Latterly Hesselmeyer has 
 found in Ionic a Pelasgian dialect ! 
 
 ^ Some thought that Ionic was the most ancient of the dialects (Bekk. 
 Anecd. II 78614). 
 
 * Cf. Eust. on II. p. 8, 39. Many of the so-called Atticisms in Homer, 
 according to the grammarians, are to be explained from their point of view 
 of the identity of Old Attic and Old Ionic. Homer was even called a poet 
 T^s Tra\aias 'Arfli'Sos. Ephoros appears to have been the first to set up the 
 identity of the apxaia 'ArBis with the 'las which is affirmed by Strabo. Ephoros 
 was led to this view, not by linguistic evidence, but by historical conceptions. 
 
30 THE IONIC DIALECT. [25. 
 
 where other evidence from antiquity to the same effect is adduced, , 
 and the interrelation of Ionic and Old Attic discussed. 
 
 As the normal usai^e of the term Old Attic referred to the 
 dialect of a definite period in Athenian literature (cf. for example 
 Dionys. Halik. p. 454,s), so Old Ionic was generally applied to 
 the dialect of the Homeric poems in contradistinction to the via. 
 'lay, of which Herodotos was reg"arded as the foremost repre- 
 sentative. So in the case of Doric, ?/ via Awpt? was the dialect 
 of Theokritos, ^ -nakaia Aajpi,'? that of Epicharmos and Sophron. 
 
 Ionic was never divided by the grammarians into more than two divisions. 
 The three-fold division of Attic, as usually adopted, covers merely the 
 literature of the fifth and fourth centuries (Moiris s. i'. Tr\we7s, x'''^"5ay, 
 Ailios Dionys. aptid Eust. Od. 1 761 51). 01 iraKaiol "leaves Hdn. II 603], 642,4 = 
 An. Ox. Ill 23723, 6748 = Choir. 20.;o,j ; ol apxcuoi "laves .Joh. Gr. 242, An. Ox. 
 I 2823, Hdn. II 67339 = Choir. 2092, ; ol viwrepoi"lwves Hdn. II 265^, =An. Ox. 
 I 36624 = Et. M. 667.., without direct reference to Ionic, Hdn. II 603,, 674,,,= 
 Choir. 20924, ou, An. Ox. I 247,,,, 36624, Schol. Vict, on II. XV 421, Eust. 
 16432; oi /nfTayfvfffTfpoi "itDves Hdn. I 30428) 4'^.57) II io7i») 642 1^, = An. Ox. 
 Ill 23727 ; ■)] /jLerayfveiTTipa'lds An. Ox. I 2659; rj SevTfpa'las Hdn. II 3445 = 
 Schol. Apoll. I io82 = Et. M. 82I40 not used by Homer ; tj vea twv 'l6va>v Sia- 
 KeKTOs Gram. Aug. § 25; r] vcrrepov 'IwviKi^ yXaxrcra Eust. Od. 1714101 V veayrtpa 
 'las Selml. Apoll. Rhod. A 998, 1081 ; ol veoi"lcovfs Et. Gud. 9941. 
 
 25.] It often happens that forms adduced as the property 
 of the via 'las, belong' neither to it nor to the apxaia 'Ids, so 
 far as the monuments under control permit a conclusion. For 
 example Herodian II 674^ ( = Choir. 20924, cf. Et. Gud. 9944) states 
 that 'A)(tAAetos and jiaaiKdos are the 2:»roperty of the z-ecorepoi 
 "Xoives, as they are, with different accent, the property of Aiolic also. 
 Though the et of 'A)((.AAetos may be explained (§ 220) after a 
 fashion different fi'oni that adopted by the ancients, the form 
 itself is unattested in any period of Ionic, and perhaps never 
 existed. When Herakleides a pud Eust. Od. 164^2 (^^^^ ^^- ^^' 
 1 1 6o^f;) says that oki^ov for oKiyov was used by the ' younger 
 lonians,^ we should be tempted to indulge the hope that an unusual 
 form not adopted by literature^ had been preserved, were it not 
 for the fact that the belief was wide-spread that the lonians 
 substituted ^ for y, a belief that was supported by such examples 
 as 7ref/)u^a, 7re(/)i;(,wj, and c^v^o). The Attic oAet^coi-, the Homeric 
 (/jy^a and 7re(/)y(ores may have been the source of the confusion. 
 
 The preeminent position occupied by the Homeric poems 
 in the study of Ionic by the ancients, overshadowing the ap- 
 proach to a minuter study of the diction of Herodotos, to say 
 nothing of the logographers and Hippokrates, resulted in the 
 belief that the distinction between ' Ionic ^ and 'poetic'' was 
 
 * See note below. 
 
 I 
 
«.l 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL DIVISIONS OF IONIC. 31 
 
 evanescent ^. To the later g-eneration of grammarians and com- 
 mentators, ' Ionic ' is equated with ' poetic/ while ' poetic ' and 
 ' Ionic ' become commensurate terms. Not merely is any 
 phonetic or inflectional phenomenon, but also any word, which 
 comes to light in Homer, set down as Ionic, without regard to 
 the possibility of its occurrence, or its actual occurrence, else- 
 where. Even in the professed treatises on dialects we find the 
 same perverse attitude. Had Gregory or his chief source J ohannes 
 Philoponos rig-idly applied his two-fold method of division, by 
 ascribing to Old Ionic that which is Homeric, and attributing 
 to the New Ionic the forms he met with in Herodotos, his 
 procedure had at least merited praise for possessing some method. 
 But ' Ionic ' with him covers the entire ^^eriod from Homer to 
 Herodotos. We are never sure of our bearings unless either the 
 name Homer or Herodotos is actually employed, or the prove- 
 nance of the form under discussion is known to us. Had 
 Johannes Philoponos been able to place under contribution an 
 investigation into the complexion of Ionic in the iambographers 
 and elegists, we might expect to find that his excerptor had used 
 greater discretion on the side of chi'onology. In but one instance 
 is the dialect of Homer compared with that of a later Ionic 
 
 * According to Herodian, Homer used Old Attic, Ionic, and probably 
 Alolic, Thessalian, Boiotian and Doric, thoiigh the last two dialects are not 
 expressly stated to have contributed to the poet's diction. The recent epic 
 poets were, in his view, untrammeled as to the use of the various dialects. 
 Herodian differentiated lonians and poets. The later grammarians did not 
 keep them apart except when they echoed the opinion of Herodian. In the 
 terminology of the later grammarians the poets are the epic poets. Herodian 
 applied the word either to all poets, or (more frequently) to the epic and 
 elegiac poets. It is very unusual for Herodian to call a word 2Joetic for any 
 other reason than that it has undergone a poetic jraOos. Poetic words are not 
 necessarily the same as words Kara SidXeKTov, though the ttccStj of each may not 
 I be dissimilar. The character of the TrdOos has usually to determine the question 
 I whether a word is 2)oetic or dialectal. Occasionally, however, it is use which 
 I must decide whether forms, whose irdOrj are due to metre or hiatus, are to be 
 1 called poetic or dialectal. Often Herodian makes grievous mistakes, e.g.Keiv6s 
 is poetical, not Ionic, because the diphthong is due to the metre, an explanation 
 which was correctly aioplied in the case of Ov\vfx-Kos. Whenever Herodian calls 
 a form poetic or dialectal, his hesitation may be due to a contamination of the 
 views of his predecessors, or because he may actually have been in doubt. 
 See Stephan on Herodian for the working out of these views. Rarely do we 
 meet with an attempt in the later grammarians to differentiate ' Ionic ' from 
 'poetic': "icovis koI ot iroir]Tal An. Ox. I 347,7, II 412,1, Choir. 5i3]4, 51731, cf. 
 5196) 'loi'viKus 7) -KoiyfTiKiiis Au. Ox. I .395 4; Choir. 5i3-2-2j 59i29t 593s j 60930, 
 637g : 'icoriKcSs Koi TTOfTjTj/c&Js An. Par. Ill 1 1*^19, cf. 12O5, Choir. 5939; ttoititikol 
 'IwviKoi Philoi>onos, Choir. 593,;; TroiTjrtKa ovk 'larea An. Ox. I 15930, oi/K 'luviKo. 
 aWa iroi-qTtKo. An. Ox. I 3851; 'loKois euro Koi ironiTiKocs i'laro An. Ox. I 17413; 
 'IwvtKi], KoivT], woiTiTiK-fi Au. Baclim. II 365 2n. Some foi-nis called Ionic are also 
 classed as archaisms, Tzetz. Ex. II. 9015. Extremely rare is such a conjunction 
 as "Ojxripos Kal "iccves, Max. Plan, in An. Bachni. II 61.7, cf. "icoyej, o'l re aWot 
 Kol 'liTiruva^ Hdn. II 282 7 (cf. II 384,3\ Of Anakreon, Pollux III 98 says that 
 he used ijae, "iwv Kal ttoiijttjs- avr]p. The first and second persons of iteratives 
 were u.sed by the poets Kara fxifirja-iv twv '\uva>v, Choir. 63324, following 
 Herodian's view. 
 
32 THE IONIC DIALECT. [25. 
 
 poet from the point of view of Ionic form. On ^ 88 a/x(|)' 
 aarpaydKoiai, xoA-w^eis, the Schol. Yen. A remarks : at TrAetous 1 
 TO)V KUT avbpa ap.<p' aa-TpaydArjcnv epvaas' kol tariv 'IctiVLKcaTepov. 
 " dorpayaAat 8' "Epcoro's eicTLV p^aviai re koX KvhoLjxoi. AvaKpicuv. 
 
 Note on Ionic Vocahulanj. 
 
 Subjoined is a list of some words called Ionic in the ancient 
 lexica. For others see the 'Hpo8. Aefet?, Joh. Gr. 242, Greg-. Kor. 
 § 80 to § 191, Hekataian words, § 87 note, the frag-ments of the 
 iambogiaphers, especially Hipponax, and above § 9. 
 
 dYtti = alyiakoi Et. Gud. ^g^, cf. Hesych. S.V.; dmyeii' avrX 
 Tov cittXQs ayeiv Eust. 1 83913, cf. JoH^f^, 150703 ', ap-jrel^oc = at/xacrta 
 Eust. 1851 25; d<}>apei = ra)(ea)9 Et. Mag", and Gud.; PoXPiToi/ = 
 jioXiTov Et. Mag'. 2042g (Hipp. 70 A) ; Pporaxos, see § 147; PpouKos* 
 OLKpihoiv dhos, "lojre? Hesychios. jSpovKav is Kyprian ; ydXXos = 
 lxriTpayvpTr]s Phot. 183^; y^'PY^^^? = ^h^ brnj-orat at Miletos, Eust. 
 1433^., ; Y^'P'''°s tadpole Eust. i864p, : Plato has yvplvo's, Nikander 
 yepvvoi ; SauXos = (IdKos) Schol. Vict, on II. XV 421, Et. Mag. 
 246 .J = Attic bae\6s, a form called Syrakusan by the same 
 authority. Cf. fxrjpiojv h^hav\xivu>v quoted from Simonides 
 Amorg. in Et. Mag. 250,3 ; SecSiXXui' = Trept/SAeVcoy An. Par. 
 Ill 56)8 ; tparai" (Tridvixel' ?/ Ae^ts 'Icoi'tKr/ Schol. Ven. A on 
 I 64 ; cpyuXoc' aTdTi]v. "loupes Hesych. ; ccrai^c = 6 /3acrtA€i)s 
 Kara 'E^ecrtons Et. Mag-. 3^830^ ^ (Baaikevs duo jjuracpopas rod 
 T(av fxekiaaSiv ^aatkicos w? (ip-qrai eaa-qv (.s/c) . . . ^Imvlki] 
 be 7) Ae^ts Et. Gud. 'Eo-rrr/i; was the title of a priest of 
 Artemis at Ephesos, Pans. VIII 13, i ; ElSoec'eia = EtSo^ea Eust. 
 150 1 52 J "tf^Tpeiov (Ti]p.aiveL TO TOiv bovKojv beajjiOiJTijpLov, ijyovv tov 
 lxvXo)va, irapd Xtots kol 'A)(atots Et. Mag-, 41I33, cf. Eust. 837^^; ! 
 Tjydi'ea' TripipLara rd diro Ti]ydvov Hesych. See Anakr. 26; tiy6s = 6 
 evbatpcov Et.Mag. 390^^; l^vKt.vr\(TavTe^' . . . diro yap tov l(3v irapiJKTai 
 ■)] Aefts, Kal ecTTLV ^Io^vlkov kiiippiip.a . . . eVrt 8e koX opKOS 'Ioovlkos 
 Hesychios; Kr]yx6s A-poW. de Adv. i849(Schn.); KiTTdXT]s = KAe'77r)]s 
 Joh. Gr. 242 B, cf. Teos 156 B 19 ; Kvr\<TT6s, Troto's-, T19, apros irapa 
 "Icoo-t Eust. 8729, Hesych. *\ v. ; KOKKu'as (-^ie) = TTiioyovos Et. Mag. 
 5245,, KOKva^ An. Par. IV 74-4 J Kpiol koXoi. eojj vvv Trap' "Icaaiv 
 01 KoXof3oK€paTot . . . XiyovTai Schol. Ven. A on IT 117; Xdyx^s 
 ras p.€pLbas "Icores kiyovcnv Et. Mag'. 5693^, Orion 9405; piijvcs' 
 
 opy/] Bek. An. II 739^0 ; p.iiTpa>s Eust. 97i„f, if; iukkov 
 = p.tKp6v Eust. 217^;,, 6lO._,r, ; fAUTraKes- jxvKaL 2t/<eAot, "\mv€9, 
 Hesych.; 6fA<j)aXT]T6fxos — Attic ptata Eust. 97I37 (Hippokr.); 
 irdrpcos Eust, 3165, ^f., 971205 si') Tre'pYap.oi'- r?V' TTo'Aty "IcDves 
 Xiyovaiv' oi b\ iravTe^ Ta vy\fr\Kd An. Bachm. I 3373; tttjXos" ott-os, 
 "loji^es- Hesych., Orion 862,,, cf. 1782.J; CTTJTes Tb i-tTovi Et. Mag. 
 71I43; aKuPwXoi' = aiiv[ia\ov Ephesian Ionic, An. Ox. I 447ig ; 
 a^w^ai = Trara^at Et. Mag-. 72I21, Orion 141^; (TTep^os' ip(pos 
 
 I 
 
25-] CHRONOLOGICAL DIVISIONS OF IONIC ^^ 
 
 TO bspixa, oTTep "Icoye? crT€p(f)09 Xiyovcriv Schol. Nik. Alex. 248 ; 
 TpoSeii' = /SAaTrreti' Eust. 1304^5, l533io) 1^^032 5 TpaJfAT] = rpoirrts 
 Eust. 165352, 18032, ef. 10232, 99if,o; uTTcprepos = i'e(oT€pos Eust. 
 884,3; "■"■oKpirecrOat = a-JTOKptyeo-^at Eust. 687^5, 14373^, cf. 5l5i5> 
 900^2' 1^7^475 1^772 5 <|>app,aKoi = Attic ipapjxaKoi Eust. 193515; 
 4)T|fiis = 0r//xr7 Eust. I956,;2, c£. 79910, 15633; <t)w\e6s isclioolhonse 
 (Hesychios) called Ionic by L. S. may belong to some other dialect ; 
 xXoo-ffos" lyQv<i vTtb 'Icavcov Hesycli. ; xp^if^ = XP^^^ Eust. 698^1 ; 
 »(»u8pa|" ol "Iccves \lfvbpaKas kiyovcn rot? TTOt/ctAa? Et. Mag". 8i9|q; 
 <|/w is called by Greg-. Kor. 549 an aypoiKiKov 7rpoa-^wi;r/ju,a, the 
 only instance of a distinct reference to the vulg^ar speech ; 
 wpY) = KwAr/ Eust. 171525 (see § ii). 
 
 Some of these words are doubtless provincialisms, which have 
 not received the consecration of literary usag'e ; and among them 
 there may be- words older than those that have won for them- 
 selves a place in literature. In the course of the development of 
 Ionic life in its home on the Asiatic mainland and on the 
 adjacent islands^ one community may have clung with peculiar 
 tenacity to the old-time words, while another may have offered 
 a less stubborn resistance to the encroachment of neoterisms. 
 At the -navriyvpLs of the Ionic cities there may have been heard 
 words that sounded as strange to the ears of a Milesian as the 
 provincialisms of an Eastern County man sound strange to the 
 ear of a Londoner. 
 
 In examining the vocabulary of Ionic literature, especially in 
 
 its prose monuments, modern students of style have not been 
 
 deterred, despite the scantiness of materials, from setting apart 
 
 this or that word in Herodotos or Hippokrates as ' poetical ' 
 
 because it is Homeric. Who can say how much of the epic 
 
 i vocabulary which reappears in Ionic prose is not the idiom of 
 
 ; the day ? Outside of Ionic prose literature arpeKccos occurs only 
 
 ; in poetry. It might be set down as an instance of the dependence 
 
 I of Herodotos and Hippokrates upon Homer, did we not know 
 
 that the word was in use in Doric (cf. Et. Gud., Et. Orion, and 
 
 I C. D. I. 3219). arpeK-qs is found also in Demokr., P//i/s. fr. i. 
 
 j The list of words [A. J. P. VIII 467), which before the discovery 
 
 I of the Kyprian inscriptions were not known to exist outside of 
 
 Homer, should warn us against holding too fast to the poetical 
 
 character of the Herodoteian diction ^. 
 
 ^ To Prof. Straclian (Herodotos VI, p. xxix) I owe the following list: — 
 
 ^aruffOai Demokr. 71, ^^^acQai Diog. 6, ^i^-r)fj.ai Demokr. 10, 20, Herakl. 8, 80, 
 
 \f\Troiu.ai Herakl. 7, 122, epBuv Demokr. loi, 106, iiS, 135, 203, tKeAos Demokr. 
 
 ; 21. Cf. Kleemann, Vocabula llovierica in Gi'aecorum dialectis et in cotidiano sermone 
 
 \servaia, 1876. 
 
34 THE IONIC DIALECT. [26. 
 
 The Ionic Elewenl in Homer and the Relation 
 
 of ' Old ' to ' New ' Ionic. , 
 
 \ 
 26.] I£ we eliminate from the Iliad and Odyssey the few 
 
 forms whose Doric complexion is the result of a mistaken tran- ^ 
 
 scription of the orig-inal text, the occasional instances of forms 1] 
 
 specifically Attic, whose admission is due either to the Attic 1 
 
 (liaseeuasts, to the authority of Aristarchos (who held that 
 
 Homer was an Athenian), or to the copyists, and finally such 
 
 non-Hellenic monstrosities as the so-called distracted verbs, whose 
 
 explanation transcends the phonetic laws obtainino- in every 
 
 Greek dialect, the remainder of the ' Homeric dialect ' falls under 
 
 the two divisions Aiolic and Ionic. By far the greater part of 
 
 the sounds and inflections in the lang-uage of the Homeric epos 
 
 is pan-Hellenic, and hence the joint property of both dialects, 
 
 and in actual use at the time of the final construction of Iliad 
 
 and Odyssey. 
 
 Such archaisms as the instrumental in -<^i, -(piv, which do not 
 bear either the Aiolic or the Ionic stamp, are likewise pan- 
 Hellenic ^ and hence do not fall within the immediate purpose of I 
 the present work. But even within the domain of the phenomena 
 which are manifestly dialectal, a successful delimitation of Aiolic 
 and Ionic in the traditional text of Homer is attended by j 
 well-nig-h insurmountable difficulties. It must be based upon 
 a knowledge of the structure of both these dialects at the date 
 of the composition of the various constituent parts of Iliad and 
 Odyssey, and in fact upon a consistent view of the origin i 
 and development of the epopee itself. As long as so funda- 
 mental a matter as the complexion of the dialectal d is under 
 dispute, as long as Philodemos'' view is being resuscitated that 
 the epic dialect was a farrago of all manner of dialects, and 1 
 as long as it is undeniable that the diction of Homer is, partly 
 at least, a highly artificial product, so long may a prudent 
 scepticism affirm the futility of attempting any definitive demar- ! 
 cation between the dialect affinities of the Homeric dialect. 
 
 In the discussion of Aiolic an effort will, however, be made to 
 bring together some examples of those sounds and inflections 
 which may fairly be held to be the property of that dialect ; 
 and the view will be advanced, that the appearance of the 
 Aiolic ingredient can with pro])riety be reconciled with the , 
 general Ionic colouring of the whole only when it is seen that I 
 
 ' By the ancients regarded as either Aiolic or Boiotian. reiV, tvvt) and 
 otliir forms ascribed by the ancients to this or tiiat dialect, but whose i 
 cDtiipIexion is probably pan-Hellenic, are excluded from the present dis- ; 
 cussion. 
 
a;.] THE IONIC ELEMENT IN HOMER. ^^ 
 
 the dialect of the Homeric poems is, in greater or less degree, an 
 lonicized Aiolic. So far as the Ionic residue is concerned, the 
 question at issue turns upon the character of the Homeric lonisms 
 in their relation to those of the age of Herodotos, and in fact 
 upon the correctness of the ancient division into ' Old ' and 
 ' New ' or ' Later ' Ionic. 
 
 27.] In the view of the moderns, New Ionic is restricted to 
 the dialect of the fifth century, as it appears in Herodotos and 
 Hippokrates. It is probable that the ancient dialectologists 
 included under the appellation New Ionic all that is post- 
 Homeric, i.e. the dialect of the lyric poets as well as that of 
 the philosophers, historians, and scientists. To the ancients 
 Homer was farther removed from the lyric ag-e than he is in 
 the view of the moderns. The New Ionic included at least 
 Hipponax ^, who is mentioned by the Marmor Parium under 01. 
 59, 3 ( = 54'2 B.C.), and placed by Pliny in 01. 60. 
 
 In reality the application of the term New Ionic to the form 
 displayed by the dialect in Herodotos and Hippokrates signifies 
 nothing more than the ordinary use of the term ' dialect ' as 
 a cantonal idiom. It does not imply that this form may not 
 in part have existed before the time of Herodotos and Hippo- 
 krates and elsewhere than in the pages of these prosaists. So the 
 term ' Late Lakonian ' does not denote either that much of its 
 structure may not be of very considerable antiquity, or that 
 Lakonia was the sole residence of certain linguistic phenomena. 
 All chronological and g-eographical divisions of dialect life are 
 purely conventional and hence of extreme elasticity. The 
 boundaries of New Ionic might be so far enlarged as to 
 include the entire dialect of the oldest inscriptions, of the 
 lyric poets, and of Herodotos, and this New Ionic contrasted 
 with the oldest portions of the dialect of the Homeric poems, 
 i.e. those that may reasonably be placed before the year 
 800. But since modern usage has chosen to affix to the dialect 
 of Ionic prose the name New Ionic, this designation may, under 
 certain limitations, be here adopted as the basis of the discussion 
 as to the interrelation between the Old and the New Ionic. 
 
 It must be understood that in the comparison of the apxaia 
 with the ix€Tay€ve(TTepa 'Id?, an importance has been heretofore 
 attached to Herodotos utterly out of proportion to the real value 
 of his history as a representative of the later division. The text 
 of Herodotos, even when built upon the consensus of testimony of 
 
 Th \ahs &TpewTos efieive Trap' 'Ojx-^pcf), kuitoi rrj fj-frayeueffrepa *Ia5i rpairev' 
 Xrihv aOprjaas, 'iTrrraJva^ (88) ; An. Ox. I 2655. Strabo VII 340 classes Hipponax 
 among the vtwrepoi, and even Archilochos falls under the same appellation 
 ^Schol. Z 507, cf. frag. 176). 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE IONIC DIALECT. [28. 
 
 the best MSS. — which often does not exist — can claim, unless 
 supported by extraneous evidence, only an inferior position as a 
 standard by which to estimate the character of the Ionic of the 
 fifth century. The diction of early Ionic prose, and preeminently 
 that of Herodotos, is permeated by lexicographical, stylistic and 
 syntactical affinities with the lang-uag-e of Homer. But far 
 more significant is the erratic conduct of the phonetical and 
 inflectional system, preferring now the Homeric now the con- 
 temporaneous dialect; the frequent aversion to the living speech 
 when its forms contest the field with those consecrated by 
 Homeric usaffe ; the inconsistencies in one and the same word 
 as presented by the MS. tradition. All these considerations, 
 which are discussed at greater length below, § 88, create a | 
 presumption in favour of the view that the text of Herodotos 
 had undergone a transformation at a time when exact knowledge • 
 of the Ionic of the fifth century had vanished even from the 
 schools. 
 
 From this it follows that all the modern comparisons of 
 Homeric phonology with that of Herodotos, as it exists in ! 
 the best MSS. of the historian, will (unless they rest upon the 1 
 assumption that Herodotos intentionally commingled a dead ' 
 with a living' speech) have to confront the objection that the j 
 retention, in svich large measure, of open forms originally 
 separated by j/od (and to a less degree, by F and o-), from the 
 earliest known period of Ionic until the fifth century, is a 
 phenomenon unique in the history of the language. 
 
 While the greater part of the dialect of Herodotos is con- 
 temporaneous Ionic, there is a residue of formations either 
 entirely obsolete or obsolescent ^ in the fifth century. So far 
 then as New Ionic embraces the dialect of Herodotos, it is only 
 that part of the dialect which may either be proved, or inferred 
 by the argument from analogy, to be the Ionic of the historian's 
 time. With this limitation as regards the dialect of Herodotos, 
 and in a less degree as regards that of Hippokrates, the date of 
 the New Ionic may be marked off with tolerable chronological 
 exactness as the Ionic of the fifth century. 
 
 28.] What is Old Ionic? The conventional application of ] 
 the term to the dialect of the entire epos pays no regard to the j 
 fact that under the name Homeric are classed dialectal pheno- 
 mena ranging from perhaps the eleventh to the seventh century. 
 While the oldest portions of the Iliad, even those of distinctly 
 emotional character, antedate the earliest monuments of the 
 
 ' For example /caAeoj, KaXeotro, ippoveoi^v, Xvireolaro. The inscriptions have 
 but one case of the retention, as an archaism, of the open, and older, form. 
 The pcots have •o7^ev. -oifueBa, -oTeu. The iteratives still live on in Herodoto| ( 
 though with impaired vitality. 
 
28.] THE IONIC ELEMENT IN HOMER. 37 
 
 Ionic lyric, there yet remains, in the Dolonela and various 
 lengthy passages in books B, I, A, 2, T, *, an irreducible 
 minimum that is contemporaneous with Archilochos or even with 
 Simonides of Amorgos. And so far as the Odyssey is concerned, 
 all of that which is called by Kirchhoff the ' second enlargement ' 
 is placed by him as late as 660 B.C. 
 
 And yet, so similar in texture is the diction of the later to 
 that of the earlier accretions which have grown about the Iliad 
 and Odyssey, that it is virtually identical with that of the 
 primitive bard. The elasticity of their art did not debar the 
 workers at the fabric of the epos from the use of forms either 
 obsolete or obsolescent in their day, nor on the other hand from 
 having recourse to analogical formations of an archaic stamp. 
 
 Tem^^ting as is the comparison of book K and the greater 
 enlargements of the Iliad and the second enlargement of the 
 Odyssey with the fragments of Archilochos and Simonides of 
 Amorgos, such a test yields no proof that the language of 
 these latest portions is the language of the seventh century. 
 The tendency to adopt contracted forms is perhaps the only 
 sign of the assimilation of the literary to the popular foi'm 
 of the language ^ In the older portions of the epos the fusion 
 of vowels may have been a matter of poetic license. The 
 exigencies of the verse may anticipate by an indefinable period 
 the processes which operate in the ordinary speech of the day. 
 
 Subjoined is a list of some instances of contraction and 
 synizesis, which deserve attention from those who approach the 
 comparison of the epic with the iambographic dialect from the 
 point of view of vowel openness or contraction ". Forms showing 
 1 synizesis come to light alike in the older and the later parts of 
 the poems ; contracted forms increase in frequency in passages 
 whose later origin may be inferred on other grovinds. 
 
 Apart (i) from instances of contraction occurring in those 
 words, which, without vocalic fusion, could not find admission 
 into the hexameter, and (2) the contractions in the sixth foot 
 (except a few isolated cases mentioned below), there occur the 
 following instances of later forms, most of which resist all 
 remedial treatment save of the severest character. Cases which 
 show the disappearance of i/od are less noteworthy than those 
 where F or a has been lost. Where the syllable of contraction 
 or synizesis is not under the ictus, this is denoted by a star. 
 
 ^ Yet the termination -eoirj, when preceded by a single consonant, must 
 have been in ordinary use at the end of the seventh century. By the year 
 479/8 it was old-fashioned in Teos. See footnote, p. 36, and § 45 (i). 
 
 ^ In reference to the position assumed by Menrad in his De contradionis et 
 syniseseos usu Homerico, see my review^. J. P. VIII 224 ff., Christ's /tos, § 102 ff., 
 and the articles by Mr. Arthur Piatt, in the Journ. Phil. XVIII No. 35 &., which 
 deal immediately with some of the forms quoted above. 
 
38 THE IONIC DIALECT. [29. ^ 
 
 A 15* xpv(Ti(^, B 684 Kak^vvTo, 490 x^XKeov, 677"^ Kwy (?) ; 
 
 A 113 o-a/cea, 384'^ Tvhi] ; E 387* x«^'^^V> 5^5 C«XPf"^^^ 256* 
 €a ; Z 220 xP'^'o'foi' ; II 394 i^ywyepy (-yetr ?) ; 217* kijA/co 
 
 (cf. O 744); I 605 TLiJ.fj'ii?), 75* XP15^) '^^^ a6ko(f)6povs ; K 285 
 (T-ndo, 449 [xe6S)ix€v ; A 282''^ ucppegv, 282 (TT/]dm, 6 II epeto, 708 
 7roAet!>, 179 7Tpr]vds, 699 aQko(\)6poi, 151* tTTTrei? ; M 347, 360 
 {axp')€is; N 684 C^XP^^''^^^ ^ 7 ^ow""?? i^oF?), 274 So-t; O 31 
 7;Aa(rTeoi', 65"^, 68* Kzevd, 444 (S^Xea, 339 Mrj/ctorr^ ; P 451 /3aAa); 
 22 136 v(.vp.ai, 493 i)yiveov, 539 MixiXevv, 6 12 xpva-eov, 475 Tiixr\vTa; 
 T 104* eKcpavel, 202 ?/(rti', 402"^ Im}X€v, 88 arj/y (6tli foot), 95 
 arraro ; T 2l8 (fK€ov, 72 'Ep/x?)? (6th foot); 4' 361 jx^ixvidiTO, 
 £21 SarewzTo (6th foot), 412* KaTaKTeveX, 834 xP^^^/^f^'o?, 226 ; 
 'Eo)a-^o'po9, 792 'AxtAAei (6th foot) ; 12 290 evx^") 5C3 atSeTo, 722 
 fl/o/z^eoi', 10 1 xP^'^'CP^s 354* ^^(^)' 28 aTi]9 (6th foot), 734 
 d^Aewwr, 769 hajpcov. 
 
 a 183 Tikiutv; /3 358 avalSfj, 421 oKpar/ (?) ; y 221 ^lAewras 
 (6th foot) ; e 54* 'Epjur/? (6th foot) ; C 2IO Aoi^crare, 2x6* \ov(rdat, 
 219 aTToAowo/ixai. (from koF ?) ; r] 94* oiras, lio"^ rex''^<'"<''at, 107 
 Katpovcrcrioov, I18 Oepevs, 1 1 6* o-u/ceot; ^ 55^ KaAeoi', 334"^ 'EppTJz;, i 
 483* ■'}V<p, 160 aOkcov, 271 "IIAtos ; t 269 albeio, 44 r/i^wyea, 240 | 
 dvpeov, 283 i-ea (favi' ?) ; 347"^ Kpea (6th foot), 136* xP^^ ^ *« 229, I 
 255 KaXevvres (6th foot), 518* x^^^^^^'^h '^^3 V^'^y^S, 240 yoC?; 
 A 61 acre; /i. 249 KaXevvT(.s (6th foot); i; 7^ av^pp'nnovv \ £ 86* 
 /3(S(ri, 435^ 'EpM?? J '^ 74 ^'-^^^v-, 88 veicrOai, ^'^3 y^v^v^, 248 uteij ; 
 •77 383 ib6(oifxev, 3*^7 wo'cip.ei' ; p 55 ^]V(^y(a ; (t 247 TrXeoves ; r I ]6 
 TioOeoycra, 489* ovo-rj?, 331 re^rewrt, 34* xP^'^'tP^ 5 ^ 14 /3e/3cocra | 
 (6th foot); 7,18* TTLCTTcodriTov, 47 Ovpecov, 1 78 crreaTos ; X 45^ 
 ((popepv, 385 KoTAoi' ; \//- 77^ {9? <^ 337 ?'/'''C9^'' 3^3 '■'''XCP) 49^ ^xn, 
 437 (f)6(M(n, 1* 'Epixris, 394* 6dixl3(V9 (6th foot) ; 398 'OSuo-eCs, 
 523 EiiTret'f^ea, 341* cruKeas, 360 7Tpov7J€pL\^\ 
 
 29.] Now if the dialect of the epos represents the period of 
 Old Ionic according" to the ancient and modern conception, and 
 the language of the fifth century is New Ionic, it might be 
 questioned whether there is not in the monuments of the sixth 
 century an intermediate stage of the dialect. That such a 
 middle period does not exist is evident from the study of the 
 literature and inscriptions from 600-500 B. c. A few examples 
 will in fact suffice to show that 'Middle'' Ionic has no existence 
 whatsoever. 
 
 Thus for example the oldest Ionic form of XdFos is Xrjos, 
 found first in the misread Homeric AetwSrjs and Aetco/cptroy. 
 A>;()'s' itself does not come to light in the monuments of the j 
 dialect until the second half of the sixth century (Hipponax 88) ' 
 while the Ilorodoteian Aewj had been formed as early as the 
 
 I 
 
II 
 
 30.] THE IONIC ELEMENT IN HOMER. 39 
 
 seventh century (Arcliil. 69), and was in use in Miletos (Beclitel 
 no. 93} in the sixth century; to say nothing- of the Homeric 
 'Aye'Aetos x ^3^) ^47' Herodotos has also in AevTvxihrjs an 
 example of a third form. While Herodotos has A.ecos {\dFos, it 
 is doubtful whether he has rewj {vdFos. 
 
 Again : in at least eleven passages ranging from the earliest 
 to the latest books, the genitive in -00 can be exhumed, a form 
 which is the immediate parent of -ov and the direct descendant of 
 -01.0 ^. It may serve as the type of those forms whose archaic 
 character is so clearly marked as to justify their ascription to 
 a stage in the history of Greek in which lines of demarca- 
 tion cannot be drawn between Ionic and Aiolic. Though we 
 j shall find it impossible to define accurately the life of ' pre- 
 J Homeric ' forms, it is clear that the -010 form must have been in 
 j possession of the field centuries before the first accretions began 
 to grow about the primitive Iliad and Odyssey. Even its 
 I offspring -00 must have acquired an archaic flavour at the time 
 ! of the composition of the poems. A distinct stage in the life 
 ! of the dialect, when -010 was old-fashioned and -ov had not come 
 j in, cannot be discovered, 
 
 Now if it could be shown from these and similar examples, 
 that the life of a considerable number of individual forms was 
 conterminous, a period of ' Middle ' Ionic, such as is set up by 
 Pi'ofessor Sayce^, might be said to have existed. But there is 
 I no trace of a halting-place where a number of distinctly inter- 
 mediate forms consort. All the meaning therefore that can be 
 extracted from the expression ' Middle ' Ionic, is that, in the 
 most general sense, between the close of epic and the rise of 
 j prose literature there was an interval, the existence of which 
 j in no wise carries with it the conclusion that the inflectional and 
 j phonetic development of the language had reached an inter- 
 I mediate stage. 
 
 The assumption then of a Middle Ionic, in fact the comparison 
 of Old with New Ionic, is of almost no value in the eyes of 
 a science which deals not with periods, but with the life of the 
 individual form. There may indeed be a primitive, a middle, and 
 a final period in the life of the individual form, if it chance to 
 have undergone three distinct phonetic changes which are actually 
 attested or which may be inferred. 
 
 30.] The study of the life of the individual form in Homer, the 
 lyric poets, and the inscriptions, reveals an organic development 
 of the dialect, whose recognition has been forced to wait upon 
 
 ' In La Roche's text the occurrences of -oto and -ov are: -010 II. 1085, 
 Od. 702, -01; IL 1015, Od. 808. This count includes the instances of -00 for 
 -ov. 
 
 ^ Journal 0/ Philology X ill, cf. Monro, ib. IX 253. 
 
40 THE IONIC DIALECT. [31. 
 
 the formation of a just estimate of the position of Herodotos. I 
 If it be admitted that the sounds and inflections of the diction 
 of Herodotos and llippokrates are not epic as such, the con- 
 clusion is irresistible that the form often assumed by these 
 sounds and inflections in the MSS. especially of Herodotos, is 
 antagonistic to this organic development of the lang-uage, whose 
 beginning's may be traced in Homer, and whose later aspects are 
 visible in the epic, in the iambic w^-iters and the inscriptions. 
 
 31.] In that portion of the Homeric dialect which, after the 
 separation of the Aiolic element, we call Ionic, there co-exist, as 
 we have seen, forms of very different dates. In determining the 
 chronology of the lonisms of the epos, there are several con- 
 siderations which deserve ampler recognition than that usually 
 accorded them, (i) No single verse or passage, of which the 
 verse is an indissoluble part, is older than the date of the 
 youngest form it contains ; provided the passage in question is not 
 an interpolation, and the form is not due to the exigency of the 
 metre. (2) Forms which have disappeared completely at a very 
 early period in the history of the transmission of the poems, and 
 whose existence is due solely to reconstructive criticism, are not 
 necessarily of the most archaic type. (3) If there are passages i 
 of greater or less compass — even single lines or parts of lines — jj 
 which have siiffered transposition from Aiolic into Ionic, the Ionic ■ 
 forms which are metrically equivalent to those of Aiolic com- 
 plexion, will belong to an early period of the dialect ^ As J 
 a matter of fact, apart from the probability or improbability 
 of Fick^s conception of the genesis of an Ionic Homer, it is 
 frequently, but by no means invariably, the case that where the 
 Aiolic form cannot be substituted for the Ionic form in the text, 
 this form in question represents a later stage of the development 
 of Ionic. (4) The joint ownership by Homer and Herodotos of 
 formations, of which the Attic seems to offer more ancient 
 by-forms, is not per se indicative of a later origin of the Homeric 
 passages in which these formations occur. nOida-L is no less 
 a neologism than rt^eto-t. (5) Homeric Ionic is not invariably 
 older than that portion of the later dialect which is independent 
 of epic influence. Yet in its totality the complexion of the 
 Ionic of the Iliad and Odyssey is sufficiently archaic to exclude 
 the suggestion that portions of the poems containing' forms found 
 alike in Epic and in ' New ^ Ionic, are later accretions. (6) 
 The assumption that, wherever Homer makes but rare use of 
 
 * The older the forms, the more nearly alike are they in all dialects. This 
 fact of laiiguaijo has no necessary connection with a transference from one 
 dialect to another of a product of literature. 
 
I 32.] THE IONIC ELEMENT IN HOMER. 4 1 
 
 la formation that grows apace in later Greek, this formation has 
 been brought in by diascenasts or copyists, is destructive of all 
 iling-uistic perspective. 
 
 While not constituting a period of Middle Ionic, the dialect of 
 
 I the iambic writers is a bridge leading from the epic to the form 
 
 I assumed by the dialect in the fifth century. On the one hand it 
 
 agrees with the Ionic of Homer in its freedom in treating 
 
 the demonstrative as a relative pronoun ; a freedom which has 
 
 ibeen somewhat restricted in Herodotos, and much more abridged 
 
 in Hippokrates. In Archilochos, Simonides of Amorgos, Hippo- 
 
 nax, and Ananios, we encounter o? in its ordinary relative use, 
 
 and also the employment of the article as a relative. In Herodotos 
 
 ithe r-forms prevail in the oblique cases and in the neuter of 
 
 I both numbers, while os, ij, ol, at occur in the nominative, 
 
 after prepositions which suffer elision, and in certain formulae. 
 
 I Hippokrates adopts the Attic use. Furthermore the following in- 
 
 I stances of divergence from the prose dialect are noticeable. In a 
 
 I few cases the poets preserve open in vocalic stems forms which later 
 
 I suffered contraction, notably in Hippokrates. The t of diphthongs 
 
 is less frequently lost before a following vowel than in Herodotos. 
 
 ; There is in fact no case of such a form as 0?/Aea. kgipos and 
 
 \94\o} are preferred by the iambic writers to the longer forms, 
 
 i which find favour in Herodotos and Hippokrates. For verbs in 
 
 -aco we find -eco very rarely in the poets. 
 
 ( 32.] It is difiicult to discover any phonetic change of the fifth 
 century (occurring in a word found also in Homer ^) which does 
 not appear in some portion of the epic. Oftentimes it happens 
 that younger forms which come to light only sporadically, 
 notably noun and verb forms which have lost i/od, sigma, or 
 digamvm, are admitted in the later Ionic, which casts off the 
 older form prevailing in the epos. Each set of forms deserves 
 individual treatment, as it by no means follows that all younger 
 forms ^ in the epos are universally adopted by the iambographers 
 or the inscriptions ; a consideration that must have weight in 
 the reconstruction of the Ionic of the fifth century, when no 
 light is cast by the iambic writers or the stone records. 
 
 Perliaps the most important marks of distinction between Old 
 Ionic and the Ionic of Herodotos'' tim.e are the loss of the dual 
 and of F, and the curtailing of the iterative formation in the 
 latter. How far other phonetic differences may be set down as 
 characteristic differences of Old and New Ionic is not always 
 
 ^ This limitation excludes ffeaivrov &c. ; see under Pronouns. 
 * Thus ^f\(a O 444, aaxfa A 113 (to say nothing oi revx(3; ^Ayea, refiivia, 
 *ffT^9fa in the 6th foot) do not exclude -ea from the lyric dialect, though 
 there .ea may be more frequent than the open form. 
 
 f OF THE 
 
 {UNIVERS 
 
42 THE IONIC DIALECT. [3^. 
 
 cleai'. Some of the more marked cliang'es are Tiacrep^s for 
 T€(r(Tapes, 6o)jxa for 6avp.a, and Z>v for ovv ; k for -n in pronominal 
 forms. The existence of the spiritus asper is imperilled and the 
 contraction of vowels has set in to a very considerable extent in 
 New Ionic. On the other hand the dialect of the Ionic iambic 
 poetry runs parallel with that of the inscriptions, save in the fact 
 that the former has kw?, Kore &c., while the latter has no case 
 of the K form. Except in this particular the lang-uag-e of the 
 iambographers is more closely allied to that of the stone records 
 than it is to the diction of Herodotos. 
 
 Homeric loi/isms. 
 
 33.] The ref<yme of Aiolic forms under the head of Homeric 
 Aiolisms, Aiolic §§ 12-39, relieves us of the responsibility 
 of treating- in detail the lonisms of the Homeric diction. All 
 that is not Aiolic in Homer (with the exceptions referred to 
 Aiolic § 10) is Ionic. The following sections call attention to 
 a few points, some of which are not free from doubt, where 
 Ionic stands out in direct opposition to Aiolic. 
 
 34.] Vowel-system. When, in conjunction with p, we have 
 variable forms in a and e, as in ddpcros dipcro^, the presumption 
 is in favour of the Ionic character of the a forms. 
 
 Ionic e is = Aiolic d in Teu>s, eco? (retcoj and etco? are mis- 
 representations of the older Ionic forms in rj), in 'Aye'Aecos 
 
 Ionic are all cases of -q except those which are pan-Hellenic. 
 Ionic 77 has often been obliterated by incorrect transcription of 
 E, as in AetcoK/atro? which stands for Ai]6kpltos (cf. Kpiro'Aaoj), 
 and in Aet&)8?;s = AtjwSt)?, the equivalent in meaning* of Thessalian 
 Faaihap-os C. D. I. 37 1. Aritiihr]S is from Xr]Fo-Fabr]^. The 
 lonians appear in Homer in the non-Ionic form 'Idoves N 685, 
 while TTQirjoDv A 473 is genuine Ionic (cf. Archil. 76). 
 
 Ionic are all long vowels and diphthongs due to compensatory 
 lengthening (but not to epenthesis) in cases where the Aiolic dialect 
 geminates the preceding consonant. Examples under §§ 1 96, 224. 
 The sound et is Ionic as the result of the contraction of ee 
 to et ; and all contractions of 00 to ov. When Homeric et has 
 €v = eF as its counterpart in Aiolic, this €6 is Ionic. 
 
 ei and ov under the ictus in cases for which comparative 
 grammar can find no morphological explanation : d\i]kovda, 
 Elphpia, Ov\vixTTos. xpvireos is Ionic, xpvaios Aiolic. 
 
 Though the contraction of e and assumes in a few instances 
 
^6.] HOMERIC lONISMS. 43 
 
 the form of ev in Aiolic, all cases of eu in Homer may safely be 
 classed as Ionic ^. In a stage of development of the Homeric 
 poems so remote as the supposed 'Aiolic period/ while the 
 synizesis eo might be possible, the contraction to ev would 
 scarcely be admitted. Besides the instances g'iven in § 28, the 
 following may be mentioned : 
 
 ipejSevi 368, A ^y (cf. Hym. Dem. 410), avrevv M 160, 
 {€)yeycovevv i 47, /x 370, p 161, yet/ceuo-' T 254, elKevvro ^ 8, 
 ox^evvTai ^ 261, OtjevvTO H 444, K 524, (rcpapayevvTO i 390, 440, 
 (f>ol3ev[X€i'os 149, alpevixei'OL O ^^^, iKveviievai i 1 28, olro\oevvTe^ 
 y 472, ajxcptjSakeviJLaL x 103, AcoreCz^ra M 283. In most of these 
 verbs open eo was impossible. Furthermore in e/xeS (twenty- 
 six times), //eu (sixty-three), aev (thirty-five), ev (seven), rev 
 (sixteen). 
 
 t 
 
 Menrad's De contractionis ef syniseseos usu Homerico attempts to heal many 
 
 of the contracted forms in § 28 and in § 34, which are by other scholars 
 
 ■ rightly held to be hysterogeneous. Cp. A. J. P. VIII 224. ein^uffotiai a 378, 
 
 j3 143, eTril3w(T6/j,€0' K 463 (cf. X 254), ^ciffavTi M 337 has parallels in no dialect 
 
 except Ionic. On oySdoKovra B 568, 652, see § 207. 
 
 35.] Consonants, kt in -noXvKTiqixdiv (Ionic Krioixai), where 
 Aiolic has itaoixai as in 'nokvndp.utv. Movable nn in such collo- 
 cations as 6i]Kei>, roicrt he k.t.X., 4^ 153. Movable uu seems to 
 have taken its start from Ionic territory. 
 
 Ionic never geminates labials as in oTTTroVe, &c., nor at any 
 period of the dialect was kk used instead of the Aiolic tttt. Nor 
 does Ionic geminate r in ottl, &c. When Homer has r = Aiolic -n, 
 as in Tijke, the t form is Ionic. 
 
 Since the Ionic dialect seems to have lost the rough breathing 
 at a later date than did Aiolic, cases of the leuis for the aftj)er are 
 more probably Aiolic. 
 
 36.] A Declension. Nouns in -r; and -rjs in the nominative, 
 
 and -7] in all other case forms. 
 
 Gen. in eo). Dissyllabic -ew is found but once, in "AXreo) <I> 86, 
 
 where the aXrao of Cod. C suggests an easy change, eco thirty- 
 i seven times in the Iliad, twenty-eight times in the Odyssey, 
 , chiefly in the arsis of the second, the third, or the fifth foot. 
 I ayKv\op.i]T€co is found at the end of the verse, "ISeo) begins the 
 
 verse I 558 (Meleager episode), tKeVeo) occurs in the arsis of the 
 i fourth foot O 158, 187, <Tvj3(.oTeM in the thesis of the same foot 
 ; I 459, 304. In the cases of -eco from nrjATjtdSr/?, Ur]Xdbr]s, 
 ' AArrjs, Nrjkrj'idbrjs, 'Arpel'Sij?, AiVeirjs, (Soperjs, a may be sub- 
 
 * According to the ancient grammarians ev was both Ionic and Doric. 
 
44 THE IONIC DIALECT. [37. 
 
 stituted, the genitives occurring- always before a vowel ^, Tvheibr]s 
 does not admit of a like substitution, a fact wliich has called 
 forth some speculation as to the position of Diomede in the 
 galaxy of the heroes. 
 
 The genitive in -o) is always preceded, by a vowel: eviJ.p.e\LU)i 
 A 47, 1^65, Z 449, l3opioj E 395, * 692, ^ 5^c^, 'Ep^eto) O 214, 
 Au'eto) E 534. jSopeoj never occurs save before a word beginning 
 with a vowel. 
 
 Gen. plur. Dissyllabic -eoov is found only H i, M 340, (f> 191. 
 
 -em.' by synizesis twenty-one times in the Iliad, nineteen in the 
 Odyssey. 
 
 -Mv : thirteen cases of -luiv, furthermore t(ov six times, aStv 
 E 818 (o-ecof Aristar.), avT&v T 302. 
 
 37.] O Declension. Bpidpeoov A 403 seems to be Ionic alone, 
 but Yl-i]vekeu>i< N 92 need not be regarded, as containing the Ionic 
 Aews. On krjos in Homer, see § 29. ayr]pay e.g. P 444 for ay/ypao). 
 I see no reason for regarding the instances of -ots as proofs of 
 Ionic workmanship. Though -oto occurs more frequently in the 
 post-epic Ionic than in the Aiolic lyric, we cannot distinguish 
 between the dialects as regards its appearance in Homer. 
 
 38.] Consonantal Declension. On yeAojs, tpu^^ see under 
 Homeric Aiolisms; kvk^iS> A 624. Whether the Aiolians ever 
 used -nXeoves, -ovas, is doubtful. 'Obvaevs co 398 is certainly 
 Ionic, as are all other instances of €v §§ 28, 34. 
 
 39.] Pronouns. Ionic are the forms beginning with ?//i- and 
 v[x-. In many cases 7/ju,et? ?;juea? are found where Fick cannot ' 
 readily substitute the Aiolic equivalents, e.g. /3 86, 244, 8 294. ( 
 (Tcpas E 567, cf. M 43, seems to be Ionic. 
 
 40.] Verbs. Kreptai 2 334, KT€pi.ov(ri A 455, aeiKico X 256 seem 
 to be Ionic rather than Aiolic. On other contractions see §§ 28, 
 34. All forms of the contract verbs such as k-noUi are Ionic, 
 aipeo) is Ionic = Aiolic aypioi, aypi]p.L. 
 
 Inf. in -vai and -ety are solely Ionic (Aiolic -[xevat, -p.ev and 
 -rjv). Those in -mv from the second aorist stem seem to be the 
 work of lonians. 
 
 41.J Varia. ^ta = Aiolic ta, reaa-apes, TecraapaKOVTa, T^aaapa- 
 fioLos. 
 
 ds in Homer is both Ionic and Aiolic, h Ionic in all probability; 
 &v may be Ionic in contradistinction to Aiolic kc. 
 
 ' On the Homeric genitive, see i. a. Piatt in CToss. JfJev. II i2, 99. 
 
:44] 
 
 DIALECT OF THE lAMBISTS. 4^ 
 
 The Ionic of lamhic, Trochaic and Elegiac Poetry. 
 
 42.] 
 
 j Ahkens : JJeher die Mischung d. Dialekte in d. griech. TAjrik, 57-63. De hiatu apud 
 
 \ elegiacos Graecorum poetas aniiquiores, Philol. Ill 223. 
 
 i FiCK : Die Sprachform der aliionischen u. altatiischen Lyrik, B. B. XI 242, XIII 173, 
 
 XIV 252 
 ) Flach : Das nachhesiodische Digamma, B. B. II i ff. 
 KiECHHOFF : Zur Geschichte des aitiscJien Epigramms, Hermes V 48, 1871. 
 Laeger : De veterum epicorum studio in Archilochi, Simonidis, Solonis, Hip2Mnactis 
 
 reliquiis conspicuo, 1885. 
 Renner : De dialedo aniiqidoris Graecorum pioesis elegiacae et iamhicae, Curtius' 
 Sludien I i, 133 ff. ; I 2, i ff., 1S6S. Ueber das Formehvesen im griech. Epios 
 undepische Reminiscenzen in der alteren griech. Elegie, 1872. 
 ScHULHOF : On the early Ionian poets and on the inteirelation of Ionic and Attic Greek, 
 
 Trans. Oxf. Phil. Soc, 18S9. 
 SrrzLER : XJeher die Sprache der Elegiker, Jahrb. f. Philol. CXXV 504. 
 ScHNEiDEWiN : Beitrdge sur Kritik der Poetae Lijrici Graeci, 1 844. 
 Wagner : Quaestiones de epigrammatis graecis ex lapidibus coUeciis (by Kaibel) gram- 
 waficae, 18S3. See also Aiolic, § 100. 
 
 43.] It is advisable to approach the investigation of early 
 
 [ iambic, trochaic, and elegiac poetry from the point of view of 
 
 the nationality of the poet. The poetry of those who ^purchased 
 
 fame by keen iambicks •* is redolent of the soil from which it 
 
 springs. The elegists, on the other hand, fall into two distinct 
 
 divisions : those of Ionic blood, whose contemporary dialect is 
 
 t tempered solely by the diction of Homer, and secondly those of 
 
 I non-Ionic birth, who, though they may colour their dialect with 
 
 I forms drawn from the soil either of their birth-place or of their 
 
 i adopted home, are debarred by the laws of their art from inter- 
 
 I fusing their dialect with forms that are specifically Ionic (kw?, 
 
 I KOTe), i. e. forms whose use had not been sanctioned by having 
 
 ■ been adopted by Homer. Otherwise these non-Ionic elegists have 
 
 equal recourse to the fountain head of elegiac diction, the epos. 
 
 Dialed of the lambists. 
 
 44 ] Iambic poetry was the weapon which dealt the sabre- 
 thrusts of Ionic invective ; and the cultivation of the iambic 
 measures remained an almost exclusive prerogative of the Ionic 
 race until the trimeter was claimed for a higher and wider 
 purpose by the literary successors of the lonians. Its reception 
 by Solon paved the way for its adoption by Tragedy. 
 
 Il 
 
46 THE IONIC DIALECT. [44. 
 
 The dialect of the three iambographers adopted by the Alex- 
 andrian canon was the pure Ionic of the century and a half 
 during' which the iambus was cultivated by the race which; 
 had first used it as a vehicle of literary expression. In the) 
 lyrical parts of Archilochos we observe a widening- of the dialectj 
 horizon. These are considered below § 62; on his trochaics, see 
 §52. 
 
 Hipponax alone has so coloured the diction of his ' halting ' iambics with 
 words not Hellenic, but drawn from Lydian ' or Phrygian'-', that he gained 
 among the commentators the name of fiapvyXwaffos. rpolai in 51 recalls the! 
 Aiolic scheme of inflection of the numerals. In the hexameters of Hipponax; 
 we find epic forms. | 
 
 In the examination of the phonetic and inflectional system of! 
 Ionic the diction of the iambographers Archilochos of Samos,' 
 Simonides of Amorgos, Hipponax of Ephesos, Ananios, and 
 Herodas, will be investigated in detail. The other monuments of 
 iambic verse outside of tragedy and comedy are too scanty to 
 yield information of value. A few interesting forms are found, 
 in Skythinos. i 
 
 Though Anianios^ personality is scarcely to be separated from' 
 that of Hipponax, his language speaks in favour of his being; 
 considered as a distinct poet. In some respect his inflections! 
 do not follow the strict norm set by his predecessors, Anakreon's; 
 iambics are too scanty to permit a conclusion as to their dialect. ' 
 
 The original colouring of the Tonic of Archilochos, Simonides| 
 of Amorgos and Hipponax, though partially obliterated by the' 
 ignorance or perversity of copyists, can nevertheless be restored 
 without recourse to a violent disturbance of MS. tradition. In. 
 one or two cases epic forms seem to have forced an entrance into 
 the text. In weighing the MS. evidence in the case of Archi-j 
 lochos, the testimony of the Thasiote dialect must be considered, j 
 
 On the resuscitation of choliambics by the Dorian Herodas,: 
 perhaps a contemporary of Theokritos, Ionic came again intoj 
 fashion. The Alexandrians confessed their alleii-iance to the: 
 Ionic norm; and Babrios'' ixvOiaixfioi Ato-wTretot attest, at least, 
 partially, the persistence of the Ionic standard. Cf. also Tzetzes 
 in An. Ox. Ill 308. 
 
 The newly discovered papyrus of Herodas presents a tolerably faithful 
 picture of the Ionic appropriate to this species of iambic composition. The, 
 lonisms seem to be imitative, and not drawn from a living dialect, though 
 there occur forms hitherto unknown in literature. Most of the Atticisms are 
 
 * PePp6s 64 cf. Hesych. ^e^po^' ayadSs ; KovlffKe 64; fnavXiffTripiov 126; 
 Ka.u5a.vKa I ("tHrioviffTi'). Perhaps the Hesychian glosses /Saff/ce ■niKpoKia' 
 irXrtcr'lov (^ed6a(e and ISacm^aKpoKfa' Oaaaov fpxov were derived from Hipponax. 
 
 " vj]i/iaTov I2y ; cf. 135 
 
45-] 
 
 DIALECT OF THE lAMBISTS. 47 
 
 ; due to a disturbance of MS. tradition. In the case of others, however, 
 
 where there is no fluctuation (ovx'i twelve times), it may be doubted whether 
 
 they are not to be ascribed to the author himself. The MS. has in places 
 
 [ been corrected in the interest of the Ionic forms. Forms of Doric complexion 
 
 ' may be referred to the speech of the poet's home. These are especially such 
 
 as show a contraction of a + € to 77. The crasis of Kai shows more forms with »j 
 
 I than with a. opdoi regularly has tj (opfjs, opi], o/j^tc). -yAao-tra or yXaffffa is not 
 
 necessarily Doric, viv is not vincommon. Some of the most interesting traces 
 
 of lonism are the following: — (i) Vowels: Over 150 forms have the Ionic 
 
 ij, less than ten have d after p, e, and i. The contraction of e + o to eu 
 
 ! is very frequent ; regularly so in verbal forms. evvTwv 2^^^, 635 and apyvpfvv 
 
 i 462) 65 are unique. HyperTonic ev occasionally comes to light as in Spa/j-evaa 
 
 554 > X'^'^'i^^^'^Vi 4*2 • ^'^ ^s generally so written in noun and verb, though it 
 
 must usually be read ^. Upri^LTeXew 4-23 is a singular exception. e + et and 
 
 e + ri are always contracted when the forms were originally separated by 
 
 yod. + 77=01 in fiSiffov 4^, ^5 ; tp6s is frequent, as is the synizesis of -ea 
 
 in neuter plurals. The Ionic ov appears in Kovprj, yovvaroiv, voiktos- eopr^ 
 
 is attested 535, cf. e'xfle's 2,,;g. fiiC'^v is found twelve times, /xeiCov but once. 
 
 (2) Consonants : k for tt is very frequent. Traces of f are scarcely discernible ; 
 
 cf. 252 TO, oIk", but in five other passages the word has no f. The hiatus 
 
 in 4i8 is excused by the caesura. There are many indications of psilosis, 
 
 though these are outnumbered by the occurrences of the rough breathing. 
 
 (While adris is found there is no trace of ovkI. X'^'''PV 776 ^^^ ivravO' 333 have 
 
 . driven out the Ionic forms, crcr holds its own (tt only three times). yA-fixto 
 
 .occurs. 9\rJTai 2ni '"^i^d d\rj 253, 5^^ (?) are not Ionic. (3) Nomi declension: ew 
 
 generally, and -e^ probably everywhere in the genitive of a stems, -ais 
 
 and -ois are certain, thoiigh the longer forms occur. Iota stems have -los, -l. 
 
 1(4^ Pronouns : yuev, crev, t4o ; Tj/jLeoyy, iifx-itav {2.^^') and vixeoiv, fjfj.{as, vfieas as well as 
 
 \rinas and v/xus. The Doric viv is slightly more common than /j.iv. Eeflexive 
 
 ! pronouns in Ionic dress are ffeaivr-fiv 255, ffewuTov 799, favrov 575 (cf. wvttis 6g^^. 
 
 JTlie demonstrative officiates occasionally as the relative. (5) Verbs : eTrotev/j.€(rda 
 
 !4i7, iirv\evv Class. Rev. V 481 no. 3. Pure verbs that contract in Attic are 
 
 I always contracted though the scripHo plena is often found. dpd>pr)Ka 54 &c. and 
 
 [a.K'fiKovKas 5^9 are new forms. olcrOas 25, is the same form that Zenodotos 
 
 regarded as Homeric. (6) Adverbs, &c.: ^v almost always, oTfvveK 520, cf. 
 
 7io3, /j-a ; is is much more common than ds. 
 
 M The following- is a brief statement of the position of the 
 fdialect. For a detailed examination, see the discussion of the 
 ■sounds and inflections of Ionic. 
 
 I 45.] The Vowels. Kdos though frequent in the elegy, is not 
 'found in the iambists. A?/os is attested in Hipponax 88. Sup- 
 iposed Doric forms such as Kcopioes S.A. 15 (cf. Anan. 5^) or 
 IttwAuttoj in S. A. 29 do not vitiate the conclusion that the iambo- 
 igraphers did not mix dialects. See under OT. 
 
 If v6(T0i, found in S. A. 1^3 is correct, it must be classed with 
 voarifxa, &c. 
 
 On opetas in Hipponax 355, see under OT. 
 
 ovvofxa in Simonides of Amorgos 7^.^ savours of the epic 
 
48 THE IONIC DIALECT. [46. 
 
 transformation of the Ionic 6vo}xa. It is probably a misread 
 form. Usually the prosaical is also the poetical form, as 
 witness Arehilochos ' kvaXio^. 
 
 Ionic 1) still occurs in Skythinos 1. 
 
 As to the contraction of vowels the iambic poets speak with 
 no uncertain voice. 
 
 (1) AVhen ^od interv^ened between ae, ao, aco, ee, er] and eet 
 contraction has resulted, even if, as happens in a few cases, the 
 contraction is not visibly expressed; as in Sim. Amorg-. ig 
 where the form SoKe'et must be scanned as an iambus, etw 
 results always in a monophthong" as does eto, though the ortho- 
 graphy varies between eo, with synizesis, and ev, which is perhaps 
 due to the later manner of writing. 
 
 (2) Vowels originally separated by F or a may, but need not, 
 contract, ecrt yields TL in all other cases except Hipponax 11, 
 where Bergk^s reading ayet has an initial d that is not in 
 harmony with the etymology. 
 
 46.] The Consonants. The k equivalents of the Homeric it 
 forms appear at the opening of the seventh century and remain 
 in undisturbed possession. The presence of ottms upon an in- 
 scription from Thasos is no proof, as Wilamowitz opines, of the 
 avoidance by Arehilochos of the k forms. The rough breathing 
 appears intact in the Thasiote Arehilochos (with the exception of 
 but two instances), a fact which seems to bespeak its presence in 
 the Nesiotic Ionic of the seventh century. From the INISS. of 
 Simonides of Amorgos no conclusion can be drawn in reference 
 to the psilosis of the dialect, but Hipponax offers proof that the 
 Ionic of the Asiatic mainland was devoid of the influence of the 
 spiritus asper, save in fixed compounds of preposition with verb. 
 Digamma seems to occur only in ol (Arch. 292 and Sim. Amorg. 
 773), though the number of cases directly opposed to its presence 
 is so overwhelming' that we are compelled to regard ?/ 8e ot and 
 ovhi ol as mere formulae, proving nothing more than similar 
 cases of hiatus in the tragic poets. 
 
 aixixopos in Hipponax seems to be the Epic and Aiolic form. 
 See § 339. 
 
 Movable nu is employed, though sparingly. 
 
 47.] Declension. The dual is extinct. The genitives in -etj) 
 and -euH! are completely established in the beginning of the | 
 seventh century. 
 
 In the dative ])lural instances of -at? and of -ols before con- 
 sonants are rare, if permissible at all. It is by no means certain 
 that (in the few examples which occur) we are not to recognize 
 the instrumental which is obsolescent even in Homer. Scholars 
 
 II 
 
51.] DIALECT OF THE lAMBISTS. 49 
 
 of Nauck's proclivities have not succeeded in ousting- all cases of 
 this form from the epos. To cure Arch. 23 the knife must cut 
 deep. The later Ananios without doubt used -oty. 
 
 -oto is rigorously excluded from iambic poetry. Archilochos 
 I in the eleg-y has a sure case of the archaic form. Hipponax 
 bears witness to the influence of the epos only in his hexameter 
 I irapa 6lv akos arpvyeToio (H54). 
 
 -€<T(rt, in nouns which are non-sigmatic^ is a stranger to all the 
 I iambographers except Ananios. 
 
 48.] Pronouns. The iambographers used nelvos, k^IOl, the 
 ; elegists both the longer and the shorter form. 
 
 49.] Verbs. The presence of the syllabic augment is rigidly 
 
 I enforced. Where the contrary seems to be the case, as Sim. 
 
 Amorg. 745, hyphaeresis must be assumed to have taken place. 
 
 I The temporal augment may be neglected in the case of verbs 
 
 ; whose initial syllable is long by position. The existence of 
 
 parallel forms in -aoi and -ew begins as early as Archilochos, 
 
 though it is not till the New Ionic period that these puzzling 
 
 forms appear in great numbers. The elegy recognizes the 
 
 existence of the -eco form in but one verb (Theog. 169 /xoojuei;- 
 
 ixevos, 369 ixu>[xevvTaL). 
 
 50.] Prepositions, Adverbs, is is the preferred form, av 
 obtains everywhere except in Ananios who has the epic k€. 
 
 51.] The language of the inscriptions alone is not an absolute 
 proof of the Ionic character of a form in question unless the 
 inscription is older than 400 B. c. and contains no form specifically 
 Attic. The language of the iambists, when supported by that of 
 jthe inscriptions, is the surest warrant of the Ionic character 
 of any form, cf. § 92. The differences in inflection between 
 iambic poetry and the literary Ionic of Hekataios, Herodotos, 
 and Hippokrates tend mainly in the direction of the preference of 
 the latter, or more strictly the preference of their MSS., for open 
 forms. In iambic poetry diphthongs are less frequently deprived 
 of their second element, e.(/. in adjectives in -vs, -eta, -v; there 
 is no shifting of surd and aspirate in the dental and guttural 
 series. The poets use both OeXco and (deXoo, while Herodotos 
 ;and Hippokrates seem to have confined themselves to the use of 
 ■the latter. 
 
 I The relative and demonstrative pronouns are not restricted 
 in the use of the poets to the Herodoteian rule. An external 
 difference lies in the fact that the graphical expression of crasis 
 is more frequent in the poets than in the prosaists and the 
 inscriptions. eoiKa seems to have been the usual form of the 
 
 E 
 
 y 
 
50 THE IONIC DIALECT. [53. 
 
 perfect, as it is found in Sim. Amorg'. and Herakleitos, while iL 
 Herodotos uses oIku. Verbs in -aco are just beg-inning- in "• 
 Arehilochos to admit the presence of the parallel form in -eo) 
 which has extended its domain so widely in the New Ionic. | 
 A sharp distinction between Herodotos and the older Ionic 
 might be drawn on the lines of the existence of forms in -ow 
 verbs made upon the model of -eco verbs. But the MSS. of 
 Hdt., which alone contain these formations, have probably been 
 vitiated to a considerable extent by theories as to the preference I 
 of Ionic for eu in all stages of its history. I 
 
 The iambographers agree with the inscriptions in making a . 
 much freer use of the movable n/t than was made, according 
 to the prevalent, but incorrect, theories as to their diction, by 
 the first writers of Ionic prose. See § 340. 
 
 Dialect of Trochaic Toetvy. 
 
 52.] No more surprising example of the extreme delicacy with 
 which the lyric poets interveined one dialect with another, can be 
 discovered than the diction of early trochaic poetry. It is upon 
 the foundation of contemporaneous, native speech, that both 
 elegy and iambic poetry are raised : the elegy, however, permitting 
 a recourse to the language of the epos which is alien to the 
 genius of iambic verse. Midway between the two, in contents 
 and in spirit, stands trochaic poetry. Its dialect too is not 
 exclusively that of the poet^s native speech, but is nevertheless 
 far more deeply rooted to the idiom of the soil than that 
 of the elegy. Homeric forms, even if belonging to another 
 dialect than that of the poet, occasionally force their way in 
 to heighten the pathos of this species of composition. 
 
 Less impetuous than the allied iambic rhythm ^, trochaic verse | 
 under the hands of Arehilochos expresses an elevated moral 
 purpose which bids man contemplate without su^rprise the marvels 
 of his outw^ard life, and hold him steadfast in the shock of 
 calamity. The tone of fr. ^6, 66, 74 recalls the elegiac to 
 Perikles, as well as the ' No care have I of Gyges' golden store.^ 
 When utilized for a less lofty purpose the tetrameter of the 
 inveterate hater may become the vehicle of indirect attack. Yet 
 it never ' bites into the live man's flesh like parchment ' as does 
 the terrible and keen-edged iambic. It rarely descends to the 
 coarseness of the latter rhythm. 
 
 ' Of tlie trochaics it has been said : uxores virilium iamborum non eodem impetu 
 quo iambi incedunt. Hermog. de Id. II 349 calls them yopyorepot Koi KoyoeiSf- 
 ffrepoi and well adapted for use when fTrfiyfaOat 6 \iywv Sokci. 
 
 i 
 
^;^.] DIALECT OF THE ELEGY. 51 
 
 In the Archiloclieian trocliaic tetrameter are found tlie follow- 
 ing' cases of diverg-ence from the dialect of iambic verse : — 
 (i) ALcovvaoi' 77 is the only instance of this elision^ in Ionic, 
 non-Homeric poetry, and the only occurrence of the -oto form 
 in this species of verse, -oto is not found in the iambics of 
 Archilochos, Simonides of Amorgos, or Hipponax. It may be 
 noted that when Anakreon uses -oto it is not in a trochaic 
 fragment, but in an acatalectic iambic dimeter with anapaestic 
 anacrusis. (2) KaT6avov(TL 64 may easily be forced to yield to 
 the form without apocope. Its removal, however, is unwise, since 
 there are not wanting traces of apocope in monuments of the 
 dialect which are free from the suspicion of having been in- 
 fluenced by the epos. At best these traces are very rare. Apocope 
 is confined almost exclusively to Aiolic and Doric. (3) (povijes in 
 59 has been regarded as containing- the Homeric ending, which 
 had disappeared from Ionic by the time of Archilochos. We 
 find however in Samos npu]vi]L, on which see § 5io- (4) Omission 
 of the syllabic augment in y^ is not an Homeric reminiscence. 
 Read ' KLxvcraTo. 
 
 Solon^s tetrameters are couched in pure Attic save [xovvov '^'^f, 
 and Kiv '^o^^,, the latter form being- interesting from the fact that 
 it is the only non-Ionic, but Homeric, form employed in trochaics. 
 ^t?]s in 32.2 is probably an Ionic interloper. 
 
 Lesser trochaic rhythms emploj'ed by Archilochos show the 
 beginning of melic poetry, and are therefore referred to § 62. 
 
 Dialect of the Megy. 
 
 53.] The history of the elegy from the earliest to the Attic 
 period is in great measure the history of the receding of the 
 Homeric forms, notably those of Aiolic tone, before the wave of 
 modernization. As the freedom and mobility of the speech of 
 the Uivina Conimedia, which set the form for the literary language 
 as Homer did for his successors, were to be restrained in the course 
 of time, so the epos was to lose something of its opulence and 
 plasticity as it passed into the hands of the elegists. 
 
 The elegiac poets, whether of Ionic or non-Ionic birth, accept- 
 ing the language of the Homeric epos as the basis of the fabric 
 'of their verse, subject it to two modifications. Either (i) the 
 archaic forms are shaken off, or (2) those peculiar to the poet's 
 home and age are adopted. To the forms which were found 
 alike in Ionic and Aiolic, but were obsolescent at the time of 
 
 ' See Piatt, Class. Rev. II 99, Liigebil Ber genit. Sing. § IV. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE IONIC DIALECT. [53. 
 
 the completion of the IHad and Odyssey (800-650 B.C.), the ( 
 eleg-y, as the voice of the present, displays a varying- degree of | 
 repugnance. Thus the archaic e^eAw/zt has become an im- ^ 
 possibility, of F there is but an echo, -(jn added to nominal stems 
 scarcely survives, -eetv in the second aorist no longer imposes 
 upon our credulity, the open verbal forms are advancing rapidly, 
 by way of synizesis, to the contraction stage. On the other 
 hand the adaptability of -010 still ensures its perpetuation. 
 
 It may be the result of chance, or it may be due to the 
 innovating spirit of the lonians, that in the fragments of the 1 
 elegists not of Ionic birth we find more archaic forms preserved 
 than elsewhere. Thus the suffix -6ev is found only in Tyrtaios 
 and in Theognis, (f)L is preserved by Theognis alone, and the 
 'enclitic' be, found once in Archiloehos (epode 98), occurs in 
 Tyrtaios, Solon, and Theognis. The terminations -m (eOeXija-tv), 
 -a-Oa (e'xeto-^a), and -ixeada [(^ipoiieada) are dead except in 
 Theognis. 
 
 The bond of sympathy between Homer and the elegy is not 
 felt in equal force by the different poets of the elegiac guild. '' 
 Stylistic reminiscences of Homer are more frequent in Kallinos 
 and in Mimnermos than in the elegies of Archiloehos, the 
 Ionian of the lonians. It is the colours of war that are most 
 eagerly transferred from Homer to the canvas of the elegists, 
 and Kallinos and Tyrtaios contain more Homeric reminiscences 
 than any other elegists. Some small part of the sententious 
 wisdom of Solon and Theognis is an echo of that of the bourgeois { 
 Hesiod^. In the adoption of epic reminiscences Theognis and I 
 several of his contemporaries evince a fondness for those of 
 Aiolic structure. 
 
 On the one hand then we have a contraction of the freedom 
 permitted to the diction of the epopee. On the other, the elegists 
 drew from the soil such forms as had not been deemed suitable » 
 in tone to express the splendour and remoteness of the epic. 
 We can thus admit without hesitation the k forms of the 
 Homeric TroVe, ttws, &c., even where the MSS. have -tt-, per- j 
 verted by copyists who had the Attic form in their mind's | 
 eye. The inability of the Ionic to geminate k ensures the I 
 correctness of Kallinos' oTTTrore Kev hi], which has proved a i; 
 stumbling block to Fick's theory that the elegy in the hands 
 of native lonians contained no form not pure Ionic in character. 
 
 ' Wlien Phokylides in his hexameters (3) uses the Doric rerSpccv, he 
 borrows not from the Homeric, but from the Hesiodic epos, which has k^ft 
 its traces in Theognis and Solon. Cf. Works and Days 69S and Kinkel epic 
 frag. No. 2 48 {TfrTop(s). Hesiod, as a rule, was not popular with the lonians 
 of Asia Minor. There is scarcely a trace of an Hesiodic formula in Kallinos 
 or Mimnermos. 
 
 i 
 
56.] DIALECT OF THE ELEGY. ^^ 
 
 Kallinos was not troubled by the thouglit that the form did not 
 belong" to the Ionic element in the Iliad. 
 
 54.] The chief feature in the linguistic character of the 
 eleg"y that permits a line of division to be drawn between 
 the older elegists Kallinos^ Archilochos^ Mimnermos, and 
 Tyrtaios on the one hand, and the later Xenophanes, Phokylides, 
 and Theognis on the other, is the presence of a greater number 
 of Homeric Aiolisms in the latter class. These Aiolisms will 
 be discussed under the head of Aiolic. 
 
 A few noteworthy marks of the Ionic of the elegists are here 
 recorded. 
 
 55.] Vowels. The indubitable Ionic form Arjo? (see § i6o) is 
 unknown to the elegy, despite the fact that it must have existed 
 as early as the Ephesian poet Kallinos. From his time to that 
 of Xenophanes, Aao's was reg-ularly used, if we accept the testimony 
 of the MSS. It is inconceivable that it can have been employed 
 in the sixth century as a living Ionic form ^. The preservation 
 of each archaic word must have its special history. Aao's may 
 have been archaic, as fo//v is, but with more distinctive dialectal 
 colour. Archilochos may have used d in proper names at a time 
 when Ionic rj before vowels had passed or was passing into e. 
 
 56.] Consonants. Xenophanes and Phokylides show no trace 
 of the influence of the spiritus lenis. 
 
 Though Mimnermos probably adopted Kore, kSjs, &e. (whereas 
 Tyrtaios could not adojDt so peculiarly Ionic a phonetic change), 
 yet our MSS. treat both j)oets alike in presenting- only the form 
 with the labial. 
 
 F is practically dead in the elegists of Ionic extraction. In Mimn. 
 2ip Bergk writes aKkore oIkos, where the hiatus can be explained on 
 the same view as Solon^s aAAore aAAo? and Archilochos^ 'EvvaKioio 
 avaKTos. On Mimn. Xva ol I Sg , Xenophanes^ o ol 2^ (which recall 
 (f) g), see § 389. k^-qKovraerii Mimn. 63 is a prose as well as 
 :a poetical form. Tyrtaios has, in comparison with Kallinos and 
 Mimnermos, more traces of the labial spirant, while in Theog-nis 
 the retention of the F was facilitated by the speech of his ung-ratef ul 
 fatherland. 
 
 Assimilation of the final consonant of a preposition which has 
 
 [suffered apocope occurs but rarely (Arch. 6^, Mimn. 12.,, 144) and 
 
 savours of Aiolic, thoug-h evidence from prose may be adduced 
 
 in support of its Ionic character. Tyrt. ii^g may be epic or 
 
 .Doric. 
 
 f * Fick's explanation of the presence of \a6s in Homer is that the Ionization 
 of the poems did not take place until about 540 e.g. when ArjJs was anti- 
 
 ■ quated. With this view I do not agree, nor with that of Monro, H. G. p. 390. 
 See Aiolic, § loff. 
 
54 THE IONIC DIALECT. [57. 
 
 57.] Declension. Ionic -eoj and -emv are to be read with 
 synizesis, -oto occurs twice in the eleg'ies of Archilochos^ four 
 times in Mimnermos and in Tyrtaios, -ats and -ols are not to be 
 removed from Tyrtaios and Theognis. Their expulsion from 
 the Ionic elegists can be accomplished only with g-reat diffi- 
 culties. 
 
 The inflection of tto'Ais shows forms of various ages. Xenoph. 
 2g has TToXeoos, Tyrtaios irok-q'i iSjg but Tro'Aet 4^0? Theog-nis 
 ttoAtjos 757 but TToAeo? ^6. Archilochos has the old Ionic 
 vrjos. Kallinos preserves the old form of -qv stems in 'Ho-toi^T/aj, 
 which has its parallel in (fyovrjes Arch. tetr. 59. Tyrtaios and 
 Theognis admit the r] forms more freely. Phokyl. i^ professes 
 to have IIpoKkiovs, an impossible Ionic form, epo)?, which is 
 stamped as Ionic by Archilochos (ep. 103), is also Theognideian. 
 
 58.] Pronouns, a-avrov is read Mimn. 73, though Bekker^s 
 0-' avTov shows that the critic could not reconcile himself to so 
 early an appearance of the pronoun. aavTov Theog. 795 is 
 generally declared to be Attic, while for ijiavrov Xenoph., which 
 Bergk (II p. 116) retains, Schneidewin proposed eixeoovrov. 
 
 59.] Vowel combinations are contracted in the elegy with 
 almost as much freedom as in iambic or trochaic poetry. An 
 -eet from -e<JO verbs is unknown, rekecov Mimn. 1I3, Kkoviovra 
 143, Xenophanes KaXiovaiv 25 and hoKiovai Phokyl. 9, are the 
 only examples of vowels uncontracted in verbs upon the dis- 
 appearance oi yod. Forms from adjectives in -aAeos which occur t 
 only in the elegists, likewise remain open. y]k\ios is not displaced | 
 by the prose form. Contraction is not imperative upon the loss i 
 of f or 0-. 
 
 60.] Particles, av is regularly employed by the lonians, . 
 except in a single instance when Kallinos uses Kiv. In the \ 
 latter part of the sixth century (Theognis) Kiv is more frequently \ 
 employed. 
 
 The second book of the Theognideian collection contains many 
 forms which must be allowed to stand, though inconsistent with 
 those that are usual in the earlier portion. So too in all portions 
 which can be shown to be the result of later imitation, Attic 
 forms must be allowed a place. This may excuse svich forms as 
 ei 456, but is chiefly applicable to the contraction of e + to 01; 
 which occurs in the Alexandrine elegy in conjunction with the 
 Ionic ev. The correctness of some Doric forms is not to be 
 impeached because of the adoption of a Doric element by the 
 later elegists. Until it is accurately determined what portions 
 of Theognis are ancient, what of quite recent date, his text is an 
 insufficient criterion in cases where a just doubt may arise as to 
 whether or not a given form is contemporary Ionic. 
 
6 I.J THE IONIC ELEMENT IN SOLON. ^^ 
 
 The Ionic Mement in Solon. 
 
 61.] In Archiloclios no great interval in tone separates the 
 iambic from the elegiac fragments. In Solon, too, the spirit of 
 the elegiacs is not appreciably different from that of the iambic 
 trimeters and tetrameters. Perhaps a greater measure of 
 objectivity is discernible in the former than in the latter species 
 of the lyric art as cultivated by the Athenian lawgiver. In the 
 domain of language, however, each form of composition is 
 j subject to its own conditions. 
 
 i The iambics are composed in the pure dialect of the first half 
 
 ' ' of the sixth century. The pathos of the yXuxra-av ovk4t' 'Attiki]v 
 
 Uvra^ (3^9) echoes the spirit of the Athenian, to whom the 
 
 ; adoption of an un- Attic idiom was not easy; a fact attested 
 
 [ by the language of the epigrams discovered upon Attic soil 
 
 I which almost without exception adopt the contemporary Attic 
 
 form. Cf. §§ 72, 75, 2, 189. 
 
 The fragments of the oldest Attic elegy as represented by 
 
 Solon, and in fact the remains of the entire Attic elegy to the 
 
 time of Kritias, have been handed down in a form whose 
 
 correctness, so far as the interrelation of the Attic d pnrum 
 
 and the Ionic rj is concerned, has been disputed, notably by 
 
 \ Kirchhoff ^. The form of the Soloneian elegy as presented by 
 
 I the MSS. is practically that of the later epigrams, which do not 
 
 i scruple to use, now the Attic a, now the Ionic t] ^. Kirchhoff 
 
 contends that an Attic elegy with d jmrnm, or an Attic elegy 
 
 with Tj throughout, would be conceivable ; that we could not take 
 
 umbrage even at a mixture of Attic and Ionic, provided there 
 
 ' were discernible some law governing the interrelation of the 
 
 two dialects ; but that an arbitraiy procedure which permits now 
 
 d jnirum, now Ionic rj in the same word, is, in the light of the 
 
 1 evidence afforded by the contemporary elegiac fragments upon 
 
 ' inscriptions, utterly inconceivable. 
 
 In § 72 it is shown that the language of the Attic elegy in 
 the inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries is, as far as the 
 use of d purum is concerned, pure Attic without a single trace of 
 ; the Ionic tj. The evidence of the stone records contemporary 
 I with, or subsequent to, Solon speaks therefore with no uncertain 
 1 voice in favour of the view that would expel all cases of Ionic 7j 
 I from the text of the ancient lawgiver. In confirmation of this 
 i opinion may be adduced the fact that the MSS. of Solon have 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ' ^ Zvr GeschicMe d. atiischen Epigramms in Hermes V 48 ff. 
 
 ^ Wagner, Quaestiones de epigrammatis, p. 25. 
 
r,6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [6l. 
 
 passed tliroug-h the hands of scribes who substituted Ionic for 
 Attic forms. In XIII 46 there is no other reading- than the 
 hyper-Ionic ovheixiiiv. Similar forms have been drag-g-ed into 
 the text of the philosophers (cf. Anaxagoras, 4). "With all his 
 dependence upon the diction of Homer, it must therefore be held 
 that all cases of purely Ionic 7] must be expelled from Solon^s 
 text. 
 
 On the other hand the inscriptional evidence does not support 
 the contention of those scholars ^ who would find in the early 
 Athenian elegy nothing but contemporary Attic forms ; as it 
 disproves Kirehhof£''s view that the Old Attic epigrams contain 
 nothing but Attic forms, the Ionic epigrams nothing but pure 
 Ionic, and that a mixture of Attic and Ionic is unknown 
 in the earliest period. Kovpr] we find in C. I. A. I 469 (§ 75, 2), 
 eiVeKa in conjunction with yev^as C. I, A. IV 477 E (§ 78), 
 'At8ao C. I. A. I 481, a-no\(^dip.€Voio C. I. A. IV 477 C, tiotL 
 C. I. A. I 466, This admixture of the Attic and Homeric 
 dialect which we meet in the sixth century B.C. is the forerunner 
 of that constant juxtaposition of Attic and Ionic which exists 
 in the epigrams of the latest period. With 4>paa-iKA.eta9, Kovpi] in 
 C. I. A. I 469, cf. Av/ceta?, KoviJi]v Kaibel 152. KirchhofE indeed 
 holds 2 that Kovpi] is an Attic form, the "^ survival of older phonetic 
 conditions of the Attic idiom.' Even Kretschmer, who contends^ 
 that Aioa-KovpoL is genuine Attic, does not venture the assertion 
 that this ov is Attic save in compounds in which the accent 
 preceded the syllable containing the diphthong. 
 
 If the Attic elegy, as it found expression among the common 
 people in funereal monuments, did not refuse to own at least 
 a partial allegiance to the epic, it is the more improbable that, 
 in its literary form under the hands of Solon, it should have cast 
 oft' all forms not of Attic colouring, d-nqxevai has, indeed, long 
 ago retired before the dirdv poL of Aristotle ; e/x/xei^at may only 
 occur in a spurious verse : but all efforts to disturb ij-yepLovea-aiv 
 must be fruitless in the face of the fact that this form comes 
 to light in the elegy upon the deeds of Kimon preserved by 
 Plutarch [Kimon 7). 
 
 In general it may be said of the dialect of Solon that it goes 
 along with that of his Ionic predecessors or contemporaries. 
 Open -eo) has ceased to exist in verbal and substantival forms, 
 -eoj or -co being substituted therefor; Ionic -eu is found four, and 
 Attic -ov three, times in the elegies. Verbs in aco, eco, oco are 
 always contracted. Upon the disappearance of intervocalic o- 
 contraction results almost invariably. Solon has UaiGtvos 1357, 
 
 ' Notably Fick, B. B. XIV 252. 
 
 ' Hermes, V 54. ' 3 j^ z., XXXI 4-p. 
 
, 6^.] lONISMS OF MELIC POETRY. 57 
 
 t wliereas Archiloclios liacl Trau]ova, but there are cases where 
 
 ■ vowels orio-inally separated by F are kept apart. Traces of 
 initial r do not exist. The Ionic form in a-cr seems to have 
 
 ■ forced its way in^ to the entire exclusion of the native tt. 
 Apocope of avd occurs once (112)- -oio is found but twice, 
 while -oLs and -at? are so rare that their existence has been 
 
 i denied. Wherever there is a variation in the MSS. between 
 ! Attic and Ionic forms the former should be adopted. 
 On S clones trochaics, see § 52. 
 
 lotiisms of Melic Poetry. 
 
 62.] Archilochos (Epodes). Forms not in consonance with 
 the native dialect of the poet are: KopTf]^ 120 (iobacchics), oploiv 
 115, a fragment of like metre with 114, if the final syllable of 
 hva-nanrakovs be^ regarded as anceps. In 114 (asynartetic. 
 dactylic tetrapody + itliyph alliens) we find kim, a case of omitted 
 augment which is not analogous to KLxnaaTo 73 and -noTaro 186, 
 ; where hyphaeresis may account for the unusual form. The 
 ■ hiatus in /) hi ol 97 recalls that of 29 (iambic), and is ]5robably 
 stereotyped. 
 
 Of the lesser trochaic rhythms ^ Archilochos manifests a pre- 
 ference for the ithyphallicus both in conjunction with the dactylic 
 tetrapody, as in IJ4 and J15, and also when the paroemiacus 
 precedes, as in 79, a fragment containing XaptKae. 
 
 The trochaic tripody installed itself early in favour w^ith the 
 purely melic poets. Sappho united two ithyphallics to form 
 a single verse, Anakreon employed the tripody after an iambic 
 dimeter. Whether the Hail to the Chief of Archilochos (119) 
 j contains a catalectic trochaic tetrapody is doubtful. The 
 occurrence of the form 'lo'Aao? (in the iambic trimeter) is at 
 least worthy of note. Aao's does not appear in the pure iambics 
 
 , of Archilochos. 
 
 I 
 
 63.] Anakreon. The dialect of Anakreon is the Ionic ^ of his 
 time with an admixture of Aiolisms (see under Melic Aiolisms) 
 sufficient to indicate the debt his genius owed to the Lesbian 
 
 j school. These Aiolisms are not rigorously confined to the metres 
 inherited by the Teian bard from his Mitylenaian predecessors. 
 Dorisms, though found in the fragments handed down by 
 Hephaistion, held to exist by Eustathios (1862^ J and suggested 
 
 : by Bergk in his emendations, are totally foreign to the atmo- 
 
 ' On the tetrameter, see § 52. 
 
 * i-ypvi/iv kK^-^ila. koX ldfj.^ovs, 'idSi iravra SioKfKTif), Suidas. 
 
58 THE IONIC DIALECT. [64. 
 
 sphere of the poet. The following- lonisms attest the character 
 of his languag'e : k for tt in kov, kco, (o-Karopas ig, (ttlo-tlov 90^. 
 Kudobos 43g is not a proof of the presence of the initial asper in 
 the sixth century. oxdvoLo in 91 is the only example of the 
 archaic ending" in the Ionic melos ^ ; n^ejuez/at in the same 
 fragment is another example of the persistence of the Homeric 
 form (though both might be classed with the Aiolisms). Another 
 older form is Uoa-tbrficov 6. The shorter forms -ais and -ocs {e.g. 
 24, 64j,) cannot be conjectured out of existence. Anakreon is of 
 great importance for the study of the supposed fondness of Ionic 
 for open vowels. In vocalic contraction Anakreon followed his 
 predecessors in the treatment of vowels originally separated by 
 yod. (f)i\e€L Jo, boKe^LS "/ S-i written with scriptio plena are due to 
 Hephaistion and Heraklides Pontikos respectively. When F or u 
 intervened, Anakreon adopted the open or the contracted form. 
 In a considerable number of instances the uncontracted forms 
 appear in the MSS. despite the necessity of contraction or at 
 least synizesis. Forms that are certainly open are rare, e.g. 
 QpifCKU]^ 96 eleg-. (but cf. 49, 75), ird'Cs 21,,. In 45 we even , 
 find qbco (cf. 65), and in 633 iyxi^ ' Initial F is extinct, i 
 The genitives in -eco and -eoov are monosyllabic. The expulsion ; 
 of the second element of the diphthongs et and ol occurs chiefly : 
 in Anakreon and Hipponax, and reminds us of the approach of ij 
 the later prose usag-e. Crasis is not often expressed graphically 
 
 (83,2i,,88,cf.44G)- ; 
 
 27/e lo7iic Element in tJie Epigram and in Melic Eoetry [Alkman, 
 Stesic/ioros, Ihykos, Simonides, Pindar, Bacchylides). 
 
 64.] The nature of the mixed dialect adopted by Alkman, 
 Stesichoros, Ibykos, Simonides of Keos, Pindar, Bacchylides, &c., 
 who made use of Doric, Aiolic and Ionic, will be discussed in 
 a later volume of this w^ork in the chapter treating- of the 
 mixture of dialects in the earlier choral poetry and in the later 
 universal melic. 
 
 The lonisms which constituted a portion of the poetical 
 apparatus of choral poetry, are drawn chiefly from the Homeric, 
 less frequently from the Hesiodic epos. 
 
 Regard to the virtue of each of the component parts ^ of the 
 melic art dictated the presence of epic forms in varying- degree. 
 
 * This fragment is the only example of an acatal. iamb, dimeter with an 
 anapaestic anacrusis. 
 
 Phito, Rep. Ill 3q8 D : t6 fxe\os eV Tpicov fffrl avyKelfjLivov, \6yov re (cal 
 apfiovias Kal f)v6fj.ov. 
 
6j.] IONIC ELEMENT IN EPIGRAM AND MELIC POETRY. 59 
 
 When the substructure of the poem is Ionic and we find super- 
 imposed both Doric and Aiolic^ Doric is the heavier, Aiolic the 
 hghter element. When Doric lies at the base, the purely Ionic 
 framework is more noticeable than the Aiolic. 
 
 65.] Forms of distinctly Ionic colouring are exceedingly rare 
 in Alkman. In fr. 30 the MS. has yovvaTa for which ycavaTa is 
 to be written with Hiller; so Dor. bcopi for bovpC fr. 68. In 
 etapos 26, rpei? ^6, opvets 28, ayetrat (-?)rat Schneid.) 93, the et 
 is lonic; as is the case in djxiva 97 (Hiller rjixeva). The et of 
 etTTore 47, ^6 B is pan-Hellenic. 
 
 66.] In the following" sections are examined the occurrences of 
 the purely Ionic forms in the melic poets, Stesichoros, Ibykos, 
 Pindar, Simonides, and Bacchylides. In the case of the epigrams 
 of Simonides the occurrences of a are noticed. Since a regis- 
 tration of such Homeric forms as are not absolutely Ionic is not 
 attempted, all Aiolo-Ionic forms are excluded. 
 
 In order not to break the light thrown upon the dialect of the 
 different varieties of lyric verse eidtivated by Simonides, the 
 epigram has been noticed here rather than in conjunction with 
 the elegy (see § 5^ ff.). 
 
 67.] The epigram was originally completely local in colouring 
 and not restricted to the elegiac distich as a vehicle of expression. 
 In the oldest monuments we find the hexameter ^, a metre which 
 still proved serviceable after the distich had long been in vogue. 
 Homer indeed was styled the first epigrammatist on the strength 
 of H 89— 
 
 avbpbs [xkv Tobe aijixa 7raA.at KaTaTeOvrjcaTOs, 
 ov TTOT apicmvovja KareKxave </)at8t/jios ' FiKToop. 
 
 Epigraphical monuments of the seventh century such as the 
 Korkyraian inscriptions in honour of Polynovas, Menekrates, 
 Arniadas (C. D. I. 3186, 3188, 3189) are composed in hexa- 
 meters, but in the Korinthian dialect. Attic epigrams in 
 hexametrical form are to be found C. I. A. I 468, cf. 465, 476, 
 
 478. 
 
 One of the earliest Doric epigrams in the distich form — 
 
 ei ]U7/ eycoy ociva^ TTay)(^pv(Te6s et/xt Ko\o(r(rbs 
 e^wA?]? eirj Kv\jf€X.Lbav yeved 
 
 ^ Cf. licit. V 59, Plato, Laws XII 958 E. Epigrams in iambic or trochaic 
 metre are rare in all periods. 
 
6o • THE IONIC DIALECT. [6f^ 
 
 M^as designed for the colossus of Zeus, consecrated by Kypselc 
 not long- after 01. 33 ^ An early epig-ram in Boiotian is founi 
 in I, G. A. 146. 
 
 If the epigram was originally couched in the dialect of tl 
 person in whose honour it was composed, the rise of the eleg-iac^ 
 distich^ as the instrument for the expression of grief or oj 
 sententious thought, changed in course of time its linguistic 
 framework. Instead of representing a purely local idiom in its 
 literary form, the epigram often accepts the Ionic of the elegy; 
 as an ingredient. Antiquated terminations such as -crOa, -jxecrOa} 
 -dev, -(()LV are rejected, though -oto is retained from the fact that 
 it is well adapted to come immediately before the first caesura, 
 and at the end of the verse. 
 
 With Simonides the epigram widens its horizon, does not: 
 disdain ornament, and admits Doric and Attic forms as a: 
 constituent part of a diction that is not a local, but an epic,i 
 Ionic. Some portions of Ionic territory such as Chios, where no 
 trace of an admixture of Doric may be discovered, have yielded' 
 epigrams containing a slight infusion of Doric forms. The 
 Athenian epigram, however, displays a repugnance to forms- 
 alien to Attic. This consciousness of the duty to the mother! 
 tongue finds expression as early as Solon {yXdacrav {ykStTrav ?) 
 ovK^T 'ArrtK?/!' tei-ra?). Epigrams that have come to light upon 
 the soil of Attika generally contain nothing that is not pure 
 Attic. But when a Dorian or an Ionian caused a monument; 
 to be erected in Attika in memory of a fellow countryman,! 
 we observe the introduction of Doric or Ionic forms. So in' 
 Simonides Dorisms or Atticisms are admissible in case Dorians, 
 or inhabitants of Attika are the cynosure of the poet^s eye.; 
 These Dorisms must not be too remote, that is, specifically 
 local in tone. 
 
 In the course of time, as the individuality of dialect life 
 disappeared, the strictness of the principles regulating the diction 
 of the ancient ejjigram relaxed. In late inscriptional epigrams 
 from Attika we find Ionic and Attic forms commingling, much 
 in the same manner as in the INISS. of the old-time e})igram- 
 matists, whose texts have suffered no little depravation from 
 the hand of time. A -naihdai koI ao(^ir]i is not an unusual 
 occurrence. Even when the general frame-work is Attic or 
 Doric, Ionic forms continue to appear. Nor are these lonisms 
 restricted, as might be expected, to those enfranchised by the 
 Homeric poems. The New Ionic occasionally makes itself 
 heard. Errors of the stone cutters in the direction of the 
 insertion of familiar forms become more and more frequent as 
 
 » Bergk Gr. Lit.-Gesch. II 174. 2 ^f Mackail, Anthology, p. 5. 
 
68.] IONIC ELEMENT IN EPIGRAM AND MELIC POETRY. 6l 
 
 time advances. The poet even ventures upon dialect collocations 
 which would have been avoided at an earlier date. In an 
 execrable eleg-y commemorating' the exploits of a Megarian in 
 the Korinthian war^ the Doric is contaminated by 'AOi'jvas 
 (which is pardonable enough), and by 8?///coi. We also meet with 
 a Doric epigram in honour of an Ionian, whose name, however, 
 still retains its Ionic stamp. In the epigrams of peoples who 
 once spoke Ionic the admixture of Ionic forms is not more 
 surprising than in those monuments which commemorate Dorians. 
 Dialect epigrams became a matter of personal predilection de- 
 pendent more or less upon the skill and taste of the local poet. 
 
 The investigation of the epigram at the period of its highest 
 
 artistic excellence is beset with the difficulty that there has 
 
 been fathered upon Simonides no inconsiderable number of 
 
 creations of a later date (Bergk 178-188), whose spuriousness is 
 
 not always easy to demonstrate. Junghahn^s ^ criterion of the 
 
 : use of o8e and ovtos is here of no avail. The possibility of 
 
 I deception was rendered comparatively easy in the case of the 
 
 i epigrammatists because it was not till late, as we learn from 
 
 ! inscriptions ^, that the artist affixed his name to his work as 
 
 a mark of its genuineness. The fragments of the lyric poets 
 
 i were collected without critical examination at a tolerably early 
 
 date, and Alexandrian and later learning was impatient of the 
 
 • confession that it could not discover the author of an epigram 
 
 that professed to have been handed down from the golden age of 
 
 lyric poetry. The result was that to Archilochos, Pisander, 
 
 i Sappho, Erinna, Anakreon, and especially Simonides, much has 
 
 i been attributed that is the product of mendacious art or scholastic 
 
 exercise. 
 
 ' 68.] Ionic H^. The choric poets agree in using u for the Ionic 
 7] in all passages except those mentioned below, where the reading 
 of the chief MSS. is stated ; but pan- Hellenic rj is not changed 
 to d. 
 
 (i) In the terminations of the first declension. Exceptions are 
 i rare, e.g. Sim. 46, 60, 66, 76; Bacch. 131, 24, 26, 27^, 39; 
 Stesich. 264, Pind. P. V 67. In several of these passages there 
 is MS. authority for the d form, as also in Ibyk. 20. 
 
 In the epigrams composed in honour of Dorians d is to be 
 
 ^ Qiiaestiones de Shnonidis Cei epigrammatis (fourth Jahresbericht iiber das 
 Luisenstadtische Gymnasium zu Berlin, 1869). 
 
 ^ The source of an epigram may be indicated in inscriptions by other 
 means. In Hicks 1 1 we have a late restoration of an epigram by Simonides, 
 whose name appears in the introduction. 
 
 ^ See Mucke De dialectis Stesichori, Ibyci, Simonidis, Bacchylidis aliorumqne 
 poetarvm citoricorum cum Pindarica comparalis. Schaumberg Quaestiones de dialedo 
 Sim. Cei, Bacch., Ibyci; Peter Be dialecto Pindari. See Aiolio, § 100. 
 
 '^ OKTHE ■ 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 -. OF 
 
62 THE IONIC DIALECT. [68. 
 
 accepted, ejj. Sim. 99, 103, 141, 160 where Ionic and Doric stand 
 side by side accordin^^ to the editions. The tendency to adopt 
 epic instead of Doric forms is seen in 13H, an epigram quoted by 
 Thukydides, Demosthenes, Plutarch, and by Suidas with the 
 Ionic 'EAA7;rcot' ap-fir^yo'i, fj-vrjix, though the historian expressly 
 says that the words were inscriljed by order of Pausanias. 
 iin:op'n]v in 1 27 must yield to ^\x-nopiav since yevidv precedes. 
 The MSS. vary in the case of Nos. 105, 115, 116, 141. 
 Conversely Doric forms have MS. authority when no reason 
 appears to exist for their presence {e.g. 89, 108). 
 
 (2) In forms derived from verbs with stems in -a or from 
 
 nouns of the A declension. Exceptions are 0^7/0-1710X15 Sim. 53 
 
 [wvaaa ^5)^ '^^"^f) Bii'Cch. o^^) (cf- e0ct), dvrjTwv Sim. 71, Bacch. 3 
 
 and diniTols Bacch. 9, 36. 6vaT6<i is frequently attested. aS/xares 
 
 Bacch. 34, the conjecture of Bergk, must be adopted in place 
 
 of Clem. Alex, and Eusebios'' a8ju.?'/re? [6e6bix-)]Tos in a few 
 
 MSS. Pind. 01. Ill 7, elsewhere -gjtxaros-). In Sim. epig. 141,; 
 
 we have viKi]<Tavra and aly\i]evTa 177 (hexam.); elsewhere the t/ | 
 
 forms except [xvaixara I34.>, pLvaix 138.2. ( 
 
 i 
 
 Pindar has (pdoyaas 01. XIII 67 &c., ^SivdOrtv P. XI 38 {B has 7j\ aiKvUvaros | 
 Isth. V 6, ireTTova/j.fvou P. IX 93, irovaOf^ 01. VI 11, the first and last verbs 
 having n forms elsewhere. Boeckh's (piXdcravT N. VII 88 and (piXaa N. V , 
 44 have but poor support ; anovoffTaaavros N. VI. 50 ; vfivaffai in all MSS. | 
 Isth. Ill 7. j 
 
 (3) In the augment of verbs whose initial vowel is a. 
 Sim. ijp^aTo 46 has long ago been corrected in the light of | 
 aXXovTo 4O0. For apdrj 1 6 the MSS. have rjepOy]. In the I 
 epigrams Sim. has r] {e.g. ijpdr] 11I4). Pind. P. IV 119 has ' 
 Trpoarjvha, 
 
 (4) Forms with radical a. S. has airpaKTos 5,^, 39, Bacch. j 
 a-pciKT 20, Pindar Trpafts &c., but airprjKTMv Isthm. VIII 8, 
 which is defended by Boeckh on grounds that fail to produce 
 conviction. Pindar has furthermore tj in cnh]plTav N. V 19. 
 riavyjia is the better attested reading in six passages, despite the 
 existence of aav^ipiov 01. II 32, aavx^t-ov P. IX 22. ^\rr]ixo(TVvas 
 is supported by a consensus of all MSS. N. VII 15, and arriXa 
 by the testimony of some in 01. Ill 44. Elsewhere 7/ is found 
 only in proper names in Pindar : — Ztj^i fifteen times, Z^]v6s four 
 times, Z?>a P. IV 194, IX 64 ; QpifcKLMi' P. IV 205 ; "Aa-Kki^mov 
 N. Ill 54 is condoned by Peter for the strange reason that the 
 ode has an Aiolic colouring {'Ao-K/\a- is Aiolic) ; an argument 
 put forward by Hermann and Boeckh in defence of TroAi'judAo) 
 01. I 12, which Gildersleeve regards as = TroAvKapTrw. p.T]kov 
 sheep has 7) invariably in Pindar. 
 
; 68.] IONIC ELEMENT IN EPIGRAM AND MELIC POETRY. 63 
 
 Simonides 79 with ijbvixos brings up the question of the origin 
 of the word and its relation to i'?/6umo? (see Leaf on B 2). In 
 4I2; 71 and 74 S. has d. In the following words ?/ occurs: — 
 aixi]x^avos 5n ? ^^- 43^ ^jfiaTa 1 2, ijjjiepoipcoi'os 80 B, arjKOi 4(. , 
 I KAj7ts 23, rikidios 5.5- Oil ovrjaLTTokis ^^, &c. see above (2). In 
 57^ (TToAas^ not orr/Aa?, is correct. In his epigrams S. has a, as 
 in rieAoTTOz'i'acrou 9I2 (v. I. rj), va(ro9 96^, bajxio l55io' ^^M^ 126, 
 Kapv(rcr€t l82g (spurious?). 
 
 In a trochaic fragment (28) Bacchylides has yjbvs, which is 
 Attic rather than epic. In 24 we find -nrjxvv, in 9 Zr]vi. 
 
 Ibykos offers ©pyfLKios 1, ktittos J, TreTri/yws' 21. 
 
 Stesichoros vrjvaiv 32, ajxiqyava 51 (as Epicharmos and Theo- 
 kritos) with which cf . S. 5^^, 43. Pindar has uniformly aixa^avos. 
 1 Furthermore K?/8ea ^o, rjXilSaros 83. 
 
 ' (5) In compounds whose prior member ends in usually. 
 aT€(f)ain]c()6pov (Bergk, P. L. G. Ill 734, 1. 7) was formerly at- 
 tributed to Pindar^ whereas the correct form appears 01. VIII 10. 
 In P. XI 8 6pi]yepia or -yvpia, despite 6p.ayvpiv Isth. VII 46. 
 
 (6) Feminines in -am. Pindar^s ' A\Kixr\va [e.g. 01. VII 27) 
 led Schneidewin to correct 'AA/c/xaya? Sim. 8. eipdva (Lj/sisfr. 
 1081) should not cause any confusion as to the Doric character 
 of the form dp-qva, attested by Alkman and containing a pan- 
 Hellenic 1]. dpava seems to be due to the influence of aeXava, 
 yaXava. In Piridar we have dprira in almost all MSS. 01. XIII 
 7, P. IX. 23, N. I 69 (dpdvav in the pseudo-Pind. adesp. 140). 
 
 j dprji'ri in Bacch. 13^, needs only the slight change to dpr]va and 
 
 I not Boeckh^s more caustic remedy Pindar has both 'AOdva 
 
 I {e.g. 01. XIII 82) and 'AOiwaia^ (01. VII 36) and Sim. in his 
 
 I epigrams has ^Adava's 151 ^ and 'A^rji'auj? 1432- Compare the use 
 
 in tragedy. If any change is necessary in Sim. 15I; I should 
 
 prefer 'A6i]vas to Bergk^s 'A9rivTf]s. This contracted form occurs 
 
 in Attic as early as the sixth century. ^ AQ-qvri is a rare form, if 
 
 ' it exists at all, upon old inscriptions. An instance is found 
 
 1 Roberts I. No. 26, but at all events is too doubtful to permit us 
 
 to assume that this form was a part of the poet^s apparatus. 
 
 . Sim. has "E,\XdvMv 108^ and 138 (epigr.) as Pindar, e.g. P. I 49, 
 
 and Timokr. 2 "EAAai'as. Pindar has dnijva 01. V 3, Troraro'i 
 
 often, but ttottjvos P. V 114 (Peter proposes TreTijvos or Treretz-'ds) ; 
 
 MvK7]vav in P. IV 49 is strange. 
 
 (7) Suffix in -70? = Ionic -rrj?. Bacchyl. 42 af^poniTi, where 
 the Doric form is intentionally excluded by the choice of rhythm 
 and tone of the fragment. Pindar has -tut- invariably. 
 
 * Peter thinks the n of 'AOrjvaia was retained from the epic from a reveren- 
 tial regard for proper names. Cp. the treatment of 'HpaKArjs in Boiotian and 
 Thessalian. Most editors read 'Adavaia in 01. VII 36, N. X 84. 
 
64 THE IONIC DIALECT. [6^ 
 
 (8) Other suffixes: 'Idanja-Los in Baeeliyl. 38; Kav)(i]ixa Istl 
 
 (9) Ionic T)pi = Done d/x = Aiolic ay-jx, < aa-jx. Ibykos i^ hs 
 rj[X€T€pa^ which was corrected by Hermann. Bacchylides 11 ha 
 afxerepov. 
 
 (10) In isolated words (radical syllables) : Ibyk, 22 has r?/pirJ 
 in the MS. which was chang-ed by Boeckh to avrjpiTav. Berg 
 reads avapirav. In lb. i^ pL-qkibes (despite [xaXov Stes. 29, lb. 6) ha 
 been corrected by Hiller. ■n^viko-^ Stes. 91 (schol. Aves 1302). 
 
 irpaTov in Sim. 182 (probably spurious). 
 
 69.] Other lonisms. (i) Cases of the adulterine diphthong; 
 et are as follows. 
 
 Pindar : dvakios except P. IV 39 where hdkios occurs, aXeyet! 
 vo^, epareivos, TToOeivo^, crKoretro's, Kk€iv6s eleven times (elsewher'j 
 Kkeevvos three times, cf. Kekabevvos, (Paevvos), Kdvo^ 01. Ill 4^ 
 and Keveos. In the case of Kekabewos and (pacLvos Homer use> 
 the Ionic forms without exception. 
 
 The inf. in -€iv occurs besides that in -jxev and in -€v ; dp-iv P 
 III 60. 
 
 Stesichoros: Kkeiva.'i ^, )(ftpo/3pcos 4, KkaUiv ^1. 
 
 Simonides : iroOeLros yig (also in Likymn. 4), elapi,v6s 572, 73' 
 (Pind. ripLvos P. IX 46); xelpas 8,, xeipwv 17 {x^pa 374, X(p(Ti, 
 5.2). In the epigrams Sim. has xtipa 141^, x^'po's 1363, x^V"' 
 yoj^, 115]); dpoTTokcoi 235 (Bei'g'k olpi-nokioi). fe 12 'oj occurs onb' 
 in the epigrams and elegies: Eeivoipikov 1473, ^eivoboKutv 841 
 and as v. 1. in g6, 92,; KkeLvolo epigr. 941 (Kkeevvov ep. 12O3; 
 KkeeLvov by conjecture), et also in dpiL ep. 152^. j 
 
 Bacchylides : iKvdcrOat 33. 
 
 (2) The adulterine ov and ov due to metrical lengthening occur 
 as follows : — 
 
 Pindar: OikvpLiro^ 01. Ill 36, XIII 92, P. IV 214, N. J 
 84, Is. IV ^^, frag. 3O4 ; Ovkvp-irioi'tKas 01. IV g, Ovkvp-TTu. 
 01. Ill 15, V 2, N. IV 75. Elsewhere "Okvinros, 'Okvp.Tn.as 
 
 Okvp.TTlO's'. 
 
 piovvos p. IV 227, IX 27, Is. V 12, elsewdiere pLovos ; vova-os P 
 III 7, IV 293, elsewhere t'o'o-os; Koi3po? Kovpa throughout ; hovparo^. 
 P. IV 38, bovpi 01. VI 17, N. IX 26; yovvaa-LV Is. II 26; ovpe 
 Is. VI 32, ovp(<n P. VI 21 j ovk6p.(vov P. X 41, -av P. IV 293 
 frag. IO'J■^^; juoixruas 01. I 15, elsewhere Motcra ; 'Ape6ov(rav P 
 III 69. -ovaa in the participle is found in all MSS. 01. VII 48 
 P. IX 23, Is. VIII 25 ; in P. VIII 4, 01. 1 31 some MSS. have 
 -oLora, others -ovrra ; -otaa elsewhere. Pindar uses either -oiai. 
 or -ovTL, as verbal terminations. 
 
 Stesichoros : KkeCovaa ;25 ; Mowo-a ^iSi 44 ) xovpa 1 8, 35, Kovpt- 
 biav 8 ; p.ovvos 26. 
 
, 70.] NATURE OF THE lONISMS OF UNIVERSAL MELIC. 65 
 
 Ibykos : Kovpa i ^, and 9 by conjecture (Kopa 45, Kopov^ 1 6 for 
 Kovp- o£ the MSS.^ according- to Dindorf). daXidoiai occurs in 
 
 I Simonides : bovpari 37^, Sovpt 53i ^ ovpeias 18^; KoCpot ep. loS^, 
 
 I KOvpihLr]v ep. 1 1 74 (but not in the mehc fragments) ; vovcre ep. 
 
 '117^; OvkvixTtoio ep. 167^ ('OAD/u.77ta 125, ''OX.vp.TtLoviKav ep. 149, 
 oAujUTnagas 15^2)^ juoui'os 87 (ep. 1845)^/1x01/0? 77, 88^ el.^ 46^; 
 ovvojjia ep. TIO3; Mowa 4'^iJ Movaav 442, Motcray ep. 148^2^ ^^'6 
 the MS. readings ; arpe^oicrav 3O4 is a conjecture of Wytten- 
 bach for arpicpoiav ; (TTL^ovaa 78, KaXiovac 3I3, KkiitTovcnv 42 
 are the MS. readings. Berg-k adopts cmoTpi-noiaL in I2 and 01 
 throughout in ixovaa, in the fern, part and third pi. The MS. 
 evidence for this is very scanty. Pindar certainly extended the 
 
 : range of the Aiolic ot wider than Simonides. 
 
 Bacchylides : MoScra 280, juap/xaipouo-ty '2']^, ayovcrtv 2'J-^q, a,re 
 
 i Attic; ixovvos 26 (fxoVos 25 was changed by Gaisford to ixovvos), 
 
 ivova-os 34> Kovpa 48, eleg-. 
 
 I (3) Varia. The inf. in -vai {h^iKvvvai Pind. fr. 42^, hovvai P. 
 IV 35), a form that prevails in Simonides (-/xez; 303, 3I2, ep. 853, 
 137^), IbykoSj Bacchylides. rjixiv Sim. ep. 89^, 97^ (Bergk ap.Lv). 
 Trpohebeyph'ov Ibyk. 19. 
 
 I The Homeric genitive in -010, though more frequently retained 
 in Ionic than in Aiolic, is to be regarded as the joint property 
 of the two dialects. It is frequent in Pindar (who has also -ot') 
 and is found in Stes. 8, 85, Ibyk, 9 (in C L). On the other 
 hand, Ibyk. 29 has 'EwaAiou though Homer has 'EwaXtoto. 
 kkiKo^Xecpdpov is adopted by Bergk in Pind. P. IV 172, fr. 1235 
 and Sim. 18. In the epigrams, Sim. has -oto 843, 94^, 1131, 
 I29i, I43ij ^^7i (i79i)- Christ has collected^ the traces of 
 'Pindaric and Doric -00 (gen. sing.) and -cos (accus. pi.), which may 
 ihave been original, but supplanted by the Ionic forms. 
 
 1 T/ie Nature of the lonisms of the JJniversal Mellc. 
 
 70.] A study of the dialect preferences in the remains of the 
 melic poets shows that it is hazardous to assert the existence of 
 a dialect that is absolutely uniform even in the adoption of 
 lonisms, to say nothing of a consistent usage in respect of 
 Aiolisms and Dorisms. Truth lies then on the side of Ahrens and 
 Bergk in denying the existence of a uniform melic dialect, which 
 
 ' The last verse of ep. 148 is in a different metre from the foregoing. 
 jVerses 11 and 12 are perhaps spurious. 
 I ' Beitrdge sum Dialekte Pindar s, p. 52 fif. 
 
66 THE IONIC DIALECT. [71. 
 
 was advocated by Schneidewin, Boeckh^ Neue, and otliers. Oa 
 the other hand Ahrens, while holding- that Ionic may be found in 
 Pindar, went too far (II 132) in demanding- the expulsion of the 
 epic 77 when it is equivalent to the Doric d. The paramount I 
 influence of Homer is seen in the fact that all the words 
 containing- an Ionic r], wnth the exception of the Simonideian 
 r]ixep6(f)cjovo^, drrjo-iTToAis and riXidios, are traceable to an epic 
 source^. 7]ix€p6(f)covo9 may be an error for i/xepo- (cf. Sappho 
 39), a form actually found in some MSS. orrjo-iVoAis awakens 
 suspicion when confronted with u)va(Ta. 
 
 The list of lonisms g-iven above shows that, while certain 
 forms invariably appear in an Ionic dress, in other cases now 
 the Ionic, now the Aiolic or Doric form is found. In general, 
 however, the two latter dialects do not transcend the boundaries 
 established for them by usag-e. The poets of the sixth century 
 bear witness to the fact that at an extremely early period in the 
 history of the Greek lyric certain words had assumed a fixed 
 form. Departure from the stereotyped form contravened the^ 
 principles of the melic art. , 
 
 Hdat'ton of Old Attic to Ionic. 
 
 The following treatises deal chiefly with the stylistic relations between Old i 
 Attic and Ionic prose. See also p. 74. 
 
 Cyeanka : Be orationum Thucydidearum elocuiione cum tragicis comparata, 1875. 
 DiEKER : Be sermone Thucydidis quatenus cum Herodoto congruens differed a scrip- 
 
 torihus Atiicis, 1 889. 
 NiESCHKE: Be Thucydide Antiphonfis discipido et Homeri imUatore, 1885. 
 C. F. Smith : Traces of tragic usage in Thucydides. Proceed. Am. Philol. Assoc. ' 
 
 Vol. XXII (1891), p. xvi. 
 
 71.] The identity of the TraAata 'AtOls with the 'las as asserted ' 
 by Strabo ", was widely held by the ancients ^, by scholars of the 
 
 ' a^p6Tr]Ti in Bacchylides' castigation of the lonians (frag. 42) is also, i 
 despite ^aaiXyies, an exception. \ 
 
 ^ Strabo VIII. page 333 : tV fxev 'laSa rfj ■KaXaia 'ArdiSi t7> auT^i' (pafj-ev (koI ij 
 yap laives iKa\ovvTo ol tots 'Atti/coi, koI fKiWiv elaiu 01 r^u 'Acriav iiroiKriirayrei '] 
 "luves Kal xRVCafJ-fvoi rrj vvv Xiyojxevri yXuifftrri 'laSi). Cf. Galen, quoted § 95, i^ 
 Dionys. Perieg. 61 ; arid § 119 on the dialect of &yvia ayvias. Apoll. Dysk. t| 
 says more cautiously of the Athenians that they are Svvdfj.€i "iwves, irepl avvS. j 
 p. 2 28,f, Schn. Cf. Anecd. Bachm. I. 265s and above § 24. 1 
 
 / Job. Gr. 235, 241, Gram. Leid. 628 SoneTSe (r] 'ids) apxaia fivai 'Areis accor- I 
 ding to the certain emendation of Keen ad Greg. Kor. p. 383. Dion. Halik. f 
 irepl T. &OVK. xap. 23 : o7 re t^v 'idSa irpoeXSfj.eyoi SidXfKTOv, Tt)v re roh rSre 
 Xpdfois {i. e. of Kadmos and Aristaios^ ixd\i(XT avdovaav, koI 01 tV apx*'"*' 
 'ArdiSa, ixiKpds Tivas 6x<"'0'"f Siacpopds wapa ry^v 'laSa. 
 
72.] RELATION OF OLD ATTIC TO IONIC. 67 
 
 [seventeenth ^ and eighteenth '^ centuries and in fact down to 
 comparatively recent times. While the points of contact between 
 the two dialects are patent^ the question as to how long- they 
 pursued a parallel course of development and the problem as to 
 the period when Attic may be said to have asserted an individual 
 f3xistence, have been answered in various ways. 
 I The view maintained in the present work is that Attic and 
 'Ionic, so far as we can trace back their history, are, with all 
 ifcheir correspondences, essentially separate and individual dialects ; 
 ind that the argument which seeks to explain the lonisms of 
 Attic tragedy as Old Atticisms, that is as survivals of the 
 period when Ionic and Attic were still undistinguished, builds 
 apon a false foundation. 
 
 I In § 172 the view is upheld that originally in Attic all cases 
 bf primary d became rj, and that at a later period this secondary -q 
 [ifter e, t, V and p became d. At what period in the history of 
 Lhe Attic dialect did this recurrence to the original d ensue? 
 Fm'thermore, are there any ti-aces in Old Attic of forms which 
 ire distinctly Ionic in colouring, forms which represent a still 
 mdivided Ionic- Attic, and which were uniformly abandoned by 
 uhe later dialect of Attika ? 
 
 Bergk, who was the first to maintain that Attic d after e, t, v and 
 j3 was a development of tj, was of the opinion that shortly before 
 :the Soloneian period we may trace the first beginnings of that 
 (revolution in Attic which, carried on shortly after Solon, became 
 im accomplished fact by the time of Peisistratos. In Bergk^s 
 view then Attic did not receive the stamp of individuality until 
 'the sixth century. Gustav Meyer [Gr. Gr., p. xxxii), while less 
 positive as to the date of the separation of Attic from Ionic, 
 iGQakes the statement that it ' appears to be certain that the 
 Attic spoken and written before the foundation of an Attic 
 iterature — that is, the Attic as we know it from the fragments 
 ,Df the laws and the inscriptions — was much more closely con- 
 lected with Ionic than the later form of the language \ 
 
 72.] The oldest monuments of Attic dactylic poetry show 
 scarcely a trace of an Ionic tj ^, despite the fact that the elegy 
 Was a creation of Ionic genius and specially cultivated by the 
 [onians. In C. I. A. I 471, dating from the time of Solon or 
 iven from an earlier period, we find avo[p€]av, ?/A.tKta9; in I 463, 
 )f very ancient date, veapdv, irpayix ; in C. I. A. I 469 <i>pa(TLKke[as ; 
 iV C 422^3 ^(f)eoi{C\av ; in C. I. A. IV 477 E yeveas ; in I 468 
 \v(TiaL; in I 478 AjtVetat. All these inscriptions have -q after 
 
 ^ For example, Salmasius. 
 ^ E.g. Bentley, Markland, Koen. 
 
 ^ See Ku'chlioif, Zur Geschichte des attischen Epigramms in Hermes V, p. 48. 
 
 P 2 
 
68 THE IONIC DIALECT. [y^., 
 
 other sovmds than those which caused the Attic a. In inscriptions 
 of the fifth century we find rToretoata? twice in 1 442, ftiai 
 3334 y "'4>^ripav IV B, 446 A 51. Tlie Ionic forms albo[r]v and 
 TrarpcotTjs in I 477, and other occurrences of non- Attic rj are due; 
 to the fact that the author of the elegy in which they occur is! 
 an Ionian. | 
 
 It is but rarely that a specifically Ionic form has found itsi 
 way into the oldest poetical monuments preserved in the Attic 
 inscriptions. On Kovpi], see § 75, 2. On dv^Ka C. I. A. IV 477 
 E, § 78. 
 
 73.] The earliest inscriptions of Attic prose show no trace of a 
 residue of lonisms. In Klein^s Vase^i we have 'E^ryxta?, 2rTjo-ias: 
 KaX{X)i<^6pa &c. (seventh or sixth century). Naturally the names, 
 of Ionic peoples such as kvXir]Tai, 'I?jrat, Na^t?Jrat, ripajz?/? upon 
 the Attic tribute lists from 456-424 B.C. are no exception to! 
 the rule. Oftentimes these very names have been Atticized.j 
 Ionic names may retain^ non-Ionic names assume, the Ionic form,, 
 which is due in each case to peculiar reasons, e.g. 'E^wpTj Thuk. 
 I 46, 41, ©aAe'o) Plato Rep. X 600 A, T-qp^oi, n^^eo) Thuk. II 29,; 
 Kaix^vareoi Xenoph. Kyr. I 2, i. In V 71 Herodotos speaks of 
 the TipvTavus tQiv vavKpapoov. The vavKpdpoi were instituted 
 before the time of Solon. In the laws of Solon as adduced in 
 Lysias'' Karix Qeopiv. we find 7/Atata, dvpq. oIktjos ib. § 19, would, if 
 • correct, be the only example of an Old Attic -t/os. But an! 
 otKEOj might readily have been transcribed oIkt]os because this' 
 word was antiquated even in Solon^s time, and in Homer only; 
 forms with 7} are found ^. Kepa/:x(e)a)s is read C. I. A. I 467. ; 
 
 74.] Against this mass of evidence, the counter testimony in ' 
 favour of the view that Old Attic was essentially identical with 
 Ionic can make no stand. i 
 
 In addition to the four cases of 'A^Tji/atrj in archaic inscriptions ' 
 held by Bergk and others to be the stronghold of the identity of 
 Old Attic and Ionic, but which have been disposed of by Cauer 
 (Curtius' 8tudien, VIII 244-249 ^), the following instances of 
 supposed Ionic-Attic forms are to be examined : — j 
 
 (j) The genitive in -ecoy in the psephism of Themistokles ' 
 (Plutarch Them. 10) : rv/i; pkv ttoXlv TrapaKaTadecrdai rf] 'A6i]vq Trj 
 'AOrjvtojv jxebeovaij. On this passage Siefert and Blass remark 
 that the expression rf] 'Ad. ^eb. was drawn from the original 
 document by Plutarch^s source, and that its Ionic colouring is 
 due to the fact that the Ionic of the time of Themistokles was ' 
 
 I 
 
 » Cf. Choirob. in Bekk. An. Ill 11 73, Hdn. I 340. | 
 
 ' Cf. Dittonberger Hermes XVII 36 ff., Wackeriiagel K. Z. XXVII 263. 
 
 ^ Cf. Kirchhoff, Hermes V ^^. 
 
75-] RELATION OF OLD ATTIC TO IONIC. 69 
 
 nearly allied to Attic, The phrase is primarily epic but adopted 
 1 not only by the poets (Aristoph. Knig-hts 763 'A6r]pat-t] rf/ 
 ' TTJs TToAeco? jxebeova-j] ; cf . 560, 585, Lysistr. H34), but also in 
 
 ordinary speech, as on a term-stone in Samos (Bechtel No. 2x6), 
 i which contains the inscription: ovpo^ Tejxeveos 'Adrjvas 'Ad-qv^v 
 j jueSeoi^crrj?. Here the mixture of Attic and Ionic shows that the 
 i phrase was familiar to the Attic cleruchs of the island, jx^biovcra 
 t occurs in inscriptions in Ionic colonies (Latyschev, II 19, 28, 
 
 i343)- 
 
 'A6)]ve(iiv in Aristophanes^ Clouds 401 is found in a phrase of 
 
 Homeric texture; in Thesm. 329 the MSS. have 'A9i]vaL(tiv, 
 ! but Bergk''s -eoDv is admissible, the passage being choral. In 
 I Knights 159 MSS. -aLcov, Bergk -ecoy on the ground of the 
 
 character of the passage and the metrical difficulty. 
 
 Furthermore, an Attic genitive m -ecav ^ in the A declension 
 
 was an impossibility even in the seventh century (cf. dpyj](jTS>v 
 
 Mitth. VI p. 106, cf. p. 118 — the oldest known Attic inscription). 
 
 In the decree concerning Arthmios, Demosth. TJdl. Ill 42 we 
 ■ find ^Adifvaicov. 
 
 (2) That the accent of such Attic forms as iivptahSiv, xiXiahSiv 
 { (Choirob. in Bekk. Anecd. Ill 1263, Arkad. 136, Hdn. I 4289) 
 I makes for the existence of an Ionic- Attic -eoov in consonantal 
 ' stems is incredible. In Herodoteian MSS, the insertion of the 
 ' hyper-Ionic e occurs, though not so commonly as in Hippo- 
 ; krates and the Pseudo-Ionists. If even in Hdt. both )(LXiaoi(jiv 
 j and iJLvpiabeoov may be shown to be unwarrantable (§ 428), it is 
 } impossible that Attic -u)v in these forms should be a survival of 
 1 a period when both Attic and Ionic had -ecov in -8-stems. The 
 
 sole means of rescuing the perispomenon accent is to assume 
 j that the delta stems have adopted the genitive ending of the 
 [ A declension, for which procedure a parallel may be found in 
 
 Hesiod's deixLo-Tim^ Theog. 235 (-torwy in M 3). See § 480. 
 
 75.] In the chapter of his ]\^e?o Tliri/nichiS entitled the Groioth 
 of the Attic Dialect, Mr. Hutherford has advanced a theory as to 
 
 ' the genesis of the language of tragedy which deserves notice, 
 inasmuch as it trenches upon the question as to the interrelation 
 
 ' of Old Attic and Ionic. Recognizing the fact that in Greece 
 different kinds of composition had a tendency to adhere generally 
 to the dialect in which they started,-" and that even in comedy, 
 when there was occasion to use hexameters, old words and forms 
 were introduced, because ' epic verse did not deviate from that 
 use of words which Homer had discovered to be most suitable to 
 the genius of hexameter verse,^ he holds — despite the obvious 
 
 ^ -60) is found in C. I. A. II 4, B 19 (400 b. c), but it occurs in the name of a 
 Thasiote exile. 
 
 ! i 
 
!| 
 
 70 THE IONIC DIALECT. [75. 
 
 I 
 
 objection that the Athenians were not the inventors of the " 
 
 iambic line — that ' the basis of the language of tragedy is the 
 Attic of the time when tragedy sprang into life/ On this view 
 Mr. Rutherford proposes to account for the discrepancy which 
 exists, both in v<x?abulary and in accidence, between tragedies 
 and comedies of the same date. 
 
 The chief argument advanced in support of this theory is that 
 whatever is peculiar to Herodoteian Ionic and to the Attic of 
 trao-edv is Attic of the sixth centurv, then, it is held, not 
 distinguished from the Ionic of Asia Minor. That certain 
 words in use in the time of Thespis have become obsolescent or 
 entirely obsolete in the age of Perikles is due, it is claimed, to 
 the extraordinary revolution undergone by the language xmder 
 the influence of democratic institutions. And again : words 
 whose lease of life was expiring in the sixth century were 
 rescued from oblivion by their absorption into the literary dialect 
 of tragedy. 1 
 
 The objections to this theory on the score of the differences m 
 accidence between Old Attic and Ionic have been ignored (.Arjr 
 Phn/nichv.s, p. 5). The argument in its favour on the side of 
 similarity of vocabulary cannot claim our unqualified assent if it 
 can be shown that the dialect of tragedy contains forms of the 
 most ordinary occurrence which never existed in Attic in any 
 stage of its development. Some of these forms which may here 
 be mentioned will necessitate the modification of important i 
 particulars, if they do not tend to overthrow a considerable part, 
 of the entire theory brought forward by Mr. Rutherford. . 
 
 (i) If the language of tragedy is the Old Attic of the sixth ] 
 century, how are we to account for [lovvos, yovvaros, ^elvos, words 
 which are pure Ionic, and at no time Attic ? F disappeared from 
 *[i6rFos, ^yovFaroi; ^ivFos in an extremely early period of Attic ^ 
 In C. I. A. I 463 (sixth century) we find ^h-os, in I 20 (middle 
 of the fifth century) ^e'ria. Solons fiovvov'^ ^^^ is an instance 
 
 ' The solitarv examples that may be brought forward to attest the actual 
 presence of f up^n Attic soil a'vrap C. I. A IT C 477 P. va-v'Trryos] Tni- 
 IV C 373^* , and the examples cited to prove its power in shaping Attic 
 forms, are powerless to give life to any theory that f was the cause of an 
 Old Attic ^e7voi. Sec. Attic repas side by side with Ionic re7pap <.*repfaf, 
 shows that Attic-Ionic &retpos is from *&Tepios ; Attic Seipds. AeipaSiirmt 
 belong to Skt. drshdd, not to Sepf-. f was retained in Attic until the move- 
 ment which changed tj to d after e. 1, v, p had spent itself ; until *crTevfSs 
 had yielded (rrevorepos and *Travf6s had yielded Troyo's Agam. 2S4 . The ,- of 
 a- vTof> like that of Xaxian afvTov is used for a distinct purpose, and no more 
 proves the longevity of f upon Attic soil than the Xaxian word proves the 
 existence of f as an essential part of the framework of contemporary Ionic. 
 
 ' The Attic Viowixi-a. Movvixiaiv &.C.. are ascribed by Meisterhans to dialect 
 mixture, which no doubt often occtirs in proper names. It may be 
 doubted whether fiovvos is connected. That the ov is not Attic is clear 
 
 I 
 
15-] RELATION OF OLD ATTIC TO IONIC. 7I 
 
 tf the retention of an epic form in trochaic verse; cf. k4v 33,. 
 his senarii, which represent contemporary Attic, Solon lias 
 povs ^6^ (Tonic ovpovs). 
 
 (2) Kovpr] in C. I. A. I 469, Sjj, TV C 3733.^, 3732s, cannot 
 lutweigh the Old Attic character of Kop-q. <p6pi] is the cor- 
 ect reading- in an inscription of the sixth or even the seventh 
 entury [C. I. A. IV B 373, Xo. 97 B), and Ko'pei occm-s C. I. A. 
 ~ Add, 57 B 8 (362 B. c). In the second of the instances of 
 avpT] quoted above, the words Alos y(/\)auK&)-t8t Kovpi]i indicate 
 ufficiently the source of the form. In the first instance, Kovpr] 
 iccui'5 in direct conjunction with '^paa-LKXeias which is Attic 
 jeyond dispute. See § 61. Ko'p?? in the later Attic documents 
 
 Iways in this form) is restricted to official decrees, whereas vase 
 ttscrijitions and others of like character always use 4>eppe0a-ra. 
 
 (3) In Aischylos rjv^ occurs but twice (^Pers. 708 troch. tetr., 
 Jept. IC27 trim.), in Sophokles it has so gained on kav as to be 
 net with over twenty times, but never except in dialogue. €-r]v 
 
 found in Aristophanes (Birds 983, 1355, Lysis. 1175). This 
 orm is Ionic, not Attic. In C. I. G-. I 8 B 7 (before 570 B.C.), 
 tt Miff/i. IX p. 117 (between 570 and 560) and in nimierous 
 nstances in inscriptions of the fifth century, ear is the prevailing 
 *'orm. So too in the fragments of the ancient laws; Hicks 59 
 Drako's law taken from the first axon of Solon), Lysias'' T//eo- 
 nne-sto-s § 16, Demosthenes'" Lejjf. 102. tjv occurs nowhere in the 
 Vttic inscriptions. 
 
 These facts speak clearly against the assumption that the t]v 
 .'ound in early Attic prose- is an Attic form. The testimony of 
 he aToi\i-jh6v inscription C. I. A. IV p. 14, Xo. 46 B proves that 
 he ofiicial text of the treaty given by Thuk. V 47 had kav (cf. 
 ine 28 of the inscr.), not rjv which is read in all the MSS. The 
 solution of the problem as to the variations between the stone 
 
 Tom the fact that it occurs in inscriptions from the fifth century b. c. 
 the third century a. d. ilunichia. not Munychia. is the proper English 
 orm. That no case of Mor- occurs should warn against adopting Ki-etsch- 
 ner's conclusion [K. Z. XXXI 442% that, with the accent removed ft-om the 
 ivUable preceding f , ^ovf- yielded uovv- ; or that for the ov of AioffKOvpoi no 
 )ther explanation is to be sought than a pui'ely phonetic cause acting within 
 he contines of the Attic dialect. 
 
 - Notwithstanding Brugmann's suggestion, Grundr. II p. 627. that ^av is 
 "rom T)-&v and riv from ei-6.v (though el-iv after Kai could become 6.v the 
 .peculiar position of tjv in Attic literature justifies our refusal to admit that it 
 .s an Attic word and the result of an Attic phonetic change. 
 
 - I find riv but twice in the de yepuhl. Athen. fll 17, III 3), whereas iav 
 occurs I 4. 15 ; II 3, 4, 11 his, i-j, iS, III 5 his, III 7. ; Kiv II 19. av 1 11. 17. 
 In Antiplion there appears to be no case of riv ; &v occurs Kar. (pap. 23. Tetrat. 
 I A. I. Isokrates made use of ^i/ Benseler ad Areop. p. 146 ff.). The speech of 
 
 - izias on Palamedes circa 411 B.C., which is genuine according to Maass, 
 :jutains a case of idv (§ 36J'. 
 
72 THE IONIC DIALECT. [76. 
 
 record and the text of the historian does not concern us here ^. 
 Perhaps the presence of ijv in early Attic prose is due to the 
 influence of Gorgias, who gave the impetus to the formation of 
 a tragic prose dialogue as a counterpart of tragedy itself^, 
 lonisms were adopted by Thukydides, not because they were also 
 Old Atticisms,, but because they were the result of certain stylistic 
 tendencies in vogue at Athens before his exile, tendencies which 
 ran their course in so brief a period of time that they were out of 
 date upon the return of the expatriated historian. The later 
 disciples of Gorgias made great concessions to the Attic norm. 
 
 76.] So long as the morphological and inflectional side of lan- 
 guage constitutes the standard of exact dialectical differentiation, 
 so long must JNIr. Rutherford^s theory as to the identity of 
 Old Attic and Ionic be pronounced superficial. While the 
 language of tragedy is replete with forms that are the common 
 property of Attic and Ionic (e.rj. -otcn, -rjcri after consonants 
 except p), forms that are also contemporary Attic_, there yet 
 remains a residue of pure lonisms. These were not drawn 
 directly from the epos, nor from the melic'' art of Simonides 
 and Pindar*, though both epos and lyric may have indirectly 1 
 contributed their quota of influence towards the adoption of forms 
 which they had consecrated to the poet^s use. 
 
 The occasional Ionic colouring of the dialogue portions of 
 tragedy affords another proof of that artistic conservatism which 
 forms so prominent a feature of the development of the Greek 
 lyric and prose writing^. The dialogue of tragedy records the 
 fact that the iambic trimeter was first cultivated by the Ionic 
 race ^, as its choruses record the fact that the choral ode was 
 a creation of Doric genius. The bulk of the diction of tragic 
 dialogue, so far from being solely contemporary Attic, reaches 
 back into that obscure domain which lies beyond the awaken- 
 
 * Croiset (Praef. XX) thinks that riv was introduced into the text of Thuk. 
 by the scribes who recognized that rjv was the genuine Thukydideian form. 
 
 - Cf. Wihimowitz, Horn. Unfers., p. 313; Diels Sitsungsberichte d. Berl. Akad. 
 1S84, p. 367 ; Maass Hermes XXII p. 566. 
 
 ^ Gerth in Curtius' Studien, I B 269 contends that, as all the epic forms in 
 the dialogue and lyric parts of tragedy are found in Pindar, the diction of 
 tragedy lias an exclusively lyric background. 
 
 * It is noticeable that tragedy has more intimate connection, as regards 
 myth and form, with Ibykos and Stesichoros than with Pindar and Simo- 
 nides, though no great chasm in dialect separates the Eastern melic poets 
 from the Chalkidian of the West. 
 
 ' Wilamowitz, Horn. Unters., p. 310 If. 
 
 * It is not surprising that there are but few traces of litei-ary reminiscence 
 of the Ionic iambic poetry in Attic tragedy, e.g. Eurip. Or. 1547 = Sim. Am, 
 I I. The ethical intent, the political and social horizon were entirely dif- 
 ferent. So in the case of Pindar, who uses Aiolisms without regard to the 
 distinctive character of the Lesbian poetry. 
 
76.] RELATION OF OLD ATTIC TO IONIC. 73 
 
 ing" of Attic o-enius. The coincidences in vocabulary between 
 the New Ionic of Herodotos and the Attic of the drama are 
 indications that both Ionic and Attic had preserved to a large 
 extent the old-time wealth of words ^ with their raciness, 
 picturesqueness, and vividness, the sonantia verba et aniiqna. 
 But how much is contemporary Attic, how much archaic Attic 
 in the vocabulary of the dramatists, cannot be discovered, 
 because we are ig-norant of the nature of the ordinary speech of 
 the men of the time of Thespis. 
 
 A considerable portion of the words which Mr. Rutherford 
 says were east aside by the innovating spirit of democratical and 
 imperial Athens may have been outworn, or at least found a resting- 
 place in poetry, in the days of the Peisistratidai. Their retention 
 at the same time by Herodotos is only another instance of the 
 conservatism in language manifested by the colony, a conservatism 
 which finds expression in the retention in the dialectal speech of 
 America of many vocables that were part of the ordinary speech 
 of the England of the seventeenth and earlier centuries ^. It is 
 inconceivable that such a revolution in vocabulary, as is a necessary 
 feature of Mr. Rutherford^s theory, can have occurred between the 
 birth of Aischylos and the death of Sophokles. 
 
 The beginnings of Attic comedy are not so far removed in 
 point of time from the age which witnessed the dawn of tragedy 
 that, had comedy not from the first breathed a different air 
 from its sister art, it too might have preserved here and there 
 survivals of that Old Attic-Ionic whose retention Mr. Rutherford 
 regards as the prerogative of tragedy. The diction of Kratinos, 
 whose Winejiask gained the day over Aristophanes' Clouds, cannot 
 have been less redolent of the popular speech than that of his 
 rival ; yet the youth of Kratinos must have been passed under 
 the same linguistic influences as those under which, on the view 
 that the Attic of tragedy is the Attic of the sixth century, the 
 ^ vocabulary of Aischylos was formed. 
 
 The atmosphere of comedy was from the first local and foreign 
 
 , to the admission of old-time phraseology. Pointing their wit 
 
 ' with the idiom of the soil, Deinolochos, Epicharmos and Sophron 
 
 created a chasm which was always to intervene between the 
 
 diction of the comic and the diction of the tragic art. 
 
 ^ The notes to Wilamowitz-Moellendorflf's HeraMes often comment upon 
 ! Ionic words in tragedy. 
 
 j ^ Many examples might be given : In South Carolina use in the Spenserian 
 I and Miltonic sense may still be heai'd, in the Cumberland mountains in 
 East Tennessee contrary in the Chaiicerian sense (' For sothe I wol no lenger 
 I you contrarie '). 
 
74 THE IONIC DIALECT. [77 
 
 lonisms of Tragedy. 
 
 Althaus : Be tragico7-i(m Graecorum dialedocurae secundae, 1870. I 
 
 Baklen : Be vocalis a pro ri in trag. Gr. versibus trimetris usu, 1872. 
 Dressel : Be Borismi natura atque usu in trag. Graec. diverbiis et anapaestis, 1 868. 
 EicuLER : Be formarum quas dicunt epicarum in tragoediis Aeschyli atque S(/phodu\ 
 
 usu, 1S73. 
 Gerth : Quaestiones de Graecae tragoediae dialedo, in Curtius' Studien 1, 2, 193 ff'j 
 
 1868. 
 KuEHLSTAEDT : Ohscrv. crit. de tragicorum Gr. dialedo, 1832. I 
 
 Lechner : Be Aesdiyli studio Homerico, 1S62. De.S'op/iodepoeto 'O/iijpiKWTctTij), 1859,! 
 KuTHERFORD : The New Phrynichus, pp. 1-31, 18S1. 1 
 
 Schneider : Be dialedo Sophoclis, 1822. 
 
 Vekrall : On some Ionic elements in Attic tragedy in J. H. S. I 260, II 179. 
 Weldgen : Qua ratione Euripides in carminibus melicis Boridem, in anapaestis Atticarii^. 
 
 dialedam temperaverit, 1874. \ 
 
 Other treatises, dealing with the Doric elements in tragedy, will be men-| 
 tioned under Doric. 
 
 77.] The following- list contains a selection of such forms as; 
 bear an unmistakable Ionic mark. Epic forms not thus charac-; 
 terized are not mentioned. The diction of Tragedy does not: 
 adopt New Ionic forms when they differ from those in vogue in' 
 Homer. 1 
 
 1. H^ ' 
 
 Gpfi^ and cong-eners occur, not only in dialogue, but also in, 
 choral parts. QprjUKLos is also Pindaric. j 
 
 Qpfj^ Ant. 969 (ch.), Tereus fr. 523; Hek. 19, 428 (0pa^0, 
 682 (ch.), 774, 873, 1036, Alk. 483; Rh. 379 (ch.), 394,409. 
 429, 522, 662, 732 (ch.), 733 (ch.), 744 (ch.), 804, 924; &pai 
 Erech. 362^8 (D). \ 
 
 &pf](T(ra Ant. 589 (ch.), Tham. fr. 229 ; Alk. 967 (ch.). 
 
 GpyiKii Pers. 509, 566 (ch.) ; Hek. 75 (lyr.), 81 (lyr.), 856, 963, 
 1090 (lyr.), 1142, Alk. 67, Andr. 215, Rh. 279, 381 (ch.), 931. , 
 
 QprjKLos Pers. 870 (ch.) ; Ag. 654, 1418 ; O. R. 197 (ch.) ; Kykl. 
 329, Erech. 370^ {Qpi^Utov D), Hek. 7, 36, 710, Alk. 498, 1021, 
 Rh. 297, 302, 313, 440, 616, 622, 651, 670, 745 (ch. iamb.), 950. 
 
 After t we find Ionic t] in proper names such as 'Ao-tTJns, 
 'Abpirjvos, and in foreign words such as h]\ep.os, TLi]pa. ttoXltjus 
 is also found e.g. Hipp. 1 1 26 (ch.). In the Mediceus we find ibprjs 
 Prom. 201 and alTu-jp 226, forms that cannot be defended. 
 
 ^ Kirchhoff, Hermes V 50, sees in the use of Ionic tj a desire to produce an 
 aesthetic effect corresponding to the nature of tragic ethos. The grammatical 
 endings are, on Kirchhoff's view, unaffected by this movement in the direc- 
 tion of Ionic. 
 
77-] lONISMS OF TRAGEDY. 75 
 
 Mr. Verrall does not scruple to introduce Ionic -ii] into 
 passages which are tinged with lonisms and which contain 
 -(rvv-q, e.g. ovpavu]v Hipp. 166, ^Acrirjv Persai 584, (Weil 
 'Ao-LYji'dv), despite the fact of their occurrence in choral parts. 
 The occurrences of -a-vi'-q in tragedy are inherited, on Mr. VerralFs 
 view, from Ionic poetry, and carried as a rule associations that 
 were literary, not local. 
 
 Ionic rj frequently appears in choral passages, as in iJ.r]\o(p6p(xiv 
 Eurip. H. F. 396, with which compare Mj/AiS; never MaAis, in 
 tragedy. On irX-^Kvpio Eurip. H. F. 350, see Wilamowitz- 
 Moellendorff ad he. Zrjvos, Zr]vi, Zrjva as in Pindar, according 
 to the best MS. testimony; a-KrJTTTpov Prom. 171 and other 
 forms in lyrical passages where the Doric form is not admitted. 
 The choral lyric had aKanTov (Pind. 01. I 1 2). rj furthermore 
 in Y\apvr](Tiba Choeph. 563 (cf. 953):, irpvixvi-jv Philokt. 482 
 (§ 420). 
 
 2. ev. (a) by contraction : — 
 
 TToykevixevai. Prom. 645, in the recital of lo (only one MS. 
 TToXovixevai) ; cf. Od. 2, ^^. 
 
 d(roiyj,'€V(nv Prom. 122 (anap.), cf. Od. 9, 120. 
 
 fjivdevo-at, I. A. 790 (ch.) in MSS. 
 
 Vfjiveva-aL Med. 422 (ch.). 
 
 avTevv Hipp. 167 (ch.). 
 
 (b) From r;u in TrpevpLei'rjs Aisch., Soph., Eur., cf. Hdt. TrpTjw- 
 .repos, Plato irpaoT^pos. 
 
 3. Forms containing Ionic et. ^elvos occurs but once in 
 jAischylos — Sept. 942 (ch.) with 40 cases of ^&os. Aischylos 
 ■ uses the Attic form of the vocative, whereas Sophokles merely 
 ! prefers feVe (about 40 times) to the Ionic ^elve. In opposition 
 ' to the view defended by Elmsley, that ^eiros is only then 
 
 permissible when required by the metre, Hermann argued justly 
 that since in Iph. Taur. 798 the vocative ^ev would almost 
 
 j disappear, metrical considerations. may be outweighed by rhetorical 
 reasons. The first foot in the iambic trimeter line bears the 
 burden of the chief emphasis. S» ^elve occurs in the dialogue 
 
 iportions of Soph. 7 times (O.K. ^^, 49, 856, 1096, 11 19, El. 
 
 ; 675, T 1 19)^ In three passages the non- vocative form ^dvos has 
 
 ithe support of the best MSS. : — 
 
 ; O. K. 1014 6 ^dvos, oova^, xP^f^To'?' at 8e (rviJL(f)opal \ avTOV 
 jirai^wAet?. 
 
 O. K. 928 ^(.Ivov 'nap' acrrols ws biatTacrOat ^pecoy. 
 
 Frag. 153 iv "Apyei ^{ivos ojv olKtCerai. 
 
 * Cf. Jebb on 0. R. 1418. Z ^4ve occurs when S leTj/e was possible (0. K. 62, 
 492, El. 662, II 12). Eust. 13967 Si lilvs (Phil. 791) cannot stand. 
 
76 THE IONIC DIALECT. [77. 
 
 In these passages the occun-ence of the Ionic form is defended 
 by Gevth on the ground that there is a direct contrast of 
 thought, while in such passages as O. R. 817, El. 975, Tr. 187 
 iivot rj aaroL has become a mere phrase. In none of these 
 ])assages, it may be remarked, is fety- metrically permissible. 
 Ellendt, on the other hand, can discover no passage in Soph, 
 analogous to the feti^' of Iph. Taur. 798 ; and Jebb in O. K. 928 
 prefers ^ivov of the Vat. to ^^ivov of L and A, which is adopted 
 and defended by Wunder in his excursus. Here at least there is 
 no such contrast as that found in 10 14, and it is the only place 
 except I. T. 798 where the diphthong is not under the ictus. 
 
 In choral passages in Sophokles w^e find ^(.Ivol O. K. 174 
 (feVoi MSS.), 184 ^elvos evri ^evi]S (^eivrj^ MSS.), 518 ^eit-' (feV 
 MSS. see Jebb), 530 S> fetf', cf. 510 and 215. Euripides uses 
 ^€ivos in the senarii but rarely (I. T. 798, El. 247), much more 
 frequently in lyric passages (Hek. 82, 479^ Alk. 598, Kykl. 510, 
 Herakl. ^^^, I. T. 218, 226, I. A. 606); ^eivaTraTov Med. 1392, 
 a^iivov Andr. 793 in all MSS. except C, UoXv^eCvi] Hek. 76, 
 TToKv^eivoi Alk. 568. 
 
 In Antig. 1241, L'^ has dv, for wdiich some editors substitute ' 
 Heath^'s eV y'. In Trach. 495 Kevov has been substituted for 
 K€Lv6v, though Aisch. Pers. 761 has e^eKCLvuxrev. k€lv6s is both 
 Pindaric and Euripideian (ch.). i^Tretpox^os Prom. 428 (ch.), Trach. j 
 1096 cannot stand. ' 
 
 If etAtcrcrco is from FeXFLKLca we expect in Attic prose kkiaao), 
 which is Sophokleian. In Aisch. we find eiAto-o-co only in lyric i 
 passages. In sixteen passages in the extant dramas, Eurip. has j 
 ten cases of etAiVo-o). ' 
 
 eLV€Ka (see below § 78) does not occur in the Laurentianus of 
 Sophokles. In the same MS. of Aischylos it is met with Prom. 
 345, Suppl. 188 {ovveKa 4 times). None of the best MSS. of | 
 Euripides have this form, which stands in MSS. of the second 
 class H. F. 210, Hek. 137, Andr. 251, 408, frag. 4993. 
 
 Aischylos has hepij, Euripides •§€ 1/37; in lyrics. 
 
 Only in choral passages do the following words with Ionic ei I 
 occur : etraAto? Ant. 346, Eur. Elekt. 450, 1. T. 1240 (Kirchhoff), 
 Troad. 1095, Hel. 526 (Herm.), elvobtos Ion 1048. 
 
 4. Forms containing Ionic ov. [xovvos occurs 13 times 
 in the dialogue portions, twice in choral, and twice in ana- 
 paestic passages of Sophokles. Aischylos has ixovvoiTra Prom. 804, 
 but never jxovvos. In the Rhesos 31 ^ovvap\oi. is generally aban- 
 doned for fx6vap)^oi, Euripides having invariably juot-os. Gerth 
 calls attention to the fact that in S, we never find ov p.ovvov 
 dAAa but always ov [xovov ciAAa. The necessities of the trimeter, 
 not the requirements of emphasis, decided the question as to 
 
177.] lONISMS OF TRAGEDY. 77 
 
 whether the Ionic or the Attic form should be admitted. Cases 
 of the emphatic use of fxovvos (as Antig-. 308), may be confronted 
 with others where no emphasis is discernible. In Antig-. 308 
 iit is the word, not the form of the word, which adds emphasis ; 
 Ifj.ovo'i would have been equally effective. 
 
 Other cases of ov are yovvaTa O. K. 1607 in the speech of the 
 messenger (yovacn Phil. 485). Aischylos has no instance of 
 the ov forms, wdiich in Euripides occur with the same freedom 
 as the Attic (in the senarii Andr. 892, Hek. 839, Alk. 947, in 
 lyrics Andr. 529). 
 
 i bovp-. Aisch. hovpLK\.vTOL^ Pers. 85 (ch.), bovpiKixrJTt Ch. 365 
 ![ch.), hovpi-n^xO' in dialogue, Sept. 278. Sophokles hovpiXi-j-rrTov 
 Aias 894 (ch. iamb.), 8optATj7rro? Ai. 146 (anap.), bovpidXcoTov Ai. 
 121 1 (anap.), hovpari Phil. 722 (lyr.), hovpeios Xttttos Troad. 14 
 (sen.) and in comedy (see below). 
 
 ovp^Los in choral passages Ant, ^^^, I. T. 127, 162, 1126, 
 Troad. ^^^, Phoin. 232, 8c6, Elekt. 210 (opetos Hipp, 144), 
 ovpecn/Scora? Phil, II48, ovpiOpinTav Hek, 204 (dptS/ao'juicoy Bacch, 
 1986 Kirch, and Sandys). 
 
 1 Ovkvp.iTos but once Her, F. 872 (troch. tetr.). 
 j ovvoixa is not found in tragedy despite Markland on I. T. ^6. 
 In Phil, 251 ovv- of the MSS. is rejected by all, so Bacch. 320, 
 Iwhere ovv- is found in F C (see Elmsley). 
 
 vovaoov Aisch. Suppl, 684 (ch.) where voaoav is possible. 
 
 Kovpf] has been seen (above § 75, 2) to occur upon Old Attic 
 poetical inscriptions of the sixth century. In the Septem 149 
 Dindorf rejects Kovpa, a form whose enfranchisement in choral 
 diction is clear from KovpolSopca Ag. 1512 and Kovpa O, K. 180, 
 where the metre requires the diphthong, though elsewhere the 
 half Attic, half Doric Kopa, Kopas prevails in lyrical passages. 
 Kovpos is an error Trach, 644 (ch.). Euripides has Kovpa in 
 lyrical passages Hipp. 141, Alk, 410, I, T, 210, 217, 402, Hel. 
 382; 1307, 1314, El. 481 MSS. (cf. 117), 1184, Hek. 462. In 
 I. T. 1 114 Kirch, reads Kopav; in Androm, 1224 Koprj, Troad, 
 I144 Ko'pai : in El, 481 Kopa is due to Dindorf. In dialogue 
 portions Kovprj does not occur [Koprf is now read in Hel. 1098)^. 
 Kovpos is met with nowhere out of lyrical passages (7 times). 
 The same holds good of the Euripideian compounds KovporoKoi 
 jSuppl. 957, KovpoTp6(f)os^ Tr. 566, Bacch. 420. Neither Aio- 
 (TKopoL nor Aioa-KovpoL appears in Aisch. or Soph. Eurip, uses the 
 .0 form in the senarii eight times. In Hek. 943 (ch.) F has the 
 ov form, which is rejected by Kirchhoff, AioaKovpcov I. A, 769 
 
 1: 1 Krfpot also frag. 5346. , . , , „ ^,. 
 
 " In regard to the retention in jirose of Kovporpocpos and similar polysyllabic 
 words, we should not fail to regard the distaste manifested by Attic towards 
 a succession of many short syllables. 
 
« 
 
 78 THE IONIC DIALECT. [78. 
 
 (ch.) is defensible. Kovpio was formerly held to exist in a 
 supposed formulaic^ Kovp(o koI Koprf (Plato Laws VI 785 A, 
 where it has the support of but one MS. ; of. Kopov /cat K6pT]'i VII 
 793 E, Kopovi Kot Kopas 796 C). Since in proper names forms 
 alien to the native dialect are not uncommon, and since 
 [At]o[o-K]oupt8oii is found C. I. A. II 66, 4 {'^^6 b. c.) and Dittenb. 
 Si/ll. 418, 2 (not before 292 B.C.) it need not surprise us that 
 KiocTKOvpoiv is met with Plato Euthyd. 293 A, Thuk. Ill 75^ 
 TO TU)v Aioa-KovpMV (-Kopoov in only two MSS.) Upov, IV 110 to 
 AiO(TKovp€Lov^ (thus the MSS.). Phrynichos says that those who 
 use the Ionic form are open to ridicule. Kovpelov, Kovpe&TLs, 
 which Mr. Rutherford quotes from Lobeck's note, have nothing 
 to do with Kovpos. Their ovp is from opa (cf. Kopaovv' Kelpeu', 
 and KopaooTevs, aK€p(reK6p,ris). kiiiKovpos has probably nothing" to 
 do with Kovpos, Kopos ; cf. W. Schulze Quaest. Horn. 17. 
 
 5. Ionic forms in Declension. ^wcrto?, irprj^cas (Ambr.) 
 Eurip. fr. 902, bi]pLos Agam. 942. opvts Eurip. H. F. 72, is 
 regarded as Ionic for opvcdas by Wilamowitz, for what reason I 
 do not know. 
 
 The forms of vavs with rj are rejected by the editors despite 
 their not infrequent occurrence (Kiihner-Blass, p. 463). On vrjos 
 in New Ionic see § 170. 
 
 6. Varia. Ke'tvos for Attic e/cetfo? (also in Attic prose after rj 
 or rarely after a short vowel or diphthong); ao- for tt ; on 
 'AtSjjs with long a see § 160; on Ipos see § 300. (or] for ^cotj; 
 TToXkos ; TTOTL a form that, however, never appears in any New 
 Ionic monument, pa in Oapaeiv, apariv, &c. is possibly Ionic, 
 cf. Qapplas C. I. A. I 445 (middle of the fifth century). 
 
 T//e lonisms of Attic Comedy. 
 
 EuTHERFOED : The New Plirynichus, 32-52, 1S81. 
 
 Setti : II linguaggio dell' uso comune presso Aristofane in Museo di antich. class., 
 
 I 1 1 3-1 30. 
 Speck : De Aristophanis dialecto, 1878. 
 
 78.] lonisms are admissible in the lyric parts of comedy, 
 not excluding those of anapaestic movement. Even in the 
 
 * Cf. Pollux VIII 107, Apollod. Ill 123, I5g, Schol. Acharn. 146, Diod. Sik. 
 IV 61 Kovpovs KoX K6pas. 
 
 ^ Hdn. II 8484 -KopiLOv, I .^75i2 -Kovpewv, II 8643( AioffKovpaiy Kw/xrj At.fivj)S. 
 The treatise under Herodian's name (,Moiris p. 445) cites Ai6(TKOvpoi but 
 Aio(TK6pw ; a differentiation that could not last. That in one and the same 
 dialect two diiferent forms of the name of a divinity may occur is evident 
 from KJpaj and Kovpai in Knidos (C. D. I. 3538 1, 3) and often in 3539-3544. 
 3546-48}. 
 
78.] THE lONISMS OF ATTIC COMEDY. 79 
 
 trocliaics of the parabasis there is a well-attested case of an 
 
 Ionic termination. Koch and Humphreys contend that the 
 
 occurrences in anapaestic parts ('AOrjvaij] Knights 763, Tptro- 
 
 iyevetfj? Clouds 989) and in the parabasis (SeArjz/atr;? Clouds 614, 
 
 Dindorf -as), are instances of the survival in the popular dialect 
 
 of older, more poetical forms. That this is an erroneous position 
 
 is clear from an examination of all the Attic inscriptions previous 
 
 jto the Peloponnesian War. In no inscription, whose genuineness 
 
 has not been universally suspected, or whose Attic character has 
 
 not successfully been disputed, is there a single occurrence of 
 
 Ionic -trj. It is therefore impossible that 'AOi-jvaLrj and a fortiori 
 
 Tpnoyeveirjs are Attic. Plato^s 'AOi^vau] {Euthijd. 302 D) does not 
 
 alter this conclusion in the least. The three instances quoted 
 
 above are taken from an Ionic, and poetic source. On ^kQi]viixiv 
 
 I see § 74, 1^. 
 
 ! In the dialogue portions lonisms are not admissible save 
 when the speaker is an Ionian, in paratragedic passages, or when 
 proper names have been preserved in an Ionic form by the 
 pressure of Ionic tradition. 
 
 Peace 46 : 'Icoyi/cos rts ^Tjcrt irapaKaOijixevos 
 
 boKeu) fxev, is KKecova tovt alviaaeTai, 
 (US Kilvos aratSe'cDS (ttj^) (nraTLkrjv kadUi 
 
 where SoKew and Kdvos hit off the Ionian. Phrynichos II 583 (2)^ 
 ; is either corrupt or the line was spoken by, or of, an Ionian. 
 I On Ktlvos in Eupolis see Koch I 294 (139)- Eurip. Orestes 742 
 
 ovK €Keivos, aXA' iKiivr] Kelvov evOdb' ijyayev was parodied according 
 
 to the Schol. Kelvos appears in lyrical passages Thesm. 784, 
 
 Wasps 751. 
 
 Kiiveov is not adopted by Koch I 50, in his attempted restora- 
 1 tion of Kratin, II 83 (6). 
 
 ! etveKa is well attested in Aristophanes, Timokles, Plato, Philemo. 
 ; That it was an lonism adopted in Attic literature is evident 
 i from its occurrence in Thukydides, Plato, Isaios and Demosthenes 
 
 (at least 20 times in 2). In Old Attic poetry it is found in 
 i one passage (C. I. A. IV 477 E). By the period of the empire 
 
 it has fully established itself in popular speech, to which it was 
 ; heretofore more or less a stranger. See Wackernagel K. Z. 
 
 XXVIII 109-130. 
 
 Kovpos, Kovpi]. Aristoph. has Kovpe Birds 977 (hex.), Kovpai 
 
 Thesm. 102, Kovp^jv 1139 (lyi'-)- 
 
 In senarii Kovptbiov Ae^^os Peace 844, KovpoTp6(f)os Plato II 674, 
 
 ^ See Cauer I. I. p. 246, Speck De Aristoph. dial. 15 ff., 29. 
 ■ References are given to the paging of Meinecke's Fragmenta when his 
 reading is that accepted by Koch. 
 
8o THE IONIC DIALECT. [79 
 
 c£. KovpoTp6(f)ui in the Herald^s proclamation Thesm. 297, 
 Aristo])li. has always Aioa-Kopo}, as Amphis and Menander. 
 Chionides^ AioaKovpoL II 8 (Koch I 5), if actually used by the 
 poet, occurred in anapaests. j 
 
 hovpios Birds 1128 {tirTrMV inrovTMV pLeyeOos ocrov 6 8.), cf. Platoj 
 II 688 (24), Diphilos IV 419 (7). All these passages refer to' 
 the Trojan Horse. Cf. Eurip. Tr. 14, Plato Theait. 184 D. 
 
 Ovkvp.TTov Knig-hts 9, where Dindorf suggests that the lined 
 may be a quotation or adaptation from a poetical source. Perhaps 
 OvXvpLTTov v6p.os had become a technical phrase. ; 
 
 Homeric in colouring are ovXo^vras Strato IV 546 (v. 34);! 
 yovvara in the hexameters of Metag. II 751 or of Aristagoras 
 II 761 (Krat. II 207 (91) has yovara); irapiovra in the Cheironi 
 of Pherekrates, II 335 (3); p-eheovo-a Knights 585 (eh.), 763,1 
 Lysist. 834 (sen.)j p.eh4(tiv Knights 560 (eh.) (cf. above § 74, i). 
 ovpeCais occurs in Birds 1098 (lyr.). { 
 
 In Thesm. 878 the use of the Ionic -neirkfaKap-ev (-neTTkevKa- 
 p.ev D) is a jeer on Euripides (Hel. 461, 532). ; 
 
 In Birds 867 (herald), Peace 1064 (hex.), -riai is found after i ; \ 
 in Wasps 399 TTpvpivr]v (§ 420). dt Peace 930 is called by the \ 
 poet 'IcovLKov prip.a. It is also Aristotelian. apxr]y€Tl Lys. 643 
 (lyr.) may be noted in connection with this. 
 
 oKoos, Krates II 233 (i). 
 
 Dialect of Ionic Prose. 'Pure' and '31ixecl' Ionic. 
 
 79.] The criterion by which the ancient rhetoricians distin- 
 guished the varying aspects presented by the dialect of the early ' 
 prosaists was its purity, that is to say, they sought to discover 
 whether their Ionic was aKparos or p.€p.Lypievri. Upon the basis 
 of this standard of comparison, Herodotos was placed in the 
 second, Hekataios ^ and Anaximenes ^ of Miletos, and Hippo- 
 
 1 Hermogen. Be Ideis III 399, W (cf. Strabo I, 7, 18) : 'EKardlos Se 6 
 MiXt}(Tios, Trap' ov S^ fj-dXiffTa uxpeXriTai 6 "ttp6^. (cf. Suidas s.v. 'E/car.), Kadaphs 
 fifv iCTTi Kol (ra<pT}s, iv Se rifft Kal r/Sbs ov fxerpiws, ry SiaXeKTCji Se aKparo) 'laSi Kot 
 oil fie/j-iyfiiur) xP'Oif^.f-^fos, ouSe Kara rhv 'HpiiS. ■kolkiXt), i]tt6v icrriv eVe/ca ye rrjs 
 Ae|ea!S ttoitjtikos. Kal ?; eTri/xeAeia 56 avToi ov roiavTi), oiiS' o/j,otos 6 Ko'tr/xos d inpl 
 avT-fiv. Sih Kal tols 7)5oj/a?s iXaTTOvrai TroWqi tov 'HpoS., aWairdvv ttoWw. Ill 319, 
 W: eKeldiv 5f yuaAio-TO StapKri ecrxe {'UpoS.) t^v yXvKVTrjTa, '6ti Kal aiiTr]v fvdvs ri)V 
 SiaAe/CTOv TroirjTiKcSs irpodXfTO dnuu. 7} yap 'las oiiaa iroirirLKTi ipvffei icrrlv iiSe7a. 
 6t Se Kal aWcov Sia\fKTa>v ixPVO'°''''<i Tiai Xe^eaiv, ovSev tovto, eVeJ yap "0/J.7]pos Kal 
 'HcrioSos Kal &k\oi ovk 6\iyot rwu ■KoirfTwv e^P''? """"'''''' M*'' '^*^ ^AAais rial Ae^fcriv 
 irfpoov StaKiKTwv, rb ttKucttov ^r)v la^ovcn. 
 
 '^ Of Anaximenes, Diog. Laert. II 2 says Kexpvral re yXwtra-ij 'IciSt ocTrAj) khI 
 a.TTep'i.rT(f. 
 
79-] 'pure' and 'mixed' ionic. 8i 
 
 krates of Kos ^ in the first division. Herodotos stands alone, in 
 the view o£ the ancients, as the representative of ' mixed ' or 
 * variegated ' Ionic, though Ktesias of Knidos, whose fragments 
 have not been utilized in the present treatise, followed in the 
 wake of Herodotos ^. 
 
 To the students of Greek style under Augustus, Herodotos 
 had become the canon of the Ionic dialect ^. The term aKparos 
 'las, when applied by the rhetoricians to the other Ionic prosaists, 
 seems to have been employed with direct or indirect reference to 
 the historian of Halikarnassos. It is instructive, however, to 
 notice, in connection with this, the judgment of a grammarian, 
 the greatest authority on syntax of his age, who was himself 
 the author of a treatise O71 the Ionic Dialect, and hence more 
 cautious than the rhetoricians whose criticism often lacks 
 perspective. Apollonios Dyskolos pronounced against the claims 
 of Herodotos and Hippokrates to be regarded as representatives 
 of Ionic, and elevated to that position Hekataios, Pherekydes 
 and Demokritos ^. 
 
 Now if it could be shown that by *pure^ Ionic the critics 
 of antiquity meant a dialect vigorous enough to repel the en- 
 croachments of a non-Ionic idiom such as Doric or even Attic, 
 a dialect that preserves its native system of phonetics and 
 inflections, the value of their criticism would be inestimable; 
 and command the greater respect in view of the fact that many 
 
 ' Bachm. Anecd. II 36 733 , cf.Cod. Parisinus, p. 679 in Schaefer's Greg. Korinth. : 
 
 'Hpo'SoTos yap Si(ppo(popeviJ.evovs \^yei robs (popiiois ^ipofxivovs, koX 'iTrwoKpaTrjs ttoA- 
 
 Aa/c(x xp^TOi TOVT<j> rlf rpt^Try, %% a,Kpa.rq> rfi 'idSi xPVto-I' o yap 'lip65. crvixjxiyii. avrrju 
 
 Tp iroiTjTi/cjj. See llherg Studia pseudijijMcndea p. 33, Lobeck PhilohgusYlIl, p. 148". 
 
 Of the Ae'lix of the logographers Dion. Hal. {de Time. jitd. VI 865, 819 R.) says : 
 
 : Kol yap Kadapa Kal ffa(pijs Kal <yvyT0fj.6s iariv, airoxpcoyrciis aiii^ovffa rhv IBiov (Kacnris 
 
 ' Sia\eKTOv xotpoKT^pti- A grammarian quoted in Schaefer's Greg. Kor. p. 910 
 
 says that for fw, ecTKw is used, 011 Kara SidAsKrov rtx'o, aWa Kara o'xw*'''"''M^*' 
 
 , iro»jT»«(iv, a(p' erfpov i<p' eVepox' rvirov pri/^aTos. on 'HpoS. XPVT'^'- toiovtois fiera- 
 
 (rxill^O''''K^f-o'is. K\firT€crKe yap (pT)(rt Kal &yeaKov. fx-qiroTe yovv IcoviKo. flat Tavra 
 
 ' /laWov. aW' ava/xcpifioXou iraMv tovto Troie?, rh firj rhv 'Hpd5. aupdrtfi rfj 'IctSi 
 
 . xp^ffOa'j 0A.A0 fji(fiLyixfvr) tt) 7roi7)Ti/cfi. Longinos calls Herodotos 'O/j.rjpiKwraT0s 
 
 {Subl. 12). Eustathios Iliad A p. 9, says : ioiKe Se Kal 'HpoS. r^ ^epeKvdr) Kal 
 
 'EKaraiip Ojxoios rois Kara^aAovixt rh rjjs iroL-fiffews eiiSSKi/xov. 
 
 ^ Of Ktesias, Photios (p. 45 a 7. 20 Bekk.) says: /ce'xprjTai 5e r^ 'IccviK^ Sia- 
 KfKT<f), 61 Kal fii] Si' o\ov KaOdirep 'UpoSoros, aWa Kar' fvlas nvas Ae|eis. aveyuwadrj 
 (Sf avrov Kal to 'IvSiko, iv eA ^i0\ici>, iv ois fiaWov laiyi^ei. The last words indi- 
 i cate that in Ktesias' time a partial lonism was held to be sufficient to main- 
 jtain the tradition of the Ionic origin of the historian's art. Ionic obtained 
 I a foothold in the Doris before the birth of the author of the TlepaiKa. Hero- 
 idotos and Hippokrates felt the pressure of the Ionic atmosphere of their 
 ; surroundings. 
 
 ) ' Trjs 'IdSos &pt(Tros Kavdv Dion. Hal., Photios 1. 1., and in the epigram in St. 
 iByz. s.v. Qovpioi: — 
 
 'HpoSorof Av^eeo KpvTrrei Kovis 5}5e Oavovra 
 'idBos apxaivs iffTopiKrjs irpiraviv. 
 * DePron. 118B. 
 
 G 
 
.82 THE IONIC DIALECT. [80. 
 
 of the fragments of the log-ographers and philosophers have 
 either perished completely or have been forced to submit to a 
 more or less thoroughgoing" depravation of their original form. 
 Unfortunately, however, this judgment of antiquity respecting 
 ' pure ' as distinguished from ' mixed '' Ionic means no such thing. 
 Its value is vitiated for the purpose of dialectology because it is 
 a verdict based upon the insecure premise that vocabulary and 
 style are essentially determinative of dialect character. So far 
 removed from the immediate purpose of the rhetoricians was the 
 conception that purity of dialect consists in the unimpeded 
 transmission of an indigenous vowel and consonantal system and 
 in a native method of inflection, that they are constantly exposed 
 to the danger of not distinguishing dialect from diction. Excep-; 
 tions are rare. When Dionysios of Halikarnassos wishes to display' 
 the power of the Herodoteian style in its marshalling of words, 
 his first thought is to cast aside the veil of the dialect that, 
 no extraneous charm may reinforce his argument as to the! 
 perfect disposition of the tale of Gyges or of the descent of. 
 Kroisos ^ j 
 
 The grammarians rarely ^, the rhetoricians never, busied them-i 
 selves with any possibility of difference between the idiom of the; 
 soil and that of Ionic prose literature, filled from the horn of; 
 plenty of the epos. The nature of the inflections, the character 
 of word forms, fail to trouble Hermogenes when he sets Heka- 
 taios ^ off against Herodotos, or characterizes the poetical nature! 
 of the latter^s diction \ 
 
 80.] The distinction between 7; ?/;-^ and mixed Ionic is therefore,' 
 in view of the attitude of the rhetoricians towards the creationsi 
 of Ionic prose literature, a distinction destitute of authority for 
 us in respect of matters of phonology and inflection. Whatever 
 significance it may possess can be understood only in relationj 
 to the genesis and stylistic development of prose as a literary! 
 instrument. j 
 
 Two vilws have been advanced in ancient as well as in modernil 
 times, which seek to penetrate into the obscurity enveloping the! 
 dawn of Greek prose. 
 
 ' Of. Quint. IX 4, 18. 
 
 ■ Dionysios Tlirax ch. i illustrates the horizon of the grammarians: — ' 
 ypafxixaTiKT) iariv (fnTftpla raiv irapa Tronjrais re Koi avyypapevffiv ws eVJ rh ttoAW 
 KfyofXfvciiv. I 
 
 ■^ In the passage n. i, p. 80, Hekataios' style is described as simple, in! 
 contradistinction to the parti-coloured diction of Herodotos. The passaged 
 ending with TroiT/Tt/ctis may have reference to epic style and vocabulary. Seei; 
 Zarncke LihraturspracJun, note 32. ( 
 
 Hermog. II 3^5 : koI yap rais (vvoiais /j-udtKais ax^Shv airdffais, Koi rp Kf^etli 
 TTOirjTiKfi KexRV^ai Si6\ov . . ol yap ir\(7<rroi twv ^vd/xwv avrf Kard re ras ffvuBiiKas- 
 Koi T^y fidads SaKTvKiKol re eiVl Kal afaTraiffriKoi, (nrot'SaaKoi re Kal oAa-x fff^voi. 
 
, 82.J 'pure' and 'mixed' ionic. 83 
 
 81.] The ancients with scarcely a dissenting voices and tlie 
 moderns in the early part of the nineteenth century under the 
 leadership of Heyne especially, held that the I'ise of Ionic prose 
 i was due to a g-radual abandonment of the metrical form, though 
 at the same time the word structure that belonged to poetry was 
 retained. Dealing with local myths at the outset, but con- 
 tinually widening its horizon, it nevertheless retained some of 
 that poetical colouring which had proved so splendid an ornament 
 to the tale of the Trojan war. Strabo is the chief authority in 
 ancient times for this view ^. 
 ■ In confirmation of this side of the controversy it was 
 ! urged that the connection between the epic and the earliest 
 literary prose was most intimate '^, an inference suggested by the 
 j tradition that Akusilaos transferred Hesiod to prose, and be- 
 cause of a similar legend attaching' itself to the name of 
 ; Eumelos. The language of Anaximander is replete with poetic 
 I reminiscences^; and the diction of Herakleitos ■* and Demokritos^ 
 I has not lost traces of its affiliation with the poetic past *^. Doubt- 
 less some part of the poetic flavour of Platonic prose is not 
 I entirely due to the vivid imagination of the artist, but is the 
 I result of a more or less conscious reproduction of the philosophic 
 j diction of the lonians {e.g. kyKpivm Bep. VI 486 D). 
 \ The bond of sympathy between archaic literary prose and 
 ''1 verse '', the refusal to abandon the medium of metre after a 
 * philosophical prose had won a place in the literary circles of 
 Ionia, the analogy of the diction of Pythagoreian prose, proved 
 powerful factors in gaining the sviffrage of scholars to the view 
 1 that Strabo was substantially correct. 
 
 82.] If modern criticism does not actually overthrow the 
 Strabonian explanation of the genesis of prose writing, it at 
 
 ' I 18 : d)S 5' (liziiv, 6 Tre(hs \6yos, o ye KaTfaKivaa/aevos , yUi'yUij.ixa rov itoitjtikoG 
 ^(TTi. trpuiTiffra yap r) TroirjTiKT) KaraffKivri iraprjKdiv eh rb fxeffov koI evSoKifiricrev, 
 eira eKeiv7\v /xi/xovfiei/oi, AvcravTes rh /xerpoy, raWa Se (pvAa^avres to iroiririKa., 
 I (rvueypai\iav o'l irepl KdSfxou Kal ^epeKvdr) {i.e. of SyroSj, /col 'EKaraloy eha ol 
 I vffTfpov acpaipovvTes aei ri tuv towvtwv eis rh vvv elSos KaT'i,ya.yov ios Kv oTrb v'^ovs 
 Tivis. The passage from Strabo reappears in Eust. II. p. 9. With this state- 
 ment may be associated the remark of Aristotle [Pott. 1.8) that the language 
 .! of Empedokles was in no wise different from prose, save in the fact that it 
 I was metrical. 
 
 ^ See throughout Zarncke's Entstehung chr (jr. Liferutursprachen, which con- 
 ^ tains the best defence of the older view, though the pai't dealing with the 
 rise of prose is the weakest part of the article. 
 ' Theophrastos, aijud Simpl. phys. 6 »• 42. 
 
 Strabo, p. 3, ^eXrloov 6' 'HpaK\. Koi oixrjpiKwrepos. 
 ' Cicero, Orat. 67. 
 
 * Anaximenes, according to one witness at least, seems to have been less 
 constant in his adherence to the poetic element in philosophical style. Diog. 
 I Laert. II 2, cited above, § 79. 
 
 ^ The Karneonikai of Hellanikos was written in prose and verse. 
 
 G Z 
 
84 THE IONIC DIALECT. [83. 
 
 least demands its modification in several important particulars. 
 It is maintained that the foundation of Ionic prose is to be 
 sought in the local dialects (notably the Milesian), and that the 
 diction of historical, philosophical and scientific writing can have 
 come into being only after the labours of successive generations \ 
 had succeeded in rendering the rude idiom of the registers and 
 decrees capable of being a vehicle of literary expression. 
 Those of this second school emphasize the fact that even in 
 antiquity there was no consensus of opinion, and bring for- 
 ward at least two utterances making in favour of their view: 
 (i) Cicero {Be Oral. II 12, § ^^), in speaking of the earliest 1 
 Roman annalists who made no use of jDoetical ornament, compares i 
 them with Pherekydes, Hellanikos and Akusilaos. (2) After ] 
 describing what manner of men the older local historians were, | 
 Dionysios of Halikarnassos ^ says that their style was clear and s 
 intelligible to all, pure and precise. Of the moderns, no less an j 
 . authority than Bergk says : ' it in remarkable how slight has been f 
 the iiijliietice of poetry upo?i the prose of the earlier period, though i 
 poetry attainecl at an early date to a periodic connection of sentences, i 
 Prose, originally a totally different species of composition, intentionally ' 
 renotitices the artistic tnea?is adopted by poetry -.' 
 
 83.] In all this speculation, both of the moderns and of the 
 ancients (who possessed a greater wealth of material, but not the 
 horizon enabling them to estimate its dialectal value), a vital \ 
 fact has been ignored. Style is one thing, phonetics and in- 
 flections something quite dilferent. Poetical ornament or poetical 
 reminiscence, the recourse to archaic or obsolescent words, be 
 they never so frequent, ai"e not incompatible with a contem- 
 poraneous system of inflection and phonetics. The substitution 
 of prose for the Ae'^ts dpofxevr] by the logographers of the sixth 
 (or fifth) centuries is not identical with the adoption of an 
 Homeric scheme of declension. The various dialects of Hellas, 
 in which ^re preserved early dedicatory or laudatory hexameters 
 of epic tone, have no scruple in adopting inflections proper either 
 to an archaic or to a contemporaneous form of the language, 
 while at the same time the words are borrowed to a greater 
 
 t>' 
 
 ' D. H. de Thuc.judic. 819 R. : aacpri koL Koiviiv, koI KaQaphv koI (rvvTOjxov. Before 
 lie says : kwt tdv-q koX Kara, irSXas SiaipovvTes, koI X'^P^^ eKipepovres, «Va koI rhv 
 aiirhv (pvXaTTovTfs (TK0ir6v, Scot ^leauiQovTO Trapa rots eirtxoipiois fxvrifiai. Kara tdvr\ 
 Te Koi Kara ir6\€is, itr' iv iepo7s etr 4v fiefir]\ois anoKilfxefai ypatpai, ravras «ix tV 
 KOiv^u airdvrwv yvuiffiv i^€ViyKeiv, o'las irapfAa^ov fxrjre npoffridevrfs avrals n, /.i'/jt 
 a(paip(ivvrfs, iv aJs /col /xvdoi rivfs evrjcrav VTrh rov woWov ■jrcin.arevfjiivoi xP^vv Kol 
 BfarpiKai rivts irepiirfreiai, ttoXv rh i]\i6ioy ex*'" '''O'S '''''' SoKovffat. Demetrios, 
 (ic Elix: 12, vol. IX, p. 9 W fsays of the style of the older prosaists : Siripr]/j.€vri, 
 eis Ka>\a \(\v/j.4yr) ov fj,a.Ka aWriKots ffwriprit}fji4va, ws 7] 'EKaralov, Kal to ir\e7(Tra 
 rwv 'HpoSc^TOu. 
 
 ' Bergk, Gr. Liter aturgeschichte, II 394, note. 
 
84.] 'pure' and 'mixed' ionic. 85 
 
 I or less extent from Homer. So in the domain of prose. The 
 archaic words employed in Herodotos' vocabulary, when it is 
 identical with that of Homer and divergent from that of 
 Attic prose, may coexist with contemporaneous inflections. Even 
 I in the vocabulary of Ionic prose, much of what has been regarded 
 as poetical is in fact nothing more than old-time Ionic, a sur- 
 vival of the time when the lonians did not dwell over-sea, and 
 , cherished with all the fervour which unites the speech of the 
 j colony to that of the metropolis. In the America of to-day 
 I there survive words drawn from the treasure-house of Chau- 
 : cerian, Spenserian and Shakesperian English, words which 
 , were still vigorous with life in England in the seventeenth 
 1 century, but which have since been permitted to starve. The 
 ! Tennessean says suddint for qidck-temjiered, as Chaucer said 
 sodeyii D'wmede. 
 
 On the one hand then, the utterances of antiquity and the 
 
 ; hypotheses of the moderns in reference to the difference between 
 
 i the Herodoteian and non-Herodoteian dialect lead to no result, 
 
 since they proceed on the lines of discriminating one style from 
 
 another. On the other hand, we find in the extant fragments 
 
 no answer to the much-vexed question whether there was any 
 
 j radical difference in the dialect of the various writers of early 
 
 Ionic prose. 
 
 84.] Upon turning to the existing monuments of Ionic prose, 
 
 we confront the fact that, so far as the fragments of the logo- 
 
 graphers permit a comparison of their dialect with that of 
 
 Herodotos, there is no appreciable difference between the *wo. 
 
 These fragments are but few, and even these bear the touch 
 
 of Attic or pseudo-Ionic hands. Of Kadmos and Dionysios, 
 
 Deiochos and Bion of Prokonnesos, Eugeon of Samos, nothing 
 
 has been preserved. Akusilaos of Argos, the first writer not 
 
 iof Ionic stock who pursued the genealogical enquiries of the 
 
 ! lonians, must have written in Ionic, though the fragments extant 
 
 i in antiquity Avere branded as spurious by Suidas. The StKeAtwrts- 
 
 ■ (Tvyypa^ri of Antiochos of Syrakuse, utilized by Thukydides, 
 
 \ offers no picture of the form assumed by the literary Ionic of the 
 
 Western colonies. Charon of Lampsakos has cnri^eTat, and a few 
 
 cases of -trj, which was the feature of the dialect which resisted 
 
 dislodgment most obstinately. In frag. 2 Plutarch has /Saa-iXr^tov 
 
 together with reixovs and ^TravayMpoxxn. Of Xanthos nothing 
 
 worthy of note is preserved. 
 
 Even the fragments of Hekataios yield no result commen- 
 surate with their greater number. In the field of vocabulary we 
 notice here and there a peculiar word, but even upon the basis 
 of the study of vocabulary and style, we have not material 
 
86 THE IONIC DIALECT. [85. 
 
 sufficient to test the criticism of Plermogenes. It is only 
 occasionally that Ionic forms appear in Steph. of Byzant. and 
 in Athenaios ^, whose texts present now the Attic, now a partial 
 Ionic form. The pseudo-Long-inos always Atticizes. 8oKe'w rests 
 upon the authority of Hdn. tt. ju. A. I p. 13. There is no 
 example of an open ee or eei. 
 
 Direct quotations from Pherekydes are extremely rare. Some 
 Ionic forms are preserved hy the schol. on Apoll. Rhod. Ill 1178 
 ( := Pherek. 44) : ^AOrivaii], ocpios, XIOoktiv, boKeorres, Kpariovrnv ; 
 by the schol. on Pind. P. IV 75 = 133 (= 60) : \xavTr]lov, Au^reoj, 
 "Hp??, voov, by the schol. on Eurip. Alk, i (= 76) : Bpoj-reco^ Ir^po- 
 Treo), "Apyeoi; and by Dion. Halik. Arch. I 13 (= 85): Kakiovrai, 
 olKeovres, AijiaveCpi]^. All of these citations contain in addition 
 Attic forms. 
 
 In Ion of Chios as quoted by Athenaios I find the Attic 
 verbal forms except in boKeov, aipaipereovTa. The adjectives of 
 colour and material appear in the open form [■!Top(f)vpi(ii, -eas, 
 Xpucreas). 
 
 85.] The vigour displayed by Ionic as the languag-e of the 
 scientists of the day, not merely lonians of Ephesos, Samos, 
 Klazomenai or of the Thrakian Abdera ^, but thinkers from 
 Krete, or cosmopolitans, puts to confusion the aesthetic-physio- ! 
 logical vapidity of many older, and some modern, books on 
 (xreek. The mollient harmonies of the Ionic vowel system were I 
 applied, even at the period of the destruction of effeminate Ionia j 
 upon the fall of Miletos, to g-ive exj)ression to the hardest thinking .1 
 that the Hellenic world had witnessed. So far from the Ionic ! 
 dialect in early prose always appearing- in the easy-flowing, 
 anecdotal style of an Herodotos : it is the idiom which has to 
 express the resplendent subtleties of Herakleitos. ' Milesian 
 tales'* are exchanged for the crabbedness of an Obscurantist, 
 or for the defence of the all-pervading power of causality by il 
 the Atomic philosopher ; and finally for the picturesque yet 
 terse and ifervous style of the Father of Medicine. ■ 
 
 And yet, however different the styles in vogue among" the 1 
 thinkers of the sixth and fifth centuries, styles ranging from I 
 the poetic prose of the speciilative thinker Pherekydes of Syros 
 to the powerful compression or unadorned simplicity (as in the 1 
 'E7rt§7jjuiat) of Hippokrates, we are unable to bring together ' 
 
 ' In Steph. Byz. -fov- aj^pcars fr. 67, 78, 114, 13;, 1S9, 190, 193, 195; 
 contracted -ov 105, 186. Athen. has open -eov- 290, -eo- 172, -ov- 173, 341 ; 
 «€ and 66£ are always contracted. 
 
 ^ In connection with tliis, reference may be made to the view upheld by 
 Uomperz that the pseudo-Hippocratic tract nepl TexfTjs is the work of an 
 Abderite, and also to tlie view of Wilamowitz-Moellendorff that the pseudo- 
 Hippokratic USfios is tlie production of Demokritos. 
 
86.] TRANSMISSION OF TEXT OF IONIC THILOSOPHERS. 87 
 
 enough material to warrant the conckision that there was any 
 thorouo'hgoing- differentiation between the dialect of historical 
 and that of scientific writing. Apart from the question of the 
 relation of Herodotos to Hippokrates, which will be considered 
 in § 100, there is scarcely a trace which points to a difference 
 in dialect between Anaxagoras, Herakleitos, Demokritos, Diogenes, 
 MelissoSj Apollonios, or Protagoras \ While tradition has not 
 been impartial in its dealings with the original colouring of 
 their dialect, it nevertheless appears tolerably certain that they 
 all made use of the inflections belonging to the accepted 
 idiom of the day, which was common alike to the logographer 
 and to the scientist. Radical differences in phraseology, sentence 
 arrangement or syntax^ may have existed, it is true, though 
 in the scanty material at command, they elude ovir powers of 
 observation. 
 
 Scientific writing gradually passed over into the hands of the 
 Athenians. Archelaos of Miletos^ the pupil of Anaxagoras^ 
 was in the view of Diogenes Laertios the first who transferred 
 from Ionia to Attika the study of the philosophy of nature. 
 Anaxagoras himself was banished from Athens, and a like fate 
 befell the cosmopolitan Protagoras. Though none of these 
 thinkers deserted the literary form established by their pre- 
 decessors, we find that Bion, the pupil of Demokritos, wrote 
 partly in Ionic, partly in Attic. This procedure may have given 
 a start to that paraphrasing of the old Ionic texts which in 
 course of time won for itself a place even among the critics who 
 were not unsusceptible to the charm of dialect. 
 
 0)1 the Transmission of ike Text of the Ionic Philosophers. 
 
 For pseudo-Ionisms and hyper-Ionisms see § 113. 
 
 86.] I. No fragments in dialect have been preserved of Anaxi- 
 mander or of Anaximenes (on whose dialect see note 2, page 80). 
 Anaxagoras is known to us solely from the citations made by 
 
 ' Some have held that Melissos imitated Hdt., Demokritos Hippokrates 
 (|w). Mullach {Vulgarsiwache p. 10) notes that Demokritos often agrees 
 with neither Hdt. nor Hipp., but with the ei^ic poets or inscriptions. He is 
 unique for his ' pregnant brevity, poetic colour, and independent boldness in 
 word formation.' 
 
 '^ ixerd with the genitive (in the singular) of things, especially of an abstract 
 character, occurs, probably for the first time in Ionic prose, in Demokritos. 
 who has fier d7ro56i|ecos (?). Mommsen {Gr. Praep. p. 112, note 50) says that 
 the use of fx.€Td with plural nouns is almost entirely avoided before Euripides ; 
 but cf. Hippokrates, irfp] apx- Ivt- I 612 (§ 17). See Gomperz, Apologie d. 
 Heilkunst, note 2 on p. 92. 
 
88 THE IONIC DIALECT. [86. 
 
 Simplicius, who has turned into Attic many of the essential 
 features of the original language of the philosophers. Thus eo is 
 contracted into ov, the k pronominal forms have given place 
 to those in tt, the Ionic forms of the reflexive pronouns have 
 completely disappeared. j 
 
 2. Melissos has been treated more kindly by Simplicius. eoi is 
 retained in the optative, and eo has not entirely disappeared. 
 The retention of K€ve6s and KeveuT^po^ is noteworthy. In one 
 instance a pronominal form in k has escaped the levelling 
 process. 
 
 3. Herakleitos has fared better at the hands of his excerptors j 
 than most of his contemporaries. The compression of his style ' 
 may have prevented too great a deflection from the original. 
 The earliest direct citation (by Theophrastos) is, however, para- 
 phrazed. The k pronominal forms are preserved by Clemens, 
 Stobaios, Plutarch, Hippolytos, Origen ; the -oov- forms are found 
 in Strabo, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertios, Julian, &c. ; uncontracted 
 -eo-, -eou- in Clemens of Alexandria (whose MSS., however, are j 
 inconsistent in this regard and also in the retention of the I 
 characteristic Ionic k); uncontracted -eco- in Diogenes Laertios, ' 
 Strabo. 
 
 e in place of a in -aoy verbs is found in Clemens and 
 Hippolytos, 1 
 
 ^vvov for KOLi'ov in Origen, Plotinos, Porphyrios, Sext. ' 
 Emp. The e forms in the comparative degree are rarely , 
 preserved intact by late writers, /xe^oye? is found in Clemens, i 
 Kp^aaov in Stob. The Ionic 77 is retained except by those | 
 who Atticize outright. Plutarch rarely swerves from the ij 
 original. ■ 
 
 The fragments of Herakleitos found in the Strassburg IMS. 
 of Justinian, now destroyed, and dating 474-491 a.d., are I 
 completely Atticized with the exception of okoIov, rovTeoiai. ] 
 
 4. The longest single fragment of Diogenes of Apollonia has * 
 been para^^hrased by Aristotle. In the other fragments as 
 preserved in Simplicius we notice the retention of the Ionic ' 
 declension of iofa stems, except in -eoiv. eo is kept open in 
 T:\i]deos, a genitive form which is as unique in Simplicius as is j 
 his retention of okji in Melissos 14. The reflexive pronouns ' 
 conform to the Attic standard. 
 
 5. The Moralid of Demokritos, handed down chiefly by Stob- j 
 aio^ present the features of Ionic distorted by Atticisms, which 
 at times completely overshadow the original lineaments of the 
 dialect. Within one and the same fragment [e.g. 70) we And the 
 same word now in Attic, now in Ionic, guise. The characteristic 
 features of the dialect of the Abderite philosopher emerge often 
 
8;.] STYLE OF EARLY IONIC PROSE WRITING. 89 
 
 I enough to permit the reconsti'uction o£ the whole, thoug-h not 
 always in the form adopted by Mullach. The -cov- forms of the 
 reflexive pronoun are tolerably common (^e.ff. 92, 100, i^H); 
 
 I Kpi(T(TOV we find in 94; oIkxilos (94); -lo? and -la? in -t- stems 
 
 I (20) ; the K pronominal forms have often g-iven place to the 
 Attic TT, but the guttural appears (13, 20, 41); retention of 
 
 ; \//-iA.w(rt9 (92) is as rare as the open -eo- and -eco- are common. 
 
 1 These forms appear with greater consistency than any other 
 deflection from the Attic usage. There is a constant fluctuation 
 between ^vv and avv, and between the longer and shorter forms 
 of the dative plural of the A and O declensions. Mullach has 
 edited ^vv and roiai and rfjo-i indefensibly, roij and rai? occur 
 even when^ as is rarely the case, the nouns end in -o-t. The 
 articular toIo-i, however, occurs in 41, the relatival in 47; rycnv 
 (T;LdviJ.ij]rn in 46. roXix^Mcn is found in 215. 
 
 The F//i/si/ca, as cited by Sextus Empiricus, are almost com- 
 pletely Atticized. Ionic tj is occasionally preserved ; dpijv occurs 
 in § 139 (frag. 1). 
 
 O/i tlie Style of Harly Ionic Prose JFriting. 
 
 87.] Among the early logographers who raised the edifice 
 
 I of their recitals upon the simple annals of the Ionic cities, 
 
 i genealogies, priestly records, &c., some would seem to have 
 
 j adopted a plain and homely style, ungarnished by that ad- 
 
 1 mixture of epic colouring which distinguished the work of 
 
 i others. Both styles, however, had their roots in the local idioms 
 
 in which subsisted variations to some slight degree. No Ionic 
 
 prose in fact held itself aloof from the idiom of the soil. But to 
 
 the epos, rather than to the unaided efforts of the early worthies, 
 
 is due the creation of what might fairly be called a literary 
 
 instrument. The influence of the epos cannot be conceived save 
 
 upon the supposition that the ruder prose had of itself been 
 
 j already elaborated to a degree enabling it to make a distinct 
 
 I advance under the inspiration of a poetic model. There seem 
 
 ; to be certain indications making for the conclusion that the 
 
 ! language of the earliest logographers was in closer touch with 
 
 I the idiom 6f the soil than that of Herodotos. In this view 
 
 ; 'unmixed' Ionic would show less of that conscious recourse to 
 
 I the epos and other literature (cf . § 89) which characterizes the 
 
 dialect of Herodotos, and which in fact constituted his iioiKiXia^. 
 
 ' It is wide of the mark to extend the application of the words of Hermo- 
 genes : 'Ekotojos irap' ov StJ ixaXiara ui<pi\r)rai 6 'HpdSorox (cf. above § 79) so as 
 to find in them a confirmation of the belief, whether well founded or not, 
 
90 THE IONIC DIALECT. [87. 
 
 Phcrekydes and Hekataios dwelt within a narrower circle^ while 
 llerodotos extended the boundaries not only of subject-matter 
 but also of style. 
 
 It is often a matter of dubitation what is the contemporaneous 
 Ionic form which deserves a place in Herodotos, so scanty are 
 our epigraphic materials and so perverse the confusion in the 
 grammarians between the different strata of Ionic forms. Yet 
 it is nevertheless certain that, save in passages which bear the 
 unmistakable stamp of deliberate recurrence to Epic formulae, 
 the system of phonology and inflection is that of the soil. If it 
 
 that Herodotos purloined from his jiredecessor much of his subject-matter. 
 The tone of the passage in Hermogenes indicates the belief of the rhetorician 
 that Herodotos owed a debt in mattci's of style to Hekataios, notwithstanding 
 tliat the latter used the aKparos, oii yue/iiy^eVTj 'las. A hard and fast line between 
 the Milesian and the Halikarnassian cannot well be drawn. I am indebted 
 to Diels, Hermes XXII 426, for reference to a passage in Eusebios, Pr. Ev. 
 X 3, p. 466 B, to the effect that Porphyrios in his ^L\6\oyos aKp6a(ris, following 
 Polio irepl rris 'HpoSorov kXott^s, showed that Hdt. transferred from Hek. 
 several passages without material change {^paxea irapairoiricras^. Diels does 
 not hesitate to regard the iroiKiXia of Hdt. as due to the wider horizon of the 
 historian, which embraces not only description of all manner of things but 
 also stylistic affinities with the epos, tragedy, &c. 
 
 In connection with this, reference may be made to a treatise which has 
 generally escaped the notice of scholars : Peyron's Origine del tre illustri diaktti 
 Greet paragonnia con cjiieUa deW eloqiiio iUystre ItuUano, first published in iS.^S, and 
 now accessible as the 12th appendix to his Tucidide, Turin, 1861. In §§ 49-56 
 he treats of Ionic, cliiefly in regard to the relation of Herodotos to his prede- 
 cessors and to the statements of Hermogenes (above § 79) and Dionysios of 
 Halikarnassos (above § 82 ^ His views are, briefly, as follows: the lan- 
 guage of Hekataios and that of the early logographers was that of the native 
 city of each, here and there ennobled by a slight admixture of the poetic ele- 
 ment. An &Kparos dialect is a dialect spoken by the common-folk in a single 
 city or district and not yet elaborated by literarj^ artists ; the words ov 
 lbLeiJ.iyiJ.evT] refer to a diction uncontaminated by the adoption of Homeric 01 
 otlier species of Ionic ; and iroiKiXia is used of a speech which seeks to avoid 
 the monotony incidental to the use of a single dialectal idiom, by having 
 recourse to forms and inflections other than those native to a single locality. 
 Pseudo-Plutarch used iroi/ciAos in tliis sense when speaking of Homer (Kf^ti 
 S( ttoikiAtj /cexfll/ueVos rovs awh Tracrijs Sta\eKTOv twv 'EW-fiVCiiv x"-?'^'^'''^?''-^ iyKari- 
 fii^fv). In confirmation of the view that the diction of Hekataios was 
 essentially plebeian, the following words are cited : Seas for npeas, alfiov for 
 al/iios, yeyeios, l-Kiaffai, k10cctos, (TKopTrl^ecrdaL = (TKeSa,uuv(T6ai, aSeXepi^eiv. In gen- 
 eral the predecessors of Herodotos wrote as they spoke, but gradually il 
 fraseggiarrc del roJgo si inncdsara rerso lu dignifa ed il ritmo della grave prosa. Heka- 
 taios and his compeers were not absolutely intolerant of the dialect of other 
 localities than their own, nor were they invariably studious of the avoidance 
 of Homeric phraseology. They only essayed a unification of elements, whose 
 fusion was reserved for the genius of Herodotos. Herodotos took as the 
 foundation for his dialect the language of Homer, as the successors of Dante 
 regarded his diction as their sovereign norm. The iroiKtAia of Hdt. is tlie 
 result of the superimposing upon Homeric Greek of the Ionic of Herodotos' 
 own daj' and of other non-Ionic elements. 
 
 Latterly the ancient qualifications of the style of Hdt. have been regarded 
 as covering loan-forms from non-Ionic dialects, which, it is assumed, were 
 foreign to the writers of the ' pure ' Ionic. Cf. K. Z XXX 572, 
 
8;.] THE DIALECT OF HERODOTOS. gt 
 
 is erroneous to regard Ionic prose as naug-lit save the epic 
 done into prose, to ruthlessly expel all Homeric forms from 
 the text of H erode tos or of any of the early Ionic prosaists 
 is to blind oneself to the true character of the genesis of prose 
 in Ionia. 
 
 The presence of distinctly Homeric forms in Herodotos is 
 due to the literary complexion of his history and is explained 
 in part by his relationship to Panyassis. It is implied also in 
 great measure by the after history of the text itself. It 
 was the existence of an admixture of a poetic element which 
 gave room and verge enough for the later redactors to erect 
 the structure of an hyper-Ionism, whose creed licensed an 
 indiscriminate substitution of epic forms in place of those of the 
 living speech of Herodotos' day. 
 
 What may have been the distinctive virtue of the diction of 
 the many representatives of Ionic prose classed by the ancients 
 as writers of pure Ionic, it is now beyond our power to discover. 
 Certainly if the -noiKikia peculiar to Herodotos has been cor- 
 rectly explained above, the bipartite division of antiquity does 
 not rest upon differences of dialect in the strict sense of the 
 word, and dialectal ' purity ' is to be kept apart from stylistic 
 ' purity.' 
 
 T/ie Dialect of Herodotos. 
 
 Abicht : QuaesHonum de dialedo Herodoiea specimen prim. 1859; Philol. XI 275 
 
 (on -oTot, -aro for -vrai, -vro). 
 Bredow : De dialedo Herodoiea, 1846. 
 
 DiNDORF : Dissertatio de dialedo Herod, in the Didot edition, 1844. 
 Fritsch : Critique of Merzdorfs De dialedo Herodoiea, in Jahrbiicher fiir Id . Pliil. 
 
 1876, p. 105 ff. 
 Lhardy : Quaestionum de dial. Herod, cap. I and II, 1844-46. 
 Merzdorp : Quaest. gramni. de vocalium in dialedo Herodoiea concursu in Curtius' 
 
 Studien VIII 127-222, 1875. VocalverJiiirzung und Metatliesis im lonischen, 
 
 ibid. IX 201-244, 1876. 
 Meyer, W. L. : Ueher die Contradion der Verba auf -601, Programm des Paedagog. zu 
 
 Ilfeld, 1868. 
 NoREN : De contradis verbis in -e« apud Herodotum. 
 Spreer : De verbis contradis apud Herodotiinij 1874. 
 
 Stein : in the Praefatio to the first volume of liis critical edition (1869), p. xliv ft". 
 Strachan : in the Introduction to his edition of Book VI, 1891. 
 Struve : Quaestionum de died. Herodoti specimina III, 1828-30 (in the second 
 
 volume of his Opuscula) . 
 
 The following i.a. deal with the relation of Hdt. to Homer : 
 Boettiger : De Herod. Historia ad epici carminis indolem propius accedente, 1792. 
 HoFER : Ueber die Verwandtschaft d. herod. Stiles mit dem homerischen, 1878. 
 
92 THE IONIC DIALECT. [88. 
 
 HoELScHER : Die Enfwickelung u. d. Zusammenlmng d. ionischen Prosa mit den homer- 
 
 ischcn Eptn, 1875. 
 Pichlek: Ueber syntuktische Beziehungen Herodots zu Homer, 1882 (Jahresberichi d. 
 
 philol. Vereins su Berlin, X (1884), p. 366). 
 Stadelmann : Disserted, de Heroduto ejusque dinkcfo, 1830-32. 
 Stephaxus : Herodotus 1570, p. 18 ff. (contains a collection of expressions in ) 
 
 which Hdt. and Homer agree). 
 See also Zarncke's Eiitstekang der griech. Literatursprachen, 1890, pp. 38-45. 
 
 88.] Within less than a century after Herodofcos had con- 
 cluded his history, the epitome of its contents by Theopompos 
 became a possibility. The construction and continuance of an 
 Athenian empire, whose reason for existence was the presence 
 of the barbarian in the home of the Ionic Greeks; the rise of 
 an artistic Attic prose as a more facile and more highly 
 elaborated organ for the expression of trained political thought ; 
 the unexampled rapidity of development displayed by this new 
 creation of Greek literature ; the extinction of the easily flowing 
 and loosely joined style of the Ionic narrative prose ; the 
 absorption of the fourth century in the process of perfecting 
 the rhythmic and periodic style ; and finally the continual 
 widening of the chasm that separated the Eastern Greeks from 
 those of Hellas jiroperj — all these factors contributed to the 
 speedy decay of interest in the Herodoteian work. Now to 
 this unpopularity of the Father of History, lasting from the 
 extinction of Ionic literature to the time of Dionysios of 
 Halikarnassos, is due in large measure the absence of a 
 definite tradition of his original text. The disturbance of 
 the current of Ionic tradition by the appearance of Attic worked 
 to the prejudice of Herodotos. The impoverishment of the 
 dialect and the deflection of literary cviriosity to other quarters 
 prevented a constant modernization of the original text, and 
 ensured a speedy obscuration of the original complexion of so j 
 unique a literary product. When the interest in Ionic literature 
 revived during the Augustan age, the seeds of corruption had 
 borne their fruit ; and it was impossible to reconstitute the | 
 genuine tradition of Herodotos as of other Ionic prose writers, 
 who from this time onward continue to excite an attention in | 
 the rhetorical schools which they had failed to obtain in a ' 
 more creative period of Greek literature. 
 
 The MSS. of no other prose writers exhibit such a wilderness 
 of various readings and so complete an inability to transmit 
 the original form as do those of Herodotos and Hippokrates. 
 Fortunately in the case of Herodotos, with whom we are here 
 more immediately concerned, this aberration affects not the sense, 
 
 but the external form. No single dialectal canon seems to have 
 
 I 
 
88.] THE DIALECT OF HERODOTOS. 93 
 
 guided the copyists, who adopt now one standard as regards one 
 set of forms, now another as regards a set completely analogous. 
 The absence of any scholia makes for the view that Alexandrian 
 learning did not (as it did in the case of Homer, the lyric and 
 tragic poets), by means of critical studies devoted to the dialect, 
 erect a bulwark against the gradual transformation of that part 
 of the authentic text in which Later Ionic was exposed to contam- 
 ination with Homeric Ionic. 
 
 The incoherency of the Herodoteian scheme as it appears in 
 the MSS. is evident from many considerations. If oe and even 
 or] are contracted, is it conceivable that oo should remain open ? 
 
 Despite the general acquiescence in the traditional belief that 
 the open forms of the -eco verbs are genuine Herodoteian and 
 Hippokratic, there are not wanting signs of a more rational 
 view even in circles that do not despise the evidence of the MSS. 
 in all matters pertaining to the contraction or non-contraction 
 of vowels. Gomperz in his Apologle der He'dkunst does not 
 scruple to adopt the closed forms, though the Paris MS. A has 
 only 18 instances against 31 instances of the open forms in the 
 pseudo-Hippokratic Trept Tex^yis- 
 
 Neither of the two classes^ of MSS. of Herodotos (the older 
 represented by ABC, the younger by RPVS) succeeds in 
 carrying us to a period antedating the existence of an ignorant 
 speculation as to the original form of the dialect adopted. 
 The Florentine MS. [A) of the tenth century contains a 
 greater farrago of perverse lonisms than is found in the Romanus 
 [R) of the fourteenth century. Cobet and Gomperz rate 
 higher, for other reasons, the younger family of MSS. to 
 which R belongs. On the one hand the confusion in the 
 mind of the dialectologists between Homei'ic (cf . Greg. Korinth. 
 § 30, 22) and Later Ionic foisted upon the early MSS. forms 
 that are purely Homeric, and sometimes even such as owe 
 their origin to a depraved Homeric tradition ; and on the other 
 the text, like all dialect texts, was exposed to the inroads of 
 paraphrasing Atticists. In the uncertainty as to what was 
 genuine, the dialectological sciolists played havoc with the later 
 Ionic, and their blundering stupidity gave birth to siich mis- 
 shapen creatures as eyev^aro, SeairoVea, KpoiVew, Barreco, Tovrecov, 
 
 '"■ Holder arranges the MSS. as follows : the archetypal MS. split into 
 (i) a = AB, (2) J? + F' = F+ S. C and P are placed by Holder among the coclkes 
 contaminati vel mixti. See Kallenberg, Philologus, 18S5, p. 717, who showed 
 that in books I and IX, P belongs to the family ABC, but was corrected from 
 a MS. of the K family ; in books II-VIII P belongs to the family R but 
 underwent correction from a MS. of the family ABC. Together with ABC, R 
 is to be cautiously used. Stein held that only when P and R agree is use 
 to be made of their readings. Cobet called R at once the best and the 
 worst MS. 
 
94 THE IONIC DIALECT. [89. 
 
 avrioov (masc. neutr.), TovreoLcn, araOiJAVixdos, ihiKaUvv, "vvliich 
 run riot in the MSS. 
 
 89.] The ancient grammarians, to a large extent under the 
 influence of the rhetoricians, neglecting the influence exerted 
 upon Herodotos by tragedy, lyric poetry, and perhaps even by 
 the contemporary Sophistic, regarded his -noiKLXia as emanating 
 from his sympathy with the form and complexion of the epos. 
 For Epic diction is characterized by a -noiKikia of its own ^. It 
 was alien to the purpose of the ancient rhetoric to attempt to trace 
 out in Herodotos the possibility of a combination of local idioms, 
 each of which might have been compelled to yield its contribution 
 towards the creation of a prose style, more highly elaborated than 
 that wrought ovit by the predecessors of the Halikarnassian 
 historian. Such a conception of the Herodoteian style, though not 
 warranted by actual facts, could become possible only in modern 
 times. Various have been the attempts within the past fifty years 
 to explain the 'noiKiXia of Herodotos. Some, misconceiving the 
 spirit of a Greek historian and the atmosphere of Ionic prose, 
 liave regarded it as the result of the fusion of Ionic with 
 Karian, despite the fact that Halikarnassos was Ionized at 
 least by the middle of the fifth century. Others, misconceiving 
 the words of Suidas {kv rfi ^a/jiw KaX np 'laSa rjcrKi]6i] btdkeKTOv), 
 have regarded his dialect as Samian, which solely on this account 
 was held, to be a mixture of all the Ionic sub-dialects j though 
 in fact, so far as we are acquainted with its structure, Samian 
 Ionic opposes the infusion of alien, non-Ionic words and in- 
 flections^. Most of the modern editors of Herodotos maintain 
 the view that his ' variegated ' Ionic is due to the presence of 
 poetical (epic, lyric, elegiac), Doric, and Attic forms and ex- 
 pressions, which arose for the most part from the birth, training 
 and surroundings of the historian. The present treatise, while 
 professing allegiance to a view wdiich holds, properly enough, 
 that the personal coefficient has been largely instrumental in 
 giving* to Itlerodoteian style its peculiar virtue, is nevertheless 
 antagonistic to the theory that his TrotKtAia permitted Herodotos 
 to adopt, as Homer adopted, now one, now another inflection for 
 one and the same word ; and in fact to the conception that the 
 variegated complexion of the MSS. is any indication of a -noLKiXia 
 in the form reproduced by Stein and many modern editors. 
 I hold that only in the treatment of proper names and in 
 passages of unmistakably epic colouring is a certain latitude i 
 
 ' "OyUTjpos A.6|ei -rroiKiXri Ktxpvp-^i'os says the author of the tractate irepl 
 
 '0/J.y]pLKTjS SiaAiKTOV. 
 
 ^ Cf. above, § 21. 
 
91.] THE DIALECT OF HERODOTOS. 95 
 
 .on the lines o£ a departure from the contemporary Ionic to be 
 regarded as justifiable. 
 
 90.] The language of Herodotos, as reconstructed upon tlie 
 basis of the best MSS., consists of a mixture of early and late 
 Ionic and a number of Attic forms. Doric forms occur in 
 proper names. Much of what is genuine in Herodotos is likewise 
 Attic, but some of the forms which appear to be found on Ionic 
 soil alone readily admit of explanation by the laws of Greek 
 morphology. Of the Ionic forms the greater part represents the 
 dialect of the historian^s time \ but of the considerable remainder 
 one part was obsolescent, another obsolete in the fifth century. 
 
 91.] The critical canon adopted by many of the editors ^ and 
 by some scholars^ who have made a special study of certain 
 portions of the diction of Herodotos is as follows : the form 
 to be assumed by a given word in a given passage depends 
 upon a count of its occurrences in the MSS., i.e. if one form 
 has a majority of MS. witnesses in its behalf it is accepted, 
 while the other must be rejected. 
 
 This principle, though seemingly the only safe guide, is illusory. 
 Thus on the authority of a majority of" the MSS. Troteet and 
 'noUf.iv are to be ado])ted, while in the case of voioi, yoe'ei?, 
 rvoa and -voilv would demand to be accepted. In the 
 case of the subjunctives of -eco verbs the MSS. have the open 
 forms in fourteen instances when a vowel precedes the ending, 
 and the closed form ten times when a consonant is the preceding 
 letter. What system of literary aesthetics can pronounce in 
 favour of ddpcret but demand aTpaTi^Xdree ; or differentiate the 
 delicate shades of feeling in rrapaCvee and /Soi'jdei ? Shall we 
 here conclude that there existed a thoroughgoing differentiation 
 between vocalic and consonantal endings, when such a differentia- 
 tion does not exist in other cases where -eco or -w appears ? In 
 one instance boKirj has been deemed worthy of a place in the 
 text, thovigh by count in the present subjunctive it has a 
 
 ^ That a Dorian of Halikarnassos should have written in Ionic is due not 
 merely to the existence of an Ionic prose at the opening of the fifth century, 
 but also because Halikarnassos had been Ionized before the birth of the 
 historian. Cf. the Lygdamis' inscr. No. 238 in Bechtel's collection. The 
 exceedingly old papyrus, published in I'hVulogus XLI 748, dating probably from 
 the fourth century B.C. and referred to Halikarnassos, contains several 
 Dorisms. 
 
 ^ Holder, because more amenable to inscriptional authority, is much more 
 radical than Stein in his refusal to accept MS. testimony. 
 
 ^ Notably Bredow. In justice to the memory of a careful scholar, it should 
 be stated that Merzdorf abandoned in Curtius StucUen IX 201, the position 
 assumed by him in the Studien VIII 127. The futility of the principle of 
 majority rule was shown by Fritsch in Fleckeisen's Jahrb. 1876, p. 108, and 
 in his Vokaiismus d. herod. Diahkts, pp. i ff. Cf. KrafyJos 437 D. 
 
96 THE IONIC DIALECT. [91. 
 
 majority of but one over ttoit). In VIII 76 all MSS. have 
 TTepLTTouoai., thoug-h they have irouaxn IV iii, et8(S II 114, but 
 (Ibeu) III 140, aTTobe-)(^d(io I 1 24, but aTtaip^Oico III 6^, adtKOtey 
 
 V 84, but boKeOL I 24, TTOLol OV -OLT] VI ^^, but TTOLiOLeV IX IO4. 
 
 In the case of thirteen verba coniracta the closed forms prevail, 
 in the case of two others, though the MSS. prefer the con- 
 traction, Stein capriciously edits the open forms ; in thirty- 
 eight verbs only the contracted forms appear, and in the case i 
 of bpaiii, elpcoTciu} and ^otraco the wildest license reigns. 
 
 The adoption of the modern canon of criticism thus leads, 
 as regards contraction or non-contraction (where the greatest 
 lack of uniformity prevails), to a dissolution of a uniform system 
 of inflection, and in fact to a conglomerate of inconsistencies 
 such as is not found in any other prose author, with the possible 
 exception of Hipj^okrates, whose text has met in great measure 
 the same fate as that which has befallen the Herodoteian. 
 From a survey of MS. evidence the conclusion is irresistible 
 that this confusion is at least as old as the archetypal MS., 
 which is held by some to be found in the conjunction of the 
 readings of A BR. Whether the lack of uniformity displayed 
 by the archetypal MS. is the echo of a similar lack dating 
 from Herodotos (as some would maintain), or whether it is 
 the result of a disturbance of the original tradition, are, it is 
 scarcely necessary to remark, two totally different questions. 
 The view reached in this work is that no agreement of MS. 
 testimony in respect of contract verbs, unless it is an absolute 
 consensus, is authoritative in the determination of the original 
 text of the early Ionic prosaists. To establish an absolute r 
 consensus is often an impossibility. There are indications that n 
 different views as to the proper form of reconstructing certain 
 parts of the Ionic verbal system obtained foothold at a very 
 early period in the history of the transmission of the text. 
 Thus as regards the ' pure ' verbs, A B R often agree as to the 
 necessity of contraction, C P ^ more frequently than the others 
 (though not consistently) treat the -aw verbs as if they had 
 passed into -ew verbs, the Floreutiuus C having -ew, the Parisinus 
 P having eo, eov and ew for ao, aov and ao). 
 
 The attitude of the MSS. towards the question of the character I 
 of the dialect of Herodotos, can be accounted for only upon the ^ 
 supposition that at an early period, certainly not very long 
 after the decline of literature under Alexander^'s successors, the 
 knowledge of the text had become obliterated. When the period 
 of reconstruction arrived the dialectological theories which en- 
 
 * Some of the forms of VP are regarded by Stein and others as due to the 
 grammarians. 
 
92.] THE DIALECT OF HERODOTOS. 97 
 
 i deavoured to break through the obscurity succeeded only in 
 perpetuating" divergent views as to the nature of prose Ionic. 
 Nor did these theories, which found the chief field for their 
 
 j activity in the text of Herodotos^ spare the texts of the lesser 
 
 i lights of the Ionic constellation. 
 
 j 92.] The investigation pursued in the present work proceeds 
 
 I upon principles which may thus be outlined : — 
 
 I I. Herodotos made use of a uniform system of phonetics and 
 
 j inflection ^, i. e. when a word can be shown to be genuine Ionic 
 
 ! and Herodoteian, no variation in its form is permissible except 
 
 in certain special cases, as, for example, those comparatively few 
 
 I epic reminiscences which are so direct as to carry the Homeric 
 
 ; form into Herodotos. Nor are we to regard as recalcitrant 
 
 such variations as /3o?j^ea), jBuxravrL. Proper names of non-Ionic 
 
 peoples and personages are given, now in the Ionic, now in the 
 
 native, form. 
 
 2. The appellate court for deciding upon impeachable portions 
 
 of the Herodoteian system of phonetics and inflection is composed 
 
 of the inscriptions and the poets of Ionic birth. Herein we 
 
 attribute greater weight to the writers of iambics and trochaics 
 
 [than to the elegists. The language of the inscriptions alone 
 
 is not an absolute criterion of the genuineness of an Ionic form 
 
 unless the inscription is older than 400 B. c. and contains no 
 
 trace whatsoever of that which is specifically Attic. When the 
 
 [language of the inscriptions, with this limitation, agrees with 
 
 ,that of the poets, we possess in their agreement the surest 
 
 [test possible under the circumstances by which to examine the 
 
 'credentials of any disputable form; and against the united voice 
 
 of iambists and stone records the fluctuating orthography of 
 
 Herodoteian or Hippokratic MSS. can make no stand. On the 
 
 ; other hand, it is necessary to insist upon the fact, too often 
 
 forgotten by some of the radical German scholars, that because a 
 
 form is found in iambic poetry, or in the inscriptions, it does not 
 
 follow that this form must be Herodoteian. 
 
 In the course of the detailed examination of Ionic my primary 
 purpose has been to let the facts themselves show how great 
 or how small is the difference between the actual speech of 
 
 ' Stein, -whose principle it is to follow the best MSS. in each passage, and 
 who admits the doctrine of manifold forms, quotes with approval Orator 
 156 : alias ita loquor ut concessmn est, ut hoc vel proh deum dico vel proh deorum, 
 alias ut necesse est, cum trium virum non virorum, cum sestertium nummum, non 
 nummorum, qiiod in his consuetudo varia non est. But, as has long ago been 
 remarked, this by no means implies that a writer has the liberty of mixing 
 'archaic and modern forms at will. There are not wanting in Herodotos, or 
 even in inscriptions, analogues of the retention of the old gen. in -uvi, while 
 cases similar to the younger -orum had elsewhere gained a place in the language 
 of the day. 
 
 H 
 
98 THE IONIC DIALECT. [93. 
 
 Herodotos^ time and that which is ordinarily proclaimed as fifth 
 century Ionic, the rules for which, as formulated by Dindorf ^ in 
 the Didot edition, upon the authority of Herodoteian MSS., have 
 proved for nearly two generations a treacherous guide to editors '^ 
 of the Ionic writers of the Hadrianic Renascence and of the authors 
 quoting early Ionic literature. I have endeavoured not to 
 advance any theory, either of the development of Ionic prose 
 literature or of the nature of the Herodoteian dialect, which 
 might throw into a false light the explanation of the life of the 
 individual form ; but to present the material in such bulk and 
 in such shape that the theory advanced in this part of the 
 volume, when supported b}"" the facts as given in another, 
 cannot be dislodged by the arguments of those of different belief. 
 
 The view of the dialect of Herodotos which, on the whole, 
 seems most probable is as follows : — 
 
 The 'loTopu;? ciTTobe^Ls was originally composed, not in the 
 pure Milesian dialect as spoken in ordinary life by the INIilesians 
 of the fifth century, but in an ennobled form of the Milesian 
 dialect which, gradually perfected by the predecessors of Herodotos, 
 had received under the hands of the historian an impress 
 due to the peculiar virtue of his genius. This literary Milesian 
 idiom had its roots in the soil. Its inflections and phonetics 
 were those of the common speech. If this common speech did 
 not invariably and at once reject all older forms that were brought 
 face to face with those of more recent origin, a fort'ion the 
 literary dialect did not keep pace with the innovations of the speech 
 of daily life^. It confessed the supremacy of the Ionic epos* 
 by a frequent reproduction of Homeric sentiment and phraseology, 
 chiefly for the purpose of ornament. An additional lustre was shed 
 
 ^ Dindorf, it is true, uttered a warning against a superstitious reverence 
 for the authority of the MSS. : quorum audoritate sola qui regi judicium suum 
 pathmtur perinde /admit ac si quis tesserarum jadu decernendum esse coufeudat quibiis 
 quoque in loco vocabulorum formis usus esse putandus sit Herodotus. But Dindorf 
 lived in a state of primeval innocence in j-espect of epigraphy. The iam- 
 bographers l|ave in his view no voice at all, the pseudo-Ionists an all import- 
 ant voice in shaping the form of Herodoteian Ionic. 
 
 ^ The dialectologist is hampered at every turn by this dependence upon a 
 long established code which results in grafting upon such authors as Stobaios 
 all sorts of hyper-Ionic forms. Especially is this to be deplored in the case 
 of the many editions which do not give a full conspectus of various readings. 
 Such a book as Diel's Sivi]jlicius is a notable exception. 
 
 ^ For example, if in Halikai-nassos or in Miletos the form of the article 
 was ro7s about the year 450 B. c, it does not follow that in Herodotos the 
 longer form should be disi^laced, provided, as is the case, rolai existed in 
 Miletos in the sixth century. For to7<xi in Hdt. to be correct, it is necessary 
 that it should have existed at a time when the Milesian literary dialect was 
 forming. 
 
 Demetr. de EIoc. § ji : -kKt^v ol fx\v yvj-Lvri irdvv xpaJi'rai tt) fiifxr\ffii ruv 
 7roir)Twv, yuaAAor 5f ov fii/x-fiOfi, aWa fXiraBifffi KaOdirep 'HpoSoros. @ovKvSiSriS 
 fXiVTOi Kh.v Ka^ri irapa tov irotTjTov ri, ISiu'S avri^ xp'^t^^^os 'ibiov rh Arjcpdev irotel. 
 
92.] THE DIALECT OF HERODOTOS. 99 
 
 upon the heroes of the Ionic Revolt and of Marathon by the 
 recital of their deeds in a languag-e whose tone recalled that 
 in which the poet had recounted the story of Achilles and of 
 Odysseus. But in its external form, save in those passages which 
 I were imbued with epic colour, it was the dialect of the sixth 
 and fifth centuries, such as is in part presented in the language 
 of the epigraphic monuments and in part to be reconstructed by 
 the aid of the living speech of a slightly older date, found in its 
 purest form in the fragments of Archilochos, Simonides of 
 Amorgos, and Hipponax, and in the elegists after a considerable 
 subtraction of epic forms has been made. And furthermore, 
 this Milesian dialect must not be thought of as a highly artificial 
 [ idiom, hostile to natural and spontaneous variation. 
 I " The practical effect of this theory, if applied to a reconstruction 
 of the Herodoteian text, would leave undisturbed by far the 
 greater part of the dialect. The system of declension unfolded 
 in the best MSS. would be preserved, the traces of '^[Kuxn'i 
 vouched for, while its absence in compounds would not be 
 branded as spurious. But in one particular which for years has 
 been proclaimed a distinguishing feature of Later Ionic — the 
 entire absence of contraction of the -eco verbs — the testimony of 
 j the stone records and of the iambists is fatal to the assumption 
 I that Herodoteian Ionic is fifth century Ionic. The evidence 
 ' as to the scheme of inflection of the contracted verbs is so 
 complete that those who maintain the genuineness of the readings 
 i of the ordinary editions must take refuge in the conclusion that 
 the historian deliberately resuscitated an entire system of in- 
 flection which had passed out of actual speech nearly a century 
 before his time. The artificiality of style which adopts obsolete, 
 or gives renewed life to obsolescent words is essentially different 
 from a prose diction which reproduces a whole scheme of dead 
 inflections. Even on the view that Herodotos' prose, like that 
 of Hekataios, was derived immediately from poetry, its inflection 
 of the ver/ja pura is not the inflection found in iambic or elegiac 
 poetry. I can find no cause for Herodotos^ adoption of Homeric 
 j inflections in the fact that the elegy of the fifth century shows a 
 ''marked increase, as contrasted with the elegy of Kallinos and 
 Mimnermos or that of Tyrtaios and Solon, in respect of the 
 [appearance of Homeric forms. It might well be asked whether 
 there was any tie connectmg the elegy with the other Ionic 
 prosaists whose MSS. display the same forms as those of Herodotos. 
 lAnd it should be noted that in these elegists there is scarcely a 
 ! trace of pseudo-Ionisms, of which the MSS. of Hdt. are full. 
 
 Though as regards the contraction of -ew verbs the evidence 
 j points in but one direction, there are several other cases where 
 
 H 2 
 
lOO 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. [93. 
 
 we are unable to bring- into court harmonious testimony to affect 
 the evidence of Kerodoteian MSS. Here the degree of certainty 
 attainable is of necessity reduced, and each case must stand upon 
 its own merits. 
 
 Thus where there is a direct conflict between the Herodoteian 
 form and that of the inscriptions, as in the case of the specifically 
 Ionic K forms (kw?, Korepos), Archilochos and Simonides of 
 Amorgos show that such forms existed in their day. Conversely 
 the inscriptions often vouch for the validity of a form in 
 Herodotos which is absent from the Ionic poets. 
 
 Where Herodotos has a form which is unattested both by 
 inscriptions and lyric poets, its spuriousness is not thereby proven, 
 unless it is diametrically opposed to known laws of Greek | 
 morphology, and is beyond the recognized influence of analogy, f 
 Thus kcavToiv may readily be defended. ' 
 
 93.] 
 
 Though this treatise does not propose to lay down the principles govern- 
 ing the construction of a genuine Herodoteian text beyond those already | 
 stated, it is appropriate in this connection to qtiote the words of the eminent f 
 editor Stein in reference to the use of inscriptional testimony: — ^ In the , first ( 
 place the extent of these inscriptional texts, including those of late date, and their evidence I 
 as to language is so fragmentary and scanty, that they can make no reply when questio7ied j 
 as to many of the points in douht. The provenance and the age of these inscriptions are 
 quite different, the language in ivhivh they are couched, far from uniform {herein agreeing 
 with the well-attested division into sub-dialects) and full of all sotis of unevennesses. TJiis 
 lack of uniformity is visible in the monuments of one and the same locality and period, 
 ayid often in one and the same inscription.' Whether Stein would apply these 
 words, written in 1885, to the present corpus of Ionic inscrijjtions, I am 
 unable to say. But since they express a wide-spread view as to the applica- 
 bility of the Ionic inscriptions in questions of Herodoteian criticism, it is 
 appropriate to state here that it has been found impossible to draw distinct 
 lines between sub-dialects of Asiatic Ionic ; that variations from an Ionic 
 norm are traceable either in the direction of adventitious Aiolisms or Atti- 
 cisms ; that the differences in form within the confines of Ionic are differ- 
 ences of timf, one locality having preserved an ancient form longer than 
 another ; and that this 'lack of uniformity in one and the same inscrijjtion' 
 is nothing more than a casual variation in orthography (raora, ravrci). It is 
 difficult to discover an actvial contradiction upon the same inscription, or 
 upon inscriptions of the same locality and of the same period '. 
 
 Tlie Dialect of Hippokrates. 
 
 94.] There is no satisfactory treatise on the dialect of the 
 Hii)pokratic and pseudo-Hippocratic treatises. Observations 
 more or less fragmentary will be found in : — 
 
 1 Cf. Fritsch V. D. H. p. 4. 
 
95-] THE DIALECT OF HIPPOKRATES. 1 01 
 
 GoMPEKZ : Die Apologie der Heilkimst, 1 890. 
 
 Ilbekg : Studia Pseudippocrafea 1883, p. 32 ff. ; and Zar Uebeiiieferung des hippo- 
 
 kratischen Corpus, B. M. XLII 436, 1889. 
 KuEHLEWEiN : Ohservationefs de usu particidarum in libris qui vulgo Hippocratis nomine 
 
 circum/eruntur, 1870. Die Texiesueberlieferimg der angeblich hippokratischen Schrift 
 
 ueber die alte Heilkunde in Hermes XXII 179 193, 1887. 
 LiNDEMANN : De dialedo lonica recentiore, 1889. 
 LiTTRE : in his edition, vol. I 479 ff., 1839. 
 C. F. LoBECK : Beitraege sur Kenntniss des Bialekts des H. in Philologus, vol. VIII 
 
 19 ff., 1853 (on the genitive plural of a stems). 
 Renner : De dialedo aniiquioris Giriecorum poesis elegiacae et iambicae, in Curtius' 
 
 Studien I i, 133 ft"., I 2, i ff. 186P. 
 
 95.] Thoug-h a native of the island of Kos and hence of Doric 
 stock ^, Hippokrates adopted the dialect which had been handed 
 down as the recognized instrument of scientific thought. It 
 was in Ionic that the speculations of Parmenides, Anaxagoras^ 
 Demokritos (the inferior of Aristotle alone in his encyclopaedic 
 grasp of science), Melissos, and Diogenes of Apollonia found 
 expression. But apart from the despotism exercised by literary 
 tradition, it should not be forgotten that the Dorians had not 
 wrought out a literature of their own in the middle of the 
 fifth century. A Dorian prose scarcely existed. Furthermore 
 upon Kos itself the influence of the neighbouring Ionic speech 
 may have made itself felt as early as the time of Hippokrates. 
 In the third century at least we find adventitious lonisms in the 
 dialect of the island ^. 
 
 The dialect of Hippokrates did not receive any very wide- 
 spread attention in ancient times. Gregory of Corinth rarely 
 cites him ^. Some of the lesser commentators commented upon 
 
 Ailian, V. H. IV 20 : \4yovai 5e AaipUa ovra rhv 'Itttt. aA.A' oZv KaX rov 
 Ari/ioKplTov X"P"' "'■fj 'laSi (ponvfj ffvyypd^at ra (Tvyypd/xfj.ara. This was making a 
 virtue of necessity. A letter of the pseudo-Hippokr. says : t$ yevei fxev ow 
 iffrl Awpievs, TrSAeais 5e Kco. 
 
 ' ^ laTTo^Sf^dvTU} in No. 260 of Newton's Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British 
 Museum: Kveoffa J. H. S. IX 334, 1. 56, 61 {KVivcra p. 327, 1. 2). See Bechtel 
 Giitl. Nachr. 181^0, p. 31 ff. On the similarity of the Koan dialect of Hippo- 
 krates to Asiatic Greek in the use of certain words, cf. Galen XVII A 929, 
 XVIII A 438, 469 [ff^res), also XV 554, XVIII B 590. Naturally the forger 
 
 1 of the response of the Koans to Artaxerxes did not scruple to put Ionic in 
 the mouth of a Doric speaking people. In a late epigram from Kos (first or 
 second century a. d. according to Kaibel Epigr. No. 202) we find tarpwv of the 
 vulgar dialect in the first part of the inscription. In the last part (eis eavrov) 
 the physician Melanthios, of Kos, is called lijTripa. 'A'l'Sas, in 1. 3, is due to a 
 Doric stone cutter. In Kaibel 254 from Paphos, third or fourth century B.C., 
 we find Doric forms. Doric forms are not infrequent upon late epigrams in 
 relation to medical matters. As a rule, however, Ionic was the dialect appro- 
 priate to the commemoration of physician or poet. On the other hand the 
 form aperd shows that there existed a tendency to emphasize this conception 
 as Doric. 
 
 iip^oDV, rrtffi xpoviijtn XeievTipiriaiv . . . (rrifjiClov, (pOiffios, rd/xyeii' are quoted 
 by Gregory. 
 
I02 THE IONIC DIALECT. [95. 
 
 tlie Ilippokratie use of words, in researches devoted more par- 
 ticularly to the investig'ation of his vocabulary ^. Galen is, so J 
 far as we know, the only ancient who devoted himself to the ^ 
 study of the dialect of Hippokrates, having written a special 
 treatise^ containing in part his views upon the subject. Though 
 Galen was doubtless no critical dialectologist, the loss of this 
 tractate is greatly to be deplored, for Galen knew of readings in 
 the possession of the ancient commentators^; he sometimes calls 
 attention to the fact that Sabinius and Rufus^, who on his view 
 was a conservative critic, mention the oldest readings ; and 
 is himself acquainted with MS. tradition antedating his own 
 period by three or four hundred years ^. As a compensation for 
 the loss of this dialectological study we have side-lights thrown 
 out in the course of the commentary, most of which are 
 illustrative of the indifference displayed hy his predecessors® 
 and contemporaries to the general form of the dialect of the 
 great Asklepiad. 
 
 Galen says that some write ocryycri, others okoctj^o-l, others 
 oiroai-icTL with tt instead of k, which is the procedure of Capito in 
 all similar cases. Then, as if to belie that philological zeal 
 which incited him to an investigation of the dialect of Hippo- 
 krates, he adds that it makes no difference to science which 
 spelling one may adopt, that he had devoted himself to showing 
 up only those lapses in form which were destructive of the 
 sense; and as for those changes which were merely verbal, he 
 bids every one write as he pleases'^. Galen was himself not 
 above giving credence to hyper-Ionic formations, as is shown in 
 
 It has been widely held, and last of all by Christ, in his , 
 lUdory of Greek Literature, that some at least of the Atticisms of If 
 Hippokrates are due to the influence exercised by the editions of 
 Dioskorides and Artemidorus Capito under Hadrian. The latter 
 
 ' Baechios Tn his Ae^eis noticed that iroraivia in Ionic denoted everything 
 given for food or drink. The first glossator of Hippokrates, Xenokritos, 
 ■A compatriot of the physician, called attention to the fact that the locution 
 aWocpdffffcii {Progn. 44) referred, not to language, but to intelligence i_delirium\ 
 
 "' ivioov fxfv ypa<p6vToov ' €XPW t^v IrtrpSv,' ivioov Se X'^P^^ '''"^ '^"'■'^^ o.pxw f 'XP^** 
 rhv li/)Tp6v.' eCTt yap afxiXn Koi tovto crvyrjOes ro7s 'Attiko7s, wv tt) Sia\(KTCi> 
 XpVTai Kara, ri Ka\ 6 'Itttt., iis airoKprivacrOai rivas avrrjv apxaiau 'ArOiSa. ifjiol Sf l| 
 Ka6' erepoy l^ia ypdfx/xa fiiKphv & (ppovSi wepl ttjs 'Itttt. 5iaAe/fTou SeS'fiXooTai, XVIII ~ 
 B 322. There is no period of Old Attic which i^resents a dialect like that of 
 Hippokrates. 
 
 -' Cf. XVII A 1005. 
 
 * Of Rufus he says : avr]p (pv\d<rcreiv . . . ael ireipa>u.evos ras 7roA.oias ypa(pd.s: cf. 1 
 XVI 474, 636. ■ 
 
 » XV 21-22 (Peripatetics'), XVIII B 6^0. 
 
 « Rufus and Sabinius, XVI 474, XV 22, XVIII B 631, 
 
 ' XVII A 798 ; cf. also XVI 474. 1 
 
g6.] THE DIALECT OF HIPPOKRATES. 103 
 
 edition is censured by Galen as deliberately setting- aside the 
 ancient readings. The recent researches of Ilberg- have, however, 
 shown that these Atticizing- editions have left no trace of their 
 influence upon the vulgate. Whatever the source of the Atti- 
 cisms which have supplanted the Ionic element in the Hippokratic 
 corpusj their presence testifies to a deterioration of the dialecto- 
 logical conscience of early transcribers and editors. 
 
 As if there were not already sufficient provocation for Atti- 
 cizing texts, whose subject-matter, not whose external form, had 
 ensured their renown, an additional reason for the displacement 
 of the original Ionic may have been found by the ancients in 
 the belief to which Galen gives expression when he states that 
 Hippokrates made use of the Attic dialect nj) to a certain 
 point. Some even reg-arded his dialect as the apxp-ia 'AtOls. 
 The existence of such an opinion in scientific circles only added 
 force to the movement which obscui-ed the original form of the 
 dialect. 
 
 96.] A thoroughgoing examination of the dialect of Hippo- 
 krates is not attempted in this work, for the reason that the 
 avenues of approach are barred by the uncritical character of 
 our editions. Though Littre has the honour of recognizing 
 for the first time the value of the Paris codex 2253 [A) of the 
 eleventh or, as Ilberg thinks, of the tenth century, he did not 
 make it the sole basis for his text. He merely utilized its readings 
 for the correction of the vulgate of the more recent MSS. and 
 of the edition by Cornarius. The edition of Ermerins, though 
 adhering more closely to A than that of Littre, labours under 
 the disadvantage of having had recourse only spasmodically to 
 the Marcianus (M of the eleventh century). The projected edition 
 of Ilberg and Kuehlewein will be based upon a more careful 
 examination of A and 6 (the Vienna MS. of the tenth century), 
 upon a collation of 31, the Vaticanus 276, and several Paris 
 codices [E, I), H, F^ J), and upon researches in the indifferently 
 edited or still unpublished treatises of Galen ^. 
 
 Until this edition appears I deem it unadvisable to venture 
 upon so elaborate a study of Hippokrates^ dialect as has been 
 thought proper in the case of Herodotos, where full and exact 
 MS. testimony is in our hands. The Ionic forms as found in A 
 have nevertheless been given with some detail, especially in respect 
 of the contract verbs in -eco and other crucial points. So far as 
 I have followed the recent researches into the history of the 
 transmission of the Hippokratic text, I conclude that it will be 
 
 ' Ilberg has already shown, upon the basis of a collation of some Venetian 
 MSS., that the text of Hippokrates in the hands of Galen was less dissimilar 
 to the best traditional text than scholars are wont to imagine. 
 
I04 THE IONIC DIALECT. [97. 
 
 unlikely that a complete collation of 31 will necessitate other y 
 readin<^s of the lonisms than those found in A and 6. It must be *^ 
 borne in mind throughout that even A is not free from the 
 constantly recurring inconsistencies presented by the recentiores, 
 of whose variants Gomperz says that they are worth not a whit 
 more than a series of modern conjectures. Like M, A contains 
 not only a very considerable number of Atticisms which have 
 obscured the original lonisms, but also many pseudo-Ionisms, 
 such as the open ee in forms of the -eco verbs, wdiere A and J/ 
 are often no better than the recentiores. The Vienna IMS. 
 often adopts the contracted, where the recentiores have the open, 
 forms ; A has even such hyper-Ionic forms as avTeio, tovt€(o, 
 though much less frequently than the inferior MSS.^ 
 
 97.] 
 
 Ilberg has shown {E. M. XLII 443) that and A agree in opposition to 
 most of the other MSS. in the following cases: vSarnxa but vovaos ; often orav, 
 oirSray, oTrSre, odeu &c., together with the k forms ; avris and adOis ; -Kvpiav, 
 SiaiTaadai where the Vulgate has irvpirjv, SiairTja-dai \5iai.Te7(T9ai" ; xpV'^SC''' ^^^^ 
 contracted forms generally ; often ksTtui not Keerai ; iSe7u not ISeeiv ; apKu, 
 Sv(T(TiBe7v, KpaTfi, KaXovai ; acrdevrj, IwexiSs ; -oir and -ais in dat. jjlural. 
 
 98.] The mint-marks of the Hippokratic dialect are not 
 confined to the genuine writings, but are spread over the entire 
 Hippokratic corpus. The criterion of dialect does not enable 
 us to detect traces of spuriousness, nor does it display any 
 considerable diminution in the amount of lonisms in those 
 treatises which diplomatic criticism has referi'ed to the period 
 foUowino" that of the founder of Greek medicine. Since several 
 of these treatises are contemporaneous with, or slightly older 
 than, Ktesias or Aristotle, it is idle to expect any thorough- 
 going difference in the use of Ionic forms between these later 
 treatises and those proceeding directly from Hippokrates himself. 
 
 99.] The chief mint-marks of Hippokrates^ lonism are as 
 follows : — 
 
 I. Vowels. 
 
 r; for d after e, t, p, as in verjvLcrKos, Kaphit], IrjTpos, Trprjvs, 
 aKpr]TOS. 
 
 e for et in es, €<T(a. 
 
 ov for in jjiovvos, vovcros (but vocriu)) ; ovvoixa is not to 
 be adojited, though frequently occurring in the MSS. 
 
 CO and not av in Tp5>p.a. 
 
 ojv has generally been displaced in favour of Attic ovv. 
 
 cou for av in k(x)VTov. 
 
 ' See below, § 116. 
 
99.] THE DIALECT OF HIPPOKRATES. 105 
 
 t is expelled in dei. The et forms in TrAeToz;, &e., outweigh, 
 as in Herodotos, those without the t. 
 
 r]i for ei in suffixes is extremely rare, (rrjjn'fiov is claimed as 
 a certain case of rji. 
 
 o + r] is uncontracted (as in Herodotos) in jSorjdeo). In De 
 Arte, voTjcraL occurs despite the rco- form in Herodotos, Theognis, 
 and, according to Philodemos in Demokritos. 
 
 In the forms of the -ecu verbs, the receutiores have almost 
 invariably the open forms which appear to a very considerable 
 extent in A and M. 6 often has the contracted forms where the 
 recentiores adopt ee, eet. Littre holds to the non-contraction, 
 while admitting the presence of eu in present and participle. 
 Second aorists such as IhUiv have gained a position in the MSS. 
 Adjectives in -vs have open ee (o^e'e?, irpijees), adverbs in -eo)? 
 are uncontracted ; rjp is more frequently attested than eap. 
 2. Consonants. 
 
 Littre decides in favour of the k forms in okoIos, &c. ; 
 while Gomperz [jipologie der Heilkunst p. 87) holds that the 
 interrelation of A and the recentiores, notably in the case of 
 De Flatibus and De Natura Horn., makes for the conclusion that 
 the K forms were smuggled in through a belief that the -n forms 
 were not Ionic. Cf. Galen XVIII B 669. 
 
 In respect of the adoption of ^vv or avv, Littre argues in 
 favour of the former, Gomperz in favour of the latter form. 
 The recentiores prefer the Attic form, A has both with a 
 preference for avv, which is the only genuine Ionic form. 
 
 Traces of Ionic i/^tAojcrt? are rare, having been obliterated 
 
 by conjecture at an early period. Gomperz restores ait' ot^wv 
 
 ! in II 74, cf. Be Natura Hominis 2 (VI 34), De Flatibns 
 
 (VI 98). avTis is found Be Flatibns (VI 92), //erecouroii in M 
 
 I (VI 114), a-niKvi^Tai De Sacro Morho 16 (VI 390), kiiohoKTL in 
 
 ! De Diaeta A 32 (VI 508), hiTUi]Tai in iTin De Morbis 1 (VII 8), 
 
 ti>vT6s De Carnitjus (VIII 588). 
 j 3. Declension. 
 
 I The genitive plural of the A declension ends in -^mv, the 
 
 ' dative plural in -r]cn or sometimes in -aia-i ; in the O declension 
 
 -oKTi, but Tot? according to Littre. Most of the cases of -ots 
 
 occur before a vowel. The iota stems preserve the iota throughout. 
 
 Neuters in -oj and -rj? have uncontracted eo, ea, eco. In respect 
 
 of the variation between it and et in the MSS., the former is to 
 
 , be adopted. 
 
 I 4. Conjugation. 
 
 On -eco verbs, see under i. The participle of etfii is always 
 ifav. -earat appears in the perfect [dpiarai for (lp7]VTai) and 
 'Oiaro in the optative {yevoCaTo for yivoivTo). 
 For other featui'es, see § 97. 
 
 Il 
 
I06 THE IONIC DIALECT. [iCO. 
 
 100.] The attitude of scholars towards the question of the 
 orig-inal dialect of Hippokrates has been far from uniform. 
 Hering-a, holding- that Herodoteian usage was that of Hippokrates, 
 demanded that the texts of both Herodotos and Hippokrates 
 should be so emended as to ]iresent the picture of one and the i 
 same dialect. Koraes recognised the desirability of assimilating ' 
 Hijipok ratio to Herodoteian usage^ though at the same time 
 he adopted Homeric ^ and other forms. Struve first called 
 attention to the existence of differences between the language 
 of Herodotos and Hippokrates. Eight of these differences, as 
 formulated by Littrc (together with the testimony of the 
 pseudo-Ionists which I have added), are as follows : — 
 
 T. beKonai in Hdt. Luk. (Arr. doubtful) = 8exo//ai Hipp. Aret. 
 
 a. Hdt. and imitators frequently show traces of the Ionic 
 ^|/iXco(TLs {aTiLKvio\xai, ovk oIo?) ; neither Hipp, nor his imitators 
 follow Herodoteian usage herein. 
 
 3. Upos and Ipos in Hdt. Luk. Arr. = Upos Hipp. Aret. 
 
 4. 6u)pLa ^ Hdt. Arr. = davpia Hipp. 
 
 5. oTTo'r^eft? Hdt. = aTTobci^is Hipp. The words are in reality 
 from different roots. 
 
 6. (Tvv Hdt. and imitators = ^vv HijDp. and imitators. 
 
 7. -?)(,■- in Hdt. and imitators occurs far more frequently than 
 in Hipp. The imitators of Hipp, follow their model herein. 
 
 8. The demonstrative pronoun (article) is used by Hdt. in 
 place of the pure relative. Hipp, and imitators adopt the 
 Attic usage. Lukian has many exceptions to the Herodoteian 
 use. 
 
 In addition to these marks of divergence we may add the 
 following : — 
 
 9. piiyados Hdt. and imit. = pi.eye9os Hipp, and Aretaios. 
 
 10. TToAAo's Hdt. and imit. = ttovXvs or ttoKvs Hipp, and 
 Aretaios. Hdt. has but few cases of ttoKvs. 
 
 11. Hdt. and his imitators have evem-, Hipp, and Aretaios 
 h^eyK-. ♦ 
 
 12. Hdt. has epcrrjy, Hipp. (Lukian and Arrian) have apai^v. 
 
 13. Hdt. has appu)hi(o, Aretaios (and Lukian) have opptoSe'co. 
 
 14. Hdt. S)i' (Luk. Arrian)^ Hipp, ovv, Aret. both. • 
 The Hippokratic Ionic '■' is, if these differences are valid, } 
 
 a much milder form of the dialect than that used either by the 
 iambographers or historians, that is, a dialect which is essentially j 
 
 ' That Hippokrates is often in touch with Homer afifords no support for j 
 this vi(!W : cf. for example, eVV to e\Kos aXeaivrjTai with 405 (Leaf). 
 
 ' According to Littre eoiO/to was the preferable reading. But cf. §§ 205, 258. 
 Lukian inclines to dwvfia. 
 
 ^ Under the head of word formation it may be noted that Hdt. has far 
 fewer cases of -tjfis, -oeis than Hippokrates. 
 
102.] THE DIALECT OF HIPPOKRATES. 107 
 
 Ionic but admits numerous Attic forms. A parallel picture is 
 presented by those inscriptions from Ionic territory which have 
 adopted some Attic forms. 
 
 101.] Basing his position upon the fact that the dialect of 
 the treatises current under the name of Hippokrates, but not 
 emanating" from the master himself, is practically the same as 
 that of those free from all suspicion of spui-iousness, Gomperz ^ 
 argues that, of the eight marks of differentiation between the 
 Hippokratic and the Herodoteian dialect, six can be shown not 
 to exist, that in the case of -rjt- and -et- the difference is gradual, 
 as it is in that of ^vp and avv ; and that in one point only — 
 Hippokratic Se'^ojuat, Herodoteian beKO[xat — is Littre substantially 
 correct. Of the six additional marks of difference brought forward 
 Gomperz is ignorant, as was Littre. 
 
 In his attack upon Littre's position, which has been conceded 
 by later scholars (though doubtless without personal examination 
 of the question), Gomperz admits that the presence of an isolated 
 Herodoteian lonism, even though it has been obscured in the 
 course of transmission to the time of our best MSS. (the tenth 
 and eleventh centuries), may justify us in holding that originally 
 the area of its extension was much wider. Thus in § 11 of 
 the tract De Arte he reads cTiet ri OQfxa^ for the eTrtTtfJerai of 
 A, in § 10 he upholds bibeKrat of 31 ; Ipos he finds in De Sacro 
 Morho, De Diaefa, and in De Flatibus ; in De Diaeta 5 (VI 476) 
 TO. used as a relative, De Prisca Medicina 8 (I 586) tSiv. So in 
 regard to the Ionic ps/iosis, and the use of ^vv and a-vv, of which 
 mention has been made above § 99, 2. 
 
 102.] So intricate is the problem of the complexion of the 
 Hippokratic dialect and of its place in the history of Ionic, 
 that we may well apply to it the words of Hippokrates himself 
 — ?7 KpCa-Ls x«^e7r?/. Two of the conclusions reached by Littr^ 
 must not pass unchallenged, though no positive advance toward 
 the solution of the main question is gained by their over- 
 throw. 
 
 I. The dialect of the undoubtedly spurious writings of Hip- 
 pokrates is nearly, if not quite, the same as that of the genuine 
 treatises and of those whose spuriousness is still unproven. This 
 fact, in Littre^s view, can be understood solely upon the suppo- 
 sition that the dialect was a living idiom. The minor variations 
 I which come to light reHect, he argues, the spoken language ; for 
 if the dialect existed solely for literary or scientific purposes, the 
 lonisms of the genuine Hippokrates would have been copied with 
 
 ' Apologie der Heilkunst, 1890, p. 82. 
 
 ^ This form is generally adopted by editors of Hdt. 
 
I08 THE IONIC DIALECT. [l02. 
 
 rig-orous precision by his successors^ none o£ whom is later than 
 the age of Aristotle ^. These minor variations, it should be noted, 
 are almost invariably in the direction of the adoption of the Attic 
 forms. 
 
 2. This actual dialect made use of by Hippokrates and his 
 successors was one of the four sub-dialects of Ionic recognised 
 by Herodotos, a sub-dialect in fact closely allied to Old Attic -. 
 One of these sub-dialects was according to Littre the 'pure' | 
 Ionic of Hekataios, another, the ' variegated/ that of Herodotos, 
 the third, that of Hippokrates. 
 
 It is evident that the overthrow of the second does not carry 
 with it the abandonment of the first proposition. 
 
 In answer to these hypotheses of Littre, I hold that it nowise 
 follows in the first instance that, because the successors of 
 Hippokrates, his sons, his sons-in-law ^ or other upholders of his 
 school, made use of the same dialect, this dialect was a living 
 idiom intact till the age of Aristotle'*. If literary tradition 
 enforced in the fifth century the writing in Ionic by those who 
 were not of Ionic stock, for example, Diogenes of Apollonia; 
 if literary imitation at a much later date among the pseudo- 
 Ionizers enforced a rej) reduction of Hippokratic Ionic ; if the 
 ' minor variations ' make more and more in the direction of 
 Attic, which by the year 400 had largely checked the production 
 of Ionic literatvire and in the middle of the fourth century 
 rendered impossible all creativeness in Ionic : it is, in view 
 of these considerations, well-nigh incredible that a sub-dialect 
 should have lived on, a Sprachlmel untouched by the waves 
 which in the fourth century washed away so many of the 
 landmarks of Ionic speech. 
 
 Littre's comparison of Ktesias ^ with Hippokrates, on the 
 ground that both admit only a partial lonism, is vicious. The 
 language of Ktesias is not that of a living sub-dialect. 
 
 Still more destructive to the conchisions of Littre is the 
 impossibility of localizing this sub-dialect of the Asklepiads. 
 In the island of Kos, despite occasional Ionic ingressions, Doric 
 
 ^ This terminus ante quern may readily be disputed. 
 
 ^ Herein Littre follows in the wake of certain unknown ancient students 
 of the Hippokratic diction ; of. § 95. 
 
 ^ Aristotle quotes the irepl (pvcrios avdpwirov under the name of Polybos, i 
 Hippokrates' son-in-law. 
 
 * Hoc veri simillimuin vidthitur originem coUcdionis consider anti, non conscriptam 
 eamfuisse dialecto prorsns eadem, sed eos sequiorum tempormn medicos, qui H. sibi pro- 
 posuissent imitandum, non semper exemplar assecutos formas adhibuisse interdum, quas I 
 aut apud alios ladis scriptores legissent aid lonicas esse /also sibi persuassisent, qita re 
 concessum esset fortasse, tempormn nisi nocuisset invidia, ut non solum scripta vere Hip- 
 pocratea nndta facilius secerneremxts a spuriis, verum etiam pseudepigraphorum auctores 
 diversos dignosceremus ; Ilberg, Pseudippocr. p. 33. 
 
 * Ktesias used fewer lonisms in his Persika than in his Indika ; see § 79. 
 
103-] THE DIALECT OF HIPPOKRATES. 109 
 
 held its ground at least to the second century b. c. Hippokrates' 
 dialect shows no trace of the Doric of his native speech. 
 
 It is of course no wonder that Littre failed to find the fourth 
 sub-dialect of Herodotos^ quadrilateral division. The Herodoteian 
 sub-dialects are neither artificial variations of a ' normal ' Ionic 
 constructed for the purpose of giving diversity to literary 
 expression, nor are they living svib-dialects ennobled and trans- 
 figured by Hekataios, Herodotos and Hippokrates. The appli- 
 cation by the ancients of the term ' unmixed '' Ionic to the 
 dialect of both Hekataios and Hippokrates cannot be tortured 
 into a proof of the existence of two sub-dialects. The phonetics 
 and inflections of Hekataios are practically identical with those 
 of Hippokrates (except the Atticisms referred to § 100), as they 
 are with those of Herodotos. If ' pure ' Ionic, on the ancients' 
 view, referred to matters of sound and inflection, and these 
 j Atticisms are a genuine survival of Hippokratic usage, it is 
 i difiicult to discover how the dialects of Hekataios and Hippo- 
 krates are both ^ pure/ in opposition to Herodotos' ' mixed ' 
 Ionic. And if these Atticisms should ultimately prove to be 
 adventitious (as the epithet 'pure' Ionic does not prove them 
 j to be), we can then discover in the MSS, no difference between 
 i the dialects of the three prosaists so far as morphology is 
 concerned. The close interrelation between the dialects of 
 Hekataios, Herodotos and Hippokrates makes for the conclusion 
 reached above § 79, that the terms 'mixed' and 'pure' Ionic 
 ; refer to stylistic differences, and that, emanating from the later 
 rhetorical study of Ionic prose, they are useless as guides in the 
 . search for actual dialectal differentiation. 
 
 103.] On the basis of an actual count of occurrences of the 
 
 forms in question, there is in the Hippokratic MSS. a not 
 
 j inconsiderable number of phenomena of Attic rather than Ionic 
 
 mould. That the list given in § 100 is to be reduced on the 
 
 lines of attack followed by Gomperz is not probable, despite 
 
 : the temptation to assimilate the Hippokratic to the Herodoteian 
 
 ; dialect, and thus establish one literary dialect of Ionic, varying 
 
 j widely as to style but essentially the same in matters of phonetics 
 
 and inflections. I do not think the existence of Attic element 
 
 ; can be said to be imperilled until the following questions are 
 
 i decided : — 
 
 1. Is the presence of an isolated lonism in the best MSS., 
 \ or even in the recentiores, to be accounted for as a chance survival 
 ' of an original wider extension, or as a form that has been 
 
 smuggled in under the cover of a mistaken attempt to restore 
 i the original? 
 
 2. Does the entire absence of an Ionic form in A or M in 
 
no THE IONIC DIALECT. [1C4. 
 
 the case of a pseucIo-Hippokratic treatise indicate that it was 
 not liippokratic, when this Ionic form occurs to any extent 
 whatsoever in the same MSS. of a g-enuine treatise? 
 
 3. Is the critical principle to be applied in the case of the 
 genuine, different from that to be applied in the case of the 
 spurious, treatises ? 
 
 PseiuIo-IoH ism . 
 
 Allinson, Pseudo-Ionism in the Second Century, A.D., A. J. P. VII 203, 1886. 
 LiNDEMANN, Dc dittlecto lonica recentiore, 1889. 
 
 104.] The conflict between the Asianie and the Attic rhetoric 
 in the first century before Christ not only led to a purification 
 of contemporary ideals of style^ but drew attention to the charm 
 and g-race of the history of Herodotos, whose fame, already 
 imperilled in the fourth century, had suffered eclipse on the 
 advent of that tasteless artificiality which dominated the period 
 intervening between the death of Aristotle and the appearance of 
 Dionysios of Halikarnassos. In calling Herodotos the ' best canon' 
 of Ionic Dionysios at once represented the clarified stylistic sense 
 of his age, and lent an impetus to that appreciative study of the 
 historian which bore its own peculiar and engrafted fruit in the 
 Hadrianic period. 
 
 The first tokens of the revival of interest in Ionic are, in 
 general, synchronous with the regeneration of Aiolic. The 
 literature of the declining- days of the Roman Republic led 
 the way to a deeper study of the style and linguistic apparatus 
 of the two dialects in which were preserved some of the most 
 splendid achievements of Greek genius, dialects whose actual life 
 was now tarnished and outworn. The Sophistic Renascence 
 under Hadrian presupposes the existence of the pseudo-Ionic 
 movement, which, having" won for itself a recognised place in 
 the literatiA-e of the early Empire, advanced with such rapid 
 strides that writing in Ionic became a reproach by the time 
 of Lukian ^ ; who was, however, not above displaying his talents 
 at the occupation he vilipended. 
 
 105.] The date of the first traces of the Ionic Revival and the 
 aspect presented by the rehabilitated dialect are matters of no 
 
 * An interesting statement in reference to the Ionic of the doctors is found 
 in irwi 5?? Icrr. crvyyp. 16: i toCto -^Tiaffifji-qv avTOv , on ap^d/xevos eV rrj 'laSt 
 ypdcpiiv ovK old' o Ti hii^av avTiKa /J.d\a swl t^V koiv))v fXfTrj\dev, IriTpeirjv fifv \eywt' 
 KOI TTi'ipyjv Kal dK6<ra koI vovcrot, ra 5' &Wa ofxoSiaiTa to7s iroWols Kal to. ■KKuffra 
 ola 4k TpioSov. Late epigrams upon inscriptions confirm the judgment of 
 Lukian in selecting vovcros and 'njrpdriv as sample words. 
 
Io6.] PSEUDO-IONISM. Ill 
 
 little uncertainty. Nikander^s imitations of the logographers 
 are lost, otherwise we might g-ain an insig-ht into the complexion 
 of Ionic prose in the period of Attalos III. Whether the 
 ! Xanthian Menekrates, quoted by Dionysios of Halikarnassos, 
 was a predecessor or contemporary of the rhetorician, I have been 
 unable to determine. Of the pseudo-Herakleiteian letters, which 
 contain a slight admixture of lonism, some at least (the eighth 
 i and ninth) may be referred to the closing years of the first century 
 I before Christ, though the remainder belong to the following 
 century ^. Whether the Ferlplous of Menippos (under Augustus) 
 was written in Ionic is uncertain. In this period of Ionic 
 writing hyper-Ionisms do not occur. The open forms ee and 
 eei in -eto verbs do not come to light in Dionysios, who has -eo- 
 side by side with -et-. Significant for the date of medical 
 lonism is the fact that of all the epigrams containing laudations 
 of successful treatment of disease, &c., scarcely one that is 
 tinged with such lonisms as vovaos, It-in'jp is antecedent to the 
 time of Christ. 
 
 106.] The character of certain portions of the inflectional 
 system of the old Ionic prose writers as found in the MSS. is due, 
 in part, to the gradual divorcement of the traditional from the 
 original form incidental to the transmission through centuries of 
 dialect texts, and partly to a ixeTaxapaKTrjpicriJios which has left 
 distinct traces of its existence in the peculiar complexion assumed 
 
 i by Ionic under the hands of Lukian, Arrian, Aretaios, and their 
 
 I contemporaries and successors. 
 
 j The term \xeTa\apaKTi]pL(rjx6s, as applied to certain mutations 
 
 ' of form undergone by words upon passing from the orthography 
 of the Attic to that of the Ionic alphabet, does not concern us 
 here. The Ionic poets ^ (perhaps some of the elegists and lyrists 
 not of Ionic birth), Hekataios, Herodotos and Hippokrates^ 
 
 I made use of the Ionic alphabet, doubtless in its Milesian form *. 
 All Ionic literature was in fact free from the possibility of the 
 depravation which threatened to impair the purity of that of 
 Attika in its passage from the old to the new alphabet ^. 
 
 ^ See Bernays' Lie pseudo-heraklitischen Briefe, Pfeiderer, R. M. XLII 153, 
 By water p. vii. 
 
 ^ Mimnermos may have made use of the signs H and n to represent 
 e and 0. 
 
 ' The distinction between the Ionic alphabet of the islands and Euboia, 
 and that of the Asiatic mainland is of no importance as regards the trans- 
 mission of early Ionic literature. 
 
 * In his commentary on the Kar' Irjrpuov, when speaking of the old 
 alphabet (II 23), Galen does not cite any example of MS. corruption due to 
 this species of p.iTaxapaKTnpi(rfi6s. 
 
 " On this point, see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff's chapter on the iieraypa\l/d- 
 ; nevoi in his Homerische Untersuchu7igen. 
 
112 THE IONIC DIALECT. [lo6. 
 
 There is^ however, another species of \x€raxapaKTripi(Tix6s which is 
 less a transformation of the isolated word than of the entire 
 dialectal spirit. It proceeds on two lines: (i) either in the 
 direction of the Atticizing- of the dialect texts, a fact patent to 
 every student of Greek dialectal literature, and of itself jirobable 
 enough, since to a later age the matter, not the form, was of 
 supi'eme interest. This is vouched for as regards Hippokrates 
 by Galen himself. The Athenians were accustomed at a very | 
 early period to have a copy in Attic, sometimes on the same 
 stone, of a document in another dialect. For example, the 
 stele of Sio-eion. The Atticizing' of dialect authors in the form 
 of paraphrases which we meet in Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastos i 
 and others, was precedent enough for the later generations of t 
 a people whose standard in matters of quotation was not so 
 exacting as that of modern times. This Atticization is not 
 confined to those authors who quote a passage merely for the 
 sake of the matter it contains. It attacks professed scientific 
 treatises or grammatical commentaries ^ A w8e ttcos did not 
 disturb the ancient conscience. 
 
 (2) This jjieraxapaKTripLoriJios proceeded in the direction of the 
 substitution of forms of the same dialect in the light of contem- 
 poraneous dialectological theories. Thus in BechteFs collection, 
 No. 108 B, we find an attempt at renewing- the dialect of an 
 Ionic inscription (108 A) at least five hundred years older. The 
 texts of Homer, Alkman ^, Korinna, Pindar, Epicharmos and 
 others bear testimony to the activity of the modernizing ju,era- 
 ypaxj/dixevot. This second kind of ix€TaxapaKTiipi.<jp.6s leads either 
 to the substitution of forms of a much later, for those of an 
 earlier, date (as witness crios in Alkman, ov/xe's, k?/ in Korinna) 
 or to the reverse process, which imparts an archaic colouring to 
 texts which were originally composed in the dialect of the u 
 writer's own time. 
 
 The investigation of the vagaries of the MSS. of early Ionic 
 prosaists a:^ords ample evidence that this second type of ju.era- 
 yapaKTr]pia\x6s has left its impress upon the transmission of the 
 texts of the logographers, of Herodotos and Hippokrates, as j. 
 well as upon those of some of the monuments of Ionic poetry, f 
 The Ionic of these texts has either been Atticized outrig-ht, or 
 it has been transformed in a greater or less degree under the 
 influence of grammarians^ speculation and copyists^ ignorance. 
 
 * The schol. Ven. A is sometimes guilty of Atticizing, e.g. on IX 7, where 
 idvovs is quoted as Herodoteian. The Ionic contributors to the Geoponika, 
 prepared by Cassianus Bassus at the command of Constantinus Porphyro- 
 genitus, all appeared in Attic dress. 
 
 -' A text of Alkman in a Late Lakonian form must have been the only 
 avenue of approach to the study of the poet. 
 
 f 
 
I08.] - PSEUDO-IONISM. II3 
 
 The study of this ixeTaxapaKTr]pi<Tix6s points in the direction of 
 the view that it had its commencement probably in the first 
 century before Christ and that its influence grew apace^ until 
 after the third century it resulted in producing- a chasm between 
 what was genuine Ionic and that which was thought to be Ionic 
 by successive generations till the sixth century a. d. Finally, 
 when the depravation from the hand of antiqu^ity had done its 
 work, the last blow to the text of Herodotos was dealt by the 
 Aldine edition, which gave the widest scope to hyper-Ionisms. 
 The result was that, as some one has said, the History of Herodotos 
 is as perverse a mixture as a compound of Middle High German 
 and Low German, created by a New High German writer. 
 
 107.] The writers of the Empire, and chiefly those of the age 
 of Hadrian, received the full shock of that wave of speculation 
 concerning' the original form of the Herodoteian and Hippokratic 
 dialect which was set in motion by the revival of interest in 
 Ionic and its monuments. The pseudo-Ionists, whether they 
 wrote entirely in Ionic or merely applied enough of Ionic colour 
 to indicate their sympathy with the literary canons of the day, 
 intended that their reproductions of the language of Herodotos 
 or of Hippokrates should conform to the dialect of their 
 i exemplars. But from the point of view of higher criticism 
 ;many of the pseudo-Ionisms of Lukian, Arrian and Aretaios 
 are on a different footing from the identical forms adopted in 
 [Stein's or Holder^s text. In the one case they are the result of 
 a generous impulse to reproduce what was deemed Herodoteian 
 or Hippokratic ; in the other, they never existed in the original 
 Itext of Herodotos or Hippokrates, but are the result of juera- 
 \apaKTi]piaiJ.6s, the coinage of a period far later than that of the 
 historian and physician, and yet about two centuries antecedent 
 to Lukian. This fact alone is sufficient to neutralize what little 
 yalue the texts of the pseudo-Ionists might possess in the 
 attempt to reorganize the disordered monuments of early Ionic 
 prose. Struve saw long ago that recourse to Lukian and Arrian 
 iwas unproductive of result for the student of Herodotos^ dialect. 
 We might almost say that the lonisms of the pseudo-Ionic 
 hterature, so far from enhancing, tend rather to obscure our 
 knowledge of the Ionic of the fifth century b. c. 
 
 108.] The endeavour, which we observe in the pseudo-Ionists, 
 -.0 present a correct picture of Herodoteian lonism failed because of 
 bhe uncertainty attendant upon the reconstruction of a dialect 
 ivhich had been corrupted by the turbid current of tradition. 
 The Homeric lonisms in Lukian and Arrian attest the fact of 
 I confusion, persistent in the MSS. of Herodotos, between two 
 jpecies of Ionic widely separated in point of time ; and the presence 
 
114 THE IONIC DIALECT. [lo8. 
 
 of hyper-Ionic malformation is evidence that the lonism of the 
 Hadrianic age rests upon an insecure speculation as to the original 
 form of the literary Ionic of the fifth century. This speculation 
 vented itself in such forms as masculine and neuter tovt€mv, amiuiv, 
 Tovreov, ecovreou, avreco, TOvreoLcnv (Lukian and Aretaios), covreov, 
 
 b)VT€Ol(TLV, 0)VTri, OiVTO., l) Oi)VTl], 7/ OiVTT], 7] ((OVTrj, TaVT€r]S, aVTtt} 
 
 (Aretaios), beaiTOTea, [xr]v^oov (Lukian), rnjieperj (Abydfenosj, \J.oipr\, 
 6r]kir]v (Lukian), ^ada] (Arrian). 
 
 In these forms the essential feature is either the misapplication 
 of the specifically Ionic diphthong- cov, or the insertion of an e 
 before a vowel or diphthong with which it is not contracted, 
 a characteristic of hyper-Ionism which at times outdoes that 
 of the most lax MSS. of Herodotos. A feminine Tovrecov was 
 correct enough, but, its origin being misunderstood, the jutera- 
 ypa\j/dix€V0L conceived the erroneous notion that this e, which 
 in this case distinguished the Ionic from the Attic form, was 
 a special peculiarity of the dialect which had gradually been 
 abandoned. Hence they not only inserted an e in avreca, in 
 jjLvecov, &c., which are purely hyper-Ionic forms, but they 
 demanded the visible presence of an e in -eei?, -eei, -eeo-^at, 
 &c., which are anachronistic, though not historically impossible. 
 Uncontracted forms were the shibboleth of the pseudo-Ionic 
 sciolists who gave to Herodotos the form which served Arrian 
 and Lukian for purposes of imitation. Their cardinal error 
 was the foisting of such forms upon the MSS. of Herodotos, 
 Hippokrates and other early lonians. Confused by an inability 
 to distinguish between Homeric and the Later Ionic; ignorant 
 of the fact that some vocalic combinations normally remained 
 uncontracted, while others had suffered contraction by the fifth 
 century; unable to recognize the phonetic value of the con- 
 junction of certain vowels which, though written apart, had: 
 nevertheless been fused as early as the seventh century, the jaera-i 
 ypa-^aixeroi reached the conclusion that vowels of the same vocal; 
 line had tke same claim to be kept separated as those of a different] 
 vocal line. Hence they wrote ee ^, e?;, eet, &c., without com- 
 punction. Even eretxee Hdt. I 1 1 8 (in all MSS.) was ventm'cd. It; 
 is not imjjossible that the earliest MSS. of Herodotos preserved an! 
 orthographical system of non-contraction of similar vowels which 
 may have descended from the conservative literary circles of the 
 fifth century, though in actual speech the contraction actually 
 ensued. Be this as it may, the pseudo-Ionists accepted as^ 
 genuine a scheme of inflections that can scarcely be claimed, 
 to be Herodoteian, and certainly cannot be claimed to be Ionic o\\ 
 
 ' In this connection it may be noticed that a Demetrios, not Ixion ojj 
 yovvTTicTos, did not scruple to write yeviiaQai in H 221. I 
 
110.] LIST OF PSEUDO-IONIC WRITERS. II5 
 
 the fifth century. The principle once established, and the rage 
 after dialect colouring" growing apace, e(i)VTeov, pLvicnv, avricD, 
 and all their kinsmen of monstrous birth, come into existence. 
 Some of these hyper-Ionisms that out-Herod Herod are too 
 frequent and too well established to be ascribed solely to the 
 copyists of the Middle Ages or of the Renascence, though we 
 have actual proof that they are responsible for many a case of 
 uncontracted e and for r]'C in sigmatic stems. 
 
 One of the hyper-Ionisms that occurs chiefly in the MSS. of Hippokrates 
 is 7j for a in such forms as iTJTai, virodvfii-fiffdc)}, oprjv, where the blunder was 
 caused by the stupid comparison of l-r}Tp6s &c. 
 
 List of Pseudo-Ionic Writers. 
 
 109.] The fact of having been born in a locality once Ionic 
 j seems to have had no weight in determining whether a writer 
 should adopt Ionic or the kolvt]. The Ephesians Rufus and 
 Soranos made use of the latter, while the Kappadokian Aretaios 
 ; and the Bithyuian Arrian preferred the former. That the 
 j contiguity to Ionia of the birthplaces of Aretaios and Arrian had, 
 i as was formerly believed, any influence in determining their 
 I choice of a vehicle of expression may confidently be denied. 
 
 The subjoined list falls into two divisions, (i) those pseudo- 
 lonists whose date is certain or at least may be determined with 
 t tolerable accuracy, (2) those whose period is quite lanknown. 
 
 110.] Pseudo-Ionists, whose date may be approximately 
 fixed : — 
 
 i 1. Apollonios of Tyana (under Nero and Domitian), of whom 
 Philostratos says : 'ATroAAcoi'io? be tcls }xkv bLa6y]Kas ras eavrov 
 
 , TOV IdviOV kp\X1]VeV€L TpOTTOP, eTTtCTToAT/ 8e ladTi ^VyKeLlJL€in] 0V7T(D 
 
 ' AiTokkoiVLOv TTpocreTv^ov, KaiToi ^vveiko\u>s avTov TrAetVras'. 
 
 2. Aretaios of Kappadokia is placed by some as early as 
 Nero^, while others regard him as belonging to the following- 
 century. His works irepl alTtcov kul (Tr]\xeiu>v d^eujv iradoiv, irepl 
 aiTiSiV Kai crrjixeLcov xpovicov irad^v, XpovLOJV iraO&v cn]ixei(aTLK6v 
 
 \ and o^iMv vovo-mv OepairevTLKov are composed in imitation of 
 Hippokrates. They are quoted from the pages of Kiihn. 
 
 It is to be noticed that medical writers who lived in the first 
 
 I half of the second century a. d., e.ff. Rufus and Soranos, both of 
 
 I Ephesos, wrote in the koi.vi]. 
 
 ' That the Ionic fashion had set in by the time of Nero may be learned 
 from the fact that Pamphila epitomized Ktesias' TlfpaiKo.. 
 
 I a 
 
 I 
 
ij6 the ionic dialect. [ho. 
 
 3. Arrian of Nikomedia (under Hadrian) : the 'IvbtK-i] alone 
 imitates the dialect of Herodotos ; it is quoted from the edition 
 of Hercher-Eberhard ^. 
 
 4. Under Lukian's name we have preserved the irepl acrrpo- 
 AoytTj?, TTcpl '2vpir]<i Oeov, and the genuine ^ioov irpaa-is, in which 
 Pythagoras, Demokritos and Herakleitos converse in Ionic. For 
 the study of pseudo-Ionism it is almost a matter of indifference 
 whether these first two treatises are supposititious works of 
 Lukian or not. For a comparison of the lonism of the first two 
 treatises see Dr. Allinson^s paper in A. J. P. VII 203 ff. (1886), 
 where the conclusion is reached that the Astrologij is the work 
 of some third-class writer, while the Syrian Goddess may be 
 genuine. Christ pronounces against the genuineness of both. 
 
 5. Kephalion (under Hadrian), author of -navroha-naX la-Topiai; 
 Miiller F. H. G. Ill 62^-^31. 
 
 To Foerster's essay on Polemon I have not had access. There seems no 
 evidence that the rhetor used Ionic. 
 
 6. Abydenos, author of a history of Assyria and Media, is 
 placed by Miiller i'^. //. G. IV 279 in the second or third century, 
 though Kastor made him a contemporary of Apis. The Ionic 
 of the fragment of Megasthenes (Miiller No. 9) quoted by 
 Eusebios Pr. Ev. IX p. 456 D is due to Abydenos. 
 
 7. Uranios' Treatise on Arabia, Miiller F. H. G. IV 523, 
 belongs to the third century. Frag. 12 has xoipr], -noiriv, ko^XUm, 
 but iTop(f)vpfiv and yecopyovab. 
 
 8. Asinius Quadratus (third century), author of a Roman 
 history (XtAt€r?]pts, XtXiapxia or XtAtas) from the foundation of 
 the city to 248 a. d. See Miiller F. II. G. Ill 659. Traces of 
 Ionic are found in frag. 23 ('I/37jpoto-i, TroAe/xe'oyres). 
 
 9. Eusebios (fourth century) affected Ionic style in his history, 
 beginning with Octavianus and continuing to 283 a. d. The 
 two fragnifents extant — on the siege of Thessalonika — are found 
 in Miiller F. IL G. V 21-23. 
 
 10. Of Praxagoras (fourth century) Photios relates that he 
 wrote in Ionic a treatise in two books Trept rStv ^ AOi'ivrfcn j^acrikev- 
 rravTMv, and one in six books eis rov tG>v MaKe5o'rcoi' ^aaiXia 
 'AXe^avbpov. See Dindorf Ilisf. Graecl 3Im. I pp. 438-440. No 
 fragments of these works are preserved. 
 
 11. Eusebios of Myndos in Karia (fourth century), the neo- 
 Platonist. His fragments, preserved in Stobaios, are collected 
 in Mullach F. P. G. Ill 5. 
 
 ^ See Boehner de Arriani dicendi genere (in vol. IV of the Acta of thf 
 Erlangen Seminary) for the relation of Arrian to Herodotos. 
 
III.] LIST OF PSEUDO-IONIC WRITERS. II7 
 
 111.] Pseudo-Ionists of Uncertain Date. In the case of 
 several of the authors here mentioned only a minute study of the 
 Hterature of the Hellenistic age can discover whether they may 
 be classed as the direct successors of Herodotos, and preservers 
 of the continuity of literary tradition, or simjily as forerunners 
 of the Ionic Revival. 
 
 I. On an inscription^ from Epidam-os we find a Doric epi- 
 gram in honour of Philip of Perg^amum, the son of Aristeides, an 
 historian otherwise unknown to fame. Underneath this epig-ram 
 is placed the following passage in Ionic from his work : — 
 
 'Eyoj TTavTOLcov iradeutv koI ^vve^sos aWi]\ocf)Ovu]s avd re ti]v 
 *A<rii]v Koi Ti]v F,vp(jc>7Ti]v kol to. Al(3vu)1' edi'ea koI N?jcricoTecor 'ttoXlus 
 Kad' 57/xe'as yeyevqixevcov ocrir] x<eip\ ttjv Trept rcor Kaivcav TTpi]^e(x)V 
 i<}TopLi]v i^i]V(yKa is rovs ''F.\Xi]vas, okcos koI 5t' i]p.ioiv jiarddvovres 
 OKoaa hi]p.0K0-Li) koX KepbectiV aju[€rpt7;] koI a-Tda-ies ep-ipykLoi, koL 
 TTicTTiCtiv KaraXvcreLS yevrCoa-iv KaKU, 7:apaTi-]pri(T€i iradeiov akXorpLOiv, 
 a'iTev6ri(Tovs) TToUcovraL rds rod j3iov biopdaxnas. 
 
 The fragment is interesting in showing a recurrence to Ionic 
 as the dialect first employed in historical writing. The pro- 
 clamation of Philip as OiCas Koipavov IcrTopias betokens a late 
 [ origin. From the character of the alphabet the inscription 
 j cannot well be older than the first century b. c.^ if indeed it may 
 I be placed before the birth of Christ. 
 
 I 2. The author of the Vita Homeri ascribed to Herodotos was, 
 I strangely enough, placed by Bergk as early as the end of the 
 j classical period, though § 20 betrays acquaintance with Strabo 
 p. 596. Christ holds that none of the Lives of Homer antedate 
 the reign of Augustus. The late date finds an additional 
 : support in the sparse occui-rence of lonisms. H}"per-Ionic 
 I formations are very rare. 
 
 i 3. To Philteas, author of the Na^iaKci, are attributed by 
 
 ! Herakleides of Miletos in Eustath. p. 1885 the h}^Der-Ionic 
 
 • TreTTOteai'Tai, yeywtavTai and iyevro. It is at least as probable 
 
 that Herakleides was deceived by pseudo-Ionic texts, as that 
 
 1 Philteas (who is called Philetas in Eustathios) was guilty of 
 
 such grammatical obliquity. The argumentation by which 
 
 Herakleides introduces these perverse formations is not calculated 
 
 to prejudice us in his favour. Cf. Frye De Heraclidae Milesii 
 
 \sludiis Homer ids p. 127. 
 
 ! 4. Menekrates the Xanthian, quoted by Dionysios of Halikar- 
 ■nassos I p. 76 (Jacoby) has dvif], crTpaTLrjs, jBhj, AtVeujs, Atretew, 
 eboKcov, iiroXijxeov, eyeyoz-'ci, edv. 
 
 5. Agathokles the Babylonian, the same as Agathokles of 
 Kyzikos, wrote ire pi KvCUov. Cf. Miiller F. H G^. IV 288. 
 
 I B. C. H. II 273. 
 
Il8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [ll2. 
 
 is^ yvStixai xpvaai are found in Opuscula Graec. i 
 sa et moralia (I 80-89) ^^ Orellij who is inclined ' 
 
 6. Demokrates^ 
 veterum senteutiosa 
 
 to refer the author to an earlier date than is at all probable ; 
 6^ out of the 86 fragments collected by Orelli are adopted as 
 Demokriteian by Mullach. 
 
 7. The spurious letters of Anaximenes, Bias, Demokritos\ 
 Pherekydes of Syros, Pythag-oras, Thrasybulos, Hippokrates\ 
 Thessalos, son of Hippokrates. 
 
 8. Certainly before Lukian (cf. his ttcos Sei lor, avyyp.) are to 
 be placed Kallimorphos, author of la-Toplat UapdiKaL (Miiller 
 F. IT. G. Ill 649, 3), and an anonymous pseudo-Ionist {ibid. 
 p. 650, 5) whose tractate on Parthia began : €p\o\xai epeuiv Trepi 1 
 'Pojjjiaicov Kol Uepaioov, and contained the following sentences: 
 I5ee yap Ylepa-rjcn yeviaOai KaKwg ; riv 'Opaorjs, tov ol 'EXA7ji;es 
 'O^vpurjv 6vvixeov(rL (cf. Ildt. I 7)- 
 
 9. Alexander of Ephesos wrote under the early emperors a f 
 Bellimi Marsicum^ perhaps in Ionic. See Steph. Byz. s.v. Xaovia. 
 
 10. Chariton of Aphrodisias^ the novelist of uncertain date, . 
 but probably of the fifth century (see Bohde Griech. Roman \ 
 p. 488), interspersed his tale of the adventures of Chaireas and \ 
 Kallirhoe with lonisms borrowed from Herodotos. See Cobet 
 3Iimn. VIII 236. 
 
 The Pseudo-Ionism, of Lukian^ Arrian, and Aretaios. , 
 
 112.] Cases of absolute divergence between the dialect of • 
 Aretaios and Hippokrates on the one hand, and that of Lukian, 
 Arrian^ and Herodotos on the other, are tabulated in § 100. 
 Points of contact are noticed in the course of the detailed 
 examination of the sounds and inflections of the dialect. 
 
 The three Lukianic pieces present in the main a uniform 
 dialect, which, save for the occasional lapses in the direction 
 of Attic and of Homeric Ionic, agrees with that of Herodotos 
 as found in his MSS. Well marked and salient differences 
 between Irerodotos and Lukian are difhciilt to discover. Such 
 minor, but persistent cases of divergence as €pcn]v, appcobeoi (Hdt.), 
 apa-rjv, oppcobeco (Luk.), where the satirist shows a predilection in 
 favour of the Attic form, are very infrequent. As a rule the 
 MSS. of Lukian do not consistently reproduce the Ionic forms, 
 the movement in the direction of lonism being continually 
 checked by Attic forms ^, most of which are doubtless errors 
 
 ^ Mulhich thought that the supposititious letters of Demokritos and of 
 Hippokrates were composed in the third century of our era. 
 
 ^ Cf. Grundmann : Quid in elocufione Arriani Heroduto dcbeatur, in Bed. Stud. f. 
 class. Philol. 1885. 
 
 ' For example, Dea Syr. 'AxiAA.ea)s 40, Nioe'ws 40, Kivfiaews Astr. 5, 'EpfioK\fovs 
 Syr, 26, yed) 59. 
 
II3.J TRANSMISSION OF EARLY IONIC TEXTS. 119 
 
 of transmission, though there is no reason for believing that 
 Lukian intended his imitation to be pervasive. Thus, for 
 example, we find Karevex^W^^'-} -y^ws d. S. 8, oven Astr. 5. 
 
 The lonism of Arrian is more consistent than that of Lukian 
 and approximates more closely to that of his exemplar. His 
 MSS. refuse to admit some of the most uncouth hyper-Ionic 
 creations which appear in those of Lukian. Arrian^s divergences 
 from Herodotos do not proceed on the same lines as those of 
 Lukian, though, like the latter, they are in the direction of Attic, 
 He has the tt, not the k, form; he uses only the relative, not 
 the demonstrative and the relative, as does Herodotos; his use 
 of the temporal augment is that of the koivi]. Other differences 
 are less positive : Arrian yivo}xat, (j\xiKp6s, avOis, where Lukian 
 has yiyvoixai, jxiKpo^, avTLS. 
 
 In certain cases the rage for lonisms has extended beyond 
 those adopted by prose literature; as in certain MSS. of Herodotos 
 there is an ever present tendency to adopt Homeric forms. 
 That both Lukian and Arrian draw to a limited extent upon 
 the Homeric dialect shows how ineradicably fixed in the minds 
 even of the cultured was the confusion between Homeric and 
 Herodoteian Ionic. 
 
 In Lukian we find eiapos d. S. 49, 7/eAtos d. S. 29, Asfr. 3, 5 
 {'HeAtou ras (36as Astr. 22, like oirpriKToio d. S. 22, is an epic 
 reminiscence or quotation), ^6as occurs also d. S. 54- yovvMV 
 is admitted by Dindorf, d. S. %2, though he strangely enough 
 expels the genitive in -oto. In the d. S. 25 we find ea-a-eraL 
 (Hdt. eWrat), d. 'S. 31 eiarat (Hdt. earat) ; Arrian has TroArjes 8, 
 -rjas 1 1 . Perhaps the reason that efxpLevai was not excluded 
 [Jstr. 26), was its occurrence in the oracle Hdt. I 85. Arrian 
 refrains from adopting a form the non-Ionic character of which 
 did not trouble Aretaios (pp. 10, 270, 33'^)- 
 
 The Transmission of Early Ionic Texts in its Relation 
 io Pseudo-Io7iism. 
 
 113.] An examination of the form presented by the quotations 
 made from the Ionic logographers and philosophers by later 
 writers yields some conclusions as regards pseudo-Ionisms and 
 hyper-Ionisms which, though tentative, may not be wholly 
 without foundation. First it appears that in the first century 
 before Christ no hyper-Ionic form, except v/u,ees in Parthenios, 
 was admitted into the Ionic texts ; secondly, the grotesque and 
 misshapen forms occurring in the MSS. of Lukian, Arrian 
 and Aretaios do not come to light in citations made from the 
 early Ionic prosaists by any writer who is anterior to Lukian, 
 Arrian and Aretaios. The MSS. of these writers, the flower 
 
T20 
 
 THE IONIC dialect:. [114. 
 
 of the Ionic Revival, display the rage for hyper-Ionism in its 
 most pronounced form. 
 
 The examination of the channels through which frag-ments 
 of the Old Ionic philosophy and logography have reached us 
 is not merely hampered by the lack of editions of many of 
 the later writers so constructed as to enable the scholar to obtain 
 a survey of the exact state of MS. tradition; it is confronted 
 with the treachery of MS. tradition in general towards the 
 transmission of such volatile phenomena as dialect forms ; and 
 embarrassed by the difficulty of determining whether the MS. 
 form is an Attic equivalent or whether it is the gemtine Ionic 
 form of the fifth century, which, by some fortuity, has held 
 to its moorings against the flood of dialectological speculation 
 which swept away the very foundation-stones of parts of the 
 Ilerodoteian inflectional system. It is only in comparatively 
 recent times that scholars are awaking to the fact that much 
 that has heretofore been cast aside as Attic is in reality pure 
 Ionic. 
 
 Thus, for example, in § 9(1^) of the tractate Trepl epixrjveiai 
 (generally ascribed to Demetrios of Phaleron, but the work either 
 of Demetrios of Alexandria under Hadrian, or, and more pro- 
 bably, that of Demetrios Syros, an older contemporary of Cicero) 
 we find quoted the beg^inning of Hekataios' Genealogies : 'EKaraios 
 MiA?/(nos (L8e fxvOelTai' to. be ypd(p(o, Ss }xoi boKel aki^Oia elvai ktX. 
 Despite the MSS. which have here boKel as well as pvOelrai, 
 Miiller changes the former to So/ceet, though it is inconceivable 
 that ee should have contracted in ixvdelraL, while eet remained 
 open in boKea. Are these forms, as they stand in the MSS., 
 nothing more than ixvdierai and SoKc'et Atticized? Are they 
 survivals of the genuine Ionic of the fifth century, one of 
 which has been displaced by the editor of the Frag in. Hist or. 
 (j'raee. under the stress of current view^s as to the nature of 
 the Ionic dialect ? 
 
 In the fallowing section attention has been directed to the 
 light thrown by our sources on the question of the transmission 
 of the -eco verbs, and to the date of the appearance of hyper- 
 Ionic forms, notably those with parasitic e. Sometimes an 
 author, drawing upon early Ionic history or philosophy, may 
 Atticize, sometimes he may endeavour to reproduce in dialect the 
 very words of his source ; at other times the veil of the dialect 
 is only partially cast aside. 
 
 114.] The Logographers : — 
 
 I. Plekataios : ixvOdrai. and boKel (332) in Demetrios irepl 
 kpp.i]v. §§ 5 (3), 9 (12); and elsewhere, wherever the authorities 
 
11,5.] TRANSMISSION OF EARLY IONIC TEXTS. 121 
 
 quoting" the logograplier have preserved a form o£ an -ew verb, 
 ee and eet are invariably contracted. KivieTai in frag. 284, quoted 
 by Miiller from Steph. Byz., should be Kivdrai. Hyper-Ionisms 
 do not occur. 
 
 2. In Pherekydes of Leros we find Troulrai in the same 
 fragment with boKeovres (44) : so too in 85, Kakeovres (twice), 
 oiKeovT€9 together with KakeaaL, yaixa.. Wherever KaXdrai, 
 occurs it appears in the contracted form (herCj in 16 and in 
 89 and 114 A). 
 
 115.] The Philosophers : — 
 
 I. Herakleitos has come down to us with a text remarkably 
 free from hyper-Ionic forms. By the time of Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus and Origenes a TovrioLcn (126) had engrafted itself 
 upon tradition ^ ; and in Hippolytos, who is slightly later than 
 Clemens, we discover toiovt4(ov (2) where Sextus Empiricus has 
 TOiovTcov. In 7 of the 21 instances in Bywater^s edition of 
 the concurrence of e + f or e + et in the contract verbs, By water 
 edits the contracted form. In the 14 remaining instances 
 where Bywater adopts the open forms, these have MS. support 
 but 3 times : Clemens Staxeerat, /xerpeerat in 23 ; for wre'erat 
 in 105, lamblichos is the authority; Plutarch has wretrat. In 
 all other cases Bywater adopts conjectures which desert the 
 vulgate. Obviously there is no probability that Herakleitos used 
 both ^tXeet and ^lAet; which appear in the text (i]7 and 10). 
 Though Plutarch does not appear to have possessed MSS. of 
 Herakleitos, his source was not affected by the vagaries of the 
 pseudo-Ionic movement. All cases of e-hei are contracted in 
 his citations of Herakleitos. 
 I 2. For the study of Demokritos^ Morals we have to rely to 
 1 a large extent upon their citation by Stobaios, whose text, as 
 1 it appears in Gaisford''s^ edition, presents a distorted picture 
 ! of the original. 
 
 The greatest irregularity exists in reference to the treatment 
 
 i of those forms of -ew verbs in which, after disappearance of ^od, 
 
 \ ee and eu came into conjvTnction. The majority of instances is 
 
 \ on the side of the contracted forms. In Stobaios there are 5 cases 
 
 of -eet, 16 of -et in the present indicative; 7 of -ieiv, 16 of -elv 
 
 in the present infinitive active; in the inf. mid. 3 cases of ee, 
 
 ; 9 of et, while there are 2 cases each of ee and et in the present 
 
 I indie, middle. In Orelli's edition of Demokrates, of whose 86 
 
 j fragments 65 have been claimed as Demokriteian by Mullach, 
 
 only the open forms are read in the text, and these are not 
 
 contradicted by any citation of MS. evidence on the part of 
 
 ^ Found also in the Justinian MS. formerly in Strassburg. 
 ^ Wachsmuth's second volume has not yet appeared. 
 
122 THE IONIC DIALECT. [ll6. 
 
 Orelli. These are : present indie, -eei 3 cases, including beei, which 
 Stobaios invariably presents in the contracted form ; present inf. 
 active 4 cases ; present inf. mid. 2 cases ; and one case of the 
 imper. act. (fr. 177). 
 
 Stobaios is furthermore authority for eTrt^vjuery? fr. 24, though 
 in 188 (twice) and in 213 his text has -?/ in the subjunctive. 
 
 Parasitic e appears in avr^cov 20^3, in epTrere'coy 208, and in the 
 second aorist 20^4, 135, 164 (Demokrates). There is no authority 
 for Mullach's -eeif in 70, 188, 213. Parasitic e in the reflexive 
 pronouns I have not observed. 
 
 3. Anaxagoras appears in Simplicius with only the contracted 
 forms of the -eco verbs, for which Mullach has everywhere 
 substituted the open forms. In frag\ 6 (Simpl. 15627) Diels 
 reads Treptx^ope'et. The presentation of the fragments by Sim- 
 plicius is not free from the suspicion of having been partially 
 Atticized. ovbiixLTj in 4 is shown to be incorrect. 
 
 4. Melissos has been handed down by Simplicius in nearly 
 the same state as Anaxagoras ; -ee and -eet are invariably con- 
 tracted, -eot is, however, retained as well as eo. Mullach^'s text 
 of Melissos and Anaxagoras has admitted opiofxev, opeojjievos 
 without MS. support. 
 
 5. Diogenes of Apollonia in Simplicius has no case of -eei, 
 €€, though Mullach^s text has SoKeet, kvvoiea-dai. The hyper- 
 Ionic TovTeoov in Mullach (frag. 2) is due to conjecture. 
 
 116.] Galen's Relation to Hippokrates. Though Galen ex- 
 coriates Capito and Dioskorides for their depravation of genuine 
 Hippokratic form, he cannot himself be freed from a similar 
 charge. Both in the genuine and the spurious works of Hip- 
 pokrates we find that Galen was not offended at -n^y^iei IV 202, 
 ^r]X€tov III 334, IV 540, pti-ecoi; I 614, VIII 84, IX 278, 286, 
 Xetpecoi' III 420, 462, VTTeplSakXeeiv IV 92, aetpeety VIII 236, and 
 such monstrosities as avr^r], avrioi, TOLOvreov, ku)VT€ov. In the De 
 Placifis H'qwocr. et Plaf. of Midler we read, furthermore, as masc. 
 or neuter rovricnv 6983^, 69I4, 70O5, 702^, avriuiv 690^,, 6929, 
 781^. It may well be doubted whether Galen himself had access 
 to an uncontaminated source. 
 
 Littre's text has adopted (on the authority of the vulgate) 
 a very large number of pseudo-Ionisms, which are but rarely 
 found in the oldest MSS. 6 and A. This is specially the case 
 in respect of the parasitic e in the pronominal forms. In the 
 pseudo- Hippokratic -nepl tep?)s voaov the other MSS. agree with 
 6 and A in rejecting the hyper-Ionic e (0 has, however, ravreovs 
 VI 354, TovTioo 384, the other MSS. tovt€(ov 394). 
 
 117.] Ionic Poetry. A pseudo-Ionizing of Archilochos is 
 scarcely noticeable. ^lAeeiy in 81 is due to Hephaistion ; for Kep- 
 
Il8.] THE lONISMS OF THEOKRITOS. 1 23 
 
 Toixeeiv in 64, wherein Bergk follows Clemens Alex, and the sehol. 
 X 4 1 2, Stobaios has the closed form. The unnecessary longer form 
 is quoted by Clemens of Alexandreia from Aristobulos. He- 
 phaistion is also answerable for Anakreon^s (^tAeet (70), and Hera- 
 kleides Pontikos for SoKeets (752)' Hyper-Ionic forms have not 
 found admission to the texts of the early Ionic poets. In Herodas 
 we observe yeipiicv 6jj (changed from -yjeipStv) and 73 ; yarrKe.vcrri 
 442, Ten^vaa 4^^, bpajxeva-a 554. Uncontracted ee, eet, or ej] (from 
 -eto) verbs) do not occur. 
 
 T//e lonisms of Theohitos. 
 
 118.] The ancient prolegomena to the poems of Theokritos 
 contain brief statements to the effect that the poet made use of 
 two dialects : (i) that species of Doric called by one commentator 
 aveijJLivrj kol x^f^l^'^^V, ^Y another vea, and (2) Ionic. The dis- 
 cussion of the question as to whether this view refers to the 
 presence of lonisms in the so-called Doric idylls, may be left to 
 the volume dealing with Dome, in which the perplexing problem 
 of the dialect of Theokritos, so far as it can be treated in a work 
 of this kind, will receive ampler attention. 
 
 In the scholia on I-XVIII each poem, with the exception of 
 XII, is classed as Doric without mention of the co-existence of 
 an Ionic element. Of XIX-XXVII the glosses state that all 
 are Doric, save XXIV and XXVII, concerning the dialect of 
 which we have no tradition, and XXII which is Ionic. In the 
 case of XII, the argument attributed to Eratosthenes as well as 
 the glosses report that this idyll was composed in Ionic. Q, B, 
 M, D, Junt. state with an unusual attempt at exactness that its 
 dialect is the koiv-)] 'la?, a unique expression which recurs in the 
 glosses on XXII, but nowhere else in grammatical literature, so 
 far as I am aware. This ' common "* Ionic is that usual, almost 
 stereotyped form of the dialect which was borrowed from Homer 
 and became a recognized implement of the poet^s art. In no 
 case does it contain features that recall the form of the dialect 
 later than the epic, though occasionally isolated words come to 
 light that were not employed by the epic. The koivi] 'las in- 
 cluded Homeric forms of Aiolic structure (XII 2, XXII 11, 64, 
 71, 84, 152, 166, 170 ; ai]ixaivoi(ra XXII 22 must be corrected). 
 
 The testimony of the scholia and the MSS. point so strongly 
 to the Ionic character of XII and XXII (which I regard as 
 genuine), that we may easily throw overboard the notice in r and 
 iV^(in XII) and that contained in Calliergi (as regards XXII), 
 which make for the Doric character of the two poems. In the 
 case of XII, r and N have 'Ia8t bLak€KT(a t) Acopibt, an uncertainty 
 which has found practical expression in the editions of Ziegler 
 
124 THE IONIC DIALECT. [119. 
 
 and Paley. Neither of these scholars has ventured to root out 
 the best attested Dorisms, such as doT i, ixakov 3^ ahiov 4, aeXCov 
 9, Kpoviba ly, iO^kovTL 23, apaias 24, iovaa-as 26, ipcbixatvovTi 3 1, 
 kav ^^, aTTrjvOev ^^, which are the only Dorisms found in ^.p. m. 
 In other cases the Doric form is not supported by a consensus of 
 these three MSS. The restoration of the Ionic forms in the 
 above passages can be accomplished, usually by the adoption of 
 the readings of 6, 16, T; but in a few places by recourse to conjec- 
 ture {ev(f)pavas 8, ok 1 6). Noteworthy lonisms are e7rt/3wrat ^$, 
 air €00 20. 
 
 In XXII the Doric forms are accepted by all MSS. in a very 
 few cases : — A7/8a9 i, -y/xreo/xes 4 (cf. i where K has vjxviop.ev, the 
 vulgate -fxe'i), KoiXav 12, yaXava 19. In many passages I) (Sca- 
 liger's MS.) or K are our only authorities for the Ionic forms; 
 in (?, 77 is often superscribed over a which is the common reading. 
 There are also several words whose Ionic dress is vouched for by 
 no other authority than the marginal readings of the Juntina. 
 In Ylo(T€ihd(avos 97, rcicoy III the d is Homeric. 
 
 ACCENT. 
 
 119.] Retention of original accent motion : — 
 
 In the proethnic period the suffix part of the genitive and 
 dative of feminine nouns, whose nominative terminates in Skt. 
 in -*, in Greek in -id, received the accent, which in the nomin- 
 ative fell ujion the radical syllable ^. It is the peculiar distinction 
 of Ionic to have preserved traces of this accent motion, which is, 
 in fact, the only accent principle characterized as Ionic by the 
 ancients. 
 
 In the genitive and dative of barytone words in -id, the Ionic 
 dialect, according to Herodian " (who seems to have accepted 
 herein the guidance of Aristarchos '^), transferred the accent to 
 the suffix syllable. The forms quoted in attestation of this Ionic 
 shifting of the accent are la Ids la *, ixta ixtds pad, dyvia dyvids 
 dyvid, opyvia opyvids, apirvia dpiivids and the two proper names 
 DAdrata DAaTatdj, Qiaina Seainds. 
 
 The only forms that bear the distinctive mark of the dialect are the 
 Homeric Irjs U 173, ifj I 319, 2 251, X 477, fiirjs O 416 (Sim. Amorg. 2.,), ayvirj 
 o 441. opyvia. occurs in Homer only in nominative and accusative, but in 
 
 I Cf. J. Schmidt, K. Z. XXV 36. 
 
 '■* Hdn. I 4iir, = Joh. Alex. 1031, II 5722 on Z 422, II 6i323=An. Ox. I 134,7. 
 Theod. 37, (Hilg.), Choii*. Diet. 40519, Ark. 1285, Et. M. 14,2,, 30535, 47245; cf. 
 Schol. Yen. A on n 173, Ark. 98 3* La Eoche Horn. Texikrilik 177. In I 53009, 
 II 6i3.,4, 90I3, Hdn. calls the accent of ayvia, opyvia. Ionic. But cf. I 2811^4. 
 
 ^ Eust. 6525.,, Schol. Yen. A on Z 422, Schol. Yen. B on E 502. 
 
 * Cf. ios Xov, but i{f Et. M. 47246. 
 
I20.] ACCENT. 125 
 
 Hdt. II 149 we find opyvifjs^. No form of dp-n-via with Ionic rj is met with, 
 Homer having apnvia and apnviai {apirviai av-qpei-^avro a 241, v 77, read by Fick 
 'Apeirviai avape^avro on the strength of 'ApeTruio upon a vase Arch. Zeit. XL, 
 p. 203, pi. 9, and avepf^oLfxevoi Bekk. Anecd. I 401). Homer and Hdt. have 
 nxdraiav, the latter also nAaramP; Homer and Hdt. have S^ffnta (@ea-weiav). 
 Thuk., who has Tl\a.Taia and nXaraiai, has the paroxytone accent in the 
 dative singular II 4, Paus. IX 4, 4 in the genitive. I do not find any 
 example of @ea-ma in the genitive or dative singular. In regard to these 
 names it is to be noted that the accent of their ordinaiy forms UXaraial, 
 ©effTTtai follows the lines of such deme names as K7]<pi(ria, Aovtrid, and 
 Tpay^ial, Keyxpeai, Ileipeffiai, '0\fitai, etc. Names of cities ending in -eia, if 
 found in the plural only, are oxytone (Epvcretai, 'OpvfiaC), though in Hdt. I 
 149 we find Alyaiai. 
 
 Some grammarians ^ ventured to claim that this shifting* of 
 the accent was not Ionic, but Attic, or more especially Old Attic. 
 Perhaps this divergence in view reflects the broken rays of a 
 tradition that Ionic and Old Attic were one dialect in the 
 preservation of this motion of the accent ; as they were identified 
 by the ancients for other reasons. 
 
 In the above mentioned words Ionic has allowed scope to 
 the operation of the "^ secondary "" accent (on which see under 
 AiOLic), though in general less amenable to its influence than 
 Attic. Thus in beipi] ^ for Attic beprj and rjcos for Attic eoos the 
 original proethnic accent has been preserved by Ionic. Cf. Skt. 
 ffrivd and usJids. Examples of the tendency of the later Ionic to 
 admit the recessive accent will be given below, § 123. 
 
 120.] In the following sections are collected the statements of 
 the grammarians in reference to the accent of certain forms of 
 Ionic colouring ; and under the same heads are mentioned some 
 forms whose accent, as it appears in the books, deserves note, 
 especially in comparison with that in vogue in Attic. It is 
 obviously impossible to attach authority to all the accents handed 
 down in the MSS. unless supported by a definite tradition of 
 Greek grammar. Oftentimes the utterances of the schools are 
 hopelessly confused. The ancients are uniformly silent as regards 
 the accent of Ionic words identical in form with Attic. Hence 
 
 ^ Here R has 6pyvir]s. In Aratos 196 opyviriv, Nikander Ther. 169 opyvi^ 
 {6pyvir]i, n). 
 
 ^ So apTTviai, opyvial Arkad. 98 3. 
 
 ^ Schol. Ven. A on Z 422=Hdn. II 57.27. The Et. M. 1421 by comparing 
 'dpeidvia seems to take a similar position; but cf. 30535. Eust. 163I29 (cf. 
 16533) calls ayvia and opyvia Old Attic only. In Attic we find ayvid, opyvtd 
 (Et. M. 1425) though, according to Zonaras 24, some wrote 07^15. These oxy- 
 tones seem to be due rather to the influence of the plural ayvtai, TlKaratai 
 etc. than of the perispomenon genitive. 
 
 * Sepr] is called Ionic, Et. M. 257^. The form Seipd, referred to Et. M. 25657 
 (cf. Theogn. An. Ox. II 1075) can be only North West Greek or late Doric. 
 Earlier Doric, so far as the radical syllable is concerned, is Arjpri, Ptol. 1 15, 11. 
 
126 THE IONIC DIALECT. [l21. 
 
 the accenting of Ionic texts in the case of words whose accent 
 varied in Attic is totally uncertain. 
 
 Krumbacher has shown K. Z. XXVII 521 if. that, in its 
 passag-e to the modern form, ancient Greek was forced to 
 strugg-le ag-ainst the depravation of the old-time accent. The 
 removal of the classical accent which comes to light in the 
 mediaeval documents is, however, not comparable with that 
 which is such a striking feature of the modern Greek dialects. 
 
 Only the differences between Ionic and Attic are considered 
 below. Some of the following words are discussed by Wheeler 
 Nominal Accent p. 113 ff. 
 
 Accent of Nouns and Adjectives. 
 First Declension. 
 
 121.] Masculine. On the accent of 'ArpetSeo), 'Opeo-reto, 
 AiVeieo), 'Ao-ieco see Choir. Diet. 399035 4i3n5 Et. Mag. 1535,. 
 In quoting these forms the grammarian in An. Ox. I accents 
 -e'o). Instead of ©aAe'co from ©aAry?, the ancients accentuated 
 ®6X^(xi. If, when the genitive in -eco followed a vowel, syncope 
 ensued, the result was the paroxytone, as in 'Ep/^ietco, Bope'co, 
 'Ao-to), evfx/xeAio) (Choir., Et. Mag. I. L). 
 
 122.] Feminine. On ayvia, opyvta, apirvta, nxdraca, Sienna, 
 beipi], see above, §119. 
 
 TToir] is thus accented in Eust. 185X5^, Hesychios and Suidas, 
 -71017/ in Et. M. 67755. Attic -rroid Et. M. 705^, 61242, "^7756^ 
 but TTota Et. M. 770g, Ark. lOOjg, iroa when the iota disappears, 
 Doric TToid and iroa Greg. Kor. 220. The grammarians appear 
 to have set up a difference in meaning between iroLa and TToa 
 (schol. Equites 603). 
 
 poll] in editions of Homer and Hdt. = Attic poid Eust. 94^, 
 Et. M. 705,, Ark. 100^4 and so written in Aristotle. p6a was 
 accented poa by Arkadies /. I., which accentuation is adopted by 
 G. Meyer Gramm. § 48. Doric poid and p6a Greg, Kor. 220. 
 The loss of the iota cannot change the accent^. Is poa due to 
 the desire to differentiate the word from poi) stream, (a counter 
 suggestion to that made by L. S^' S.), or is poa to be classed with 
 Xpoa as illustrations of the principle that when the accent 
 precedes i/od is to be expected, but when the accent follows iota 
 appears ? 
 
 Xpou; Hom. Theogn. = Attic xpo'« (Ark. icOjg, Eust. 943, 
 Et. M. 7052), bvit xpota Et. M. 67939, doubtless to account for 
 
 ' Hence Aapeos on a Milesian coin in Mionnet Suppl. VII 276, should be 
 accented Aapios, not Aapeos with Pape. 
 
123-] ACCENT. 127 
 
 the usual Attic form xPo«- Lobeck Phrpdchus p. 496 shows that 
 later writers used xpo'<^ ^-^d XP^*^ on one and the same page. 
 Doric xpota and xpoa Greg-. Kor. 220. 
 
 (I>66r] is thus usually accented, according to the ordinary rules, 
 despite Skt. kshayd. 
 
 According to the schol. Ven. A on N 212, who follows 
 Herodian : lyvv-qv' 'lcoz/i/cais fxere'^SaAe tov tovov, iirel to ciKokovdov 
 iyvvd (Lentz lyvvd) ea-riv. Theogn. (An. Ox. II 10621) ^^Y^ 
 that Herodian (I 30Jjq) is authority for the statement that 
 Aristarchos (?) by shortening the a and lengthening the v of 
 iyvva accented 'iyvva, thus making an enallage of accent and 
 quantity. Cf. Lentz^ note, Hdn. I 303, Chandler § 188. Xyvva 
 does not occur, nor do I find the proparoxytone accent in any 
 Greek word in -va ('E\evdepva is doubtful). Did Aristarchos 
 wish to bring his tyvva into line with ayvia, opyvia &c. ? 
 
 The lonians according to Trypho (4) distinguished, as did 
 Athenians and Dorians, between //to-jjrrj = rj d^ia jxCaovs and 
 fiLarjTr] = r] KaTa<p€prjS Trpos avvovaiav. Cf. Eust. 1650^^. In 
 the scholiast on Arist. Aves 161 9 we find a verse containing the 
 former form which has been changed to ixLariTj] by Bergk, who 
 thinks that the line is Archilocheian (184). 
 
 When Ionic has rj for Attic a as in eeptxTj the nom. pi. is 
 proparoxytone (eepcrat). Ptol. Askalonites proposed to adopt 
 the paroxytone accent (Schol. Ven. A on H 351, Apio and 
 Herodoros in Eust. 99T04). 
 
 There is no trace of Ionic having adopted the proparoxytone 
 in the nom. i:»lur. of words in -id, as was the case in late Attic 
 (evirpd^iai, bpikiai, Tpayofbiai, &c., also r//jiepat Choirob. 449^2, 
 schol. Ven. A on B 339, E 54, Lentz Hdn. I 423 note, Wheeler 
 nominal Accenf, p. 1 15). 
 
 Some distinguished 'EpvOpat in Ionia from 'EpvOpat in Boiotia 
 (Eust. 267^, Choirob. Up. 0)i Psalms 27^^). 
 
 The gen. pi. of yi] is yicav in ABR, Hdt. IV 198, where P has 
 ye'wy, C ye&Jy. The first reading is that adopted by the most 
 recent editors, the last by L. S^" S. with the older editions. 
 
 Second Declension. 
 
 123.] I. The tendency of the later Ionic to adopt the recessive 
 accent of the later Attic in contrast to the accent of Homer and 
 Old Attic ^, though nowhere expressly sanctioned by tradition, 
 has been tacitly recognized by more recent editors of Herodotos. 
 This is notably the case as regards the following forms, chiefly 
 adjectival : — 
 
 o/xoios in Hdt. according to Stein and Plolder, as in later 
 
 ' Ailios Dionys. apad Eust. 205 44. 
 
128 THE IONIC DIALECT. [^-3- 
 
 Attic (East. 341 j7, 53I35, 799^0, t8i7i.., Theogn. An. Ox. II 54.), 
 o/xoios Homeric and Old Attic (Eust. 206^), adopted by Scliweig- 
 hiiuser as Herodoteian. 6ju,otos is stated to be Doric, Greg-. Kor. 
 p. 318. 
 
 epi]ixo'i in Hdt. and in New Attic, eprjixos Old Attic and 
 Homeric (Et. M. 37314, Ark. 61^, Hdn. tt. /x. A. ^Sv ^^s*. 217^5, 
 
 34I12. 53^32' 4P ^225). ^, , , . 
 
 erot/xos Hdt. and in New Attic, eroi/10? Old Attic and Homeric 
 (Eust. 2o6j, 2174.,, 34Ti2J 53I4]' ^225, Hdu.^ TT. fx. A. 3310- In 
 Anakr. 43^; the MSS. have (.toiixov, Bergk eroliJ-ov. 
 
 The accent of kraipos (Hom., Archil., Sim. Amorg., Theog., 
 Hdt.)j the by-form of Hom. hapos, is due to the influence of 
 kraipa from erapta < gen. era/Jtas. Cf . la tas above. Homeric 
 (Tapr] is the parallel fern, of 'irapos. See Wheeler Noni. Accent 
 p. 59. Hippon. 1 3 has (ratpe, now read kToipe. 
 
 yekolos Archil. 79. Of yeXoto? Apoll. iJe Pron, 6^ B says : 
 ovK efcofxaAtorat to, tS)v biaX^KTcov, p.a\i(TTa he to. tS>v 'ArrtKwy. 
 The later Attic seems to have accented yikoios, the koivi], yekolos 
 Moiris 109, schol. Ranae 6; and so Old Attic, Eust. 206^. See 
 Chandler § 385. 
 
 a\pdos in Homer, Attic a)(petos according to Eust. 21739, 
 An. Ox. II 284j,j, Hdn. I 135^5 = Schol. Yen. A on B 269. 
 Arkadies 87^; says that axpeio? is Attic, axpetos is to kolvov. 
 From Choirob. Ep. 1239,5 we learn nothing. The Herodoteian 
 form is axprp-os. On Ionic -^to? = Attic -eios, see § 231. 
 
 T:r]p6i Homer, Sim. Amorg*., Hippokr., irripos Attic according 
 to Schol. Ven. A on B 599. 
 
 jjicapos Sim. 57. /xwpos is called Attic by Arkad. 69,3. Eust. 
 245;57, 174937 ascribes /xwpos to the Attics, jxaipos to the varepoi. 
 
 arpovOos Hdt., Attic arpovdos Hdn. I 1441^, cf. Schol. Ven. A 
 on B 3 1 1 . 
 
 2. If the Ionic texts are accentuated correctly, and the following 
 is the correct tradition in reference to Attic, the latter dialect 
 preferred an accent nearer the end in ixihtixvos Hdt., p.ebip.vo'i 
 Attic according to Thorn. Mag. p. 602. 
 
 Kov(l)UTr}9 Hippokr., kov(Poti]s Attic (Choirob. 352ji). 
 
 "IvvKos Hdt. VI 24 is oxytone in Plato^s Hipjnas Maj. 282 E. 
 
 aTTekel3o9 Hdt. IV 1 7 2, arreAa/Soj Attic, ' irapaXoyco^ ' Ark. 
 46^ = Hdn. I 1392- Cf. yeptz'09 = Attic yvplvos, Eust. l864g. 
 
 Ionic oAt^oz; = Attic oXlyov, Herakleides ap/ui Eust. 16431. 
 
 Attic (^apixcLKOi degenerated, according to Photios 6403 (cf. 
 Eust. 193.515), into Ion. (pdpixdKos, the proximity of the barbarians 
 having caused the lonians to corrupt the ancestral element of their 
 dialect (§ 23). In the fragments of Hipponax (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ^y, 
 43) the MSS. have uniformly (papp-aKos, cf. Hesych. s.v. Didymos' 
 proposal to write (jjappiaKos failed to receive recognition in ancient 
 
123-] ACCENT. 129 
 
 times. In fact Hase and Dindorf suggest that he did not write 
 (papfxaKOi at all, but that the TipoTtepKniav of Harpokrat. p. 1 80 
 should be read TTpoirapo^vveiv. Herodian seems not to have 
 known of any difference between the Ionic and Attic accent, 
 if we may judge from Arkadios^ statement (5I9) : (papp-aKos, 
 €1tI KaOappw r?/s TroAecos TekevTMV, <|>apjui,aKeu§ be 6 yorjs. For 
 the word cfyapp-aKevs, however, most scholars substitute (f)dp- 
 jmoKos. <i>dppLaKos is a suspicious personality although referred 
 to by Istros in Et. M. 78755. The above quoted statements are 
 all that can be adduced in support of (fxxppaKos ^, other ancient 
 testimony (e.ff. Et. M. 8o2g, Schol. Ven. A on 12 566) making 
 for (fiapfxaKos. With the interrelation between (^apiiaKos and this 
 supposed ^dppaKo^ cf. that between (pvXaKos 12 566 and (Pv/\aKos 
 Z ^^, o 231. (f)v\aK6s was thus accented by Aristarchos and 
 Herodian (Eust. 136545, Et. M. 802,, Ark. ^i^), cjivkaKos Hdt. 
 II 121 (y), schol. Apoll. Rh. I 132, Philem. Lex, § 269, schol. 
 Theokr. 83 and so Chandler § 261. 
 
 3. It is not impossible that an Ionic oa-reov (cf. Schol. Ven. A 
 on 12 793, Doric oo-rtoz^) could acquire the perispomenon accent upon 
 contraction into oa-revv, as did the Attic oo-tovv. But instances 
 
 I parallel to the Attic dpyvpovs, xct-'^K"^? a-re wanting in Ionic, 
 I since that dialect kept eo open in adjectives of material till the 
 latest period of its existence. It is probable that the uncon- 
 I tracted form of Ionic nominative was oareov. 
 
 6evs apparently an Ionic form for Oeos (Hdn. it. p.. A. 6, 8) is 
 I perispomenon in Eust. 7754s; Ark. 13O20. 
 
 I In cases of variation between -eos and -os in adjectival 
 i formations, the accent of the longer form is identical with that 
 of the shorter. Thus hacpoLveos = ba(f)0Lv6^ (Schol. Yen. A on 
 2538, Eust. 116O5,), ii€ve6s = Kev6s, ?7Aeos = ?jAos. 
 
 ivyijpoL Hippokr. and Aristotle, deserves notice. See Chandler 
 
 §546. 
 
 4. According to the accentuation of the MSS. Ionic Greek 
 distinguished efatpero's Hdt. II 1 21 (a) from efatpero? ; adopted 
 such ordinary uses as that of the fern, in vijcros Sta/Saro'j Hdt. IV 
 195 ; and differentiated words of the same form by means of the 
 accent as did Attic. No definite statement to the contrary 
 exists in the grammarians. 
 
 5. Accent of some proper names : — 
 
 Kapij(Tos, name of the Mysian river M 20, was thus accentuated 
 , by the inhabitants of Kyzikos, and by Tyrannio (Schol. Ven. A 
 ! on M 20). Aristarchos wrote Kaprjo-os, others Kaprjo-cros. 
 
 ; ' Bergk's <pd.piJ.aKos in Hipponax is the less defensible, because the custom 
 I alluded to by the poet was Attic. See ten Brink in Philologuf: VI 60. A 
 j trace of (pap/xaKos with d is thought to exist in Demosth. XXV 80, though 
 (papfiaKfos can have yielded only (papfj-aKos in that dialect. 
 
 K 
 
130 THE IONIC DIALECT. [1^4. 
 
 'AoraKo? TTdt. V 67, "Aora/co? Thuk. II 30, Stepli. Byz. 
 
 TiTaKos Hdt. IX 73, whereas trisyllables in -oko? are generally 
 proparoxytone. Steph. Byz. has Tltukos. For other oxytones in 
 -aKos, see Chandler § 270. 
 
 'LWvpLnt Hdt. I 196 and elsewhere is not in accordance with 
 the nsual accentuation of proper names in -to?. 
 
 'AprtaKck Hdt. IV 92, whereas proper names in -lctkos are usually 
 paroxytone. 
 
 Why fJ'apo-aAiKo'j, Apo-mKot in Hdt. should be oxytone, but 
 "OptKo? proparoxytone^ is not clear. See Chandler § 266 for 
 similar inconsistencies. 
 
 6. ' Attic ^ declension : — 
 
 On Tvvhdpeco (Hdt. II 112) see Eust. 168603, schol. on A 299; 
 on Kayos Trypho 13. 
 
 Tkird Decletision. 
 
 124.] Choiroboskos Dicfafa 35303 makes the remark that, 
 while the Aiolians form the accusative in -v [kvyjixiv — read 
 KvaiJ.Lv — (T(ppdyLv, dxj/Lv), the lonians in the genitive of oxytones •. 
 in -t? do not cast aside the 8 (Kvrjpubos, dcnrLhos) as they do in 
 the declensions of Oapt? and 0eVts. For (jiaivoXus Hymn Dem. 
 51 we should expect the accent of p.aiv6\is\ 
 
 Adjectives in -vs, which in the feminine lose their iofa, do 
 not change their accent as Chandler § 689 opines : rjixCcrea Hdt. 
 V III, not i)iJiL(Tia. In the plural perispomenon is correct even 
 when t has disappeared : raxe(t)wi;, ^)?Ae(t)(oi; often in the MSS. 
 of Hdt, (cf. II 18, 46, 66) Avhich has been changed to drjXioov. 
 On Tap(f)vs, Tapcpetai see Nauck, Odps., p. x. 
 
 The gen. plur. of xiXid's in Hdt. VII 28 is y^iXtdhMV, not 
 \iXiahioiv ; and thus does not support the peculiar later Attic 
 XiAtaowi'. See Choirob. Diet. 45806, Ark. 1363 and § 74. The 
 form in th* Common dialect was similar to that in Hdt. 
 
 6tt€(ov, Ionic for oTracoy, is noteworthy, since nouns in -e(t)v are 
 oxytone; cf. Theogn. An. Ox. II 2800. 
 
 Homeric irpcaoves (Schol. Ven. 557), despite irpcLv ; cf. 
 Hesiod's T:pi]m>. Nouns in -rjwf are usually paroxytone (Theogn. 
 An. Ox. II 29c, Ark. ii2i)- 
 
 Ethnica in -cov are usually oxytone, but Hdt. VII no has 
 BtoTore?, KiKOve?, V 15 flaiores (riatoj'es An. Ox. I 2763), 
 ^tpioiratoves, cf. KavKooves, KvO(i)V€s in Homer. Chandler § 615- , 
 
 Names in -a? (Bot/SS?, Btrras, Kvpds) are Ionic according to 
 Choirob. Dicf-. 42og, .Toh. Alex. 8^^). Why the gen. should be 
 -abos is not clear, unless we regard -as as due to ' nominative- 
 lengthening.' 
 
1 27-] ACCENT. 131 
 
 On the accent of vrjvs ' resolved ' see Chandler § ^66. 
 
 125.] Adverbs. The ancients accentuated Trapi^ or Trap ef in 
 Homerj Trape^ in Hdt. (Hdn. -n. \x. \. 25, 20, Schol. Ven. A on 
 
 IX 7). See La Roche Horn. Textkritik p. '^'^'^. The koivti adopted 
 the Herodoteian accent. 
 
 TTpGtl in Horner^ Trpwt in Hdt. and Attic (Et. M. 60721, '^9^12 j 
 Theogn. An. Ox. II 1599c). Joh. Alex. 32.^ writes Trpco, and this 
 form is g-enerally used in our texts. 
 
 KTjy^os Apollonios De Adv. 59639 thought should be Kr]yxos. 
 
 126.] Verbs. <\)r] Ionic for (piqai is an enclitic, Anakr. 40. 
 TTLOeade, XatBerrde were written thus by Tyrannio, but belong 
 according to the Schol, Ven. B on //. XVIII 266 only to the 
 later Ionic. 
 
 The recessive accent in the contract forms is preserved in irvdev 
 Hdt. Ill 68 ^, whereas Attic generally has the perispomenon 
 (Aischines ttvOov). Cf. e'Aeu Hsd. Theog. 549, ajjLJSdXev Theokr. 
 
 X 22. Does this indicate that the Attic contraction of eo to ov 
 is of different phonetic quality from that of the Ionic ev ? 
 
 In the case of syncopated forms, -eo for -eeo, -eat for -eeat 
 were generally regarded as paroxytone (Eust, 1 441 35) though 
 there is evidence that some of the ancients (cf. Schol. Ven. A 
 on 12 202, Eust. 15185^) admitted the proparoxytone. Thus 
 Herodian in e/cAe' 12 202. The MSS. of Hdt. have (^o/3eo, &c., 
 in Theog. 133 1 we find albio. 
 
 The so-called Doric future in Ionic: eo-o-eirai B 393, Hdt. VII 
 168 7re(reerai. 
 
 e^eXriXajxeva Hdt. VII 84 seems to be correct, though eXrjXd- 
 fievos is enjoined by Apoll. De Cotij. 500^9, Be Adv. 5455, cf. 
 5497, Et. M. 464. 
 
 VOWEL SYSTEM. 
 
 The Short Vowels. 
 
 127.] Anaptyctic a occurs in conjunction with p in /Sdpayxos 
 Hipponax jo6 = [3pdyxo9 Attic and in Hippokr. I 616. Cf. 
 Hesychios: (Sapdyxto.' ra jSpayx^a tQv Ixdvcov. The Et. M. 1 889 
 says that the Attics used fiapayx^-o-v, whereas Moiris states merely 
 that ^payxdv, not j3payxi-cLi', was Attic. 
 
 1 Hdt. has fioKev VII 51 in ^ P, fidXev C corr. B^d. 
 K 2 
 
132 THE IONIC DIALECT. [128. 
 
 128.] Ionic A in conjunction with P. 
 
 The forms with ep or pe are here morphologically older than 
 those in ap or pa. It is more probable that KpaTos, dpaaos are 
 due to the analogy of Kparvs, dpaavs than to a levelling process 
 (within the noun itself) which operated as follows: 
 
 Kp€TO<S 
 
 Ki'Teaos whence Kpiros, Kpinos and Kp6.Tos, Kpdreos. 
 
 ° I 
 Kpdreo'i 
 
 The latter view is current, rather than well-considered. In Skt. 
 and Gi-eek there is no shifting of the accent in the inflection of 
 these stems in s. 
 
 The Ionic dialect here presents no features sharp enough to , 
 separate it from allied dialects except Aiolic. ' 
 
 KpoLTos = Aiolic Kp€Tos. Kpo-Tos Hdt. VIII 2, witli KapTo? in 
 A B d ; cf. KapTepri VIII 12, with Kparepi] in most MSS. ^ j 
 Archil. 26 has Kapr^pos, a form that comes to light in Aretaios 
 9 and upon inscriptions : Halik. Kaprepovs 23823, and so in ' 
 Attic and Kretan (Gortyna) ; Kpartdros appears in Kpan- 
 oTo'Aecd? Thasos (Louvre) 12 B, but was not used by Hdt. ; 
 Epic KdpTos and KpaTos. Kparepos ^ and KaprepodvpLOs, KapTicrros. 
 The Ionic dialect alone possesses the strong form of the < 
 adjective {Kpiaa-cav). In the inscriptions names in Kapr- and ; 
 KpaT- occur: ft[(/)]tKaprt8rj?; or EvdvKapTLbrjs Naxos, B. C. H. 
 XII p. 463 ff. ; Mvr](nKdpT[r])s, Styra l<).2('i> ^o.pTiy]s 19317 J 
 'ETTt/cparrj? 19309 j Avert- 1 9^47 j AecoKpartSTj? Styra 1924,; Kpartos 
 Keos 44 A 8. 
 
 Qdpcros Hdt. VII 9 y [Opdaos in B) ; Homeric and Attic Odpaos 
 and 6pd(Tos. Qapavvatv Chios, Pasp. 42, dpacr- e.g. in Qpaaoivi- 
 8[ea)] Thasos, /. //. S. VIII 40222- Traces of the strong form 
 d^pcros (cf. Aiolic) appear in ...d(pcn]i upon an Erythraian in- 
 scription (lib. 200), and in Qipairov lasos (/. H. S. IX 341, no. 2, 
 late). Names in -Oeparji occur elsewhere in dialects that show I 
 no predilection in favour of the ep forms. See Pape's Lexicon. 
 Doubtless the Homeric names in -Oepcr- did much to popularize 
 this form in such dialects. 
 
 The prefix apt- seems to be Ionic as contrasted with Aiolic ept- 
 (Hinrich, li. E. V. A. p. 64). 'Aptuoy upon a coin of Erythrai, 
 Mionnet Siippl. VI 217, cf. /. F. I 166. Hence Kapnrpeirris Sim. 
 Am. 7^3 from apt-. ' kpip.vi]aTos occurs upon a Keian inscription, 
 no. 44, B iij but €p[jipop.ov in Anakr. 11. 
 
 * Ionic Kapra Greg. Kor. § 58. 
 
 * Joli. Cti-. 241 B. 
 
128.] IONIC A IN CONJUNCTION WITH P. 1 33 
 
 ^dpadpov Hdt. VII 133, as in Attic ; Homeric (3epe9pov 14 
 (called Ionic by Et. M. 188,,); Arkad. C^pedpov. 
 
 \dpabpa in Hdt., cf. Delphic yi^dpobpos (Wescher, 3Ionum. 
 bilingue de Belphes^ 1. 23, 35). Homer has \epabos, a form that 
 is found as a proper name C. D. I. 1352. 
 
 Tapatri (MS. -a), Sim. Amorg". 39, from Et. Mag. 764^5 ; 
 cf. Hesychios Tapcnriv ' ri]v rpaatdv. Et. Gud. 256 quotes from 
 an elegiac poet Tpacni]s ; cf. Tepa-ijvai in Homer, repaid is a very 
 late formation (Julian), rpacr- is morphologically older than 
 Taper-. A variation between ap and pa, apparently in order to 
 lighten consonantal weight, is seen in a Karian name, Halik. 
 2405^, ''Ip.jSpdcraLbos ("IfxjSpacros Head, H. N. 5^^)i 24O58 ''Ip.jBdp- 
 (nbos. 
 
 The Ionic dialect does not evince the preference of Doric ^ for 
 the weak a before or after p in verbal forms (from original pe). 
 Thus, Herodotos adopts rpexo, rpeyj/co, (rTpi\j/(o, agreeing herein 
 with Homer, while he accepts Tpdirco in the present for Attic-epic 
 TpeVo), if we are to believe Bredow, Stein and Holder, who do 
 not scruple to reject the testimony of all the MSS. I 63, 105, 
 III 21 and in very many other places. In the middle there are 
 few cases of the a form. The imperfect or second aorist forms 
 can scarcely be allowed to influence the decision. I regard 
 Tpiiroi as the correct form ^. In the future and first aorist the 
 e-forms hold their ground in Ionic, whereas in Kretan we have 
 (TnTpa\l/S>. On the variation between Tpeitca and rpd-noi, cf. 
 Bredow, p. 145. In employing rpe-Trco, not rpd-nod, Lukian follows 
 in the wake of Hdt. [fJ. d. S. 7, 39, Asfr. 3). Aretaios has but 
 one sure example of Tpd-nco, and Hippokrates inclines in favour 
 of the Ionic- Attic form. 
 
 "When other dialects, notably Aiolic or those allied to Aiolie, 
 have po or op, Ionic almost invariably adopts pa or ap. See 
 below on /3poraxos, iropbaKos § 147. Hdt. Ill 86 has daTpain], 
 with which may be compared Homeric a-Tepoin] and aarepoir-q. 
 Kyprian has dTpo-nd (Hesychios arrop-nd). In verbal inflection 
 whenever op occurs it is the ablaut of ep, not = the Aiolic form 
 , of ap. 
 
 ^ \ KapUr] Hdt. Ill '^^, Demokr. Mor. 18, Arch. ep. 103, a form not 
 
 unknown to Homer (B 452, A 12), though the poet generally 
 
 1 adopts KpabiT] ^. Ionic, Attic, and Aiolic are here on a plane. 
 
 The Kyprian form is KopCa (KopCta according to Meister). 
 
 M Homer has EpdiraOos (B 676), ArchiL 152 has KapirdOLos. 
 
 ■ [ ^ Tpdiru, Tpdcpai, (TTpd(pu, Tpdxc" (Pindar), cf. Et. M. 11420 (pdpoi, Tpdiru. 
 ^ Greg. Kor. quotes rpeirovfft from Hdt. Ill 21 (p. 480). 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 240, 241 B, Greg. Kor. p. 434, Gram. Vat. 696, Birnb. 67731,, cite 
 this as the Ionic form. 
 
134 THE IONIC DIALECT. [129. 
 
 Kapirados occurs in the Hymn to Apoll. 43. Homer has both 
 arapTTLTos and drpa-Trtro?, Terparo'i ^ and TirapTO'i. 
 
 Hipp. I3 has (TKaTTapbevcrai = avp.p.axr\(yaL, with which compare 
 the game a-Kanipha and the Hesychian g-loss a-Ka-mphtvaac koiho- 
 prjcai. i 
 
 The variation between ap and pa, for which no definite reason = 
 can invariably be assigned, is not a mint-mark of dialect 
 differentiation. 
 
 129.] Other forms with A parallel to E : 
 
 rdpLvot) occurs in Hdt. (Greg. Kor. 67), though not without 
 variation in favour of re/xi^co, and is a present formed from the i 
 aorist of re/x^ (Iliad, N 707) [raixdv < ti/hji-ovt-). Whether ! 
 TapLvcu, which occurs as early as Homer (F 105) and Hesiod, 
 and is found in Pindar, Kretan, and the Herakleian tablets, is 
 more ancient than Tip-voi (which seems to be derived from a re'//a> , 
 by the infixing of v), is not certain, repvo) is in fact no stranger ' 
 to Homer (y 175), and is the regular form in Attic. The 
 inscriptions indicate the prefei'ence of Ionic and Attic most 
 clearly. In the former we have erapiov (Halik. 238^^; Kyzikos, 
 108, B 8), in the latter erepLov without exception, rep-dv in Delos 
 B. C. H. VI 54 (250) is due to Attic influence; so Arrian_, 2^0- 
 The e of erepov is due to that of Tep.v(a ^. 
 
 Hippokrates (Greg. Kor. 67) and the pseudo-Ionist Aretaios 
 use rdpvoi ; Lukian has ripvoo S 15, Tap.voo S 51, 60; Arrian 
 TepvM 2.2, iiio, I3i2' Demokr., 3Ior. 194, has rdpLVcav. 
 
 p.(ya6os, VTreppLeydOrj^ in Hdt., e.ff. IV 52, 191, p.iyados in 
 Anaxag". 1, and Meliss. 8 (Simpl. p.4yedos). Cf. Greg. Kor. 
 § 59. In Attic pey^Oos the variation between a and e is due 
 perhaps to the influence of e in the initial syllable. The state- 
 ment that the Doric dialect possessed the form p.€ya6os is not 
 beyond suspicion, since Philoxenos, who has the form with a in 
 II 19, either contradicts himself, V 21, where he uses inreppeyedei, 
 or at least shows that both forms were known to Doric. Lukian 
 has ptyado^d. S 27, 30, according to Jacobitz, though A has the 
 e form everywhere. In Arrian, piytQos is the only reading in 
 seven out of eleven cases, and this is the form used by Aby- 
 denos 5. Both Hippokrates and Aretaios adopt the Attic form. 
 
 On the forms eTretra, dv€Ka, see under Adverbs, &c. On -aid, 
 -ei.d, -Old, see below under H, §§ 174-179. 
 
 \j/aKds Hdt. Ill 10, according to Stein, though xfreKas is 
 
 ^ TeVpoToy was held to be Ionic, .loh. G. 241 B. 
 
 ^ G. Meyer in his review of the Vowel System of the Ionic Dialect (A. P. A. XX 
 5-138) in BetU. Litt.-Zeit., 1890 p. 1335 disposes of the relation of to^j'co andre/j-vm 
 as follows : rdixvw is from fra/j.oy, the aor. of Te'^w ; its v is due to the influence 
 of SaKvw [fSaKov : fra/xov). ri/xvou, again, is a contamination of refice and rdfivoi. 
 Ta.fj.vco is called Doric by Et. M. 114-21, 74523. 
 
130.] IONIC A = ATTIC H. l^^ 
 
 supported by IMS. authority and by Eustatliios. Moiris, p. 419, 
 held that \jreKd^ was Attic, but not so acceptable a form. Ct". 
 
 \\y(3dTava is the form used by Hdt., Ktesias (and Aischylos) 
 for 'EKlSarava. The MSS» of Hdt. show constant fluctuation 
 between these two forms, though Steph. Byz. distinctly states 
 that 'Ay/3aTaya is Herodoteiau. 
 
 cnnTaXXdCeLV (-sic) Hesych. = eKKX-qcndCeLV. "Icdvcs recalls the 
 Lakonian dTieAAat, cnreXXdCeLi; but is of doubtful explanation. 
 
 The ancients adduce other forms in support of a rpo-n-l) of e to a. These 
 examples are either based upon incorrect etymologies or deal with pan- 
 Hellenic by-forms. 
 
 130.] Ionic A = Attic H. 
 
 jueo-a/x/Sptj] Hdt. and Arrian, 3, 25, 39 (elsewhere the Attic 
 form). Cf. Eustathios on the Odyssey 17145-, Greg. Kor. p. 444, 
 654, Schmidt, Foe. I 119. 
 
 dix(f)L(Tl3aT€(ji} Zeleia 1131s (after 334 B. C.) and in Hdt. IV 14 \ 
 IX 74^. This form is not confined to Ionic unless the a of 
 Bhodian dfX(j)i.(Tl3aaLas C. I. G. 2905 B 6, aiJi.(f)€(T(3dT€L C. I. G. 
 2905 A 3, Aiolic dix(pL(r(3aTrjiJ.4uwv C. D. I. 21425, can be shown 
 to be long. Herakleitos 9 has dyxi-IBaa-ujv, cf. Suidas dix(pLa(3aTeii', 
 evLOL TO diJ.<pL(T^i]Te'iv. "Icoves be koI dyx'-l^o-'i'^^v koX dyxt-lio-o-it^v 
 (see also s.r. dyxi^aTelv). Hesychios" gloss is on d^^ia 1^11x0,1', 
 not on dix(j)i(rj3aTdv. In Diog, Apoll. I the MSS. have the Attic 
 avaix(pi(TJiT]ry]Tov, cf. -l3i]T7]aeos Latyschev, II ^^. Hellanikos 177 
 has dfji(f)[aliaTa (see Hesychios s.v.). 
 
 If the non-Ionic forms have d, weight might, at first glance, 
 be attached to Brugmann^s suggestion that an Ionic ajoc^tfr/^areco 
 is due to the ignorance of scribes who connected the latter part 
 with jSalvoi), /3dTt9, faro's"; Morph. Uufer. I 22. But there is at 
 least no proof that the a of the Aiolic and Bhodian forms is not 
 short ; and, even if it is long, the inscriptional form from Zeleia 
 proves conclusively that an Herodoteiau d/x^to-^dreco is not due to 
 blundering ignorance. Perhaps the forms in r\ stood in an ablaut 
 relation to those in d ^. 
 
 kd^eaOai Hdt. VII 144, Adftv IV 21 (cf. Greg. Kor. 139, 
 'Hpoo. Ae'^ets Stein II 467), have their d from the present stem as 
 
 ^ The MSS. here agree as to the penultimate a of a/xcpicrPaa-ias (cf. VIII 81), 
 but R and the rest have in the same chapter a/iicpi(Tp7)T-. 
 
 '^ P E have ap.cpL(T$riT€coy. 
 
 ^ Osthoff, Perfect -p. 331, thought to set matters straight by deriving afi(pi(r- 
 /Sareto from an unheard-of participle ^drSs, the kinsman of the regular ISarSs. 
 These two forms he opined would yield -fiaTiu (-/Sijtsco) and -fiarew. Brug- 
 mann's derivation from -y/o-^Tj ignores ay)(^fio.Tuv, which however may have 
 been formed by analogy. 
 
136 THE IONIC DIALECT. [130. 
 
 Xayj/erat Miletos, loo^. The converse procedure appears in the 
 New Test, krux-^oixai, a form found on Lykian inscript. C. I. G. 
 42446, 424720? 4253i5, and in the Tapyr. du Louvre, 14, 17 I 
 It is due to a confusion between Xijxf/oiJiat and Xdixxj/oixaL. Cf. 
 Attic ijvetyKa by contamination of the regular Attic I'lveyKa and 
 Ionic yv€LKa. 
 
 Forms without a nasal come to liglit upon Attic vases 
 (Aa.(fx)7ro)v, Aa(ju.)7ro? in Kretschmer's collection, K. Z. XXIX, 
 p. 436), thougli here the comparison of Xd^j/irai is not so pertinent 
 as Kretschmer supposes. It is better to class Aa(ix)iruiv, &c., 
 with l<v{ix)(j)r] (§ 336), than to regard Xdy\re,Tca as derived 
 from Xa{[j.)\f/eTai, despite the Herodoteian Xd\x-\lfoixai, (Xdix(p9r]v, 
 XafxTTT€0'i. We have KareXd^dri Zeleia, 1137, and XeXdjSrjKa, 
 KaTaXiXoftiqKdi in Hdt. (IV 79, III 42), XiXa}x\xai in Hdt. and 
 Hippokr., avaXeXd(l)dai in Hippokr. Ill 308, according to Littre, 
 with ample MS. support^. I cannot follow Bechtel in branding 
 as spurious the Herodoteian Xdixxj/eai I 191, Xdfjixj/ecrdaL IX 108, 
 Xaix(l)6el(Tai VI 92, merely on the ground that Aa\//-eTai is a well 
 attested Milesian form, and that Herodotos may have made use 
 of the Milesian dialect, as is claimed e.ff. by Wilamowitz, 
 Ze'itsclir. fur Gymn.-u-es. XXXI 645. The parallelism between 
 the Herodoteian forms and the inscriptional Xdxj/erai, from Miletos 
 proves nothing as to the original character of the historian's 
 dialect. The Cliian dTTobeKvyvTes 1 74 B 14 would lead, on this 
 reasoning, to a different conclusion as to the nature of the 
 Herodoteian diction. If Xi]\f/oixaL and Xi]\xy\roixai could be formed, 
 why not Aa/M\//-oju,at ? Xdjx^ea-Qai in fact occurs upon the great 
 inscription from Andania, Ditt. Syll. 388^, though the genuine 
 Doric was Xay\rovyiai Ej^icharmos 18, Theokr. I 4. Cf. also the 
 late aorist i^iXafxxl/a Diog. Laert. I 85. Xdjxy^oixai is now 
 generally banished from Hdt.'s text, and 7TapaX'i]-^r]Tai, in Hippo- 
 krates VI 326 rests upon conjecture. 
 
 Proper names in 'Aye- or 'Aye-, which run parallel to those in 
 'Hye-, are ^-om dyco, the asper being borrowed from ■))yeoixaL 
 ( > sag). Cf. Lokrian ayety. The Doric 'AyrjaCXaos (Perinthos, 
 234 B 5) has the ^euis from dyco. 
 
 Ionic a from t] in the grammarians (e.g. Et. Gud. 1064,, 12I7, 43, An. Par. 
 Ill 295j) is based upon a misconception of the interrelation of the first and 
 second perfect. In fX€fj.aKv7a, \e\aa/jLevos &c. the ancients discovered an Ionic 
 change of ij to o (Joh. Gr. 240 B, Greg. Kor. 444, Meerm. 654, Aug. 668, Vat. 
 699, Birnb. 6782^, Et. Mag. 50I5, Eust. 1714^, 52, 55 cf. 170048, An. Ox. I 282oe, 
 An. Par. Ill 478.^,). 
 
 ' K-flfj.\f/ri is a probable conjecture of Sterrett's, Papers 0/ the Am. School, II :;6. 
 VI ; cf. 58, XIX. 
 
 ^ Veitch, however, supports avaXeKd/xcpdai. Cf. Schmidt, Voc. I 118. 
 
131.] INTERRELATION OF A AND O. 137 
 
 j In the view that all epic forms are Ionic we find in Eust. 39329 (cf. Schol. 
 I Ven. A on r 130) vvfKpa called Ionic by a rporrrt of tj to a. Kapos also is said to 
 I be Ionic for Kr]p6s, Schol. Ven. A on I 378. 
 
 131.J Interrelation of A and O. 
 
 In a few instances a and seem to be interrelated sonnds, 
 though the law governing- their interrelation has not been 
 formulated in all cases (cf. § 147). So far as Ionic is concerned, 
 we have the following form where Ionic a = of other dialects : 
 dppcoSeco Hdt. I 9, ill, 156, III 119, &c., appoobiri IV 140, &C., 
 and attested by the Et. Mag. p. 632^3 (cf. Bek. An. I 446^^). 
 Lukian has the Attic oppoibico (Hesychios oppcobCa, oppcoSecos, &c.) 
 and so too Hippokrates and Aretaios. Probably assimilation of 
 a to has here been caused by the influence of the w of the 
 following syllable (Schmidt, K. Z. XXV 112). Etymologists are 
 generally silent as to the derivation of this word. Horrere is 
 probably related to (^pCa-aoo, and cannot be connected with dppojbico 
 as L. S. think. The Ionic form deserves special note, since it is 
 only very rarely that Ionic differs from Attic in its use of a and 0. 
 
 The question as to the interrelation of a and o assumes a 
 different form in the case of proper names. In the MSS. of Hdt. 
 there is a constant fluctuation between the readings 'Aprafep^?]? 
 and 'Apro^e'pfr]?, the latter obtaining in Ktesias and Plutarch, 
 though Plutarchj in the de malign. Herod., ascribes the form in 
 a to the historian. Cf. also Steph. Byz. s.v. 'Apraia. ' ApTa^ip^rjs 
 occurs upon the inscription from Mylasa, 248, ABC, and would 
 seem to be a closer reproduction of Arta-khshathra than 'Apro- 
 ^ep£?/?, which Stein adopts, VI 98^, VII 106, 151, 152, though 
 the form in a is not unsupported. In other names Stein does 
 not hesitate to read 'Apro-, e.g. ' ApTojSa^dvrjs VII 2, 'ApToC(^(TTpr] 
 
 VI 43, though in the case of the former name Thom. Mag. 
 2991c, testifies to the form in 'Apra-. Nor is Stein consistent, 
 since we find 'AprdjSavos IV 83, VII 10, 11, 17, 47 ; 'AprajSaCos 
 
 VII 66, &c. ; 'ApTaj3dTri<i VII 6^ ; ' ApTa^pivr\s V 25, and other 
 names in 'Apra-. He adopts 'Aa-Tpo^aKov VI 69, where R has 
 Aorpa-. 
 
 In any event no Ionic change of a to may be deduced from 
 the uncertainty attendant upon the MS. fluctuations. The 
 Persian names in Apru- ('Apri'/3tos, 'Apr?^(/)to9, ^ AprvaTiavr]) are 
 not to be held to be instances of the final effort of a phonetic 
 movement which began with 'Apra- and reached 'Aprv- through 
 'Apro-, as has been held to be the case with /card, KaTo, and KaTv 
 (§ 132). The forms in 'Apro- are due, not to an interchange of 
 a and o (§ 147), but to the fondness for 0- stems in composition. 
 
 ^ Cf. his note on this passage in his annotated edition, Fick, Spracheinheit, 
 p. 406, and Schmidt, Urheimath d. Indogermanen, p. 5. 
 
138 THE IONIC DIALECT. [132. 
 
 132.] A in relation to T. 
 
 iKakivbeeTo lldt. Ill 53, compared with KvXti-oerat Sim. 
 Amorg-. VII 4, KaTaKv\i(r6fj Hdt. V 16, must not be regarded 
 as an instance of the interchang-e of a and v ^, and much less 
 as a proof of the greater age of Kakivhio) (Curtius, Efj/ui.^, p. 715). 
 With KV\\fiky], Kdix\j/a, capsula, and kvKl^, caKx, are to he classed 
 KaXivbioi), KvkLvheoj, Germ, qi/ellen. Both Kuk- and Kvk- are weak 
 forms of V'k^A = qel. 
 
 The non-Ionic (Arkadian) form Karv does not invalidate the 
 above exj^lanation, since it is derived from ^kuto (KaToirep 
 Halikarn. 238^3 is from 6-n^p), which in turn is an analogue 
 of vt:6 ; "^KaTo becomes Karv, as vno becomes v-nv (Kyme, 3 A). 
 This is better than to assume, on the strength of Lettic-Lith. 
 sa and Lith. sk, Lith. ga, gu, that the forms in a and v are 
 j)roethnic. 
 
 133.] A and AT. 
 
 'irapos, erdprj, &c., the variant forms of (.raip- < erapi,-, occur 
 in the epos only. Archil., Sim. Am., Theog., Hdt. have haip-. 
 
 E. 
 
 On the e of eKet, (Kelvos, ex^e? see § 564, on that of eopri] 
 § 287. I, note, on idiko) § 588; on hyper-Ionic e in pronouns, 
 §§ 563, 563- 
 
 134.] Ionic EP for AP of other dialects. 
 
 The Ionic dialect in a few cases has made use of the strong 
 forms in ep, though not to the same extent as Aiolic. 
 
 epcrrii; : 'ipaevos Hdt. I 109, €p(T€i'€S I 193, kpakvdiv I 192, 
 epaevas I 193. The MSS., notably li, have the Attic form, 
 which must have been Ionic also, since it comes to light upon 
 the very old Thasian inscription (Bechtel, no. 68, ^paev). Herakl. 
 43 appei'os (A.ttic). Homer has apcrr]v 7, which is doubtless Ionic, 
 since epo-?jy is Aiolic (C. D. I. 293(3). That both the strong" and 
 the weak form should co-exist in one and the same dialect need 
 not surprise us. Thessalian and Boiotian (perhaps even Ionic, 
 see on dapaos, above § 128) have both Oepa-- and dapcr-, two 
 forms living together. The only other dialects wdiich have ep(rr]v 
 are, I believe, Kretan (Gortyna Tables, X 52 epaeves, X 49 
 epaevMp) and Epidaurian (Baunack^s Stiidien 80J30). In the other 
 dialects apar]^ : Attic app[e]vos C. I. A. II 678," B 55-378 B.C., 
 Eleian Fdpp^vop = dppevos C. D. I. 1152, Lakon. apaijs C. I. G. 
 
 ' The change of y to a in Kv\iv5ov/jicih KaXivSovfxai was held to be Aiolic by 
 Et. Mag. 486.J. 
 
I34-] IONIC E IN CONJUNCTION WITH P. I39 
 
 14643 (first cent. B.C.). See Fiek, G. G. A. 1883, p. 117; 
 u Schmidt, K. Z. XXV 23. Hippokrates, Lukian [Astr. 11 appeva, 
 ■ ' appev€i), and Arriau 8^ (apcrevas) have the a form, 
 
 recro-epes : recraepei, Ttaa^pecrKaiheKa, Teao-epeKaLbeKaTi], reaaepd- 
 Kovra, TeaaepaKovTopyvios, are found in Hdt. with occasional lapses 
 in favour of the Attic forms, as Herodas, 7^02- Lukian, f . 
 A. 4 has ricrcrepa, Arrian § g^, 22c, T^a-crapaKovTa, 132, 21^3 
 T€(T(rap€s. Upon inscriptions we meet with riaaepes 1489^^, a 
 comparatively late document from Ephesos, Teaaepoiv 104, B 66, 
 Thasos, middle of the fourth century, with Teaadpuiv on the same 
 'j inscription, lines 62 and 6^; reaadpoiv occvirs also in no. 114, F 
 1 1 (Zeleia), which dates shortly after the battle of Granikos; 
 riaaepa Teos, I57i8 (tke stone has TEZEPA) ; Ti(j{a)ap^s 15995 
 Teos^ with but one 2 upon the stone. r^cra-epdKoi'Ta 10450, 
 LI Thasos, iliii, Kyzikos;^ re(ro-[epa]K[o] 7-70)2; 174, C 16, Chios, 
 rl and reo-[o-]epaKaie/38o[/Miy]90i^roi;r7/j 58, Paros. Only Arkadian 
 and Ionic have ep : Arkad. Tea-aepaKovTa Foucart, 352 n. (late). 
 Cf. Schmidt, K. Z. XXV 44. 
 
 ' Apracfyp^vris is adopted as the genuine reading by Stein in every 
 instance, though the MSS. of Hdt. constantly vary between the 
 form in -(f)piv'i]s and that in -(f)€pvrjs (V 2q, 30, 31, 32, ;^^, 73, 
 &c.). AischyloSj Persai, 21, 776, has ''ApTa(ppiin]s. In like manner 
 Stein reads 'Ivracpptvrjs III 70, 78, 118, 119. Upon an Attic 
 inscription, C. I. A. I 64, B 14 (410-405 B.C.), we find Tto-]o-a- 
 (l)p€vr]v, which ensures the correctness of the form in -(f)pivi]s 
 (cf. Old Persian -fraud), and stamps that in -(pipvqs, so popular 
 in later Greek, as a folk-etymology in the direction of (pipM ; 
 e.ff. 'Opo(f)€pv)]i Priene, Anc. Gr. Inscr. 3, no. 424, 6,^. G. Meyer, 
 Gr. Gr. § ly^, note 1. The above quoted Attic inscription is 
 important evidence that the form used in the treaty, Thukydides, 
 VIII 27, is incorrect. See Kirchhoff in SltzungshericMe d. Berliner 
 Akad., 1884, p. 399. 
 
 On depa--, see above § 128^ under Odpa-os. On KpiaaMV, cf. 
 below § 142. 
 
 X^i-^pds is said to be Ionic for •)(XLap6'i in Liddell and Scott, but 
 in Hdt. and Hippokr. we find only the latter form. ^Xupos in 
 fact occurs in Kratinos 143 K, in Athen. A. The e form does 
 not occur in Nikander, Al. 360, as L. S. state. 
 
 The grammarians held to an Ionic change of a to e in Stepo's 
 (Et. Gud. 1443^, Orion 48^). So the koivi] form /xiepo's (Phryn. 
 363 R) was once regarded as Ionic. So too \}/U6os. 
 
 lapoi does not occur in Ionic. On Upos and Ipos see § 300. 
 irepos = aTepos in Doric, Boiotian, Attic (in ddrepov, drepos), 
 
 ^ Tiffffepa held its ground till late. Upon an Egyj^tian papyrus (189 a. d.) 
 we find it still preserved. Cf. Trans. Berlin Acad. 1885, pp. 916, 919. 
 
140 THE IONIC DIALECT. [135. 
 
 thoiig-h Attic has generally erepos ^. In Aiolic we have con- 
 flicting' testimony; hepos Sappho, ic6, and C. D. I. 279,,, but 
 Herodian, I 507,;, opines that arepVL is Aiolic. eVepo? is, 
 morphologically considered, the later form, its initial e being 
 due to the influence of the e of the following syllable, epcrrfv j 
 and T€(T(Tep€^ might be explained after the same fashion. See 
 Schmidt, A'. Z. XXV 92 note. Cf. o/3oAo9 ojieXos, and ijixvav 
 rjixvavv (but 7/ju/^creos) upon Attic inscriptions after 378, and in J 
 the modern language of Amorgos (and Kalymna) oroi/xo?, and 
 ofo) in modern Kretan. Cf. also drreXe/3os Hdt. lA^ 172, for 
 aTTekal^oi. Herodas, J^^ has erepov yar^pov. 1 
 
 Roberts, I no. 167, contains TriTepr]i (TETEPEI). Cf. Eoberts, I pp. 196, 
 200, 374, Cauer, 557. The inscription cannot be Eleian, as Wilamowitz 
 thinks, since that dialect loves a in preference to 77. Does not the absence j 
 of the nspei' indicate an Asiatic-Ionic origin? We find T7)T(prt in Phoinix in 
 Athen. 495 E. Cf. 17 + e, § 264. 
 
 135.] Interrelation of EA and AA. 
 
 Forms in -eAos in the koivi) were once held to be Ionic, perhaps 
 
 because of Hom. -n-i^eAos p.veX6s, later irvakos p.vdko'i. Thus veXos f 
 
 was thought by Bredow to have been adopted from Ionic by \ 
 
 Theophrastos, whereas in Hdt. Ill 24, Stein's viXov is not | 
 
 above doubt. The pseudo-Phrynichos (H. p. 363) enjoins vaKos i 
 
 as Attic. There is no reason why (/ne'A?;, for Attic (^taA??, should \ 
 
 belong to Ionic. In Hippokr. o-teAos often occurs as a variant \ 
 
 for (TiaXos (VI 160, 196, 214, 370 in 6). In many of these forms | 
 
 Attic too had e : Tn^eAo?, ixv^kos, aUkos (Phryn. 364). ; 
 
 136.] Other examples of Ionic E == A of other dialects. • 
 
 6t€, TTo're, akkore, Ionic-Attic = Dor. okci, iroKa, aAAoKa, = Aiolic I 
 ora, TToVa, akkora. Both the Ionic and Doric forms are equally 
 original, an I.E. palatal sound becoming tau before e, kajjjja 
 before a. The Aiolic forms are contaminations. 
 
 On (u'€K€v, eTrev, e-Tretrez', see under Adverbs, -dev, -6e, not -6a, 
 are the loni^ forms, ye Ionic-Attic = Doric yd, Epeirot. yiv '. 
 
 yip.p.a was the Ionic form used especially by Demokritos^ 
 according to the unsupported testimony of Eustathios, 370^-. 
 
 ^ Aristotle's 'A0. ttoX. has even ovrepa = ot It-. Attic inscriptions have 
 always erepos. Attic d&repov sic, and not ddnpov, except when the article 
 precedes as in Menander S46 Kocli. Bdrtpa duTepicv Hippokr. IX 30. It is 
 impossible that rb eTepov should liecome Odrepov, as is commonly stated. 
 
 ^ 7e' may be the Old Slav, ie, Old Lith. r/c ; yd (Skt. ha) must be dissociated 
 from Skt. hi which is almost always orthotone. hi is = Gr. -%' in ovx'h Skt. j^ 
 nahi. V. Henry, Mem. Soc. Ling. VI 378 ff. The Epeirotic y4v can scarcely be * 
 regarded as a survival of an original y4v. Baunack, A'. Z. XXV 243 thinks 
 that the v is the movable letter. Is it perhaps -ye + «/(€ i ? Cf. Thessal. ve. 
 
 ^ Demokritos' position in respect of the names of the letters was peculiar. 
 In Eekk. Anecd. II 7SI23 the gen. ScAtotos and 0ijTaTos are cited from him, 
 and in Eust. 37015 he is said to have called juC, yuw. 
 
I37-] IONIC E = A OF OTHER DIALECTS. 141 
 
 For other variations between e and a, a and e, occurring- in 
 various dialects, and of which no satisfactory explanation has 
 as yet been reached, compare G. Meyer, Graiiwi. § 24. 
 
 In the inflection of neuters with stems in -aa- we encounter 
 in Ionic, in Attic trag-edy and comedy (rarely), an e in place 
 of the thematic a. Thus in Homer ovh^l, Kutecn ; in Hdt. yipea 
 (^Kpeeaa-iv oracl. I 47), K^peos, Kepei, K^pea, Keptoov, perhaps r^peos, 
 ripea, ci. Tetpeaias ; yi^povs Hippokr, VII 182 (Hdt. yi^pao^) ; 
 in inscriptions yepea Miletos 100, cf. § 544, Whether the 
 peculiar nature of this change requires that it be regarded as 
 a survival of a pre- Hellenic stage, or whether it ensued upon 
 Greek soil, is not yet clear. Schmidt, JVe//fra p. ^^^, holding 
 that ao became eo in primitive Greek save where analogy revived 
 the old form, suggests that the original inflection in Greek was 
 -a?, -eos, -di, -aa, -eutv, -aaai, and that in course of time by a 
 levelling process there arose -aj, -eo?, -et, &c., and -as, -aoy, -at, &c. 
 The literary monuments of Aiolic and Doric ^ are unacquainted 
 with this interrelation of a and e in substantives. 
 
 e apparently takes the place of a in certain verbs in -eco (opeo), 
 ToXp.t(ti, olbecti, €)(^p€ovTo^, &c.) and before 0, co, ov in inflection. An 
 explanation of the interrelation of the forms is attempted in 
 § 688. On Tpd-noD in Hdt. see § 138. 
 
 Before the termination -(a)ai, a becomes e in Ionic by dis- 
 similation ; e.ff. eTTt'crreat, Sweat. In Attic IToretSeaTat we have a 
 somewhat similar case of dissimilation. 
 
 New Ionic pe(jiavo9, pe^art? for pacf)-, Ammon. 122 (Yalck., 
 cf. also 203 on the difference in signification). Hippokr. VIII 
 250 peipdvov in C and 6 ; 308 pi(f)avLhos C &c., but 6 &c. have 
 pacf)-; VI 558 all MSS. )a({)-. Thomas Mag. (323 R) says 
 that piiravos was Ionic for paf^avis. Aretaios 301 has pacp-. 
 
 Tiii^u) Ionic, Attic and Aiolic = Doric irta^o; (Hdn. II 9490^, An. 
 Ox. I 29I5, I 367s). 
 
 137.] Ionic E = O of other dialects. 
 
 A singular substitution of e for o is found in Ateri^o-wft), 
 Bechtel No. 31, from Amorgos, an inscription of the fifth 
 century; whereas the other Ionic inscriptions have either Ato- 
 vvaio'i or Aeoi'Cs. See below § 138. G. Meyer, Gramm. § 26, 
 is inclined to regard this e as parallel to that of "Winhdp.ov 
 (Rhodes) or of dvbpecpovos, called Doric by Herodian, — forms 
 of common speech with an e comparable to the toneless e of 
 Modern Greek. BechtePs suggestion is preferable : Auwaos : 
 Ai.6vv(Tos = ate'AoDpos ^ : aloXos, or as Lak. 0)p.€.cr9aL (M. 31. XL 8) : 
 
 ' The forms Sepos, Ka>os (see Schmidt, p. 341) were regarded as either Ionic 
 or Doric, Et. M. 257;,, An. Par. IV 16730, Anecd. Baehm. I 19117. 
 ^ Greg. Kor. 15. 
 ' aU\ovpos for aiKovpos in Hdt. and comic poets. Cf. Et. M. 3I4J. 
 
142 THE IONIC DIALECT. [137. 
 
 o/xoVai, or as Herakl. epprj-yeCas, &e. : nom. in -co?. C£. G. G. A. 
 1 88 1, p. 1447, Baunack^s Slud. I 71, and X. Z. XXVI 354. 
 Solmscn, A, Z. XXIX 89, has no other means of disposmg of 
 Auvva-coi than assuming that it is an error of the stone-cutter. 
 
 Of the various names taking their rise from the two chief 
 ablaut forms of Apollo ['AttoWoov, ' At: ikXcov), there are a few 
 examples upon Ionic soil of the latter, so common among Doric 
 peoples, 'A'neXXiodvo'i 1535? Smyrna (names in 'AttoAA-, lines 
 3, 15, 24, ;^y, 40, 41), 'ATTJeAA^s 177 Chios, and in Erythraian 
 inscriptions : 'ATreAAtow 306 A 4 (cf. 'Atto'AAcoz'o? 2c6 A 20), 
 'AireXklov 206 B 17 (in the same line, 'A7rokk(av[Los]), 'AiTekkiKoiv 
 Bull, (le Corr. Hel. Ill 388. Also in Naukratis (Gardner's 
 Nankr. I, pi. XXXII 104), 'AttoX- names are very frequent. In 
 no case does the god bear the name "'Airekkcov among Ionic 
 peoples, though it is a form of as great antiquity as that in 
 vogue in Attic-Ionic. It may be noticed that the form 'AttcA- 
 occurs in Ionic only when the following sound is not or co. 
 See my paper Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. XA'III 97, and especially 
 Prellwitz, B. B. IX 327 ff. Baunack in the Studia Nicolaifana, 
 p. 54, in his Sttidien, p. 155, Meister G. J). II 90, and Jordan, 
 Krit. Beitr. zur lat. Formenl. 7-23, may also be consulted. 
 
 oj3eAo? the Homeric, and hence according to Orion ij8jr,the 
 Ionic, form. This form occurs on an Attic inscription, C. I. A. 
 IV 3 C, 5, and 8tco/3eAta, 6/3eAto-K09, &c., are common in Attic. 
 o/3eAo9 is also Boiotian ; oSeAo's Delphic, Tarantine and Megarian. 
 See Meister II 205. Hippokrates VIII 220, 224, 228 r]\i.m^ikiov 
 and o/3oAo? in Q. 
 
 In i^aTTehov Hdt. (II 149) has preserved the older form of the 
 termination; cf. 4' 164 kKaTOjx-nehov [Fen. A), where the vidgafa 
 has -TToSoi/. In Attic (Thuk. and Xen.) the stem ttoS- has 
 supplanted its rival ttcS-. 
 
 Tipiovaov Terone 7 (before 420), cf. Topcoi/oiot on Attic tribute- 
 lists in the first volume of C. I. A., and TopMvaios on an Attic 
 mortuary st^e^ Mitth. X 367 ff. Topcoz^- is due to assimilation, 
 cf. § 134, end. 
 
 The MSS. of Hdt. have 6 for in -Kovrepos, &c. Examples: 
 TTevTr}KovTip(DV, TpLrjKOVTepoKTL. In III 41, 124, VI 138, the MSS. 
 vary ; but in each case Stein has adopted the -Kovrepos form. 
 The Ionic form contains tlie simple form of the root ep- (epeVo-co, 
 (p€Trjs), whereas the Attic ir^vrriKovTopos, rpiaKoi'Topas have the 
 ablaut op-. Both forms, rpiaKovTopos and TpiaKovTepos, occur in 
 Attic inscr., and in the fourth century only ; but the former is 
 the more frequent. The ablaut form in op is the one to be 
 expected from the composition of the word, but the e form often 
 makes its way into the second part of a compound. Cf. § 295 
 on by]fXLoepy6<i. 
 
I39-] IONIC E = I OF OTHER DIALECTS. I43 
 
 138.] E in Ionic =: I of other dialects. 
 
 Names derived from, or connected with, Alovvctos exhibit a 
 greater elasticity of vowel relations in Ionic than elsewhere. 
 
 We have above, § 137, met with the sui ffeneris Ateyuo-o?; be- 
 sides this form we have Aeovvs, in No. 196, Maroneia, and 
 Aiovvbos in 198, Erythrai. The e vowel we have also in Aeovvvs 
 npon a coin of Imhoof-Blumer^s collection (below § 246)^ in 
 Aevvvaos Anakreon, 2„, 11, (but Aloi'vctos 54, 5j, 131), and in 
 the abbreviated AEO on coin legends of Abdera, Bechtel^ ^^3i- 
 Is the e here due to a confusion with that of Oeo-, with which 8to- 
 is often interchangeable in proper names ? See The.ssalian, § 28. 
 
 In sharp opposition to this e are the forms with i, which are 
 very common. Examples are: Alowo-o^ lasos, io4ig^ Eryth. 
 206 B 24^ and often elsew^here; Atovva-cos Smyrna 1533, 5, 
 Thasos (L) 15 C 4, Thasos (L) 19 B^, 20 B 11, Kyzik. 11I5, 
 Olbia 13 ii4, 261 (of uncertain locality), Halik. 241 ; Aiovva-abos 
 Abdera, 163, 15, Corns of Brit. Mus., Thrace 66, nos. 62, 68, 85, 
 and in almost every other Ionic quarter. Ionic also is Auovvaos. 
 On the probable connection with Zews by folk-etymology, see 
 Baunack [Gorfi/n, p. 67, note i), and Solmsen, A'. Z. XXIX 89. 
 Cf. also Frogs 215, Apoll. Argon. II 905, IV 1132. 
 
 139.] E for H. 
 
 ixiv^ for ixriv in the formulae 7] }X€v Hdt. I 196 ; fxi] }xiv I 68, III 
 66, V 106; ye ixiv VI 129, VII 152, 234; a\Xa-fX€V II 20, 32, 
 IV 77, VII 103; Kal-fxiv IV 45, VI 98. Cf. Greg. Kor. 62. 
 Hdt. here adopts a usage common to Homer, and not unknown 
 in Attic. Cobet, 3Iisc. Crif. 365, is an advocate of the view, with 
 which KirchhofE agrees, that Homer has only t] ixiv, }x\\ fxev, not 
 7/ fxrjv, IJ.1J jxr]v. Bekker would recognize only ixav, and }X€v when 
 called for by the metre. Cf. Monro, Horn. Gram. § 342 If. 
 With /xeV are connected the Thessalian, Homeric and Attic }xa, 
 as K€v is connected with kL Homeric jxav and /ji7/y are probably 
 not directly related. 
 
 aiik^Tos is said by Bredow, p. 143, to be used by Hdt. for 
 aT:Xr]Tos = airXdros (TreXdco). This airXijTos occurs first in Hesiod, 
 then in the Hymn to Demeter, and also in Sim. Am. 704. airXeTos 
 is, however, to be classed with ttAij, rAe [■nijXTik'i^iiL), and not with 
 any derivative of TreAao). Both a-nX-qro^ and cmXdTos are restricted 
 to poetry, while aTrXeros occurs in poetry and prose. Cf. Siegis- 
 mund in Curtius Stud. V 20T. airXaTov, Track. 1093 (dialogue) 
 cannot well be Attic. 
 
 eo-o-ou/xat in Hdt., cf. Attic i]TTao\i.ai, out of which Tyrra was 
 
 ' formed, Wackernagel, K. Z. XXX 299. Hdt. has kfrcrovvro I 67 ; 
 
 -li-ivovi I 82 ; ka-aoideLs I 207 ; ea-aovo-Oai III 22, &c. chiefly in 
 
 1 ' 
 
 laKus Hdn. II 14419 on II. V 478. 
 
144 THE IONIC DIALECT. [140. 
 
 (1. Brugmann conjectures unnecessarily {Berichte d, sdcJis. Gesell. 
 d. IV'iss. 1883, p. 193, cf. Osthoff Ferfect. 449) that eo-o-oC/iat is 
 from e'(T 0-0)2', whose e represents a mechanical chang-e of tj (ef. T^xa, 
 Attic i]TTO}v) to e, in order to bring" the comparative into line 
 with KptcrcTMv, Ionic for KpeLcraoiv. But cf. seciis and secius for a 
 like ablaut variation. Stein edits ijaa-Mv (cf. riaaov I 98; ijrraovfs 
 V 86, VIII 113; rjaaovMV VII 18; i](T(ro(n VIII 83) and is 
 here supported in part by the unanimous voice of the MSS. 
 Elsewhere the MSS. are in a terrible state of confusion. The 
 other prosaists have rj, e.g. Demokr., 15, Hippokr. Ill 190. The 
 superlative has always 77. Kriig'er holds to eaacov, Formenlehre^ 
 
 § 23, 4. 3- 
 
 e is shortened from rj in vU<s, veas (cf. Greg. Kor. 19). 
 
 0apyeAeo[9] for Qapyr]- Chios, 174 C 18? 
 
 ixebicov Archil. 138, ablaut form of [xrjbictiv ; cf. jne'^ea Hsd. JF. 
 I). 5i2, called Ionic by Greg. Kor. p. ^0^^. 
 
 Some of the grammarians of antiquity, chiefly Tzetzes, assumed an Ionic 
 (Tv(TTo\7i in such words as ^epSv in Homer = Messenian and Herakleian ^r]p6v 
 (Tzetz. Ex. 11. 6i,g, 9O15), yepaiSs (^Ibid. 90^), where we have in reality ablaut 
 forms. 
 
 iA.eo? appears to be the Herodoteian form, IV 94, VI 91. The 
 interrelation of this form, which is also Kretan, with lK-i]Fos and 
 iWaos is a much- vexed question. i'Aeos represents the mutation 
 1A77-, Ike-, the forms with a an old ablaut form lAa-. Archilochos, 
 75.,, has i'Aaos (— ^— ) according to Bergk, for which Fick proposed 
 without justification to read t'Aeco?. Cf. t\aos in Theognis 783. 
 ?Aaos is Ionic as well as Attic (which has also lAdos). See Pischel, 
 JB. B. VII 332 and Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 351. The Hesyehian 
 etA?]s et * I'Aeco? ft, has been read elArys et, and explained as an 
 Asiatic -Ionic perfect. 
 
 Whether the form of the adjective is 'ihews or jAeos in Ionic, is still a matter 
 of contention, since the ground-form of the word has not been cleared up by 
 the Lakonian HIAFFO (Roehl 75 = Rob. I No. 261"). It is even a matter 
 of dispute whax is the genuine Homeric form. Nauck has called for '/Atjos and 
 ?Aeos in place of 'ixaos and 'ihoios. Stein's claini that 'l\eos is the Herodoteian 
 form is supported by the arguments of Wackernagel, K. Z. XXVII, p. 264. 
 
 140.] Ionic E = A of non-Ionic dialects (Aiolic, Doric, &c.). 
 
 (1) In this category falls first Ionic -eoiv — -d(X)v<-dFoiv or 
 -atooi'. 
 
 oTracoy Hom.=:o7recor Hdt. IX 50. 
 
 Y\oTiihaF()iv Korinth., Yloaeihauiv II om. (Aiol.) = YlorreiheMV in 
 Hdt. ^, YloaeihGiv Arch. ep. 114, for which we may read Yloutihij^v. 
 
 riofreiSatof in the Ionic elegy is due to the pressui"e exercised ujion the elegy 
 by the epic. Cf. Theog. 692. In Archil. 10 noffetSioivos &vaKros, as given 
 
 ' Ionic rioo-etSeW Ildu. I 38„„, II 91713, cf. An. Ox. Ill 241,6. 
 
 .tf>.>i 
 
I40.] IONIC E = A OF OTHER DIALECTS. 145 
 
 by Bergk, is not supported by MS. evidence, though corresponding to Hoa-ti- 
 Sdaiva &vaKTa Iliad XV 8. The objection that if Archil, may adopt -oto from 
 Homer, he has an equal right to -dojvos is not cogent, since -010 is an ancient 
 I Ionic termination and not obsolete in old Ionic poetry, while -dcev cannot be 
 ! shown to be the property of any historical period of the Ionic dialect. Tick's 
 substitution, nocretS-fitDvos, is based upon Iloa-iS-qiciv Anakr. 6, Tlocrei^fuy Archil. 
 114, vr]6s 4, irai^oro 76 tetr. (on the peculiar position of iTaii\u)v in Homer, see 
 i Fick, Odyssee, p. 17), and a.K\i\o>v, Naxos, 23, where tjwi/ seems to be an inter- 
 mediate stage between -doiv and 'wv. 
 
 ; ^Aixvdd(i)V Horn, = 'A/xu^ecoy Hdt. 'AAK/xacov, 'AA.Kju,ataji/ Horn. 
 
 ■ =Hdt, and Attic 'AAK/xecoz^ = Doric ' AkKixdv from 'AKk^jAFcov. 
 (Cf. Fritsch, F. H. I). 39, Johansson, B. B. XV 183, below 
 
 I § 141, Merzdorf, Curtius' Stnd. IX 238.) With ^ikiu^v in 
 4>iAea)z^t6[e]os Thasos, 73, cf. 4>tAdwy in Hdt. VIII ii, which is, 
 however, the name of a Kyprian. Mayio^v Thas. (Louvre) iOjj = 
 Horn. Mayam), a form retained by Hrd. 4g. 
 
 I (2) Ionic g-enitives in -ea) = d(cri)o, 'ArpetSeco, &c., see § 425 ff. 
 When 7netathesii5 quantitatis is involved, as in the genitive, an e 
 
 ■ I is always the result. 
 
 H (3) Genitive pi. in -(.u)v = -doiv (Boiot., Thessal. [-aovv), Horn.). 
 
 Homer^s gen. in -^(av (H i, ^ 191) and -^mv, -G)v are Ionic. 
 
 i Menrad, l)e Contract, et Syniz. p. 41, calls for the restoration of 
 
 -ecoy and -eco wherever possible in the text of Homer, despite the 
 
 fact that -ecoi; is always diphthongal in the Ionic lyric. 
 
 (4) \e(6s = ka6s (cf. § 160), and in proper names : Hdt., 'Ap/ce- 
 
 1 [(TiAecos, XapiAeco?, Meve\eo)S (MeveXaos Hdt. IV 169, of a Xiy.r\v), 
 'and 'Ai'afiAftos, as in Miletos 93, not long after 600 b. c. So in 
 \€(ii4>6pov Anakreon, 157, Chios, 175 (cf. Aao0opo?, of a road, 
 II. XV 682), AecoKpdrTj?, Aeoofjiebcav (Hrd. 4^), and many other 
 forms on inscriptions. The MSS. of Hdt. are not consistent (cf. 
 II 124, V 42). Even in the case of Doric names he occasionally 
 uses the Ionic forms; e.g. AeojTrpeTT?]? VI 85, but Aaobdfxas, 
 AaohiKi], &c. (§ 15^)- The latter form is a contamination of Doric 
 AaoSt/cd and Ionic A^oibUr]. Examples of rj thus conjoined with 
 Doric d are rare. Variation in proper names must be expected 
 even upon inscriptions: thus we have, Chios, 177, Aea)o-e/3eo[s] 
 1. 3, but -ToXaos 1. 14. Hekat. had Aews according to An. Ox. 
 I 265 j^, cf. Zeleia 114 C 6. 
 
 With these compounds of Aecos, and 'A/.x(^tdpea)j^ in Hdt., cf. 
 
 ^ Cf. Greg. Korinth., p. 42. ' Afj.(t>tapdov Oropos, 182, a non-Ionic form. 
 {kn.<pi6.p7\os o 244 (^Zen , -ap- Aristar."), and 'A/j.(ptdpeajs upon vases led Kretschmer 
 KK. Z. XXIX 415 i to call 'A/jL(pidpfos New Ionic. The same scholar, in common 
 with Wackernagel K. Z. XXVII 265, regards 'Afj.(ptdpaos, which is frequent 
 [upon Attic vases, as due to a folk-etymology which saw apdo/xai in the 
 jverbal part. Pan-Hellenic rjo generally, but not necessarily, becomes eo in 
 ilater Ionic (§ 287. 288). 'A/Kpidpeos in v. I. Hdt. VIII 134;.^ ■ „, . , ,^ 
 
 L r^^^^oPrif^^^^^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 CAi /FORMlA' ^ 
 
146 THE IONIC DIALECT. [141. 
 
 the Homeric 'AyeAew?, BpidpecDs, &c. On the declension of Xeds, 
 see § 477. 
 
 (5) Furthermore, in Ionic eco?, reo)?' [idFo-s, rdFo-s), /xerewpos, 
 ■/eooirehLov, &c., § 289, cf. biixveuis (from Sijuycitos ?, see § 141) = Attic 
 biixvcoi, and in verbal forms, \pecoixai, e^avaa-Tioyixev, kin^ioiixiv , 
 fxipveo Hdt. V 105, Tedv^os I 1 12, &c. 
 
 On 6 -qeopLaL^ Attic OedofxaL, see § 685. 
 
 In almost every instance when primitive d preceded a spirant 
 and a vowel, Ionic attests the presence of e in place of d. The in- 
 stances where this is not the case deserve to be broug-ht out into 
 clear light, kr]6s, in Hipponax, has already been referred to. In 
 Hdt. we do not find vecas, as might be expected from the analogy 
 of Aew? < \ri6s, but vrjos, the epic form = Aiolic vavos''^. Herodotos' 
 preservation of vrjos is artificial and not in consonance with the 
 genius of the Ionic dialect, which would call for veuts ; a form 
 which in fact appears in composition: veoyiroLriaavTes Samos 222. 
 v€oi- is the Hellenistic form, and as such is also not foreign to 
 Aiolic monuments ; but it may be safely claimed as genuine Ionic, 
 even thoug-h the Samian inscription is not old. 
 
 141.] Ionic E = AT of other dialects. 
 
 Ionic yiri,yri and epic yaia maybe regarded as forms phonetically 
 interdependent, though the parallelism of 'AOrjvaCa, adduced by 
 Bechtel [lonische InscJir. No. 62), is faulty, since there is no 
 '^''Adi]vii]. We have here to do with strong and weak case forms, 
 as is shown on y?/, under Beclension. 
 
 A further example adduced as cogent is dyeo'/^eroi Hdt. VIII 
 69, though in Homer, v 16, Hesiod, W. D. ^^^, and Archilochos, 
 25, the original at cannot be impeached ; nor does an *ayeo/xat 
 for ayaiojxai win our sympathies when aydo-crecr^at, &c., are com- 
 pared. Fritsch [V. H. 1). p. 39) is inclined to the view that 
 dyedju.ei'oi can have originated only in a period when ai was 
 written e (150 A. D. according to Meisterhans, p, 27). Cf. -napo.- 
 Keerai II 130 (C. P. d.) for irapaKaUTaL. If recourse to this 
 means of accounting for the form dye- be deemed too bold, we 
 may be compelled to dissociate dyeo/xat from dyato/xai, and to 
 class the former with such verbs as dpeo/xat. Cf. Hesychios, 
 ayrj' nap 'HpoSoVw ^acTKavia. We must withdraw beyond the 
 realm of probability any suggestion that ayaiop.ai was the ground 
 form which, through t passing into the glide and by an Ionic 
 weakening of a to f, became dyeo/xai. Curtius, Vcrhum, I I76>, 
 does not mention ayiopai. 
 
 * Bredow, p. 50. rews was adopted by Attic prose and poetry, 
 ^ vr\6s is derived from a stem vaf-, vavos from a stem vaf-, both stems 
 combining to form the declension. Cf. the intermixture of strong and weak 
 stems in the case of vaxis, v7}vs. ' ship.' The stem vdf- arose from the loca- 
 tive * mfei 
 
142.] IONIC E = EI OF OTHER DIALECTS. 147 
 
 'AAKjuecoy Hdt,^ Samos in Imh.-Bl, G. 31. 401, bCfxveois, Hdt., 
 are not to be derived directly from the ai of 'AAK/xatcoi; or of 
 [xvaLoios (Wackernagel, K. Z. XXVII 267), but from the a of 
 'AkKixdcov or of '^[xvaca (Kretschmer^ K. Z. XXIX 416 ; Johans- 
 son^ £. B. XV 183 and § 421). 'AA/cju.atwi' contains a snfRx 
 different from that in 'AXKixdcov. In Alkm. 71 the a is probably 
 short. 
 
 On KVTrepos^KVTTaipos, see § 142. 
 
 142.] Ionic E = E[ of other dialects. 
 
 On antevocalic e from et, see § 219. 
 
 fxiC^v in Herakl. and Hdt. < fxeytcov, a more original form than 
 jxeiCoiv ^. ixdCdiv is the poetical form (Theog. '^'^'^, 517, with no 
 case of ixi((iiv), though jxiCo^v appears upon a metrical inscription 
 from Attika^ _5. C. H. VIII 470 2. In Anaxag. 6, 16, Simplicius 
 has ixdCinv, which Mullach has changed to ixi((av. So too in all 
 cases where fxei^Mv appears in Ionic writers quoted by Stobaios, 
 e.ff. Demokr. 15. The form with et has not been cleared up de- 
 spite the efforts of Brugmann (£er. d. scicJis. Gesell. d. Wiss. 1883, 
 p. 193, Gnmdriss, I § 639) and of Osthoff {Jenaer Litter atiirzeit. 
 1878, Art. 476, ZiiT Gesch. des Perf. 449) to refer it to the 
 analogy of y^eipcov, a}xdvuiv. Brugmann adopts the same ex- 
 planation for Kp€i(r(ra)v = Kpeaacov. Cf. also A^ Z. XXIX 1 40. 
 The analogy of irkdoiv, ixdoyp is more obvious, and is less open to 
 objection. p.€^oiv has been imitated by Lukian, S^r. 1%, 19, 22 
 (despite /xet^oi; 10 in all MS S., as in V. A. 6) and in the Astr. 5, 6. 
 In Arrian p,€^- is well attested, but it is absent from the text of 
 Euseb. Mynd. Eusebios 3 has p.iQ}v. Hippokrates and Aretaios 
 adopt the Ionic form in a large majority of instances, Herodas 
 has p.e((i)v 12 times, p-eiCinv once (336). 
 
 Kpi(T(TU)v ^, formed from the strong base Kper-, which does not 
 elsewhere appear in Ionic, though well attested in the case of 
 Arkado-Kyprian, and perhaps not foreign to Aiolic. Kpiaaoyv 
 occurs in Hdt., Demokr. Mor. 94, 191, 193, 218, Hipponax 79, 
 Anan. 3.,, Phokyl. 53, though in these poets the reading /cpeVo-cov is 
 disputed by some MSS. Theognis, 2t 8, 618, 631 (0 Kpeiaarcov), 
 996, has Kpio-a-oiv ; which is sufficient authority to justify Renner's 
 displacement of Kpeiaaoiv, 1074, ii 73. The Herakleiteian form 
 is doubtful (47, 109). I hold fast to my assertion {^Blphthong EI, 
 p. 58) despite the objections urged against it, A. J. P. VIII 98, 
 that it is impossible for ^od with tau to have become a-a, and at 
 the same time to have changed e to et in the preceding syllable. 
 Hippokrates and Aretaios have Kpiaacav, a form which recurs in 
 
 ^ Greg. Kor. 54 ; in An. Ox. II 392,5 fxi^wv is called Aiolic. 
 ^ fj.fC<ov appears upon a Tegeatic inscription, B.C.H. XIII 281. It is also 
 found in Epicharmos 32, Pindar and Theokritos. 
 
 ^ Greg. Kor. 54. Kpeaa-wv occurs also in Pindar and Theokritos. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 THE IONIC DIALECT. [142. 
 
 Euseb. Mynd. 10, 62, though the MSS. of the Neo-Platonist 
 have ixel((i>v. In the letters of Hippokrates the Ionic form has 
 been carefully imitated (1722? 5-j 2754). -^^ Protagoras we read 
 KpeiVo-oo. KpicrcTov occurs upon an Attic epig-ram of the fifth 
 century a. D. in Kaibel 170, and upon one from Thebes of the 
 third century b. c, (K. 498). 
 
 ei9, es < Ivs, see under Prepositions. The usual Ionic form 
 appears to be es, though ds is not vmknown. ei? in Ionic con- 
 tains a spurious, in Aiolic a genuine, diphthong. 
 
 KVTTepos, an aromatic plant used by the Skythians for em- 
 balming, Hdt. IV 71, Hesych. s. v. KVirepa. Whether this is 
 connected with the marsh plant, Kv-rreipov II. XXI 351 (Hesych. 
 S.V.), is doubtful. Eustath. I239(.i mentions also Kviraipov, which 
 is Doric (969^, 164P7), ^^- oXy^pos, atyetpoj Hdn. II 41I31. The 
 forms with et are from -epi-, those in -ep- are devoid of the 
 suffix -10-. , 
 
 hiKWixL (aTTobeKvvvTcs Chios, 174 B 14, also upon a document 
 from Kos in Newton's Ancient Greek Inscrip. hi the Brit. Miis. t 
 No. 260 (third cent.) ; Sefai, hi^aaOai, bexdrji'dh hehe\^6ai, cltto- ' 
 be^Ls^, in Hdt.; Hippokrates has a-TToba^is, and Hdt. himself i 
 often has the et in verbal forms, e.ff. II 30, IV 79, VI 61, IX 
 82, which editors remove. In Herodas we find no trace of the 
 form beK-. Se'Se/crat is read by Gomperz in pseudo-Hippokr. irepl 
 ri^pris § 10; airobe^ts Euseb. Mynd. 25? but avabeL^dp,ei'OL 31. 
 beKvvjXL is to be separated from betKvvixi and compared with doceo'^. 
 The poets offer no example of binvvixi (bei^ei Solon, 10, e8ei£e 
 Theog. 500), nor does Herald, (cf. 44), or Arrian. G. Meyer's 
 suggestion [Gramm. § 115, note) that betbexcTat is connected with 
 doceo and be^ai, &c., is scarcely to be accepted. Cf. Bechtel, 
 Gott. Nadir. 1890, No. i, p. 31. 
 
 €pyco = eLpyco (the distinction between etpyco and eipyco is late 
 and fanciful). Hdt. uses epyo) (^aTTepyiJ.ivov, airep^ai, Kar^pyovres, . 
 &c., Bredow, p. 153), and not etpyco ^ or kipyca. k^dpyov V 22, ' 
 is due appfirently to the variable augment of epyco, and need 
 not therefore be classed with KareLpyvvcTL IV 69, aireCpyovaa IX 
 68, where the MSS. agree in demanding- a form stamped as un- 
 Herodoteian by all other passages. Since in Homer both etpyco 
 and iipyco ^ are well established, a change of •n'/\e jue dpyovcn 
 
 ^ St^o) &c. Joh. Gr. 240 B, Greg. Kor. 36, Meerm. 652, Aug. 668, Par. 680, 
 Vat. 698, An. Ox. II 176,., (Choirob.\ II 19510 (Choirob.), cf. An. Par. Ill 5717, 
 An. Baclim. II 369.,. Se\6s = Sei\6s is a fictitious form, Meerm. 652, Vat. 
 69S. 
 
 ^ So far as I am aware no scholar has accepted the conclusions of Moller 
 in regard to SeiKwfii. K. Z. XXIV 462. 
 
 ^ Anan. 3, has Kadtip^at, a doubtful form. Theognis, 686, 710, 1180, has 
 tXpyai, which I would not change with Renner. 
 
 * 'IwviKws, An. Ox. IV i86._5, Choirob. 56109. 
 
1 44-] THE VOWEL I (short i). 1 49 
 
 to T^Xe IX kepyovcTL is not advisable. No prose document contains 
 Upyi^. See Sclmlze, K. Z. XXIX 235. 
 
 143.] Varia. 
 
 The e in i^aiOpanevovTos Mylasa^ 2482, is a prefix to help out 
 , ^ as representative of the Old Persian x^- Wiese, JS. B. V 90, 
 sug-g-ests that e£- is due to a popular etymolog'y which connected 
 the word with the preposition. C£. i^aarpa-n^vovros C. I. G. 
 2919, Tralles; k^a-arpa-rnqs Theopompos^ Lobeck^ Ell. I 144. A 
 parallel examjjle from Attic is 'E^vTreTatwy C. I. A. Ill 1119, 
 for HuTreraiwi; C. I. A. I 243. Cf. Benfey, Kl. Sc/ir. IV 26 ff. 
 
 yepLvos is said to be an Ionic form of yvplvos, Eust. 1864^. 
 
 The voivel I {sliort Cj. 
 
 144.] Ionic I = E. 
 
 1 . E + o- + consonant + t becomes i^ in lo-ra] in the Ionic of Homer 
 and of Hdt.j as in other dialects. Cf . Fia-Tiav Arkad.^ 'Io-oTtate[(.]os 
 Thessal., 'lo-ortatSa? Boiot. and Doric (Lokrian, Kretan^ Syraku- 
 san, Herakleian), Aiolic and Attic alone having preserved the e 
 vowel here. In Kretan we find also the e form (Cauer, J 1611), 
 and avicTTios occurs in Horn. IX 6'^. In Hdt. we find tortai I 
 
 176^ 'loTtJ/S II ^O, lcrTi-l]TOpiOV IV ^^, (TTLCrTLOS I ^^, tOTlT/CT^at 
 
 I V 20 (cf. the V. I.), laTLT] VI 86 (8) for the ea-Hr] of all MSS., 
 
 ' 'laTiairj, 'laTLOLOs, 'Icrrtaiwrts (§ 1 94), &C. Greg". Korinth. p. 500^ 
 quotes €TTL(TTLos. The editors of Hdt. have now removed all cases 
 of ear- from the text, even 'lortaievs having" been substituted for 
 
 j 'EoTT-, though attested by Plutarch. Cf . the variation between 
 Homeric 'la-TuaLav Hdn. I 272J3, II 512^., and Apollodoros' 
 
 I'Eo-rtaiav (III y, 3). Hrd. has eort?] 4^^, y-^.^Q. 
 
 In a-vv€(rTuj VI 128, the MSS. have -€<tt-. For various con- 
 
 j jectures, see Stein, ad loc. Bechtel Thas. (L), 18 B 10, writes 
 
 j 'E]crriatot;. Hesychios has ecrTta)(09" . . . Zews -nap "Icocrti^. 
 
 ' Hekataios' ecr(Jt = Attic "ktQi (Hdn. II 3555), so far from being 
 an original formation whose e had not yet become i, is a new 
 coinage due to the analogy of forms with e-. I. E. '^z-dhi, 
 
 jimperat. of */ es, became X-(tQi in the proto-Hellenic period. 
 ' e before cr + cons., when the latter is not followed by t, does 
 not become t ; e.g. eveo-ral Hdt. I 85, airea-Tol IX 85. 
 
 2. MivbaCoDv on late coins of Mende for older Mevbaioov, Kirch- 
 jhoff, Alp/i.^ 119. 
 
 3. The corruption of antevocalic e to i, so frequent in Thessalian, 
 
 * Cf. Collitz, A. J. P. VIII 216, who suggests that the change is late. It 
 lis certainly confined to certain dialects. On la-Tiri see Eust. aSoj,, 15616O) 
 ! J 56233, 157947, Et. M. 3824,, 'lo-Tiom Eust. 280,5. 
 
150 THE IONIC DIALECT. [145. 
 
 Boiotian, Doric, Kyprian, &c., is rare in Ionic, if indeed it can 
 be shown to exist at all. KaXkiixivLos ;^6 (Amorgos) is doubtless 
 a mere slip on the part of the engraver. viavi(rKap\r]v is a late 
 spelling in Tanais, Latysehev II 44738, 44^8; pf. 45I9, 454^, 
 4558- ^^^^ nearest approach to 6 is the pronunciation of c as a 
 semivowel in the synizesis eo. This semi vocalic e may disappear 
 in contract verbs, as in Arkad. k'Kkav\ohiK6vToiv I257n* ^^' 
 vevoo-aevixiva Hdt. I 159. Before o, e not unfrequently dis- 
 appears in prose: ©o'kAos St^Ta, 19206J &obi<av 19373, KAo'Seti-'os 
 19^^!, 'Ero/<Ae[r}s] 19,5. Cf. Megarian QoKXetba, ©okA?/? 3Iitth. 
 VllI 189, 190. FritscVs paper in Curtius Stud. VI (cf. pp. 
 125-132), is at present scarcely trustworthy as regards Ionic. I 
 A reverse process has given us 0e- in Boiot. Qia^^oros and 
 0e8copos, perhaps from ©evSwpo?. ■ 
 
 4. ipiyfxa, Hippokr. from (peiKco ; epeypia Theophr, I 
 
 A nominative ipi)s = ipi]s (Thessal.) is assumed by Baunack, K. Z. XXVII ' 
 565 ; and for Ipei/es, Ipees is substituted by the same scholar in Hdt. IX 85. 
 
 145.] Ionic i=EI. \ 
 
 See under I, § 197, for supposed cases of itacism in Ionic. ! 
 
 i/ceAo? varies with et/ceAos in the MSS. of Hdt. as in those of 
 Homer. I have shown in A. J. P. YI, p. 439, that the t of the 
 form LKeXos is not descended from the et of et/ceAos by the merging 
 of e + t into I, and by the weakening of this t to i. ikcAo? is = 
 *(e)tKeAo?, and is morphologically the older form, et/c- having 
 lost its e upon the accent originally shifting to the final syllable 
 in tKcAos. Adjectives in -Ao? are usually oxytone. With this 
 interrelation of eiK- and Ik-, cf. a(f)evos, yfjpas (strong forms) and 
 a(f){e)v(i6s, yepaios (weak forms). etKeAos owes its ei to the in- 
 fluence of -etKT]?, dKu>v, &c. Stein reads eueAo? Ill 81, et/ceAa 
 VIII 9, irpoaeUeXa III IIO, TrpocretKe'AoD? IV 61, Trpoo-etKeAos 
 IV 177. Dem. 3Ior. 31 has ikcAtj. The Et. Mag. 2970^, states 
 that etxeAos is the correct form, though keAo? often occurs ; and 
 that in composition only the form \vith i is admissible. This 
 testimony is of course not authoritative for the fifth century. 
 In Homer FcKiXos occurs 17 times, while fetKeAos has the v.l. 
 iKiXos (itacistic) 16 times. Hippokrates, Aretaios, and Uranios 
 prefer the t form, which is doubtless to be adopted in the Dea '^ 
 Si/ria, 25, 33, 40 (cf. Astr. 10, 20), though from the MSS. of ' 
 Lukian we cannot learn which form the satirist used. 
 
 The existence of parallel forms in ei and t in the name of 
 Poseidon, and in names derived therefrom, does not substantiate 
 the presence of itacism in this word. Hdt. VII 115 has 
 Y\o<jihr]iov, III 91 Yloaihr]iov with Ylo(Teihr]iov as V.l. The Ionic 
 name of the god in Hdt. is rioa-etSe'coy (12 times) ^. Cf. also 
 
 ' Hdn. II 91713. 
 
145-] 
 
 THE VOWEL I (short t). 
 
 151 
 
 IToo-etStoi'njr?]? I 167, and rToo-etSwyto? IX 71, 85. On the 
 Archiloeheian YIoa-eLbdociv, see above, under E, § 140. Archilo- 
 chos has Yloaeibwv, or perhaps ITocreiSfa)!/ ep. 1 14. 
 
 As reg-ards the inscriptions, which speak with greatest authority 
 in cases similar to this, their testimony is as follows : — 
 
 With €t. 
 n.o(T€Lb€(it}VLo[v) Pantlkap., Laty- 
 
 sch. II 291, 139 \ 
 YlocreihcovLos Ephesos, Imh.-Bl. 
 
 G. M. 2'j'j. 
 nocret8a)yto[i>] 15337? Smyrna. 
 IlocretSwi'to? 13I16, n, ^.s, Olbia. 
 IToa-etSwyto? 240.,8, .-,, Halik. 
 
 With I. 
 Yloaihuos 234 B 34, Perinthos. 
 rioo-tSetou Jahrh. fur Phil., Suppl. 
 
 Vol. V, 487, No. 47, and Vol. 
 
 X, 29, No. 21. 
 Yloanhiov 1533^, Smyrna. 
 
 » ^ I77i7? Chios. 
 Y\ocnh]iov T965, Maroneia. Cf. 
 
 the form in Hdt. 
 no(n8)/tcoz;C.I.A.l283i^(Ionic?). 
 XlocTihSiva^ Ephesos, Imh.-Bl. 
 
 G. 31. 279 A. 
 Yloatbe&vos 2o6 A 46, Erythrai. 
 
 ITocreiSetoj Thasos (Louvre), io^q. 
 rXoo-etSeiou Maroneia, Head, ^. 
 
 iV. 216. 
 nocreibowos 2o6 B 31, Eryth. 
 nocretSiTTTrou Thasos (Louvre), 
 
 2^, Maroneia, Head, H.N.%16. 
 
 The Attic month rToo-rSewi' appears in Anakreon 6 as YloaXhrficav. 
 On rioo-iSe?]? (riocriSTys), the basis of rTo(n8?]to9, &c., see Hdn. 
 II 9176. 
 
 As regards the age of the inscriptions, the only inscription 
 with t, dating certainly before 400, is that from Maroneia, 1965, 
 the others with t being later ; while those with et are not older 
 than the bulk of those with t. Chronological considerations do 
 not therefore make in favour of the origin of the forms with i 
 from those with et. Despite the obscurity which attends this 
 word (cf. Prellwitz, B. B. IX 331), it is evident that the varia- 
 tion between et and t, which is confined to no single dialect, must 
 depend upon stem-gradation. On this view the et and i stand in 
 no immediate relation to each other. 
 
 The t of YliaiaTpaTos Samos, 225, though of uncertain quantity, 
 does not necessitate the assumption of itacism, when compared 
 with neto-a)i'et(yoi;) Teos, Imh.-Bl. G. 31. 369. Cf. rfto-t^eo? in 
 Delphic, rito-ias, nLonbdopa, &c. 
 
 To the forms terminating in -etTj from -es stems, quoted below, 
 § 215, there exist in the MSS. of Hei'odotos sporadic variants in 
 -177, none of which deserves recognition as a genuine lonism ; and 
 much less may they be adduced in evidence for the reduction 
 of et to t. There is, however, a small list of forms with no trace 
 
 of -etij, where Hdt. has 
 
 ■LTJ, 
 
 Attic -id. These are derived from 
 
 KpaTos, -cohrjs, and tvxt} : brjixoKpaTLrj, l(TOKpaTir\ : evctibCrj : €VTvx_ir], 
 (TvvTvxir] : and ki-napir]. 
 
 Comparable with these forms is -to in Attic substantives from 
 
152 THE IONIC DIALECT. [146. 
 
 sig-matic stems. This -td, like the Ionic termination -irj, represents 
 a transference of the -t?] {-La}, which is in place in O stems, to the 
 -eo-- declension. Forms in -td are claimed as the property of the 
 veoiTepa 'Ids by a scholiast on Elektra, 996, quoted by Bredow, 
 p. 189, but without foundation. Where the Attic poets have -td 
 (aiKt'a, &c.), this termination should be classed with the Homeric 
 and Hesiodic -lr\ (ii occurrences in thesi, 3 in arsi), the ex- 
 planation of which is still involved in obscurity, despite recent 
 attempts to clear up the nature of the t. Cf. Jebb on Sophokles' 
 Elektm, 486 (small edition), Smyth, A. J. F. VI 435, Danielsson, 
 Gramiii. Anm. I 42, Johansson, A'. Z. XXX 401, B. B. XV 176, 
 Brugmann, Gninclriss, II 1, p. 313. Most of the epic words in 
 question are so formed that -tr] would not permit their insertion 
 into the verse. Whether Ionic a)(^eAt7j = Attic wc^eAta has t is 
 very doubtful. 
 
 146.] Varia. 
 
 1. lo'a and alpJta are not phonetically related; hence ^iv^-nr] 
 and ^ava-n-q (Schol. Ap. Rh. II 946) are not connected. 
 
 2. yXavhiop Samos, 2203^, Teos, Mitlh. XVI 29213, i^, by 
 syncope from yXavihiov, cf. Euboian 'iTTTrwySrjs (Styra, 19373, cf. 
 19320) ^^^ Boiotian names in -oivha^\ Angermann in Q\xsMm& 8tnd. 
 I I, 20. 
 
 The Vowel O. 
 
 147.] Ionic = A of other dialects. 
 
 1. On a = o in forms in 'Apro-, appoobiu), &c., see above § 131 ; on 
 (6u), § 2CO. Prosthetic in 6Tpoyr](l)dyo'i Arch. 97, according- to 
 Et. M. 167.25, ^^^ Photios. Hesychios has arpvy-. 
 
 2. Examples of op, po = ap, pa, are very rare: Bporaxov 117 
 Pantikapaion, and Ephesos (Wood's Discoveries, App. 2, No. 2). 
 ISporaxos is further supported by the Hesychian gloss (s. v.) and 
 by Hdn. II^84i., = Et. Mag. 214^4, where the form is quoted 
 from Xenopn^nes ^ and Aristophanes. Hippokrates used jSorpaxos 
 for jBporax'^^, according to Galen. The dialects of Lesbos, Boiotia, 
 and Thessaly are generally held to evince a strong predilection in 
 favour of the weak op, po, though Brugmann [Gruudriss, I § 292) 
 makes mention only of Lesbie and Boiotian forms. I have, 
 however, shown A. P. A. XVIII 104, 159, that it is inadvisable, 
 if not futile, to attempt to set up such a restriction. Bporaxos 
 was the name of a Gortynian worthy of an epigram by the 
 great Simonides (127), though the substitution of po'for pa is not 
 
 * BpSraxoV rhv fiarpaxov "iwvis Koi 'Api(TTo<pdv7js Koi irapa s.euo(pdyfi. For 
 this differentiation between lonians and Xenophanes, cf. above, p. 31, note. 
 Bergk ' does not register the word. 
 
I47-] THE VOWEL O. 153 
 
 elsewhere attested as a peculiarity of Kretan speech. But at 
 best ^poraxos can have been but partially adopted by Ionic ^. 
 Accordino- to the express testimony of the scholiast on Iliad, 
 A 243, Eustath. II. 46 833 J and Greg-. Korinthios, p. 414 (cf. An. 
 Par. Ill 57ii)j the Herodoteian form was jiaOpaKo^, a form not 
 adopted by Stein (IV 131, 132). Cf. Roscher in Curtius' Sfudien, 
 IV 189, whose etymological combinations are somewhat out of 
 date, German krote being the phonetic equivalent. Hesychios 
 reports also ^vpdaKos, (Bopraxos, ^parayos, jipvTi)(0'S- 
 
 ftpoyxps is Hippokratic ; cf. Et. M. 21599 (211^^) : ?/ ixev avvq- 
 deia l3p6y\ov KaXe'i., ol 8' apxaloi ^pdyxpv. Cf. Hdn. II 284^, 
 48329. § 127. 
 
 TTopbaKos Sim. Amorg. 2t= Attic TtaphaKos. Archilochos 140 
 has, however, irapbaKos. Sim. Am, 14 has TrdpbaXis, not the o 
 form which was once thought to be Ionic. iropbaXL^ in Ven. A, 
 N 103 (cf. Spitzner), P 20, cl> 573 though Aristarchos read irapb-. 
 Some of the ancient grammarians attempted to set up a distinction 
 between an Ionic TtopbaXis and Attic -ndpbaXis (Et. M. 65229, Phot. 
 383, Apoll. Lex. 133,4, Eust. 787,9, 890^^,, 92253, &c.). iropbaXis 
 is Aiolic. This form occurs Arist. Lysidrata, 10 15 Rav. and 
 frag. 478 K. 
 
 The form KaAAioTporo[?] has been adduced from one of the 
 Styrian lead tablets as proof of the influence of Boiotian vocalism 
 upon the dialect of Styra. In Bechtel, No. 19210; we read 
 -orpAr clearly enough, Vischer's -arpO being incorrect. All 
 other examples of the supposed interdependence of Boiotian and 
 Styrian have in like manner been deprived of their validity upon 
 more careful examination of the evidence, cf. § 157. In Styra 
 we have Srparcoi- i^^^^. 
 
 In biki^Qopa Hipp. VIII 246 (cf. //. XV 128), ^Qopa Galen, 
 op is the ablaut of ep, as in Ark. ecpdopKoos C. D. I. I222jq.]i. 
 
 3. Hippokr. VII ^^6, VIII 156 has /xoAox??? in 0, vulg. piakdxns 
 as 6 in VIII 380. ixokoxv^ in Antiphanes (158 K), p-oXoxa 
 Epicharmos (104); pLoXoxv in a late Kretan inscription, 31us. 
 It. Ill 723. 
 
 4. The inscriptions offer several instances of a preference for 
 the sound : — 
 
 "OoraKo? Delos, ^^ 1^ and B. C. II. VII 11, 1. 57, has been 
 identified by Bechtel with da-raKos, lohster. The form daraKo^ 
 comes to light in Aristomenes, Forjr. 2, and is quoted by Hesychios. 
 It occiirs also in Athenaios. Cf. Sturz, Be dialecto Mac. et 
 Alexandr. p. 70, who held that oaTaKO'i was Alexandrian. 
 
 With Y^o\po(japvr] Phanagoreia, 167, cf. Kapacrapvrj, a queen 
 of Bithynia, C. I. G. 2855. See Dittenberger, Syll. 104^. 
 
 * Modern Greek fipoOaKa (Pontos), ^opGaK6s (Crete) are not necessarily 
 survivals of the ancient forms. 
 
154 THE IONIC DIALECT. [148. 
 
 'Epjucozoo-o-a Chios, 174 A2, 4, a locality in Chios, suggests a 
 comparison with 'Epfxiopaaaa, name of a woman and also of 
 several cities. 
 
 5. On Ionic (Attic) -Kocrioi = Doric and Boiot. -kcltloi, Arkadian 
 -KaaioL, see under Numerals, and cf . Brugmann, 31. f/. V 7 ff. 
 
 148.] 
 
 A variation between d and exists in the case of x^M"^*" Hdt. II 125, 
 where ds have x°-t^^^^^j ^ form attacked by Cobet {Var. Led. S9) and expelled 
 by him from Kratinos, Xen. (Hellen. VII 2, 7), and Aristotle. 
 
 149.] O in Ionic = E. 
 
 Kvavo\}/L(av, name of the month in Samos^ Kyzikos (Reinach, 
 Traite, p. 489), also Attic {Beric/ite der Bert. Akad. 1859, p. 739). 
 Cf. Ylvaviylfi(av in inscriptions after Christ. See Schmidt's 
 Chronologie, p. 458, Brugmann's Gr. Gr. p. 32 note. 
 
 The old ablaut of F^py (Fopy) occurs in 'AOiivdrj^ 'Opyavqs 
 Delos, 54. Cf. Hesychios^ s. v. 'Opydvi] : r] 'Adrjrd, rjv Koi 
 'Epydviiv 0.770 Tu>v epyoov Xiyovcnv. The same form of the name 
 has come to light in Athens, Bull. dell, insfit. di Corr, Arch. 
 1874, 107. Cf. opyavov and later epyavov with its e from ipyov. 
 See § 295. 
 
 On 6j3ok-, see § 137. 
 
 150.] O in Ionic = or. 
 
 The Samian inscription, No. 220, has the new forms aXopyovs 
 1. 23, aXopyovv 22, 30, aXopyi]v 1^, 16, aKopyd ^6, aXopydi 28, 
 and TTapaXopyes 21 ; with which compare the Attic dkovpyris 
 and TTavakovpyea Xenophanes 33 . dXopyos is from dAo(e)pyo9, 
 Bechtel, ad loc. Cf. §§ 295, 314. 
 
 151.] O in Ionic = 01. 
 
 From h(.(n^6vr\(Tiv in Kyzikos, I. G. A. 501, Rob. I 148,= 
 bea-noLvai'i according to the commentators, we might conclude 
 that Ionic o was here = Attic 01. No such interrelation of o and 
 01 is known. It is possible that the o is due to that of 8ecr7ror7]s, 
 but Ostho^s attempt to connect -iroiva and TTorvta (*potniia, 
 ^-TTOTvia, ^-TTOvvLa, ^-TTovia, -TTOLva), does not provide us with the 
 fitting key to explain the appearance of in a bea-irovr]. On the 
 dative termination, see § 450, 3. 
 
 On anaptyctic i in TpoLCi]VLos, see under 01, § 228. 
 
 152.] Varia. 
 
 The assumption of hyphaeresis of in Hdt. ^o-qOos is rendered 
 easier if we recall the Homeric oyhgov ^287. With fiorjOos cf. 
 bopv$6s, rieipidos, &c. No dialectal dividing line can here be 
 established. See G. Meyer, Gramm. § 152. 
 
 On the change of to u in Euboian Ionic, see under T. On 
 the substitution of for the v of au, ew, see under these 
 diphthongs. 
 
 i 
 
1 54-] THE VOWEL T (v). 155 
 
 The Vowel T {y). 
 
 153.] 
 
 The weak ablaut form of pev, pov appears in pvidKerai Archil. 
 142. 
 
 154.] Ionic T=0. 
 
 The chang-e of O to T is attested to a limited extent in Ionic : — 
 
 Upon a Kymaian inscription (Bechtel, 3 A = Roberts, 1 177 A) 
 we find HTnT {y-nv) twice ; from which it is clear that of the 
 lonians, the Chalkidians ^ at least had not adopted the later %. 
 Other instances from Euboian Ionic of a similar retention of the 
 I.E. phonetic value of v as 00 do not stand on so sure a footing*. 
 Wilamowitz, Kom. Untersuch. p. 228, claims that the modern 
 names Kuma and Stura are living witnesses to a pronunciation 
 which held its ground throughout the Ionic period of the epos, and 
 in fact to the dawn of Attic supremacy in Greece proper ; while 
 in Asia Minor v had become u before the year 500 ^. The 
 Styrian MerviKos 1970? ^^7 stand for MerotKO?; but it is at 
 best a doubtful form which has been illegitimately used to show 
 the connection between Boiotian and Euboian Ionic ^. Cf. 
 §§ 147, 2, 157. No interrelation of o and v need be assumed on 
 the score of KfcpaXorrjs Styra, 19217, 218 (Ke(/)aAos 19213-217)? or of 
 <t>tAOTrjs T9333, since names in -vr-q, &e., are primitive. Cf. <i>LKvTa 
 Kyrene, C. I. G. 5143, <t>iXvTio Delos, C. I. G. 2310. "OAo/xttos, 
 occurring on a vase, C. I. G. 8412, perhaps of Chalkidian work- 
 manship, is of doubtful validity, as the inscription is not free 
 from errors. 
 
 As regards the Ionic of the mainland, we have but slender 
 support for the assumption that the old pronunciation of v was 
 retained, pvcpdv in Hipponax*, 132, cf. pvcfyrjixaTos (6), Hippokr. 
 VI 198 ^ vTTeaTi Hdt. IV 70, SkovOos Hdt. I 193 {AJ3C and 
 Athen. XIV 651 C), dXoveayv Hippokr. VIII 116 (6 C), VII ^66, 
 VIII 192, oXovOovs (9), oKovOoi VIII 200 [d), are the only ex- 
 amples from literature of the change of to v^. In Phokaia v 
 was pronounced as 00, if we may judge from 'T^Xr^roov 172.2, about 
 
 ^ Kvfiris TTJs iv 'OTTtKiq,, Xa\KiSiKris nSXews Thuk. VI 4. 
 
 ^ Kirchhoff is inclined to believe that the lonians adopted the ii pronuncia- 
 tion upon the reception of their alphabet by the other Greeks. 
 
 ^ Kyprian Stoo-iuikos Meister ((?. X». II. p. 191) is not above suspicion. Hdn. 
 II 36821 = Choir. 83225 : "loij/es rh rervcpvla /caJ to ofioia Ktyovffi 5(a ttjj 01 Si(j>d6yyov 
 Ka\ oil Sia rrjs vi. Lobeck, El. II 25, note 5, endeavours to parallel this remark- 
 able statement with Theognos. i03u TpirToia rj 0v(ria = TpiTTva. 
 
 * Eust. 1 430 39 states that pv<peiv is Doric and Ionic KarkTovs iraKaiovs, and, 
 to judge from w^hat precedes, also Aiolic. 
 
 ' Cf. V. I. VII 20, 26. 
 
 * Hipponax has also KpoKvSei\os (Eust. 85552) or KpoKoSeiKos i,Et. Gud. 34817). 
 /ivffirai or better nv6iriTat, in Anakr. 16, is connected by L. S. with fiSOos and 
 classed as one of the Aiolisms of the Teian bard. 
 
156 THE IONIC DIALECT. [155. 
 
 350 B.C. Hyele=Velia, the Oscan name bein^ spelled with V, 
 which the colonists reproduced by their T (Hdt. I 167). 
 
 Other forms from Hippokr. are d^6(3a(f)ov VIII 184 (6), and 
 so VII 366, 368, 372; and perhaps Sru/xdpyeo) V 84 (c£. oryjua 
 Theokr. XXIX 25). 
 
 That o became v in al<Tv\^ix]vi'jTi]L Teos, 156 B 4, is not proven. 
 Cf. Meg-arian at(rtjuydTa[s] C. D. I. 3016. Cases of i arising" from 
 an V, which is itself from o, are rare. 
 
 There is no change of to u in ovvjia, found in KAewi'u/xoj 
 Smyrna, 153,0, 'EKarwz'ujuo? Eryth. 206 A 15, Chios, Paspat. 2, 
 KXeircoz^ujuo? Thasos (L.), 8g, UvOwwixos Thas. (L), 10 B 12. v 
 occurs in this word in Pindar, Aiolic, Boiot., Thessal., Phokian, 
 Delphic, Aitolian, INIegarian, Korinthian, Rhodian, in Aigina and 
 Selinus, and is pan-Hellenic in avcawfxos, evwwixos (Ephesos 145), 
 and bv(TU)vvixos (Hippon. 14). The extensive geographical reach 
 of the forms with v, and the undeviating writing avcavvjxos, &c., 
 render the assumption not improbable that the forms in v are 
 original, those in later. If the forms are original, there can 
 be no doubt that the vowel interposed between the nasals was in 
 a pre-historic period a closed vowel, the first remaining open. 
 
 On the substitution of for the v of av, eu, see under the head 
 of these diphthongs. 
 
 155.] Ionic T = I. 
 
 2itKeeS(n2', on the stele of Sigeion, Bechtel, 103 = Roberts, 
 I 42 A 10. In the Attic part of the inscription we find Styeveuo-i. 
 The V is doubtless older since it is found on the epiehoric document. 
 The two forms are then interrelated as /3u/3Ator /it/3Aioy, Tvvoapihav 
 Tivhapihav I. G. A., 62 A, and Kvvhvri^ and Kivhvrjs on the Attic 
 tribute lists. Iota does not pass into v in any Greek word. 
 
 Hdt, has /3i;/3Aos, jiv^Xivos, (ivjikiov (Hrd. 300). A mustering 
 of the occurrences of these words in Stein^s edition shows that 
 the chief support of the forms with t is derived from MSS. 
 P. R., while iti one-seventh of all passages there is no variant. I 
 conclude, therefore, that Bredow^s distinction between /3t/3Aio2;, 
 l3tj3Xos [uofiove cliartae 'Scr'qjforiae, ViheUi) and ^v\iKo<i {iioiione libri, 
 corticis papyri) must fall to the ground, and that the Ionic of the 
 fifth century preferred, if it did not recognize exclusively, the 
 forms with v. The variants in favour of t are due to the scribes 
 rather than to the influence of such actual forms in i as we find 
 as early as 400 B. c. in Attic (C. I. A. II, Add. i B 25 ; Mitth. 
 VII 368, concerning the Attic cleruchs in Samos, 346 B.C.). The 
 forms in t continue in Attic inscriptions until the second century 
 B.C., after which /3u/3Atoi; is the normal form. See Birt''s 
 Buchn-enen, p. 12. 
 
 lj.6kvl3bos Hdt. I 186, III ^6, has the variation /xdAt/36os, a 
 
156.] THE VOWEL T(u). 157 
 
 form that does not find any support in the Attic ixoXvfi[b(ov], 
 C. I. A. II 47643, or in any other inscriptional form^. That the 
 t form elsewhere forced an entrance at an early period should not 
 mislead us as regards Ionic. Homer has fxokv^batva and juoAi^Sos. 
 
 In an Halikarnassian inscription (Bechtel, No. 241) we read 
 HMT2K, which Bechtel transcribes i]ix(t)(T(v). This is possible, 
 though the occurrence of ijfxvav upon Attic inscriptions (C. I. A. 
 II 1745) and elsewhere, e.ff. Delos (£. C. li. II 580), renders the 
 attempt to rescue this form for Ionic not overbold. Cf. Meis- 
 terhans, p. 22, Blass, Aussjyrache^, p. 40. rnjnav occurs upon a 
 late Chian coin, Head, H. N. 514, on a late inscription from 
 Thasos, 72ig, upon one from Teos, 158^4, and in Sterrett, Papers 
 of the American School, III ^'J^^. The forms in iota are primitive, 
 those in iijosiloii being* due to an assimilation which could take 
 place only at a period when the inhei'ited tendency to avoid a 
 succession of v^ was no longer felt ^. 
 
 On ax(Tv\i.vr\Tr\<i see above, § 154. Ionic here preserves the 
 original v in the Teian oX(yv\}}\v!]Tr\i 156 B 4; and it is to the 
 influence of Ionic that is due -ai(jv\}.vGiVTos in Cherson. Taur. 
 C. D. I. 3087.^, whereas olm\i.varas is the Megarian orthography 
 (Megara 3016, Selinus 3045 A 5, Chalkadon 3053^, Salymbria 
 3068). Bechtel, CD. I. 3016, conjectures that the change between 
 the weak vowels v and t ensues when f originally preceded the 
 strong vowel (aF^rixa, avrixi], atrr9u>). But cf. 'Aart//a;(0? from 
 &<TTv, R. 31. XXXV 358. 
 
 The interchange of v and t is at best but sporadic, e.ff. 
 'AiJL(j)iKTVoves^, -Kriovei ; KvXv-){yiov, KvvOvkSh, XotpwAoj Delos; 
 Tivbdpibai, 'Ekevvvta Lakonia, ' laKVv9oTp6(f)os Knidos, 'Td/cty^os 
 Lakonia. 
 
 On a supposed change of a to v, see above, § 132. An. Ox. 
 I 4422 cites as Chian 6vovs = deovs, rjbv(o9 = 7]bi(os, Nva'irokLTr]s = 
 NeaTToAtrT/j. Cf. Lentz^ Herodian I, p. xxv, 19. No such inter- 
 relation of e and t; can be admitted. 
 
 The Long Vowels. 
 156.] A. 
 
 The three subdivisions of Ionic uniformly present H in place of 
 that A which is specifically Attic. No instances of the retention 
 
 ' tj.6\v^Sos Ionic-Attic, Eust. 1340.^9 ; cf. 84I17, cf. Hdn. II 551. 
 
 ^ In Attic the iota held its ground in those forms which show no v in the 
 endings. 
 
 ^ So Hdt., Attic inscriptions, C. I. A. II 54 A 24, Ditt. Syll. 70..,, cf. 7113, &c., 
 Delphic, I. I. 1866, &c., Boiot., C. D. I. 485^, Aitol. C. D. I. 14109". 'AfxtpiKTioves 
 Hdt., Attic, C. I. A. I 449,, Delphic, Ditt. 206^, Boiot., C. D. I. 5029 ; cf. Horn. 
 irepiKrioves. The interrelation of the words has not been cleared up despite 
 Kretschmer {K. Z. XXXI 429 ff.), whose y'ksu does not exist. 
 
158 THE IONIC DIALECT. [157. 
 
 in Ionic of I. E. d are found. Wheresoever d occurs, it is the 
 result of literary tendencies or of special laws operating- within 
 the dialect. The following- categories of Ionic d may be noticed : 
 T. ds<dvs as in Traa-a, rds : § 161. 
 
 2. uv, dp, aK < dvF, apF, KkF as in (pdavo), aprj, (f)dpixaKOs : § 162. 
 
 3. By influence of analogous forms [jxaWov : p.d\a) : § 163. 
 
 4. dk < dAt when the accent does not fall upon the d : § 164. 
 
 5. d from ai before a, €, rj, i : § 208. 
 
 6. d by contraction of a + a (OaKO^), a + spur, ei (viKav), a + e 
 (baXos, Ttixdre), a + 7] (Aava). See under Contraction. 
 
 7. By crasis of a + a (raAAa § 261); by crasis of a + e (Tafxa 
 
 Some instances of Ionic d, which still baffle investigators, do 
 not militate against the overwhelming mass of testimony making 
 for the conclusion that Ionic rj has been substituted for every I.E. 
 d transmitted to the dialects. 
 
 Names in 'Ovija-- do not disprove an Ionic-Attic 'OvdaMv 
 C. I. G. 2386 Paros, &c. 
 
 In some cases a slight correction of the traditional reading 
 shows that the assumption of Ionic d is baseless. Thus in 
 Hipponax 13, Bergk reads dye't accursed, where ayeC or, better, 
 evayel will remove the apparent difficulty. Cf. § 532. Both 
 dyi]s and evayrjs contain the weak ablaut form of Skt. dffas. 
 evdyrjs in Parmenides has a different root. 
 
 On d in Homer, see Aiolic § 18. 
 
 A variation between a and 77 in the same word, as in Arch. 2po, Herodas 
 ^pa, is due to the different origin of the forms in question, cf. on rj + o. 
 
 157.] The dialect of Styra, it has been alleged, offers instances 
 of an original Hellenic A, due to the influence of the speech of 
 Boiotia ^ While names of Ionian s may assume, it is true, 
 a form inconsistent with the laws of Ionic, this happens solely 
 when a special reason exists. Compare for example the names 
 of the chiliiren of Kimon, where political preferences have 
 dictated a nomenclature alien to Attic. So the Makedonians by 
 their riroAe/xaTos testify to the influence of the Homeric epos. 
 In all other cases it must be denied that Ionic can admit a 
 thoroughgoing contamination of its phonetics from the influence 
 of a neighbouring- speech- centre. The examples from the lead 
 tablets are worthy of registration. Cf. Fick, G. G. A. 1883, 
 p. 125, Bechtel, Ion. Insch. p. 36, and above §§ 147, 2, 154. 
 
 liKOTtdvoip 19300 J to be read ^Koiravbpos. 
 
 ' The view that the names in § 157 are instances of the retention of a 
 primitive Ionic u, parallel to Attic o, and not yet changed to 7;, does not call 
 for refutiition. Kirchhoirs view that the a of Tapvf6v7is (Rob. I 191 C) is 
 Chalkidian Ionic is indefensible. See Alph.* 1 26. 
 
158.] LONG A. 159 
 
 -ai/nSa[s] i^-^qq, to be read 'Az'rta[pr;s]. 
 
 Avaayopas 1 9244, an uncertain reading*. 
 
 AaoKparr^s 19394, to be read A(e)a)KpaT7js, since E and A are not 
 infrequently confused in the tablets. 
 
 XaplKaos 1 9424 J to be read XaptA(e)a)9, unless the man is 
 a Dorian. 
 
 Aoxdyos I9i26 is based upon the Lakonian Xoxayos, which is 
 in Attic, too, a loan form. Hdt. uses Aoxrjyea>( Vdy). 
 
 'Ea-veas I9]9i is no name at all; which may be said of Lenor- 
 mant^s Elveas. In Roberts, I 189 F, upon a vase from a colony 
 of Chalkis, we read Alverjs, and upon a Thasian inscription in 
 the Louvre (35), AtVr/crtTjs. Bechtel, 12, has AlverjrCiv, from 
 Ainea. 
 
 AajjidpeTos, cited by Karsten, p. 18, is in reality Ar]ixapi]Tos, 
 and is so read by Bechtel, i9i8o- 
 
 Ilr]ya[j.ov€V9 1 9200 ^^ ^^ad by Bechtel Hfjyeixovevs. This and 
 AafxdpeTos are due to Lenormant. 
 
 158.] The retention of d in Hdt. occurs in the names of non- 
 Ionic personag-es and places which are of Doric source. So the 
 Athenians retained Uptrjvr], &c., § 73. Gramm. Meerm. (649) : to, 
 els as \i]yovTa ovoixaTa, iav jxr] uxtl AcopiKa, els r]s Tpiirovcriv ("Iwyes). 
 The following" are instances of proper names with d in Hdt. : — 
 
 'Ayt? VI 6^, the Spartan, the clip-name of 'HyTjo-tAeco?, which 
 occurs VII 204. It is noteworthy that Hdt. uses the Ionic form 
 of the adj. 27raprtr;r7j9. 
 
 'AepoTTos VIII 137, an Argive, VIII 139, a Makedonian; but 
 'Hfc'poTTo? IX 26, a Tegeate. 
 
 'AKapvdv I 62; 'AKapvavLi] II lO. 
 
 ^ATTihavos, the Thessalian river, VII i 29 ; but ^Hiribavos VII 
 196. 
 
 'Apio-/3a I 151, a city in the Troad = 'Apto-/37j B 836. The 
 proper form may, however, be "Aptcr/Sa : so Strabo, XIV 635. 
 Eustathios distinguishes between two cities, 'Apio-/3Tj and 'AptV/^a : 
 Hdn. I 3081, says that Hdt. used ' Apia-^av (ld((jiv). 
 
 'ApLCTTias VII 137, a Korinthian. Cf. Api(TT€Tf]s IV 13, the 
 Prokonnesian epic poet. 
 
 Tvydhas [yjivaos) I 14. This apparently ,ii'regular form (FvyTjs 
 elsewhere) is explained by the statement of the historian : v-nh 
 A€k(f)(ov KaAeerat Tvydbas inl tov dvaOiuTOs eTrcofUjUtrjy. 
 
 AvpiavcLTai V 68, a Doric tribe. 
 
 Kpd^ts I 145, a river in Achaia and also a river near Sybaris, 
 
 V45- 
 
 Names in -Aaos. MeveXaos of a Xiixriv IV 169, and Mevekdov 
 VII 169; 'ApxeAaot V 68; Aaobapias, a Phokaian, IV 138, an 
 Aiginetan, IV 152. Hdt., however, is not consistent in writing 
 
l6o THE IONIC DIALECT. [159. 
 
 NtKo'Aeooj VII 134, and Ni/coAa? VII 137, thoug'li a Spartan is 
 referred to. Furthermore, we have AaKpivijs, a Lakedaimonian, 
 I 152; Aa<pdvr]'i, an Arkadian^ VI 127; AahiK-q, a woman of 
 Kyrene, II 181. 
 
 Cf. the forms of Xaos §§ 140, 160. A perfect dichotomy of the 
 dialects as regards names in -Xaos is clearly impossible, in view of 
 the fact that even Attic citizens before the year 500 B.C. have 
 names formed from this form of the word, the rig-ht to use Aewj 
 having- been confined to the tribe Leotitis. That -Aao? was also 
 in use among the lonians is clear from its occurrence upon a Chian 
 inscription, 177, -roXaos 1. 14 (Aeft)cre/3eo[s] in 1. 3). 
 
 'Opi'earat VII 73. 
 
 riaptopearat IV 14H, but VIII 73 napcopeT/rat. 
 
 Ylpovairj I 92. Cf. also ripoznjtr;. 
 
 TiOopia VIII 32, a peak of Paruassos. 
 
 'Tarat V 68, from Sikyon. 
 
 ^iXaova VIII 1 1, though -aMv generally becomes -ecav in Hdt. 
 Cf. Ma^aodv in Homer = Maxecof, Thasos (Louvre), lOi,. Cf. 
 <I>tAeaJ^'^8[e]o? Thasos, 'J'J,. Hdt. has onaMV V ill. 
 
 Xapdhpa, in Phokis, VIII 33. So Stein, Bredow Xapdbprjv. 
 So also x^i-P'^^P'^t^ IX 102. Cf. § 128. 
 
 Xoipearat V 68, from Sikyon. 
 
 Besides these names we have several which show -d? in the 
 nominative case preceded by a consonant (jApLavTa^, 2t/cas, Avpas, 
 Avpas) which are inflected -a, -a, -av. Proper names in -er/? and 
 -Lrjs are the rule, with but few exceptions ('Aptoreas VII 1 17). 
 
 Herodotos^ treatment of the names of non-Ionic persons and 
 places is tolerably elective. In a considerable number of instances 
 where we might expect a thoroughgoing Dorization he surprises 
 us by svich lonisms as : — 
 
 Aecovibr]s, Aea)/3ar?;?, AeuruxiS'?? (a form that occurs in Timo- 
 kreon, i ). Mei^eAeco? he occasionally uses despite MeveXdov 
 VII 169, Aj-jpLcraios IX I, whereas Homer has Aaptcra B 84 j, 
 P 301. By^ reverse process we have 'AptoroAaiSeoj I 59, an 
 Athenian. 
 
 Again, the island is called 0?jp'?, its founder, Qrjpas. The 
 leader of the colony never occurs in any writer in the form Qr]pri^. 
 'A(Vp VI 127, is the inhabitant of the Arkadian 'ACaria ; 'Ert?//es 
 VII 132, &c., despite the frequent names in -ai-e? ; Teyerj, SIt/ceAtJji', 
 ^LKavLr]v VII 170. MrjAtSa VII 1 98 (?; also in the lyric parts 
 of tragedy). 
 
 vavKpapoL V 71, is the Attic form, because the vavKpapot were 
 peculiar to Attika. 
 
 159.] Retention of d in proper names occurring outside of 
 Herodotos. In poetry, see on Hoaeihdo^v under the vowel E, § 140. 
 
i6o.] 
 
 THE LONG VOWELS: A. l6l 
 
 Upon an Halikarnassian inscription 'AXtKa/3i'aT[ea)]i' 238^, and 
 in 240.^3 we read ^Idcrovos : 'Aertcoi^os lasos, 104^0, Uoido-aLoov 
 Keos, 472 J rTotatro-ay 47 ii- Cf. Yloirjcra-Lot Ditt. S^ll. 6332, time 
 of the second maritime league; A?]j^atyerrj? Amoi'g". 29, but 
 Ev^i;8ajoio? Klazom. Le Bas, Fo_i/. Archeol. Ill i. No. 186. Nats 
 Roberts^ 1 190, II F, Y^^pa 190^ I K, Vapv?6vt]% 191, on Cbalkidian 
 vases. See K. Z. XXIX 390. 
 
 The usage of Attic prose inscriptions may here be noted. In the fifth 
 century we find both the epichoric and the Attic names of tributary states 
 {Hermes, V 52). In the fourth century the tendency to permit the adoption 
 of the epichoric name seems to be stronger. 
 
 160.] A<aF. 
 
 Kd6s<*KdF6s (cf. § 140^ 4). 
 
 Homer has Aao's^^ kdoaaoos, and in proper names, AaoSajueia, &c. ; 
 Aecds in 'AyeAecos and perhaps riTj^eAecos ^ ; and kiqos, incorrectly- 
 transcribed in yXeiwKpiro? (Arjo/cptros) and Aetco8r/? (A7](abr]s < kdFo 
 + Fabr]s). Of these, the first form has found an echo in Ionic 
 poetry : Archil. XaptAae 79 (paroemiacus and ithyphallicus). 
 The reading- is not perfectly certain, Ailian having- Xapibav. 
 Cf. XapibavTibris, a Thasian name, Bechtel's T/im. Inschr. p. 8. 
 'lo'Aao? 1 1 93 (a hymn of uncertain metrical reconstruction) ^ ; 
 Kallinos, Aaw Ijg; Tyrt. Xaov II13, Xaovs 1204; Xenoph. Aaoto-i 
 2,5; Theog-. kaoL 53, 776, Xao(pd6pov 781. These forms are not 
 Ionic *. Genuine Ionic is Xrjos, the oldest Ionic form of the word 
 'ij:nown to us, preserved in Hipponax 88, and in Hdt. Krj'iTov VII 
 [97 (KrjiTov KaAeoucrt to TrpvTavrj'iov ol 'A)(atot) '''. Cf. Atjitos in 
 
 ' It is clear that any explanation of the a of Homer must not lose sight of 
 lie history of the words in question. Thus Bed has been claimed to be 
 \rchaic Ionic, retained because it had passed out of use in the later language. 
 This explanation, even if true, would not suit in the case of \a6s. The 
 presence of the morphologically later \eios in passages of Homer, which even 
 Sergk cannot attribute to his diaseeuasts, shows that the change of pan- 
 Hellenic a to Ionic 7j must have ensued centuries previous to the final com- 
 )osition of the Homeric poems. A feature of minor importance is that Aa6s 
 nay have been felt to be more easily disposable in the verse than AedJj. 
 2 See K. Z. XXVII 266, Monro, Horn. Gr. 390. 
 
 ^ Tick proposed 'Io'Atjos. We find however 'l6\aos, Acharn. 867 ; Eurip. uses 
 )oth 'l6\aos and 'loAecos. 'l6\aos on a vase (^Klein, Vasen,' 206, i), which 
 hows mixed dialect {'l6\aos Vlauia by the side of Meydpri "AA/cfi^T}). Cf. K. Z. 
 iXIX 400. 
 * This is not disputed by the Chian, -roXaos ly/u, as has been shown, 
 140, 4: cf. MeveAaos Smyrna, Imh.-Bl.Gr.M. 344; 'AyriaiKaos Perinthos, 234B5 ; 
 iapiXas Miletos, Imh.-Bl. G. M. 329. Pherekydes 34 has 'ApKea-iXdov. KpiT6\aos 
 •n a late document from Amorgos {Mitlh. IX 102, No. 6, 1. 10), Ni/cJAaoc, ibid. 
 ;>. 83, 1. 1 1 recall the many names in -Aaos and -Aos, names of Doric residents 
 ■f Attika. Kretschmer, K. Z. XXXI 290 in fact contends that \a6s is an 
 mportation from Doric in exchange for dea.p6s which migrated from lonic- 
 Lttic into Doric countries. It is noteworthy that \a6s does not occur in the 
 ambics of Archilochos. 
 5 Et. Mag. 56253. 
 
 M 
 
1 62 THE IONIC DIALECT. [l6o. 
 
 Homer, XIII 91, and Pott, K. Z. VII 324. With Ajjo's, cf. j/rjo's 
 in Hdt. (§ 170) and Tratrjoz^a Archil. 76. 
 
 This A??o's became Aew? in later Ionic ; in Miletos, at least, 
 shortly after the year 600 B.C. ('AraftAeo)? Becht. No. 93); Aews 
 is the form in Hdt., though we find At/o's V 42 and even Aaov 
 IV 148, which Stein refuses to accept. Aao^o'pcoz' is found I 187, 
 despite Xeco(p6pov Anakr. 157, Xe(t)(r(j)eT€pov IX 33 and the other 
 forms in Aeoo-. The testimony is so strong- on the side of Aecos 
 that a fair view will not regard harshly the attempt to make 
 Herodotos uniform in his adoption of this form. Renner, Din- 
 dorf and Nauck [Melanges gr.-rom. Ill 268) claim that the 
 Herodoteian form is Atjo's, cf. §§ 158, 170. 
 
 When F disappeared after d, its disappearance was not signalized 
 by the lengthening of the vowel (aet'yaos Hdt. I 93, 145, Herakl. j 
 III, cf . Attic vau} = Aiolic vavdi). Hence, when in Ionic d appears, 
 it is clear that we are dealing with a poetical form such as aeiVo) 
 Theog. 4, cf. Od. 17, 519, and that such a prose form as AiSjjy 
 as commonly read in Hdt. II 122, has the a short. In Ionic 
 poetry the short a appears in 'Ai8ao Theog. 244, 427, 906, 'At§ea) 
 703, 726, 802, 1014, 1 124, Solon 24g, Anakr. 435; ''Xihiqv Tyrt. | 
 i23g = Mimn. 214. "AtSo? Theog. 914, has d. In but two iambic ' 
 passages (Simon. Amorg. i^^, 7jj^) do we find traces of 'AiSjjs. 
 Homer has "AtSos (Iliad nine times, Od. four times), elsewhere u 
 (so 'At8?7? V 395, IX 158, &c.). Hesiod always has d, and so the 
 Homeric Hymns, except in one passage, IV 348, where "AiStj is 
 read by GemolL Hdt. and Herakl. 127 (but cf. ahriv 38) have 
 'AiStjs according to the MSS., though there is no evidence to 
 support the correctness of the tradition in favour of the open 
 form. In Aiolic and Doric the a is invariably short. So, too, 
 in words derived from the same base. See § 275. 'Aibris is rare 
 in tragedy, e.g. Eurip. Ul. 142, Suppl. ()2\, H. F. 116, frag. 930. 
 
 It is widely held ^ that 'At8?7s is derived from a + Fth-, and that 
 the passages in Homer where the a is long represent av, F having 
 been vocalized. There is no objection to this explanation, so far 
 as it goes. The difficulty lies in the Attic "Aibr-js (i. e. abrjs), 
 which cannot have arisen either from dFib- or dFcb-. Since the 
 Attic and Homeric forms cannot be dissociated, it is best to re- 
 gard each as descended from alFib- (cf . kow, aet). This necessitates 
 the abandonment of the old-time etymology whereby 'AtS/js is 
 the unaeen god. aiFih- may be connected with aXa or with ai'ei. 
 See Wackernagel, E. Z. XXVII 276. On this view "AtSos is 
 the older, "'AtSo? the younger, form ; and the apparently isolated 
 cases in Simonides Amorg. are brought into line. 
 
 ' See for example Baunack in his Studien, I 294. 
 
163.] THE LONG VOWELS: A. 1 63 
 
 161.] a?< "vs. 
 
 TTaaa < ^iravTba may serve to illustrate the existence of that d 
 in Ionic- Attic which did not suffer the chang-e to rj at the time 
 when avTta became aaa. When there arose the tendency to 
 substitute a lighter form for the disyllabic ^iravrta, or to expel v 
 before sit/ma (whether proethnic or from tl), the law according- to 
 which d became rj in Ionic had ceased to exist, having extended 
 its operations throughout the length and breadth of the dialect. 
 A irrjcra or Tijs for tolvs, was thus rendered impossible. So, too, 
 with names in -bdfxds. 
 
 The a of Ionic irav is due to the influence of Tray. According to Bekk. 
 Anecd. I 4i6ii = Bachm. An. I 11I19 [Drako 2415, 2922, 8513], An. Ox. Ill 290-, 
 Eust. 14341, the lonians and the poets shortened the o in anav, irapdirav. irav 
 occurs in iravriixap v 31, Trau7ifj.fpios A 472 &c. See on Aiolie Accent. 
 
 It is noteworthy that Kallinos, Ijg, has l/x7rds ^, whereas Homer 
 has €ixTTr]s ; forms not to be derived immediately from ttcls, de- 
 spite Boiotian (but koivi]) iWacrt, adj., C. I. G. I 16255Q. ^jJ''^'']^ 
 does not occur except in the epic. Brug-mann, Gr. Gr. p. 235, 
 connects -ird- with Kveco through Kv-d-, and thus regards e'jUTrd? 
 either as a genitive or as a petrified instrumental with the siffma 
 of ablative adverbs. This -ird- does not seem to be associated 
 with Kyprian Trat. I know of no other case where sigvia has 
 attached itself to an instrumental, eixirrjs in Homer should be 
 reflected by e/xTrrjs in Kallinos, as I am aware of no reason for 
 expelling the Homeric form in favour of the Aiolo-Doric (or 
 Attic) l/xTrd?. 
 
 162.] dv, dp, dK<avF, apF, aKp. 
 
 I. avF, Ion. ^Odvu) = A.ttic. cfiOdvu), according to the commonly 
 accepted explanation of this form. KLyJiv^i Archil. 543 (troch. 
 tetr.). 
 
 j 2. apF, Homeric, Hdt. dpr\, Horn, apdopiai, = Attic apd, &c. from 
 apFd, Arkad. KarapFov. 
 
 3. ukF, (jidpiJidKos Hipponax, 53, 6, 7, 82, 9, 373, but (f)dpfxdKov 
 t 43^ ( = Attic (papfxciKov). Ion. (pdppidKos =: ^(jidpiiaKFos = (papfxa- 
 k{k)o9. The assimilation of kv to kk is later than that of kv to tttt. 
 ; On the accent, see § 123. The d has been thought to appear in 
 t Demosthenes XXV 80 (where see Blass) despite the fact that in 
 Attic F usually disappeared without lengthening the preceding 
 ; vowel. 
 
 1 1 '* 
 
 [ 163. J A in the forms of the Comparative degree. 
 
 pdXXov, for which one might expect "^p-rjAKov, if the form with 
 AA. was formed before or during the period in which proethnic A 
 
 * The accentuation ifnrds according to Et. M. 6321 did not gain favour in 
 antiquity ; e^uTTTjs ApoU. Adv. 56426. 
 
 M 2 
 
l6"4 THE IONIC DIALECT. [164. 
 
 became H in Ionic-Attic. The force of analogy has, however, 
 substituted for the old comparative *ixik\ov (cf . melius) the form 
 fiakkov, which arose at a period when d no longer became t] in 
 Ionic- Attic. The proportions Td)(^a, Ta)(^L(TTa : Odaaoiv and eAa)(i- 
 (TTa : IXda-crcov might have given us first ixdWop, then [xaWov for 
 fj-hov. The difficulty, which is not recognized by King-Cookson, 
 p. 364 ^, is that ddcrtTcav and kXdcra-oiv are themselves associative 
 forms, whose priority to jxaXXov is not made out on other grounds 
 than the desirability of using them to account for [xakkov. In 
 Tyrt. 1 2^, fxdXiov, restored by M. Schmidt, is hysterogeneous, due 
 to the parallelism of ijbLov : i]hi(TTa ; so ixdkiov : ixdkicrTa. Hdn/s 
 (II 5489 = An. Ox. II 24O2) statement that ixdkwv is Ionic has 
 been changed by Lentz, so as to make this form the property of 
 the Lakonian dialect. From Choiroboskos we should imagine 
 that the a is long. Harder, De alpha vucali apnd Homerum 
 prodncta, p. 104, would read jxdkkov (sic) for jxakiov^. Cf. § 556. 
 
 ddaaoiv, Attic OdrToiv, with a according to Herodian, I 524,, 
 II 13^3, 943,7, from '^6dyxi(av for ^6eyxk(^v with a through in- 
 fluence of rdx^a, Ta^.tcrros. The nasal before a-cr disappears, leaving 
 compensatory lengthening. Blass (Kiihner, Gram. p. ^S5) raises 
 the question whether Oda-a-odv and eAao-crcoy are not the proper 
 forms in Homeric, Ionic and Doric. 
 
 kkdarrmv < ^ikdy^tcav for '^ikey^j^utv, cf . eAey)(t(rros'. Cf . Schmidt, 
 A'. Z. XXV 156. 
 
 ^jxektctiv, *6iy)(i(iiv, "^kkiyxioiv are displaced forms which existed 
 at a period when I.E. d was changed to Ionic rj. Their displace- 
 ment by the d forms was therefore subsequent to the production 
 of Ionic K). 
 
 164.] dk<akL. 
 
 Kdk6s< "^KaAtos^: Skt. kalya- would become Kakos in all dialects, 
 since At, when preceded by the accent, becomes AA (rnkkLov, 
 KakktaTos, TO KaAAos), when followed by it, A (Schmidt, Neufra, 
 p. 47 note)^. In Homer we find KdAo's without exception, a form 
 that cannot in the epic be regarded as Doric, though so regarded 
 by King-Cookson, p. 1 84. In Hesiod Kdkos prevails ; in Theog. 
 585, Jr. D. 6;^, KdAo's. In the lyric poets we find KdAo's in the 
 following passages^: Kallinos, 22; Tyrtaios, 4^, lo,, lOg^*; 
 Mimnermos, 53, 11^; Archilochos, 2I3, 29.,, 77^; Simon. Amorg. 
 75i> 787 ; Theognis, 16, 242, 257"^, 609, 683, 1019, 104.7, no^^ 
 1216, 1251, 1329, 1336, 1350^ 1369* dis, 1377; Solon, 1324, ■ 
 1340*; Phokyl. 132; Anakreon, 22, 63^^,, 71 ; Oracle in Hdt. I 
 
 ' Following Ostlioff, Perfecimn, 450. 
 
 ^ The schol. AV /?. VIII 353, brings forward a fidWiov, which Eustathios 
 164332 calls Doric. 
 ^ Attic Ki\Tj tmnor, is Ionic k^\ij. 
 * Cf. Harder, De alpha vocali, p. 22 ff. 
 
165.] THE LONG VOWELS: A. 1 65 
 
 66* ; cf. also Sim. Keos, I474- ^^ ^^^ other hand /caAo'j appears 
 as follows: Mimn. ig; Solon, 1321; Theog. 17 bis, X82, 652, 
 696, 960, 994, 1259, 1280, 1282; Ananios, 52; Sim. Am. 767(?) ; 
 Sim, Keos, 1474, ^5*^1' -'^^ Herodas we find Kcikos ^^s, 4^^, 
 724^115 5 Ko-kos 420^39; ^gj . Passagcs marked with a '^ have the 
 a m the arsis. 
 
 If we question the Greek dialects^ other than Attie, we learn 
 that KctAo's is the prevailing form : Terpander, 6^ ; Alkman, ^^ ; 
 Sappho, I9, 3, 1I2, I4i, 193, 28, 58, 79, loii, 2^ 104; Praxilia, 
 5,. Alkman has KdXka= kuX&s 98, Alkaios, kolKlov 134, Sappho, 
 KaKicTT 104^, if Bergk^s conjecture be admitted. In the 'uni- 
 versal melic^ of Simonides of Keos we have Kakos 5^, 37^2^ 403^ 
 70, in Bacchylides, i^, 25. In the Attic drama we find both 
 forms, KaAo? being the rarer form. The lyric poets have kolXos : 
 Ion, i,gj Kritias, ij^, 2,9; and in the Skolia, 19,, 2^ 20^,2- 
 Plato (?) has KaAo's 8 ; Aischrion, i, 42> the same form. koAo's 
 occurs upon an epigram from Delos, ^^i- 
 
 Those who demur to the form KdAd? in Homer have recoui'se 
 to the easy expedient of regarding this form as an incorrect 
 transcription of KAA02, which they would read koAAo'?. But 
 surely we have no right to assume with G. Meyer [Gramm.'^ § 65) 
 that wherever kolXos is found in the Ionic iambic and elegiac 
 poets it is an incorrect form. 
 
 165.] A in other words. 
 
 cf)af)os in Pherekydes of Leros, Herodotos, and in Homer, if 
 ^dpos is not to be read with Nauck. So, too, in Xenophanes, 33. 
 In Attic both d and d. Cf. Hdn. tt. jjl. A. 39, ^i, Bergk on 
 Alkman 23g^. Harder, De alpha vocali, p. 92 ff., suggests that 
 the word is non-Hellenic. 
 
 KapdboK€(i) in Hdt., who, however, has rpLKaprivos, Hom, Kcipriva 
 from Kapaav- ; Kapa < Kapatra. Another form of the root yields 
 Kpr} in Kpriacf)vy€Tov Hdt. V 1 24 ^. 
 
 yASo-o-a (or ykdarcra ?) = yXdaa-a, nine times in Herodas. 
 
 On Zaroi, see § 182. 
 
 idaa Hom. Hdt. I 90, from eaco = Skt. sdvdyati, Lat. desivare. 
 (du) is originally an aorist formation, pres. sevo, aor. seva- (^(r€Fd-Lu>). 
 eao-ei? Anakr. 56, ^acrov 57, fragments of doubtful metrical re- 
 construction. 
 
 I6dyevr]s Hdt. II 1 7 (Greg. Kor. § 161) = epic IQaiyivrjs, a loca- 
 
 ' See Apoll. trepl intpp. 56513 : KaAa . . S 5(' ivhs /xev \ ypd(pfrai Kara rh Koivhv 
 (60s, Trapa Aoopuvcn Se Si erepov A, Kal ovx, ais euiot vtr^Xa^ov, kclt Alo\iSa Std\eK- 
 rov' i^apvvero yap &v, irphs oTs ovSf rb KaXhs AloAe7s if Snr\a(na(Tij.^ tov \ 
 itpo(f)4povrai. Doric KaWa is due to the influence of rh kolWos, &c., Aiolic 
 KiXiov (Alk. 134) to that oi kclKos. 
 
 ^ Ionic Kapt), Hesych. s.v. Kapa, An. Par. IV 265, Zenod. KpTjros A 530 (schol. 
 Ven. A ovK ecrri Se 'laK6v); see Schmidt's Neutra, p. 372. 
 
l66 THE IONIC DIALECT. [l66. 
 
 tive (Curt. Slvd. VI 384). Rutherford, New Phy/nichis, p. 15, 
 classes the iOayivr]^ of Aischylos among the old lonisms of the 
 Attic dialect. See § 75. 
 
 avdkoiixa Thasos, 72^^ avdXain-iv Theog-. 903. Cf. avr]Koi\xa 
 C. I. G. 2347 c 61, 313758 = Ditt. Si/U. 17153 (Smyrna), which 
 owes its 7] to verbal influence. Even the perfect indie, and the 
 participle have a loan rj. 
 
 apod from alpm, subj. of i]pa, in kirapet Eph. 145 Ag, apeiev 
 Sim. Am. 7go, kirapas Eph. 145 Ag, cf. Hdt. I 90. See § 305. 
 Different are Ka6dpaa6ai Delos, B. C. H. V 46 cS (third cent.), 
 KadapaL ibid. V 23, 1. 185, 24, 1. 194 (second cent.) from kKuQapa 
 which is a neologism for €Kd6r}pa. Cf . Rutherford, P//rj/fiic/i. p. 76. 
 
 Due to metrical compulsion is the d in dOavaToyv Kail, i^g, 
 Tyrt. 1232, Sol. 4.,, 1364574? Theog. very often. iraTS' "Apeco 
 Archil. 48 1, probably with d ; cf . also Tyrt. 11,^. The lyric poets 
 have d, except Bacchyl. 36.2. Another poetical form is : — 
 
 dvt'ip Xenopli. 6^, Phokyl. 152, Demod. 3, Solon, I339(?). Else- 
 where d. No form in -q (cf . rivoperj with rj from --qvoip) is found. 
 dvopiav C. I. A. I 471, in an old Attic epigram. 
 
 On Adas in Hom., cf. Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 94. 
 
 yap.d6tv is rejected by Blass, Ausspmche^, p. 116, in favour of 
 Xap-aWev or yaixaOf^v"^. The MSS. do not have xapxiOev, II 125, 
 where xoniddev is found beside yaixod^v ; and in IV 172 we have 
 no authority for Stein^s ^'^p.dOev. 
 
 The MSS. often mix Ionic t/ with Attic d after a fashion that 
 gives a false conception of the original dialect preferences of the 
 poets, e.g. in Archil, ypavs, in Ananios dvOtas. 
 
 aT^epoTTos in Anakr. 73 (Bergk) should be 7/7r-. a-KVTa Arch. 
 122 cannot be correct. 
 
 Names in -as (Conson. Decl.) are not contracted from -eas, but represent, 
 originally at least, the lengthening of the short final o of the first member of 
 a compound name, e.g. 'AA/cos from 'AAKafievrjs ; or the lengthening of 
 the initial a of the second member, e.g. MoXiras (MoAttSSos 1631U, Abdera) 
 from MoAir-a-^^Tjs, Abdera, 163^, and the iiame of a son of Aristagores in 
 Miletos (Hdt. V 30). Later on these forms were created ad libitum. See 
 Bechtel on No. 76, p. 60. Ionic and Attic are here parallel : cf. 'AXkus C. I. A. 
 I 433, which cannot have originated from 'AAKeas ; Ionic MqAttos, NocrffiKas, 
 'Hpas, 0€i/Sas, &c. See § 281. 
 
 166.] H. Preliminary Remarks. 
 
 ■q in Ionic may be (i) the pan-Hellenic long e sound, (2) the 
 equivalent of d of all other dialects, including Attic d after vowels 
 and p, (3) dialectal arising from compensatory lengthening of d, 
 as in (Teki]vri < ^atkaavd, Tpi]pu)v < "^Tpdapajv. Attic and Ionic 
 here ag-ree, 
 
 •t3' 
 
 '■ Eustath. 51832 '6dev Kar 'laSa Sid\iKrov eneKrelvas 'Apx'iKoxos. 
 '■^ Cf. ApoU. Adv. 60O5, Eust. 9992a, and OsthoflTs Perfect, p. 597. 
 
j66.] the long vowels : H. l6j 
 
 Pronunciation of rj. In the alphabet of Keos, Naxos, and 
 Amorg-os, Ionic-Attic rj = d oi Aiolic, Thessalian, Boiotian, North- 
 West-Greek, Arkado-Kyprian, Doric, or=e + a_, is represented 
 by B or H (later); pan- Hellenic tj by E. From this it is clear 
 that the difference in graphical representation reflects a qualitative 
 difference in pronunciation, r] = d or e + a being the open e, r] = 
 I.E. e the closed long- vowel. The dialectal rj was a broader, 
 more guttural sound than the aboriginal 77. This difference 
 doubtless once obtained in all quarters of Ionic. 
 
 The existing examples, however, restrict it to Island Ionic 
 (§ 400) : 
 
 Keos. Keos. 
 
 BvH Rob. I 3a A. k-ni^'KE.ixaTL Rob. I 32 A. 
 
 Amorgos. Amorgos ^. 
 
 A^ihdiJ.av{T)L Kirch. Alph,^ 32. UarEp Kirch. Alph.^ 32. 
 [ivU-iia Rob. I 158 D. 
 
 Naxos. Naxos. 
 
 AeiroStKBo Roberts I 25. dve^EKt B. C. H. XII, p. 463, 
 dABoy Roberts I 25. pi. 13. 
 
 NtKdz'SpB Roberts I 25. avidY:.Kev Rob. I 25, 26 A. 
 
 fKB/3oAa)t Roberts I 25 and I Kao-tyyErB Rob. I 25. 
 
 26 A; cf. also Delos, 24 A. TroiEo-as B. C. H. XII, p. 463, 
 [f]t[(/)i]Ka/:;n'8Bs B. C. H. XII pi. 13. 
 
 463, pi. 13. 
 
 This accurate distinction ^ is, however, not carried throughout 
 the entire history of the dialect ; and in fact, before the adoption 
 of the Ionic alphabet at Athens, we find instances of a confusion 
 between the two E sounds. Thus in Naxos eTroiHcrEi; Rob. I 28; 
 in Keos, Rob. I 32 A, 1. 17, we have hiapavOHi, 1. 23 OavHi, 
 where we should expect the closed e sound to be represented by 
 E, not H ", So also in Amorgos ^wrHptxos Bechtel 229. Cf. 
 Dittenberger, Hermes, XV 229, Blass, Aussjirache^, p. 24 ff., 
 Roberts, I § 33, and on 32 A, with the authorities there quoted, 
 Karsten, p. 23, Kretschmer, K. Z. XXXI 291. 
 
 A knowledge of the character of the tj sound in Ionic is im- 
 portant, since Merzdorf in Curtius'' Studien, IX 202 ff., has 
 endeavoured to establish the principle that open e<d-\-o becomes 
 eo) (Atjo's, Aecos), whereas closed e ( = I.E. e)-'to becomes eo (/3acrt- 
 Atjos, /3ao-tAeos). Opposed to this doctrine is the Chian Tro'Aecos 
 (Bechtel 174 A, 13), a form that must be held to be genuine 
 
 • In Amorgos E also denoted the sound connected with that tj which was 
 specifically Ionic {Aatx\\iay6pia, gen. of -yJprjs). 
 
 ^ In Keos E was = pan-Hellenic rj and also spurious ei. 
 
 ^ A similar confusion between E and H is found on a vase in the Louvre, 
 whose provenance is Keos according to Kretschmer. 
 
1 68 THE IONIC DIALECT. [167. 
 
 Ionic. See § 486. "Apeco in Archil. 48, is as cogent an objection 
 to the law of Merzdorf as is Tro'Aeco?. And i]Fo from pro-Hellenic 
 dvo does not become ea> in later Ionic with consistency ; as witness 
 Ionic irXios, XP^^^ ^^^ ■^^^' ^^°'^ beside- Aecos. Cf. Brugmann, 
 Gr. § 19. 
 
 Cauer in his otherwise excellent preface to the Iliad (p. xvii) attempted 
 without success to show that, in his text of Homer, Aristarchos wrote rj 
 before o, 00, a, when the 77 = 0, and ei when = pan-Hellenic e. Cf. § 221. 
 
 167.] Pan-Hellenic tj appears invariably as r] in Ionic. 
 
 The form xpSo-^at ^ in Herodotos, and even in Attic [Mitfh. IX 
 289, 1. 24), is no exception to this law. That the root of this 
 verb is xpi?- i^xpy]io\xai) is raised beyond a doubt by the forms of 
 the Kretan, Aitolian, Lokrian and Megarian dialects. In Hrd. 
 655, we have k^PW^- ^ weaker form of xpt]- is XP^' (*^'^- '^'''^'j 
 KTd-o}xai), and it is this that appears in the Herodoteian xpS'^'^ctt 
 (§ 272, 3)j and perhaps in Attic xP^P'CLh XP'^M^''^?^ ^^d Messenian 
 XP<^vrai, xpwP'^'Of?. *)(paio/Aat is thus the base of this form, A 
 second form of xp^/- is xP^-j fo^^iitl in xp^'o/jiat (Hdt.j Herakleia, | 
 Rhodes, Krete, Delphi, &c.). A fourth form is xpfJ^oiJ-ai, in Boiot. j 
 XPfi'^'io-dr), Megarian (Chalkadon) xp^jeto-^o), and Eleian xPVW'^^^h 
 from xP'^oy^ Attic XP^^^- ^^- Ahrens, II 131 ; Meister, I 70, 
 226, 297 ; Brugmann, 31. U. I 64 ; Merzdorf, in Curtius^ Stiidien, 
 VIII 203, 209 ff., IX 230, 236; G. Meyer, § 51; Johansson, 
 
 B. r. a 155 fe., a ^. xv 171, Coiiitz, £. b. xviii 208. cf. 
 §§ 264, 2; 272,3; 288, 3; 687. 
 
 K7]pvkos Archil. 141 (cf. Alkm. 26^); KeipvXos Aves 300, is a 
 pun on the occupation of Sporgilos. 
 
 Attention may here be called to that 77 which is produced by 
 the lengthening of e, the initial vowel of a word which stands 
 second in a compound. This initial vowel may or may not be 
 lengthened in the same dialect upon composition taking place. 
 Cf. avT]pi6evTos Chios 174 C 25, with aveptdevTos (Homeric epiOos); 
 also Sevriperos Keos 42, not from dper?) despite the later Eeva- 
 p^Tos C. I. It. IV 8518, 108, 109 (Rhodes). Bechtel derives 
 -r]peTos from epew (cf. Archil. 25, 68). But see Wackernagers 
 Behuungsgenetz, p. 41, and cf. 'NLKr]pdT(i)i' Styra 19268- Hetwjpjjs 
 B. P. JF., 1890, p. 1405, no. 44. 
 
 168.] Relation of ?/ to et. The non-diphthongal EI is generally 
 expressed by E upon Ionic inscriptions (see § 213). Ionic 7/ = (i) 
 pan-Hellenic r/ and (2) d of other dialects, stands in no relation 
 to this non- diphthongal et in Ionic ; nor is any change of 77 to 
 diphthongal e6 to be admitted. The form Kreto-tcoi; Styra 19139, 
 
 ' Anecd. Bachm. I 41719 ; xp? 'Iovikus, 'ATriKhv Si XPV Schol. Yen. A on A 
 216 ; Hdn. II 6o6.,9 xPV • • • airhTov xp<^ XP?s (Hdt. IV 155), xp§ (H^t. IV 155 
 
 &C.) 'IuVIkHs Koi 'ATTtKOIS. 
 
169.] THE LONG VOWELS: H. 1 69 
 
 was asserted by me {Bijohthong EI, p. 80) to be an impossible 
 form. The same is now held to be the case by Bechtel, ad loc.^ 
 Vischer in 1 g^^,^ read Qeicrwv, which he held to be the ' Boioto- 
 Aiolic ' form for &i](toov. This is incorrect as regards the presence 
 of a Boiotian form upon the Styrian leaden tablets. Nor can it 
 be justified on other grounds. Bechtel suggests 'AAj^rjo-coy; cf. 
 'AXOrjixevr^s, a Thasiote name. y\vKi]av Hrd. 4^ is not Ionic, cf. 
 
 05:^ 53- 
 
 On H resulting from contraction, see §§ 263-265, 280. 
 
 169.] Ionic H = A of other dialects. I.E. d is represented in 
 Ionic regularly by r; = Aiolic and Doric a. A few noteworthy 
 forms are here mentioned. 
 
 TTa[XT:rih7]v Theog. 615, with which of. Solon^s -ne-nacrQai (137). 
 Wilamowitz [Herakl. 1426) opines that the Athenians borrowed 
 TTdofxai from the Megarians (Theog. 146 Trda-djxevos) and Dorians. 
 This verb is not in use in Ionic, which has accepted KTaofxat. 
 Schmidt, Ne?am, p. 411 ; ColHtz, £. B. XVIII 211. On Uokv- 
 Trajucoy in Homer, cf. Fick, Odt/ss. p. 17 ; Wilamowitz, Horn. 
 Unters. 70; G. Meyer, Gramm. § 65 ; Johansson, B. V. C. p. 150. 
 A Thessalian has the name na/xe[y]os, from *7ra/xai. A Kyprian 
 name is Uaa-LKVirpos. 
 
 i]Kr] Archil, tr. 43, is the only instance in Greek of the long 
 vowel of this root. Cf. Skt. dcus, Lat. deer. The weak form 
 occurs in aKovi], aKcov, &c. 
 
 rjipos, r]^pi in Hdt. with the pseudo-Ionic nominative t^jjp in 
 Hippokr. II 22, 24, 34, 60, 70 ^, Aretaios 260 ; yjepos Hippokr. 
 Lukian, Hippokr. ep., Aret. ; rjipi Hippokr. Aret. ; riepa Hippokr. 
 II 26, 34, 72, Aret., Hdt. I 172, IV 31 ; rjepioov Luk., de Astr. 23. 
 The Homeric di]p has been regarded as equivalent to avrip = dF-qp 
 (cf. Dor. d(3rip and Aiolic ain]p). "AtSos, which has been cited as 
 offering a parallel case of the vocalization of aF, must be classed 
 elsewhere on account of the Attic "At8r/s; see § 160; so, too, 
 aiWo) cannot be explained a.s = avLo-aai (Fick), since an dFicraroi 
 would have become atrroj ^. drip i"^ Attic is not a form in accord- 
 ance with the genius of that dialect. If the d is original we 
 shall have to seek for a root alF, or for a strong root with d, 
 whose weak form appears in Aiolic avr]p (Aiolic, § 214). The 
 
 ' Cf. Krrja-iaiv iQss-eo. 231-236, 386> Krr,(n/xos 1957, KTrjeis 19122) KT7]p7vos 19438, 
 K.Trjff'ivos 19032-236- The a of Kra-ofxai is ablaut of ktt/-. Boiot. KTeitriao C. D. I. 
 483 = KT7j(n'ou. 
 
 ^ Noteworthy is T(r;p in the genuine work of Hippokrates tt. aepwv vS. rSir., 
 but a7]p in the spurious irepi lep7)s vovffov (Littre, VI 372, 374, 390 twice ; on 
 p. 394 T]-i]p is a conjecture of Littre). In VI 94, v. 1. VI 524 we find ai]p, in 
 VIII 26S e has 7\-hp [yuJg. a-fip). 
 
 ^ aiaaoo, Attic arroKCfaifiKita. Cf. a as representative of aif in 5a^p = 
 Saifrjp, Skt. devtir-, and in dei = aifii. 
 
170 THE IONIC DIALECT, [170. 
 
 assumption of a ground-form dFrjp would necessitate the hazardous 
 conclusion that a native Attic drjp arose by dissimilation from rj-qp. 
 Wackernag-el, K. Z. XXVII 276, without advancing- an etymology 
 of the puzzling word, ventures the assertion that it is an impor- 
 tation from Homer by the philosophers [e. g. Herakl. 25, Anaxag. 
 \, Meliss. 17) and the poets. At all events it is clear that af = 
 Aiolic av cannot be reflected by Attic d ; in other words, the 
 supposition that F upon its disappearance lengthens a preceding 
 vowel must be abandoned as an error. It is not long- since 
 scholars have learned that the loss of the palatal spirant yocl is 
 not compensated by the lengthening of a preceding vowel. The 
 momentary appearance of df as av (d) under the ictus in Homer 
 cannot cause d to be regarded as long in prose. Homeric verse 
 does not shape the form of words for the dialects, which live 
 their own life. We must distinguish between words that have 
 been adopted into literature from Homer in the Homeric form as 
 the result of conscious art, and the phonetics of the dialects which 
 are free from such external influence. 
 
 ijfpios, ■^pi, 'early,' are ironx ava-epi-. apiarou, 'breakfast,' Horn. Hdt. <,av(rfp-. 
 These words must be separated from arip, etc. Of. CoUitz, B. B. X 62, Brug- 
 mann in Curt. Stud. IX 392, and Grundr. II § 122. Is it possible that the tj 
 of ijepos &c. was introduced through confusion with ijepios, ^pi ? 
 
 ^pa, stated to be Ionic for Spo by Gram. Vat. p. 699, and found in Hippokr., 
 is also Doric and Aiolic ; <.^ + &pa, § 282. Cf. Apoll. Conj. 22721 Schn. 
 
 170.] H = A of Doric, E of Attic and of later Ionic by 
 
 metathesis quantitatis. 
 
 In the Hipponaktian krjos we have the oldest Ionic stage of 
 pre-Hellenic ^KaFos which can be recognized upon Greek soil. 
 \i]6s is found in all MSS. but r, Hdt. V 42. Were it not for Aews 
 I 22, II 1 29, VIII 136, A7/0S might claim admission to the text of 
 the historian with the same justice as vif]6s. See §§ 140, 4, 160. 
 
 vr]6^<*vaFos, in Hdt. and in Lukian, as in Archil. 4^ (eleg.), 
 with the retention of ?/, whereas, according to Merzdorf^s 'law^ 
 the form should not have rj. Editors of Hdt. write yeo's despite 
 the fact that vy]6s is found almost without a variant. vr]6s occurs 
 not infrequently in tragedy where its presence has been attacked 
 by most editors. In order to avoid the inconsistency arising 
 from the fact that Old Ionic A7joj = Hdt. Aewj, but Old Ionic wjo? 
 = Hdt. vios (which is claimed to be the New Ionic form) not rem, 
 the -0? of veos has most improbably been regarded by Brugmann, 
 Gr. Gr. § 1 9, as due to the influence of that of 7ro5-o?. The Doric 
 genitive is vdos. Theogiiis has vavs 84, 856, 1361, in 970 A has 
 vr]v^, though Bergk reads vavs ; vavv 680 ^. On the other hand, 
 
 ' Renner regarded this form as a Dorism, but wished to substitute v^vs 
 for vavs. 
 
171.] THE LONG VOWELS: H. 171 
 
 zrjo's- 513, vriva-C 12; Solon vrjt 193, vrivaiv 1344; Mimn. vrjvaiv 9.,. 
 The forms in rj deserve mention in this connection, because of the 
 superstition that vrjvai and vavac are identical as regards quantity. 
 The a of vava-L is short. Cf. j3a(nk€vs< -rjvs, Zevs< Zr]vs, &c. In 
 Ionic vi^vs the tj is due to vrjos ; vrji instead of vf] is due likewise 
 to the influence of the genitive. 
 
 171.] Ionic H = A of other dialects (including Attic A after 
 E, I, T, P). 
 
 1. In the endings of the Vowel Declension, and in adverbs 
 representing petrified cases of this declension. 
 
 2. In verbal forms of the -aco inflection, and in forms derived 
 therefrom. • 
 
 3. In radical and thematic syllables (excluding such as may be 
 classed under i and 2). 
 
 4. In syllables of derivation. 
 
 5. In other forms. 
 
 67j= Attic ed is derived from e{i)ri = e{i)a. Cf. Attic Suped<.Soopeid, which 
 prevails till 268 b.c. 
 
 References for the study of the interrelation of Ionic 77 and 
 Attic d : — 
 
 Ahrens, Gotfijiger Philol. Versammlimg, 1852; Bergk, Gr. 
 Lit. Gesch. I 73 ; Kirchhoff, Hermes,\ 4() ff.; Cauer, in Curtius' 
 Stud. VIII 244, 435, and JFochenschrift filr kl. Phil. 1887, No. 51 ; 
 Curtius, in his Studien, I 248; G. Meyer^ Gr. 6'r. XXIII; Brug- 
 mann, Gr. Gr. § 10, Gruvdr. I § 104; Bechtel, Phil. Anzeiger, 
 1886, p. 20; Kretschmer, K. Z. XXXI 285. 
 
 Preliminary Remarks. — The dichotomy of the Greek lan- 
 guage into A and H dialects assumes that at an extremely early 
 period d had become -q in Ionic. But it may be doubted whether 
 this shifting of pronunciation, thoug'h anterior to the disap- 
 pearance of V before final s^, was in all quarters of the Ionic world 
 so old as is generally assumed to be the case. We are able to 
 distinguish in the alphabets of Naxos, Keos and Amorgos between 
 the sign for pan-Hellenic ?j (E) and that for secondary -q^^a (H); 
 a dift'erentiation which makes it certain that the introduction of 
 rj for d in Ionic did not happen at the stroke of twelve but 
 was the result of a gradual change. That this change was 
 accomplished in Attika before the departure eastward of the 
 lonians is not so probable as that it was begun while yet the 
 lonians dwelt in Attika and completed in the course of time 
 upon the islands and the mainland of Asia Minor. Had all 
 
 ' 7j from a is later than the disappearance of a in avaws (§ 290). The law^ 
 whereby an ava- would become ducr- is later than the expulsion of the 
 sibilant. 
 
172 THE IONIC DIALECT. [172, 
 
 d's become r]'s when the lonians reached Ionia, Old-Persian 
 Mdda would have been represented in Ionic by Ma8ot, not, as is 
 the case, by Mrjhoi. Be this as it may, it is clear that the 
 universal displacement o£ I.E. a by jj ^ antedates the earliest 
 distinctly Ionic literature of which we have cognizance. It is 
 futile to maintain that Ionic Homerids substituted the tj which 
 had come into vogue in their day for an Ionic a of a still older 
 period of the epos. A much- vexed question is whether in Attic d 
 is original after e, i, u, p, or whether the Ionic 77 was also Attic at 
 some period of the Attic dialect, and later became a. Certain 
 scholars have ventured to compare the instances of Eleian d — 
 pan-Hellenic tj, despite the fact that the cases are not parallel. 
 And the actual appearance of a ' hyper-Doric ' a in one dialect 
 is not proof that an Ionic- Attic ?] became d in Attic. 
 
 Even if Attic d after e, i, v, p is later than 77, it is scarcely to 
 be expected that the older jj should be sporadically attested, 
 and improbable that Attic d should have been substituted for 
 pan-Hellenic rj. The best support for the view that originally 
 all instances of I.E. a became t] in Attic is to be sought in 
 the fact vyU[(T)a became vyia'^, (Ta(f)€{<T)a, cratpri. According to 
 Kretsehmer (K. Z. XXXI 289) Attic did and -ked (in 'Ava^cXia) 
 from ddFd (in the dialect of Tarentum) and XdFd, can be explained 
 solely on the view that in Attic all cases of j)rimary a became ij. 
 The same scholar adduces Eleian Fdpyov, eX^vOdpo^ and Lokrian 
 TTardpa in proof of the ability of p to change an open e sound into 
 a. These are, however, instances not directly comparable to the 
 case in point. But whatever the date of the change of tj to d, it 
 happened long enough before the period of our earliest Attic 
 monuments to preclude the possibility of the survival in them of 
 any of the old r/^s. 
 
 For a further discussion of the interrelation of Attic d and 
 Ionic r], see above §§ 61, 73 ff. 
 
 172.] Eiwiing of the Vowel Declension (stems in d)^ 
 
 1 There is no basis for an Ionic S.Top (Et. Gud. 25O56). 
 
 ^ vyirj in inscriptions of the fourth century is an analogue of (Ta<p7j. 
 
 ^ Masc. in -njs : Scoo-^tjs Joli. Gr. 239 B, Greg. Kor. i, Gram. Meerm. 649, 
 Birnb. 677^, Vat. 695 vwith itacistic -eirjs), 'F.pfxei-ns Joh. Gr. 239 B {-n)s), Greg. 
 Kor. I, Meerm. 649, Vat. 695, Birnb. 677^. Fem. in -irj : effrirj Joh. Gr. 241, 
 fiaTtr] Eust. 5434, TpoiT] An. Ox. 1 4082 cf. 4073^ and 3873,, apeir} Theogn. II 177^, 
 ayyeAirts Schol. r 206, aufiSeir] An. Ox. IV 419.^7, Apoll. Conj. 227^7 Schneider, 
 MriSei-qs Hdn. II 751-52 = Choir. 324^, d^TjeeiTj Aug. 668, Vat. 699, w(pe\€lr] Leid. 
 628 {avL7ip6s Hdn. II 1634 -=35733, An. Ox. Ill 296^1 Drako 793, 'StSovlrjeev Hdn. II 
 3493= An. Ox. I 3873,). Fem. in-erj: /cuj/erj An. Ox. I 2393,, vnnifT] Hdn. II 353i = 
 An. Ox. I 28917, An. Par. Ill 6919, Ca^tr) Et. Gud. 227,5, 'E^Toperj Apoll. Conj. 2339 
 Schn. Fem. in -cotj : TpccTj An. Ox. I 407,2. Fem. in -pTj : "HpTj Joh. Gr. 240, 
 241, Greg. Kor. 10, Aug. 668, Meerm. 650, Vat. 693, 696 ; x'^P't Jo^^- ^^'- 24O1 
 241, Meerm. 650, Vat. 696, Bvpr] Joh. Gr. 235, 240, Leid. 628, An. Ox. I 38732; 
 
172.] THE LONG VOWELS: H. T73 
 
 1. 3IascuUnes in -er]^, -t-qs, are retained upon all early Ionic 
 inscriptions. 'Eo-yeas and Avaayopas, forms assumed to exist upon 
 the lead tablets of Styra (19191 ^nd 244) ^^^^ t)een shown, § 157. 
 to lack foundation. Cf. 1956, 19173 in Bechtel, AtVe?;? in Rob. 
 
 I 189 F, 'AiTiTj? Rob. I 190, No. I, E. Uvdayopas occurs Samos 
 2 15 = Roberts, 1 156, in an artist's signature to an Ionic epig-ram. 
 Since the g-iver of the ei/cwy was an Epizephyrian Lokrian, 
 Pythag-ores may have adopted for his name a form in harmony 
 with the dialect of the dedicator Euthymos ^. The dialect of 
 Rheg-ion was mixed Doric and Ionic (Thuk. VI 5). Whatever 
 be the true explanation of this form, it deserves notice that this 
 is the earliest example of -ayopas upon an Ionic inscription. In 
 Rob. I 157, we read [ni;]^ayop[as], restored on the lines of 156. 
 A coin of Samos (4OC-350) gives the true Ionic form UvOayopr}^, 
 Bechtel, 226 I. On TIvOayopT^s, from Salymbria, see Bechtel 
 on No. 261. 
 
 -tas appears in Thasos at the end of the third century (Kptn'as 
 82 A 7); 'Hyeas in Keos, 44 B 4; 'EA-n-ea? ibid. 44 B 16, an 
 early document perhaps of the fifth century; 'Aptorayopas 
 Thasos, 82 A 5 (225-200). See § 415. 
 
 2. In femi7iine nouns the termination -irj appears sporadically 
 till after Christ in the inscriptional monuments of the Ionic 
 dialect (cf. below, § 173). The ingression of the Attic forms 
 in the A declension dates from the middle of the fourth century 
 B.C. KAeuTrarpa Delos ^^, III 34 (cf. VII 27) dates from the 
 third century B.C.; apai Teos, 15823, A-qixi]Tpla Chios, 192, vydas 
 Olbia, I29i4, ^^® ^^ inscriptions of late date. Upon an archaic 
 vase (Roberts, I 190) we find yi.(>)pa, whose a perhaps makes for 
 Attic provenance (see Kretschmer, K. Z. XXIX 398). 
 
 Adipocpia Roberts, I 29, upon a stone in Naxos, is certainly 
 not an Ionian woman, not only on account of the d, but also on 
 account of the (p for 6, which is not a substitution known 
 elsewhere as Ionic (c{) = 6in Aiolic, Boiotian, Epeirotic, Thessalian). 
 
 "Hpas Samos, 220 33, and 22I37 (about 350), whereas in 226 we 
 find "Hprj?. The 77 form is retained upon inscriptions till a late 
 period, though doubtless no longer spoken. Cf. § 430. The 
 
 apovpT), ye<pvpr] An. Par. IV Ii8]2. ayopii Apoll. Adv. p. 19I21 Schn. ; yopyvpv 
 Eust. i688s3, Tjixeprj Diog. Laert. VII 56 ; rifxerept] Leid. 028 ; iflvrprj Theog. II 
 79i7 ; 'Ipi? An. Ox. IV 41212, Choir. 51523 ; 'Ecpvpri An. Ox. 1 15913 (also in Thukyd. > 
 
 II 1 1 78 called Attic, as also Kvpri ; KT\'i^oTiipri An. Ox. I 263,2 ; TrarpTj Tzetz. Ex. 
 II- 8512! xhpv Eust. 58918, 109347; wpt} Vat. 696 ; "Aa-jcpij, '0\vKpr], ' hvTiaap-r) 
 Hdn. II 34826 = Arkad. i i3,g, cf. An. Ox. IV 4129, and Choir. 5155 ft'., who has 
 also Karpt), "Ayp-ri, Kvpi], T(p\l/i.x^pv- Even in nolpt) An. Ox. I 275^, a-irfipTj 
 Meerm. 650, Vat. 696, cr(paipr) An. Par. IV 11812, ^Tfipri Joh. Gr. 240 B, cf. 
 
 419- , . , . 
 
 '■ Dedicators generally have the dedicatory inscription engraved in their 
 
 native alphabet ; but cf. Roberts, I 230, bis, for an exception. 
 
174 THE IONIC DIALECT. [173. 
 
 conservative style of the inscriptions has retained Uvdayoprj^ on 
 coins of the empire (P. Gardner, Nmn. C/iron. 1882, 280). 
 
 On -a in the poets, see below, § 187 ff. The occurrences of a 
 in proper names in Hdt., where t] might have been expected, 
 have been enumerated under A (§ 158). 
 
 173.] Note on the chronology of ?/ after e, t, and p in 
 Ionic inscriptions. 
 
 It is to be noted that upon inscriptions as late as the third 
 century after Christ, Ionic r? held its ground sporadically; e.ff. 
 Keos, 52 'louAiT/rwy (in Attic even in the fourth century b. c); 
 Paros, 66 Eikeidvirjt ; Istros, 135 'la-Tpuj (as late as Gordianus 
 Pius) ; Priene, npii]veo)v, on a coin in Imhoof-Blumer, 3Ionuaies 
 Grecques, 296, No. 127 (time of Hadrian), Head, H. N. 508. 
 Coins of Olbia retain -t?/ till the period of Caracalla and 
 Alexander Severus^. IHTflN occurs on coins of los from 
 Trajan to Faustina Jun. and Lucilla, Head, H. N. 414. A 
 unique form is 'k\TT\aTovpr]i Latysch. II 28. 
 
 The inscriptions before 350 B.C. generally have the Ionic -q. 
 
 This retention of 77, the inflection of adjectives of material in 
 -eo?, &c., and the inflection of the Iota declension (gen. -to?), are 
 the last heirlooms of the Ionic dialect that were displaced by the 
 Attic KOivri. 
 
 174.] In the following paragraphs we will attempt to discover 
 to what extent the Ionic dialect has preserved the long vowel of 
 the suffix -trj (-id), which in Attic and occasionally in Ionic has been 
 displaced by -id. An immediate connection, temporal or local, 
 between Ionic and Attic cannot be shown on the ground of this 
 tendency, which obtains in both dialects. Thus, the usual Attic 
 form is akr]deia, a form younger than the ' Old- Attic ' aX7]deLd 
 and the Ionic (Homeric) dAi/^etrj, since it is the result of a trans- 
 ferring of an abstract noun with the suffix -id into the category 
 of the adjectival flexion, which had -la as original feminine 
 ending ^. Ihe feminine adjective was formed from a consonantal 
 stem by the addition of the suffix -la (Skt. -i) as in rjbda svddvl, 
 akriOiia. Feminine nouns from the same stems added, not -la, 
 
 * Ionic forms occasionally appear in the MSS. of the New and of the Old 
 Testament. That crireiprts existed in the archetypal MS., is evident from 
 Acts XXI 31 (general reading), XXVII i (every uncial and many cursives^ 
 In Acts X I, (TireipTis is not so well supported (ACEL, -as In BP) ; f^axaipv^ 
 Luke XXI 24 (B'A), fiaxaipr) Luke XXH 49 (B^DLTs) ; irX-nfM/jLvptis Luke VI 48 
 (B'LH.v" 3.^\ "SaiTcfxipr] Acts V I (Tischendorf. -pa BD), (rvveiSviTis Acts V 2 (AB 
 E«, -OS DP) ; iiri^f^TjKviris I Sam. XXV 20, Kwofivins Exod. VIII 21, 24, (but 
 -fjiviav) read by Tischend. In Acts XXVII 30 irpifpris in N*el<=A 13 d; in XXVII 
 41, is the V. I. irpcoTT) for wpcpprt ? 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 240 B, Greg. Kor. § 45 call dATjOetr/ a later -form than that in -eta. 
 Joh. Gr. 235 merely cites uxpfKelr). 
 
175-] THE LONG VOWELS: H. 1 75 
 
 but -ta as in aXrjdeia. Perhaps the presence of the latter form 
 caused the fern. adj. aX-qd^ia to die out. At any rate the 
 confusion between -la and -id in abstract nouns may be dated 
 from the period of the disappearance of the fern. adj. of aXrjdrjs. 
 Cf. also -i]L7) and -eta from -rjv stems, -itj being- the substantival, 
 -id the adjectival, ending" ^. 
 
 The question of the interrelation of -etr/, -rjii], -itj is touched on, 
 §§ 145, 215, 232 ff. On Attic -em and -ta, see Schanz' Plato II 
 2, p. vii ff., Moiris, 199J5. 
 
 175.] Abstract feminines in -et?/ in Ionic. 
 
 See Choirob. Bekk. Anecd. Ill 13 14, Hdn. II 45400J Pritsch, 
 Z/on Vokalismns des herod. I)ial.'<^. 19, Bredow, 127, 188. Figures 
 without authors refer to Hdt. 
 
 dSetrj IX 42, but ageiaz; II I2i {Q, in all MSS. aXy]6€ir], not 
 aKr]dr]irj, in Hdt.; aXrjOeCr] occurs in Euseb. Mynd. 19, 21, Luk. 
 Astr. I, Hipp, ep. lOg, 12^, 1757, Mimnermos 8, Iliad, ^ 361, 
 O 407, and often in the Odyssey. Cf. Gram. Aug. 668, Vat. 
 699. avaihdri VI 129, VII 210, &c., Archil. 78, (Athen. -etrji?, 
 or-etai;); Theog. 291,648(0-17;); Hipp. ep. 1742- ^^- Choirob. 
 6,c;5,4, An. Ox. IV 41927, Apoll. Conj. 227^,7 Schn. areXdr] I 54, 
 Til 67, IX 73 ; dre[A.]etTji' Kyzikos, 108 B 3. This form has 
 been attributed by Karsten [Be tUidonmi Ionic, dialecto, p. 18), 
 to that species of Ionic which he calls Karian ^. No other 
 example of areXeir] occurs upon Ionic inscriptions, though it 
 is the regular Ionic form and that which has been supplanted 
 upon other inscriptions by the Attic dre'Aeta, Eryth. I99g (394 
 B. c. one of the earliest cases of the ing-ression of Atticisms ^), 
 2029 (350 B.C.); Zeleia, 114 (334 B.C.); Ephesos, 14713 (300 
 B.C.); lasos, 105^ (end of fourth century); Teos, MittJi. XVI 
 292 (early Hellenistic period). aTpeKeii] IV 152, Hipp. ep. i6g, 
 ly^rr fTTt-TTet^eir/ Sim. Amorg-. ig. eiiTjfJetr; III 140; in VII 16 y, 
 R has evrjOeCas, not adopted by the editors. et'/xapetTj IV 113; 
 Greg. Korinth. §119, evixaptriv 8e ttjv aTToiraTov. Suidas has both 
 evixapirj and evixapeta. evTi^Tciri V 20, Demokr. 134. e-ireAetrj 
 
 II 92, &c. KaKorjOir] Demokr. 3for. 22 (Stob.). pLtyaXo-np^vdr] 
 
 III 125. TToXvjjiaOeLri was the reading' of Diog. Laert. in Herakl. 
 16 (Byw. -11]). Cobet's TTovXvjj.ad'qiri is wide of the mark. ttoXv- 
 reAetTj II 87. TTpearjBvyeveir] Yl 51. Trpop.-qdeLr] is correctly handed 
 down in Xenoph. 134. Hdt. has TTpoixi-jdii] I 88, III 36 (CPd, 
 -eiTj). A schol., quoted by Bredow, p. 188, says r??? vecoripas 
 'I(i8os eoTt TO Xiy^iv ttjv T:pop.r\Oeiav TTpop.7]Qiav. (TiToheir] I 22, 
 94. ^vjjLTTaOeir} Aret. 153. vytetTj II 77, Demokr. Mor. 46, 
 
 ' Ionic and Attic Ei//3om is older than Ev^oid, Hesiod, W. D. 651. Cf. elSv7av. 
 " On $ri(ri\f(iis, a suppos^ed example of ' Karian' Ionic, see § 11. 
 ^ irpoedpiTiv in the same inscription. 
 
I'jS THE IONIC DIALECT. [176. 
 
 Hippokr. II 14, 26, 32, 634 Litt. [vnlgo vyeLrjv), ep. 25, 1O9, 17,, 
 {vtihjo, -€iav in x)^ 26^. •yyetr^ Hippokr. II 244 Litt. (vyi-qv 
 2165, 2276, &C.), II 282 Litt. [vyid-qv 2253, &C., vy[i]v 2276). 
 Midway between •yytetr/ and i^yet?/ stands the itaeistic vyitr] in 
 Herodas 4gg, a form not yet contracted into vyij] (cf . 'Tyta C. I. A. 
 Ill 1H32). The gen. is vydi)<i Hrd. 420, g^; the nom. 'Tyua 4^ 
 may be retained at the cost of the omission of re. The evidence 
 of inscriptions is against the primitive character of the form 
 vydd (Osthoifj M. U. IV 181), though it appears as early as 
 Eubulos III 248, Philemon IV 22 (1. 11) — in both passages 
 rejected by Meineke. Whether 'Tyeta Paros 67 (cf. Olbia, 129^4, 
 also a late inscription) is vyetd for Ionic vyeirj, or vyeiaKvyUia is 
 uncertain^ but both forms are clearly itaeistic. On vyela for 
 vyieia, see Blass, Ausspraclie^ , p. 60, who compares late Boiotian 
 0eta-7reta)2' for Qeicniuioiv, C. D. I. 8t6. vyUia is a conjecture 
 in Herakl. 104 {vyeiav rulffo), and often occurs as a v. I. in 
 Hippokr. vTTMpeiJ] II 158 li, v-rrcopea IV 23^ for vircap^ia from 
 opos, Hipponax opetas 355, Hdt. opecvos. (^ikoixaO^ir] Euseb. 
 Mynd. i. (j)pevoj3\al3ei7] Luk. Sj/r. 18. 
 
 176.] Forms in -eta< -ecna. 
 
 In the following cases there is good MS. evidence for -eta, 
 which must however be regarded as an Attic intruder, abetav, 
 Hdt. II 121 (C) in all MSS. aKpareia Hippokr. V 620 (166). 
 aXrjOeLa Hippokr. ep. 1714, ^^, where Hercher adopts the form with 
 r/ as in all the other cases cited below from this pseudo-Ionic 
 source. afxikeia Hippokr. II 60 (Litt. 6ixikii]v). avhpoyiv^ia 
 Hippokr. ep. 272;!. aa-Qh^ia Hippokr. Ill 224 vvlgo (Lit. -d^v), 
 Aret. 321. do-(^aAeta Hippokr. II 140, 244 (Lit. -eu]v), 634 (Lit. 
 -Li]v), III 234 (Lit. -dr\v). (yKpareia Euseb. Mynd. 26. e/x/xe'Aetay 
 in all MSS. except d, Hdt. VI 129 ; Stein and Holder read -^t-qv. 
 (TTipiiXetav in all MSS., Hdt. VI 105 ; Hippokr. ep. 2755. evyeveta 
 occurs in Dem. 1 27, a fragment otherwise in Ionic form in Stob. ; 
 cf. Hippok% ep. 17^.,. evXajSeia Hippokr. ep. 2703. ^Vjxevir] II 45, 
 is written by Holder against the authority of the MSS., which 
 have -eta or -ea. ij^vTrdOeta Hippokr. ep. 1753- 'HpaKAet?/ Hdt. 
 V 43 {-KkeLav ABCd). KaKOTrdOeia Hippokr. ep. 1742- Treptc/jai'etij 
 Stein, -eta. Holder with all MSS. In II 55, both Stein and 
 Holder write OpojueVeta, the name of a Dodonian priestess. 
 ^vyyireLa Hippokr. ep. 263. ^vpLirddeLa Hippokr. ep. 132- ^vvd- 
 c^eia Aret. 1 47, 334. 
 
 Tj-aiwAea and e'^wAea, Bechtel, 263, found in Lykia, belong to 
 the same class as {i7rcope(t)a, but it is not certain that these forms 
 are not Attic. 
 
 177.] Feminines in -etrj or -eta derived from -rjv- stems. 
 
 ipet?j in Hdt. V 72 ; te'peiat II ^^ ABC, II ^^ id., the reading ; i 
 
 14 
 
 I 
 
l8l.] THE LONG VOWELS: H. 177 
 
 adopted by Holder. Upeta is Homeric (Z 300) and original^ is 
 found upon a Keian inscription of the fourth century (No. 48), 
 and is the kolvij form. Contracted form Uprj < Upir] ^ or Upeid, 
 Pantikap. 1231, Ephesos, 150 (late). Cf. ^aa-iXi], iipia^r] Hdn. 
 
 I 2753, 32221. If lepeia is correct^ as we should expect^ we have 
 in Hdt. the older and the younger form co-existing. Updd is 
 attested by Hdn. I 531 2, II 70819, Moiris 191 as Attic, and occurs 
 in Bacch. 11 14. lepe(t)a, too, is Attic (Meisterhans/ p. 32). 
 See § 300. 
 
 /3ao-tAeta appears in numerous passages in Hdt. without a 
 variant, and is the Homeric and original form. The v. I. 
 j3a(n\i]Lris I 211, in ^ is an hyper-Ionism. 
 
 On the nom. d = r], see § 420. 
 
 178.] Feminines in -otrj, -utrj, -oid, -via. 
 
 Hdt, usually has -otrj in fern, abstracts as Trpovotri, crvvvoLr], 
 evi'OLT], 6po\poiy], cntXotr], iraKXippoir]. The Attic -ota appears in 
 tvvoiav III 36 [-ou]v Stein), bLavoia II 169, bidvoiav I 46, 90, 
 
 II 162, IX 45. -VLT] in p.riTpvL-)] ; ^ptiOvii] is not certain in VII 
 189 [u)p€i9vi]v in (1, ^p(.iOviav in R). The Ionic prose form of 
 Attic opyvtd is not attested in the nominative. Homer has 
 opyvid (as //via), Hdt. only oblique cases, and so Nikand. 27/er. 
 169 opyvifj, but Aratos, Phain. 196 opyvL-^v. See under Accent, 
 §119. 
 
 179,] Proper names in -aid, -anq ; -eia, -etrj ; -ota, -otrj. 
 
 NiVaia, 'loTtata in Hom., but 'lo-rtairj in Hdt. VIII 23-25, 
 a variation that recurs in the case of <l>wKata Hymn Apoll. ;^^, 
 Hdt, I 142, 152, II 106, 178, VI 17, but (|>ajKatT} I 80, 164, 
 165; MrjbeiTjv I 2, Tor a full list of these names, see Bredow, 
 129 ff, 
 
 180,] Adverbs representing petrified case-forms of the A 
 declension have throughout the Ionic ?;, e.ff. k'n^v Hippon. 20, 
 • Anakr. 93 (cf, Greg. Korinth. § 58), )^adprj, 'nepi]v (Arrian 3, cf. 
 Hdn. I 5084), TTepi]d€, Trpooh]v Hdn, I 490^, Theogn, II 15434. 
 
 181.] In verbal forms of the -aco inflection, and in derived 
 
 foiTQS. 
 
 KaTaprjo-ea-daL, Treiprja-opat (cf. Theog. 126) 6ei](Je(TdaL,''Ahpr}a-Tos, 
 Tyrt. 128, ^^ Hdt. and on a vase, Roberts, I 194, "Abpaaros 
 Smyrna, 15317, ^^ inscription of Attic inclinations. Cf. also 
 riyopaa-ev Eryth. 2o6 B 48, C 44, NtKao-tcoro? Thasos (Louv.), 
 20 C 9. noXvdpr}Tos Thasos, 723, 'Ap?;rTj Hippon. 14, but 
 'ApaTos Eryth. 206 B 44; dpT]Tr]p An. Ox. I 2I10. 
 
 ^ Kallim. Epigr. 41 has 'leptjj, Schn. 'IpeiTj. 
 
 N 
 
J 78 THE IONIC DIALECT. [182. 
 
 Of all the supposed cases of Ionic tj in the modern Pontic dialect, only two 
 {iripvrjffov and airepvriffTov = '!repa(Tov and atrepaaroy) are regarded as genuine 
 survivals by Hatzidakis, Neugr. Grunim. p. 163. 
 
 182.] Words containing- H = I. E. A in radical and thematic 
 syllables. A few examples of each class will suffice. 
 
 The admission of 'hyper-dialectal' « into an Ionic word is out of the 
 question. The Hipponaktian (2) iTav^6.\i)Tos, if connected witli SyjA^ofj-at, must 
 yield to some one of the various conjectures made to bring sense into the 
 fragment. This a is out of place save in Theokr., by whose time the hyper- 
 Doric d may have gained a footing. Of. (dSrjXov Alkaios, 187. Zavos, Zavi 
 Bergk, P. L. G. Ill 710 (82) cannot be vernacular Ionic. Z^s was used by 
 Pherekydes (Evist. 138728)5 not Zds as Clem. Alex. Strom. VI 741 reports. Of. 
 Collitz, B. B.X SI. 
 
 7j=: extra-Ionic d, after p. 
 
 ■ypi]vs ; for which Bergk readsypaSsjArchil. 31, though Schneide- 
 win long ago corrected the MS. to ypi]vs. There is no warrant for 
 supposing that the inflection of yp'i]vs diifered from that of vi^v? in 
 the nom. ; and on Archil. 168 Bergk reads yp-qvv. yprjvs should 
 not be derived from ypavts (Curtius, Ef.^, 176, cf. Schmidt, K.Z. 
 XXVII ^y^), but is probably an immovable feminine adjective 
 like drjKvi in OfjXvs f e'po-Tj, r]bvs in rjbvs avTjjLi] ; and of this, ypavts 
 and ypata are the movable feminine forms, ypata appears to be 
 a solitary example of a v-stem which has not taken on the -eia 
 inflection, ypavi'i is of Aiolic source. ypr]vs in Homer is scarcely an 
 analogue to irpia^vs, as Brugmann, J/. U. Ill 25, suggests. 
 
 KCKp7]iJ.evos Hdt. Ill 106, against the authority of all the MSS., 
 cf. Hippokr. K^Kpy]ixai. The base Kepa has the form Kpa = Tonic 
 Kpy]. aKpi]T0T:6Tns, -irocru] Hdt., Kp^]Tr]p^ Anakr. 94^, cf. Eust. 
 14033, K^Kp^-jTai Hesych. Even Pollux, X 108, has ?}^/xos rts ^irLKpi]- 
 rrjpiSto?, cf. Bechtel 103. 
 
 Tn7Tpi](TK0) (cf. Kallimaehos 85), TTp]r]9ivTcov Eryth. 204,,; Hdt. 
 irprjOfivai. Solon, however, has irpadivT^s 405 eleg"., '^6^ trim. 
 
 TTprjacro) ^ : npi]^a(nT>]s, np'^^tAeoos, Vipii^lvos in Hdt. YlpTj^i- 
 TToXts Tha». (L.), 8 B 6, lo^, 11 B 3, 13^^^, 21.,. ITptiftAecos 
 Thas. (L.), 3 B 8, cf. Thasos, 75 A 7. np7/fas Eryth. 206 A 11. 
 rTpTj^ayo'pTjs Thas. (L.), 10^, g. ITpT/^co Kyme, 20; Upi^^tov 
 Delos, 57; eKTTpijTTovTuiv, 22^ near Eretria with non-Ionic tt ; 
 TTpri^avTMv Teos, 1 58^^, Chios, 174 A 15, 20; Trpj/xjua Chios, 
 174 B 18, 1 74 C 7 ^(also Attic, C. I. A. Ill 3822). In Hdt. and ' 
 other writers the Attic forms have crept into some MSS. Cf . I 
 I 8, V 12, VII 147 (Arrian, 9^,^, 43io)j Protag. ap. Pint. Ue Confol.] 
 Theognis has ?; forms, 70, 80, 73, 1026, 1027, ^j];^, 661, 953, 461,^ 
 1031, 1075, but the d forms in A or in other MSS. 204, 6 59, 256, 
 644, 642, 1051. Some Ionic inscriptions, too, have admitted the 
 
 ' KprjTrip An. Ox. I 23813, Et. M. 53837, Et. Gud. 346,4. 
 ^ Trprjyfj.a An. Ox. I 238,3, Et. M. 538.28, Et. Gud. 346,5. 
 
 ■II 
 
184] THE LONG VOWELS: H. 179 
 
 Attic forms^ Mylasa, 248 A 10 (367-6 B.C.), 248 C 10 (355-4), 
 Ephesos, I47]sj about 300 B.C. In literature Trprj- in all early 
 monuments : Hdt., Dem. 3Ior. 2O21 , Herodas, V 3, &c. 
 
 TTprivs, -npi-jvveadai in Hdt., Hippokr., I\p'i]vKos, name of a Tha- 
 siote, Ylpiivyo'i o£ a Styrian, 1934^ (ef. ITpe-ar^rjs Keos, 50, lA^ 
 65). 7tpi]ia Luk. Asfr. 29. ■TTpeviJ.ein]^ in Attic poets is an 
 lonism. 
 
 pj]bLU)9 {prithios Ajioll. Atlv. 567=;Schn. I^y^), p-qa-Tuivri in Hdt. 
 and Luk. S^r. 20, Asfr. 21, Hippokr. pq6vp.€iT0) VI 648, 656, 
 pa(TTu>i'aL III 438, pawy VIII 268 but very often prjtbios, prjiTepos, 
 (Aret. 332),pTjtCcfj VIII38. Blass thinks the a is short in the forms 
 (cf. also §§ 208, 274) which are not followed by two short syllables. 
 Cf. Aiolic j3pabLos = FpabLos, Theokr. XXX 27, (SpaibiMS. Osthoff, 
 Perfect. 446 if., explains paa)z; = pd(rttoi^ = Lat. rdrior (*vrdsos). 
 
 pi]Xi-'r], flood -fule, in Hdt., can have nothing to do with pr\yvvp.i 
 as L. & S. state, since the latter has pan-Hellenic ?) ^. Connect 
 rather paxts, ftpine, Hdt. Ill 54. For the use of names of parts 
 of the body to express natural objects, cf. art)i of the sea, shoulder 
 of the mountajn, TToKvbeipas "OXvp-iros, &e. 
 
 Tpiqyys. The relation of Tpd to rapa in rapayj], rdpa^is is not 
 perfectly clear, though it is probable that there is a correspondence 
 of types, Kepa : Kpd : : rapa : rpd. Tprjx^o. in Hdt. VII ^^, is due 
 to Abicht, the MSS. having the Attic form, which comes to light 
 in Solon, 43-. The genuine Ionic form is found in Tyrtaios, 12^2, 
 Hipponax, 473. 
 
 The pseudo-Ionists generally adopt the Ionic forms. 
 
 In some of the later portions of the Hippokratic corpus Attic d 
 is freely used, as in niKpaya, K€KpdKTi]s VI 388. 
 
 183.] N6Kr?2'opos Thasos (L), 12 C 11, may serve as an ex- 
 ample of i] = d lengthened from d upon the formation of a com- 
 pound word. See § 1 6^, note, and §167. On Aoxdyos in Styra, see 
 above, § 157. Kpi^vr] Ion. -Attic, from Kpavvd (Thessal. Kpavvovv), 
 Doric Kpdvd, perhaps from ^Kpdavd. The Attic 17 is to be ex- 
 plained as that of dprivr] § 2 17. 
 
 184.] Ionic ?7 = extra-Ionic d, after vowels. 
 
 ^lr]au)v in Hdt., but 'lao-coy Halik. 240.,^; 'Irjrcoj; Head, //. N. 
 414; TPIH ibid. 222. 
 
 '\(TTpir] Istros, 135; liT^pos Pantik. 119; cf. Luk. tt. 6. I. a. 
 §16; often in late epigrams, and even in such as are other- 
 wise Doric. Wagner, Qiiaest. de epigr. 27. lr]Tr]p C. I. It. et Sic, 
 Add. 2310 A. 
 
 verjvLTjs Hdt., verjVLo-Kos Hippokr., ve-qvuoiv Protag., cf. Nerj- 
 
 ^ vavriyiri, sh ipic reck = Attic vavayii] contains the lengthened form of fay, 
 ablaut of fay (Kare-nyora in Hdt. and Hippokr.). 
 
 N 2 
 
l8o THE IONIC DIALECT. [185. 
 
 TTokts, Bechtel, 4^. The stem vid- varies with veo- ; NeoTroAtreo)!' 
 42, cf. 43 and 4^. C£. <I^aajAos Thasos (L.), 7 B 6, from (f)aio-, 
 as KvbprjXos from Kvbpo-. Cf. '£p/xd(/)tAo? Th. (L.)j 20 C 8, and 
 *E/)/jio(/>tAoj. 
 
 7rat7ycor, the Homeric form, is still preserved in Archiloehos 76. 
 Hdt. has TTaicciviCd^. 
 
 npi7]vecov, Imhoof-Blumer, Monu. Greccj., 296^ No. 127, period 
 of Hadrian; nPIH, Bechtel, No. 143. 
 
 Upon the Attic tribute lists from 456 to 424 b. c. some names 
 of Ionic peoples appear, now in the Ionic, now in the Attic form 
 (AiiAcjyrat, 'l?/rat, Kep8tr/rat, Na^tTjrat, OpajyT/s). In other cases tj 
 always (BapyuAtT/rat, &pai'irJTai). Even the inhabitants of 'IdAvo-o? 
 appear as 'IrjAvo-tot, whereas upon their own documents we find 
 'laAi>o-tot[9], Cauer, 177. The name seems to have come to the 
 Athenians through Ionic sources. Cf. Cauer in Curtius' Studien, 
 VIII 247. In the fourth century the epichoric names are 
 more tenacious of their hold in the Attic inscriptions. Cf. 
 Meisterhans, 13. 
 
 Ti-!]pr\ Hdt. VIII 120, but Tiapa I 132, III 12, retained by 
 Stein and Holder. Cf. Persai, 662 nripas (Dind. rta-). 
 
 Tpii']KovTa and other forms of Tpir]- in composition. Tpi{]KovTa 
 Hippon. 2O3, Eryth. 202;^.j, cf. Mylasa, 248 A 1, Keos, 4320, 
 Chios, 174 B 23, D 15, Thasos (L.), 9^, has an 7j = d that is pro- 
 bably not orig'inal, though the d of the I. E. neuter pi. trid took 
 its d from the decl. when the plural of the stems ended in a. 
 See Sclimidt''s Neiitra, p. 39. 
 
 hit]- in hii]KO(rioiv Zeleia 114 D 5, Chios, 174 D 18. The long 
 vowel is due to the influ^ence cf that of rptrjKoVtot. See Spitzer, 
 LauUehre des Arkad. p. 19. 
 
 185.] Syllables of Derivation containing H. 
 
 For exam])le, in Herodotos, SapSa/i'o?, Kp7;o-Tcoi;t?;n/s', STrapruir?;?,' 
 Alyivi]TaL. TeycTj, Teyej/rr/s (Teye?/ is from Teyetr; as h^p^a from 
 Stopetd in Attic, unless the latter, as Dittenberger thinks, is the 
 younger form), ^apyv\iy]T&v Bechtel, 252. 'Opvearai Hdt. 
 VIII 73 in AJ3Cd, for which Stein has the Ionic form ; cf. in 
 the same chapter UapcopeiJTai. On other names in -arat in Hdt., 
 see above, § 158. Arrian 5^^ has Tlttjvos. 
 
 Ionic 6(l)pi]^, 6ojp-i]KO(p6poi in Hdt. and Arrian. ipr;£= Attic 
 Upd^, &c. aTvpd^ is the Herodoteian form (in III 107 one MS. 
 has aTvprjKo). 
 
 IIo(Tei.bd(ovos avaKTos Archil. 10, is not in the MSS., but corre- ; 
 sponds to Ylo(T€ibd(tiva ixvaKTa Iliad, XV 8. Cf. § 140, i. | 
 
 186.] In other Forms. 
 
 In the aorist of liquid verbs, e.g. ey)]p€v Anakr. 86, Terp/jvas 
 Hippon. 56. Is rerp7/y€rat Hippokr. VII 498 formed from the 
 aorist ? 
 
l88.] THE LONG VOWELS: H. l8l 
 
 In the forms ^ kixiiqva, kkiy]va (as also in eOepixrjva, cKaO-qpa) 
 Hdn. II 798j8 = Choir. 60735, 655^2^ Et M. 483^.^, 62633, 791,0 
 (ixLTivai), An. Ox. IV 19309, 4^926J ^xprjva An. Ox. I 2423, An. 
 Par. Ill 31821 (Kprjvov Hdn. II 232j3 = Theog'n. II 9I21, An. Ox. 
 I 2423, An. Par. Ill 318.,!, cf. Tzetz. Ex. II. 98jJ. 
 
 187.] Ionic H in Tyrtaios and Solon. 
 
 Since Attic metrical inscriptions (§ 72) pronounce in favour of 
 the adoption of the Attic a for 77 in forms which might (on the 
 view that the influence of the epic, and not that of the native 
 dialect was paramount) have been Ionic, the question arises 
 whether in the non-Ionic elegists there may not be preserved 
 instances of the d of the native speech. Though Ionic was the 
 dialect of the Greek literary world prior to the advent of Attic 
 (as Attic was the medium of literary expression until the advent 
 of the Kotvi]), nevertheless it may have not possessed the power 
 to absolutely repress all ingressions of a non-Ionic idiom. We 
 may ask : How far does the dialect of poets born in Ionia differ, 
 if it differs at all, from the dialect of poets whose birthplace or 
 place of residence was in a canton whose speech had never ad- 
 mitted rj after e, l, v, and p ? In other words, are the as of 
 Tyrtaios due to his Spartan home, and are the d's of Solon the 
 result of his Athenian citizenship ? Furthermore, we can here 
 but call attention to the fact that the MSS. of the Ionic poets 
 may have suffered, either from the hands of ignorant scribes who 
 knew only the common dialect of their time, or from precon- 
 ceived notions as to the character of early iambic, trochaic and 
 elegiac poetry. In the case of poets of Ionic birth, whose art is 
 Ionic, the restoration of the genuine Ionic forms in tj offers but 
 little difiiculty. Thus we have an Attic avdias in Ananios 5 
 {6€ii]v 1 2), ' kva^ayopa'i in Anakreon 105, and other cases of like 
 character. § 416. Cases of d in Herodas are very rare (324, 5.5, 
 37, gg). These are Attic rather than Doric. 
 
 188.] Tyrtaios : The absence of any contemporaneous elegiac 
 poems upon inscriptions, such as guide us in the examination of 
 the Soloneian dialect, renders extremely difficult the question 
 whether or not Tyrtaios admitted any cases of Doric d in his 
 elegies. In the elegies, where, on any view, we should expect 
 to find fewer cases of d than in the embateria, we notice alayjpa^ 
 h\ (pvyrjs l2iY, o.Tifxia iOjq, k\6 pav-'^vyj\v II5 and avtaporaTov lO^ 
 in MSS. a (pLkoxpriiJ-aTLa ^Traprav oAet 3^, is supposed to re- 
 present the response of the Delphic oracle to Lykurgos, though 
 
 ^ The grammarians often call an aoristic form Ionic on account of an r> 
 which is, however, also Attic: ireKT-nva An. Ox. I 13824, 41 ij (cf. Attic 
 fTeKTTjj/a/xTyj/), ^(pr]va An. Ox. IV 198^3, 4i9o6> I 350i7j 41O33J ^a-fifj-riva IV 19823, 
 Choir. 6085, KaOripaTf An. Par. Ill 508^7, iyrj/xa An. Ox. IV 19330 j &c. 
 
l82 . THE IONIC DIALECT. [189. 
 
 the Pytliia used the epic idiom from the earliest period. The 
 2£77apras of Pkitarch seems more probable than ^Trapr?/? in 4^ 
 (accord, to Diod. Sik.). 
 
 Elsewhere the Ionic forms prevail: a-Tvyepfj TrevLij lOg, evpeCrjs 
 ll,^^, be^LTepf] 11.25 J /^'^^ ^^3' Tpr])(^das, accus., l2o.j, Ahpriarov 128. 
 Since in a few Lakonian eleg-ies of early date (though posterior 
 to Tjrtaios) we find only the Doric forms, I regard atVxpa9, 
 arijxia, iy^Opav, and aviaporarov as native to the original dialect 
 of Tyrtaios and the tj^s as due to the same cause as produced 
 those in Solon. 
 
 In the case of the emhateria, we shall, I think, have to accept 
 as certain an admixture of Lakonian forms. Thus we find 
 2)7ra/3Ta9 l5i, TtoKiaTav \^^ (cf. Pindar, Idhm. I 51), Aata 153, 
 ra? ^cuas I5j> to '^napra. l^g. Bergk's reading, "Ayer', £> ^Trdpras 
 evoTrXoL Kovpoi, tiotX rav "Apeos Kivacnv, in fragment 16, presents 
 a hopeless mixture of Doric and Ionic, to which no Spartan 
 youth would have listened. Ktvacnv is an hyper-Dorism, un- 
 attested for the period of the early Messenian wars, which occurs 
 in the pseudo-Timaios irepX \l/v)(^a^ ; and KovpoL should be Kwpot, if 
 Doric. Hephaistion has KLvi](nv correctly enough. 
 
 189.] Solon : In his trimeters we find eAeu^epa ;^6^, ^lav 36^^ 
 (Plut. jSiiiv), irpaOevTas 36^. rj in avayKabrjs ^6^, hovXLrjv 36jj. 
 
 In the tetrameters: aypav 333, i]\xipav \xiav '^'^^, \xLavas 323. 
 1) in /3t7/s 322._ 
 
 In the elegies, where the greatest dependence upon epic forms 
 might be anticipated: r/ju,erepa 4^, /3ta 426, bvcrvop^ia 430, evvofxCa 
 433, Aap-Tj-pfis 92 [sic Diod. Sik., Plut.; -r]s Diog. L.), vix^ripav llj 
 (.yi(? Diod. Sik. ; -t]v Plut., Diog. L.) ; also in irpaOevTes 4^5, rpayia 
 43., TTpavi'€i, 4..8, pabiov 9^. Elsewhere ?/. 
 
 1] might possibly be defended even in the trimeters and tetra- 
 meters on the view that the background, especially of the iambic 
 trimeter, is Ionic, and that the dialogue portions of Attic tragedy 
 in their u» of occasional lonisms (§ 77) followed the norm 
 established by the earliest cultivator of the iambus upon Attic 
 soil. This view must be rejected because the senarii of tragedy 
 adopt the Ionic 7] only under certain conditions which are foreign 
 to Soloneian art. Solon made use of d, and the Ionic ?/ must 
 have been introduced by scribes prepossessed by the belief that 
 he was entirely dependent upon the Ionic dialect in matters 
 of vocalism. In regard to his use of aa for Attic tt, he is 
 clearly under the infiuence of Ionic models. 
 
 In the elegiac poems there is no positive proof that Solon 
 adopted Attic forms where they differed from Ionic, nor, on the 
 other hand, have we criteria sufficient to establish the uniform 
 appearance of the Ionic forms. The evidence of the contemporary 
 
191.] THE LONG VOWELS: H. 183 
 
 elegy speaks, however, strongly in favour o£ the rejection of all 
 eases of the specifically Ionic ?/. Cf. § 61. 
 
 190.] Xenophanes, Theogais and the Later Elegy. 
 
 Xenoi^hanes preserves the Ionic ?/ everywhere except in Kparrip 
 I4, for which we should read Kpr}-. On e/x'n-as, see above, § 161. 
 
 The Theognideian collection offers so much that is adventitious 
 that the question as to how far Theognis coloured his Ionic elegies 
 with slight masses of local matter is rendered well-nig^i insur- 
 mountable. The cases of d in the chief MSS. are as follows : — 
 
 TTpayiia 2^6, 642, 644, 1051 (cf. § 1H3); pabiov and connected 
 words, ISO, 429, 1 220; pLLKpd 607; Tt/xayopa 1059 (by conj.) ; 
 €xdpa 270 (in some MSS.); TraiSetas 1305, cf. 1348; Trarpwas 
 I2IO, 888; a-pLLKpa 323; /xtS 664 (some MSS. puj]); Aetay 1327 ; 
 bva-Tvx^av 1188 [A has -j], as frequently where the MSS. divide 
 on this question). Henner wishes to read vqvs 84, 856, and 970 
 [A has vrjvs) ^. The genitive sing, and dat. plur. are V7]6i 513 and 
 vrjVdL 1 2. In the second book rj seems better supported. 
 
 In the later elegy we find d in the MSS. in Aischylos (but 
 Kvaver] 3^), Sophokles, Euenos (but ixavii]s 2^, ^\a^^p{] 4^), Kritias 
 (but €V(Te(3ii]s 2.22, ?)fxerepr;? 43). All these ?; forms should be 
 changed to d. Forms in i] occur in Pigres, Empedokles, Agathon, 
 Plato and Aristotle, though in the last three d should be ex- 
 pected. Plato 24 has irerpas, [25] ravbe, though it is surprising 
 to find Dorisms. The genuine Plato no doubt used Attic forms. 
 7/ is in place in Ion, cf. 2.2, 4ij 3, though the d^s elsewhere occur 
 {e.ff. 31,4). Dionysios Chalkos has dpea-Lj} 4^, 5^. A mixture 
 of 7/ and d so early as the fifth century is improbable. Even in 
 the case of Ion, his elegies must be either Attic or Ionic. 
 
 191.] Ionic H = Attic A. 
 
 bLirk/jaios Apoll. C'oiiJ. 2272^, 2332s; Schn., irevTa-, e^airkija-Lov, 
 '7ToX\aTTKi](rta Hdt. The latter form, III 135, where ABB have 
 the Attic form; which comes to light in bLTrkda-iov Teos, i58<,2, 
 an almost completely Atticized inscription. Cf. Gothic ahi-falps. 
 
 The genuine Herodoteian mvjaKoaioi is amply attested (III 90, 
 IX 29), and occurs in the Chian inscription, 174 D 7 (77[e]z;ra- 
 KoatMv). TrevraKoa-LOL has its irevra- on the lines of Terpa-, k-nra-. 
 The form z^vT-q- in certain MSS. of Hdt. (Ill 13, VII 186) is 
 doubtless to be explained on the view that the scribe had in his 
 mind^'s eye the Homeric ■niVTi]K6(noi, (y 7), whose tj is due at once 
 to the influence of irevTijKovra and at the same time to the ictus. 
 Aristarchos and Herodian wrote TreirdKoVtot in the Homeric 
 passage. 
 
 Instances of •'r} = d in sufiix syllables are adduced, § 419. Such 
 
 ' uavs occurs 84, 856, 970, 1361, vavy 680. Whether this is a or a is 
 uncertain. 
 
i 
 
 184 THE IONIC DIALECT. [192. 
 
 forms as fxoiprj, cnreipr] (Greg. Korinth. p. 390), y€(f)vpr], occurring 
 occasionally in the MSS. of Hdt, are hyper-Ionisms. 
 
 Treiz-'T], TTc'C^ (§ 419) are genuine lonisms. 
 
 Ionic vr]v9, V7]vcri ( = vavs, vdvat) are due to case-levelling, the 7? 
 forms being strictly in place only in such cases as the genitive 
 singular where the case termination begins with a vowel. ^ m 
 
 ava-n\Ti](T(Tov(n Hippokr. II 58 cannot be correct Ionic for Attic 
 ava-nXaTTovcri. 
 
 Kallinos^ 'Ho-toy^as (5) has been regarded by Fick, Odi/sftee, 
 p. 24, as an instance of ictus lengthening, Steph. Byzant. con- 
 necting ^Haiovia wath 'Ao-ta. i]Kr]v, cited as a parallel instance 
 from Archilochos by Fick, has been differently explained, § 169; 
 and 'Waiovrjas may rest ultimately upon similar ablaut gradations. 
 At least it is premature to assume lengthening j^er ichim in so 
 hazy a word. 
 
 ri]yavov is called Ionic, Hdn. II 3885 = Et. M. 743,50 (cf- 75697). 
 Both Tayr]vov and T^]yavov occur in Old Comedy. Athenaios cites 
 a form yyavov { = Ti]yavov?) from Anakreon 26 (§ 326). 
 
 Fick's contention that jj/xopos is a living Ionic form for &/j.iJ.opos, still awaits 
 proof. Evidence in favour of his view may be found in the gloss of Hesy- 
 chios : iifiopis' Kev-f), i(XTepi]fiev7\' K1(Txv\os HiSfirj. &fXfiopos is a strange form in 
 Hipponax 2, a poet whose intellectual character and whose use of language 
 is alien to the retention of such Homeric forms as are Aiolic in colouring. 
 See § 339. 
 
 7)Ka(TKd^w II. XYIII 2S1, for dAuo-Ka^co, Ionic according to Orion 7O4. 
 
 192.] H = E. 
 
 See § 139. On 6i-\ioixai = 6edoiiai, see on the verb, § 685; on 
 the interrelation of et and r/t, see § 232-239. 
 
 avr}pi6evTos Chios, 174 B 26, of which the usual form is avep-. 
 See § 167. 
 
 193.] Ionic H = I. 
 
 No interchange of -q and i can be maintained on the score of 
 \}/ripvdtov^=\lnp.vdLov, Et, Mag. 1 03.^5, nor in view of the name 
 2r]juo2't87}?, attested as that of the iambographic poet by Et. INIag., 
 and adopted by Christ in his History of Greek Literature, and by 
 Hiller in the new edition of Bergk's jbitJiohgia Lyrlca. Else- 
 where no trace of this form of the name appears ; while 2t|Mcoz't8rjs 
 is genuine Ionic from the evidence of a lead tablet from Styra 
 (19^33); and it is under this name that the author of the Mirror 
 of Women is usually cited by ancient authorities. 
 
 194.] Ionic H = I2. 
 
 Mat/JTis, often in Hdt. with different suffix^ than in MaiaJru, the later 
 name. Cf. Moitjtoj (= MajoiTai) Hdt. IV 123. We find Moicotij' IV 3 in all 
 
 ' A curious variation in suffix formation is presented by x^^'Ti"-!^^ ^^^ 
 •■t\'y6s which is found in A in Hippokr. VI 322. In the fifth century -a-yw-yii 
 was just coming into vogue (^Hippokr. 0^070)701) . 
 
 SI 
 
196.] THE LONG VOWELS: I. 185 
 
 MSS., and so Hippokr. Hdt. generally used -torts, -wttjs (jleXacryiwriSes, 
 ^eiuTis, @€ffcraAiSiTis, 'IraXiwrris). 'IffriaioorLS is the form in Hdt. as in Strabo, 
 though VIII 23, R has 'Io-toitjt'Sos ; and all MSS. have 'IffriaidriSos VII 175, 
 cf. I 56. 'AnirpaKi-r\T((tiv is the accepted form, IX 28, -t^ros 31, but 'A/xirpaKiuTai 
 occurs VIII 45, 47. Kirchhoff thinks that -tjtjs is properly Herodoteian and 
 that -CUTIS was smuggled in from the Kotvfj. Names in -cons are generally 
 non-Ionic. We find 'ItoAiojttjs IV 15. Hdn. II 231 n, ajnid Eust. 468 thinks 
 ■jrjTTjs in MaffffaXirjrrjs, 'AiroWaiviTiTris is Ionic. 
 
 Archilochos has iraiTjoua. See §§ I40, i, 202, 280. 
 
 195.] Ionic H=rAI. 
 
 lxn]((}6vov Archilochos^ 48 = Homeric fxtaKpove (E 3 1). A similar 
 balance of tj and at forms appears in ^ AkdtjiJievevs Beehtel, Thas. 
 (L.), 4 B ^, and 'A\daiix4vr}s. Ionic has no trace of atjjua-vs, a 
 form that comes to light in Aiolic. Archil. 167 rjixta-v TpLTov = 
 hvo rjiJLLcrv. 
 
 196.] Long Iota. 
 
 1. Ionic with other Hellenic dialects has retained a few eases 
 of r which may be assumed to be proethnic, e.ff. ikco, -tr?/?. 
 
 2. t on Hellenic soil from LvF(TLV(i>), ipi (olKTipo)), lay {piyiov), 
 lAeos and IkaosKaicrXi]-, Ikis from t-crAi;s = Aiolic Ikk-, 1(tos< 
 FiaFos (to-o? does not occur in Ionic poetry). On t from con- 
 traction of t + e in tpo's, Ipeti], &cc., in Herodotos^ see under Con- 
 traction, § 300, on t<i + t, § 270. Hdn. I 52627, II iHg^ held 
 that the i of trisyllabic nouns in -t? was long in Ionic, short in 
 Attic. 
 
 Ionic is on a plane with the non-assimilating dialects (?". e. all 
 except Aiolic and Thessalian) in lengthening short iota + crja to 
 IpL {"l[j.€pos Perinthos, 234 B 25). yivoixai<yiyv-^ seems to have 
 been the acce^sted form of the fifth century, though we lack the 
 evidence of old inscriptions. Oropos, i8,,j, about 400 B.C., has 
 yiveaOcov Mylasa, 248 A 15 (367-6 B.C.), yiv^adai Teos, 158., ge 
 (first century), ytvoix^voi. If we may trust the MSS. of the 
 iambographic poets, yiyvoixai is the better attested form for their 
 period. yivop.ai occurs in Anakr. 87. The substitution of yLvofxai 
 for yiyvo\xai appears to have taken place earlier in Ionic than 
 in Attic, in the inscriptions of which dialect yivop.ai does not 
 come to light until 292 b. c. Hdt., Anaxag., Demokr., Xanthos, 
 Pherekydes of Leros (22, 40, 48, ^^, 85, 89 : cf . 20), Herakl., Hrd. 
 I27, Arrian 3)^, 28^, have yLvo[xat. This form when found in later 
 writers who quote Ionic sources is no proof of Ionic colouring, 
 since yiv- is common after Aristotle. ylvcaa-Kco in Herodotos, Hippo- 
 
 ' Hoffmann (D. M. G. p. 23) denies that yivofj.at arose from ylyuofiai and 
 derives it from *yivfo/xai (cf. jinvati), but takes no note of yXvuxTKw- Both 
 arose from yiysj/-. The Ki-etan yivvSjievov {Mas. Ital. Ill 694, Gortyna) repre- 
 sents the halting-place on the road to ylv. ,-^"^^^~'' 
 
 OF THE '^ \ 
 
 TJNIVERSITY/ 
 -OF y 
 
l86 THE IONIC DIALECT. [197. 
 
 krateSj Demokr., Herakleitos, Melissos, Anaxag-., Herodas, is not 
 met with upon Attic inscriptions until the period of Roman 
 supremacy. In Hipp., Littre generally has yiyv-, e.g. II 636. C£. 
 § 5H9. Hdt. uses iJ.L(Ty(o, not iJ.Lyvvat as Arrian, on which see 
 
 A. J. P. Yl 449- 
 
 In kukIov Arch. 13 (Kaxtco 6^) we have an instance of -tcoy, 
 
 with which compare Skt. -Ij/as. The epic poets have -tu>v. 
 
 I occurs in ^vvUt€ Arch. 50, eaOUiv Anan. 5^. Cf. Attic trjjut 
 
 (Horn. t?/ju,t). Whether ea-OtiLv is to be compared with Attic ktjkoo 
 
 = Hom. Ki]KLOi), Attic iJLr]vi'X), /xr/f to) = Horn, jjl^^vim is doubtful. Cf. 
 
 Curtius' Verbuiii, I 301. 
 
 197.] Itacism. It is extremely doubtful whether there is any 
 instance of itacism in inscriptional Ionic of the fifth or previous 
 centuries. In the third edition of his Aussprache (p. 58) Blass 
 has w^ithdrawn all the examples he had collected (ed. 3, p. 51) 
 from the inscriptions in proof of an early appearance of t for et. 
 In the case of Mapcoz^ire'coi; ^ 196^7 not noticed by Blass, we have 
 a form by the side of which exist ISlapMveiriiav 1963 = Brit. 
 Bins. Catal. 125, No. 13, and Mapcozr/trecoy 1962, all three forms 
 occurring- upon coins before 400. The coin, Brit. Mus. Catal. 
 135, 15, has Mapwi/trecoi; on the front and MapoovirGiv on the re- 
 verse; Ma/^corirewr in Bechtel, 1965, being later than 400 B. c. 
 
 Of such forms as show both rjt and n, as in Attic ' \f)L(TTi]Lhi]s 
 and 'Apto-ret8>]s, the former is the older; but no instance of 
 a parallel form in t can be adduced. An 'A/jtoroKAtSrjs Styra, 
 I9jg3, is derived from 'AptoroKAos, an 'Apto-roKAetS?;? Styra, 1912 > 
 from 'Api(rroKX?/s. Greg. Korinth., p. 379, attests the existence 
 of diaeresis in nrjA.ei8?;s and Y\i-jXi]thr]s, herein confusing Homeric 
 and Herodoteian Ionic. On the latter form and on Herodoteian 
 patronymics, see § 235, Bredow, p. 190. 
 
 There are several forms in the Ionic of literature which point 
 to the later confusion between the et and I sounds, such as I have 
 shown, A. J^P. VI 41 9-450, to exist in the text of Homer. Cf. 
 e.g. rioAvreiKeos- Hdt. IV 147, &c., with the spelling of ^rparo- 
 vetKov Paros, 67, and of NetKijy Olbia, 129^^, both of the period 
 of the empire. For the older forms in t, see I. G. A. 79, 515. 
 Ilo\vvLK07 occurs on inscriptions from Attika and elsewhere 
 ('AvhpovLKov C. I. G. 2252, Samos). 
 
 Teiixapxos Styra, 190,5, is Lenormant's incorrect reading for 
 Ttfx-. TeL[x- is, however, attested in Tet/xayo'pa Cauer, 19524 
 (Rhodes). This form is due to the influence of reto-co, eVetaa, 
 TetcriKpaTi-js, &c. 
 
 EtSo/xfVeus Thasos (L.), 5^, about 300 B.C. (cf. ElhopLevia C. 
 
 1 See Head, H. N. 216. 
 
199-] THE LONG VOWELS: I. Y. 1 87 
 
 I. G. 31 84, -et (^41 8j, might be derived from etSo/xat. 'OA/3to7ToAet- 
 reocv Olbia, 13O3 (not before 200 B.C.), is certainly itacistic. 
 'OA/3to7roA.tr€ajz; 130^. 'A^po8etr?;s Eryth. 306, C 48, with 
 later et. 
 
 On the Homeric UoXmbos, see A^ Z. XXV 261, XXVII 275, 
 XXIX 236, A. J. P. VI 440. It occurs npon a metrical 
 inscription from Amorgos (No. 35) of the fourth or third century, 
 and in a document from Halikarnassos, 240^,3, dating- from the 
 fifth century according to Dittenberger. Ylokviheios Thessal. 
 345s4. The form IToADetSrj?, if it existed in earlier Ionic, must 
 have ceased to exist in Ionia by the fourth century. The forms 
 in r seem well attested ^. 
 
 For iX.y] Stein writes etA?j I 73, and eiAas I 202, d\ah6v I 172. 
 Cf. Kret. dpxtAAdy • apxt-Troineva. In the Glossary to Herodotos 
 (Stein, II 465) we find dp-l]v, as also in Plut. Lyk. 1 7 ; whereas 
 Hesychios has tpaves ' ol etpeves, Act/ccoyes. Brugmann in 
 Curtius'' Siud. IV 116, and J. Schmidt, Vocal. II 330, claim 
 that the Spartan tpr]v is derived from €pan]v, through *eppr]v 
 and tpprjv. A preferable explanation is that iprjv, like lpj]s and 
 ejo>/s, is an independent nominative not connected with ipcrrjv, 
 and that dpi]v is itacistic (Baunack, K. Z. XXVII ^(i(i). 
 
 irir], in Hdt. I 194, proved by the Elria of Attic inscriptions 
 to be itacistic, has forced its way into Ionic and Attic literature. 
 An tr^a is attested by Hdn. I 532, II 17. 
 
 On -Irj in relation to -et?;, -uj, see § 145. 
 
 On IpLaTLov, see § 324, 9. 
 
 198.] Relation of I to ET. 
 
 The statement that ev becomes I in Wvs, lOvvm, is incorrect. 
 Hdt. has €v6h I 6$, &c., Arrian, I^ ; but I6vv I 185; Idia II 
 ] 7, &c. ; WvTptxes VII 70. On the stones we notice a similar 
 juxtaposition of forms: Evdvixaxos Styra, 19193^, 'E.v6vveLbi]s 
 I9j9^, 'Wi;KAe7/[s] 194^, Wvva Chios, B. P. IF. 1889, p. 1195. 
 See Bezzenberger in his Beitrdge, IV 345. Wackernagel, A'. Z. 
 XXIX 151, suggests that iQv- became dQv- in post-Homeric 
 times through influence of ^vQv- (I. E. udhu). 
 
 199.] t. 
 
 I. I. E. {} is retained. 
 
 3. V developed on Greek soil as in other dialects, e.g. v from 
 vav in jSvvu), Hdt. II 96 ; from vXa in i\xi(TTvka, Sim. Am. 24ij 
 from vvF or vvi as in fui^o's (also Arkadian for koivqs). See § 380. 
 
 ' rioAuiSoi; occui-s on a late prose inscription fi'om Kyzikos, Mitth. X 205, 1. 1 ; 
 noAueiSrjs Tanais, Latyschev II 44117 is not Ionic. 
 
 - El- or 'E{v)9vfjiaxos 1939, not 'E{f)evfj.axos, as G. Meyer, Granun. § 121 note, 
 reads. If the reading EWv/xaxos is correct, we may compare EldvKapTiSrjs 
 Naxos, B. C. H. XII 464. See under f. 
 
l88 THE IONIC DIALECT. [200. 
 
 The V of 6p(Todvpr]<s in Sim. Amorg-. 17 {koX rrjs o-nicrOev opcr. 
 rjXaap.rjv) is suspicious; compare opaoOvpr] in the Odj/s. 22, 126 
 and ;^c^;^. aKvXoi Hrd. 3^3 is singular (o-kCtos?). Horn. oiCvpos; 
 in Arch. 129, Sim. Am. 7r,„ (fifth foot) the quantity of v is 
 uncertain. In Aristoph. ol(vp6s. 
 
 V and (0 : In Ionic we find 'Aj^iv/xofetz-o? Styra, 19155, apcopos 
 Sim. Am. 4, Anakr. 48 and 'A/^w/xrjros Thasos, 72j, forms which 
 reproduce the two Homeric adjectives. Hinrichs (//. E. V. A. 
 p. 81) asserts the Aiolic character of apLvpLUiv, though it is not 
 clear why the Aiolians should have possessed a monopoly of this 
 word, or why the v should be Aiolic solely. 
 
 iopT] Miletos, ioOy = Lat. s-fira, from ^aFoapd ov^aFcovpd ; ovpi] is 
 not connected. 
 
 In §§ 200-204 for the purpose of comparison with other dialects, certain 
 forms in a> are adduced which are not the result of a special Ionic change. 
 
 200.] 12 for A. 
 
 fcuco = ^0.01 is not restricted to Ionic, since we have in Boiotian ^ww and in 
 Kretan Scoco. fcow in tragedy where there is need of epic colouring. ^w<a 
 seems to have been formed from a perfect with the ablaut w. Whether 
 we have to deal with a reduction of co to in ^603 that is specifically Greek, 
 and whether the oi forms are pro-Hellenic, is not certain. In Ionic both 
 the w and forms exist, e.g. ^6eiv Sim. Amorg. i„; cf. Coes' iri, which 
 Brugmann, M, V. I 8, III 6, classes with his injunctives. Herakl. ^wnv 86, 92, 
 Hrd. 440. Parallelism of to and is not unusual, as witness yiyvwaKw, Aid. 
 yvoidi, Attic afKpiyvoew, x^^P^^i X^^V > ^^ovto Kallim., Aoeoi, &c. Homeric 
 ^0065 is a later formation for older ^ds, Brugmann, Gmndr. I, p. 458 ; ^Jtj, 
 e.g. Herodas I 4, 32 is from ^wi), as veS>v<vr)fwv, ibid. p. 463. Ionic ^o'tj appears 
 in Attic tragedy. Joh. Gr. 240, Meerm. 654 {SiWoi), Aug. 668, Vat. 698, 
 Greg. Korinth. § 29 mention the absurd notion that the lonians could say 
 dvOpooiros, &piffTos instead of avdp- &c. though Greg, sees that the w is in 
 place only in the vocative or where the article precedes &piaTos. w for a 
 was held to be found in Qwvixd^w, uvtSs Greg. Kor, § 30 ; see § 258. 
 
 201.] loAe 12 where Attic has E. 
 
 irAciJai, in Homer, Hdt., Hrd. 259, for irXeca, though the latter is more frequent 
 (Greg. Kor. 69, Bredow 171). ttAcoo has been held to contain an w which is 
 the ablaut of 17, i.e. one which does not originally belong in the present ; M. U. 
 I 45. It is derived from a perf. weTrXoofa. 
 
 202.] I2 = A. 
 
 OuKa and daiKeai in Hdt., cf. Attic Odcrao), 6a.K€co. Since 6aKos is = OdfaKos, 
 there is no ablaut of a to co. Hdt. has iraiaivi^o}, which is also the Attic prose 
 form except in Xenophon, Symp. 2, i. The noun has always d in Attic. 
 Theog. 779 iraiaffiv, cf. Archil, irai^ova, 76. See § 2S0. 
 
 The Ionic Attic form is deei}p6s = Doric 6ea.p6s ; on devpSs in the Thasiote 
 dialect, see § 286, i. The ground-form is *Qfa.fop6s. See K. Z. XXXI 289. 
 The Ionic form for Messenian flifQdvS, is Hiddvi). 
 
206.] THE LONG VOWELS .a. 1 89 
 
 203.] Ionic 11 = Attic H. 
 
 For Attic TTTTiffaw we have the Homeric irTcicra-ai in Hdt. IX 48 ; cf. Iliad, 
 IV 372 TTTaxTKa^a). Ionic TrrcixTcroD (Eustath. on A 371) is either a denominative 
 or a present formed from the base of the perfect. 
 
 On the suffix -t]tis, -cotls, see under H, § 194. 
 
 204.] X2 = I. 
 
 a/j-iraiTLs Hdt. see § 367. Cf. Aiolic irdoi/o) and ttw from perf. *TTeiTCDa. See 
 Schulze, K. Z. XXVII 420. 
 
 205.] Ionic i2 = AT. 
 
 In a few Ionic words the a o£ av seems sporadically, throug-h 
 influence of u, to have taken upon itself an colouring-, and this 
 o + u to have been pronounced as co ; cf . Delphic uiTov^ Spartan 
 
 0)7(3. 
 
 We have thus bi.a(l)M(TKova-)] Hdt. Ill 86, but -av- probably 
 IX 45 (v- I- -£*>-, and -a-), and v7T6(()avcris VII 36. ^wo-kco may 
 still be heard at Anchialos on the Black Sea. So also oj for av 
 in Tpcoixa, Tpu>ixaTir]s, rpco/xari^etz^, KaraTeTpcofxaTicrdat in Hdt., with 
 similar forms in Hippokrates, Aretaios, and Arrian, LuL 19. In 
 Hdt. IV 180, q and z have Tpcovixdroov, which Stein rig-htly rejects. 
 TpctivpLa is found in Lukian, d. d. S. %o, in all MSS. except 
 E. OcopLa'^ occurs in MSS. of Hdt. with such frequency that we 
 may well question whether DindorFs do)[xa and rpw/xa are not 
 preferable to Stein^s 6odvp.a and rpcovpia. The two chief classes 
 of MSS. here follow different principles as regards doj- and Oodv-, 
 the first class having- co, the second cov; in the others there is 
 wild confusion. In pseudo-Hippokr. irepl rexvqs, § ii, Gomperz 
 finds Ocopia in a corrupt reading- of A, M. In VI 496, we find 
 ^co/xa^erat in 6 ; 6av}xaCfii Littre, I 499. The pseudo-Ionists, 
 however, offer slender support to ^w/xa (Arrian, Ind. 34, 40, Oavpia 
 15, Eusebios, § 3 6(ap.aTL) ; Lukian testifies in every passage to 
 6oivp.a. See § 25H. 
 
 The £0 form in rpw/na, recalling the Attic and Ionic rpciaw, rerpoo/jLai &c. 
 might be derived directly from 't/rpw ; but this method does not avail us in 
 the case of a 9a>iJ.a (see § 258). That Bufia is a genuine form is evident from 
 Argolic ©wfiavTas B. C. H. IX 355 = 0. D. I. 3172 A .Phlius) ; cf. furthermore 
 6tj$os ( = drifos)' dav/j.a and d^yeia (flrj/^eta)* dav/xaa-rd. rpav/xa recalls Slav. 
 trujg., rpai/xa (Pind. rpii/xa) Slav, iraviti, rpvai, Tpvx<^- Beehtel, Lautlehre, p. 167, 
 derives dco/na and TpSifia., Oav/xa and rpav/xa from the ground-forms Bccvfia and 
 rpuvfji.a, neither of which has been preserved. 
 
 206.] Ionic 12 = Attic OT. 
 
 S)v is the form of the adverb in the Aiolic, Boiotian, Doric 
 
 ^ Bredow 142, Struve Quaest. de dial. Herod. Ill, p. 11 write Tpu/xa, but 
 Owv/xa or ddiv/xa. Cf. Joh. Gr. 240, Vat. 698, Aug. 668, Meerm. 654 ; KWyuo 
 Meerm. 654, Vat. 698. rpcifir] (sic) Ionic for rpSxns according to Eust. 102^2; 
 9916O) 165352, who says that in Ionic Tpww = ;8A.o3rTw (130415, 153210, 18032). 
 
190 THE IONIC DIALECT. [207. 
 
 (late Doric ovv) and Tonic ^ dialects. Thessalian ovv is only ap- 
 parently equivalent to Attic ovv, which seems to have been en- 
 grafted upon Homer upon the authority of Aristarchos, who 
 regarded the poet as an Athenian ; unless it may be held that ov 
 became co as did av in Tp&jjia. Hdt. has <hv, ovku>v, ovkow, oaovQv, 
 Totyapcov, with occasional lapses in the MSS. in the direction of 
 the Attic forms, as is the case in the MSS. of Luhian and Arrian. 
 The letter of Pherekyd. has cov ; the MSS. of Hippokrates, of 
 the letters, and of Euseb. Mynd., have ovv. Ai^etaios has ovv in 
 the first four, S)v in the later books. See § 352, note, ovv comes 
 to light upon a Vienna papyrus written in Ionic {Thilologus, 
 XLl 748, 1. 3). Herodas has ovv six times. 
 
 207.] Ionic 12 = OH. 
 
 The Homeric and Herodoteian oyhfiiKovTa is either a contraction 
 for oyhot]- (cf. 6y8o77Koz'ra, Attic inscription, C. 1. G. 1030^, and 
 Solon^s oyhisiKovTaiTT] 20^) or has o) from the influence of okt(^. 
 Neither oyhia- nor 6yho-l]KovTa has as yet turned up upon Ionic 
 inscriptions. The Chian oKra/coa-tcoi' 174 C 23 does not adopt 
 the CO of Aiolic oxrcoKoVtot (C. D. I. 281 A 30, Lesbos). Though 
 the Aiolic form records the influence of oKrdi, yet since that dialect 
 has oyho-qKovTa, nothing is thereby proved as to the Ionic form. 
 It should be borne in mind that, if the Homeric form is a con- 
 traction of 6y8ojy-, forms that arise under stress of the verse in 
 Homer are not criteria for the prose form. 
 
 Other instances of w for o-r] are : aAAoyrcorra?, h'vuxras, h>v€V(o- 
 Kaai, ivtvMTo, in Hdt.; cf. Theognis, 1298 ycocrdjuei'o?, and vioaaro 
 Apoll. Rhod. IV 1409 ; also ^jiocxra, ((ScoctOtiv, ^e/3co/j.e2'os, as in 
 Homer, jScoa-avn, eTnliuxrojJLai. Stein still holds (Pref. to school 
 edition, Lii) to the view that we have to go back to a stem forma- 
 tion in o (vo-, (3o-) ; cf. Leaf on M 337. (jBcoOeov, ([3o)6r](rav from 
 /3o7j0e'co (cf. Aiolic (SdOoevTi, (jSuOo-)]) are now expelled from the | 
 text of Hdt. Cf. Babpofxirn'o^ Lampsakos, C. I. G. 3641 L 8. 
 See under ^niraction (§ 296). 
 
 The Dijtldhongs in Ionic. 
 
 208.] AT. 
 
 ai arises in Ionic as in other dialects by epenthesis : [Kalvo\i.ai 
 Anakr. 89, cf. \iaiv6Ka. Sappho, i,s; by contraction, § 274. For 
 Attic 8a?, babiov, Ionic has 8at?, baibiov, cf. Hippokr. VIII 32, 
 50. Hippokr. has a-cpahaiCo) VIII 92 (6) and paiov VIII 124, 274 
 (6) and often paiOvixdv, patCeiv, cf. § 182. 
 
 ' Joh. Gr. 240, Greg. Kor. 16, Aug. 668, Apoll. wep] o-i/rS. p. 22S..2 Schn. ov 
 irapa. rhv oiiv rj crvvOeffis (sc. rov fiuv), aWa irapa Thv S>v, uvra Kal 'IcoviKbv Koi 
 Alo\iKhy Kol Aa>piK6v. 
 
209-] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC: Al. 191 
 
 209.] Loss of t from diphthong AT before a vowel ^. See 
 
 Fritseh, / . //. 1). 37 ff., Allen^ Versijication, 72. The inscriptions 
 attest the change in the following- instances : — 
 
 JFest Ionic. Tepcavaov Terone, 7 (before 420), cf, Mltiheil. X 
 Oifi"] if.; aeLcf)vyujv Amphipolis, 1O5, 25 (357 B.C.); dcti/aCr[ai] 
 Rob. I 172, Chalkis^ and according to Plut. 2, 298 C, found in 
 Miletos; 'AvKaos C. I. G. 7375 {'AvKalos Head, //. K 518); 
 'Aktucdv 8431 (vase incr.) ; Mivbaov Mende^ 17 (500-450), but 
 Mcvhairj after 400; ^irovbaos Styra, 19141", AtrrKpaos iQ]^^^', 
 TLjxaos 19313. About the same number of forms with AI are 
 found in West Ionic, e.ff. 'AdrjvaLrj, Tolci, Rob. I 191. 
 
 Island Ionic. 'Adr]var]^ Delos, 54 (fifth cent.)'^, NtKay Thasos, 
 72g (300-250), ^NtKcxT^y ; cf. Uprj<Up€ir]. In 1. 10 of the same 
 inscription we have ^AOrivairj^. Fritseh, V. H. I), p. 37, suggests 
 that NiKas is not certainly an Ionian, being merely proxenos. 
 But cf. § 165, note. "" AQr\va{.-\] occurs frequently in the Ionic of 
 the islands : Keos 41 (epigram), 51, Paros 64 (cf. Herwerden, 
 Studia critica in ejngrammata Graeca, p. 103, no. XIX), Thasos 
 72jQ ; cf. also Roberts, I, p. 64, and No. 165, where an inscription 
 of uncertain provenance has "" AB-qvaios twice, Roberts reads 
 'AOriviii, a rare form in an old inscription. No. 26 (Naxos). It 
 recurs C. I. A. IV B 373 ^, where it is not Attic. We have the 
 contracted form 'A6r]vai C. I. A. IV B 373,5 (sixth cent.), IV 
 373, w (about 400). ' A6r]va came into general use in Attic about 
 350 B. c. The old 'A^Tji-atrj held its i in part because of the 
 early adoption by the lonians of 'AOrivi). On the assumption of 
 an Old Attic 'A^rjmtrj, cf. § 78. 
 
 Asiatic Ionic, ad lasos, 105^0 (^^^ o^ fourth century, hence 
 not certainly genuine Ionic); A67].vaii]i ^JcoKaeis Phokaia, 170 
 (age uncertain), ^MKaioiv or -aiioiv imperial period. Head, IL N. 
 507, recalling the Attic inscriptional forms <l>wKais, 4>a)KatKo'? ; 
 'A^?yya? Erythrai, 206 A 27, 29, B 20 (in the last example we 
 have ' Adr]v'a^ 'A-rrorpoTTaLas) after 278 B.C. ; 'AOrjvas Samos, 2l6 
 (before middle of fourth cent.). 'AOrjvas is not certainly Ionic, 
 since this document may contain an admixture of Attic ^. The 
 above list, so long as it is not augmented by more certain proofs 
 of the appearance of a(t), makes for the conclusion that in Asiatic 
 Ionic intervocalic a from at is not frequent. ' Adi-\vair] is attested 
 in Halik. 240 A 3, 241, Chios, 173; metrical inscr. 265 (unc. 
 loc); Erythrai, 200, 20432, Priene, 142; atet in Halik. 240 A 6, 
 and so all editors except Ruehl, in 23837. 4>a)Kat€i;s Eryth. 207 
 (not much older than 1 00 b. c). 
 
 1 Hdn. II 276,6 (Et. M. 662,0 "AA/faos &c. 
 
 ^ 'Adrivda in Attic inscriptions of the sixth and fourth centuries ; cf. 
 Alkaios 9, Theokr. 28j. 
 
 ' 'Adriva in Attic prevails after 362 b.c. in inscriptions^ 
 
 li 
 
192 THE IONIC DIALECT. [209. 
 
 Ill th.ej)oefs, whose authority stands second only to that of the 
 inscriptions, we do not find any evidence beyond that presented 
 by Ai]Oaiov Aiiakr. I4, with at short, yepcaovs Tyrt. lOgu (cf. 
 Tyrt. fra<^'. 17), is called in question by Bergk, though the at is 
 found in all MSS. atet appears Tyrt. 5,, Mimn. i^^ Sol. 13^, 
 Sim. Keos 85^, Theognis more than 20 times, Sim. Amorg. i^, 
 7^5; the poetical ate'y Xenoph. i^,^, Theog. 631, &c. ^ ; atwyos 
 Anakr. 1124; Kateros Archil. 86^ (epod.). 'A)(att?j? should be 
 expected, and doubtless is the correct form, Sim. Amorg. 23, for 
 'Axdtr;? (Fick, £. B. XI 269), which is due to an Attic scribe. 
 Cf. 'Axat'([a] C. I. A. II 723.. Herodas has 'A6r]vair] four 
 times. 
 
 In Herodotos the chief difficulty as regards settling the question 
 of the occurrence of a for at is presented by atet. Proper names 
 in -atevs preserve the t except in <t>coKaejJj, in seven passages 
 according to Stein, though the same editor adopts ^oiKaitvs in 
 thirteen cases. <i>ooKads Bechtel, No. 170, ^iaKauvs 207, are of 
 doubtful authority ^, the latter at least being very late. Pherek. 
 44 has 'Adi]vaLi] as Hdt., &c. 
 
 Nouns and adjectives in -att7/, -att/co's, -att?, preserve the t. 
 Qi]l3aU II 28, &c., appears to be correct, since a ©rj/^atews is 
 defensible solely on the ground of analogy. 
 
 atet is Stein^s reading, though the MSS. are uncertain in the 
 extreme. Stein^s eclecticism dictates atet, but aeivaos I 93, 145, 
 (cf. devdovTa v 1 09, aUv- AE). aet may be West Ionic, but 
 scarcely Asiatic Ionic, ecraet, in Pherekyd. of Leros, has no 
 parallel form with the at diphthong in that author. Herakl. 2, 
 20 has atet (but aet^cooy, devaov), Anaxag. 14, 15 aet in Simplic. 
 156^0, 164J8; so also Melissos i &c., where Mullach edits atet. 
 Authors quoting Dem. Mor. have aet almost invariably, but atet 
 occurs 88. Hippokr. atet, e.ff. Ill 182. atero's is probably the 
 genuine reading in Hdt. despite the variation of the MSS.; at 
 does not become a in this word and in ateratos, evaUrtov, &c., 
 in the Atti?? inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries ^, 
 though atet and aet contend for mastery in the official Attic 
 documents until 361 b. c, when det is declared the victor. It is 
 incorrect that Ionic did not possess det. ekau] and congeners, 
 KAato) Theog. 931, 1041, 1132, Archil. 13, 20, and Kutco do not 
 admit the d form (cf. Theog. 1 145). From the stem KaF we have 
 Xvx^voKah], TTvpKdCri (Hdt., Herakl. 103). On the interrelation 
 of Kata) and kolo}, see Wackernagel, A'. Z. XXV 268 ; Brug- 
 
 ' aevvaos Hdt. I 145, as v. I, 
 
 ^ Sappho 44 has ^o/coas. 
 
 ^ aerSs is found in Delos, Ditt. Syll. 367, 191. 'Aerlwvos lasos, Bechtel 104,6 
 (before 353 B.C.) may have lost i. Is Horn. 'Heriojc connected (Blass)? Hdn. 
 II 859,3 calls the 77 of 'Hericov Ionic. 
 
211.] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC: Al. 1 93 
 
 mann, Gr. Gr. § 18, 54. Kaioy (with diphthong-al ai) was also 
 Hellenistic. 
 
 210.] Ionic AI = A of other dialects. 
 
 eralpos is the Ionic form. C£. Iratp/fios, kTaipriti] in Hdt., 
 kraipdr] in Sim. Keos 118, Hippon. i,,, Arch. 79, epode 85, Sim. 
 Am. 749, Hdt. have kraipo^, so too Theog, 643 and often, erapos 
 is epic only, though claimed as Tonic, without any chronological 
 distinction, by Greg. Korinth. p. 457. See Hinrichs, M. E. V. A. 
 p. 90. The accent of kraipos is due to the influence of kTaipa. 
 
 ■napaijiaTr]^, an Ionic form, 4' 132. An Attic inscription, 
 C. I. A. I 5, I (5CO-456), has 7rapai|8arr;?. Attic cult documents 
 are coloured by lonisms to a limited extent. 
 
 alhaa-pLOs, Chios, 1 83 A 30, B 30, is an unexplained form for 
 abaijjxos. Cf. Tarent. aveypLa^=alviyp.a. 
 
 iraKaiCTTi] in ■naXaiaTiaia, k^aTTakaLara, TpnraXataTa Hdt. I 50 > 
 Attic inscriptions TraXacm] span (TraAator?;'? wrestler from Trakaioo). 
 In later writers Trakaia-Trj as in Ionic, with an anaptyctic t ; cf . 
 TpoL(i]if TpoCrjv, TepaiaTos Tepaa-Tos. Upon a late inscription 
 from Milesian territory C. I. G. 2860^3 we read TraXaa-T&v. 
 
 ldar/iV7)s is the Herodoteian form, not IQai-, as is found in P. J?. II 17 ; cf. 
 Greg. Kor. p. 551. 
 
 AI = A(i). 
 
 ^aUvvov Thasos (L.) 18 C 5, Y{ap.4>aii]'i Thasos (L.) 19 A 6, 
 Aayot'r; Miletos, 99, from Aavai] H 319 in a passage held by some 
 to be an Ionic insertion. The myth of Danae is referred to 
 nowhere else in the Iliad. Hekataios 358, has /\ava< Aardij. 
 Another instance of at for a is suggested by Bechtel, Thas. Insc/i. 
 p. 28 : t 222 valov 8' opo) ayy^a iravra, Aristar.; MSS. vduv. Cf. 
 hvda, Zeleia, and other forms, § 220. 
 
 211.] Varia. 
 
 1. There is no interrelation between 77 and ai in 'AX6r]ixevii9, 
 Thasos (L), 4 B 3, compared with ' AXdaifxivris, similar to that 
 existing between ijixLo-vs and Aiolic alp-ia-iiav, C. D. I. 2139. The 
 r\ of '' AK6i]ixlvr]s is that of dA^?)o-Kco, akQi](Top.ai ; see Bechtel, 
 ad loo. 
 
 2. at in k^aiOpa-advovTos, Mylasa, 248, is referred by Lagarde 
 {Gesammelfe Abhandl. 70) to Avestan sdithra-, k^aTpdirrj^' and 
 iarpaTTTis to Old Pers. MMl/i^ajjdvd (Lagarde, p. 68, Le Bas, Toy. 
 Arch. Ill no. 388). 
 
 3. Archil. 3, baCixot}v = bai]ix(tiv. The latter is derived from 
 bat,ijix(j)v. 
 
 4. Hdt. has in compounds formed from yfj the ending -yato? : 
 vTToyatos IV 200, II 148, II 100 (e written over at in B) ; 
 
 o 
 
« 
 
 194 THE IONIC DIALECT. [212. 
 
 lj.€(T6yaLos I 145, 175, II 7 {-y€os in R) and in many other 
 passag-es ; kTiCyaios II 125 {R as in II 100); [x^kayyaios II 12 
 {-ytos R d z) ; ^aOvyecos TV 23 (dz, -yeo^ ceferi), read -yato? 
 since Bekker. Hippokr. VI ^^6 has /xeo-o'yeto? (d -yeos). Here JT 
 the interrelation of at and ei is due to the different treatment of [| T 
 the ground-form. See § 421. Blass thinks that -yeos is the 
 only correct form. 
 
 212.] EI. 
 
 The diph thong EI will here be treated under the divisions — - 
 
 I. Genuine EI = pan-Hellenic and proethnic EI. 
 II. Spurious EI (monophthongic) = Attic ei, Doric 77. 
 Some doubtful cases will be considered at the close (§ 225). 
 
 Ill 
 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 ((( 
 
 213.] Note on the orthography of Ionic inscriptions. Con- .,"' 
 
 fusion between E and EI as representatives of the two EI^s is of ii| 
 
 not infrequent occurrence upon Ionic inscriptions antedating the ^ 
 
 year 400. After that period monophthongic EI was gradually H 
 diphthongized. 
 
 1. Genuine EI represented (a) by EI. 
 bvi'aiJ.E[ Teos 156 B 31. 
 EI8ws Teos, 156 B 21, 25. 
 EI Halik. 2383,. 
 HEI^oCs Thasos, 70. 
 
 (/3) by E rarely. 
 
 TTotr/o-Eai' Teos, 156 B 30 (but here t has been dropped). H.^™ 
 
 Ett€v Didyma, Roberts, I 139. Cf. Meisterh.- p. i^^. ■ 
 'Apio-70KAE8[7;s] Styra, ig-^o- 
 
 NeoKAE8r;s Styra, 19260- ^f, 
 
 2. Spurious EI represented (a) by E. 
 
 7:po(T€pbEv Thasos, 68. 
 ^ei'yEi' Halik. 2383^. 
 eTTtKaAEz^Halik. 238^5. 
 6(f)€LKEv Thasos, 71^^ (fourth century). 
 
 In Attic the last examples of E for spurious EI date from 
 350-300. 
 
 (/3) by EI rarely. 
 
 Elx^ov Halik. 2383^, 
 
 Instances of the writing of etVt, &c., will be given § 224, 9. j . 
 The diphthongization of the et of eijui may be traced back as far ! | ""i 
 as the sixth century in Attic. <l, 
 
 214.] Genuine EI in radical syllables. ' ' 
 
 E.ff. 4>€ibvia)v Styra 193^,.,; ^etStAeo) Kyme, Rob. I 174 
 'Shibcoii Styra, T9yg; TiLxi,ov(r{<T)i]s Miletos, 98, &c. 
 
 |l 
 
215] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC: El. I95 
 
 The following" words call for special attention : 
 
 1. ret in eKTeicnv Zeleia, 11317? iKTeCa-coa-t II 335, the future and 
 aorist of rico (t) being reto-o) and ereto-a^: Tetcrapx^os Styra 193^; 
 TeCa-avhpos Smyrna^ ^53hj Teto-t/cparr]? Thasos (L), I7g, 19 B 3; 
 Teia-iixaxos Halik. 240,1. Similar forms occur in other dialects 
 {Biphthong EI, p. 17, A. J. P. VI 443). Names in Tio-- are ita- 
 cistic, but not so those in Tt/x-. It is better to assume a root 
 qdl, whose weak form is qi in Tiixri, than to maintain that 
 case-levelling" has produced rtju, : nom. ret/x" ; gen. Tt\ias, whence 
 Tijxrj, throug"h remembrance of the long penult of the nominative 
 (and not with nehentoniges l, King-Cookson^ p. 234). See Schmidt's 
 Neufra, p. 396. 
 
 2. eyeiKoi^ and connected forms [hr]V€iy\xai Hdt. VIII 37)^: 
 ej/jEI/cayrcoz; Chios, 174 B 4, eveiKov Anakr. 623. The et formation 
 occurs in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Theokritos, Kretan, Boiotian, 
 Aiolic, and has been explained by Brugmann, Ind. Forsch. I 174, 
 from kv (prep.) + -/eiK, which is not connected with kv^yK-. Cf . 
 Baunack hischnft von Gortyn p. ^6 ff., Fick, G. G. A. 1883, 
 p. 590. See § 232, 609. 
 
 215.] Genuine EI in other syllables. 
 
 On toutEI, yjjTTOti^EI, a(j7roi'8EI, &c., cf. ^ ^16. 
 
 The ei of At.€iTpi(f)r]s, Keos 44 B 12, is from a stem biFo and 
 reproduces the old locative. Cf. Atetrpe^j]?, C. I. A. I 4022, 447 
 III ^'^ ; Kypr. Atfet^ejuis C. D. I. 60^] ; AUl Dodona 1582, 
 Korkyra, C. I. G. 1869. In Homer, Zenodotos read StetTrerTjs 
 for the vulg-. bu77€T-)]s. Cf. ArjtTreV?;? (perhaps) Styra, I9i8i- 
 
 et in suffixes from e(o-)i is regularly preserved, never becoming 
 ?jt (§ 232). Some examples of -e«j, -eicK-eata are given in 
 §§ 175 if. Others are: ahpavdi] Aret. 150, 261. aetKeirj Hdt. 
 I 73, &c., as in Homer. aKpi/Sei-q Hippokr. ep. 173. aaeXydi] 
 Hipp. ep. 1730, 44. aardevdi] Hdt. IV 135, VIII 51, Hipp. II 78. 
 aa^aXeu] Hdt. II 1 21 (a), III 7, IV ^^. avrapK^ii] Dem. Mor. 
 38 (MSS. -eta), 39, Hipp. ep. 1737, 44. e77t/xeAetrj Hippokr. ep. 
 1757. ev\a(3€Lri Hippokr. ep. 124, i6jq. eviraOeu] Hdt. I 135, 
 191, &c. vcadeit] Aret. 208. Tro\vTiki]9(Lr] Hippokr. II 60. 
 Tipoa-qveLt] Hippokr. II 270, Aret. 250. 
 
 In many cases we find -it] in place of -etT] in nouns derived 
 from sigmatic stems. Most of these occurrences may safely be 
 set down to confusion on the part of the copyists. In some 
 words, however, the -trj is genuine, having been transferred from 
 
 ^ Arkad. reiw is a neologism. Brvigmann, Grundr, I, § 314, doubtfully sug- 
 gests that ereio-a is from *€T7jtcra. 
 
 ' Greg. Kor. 68. 
 
 ^ Hdt. has /carej'etx^')''"'' ^ut Lukian d. S. 17, Kareufx^^""'^ ^^^ Asirol. 15, 
 Karevexdv- Philip of Pergamvim, B. C. H. II 273 has i^-fiViyKa : cf. Hdu. H 
 507.,, Et. M. 33932, Eust. 71215, 98337, 118345. 
 
 O 2 
 
^1 
 
 H)6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [2 1 6. 
 
 nouns with vocalic stems in which -trj, not -eirj, was the proper 
 termination. To what extent this -trj has found admission into 
 Ionic is difficult to discover. Of the following- examples, dxpeXCt] 
 seems the only certain case. 
 
 avaibu] is the reading- of in Theog, 64S, of c in 291 ; 
 elsewhere -et?], cf. § 175. aa-i^aXiy] Hippokr. II 634 Littre 
 (-etay A D R^, &c.), but -etrjy II 244, III 234. hv(T}xevir] Demokr. 
 Mor. 202g ; evixevir] Hdt. II 45 is written by Holder against the 
 authority of the MSS., which have -eta or -ea; KaKorjOt-q Demokr. 
 3Ior. 22 (Stob.); nokvixaOir] Herakl. 16 according- to Bywater, 
 though Diog. Laert. has -dr]. Cobefs irovXvixaOriir] is certainly 
 incorrect. 7rpo^j]6€ir} is correctly handed down in Xenoph. i^^. 
 Hdt. has Trpofx-qOii] I 88, III ;^6 (C P d -eir]). A schol., quoted 
 by Bredow, p. 188, says tj)s veoixipa^ 'laSo? eort to kiyeiv ti]v 
 TTpojxriOeLav irpofxridiav. w^eAu/ is the better attested form; cf. 
 Hdt. V 98 {-dn d r), VII 139 (-et'r? C P d), Demokr. 3Ior. 184, 
 Hippokr. II 334 Littre (many MSS. -et?/), Aretaios 238, 
 Eusebios § 4. In Hippokr. II 626, Littre reads wc^eAetrj (-itj 
 AC). With oxj^eAtj], cf. fc)(/>eAta C. I. A. I 835, in Thukydides, 
 &c. No Attic inscription has -eia. 
 
 By contraction of e+t, § 284, e + ei, § 310. 
 
 216.] Genuine EI from e + anaptyctic t. 
 
 Ionic examples of this phenomenon are d(Tyr\Ka Smyrna, Bed. 
 Mo7iatsberichfe, 1875,554, 1. 7; etcrxTjKare Erythai, Mover, k. ^ijiX. 
 1875, P- 99'} '^o.pd(T^i]Tai. Olbia, C. I. G. 2058, a 4, — all late 
 inscriptions. 
 
 217.] Genuine EI from Ef-. 
 
 elpj'ivr] Eryth. 1999, 203g, &c., perhaps from Fpava, k-FXpdva. 
 The North- West Greek and in part Doric dpdvd appears to be 
 derived fi'om a root Fpd. If from kFprivT], we should expect -qprjva 
 in Doric, €ppi]va in Aiolic, which never occur. I cannot therefore 
 adopt Meisttf-'s derivation (G. D. II 93) from €v-Fp/]V)]. Spitzer, 
 Arkadischer Bialekf, p. 20, attempts unsuccessfully to explain the 
 dialectal interrelation of d and r\ after p in this word. See also 
 Kretschmer, A'. Z. XXXI 288. Attic elpijvrj, not dpdvrj, since the 
 d of the final syllable has become 7;. Cf. Saussure {Mem. soc. ling. 
 Vn 91). 
 
 218.] Genuine EI from HI. 
 
 TrAeioTos from I.E. ple'nto- <pleis- by proethnic contraction of 
 e and /. The Ionic dialect offers no trace of ttAtJoto?, Aekadian 
 § 20. On -nXdor, &c., see § 219. xpdos Hom., Theog-. 1 196, 
 X/37/to? and xprios Gortyna (13aunack, iJie Tnsclirift von Gorfpi, 
 51), xp'i'a = Kretan xp'i^a Cauer, 1214^. 
 
2ig.] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC : El. 197 
 
 219.] E from EI before vowels. 
 
 Genuine EI suffers the loss of its second element, as does AI 
 (above, § 309), though not frequently ^. 
 
 I . Ini5criptio7ial Fonns. 
 
 West Ionic : A Chalkidian vase in Roberts, I 189 F, has Alvetjs; 
 cf. AtVetrjsin Menekrates ap/'d Dion. Halik. ^.^. 1 77 (Jac.). KAew 
 C. I. G. 8369, Latysehev II p. 305, Herodas 393; Qdk^a 8413 ; 
 27re&) 8354. 
 
 Asiatic Ionic: irou'ia-eav Teos, 1^6 B 30; baaiav Miletos, 
 loOg, 6- Cf. vLKTiOir] (-EE) Zankle, I. G. A. 518. 
 
 Other examples, as Fritsch (F. II. 2>. p. 41) states, are not free 
 from the suspicion of not being- pure Ionic, Uocnbiov Chios, 
 ^77n (about 300 B.C.), Smyrna, 15333 (this name with et, Perinth, 
 234 B 34, Th. (L.), 10 A 10); 'Hpd/cAeo? Eryth. 206 A 12 (after 
 278 B. c); cf. 'HpaKk^cav aryjkiuiv Hdt. II ;^^ (R d, -etcoy A B) ; 
 'HpaKAecorou 2o6 A 38, -e(OTr]s 206 B 26 (after 278 B. c), 
 Eretria, A. J. A. VII 248, no. 11, Halik. 241 (metrical), 'HpaKAew- 
 T(ov Head, //. N'. 500, AtoKAe'ot? Phanag., Latysehev II 351, 'Hpa- 
 KXecoTLs ibid. 289. Meisterhans,^ p. 34, quotes 'H/ja/cAetwrou from 
 C. I. A. I 6^-^, before 403 b. c; '"HpaKkecorriv II 613^5 (298 B. c). 
 Hdt. has 'Hjoa/cAeos. Cf. 'Po8o/cAeta Samos, 225, ^HpaKk^CoLcnv 
 Teos, 156 B ;^^ (fifth century), 'HpaKkdov Erythrai, 20 1^^ 
 (early fourth century). Swpeds Ephesos, 147x5 (3°° B.C.); 
 Upariai. Eryth. 206 C 13, — the only instance of this form, while 
 there are ten of leprjretat. Uprj Pantikap. 123 (third cent.), 
 Ephesos, 150 (late), from iepe(t)rj ; cf. Hdt. tpetrj I 175, V 72. 
 €^coAea, -navoik^a Bechtel, 263 (Lykian), may be Ionic or Attic. 
 
 Nouns in eto^rjto and nouns and adj. from sigmatic and i]v 
 stems generally retain et in all branches of Ionic. 
 
 The form haaiav in Miletos loo^, an inscription dating, 
 according to Rayet, from the fifth century, is as complete 
 a parallel to taaia in Hdt. as might be desired ; and the more 
 interesting, in view of possibility of the Milesian dialect having 
 been that of early Ionic prose, though of course an isolated form 
 proves nothing. See § 18. Greg. Korinth. p. 440, says r?;s 
 dr\kiias TO I i^aLpovac, Kal iirl irdaris TTTuxreojs tovto TTOLOvaiv, 
 quoting Hdt. for drjkioov and Or^kerj. Following are the forms 
 adduced from Hdt., with the evidence from other quarters of 
 Ionic. Cf. § 419, 506. 
 
 ^ Xpvireos, apyvpeos, xa^ff^j 'E/crJpeoy, Ne(rT6peos are usually cited by the 
 grammarians, e.g. Joh. Gr. 240 B, 241, Greg. K. 433, Meerm. 650, Vat. 697, 
 Birnb. 67740, Hdn. II 42628, 861^, An. Ox. I 29222, II 12717 (Theogn.), I 4433, 
 I 35613, Apoll. Conj. 2339, Schn. ; /cTjAeos Hdn. II 61 4, 8611, Schol. Ven. A on 
 217 ; irapSaKeos An. Ox. I 35612, Et. M. 65235 (also irapSaArj and \eovT7J,<.er}=^ 
 eiT) ; fj.ap/jLdpeos An. Ox. I 27326, Bust. 3937. See also Hdn. II 27626, 9097? 86I4, 
 Et. Gud. 37955, 40625, 45217, Bust. 2831, cf. 64O3, Tzetz. Bx. II. 9521, An. Par,III69i9. 
 
I 
 
 1-5 
 
 12; 
 
 I— I 
 
 iJ 
 
 <^ 
 EH 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 8.? 
 
 to to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 d 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 h 
 
 O 
 
 w 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 O 
 
 8 
 
 rCHH 
 rr.l— ( 
 
 1— 1 
 
 <^ 
 
 <i> ■as 
 8 8 
 
 01 oa 
 
 
 -*• 
 
 00 ^ 
 n o 
 
 ^- a 
 
 -go; 
 
 <:- 
 
 X X 
 8 8 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ro On 
 
 o • 
 
 .&" 
 
 " 1— 1 
 <5<S 
 
 b b 
 8 8 
 to to 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CI 
 
 ^^ 
 
 CI. CI. 
 
 ';i "=> 
 
 IK >1> 
 
 
 W 
 W 
 
 - 1^ 
 
 5 ^^ 
 M ITS 
 
 => c. 5 
 <1> '35 ^^l 
 
 w 
 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 ft 
 
 at 
 
 • 
 
 CS 
 
 1— 1 
 
 1—1 
 
 O 
 
 ft 
 
 w 
 
 :^ 
 3 
 
 m 
 I- l- 
 
 8 8 
 < < 
 
 
 s 
 
 HH a.S 
 
 ". .^.t§ 
 ft t-f 
 ft '^^ e 
 
 .? 8.? 
 
 XXX 
 p- fr 8 
 
 Q. Q. Q- 
 
 h b- b- 
 
 3" 
 
 < 
 
 8 
 
 to 
 
 »3 
 
 3 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 ID 
 
 a 
 < 
 
 til ^ 
 
 01 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 <S 
 
 tit 
 
 §- 
 to. 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 a 
 <s 
 
 X 
 
 8 
 
 Q. 
 
 0\ 
 & On 
 
 & b 
 
 b b 
 8 8 
 
 to to 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 "IS 
 
 u; 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 <s 
 
 h 
 
 8 
 
 i>. 
 
 bi) 
 o 
 o 
 J3 
 H 
 ;^ 
 <3 
 
 u/ 
 
 X 
 
 8 
 
 ro 
 
 VD 
 
 OS 
 00 
 
 I^ 
 
 Oh . 
 
 ^?<2 
 
 
 Ph' 
 
 w 
 o 
 
 ^ o 
 
 •*% 
 
 c -? 
 
 O to 
 
 o e 
 
 c . 
 
 
 
 b 
 8 
 to 
 
 
 
 on 
 8 
 
 8 
 < 
 
 c2 
 
 O 
 
 !h 
 
 ft 
 
 o 
 C 
 
 8 
 
 r-O 
 
 !>. 
 
 <: 
 
 My 
 
 
 X 
 
 8 
 
 .5 
 
 1 <^ 
 
 <5 
 
 S. 
 
 to 
 
 i 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 b 
 8 
 to 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 b 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 -O 
 
 ^8 -M 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 X 
 p- 
 
 a. 
 b- 
 
 8 
 
 s. 
 
 to 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 
 S 
 
 I M* ■ 
 
 m « 
 .2 C 
 
 •4'. 
 
 
 X 
 
 8 , 
 i: : 
 
 "i- i 
 00 , 
 
 -< ! 
 
 |! 
 
 ,5 
 
 V 
 
 X 
 
 8 
 
 I: 
 
 O 
 ID 
 
 a' 
 
 ci3 
 
219.] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC: El. 199 
 
 It is noteworthy that the iambographers refrain entirely from 
 the use of the shortened forms. Doubtful support is however 
 g-iven to the Herodoteian adj. in -e'a by the Homeric 'Pea, ^adia, 
 ot)K€a ^. There is but a sing-le occurrence of this formation in the 
 eleg-y {rax^atv}. It is inadvisable to refer this adj. form to the 
 influence of the occasional Attic writing- ea (for the first time in 
 an -V- adj. upon an inscription 345 b. c). In Thukyd. rjjxi- 
 (ria?, Xenophon nXaTiq, Plato rnxiaias, Philemo dpacrea yvvrj 
 are attested. Theokr. has evpea, and abea, a form occurring in 
 Epicharmos and Alkman, Archimedes fnxta-ea. The Attic forms 
 in literature and inscriptions are too sporadic to have produced so 
 complete a disturbance of the MSS. of Hdt. as that indicated 
 § 506. Cf. Johansson, £. B. XV 184, K. Z. XXX 405. 
 
 3. TiXiov (§ 543) and related forms are here classed together, 
 (l) i-less forms: -nXiov, TrXiovi, irXiova, tt\€oo, irXeovctiv, 
 
 ttX^ovs, TrXeovMS (and irXevv, irXevvos, TrXevpa, TrXevves, iiXivvcov, 
 TrXevvas'^), in Hdt., according to Stein, irXiov Solon 32^, Phok. 
 4, Anax. 6 (Mullach, Simpl. et); irAeco Demokr. Mor. 92, Anax. 
 13; irXicav Herakl. 112 (Cobet, irXeioov vulg.) ; ttX4ov and irXiov 
 Melissos, § 14; irXioves Demokr. 115, TrX^ovas Theog. 605; 
 irXiovtaa-i 800 ; --nXeos Hdt., cf. Archil, ^i^^ ; TtXeov Oropos, 
 184, Keos, 439; TrXdovos Keos, 43^, Demokr. 3Ior. 21; TrAeco 
 Miletos, lOOo; TrAeo) Anakr. 94, (eleg.) ; ttX4ov St/r. (lea 46. 
 (2) Forms with i : ttXclov Sim. Amorg. 2^, and Theog. 606 ; 
 TrAetoVwr Demokr. 20]3,.7rAetoi'a Theog. 702, TrAeico 907 (TrAeioi' 0). 
 Hdt. has irXelov I 192, irXeiovs I 167, II 1 20, 1 21 (8) in all MSS. 
 Bredow and Stein unite in expelling these forms from the text, 
 a procedure followed by Holder except in I 167. Hippokrates 
 and Aretaios have both irXelov and -nXiov. Codex A of Hippokrates 
 has the t-less form sometimes where the other MSS. have et. 
 TiXeiov lost its iota before any other form, according to Wacker- 
 nagel, K. Z. XXIX 144, because the e bore the accent, while in 
 other forms i was tonic (TrXeicov). 
 
 4. 'A[xaX6€r]s, Anakr. 8 (for Bergk^s 'A//aA^t?}s), seems warranted 
 in the light of Phokyl. 'A/ixaA^etrjs 7^. aiovra Anakr. 49 is 
 '^xohak)\j:=fvisJicUl, and not to be written a-eovra {¥ic\) = fve,s//afi. 
 Alkaios has o-etcoy 22 (with et reinstated from the aorist as in 
 Gortynian (vaeCij), and ere coy 26. 
 
 odverjv obov is quoted by Hdn. II 55857, from an Ionic (?) 
 poet. 
 
 5. In the case of -eo-- stems, we have -eo? = -etos in the 
 following cases in Hdt. which are all open to doubt. 
 
 Te'Aeos, xeAeoo), generally, but reXetov IX no, Demokr. J/or. 218, 
 
 1 Tzetz. Ex. II. 61,5. See Leaf on n 766, O 606 and T 198. 
 "■ Greg. Kor. 60, Eust. 77548- 
 
200 THE IONIC DIALECT. [219. 
 
 and Eryth, 204^0, reAeiots (about 354 B.C.); in Homer and 
 Demokritos reAewraros, in Demokrates 2 rekeorr]^ ; cf. Kret. 
 areXea Cauer, 11922^- €7rtTr/8eos Greg-. Korinth. 65. Fritsch, 
 F. 77. B. 43, prefers to derive the adj. from imTi^bevco, but denies 
 in any case the correctness of the ending- -eos, which is the reading 
 of the MSS. in a large number of instances. See § 554. vrrcapea, 
 cf. TTavcokea, e^coAea 263 (Lykia). In citing the fragments of 
 Hekat. Steph. Byz. uses the full form^ e.ff. 186. e-n-eretos is now 
 written by Stein, a^v^os Theog". 188, 559. 'HpaK-Aeos Hdt. 
 IV 43, 152, 181, VIII 132. 'HpaK-Aetos is the best attested form 
 in Hdt. See above, under i. fxovvoyevi-qv Arrian, 8g. 
 
 6. -€os hi adjectives from other stems. 
 jSoeos (Arrian I4g jSoeios), xw^^^^i oUos, aXyeos'^ ^^^y bave 
 
 existed side by side with the -etos forms (^/jutoVetos, [xrjXeLos). 
 ' ApLfxaa-n^a and 'TnepiBopeos need not be rejected with Fritsch, 
 7\ H. D. 44 (Fick, Bias, 551 ff.), though Hellanikos has 'TTrep- 
 jSop^LOL. aSeA^eo's in Hdt., Lokrian, I. G. A. 321 A J, 29, and 
 in the letters of Hippokr. 17295 2720? 343 as- 
 
 7. Mimnermos' (i ig) Ketarat has, like Attic KeCcovTai C. I. A. II 
 573\o) ^ later et^. In Hdt. and Hippokr. Keerat, eKeero, KeecrOai, 
 with e from e(t) regularly. AeaA/cos Thasos 83^ seems to have 
 lost iota. Cf. AetaAKos Thasos^ 81 B 14. jl 
 
 8. Expulsion of ifrom -eirj. 
 
 Iota does not disappear in stems in -eo-- : detKctr;, akrj6dT\, Sic. 
 (above, § 17.5). evpi-apirj seems to be supported, Hdt. II ^j, by 
 all the MSS., by Greg. Korinth. § 119, and by Suidas [eip-aper] 
 aTTOTTaros irapa 'HpoSoVw), but cannot stand against the over- : 
 
 whelming mass of counter-testimony. I 
 
 9. AeKeAe'coy Hdt. IX 73, as AeKeAe'ecos C. I. A. II 733, B 6, , 
 from AcKeAetei'b^ II 660, 4. See Bekk. Anecd. II, p. 601, Steph. 
 Byz. s. V. Ae/ceAeta^ez; = AeKeAcTy^ez', Hdt. IX 73. Hdt. has also 
 MavTivirj IV 161 (or 'bJlavrivris), Mapii] II 1 8, MaAer;, Qvpir] and > ' 
 ©upe'at. 
 
 Upon the «s.pulsion of i, contraction resulted in Uprj, Pantikap., ; , j 
 
 123, Ephesos, 150 ; cf. Ionic tpetrj in Hdt.; le'peta Keos 48 !li 
 
 (fourth cent.), as Z 300. The intermediate step between lepeuj '.[ 
 
 and Up?] is represented by Kallimachos'' 'lepoj, epigr. 41 ^. In 1 
 
 Attic we may have tepeta and Upta [Orestes 261) by suffix ii 
 
 exchange. Is YlavaKi], Hrd. 4^,, from Ilaz/aKetTj = Flam/ceia ? \ 
 
 10. The explanation of the form 'Epp.i]i is as yet too uncertain j 
 for it to be classed here. Apparently it is =:'Ep/xe(t)7/s ='Epjwetaj. j| 
 
 ' Te\eos in fifth and fourth centuries in Attic inscriptions ; Tf\fios, second 
 century B.C. 
 
 ^ Homeric aiyews, except t 196. 
 
 ^ Cf. A 659 Kearat, and KaraKeiarat il 527. 
 
 * Gram. Par. p. 6S0 cites lepea as Ionic, Tzetz. Ex. II. 6115 Upiri. jltiti 
 
221.] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC: El. 201 
 
 'Epixr]s in Homer is rare (but often in hymns). Herodotos has 
 gen. 'E/3/xea); of. 'Epjoiteo) Chios, 1 80, where -teco seems an 
 analogical formation. 
 
 220. EI from E + glide 1 (before a vowel) occurs before 0, co, cv, 
 a ; as yet there are no examples before e and i] in Ionic. 
 
 8eto/xeroy Oropos, iHgg (about 400 B.C.); cf. 8etco[y]ra[(,] C. I. A. 
 II Il9i4, a^out 340 B.C.; 7rpoo-8ei7/rat C, I. A. II 167, 43, 48, 
 334-325 B. c.^ Attic inscriptions of the fifth century have e; 
 and so elsewhere in Ionic : SeS^rat Olynthos, 8 B 4 ; Se'rjt 
 Zeleia, i^Ssa (^^^ Teos 1583, late). Mimn. 213, cTriSeuerat has 
 been unjustly expelled by Fick, JB. B. XI 253, in favour of an 
 assumed eTrtSeierat. h^voy is an Aiolic form (C. D. I. 2143^, 250^, 
 281 A 19, B 26), and kitih^verai may be classed with other 
 Aiolisms preserved by Ionic eleg-ists. Traces of this form 
 appear even in MSS. of Hdt. IV 130 (eTrtSeuee?, where i-mbeees, 
 i.e. -eets is correct). 
 
 kvvda Zeleia, 11330^ shortly after Granikos, 
 
 etay Zeleia, 11320' 39^ ^^- ^- -'-•^- ■'-^ ^^^' ^*^^- ^4^5 ^^ (3^7 B.C.), 
 II add. 11 ^b 30, 47 (after 350 B.C.); add. Sl?,^ ^'is i^ (after 350 
 B.c.^, and in Epeirotic. 
 
 €tm Thasos, /. //. S. VIII 40252- 
 
 '7roAet(a))9 Zeleia 11319. 
 
 0e[i]o(/)pcoi' Eryth. 2c6 C 12, would seem to be the same as 
 &e6(f)p(t)v 206 C II. d€t6v = d€6v, Priene, 141, an inscription in 
 Ionic orthography, but not in Ionic dialect. 
 
 -elos, genitive of -rjv- stems, called later Ionic (and Lesbic) by 
 Herodian, II 674^ ('A)(iA.Aetos, /SacrtAeios). No examples occur in 
 Ionic literature or inscriptions. Hdt. jSaaiXios, and so 'Ax^tAAeo?, 
 Olbia, C. I. G. 2076 (late). 
 
 On -K^eiovs in the genitive, see list in §529. Cf. Meisterhans, 
 p. ;^6, and Dittenberger, Sj/iL p. 780, for other forms ^. 
 
 221.] An et that is never represented by ?j in other dialects, 
 and which is nevertheless not strictly a genuine diphthong, 
 appears to exist in Kpdas by a probable conjecture of Hermann, 
 Ananios, 5.,. Kpeas is found in Hippon. 77, Sim, Amorg. 24 ^ 
 As in AetatVco Solon, 4.^^, airoTTviLU) Tyrt. 1O24, this ei is a mere 
 graphical representation of ev < tF, and appeared originally only 
 when a long syllable was necessary, a fact not comprehended by 
 later transcribers. Cf. also 8et8toTes Theog. 764, hdhtOi 1179 
 {hihoiKa 780), where h^ih^hthF. 
 
 ^ Cf. also iSei^dri Lokris 'Adrip. I 489. 
 
 ^ The oldest certain example of e{i) upon an inscription is Attic Nrikeiais 
 'Ef. apx- 1S84, 161 (418 B.C.). 
 
 •* The t of Kpelas must not be confused with that of Hom. Kpilov, which 13 
 that of the suffix (Skt. kravya). On KpeiSiv see Schmidt Neutra, p. 325. 
 
202 THE IONIC DIALECT. [321. 
 
 In elapivos Tlieog. 1276, Sim. K. 73; dapos Lukian, S. 49, Alkm. 
 26 CEapCvrjs (?), Styra, Jpis*. Ananios, eapt, tetr. 5^, Hdt. €ap'^, 
 Theog-. ?]pos 777), the ei may be due to the development of the 
 glide iofa, the gromid-form being" "^Tyaptro?, cf. rer from r^~r, Old 
 Norse rdr, but is more probably an accommodation to the 
 necessities of the hexameter [eiapivfi B 47 1; elapivolcnv B 89). 
 Tjpos seems to be from eapo9 rather than from "^ijapo?. Cf. 
 § 281. 
 
 Hom. eiAartros (eAdnvo? Olynth. 8 B 3) is purely metrical, as 
 is dvaXios (Greg. Kor. 387) with dv< hi-, and d\i]\ovda^. 
 
 In the cases where tins intervocalic iota appears, we must, I 
 think, distinguish two distinct classes. 
 
 1. Cases of ei in poetry, where the et is a mere graphical 
 expression, not made use of by the earlier poets at least, to 
 represent eu = e/^; e.ff. Hom. Xdovai, etotKviai, (ei/8eteAos ?), otto- 
 TTveiovT (Tyrtaios X 24, Greg. Kor.453), -nk^iovTos (An. Ox. 1 13I4). 
 
 2. Cases of the pure glide iota, as in dav, hvda (or even in 
 'AxiAAetos, ^acnXdo'i Hdn. II 674^ = Choir, 209^4, see § 25), 
 where F has nothing whatever to do with the appearance of the 
 t, though in some of the words in question F, as a matter of fact, 
 did once exist; but at the period from which the forms date, 
 cannot have left any trace of its former appearance. 
 
 At the present stage of our knowledge, I hold it best to keep 
 the two classes apart, though thereby not wishing to deny that 
 in certain special instances one class may overlap into the other. 
 In the case of kpdop.i.v A 62, it is difficult to determine whether 
 the et is = eu (as in kdova-i) or is a false transcription of iprjopLev. 
 AeicoKptros and AeL(obi]s = Ar]o-, Atjco- are from the misunderstood 
 E, rather than due to the glide i in Aeco-. Aristarchos wrote 
 et before a vowel except (i) in verbal endings as ?/'?/, which 
 seemed to be a 'distracted^ rj, (2) where the kolvi] had no 
 parallel form in e, as in -nepLo-Ti^oia-L, K-qavres, or where it had a 
 parallel in 17 as reOvyjcos (TedvrjKoo'i), and (3) in nouns where an 
 et would have thrown the declension out of gear. See £. P. W. 
 1 89 1, p. 38. In Homer monophthongal et before vowels is gene- 
 
 ^ ^pi in Hdt. must be corrected. The form in Lukian cannot stand, unless 
 it can be proved that he here imitates an epic, not an Herodoteian, form. 
 Hippokr. and Aretaios have no trace of elap, their MSS. fluctuating between 
 ^p and eap. The Gram. Par. p. 680 holds that eXap (sic) is Ionic. See also 
 Eust. 185I42. Unfortunately the Boiot. fElapivo I. G. A. 250, and fElapivos 
 Sitsungher. d. prei(ss. Akad. 1885, 1035, no. 46, do not decide whether the ei is 
 = 7j or — e+ the glide iota. 
 
 ^ Held by the grammarians to be the Ionic form : Gram. Par. p. 680, 
 (XVIII, XIX). An. Bachm. II 36834, Drakon 159^, cf. 161,0, interlin. Schol. Ven. 
 A on A 202. In Eust. 73454, An. Par. Ill 492^ Heraklcides says that the form j ■-' 
 shows peculiarities of four different dialects (!), the ej being Ionic. Since ei 
 before liquids and nasals was regarded as Ionic, the schol. ApoU. Ehod. 
 B 404 does not hesitate to call the addition of i in aKionv Ionic. 
 
 11 
 
224-] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC : El. 203 
 
 rally capable of being resolved into ee, ea, or is to be written rj. 
 The substitution of ei for rj in the above mentioned Homeric 
 forms, and in e.ff. /3eico, deL-p, redvetcas cannot well have occurred 
 before the period when the j^arasitic i (§ 220) was current. 
 
 Homeric em, dStat, d5>iiev, Ionic according- to An. Par. Ill 
 I50]g (cf. Schol. Ven. A on E 256), have been attacked by 
 Nauck who proposed to read eoooo-t, &c. Schmidt [Neutra, p. 326) 
 sug-g-ests that the original reading was EE02I and that the a 
 of eaco became e before o in primitive Greek. Cf. § 136, 687. 
 
 Some verbal forms with et, which is probably an incorrect 
 transcription of E, are claimed as Ionic by the grammarians, e.g. 
 betKavaadaL, on which see Osthoff, Ferfed, p. 50. So too in the 
 case of other forms with an et in the syllable of reduplication, 
 where the et is for rj as in hdheKTo, cf. Skt. ddcati. 
 
 The ei of the Homeric (lies, i.e. ^os, was regarded as Ionic by Joh. Gr. 240 B, 
 G. K. 442, Apoll. Adv. p. 14922 Schn. 
 
 222.] -fjveLKa, kvdKai, in Hdt. are forms which stand in no 
 conceivable relation to -ijveyKov, &c. Lukian follows well in the 
 wake of Hdt., but Hippokrates and Aretaios have throughout 
 the Attic forms. See § 214, 2. 
 
 223.] Itacism. 
 
 See above, § 197, for instances of et for i, and cf. §§ 145, 175. 
 
 224.] Monophthongal EI. 
 
 1 . A few sample, and some of the most important, forms under 
 each head will illustrate this characteristic feature of Ionic. On 
 5-12, see § 338, 382, and Solmsen and Wackernagel, K. Z. 
 XXIX. When Homer has forms in e parallel to those in et, 
 there is a presumption in favour of the former being Aiolic. 
 
 2. Spurious EI from ev?. 
 
 ^dvos^: Eeivos Styra, 1954, 7r.> 277' HetVcor 19279, Betvicov 19402? 
 Heiz/tos 19745 SeLvaivos 19735 Hetz^o^apr]? 19755 278? E€LvoKpLTr]s 
 Amorgos, 228; Setyo'^e/x6s Perinthos, 234 B 28, ^i.\6^eivos Styra, 
 1933Q, Tiixo^avos 19318J Ylpo^etvos 19239 5 Qev^eivihov Smyrna, 
 15329, ^c. Hdt. has TTp6^€Lvoi VI 57, though Eustathios, quoting 
 Hdt., uses the form irpo^evos. In the poets we have et forms, 
 Sim. Amorg. 7i9, go' io7^ Archil, eleg. 7, 192; Anakr. 57 (not 
 ^e'yots as Bergk reads); Theog, 521, &c. Lukian has ^elvos, 
 though cases of ^evos occur. Arrian, 26, 28, has ^ev- ; and so 
 too Aretaios and the VUa Homej-i. Even the supposititious 
 letter of Pittakos to Kroisos (Diog. L. I 81) has ^dvos side by 
 side with Aiolic forms. In other pseudo-Ionic sources, though 
 there is great fluctuation, the weight that Herodotos' un- 
 
 ' Joh. Gr. 241 B, Greg. Korinth. 387, 442, Apoll. D. Pron. 3 A ; cf. An. Ox. I 
 
 30O30. 
 
204 THE IONIC DIALECT. [224. 
 
 impeachable ^elvos carries may pardon the adoption of this 
 form. 
 
 Attic ^eVos in some relatively pure inscriptions : Oropos 189; 
 Miletos, lOOg; Ei-yth. 1994; later documents, Thasos, 723; 
 Eryth. 206 B 12; Ephesos, ^47n'' I'hanag-. 165, So ^epireir], 
 Demokr. 3Ior. 38. Tlieog. ^eztrjs 518 is to be regarded as an epic 
 reminiscence. Is Anakr. ^ivoicri 84 Aiolic ? ^e'ros in Attic must 
 be derived directly from ^ivFos, not throug-h ^h-vos. Solon has 
 ^ivos 23^. On ^elvos in tragedy, see § 77. 
 
 K€iv6s^=^ Attic K€v6s (Kevorepos, c£. ixav(^F)6T(pos). Homer and 
 Melissos have Kev^os. 
 
 oretz-'o's ^ = Attic a-Tivos [(TTevoT^pos). Arrian has oreu'o? three 
 times, oreyo's an equal number. Aretaios seems to have the 
 vulgar form ; cf . Hippokrates, III 208, aT^vo- or arevoiTepaL. 
 With Sim. Amorg. (14) a-Tevvypf] (not un-Ionic), cf. Messenian 
 ^revvx^apos. 
 
 dviK^v perhaps = eju4-feKa (Osthoif, Perfect, 334, Brugmann, 
 Gramni. § 13) in Hdt. and Demokr. 87 (cf. on Prepositions, § 715). 
 fu'e/ca^: Sim. Amorg. 7-^^^, Anakr. 45, Theog. 46, 730, &c., 
 Demokr. 184. ovviKa, Theog. 488, 854, Xenoph. 219, Solon, 
 tr. 37. See Wackernagel, K. Z. XXVIII 109 ff. Vita Homeri 
 has the Attic €V€Ka, &c. 
 
 etvaros, eti^aKoVtoi, Wackernagel, K. Z. XXVIII 132, G. Meyer, 
 Gramm. p. 379, Brugmann, Or. Or. § 101 (Greg. Kor. 453, Eust. 
 
 38835). 
 
 3. Spurious EI from €pF. 
 
 beipi], Hdt. and Theog. 266, but beprj Anakr. 80. On the 
 accent, see § 119. Attic betpds is from bepcr-. 
 
 TTetpara, Arch. tetr. ^^, Solon, eleg. 16, Theog. 140, 1078, 
 1 1 72. Skt. pdrva/i. On Ionic and Attic a-n^tpos, see A'. Z. XXXI 
 
 443- 
 
 etpopLttL (Greg. Kor. § 73, Max. Plan, in Anecd. Bachm. II ^^.y) 
 
 appears to be a present formed from the aorist stem with prosthetic 
 
 vowel [k-p^'FTddaif. eipooTaoj^ in Horn., Theog'. 519, Hdt. Ill 14, 
 
 Hrd. 3^8; epu)T(apL€vov I 86, is rejected by Stein in favour of 
 
 dpMT€6p.ivov; Thasos, 7212) iTtepajTijaat. is Attic (300—250 B.C.); 
 
 cf. C. I. A. II 6oig. Attic inscr. have also eT^eptadat. 
 
 ' J. G. 240 B, Greg. Kor. 442, Gram. Meerm. 652, Vat. 697. 
 
 "^ Grain. Meerm. 652, Vat. 697. 
 
 ^ Job. Gr. 241, Greg. Kor. 452, poetic according to Eust. 38S35, An. Ox. I 
 13O31, Bekk. An. II 96813, Apoll. Conj. p. 23S00 Schn. 
 
 * So my Diphthomj EI, p. 64, and also G. Meyer, Gramm.^, p. 425. Or eipofj-ai 
 as well as Homeric ipeai, 4pfOfj.ai, ask, and also Attic epof^ai, are based upon 
 the transference of ^epfv/xi, *epvfiai, to the fl conjugation {ipefw, epfofxai ; 
 Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 64. Monro H, Q. § 80 with Curtius refers epeio/xev 
 to ep-nfit. See above § 221. 
 
 ' Eust. 38835, 
 
224-] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC: El. 205 
 
 (Ipvojj.ai'^, Hdt. See Leaf on A 216 (elpvoi draw, x^Fepv; 
 dpvoixat jjroted, VaepF). Schulze, K. Z. XXIX 235, holds to 
 the view that elpvo-ai is from ^iFepvcrai. 
 
 etpLov (Horn., Hdt., Hippokr.), elpos 8 135, t 426 from FepF, cf. 
 vervex. Horn, and AioHc epiov (Apoll. Adv. p. 14922 Schn.), 
 
 4. Spurious EI from eXF. 
 
 elXCaao), Hdt. probably from VFeXF. Homer has both ecAto-o-to 
 and eAio-CT-o). Hdt. II 148 has kkiypLoi. Is eiAo) fi'om F^Xvm? 
 
 5. Spurious EI from -ever- or -evs. 
 
 The siff)i/a may represent either I.E. 5 in a final syllable, or 
 secondary (dialectal) cr = r(.. 
 
 On eis, eio-o), and the orthography in inscriptions, see § 715. 
 eio-t = ex'Tt, XvOeis < )^v6€i>Ts, xapUi.s < x^P^^^^"^^} a[7ro]/crEi'et(e) 
 Teos, Rob. I 142 B 1 1. jnets, T 1 17, Hdt. II 82, Anakr. 6 (Hesiod 
 and Find.), g-en. /xTjros Halik. 2384, Oropos, i8g. KeWat 4' 337, 
 < aevTo-at, for K^laai, with the v of Kevreoi. 
 
 7T€i(T0[xaL did not arise directly from ^Tiivdaopiai, nor irela-fxa 
 from ^Ti€v6pi'a but from irez^o-- a new formation, the y having 
 disappeared in aboriginal Greek before ^ju, without compensatory 
 lengthening. 
 
 6. Spurious EI from eps. 
 
 Keipas, Paros 67. btepa-ps, btepaai, pseudo-Hipp. IV 108, 
 biipa-as IV 296 are certainly not original or genuine Ionic. 
 
 7. Spurious EI from e\s. 
 
 dyyetAat, dTToaretAai. For crKr/Aeie 4^ 191 read <rKetA-. 
 
 8. Spurious EI from ejus. 
 evetfxaTO, &C. 
 
 9. Spvirious EI from eo-ju. 
 
 et/i>ia[r]io[t?] Keos, 433, with the et of eljxa. Cf. Andania, 
 Cauer, 47i6J 19? 20 ' 21? eijuartcrnxos iljid. ^g. Hdt. has Iiicltlov. 
 Brugmann, 31. V. II 223 (cf. Osthoff IV 133), separates tpiaTLov 
 from el/xa, thereby implying that itaeism does not here exist. That 
 Gr. Meyer, Gmmm. § 115, Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 73, are 
 incorrect in maintaining the itacistic character of the ei, is clear 
 from the old Ionic form cited above and from Attic Ip-aTiov, 
 C. I. A. II 755, 8, 9 (349-344 B.C.), &c. We have double forms 
 m eljxaTLov and ijudnoz;. Ijxdriov arose from Fia-jxaTLov, the weak 
 form of Fea-pLartov (cf. § 144), the t being the '^ minimum ' vowel. 
 Cf. Fick, K. Z. XXII 116, Prellwitz, Deut. Lift. Zeit. 1890, 
 p. 3538. dixaaiv, not tpLaaiv of the MSS. in Sim. Am. 21, is 
 correct. 
 
 Medial eap. is preserved by analogy in Ionic as in other 
 dialects. 
 
 The orthography of the word eijui fluctuates between EMI and 
 
 ' flpixraa-eai Hdn. II 5033, Et. M. 30410 ; flpv<raro An. Ox. I 15719. 
 
206 THE IONIC DIALECT. [224. 
 
 EIMl. All inscriptions, not otherwise dated, are earlier than 
 
 400 B.C. 
 
 With E. With EI. 
 
 Kyme, 3 = Rob. I 177. Miletos, 98 = Rob. I 138. 
 
 Kyme, Rob. I 173, 185. 
 
 Naxos, 25 = Rob. I 27. Theodos. 125, written lEMI 
 
 (after 400). 
 Chalkidian, Rob. I 175, 186. 
 Arkesine (Amorg.), 29 = Rob. 
 
 I 158 D. 
 Prokon. 1032= Rob. I 42. Olbia, Rob. I 163 A. 
 
 Samos, 214 = Rob. I 155. Nankr. Rob. I 132 C. 
 
 Naukr. Rob. I 132 A, E, G, 
 
 and often upon the Naukr. 
 
 inscr., Asiatic Ionic, Naukr. 
 
 Bechtel, 259. 
 Kameiros, 256, Rob. I 164. 
 
 For a similar fluctuation in other dialects, cf. my BipldJionci 
 EI, p. 60. El/xt in Attic is as old as 570 B.C. (Rob. I 421), this 
 proving- that et = e had a tendency toward diphthong-ization 
 at an early period. In a few other words the same phenomenon 
 may be observed. On the monojjhthong-ization of the diphthong 
 et, see Brugmann, Gr. Gr. § 15, Lewis, Paper of the American 
 School, IV 263. 
 
 10. Spurious EI from ^av. 
 
 kirdwaOai, Hdt. IV 64 [A B) according to Stein. Holder 
 follows PR's e-jrivvvcrOai. Cf. Karadwa-av, 4' 135 (elsewhere six 
 cases of '4vvv}xi). eu'y/j,i is not a direct descendant of ^vvvjxi 
 which is derived from a later *eo-^'v/xt, brought into life through 
 the influence of 'iaaio, eorat, &c. 
 
 KXeivos < KXeFeo-vos : KXE,voyevr]s, I. G. A. 396 (Keos). "Apyevvov 
 near Erythrai is perhaps due to the Aiolic element in the neigh- 
 bouring Chio^. "Apy^vvov occurs in Troas and Lesbos, apy^vvos 
 being an Aiolic word, Hinrichs (//. E. V. A. p. 56). Other traces 
 of Aiolism are Yl^Kivvalov, name of a mountain in the north of 
 Chios, xpv(TO(l)aivvodv Anakr. 25, and <t>aUvvov Thasos (L.) 18 
 C 5 ; Aiolic, § 97, and Ionic, § 17. 
 
 The orthography of elvai in Ionic inscriptions shows the fluctuation in the 
 representation of the closed e sound. It is held by Brugmann, Gram. § 146, 
 that ilvai is not derived directly from ^eavai but that it owes its ei, as Arkadiau j 
 ^vai its 7j, to the influence of il/xiv, ?ifxev. It is not probable that the adulterine 
 ej (77) was borrowed from elfjLev {■^fj.ev) at a time so remote as to precede the 
 adoption of -vat in Ionic-Attic and Arkadian, which, it is claimed, was 
 abstracted from -fei/ai, -fnvai. Neither dialect has any trace of -fiev. The 
 possibility of thai having originated from Ha^vai is very slight. 
 
 M^\ 
 
224.] 
 
 THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC : El. 
 
 207 
 
 With E. 
 Halik. 238.22, 34! 42 (fifth cent.). 
 Erythrai, 1995, 10, n (after 394). 
 
 Keos, 434, i^uvai (fifth cent.). 
 
 With EI. 
 Halik. 23827, 29, 36- 
 Thasos, 7I5, 6 (fourth cent.) 729, 
 
 (300-250). 
 Oropos, 1832 (about 400). 
 Amphip. 1O12 (about 350). 
 Eretr. 15]^ (fifth cent.). 
 elv, Olynth. 8 A 3, B 5, 7 (betw. 389 
 
 and 383). 
 i^f7i/, Orop. 1831. 
 
 I T . Spurious EI from eo-A. 
 )(eiAtot = Aiol. )(eAAtot, Lak. )(r/At'oi. 
 
 XetAos < x^^^^^ Sim, Am. 27. See Windisch, K. Z. XXVII 
 169. 
 
 12. Spurious EI from ert. 
 
 According" to Brugmann, Gr. § 54, Homeric elv is = Irt + vowel. 
 We find h'dXLos in Archil. 743 (tetr.), dvakLos in Theogn. 576, 
 
 The et of a/xeivav is due to compensatory lengthening {i.e. ei is a spurious 
 diphthong a/xevvo- being Aiolic. a/iietvoTepos occurs in Mimn. 145 , 'hixekvoKpa.Tt)';, 
 Mykonos 921,, d/iEIi/oi' (?), Rob. I 159 a, Amorgos. 
 
 13. Spurious EI from eAt. 
 
 o^eAAoo, increase. The ec of o^etAco would seem to be genuine, 
 despite the pair 6(})iX\(o : o(^etAco (with different significations), 
 because of d(/)EIAe'ra), Chios, Rob. I 149 A 14, o^EIAoVrwy, iljid. 
 1. Tj, Thasos, J. H. S. VIII 402, 4, and d^ElAEi; Thasos, 719.1^. 
 EI is also attested, C. I. A. 40^^, I 58, 324 A 52. We have 
 however E in C. I. A. I 32 A 3, 8, B 22, ib. 4I3. See Johansson, 
 D. V. C. p. 21 2. 6(})i\X(i), sweej), in Hippon. 51.^. 6cf)ekketev IT 651, 
 /3 334 is an Aiolism. Cf. L. Meyer, B. B. VII 311. 
 
 14. Spurious EI from ept. 
 
 Fdp(a saj/ < Fcpuod. Ionic ^IpiO^v Hdt. IV 77, 156, &e. < 
 eFepeOijv, Attic ippi]6iiv< e-Fprj-driv. TreVetpa Anakr. 87, TreTreipos 
 Hippokr. 
 
 Naucrretp?]? Styra, 192045 Homeric a-relpa or crreipi] A 482, 
 /3 428, and nowhere else {JJlpliihong EI, p. 6^. Theog. 757 
 iWetpe'xot with v-ndp, as in Horn., formed from vmpi before an 
 initial vowel. v-n€.ip6xpvs Hdt. V 92 (rj), adopted by Stein,is alien to 
 the form usually accepted by the historian, and can be defended 
 solely by those who hold to the assumption of a phonetic -noiKikia 
 in the Herodoteian dialect. 
 
 15. Spurious EI from contraction of e + e, see § 262. 
 
 Keivos, written kEz;os, Teos, 156 A 4, 5, ii, 13, 156 B 28, 39, 
 but with EI, 156 B 7 ; knElvos, upon inscriptions tinged with 
 Atticism, Teos, 158^5, Mylasa, 248 A 11, 16, B 15, C 19. See 
 § 564. Prellwitz rig-htly holds that the et is a monophthong', 
 
208 THE IONIC DIALECT. [225. 
 
 and divides {€)-Kei + €vo9 : his proposed etymology, B. B. XV 155 ; 
 see also Brugmann, Gr. Gr. § 94. 
 
 With the variation between Ionic Kdvo's, Aiolie Kr\vo^, Wacker- 
 nag-el compares [B. P. IF. 1 891, p. 6) Nr;Aei;s in Homer and NetAecu? 
 in Hdt. 
 
 225.] EI of doubtful origin. 
 
 Iiakrivy] Paros, 66, a late inscription with et not in accord with 
 the common Attic-Ionic form (Sappho (x^Xdwa-, Doric a^Kava; 
 Archim. aekriva ?). 
 
 ^IkeidvUi Delos, 5655, Paros, 66 (EtXei^DtTjt). See Baunack^s 
 StvdieH, I 69. Yjldvixaxos Styra^ 1933. See § 198. 
 
 Teip^crias. C£. reipea 2 485 < re'pas (cf. yepea Miletos, IOO-). 
 
 226.] 01. 
 
 On oL<oFi, ocri, see § 298, from e4-ot § 311^ from o4-ot 
 § 314, o + et § 315, from cot § 241. 
 
 This seems to have been pronounced as a genuine diphthong. 
 Bechtelj Ion. Inschr. p. 37, has refuted the view that in Styra ot 
 was pronounced as il, and that the dialect of Styra was herein 
 influenced by the Boiotian change of ot to v, i. e. ii. MerutKo?, 
 19^,,, may or may not be correct; but in the fifth century, the 
 period of this leaden tablet, Boiotian ot had not abandoned the 
 old diphthongal pronunciation of ot. Cf. Blass^ A?issj)rac//e,'^ 
 
 P-57- 
 
 227.] Antevocalie 01 = O. 
 See above for A(I), E(I) in Ionic. 
 A. In inscrijitmis. 
 Roman figures refer to centuries. 
 
 West Ionic. 
 A. ELT/Soey's Styra, 1933 (V); B. eTrotet Eretria, 14 (V); eTroCrja-e 
 Adesp. 21 (VI); iTTOLi](TaTriv 265 (Euboian or Island Ionic) 
 (V). 
 
 Island Ionic. 
 A. e-TTo'et Delos, 57 (II); 7roe((:) Thasos, 724 (300-250) ; B. e7r[o]t- 
 rjaev Naxos, 26 (b.c. 500); [Trjotett- Keos, 43^^ (end of V) ; Evko[i]s 
 Keos, 44 B 9^ (IV ?) ; UoLaaaCoiv Keos, 472 (IV) ; rToiacro-ai' 
 Keos, 47jq (IV); davfxaToiroLos Delos, ^^, 3 (270); i\(reTTo[i](T€V 
 Paros, 58 (VI); TTOiijfxa Paros, 60 (metr.) (V); ei/rota? Thasos, 
 72, (III). 
 
 Asiatic Ionic. 
 A. e^e-TTotTjo-' Abdera, 162 (metrical) (V); iroijaaadaL Eryth. 
 I99i3 (394) ; eTTo'et Samos, 222 (pre-Rom.). 
 
 ^ Cf. Koiarai G. G. A. 1883, p. 1 19. 
 
 !< 
 
227-] THE DIPHTHONGS IN IONIC: El. 209 
 
 B. a. Before r], et. 
 
 €7TOL7](re Miletos, 94 (VI); ^ttoUlv Miletos, 95 (VI); UpoiTOirJL 
 Miletos, loOg(40o); TroteiM Didyma^ Rob. I 139 (V?); [7r]e7rot?';- 
 Kacrtv lasos, 105^ (end IV); -noiricr^av Teos^ 156 B 30 (470); 
 7rot?/cret Teos, 156 B 39 (470); Trouio-as Teos, I5^i4 (H or I); 
 TToaycret Chios, 174 A 12 (V); ttoitji Chios, 174 C 9 (V); Trotr/rai 
 
 aev Halik. 241 (metr.)(?); non^aavr^s Myl. 248 A 12 (367/66); 
 eTToa^o-aiTO Myl. 248 A 13 (367/66); TroH^o-ayros Myl. 248 B 6 
 (361/60); €-noir]cravro Myl. 248 B 12 (36J/60); TTOu^a-aadai 
 Myl. 248 C 9 (355-54); 7:o»;(7a/xe'i.r, Myl. 248 C 16 (355/54); 
 eTTOtr/crez; Adesp. 264 (VI) ; ot?;, village, Chios, 183 A 46 (350); 
 OiTjz; Eryth. 20 1^^ (IV) ; oXloi-)]v Adesp. 264 (metr.) (VI). 
 
 /3. Before 0. 
 
 retxoTTotou Kyzikos, iiig (IV); -noiol Teos, 756 A 2 (470); 
 TTOLovvToDV Tcos, i58j8 (late); tepoTrotou Eryth, 206, ABC 12 
 times (278); "Ez^Sotos Adesp. 264 (VI). 
 
 y. Before a, ai. 
 
 yewTTotas Ephes. I47i,r, (300); v^oo-noias Halik. 240g (450-400) ; 
 evvoiai Ephes. 1473 (300); eovoiau Samos, 2213 (3iJ2). 
 
 770 tew is the word most frequently affected by the change, and 
 in it the iota never disappears in any dialect before o, but 
 only before tj, ei. In the MSS. of Hdt. and of other Ionic 
 prosaists, Trotew is the only form found. 
 
 Cf. TTo'?]? Theokr. 29._,j ; e-TroSjo-e Theokr. 2924, Aiolic, C. D. I. 
 , 2l8g; TT0i](ra(r6aL Aiolic, 281 A I9, B 24; 77077 = 770117, 238^; 
 i TTorjo-M 281 B 54; Tro€iiJ.€vos 3053; Arkad. TtoevTco l222,j: other 
 * examples, G. Meyer, Graimn., § 155. 
 
 The optative sign in -otaro is never lost. 
 
 B. Lyric Poets. 
 
 Anakr. ahMaa-rais 95 (eleg.), kiTToriQr] 5I3 (eTTToCrjOev x 298, 
 TTTOKS/jiat Mimn. 59), but 77ot?/o-ets' 60, 77e77otrjju,at 97(eleg.). Herodas 
 ! 234 Tjk6i](Tev, but dAotTjo"?/ 25^; 77661? 6g, but iiroet 423, elsewhere oi 
 retained. 
 
 C. Herodotos, &c. Cf. Fritsch, V. H. D., p. 45 ff. 
 Ev^oiis VII 156, VIII 4, 19, 20; Ei/3ots III 89. 
 Eii^otKo's III 89, &c. In fact, Y^v^oLivs is found in no Attic 
 
 . prosaist, and Evj3oiU only in poetry : Track. 237, 401 ; EvISoCs 
 I Trac/i. 74, Eurip. Herakleidai, 83. 
 ^vvoin] and TrpovoCrj. 
 
 p 
 
210 THE IONIC DIALECT. [228. 
 
 TTOiT}, as in Homer TrotwS?]?, Attic iroia is poetical, elsewhere 
 TToa, as Sappho, 543. On the accent, see § 122. 
 
 poti;, Homer potai, Attic p6a, but poid in Aristotle (Greg*. 
 Korinth. p. 220, quotes poid as Doric). On the accent, see § 122. 
 
 (TTOi], according- to Stein, III 52 {H has cttou]) ; orotd in 
 Eklcles. 684, 686 may be taken from the sernio familiaris, thoug'h 
 (TTod is the only form found in inscriptions, orota is Doric 
 (Ditt. S^ll. 36925) ^. Why Hdt. should use ttoi'tj and poir\, but 
 o-ror/, is not clear. Hence I doubt Stein's reading-. 
 
 (^koios IV 67, also Homer and Attic. 
 
 xAo»j Archil. 108, Hdt. IV 34 (Stein); ^Xol- regularly in 
 yXoiova-Qai Galen, Lex. Ilippohr.., xA-oicoStj? Hippokr. Attic has 
 always x^o'?/, hence in X]Aot[T7j] C. I. A. II 722 B 18, if correctly 
 restored, we assume that the t is the glide iota. 
 
 6[xoxpoui] has MS. authority, I 74, where Stein prefers -oirj. 
 Diog. Apoll. 6 xpoirjs, Attic xpo'a (Aristoph. xpota). 
 
 (f)06r] is a medical expression adopted by Plato, perhaps from 
 Hippokrates. Wackernagel's [K. Z. XXV 268) objection to the 
 hiatus is well founded if we compare Skt. ksliayd and apply Fick's 
 law as to the interrelation of t and yod : when the accent falls 
 originally, as here, upon the final syllable, i not yod should 
 appear. Cf. Fick, B. B. VIII 168, Bechtel, Gott. Naclmcliten, 
 1885, No. 6, and on pony, xpoii] under Accent, § 122. Evidently 
 in some of these words contamination of the original forms has 
 given rise to those now found in our texts. 
 
 80?/ for hoir\, Ionic papyrus {PJiilol. XLI 746). 
 
 228.] 01 (Varia). 
 
 (i) There appears to be no certain instance in Ionic of ot for 
 before a vowel (as in 6yho'nf]s, &c.). KaTafioirjs, however, occurs 
 upon the very ancient papyrus [Philol. XLI 746) which is chiefly 
 Ionic. For k-ni-nXoov, Hipp, has i-niirXoLov VIII 122 (C, 6), but 
 the latter form contains suffixal -to-. Kodki] INIimn. I2g is a 
 conjecture. » It has not been shown that a kouXos arose in the 
 manner assumed for yekoUos opiouos (Hartel, IIo/j/. Stnd. Ill 41). 
 A preferable solution is that KoFikos {KoF^cav-'/fs) = KoyLkos was 
 represented graphically by KoUkos, cf. § 221. This oi = ov is 
 probably not Aiolic, hence in Alkaios 155 read Kovikai. 
 
 (2) [T]pot^7;2'to? lasos, 104^^, before '^^■^ B.C., disproves the 
 statement of G. Meyer, Gramvi., §112, that this form (with 
 anaptyctic t before () does not appear before the imperial period. 
 Cf. Tpo(dvios I. G. A. 7O13, Schneider, Dial. Megarica, 39, 
 Miillensiefen, Dial. Lacon. 88. 
 
 (3) hi.(j'n6vy](Jiv Kyzikos, Rob. I i48 = 8eo-7rotyat9, if correct, is 
 
 ^ Also C. I. G., 248322, Astypalaia. 
 
231.] DIPHTHONGS Kar eTTiKpareiav : HI. 211 
 
 a unique form. The converse appears in ^iXobea-noiTos (Papers 
 of the American School, III, No. 218). Cf. § 151. 
 
 (4) 01 appears for eoi in the Herodoteian olKas, oIkos, with 
 absence of reduplication, as in oiKohoixriTai I 181, Herakleian 
 Tables, I 137. 
 
 (5) The ancients regarded tjoioj as Ionic in contradistinction to 
 77W0? and e(2o?: Eust. 7275,, 5^, 1 14254, 150444- 
 
 (6) irpij^oKTiv Chios 174 A 16-17 for -nprj^ova-iv, subj. with 
 short modal vowel, is an Aiolism as regards the ending-. 
 
 (7) For -oia in the fem. part. = maj see § 605. 
 
 (8) ot< 0)1, see § 241. 
 
 229.] TI. 
 
 The second mora of the diphthong vi may disappear before a 
 following vowel. 
 
 vo'i Paros, 67 (late), Wvvs 266, of uncertain provenance. Cf. 
 vios A 473, A 270; hvi] V 286. acfyvt], often used by the comic 
 poets, may be an Ionic loan-form (Gr. Meyer, Gramm., p. 36). Cf. 
 IxvoaofSai B. C. H. VI 32, 2,'^. 
 
 vlos is found, Amorg. o^^ epigr.; Priene, 141 (in Ionic alphabet) ; 
 265, uncertain locality; Delos, ^'j . On vXos, vos in metrical in- 
 scriptions, cf. Allen, Fersiji cation, p. 71 if^ on v(i)6s in Attic, 
 Meisterhans, p. 47. 
 
 D/phthonffS Kar eTriKparetay. 
 
 230.] AI. 
 
 dt = pre-Hellenic dl, gave way to i]l at the earliest period of 
 Ionic that can be reconstructed by us. 
 
 231.] HI. 
 
 Whether HI is really a hL(p9oyyos Kar l-niKpaTeiav in such forms 
 as l3a(nX-)]Los is not perfectly certain (Blass, Ausspr:' 22, Johansson, 
 B. B. XV 182). Schulze, K. Z. XXIX 252, writes ^aaiXrios, and 
 holds that tji became 77 between the time of Hipponax and Hero- 
 dotos ^. Between ^ao-ikrjios (or (3a(ri\rjos, cf . Attic /3ao-iAetos) and 
 (3a(n\i]Los there is a far greater difference than between avbpi]ios 
 and avhpjjos, — the important difference of the accent position. 
 While MS. testimony possesses slight, and even inscriptions but 
 little more value (the ordinary HI, e.ff. in such a form as KAHII2, 
 being indifferent to the question at issue), the evidence in 
 favour of the existence of the long vowel and of diaeresis in 
 certain Ionic prose authors is drawn (i) from the cases of Tjt in 
 the poets; (2) from the Attic TEIIOI, Tr?aoi or Trftot, C. I. A. I 
 
 ' In Hdt. the correct form is jje, not rjie. 
 P 2 
 
21Z THE IONIC DIALECT. [232. 
 
 234,. (446 B.C.) and TEIOI = T7Jtoi, C. I. A. 229^ (451 B.C.), 
 forms whose ri'i, even if not Attic, is certainly Ionic ; cf. TH1I02 
 Naukratis 700^ (cf. A'. Z. XXVII 264); (3) from Kyprian 
 lj.vauo(i>) (?), Meister. G. B. II 144; (4) from Boiot. [/.avreua, 
 = Delph. \xavTi]ia, cf. Aiol. or Thess. fxavTijiov, C. D. I. 1558. In 
 any event Hippokrates certainly made use of rj'i much less often 
 than Hdt. See below, § 286. 
 
 232.] Medial HI before vowels. 
 
 (i) In this category fall chiefly the derivatives in -?/toy, -7]t?j 
 = Attic -elov, -etTj, from stems in -r/u. In dealing- with the much- 
 vexed problem of the interrelation of these terminations it must 
 be borne in mind that originally an -rjv- stem yielded -tjitj or -?jto-, 
 except in the case of such feminines as had adjectival motion 
 (§ 174); while sigmatic stems produced -et?] and -eto-. This 
 original mark of distinction has been obliterated to a great extent 
 in all the dialects, and especially in Ionic. The retention of the 
 traditional accentuation in this treatise does not imply that in all 
 cases, notably in that of the pseudo-Ionists, 7jt was pronounced 
 with t as a distinct phonetic power. The conduct of i]i, upon 
 Attic inscriptions shows that at an early period c was a vanishing 
 sound, rjt must sometimes have been written when it was not 
 diphthongal, e.ff. ixov(T7]lov Herodas lo^. 
 
 All the forms of the i]v stems have been collected by Fritsch, 
 V. H. D., pp. 9 ff . ; e.g. Hdt. apia-Triiov, ap\r]Lov, UpijLov (Greg. 
 Ivor. 3), ixauT7]ir\ [fxavretas Tyrt. 4^), ixavT-qLov Pherek. 60 (Herakl. 
 II -etoi'), TToXiTrjLrj, TTpyTavqiov, as Prokon. 103 (fifth century), 
 (TTpaTrjLrj (and rrrpari?;), Tapiyi]ii], yaKKi]iov, &c. 
 
 Also from -rju- stems adjectives and nouns in -7710?, -iiiov, -iqiii), 
 = Attic -eto?, -iiov, -eta. iSacnAr/tos- Theog. 1191, Hdt., Hekat. 
 ] 75, Charon 2, (iaaiXriu) Hdt., Herakl. 79 ; and the following 
 forms in Hdt. : hovki]io<5^ , e^ohrjirj (Stein -b[ri), KTjpvKi^ov, 'OSwo-- 
 fn]Los, apr]Los, kpixip-rjiri, as in Diog. Apoll. I. Mimn. has Ni]\i]lov 
 9i; ^epaTTijt^ Hippokr. VI 492, 586, VII 172, 180, IX 268, v.l. 
 -eu], no v.l. VII 246, but OepaiTeii] V 686, II 14, no. III 72. 
 
 In the pseudo-Ionic prosaists we find the -?jt- forms are not so 
 prevalent as in Hdt. and are largely artificial : depaiteir] 
 Lukian, Sp\ 31, Aretaios often; 0epa7r?]t»] occurs only in the 
 letters of Ilippokr. 15^, 167, 1720J 23- "'?^" forms occur as 
 follows : p.avTi]i- Luk. Sp-. ^6, Astr. 8, 23, 24 ; 7roAir?]t?] Hijip. 
 ep. 17.32; (^amX-qi- Luk. Sj/r. 18, 25, Aslr. 12, Arr. Ind. 3, 8, 39, 
 Hipp. ep. 173^, 4^; apy]Los Avr. lud. 7, 11, 12, Euseb. 2; Trat8);tois 
 
 ^ Coins of Teos have THI Head H. N. 511, and so THI02 Naukr. I 209, 
 II p. 68 I a late metrical inscr.). 
 
 * Cf. Anakr. 114, eiiigram. SovXtiitjv. Hdt. has also dov\ws VII 8 (7); cf. 
 ■jro\efjLr]ios and iroKe/Mos, ^eivijios aud ^eluios. 
 
232.] DIPHTHONGS Kar kinKpaTHav: HI. 213 
 
 Euseb. 2; ip?/tos Luk. Sp: 42, 58, 57, cf. Arr. Ind. 18. The 
 following' have no variant in -17:- : [xoLxdrj, bwaa-Teu], yoi)Tdr], 
 TTpocf)iiTeL7], (papfjiaKeir}, 7r/>eo-y3etr/, epixrjveirj. (rTpaTi][ii is the only 
 example in the Fifa Homeri. 
 
 Fritsch^s thoroughgoing- examination ( V. H. D. pp. 8-30) shows 
 that here and there the Attic forms have forced themselves into 
 the MSS. of Hdt. ; and in the inscriptions we meet with the 
 following forms in et where we might expect an Ionic -rjt- : — 
 apx^tov lasos, 105^2 (end of third cent.) ; TroAtrcta Zeleia, 1 14 ABC 
 (late), Samos, 22I27 (322 B.C.); irpwavelov Kyzikos^ 108 B (first 
 cent.); KaT:r\Xa.ov lasos^ 10444 i iropda Samos, 22I21 (322 B.C.). 
 
 All these forms occur in inscriptions so late that they may be 
 ascribed to Attic influence. 
 
 (2) Furthermore, -r/to- occurs (Attic -do-) where there is no 
 -rjv- stem involved. Herodotos has avhpy]tos (Protag-.), avlprjit], 
 (cf. Arrian 17^) but avbp€t.6T€pos I 79, avbpeLOTaTos I 123, IV 
 93, IX 37^ ywat/cr/to? (where Homer has, A 437, yvvaiKdas, 
 Phokyl. 32 yvvaiK€t(ov (cf. Fick, B. B. XI 272), Archil. ywaiKdov, 
 9jq ; Hutherford^s yvvaiKr\i.ov, Hrd. 6p is incorrect). Hdt. has also 
 axpi]Los (Hom.), epyaXj]Lov, haipriLos, -r]tr\ (Sim. K. I18 -eir]), 
 KabjjiijLos but KaS/xetr; I 1 66, and KabpLetoL often. Hdt. pi.in]p.rjLov 
 (Arr. 10), ot/cr/to?, -oca, -oT-qs, cf. Demokr. 94, 124, 168, (Ti^p.riiov, 
 Diog. Apoll. 5 is not found in Simplicius. (yr]pr]iov is hesitatingly 
 adopted by Littre in Hippokr. Demokr. 6 kp.y\fvyj}i-ov. 
 
 (3) -?;to- = Attic -eto- from non -r/u- stems: Hdt. has avOpcti- 
 TTi'-jLos (HipjDokr. VI 468, v. I. -ivrju ; and -etos, as Herakl. 91, 
 96), j3opi]Los (Phoinix ajmd Athen. 495 E), EvpooirriLos, K7]kooi'7]Loi', 
 (KTjXMvevu) is late), 4>ot^(/to?, (f)OLVLKJ]Los^ ((poLVLKyjia Teos 156 B 
 38, 470 B. c), ayyapi]LOV, XaL(Ti]iov, ^AXruov, AipL€vi]LOV. Hipponax, 
 57^ bas rpoTTi^Lov from Tpoirio), an Ionic verb. 
 
 (4) Non -rjv- stems yield -rjio- in the later lonists in the 
 following- cases : — 
 
 oiKi'iio's Luk. Sj/r. 22, ^^, 54, 57, Arrian, Ind. 20 (elsewhere -et-) ; 
 avOpMnrjios Luk. Astr. 27, ipLxj/vxi'ii-ov Luk. /". A. 6. From con- 
 sonantal stems we have av8pTi]Los Luk. Sj/r. 15, 26, 27, Euseb. Mynd. 
 56 (Hippokrates has -et- always) ; yvvaiKriLos Luk. Sj/r. 15, 27, 51, 
 Arrian, Ind. 8, Aret. 60, 61, 62, 285 (Hippokrates -et-, and also 
 Euseb. Mynd. 54); ai]priLov Luk. Sp: 15, 17, 49, Asfyr. 4, 7 ; 
 Arrian, Ltd. 28. Hippokrates and Aretaios adopt the Attic a-rjp.e'iov 
 rather than the Ionic -77102^. We have here a line of distinction 
 drawn with tolerable distinctness between the medical writers 
 and Herodotos, Lukian, and Arrian. Arrian, Ind. 10, has pLvqpLtjta, 
 6i]p€La 1 7, 24, and AWioireiio 6. 
 
 ^ Hesycliios has, however, <PoiviKKia' Avdol koI "icovfs ra ypd/j-fMaTa atrh ^oIv^kos 
 rivos . . . ; purple in Hdt. is (poiviKeos. 
 
214 THE IONIC DIALECT. [232. 
 
 The grammarians call -rjtos Ionic : ap^fjios, 'OSvaa-fiios An. Ox. I 363,,, n-nX-nidSeai 
 An. Ox. I 346,7: ixvt]ixi)i.ov, (TrifxT]iov, $a(nA.r}iov An. Ox. II 12333 (Theogn.;, ^vvriiov 
 Et. Gud. 416,1,, Schol. Ven. A on A 124, An. Par. Ill 124^; oIktjios is called 
 Doric by Hdn. II 55803, though he reserves -^tos for Ionic; cf. I 36 15. 
 
 (5) The inscriptions have rji in Tipyravi^ov Prokon. 103 (600 B.C., 
 the Attic copy has -elov), (f)OLVLKriLa Tecs, 156 B 38, Upr]ov 
 Oropos, 1 833, 3g (see § 234) ; r]ixtiJLin]Lov and cnTovhj]Lov Paros, 
 62; 2apaT7i]ta Naxos, 28 ^ ; T7)tios Naukr. I 62, No. 700. 
 YloaLbHlHv C. I. A. I 283J-, is probably Ionic as the Attic 
 form is Hoa-eibecov usually, cf*. noo-tSrjtou Maroneia 1965, and 
 UoaLbr]iu>v Anakr. 6. YloathjLov and ^oijS-qiov in Hdt., other 
 names of festivals having- -to-. 
 
 On inscriptions we find et where rjt might have occurred : 
 'Avbpeioiv Eryth. 206, B 48, ^6 (278 B.C.). otKetoV?]ros Ephesos, 
 147^ (300 B. c). ot/cetot Lykia, 263 (perhaps an Attic form). 
 EvcppovuloL, ©aAetot Eryth. 206 B 46. Avkclov Eryth. 206 A 
 20 (Steph. Byz. Avkijlov). tep7jretat Eryth. 206 A 44, B I, 45, 
 60, C 7; tepijretwz-' A 14, ;^6, Upareai C 13; Priene, 1447? 
 UpareLTis. bpKvvdov Halik. 240^^ (fifth cent.). See vmder (i) 
 above. 
 
 (6) -rjto- in Ionic has, as Fritsch has shown, in the class avbptjLos 
 and av9pcoTn]Los extended by analogy its sphere beyond that of 
 the -rjv- stems. In no case is there any justification for the 
 adoption of -771- even in such -es- stems as yield abstract nouns, 
 e.ff. a\->i6r]n], which has been foisted upon Herodotos by the 
 Aldine edition. Even the Asfrol. of Lukian has aA?]^et?;s (§ i). 
 The few instances which occur of rjt = e6 are of late date. 'Apyj/to?, 
 Ditt. Sj/ll. 42 1 5 (400-350), which is certainly on the stone, may 
 be an error as it dates from a period when there was a fluctua- 
 tion in the orthography. Sim. Amorg. 27 has 'Apyet?;, Hdt. VI 
 52 'ApyeLrjv. 
 
 For examples of forms in -etrj, see § 175 ff. 
 
 Hej'OK-parj/ia is not to be classed with Delphic KaXXiKpari-ja, &c., 
 where the ?7*is a late graphical expression for et, as often, e.ff. 
 iinix^k-)]av Mifth. X 314, No. 2, 1. 9 (Odessos), 7roAtr?/ai; Miffh. 
 XI 83, 1. 3 (Amorgos). It is scarcely probable that a stem in 
 -i](rio- should manifest itself so late as the first centuiy b. c. 
 when it is not beyond peradventure proved in the case of older 
 forms. 
 
 If it can be shown tliat there are stems in -jjirio-, which have as yet not 
 been shown to exist, such apparent anomalies as Aiolic Kvwpoyeurja, and Boiot. 
 names in -yej/etws, -fxeiSeiios, may be cleared up. See Johansson, B. B., XV 
 181. s.eyoKpaTriia Eryth. 208 is an hj^ier-Ionic form, and not to be regarded 
 
 ^ In Doric inscriptions irpuTavfjiou, auSpriwy, Trpeiyriia (Trpefffie7a) o'lKriiccs, 
 itavriiiov. 
 
233-] DIPHTHONGS Kar k-KLKparaav: HI. 315 
 
 as an example of -t^a-ia. That xjod should lengthen a preceding vowel, as 
 G. Meyer, Gramm.^ § 67, still holds, is of course out of the question. 
 
 ayy-fjioy without variant, Hdt. II 121 ;8, 5, IV 2, Lukian, Syr. 20, 48. This 
 is the sole support for this supposed Ionic form. Keos 4310, with d]776r«, is 
 not fi-ee from the suspicion of being Attic, though this form is undoubtedly- 
 Ionic too. Cf. ayyeTov and Keveayyeir] in Hippokr. and Ai'etaios. 
 
 Kpriioy in Hesychios is probably Doric, not Ionic as was held by Curtius 
 Et' 155. 
 
 (7) Feminines derived from masculines in -evs have et, not tjj. In Keos, 48, 
 iep€ia; Pantikapaion, 123, leprj ; Ephesos, 150, leprj. In Herodotos, the MSS. 
 have generally tpeir}, but occasionally the shibboleth of the Ionic rji is dis- 
 closed (11 53, 54, 55). Cf. also ^acriheia, not -tji'tj. So aiSpeiri not -t/i'tj Hdt, 
 VI 69. 
 
 233.] Medial HI before consonants. 
 
 1 . Masculine patronymics ^, 
 
 In but one case in Hdt. VIII 133 BaaiXi](.b€co, which must be 
 an error. Cf. [Bjao-tAeiSrjs Chios^ ^799; the same form on a 
 Chian coin, Benkmdler der Wiener Akad. IX 322 (400-350). If 
 ^ik\y\ihi<si in Archil. 104 is correct, it is the only instance in the 
 lyric poets, and I,Kr]l3r]Lbrjs Teos, C. I. G. 30642^ (late), the only 
 instance in the inscriptions. In all other cases -e(,8?js, on which 
 see§ 235. 
 
 2. Feminine patronymics ^. 
 
 Hdt. Nr]pr][bu)V II 50; NrjprjLcn VII 191 (cf. NrjtpeiScoy Eryth. 
 206 B 27); Bot/3?]i8a VII 129, not to be written 7/1, a poetical 
 form introduced by the grammarians. Doubtless -v/tSr^s and -tjls 
 (-rjs) are here cori-ect. Upon Attic inscriptions of the fom'th 
 century we sometimes meet with the spelling- -et?, -nbos. 
 
 3. Dat. Plur. of A (ij) stems. 
 
 -?jt(n (-J/o-t) was the regular Ionic form in the fifth century in 
 Hdt. and in the inscriptions. The last Ionic -Tjtcrt of which we 
 have any knowledge dates from 394 b. c. (Erythrai, 199^). After 
 this, ats is the normal ending. See under Declension. 
 
 4. In compound names (two stems). 
 
 Arjt8a/xai;T- Aigiale, 28 A; Ar]iki(av Smyrna, 1S3\% (cf- Bechtel, 
 ad loc.); Ar^iKXeos Thas. (L) 7, B 9; Ar]Lepd(T7]s Th. (L) 3 A 8; 
 ATjtTreVrj? Styra 19^^^;^, perhaps; Ar](,aXKOs Thas. (L) 9^, (cf. 
 AdakKos Thasos 81 B 14, AeaA/co? 8^^; § 236). 'AA.e^t]8rji05 
 Naukr. 66y, 838 ; 'Apr/i^ous Th. (L) 14 B 2, 16 B 7 ; 'Api]t(f)Lkov ^ 
 Anakr. 106, as apr}L(f)dTovs Herakl. 102. 
 
 5. Greg. Korinth. p. 377, quotes Kkr]La6evTes as Ionic. Mapco- 
 vrjLriojv Maroneia, 1962, though from the same period (before 
 
 ^ XlriXrilS-ns Greg. Kor. 379, together with nrjXeidSris and -ryjaSr/s (p. 488); 
 the Et. Gud. 4665 has UrjXeiaBris Ur]\riidSr]s, -TjidSrjs Eust. 1237, n77\eia5€a! Joh. Gr. 
 239 B, UTjXeiSfO} and nijAeiaSeco Meerm. 655. 
 
 ^ NTjiSes, NrjpTji'Ses Eust. 62231, 19548. 
 
 ^ An. Ox. I 2821, I363U. 
 
21 6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [234. 
 
 400) we have MapcoveiTSMv 196., ^ c£. § 197. r]i, as augment, is 
 preserved e.r/. ijiprjfjLei'ovs Samos, 2213^. 
 
 6. 6vriL(TT09 Phoinix in Athen. 495 E, Anaxag-. 10, Herakl. 114, 
 KXi-jLo-KeTaL Hippokr. IX 84, c£. dvrja-KO} ixiixij](tko) according- to the 
 grammarians. 6v^](TK0} occurs in Attic inscriptions and KiKXijaKdi 
 in MSS. 
 
 234.] Medial HI becomes H. 
 
 Uprjov Oropos, 18.3, gg, about 400 B. c. Greg. Korinth. p. 379, 
 mentions Upriiov as Ionic. Also Aiolic and Delphic. 
 
 A remarkable form is \r\Tovpya.v, on a Teian document in Koivr\, 
 Ditt. S^IL 126^2 (306-301 B. c). 
 
 235.] Medial HI passes into EI. 
 
 1. before vowels. 
 
 Here belong the forms mentioned under § 232 from inscrip- 
 tions, from the lyric poets yvvaiKeiov, Archil, and Phokyl., unless 
 Fick's defence of the form as it stands (^ywatoi^) holds good. 
 Or shall we read yvvaiKfjov? \_a\yyda Keos, 43ioj while Hdt. 
 has ayyr\ia IV 2 ; Homer, t 222 ayy^a. Fritsch holds that ayydov 
 alone is correct, which is probable (cf. ayyos). 
 
 2. before consonants. 
 
 In all masculine patronymics, except those mentioned § 233. 
 Hdt., as Attic writers, uses -etSrj? with but the single exception 
 of Ba(nA?7t8ea) : klydlai" IV 149; 'Apiareibrjs VIII 79-82; 
 'ArpetSat VII 20; iSi-jXelbai Y 6^; Tlepa-elhaL I 125 ; 'AkK€ibr]s 
 VI 61. Ev9vvE\br]s Styra ig^,^, NtKoAEISij? I92;2, neptAEI8?j(s) 
 192S3 are transcribed -et8?]s on account of the extreme rarity of 
 -rji8?j?. Ui6eibr]s Keos, 44 A lo, 'Apt](o-)7e('8»j9 Thasos, 77 A 9, 
 'ApicrretSei'S B 14, are all too late to be of mofnent, though they 
 apparently support the general conduct of the patronymic in 
 Ionic prose. As Attic inscriptions of the fourth century have 
 -7] 18?]?, the older form existing parallel to the younger -eibijs (to 
 say nothing o5E the fifth century with its EIAES), so in Ionic we 
 might assmne the contemporaneous existence of both forms. In 
 this case Ba(nA7]i8ea) would be correct despite the numerical 
 weight of evidence against -rjtSrjs in Hdt., though the weakening 
 of 7jt to ei in the majority of the instances is surprising. The 
 Ionic dialect is usually tenacious of tjl and i]Fi<Pi'i generally 
 becomes rjt. He who with Fritsch holds that Bao-tA?]t8ea) repre- 
 sents the only correct form of the patronymic ending must have 
 the heart to expel every case of -eth]^ from the text of Hdt., even 
 though -eibrjs can be shown to have existed before the fifth 
 
 1 Cf. Hdn. II 8672. 
 
 ^ In a fragment (99) attributed to Anakreon we read AlyelBfu. 
 
239-] DIPHTHONGS Kar iirLKpareiav: HI. 21 7 
 
 century. If -etSrj? is Homeric Ionic, it may well be Herodoteian 
 Ionic. The cases (§ 232, i) in which Attic forms have forced 
 themselves into the text of Hdt. belono- to a different sphere and 
 are numerically insignificant in contrast with the almost total ex- 
 tinction of -rjt8?j? in the MSS. of Hdt. See also §§ 238, 239, 286. 
 
 236.] Medial HI becomes E. 
 
 The month UocreibeMv from -hijLcov, C. I. G. 2309^, Delos, 3664^^ , 
 Kyzikos (Attic?). With AeaA.Kos Thasos 83^, cf. A?]iaAK09 § 233, 
 4. AetaXKos Thasos 81 B 14 is not to be explained with Bechtel 
 according to § 237. 
 
 237.] Medial HI becomes EI. 
 
 This metathesis quantitatis was first proposed by Fick {B. B. XI 267) on the 
 score of Anakreon's four syllable @pr]iKi7} (96) by the side of @priKiri (49, 75;; 
 Hipponax' QprjiKiwi/ 42 (eV apfidrccv re Kal ©p-niKiuv ttwXwv). Bechtel, Ion. 
 Inschr., p. 13, goes so far as to claim for Ionic and Attic that, wherever ei 
 appears for rjt, r]i passed through the stage ei. On any view •ei<ir]i is found 
 chiefly in Eretrian Ionic, since in Asiatic Ionic -tji lost its iota and did not 
 become ei. From prose inscriptions we can scarcely expect proof, and even 
 if we accept QpeiKiav, we are not compelled to extend this metathesis quantitatis 
 over all the territory claimed by Bechtel. The parallelism of later \eiTovpye7u 
 and rei does not disprove the vocalis ante vocalem corripitur rule, or necessitate 
 the hypothesis that in Ionic-Attic there was a middle stage eJ. See § 232. 
 The form QprjiKiov occurs in an hexameter, Hdn. I iiSg, ©piiaffa Hrd. I79. 
 
 238.] Final HI is retained. 
 
 1, In the dative singular. 
 
 vr\i, perhaps from vfi from the analogy of vqos, %cq. (Alkman 
 has va according to Blass, Hermes, XIII 25). On Hpt7][y]^t see 
 
 §'5io- . . . . . , 
 
 2. In the subjunctive (Island and Asiatic Ionic, but not 
 
 generally in West Ionic). See § 239. 
 
 The I aveKcpoovrjTov is but rarely misplaced; e.ff. dr]L (opt.), 
 Teos, 158]^., 3Q, (second cent.). Cf. the similar form on an old 
 papyrus, Blass, Ausspr.^ 48, and the confusion between et?] and 
 etry, H 340, 2 88. et'jjt occurs on the papyrus that has ddr}L. 
 
 239.] Final HI becomes EI. 
 
 1. In the dative singular of A(r]) and -rjv- stems. 
 
 For the forms from Euboian Ionic, see § 433, 3. The Hero- 
 doteian liaaiki'i, or ^acnXei, is due to the analogy of other cases, 
 "Apei, found Sim. Amorg. 1^3, may be read "Apr] ; "Apei in Homer 
 will readily yield to "Apd, or "Apr] (4> 112, 431, B 479). Smyth, 
 DiphtJiong EI, pp. ofi, Atl. 
 
 2. In the subjunctive. Here we have to distinguish between 
 (1) et, an original form with short modal vowel (Schulze, Hermes^ 
 XX 491 ff.). 
 
2l8 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [2^0. 
 
 of the fifth century. 
 
 betweeen 411-402 or 
 
 Kara^H Teos^ 156 B 37, 
 
 eKKo'\/re(i) Tecs, 156 B 38, 
 
 TTou/irei Teos, 156 B 39, 
 
 TTon/o-et Chios, 174 A 12, 
 
 aTTOKpv\}/eL Ephesos, 14^1, g? 
 
 eirdpei Ephesos, 1452, 
 
 Cf. irapajx^i-^eTat Mimn. 3, and also in Kretan (Baunack, in 
 his Sfudien, I 3; Bechtel, Gott. NacJir., 1888, p. 402). 
 
 (2) et< 771 in later inscriptions. 
 
 ava\lfi](pL(r€L Amph. 10^9 (middle of the fom-th century). 
 
 TrapikOet Orop. 183, 
 
 abiKel Orop. l8j,, 
 
 eKTLvei Orop. i8j^, 
 
 abiKi]del Orop. 18^4, 
 
 avvyutpil Orop. l8. q, 
 
 Ttapel Orop. 189^, = '77ap?yt< 7rape?/t ; 
 cf. el 1834, = ?], 
 
 ejLi/3dAAet Orop. 18^^, 
 
 This ei< TjL is restricted in Ionic to the division of the West ^, 
 and in so far presents a proof of the progression of West Ionic 
 and Attic along* the same phonetic lines ^. In Attika the change 
 of 7]L to et occurs about 376 B. c, the sound being represented 
 either by et (jSovXel) or by e (aire). 7jt has here become a closed 
 e. There are no examples of this later et from other portions of 
 Ionic territory, and even in West Ionic the change has not been 
 thoroughg'oing' (Olynthos, 8 A 6, B 17 trjt; B 14 8oKr]t). In 
 the Kyklades and in Asiatic Ionic we have -i]i, in the verb and 
 nouns, except where t has fallen off. The change of -7/1 to -et 
 precedes in Amphipolis that of -cot to -ot. In Olynthos, 8 A 6, 
 Bechtel reads 7r]oAe'/xot whereas we have koivSh in 8 B 4 (as Avell 
 as -Tjt). 
 
 240.] Pinal H from HI. 
 
 Rarely, au4 then not in West Ionic, in the dative : ^lavr] 
 Kyzikos, 108 (sixth century); r?/ [3ovXi] Eryth. 199^ (after 394 
 B.C.); MaAvetr; Eryth. 201^ (fourth century); rf] Zeleia, 11315 
 (after 334); bryxoau] Mylasa, 248 C 15 (355/4); Ovr] Chios, 
 Paspates 9. 
 
 241.] m. 
 
 irpoip^s in Hesychios has been regarded as an example of an 
 Ionic change of medial cot to ot. Final cot becomes ot only in the 
 
 ' iav Se SetTeos, Ditt. Syll. 1267 (306-301), is Attic. 
 
 ^ The editor of the Oropian inscription No. 18 in Hermes XXI 91 regards as 
 due to Boiotian influence the shortening of diphthongs whose prior member 
 is a long vowel. Both this and the use of tt for (ra seem to be Attic rather 
 than Boiotian in colouring. 
 
243-] THE DIPHTHONG AY. 219 
 
 inscriptions of Western Ionic. See § 461 for examples. The i of 
 nom. -cot in the declension of nouns in -co, -ovs has been lost at a very 
 early date in Ionic as elsewhere. On co -f- 1, see § 299. Xajionaiv 
 Chios 174 B 16 is an Aiolism. In an Eretrian inscription (^E(f)rjiJL. 
 i888j 83 ff. 1. 180 C, I,Olvapyo has been read '2oivavTo{v) = 1,001-. 
 yivu>i(TK€iv Hrd. 521 is a slip rather than an analogue of \xiiJ.vr\a-K(a, 
 Aiolic fxifjLvaLa-Koo. 
 
 242.] AT. 
 
 Hipponax 2 has Kavrjs or Kavrj^, whereas in 479 we find ktj^, 
 though ACKQSV have here ki-jv^, cf. Lobeck^s Paralip. loi ff. 
 Kretschmer's attempt [K. Z. XXXI 354) at explaining the in- 
 terrelation of the two forms is unsatisfactory, bebavix^vcov is 
 found only in Sim. Am. 30. The above mentioned forms and 
 Homeric K?/f may be referred to kcoki;co. According to Schol. V 
 on Ih XV 421 bavKos was New Ionic for Homeric bdXos ; ba\6s 
 is from "^baF-eXos (cf. bdvos), bav\6s from *5af-Aos. baFeXos was 
 Lakonian (Hesychios s. v. 8a/3eAos). In Ionic and Attic before 
 sonant vowels, aya--, eya-, oyer- became a, e, 0, e.g. aKO-q. aKovoi 
 contains an ov reinstated from the fut., aor. &c. 
 
 243.] AT=AO in inscriptions. 
 
 AoTOKkrjos Latyschev, II 140, Pantikap., adroi Priene, 1449; 
 aoTos Chios, 1^4; aorov Samos, 22I14J a6[r(o]t Eryth. 202ii^, 263 
 (Asiatic); aoTols Samos, 22121^27^28' Eiyth. 2032 (ravTa 1. 8); 
 aoTovs Samos, 2212^, Leros, 107^; radra Leros, 107^2' Chios, 
 184, Eryth. 202io, i8j Samos, 22 1^^, Halik. 240^ (the only ex- 
 ample of the change in the dialect of Halikarnassos) ; kaorQv 
 Samos, 22I20J '2^3 (Asiatic); FkaoKos Eryth. 2091; also Imh.- 
 Bl. G. M. 290 Erythrai ; Taopias Eryth. 2092 ; KaoKaartcovos 
 Chios, 183 A 33; but KajvKaa-LODV Chios, 1779 and KavKa(r€[a]s 
 B. P. jr., 1889, p. 1195 ; cf. Eryth. 206 A 19; NaSkoxov Priene, 
 141, an inscription not in Ionic dialect but in Ionic orthograj)hy ; 
 NaoKAo? Pans. VII 3, 6 may be comj)ared; Styra, 19204? h^^s 
 Naucrret/cijj? ; Olynth. 8 B 2 vavTTt]yi](T(,ixu)v. In vavfxax^iih vav- 
 'nriyi](Tiixos, &c., we find a not rj. 
 
 The graphical substitution of o for v is practically confined 
 to Ionic territory. Kumanudes, 'ETrtyp. 'Arr. iTiiTVjxfiioL, 2597 
 (Ac)roK/)cx[r])7s), ojffers the only example from extra-Ionic territory. 
 So far no evidence for this ao has been found in any portion of 
 Ionic except that of the Asiatic mainland and adjacent islands. 
 
 This method of writing, however, does not of itself necessitate 
 the conclusion that Ionic av was of difl^erent colour from Attic av. 
 Perhaps the Naxian AFTTO represents nothing more than an 
 attempt at showing the pronunciation oi au VQ.2i clearer manner 
 
 ^ About 350 B.C. No. 199, Eryth. (394 b.c.) has ouTwt twice. 
 
220 THE IONIC DIALECT. [244. 
 
 than by AT, Blass, AusspracJie ^, pp. 74 ff. The sug-gestion that 
 AFTO was meant, and AFTTO was a correction of the eng-raver 
 (aFvTov) is exckided by the Old- Attic aFvrdp (AeAr. apx- 1890, 
 p. 103). See under F. This aF for av before a consonant is 
 chiefly the j)roperty of Kretan, and sporadically of Lokrian and 
 Korinthian. 
 
 244.] AT = 12. 
 
 See §§ 205, 258, for rp&jxa, 8t(/)wo-Kco, &c. The substitution of 
 o for V is more frequent in Ionic than that of v for 0. At present 
 but one example of the latter orthography is known to us in 
 Ionic: Mvkavpos, Styra, i9jg3=ju,i;Aa)pos < -ao/30?. Cf. irvkavpos 
 = 7TvX(Dp6s in Hesychios and the other examples quoted, G. 
 Meyer, Gravim. § 120. Hdt. Ill 72 has irvXovpos with the v. I. 
 TTvkcopos. The grammarians went so far as to hold that av be- 
 came cov in a supposititious form wuro's. Greg. Korinth. p. 419. 
 
 On OT from AT, see under OT, § 256. 
 
 245.] A from AT. 
 
 In late inscriptions v is sometimes not written before a con- 
 sonant. In Kaibel^s Epiffrawmata I find rovvoixa rarov 311 Smyrna; 
 ciTwv 321 near Sardis; karols 340, valley of the Makestos; arrjs 
 Sterrett, Papers of the Amer. School, III 235, clti]^ Latysehev, II, 
 p. 305(1991). 
 
 246.] ET. 
 
 On K.^vvv(Tos, see § 138, on AUvvaos, § 137. 
 
 EG for original ET is not specifically Ionic, though this ortho- 
 graphy was more extensively adopted by the lonians than by 
 any other Greek j^eople. EG is here invariably diphthongal. 
 
 1. Inscriptions of the fifth century \ 
 
 /Sao-tAeo's Chios, 174 C 10; Ke^aAeo? Adesp. 266, see Bechtel 
 ad loc. 
 
 2. Inscriptions of the fourth century. 
 
 (f)e6yeLv A^phip. 1O3; (peoyerco Amphip. IO24J (f)e6yo\ycnv^ 
 Chios, 185^5; KOTTpeoMv Chios, B. P. 7F. 1889, p. 1195; EdvopLbr]^ 
 Miletos, 102,; E6ikdo)v Ephesos, 15I3, Mionnet, VI 122; 
 E6TTa0Lh]{s) Ephesos, 151^; E6\copos Ephesos, 15T5; eovoLav 
 Samos, 2213; (opyeTTjv Eryth. 202.5^; FuoOvbaixos Klazom., Le 
 Bas, Fo^. Arch. Inscr. Ill i. No. 86, Head, //. A. 491 ; AeoKatos 
 Klazom. 1693, Head, //. N. 491. Cf. keoKols Priene, 141, Ionic 
 orthography as in Na6kox_ov ; @€ottls Chios, ZeiUchr.f. Nuniism. 
 XIV 153, No. 3. Cf. 0e{;rr[ts], /. /. No. 4 = Bechtel, 194 (both 
 fourth century). AfOKcoi-os (and A^vKOivos) Latysehev, II 296. 
 
 ' eo5o|€ I. G. A. 390 Amorgos, an obscure insci'iption, placed by some as 
 early as the first half of the seventh century. 
 
 ^ Bechtel's [eopyJeVrjv Eryth. 199-, is doubtful on account oi ahrui 1. 5, 12. 
 
247] THE DIPHTHONG EY. 221 
 
 3. Inscriptions of third century. 
 Edayoprjs Tliasos, 833 ; cf. 83^. 
 
 4. Of uncertain date. 
 
 Edpvba{iJ.os) Eryth. 209.,; ^cvoiireos Sinope, 1 1 6. 
 On coins E6o-e/3?/? Imh.-Bl. G. M. 324 Miletos^ cf. 290, tepeo's 
 Chios, Pasp. 9^^, Eo-nadib-qs ih. 39. 
 
 'E.oTtdfxovos (Bechtel, Ion. Inschr., p. 104), held by Boeckh (C. I. G. 21 21) to 
 be Phanagoreian, cannot well be Ionic on account of -Trafioov = Kr-fifiwv, despite 
 TroAvna/xovos A 433, which must give place to Tro\vTrd/j./j.ovos of many MSS.^ 
 That 60 = fv is not confined to Ionic is clear from the following list : e60w\os 
 Knidos, C. D. I. 3550 ; &veo Sunium, C. I. A., Ill 73j2 (period of the empire), 
 the only instance in Attic ; 'Opcpeos C. I. G-. 7049 ; l,eorjpov C. I. G. 3423, 6'ls 
 Kveoffa Kos in J. H. S. IX 334 11. 57, 61, Eopuvofj-olv], Herakleia, the Megarian 
 colony, C. D. I. 3083 ; cf. e[v']o[p']Kfoai, Krete in Mus. It. Ill 563 ff. 1. 38 
 (Itanos). See HausouUier, B. C. H., Ill 51. Bechtel proposes to refer 
 EoTrdfj-ovos to Knidos. 
 
 This eo is sporadic merely, and does not indicate that the pro- 
 nunciation of ev (i.e. I.E. e + n) was different in the localities 
 where these eo forms were at home from that prevalent among all 
 Ionic speaking- Greeks. The following list shows the retention 
 of eu in words that in the above list had eo. 
 
 (pevyov[To]s 1%, Chalkis (?), found at Olympia; (f)evy(tiv i^^; 
 (f)evyeiv lasos, 1045 ; Evayopris Thasos, 83^ ; Ev6vbaiJ.os Klazom. 
 Head, H. iV". 491; Ev{7r)opia Pantik. 121; AevKMv Theod. (?) 
 127; A^VK[d]pi09 Styra, 19124J AevKapos 19380; Aei^Kcoro? Phanag. 
 164; AevKOios Klazom. Head, JL N. 491 (4tli cent.); [^i\v(ivviJ.ov 
 Eph. 145^; EvKpaTov Teos 159,3. 
 
 There are no indications of eo for ev in the literary monuments. 
 
 On ev for original eo, see also under Contraction^ § 287 ; on -ev 
 in the genitive singular, § 426. 
 
 247.] evo represents the diphthong ev in ritr^evo? = WirQevs, 
 Ephesos, Num. Chron. 1881, 16, with an v between eo that recalls 
 the f of Naxian aFvTov, Attic aFvrdp, cf. Prellwitz, Uent. Litt.-Ze'd. 
 1890, p. 1538. eov stands for eo = ei; in Aeoui'Os, Maroneia, on a 
 coin in Imhoof-Blumer"'s collection, referred to by Bechtel on 196. 
 eov^ev also in 'AptaT0KA.E0T? Thasos, 72^, Evpv(jBevEOX<i Samos, 
 217. Analogous is aov in YlaovXKlva C. I. G. 6665, G. Meyer, 
 Gr. § 120. Cf. § 529, Baunack^s Sladien, I 72, B. B. II 269. 
 
 An hyper-Ionic ev, due to a supposed fondness of the dialect 
 for this sound, takes the place of ou in MSS. of Hdt. (§ 690), and 
 in such forms as yaa-Keva-rj Herodas 4^2 (§ 44)- 
 
 /3 takes the place of v in the late Karea-KelBaa-ev Kyzikos, 
 C.^I. G. 3693. Cf. the^ame form C. I. G. 2015 (Gallipoli), and 
 
 ^ On Uo\vin]/j.ovi5ao w 305, see Wilamowitz, Horn. Untersuch. 70, note. See 
 §§ 169, 344. 
 
222 THE IONIC DIALECT. [248. 
 
 such forms as Boiot. evbofj-op C. D. I. 49I17, €vho[Ji€KovTa 3206^7 
 (Korkyra). 
 
 248.] Loss of T in ET. 
 
 Before vowels v, like t, may be expelled. Scanty evidence of this 
 phenomenon is furnished by the Ionic poets, Hipponax using" ev 
 as a short syllable in evutvov 22 B (cf. 'Ecawixevs Kumanudes, 
 'Einyp. 'Arr. kiTLTVjx^ioi 50I3), Orjpevei 22 A, according- to the 
 scholiast on Hephaistion (p. 156, Gaisf. ^ = p. 106, Westph.), who 
 says that Hipponax often treated at and ol as short. Herodas 
 3^^ has i/cereuo). The shortening of ev is very rare ; cf . Pind. P. 
 VIII ^^ lyvevcav. 
 
 Inscriptions offer us but doubtful evidence : — 
 
 'Ea\KLh]s Styra, iQ^ssi ^lay be due to carelessness, as Blass 
 suggests; at least we have EvakK€ibr]s Thasos, 77 B 10, and 
 EmAKiSeco Th. (L.) 3 A 10, 
 
 TTpvTavi[o)vTos Priene, 14410, Boss' conjecture for -ecoiTos of the 
 transcribers. Johansson, J). J . C, p. 61, retains -ecovros, which 
 he explains as = -rjovTos, comparing Lesbian a8tK?;a). This is, 
 however, entirely unwarranted and has in fact been partially 
 withdrawn by the same scholar, B. B. XV 171. 
 
 [/3ao-tA.]eoi^ros C. I. G. 2 1 07 c, Pantikapaion, is not free from 
 suspicion, since Ionic verbs in -evco retain the v^: e.g. jBaa-iXevov- 
 Tos Pantik. 118, Mylasa, 248 ABC; (^aLdpairevovTos 248 A 2; 
 depaireveaOai Oropos, 18^^; [Kt^aJAAei^oi Teos, 156 B 19; ixvrjfjLO- 
 v€vovT09 Halik. 23812- There is no confusion here between -evu) 
 and -eo) verbs such as is discussed by Bredow, p. 81. 
 
 249.] ET for AT. 
 
 Trdrevpov Oropos, 18^2! deserves notice as it has been called 
 
 the Ionic form, found also Theokr. XIII 13. Treravpov, expelled 
 
 from Nikander on the authority of tt, occurs now only in the 
 
 Septuagint. irirevpov < Tier + rjvpov =^ 7T€t + dvpov, niTavpov < Trer 
 
 + dvpov. 
 
 evKripov = i)oYic avkrjpov, < a-FA?;-, cf. Hesych. alSXrjpd. Cf. 
 Bekk. An. I 4643, Bachm. An. I 1640Q. 
 
 250.] Genuine OT. 
 
 The diphthongal ov is generally represented upon inscriptions 
 by OT or in a few cases by ilT {9^T = ov, and arAE = ovhe, 
 Thasos, 68). OT in TOTTO, Halik. 2382^,23,3.3,35, T0TT05:, 
 Amphipolis, 1020- TOTO^roCro 175 = Roberts, I 150 (Chios), 
 and Thasos, /. //. S. VIII 402, 14, as occasionally in pre-Euklei- 
 deian Attic documents 2. APOAHI Teos, 156 B i'j = apovpriL (?) 
 
 ^ KareffKfaare Magnesia (Mover. Ka\ fiifix. rris euet-yy. ax"^- ^M-"pf- i^/S? P- 46), 
 is late. Cf. fsimilar examples from Kyme (CD. I. 31I42), Korkyra (C. I. G. 
 1838 B 6), Tenos (C. I. G. 23443) ; Karaa-KeaxrrjTai Delphi (W-F), 2633. 
 
 2 Cf. K. Z. XXIX 140. 
 
252.] THE DIPHTHONG OY. 223 
 
 is a vexatious spelling-, compared with Kyprian a' ro' w ra' 
 where the diphthong" is g-enuine, and due to the ground-form 
 apo-vp-a. The suffix -vp- is the weak form of -Fap-. On a 
 Thessalian inscription, C. D. I. 371, we find apOp\as\, and in 
 one MS. of Acharn'ians, 762, apoopaioL (Rav. apovpaioi), where the 
 ov would seem to be adulterine. Misteli [K. Z. XVII 178) 
 suggested that ^apopFd is the ground form. Cf. Archil. 148, 
 
 Genuine ov (i. e. + n) is retained in Ionic as in other dialects. 
 It occurs in ablaut forms^ such as aTiovhj and probably in 
 [3povKOs' aKpihcuv ethos, "leaves (cf. ISpevKos' i] p.iKpa aKpis), since 
 an Ionic v is not, despite its pronunciation, represented in 
 Hesychios by ov. ov also occurs where v has been joined to as 
 in To{h)-v-To (particle v). On genuine ov from contraction, see 
 
 §§ 295, 313, 317. 
 
 ova Hippokr. II 500 and in Theophrastos, from ovov sorh-apple, 
 contains a g-enuine diphthong despite wa Plato, Si/nijj. 1 90 D (so 
 the MSS.). 6a was found in the text of Hipp, by Galen. 
 
 251.] Spurious OT. 
 
 The monophthongal ov is generally written O ; e.g.: — 
 
 dpKOv Halik. 2382(3, ^opKoCi'j rOpp-OKpareos Prokon. 1032 = 
 Tov 'Epixo-; (iOXevoL Teos, 156 B 24 BO AH Thasos, /. H^ S. 
 VIII 401 21 and At]owcrO 1. 17, an inscr. that has also OT 1. 21, 
 23; Tt,p.OxeovTes Teos, 156 B 29; Tetxi-Oo-rjs Miletos, 98. 
 
 Sporadically OT appears : — 
 
 TOT Amj)hipolis, 10^3 , only ease in older Ionic of this writing" 
 
 of TOV. 
 
 /3ap/3apOT2 Teos, 156 B 26 ; in every other case of the accus. 
 pi. 02. 
 
 Spurious OV by contraction of + 0, see § 266. 
 
 252.] Spurious OT before nasals^. 
 
 p.ovvos<*p-ovFo-s, Horn., Hdt., Herakl. 6^^, Demokr. 70, 107, 
 Archil, epod. 89.^, Sim. Amorg. 724, 143J, Anakr. 84^, Kail, i^^, 
 Solon, troch. tetr. ^^^ (§ ^2); piovvoKepa Archil. 181; pLovvap^os 
 Theog. 52, Sim. Keos, 87, but 88 piovos, as Solon, 243, 93. In 
 Herodas we find p.ovvos 2g9, 34, 6-^^, ^g, p.6vos only once (6^^). 
 Aischylos and Euripides have the Ionic form occasionally in 
 dialogue parts (§ 77). p^ovvos survives in late inscriptional poetry ; 
 e.g. Papers of the American School, III 341 g (Pisidia). Lukian, 
 Abydenos, Aretaios, and other later Ionic writers have ov. Arrian 
 varies between povvos and p.6vos, but the prevalence of the former 
 in Aretaios and Hippokrates is so striking that there can be no 
 question but that p.ovvos was accepted by all the pseudo-Ionists, 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 241, Greg. Kor. p. 390, 453, Et. M. 60735, An. Ox. I 29617, An. 
 Baclim. II 6434 (,Max. Plan.), Tzetz. Ex. II. 6123 and on Hsd. W. D. 12. 
 
224 THE IONIC DIALECT. [253. 
 
 except the author of the Vita Ilomeri. Attic Mow- in MovvvxCa, 
 Movvi\i())v, see § 75- 
 
 yovvaTa< yovF-, Hdt., Theog. 978, Tyrt, lo^^ ; Archil, tetr. 75 
 yovvovixivi^ ; Luhian, d. d. S. 22 yovviov, Arrian, Q^6 yovara. 
 Hippokr. and Aretaios have the ov form^ which is found in Horn., 
 Hrd. 5,(5, 7,0 5 cf- Greg. Kor. 489. x^^^^V^} of the wild boar, //. 
 IX 539, and in Hipponax, 61, where it is generally translated 
 ' robber/ is from x^on'-, cf. Skt. f//n--sf/, ' boar.' 
 
 The etymology of ovv is uncertain. It is found Hipponax, 61, though there 
 probably an Atticism. Sim. Amorg. 7^5 has the genuine Ionic form. Wacker- 
 nagel {K. Z. XXIX 127) suggests that &v was extracted from /j.S}v. ixG>v is not 
 found in Ionic, save Hij^ponax, 52. See § 206. 
 
 The principle that the exigencies of the Homeric verse cannot 
 force any Greek form^ upon the ordinary dialect life of the 
 people is fatal to a genuine Ionic ovvo}xa ^, despite the fact that 
 Lukian, fee, read it in their copies of Hdt., and that it is supposed 
 to have been used by Pherekydes of Syros. Steph. Byz. attributes 
 it to Hekat. (frag. 180), while Herodian reports ovajxa (frag. 328). 
 In Herakl, 60, 65, 66 oroixa is the best MS, reading, yet Bywater 
 writes ovvofxa in all three passages, desj^ite ovojxdCeTai 36. In 6^, > 
 Clemens has ovoixa almost side by side with \xotwov, while ovvoixa is 
 found in Eusebios cod. D. Hellanikos, frag. 150, has ovoixa. Stein 
 writes ovvoixa in Hdt. although the MSS. are in a constant flux, 1 
 and dvoixaivoo, 6voiJLa((D. 6vo\xa is the genuine Ionic prose form, i 
 found Oropos, 183^, and so also in 'Oro/xdcrrou Kyme (Roberts, ! 
 I 1 74). 6vo}xa is found in poetry, Theog. 246, Tyrt, 1 231 ; 6vo}xa- 
 o-ro'j Theog. 23, 'OrojuaKptre 503, cf. Hdt. VI 127, VII 6. ovvoixa 
 receives poor support from Sim. Amorg. 7g.^, kovvoixclkXvtov, a 
 form alien to the genius of the folk-dialect (misread from KON ?), 
 In Hippokrates, II 190, VI 392, VIII 186 {6), Lukian, d. d. S., 
 de Astr. [Fit. Auct. 5, ov- poorly supported), Arrian, Aretaios, | 
 ovvoixa prevails over ovojxa; in the flta Homeri, ovoixa over ovvoixa. * 
 oro/xa^co is the accepted form in later Ionic prose, while ovoixaa-TL \ 
 varies with owvoixaart. The Homeric form and the possibility of \ 
 misunderstanding rovvoixa brought into the texts of the Ionic 
 jirose writers all the instances of ovvoixa. 
 
 253,] Spurious OT before pi 
 
 ^ e[u€Ka was not completely enfranchized until the imperial period. 
 
 - Joh. Gr. 240 B, Birnbavim 6775,, Meerm. 652, Aug. 667. 
 
 ' rb ovpos interlinear schol. Ven. A on A 157, Joh. G. 240 B, Greg. K. 390, 
 Meerm. 652, Aug. 667, Bachm. An. II 6434 (Max. Plan.\ ovpos, boundary, 
 Birnb. 6775^, Eust._ 23,3, 48S7, i774:.b, 187138-11, cf. 1282,5(149,5, 19405, 112I52 
 ovpos is called Aiolic or Ionic through the grammarians muddling it with the 
 61/ of eijKriXos, see An. Ox. Ill 398:(,\ ohpoirvyiov Eust. 187 145 ; Kovpos, Kovp-q Et. 
 M. 6o7;,i;, Eust. 23.7, 48S5, 15.^1550, G. K. 387, An. Ox. I 242,,, I 296,7, Bekk. An. 
 Ill 1096, Bachm. An. II h^y^ (Max. Plan.), Tzetz. Ex. II. 1243, schol. Ven. A 
 on A 275 (interlin. schol,). 
 
2^:^.] THE DIPHTHONG OY. 325 
 
 T. -opF-. 
 
 ovpos^, motmtam, Simonides of Amorgos 14^; Theog-nis 881 
 ovpeos, &c. ; Hekat. 172, 173 ovpea, ovpea-Lv. In Hdt. and 
 Homer we find both ovpos and opos. The latter is the sole 
 readmg of the MSS. in about nineteen passages in Hdt. In 
 other places where the word occurs, ABR have opos, CPd ovpos ; 
 whence Stein concludes, in opposition to Dindorf and Bredow, 
 that opos is the genuine reading in Herodotos. Of the pseudo- 
 lonists, Lukian has ovpos, d. d. S. 8, 28 ; Arrian has ovpos but 
 once (§ 11), opos fourteen times. Hippokr. II 58, 70, 72, &c., and 
 Aretaios have the form, as the Vita Homeri ; opos in Hekat. 44, 
 227, 344, Tyrt. 5^, Archil, tetr. 749, epod. 115 (hexameter peritto- 
 syll.), Anakr. a^, Theog. 1292. The Hipponaktian (355) opdas 
 is suspicious, and was attacked by Renner (p. 179), whose Trerpas 
 yepaios has not met with favour. The form opetot is certain, 
 Arrian, 17. 'Opo(3li][t'i]s'] or 'Opo/3te[ws] Chalkis, Roberts, I 172, 
 an inscription not adopted by Beehtel. Ovpdkios is an uncertain 
 conjecture of Roehl, No. 394 = Beehtel, No. 42. From Homer 
 we obtain no information as to the character of the ov, since all 
 the forms in ov are found under the ictus (23 times). 
 
 ovpos, houndary, Hom., Chios, 174 A 6, 8, 10, ovpocpvXaKes 174 
 A 15, 19 with O; opovpos Halik. 240^^; ovpos, not opos, Samos, 
 316 ; and if I. G. A. 406 is Ionic, then H0P02 must be read 
 Hovpos. In Herodotos ovpos, op^ovpicLv, ovpi^^iv (a form found 
 only 2 in MSS. of Hdt.), &c., Herakl. 30, Demokr. Mor. 8, 9, 
 ovpos. The MSS. of Hippokrates have opos very freqviently. In 
 Arrian 2 opos, 40 ovpos, Euseb. Mynd. 13 ovpos. Solon, trim. 
 ^6^, has the Attic form. Upon a term-stone from Thera, ovpop 
 Cauer, 147, ovpoi Dittenb. St/ll. ^yy, Kretan ovp^ia Cauer, 121 B 
 J, 9, ovpevoiVTi C 41. 
 
 bovp- is not found in MSS. of Hdt. except I 79, where Stein 
 reads bopara, cf. VII 89, 224, IX 62, hopam VII 41. hovpara 
 is here correct. Tyrt. n 20 5 37^ Archil, eleg. 35, Anakr. 21 q have 
 the ov form, which alone is genuine Ionic (Greg. Kor. 489). Cf. 
 Aovpt?;s Adesp. 21 (Western Ionic) of the sixth century, hopi 
 Archil, eleg. 2j, 2, recalls epic hopv, though Hom. has hovpi, etc. 
 
 Kovpos, Kovpr], Hom. Kovpr] is also found on Knidian documents, 
 C. D. I. 3538-41, 3543-44. On Kovpr} in Attic, see § y^^ (2). 
 (;)ovpri Naxos, 23 (but KoprjL Paros, 65 (late) ; Kopijs Eryth. 
 
 ' Ovpeios, ovpeaiPaiTrjs in the tragedians make for an Tonic ovp-. Solmsen, 
 K. Z. XXIX 358, goes so far as to hold that in S>pos (Dor.) and opos, w and o 
 are abhiut vowels, and that by qualitative assimilation of oi^en pan-Hellenic 
 0) and closed 0, a closed w {=ov) resulted in ovpot. The etymology of the 
 word is uncertain, and is here only tentatively regarded as based upon opf ; 
 cf. Johansson K.Z. XXX 419. 
 
 ^ The Hesychian gloss ovpicrat' dplaai. TrapaffKevdffai has been referred by 
 some to ovpi((iv from oipos ' favourable wind ' in tragedy. 
 
226 THE IONIC DIALECT. [254. 
 
 206 B 22j almost an Attic inscription) ; AtoiTKovpCbr]? Halik. 
 .24O30 ; Atoa-KovpoLo-i Naukr. 665, cf. 675-682, ^33-^3^ '■> A]to- 
 o-Koi;po[t]o-t 257 (unc. loc); but ALocrKopoiv Eryth. 206 A 7 (Attic) ; 
 AiocrKovpihevs Thasos (L.)> 1 1 C 1 1 ; AioaKovpLbov Pantikap., 
 Lat. II 239, Thasos (L.), 20 B 3. In the poets we find Kovp-, 
 
 Tyrt. lOg, 152, 16 (Doric!); Anakr. 69, 76 ; Hrd. i.g, 36g. 464. 
 4^^, Bergk. F. L. G. Ill 710; AiocrKovpos Hipponax, 120, and 
 so in Ildt., who has also KovpChios. Aret. 18 has Kovpijcn. 
 
 Kopos, Attic, Hdt. only IV ;^^, 34. Archil. 130, in the 
 iobacchics, uses Koprjs. 
 
 In Attic we find AiocrKovpoL (Thnk. Ill 75, IV no), see § 77, 
 78; in Seleukeia, AioaKovpibov Imh.-Bl. G. 31. 573. For 
 KOip'ihes Sim. Am. 15 we expect the ov form, which Athen. Ill 
 ic6 D strangely enough declares to have been used by Sophron 
 and Epicharmos. The w form is attested in Epich. 67 (Lorenz, p. 
 244). Epicharmos may have used Ionic words (Phot. 1839), but 
 not Ionic vocalism. On 'E-TrtKoupo? Styra, 1935, Samos, 22I2; cf. 
 Schulze, Quaest. Horn. 17, Solmsen, K. Z. XXX 600. 
 
 2. -op(T. ovpov Hdt., ovpa Hipp. II 682, and often. 
 
 ovpi] tail, illustrates WackernageFs theory [K. Z. XXIX 127) 
 that the Greek accent was partly exspiratory in character, opao^ 
 becoming oppos, open] becoming ovprj. 
 
 254.] Spurious OT before A^ 
 
 I. oXF. 
 
 ov\aL Hdt., TpLxovXos Archil. 196 = owAoVpixe?, Hom., Hdt. 
 (Syrak. 6\j3axoLov),< FoXF. The accent is troublesome on account 
 of the probability of XF, when preceding the accent, becoming* XX. 
 Hdn. II I lO^Q cites ovXas from y 441. Schmidt, Neutra, p. 48 note, 
 thinks the old-time explanation of ovXal as oXai KpiQal may ex- 
 plain the accent in Hdn. 
 
 Hom., Xenoph. aTTocpOey. 2, ovXos^, entire, < oXFo- is, it is claimed, 
 not represented by the same form in later Ionic. If there is no 
 form except oAos, the parallelism between Hom. Ionic ov by com- 
 pensatory lengthening == Doric 0) = Attic would not be complete. 
 In Herald. (59) some MSS. have ovXa, which Bywater reads. 
 We look in vain to Herodotos, who does not use the word in any 
 form. Herodas has oAo? only. Theognis 73 is the first occur- 
 rence of oAcos and here the initial o is not specifically Ionic. 
 Hippokrates certainly has 0A09, e.g. II 612. Greg. Kor. 80 says 
 that ovXdv was used instead of vyiaiveiv ; cf . Hesych. s. v. ovXe 
 (co 402). 
 
 If KoXeov in Hekat. (Hdn. I 61 j,,) is Ionic (as it is Attic), kovX^ov 
 r 272 is not from KoXFiFov, biit due to metrical lengthening. 
 
 ' MovKios from ij.o\e7y (!) Eust. S0437, 88203, 185240 ; ov\evr] (!) Eust. 4615, iA- 
 being called Doric. 
 
 - Job. Gr. 241 B, Vat. 694. 
 
254-] THE DIPHTHONG OY. 237 
 
 Proper names in UovXv- have come to light in Meg-arian, 
 ThessaHan, and Attic as well as in Ionic. Hdt. has ttoAAo's ^, a 
 form that is found in Arch. 81, loi epod., 103 epod., Herodas, 
 Anakr. 11, 433, 93, in a metrical inscription from Abdera, 162, 
 in Demokr. e.f/. 185, &c. ttovXvs in Theog. 509 need not be 
 Megarian, but is to be classed with such lonisms as iTovXiniobos 
 e 432^ Hymn Ajwll. 77. 
 
 tlovXvbdixas Smyrna^ i537> Eretria, 16 B 5, -yapov Eretria, 
 
 B. C. H. II 277, Uovkvu)Vo\s'] Chios, 187, UovKvava^ Thasos 
 (L.), 8 B I, Ilovkvo^ Thasos, 78 B 11. There are no names in 
 YlovXv- in Hdt. 
 
 Cf. also in other dialects : — 
 
 UovXvTioiv in the Hermokopidai process (Thuk.), Megara, 
 Wovkia's C. D. I. 302559 J ^ovkvy^apris C. D. I. 302928) ^ovkvhaixas 
 
 C. D. I. 302126^ Ylovkv- 302540. 
 
 There are no names in IToAAo-, but those in rioAu- are abundant. 
 TlokvapKr]^ Styra, 19287J and perhaps 194065 ^o\kvap\Kihif]s\ Naukr. 
 I 195, Ylokvhoipos Styra, 19288; n[o]Aufetz'[t]o77S' Styra, 19407^ 
 Ylokkv^ihis 19286) framed from Ylokv^tvos, Ylokvdpovs Thasos, 75 
 B II, Teos, 1582Y, nokvap7]Tos Abdera, 163^2, Maroneia, 196^^, 
 Thasos, 723, TlokvviKos Maroneia, Head, H. N. 2,16, Tlokvhdixas 
 Thasos, 76^, Ylokvaiv^Tos Thasos, 81 B 11, Thas. (L.), 3 A 7, 6 A 9, 
 15 C 10, tlokvoKTos Eretria 16 B ;^'j, 49; also Thessal. 34575, 
 TIokv\app.os Smyrna, I53nj HoAi^o? Smyrna, 153.25 rioAvTret^)]? 
 Erythrai, 2c6 A 28, Ylokmbos Halik. 2404^, Ilokij^avTos Thasos 
 (L.), 6 D 9, Ylokvdkdi]s Thasos (L.), 10 A 11, nokvTLiJ.os Thasos 
 (L.), 21 5, llokv- Thasos (L.), 16 A 17, B 3, IToAul/3]os Volci, 
 Roberts, I 188 H. 
 
 Bechtel holds that the names in ITouAu-, in whatever dialect 
 found, are due to the influence of the epos. This, even if true, 
 would not render nugatory our contention that the Homeric 
 verse cannot impose its forms upon the dialects. Proper names 
 have their own peculiar history. Bv\t that TTovkv- is a genuine 
 prose form ^, from contamination of ttoAu- and ttovA- (ttouA- 
 originatiiig in the oblique cases, e.ff. ttoAu-o?) is evident from 
 the Attic TTovkvTTovs, TTovkvTTobetpov, YIovkvTLcop in comedy. 
 
 In Hdt. TTovkvs is not supported by IMS. testimony of such a 
 character as to demand its insertion. It is but sparingly attested 
 in the late lonists. Lukian and Arrian follow Hdt., while the 
 medical writers use now irovkv-, now ttoAu-. Tiovkv occurs in the 
 letters of Hippokrates (XVII 16 in c) ; elsewhere irokv^ and 
 TToAi; should probably be read (Lindemann, p. 12 ff.). Cf. § 479. 
 
 It is no contradiction of the laws of phonetic development 
 that TTovk- and irokv- [e.ff. TrokvKpoTrj Anakr. 9O2) should be co- 
 
 ^ Greg. Kor. 1 2 quoting Homer only. 
 
 ^ Ionic according to An. Bachm. II 6435 (Max. Plan.^. 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 THE IONIC DIALECT. [255. 
 
 existent at one and the same time in a single dialect. As in 
 Ionic, so too in Megarian (Baunack, Sfml. I 229) both forms are 
 permissible. A -rrcoA.- is, however, foreign to Ionic, despite irdokv- 
 TTov in Sim. Amorg. 29. Perhaps Sim. of Keos is the Simonides 
 referred to by Athenaios, VII 318 F. In Hippokr. VI 214 the 
 oldest MS. (6) has ttwAutto?, and so in VII 50, 52 (with variations 
 in -0- and -ov-) of the excrescence in the nose. In VII 222 
 TioXvTTohas {d), VI 550 TrovXvTTobes (9), VII 276 (the animal). 
 
 2. -oXv. 
 
 ovXr], scar, Lat. vohms. 
 
 ovXos, crisj), < FoXvo- ? 
 
 ^ovXoixai, probably from ^oXvo-, from (3ajXv- ? Forms with O 
 are: /30A7j7at Oropos 1831; KpiTo/SOA.)]? Kyme, 2; Qev^ovXov . 
 and BovXodeixios Naxos, 28 with OT (late). I 
 
 The ov of Ov\v/j.iros ' appears to be due to the metre alone in Homer and 
 Theog. 1 136. In Herodotos 'OA.- is to be written, a form attested by Xenoph. 
 23, Theog. 1347, Solon, tr. 362, Sim. Amorg. 721, Ai-ch. tetr. 740, Hii^ponax, 
 tr. 30 A, Anakr. 24 ; 'O^vfiirica (dat.) Miletos, loi (late), and 'OAu^irioScopos, 
 Smyrna, 153.27 (before 350 b.c.\ 
 
 Likewise due to the ictus is the ov of ov\6fj.evos Hom., Tyrt. 72, Theog. 156, 
 1062. Cf. Anecd. Bachm. II 6435 (Max. Plan.), Tzetz. Ex. II. 6121. 
 
 255.] Other cases of OT. 
 
 Editors of Hdt. rightly reject ovhG>v, ways, I 123, which is 
 found in R. Samos, 22000,00, has ohov (346/5 B.C.). ovbov, 
 iliresliold, I 90, is from ohfo^ and is the form proper to Ionic 
 prose and poetry, cf. Od. p 196, Hrd. i^.^' 32s- 
 
 vova-os^ Herakl. 104, Hdt., Mimn. 6, Solon, 24jo, Theog. 274, | 
 Hrd. 4g, 17, Pindar, &c., is not from ^voyKi09 = *vov(r(Tos, as < 
 Ciirtius held in his Sfudien, X 328, I formerly derived the word i 
 from (Trofrto?, = 01d Norse snau<Sr, stripped, poor, bereft, sneySiligr, 
 destitute (Germ, sclnwde), but now am inclined, in view of the co- 
 existence of ro(T€oo and vovaos, to set up with Aufrecht, K. Z. I 
 120, as a ground-form ^voaFo-, which would yield vavao^ or vocreo} 
 in accordance with the accentual principle mentioned, § 164, 
 whereby vovtroi ^ would depend upon '^vocrFos, i-ocreoj upon ^vocrFos. 
 vova[ov] must be read in Teos 156 B i, where Rob. 142 B i has 
 yo'o-[oi>]. That ov is not due to metrical necessity is clear from 
 Mimn. 6. Lukian (tt. 8. t. 0-. § 16) says that vovaos was a part 
 
 ^ OvXvfiTTos Vat. 694, Anecd. Bachm. II 6435 (Max. Plan.), Tzetz. Ex. II. 6103, 
 called poetic merely Choir. 516,5. \ 
 
 ^ vovcros is found twenty-one times without variation in the MSS. of Hdt. ; 
 v6(Tos comes to light about ten times, vovcros is called Ionic by J. G. 240 B, 
 Greg. Kor. p. 390, Gram. Mecrm. 652, Et. M. 607,5, An. Ox. I 296,5, ApoU. Adv. 
 p. 14921, Schn., Anecd. Bachm. II 643^ (^Max. Plan.) ; poetic Bekk. An. II 69421 
 and Choir. 5169. 
 
 ' Schulze {Quaest. Hom. p. 35) thinks the proper Homeric form is i'6a-aos, for 
 which rova-os. is an error of transci-iption. 
 
 >) 
 
257-] THE DIPHTHONG OY. 239. 
 
 of the medical language of his day. A list of the occurrences of 
 vovaos upon late epigrams will be found in Wagner, Qtiaesf. de 
 epigram. 27, to which add Lat. 11 167, II p. 303, B. C. H. VIII 
 502, No. XI, from Phrygia, Papers of Am. School at Athens, III 
 34I3. Lukian adopts the form seven times in the Sji/ria dea, 
 Arrian has it chap. 15, Herakleitos, epist. V, Pherekyd. and 
 Hippokr. epist. ; and so too Aretaios. Hdt. alw^ays uses voaeui, 
 if MS. authority means anything, sometimes in conjunction 
 with i-ov(Tos (III 33, 149)- Hippokrates, Lukian, and Aretaios 
 agree in adopting vocreo). cf. Lindemann, 6. The MSS. of these 
 authors (cf. also Demokr. 67) fluctuate constantly between voarjixa 
 and vova-qixa, to the former of which preference is generally 
 given. Sim. Amorg. i^g has voa-oi, which was changed by Ahrens 
 and Renner (see especially the latter in Curtius^ Stud. I 178). 
 In Hymn XV i we find voauiv. The author of the Vita Homeri 
 used the form only. 
 
 "LvpaKovaios appears to exist in Ionic side by side with ^vpaKo- 
 (TLos. That the latter is not a fictitious form is evident from its 
 occurrence in Latyschev, II 300 (fourth century, from Panti- 
 kapaion), in C. D. I. 1200, incorrectly supposed to be Arkadian, 
 and in inscriptions from Agrigentum, Cauer -, 1999, ^3, &c. -Kovara 
 is from -Kovrta, -Kocra from -Korea, instead of -Karia, by influence 
 of the former termination. 
 
 liovcxa (An. Ox. I 278^5) from p-ovTia ; on oS?, see §§ 266, 292, 
 545. S? is Doric, ara Tarantine ; Sim. K. 37^^ has ovas. oSs is 
 from 00s, S)s from oFar-. 
 
 256.] Interrelation of OT and AT. 
 
 eovT&v Panionion, 144 ( = C. I. G. 2909), an inscription but 
 indifferently written. 
 
 evTovOa Oropos, 18^^, whereas Sim. Amorg. 23 has hravOa, 
 Hdt. evOavra. This and the preceding example present no slight 
 difficulties, since in no Greek dialect is there a well-attested in- 
 stance of an interchange of av and ov. These forms if genuine 
 at all may be rescued on the view that they show the influence 
 of other pronominal forms (ovtos, iv rovrt^). 
 
 In the Attic OwAiarat C. I. A. I 231^ = Ai/Atarat, C. I. A. I 
 226j3, this recourse to the influence of analogy being out of the 
 question, we find that we must accept a change of a to under the 
 influence of a following v. This change is unique, recalling only 
 indirectly w for av. See § 244. 
 
 257.] HT. 
 
 In the dialect life of Greece wherever r}v appears before a con- 
 sonant it is not an original diphthong ^. So in Ionic ypr]vs, vrjvs 
 
 ^ In a pre-dialectal period eu, ou, du, having become Su, &c., before con- 
 sonants, their history is the same as that of I.E., eu, &c. 
 
230 THE IONIC DIALECT. [258. 
 
 witli T] from the oblique cases (vqF-69 ypr^F-os) ; so too in -npiqvs, 
 whence Ylpr\vXos, a Thasiote name (and ITpear^Ty? Keos, 50, IV 
 65), from root prdi. rjv in the aug-ment (e.ff. -qv^rjcrare Solon, 1I3) 
 is not proethnic en or dit. In Attica rjv as augment of eu- verbs 
 held its ground until the second half of the fourth century. 
 Hipponax, 632, has KaT-qvXCa-Qiqv , but Hdt. often avoids t]v-. 
 
 258.] ore. 
 
 Like rju, cou is not an original diphthong in the dialects, mv 
 originates in Ionic chiefly by crasis, as in T^iVTo (E 396 coi^ros-) ^, 
 e/xecourou, (recourou, kciiVTov < eo + avrov. All the Ionic forms in the 
 other cases are based on the genitive. Attic eixavTov, aavTov, are 
 from analogy to e/x(e) + avrov, o-(e) + avrov. Whether kov in kOTk, 
 on a papyrus, cited Blass, A/isspracZ/e^, 43, is for K(av, as in Sappho^s 
 KoyvK i.,^, Kcovbev, Epicharmos, 190, may well be doubted. The 
 same Ionic papyrus has KEN, 2. e. k + kv, and Sappho's havr^ by 
 the side of hv^vre shows the possibility of elision, i.e. K'(at) + oi'. 
 Nor would I agree to Blass^ explanation of kovrSiv Priene, 144 
 = C. I. G. 2909 (Mykale), from koovr&v. A form ecourwy is 
 utterly unknown on Ionic inscriptions. The a of kavrioi' became 
 either through assimilation to the following v, as e became in 
 Kretau ^^ovbCa, or kovrciv is due to the influence of ovros, &c. See 
 
 To a limited extent outside of crasis, coti appears in Ionic. The 
 cases are however all suspicious. Herodoteian MSS. have ^coCjua^, 
 doi}ViJid((o, rpcovjxa IV 1 80, in one MS. ; Dem. 31or. 20g davixa(o- 
 fxivcov, 20j4 6avixdC(^v ; Luk. Asfr. 3, Sj/r. 7, 8, 10, 30, has 6(x>vp.a, 
 OctiVixdCco 13, 32, 36, Ooovpiaa-rri V. A. 6, and the Vita HoDieri, 
 600V-. Arrian, Ind. 15 davixa, but 6S>}xa 40, as Euseb. § 3. The 
 epistles of Hippokr. as the genuine works (cf. Galen, XVIII 
 A 443) have generally the Attic form, rpocivfxa is found in the 
 majority of the MSS. S//r. 20, while Arrian, Lid. 19 has rpG)p.a^. 
 Greg. Korinth. p. 420, in quoting wvros as Ionic for avros, seems 
 to regard cov ^nd av as interchangeable. Aretaios abounds in 
 forms which indicate that the grammarians were ignorant of the 
 true interrelation of cou and av. See §§ 205, 244. 
 
 Lindemann {de dial. Ion. rec. p. 30) suggests that the cov of doivfia is due to 
 the influence of euivTov &c. Perhaps 0uiv/xa may be exj^laincd as the ablaut 
 form oi Brjf-os (Hesych. Brifios' davfia), cf. edfe'o^at = Ionic d-rjeofiai, § 6S5 ; and 
 
 ^ This thorn in the flesh of Aristarchos with his views as to the power of 
 6 in Homer, forced the Alexandrian to the assertion that &pi(TTos was an 
 Homeric form for &piffTos. 
 
 ^ Struve (Quaesi. dedial. Herod, specimen III, 1830) first treated the occurrences 
 of doivfxa. He compared the aiv of the Ionic pronoun (Attic av) with the wv 
 of euvfia (Oavfia). See § 565. Cf. Birnb. 67813, doivfxdffiov Eust. 48233. 
 
 ^ rpS>ixa Eust. 8935, cf. 10232, 99I6O) 165352. Ionic Tpft;eij' = Attic fi\dnreiv, 
 § 25, note. 
 
 JBJl 
 
26o.] VOWEL CONTACT. 23 1 
 
 was thus the incentive to the formation of a rpovfia. This suggestion must, 
 however, fall to tlie ground in case an original uv became a> and had av as its 
 ablaut. 
 
 Outside of Ionic the diphthong uv is due solely to crasis, and in Ionic we 
 must abandon Ocov/xa and Tpccv/j-a. 
 
 259.] Vowel Contact. 
 
 I. Contact of like vowels. 
 II. Contact of nnlike vowels. 
 
 III. Contact of vowels and diphthongs, diphthongs and diph- 
 thongs. 
 
 Under these heads will be treated actual contraction, poetical 
 synizesis, diaeresis, and crasis. 
 
 Both medial combination of vowels and diphthongs and 
 sentence phonetics are thus included. 
 
 Under the head of a short or long vowel + rj, co, are included 
 ■qt, cot. Examples of the crasis of t and v diphthongs are placed 
 under the head of a, e, o + the vowel in question [e.ff. ot + e under 
 O + E). In citing inscriptions I have generally selected only 
 those of considerable antiquity. Fuller information as to such 
 contractions as occur in the inflection of nouns and verbs is to be 
 found under the head of Declension and Conjugation. 
 
 260.] It is almost a canon of current belief that the Ionic 
 dialect, in its impatience of all contraction ^, occupies a position 
 entirely unique. New Ionic has been regarded as more pronounced 
 in its hostility to the closed forms than even Homer himself. 
 The MSS. of Herodotos and of the other early lonists have been 
 made the corner-stone of this belief from the time of the editio 
 piincejjs of Herodotos to the present day, and in justification 
 thereof the pseudo-Ionists have been called upon to give their 
 testimony. In the history of no dialect is there a parallel to the 
 retention, for such a period as that from the time of Homer 
 to that of Herodotos, of vowels brought into contact by the 
 disappearance of the spirants i/od, sigma, and van. 
 
 The Homeric language is, on the one hand, not an appellate 
 court to determine the genuine reading of the text of the 
 Halikarnassian historian. Where Homer discloses strata of 
 various periods, the stratum of latest date is apt to recur in 
 the fifth century. On the other hand the evidence of Lukian 
 and Arrian, and the other pseudo-Ionists, is conclusive only 
 for the text of Herodotos current in their day. 
 
 In but few cases do the Ionic lyric poets and the inscriptions 
 desert us in the endeavour to discover the principles regulating 
 vowel contraction. These trustworthy witnesses tell us that 
 with but few, and these clearly marked, exceptions, vowels of 
 
 ^ "iwvis 5taperiK(iTaT0i Apoll. Pron. 1 2 1 A. 
 
232 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [260. 
 
 like nature are fused [boKd, boKeiv, knoUi, (iaaikeh^), while 
 dissimilar vowels are either contracted or kept open. Cases 
 of synizesis in the lyric poets, such as Tropcpvperi, Troteet, are 
 manifestly nothing- more than accommodations to the theory 
 that the lonians preferred open vowels. The test to which we 
 put the prose monuments by no means disproves the statement 
 that the Ionic dialect dislikes contraction. In a majority of cases 
 inscriptions and poets agree with Herodotos. When disagreement 
 occurs (chiefly in reference to combinations whose first member is 
 i), the text of Herodotos refuses to adopt the forms preserved in the 
 iambic poets and current in his time, and either accepts or extends 
 the system of Homer — a system that in the main was obsolete 
 in the fifth century. In many cases dissimilar vowels are either 
 kept apart in the Ionic orthography even when they may be 
 contracted, or contraction has actually ensued. Orthography is 
 here as elsewhere no exact test of pronunciation, and scope must 
 be left for minor dialectal variations. When the first vowel is 
 not original contraction may not have resulted in certain cases. 
 
 The artificiality of the Herodoteian system is j^atent if we 
 reproduce the results of Merzdorf^s careful investigations in the 
 eighth volume of Curtius^ Studien. 
 
 Subject to no change : 
 
 act 
 aee 
 otee 
 
 oteei 
 
 tea 
 rea 
 
 veco 
 oeco 
 
 Subject to change 
 eee becomes ee 
 
 tee 
 
 
 let 
 
 fee 
 
 
 uet 
 
 ?|ee 
 
 
 ?;et 
 
 oee 
 
 
 oet 
 
 oeet 
 
 
 oet 
 
 teet 
 
 
 tet 
 
 eea 
 
 
 ea 
 
 eeat 
 
 
 eat 
 
 (leeat 
 
 
 'V) 
 
 eeo 
 
 
 eo 
 
 eeo) 
 
 
 ica 
 
 01 er/ 
 
 )) 
 
 oir] 
 
 oteot 
 
 J5 
 
 OLOL 
 
 It is impossible to conceive of a system more perverse. We 
 ask in vain, if oeet, teet, oiey], oteot grated upon Ionic ears, how 
 could oteet be regarded as vocalic harmony ? 
 
 Diaeresis is relatively more frequent in the Ionic lyrists than 
 
 ^ To preserve inflectional endings, like vowels may not coalesce, e.g. T^poioy. 
 The only case of open erj in inscriptions is that of names in -kA.€7js in Western 
 Ionic. 
 
262.] CONTACT OF LIKE VOWELS. 233 
 
 in Attic poetry. Whether the MSS. o£ Hdt. represent in regard 
 to diaeresis the usage of the language of his time is impossible to 
 discover. 0PHIKH is either Qpr][Kr] or 0pyJKi]. Open -e'i in the 
 dative cannot be supported. As regards erasis, no rule can be 
 formulated. Even when the scrijiiio plena occurs in the in- 
 scriptions, we dare draw no conclusions as to ordinary Ionic 
 pronunciation. As might be expected, the forms of the article 
 present the majority of instances in the inscriptions. On Apocope, 
 see § 322 ; on Elision, § 323. 
 
 The ancients adduce as proof of the love of the Ionic dialect for ^liXvtns 
 such examples as the following : — &Kpy] ttSAis, UeXoiros yriiros, dypiov e\aiov, 
 &ypiov olya, avhs aypiov, (^a ypdcpeiv, ei)- in einpe^ui, ivirX^ffaaa (cf. An. Par. Ill 
 310^), riia for rinv, OfSiTro'Sao from OiSjtto'Soi; i^Tzetzes on Hsd. W. D. 162). 
 Tmesis is Ionic, Joh. Gr. 241, Tzetz. Ex. II. 8325, hyperbaton is Ionic, ibid. 1241. 
 
 I. Contact of Like Voivels. 
 
 261.] A + A. 
 
 1. aFd = d in drr] (except Archil. 73, where aarr} is possible); 
 adrr] is generally permissible in Homer and occurs in Kallim. ; 
 aTyjpos Theog. 433, 634, arrj Solon 43^, 13^3, g,, ^^. Open in 
 ay\ad Hom., Anakr. 943 (eleg.). 
 
 2. acra = d ; Kped Sim. Amorg. 24, and Hdt. (Schmidt, Neutra, 
 p. 321 ff.) ; otherwise -a? stems have -ea in Hdt. KapdhoK^co in 
 Hdt. with Kapd from ^Kapdaa. 
 
 3. In the verbal forms l(TTd(n, ka-Tacn. 
 
 4. Hdt. TaXka, Taydkfxara, &c. (Bredow, 20l). rakXa we find 
 in an almost Attic inscription, Teos, 158^3 ; rd dXXa Eryth. 
 204j8 ; and Ta dyaA/^ara Miletos, 93. 
 
 5. Crasis of AI + a = Ionic a; Kdv^-ni^paa-Toi Sim. Am. i^^; 
 KCLTToOvpLLT] Sim. Auiorg. 735 ; Kaa-Kepto-Ka Hippon. 18; KavapiO- 
 jiios Arch. tetr. 6;^ ; KdAaArjru) Anakr. 6^g ; KayaOos Sol. tr. 
 3610, lasos, 1052, as in Hdt. I 30, KayadoLcnv Sim. Am. ij^ ; 
 Kartp-os Chios, 174 A 14; KdiTokkcovL Thas. 68, KODirokkcov 
 Hipp. tr. 31, KaTtekovcrev '^^, KaAet^a 58^ Kap-adovaLcov 82, Kapi- 
 TTpem^s Sim. Am. 783. Crasis with /cat is almost always omitted 
 in inscriptions : /cat dyaOoL Samos, 221 5; Kat dpcr^v Thasos, 68 ; 
 Kat 'Ai'a^tAeo)? Miletos^ 93. 
 
 262.] E + E. 
 
 I. eFe. 
 
 (a) uncontracted ; in the MSS. of Hdt. we find p^edpov, as in 
 Homer [evpdTr]^, evppeeos sic), though there is no reason to doubt 
 that pddpov was the genuine Ionic form of his day. Hippokr. 
 has 6^ks, TTpr]ks, &c. ^ ^c ,, -^ ^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY; 
 
 _ OF y 
 
 Qai iPrsRMlA' ^-^ 
 
234 THE IONIC DIALECT. [363. 
 
 €€<r]F€<eve is kept open in tlie MSS. o£ Hdt. (/Sao-tAee?, 
 vies ^), but is closed in the inscriptions in the forms of the -rjv- 
 declension (see under H + E). rjx^eevra Archil, 743 ; reXeevT 
 Tyrt. 4._,; x«''''eeo'o"' Sim. Amorg. 7.^-; IlepiKAees Arch. 9^, 16; 
 'HpaKXees 1192 (hy^iii)- 
 
 (j3) contracted in KAeiro? Th. (L.) 20 C 9, &c., late inscriptions. 
 KXetTos, in Theog. 777, Mimn. 17; KXetrww/xo? Thas. (L.) 8 A 9. 
 KAetros is from ^Kkeeco as alperos from alpico (ef. KkerjcmnTos, and 
 KAetr- in Argolic, Arkadian and Oinoian, I. Gr. A. 16). Con- 
 traction also results in ava^eiaOaiv Anakr. 42, eWic-de Hrd. 7,26* 
 
 2. eo-e contracted to ei, e.g. in elxpv, dfnv, and in like augmented 
 forms. In the e? declension the inscriptions have without ex- 
 ception -6ts, the prosaists -ees ; in the future of liquid verbs the 
 MSS. of Hdt. do not contract ee, save when an t precedes. 
 Unfortunately there is no evidence from the stone-records to 
 test this principle of the MSS. which seems to lack foundation. 
 In Ionic on the expulsion of intervocalic sigma and i/od, no 
 metathesis quantitatls took place. 
 
 3. ete becomes ei in Ionic. Examples of -ee-;, such as Hdt. 
 I 39 ^o/3eeai, III 34 k'naivkeai, I 41 aTTo\afXT:pvv4eai, IV 9 
 evcppaveeat, IV 163 aTToOaveeat, and other similar monstrosities 
 in the imperative act.^ imperfect active and middle, present 
 indicative and inf. mid., occurring only in the texts of the 
 prosaists, are to be found under the sections on the verb ^. All 
 these forms are probably figments of grammatical doctrine. In 
 nouns, pronouns and adj. eie yields ei invariably : TroAet?, rpeij, 
 rjjjLels (rjixies is pseudo-Ionic), (e)/ceiz;os (see § 224, 15). 
 
 Whether the infinitive ending is feu, crev, or leu, the result of the combina- 
 tion of this ending with the final e of the stem is always -ejj' [e.g. eKx^^v 
 Keos 4322, iiTiTide'ii', &c.); also in 6e7vat, &c. 
 
 4. Contraction does not ensue in the case of iteratives, but 
 there is no basis for the belief that in the fifth century ee in the 
 pluperfect (ew^e, &c.) had not been contracted. See § 597. 
 
 263.] E + H (see Fritsch, F. H. D. p. 31 ff.). 
 
 I. efrj. 
 
 {a) contracted in vr]VL< veiqvL, Anakr. 143 (Et. M. 44829, Drakon 
 
 ' Cf. -e'es for •%$ in Attic 'A\aiees, &e. 
 
 * Fick, B. B. XI 266, 271, writes eTj<.r)e in all these cases. This mefafhesis 
 quaniUalis is however not a necessary, only a possible, change in Ionic. Forms 
 in 7J6 are usual, see § 264. 'Ax4ivros Mimn. 95 may be cori-ect. Hdn. II 
 92 1 1 calls r;xf'eiy, ^pw/xeeis instances of poetic shortening. 
 
 ^ eKTeero, ixpeero, olKeerai, Uvdefw, in Hdt. are forms due to grammatical 
 theories, and do not represent any actual dialect. The only rule deducible 
 from the study of the MSS. of Hdt. as regards the imperfect active is that 
 after a consonant and ot, ee was written ; after vowels, ei. Oftentimes good 
 MSS. have the contracted form, e.g. in II i the Bomanus has Troie7(rdai. 
 
 
263.] CONTACT OF LIKE VOWELS. 335 
 
 46^3); vrjvii on an Athenian lekythos, C. I. G. 7629. vrj = Attic 
 via, Hdn. II 9123 qnoted from ^ajxCoiv SypoL, and vy]^ Aristoph. 
 frag". Kock I 3959. Sim. K. 84g, Hippon. tr. 49^ have KXijhdiv, a 
 form found also in Hdt. IX 91, loi, properly without the iota; 
 epic K\er]ha>v and kAtjtjSw/^. 
 
 On -kXtjs and k\€1]s, see § 526. Western Ionic has the open^ 
 Island and Asiatic Ionic, the closed forms. 
 
 (d) uneontracted in hirjrai Olynth. 8 B 4, NeTjTroAts Neapolis 
 4j, parallel form to Neo-; Keveri Aret. 146, Keverjs 170. Adj. in 
 -aXer] generally remain open, but in Arch. 895, Anakr. 435 the 
 forms with synizesis occur, Attic KcpbaXid to differentiate the 
 word from KephaXii], fox. abeXcfyijt Roberts, I 158 B (Amorg-os- 
 Arkesine), is not in itself an obstacle to the validity of the 
 Herodoteian dSeA^e?/, though we have abeXcprj Mykonos, 9232 
 (Attic?), and Halik. 240 D 34, feminine to the masc. abeX(f)6s^. 
 
 €7]<r}F{t)r)<evid in 7rAe?j Hdt. I 178 [ttXt], Diogenes of Apol- 
 lonia, Hdn. 77. ju. A. 7, 8). 
 
 eri<'i]Fi-i<dvd remains open in dei-j, 6h]ixa Sim. Amorg. 75^, 
 Oey'^aeo-dai, 6€r](Tap.evov Hdt. I II (but dy^a-ajxivos Abdera, 162, 
 eleg.). 
 
 €T] < ?jf e in XeriXario) < Xr]F{o) + iXariio, K. Z. XXVII 269. 
 
 2. €117]. 
 
 On er;, 7] in Trapet Oropos, 1822 and on 'ir]v, rjv, see §§ 706, 711. 
 
 3- ^V- 
 
 («) In substantives. 
 
 In the nouns in -e?}?, -?;?, we find that the poets use the 
 contracted forms : pobf]^ Arch. 290, yaXijs Sim. Amorg. j^^, a-vKT] 
 Arch. 19, Hipp, 34, Anan. 5^ {-irjs). KcoXijv Xenoph. 5^, QaXi]s 
 six times in Herodas, and in Phoinix of Kolophon in Athen. 
 495 E, yevi] Hrd. 2^, 33. 'Epjurj? Hipponax, 32, S5 ^^ Anakr. 
 11I3, eleg. (voc. 'Epju,^ Hipp. 1, 16, 21 A, 89), 'EpixiJL Abdera, 
 162 (metr.), Lampsakos, 171; 'AttcAAtj? lasos, 104^5, ^.y, Imh.- 
 Bl. G. M. 385 Chios (and so probably Anakr, 72 B, where Bergk 
 writes er;?), Meyto-r?js=:Meyta-r7)? ?, Anakr. 16.^, 41, 743. 
 
 In the inscriptions, Ko^Xrjv Miletos, 10O3, Aecoz;?)? Keos, 44 A 5 ; 
 Ar][xi]s Thasos, 78 C 14, Thas. (L.) 13 A 10 ; 0aA?^s Miletos, 93 
 (sixth century). Hdt. has also QaXi]s I 74. Cf. § 415, 3. With 
 such authoritative testimony in favour of the contracted form, we 
 cannot but conclude that Bop?/? is the genuine Ionic form, 
 despite the fact that the MSS. of Herodotos prefer -e?/?, though 
 in VII 189 there are four occurrences where the MSS. with but 
 one dissenting voice speak in favour of -7}?. The same con- 
 
 ^ That the contraction of aS€\<pe-{i took place early is evident from the form 
 a.5f\((>6s, appearing first in Aischylos (Hom. -eiSs and -eJs^ which is in reality 
 formed from influence of a.5e\(p7i<a,5i\<piri. Cf. Wackernagel, K. Z. XXV 271. 
 
236 THE IONIC DIALECT. [263. 
 
 elusion will hold good in the ease of (Boprjs, 'Aptorr)?, UvBris (not 
 nvdi]^ as Steph. Byz. has it). Pherekj^des Syr. used the form 
 'Pf] according- to lidn. tt. fx. X. 7, 5 = 11 911^3, cf. I 4o5g. Cf. 
 'Pea O 187 and 'Phj, Hymn to Demeter, 460, Luk. Sp-. I). 15. 
 y\.avTivy\ or yiavTivr] Hdt. IV 1 6 1, where C has MairiVrj?, Aldus 
 and Stein Mai^rti'eTj?, following the Homeric Maz^rtre?/. 
 
 yr] is from yga<*y7'/a from yaia as is shown under Declension, 
 
 Kallim. fr. 241 has yez;r/f ; cf. Et. M. 225^4, ^^^ yovi]. ytv^r\ 
 is open in Solon, 27^0, Paros, epig. 59, Hdt. (§ 435). 
 
 Avoidance of contraction will have to be accepted in a few 
 proper names : klv^y]rSiv Ainea, 12 (550 B.C.), later, klv)]T5>v (end 
 of fourth century) ; Ne//e7;i Thasos, 69 (fifth century) ; Kpe7;r7] 
 Archil. i75 = Kp7/ri7 (a pun on K/aeas?) ; Hdt. TeyeT;, Svperj. 
 
 (6) In adjectives (masc. -eos ; fem. -erj, -tj). 
 
 The forms will be quoted under the A Beclena'wn. The in- 
 scriptions prove that when r/ follows e, contraction ensues, when 
 o or a follows e, the forms are kept ojien till the latest period of 
 declining lonism. In the poets -r\ almost without exception 
 {Kvvii]v Kvvhj Tyrt. 1I32), XP'^'^V^ Mimn. i^, Theog. 1293, 13H1, 
 7rop(f)vper] Anakr. I4j ; TTop(pvpei] Anakr. 23 ; iropcjivpris Sim. 
 Amorg. ijg. If it is certain that Anakr. ^^ contains a 
 ' choriambic •* monometer with anacrusis + a first pherecratic, 
 as Sappho 54 may be scanned, we must admit the existence 
 of one open form apyvpit] (the schol. Pind. Ist/i. II 9 has 
 ovb^ apyvpiy-j kot e'Aa/xTre). Hiller reads apyvprj correctly. In 
 Herodotos we find -rj generally, but not without exceptions ; e.ff. 
 bnrXerf III 42, for which Stein correctly reads SittAj^, a form 
 found in Hippokr. V 640. Attic bnrXrj from 8t7rA€(t)a, cf. Kret. 
 StTrAeta. 
 
 (c) In adverbs AeKeXi]dev Hdt. IX J;^ from AeKcAe??. Cf. 
 Steph. Byz. s. v. AeKeXctaOev. 
 
 {(/) As regards the forms of -Ef2 verbs, MerzdorFs 'law' that 
 after consonants €r], ei] remain open, but are contracted after 
 vowels (e.ff. Hdt. orpaTi/Aarej/s, 7rotf/j) has been accepted in many 
 quarters ; but incorrectly, as is clear from the fact that his 
 contention is based upon a mere numerical count of MSS. For 
 the establishing of the dialect of Herodotos we cannot assume 
 that a given form is genuine Ionic merely becavise a varying per 
 cent, of Hdt.^'s MSS. speaks in favour of its adoption. The 
 inscriptions proclaim that the lonians in their decrees adopted 
 the contraction without exception ^ ; and the poets unite yviih. 
 the inscriptions in their opposition to the Merzdorfian view. 
 In the aorist passive € + i] are invariably fused. Bekker sought 
 
 * The forms of Sew and Seofiai occupy a special position. 
 
264.J CONTACT OF LIKE VOWELS. 237 
 
 in vain to discover the uncontraeted form herjOer) in Hdt. IV 
 154. On iOerjTo in Hippokr. see § 685. The jj-l verbs contract 
 e + 7/. 
 
 264.] H + E. 
 
 1. r}Fe. 
 
 From eve, contracts in ij or, from ?} + Fk (Lat. ve) ; but remains 
 uncontraeted in a few forms of the -tju- declension^ as in (f)ovT]€s 
 Archil. 59. See under E + E, 
 
 dve in i^e'Atos ^ (adFekios) : the elegiac poets adopt this form 
 only (Tyrt. ii^, Mimn. ig, 2^, 12^, I4ii, Solon, 1333, 14, Theog. 
 168, 1 183, &c.). The iambographers contract: rikioi Archil, 
 tetr. 74^, Hipp. tr. i5g, Sim, Amorg. i^g, Herodas V i, 3g8, 83, 
 Anak. 27; and upon an inscription Arkesine, ^^, Zevs H?/A[to]9 
 (fifth century), Hekat. i]\ioi 173, 190, 193, Pherek. Leros, ^;^ h, 
 Diog. Apoll. 6, Anaxag. 6 (Simplik. 156.,^, Diels), and 10 (Simpl. 
 157^3), Hipp. II 24, and so Herodotos II 92 (Bredow, 45), as 
 Arrian 1 1 ; Lukian uses rjekios Asfr. 3, 5, &c.j d. S. 29, 34. Both 
 aXios and aeXios form a part of the poet^s material in Aiolic 
 (Sappho, 6g, 79). YloLTJcra-a, i.e. -nonq^aa-a, is the name of a city 
 in Keos. 
 
 rje also in adjectival forms (nom. -rjeis), Kail, ig rtixriev ; Mimn. 
 55 n/x?jeo-cra ; 1 27 Ti}xrievTos as Sim. Keos 845; Phok. 33 xaiTT]- 
 eo-oTj?. On Pick's erj, Archil. 74g, Sim. Amorg. 7g^, Mimn. 9^, 
 see § 262. Tje in these forms is found often in Hdt., rje in the 
 poets and in prose writers only when F followed tj. Porms with 
 rje seem to be obsolescent in the seventh century, (f)(ovi]€VTa 
 remained uncontraeted in Attic as a technical term, originally 
 Ionic. On -rjety see § 319. 
 
 rjpiKduser-, in Tjptyereta Mimn. I2jq, as in Homer. rjkpLos, 
 &c., must be kept distinct from 7)?/p, Hdt. rjipa, § 169. Notice 
 also eapi = -))pi, Ananios, 5^. 
 
 2. rjte. 
 
 [x]p^(r^[at] Keos, 43j2j is not necessarily for y^prp^^crdai, since it 
 may be formed directly from ^piq + adai. Cf. § 167. 
 
 e'xp?] in Tyrt. stands for e'x/J^e or for ^^xpir], if we assume that 
 Tjte in Ionic becomes ^t]. ebi^rj Hippokr. Ill 36, 42, bi\l/T]v Hdt. 
 II 24, i.e. 7/ + -Fev or -a-ev. 
 
 4. Crasis and Aphaeresis : 
 
 With r/7rap?y Teos, 156 B 36 (rriTTapfii. B 24, Chios, B. P. W. 
 1889, p. II95j as TTjTepr] Arch. 932^), M ^ka(Taov€s Chios, 174 
 B 24, r\ '? Chios, 174 A 2, compare aperrj Vrty Theog. 147 and 
 Phokyl. 17 (oldest example of aphaeresis in the case of dixi), ?) 'k 
 
 ^ Hdn. II 229,5, 4903 = Et. M. 261, g. 
 
 ^ TETEPEI = Tr)T6p7;j, Rob, I 167, of uncertain dialect. Bechtel suggests 
 Asiatic-Ionic. Cf. § 134 note. 
 
238 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [265. 
 
 Theog", 577 (in A), §7) 'irUovpo^ Arch. tetr. 24^ perhaps Mlixvt] 
 ^ KaToix-qyave Ilippon, 49, ohvvri VtaAet 21 B^ and Hrd. hovX-q 
 'o-TL 453 J /u,?) ^Aaaaov ^^^. There is no example of the erasis of Trj 
 in Hdt. 
 
 265.] II -i H. 
 
 7; + 7] is contracted almost tmiversally. On rjrjp in Hippokrates 
 (uFi'ip), see § 169. Ionic of the post-Homeric period does not 
 possess such subjmictives as o-Tipj, (f)avi]r], Ganipj. On iOipjTo, v. 1. 
 Hdt, I 10, &c., see § 685. rje held its gromid longer than 7/7;. 
 
 266.] + 0. 
 
 So far back as we can follow the history of Ionic, + became 
 ov. In view of this fact the position assumed by many scholars 
 that in Ionic + first became co and afterwards ov is without 
 foundation. The Doric dialects, which at different stages of 
 their existence had co and ov, oifer but a specious parallel to an 
 Ionic ov< CO. 00-0 in Homer never becomes ca as eo-e never = 7/. 
 
 I. oFo. 
 
 ovpavos with spurious diphthong {Ovpaviri on an old amphora, 
 C. I. G. 8412, ovpavu]i Phanag. 164, 168) from o-foparo'?, whence 
 Aiolic and Doric wp- ; Aiolic opavos from Fopavos. 
 
 C. I. A. 1 322 A 93, 021 shows that 0S9 has an adulterine ov. ovg, 
 probably from '^oy((r)os ; Ss in Delos, £. C. II. II 322 (before 167 
 B.C.) is formed like (f)0)s. Theog. 1163 ovara, Anakr. 21^ oxtl, 
 Hdt. cora ; Lak. i^ooFdbia, wFara have their co from the nom. 
 m, as 6i'oo8tov< kvovaihiov has its co from biToi. See Wackernagel, 
 K. Z. XXIX 141, Schmidt, Nentra, 407. 
 
 In a few nouns ^ and adjectives of the O declension 00 is 
 apparently kept open to a limited extent: the ]\ISS. of Hdt. have 
 voo's, evvoos, ttAo'os (Hekat. 303 -ov-), aoov, but xo^? II T-S^, &c. 
 Love of the old-fashioned orthography dictated voos in the MSS., 
 Sim. Amorg. I 3, where vovs, or vqo's, must be read '. voov in the 
 same poet (7^) must be an archaism, if the authority of the in- 
 scriptions is accepted. Tr[p]6)(^ovv occm-s upon a vase from Naukratis, 
 Roberts, I 132 IjIs. Perhaps contraction resulted during- the 
 seventh century, since Archil. 89 epod. and Mimn. 5^ have voov. 
 Homer preserves vooi, but the beginnings of the later forms 
 appear il 354, k 240 (Menrad, p. 46). Later inscriptions have 
 'Aa-Tvvovs Eryth. 206 C 9; KaXKu-ovs Thas. (L.) 7 A 7; eKuXovv, 
 en-nXovv Eryth. 202^ ; YloXvOpovs Thasos, 75 B 1 1 (UoXvOpov 
 Teos, 158^7). X!^^^ ildt. II 150, xpv Arr. Juab. II 27, 4 (xoov 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 241 B, Greg. Kor. 479 cite v6ov, fiSov, Gram. Meerm. 654 p(^os, x»''^os, 
 0p6os, but cf. Hdn. II 92 ig. d/fTj/coJres, &c. do not contract. 
 
 -' j/oCs Theog. 11S5 ; j/oCcTheog. 3:0, S9S ; Sol. 2713, yow, povv 41. It may be 
 noticed in passing that Cobct's ^vvoi ivres in Lysias VIII 19 is at fault, evvovs, 
 found in a Palatine MS., is proved by Attic inscriptions to be correct. 
 
267.] CONTACT OF LIKE VOWELS. 239 
 
 C. I. G. 1838^, Korkyra). In Herodas i^g, 4-5 we find vovv, 
 3.^^ arovv. The attitude o£ the kolvi] towards such forms as 
 ttAoo? has not received deserved attention. That the kolvti ad- 
 mitted only those forms which had ah'eady suffered contraction 
 in Attic^ is an entire misconception of the nature of this phase of 
 Greek, ttAo'o? in a Lykian inscription in Le Bas^ 1311^ was not 
 newly constructed by the kolvi]. In fact in its literature this 
 ' dialect ■* contrives to effect a union of the living language with 
 imitations of the dead language. In this light many of the open 
 forms collected by Lobeck, Fhryn. p. 453, may be regarded as 
 parallel to the Lykian ttAoos-. Cf. also Lobeck, Fatli. p. 300. 
 
 voo's, poos, Ttvoos, -xpoos, adpoos, generally are found in the 
 resolved forms in the pseudo-Ionists. 
 
 In composition: aK-)]TTTovx^os Sim. Am. 7g,^,'A0r]yatT]i noAtoi/x[<i>t 
 Eryth. 200 (epigr.), and so Roberts, I p. 64 ; UoXlovxov Paros, 
 64jg, and Hdt. I 160; tlixovxol Teos, 15806 (timo? in Aischylos); 
 ' ApLo-Tov-)(Ov Ross, 148 ; evvov)(os Hippon. 353, [cr]aju/3aAov)(T/j; 
 Hrd. 7j9. 
 
 2. OiO. 
 
 2a7T0oo9, ArjToos, called Ionic by Herodian II 33815, 75521) a-^d 
 rjovv by Greg. Korinth. § ^5) ^^'^ supjDorted by no such formations 
 in the existing monuments of the dialect. Hdt. has Ai]tovs, 
 ArjTovv, &c., and (})kovv ; i/ov? Orop. i8^g. On the retention of 
 -oto < o(o-)io, see under O declension. 
 
 In 8 nrA o'os, + was probably not separated by F but hy ?/od, 
 though Hdt. has the open form. The pseudo-Ionists have 
 hirXoos, though they avoid the open forms in the compounds in 
 -ttAo'o?. See on E + H. 
 
 3. In verbs in -oco, ov, and never cv, arises from + whether 
 ;i/od or siffma intervened. The examples of eu collected by Merz- 
 dorf in Curtius^ StucUen, VIII 218, show the confusion as to 
 the character of the Herodoteian dialect in the minds of the 
 diasceuasts. 
 
 4. Crasis. o-\-o-=ov in rovvoixa', ov + o-=ov as in Tovpvido's 
 Hrd. 4^0. 
 
 267.] + a. 
 
 1. orco. 
 
 XWi' Keos, 43y, fifth century ; cf. 7r[p]o)(ouy Naukratis, § 266, 
 I. The MSS. of Hdt. keep v6(o, a-vix-nXooav, a-ooov uncontracted. 
 In the dative -ow is generally kept open in the MSS. of Hdt., 
 though contraction ensued by the fifth century. 
 
 2. oaoi. 
 
 Always contracted, e.(/. in gen. plural, O declension. 
 
 3. OlOi. 
 
 Contracts in verbal forms (StKatw). C'^jj.ev Sim. Amorg. 32, 
 
240 THE IONIC DIALECT. [268. 
 
 from (6(oiJ.€v< ((^oixev (so the MSS. i^), and piyw Hipponax, 162, 
 17, from piy6(ti< piydioi, cf. piydaa Sim. Am. yge 5 '^oty^? Hip- 
 ponax^ 36<-oa)s, from -coou? (Hdt. uses Kayos), if we extend the 
 limits of metathesis quantltatis beyond those ordinarily set up for 
 Ionic. 
 
 4. TTpouxras becomes Trpaxras Hippokr. VII 314. 
 
 268.] 12 + 0. 
 
 1. oyFo. 
 
 rjpodos, Miz-'coo? Hdt.; ^coo? ^ Hdt. Meliss., IJ, &c., Tyrt. 103^, 
 with CO preserved before a short vowel by the interposition of 
 F ; (oov ^ is the correction of Porson for the traditional reading 
 (u)ov Archil. 6^. Swov Styra, 1923; 309- 
 
 2. toto. 
 
 eC(oov Hdt. IV 112, ((Doi'Todv I 86, but (o}Vja ibid., (Sxra IV 
 205. The latter api^ear to be reg-ular, yet the uncontracted 
 participial forms may be defended. See JB. B. XV 170, 175, and 
 M. U. I 8. On C<^ixev, see § 267. 
 
 269.] 12 + 12. 
 
 tOtO). 
 
 0)0) preserved in ^coo), Hdt. ((aoov, Kallinos, i^g, Demokr. 206. 
 Anan. 5^ Kayoiv is either from liom. Xayooos or Hdt. Aayo'?. 
 
 270.] I + I. 
 
 1. lFc. 
 
 The Ionic dialect permits, but does not require, contraction : 
 Alt Paros, 6^, a late inscription, Mylasa, 248 C 6 (fourth century), 
 both examples probably Attic ; At Eretria, 14 (fifth century), 
 Samos (?) in Roberts, 157, Asiatic- Ionic, Bechtel, No. 260. Hdt., 
 Pherekyd. Leros, &c. have Ad. I do not find either form in the 
 poets. All is doubtless from analogy to Ato?, Aia. 
 
 2. On I in the dat. sing*, of iota stems, see under Declension. 
 In the optative of roots ending in iota, contraction of t + t is pan- 
 Hellenic. 
 
 271.] P)ofoj;p passing to the concurrence of unlike vowels, we 
 may here treat of u + 1, strictly not a diphthong, but a phonetic 
 combination, the v of which was probably ii. On the treatment 
 of the VI of Dio'?, see § 229. In the forms from which i is absent, 
 Cauer held (Curtius'' Sfudien, VIII 275) that v and t had been 
 fused as in hvi^, v 286. Whether bv-q was the model for (KhvpLev, 
 or whether the length of the v is due to the fact that vl in the 
 ground-form ^eKbvlp.ev was followed by a consonant, cannot be 
 made out. iVx^i, vrihvi, as edited by Herodoteian scholars (cf . -et in 
 the dat. of -es stems), probably do not represent the pronunciation 
 current in the fifth century. 
 
 ^ Cai6s Greg. Kor. 57. 
 
 ^ ^o6s Epichariuos and Theoki*. 
 
372.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 24 1 
 
 II. Contact of Unlike Vowels {horizontal and vertical voicels). 
 
 272.] A + E. 
 
 I. dFe. 
 
 (a) Uncontraeted in aho^v Theog". 371, 467, 471, 1379? o-eKov- 
 (Tios Theog". 1343; both forms in Hclt. and in Lukian. Hippokr. 
 Ill 216 has a^KMv, Aretaios, 58 aeKovaiov. aeKcov may be read 
 in every case in Homer. The contracted form is best suj^ported 
 in Homer in rw 8' ovk ciKovre Treriadriv. In Attic the form is open 
 in the law of Drakon (C. I. A. I 613^), but contracted before the 
 middle of the fifth century in dKov(n[a] C. I. A. I, i B i. In 
 Ionic, contraction must have taken place in Herodotos' day. 
 
 aedKov Archil, ep. 104, Tyrt. 1213, Mimn. IT3; irevTa^OXevutv 
 Xenoph. 22 5 Hdt. aeOkov, aedkocpopoL, Tt^vraedkov, &c. (d ?). 
 Contracted aOka Theog. 971, 994, 1014, Hrd. i^j, Hippokr. II 
 64 ; TTevradkelv Xenojjh. 2i(./, aOkots Roberts, 1 174, Kyme, and in 
 aOkov Kolophon, Miith. 1889, p. 317; aekirros Arch. tetr. 74^, 
 Solon tetr. ;^j ; aek-nrCi] Arch. tetr. 543 ; k^ijKovTaer-qi Mimn. 6^ ; 
 oybcoKovTair-qs Sol. 20^^ ; TTevrairrjs Hdt., cf. Attic TrerraeVrj? and 
 TrerreVrjj ; kKaepyos Tyrt. 32, Solon, 1 353; aepyos Theog. 5<^4^ 
 1177, depyot Hippokr. VI 22, but apyos Hipp. tr. 28, Hdt. 
 Ill 78; defo) Sim. Amorg. 735, Sol. 275, Theog. 1031, 1276, 
 Sim. K. 845. Hippokr. av^ca, av^avui, Mimn. 22; Theog-. 362 
 av^eraL, Sol. 1I3 ■)]v^i^aaTe, are from df(e)^-. 
 
 aUkovpoi, not aek-, is the Herodoteian form. 
 
 (/3) Contracted ap6w, preferred by MSS. of Hdt. to aepOds 
 (Bredow, 193, Merzdorf, Curtius'' Sf.?id. VIII 186), is un- 
 doubtedly the g'enuine form. Anakreon, 19 apOeU-. See on 
 detpo), § 305. 
 
 dAr/9 in Hdt. from aFek-)]^, not from aokki^s as Wilamowitz 
 claims (on Eurip. Ilera/cles, 411); cf. akt^o) in Hdt., ^vvakicrOf] 
 Hippokr. VI 102. 
 
 Contractiou of afe, both in a privative and other forms seems to have been 
 possible at least as early as the sixth century. In the ordinary speech of 
 the people many forms were doubtless contracted which were kept open by 
 the artifices of poetical expression. 
 
 In the inf. active a. + -fev (or -aev), e.g. icropav ; see § 305. Hij^pokr. MSS. 
 have often such apparent Doric forms as dprjy, ^eAer^c, (rwoprjv v^jut -av II 440 
 in A) which are due to the supposed tenacity of 17 after p in Ionic, opjjv, once 
 created, was the cause of the creation of a fieAeTrjy. On reOvdvai AmjAip. 
 lOjo, and Mimn. 2io} as the MSS. read, or TeByayai<.Tedva + evai. (cf. yijoy-evai), 
 see § 700, 3. 
 
242 THE IONIC DIALECT. [273. 
 
 2. aai. 
 
 = d in Xapivov Xenoplian. 52? ^^ i^ Homeric \ap6s. apicnov, 
 Ireakfast in Horn., Hdt. Ill 26 is from ■^Qi)((r)epta-roy. 
 
 3. ate. 
 
 Always contracted in verbal forms : opaTi, opa, oopa, opaaOai, 
 ^larai, SteTret/aaro, itpoira ; Hdt. ^pacrOat from xpa + eo-^at, Keos, 
 43,0, x]p'V^[ot] ^ from xprj + cr^at, or from *)(^pr]ioiiai'^. y^pTjcrdai 
 is found in all MSS. of Hdt. I 47, 210 ; in I 196 y^pUa-Oai B^C, 
 )(j)7](r6at reliqvi. Cf. §§ 167, 687. 
 
 In the MSS. of Hippokrates such Doric forms as Irirai, Irjo-Oai, 
 vTTodviJLn](rOa), dbvvr]Tai II 424 (but correctly -arai in A) come to 
 lig-ht. In the forms after i, the error was caused by such forms 
 as irjrpo^, after p, by the analogy of a)pr]. 
 
 4. Crasis of a + e in Tap Chios, 174 C ig = ray 174 C 22; 
 rapid Theog-. 346, Archil, tr. 50, Hdt. 5^, but often kept apart : rh 
 ep^d Hdt. Vlil loi. edrepa IV 157, according to the MSS., is 
 doubtful, ddrepa Odrepcov Hippokr. IX 30. ai + e in KaaOkoicnv 
 Theog-. ^^^S ; KaKf^ipij Hippon. 29 ; Kdy(si{'^) Amorg-., Rob. I 160 
 A ; Kctp-OL, KaireiTa, KaKeWt, KaKelvov Hdt. (see § 5^4 on /cetro?) ; 
 KcnnT^TplcpdaL Sol. 337', KaybLKaa-dvTMV Chios, 174 B 22; Kairi- 
 ekiTTa Archil. 745 ; KcnrtTreideu] Sim. A. ig ; Kairai^eTai Sim. Am. 
 7gg. Herodas has (i) Ionic Kayco Class. Rev. V 481 (2), Ka-ni 390, 
 Kd0' 22G and five similar forms, and (2) Doric forms, e.g. Kriyoo 
 2g, 6j3, KrjiTt 454, KTirepcov 71^4 and ten other examples of Kal + e- = 
 Ki)-, all of which must be ascribed to the native Doric of the poet. 
 In 48f), 93, 53 (?) the scriptio plena occurs. koI kKarov Anakr. 83, 
 by synizesis. 
 
 K Iv 1. 6, but Kap-ol on an archaic papyrus, PJiilol. XLI 746, 
 cf. Kh'Kavcnos Epidauros^ C. D, I. 3325^55. 
 
 273.] A + H. 
 
 1. dFi]. 
 
 Open in arjbovo^ Archil. 156, contracted in Aava Hekat. 358 ; 
 on the other hand in Aaratrj Miletos, 99, a glide iota has been 
 generated between a and 17, as in riaju^aa;? from YIapL({)dr]s ; cf. 
 Aavdrjs H 3 19. aF-q = a also in dh]s' aTep'Tn]s Hesychios, cf. 
 Phryn., Bekk. Anecd. I 22, 3 : ol "Imvcs xT/y aiqhmv crvvaX(L(f)ovr€s 
 TpL(TvX\dj3oi)s ypd(f)ov(n. See under O + A. 
 
 2. du]. 
 
 In verbal forms: rtjua, ri/xare (Doric 77). Nlkclv Thasos, 723 < 
 NiKOTj ; cf. Uprj<Up€iri. p.vd'i Hippon. 20< pivdrjs, Attic ixvds 
 from pLvdds. 
 
 3. Crasis of Ka\ + 7Jv=Kdv, Ephesos, 1453,^, Chios, 174 C 5 
 (in both inscriptions ijv, not idv or av) ; Hippokr. Kal i]v V 594, 
 
 ' Blass reads xpe^'o'^a'- 
 
 ^ Schmidt follows Baunack in deriving XPV^'^' fi'om XRVF^"'-"' 
 
275-] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 243 
 
 606, as Hrd. 39^ (ktJv 254, y^Qg)^ ktjv V 646, 692, 698^ 720, II 48, 
 &c. ; KriX€i(f)6ix7]v Sim. Amorg. 16; XW^PV Theog. 160, Kr]ix4pr]^ 
 Allan. 5i(), c£. Hrd. 7^,2? who lias also Kr/TTtw 4g, xqpaKkrjs 295. 
 Where erasis might take place in the inscriptions it is omitted 
 in KOI \iyr](Tavhpo^ Miletos, 93; koX ^WpaKkdoiaiv Teos^ 156 B 
 •^Q, ; KOI ri6p.6v Prokon. I03g. 
 
 274.] A + I. 
 
 aFi. 
 
 = a'C and at. Traty ^ occurs in but one passage in older Ionic 
 poetry (Archil, tetr. 70 Trat). Renner (Curtius' Stud. I 189) 
 seeks to find an excuse for the se juclice irregularity of the 
 Archilochian itai by assuming a 'poetic diaeresis.'' No such 
 license can be admitted ; and these forms find their explanation, 
 in comparison with Hipponax^ iialha 1, Tialhas I4i, and at in Solon, 
 in the fact that the disyllabic at in nominative and vocative 
 and the monosyllabic at in oblique cases are an inheritance from 
 Homeric times. Trat? is, however, not an archaism whose observ- 
 ance was enforced. Sim. Amorg. i^ has Trat, Hijiponax, 38 
 Trat?. Anakreon has Trat lo, 4,, 625, 63J ; Trat? 2lj3 (?, vulgo irals, 
 Herm. Trat? 6), Trat? 243. Oblique forms: TrotSa Hipp, i, TratSt 
 Anakr. 173 (at possible, Wilamowitz conj. Trap' 'la/xjS??) ; Trat8e? 
 Anakr. 45 ; iratba^v Mimn. 2j3 (at possible) ; TraLcrCv Mimn. I9, 
 32 ; TratSa? Hipp. 14^ ; Hdt. Trat?. This shows clearly that Trat?, 
 and not Trat?, was the form as pronounced in the fifth century ; 
 and with this knowledge falls the view that vowels originally 
 separated by F remain open as a characteristic of Ionic. Trat? is 
 nowhere necessary in Herodas. 
 
 KXatoiv Archil. 13, is possible, KAatco 20, necessary; irypKat-qs 
 Anakr. lOOg, el. (at possible) ; atbTjXos Tyrt. n.^ (cf, v. I. E 757, 
 A 897), dta-rcocret Hdt. Ill 69, r}toTa)cre III 127. See § 160 on 
 ''AtSrj?. aihpis Theog. 683 ; aibpii] Solon, 9^ ; aihpy]ir] Hdt. ; 
 aiKLCoLfxeOa Sim. Amorg. I24, from clFlk- rather than olF^ik-. So 
 too in the case of atKcAto? Theog. 1344. On ato), see § 275. 
 
 In suffixes: hdi^M Tyrt. 11 47; Tra'tC<w Anakr. ^o^, but -nai^M 
 755 j (TaXaiCoo Anakr. 167, Hippokr. patCet VII I22, prjiCet YIII 
 38, paia-r] VIII 20, 266 and 34 in 6, baibos VIII 22, Satgtotcrt 
 VlII 50, but 8at8o? VIII 92, o-(/)a8atCet VIII 92 (6, -aC- Littr^), 
 cf. § 182 ; ayXai(op.ai Sim. Amorg. 7^0; ^atcav Arch. el. 6; and 
 in the suffix -atKo? in Hdt. Hrd. 235 has babas. 
 
 275.] A + I. 
 dFt. 
 
 HoXvTxaibr] Theog. 25, 57, 61, 541, from Trd, § 169, or dvie to 
 the ictus and=Trai;; 'Apta-roAaiSrj? Hdt. I 59. 
 
 ^ irdis Ionic, Drakon 1576) cf. 1612. 
 E, 2 
 
244 THE IONIC DIALECT. [276. 
 
 Athr]s is probably the Ionic form of the fifth century. See 
 § 160. 
 
 aibiov lasos^ I04o, MeKssos, 9, Diog. Apoll. 3, may be a later 
 form, built out of aet. The length of the a in diStos is attested 
 but rarely, e.ff. Hymn 293 where it may be due to the ictus, i.e. 
 = av. dtSto? contains the suffix -8io?. 
 
 eTrato) in Hdt. Ill 29, Herakl. 73, 107 should be read eiraoo if the 
 a is long, as it is generally in Attic. See Schulze, K. Z. XXIX 
 353 If. ; atco Xenoph. 6^ may be a present derived from the 
 aorist. 
 
 'Axa'"] Sim. Amorg. 23^, where aiir] might be expected. Hrd. 
 5gj has axdLKas fetters (?). Since the reduction of au to at in Attic 
 ensued as early as the fifth century (4'coKai8e[s] C. I. A. I 1997), 
 the traditional reading in Sim. may be correct. See § 209, on a 
 from antevocalic at. 
 
 276.] A + H. 
 
 Original d + r] did not remain in Ionic ; see H + H. 
 
 277.] A + 0. 
 
 On the theory that in primitive Greek a, when followed by an 
 sound, became eo, see under Contract Verbs, § 688. 
 
 I. dFo. 
 
 a^ivaoi Hdt. ; (Ta6(ppoiv Pliok. 9, as in Homer, but aojcppoveiv 
 Sim. Amorg. 7j„g, awcfypcov Theog. 756, o-oxlipoviaTaTov Hippon. 
 452, rised not contain a contraction. These forms are placed here 
 tentatively, as it has not been shown that F intervened between 
 a and in o-do?. Certainly Roehl's reading a-aFol, in his No. 532, 
 is too much a matter of dubitation to be admitted in proof. 
 Perhaps aao^ stands for '^crao-os. See Huehl in Fhilol. Aiizeiger, 
 1886, 14, note 8, and § 294. 
 
 dvp(X)p6<i Anakr. ^2 < Ovpd + Fopos as 6€(jop6s<6'i]FaFop6s. On 
 Doric Oedpos see Kretschmer, K. Z. XXXI 289. dvpaFopos, or 
 -Foipos, occui;g in Kyprian. Fiek derives Ovptapos from dvpecopos 
 < 6vpy]Fop6s. Since, however, TLp.u>p6s not rifxeoipos is the only 
 correct foi-m, TipidFopos (and dvpdFopos) must be the ground-form. 
 Cf. 'AkKdOoos. 
 
 ayXaos : 
 
 (i) Not contracted: dyXaov Kallinos i^^. ^AykaoKvb'i]^ Thasos 
 (Louv.) 20 A 8 (about 175 B.C.); 'AyAa(d)z't/co? Styra, 19433 
 (fifth century). The preponderance of names in 'AyAco- has 
 made Bechtel question whether we should not read 'AyAcortKos'. 
 ' A-ykaoKvbr}s shows that BechteFs statement (that 'AyAw- is the 
 invariable rule in Ionic inscriptions) is not accurate. It must, 
 however, be confessed that this form of the name is, if Ionic, an 
 obsolete form for its period. 'Ayka[o](f)(av Kyzikos, C. I. G. 1780 
 
279-] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 24.5 
 
 is late. A noteworthy feature of the naming system of the 
 lonians is their fondness for names compounded with dyAadj, 
 whereas in Attic these are not very frequent. Adjectives con- 
 taining- ayXaos were too elevated for the senno fam'iUaris of the 
 classical period. The open form is found in Boiotian, "AyAaos 
 C. D. I. 41335, ^ Ay\ao<paibao 4'jS. 
 
 (2) Contracted : ' AyXd^xapos Amorgos, 227 (sixth century) ; 
 'A(y)Aco(?eo-T779 Amorgos, 37 (unc. date) ; 'AyAwz^t/cos Keos, 50, 
 II II (fourth century); 'Ay]Aoo(/)wyros Thasos, 78 A 2 (beginning 
 of third century); 'A[y]Aaj^(3i'ro? Thasos (Louv.) 6 B 14 (third 
 century); AyAcoyez^rj* Delos, ^^ I 7 (282 B. c); cf. also AyAoii; 
 Thasos (Louv.) 214. We find 'Ayka)(f)dvr]s Thera, C. I. G, 2460 
 (late). 
 
 (t>dos Archil, tetr. 743, Sim. Amorg. ijg, Skythinos, i, Theog. 
 569, 1 143, Herakl. 77 ; on the oblique cases of names in -(pcav, 
 e.g. 'Hpo(pS)v Thasos, J. H. S. YIII 402, 22, see Spitzer, Lautl. 
 p. 41, Johansson, I). V. C. p. 16. 
 
 2. d(TO. 
 
 Archilochos 116 yripao^ ; also in Hdt. Ill 14, in the phrase 
 cTTt yiqpaos ovbi^, with the unusual form on account of the 
 stereotyped nature of the expression. Hdt. generally has -eos in 
 -as nouns, -ao-o, or more strictly, -aa-Fo, in the second pers. sing, 
 of imperfect and aorist middle : Archil, epod. 94 ecppdcru), loi 
 eSefw, where Hdt. has e^epyda-ao I 45 and Xenoj^h. 5 ijpao. It 
 is scarcely doubtful that ao had become co in the dialect of 
 people before the time of Hdt. 
 
 3. a to. 
 
 On the relation of -aco to -dco {-rico) verbs in u)peov = iZpaov, &c., 
 see § 688. aio becomes w in the Ionic verb {kwfxev, dppt)(&)/xat), 
 despite fluctuations in MSS. of Hdt. in the direction of eo. 
 
 On ao, written for -av, see § 243. 
 
 4. Varia. '^cnrpaovvoot Halik. 240^3, is non-Hellenic ; Mdo\j/os 
 
 RolDcrts, I 193 J), is of imcertain connections {MHoxj/os? cf. 
 Mei^tos). 
 
 5. Crasis. Kw/x^aAd?, Hippokr. VII 326 = /cat + o + d/x0. Kot 
 
 + 6 + a = Ka) in kco-ttoAAcoz; Hippon. tr. 31, according to Bergk^s 
 reading, which is doubted by Benner, p. 199 ; Hrd. 43 ^bi-nokXaiv. 
 T&ixixara VIII 84, Hrd. 6gg, Kw/xjiiacrty 332, )(c5oTt? Sol. 1337' 
 
 278.] A + 0. 
 
 do became 170 and underwent all the changes incidental to the 
 history of 770 (§ 288). On the retention of do in Aao's, see §§ 140, 
 4, 160, 170. 
 
 279.] A + i2. 
 
 I. dF(a. 
 
 'nap€aT(as Tyrt. 12^9 and Attic karas are probably not from 
 
246 THE IONIC DIALECT. [280. 
 
 Hdt. eorews, but from -aFws, as TrvAcopo's, Doric TruAapo'?, < TTvXacopos. 
 Also in proper names in -(f)(av, and in 'AyAwz; Th. (L.) 2^^, § 277. 
 C£. 'Aykdcov Boiot; C. D. I. 4183, 5343. SuAoo-wy Hdt. 
 
 2. dio). 
 
 For the treatment of -dco verbs, see § 688. The contracted 
 forms alone seem g-enuine Ionic. When verbs in -eco exist side 
 bv side with those in -doi, this -fco is uncontracted. 
 
 3. a privative ; doipos Amorg-os 35, dcopu/ Hrd. 3.39. 
 
 4. Crasis of ai + co in ^.cis' Sim. Amorg-. 24 (but koX o)s Halik. 
 
 23^44)- 
 
 280.] A + H. 
 
 I. dFoi. 
 
 Yloaitbdcov Theog". 692 ; -d(x>vos in Arch. eleg-. 10, by conjec- 
 ture, the MSS. having o). Is -7Ja>ro9 correct? See § 140. If 
 Attic Hoa-eibcov is from -icov, this instance deserves note as being 
 a rare case of contraction of vowels orig-inally separated by F (ew?, 
 /3a<nAecos). Attic irpdv, iraidv (YlaMvos Solon, 135^), "Iwz^ev, arose 
 directly from -dcoi'-, -dov, not through -ecov (Bechtel, B. B. X 283). 
 See on -ripdiv, Horn. Trpdoav, Hsd. Trprjcav, Chandler, Accent, § 569. 
 
 On the treatment of pre- Hellenic dto, see under E + O and 
 E + il. On the relation of verbs in -eco parallel to those in -aco, 
 see § 688. 
 
 281.] E + A. 
 
 € before a vowel does not become i in Ionic. 
 
 1. efa. 
 
 Remains open in feminine of adj. in -uj {hacriav Miletos, 100^, 
 &c.), in KAeaptos Thasos (L.) 4 A 13; KXiavhpos Styra, 19220^ 
 AearoKTos Thasos (L.) 3 B 7; AeaSrj? Styra, 19242 > IIpeaz^^Tjs 
 Keos, 50, IV 65. Cf. Trprjvs and the Thasiote ITpT/uAoj ; eao-ets 
 Anakr. ^6, edcroi' 57 (§ 165). 
 
 ijvhave, the legitimate form for the Ionic of the fifth century, 
 is preserved i^ Hdt., thoug-h in IX 5 edvbave comes to light. 
 
 /3aa-iAeu=: Attic ^acrikid {iBacrtXi] Teos, Ditt. Sj/IL 165,3, about 
 261 B.C.); i-ea^ Attic vavv, /3a(nAeds = Attic /SacrtAe'd? (Curt. 
 Stud. IX 213}. After a vowel, d as in 'Eperptas, 'lo-o-rtaids^ Eretria, 
 I5i7, ig, cf. ©ecTTTta?, 'Ea-Ttaids in Attic inscriptions of fifth centmy. 
 EipvpL^hovTidbea Hipp. 85 (patronymic in -aSeu?, as MataSei) 
 Hipp. 161), from ea (or ed?). K^i^ed Dem. 3Ior. 18, Luk. vit. 
 and. 13. 
 
 2. eo-d. 
 
 In the MSS. of Hdt. eapo'i, eapi, &c. (i2 times), as in Homer, 
 7/poj not appearing- till Hymn Dem. 456. Hdt. I 77 has however 
 Tjpt in the MSS. except C (Stein eapt). Hipp. ?/pos II 44, 46, 
 54, 598, 616, 668, III 70, 76, 80, 94; i)pL II 24, 42, 44. In 
 
28 1.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 247 
 
 II 598 botli Ermerins and Littre have rjpoi, the former reading 
 mp (dis) on the same page, the latter i)p ; Littre reads 7]p [v. I. lap) 
 
 III 68 [lap Erm.) 7/p II 64c {v. I. eap). In III 98 Littre must adopt 
 lap. rjp II 42, 44, 616, VI 594 [6, vulg. lap), 600. There can be 
 no question but that Littre has gone too far in adojiting the 
 contracted form, which seldom occurs without a variant. Varia- 
 tions similar to that between lapt and rjpi occur in MSS. of Attic 
 authors, though contraction is properly in place in forms of three 
 short syllables in that dialect, lap occurs upon an Old Attic vase 
 (Klein, Vasen, 133). Ordinarily the fusion of ea was avoided in 
 Ionic. For the koivt] form ^pos in Arrian, 14, we should expect 
 lapos, cf . Vita Homeric 34. In the poets we find eapt Anan. 5 j, 
 lapos Mimn. 1.-^. 'Eapivq^ Styra, 19134 is doubtful. Cf. § 221. 
 
 In the -ecr- declension, we find in Homer sporadic occurrences 
 of ea (rei^x^ ^ 207, aXyea 12 7, in the sixth foot; Tepilvea \ 185, 
 a-TrjOea A 282, /3l\ea O 444, aaKea A 1 13). See §§ ^^^, ^;^6 for 
 the occurrences of the open and the contracted forms, -ea is not 
 so frequent as -ea in poetry, -ea remains open in the heteroclite 
 accus. of the A declension (which is frequent in Hdt.). This is 
 invariably the case in the -es declension in Ionic prosaists. 
 
 In eaT€ and in the pluperfect, which had the terminations of the sigmatic 
 aorist, we find the open forms {iuOfa, pSea). 
 
 3. eta. 
 
 Abstract nouns in ea from eta do not contract : efwAea, Trav(a\ea, 
 Bechtel, No. 263. 
 
 oa-rla Arrian, 30 (oaTa 29 in MSS. may be an error), Aret. 
 42, 88, Hippokr. often; oorpea Arrian, 21, 29,39; ^TrlaTL Hdt. 
 
 IV 70. In adjectives xp^crect Anakr. 2ii2' 
 
 rjixlas Archil, eleg. 9^, o-^ea? tr. 272, Hdt. rjixlas. 
 
 Blass (Kiihner,^ I p. 210) refers to Hekataios fpavayopi] < -eta, 
 Hdn. I 28O9, 34I4, &vpi}, Hdn. I 28433, 341,7, ^'urraA?;, Ze'A??, 
 'Epvdr] Hdn. I 275, 321, OldvOr] Hdn. I 2765, 312^, Al6a\r] 
 Hdn. I 27532, 32O25; cf. ieprj, § 177. Uav^Ki] Hrd. 4e<nai'a- 
 Keia? 
 
 On Karearai and 6pix4aro<ir\a; see § 611. fiprirai Oropos 1817, compared 
 with eKKeKOKpearai Anakr. 8I2, KiKivfarai Hipponax 622, TreTrAearoi Sim. 
 Amorg. 31 A, seems to represent a difference in writing merely. Whether or 
 not the passage from original t/o to r) was made in Ionic through ea or ea in 
 the verbal forms is not as yet clear. Analogy would seem to incline in favour 
 of 6a, but there are many forms in the perfect where -Tjarai has become -eaToi. 
 Here no sound has been lost between e and a from rj + a. See § 612. 
 
 rjv, kav, see Bredow, 38, Merzdorf, Curtius^ Studien, VIII 143, 
 § 15> 3} ^^^ § 71*5. In Theog. 682, Schneidewin rightly jireferred 
 7/y. Itttiv Homer, Mimn. 3, Keos, 43^^, Hrd. ^^^, 6gj, 3^5 (eTreav 
 330; 43; 584) J Hdt. eTTT/i', though eTredy is often met with in the 
 
248 THE IONIC DIALECT. [282. 
 
 MSS, and is defended by many editors (Greg-. Korintli. p. 465), 
 and -Ijv. Hippolvr. has ^Trdv according to Littrc. 
 
 4. ea from dissimilation from aa in k-fiiariaTai and in -daro. 
 
 5. lUmon is frequently avoided in the inscriptions : /xe aviQ^K^ 
 Naukr. 139 B, Naukr. I 5, 202, 186, 220, II ']']'], but with 
 elision I 137, 223, 259, II 778. 
 
 282.] E + A. 
 
 1. e/^u : 
 
 lyxia% Xenoph. 43, Anakr. 633, a surprising" synizesis, with 
 which cf. ■)Q]s' lyxias in Galen's Lex. to Hippokr. The Herodo- 
 teian <^pkap I 68 probably has d as the Attic word; cf. Horn. 
 (f)pi]ap. (ppioLTt is found in a puzzling verse (99) of the Hymn to 
 Demeter. ^Fa in ea Archil. 51, cf. ?]o-er' etao-ey Hesychios, and 
 edAnflff. 95, Oid. Tyr. 1451, eao-oy Old. Kol. 1192. 
 
 2. eid. 
 
 In the inflection of nouns in -er] the accus. plural remains 
 open : Kvvias, fxvias, aiy4as, &c., § 453. qd from eiavs, also in 
 Swpedj Ephesos, 1471,5; ^^P^"- appears to be later than Scopeta in 
 Attic, apyvpm Wood, Disc, at Ephesus, App. 6, No. i, with 
 Attic a, but with the absence of contraction in adjectives of 
 material, which is the rule in Ionic even in the imperial 
 period. 
 
 In proj^er names in -os it has been commonly held that -as is from -eaj. 
 Bechtel on No. 76 {tiofftriKas) remarks with appropriateness that this is 
 impossible, since Attic names in -eas could not be contracted to -as. See 
 § 165. note, eds occurs in two names, 'Hye'as Keos 44 B 4 ; 'EAWas 44 B 16. 
 Cf. Hdn. l5ii„,II6577. 
 
 On TreTr\4aTai<Treir\7]aTai, see § 281, 3, note. 
 
 283.] H + A. 
 
 7] before the a of substantival and verbal inflections is regularly 
 shortened to 6. It is a matter of indifference whether this 7j = 
 I.E. e or I.E..^ : via, vids ; ^aaiXid, /Sao-tAeu? ; KaTtdrai, 6pp.idTo. 
 Traces of this shortening are sporadic in Homer : Tvhid Z 222, 
 Kaivid A 264, earat, 'iaTo. In TroAT/a? Abdera, 162 (fifth century), 
 t] has the quantity of 77 in /3e7^Aj/at A 380 or of o) in ijpdjo^, ( 
 303. In Homer, TToXrja^ p 486. -rjas in 'Haiovrjas Kail. 5 ; 
 ^ao-tAT/a? Tyrt. 43. 77 is retained before a only when F intervened 
 (except Hom. iroX-qa^). In Ionic these -rjas forms were obsolescent 
 even at a very early period. 
 
 By cras/s, Tacppohirrit inscr. of a Teian (Naukratis, I, No. 70'^)' 
 On a Naukr. inscr. Ti](ppohiTr]i II 701 and very often tt] ^Acppobirqi 
 e.ff. 707, 710, 794. In 729 T?}' 'A0p- (but the i has probably 
 been omitted by a slip), tijl '(f)p- also occurs. iTmbdv Hdt. 
 I 193, VIII 144, &c., Zeleia, 11324; Hippokr. V 622, Hrd. 
 
286.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 249 
 
 421, 5^4 ■^pa from rj apa, also Aiolic. Archil. 86, 95 has apa. Cf. 
 Apoll. de Conj. 223^4, 22734 Schn. By spiizesis, }xi] airoT:iix\\rr]s 
 Hipjwn. 43, 17 avdpcaiTov Sim. Jiq^, yjp-lv 57 aXeoopi] Hrd. 225. 
 
 284.] E + I. 
 
 1. eft. 
 
 et in the dative-locative singular of -v- and -ev stems had pro- 
 bably been contracted by the fifth century. 
 
 2. em. 
 
 Becomes ei in the dat.-loc. sing*, of -e?- stems : except in Hip- 
 ponax, II, where dyet is necessary if the long a of ayei is to be 
 removed^: Sim. Amorg-. I■^^^''Ap€l{''Aprj?)•, ^t^et Tyrt. 1I3Q, Kpara 
 Solon tr. 3653 (or Kparr]), Theognis yevei 928, hva-ixevel 1 219. -e'i 
 in Hdt. does not represent the stage to which Ionic had advanced 
 in the fifth century. See § 416. In adj. from sigmatic stems 
 ei, as in 'Apyeiry Sim. Am. 27. 
 
 3. In suffixes -1777?, -ivos, &c. In Hdt. ^ATapveiTeoo, BopvaOe- 
 vetrrji (but cf. Hdn. II 866^,^), da-reivos, tre'iVo?, Kpaveivos. 
 
 285.] E + i. 
 
 el by mttatJiesis quantitatis has been assumed by Tick, B. B.Jil 
 267, Bechtel, Ton. Inscli. p. 14, in Ope'CKiMv Hipponax, 42, eX 
 standing midway between t]i {QprjiS, Archil. 32, &prjLK[r}s Anakr. 
 96, QprnKi(i) Sim. Keos, 120), and ei. Fick suggests that Anakr. 
 Qpr]iKir]v 49, QpriLKLT} 75 should be read 0p?t-. As held above, 
 § 237, this assumption is based on slight foundations. On 
 ©peiKLcjov, see Osthoff, 31. U. IV 209. Meineke suggests kcittI 
 QprjKLMv in the passage in Hipponax. In Herodotos the iota was 
 probably silent. 
 
 286.] H + I. 
 
 rji is very common in Ionic, both from 171 = I.E. ei and I.E. di, 
 separated originally by some spirant. 
 
 I. Tjfl. 
 
 (a) r]Fi<evi. 
 
 It should be noticed that of the forms which have preserved r\ 
 before t most had F between the tj and t. The exceptions are all 
 either peculiar forms or are due to the influence of analogy, e. g. 
 TToXij'i Tyrt. 12^5 is a double locative (^TroArj + 1) and not developed 
 from TToAet-t. See § 481. -rjtos in arbprjios, &c. is from the 
 analogy of bovXi^os < bovXrjF-ios. 
 
 On -97109 from stems in rjv/ev, and on the extension of the ter- 
 mination to stems to which it did not originally belong, see § 232. 
 On 7]t from r]v/r]F in patronymics, in its relation to eu in -etSrjy, 
 see §§ 233, 235. 
 
 * eVaye? should be read. 
 
250 THE IONIC DIALECT. [286. 
 
 Either Keios, or Ktjioj, is Tonic from Ke'oj. Hdt. VIII i, 46 KeToi ; IV 35, 
 V 102 KTjLot; Sim. Keos 129 Kei- ; Bacchyl. 48 Krji- ; Timokreon 10 Krjia, and 
 Keiwu 'lovXirJTai C. I. A. II 17 B 22. See Wackernagel, K. Z. XXVII 265, 
 who regards K(7os as certainly Ionic whatever may be said of K^tos (*K7)fios, 
 cf. Ionic A6?os, from *KT)fios). fiaffiXii is due to the influence of fia(n\4os, &c. 
 PaaiXTiios, &c., amply prove that I.E. evi is represented in Ionic by -rji. On 
 npLT]VT]L, on a Samian inscription, No. 212, see § 510. 
 
 Whether Hom. xpvos, xP^^°^j Horn., Hdt. XP^"^ ^^ from *xp''lFos or *xp''Uo^ 
 (see Wackernagel, K.Z. XXVII 264, Danielsson, Grammat. und etymol. Stud. 52 
 and Grammat. Anm. I 17, § 272, 3 above) is uncertain. XPV'^C^ Hom., Hsd., 
 Greg. Kor. p. 442, Hdt. (MSS.), Phokyl. 7,Theog. 1333 but XPVC'^" 95^' ^^ Hrd. 
 '31) 249, 83,, xp^K^ts 761. XPvC'^ i^ doubtless the correct form in Hdt. xpv'^' 
 tTKOfj.ai in Hdt. only. Does Hesychios' xp^"«' irevia. i) xp'JM"'''" contain xPviV 
 ■rrei/ia (Ionic usually xp^h Theog. 62, Hrd. 7,24) and Kretan xP'f'i"^ {aiirSs re koI 
 Xp^itt rd/ift Dreros, Cauer 121 B 41) ? 
 
 Kpi'jiov' Kpeodi'iKT] is not necessarily Ionic. 
 
 (/3) r}Fi < dvi. 
 
 This r]Fi appears in Ionic as rjt without exception. Attic differs 
 from Ionic in its treatment of pre-Hellenic evi and dvi, in that 
 the former is generally represented in Attic by a (except in 
 patronymics as Atyr/?, N7}p7/s, which was probably also the Ionic 
 form, § 233, 2), the latter by 77 (KXr/9, Aj/^o/xat, XijTovpyo^, jjOeos, 
 TTpovfjov) which in the fourth century has become et. Ionic re- 
 presents both by rji, though -TjtSr/j from -771;- stems has been 
 generally supplanted by -€Lh]i. 
 
 y^ivos Sim. Am. 721 is probably from *yi)fivos. 
 
 hr\i6(a in MSS. of Hdt., h]i.o<i Sol. tetr. 342, Tyrt. [i^g, gg, 
 h]ioTrjTa Kail, ij^ ; Theog. 552, Tyrt. i'Z-^.-i^[hf]Mv Bergk), Mimn. 
 149 [brjiciiv Bergk) Solon, 1321J ^^-ve bijou). Homeric bTftoto B 415 
 = 87jtoto or brjolo. Homer has bi]ios and brjcos. 
 
 rileeos Hdt. 
 
 rjLuiv Hdt. (An. Par. Ill I49i). 
 
 &pfjL^ Arch. 32, cf. Qpr]iKLos, Anakr. 96, Hippon. 42, 120 
 QpjIKLos, Anakr. 49, 75 (§ 285). Hom. has ©pT/Ke? (Nauck 
 &peiK€s i2 2^4, cf. Steph. Byz. s. v. ©poKTj), &pi]KO)v, QpijKeacri, 
 QpriKTrj ; Pind. has &pr]LKLo)v. In Hdt. we read &pi]i^, 0pi/iKtos, 
 ^apoOpi'jLKei, -dprjLKioi ; 7/ sometimes occurs in the MSS. Hekat. 
 116 {&pqKQij), with Attic a in Steph. Byz. 
 
 kAjjio) Hom., Hdt. (Greg. Kor. § 3); K\i]i:b€s in Hdt. V 108 is 
 accented kAtjiSc? or KKfjtb^s ; KA7/t8a Hippokr. II 272. KX/jtOpa 
 hymn Merc. 146; KXfiepa Hdn. II ^^^q, Et. M. 51 8n, An. Ox. 
 II 2321,^ (Choir.). evKAeto-as- Tyrt. 12^4, from kXyilCco, is not 
 Ionic. 
 
 Atjitj (Greg. Kor. 69), Hdt., Hrd. 2^5, Xi]L(Tri]i Hdt , Dem. 209, 
 Teos, 156 B 21, krjLo-Tvs Hdt., ATji^o/xat Hdt, Sim. Am. 6, Teos 
 156 B 20. Arrian, 40 Xijarai. i]Fl becomes et but once in 
 Homer (Ad'o-r?; I 408). 
 
287.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 251 
 
 ki]Lov Hdn. I 36 15, Xi]LTov, coimcil-hall, Hdt. 
 
 Mr/oytoTt Hippon. 1 2 with 77 as in Horn. IVbfcoy (cf. Hdt. 
 I 7) and MTjoz'ts ; Mjyoi'es and M?7toz/€? Hdn. II 550^ Mjjoye? 
 Herakl. a/;. Eust. 365)5. 
 
 vt]L eiTiveLov Hdt. VI 116 must be incorrect (cf. YlpovrjCr^ and 
 Attic TTpovfjov). See Cauer in Curtius^ Studien, VIII 248. vr\iov 
 Hdn. I 36I5. 
 
 IlocrtSrjtwi' Anakr. 6. 
 
 p)?t8to? (Apoll. ^f/i7. 567 = Schn. 1574), Tlieog-. 239, 524, 592, 
 
 1027, 1034, but /srjSto? 574, 577 (cf. paUov 120, I220, Solon, 9^, 
 
 ij where Diod. Sik. paihiov ; paov Theog. 429), pj^repov 1370 (Horn. 
 
 f! pTjtVe/30?), cf. §§ 182, SS5' Hdt. has pr/tSicos IX 2 in MSS., but 
 
 pr]aTU)vri III 136. 
 
 T7yto? Bechtel, 155 an archaic inscription, Teos, MitfJi. XVI 292. 
 is probably from *Tdf to?, because of Teco?. On THIIOI on an Attic 
 inscr., to be read either Tr\iioi or Tyloi, see § 231. See Hdn. II 
 88i.,o. 
 
 2. Tjt< aai. 
 
 7]ia Sim. Am. 32, see Baunack, K. Z. XXVII 561. With ?/ta, 
 cf. eioi', Hdn. I 3560, II 45 7u- ^^o. has been read e 266. 
 
 287.] E + 0. 
 
 The earliest testimony to an Ionic contraction of eo is the 
 existence in Homer of eo and of a few cases of eu. In the older 
 periods of the Greek dialects whenever the contraction of eo to eu 
 appears, it is to be regarded as Ionic, eu is but sparingly attested 
 in earlier Aiolic, but more frequently in later Doric sources 
 (Ahrens, II 213 ff.). The grammarians frequently give the name 
 Doric to forms in eu found in Ionic authors, cf. Choir. 528^^. 
 Kallimachos^ hymn to Demeter has ^ews 1. 58, rev? is called 
 Boiotian for reo's, Apoll. Pron. 135 B. 
 
 As regards the genesis of eo from tjo, it should be stated that 
 MerzdorFs ^ distinction between pre-Hellenic cio ■= Ionic tjo = Ionic 
 eo), and pan-Hellenic Jo = Ionic 7]o = Ionic eo, a distinction accepted, 
 for many years, can no longer be upheld, at least in its entirety. 
 Unaccented, pan-Hellenic ?]o may become eco in Ionic. In the 
 gen. of the A declension, we have -en < 170 = do. The occvu-rence 
 of eo (ev) makes it appear that the combination rjo is treated in 
 three different ways in Ionic, (i) 7jo may be retained as an 
 archaism, see below on H + 0, (2) ?]o becomes eco, and (3) becomes 
 eo. In Ionic no difference can be detected in the treatment of 
 
 1 Merzdorf in Curtius' Stud. VIII 163 ff., IX 226 ff. ; Wackernagel, K. Z. 
 XXVII 262 ; Schmidt, K. Z. XXVII 297 ; Osthoff, FMM. Rundschau, I 933 ; 
 Erman, Stud. V 294 ; Brugmann, Gramm. § 19 ; Beciitel, B. B. X 280, Ion. 
 Insch. p. 69, 107, 109 ; Johansson, Z>. V. C. i-,3, -B. B. XV 167 ; Fick, B. B. XI 
 259 if. ; Karsten, 19-22 ; Blass, Aussprache,^ 72. 
 
252 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [287. 
 
 long vowel + sliort vowel whether separated by F, ^od, or sigma, 
 though the dialect bears traces o£ the fact that the labial spirant 
 disappeared later than either of the others. In Attic mefathesh 
 qnanfifails seems to have occurred even when sif/ma or 7/od were 
 expelled, though the cases are rare. 
 
 To a large extent the question whether eo or eu should be 
 written, is an orthographical question merely. At one and the 
 same time the same word is written with eo or eu in the same 
 portion of Ionic territory. In general, however, the inscriptions 
 preserve the form eo. In early inscriptions of the same date eo 
 occurs both = eu and = earlier e + o. The eo of cfteoyetv makes it 
 possible that the eo of yeycoveovTes is not disyllabic, but a sj)ecies of 
 diphthong. Cf . eo for original ev and ao for av. €ov is occasionally 
 found [Evpvadeveovi Samos, 217, 'AptoroKAe'ovs Thasos, 72j). See 
 § 247. The writing eo shows that ev was not pronounced eil. 
 eo especially in the -e? stems becomes eu from about 350 B. c. 
 There can be no doubt that eo was pronounced like ev more 
 frequently than it was written. Whenever in Ionic lyric poetry eo 
 must be read ^^, it is an archaism. In the earliest lyric poets it 
 is better to write eo, in the later ev. The difference between ev 
 and eo is not greater than that between ea and 77. How far the 
 contraction prevailed in the ordinary language of the people is not 
 easy to say. Perhaps one class of words was treated differently 
 from another class. Thus in the case of -/cAeo?, where hyphaeresis 
 had been at work, the open form would be more probable than in 
 other names; and syllables following or preceding the accent 
 would be more likely to be contracted than accented syllables. 
 The variations of the MSS. of Hdt. and of the other prosaists 
 reproduce the fluctuation in orthogi-aphy between eo and ev. I 
 hold it likely that Hdt. himself may have been inconsistent in 
 this and other cases, where the diphthongal pronunciation was 
 not graphically expressed. Usually in the MSS. the eo form 
 prevails. In the literature^ and inscriptions of the imperial 
 
 ^ In the pseudo-Ionists eo was carefully preserved. From Lindemann, de 
 dial. lonica recentiore, p. 53, I construct the following table : — 
 
 
 eo 
 
 ev 
 
 eo 
 
 ev 
 
 Dea Syria 
 
 112 
 6 
 
 
 
 Eusebios 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 Vit. auct. 
 
 
 
 Euseb. Mynd. 
 
 55 
 
 4 
 
 Astrol. 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 Ep. Thales 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 Arrian 
 
 118 
 
 2 
 
 Aretaios, I, II 
 
 39 
 
 13 
 
 Abydenos 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
287.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 253 
 
 period there existed a preference for open forms, which is 
 evidenced also in Attic {veo\xr\via and 0eo- in proper names for 
 the older vov-, &ov-). Most forms of this kind represent a 
 fashion in writing-, not genuine survivals of the older speech. 
 
 I. eFo. 
 
 Becomes in Ionic €o or is contracted to eu. In the case of 
 -T€os, contraction never occurs in Ionic or any other dialect. 
 
 Names with z;eoj, kAco?, as first parts of a compound name 
 show both forms. 
 
 veo- in NeoTroAtrecoi' ^ Neapolis, 4.-^, NeoKAetSr/s Styra, 19^05, 
 -KAtgrj? 1906G ; -p/i'109 Olbia, Jahrh.fiir Philol., Suj)j)L vol. X, 26, 
 No. 8, Maroneia, 1915^4, Halik. 240 B 29, D 38 ; -^avbpos Th&sos 
 (L.) ly,,. Cf. veovi Arch, ^j; vioi Kail, ig ; veodi]\iu Anakr. 
 51; Hdt. vio5, &c. ; i/eoV?)ro9 Dem. 52; viov Samos, 22O25 ; 
 I'ecora Sim, Amorg". lcf< veFoFara (see E + i2). 
 
 Neu- in -TroAtVrji,- 4^, Neapolis (350-300) ; -TToAtrwy 4^, Neapolis 
 (350-300) ; l\€]vjX7]v[ov Olbia, 13I9 ; Nei;/xT]z.'[iou] Halik, 240 B 7. 
 Cf. Neo/SovA?/? in Archil, 71, veg-nkvTov Anakr, 2ig and veoiJ.7]Via 
 Pind, Nem. 4.^^=ev; also vevixipia, later Kretan, and vevixeipir] 
 Boiot, C. D, I, 951, Noup?Vto9 lasos 10432, 48 (about 350 b. c), 
 and upon coins of Maroneia and Olbia, is Attic, On the con- 
 clusions as to the (partly) esspiratory character of Greek accent 
 to be drawn from the difference between Attic vios and vovixrjvia, 
 see Wackernagel, K. Z. XXIX 138. 
 
 KAeo- in -ixaxos Styra, 19J19 ; -^x^poTos Keos, 44 B 10, Thasos, 
 77 B 12 ; -hiKos Styra, 19922 » -Trarpa Delos, ^^, VII 27 ; -Kpirov 
 Thasos, 75 B 4 ; -vlkov Smyrn, 15319; -ppos Styra, 19009; -fjLi'ibeoi 
 Th. (L.) I ; -ixibcov Th, (L.) 3 A 10, 6 C 6 ; -[Aojxo? Th. (L.) 6 C 
 15 ; -(})dv[ri^'] Th. (L.) ii C 5 ; -Kvbevs Thasos, 77 A 10 ; -y&i]i 
 Thasos, 77 B 5 ; -tijxov Chios, 177^0 5 -h]ixos Naukr. 775, Thasos, 
 /, //. S. VIII 402, 23. 
 
 KAeu- in KAeofxdi^gpou Arkesine, 34 (fourth century), epigram. 
 KAei^/SovAos Anakr, 29, 3x, 2^ 3 (^^^ ^ ^7 synizesis). KAeu- 
 in prose is written in --naTpa Delos, ^^, III 34 ; -vlki] Pharos, 
 87; -Kpiri] Siphnos, 89; -b(opov Hyele, 1722- Cf, K\€6bap.ov 
 Pind, OL 14.20, the names in Kkev- in later Kretan and Rhodian 
 documents. 
 
 -eo? in the genitive of -v\ev stems is closed in cio-reo?, Simonides 
 of Amorgos y^^, but ordinarily kept open, as is evident from 
 the fact that these genitives are never written -eu?, as may 
 be the case in the declension of stems in sigma. Open -eov 
 from rju- stems in /3ao-iAeo9, &c. (on -1709, see H + 0), on veo^, 
 see §517, 2. -eoi<7]FoTs in redveos Hdt. I 1 12 {Stndieu, IX 
 242); FeAeSires Perinthos, 234 B 13; Aeoyrio-Ko? ibid. 234 A 4. 
 
 ' Cf. N6i77roAts 4i= Attic Neo-. In Attic inscrij^tions the forms in via- out- 
 live those in vio-, which obtain from 454 to 356 B.C. 
 
254 THE IONIC DIALECT. [287. 
 
 iAeo9, probably Herodoteian (c£. IV 94, VI 91), from tAr/fo?. 
 Cf. Kretan lAeo? (accus. pi.). t'Aao? is also Ionic, Archil. 752- 
 See § 139. 
 
 On TrAeGre?, see § 219, 3. 
 
 Adj. in -aAeo? : {xvbdXeos Arch. 182; on abe\(f)e6^ in Horn., 
 Hdt., Lat. II 97, Pantikap. (fifth cent.), see under e + rj. 
 
 ev fi'om €o=ea) : 
 
 6evpoi Thas. y22,= Oeopot; cf. iOeopeov Thas. (L.) 73, with 
 eeop- from Oeo^p-. See R B. X 282, K. Z. XXXI 289 ; cf. 
 AevTvxihr]'i Hdt.^ and TruAeupo'?, in Hesychios, from -nvXempos. 
 Bechtel has proposed to account for this ev for eo) as follows. 
 Final -eco in the genitive of A stems having" become -eo (by a 
 change unparalleled in the dialects), was written -eu (§§ 245, 427), 
 and this eu forced its way into a medial syllable. Brugmann^s 
 [Gr. Gr. § 19) attempts to escape from the difficulties in the way 
 of accepting such a change are artificial, and he cannot explain 
 devpos and Tj-uAeupo'?. The correct explanation is still to be 
 found. 
 
 Joh. Gr. 241, 241 B, Greg. Korinth. p. 447, Gramm. Meerm. 654, August. 
 669, Birnb. 67836, Vat. 699, Eust. 190859, say that the Ionic form is dpT-fi, j 
 which appears in Anakr. 54 and in Herodotos^, Herodas 555, 617 {oprri 445 is a 
 conjecture). That this statement is only partially true is evident from eoprrj 
 Oropos 1834. That a purely prosthetic vowel should have the asper is in-egular 
 (cf. 'ESpTios in Attic, Roberts I 52), hence Bury's attempt at etymologizing 
 eopTT) has at least the vantage ground of suggesting an explanation for its 
 presence by attributing to the longer form an initial f : kopr-t) = fefoprri, 
 fp^foprri, as urvdfa from vncifa ; opTTj on the other hand is = rraid. Cf. B. B. 
 XI 333. ipoTis is doubtless to be kept apart from kopr^. 
 
 2. ecro. 
 
 Yields either eo, eo, or eu ; rarely eeo-o = eov (?) as in ge'ovj 
 Hippokr. VI 384, cfrHom. heiovs, Hdt. e'geou VII 161. In the 
 Ionic poets: Archil. ayaAAeo 66^, ohvpeo 665, a-nayx^o 67, yapi(iv 
 75, dAe'^eu (-eo ?) 66.,, yevev 75^ (MSS. -ov) Anakr. 2^ ; ewxl? 
 (or -ei), MSS*-od) Pliok. 33, tKeo, or -eu Anan. I3 (MSS. -ov). 
 eo in Ai;Kdju/3eo9 Archil. 28; Oepeos Sim. Amorg. 733, TraAtzrpi^eo? 
 7^3. Ylaipia-dbeos Pantikap. epigram, Kaibel, 773, which form 
 occurs in prose, Bechtel, No. 119. Cf. the Attic Uaipiadbovs 
 No. 120, tiaipiadbov No. 122. eu is written in Hipponax, 19^ 
 oiyeu?, 492 Tpu]pevs, and may be regarded as the successor of eo in 
 Sim. Amorg. But tradition is worth little in such cases, as ev did 
 not come into vogue at the stroke of twelve. The open forms 
 
 ^ AevK[a]pios Styra ig^o,, regarded by Merzdorf and Wackernagel as con- 
 taining Aeiy-=A6CD-, is an hypocorijstic name for *AevK6Kapos (Bechtel). 
 
 ^ eoprai Luk. Syr. 10, vj., with dpTui in the better MSS. The MSS. of 
 Anakr. 54 have eopri)y. 
 
aS;.] CONTACT of unlike vowels. 255 
 
 still hold their ground in the Ionic elegiac poets : TroXvavO^os 
 Mimn. 2^ ; avOeos Xenoph. ig, cf. § 532. In the language of 
 the people eo, when contracted^ was contracted long before the 
 time of Hdt., who either preserves the open vowels in verbal 
 forms or permits contraction, e.ff, eTrrjyyikXeo, irpaTrev, ireiOeo and 
 rip-ncv, iirUeo and fidXev. For a complete chronological list of 
 -€os, -ev9 in the genitive of KXeFea- stems in inscriptions, see 
 § 527 if. Herodas has evvTMv 2^5, evaav i^^q with an ev that 
 occurs nowhere else in this participle. 
 
 In derivatives from deos ^, Qeo-, in 0€o(f)cov Thasos, 835 ; 
 -[kAJiSt;? Keos, 44 B 6 ; -Kvbrjs Keos, 46 ; -bcopos Thasos, 77 
 B 8, Olbia, 131, 3, Halik. 2403^, Samoth. 236 ; -boTLbrjs Miletos, 
 Imh.-Bl. G. if. 328, -Kpivy]s 331; -boros lasos, 105,, Klazom. 
 Head, //. N. 491, Sam, 22I4, Chios, Paspat. 13 ; -hoaiy] Phanag. 
 164, 166, Theodosia, 127 (Stephani, Compie Bendti, 1866, p. 128), 
 Lat. II 36; -ydraiv Teos, i59], Chios, Paspat. 3. Cf. JaJirb. 
 fiir PJiiloL, Siqipl. V 487, No. 47, X 29, No. 21. -yevevs 
 Thasos, 7^ C 5j -Tt//t8r]? 7^ ^ 4> -ti/jIos Styra, 1937c. -iipoiios 
 Chios, 174 C 21, lasos, /. H. S. IX 342 ; -(f)dvr]s Eryth. 206 B 6^ 
 (1. 21 J 24 have Qev-) ; -cfypcav Eryth. 206 C 11 (cf. Qe[t]6(f)pu)V 
 Eryth. 206 C 12) ; -■nop.Tios Th. (L.) 6 C 10. 
 
 In Attic we often find @eo- in proper names in sixth, fifth, and fourth 
 century inscriptions parallel to the same names in @ov-. See K. Z. XXIX 1 3S. 
 
 The 6 of 060- is sometimes omitted {®6k\os iQzoe? ©oSiW iQaTs). Cf. KAo'Seij/os 
 19221, and Megarian names in 0o-, Mitfh. VIII 189, 190. In reverse direction 
 o is omitted in ©e/cAiSTjs 19209. See Baunack's S^wdiew, I 229, § 13S, andAioLic, 
 § 188, 16, 3. 
 
 Names in 0eu- : 
 
 -[Lap\y\s\ Eretria, 16 B 25 (340-278) ; -(BovXos Naxos, 28 ; 
 -hoipo9 Delos, ^^, 333, Keos, 169^, Eryth. 206 B 42, Eryth. 207, 
 Olbia, 131^7, 21J Teos, 161 (also 0eu- in Jahrh. fiir P/iiL, Swppl. 
 IV 478, No. 16; IV 484, No. 45; X 31, No. 3); -■npo-no{^) 
 Miletos, 1023; ©euTTpoTTiSou Smyrna, 15323; -Soo-trj Pantik. 119, 
 120, 122, Phanag. 165, 167, 168; -yv^ros Smyrna, 15312; 
 -TtjuiSrjs Smyrna, 15319 ; -^etvCbris Smyrna, 15329 5 -^^vos Eryth. 
 206 B 24; -hdixas Keos, 1692; -Soro? (Et. Gud. 13952) Eryth. 
 206 A 26, which is an almost Attic inscription ; -Kpiros Eryth. 
 206 A 29; -TTo/xTTos Eryth. 206 B 21 ; Qevyviho^ Theog. 22. 
 Cf. 6eos Sim. Amorg-. 7j, deov 7^04, and elsewhere deos in 
 poetry. On coins in Imh.-Bl. G. 31. : &€VTTopTros (Chios, No. 390), 
 QevTTpoTTos (Miletos, p. 646, correcting Monti, gr. 97). In the 
 
 ' Brugmann, Berichte cl. konigl. sacks. Gesell. d. Wissen. 1889, p. 41, compares 
 Skt. ghords. In this paper Brugmann mentions all the etymologies that have 
 been proposed of the much disputed word de6s, except the one which I have 
 here provisionally adopted {6(65 = *dfe(ros — Lith. dvesti). 
 
256 THE IONIC DIALECT. [287. 
 
 fiftli century we find the names of immigrant lonians upon Attic 
 inscriptions, e.g. Qevy6vr]s C. I. A. I 324, D 8. In genuine Attic 
 names the contraction (ov) varies with the uncontracted form as 
 early as the sixth century. After 200 b. c. we find e + o = €V 
 sporadically even in Attic words; ©euSoVto? C. I. A. II 445 E 16 
 (160 B.C.). Eustath. 77548 and 13873^, Et. M. 4483j, An. Par. 
 Ill 2422s, Choir. 42iys, make mention of a Oevv ('Apreijuv) 
 without specifying the dialect. Cf. Kallim. frag. anon. 125, and 
 divs VI 58. In Kretan we find Teu(/)tAa> 3Ius. If. Ill 617, 1. 10. 
 
 eo<eto in verbal forms is generally contracted in old Ionic 
 poetry, the contraction being written eo. MSS. of the lyric 
 poets vary between eo and ev, the Attic ov sometimes having 
 been brought in by the copyists in the case of the earlier poets. 
 In Theognis^ later parts the ov is original. See under Conjuga- 
 tion for the parallelism of eo and ew forms. All instances of ov in 
 pure Ionic documents must be regarded as foreign to the character 
 of the dialect. In Ionic prose eo varies constantly with eu, the 
 former being perhaps the more common^, eo in verbs in -eco 
 parallel to those in -a(i> is scarcely ever contracted in the prose 
 writers (etpwreui^ Hdt. Ill 140 B^d). On the genesis of this eo, 
 see § 688. 
 
 On xpiofxat, see § 167. 
 
 In adjectival forms : 
 
 In adj. of material the orthographically old form is preserved 
 till the latest times ; cf . under E 4- ^j, E + 01. 
 
 Hdt. yj)V(T^o^\ yj)V(T^ov 114 E 8, Zeleia, Wood, Discov. at 
 EpJies2is, App. 6, No. i, Aphrodisias, 254, of the imperial period, 
 Olbia, 129, 12 j Latyschev, Inscr. a7iti(p orae sejjteiifr. Ponti E//xiui, 
 I, Nos. 50, 54, 57, 59, 61, 6^, 64, 70 (after Christ), Samos 220ig. 
 
 XCveos Hdt. Ill 47; Xlv4(o I 195, but Attic Xivovs Samos, 
 220^5, Xu'ovv 22O25 (despite y^pva^ov 1. 18). The same inscription, 
 dating from the middle of the fourth centmy, has aXopyovs 1. 23, 
 -ovv 1. 22, ^o (cf. Plato, Tin/aios, 68 C). x'^^'^^^^ appears in 
 Pherekydes of Leros, ^^ A, Hellan. 149, which fragment also 
 contains yaXKovs and xoAk?/. x'^'^'^^oi' Samos, 224, an inscription 
 otherwise Hellenistic, rdipyvpevv Hrd. 4^^.-, is a unique form. 
 
 a(f)ve6s Theog. 188, 559, TrAe'o? in Hdt. with some of the 
 oblique case forms in irXev- (see § 219, 3, and Bredow, p. 154), 
 (TTtTi'jbeos, eTTe'reos, /3oeos, x.^jveo?, adj. in -Aeo? are uncontracted; 
 § 263,3^; 311. 
 
 Nouns: o>eov Sim. Amorg. 11 ; oariov Hdt. probably from 
 *ocrreior, cf. Skt. dstJ/i. iroK^os, by-form of tto'Aioj, with the 
 same inner hiatus which has prevented ^weo?, &c. in Attic from 
 
 ' Greg. Korintb. 14 quotes only forms iu eo. 
 
289.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 257 
 
 being- regarded as direct descendants o£ the g-en. -eto? (nom. -is). 
 Xpeo?, dfto'xpeo? are not beyond peradventure for "^xPvFos. If we 
 assume xpi7-to?, we have the ablaut xpoi- in XP^'-^P-^'^- ^f. § 286, i. 
 
 Pro7iouns : e/xeu Mimn. 14.,, Archil. 92; //eu Hippon.62^ Anakr. 
 76, 81 ; rev Archil, no. Herodoteian MSS. have both e/xeo and 
 e/xeu. The forms in -eu are to be adopted. See under Pronoims. 
 On ejueu, &c. in Horner^ see van Leeuwen, Mnem. XIII 188 fp., 
 400 ff. oTivveKev occurs in Hrd. 7j,^o. 
 
 aov, found Hippon. j6, jiov 83^ ejutou Arch, in, are Atticisms 
 to be removed in favour of the forms in eu or eo. ov in Solon is 
 correct. In Theognis both forms occur, and so in the later elegy 
 and in the Anthology. 
 
 288.] H + 0. 
 
 The Ionic dialect early developed an objection to 17 followed by o. 
 
 r]o is sometimes preserved when F originally separated the two 
 vowels. It is indifferent whether t/ = I.E. a or e. Such forms as 
 do not show metalhesis quantitafi^ are to be regarded as archaisms : 
 Xi]6v Hippon. 88 ; Traujoi^a Arch. 76^; rr/o? Arch. 4; 7rapi]opos 
 Arch. ^6^ (Hdt. and Attic /xere'copo?). Are TraprjpCa' pnapia and 
 Ttdprjpos (MSS. TTapepos)' 6 p-Mpos in Hesychios Ionic? "Ap7;o? 
 Tyrt. 1I7 ("Apr) Arch. 48, according to Tick, for Bergk's "Apeo))^. 
 
 On Fick^s restoration 'IoAt/os, &c., see § 160. Elsewhere 170, 
 whether = I.E. evo or dvo, suffers change to eo) or eo (eu) : Arch. 
 ^^S^, 7rAecos(?) ; Anakr. 94, TrAe'o) ; Hdt. TiAeo? (-TrAeo-) ; § 219, 3. 
 It is not true that -qoK do became only eco in Ionic, and 7/0 = pan- 
 Hellenic 170, only eo. yiqox^ovTi Hdt. VII 190 is unusual. 
 
 289.] E + a. 
 
 It is a noticeable feature in the history of eco in Ionic, that 
 in eai-ly lyric poetry it is not dissyllabic in a single instance, a 
 fact that leads us to doubt whether the pronunciation in ordinary 
 speech was invariably ew and not diphthongal^, eco in Ionic, 
 when originating from 170, may at least in certain cases (ejj) be 
 regarded as a diphthong with three moras : though its u> probably 
 did not contain two moras, as the e on the other hand may have 
 had greater weight than a simple vowel containing a single 
 mora. That eco is not a pure dissyllable is furthermore evidenced 
 by the fact that it passes into a monophthong when actual con- 
 traction results after a vowel, as in the A declension (§ 429, 2). 
 The prose monuments of the dialect, and to a large extent the 
 
 ' Solon, Tlaiwvos 1357. Elsewhere iraiciv, see § 280. Hrd. 411 has Uairjoi', cf. 
 481 ; Tlaiwv 4..6. 
 
 ^ f is here in each case the intervening consonant. iroKrjos alone lies out- 
 side of this category. On this form, see § 445. In a\l^v Naxos 23 H = open e. 
 
 ^ The view upheld by Bechtel, that e in ew must have been pronounced 
 because e appears in -ey which originated from -ew (,§ 287, i), cannot be 
 accepted until it has been shown that final -eo actually did become -eu. 
 
258 THE IONIC DIALECT. [289. 
 
 inscriptions, often unite in preserving" the writing- eto till a late 
 period of the history of the dialect. The later writers in Ionic 
 retain with considerable consistency the writing eco. 
 
 eo) in Ionic comes into existence from 770 = pan-Hellenic rjo, and 
 from T7o = Aiolic and Doric do. As both tjo's become eo, so may 
 both appear under the form of eco. Cf . the remarks on E + O. 
 On the retention in Ionic poetry of rjo where the later dialect 
 adopts eco or eo, see under H + O. 
 
 1. eoj after expulsion of F. 
 
 eco may originate from efco, rjFoi, the to of which is either 
 orig-inal or due to contraction ; or it may arise from -qFo or rjFo}. 
 
 eot) from eFca appears in i^e'coy Anakr. 10O3, avevecoa-aro Ephesos 
 147^, ijbeoov and in all g-enitives from €v/v stems, and the corres- 
 ponding adverbs (Trprjeco? Hippokr. II 676), YlavraXiMv lasos 
 1045Q, KXvTibiMv Chios 183 A 7. KAecoyujuos Smyrna 15319, 
 Thasos 82 B 9 is from K\eFo + cowixos ; on 'HpaKAewrrjj Eryth. 
 206 A 38, Halik. 341, see § 219. ew is from e + oFa or e + aFo 
 in yecora Sim. Amorg". ir^< veFoFara, not from veFoFera; Oeoipos 
 Theog-. 805, Samoth. 236, from ^di-joipos < drjFaFopos. Aewgeus,- 
 Thas. 77 B 4< Arjo + aS- {Aeabr]s Styra 19242 is = Ari[Fo)Fdh]s). 
 
 eco from r}Fo<dFo generally remains oj^en. ewdev Arch. 83, 
 while Mimn. 123 has the obsolescent 'Hws ; z/ecoTrote'oj Samos 222 ; 
 fxereoipo's Hdt., Hippokr., and Attic, ixeTi]opoi Horn. In connexion 
 with this word we may mention ecopTo in Hesychios = ?)opro, for 
 which we find acopro F 272, T 253. Furthermore in Aecopyd 
 Arch. 88, with which cf. Hesychios^ Xaopyos' dvoVto?. 2tKeAot, 
 and see below p. 265, note. Aeco? Hdt., 'Ap/ceo-tAeo)? Styra I9ig, 
 Aew/3pt/xos 1 938 show that Atjo'z; was antiquated in the time of 
 Hipponax (fr, 88). The change of d to 77 precedes in time the 
 7nefathesis quant itaf is. 
 
 Diphthongal eco appears in Aew(/)tAos Archil. 69. Cf. names 
 in Aev-, § 160. KVKe^va Hippon. 434< ■^kuk^ov (cf. KVKeL(o A 624), 
 Tedve^i Theog. 1 192, Hom. re^rrjco?, Hdt. eorews, reOvecos. 
 
 eco is dei-fved from pan- Hellenic riFo in TrAecos Anakr. 94, and 
 perhaps Arch. 58^; and in le'peco Olbia 12803, 33, 5^, from the 
 nominative tepecos Miletos loo^ , Upeoxrvvr] Attic and Hdt. Ill 141 
 (contracted in (Attic ?) tepaxrvrrj Eryth. 206 A 40). It also appears 
 in the genitive of rju stems (with pan-Hellenic t/), where Homer has 
 -■qoav. Later Ionic has -ecov, Homer -r/coi; and a few cases of -e(ov. 
 
 to perhaps from eco (original d/^co). 
 
 ^vvoovLT] Arch. 860= Koivcovia is from ^vvicav^^^vvrjcov, Hsd. T/i. 
 595, 601 = ^vvuF(i)v, Doric ^vi'diov and ^vvdv, Attic ^vvoiv. Ylocra- 
 hStv is found Archil. 1 14, to which Yioanhi^v is to be preferred 
 (Herod, tt. /x. A. 11, 6, Renner, p. 190). Yloa-ahdoivos, by conj., 
 Archil. 10 ; Hdt. has Yloaeihioiv. 
 
 2. eo) after expulsion of or. ' 
 
389.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 259 
 
 The Ionic genitive in -eco = Homeric -do is represented on the 
 Naxian inscription, No. 23, by rfo {AetvobiKUO), where HO is a 
 diphthong-, whose tj is not metrically equivalent to Homeric d in -do. 
 
 -660 in the Ionic elegiac and iambic poets is a monosyllable : 
 in Hdt. we have ^opeco for /Sopeeto, on which see § 429, 2. Upon 
 inscriptions in the fifth centmy we find only -eto and -00 ; in the 
 following century -ev comes to light as well as the forms from 
 analogy to the -es declension, -co from ea)< T](cr)to appears in the 
 forms ^AvvLKco Chios, 174 C 13 (fifth century), 'Ao-tto iljid. C 27, 
 UvOu) ibid. D 4, AvaS) I) 17, which are the result of the contrac- 
 tion of e + (0 reduced from eeco. With 'Ao-ioj, cf . YlavaaviM Abdera, 
 i63jg. These genitives, as Bechtel has shown [Ion. Insch. 109, 
 B. ^. X 280 fP.), do not represent a different period of the dialect 
 from those in -fco. Those in -eeco are probably grammatical 
 figments. Since upon the same inscription {e.g. 240) the forms 
 in -60) and -a> occur, since -^m is a diphthong, and finally, since 
 the e of the genitive had not disappeared from the Ionic genitive 
 in the third century b. c, -eco and -G> must be mere graphical 
 variations of one and the same ending. Mu)(tecoy Naxos, 27, 
 'Epjuteco Chios, 180, and 'Ayieco Olbia, 131, 11, are thought by 
 Bechtel to owe their existence to the workings of analogy. As 
 in Attic 'AXaia?, ©eo-Trtas are older than 'AAate'a?, ©eo-TTie'as, so 
 'Ao-io) is older than 'Ep/xteto, ahiKidv older than Mv^iiiav. Cf. 
 Dittenberger, Hermes, XVI 185. 
 
 In Ylavaixvio Halik. 238^^^ ^4° A ii; YlaKTV(a Myl. 248 C 3, 
 13 ; ^Apxayopca Halik. 240 B 3 ; MiKivvca 240 A 38 ; BpwAu) 
 Ditt. S^il. 6 D 22, we have the contraction. After i, eco is fused 
 in verbs, e.g. in the future. 
 
 eo) from rjaca. 
 
 €0) is diphthongal in the gen. pi. A declension. dA-BON Naxos 
 23, I regard not SiS = rjov, as Fick takes it, £. B. XI 268, but as 
 
 = e&)i;, the H expressing the open quality of the e sound (cf. 
 Dittenberger, Hermes, XV 229 ; Blass, Aussprache,^ 24 ff.). 
 There appears to be no warrant for deriving -ecoy from -■r\ov, 
 attested at best in this single instance. 
 
 Attic -w arises from -€a> (either from pan-Hellenic tjo or Attic-Ionic i\o) 
 when either e or a> was tonic. Ionic resisted the operation of this law until 
 a late period in its history. Whether accent position (-i t;o-, or -tjo -L) should 
 have produced eo is not clear. It is, however, certain that unaccented pan- 
 Hellenic 7J0 became ew. Cf. Johansson, B. B. XV 169. 
 
 €(0, eo), from ecro). 
 
 ecov Amorg. 35, epigram, Mimn. 3 ; fjav Xenoph. 2ii . Adverbs 
 in -coos^: ahrjvicas Chios, 174 B 12; Theog. 406, ev/xapewj (so 
 
 » Greg. Kor. 451, Vat. 697, Hdn. II 38816 = 6chol. | 485. 
 
 S 2 
 
36o THE IONIC DIALECT. [289. 
 
 Demokr. 3Ior. 1%, Herodas V), aa(f)r]ve(a9 963 ; vrjXeco^ Anakr. 753 
 (< vrjXeioos) as Hdt. d/cAews V 77, ahem I 2l6 (-ecos ?) ; d(r(^a\eco? 
 Archil. 584, 66^', e/^/xeAeco? Anakr. 40^, if g-lyeonic (but see Ross- 
 bach, Metrik 563) ; Hdt. reAeco?, dArj^eo)?, aafprjviois, &c. Hippokr. 
 ^wexeto?, cLTpeixicos (-ws occasionally in MSS.), Protag. vq-nevOecDS, 
 Diog. Apoll. 6 drpeKeoj? (^ie Simpl., who has however kix^avm in 
 fr. 5), &c. Cf. -w in the genitive from -eco. 
 
 ew, eco, from eo-co in other forms. 
 
 In the future of liquid verbs we find eo), never co, in Herodo- 
 teian MSS. Archil., Hipponax and Theognis have epew. In the 
 participle Hdt. has ayyeXioiv, &c. etSewcriv Halik. 238^^, Demokr. 
 87, Attic elboicnv Ephesos 14717 (3°° ^- ^O- 
 
 6ewz^ Arch. tr. 2^-^, Mimn. 2^, g^, Xenoph. i^^, Solon 4^, 133, 
 but 6€U)v 13.30, ^^^^ Archil. 842, Hipponax 30 A, Anakr. 6^^. 
 The form with synizesis is found as early as Hesiod, TA. 44. In 
 the genitive plural of nouns of the sigmatic declension both -ecav 
 and -fiov occur in poetry, see § 537. The prose form is always 
 open. 
 
 3. 60) after expulsion oi yod. 
 
 From -7; to- we have ecu in hv^kiav (— ^— ) Archil. 68, bixf/eoivTa 
 Anakr. 57, according to Fick (£. B. XI 265), for hi^lrSiVTa. 
 
 Xpecojuat, the genuine Ionic form (whatever be made of Hdt.'s 
 Xpe'op.at in P from II 77 on) \&=^^x^pi]ioixai. See §§ 167, 687. 
 Hdt. has xpicDvrai, expecoyro, xpe(i)p.evo'i . From xprjv, 2^>'onounce, 
 XpijaOat, interrogate an oracle, we have in Hdt. \pioi(ja, xpew/^ei^o?, 
 ixi^iotiVTo [P here too e\piovTo V 82, VII 141). From (tixi]v, 
 biaa-pieoivm II ^y (Stein, Kallenberg, -crp.wz're?) ; hence efeV/xewy 
 III 148. If vijv is the Herodoteian form, we would expect eirt- 
 viocxTL IV 62 ; if vilv, then einviovai. 
 
 eto) from eco in verbs remains uncontracted in the MSS. of the 
 prosaists, though contraction may have ensued by the year 500 
 B. c. In the poets eoo is a monosyllable or is actually contracted. 
 Under the hTad of Contract Verbs are given the forms in eoj, ew, w. 
 A few verbs in -aco become -eco [dpcariu), opeu), (poLxica), § 688. 
 Here too are to be classed participial nouns : irpoixaxediv Hdt. 
 [■npoixa\S)V(.'i Teos, 159,^, Attic form) ; 'Ap/cecoy Styra, 19^7 ; 
 4>tAewi/t8[e]os Thasos, 73. 
 
 ocrrecoi; Archil. 84. 
 
 TToAews (occurrences under § 486), a genuine Ionic form, from 
 tto'Atjo?. Johansson, B. B. XV 169, proposes to explain the eco 
 of TToAecos on the theory that if the accent fell upon a syllable 
 preceding or following 7/0, eco and not oj, is the result. Cf. Attic 
 yea)-< yTj(t)o- in AeTrroyeco?, yecoperpta, Hdt. yeaj7reti")s (Greg. Kor. 
 114), yetwTTetyas, yeojpuxeo), yecoTreSoi' (yj/oxeco VII 190). -ecos 
 from -ijos in the i decl. is not contracted iu any dialect. 
 
392.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 261 
 
 Adjectives denoting a material retain the uncontracted ^ form 
 until far into the imperial period, apyvpica Olbia, 129,3 '■> XP'^'^^^'- 
 Ephes. 1479, Latysehev, Inscr. anfiq. orae sepfenfr. Fonti Eux. 
 1, No. 67, Wood, Discov. at Ephesus, App. 6, No. i. But 
 Xpva-iio Mimn. iig, and one case of -wi, Latyschev, 1. 1. No. 57. 
 
 Adjectives in -Aeo? with but a few exceptions fail to contract any 
 form: apyakecd Tyrt. la^g. See § 263, i, b. 
 
 In superlatives from stems in -eo-, e.g. TeXeooTaTT] Demokr. 128. 
 On 'HpoKAewTTj?, &c., see § 219. 
 
 In the pronominal declension we find ry/xewy, vix^mv : see Brug- 
 mann^ Gr. Gr. § 96. 
 
 Svffix -e<ov in avhpe.oiv, irobeuip (Bekk. Anecd. I 8^^), (papirpeiHiv, 
 &c. in Hdt., cf. irvkedv Demokr. 60. 
 
 4, €(o where no consonant intervened : 
 
 d^ecd Hipponax, 75, from *a.(f)ri(a, cf. Hdt. aTroorecoo-t. In Hdt. 
 the 6(0 of the aorist passive is not contracted (aTratpe^ew, lo-o-w^e'co/iiey, 
 
 Hyper-Ionic -ewp occurs in the gen. of consonantal stems, of ovtos, in 
 irfTrtaiv Ai'et. 290, &c. See § 480. 
 
 290.] H + O. 
 
 Tjcd is preserved as an archaic form ; e.g. in 'Hw? ^ Mimn. 123, j^,, 
 and in Hdt. through the protection offered by F (7)009 from *ayo-a)s, 
 K. Z. XXX 422, note 2). On Archil. 83 ewf^ei-, see Bartholomae, 
 K. Z. XXIX 522. Elsewhere H + (f, i, o-) + 12 becomes eco, 
 whether 7} = d or pan-Hellenic 17. 
 
 291.] E+T. 
 
 The elegy still preserves Iv-, if the possibility of this reading 
 may be regarded as a criterion [hirXoKapLov Arch. 1 1 ; iv(})po(rvvr] 
 Xenoph. I4; €V(TT€(})dvov Theog. 1339 ; cf. 548, 574), while eu is 
 permitted (Archil. 19, Theog. 639, 845, &c.). Iambic poetry 
 records ev in ev^pwy Sim. Amorg. 799, evTV)(^d 7^3, ev i^^. In 
 Anakr. tvidapa J 6. 
 
 292.] + A. 
 
 I. oFa. 
 
 avTU)br]9 according to Apoll. Dysk. Pron. 94 C, whereas we read 
 avdabicrrepoL Hdt. VI 92^. Compounds of ava^: xeipiava^UtiiV 
 Hdt. ; St/xwrnKTos Hippon. 55 B ; 'iTnrcoi^a/cTos Hippon. 13, cf. 
 An. Ox. II 22534 (Choirob.); ' ApiaTcavaKTo Chios, I77]5; 'Ep/xw^a^ 
 lasos, I04i4, Eryth. 206 B 13 ; Arj/xcomKros 206 B 21, Thas, (L.) 
 
 ^ Xpv(re<f>, apyvpecf) are quoted from Homer as Ionic by Joh. Gr. 242. 
 
 « Cf. Et. M. 44055. 
 
 ^ aveiSns is from avra-a^s (ctSos) or avra + vHs {^Sos) not, as Aristotle 
 and some moderns think (cf. Wilamowitz, Herakl. 1243) from avrodSris. See 
 K. Z. XXVIII 130. 
 
262 THE IONIC DIALECT. [392. 
 
 4 B 10, 143, Thasos, 81 B 4 ; Tt/Mwraf Thasos, 75 B 4, 'Avhp(ava{^) 
 Imh. Bl. G. 31. 377 (Chios) ; Mapbp(ava$ Klazom. /. I. 257, UoaL- 
 boiva^ Epliesos, /. I. 379 A, Head, H. N.4gi. It seems not easily 
 credible that in most of these compound proper names the 
 termination -oiva^ should be due to the influence of such names 
 as U.v6oova$ (which depends upon Uv6(dv) ; and that there should 
 be merely an echo of the vocative a>vai in the names of the Ionian 
 aristocrats. See Wackernagel, K. Z. XXIX 143, who would even 
 set aside xeipS>va^ as an example of the contraction of oFa to w. 
 
 TTp&Tos from ^-npoFaros (or perhaps from ^-npoi Faros), Keos, 43^5, 
 Stvra^ 1947' Other examples of oFa = (i) are Kvp.aT(l)yr\ Hdt. IV^ 
 196, IX 100, wcrt Anakr. 21^ <*oarin, Horn, ovar- < ovaar-. 
 ovaa-i Sim. K (?) 854. See § 255 and Schmidt's Neutra, p. 407. 
 On Hippokr. ciris (ori?) VI 356, see Littre. 
 
 o{F)a uncontracted in aK7]Koa. z'eodAwrot Hdt. IX 120 is felt 
 to be a compound. 
 
 2. ocra 
 
 = (0 in KOKtco Archil. 6^; Kpea-aa Anan. 33; a/xeiVco Theog. 409 
 [ttAcio) 907, not certain]. Hdt. has iKdacroi, KaXkio), a/xetVw, irkiw, 
 &c., as well as the v forms. Hdt. alhSi I 8 (Greg. Korinth. § 0^^, 
 says alhovv is Ionic) ; 7}w Hdt. II 8. 
 
 3. Crasis (cf. Greg. Korinth. § 29) : wTro'AAcoy Hippon. 45, 
 T^vTiKvr]ixiov Hippon. 49g, rijip^aiov, d)vr\p, Tu)yaKp.a, TO)\i]6i9 in 
 Hdt., ojz'^pMTTo? often in Hippokr. render ap., Thasos, 68 A, very 
 noticeable, if Fick {G. G. A. 1883, 126) is correct in regarding 
 it as = 6 a/x. o->-a results in a in Eleian, Argolic, Korinthian, 
 and in other dialects of the Doric class. In Attic we find a in 
 'Adrivalos, Taya\p.a MHU. Ill, p. 230, 5 (before 343 B. c), and 
 also CO in Trpwros^ TuiydXp^Tos C. I. A. I 322 A 75 (transcribed 
 by Kirchhoff Tov{a)y-). The parallelism of Attic and Ionic 
 makes it probable that o + a may become co and a. ^A.p.oij3ixov = 
 6 'Aju,- Abu-Simbel (Roberts I 130) cannot be cited as evidence, 
 since the name is not that of an Ionian, Absence of crasis is 
 frequent upoirthe inscriptions; e.g. to dhos Halik. 238^3. 
 
 01 + a in wAAoi : wAAoi p.4v pa' al rotaCrat avvaKoL<pal rijs 8eu- 
 Tepas elcrlv 'Idbos, f] "Op.-)]pos ovk ixpwo-ro^ '■ Schol, Apoll. Rhod. 
 A 998, 1081 refers the form to the veoorepa 'las. Cf. Theokritos, 
 XVIII 17. (SAAoi Hdt. I 48, wvdpioTToi VII II, oivhpes IV 134; 
 ou + a in tcottoAAcoi/os Chalkis 1^12, Halik. 23835, Naukratis, ^.^. I 
 6,68-70, 72, 74, 76-79,81-83,139-141 (but TdTTokkuivos 156-158, 
 250, 257-258, &c.) ; TO)y(ovos Teos 156 B 32 ; but tov 'ATro'AAwros 
 
 * Unless irpuJTos is for *'7rpa) faros. 
 
 ^ Cf. Hdn. II 3444 = Et. Mag. 821,9. The form ZWot is found in MSS. of 
 Homer, and was read by Zenod. B i, K i, but rejected by Aristarchos in 
 favour of &\\oi because of his belief as to the absence of the article from 
 Homer ; see § 258 on Aristarchos' &pi(TTOs. 
 
!i95-] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 263 
 
 Amphip. 10,3, Eretria 1515, Milet. 98, rod 'A(/)ua(7ios Halik. 
 ^3^14- With TaTr6k\ow\os^ in the inscriptions of Naukratis, cf. 
 a[x above. ravdptiiiTov in Plid Hdt. II 1 21 {Q and Takr\9i's in 
 PR VII 139 are not easy to defend. In Hrd, 4,.^ tov aK^KTopos 
 is scr'iptio plena. 
 
 293.J + A. 
 
 In accus. pi. of A stems o-\-a< avs remains uncontracted. 
 
 294.] ii + A. 
 
 ^a>vhpos Amorg". 32 is rather from <(r(oy = (ra) before vowels 
 (Spitzer, Lautl. des Arlcad. 43, 44) than from o-acro. See § 277. 
 '11/310)2/ Miletos 93 (Pindar 'ilapiutva) and in Homer, thoug-h Nauck 
 proposes to substitute ''ilapX<x>v- for 'Xlptcoy-. Cf. Menrad, p. 13. 
 ^coaypta Hdt. Ill 36 recalls 2 407 ; elsewhere (ioy- with accented co. 
 
 The MSS. of Hdt. have both rj'pcoa, ixrirpcaa, and^ by analogy to 
 the vowel declension^ rjpMv, irdTpcov. 
 
 By crasis: wvOpuiir^ Hdt. I '^$, Theog-. 4^^; S)va^ Anakr. 2, 
 Hdt. IV 150, 155, VII 141, oivbpes Hrd. 2^^; TOiirokkoovL 
 Miletos g6, gy, Naukratis, Roberts I 132 ter, and very many 
 times in the inscriptions discovered at Naukratis ; rwKti^d/c?; 
 Anakreon 136 (Et. Mag-. 5142?)- The article does not coalesce 
 with the following word in rwt 'A-TroAAwyi Naukr. I 2, 345-6, 
 Milet. 93; rwt 'Atto\X[(i}vC\mi, Halik. 238^5, an inscription that 
 refuses to adopt crasis. 
 
 Spiizesis : eyw ^ Ap.^vTaii]v Hrd. 5^. 
 
 295.] + E. 
 
 I. oFe yields oe and ov in the poets. Arch. IfxepoevTa 8, 
 (TTovoevTa 9i, ai/xaroei; 93, XP'^^^^^^'-P ^^^ 5 Mimn. akyivo^aaav 
 IIo, alpiaTo^vTos 147; Anakr. ^poecraav 173, baKpvoea-aav 3I, 
 haKpvoevra 94.2, KepoeWTj? 5I2 ; Xenoph. aXyLvoea-crav 2^; Pho- 
 kylides i/^iepo'eyros 33. avdefjievvra^ (ov?) Anakr. 623, x^P'^^^^ 44 
 (ou? or^ preserving ^apUv, read X' yc^p rjdos (to-xets)), Barovo-tdSTjs 
 Arch. I042< BaT-o{;s=Bardet?, are the only examples of con- 
 traction in forms of -oet? ; see § 314. In Homer -oei? does not 
 become -oSs, hence Aristarchos-" KoiTovvTa M 283 is suspicious. 
 There is evidence making for the late date of the passage. 
 
 In the compomid re(o-)(repaKate/38o[fXJj]9oi'roi;rrjs Paros 58, ofe 
 is contracted; cf. Arrian^s r^a-a-apaKovvm^ 95, TptaKovTovTees 97. 
 In the adjectival and participial formations : T€ixi,ov{(r)(rr]s 
 Miletos 28 (Tetxiof ertrj?) ; MapaOovvTa Eryth. 20I26 ; Oavovaav 
 264, Adesp., ariyovcrav Keos 47^3 ; ^oiviKovaaai Hek. (Steph, 
 Byz. S.V.), 'Epjjicavoa-a-a Chios 174 A 2, 4 has been read by 
 Blass -vovcraa, but is properly an example of vowel assimilation ; 
 in Hdt. Olvova-aai, SeAtvovVtot, 'Ottovvtlol, XvpaKovcnoL (on ^vpa~ 
 lioatos see above, § 255}. oe remains open in MoKoevTa Hdt. 
 
264 THE IONIC DIALECT. [295. 
 
 IX 57, MvpLKoevTa Hek. 209, 2oX6evTOS Hdt. II 32, Aiytoecro-a 
 I 149, jxeXiToea-a-a VIII 41 , ^KoKoiroeiTa IX 97, TpirjKovTo^TLoas 
 VII 149, but these are all forms out of date in Hdt.'s day. oe 
 also remains open in evvo^arepov Hdt. V 24, Hrd. 6^2' 
 
 The concurrence of a stem in e/o and -(pyo- or -F^vt-, as the 
 latter member of a compound, is dealt with in the dialects in 
 different ways. The original ablaut form, -Fopyos, gave way at 
 an early period to -Fepyos, as is shown by Homeric brjixioepyos 
 p 383. See Curtius^ Shidien, VIII 213 ; §§ 149, 150 above; A. 
 P. A. XVIII 95, 158 ; Meister, G. D. 11 41, to whom I owe much 
 of the material given below ; Bennett 28 If.; Johansson I). V . C. 
 19 ff. 
 
 I. The vowels are uncontracted. 
 o^pip.o€pyS>v Kallin. 3 ; ayaOo^pySiv Hdt. I 67, ayaOoepyii-jv 
 
 III 160, ayadoepyCaL III 1 54 in FB ; hy]p.ioepyoi VII 31, and 
 so the editors in IV 194, despite all the MSS. It is not 
 easily credible that the Ionic of the fifth century should have 
 differentiated between ayaOo^pyos and KaKovpyo^. Either the 
 forms were open or they were closed. But exceptions might 
 be made in favour of ayaOoepyot, br]p.io(pyoi if used as technical } 
 expressions. AvKtoepyeas Hdt. VII 76 (sic Athenaios ; PR ! 
 XvKoepyia^, reliqui kvKcp- ; cf . below III B); 2;]eAtyoez^r[t] Selinus 
 C. D. I. 3045 A 9; 'OnoevTL Lokris, C. D. I. 1478 B ^^; 
 MvpiKoevTa Hekat. 209 ; TrayroepKrea) Herodas 542- 
 
 II. The vowels are contracted. 
 (A) o -h e becomes ov. 
 On forms in Hdt., see above. 
 iravaXovpyia Xenoph. 33; AvKovpyo^ Styra 19,5 and Chios 
 
 (Paspat. p. 39) ; Kanovpyo^, Kpeovpyrjbov, vTTovpyeoo, ^vkovpyim 
 Hdt: (Stein, Preface, liii) ; (TrtKaLvovpyelv Dem. llor. 20j^ ; 
 epLovpyi](raL Vita Horn. 4; ^oavovpyLr]s Luk. Sj/r. 34; piova-ovpyir^ 
 A-'ifr. 10, Vit. auct. 3; XeiTovpyot, hr]p.iovpyiK6v Arrian 12^; 
 inrovpyi]p.aTa Euseb. Mynd. lO; KaKOvpyoov Hipp. Ill 238; 
 vTTOvpyijaai ItpP- ep. 14,. T?jtovpyo?, MtArjcriovpyTj?, Xiovpyris, 
 in the inventory of the temple of the Delian Apollo (^B. C. H. 
 VI 29 = Ditt. Si/Il. 367) are too late (185-180 B.C.) to be cited 
 as evidence. So too in North- West Greek, bap-Lovpyo^ Phokis 
 (Ditt. Sj//l. 29433), ^^ t^^6 second century B.C., Argolic, /. /. 
 389^6, bap^iovpyipras Kameiros in Rhodes, Revue Arch. XIV "^"^f^, 
 No. 59; Lokris, 'OTrowrtot C. D. I. 1503, 1504, A 2, B 2, 
 1505, 1509 B, 1510 (Hdt. VII 203), '07roi32m 15023 (all late 
 inscriptions) ; SeAtz/oCi^rto? C. D. I. 3044, Megara (so Bechtel 
 edits, but in his note suggests "^O^ivovr-). The Megarian dialect 
 contracted o + e to ou even in an early period (the inscription is 
 written ^ov(Trpo<^r{b6v). The uncontracted form too held its 
 ground in Selinus (above I). 
 
295-] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 265 
 
 Contraction to ev has been assumed on the strength of KapiKevpyeos Anakr, 
 91, as written by Bergk for Strabo's KapiKoepy-. This contraction belongs in 
 the same class as iSiKaitvy with hyper- Ionic ev, § 690. The form is handed 
 down with -otpyeos by Eust. 36725, 7075,, Et. Gud. 297^3, schol. Iliad 193 
 (where Kaptepyeos is also read, see III B below) ; cf. Et. Mag. 48939, where 
 Flor. adds Kapioepy. 
 
 \eovpy6s, Doric according to Photios for Attic and Ionic \eupy6s (Archil. 
 88, Prometh. 5, Xen. Mem. I 3, 9), is a mistaken form. With \eupy6s compare 
 the adv. Aews which the grammarians called Ionic. Ai'chil. 112 has Keloos 
 = Te\fus, 
 
 (B) o4-e becomes co according' to some scholars (Roehl, G. 
 Meyer, Blass) where syllabic hyphaeresis and leng-thening- of the 
 first vowel are preferable, w is however certain in : aixirekoopytKo. 
 Herakl. Tables II 43 ; TcA<^a)o-o-a, a spring in Boiotia (Ahrens 
 I 173) and elsewhere (see Pape). But the usual form is 
 T€X(f)ovari, and ov appears in Tek.(povcnov St. Byz., T4X.(j)ovaa in 
 Arkadia, T^Xcpova-Los, &c. 
 
 III. In the following forms it has been thought that either e 
 or has been expelled. Some of the cases of the supposed loss of 
 € may be explained as arising from -0 + Fopy, 6py being lightened 
 to opy, as ovT to ~ovt ^. 
 
 (A) e is expelled in a\opyi]v Samos 220j5, ^g, ^g, aXopyd 22035, 
 aXopyovs 22O23, akopyovv 22O22, 30, aXopyas 22O2S, irapaXopyis 
 22O21, bi-jpLLopyov 220^9. Ipopyiai is the reading of ABC in Hdt. 
 V 8 5, where Ipovpyiai is u.sually edited. hrnxLopyCdv Samos, R. M. 
 XXII, 313, 1. I. In the other dialects we find hapiopyos Andania, 
 Cauer 47^16, first century; Megara, Mitth. VIII 191, No. 5, 
 Cauer 104^9 (Aigosthenai, third century); Knidos, Cauer 166^ 
 (first cent.) ; Kameiros, Cauer 187J (conj.) ^ ; Astypalaia, B. C. H. 
 VIII 26 B 7, 8 (in an inscription from Amorgos) ; Telos, Caiier 
 169^, ; Argos, Cauer 48 (conj., fifth cent.) ; Arkadia, C. D. I. 118I9 
 (third cent.), B. C. H. VII 489 ; Boiot., Mitth. VI 3043, 9 ; Achaia 
 (Ditt. St/ll. 182^3 (second cent.), 24221 (second cent.)), B. C. H. II 
 97, 1. 16; Lokrian, C. D. I. 14762.3; Oianthea, C. D. I. 147915 
 (fifth cent.), 1480 (fifth cent.), Pamphyha, C. D. I. 1260 (late), 
 1261 (late). Cf. Dumont, Cer. 138 ff. Also in 'OAoVrtot in 
 Krete, C. I. G. 25543, '0]7roz;na)i; C. D. I. I478j^, cf.,^ (fifth 
 cent.), as we find OnONTiON on the older coins (^Otto^vti. 33) ; 
 leXivovTios, as Bechtel proposes to read C. D. I. 3044, Selinus 
 instead of -ovvtio^. 
 
 (B) is expelled. 
 
 hajxupyos Nisyros, Ditt. S^ll. No. 1959 (about 200 B.C.); 
 
 * This lightening of long vowel before the two consonants is here not due 
 to the operation of the old principle which effected this change. In the late 
 dialectal period of the language the old principle was resuscitated after having 
 fallen into abeyance. 
 
 * For SafitOrriiaas. 
 
266 THE IONIC DIALECT. [296. 
 
 XLvepyrjs Lylcophr. 716. Both are doubtless due to the influence 
 of ipyov. C£. § 149. On Kaptepye'o?, see II B, note. 
 
 1. In infinitives of -ooi verbs, o + F€v (or o-er) or + spurious ei 
 has invariably yielded ov. opKovv Halik. 238^6 ; ^e^aiovv 240^, 5; 
 also o + /^ey = ou as in hov{v)ai Priene 1443 ; hihovv Oropos 1821,33, 
 Thasos 72^1. piyovv Hdt. V 92(?]) = Attic piyQ)V [piyoi + €v) ; 
 piyovv occurs after Plato. We should expect piyiav in Hdt. 
 
 2. ocre. 
 
 Becomes ov regularly ; e.g. fieCovs Xenoph, 3^ ; ajxeCvovs V 78, 
 TrAe'ovs II 8 (TrAeious R. A.) I20 [-kX^iovs in all MSS.) are the 
 only contracted forms in Hdt. of the nom. pi. of these compara- 
 tives. Compounds of i^m {-oxp-) are always contracted, e.g. 
 'naTpovyo'i Hdt. VI ^'J. 
 
 In verbs in -oco, ote invariably becomes ov. See under Con- 
 jv.gatmi. 
 
 4. KX^ovp-Tiopov Lampsakos 171 is from KXeo + (pt-iropos. 
 
 5. Crasis: in lyric poetry: TrpovdijKe Arch. trim. 38; tovttl- 
 6r]p.a Hippon. trim. 56 ; Trpovinrev Hippon. trim. 39, ; irpoiloco/ca 
 Theog". 529 ; irpo- is not contracted in the Ionic of Hdt. Lukian, 
 Sj/r. 24, Hippokr. ep. 1734, Herodas 3j2 have irpov-; but Arrian, 
 Ind. 222, 344, Euseb. Mynd. 21, 41, Hippokr. ep. 27i(,, -npoe-. 
 Crasis occurs also in ovrepo'i Hdt. I 34, 134, III 78 (i? 6 er-) ; 
 TovTepov Hdt. I 32, 186, TovTipov Sim. Amorg. 7^,3, and also 
 in Hippon. 183, where in Vit. 2 it is glossed by Imvlkcos (a 
 striking example of the crasis of erepos in Attic is ovrepq in 
 Aristotle''s ^A6r]v. ttoXlt.) ; rovpyov Herodas 432, 7i2i ' Tovvavriov 
 Euseb. Mynd. 2 ; but to (Xaxtrrrov Hdt. II 13, to 'ia^aTov VII 
 229, TO e8a(^o? VIII 137, though crasis is probable, ou + e in 
 TovppoKpaTeos Prokon. 1032; ovv€k Sol. trim. 37g, Theog. 854, 
 1349, ovveKep Herodas ig^, 23,, 6^^; TovrcKa Theog. 488, Luk. 
 '^J/''- 33y 39? 54) TovveKev Xenoph. 2-^^. This ov is not a diph- 
 thong. 
 
 6. Jp/iaeresis occurs in TroTap-ov '-TTavepxopLat Anakr. 23, kov 
 '(TTLv Herodas 5^. S^nizesis in irpqeniTovf] Sim. Amorg. 22. 
 
 296.] + H. 
 
 I. oFi]. 
 
 oF-q is always uncontracted in compounds the stem of whose 
 first member ends in -0, e.g. KaKoi]dir] Demokr. 3Ior. 2%, ac- 
 cording to Stobaios, X^'POTJ^rj? Hdt. II 69, vorjpes Hrd. 73. 
 
 oFr] also remains open in aOporjv Arch. ^^, &c. (or] Hdt., Hrd. 
 434^ 68^ Aiolic (ota< C(a-. 
 
 oFr} — oi in oyhMKovTaeTrj Sol. 20^. The vocalic sequence in 
 dyborjKovTa not lending itself to the verse, the poets use 6ybu>KovTa, 
 e.g. B 568, Sim. Keos 1462, 1476 5 ^^- oyloi\KovTa Kaibel Upgr. 
 
297-] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 267 
 
 12O3. Hdt, has oybcaKovra and so Arrian lOg (-OTjKoi^ra Diibner). 
 On this form in Ionic, see Eust. on B 568. The contraction 
 ensued through the influence of 6kt(o : cf. TerpoiKovTa, tt/jiw (irpior]) 
 in the Herakl. Tables. See § 207. 
 
 In the verbs l3od(a, vo4co : Hippon. trim, i^ has e/3cao-e (cf. 
 Hesych., Suid.) for t/Soryo-e of the MSS. ; Anakr. 60 e-n-t/ScoToz/, 
 Hdt. (Scicrai, efiaxrdrj, Hrd. fiSiaai for jSuxrn ^^Z) /3w(toi/ 44^, 45. 
 In Homer we find ki!i^(ii(rop.ox, ^uxravTi : in Theokr. XII 35 eTrt- 
 (B&Tai. : Hesychios records IScoOeovTes, iBuxroixai,. From voioo (Greg. 
 Kor. § 94, Eust. on B 568, Et. M. 601 20) : Hdt. evvwaas, -avra, 
 vciifTCLixeros Theog. 1298 [z;co(rcoz/rat was a former conjecture in 
 Sim. Am. i^^], vevdijx&os Anakr. 10. Demokr. vuxraiTo is at- 
 tested by Philodemos De Ira. According to the monuments the 
 contraction is sporadic, Anakr. loOo (eleg.) having €j36i]ae, Hdt. 
 j3or]T69, Teos l3oriyiS)V, Miith. XVI 292, Sol. I3g.j -Trpoi'orjo-as', l6j 
 vor](Tai, as pseudo-Hippokr. Trepi rexvqs and often in Hdt., who 
 has also vorjixa, vorjixcov: Lukian, Asfr. 17 has iirevo-qcravTo. 
 
 There is no ground for the contention that there are themes in vo> and /3o» 
 comparable to Homeric and Herodoteian (ci-w, and that these, not the con- 
 tracted voT) and /Sot?, are the base of the forms adduced above. See Merzdorf ■ 
 in Curtius' Studien, VIII 221. 
 
 fior\d4(a (or PorjBoew) = Aiolic fid66r}fii seems to be genuine Ionic despite 
 the Hesychian Pco6e7t/ (j8a!0eoj/Tes) which Kirchhofif holds to be the proper 
 form. See Veitch s. f. Hdt. has fio-nOeeis (-ets ?) /So^eee (-ei ?) (fioriencre : 
 Erythrai 204,5 (middle of fourth century b.c.) has fiorjOijaw. fioridei occurs in 
 pseudo-Hippokr. irtpl rexvvs- 
 
 Kratinos and Aristophanes have preserved instances of the contraction of 
 /Boow in the common, every-day speech of Athens. fio[i']7]6riaavTes in C. I. A. 
 II 12I23 (338 B.C.) contains the glide t (§ 220). In later Greek (Ptochopro- 
 dromus II 104) Pw9a is read. 
 
 2. OCT]. 
 
 Contracted in aXXoyvcacras Hdt. I 85, perhaps through in- 
 fluence of ayvdiJLcav, ayvooixoavvr]. ixktQujtov is from ixi(T66r\Tov : 
 but fjnaOoLs, ixiaOoi are indie, forms used as subj. Hdt. uses 
 neither hL-nkor] nor hL-nXr\, but Hippokrates has hiixXor] as a 
 substantive (cf. Bekk. Anecd. I 2512)- 
 
 297.] 12 + E and 12 + H. 
 
 I. to/^e. 
 
 ^'pcoes in Samos 225, and in prose literary monuments, repre- 
 sents a class of forms that is never contracted. 
 
 weoi; Sim. Amorg. 11. Cf. S>'iov in Sappho IJ2; woV in Hdt. 
 II 68 (Stein, though many MSS. omit the iota) ; Hesychios 
 quotes c5/3ea as Argolic. 
 
 ApJiaeresis occurs in S ^aip^ Arch. tetr. 85, S 'pavvi Anakr. 
 93 (cf. Sappho yy, 88), tw Ve'po) Hrd. 3,3. 
 
268 THE IONIC DIALECT. [298. 
 
 2. ft) + Tj in Trpwv Hrd. 5^2 as in Kallimachos. Homer lias 
 7Tp(ai]v, Hdt. TrpcoiTji'. 
 
 298.] O + I. 
 
 1. oFl. 
 
 Becomes 01 and 01 in Ionic poetry : oiCv'i Arch. ^2, oiCvpcov 
 Theog-. 65 ; and so we generally read in Ionic prosaists, ol in 
 oiCvpov Sim. Amorg-. j^q, olCvv Hrd. 73^; Tpta-oiCvp-qv in Archil. 
 129 shows that about 700 B. c. o'i could become oi. KolAcorepa 
 Anakr. 9^ (cf. M. Schmidt, B/i. Mus. XX 304). 
 
 oImvo^, not oicoyo's in Theog. 545, Solon 135(5 ^^^ Hdt. That 
 dico in Homer has no trace of any meaning but ' think ' is an 
 objection to Hinter^s etymology (A. Z. XXVII 607), which refers 
 d'uo< 6F toi to oFls bird, a word that lies at the base of oloivos. 
 
 oh : monosyllabic nouns that contain a diphthong, separated 
 originally by F, are in Homer generally dissyllabic in the nomina- 
 tive and accusative cases, but refuse to admit the diaeresis in the 
 oblique cases. This holds good in Ionic poetry as late as the 
 sixth century, at least in the case of irals. ols oies, oiv ols, are 
 the rule in Homer ; but in the other cases both o'i and ot occur. 
 For the later Ionic it is difficult to say which form should have 
 the preference, on account of the paucity of poetical forms. oCos 
 is a conjecture of Schweighiiuser adopted by Bergk in Anan. 5g, 
 where Casaubon read oto's ; otherwise we have no evidence, ot is 
 called by Aristoph., Peace 930, an 'Ioovlkov py)p.a. Stein {Preface, 
 liii) maintains that ois, oUos are the correct Herodoteian forms, 
 and Bredow (p. 173) writes ot in all cases, even in ota-irri, oUijai. 
 If Trats is the Ionic form of the fifth century, it is difficult to see 
 why Bechtel's olv Thasos 68 A is not correct. 
 
 dto-ro's^ is written in Hdt. by Bredow and Stein, but incorrectly 
 as I think; Ar]Toih)i Theog. 11 20, where -otdrjs is metrically 
 possible; aOpotio[xaL Archil. 60, 104. 
 
 KaTairpoi^ea-daL Hdt. (cf. Trpotacrop.ai Arch. 92, 130); irpolKa 
 Mykonos 9215^21*22? ^^- (Makedonian period). Ionic is TipolKa, 
 according to Et. Mag. 49533, An. Par. IV 5512; the form -npoi^ 
 is read in the spurious Hipponaktian fragment 72". Cf. also 
 Orion 82^1 who accents the form upoUa. 
 
 2. ocn. 
 
 albolrjv in an epigr. in BechteFs collection, adesp. 2642 ; albolos 
 Archil. 631. 
 
 299.] 11 + 1. 
 
 Except in suffix syllables (-co'tos), 00 before i is preserved as an 
 
 > Tzetz. Ex. n. 10I3. 
 
 ' On tlie relation of iTpot(r(Toy.ai to irpoiKrris, see Ascoli Krit. Stud. p. 33211 
 (Germ, ed.), Fick, B. B. VIII 330. 
 
300.] CONTACT OF UNLIKE VOWELS. 269 
 
 archaism in the earlier phases of Ionic poetry by the echo of the 
 lost F, as in kootcav Sim. Amorg-. 730 (the personal use, which is 
 not epic); ku>'iov Theog-. 424, 690, as in Homer; Aw'tos 800, 
 Xma 853, but Xwa 96 (see Bergk on v. 800) ; Oou'iri Arch. 109 = 
 doDTi, Attic 6(t)d (ef. Lokrian d<a'L ea-ro), or ^cotrjorco, in 0O1E2TO, 
 C. D. I. 14799; a6(a'iov Thasos 71^,); Cootcov Sim. Amorg-, 13,, 
 the only instance of the open form (cf. a>(ov in Sim.), elsewhere 
 C<^ov, as in Hdt. Some MSS. have (&iov or ((aov: cf. Lukian, Asfr. 
 6, JO, where (Sa is read, and see 31. U. 1 8. (/)cot8a? is, according 
 to Renner p. 186, to be read in Hipponax 59; Berg-k's cfx^bas 
 is however the correct form. The fact that all Attic inscrip- 
 tions before 100 B.C. have (twC<^ renders more surprising the fact 
 that in the MSS. of Hdt. the iota does not appear. In Homer 
 we have o-w^coy (e 490). There can be no doubt that in Hdt. 
 (TioCco is to be read. 
 
 Adjectives in -cotos : irarpco'Cos (Greg. Korinth. p. 441, quoting' 
 Homer) Theog. 521 , and in three epigrams on inscriptions 
 (Delos 533, 264 unc. loc, Latyschev II 37); irarpMas Theog. 888, 
 12 10, and so often in MSS. of Hdt. though cot is ordinarily held 
 to be genuine Ionic of the fifth century. In Naukratis II 743 
 the open form ZcottAos or ZwtAos is certain. The absence of the 
 additional iota in the case of Tpa)tAo? 816 and ZcotAo? 825 does 
 not show that the combination cot of these forms was differently 
 pronounced from that in 743. Thus we read iraTpcalos, ixrjrpoiiios, 
 ripioiosiii Hdt. (Bred. 175); rjpmov Eryth. 20 1^ (cf. ijpco'i): Trpcotrjv 
 Hdt. VIII 6 (Attic Trpwr/i^, but Herodas TrpCov 5^2), as irpcot Hdt. 
 IX JOT, Hipp. II 682.' From the MSS. of Hdt. it is impossible 
 to determine beyond doubt whether -ootos or -wo? was the actual 
 form. Most editors write the forms as given above, while for oj 
 a preference of the MSS. may be made out in the case of 770)0? 
 Hdt. VII 157 (= 77010? IV 100, 160), a poetical word used by 
 the historian, 'AxeAwo?^, Tp^ds, Kwo? (on Ke'o?, see above, § 286), 
 loov. In Homer we find Tpwto? (but Tpw?;), 'AxeAwto? (cf. C. D. 
 I. 1199). Is irpca'ipa Et. M. 69233 (Hdn. Trpwetpa) Ionic? 
 
 300.] I + E. 
 
 tcre does not contract in Up- in Hdt.'s dpxtfpei^?, /caAAtepeco, 
 'hpdvvpLos. As regards lepo'? the MSS. of Hdt. have le in the 
 majority of instances, but t in some cases without any variant. 
 Hekataios 284 has Ip/] but immediately before tepoV (both in the 
 MSS.), Herakl. dvupoio-Ti 125, Hellan. Upov 150. The closed 
 form derives a weak support from Greg. Korinth. (§ 66)^, who 
 states that te = t in Ionic, but in § 67 quotes Upias from Hdt. 
 
 ' Perinthos 234 B 23 and a Samian coin in Brit. Mus. Num. Chron. 1882, 
 255 (Head H. N. 517), have 'Axe^'^'os- 
 
 ^ Ipivs, 'Ipri^ ; Ipos Joh. Gr. 241 B, Gram. Meerm. 6:4 ; Ipevs Eust. 51537) cf. 
 162351; ipij^ Eust. 920^1, 124818, 173417; Phavor. on Iffria. 
 
270 THE IONIC DIALECT. [3OO. 
 
 The text of Herodotos, in reproducing' the occurrence of both 
 Homeric forms, cannot per se be held to guide us to the genuine 
 Ionic form in use in the fifth century. Arrian has UpriLa iSj,. 
 Hippokratic MSS. generally prefer Upo^, and Littre regards this 
 as the correct form ; tpo's (eipo's) however occurs (cf. R. M. XLII, 
 439, note i) in Trept (fivawv 14 (VI no) in A, and often in irepl 
 Up7]9 v6(Tov in 6. The testimony of the poets is without great 
 weight : Sim. Amorg. 7^^ Ipd with v. I. X^pa^ though w v^ for - is 
 not here permitted according to Fick ; 242 Ipooa-TL is nothing but 
 a conjecture ; Anan. 1 3 Upo^v (a very obstinate passage), Up- 
 Archil. 1 8, Solon 4,3, Theog. 545. Apoll. Adv. p. 1639 (Schn.) says 
 that UpQi)(TTL was the form used by Anakr. (149). Here A has 
 UpuxTTi, h the form with \p-, cf. Trypho frag. 69. Immediately 
 below in Apoll. tpcoort is to be read with Ah, not UpcoaTL with 
 Uhlig. In 1 34 Upov occurs, but the frag, does not belong to the 
 Teian poet; in 163 the MSS. have Upov, for which Ipov is now 
 read. Herodas has ip- 479, 33? 87994- ^^ ^^® inscriptions we find 
 but few cases of Ip-, but these occur in the three geographical 
 divisions of Ionic: 'li)op,vrip.cov Abdera 1637, before 400 b. c.^; 
 'Ipr], or 'Ipri 367 adesp., cf. II. IX 150 and An. Ox. IV 4J3io; 
 Amphip. iOj3, Ipov (367 B.C.), a sure proof that Ipo is Ionic; 
 IHPON, for HIPON = ipov, Thasos 70, Ipov 71^, {l)pel yi^^ (but 
 Upea 1. 7). Up- or Up- is far more frequently attested : — 
 
 500-400 B.C.: Eretr. 1514,19, Oropos 18 (18 times), Miletos 
 10O4, 6,7, Amorgos 230, Halik. 2383, 3^. 
 
 400-300 B.C. : Keos 48 ; Thasos 7I7 (also fpo-) ; Miletos 102, 
 2; lasos 104,^, ig; Zeleia 11337,38; Pantik. 119, 122, 123; 
 Theodosia 137; Ephesos 14714; Eryth. 3015,24, 20423,30,33; 
 Samos 32I37; Mylasa 248 B 8, C 4, Chios, M. P. W. 1889, 
 p. 1 195, 1. 30, and Paspates 9. 
 
 300-200 B.C. : Thasos 72,0, n>H 5 Olbia 128; Eryth. 206 very 
 many forms. In still later times : Teos 158^5, le, 22J Ephesos 150 
 (Hadrian), the form Uprj. 
 
 From this evidence we cannot but conclude that both forms 
 existed contemporaneously in Ionic, and that it is vain to 
 attempt to draw a sharp line between them. As long as the 
 only form that we have from Chalkidian has I, and as long as 
 the genuineness of the Thasian and the Abderite i is unassailed, 
 it is beyond the lines of sound argument to hold with Fritsch 
 that tpo'j in Herodotos is borrowed from the epic, and that tpo's in 
 Homer is Aiolic. If evidence of inscriptions and MSS. is to be 
 taken for anything, Hdt. used both forms as he used /ceu'os and 
 kKeivos. 
 
 The pseudo-Ionists fluctuate to such a degree that their 
 testimony can scarcely be brought into court. There appears to 
 * This disproves Erman's statement, Stud. V p. 297. 
 
303.] CONTACT OF VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS. 27 1 
 
 be a slight predominance of the open form, which is the only 
 form accepted by the Vita Homeri. 
 
 Whether tpjjf is contracted from tepa^, or whether it is the 
 older form, is still uncertain. 
 
 The explanation of ipi>s from *lap6s is shattered by the Aiolic ?poj : \apis 
 would have become, and remained, in that dialect, "ippos. The Homeric fepjj 
 appears to be due to the ictus. Of the tragedians Euripides is the first to 
 permit himself perfect freedom in the choice between Upis and ip6^. Din- 
 dorf s procedure in adopting ip6s in the tragic poets cannot be defended. 
 It is found in the MSS. of Soph, but once ^0. K. 16). Hoffmann, D. M. G. 
 p. 22, suggests that lp6s is the descendant of *la\p6s^ whose medial t is the 
 schica or minimum vowel = Skt. a in ishards. Prellwitz, Beut. Litt.-Zeit. 1890, 
 p. 1538, proposes to account for lepSs (parallel to *i(xip6s) by the assumption of 
 an ablaut-form iseros. This would be the more probable if the word had 
 dactylic measure (cf. woi/ciAos for TroiKi\6s). But see AUinson, A. J. P. XII 49 if. 
 
 301.] I + H. 
 
 TTokiT-qs with primitive Irrjs is of course not contracted from 
 7roAt7}Tr]s, e.ff. Anakr. Ig, Demokr. 215, as was formerly held; 
 a view as incorrect as that of the pleonasm of the rj (Bekker, 
 Anecd. II 524^). ixvOlTat, read by Bergk in Anakr. i6p is not 
 from ixvOirJTaL (Apoll. Lex. Horn. 1 143). The latter form is to be 
 adopted, the metre being ionici a tninore. On Ittjs see K. Z. XXXI 
 343. lFt] in /AeAi??87js, &c. 
 
 302.] T + I. 
 
 v'C in the dative of v stems must have become vl by the fifth 
 century (IXvl Theog. 961, as Homeric dt(vl), though written with 
 the diaeresis by editors of Hdt. v'C could not be fused in 
 ■noXvibp€Lricri.v Theog. 703, &c. 
 
 HI. Comlination of Vowels and DijjMJiongs, and Diphthongs 
 and Diphthongs {crasis). 
 
 303.] The combinations of vowels and diphthongs will be 
 treated in the following order : 
 
 a-\-ai, 
 e + at, 
 
 a + €i, 
 e+ ei. 
 
 a + ot, 
 
 &c. 
 
 a-'tav, 
 &c. 
 
 &e. 
 
 a + ov 
 &c. 
 
 o + at. 
 
 o + et, 
 
 
 
 
 
 77 + ai, 
 
 t; + €1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 (o + ai, 
 
 a) + €i, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Combinations of ai + at, ai + av, &c., are placed under the 
 head of a + at, &c. 
 
272 THE IONIC DIALECT. [304. 
 
 304.] A + AI. 
 
 at + aL = aL in /caiero's Arch. ep. 862 {v. I. kox auTos). 
 
 305.] A + EI. 
 
 I. afet. A. a + g'enuine et. 
 
 aeiK?/? Hdt. Ill ^^, VI 98, &c., Hippokr. II 316, Sol. trim, 
 36,,, eleg. 54, Theog-. 811 ; aeLKiXtos Sol. 435. a^LKes in the 
 epigram in honour of Kimon (Phitarch, Kl?ii. 7) is Ionic, not 
 Attic. Hence the epigram itself was composed by an Ionian 
 (Kirchhoff, Hermes V 57). aiKQi'i XXII 336 does not show that 
 d + ti can become a 4- 1 ; but that d + X (af tK7/s) may remain open 
 or be contracted, as in aiKL^olixeOa Sim. Amorg-. 1^4, KaraiKicracra 
 Herodas 5i2 (cf* also 24^ and 243). Neither atKw? nor aiKt^oijieOa 
 can be derived from detK-. Hence Fritsch^s contention [V. 11. 1). 
 20) that the contraction of aet to at had ensued in Herodotos' day 
 is at least inexact. The existence of the shorter form and the 
 character of the composition of the word may have prevented 
 aetK- from being contracted to a/c-. aetSco is not a parallel 
 instance. atKcAio? Theog. 1344 may be a parallel form to 
 aeiKe'Aios (ef. Smyth, A. J. P. VI 439). Lukian has both detK»/s 
 and deiKe'Atos. 
 
 det'Sco Hdt., Arch. tetr. ^"j, Anakr. 653, Sol. eleg. 2O3, Theog. 
 S?)?)} 939' ^ ^^1^^ ^^^^^ ^'^y belong to Mimnermos (Schneidewin 
 detS-, MSS. ah-), 1065, &c., Herodas i^j (?). a + genuine ei, when 
 contracted, can yield only a, never d: Archil. 123 aScoi; (Schneid. 
 detgcoy, cf. Theog. 533};, Anakr. 45.^ a8(o (though here we might 
 read /xeV y' detSco : aSco is a conj. of Valckenaer). Theog. 243 has 
 aaovTai, as Hymn V 2 ; Herakl. 59 has avvahov and hiahov. The 
 contraction of a + genuine et (a) ^ is as old in Ionic as that of 
 a + spurious ei (d). detSo) in Hdt. is perhaps due to the ix^Ta- 
 yapaKTrjpi(Tix6s which affected archaic forms. In compounds 
 the MSS. unite in having -w8os, but as regards detfito they 
 disagree. aoihos has a technical colouring and preserves the 
 archaic form. ♦Lukian has the open detSco in every case, while 
 Arrian has kirahovTai (lOj). 
 
 B. a + spurious, et either remains open or is contracted in 
 Ionic to long a. Ignorance of this fact has led to great con- 
 fusion in the minds of dialectologists and editors of Herodotos 
 as to the propriety of admitting aipo) into the text of the lyric 
 poets and of Herodotos. Homer has both detpco and atpco, and 
 both forms must be accepted as genuine Ionic. That the MSS, 
 of Hdt. prefer det/jto to al/jo), and that det8(o and detK?]? are 
 always read in the text of the historian, have led Dindorf and 
 Stein to adoj)t detpoj, though its et has nothing in common with 
 
 ' Cf. a in Attic from aifi, § 169. 
 
306.] CONTACT OF VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS. 273 
 
 that o£ aeiSo) or aeiKrj^. Archil. 943 has iraprjeipc ; Luk. d. cl. S. 
 § 3^) 5'^} ^str. I J, Abydenos 5, Euseb. Mynd. 9, '^'^, have a^i, 
 and so Aretaios, 216, 224, 265 (elsewhere the other form). The 
 contracted forms are hpeiev Sim. Amorg". 7^^; k-ndp^i Ephesos 145 
 A 2; k-napas 145 A 9 (fifth century)^, alpod is found in Hip- 
 pokrates, II 660, V 618; e-TrrJprat V 648, eiT7]p6i] II 688, 706, 
 ivvrjpet II 628 ; in Polybos^ TTcpl (f)v<rtos avdp. 7 (VI 48) A has 
 atperac, the other MSS. detp-. Arrian^s lud. has the contracted 
 forms. See § 165. 
 
 deipo) and atpco are to be separated, so far as their genesis is 
 concerned, the former representing d-fe/o-tco, the latter Fr-ta) 
 (Brugmann, A^ Z. XXVII 197, Solmsen/A'. Z. XXIX ^^SS)- 
 In Attic atpco got the upper hand. Though the desii'e to rescue 
 open forms in the Ionic of Herodotos, and to exclude contracted 
 forms from his text, has led to the exclusion of atpco, the genuine 
 interrelation of the forms offers no obstacle to its acceptation. 
 Whether detpco has been inserted by copyists on the strength of 
 the chief Homeric form, is another qviestion. It is, however, 
 probable that both forms have a claim to existence in the Ionic 
 dialect of the fifth century. 
 
 a + et is uncontracted in 8aet? Solon, 1350, and Kdetpa A 142 
 and Hdt., the masculine form of which is derived from Kdrip 
 Kaepo'?, &c, (Lugebil, £. B. X 303). a + spurious et becomes 
 d in Horn, (^aeivos, Attic (f)dv6s (Lukian (^aetwjuat Sj/r. 32), and 
 perhaps in infinitives in -av ; see K. Z. XXVII 197. 
 
 2. aui (et genuine) becomes d in 6pq^, Tip.a (Doric rtjuir/) and in 
 the 'Attic" futures hiaaKtha^, d-nohoKip.a. Herodoteian Ionic has 
 no form in -eet < -aet in the verba contracfa, these forms being 
 reserved for pseudo-Ionism. 
 
 By crasis : Ket Hrd. 4^3. 
 
 306.] A + 01. 
 
 1. afoi remains open in dotSo's Hdt., Xenoph. 5^ (dot8o7roA.coi^), 
 Solon 29 ; dothri Hdt., Theog. 251, 792, since these words are 
 heirlooms ; doiKTjro? Hdt. 
 
 Contraction ensues in (0877 Sol. eleg. i^, Hippokr. II 686, as 
 Hymn IV 495 ; pa\j/(ob69 Bechtel 260, found at Dodona, but 
 ultimate provenance unknown. 
 
 2. atoL is contracted to w in all optatives (z-tKwer, vlkmto). 
 
 3. Crasis of a + ot is omitted, e.ff. in rd oiK[i]a Halik. 238^5 = 
 ruKia Hippon. 2O2. 
 
 AI + OI in KO[l'\voTTLh]s Chios, 174 C 21-22 according to 
 Blass, where others read k O[i]yo7ri8r/b' ; Kal oIk'kov Halik. 
 23821- 
 
 ^ Hdt. MvSS. have ape^is more frequently than aepOeis. The latter form 
 occurs in Anakr. 19 and Luk. Astr. 15. 
 
 T 
 
374 THE IONIC DIALECT. [307. 
 
 307.] A + AT. 
 
 Crasis occurs in ravTo. Eiyth. 204^3, Hdt. Ill 72, &c. ; but 
 there are many cases of rd avTo. in Hdt., e.ff. IV 114. So 
 Miletos loo^; Zeleia 11327- 
 
 AI + AT. al avTai Hdt. V 69; Kavx^va Theog. 536; Kavra- 
 yperoi Sim. Amorg*. i^g-, kuvtos Teos 15^15^ in the ancient 
 papyrus P/iilol. XLI 748 1. 6, and Herodas 233; but there 
 are several cases of kuI avros in Teos 156 A and B and 
 Amphipolis 10. 
 
 308.] A + OT. 
 
 TiixGxTi Ionic-Attic [ov spurious). In some cases the MSS. of 
 Hdt. show in the third plural traces of the appearance of the -eco 
 forms from the -aco type of verb ; § 688. 
 
 AI + OT: Kov Anakr. 88^ Herodas 6^^, kovk Anakr. 89, 
 Theog-. 1342, Sol. 1 360 J Hippon. tetr. 83, papyrus TMlol. XLI 
 948 1.^15, Herodas 239, a,^^, 5^0, 7^^, kov^I ^^q, kovU l.^; on 
 kovvojxolkXvtov Sim. Amorg. y^^, see § 252. 
 
 309.] E4-AI. 
 
 1. eFai in KAeatVeros Naukratis 139 C; [(Tvy])(eat Halik. 
 
 2. eat remains open in several instances in the poets (see 
 §§ 606, 608). The closed forms are, however, so frequent as to 
 convince us that an uncontracted e(cr)at in Hdt. in the present 
 and future middle is probably an archaism, certainly after a 
 vowel (y^apirj). The only case where eat may be defended as 
 probable is when it is derived from -eeat, e.ff. in (pol^iat VII 52 
 (P (j)ol3ieaL). -eeat in Hdt. cannot be defended. Stye'at is found 
 in Anakr. 12 B and derived from hivUai. I have not observed 
 an instance of 2 pers. sing-, pres. mid. (Attic jBovkn after 378 
 B. c). In the future the editors now read KOfitet, ^aptel. Dindorf ^s 
 Xapu€aL displays the tendency of the scholar who has largely 
 brought abou^ the current conceptions of the nature of Ionic. 
 
 3. etat in adj., even in those denoting a material, = at in X.Lval 
 Samos 220^1 . In these adjectives -ecot remains open. In nouns 
 Hdt. has ixv^ai ; yiai Zeleia 11340; yaAai Hrd. 79^. See on Le- 
 clensmi. 
 
 310.] E + EI. 
 
 1. e/et remains open in pe'et Mimn. 5j, irAe'et, -nXUiv, pe'et 
 Hdt.; is contracted in Set Hdt., Hippon. 6, Anakr. 98, Teos, 
 1583. (See on the Verb.) Hdt. has eiKoo-i and not the epic 
 eetKocrt, as Xenoph. 73. e + sjmrious et becomes et in KAE- 
 vo^avris Keos, 44 A 11 ; K\Ev[o]yeviii Keos, 45; K\iivavbpo9 
 Thas. (L.), 16 A 5; KAetro's in Solon, 193. 
 
312.] CONTACT OF VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS. 
 
 275 
 
 2. etet is found in the open forms in Herodotos and the other 
 writers in Ionic prose^ e.g. in eco verbs (Greg". Kor. § 14) and even 
 in the pseudo-Ionic opi^i, ^otreets. In the MSS. of Hdt. -eet is 
 generally contracted after a consonant, but after 01 it usually is 
 open. In direct opposition to this writing is the language of the 
 inscriptions (see -eco verbs). The only examples in the poetry ^ 
 of native lonians where the contraction is not graphically expressed 
 are /cepro/xeeti' Arch. 64, (piki^iv Arch. 80, SoKcet ig Sim. Amorg., 
 where the metre in each case calls for ei or eet. In the future 
 of liquid verbs Herodoteian MSS. have -e'ei, -eets, though 
 contraction is well established in pre -Herodoteian times. After 
 I, -mv is always contracted in Hdt. in the future infinitive. 
 Stein^s adoption of ^'s d^mnhivWH 135 is out of the question. 
 An aorist -eeti' (Ibeeiv, &c.) does not exist in Ionic prose (§ 604). 
 
 aSeirj Hdt. VIII I20, &C.< *aaeetrj. 
 
 311.] E + OI. 
 
 1. eFoL. Hdt. irXioi, IjHTrXeot ; Anakr. 84 eotKo'res (Hdt. olKa, 
 &c., without reduplication). 
 
 2. eo-oi in Oiot (§ 287, 2) Hipponax 93, Theog. 142, but 
 elsewhere deoi Archil, eleg. 95, Solon 139, 55 ; Otois Archil, tetr. 
 S6^, eeola-t 5S, Tyrt. 5^, Solon iig, 35. 
 
 3. eiot in -eco verbs is contracted in lyric poetry and in 
 inscriptions, except in avcodeoCrf Teos 156 A 11 (47^/^ B.C.) with 
 obsolete orthography. In the seventh century the form in -60117 
 must have been usual. Hdt. has both forms (KoAe'oi, cfypoveouv ; 
 ttolo'l, k-ntx^ipoiev, (fyo^olro), the latter representing the ordinary 
 Ionic of the fifth century. Other Ionic writers in prose usually 
 have the open forms. See under § 651. 
 
 In adjectives of material eot is thus written, even in the 
 imperial period : apyvpeoi Wood, Discoveries at Ejjhesus, App. 6, 
 No. I ; yj)va^oi^ Latyschev, I 22 (01bia) = C. I. G. 2059. See 
 § 287, 3. Adjectives in -aXeos rarely contract ; ai/^aAe'ot Xenoph. 
 35, but yt]pd\eoL Anakr. 43^. 
 
 312.] E 4- or (spurious). 
 
 1. eFov. 
 
 TrAeous Hdt. I 194, Keveov Melissos 14; -nkiov, read by 
 Mullach in Melissos 14, has no MS. support. {KXe.ovpi.7t 6 pov 
 Lampsakos 171, has its first ov from o-f-e.) 
 
 2. ea-ov. 
 
 €ovar]s Mylasa 248 C 5, &c., p-ebeovo-iiL Phanag. 164, Samos 
 216 (see § 74). 6eod Sim. Amorg. 7^04. 
 
 ' Elegiac poetry, though under the influence of the epos, has in almobt 
 every case the contracted form. In Theog. 221 SoKtei is certain. 
 
 T 2 
 
276 THE IONIC DIALECT. [313. 
 
 3. €LOV. 
 
 €ov< eovT- is generally contracted in verbs in -€o> in the poets. 
 The MSS. of Hdt. vary : eou is often retained, but sometimes ev 
 appears after a consonant, -eov in the other prosaists is more 
 frequent than ev. The writing- ev for eov shows that e + ov was 
 treated like ev = eo, and that no regard was paid to the difference 
 in quantity. 
 
 313.] + AI. 
 
 oFaL in Kpoau'co, Homeric and Archilocheian (fr, 176). Arch, 
 uses the word in the sense of k-nidvp.ioi according to the scholiast 
 on Z 507. Cf. An. Par. Ill 284^. 
 
 314.] + EI. 
 
 1. oFei is uncontracted in /xrjroetS?;?, arOpMTiotih]^ Hdt. ; rpo- 
 Xoet8?/? Hdt., Theog. 7; t'x^uoetS?/? Hdt. VII 61 is a different 
 formation from IxOvcahis VII 109 (with -co8t;9 borrowed from 
 ev(ah]s?); aTroetTTcoy Theog. 89. o + spurious et in -oeis in SoAo'ets, 
 &c. ; also in akopyovs Samos 22O23, § 295. C^^i-v, Porson^s reading 
 in Sim. Am. i^^, is probably from (deLv, the vulgate reading, 
 found also in Herakleitos 86, 92. See §§ 200, 657, note i. 
 
 2. oiet becomes 01 in verbal forms: bibol Sim. Amorg. 7^^, 
 Mimn. 3jg ; on ixLo-dols, jjna-dol indicative and subjvmctive, see 
 § 296, 2. We have + spurious ei perhaps in jjucrOovv ; see § 295? 
 I at end. 
 
 315.] O + OI. 
 
 o(,oL = ot in ixiadoiixiv. oFol in adpoot. Hdt. Ill 109, (tool, &c. 
 By crasis we have TolK[o~\Trebov Chios 174 D 18, which is the 
 crasis to be expected in Attic. In T(^Ki8tov, the usual reading in 
 ClomU 92, the vowels would seem to be fused quite irregularly, 
 and this has been regarded as a unique exception, where the 
 form has called forth any comment at all. But here Rav. has 
 TcoKiStoi', while over the isi an ot is written ; in V we have 
 
 TOKlhlOV. 
 
 316.] + AT 
 
 in wuro'j (or coiros) \ tiuvto, when fused (Attic ravrov Herakl. 57}> 
 €fjL€oovTov< ifxeo avTov, aeci)VTov, kcovTov in Hdt., Hippokr., and 
 their imitators. 
 
 In Hdt. VIII 43 we find to avro. ol + av in wurot II 168; but 
 ot avToi I 182, VII 168; sometimes even kcovTOL^ appears. 
 
 ' Cf. cDVT^s E 396, according to La Roche. Good MSS. have wvt6s ; (cf. 
 Joh. Gi-. 242 uvt6s). Herodoteian MSS. generally place the coronis on the w. 
 Bywater writes iivrSs Herakl. 127 (whereas Clemens has aivrSs), and uvt^ 
 Herakl. 69 is thus read in Hipiiolj'tos. Greg. Korinth. p. 419 had the absurd 
 notion that (i>vt6s [sic) stood for avrSs. Analogy went so far as to coin ^ iivr-fi 
 (sic), 7] wvTTj, TO. cuvrd, TO, ewvrd, t] Ioidttj in the text of Aretaios. 
 
 ^ ifxavTus in Pherekrates is a poor support for this form of the pronoun. 
 
322.] CONTACT OF VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS. 277 
 
 ov + av in to)vtov Hdt. (Greg. Korlnth. § 46), upon a single 
 occasion (III 72). Elsewhere rod avTov, e.ff. V 52, IX loi. ov, 
 it will be remembered^ is not diphthongal here. 
 
 Similar forms occur in Pindar (touvtov 01. XIII 38, t&vto 01. I 45) and in 
 Theokritos (&vt6s XI 34, ruvXlov XI 12). Cf. also Acharn. 790 twutw. In the 
 above passages the coronis is placed upon the v. 
 
 317.] O + or (spurious). 
 
 1. oFov. 'Itttto^oou Chios 1772; but WoXvOpov Teos i^Hg^ 
 (late) ; ^oov Archil. 63 is due to Porson, who thus corrected the 
 vulgate C^ov ; voov Theog. 223, Arch. tetr. ^6^^; irepippoov Hdt. 
 
 I 174, KaWipoov Anakr. 28 ; avri^oovs Hdt. VII 150 ; but tvvov 
 VI T05 in all MSS., as Io-ttAou VI ^^. 
 
 2. otov< oLovT-:=ov in jxicrdova-L, &c. 
 
 3. + ov becomes on by crasis in rovvopia Hdt., often written 
 TO ovvojjia. oL + ov in ovpo(pvAaK€s Chios 174 A 14-15, 19* 
 
 318.] H + AI. 
 
 7/o-at becomes ?/ in (SovXrjt, Thasos 68 and so in Xhr] Hdt. IV 9. 
 Synizesis occurs in jur) at Hrd. 79Q. 
 
 319.] H + EI. 
 
 T/fet in i']Hpav Hdt. IX 59, a-nriapav VI 99 (conj.,, MSS. -rjpav) ; 
 iTapr]iipe Arch. 943. See § 305. vXri^iv Arch. 74, the conj. of 
 Bergk, is hazardous, though the word is found Choirob. II 71723 
 (who quotes also d^prjeti^) and though Tip-ri^iv is attested by Hdn. 
 
 II 2752, 632.(5. The lengthened -ohv, by false analogy from 
 -oets, has no better support than Apoll. Rhod. 
 
 320.] H + AT, OT. 
 
 grySre Archil. 60, 104, Hippon. 78, Anakr. 13 B (conj.), I4i. 
 19, 47, 61,, 63g, 68, 89, 91^; ri avTi] Hdt. IV 38, Herakl. 50. 
 So too rf] avTrj, never with crasis, despite wuro'j, tcovto. Aretaios^ 
 text offers wurr; 52, and even rj covti] 158 and often. Synizesis 
 occurs in rj ovpovs (MS. opovs) Hrd. 250. 
 
 321.] a{]) + AT, &c. 
 in T0)VT<2 Hdt. I 5, but rw avTM VI 58 (-P Tcourwt, R toovtoo). No 
 example as yet has been found upon inscriptions. In eyw atruj 
 Hrd. 9,4, eyw dp.L Hrd. 5^5 (as Philokt. 585), we have examples 
 of synizesis of co + ai and w -1- et. 
 
 Apocope. 
 
 322.] Apocope in Greek is found only in the case of preposi- 
 tive prepositions which were originally adverbs of place. Only 
 those Hellenic dialects that developed a literary prose are averse 
 
278 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [323- 
 
 to the admission of the apocopated forms. Apart from the 
 license of poetry ^ Attic literature can show but a trace of the 
 admission of the forms in question. So too in Ionic, the develop- 
 ment of an artistic prose has destroyed whatever chance of life 
 this process may originally have possessed. Even in the poetical 
 monuments the instances are extremely rare. See on avd and Kara. 
 In Ionic as in Attic inscriptions there is not a single instance. 
 In Herodotos we have aixircoTts II 11, VII 198, VIII 129 (see 
 § 715)^ aix[3oXdbi-iv IV 181, aixiraveaOai I 182, aix-navovTai and 
 ajXTTava-Tripioi I 181, dfxjSuxras I 8, ajj-jBaxravres III 38. 
 
 The attitude of the language towards apocope is one of the 
 most marked characteristics of the dialects. Doric, Aiolic, 
 Thessalian, Boiotian, &c.; are here separated by a great gap from 
 Ionic-Attic. 
 
 Sen ten ce Phon efics ^. 
 
 Elision. 
 
 323.] Ionic inscriptions are tenacious to a considerable degree 
 of the scriptio plena in the matter of elision or non-elision. 
 The following table, drawn up from the inscriptions in BechteFs 
 Inschriften des ionischen Dialekts, will give an approximate 
 idea of the frequency with which elision occurs. The pre- 
 positions, conjunctions and particles, and also the pronouns, 
 have been the guide posts which directed to the study of the 
 frequency of the occurrence of this phenomenon. It may be 
 noted that in but two cases, outside of poetry, is there any 
 elision of the final vowel of a substantive [Amphip. 10, 1. 11 and 
 22]. In the following list metrical occurrences are starred. 
 
 EnLoia7i Ionic. 
 
 Island Ionic. 
 
 * 
 
 
 Elision 
 
 Non- 
 Elision 
 
 
 
 Elision 
 
 NON- 
 
 Elision 
 
 Olynthos . . 
 Amphip. . . 
 Other Clialkid. 
 Eretria 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 No. 22 
 
 Naxos . . 
 Arkesine . 
 Keos . . 
 Paros . 
 
 
 4* 
 1* 
 
 I 
 3* 
 
 5 
 
 
 I* 
 
 2 
 1* 
 
 Oropos . . . 
 Adespota . . 
 
 Thasos . . 
 Pharos. . 
 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 ' Most frequent in Aischylos. Kirchhoff believes that the instances ot 
 apocojje in the Attic poets are survivals of a period when Attic had not yet 
 developed an artificial ohjection to its presence. 
 
 '^ See also on Movable, nu § 340, and on Assimilation, § 411. 
 
325-] 
 
 ELISION. 
 
 279 
 
 Asiatic Ionic. 
 
 
 Elision 
 
 Non- 
 Elision 
 
 Abdera . . . 
 
 Elision 
 
 Non- 
 Elision 
 
 Miletos . . . 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 lasos .... 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Chios .... 
 
 7' 
 
 
 
 Zeleia .... 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 Maroneia . . . 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 Tlieodosia . . 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 Erythrai . . . 
 
 17* 
 
 17 
 
 Olbia .... 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 Samos .... 
 
 5' 
 
 3 
 
 Naukratis . . 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 Halikarn. . . . 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 Ephesos . . . 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Mylasa. . . . 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Teos .... 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 Uncertain loc. . 
 
 No. 261* 
 
 
 In the text of Herodotos elision is less frequent than in Attic. 
 According- to Bredow (p. 202 ff.), elision is more frequent than 
 the retention of the final vowel in the case of ay^^t, ava, avr'i, 
 aiTo, bid, Kara, jxeTa, napd and vtto. When a relative pronoun 
 follows the preposition^ elision is regular. aAAa very often suffers 
 elision^ and 8e, ixrjhi and ovbe, evre, 'iare frequently. It is rare 
 in the case of roSe, cSSe, re, ovre, ixi]T€, etre. ojot' occurs only III 
 L04, and ^TT€LT, TOT never. Very rare are y', dp', tovt, tqvt. dix 
 is always a preposition, never an adverb, -to in verbs occurs only 
 before dv. 
 
 Elision is admitted into the text of Herakleitos, except in vtto 
 €v6s 91. 
 
 ApJiaeresis. 
 
 324.] See under ?j + e, -f e, co + e. In an oracle given by Hdt. 
 VII 220, it is better to read r) p.iya da-TV 'ptKuSe? than to elide 
 the V. 
 
 THE CONSONANT SYSTEM OF IONIC. 
 
 325.] Ionic differs but slightly from Attic in the development 
 of its consonantal system. The differences concern chiefly the 
 guttural series. In the following sections, wherever the Ionic form 
 is equivalent to the Attic, and adopted by literature, reference is 
 made only rarely to its counterpart in the other dialects. Thus 
 Ionic yvvri = Boiot. I3avd is noticed under Boiotian, (3dpa9pov = 
 Arkad. (epeOpov under Akkadian. 
 
 ^ One metrical. 
 
 ^ Two metrical. 
 
280 THE IONIC DIALECT. [326. 
 
 326.1 The ancients held that Ionic permitted the expulsion of an initial 
 consonant or consonants, e.g. y)aia Greg. K. 446, An. Bachm. II 3659, Gram. 
 Paris. 676 ; affrpaTrrei, Ionic and Attic, Bachm. II 3651,, Paris. 676 ; \)ai\prip6s, 
 Ionic and Aiolic, Herakleides apud Eust. 84245 ; \^eifieiv Greg. Kor. 446, Gram. 
 Aug. 669, Paris. 676, Vat. 699, Birnb. 67832, An. Bachm. II 36510. See 
 Schmidt's Neutm, p. 199; ■irX)evpd^, Ionic and Aiolic, Eust. 842^5; e)Ke'ivos, 
 Ionic and Attic, An. Bachm. II 365U, Paris. 676 (§ 564); rYiyavov (§ 191) 
 Eust. 186212, where it is called Doric though used by Anakreon 26 = Athen. 
 VI 229B, where the form is expressly stated to be Ionic, and as such used by 
 the poet ; cf. Eust. 24416, 7oii8^ ; <pQ)eppo} Eust. 84250. Though none of the 
 examples quoted can be explained upon the i^rinciples of sentence jihonetics, 
 or as analogues of such forms as areyos, reyos, so inveterate is the error con- 
 cerning the possibility of this decapitation that some of these instances 
 reappear in modern books, such as Blass' edition of Kiihner's Grammar. 
 
 Liquids. 
 
 On aspirated medial p, see § 399 (Amorgos), § 400 (Naxos). 
 
 327.] Variation between A and P. 
 
 'AAaXirj in Hdt. does not manifest the repugnance to the 
 succession of A.^s which gave rise to Ke<pakapyLa, &c. 'AA.epta was 
 the later name of the Corsican city. 
 
 KXil3avos in Hdt. II 93 (cf. Eust. 975,52) is the equivalent of 
 the Attic Kpi^avos (Athen. Ill 110 C); though Kki^avos may be 
 defended in Aischylos, frag. 321 D. That the form with A. 
 found admission to comedy is evident from KXi^aviTr]s apros' 
 'A/ixet\//ta? ' ATTOKOTTa(3CCov(TLv (quoted by Rutherford^ F/n-j/uic/ms, 
 p. 268). The Et. Mag. 538,9 calls the form with A Doric, and 
 Athenaios L I. cites K\t(3avLTas from Sophron. But Sophron 
 seems also to have used the p form, which is vouched for as 
 having been used by Epicharmos. 
 
 'Opo(f)€pvy]^ Priene, Anc. Gr. Inscr. 3, no. 424, 64 represents the 
 original better than 'OXocfyepvevs C. I). I. 3549, 20, Knidos. 
 
 The island of Amorgos ('A/xopyo's) was also called "A/zoAyos 
 according to Steph. Byz. s. v., Arkad. 47,Y = Hdn. II 475.5. The 
 Et. Gud. 311x9 endeavours unsuccessfully to support an Ionic 
 change of p to A in K^Kpaya, KiK\i]ya. On Ionic KXrjpos and 
 Arkadian Kpaptwrat TroAtrat C. D. I. 1231, see under Arkadian, 
 
 §32- 
 
 328.] Variation between A and N. 
 
 Though the change from A to i' may be supported by examples 
 from Attic vase inscriptions (Kretschmer, A'. Z. XXIX 442) and 
 from other sources, no case has as yet been made out for the 
 
 ^ In 84215 Trr,yavov is given as the undecapitated form. 
 
33I-] LIQUIDS. 281 
 
 substitution of X for v. The only two cases that are uncertain 
 are kirpov and AaSvvriTos. ktrpov Hdt. II 86^ 87, recalls Hebrew 
 neter, Lat. nitnwi (cf. K. Z. XXI 104). vCrpoi' is Aiolic but 
 also Ionic. Hippokrates apparently has both virpov and Xirpov, 
 on which form in Attic see Phrynichos (Ruth. p. 361 ). Aaj3vvi]Tos 
 Hdt. I 74 = Old Persian Nahunita, Assyr. Nahunahid. 
 
 In the case of these words^ it is at least possible the n has been 
 exchanged with I upon Semitic soil. 
 
 There is no change of i* to A in UpLi]Xrji Samos 2 1 3 = Roberts, 
 I 153, in Avhich inscription, though the engraver intended to cut 
 a V, the A. is certain. Hellanikos (cf. Hdn. I 3385) gave the 
 name Aa-TiTj to the Aiolic city NaTrrj. 
 
 TrXevpLODv, Attic for Trvevixoov, the Aiolic and KoLvri form, occurs 
 in the oldest MS. of Hippokrates (6), VI 374. -nXevixoDv was 
 also Epidaurian. irXevpicov may be the original form, and that 
 with V, though Homeric, due to the influence of -nvio). With the 
 confusion between the two forms of this word that had its rise 
 in the disjiute about the etymology, we may compare the v. I. 
 TrAeco for Trz'eo) in Luke xii q^-, cf. the gloss on Acts xxvii 15^. 
 
 329.] yj/eXiov armlet (Aiolic (maXioi^, not \}/4XXtov, apj)ears to 
 be the correct form in Hdt. arriXy) is written with one A upon 
 Ionic inscriptions. In lasos 1043 we find MauawAAwt, though 
 Mavo-coAoj was deemed correct by Arkadies in Steph. Byz. See 
 Pape-Benseler. -mXXos is the regular emphatic form of the 
 suffix in Karian names {Ylapavcra--, Ylowaa-), though -coAoj (in 
 'AKTat'orcrcoAoj) and -coASos are also Karian. 
 
 330.] Consonant gemination appears in the Homeric remi- 
 niscence eXXa^ev, Hermann's restoration for eXax^v, Mimn. li^. 
 For this Aiolic form, the genuine Ionic would have been dXa-^^v, 
 formed on the same principle as dXi]Xovda. Perhaps such forms 
 as e'jopee, ivveov, where siffma caused the gemination, facilitated 
 the creation by analogy of such poetical forms as iXXa^^v ^, which 
 hold their ground till long after the birth of Christ. KaXXmov 
 Archil. 62 eleg. is due to epic influence. Apocope of prepositions 
 is very rare in the Ionic poets ; cf . Arch. 64, where KaTOavovat is 
 read, though KaraO- is possible; cf. Tyrt. iijg, Mimn. 122, 144, 
 and see § 715. 
 
 331.] Rhotacism between Vowels and before Consonants. 
 
 Rhotacism is attested in the western branch of Ionic alone ^. 
 In the dialect of Eretria we meet with the phenomenon, which 
 is unknown in Eleian and Lakonian, of intervocalic a becoming p. 
 In the inscriptions of Eretria we find the following forms : 
 
 ^ I owe this reference to the kindness of Dr. J. Eendel Harris. 
 
 ^ Cf. Baunack's Studien I 222. 
 
 ^ apTipatrdai- fv^affOaL in Hesychios is a gloss of uncertain provenance. 
 
282 THE IONIC DIALECT. [33I. 
 
 Eretria, Beclitel No. 15 : oTropai 1. 5? o.\^px]ovpiv 6, oiiwovpas 
 10, 7:apal3aiV(t)pcv II. In No. 16^ an inscription found in Clialkis 
 and almost entirely Hellenistic, we read Mipyos (C 14). No. 15 
 dates from between 410-390 B.C., No. 16 from 340-279. The 
 latter is placed by Bechtel under the head of Eretrian Ionic. 
 Eretrian rhotacism is furthermore attested in the inscription 'E0. 
 'Apx-, 1^87, pp. 82-110, where thirty names have p for a, while 
 in eighty-two instances cr is preserved. Examples of p are : 
 KT7]pias 73 B, KTr]pt(ov[o9'] 188 C, KTr)pi/3tou 31 C, 285, Krrjpt- 
 ^idbr]s, KTiyuKXeibov 132 B ; KTi]aoivo9, and seven other examples 
 of Krryo-- occur, and cr before consonants remains unchanged in 
 this inscription. Two Eretrian decrees conferring the rights of 
 proxeny published 1. 1, are free from all trace of rhotacism, which 
 is a phonetic change varying with locality and date, as may be 
 seen by the study of its life in Eleian. For other examples, see 
 Baunack in his Studien I 299. 
 
 It might seem that rhotacism extended as far as Styra, since 
 on the Styrian lead tablets are found: Krr/pTz^o? 19438 ^^^ 
 Mipyoiv I9.>5, 71. Both these individuals must however be 
 Eretrians, since there is no trace of rhotacism elsewhere in 
 Styra: Krijo-tyo? is found in Styra 19.231-233^ Kr?;(Tta)i; 1953-6O) 2^4-236' 
 38g, Kr^o-ts 19)22? Kr7j(njuo? 1957, Xap?j(7tos 1 994, &c. In Eretrian 
 we have the form 4>tA7/(rto9, in Bechtel No. 14 — Bob, I 170, an 
 inscription older than No. 15, though the sigma has four strokes. 
 Either the o- of $tA7;o-tos is a conscious refusal to adopt the 
 intervocalic rhotacism prevailing at the period of the writing 
 of No. 14, or this inscription is older than the Styrian lead 
 tablets containing Krr/pu'o? and Mtpycoz' (which are older than all 
 the other epigraphical documents found at Eretria) and hence 
 dates from a period when the Eretrians had not transformed 
 intervocalic o- to p. Assuming that No. 14 contains a conscious 
 archaism, we may place the introduction of rhotacism in Euboia 
 in the middle of the fifth century before Christ. That the 
 Eretrians borr(5wed their fondness for rhotacism from the Eleians 
 is undemonstrable, notwithstanding the statement of Strabo (X 
 686) to that effect : eTroiKou? 8' ^a-)(ov cni "HXt^o?, d(^' ov Kai rw 
 ypaixpiaTL rw pw ttoAXo) y^pr^adp.evoi, ova cttl reAet fxovov tmv prifxaTcov 
 dkXd Kal Iv /xeVo), KeKco/xaj'Sj/rrat. 
 
 In addition to Mtpyo? and Mtpywv above mentioned, there is no 
 other case of rhotacism before consonants attested upon the 
 inscriptions. That YleXapyos was an instance in point, was the 
 view of Phrynichos : lleAapyo? 'EperptaKw? rieAao-yos and FTeAap- 
 yos ovh\v dkX 1) 'EperptaKws rieAafryo?. Beside IleAapyo?, Mi'pyos 
 and M^pywi; we have no examples of anteconsonantal rhotacism, 
 which is thus exceedingly rare. That Mtpyos is only a sur- 
 vival of the ancient orthography, and that rhotacism did not 
 
333'] LIQUIDS. 283 
 
 continue to the period of No. 16, is clear from the refusal of 
 (pyaat-qv ( 1 6, A 4) to adopt the liquid. 
 
 By a series of doubtful combinations Bechtel (Insch. des ionisclien Dialehis, p. 1 3) 
 derives the Eretriau rhotacism fi-oni Thessaly, where, as he claims, it affected 
 the speech of the Phthiotic Achaiaiis, the inhabitants of the Hestiaiotis and 
 the ' Pelasgians.' We have, however, only one example of Tliessalian rhota- 
 cism which is found twice: QeopSoreos C.D.I. 33I5, &eopS6Teios 326, II 42. 
 It is hazardous to find in a solitary example of anteconsonantal rhotacism 
 the sole survival of a phenomenon that must either have been wide-spread, 
 or, if originally restricted to the anteconsonantal position, enlarged in a 
 unique way to embrace intervocalic a. 
 
 332.] Final Rhotacism. 
 
 This is attested, not by inscriptional evidence, but by literature 
 alone : Plato, Kraiylos 434 C, says : oicr^' ovv on iirl tw avT<a 
 r]fxw fiev (f)aij.€V o-KAijpor?;?, 'Eper/9tets be (TKXrjpoTrjp ; The Eretrian 
 inscription No. 15, which contains four cases of intervocalic 
 rhotacism (all that were possible) refuses to change either ante- 
 consonantal or final ?. The language of the inscriptions may 
 have differed from the popular speech, in that the latter adopted 
 freely the form of rhotacism prevalent in Eleian and Lakonian. 
 But, as the case stands, Plato^s remark is not borne out by the 
 stone-records. 
 
 1. In the MSS. R d of Hdt. II 70 we find Onpevrrip for d-npevriis, which contains 
 merely a different ending. There is no evidence of rhotacism in the Ionic of 
 the Asiatic mainland. As Halikarnassian has been regarded a retrograde 
 inscription in Head {Hist. Num., p. 526) : ^atvop el/xl (TTJ/xa, as read by Sir 
 Charles Newton, who took (paevop for the genitive of ^aivii {i.e. cpafvop = 
 ^aiuovs). The reading with p is, however, indefensible on other grounds. 
 See Eoberts, I p. 177. 
 
 2. Other evidence of Eretrian rhotacism : Diogenianos paroeni. cent. IV 57, 
 cf. Apostol. paroem. cent. VII 89 : 'Eperpiewv poj' eirl tSiv KaraKopais rial x/"^" 
 fiivaiv. KaraKSpoos yap oiiroi xpoJVTai tw pcji. Hesychios : 'EperpLeoou poo' 'EperpieTs 
 T95 p KaraKopus xpaJ^Tai. Suidas s. v. XaAKiSi^eiv : &\\ot 5e iwl rqi pairaKi^etv, eirel 
 avroi re Kol 'EperpjeTj SoKovfft T9} p KaruKopecrTepcos XP'?"'^"' >^^^ ^^''''^ '''ov a ridevres. 
 Eust. p. 279,^ : hiwiJ.ff'SovvTo Se, cpacrtv, ol 'Ep6Tpi€?s a>j ttoAAij) t^ p hv ra7s d/xi\iais 
 XpdfJ-fvoi. 5io Kal avToi, Kada Koi 'HXeTot, Papfiap6<paivoi eKaXovi/ro, ws iv prjTopiK^ 
 evprjTat Xe^i/cq}, Sia rhv TrXeouao'iJ.hv tov p. 
 
 333.] Metathesis of liquids. 
 
 Greg. Kor. p. 434 brings forward Kpabtr], arapTTtTos, rap^o's, and 
 (p, 4H9) quotes Homeric reTparos, Kparepos. On Ionic pa, ap, see 
 § 138, on ^oTpayos, ^poTa^os see § 147. On rap^os see Curtius, 
 G. E.^ p. 224. In the dialect of Herakleia Tpd(})os was used for 
 rdpcjios. With QeviropTTos, which occurs on a Chian coin, Imh.-Bl. 
 G. M. p. 656, cf. ©evTrpoTTos Miletos, ibid. p. 646, lasos, J. H. S. 
 
284 THE IONIC DIALECT. [334. 
 
 IX 342. The Et. M. 83^^ reports from Simonides aixiBpos 
 for apidfjios (of. Kallim. 339, aixiOpiia). Though it is more 
 probable that the great Simonides is meant, Ahrens proposed to 
 read in Sim. Am. 3 d/xt^pw, d/xt^peco is found Hrd. 6^, pg and 
 in Theokritos. 
 
 Hdn. II 32O22 = Et. Mag. i88g quotes from Hippon. (106^ 
 fidpayxos, the equivalent of the Attic and Hippokratic (V 676) 
 jSpdyxos. (Bdpayxos contains an example of anaptyctic a. See 
 § 127. On ' ApTa(f)p€vi-is see § 134. Hrd. 63^ has TrpoVco, the 
 form used by Herodotos, &c. Homer has irpoaco and -npoaa-oi). 
 TTopcTM occurs in Pindar and tragedy. 
 
 334.] pp. 
 
 Tivppos Hdt. Ill 139, Hippokr. II 74, VI 74, VII 510, VIII 
 234, 248, ^^6, 338 did not originate from Tivpa-os. The form 
 TTupo-o's is exceedingly rare in Attic. From the list of the passages 
 quoted by L. & S. in defence of its Old-Attic character, Aisch. 
 Pers. 3 1 6 should be removed, and the Euripideian passage [Pko'm. 
 32) is cited by Photios with Trvppali, instead of the usual reading 
 TTvpcrals. TTvppos is from irvp-Lo-s, or from 7:vp-F6-s as in Korin- 
 thian, CD. I. 3119 H 50. Proper names that are connected 
 have pp. A suffix -ao- is certainly foreign to Ionic in this 
 word. MSS. of Hdt. often have ^oppiifs. jSoprjs is the correct 
 form. The form with one p is also Attic [j3opiov C. I. A. 
 
 I 32129)- 
 
 835.] Expulsion of p from the second syllable of a word in 
 which it also occurred in the first, is attested in the case of Tpv(f)a- 
 KTos § 357, 4. A less certain example of the same phenomenon 
 occurs in /BddpaKos for jBpdOpaKos according to Roscher in Curtius^ 
 Slitdien IV 193 (cf. § 147). Attic and Doric ixdpadov, which is 
 said to have lost p (Hippokr. p.dpadpov VI 562, VII 88, with 
 fxdpaOov as r. /. in H J), is probably formed with the suffix -60-, 
 not with -dpo-. On the interrelation of TiaTpn] and ^parpia, 
 see § 361. ♦ 
 
 Nasals. 
 
 336.] The nasal is not written, though probably pronounced 
 after a weak fashion, in the following inscriptions of Styra : 
 no'(jLt)7rts l98o> no(]a)7rd8??? 19408J Koo-d(jli)/3os 19227? '0(jLi)(/)dAtos 
 J9icjg; in nd(ju)^ts 152, Abu-Simbel, name of a Kolophonian, 
 which is hypocoristic for Od/xyStos, and in na(/x)0aiT7? Th. (L.) 
 19 A 6. With Nv{ix)(peMv Siphnos 88, Nu(/x)^d8copos Smyrna, 
 C. I. G. 3 1558 J ^^^ ^^^^ vase inscriptions Ni;(ju)0?;s C. I. G. 
 7760, 'Nv[pi)(pai, C. I. G. 8185 r, we may compare the forms of 
 
^^S.] NASALS. 285 
 
 vvix(f)r] which are measured ^- in Aufir/, 11 15, Trac//. 857, Anclr. 
 140. On the other hand we have Nvix(})rii(nv, Nv[jL(f)7]yiTiiL Thasos 
 68j, Nv^ecoy Naxos 27, Nvixcbios Th. (L.) 7 B 7. doruro- 
 juoi>(t')Tos ThasoSj Stephani in J///. C;-. ^ow^. II 20, No. 26, is not 
 another example of the weak nasaP. d^tSe'a? Greg. Kor. § 123 
 may perhaps be explained as having- lost its nasal. 'OAu/xtto- is 
 never written without the //, as in the examples cited by Meyer 
 § 294 from inscriptions found in Olympia. We even have ju/x in 
 'OAt>///x7rtd8a Eretria 153. 
 
 337.] (T regularly disappears before medial v with compensa- 
 tory lengthening, e.ff. o-eAr/yr;, Kpr}vrj. Whenever tv is assimilated 
 to vv in Ionic, its <t is not original, but a a which was rein- 
 stated through analogy. Thus h'vvixt, instead of the older 
 dvviJLi. (§ 224, 10, and cf. Brugmann, K. Z. XXVII 591), is 
 due to the influence of ecr-crai, from which a new *eo--j;i;/xt was 
 constructed. 
 
 A notable difference between the older vv < (tv and the younger 
 vv, is that the latter does not suffer reduction of the geminated 
 nasal. The new vv came into existence at the same period as the 
 following proper names, whose vv is from final ? + initial v : 
 II^XoTTovvriaos, a form that is accepted by the other dialects, 
 'EKaTovvrja-oi, Mvovvqcros in Hekataios, YlpoKovvrja-os, in which form 
 the vv is more common than the single v, according to Strabo XIII 
 p. 618. In No. 103 = Rob. I 42 (Prokonn.) we find vv in the Ionic 
 copy, and only one v in the Attic reproduction of the document, in 
 accordance with the usage of Attic inscriptions antedating 550 
 B. c. Xepa-ovTjrros in Herodotos is a genuine compound, but 
 Xep(r6vvr](T09, which occurs conjointly with Xepcror- in the oration 
 TTepl 'A\ovi](Tov, is doubtless due to the analogy of neXoTrovvrja-os, 
 'AAcoTreKoVrT^cros, fec.^ See Kiihner-Blass, Gr. p. 269, Riemann, 
 £. C. H. I 192, Dial. Attique, p. 156 [Revue de Fhilol. 1881), 
 On the form AtoVi;a-o?, see above § 138. 
 
 (T + v regularly becomes vv in Aiolic. In Ionic documents the 
 following forms are due to dialect mixture : xpv(TO(l)aivv<x>v 
 Anakr. 252; ^aUvvov Thasos (L) 18 C 5, (Pavvodifxibos Eryth. 
 206 A 28, UeXivvalov in Chios," Apyevvov in Erythraian territory. 
 These are Aiolic formations due to the Aiolic element in Chios 
 and surroundings. See under adulterine et, § 224, 10. 
 
 338.] A nasal + cr + a consonant lost the nasal without com- 
 
 1 Cf. the variation in the MSS. of Hdt. V 102, where for avrfvewifiTpaa-av, 
 B C d emit the ij. ; in III 85, where fi»r cyxplfJ-T^rcov, R d have the form with 
 no /J.. Cf. also II 93 {R rf, no /x) II 60 [d, no ju.) IX 98 (C, no /x). Greg. K. § 41 
 cites iyxpi/J-TTToiv from Hdt. In IV 172, for cTKi-Koiva, s s have ffKifiiroiva. 
 
 ^ On Attic inscriptions we read TI^\o-k6vvt](tos, 'AXcoTTiKSuvqa-os, UpoK6i'vri(ros, 
 but Xepp6i/i](Tos. 
 
2[86 THE IONIC DIALECT. [339. 
 
 pensatoiy lengthening- in primitive Greek. Wherever compen- 
 satory lengthening exists, as in irela-ixa, it is dvie to the formation 
 o£ a new form [^-nivaiia in place of the older ^-nivdixa). Exempt 
 from the operation of the above law is the combination w + 1. E. 
 s+i, which becomes v(t<j. This vaa- is treated like nasal + final s 
 and" nasal + 0- in a medial syllable between vowels, when the 
 sibilant has been developed on Greek soil, i. e. the nasal disappears 
 with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. 1. E. s 
 + nasal in a medial syllable was assimilated to a double nasal in 
 Ionic as in all other dialects. In Ionic compensatory lengthening 
 ensued upon the reduction of the gemination. See Solmsen, 
 K. Z. XXIX 60 1. 
 
 V followed by a is retained in Ionic in Hom. Kivcrai. (St' 337)5 
 for ■^Ketcrat with the v restored from that of Kei^rew, cf . K^aTO'i < 
 Kevaros. The v of '^kjxivs Hippokr. VII 596, 598 is due to that 
 of the oblique cases, vcr is also preserved in 7rar(7eA?ji'w Hdt. II 
 47, &c., T:akLV(TKi(^ Archil. 34, where w^e find the v. I. -nakKJKii^, 
 and after Iv- in composition, &c. 
 
 Whether tvv(i<\> Hipponax 85.^ (hexameter), Trpoa-evv^TTj] Solon 
 4^3 is from erFeir- or eycreTr- is not certain. 
 
 v + a- becomes aa in avaaiTia Hdt., or a as in avaTpaT^v^aOai, 
 (Tva-TTevbiiiv ; cf. tGxt avix-navTiav Halik. 2'^?>^-^.^2- o"'^^ + C" becomes 
 av^- in (TvC^vyvvvai Hdt, IV 189. 
 
 339.] Varia. 
 
 1. Melathesis of vowel and nasal in KaixTrru) and Kva(})evs ', 
 
 §349- 
 
 2. There is no hiterchange of labial and nasal in Merayetri-tcoy 
 (Priene), and X\.thaydTvio<i (Rhodes, Kos). See under Prepositions 
 in AiOLic. 
 
 Since jutt does not become tttt in Ionic, 110(77)7709, for 
 Yl6{ix)-nis (Styra 1980), which Meister thinks to defend by citing 
 Boiot. e7T7ra(nj as an analogous case, will not hold ground. Cf. 
 
 § 33^' 
 
 3. Gemination of Nasals. 
 
 Aiolic gemination of /x in ap.ij.opo^ kovt]^ Hipponax 2-^, de- 
 fended by Renner (p. 161) as an Homeric reminiscence, is foreign 
 to the genius of the iambic trimeter as employed by the early 
 Ionic poets. The Hesychian glosses ijnopos' aixoipo's and r}juopts" 
 Kivr], i(7Tepi]ixh'r]- AicrxvAos Nio'/Sjj (cf. B. B. XI 252) create 
 a presupposition in favour of the view that Ionic-Attic once 
 possessed an jy/xopos, which was adopted by tragedy. (pepeixpLeXirjv 
 
 ^ W.ackeniagers hypothesis (A". Z. XXIX 136) that vcr did not become vy, 
 when tlie accent preceded, has not been substantiated. 
 
340.] NASALS. 287 
 
 in Mimn. 14^ (cf. Horn. eii/^i/xeAoj?) and ([xixopev in Theog-. 234, 
 are not to be adduced as supports of the traditional reading in 
 Hipponax, because of the difference in tone between elegiac and 
 iambic poetry. 
 
 The word Kainj^ found in conjunction with &^ixopos in the Hipponaktian 
 passage, does not appear to be Ionic. See § 242. While it would facilitate 
 our conception of the nature of the Ionic trimeter as the dialect of the 
 people, were 6.fx.^opos to be regarded as an lonism, neither Solmsen, K. Z. 
 XXIX 86 nor Brugmann, Gr. Gr. 45, who incline to this view in discussing 
 &fxfiopos and forms of similar texture, has taken into consideration the 
 glosses above mentioned which make for the Aiolic character of a.iJ.fj.opos. 
 
 ixjj, is found in TrXrjiJ-iJLvpLs Hdt. VIII 129, and Kpojxixva IV 
 17, though A 630, T 233 have the form with one p. 
 
 Ionic o/xju,a is from oTijua, and is found e.g. in Anakr. 75j. 
 oTTTra in Aiolic is not well attested. 
 
 Ionic varies, as do other dialects, between aw- and av- in the 
 word for anise. Hdt. IX 71 has avviiaov, as Littre reads in 
 Hij)pokr. II 274, and VIII 1 70. The dialects vary also between 
 -(TO- and -60- in the suffix. The latter form appears in Hippokr. 
 
 The doubling of the nasal in 'Awikw Chios (174 C 13, cf. 
 ' AvviKo. on a tetradrachmon from Chalkidike in the ZeUsckr. f. 
 Numism. XI 43) is due to the fact that the noun is hypocoristic 
 for 'KviK-qTos. 
 
 340.] N movable. 
 
 The inscriptions prove how devoid of authority is the current 
 view in reference to the appearance of the im e]^)helkuslikon in 
 Ionic ^. If we examine the usage of the inscriptions, it is 
 evident that from the earliest period known to us this paragogic 
 letter was in common use both in prose and poetry, before 
 vowels and before consonants. The earlier documents use the -v 
 with greater regularity than the later. 
 
 From the sixth century we have the following instances of -v 
 preceding a consonant: Prokonnesos (stele of Sigeion) 103,0, 
 Samos 211, Naukratis I 700, II 701. From the succeeding 
 century there are at least nine cases: Thasos 68, Teos 156 B 33 
 (two examples), Abdera 162 (metr.), Chios 175 (metr.), Chios 
 174 C 20j Samos 215 (metr.), Halik. 23821, 241 (TToty](rev in a 
 
 ^ Gram. Aug. 669 : iv to7s rpirois irpoffdinoLS tj v4a twv 'Idvuv SidXeKTOS Ka\ iv 
 reus SoTtKa7s ■7r\T]duvTiKa7s rh v e<pe\K. oii . . . el /uri X'^P"' M-iTpov. Absence of the 
 paragogic letter in Ionic is asserted by Aristarchus junior in Bekk. An. Ill 
 1400; cf. Bachm. An. (Max. Plan.) II 5717, 583. Much of the confusion as 
 to this point may be due to the influence of the Kavoyony drjcravpos of the 
 above mentioned namesake of the great Alexandrian critic. 
 
288 THE IONIC DIALECT. [340. 
 
 metrical artistes signature). Between 400-300 B.C., there are 
 Olynth. 8 B 8, Eryth. 199^ Mykonos 248 C 10, lasos 104, 10^., 
 cf. J. H. S. IX 341, No. 3, 1. 2, Zeleia 1131, 114 B, C, B, E, F, 
 Samos 22I3.,, Amphipolis lOj, Ephesos I47i, 12' ^^^^ Pantikapaion, 
 Latyschev II 4. And even at a later period : Halikarn. B. C. II. 
 XIV p. 91, 1. 1, Erytli. 206 B 58 (after 278 B.C.), Teos i58g, 3^ 
 (first century) and in the late archaistic copy of the ancient 
 document from Kyzikos to8 B 2. In the Lykian document No. 
 263, of uncertain date, there is another example. There are a 
 few examples of the non-occurrence of nn movable before con- 
 sonants, which do not deserve special mention. 
 
 Before vowels, and from the fifth century, we find -v in Teos 
 156, B 34, B '^6; Chios 173, 174 A 17, 20; Samos 212; 
 Halikarn. 23810, is 5 24033,45, 33. From the fourth century: 
 Phanag. 164,,, Eryth. 200 (metr.), Samos 22i2n> Mylasa 248 C 
 10. Eryth. No. 206 offers several instances of this use in the 
 third century (B 47, 48, 58, C 45). All the instances of the 
 omission of -v before vowels date from a period when the monu- 
 ments of the dialect are not free from the suspicion of contami- 
 nation through Attic influence. Examples are: Phanag. 1662, 
 1670, 168^, Samos 22ijY. 
 
 Movable nu is not uncommon at the end of an inscription. 
 In early documents we find it (on kiroUiv Miletos 95, see below) : 
 Chalkis i, Keos 45, 48, 51, Paros 58, Prokon. 103, Samos 215, 
 From a later period : Chios 192, Eryth. 207. Other inscriptions 
 have no such termination, such as Sam. 213, 215 (which has 
 aviOiiKe but also eiroLrjaev), Amorg. 228, No. 260 of vmcertain 
 provenance, and No. 21, Western Ionic. In the middle of a 
 clause the same haphazard use prevails. Thus in Thasos 72^, ^q, 
 Samos 22 lo, Ephes. I47i, ^ vowel follows the forms provided 
 with the -V. In Teos 158^ there is no -v. In Chios 174 B 6, 17, 
 Zeleia 113 B 2, C 2, E 2, Theodosia 1273, ^^^ words end in -v and 
 are followed by a consonant. Sometimes a clause is terminated 
 by a verb wi^i no -v, and the next sentence has in the same 
 inscription, now a vowel, now a consonant to introduce the first 
 word of the following clause (cf. Zeleia 1133, 13). The ordinary 
 rule whereby to uncontracted -ee of the imperfect -v may be 
 added, while the contracted -ei may not take the final -v, is 
 not without exceptions. The Homeric i"](tk€iv T 388 finds its 
 analogue in the Milesian k-noUiv Bechtel No. 95. Cf. -av 
 in the pluperfect in Aristophanes, Plato, &c., and a-nij^iv Plato 
 Tim. 76 B (before a comma and a word beginning with a 
 consonant). 
 
 The supposed absence of the paragogic nasal from the text of 
 Herodotos, and other Ionic writers of prose is generally explained 
 by the assumption that Ionic evinced no repugnance to hiatus. 
 
341 •] GUTTURALS. 289 
 
 Now it can readily be shown that the Ionic avoidance of contrac- 
 tion and fondness for hiatus are not so great as is commonly 
 assumed; and Merzdorf has demonstrated that the evidence of 
 the MSS. of Herodotos does not bear out the commonly received 
 view^. What Herodoteian usage was, we cannot now discover. 
 Doubtless the historian did not adopt any fixed procedure, and 
 any attempt at uniformity in the manipulation of so delicate an 
 instrument of stylistic perfection cannot be expected before 
 Isokrates. But if contemporary evidence has any claims upon 
 our consideration, the peccant letter must be held to have been 
 used far more frequently than it appears in the MSS. The 
 genuine and the spurious writings of Hippokrates, and the 
 fragments of the philosophers, usually follow the rules which 
 regulate the appearance of the nasal in Attic texts ^. Eberhard 
 has expelled all cases of -v from Arrian, though there is no 
 doubt that a closer adherence to the best MSS. would free 
 Arrian from this and many other pseudo-Ionisms. Lukian's A, 
 by its omission of -v, shows the influence of contemporary theory. 
 In Eusebios, however, while we find the nasal sometimes omitted 
 before a vowel, it is added even before a consonant. 
 
 1. Herodotos never has -v with irp6(rde, efj.wpo(T0e, virepOe, Karvirepde, oTricrde, 
 fvepde. Herodas has irp6crde 235, virepQe 340, but also KaToiOev and KavaiOev 253, 
 which Rutherford emends. 
 
 2. Herodotos has tovto, towvto, toctovto ; never tlie -v forms. 
 
 3. The only rule that may be formulated for the appearance of so evanes- 
 cent a phonetic element is that it never appears before t, except in the 
 phrase eSo^ev rrji ^ovKrji. All our modern rules are drawn from the artificial 
 canons of the grammarians, not from the living language. The perversity of 
 modern rule-making is not so marked in reference to ovtod, oStcds. 
 
 4. The nasal is not wi-itten in 7ra\i Hrd. 252, as frequently in late poets. 
 Compare irepvffiv and Trepvai. 
 
 Guthirah. 
 
 341.] The Forms with n and K. 
 
 The Ionic dialect possesses both -n and k as in ttw?, kws, TroVe, 
 Kor^, and in all connected forms ^. In no other department of 
 
 ^ It is however correct that movable -v occurs only rarely in all MSS., e.g. 
 I 5 efiaOey eyKvos, VII 16 1 aireirefi^pev rifieas, VIII 1 18 oiiK effrtv ovSe/j.la. 
 
 '' Some of the excerptors of early Ionic who have preserved the original 
 dialectal colouring with some consistency fail to follow any other rule than 
 that in vogue in Attic. Cf for example Demokr. 13, 207, 2Qi, 41. 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 235, 240, 241 B, Greg. K. 412, Gram. Leid. 62S, Aug. 668, Vat. 
 694, Birnb. 678^, Et. M. 5O3,, Hesych. s.v. 6ko7ov, Orion 14234, Apoll. D. Synt. 
 P- 55 (Bekk.), Adv. p. 18410 (Schn.), An. Ox. I 24719. Some gi-ammarians 
 
 U 
 
290 THE IONIC DIALECT. [342. 
 
 Ionic does there exist a wider eliasm between the lang-uag-e of 
 the inscriptions and that of Hterature, the former having- no case 
 whatever of the k forms, the latter having both tt and k. In 
 the poets we find both tt and k, if we accept the somewhat 
 dubious evidence of the MSS., and in Herodotos only the k 
 forms. There is no evidence that Herodotos adopted the dialect 
 of Miletos in his preference for k over tt, nor is there any actual 
 testimony to a strug-gle between the two sets of pronominal 
 forms in any portion of Ionic territory, though in the MSS. of 
 poets from Amorgos, Thasos (or Paros if we refer Archilochos to 
 the latter island), Ephesos, Kolophon, and Teos we discover now 
 one, now the other form. The instances of the tt forms in the 
 lyric poets are not to be regarded as affording evidence of a 
 period in the history of the dialect when tt was in course of 
 becoming k (a phonetic change unknown to Greek). Though it 
 cannot be gainsaid that no poet of Ionic birth could use either k 
 or TT in the same word, we are unable to demonstrate in all cases 
 which was the chosen form. In any event I regard it as 
 problematic whether any of the instances of the tt forms in the 
 MSS. of the iambographs and Ionic elegists (though here the 
 evidence is less certain) are retentions of the original. Tlie 
 geographical extension of the k forms, the history of their 
 interrelation with those in tt, and the possibility of Ionic in- 
 scriptions of the seventh century containing forms with k, are 
 questions that do not at present admit of a solution. There is 
 however no doubt that the older inscriptional forms with tt are 
 g'enuine Ionic, and free from all suspicion of being due to the 
 levelling tendencies of Attic. Much of the apparent confusion in 
 our texts may be due to sub-dialectal preferences as regards k and 
 TT. The existence of such preferences is clear from the Samian 
 Kvavoyjnatv, mentioned in § 344. 
 
 342.] List of Ionic pronominal forms with K for 11. 
 
 An exhaustive presentation of all the testimony from the prose 
 literature is not attempted. The poetical and inscriptional forms 
 are given with tolerable completeness. The k forms are given 
 only when they are supported by MS. authority. Homer has 
 everywhere the labial forms ; so too the non-Ionian elegists. 
 
 thought the k forms were Aiolic. kovsIv for irovetv Schol. Ven. B on XI 648 
 (cf. aKovrjrl = aTrovrjTi Et. Mag. 5020) has the appearance of a form made to 
 order, though, if genuine, it would be an interesting ilhistration of the 
 change which we observe in ir6vos, BiaKovos. Demetrios Ixion apud Apollon. 
 ►Sophist- Lex. 1319 merely says of 7r>) that it is Ionic and Homeric. 
 
342.] 
 
 GUTTURALS. 
 
 291 
 
 KOV 
 
 Anakr. ij 
 
 TtOV 
 
 Amph. 107, Zeleia ii^jb 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 Arch. 73, Anan. 1 
 
 
 Hippokr. II 34 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 Hrd. 1 10, 343.610, &c. (5^(cou 
 
 
 Hippokr. II 282, 362, 676, 
 
 
 390) 524) HuovOiv 22) 
 
 
 III 190 (bis) 
 
 OKOV 
 
 Hipponax 5I2 
 
 '6irov 
 
 Keos 4323, Thasos 7I4, 
 
 
 Sim. Am. 7gi, j^^ 
 
 
 Halik. 24044 
 
 
 Phoiii. Kol. 2i2 (,Schn.) 
 
 
 Vit. Horn. 6 
 
 
 Kallim, 85 
 
 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 
 
 Hippokr. II 72, 90, 362 
 
 
 
 
 {jiizov in 2253), 11156,58 
 
 
 
 
 Hrd. 3i3, 541 
 
 
 
 KCtl 
 
 Hippon.tr. 19, (conj.forxw) 
 
 TtOD 
 
 Archil. 252 
 
 
 Anakr. 33 (MSS. Kore) 
 
 
 Tyi't. 112 {oviru}) 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 Theog. 1265 
 
 
 Demokr. (Clem. Alex. 35 7 P; 
 
 
 Hijipokr. II 34 
 Hrd. 744 
 
 KUIS. KCCS 
 
 Kail. 1,2 
 
 ■nSis, va>s 
 
 Archil. 122 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 Hippon. 87 
 
 
 Luk. V. A. 14 (or o/cois) 
 
 
 Herakl. 27 
 
 
 Bea Syr. 29. 
 
 
 Melissos 12 (SimpL, Mul- 
 
 
 Euseb. Mynd. 63 
 
 
 lach Kus) 
 
 
 Hrd. 674,85 
 
 
 Hippokr. II 282, III 210 
 Luk. r. A. 4. 
 Vit. Horn. 14, 19 
 Hrd. 256 
 
 Hkoos 
 
 Sim. Am. 7^2 
 
 OTTWS 
 
 Thasos 716 (fourth cen- 
 
 
 Anakr. 632 
 
 
 tury) 
 
 
 Herakl. 2, 45, 100 
 
 
 Samos 22I10, 18 (after 322 
 
 
 Demokr. 20, 41, 208 
 
 
 B.C.), of. Ephesos 14717 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 \_'6ir'\ocs 
 
 
 Hippokr. II 74, III 64, 
 
 
 Sim. Am. I5 
 
 
 242 
 
 
 Hippon, 853 
 
 
 Philip of Pergam. jB. C. H. 
 
 
 Vit. Hom. 18 
 
 
 11273 
 
 
 Hrd. 722 
 
 
 Aretaios 
 
 
 
 
 Vit. Horn. 21 
 
 
 
 
 Hrd. (17 times) 
 
 
 
 Ko7os 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 TTOTOS 
 
 Arch. epod. 941 
 
 
 Aret. 
 
 
 Hrd. 228 
 
 
 Luk. 
 
 
 
 
 Arrian 35^ 
 
 
 
 
 Hrd. 648, 75 
 
 
 
 6ko7os 
 
 Archil. 702, 3 tetr. 
 
 Herakl. 2, 23, 126 
 
 Demokr. 47 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 Hippokr. Ill 42, 236 
 
 Aret. 
 
 Luk. V. A. 4, Dea Syr. 29 
 
 Euseb. Mynd. 63. 
 
 diro7os 
 
 Anax. 6 (Simpl.) 
 
 
 Hrd. lei, 655, 350 
 
 
 U 2 
 
292 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [342. 
 
 K6Te, Kore 
 
 Sim. Am. 7,j9 
 
 trore, irore 
 
 Amorg. Rob. I 160 A 
 
 
 Kail, ii, 2-2 
 
 
 Xenoph. I5, 6^ 
 
 
 Mimn. iii 
 
 
 Tyrt. I lis, 12,1 
 
 
 Anakr. 33 in MSS. (Bergk 
 
 
 Mimn. 122, 145 
 
 
 KO) t6t) 
 
 
 Theog. 1245, 1256, 12S7, 
 
 
 Kallim. 93 
 
 
 I307) 133^ '345 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 Anakr. 85 
 
 
 Hrd. 273, 433, 654, 768! 8i> '^^• 
 
 
 Hrd. 6],, 27, cf. 273 
 Herakl. 27 
 
 Hippokr. II 70, 360, 678, 
 III 44, 90, V 606, 620, 
 
 634, 674 
 Luk. DeaSyr. 29 
 Arrian 423 
 
 oKore 
 
 Herakl. 36, 73 
 
 oiroTe 
 
 Kail, ig {6inr6T€, cf. note i) 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 Vit. Hom. 26 
 
 
 Hippokr. II 34, 70, 360, 
 
 
 
 
 362 (^TrJre 2253) 
 
 
 
 
 Demokr. 47 
 
 
 
 
 Vit. Hom. 5 
 
 
 
 k6(Tos 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 Hrd. I21, 295, 3t9, 764, &c. 
 
 irSffos 
 
 Hippokr. II 678 
 
 6k6(Tos 
 
 Phoinix Kol. 2ig, jg 
 
 6ir6<ros 
 
 oirSpai Eretr. 155 
 
 
 Herakl. 2, 5, 18, 64, 91, 104 
 
 
 Xenoph. 1,7 
 
 
 Demokr. 22, 47, 211 
 
 
 Demokr. 13 
 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 
 
 
 Hippokr. II 34, S6, 90 
 
 
 
 
 Philip of Pergam. B. C. H. 
 
 
 
 
 II 273 
 
 
 
 
 Aret., Hrd. I32 
 
 
 
 
 Arrian 4O4, Luk. DeaSyr. 29 
 
 
 
 Kij 
 
 Hdt. 
 
 wf) 
 
 Archil. 60 
 
 '6k7) 
 
 Herakl. 73 
 MelLssos 14 
 Hdt. 
 
 Sttti 
 
 Sim. Am. I2 
 
 Hdt. lias also KoOev (Hrd. 622), 6k60€v, Korepos, oKorepos. In 
 the case of other words the New Ionic of Hdt. presents no varia- 
 tions from Attic as reg-ards the representation of I. E. 5- as k 
 before 0, e.ff. oirobaTrri V 13/671-080770? VII 318. Xenophanes 
 has TTi]XiKos. In Arrian 42g okov is to be read. In Herodas the 
 forms with k are much more numerous than those with tt (e.ff. 
 
 ^28^ 50' ^21 > 722} 44/ 
 
 I. Forms witli tttt are not to be called into question, since there is no such 
 thing as an Ionic SkkSts. Pick's attempts to expel 6inr6re Kev Sri from Kallinos 
 ig, on the ground of tlie inadmissibility of an Aiolic form in that elegist, are 
 wide of the mark. There is an irreducible minimum of Aiolisms in the 
 Ionic elegy. Cf. also Theog. 531 ottttSt aKovaw. 
 
345-] GUTTURALS. 
 
 29 
 
 o 
 
 2. Beclitel's statement, that ottov in Keos 4323 is a proof of Attic influence, 
 is misleading. There is no inscriptional instance of okov or of any such 
 K form. All we can say is that the Keian Swov is the earliest inscriptional 
 example of a tt form. Cf. § 450, 2. 
 
 3. A difference between the three divisions of Ionic on the score of the 
 K forms cannot be established. Wilamowitz, Horn. Untersuch, p. 318, proposes 
 to restore the w forms in Archilochos, as a rei^resentative of Island Ionic, and 
 because of Swais upon a Thasiote insci'iption. In Archilochos the MSS. vary 
 only more frequently in favour of the tt form than they do in the case of 
 poets of the Asiatic mainland. I see no reason to refer the k forms to the 
 influence of the fieTaypa\f/d/j,evot. Blass (Kiihner's Granim. p. 142) holds that 
 Euboian Ionic also (cf. 6ir6Tepos Eretria 1510) did not adopt the guttural. 
 Our only evidence as to the nature of Euboian Ionic is that derived from 
 inscriptions. If we argue that because no Western Ionic inscription has «-, 
 therefore Western Ionic had tt, a similar line of reasoning would hold good 
 in the case of Island Ionic, and thus call in question the integrity of mucli 
 of the MS. tradition. 
 
 4. The MSS. of Hippokrates varied greatly in regard to these forms 
 according to the express testimony of Galen, who says that Artemidorus 
 Capito edited oTrSa-ricn, &c. Gom^jerz, Apologie der Heilkunst, p. 86 &., has illus- 
 trated the erratic conduct of the MSS. by reference to the pseudo-Hii^pokratic 
 tracts irepl rex^ris, irepl (pvcrtos audpciirov, and irepl (pvcruv. In the latter the 
 later MSS. have the k forms twelve times, A not once ; from which Gomperz 
 concludes that the k forms are the result of nieddling on the part of the 
 scribes. 
 
 343.] By some imitators of Herodotos the k forms are carefully 
 reproduced. Lukian's only exception seems to be Trore Dea Sj/r. 
 29. Arrian has^ on the other hand, 34 cases of tt, but few of k 
 (oKore in A § 42, koiw ;^^ in some MSS., oKocroicnv 40), Eberhard 
 adopts Hercher^s expulsion of all the -n forms in Arrian. In the 
 other pseudo-Ionists we find scattered forms containing- k : — 
 Abydenos 1 kov, okt], in the epistles of Pherekydes ovKdi, okoIov, 
 epist. of Herakl. okoo-wl, epist. of Hippokr. 40 cases of k to 22 
 
 of TT. 
 
 The guttural forms have been given a place even in the Doric of the 
 Pseudo-Timaios : 6k6(tos 93 B, 96 E, 99 C, 100 B, C, D, okws 99 A, 101 C. 
 
 344.] Other cases of Ionic K = IT are : Kvavo\jn(ov in Kyzikos 
 and Samos [Berlin. Monatsherichte, 1859, p. 739). nvavos and 
 X\.vavoy\fi(siv have tt where k is strictly in place. See Reinach, 
 Traite, p. 489, Brugmann, Gr. Gr. j). 32, note. On KTao\}.ai or 
 K7e'o/xai = 7rdoju.at, see §§ 169, 246. 
 
 345.] K for T. 
 
 Only one case deserves notice. In Ai'chil. 14, we read eo-Ke for 
 eVre, the only instance of this form. See § 716. idT^ was 
 employed by Hdt. and the pseudo-Ionic writers^ e.g. Arrian, 
 Ind. i9g. 
 
294 THE IONIC DIALECT. [346. 
 
 346.] Transposition of Aspiration ^ (X = K). 
 
 The shifting- o£ X"*^? ^"''"j 0''"' arises from so strong an aspirated 
 pronunciation of k, t, it that the temies and aspiratae represented 
 nearly the same sound. This phenomenon, thoug-h not restricted 
 to Ionic '^, nevertheless obtained in that dialect the dignity of 
 admission into literature, from which it was usually debarred in 
 other dialects. The Ionic forms are usually original, as in the 
 case of (vOavra, cf. €v6a. Ionic inscriptions of the best period 
 do not offer instances of the intermediate form with double 
 aspirate such as XakxV^^^ ^^ Attic inscriptions. 
 
 klOmv^^X'-'''^^ Hdt. II 81, Samos 22023,1^,3^, klOmvictkos 
 2 20jy, cf. Kid(3ivi(TKov C. I. A. II 759, II II. In Anakr. 59 the 
 Attic form is read by Bergk, following the scholiast on Eurip. 
 Nek. 934. The form kltmv occurs in Sikilian Doric (Sophron 
 62, Ahrens), and in Attic inscriptions (KLTcova C. I. A. II 764^). 
 
 Kv6pi], Kvdpos, KvOpiUov are often cited as Ionic by the gram- 
 marians^. The MSS. of Hdt. however have xyrpihoov V 88, and 
 in Hipponax 25 we find ^vrpoTiohiov. Kvdpihiov in Hippokr. 
 VII 394 in 6 (cf. 396) justifies our writing the Herodoteian and 
 Hipponaktian words with k. The pseudo-Ionists have KvOprj, 
 which appears in Herodas, III i (found in Stobaios, Serm. 78, 6) 
 though in the recently discovered papyrus x'^^PV appears (J-jq). 
 Like forms are found in Clemens Alex, and Josephos. In a late 
 inscription from Oropos (^(p. apx- 1 889, p. 3, 11. 12, 13) we find 
 
 X^TpiS. 
 
 Forms adduced by grammarians are: KeL6Lov = x(i'Tiov Eust. 
 125930; '^(^P'^KOS (x^peti^) Eust. 14464, 153447; aKavTiov Greg. 
 Kor. § 28 must be an error for aKavOiov, with which he would 
 compare ax^vTiov ^. 
 
 347.] K for X by Dissimilation. 
 
 (ppvvLKibrj^ Thasos (L.) 7 A 4 = <|5pui'txt8';s which is found 
 in Hippokr. II 704. Cf. x^^P-^'^^^^ Hippon. ig^ = x^^iJ'^6^ov, 
 XvtXov = x'J&^ov and see B, B. I 6^, Ascoli Kritische Studieii, 
 p. 404, note f. 
 
 ' Greg. Kor. § 28, An. Ox. I 39730., Choir. 635^5. Even irvKov is derived 
 from iTvxov in An. Par. Ill 1833^ ; similar vagaries occur in An. Par. Ill 
 
 220it. 
 
 ^ Cf. Attic <pi8dKV7], irddi/j] in the Common dialect (cf. Eust. 125935). The 
 fact that the Common dialect adopted the shifting of aspiration renders 
 doubtful the ascrij^tion to Ionic of certain glosses, e.g. eaira^co, rpiyxos in 
 Hesychios. 
 
 ■■ Greg. Kor. p. 414 (cf. 341), Gram. Meerm. 649; Bekk. An. II 79320 
 {kiQwviov), An. Par. Ill 57, „, Eust. 46830, 74615; Hesych. klQuiv- [Kidwv'i) irufia 
 iridov and irpoKiBciviov' rh "npopivov. 
 
 * An. Par. Ill 571;, Et. M. 4544.., Eust. 46835, 74615, Choir. 63503, Hesych. 
 4-mKvdpioV rh iraifxa ttis x^^Tpas. An. Ox. I 36614, Greg. Kor. 341 call Kvdpa 
 Doric, and Eust. regards the k form as Sikilian as well as Ionic, Epicharmos 
 lias xi^Tpa according to our sources. 
 
 ^ Cf. An. Par. Ill 571,, Meerm. 649, Eust. 46830, 74647. 
 
 i 
 
348.] GUTTURALS. 295 
 
 KaAxTjSo'i'ios Hdt. IV 85, 144, V 26 is an older orthography 
 for XoAk-, which occurs frequently in the MSS. (Bredow, p. 92). 
 In VI ^^ all the MSS. except H have XoAk-. In Attic 
 inscriptions of the fifth century both Ka\\- and XaAx- occur. 
 
 With the above mentioned words we may compare 'AyKt^etS)]? 
 in Delos, Ditt. Sj/l/. p. 513, note 26, which name is derived from 
 'Ay^t'^eos as 'EKe'^uAoj from 'E)(e(^i;Aos. 
 
 348.] Other eases of Ionic K varying with X. 
 
 hiKOjxai ^ with its compounds occurs in New Ionic literature, 
 and is also Aiolie, Doric, and Arkadian for Se'xo/iat the Attic 
 form which is due to analogy ^. Attic has retained the original 
 K in hmpohoKos. hixpixai is however not unknown upon Ionic 
 soil. KaTahi^Wai, in Ampliipolis lOjg.o,, may be regarded as 
 offering inconclusive testimony because of its late date (358 B.C.); 
 but Teos 156 B 21, one of the oldest stone records of the dialect, 
 by its v-iTohixoLTo shows that the aspirated form was not unknown 
 to the Ionic of the fifth century. 8e)(o/xat may have held its 
 ground from the Homeric period ( Homer has no case of beKOfj-ai) 
 side by side with the morphologically older form which was 
 generally adopted by literary prose. Instances of 8ex"/xat before 
 Hippokrates are rare (Hipponax has lipoahixovraL in frag. 8) and 
 not certain. In Hippokrates bexop.at is often attested, e.ff. 
 V 604 (102), 612 (139), 618 (156), II 76, 152, 246, 372, 610, 
 III 50, 258. Lukian has 8eKoju,at except in Astr. 29, while in 
 Arrian the two forms are about equally divided. beKOfxai. is 
 found in Abydenos i, Vita Iloweri 12; bexop-at in Aretaios, 
 epist. Hippokr,, Euseb. Mynd. i. 
 
 ovKL Hom., Hdt., Attic ovxh Avhich form is used by Herodas 
 twelve times, Cf. Hdn. II 37928 (Choir. 6995), Et. Mag. 624,g, 
 Et. Gud. 4284, 440^, An. Ox. I 30I3, 31I20J 31833, Bekk. An. 
 ^ 57 -zo' ■'-I 7i8]8, 03, and ovk eireTac Hesych. Homeric rervKeiv, 
 TtTVKiadai from rei^xw may here be mentioned. Herodas has 
 ^7Til3pvxov(ra 6jo, where -jipvKova-a would be the Attic form. 
 Zonaras 1512 says that the Attics, Dorians, and lonians, except 
 Anakreon (88), used p.oyX6s. Upon inscriptions k is sometimes 
 written for x after a- and before p: AtaKpaos Styra 19153; cf. 
 AiVxpiooz; I9i54, A]to-xpcoi^ Thasos 71^. With this k, cf. that in 
 the Eleian -ndcxKOL C. D. I. 1152^. 
 
 ' Hdn. II 57I15, SeKco Eust. 74603, 88423, 139936 (ef- iTT^sj TofSo/ceus Eust. 
 159°54) leti'oSf^/cos An. Ox. I 30030- Eust. does not shrink from assuming an 
 fKO) in Ionic, 118345. This form is found in Modern Greek dialects but is of 
 course not a survival. A similar vagary as regards SeKa appears in Bekk. 
 An. II 71O5. 
 
 ^ Brugmann Griuulr. I § 486 note, Osthoff Perfect, 2S4, 299. G. Meyer 
 Gram. § 207 sets up the proportion jipt^co : I3p^x^ • • 5e|o^oi : Se'xo^ai. But fipe^w 
 is quite late, and e^pe^a did not come into vogue before Hippokrates. 
 
296 THE IONIC DIALECT. [349. 
 
 349.] K for T. 
 
 K is softened into y, as in Attic, in the following words. 
 
 Kva<\)^vs cloth-corder Hdt. IV 14, Kva^-qiov IV i4=:Hipj)okratic 
 (II 666) and = Attic yva(p€vs, ym(^e[T]oi; C. I. A. II 817 A 28 
 (358 B.C.). The older stage of Attic is here on a j)lane with 
 Ionic, as is seen by Kvacfyevs C. I. A. IV A 373 F, a document 
 of the sixth century. Herodas has yvacj)4vs 4^3. Hdt. has also 
 Kvdcpos I 92. 
 
 With avaKciiJLTTTeiv in Hdt. II 8, cf. avayvaix-nrnv in Homer, 
 KvafXTTTeLv, yvaTTTeiv, KvaiTTCiv in Attic. Hdt. has KaixTi-q I 185, 
 eTTt/ca/xTT?/ I 180, Hippokr. k-niKaix-n^tv. See Siegismund in Cur- 
 tius^ Stmdien V 192. These examples of the variation between an 
 initial tenuis and media before vowels have analogues elsewhere, 
 e. g. Phokian jBpvTavivoo = TrpvTavevoo, Kretan /cAayos = yXdyos, 
 Attic Ki't(f)(ai' = Tvi.(pctiv. In two other words of doubtful formation 
 a like phonetic interchange after an initial vowel may be noted. 
 'Ay(3aTava is not better th&n 'E a [3 drav a (^ 129) because of the^ of 
 Hailgmatdnmy, loc. sing., Behistan II 76 ; 'Hyijvos, in a fragment 
 of Pherekydes of Syros quoted by Clem. Alex. 741 P, recalls the 
 Hesychian glosses 'Hyriv, wyivLos which the ancients connected 
 with 'H/ceayo'?. 
 
 350.] X for r. 
 
 7rp7/XM« Chios 174 B 18 stands for itpriyixa. xjx is not from yfi 
 (which is a favourite sound-combination, y being the guttural 
 nasal), but from analogy of -x^xa, -x\xos forms (/3pex/xos, e'xM")- 
 The form irprjyjp-a- has been held by Roehl and Karsten to be 
 a peculiarity of the sub-dialect of Chios-Erythrai. Beehtel 
 however compares the v. I. of B in Archil. 30 ixvpt^jJ-^va^ for 
 the received k(T\xvpi(Tixiva^. Cf. also Hesychios^ kap-vpiyixivaL' 
 fxeixvpi,a[x4vaL. Other forms that may be noted in this con- 
 nection are ix^p.opvx\x^va v. I. v 435, hia-n^'nkexp.iva [qvaedam 
 avTiypa^a Galen, tempore) Hippokr. II i 20. Cf . -napabiLXpia in 
 Epidaurian, g. D. I. 3325251,. c. 
 
 Hdn. II 252j7 = Et. M. 1513c, apx/xevos : — SxpeiXe 5e apy/xevos' (pvXa^av 5e rh 
 X 5oKe7 'IcoviKhv dvai, KaQh koL rh fpy/xa fpXf^a (paa-'iv. Cf. II 149^ on epxaro. In 
 II 3716 = Et. M. 37I19 we sliould expect ipexf^^s, Stwx/J-Ss, Mxi^^^ (Antimachos) 
 to be called Ionic, not Aiolic. 
 
 351.] Varia. 
 
 1. ex ^or eK before an aspirate in e'x^^epetz' Keos 435 is not 
 specifically Ionic. Cf. e^ 4>vkri'i C. I. A. I 31 A 7, ex<^epeo-^at 
 in Kretan, Cauer ii7cv Ionic has Ikx'^Iv in 43.,,. 
 
 2. In 6e5oKx^at Samos 22126^ we find kx for x^ ^•^' ^'^ 
 became kx- Cf. 07r(/)ts = 6'^i9, according to the probable con- 
 jecture of Bergk in Hipponax 49^. In iXeyKdivras Mylasa 
 
354-] GUTTURALS. 297 
 
 248 C 1 1 we have kO written for x^* The pronunciation 
 of // after both k and r was difficult, x^ ^^^ 0^ having in 
 reahty but a sing-Ie //. See § 362. 
 
 3. Upon a papyrus couched chiefly in the Ionic dialect and 
 dating- from the fourth century b. c. (P/iiiol. XLI 748) we find 
 ruxx^^^o^ ^^^ ^^^^ I ' ' ^^^^ TvxdvoL in line 8. In the latter case 
 we have the expulsion, in the former the assimilation, of the 
 nasal, as in Nw^tj and £u/3/3dA.Aea-0at. 
 
 352.] iJii,KK6s<iJ.i.K-v6s, a by-form of [xiK-pos, is called Ionic by 
 Eust. 31709 (cf. 61025), but is also Aiolic and Doric. It occurs 
 in Herodas 659 who has also fXLKpos 743. Boiot. Mlkku has 
 hypocoristic gemination. Cf. Lat. mica, ?mcidus, MtKis Naukr. 
 
 745- 
 
 353.] r for B. 
 
 yXr\x(}yv (or yXrix(i>) is called Ionic for Attic ^X7/xcoi^ (Doric and 
 Boiotian yXax^v) in Bekk. Anecd. I 30^5 and in other gramma- 
 tical treatises. yA.)/xcoz^ occurs in the Hymn to Demeter, Hippo- 
 krates, and Herodas, frag. (7). Such a variation between Attic 
 and Ionic in the representation of an original a sound deserves 
 note from its very isolation. On the accent, see Chandler, 
 § 606. 
 
 354.] Koppa. 
 
 9 aj^pears in Ionic inscriptions chiefly before and v, but also 
 before A, p, and v. The velar pronunciation of the guttural 
 sound is indicated by the retention of the character reproducing 
 qojj/i in the following instances : — 
 
 (1) T\av(pos, on an amphora from a Chalkidian colony, Roberts 
 I 189 G, Void I 188 G, Naukratis I 218 ( = Rob. I 132 te?-)- 
 KaTpo? Naukratis II 717, 795; Kapwt Arkesine 30== Rob. I 
 160 D; 'Pot909 Naukratis II 778; a\vTi.hL(pois Chalkidian 1313 
 (cf. avTLbtKos Orop. 18,9); Te(r(a-)epaKate/38o[fXT]]9oi'roi;'r?js' Delos 
 58; Arjixobocpos Volci, Rob. I 188 A; Aecahopos, on a Chalkidian 
 amphora, Rob. I 189 H; QoXocjxavLos Abu-Simbel 152; Qovpr] 
 Naxos 23 ; Aioa-cpovp- Naukratis I 675-682, II 833-836, &c. ; 
 (^0 Chalkidian, Bechtel 13. 
 
 (2) 9*^'9i'[o]?, Chalkid. amphora, Rob. I 192 (a); k7](;)v9os 
 Kyme, Rob. I 173 ; 'ApcpvX-qs Chalkidian, Rob. I 183 (b). 
 
 (3) pAurco Volci, Rob. I 188 E ; (^Xvnos Volci, Rob. I 193 {c). 
 
 (4) 'Einqip'qdeos Styra 19107 is a doubtful form. 9 seems, with 
 this possible exception, to have ceased to be used in the Styrian 
 tablets of the fifth century. _^^ 
 
 (5) 9i;9z;[o]s Chalkid., Rob. I 192 (a). y""^^^^ LIB^^^^S^ 
 
 r ^ OF THE ''^ 
 
 tJNIVERSITY 
 
2gH THE IONIC DIALECT. [355- 
 
 Dentals. 
 
 On C=b, see § 377. 
 355.] T for 0. 
 
 avTcs^ = avdLs, epic, Herakleitos 16, Hdt. II 149, &c. Hdt. I 
 62 has jxeravTis according to Stein, who reads avOtyevees IV 49, 
 avdiyevh IV 180, avOtyevis II 149, and in the same sentence 
 aSrt?. avTis occurs Hrd. 1^0, ^21 y g3> ^^^ ^Y conjecture in Anakr. 
 29. This form is also Kretan. It is found in the pseudo-Ionists 
 Lukian, e.(/. V. A. 5, Euseb, Mynd. 6^, and Eusebios, § 2. 
 Hipj)okrates ^ prefers avOis to avTis, as his supposititious letters, 
 Aretaios, Abydenos. In Arrian also the Attic form has found a 
 place, while Polybios adopts upon occasion the Ionic form. 
 
 Variation between r and 6 is strongly marked in TapyrjXios, 
 Qapyi]\Los. Both forms occur upon the same inscription, lasos 
 104^7, 28 (T), io4]4 (0). Anakreon 40 has the r form ; in Hipponax 
 373 Tapyr]kioi(TLv is a conjecture, the MSS. having yapy- and 
 @apy-. Tapyi]\i(av is the name of the month in Delos (cf . B. C. H. 
 V 26) and Tenos. Qapyr]kia in Archil, ep. 113 is changed with- 
 out warrant by Bergk to Tapy{]ki.a. In Chios 1 74 C 1 8 we have 
 the name 0opyeAeo[s'], and in Amorgos, Kyzikos, and Ephesos 
 the name of the month was QapyrjkLwv. We know also of 
 0apy?;Ata in Miletos. 
 
 TevOcs Sim. Amorg. 15 and devrCs or O^vtis Hipponax 115, 
 would seem to be mutually exclusive in Ionic, devris was doubtless 
 adopted in Eastern Ionic, though which was the form among 
 the Euboians, on whose coins the sepia appeared, is unknown. 
 Hesychios has ^cora^ef e/zTrat^et, x.^'^eua^et, i.e. TcaddCei, without 
 attributing to an Ionic source this example of the movement of 
 the dentals. Both Hdt. and Hippokr. have rcoOdCM. 
 
 Certain words connected with, or forms of, ddirru and re67\ira are called 
 Ionic by the ancients : rdcpos hurial and amazement, Ionic for ddvos, Hdn. II 
 38211 = An. Ox. I .^977, A110II. Sijnt. 55,, Bekk., Orion 15I3..,, Choir. 635,3 (who 
 calls 6pi-<\iw and epe'|co(!) Ionic\ Et. M. 74835. Cf. also An. Par. Ill 57,, 
 Schol. Ven. A on IX 193, Et. M. 748,,, Et. Gud. 5223^, An. Par. Ill 57,0; 
 TiQT}Tr6Tes Apol). D. Synt. 5521 • Hdt. has Teddcftarai VI 103, where R has 
 Terd(f>aTat. iTdcp-q is found in Herodotos (III 10), iedtpd-q in Sim. Keos 1673. 
 
 ' Greg. Kor. p. 473, Eust. 11756:-, cf. 7'^9,.g, 100620, Anecd. Bachm. II 6127 
 (Max. Plan.) "O/x-npos Kal "leaves ; Tzetz. Ex. II. 84,1, and on Hsd. W. D. 560 (cf. 
 156), where ai)Tis is also referred to the Koivi]. 
 
 '^ Littre adopts alQis III 104 (no t'. Z.), 236 (Aldus alone avris), 242 {alris C), 
 II 82 {avTis 2i46\ VI 92 [aiTLs A M\ Littre has certainly gone too far 
 in rejecting the Ionic form. 
 
^57-] DENTALS. 299 
 
 356.] for T. 
 
 On 6 in klOmv, KvOpr], see § 346. 
 
 kv6iVT€v'^, evOavra in Hdt. with retention of original aspira- 
 tion^. The form evOavra is also found in the ver}' ancient 
 papyrus [Thihlogus XLI 748 1. 6), epist. Hippokr. ly^g, Vita Horn. 
 2. On kvTovOa Oropos iHj^^ see § 256. The intermediate stage 
 between h'Oavr- and ivravd- appears in kvdavQol Attic (C. I. A. 
 IV B 27 B 13 ; 439 B. C), if the first d is not due to the 
 influence of the second. In the Kymaian OvipXos (Roberts I 173) 
 and ede6i]i; (Rob. I 1 74 ^) the d's seem to be due to etymological 
 considerations. This phenomenon is not restricted to Ionic, but 
 occurs in Lakonian, Argolic, &e. 
 
 M. Schmidt suggests that the Hesychian gloss Qekylves' ol 
 TeAxtyes is Ionic. This is doubtful on account of the rest of the 
 gloss : yoTjre?, iravovpyoi, (fyapixaKevraL 
 
 l3d6paKos is stated by ancient gi-ammarians to be the Herodo- 
 teian form for jSarpaxos (see §§ 147, 335)^. No editor, however, 
 deserts the MS. tradition in Hdt. IV 131, 132; and Pigres, 
 the author of the Batrachomyomachia, though an elder contem- 
 porary of the historian, does not recognize the form with Q. 
 
 357.] Varia. 
 
 1. r for TT. 
 
 Palatal r is found in Ti.vQeo'i (6 W.^vQev's Trapa 'EKaraiw, Photios). 
 IlevOevs is a clipped-name of Meyairhdi^s. T^XiOpiov in Euboia 
 is the equivalent of U^X^Opoviov in Thessaly. 
 
 2. 6 for 8 in /^Tj^ev Hrd. 391, p-i^e^vi Teos 15821 , and ovOiya, 
 Olbia C. I. G. 2058 A 32, is not specifically Ionic. The aspiration 
 of an original viedia is widely known in all the dialects as they 
 approach the Koivr\ stage. A noteworthy instance of ^==8 is r;0' 
 6p.6kiVKTpo^ B. C. H. IV 287, 1. 5 (Paros). 
 
 3. Beyond the pale of regular phonetic change lie MtrpoSarrjj 
 and Mtrpo/3ar?/s\ 
 
 4. r for h. 
 
 The schol. on Thuk. I 64 makes the curious statement in 
 regard to 'A(/)i;rtos that it is Ionic for 'A0i;8to?. Because of the 
 termination, we should rather say. For arpdcpa^vs, Hippokr. VI 
 560 has dvbpd(f)a$vi. For Kparevrris H. IX 214, the Attic is 
 KpaT(VTi]s and KpabevTi]^. For bpv(paKTos, we find rpvcjyaKTos m 
 Delos, B. C. IL 1890, p. 397, and in Oropos, 'E^r]/;>i. dpx- 1889, 
 p. 3, 1. 4-5; cf. Hdn. II 595i, who says that some wrote the 
 
 1 Greg. Kor. 465, Eust. 46830, 74615, An. Ox. I 3978, An. Par. Ill 5710, 
 Apoll. Synt. 5521. 
 
 2 ivTwOa, the Attic form, is very common in MSS. of Ionic wi-iters, e. g. 
 Sim. Am. 231, Hrd. 33,, epist. Hippokr. 2727, ,8, 55; eVreCeei/ Vita Horn. 13, 21. 
 
 ^ Cf. Attic aveOedr) in the same inscription as ivdavdoT. 
 * See also Eust. 74615, Meerm. 649. 
 
s 
 
 300 THE IONIC DIALECT. [358. 
 
 word witli b, and also § ^^^. The Delian inscription, 1. 1, p. 404^ 
 has ivcoTLu, 'with which cf. hxahtov. 
 
 TaiTijs occurs in Homer, Herodas 2^^, though Ail. Dionysios 
 ajmd Eust. 1369^.^ says that bdirr^s and 8a7rt? are the older forms. 
 bdiTLs occurs in Aristophanes, &c., but all MSS. have the t form 
 in Fl/if. 541. 
 
 5. tO for 0, &c. 
 
 In UltO^vs on a coin from Ephesos Num. Chron. 1881, 16 
 (niT0ETO2) and also Attic (C. I. A. Ill 908, 1962), the tQ is 
 a development of Q {th becoming /]?). On tt in another form of 
 this name, see § "^^^y 1. 
 
 6. b and y. 
 
 bv6(pos, bvo(f)ep6s in Hom., bvo(j)€p6s Hippokr. VI 384 = Aiolic 
 yv6(f)os, where y, softened from k, becomes b before v. Cf. abvov 
 for ayvov in Kretan, and dlo/y for ffh}y, a pronunciation heard 
 in New England. 
 
 7. 6 between o-X is expelled in eo-A?y[s] Chios 175, a metrical 
 inscription. €u\6s is thus shown to be not necessarily Aiolic, as 
 Karsten held (p. 19). Cf. also ecrAo's in C. D. I. 1200, formerly 
 referred to Arkadian, and in Doric (Greg, Korinth. p. 213, who 
 quotes from Pindar). Elsewhere in Ionic the 9 is preserved in 
 this word, e.ff. Sim. Am. 6^. 
 
 358.] A dental followed by /x. 
 
 1. -bjji- does not become -o-/x- : o8pp Hdt. Ill 24 as in Homer, 
 Hippokr., Aret. (but KciKocrixa 2850 j evoaixov ^iSi)> obixdcrdaL 
 Deniokr. F//^s. 1. On oo/x?/ in Old Attic, see Kutherford^s 
 Vhryniclms p. 160. Whenever 8 + suffixal /x seems to become cr/x, 
 the o- is due to analogy. 'ib\i^v'^ in Hdt. VII 111, Demokr. 
 Vhys. I, 5, 9, Luk. iJea Syr. 2; i(r//ey in Aretaios 68^^, 2i2js and 
 Arrian 4^^ (where Hercher reads t6-) is from analogy to itrre. 
 In [xeaobiji-t], which is found in Hom., Hippokr., and is the 
 equivalent of Attic ixeao^xvi] (C. I. A. II 1054^^), 8/x becomes ixb 
 and this ixb passes into ixv according to Prellwitz, B. B. XVII 
 172. The name Ka8/xos occurs in Thasos (L.) 5^, 20 A 4; Me'8/xa 
 in Hekataios. 
 
 2. -0JU- remains imchanged in dva/BaOixos Hdt. II 125, ?}^jlioV 
 Prokon. 103 (stele of Sigeion). pvOfjios Hdt. V 58, Demokr. 205 
 (Stob., -aix- according to INIullach) seems in accordance with 
 Phrynichos'' rule : iBaOixos laKov bta tov 6, bid tov cr cittikov, 
 (Baaixos (CCXCVI, Rutherford). Either this rule must not be 
 taken to hold good in the case of other Avords, or pva-fxo^ Archil. 
 667, Anakr. 74^, is an Attic interloper. (Baa-jjiov Kyzik. iiiio 
 and dvbpo^aa-jxo'i Erythrai 201^ are inscriptional forms not free 
 
 ' Bekk. Anecd. I 563(1, Phryn. 160 (K.) oSfi^ 'idvwv, cf. Eust. 15709. 
 * Eust. 1570;, (Doric). 
 
361.] LABIALS, 301 
 
 from the suspicion of being Attic, since both documents are to 
 be placed in the fourth centuiy b. c. pva-fios may contain the 
 suffix -aixo- which is borrowed from Sa-o-jud?, Se-o-juos, &c. At 
 least such an analogical formation came into existence several 
 centuries before the period of Archilochos (Homeric deajxos). 
 See Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 119, Kretschmer, ibid. XXIX 429. 
 Many of the occurrences of crix in nouns have their parallel in o-/x 
 in verbal forms, e.ff. epacr/xtos in Anakreon, vaixa, Kvricrixa, iixea-ixa, 
 Kpe/xacr/xos', OKdcrixa, cr\acriJ.a in Hippokrates. 
 
 Labials. 
 
 359.] Ionic B = A of other dialects. 
 
 Before dark vowels I, E. g became /3, before those of light 
 colour 8. 
 
 jSovXoixaL Ionic-Attic = Aiolic /3o'AAojuat, Arkadian [Sokoixai 
 (also KyjDrian and Homeric), Pamphylian /3wA.o/xat, Herakleian 
 8?]Ao/xat, Lokrian and Delphian beCXoixat. In Thessalian /3eAAo/xai, 
 Boiot. ^et'Ao/xat, j3 is due to the influence exerted by /3oAAd and 
 /3 a) A a respectively. 
 
 o/3eAos in Horn., Hdt., Boiot., Attic {bi(ti[3ek(.a) = oSeAo? in 
 Delphian, Megarian, Kretan, Tarentine. 6/3oAos in Terpa)/3oAou 
 Hrd. 6g4 has its penultimate by assimilation to the initial 0. 
 
 360.] Ionic B = r of other dialects. 
 
 (3\4(f)apov = yX4(bapov in Pindar; cf. TronyAeTrot in Alkman. 
 7Tpe(r/3i»s = Trptcryeie?, BoiOTIAN <^ 43. 
 
 361.] Relation of IT and 4>. 
 
 I. n for 4). 
 
 ' AfXTTL9d\r]s Delos ^^ II 8, is a form parallel to 'Aix(f)Ldd\ris 
 55 V 10, &c., and formed by dissimilation from it; cf. dix-nixoi 
 and dixcjiLa-KovTes' kvhv6p.evoL. 
 
 I. Eust. 2392s, 33 holds that irarpid (-■fi) is the Ionic form of the Attic (pparpia. 
 varpL^ is found in lasos J. H. S. IX 341, No. 3, 1. 4 ; cf. irarpiai in Hdt. I 200 and 
 Eleian C.D.I. 1152 (see Blass ad loc.) and the Arkadian irdrpa, ibid. 1194. Tliat 
 the spelling without the first p is Attic and Doric is apparent from C. I. A. II 
 599i (fourth century), Chios, Ditt. Syll. 360.^8 (where it is Attic), Delphic {ibid. 
 294 B 77), Andros, Mitih. I 2373, Phokian, Cauer 223 B 14, Koan, ibid. 159. 
 The difBculty of identifying the two forms is enhanced by the fact that the 
 inscription from lasos has Trarpi^v, not ■n-TjTpniji'. Though in Hdt. I 125 onlyt^ 
 and the Aldine edition have the suspicious (pj]rp7] for (ppriTpri, yet we should 
 expect Trr)- if the word is connected with <j>pdTpla (Homeric cppTjrpri . Wliile 
 the expulsion of one p is a well-known phenomenon, dissimilation at the 
 
302 THE IONIC DIALECT. [S^'i- 
 
 same time of ^ to ir is out of the question. The word has no connection with 
 (ppcLTTjp, (ppdroop. 
 
 Tiie Et. Gud. 44O1 maintains that the lonians used airelXri-ira for airelAricpa. 
 
 2. 'ETnaATTjs in Hdt., and on a vase in Overbeck's Atlas sur Kimstmyth., pi. IV, 
 No. 6, is the original form of the name. 'Ei^iaArrjs has an inorganic (p. Cf. 
 the Alkaian 'ETriaATTjs and iiriaKos. 
 
 1. <I> for n. 
 
 ^irrcoy in Keos 44 A 7 is the equivalent of Attic YiiQii^v (C. I. 
 A. I 433, II 12, 434i6)j the Boiotian ^IQuiv C. D. I. 850 (^iVrwy 
 perhaps occurs also in Mitlh. IX 319, D 71, in an inscription 
 from Keos), and is a shortened form of X\iTQ(.v<i {JliQdhy\s Keos 44 
 A 10, § 357, 5). Cf. <J>eTraAos in Boiotian = Thess. Iler^aXo?. 
 
 Kpi(T<pov in a late Parian inscription J5. C.H.I 1 35, No. 48, is an example of 
 the wide-spread inability of the later imperial period to distinguish between 
 tenuis and aspirata. The (j) of the aspirated perfect reTpaparai is claimed as 
 Ionic by Et. M. 3667. 
 
 362.] U(l) for *. 
 
 In M 208 for 6(f)Lv at the end of the verse we find o-rrcjiiv in S, 
 
 TT 
 
 and o(f)u> in H. This spelling is furthermore attested by Eust. 
 90O12 (cf. 1577 5s> 175535)-. In Hipponax 49^ (7)^ avrbv o(f)is 
 TOi)VTLKvt'i[XLov b/]Kr]) wc may either follow the procedure of Herodian 
 (Villoison^ Anecd. II 86), who adopted this spelling- in Homer, 
 or we may accept that with TTcf)^, which is defended by (rKv-n(f)os 
 Anakr. 82, Hesiod frag. 174 (cf. Athenaios XI 498 A), Delos 
 (B. C. II. VII 109, 1. 24, 26, &c., a prose inscription), aKviT(f)eiov 
 Stesich. 7 (Casaubon), and reinforced by the analogy of YlLTOevs 
 (§ 357? 5)> oKyov Find. 01. VI 24, oK^^iovTi II 67. Antimachos 
 (78 K) also made use of the form o0t?, the length of whose 
 initial syllable is due to affrication. Cf. Ze(^i;ptr/ 77 119, fipoxos 
 Theog. 1099 &c. ; § 351, 357, 5. In Hij)ponax 492 o(f)Ls may be 
 either dcfus or o^ts. 
 
 Kara7r^t/j,e[z^j]s Chios 175^ is an attempt at a more exact 
 phonetic orthography than KaTa(f)6iiJL[e'\v(ov Keos 43^, in both 
 cases there being but one // after the double labial. Cf. eAey/c- 
 d^vTos under § 351 and K. Z. XXVIII 179. 
 
 363.] n for B, and * for B. 
 
 ' k\xiipaKir\Tai Hdt. IX 28, 31 ('A/xTTpaKtoirat VIII 45, 47) and 
 so in Thukydides and I. G. A. 70, was later on spelled 'A///3-, 
 mp becoming mh as in ]Modern Greek. Coins of Ambrakia 
 generally have ^ (C. D. I. 3185), while Attic inscrij^tions have 
 ^ or TT. Ae7j-a6ei;s Keos {JSIitih. IX 27425), a form that is also 
 
 ' Fick conjectured oxxpis^b u<pis {Odyssee 24). 
 
366.] SIGMA. 303 
 
 Delphic. On ijiJLJSXaKov Archil. 73, see A. J. P. VI 46. Anakr. 
 (141) perhaps used the form aa-rpacf)!] for aaTpd/Bi]. 
 
 364.] Varia. 
 
 apTOTTOTTos is callcd Ionic for apTOKoiros inBekk, Anecd. 1 44y.^^ = 
 Bachm. Anecd. I 1472; Hdt. has however (I 51) the k form. 
 
 oTTTTOTe Kallin. ig, Theog-. 531 is not Ionic (§ 342^ note i). 
 
 a-ajxjia'Ka, for advbaka, and related forms are used by Hipponax 
 182, Anakr. 143^ Herodas 7gy, 7^25? cf. Sappho 98^^ Eumelos apud 
 Paus. IV ^^, 3, and under Aiolic. 
 
 There is no variation in Ionic between and 6 not known in 
 other dialects. 'Epyo^e/^tt? Styra 19190 i^ ^ mere slip for -O^jxts. 
 Acopo(l)4a, Rob. I 29, is not an Ionic name for AopoO^i], (l)kav 
 occurs in Hippokrates, and is found in Pindar, Aristophanes, 
 Theokritos, while 6kav is also employed by Hippokrates and is 
 known to Homer, Hesiod, Theokritos, Herodas 233 (dXrj contains 
 a Doric contraction). (pXtjietv which appears in Theokritos XV 
 ^6 and as a v. I. in Odi/ss. 17221 is used by Hippokr. VI 292, 300, 
 in both of which passages C has the form with 6. The ancient 
 grammarians thought that the forms were the property of the 
 Aiolic dialect. Oi'^p is the Ionic form (cf. Qrjpicop Styra I9ii6)' 
 
 T//e Sjnrants. 
 
 365.] Yod. 
 
 The influence of Homeric (a < 8ta has given life to (dnXovTos 
 even in prose (Hdt. I 32, in the speech of Solon), (direbo^ occurs 
 in Xenophanes i and in an epigram from Paros, No. 59 (fifth 
 century). See Hinrichs, H. E. F. A. p. 43. i seems to have be- 
 come t in iidkiov Tyrt. i2g ; see § 163. On combinations oiyod, 
 see §§ 224, Z(>T, 370- 
 
 8igma. 
 
 366.] Adverbs which permit an option of final s 
 
 refuse the adoption of the sibilant in the following cases in Hdt. : 
 jxixph o-xph and i9v, Wvs, which are differentiated in meaning. 
 ovTd) occurs before both vowels and consonants, and oiVco? before 
 vowels is rarely attested by all MSS. On the other hand -s 
 occurs in iroXkaKis ^ (followed by a consonant) and drpeixas 
 (followed by a vowel), xcopts has a rare by -form in Doric without 
 s (Thera, Cauer 148 E 8, x^P'- Hdn. I 5069, who quotes from 
 
 ^ Joh. Alex. 377 ; Hdn. II 22C7, note. 
 
304 THE IONIC DIALECT. [367. 
 
 Kallimachos x^P'- ^i-aTix-i]yov(n, cf. Apoll. Adv. 13^15, 16225 
 Schneider). The inscription from Oropos (No. 18) that has ixixpt 
 even before a vowel (1. 3) has x'^ptj (1. 44). Archil. 37 used 
 ey/curt and so did Kallimachos according- to the testimony of Joh. 
 Alex. 38,0 (Hdn. I 506,4, 51 1.3). 
 
 367.] Ionic (7 ^ = Attic 0" < Tt 
 in nouns with the suffix ti, in i stems with t preceding the 
 stem suffix (Kacri?, KaaiyviqTos, cf. eyKara), in adjectives in which 
 the ending io follows upon a r contained in the stem, and in 
 the 3rd sing, of -pit verbs, and 3rd plur. present and perfect. 
 The influence of other forms has frequently caused the retention 
 of TL, e, ff. TTavrl, ovojjLaTi, cf . Attic vavria ( = Ionic vavair]) because 
 of vavTij^ ^. Elsewhere r before accented t does not become a-, 
 as it does not in oxytones and paroxytones; while final tl in 
 proparoxytones is usually assibilated, according to Kretschmer in 
 K. Z. XXX ^6^ ff. ; whose discussion of the question does not 
 yield wholly satisfactory results. The force of analogy has re- 
 tained r frequently in forms where o- is properly in place, e.ff. 
 voTLos (Hdt., Hippokr.) with the r of votos. (pans (Herakl. 3) 
 retains its r either from the influence of (f)aTt((a or from the in- 
 fluence of the form *0aret- ; the tendency to dissimilation from 
 (f)d(Tis being an auxiliary factor in the preservation of the form ^. 
 TiXovab] has the a of irkovaios. The Ionic character of afxirMTts 
 in Hdt. has been impeached by Kretschmer, not only because of 
 the retention of the dental contrary to the rule formulated by 
 him, but also on the score of the unusual apocope, on which see 
 § 715. Less valid is the objection of G. Meyer (that the radical 
 770) is found in the present in Aiolic alone), since the parent pdi 
 is proethnic, and substantival forms with 00 (which need not be 
 derived from the perfect) ai*e the property of other dialects than 
 Ionic. That Herodotos should have adopted a Doric word re- 
 lating* to the sea, as Kretschmer contends /. I. 572, passes belief. 
 Ionic-Attic^A7]o-tos is an obstinate form, but due, according to 
 the scholar just mentioned, to the influence of TTapaTrXi](TL09. 
 
 368.] 
 
 Homeric ttoti, Sim. Keos(?'i Sc,^^ = Ay6st. paiti is not Doric, notwithstanding 
 that it is the usual form in the dialects of Dorian sympathies. Ionic 
 inherited together with other members of the Hellenic race the proethnically 
 distinct forms irorl and irpori. In Doric ttoti may lose its iota before a vowel, 
 in Homer an elided vori and Trpor/ are unknown. 
 
 ^ An. Ox. II 361 32 quotes as Ionic the change of t to o- in evepyeffia 
 {evepyerr}?). 
 
 " akovair) Hdt., Hip^jokr., -crla Eurip., but -Tia Eupolis (cf. Lobeck's Phrynichus, 
 
 P- 505- 
 
 ^ Cf. virrios because of v^ios. 
 
 } 
 
370.] SIGMA. 305 
 
 369.] Ionic o- for Attic r ^ is found in the following words. 
 
 arjixepov in Homer, Hrd. 2^-j and in the suspected verse of the 
 RJieso^ ('5^3)j from the pronominal stem fia, which is also the 
 source of Attic Ti]Tes, of which (xi]t^s is the Ionic form (Et. M. 
 711^0). The dialects exclusive of Attic had a in these words. 
 Cf. Hesychios Tr\ix^pov' 'ArriKOt [r?7fie/3o?] koX Trifxepa Xiyovcriv. 
 It may be noted that the existence of an adjective rrjixcpos is 
 evident from the scholiast on Clouds 699 (see Jackson in Class. 
 Rev. VI 4). 
 
 The 0" of <Tr]kia, attested in Bekk. Aneed. I 38225? may be 
 Ionic. 
 
 (T€vt\ov is the equivalent of Attic t^vt'Kov, which appears in 
 Hippokr. VI 248^, 252, though in II 482 A has the a-- form, 
 which is also found in 6 in VI 560. Littre reads revrXov in the 
 pseudo-Hippokratic tracts. In later Attic the ridiculed crevrkov 
 found a place, and o-yj/xepoy was occasionally adopted. 
 
 Hesychios reports as dialect by-forms of Attic Tvp^rj and Tvpfia 
 (Aischylos), avp^r] and avp^a. The former at least can belong to 
 no other dialect than Ionic. Kratinos made use of a-vp^rivevs. 
 
 The relation between crapydur] Aischylos, Suppl. 788 {aprdvais Dindorf with 
 Lascaris) and rapyavri in Hesychios is obscure, though Koegel in Paul and 
 Braune's Beiirdge VII 191 has compared them with Lith. iveriu 'enclose.' 
 Neither (xi\<p-ri nor ri\(p7) occui- in Ionic sources. revfiT](Taro in Antimachos' 
 Thebais, frag. 3 Kinkel, is not Ionic but Boiotian, at least as regards the 
 dental, because of Teu/iTjfnrtJs. The Doric form would be ffevixda-aro, the Ionic 
 ffevfiTjffaro. Cf. Fick in B. B. VI 236 and Wackernagel in K. Z. XXVIII 121. 
 The last named scholar has shown that Ionic adw for older *affdw is repre- 
 sented in Attic by *ttc^co in Zia-vrav, which was regarded as a compound of 
 81a + dTToo). This aTTao) was in fact turned into Ionic aa-a-du by Archestratos 
 in Athenaios III in F [r]crffriij.eva). sTTTj/xeVa' a-ea-n/xeva^, SO far from being 
 Ionic as M. Schmidt thought, is good Attic and used by Pherekrates. 
 
 370.] Relation of Ionic cto- to Attic tt. 
 
 Ionic aar is = Boiotian, Attic tt when it arises from tl, 61, ki^, 
 XL, tF, i. e. Ionic a-a- is a secondary sound in these cases. 
 
 The position assumed by the Attic inscriptions * (and by those 
 monuments of literary Attic which voice the speech of the people) 
 in favour of tt makes for the view that whenever we meet with 
 
 1 Cf. Wharton, Class. Rev. VI 259. 
 
 "^ Hesychios has irrriffneva' aeffeicr/ieva, Photios irrrifiej/a' fffffricr/xeva. 
 
 ' With eirKTcrai Hekat. 367 (at eTnyiyv6/j.€vai to7s Tvpoyovois), we may compare 
 Vedic apicya, according to Wackernagel in K. Z. XXVIII 122. It is better to 
 explain /xeracra-ai as also containing a k suffix than to suppose with Giles {Class. 
 Rev. Ill p. 4) that -aa-aa is a feminine participial termination. 
 
 * No inscription in pure Attic, other than a vase inscription, has before 
 400 B. c. the acr form in cases where there was a possibility of the adoption 
 
 of TT. 
 
306 THE IONIC DIALECT. [371. 
 
 aa in early Athenian literature we have to deal with a direct or 
 indirect influence exerted by Ionic upon nascent Athenian art. 
 Once installed in the poetry of the sixth century^ a-a descended 
 as an heirloom to tragedy, which felt the influence, not only of 
 Solon, but also of the earlier Ionic poetry and of the beginning's 
 of Ionic prose. Thukydides ^ and the older Attic prose writers 
 who adopted aa, though contemporary with Aristophanes and 
 his predecessors (whose tt bespeaks the language of the market- 
 place), adopted it through the influence of tragedy and of the 
 rhetorical canons of the day. 
 
 The only means of avoiding the conclusion that there is an 
 artistic reason for the difference between the unvarying tt of the 
 inscriptional monuments and the aa of early literature is, with 
 Kirchhoff, to maintain that all the cases of acr in early Attic 
 literature are due to textual corruption. This view shuts its eyes 
 to the true conception of the language of tragedy and of early 
 prose in Attika as standing in sympathy, not only with Doric 
 (in the choral part of tragedy), but also with Ionic. Cf. §§ 22, 
 
 61. 375- 
 
 371.] Extension of era in the Ionic dialects. 
 
 Asiatic Ionic and Island Ionic have ao- for Attic tt invariably. 
 Whether Western Ionic stood on the side of Attic is not yet 
 clear because of lack of evidence. Thus far tt has been discovered 
 in Ktrri7]s Styra 1952 j eAarror Oropos 185, ^^ (cf. eKaaaov in Hdt., 
 Hipp. II ^6, Keos 434), kKupiqTTovTCtiv Adesp. 22g (an inscription 
 found several miles south of Eretria). The question at issue is 
 whether these inscriptions are not composed under Attic influence. 
 Thuk. VII ^'j shows that in the middle of the fifth century 
 there existed some political connection between Athens and 
 Styra, and there are other proofs of the influence of the rising 
 democratic state over the language and alphabet of Euboia. As 
 regards the leaden tablets of Styra, we find in 19^23 Mo^o-tSrjs, a 
 spelling that^bears an Attic aspect. The names Kto-((r)us 193^3 
 and Kt(r(o-)a[/Mo?] 19332 ^-re either those of men not Western 
 lonians or they prove that the above mentioned Ktrrujj has an 
 Attic tt'^. The Eretrian dialect of Oropos may, by the end of 
 the fifth century, have adopted some Attic spellings. The in- 
 scription containing eAarrof dates either between 411-402 B.C. or 
 between 387-377. The Chalkidians certainly did not affect the 
 Attic TT. In Olynthos 8 B we read irCaaris. HoVcra in Rhegion 
 5 is not necessarily Ionic. 
 
 ' In Thukydides there are very few cases of tt in all MSS. ; e. g. rapdrTea-dai 
 VIII 71, while as a v. I. it is not infrequent : yXwTT-rjs I 138, yXuTrav II 68. 
 
 ^ Pick, G. G. A. 1883, p. 125 referred KnTlr)s to Boiotian influence, com- 
 paring Kit[t]/'Aos. Meister writes KjtuAos C. D. I. 875 epigr.). 
 
373-] SIGMA. 307 
 
 Sttl^ in Theognis jy, 818, 1200, as in Homer, is from 
 
 OT + TL. 
 
 372.] (TO- in the Aorist. 
 
 In Ionic poetry we have the following instances of o-a- in tlic 
 aorist, the origin of which, when not derived from <t- or b- 
 stems, is still involved in obscurity: — Theognis has iy^kaa-ae 9, 
 euacrcrais 12^, ovracrcrrj 321, aTToAecro-ai 323, avvaa-as ^11, biKda-aaL 
 543, ape<rcrdfX€voc 762, ok^aaa 83 1. Sigmatic stems are contained 
 in TpeaadvTcov Tyrt. 11^4, ereAecrcra Theog. 953, 6e(r(rd[xevot Arch. 
 11 2, eleg., -^pdcra-aTo Arch. 30 is not a remarkable form in trimeter. 
 Homer, Hesiod, and Pindar have -era- in this verb ; and Lukian's 
 riprjo-aro (lea Syria 17 cannot be an old form. hiKaacracrQai in 
 Hipponax 79 and vnopydaaai in 84 (both tetrameters) are mere 
 conjectures of Schneidewin and Meineke respectively. 
 
 373.] Reduction of (t(t to o-. 
 
 When to (TO- there is a parallel form in o-, cro- belongs in general 
 to poetry. Thus the epic ixeo-aos is preserved in Anakr. 80, 
 Theog. 331, 994, 1164, ixeaaaTos 998. Hippon. 127 fxeaa-qyv- 
 bopiTox^o'T-qs should probably be written with one o- ; cf . jjiecriMv 
 Anan. tetr. 5g. Sim. Keos 84 has a certain case of jixeVo-ot. 
 Toaaos Archil, hex. 14 (163 Tocrri?), Theog. 83, o(r(ros Tyrt. i l^g, 
 Solon 5^, Xenoph. 2^^, Theog. 93, 996, Hrd. I27, 2^,, 394; 
 oTrtWw Tyrt, 1I13, Theog. 735, bopvaaoos Theog. 987. ttoo-l 
 is the prose form (Hdt., Hippokr.), and found in Archil. 58^ 
 tetr., for which Bergk reads iroa-crC. The forms with single a 
 are employed in prose and in such poetry as reproduces the 
 diction of the epic or of Aiolic. oa-os, Toaos Hdt., Hippokr. who 
 uses h t6(tov VIII 284, oaoi Chios 174 A 8, Anakr. 742*, ro'cros- 
 Theog. 93. HoVo-a lihegion 5 cannot be Ionic. Hrd. has 
 
 o'^o^ Ii5^ 315 380J 4ioJ 5s, ^25, "^oaos 343, /xcVos 6^^. 6(T(Ta in 
 Demokr. 184 is a figment of Mullach. oTrtcro) Hdt., Demokr., 
 rare in Homer. 
 
 In many proper names the MSS. of Hdt. vary between aa- 
 and a after a long vowel ; in fact all dialects show fluctuating 
 orthography under these circumstances. In an inscription from 
 Smyrna, C. I. G. 331 igj in one from Syros, 'A^ryy. Ill 530, 1. 18, 
 and in Latyschev II 364 we find vrjaaos, with which compare 
 'AktKapvqaaos ", -evs, Ionic forms of the Karian name. In Attic 
 we find -vacTLoi, -vaaevs and -vacra-evs, but upon the stones -o-rr- 
 regularly [i.e. with only one exception). Bredow contended 
 
 ' Incorrectly called Ionic, Greg. Kor. p. 463, who quotes otti k€v tXirw. 
 The form is of Aiolic texture. At least no other dialect save Aiolic made 
 use of the form in post-Homeric times. 
 
 * See Hdn. I 10221, 12 1^, 20930, II 8O13, 87815, 87936, 89I9. 
 
 X 2 
 
3o8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [374. 
 
 that Uapv-qa-a-os was the correct Herodoteian form, whereas 
 Stein writes -vrja-os. Cf. Uapv-rjcra-Lov C. I. A, II 60935 (324 B.C.), 
 Aisch. C7wej)L 56^ (MSS. -rjo-o--, cf. § 32), 953 (MSS. -acra-). 
 Hdn. I 20920 prescribes Ylapvaa-cros. -vrjarcros in /ivpvqa-cros occurs 
 as early as Homer. Stein reg-ards one siffma as correct in 
 the Herodoteian Kvcacrios (cf. Kuman. 1892), 'IrjXva-os, N?/pto-at, 
 MvXdcTLOL (cf. C. I. A. I 233 17 C (447 B.C.)), NtVata, Nvaa, 
 Kri(pL(T6s (so in Attic inscr.), KpLcralov, Tlrjbaa-ees, YlCaa, &c. ; crcr 
 in "Aju^io-o-a, ^Opbrjcrcros, ^aXiivbrjcrcros, TapT-qaa-os, ^Tp,r]acr6s, &C. 
 'lAto-cro's and Kopi](ja6'5 in Stein are incorrect, at least they are 
 not Attic; cf, 'lAtoro's C. I. A. I 210.2 (429 B.C.), 273 F 16; 
 Kopi^cTLoi C. I. A. I 329 9 b (451 B.C.), II 17 B 25 (378 B.C.), and 
 546^.3 (350 B.C.), a decree of the Koresians. Late coins of lasos 
 have 'lao-ecov and ^laa-aioiv, Head, H. N. 528. In Halik. 24O5.J 
 we read 'JpLfSpda-aLbos and in the next line '\ix(3dp(nbos. On the 
 Karian -aa-o-os, -r](T(T6s ^, -ia-aos, &c., cf. Georg Meyer in B. B. 
 X 173-176, 193. 
 
 374.] (TO- is written for a- 
 
 in 'lo-o-riata? Eretria l^^^^, Aiararxykov 266 (probably Ionic), 'Amcr- 
 (TTao-L Pantikapaion, Latyschev II 9, in order to disj)lay the 
 division of the syllables in pronunciation ; o-cr is written with one 
 o- in Td(rT7]\as Teos 156 B ^j, ia-Trjkrjv Erythr, 202j8. 
 
 375.] Whether T for a-cr is a mere orthographical variation, 
 or whether it represents a local pronunciation, is not yet clear. 
 See Roberts I § 75, Riemann B. C. H. Ill 494 ff., Bechtel 
 Io7i. Inschr. p. 141, Ramsay Class. Rev. I 10 and references in 
 G. Meyer Gramm. p. 273. Halik. 238^ ^ kkiKapvaT\^iui\v, but 
 2384^ A.kiKa\_pvr{\a(Ti(uv, 238g 'OaTaTtoj, 238^^ n[a]i'DdTi09 with 
 the forms Ylavvacrais and Ylavva^L^ on later documents. This T 
 occurs also in Mesembria and perhaps in Teos {QakaYif]s I. Gr. A. 
 497 B 23 = Bechtel 156 B 23). The existence oisampi may show 
 how easy was ^e transition from Ionic a-a to Attic tt. See § 22. 
 No doubt the pronunciation of aa- was much nearer akin to that 
 of TT than the spelling" indicates and the difference was to a large 
 extent purely orthographical. The ordinary modern pronunciation 
 of aa- as pure sibilants and of tt as pure dentals cannot have 
 been the ancient pronunciation, nor did the Aischyleian actor who 
 had (TO- before him in his score pronounce very differently fiom his 
 hearer who wrote tt. 
 
 * This is to be distinguished from the Ionic form of the Karian -acrffos, e. g. 
 in 'AXiKapvaffffos, whicli is still preserved in coins of tlie second century b. c, 
 cf. Head, H N. 526. In the ancient inscription No. 23S it is noteworthy 
 that, though the dialect is Ionic throughout, at the outset the name of the 
 inhabitants of Halikarnassos should be given with the form in d, notwith- 
 standing that the ending of the genitive is -fuv (a certain reading). 
 
377-] ZETA. 309 
 
 376.] eo-o-t in non-sigmatic stems 
 
 is foreign to the genius of the Ionic dialect. The transference of 
 -e(T(TL from its legitimate sphere occurs in only two cases in the poets 
 of Ionic birth : — Anakr. 24^ TTTepvyea-a-L, Ananias 5g l^Qvea-aiv (troch. 
 tetram.). In Xenoph. 35 evTrpeirieaa-tv is a conjecture of Bergk, to 
 which Schneidewin^s ayaWoixevoi Tapafja-iv is distinctly preferable 
 (cf. Aristeas in Kinkel Frat/. poet. epic. p. 245). In Solon^s rjyepio- 
 veacTL (6^) we have further evidence of the influence of epic diction; 
 cf. § 61. Anakreon may borrow from his Aiolic exemplars, and 
 indeed stands closer to Homer than some of his predecessors. 
 That the trochaic tetrameter is less rigid in excluding the 
 Aiolisms of Homer than the iambic trimeter, may explain the 
 presence of the -ecro-t form in Ananios. Theognis with his 
 avhpecrcn 306, iiavTeacnv 2)T3} KopaK^crcri 833 is in still closer 
 touch with Homer than is Anakreon. 
 
 Z. 
 
 377.] Zeta. 
 
 1. Decisive orthographical criteria for the pronunciation of ^ 
 upon Ionic soil are wanting, but indications point to its having 
 been sounded like zd. Blass Aussprache ^, p. 1 1 6 ff . brings forward 
 as evidence of this pronunciation rather than that as ds, inter 
 alia the Homeric Ze'Aeia, Xanvvdos, in which ^ fails to make 
 position because of the dropping of the initial o- [["S^haKwOo^, 
 not AaaKvvOos) ; ba(poLv6s, baanos, where Aiolic would have 
 (a- (above, § 365); p.a(6s^ =pi.a(TT6s, ov jxaa-dos ; and Herodoteian 
 "A^ooTos, not " AcrbooTos. 
 
 6nb6p.€vos Xenoph. ig, the only example of the so-called 
 Aiolic ab in Ionic, was rightly changed by Hermann to 6(6p.€vos. 
 Whatever the sound of C in Ionic, words ordinarily spelled with 
 f were not represented by ab. 
 
 2. Variation between ^ and 8. ixe^ea occurs in Hsd. TT. D. 
 512, and was regarded as an Ionic word for pibea, p/jbea by Greg. 
 Kor. p. ^^^, Hdn. II 372^^. The form piC^a is from pebu-, Vmad; 
 cf. Slav. mado. Cf. § 139. For (opKcis Hdt. IV 192 we have the 
 form bopKas in VII 69 ; cf. (op^ in Kallimachos, Nikander, and 
 see Curtius, Ef. p. 663. In Zankle we find b for (, I. G. A. 518, 
 where Aa\vKkr]v is a probable conjecture. The alphabet is 
 however pre-Samian. 
 
 3. (a- = bLa- in (dir^bov Xenoph. i^, Paros 39 (epigram of the 
 fifth century), (dirkovTos Hdt. I 32. Cf. Ca7rXr}6i]s, C'^-nvpos in 
 
 ^ Horn, and in tragedy : Hdt. and Hippokr. have both /j.aC6s and fiacrr6s 
 </ia5-Toj. Hippokr. generally has /laCSs (variations in the MSS. IV 544, 550). 
 Y 118 /xaaroi, 318 /xaCwv {jxaaQSiv Galen). 
 
I 
 
 310 THE IONIC DIALECT. [378. 
 
 Aischylos. (a- for bia-, while chiefly AioHc, cannot be held to be 
 the property of that dialect alone. 
 
 4. In a Chian document, Paspates 30, we find Z/xdpay6os and 
 the form with o--. 
 
 Supposed change of t, and y- 
 
 The ancients assumed that 01 i/ecirepoj "icorey ' changed 7 to ^ in 6\l^ov (sic) 
 and ir€(pv(^<is (Herakleides in Eust. 16431, An. Ox. I 36624). Both words occur in 
 Homer and in Nikander, 6\i(ov also in Lykophron. ire(pvC6Tes seems to be 
 formed from (pv^w<.(pvytw, which the ancients confused with (pfvycD. oXi^uv 
 was also called Thessalian (Hdn. II 3722, Steph. Byz. 48917) and Aiolic (Et. M. 
 27O26). d\eiCwv is Attic, oKiov (sic) for oKi-yov in the Lexicon of Ailios Dionysios 
 (Eust. 1160,6) was called either barbarous or Ionic. The form hxiov, wliich 
 has lost its 7, has thus far turned up in the plebeian Attic dialect (C. I. A. II 
 5948, and in a fragment of the comic poet Plato, Kock fr. I 644, No. 168), 
 and on Egyptian papyri. It is also referred to the dialect of Tarentum by 
 Hdn. II 2957 (Et. M. 62I51). 
 
 378.] H. 
 
 That ^ was pronounced more like \s than ks appears from the 
 forms NaBcriou, e'Bcroxos for Na^tov, e^oxos upon the archaic 
 Naxian inscription Rob. I 25. 
 
 A pleonastic o- appears in Quipri^s Styra 19205? ^^^ Chios 174 
 A 5, cf. e^aTUKTL Zeleia 11323 and Kopa^s upon a Korinthian 
 vase inscription, K. Z. XXIX 168. Similar usage is attested 
 upon an inscription in /. H. S. VI 372 [kvKl^s). 
 
 ^ before k occurs in Hippokratic e^KaCbeKa, -benaros, and also 
 in Attic e^/cAifos. 
 
 379.] Bpvaaa-is lasos 104^2? 175 20 ^^^^ ^^^^^ corrected upon the 
 stone to Bpva^Ls in order to restore the archaic Karian orthog-raphy. 
 In the Halikarnassian inscriptions, Nos. 238, 240, f has g-iven 
 way to (TO- in every instance. Georg Meyer, B. B, X 177, 
 rightly admit^the possibility that the fluctuation between ^ and 
 (TO- was purely orthographical and that the sign for ^ had in 
 the older period, as in Kyprian and Lykian, the phonetic value 
 
 of <J(T. 
 
 With KL$dX\as Teos B 19, cf. KtrrdArys^KAcTrnj? according to 
 Joh. Gram. 242 B. On the introductory e of e^aiOpa-nevovTos 
 Mylasa 248 A B C 2, see §§ 143, 211 and aabpd-nav in Aiolic, 
 CD. I. 304 A J 8. 
 
 ^ It is quite unusual for Hdn. to regard as late Ionic a form that is found 
 in Homer. Yet this is what he does in the case of irfcpv^Sres, if we are to 
 accept Lentz' ascription of the passage II 2654 to him. In II 798,4 Hdn. 
 brings forward another, and as he himself states (II 2659), less commendable 
 view. 
 
38o.] XEi. 311 
 
 The sound | is expressed in the Ionic alphabet by: — (i) B^ hs, e.g. 
 Roberts I 25, Naxos ; (2) X5 Roberts I 28, Naxos, Rob. I 17. Paros ; (3) 1<5 (?) 
 Roberts I 158 B, Amorgos. Cf. the representations of;//, below § 381. ctk as 
 a means of expressing | is claimed for Ionic by Gomperz {Archaeol. Mitth. aus 
 Oesterreich, VI 93) and n^KwBis Bechtel 61 =Rob. I 18 B has been put forward 
 in support of the claim. But an 'O^wdis is as difficult to explain as 'OiTKvi/0is. 
 
 380.] Ionic £= Attic k; relation of avv to ^vv, &c. 
 
 There is no immediate connection between ^vvos and /cotro'v,-. 
 The former occurs in epic poetry (aud in Attic tragedy), Teos 
 156 A 3, Herakleitos 62, yo, gi, 92 (this author not adopting 
 Koivos in a single instance)^ Demokritos 3Ior. 43, Herodotos 
 IV 1 2, VII ^^ (kolvos is more frequently used by Hdt.), 
 Arrian § 20^^ ^vvovcrOat, but § 1522 aveKOLvovvTO. ^vvo'i has 
 appeared upon inscriptions from Arkadia and Argolis. Doubtless 
 the similarity in sound between kolvos and ^vvos led to their 
 being confused, though they are in reality different words. 
 ^vvos is from *^vvlos or ^^vvFos. In his Studien I 44, Baunack 
 ventures to connect koivos with Kd\xaL and compares Kowoovdv 
 TLVi in the sense of ixLyijvat. Certainly there are great difficulties 
 in the way of connecting koivos with Lat. con-. 
 
 Relation of avv to ^vv. The preferences of Ionic are in the 
 direction of the former form, which is the only one that appears 
 upon inscriptions (§ 715). ^vv is not infrequently handed down 
 in the MSS. of the lyric poets : Archil, fwtere 50 (but avv 4^). 
 The Et. M. 3859, after alluding to €a-vvr]Ke in Alkaios, quotes 
 €^vvfJK€v from Anakreon (146). The MSS. of the fragments of 
 the Ionic philosophers have avv- far more frequently than 
 appears from MuUach's edition; cf. Demokr. 69, 119, 135, 147, 
 213. In Demokr. we have however ^vviaios 58, ^vyxcupUtv 44 
 (but o-uyxcopeerat in Melissos 1). In Sextus Empiricus^ citation 
 of the Fhysika of Demokritos we find such variations as ^vixiras 
 and avvLhjjiev. In the lyric poets and early Ionic prose it is better 
 to write avv. In Hippokrates and Aretaios the uniformity with 
 which ^vv appears is indication enough that the dialect of the 
 Koan physician agreed with the usage of fifth-centiiry Attic 
 inscriptions which have ^vv much more frequently (3^ : i) than 
 avv. After 410 B.C. ^vv was felt to be antiquated. At that 
 date all the other dialects had avv. Though the Homeric ^ text 
 has both, ^vv is found in no place where the metre requires the 
 heavier form. The same is true in the case of the Aiolic poets. 
 To the MSS. of Hdt. $vv is foreign, but iw^x^os appears in 
 Philip of Pergamum B. C. H. II 273. The pseudo-Ionists 
 generally prefer avv. In Lukian the proportion is 17 : 5, in 
 Arrian 47 : 10, in Euseb. 4:1. The supposititious letters of 
 Hippokrates have ^vv. ^vv and avv are hereditary forms of the 
 1 ^vyS^aai Ionic, An. Par. Ill [3822, 35331, sehol. on A 399. 
 
312 THE IONIC DIALECT. [38 1. 
 
 language from tlie earliest times. The former does not become 
 the latter in any historical period of Greek. A theory as to the 
 ultimate interrelation of f and a is put forward by Kretschmer 
 K. Z. XXXI 415 ff. 
 
 8t^o? 1 Anakr. 88, Hdt. IX 74, and rpt^o? Hdt. IX 85 are not 
 of like origin with Attic hiTTos (C. I. A. II 59323) ^^^ rptrro'?, 
 the endings being unconnected. The Ionic forms in -^o's are 
 
 from -KrtOS i^hFlKTlOS, *TptKTtOs). 
 
 381.] 4'. 
 
 ■v//- is represented by tto- in the alphabet of Amorgos, Rob. 
 I 158 T>, by TTx/^ in that of Priene, Bechtel 144, and by \//^(t in 
 Styra 19,63. 
 
 The interrelation of words with initial \//- to those of similar 
 texture but beginning with a- or the breathing, is still obscure. 
 Thus KaTacTiax^iv is New Ionic for ylr^^^iv. Whether rnxidtov in 
 Hippokr. VII 344, the reading of d for ■\\nixv6Lov white lead, 
 belongs to this category is difficult to say. Kretschmer K. Z. 
 XXXI 430 ff. has proposed to refer to the parent Aryan the 
 variation between ps and s, and between ks and s. 
 
 382.] Tlie Combinations pa, ka-. 
 
 pa- remains undisturbed in Ionic, as generally in Older Attic : — 
 yip(Tov, dapa-vvoi Hdt., Odpavve Arch. ^^, as Elmsley reads for 
 the vulgate Oappvvai, pLvpa-ivrjs Arch. 29^, Tapcnd Sim. Amorg. 
 39 (cf. § 128), Tvpa-rjvos Hdt., apcrriv Thasos 68j, apcnxos C. I. G. 
 237455 Paros (cf. Bekk. An. I 44630=: Bachm. An. I 1465), 
 Kopcreai, the name of an island opposite Samos (from Kepa--), 
 dpaoirvyia Samos 22O35, in the dative plural of p stems, e.g. 
 cf)6€i.p(TL Archil. 1371, by analogy to the case-forms showing -p. 
 On TTvppos, see § 334. Kopai] occurs in Herodas 7yj. 
 
 pa; Xa in the post-Homeric verb are rarely retained. A few 
 instances recall the Homeric retention of the liquid. ri\a-dp.r}v 
 Sim. Amorg. 17, Kvpar] Herodas 245, 7^5 (cf. 35^), Kvpaais 357. 
 This poetic aijd Ionic verb either retains the sigma or appears 
 under the form Kvpim. cKvpa-a is used by Homer, Hesiod, Hdt., 
 and in tragedy. Herodotos has also eKvprjo-a, Kvpi]a-(o; Hippokr. 
 ^vveKvprjo-a. Hippokrates has bupaat and 6tepcrry? IV 108, biepaas 
 IV 296, whereas in VII 52 Steipat is the correct form, which is 
 also a V. I. in IV 108. 
 
 Wackernagel (A^ Z. XXIX 1 27) has suggested that in primitive 
 Greek per and ka- remained per and ka- when the accent preceded, 
 but in case the accent followed they were treated as -vo--, except 
 when a consonant originally followed the a--, i.e. the liquid 
 disappeared with compensatory lengthening. Cf. Solmsen A'. Z. 
 
 * Joh. Gr. 240 B, Greg. Kor. 434, Gram. Meerm. 652, Aug. 667, Vat. 697, 
 Birnb. 677^5. 
 
385.] COMBINATIONS OF I. 313 
 
 XXIX 352 who shows that all the verbs with stems in p or A, 
 which assimilate p or A with a, are formed by the suffix -te-, 
 -10- (with the exception of gepco and (jaXeco) and that the 
 assimilation in the aorist is due to the influence of the verbs 
 in -vu> and -jjlco, which regularly suffer assimilation and com- 
 pensatory lengthening. On cr in combination with v, see §§ 161, 
 
 337- 
 
 383.] The Combinations ap, a\. 
 
 Initial a-p or o-A became in Ionic as in other dialects pp, X\, 
 which were reduced to p, A. Medial a-p or crA became p or A 
 with compensatory lengthening. Forms with medial pp or AA 
 are due to analogy. 
 
 384.] 0- in conjunction with p.. 
 
 crp^iKpos, pLKpos^. The former form occurs P 757^ Hymn Aphrod. 
 115 (elsewhere p.LKp6s), Theognis 14, 323, Anax. 1, IS, Demokr. 
 24, 184^ Hippokr. II 646 (Galen puKpos), 652 and often. In 
 Herodotos Stein edits ap-iKpos even when the MSS. agree in 
 presenting the other form. 
 
 jutKpo's is found in the epic (four times), Anakr. 17^, Theog. 607, 
 Herodas 743, and in lasos 1055, an inscription of too late a date 
 to afford proof of the existence of this form in official Ionic ^. 
 The pseudo-Ionists are very inconsistent, cr/xtxpo's is found in 
 Luk. Dea Sj/r. § 16 (which section also has p.iKp6s, a form found 
 five times), in Arrian five times (jatKpo? three times), Eusebios 
 and Eusebios Myndios once each. The variation between ap-iKpos 
 and p-t/cpo?, as that between (TKopUvr\ixa and Kophivr]p.a ^, a-riyos 
 and riyos, <TKebdvvvp.L and Kthavvvp.i, is due to the operation of the 
 laws of sentence-phonetics, the final sound of the word preceding 
 the word in question deciding the appearance or non-appearance 
 of the (T. In other eases ap. was either retained without variation 
 or the ju, forms were adopted to the exclusion of those with apL. 
 On Homeric 0tAojix/xet8^s see under Aiolic. Whenever medial 
 -cTjw- appears in Ionic or other dialects, it is either due to the 
 workings of analogy or is from -Tap.-. 
 
 385.] ap. in non-Hellenic words. 
 
 In the Hellenization of words of foreign stamp a a has been 
 prefixed : 
 
 2/xep8ts Hdt. Ill 61, &c. Cf. Maphos, MdpSis Persai 774, Assyr. 
 Bardis. 
 
 ap.apayhos Hdt. II 44; p.dpayhos late. Cf. Skt. marahata, 
 borrowed from a Semitic source. 
 
 ^ See note on Greg. Kor. p. 500. On /jllkkSs see § 353. 
 
 " All Attic inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries have fiiKpos, 
 except C. I. G. 2139 (from Aigina and dating about 403 B.C.). a/jLiKpos is 
 frequent in the tragic poets and in Plato. 
 
 ^ Greg. Kor. p. 553 : KopSivtifia {ypdcperai Se Koi ffKopSivnua). 
 
314 THE IONIC DIALECT. [386. 
 
 (TfjLvpvr) Ildt. VII 181, Aiolic fxvppa. Archil. 30 has ea-ixvpia-jjiivas. 
 C£. pLvpov Archil. 31, Hdt. Ill 22. 
 
 Bigamma. 
 
 386.] Like all other dialects in some period of their history, 
 Ionic possessed ? ^ It is the only dialect that generally permits 
 compensatory lengthening- to attend the disappearance of the 
 spirant after A, p, v. The dialects of Doric texture, conti-ary to 
 the generally received view, when they retained the sound long 
 into the historical period of the language, often suffer the loss of 
 F without compensation. Cf. the relation of Kretan and Argive 
 ros to Tovi. In Aiolic, assimilation of f to the preceding liquid 
 was followed by a reduction in poetry of the geminated sound. 
 In Attic, 8ep7j and Kopi], (rr^voTtpos, Kevorepos, p-dvoTepos surely 
 indicate the quondam presence of F ^. But the activity of F in 
 the earliest period of the history of Ionic is indicated in other 
 ways than by compensatory lengthening in Setprj and Kovprj, 
 aT^ivorepos and KavoTepos. In irekXis Hipponax 38 B, Phoinix 
 of Kolophon in Athen. XI 495 C, D, we find that XF could be 
 assimilated to AA when the accent followed kF ; and that, as in 
 TreAt^, the liquid alone remained when the accent preceded kF. 
 See Schmidt^s Neutra, p. 47. Furthermore, aF became av before 
 a consonant, e. g. l^avaa [-dpn-jv) Hdt., K^Kavp-ai, €KK.avcr6p,€Vos 
 Hippokr. According to the schol. Victor, on II. XV 42 1 bavkos 
 was a form used by the vecorepoL "Icoi^es. Of this form there is 
 no trace in literature, though we have bebavpiivoov in Simonides 
 of Amorgos, fr. 30, from the base baF-. Kainqs or Kavrj^ in 
 Hipponax 2, may be passed by, not so much because of its 
 conjunction with the Aiolic ap-popos (Ionic rjpiopos ?), but because 
 the form itself has not yet been explained ; cf . § 242. 
 
 387.] Digaj^ama in literature. 
 
 Traces of initial F in the Ionic lyric poets (elegists and iambists) 
 are extremely rare : 
 
 Archilochos i : 'Evvakioio avaKTos bears the stamp of an epic 
 formula, though not occurring in Homer (cf. II. II 651, XVII 
 211). Plutarch read 'EyvaAioto d^olo, but this is not preferable 
 to the other reading merely because of the quondam existence of 
 
 * The ancient grammarians, as far as they recognize the existence of 
 f at all, testify to its presence in Ionic. Trypho (ttoS. A.6|. 11, Mus. Crit 
 Cantab. I 34) says : Trpocrrlderai 5e /col t^ Siya/j.fj.a irapa re "laiai koI Acopievcri Koi 
 AaKoiaiv, olop ava^ fa^al, 'EAeVa fiXiva. Cf. Bekk. An. Ill 1168, Priscian I 13. 
 As the sign for six, f must have been used by the lonians. The name St? is 
 a bit of Byzantine imbecility. 
 
 ^ On Attic Kovpri and Moyvtx'«> ^^^ § 75- 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
388.J DIGAMMA. 315 
 
 f in ava^. I regard the coinage of such phrases as 'Ei'uaAtoto 
 avaKTos by the Ionic elegists as on a plane with the imitation by 
 the Ionic Homeridai o£ old-time epic formulae. Thus, in the 
 later additions to the Iliad and the Odyssey and in the Hymns, 
 we find instances of the apparent observance of digamma, though 
 at the period of these poems the labial spirant was an obsolescent, 
 if not an obsolete, sound. In ?/ be ol KOfxi] Archil. 29, and ovhe 
 ol ye'Ao)? Sim, Amorg. 7^g, the case is different, since the metre 
 is iambic, which is the organ of the popular dialect, r] hi ol 
 adOr] Archil. 97, is from an epode, but the metre is also iambic. 
 In Sim. Amorg. 7gQ we find 
 
 ovo au TLV ev epQ^Lev, aAAa rovv opa 
 
 but immediately below, v. 82 
 
 o/ccos riy' 0)5 jxeyiarov (p^euv kukov. 
 
 In Mimnermos 129 we find in VL iva ol doov ap\xa koI t-n-noi, 
 but in BP iV akriOoov, a reading which justifies Bergk^s 'iva 677. 
 yAcSo-o-a hi 01 bixop-vOos occurs in a fragment (424) of one of the 
 fjiiK-q of Solon. 
 
 In Theognis many instances of the observance of F occur in 
 words such as tSto? 440, and lo(TT€^avoiv 250, which do not have 
 F in Homer. The digammated word occurs also in combinations 
 with other words, which cannot be called Homeric formulae. 
 In Theognis, Hartel and others have even found traces of a 
 written F as in Kihiov 440, Pl^t, or /xey' olvo<s 41 3^ evyepyeaCris 
 548, 574. Sitzler^, who holds the opinion that F was not 
 entirely extinct in the older elegists, suggests with much proba- 
 bility that its retention in aSot 52, avaKTa 987, €pya 1167 is due 
 to the pressure exercised by the local dialect of the poet. There 
 can be no question that Megarian speech retained the spirant 
 longer than Asiatic Ionic. 
 
 In Herodas 4^8 we read Itt' rjirtas a-v x.f tp«?; S) ava^, rivas ; in 
 6g kv Trj oldif] ei9 at the beginning of a verse which has probably 
 suffered some loss. 
 
 388.] Elsewhere in the lyric poets of Ionic birth the evi- 
 dence against the presence of F is very strong. 
 
 I. Iambic writers, including the elegiacs and trochaics of 
 Archilochos. 
 
 Archilochos : 8' olvo^ 2^ (el.), 8' olvov 43 (el.), bi.9vpap.l3ov otvco 
 772 i eo-crerat 'ipyov 33 (el.), Kopoovbs epycov 39^, kyKvpidxriv epyp.a(rLV 
 7O3, av 8' epy' iiS^; rts acrrwi; 9^ (el.), f^er' aa-T&v 6^1; Yloaeibdui- 
 vos avaKTos lOj (el. Bergk^s conj.), K'Kvd' ava^ 75p Atcoyi;crot' 
 avaKTOS 77i5 X^^p' o,va^ 1^92^ ^^ etp-aaiv 12^ (eh); Kar oIkov '^'^, 
 
 ' Jahrb., vol. 125, p. 507. 
 
3l6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [388. 
 
 iv oIkij} 39i, h ot/cw 66-, kukov OLKab' 98; ^'8' arrj 73; €0)9ev 
 €Ka(TTOS 83; 6hvvr](nv eKrjTi 84^; tto'AA' ot8' dXcoTTTj^ I18 ; Kal6\aos 
 
 Simonides Amorg. : ovbev etSoVes I4, Travra 8' dhivai 7133 oi/Sey 
 oT8e 7,3 (ey bofjLOta lb(ov 720)3 ^^ 6(p9a\[xol<T' ibelv J^i ' ^^ ^^ erewy Ig; 
 dy' otKoi; 73, e^ otKou 7gQ, Xt/xw oIku]9 7ioi3 (^vvoiKii]Tripa 7^02' '^'^^ 
 oiKOi' 7jq4, 01/8' es oIkCtjv 7io6 3 ^^^ et/xao-tz; 7^, eKTreo-oVres etjjLacnv 3i; 
 kx9poi(Tiv la-a 73^; Trpos epyoy 743, 8ovAt' epya 7r,8, 8' IpSei 755, 
 jxiyiarov ep^etev J^o'} ^'■' ^o^Teo? 7^4. iracnv acrTolcTiv 774 (di-^pwTTocs 
 B) ; ey yuyat^ty ijberaL 7903 Ovp.i]'b{lv 7io3' ^' '^i^olcttos 7i]2' 
 
 Hipponax; o-uywKrjo-as I2, e? TojKt" ikOoov 20^, wxei 47 (fii'st 
 foot); oiibdix etirev 2O2J dz^eiTrei; 45; eto-ty rjbiaTai 29i, pobivov 
 rjbv 58; /X01X.0S aXavai 74; Oalixaria 83; ^Lixiavaaros ^^ B. 
 
 Ananias : KaQ^ip^ai 3^ ki)x^to.i 5g- 
 
 Herodas : 8' otKeco 222, 8' olKir]s 490, oyrty' otKt7js 4^23 8e rd otKt" 
 -52 {^scriptio plena); dAA' epy' okoi' eor'* epya 6^5, kuk' epya 3g2, 
 Tovpyov 430, of epya 457, 7i8 3 ^k^^vov ?) epya 4^3 with synizesis, 
 XPW^H-' ^Py(^ 7i6- There is no /^ in eKrjrt 277, e/cdorou 315, 42; 
 o-d^' 018' 3^3 5 t' ot8e 353; avTLK etS^jcrei 573* 
 
 2. Eleg-ists. 
 
 Kallinos : ev 8' ouw 1^5. 
 
 Mimnermos : rots iKeAot 23 proves nothing unless we read, as 
 is probable, roto-' tKeAot ; ^ip^T etxeAos I4ii > o-WoTe. oXkos 2ji ; 
 8' 'ipy 2i2J h]Xivp.^vos 'ipy}xa(n 7^ ; acnreTos lbpu>s 5^ ; N7jAt;ioz; 
 aarv 9^ ; d^' 'EcrTrepiScor I2g; p-tv tbov 14.2] ^dfio? Up-evoi 16. 
 The following passages prove nothing: eapos 2^, ripiyiv^ia 12^^, 
 etSdre? 24, po8o8dKruAos' 123, epyov I4u* 
 
 Xenophanes : 8' oii'o? I5, ris oti-oz^ 4^ ; dAA' eh^ 2^3 ; (f)d(r9at 
 eVos 63 ; r(Si'8' oi8a 74. ws oi i^q proves nothing. 
 
 Phokylides : Ttepibpop-os et8os 34 ; k-niaTaTai kpyd^^crOai 37, 8t8a- 
 cTKepL€V (pya 13, Kadi]p.€vov olvoTTord^^LV \2.j^. 
 
 3. Melic poets. 
 
 From his S3jmpathy with the Aiolic poets we might expect in 
 Anakreon a more persistent survival of digamma than in other 
 Ionic poets. But the following instances occur of forms that 
 once possessed but have lost F : oova^ 2^; ovk elbcas 4^, 2tp.aAoy 
 eiSoy 22. p.' icnbcav 25i, 8' ot8a 4523 ovbev elbivai 752 3 ^^^' dcrrot(ri 
 1525 ■^dAAo) 8' etKocrt 18 ; <j5yo)(o'et 32, (pep' oXvov 62^, 8' otyou 6^^, 
 Trap' o'[v(o 639, TrAeo) otyoTTord^o)!; 94^ (el.); p-eOvovr olaab^ ^6 ; 
 (rKV'!T(pov 'Kp^iojvt 82^; €7Ti(TTLov 9O4. eiAu/xa 2re may stand for 
 e/^-Au-p,a. 
 
 Solon may be adduced as evidence not merely for the absence 
 of F from the Attic of his day and generation, but also for the 
 attitude of the early elegy towards its Ionic models. 
 
 eir' ipyfxaa-iv I3g5> V7:€pi](pai'd t epya 437, vruvet 8' epya 433} 
 
 i 
 
389.] DIGAMMA. 317 
 
 vj3pLos epya i^iQ, kclX.' ^ ipya 1321) ava'iTioi epya 1331, p-cv ^pya I34x> 
 'no\v(f)appdKov epyov l%i, ovb^ epbeLv 27^25 ^repos ep8e 40; avvoLhe 
 4j5, ovbi Tis olbev 1305^ becvov Ibelv 13,3, edrjKev Ibetv 1322, ecrrlv 
 ibelv 13245 TToXv-qparov acTTV 421, xpovos aorot? lO^ ; (pxerai oiKab' 
 CKacrrw 437, eij /:xez; eKacTTOs II5, e0' eKaoro) 1325? bo^av '^Kaaro's 
 1334; ^dr]K€v ava^ ^Sss) ft'^aS' avdacTMV l^i', Kvirpis locrricpavoi 
 194 ; ey e73T ereo-ti; 272J oe/c errj 2714; '''V " ^'^^?/ (•) '^7uJ ^xoi'Tas 
 
 '/^^ 3^12- 
 
 In 4jj, 13^2 dbUoLS epypacTL, in 1335 Kov(f)ats ikirCa-i the short 
 form of the dative is correct. 
 
 For ovTL or o{;re of the MSS. Hermann^ read ov k in 1327 ahl 
 b ov € AeAr]0e biap-irepes, oarts dkirpov. In l^^^^ aA.A.' 6 jiiey eS 
 epbetv occurs. Both cases fail to prove the existence of F. 
 
 Cases of internal hiatus resulting from the disappearance of F 
 and preserved in poetry for all time will be found enumerated in 
 the sections upon Vowel Contact. 
 
 389.] The disproportion^ between the eases of the retention 
 of F and those of its neglect is proof enough that the sound was 
 practically dead in Asia Minor at least by the year 700 b. c. and 
 in Attika by the commencement of the sixth century. The 
 evidence presented by one species of lyric reacting upon that 
 presented by another, enforces this conclusion. The cases of 
 retention in the elegy are no matter for wonderment. It is 
 surprising that, with all the dependence upon the larffo jinme of 
 epic language, there were not more cases of the apparent survival 
 of the sound. It is in iambic poetry, whose affiliations are so 
 different from those of the elegy, that we are surprised to dis- 
 cover traces of the appearance of F. As regards the fot's, Tick's 
 suggestion that bk ot were practically pronounced under one 
 accent {bkoX) would play havoc with the digammated pronoun in 
 Homer and Pindar. \]jr\b\ ds in Hipponax 28 is a 'fixed com- 
 bination,' it is true, but that is just what bk ol is not. Nor is 
 the parallelism of aXkore dXXos Phokyh 15, Solon 1373, 15^ in 
 place. Such an hiatus in the eleffi/ needs no special defence. The 
 history of ol and kindred forms in Pindar ^ shows pretty clearly 
 that in Doric poetry this pronoun was a stronghold of the F. In 
 the choral parts of tragedy {Track. 649, Elektra 196) we still 
 find an echo of the epic and Pindaric use. Perhaps the constant 
 
 * Bergk KoXh. tpya. As the elegiac poets regard the penult of kuaSs as 
 anceps {Ka\6v Solon 1324), and as a substitute is necessary for the kuko, of 
 the MSS., /caA.' is here preferable to Ka\d. But see Sitzler, Studien z. d. 
 Elegikem, p. 7. 
 
 ^ Excluding Theognis and Herodas, p is retained in the elegy 2, in iambic 
 poems 4, in the melic of Solon i : it is violated in the elegy 24, in iambic 
 poems 53, in the melic of Anakreon 1 7, in the melic of Solon i. 
 
 '•" Heimer, Studia Pindarica, p. 47 ff. 
 
31 8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [390. 
 
 apparent hiatus before the word in the epos influenced the con- 
 struction of nascent iambic verse, or the hiatus is a survival of 
 the jDcriod antecedent to that of the * founder ' of iambic verse ^. 
 The Simonideian ovb' av tlv eS epfetey recalls E 650 os p6. \xiv ev 
 tp^avra, where the ictus alone would account for the retention of 
 the length. The older poetry held fast to the prose quantity of 
 the ei>- in evepyos, -epyi'js, -epyearCrj. 
 
 390.] Digamma upon Inscriptions. 
 
 T. Asiatic Ionic. 
 
 There are no examples. It is useless to cite all the words 
 from the older inscriptions where initial F might have been 
 placed. A few noteworthy instances are 'AyaftAeco? in Miletos, 
 Bechtel 93 (not much later than 600 b. c), ' kva^ip.avhpov 94 
 (of the same date), 'Io-ria[to?] 97 (between 520 and 504 b. c.) ; 
 Erythrai 'EKaratrjs 198 (fifth century); Chios 174 Ag e^s, C22 
 Ko\i\vo'nihr]s, D5 oIkli]v, Di7-ig TolK^^ojirebov (fifth century) ; Teos 
 156 A3 lhi(iiTr]i, B21, 25 etScos (fifth century). 
 
 2. Island Ionic (Kyklades). 
 
 A. Naxos. Upon a dedicatory inscription from Naxos, B. C. H. 
 XII (1888) p. 464, written povcrTpo(])r)b6v, we read, according to 
 Homolle : 
 
 fi[(^]tKapTt8?js • ju,' a ; vedeKe \ ho • Ndho-ios ; TroieVa?. 
 
 The inscription dates, according to Homolle, from the second 
 half of the seventh century before our era ; a conclusion adopted 
 by Schoeffer in his Ue Deli insulae rebus, p. 20 (Berlin, 1889). 
 
 B. Naxos. On the base of the Apollo colossvis dedicated by 
 the Naxians at Delos, dated by Kirchhoff at the end of the sixth 
 or at the beginning of the fifth century (see Roberts, I § '^^ we 
 read (Bechtel 25 = Rob. I 27 = 1. G. A. 409) : 
 
 •p\pv ATYTO kiOov eija' avhpLas koI to (r(f)^\as 
 
 i. e. aFvTov, as was read by Bentley, and is read by almost all 
 scholars, with* the exception of Roehl (ddev), and of Bergk and 
 Wilamowitz, who equates daFvrov with darjTov, i. e. davixaarov, 
 and compares OodVTa epya Hsd. Asp. 165. 
 
 C. Amorgos. An early ahecedarium I. G. A. Add. 390 = Rob. 
 I 159 B contains L. 
 
 3. Western Ionic (Euboia). 
 
 A. Chalkidian vase inscriptions of the fifth century (from 
 Magna Graecia) : 
 
 Flu) Roberts, I 190 C. 
 'OFaTLr]s Roberts, I 190 L. 
 rapvF6vr]s Roberts, I 191 C. 
 
 * Arist. Poet. 4. 
 
39I-] DIGAMMA. 319 
 
 Digamma has in each case the form C^ except Rob. I 1 90^ a c 
 ElO = fta5(?). 
 
 B. From Rheg-ion, a colony o£ Chalkis : 
 
 FoLKiiov and oaaa, Foi (for m craFol), cf. Bechtel 5, Rob. I 180, 
 I. G. A. 532. The F has the same form as in the abecedarium 
 of Amorgos. 
 
 FoiK^oiv Rob. I 181, I. G. A. $^0^. 
 
 These forms occur upon a marble block found at Olympia, 
 dedicated by Mikythos of Rhegion after 467 b. c, when he 
 migrated from Rhegion to Tegea. The second FoLKecav is, ac- 
 cording to Roberts, not by the same hand as the first, and is 
 dated by Furtwangler after 450 b. c. 
 
 1. p'\aKe7\_o'}p, conjectured by Blass in Bechtel, No. 6 A, occurs in an 
 inscription written in the Eleian dialect by the artist. The donor of the 
 gift to Apollo wrote in Ionic ^Bechtel, 6 B) ; cf. No. 215. 
 
 2. In Hyele (Velia), a colony of Phokaia, we find 'feArjTecuy 172 I (450-400) 
 and 'TeATjToJy 172 II (350). This orthography proves merely that the Pho- 
 kaian v was u{oo), not it. The name of the city is Oskan and not connected 
 with ff\os, whose F is not above question. Antevocalic f does not become u 
 in Ionic. 
 
 391.] Upon the examples of Chalkidian F Tudeer^ bases his 
 contention that F was still alive in Euboian Ionic when Chalkis 
 sent its colonies to the West, and that in Euboia itself it was 
 lost between the eighth and the sixth centuries. But it can 
 readily be shown that none of the inscriptions cited under 
 Western Ionic are free from the suspicion of containing a non- 
 Ionic element. FapufoVr/y contains a Doric a^; cf. 'NdU Rob. 
 I 190, 2, and Xcopa or Xopa ihiil. 1 K. And if we read 'D.FaTii]s, 
 as seems probable, the initial part of the name is Doric for 
 OvaTirjs, as Fick has shown (Odj/ssee, p. to). An Ovarias is 
 known as the name of the brother of Mennes, tyrant of Kyme. 
 Fick explained the ingression of the Doric forms on the supposi- 
 tion that the vases containing these non-Ionic forms were manu- 
 factured in Himera, and that the speech of Himera was a mixture 
 of Chalkidian Ionic and of Doric ^. But whether the vases in 
 question were made in a Chalkidian colony or in Chalkis itself 
 is a moot point that cannot be decided until ampler excavations 
 in Euboia place us in possession of richer material. Meanwhile 
 it should not be overlooked that from other cities of the West 
 we possess vase inscriptions in mixed dialect, and that in Attika 
 itself, as Kretschmer has shown, K. Z. XXIX 391 ff., there was 
 a part of the population engaged in various handicrafts which 
 
 * Be Digammo, p. 5 ff. 
 
 '■' Not as Kirchhoff, Alphabet,* p. 126, thinks, a peculiarity of Chalkidian 
 Ionic. 
 
 ^ Thuk. VI 5 : (paiyij fi.ev fiirafy ttjs re XaXKiSeuv Koi AccpiSos eKpddrj. 
 
320 THE IONIC DIALECT. [392. 
 
 did not speak imre Attic. Kretsclimer has collected a consider- 
 able number of inscriptions upon Attic vases which are in the 
 Doric dialect, and concludes that the Chalkidian vases mentioned 
 above came from Attika. At all events, whether the explanation 
 of Fick or that of Kretschmer is correct, the infusion of Doric 
 phonetics into the Chalkidian vase inscriptions is sufficient to 
 undermine our belief in the presence of F in Chalkidian Ionic, be 
 it the dialect of a colony or of the metropolis. A similar line of 
 argument militates against the Ionic character of FoiKicov and Fol 
 in the inscriptions from Rhegion. Khegion was settled by 
 Chalkidians and Messenians (Herakl. Pont. fr. 35). In I. G. A. 
 388 the name of the Samian Pythagores appears in the Doric 
 form of Ylvdayopas under the influence of the Rhegine dialect ^. 
 
 392. 
 
 Finally, the cases of F upon the inscriptions from Naxos. 
 LKaprlb-qs is by no means a certain transcription. 
 
 On the sign supposed to be f, Homolle says : ' Semble en effet porter a sa 
 partie inferieure tm iroisieme trait qui enferait un E;^ mais on se persuadera aisement 
 que c'est la un simple accident de la pierre; car la ligne n'a ni la menie longueur, ni la 
 meme direction que les deux traits superieurs [this is not clear from the facsimile] ; 
 elle n'a plus non lAus la meme nettete.' The third character may be eithei 
 or (J). The fourth would seem to be Y^, but of the shaft to the left 
 the editor says again that it seems an error : ' non seulement parce qu'il manque 
 de nettete, mais parce qu'il viendrait butter beaucoup trop haut sur la haste verticale.' 
 
 Ficfudbas is attested in Boiotian inscriptions (C. D. I. 488, 
 six times), but FicfyLKpaTibas, cited by Homolle from C. D. I. 
 713 Aj, is not above suspicion. The inscription begins 01 K-, 
 which Keil read ^i](/)t-, a name known to us from Nikander and 
 Suidas. The ductus liierarum at least permits in the present case 
 the reading EWvKapTLhr]s. EvOvKparii^ is no uncommon name. 
 Upon one of the Styrian lead tablets, I. Gr. A. 372jio, the first v 
 of E{v)dviJ.axos has the form of i, where Ei9v- should doubtless 
 be read. Cf. Boiot. ElOvKpaTovs C. D. I. 814^^ (with non-Boiot. 
 -ou?). The et of the Styrian name is perhaps due to dissimilation 
 from eu because of the v of the following syllable. Et'Aei^uiet 
 § 225 may be so explained. 
 
 Above all suspicion, however, is the Naxian F in aFvTov, though 
 none of the other letters upon the inscription are characteristic 
 either in form or in use (Kirchhoff, Alphabet^, p. 86). 
 
 393.] The peculiar position occupied by the F in aFvTov, singular 
 
 ' The chief ancient authority on the existence of the f was Trypho, who 
 wrote a treatise on the dialect of Himera, Rhegion, &c. If Trypho's ascrip- 
 tion of f to the lonians (iraO. \e^. § 11) is based upon its presence in the 
 above cited inscription or in the fragments of Stesiclioros of Himera or of 
 Ibykos of Rhegion, it builds vipon an insecure foundation. 
 
 ^ This is not indicated in the translation of Blass' Aus.^prache by Mr. Purton, 
 who has added fi<piKapri5r]s to the note of the German edition. 
 
394-] DIGAMMA. 321 
 
 enoug-li in a word that did not have the spirant ^ orig-lnally, is 
 rendered the more unique from the fact that all other Naxian 
 inscriptions, except that referred to above, have lost the letter ^. 
 The Attic vaFv[7:riy6s] C. I. A. IV C ^73^'^^^ and aFvrdp ibid. IV 
 C 477 P; the exact parallel to aFvrov, show beyond all doubt 
 (i) that aFvTov is not a slip of a stonecu.tter who intended to 
 engrave AFT but could not forbear inserting- the Y; (2) that the 
 spelling aFv was an attem^ot to represent the sound au (i. e. a + u) 
 more suitably than by av, i.e.a + il^; (3) that the sound of the 
 diphthong au could not, in the opinion of the stonecutter or of 
 those who entrusted him with the work, be adequately reproduced 
 by aF *, and finally (4) that the Ionic of Naxos and the Attic of 
 the sixth century b. c. possessed the character F. But from the F 
 of aFvTov and aFyrdp it by no means follows that the somid F 
 was still alive among Naxians and Attics. The disappearance 
 of F in Attic, though occurring in the period subsequent to the 
 Ionic migration eastward, is yet early enough to permit us to 
 assume that its use in the sixth century was an archaism. The 
 letter was held fast by its use as a numeral. But its ordinary, 
 its natural phonetic use was gone. A bepFi] in the sixth century 
 was an impossibility, an aFvrdp a possibility. Upon the aFvrdp 
 inscription F is absent from ibelv and ripyda-aro. 
 
 394.] How soon after their settlement in Asia Minor the 
 lonians lost F is not certain. But by the sixth century in 
 Naxos at least the sign was old-fashioned. One portion of 
 Ionic territory abandoned its possession sooner than another. 
 The speech of the Kyklades, which still shows traces of its 
 preservation, may be demonstrated on other grounds^ to have 
 been conservative. Hence, even if Fi^iKapTihr]'i should be correct, 
 it does not follow that contemporary Eastern Ionic possessed the 
 sound. There can be no doubt that by the close of the eighth 
 century F must have disappeared from the ordinary speech of 
 the Ionic Dodekapolis. 
 
 The connection between this conclusion and the attitude of the 
 Homeric poems towards F cannot be dealt with here^. There 
 seems no reason for the belief of some scholars that wherever we 
 
 ^ avris from a-v-To ; cf. Skt. u. The au is pan-Hellenic ; cf. Doric aZs. 
 
 ^ Aeivo/xeveos Bechtel 23, Aetvay6pris 24, KOprj 23, and eK7]^6\wt 23, 24. 
 
 ^ Blass, Auss2yrache^ 74. Actual diaeresis of av is not to be assumed, 
 despite Kirchhoff. 
 
 * In Pamphylian we find afraTcrt. 
 
 ' In the differentiation of the e-sounds, in the retention of the rough 
 breathing. 
 
 ^ On the Ionic character of /^ in Homer, see Fritsch in Zeit.f. Gym.-Wes. 
 XXXVIII 612, Cauer in Jahrh. d. phil. Vereins X 294, Kretschmer in K. Z. 
 XXIX 390 ff., XXXI 285, 442, Brugmann, M. U. V 43, Monro Honi. Gram:^ 
 § 405, van Leeuwen, in Mnemosyne XIX 149. 
 
 Y 
 
523 THE IONIC DIALECT. [395. 
 
 have a trace of F in the epic, the verse in question is Aiolic. 
 That the loss of F in Ionic- Attic preceded its disappearance in 
 Aiolic is no proof that the presence of the spirant in Homer is 
 an Aiolism. In the earlier period of the Ionic cultivation of the 
 epos F may have been a living sound in certain parts of Ionia, 
 while in others it may have passed out of existence. We do 
 not know that the diction of Homer reflects any single Ionic 
 dialect. In the later accretions to the poems the Ionic rhapsodes 
 may have imitated the effects produced by F without being 
 conscious of its existence. The F controversy, so far as it 
 concerns Homer, is to a great extent interwoven with the 
 question when an oral was abandoned for a written transmission. 
 
 395.] Combinations of Digamma. 
 
 Fp (initial) becomes p. There are no indications of the spelling 
 ^p. Medial Fp becomes pp in apprjTos, airopprjTos in Hdt., iaop- 
 poTTos in Hdt., Hippokr., but epe^a, &c., Hdt. k-Fpv-s became 
 evpvs in all dialects (e is a prosthetic vowel). 
 
 pF, XF, vF, jJiF lost their F with compensatory lengthening § 224, 
 253, 254. The assimilation of kF to kk is younger than that to 
 TTTT. ^ cf)dpp.aKK.os has become (f)apixdKos (§ 162). On ju,tK/cos see 
 
 §353- 
 
 tF becomes in Ionic o-, as in o-e, reo-o-epe? = Skt. catvdras. On 
 
 o-ftco (§ 219, 4), see Brugmann Gr. Gr. p. 32. 
 
 Initial (tF becomes (i) 'f, then h, and (2) perhaps a. taos 
 
 (Homeric lo-cro?) is from *FiTaFos. In Herodas 3^3 for icro-ai of 
 
 the MSS. we may read Icra dv, but to-' dv is preferable. 
 
 The BreatMngs in Ionic. 
 
 396.] The lonians, who introduced the sign H [Heta) to denote 
 the rough b^jeathing, at an early period adopted xf/cXoT-qs. The 
 lonians of the Dodekapolis were the first to use H as the mark 
 of e [Eta). Heta was the name for tj in all non-Ionic countries 
 (including Attika) which retained the rough breathing until the 
 year 400 b. c. After that time the use of H for tj, and not for //, 
 led to the adoption of the name rjTa, which is originally Ionic. 
 
 397.] 
 
 Ionic y^ikuiTis is attested by tlie ancients, who drew no accurate lines to 
 mark its extension in Ionic territory. 
 
 Apoll. Dys. Synt. 55,9 eire! rh y\ii\a ixiTUTiQiaffiv ofluves Koi rh Saaea eU \pi\i 
 K.T.K. ; Eust. 15649 tpiKuTiKol yap S>(nrep''\wves ovrw Kal AloXels, cf. 920^4 ; Tzetz. 
 Ex. II. 62._,Q 01 Alo\us Tf Kal ''icayfs iravra to. nap' rjfuv Sa(rvy6fj.eva ypt\ov(^at) Kal 8ji 
 \pt\ov (Tvy.(j)uyov iK<pwvov(riv, cf. 11937. The following list contains the chief 
 
398.] THE BREATHINGS IN IONIC. 323 
 
 examples of words adduced by the ancients in proof of the adoption of the 
 lenis by the lonians. No account is here taken as to whether or not the 
 ordinary aspirated form is due to the loss of an initial spirant. Many of 
 these words are also called Aiolie by the grammarians. 
 
 aipe'w in aiTii\(V Aug". 669, a-noaipica Schol. Ven. A on A 275 
 (interlinear). di'Sdi'w in avTcabr]s Apoll. Fron. 94 C^ abou Eust. 
 
 ^5^^5v 4^°^ Greg-. Kor. § 18. aXXojjiai in aXro An. Ox. 
 
 Ill 40I29 Aiolie or Ionic. afxaia Eust. 91347, 1263,2, 137214, 
 
 13879, 1636^3, Tzetzes on Hsd. JF. D. 450 (Doric, Aiolie, Ionic, 
 KOLvri). apixa Tzetzes on Hsd. W. D. 156, Ch'il. V 726^ Tosthow. 
 6^, Ex. II. 783 (Hippon. 42). dcjjii Tzetzes, Cliil. V 726 (koc^tj 
 Hippon. 7). 4'XiC Tzetzes on Hsd. W. I). 450 (Attic eAi£}. 
 
 6iXi(To-u [dXLxaro Hdt. VII 90) Eust. 234^1. cVt] Eust. 186612. 
 
 YjXios in aTTTjXtcoDjs^ Hdt. IV 22, Apollon. in Hdn. II 37993 (Choir. 
 J)ici. 69831), II 839.^3 (Choir. Diet. SyS^, An. Ox. Iv 3745, cf. 
 1985), Greg. K. § 18, Apoll. Pron. 3 A, Adv. p. 13914 (Schn.), 
 Eust. 833, 156238, Tzetzes on Hsd. JF. D. 156, 413, avr-qkia Eust. 
 833, 156238 (dTrj/AtKeVrepo? Hdt. Ill 14 but a(pi]KiK.e(rT€pov=:TTpe(r- 
 jBvTepov Greg". Kor. § 134). ioprr] Et. M. 35156- e-mfjXis Eust. 
 .156238, Arkad. 3112- •^fAos Tzetzes on Hsd. JF. D.412 (irapa be 
 'Am/cots Kul bacrvverai). "H^aiaros Apollonios in Hdn. II 83999 
 (Choir. Did. 8783, An. Ox. IV 3744). ico-0ai Suidas s.v. irpoKa, 
 Hdt. VI 134 [UvaL often occurs in the MSS. of Hdt.). iK>'e'ojxai 
 in aTTLKOfxriv &c. Joh. Gr. 241, Greg. Kor. § 18, Vat. 699, Aug. 
 669, Birnb. 67839, Et. Gud. 4283, 43900? An, Ox. I 31833, Et. 
 Mag. 624ir,. ipeus Eust. i623gp cf. 515.35. ''■p^i Eust. 92O44 
 (but tprjf Greg. K. § 66, who quotes Hesiod), 124848, 1734,7. 
 iinros in ctt' '(ttttov Leid. 629, ctt' i-mroiv Joh. Gr. 235, Vat. 694, 
 XevKi-mios Eust. 832, 52428^ 1 56237, Tzetzes on Hsd. JF. D. 156. 
 The asper in ittttos is due to that of the preceding article. 
 em'o-Tafiai Apollonios in Hdn. II 839^7 (Choir. Diet. 87734, 
 An. Ox, IV 3744), Et. Mag. 36453. to-ria in e-niariov Hdn. 
 
 II 3792^, (Choir. Diet. 6991), II "146 (on Z 265), An. Ox. IV 1986, 
 Greg. Kor. § 89, Eust. 156233, 45. 086s in avrobiov Eust. 
 
 156237, i6o5i2. oios Greg. Kor. § 18. ofxLxXr] Et. Mag. 
 
 624i4, Et- G^^^fi- 4282, An. Ox. I 31833. 6pa.v Joh. Gr. 235, 
 Leid. 629, Vat. 694 [k-nopav), Joh. Gr. 240, Aug. 668, Birnb. 
 67813, Apoll. S^nt. S5-2-2 {xaTopS)). opKos in €TnopKrj(raL 
 
 Scholiast Ven. A on IX 193. os in utt' u>v Aug. 669. 
 
 dTTOupicrai Eust. 1 28215, cf. 177436. olpa in KaToopat^eTai' 
 
 aepLvvveTat Hesych. (Ionic?); cf. Et. M. 44845. 
 
 398.] Spiritus asper in the Inscriptions. 
 
 Since the inscriptions offer the most valuable evidence for 
 the presence or absence of the rough breathing in Ionic, all 
 
 * On aiTTjXttiTTjs see § 410. 
 Y 3 
 
324 THE IONIC DIALECT. [399. 
 
 examples whieli afford absolute proof of the use of the a^per (?'. e. 
 actual presence of li or aspiration of a tenuis) will be adduced 
 below. Only from the inscriptions previous to 403 B.C. will be 
 cited examples of words which might have been provided with 
 the asper, but are without it, and from those of a later date only 
 cases of aspirated tenues. Roberts^ method of aspirating- such 
 old Ionic inscriptions from Asia Minor as are free from all taint 
 of Atticism is not to be defended. Certainty in so elusive 
 a matter as the placing- of the correct sjm-itns cannot be expected 
 in the later inscriptions. Bechtel puts the lenis in quite late 
 documents provided they contain some Ionic form. In many of 
 the inscriptions from the fourth century which contain Attic 
 forms the same scholar adopts the lenis, while in others he uses 
 the asper. All Koti'^ inscriptions should have the aspirated 
 forms. 
 
 A diverg-ence in the treatment of the initial spiritus asper 
 between the divisions of Ionic constitutes one of the chief 
 marks of sub-dialectal difference. Only the Asiatic lonians 
 adopted \}nX6Tr]s. The dialect of Western Ionic and that of the 
 Kyklades have retained the roug-h breathing-. 
 
 Medial <r upon its disappearance left an intervocalic spiritus asper, which, 
 if the initial syllable of the word was provided with a lenis, was in Attic and 
 some other dialects transferred to the beginning of the word. Thus even is 
 from *6i/a)<*€i/(ra) Lat. ilro. Asiatic Ionic must be regarded as rejecting, the 
 dialect of the islands and of Euboia as adopting, this phonetic principle. In 
 Asiatic Ionic Up6s or ip6s, in Thasos and Siphnos Up6s resulted from *l<Tep6s, 
 *Upos. 
 
 399.] Asia Minor, including the Ionic of the Dodekapolis 
 
 and of the colonies^ even when these are islands such as lasos, 
 LeroSj Teos, Chios, Samos, Samothrake. Care will be taken to 
 notice whether the dialect of the islands differs from that of the 
 metropolis. 
 
 The loniauB of the East, i.e. those included under this division, 
 had lost the initial asper at the time of our earliest inscriptions 
 from Asia Minor, while all the other lonians had preserved it. 
 
 Miletos : B in the older group of Milesian inscriptions never 
 denotes /i ; and H in the younger group is likewise always used 
 for rj. In the Abu-Simbel inscription, however, B may denote 
 either /i or r] (Bay?/crep/xos', TBXe(j)os), though not all forms capable 
 of receiving the asper are provided with B. But there is nothing 
 to show that those words in the Abu-Simbel document which 
 receive the asper were written by Milesians ; and the evidence 
 of na(ju,)/3t? (^oXo(pu)VLos makes for the assumption that all 
 that part of the inscription which is the work of lonians is to 
 be written without the asper. 93 ol, 'Hy7Jo-oi'8po?; 9401; 96 
 
 I 
 
399-1 THE BREATHINGS IN IONIC. 325 
 
 Tifxias ; 97 'IoTta[tos] ; 98 o; c£. also Roberts I 132 bis from 
 Naukr, lvTr[oKpriTri'\pLov), and 132 ter from Naukr. (d), Bechtel 
 237, "Hpr]? Naukr. I 447 is to be read "Hpr] not "Hprj, cf. No. 689. 
 d-Tr' eKao-rou occm's in lOOg. In 1022 Becbtel writes Upi], since 
 the coin is of the fourth century; cf. likewise Upij in Pantikap. 
 123, and Ephesos 150, both late inscriptions. 
 
 Prokonnesos : H is used for rj only. 103 vTTOKprjTriptov, 
 TovpixoKpareos and ri6[x6v (cf. airrjdeco). Roberts' question as to 
 the propriety of writing" rjOpLov is otiose, although H-rj6ix6v appears 
 on the Attic copy. This copy has several cases of H. In later 
 times, at least, j)6ij.6s was the proper form; cf. Scholiast on 
 Apoll. Rhod. I 1294 (quoted by Roberts). 
 
 lasos : No. 104 dates from about the middle of the fourth 
 century and its forms may receive the Attic asjjer. No. 105 is 
 also Attic in colouring-. 
 
 Kyzikos: In the second part of J08 (dating- perhaps from 
 the first century B.C.) Bechtel writes the lenis because of its 
 archaistic character. But the contemporary dialect of Kyzikos 
 must have followed the Kotvri usage. 
 
 Priene : In No. 144, about 350 B.C., from the territory of the 
 UavMvtov, we find KaTd-nep, though Bechtel writes the asj)er on 
 initial vowels. This Kard-n^p is not decisive as to the deaspiration 
 of Ionic in Priene in the middle of the fifth century. See below 
 under C7iios. 
 
 Ephesos : H is used for j] throughout in No. 145. Kaddirep in 
 No. I47ii occurs in an inscription almost entirely Hellenistic. 
 fTre^?}? 14834 dates, according to Dareste, from about the period 
 of king- Mithridates. 
 
 Kolophon : d with no sign of B in No. 152 from Abu-Simbel, 
 Roberts I 130 E : nd(/x)/3ts 6 ()o\o(j)u>vios. Roberts' 6 is incorrect. 
 
 Smyi-na: e^' lo-tj in C. I. G. 313775 is late. 
 
 Teos: 'EAeo-i/Stos 6 Trjtos in No. 155 from Abu-Simbel. 
 Roberts' (I 130 B) 'EAeo-t- and 6 are incorrect. In No. 156 
 (middle of the fifth century) H is used throughout for rj, never 
 for A. The sole trace of aspiration is KaOi^jxevov (B 31). C. I. G. 
 309412 has Kad' eTos and Le Bas-Waddington 87 d(f>' laov 
 (both late inscriptions). In No. 158 which contains scarcely 
 a remnant of Ionic, we find, line 20, dirriyqaLv despite Kaddirep 
 lines 4, 25, KadiaTapievoLs line 32. See below under C//ios. 
 
 Abdera : 'Ep/x^t and 'EppLoarpdrov in No. i62 = Rob. I 143. 
 H is used for rj throughout. Cf. the coin legends 'Ett' 'Ep- 
 [xoKpaTibeu) 1633, 'Ett' 'Hpoborov 1635, ['E]::' 'Hpo(/)di'e[os] l63g 
 (see on Erythrai below), ^'^yT](jay6p-r\<i 163^. 'Ep/xr/t occurs in 
 No. 171 Lampsakos. 'Epjuiew 180 Chios, but 'EpixCai is written 
 in Eryth. 204^4 (about 354 b. c.). 
 
 Chios: H is employed in No. 174= Rob. I 149 to denote rj. 
 
326 THE IONIC DIALECT. [399. 
 
 There is no sign of the spiritus asper. In 174 A 77 •'s line 2, 
 ' Ep/xco z^oo-o-ay 2, 'Ep/xcoi'o'cro-T)? 4, e£s 5^ ejSboixriKOVTa y, oar] 8, 
 eKaroV 13, ovpo(f)vkaKes l^, 19, 01 18; in 174 B it4vt riix€pri\_L]crLV 
 5, riiJ.4prjv 15, and on 20; in 174 C 17 3, d 10, 'iKeVios 14^ 
 'HyeTToAtos 14, eTrraKoa-LOiv 18 and 25; in 174 D 'I[K]eo-tou 14, 
 ei'os 19. In 1 75 = Rob. I 150 we find obov. 
 
 jue^eAijt 174 A ii is to be explained as Kad-qixivov in Teos, 
 K&Oohov in Halikarnassos, i.e. by the assumption that in a 
 compound the original rough breathing is preserved, whereas, 
 when occurring in the uncompounded form, an aspirated word 
 becomes subject to the influence of later phonetic laws of Ionic 
 and suffers deaspiration. Cf. Kadrjixevrj Sim. Am. 79^, Kadobos 
 Anakr. 43^, KaOtvbovTa Hippon. 61 (attributed by Schneidewin 
 to Hipponax), KaOivbei Anakr. 882; KaOd-nep and KaOLcrrapivois 
 Teos, KaOrjixivcov on an Ionic papyrus of the fourth century b. c. 
 {Philol. XLI p. 746). That this principle, differentiating the 
 simple from the uncompounded words, did not obtain throughout 
 the length and breadth of the dialect is clear from the numerous 
 forms in Herodotos and from Teian aii-\]yr](Tiv. Both of these 
 forms must be held to be innovations, not survivals. a(f)riyr}(ns 
 was the old compound, which, existing side by side with un- 
 compounded words in rjy- from r]y€op.ai ^, became a7r7Jy?jo-ts. So 
 too with eiTLixepov in Sim. Am., Kardirep in Priene, Halikarnassos. 
 See Tick £. B. XI 247, Bechtel Ion. Insclir. p. 98. The same 
 principle may account for such forms as Kadevboi in Sappho. 
 
 Maroneia : 'Etti ^Hyr\(yay6pi<ii 196, 10, 'Em 'Hpa/cAeiSeco 196, 11. 
 
 Erythrai : In 206 A 14, 36, 42, B 14, 45, 50, 60 we find e(/)' 
 UpoTToiov, but k-nl Upo\TTotov\ C 14, cf. C 8. This shows that the 
 non-elision of the t does not prove that the vowel of the 
 following word began with the le^ds. 
 
 Samos : B and H are employed to denote ?/. Tijp-qt 211, 
 'H(^ato-ricof 212. Roberts has the first correct, the second wrong, 
 as also ['Hjpayo'prj? 6 in his No. 154 = Bechtel 213, where read 
 ['H-] and d. #No. 216 ovpos, not opo's, since there is no H on the 
 stone (Attic H0P02 is found in C. I. A. I 493 ff., also in Samos 
 I. Gr. A. No. 8). Cf. § 253. No. 22I32 with KaOori. is from 
 322 B.C. 
 
 Amorgos (inscriptions of Samian origin, see § 400) : In 
 228 = Rob. I 158 A, 'AHpo-icoy is read by Bechtel 'Apa-icov, by 
 Roberts 'Arjpa-Lcov, which is a new and strange name. 'Apaioov 
 (with aspirated p) is the hypocoristic form of 'Apo-iVoos. Bechtel 
 compares (i>BpdBcro = ^pd^ov in Rob. I 25 (Delos). 
 
 Halikarnassos : H is used for t], not for k. Bechtel 238 = Rob. 
 
 ^ Even in Doric we find such names as 'AyrjaiKaos with the lenis of S-yoi, in 
 contrast to 'AyrflaTpaTos from ayio/xai. Cf 'AyUui Bechtel 1 31, li, from Olbia. 
 
400.] THE BREATHINGS IN IONIC. 327 
 
 I 145 has o I^ 6, 'AAt/capyaT[ea)]y 2, Up-q t] 3, t(77a/xe[2'ou] 5; wtt' ov 
 18, aSos 19, Kard7:[e]/) 1 9, dpK&)<i>o- ai] 20^ o t[l] 20, ot 21, 
 ijarepov 22, opKOV 24, opKOvv 26, 7/ju.t[e]Kroy 26, opKOv 2^, otrtyes 
 29, ore 30, v(TT€pov 31, wcrre 34, tepa 36, 'AkiKapvqa-a- 40 and 
 41, OS 43, opKia 44, KaToirep 43. The only form that indicates ^ 
 is KaOohov 40, on which see under C/iios. In No. 2465 we find 
 KaTibpvdevTos on a stele o£ unknown period. All the other 
 inscriptions from Halikarnassos are certainly late. 
 
 Mylasa : C. I. G. 2693, c. 4 has Kad' €tos. See above under 
 Teos. 
 
 Adespota : No. 255 with TETEPEI = r77reprji has been referred 
 by Bechtel to an Asiatic-Ionic source on account of the absence 
 of the aspiration. Cf. rovrepov Simon. Amorg. VII 113, Hippon. 
 tr. 183. See § 134, note, Roberts I p. 374. 
 
 In No. 260 = Rob, I 166 we read pa\f/(DLh6s, though the 
 ultimate provenance of the inscription is uncertain. There is 
 no H. 
 
 400.] Kyklades (island Ionic). 
 
 Naxos : B and H represent (i) the spiritus asper, (2) the short 
 or long e sound related to an original A (see § 166), (i) In 
 No. 23 = Rob. I 25 BKB/3o'Xa)t stands for ex?]-^. Aspirated p and 
 hs for X? occur in 4)BPABS0 (^pd^ov). In No. 24 = Rob. I 26 A 
 EKH^o'Acoi there is no denotation of h; No. 26 = Rob. I 28 HO. 
 Cf. Roberts §§ '^'^, '3,^. (2) Nixdi-SpB, BkB/So'Acoi, loxeaipSi, 
 (fovpB, Kacnyvr\TB, Aetz;o8iKBo, ak{k)B(j>v in No. 23 = Rob. I 25; 
 Aeimyo'pH?, E/cH/So'Acot in No. 24 = Rob. I 26 A; 'AX^Rvtap, 
 eJ-TToiHo-ey in No. 26=:Rob. I 28; KaptwyH Rob. I 29. 
 
 Amorgos (inscriptions of Naxian origin, see § 399): H denotes 
 both/^andrj. N0.31 =Rob.Il6o B hPTroKpdrTjs, HPttokAt/s: N0.33 
 = Rob. I 160 F r/A[to]s where in \\^ the H stands for he. H 
 represents r; in /^Hp^aivhUs, [xvWjxa, rHs in No. 29 = Rob. I 158 
 D; rHs in No. 32 = Rob. I 160 C, also in Rob. I 159 B (an 
 ahecedarium), and in the very obscure inscription, Rob. I 160 A: 
 4>ato-ruAtBs (?), av^aKWv. In B. C. H. VIII 24 (lO. 16) Kad' 
 kviavTov is due to the analogy of koS' eVos with inorganic Ji from F. 
 
 Keos : H denotes rj (pan-Hellenic). In No. 40 = Rob. I 31 A, 
 H by an error stands for E in av W dialer av ', see Roberts ad loc. 
 In No. 4i=Rob. I 32, xP'^Jo'Hi;, KarH^', and H = ?/ are quite 
 doubtful; in No. 42 = Rob. I 31 B, Heti'Hperosj 'E.vbWp.os : in 
 No. 46 = Rob. I 2,3 B, ['A]0poStrHt, avedV\K€v. We find but 
 one word in the older inscriptions (apart from the doubtful r/ 
 mentioned above): lortHi (Bechtel No. 45 = Rob. I 2>3 ^) 
 which must be transcribed 'lorirji. No. 43 = Rob. I 32 A 
 
 • The initial B is not an error for BE but a peciUiar sign, used elsewhere 
 (Delosand Oropos), for e. 
 
328 THE IONIC DIALECT. [4c I. 
 
 (after 420 B.C.) has no sign for the a^per, H representing tj ( = d) 
 and 7j< e + a, except in 'hiapavQ\\.iyi, QavWuj^. 
 
 Delos : H stands for he as in Naxos and Oropos. Cf . No. ^0^ — 
 Rob. I 24 A HKHBf2[A.a)t], where H also represents r]<d. 
 
 Pares: H appears for tj only. No. 58 = Rob. I 16 has -e/38o- 
 \[i.y]\(}ovTovTWs, lyjJi-noi^^fT^v. No. 59 = Rob. I 17 AH/;xoKy8H?, 
 TeXeoTo^tKH, (TrYiijav, KovpHt, yereHz', a7rH/>iO(n;i'Ht : No. 60 = 
 Rob. I 15 /ixHrHp, QvyaTWp, 7rotH//a : Rob. I No. 18 ar]e'^HK€i;. 
 l^-\]^ir\v 67 is from Roman times. Rob. I No. 19 = 2. G.A.406, 
 a boundary stone, has H0P02 TOIEPO. If this is Ionic the 
 transcription must be Hovpo? not Ho'pos. It is unfortunate that 
 upon no Parian inscription before 403 B. c. do we find any word 
 capable of aspiration^; else we might settle the question whether 
 Rob. I 19 contains an example of H = //, or whether H0F02 is 
 Attic opos and the boundary stone of Attic provenance ^ (as the 
 Samian HOPOS /. G. A. 8, cf. C. I. A. I No. 493 fP.). The absence 
 of H from lEPO is to be noticed, because in Siphnos (Rob. I 
 No. 20) we have HIEPON and in Thasos IHPON for HIPON 
 (No. 70 = Rob. I 23). 
 
 Thasos: H denotes rj, e.g. in Nv/x^Hio-a', Ni>/^(^HyeVHt, 
 QW\v, &c. in No. 68 = Rob. I 22. a\x. is expressed by AM in 
 the same inscription (cf. § 292, 3). In No. 70 = Rob. I 23 we 
 find IHPON which stands for HIPON (cf. \p6v Bechtel 7X9 and 
 lepea 7I7) rather than for lEPON, as Roberts (I p. 61, note i) 
 assumes; cf. lEMI for EIMI in Theodosia, Bechtel No. 125. In 
 /. K. S. VIII 402, a document of the fifth century, H denotes e. 
 Siphnos: H represents /i in HiepoV (Bechtel No. 88 = Rob. 
 I 20), the only inscription of ancient date. Were others extant, 
 H would express 17 as well as /i. 
 
 Lastly, we must examine the inscriptions of — 
 
 401.] Euboia. 
 
 A. Chalkls and Colonies. 
 
 Kyme : H represents h twice: in Huttv Bechtel 3 A = Rob. 
 I 177 A, and in Bo? Rob. I 173. r] is expressed by E in the 
 oldest inscriptions free from any encroachment of the Ionic 
 alphabet. 
 
 Rhegion : H represents h in H022A Rob. I 180 (but see 
 § ?>1'^- ^"^ ^^® parallel inscription, Rob. I 181, the same word 
 has no H, the only letter preserved after ^p-qixdrcov being O. 
 FHyivos occurs on a coin legend, hence 'P[7j]yri/os in Bechtel 
 
 ' Except perhaps -6/35o[jU7;]9oi'tovttjs No. 58, though here the medial h was 
 scarcely to be expected. 
 
 " The latter supposition is more probable than to hold with Kin-hhofif and 
 Roberts I § 29 that the H is an archaism similar to that found on Attic 
 boundary stones of a later period. Fick places the inscription at the earliest 
 about 400 B. c. because asper and lenis appear. 
 
402.] SPIRITUS ASPER IN LITERATURE. 329 
 
 6 B must be without H = ^. In Bechtel No. 6 B, Ionic H is 
 used for rj [FAjawKtHs, 'Ep/xHi, and there is no sign for // : O 
 stands for 6, Epfxrjt. for 'Ep/xTyt. This inscription is later than 
 450 B. c. 
 
 Bechtel No. 13 = Rob. I 179 is of Chalkidian origin. In 
 lines 7 and 11 we find Bo'rt, line 8 Bo, line 9 Baipet[o-]^to. 
 Rob. I No. 183 contains Ht7r(7r)o8pojU7js : it is a Chalkidian 
 inscription from Gela. 
 
 We may here insert the vase inscriptions : HiTnTokvTr] Rob. 
 I 188 B, cf. "ExiTTTTo? Rob. I 189 ('Po'TTtos with no H, 188 K), 
 Ht7r(7T)aro? 190 I G, Ht7r(Tr)os 190 II A, HrjpaKkrjs 191 B and 
 also 192 B. 
 
 B. Eretria and Sfyria. 
 
 Eretria and Oropos : Under Eretria we may class Oropos 
 No. 18, where (line 18) we find avdrjixepov, a<p^ kKaa-rov (line 35), 
 kyKaOivheiv (line 36), kyKaOevhovTo^ (line 39), KaOevheiv (line 44) ; 
 and finally Ho-niprjs (lines 46-47)= HecnT^prjs^, the sole instance of 
 H on the stone, which is certainly older than 377 B.C. This 
 case of H is an archaism according" to Wilamowitz in Hermes 
 XXI p. 98. 
 
 Styra : Bechtel No. 19 contains the following names in point : 
 EvHdyqs 108 (the only example of medial H in Ionic inscriptions), 
 Hecrx^aTLcop IIO, HvTT€i{p)ci)V Hi, Hriyeixovevs 200j HtTnrcoi'Srjs 373, 
 HojUTjpto? 374 (cf. /. G. A. 372). E in No. 19 represents e, r] 
 (pan-Hellenic), r]<d, spurious EI, and (rarely) genuine El (12, 
 265). No H is found in 'Ep/xoKpiros 371, nor in 'Pathos 82, 
 'Pi;/x;3t9 299. 
 
 Certain adespota may be referred to the Ionic of Euboia or of 
 the Kyklades on the score of possessing h. Bechtel No. 265, 
 found near the Parthenon and dating before 01. 80, has Hvio?, 
 but Hye'Ao)(o?. No. 266 is also classed as Ionic by Bechtel. In 
 line 4 we find Hwy. 
 
 Spiritus Asper in Literature. 
 
 402.] The lambographic Poets. 
 
 lambographic poetry best reproduces the speech of the people. 
 Cf . Fick Bezz. Beitr. XI 246 ff. 
 
 Archilochos : Archilochos has retained with but two exceptions 
 the influence of the asj^er. These exceptions are l-n -tw^kp^v 7O2, 
 where most of the MSS. have k^\ and k-a ijjBrjs 115. The asper 
 appears in 7;^' rjbovfjs 102, e^' rjiraTi 131 (. • • "nap 'Apxt-^o^^ 
 
 ' On B or H=he, cf. Naxos 23, Delos 53 kKi]^6\m. In Styra 19200 HE is = /te 
 (^Hyenovivs). HecrxariW occurs ipuo- 
 
330 THE IONIC DIALECT. [403. 
 
 hta baaios Athen. Ill 107 F), Orjteprji 93, Tkavx, opa, or TXavK , 
 opa 54 by force o£ the punctuation. In verbs compounded with 
 a preposition (which prove but little if the rule upheld § 399, 
 under Chios, be here available): acpeXKe 4^^ ((peircov 132, i<pip.€pos 
 2I3, Ka6r]p.ai 87.3, KaOaipti 116. The evidence of Parian or 
 Thasian inscriptions is in itself not sufficient warrant for as- 
 cribing to Archilochos a thoroug-hg-oing- use of the asper. 
 
 Simonides of Amorg-os : k'niix^pov 7,51 ^ rovripov y^ig, but \ws 
 24-y, TOvQ^ opa 78o> f(/)r;ju,e/30t I3, KaQruxivr] Joq, and acfyevcra 24^ . 
 In view of similar inconsequences in other poets, it would be an 
 over-refinement of criticism to explain kiiiixepov in contrast to 
 €(f)i]iJ.epoiy by referring it to the character of the settlement of 
 Amorgos, i. e. by Naxians, Samians, and Milesians ^. As 
 Simonides was by birth a Samian we might expect a constant 
 disregard of the asper. Naxian influence alone could have 
 introduced the rough breathing. 
 
 Hipponax : Ka(f)fj y^, aKOva-ar ^iTTTtwvaKTos I3ij Tovrepov 183 
 (' tcofiKws ■'), obvvT} 'inaXei 2i B, ko)tt6\\u)V =^ Kal 6 'Air- ^1, 
 a)7roAAa)y = o 'Att- 45, ^tt' appdrMv 42, Kar vttvov 89. The asjjer 
 however appears in aye't 1 1 (where its existence is improbable, cf . 
 § 156), dalpidTia 83, /cot')( apaprdvco 83, and in dcfiioi 75 ^^^ 
 KaOivbovra 61-^ (see above, § 399). As an iambic poet of the 
 Asiatic mainland, Hipponax rejiresents with tolerable fidelity 
 the speech of his countrymen. 
 
 Ananios has yvolri x.' oVw in the choliambic fragment No. 3, 
 but KTjpiepris 5^0 (tetr.), cf. Chios 174 B 14. KaQdp^ai, occurs 
 
 in3i- . ^ , 
 
 In Herodas we observe nearly sixty cases of the presence of the 
 
 asper, and only twenty of the lenis. The asper has been 
 
 misplaced in ^rjpcan^ 794* 
 
 403.] Elegiac Poets. 
 
 Instances of deaspiration in the texts of elegiac poets from the 
 twelve cities are extremely rare : Xenophanes 2iq has ravra k 
 a-navra, according to the majority of the MSS., though Bergk 
 follows B in reading ^ diravTa. In 2^9 we find rovv^Kev, a form 
 which is however also epic (Hesiod). 
 
 The elegiac poets usually accept the aspirated forms through 
 inability to break with epic tradition: Mimnerm. 12^ e0' vbcop, 
 I2y d(p' 'EcTTTepibcov and dfjuKopL^da g.^' Xenophanes i^^ ovx v^pi-s 
 and dipLKOLo : Phokylides of Leros has ov^ 6 i^. 
 
 404.] Melie Poets. 
 
 In the melic poets there are scarcely any traces of the placing 
 of the lenis for the asper: Anakreon has ea-Karopas ig (Apoll. 
 
 * eirlfjLepov and 4<pi\fxipoi have a parallel in Herodotos' airiKeffdai by the side 
 of cKpiKeadai in Xenophanes. 
 
406.] SPIRITUS ASPER IN LITERATURE. 33 1 
 
 Synt. ^^, (ttCo-tiov 90^, but ovk^O' i](3ri, KaOohos 43^ KaOevbei. 8(S^, 
 Xivdinioiv 12 B from original ittttos. 
 
 405.] Herodotos. 
 
 In view of the unanimous testimony of the inscriptions of 
 Ionic Asia Minor as to the loss of the rough breathing, it is 
 imperative that the text of Herodotos should be made to 
 conform to the dialect of his day. The influence of an initial 
 rough breathing may however be admitted to a certain extent. 
 In compounds it has aspirated a preceding tenuis; though in 
 numerous instances such forms as a-nU^To may be justified with 
 the same propriety as the Teian a'nriyi](ns, on which see § 399, 
 under Cliios. 
 
 The following instances of the occurrence of the lenis or 
 variation between lenis and asj)er, deserve notice. Words with 
 an initial f are expected to show the lenis. 
 
 ebcoXia I 24 in C b. '^py^y 'ipyvv\xi : kcrepyvvcn II 86, Karep- 
 
 yvvaL IV 6g, Karepyovres VI I02, eipfe III J 36 [v. I. ep^e), 'ipyeadai 
 VII 197 [v. I. dpy- and eXpy-) : kpKTriv is however found IV 146. 
 ^p^av V 6^, airep^avTes IV 62, but ^pbov IX 103 (P i-), epbecrKe 
 VII ^^ (P) ; cf . Sim. K. 520 ^P^V '• ^^^ ^P^^ ^^^ Hesiod, see Rzach^s 
 Bialeki d. Hsd. p. 359. kaiios V 114. r]m though eco is a 
 
 frequent v.L; ecodLvos occurs in III 104; in rjMs, as in other 
 words here mentioned, the lenis is original (r}ajs< aj/crcoj), tp-qKas 
 II 67, cf. Eust. II. 920^^: TO 8e "ipy]^ icoviKcas •^ikovTai, ei /cat to 
 'Upa^ haavv^Tai, In III 76, despite IprjKoov in MSS. Hd, we read 
 with Stein the form with the le7iis. oA/xos, ovkos, ovpiCav. 
 
 u)pr} heed, care III 155 (wprj most MSS.), as in the tragedians, 
 ojpr] season II 4, I 32. etAiVcra; has the asper II 38 according 
 
 to Stein, as dXiyjxro VII 90, though Eust. 234^ wrote etA- ; cf. 
 Tzetzes on Hesiod, W. D. 450 : to eAt£ 'ArrtKot ha(rvvov(nv, 01 hi 
 AotTTot TiavTis \}/i,kov<TLv. IcrTLrj has the asper. 
 
 The non-aspiration of v-niaTi in the MSS. of Hdt. IV 70 
 deserves notice, as the deaspiration of words with initial v is 
 extremely rare in the Greek dialects, with the single exception of 
 Aiolic. Cf. vhpiav I. G. A. 3214,,, v-niU^aTo C. I. A. I 442.-,, 
 virapyvpoi C. I. A. I i65g, 1734, virapyvpa C. I. A. I 32 B 28 ; 
 see Roberts I § 43. This lenis appears before v only in those 
 dialects whose v was the old sound 00 [u). 
 
 406.] Occurrences of tenuis for aspirate in Herodotos. 
 
 The MSS. of Herodotos have the tenuis (i) before an initial 
 guttural spirant and (2) not infrequently in compounds. 
 
 I . A final tenuis is not aspirated : — ovk op-oXoyiovcn I 5 (cf • 
 § 348), and so also in the case of cltto, kni, Kwrd, ixera, vtto, and 
 avTL^ (Bredow, p. 203 ff.). 
 
 ^ avT ^Sov Greg. Kor. § 18, who also cites ovk oToi re ^crav. 
 
;^^2 THE IONIC DIALECT. [407. 
 
 2. In compounds whose tenues are due to the influence o£ the 
 lenis of the uncompounded word. 
 
 airafji^ivovs II I3i (8) ; aiTJjAtwrr/s IV 22 (§ 397) j atHKviovTo 
 IV 125, of. a-ni^ovrai Charon 9 (§ 397); avTrjixepov II 122, 
 VI 139 ; enebprjs I 17, ^.^. ebprjs, k-nihpriv V 65 (^^(pebpov V 41) ; 
 e-Tre^T/s II 77; Kard = Ka^d I 2o8 (elsewhere Kara rd^ but Ka^' ws 
 IX 82) where Kirchhoff would prefer kut d; Kard irep I 118^ 131, 
 169, KaTVTTepde II 5; KariVai II I2I (e), cf. II 126j KaTi]yiovTo 
 IV 125, v7Tr}yeoiJi€vris Demokr. 92. All MSS. have KaO^vbova-L in 
 Hdt. IV 25, with which we may compare KaOevbec II 95. Stein 
 has KUT- in both cases. In VIII 49 the MSS. have a<p-, Stein 
 airelTo. Dindorf incorrectly conjectures aTrr/o-eiy in VII 193 for 
 a(f)ri(r€Lv, since there is an obvious reference to d^tTj/xi in order 
 to explain 'A<|)erat. 
 
 In the Herodoteian crasis of o + avros to wurds (§ 258) we 
 find the asper vanishes; cf. rovTepov (but Qarepa IV 157 and 
 ovrepoi I 34). 
 
 407.] As the case now stands it is impossible to discover the 
 exact usage of Herodotos as regards compounded words ; and it 
 will continue to be impossible until we are placed in the position 
 of being able to control by the inscriptions the form of each 
 word whose second component part originally began with the 
 asper. In fact, as we know that Kadobos is a legitimate Ionic 
 form of the fifth century, it may be doubted whether ^(pebpov 
 in Hdt. V 41 is not correct and eTreSprjs 117a fictitious form ^. 
 Great as are the limitations in respect of our knowledge of the 
 Ionic asper, it should be recognized that to write iiTibprjs in one 
 case and icpebpov in another (as the editor of Dietsch's text does), 
 is not in accordance with probability, whatever may be said for 
 the advisability of such a procedure from the point of view of the 
 textual critic who has not the courage to disregard MS. evidence. 
 
 408.] The Asper in Hippokrates. 
 
 Hippokrat^s usually employs the asper in the same way as the 
 Attic. ovK viria-Tpe-^cv II 664, according to Ermerins, where 
 Littr^ (with A F G I) reads ov^ ', ova olov II 74 (Littre ovx), 
 ovx vTTobix^eTai II 76 in both Ermerins and Littre. In VII 96 
 for iff)" ajxa^av, a v. I. is k-n, cf. Homeric k-n ajxa^av M 448 
 (see § 397), VII 326 Ko>[xc})a\6s = Kal 6 dju,0. (in 6). On d-jr' 
 6T€(t)v in II 74, see Gomperz, Apoloffie der Heilkimst, p. 77, where 
 other forms are discussed: t;tt' 6t€v VI 34, VI 98, wurdj VIII 588, 
 CLTTLK-qTai, VII 8, a-niKvieTai VI 390, k-nohoicri VI ^o'6, fx^TeoiVTOv 
 VI 114 (in 31), where other MSS., except A, have juer' o)vtov. 
 
 409.] Pseudo-Ionists. 
 
 Aretaios has the asper throughout, or with such insignificant 
 
 ^ See Thumb, Asper, p. 58. 
 
411.] SENTENCE PHONETICS. ^^^ 
 
 exceptions as not to disturb tlie usual Attic practice. The 
 medical writers form a pronounced exception to Herod otos and 
 his imitators. Lukian: Dea Sj/ria a7nKvioiJi.aLYeYy oiteu; hut a(pfjs 
 V. A. 6, &c. ; eiTLKveeTaL § 15^ with ecf)- three times^ Kar- three 
 times^ Kddi]TaL ^ i6 ; kut §§ Ij, 44; [XiTrjcroixai, § l8 ; vwqyiovTai 
 § ST, ^(P- § 46; avT § 12; o^K § 52. 
 
 In the I)e Adr. there are nine cases of ai: in composition and 
 dir' riiJ.€(i)v § 21 ; [xeT^irovTa § 13. 
 
 Arrian : aTn]y€oixaL, a-niKvioixai in all ten times^ with <^ four 
 times ; dir' § 3, the only certain place ; k-ndvai § 1 1 ; e<^- four 
 times; ki: § 32^ e^' five times ; kut- twenty-seven times (KaraTrep, 
 Karvirepde, Karopdo), KaTopixi^ovrai, KaTr]yeop.€Vu>v, KaTi]KM), Kad- 
 thirteen times ; Kar §§ 1 1, 2g, 30, KaO' four times; [xed- not {xeT- ; 
 vcf)- not VTT- ; ovx o § 5. 
 
 Abydenos : dirUaTO I ; KaOopixiaovTai i ; juertet I. 
 
 Eusebios : aTreo-rrj/cee 8 ; ctt' 5 j 7r/30(reKarearo 8 ; Kar oreu) 5 ; 
 KaO- twice ; ovk ap.apTi.lv 2, d-K 6. 
 
 Eusebios Myndios : d-n'- but once and no case of dir' : ^Trrjn-OeLrjv 
 I, e^- twice ; ctt' 44^ 6;^, i<p^ twice; KaTi]y€op.€vovs 6^, Kad- twice ; 
 
 ovx 14; 3^> 53- . . . 
 
 In the supposititious letters of Herakleitos Kar- occurs once 
 
 (12). These letters have d(^', as that of Thales. 
 
 FUa Hovieri : dinKveopaL twenty- three times, dirrjyiop.ai §§ 22, 
 
 23, ditLKveopai, KaT7]p.€vos § g, Kari^oov lo^ 12 ; elsewhere KaO-. So 
 
 also d^', jLie^'. 
 
 410.] Varia. 
 
 In Attic we find a few instances of the lenis that may be 
 ascribed to an Ionic source: dvTrjKios Affatn. 519, Aias 805, 
 dTtrjkiooTrjs Kykl. 1 9 and in prose and inscriptions. €iTr]p.a- 
 $tvp.€vr] occurs in Antig. 251. Even Aristophanes has d-n-qXtacrTris 
 Aves no. See § 397. 
 
 eiroSceKfi, the reading of the vulgate Persai 656, cannot be defended as an 
 lonism of tragedy, and is to be abandoned on other grounds. 
 
 In late inscriptions we find the asper even where Classic Attic has the lenis : 
 Kad" eviavrSv B. C. H. VIII 2410, le (Amorgos\ €<^' 'Ca-ri C. I. G. 313775 (Smyrna), 
 acp' "[(Tov Le Bas-Waddington 87 (Teos), naff eVos C. I. G. 3094J2 (Teos). 
 
 Sentence Phonetics. 
 
 411.] Assimilation of Consonants. 
 
 The assimilation of a nasal to the consonant of the following 
 word is very common. 
 
 V becomes p. before tt ; Kyzikos 11I9, Zeleia J 1325; Naukr. 
 139 Q, Ephesos 1475, 12^ Abdera 162^ Erythr. 206 B 58, Samos 
 
334 THE IONIC DIALECT. [412. 
 
 22 In, Halik. 24O13, 21, 29J 30^ 33J s5> zv 4U iv Mylasa 248 B 7, 8 ; 
 No. 261. V becomes \x before ^: Zeleia 114 F, Eph. 1476. 
 
 V becomes ju before /3 : Halik. 24033, Eph. 1472. ^ becomes pi 
 before /x: Eph. 145, Chios 174 C 24, Erythr. 206 A 25, Halik. 
 240gj. i; becomes y before k: Ephesos 14714, le? Teos 1582^, 
 Chios 174 C 22; Erythr. 206 A 47, B 29, Halik. 240^^, ^g, 25, 34. 
 
 V becomes A. before A: Halik. 2403, 29? 31^ ('EA.At/^ei'to? Thas. 
 (L) 8jj, cf. /. H. S. VIII 402, 18). V becomes a before o- : 
 Halik. 2384^. K becomes y before /3 in iyj3akelv Teos 15821. 
 Cf. the variations in Herodoteian MSS. between 'EK^drava and 
 'AyjBaTava. k becomes y before 8: Chios 174 B 22 (KaySi- 
 Kao-ayrooz;), Head //. N. 504. k becomes y before A : Samos 
 22O35 (eyAeiTrei). We may also notice 'Ai/Kaos on an Ionic 
 vase C. I. G. 7375^ "EvKaipos Styra iQjss^ avvypd(f)r}''^, J. H. S. 
 VIII 40221 Thasos. In Herodas we find -vy- i^^ -vtt- Iqq, aijy- 
 
 ^(pi-yy^ 5-25- 
 
 DECLENSION. 
 
 412.] The Dual. 
 
 By the fifth century the use of the dual in the literary 
 monuments of Ionic had entirely passed out of existence. Recent 
 editors of Herodotos are rightly unanimous in extirpating the 
 two eases in which all the MSS. agree in its retention: I 11 
 bvulv oboiv TTapeovcrioiv Tvyr] 8t8co/xt atpeaiv, ()J eK yap bvolv ovk 
 opioedvectiv cyeyovee. Elsewhere bv&v, bvolai are the forms adopted. 
 While the inscriptions have no instance of bvo'iv, bvQv occurs in 
 Chios 1 74 D 1 4, a document which however inflects the numerals 
 after the Aiolic norm. Hipponax 29 has bv rjpiepaL as might be 
 expected. Hippokrates avoids the dual with such persistency 
 that it may be doubted whether he employed it at all. All of 
 the examples quoted from the Hippokratic corpus are found in 
 the treatises of the younger school. These are VI 472 bvolv 
 biacjiopotv . . . (Tvp.(p6poiv where the MSS. have 8ia(/)opots or 
 biacpopoov: VII 120 dp.cl)oiv roiv 6(pdaKpoiv [6 has the pi.) : 
 VII 128 TOO d(f)daXpcb TTovceTov re kol i^^x^Tov [6 has the pi.): 
 
 VII 138 bvolv: VIII 54 dpi(polv: VIII 76 toIv o^^aAjuoti/ in 9 
 (v. I. has the pi.) : VIII 326 rw 7ro8e {Q has the pi.), roiv -nobolv 
 (not in &), T(i) priput [6 has the pi.), toIv (tksXoIv (tu>v o-KeAewi/ 
 in 6) : in IX 84 we find such an anomaly as bvcrl yacnipaiv : 
 
 VIII 144 Tolv acpvpolv but 6 has e/c tcov a^vpSiv : VIII 236 ro) 
 
 ' But r))v A- 24O3C) fV A- 24O38, „. 
 
 '' Cf. SYN for ZYMMAXiKON, Ephesos, Head H. N. 495, Samos 
 iUd. 516. 
 
414.] 
 
 A DECLENSION. 
 
 3^5 
 
 Xet/ae {0 has the pi.). As regards the Ionic writers of the Rena- 
 scence under Hadrian, Lukian d. S. § 30 adopts dpyvUoov hvoiv, 
 Arrian hvdlv § 7? ^oklixm avbpe § ly, ajxtpoiv toIv '^epolv \6, 
 Tolv (TKekolv 14 bis, €KaT€poLv 14. Arctaios writes once rw Tro'oe, 
 but not elsewhere where pairs of the parts of the body are 
 spoken of. These cases of the occurrence of the dual must be 
 regarded as deviations from normal Ionic in the direction of Attic. 
 See § ^y^ for the dual in conjugation. 
 413.] Gender, &c. 
 
 1. The grammarians regarded as Ionic the use of the following words as 
 feminine: ij-fip Eust. 77515, 1566,4, /ciW 139043, 139950, 192357, ^\a(pos 165256, 
 tvvoi (cf. Et. M. 47332\ Kvyes, vfiiSvoi 8775,, 139O49, e\\6s 139O48, ovos Et. M. 47335, 
 opviOes Eust. 112645, fiovs Et. M. 47335, Eust. 1390^8, avs, xo'^pos 175214-26, Atlien. 
 IX 375 C, x'Jfes 187^45? piv6s 67945, 192654. ^o7(os too is feminine in Ionic 
 according to Eust. 163I2, Sehol. i 315 and Photios II 135 ; affrpayaKos (but cf. 
 Anakr. 46) Bekk. Anecd. 1 45425 = Bachm. Anecd. 1 15421. In comparison with 
 Doric, Ionic has to show a larger number of nouns whose feminine gender 
 awakened the attention of the grammarians. Occasionally the use of the 
 masculine for the feminine is noticed, as in the case of &(rPo\os in Hipponax 
 (Bekk. Anecd. I 1722) ; Upptxos when masculine is Ionic, when feminine 
 Attic : Et. Mag. 14930, Bachm. An. I 146 (Bekk. An. I 446), cf. Eust. 1163,9, 
 153358, Schol. Arist. Aves 1309. Joh. Gr. 240 holds that effirepos (Horn.) is Ionic 
 for effirepa, cf. 6 ridpas Hdt. I 1 32, ridpr) VIII 120. 6 K6yxos is found in 
 a Delian document, Ditt. Syll. 367179. In Hippokr. VI 198 6 (pdpv^ where 
 has the fem., so VI 212. An Ionic change fi'om the fem. to the neuter is 
 claimed by the An. Par. Ill 15613 on the score of Trapfid; ibid. Ill 46413 
 Ke\ev6a for KeXevdovs. 
 
 2. Such forms as vUes, ipirjpes, ^pvcrdp/naTes for viol &c. are called Ionic by 
 Joh. Gr. 240 B, Greg. K. 444, Meerm. 652, Aug. 667. 
 
 3. <pi is archaistic in all post-Homeric monuments, as indeed it is in 
 Homer. ee6(pi in Naukr. I p. 63, No. 28 (Uapnevla-Kos OeScpi) is perhaps the 
 only occurrence of (pi in a prose document. This inscription is not necessarily 
 Ionic. 
 
 A Declension. 
 
 414.] 
 
 This declension embraces masculines in -tjs, feminines in 
 -77 and -a, where other dialects have -as (Attic --qs in part), -cZ 
 (Attic -7} except after vowels and p) and -a. The dialects vary- 
 considerably in their adoption of tlae forms in -a. 
 
 Masc. Fem. Plur. 
 
 TJ? 
 
 r], a 
 
 ai 
 
 €0), eft), (a, €V, eos, eus 
 
 ■qs, 77? 
 
 eoyv, €(ay, cov 
 
 rjt 
 
 Vh m 
 
 rjicri., Tyts, ais 
 
 r]v, ea 
 
 ■qv, dv 
 
 as 
 
 77, a 
 
 1), a 
 
 at. 
 
^^6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [415. 
 
 In the following discussion of the cases of the singular, 
 especial attention is directed to the occurrences of Ionic rj = Attic 
 a after p and vowels. Most of the inscriptional forms are 
 enumerated and the date of the ingression of the Attic d noted. 
 On forms where ij was preceded by e, see § 363. For cases 
 of the presence of Ionic rj in Attic, see § 73. 
 
 Hdt. has fj ipdixfj.7], 71 Td<pp7i, 7] <pov7). There are many words which end in 
 •apxv^ instead of -apxos. Hippokr. and Hdt. have t] irdOr) and rh TrdOos, 
 ra "AfiSrjpa, not ri "AjSSrjpa, is the form in the Ionic of Hdt. 
 
 415.] Nominative Masculine (inscriptions). 
 
 The inscriptions have generally preserved throughout the 
 fourth century the specifically Ionic tj after p and vowels. See 
 § 173. 
 
 I. After p : ^A6r]vay6pr]^ Teos 161 (2), Aetvayoprj^ Naxos 34, 
 ''Hyqa-ayopris Abdera 163 (4), Samos 317, 'Apto-rayo'pTj? Ephesos 
 151 (l), ATjixayoprjs 151 (3), Uvdayopris Samos 336 (l)bef. 350 B.C., 
 363 Asiatic Ionic (after 408 B.C.), Thasos (L) 10 Bg, Head R. K 
 513, 518, UpoiTayoprjs Halik. 34O22 and in several other examples 
 from the Thasian inscriptions in the Louvre dating from 300- 
 375 (first and second periods according to Bechtel). 
 
 Tlie Attic d has forced an entrance in T<SiKay6pas Eph. 1472 (300 b. c), of. 
 Ni/ca-ytJprjs Thasos (L) 7^^ ; ' Au[a]^ay6pas Smyrna 15342 an inscription which is 
 almost Attic. 'Apia-raySpas Thasos 82 A 5 (225-200 b. C, cf. 'ApiffrayopTis Thasos 
 (L) 4 B9 about 300); ^avaySpas Erythrai 206 B 55 (after 278 B.C.), cf. ^ava- 
 yoprjs Thasos (L) 6 D 8 (about 300 b. c.) ; ['H]pay6pas Thasos (L) 14 A 11 and 
 in eight names in -ySpas from the Thasian inscriptions in the Louvre (15 C 11, 
 20 A 9, 16,2, 18 C 8, 18 C 6, 18 B 13, 19 B 8, 15 A 5, 15 B 5, 15 A 10, 165); 
 ' AdrivaySpas Klazom. Head H. N. 491. 
 
 In No. 215 = Rob. I 156 we find IIv6ay6pas 2a/Utos eiroiriffev attached to an 
 offering of Euthymos, a Lokrian airh Zftpvpiov. As this Pythagoras is called 
 by Pausanias (VI 6 4 £f.) an inhabitant of Rhegion, he doubtless belonged to 
 the Samians who came in 494 b. c. to Sicily (Hdt. VI 23) and became subjects 
 of Anaxilas of-Rhegion. Cf. Loewy (Iwsc/«. gr. Bildhauer, No. 23) and above, 
 § 172. TlvdaySpTis in 261 is the name of an immigrant Ionian in Salymbria, 
 a colony of the Doric Megara. 
 
 3. After i: 'Ao-rt??? Styra 19173, Kptr^/j? 195^, Xapo-nirj's 19151, 
 
 MlKpiriS 19255-258:' Uvppir]S I9o9,,.293J ScriO-tTJS I9445, AovpLTJS 31, 
 
 Euboian Ionic. 'Eortr;? Erythr. 306 B 16, 'To-rrwtrjs Halik. 
 340^2 > Ati;/?o-i7]s Thasos (L) 3-, FAaDKtTjs Rhegion 6 B, EvKOLrji 
 Keo9 44 B 9, Uavo-aviris Thasos 78 B 3, Mrr/o-u/s Thasos 75 B 9, 
 Ua\ix](pau]^ Thasos (L) 19 A 6, 'AvTLt]s Rob. I 190, No. I, E, 
 Twaujs Latyschev II 303. 
 
 Attic -(as is found e.g. in llainrias Mykonos 9224 (Makedonian period), 
 Tlaaias 104^3 and ^ayias 1043^ lasos (^before 353 B.C.), 'Ayruvias Eph. ijo (time 
 
41 8.] A DECLENSION. 337 
 
 of Hadrian), 'liririas, Hava-avias Smyrna 15331 an almost Attic inscription, 
 Kpm'oy Thasos 82 A 7 (225-200 B.C.), 'Earias Erytlir. 206 A 9 (cf. 206 B 16 
 'Ecrri-ns), Tlcwa-avias Perinthos 234 B 42, and Thasos (L) Nmias n B 4, 'Aju<^tos 
 12 A 4. 
 
 3. After e : Alverjs occurs on a Chalkidian amphora in Rob. 
 I 189 F. 
 
 4. After v: riai'a/xvrjs Halik. 2383^, gen. Uavaixvoi} see § 429; 
 ^kr]vr}s Naukr. I 235, name of a barbarian Ionized. 
 
 Attic a occurs in Mapcrvas lasos 104^ (before 353 b. c). 
 
 5. Other nominatives in -rjs: 'Apia-njs Eryth. 206 B 21, 
 'Ep/xT/s^ Samos 220^2, 'Adrfvrjs on an Abderite coin in the British 
 Museum {Catal. 71, No. 48), Ae(a))i;^s Keos 44 A 5, 'Hy?}? Chios 
 179, cf. 'HytTjs in Hdt.j 'ATreXAr;? lasos 104^5. For other forms, 
 see § 263, 3. On the development of the declension of the 
 hypocoristie -a?, -ahos for -as, -a, see below, § 546. 
 
 If 'H76OS and 'EXirias Keos 44 B 4, B 16 are not Attics, these two names are 
 the two earliest examples (except YivOay6pas, above under i) of the expulsion 
 of the Jonic sound. The document is perhaps older than 400 b. c. It is 
 highly probable that these individuals are not lonians. The name Arj^eay 
 Delos 57 is from a much later period (second century). On Mt/cas Thasos (L) 
 14 A 7, 'Hpas Thasos (L) 18 C 3, see § 165, note. On supposed cases of -edj in 
 the Styrian lead tablets, see § 157. 
 
 416.] Nominative Masc. (Lyric Poets). 
 
 'EjO/xr)s Hippon. 55 B ; 'ATreAAe'r)? Anakr. 72 B is not different 
 from 'AttcAA?^? cited under § 415, 5. MeytoTTy? in Anakr. 41 
 may be read Meytor?^? (cf. Meyioras upon Attic and Boiotian 
 inscriptions). ^ Ava^ayopas Anaki*. 105 is corrupt. 
 
 417.] Nominative Masc. (Prose). 
 
 In Hdt.^ 'Epixrjs, l3op7Js {e.g.W 44 no MS. has -i-qs:), 'Apto-rrjs, 
 UvOijs, &c., § 263, 3. AiveC-qs Menekrates in Dion. Halik. A. li. 
 
 I jj (Jac). 
 
 418.] Nominative (Accusativej Feminine in -a. 
 
 The Ionic dialect, while presenting many traces of resemblance 
 to Attic and other less closely connected idioms in respect of the 
 retention of -d in the nom. fem., pursues a different path from 
 Attic especially in the treatment of abstract nouns in -eu] from 
 -eo-- stems. When Ionic has -a, this termination is not the 
 property of this dialect alone. 
 
 'In ^H3/v^■^^H on a vase in Overbeck's Atlas zur Kunstmythol. pi. IV, 
 No. 6, H3 IS a dittography. 
 ^ Greg. Kor. § 1 'A/jxitjs. 
 
338 THE IONIC DIALECT. [419. 
 
 Examples of -a: ro'Ajua^ Hdt. VII 135^ and Eurip. Ion 1264, 
 Androm. "jcz, and in Plato_, whereas in Doric we have ToXjjid, Pindar, 
 0/. XIII II, and so Io7i I4i6(?). C£. schol. Ven. on F 130. 
 l3a(Ti\eLa is referred to § 177. ixolpa in Hdt., Anaxag. 5, 
 Archil. 16, Mimn. 6, Solon 20, 1%^^, Tyrt. 7; \xoLpav Sol. 
 27i8, 1I2, Sim, Am. y^^, „^, Sim. K. _5i(,, Demokr. 194, 
 inscrip. adesp. No. 265 in BechtePs collection, c£. § 439 II A. 
 vapKa Hippokr. VI 368, VIII 310, 312 (also in Menander, 
 no. 498, Kock). 
 
 In many eases this a is difficult of explanation -. Many words 
 belong to the class of which /notpa is an example, the iota of the 
 pre-Hellenic suffix -ta having been transferred to the radical 
 syllable (fiop-ia, ixotpa). Thus y€(f)vpa, (T(f)vpa are to be derived from 
 -vp-LCL. Where there is a variation between a short and a long 
 vowel as in the case of roKixa, it has been suggested that the 
 form with d is due to the influence of such doublets as aXrjOeid 
 and a\')]6eLd. It is, however, by no means certain that the con- 
 fusion between -id, the nominal suffix, and -td, the adjectival 
 suffix (§ 174), is older than the creation of a roA/xd from 
 Tokjxd. 
 
 Whether x"-P°-^po- Hdt. IX 102 or x'^P^'^P"' (Stein, Holder) is the correct 
 form is not clear. C has x°p''j'5pa»/, P x^P'^'^PW- The same variations 
 recur in the case of the name of a Phokian town, VIII 33. Here E 
 has XapaSprju. 
 
 In some cases the MSS. of Hdt. have retained, in opposition 
 to their procedure elsewhere, the forms in -eta, -ota. Thus we 
 find evjueVeta, abeia, eTTt/xeAetar, e///xeAetaz', -jrepLtpdveLa (§ 1^6), 
 bidroLa, biavotav, €vvoLav (§§ 178, 441). Hdt. has both ^(oKaia 
 and (PoiKaij] according to the MSS. (§ 179). 
 
 Adjectives in -vs have feminine -eta or -ea, § 219. Hdt. has 
 bacrea III 32. 
 
 419.] Hyper-Ionic 17 for d. 
 
 The maleficent ignorance of the late grammarians and scribes 
 did not fail to lay its hands upon the d which was a genuine 
 heirloom of the Ionic dialect. To these sciolists r; was the one 
 unmistakable sign of Ionic lineage. Not only was the -d after p 
 attacked by them, but also the -d in the feminine of nouns and 
 adjectives where it follows upon t. The dialectological treatises 
 
 ^ T6\iJ.ri in Hdn. I 255,5, 32421, II 426,. cf. Bekk. An. I 6623 {T6\fi.i) koI 
 T6\iJ.a, ■Kpvfj.vT] Ka.\ ■Kpvfj.va) . It is not elsewhere attested. Joh. Gr. 241 xp'i'>"''ai ■ 
 Se Kal (TV(TTiK\ofj.4v(f Tip a oj'tJ toO 77 "luivis, Aocpiels 5e iKTfivofj.4vcp. Cf. Phrynich. 
 (L-) P- .S3I. 
 
 ^ See Misteli K. Z. XVII 177, XIX 119; Osthoffs Forschungen, II 25; 
 Brugmann, M. U. II 201, Chundr. 1 § 639; Wheeler's Nom. Accent, 35ff. ;^ 
 Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 64, Johansson, A'. Z. XXX 411. 
 
4I9-] A DECLENSION. 339 
 
 of Gregory and the Gramm. Meermannlanus are the heirs of 
 this error. Gregory § 10 (of. § 45 and Gramm. Vatic, p. 696) 
 says TO a els rj TperrovcrLV . . . "Hpa "Hpi], (Tcpaipa o-(f)aLpri : the 
 Gramm. Meerm. p. 650 "Hpa "Hpi], x^P^ X^P^h ^po- ^pV) cTretpa 
 (TTTeLpr}, where dialect forms are confounded with pan-HeHenic 
 formations {cr^aipa, (nrdpa). In Hdt. I 204 all the MSS. have 
 fjiotprjv; in IV 120 d has ixotpr], and so too the Aldine edition 
 which generally accepts the perversities of the hyper-Ionizing 
 movement. In II 17 it alone has pio[p'i]v. p.oipy]v recurs in 
 Lukian's Adrol. § 10, p,oipi] Euseb. § 9. veaipy] is found in the 
 pseudo-Hippokrates VII 312, 316, 320. where^ however^ the 
 Vienna codex 6 (the oldest MS. of Hippokrates) has -pa. evpey] 
 is found in III 212. In Hdt. IV 120 the Aldine edition has 
 jxCr], a form repudiated by the MSS. of the historian, thougli 
 occurring in Hipj^okrates ^ and Aretaios. Hyper-Ionic ovbepii] 
 appears even in Solon XIII 46, where no MS. pronounces 
 in favour of the genuine Attic and Ionic form. ovhep.i7]v is also 
 found in Lukian Sp\ U. 19, Astr. 27, 29. In the inscriptions 
 there occurs no case of nom. or accus. ; juias Olynth. 8 B 13 is 
 Attic, /xt?/? Sim. Am. 2 (conj.), Herodas i^^, 7^^, pir] Theognis 
 664 (in ^), Herodas 5gg, are the genuine Ionic forms which were 
 the starting-points for the creation of the hyj^er-Ionic p.\.r\. In 
 the vulgate of Herodas III i we find \i.vir]v. 
 
 In the fem. of adj. from masc. -v?, Hdt. usually has -ea (§ 506). 
 ir\ is found in some or all MSS.: jpip^i^ IV 23, Tpi^x^rjv IX 122, 
 I3a6eriv I 75, Sacrerj IV 1 09, baaer]v IV 21. Hippokr, has 
 dfer; VI 172 {6), 1 74, VIII 132, d^erjv 178, 180, 6i]X€li^v YIU 
 274 (-lav 6). j3ader]v even occurs in Homer, H 766 (Nauck fiaOvv). 
 TTax^iriv is found in the MSS. of Sim. Amorg. 31 B. The 
 pseudo-Ionists not infrequently have 77. Lukian S//r. I). r]p.i(Tei] 
 14, 6r)Xir]v 15, 51 ; Arrian, TrAareajf 16, Tpax^'t-ri 23, '^'] (cf. 32); 
 fiaderjv 27; Eusebios § 5 Weirj, Eugeb. Mynd. 6^, tvpir]. Cf. Tpr]- 
 Xeir/y Anth. Pal. VII 315. 
 
 If in the one passage in an inscription where such an y\ form appears 
 (Latyschev II 370) : — 
 
 'H5e[j]7j KeTfiai, dvyarr]p re afxa fiot *iA0!/[t/f]7/" 
 Hvi)fi.i]v [5'] i<TTTi](Te[y'] ^drvpos n[i](r[T]o|eVo(i') [55]e. 
 the form 'HS6(i)rj were certain, the forms adduced above might stand on a 
 better footing. While the omission of the t presents no difficulties (cf. 'HSf'a 
 C. I. A. Ill 2324, 3186), Aschik's limitations as an epigraphist are such as to 
 throw suspicion upon his transcription. Aschik himself suggested 'H5[t(rT]7j. 
 As Latyschev remarks, the O for OT in the genitive would permit us to place 
 the inscription in the fourth century ; a date much too early in my opinion 
 
 ' firiSe/xiriv II I So {fxiav in 2269}, fiiriv VIII 334 (/xlav 6\ ovSefxir]!/ II 648 
 (-ai' A), 11 65S in Vjut one MS. All have ij.iav II 664, as Herodas i^.^, 
 
 61 > 572- 
 
 Z 2 
 
34° THE IONIC DIALECT. [420. 
 
 for the emergence of the hyper-Ionic -rj. Until the stone is rediscovered, no 
 weight should be attached to its evidence. 
 
 420.] Ionic tj = Attic a. 
 
 Old Attic with its -id in abstract nouns was like Ionic with 
 its -it]. Since, so far as we can make out, Ionic rarely, if ever, 
 adopted the -id termination (§§ 175, 178), there is a divergence 
 between the two allied dialects, which has been broug-ht about 
 by the transference in later Attic of the ending -la from the 
 feminine adjectival stems to the category of abstract nouns. We 
 are never certain when we find a form like akr]6eia in later 
 Ionic that it is not due to the influence of Attic ; though no 
 reason may be adduced why Ionic should have refused to admit 
 the innovation which changed to such an extent the character 
 of the prose speech in Attic. tpeiTj is attested as Herodoteian 
 (§ 177), despite tepeta in Homer and other dialects. On 'lo-natrj, 
 Miih^Lrjv, see § 179. 
 
 Mimn. 9g, Hdt. I 15, 149 have ^ixvpvrjv, so Fit. Horn. 5 (but 
 ^jxvpva 2). crjjLvpvf] is found in Hdt. Ill 107. irpvixvy) ^ may be 
 an adjective form from Trpvixvos (Brugmann, Berichte d. sdck- 
 sischen GeseU. d. Wiss. 1883, 191). -npviivo. on this view 
 might be an analogue of irpi^pa, though it may have been 
 formed as other words in -a (above). irp^priv Hdt. I 194 
 (cf . VII 1 80) is clearly erroneous. 
 
 For the Attic form irdva, we find an apparently Ionic form 
 -eivi] in Plato L?/s. 221 A, PZ/il. 31 E; cf. Trypho in Apoll. Conj. 
 228, Schn. (quoting 407), Hdn. II 456jr, = An. Ox. II 302^3, Et. 
 Gud. 745^ and Schanz' Froleg. to Gorgias p. VII. With the form 
 ■ndvy] we may compare Tre^^ mentioned by Hdn, II 372^,1 = An. 
 Ox. I 339,2 (cf. I 368 If,). TTeizTj and 7re'(?? are not hyper- 
 lonisms, but genuine Attic formations whose tj still resists | 
 satisfactory explanation. 
 
 421.] Infiection of yea, jui^ea = Attic y>/; [xva"^. 
 
 The following forms of the word yr\ occur : — 
 
 (i) yata, found in Homeric and Old Ionic yalav Mimuerm. 
 12^, Kallinos i^. (2) yia does not occur in any case of the 
 singular, but is attested by ykai Zeleia 11340 (shortly after 
 Granikos), yeW Hdt. IV 198^, ye'ai? Mylasa^ C. I. G. 2693 F 9, 
 
 ' irpv/j.vri is found in the tragic poets and in fVasjis 399. 
 
 - See Merzdorf in Curtius' Stud. IX 225, Schmidt. K. Z. XXV 146, XXXII ■ 
 349, Fick, B. B. XI 250, Bechtel, Ion. Inschr. p. 54, Wackernagel, A'. Z. XXVII 
 264, G. Meyer, Gramm. § 126, Fritsch, V. H. D. 19, 39, Johansson, B. B. XV 
 183 ff. The last named scholar proposes to explain tlie interrelation of 
 'A6r]vaia and ' Mr]va in tlie manner described above. 
 
 ^ 'yi(j}v A B R, yewy C, yiwv P, yatiiu dz. 
 
422.] A DECLENSION. 341 
 
 according to Le Bas, No. 414, yias Chios 174 C 12 (fifth century), 
 Halikarn. 24O3 (not much later than 400 B. c), Mylasa 250, 
 C. I. G. 2693 F 6 according to Le Bas, No. 414, Latyschev 
 II '^^'^, in an inscription from the Mover, k. jStjBk. quoted by 
 Bechtel, p. 147, Olymos 251^ and Le Bas 338 (both late), 
 Zeleia 1 14 F, and in a fragment of Demokritos preserved by Clem. 
 Alex. Strom. I p. 304 A. The nom. y^iq is not found in any part 
 of Ionic. (3) y^ = ya in Doric, Eleian, Aiolic, Thessalian, 
 Boiotian, &c. and = ha in Doric, ^a in Kyprian, occurs in Hdt, 
 I 193, Herakl. 21, 23 (?), 76 (?) in Pherekydes of Syros in 
 a fragment quoted by Diog. Laert. ; in 77)5 Herakl. 68, cf. 
 § 430 ; in Teian yrji, 156 B 9, yfj Herodas 223; in yriv Herakl. 8, 
 Hdt. I 30, Teos 156 A 6, lasos 1043^, Erythr. 204^3, Halik. 
 2389, 24O7, 12' ;i6' i8> &c., Amphip. 1O4. 
 
 juz;€[a] is a probable conjecture, Paros 62, \xvris Herodas 7^9, r,i, 
 ixvriv Herodas 25^, 52, ixv^ai Hdt. II 168, VI 79, fxveMv Hrd. 202? 
 ixvias Hdt. Ill 13, 89, [xveas Hi'd. 79Q. jxva is found in jjLvas 
 Hipponax 2O3, Hrd. 52^, Thasos in /. H. S. VIII 402, 1. 10. 
 fxvies is a strange reading in the Sj/ria Dea § 48. Cf. i-i\xiixvr}iov 
 Paros 62, biixvem Hdt. V 77. 
 
 The explanation of these forms is as follows : — 
 
 *ydf-ia. *nva.-ia. Nom. *yaf'Ld *ixva.-ia. 
 
 "I " "I ' 
 
 *7^a *|Uj/7ja Gen. *ya.uas *ixva.ua.s (cf. Lokr. ixvaidios). 
 
 From yria, fivria, Ionic yed, /j.vea. may arise directly, and from gen. yai-, the 
 Old Ionic nom. ya7a; from fj.v3.r)s>fjivaurjs comes the Ionic nominative /xva, 
 contracted from *fjivar] (cf. Aava, from Aaud{i)ri, found in the Hekataian 
 Aoi'a, § 273). Attic iJLvci is derived from *fj.vda by a similar transference of 
 the weak case-form into the nominative. Ionic yrj is to be derived from *yi)7i, 
 whose final tj is due to the influence of that of yaurjs. ynri became ^ytij by 
 shortening of the first 77 before the second 17. The former presence of f in 
 the word for earth is probable, less certain in f^va. 
 
 In compounds Ave have ytw derived from 7770-^ ; yaio- (§ 211) from yat- the 
 weak case-form ; and 7610- from 77710- . Sifuvecos is derived from -fMi/rjo-. 
 
 422.] Nominative Feminine in tj after p and vowels 
 (Inscriptions). 
 
 'Nmavbp-q Naxos 23, Qovp-q Naxos 23, 'ApiaTayopr) Erythr. 206, 
 C 38, one of the few lonisms in 206, Mvricnhcopr} Amorgos 39, 
 Btrraprj Priene, 3IU//f. XVI 291. 'OA^it? is a form preserved 
 till late imperial times (§ 173), MtArjatrj 99 Miletos, 'EKaratrj 
 Parion 115, 'loyvL-q Pantikap. 121, Ko^pLoaapv-q Phanag. 167, "Hp?/ 
 Naukr. 447, 841 E., Upi] Pantikap. 123, Ephesos 150, time of 
 
 ' yvox^ovTi Hdt. VII 190 is suspicious. Ionic yew- has forced its way into 
 a Doric poem of Theokr. I I3 = V loi. 
 
342 THE IONIC DIALECT. [423. 
 
 Hadrian, < tepe(t)>/, cf. Hdi. tpeu; I 175, V 72 (§ 177), KAea- 
 yopi] Eretria, A. J. A. VII 247 (No. 2), Zco/3tT/ ibid. 249 (No. 20). 
 A(opo(f)ia Rob. I 29 (fifth century) is not Ionic. In Chian in- 
 scriptions in Paspates^ Glossary: 'Apre/xtcrtTj 13, ^ajj-iri 13; in 
 Latyschev II: •'Irtrj 97, Aei/xet?] p. 310; 'keo-i?? Teos, Mitth. 
 X\ I 296. Attic -td in E{i(7r)opta Pantik. 121, KaoraAta Phanag. 
 i6(S, &c. 
 
 423.] Nominative Feminine in tj (Lyric Poets). 
 I'ncontracted -erj in adjectives is nnusnal even in -aXirj, e.g. 
 'Ay)(^aX€ri Hippon. 99, with which cf. apyaXei] Anakr. 43^, 
 
 K€ijda\ii] Archil. 89. (-?; in Ammon. and An. Par.), apyvpir] is 
 the correct form in Anakr. '3^'^ according" to Bergk, and Rossbach, 
 Metrik III 567, apyvpfj according to Hiller in the Anthologia 
 ]j//rica^ No. 29 ; the latter form is correct. 77op(pvpe-n Anakr. 23. 
 Archil. 19^ has o-vki] in an epigram (Renner -e'r/). 
 
 424.] Nominative Feminine in r? (Prose). 
 
 Hdt. has (nby]p€i] I 39, a form obsolete in the Ionic of the fifth 
 century (see under Accus.). On d8eA(|)j/, see § 263, i. Ket-e?/ in 
 Aret. 146 is from k€V€F6s. For btTrkirj, in all MSS. of Hdt. 
 Ill 42, we must read bLirXi] ^, which occurs in Hippokrates 
 (§ 263, 3, b). 
 
 425.] Genitive Masculine. 
 
 The form of the genitive in Ionic possesses a peculiar interest 
 both from the variety of its formation and from the interrelation 
 of vowels, -do is Homeric, Boiotian and in a few cases Kyprian, 
 -d is Doric and Aiolic, an d which must have differed in pronun- 
 ciation from that of rijud. Horaer^s -^m is generally diphthongal, 
 and in Ionic the oj is without effect upon the accent. 
 
 426.] 
 
 The Ionic gejjitive according to the grammarians : — (1) -ew preceded by a 
 consonant, ayKuXo/jL-qreu An. Par. IV 8623, Et. M. 1I12, Et. Gud. s^g; [AlveiSeai 
 Et. Gud. 520 ;] "AKTeai Eust. 122539 (cf. schol. Nik. Alex. 8), the only instance 
 in Homer of dissyllabic -eon. Read'AAra', C having "AArao ; 'Apxiew Greg. K. 
 384, 'ArpfiSeai Hdn. I 4o8i2 = An. Ox. Ill 22814, Hdn. II 3136, 3i44=An. Ox. I 
 34720 = An. Par. Ill 1153 ^icovts koI ol iroiriTai), Hdn. II 67923, II 26710= An. Ox. 
 I i573 = An. Par. IH 3387, Hdn. II 6652o = Choir. 12O30, An. Ox. Ill 23I29, 
 Choir. 13418, An. Ox. I 911, I 1952 (-e'c), I 2485, II 40422, Et. M. 15348, 53, Et. 
 Gud. 5,9, 8330, Joh. Gr. 242, Greg. K. 385, Meerm. 655, Eust. 13 init., schol. 
 Ven. A on B 461, O 214 ; av\r\T4o> Hdn. I 40813 = An. Ox. Ill 228,9 J ©oAew 
 Hdn. I 40819 ; Kauo-e'w An. Ox. Ill 22819; K6fx^<u Hdn. II 67923, An. Ox. 23I28, 
 Choir. 134,8; Aae'pTeo) -Joh. Gr. 242, Meerm. 655; Aae/)T<a5ew Joh. Gr. 242; 
 juvKsoi Hdn. II 6799 = An. Ox. Ill 2315, Choir. 13934, Bekk. An. 1399 ; 'Bep^eoD 
 
 ^ Bredow proposed SurAo'ij, a form found in Hippokr. Ill 186, ajo. 
 
427-] ^ DECLENSION. 343 
 
 Hdn. II 3136 = An. Ox. I 34715 = An. Par. Ill 11 53 ("luves kuI ol 7rotr;Toi\ Joh. 
 Gr. 239 B, cf. 242, Greg. K. 385, Vat. 695, Excerpt. Birnb. 6779 ; 'Opeartw 
 Hdn. I 40813 = An. Ox. Ill 228,4, -'^n- Ox. I 1932, I 203, Et. M. 153,8, 52, Et. 
 Gud. 8329 ; riepa-eu Joh. Gr. 239 B, ef. 242, Greg. K. 385, Vat. 695, Birnb. 677^ ; 
 nriXeiSeco Hdn. II 267io=An. Ox. I i573 = An. Par. Ill 3387, An. Ox. I g^, Et. 
 M. 15349, 1545) Et. Gud. 520, Eust. i^ init, Meerm. 655; nrjXriidSeai Hdn. II 
 3i45 = An. Ox. I 34726 (cf. 34627), An. Par. Ill 1159, 29933, Eust. 12 ad fin. 
 Joh. Gr. 239 B, cf. 242, Greg. K. 385, Birnb. 6779 ; VlriKeiddeai (sic) Meerm. 655, 
 Vat. 695 ; npta/nlSiw Hdn. II 3i45 = An. Ox. I 34725, Hdn. II 6552i = Choir. 
 12O30, An. Ox. II 40422, An. Par. Til 1159 ; To^6Teo Joh. Gr. 241 B. 
 
 (2) Forms with a vowel preceding -ew : AiVeiew Hdn. I 408,3, cf. An. Ox. 
 Ill 22929, Hdn. II 66517 = Choir. 12O25, An. Ox. I 9^ (-e'w), Et. M. I53<9, Eust. 
 13 init, Greg. K. 385 ; 'Acriew and 'Aaiai Hdn. I 521,, I 40815, II 24332 = Schol. 
 BDLV on B 461, II 479^, An. Ox. I 1932, I 203 ('Ao-jV), Et. M. 153,5, 53, 154,. 
 Et. Gud. 8323, 27 > schol. Ven. A on B 461, Greg. Kor. 385 ; Bope'sco and Bopew 
 Hdn. II 3i732 = schol. V on H 238, cf. II 705,3, An, Ox. I 2O7 , Et. M. 15356, 
 Et. Gud. 8334, Eust. 44427, 99437; 'F.pfj.eUw and 'Ep/xejo, Hdn. I 408,4 = An. Ox. 
 Ill 22815, An. Ox. I 2O4, Et. M. 15350, 53, Et. Gud. 8330, Eust. 13 init. 44423, 
 schol. Ven. A on 214, 'Epfiew schol. Nik. Alex. 8 ; ivfj.ixe\ioo Hdn. I 5215, I 
 40816, II 24333 = schol. BDLV on B 461, II 47915, Et. M. 15357, Et. Gud. 8323, 
 Eust. 44427 . 
 
 427.] Genitive Masculine (Inscriptions). 
 
 The following list of inscriptional forms does not include nouns 
 which are elsewhere declined in part according* to the -es declen- 
 sion, e.ff. 'Apra£e/5^evs Myl. 248 ABC I, names in -Tret^rjj, 
 -(f)dvr]s, -aAKTjS; &c., which may be found § ^2^. Other cases of the 
 admission of -eo? or -ens have been inserted. Inscrijjtions whose 
 date is quite doubtful have been omitted. The forms in -d and 
 -ov are not Ionic, and those in -eos, -eu? are due to the influence 
 of sigmatic stems which have affected the accusative as well as 
 the genitive singular. On the -co forms, see below. The -ev 
 forms are not yet satisfactorily explained. Bechtel [B. B.^ 282) 
 claims that this -eu is in reality an Ionic spelling for -eo (cf. 
 § 246) and that this -eo represents -eco by a change of -co to -0. 
 The fact that no example of the change of final ^(a to eo is 
 known in Ionic or any other dialect, does not increase our 
 sympathy for Bechtel's explanation of edeopeov, deopoi, &c. : that 
 iv, which originally arose from final -eco, forced its way into a 
 medial syllable. See § 287. Brugmann, Gr. Gr. § 19, endeavours 
 to account for -eo by assuming that the co of -^oi became under 
 the influence of the final in the ending of the O declension 
 
 (tTTOo). 
 
344 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [427- 
 
 
 B 
 
 En 
 
 
 
 AeivoSiKfcc Naxos 23 
 Aa/XTra-aySpeoi} AmorgOS 
 29 
 
 Au/cH:t5€a> Rhegion 6 B 
 Klp]iTcoviSfw Paros- 
 
 epigr. 60 
 'Ep/jLOKpariSecii Abd. 16,^3 
 ' AnoWuviSew Halik. 
 
 23811 
 -tSew Milet. 96, Rob. I 
 
 136, cf. Kirch.* 26 
 MoXiraySpew Abd. 1635 
 npoDTew Abd. 16313 
 HvOew 256, unc. loc. 
 &etKui\d>uela!~\ Halik. 
 
 2387 
 [Mj €70/3 are CO Halik. 
 
 23811 
 'HlpaylSpfoD Samos 213 
 ^avayopeu Perinth. 233 
 'Apxay(^p(<^ Halik. 240 
 
 CD 
 
 n 
 
 'Epfieea Amorg. 230 
 'Ep;U€'a» Sam. 22O31 (this 
 
 form also Chios, 
 
 Paspates 34) 
 'Epfj-ieai Chios 180 
 'ExeKpaTiSfo) Amorg. 
 
 35 epig^, perhaps 
 
 third cent. 
 Uop/xveiSeui Milet. 9'; 
 'AiroWwviSeoi) Chios 176 
 
 (and Paspates 43) 
 ^TparuviSeo} Naukr. 
 
 Bechtel, 139 C 
 'HpaK\ei5eoo Maron. 
 
 19611 
 ^dvfoo lasos io4n, 50 
 ^dveco A1*lera 1631, 
 Imrdpxeca Kyz. Ill 
 2,Kv6f CO Phanag. 164 
 'AQ7]v4<j) Maron. 1966 
 'ATTfAAeoi Maron. 1967 
 fvepyfTfO) Myl. 248 C 9 
 UoiKeo} Teos 1575 
 'HyrjaaySpfO) Maron. 
 
 iy6,o 
 
 'll^a^ayopeco Kyz. 109 
 'Upayopew Samos 218 
 Nviu.(pr}yfTea> Samos 2 1 9 
 Maj/Lejo) Pantikap., 
 
 Lat. II 116 
 'ArcoTeco ibid. II 164 
 27rj0a/i€« ibid. II 381 
 Eiia^KiSeo) ibid. II 154* 
 
 ET2 
 
 'A<riw Chios 174 C 27 
 'AvviKu Chios 1 74 C 13 
 nuflcD Chios 174 I) 4 
 Auo-ftj Chios 174 D 17 
 nalvafjLvou Halik. 238,2, 
 
 240 A 1 1 
 MiKiwi Halik. 240A38 
 ' Apxayopii ibid. B 3 
 BpcoAoi Halik. Ditt. Syll. 
 
 6 D 22 
 
 Tlavffaviu Abd. 16315, 
 and Cat. Brit. Mus. 
 Thrace II, No. 57 
 
 UaKTvw Myl. 248 C 3, 
 13 
 
 'Hpa/cA€i56u[s] Keos 49 
 OvAtdSevs lasos 1047 
 ^oiviKidevs lasos 10407 
 
427-] 
 
 A DECLENSION. 
 
 345 
 
 E02 
 
 AfaSeos Olyn. 9 
 UaipiadSeos Panti- 
 kap., Lat. II 9 
 
 ET 
 
 OT 
 
 M€j'j'€olasosi04i,, 
 
 26 
 
 'AfjLiiuTa lasos 104 
 
 21) 24 
 
 AiovvTo. las. 10435 
 'AQ-qvayopa lasos 
 
 io4m 
 Maz/iVa Myl. 248 
 
 C 2 
 [KaKKia C. I. G. 
 
 21 2 1 Knidos?j 
 
 'Ap]x'')7e'''€vEryth 
 201, smaller 
 side, 1. 6 
 
 n"'€t0eO Eryth. 
 ^B.C.H. IV 160, 
 No. 10, 1. I 
 
 'Ep/xiov Eryth. 
 
 20-;^ 
 'A]j'Tia7dpou Kyz. 
 
 I "6 
 
 
346 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [427. 
 
 
 En 
 
 n 
 
 ET2 
 
 
 *iAa)vi'5€co Thasos 77 A 5 
 
 
 ['H]7r;[To>i'(5)6us Tha- 
 
 
 'AAwiSeo) Th. 75 A 1 1 
 
 
 sos 77 A 14 
 
 
 Ni/ciSew Th. 75'B I 
 
 
 AewSevs Th. 77 B 7 
 
 
 'ATToAAojj'iSecc Th. 78 B 
 
 
 'AiJ.<piK\elSevs Th. 77 B 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 AfceviSfwTh. 78 C 13 
 
 
 'ApiffrelSevs Th. 77 B 14 
 
 
 Ko(T/j.i[S (CO Th. 79 
 
 
 &eoTt/j.id(vs Th. 81 B 14 
 
 
 nfiparTiSew Til. 80 
 
 
 4>a(ri7j(f»)iSei'jTh. 82A6, 
 
 
 <I>iA]o|6;/i5€a) Th. 81 
 
 
 Th. (L.) 6 B I 
 
 
 A-ni5(w Th. Si 
 
 
 @pacra}vi5(vs Th. 82 A 1 3 
 
 
 'tpi'j'i/fiSect) Th. (L.) 7^ 
 
 
 ■A7Aat56.;s Th. 82 B 12 
 
 
 BpaTTiSeo. Th. (L.) 7 B 
 
 
 'OyofiaffiKKfiSfvs Th . 
 
 
 9, 105 
 
 ^ 
 
 (L.) 6 C II 
 
 
 EvaA/fiSeo) Th. (L.) 3io 
 
 
 Aio[cr]KovpiSevs Th (L.) 
 
 
 euoj^iSeco Th. (L.) 46 
 
 
 II C II 
 
 
 Ni/cfSeco Til. (L.) 89 
 
 
 'AAKtdSevs Th. (L.) 12 
 
 
 'AAe|i'5e&) Th. (L.) 9,2 
 
 
 C6 
 
 
 *(Aio-TiS6a»Th. (L.)iOi2, 
 
 ' 
 
 ni/Aa5[e]wTh.(L.)i3,o 
 
 
 12 B 9 
 
 
 'IwTrayoptvs Th. (L. ) 3 B 2 
 
 >, 
 
 'Ava^aySpfw Th. 75 B 7 
 
 
 nv]eay6pevs Th. 8 1 
 
 ^ 
 -w 
 
 nt^eayoVeco Th. 78 "A 6 
 
 
 Avaay6pevs Th. (L.) II 
 
 0) 
 
 'AeTjj/aYt^peco Th. 79 (cf. 
 
 
 A 6, II C 10 
 
 
 
 MauSpay6peu Paspat. 
 
 
 T^iKaySpevs Th. (L.) 12 
 
 
 I, Chios) 
 
 
 A6 
 
 1— ( 
 
 ■HpaySp^cc Th. (L.) 3, 
 
 
 na77r)06i/sTh. (L^6C7 
 
 
 ^(poSpay6p(0D Th. (L.) 
 
 
 Arifiids Th. (L.; 11 A 3 
 
 
 4B7 
 
 
 
 
 AfaySpew Th. (L.) 7i,j 
 
 
 
 
 STj^aydpeo) Th. (L.j 83 
 
 
 
 
 npTj^ayopeuTh. (L.) lOg 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 KvSpaydpeco Th. (L.) 12 
 
 
 
 
 B II 
 
 
 
 
 Xapfiew Th. 75 B 3 
 
 
 
 
 Kyvfeai Th. 80 
 
 
 
 
 'ApLffreaiTh. 81 B 10 
 
 
 
 
 0aA6a> Eryth. 206 B 46 
 
 
 
 
 BfSavpecc Th. (L.) 3, 
 
 
 
 
 Ti^Xfcpdveca Th. 5^ 
 
 
 
 
 npo/ceco Til. 10,0 
 
 
 
 
 'A7i'6co Olbia 1 3 In (III 
 
 
 
 
 cv , 
 
 
 
 
 MTjSiK-eo) Kyz. 108 B I. 
 
 ^ , 5. ( Eretria, 
 
 Xatnicj ) ^^'''"- °-P^- 
 
 
 s 
 
 XapyUeo) Teos 160 
 TlopKfa! Maron. 195. 
 
 
 -S 
 
 Itnrdpxfoo Kyzik. Mitth. 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 202. 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 ^apvaK.w Lilt. II 299 
 
 
 
 
 I late epigr. with 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 Doric forms) 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 Zev^fOD Eretria, 'E<p7]fi. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Apx- 1887, 83 ff. 
 
 
 
 hH 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
427-] 
 
 A DECLENSION. 
 
 347 
 
 EOS 
 
 4>iA6£ori5[6]os Tha- 
 
 sos 73 
 Z6(^upiSeosTh. (L.) 
 
 2 
 
 Xaip6aThasos(L.) 
 
 14 A 6 
 n^iOiaTh. (L.) 14 
 
 A 12 
 'AttoAAS, KAeaj'- 
 
 dpiSa lasos, J. 
 
 H. S. IX 341, 
 
 No. 2 
 
 ET 
 
 'Apiarev Eryth. 
 206 B 9 
 
 'AKeo-JreD Eryth. 
 206 A .^3 
 
 IluOev Erytli. 206 
 C 35, and 
 Smyrna 153,5 
 
 'AvSpla Delos n6g3 
 XeipeaTh. (L.) 15 
 
 A9 
 'Ap/ceo-iAoTh. (L.) 
 
 18 C 12 
 'Ava^lAa Th. (L.) 
 20 A 15 
 
 OT 
 
 'Epfiov Ei-yth. 206 
 
 B4.S 
 
 ^avaySpov Eryth. 
 
 206 B 56 
 UvOfov Eryth. 2c6 
 
 C15 
 KaWiov Eryth. 
 206 C 20 
 
 'Aa-KKriiridSov Paros 
 
 67 
 TlvBfov Delos 56,,, 
 VlpoKKelSov C. I. G. 
 
 3105 Teos 
 'Epfx.ay6pov Pharos 
 
 87 
 'Epfiov Teos 15822 
 
348 THE IONIC DIALECT. [428. 
 
 The above tabulation shows that -eco holds its own until the 
 fourth century. At this period its supremacy was attacked by 
 other forms of Ionic complexion, as -co, -eu, -eus. The last men- 
 tioned form is due to the desire to give an Ionic stamp to -eos, 
 which had made its way in from Attic. On the other hand the 
 purely Attic forms in -ov gradually gain power. That so few 
 examples of -ov appear under the head of the third and following 
 centuries is due to the fact that only such inscriptions as contain 
 any trace of lonism however slight have been taken into 
 account. By the end of the third century -eco is practically 
 dead. The ending -d is non-Ionic and in place on inscriptions 
 in the names of Dorians only. 
 
 C. I. A. II 4, B 19 (about 400 b. c), the only Attic inscription showing a 
 form in -ew, contains a list of banished Thasiotes. The Rhodian ^afitdSevs is 
 due to the influence exercised by Ionic upon the native dialect. The Ionic 
 ^a/jLidSris .for -5ds) occurs C. I. G. 2534. 
 
 ^dyovs, read by Prof. Gardner on an electrum stater, Rob. I p. 177, cannot 
 be cori-ect. If not ^dvrjTos, the Ionic form of the seventh century would be 
 ^dvew. 
 
 428.] Genitive Masculine (Lyric Poets). 
 
 The genuine Ionic poetical form is -eco, which in the lyric poets, 
 as in Hesiod, must always ^ be read as one syllable (even when a 
 short vowel precedes), except when -eco is reduced from -eew. 
 Besides eo) we meet with (2) the epic (Aiolic) -do, (3) the Doric 
 -d only in the Megarian Theognis, and (4) a few cases of Attic 
 'OV which must give place to -eo) in case the poet is of Ionic 
 stock. In the late parts of Theognis this -ov may be defended. 
 
 1. eo). 
 
 A. lawhograpli'ic Poets. 
 
 Archilochos : Yvyeio 25, juvKew 47 (trim.), cf. § 438, I, "Apto) 
 48 trim., AeTTTU'ejj) 70 tetr. ; on ^eAArjiSeo), cf. Bergk on No. 104 
 and § 233. AuKd/x/36a) 28 is merely a conjecture of Elmsley. 
 The MSS. have AuKci/^eo?, cf. § 531, II 2. 
 
 Hipponax : 'ATrdAea> 152, TvyeM 154 trim., geo-TroVeo) 64, /xoAo- 
 jS/JiVfo) 77 for the incorrect fxo\o(3pLTov of Eustathios. 
 
 Herodas : AtJSeco I32, ypaiijxaTicTTe^ 39, Mi;rrf(o(?) 43^, 'AireAAea) 
 4.J3, iravToepKTeco 5^^, l3vp(Tobe\jre^ 6gg, and so 'AKiaej^ 3,;^; probably 
 -60) is reduced from -eew in Uvdio) i^g. The only exception to 
 the rule stated at the head of this section is presented by Uprj^L- 
 reAeo) 4^3 (01 11. Tralbes), which is a contaminated form. 
 
 ' On the exception nprj^treAfiv Herodas 4.23, see under i A below. ^apvdKim 
 is also an exception in Latyschev II 299, a very late epigram. Here the open 
 -60) was a necessity. 
 
 
 I 
 
429.] A DECLENSION. 349 
 
 B. Elegiac Poets. 
 
 Tyrtaios : MtSew I2g, Ktwpew I2g, TarraAigew 127. 
 
 Theognis: AioAtSeco 702, 'AtSeo) 703, 802, 1124, Bo'peo) 716. 
 
 Solon: 'AiSeo) 243 and -nokvriyyeM 1349. The recurrence in 
 Solon of the Ionic eleg-iac form ought to guard us against sub- 
 stituting therefor the Attic forms. Anakreon too has 'AtSew 435 
 (melic) and AtyetSew 99 (el eg.). 
 
 Phokylides : i ^(HKvkihfja Bergk, as elsewhere, v. I. -Cbov ; 3 
 '^PoiKvXibeco, Stobaios -Cbov, 4 4>ooKuAt86a>, Stob. -Cbov, 5 vtilffo -ibov, 
 6 -t8e&). 
 
 ^jxepbUo) (—^^ — ) occurs in the pseudo-Simonideian epigram 
 
 2. -do, an imitation of epic usage ^, cf. § 446, 3 : 'AtSao Theog. 
 244, 427, 906. Aujrao Mimn. 1I5. nCaao Xenoph. 2^, 2.^^ 
 
 Al-fjTao, the only example of -00 from an older poet of Ionic birth, is, how- 
 ever, not to be suspected because the verse immediately preceding has been 
 lost. AirjTfca T6 irSxiy is therefore an otiose conjecture. Te\ewu in the same 
 fragment is an exception to the tendency to contraction. In the MSS. we 
 often meet with -ao as v. I., e. g. Tyrt. 12^. 
 
 3. Doric -d in Theognis : Etrpwra 785, 1088. 
 
 4. Attic -ov (?). 
 
 Archiloehos is said by Eust. II. 518^2 to have used the genitive 
 "kpov '' KttT 'laba hiaX^KTov." This is scarcely correct, and Bergk 
 reads "Apew (frag. 48), though he does not change [xoXolSpiTov 
 Hipponas 77. Phokylides' name appears as <t>(tiKv\ibov in MSS. 
 of Stobaios and Strabo (see above on -e<w). ov often occurs 
 as V. I., e.g. Theog. 702. In 1014 the pseudo-Theognis has 'AtSou. 
 This form was not possible in the elegy before the rise of Attic 
 poetry, 
 
 429.] Genitive Masculine (Prose). 
 
 I. -eco from nominatives in -17s preceded by {a) a consonant or 
 [}j) any vowel except e. Examples : [a) Hdt. 'lo-ayopeoo, AeurwxtSeco, 
 'ApTajScLTeui, Kp-qriveca, Mdveco, Kavhavkeco, 'ApLVVTao (cf. 'Ap^vvra 
 § 427), 'ETTtaAreo), Hep^eco ; Hippokr. 'Airayopeo) II 664, but 
 'A.y\atbov same page, ^pwix^beco II 704, OtKereco III 60 ; Demokr. 
 'A'lSeto 3Ior. 54 j Herakleitos Tewra/xeco ; Xanthos 'AAuarreco, 
 2a8varrea), cf. Miiller, F. H. (r, I p. 40 6 ; Pherekydes of Leros 
 BpovTeco, SrepoTreo), "Apyeco 76, AtTjreo) 60. Lukian uses no other 
 form except -eco, while Arrian in the huUke, and Eusebios 
 
 ^ Greg. Kor. 611 is corrupt : AlaKiSao yap 'iceviKcvs Koi AlaKlStco 'AttjkcSs. The 
 more accurate grammarians thought tliat the Homeric -ao was either Aiolic 
 or Boiotian, but Tzetz. Ex. II. 1 1 705 opinea that eKarrilSeXeTao is Ionic, -ea> 
 Attic. 
 
350 THE IONIC DIALECT. [429. 
 
 Myndios are not so conservative in following Ionic usage. The 
 Vita Homeri has -eco throughout (6, 17, 38). Even in the sup- 
 posititious letter of Pittakos to Kroisos (Diog. L. I 81) we find^ 
 together with Aiolisms, 'AAuarrew. 
 
 {b) After I : Hdt. verjvieu), YlavcravUoi, 'Ao-tew, AvbUco ; Uranios 
 12 Kox^^Uoo, cf. 'Epjuteco in Chios and Beehtel, Ion. Inschr. p. 109. 
 After V : Hdt. Mapo-yew^ riaKrT^eco, npcriro^i^ew. 
 After CO : Hdt. Kwew. 
 After at : Hdt. ^ KpiayaUia. 
 
 After et : Aiyetew Menekrates apnd Dion. Halik. p. 77 (Jac). 
 After eu : Hdt. 'AAeveco. 
 
 2. If, however, the t]? of the nominative was preceded by e, 
 eew in the genitive is avoided by the hyphaeresis of one e (or, 
 what is practically the same thing*, by the contraction of ew to w) 
 'in order to escape the hiatus^. In confirmation of this explana- 
 tion, which was adopted by the ancients^, the following forms are 
 cited from Hdt. : 'Apioreo), 'Ai;8peco, WvQkai (found in Herodas), 
 l3op€co, 'Epjueo) ; jBopeoo from Hekat. 6'j ; 'Ep//eco from Lukian, 
 S^r. d. 38 Adr, 20, Euseb. Mynd. 63, cf. Homeric 'Epjixeto), 
 jiopioi; 'Ep/xeo) hymn Herm. 413, Aphr. 149. In § 263, 3 it is 
 shown that the nom. of these nouns in the fifth century was not 
 -erjs, as is generally assumed, but -r/s. No form in -eeco is per- 
 missible. Dindorf's /Sopeeco is a creature of his imagination 
 deriving no support from the statement made in An. Ox. I 
 20-, &C. 
 
 If with these Herodoteian forms cited in i a and 2, we com- 
 pare those known to us from inscriptions, certain noteworthy 
 differences come to light. Whereas Hdt. has IlavaavUai VIII 3, 
 the inscriptional form is ITaucraz'tco, and whereas Hdt. has FTa/c- 
 Tveo) I 158, the Mylasian document has UaKTvca. From the fifth 
 century there is a considerable nmnber of inscriptions which place 
 the termination -co from -eco < -eeco after consonants, iofa, and 
 upsilou beyond peradventure, whereas in the text of Hdt. there 
 is no instance of the contraction of -eco derived from -eeco. That 
 the inscriptions in no wise impeach the validity of the Herodo- 
 teian -ea>, is clear from 'Ao-teco and UvO^oii. Between nvOeco and 
 YIv6u> there can be no radical difference. The -co form, so far 
 from being a distinct grammatical innovation designed to dis- 
 lodge the older form in -eco, is probably nothing more than a 
 difference of writing to express more exactly the pronunciation. 
 In fact the extent of the pronunciation of -eco as -co in the speech 
 
 * Cf. Bennett's Cyprian Dialect, p. 29. When ee is followed by a vowel, 
 hyphaeresis of one € never takes place in case €6 was originally separated by 
 f. Cf. Schmidt's Netdm, p. 323 note. 
 
 ^ Eust. II. 99437 ih S( Boptw 'Ioiivik6v etrri, cvyKOTrkv e/c rod Boptew, Cf. § 426, 2. 
 
430.] A DECLENSION. 35 1 
 
 of the people eludes observation ; but it was no doubt more 
 widely diffused than might be inferred from our texts. We 
 have already noticed (§ 428) that a dissyllabic -eco is not found 
 in any genuine fragment of older Ionic lyrical poetry. 
 
 It has been held ^ that the Homeric forms Pdvdca E 534, 
 kv^jx^Kiio A 47, 165, Z 449^, and the inscriptional 'Acrtco, Ylava- 
 jjLva), llaKTVM, &c., warrant our formulating the rule that whenever 
 -eft) is preceded by any vowel (not merely by e) it becomes -co. 
 So long however as we have 'Epjixicw and 'AyUco in the stone 
 records, it is futile to maintain that the numerous instances of 
 -eo) after i and v represent the efforts of the grammarians and 
 copyists to foist upon Ionic prose a form foreign to the idiom of. 
 the dialect. 
 
 In Attic literature -ew occurs only in the case of an Ionic name or in that 
 of a name which passed into Attic through an Ionic source. E. g. Qa\eui 
 Plato Eep. X 600 A, TTj/jeco, nu0eco Thuk. II 29, Ka/x0vffeoD Xen. Kyrop. I 2, 1 
 {•ov Dincl.). 
 
 The tendency to introduce Homeric forms into the text of Herodotos 
 appears in T-qpvovao in the Romanus, IV 8. 
 
 Attic -ov appears in fiopeov^ III 102 (C\ IV 51 in R (and so in Arrian 
 Ind. 2) in Mapcrvov VII 26 and 'Apio-reou IV 15. Stein follows the MSS. in 
 editing Kvpeov VI loi. In VIII 11 ABsv have AiVxpaiou (adopted by Stein) 
 the rest Alaxpeov. 
 
 Occasionally the MSS. of Hdt. have -eos by transference to the -es declen- 
 sion, e. g. 2iTaA/c60s IV 80, where Stein reads -eoo with P, 'Ordfeos III 71, 84, 88, 
 144. 'AcTTvdyeos is the regular form in Hdt. 'Ta-Tav-ns is inflected according to 
 the consonantal declension though 'Ordvris, See, have also forms of the A 
 declension. 
 
 430.] Genitive Feminine (Inscriptions). 
 
 The genitive feminine has -7/s after p (Sepp?;? Hdn. I 371,;): 
 "Hprjs Samos 226.,, Naukr. Bechtel 237. In fact the form "Hp??? 
 was kept in the language of dedications long after it had dis- 
 appeared from the speech of the people. Thus the Samian "Hprjs 
 2262 dates from the time of Augustus or Tiberius'^. Cf. §§172, 
 173. The Attic "Upas occurs in Samos 22036 (346-45 b. c), 22I07 
 (322 B. c), "Upas TeAetas Erythr. 206 C 15 (after 278 B, c). See 
 Head, //. K ^ly. 
 
 After t : gacreuj? Zeleia 114 E 4, MTjrpo/iJiTj? Latyschev II 248, 
 cf. p. 306, [&€obo]airis iljid. II 8, yepou.TtT/? Ephesos (Wood's 
 
 ^ So Erman in Curtius' Stud. V 294 ff., Fritsch, Stud. VI 126. This is also 
 the view of Kirchhoff. 
 
 ^ 'Affiw AD and Aristarchos in B 461, added to this list, is now often read 
 'Aaitf! as in C. See Leaf ad he. 
 
 ^ Cf. C. I. A. I 32129, and Hesychios s. i\ fioppov, Hdn. II 64(>35. 
 
 * Genitives in -ptjs occur in a very late period of Ionic, e. g. Koan7]Teipy]s in 
 C, I. G. 3002, and in Wood, Discoveries, App. 8, No. 14. Even in the MSS. of 
 the New Testament such forms as (TTretpTjs, fj.axalpr]s appear. See § 173, foot- 
 note. 
 
352 THE IONIC DIALECT. [43 1. 
 
 Discoveries, App. 6, No. 19, 302 b. c.) ; of the same period irpoOv- 
 fj.(.r]i I. I. No. 21. Quite late forms are iTrTrcoyirjs Kyzik. 108 B^ 
 (first century), Maiavbpi-qs Kyz. 112 (first century), AvkCtjs Corp. 
 Imcr. Sem. I, No. 45, pi. 8. Of Attic provenance are npo£ei;tas 
 No. 261, vyetas 129,4 Olbia (period of the empire). 
 
 After v: Kajxaaapvrj'i Latyschev II 195. 
 
 The Ionic genitive is yTJs, e.g. Herodas ig^, Halik. 2382^, Teos 
 156 B 22, inscriptions free from all trace of Atticism; also 264 
 adesp. See § 421. yaiTjs in Latyschev II 37 (epigram) is the 
 epic form. 
 
 431.] Genitive Feminine (Lyric Poets). 
 
 -erj? is regularly contracted in the earlier period of the Ionic 
 lyric : -noptpvpij^ Sim. Am. i^g, yaXfjs J^q, xp^^^V^ Mimn. i, Theog. 
 1293, ^3^^) ^^ "^ Homer (Renner -4-qs), pobrjs Archil, 292 (tr.), 
 (TUKerjs Anan. ^^ (tetr.). Open er} is found in apyaXerjs Solon 439 
 (eleg.), adjectives in -aX^os often remaining uncontracted. 
 
 432.] Genitive Feminine (Prose). 
 
 Herodotos has atbrjperj^ I 38, 39, for which the contracted form 
 should be read. Open erj occurs in Teyerjs VI 105, ©upe'rj? I 82. 
 When F disappears between erj, contraction does not result, e.g. 
 Hdt. v€r]s I 60, Aretaios 170 K^veijs. In adjectives in -vs we 
 have -erjs, e.g. dr]Xer}s Hdt. II 35. 
 
 433.] Dative (Inscriptions). 
 
 The dative of the A declension has in Ionic three endings, -17 1, 
 -7j, -et. The occurrences of -rj and -ei are rare. 
 
 I . The ending -i]l. 
 
 We find Tjt after p and vowels in every Ionic inscription from 
 the earliest to the latest times, whether in pure dialect or tainted 
 with Atticisms [e.g. Eph. 147) except (i) in the specific cases of -?) 
 and -et mentioned below, and (2) in the few instances of -at which 
 are given below in the note. Even in late imperial times -tji 
 occurs, e.ff. EtAet^utr/i Paros 66. 
 
 Cases of -ai in the dative singular. 'Afiwrai 8 A 2 Olynthos is not an 
 lonism. Srj/jLoffiai 261 (of the fifth century) is an Attic inscription except for 
 TlvdaySpriy (§ 415, i\ cf. 5rjyuo(ri5}t Mylasa 248 B 11; so also iSiai 725 Thasos 
 ithird century), evvoiai Eph. 147s, an inscription almost Hellenistic, the only 
 lonisms being xp^cew^io; and \_i(j>' 'larjil Koi o^oijjtn, cf. Sanios 22 ijg where this 
 formula recurs. Other Atticisms are 'Ayporepai 1653 Phanagoreia (latter half 
 of foui'th century, cf. QevSoairis, 1. 4), 'Aa-rdpai Phanag. 167, ©eat 2,ccTeipai Keos 
 52 (Roman period), "tyeia Paros 67 (time of the empire), 'Ep/xlai Erytli. 20411 
 (not much before 345-44 B.C.). 'Ep/x7jt is always the dative of 'Epfj.rjs, e.g. 
 Zeleia 162, Lampsak. 171. No case of -ot occurs before 350 b. c. 
 
433-] ^ DECLENSION. 353 
 
 2. The ending- -17. 
 
 The oldest example of the expulsion of iota adscriptum is Mc{i;tj 
 Kyzikos 108 A^ an inscription of the sixth century. The later 
 copy (108 B), dating- from the first century b. c, has also M[d]i;r7. 
 Next comes avrr] Chios B 1754, an epigram of the fifth century, 
 and then r^ [3ovKr] Erythrai 199 (after 394 B.C.), an inscription 
 which preserves cot throughout ; ejfx MaAveirj in 201, another 
 Erythraian inscription of the fourth century (early part) ^ ; Mylasa 
 248 C 15 {^S5~54 B.C.) 8t]/xoo-ii7 ; Zeleia 11315 ttj -jroAet (shortly 
 after Granikos); r^ j3ovXr] Priene (territory of the UavtcavLov) 
 1442 (middle of the fourth century). From the Roman period 
 we have Ot/ctoTT? and nvOtr] Miletos loi. The latter form occurs 
 also in C. I. G. 2885 and JB. C. H. I 287 ; a[y]adi] [n^xn Olbia 
 I29i, rTpooraTTj 129^ (period of the empire). In imperial times 
 -HI and -H, not -EI, occur on Attic inscriptions. 
 
 3. The ending -ei. 
 
 The ending -rjt is often written EI in Attic after the year 380 
 B. c. EI prevails after 300 b. c, decreases from 200 on and 
 ceases entirely with 30 b, c. (Meisterhans, p. 30 ff.). We find 
 the following examples of this orthography in Euboian Ionic : 
 eKare'ioEI rET tto'AEI Eretria 156 (between 410 and 390); orr/AEI 
 Eretria i^vj^- TEI ^ixriEt Oropos 1827 (from 411-402 B.C. or 
 between the Peace of Antalkidas and 377); i8tEI Oropos 181^. 
 
 -et is thus substituted for -tji in the dative about the beginning 
 of the fourth century. 
 
 Swdfiei Teos 156 B 32 is a locative, all the datives in this inscription ending 
 in -7JI. The subjunctives have -€i, which is not from -tjj, cf. § 239. 
 
 In Oropos, No. 18 the subjunctive termination is -ei throughout. In 
 Olynthos -tjj is not affected. In Amphipolis 10 -Tjt is the dative form, -€t 
 the subjunctive ending. 
 
 The Kymaian inscription Rob. No. 173 has EI in the subj. /cAe'ifTjj ; and in 
 Becht. 3 A = Rob. 177 A we have tEI kXiVEI, which we transcribe with rjt. 
 Cf. jcAiVrji Keos 435. 
 
 4. It is noticeable that, whereas in Attic -et gains ground 
 towards the end of the fourth century b. c, in those inscriptions 
 from the Kyklades and the Ionic mainland of Asia Minor which 
 show Attic influence (notably Eph. 147, 300 B.C.) there is no 
 trace of a dative in -ei ^. As far as Ionic is concerned, the 
 weakening of -rjt to -et in the dative is resti'icted to Euboian 
 Ionic. In other Ionic regions we find et from medial rjt; see § 235. 
 
 * An I, found upon the stone after the H, is held by Bechtel to be a break 
 in the marble. 
 
 ^ The El's of No. 16 (Eretria) are not to be counted, since -on, not -01, is 
 found in the datives. 
 
 3 But cf. B. C. H.YI 6 ff. ( = Bechtel, No. 56), a Delian inscription (185-180 
 B.C.), which has tj and ei, e.g. rrj 1. 6, 7, re? 1. 2, 27 ; 7re/.t7rT7j(t) 1. 61 ; rplrrj^t) 
 1. 62. 
 
 A a 
 
354 THE IONIC DIALECT. [434. 
 
 Dubois suggests T^lpet naX[a]ie?s for IF^^TPAAI^^ -B. C. H.Yl, p. 190 
 (Amorgos). This is quite improbable. Cf. "Hprjt Paros 65, Samos 223. 
 
 434.] Dative Singular (Lyric Poets). 
 
 The open -ej] is found only in Kvvep Tyrt. IJ32 which is an 
 Homeric reminiscence, erj was contracted in the earliest period 
 of the Ionic lyric. Scrij)tio plena occurs in a^aiprj Tjopcpvperj 
 Anakr. 141. ^ 
 
 435.] Dative Singular (Prose). 
 
 The genuine contemporary form occasionally comes to light 
 in the MSS. of Hdt., e.ff. Kwy IV 180, where Stein's Kvviri is 
 entirely unsupported. But ^opir] V '3^'^, VI 139 is without v. I.; 
 so too 8a)pe?/ Ill 130^ y^vey] I 3, ^^. vrj is adduced from the 
 ^aixLoyv (apoL by Hdn. II 9123 (nom. vr] = vea). A crude hyper- 
 lonism is y)p.eper] in Abydenos i. 
 
 Some MSS. of Hdt. have -e'i by transference to the -es de- 
 clension, e.ff. Kva^ape'i I 73, 74, cf. -77 I 16. 'AaTvayeX, or -ei, is 
 the regular form in the MSS., e.ff. I 74, 119, 139. 
 
 436.] Accusative Singular Masculine (Inscriptions). 
 
 I. Ifasmline in -r]v, e.g. '' kpi(jray6py]v Mykon. 92^4, \\vQay6pf\v 
 261, name of a Salymbrian on an Attic monument (cf. § 415, i 
 note), TiaXaia-Tprjv Naukr, Bechtel 139 C. Attic forms are Nik- 
 ayopav Eph. 147, 8 (300 B.C.), 'Ajj-vvrav 8 A 5, not an Ionian; 
 'Ep]/xtay Erythr. 20425 (345-44 B.C.) is the earliest instance of the 
 admission of the Attic form. 
 
 437.] Accusative Singular Masculine (Lyric Poets). 
 'Epju.?]v Hipponax 32 is the regular post-Homeric form in all 
 branches of Ionic. Boperjv in Tyrt. 1 2^ is the Homeric form. 
 
 438.] Accusative Singular Masculine (Prose). 
 
 1. Hdt. has /3op?> in all MSS. I 6, 174, III 97, IV 31, VII 189, 
 201. Elsewhere there is fluctuation between /3ope?jy and iBopijv 
 (II loi, I"Si 22, 116) or all MSS. have (3op€r]v. The latter is the 
 form found in Lukian, Sj/r. d. 28. The correct form is l3oprjv 
 though rejected by Bredow, Stein, and Holder. 'Epp-rju is found 
 in all MSS. V 7. jxvKip is Hekataian, cf. pajK^ca in Archil., § 428. 
 
 See §545. _ ^ . . . i 
 
 2. The overreaching character of the -es stems is manifest in 
 the declension of proper names of the A declension, whose 
 genitives and datives in Herodotos end regularly in -eto, -?/, but 
 whose accusative have -ea ^. In the attack upon the A de-, 
 
 * These accusatives in -ea are frequently called Ionic by the grammarians. > 
 Apoll. Adv. p. i9if, (Schn.) cites Eeplf") noAu5e«T€a (not in Hdt.), Tvyea. Cf. 
 Hdn. II 835.23 = Choir. 8662,, (cf. Choir. 56122, 60I3, 86003). Bep^fct. is usually 
 selected as the example. Cf. An. Ox. IV 21133 ^^'^ IV 36306, An. Par. IV 23232, 
 
439-] A DECLENSION. ^^^ 
 
 clension^ the accusative appears to have offered the first avenue 
 of approach^ the genitive the second. 
 
 Some of the examples of the accusative in -ea may here be 
 given, while the reader is referred to Bredow, pp. 225 ff., for a 
 complete list of the forms in question. I give merely those cases 
 where Stein has adopted the accusative in -ea^ : (1) names in -6tjs : 
 AeoTUxtSea VI 6^, 73, 85; 'linTOKXeibea \I 129; MtArtaSea VI 
 35> 37 ^^^> 39) ^35> ^?fi ^^^ • (2) names in -yopi^s : 'ApLo-rayopea 
 
 V 32,, 33, 65, but 'Api(TTay6py]v V 3^ bis, 37 : ^T^qaayopea VI 38 ; 
 Ava-ayopea VI 133 : (3) other names: Mtrpo/3area III 1 20 (/is, 
 126, 127, but Evpo(3dTriv IX 75 ; Tvyea 1 10, 1 1, but rvyy]v I S, 
 15 ; 'AAmrrea I 73, 74, III 48 ; KavhavXea I 10, il, 12; 'Apafea 
 I 205, 209, 211, III 36, but 'Apd^riv IV II ; Hep^ea IV 43, 
 VII 4, 38, 46, but Bip^r]v VII 5, 6 Us, 12, 17 i^er, 27, 56, 
 118, 120, 130, 145, 208, 210, 223, VIII 22, 25, 69, 110, 113, 
 114, 118 bis, 119, IX 1, 116 bis; 'Apro^ep^^a {sic) VII 151 bis, 
 152; riepo-ryy VIII 3, 108, 109, and throughout; Arjto'/cea I 96; 
 Ka]u^?;o-ea III I bis, 2 ^?>, 3, 10, 15, 31, 32, 34, 44, 62, 64, 66, 
 73; 'Opoirea III I20, 1 2 1, 1 24, 1 25, &C. ; 2az;8(o/cea VII 196; 
 $api^oi/)(ea VII 88 (Arrian^s Anab. has -x^v); 'E7Tta\rea VII 213, 
 but 'E-TTtdAr?]!^ VII 2l8 bis, as VII 214; 'Ordrea III 141, A^ 25, 
 
 VI 43, VII 61, but 'OTavrjv III 76; ^Aorudyea is the regular 
 form in Hdt. 
 
 In the pseudo-Ionists these accusatives in -ea in proper names 
 occur, e.g. "Arrea Lukian, Si/r. d. 15, but "Arrrjy Ikarom. 27 ; in 
 Arrian 'T8da-7rea 3-^^, I9g, 'TbpacoTea 3-^^, Tdyyea 43. 
 
 The presence of this metaplastic form in proper names gave 
 rise to the view among the hyper-Ionizing scholars that even in 
 appellatives this -ea was permissible. We find becnroTea Hdt. ^ 
 I 91, IV 43, III I (-Tjy in B), VII 88 {-r)v PR), and in Lukian, 
 Si/r. d. 25. hea-noT-qv is found in all MSS. I 212, III 134, IV 
 136. cLKivoLKea is found in III 118, but dKu>dK7]v VII 54, a 
 reading rightly adopted by Stein. The same editor rejects 
 Kul3€pvi]Tea the reading of E in VIII 118, a form adopted by 
 Bredow and Kriiger. In these common nouns the activity of 
 the ix€Taypa\l/dp.evoL does not seem to have extended much beyond 
 the expulsion of -r]v from the accusative. But that they tampered 
 with other case-forms appears from aKivdneos in all MSS. IV 62. 
 The Aldine edition has aKLvdKeC in the same chapter. 
 
 439.] Accusative Feminine (inscriptions). 
 I. Accus. in -r]v. 
 
 Et. M. 38618, Eust. 194628 ('Aa-rvdyea). Sometimes the form is mentioned with- 
 out being specially referred to Ionic, e. g. Bekk. An. II. 96713. 
 
 ' Stein as a rule adopts -■t]v where Bredow prefers -ea. 
 
 " For Brugmann's purpose {Grundr. II § 395) this form may be regarded 
 as genuine. 
 
 A a 2 
 
35<5 THE IONIC DIALECT. [440. 
 
 A. Tj after p and i in Trpoebpiriv'^ Erythr. 199.5, 202,0, 203^, M 
 lasos io5tq, J. M.S. IX 341, No. 2 (elsewhere Attic d), Zeleia 
 114 A B C E ; Upriv Naukr. 753 ; oXtyapxirjv Thasos J. H. S. VIII 
 402, 20, btabiKaai->]v Zeleia 113x9, oIklviv Keos 4315, Halik. 240j^, 
 k^r]^ir]v Paros 6j, Trarpiriv lasos /. //. S. IX 341, No. 3 (from 
 the third century), kirapriv Teos 156 B 30; TraTp-qv Thasos 7210, ;j 
 ^vXoTTooXirjv Teos MiWi. XVI 292, and in the forms found in 
 the epigrams preserved in Latyschev II (jSirji; 167, ijkLKirjv, 
 OaKeprjv 171). Nlkccv Paros 723 is from NtKa<NiKdTj, cf. § 273. 
 
 Attic forms: "ZaXv^piav 261, an Attic sepulchral monument to Pythagores ji 
 of Salymbria and dating from the fifth century. TroKireiav Zeleia 114 ABC ,j 
 (shortly after Granikos), lasos J. H. S. IX 341, No. 3, Samos 22I27 (322 B.C.), 
 Eph. 14710 (300 B.C.); Trpo]evniav Samos 22I8 ; tjep^jreiav Eryth. 206 A 17 : 
 (after 278 b. c.) ; -iraih^iav Teos 15837 (very late). 
 
 B. After e in adjectives denoting material, and in nouns. 
 
 It is a significant feature of the dialect that e + tj is always 
 contracted, whereas eoi, e&) are retained, at least in the official , 
 language, till after Christ. Examples are yakKriv Eryth. 199,4 
 (after 394 B.C.), 202,2 (about 350 B.C.) ; xP'^^^^v has been restored 
 upon an epigram Keos 41. 
 
 In nouns e + 7j is contracted : KcoAr/i; Miletos 10O3. y^v€r\v Pares 
 59 epigr. is poetical. j 
 
 2. Accus. in -dv. 
 
 A. From nouns in -a (pan- Hellenic, cf. § 418). dakaa-crav 
 Teos 156 A 10 (01. 76-77), Halik. 240^^ (fifth century), Eryth. 
 204i^ (345-44 B.C.) ; €p€vvav Mylasa 248 C 9 (355-54 B. C.) ; ykoicr- 
 aav Mil. 10O5 ; jj.o'ipav in No. 265 arlesj)., before 01. 80 pi-obably,. 
 in honour of 'Hye'Aoxos, an Ionian from Euboia or the Kyklades : 
 'Epp.u>vo(Taav Chios 173 A 2 is^Eppi.(ava(T(Tav, the of the penult 
 being due to assimilation. i 
 
 Attic forms : evvoiav Samos 2219 (322 B.C.), cf. § 178. areXaav is the regula:' 
 form in Ion*Q inscriptions : Zeleia 114 ABCDE (after Granikos), Ephes. 14^1 
 (300 B. c), lasos 105 (late), J. H. S. IX 341, 2, 3 and 4, Eryth. 1995 (after 39. 
 B. c), 2029 (about 350 B. c. ?) despite aTe(\)firiv Kyzik. 108 B 3 (first cent.) 
 Cf. § 175. 
 
 B. From adjectives in -vs, fern, -eta (Pan-Hellenic) we hav 
 haa-iav Miletos loo^, cf. §§ 219, 419, 441. 
 
 440.] Accusative Feminine (Lyric Poets). 
 
 Tjixipriv occurs in Hipp. 32. Open a] is found in Kvvir]v Tyri 
 113,^, the Homeric form, as y€vei]v Solon 27io, epigr. Paros 5c' 
 a-vKrjv is found in Hipponax 34, kcoAj> Xenopli. 5 (Renner -ii]v 
 
 * The r; of vpofSpiri holds its ground when that of other words has su 
 cumbed to the Attic d. 
 
442.] A DECLENSION. 357 
 
 XaXKerjv is found in Herodas III, XP'^'^W in Plioinix of Kolophon 
 apud Athen. 495 E. From adpoos we have aOpo-qv Archil, 35. 
 441.] Accusative Feminine (Prose). 
 
 1. Herodotos has in all MSS. Kvvir]v I 84, II 151, 152, 162, 
 avKerjv I 1 93, IV 23, x'^^'^^V^ II ^5^) XP'^^^W I 53. For XeovT^-qv 
 IV 8, as is edited by Stein, most of the MSS. have XeovTjjv, R 
 XcovTriv. In this reading we have an indication of the genuine 
 form of the fifth century which is supported by binXfjv V 90 
 (all MSS.i) despite bnrXir] III 42 in all MSS. Cf. § 263, 3. 
 bLTrXijv is found K 134, r 226. 
 
 Open erj occurs in 8copo/y II 140, III 84, 97; Ibirjv I 80, 
 IV 109 ; MaXi-qv IV 179, VII 168, 'Perjy Lukian, Sj/r. d. 15. 
 When F disappeared erj remained open : e.ff. a-Teperiv Hdt. I 52. 
 
 2. Accus. in -dv from nom. in -d (§ 418). 
 
 With evvotav (§ 439 2, A) we may compare the Herodoteian 
 form, which, although the nom. is evvoir], is evvoiav in III 36. 
 So also hiavoiav I 46, 90, II 162, IX 45. Other Attic forms are 
 €Tnix€X€Lav VI 105, eti- or ejujueAetay VI 129. See §§ 175 and 
 178. 'ilpdOviav or ^Upeidvirjv are both found in the MSS., § 178. 
 On the hyper-Ionic ixoipr^v Hdt. I 204, see § 419; on Trp(Spr]v, 
 § 420. pXav, not ixirjv, is the correct form, Hdt. I 164, Herodas 
 I22, &c.j cf. § 419. 
 
 Hdt. has haaiav III 32 (MSS. haafiav). On other forms from 
 the -V? adj., see § 506. 
 
 442.] Vocative Singular. 
 
 Herodotos III 34, 35, 63, &c. has the vocative rT/OT/^ao-Tres 
 fi'om the analogy of the -es stems ; cf. 2rpe\/^ia8es Clouds, 1206, 
 'HpaKAetSes Herodian II 69O33 (from a comic poet). The reverse 
 procedure appears in Kvnpoyiv)] Theognis 1323, Arkadian 'AreXr] 
 C. D. I. 1205, and Aiolic ^(oKpare, &c. Uprj^da-irris is inflected 
 in Hdt. according to the consonantal declension, though in III 
 75 *^ have the genitive in -eto. 
 
 Hipponax has 'Epja?/ I2, 16 Ijis, 21 A, 89, and so Herodas y^^. 
 Other forms are Miiivrj 49, Anakreon 2juep8irj 5, Meyiarrj (or 
 MeyiVTTj) 162,743. 
 
 Vocatives in -d from names in --qs : AvKdp.fia Arch. 94, 
 
 Kumyj^a Hippon. I2, KavhavXa Hippon. Ig. KpiTi] (Hipponax 
 
 118) stands for Kpird according to Priscian [Hipponax €vr]d€s KpiTrj 
 
 pro Kpira). Cf. "HAie KaXXiXa\n:i7j] Anakr. 27. The Homeric 
 
 vv\i^aL would seem to be Aiolic, despite the statement of the 
 
 schol. Ven. A on V 130 that it is Ionic. This form of the 
 
 vocative is in reality pan- Hellenic, though retained with greater 
 
 consistency by Aiolic than any other dialect. 
 
 * Bredow reads Zi-nKi-r^v as Hippokr. Ill 186, cf. 250. The adj. in the fern, 
 when a follows is 5j7r\eia= Ionic 5£7rA.7j<5t7r\67) ; when follows it is li-nKios, 
 cf. Snr\6oi Aischyl. fr. 33. SnrKSj} is a substantive. 
 
35^ 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [443- 
 
 443.] Nominative Plural. 
 
 On yeat Zeleia, No. 11340 (after Granikos), bvo jiviai Hdt. VI 
 79, cf. § 421. Xival Samos 220,^^ is an unusual contraction in an 
 adjective of material. The contracted form is also found in Hdt. 
 This nom. is scarcely Ionic. yaXai IV 192, Hrd. y^^ is a doubtful 
 form because eat is often left open, while ctj is contracted. Cf. 
 Merzdorf in Sttcdien, VIII 145. 
 
 444.] Genitive Plural. 
 
 Homer -doiv, -icav ^ (and '5>v, when i precedes and in the forms 
 of the article and pronoun), Boiot. -aiov, Doric and Aiolic -av. 
 In Ionic we have -ecor or -G>v in both masculine and feminine. 
 
 In Homer we find rduiv and twv, in the later Ionic only tZv. In other 
 dialects which preserve in the declension of nouns a fuller form of the 
 genitive, the article presents the shortest form possible according to the laws 
 of the dialect in question. Thus in Thessalian we find tuv koivolow as well 
 as Tav Koivav, in Boiotian rav SpaxfJ-dwv. recov was too ponderous a form. 
 ewv was never used for wv. 
 
 -euv is attested as Ionic by Joh. Gr. 239 B, Greg. Kor. 379, Gram. Meerm. 
 649 (-daiy Aiolic, cf. 655), Vat. 696, Hdn. II 22, Et. M. 78739, Drakon 16027, -^.n. 
 Ox. I 27818; Doric (!) An. Ox. I 38213, Et. Gud. 49334. Herodian II 22915 = An. 
 Ox'. I 2392 also wrongly attributes the termination -ewu to the Dorians. In 
 the passage referred to, iov Aupie7s read "lores, because of the statement made 
 in II 2 J. 
 
 445.] Genitive Plural (Inscriptions). 
 
 600-500 B. C. 
 
 500-400 B. c. 
 
 EflN 
 
 XiN 
 
 EnN 
 
 nN 
 
 a\{\)Bov Naxos 
 23. This form 
 has been re- 
 garded asstand- 
 ing for aKKr]ov 
 
 not for aW-fiouu, 
 on the grsiund 
 that no diph- 
 thong possesses 
 morethanthree 
 morae. If this 
 is the case -^v 
 is the direct 
 descendant of 
 -r)ov. See B. B. 
 XI 268 
 
 
 'AjSSTjpjTecoj' Abd. 
 
 1632,8 
 'TeArjreoj/ Velia 
 
 1721(450-400) 
 yiap[w'\v7]niuv 
 
 1962 Maroneia 
 MapaivfLTfuu 1 963 
 MapooviTeoov 1964 
 
 and Cat. Brit. 
 
 Mus. 125, No. 
 
 15 front 
 'ZaX/j.aKiTfuv 
 
 Halik. 2382, 13 
 Splax]l^fw Keos 
 
 436 (after 420) 
 NvlfM]<{>4a)v Siph. 
 
 88 
 
 yiapwviTuv Cat. 
 Brit. Mus. 125, 
 No. 15 reverse 
 
 ^ In Homer dissyllabic -ewv is found but three times : irvXeaiv H i, M 340, 
 BvpeoDV 4) 191 ; -eaiv 20 times in II., 19 in Od. ; -iwu at verse end in S/cawj' r 
 263, Z 307, kXktiwv ^ 112, SfKfiwv T 121 ; irapeiuv CI 794, S 198, 223, A 529, tt 190, 
 Tpv<pa\fiuy M 339, MaKeLwv T 187, iraXaiwv j3 I18. But in all these instances 
 dissyllabic -ewv is excluded by the metre. 
 
445-] 
 
 A DECLENSION. 
 
 359 
 
 400-300 B. C. 
 
 300-200 B. C. 
 
 EHN 
 
 nN 
 
 EflN 
 
 flN 
 
 NeoTToKiTewv'Neap. 
 
 UeviroXiTccv Neap. 
 
 
 i^eraa-Tcov Eryth. 
 
 42 ; 84, bet. 
 
 44, 350-300 
 
 
 206 A 25 (after 
 
 400-350 
 
 AlveriTuv Ainea 1 2 
 
 
 278 B. c.) 
 
 'AfKpnroMrfccv 
 
 Alvrjrwi/ men- 
 
 
 eTrtirpaOfiffcov 
 
 Amph. 1O5; No. 
 
 tioned Becht. 
 
 
 Eryth. 206 C 20 
 
 II (424-358; 
 
 p. 7 (Alex, the 
 
 
 is Attic (after 
 
 Znjxoriuv Orop. 
 
 Great period) 
 
 
 278 B.C.). 
 
 1815 (411-402, 
 
 'iTJTcil/ loS 91 
 
 
 tJe/jTjrei&jj' Eryth. 
 
 or between 
 
 Alex, the Great 
 
 
 206 A 14, C 63 
 
 Antalk. Peace 
 
 iroKircov Zeleia 
 
 
 (after 278 B.C.). 
 
 and 377) 
 
 1 1 33, 28 after 
 
 
 dpax/iioiu Eryth. 
 
 'AfiS-ripiTeoov Abd. 
 
 Granikos;Iasos 
 
 
 206 B 49, C 49 
 
 16314, 15, 16, bet. 
 
 io5i 
 
 
 
 400-350 
 
 MaiToii' Pantik. 
 119, 120, 122, 
 Phanag. 166, 
 167, 168, latter 
 half of the cent. 
 
 
 
 Top€T€Wi27Pan- 
 
 Toperwv Phanag. 
 
 
 
 tikap., or Pha- 
 
 165, latter half 
 
 
 
 nagoreia (387- 
 
 of the cent. Cf. 
 
 
 
 347) 
 
 also Lat. II 36 
 
 
 
 Mapaivirewv Ma- 
 
 'reXfiTcoy 1722, 
 
 
 
 ron. 1965, 13 
 
 about 350 B. c. 
 Mao-o-aAiTjTQj^/Mas- 
 
 salia Becht. 
 
 p. 106 
 'A671VWV Samos 
 
 216 Attic form, 
 
 365-322 B.C. 
 
 
 
 ZpaxiJ-^oiv Orop. 
 
 aSiKicov Oropos 
 
 
 
 1810,16(411-402, 
 
 1819 (411-402, 
 
 
 
 or between 
 
 or between 
 
 
 
 Antalk. Peace 
 
 Peace of Antalk. 
 
 
 
 and 377) 
 
 and 377 B. c.) 
 
 
 
 KaKwvicav Eryth. 
 
 
 
 
 20I23 
 
 
 
 
 ®7iyi<Dv Eiyth. 
 
 
 
 
 20I19 
 
 
 
 
 200 
 
 
 Of doubtful date 
 
 
 EnN 
 
 nN 
 
 EHN 
 
 AN 
 
 'OXPlOTTOAlTfUV 
 
 'louA.tTjTcSj'Keos 52, 
 
 NvfjL(pfwu Mi/X'ec*"' 
 
 BapyvKiriTwv 252 
 
 Olbia 1302, 2nd 
 
 Koman period 
 
 Naxos 27, in 
 
 
 cent. 
 
 MivoriTwv Samos 
 
 letters of a 
 
 
 'OA./3(07roA.6iT€a)y 
 
 232 (Roman) 
 
 tolerably early 
 
 
 Olbia 1303, 2nd 
 
 Kepafji.ir]Twi> Kera- 
 
 period 
 
 
 cent. 
 
 mos253(Eom.) 
 
 'Nvfj.(p4cui' Samos 
 
 
 
 SiKwu Teos 1582, 
 
 2 1 9 (fourth 
 
 
 
 Vlov<Twv Teos 15823 
 
 cent.) 
 
 
360 THE IONIC DIALECT. [446. 
 
 Especially noteworthy are the following forms : aSiKtwy Oropos 
 l8j9, on a document that retains -eouv after a consonant ; l3oriytS>v 
 and KaixTTabapxi-u>v Teos, 3IiU/i. XVI 292 (perhaps before 350 
 B.C.); Naxos 27 preserves -ecoy after i (Muxt€'«^i')- Cf. 'Aato) and 
 'EpixUoi in Chios. Cf. § 289, 2. 
 
 The evidence of the inscriptions warrants the statement that 
 the Ionic termination -ewy after consonants was not attacked by 
 the Attic -u>v until the middle of the fourth century. After the 
 fourth century -eoov is practically dead. 
 
 446.] Genitive Plural (Lyric Poets). 
 
 There are four sets of forms in the lyric poets ^ of which the 
 first two are Ionic; (i) Ionic -eoiv, (2) -mv, (3) Homeric (Aiolic) 
 -d(ov, (4) Doric -av. Between (i) and (2) there is no essential 
 difference. 
 
 1. Ionic -i(i}v is invariably monosyllabic. 
 
 A. T/ie Megiac Poets. 
 Tyrtaios: \}/vxi^v lOj^. 
 
 Theognis : Ttirpecov 176 (cf. r. /. Trerpav), iroXiTjT^y 219^ jxepL- 
 }xveu)V 343, 1153^ Kv-drekihii^v 894. 
 
 Solon : Mov<t(mv 1351 (by conj. : the MSS. have -acov and -Stv) 
 also 262, where Fick calls for the Attic -G)v, as in ^AQr]vS)v 336 ^ 
 and hecmoTUiv 36j2 (so Bergk). See under 2. 
 
 Mimnermos : /^teAeScoi'ecoy 6^. See under 2. 
 
 Xenophanes : 'EAAaStKewy 5f ^^^ under 2. 
 
 B. -ecoi; in the iambic poets and Anakreon. 
 
 Archil. Mouo-ecof i^, Tipircakioiv 22, Tvp{u)v 542; Qvphav 127. 
 
 Hipponax : Kpidii^v 432. j 
 
 Ananios : fxea-iMv S^ . ! 
 
 Phoinix of Kolophon : Kpidiuiv ij (Schn.). 
 
 Herodas: ^povre^v y^^, [ivic^v 2^^, MoLpecov 430; Mov(t(cov 3^^, , 
 TTopvecov 2qq, ^(tAecoy 3^^ a<TTpobt(j)ioiv 354; ^-^d so brjixoTeMv 23Q and 
 W^pi^v 360 •* ^ i 
 
 Anakreon: craTLVfOiv 21 jg; Mouo-ecoi^ 943 (eleg.). j 
 
 2. Ionic -wi'. 
 
 Mimnermos: 73 TTo\iT(av, 6 fxeXebcoviav in Bergk^ for which ■ 
 read /xeAeSwi'ewy or fxek^bcovcov ; cf. p.€k€bcoves Od, 7517. 
 
 Xenophanes : 5^ aotSacoy . . . 'EKkabmSiv, which may be read 
 
 Hipponax: BaKXf>>i' 91 (MSS.). AtVeicoy 42. 
 Theognis: Movaoiv 769, 1056, KpidOtv 1249, 6vek\a>v 1 273, 
 drtwz^ 344; Taxewi' 'ApiTVL&v 7^5; ttoXlt&v 455; k-o-k&v //ept/xi'ecoi' 
 
 ^ Cf. Eenner in Curtius' S<m(Z. I 201 ff. 
 * So also -ftjc for vfiewv II5, riixeai/ 1372. 
 
447-] A DECLENSION. 361 
 
 343, T153 •' cf. v-l' 176, 219. 343> T153- ^^erses 455, 769, 1249, 
 1273 li^ve been regarded as spurious. 
 
 Solon: In the elegies SaAaju,tya(/)era)y s^; 'A^Tjywy 33g tetr., 
 Seo-TToro)!; 36^2 trim. See Renner, I. I. p. 205. 
 
 In the later elegy -wy is found in Moi;o-<Sy Dionys. Chalk. 45, 
 2K07Ta8<uz; Kritias 5j. Hrd. 222 has 'ArriKcoy. 
 
 3, Aiolic -aoy^ in imitation o£ epic usage, only in the later 
 elegists, never in iambic poets. 
 
 Theognis : /xepi/xyacoy 766 and Mouo-acoy 250 ; irepivLa-oixivdcav 
 Phokyl. II. 
 
 Xenoph. : 5^ dotSawv . . . 'EXkabiKoiv {sic ; Bergk writes aoiSo- 
 TTokcDv). In the MSS. we often find v. I. -acav, e.g. Solon 135^, 
 Theog. 219. These forms, like those in -do, usually claim a 
 fixed position in the verse (caesura, fifth foot, and verse close). 
 
 4. -av (Doric) : 
 
 Tyrtaios: i^^TioXiaTav embat. 
 
 447.] Genitive Plural (Prose). 
 I. Nouns. 
 
 A. The termination is -icnv in all cases when the -tj (or -d) of 
 the nom. is preceded by a consonant or by iota (except in Hippo- 
 krates after i)^. Examples from Hdt. are ri/xecdy, rjixepewv, 
 icrneo)!', oIkUmp, dvcrticov, vei^vUcov, poucav, ikaUcov, Ttoiecov: Hekat. 
 140 Ilepcricov : Demokritos a-vjx^opioiv, a(Tvp.(popioov Mor. 8, \lrv)(i(i)V 
 30: Protagoras ve-qvUcov: Charon BioraAreooz': Hippokrates^ ap- 
 X^tiiV, KptOeoov, wpicov^, brjjxoTecav, b^a-TTOTecov : Philip of Pergamum 
 vrjaioiTioyv {B. C. H. II 273): Vita Homeri (3ovXevT€cov 12, 13, 
 vavricav 1 7, 1 8, 7roA.trjTecov ^6, and so in other pseudo-Ionic 
 treatises. 
 
 After i, Hippokrates has -oov : poiStv, kkatSiv, r}kiKiS>v, (o(/)eAetwi;, 
 dipaire.LCiv. 
 
 In some cases the Attic form has crept into the MSS. In Hdt. I 160 
 KpiOoov occurs in all MSS., in II 36 Kpiduv {(tvkwv I 193) in Rd, and in Hekat. 
 123. In I 147 'AOtjvoji/ is the only form in all MSS. and as v. I. in many- 
 other passages (Bredow, p. 217). Hekat. has iKfioKwv 203, rjixepSiv 303. 
 
 B. "When the rj of the nom. is preceded by e, -io)v is contracted 
 
 to -b)V. 
 
 ab€k(})€b)v is correctly read by Stein in Hdt. Ill 31, V 80, 
 though in the summary of the Herodoteian dialect prefixed to 
 his school edition (p. liv) the same scholar suggests dSeA^eecoy, 
 
 ^ Kirchhoff thinks that -ea>y after t was contracted. Western Ionic (Oropian) 
 aSiKiwv does not necessarily exclude -Uuv from the Ionic of Asia Minor. 
 
 ■•' Cf. J. F. Lobeck in Philologus, 1853, p. 21 ff. Hippokrates has a few cases 
 of -awu in certain MSS. ; cf. -010 in the Herodoteian tradition. 
 
 " Cf. Greg. Kor. § 4. ^^^eisE UBH^R- 
 
 /^ ^ OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 CALIFORNIA' 
 
363 THE IONIC DIALECT. [447. 
 
 doubtless on the analogy o£ yeveimv II 142, VI 98 (in all MSS.). 
 This uncouth form Stein defends on the ground that it is 
 necessary to distinguish it from the neuter yevioov. The MSS. 
 have MaAeSi' I 82 (Stein MaX^ecov, Holder MaA.ecoz^). Hippokrates 
 has ibeo^v. 
 
 2. Adjectives and Participles. 
 
 A. Oxytone adj. in --q, and those adj. and participles whose 
 nom. ends in -d, end in -ecov, except when a is preceded by e, 
 or by t in Hippokrates. 
 
 In Hdt. vxp^rjkeoiv, MtjSikcoov, XonreMv, ttoW^oov, oiTTecav, jxeXat- 
 veoiv, TTaa^cov : (ovcreaiv, e^ovcrediv , cfipoveovcreMV, cru/XTrAeutracrecoz', 
 bLa(f)dap€i(reoi)v, XexdeLcreoov, TTpobovcrioov. Attic forms appear oc- 
 casionally in the MSS. of Hdt., e.(/. Aonrwy VIII y, ttoXXwv 
 
 VI 68, depLv&v II 19. 
 
 In Hippokrates ixiKpecov, xeiiieptviaiv : [j.ekaiveu)v, Tracricav : e^ou- 
 (riojv, iovcricov, depp^avOeLcreMv, TrapeXdovcrlcov^. But after i, Hippokr. 
 has he^Lutv, TTXareL&v, o^eLMV. 
 
 Hdt. II 66 has drj\ewv in A B P, while Stein and Holder read 
 
 B. Feminine of barytone adjectives, participles in -os, -r], -ov, 
 and pronouns. 
 
 In the MSS. of Herodotos, the fern, genitive agrees with that 
 of the masc. in having -mv, borrowed from the second declension, 
 in the following cases : — 
 
 (l) aXKuiv I 133, VII 191, IX 115; ap^oTepoiv II 17; 
 h^pcov II 137, and so Hippokr.; dXiyayv VIII 16, IX 45; 
 vfxeTepcov IV II4; a(t)eTipoiV VI 1 5, VII 1 1 8, IX 1 06. 
 
 In other passages we find -eooi^, e.ff. ka-yarioov VIII 47, aWr]- 
 Xeojv IV 113, VI 13, III, aAAeW IV 183, 183, 1 84, oKoo-tW V 
 50 in all or almost all MSS. (i.e. except R q), cf. aXXicov and 
 aXXctiv I 94, IV 184. Hdt. VI 46 has pi^yaXicov (P R) where 
 Hippokr. has -(dv, as aXX'qXMV (cf. e 71), aKpcav, hipMV, and in 
 other adjectives (numeral and pronominal). 
 
 Even after t -ecov appears: Aiyv-nTiicov II ^^, IV 181, e(r)(a- 
 Tiecov III 115, KOvpihUodv VI 138 (-1C01; P R), hrjcniMV VI 140, 
 
 VII 168 [-L(DV d), o-vtUmv VII 10 a), bripiO(rLi(j)V VI 57) e7rt)('«Jp(,ea)y 
 V 88, T^TpaKoauMV VII 190, hir\KoaU(av koX \LXii(X)V VII 184, 
 hir]KO(Tiu)V Kol k^aKicryjiXLidiv koX hia-piVpiicav I 33. In VI 93 the 
 MSS. have Si/cvwi'tcoy, which Stein changes to -Ucav. Diogen. 
 of Apoll. has evbUcav. Hippokrates has -(ov, e.g. yvvaiKei<av, 
 avayKaicav. 
 
 When the 77 of the nom. was preceded by e, -eloov in the 
 
 ^ Lobeck states that the MSS. of Hipi)okrates are not so consistent as those 
 of Hdt. in the gen. of paz-ticiples in -ffa. The adjectival forms often have -wv 
 as V. I. 
 
 I 
 
447-] ^ DECLENSION. ^6^ 
 
 genitive becomes -€(ov, e.g. yj)V(Tk(>iv III 130, 'Hpa/cAea)i' II 2)'^ 
 (R d, -eiwy A B). 
 
 (2) (pvXacraoixevctiv I 1 23; elXevixivoov II ^6 ; (rv/Karrifxevodv III 
 69 ; olKeojjiivcov III 107 ; olKr]jxivoiv I 151 5 rer/xTjjueVcoy IV 136 ; 
 yevo}iivu)V VII 235^ II 1 37 (or Taacroixivcxiv) ; elprnxivoiv VIII 49. 
 Hippokrates has -coy throughout. 
 
 The form in -fxeveayv is not found without the variant -(ov : — 
 apTTaCo^€v4cov I 4 (^-mp Rbd); [xaxoixevicov in P II ^6, the same 
 chapter that has elkevixivoiv in all MSS.; avaTpi^o}xevioiv III 
 113 (-ftjy A B) ; Tt^iOofxevioiv V 18 in A B P (-coy '27 s) ; akio-KOixeveoov 
 V 124 {-(ov Pr) ; TrpoK^Lixeveoov (VII 16 a) in A B d^ and a few 
 lines below where A B have -ecoy, but d -cor. eTrt/cetjixeyecoy VII 
 i85inPd. 
 
 It is a moot point whether in the case of the Herodoteian 
 forms enumerated under 447, 2 B, the Attic rulC;, which holds 
 in Hippokrates, is to be adopted, or whether -ecov is to be read 
 throughout. Kiihner and Kirchhoff are in favour of -cav, while 
 Bredow, Stein, Holder, G. Meyer hold that these forms possessed 
 the special feminine ending. The MSS., except (strangely 
 enough) in those adjectives in which an t precedes the termina- 
 tion, tend rather to the view that -coy, not -ecoy, is the correct 
 ending. The epigram from Naxos, No. 23 <povpri AetyoSt/cTjo tov 
 Na^tou, e^oxo? aXXrjMV (where B denotes the open quality of the e 
 sound) does not settle the dispute ; since aXkcov, as Blass remarks, 
 would not have been sufficiently precise. The recent discovery 
 of an authoritative inscriptional form would seem to definitively 
 settle the question, at least so far as the participial forms are 
 concerned. In an inscription from Teos (Mitth. XVI 292, 1. 18), 
 dating perhaps before the middle of the fourth century, we read — 
 AtcTjieyecoy. Perhaps the -ecoy form was only employed in adjectives 
 and pronouns when it was necessary to distinguish the genders. 
 
 (3) Pronouns. 
 
 avTi] forms its genitive in -ecoy in Hdt. and Hippokr. The 
 MSS. of Hdt. not infrequently have avrStv (Bredow, p. 222). 
 Stein brackets avrcov in III iii. 
 
 avTfj has tovt^cov, which occurs in a large number of passages 
 in Hdt. without any variant tovt(dv. The -ecoy form also occurs 
 in the MSS. of Hippokrates; exetyrj has eKetye'coy Hdt. IV iii 
 Stein (-coy R) ; roLavT-q has rotourecoy VII 16 a), and so in 
 Hippokrates; ToaavTr] has roaovTicav VII 187. 
 
 The forms in -ecoy from avrrj, Toiavrr], and TocravTT} are 
 suspicious, as Ionic, unlike Doric, did not carry into the feminine 
 genitive the diphthong av of the other cases. Other pronominal 
 forms, such as Tovricav, contain a parasitic e inserted under the 
 influence of hyper-Ionic theories, § 562. 
 
364 THE IONIC DIALECT. [448. 
 
 448.] 
 
 On the genitive plural of nouns in -apxv^ varying with -apxos, see Bredow, 
 p. 232. In Hdt. VII 99 Stein reads ra^tapxeiav, but in IX 53 ra^tapxe^f, cf. 
 ra^iapxoi VIII 67. In Attic inscriptions the ending is always -apxos, except 
 in /jLepdpxM C. I. A. II 580, 3, 7 (324 B.C.). 
 
 elXiiruv Hdt. IX 10 is from e'/Acos [cf. VI 81, VIII 25% but uKurfwi' VI 58, 
 75, 80, &c. is from elAwTTis. 
 
 449. J Dative Plural. 
 
 The terminations occurring in the texts of Ionic writers are 
 -rjcTi, -t;?, -aiCTt and -at?, of which the first and last forms are 
 more frequent than -?/s or -atai, which do not occur in the in- 
 scriptions ; -r]<TL is found upon one inscription. 
 
 -rjcn is called Ionic by the grammarians : Joh. (Jr. 240, 241, 241 B, Greg. 
 Kor. § 5, Meerm. 649, 654, Vat. 6g6, Birnb. 67729, Et. M. 2520, 16640, Et. Gud. 
 24942, 33220, An. Par. Ill 312,9, cf. An. Ox. I 2191; cf. also Hdn. I 29857, 
 II 14310. -7)5 Et. Gud. 249^5, Et. M. 16642. Tzetz. Ex. II. 84, has Koi\r\(n 
 (cf. I2i8), and so An. Ox. I 2191. The ancients did not recognize the fact 
 that in Homer the longer form occurs far more frequently than does -j?s, or 
 that -7?s before a vowel is the same as -riffi. 
 
 450.] Dative Plural (Inscriptions)^. 
 
 The endings of the dative plui'al upon inscriptions are (i) -Tjto-t, 
 (2) -ais, (3) -Tjo-i. 
 
 1. -rjicrt. 
 
 (ro\_(f)]Lr]L(TLv Delos j^^ (sixth century), Bechtel reading -i-qcnv ; 
 /3ovkf]t(nv according to Roehl. See Roberts I, p. 6^. Nt;/[>i(/)>]to-ty 
 Thasos 68 (fifth cent.); ^lctiv Teos 156 B 36 (01. 76-77); 
 ?}ju,e/3Tj[t]o-tz; Chios 174 B 5 (fifth cent.); E'\vdbriicnv Chios 174 C 
 20; 'Epv\^dp]rji(nv Eryth. igg^ (after 394 b. c.) the last example 
 upon Ionic territory. 
 
 -yjLCTLv occurs therefore on the mainland of Asia Minor, in the 
 adjacent islands and in Thasos. There is no example in BechteFs 
 collection of a dative plural in --qicnv in Euboian Ionic, where 
 -oiai however occurs, see below, § 473. Whether ttjio-l or rats 
 was the fornf in use in the language of the people is uncertain, 
 as we have no instance free from suspicion. No. 263 with rats 
 before consonants and vowels is from Lykia, and contains a 
 trace of the Koti^Tj. It is possible that rat? may have been in 
 normal use while -rjto-t was the sole form in nouns (cf. Aiolic rats 
 hepaiaiv, Boiot. rav Mcho-ckdv). -rjLa-i held its ground with greater 
 persistence than -oto-t, as is clear from iKyovots upon the same 
 inscription which contains the last example of -Tjtcrt. 
 
 2. -ats. 
 
 All instances of -ats are due to Attic influence^. rayr[a]ts 
 
 ' See Fritsch, V. H. B. p. 35, 
 
 " On the form '6itov 1. 23 adduced by Bechtel as a further testimony to the 
 influence of Attic upon the dialect of Keos, see § 342. 
 
451.] A DECLENSION. 365 
 
 Keos 4327, last quarter of the fifth century ; empyirats Eph. I47i| 
 (300 B. C.) ; Scopejais I47i9 ; 8T]ju.ocriats and iStat? St/cats Teos 15^10 
 with almost no Ionic whatsoever ; rjixepm^ Eryth. 304g (345-44 
 B.C.); KoXcovais Eryth, 206 A 47, Sla^rj/atSats 2c6 B 54 (after 
 278 B. C.) ; ye'ais C. I. G. 2693 F 9 as read by Le Bas 414. 
 
 -at? occurs on the Asiatic mainland and adjacent islands. 
 There is no example in BechteFs collection of a dative plural in 
 -at? in Euboian Ionic. 
 
 In No. 5, which contains foiKeuiv, we find also 6€a7s irdffais, which is pro- 
 bably of Doric colouring. On the mixed dialect of Himera, see Thuk. VI 5. 
 The speech of Rhegion was doubtless likewise half Ionic, half Doric. Cf. 
 Fick, Odyssee, p. 10. It may be noticed that Homer uses the dative in -ais in 
 but three words : aKrfi M 284, Oed e 119, and iraa-a x 47i- Theog. 240 also 
 uses iracrais. 
 
 3. Upon the fragment of a marble patera from Kyzikos, now at 
 Oxford, is inscribed AE^PONHCI N (Rob. I 148, not in Bechtel's 
 collection). We have here an -7;o-t which occurs upon Attic in- 
 scriptions (akK-qa-L, bpaxfJ-wi)} ^^^^ thus far nowhere, except in 
 the present instance, upon inscriptions outside of Attika. With- 
 out further examples of the occurrence of -rjcn, it is best to arrest 
 judgment in pronouncing upon its Ionic character. There is, 
 however, no reason why the form should not be Ionic, though 
 but little weight should be attached to the statement of the 
 grammarians in reference to its appearance in Ionic (§ 449), or to 
 the numerous MS. forms without the iota. 
 
 451.] Dative Plural (Lyric Poets). 
 
 The MSS. of the lyric poets have preserved two sets of ter- 
 minations, -T]<TL and -rj?, -ato-i and -at?. 
 
 I. -r]<Ti. 
 
 -r](n and -rja-tv before consonants, -rj<Tiv before vowels, are the 
 usual forms from Archilochos to Theognis inclusive. 
 
 Archilochos : xaXeTrfjcn 84^ epod., obvvrjcnv 'iKrjTL 84^, ^aK)(ir\(nv 
 83 (conj.). 
 
 Mimnermos : avyycnv I4j;j (cf. 23) v?d(/o avyaicriv. 
 
 Theognis: TrXevpficn ^^, AO -ato-t, apjixo-viriai 619, (r(f)fj(Tt. 712, 
 ^-qa-a-rja-i, 881, iaxfjo-i 779 conj.; OaKujcn 983, O -ato-t, dka-n'ivr\(n 
 239, aixapTioKffai 325^ crrjaLv 1 234, T^aiho^'ikrjaLV 1357? KaxoKep- 
 heLjiaiv 225, (j)v\aKfj(nv 439, TToXv'ibpdrjcrLV ^O^, ^avOycnv 828 with 
 Kop-aLs in the same line. 
 
 Xenophanes : xaiTrjcnv 3. 
 
 Solon: TTpoxofjai 28 (Fu L Trpoxoala-i), apyaklrjcri 1337^ (-attrt 
 Eick), a(^pahiricnv 4^ [-aiaiv Fick). 
 
 Tyrtaios : Kovlricriv lljg. 
 
 ^ erj in forms from -\4os remains uncontracted in the lyric poets ; cf. § 263. 
 
I 
 
 ^66 THE IONIC DIALECT. [45 1. 
 
 Simonides Amorg. : KOTrpirjcnv y^, vavTr\(nv 733^ ^vmrfdiv y^, 
 7ra(rri(n 7so' 
 
 Hipponax : Kpdbrja-i 4i, S2' (TKLKXricnv ^^f acTKepyjo-i-bacretrjo-Lv 1 9. 
 
 Herodas : Trja-t. 5j^3, 320 (in conjunction with (f)vcrr]s), KaXfjcnv 
 7jj5 (in conjunction with rfjs), avTrjcriv J. 2 . 
 
 Anakreou : bivtjcn l^,xopbfj(nv 1^2(00x12.), TrXevpfj en 2I5, Ovprjcn 
 bt^rja-Lv 88. 
 
 a. -jis. 
 
 -r/? before vowels is the usual form from Archilochos to 
 Theognis. 
 
 Archilochos : OaXirjs rip^^rai 92 [OaXirj^ or 6aXir] conj.) ; obvvris 
 €xo[x€v Gaisford 9^, f]s to -npiv 9^3 (Fick omits to: the MSS. 
 have Tjs:). 
 
 Mimnermos : avyys aii^eTat ^2, where avyfjs is Schneidewin^s 
 conj. ; cf. J4ii. ^ ^^ ^ 
 
 Theognis : Kopv(pf]s vtto 879 (libri KopvcpT]^), ixapyoaijvrj^ airo 
 1271 Bekker, doivrj^ hi 239 in A, -rjs 0, reliqui Ooivais (Sitzler 
 -at?), pabiv]]'i \epaCv 6, see § 4. 
 
 Xenophanes : pofjs iv 2^ by conj. of Stephanus. 
 
 Anakreon : vkr]^ Kepoecra-qs Bergk 5I2 i^^V ^)" 
 
 Solon: irkevpys Kai 244, though Plutarch has irXevpr] and 
 Theog. 722 TrXeupaT? (Fick TiXevpq), ttJ? abm' 400- 
 
 Herodas : rf/s 7^25 (in conjunction with KaXfja-tv), r?]? z^ecorepijs 
 T^/zTi' i^g, (f)V(rrjg 320 (in conjunction with rrjo-')- 
 
 3. -atcri(yj. 
 
 Theognis : Kpidalcri 1269, a[xapTU)Xai(nv iirl a-^iKpoicn 1281. 
 AO have TtXevpalo-i, ^^. 
 
 Mimnermos : 14^^ avyalariv accord, to Stobaios. Bergk reads 
 avy^aiv. 
 
 Solon : TToXXalcnv 37g (Fick -?]cnv). In 28 Fa L have Ttpoypaien. 
 
 Anakreon : -yppbala-Lv 1 83. 
 
 Herodas : Taicrt 3^)3, 63^ though in a number of instances rais 
 is the form dflopted by this writer. 
 
 4. -ais. 
 
 Whenever -at? occurs before a vowel in the middle of a penta- 
 meter the case is almost similar to that before a consonant, since 
 elision is rarely permitted in this part of dactylic verse, -at? 
 occurs also at the close of a pentameter, more rarely at the end 
 of the hexameter. In Homer we have aKTois M 284, Trdo-at? 
 )( 471, at the close of the hexameter. When the word in 
 question is found at the end of the verse this is denoted by a | . 
 
 Archilochos : ayKuXais \ 23 trim., and so in the parody Frogs 
 704. Renner reads ayKaXi]^, Fick ayKaaiv. 
 
 Tyrtaios : at^yat? rjeXiOLO iig with v. I. avyaicnv, (jyiXais kv 10. 5 ; 
 
45I-] ^ DECLENSION. 367 
 
 'HpaKXeibais TTjz'Se 22 j evOeiais p-qTpais avTaiJi.€LJ3oix€Vovs 4g, where 
 Diodoros has ivOetrjv prjTpas. 
 
 Theognis: OoCvai^? 239, irXevpah Kai 722, Traaais -noXkdv 240, 
 TToXv(f)poavvais \ 712, KOjxais iropcpvpiov^ 828 with ^avdrjaiv in the 
 same line; Oools \ 12 {Oorjs in J), pabivals X'^po-'i 1002, Athen. 
 pahivrjs, betXaXs (ppecrC 161, 'Aa-KkrjTndhais tovto 432^ fjieydXais 
 Keirai dixrjxavLats \ 632, arat? | 631, ySouAat? 8' 640, elkaiTivaLS 
 ^opiovTas 827, (TrjaLV arao-^aAtat? | 1 234. -ais occurs in Theognis 
 only in the middle and close o£ the pentameter (except in 161, 
 631). In the later portions of Theognis, Sitzler adopts -ais 
 before vowels. For pabivrjs 6 as Bergk reads, some MSS. have 
 -rjo-t (Sitzler -ais) ; -tj? is correct. 
 
 Simon. Amorg. : Ni^/xc^ais rw re 20, read by Ahrens and Tick 
 'Nvixcfyrja ?]8e (Hippokr. used rjbe). 
 
 Herodas : rais kavpais \ 1^3, /xerpjjtais (?) | l^^, rat? i-eais 1^5, rats 
 &vu>vv[X0Ls TavTULS I 624, rats yvvai^iv ^^, ayKakms dpais (?) ^-ji, 
 Toishe 4g3. 
 
 Solon: Kovcfyais kknia-i IQ^^q (Fick -ficr), Ka/cat? vovaroKTi l%i 
 (Fick KttKws). This case of -ats is in the hexameter, cf. Theog. 
 161, 631 ; apyakiais re iSei, (f^ikais 422 a former eonj. of Bergk. 
 
 Anakreon : Kov(f)aLS \ 24, d?;rats | 2^, ixirpai's \ 65, /xeAatVai? 
 
 ■ais becomes much more frequent in the later elegy, e.g. Plato 72, Krates 
 In. -rtcriv is found in Plato 123, -oi(rt in Ion 23, Melanthios ij, Euenos 23, 
 Plato 3I1. 
 
 From the evidence presented above, it is clear that Ionic poetry 
 possessed a form devoid of the final iota. Nevertheless this fact 
 has been assailed by most scholars, of whom some have objected 
 to -at?, others to -ry?. The former form was attacked by Ahrens^, 
 who maintained that whenever anteconsonantal -at? and -ot? 
 occurred in the fragments of the iambic and choliambic poets, 
 and in the trochaics of Archilochos, the reading is always 
 suspicious, and that the same forms in Anakreon are due to the 
 influence of his Aiolic models, who admitted the shorter forms, 
 especially at the end of the verse. Equally j^ositive in his ob- 
 jection to the original Ionic character of -at? and -ois is Fick ^, 
 who holds that in the poets of Ionic birth who flourished before 
 the downfall of Ionia (which ensued about 540 b. c), -rjtcrt and 
 -oto-t are the only legitimate Ionic forms. Fick furthermore 
 maintains that after the period thus delimited, -atj and -ots 
 became a part of the linguistic material of the later elegists 
 (Xenophanes, Theognis), and of Ananios, following herein the 
 example of Tyrtaios who had admitted them by a concession to 
 
 * Mischung der Bialekfe, p. 60 flf. 
 
 * B.B. IX 207, XI 255. 
 
368 THE IONIC DIALECT, [45 1. 
 
 the dialect of his adopted fatherland. This argument is especially 
 weak as regards the iambographer Ananios, whose character is 
 quite distinct from that of Tyrtaios. Renner^ on the other 
 hand claims that for -ai? we should substitute -rjis, a procedure 
 whose correctness as regards Anakreon was defended by Schneide- 
 win. Fritsch ^, who protests against the Ionic character of -tjls 
 before consonants ^, follows Fick in rejecting as non-Ionic all 
 cases of -ais and -ois in the early lyrists of Ionic birth. Wilamo- 
 witz* also rejects the latter forms in Archilochos. Sitzler^ 
 proposes to adopt -ats wherever the dative ending occurs in the 
 caesura, and at the verse close, also before consonants, whereas 
 -r]s should be read before a vowel. With Diels ^ -ots is to be 
 accepted (i) when a vowel follows, (2) at the verse end, or in the 
 middle of the pentameter, (3) in the case of the article and rela- 
 tive, (4) in combination with several other datives. 
 
 While it is obvious that all the cases of antevocalic -77?, -at? 
 (and -019, § 474), with the possible exception of those forms that 
 occur in the middle of a pentameter, may and should be read 
 with elision, the existence of the shorter forms has been unjustly 
 assailed. We may admit that the longer form has been displaced 
 in the works of the older Ionic school in many passages which 
 yield to a mild treatment. But the total expulsion of the shorter 
 forms is attained only by recourse to the most drastic remedies, 
 notably when the peccant form closes the verse. And in many 
 cases no remedy whatever can be discovered, not even that of 
 transposition. 
 
 If the shorter forms are a fixture in Homer', despite the 
 efforts of Nauck and Fick to dislodge them, their occurrence in 
 the lyric poets, howsoever rare they be, need not cause us surprise. 
 More delicate is the question whether we shall read -ai? or -?;s, or 
 whether both forms are possible. The former form is an analogue 
 of -ot? ; for the latter, which is not found in prose either inscrip- 
 tional or literary (but cf. § 452), a satisfactory explanation, it must 
 be confessedly is at present wanting. G. Meyer's attempt ( Gramm. 
 § 380) may be dismissed as too artificial. Brugmann [Gnmdr. 
 II § 358) sees in -rjis a locative formed from a more original *-di, 
 -TJ9. Brugmann conjectures that in the Homeric period -tj? may 
 have been pronounced without the later i ^. So long however as 
 
 ' Curtius' Stud. I i, 208 ff. « F. H. B. 35. 
 
 ^ Cf. Cauer's Bias praef. xxxvi. * Horn. Unttrs. 317. 
 
 ® Jahrb. vol. 125, p. 509. 
 
 * 'AflTjj/. TToA.. p. 38. 
 
 ' The Iliad has 1564 datives with the longer forms, 251 with the shorter 
 (212 before vowels, 39 before consonants, or at the end of the verse). In the 
 Odyssey 1297 long, 225 short (i.So + 75), according to Nauck's count. 
 
 * This form occurs in the MSS. of Archil. 943, where it is doubtless an 
 error of the scribe. Osthoff M. U. II 76 thinks that -tjis was formed from -rjto-i 
 under the influence of -ots. 
 
453-1 ^ DECLENSION. 369 
 
 it occurs before consonants in Homer and in later poetry it is 
 idle to dispute its existence merely because it has not been ac- 
 ceptably explained. It is therefore proper to retain it and -ai? 
 in the few passages where they are called for by the metre, -ais 
 and -ois are instrumental which were but sparingly employed, 
 outside of Doric, in the earlier period of the language. It was 
 not until the fifth century in Attika and later in other quarters 
 of Greece that they became powerful enough to dislodge the old 
 locatives -rjo-i, -den (-rjtcri, -dto-t) which had officiated as datives, 
 -dio-t is non-Ionic. The forms in Theognis, as those in early 
 Attic poetry, might be regarded as -dto-t. It is however more 
 probable that -dicri is intended. 8tKdi(rt is an analogue of 
 Aoyoto-i. 
 
 452.] Dative Plural (Prose). 
 
 Of the forms found in the MSS. of Ionic prose writers, -r}<n 
 is by far the most frequent, -ato-t is very rare, -ats has often 
 crept in from Attic. In Hdt. we have -T/o-t. In VIII 15 the 
 Romanus has ras avras rjixepas where all the other MSS. have 
 Tats avTois ^juepat?. Bredow^s rfjcn avTrfcn r]ixip-qai is therefore 
 unnecessary. In III 40 -tja-i must be substituted for the -ato-t 
 of most MSS. rats is found in the Romanus III i lo. Hippo- 
 krates has -r\(n, e.g. II 44 (jiXeyixaTtrjcnv, avririaiv (with hyper- 
 Ionic e), Tfiaiv II 306, III 196. In Demokritos as handed down 
 by Stobaios we find -7/o-t in fragments 41, 46, 211 (167 Demo- 
 krates). In other cases, except avayKaia-iv 126, the MSS. have 
 -ais which Mullach changed to -ryo-t. -rjo-t occurs in Herakleitos, 
 in Hekat. 172, Pherekydes of Leros (frag. 44 is the only case) ; 
 Protagoras has r^o-t T7dar](TLv rifjiep-paLv. The form of the article 
 in the MSS. of the Ionic prosaists is often rats. Thus in 
 Demokritos there is scarcely an exception to the shorter form. 
 We find rato-t in frag. 44 (containing aydyxats) ; Mullach rrjo-t. In 
 Aiolic, which usually has -atcrt, rats is the regular form. In all 
 the passages where -ato-t, -ats occur, and the dative is required, 
 the Ionic forms should be edited. 
 
 PseuQo-Ionists : -ryo-t is used throughout by Lukian in the dea 
 Syria and the Astr. ; and this form is found more frequently in 
 Arrian than -ats or -ato-t. Abydenos has -rjo-t six times, Eusebios 
 Myndios -ats 14 times, -ato-t once. The supposititious Ionic 
 letters of Hippokrates, and Aretaios follow Herodoteian usage. 
 Aretaios 68 has irokXfjs, ep. Hippokr. 1725 eTTLdvjjilrjs (?), the only 
 instances of this form. The Vita Homeri has -ats throughout. 
 
 453.] On the retention of the long forms. 
 Both in inscriptions and prose literature, to so late a period as 
 the fifth century, the Ionic dialect retained a termination whose 
 
 Bb 
 
^yo THE IONIC DIALECT. [454, 
 
 use in all other dialects, except Aiolic, was either curtailed or 
 completely abandoned. In the Doric dialect -ais is in entire 
 possession ; and in the case of Aiolic a special cause was at work, 
 which drew in its train the retention of the fuller form in the 
 declension of nouns. In the Attic stone records, -tjktl (after 
 consonants) held its ground sporadically till the middle of the fifth 
 century and perhaps till 424 b. c. ; -atcrt (after vowels) is attested 
 in documents of 439 b. c, and 424 b. c, upon which however 
 the locative -tjo-i already appears. This -rjo-i (-do-i) was retained till 
 420 B, c, when -ais was universally adopted ^ ; a change whose 
 suddenness has elicited much speculation in connection with the 
 history of early Attic prose. That the Athenians recognized the 
 antique flavour of the fuller forms is clear from their treatment 
 at the hands of comedy. But even Aischylos does not reject the 
 -s forms. 
 
 454.] Accusative Plural. 
 
 The form is invariably -d?, which was substituted for -dvs 
 subsequently to the change of d to rj in Ionic- Attic, cf. § 161. 
 Tyrtaios has the Doric -a? occasionally (45, 7^), as Hesiod in 
 W. I). 564, Theog. 184. In Chios 174 C 12 we find tcls yias koX 
 TCLs otKt(e)a[s], the form yia^ having, as Bechtel assumes, caused 
 the stone cutter to perpetrate a blunder in the following accusa- 
 tive ; cf. otKtas Paros 58 2. The accusative plural of y/j in Ionic 
 is always yia^. See § 421. 
 
 In Herodotos -ed? is the accusative of nouns and adjectives, 
 whose nominative is ordinarily stated to be -erj, e.g. (§ 282) 
 Xpvaias, apyvpia^i, Kvvias, aiyiwi, TiapSaAea?, ap(f)i,beas ^, p.v€as (cf. 
 § 42l)j dAcoTTeKeas", Xeovria^, 'nop(f)vp€a'i Ion I. In Hdt. II 67, 
 where C has ixvydkas and d /xuyaAdj, Stein reads /xvyaAd?, doubt- 
 less with reference to the statement of Anaxandrides (apud 
 Athen. VII 300 A) : bvvaTai, Trap' vplv p-vyaXT], irap' e/xot bi y ov. 
 Bredow adopted ^xvyaXiai ; cf. Nikand. T/ier. 816 ixvya\ir]v. In 
 III 28 we (fend StTrAa^, cf. bi-nXr] § 424. 
 
 The accus. pi. of aKLvuKris, whose accus. sing, is aKivaKea and 
 aKivaKT]v (both forms are amply attested), occurs IX 80; III 128, 
 VII 67, where the MSS, vary between aKtyd/ca? and aKivaK^as. 
 The former form is to be adopted. The accus. of bea-n6T7]s is 
 -ras, not -reay, despite z in I iii, 112. Nor are the forms 
 bi(f)dep4a9 I 194, i^r]yy]Teas I 78, opyviias IV 86 to be adopted. 
 
 ' -rj(ri (-do-j) was retained in adverbs of place. 
 
 * Haussoullier thinks -eas in olKi{f)as was caused by influence of the gen. ' 
 -fuv. But we have no other examples of such an influence of the gen. upon 
 the accus. plural. 
 
 ' Cf. Greg. Kor. § 123 (a<pt5fas, cf. § 336). With this open ajj.<ptSeat, of. 
 afKpiSai B. C. II. i8go, p. 403, 412. a/xcpidij 404 (Deliau i-egister of 279 B.C.). 
 Aristoph. 320, 11 (Kock) has a/x(piSfas. 
 
 i 
 
458.] O DECLENSION. 37 1 
 
 ovbajxeas is supported in IV 114 by ^ BCd, but is nevertheless to 
 be rejected. 'Ei'apea? I 105 is correct, cf. 'Eyapees IV 6^. 
 
 O Declension. 
 455.] Terminations of Ionic prose : 
 
 0?, ov 
 
 ot, a 
 
 ov (never eco) 
 
 wy 
 
 an. 
 
 oi.<Ji{y), ot? 
 
 ov 
 
 ous, a 
 
 tj OS 
 
 
 Dual forms are wanting in New Ionic, ef. § 413. In the 
 following- sections attention is chiefly directed to those nominal 
 and adjectival forms which have e or before -os, -ov, &c. Cf . the 
 sections dealing with the contact of vowels. Renner^s suggestion 
 to admit the open forms (masc. and fem.) in the case of the poets 
 of Ionic lineage, and to regard the open and the contracted forms 
 as the property of the elegists not Ionic born, cannot be carried 
 through. 
 
 On the forms of the so-called Attic declension, see § 477. As 
 regards gender it may be noted that Hipponax has r] a(T(3o\os, 
 Herodotos r] cravpo^. 
 
 456.] Nominative Singular (Inscriptions). 
 
 The nominative singular of nouns which have e or before the 
 thematic contract this e or o in the following forms : KaWCvovs 
 Thasos (L.) 7^, 'Aa-rvvovs Eryth. 206 C 9, UokvOpovs Thasos y^ 
 B II. 
 
 457.] Nominative Singular (Lyric Poets). 
 
 vooi occurs frequently in Theognis, e.(/. 88, Solon 2'Jii, and 
 Simonides of Keos (?) 85^1. But vovs is attested in Theog. 11 85, 
 as in Homer k 240, and Simon. Amorg. I3 has voos (cf. voov 7j). 
 yrjpakeo<i is found in Xenoph. i^g. 
 
 458.] Nominative Singular (Prose). 
 
 1. -eo9, -eov are uncontracted, e. g. ahiX^ihios VIII 130 ; 
 OvyaTpih^os V 67. 
 
 2. -00s is uncontracted, e.ff. voo^ Herakl. iii, Anax. 5, 6, 7, 12 
 (Simplicius has however vovs), Hdt. IX 120, ivvoos VII 173, &c., 
 oivoxoos III 34, cf. Plato, P/iil. 61 C. 
 
 B b 2 
 
37^ 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [459- 
 
 Hippokrates and the pseudo'lonists : 
 TrXoos Arrian 2%, 38, &c. ttXovs Aret. 301, &c., Vita Horn. 
 
 aKpoirXoos Hippokr. ep. 18,, eicnrXovs Arrian. 
 
 Aret. 63. 
 
 ^2> 
 
 TrepLirXovs Arrian. 
 (Tvvvovs Hippokr. ep. 15. 
 da-povs Aret. 274. 
 
 Kar&ppov^ Hippokr.V 700 (Erm.) 
 II 46 (Erm. and Lit.). 
 
 hva-nvovs Aret. 32, Hippokr. II 
 160, Lit. -00s. 
 
 onrAow Aret. 162. 
 
 v6o<; Euseb. Mynd. 14., 19, 
 
 Hipp. ep. 12; 182, 3. 
 poos Aret, 163, 164, &c. 
 ivpoos Aret. 210^ Hippokr. II 
 
 Kardppoos Hippokr.V 700 (Erm. 
 
 -ovs Littre). 
 &TTV00S Aret, 274. 
 
 ^paxvTivoo's Hippokr. Ill 114, 
 
 144. 
 ei/Tryoos Aret. 264, &c., Hippokr. 
 
 Ill 126. 
 \p6os Aret. 99. 
 XiVKoy^poos Aret. 163. 
 aTtkoos Luk. S?/r. 31. 
 SittAoos Aret. 163. 
 
 Xvovs Aret. 177. 
 
 459.] Genitive Singular (inscriptions). 
 
 The genitive singular termination is -ov, never in a prose 
 document -oto, or -co. 
 
 OT is usually expressed by O upon the early monuments. 
 In the Naxian inscriptions: Na^tO <t>pa^O Bechtel 23 = Rob. I 
 25, Ai^O 25 = Rob. I 27, Ao^tO Rob. I 29. In Paros 60 = Rob. 
 I 15 Til YlapiQ. is tov YlapCov, 'Acr^aAiH is ^ AcrcpaXCov. This is 
 not Doric Ylapioo as is clear from the word ju.?jrrjp. Miletos 93 = 
 Rob. I 1 33* has tO apyjiyO, and cf. also 94 = Rob. I 134, 98 = 
 Rob. I 138, Prokonnesos 103 = Rob. I 42, Teos 156 = Rob. I 
 142 A; lines 5, 1%, B 8, 25, 28, 32, Chios 174 = Rob. I 149 
 tOTtO a 1, cf. also A 2, 3, ^, D 15, 175 = Rob. I 150, Samos 
 210 = Rob. I 151, 2i4 = Rob. I 155, 215 = Rob. I 156, Halik. 
 
 238 = RoD. 1 I45e; 75 n? i2> u? 23? ss* 
 
 The later form is OT ('Eppt8atO[u] Olynthos 8 A^, between 
 389-383 B. c, cf. 1. 2). 
 
 dtov 220j2 Samos. ^ed? is the Ionic form, 6^6. does not occur 
 except in Herodas (4^0 j ii)« 
 
 The nominatives with -ovs (-00?) have -ov in the genitive, 
 e.g. YloXvdpov Teos 15827 (an almost entirely Attic inscription) 
 KaAAiVou Th. (L.) 8^, 'AptoroVou ibid. i7io* 
 
 ll 
 
460.] O DECLENSION. 373 
 
 The Homeric genitive in -oto occurs on poetical monuments 
 (Paros 59 atyto'xoio, and apafxevoLo Latyschev II 37). Other 
 metrical inscriptions have -ov (23, 25, 34, 60, 162, 261, 265). 
 
 460.] Genitive Singular (Lyric Poets). 
 
 The usual termination is -ov. By imitation of Homeric usage 
 or from the fact that the older Ionic actually possessed the form, 
 -010 ^ has been adopted by the elegiac poets as an archaism and 
 is by them used to a great extent in the same place in the verse 
 as it is employed in Homer. Cf. Renner in Curtius' Studien I A 
 206 ff. I have indicated by a small figure the position in the 
 verse of the syllables -oto. -oto is rare in pentameter; Tyrt. iig 
 is the only example from the older elegy, Aischyl. 42 from the 
 later, non-Ionic elegy. 
 
 Tyrtaios : i^eAtoto^ ilg, Tt^coroto^ I2g, aripvoio^ 1235 ; Oavdroto^ 
 1235; Kti'upeoto I2g has been corrected to Kivvpeco. 
 
 Archilochos: 'EwaAtoto^ l^, ttoAu^Aoio-jSoio^ 93. 
 
 Mimnermos: ^avdroto^ 3^; TTora/xoto^ 9^^ TroAe'juoio^ 14^, iJeXtoio 
 
 Theognis : OavdroLo^ 707, xo'^^^oto^ 103, Kt/387/Aoto^ 119 (the 
 two latter passages contain also a gen. in -ov), eAac^oto^ 949 ; 
 iJeAioto 569^, II43^ II^3^ ovXoixivoio^ 527, voolo^ 705, Irivyiroio'^ 
 
 879- 
 
 Solon: 97eAtoto^ 13235 o.TpvyiToio^ I3i9' 
 
 Anakreon : 6)(dvoLo 91 ; cf. § 6'^. 
 
 Hipponax : hex. 85^ drpvyiToio^. 
 
 Of the elegists, Archilochos offers the sole exception to the 
 rule that -oto in the elegy is used in the third and the sixth 
 foot. 
 
 In the iambographic poets we find but one example of -oto : 
 Archilochos, tetr. 77i C'^? ^icavva-oi dvaKTos kuXov i^dp^ai jueAos), 
 sic Bergk, vuigo Atoovva-oio, P V L Atowo-oto, cf. Iliad XI 35 and 
 Dr. Leaf on the passage. The unique position of this -oto and 
 the doubt whether the final o can be elided ^ caused Hermann to 
 read -ov. 
 
 From stems in which precedes the final of the stem : voov 
 
 ' Epic -010 has been placed under Aiolic. It is both Aiolic and Ionic. 
 The grammarians often regard this ending as Ionic and Thessalian, e.g. Vat. 
 700, Et. M. 61837, Et. Gud. 42O53, An. Ox. I 31325, II 404,6 ; more frequently 
 as Thessalian alone, cf. Thessalian, § 35. Sometimes -oio is referred to Ionic 
 alone, e.g. Tzetz. Ex. II. 9614. Greg. Kor. § 22 cites MeveAaoto in the same 
 breath with Oeioio. 
 
 * Lugebil in Pleckeisen's Jahrb. Suppl. XII 2i6, Fick in his Odyssee, p. 29, 
 Piatt in Class. Rev. II 99, rightly hold that elision may take place. That the 
 Thessalian gen. in -01 is a locative (Ebel in K. Z. XIII 446, G. Meyer, Gramm. 
 § 344 ; cf. Mahlow, Die Vocals A E O, p. 37, Stolz, Lat. Gramm. § 83) has not 
 yet been proved. Cf. Wilamowitz Horn. Uniers. p. 321. 
 
374 THE IONIC DIALECT. [46 1. 
 
 Theog. 223, Areliil. 565, KoXXtpoou Anakr. 28. From stems in 
 eo-: apyaXiov Mimn. 2q, 43, Tyrt. iig. 
 
 461.] Genitive Singular (Prose), 
 
 Besides the regular forms in -ov we meet in the MSS. of Hdt. 
 with -oto and -eco, forms which are due to an erroneous concep- 
 tion of the nature of the Herodoteian dialect. 
 
 1. Epic -oto in M in III 97 KavKaa-oio. epcaros airpriKTOLO in 
 Lukian, d. S. 22, is from some poetical source. 
 
 2. -eo), by transference from the A declension, in all MSS. 
 Hdt. IV 147, 148 Me/x/3Atapea), but -ov IV 147 ; as v. I. in VI 
 102 rTetcrtfrrparea), VIII 122 Kpoicr€(i),Y 32 KAeo/x/SpoVeo), Barreco 
 II 181, IV 159, 160, 162, 205. Teura/xeo) Herakl. 112 is from 
 -77? (see By water, p. xii). 
 
 Stobaios has vov in quoting Demokr. 13, and likewise Sim- 
 plicius in Anaxag. 5. In Hdt. voov VIII 97 occurs in all MSS. 
 In VI 105, however, all the MSS. have evvov; and ecnrXou is 
 equally well attested in VI ;^;^. Ttepippoov I 174 without variant. 
 Hdt. has da-riov IX 83. Upon Attic inscriptions we find dvrjx^oov 
 C. I. A. Ill 244 (very late), but -xov C. I. A. I 322 A 79, 95 
 (409 B. c.) ; xP'^'^oxdov is found in Demosthenes. 
 
 In Hippokrates and the later lonists : — 
 
 TiXoov Arrian 37, 38, 40. ttXov Vita Horn. 18. 
 
 TTapairkov Arrian 19, 25. 
 
 bUKirkov Arrian 22. 
 voov Euseb. Mynd. 19, 34. vov Aret. 79. 
 
 ■npovoov Euseb. Mynd. 16. 
 poov Aret. 164, 302, &c. pov Aret. 210. 
 
 TTeptpoov Hippokr. II 692. Karappov Hippokr. V 680. 
 
 X€i[xapp6ov Arr. 38. 
 XevKoxpoov Aret. 114. 
 
 462.] Dative Singular^ (inscriptions). 
 
 1. -cot is the regular form on all inscriptions, and is found 
 everywhere, except in the few cases when -co and -a occur. 
 wco7ra)[t] is to be read in Keos 43^^ and not -co. XP'^^^'- ^^^ Samos 
 220j7 (346-45) is a form contrary to the rule that adjectives of 
 material are uncontracted in Ionic when e is followed by an 
 sound. 
 
 2. -CO. In Attic t falls off from -cot in the first century b. c. 
 On Ionic soil -co is very rare and late. 'Ao-KArjTrtw 67 Paros 
 (period of the empire), ^Abpiava 2e/3a(rr<3 'OAuyiiTrtco loi Miletos, 
 apyvpidi 129 Olbia (period of the empire), XP"^^^ Latyschev I 
 No. 22, 1, No. 57 [koivt] contraction), but xpuo-eco 1. 1. I, No. 67. 
 
 * Joh. Gr. 242 cites the Homeric ttpyvpf<p, xpv(Tf<e as Ionic. 
 
464.] O DECLENSION. 375 
 
 3. -01. The ending- -coi became -ot in (a) Chalkidian and (1^) 
 Eretrian Ionic about 400 b. c. No other section of the Ionic 
 dialect has -ot (not a locative). Cf . the change of -r/t to -ei, § 239. 
 
 A. In Chalkidian colonies : 
 
 -01 -0)1 
 
 TrloXefxot Olynthos 8 Ag (389- rcSt Olynthos 8 A 3, 
 
 383 B, c). Twt KOLvS)i Olynthos 8 B 4. 
 
 rwt hrjixcoi Amphip. lo^. 
 r<3i unc. 133. 
 
 B. Eretria and colonies : 
 'Ajuapw(^)orEretria 15^8^(410- rwt Eretria 14. 
 
 390 B.C.). 
 Toi Upol Eretria i5i9- KrjvaCcai Eretria 1519 • 
 
 iv Tol Upol Oropos i82g^ g^ 15 M9^ '^'- ^^ ^^' ^^ throughout. 
 
 30J 42* 
 
 eavTol Oropos 1828- 
 TTerevpoi Oropos 18^2. 
 Toi ^ovXoiiivoi Oropos 1843. 
 rot Koip-riTripLoi Oropos 18^3. 
 roialso 1832,45,46- 
 
 Cf. the locative -ot in Eleian, North-West Greek, Boiotian and Arkadian. 
 
 463.] Dative Singular (Lyric Poets). 
 
 Tyrtaios 12^8 has apya\4io, but in Mimn. iig we find the 
 Homeric xpucreo) (A 15) with synizesis ; Theog. 1052 has Wo), 
 1088 KaAXtpo'ft). 
 
 464.] Dative Singular (Prose). 
 
 Nouns or adjectives with e or o before the stem vowel do 
 not contract e or with that vowel in the MSS., e.ff. Kavica Hdt. 
 I 119, '7Top(})vpi(a Ion I^ row Hdt. Ill 41, 51, VIII 19, as 
 Herakl. 91, Demokr. 57. But in IV 125, I 27, II 181, VII 
 159 all or nearly all the MSS. have voil or vQ, for which Stein 
 reads v6(a. 
 
 Xpv<roxo(^ occurs on an Attic inscription II 652 B, 16 (398 
 B. c), but in other words -ow has become -o). 
 
 In Hippokrates and the pseudo-Ionists : 
 
 ^ But this form may be a locative (cf. Hermes XXI 99), as 'lo-flj^tiot Thasos Eob. 
 I 24. Cf. similar forms in treaties in Thukydides. 
 
 ^ No. 18 dates either from 411-402 B.C., or from the period between the 
 Peace of Antalkidas and 377 b. c. iv toi Upol is scarcely a locative, as G. 
 Meyer, Gramm, § 350 suggests. 
 
37^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [465. 
 
 7r\o'fa) Arrian 23, Hippokr, ep. 
 
 1734- ^ , ^ 
 
 v6(d Euseb. Mynd. rw Luk. Astr. 15. 
 
 p6<f Luk. /Sy;*. 8^ Trepipoo) Hip- Trepippw Hippokr. V 730. 
 
 pokr., Aret. Xetjudppw Arr. 24, 39. 
 
 SittAo) Aret., rpiTrAo) Abyd. 
 
 The hyper-Tonic ai^rew appears in some MSS., Hdt. I 133, 
 where Athenaios has avrQ, cf. § 5^5' 
 
 465.] Accusative Singular ^ (inscriptions). 
 
 In the stems in -00 we have tt[p']6xovv Naukr., Beehtel= 139 A, 
 cf. a 304; €kttXovii and ka-nXow Eryth. 202^, lasos, /. H. S. IX 
 341, 342. 
 
 In the adj. inflection akopyovv Samos 22022,30, ^vvow Olbia 
 C. I. G. 2059^4, Xivovv 22O25, 27^ but according to the rule 
 Ionic xpxxreov 220i8, as Zeleia 114 E, Olbia 12912, Aphro- 
 disias 254 (Roman), also Latyschev I 50, 54, ^'j, 64 [post 
 Christmri). 
 
 466.] Accusative Singular (Lyric Poets), 
 
 Theog. 1267 has voov, but evvovv or '^wovv 641 in all MSS. 
 Wordsworth read ivvoov since Theognis prefers a dactyl to a 
 spondee in the fourth foot. The same poet has vovv 350, 898 
 (cf. Hesiod, frag. 222). Archil, has voov 78^ tetr., 89g epod. and 
 so Sim. Amorg. 7^ despite yoos I3; Solon 2713 vovv. Herodas 25^ 
 has hiTxXoov, but in 2^3 hi-nkovv ; vovv igg, avow 327. Minin. has 
 poov II4. 
 
 We find ixvbdkeov in Archil. 182, apydkiov in Mimn. i^q, 55, 
 Tyrtaios piyaXiov 11^7, Theog. a(f)ve6v 188, 559. 
 
 467.] Accusative Singular (Prose). 
 
 Nouns aftd adjectives with e or before the stem vowel do 
 not usually suffer contraction with that vowel in the MSS. of 
 Herodotos, e.ff. ttXoov II 175, voov III 21, I 27, Demokr. 59, 
 Herakl. 16, Pherek. 60, irpovoov Hdt. Ill 36, bi-nkoov VI 104, 
 avTL^oov VI y, VII 49. xo^*^ is contracted in all MSS. Hdt. 
 I 185, II 150, VII 23 and (t>Xovv III 98 (Attic (}>kem)\ In III 
 22 where most MSS. have xP^'^oCi', H has xp^'^'oV, which is 
 adopted by Stein. Holder adopts Schaefer's ^pvaeov. (poLvU^ov 
 appears in IX 22. Attic has both (poivLKovv and cpoLVLKLovv. 
 
 In Hippokrates and the later lonists the open forms prevail : — ; 
 
 ' Greg. Kor. § 71 voov, f>6ov. 
 « Cf. Fritsch, V. H. D. 46, 
 
470.] 
 
 O DECLENSION. 
 
 377 
 
 ttKoov Luk. S^r. 7, Arrian 23 and 
 often, Hippokr. ep. 1740. 
 
 voov Luk. Sj/r. 26, Abyd. g, Hip- 
 pokr. II 230, III 238, ep. 1 734 . 
 cvpoov Aret. 248, &c. 
 
 ttXovv Arr. 21, ^^, Vita Horn. 
 
 17, 29. 
 irapaixKovv Arr. 32, 39. 
 avix-nkovv Vita Horn. 1 7. 
 
 (Tvppovv Arr. 43. 
 •)(iip.appovv Arr. 39. 
 
 a-xpovv Aret. 144. 
 
 Suo-TTi'ooy Hippokr. V 590. 
 cLTTvoov Hippokr. Ill 68. 
 evTrroov Hippokr. V 668, II 148, 
 
 348, 368, Aret. 202, &c. 
 axpoov Hippokr. Ill 252. 
 (vxpoov Aret. 266. 
 blioxpoov Hippokr. V 674, II 
 
 156. 
 hmkoov Aret. 205, Hippokr. II hi-nkovv Arr. 2,^- 
 
 44, III 184. 
 aOpoov Hippokr. and Aret. often. 
 iroXvOpoov Abyd. 5. 
 
 avTi^oovljuk. Astr. 12. avTi^ovv Aret. 38. 
 
 Xovv Arr. 13. 
 biKpovv Hippokr. V 634. 
 
 468.] Vocative Singular. 
 
 The vocative form proper occurs very frequently in Herodotos. 
 Whereas the Athenians, according- to Gregor. Korinth. p. 117, 
 said 2) (f)[kos, Hdt. has 00 ^dvc, &c., in many passages. 
 
 469.] Nominative Plural. 
 
 The nom. pi. has -ot or -a. Xenoph. 35 avxakdoi, but yqpdXeoi 
 occurs in Anakr. 432 (cf. ap-ndkia Mimn. ij. Hdt. has adpooi, 
 (root ((To'ai, (Tocov, aoa), KarappooL Hippokr. II 1 8, clttvooi Aret. 105, 
 jSpahvTTvoot Aret. 122, bva-irvooL Hippokr., cvttvool Aret., XP^'^'- 
 Hippokr., Aret., airkol Aret., but €vi]kool, d^urjKoot, ktdo^ooi, 
 (TukoxooL Aret., kkacppovooi Phokyl. 9. 
 
 Hdt. contracts in hi-nka II 148, VIII 87, while Aretaios has 
 iv-nvoa, evpoa and bUpoa ; Hippokrates varies between cvxpoi and 
 eijXpoa. a-nka is found in Aretaios, hiitka, Tpiixka and adpoa in 
 Hippokr., avTL^oa in Luk. Astrol. 2. Hdt, has I 94 iiTLTtkoa, 
 but TO. iTTLirka furniture from e-TrnrAos, cf. biiTkos Empedokl. 62, 
 bUpos Aischylos, fr. 47. da-ria Hdt. I 67, II 41, &c., Hippokr. 
 
 Ill 534. 
 
 Hdt. has beajxa VI 91 from bea-p-os. 
 
 470.] Genitive Plural (inscriptions). 
 
 The only noteworthy case is x^^^ < X^f^'^^ -^^^^ 439 (towards 
 
378 THE IONIC DIALECT. [471. 
 
 the end o£ the fifth century), a genuine Ionic form, though the 
 inscription contains one instance of Atticism. )(^ovs originally 
 belonged to this declension. The Argolic accus. was ^cav Athen. 
 365 D. Hippokr. has x^^^ X^^'^ from x^^^^} ^^^ forms of the 
 build of x^^os xoi^ c^o iiot occur in Ionic. 
 
 471.] Genitive Plural (Lyric Poets). ^, 
 
 daricov Archil. 843 as Track. 769, Orest. 404, Acliarnians I2i() 
 (lyr.) and Plato Fhaido 98 C, D. 
 
 472.] Genitive Plural (Prose). 
 
 The genitive plural in -ecoi', which belongs exclusively to the 
 A declension, has been forced upon the masculine and neuter 
 genitive of avro^ and ovto^. These forms were created by the 
 scribes inserting an e which they thought gave the proper 
 dialectal colour ^ These forms are not to be defended on any 
 ground whatsoever ; and have been rejected by Gaisford, Bredow, 
 Stein, and others. Good MSS. give very frequently the proper 
 forms, but even when the masculine and neuter avrecov and 
 tovt4(ov rest upon the authority of all the MSS. of Hdt., 
 they are to be rejected ^. In Hippokrates we find the same 
 delusion attested bv the MSS., but avrGiv and tovtoov have 
 been restored by Ermerins. Oftentimes the cause of the false 
 form seems to have been the presence of a correct -ecov in ■ 
 a neighbouring word, e.ff. acf)€(jov avrioov Hdt. IX 96, r/juecoi; 
 avreoov IV 114^. 
 
 Apollonios [de Pronomine J 23 A) says : ov rporrov ro vv}x^iuiv ! 
 Statpeirai, rov avTov rpoTiov kol to avrecav, OTroVe 6r]XvKbv a-r]ixaLV€i. 
 Kal €TL avrdcov. This cannot be strained to mean that Apollonios 
 accepted a masculine and a neuter avrioav and rovrecoy. 
 
 Other instances of the adventitious e in Hdt. are : Souo-ecoi' in ; 
 all MSS. V '^^, ©eo-craAecoy found in the Aldine edition V 64, ! 
 yAourecoy W 9 in Rvs, -nvpioyv II 36 in the Aldine edition, &c. 
 Kallimachos went a step further in affixing the termination -aoav j 
 to fem. names of the O declension {vrjorduiv, i/^tj ^aoo^•). Kirchhoff ' 
 conjectures that the source of this error is to be found in pseudo- 
 Hesiodic Asjjis v. 7 : /3Ae(/)apaji' t d-no Kvavedoiv. 
 
 In the genitive plural of nouns and adjectives with e or 
 before -m', e or o is not contracted with -cav, e.g.: — a-vixTrXocav 
 III 41, (Tocav in Hdt., ai:XG>v, 8t7rAwy Aretaios. The Vita Horn. 36 
 has arvix-nXodiv. ttXocov in Xenophon B. A. I 20, evvocov in Th.uk. 
 VI 64 will hardly stand. 
 
 ' Lukian makes Hdt. uso rovriwv {de domo 20). 
 
 '^ In VII 1 24 Stein has retained rovrsuv. 
 
 * Bredow'e defence of avTtwv IV 114 (page 245) cannot be accepted. 
 
473-1 O DECLENSION. 379 
 
 473.] Dative Plural ^ (Inscriptions). 
 
 On inscriptions we meet with two forms of the dative plural, 
 -oKTt and -ot?. 
 
 I. -OtO"l. 
 
 Olynthos 8 A 4 aXkrjKoKTL, Kyzikos 108 B 2 Tolaiv, toIctiv 
 (KyovoLCTLv 108 B 3, TovTOLo-Lv io8 B 8, Teos Tr}LOL(nv 156 A 2, 
 ^Avdea-TYipioKTLV 156 B 31-32, 'HpaKAeiotcrii; 156 B 33, Aloictiv 
 156 B 34 (this inscription has no case of -01?), [A]toa-Koi;po[t]ort 
 257, found at Naukratis, [xvOoia-i epigr. in Latyschev II 171. 
 Of these examples those from Kyzikos must be set down as 
 archaistic, since the inscription is scarcely earlier than the first 
 century b. c. and full of inaccuracies. The inscription from 
 Olynthos contains the latest (389-383 b. c.) genuine example of 
 -oio-t on Ionic soil ^. The assertion of Karsten, p. 32, that -ots 
 is a peculiarity of Euboian Ionic, and -ol<ji a peculiarity of the 
 * severior las ' falls to the ground. 
 
 2. -ot?. 
 
 All other Ionic inscriptions have -01?. Even in Olynthos No. 
 8, where (line 4 A) we found aAA?;Aot(n, the form dju^orepot? 
 occurs. But this is the only example of the coexistence of the 
 two forms, such as meets us on the Attic prose inscriptions of 
 the fifth century. All the other inscriptions of Euboian Ionic 
 have -ots, e.g. Oropos 18, Kyme Rob. I 174. In Teos 158 and 
 Mitlh. XVI 292, Keos 43, we find only -ot? ; so too in Miletos 
 100 (which dates from the first half of the fourth century). Chios 
 174 unfortunately contains no examples of the dative plural. 
 Halik. 240 has roij and other datives in -ot?, but is not free 
 from younger forms. While Halik. 238^0 proves that the Ionic 
 of the fifth century possessed a form rot?, it does not disprove 
 the correctness of roto-t in literature, as Fritsch opines. No 
 genuine case of rotcrt appears. On the analogy of tSu) for tIoov, 
 Toiai might have become Tot? before -oto-t in the noun became 
 -ot?. But as in Attika we have both rotcrt and rot? in the fifth 
 century, so there is no reason why the forms should not coexist 
 in Ionic, rot? is found early in the fifth century in Attika 
 (C.I. A. IB 8)3. 
 
 Adjectives in -eo? do not contract -eot?, e.g. xpuo-eot? Olbia, 
 Latyschev I No. 22i {post Christum). 
 
 ^ •oiai Greg. K. 2, Meerm. 663 {rots avepiciroKri), Joh. Gr. 239 B, 241 B, An. 
 Ox. I 331,, An. Par. Ill 3191, Par. 681= An. Bachm. II 370^ (roTffi, Tovreoicrr. 
 
 " The latest examples in Attic are 'Adrivaiotfftv C. I. A. 301 A 7 (434 b. c), 
 and ocroicriv C. I. A. II 57O34 (403 b. c). 
 
 ^ In Attic inscriptions -oiai and -ois are found up to 444 b. c, after which 
 the former disappears (see note 2). In C. I. A. I 2 (before 456) both forms are 
 found upon the same inscription. 
 
380 THE IONIC DIALECT. [474- 
 
 474.] Dative Plural (Lyric Poets). 
 
 As in the inscriptions, so in the lyric poets we find both -ottri 
 and -ot?. C£. Renner, Curtius^ Studien I i, 208 ff., Fick, B. B. 
 IX 207, XI 255 ff. 
 
 1. -oicri. 
 
 Archilochos : ^apTolaiv re, KaKolcxiv a.(T\aKa 66g tetr., do-roto-t 
 94^ epod., av^KicTToicTL KaKolaiv 95, ixvpoicn 31, O^oZcri ^^, ^oaTpv- 
 yoicTL 58, ap-i^yavoiui 66-^^, boKOLCTLv 66^, av9p(oTroi(n yo^, toictl 749, 
 KaOapoicrtv 1 22. 
 
 Simonides of Amorgos : ^dvoicnv 719, dvvvoicn, KoofStolcn 15, 
 pojpoKTi l6j, av9p(l>'noi(TLv I3, 731? Kaya6oi(nv I^q, 'noXkoicri Ijg, 
 ^pOTolcTL 1 21, T^KVOKTIV 734^ k\6pol<Jiv . . . (f)i\oiaL J^q, ^apvKTVT:oi(n 
 1 740 J avdepiOKnv Jqq, aAAotcrt 768 > Ti'opSa/cotcrii' 21. 
 
 Hipponax : arjo-dixotcrt "^^^y tovtolo-i I4j, KrjpLoicnv 363, kokoio-i 
 43i> Av8toio-tv ey \opolcn 91, rpioio-i 51, TapyqXCoLaiv 373, 
 o-TrAayxroio-ii; 40, akX7]Xoi(nv ^^, yvadoiai 62 with the MSS. 
 and Hiller (Bergk yi'd^ots). 
 
 Mimnerraos : l-n-noLaiv t^. 123. 
 
 Herodas : Ipoia-iv 49^, ^ AjBb^potcriv 2^^, rolcn 7Tpo\y^vLKoi(n 
 365, TOt? (r(})vpoL(n 5g2, Ka/coro-i 7^04. 
 
 Anakreon : doroio-i 152? ^ivotui 84, jUTjpoto-i i64(Berg'k firipols). 
 
 Solon: avOputTTOKn 23, 17^ 384, becrpiOicrC t detKeAiotcrt de^eWes 
 4^5, ap.(j)OTipoL(nv 55^ e^.^PO''^' ^35? i'ovo-otcrii; I36i> a.vip.OL(Ti, apya- 
 \4oL(nv 1345J Totcrt I3g, ^g, 373, Ovr^Toicn 1%^, 24^, 2oAtoi(n 19^, 
 (piXoicriv 2I1, ipaToicTLv 25ij Oeolcnv ^^, kvavTioicnv 2)1 %i ^o.K6i(n 
 
 383. 
 
 Theognis : very often. 
 
 2. -ots. 
 
 To forms followed by a consonant I have appended the next 
 word. Forms at end of verse are indicated by a | . The usual 
 place of occurrence is in the middle and end of the pentameter, ; 
 rarely the end of the hexameter, 
 
 Archiloclfbs : avOptoTTot^ 62, betvoh 6^, 6vqTols jueAerr] 15 (some : 
 MSS. ySporots). -oLs is here in an hexameter,which is a cause for j 
 suspicion. Fiek thinks that if Tiavra ^poToicn ttovo^ is not correct , 
 the verse is not Archilocheian. OvrjToh jo^, okolol? 7O3 tetr., : 
 jurjpoi? 7^2 tetr. (the verse is incomplete), rots 6eois ridei 56 tetr. 
 (Ahi-ens touji O^olai Tidere, Renner's toIctl O^ols is objectionable), 
 KaKoi? I 6^ (koko)? Fick). 
 
 Simonides of Amorgos: kokois I24, fxvpois 754, Sao-Ktot? 14, 
 ocjidaXpols Ibe'iv 732^ 80/xois Iboov 72!) {^^ F)> o-ttX-Vtols t 75 (MSS. , 
 -Tos, Meineke aTikvTOLa kv), avdp(aT:oLs ye'Acos 7^4, where Arsen. 
 iracTiv aa-Toicrt, rotovrots 6vp.6v 770 (Ahrens toiovtov 6vp.6v with 
 Ailian ; Fick ejects the verse). 
 
 Hipponax : (jyapfxaKOLs \ tr. 8, in ^ 5 {^apfxaKoi, conjectured by 
 
475-] O DECLENSION. 38 1 
 
 Bergk, is adopted by Tick), h yvadois K^KiviaTai 623 (MSS. roio-t 
 yvddoicTi, see Bergk ad loc), aKcpdcpois 86. 
 
 Ananios : €v bo^ois ttoWov 3^ trim, (ten Brink and Ahrens kv 
 bojjLM avxvov, of. Hippokr. II 33, ;^6 ; Suidas has xP^tos crv^vos 
 riyovv TTokvs). 
 
 Herodas : rois re 320 > tols Kajxovcnv 534 > '^^^'^ a-c^vpoim 550 , 
 SiKTVois K^lvrai 320, /caAot9 ctt' ipots rato-Se 433, 8eWots et (?) 7io4' 
 av(i)vviJLOLs ravTaLS 6^^, avdpiOTTOLS \ I^^q, 5i5j BpLKLvb-qpoLs \ 2^-j, 
 ^dvois I 394. 
 
 Anakreon : 0aAuo-iois| 13, KoXotsI 63^^, v/Arotsj 63^1, Kex.P^/^eVots | 
 842, i^ivois, ^aaov ^y, TToXvo,vdifxois 653, ^ivotai //.eiAt)(tots eoiKo'res 
 
 Mimneraios : rot? i/ceAot 33 (ueAos has no F in the Ionic lyric), 
 Xvypols I 7i, referred to Theognis (c£. 795) by Tick. 
 
 Xenophanes : €v(f)i^ixoLs \xv6oi^ /cat KaOapoiai Aoyots | i]4, a note- 
 worthy line because of the freer use of -ots in the second foot of 
 } the pentameter before a consonant (cf. Tyrt. 4g), Trpos Tot's \ 73. 
 
 Tyrtaios : puKpols Kovpihiri lOg, dcpdaXjxois Kai lOgg, /ixeydAoty 
 ^aXke.T€ yjep[xahiois \ Use- 
 
 Theog-nis : Oeol's a-nivbeis 490 (Evenos of Paros ?). Pick 
 suggests (B. B. XIII 173) ^ew from an incorrect reading of 
 0EOI2nENAEIE, since o denoted co in the old Parian alphabet, 
 -ots before a consonant in hexameters, a divergence from the 
 usual earlier use, occurs in 145, 545, 6^'^, 897, 1037. 
 
 The old epic poet Asios of Samos has fieyapots reVey 3, 
 KaXois ! 132, and be(rp.ois \ 1 34. The Halikarnassian Panyassis has 
 kcrdXois bi l^u' ^oot? 8td I5' 
 
 Solon : before a vowel — roTs abUois aixcpLTidrjcn 434, abUois 
 ^pyixaai 4^^, 13^2 (Solon has no F here), toi? 54^ ^Sss? OvrjTols 
 I3i6; 74, (f)iXoLS, exdpolcTL 135, a^irois 152) dcfyOaXjxoXs 342 tetr. 
 
 Before a consonant — ev avvobois, rrjs abiK iarl <piXa 4.2V where 
 the MSS. have for the second part of the pentameter rots 
 abiKovcri (JjlXols (Fick rja), Toifn vc^Tepois, bpacrai 373 trim, 
 according to Bergk (the numerous conjectures all have -ots), p.eya- 
 g j Aot? Tiaaiv 7 (referred by Fick to Theognis, cf. 799 ff.), p.r} tl 
 ' OiOLs TovTuiv IT2 {tl om, Sitzler, Fick, who read Oeolcn). At the 
 verse end is found dorois lO^. 
 
 We have seen above § 451 that the forms in -at?, though rare, 
 are not to be rejected. The same holds good in the case of -ois. 
 
 In the later elegy -ois is very common. In Evenos, Kritias, Dionys, 
 Chalkos, Plato, it usually occurs in the same place in the verse as in the 
 earlier elegists. Plato 123 is, however, an exception (fifth part of the hexa- 
 meter). 
 
 475.] Dative Plural (Prose). 
 
 -oto-t is found in Hekat. e.ff. 135, 173, 173 (roto-i), Pherek. 
 
382 THE IONIC DIALECT. [476. 
 
 Leros XIOoktiv (44); Herakleitos 114 has Toh and 11 AeA(/)ors 
 before a vowel in each case. 
 
 Demokritos as handed down in Stobaios has -oto-i in e.g. 10, 
 II, 13, 27, 168 [oX(Ti.v), 184 (roTs akkoLs C^okti in Stob.), 193, 
 197, 202, 205, 213 (rots xPV(^'''oi^^i-^)> 2154 (but rots 215^), 236 
 (rots TToVoto-ty) ; I02, 122, 138 (Demokrates), The article 
 generally appears in the shorter form, but Stobaios has roto-i 
 in 13, 47 (relative), 193 (roio-ty dw^roto-ti'), 197, 158 (Demo- 
 krates). 
 
 In Charon of Lampsakos frag. 9 there are two cases of -ots 
 before a vowel, one of rots before a consonant. Protagoras has 
 Tolai TToAAotcrt. 
 
 In Herodotos but few cases of -01? occur, and these are due to 
 copyists' errors, e.g. avrols in C I 86; the same form in Hekat. 
 1 75 (before a vowel in each case). roto-8e occurs III 36 in all 
 MSS. In the same chapter roto-tSe rotci eTreo-t where all the 
 MSS. except P C have roto-8e, and E has rots for roto-t. In VI 
 119 dyyetots to was formerly read, but is now dropped, being 
 found only in s z. 
 
 In Hippokrates and Aretaios and in the imitators of Herodotos 
 -oto-t prevails though the MSS. vary constantly. Q has rotcrS' in 
 Hippokr, VIII 50 {y. I. roio-tSe, roto-ty hi) ^. Arrian's Ind. has 
 four times as many cases of -oto-t as of -ots. The Vita Homeri 
 has on the other hand forty-one cases of -ots to two of -oto-t. 
 Lukian's Vit. auct. has rots eKet cro(f)o'iaL 3, but roto-^eo-t rota-ty 
 dprjixivoLCTL 5. Of the -ois forms rots is the one most common. 
 On the relation of the inscriptional rots to the roto-t of literature, 
 see § 473, 2, and cf. Gomperz' Apolot/ie d. Heilkunst, p. 189. 
 
 476.] Accusative Plural. 
 
 ^apjBapOTs Teos 156 B 26-27 is noticeable from the fact that it 
 is the only early inscription which has OT to express the spurious 
 diphthong. 
 
 In the lyi«c poets we find olbaXiovs Arch. 9^. 
 
 In Hdt. we find dfrt^o'ous VII 150 (-ous A B' Cd, cf. bopv^os in 
 Attic) and so VII 192; Demokr. 215 has opLovoovs, Aretaios 279 
 has evpoovs. oaria Hdt. I 67, II 41, &c. 
 
 T/ie ' Attic Declension ' in Ionic. 
 
 477.] Forms of the so-called Attic declension occur sporadically 
 even in Doric, e.g. upon an inscription from Kos we find rikeaos, 
 
 ' irphs To7(Td«x<nv in 6 in VIII 358, 268, 372, 308. 
 
477-] THE 'ATTIC DECLENSION ' IN IONIC. 383 
 
 rikeoiv, TeXeo) ^. In Ionic there is ample testimony to their 
 presence. 
 
 Nouns formed from Aew? : 
 
 Nomin.: 'ApKeaCkeods Styra 1915, Hdt. IV 160^, 'Aya^iAeoos 
 Miletos 93, Hdt, VI 23, MeveX^m II 119 {v. I. -Xeos II 116), 
 Uepikecos IX 103, Srrja-tAeo)? VI 1 14, XapiAeco? Ill 145, Thas. 
 (L.) 4 B 6, 'Hye'Aeo)? Keos 44 B 5, KptroAeo)? Smyrna 15324, 
 'Apruo-tAews Thas. 78 C 8, <i>av6k€co9 Thas, (L.) 4 B 7, Kpartoro- 
 Aeoos 6 B 2^ Auo-t'Aews 7 A 9, riu^oAea)? 10 B 3 ^, 
 
 Genit.: ^az^oAeco Thasos 75 A 4, Thasos (L.) 8 B 12, cf. 15 
 C 6, Up7]^[k€M Thasos 75 A 7, Evpvkeoo 78 C 4, 'Az/a^iAeco Thasos 
 75 B 5^ 'AStAeco Thasos (L.) 8jq, 'AptoroAeco Maroneia, Head, 
 H. N. 216, ©epo-e'Aeco Paros 6O2 (epig-r,). In Hdt. 'ApKeo-tAeco IV 
 160, 161, 'Apxe'Aeo) VII 204, 'Az/a^t'Aeco VIII 131, 'Hyrjo-iAeco 
 VII 204, VIII 131, 'iTTTToAeo) IV 53, NtKo'Aeo) VII 134, npcore- 
 (TiAeo) IX 116, XaptAeco VIII 131. Ion i has 'EpjuTjo-tAeco, 
 
 i>ai^. ; Meye'Aeo) Hdt. II 118, in a passage cited by Greg*. Kor. 
 (p. 469) as having -Aaw; V 94 (Aldus -Aaw), VII 169 where 
 Wesseling^s reading has been adopted by Holder (-Aeoo R v s, 
 -kaov A B) ; Aew II 124 (Aaoo Rvs, akkon A B). 
 
 Accus. : keu)v Hekat. in An. Ox. I 265^^^, Zeleia 114 E 6, 
 Hdt. I 22, VIII 136, II 129 (Aeci ABE); in IV 148 all MSS. 
 have kaov, in V 42 kaov rz, krjov reliqui ; Mevekeuiv II 113, 
 118, UpMTeaCkecov IX 116, 'ApKecrtAecoy IV 160. Nt/coAoi' VII 137 
 is not an Ionian. In the nom. pi. Hdt. V 68 has ^Apx^kaoi. 
 
 The lyric poets are unacquainted with Aews. Archil. 79 has 
 Xapikae, 'lo'Aaos 1 1 93, and the Homeric, but non-Ionic, kdos^ 
 occurs in the elegy Kallinos ijg, Xenoph. 2^5, Tyrt. 1I13, Theog. 
 53> ll^i 781. See § 140, 4 and 160, where other instances of 
 Aao?, especially in proper names upon inscriptions, are cited. The 
 progenitor of Aew? is Arjo? Hipponax 88 which however came into 
 existence long before the sixth century. 
 
 Other forms in Hdt. of the 'Attic ^ declension are: "A^co? VII 
 22, MiVco? I 171, 'na.jpiii'i II 133, NeKW? II 158, Mai^epws II 79, 
 '\vkpm VII 7, Te'o)? I 142, II 178; (Gen.) "A^co VII 22 (cf. 
 Chandler, Accent. § 547), MtW I 171, Nckw II 158, Na^w II 165, 
 aAo) Hippokr. I 598 ; (Dat.) -naxpii^ VI 103, Tew I 170 ; (Accus,) 
 "Muiv VI 44, Wivuiv VII 171 (Lukian Adr. 20 Miyco), Trarpcov 
 
 ' Bechtel, Gott. Nachr. 1890, 33, 
 
 ' Homeric 'ApKfo-fftos (sic) is the clip-name of this word. 
 
 ^ For XiKeos Hdt. IX 9, Plutarch has Xel\(us. In many cases the MSS. of 
 Hdt. have variants in -Xeos ; cf. Bredow, p. 169. 
 
 ' STj/ieicoTfOf Se '6ti ovx aTrXois rhv ux^ov tTr]fj.aivfi, aWci rhv viroreTay/ifVOV' 
 E/coTaios yap rhu 'Hpa/cAea rod EupvaOeccs Aeo^v \4yei, Ka'iToi iva ovra. 
 
 ^ Cf. Eust. Od. y3 242 e'/c Tov \T]hs 6 \a6s v!) ou /xefjivrjrai '}ipaK\eiSris ovneo 
 
 Se ^v iirl 'O,ar]pov iv xp^cf "rh AtjJis d \a6s. An. Ox. I 265 rh Kahs arpeirros e/ieiye 
 vap '0(j,r]pei>, Kairot ttj /juTayeyearepci, 'idSi rpairey, \ri6v Hipponax. 
 
384 THE IONIC DIALECT. [478. 
 
 IV 76, IX 78, 'NeKcov 11 152, 2a/3aKwy II 137, 152, TeW I 170, 
 Tv(f)w III 5; but Tu^wz^ II 156, Tv(pu)va II 144, (3ovKepu>v II 41 ; 
 (Aecus. pi.) biiJ.v€co9 V 77 (accented -eoj? in the MSS.). 
 
 Hdt. has Keo;/ VIII 76 (t^s 2aA.a/itj/ir/s), but KaJs I 144, K^ IX 76. On MiVwoy, 
 see § 524. T^paiv is found Hdt. I 167' (also in Sophron), but ripua II 143, VI 
 69, /jL-firpaia IV 80. 
 
 tepews. With tepecos Miletos loo^ (of the fourth centuiy), cf. 
 Hdt. II 37 apxi-^p^^s ABC corr., -tepecos Cpr, apxi-^p^vs in ^</2 
 and -ipevs in P, Stein reading ap^Lepevs. Inasmuch as we have 
 a genitive lepeco in inscriptions from Milesian colonies (tepeco Olbia 
 12823, 33, 59 J and Tomoi 136^.,) this te'pecos upon an inscription of 
 the metropolis is to be regarded as a nominative in -ews (Bechtel, 
 Nachrichten Gott. Gesell. Wiss. 1886, No. 11, p. 378), and not as 
 a mistake for tepevs as has been held. Herodian I 245,3, I^ekker 
 An. 44931, 1 197 recognize an Attic nom. tepecos. Cf. apxiip^oiv 
 Plato Laws XII 947 A. On Upeoos for Up^vs as a special mark 
 of the Milesian dialect, see § 1 1 • 
 
 i 
 
 Dittenberger (Syll., No. 376, note 4'!^ suggests that Upeois was abstracted 
 from apxifpetiis which contains the stem -lepr^v- enlarged by o, -Leprjo becoming 
 -ttpett), as in the case of T]ixi4Kreoov<ir]fov, from l/creuy, 6pfciiK6iJ.os<C.6prifo-. 
 ipuKrvvri occurs in Hdt. Ill 142. Bechtel I. I. holds that lepeai is from ^leprjo 
 (cfApeto Archil. 48) the genitive of the nom. teprjs found in Arkado-Kyprian. 
 To this genitive a new nominative Upicos (thus accented) was eventually 
 formed. The latter theory is correct only if the existence of an t/ declension, 
 allied to that of tjv, ev and es stems, can be proved ^. The preferable explana- j 
 tion therefore is that of Dittenberger. ; 
 
 ; 
 77Ae'cos is found in the MSS, of Archil. ^8 (Bergk TrAeoj, see ; 
 
 § 478), lAecos Hrd. 435, lAeco 4^^. 
 
 478.] Some words in Ionic not inflected according to the 
 * Attic ' declension. 
 
 Kayos and koAos appear to be the Herodoteian forms for Aayw?, ' 
 KaAcos. Tlife MSS. vary constantly as regards the former word. ; 
 Hipponax 36 has Aaycos (ace. pi.), Meineke -ovs, Anan. 55 Aaywr • 
 (gen. pi.) ; Homeric is Aaycoo? *. 
 
 'TrAe'o?, TrAe'rj, iikiov are the Herodoteian forms, found also in , 
 Ktesias. Archil. 58 has TrAecos changed by Bergk. In Anakr. 94 
 
 " Schol. V on II. XIII 42S i)pwv tiv\s 'Attikws . 
 
 * Also Philol. Anseiger XVI 73, Index led. Hal. 1S89/90, p. iv. 
 
 ^ Doric TifioKprivv Telos in Cauer 169 C 3, 'Ep/xoKprivu 169 C 5, G — TL/xoKpeiav, 
 &c. were formerly assumed to exemplify the reverse of a process by which , 
 *ieprivs became not only hpews, but also leprjs and Upevs. 
 
 ^ Cf. schol. on Nikand. Ale.v. 465 : \ayaiov kuI 'liriruva^ /uvofiovevfi 
 
 (frag. 123) ; also Anecd. Par. IV 24555 : rb 5e Xaya>6s (Homeric) 'Iwvikov eVri. 
 Cf. Trypho frag. 13 (Velsen), Eust. 182I25, Eenner in Cui'tius' Stud. I i, 219. 
 Fick, jB. B. XI 268, Solmsen K. Z. XXIX 109. 
 
479-] THE 'ATTIC declension' IN IONIC ' 385 
 
 (eleg".) we find TrXeo). Once, in the Odyssey v ^^^, we meet with 
 epic irXiov, in the same line with nXdy], 
 
 It has generally been assumed that the name of Amphiaraos 
 was declined according" to the Attic declension. In Hdt. there 
 are however indications to the contrary. 'Aju^tapfo) Hekat. 340, 
 Hdt. I 49, 92, III 91, but in VIII 134 R has -p^os, Aldus -pao^ : 
 'AfJL(pLap€(i) I 52, 'Aix(f)Ldp€(t)v I 46 (but -peov Aldus, -pr]ov Ac). In 
 Oropos 182 we meet with 'ApLcfiLapdov^ which is due to the in- 
 fluence of apdoixai. Wackernagel has shown (K. Z. XXVII 265) 
 that the original form is *' A\h(^idpr]F o<5 , from which arose Attic 
 'Afj,(f)Ldp€cos and Ionic 'A/vK^idpeo?. Cf. Tvvbapiov A 398, co 1 99, 
 Ilavbapeov r 518, v 66'^ from "^TvvhdprjFos. Hdt. II 112 has 
 Tvvbdpeio which is Attic like the forms of 'A//(^iape<Jos above. 
 ' Apxqvdpeais quoted by Wackernagel from a Thasiote inscription 
 (Thas. (L.) 4 B 2) is now read 'Apxrjva^ Tt/^io7ret[^eos]. 
 
 Stein adopts the forms d^io'xpeos IV 12,6, d^Loxp^ov V ill, 
 d^iox^peov I 156, where several MSS. have -xpe^s, -XP^^) -XP^^^ '• 
 d^to'xpea V 6^ makes it probable that he is correct though the 
 evidence for -xpews is strong. Hippokrates has d^to'xpeot. Cf. 
 Bredow, p. 137, Benner, p. 219. If dfto'xpeos is Herodoteian, 
 tAeo? may be so too, cf. § 139. 
 
 Adjectives derived from yrj have -yaios, not -yeco?, e.ff. viroyaios, 
 Kardymos, ixecroyaios, ^aOijyaios in Hdt., jmetroyatos Arrian 22. 
 ^av66y€(jos in Lukian Sp: dea 8 is not an Ionic formation. 
 See Merzdorf, Curtius' Stud. IX 236. Compounds of vaos : 
 deiyaos Hdt. I 145? not deivcas, deivaov I 93. Hdt. has vqos ^ I 
 183, VI ig. vaov in Ionic inscriptions, Priene 142 (334 B. c), and 
 Phanagoreia 165 (latter half of fou.rth century). After 250 B.C. 
 we find in Attic inscriptions vao^ : before that date in prose monu- 
 ments vem. In veoiTioias Eph. 14715, Halik. 240g, veoi-noLriaavT^s 
 Samos 222, veooKopov Orop. iS^^ we have the latter form, vacoi, 
 occurs in the Delian register, B. C. H. VI 29 (i), dating from the 
 second century : vaov VI ^'^ (236), but yecoKoptcot VI ^'^ {'^'^S-^)- 
 
 479.] Other forms, chiefly of the O Declension. 
 
 Uvhpov in PIdt. I 193, III T07, b&bpeov^ IV 22, 23, but 
 bivbpos accus. VI 79, geySpecrt II T38, hhbpea I 17, 193, Hekat. 
 173, Sei'gpecoy I 202, II 32. In Hippokr. VII 516, 518, 526, 
 528 we meet with forms of the O declension, but 8eV8pet 526, 
 hivbpeai 528. In the pseudo-Hippokratic ep. 135 bivbpa (bivbpea 
 sec. man.). Lukian Si/r. dea 49 bevbpicov, Arrian 7, 11 (-et), 22, 
 
 * Cf. 'Aficpiapaos upon Attic vases K. Z. XXIX 416 ; cf. C. I. A. II 162 C 21 ; 
 471, 27, 70. 
 
 , ^ Bpidpewv A 403 is changed by Wackernagel to -eor. Especially noteworthy 
 » I is Bpmprjo in Ibykos 45. 
 
 ^ vijov Tzetzes Ex. II. 9715. 
 
 * Cf. Greg. Kor. p. 61, Eust. on r 152. 
 
 C C 
 
386 • THE IONIC DIALECT. [480. 
 
 27, 33 bivbpea and bevbpcoiv. In an inscription from Keos we i 
 have bivbpa rjfxepa, whereas Hdt. IV 21 has rjixepcav bevbp^cov, of. 
 VIII 115. The stem bevbpv- (Attic bevbpei, bevbpea-t) has in 
 New Ionic succumbed to the influence of the sigmatic stem, 
 which in Attic generated bivbprj (bivbpa). 
 
 baKpvov Hdt. II 96 ; baKpv sometimes in Homer. 
 
 (jwXaKos ^ 12 566 and so almost always in Hdt. (f)vXaK6v in a 
 metrical inscription 14T5, which however for other reasons is not 
 evidence for the dialect. On the forms from (f)vXa^, see § 549. 
 
 vlos in Hdt, has vlov, &c., except vUas IV 84. The inscrip- 
 tions know no other inflection than that in 0. Simonides of 
 Keos (249) is said to have used a nom. vls ; but cf. Hdn. on E 
 266. 
 
 TTokXos and ttoXvs. Hdt. adopts the former form with scarcely 
 an exception (ttoKvv II 121 b, III 57, ttoKv VI 72, and adverbial 
 TToXv III 38, VII 46, 160). TTovXvs TTovXv havc no support worth 
 mentioning in the MSS. of Hdt. In compounds Hdt. has ttoXv-. 
 Herakleitos and Demokritos have ttoAAo's : -nokv in Herakleitos 
 91 is a conjecture. In the poets ttoAAo's is well attested. 
 Lukian^ and Arrian follow well in the wake of Herodotos, 
 except in five passages where ttoKv has forced its way in : S^r. 3, 
 Ind. 4, 8, 29, 4c. The Fifa Homeri has ttoAAoV 5, 16, 17, ttoAv I 
 5, 21, 0^2)^ 34- ^^^ medical writers pursue an eclectic course:: 1 
 Aretaios has ttoXXov 17 times in books I and II, ttoXv ii times, ' 
 TToXvs once, ttovXv 2, ttovXvs 12, ttovXvv 2 in the later books. In 
 Hippokrates the proportions are somewhat different ^, and lead' 
 one to the conclusion that an original -n-oAAo's had been buried 
 by successive deposits of epic and Attic forms. On the form 
 TTovXvs, see § 254. 
 
 Conso7iantal Declension. 
 
 480.] In the dative plural Ionic never has -ot?, or -eo-o-t fron 
 non-sigmatic stems. Hence baiTV\i.6vi.(j(n Hdt. VI ^"j (in AB 
 cannot be correct. Stein reads -eo-i. Such forms in -ecro-i ir' 
 Homer are Aiolic. Totcr8e(7o-6 in the Hippokratic phrase tt/jo: 
 ToicrSecrcn : § 475- 
 
 The hyper-Ionic genitive pi, in -eooy contains an e wdiich may 
 be explained in part as due to the influence of such forms a:: 
 
 • Aiolic, Greg, Kor. § 17 ; Ionic, sehol, Apoll. Rh. I 132 ; generally accented, 
 <pv\aKos, above § 123. 
 
 ^ Cf, Lindcmann, Be dial. Ion. recentiore, p. 12. 
 
 ^ Sometimes when the vulgate has ov, better MSS, have the form with i 
 So in VI 358 9 has ttoXvs. Littre even reads irovWo'icnv II 650, where mani 
 MSS, have iroAA- ; cf. II 692, 
 
48l.] STEMS IN IOTA. 387 
 
 6eiJ-L(TTicov Hsd. Theog. i^iSi y^povreoiv Hdn. II 2299, and partly 
 to the belief in the predilection of Ionic for an open eco. 
 
 Examples of this parasitic -ecov are: aXcoireKeMv Hdt. Ill 102 
 (ABC), II 6y (C) from aXc^Tr-q^ Archil. 86, aA&)7re/co? Sim. Am. 
 y^, Solon 1I5. Ananios has aXca-n^KOiv in fr. 5^, according to 
 Hermann, the MSS. having oXod-niKOdv which is in violation of 
 the metre (tetram. scazon). Prag-. 5 has other strange forms 
 {e.g. iaOUtv). aXo^-nriKeaai occurs in Oppian. The edition of 
 Aldus preferred yriqvioiiv 11 4^, where it is certainly not adjectival. 
 avbpicjDV VII 187 is without any MS. authority. On iivpiahicnv 
 \ VII 187 (C d), y^iKialkdiv VII 103 (C d), see § 74, 2. Hippokrates 
 ' has avbpioov, jj-rjueMP, pLvictiv, (})k€^ioov, yeipioiv, Luk. Astr. 5 
 
 Hippokr. lias rh Trddos and rj irddr], rh TrAaSos, (jypi^ (also Horn.) and (^pi'/cTj. 
 
 Sie?us in Iota. 
 481.] Terminations : 
 
 6s te? (ty) 
 
 tos, eo?, ecos lutv 
 
 I, et t(n 
 
 IV 19, la? 
 
 I us. 
 
 Testimony of the grammarians, i. Genitive -los : Joh. Gr. 240, Hdn. II 61425 
 j (Choir. 4559), Gramm. Meerm. § 10, An. Ox. I 35815, 3612,, schol. Ven. A on r 
 'i 219, ef. on 'V 500, the interlinear schol. Ven. A on A 214, An. Par. Ill 216,1, 
 I III 29533 (ra €JS IS o^vTova oh ylvovTai irapa tols ''icaffi Kara ano^oX^v rev 5 . . . . 
 }Kvri/iios, aa-ir'ws ws Hdpws, Qerios). On Qerios'- and Tldpws, cf. also Theod. 9,5, 
 j schol. Ven. A on "V 500, Hdn. II 61426 (Choir. 4555), II 70O3 (Choir. 1894), II 
 ''760i5)i7> &c. (Choir. 35332), II 2491 (Choir. 41001, Et. M.46o2),Et. Gud. 26o2g. 
 :But &ffj.iSos is Ionic, Hdn. II 700,7 (Choir. 18922). See also on -los, Hdn. II 
 4067 = 702,2, 54422, 577i3. S8525, Et. Gud. 47443. 
 
 -eos: Greg. Kor. § 21 6(peos, fiavreos, and TroAeos, which form is quoted from 
 Euripides' Orestes : rh fieu yap Xtyeiv 6<jjlos, ttoAios koiv6v, rh Se 6(peois Ka\ TroAeois 
 . . .'ArriKSy. ''Eo'ti Se (ire Kal rai Koivlf xp^VTai (^luves) , Kal tout^ fid\i<xra, ws "0/j.T]pos 
 |(e| aypod v6ff(pi ttoAjos). Cf. Hdn. II 7677, ,8 (Choir. 373,7), but in II 701,3 
 !(Choir. 194,6) -eos is restricted to Attic from which the Euripideian TroAeos, 
 \o(peos are cited, and in II 43230 6(pios is stated to be Koiv-f], o^eos Attic. It is 
 ipeculiar, and perhaps not in accordance with the general procedm-e of 
 Herodian, that a form should be stated to have undei'gone a dialectal Trddos 
 and at the same time be regarded as Koiv^. 6(peos is called Ionic by a scholiast 
 on Hesiod, W. D. 414 = 41 2 (Gaisf. p. 266), irJAeos by Diakonos on the Asjns 285. 
 -€«s Gram. Vatic, p. 696. 
 -))os An. Ox. I 36 1 25. 
 2. Dative -i : QerT schol. Ven. A on ■*• 500. 
 , -€i schol. Ven. A on r 219. 
 
 ' ^ QiTiSos Erythr. 206 B 27. 
 
 2 
 
388 THE IONIC DIALECT. [482. 
 
 3. Nom. PI. : 6<pTs Greg. Kor. p. 475, ir6\Ts, (pvaTs Apoll. Pron. 9412 (Schn.), cf. 
 Hdn. II 57828 where ■ir6\Ts, 6<pTs and SapSts are not referred to Ionic. A 
 grammatical treatise cited Greg. Kor. 1. 1, has uis anh tov 6'ies. These forms 
 are like the Aiolic, Boiotian and Herakl. Tp7s, Alkman's opvTs, and Attic &pKvs, 
 merely accusatives that have usurped the place of the nominative. 
 
 4. Accus. PI. -is: Choir. 86iiu, ixavrTs, 6(pis. 
 
 482.] Interrelation of stems in t and in I. 
 
 This declension comprises the tvpo types (i) -is, 'u-os, and (2) rarely in 
 Ionic, ir6\is, (pva-Ts, 776x^105, cpv<re^os = 'eos. All the dialects, except Attic, 
 adopted the forms of the first type which carry t through all cases, i. e. both 
 those in which the termination begins with a vowel (■]t6\i-os, iro\iwv), and 
 in those where i would properly appear, e. g. locative plural. The latter 
 forms have X due to the influence of the second type. See § 484. Brugmann 
 thinks that the inflection ttcJais, ttSkuos was an inheritance of Greek from 
 primitive times. Since 7r(^Aeos did not suffer contraction, its open ending, 
 though apparently the direct descendant of iri^Ae^i-os, has been referred to the 
 influence of -tf-os. See Schmidt, K. Z. XXVII 302. 
 
 The locative in -r is either the result of the contraction of r + r or ir6\T con- 
 tains an I.E. -l. The -Tji" form is from -ei + i or from e + i. In either case -ei or 
 e was the stem ending of the locative. 
 
 Nom. pi. -i€s is the form of an i stem, -€is that of an i stem. The nom. pi. 
 in -Ts is the accus. used as a nom. Cf. Attic ol IxSvs, at Kaxpvs, eyx^^w- 
 
 Gen. PL -iwv from u-wv, derived from an -i stem. 
 
 Dat. PI. -eai (Homeric, Attic, Ai'kadian) owes its existence to the e of the 
 pi. 'eii, -eimv, which gave the impulse to abandon the form with i (-kti). 
 The 6 of -fooy came from that of the strong case forms. 
 
 The ancients (cf. § 481) did not commit the error, still appearing in some 
 modern books, of supposing that -Ts is fi-om -tas. irSKias is from iro\u-as, the 
 accus. of an -i stem ; woATs is from iro\t-y-s, cf. Homeric 61 s. 
 
 483.] Sub-dialectal division. 
 
 I. In the inscriptions there is noticeable a difference between 
 the genitive in the Ionic o£ Euboia and that of the Kyklades 
 and Asia Minor. In Euboia we find the genitive in -chos in the 
 case of prober names whose second part consists of an -t stem ; 
 Ai]iJ.o)(^dpihos Kyme 3 ^. 
 
 In Attic inscriptions we find -ihos (and -tSt) in masculine 
 proper names, e.ff. 'Abdvibos C. I. A. I 324 C, II 36 (408 B.C.), 
 EvTroKibos C. I. A. II 413,4 (200-197 B. c), Ev^api-bos C. I. A. II , 
 809 C 191 (325 B.C.), KakXteiixibos C. I. A. II 470, 93, II (69- | 
 62 B. c.)2. 
 
 The occurrences of -tSo? upon inscriptions of the Kyklades i| J ,; 
 (Delos, No. ^S- 'Ava^iOeixibos VII 8, TL^oOiixtbo^-^ V 10; alsoii ij! 
 
 ' ft 
 
 ' This form is found C. I. G. 291110, j, in a Magnesian inscription. 
 " But cf. 2a>Tws in Ditt. SijU. 423., (320 b. c), and KerpnrSpios C. I. A. II add. | 
 66 B 22 (356 B.C.). The latter form reappears in Thasos 86 ' '" 
 
 ' @f/iidos Ionic, QffiiTos Doric, accord, to Hdn. II 700^7. 
 
484-] STEMS IN IOTA. 389 
 
 in the hypocoristic names 'AAe^iSo? IV 10, <J>tXA.t8o? V 8, 0epo-i8o? 
 VII 12, and in No. ^6^^ 'Ava^iO^ixibos), and of the Asiatic main- 
 land (Erythrai <t>avvo64iJLLbos 206 A 28. B^, 4>avo7r6Xthos 2o6 C 
 19) savour of Atticism, the inscriptions in question dating- from 
 the second and third centuries before Christ. In Samos 22033 we 
 find a feminine EvayyeXibos. 
 
 Otherwise -los is the invariable termination in the Ionic of the 
 Kyklades and of Asia Minor. iX-nis and opvis are dental stems as 
 in Attic. 
 
 1, 27/ e K^ Hades. 
 
 Thasos kva-Los 72)2, ^avoTroXtos 75 B 9 and Th. (L.) 6 C 12, 
 and seventeen other instances of -tos in Bechtel's collection of 
 Thasian inscriptions in the Louvre, Nvix(J)los Thasos 78 C 7, 
 Sxrjo-tTTo'Aios 82 A 4, 'HyrjaLTToKios y6 (and Perinthos 233), even 
 ^Ava^idiixLos Delos ^^, IV 11, and also in the hypocoristic names 
 
 MeWtO? 55 VIII 10, KpLTTLOS 56142, 154^ 180:- *tAAt09 5619, 53, 97, ^33, 
 
 'AAefto? 5630 (and Akanthos 90}, Mvricnos 56141,154 (also Olbia 
 
 I3ii6)- 
 
 2. Asia 31mor and isla?ids colonized from the Asiatic mainland. 
 
 Ylpo^Toxapios Samos 210, 'Ai;a^t'7roAto(9) Abdera i63i4,'A73-oAAo- 
 
 dejiios Kyzik. no, Ev^idip-ios Maroneia 1963, (PiXodep-ios Amorg-. 
 
 23i3,'Hye7roAi[o]s Chios 174 C 14, EvTro'Atos Maron. I969(cf. Head 
 
 H.N. 216), KAeoTTo'Ato? l96l2^ *et8io? Amorg". 231, n]oju7no?(?) 
 
 ! Samos 214, KAeiVio? Miletos 98, Bpua^to? lasos 1041^, /. H. S. IX 
 
 341, No. 3, TTavrjyvpios Mylasa 248 C 5, even in -npa^ios (with d) 
 
 Myl, 248 C J o, and in many other names. Even Karian names 
 
 : receive Ionic inflection; 'OaTdTtos Halik. 2385, Av\yha\p.io'i 23811, 
 
 icf. Hdt. VII 99, TiavvaYios 23815^. In Latyschev, vol. II, we 
 
 find 2(0(710? 377, Kau/cdtrio? 9 (metr.), Aep/cto? 23, Ko'AAtos 246, 
 
 1 68 (cf. 379) not KoXaKos as Bechtel reads in his No. 121, A.va<no^ 
 
 :97, ^VT^aLos 135 (Roman), "AAStos 206, Kiy&jAto? 226, Tophos 
 
 p. 312. 
 
 , 484.] Genitive Singular in -to?. 
 
 I Upon the inscriptions we find -10? except in the few cases 
 ; mentioned in § 483. Upon the ancient Ionic papyrus (F/iilol. 
 XLI 746) we find 'Oaepd-nLos, Aap.d(nos. 
 1)1 the Li/ric poets. 
 
 Archil. 2tpto? tr. 2I4, Mimn. /3(x£to? 161, vfipios 94, Solon 
 v/Sptos 48, I3n, Theognis vjSpios 40, 1 1 74, Trtortos 1244 (A 
 TTLaTectis), TToaios 115, 479, 837, 844 (cf. the name IToVtoj (gen.), 
 Olbia 128155, 13I5, Jahrd. Siippl. vol. IV 472, No. ^6, V 486, 
 
 * There is but one exception in -nSMSos : ^avoiT6\i5os Eryth. 206 C 19, an 
 Atticized document ; cf. ^avoir6\ios Thasos 75 B 9. 
 
 " KouAS($i'5os Halik. 24O55, 'Ijuj3po<r(rj5os 24O57, cf. 55, KvoypicrcnSi 2^0g, ^a\fj.aKlSi 
 24O1U J4) are -5- stems. 
 
390 THE IONIC DIALECT. [485. 
 
 No. 46, &c., Phanagor. 165, 168), o-rdo-ios 1082, &c., cfyvaios Eurip. 
 frag". 903 Dind. (c£. 0i/o-eco? Kritias 6), oCos by coiij. Anan. 5g. 
 This word never shows a stem otet- in any dialect. Perhaps also in 
 Ato's from k'Li = Xicov, Hipponax 124. The possession of this word 
 by Ionic is interesting as it was in the inflection of Xts, kIs, Xuos, | 
 Kuos, that Ionic (as other dialects except Attic) found the model 
 for -noXls TToAuo?. See Brugmann, Grundr. II § 109, note i and 
 above § 482. Herodas has Mavhpios i^^, ttoKlos Sg, 2g^ si- 
 
 Prose. 
 
 In Herodotos -los is to be everywhere adopted though the 
 MSS, have sometimes (i) -eo?, e.(/. TroAeo? Ill 54 in R and often 
 in the Aldine edition (z), and (2) -ecos, e.ff. -TrpoKArjo-ecos V i in 
 Pd (here z has -eo?). Hdt. prefers -to? in Qijxio'i, To[xvpLos, 
 'Oo-tpios. In other Ionic prosaists : Hekat. 202 8^0-10?, Anaxag. 
 6 'nepc)(oipr]aios, Diogen. vor](Ti.os 4, 6, erepotcoo-tos 6 (all attested ; 
 by Simplicius), Demokr. Mor. (pvcnos, KaraaTacnos 184, rep- 
 xj/Los 20, KTi]cnos 41 J ^vviatos 5^, Ttpri^ios 89, Pherek. Leros o^to? ; 
 44, Among' the pseudo-Ionists the -to? form is more frequent, 
 though the MSS. vary constantly. In the Dea Syria -to? is , 
 universal, in Arrian 18^ we meet with 'A/j.(/)f7ro'A6co?. The Vita 
 Homeri has eight cases of -to? to two of -eco?. KaTrirdpLos, but 
 TTeirepeos, or -eco? Hippokr. VII 150, o-eo-e'Ato? VIII 448, VI 448 
 [v.L -eco?), cf. Hdn. II 64633, 767^. Hippokrates usually has 
 -to? in Greek words. In VIII 372 ^ has Ko/x/xeco?, other MSS. ' 
 -eco?, -eo?, -to?; cf. § 546. ' 
 
 Tlmkydides often uses an Ionic genitive in proper names, e.g. 
 'A0vrto? I 64, Fod^to? IV 107, Ki't§to? V 51 ; AuySd/xio?, 'A^. ttoA. 
 15, 2, "Ipto? Xen. Auab. VI 2, i, 'Amxapato? Plato Eep. 600 A. In 
 inscriptions -to? appears occasionally as in 'Ayrtordo-to? C. I. A. 
 I 489. Also in nouns not proper names: ju,?;yto? Pej). 390 E, 
 Tvpa-Los Auab. VII 8, 12, riypios Arist. H. A. 607 A 4, Theophr. ; 
 //. PL V 4, 7. In Agam. 942 8?/pto?. 
 
 485.] 
 
 •Kpvrixviixis upon an inscription (No. 144") from the territory of the Panionion, 
 from about 350 b. c, is shown to be Attic not Ionic from the occurrence of 
 Xi.pvTo.vios Olbia 13I3, Melanges Grec. Bom. II 22, No. 30, Jahrb. Suppl. vol. V 
 487, No. 47, X 29, No. 21 and Smyrna 1537 ; cf. also ■rrpv]Tavicoy Halik. 242. 
 Upon a Chian inscription B. P. W. 1SS9, No. 38, p. 1194 irp[uTav]eOx. 
 
 The genitive singular in -los was only displaced after stubborn resistance, ij 
 It is retained oftentimes when -eco and -K\evs have given way, e. g. Smyrna 1 
 15336 Molpws, but AioffKovpiSov 33, MeveKXfovs IS- ' 
 
 486.] Inflection of Tro'At? (genitive). 
 
 I. TTo'Ato? Paros 63, and other forms § 483-4, also Dittenb. Sj/ll. 
 19O5, an inscription engraved by a North-Greek. This form 
 
486.] STEMS IN IOTA. 39I 
 
 occurs in tlie MSS. Hii^joonax tr, 47 where Berg-k reads -nokqas, 
 and in literary prose. -noXios in Hdt.^ who has e^aTro'Atos I 144. 
 3. TTokrjos, Ionic An. Ox. I 361 25, is Homeric and occurs in 
 Theog. 757. In Hippon. 47 it is a conjecture. See below on 
 TTo'Aeos. 
 
 3. TTo'Aecos (POAEn^) is surely Ionic on the evidence of 
 Chios 174 A 13, B 12; an inscription of the fifth century, free 
 from all trace of Attic ingressions. All other forms upon in- 
 scriptions fall in a period when Attic influence will account for 
 their presence: — Mylasa 248 A 7 (367-66 b.c), Erythrai 202g 
 (about ^^6 B.C.), Zeleia 114 ABI)E(after 334 b. c), Samos 
 22I22 (after 322 B.C.), Thasos 724 (250-200 B.C.), Teos 15822 
 (almost entirely Attic), lasos 1053 (late), Olbia 129^3 (period of 
 the empire). In a fragment of Xenophanes in trimeters (p. 116 
 B^) this form occurs in the MSS., and was so read by Hartung 
 and Meineke, whereas Bergk adoj)ts TroAeos. Xenophanes has 
 TTokeoos in his elegies 29, 22 (Schneid. -10?). This form is now 
 ejected from Homer A 168. 
 
 In Theognis 1043 A has TroAeco?, which Renner (p. 223) thinks 
 ought to give place to iroAeos. But A has -eo)? elsewhere where 
 -eoy is not to be restored, e.ff. -niaTecos for tt'kttios. Bergk reads 
 TToAeu?. TToAfcos in Hekat. 352, a fragment of Attic texture. 
 
 The appearance of -jroAecos in Xenophanes sets aside the claim 
 that the form belongs to the dialect of Chios-Erythrai (§ 12)^ 
 The ancestor of TroAews is the Homeric iroXi^os ^, which was 
 formed by analogy to ttoKt^-l, a form containing the original 
 locative ^tto'Atj + the locative sign t. TidAeco? has not borrowed 
 its ending from z^ojueco?, nor its accent from ^vaeos, as has been 
 supposed. 
 
 4. 7roAei(a))s Zeleia 1 1319 and in the non-Ionic metrical 
 inscription from Priene, No. 141 (Kaibel TroAei ws). The in- 
 scription No. 113 dates from a period which corresponds to that 
 in which e becomes et before a vowel (§ 220) in Attic {S5'^~3'^'^ 
 B.C.). Le Bas regards both 7roAe(i)a)s and de{L)6v in 141 as 
 genuine lonisms. But see Dittenberger, Hermes XVII 40, 41. 
 
 5. TTo'Aeos Oropos 18^^^ (about 400 B. c). Whether POAEO^ 
 in an inscription from Arkesine (Rob. I t6o C, Bechtel 32) 
 dating somewhere about 500 b. c, is to be transcribed Tro'Aeo? or 
 TT6kr}os is not certain. Since Tro'Aecos occurs in Chios in the fifth 
 century, and since -rrokqos in Hipponax is nothing more than a 
 conjecture, the latter form would seem to have but scant foot- 
 hold. In TToArja? in Abdera 1623, even if the H represents ij 
 and not e, it must be scanned short. On the other hand the 
 
 ^ Karsten, p. 12. 
 
 '^ Cf. Wackernagel, K. Z. XXVII 266, Schmidt, ibid. 297, Johansson, D. V. C. 
 P- 164- 
 
3QZ THE IONIC DIALECT. [487. 
 
 Attic form ttoXtj, held by Meisterhans, p. 108, to be genuine and 
 not an orthographical variation of iroXei, shows that the ?} forms 
 did not entirely die out. If the form ttoAt^i lasos 1043 is genuine 
 Ionic, it is difficult to gainsay the existence of a post-Homeric Ionic 
 TToXrjos. The dialect has however in its later period a greater 
 fondness for rji than for tjo. Ujion late inscriptions -Tro'Aeos stands 
 for TToAeco?, as /Sao-tAeos for -e'cos ^. 
 
 TToAeps' is found in Theognis ^6 [A); irokevs 776, and 1043 
 (MSS. TTo'Aecos). These two verses have been branded as spurious 
 by some. According to Henner (pp. 221, 223), -cos is not found 
 in the lyric poets except when we read -eos as in Homer. Thus 
 B 811, <I> 567 TTc'Aep? is preferable to ttoAios ^. voXeps in Anakr. 
 72 is Bergk's conjecture for TroAecos (Schneidewin TroAtos) ; cf. 
 Sejitem 181 (ch.) where a similar correction is necessary. ttoAcos 
 occurs in Agam. 1167 (lyr.), Autig. 162, Orestes 897. 
 
 Dative Singular. 
 
 Three forms occur (i) -I, (2) -et and (3) -rjt. 
 
 487.] Dative in -I. 
 
 The only example of an inscriptional form is x]*^^' Keos 4331 
 (latter part of the fifth century). 
 
 Anakreon 143 has v{]vi from v^rjVLs, Aristoph. has apxr]yeTi 
 Lysistr. 642 (lyr.). In Herodotos Stein has adopted as the 
 uniform ending -i, even where the MSS. have -et exclusively or 
 in great part; e.g. bvvd[jLt, I 192 and IV 155 (cf. bwajxet Teos 
 156 B 31), apidfii^cri, II 143, TTOLi]aL II 82, eKTrou^cri III 109, 
 <TVV0tKri(7L I 196, KaraaTdai II 173, ©en VII 191, cf. ©eVtoos 
 Eryth. 206 B 27, and 370. airokis has diroAi VIII 61. 
 
 Hippokrates has, according to Benner, some thirty passages 
 with -I. Littre reads -et, e.g. in (jivaet, II ^6, Kvarei II 268, 
 (i>aaeL II 66 ($ao-t Hdt. II 103). Renner quotes Ermerins' 
 k-^rjiTi I p. 293 = 11 246 L, Kaddpat Erm. p. 109, No. 568 = V 710, 
 viroa-Tdcn Erm. p. ill, No. 578 = V 714. Littre gives no variants 
 -t here. 
 
 Demokritos has avvicn T35 which enables us to correct Stobaios' 
 ^povT^aei 14 and KXTjcret 185, where Mullach has the strange form 
 KTrjau. In many cases -ei is found in the MSS. of authors 
 quoting early Ionic writers, e.g. Tro'Aet Hekat. 202 (Strabo), 
 
 * Tr6\eos Latyschev I 41, 58, 61, 82, 89 (01bia\ cf. Attic ^acriXeos C. I. A. Ill 
 553, 2 (first century b. c). -eos, which appeai-s in a few other late inscrip- 
 tions in Latyschev II (5318, 20 7^i 223, 40253), was called Ionic by the gram- 
 marians because of its (possible) appearance in Homer. That it is Attic and 
 Koiv-fi is certain. Early occurrences are probably derived from us, -eios (§ 482). 
 
 ^ Cf, Schmidt, K. Z. XXVII 301. 
 
489.] STEMS IN IOTA. 393 
 
 Hellan. 150 (Athen.), Trot^cret Ion i. Simplicius has ^wet in 
 citing- Diog-. Apoll. 2, where Mullaeh reads (f)va€i, misled by an 
 erroneous pre-conception of the nature of the dialect. 
 
 Xenophonj jhiad. VII 3, 33 has ixaydbt, of. Anakr. 1 8 ixdyabcv 
 in MSS. (Berg-k -brjv). 
 
 488.] Dative in -et. 
 
 hvvajxei in Teos 156 B 31, an inscription of the fifth century 
 and free from Atticism. Other inscriptions with -ei may owe 
 this form to Attic influence : TroAet Halik. 34O33 , 3^ (early part 
 of the fourth century, but fifth century according' to Ditten- 
 berger^), Eretria 15^ (410-390 B.C., perhaps -nok-qi), Thasos 72,4 
 (300-250 B. c), Teos 15817 (cf. TTapevpiaei, 158^) an inscription 
 full of Atticisms, Zeleia 11315 (after 334 B.C.); I,av4pyet Phanag-. 
 167, ^daei Olbia 1 29^2 (period of the empire), and Tro'Aet in an 
 epigram Amorgos 34. 
 
 The dat. in -ei has been regarded by Erman and Karsten as a mint-mark of 
 the dialect of Teos, § 12. 
 
 In the lyric poets we find -et. Sim. Amorg. 7gg TroVet^, 
 Tyrt. 4s, 10 TroAet, Xen. 230 TroAet, Phokyl. 12 Tro'Aet, Theog-. 52, 
 387 TTo'Aei, '7Tpo(})da€L 323, TTtoret 831, Solon 4^^, 32 iroAet. ^aKKapi 
 is edited in Sim. Amorg-. 162 and Hipponax tr. 41, though the 
 MSS. in both passages have also jSaKKapei. 
 
 The imitators of Herodotos who generally prefer -to?, never- 
 theless adopt -et with scarcely a variation, e.ff. Lukian, d. S. 60, 
 Arrian iHjg. Dindorf overshoots the mark with his tto'Ai (cf. d. 
 S. I, 10, 13, 21, 22, &c.). Philip of Pergamum has the Attic 
 TrapaTrjprjariL B. C. H. II %']'^. 
 
 To what extent the termination -et deserves a place in Ionic 
 prose cannot be determined. That such a form was possible is 
 evident from the Teian hvvdim. All we can say is that the MSS. 
 speak in favour of the adoption of the -t form. 
 
 489.] Dative in -rfi, -r]i. 
 
 TToXrjL lasos 1043 before 350 B. c. may be Attic, cf. C. I. A. II 
 35iQ and II 427 (both before 376 b. c), and even before 410 b. c. 
 in C. I. A. IV 51, F 24. 7r]oAEl in Eretria 15^ (410-390 B.C.) 
 may stand for ttoAt]!. Since the preceding TEI is ret, Tro'Aet is 
 however the preferable transcription ^. 
 
 Trisyllabic Tro'Arjt occurs in Tyrt. 1215. So by imitation of the 
 epic (r 50) form, upon a metrical inscription from Epidauros 
 'E0ry/x. dpx- 1885, 65/6, line 71. 
 
 " Cf. Zeitsch.f. Gymn.-wesen XXVIII 114, note 3. 
 
 * This form, as all others in -ei, is regarded as doubtful by Eenner on the 
 specious ground that the language of the iambographic poets should corre- 
 spond to that of the Ionic prose writers. Our inscriptions however offer 
 examples enough of -et. 
 
 ^ Cf. Tel 0ou\f7 C. I. A. II 5O3 (372 B. c). 
 
394 THE IONIC DIALECT. [490. 
 
 490.] 
 
 vrjffTis in Hippokrates varies between i/^criSt, vficrri and v^ctth. The -i form 
 is found in Q and C VII 382, in d VII 400, tliat in -a is the vulgate reading 
 VII 382, 402, and -tSi occurs in 6 C VII 352, in C VII 400, in VII 402, 
 Sim. Amorg. has a by-form j/tjctttjs 38, which is also kowt). 
 
 In the Peace 930, bt is called an 'IwviKbv prifxa. This form occurs in Aristotle, 
 who has also oli. 
 
 491.] Accusative Singular. 
 
 "Apreixiv Zeleia 11332; otv Thasos 68 A 2^ not o'Cv, since oFl is 
 generally contracted to ol even in the iambograpliic poets. 770X12; 
 Archil. 46, Tyrt. 1O3, Mimn. 1I5, &c. Herodotos airoXiv VII 
 104, &c. ixrjViv^ VII 137. Hipponax 115 has 6iVTiv=^T€vdiha. 
 Herodas Ylapiv 134, M.avhpiv 1^7. Hdt. has "kpTejxiv, Maa'/rii', 
 'i>6iS>Tiv, 'la-TiaiSiTLv, QeaaakioiTLV, Tdva'iv : \api.v, opvLV, forms not 
 declined as iota stems in other case-forms. On 'Apre'/xtSos; cf. 
 § 546. 
 
 492.] Vocative Singular. 
 
 "Aprepit Paros epigr. 60, Theog. ii, AiVKaaiTL Anakr. iSg, 
 rj;AA6 Herodas ig^. 
 
 493.] Nominative Plural. 
 
 TTpyraveLs lasos 104^2^ Stao-ucrrao-ets Eryth. 2o6 A ^6 with the 
 Attic termination. No case of -te? comes to light. In the lyric 
 poets we have the genuine Ionic -tes : Theog. orao-ies ^i, 7rp?/^tes 
 1036, Igpte? 499 ; Sim. K. 84^ Ibptes. hoaeis is found in Theogois 
 444 where Renner reads Soo-tj. The inflection boats *8oo-e(,-e? is 
 pre-Hellenic, as is seen in rpeis in Ananios 32, where it is used 
 as an accusative. 
 
 In Herodotos we have -te? (Bredow, pp. 263, 266), though 
 the MSS. have -is or -et? very frequently, but rarely without 
 any various reading, e.ff, jSapts II 41, TrpvTavis V 71 ; Kxriaas 
 IV 114. The accusative forms used as nominatives are rejected 
 by the ediijors except Dindorf. No -v stem has -vs in the nom. 
 in Ionic, as in Attic. The adjectives in -is follow the nouns 
 throughout, e.g. hv^heKa-nokies "Icoz-es VII 95. Philip of Per- 
 gamum has araaus, B. C. II. II 273 (but also KaraAwet?), 
 Hippokrates ^wtes II 92. 
 
 Diogen. 6 erepotcoo-tes, Demokr. Moral. 17 rep^^te? (-et? Stob.), 
 66 opiates : Lukian, Eusebios Mynd., epist. Hippokr., Pythag. 
 have -les throughout. There is no warrant for DindorFs 7701;- 
 TjyvpLs, o(pLs, TTiaTis. Arriau and the medical writers adopt the, 
 Attic form ; Tro'Ar/es Arr. 85 is indicative of the insecure specula- 
 tion prevalent in the Hadrianic age concerning the periods of 
 Ionic. Cf. A 45. 
 
 ^ Tzetz. Ex. II. 5©! corrupt (jxlyia. Ionic, fiaviv Doric, /la^viv Aiolic). 
 
496.] STEMS IN IOTA. 395 
 
 494.] Genitive Plural. 
 
 TTpvlTavicov Halik. 243, k-navXioiv Epli, 148^3. In Herodotos 
 -iiiiv is without exception^ though occasionally the MSS. have 
 -ecoy. -eo)!^ is the only form of the genitive in Philip of Per- 
 gamum^ B. C. H. II 273, who has -le?. 
 
 Diogen. 6 kTepoiocxriuiv: Demokr. Mor. 181 ttoXluiv (according 
 to MuUach, though Stobaios, who has -los, -tes, has here -ecov). 
 Lukian Asir. 23 has iiavreoov, Arrian 10 TroAecor, but better re- 
 collection of earlier usage gives us itoXioiv ep. Hippokr. XXVI 
 I, 2, Vita Rom. 28, the Homeric form, though TroAecoy aj^pears 
 E 744, where ttoXlojv is usually read. 
 
 495.] Dative Plural. 
 
 Theognis 302 has Xdrpia-i. In Herodotos the dative plural 
 ends in -lo-l, e.g. iroXiat, '^dpbLai, tticttktl, pidi'TLcn. In the imita- 
 tors of Hdt. there is not a single example of -ktl {e.g. dix-noiTecrL 
 Arrian 2I3J elsewhere Arrian has dvdircoTLs). The -eo-i form is 
 found in jBpdareo-Lv, TroVecny Demokr. 3Ior. 47, as in nouns in -crts- 
 (-^'^^ "V''^)- The termination -(tlctl is unusual if not absolutely 
 incorrect. Hij^pokrates has -crecrt in such cases. 
 
 496.] Accusative Plural. 
 
 1. -Is occurs in 7rpi](ns Chios 174 C 8. The MSS. of Hdt. 
 have not infrequently -et? (Attic) or -Las (Homeric, Aiolic and 
 Doric), though the normal ending is -Is. Thus in V 121 rz have 
 TToKias, d TToAets where ttoAi? is to be adopted. SdpSta? never 
 oecm-s. Hippokrates has -ts in the accus. of rpds : rpis VI 482, 
 VIII 184, 260, 304(^). In Herodas 55 -npoipda-is may be itacistic. 
 
 Wherever -ets occurs it is due to Attic influence : Hdt. I 140, 
 IX 7, in all of which j)assages read -Is. Teos 158^^ irpd^eLs, 
 Samos 220^7 e^aorei?. rpels in Ananios 32 is the nom. form which 
 in Ionic was regularly used as an accusative. Hippokr. VIII 
 226, 228 has ({)66€Ls, Ionic nom. (f)6dCs. 
 
 2. -las. 
 
 (TTdcTias Xenoph. i.^g, -nokias Anaxag. 10 (Sinipl. -eis), irp/j^tas 
 
 Demokr. 3for. 88, 105, Eurip. frag. 902, Philip of Pergamimi, 
 
 I £. C. H. II 273, who has also hwpOaa-ias, Demokr. Phi/s. 4, 
 
 \ (Kkei^ias. Stein adopts. -tas in the following cases where there 
 
 is no MS. authority for -Is : Tro'Ata? I 94, V 15, rd^ias VI 1 11, 
 
 ixavnas IV 68, \j/^vboixdvTLas IV 69, 6(f)ias IV 105, irpoi^da-Las 
 
 V 86 a, TTavqyupLas VI III, evopxi-a^ VI 32. Bredow proposed 
 
 I to expel -las wherever it occurs. Its existence cannot however 
 
 be assailed. 
 
 3. The later lonists, except Arrian and Aretaios, have -las. 
 With TToArjas, Arrian 11, 40, cf. 77oA7}es 8; 6(pias, ocpias Inch 15. 
 
39^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [497. 
 
 In Lukian, Dindorf adopts -Is in opposition to Jacobitz {Si/r. 
 (lea \, 1 -navrj-yvpLs, Astr. 23 -nokis but TroAtas 22) ; V. A. 14 
 kKTivpdxTLas. 
 
 In a metrical inscription of Abdera, No. 162 (fifth century), 
 we read Tro'AHas, a form occurring- p 486. Since we must scan 
 Ti6kr\a<i, it has been suggested that the proper reading is -TioAeas 
 (G. Meyer, Blass) or Tro'Aias Roehl (on his No. 349) and Karsten, 
 p. 26. There is no need of a change^ cf . rjpajas ( 303. 
 
 Stems in Ujmlon. 
 
 497.] This declension includes nouns and the masculine and 
 neuter of adjectives in -vs. 
 
 1 . Noteworthy is the considerable number of nouns in -rvs in 
 Ionic prose, which in Attic are poetical. Cf. jSpoirvs, ktlo-tvs, 
 ebrjTvs, orpwrvs (Eust. Il80g), vrjbvs, Arjorvs = Attic XjicrTeia 
 apTvs = apd\x6s (Hesych. glosses the word with avvTa^is). In 
 Hippokr. VIII 96 (fyXeyixavrvos {6, C) shows that after a nasal 
 -TVS might be used instead of -a-is. Littre wrongly adopts 
 ^Xeyp.dvcrios. 
 
 2. Terminations : — 
 
 vs v€s, ees 
 
 vos, eos v(i)V, eoiv 
 
 VL, ei Vai, €<TL 
 
 vv vas, vs, eas 
 
 V Ves, €€S 
 
 On the inflection of ixvs, see under Sigma stems. 
 
 3. The testimony of the grammarians refers only to the inflection of the 
 stems in ev/ef \frpfa-peos Greg. Kor. § 21, o^eos, iro\eos, rjSeos, § 40 ; o^eesJoh. Gr. 
 240 B, Greg. Kor. § 40, Meerm. 652, Vat. 697 ; iroAces Greg. Kor. § 40, citing 
 A 143 (cf. Schol. Ven. A. = Hdn. II 885, on N 734: TrepKriraareov rh Tro\e7s (accus. 
 for TToAeas) ws raxe'is, ofioicos ry " TroAeis . . . . (O 66). tovto Se ^rj^i, iirel rives 
 $ov\ovTai hveKa t/jLcpdcreus fiei^ovos ^a.pvT6vws avaytyydocrKetv, ols fj-dxerai Kai ri 
 6pdoypa((>ia 7) kclt' "'icovas). vUis is called Ionic in Joh. Gr. 240 B, Meerm. 652, 
 Aug. 667, by enallage for vloi, an explanation adopted also in the case of 
 ^pv(xdp/j.ares and ip'njpes. 
 
 4. This declension comprises the types — 
 
 (i) yeKvs, vfKvv, veKvos = v(Kvii-os: d(ppvs, 6(ppvos = Skt. bhrus, bhruv-ds, and 
 (2) -vs, -vv, with the genitive in ef-os as in ■rrrjxeos, &a-reos, dative in ep-i as 
 
 in irtXeKfi. The Homeric iroAvs, Idiv, Ppwrvv owe their long v's to the 
 influence of the first class, as Pindar's tVxw its v to the influence of the 
 second class. There is no pure dative form, the locative having usurped its 
 functions, as in the case of the iota stems. The inflection according to the i| 
 
500.] STEMS IN UPSILON. 397 
 
 first category comes into play wherever v precedes a vocalic case ending. 
 •is in the accusative plural is framed from the stem with the short vowel 
 (i/eKu-vs). 
 
 In the genitive plural -eoiv we have the strong case form, where the weak 
 form was to be expected. 
 
 -vffi in oppvffi, where we should expect ocppvcn (Skt. bhru§u), is due to the 
 influence of b(ppv'a3v, &c. ir7]xecrt (Skt. bcViusu) has taken the place of nrixva-i 
 under the influence of ir-fixees, irT\xi<^v- For the Homeric forms in 'vaai 
 (§ 504, i), -ixTi has been conjectured. Monosyllabic nouns have -vcri, nouns of 
 more than one syllable have -ixn. In the first class are included those with 
 prosthetic vowel {d<ppvs, Ix^vs). 
 
 498.] Nominative Singular. The form Hvws for vlos occurs 
 in No. 266, an inscription held to be Ionic by Bechtel ^. Else- 
 where vlos, e.g. Mimn. I2i|, Huto's 265 (unc. loc), Amorg-. 35 
 (epigr.), vov Paros 6'^ (late), v\6v Delos 57. There is no trace 
 of vs = vlos, that word being employed by Herodotos in place of 
 (TVS. Simonides of Keos (249) adopted the nominative i't? {yXs). 
 Cf. Et. M. 553]5, iTS^ii) ^"^^ Herodian quoted in the scholium on 
 E 266. Hdn. denied the existence of a nominative i/is or vh. 
 The neuter ends in -v. 
 
 499.] Genitive Singular. 
 
 1. -vos: ©pdavos Thas. (L.) 7 A Ti ; Hdt. "Akvos, "Apbvos, 
 Icrxyos, ikvos^, vos, e.g. I '^fi where all MSS. have (tvos (cf. 
 Hippokr. VIII 134 but vos VIII 138); Hippokr. VII 142 
 vaiivos, II 692 oacpvos. The Pseudo-Ionic writers have -vos. 
 
 2. -eos: uiKeos Mimn. 1I5, aareos Sim. Am. 7^^ by an unusual 
 synizesis. Hdt. has aa-reos, 'niqy^i.os, TiTpairi^x^eos, rjixccreos. 
 
 That &a-Teos, a v. I. in Thuk. VIII 92, 7 adopted by Classen, is foreign to 
 Attic, is shown by the inscriptions. On iT-i\x^os, see Phrynich. 245 (Lob.), 
 where it is erroneously stated that this form is Attic. Boiotian is fda-rios with 
 -toy from -eos. Ionic pursued a different path from Attic, which, in its -ews, 
 permitted the genitive of i stems to displace the ancient form. 
 
 600.] Dative Singular. 
 
 1. -vl: Ikvl Theognis 961 (MSS. i'Sei). In Hdt. -vC (l(txvC, 
 vf]hvL, v€KVi) is read by the editors though the diphthongal 
 pronunciation is not impossible, especially as we find vi in Homer 
 in words of more than one syllable. Boiotian is Aepixvi. vrjbvC 
 T 486 has not the best authority. In Attic -vi is not to be 
 questioned. IkvX is read Hippokr. VIII 138, 6cT(j)vi VI 78. 
 
 2. -et : ofe't Theognis 848. -ei has become -et in TreAeKet 
 
 ^ v(i)vs is also Attic, C. I. A. I 3984 (epigr.) fifth century. In Attie 
 inscriptions the forms of the -v declension in this word prevail till about 
 
 350 B.C. 
 
 '' Thus, and not l\vos as in * 318 {l\v6(j>iv^). Spv6s Hesiod, W. B. 460, is 
 a poor support for i\vos. 
 
398 THE IONIC DIALECT. [501. 
 
 Anakr, 472? where a proceleusmaticus would have been un- 
 metrical. In an epigram supposed to be by Anakreon (103) we 
 read arrret in the fifth foot. The dialect of the poem is, however, 
 not Ionic. The fusion of et to et must, however, have taken 
 place before the fifth centuiy, despite the fact that we read 
 TTeAeVet, e'7rra7T?/xf"('' in the editions of Hdt. Anaxagoras 13 has 
 TreAeVet (sic Simplicius), though Mullach adopts -et. 
 
 501.] Accusative Singular. 6(T(f)vv Miletos loo^, TTdXjj.vv 
 Hippon. I ; Hdt. TrjKvv, Mvv, icrxvi', ^yx^Xw, vrjhvp, vv, T^rpaTrrixvv. 
 in pseudo-Ionic sources : IxOvv, tttixw, Oijkvv. 
 
 502.] Nominative Plural. 
 
 1. -ues: Hdt. Md^ue?, Atyves, At/Sue?, opves, jSopves, Ixdves, and 
 so in pseudo-Ionic writers. Hippokr. iyx^Xv^s VI 548. 
 
 2. -ee? : Hdt. Trr/x^es, rpt77'^;(ee?, rjiiLaees. Hippokr. VI 600 
 has both rjbies and r/8ets. 
 
 3. Neuter (nominative and accusative) -ea : Hdt. aa-rea, 
 bLTTrix^a., rjiJiia-ea (in Attic sometimes -t/ and so on a Delian 
 inscription), Phokyl. i j^ ?/8ea, Solon 435 rpax^a. 
 
 503.] Genitive Plural. 
 
 1. -vcov: Hdt. Ma^vcov, vSxv: IxOvoyv Hdt., Luk., Arrlan. 
 
 2. -eoov: Hdt. TTiix^oov, TeTpaTTrixi<^v,i]iJiLaiu)V. Inr ^yS Tr€XiiieoL)v 
 occurs. Protagoras has vUcov. 
 
 504.] Dative Plural. 
 
 1. -van in ocppvari Anakr. 54ij Hdt. v(t[. IxOveacriv in Anan. 
 5g is an exception to the law that in Ionic -ecro-t is restricted to 
 the sign/a declension. The form is a loan from the epos. Homer 
 has (jv^(T(n, avai, veKveaai, vtKvacn, yivvacn,, &c. 
 
 2. -ecrt in Hdt. : TreAe/ceo-t, 'jn]x^(n, k^aTTrJx^at. Homer's TreAe- 
 Kea-ai is due to the influence of -eo-o-t from si(/ma sterns^ which 
 may appear as -eo-t. 
 
 505.] Accusative Plural. 
 
 1. -vas: iyx^Xvas Archil. ef)od. lOl (cf. ey^eAves <I> 203), 6(f)pvas 
 Hdt. II 66 {-vs li d), Ixevas II 94 (P R d), Ixdvs {A B C). The 
 former form is adopted by Stein. It occurs without a variant in 
 III 98, and is found also in Lukian and Arrian. For Ai/Bvas 
 II 55} 111 I^ 1*50, VII 184 Bredow proposed to substitute 
 AijSvs, though this form is unattested. 
 
 2. -vs in Hdt. vs II 14, 47, IV 186, ltvs VII 89, and t'x^Cs 
 I 141. In Attic -vas is later than -vs. Homer has both 
 terminations, -vs occurring in words of more than one syllable, 
 in the first foot and in the arsis of the third foot. Empedokles : 
 (106, 125 Stein) used Ixdvs both as nominative and accusative. 
 
5o6.] STEMS IN UPSILON. 399 
 
 3. -eas in Hdt. TTTjxect?? 7rpeo-/3ea9, l7rra7r?;xf«?j r//a,i(rea?. The 
 last mentioned form was tlioug-lit to be better Attic than rjjjLLcreLs 
 by the grammarians^ whereas the contrary is the case, i]\xi(TiLs 
 being the better attested form. In ^ 114 we find TreAeKeo?. 
 Hdt. IV 84 has vUas (Homeric), elsewhere vlovs. Ag-athokles of 
 Kyzikos (Athen. XIV 649 F) used the form 6a[xias. 
 
 I 506.] Feminine of Adjectives in -vs. Herodotos has -ea, 
 
 not -eta (see §§ 219, 419): e.ff. ^aOia I 178, Tpr])(^ea IV 23, 
 
 j fipaxia V 49, Traxea VII '3,'^, ^7/Aea III 109, I6ia II 17, rjixtafa 
 
 I V III, haa-ia IV 191 ; Tprjxerjs IV 23, ^ijAe'rjs II 35; 0r/Ae?/ 
 
 I III 85, fiadirj II 156, III 110, irXaTer] II 156, I'^/rj IX 57^- 
 
 1 ^apiav II 94, Tpy]yiav IX 122, ivpiav IV 3; OrjXeat IV 23, 
 
 fjixiaeaL VIII 18; 6r]XiMv II 18, 46; no example of the dative 
 
 plural occurs in Hdt.; 6r]\4as I 192, rjp.Kria's II lo, VIII 27, 
 
 t^eas 1 180. Otherwise adjectives in -vs are inflected like nouns 
 
 in -v?, -eo?. 
 
 The MSS. testify in so many instances to the presence of the forms in -ea 
 that we may venture to regard as foreign to the dialect of Herodotos those 
 cases of the retention, even by all the MSS., of the forms in -eia. These are 
 as follows: — /3a06ra VII 23; l{ih)6eia II 34; ledr\s II 161, III 127; idelav 
 
 VII 193 ; IQiias I 180 ; ^aaela, ^a(TiMV III 32 (Sacreoj/ Miletos loOg) ; raxei'as 
 
 VIII 23 ; o|€ia IX 23 ; and eiiKeiav I 105 (C P). There is no basis for the 
 view that a form like Saffea was introduced into the text of Hdt. at a period 
 when such forms were common. In Attic they had a scant existence, in 
 later Ionic they are un vouched for, and even in pseudo-Ionic writers they 
 are sparingly attested. That the fuller form gained a position in the MSS. is 
 not to be wondered at in view of the fact that it is made use of by Homer and 
 by the Ionic poets. When the MSS. in general, inscriptions \ and grammarians 
 agree as to the Ionic character of a form, some variations in the MSS. must 
 not weigh in the balance. 
 
 In addition to the three examples of -ea from the genuine 
 treatises of Hippokrates cited on p. 198, there may be quoted 
 from the later tractates included in the Hippokratic corpus the 
 following examples of the shorter form. They are : Traxeat and 
 Traxewy [v. I. -et-) VI 60, d^e'ac VIII 134 6is (v. I. -et-) ; o^er] VI 
 172 {6, vitlgo -et-), 174 [6, vidgo -et-), dfe'rji' VI 178 {Q, vulgo -et-) 
 and so twice VI 180, the same page showing Tprjxdr]v. In VIII 
 274 the 6-i]Xiav of 6 is read 6Tf]kdr}v by Littre. Hippokrates has 
 as a rule -eta, but also -ea, and the hyper-Ionic -erj even in 6. The 
 forms in -ea often have the v. I. -eta. In § 219 all the examples 
 found in the pseudo-Ionists were enumerated. 
 
 '■ The form daa-eirjs Zeleia 114 E 4 is late. 
 
400 THE IONIC DIALECT. [507. 
 
 Diplithongal Stems. 
 These are -r]v/-€v, -iqv, -ov, -ciii/-oi, -cov. 
 
 507.] Stems in -riv/-ev. On the cases of the v declension 
 formed from a stem ev, see above, § 497 ff. On vlvs, vUvs, see 
 §§ 498, 5^5, 3- 
 
 eos (tjos ?) €(iiv 
 
 €1 (tJI ?) €V(Tt 
 
 ed ids 
 
 Forms in -ea occur in tragedy (cpovea in Euripides Hek. 882, £Z. 599. 763^ ; 
 and -eo, -eas are not infrequent in comedy. Cf. Meineke, I 295 ff. In the 
 latter they may be regarded as the beginning of the movement of the Koivri 
 towards the frequent adoption of the forms with a. NTjpeos Io7i 1082, 'AxiXijoj 
 
 I. T. 436, Pa<n\TJes Andr. 1022 (-rjs Dind.), fiafftAyjas Phoin. 829 occur only in 
 choric passages, -ees occurs in Persai 63, 580 (both choric). Septem 804 (trim.) 
 contains fiaffiXees : but the whole passage is full of difficulties and has long 
 been suspected. Plato, Theait. 169 B, has ©rjo-ees. A change of -ees in these 
 passages to -€tjs is hazardous since Attic linreTis may be nothing more than a 
 confusion of E2 and H2. 
 
 Testimony of the grammarians. This deals exclusively with Homeric 
 forms. Genitive: -170s Joh. Gr. 239 B, Greg. Kor. § 20, Meerm. 649, Vat. 695, 
 Hdn. II 69335 = Choir. 159,, II 7092=Choir. 22iie, II 6387 = An. Ox. IV 337,, 
 II 6733g = Choir. 20921 (irapa toTs dpxai'o's "iwo-tv", Et. M. 630^, Orion 18810, ^^• 
 Ox. I 31520, I 3233. An. Par. Ill 355,0, Tzetz. Ex, II. 61^3, 9433 ; "Aprjoy Hdn. 
 
 II 68214 = Choir. 14531, Diakonos on Hsd. Aspis 88, bufApeco is also called Ionic 
 by Hdn. II 63925 = Eust. 51828, quoting Archil. 47. -ios: 'Arpeos Eust. 62354. 
 This was the Koivfj form according to Hdn. II 67335= Choir. 20919. -fvs: 
 'ISo/nevivs N 424 (now read -/xevevs with MS. authority) and 'OSvaevs 00 398 are 
 called Ionic and Doric by Hdn. II 32811 and II 69232 = Choir. 15724, II 675,1 = 
 Choir. 21 131 (in this passage Hdn. recognizes that the nominative is preferable, 
 quoting* 305f but Choir, makes no mention of the reading -tvs^, II 677,3 = 
 Choir. 2163, cf. also Hdn. in An. Ox. Ill 23330, and Bekk. An. Ill 12041, 124O32, 
 Et. Gud. 27328, Eust. 196529. -eios in 'AxiAAeios, fiacriAe^os was used by the 
 vewrepoi "leaves, Hdn. II 6743 = Choii'. 20904. 'AxiAAeios, ^affiXfios were also the 
 late Aiolic forms according to Hdn. See §§ 25, 220. Dative: -tji: Tzetz. Ex. 
 
 II. 724. -u : Joh. Gr. 242, Drakon 1576, cf. 16I2. Accusative: -rja: An. Par. 
 
 III 31I27. -^<€o in TvSri Hdn. II 677^ = Choir. 21531 (Ionic and Doric). 
 Nominative Plural: -rjes : Joh. Gr. 239 B, 240 B, Greg. Kor. § 40, Meerm. 65a, I 
 Vat. 696, 697, Drakon 1 1515. Genitive Plural : -tjwj' : Schol.Ven. A (interlinear) 1 
 on A 176. Eust. 11087 "tco/c^w;/: in 2734 Eust. says that there was also a reading ■ 
 ^uKiiwv according to Aristarchos. So schol. Ven. A on B 517. This form 
 cannot well be a parallel to 'AxiWiios. Accusative Plural : -ijas : An. Ox. 
 
 I 31521- 
 
 508.] Nominative Singular, eus throughout : Ev/Soei/s Styra 
 
509.] DIPHTHONGAL STEMS. 401 
 
 1933, iepevs Erythr. 206 B 58. On up^m in Miletos loo^, see 
 §477- 
 
 509.] Genitive Singular, lepe'o? Orop. 183, 'Avbpios Chios 
 174 D 6, 0a/3yaAe'o[s] Chios 174 C 18, Acopte'os Amorg-, 23 1^). 
 <i>tAeos Chios 181 and Mvrja-ios Chios 182 are genitives from -ijs 
 or -evs. 'AxiAAeos from Olbia, Latyschev I 625, Oy^, yy^, 80^, 
 834 (Attic /3ao-tAeo? C. I. A. Ill ^^;^^) are all very late^ 
 
 The Attic has displaced the epichoric form in the following instances : — 
 Kf pa/Mews Olbia, Jahrb. Suppl. vol. V 487 No. 47, X 29 Nd. 21, Alyia\4ws Smyrna 
 15324, BpaPfois Maroneia Zeitsch. f. Num. Ill 2S4 No. 24 (before 400 b. c), 
 Keyxp^d^^ Erythr. 20I7 (early part of the fourth cent.), KavKaa-ecos Erythr. 
 206 A 19, fia(rt\ea)s 206 B 61, Samothrake 236 (Roman), 'AxiAA.e&is Erythr. 
 206 B 27, 'Ap/xarews 206 C 31, BaKXeims 206 C 36, XleSiews Thasos (L.) 14 B 9, 
 Koirpeus Teos, C. I. G. 306434, 2j57jp€a)[s] ibid. 1. i. In C. I. G. 21575 
 (Samothrake) we must read 'Apiffrecolsl. This inscription contains the form 
 iwirdpxeco. Of the forms here cited that are dateable, most may be referred to 
 the third century. This is noteworthy as regards the tenacity of the dialect 
 in respect of its inflectional system. 
 
 A genitive l3a](nXrjos is read by Le Bas No. 41 in an Erythraian 
 inscription. There is no evidence from later literature of an 
 Ionic -rjos^; and historical reasons militate against Le Bas' 
 other restorations in the same inscription (Noldeke G. G. A. 1884^ 
 294, Bechtel Ion. Insc/i. p. 125). We read Ato? UXovttjos on 
 a late inscription (No. 243 Halik.) that has not been recollated, 
 and whose original is not to be found. If genuine; the g-enitive 
 isavours of poetical usage. Bechtel compares "Aprjos viK7]6evTos 
 !(C. I. G. IV 7030). Ke<^aA.E02 in No. 266, an inscription found 
 pn the ErechtheioU; and regarded by Bechtel as lonic^ has been 
 read by Neubauer Ke(pa\y']09, by Bechtel Kecfyakeos { = €vs). See 
 jBechtel ad loc. The only example of -170? fi'om Attic is oUijos, 
 m a law quoted by Lysias X 1 9, a form dovibted by Dittenberger 
 ■fTermes XVII 36 {oUijos for otKecos< 01KE02?). The support 
 lor an inflection -r]os, -rjt to be gained from Ylpirjvrji Samos 
 112 (§ 510) is exceedingly weak. 
 
 In the lyric poets we find -eos in Upiriveo^ (Hipponax^ tetr. 79) 
 "estored by Bergk for the vulgar nptrji/ecos from Codex E of 
 Suidas. npL7]vios is also found in Archil. 972 epod., where it 
 vas restored for -ecos- by Elmsley. In a pentameter attributed 
 
 Anakreon (99) we read 0?7o-eos-. In an Ionic epigram (Bechtel 
 S^o. 265) we find "Apia's. Herodotos has jBaatXeos, &c.^ (Atyeoj? 
 
 ; ^ Kv]vSieos from Teos in Le Bas No. 130 (a very late inscr.). 
 
 1 * A few variants {'EpexBvos, UtiAtjos) in Hdt. are not valid evidence of the 
 ptistence of an inflection to which the Aldine edition gave credence. 
 
 ' Struve in his Quaest. cle dial. Herod, specimen 11 first showed that the epic 
 :nd Attic forms, even when supported by good MS. evidence (which is rarely 
 he case), are to be rejected. 
 
 Dd 
 
40^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [510. 
 
 I 173 is incorrect), while Lukian has /3a(nA.7?o? in Sp-. dea 4 (or 
 -e'cos) and 17, as if he imitated Homer, not Herodotos. Hippokr. 
 
 II 666 has yva(f)ia)s. Arrian has -ew? in ^-^-^, 151- , 283, changed 
 by Eberhard to -eo?, for which there is MS. support in 34^, 
 383. -eo)? is not found in the lyric poets except in Meyapeco? 
 Theog. 23, for which Bekker and Renner read Meyapeos- 
 
 The forms in -eio? quoted by Herodian are explained as -eos 
 with the glide iota in § 220 ; cf. § 507, note 2. 
 
 510.] Dative Singular. tepetOrop. 1833, Milet. loo^; (tjpeiTha- 
 sos 7 1 11; jSao-iAei lasos 105^; EvI^oXil Paros 6^; ITpti^ei Erythr. 
 20I20. In Samos 212 we read npirjXrji, or HpiT/i^^t an interesting 
 form of the dative singular, held by Bechtel to be a locative ^. 
 Tyrt. V I /3a(nA7jt is not support enough for so wide a divergence 
 from the Ionic prose ending; much less ttoXyji, which is an 
 undoubted locative. Cf. § 513. Herodotos has jSacnXh, &c., 
 according to the editors. The variations in favour of -ei are 
 very numerous, notably in the class of which x '^^^ the arche- 
 type. There can be no doubt that '^eft in the dative-locative 
 singular did not remain open as late as the fifth century in 
 the vulgar speech. The epic form occurs in Vita Homeri 11. 
 ..Hippokr. VI 78 ^oei {i\ I. x^'h x^'')} Littre xoet. 
 
 511.] Accusative Singular. lepea Oropos iSg, 14, 26) 28> 
 Thasos 7I7, jSacnXia Mylasa 248 A 5, as in Hdt. Lukian Sp: dea 
 has ^acrikia § 20 in H, while the rest of the MSS. have the epic 
 form. Theognis 285 has the Old Ionic jSacnXija. Evpu/xeSoz^rtaSea 
 Hippon. 85 is from a patronymic in -bevs, cf. Matabev Hippon. 
 i6j. Hippokr. VII 156, 158 x^^^ (Attic xoct) from ^oevs, which 
 nominative was New Ionic, but not Attic. 
 
 512.] Vocative Singular. Hdt. jSacnXev, &c.; Maiatev 
 Hippon. 1 6 J. 
 
 513.] Nominative Plural. 'Eperptet? Eretria 14, Upels 
 lasos i04j4,*/3a]o-tAets Ephesos 1479, MvXaareh Mylasa 248 C 7, 
 'lao-ets Sam. 22 14, KaoraAets Perinthos 234 B 39, and naA[a]tetj 
 Rob. 1 160 E. Theog. 263 roKTjes has the Homeric ending which 
 appears in Bacchyl. 42, in a fragment Ionic in metre, tone and 
 dialect : — 
 
 A(3p6Tr]TL ^vveacTLV ^l(avcov /3a(nA?^es. 
 
 This line must not be held to su2:)port a contemporary Ionic 
 inflection which retained the rj. (jyovrjes in Archil, tetr. 592 is on ;l 
 
 ^ Kirchhoff takes this to be a dative and finds here a mark of sub-dialectal 
 difference. Hdt. I 170 has Tlpi-nveos. Bechtel compares the locative t5 x'-'P^"" 
 rh MvppivovvTi in Attic. 
 
5I7-] DIPHTHONGAL STEMS. 403' 
 
 the other hand a highly remarkable form, as it is the only 
 instance, except 'Hatovrjas Kallinos 5, in an early lyric poet of 
 Ionic birth, of the appearance of the long stem vowel. Neverthe- 
 less it is possible to find in the character of the verse (cf. § 52) 
 an explanation for the presence of an Homeric form. It is unwise 
 to admit the siuwival of the -rj- forms in ordinary Ionic speech ; 
 a conclusion not vitiated by Ilptrjyrjt (§ 510). Hdt. /3ao-tAees, &c., 
 and so in the later lonists except Arrian Ind. 235 67r7j-er? in all 
 MSS. (Eberhard liniies), Abydenos i /Sao-tAet?. The epic form 
 seems occasionally to have been dragged into the MSS. of Hdt. 
 and also occurs in ep. Hippokr. 273^ paa-Lkrjes, Aret, 6^, 166 
 oxrjes. Kepafj-ies (32) is the only case in the FUa Homeri of the 
 open form (aXiijes 2^). -ees must have been contracted in the 
 fifth century. 
 
 514.] Genitive Plural. 'EperpUuiv Head H. K 307, 'lort- 
 aiioov ibid. 309^ XakKthecov Olynth. 8 B 10, 9, and Erythr. 20ij8; 
 Uptr]v4cov Priene 143, 'laaecoy lasos 1043 and Samos 22222; 
 ^ AkLKa[pvr]'\(Tcr4MV Halik. 238^^; ©are'coi' Pantik. I22 and Phanag. 
 167, 168; aix4>opi(x>v Zeleia 114 D 5; ^acrtXecoy Eph. 1472; 
 MvXaaeMv Mylasa 248 A y, lo ; Aa)[pt]€coi' Rob. I 137 (Didyma). 
 Herodot. has ^aaikioiv, &c. [v. I. occasionally in -iqoiv as also in 
 epist. Hippokr. 1729). 'Eperptwt', 41 1 B.C., 'E(/). ap^- 1890-1, 196 ff. 
 
 In the lyi'ic poets : yoviuiv Theog. 1330. 
 
 515.] Dative Plural. XaXKibevcn Olynth. 8 A 8-9, Su/ce- 
 evcTLv Prokon. i03jo.;ii, MvXaa-evaLv Mylasa 248 A 3; Hdt. 
 fiaa-iXeva-t, &c. 
 
 516.] Accusative Plural. /Sao-tAea? Chios Berlin. Pliil. 
 WocJienschr. 1889, p. 1195, 1. 8; Taopias Erythr. 209, 2. In 
 the elegiac poets we find the epic -rjas (Theognis 821, 1211 
 TOKTJas, Kallinos 5 'Hcnovfjas, Tyrt. 43 (Baa-iXTJas). The epic 
 form was apparently affected by some of the pseudo-Ionists : 
 Aretaios avoxws 45, epist. Hippokr. yovrjas 135, l3a(nXfjas 1728^ i^ 
 they are not due to the same cause which lodged the epic forms in 
 some MSS. of Hdt. Hdt. has /3a(7tAea?, &c. 'To-ta? VI 108 {A B P, 
 Stein 'To-td?) recalls 'Eperpta?, 'lo-crrtatas Eretr. 151^, is ^^ ^^ 
 Attic inscriptions of the fifth century ('AAaias, 'Eortatas). In the 
 fourth century (350-300) both -as and -ias occur in Attic. 
 TJie'as Hdt. IV 84 is an exception to the inflection of 'son^ 
 in post-Homeric Ionic. See § 498. 
 
 517.] ZeuSj fKlOs, Pous, X°"?^ "ApTjs. 
 
 I. Zeu9^ Amorg. 2,3} Sim. Am. 793, Mimn. ^q, Theog. 337. 
 For Zas in a fragment of Pherekydes of Syros, quoted by 
 
 1 Cf. Collitz, B. B. X 47 ff. 
 D d 2 
 
404 THE IONIC DIALECT. [517. 
 
 Clemens, Zrj? is the form to be expected in Ionic ; see Hdn. 
 
 I 4027; II 91 19 and c£. § 182, Ai6s Paros 593 (epigr.), 
 Erytlir. 206 B 19, Halik. 243, Sim. Am. 79^, Solon 4^, Theog". i, 
 II, 15 (AtoOev 197), Anakr. 69, Hdt. II 13, &c. Zr]v6^ Solon 
 I3j, 25, Herald. 6j^. On Au' and Ai see § 270. Hdt. V 49 
 has the former form. Aia occurs in Anakr. 63, &c. ZeOv 
 Aischrion apnd Athen. VIII '^^^^ B, of. Eust. 138723. Bergk 
 (85) edits Zrjv. ZTjka Theog-. 285 as in H 157, co 472. H 265, 
 206 are hypermetrical if we do not adopt the form Zrjv< 
 ^Airjv. Zeu Archil, epod. 88^, Hippon. 30 A, Anakr. 79, 
 Theog-. 731, &c. 
 
 In II 64213 ( = An. Ox. Ill 23703), cf. I 394235 Herodian states 
 that the TraAatot "Icoves used Ztj^, Z-qvos, the iieTay^vta-T^poi, Zav, 
 Zavos. Zavos and Zavi are found in Bergk, F. L. G. Ill Adespota 
 82 A B .— 
 
 KKvOi jjioi Zavos re Kovpy]. 
 
 Zavi T (XevOepCcp. 
 
 Zr}v6s occurs ibid. Adesp. 78. See § 182. 
 
 AL€tTpi(f)ris referred in § 215 to a stem biFo- may perhaps be 
 better explained as the old dative of the stem bcF-. It cannot, 
 however, be derived from ^ALijFi, whence Atet through "^Acf/. 
 
 2. vr]us ^ in Hdt., with 77 for d adopted by the nominative from 
 some oblique cases ^. vdv- occurs in yauTTrjyr/o-t/zo? in Hdt. and 
 Olynthos 8 B 2 j vavapyjit], vavrjyLrj, v€vavriyi]Kacn, &c., in Hdt. 
 Herodas has vrjvs J^^. Theognis 84, 856, 136 1 has vavs, but in 
 970 A has v-qvs. Whether vevs mentioned by Hdn. I 401^, 
 
 II 553i| is ascribed solely to Homer, is uncertain. From II 67433 
 vevs, veos Kal ypevs, ypeos it might be supposed that Hdn. had the 
 later Ionic in mind. In II 67539 vevs, veos, vet, ve'i are compared 
 with ypevs, ypeos, ypd, ypei. vd actually appears in Hdt. VII 
 184 (A B C), and vevai (Littr^ veva-i) in a pseudo-Hippokratic 
 letter (IX 414). But perhaps the forms ye'e?, veSiv, veeaai, vdas, 
 which occur in the epos, were not without influence upon Herodian 
 in causing him to set up a nominative vevs. yeos is generally 
 stated to be the Herodoteian genitive. The MSS., however, have 
 vrjos ^ almost without a variant, which is not to be rejected, 
 despite Aew? and other forms in which 7]o<dFo has suffered 
 metathesis qiimditatis. Cf. § 170. vr\6<i is found in the elegy: 
 Archil. 4j, Theog. 513. Arrian has ve^s, a form that is also 
 found in the best MSS. of Hdt., and for which veos is substituted \ 
 
 ' Tzetz., Ex. II. 74io. 
 ^ It is to be noticed that only when rj is = I. E. a is it reinstated in the ' 
 nominative from the analogy of other case forms. A fiaa-iX-nvs is unheard of. 
 ^ Eust. 17161 'la>yiKhv Se irdvTuis rh vajhs Kal ypr}6s : Tzetz. Ex. II. 7410. 
 
51 7-] DIPHTHONGAL STEMS. 405 
 
 by Merzdorf (Curtius^ Shul. IX p. 242), who regard its -0? as due 
 to the influence of that of other consonantal stems (cf . Brugmann 
 Gramm. § 19). vf\l is often found in the MSS, of Hdt. On 
 
 yet; see above, rrjt Solon 193. See § 238. via. occurs in Hdt. 
 nineteen times without a variant. B has vria eight times in the 
 eighth book. Euseb. Mynd. 1 2, and Hippokr. epistle i 'j, have vrja, 
 Arrian the Attic vavv, a form that may be regarded as Doric in 
 Theog. 680. Herodas 2.^ has vrjvv by a probable conjecture of 
 Blass. i/e'es ^ nineteen times without variant in Hdt., vrjes only 
 twice without a variant. Arrian and Aretaios appear to have the 
 latter form, which is more frequent in Homer than the former, 
 rees is derived directly from vr]-€s. v^^^v Hdt. fifty-nine times 
 without a variant, but vr]S)v VII 160 in all MSS. vedv is the 
 Arrianic form. vr\\i(xl Hdt., Mimn. 92, Solon 1344, Theog. 13. 
 
 Arrian has the Attic vavcri '^, which represents the original Greek 
 form better than the Ionic vrjva-L On a vevarC in Homer, cf. Hdn. 
 II 553i3. vias^ no times without a variant in Hdt., vrjas 
 without a variant V 83, vavs VI 46, VIII 94 as in Arrian. In 
 these passages veas is to be adopted, v^as is from vrjas < ndu-ns, 
 as i^e'-es from vrj-^s. Attic vavs, like vavv, is a new formation. 
 
 3. YP^"s- Ii^ Archil. 31 we must read yprjOs for ypavs. yprj'C 
 occurs in an iambic fragment (Bergk P. I/. G. Ill 692, Adespota 
 16). ypr]vv is found in Hippokr. VIII 448 in C. Bergk reads 
 yp-qvv (sic) on Archil. 168. Hdn. II 6453o = An. Ox. IV 33727 
 cites the form thus and compares ypr]v x 395- He, however, 
 remarks : to vrjvs ?) ypijvs htr\pr]p.ivov Kara Toiis "Icovas ovk eK\[6r}. 
 The resolved forms [yp-qvs, &c.) are later than the closed {yprjvn). 
 Hdn. cites ypevs, yp^os, ypd (above under vqvs) . Herodas 339 has 
 yprjvv. 
 
 4. PoGs and xo"S. ^o6s Hdt., Anakr. 2I5, Hrd. ^^^ ; /3oi Hdt., 
 j8ow Hdt.^, Hrd. 4jg; /3oes Hdt.; /3ou9 accusative plural Hdt. 
 [v. I. iSoas IV 8 in li, which has also Trjpvovao as an epic 
 reminiscence, cf. Hekat. 349), /3oa? Lukian S^r. clea 54, Astr. 22 
 ('HeAiou /3oa? an epic reminiscence ?) and Arrian 7^. ^6a<i is an 
 earlier form than ^SoSs, which is formed from ^ovv. 
 
 Xous, from yo^o'i, follows the analogy of ^ous. Hdt. has xpvv 
 (cf. (f)Xovv). Arrian has x^ov 133 but x^vv 135, so fluctuating are 
 the MSS. Eberhard writes x^ov in both cases. 
 
 5. "ApTjs 5 Anakr. 70. "Apeos Hdt. II 6^, 83, IV 62, VII 76, 
 
 ' Vies Gram. Paris, p. 677, § 6= An. Bachm. II 36615. 
 
 " CaUed Ionic by Tzetz. Ex. II. 84^. 
 
 ' veas Greg. Kor. §§ 19, 24, and 53, p. 461 ; vrjas Tzetz. Ex. II. 74g and on 
 Hsd. W. D. 244. 
 
 * ^wv II 40 Rd and Aldus ; VI 67 Aldus. This form is that of H 238. 
 
 ' The Homeric forms of this word are given Eust. 51824, An. Ox. Ill 237, = 
 Hdn. II 63921 ff. 
 
406 THE IONIC DIALECT. [518. 
 
 Tyrt. i6j [emhat.) in BE (vulg. "Apecos) as in Horn, and Hsd., 
 Lukian, Astr. 0.0, 22. "Api^os is perhaps a v. I. Hdt. IV 62 (C). 
 It is not an Ionic prose form, but is found in Tyrt. 1 1^ for the 
 vulgate "Apeco?, according to Bergk. Schneidewin here adopted 
 "Apeo?. "Aprjo? is the Homeric and Hesiodic form. The H of 
 APH02 upon an Attic vase from Kameiros {Journ. of PJiilol. 
 VII 1877) must be a mistake for E. "Apeoi ^ Archil. 48. This 
 is said to have been written by Aristarchos in H 485^ 2 100, 
 213 for Zenodotos^ aprj^^. "Apei Sim. Amorg. 1^3 (-et vidffo, cf. 
 B 479), and Hdt. II 6;^. This form preserves the natural 
 quantity of the initial vowel (a). "Aprji Hdt. IV 59, 62 in all 
 MSS. (cf. B 385, &c.). Stein reads "Apet, which is correct 
 except the diaeresis. The Simonideian form was the prose 
 form as well. "Apea Hdt. II 6^, IV 59, V 7, Luk. Astr. 27. 
 
 Homer has "Aprja and "Aprjv. 
 
 The inflection according to the -ev- stem ^ is older than that 
 in -eo-- ; and is supreme in Aiolic. From "Apea, an ambiguous 
 accusative, came the inflection on the lines of a sigmatic stem : 
 "ApTjjj "Apet. On the other hand "Aprjs was inflected as a stem in 
 7/, "Aprjo producing "Apeo) in Archil., and the Homeric "Aprjv. On 
 the relations of the three stems, see Bechtel, Gottinger NachricJiten, 
 i886j p. 378. With "Ap^vs "Aprjs, cf. the so-called Doric Tvhr]s, 
 "Opcpy-js, 'Q.\C^r]s in Ibykos ^, and the Latin Ulixes, Achilles. 
 
 Slems in (oi/oi. 
 
 618.] The terminations of the singtdar (plural not attested) 
 are (o, coi ; ovs, 01, ovv (to ?), ot. On the forms in -co and -m see 
 Alu-ens, Kleitie Schriften I 31 ff., Schmidt, K. Z. XXVII 374, 
 and Brugmann, Gramm. 70* note. 
 
 0' Testimony of the Grammarians. 
 
 .« 
 
 The statements of Hdn. II 33816 = 75521 ( = Choir. 33214), Plut. Mor. 1078 B 
 that 'Xair<p6os, Arjr6os were Ionic are unsupported by tradition. AtjtJoj may, 
 
 ' Hdn. II 63925 = Eust. 51826: a-novSftaKhv "Ap-qs "Apov Sdev kuto, 'Io5o 
 StaA-eKTOf (TreKTeivas 'Apxi?^oxos . . . " 7rar5"'Ap6a) jji.n]<p6vov." 
 
 '^ The Et. M. 138a supposes that this "Apiu is the genitive of "Apeois. But in E 
 485 and 2 213 the MSS. generally have "Apeois, nofApeoi (in 2 100 apris), and 
 Didymos' Sio rov to may refer to the penultimate, not the ultimate, letter, as 
 is pointed out by Schulze in K. Z. XXIX 255, who regards this "Apeas as 
 a mistaken reading for cipfos, genitive of &pos- $\dl3os aKoiawv in Hesychios. 
 This &pos has the same meaning as api) {a.pi]v krapoiaiv afiweiv M 334\ It is' 
 certainly difficult to see how Aristarchos found a genitive of "Apris in the 
 passages, apetas Hippon. 65 is doubtless connected with apeid, derived from 
 this apos, not from apd as L. & S. think. 
 
 ^ This appears in 'AprjiOovs Thasos (L.) 14 B 2, 16 B 7. 
 
 * Cf. Kretschmer, K. Z. XXIX 433. 
 
522.] STEMS IN &)t/ot. 407 
 
 however, be read in Homer and in Hesiod, Aspis 202, and Hymn to Hermes 
 
 521, Apollo 545. [Casaubon wrote KaWia-rSos for -ovs in the senarius of 
 
 Machon preserved in Athen. XIII 5S3 A (KaWiarovs Be ttjs 'Ths Ke/cAijyueVjjs), 
 
 but it is improbable that Machon should have had any knowledge of a form 
 
 that has disappeared from literature. KaWlariov is a common name for an 
 
 hetaira]. Cf. 'Ao'os (?) Find. Nem. VI 52. Joh. Gr. 268 B claims that forms in 
 
 -60s were in use among certain of the Dorians, -ovv Joh. Gr. 240, 268 B, 
 
 Greg. K. § 35, Drakon 1163, Birnb. 67731. Gram. Vat. 696 regarded ArjTtii/ and 
 
 I ^aTr<pciv as Ionic. These forms are referred to by Hdn. II 75525, who held, 
 
 I according to Choir. 33322; that :S,an(j)o7y and AriroTt/ (accusative) were derived 
 
 ! from the -dv forms by a change (unheard of in Ionic) of w to 01. For a correction 
 
 of this passage, which supplies the missing -ow from Choiroboskos, see 
 
 Ahrens, Kl. Schr. I 40. 
 
 519.] Nominative. There are two forms on inscriptions : — 
 
 On Chalkidian vase 
 
 (i) (i : QXvTii Rob. I 188 E 
 KAurw 190 I F 
 Mvpca 190 I B 
 Fl(o 190 I C, II C I inscriptions. 
 
 Eavd(a 190 I H ; 
 
 Noo-o-co Erythrai 206 C 10. 
 
 (2) ({) (wt) : these are rare in Ionic. 
 
 Bav[d](a Rob. I 190 II B, Chalkidian. 
 Atowcroj C. I. G. 215 1, Chalkidian. 
 'Apre/xo) C. I. G. 696 late, Milesian. 
 <I>tAur(j) C. I. G. 2310, probably not Ionic. 
 
 In Ionic literature only the former of these occurs. 
 
 520.] Genitive. UetOovs Thasos yo, N'\oaaovs Erythr. 206 
 C II, perhaps <t>ai,vovs or (^aetvovs on the electrum stater re- 
 produced in Roberts I p. i77 = Bechtel 247. Herodotos uses 
 'lovs, ArjTovs, Topyovs (with no trace of the v stem), ^a-ncpovs, &c. 
 ArfTovs occurs in Theog. i, Herodas Kkeovs 392, KoptrroC? 624, 
 Lukian AepKeroCs. Ahrens sought to find the form in -ms, 
 which is Aiolic and Doric (in part), in Ionic territory. The 
 inscription of Tenos C. I. G. 2338, whence he cites <i>eLbS>s 1. 92, 
 &c., contains no lonisms. In Homer the open forms may be 
 read except in a few cases : A g (v. I. Atitovs aykads vlos), S 327 
 (spurious). 
 
 521.] Dative. 'AXeKcrol Amorgos, Rob. I 158 B, is a doubtful 
 reading though the Ol is plain ; BajSol Paros 6^, rTeStoi Chalkidian, 
 Rob. I 183 A B (Fick Ylebicai). Hdt. has Arjroi, 'Apyot, evearot 
 Hippokr. V 128 Aexoi is better than K^xols. Lukian AepKeroi. 
 
 522.] Accusative Singular. In inscriptions we find Ai]tovv 
 Eretria 16 A 48 as in Herodotos II 156, ArjpLovv Smyrna 154, 
 
4o8 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [S^i- 
 
 and M't]Tpovv C. I. G. 3241, 'Apre/xoCi; C. I. G. 3223, both late 
 Smyrnaian documents. From the poets the instances are Kv^ovv 
 Hipponax 87, Ai]tovv Hrd. 29^, M.rjTpovv 6^^, ireiOovv 6^-. In 
 Herodotos there are two sets of forms : (i) -ovv'^. 'lovv I i, 2, 
 II 41, BovTovv II 59, &c., Ti}xovv VI 134, 135. In II 156 for 
 A-qrovv there is the v. I. Atjtw. (2) -w. YlvQw I 54, "^aphia I 170, 
 &c., riet^w VIII III. Compare the Homeric Y\r]pu>, Tvpoi, 
 Kretan Aarw Cauer 11714, the Delphic and Attic <t>tAa), forms 
 showing- the retention of the nominative accentuation ^. Kirchhoff 
 inclines to the view that -ovv is the only correct form. The -w 
 forms may have been inserted through recollection of the 
 Homeric accusative. KaKea-rovv in Hesychios is Ionic, cf. evcarovv 
 in Demokritos 206. 
 
 523.] Varia. 
 
 1. Vocative. KoptrroT Herodas 612, &c., Mr^rpoi 61, &c. The 
 former has as a by-form Koptrri 6^^, with which we may compare 
 Noo-o-ts 622, a parallel form of Noo-o-w, § 5^9 (i)- 
 
 2. Plural. In Hippokr. V 128 Aexot, not Aexoi? as was read 
 by Galen, is to be adojDted. In Hesiod, Tlieogun. 274 we find 
 Topyov^. A few forms appear in Attic poetry, but among the 
 lonians the plural did not exist. 
 
 3. Variation with -v stems. The vocative of x€kih(av is yjekibol 
 Anakr. 67, as in Aristoph. Birds 141 1; cf. aiqhol ihicl. 679. 
 Hippokr. has /3A?]xoC? with which compare (BXrjxo'i in Theo- 
 phrastos, ^Atjxw Lysistrata 89. eiKwr has in Hdt. the accusative 
 etKco VII 69 [dKova II 143). Cf. KVK^^va Hipponax 43^ with 
 KUKew K 290. On yA.Tjx'^) &c., see § ^^1. 
 
 Stems in (av/coF. 
 
 524.] TMs declension has been partly merged with the so- 
 called Attic declension, § 477. 
 
 Nominative. Hdt. TraTpoos, Mlvms, 'i]p(iis. 
 
 Genitive. ijpMos Hdt. VI 69, Mlvcoos Hdt. Ill 122 as in 
 Homer. The Bo^namis has here Mu'o), which is the only form 
 in I 171, 173. A similar ingression of the 'Attic" declension 
 is found in the Homeric ^'pw which may be displaced H 453, 
 483 by the dactylic form TJ'pwt. 
 
 Dative, rjpwi: Hdt. VIII 117. 
 
 Accusative. i]pu)v Hdt. I 167, Homeric TJipcua in II 143, 
 
 ^ Hort. Adon. p. 268 B oi Se loivis avT)]v els ovv itrolow, "Zcmcpovv Koi At}tovv. 
 * According to some of the ancients with the perispomenon accent. 
 
525.] STEMS IN SIGMA. 409 
 
 VI 69, as in the non-Ionic inscription from Priene (No. 14I4). 
 TTOLTpcdv is found IV 76, IX 78, but jx-^rpooa IV 80 according- 
 to Stein. Mivcov occurs VII 170, 17 1, with traces of a form in 
 -eo) and -ecov due to the supposed fondness of Ionic for -eco. In 
 
 VII 171 the Aldine edition adopted the Homeric MiVcoa. 
 Lukian Asfrol. 20 has MCvco. It is evident that such fluctuation 
 was unknown in the original Hdt., thoug-h which form is to be 
 adopted is uncertain. 
 
 Nominative Plural, //pcoes Samos 225. 
 
 Dative Plural, rjpcoa-t Hdt. VII 43. 
 
 Stems in Sigma. 
 
 This declension comprises stems in -e?, with nominative in -os, 
 or -rj9 (525-540) ; stems in -vs (541) ; stems in -os (542), -vs 
 (543)5 and those in -as/-€s, varying with -ar, nominative -as (544). 
 
 
 
 
 Stems 
 
 in 
 
 -es. 
 
 
 525 
 
 
 Terminations : — 
 
 OS, rjs 
 eoS} evs 
 
 ea (riv), es 
 
 
 
 ees (et?), 
 
 €U)V 
 
 eo-i 
 eas, ea. 
 
 ea 
 
 Testimony of the Grammarians. 
 
 Genitive : -eos Joh. Gr. 239 B, 242, Greg. Kor. § 11, Meerm. 649, 655, Vat. 695, 
 
 j Et. M. 15212, Hdn. II 69227 (= Choir. 15632). Cf. Schol. Ven. A on 302, who 
 
 ; quotes ^ic(>eos from Hekataios. -evs. The Homeric ipe^evs is called Ionic or 
 
 ! Doric in Hdn. II 67521 (Choir. 21215), H 69236 (Choir. 15731^ II 33615, II 77710 
 
 (Choir. 39531), cf. II 32815 and Et. Gud. 2732^. K^5ei»s Schol. Nikander Tlier. 2. 
 
 fif\evs and tra/cevs are called Doric by Tzetz. on Hsd. Scutum 334, and ipeffevs 
 
 , is said to be Doric, not Doric and Ionic, by An. Ox. II 34329. On Homeric 
 
 I forms in -evs, see Schol. Ven. A on O 3. Dative : -ei Joh. Gr. 240, 242, Greg. 
 
 ■ Kor. §§ II, 34, Meerm. 655, Birnb. 67733. Accusative : -eo Joh. Gr. 239 B, Greg. 
 
 : Kor. § II, Meerm. 649, Vat. 695, Schol. Ven. A on B 115 (cf. also on K 281) 
 
 hvffKKea Kal d/cAe'o 'IwvtKws, 01 Se 'AttikoI iKreivovcriv. Nominative Plural : -ees 
 
 Joh. Gr. 240 B, Greg. Kor. § 40, Meerm. 652, Vat. 697. -ea. Joh. Gr. 240 B, 
 
 Meerm. 652, Aug. 667, Vat. 697, Birnb. 67753, An. Bachm. II 3676- Genitive 
 
 Plural: -ewj/ Joh. Gr. 240 B, cf. Greg. Kor. § 11, Meerm. 652, Aug. 667, Vat. 
 
 697, Birnb. 67754, Bekk. An. I 40428 = Bachm. An. I 9822. Accusative Plural: 
 
 -fas, see Schol. Ven. A on K 281. 
 
4IO THE IONIC DIALECT. [526. 
 
 526.] Nominative Singular, 
 
 I. Names in -Kkiyyi, -kXtis [Dialectal Suhdivision) in inscriptiojis. 
 
 In inscriptions we notice a difference in names in -kA% between 
 the Ionic of Euboia and o£ its colonies and that of the islands 
 and of the Asiatic mainland. In Euboia we find -K\ir]i, in 
 the other portions of Ionic territory -kA?/?. A similar variation 
 may be observed in Attic inscriptions, though there the difference 
 is chronological merely. The oldest prose inscriptions have 
 -kA?/9; while even in the fifth century the longer form comes 
 to light; and the latter appears, though sporadically, in the 
 inscriptional monuments of the fourth century. 
 
 A. Euboian Ionic. 
 
 *l7T770/cAe'7]s Eretria 16 -C 44 (340-278 b.c); in Styra 19 
 0eoKA<A>€7js 45, 'EttikAc't/s 187, NikokActj? 271 all of the 
 fifth century. The single case of -kAt^s ('HpaKA^s Roberts I 191 
 B and 192 B on amphorae) may be accounted for by the 
 constant variations in the dialect of vase inscriptions, explained 
 by Kretschmer, K. Z. XXIX p. 393 ff. 
 
 B. Ionic of the Islands. 
 
 HL-KTTOKXrjs Amorg. 31, 'Hyrjo-tKATy? Keos 44 B 15, 'ApicrToiiXi]^ 
 44 B 18, [<[>]iAokA?)[9] 44 B 19, 'T\//ikA^s Delos ^^ II 4, AiokA^, 
 TlokvKkrjs, MeveKkijs Delos B. C. H. VII 107, lines 6 and 18, 
 Tt/xoKA(?7)[s] Thasos 722^, 'IttttokAt/s Thasos 78 C 10, McyanXrjs 
 Thasos 81 B a and in nineteen names in -kA^s in the Thasian 
 inscriptions in the Louvre (in Bechtel's collection: Thamche 
 Insch. ionischen Dialekts im Louvre), Ti/xo/cA^? Siphnos 89. 
 
 C. Ionic of the Asiatic mainland and of the colonies of Asiatic 
 cities. 
 
 YlacTiKkris Miletos 93, Tep\//^tKA?)s Mil. 94, both inscriptions! 
 of the sixth century, ^TparoKXijs Theodosia (?) 127, [TiJjiaokA^s ' 
 Zeleia iij^, 'HTretpoKAT/s Smyrna 15314, and Lampsak. 171, 
 ^AyaOoKXrjs Smyrna 15319, TlvOoKXij^ Erythr. 2c6 A 32, ^Sf 
 ^larpoKXijs 2o6 A 38, 'AptoroKA?/? 2o6 B 48, 2o6 C 37, Me^exA^s 
 206 C 19, 'AyacrtKAT/s 2o6 C 36, 'Apio-roKA[?)]9 Erythr. Zeitsc/ir. 
 f. Num. XIV 152, 'HycKA???, aevoKXrjs, MeyaKArJ? Ephesos (Head, 
 N^um. Chron. 1880, 117 ff.). From island colonies: Ei^kA^? 
 lasos 104,0, 'larpo/cA^? 10430, ^^iAokA?/? Chios 174 C 19, 4'az'o/cA7/[s] 
 Chios, Zeitschr. f. Num. XIV 153, the Samian Aaixao-LKXiji 
 Bechtel No. 2176, UvOokXtjs 217^, ©e/xtoroKAT/s' 222g, AiokAtjs 
 Perinth. 234 A 14, 'Aya9oKXijs 234 B 3. TepxlfLKXijs in No. 260' 
 of uncertain provenance, but probably Asiatic Ionic. It may- 
 be noticed that Tepi/^tKAT/j was the name of Archilochos' father. 
 
 ^ Tt/jiOK\fovs Choiseul and Koehler, -K\€rjs Boeckh, -KKrjs Karsten. 
 
527-] STEMS IN -e?. 411 
 
 2. In the hjr'ic poets : ITpoKAerj? Phokylides ig, Demodokos a^, 
 with the open form that is not found in the contemporaneous 
 dialect of Miletos^. No example of a noun in -kA.?/j has been 
 discovered in a Lerian inscription. It should be noticed that 
 WpoKkkov^ in Demod. 23 and Pliokyl. 1^ are non-Ionic, but 
 readily admit the substitution of W^oKkios. The Phokylideian 
 
 I passage might be cured by writing- kox h\ UpoKXrj^ (Fick), but 
 : neither epigram should be tampered with, as it is not certain 
 that the original form has been preserved. 
 
 3. In Ionic prose : -kAtj? is the correct form in Herodotos, though 
 rarely admitted by all MSS., as in 'HpaKAr/? II 145, II/aoKAr/s 
 III 50, 51, mavhpoKki)s IV 87 (P B, but -e'rj? ABC d), 
 2o)(nK.kr]s V 93 (A B^ C d, -irjs reliqui). In all these passages 
 Stein and Holder adopt the uncontracted forms ; a procedure 
 which is open to grave doubt. Themistokles^ name occurs 
 twenty-three times in the uncontracted form in all MSS. In 
 the case of other names the testimony is almost entirely in 
 favour of the open form ; which appears in the Arrianic ^HpaKkir]s 
 5i3) ^6' 75 NiKo/cAerjs iSg. All who quote Hekataios have 'HpuKkrjs 
 (48, 345, 349)) ^^^ ^o in the case of Hellanikos 50 (©eoKA^s). 
 Ion I has of course So^o/cA?}?. 
 
 4. The nominative neuter abos (in Halik. 238^9, rh abos) 
 affords a remarkable confirmation of the Hesychian glosses ahy]}xa' 
 abos' ^ri(f)t,(Tij.a' boyixa, with which we may compare abr]K€ ^ovXi] 
 in Hipponax frag. 100. The word is not attested except in 
 Ionic, abos is connected with the last member of the Ionic names 
 Kiabr]s Styra 19942^ and AewSrjs Thasos 77 B 7 (AewSeu?). The 
 second form \s,= 'Ay]Fodbi]s (Hom. A7]w8rj?)jthe first from Ay]{f o)dbr]^ 
 asAeWaf from Ari(Fo)Fava^. Cf. §§ 281, 289. 
 
 527.] Genitive Singular of Proper Nouns in -tjs (Inscrip- 
 tions). In the following tables are enumerated the occurrences 
 (in Bechtel's collection) of the genitive of the -e? (-17s) declension 
 \ together with the genitive of nouns of other declensions^ whose 
 I genitive is made in -€os, &c. (except the patronymics in -beos, 
 ! -bivs, and the terminations -yopevs, which have been tabulated 
 ; above § 427). The Thasian inscriptions of the Louvre I have 
 i placed in the third century, though the latest (part of Nos. 15, 
 \ 16, 2,0, 21, and all of No. 18) may be referred to the beginning 
 j of the second century. It will be remembered that only those 
 ! inscriptions are cited which contain one or more lonisms, and 
 that the lists do not attempt to trace out the usage of the 
 inscriptions after the dialect had passed completely under the 
 sway of Attic. 
 
 ' Both npoK\e7)s and npoKkrjs are Old- Attic. 
 
412 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [527- 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 3 
 
 -eoj 
 
 Aeivofxfvfos Nax. 23 
 TovpfioKpaTfos Pi'okon. 
 103 
 
 'A(rTVK\eos Sam. 215 
 
 (epigr.) 
 QefuffTOKKios Magnesia, 
 
 Head, H.N. 501 
 KnStyeVeos Keos 45 
 Ari/j.oKpiveos Sam. 214 
 
 Af ^tK\€os Keos 48 
 'Hpa/cA.eoy Thasos 7I2 
 TlaTpoK\eos Eph. 146, 
 
 and Maroneia, Head, 
 
 H.X. 216 
 OiKXeos Chios 183 B 33, 
 
 cf. No. 190 
 
 M-qrpocpdveos Maroneia 
 196, 13 
 
 KaWi/cpareos Maroneia, 
 Head, if. iV. 216 
 
 'EpiJiOKpaTeos Pantikap. 
 Lat. II 185 
 
 'linroffdfveos Phanag. 
 166 
 
 AvToffdevfos Chios, Pas- 
 pates 1 5 
 
 naipKTaSeos Pantikap. 
 119, Phanag. 166, 
 168 
 
 Evireideos Eph. 146 
 
 TIoKvxdpeos Pantik., 
 Latyschev II 183; 
 cf. 'Eirixdpeos, p. 311 
 
 "Ov7](TiKXios Amorg. 38 
 'AAeli/cAeos Delos 55 I 
 'laTpoK\eos Delos 55 II 
 'rTpoK\4os Thasos 75 A 3 
 nav~\TaK\ios Thas. 78 
 
 A 3, 802 
 T{«)K€(rLK\4os Thas. 
 
 78 B 4 
 XlayKXfos Thas. (L.) 4 
 
 A 2 
 ' Api<TTOK\eos Thas. (L.) 
 
 4 A 12 
 'AyaffiKkfos Thas. (L.^ 
 
 8 A 2 
 'r^oK\fos Thas. (L.) 10 
 
 A 8 
 
 'evs 
 
 'larpoKKevs lasos lo^g, 
 
 12) 20 J 33) 42 
 
 Tlacn(pd.vevs lasos 1 049, 27 
 'AvTicpdvevs lasos 10420 
 ' Api(TTO(pdvevs Leros 107 
 
 [Kp]dT€us lasos 10415 
 'liriroKpdTivs lasos 10418 
 
 Meya.ij.i]^evs Teos 15729 
 'ApTa|e>|6us Myl. 248 
 ABC 
 
 TifioKXevs Thasos 765 
 Kpar7](nK\evs Thasos 
 (L.) 14 A 9 
 
 -eovs 
 
 Aa/jLa(riK[\]€ovs Sam. 
 
 2 20.,,, (346/45 B.C.) 
 
 VlavSpoK\eovs Chios, 
 
 Paspates I4 
 'OpatKXeovs, ibid. 1,1 
 
 Evpva-deveovs Sam. 217 
 cf. § 247 
 
 'Api<TTOK\4ovs Thasos 
 
 721 C3oo-25o)cf.§247| 
 Kparrja-iKXeovs Thas. 82 
 
 B II (225-200) ' 
 
 'HpaK\eovs Erythr. 2o6i 
 
 B 37 (after 278 B.C.; ^ 
 'UpoKXeovs lasos, J.H.S 
 
 IX 341, No. 3 
 
127-] 
 
 STEMS IN -69. 
 
 413 
 
 'lirvocrdevovs Chios, 
 Paspates i^o 
 
 UaipKraSovs Pan- 
 tik. 120, Phan. 
 165, 167 
 
 'A[ya]fftK\€iovs 
 
 Erythr. 206B37 
 yiiveK\eiovs Ery. 
 
 206 B 36, 54 
 'Ti|/ikA.€ious Ery. 
 
 206 A 26 
 'larpoKKeiovs Ery. 
 
 206 A 39 
 UavraKXeiovs Th. 
 
 (L.) 15 A 4 
 Eu9uKA.eious Th. 
 
 (L.) 16 A 12, 18 
 
 A 7, 19 A 6 
 ' A.vSpoK\elovs Th. 
 
 (L.) 16 A 16 
 'Api<TTOK\eiovs Th. 
 
414 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 L527- 
 
 •eos 
 
 •evs 
 
 s 
 
 ® 
 
 'ApLcrro^dveos Th. (L.) 
 
 4 A8 
 nevotpdvfos (?) Th. (L.) 
 
 53 
 
 TifxoKpdreosTh. 82 B 13 
 
 (225-200) 
 'EiriKpareos Th. (L.) 23 
 (^aboiit 300) 
 
 'Apio-TO/ueVevs Thas. 72, 
 KA]eo^eV€W Thas. 8O10 
 'AXd-n/iiivevs Thas. (L.) 
 
 4B3 
 
 EiSojueVeus Thas. (L.) 5^ 
 Ka\\iiJifV€vs Thas. (L.) 
 
 11 A 2 
 'Opeofifvevs Thas. (L.) 
 
 12 C 3, 13 A 6 
 
 Qeoytvevs Thas. 78 C 5 
 KAeoYeVens Thas. (L.) 
 12 C 4 
 
 -eovs 
 
 A[6a>](r06V6usTh. 78A9 
 Eupuo-eeVevs Th. (L.) 12 
 B5 
 
 Tri\e(pdvevs Th. 77 A 9, 
 78 C 2, Th. (L.) 12 
 B 10, 14 B 10 
 'AvTi<pdvevs Th. 75 B 6 
 'EpMo</>aJ'ewTh. 78B13 
 E6iw(;)ai/evsTh.(L.)3A5 
 A€a)(^ai/eusTh.(L.)4Al2 
 ' A-iro\Ao4)dvevs lasos, J. 
 H. S. IX 341, No. 2 
 
 AiicqKpdTevs Th. 75 A 9 
 'Acri/cpaT€M Th. 78 B 2 
 'E[7r]i/cpaT6us Th. (L.) 
 
 14 B 8, II A 4 
 'HyeKpdrevs Th. (L.) 12 
 
 B 8 
 A{)TOK[p']dr\e']vls'] Th. 
 
 (L.) 13 A 7 
 'ApKrroKpdrevs Th. (L.) 
 
 14 A 7 
 
527-1 
 
 STEMS IN -€s. 
 
 415 
 
 -fiovs 
 
 (L.) 20 A 13, 
 Eryth. 206B 50 
 
 'ApiffTOfiivov Ery. 
 206029,41,50, 
 Th.(L.)2oA2, 
 
 'Op9o/i6VouTh.(L.) 
 
 15 C 7 
 
 KaWtfifvov Th. 
 (L.) 15 A 10 
 
 'ETTfycVou Erytlir. 
 
 206 B 28 
 Atoytvov Th. (L.) 
 
 20 C 10 
 (M)ojp7jyeVou Th. 
 
 (L.) 15 B 8 
 'AdTjfoyfpov Eryth. 
 
 206 A 31 
 'lepoyevov Eryth. 
 
 206 A 33, 36 
 
 M7]Tpo(t)duov Ery. 
 
 206 C 34 
 ' hpi(TTO(pivov Th. 
 
 (L.) 20 A 4 
 Aiw[(p\dvo\v'] Th. 
 
 (L.) 15 B 2 
 'Aj'Ti(;)c^j/oyTh.(L.) 
 
 18 B 15 
 
 ''E.TnKpa.Tov Th. 81 
 B 9, Th. (L.) 20 
 C3 
 
 'ApiffTOKpOLTOV Th. 
 
 82 B 5 
 KTrjaiKparov Ery. 
 
 206 C 2 
 UoXvKpdrov Th. 
 
 (L.)i5B7 
 ' Avr iKparov Th. 
 
 (L.) 16 A 7, 18 
 
 A II, 20 C 5 
 Teia-iKparov Th. 
 
 (L-)i76 
 TtfioKpdrov Th. 
 
 (L.) 18 B I 
 AeivoKpdrov Th. 
 
 (L.) 19 A 8 
 
 -ous 
 
 'Aa-TVKpdrev Ery. 
 206 B 32 
 
4i6 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [527. 
 
 
 -60S 
 
 -evs 
 
 -eows 
 
 
 yif vdKKfosTh. (L.) 6C 2 
 
 epatruaA/ceusTh. 78B 14 
 
 
 "S 
 
 
 Arj/ictA/ceus Th. 81 A 1 3, 
 
 
 ;s 
 
 
 82 A 5 
 
 
 
 K\fOfj.r)Stos Th. (L.) i 
 
 A6co;U7;5€iis Th. (L.) 1 1 
 
 
 s 
 
 (about 300 B.C.) 
 
 B3 
 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 no\vd\e€os Th. (L.) 10 
 
 riayxdpfvs Th. 722 
 
 
 t' 
 
 A II 
 
 KAeoKvSevs Th. 77 A lO 
 
 
 3 
 -tj 
 
 Evricp^veos Th. (L.) 213 
 
 nayyridevs Th. (L.) 6 
 
 
 
 
 (about 300 B.C.) 
 
 C 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 ATj^eCsTh. (L.) II A 3 
 
 
 1— 1 
 
 
 'HyricnTf\fvs Th. (L.) 6 
 B5 
 
 
 a -tJ 
 
 c3 
 
 'larpoKXeos Halik. 244 
 
 
 'HpaKKeovs Tecs 15S23 
 
 'AvrKpdveos Samothr. 
 
 
 
 
 2365 
 
 
 
 There are numerous occurrences o£ names in -eoj and -ei;s in 
 inscriptions later than 400 b. c, which afford insufficient criteria 
 to permit of their arrangement under the foregoing table. Some 
 of these may here be mentioned. 
 
 1. 'Apt(rroKAeo[9] Erythr. 198, perhaps of the fifth century; 
 'Aya(Ti.KXi{os?) Olbia 131, 7 (after 400 B.C., probably fourth 
 century); 'AoruKAeos Chios 188 (fourth); MeyaKA.eos (or -kAcous?) 
 Chios, C. I. G. 2374 d appendix; 'HpaKkeos Chios, Paspates 9; 
 ©eoKAeo? (or -KXiovs ?) Halikarn. C. I. G. 266 1 6, 'EKaroKAeos 
 (or -kAcou?) Ephesos 149; Me^e/cAeos of Soloi, C. I. G. 900; 
 'AptoTOKAevs Perinth. 234 B 19; MevcK^evs Halikarn, 245; 
 'A-yadoKkevs Chios 19I9, 192; Tt/xoKAeS? iMd. 19I10J u (cf- 
 'HpaKAeCs read by Paspates (No. 24) as -kX^ovs) ; Attic -KAeovs 
 appears in Smyrna 1535^, ^^, 35; -KAetov? (§ 220) 1539 and 
 C. I. G. 3245, both from Smyrna, cf. 32563 where -kKtiovs is 
 written. This last document is very late. 
 
 2. T')]ke(pav€os Thas. 83, I and Erythr. 198, but -(})avevs 
 Thas. 74: inpo}]TO(t)dv€os Olbia 131 , 20; 'ATroXko(f)dvevs Perintlios 
 234 B 21, 'ATTo\ko4>dvov Smyrna 1533. 
 
 3. 'ETTtK/aareos Olbia 131, 6,'HpoKpdT[e']os 131, 8, 'I^i/cpareos 
 131, 9, (i>tXoKpdTeo9 131, 10 are probable readings; (piXoKparivs 
 131, 22, MeveKpdrevs Perinth. 234 B 7; KaAAu-pdrou and 
 BivoKpaTov Samos 222 (pre-Roman). 
 
 4. A€a)(re/3eo[s] Chios 1773, Aetveos 177 n, UvOios 17913. 
 
 5. Meya]U7]8evs Teos 15729, \T'>]Xavy]€V9 Chios 1917. 
 
 6. ^ Api<jTo\xi.vov Smyrna 153];, '^Mcnpiivov Perinth. 234 A 5j 
 ' AvhpoaOivov Smyrna 1535, Y^aXkiaQlvovi Olbia 131, II. 
 
529-] 
 
 STEMS 
 
 IN -e?. 
 
 417 
 
 ' -etovs 
 
 -ov 
 
 -eu 
 
 •ovs 
 
 
 Tlaipia-dSov Panti- 
 kap. 122 
 
 
 
 
 Eu/cpoTovTeosi593 
 
 
 
 The forms in 
 some may date i 
 
 528.] Remar 
 
 -eo9 are probably of the fourth century, though 
 rom after 300 b. c. 
 
 ks on the Chronology of the Genitive Forms. 
 
 From the foregoing it is apparent that the hfe of the old 
 
 itermination -eos in the inscriptions was threatened on two 
 
 sides. First, by -€vs which was at least Ionic ; secondly, by 
 
 various Attic forms, notably that in -ov. -(vs begins to take 
 
 the place of -eos about the middle of the fourth century b. c. It 
 
 [vsras the third century that witnessed the rapid and wide exten- 
 
 jsion of -ev9, but after 200 b. c. it too has succumbed. In the 
 
 iRoman period the forms in -eo? and -evs are practically extinct. 
 
 iThe genitive in -los was more tenacious of life than that in -eo? 
 
 pr in -evs. In its inflection of sigmatic stems Ionic was, 
 
 Igenerally speaking, more conservative than Attic. In the latter 
 
 jiialect proper names gradually yielded to the encroachments of 
 
 the A declension. In the inscriptions we do not observe a 
 
 pronounced increase of Attic forms until the third centuiy, and it 
 
 IS worthy of note that of these Attic forms, that in -ovs, except 
 
 in -K\eovs, was rarely adopted by Ionic. Doubtless the newer 
 
 orthography -eu? was in itself a sufficient approximation to the 
 
 A.ttic, as it left no doubt that the sound was not a dissyllable. 
 
 529.] I. 'AptorroKAeons Thasos 72^ and Evpvadeveovs Samos 
 3176 are noticeable forms. In No. 72, which dates from the 
 first half of the third century, the genitive ends regularly in -evs, 
 except in the form cited ; and the -ad^veovs form is singular 
 because it is apparently formed in violation of Greek morphology. 
 These forms, as well as Aeovvvs on a coin of Maroneia (Bechtel 
 
 E e 
 
4t8 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [53O' 
 
 p. 114) may be explained by assuming" that the engraver began 
 with EO, and then, desiring to adopt the modernized orthography, 
 added T after O. See Bechtel, Ion. Insch. p. 58, and cf. § 247 
 
 The earliest example of the Attic -k\4ovs dates from the 
 middle of the fourth century b. c. After this date this form 
 strives for supremacy with the epiehoric -kAcos. 
 
 2. The example of -kX4ov is not beyond suspicion, not only 
 because of its isolated position, but also from the fact that 
 Letronne's reading is controverted by Le Bas' 'EKaroKAeoj. If 
 the latter is correct, it is worthy of note that, while -KAe'ou? has 
 been able to drive out the native -kAcos, -kX^ov nevertheless, 
 which appears upon Attic inscriptions after 329 B.C., has not 
 been able to effect an entrance into Ionic. 
 
 3. The forms in -KXetovs represent -K^iovs with the intervocalic 
 glide L, found in ddv, kvvda, 7roAet(co)? Zeleia 113 (§ 22o), and 
 are paralleled by ^ kvTiKX^wvs C. I. A. II 5803 (324 B.C.), Atj/jio- 
 Kkdovs C. I. A, II 872, III 12 (341 B. c), &c. In Attic inscriptions 
 I find no form in -KXdovs antedating" 344 B.C. (of that date 
 0e|Mt]orTOKAetovs C. I. A. II 701, I 24), while upon Ionic soil the 
 entrance of the glide iota into -kX^ovs does not ensue before 
 278 B.C. upon the Asiatic mainland, and in fact in an inscription 
 that is all but Attic (No. 206). In Thasos it does not occur 
 before 200 B.C. 
 
 4. In an inscription from Pantikapaion (Latyschev II 140), 
 at least as early as the fourth century, we meet with the unique; ; 
 form KotokXtjos (KAH02). This genitival form appears in the- 
 traditional text of Homer, in Kretan 'Eju,7Te8oKAjyo? Mon. Atd-l, 
 I 61, No. 8 (together with -KAeto? e.ff. Mus. It. Ill 655, 7, 
 No. 7i]o)) ill Argolic TlaTpoKXrjos Loewy 86 (but cf. 89, 103)., 
 and perhaps in Kyprian. The epic -kXtjos reappears in poetrj 
 (Tyrtaios ii^, Kaibel 949, late Spartan), and was adopted ever 
 in Herodotos by Aldus (cf. IX 90). As even the Homeric fornri 
 is to be impeached (for 'HpaKXrjos read -/cAe'eos), it having beei 
 introduced from the analogy of -ijos, -eo? in -rju- stems, a pros( 
 form -kA?/os on Ionic soil must be pronounced indefensible, 
 suggest that the engraver had in mind the H of the nominative 
 and failed to correct his mistake after it appeared in the genitive 
 or H is a downright blunder for E. The latter suggestion i 
 less probable since it is only in late documents that we find th 
 two letters confused, e.ff. 'HpaKAr/a Aiolic, C. D. I. 302, A?;jbt(; 
 KXt]ovs Smyrna, C. I. G. ^2^6 (at the earliest from the secon^ 
 century b. c). ' 
 
 530.] The tables in § 527 show that, as in Attic, names ii 
 -KpaTTji^ -yii'-q^, -(j)dvr]9 have partially passed under the sway c 
 the A declension with which the -es declension is in closci' 
 
531.] STEMS IN -e?. 419 
 
 touch. In Attic inscriptions the accusative passed out of 
 use before the genitive (from 350 on). In Ionic it is not 
 
 i till the opening" of the third century that forms in -Kparov, &c., 
 come to light, though by the year 300 b. c. in Attika the older 
 inflection had been almost completely submerged. This is 
 because in Ionic the hold on the dialect forms in -eu?, after the 
 older -eos had given way, was strong enough to prevent the old 
 
 ■ declension from being entirely displaced. Nouns in -}j.ivr]'i have 
 -fxivov in Ionic by 278 b. c. In Attic these names are genuine 
 -eo"- stems until towards the end of the fourth century, but by 
 300 B. c. they have passed over into the A declension. Again, it 
 
 i is worthy of note that the Ionic -(pdveos, -cpavevs, -hUeos, -ireiOcos, 
 -dkKeos, -dXKevs show that -cf)dvris,-b(,Kri^, -Tret^rjs, -aAKrj? are treated 
 as -ecr- stems; cf. Attic Evcpdvovs C I. A. 1262, 'A^toTret^ous 
 C. I. A. 324 D 4, Ari[j.d[k]i<ovs 'Adrjv. IV 199, Hdt. 'ApLairelOeos 
 IV 76, -ei IV 78, ^TtapyaTTeLOeos IV y6, 78 (Arrian, A?iab. VI 
 3; 2 has "EocnreiOov). 
 
 The form -evs comes to light in Rhodian ^ and Knidian * documents and in 
 the MSS. of Pindar and Theokritos. The inflection -ov and -ovs is also Delphic. 
 The former ending occurs in inscriptions from Knidos, Skyros, Skopelos, 
 &c. 
 
 531.] Genitive Singular (excluding inscriptional forms of 
 proper names). 
 
 I. Inscriptions. 
 
 rejueVeos Oropos 1803, Samos 216, heos Zeleia 114 F 4^, 
 Chios 183 A 15, 51 B 6, -rrpoaex^os Tet'xous Teos 1593^ a very 
 late inscription. No case of -evs occurs. 
 
 II. Lyric Poets. 
 
 1. -eos. ^[(peos Tyrt. 1I34, dvOeos Xenoph. ig, TroXvavOios 
 Mimn. 2j, Kpdreo'i Theog. 46, ovp^os Theog. 881, Kipbeos Theog. 
 133, detKeos Theog. 811, KapiKevpyeos (conj.) Anakr. 91. Cf. 
 also under No. 5. It should be remarked that there is no case 
 of -eo? in the iambographic writers. 
 
 2. -eos; ^epeps Sim, Am. 733 (thus, and not ^ 6 <j in the first 
 foot), TTaXtvTpLJBeos 743. AvKdjilBeo^ is the form in the MSS. of 
 Archil. 28, and, if correct, is the earliest instance in the Ionic 
 lyric of the influence of the -ecr- stems upon the A declension. 
 Bergk followed Elmsley in editing AvKdp.j3eM. YlaLpLo-dbeoi 
 occurs in an epigram from Pantikapaion in Kaibel 773 = Laty- 
 schev II 9. 
 
 bid. 46. 
 Tralles. 
 
420 THE IONIC DIALECT. [532. ^ 
 
 3. -€vs. Hipponax 193 p'lyevs, 492 Tpirip^vs', Herodas ^,4^ 
 Tey€vs. In Homer we find a few examples o£ -evs : — epejSevs, 
 ddpi^€vs, Odpcrevs, O^pevs. 
 
 4. -ovs (Attic), \lfevbovs Theog". 607 (quoted by Stobaios), 
 Fawixribovs at the verse end^ 1345, in a passage perhaps belonging 
 to Evenos of Paros, Kvirpoyevov? Sol. 361, and Theog. 1304, 1308, 
 1332^ 13H3. On UpoKXiovs Phokyl. i^, Demod. 2^, cf. § 526, 2. 
 
 5. -7J0S in 'HpaKXijos Tyrt. iij is the epic form, for which 
 -/cAe'eo? may be substituted. 
 
 6. -eco. A mixed form is np7]^tTeAeaj Hrd. 4^^ : ol TIpi^^LTeXeoi 
 TTolbes' ovx opfjs Kdva, where no other genitival form had suited 
 the verse. Cf. AvKapilBeos and AvKapfteo) under (2) above, and 
 -kX^m, Eretria, 'E(/). dpx- 1887, 83 ff. In Attic inscriptions of the 
 end of the third century we find -riXov in proper names. 
 
 III. Prose. 
 
 ^t'(/)eo9 Hekat. 360 (Schol. Ven. A on O 302), ddpaeoi Demokr. 
 207, ijOeos 127? (TKriveos 6, 1 27, 128, eiripieXios Jo, 7TA?/^eos 
 Diog. Apoll. 6 (Simpl, i53u, a rare instance of the retention 
 of -€09 in Simpl.), Hdt. irevTaiTeos I 136, $vvex^os Philip ofj 
 Pergamum in li. C. H. II 273. Hdt. I 85 and Hippokratesj 
 VI 384 have 8eous=: Homeric Setou? from original *8e€os < 
 Zftu(T-os. The Homeric form was not misinterpreted out of a| 
 contracted "^hdtvs, but misread out of 8eeos which can be restored] 
 K 376, O 4. 
 
 Hdt. has usually -eo? in proper names. In V 92 /3 'ExeKpareu?! 
 is found in ^ ^^ C d. Traces of this eu are rare in the MSS. ofj 
 the historian. In Herodotos -kXIos is the usual form with thej 
 variants: — (i) -KXiovs, e.g. I 7 [C E) or (2) -kXijos, e.g. IX 9c: 
 &paavKXrjos in Aldus. It is noticeable that the scribes whc 
 wrote our MSS. of Hdt. never adopted the form -kX^lovs. Ionic| 
 -kX^os occurs in the pseudo-Ionists : Lukian, Sj/r. (lea 3, Arrian,* 
 hid. 5g, jQ 9^, 183, Abydenos 9, ep. Hippokr. 263 {y. I.). On the 
 other hand the Attic form comes to light in Lukian, Syr. dea 26 
 Arrian, Ind. 5^.,, ,3, Sg, four times in the letters of Hippokrates: 
 The pseudo-Ionists usually have -eos in other words, e.g.'lda-- 
 yev€os Vita Horn. Arrian has KXiovs in '^6^, for which EberharC: 
 reads kX^^os. 
 
 532.] Dative Singular. 
 
 I. -it in adivei Erythr. 204jg, rjetx^' Halik. 240^5, "Apyet 240^- 
 h€L Myl. 248 ABC, eVet Chios in £. P. JF. 1889 p. II95, 
 None of these inscriptions is metrical. In Sim. Amorg. i, 
 "Apet occurs, where Brunck corrected "Apet of the vulgate, am, 
 also in Sim. Keos 43,,; in Hipponax 11 ayd is the propel 
 reading according to Bergk, ayd according to Fix. Cf. § 156: 
 
^^^.] STEMS IN -€S. 421 
 
 crayeT is the correct form as conjectured by Meineke, but this 
 form in Archil. 113 has no great probability. Anakr. 107 (eleg.) 
 has TeixivTi. -nXridTi is found in Tyrt. 4g, Theog. 699 (-ei possible), 
 eX/cFt in Theog. 1134, TreAayet in Sim. Keos 1352 j 13^2' ^426) 
 opTl 1075. 
 
 2. -ei in poetry is very rare; eyxet Tyrt. iigg, rpoxoeibu 
 Theog. 7, (f)LXoK€pbi'i 199, i^rjAet 1125. It will be noticed that 
 these forms occur in poets not of Ionic birth. That -et had 
 ceased to exist in purely Ionic poetry before the year 500 b. c. 
 is highly probable ; a conclusion that tells against the assumption 
 of a prose -ei. 
 
 In Herodotos it is the custom to use the non-contracted form 
 even when the MSS., either generally or partially, oppose its 
 adoption (cf. I 70 [xeyadei, III 9 /xij/cet). The preponderance of 
 -ei over -ei in the MSS. as a whole has blinded editors to the 
 large number of instances of -et in such MSS. as A B (173 
 cases). The contracted form appears to have existed in the 
 archetype x '■> ^^^ this represents the actual Ionic form of the 
 fifth century, though it is uncertain whether or not it has come 
 [down from Herodoteian times to the date of the writing of x- 
 How keen the pursuit of open forms was, is evident from the 
 Aldine edition's orao-ei, hoaei, acpL^e'i (I 68), &c. Authors 
 quoting Hekataios have -Ji, e.g. opet 344, "Apyet '^^'] . Forms 
 from Anaxagoras likewise, cf. Trki'idei, fxeydOet i, Melissos vytet. 
 
 The open forms occur also in the other Ionic writers, who have 
 been subjected to the same ii€Ta\apaKTi]pL<Tix6s as Herodotos. 
 Thus Hippokrates regularly has -ei, and the letters current 
 under his name -ei seventeen times, -el only twice. The first 
 epistle of Pythagoras has a contracted form. Lukian in the 
 Syr. dea 32 has arp^Kil, Arrian about twenty examples of -ei to 
 three of -ei; Abydenos frag. 9 has reixet, Euseb. Mynd. § i 
 jevtreySei, 60^ yivei (MSS.) and ivrvyji [avv^yJ.'L Mullach) and 
 KaXXe'C in the same fragment. Arrian has both 'Hpa/cAe'i (363) 
 and 'HpoKAei (8g), -nXridti 1 19. The Vita Ilomeri has Tet'xei 26. 
 
 533.] Accusative Singular (Masculine and Feminine). 
 
 I. -ea. a^avia Teos 174 A 12, ^rpaTOKkia Amphip. lOg, 
 Theog. /Sa^uKTjrea 175, i.vrdy(.a 1 209, Treptnakkia 1 277, Demokr. 
 TToAureAe'a, avrapKea ^6, Icroadevea 24, Srj/xco^eAe'a ^J, Hdt. Sic^ve'a 
 IV 9, vyUa III 130, 133, 134. -KAe'a is common in Hdt. 
 KXrja, the Homeric ending, was adopted by Aldus (VII 193, 
 VIII 92). There is no variant -kXtjv. Hippokrates has riept- 
 KAe'a III 120. 'HpanXia occurs in Ktesias § 21 and six times in 
 Arrian. We find in Herakleitos 16 Eevocpdvm, in Lukian, 
 iFif. Auc. 4 €[jL(f)avea, 6 iij.(j)€pia ; vyiea Si/r. dea 19 ; Astr. 2 xlrevbia 
 knd dArj^ea, 3 TroAt-etSea, 5 dreAea. In the Fifa Homeri the open 
 
423 THE IONIC DIALECT. [534. 
 
 forms prevail (twenty-four in all ; two contracted forms). On 
 8eo-7rorea, Tvyea and the like, see § 438, 2. 
 
 2. -6a. jueAtrjSea Anakr. 4I2, v€o6rj\(a Anakr. 5I1; Sucr/xeyea 
 Sim. Am. 7jqo. 
 
 3. In Hdt. II 108 we find hbea. For this form that in -id 
 should be substituted ; cf. epist. Hippokr. 22^ evKk^a. vyta 
 occurs in Hippokr. Ill 252, and is Attic as well as vyir]. 
 
 4. -rj. i^u)\r] Mylasa 248 A 15 {;^6'//66 B.C.), and so on the 
 forged inscription from Tralles, C. I. G. 2919. This ending 
 occurs also in poetry, where it is not different from -ea : k^rj- 
 KOVTairr] Mimn. 62 (Sitzler -fa), dyho^KOVTairr] Solon 20^, aaK-qdrj 
 Sol. 19^. In Theognis we observe airecOrj 1235 at the end of the 
 verse, and evaXbi] 830 (Bergk, evcadr] MSS.) before the caesura of 
 the pentameter. There is no example of -kXtj in Ionic, (vcpvij 
 occurs in Aretaios 331, despite -ea in the plural. 
 
 In Hdt. VI 57 for OvtxlTjv STjiMoreXrj Stein reads with good MSS. dvff'ni 
 57ifiore\-fis. 
 
 5. -T]v. ^AvTLyevqv is found in Thasos 72g (300-250 B.C.). 
 Forms in --qv in inscriptions from Smyrna (MeveK\i]v C. I. G, 
 3238 as C. I. A. II 30529, 2a)KAr/y 3241, and probably Ary/xoKA^y 
 32562) are common in the later stages of the life of all dialects. 
 In Attic inscriptions the accusative of names in -kA?]? ends in 
 -KAea vmtil the year 300 B.C., afterwards in -kXtjp. But other 
 names in -tjs have --qv in the earlier part of the century. On 
 Anakreon^'s aivoTradijv ofi (Bergk -iraOri), see under Aiolic. 
 
 534.] Vocative. ArjixoKAets Theog. 923, though -eej was 
 possible. Uncontracted are lleptKAees Archil. 9^ (eleg.) and 
 'Hpa/<Aees 119. Theog. 1323 has KuTrpoyeVr/. Hdt. has "Torao-Trej 
 I 209, since 'Tcrrao-Trry? is inflected as an -es stem ('To-rdo-ireos 1. 1.), 
 and also Upi'i^acnTes III 34, &c., 'Apre/x/3a/3es I 116 and Ot/3apej 
 III 85. 
 
 535.] I^ominative Plural (Masculine and Feminine), -ees. 
 are Aet? occurs Teos, Mittli. XVI 292, but the inscription is 
 Hellenistic. KaTripe(pe€9 Anakr. 121, but AvhoTradds i55> -^^" 
 mokr. 3Io/: eva-radees 20^, ajxaO^es 70, deo(j)L\ees 107, 77oAu/xa0e'es 
 140, avaKr]bies 214; and 0iAo)Lie/x(/)e'es 146, ^vyyevees l52> ; 
 and ei/^uee? 226 (all fragments of Demokrates). Hdt. has 
 e7n8ee'ej(?) IV 130 (y. I. -evies), Hippokr. (fypLKcobees V 588 (12). 
 In Hippokr. the open far outnumber the contracted forms. 
 
 In the Syria dea of Lukian there are twelve, in the Astr. two open forms ; 
 Arrian also has twelve cases of -ees ; Euseb. Mynd. § 4 irpoacptXefs, 42 airfidees, 
 63 cKpavees for which Mullach reads Sifaveas ; epist. Thales i (ppeuripffs ; epist. 
 Hippokr. seven open forms. Abj^denos i has SKpve^s, Aretaios contracts seven 
 times, and resolves sixty-one times in the first two treatises. Eusebios has 
 aSpavffs. On nominative forms in -eis used as accusative, see § 539. 
 
537-] STEMS IN -69. 423 
 
 636.] Nominative and Accusative Plural (Neuter). 
 
 1. -ea. Upon inscriptions : hea Olynthos 8 A 5, Teos, Mittli. 
 'XVI 393 (an inscription containing dreAets and Ti\Siv), rikea 
 Dlynthos 8 B 8. In Keos No. 43^, an inscription of the 
 ifth century written aroixq^ov, Roehl has supplied 6A[o]- 
 Txep[ea]. In Hne 17 of the same document dvr] is certain. The 
 lifference according to Bechtel between the r] and ea is here 
 aurely graphical ; cf. dp-qrai Oropos 18^^ with the usual -earai, in 
 Ionic poetry. 
 
 i Open -ea occurs in the poets. In the elegists : Archil. 9^ 
 xrjbea, ^ape Xenoph. 33, veUm Anakr. 942, /3eAea Mimn. 143. 
 Iheognis has aAyea 1189, aicrxea 388^ aXaea 1 252, Ktphea 50, 
 835, ijOea 970, ^Irevhia 'Jl'^, bi]ve' 222. Solon has aAyea 4^, 11^, 
 xvOea 43g, Kepbea i^u- TravaKovpyea Xenoph. 33. In iambic 
 poetry we find aeiKea Sol. '^6^^^ at the verse end with 7/^17 in the 
 laext line. 
 
 I -ea in Ionic prose: ovpea Hekat. 172, ■^evbea Demokr. 119, 
 :i8ea Melissos 17, &c., akr]Qia Hekat. 332, Herakl, 107, Melissos 
 17, Lukian, de Domo 20, avca^eXia Demokr. 13, hia-npe-nia 18, 
 aacpakea ^8, acrdevia 1 85; Protag. irivdea. Hdt. has -ea 
 thi'oughout, e.g. eVea {errj I 16 b d z), Philip of Pergamum 
 \B. C. H. II 273) iOvea, Lukian, Fit. auc. 14 haKpvcahea, Syr. dea 
 deiKe'a, arpcKea, deoirpeTrea 29, Aretaios airdOea and i^yte'a 91. 
 Hippokr. Ill 450 has the latter form by a conjecture adopted 
 by Littre. Hdt. II 92 has Kpivea, the usual nominative being 
 xpivov. 
 
 2. -ea. h]vea Sim. Am. 7^3 (first foot), heg. 33 (end of verse) ; 
 ■ueAea Archil. I2i (end of pentameter); av6ea Mimn. i^ (before the 
 3aesura) ; o-Ke'Aea Herodas 3^5 (perhaps w 6 >^). 
 
 3. -ea. Hdt. KaraSea II i2i {j3), oKAea I I are as incorrect as 
 the same forms in the singular. Fritsch in Curtius^ Studien 
 VI 93 proposes to read Karahia with hyphaeresis. Bredow 
 ^preferred KaraSeea. 
 
 4. -Tj. eVrj Theog. 1366 and do-e/3?; 1 180 at the end of the 
 verse, a position occupied by errj in Sol. 2734 . detKe'a j/5ij 36J2 
 ;(trim.) ; Kp6.Tr\ ofi^^ (trim.) according to Blass, where Bergk reads 
 Kjodret. 
 
 537.] Genitive Plural. 
 
 I. -ewy : Irkoiv Zeleia 114 F 3, reXeoiv 114 D 6; Archil, opioiv 
 115 (dactylic tetrap. + ithyphallicus), Mimn. d^e'coi' I2ii, 
 bva-fjieviotiv 143, SucTTjAeye'coy y^; Tyrt. opeoov 58> /3eAe'a)y l-i28> 
 tvajxeviMV 1221; Theog. iiricov 755^ ^334^ opicov 1292, x.ap.ai- 
 yeye'wy 870, evcre^eayv I141 ; Solon ve(f)e(av 13245 hvap.eviu)v 421 ; 
 ixeSe'coz; occurs in Archil. 138^ a fragment of uncertain metre. 
 
424 THE IONIC DIALECT. [538. 
 
 This form is constant in the prose of Hdt. Ktesias tas heuiv 
 21; Herakl. e-e'ojr 2. e-e'coi- 12; \j/€vbeuiv 118 {vulgo -wi); Demokr. 
 KTT\vim' 127, Philip of Pergamum [B.C.H. II 273) KepoeW, 
 ra^e'cor, Lukian, H?". az/c. 3 kriuiv. 
 
 1. -ecoz- : Archil, trrqdeoiv IC33, Sim. Am. erecor ig; Theog. 
 Kepbicov 46 (in ^ 0, c^-ffri /cepSair), retxt^'^ 95^9 orrj^ecdy I164 
 (J, Stobaios): Solon e~e(ov ij. 
 
 3. -wr : Archil. IraSev 8i'(r/iei-5i; 662 (tetram.), for "which we 
 mav read ara 5' €\€o \ia-oiv. Theog. l-Giv 1^21, Anakr. /leXwr 45 
 (Blass). 7€A(Sr, Teos, Mitth. XYI 292, is Hellenistic! 
 
 538.] Dative Plnral. 7e'-\ecrt Priene 144^ (^apecrt in a non-Ionic 
 epigram. Priene 14I3). Archil, has gvcr/jeiecru- 7. -eAdyeo-iriv 11, ■ 
 K7^6eo-a' 66^ j Kallinos hvrr^^viaLv i^; Simonides Amorg. ovp€(ra> ■ 
 14^ (as Hekat. 172^ 173), oAyecrir I23; Mimnermos avQea-iv 2^, I 
 Anakr. crr^^ecri 39. The dative plural in -go-crt is practic-aUy ! 
 restricted to sigmatic stems in Ionic, only two exceptions being 
 known : l\6v€.a(TLv Ananios 5;, and -repvyecra-L Anakreon 24j. i 
 In Xenophanes 35 ^aCrrjo-iv a.yaXX6p.€i-0L ev~p€-€€cr(rLV is a conjee- ' 
 ture of Bergk, to which Schneidewin's Toi-arja-iv is preferable; ■ 
 especially since in a fragment of Aristeas (Kinkel p. 245) we 
 find \ai'n]air aya\X6pi€V0L Tavaijaiv. 
 
 539.] Accusative Plural Masculine and Feminine). ; 
 
 a.(pareai Teos 156 B ^S. dKpa7e'a[s] Chios 174 C 8, dz-ox^eXeas ; 
 Xenoph. 3,, eiyere'as Theog. 184^ Tpijpeas Kallinos 4: Hdt: 
 rpn]peai A II Ij8, TrcpiSee'as A 44. a.rdpo)-o(pviai I 13I; Hippokr. ' 
 iyUas II 1 10. 
 
 The nominative form -eis is used for the accusative in 7rpe(rj8»- 1 
 
 yerets T%~rt. 45 (Kenner -eas), eiarde'is Theog. i2CO. i 
 
 ! 
 540.] I 
 
 Many proj^r names in -tjs. inflected in other vrriters according to the; 
 A declension, in Hdt. follow the -es declension. For a fall list of such names. ; 
 see Bredow p. 230 ft Some are ^apvaxeos TU 66. Awuceos VI 13. TSapr«' 
 VIII iiS. 4>apayS<ireos IX 76. 'Apffdueos VII 224, noAvSeWeos Mil 131 Stein's' 
 •ew is a conjecttire of Valckenaer\ Xames in -(ppetrns are inrariably ^j stems 
 in Hdt.. in Arrian -d stems. On Herodoteian names that are usually -a stems j 
 but incline to the -es declension, chiefly in the accusative, see above § 438, 2, 
 and Bredow pp. 226-230. ! 
 
 541.] Stem in -v>--. 
 
 Original forms of the inflection of p^vs are rare, the influence. 
 of the tvpe 6(f)pvs, -vos having obliterated the ancient inflection.. 
 In Hdt. II 141 we find piv for the old */ii(ra ; in Herodas y.^ 
 pis is the nominative plural^ whereas the older form is /iC-cs.; 
 
543] 
 
 STEMS IX -09, -VS. 42- 
 
 Epicharmos 28 Alirens; fivaCv^ for ^fivcrdCv is supported by a 
 reading' in Batraciiom. 260 [fxvai, the regular form from ^fivacriv 
 in 173, 174. 178); but is a mistaken form, only nouns of more 
 than one syllable in the nominative ending in -vut. 
 
 542.] Stems in -oa-. 
 
 Here belong alccos and 7)^?. Kominative : Hdt. r](l>s VIII 83, 
 Arrian eco?. ewoj-. ecudev. Genitive: riovs < ^Tje'os Oropos 18^^,, 
 Hdt. II 8, VII 167, albovs Tyrt. I2^j, Theog. 253. 41c, 1266. 
 alhoos and 7)00? are everywhere possible in Homer except u 171, 
 470, 525, 8 188. Jjafive : ailoi may be read K 238. Accusa- 
 tive : the ground-form *dicrocr-a yielded ^rjocra ^^rjoa'^, which may 
 be read in Homer in place of the traditional rjQ. at'odi may like- 
 wise be displaced in favour of aicoa. aioS> appears in the MSS. of 
 Hdt. I 8 and deserves the preference over aibovv, an analogue 
 of the -oji declension, which Greg. Korinth. § t^q calls Ionic. 
 -qoiT in the same grammaiian is found only in an elesry in Athen. 
 XI 473 A. In Hdt. IV 4c It has rjQ, the other MSS. the Attic 
 Id) as Arrian, I/id. § 23. Xenophon adopted ^Q according to 
 Fhotios. Our MSS. have however ecu. 
 
 543.] Stems in -n-. 
 
 fuis in Mylasa 249 is the only inscriptional testimony in Ionic 
 to the authenticity of a form preserved in T 117^, H}Tnn II 
 II, Hesiod JF. I). 557, Pind, 3". V 44, Anakreon 6 and Hdt. e.g. 
 H 82. It also appears in a Korkyraian inscription, C. D. I. 31992.' 
 in one from Kalchadon, 3052.,-, and is not unkno\\-n in Attic 
 {Timaio% 39 C. Kraiylos 409 C). The preservation of this orig-inal 
 form until so late a period (the inscription no. 249 is not older 
 than the first century b. c.) is an interesting case of the retention 
 of dialect forms. [i.r\v ® is only apparently a nu stem, \i.r\v(T- being 
 original. /let's is from *[i.kvs<*\ir\vs, according to the law that 
 a vowel followed by a nasal and a consonant is shortened : 
 a law that came into existence after vs had become vv (Aiolic 
 
 The genitive \i.r\v6<i is found in Oropos 18^, Keos 47^; nomina- 
 
 ' W. Schulze. Ouaest. Eom. =o. 
 
 ' Ettstath. 7275.. jj. 1142,^." 150444. holds that rioTos is the Ionic form as 
 oompared with ^^s and e^s. 
 
 ' G. Meyer and Schmidt 'K. Z. XXV 24^ regard *7)&;o as the original ablaut 
 lonn which became ^00 through influence of *t\^%. 
 
 * In Hdn. II 39i^5 = Et. M. 3:1;,.. Et. Gud. 195.3. An. Ox. I 1585, f)o'a is 
 attested as Ionic ; incorrectly called Aiolic by Et. Gud- 1961.. An. Ox. I 1372. 
 
 * /t^was read T 117 in the" Chian edition of Homer. The SchoL Ten. A ad 
 lee. ealls fiifr Aiolic. yA^s appears in the Herakleian Tables. Cauer 4O1. 
 
 * fclff was abstracted from /tjj> vos. On the declension of this word see 
 polmsen, K. Z. XXTT 61. 
 
426 THE IONIC DIALECT. [544. 
 
 tive plural ixrjves Anakr. 41, dative plural ixrjaiv Halik. 238^3; 
 Stein correctly edits this form iu Herodotos^ though li has 
 [xi]v€(TLv in IV 43, VIII 51. 
 
 544.] Stems in -aa- -ea--, nominative -as. 
 
 On the interconnected words Kepa? and Kaprj (§ 545)? and on 
 Kpeas see Schmidt''s Nevtra. 
 
 Kipas is inflected in Hdt. as follows : — Kepcos VI iii^ IX 26, 
 Kip€i IX 102^ K^pm II 38 and often^ nepioiv II 132, IV 183. 
 In Hippokr. II 68 we find Kepojs and Kipara. The form with t 
 was contemporary Attic as we learn from [/<ep]are C. I. A. IV 
 185 B 46 (410 B. c). The difference between Hdt. and Hippokr. 
 is marked. Kipcos could not have come into existence in Ionic at 
 the same time and place as Ke'peos < ^Kepaaos. Kepdra is a new 
 formation, which came into existence after ■^Kepu(o-)aro9 had been 
 substituted for '^Kpd[(r)aTos. The former of these is the parent of 
 Attic Kepdros. vxjnKeprjTo?, which is cited in Hdn. II 68333 with- 
 out any statement of its provenance, might at first sight appear 
 to be Ionic ; but is in fact a heteroclite from v\}/iK€pr]s as apiivrjTos 
 from ap.ivr]s. Pindar fr. 325 has vxlnKipdra, but no Ionian used 
 -Keprjra. 
 
 Kpeas yields K/oe'co? Hdt. II 41, Kpia Hdt. I 119, II 47 and 
 often, Hippokr. VII 196, Hekat. ^^^, Sim. Am. 24^ (end of 
 trimeter), Theog. 293 (a), Kp^oov Hdt. I 59 and often, Oropos 
 183^, Hippokr. VIII 238, [/cpeeo-o-ty oracle in Hdt. I 47, cf. 
 C. I. G. 1724], Kpiaaiv Hippokr. VIII 54, 138 as 162. Hdn. 
 II 3 1 9g = Choirob. 48833 has preserved in Kpeolv a trace of the 
 form with e for a before an sound. This may be either Ionic 
 or Attic ^. That the substitution is preserved in Homer is^| 
 assumed by Schmidt, who proposes to substitute Kpee'coy for 
 Kpeiwy in Homer; though in Hymn II 130 Kpedcov is read by all 
 MSS. (but rejected by Gemoll). I find this plausible, as it 
 accounts for the et, which is difiieult. 
 
 The Heridoteian forms of repas are ripeos VIII ;^'J, reparos 
 and ripara II 82 in all MSS., ripm VIII 37. Homer has 
 Tcpdcov, repdeo-o-i, repaa ; and rdpea 2 485, r^ipecnv Hymn VII 7 
 are usually ascribed to the same nominative form. Alkaios 155 
 used Teptcav (Eust. 115540)? riot r^ipecov (sic) as is reported in the 
 Lexicon of Kyrillos, An. Par. IV 19210. Tipara is good Attic 
 despite the statements of the grammarians to the contrary, and 
 may well be Ionic of the fifth century. Inscriptional Attic has 
 KepaTa but Kpta. Tetpecrta?- was introduced into later literature 
 
 ^ That Attic did not repudiate the stem in r is evident from Kpeams in 
 'A07JV. VII 87, 73, the only occurrence upon Attic inscriptions. 
 
 ^ Tlie name can, however, scarcely be derived from the dative plural 
 relpta-i + as, as 'A\Ki-Sdfias, &c. I do not know of any certain phonetic 
 change that will explain it as coming from Ttpari-as. 
 
i 544-] STEMS IN -as, -e?. 427 
 
 in the form its initial syllable was forced to assume in tlie epic. 
 
 Tepeta in Kaibel 53 may contain the same root, but the name is 
 
 too singular to be adduced as evidence without further light 
 
 I from other dialects, reipea in 2 485, where it is = aarpa, is not 
 
 I to be separated from repas. Cf . Tepaa-Koiros and Eurip. fr. 485 : 
 
 ; -q "npwTa jmv to. dela TipoviiavrevaaTo | \prj(TpLOi(jL cracpiaii' aareputv 
 
 k'n avToXals, and A y6. 
 
 The plural of yepas occurs frequently in Hdt, in the form 
 
 yipea. This is also found in Miletos loo^. In Kos (Paton and 
 
 Hicks^ Inscrijjtions of Kos, No. 3721) we find y'jepeacpopos, but 
 
 yepr] in 1. 22 (Kpia 1. 23). y€pr](j)6pos appears in £. C. H. XII 
 
 I 282, yepr](})opia in Dion. Halik. 
 
 Epic in colouring is yrjpaoi in Hdt. Ill 14 (yi]paos ovbQ), 
 Archil. 116, in Mimn. 2g, and in Theog. 527, perhaps a verse of 
 Mimnermos. In 174 Theognis has y-i]pcos which is not Ionic. 
 yripai, not yripa'C, is read in Hdt. VI 24. The occurrence of 
 yripaos in Archilochos deserves attention, since it is a case of an 
 Homeric form appearing in a trimeter. Elsewhere the poet 
 j contracts a + o separated by cr (§ 277, 2). 
 
 I The substitution of e for a before sounds appears also in 
 
 i yi^povs, in the pseudo-Hippokratic treatise Trepl t&v evrbs iraOciv 
 
 j (VII 182). Littre here adopts eco? y-qpovs (with Attic -ovs), the 
 
 I reading of another hand in II (of the fourteenth century) for is 
 
 \ TO yrjpas. In Luke I ^6 we read yi]p€L. The grammarians 
 
 register yrjpos^ under the same category as ovbos, kwo?, a-Keiros, 
 
 Kvi(j)os, &c., all of which forms appear to be nothing more than 
 
 figments made out of the forms with e before the case ending. 
 
 Tiipos as a proper name is found in an inscription from Panti- 
 
 kapaion (Latyschev II 140) that is peculiar from the presence of 
 
 a genitive in -kXtjos (§ 529). If connected with yrjpas, it is the 
 
 ' only occurrence outside of grammatical literature of a nomina- 
 
 j tive form in -os interchangeable with one in -as. 
 
 Homer has oi;5eos, ovbt'i and ovbet ; Aischylos jSpireos, -et, -ea, 
 -iu>v. 
 
 The genitive -00s is called Ionic in the case of Kepaos, Kpeaos, yripaos by Hdn. 
 II 30121 = Choirob. 386j„, ef. Hdn. II 317,7, 7733, 35, cf. 7744, nepaos Et. M. 505U; 
 Seiroos, Kpfaos, yepaos, (TKeTaos An. Ox. I 25I23; Kpeaos, yi\paos Theod. 3511 
 (Hilgard); Kpiai Hdn. II 3161,, 7746=Choirob. 3885 {Kpedoiv Choirob. 38832, 
 1 Kpioi Choirob. 388,]], Kpeacn Choirob. 38628. yepaa is assumed as an Ionic 
 form, An. Ox. I 999 (cf. repaa /x 394). 
 
 ^ Hdn. II 2Sii3 = Et. M. 6394, II 220i8 = Eust. 156O30 (cf. 60O1,), II 7735, 39 = 
 Choirob. 3865, 3872. Nowhere is the form called Ionic. Of the forms that 
 appear to be analogous, the only instances which are ascribed to definite 
 : dialects are Sepos (on which see Schmidt, Neutra, p. 341) and kwos, which are 
 I called Ionic or Doric by Et. M. 257^; the latter, Aiolic by Tzetzes on Hesiod, 
 W. B. 61. \f)f(pos is Pindaric (frag. 324) according to Et. M. 81834 (cf. Lobeck, 
 Bhem. 315). 
 
4a8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [545. 
 
 545.] Stems in Tau. 
 
 I. Stems in -vt-. It has been supposed that Hipponax 12 has 
 preserved the original participial inflection of raAds ^ : — 
 
 rt r<5 ToXavTL BouTrdAw avvioKricras ; 
 
 With this form we may compare alvoToXavTa in Antiraachos. 
 The correct explanation is that Takavri is a neologism like 2ap- 
 TirihovTos, OepdirovTos, bpa.KovT09. Nominative and vocative were 
 alike in the case of -av and -avr stems. Participles in Ionic are in- 
 flected as in Attic, e.ff. KaTdavovai Archil. 64. (f)dyov(n Hipponax 82. 
 
 Other stems in -vt are : ^AA/ct8d/ids Keos 41 (on d, see § 161), 
 ArjtbdixavT- Aigiale 28 A; ['AyjAco^wiro? Thas. 78 A 2, [Nt]- 
 Ko4>covTos 75 A 2 (see § 277, i, on the contraction of a + o), Aeco/xt- 
 bovTos Smyrna l53ioj Ar^iXeovros Smyrna ^SSiSi MeyaK/3e'(o)i/ros 
 Chios 1774, 'Hy^KpiovTos Samos 2179. 
 
 Herodotos has obwv^ VI 107 = Attic obovs. An indirect attes- 
 tation of Ionic 6ba>v is found by Bechtel in KOKOAON^, Styra 
 1953, formed as XaXK<aba}v. Hippokrates also has obcov. Plural 
 obovres Hippon. 622, Anakr. 43^, Hippokr. II 320. obovres is 
 the aorist participle of the Ved (or perhaps ed) eaf. Its initial 
 o is assimilated from the e of Aiolic ebovr^s. See J. Schmidt in 
 Z.^. XXXII 329. 
 
 3. Stems in -r- bopv is inflected as a stem in p in the follow- 
 ing cases: bovpos Tyrt. iigo? bcvpi Anakr. 2I9, bopC Archil. 2^, g- 
 bovpLKXvTOL 3g. Elsewhere the t form : bopara Hdt. VII 89, 224, 
 IX 62 in all MSS., but incorrectly, Sovpara I 79 (all MSS.), bovpaat. 
 1 172, VII 41 (in P only), Tyrt. 1 137. The forms in ov are Ionic, 
 notwithstanding Archil. bopC (§ 253, i). Aovptbos occurs upon a t, 
 Samian inscription (C. Curtius'' Samische Inschriften, No. 13). 
 
 Hdt. has yovv VI 27, yovvaros II 80, yovvara I 199, III 103, 
 V 86, yovvdroiv I 112, IX 76 [yovva^v Lukian S^r. (lea 22), 
 yovvacTi IV 152, II 132 (yovacn ABC), VII 88 {yovaai A B). 
 oSs yields Z)Ta, axrt in Hdt., Z^ra Herakl. 4, SiToiv Herakl. 15. 
 £)s is foun(f in a late inscription from Delos [B. C. H. II 322} ; 
 and in one from Oropos ('E^tjju. dpx- 1889, p. 3, 1. 19). Hip- i| 
 pokrates has uiTos II 78, VI 368 {6, Littre ol5aro?), ovaraW 390 
 {Z^ra in 6), IX 84, oUtu^v \l 126, IX 86; but oxrti^ VI 1 28, 
 ZiTa II 646, VI 392 as Herakl. ovara is found in Theog. 1 163, 
 wo-t Anakr. 2I4. In Homer we have the forms with ov- except 
 ju 200 (oxrtV, for which ovaa has been read). See § 366. 
 
 ' Hdn. II6283 = Choir. 28o3, = Bekk. An. Ill 1421 ; Theokr. 2^ hasraAas. In 
 Hrd. 335, 7j(8 we have an hyper-Ionic raKTjs, according to Crusius, for the usual 
 reading ra Afjs. I do not think such a slip possible even in the speech of the 
 vulgar. 
 
 ^ Cf. Eust. 85412, where npoSSoov and xai'A'iiSa>;' are cited. Epicharmos has 
 Kvi'6Sooi' fr. 93 (Ahrens). 
 
 ^ Cf. Meister in Jahrh. vol. 125, p. 525. 
 
546.] STEMS IN TAU, DELTA. 429 
 
 Hdt. lias h xpo't ^^ ^75- The word is rare in Ionic as in 
 Attic prose. Homer generally has XP^^'?, xpot, xpoa which 
 recur in Euripides, xpo" is found in Archil. 100, Tyrt. lo^^, 
 Theog. 3I7j cf. airakoxpoos 1341. xpS)Ta occurs in Keos 43:,o. 
 Hdn. has a nominative xp^'^^ I 40^5^ II 92^8^ ^^-j f^'o^n which 
 he derives ^P^os- Hdt. has /xeAayxpoe?, Hippokr. -xpoto?. 
 
 orats Hdt. II 36 (not oraj) yields a-Tanos. See Schmidt, 
 Neutra, p. 357. Hdt. I 120 has ovcipaTcov (c£. u 87) from to 
 ■^vapov (oveLpos VII 16). epco? Archil. 103, epcort Anakr. IQ^, 
 Ipcdra Hdt. V 32. epMs occurs in Homer T 442, H 294, a form 
 with T for the first time in Hymn II 449 (ipooTa). Theognis 
 has the Homeric epos 1322, epov 1064. iadrjv Mykonos 92^,4 
 is a heteroclite (eaOiJTos Hdt. IX 80), cf. iMVKr]v in Hekataios 
 (schol. Ven. A on O 302). Both of these words are classed by 
 Bechtel (Io7i. Insc/ir., p. 66) with those which he maintains have 
 pan-Hellenic 17 stems. The genitive of the latter noun is juvKeoj 
 in Archil. 47. 
 
 From eiAcos we have etXoores IX 80, etAcorwy {C, -rioov li) in 
 IX 80 and IX 28. In IX 10 elXwTcov is read, but in VI 58, y^, 
 80 etAcore'coy is the sole reading of all the MSS. el'Acoraj VI 81 
 is indifferent as no stress is to be laid on the accent. The co- 
 existence of the two genitive forms in this and other abundantia 
 such as ixiyapov, p.iyapo<i may have been in part the cause of such 
 formations as ixvptabeMv, -coy, aXcoireKecov, -u>v, &c. 
 
 On Ato's from Xls = k4oov, see § 484. Hippokr. VIII 168 has 
 aAet^a for akeL(f)ap. 
 
 KapT] nominative Anakr. 43^, accusative Tyrt. lOgg, Ionic for 
 KCLpd. This nominative in Homer forced an entrance into the 
 genitive and other cases. In earlier prose the word went out of 
 use save in compounds (Hdt. KapahoKuv which has Attic a, 
 Hippokr. KaprjjBdpeia, -0apeM, -jSapiKos), but in post-Homeric 
 poetry Kaprj was treated as a stem of the first declension. 
 Theognis 1024 (Mimnermos?) has Kcipj]. Kaprjv occurs in Kalli- 
 machos fr. ^^ B, Nikander T/ier. 131, &c. Kapav appears in the 
 Anakreontics 5O9 and is the accusative of the Attic dative 
 Kapa (in tragedy). 
 
 546.] Stems in Delta. 
 
 According to Hdn. I 526^7, II 18^^ (cf. Drakon 2319, 4522), in 
 trisyllabic nouns in -is, the t was long in Ionic, short in Attic, 
 e.ff. TrAoKa/xts, Kepafxts, but ayaOLs and Tpv(j)aXis always have -19. 
 Clip-names in -us ^ have -abos ", rarely -a, in the genitive, -a is 
 
 ^ E.g. MiKas Thas. (L.) 14 A 7, 'Etcaras Erythr. ^06 B 23, Tipri^as 206 A 8, 
 ©euSas Samos 225, Duy/ias Amorg. 28 A, NocraiKas Thas. 76^. 
 Hdn. II 6577 B»TT«s BiTTaSos, Kvpas KvpaSos. 
 
430 THE IONIC DIALECT. [546. 
 
 the original termination, -abos having worked its way in from the 
 analogy of (fjvyd^, voixd^, &,c., G. Meyer, Gramm. § 345. On the 
 accent of -dhos see Bechtel [Ion. In-schr. p. 6q). Examples are : 
 'Hpa8o9 Thasos 761, 82 B 3, Thas. (L.) 18 A 10, 20 B 6, Mo\7ra- 
 hos Abdera 163, 10, Aioi;uo-[a]8o? Abd. 163, 15^, 'A7roAA.a8os 
 Dittenb. Sj/U. 344^3,33 (Ephesos), C. I. G. 3253 Smyrna (late), 
 EiprjmSo? Erythr. 206 B 25, 2a)7ra8os 206 C 27, BaT{T)dho^ 
 Perinth. 234 B i6, cf. Dittenb. 8j/U. 172^ (Erythrai?), KaKpSSos 
 Halik. 240 A 43, Tava-dhos 240 A 64, 'OA.era8o? 240 B 47. 
 These genitives in -aSos appear upon Ionic soil as early as the 
 first half of the fourth century. Dative in -dhi : (ttAcorSSi 
 Smyrna, C. I, G. 3392 (late). Matds has the genitive MaiaSos 
 Hipponax 21 A. 
 
 Atoyura Smyrna, C. I. G. 313733, Qevbd lasos 106 (first cen- 
 tury B.C. or later), 'AttoAAS Ephesos (Dittenb. Sj/ll. 34472 first 
 century), are the only examples of -a, which never gained a 
 foothold in Ionic. See Dittenberger Sylloge No. 344, note 
 38. 
 
 Names in -{)? have -CSo?, e.g. Aeoi^SSos^ Erythr. 198, and -vo%, 
 e.g. Atoi'Oos Olbia 133, inflected on the lines of t)(0vs. 
 
 "Aprejuis^ yields 'Apre'/xtSt Chios 193, Miletos 101, Pantikap. 
 120, Phanag. 165, Paros 59 (epigr.), and so in Hdt. The 
 accusative is "Apreixiv § 491. On late coins 'Apre'jutSo? Ephesos 
 Head H. N. 498, ^Aprifxiros Magnesia, ibid. 502. Matf/rts, 
 4>^iwrts, 'Icrrtatwrts, ©ecrcraAtwrt?, TdvaXs have in Hdt. -too?, 
 accusative -lv. New Ionic usually prefers -to?. Hdt. has kqv- 
 vajSiba IV 74, but -10? 74, 75. 
 
 ©en? yields ©eriSo? Erythr. 206 B 27 (also Epic). On &€Ti.os 
 see § 481. Theog. 499 has tSpie? as Homer. va]vi,s has the 
 dative vrjVL Anakr. 143. 
 
 The Homeric genitive "AtSo? which occurs in Theog. 917 is 
 from the stem"At8-. 'At8f?? is elsewhere an A stem ('Ai8ao Theog. 
 244, 427, 906, 'At8ea) Theog. 703 (in A), Solon 243). 
 
 TrdXiivs ifas TraA/^uSo? Hippon. 15^, but TrdXiivv l-^; vocative 
 irdkixv 30 A, 30 B. Hdt. has va^kvha I 118, k-n^Xvha I 78. 
 
 Hdt. has M^Xdii-Koha II 49, Tpi-noha I 144 &c., alyi-Kohas IV 25 
 but OtStTTo'Sea) IV 149, Olhi-novv V 60, dpriitovv III 130. 
 
 A grammarian in Bekk. Anecd. I 104^ says that Hdt. used 
 the dative foi'm Kop^jxibi'^; whereas in reality both Hdt. and 
 Hippokr. use Kopfxi. ; cf . § 484. 
 
 On the parasitic e in hyper-Ionic -ewi', see §§ 74, 2, and 480. 
 
 ' Cf. also Aioi/i/TaSos C. I. G. 314I55, .^242 (both late inscriptions from 
 Smyrna), AiowaaSos Abdera, in Cat. Brit. Mus. Thrace 74, No. 62, 68, 85. 
 ^ Cf. Zeit.f. Gijm.-Wesen, 38, p. no, note i. 
 '•' Cf. Buck, A. J. P. X 463. 
 * This form was used by the comic poet Krobj'los ^Ildn. II 76710). 
 
551.] STEMS IN RHO. 43 1 
 
 Xpv(Ta[yLb<€>os Keos 41 (epigr.) is due to the error of the 
 stone-cutter. 
 
 547.] Stems in Theta. 
 
 Hdt. has opvidos, opvida IV 131, and opvlv II y^, opvides and 
 opvea, opvidoitv and opviOiuiv in II 77^ opvicn, opvidas. 
 
 548.] Declension of dcpus, x«pt?' 
 
 Hdt. has ©e/xto? II 50, Theognis OipnaTas 1141 as A 338. 
 Cf. dipi(TTos Aiolic and epic^ Oiparos in Pindar, 0e/xt8o? Aisehylos. 
 The stem OepacrT- has been regarded as a compromise between 
 6(p.i(T- and Oepur-. Hdt. uses the adjective Oeparos V 73, 
 itOipicTTos VII 33 (J ^ C), VIII 143. See Thessalian § 37, 6 e. 
 
 ax^apis has the dative a^dpl 1 41, despite yaptTa VI 41, IX 107, 
 ayapiTa I 207 (neuter plural), a^apiTioTarov VII 156; a-y^api- 
 (TTOtcrt I 90, evx«P'^oTcos I 32. Hdt. has -^^apiv V 99, a^apiv III 
 24. Xapi.o-ti' occurs Thasos 68 B. 
 
 549.] Stems in Gutturals. 
 
 In the old Chian inscription 174 we find A 16 ovpo(t)vXaK(?, 
 A 19 ovpo(l)vXaKas, whereas Hdt. uses both (pvXaKos and (pvka^ 
 according to Stein: (pvkaKa 1 41, 44, VIII 41, (j)vkaKas 
 VII 95, cf. also xP'^^^^^^^'^^^ I^ ^3> ^7> ^^^ Herakl. 123 
 (j)vXaKa9. In Hdt. I 1 13 (^wAoKa is supported by d and Aldus 
 only, and in II 121 (y) (pvXaKovs is undisputed. 
 
 From 6pL^, we have TpL^o. Pares 67^ ; Hippokrates has e'A/xty- 
 ye?, -cor, from 'iXp.iy^ for the ordinary 'iXpuvs, 'iXp-ivdos (VII 
 
 596)- 
 
 Theog. I uses the Homeric vocative S ava ^ ; Hdt. has u>va^ 
 
 I 159, IV 150 &c. Theog. 949 has the Homeric (E 299) olXkL 
 
 Anakreon 24 has in TtTepvye.aai a rare instance of the Aiolic 
 
 transference of the ending -ecro-t to non-sigmatic stems. 
 
 pr\vtS, Hippokr. VIII 116 (adjective prjyiKo's) is a noteworthy 
 form. pr\vis is found in lexicographers. Cf. Kik-q^, a^krjs. 
 
 On hyper- Ionic -ecav, see § 480. 
 
 550.] Stems in Labials. 
 
 In VIII 322 Hippokrates uses AtVa with iXaiov in a preceding 
 clause; in 324 we have eAato) XP^^^' Xlrra. 
 
 551.] Stems in Rho. 
 
 The inflection of -nar'^p, OvyaTrjp, p-riT-qp in Herodotos presents 
 nothing unusual. The tendency of Homeric forms to find a 
 footing in MSS. of Hdt. is seen in Trarepi, III 34, R and Aldus. 
 TTarpos is found in Theodosia (?) 127, irarepa Delos 57, Chios 192. 
 lirjTipa is read in Keos 4320- Ovyarpos Pantikap. 120, Ovyarepas 
 
 ^ &va is called Ionic, Bekk. An. II 930^3. 
 
432 THE IONIC DIALECT. [551. 
 
 Keos 432Y . The epic and Aiolic ^ dvyarpa is called Ionic by An. 
 Baclim. (Max. PI.) II 6^r^, but is not met with. Hdt. has 
 Arj/xTjrpos, -rpt, -rpa (Ai'uxrjTpav II 1 23 in d and Aldus; c£. 
 Kratylos 404 B where Schanz read -rpa, and Plutarch de Malig. 
 l'^ &c.). Hippokr. VII 596 yacrrripat, v. I. yaaTpxiai. In Hdt. 
 the word presents no peculiarities. \ 
 
 ^eip has the following inflection : — yjeipos Hdt., Hippokr., Sim. ' 
 Keos 1363. x^'P'' Hdt.j Hippokr. X€.lpa Hdt., Hippokr., Archil. , 
 130, Sim. Keos 14 ig. X^'^P^ Hippokr. VIII 236 viilgo, xdpas in 
 6. x^ipoiv Solon i350J62> ^^- ^*^^^ 2 below. x^V^s Hdt., 
 Hippokr. \€i.pQiv Hdt. ; Herodas 7.3 has the hyper-Ionic xetpe'coi;. 
 In 6jj yjeipioov is a correction for yiipG>v of the papyrus. The 
 appearance of this form harmonizes with the date of the papyrus 
 (first century A. D., see § 113). xapicav also occurs Hippokr. II 
 74, III 462 ; the correct form V 466. X'epaC Hdt., Hippokr., 
 Mimn. I2c, Tyrt. 10^5, Sim. Keos 1428- x^^P"-^ Hdt., Hippokr., 
 Solon 4^, Sim. Keos 11 5^. 
 
 In MSS. of Hdt. we occasionally find the forms with e. Thus x^'p"^ ' 
 VIII 106 C P, the Venetus 6 and Aldus. Steph. Byz. s. v. Avto/hoXoi cites 
 Hdt. II 30, but in a form that is so Atticized that we need not wonder 
 at x^P^^- Aldus alone has x^P^^ ^ ^*^9) ^ 77) ^^ ^^2, 115, x^P' ^^ ^°^> 
 III 78, IV 71, VIII 121, IX 72, xf>ci VII 42, xfpas IV 64, 69. 
 
 It is interesting to note that in Attic inscriptions we find [x]e[']p'''»' ■ 
 C. I. A. II 742 A 14; x^'po"'" ^- I- Gr- II Add. 281 1 b 10 (Aphrodisias) and 
 2942 c 4 (Tralles). In both places Boeckh read xepw''''. Hdn. II 27722, 74810' 
 denies the existence of this dative form with ei. Hdn. II 748^7 says that the 
 form x^P^^ occurred in iambographic poets ; but he cites no example in 
 proof. 
 
 The difference between the Homeric and Herodoteian inflection consists inj 
 the possession by Homer of the following non-Herodoteian forms : — x^P^ (onlyi 
 three times), x*'Pf> X^'P^"""''' X^'P^""'- 
 
 avqp has avepos Xenoph. 6^, avepi Kleobulina I, avepas Phokyl. 
 152 {vuJgo avepos), all poetical forms. The iambographic poets! 
 use the foijpas known to prose : ai^bpos Sim. Amorg. 7jjq, avbpC Jgi; 
 avhpa Archil. 124, avopSiv Hipjionax 452 trim., avhpacnv Archil. 
 64 and 74,, tetr., Phokyl. 15, Mimn. I5, Sim. Amorg. 772,92,95;, 
 avbpas Hippon. 21 B trim. 
 
 On Aldus avbpioiv Hdt. VII 187, see § 4<So. 
 
 In Hipponax 5 1 ^ Buttmann read correctly ixapTvpaiv ( Welckei 
 pidpTV(r(TU') lov Tzeizes' pidpTvcnv. Theog. 1226 has paprvs. Th( 
 suffix in papTvp-, pdprvs is a product of dissimilation (Kretschmer, 
 K. Z. XXXI 447) from mrtru-. A suffix -Uir- is unknown 
 pdpTvs is found in Pindar and in tragedy, and p.dpTVs occun' 
 upon an Attic epigram P/iilol. Wochenschr., 1888, p. 3. paiTV. 
 
 ' Tzetzes, Ex. II. 741,. This epic form from the shorter stem is due to ai 
 objection to the succession of short syllables. 
 
552.] STEMS IN NU. 433 
 
 and ixoiTvps occur in Kretan, ixaprvpos^ in Homer, Phokian and 
 Delphic, iidpTvp in Aiolic according- to Hdn, I 2^6^^, and 
 certainly in Doric. Hdn. I 47^ (cf. Eust. 1 1420) cites ixaprvpes 
 as occurring in the comic poets and in Hipponax. This form is 
 found in Herakl. 4, 15, 118 {-as), and was read by Zenodotos in 
 B 302. 
 
 The accusative pidprvv occurs in Sim. Keos 84^, fxaprvpa 1485. 
 The latter form is found in Archil. 152. 
 
 Solon frag. 14 has preserved the older form [xaKap (Bergk 
 \idKaps) which occurs also in Diphilos (Clem. Alex. Str. VII 303). 
 i Alkman^s jxaKaps (frag. 10) is due to analogy. 
 
 552.] Stems in nu. 
 
 The quasi mc stem Ionic juei? has been discussed above § 543. 
 Under this section are included the stems of comparatives which 
 end now in nu, now in sipna (-co from -oaa, -ovs from -oaes). 
 The nn stems of Ionic are in general declined as in Attic. 
 Hence only such inscriptional forms as serve to explain the 
 language of the lyric poets, Herodotos, and the later prose 
 writers are adduced. 
 
 The omission of t in the form ttX^ov, &c. (see § 219, 3), is 
 
 highly probable, at least in Herodotos, notwithstanding that the 
 
 MSS. sometimes preserve it. It is difficult to see how the form 
 
 tt\€vv could coexist with -nXdov. The forms with eu are less 
 
 I frequent in other Ionic prosaists. 
 
 j Nominative Singular : TrXicov Hdt. II 60, Herakl. 112 (Cobet 
 for TTKeiMv); neuter Trkiov or irXevv often in Hdt. (all MSS. 
 .i:k€iov in I 192). ttXcvv occurs II 52, IX 41. 
 
 Genitive Singular: irXiovos Keos 435, as Demokr. 21, Hdt. 
 ITrXevvos I 97, II 89, III 40, IV 43, V 34 with no case of -irkiovos, 
 Ithough this form appears m AB^ in IV 43. It is to be noticed 
 that TrXetoyo?, which does not appear on Attic inscriptions till 
 the second century B.C., is found in no Ionic document. For 
 \ykrixovs in Hippokr. VII 160 it is to be noted that d has 
 ryXrixbivos. 
 
 j Dative Singular: 'AT:6X(\)Mvt Naxos 24, Milet. 93 &c. In 
 jVII 49 Hdt. has ttXcovl {-nXetovL d, TrAeOi't Stob.) side by side 
 (with TtXevva ; in II 25 for TiXeovt R (I have tiX^iovl. 
 
 Accusative Singular: ^Xarrov Orop. 185, 22 (cf- Hippokr. 
 iXaa-aov II 36) and nXiov 1 8^ are neuter. In Hdt. we find 
 j:A,a<ro-a) often, e.ff. VII 8 (a), where is also the sole occurrence of 
 fXaaaova ; KaXXiu) ; djueiVco seven times, but IV 158 dpetvova ; 
 mCoo ; errcru) ; KaKuo ; TrAeco but TrX^vva IV 1 14, VII 49, 51^ IX 
 III; Kpiaaui but Kpiaaova IX 41 ; alcry^iova IV 144. In 
 
 I ^ An. Par. Ill 1351^, Scliol. ApoU. Rhod. I 132, Greg. Kor, p. 591 (Aiolic). 
 
 Ff 
 
434 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [55^- 
 
 Hippokr. we find aju.eiVco II 24, 30, 146, TrXeico 270, 292, 318, 
 326, iXdaact) VII 228 (ef. Fiia Horn. 16), -nXiova II II2, rja-aova 
 316. afxfivoi occurs in Theog". 409, 1161, TrAetco Theog-. 907 (0 
 has -nXelov), KaKtco in Arcliil. 6^ (cf. kukIuv 13). 
 
 KVK€uiva Hipponax 43^, as in Hippokrates II ;^c6, Lukian 
 V.A. 14, Aret., Aristopli., Plato. Homer has KVKeia, -euo. TvcpQva 
 in Hdt. II 144, hut also Tv(j)(a in III 5. For yA?/xcoi'a of the 
 vulg-ate in Hippokr. VI 248, d has yXrjxoi {sic ; see under 
 genitive). Hdt. has elKova II 143 (cf. § 523). 
 
 The accusative sing-ular of nouns in -ojv, -oovo's is not -co as in 
 Attic inscriptions of the classical period : 'AttoAAco C. I. A. I 9,5 
 (464/57 B.C.), Hdt. 'ATToAAtom I 87; rToo-etSw C.I. A. II add. 66 
 C 14 "(356 B.C.), Hdt. noo-etSetom VII 129, VIII 5^. 
 
 Vocative Singular. In certain Milesian inscriptions from 
 Naukratis (Roberts 132 A, B, F) Mr. E. A. Gardner has thoug-ht 
 to discover a vocative 'AttoAAo), a form hitherto unknown. That 
 Mr. Gardner's conclusions rest upon incorrect reading- of the 
 inscriptions has been shown by Merriam, Am. Jouni. Archaeol. 
 Ill 304, and by Bechtel Ion. Imchr. p. 153. For 'AtioAAoj, 
 croC eiju.' I'ead 'A77oAAa)^'o(s) et^i. On yj.kLhol see § ^2'^. 
 
 Nominative Plural. 
 
 (i) Masculine and feminine. In Chios 174 B 24 we find i 
 "Xarraovis. In Hdt. ajjL€LVov€S (but ajuetrous V jS), TrXevves '.l 
 (ttK^ovs II 8, where ]i d z have TrXetovs, and II 120, where alljj 
 MSS. have irXeLovs), Kpicraove^, (Xaa-aovei, fxe^oves, KaKioves, 
 ecrcroves. Hippokrates has -TrAetoz'ej II 58, 84, irXetov^ II 642, 
 668 (ijis), fxetovs II 628, /SeArtous II 24, iXdcrcrovi II 646, jx^Covs 
 II 628, ijcrcrovi II 646 (7^0-0^ A C H). Demokritos 115 has I 
 TrAeoi-e?, Xenophanes 3^ jxeiovi, Theog-nis Kpeaaovei 618, 996. 
 
 The nominative plural in -ovs was also carried over into the 
 accusative. 
 
 (2) NeiBer {^nominative and accusative). In inscriptions we 
 find ix€(ova Oropos 18^^, TrAeco Miletos lOO^. Hdt. has eXd(T(T(a 
 (iXdao-ova III I02 accusative), Kpecra-U), afxeCvoo, TrAeco [itXiova II, 
 145, where ABC read -nXeiova), jue'Co) [p.i(ova nom. VIII '^'], 
 accusative I 26, II 68 v^\\QxeP lidz have iitCco, II 148, III 102). 
 In Hippokrates we find irXeio} II 650 nominative and III 482 
 accusative, irX^ova VI 368, d/zetfco II 30, [id^ova II 52, /M6tC<w H 
 624, ixiC^ 324, III 450, eAao-o-om VIII 36 [6), iXdacroy II 24 
 306, xeipco II 702, /xet'co III 534» kokico II 306, Kpicrcroi VI 14 
 Demokritos 92, Anaxag. 14 [tjis) have TrAeco, a form adopted b) 
 Mullach in Melissos 3, where Simplicius read ttAcico ; Protagoras' 
 has Kpeicro-co [sic), Anaxagoras 6, 14 eAcicro-co, 6 ixeC^m (Simpl.) 
 In Theognis 702 we find irXeCova, in Herodas 335 ttAc'co. 
 
552.] STEMS IN NU. 435 
 
 Genitive Plural. Hdt. -nXeovcav and TrXewwi;; TrAetoVcoy 
 Demokr. 20. On hyper-Ionic -^cav, see § 480. 
 
 Dative Plural. The regular termination is -at, e.g. in Maxe- 
 goViy Olynthos 8 B 9, eAa(r[o-]oo-[t] Keos''43^, ixviqixlcxr^iv Halik. 
 238j(,. Theognis has vi](f)o(Tt 481, 627, Xenophanes 2^ ayoia-Lv, 
 Archil. 747 SeA^icrt. Hdt. has -nXeom II 53, VIII 69 (TrAeiWt ^), 
 IX 122 (TrAetoo-t ABC), and so in Hippokr. Ill 450 in many 
 MSS. (Littr^ TrAeiWt); jxeCom I 194, ^vhaijxoai II 78. 
 
 An irregular -^ai, recalling the ending of 'ivecnv, ^191, &c., 
 OCClU'S in baLTViJLOvecn Hdt. VI 57 {-ecrcrt A B), irXeovecnv VII 224 
 in B d. Neither of these forms is to be adopted. ixrjv€<n (§ 543) 
 reminds one of Aiolic ixrjvvecn C.D.I. 213^2-13) though in that 
 form one a does duty for two. aTTXi]ve(n, found in Hippokrates 
 III 432, 450, 452, 496, IV 120, 148, 156, 160, 218, 220, is 
 a noteworthy form for o-rrArjo-t. 
 
 jjye/xoVerro-ti; Solon ig is not to be expelled though not Ionic, 
 because of the existence of Homeric forms in his diction. The 
 conjectures of Tick [B. B. XIV 254) i^y^ixovoxxn or i^y^ixov^vcn are 
 improbable on other grounds. TrAeoreo-o-t in Theog. 800 is 
 Homeric. 
 
 Accusative Plural (^masculine and feminine). In Hdt. the 
 (Attic TiAeiou? occurs I 167 for which Stein has substituted 
 [ TrAeto-Tovs, Bredow -n-Aeou? or TrAeCyas; in II 120, II 121 (8) Stein 
 treads TrAeou? where all MSS. have TrAetou?. TrAeCi^as is the com- 
 mon form. On TrXevvas or irXeovas see § 287. Other forms are 
 \ai(r)(^LOi>as, jxe^ovas, eacrovas, eXdacrovas, aixetvovas (ajxeivovs V 93 
 !(a) in C). Hippokrates adopts ajxeivov^ II 92, -nX^iovs 20, 308, 
 •■^(.Xriovas II 6^, irXdovas 278^ Vita Horn. 34 irXiiovs. Theog. 605 
 I has irXiovas. 
 
 Ionic uses the longer forms more frequently in nominative 
 and accusative plural (masculine and feminine), the shorter more 
 •frequently in accusative singular, in nominative, accusative, and 
 vocative plural (neuter). 
 
 If we compare the Ionic comparatives (nu stems) as attested 
 by inscriptions with their Attic kindred, it is clear that the older 
 forms were retained for some time by the lonians, and that at 
 a comparatively early date those derived from sigmatic stems 
 icame into use. But in Attika we find in the epigraphic 
 Imonuments down to the opening of the first century b. c, only 
 {such forms as 1x^1(0), ttAcico, eAarrco ; afj-eivovs, iXdrrovs, TrAeious. 
 (Forms in -ova, -ov€s, -ovas appear in Athens with Sulla. 
 
 j Later Ionic does not use ir\e€s, TrXdasK^TrXe-iff-es, <.*ir\€-i(T-as. Cf. Horn, 
 yXe'ex, Kretan ttAUs, Horn. irKtas, Kret. irXiavs. 
 
 F f 2 
 
43^' THE IONIC DIALECT. [^^^. 
 
 Adjectives. 
 
 553.] Varying" case forms have been discussed under De- 
 clension of Nouns. On -noXXos, Trovkvs see §§ 254, 479. On 
 •Ti-Aeo?, -nXaj, -nXiov full, see § 478. In the following- are 
 mentioned some words whose structure is of interest^ and others 
 not recorded in L. S. 
 
 Hdt. has o-ws I 34, III 1 24^ IV 76. A feminine o-o/t] is found 
 in Babrios 94g (o-wrjy). For crooi', occurring- in Hdt. II 181, 
 (xSiov {CP) may be substituted. This form has come to light on 
 an Attic inscription C. I. A. I 369. a-Qtot should be read V 96, 
 
 VIII 39, of. o-wat I 66, (rSia IV 124, VI 86 (a), rrcowy II 121 (^3). 
 In these passages Stein wrongly adopts <t6os. [o-Jo'at ? Hrd. 699. 
 
 In I 194 Cwo's is found [((as R d) and so in II 122 {(^lov 
 A B C P); and in Ai'chiL 63^ (mov is the MS. reading for which 
 Porson substituted (oov. In 633 [Archil.] has ^coot. 
 
 TTtetpa is found in Hippokr. II 90, VII 516 [vnlgo], II 76 
 {-nUpa). -niapos in VII 512, 514 (and 516 according- to Littre) 
 has been emended to to irlap, because Tnapos appears only in ? 
 later Greek. Anakreon's Tre-neipa (87) recalls -nUipa, which in 
 Homer exists alongside of r] TrCwv. al -niir^ipoi Hippokr. VI 562 ; 
 Tri-ncipov II 306, 308, Triirupos VIII 228 {6) have been attacked 
 in favour of the feminine forms. 
 
 Hdt. has -ens for -errjs, e.g. TpirjKOVToiTihas cnrovhas VII 149! 
 (-aeriSas B d z). Noteworthy is k-nriXvha cOvea VIII 73. 
 
 ahai]s in Abdera 162 (epigram), is a word known to Hdt,; 
 
 IX 46, but not to Homer, who has abarjixoiv. ' 
 avripiOevToi Chios 174 B 25-26 is from epiOos with the initial 
 
 vowel lengthened in composition. In avepiOtvTos the lengthening 
 has not taken place. j 
 
 aXopy- and akovpy- : see § 295, III. ■ 
 
 (Tivboov ^t? Samos 220^9. A IS is all that is preserved. Since 
 there appears to be no break after the word, it must not be filled 
 out by Ato-(Tj). Cf. Odyssey 12. 79: Trerpri yap At? iart, and 
 Atrt, Atra. Atro's occurs in this Samian inscription (1. 23). 
 
 With recr(cr)epaKate/38o[/:x?;]902Toi'7Tj9 Paros 58, cf. Trei'TrjKOVTO-' 
 yvos Iliad IX 579, k^rfKovTatTi] Mimn. 62, oyhodKovTa^Tii Solon 20^ 
 
 7rpa)ro'rju,r;ros, found only Paros 67 (period of the empire), isj 
 applied to the hair of an ephebos. 
 
 avToiKos Zeleia 114 E 6. 
 
 Adjectives of two or three endings, eprjixos (§ 123) in Hdt 
 has usually two, rarely three, endings. eVoi/xo? has sometimei 
 three endings. Hippokr. has rj apnos, Hdt. rj rjXCdios. avXeio 
 has usually no feminine in early Greek except in Horn, and Hdt 
 
 i 
 
554-] ADJECTIVES. 437 
 
 so hovXeLos (SouXrjtr/ Hdt. Ill 1 4). In Hdt. eSco§t/xo? has tliree, 
 iTTTrdo-tjuos three, but two in IX 13, Aoyt//os three, but two in 
 VI 106, TTapadaXdaa-Los varies (but two VI 48 ; VII no, VIII 
 23 three) ; atrto? and ixeTapcnos have three, ineTeios three^ but 
 two in II 9a ; avTOixdrj] is found in Hippokr. VI 326. 
 
 Apollon. Adv. 6o2=:Schn. 1895 states that Ionic adopts the -7; 
 forms in compounds instead of the -0 of the stem, and cites 
 infer aha bpKi'>]T6iios, aljjiriTTOTrjs. 
 
 554.] Comparison of Adjectives (Regular). Forms which 
 do not differ from those in use in Attic or not noteworthy for 
 other reasons are not adduced. 
 
 I. -repos, -Taros. 
 
 Hdt. has iTpr}VT€pos (Plato irpaorepos), (Spaxvrepos, rayvrepos, 
 rayvrepov and Oaa-aov as adverbs. Hippokr. and Arrian have 
 TaxvTepov. olnrpoTepos is Herodoteian. New Ionic is KCLvorepos 
 and oretTOrepos = Attic Kevo- and arevo-. Melissos 14 has 
 K€ve(aT€pos. Kvbporepos is found in Xenoph. 2g, Ion 2jq, Ki^^tcrro? 
 Theog. 904. From adjectives in -00s we have dOpodrepos, 
 €VTTVo(aT€pos, hv(nrvoa>T€pos (-irvovcrrepos Hippokr. II 154)^ evpoco- 
 repos, evxpo(oTepos, XevKoxpocoTcpos in Hippokrates. vjSpLo-TOTepos 
 Hdt. Ill 81 and not -to-repo?. 
 
 dvbpritoTepos Hdt. I 79 (-etco- d, -eto- ceter'i), -rjLOTaTos IV 93 
 (-eto- MSS.), IX 37 (-eo)- Venetus 8, -eto- ceteri). In I 133 
 Stein reads di-Spetcorarw, in all the other passages -rjto-. -rjo- is 
 correct. 
 
 IpoiTOLTas is read by Stein V 82 (cf. Attic tepco-), where \po- of 
 P [jyr.) r is better. 
 
 In VII 99 we have ^vho^oTara^ (-wr- d). 
 
 Hdt. has otKTjtoVaros III 65 (-?/o- R, -rj'ioi)- P d z, -f 10- Prise), 
 V 5 (-eto- r) according to Stein. Since tji cannot hei'e be 
 regarded as two sounds, we must write -rioraTos with Schulze, 
 K. Z. XXIX 252. iTTLTTjbeoTepos and -oTaros are read by Stein. 
 I would adopt -eto-^ which occurs as follows: I no -eco- in 
 CPz, -eto- ABd; I 126 -eo)- C F, -eo- A B, -eio- Rdz; IV 72 
 -(00- CP z, -eto- AB d,-eo- B; VI 102 -ao- A,-eo- B, -(.(a- reliqid, 
 except B which has -to- ; IX 2 -eo- ABB; IX 25 -eo- ABB. 
 j In 1 1 15 Stein cites only A B with -eo-, II 133 -eco- B corr. P dz. 
 How e7j-tr?j8eo?, even if correct (§ 219, 5), can yield -eoTepos, 
 -eoVaros, I do not see. Hippokrates II 334 has the correct form 
 dveTnTrjheLOTipos. 
 
 2. -ecrrepos, -ecrraTos ^. 
 
 Hdt. has aTTOvbaLiarrepos I 8, -iararos I 133, as Hekataios 
 
 ^ Fritseh, F. Jf. D. 43, prefers -j/o-, which is nowhere found. Demokr. has 
 eVtTTjSeteVraTos (Eust. 1441,5). 
 
 Et. M. 3I7 alSoieffTUToy, a^pQoviaraTov TrotTjTj/ca, /car' eSos 'Idivoov yiv6ixiva.; 
 «f- 3945, 42 Oj. 
 
438 THE IONIC DIALECT. [S55' 
 
 apnd Eust. 1441 ^ (Hdt. -oraTos II 86), afj.op(})i(TTaT09 I 19*5, 
 ayvooiJioveaTepos IX 41, vynqpiaTaTO'S II 77 ^^^ vyu]p6TaTos IV 187, 
 (ppoopL^viarepos IX JO, evvoicTTtpos V 24; r](TVX€<TTepo9 Hippokr. 
 VI 76, 80 {-aLTepov A C), II 154 (some MSS. -airepos which 
 Littre adopts), aKpr)Te(TTepo<i II 496, VI 74, 80, 82, 84 (-eoraroj 
 VI 82), ivbUa-Taros II 54; o-cfuXriKicrrepos VI 186. 
 
 3. -airepos, -aiTaros. 
 
 li^craiTaTos Hdt. IV 1 7 is not an analogue of TraXaiTepos, which 
 occurs in Homer and in Hdt. I 60, but formed from ^^p.i(rai (cf. 
 fieaaiTToXLos Hom.) as TTakairepos from TraAat ^. jxiaa-aTos is 
 found in Theog. 998. Hippokr. has y^pairepos II 162, 334, 
 VI l86j IX 50, the Homeric form; TrArjo-tairepo) occurs in Hdt. 
 IV 112, but 'napaTiXr](noiTaTi]v V 87. These forms are sporadic; 
 as is clear from Hippokratic oxj/Lrepos, Platonic 6\\naiT€pov. 
 ohwaiT^pov Hippokr. Ill 478 {y. I. -(arepov) is a noteworthy form 
 from obvvrjpos. 
 
 555.] Irregular Comparison of Adjectives. ayaOos: afxeivo- 
 Tepo9 Mimn. 149; on Kpiaaodv see § 142; apeCcov Hippokr. VIII 
 58, apeiorepos Theog". 548 ; fiiXrepos Theog. 92, 181^ 866, jS^Xtiov 
 Mimn. 2^0. KaKiMv Archil. § 196. ^(tipov Hippokr. II 680. 
 X^iporipri IX 240 is to be read xeipto-Tr;. On ^cracov see § 139. 
 
 iXdaaodv § 1 63. oXiyos (notice the use Hdt. IX 70), oAtyw- 
 T€pos Hippokr., oAtXcoi; § 377. On fX€(Mv see § 142, ttAcW, fl 
 
 irXiov § 552. In Hipj)okr. VIII ^6 6 has TrAe'a for irXeova of G 
 and irXiiova of the vulgate. On itXia and connected forms, see 
 Collitz, B. B. X 306. 
 
 p7]i8to9 or p?/8tos yields prjiTcpos or py^repos. prjLrepu)^ Hippokr. 
 VIII 10, but palov in 6 VIII 124, 274 for pijtov. In the first 
 case Littr^ adopts pd'iov, in the second pqov. Hippokr. VII 196 
 p-qXov according to Littre {v. I. pf]ov, pdov, &c.). pyhiov Theog. 
 577 {p'Tfi-ov conj.). paov is found in Theog. 429, pj]T€pov 1370. 
 
 dvrjLos yields dvi]L(TTos in Phoinix of Kolophon ap. Athen, XI if 
 495 D, Horakl. 1 14, Anaxag. 10, Pythag. ap/ul Diog. L. VIII 49, 
 Aretaios 331. The comparative exists in Nikander Alex. 62^, 
 [6in]iov). 
 
 Of TTtTTcov the comparative is TTeireLpoTepos in Hippokr. VI 554 ' 
 (6). TTto'repos Hippokr. VII 512, 516, 77toVaro? VII 512. piyiov 
 Mimn. 4.2. ^lAo? requires the aid of pLaXXov and jxaXLara in Hdt. 
 d)KVT€po<i Theog. 715, 986, 1306, wKLara 427 (cf. O 238). 
 Heightened superlatives are rare in Ionic prose. Hippokr... 
 VI 522 has iyyia-TOTara. 
 
 From adverbs or prepositions are formed dvcorepo^ Hippokr.' 
 Ill 528, dvdiraTO's Hdt. II 125; KaTcorepos Hippokr. Ill 528;- 
 dyxoVepos Hdt. VII i y^. 
 
 ^ With the adverbs in -at, cf. those in -ai in Lithuania. 
 
557-1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 439 
 
 bovXos is an adjective Hdt. VII 7 [bovXoTeprji') ; of. avefxoi 
 v€T(oTaToi, II 25^ fiaaLk€VT€pos Tyrt. 127. 
 
 556.] Comparison of Adverbs. Some noteworthy forms are 
 fjaaovois Hippokr. VI 14 (in A according' to Gomperz), OeLoripMs 
 Hdt. I 122; ia-)(^vpoTepcos III 129, evTreTeaTepoos III 143 ; LKavo)- 
 T6.T0iS Hippokr. VI 24, ia-xdroisYI 14, eAaxtVrco? IX 254. Hdt. 
 has KaTO)TaT(a, aa-crov (Sim. Am. 726' 33)' ^yx^''"'^^^ {^' ^- "''"^ i^^ 
 A jB Cd VII 64), ay)(^L(TTa, irXrjcnaLripM, irpoa-MTepcii, Trpoo-oorarco and 
 -coTara, ra^repov and Qacrarov. Hippokr. has i^ooTarM, TrjXoTepco, 
 iyyiov VI 568, eyyLCTTOTaTa, TTekaaraTCd (VI 298, 340, VIII 140, 
 292), Ta)(yT€pov. 
 
 p.d\iov, a specifically Ionic form according to Choiroboskos 
 (An. Ox. II 24O2), is found Tyrt. 126- Cf. § 163. ixakXov 
 occurs in Archil, tetr. 63^, Theog-. 598, &c. [xaXtcarepa^ is 
 suggested by Bergk for the jxakKoiTepa of Solon 2715. 
 
 Perso7ial Pronouns. 
 
 In his treatment of the Ionic pronouns Apollonios Hyskolos 
 draws upon Homer with but few exceptions. On the Herodo- 
 teian forms, see Ekedahl, De itsu jyron. pers. et reji. Kerodoteo, 
 1885. Dual forms do not occur in post-Homeric Ionic. 
 
 557.] First Person. 
 
 1. eyw Hippon. 62,, Anan. 4^, Anakr. Sj, 74^, Solon 2^, 
 Xenoph. 7^, Theog. 878, 1226, &c., Hdt., &c. eycoy occurs 
 in Theognis in only three places (253, 527, 968) though possible 
 elsewhere, except in 27. This form is found in all dialects 
 except New Ionic and Attic. In Theognis eywy occurs only 
 before vowels as in Horner^ and with the second syllable in the 
 arsis of the second foot. 
 
 2. e/xeo^ in Homer (K 124), in Demokritos, and Pherekydes 
 according to Apoll. 82 C, Hdt., epist. Hippokr. 27,9. 
 
 e/xeC^ Horn., Archil, epod. 92, Mimn. 140, Theog. 957, iioi, 
 1235, Pherekydes, and Demokritos (Apoll. 82 C), Hdt., and 
 also in late Doric texts. 
 
 e/xeto * is found in Homeric Ionic, not in prose. 
 
 ' Cf. Hesychios' /ndxiov' fiaWov, and ixoKioiTfpa' irpoacpiXeffTepa. 
 
 ^ An. Par. Ill 317,9, Et. Gud. 43625 (cf. 169,7), An. Ox. I I4328> 322.8) -A-n. 
 Bachm. (Max. Plan.) II 6633. ifieo is called Attic An. Ox. I 1563,. 
 
 ' Hdn. I 474,8 = 11 330^6 = Joh. Alex. 23,8, An. Ox. I 399^; Ionic and Doric, 
 Apoll. 82 C and Adv. 1856 (Schn.) ; Doric, An. Ox. I 15632 and An. Par. Ill 
 31719. 
 
 * An. Ox. I 131^, 15631, iroiTjTiKSis Choirob. Orthogr. in An. Ox. II 202 
 
 18- 
 
440 THE IONIC DIALECT. [557. 
 
 The Attic e/iou ^ appears sometimes in the MSS., e.g. Archil, 
 ep. Ill, Theog-. 100, 262, 697, 1203, 1240, 1340, 1342, in Hdt. 
 occasionally, and in Herakl. i. In the spurious portions of 
 Theognis e/xoS is probably correct, as -ou in other words 
 ('A't8ou). 
 
 jueu^ Hipponax 63 (tr.), Anakr. 76, 81^ Homer, Hdt., Herodas 
 (about ten times). 
 
 \xov is incorrect in Hippon. 83 tetr. It is found in Theognis' 
 second book (1366). 
 
 3. ejuoi Mimn. 83, Theog. 14, Hippon, 19^, 2O1, Sim. Amorg. 
 1 20 {yidgo hi ixol). Anakr. 24 {(fJLotye 7), Hdt., &c. 
 
 IxoL Mimn. i^, Theog. 787, &c., Hippon. 19^, Anakr. 50^, 
 Hdt., &c. 
 
 4. (jxi Anakr. 45, Sol. 193, Hdt., &c. jue Hipponax 78, 
 Anakr. 25, 47, Solon 43^, Naxos 23, 24, Theog. 88, Hdt., &c. 
 
 5. Tj/xets Mimn. 2^, Solon 152, Theog. 513, &c. (Theognis 
 does not use the Doric d/xes), Hdt., Hippokr., Lukian (%r. dea 2, 
 Aslr. 4), Arrian hid. 34^2 > 35c ' &c. Hyper-Ionism overreaches 
 itself with its T/juees, which Mullach has adopted in Demokritos, 
 PJiT/s. 1, despite the statement of Apollonios^ and the testimony 
 of the MSS. of Sextus Empiricus who quotes the fragment, 
 ^juees appears in the supposititious letters of Hippokrates twice, 
 and Thales (a)l See below on v/xet?. 
 
 6. r]ix€oov^ Hdt., Hippokr. (in II ^16 A has rjixcov), Herakl. 
 114, Philip of Pergamum [B.C.H. II 273), &c. 
 
 r]ixecov Theog. 353 (thus A, y]ixQ)v reliqui), Solon 13^^; Herodas 
 1 2 and often, Phoinix of Kolophon II 20 (Schneid.). 
 
 r]iiGiv Theog. 228, a verse of Solon {I'^-j.^. In the MSS. of i 
 the latter we find j//xecoz^, not i)fxG>v, as we might expect. In the 
 MSS. of Hdt. rniG>v is unusual [d in I 1 1 2), as it is in Hrd. (I48). : 
 
 rjixduiv^, a molossus, Hrd. i^g. In the same line we havei 
 }]ixia}v. Crusius gives the foi-m a place in his edition, though' 
 even in H6mer it occurs but four times. 
 
 .7- ^/MLi'' Theog. 345, 467, 833, 1213, 1215, Archil. 39^ (trim.),' \ 
 Sim. Amorg. 3^, 13J, Anakr. 2^, Herodas 2^^. yjixlv is both' 
 Old and New Ionic, and is the only form in Ionic prose. 
 
 ^ Called Ionic by Tzetzes Ex. II. 9325, and on Hsd. W. D. 225 (Gaisf.). In 
 the first passage fied and i/iov are called Doric and Aiolic. 
 ^ An. Ox. I 14329. 
 
 * Apoll. Pronom. 118 B. 
 
 * In some MSS. of Hdt. we find the open form, II 6 (P), IV 139 (.s\ VI iv 
 (CP), VIII 29 {R), 144 (i?) &c. Aldus regarded this form as a mark of lonism. 
 and adopted it when it was without MS. authority (VIII 143, IX 87). 
 
 * Apoll. Pronom. 120 C, Joh. Gramm. 242. 
 
 * Joh. Gramm. 242 B. 
 
 ' An. Ox. I 5i, rj/xTv {rifuv? , II 216^3 (Choir.), Apollonios 123 A. 
 
55^.] PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 441 
 
 ^fiiv ^ occurs in Homer and Attic ^, but does not occur in 
 post-Homeric poetry or prose composed by an Ionian. Whether 
 vixlv or vju-Lv should be read in Theog-nis 235 with cod. is 
 doubtfuh Most of the MSS. have i)ixlv. Among* them is A, 
 which alone presents the correct reading- of the following verse. 
 
 rjixLv Anakr. 43^, 6^-^, Hrd. 7^5. Why Bergk should adopt this 
 form in Anakr. 622 in preference to i][jLiv, is not clear. 
 
 Aiolic (epic) a/x/xw occurs in Theog. 418. 
 
 8. rjfX€as^ is the inscriptional form (Miletos g6, of the fifth 
 century, where the smooth breathing is correct), and that 
 adopted by Hdt., who is followed by Lukian, Abydenos, Euseb. 
 Mynd., Arrian 34^^, ^g (but cf. (T(f)as). The letters of Hippokrates 
 have fourteen cases of t)ix4as, one (X) of rjixas, Aretaios fifteen 
 cases of rjixias to one (267) of ^juSj. Philip of Perg-amum has 
 flix4as, B. C. H. II ZT^. 
 
 rjixeas Arch, g^, at the end of the pentameter, Herodas I9, 2g, 
 7gg. In Homer rjixeas may always be read. 
 
 rjiJLas * Theog. 1 21 5 and in Herodas frag. (6), C^ass. Rev. V 481. 
 
 Aiolic (epic) a/u./xe occurs in Theog. 1273. 
 
 558.] Second Person. 
 
 1. (TV Archil. 883, Hipponax 32, Anakr. 26, Hrd. 4j8, Theog. 
 696, 781, though the Doric form is tv. Herodotos and the 
 other Ionic prosaists have cru. 
 
 2. crio in Herodotos ; and twenty-three times in Homer. 
 
 o-eS^ Sol. 2O2, Theog. 253, 516 (thirty-four times in Homer). 
 The Solonian form shows that the poet did not write in his 
 native dialect. 
 
 o-ei; Theog. 377 Hrd. i.^g, 231, 521.39. 783- 
 
 aov^, the Attic form, Theog. 414, 1239, Hrd. igg. 
 
 (Tov in Hippon. tr. yS cannot be Ionic. It occurs also in 
 Theog. 969. 
 
 o-eio in Theog. 1 and aid^v 123Z are epic. 
 
 ' Apoll. 123 A says ro eyKXiyo/j-fVov irap"'lai(n crvcrreWfi rh i' (Tr}fj.eico5es, Ka6h 
 ai iyK\iv6/j.fva,L rhv avrhv xp^^o^ <pv\aTTOv(Ti Tois opOoTovov/xeuais, and then cites 
 Doric a^iv and afji.iv. The Et. M. 8421 wrongly calls riixiv Doric, but is correct 
 about an Ionic rifny. Cf. also Hdn. II 51720) An. Ox. II 21613 C^M"'); Eust. 
 
 I 111231.37, cf. 161I3, 16704, 169O13; Bekk. An. Ill 115O10; An. Ox. I 18831 
 
 ; states that the I is found in Ionic, Doric, and Aiolic. In An. Ox. I 1S81, g 
 the Homeric forms rnxiv A 147 (where a long ultima had to be assumed on 
 
 1 account of the following eKaepyov) and fifj.11/ P 415 are referred to. 
 
 ! ° iifiiv is almost a characteristic of Sophokles' style in contrast with that of 
 Aischylos and Euripides. 
 
 , ^ Apoll. 126 C, Schol. Ven. A on 352. 
 
 j * iifias if enclitic, Apoll. 127 A citing n 372, the only example in Homer. 
 In Sophocles some prefer to write ^ifxas. 
 
 ° An. Bachm. (Max. Plan.) II 66,2 ; Doric and Ionic ibid. II 36732 ( = Gram. 
 Par. 678). 
 ^ Tzetz. on Hsd. W. D. 225 (Gaisf.). 
 
442 THE IONIC DIALECT. [558. 
 
 3. o-ot'i Mimn. 8^, Theog-. 14, 27, Archil. 883, Theog. 6^^ (see 
 below on toi), Paros 60 (epigr.), and in Ionic prose. 
 
 rot Kail. 20, Sim. Amorg-. 7jq8, Hippon. 162 tr., Arcliil. 79, 
 Anakr. 753, 95 (eleg.), Theog. 95, 465 tol in A, vulcjo aoL, 6^^ (?), 
 634, 6^^ in A (Bergk aoi), 656, 13 19. Doric to'ktFoi appears 
 nowhere in Theognis. Renner holds that for enclitic aoi in 
 Theognis tol (=:Skt. fe) should be substituted (88, 407 (here 
 Bergk reads rot for A's aoC), 695, 776); and also for o-ot in 1238, 
 
 Sitzler opines that aoi as an enclitic should be retained in 
 Theognis. The older elegy differentiated aoi and toi after the 
 Homeric fashion, aoi in Hipponax 2O3 is correct according to 
 Bergk. The MSS. have toi, which I would adopt. Herodotos 
 has rot (unemphatic). 
 
 Herodoteian usage is (with but very little opposition in the MSS.) in j 
 agreement with that of Homer in its differentiation of ffoi and roi. Both 
 Homer and Herodotos agree in differing herein from Attic and the other 
 dialects. 
 
 4. (re Mimn. 7^, Hippon. 28, 31 (or' and cri), 64^, Anan. 4,, 
 Anakr. 2^, 40 (o-e), 72 B, 95, Theog. 5, 93, 103, 559, 873, &c. 
 (Theognis does not use ai), Herodas 43 ; and in Ionic prose. 
 
 5. vixels Theog. 493 (Theognis does not use the Doric form 
 vixi^), Herodas 235, 7oi. The proper form in Ionic prose is 
 vfxfi'i, never vjuee?, though the latter form appears in F R z, in 
 Hdt. VIII 22, and in Lukian's Vit. auct. § 13, where it is' 
 adopted in Sommerbrodt^s critical edition (12 F have vfxels). 
 Apollonios Pjwiom. 1 1 8 B expressly warns against the adoption 
 of the open form^. 
 
 6. vixiiov^ Herodotos, Hippokrates, and other Ionic prosaists, 
 e.g. Lukian Fit. atict. § 13. Herodas has one (227) distinct case 
 of v\xi(Xiv (-W-), the only occurrence of such an open genitive, 
 in poetry. 
 
 v\i.iii>v Solon 1I5 according to Diogenes Laert., while Plutarch. 
 Clemens, and Diodoros have the Attic v\x.Siv. {/[leoiiv appears; 
 
 I 
 
 1 Apoll. 104 C. 
 
 * T)IJ.i1s, v/xels, aipeis. tffTi iriffTwcraffdai koL th aSialperov rr/s evdelas irap ''iwffii' 
 4k ritiv TTfpl At] fioKp IT ov, i>epeKvSTiy, 'EKaralov. rh yap iv EiSw\0(pai'el' ^^ v/ief' 
 AIoKlov Trepixevere" Trapa. UapOey'ttj) i/irh iroi-qriKrjs aSflas irapa\7](p6eu ov Karaipfvatra 
 SiaAfKTov TTiffTovjXfvrjs iWoyifxois avyy pa(pfvcnv. Tlie mention of ParthenioS' 
 innovation may be regarded as evidencing a desire on the part of Apollonio!; 
 to counteract current views as to the nature of Ionic in respect of vowel,! 
 openness. Cf. § 113 ff. The appearance of such an hyper-Ionic* form ii 
 a poet who was a teacher of Vergil is specially noteworthy. Tzetzes, irep 
 fifTpoov An. Ox. Ill 3337, has vfiees in an hexameter. i 
 
 ^ Apoll. 122 A, who also cites the form from a Doric source (Sophron 79)1 
 thougli vficiv is the genitive in that dialect. Apoll. also mentions the Homeri; 
 pfiiiwv {y 7). Joh, Gramm. 241 B, 242 B refers to both as Ionic. 
 
 { 
 
 i 
 
559-1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 443 
 
 often in Herodas. In Homer the form occurs four times ; in O 
 494 we find vixecov. 
 
 vfjLcov in Archil, tetram. 74^ I would emend to vixeojv. 
 
 The epic vjulmv (four times) is not employed in post- Homeric 
 Ionic. 
 
 7. vix'lv^ Archil. 891, Soh iig, Theog-. 825, Hrd. ijg, 2],,^,, and 
 in Ionic prose, vij.lv occurs in Hrd. 4.^9. On v[xiv, Eerg-k^'s 
 reading" of Theog. 235^, see under ijixLv. 
 
 8. v/xea? Herodotos, Hippokrates, &e. The fictitious letters 
 of the latter have this form seven times, vixas in 2739 (in 2739 the 
 MSS. vary), viias is found in the Fifa Homeri § 19, Hrd. 7j,g. 
 
 vp.ia<s is everywhere possible in Homer, and is so read in Hrd. 
 ^60^ 755; in 7n8 read 17/xea?. 
 
 vixfx (epic) Theog. 1104 in A, other MSS. v/xa? or vjxjxas. 
 Bergk conjectures vp,as or liixa^. But the latter form occurs only 
 once in Homer (tt 372), and the former is quite unkno\vn to the 
 epos. 
 
 559.] Third Person. 
 
 The original usage of this pronoun has not been restricted in 
 Ionic as in Attic. 
 
 1. eS^ in Herodotos occurs only in the enclitic form (III 135); 
 Ion 'ETTtg. I {Frag. Hist. Gr. II 46). 
 
 2. ot^ always appears in the enclitic form in the lyric poets : 
 iXenoph. i^^, 2^, Theog. 178, ]86, 391, 405, 519, 1256, 1376, 
 I Solon 42^ (melos), Archil. 292, 97, Sim. Amorg. 7^9, Hrd. 4gQ. 
 
 foi Rhegion 5, according to Bechtel, is Doric. In Mimn. 129 
 
 Xva ol Ooov is to be rejected for Iva hi] 6. In Hdt. IV 34, VI 119 
 
 I we find 06 used of things neuter iii gender. Here as elsewhere 
 
 in Hdt. the form is enclitic and^avrw, avrf]. See also Lukian 
 
 de domo § 20. I do not find the orthotone dl. 
 
 3. 'i<(TFe as an enclitic occurs in Solon 1327 by a conjecture 
 of Hermann. 
 
 4. o-^eis^ in Hdt. (indirect reflexive IV 43, VII 168). 
 
 5. (r(f)i(ov ^ in Hdt. (enclitic, neuter V 58) and Hippokrates II 
 312 but a(f)wv avT€(j)v II 58 in the vulgate {acjyeoov adopted by 
 Littre), III 194 ((r(^(Sy Littre). 
 
 ^ Apoll. Pronom. 124 B, who notices that v/xiv is the enclitic form. This is 
 confined to Homer and Attic, unless we admit it in Theognis. 
 
 ^ An. Bachm. (Max. Plan.) II 6632; Apoll. 136 B calls to Ionic. 
 
 ' Apoll. Pronom. 105 C. 
 Greg. Korinth. § 70 ; rh aipels koL a(pa.s Koi <T<pS)v Siaipovtri Kot ovtoj Trpo(pepov(n' 
 )<r^€fs, (r(pfas, ff(p4oiu. Tliis does not apply in the case of o-i^ers, and is flatly 
 icontradicted by Apoll. Pi-onom. 118 B, who expressly attests crtpils as Ionic. 
 See on vfxus. In no case do the MSS. of Hdt. support Gregory's statement, 
 nor is there any such epic form. Even Aldus refrains from (r(pUs. 
 
 ' Joh. Gr. 242, Greg. Kor. 70 (rcpeuy. 
 
444 THE IONIC DIALECT. [559. 
 
 6. o-(/;t { = avToU, avrals) in Herodotos is enclitic. This form 
 is rare in Attic [0. K. 421, where Elmsley read o-^ty : see on 
 Medea 398). 
 
 ac})tv^, enclitic, occurs in Archil. 743 (tetr.), 125, Sim. Keos 
 845, Theog. 66, 422, 732, 772. This form is also Doric and 
 Homeric, and is used in tragedy [Prom. 252, 457). 
 
 o-cpiaL ( = ea)i;rots, ecourats) Hdt. In V 103, VI 105, VIII 68 
 (j3), the pronoun is not reflexive. Stein here reads crept. The 
 MSS. vary constantly between a-cpia-L, acpi, and o-cPlv, When the 
 pronoun is reflexive, read acpCa-L, otherwise acpt (not crcpiv). Aldus 
 confuses o-c^t with ol in III 14. o-^tVi appears in Sim. Keos 
 1033, From. 481, 0. K. 59 (indirect reflexive). 
 
 7. (T(p^a9^ { = avTov9, avrds), enclitic in Hdt. but crcpas avrovs 
 Hippokr. II 78, where Littre's avriovs is not to be preferred to 
 the vulg-ate avrovs. Aretaios has acpeas five, acpas seven times. 
 The Vita Iloin. has a(pias § 17, and so Lukian V. J.. 14. In Archil. 
 272 (tr.) (Tcpeas, and so the Homeric a^ias may be read as a 
 monosyllable (see Menrad de contractiouis usu p. iii for o-(^as in 
 place of acpeas). 
 
 8. (Tcpea { = avTd), enclitic, Hdt. I 46, &c., also in Attic poets. 
 Cf. the Attic (poetical) nommative acpia. 
 
 9. acpL The epic and Doric ^ acpi (enclitic) appears in Theog. 
 552. In Hdt. VII 170 it is found in most of the MSS., and 
 here, if at all, it is to be accepted, Bekker and Abicht adopt 
 the o-^eas of the Cambridge (36, Askew) MS. In I 71 i2 con- 
 fuses o-^e with acpeas. Stein has no better authority for his 
 0-01 than the Aldine edition ; but finds for the construction of 
 the dative after iiTOTpvvo) a parallel in O 258. All the MSS. in 
 III ^^ have (T(p€ for cr^ea, which is due to Valckenaer. In III 
 52 Bredow emended acpe to a^ea. E confuses the two in I 89, 
 but here we have the guidance of other MSS. to show the 
 correctness of the latter form. 
 
 10. fXLP^ (enclitic) in the lyric poets is generally = avroV, some- 
 times = avr7^y : Hippon. 52 (trim.), Sim. Amorg. 78'1G'205 Kail,. 
 I20, Mimn. 1^, 143, 15, Xenoph. 6^, Tyrt. 1237, Solon 1341, 
 Theog. 195, 293, 310 in MSS., 1127, ii73> ^-347, Hrd. 33,. 
 7jo2- Ii^ Hdt. ixLv is anaphoric in all genders^ and also an equiva- 
 lent of ecouroV -r/p^ (ind. reflex.)''. It occurs in lon^s 'Em8. i, ir 
 
 ^ Apoll. 125 A, B ; Greg. Kor. 61 (tJ) ffcplcri a<ph xijovaiv) cannot refer t 
 Herodoteian usage. 
 
 - Apoll. 128 A (T<peas (M 43) and (T<pas {6 315), Greg. Kor, 70, Hdn. II I55:' 
 (N 276) (repeat enclitic. 
 
 ^ Apoll. 128 A, 131 A ; cf. Aiolic &o-<p€. 
 
 * Apoll. 108 A, schol. Ven. A on A 201, interlinear schol. on A 399. 
 
 * fiiv = avT6, e.g. in I 93, 178 (cf, II 138) ; in fxiv avTr)v I 205 ixiv is Kyros. i 
 
 * fxiv in Homer is not reflexive unless accompanied by avriy. 
 
 
56l.] THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 445 
 
 Protagoras, Lukian Syr. dea 4. \iiv has been expelled from 
 Eunietiides 631, Clweph. 622, 791, Sepiem 453, Trach. 388 in 
 favour of viv. The MSS. of Pindar have the Ionic (Homeric) 
 
 \^iv as well as the Doric vw'^. 
 
 [ II. viv Theog". 364 {etini) is called a Doric ^ form of the accu- 
 sative, but was used by the Attic tragic poets in trimeter for 
 evm, earn, id, eos, eas, ea. The above case is the sole instance 
 where Theognis seems to have adopted a Doric form in the 
 declension of the pronouns not differentiated by gender, viv is 
 plural in Bakkylides 8. In Herodas vtv is used more frequently 
 than ixiv (333,54,90)06? '^21)^ ^"^^ seems to be preferred after words 
 ending in s or v. 
 
 560.] Possessive Pronouns. Ijxos Homer, Hdt., Anakr. 12 A 
 I4g, &c., Theog. 530, 540, &c. <t6s Homer, Hdt., Theog. 360, 
 518,598,738, IC91, &c. T^o's (Epic, Aiolic, Doric^), Hdt. os 
 Homer (who has also eo'?), Sim. Amorg. 7j^2? Tyrt. lOg, Theog. 
 I920, Hdt. I 205 (the only occm-rence). a was used by Demo- 
 [kritos for Ihia according to Photios. rjniTepo? Homer, Hdt., 
 Tyrt. 5i,6j Solon i9g, Theog. ten times, rjixeripHo^ Anakr, 71. 
 vplnpos Homer, Hdt., Solon iij, 193. <T(l)6'i Hom., of one person 
 Theog. 712 ((r(f)f](rt TToXvcjipoa-vvaL^)', cf. Hsd. Theogony 398. In 
 iHomer o-c^o? is always used with reference to more than one. 
 ^f(l)€T€pos Theog. 142, Euseb. i, Hdt. (plur.). In Homer it is 
 used of more than one person. 
 
 T^e Demonstrative Pronouns. 
 
 661.] The Article and SSe. 
 
 I. The Article. 
 
 The lyric poets hold fast to a considerable extent the Homeric 
 ase of the ai'ticle as a demonstrative, e.g. Mimn. 23, 125, I4g, 
 Tyrt. 4io, lo^,, Xenoph. i^o, 73, Theog. 51, 104, 349, 392, 397, 
 398, 883, Solon 1358, 375, Archil. 745, 895, Sim. Amorg. 733. 
 [n Theognis we observe traces of the Homeric and Doric rot : 
 505 in A, 936 (Theog.?), 1062 (Mimn.). This rol even appears 
 n the Aldine edition of Herodotos*. Ionic, Attic, Aiolic, Thes- 
 
 ' Tycho Mommsen, in Fleckeisen's Jahrhucher 83, p. ^4 ff., pronounces in 
 avour of viv. 
 
 I " The horizon of Apollonios (108 A) is limited in that he restricts viv to 
 poric. It was doubtless Old Attic too. 
 
 ' It is noteworthy that Theognis does not use a form that Apoll. 1 35 A calls 
 poric, though it occurs in Homer. In tragedy reis is restricted to the melic 
 )arts. ■• 
 
 ' See Struve, Quaest. I 10. 
 
44^ . THE IONIC DIALECT. [562. 
 
 salian, Arkado-Kyprian displaced the older toC, rai, and adopted 
 01, at, which owe their origin to form-association with the 
 singular. Herodotos preserves the use of the article as a demon- 
 strative pronoun {e.ff. I 172, II 162, III 23, V 97, VII 6, IX 25). 
 6 oe is common in Hdt., and indicates^ as it does in Homer, not 
 merely a change of person, but also a change of action on the 
 part of the same person. In Hippokrates we find frequently the 
 phrase e-Trt rd . . . iirl rd [e.g. II 296, 328). It may be noted that 
 in inscriptions the article may or may not occur with proper 
 names when reference is made to descent, as, for example, in 
 noXvdpiqTos 6 ^lariaiov Thasos 723 and below, 1. 6 Ylokvdp-qTov 
 'ItTTtatou. 
 
 On the feminine rGiV, not rioiv, see § 444, on rats, § 450, rots, 
 
 §473.2,475-^ /; 
 
 2. New Ionic has o8e, /ySe, Tohe. : plural otSe, &c. The Homeric 
 rot(r8eo-t, roto-Secro-t have their parallels in later Ionic. In 
 Demokr. 13 we find rotcrSeo-t, a form that is put into the mouth 
 of Pythagoras by Lukian V. A. 5 (perhaps -Seo-o-i in ^). In ; 
 Hippokrates in certain adverbial phrases : irpos Toia-h^acnv VIII : 
 358 (jou(Th€(T(nv in 0, rotcrSe vulgo), avv rotcr^ecro-tz; VIII 268 [6), 
 372 (rots becraL 9, rots becrLV some other MSS.), 308 ev Tolarbecrcnv 
 [6, Littre roto-Seo-tf). All these forms occur in the treatise on 
 the Diseases of Women. 
 
 Like forms occur in Aiolic and in Thessalian. 
 
 562.] ouTos. Hdt. has toiovto, toctovto, rarely the -v forms, 
 eg. Ill 27, 85, VII 103 TOLovTov ', I 107, 178, 207, IV45, V50,, 
 VII 153 TO(TovTov, but they are frequently found in Hippokrates. 
 The difference between Old and New Ionic is noteworthy; for 
 Homer uniformly adopts the -v forms. The feminine tovtu)v in 
 Ionic and Attic is due to the analogy of the masculine. The 
 Dorians said ravrav, the Aiolians ravTav. So too oSrot, avrat are 
 made on the lines of oSros, avTa{r]). Even Theognis (638, 1057)' 
 does not qgiopt the Doric tovtol, Tavrai. On a very late inscrip- 
 tion from Teos (J3. C, H. IV 182) we find roma for ravTa^. 
 
 In the inflection of ovros hyper-Ionic e has obtained an 
 entrance into the MSS. of Herodotos and Hippokrates, of ihi 
 authors quoting the early Ionic prosaists, into Aretaios, Lukian 
 and later pseudo-Ionists. In Hdt. masculine and neuter Tovrim 
 (and avTeoov) are not supported by a consensus of MS. authority 
 In the case of Hippokrates the depravation has advanced fai 
 beyond the point reached in Herodotos. It has yielded sucl 
 forms as rovreov, roioi;reou,'rovre'<i), rotoureoo, rotoure'coi;, roDreots' 
 roureoto"t, rotoure'otcrt, rotoureous, rovTtovs. 
 
 ^ Joh. Gram. 243 B, Mcerm. 659 called tovtos Doric for ravras. ThL 
 statement is rejected by Ahrens. 
 
 I 
 
564.] THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 447 
 
 j In Heralvleitos are read ToiovTecov (2), roureotcrt^ (126), Lukian 
 '■ Vit. and. 4 Tovreotcrti', where 4' has tovtoktiv. Most of these 
 monstrous forms owe their existence to the perverse attitude of 
 the editors towards the Ionic dialect. The MSS. have affain 
 land again the correct form Tovrcxiv, not Tovrecov, e.g. Anaxag. 4, 
 19, \\, 14, Diog, Apoll, 2, Demokr. 304 (Toi^rew). See §§ 113- 
 II 16. On the feminine gender see § 447, 3. 
 
 I 563.] auTos (Pronoun of Identity). The oblique cases of 
 \avr6'i are used generally for the reflexive; though the MSS. of 
 Ithe lyric poets often have avrov, &c., e.g. Theog. 480, 539^ 895, 
 I955, 1009 (Mimn. ?), 1218, Tyrt. 1O3. 
 
 In the neuter Hdt. never has the -v form (always rcouro). 
 TtiiVTov appears in Parmenides 117^ 118^ Hippokr. Ill 212 
 (roovro in C), but twuro II 12, and so usually in Hippokrates. 
 Diog. Apoll. 2 has tu)Vt6 (Simpl. ravro), Arrian the same form in 
 255, but the Attic form six times, Lukian Tit. auct. 14 riivro 
 {^v in Or^i^). On the crasis forms, see § 316. 
 
 The MSS. of Herodotos give only a feeble support to a mas- 
 culine and neuter avricov ; but in I 133 avreu), though well 
 attested, is to be rejected. In Hippokrates, Aretaios, Lukian 
 and other pseudo-Ionists, we encounter such forms as avrhi, 
 avTirjs, avT^rj, avTerjv, avre-pcrt, avreov, avriw, avriociv (masculine 
 land neuter), avTioicn, avriovs. All these are hyper-Ionic fig- 
 ments (§ 108). Though often well supported in the MSS. of 
 the psevido-Ionists, there are numerous instances where the 
 parasitic e has been foisted on the early prosaists (e.g. Demokr. 
 12, 71) without good evidence. This hyper-Ionism has not 
 attacked the MSS. of the lyric poets. On feminine avrioov see 
 
 ^ 447, 3: 
 The dialect has no example of compounds of avTos other than 
 
 ithose found in the reflexive ijjLeoovTov, &c.; that is, Ionic has not 
 
 izo-arw, avravTov, avTovra. avTos is never petrified. The avTocravrov 
 
 bi a Vienna papyrus of the fourth century B.C. [P/iilol. XLI 746) 
 
 is Doric, despite the fact 'that the document is chiefly Ionic. 
 
 564.] Keivo<s. This form is stated by the grammarians^ to be 
 [onic on the principle by which )(^6is is declared to be Ionic for 
 Ix^ej, and opri] for koprrj. 
 
 * Gram. Paris. 681 (An. Bachm. II 3705), Eiist. 102643 attest rovreoKTi as 
 .onic, and regard it as an example of 7rpo(rxW'''"''M<^s. This is the only case 
 hat I recall of the mention of such a form in grammatical literature. The 
 analogy of SreoKTiv in part misled the grammarians. 
 
 * Apoll. 73 B, Joh. Gr. 241, Greg. Kor. pp. 447, 456, Meerm. 654, Aug. 669, 
 /■at. 699, Birnb. 67835, An. Bachm. II 365H (Ionic and Attic), Schol. Ven. A 
 n 94 {oTos K(lvov), where A C D E, &c., have tKeivov, Aristarchos Keivov. 
 
 (Lrist. often adopted forms which the scholiast takes pains to call Ionic, Cf. 
 \& Roche, H. T. K. p. 247. 
 
448 THE IONIC DIALECT. [564. j 
 
 xOfS occurs in Hdt. in but one passage (II 53 irpcirjv rt Ka\ x^")- In Attic • 
 comedy this form appears in the phrase x^" ^e koI irpyrji/, and occasionally, 
 according to Rutherford (Phryn. p. 372), in cases where it lends itself to the 
 aid of the metre (Clouds 353, Wasps 242). e'xOe'r was the regular Attic form. 
 iopTT) occurs upon an Oropian inscription 1834 (see § 287, i, note). On e'SeAw 
 in relation to BeXui, see § 588. In Hipponax 63 (Hdn. I 11625, II 92417) we find 
 (ioiSt6s, of which the common form was ipaiStSs, occurring in Hipponax 76 and 
 Sim. Am. 9. The spelling with iota subscript seems to be due to the supposed 
 connexion with poidCai. Hrd. 835 (Crus.) has apouSilwvl. 
 
 e-Kelvos may be compared with the Oskan e-fr/nfo = fa}ita. 
 The loss of the e in other words may be due to the parallehsm of 
 (Kelvos, Kelvos ; and at the same time furthered by the laws of 
 sentence phonetics. 
 
 Homer has (Kelvos and Kelvo?, e/ceicre and Kelrre, KeWev, KeWi '• 
 and /cetVr/. For 6(^p av kK^Wi p 10 (the only occurrence of iKeWi), 
 we may read ocjipa Ke k(Wl : cf . o({)pa k€ kclvt] j3 1 24. In Par- j 
 menides 118 KaKelvo is read. The Aiolic form is ktjvos, Doric 
 KTJvos (Kelvos) with ttjvos as a by -form from a different stem. 
 
 1. Kelvos is found in all inscriptions (§ 224, 15) free from the 
 suspicion of containing an admixture of Atticism. 
 
 2. Of the Ionic poets, the elegists use kcivo? more frequently 
 than cKelvos. The shorter form is found in Archil. 3^, I2j,; 
 Mimn. 141,9, Theog. 47, 223, 308, 479 (Athen., eKetros Stob.);' 
 of. KiWev Mimn. 95, Theog-. 711 [sic Bekker, KaKeWev libri). 
 The longer form appears in Archil. 63, Theog. 787, 1205. In' 
 the iamhograjjJnc poets Keii'os is the correct form : Archil, tetr. 51,' 
 Sim. Amorg. 75^,^4; kar Iko-vos Archil. 87 (epode) may easily be 
 read eWiy k^ivos {ia-Tiv has MS. authority); in 92, also an epode 
 €lj.€v 8' eKeti'o? ov KaTairpot^eTai, Schneidewin emended 8e khvos 
 correctly, as I think, though Hdt. Ill 36 has Kaixj3var]s .... 
 
 ((prj €K€Lvovs ov KaTaTTpot^eaOat. Archil. 170 has Kei (An! 
 
 Ox. I 24927), of which the Aiolic equivalent is kti, and 132 /cet^i 
 Solon 383 has the latter form. Ke'tvos is found in Anakr. 86 
 (iambic l^tr.). Herodas has k^Ivos in I42J 4235 27' 3o>73j 522^6ii 
 •^20 J 7g4j 797^ ^Kdvos iu 4-g Ijis, 4^3, 6^.^, 7i^i. i 
 
 3. Prose. In the MSS. of Herodotos kK^Xvos is so decldedl;, 
 preferred to Ketz/os^ that Bredow^ and Dindorf ^ proposed to expe. 
 the latter form altogether. Kirchhoff, on the other hand, wouli, 
 follow the testimony of the iambic poets and the inscriptions an-, 
 admit only kCivos. Stein steers a middle course in adoptin,' 
 
 ' fKeTvos is found about 230 times without v. 1. Kf7vos is not often ii, 
 sole reading, e. g. I 11, 207, III 74, 140, IV 9, V m, 87, VI 13, 69, VII 131 
 VIII 61, IX 90 {A B). In V 23 one inferior MS. has j'/c-, in V 82 e'/c- A B, i, 
 VII 103 (K- only B, in VIII 58 Ke7va in C (?) R, in IX 52, 53 e/c- in r. 
 Pcmokr. 205, Herakl. 67 have eKufos with no case of Kftuos. 
 
 ^ Pp. 11S-120. 2 Be dial. Herod, xxxvi. 
 
565.] REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS. 449 
 
 Keivos only when the MSS. pronounce in its favour. This pro- 
 cedure necessitates the adoption of both forms in one and the 
 same chapter, e.ff. I 207 k^Ivol but eKetr- three times, III 74, 
 VI 6g, VII 136, 239 (e/ceio-e, but Kelvov). Keldev is found \ 12% 
 and Kol KeWi II 122 according to Stein [v. I. kolk^Wl, &c.), KetVcos 
 1 1 120 (no V. L), kKtlcre VII 239, (nei IX 109. 
 [ In the case of Hdt. the Ket- forms are not to be abandoned. 
 Both forms coexisted, as they did in Homer and in Attic. But 
 the distinction which has been set up (that tKdvos is less em- 
 jphatic than Keivos:) is valueless. 
 
 In the MSS. of Hippokrates iKCivos is the preferred form, e.ff. 
 II 60, 78, 128, 226 (kcIvoi in A), VI 368 [dis, in one case 6 has 
 KCtw), eKei II 80, 90; Keivos IX 34, 50, k(x6i and KeWev VII 586, 
 KeWt VIII 22. In the pseudo-Hippokratic letters the propor- 
 tion is twenty to three in favour of eKtiros. Lukian adopts the 
 longer form almost everywhere^ and Arrian and Eusebios 
 Myndios always avoid Kelvos. 
 
 Heflexive Prononns. 
 
 565.] In the oldest phase of the dialect represented by the 
 iHomeric poems the compounded reflexive pronoun does not 
 bxist. Thus Homer says e/xoi awrw, e/x' avrov, e avTr}v^, eixeOev 
 iivTr]s and the like. So in Archil. 63 avTov ju,' i^eaduxra was a 
 jreading for avrds 8' f^i^vyov. In the elegists of Ionic birth 
 (there occur two passages which would seem to show that the 
 compound form had become a part of the apparatus of the 
 jiialect in the early post-Homeric period. These are Mimn. 73 = 
 rheog. 795 (rrjv o-avrov (ppeva repTre) and Xenoph., Bergk ** p. 116 
 iejxavTov). The objections^ brought forward to these forms are 
 jess valid on the ground of the presence of the compound than 
 
 i' n that of their failure to display the proper Ionic vocalization, 
 f in Herakleitos, Herodotos, and other prose writers the com- 
 ounded forms have obtained sole possession, it is not incredible 
 I hat by the time of Xenophaues they should have gained an 
 ntrance into the dialect, eavrf] is as old as Hesiod^. Alkaios 
 
 * Such spellings as iaivT-fiv in some MSS. may be referred to Ionic editions. 
 uwvtSv also occurs ; La Roche, Horn. Textkritik, 252 ff. 
 
 ^ In Mimnermos Ahrens read avTov or ffwvrov, Bekker a avrov, Renner ffT)v 
 uTov (as Hymn to Hei-mes 565). The last named reading was once suggested 
 y Bergk, who in his latest edition clings to cravTov. 
 
 ' Theogony 126. eajurrji apjDears upon a papyrus MS. according to Wilcken, 
 'erichte d. Bed. Akad. 1887 p. 812. Most of the MSS. have kavr^ [Iffa ol aurfj 
 riittl., ^crov Uvra Kochly). If koovr- is as old a.s Hesiod, which I doubt, the av 
 f aavTov and ifxavrdv is more difficult to defend. 
 
 Gg 
 
45° THE IONIC DIALECT. [565. 
 
 has (fxavTia 72, kavToa 78, a-avro^ 87, aavTOi lOl, Sappho (fxavTa 15 \ 
 tcouTw in Parmen, 117 is a conjecture for eavraJ. Recent editors 
 of Pindar reject the traces of the reflexive (Gildersleeve on 01. 
 XIII ^^) ^. The suspicion that attaches to Anakreon^s xdovtov 8' 
 ^ixavTiiv rjpev (frag". 64) extends to the Xenophanic frag-ment con- 
 taining the same form. In Anakreon hi /x' avr may be conjec- 
 tured, in Xenophanes any conjecture is otiose, since it is not even 
 certain that the first part of the fragment is genuine. Bergk 
 once made trimeters out of what Meineke thought pure prose. 
 Trimeters were probably not written by the Kolophonian poet. 
 
 If the existence of the compound form may not be disputed, 
 objection might however be raised on the score of the character 
 of the diphthong. Apollonios [De Pro7i. 94 B) reports as Ionic 
 the pronoun under the form e/xcouroS ; and in the monuments of 
 the prose literature which are stamped with the die of the 
 dialect, the diphthong av has given way to ecou (cov). Now it is j 
 possible that at the time of the first beginnings of the com- ■ 
 pound forms, the points of departure for their formation were 
 (}j! avTov, Vr' avTov, &c. ; whence it follows that k\xavr6v and aavTov 
 were correct, at least in poetry, up to the time when the 
 Herodoteian system of composition came into vogue. ecovrw 
 was then formed from lot avro), and eojuroC, e/^iecourou followed in 
 its wake. The forms with av in later Ionic poetry recall the 
 Homeric t avTi]v (or eF' avTy]v) in H 162, fe avTi]v P 551. Of 
 the epigraphical examples with av, none is old enough to avoid 
 the suspicion of being due to Attic influence. In inscriptions 
 we find (i) kovToiv 144 from Priene, and (2) forms with av: 
 eavTol (dative) Oropos 182^, the oldest example (either between 
 411-402 or between 387-377 B.C.), kaorQv ( = av ^ 243) Samos 
 22i.(, (after 322 b. c), Asiatic Ionic No. 2630, kavrov Zeleia 1131. 
 (after 334 b.c), and in other inscriptions after 350 B.C. wher 
 Attic influence cannot be gainsaid: eauroS Theodosia (?) I27i 
 eavTrjs Pantikap. 123, Chios 1922, avTov Ephesos I47i8 (300 B.C.).' 
 Smyrna fsSia^ kavrSiv Olbia 129^4 (period of the empire). 
 
 Two sets of forms have been handed down as peculiar to th( 
 Ionic dialect. 
 
 I. k\x(iiVTov Apoll. 94 B C ^. This form occurs nowhere ii 
 literature [eiicovTov Zenodotos A 271), and is the only instance 
 a pronoun reported by Apollonios which is unattested in th 
 monuments. It owes its rise to the influence of €^o(l) avT<2= 
 f/Kovrw, where elision has been at work. • 
 
 * Apollonios attests cravTO), favrw. Between u' avrcf with elision (Ahren 
 and ffavTtf tlie difterence is trifling. On the passage in Apoll. 103 A, si^ 
 PyrofiF, K. Z. XXXII 103 ff. 1 
 
 ^ ffavrif) fr. y7 in one MS. 
 
 ^ t6 ffjLwvTov Trap' "iwfft Kal Trap' tj^uv is certainly wrong as it stands. 
 
^6^.] REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS. 45 1 
 
 2. eixe(i>vTov, (reoovrov, ku>vTov, &c. These forms are not due to 
 the contraction of e/xeo avrov, creo avrov, eo avrov ; the cov does 
 not stand in any shifting- relation to av, and is to be kept apart 
 from the oav which varies with av in Ooovixa Oavixa (§§ 205, 258). 
 i In Ionic the force of analogy carried ecou from the dative, where 
 ecovT^ was the direct result of the fusion of eoi avT<2 (as ol avroi 
 became wurot § 316); iiito the genitive and accusative^ where 
 ([jLeavTov and eixavrov would have been in place. In Attic eixavrov 
 owes its av, by a similar process, to the influence of the accu- 
 sative f/^(e) avTov. So a-avTov arose from the analog-y of o-' avTov. 
 aeavTov is to be explained as arising- from (Ti(o} avrov^. 
 
 Of this second tyP® ^^ form there is no example on any in- 
 
 scriptional monument. Boeckh^s i(u>)vTa>v^ in BechteFs No. 144, 
 
 a decree of the Koivdv rSiv 'Icot-coy from the Ylavicaviov in the 
 
 neighbourhood of Priene, cannot hold ground against kovrGtv, on 
 
 which see § 256. Nor is there any example in Ionic poetry of 
 
 the form with oiv, except in Herodas. In Ionic prose we find 
 
 the following forms: ijjLCMVTov Hdt. IV gy [A B R), Euseb. 
 
 Myndios, ep. Pythag., ep. Hippokr. e/xewuTw Hdt. Ill 142. 
 
 (fiioiVTov Herakl. 80 (Plutarch), Euseb. Myndios, ep. Hippokr. 
 
 XXVI 2 in A. a-€(ovTov Hdt. 1 45, III 155, ep. Hippokr. XVII 22. 
 
 [In Herodas 799 we find o-ecoroS added in the margin, but at the 
 
 top of the column (No. 40) crecovroS is written. The word forms 
 
 the first foot of the trimeter, aecavrov Lukian Sj/r. dea 25, Vit. 
 
 met. 5, Euseb. Myndios ; ae(avTi]v Hrd. Sgg. kojvTov Hdt. I 45 
 
 bis, Herakl. 17, Hippokr. Ill 200, 204, 208, 210, VI 114 (with 
 
 lenis? M has here /xereco urou, A iJ.e6' ea)uroC),Demokr. 92, 100, 188, 
 
 jLukian S^r. dea J2, 18, 19 his, 20, ^^ ter, Asfr. 14, Arrian Ind. 
 
 hi ^10' 92' ^^^ 20g [kav- MSS.), 423, Abyd. I, Euseb. Mynd., ep. 
 
 jHippokr. of ten, Aretaios nine times, iivrov twice, Vita 7/ow/. thirteen 
 
 (iimes; ewwTT/s Hdt. V 28, Hippokr, III 208, Sj/r. dea 14, Arrian 
 
 fnd.\o^. Hrd. 634 has lnvrris. ki)iVTui Hdt. Ill 142, Hippokr. 
 
 til 188, Demokr. 205, Herakl. 45, Arrian hid. 92 (MSS. kav-), 
 
 p^, Eusebios ; lii^vrri Hdt. In, Lukian Astr. 2. eoouroV Hdt, I 
 
 I1.5, Hrd. 5785 Hippokr, I 630 (ecouro A), Demokr, 20^2^ 3°? io°> 
 
 'jukian^Syr. dea 20, 25, 29, ^^,S% 57 > Arrian Ind. 43, 7g, 9^ (MSS. 
 
 ,vt6v and avrov), Euseb. Mynd. ; koivrrjv Sijr. dea 22 bis, 27, 39 
 
 ^r; kdiVTo Hippokr. VI 178, 180, ecourwy Hdt. IV n, Hippokr. 
 
 II 210 vulgo (-reW BAIN), II 12, Herakl. 114, Demokr. 213, 
 
 jukian S^r. dea 49, 58, Astr. 12. Icovroio-t Hdt. VI 138, Hippokr. 
 
 ^I 354 (see below), Herakl. 5, Lukian Astr. 20. koovTovs Hdt. 
 
 * So Brugmann, Gram. § 96. This is preferable to Wackernagel's ex- 
 lanation {K. Z. XXVII 279) whereby cr f avrov was formed from the analogy 
 '. fffavT6v, from rfp' avT6v. W.'s theory presupposes that, through re- 
 lembrance of ffavrSv, reavrSv became a-eavrov. 
 
 ^ This form is defended by Renner, Curtius' Studien I 2, p. 5. 
 
 Gg 2 
 
45^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [s66. 
 
 IV 148 (see below), Herakl. 106 in Stobaios^ Gaisford following 
 £ man. sec, By water lav-, Lukian Syr. dea 26, ^^, Arrian Ind. 24^. 
 
 In authors quoting the Ionic prosaists the Attic forms occur very often, e.g. 
 eavT6 Anax. 15, Melissos 5. eavTov Anax. 6 ter, 16, Demokr. 20,1, 84, Melissos 
 5, Vita Horn, twice, Ion 'EttiS. i. Iovt^ Parm. 117. kavTu>v Demokr. 46, 
 although Stobaios has preserved the uv forms very often. (riavT6v Demokr. 
 98. Herodas has the Attic forms efiavrSv 2gj,, ifiavTriV 327? (ravrov 2g3, (ravTrjs 
 64, (TavrSv 1 63, Kf^avTSv 2.^^. The MSS. rarely have iivr- for euvT-, a form 
 comparable, as it were, to Attic avr- (Hrd. 6^4 wvt^s). 
 
 In the MSS. of Hippolcrates and of the pseudo-Ionists we 
 often find the illeg-itimate parasitic e in ewvreou (Hippokr. Ill 
 214 I^ 3IN), ewureo) (Hippokr. Ill 214 B M N), loovre-qs, ((Dvrirjv, 
 econre'w (Hippokr. II 188, 214), kcovrecov (Hippokr. II 76, Lukian 
 Asfr. I, Euseb.)^ ecoure'oto-t (Hippokr. II 90), ea)ure7j(rty (Hippokr. 
 
 1^90). ' , . , 
 
 Hdt. rarely uses the uncompounded forms, e.(/. avTw t ([loC 
 
 III 142, crot aiircp I 1 08 Stein with P (^A B crot ecovrwt). avTov- 
 
 - fjLLv I 24 (cf . fXLv - - kcovTov 7 did.) is perhaps an error ; avTi]v fxiv 
 
 II TOO is an unusual (Homeric) use as direct reflexive. Herodas 
 
 has jue avTrjv 62.3, ij.lv avrriv 7i2i ^^t as Hdt. I 205. The 
 
 strengthening of the reflexive by avros occurs in Hippokrates 
 
 VI 600 avTCi (omis. f2(lg.) avroicnv, 17^^ l^^ avTo kdivrov, 1 80 
 
 avTo fcoDTo), avTo a(p^ koovTov. 
 
 In the plural we find both koiVToiv, &c., and a^iodv uvtCov, &c., 
 e.g. Hdt. I 73. avToiai rjixXv V 91 is an unusual turn for i]ixiv 
 avTotat. I 
 
 In Hdt. the pronoun of the third person is not used in the • 
 singular for the second or for the first, though the MSS. here j 
 and there support such a usage. Cf. I 124 (ecour- B d z), III ^6 ; 
 (kcdVT- B), and IV 97 (ejuecouroC A B B, others ecouroD). In V 92 ] 
 (a) avTol TTpu>TOL Tvpavvov KaTaaTrjo-aixH'OL -napa afpicn avTolaL ....', 
 hCCrja-O^ KaTLo-Tarat is the only case in Hdt. Usually the plural) 
 of the first person is ijpiicav avTwv, of the second vp.eu)V avrav.' 
 (Tipeas eoovTovs in IV 148 is a reading long abandoned for a(peas 
 avTovs ; acpiaiv (OiVTolat Hij)pokr. VI 354 is the vulgate reading; 
 
 for (Tcpiaiv avTolcTL in d. 1 
 
 [ 
 ( 
 
 Belative Prononns. 1 
 
 I 
 
 566.] In the Homeric dialect, besides 0?, ?/', o, we find the, 
 demonstrative 6, ij, to used as relatives ^. 09 is also used as! 
 a demonstrative in the epic dialect, which also uses for to. Id' 
 the language of the elegy we find occasionally the relative used 
 
 > See Joh. Gr. 240, Gram. Aug. 668, Birnb. 678^ (rhv eeAa). The rchtivfl- 
 use of Tou in A 36 is called Ionic by An. Par. Ill 31 76. i 
 
^6j.] RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 453 
 
 for tlie demonstrative : — Phokyl. i, (c£. Demod. 2j), 33, Tyrt. 23, 
 Solon ^^^-i, Tlieog. 169, 800 (MSS. vary in both cases). 
 
 In the iambographic poets and eleg-ists we find some few 
 survivals of the use of the demonstrative as a relative. The 
 aspirated relative has, however, evidently gained upon the r- 
 forms from the year 700 B.C. 
 
 A. lambographic Poets. 
 
 1. Demonstrative as Relative, ro Sim. Am. 13^; 7775801,3(53, 
 Hrd. 2g4; tw Archil, epod. 873, Anakr. 86 (Elmsley); nj Hrd. 
 3^j, Sim. Am. 73; rds Hrd. 4^^; rcav Hrd. 523; ratcri Hrd. 63^. 
 
 2. Pure Relative, o? Anan. Tj, Hrd. 4^; ij Sim. Amorg. 7J3, 
 27>44>58; 0^ Sim. Amorg. y^^^ {ovt€)\ Hrd. 6^,^; rjs Hrd. 4^ (rjs re), 
 530 ; w Hippon. 32, Hrd. 3^9; ov Sim. Amorg. 232, Hippon. 45; 
 ijv Hippon. 372 (conj.), Hrd. 5g2; a Sim. Amorg. i^ (where ola is 
 the usual Attic construction), Hrd. 537 ; (Lv Hrd. 55Q, 7^^, <,^; 17s 
 Archil. 943; ovs Archil, tetr. 59^, Hrd. 267; as Hrd. 397 ; a Solon 
 
 3 / 2 ' 3* 
 
 B." The Elegiac Poets. 
 
 1. Demonstrative as Relative, to Xenoph. 217, Theog. 17, cf. 
 Mimn. ii^ Todt; tov Theog. 256, 451, Xenoph. 53; rfj Theog. 
 216; TOV Theog. 501, 879; Triv Xenoph. 65; toC Theog. 383; 
 TciTheog. 481, 583-584, 1185; T&ii; Theog. 462, 716, 1096, 1 1 75; 
 rots Theog. 132 (but A has oh, Bergk otols), tolo-lv Sol. 13^8; 
 rds Theog. 880; to. Theog. 591. 
 
 2. Pure Relative (including oVre). os Theog. 91, Hipponax 
 hex. 852, Anakr. 94^; oaT€ Theog. 703, 11 24, and Anakr. 5I2 
 (ionics); rJTe Theog. 196, 386, 410, 705, 827, 1198; 6 Mimn. 
 4.2', T€ Mimn. 5,^, Theog. 466; ov Theog. 152; ov re Theog. 
 395; w Theog. 412, Mimn. 2j6; ov Tyrt. 52; ijv Archil, eleg. 
 61; ijvTe Theog, 336, Sol, 273; ot Theog, 598; ol're Theog. 737, 
 1069; aire Theog, 709; a Sol. 26.,; o)v Tyrt. 10^9, Theog, 34; 
 S>VT€ Mimn, 2^3; oh Theog. 131 2; ovs Theog. 84, Tyrt. lo^. 
 
 567.] The Relative Pronoun in Prose. If we compare the 
 use of the iambographic poets with that of Hdt,, we observe this 
 iifference : Hdt,- uses the forms beginning with r in by far the 
 greater number of oblique cases when no preposition precedes^; 
 ilso when the oblique cases are preceded by prepositions which 
 ,'annot suffer elision ^. The exceptions are now generally brought 
 
 ^ Gaisford ov ye. But cf. the use of re in Theog, 1049, Mimn, 2^, g, 1I5, 
 
 ^ Greg. Kor. p. 385, Struve, Quaest. 7 ff, 
 
 ' Exceptions are ovs II 81, oTai V 6, o II 118, fjs and p I 109, ^v I 39, ^ III 
 40, 
 
 ^ ^ Exceptions are irphs a IV 200, eV ^ V 16, 49, VI 97, and always when iu 
 ^ = while, e.g. I 164, is ovs II 95, is 8 V 91, VIII 60 and always when 
 s '6 = until. and= is oaov as IV 56, 71, VII 50. is ov generally has the v. I. 
 s 8, which is read by Struve and Stein, eoij ol II 143 has also been changed 
 
454 THE IONIC DIALECT. [567. 
 
 into line except in the case of certain formulae, such as h o. In 
 case the relative follows upon a preposition whose final vowel 
 may be elided ^, the aspirated forms are in place in the oblique 
 cases ^ ; and in the nominative 0?, 7;, o are invariably employed. 
 What has been said above holds g-ood in the case of oairep. 
 
 It is doubtful whether so artificial a system can have found 
 a place in the ordinary lang-uag^e of Herodotos^ day. The 
 language of the inscriptions as well as that of the Ionic philo- 
 sophers records a usage different from that of Herodotos, and 
 similar to that in vogue in Attilca, While the speech of the 
 iambic writers still preserves both the t- and the aspirated forms, 
 it is not so complicated as that of Hdt. It is more likely that 
 the preservation of the old forms in Hdt. should have been; 
 upheld by syntactical requirements than by so purely external 
 a canon as that adopted with considerable uniformity in the, 
 Herodoteian MSS. 
 
 The prose inscriptions have only the pure relative, not the 
 T- forms, e.ff. oj Thasos /. II. S., VIII 403,3, ov Miletos 100^, av 
 Thasos 72f„ airep Miletos 100^, rjca-Lv Teos 156 B 36. ^toOi; Teos 
 1583 deserves attention as daovv is not found in Attic, nor indeed 
 in any other dialect except Ionic ; oTectiiovv Amphip, 10.,^. The 
 demonstrative relative appears in t(o{5) Amorg. 34 (epigram). 
 
 The fragments of the philosophers usually have the pur( 
 relative forms : Anax. 6 rjv, 5 oio-t, to oiv, Diogen. 6 w, are 
 Herakleitos it, it2 ov, 93 w, 115 6v, Demokr. 73 a, t68 olaiv 
 but 188 rwy av bej], 60 top, 47 rolcrt. 
 
 In Hippokrates traces of the demonstrative form are exceed 
 ingly rare ^: to. occurs in VI 476 (twice in 6), 486 {rapro a vulg.). 
 TrJTTip VI 480 (.y/c 6, Littre tjj Trept), rolcnv VII 478, IX 84, rw, 
 
 I 586 [A), II 74 (Zwinger a^' <Sy, perhaps ot(x>v). Elsewhere w 
 find the aspirated forms, e.g. rj^ II 12, 14; w II 644, wire 
 III T96; fjTTep II 24; a II 18, III 84; (Sz; 11 2^6, 618, 66c 
 668, 676 {TTepi), as III 84; olcri II 250, 334, 372, 608, 612 bi. 
 626, 642, 662, III 74, VI 610; f]crLV ill 196 {v. I. oa-rjaiv 
 
 II 648, 6s^ fji"! ; ovs II 372 ii-t, 664 ; as II 648. ar^ occurs often i 
 Hdt., in Hippokr. II 26, 78, III 226, Diogen. 6, olov re Hippok 
 II 38, Diogen. 6, &c. 
 
 Of the pseudo-Ionists^ Lukian follows in general the lead ( 
 Herodotos. In a few passages [Sj/r. ilea t8, 24, 3T, 48) A E ha^ 
 
 to h S (cf. Greg. Kor. p. 472). e^ ov, &e., is found nine times, but «'« rod, &< 
 eighteen times, fi^xpt ai^tl dpxi- ov are uiiiformly used, irepi witli rov 
 always in position to sufler anastrophe. 
 
 ' avri, a,Tr6, did, iiri, Kara, fierd, irapd, vir6. a/j.(pi and avd chance not to OCC 
 with a relative. 
 
 ^ Exceptions are eirl rTjv IX 11 (v. I. iirl tJv), virh Tum VII 217 [V.l. v-a' S>v). 
 
 ' Gomperz' Apologie der Heilkunst p. 78 ff. 
 
 * Lindemann p. 86. 
 
559.] RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 455 
 
 the aspirate forms^ the other MSS. those with r-. In 25 only 
 i A has a. When a preposition precedes there is considerable 
 , variation in the MSS. We find iv otat Astr. 10^ kv roicn Adr. 24, 
 
 Syr. (lea 1, 10, 21, 47 ; kin rov Syr. 12 ; l-nX rrjs 30 ; avr Siv 12 ; 
 laiTo reco (so Jacobitz) Astr. 7, 12. The examples that are Attic 
 I rather than Ionic may safely be corrected. Eusebios has rd, 
 
 TCLTrep, Twv, o-tt' S>v, but kv rcu. The other imitators of Ionic prose 
 
 use the aspirated relative. Arrian has a fondness for oans. 
 
 I 568.] Interrogative and Indefinite Pronoun. Nominative 
 rty, Ti, TLs, Ti, Horn., Hdt., Hippokr., &c. Genitive : t4o^ Homer, 
 Hrd. 8^ ; reo in Homer only tt 305, Hdt. I 58 ; reC Homer, 
 
 iHdt. V 106, Kail, i^, Hrd. 2c,8 ; rev Homer, Hdt. I 19, Archil. 
 
 1 110, Theog". 749, 750 ; reou Archil. 95 (MSS. reov); rov Hippokr. 
 
 Ill 34; TLvos Theog". 1299, Hippokr. Ill 214; tlvos Hippokr. V 
 
 {726. Dative: rew Hymn I 170, Hdt. I 11, TV 155; rew in 
 Homer four times^ Hdt. II 48, 124, IV 47, Anax. 6 bis; rw the 
 most common form in Homer, Theog-. 139; rivi, in Homer only 
 
 ^ 96, P 68 ; TLVL Homer, Hippokr. Ill 82. Accusative: rCva 
 Homer, Hippokr. Ill 214; rtva Homer, Hdt., Hippokr, Nomina- 
 
 itive : TLves Homer, rtva (?) X 450 ; rtve? Homer, Hdt., Hippokr., 
 TLva Homer, &c. Genitive: recov Homer; rewv Hdt. V 57 (■•i/c 
 A B, T€(i>v C P); Tivcov, TLVMv. Dativc : reoto-t Hdt. I ^y, VIII 
 113, IX 27; Toicrt in Homer (k iio) accord, to Aristarchos, 
 Hdt.; rto-i Hippokr. II 618, 644, III 76. Accusative: nvas 
 Homer, Hippokr., nva Homer. 
 
 Note on the interrelation of the stems of this pronoun. 
 
 The stem re- (I. E. qe, cf. Avest. ca-hyd, Goth, fivi-s) appears in reo (rev), 
 a more original form than reov. reo is formed from *Tf-crco as e/xeo {ffielo) 
 from *efie-ffio. reov is formed as if the stem were reo- ; which appears also 
 iin T€6[i, riwv, reoicri. The t of r^ is borrowed from that of rov<Teo ; and the 
 idental of rey together with the € is taken from reo. In the dative, from *qo 
 we should expect *Tr^, *iro?s. The forms with tiv are built up from the lost 
 accusative *ri-v which was constructed from a stem ri-. In riva, which 
 ,'replaced the old ti-v, the stem appeared to be rtv. The form ricri, however, 
 jneed not be explained as arising from riv-ffi ; it may be the direct descendant 
 lof Tt + (Ti. Ti- appears in &cr(ra<.Ti-a (after a word ending in a), which is not 
 Herod oteian. The Aiolic forms ritfi Sappho 104, and tioktiv 168 are not 
 ideseendants of re^, reotai as often stated, but from the different stem ti- (qi-), 
 jfound in {&)ff(ra<.Tiia. Cf. oreia Gortyna 452 and re7oV iro^ov. Kp^rey. This 
 stem Ti- was not originally in place in the dative. Schmidt K. Z. XXV 93, 
 Wackernagel K. Z. XXVII 89, XXVIII 121, XXIX 149. 
 
 669.] The Compound Relative oans. 
 
 I. Nominative, octtis Hom., Tyrt. I2i6j Theog-. 221, 744, 1173, 
 Anakr. 943(eleg.), Sim. Am. 7^0, &c., Herakl. ^S> Teos 156 A 1, 
 
 * An. Ox. I 4039 (cf. I 40O5) t4o Ionic, rev Doric. 
 
456 THE IONIC DIALECT. [570. 
 
 Herodotos, Hippokrates ; Arrian is fond of oa-ris, &c., in prefer- 
 ence to the simple relative forms, otls^ Horn., Theog. 676 ; 
 rJTLs^ Hom., Sim. Am. y^^g, Hdt., Hippokr, e.ff. II 1 2. o rt Horn., 
 Theog-. 160, 690, Hdt., Herakl. 105, Hippokr. II 358. oVn 
 Hom., Theog-. 17, 818 (not Ionic). 
 
 2. Ge?iitive. ovtlvo^, ott^o, ott^v Homer ; oreu Horn., Hdt. 
 The form oriro? might have been Ionic if analogy had had its 
 way^ as was the case in Doric. Herodas 4^^ has the non-Ionic 
 oTov ; but cf. oTevv^K 520 despite otovv^k^v 7io3' 
 
 3. Dative, orew^ Horn., Hdt., Demokr. 166, 188, Herakl. 
 127, Herodas y^^gj but oti^ Sge (^^' 7'si)' ot^cciovv is found in 
 Amphip. lOoj. 0T(^ is found M 428 where Zenodotos read oreio; 
 oro) occurs in Theog. 154, 416, 609*, and in Anaxag. 6 ad fin. ; 
 according to Simplicius (Diels 157^ for orco, Preller and Mullach 
 adopt ot€(jov). In Solon el. 24i = Theog. 719, Bergk adoj^ts otu ; 
 (Renner oVew), where Plutarch has wre, Stobaios oaoLs. oVm is 
 found also in Hippokr. Ill 238, 252, Lukian^s Sj/ria dea and in 
 Arrian. w tlvl Hsd., Theog. 631 (in A), 807 (u> tlvl A). In both ' 
 passages this form should have been adopted by Bergk (cf. Hom. 
 oij TLvt); w TLVL Hippokr. II 664. 
 
 4. Accusative. ovTLva Hom., Tyrt. 1233, Theog. 403, Hrd. 
 4j2, Hdt. ; bvTLvwv Sim. Am. 7^9 ; oTiva Hom. ; ijvTLva Horn., Hdt. 
 (not rrji'TLva as all MSS. I 90]; otl Hom., Hdt., Hippokr. II 12, 
 III 228 ; oTTL Hom, 
 
 5. NoM/inafive. oirti^es Horn., Hdt., Herakl. 114, 126, Hippokr.' 
 II 240 (ol bi Tti^es); atrLves Hom., Hdt. ! 
 
 6. Genitive, orecoy Hom., Hdt.; otcop Hippokr, II 64, 74 (?see 
 § 567), a rare form in Attic (see on Xen. Anab. VII 6, 24). 
 
 7. Dative. oTioLo-L Hom., Hdt. See Eustathios quoted under 
 oreo). 
 
 8. Accusative. ovcrTLvas Hom., Hdt.; oViz^as Hom. ; aarLvas' 
 Horn,, H(j^t, ; 6tlv Hom. X 450 (?). 
 
 aaaa^<a + TLa Hom., Phokyl. 6^, Theog. 1048, Solon 384 (?) 
 Hdt. I 47, 138, 197, Herakl. 122, Melissos 17 ; in Anax, 6 ao-crc' 
 is a conjecture (Simpl, oa-a). ' 
 
 570.] Other Pronominal Forms, On the form of the pro- 
 nouns Kolos, Koaos, KUTepos, &c., see § 342. djuo's is not found ir! 
 Ionic literature, but occurs in the Herodoteian ovbaixoi, [x7]ha^xoi 
 
 ^ This form is totally distinct from 'Sa-ns (fi'om ya-s). Urts contains th'. 
 neuter *(TfoS of the reflexive afo-, which appears in Lokrian f6Ti (C. D. I 
 1479 A 6) and in the Homeric fws. The tt forms in Homer are due to th ' 
 assimilation of St, and are Aiolic, 
 
 2 Tzetz. Ex, II. 631. 
 
 » Eust. 2308, 102643, 103633. _ ' 
 
 * This form is neither Doric nor epic. Homer prefers oTfif with synizesisi 
 
 * Bekk. An, I 4OI3 ( = Bachm. An, I i6iji). 
 
571.] NUMERALS. 457 
 
 The former is also Homeric. Demokritos, wlio gave to several 
 of the letters of the alphabet names different from those in 
 ordinary use, followed Alkaios 76, who divided oi/6et? into ov + Sets 
 (neuter geV). Plutarch TTfjos Ko\(oti]v 4 {3Ior. 11 09 A) quotes 
 a saying of Demokritos: fxi] p.aKXov to hev i] to fxrjhev elvat^. 
 No grammarian assigns Set?, biv for rt?, rt to any special dialect. 
 Dr. Jackson [Journ. of F/iiloI. XXI 73) ventures to find haiia 
 i\i.i] + 8a/xa) in Parmenides. 6 hfiva is unknown to Hdt. 
 
 Numerals. 
 
 571.] A special Ionic termination is -^acrios ; -^os in 8t£os, 
 T/at^oy {§ 380) is specifically Ionic. i. els, &e., Hdt., eV and 
 
 tva Samos 22O32, eV Miletos loOp kvos Chios 174 D 19, cf. Keos 
 439 and lasos 104^^. juta? Olynthos 8 B 13. [xiav Miletos 
 10O3 disposes of Aldus' /xtrj in Hdt. e.g. II 100, and R (Vs ixirjv 
 in II 1 1 1, and show that such forms in Anaxagoras, Hippokrates 
 [e.ff. VIII 274 in C), and later Ionic writers are hyper-Ionisms. 
 See above, § 419. -npStTov Thasos, /. //, S. VIII 402, 8, Keos 
 43^g and Hdt., cf. rTpcor^s Styra 1947. Hdt. has ovhives III 26, 
 IX 58. 2. Homer, Hesiod hvoi, hvo : hvo Paros 62, Samos 
 
 22021, 26' 29J 31^ Ananios 32, &c., with the noun in the plural as 
 often in Attic. hv5>v is found in Chios 174 D 9. It occurs in. 
 the Herakleian tables and in Gortyna i^^. In the Chian docu- 
 ment it occurs in conjunction with the AioHc irevTriKovTiov. Hdt. 
 has bvo but not bvco, though the latter occurs as a v. I. in 6', e.g. 
 VI ^'], VII 24, 28. The indecHnable hvo is often used in Hdt. as 
 in Attic. hvM is found only in composition (see under 12). Hdt. 
 has also hvS>v'- VI 57, &c.,but not hvolv, despite I ii, 91, where 
 there is no v. I. hvolv is Hippokratic (VI 216, 286, 472, VII 138) 
 cf. § 412 ; hvolai Hdt. I 32, VII 104 ; hva-'i is not Herodoteian. 
 Hippokrates has hvai (II 522 v. I. hvo, VII 368) as perhaps 
 Thukydides VIII loi (but see Phrynichos, p. 289 R) and cer- 
 tainly post- Aristotelian literature and inscriptions {e.g. C. I. A. 
 II 467^7, 47143) of the Roman period. Hdt. IV 66 has crvvhvo, cf. 
 (Twrpets t 429. h^vT^pos Hdt., Hippokr, ; Seire/saTos Hdt. ; 8t? 
 Archil. 163, Sim. Am. 76^, Hippokr. II 78; 8t£os § 380; 
 hL(f)datos (Greg. K. p. 527); ajjicfiolv Hippokr. II 686 [aix^oTipoiV 
 A, Galen), VII 120 {aix(})OTepoLaL in 0), VIII 238, 240; cf. § 412, 
 where bvolv is adduced from Lukian and Arrian. 3. rpets 
 
 Chios 174 A 3, lasos 10453, Zeleia 11330, Paros 6^, Oropos 184 
 
 ' Cf. Zenobios in Et. Mag. 639. 
 
 ^ Sviv Eust. 802^6. (cf. 26,1) ; An. Par. Ill 882 on rSiy Svo II. K 253 : 
 'AttikIv f) Koiv6u, 'luviKhy yap Svaiy. 
 
458 THE IONIC DIALECT. [571. 
 
 (accusative). The accusative has usually been displaced by the 
 nominative in Ionic, e.r]. Anakr. 42, 83, Ananios 32. The 
 original form is rpti'? (cf. rpiivi Gortyna 55^), from which de- 
 scended TpU, the reading- of Q in Hippokr. VI 4<S2, VIII 184, 
 260, 304. jpiGiv Oropos i8j5, Keos 439, Hippokr. II 636. [rptjo-i 
 Keos 439.3 ; rptotrri in Ilipponax tr. 51 ^ {uvv rpiola-L jxaprvpcnv) is 
 formed on the model of rpiGiv, from a stem rpt-. It is doubtful 
 whether this form is due to the satirist's residence at Klazomenai, 
 the Aiolic city which was late in joining the Ionic league (Paus. 
 VII 3, 5); Tp'iTo^ Hdt., Hippokr. II 688, Erythr. 206 A 38 ; 
 TpU Sim. Am. 7^^, Sam. 215 (epigr.), Hdt., Hippokr. II 78; 
 Tpt^o'v § 380 ; TpiaKahi Erythr. 206 C 47; i-jp.iTpiTaios Hippokr. 
 II 608. 4. Ticraepes, T^aaepa. To the forms adduced, § 134, 
 
 we may add Tecrcrepcn Hippokr. VI 198, VII 368, the reading of 6 
 which ought to have been adopted by Littre. In VIII 2co 6 has 
 repaecTL. Hdt. has rea-cripMV, riaa-epcrL, Tecra-epas. Doric reropoiv 
 in Phokyl. 3^ is borrowed from the Hesiodic epos [riropa W. D. 
 698), cf. rirTopes Kinkel p. 178 (No. 24H), a fragment rejected 
 by Elach. TerapTos Hdt., Hippokr. II 682, 690, Zeleia 114 F 3, 
 Kyzik. 108 B C. Homer has also rirparos (Job. Gr. 241 B). 
 TerapTaios Hippokr. II 680. 5. TreWe Anakr. 42, Keos 4323; 
 
 TTipL-nros Mylasa 248 B I, Halik. 2385; rieWri? Styra 1 9^82 » 
 7T€ixTTTaioL Hippokr. II 682 ; irevrdKis Hrd. 393. 6. efs Chios 
 
 774 A 5 is a unique form (§ 378); e^ in 8eKae'£ below, cktos 
 Thas. 7^n< e/car-, or from a form without the sibilant. eKraioj 
 Hippokr. II 646. 7, kiTTd Samos 2209^; e/SSo/xo?; kj3boixam 
 
 Hippokr. II 682, Epidaurian e^8e/x-. 8. oktco ; oyboos, Eryth. 
 
 206 A 46 ; 6yhoi]KO(rT6s Hippokr. II 626. 9. evria No. 13^ 
 
 (Chalkidian), iweia Zeleia ii33(^(on the t cf. § 220), ipveo[3oXov 
 Orop. 1899. Ionic etvaros in Hdt. as in Homer is = Kretan 
 7]vaTos< €vF- ; Attic ivaros Hippokr. II 704, Myl. 248 Ai; 
 ei/aratot Hippokr. II 682. JO. biKu Eretria 15^3 ; beKcov Chios; 
 
 174 D 14 is a loan form from Aiolic ^ 8eKaro? Keos 47^, Milet.' 
 93, Halik.*24i^ Phokaia 170, (TnbeKaTos Amphip. io,3,Eretr. 1514. 
 II. €vbeKa Zeleia ii^.^s, hb^Karos Hdt., Hijipokr.; ez'Se Kara to? Hip-, 
 pokr. II 654. 1 2. The later Ionic has bvu>beKa, Hdt. II ] 45 and, 
 
 in some thirty other passages without any variant ; so also Thasos 
 (L.) 8 A 5. In VIII ] 21 Stein reads bvcob^Ka in opposition to bvo)- 
 KUibeKa of ABC, and also in VI 108, where all MSS. have, 
 b(i>b€Ka. The latter form occurs in Hippokr. II 520 [A), where' 
 the Homeric bvoKaCbeKa is adopted by Littre. Arrian I/id. 19/] 
 has bcobeKa. This Attic form is to be expelled from the text oJ, 
 
 ^ This form, like irevTmovrc^v, evevriKovTav in the same inscription, arosi 
 from tlie fact that tlie final a of Sena, &c., was regarded as a neuter plura 
 termination. That the dative plural of like formation does not occur i 
 a matter of chance. 
 
 i 
 
571.] NUMERALS. 459 
 
 Herodotos. 8a)8eKaro? and bvoKaibeKaTos occur in Hippokrates; 
 bvuihiKaros Hdt. I 19, III 92 (8co- A B C d). In III 91 for 
 hvoKaih(.Ka [A B), bvcoKatbeKa [C F d), Stein reads hvo koI hiKa 
 (fivpiahas). beKabvo is found in lasos 1043,, a document contain- 
 ing few traces of Ionic. It appears in C. I. A. II 4763^ (100 b. c). 
 13. rpCa Kal b^Ka Hdt.^ rpiTos koX b^Karos Hdt., TptcrKaibiKaTos 
 Hippokr. II 712. 14. TeaaepefTKaibiKa Hdt. VII 36, I 86 
 
 (-ap- in all MSS.), Hippokr. VI 216 is indeclinable; Tirapros 
 Kol beKUTOi Hdt. Ill 93, Tecra-epecTKaibeKaTos I 84 {-ap- in all 
 MSS. as Hippokr. II 668) ; Tea-o-apea-KaibeKaTalos Hijipokr. II 
 148. 15. TTevTeKULb^Ka Chios 174 A 19, Hdt.; TrejutTrro? Kal 
 
 ScKaroj Hdt. 16. beKoi^ lasos 104^5, kKKaibinarov Hdt., 
 
 e^KaiSejca Hippokr.; exros kol SeVaros Hdt., e^/cai8e'Karos Hippokr. 
 I 17. kitTaKaibeKa, e/38o/>io9 koi beKaros Hdt., iTrraKatSeKaros Hippokr. 
 18. OKrcoKa[t8]eKa Halik. 238,3, oyboos koI Se'/caro? Hdt., OKTcoKaL- 
 biKaros Hippokr., ev bvolp bf^ovaaiv (Ikoctl Hippokr. VI 21 6 (so 
 6, other MSS. Seowai?), bvoiv beovrotv etKOcrt VI 286. 19. 
 
 I cvveaKaCbeKa, etvaros kol beKaTog Hdt. 20. e'[KO<Tt(^v) Paros 
 
 62, Anakr. 18, Hrd. 3^^, etKooraioj Hippokr. II 654. 21. 
 
 ciKOo-t[i; k]v6s lasos I04^Q, dKoarrj irpwrr] Hippokr. II 680. 
 22. bvo re Kal etKocrt Hdt. 30. TpujKovra Thasos, /. II. S. 
 
 VIII 402, 10, Erythr. 202j7, rpty]KoaT6s Myl. 248 A i, Hippokr. 
 II 680 (with Attic a), Tpu]Ko(TTalos Hippokr. II 150, r/jtrjKocrr[ta] 
 Keos 43.,o. S5- Tpii]K0VTa irevre Hdt. but kvl Kal rptrjKocrra). 
 
 38. bvu>v biovra TeaaepaKovra Hdt. I 1 5. 40. The Herodo- 
 
 teian and Homeric reaaepaKovTa lasos 1045.^, Kyzikos iiin; 
 Te(ro-[epa]K[o']i;Ta)i; Chios 174 C 1 6 as in Aiolic^; t€tp(oko(ttcol 
 Kal Trep^TTTooL Myl. 248 B I as in Archimedes II 282, 23 = Attic 
 reo-o-apa/cocrrwt, &c. Doric is rerpcoKovTa (Herakl. Tablets). On 
 the objections to referring this to the type oybcaKovTa (K. Z. XXV 
 235) see Schmidt Neuira, p. 192, T€(Ta-apaK0(TT6s Hippokr. II 678, 
 698 (with Attic a). 49. evos biovra TicvT-qKovra Hdt. I 1 6. 
 
 50. TtaiTTiKovTa Olynth. 8 A 5, lasos 104^^, irei'TriKovTcov Chios 
 174 D 7 as in Aiolic. It is to be noticed that this form, beK(Dv, 
 Teo-(r[ep]aKoz'rajy, and ev[^€v]r]K6vT0dv stand in close proximity to 
 inflected numbers in this inscription. 60. €^i]KovTa Thasos 
 
 (L.) 95, k^rfKoaTos Hip2:)okr. II 678. 70. i^bop.i]KovTa Chios 
 
 174 A 7, Delphic and Herakleian e/SSepJKoyra, ^(Sbop^T^KocrTos 
 Hippokr. II 700 ; k^bop.r]KovTa rpiGtv lasos 10435; Te(r((r)epaKat- 
 j38o[/x?]]9oi;rovT?7s Paros 58. 80. oybuiKOVTa Hom. and Hdt. 
 
 <6yboif]K-; oySorjKocrro? Hippokr. II 678. 90. h'\_i\vriK6vT(xiV 
 
 Chios 174 C 26, inflected as in Aiolic. See under 40. Hom. 
 IvvqKovra r 174, hevr\KovTa B 6o2. In Dittenb. St/U. 17O34 from 
 fMiletos (234 B.C.) we find eyevTjKoz/ra. 100. eKaroV Anakr. 
 
 * Cf. rpiiiKovrwv Hsd. W. D. 696 (Stobaios, Eust.). 
 
 c 
 
 ^ OF THE '^ 
 
 TTNIVERSITY/ 
 
460 THE IONIC DIALECT. [^Ji. 
 
 83, Keos 43j, Chios 174 A 13, kKaroaros Hippokr. II 680; c£. 
 kKaroarvv Samos 22139. 200. bLrjKOcrLMV Zeleia 114 D 5, 
 
 Chios 174 D 19. 300. TpLrjKoa-LOL Thasos (L.) 9g, Chios 174 
 
 B 23, C 16. 400. TerpaKoaMv Kyzikos II In. 500. 
 
 TiiVTOLKoamv Mykonos 92^2 j Chios 174 D 7. In y 7 Aristarchos 
 and Herodian read Ti^vTaKoaioi, and so Ludwich. La Roche has 
 
 TliVTT]-. 700. €TTTaKO(rL(DV ChioS I 74 C 1 8, 21. 800. 
 
 OKTaKoa-ioiv Chios 174 C 23, Aiolic oktcokoo-lol. 900. eti'a[K]o- 
 
 aCcov Chios 174 D 2, dvaKoaia Hdt. II 145 (cf. Horn, etmros). 
 Here JR has hva- and so Rd in II 13. 1000, &c. \ikiov'i'^ 
 
 Thas. 72)4, x^I'^''^^ Chios 174 D 2, 12, C 17^ 23, 8to-xEIAiW 
 Chios 174 C 20, TpiaxEkiMv Chios 174 C 25, TpidxiKia Hdt. I 50, 
 'nevTaKicryFilkmv Chios 174 C 15? Hdt. 'nevTaKKryjikia II 145; ^^' 
 In Homer Aristarchos wrote kvviay^^iXoi, h^Kaytikoi which would 
 seem to be more in harmony with Ionic than kvveayjikoi, beKa- 
 Xikior. With yj.kia(TTvv Ephes. 14700; Samos 22 log, c£. Methy- 
 mian yikk7](TTvs. x'-^'-'^^^^ i^ Hdt. II 28 is correct, not xt^'«- 
 bicov as C d z in VII 29. 10,000. juuptaSes Hdt. VII 29. 
 
 Hdt. uses fii^SafiSs, ovSafj.6s in the plural only (e.g. VI 103 oi/Safiai). These 
 stems are used in Attic for the construction of adverbs only. The neuter | 
 plural is used adverbially in Hdt. (as Halik. 23S40) and the feminine is rare. !| 
 firjSa/jLfas IV 1 14 in good MSS. {A B G) is an instance of the tendency of the ) 
 scribes to inflect according to the -eo-- or -tju- declensions. See above § 454. j 
 
 In composition with nouns the form of the cardinal is not preserved, Hdt. I 
 herein agreeing with Homer, e. g. SifTris, TpnrdAaKrra, but rerpaena xp^vov 
 I 199. Tvivn, e| and elKoai appear as TreVra-, €|a-, and elKoaa-. 
 
 The conjunction in Hdt. of smaller and larger numbers may be illustrated 
 by the following : I 32 irevT^Kovja koI SiTjKoaiwv koI k^aKiax'-^'-'^v koX Si(T/j.vplcijv; 
 111 95 rdXavra fxvpia Koi TiTpaKKTx'i^ia. koI ■nevTaKSffia Kol k^rjKoi/Ta. Hi^jpokr, 
 VII 138 has ry ire/jLirTri kol e/crp iirl Se'/co. 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 Patronymics. I 
 
 572.] The grammarians called -id8r/? an Ionic by-£orm o£ -t8'/9, 
 e.ff. Gram. Par. p. 677 '' Ap.^t,Tpv(jiviah]s , Greg-. Kor. p. 487 n?jAr]i- 
 ahov KoX Aa^pTLiihov {sic). -Lh]s is also recognized as Ionic, e.g. 
 Greg. Kor. p. 460. Hdn. II 858,5, An. Ox. IV 326,^^ Bekk. 
 Anecd. II 850,5, call the patronymics in -cav Ionic. It is of 
 
 1 The only attempt to explain the divergence between the ei and r forms' 
 sufficiently plausible to warrant mention, is that of Ki-etschmer, K. Z. XXIX 
 422. The forms in X'^<" ^^e derived from *xt<r\oi, x«»^»oj from *x*<''^""v 
 Aiolic is xcA.A.101, Lakon. x'?^'0'- 
 
 ^ Cf. Schol. Ven. A on H 148, Schulze K. Z. XXIX 242. 
 
 ^ Here -aSjos is called Aiolic (see under that dialect), -5rjy Common. 
 
574.] THE VERB. 461 
 
 course not restricted to Tonic. The same dialect sometimes has 
 both -Cbrjs and -mv. Euboian 'iTTTrwySijs recalls the Boiotian 
 -avba^. A unique patronymic is that in -abevs oecurrino^ 
 nowhere outside of Hipponax, who has 'Ep/xj) Matabev (frag*. 16) 
 = Maia6os- 'EpjLi?; (21 A). EipvixebovTidbeg, (accusative) appears in 
 hexameters (85). It may be observed that the ending- -KAiSrj? 
 maybe derived from clip-names in -kXos, e.ff.'ApL(rTOK\[bi]s Styra 
 I9jg3; cf. ""AptoTOKAetSTy? 1912 • Ylapixevibi-js owes its -tSijs to the 
 analogy of UapixovCbrii. Ylapixeveibr]^ occurs (but not on Ionic 
 inscriptions). For the heavier -etSrj? we not unfrequently find 
 the lighter -tSrjs substituted. In masculines derived from 77U- 
 stems we expect to find -7718779, -et87]s, in feminines -Tjts (-???)• On 
 2eAA7jt8ea} and Bao-tAvjigeco see §§ 233, 235; on NTjtpetSo)!; § 233. 
 
 THE VERB. 
 
 573.] The Dual. 
 
 Conjecture as to whether the dual in Homer is Ionic rather 
 than Aiolic must be barren of result. In the most ancient 
 period of the cultivation of the epos the dual was alive in both 
 dialects ; but in early post-Homeric times in Ionic it had passed 
 out of ordinary use. It occurs but once (No. 265) in an inscrip- 
 tion dating from about 460 B. C. : Kpir6oj' koL NTjcrt&jT?]? eTToajcra- 
 Trjv. Though the dedicator of the memorial, Hegelochos, was 
 either an Euboian or an Ionian of one of the Kyklades, there is 
 nothing to compel us to assume that the artists were also 
 lonians. The inscription was found near the Parthenon and 
 the alphabet is Old Attic, though the dialect is Ionic. An 
 indubitable example of the Ionic usag-e in the fifth century is 
 the Parian inscription No. 59, in which there are two dedicators 
 {ivx.(Td[X€voi. aTTJcrav). In post- Homeric Ionic literature there does 
 not occur a single example of the occurrence of the dual of a 
 verbal form. 
 
 1 TAe SylJahlc Augment. 
 
 574.] This augment may be omitted in such Ionic poetry as 
 has an epic colouring-^, but not in iambic verse. To the rule 
 
 * On the accent, see Gottling in Arch. Zeit., 1845, p. 96. The conjunction 
 of Kritios and Nesiotes is attested in two other inscriptions in wlaich itroiy]- 
 (raTTjj/ occurs. See Brunn, GescJiichie der gr. Kiinstler, p. 74. 
 
 ^ The examples in the grammarians of the so-called omission of the syllabic 
 augment are either drawn from Homer outright and usually called Ionic and 
 poetic (at least in the later grammarians), or tacitly regarded as epic. Cf. 
 
462, THE IONIC DIALECT. [574. 
 
 that in prose only pluperfects and iteratives may omit the 
 augment XPV^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ apparent exception. It is derived 
 from ^prj + -^v = XP^^ W ^ ^^^ ^XP^^ i^ ^^ analogical formation. 
 
 The omission of the augment in Homer, notwithstanding the treatises by 
 Grashof, Poehlmann, M. Schmidt, La Roche, Koch, Skerlo, and Molheni, has 
 been generally regarded as px-actically subject to no rule. Latterly Mr. Arthur 
 Piatt has shown (Journal of Philologij XIX 211) that, when the aorist is em- 
 ployed to denote the immediate past or in its gnomic use, the forms with the > 
 augment are much more frequent. The imperfects in narration are often . 
 devoid of the augment. M. Schmidt (Philologus IX 426 ff.) endeavoured to 
 establish the procedure of Aristarchos, who, he maintains, omitted the aug- 
 ment of verbs beginning with A and rp ; when rev^e, t'ikt^, 5a>K€ stand after 
 the second foot ; when a noun precedes whose ending is o (except neut. pi in 
 -ea, and -la usually) ; and when the verb is preceded by a preposition with 
 anastrophe. 
 
 i 
 
 1 . In prose inscriptions this augment is never omitted. j 
 
 2. In the following metrical inscriptions this augment is ■' 
 omitted : Kt'x^e Amorgos 34 (but I^jjkc in 1. 2), [ejrew^e Erythrai . 
 200, (rT?](rav Paros 59. These inscriptions are epigrams. In 
 Halik, 241, after a dedication in prose, we read Troirja-ey MaKebiav 
 Aiovva-Lov 'HpaKAecorrj?. Boeckh read e] TrotTjcrev, but, apart from 
 the objection to this conjecture because of the unusual position 
 of the verb in a prose inscription, the omission of the augment in 
 artists^ signatures is not unknown, even when it does not con- 
 stitute a part of an hexameter. Maxdras TTorjac in C. I. Gr. 1794^ ' 
 (cf. b) precedes an epigram. We find iiTOiriaev in an hexametrical : 
 inscription containing the signature of Alxenor (no. 26). 1 
 
 575.] The syllabic augment is omitted in the lyric poets as 
 follows : A. lilecj'iac (by imitation of epic models). 
 
 Kail. ij5 [lolpa. kIx^v, Tyrt. ^^ (jyevyov (in the first foot), Mimn. 
 
 ApoUonios de Pronom. 113 C, Ptolemy cited by Hdn. II 28i = schol. Ven. A on 
 A 464, II 34i2 = schol. Yen. A on B 427, Hdn. II 125I3 (from vepl iraQuv) ' 
 where the omission of the augment is referred to the lonians and not merely 
 to the poeti^ That Herodian maintained the view (different from that of 
 ApoUonios) that the omission of the augment was poetic, not Ionic, cannot 
 be proved. It is quite true however that he does not call the phenomenon in ' 
 question either Ionic or poetic, and that most of the passages in Lentz' < 
 edition ascribing it to the lonians do not mention Herodian's name outright. 
 Joh. Gr. 241 , 242, Greg. Kor. p. 404, Gram. Meerm. 654, Aug. 669, Vat. 699, Paris. 
 675 (An. Bachm. II 36 = 0^ An. Ox. I 31O21, 33413, 374.3, 433,, II 359,3, 41204, IV 
 17610, 18526; An. Par. Ill 1205, 134,6, 13719, 1382, 183,4, 30421, 44i7, IV 21928, 
 223,; Choirob. 5i3ioef, 55626, .sg.'^as- 6093., 63333 ( = An. Ox. IV 41 805), 6373, 70I17, 
 909,5 ; Et. M. 338,7 ; in the scholiast Ven. A we find the remark 'Apia-rapxo^ ■ 
 'luKws or its equivalent on A 160, 374, 464, B 35, 427 (cf. A 464), 682, 751, 
 r 415, A 109, 517, Z 155, 157, I 86, K 546, E 285, O 601, n 120, 207, 290, 379, , 
 2 549, T 156, 4> 84, T 455, h 648 ; in the following passages no mention is 
 made of Aristarchos : H 42S, A 28, M 420, H 114, T 440 = Hdn. II 12235, schol. 
 P, Q on 7j 239 = Hdn. II 1472, &c. Cf. also Eust. 72,5, 17597, andTzetzes Ex. II. 
 738, 74h, 88„6, cf. 103,9, Drakon 16023, cf. 15522. 
 * Cf. Ahrens Kldnc SckriJ'kti I 24. 
 
576.] THE SYLLABIC AUGMENT. 463 
 
 14^1 avyfjaiv (p^per, Sol. 429 virepOopev, Phok. 3j TwrSe yevovTo 
 (where Stobaios' £ has kyivovTo), Theog, 5 d^a t€K€, 10 yi]dri(Tev 
 [first foot), 196 rX'^iJLOva di]Ke, 123 TTOiTjcre, 2o6 virepKpeixaaev (so 
 Berg'k, vireKpepLacrev 0, kTi^Kpip-acrev other MSS.), 266 cj)6iyyeT, 
 463 deol hocrav, IIOI oaris (tol fiovkevcrev . . . Kat (t eKeAeucrei'j 
 1108 yevojxrjv, 1319 Tot SwKe ; and in Archil. KokXi-nov 6^. 
 
 B. lambof/rap/nc'^ (including- all of Archilochos). 
 
 KaAAtTTov Archil. 6^. Aittc is not objectionable in Archil, epod. 
 
 irevTTljKovT avhpZv AiVe Koiparoy ?;7rios ITocreiScoy since the verse 
 .s an k^aix^rpov ■nepiTTocrvXkafiis. Frag-. 186 consists merely of 
 bhe words d^vr\ Ttoraro, which may be written o^vr] ^ttotclto as 
 irr] \i^ri(TaTo (73^ tetr.) for the unaugmented form^. Even in 
 arose inscriptions we find '?, 'Aao-rroi^e?. Archilochos elsewhere 
 retains the aug-ment (29^, 293, '^'^, 34, '^^, 52). koI irovi'io-aTo in 
 iSim. Am. y^- was cured by Ahrens' KaTToin]craTo. In a fragment 
 iscribed by some to Xenophanes, Bergk (F. L. G. H, p. 116) 
 i\rrites ^krj(TTpi(6ixiiv contrary to the MSS. The word seems 
 jonfined to Ionic (Hippokrates and Aretaios use it), but the verse 
 s suspected ; cf . § ^6^. 
 
 (pvyov in Anakr. 29 is nothing but a conjecture for (pevyca in order to 
 larmouize the metre of 29 with 28, i.e. choriambic dimeter + first phere- 
 ratic. 
 
 On iteratives in poetry, see § 576, 2. 
 
 576.] In prose the syllabic augment is omitted only in the case 
 »f pluperfects and iteratives^. As stated in § 574 xPV^ is ^o^ 
 m exception. It is more frequent in literature from the time 
 )f Herodotos, and in that author occurs oftener than exp?/''. The 
 atter form should have been adopted by Stein in II 173, where 
 t is supported by ABU. In III 52 ^xpv^ is found in all MSS. 
 
 Lukian is the only pseudo-Ionist who might be thought to have attempted 
 omit the syllabic augment under other circumstances. In Syria dea 19 and 
 2 Jacobitz adopts \i(T(reTo (in both cases after a vowel). In § 19 i? has the 
 orrect form i\i(r(T€To. In § 25 we find (pdey^aro, in § 45 auaKearo in A E, 
 vaKeero in Vatic. 90, the reading adopted by Jacobitz, in the other MSS. the 
 orrect aveKearo. Even the pluperfects in Lukian retain the augment, and in 
 10 case may the augmentless forms be accepted as representing older Ionic 
 .■rose usage, or in fact anything more than vicious theorizing on the part of a 
 lopyist. 
 
 ^ Cf. Hdn. II 497i8 : T-apa rots lafxPoypd(pois . . . ov Set 5ia tov i ypdcpeiv outJ 
 \tlSov), aWa 5 JO rfjs €i 5t(j)6. ix6vov. 
 
 * The form ottj is here the shorter form of actTTj, which should not in § 261 
 ave been mentioned as possible. Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 106, Agam. 730. Hesychioa 
 as KaTe^a(TKe- Kare^Ka^ev. The initial o of afdri] is prosthetic. 
 
 ' Other cases of omitted syllabic augment are errors, even when supported 
 y all the MSS., e. g. Hdt. I 208 i^avaxfipa. 
 
464 THE IONIC DIALECT. [576. 
 
 1. Plvperfecf. In Herodotos according" to Lhardy^s count^ 
 there are 162 cases of the presence of the auo-ment, 31 where it 
 is omitted. From the latter number, Stein deducts all but the 
 following seven, which are found in all MSS. : ai'a^e/3?//ce€ I 84, 
 ava(3e(3i]K€(rav VII 6, r€TeAeur7/Kee I 165, KaTaX^Xoiiree III 61, 
 KarakikeLTtTo VII 1 70, biboKTo IX 74^ TrapaTerdxaTo VIII 95, 
 Whether even these are correct may well be doubted. Other 
 editors are not so rigorous as Stein in excluding the unaug- ■ 
 mented forms. 
 
 The repugnance of the Koti^?/ to augmented pluperfects may 
 explain some of the omissions in the MSS. of Attic prose litera- 
 ture. There is not a single example of the loss of the syllabic 
 augment in the phiperfect in any Attic inscription. 
 
 2. Iteratives^. In the case of iteratives no augment was 
 necessary. They were preterites differing from other verbal 
 forms in having no present with a distinct iterative force and no 
 mood form other than the (past) indicative. In the post- Homeric 
 poetry which was composed by lonians we find two cases of the . 
 preservation of the iterative : '4(tk€v in Mimn. 14^^ (also Homeric) 
 and Qv^(TK€ in Hipponax 372- The presence of the latter form in 
 trimeter is proof that the lonians did not cast aside this peculiar 
 formation which all the other dialects found too cumbersome, : 
 and that the forms in Ionic prose are not mere reproductions of ' 
 epic diction. Doubtless the fondness of the ej)ic dialect for the : 
 iterative aided in part its revival in the fifth century, but the ' 
 forms had not died out at that period. The post-Homeric 
 j)rose iterative is a strongly marked lonism. While New Ionic 
 did not utterly abandon the iteratives formed from the second 
 aorist active stem, it avoided those of the sigmatic aorist and 
 second aorist passive. The iterative in post-Homeric Ionic is 
 confined to 12 verbs. 
 
 Examples from Herodotos, &c. (i) Imperfects: ^o-kov, ^x^orKe , 
 (so IV 200 for T/x^ecTKe), and in about twenty other verbs. XP'?'' 
 (TKovTo (b}'^conjecture in III 117 for -rat) and obvpio-Kero III 119 
 are the only middle forms. Lukian S//r. dea 22 has KkaiecrKe. (2); 
 Aorists: kajSeaKov IV 78 and 130. KaTakiTrea-Ke is preferable to 
 KarakiiTi€.(TK€ in IV 7^. 
 
 In some MSS. the augment occurs, e. g. I 100 (C P da-fTre/xTrea-Koj/), TV 78 {R ; 
 e-jToUffKe), IV 78 {E Kara\eiire(TKe, A B KaTikiinffKe) ; in IV 130 all the MSS. have 
 
 1 Quaestionum de dialecfo Herod., chai^ter II. 
 
 ^ The gi-ammarians regard the iterative forms as Ionic only. Cf. Hdn. I 
 _;;3t;35 = II 3812 = 11 792j5 (Schol. Ven. Aon B 832), eXaaKev II 4934=210,3 (Schol.' 
 Ven. A on E 256), cf. 49628; Choirob. 62,2.,^ (cf. An. Ox. IV 4iS.2o\ An. Ox. I. 
 30918! 37^i4j .^851, where it is stated that piirTaaKev and ex^'^'^^^ '^^'^ ^^^^ lonici. 
 but poetic ; An. Par. IV 2i9._8, Et. M. 284^5, 2^5,.,, 38135, 62431, Et. Grud. 42836, 
 Drakon 433. 
 
577-] THE TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 465 
 
 577.] The augment with tj. 
 
 The forms ri^ovXoixrjv, -^bwdixriv, ydtkov are called Ionic ^ in 
 An. Ox. II 37432- Of these forms ijOeXov occurs in Homer, 
 where it is from ediXoo^, ^e'Ao) being- found in 317, possibly in A 
 277, and occasionally in the hymns ^. Hippokr. Ill 90 has ijdeXes, 
 cf. § 588. Homer has efxeXXov. In M 34 Zenodotos wrote 
 ^jueAAoj'. In an eleg-y attributed to Theog-nis we find (v. 906) 
 TJlxeXX', and in another probably not composed by the Meg-arian 
 poet occurs (v. 259) ?]/xeAAr](ra (so A, rjjxek-qa-a 0, and br] /ixeAArjo-a 
 in most of the MSS., a form that may be adopted). Perhaps 
 the rj- forms are an echo of those appearing in Hesiod^s 
 Theogony, as Renner suggests, though it is doubtful whether 
 they are a part of the older epic dialect, Fick (Hesiod's GedicMe, 
 p. 21) endeavours to displace -ijixeWov by transposition and other 
 means ^. In a very late hexametrical poem on the death of 
 a child, found at Smyrna (C. I. G. 3272^), we read ijixekXev. 
 Tjixekkov is certainly fifth century Attic, as it appears twice in 
 Aristophanes where the metre (anapaestic) calls for the tj-iorm. 
 ■q- Hippokr. In Herodotos we find e/xeAAoy, k^ovXoixriv. In the 
 case of bvvaixai there is some evidence for the 77- forms. Stein 
 and Holder adopt ribwdaro IV 185, IX 70, but cbwiaro IV no 
 (MSS. 77-) and the e- forms elsewhere. In at least thirteen 
 passages there is no variant rj- form, which is elsewhere 
 supported by some MSS., e.ff. in I 10 {Rbd). rjbvvdfjLr^v is how- 
 ever Hippokratic: II 686, 712, III ^6, 38, 58, 120, IV 256, 
 V 430, &c., and rjbvvrjOriv appears in Frometh. 206 ; Herodotos 
 las lbvva(r6r\v, never 7)8-, despite R in VII 106. In Attic 
 nscriptions ■r\bvvd[i.y]v and -q^ovKoivqv are posterior to 284 B.C. 
 
 In no Attic inscription do we find an example of ijixeXXov, and 
 n Attic 'poetry there is no certain case of i]^ov\6\x.y]v . 
 
 On the augment of verbs which once had f, see § 582. 
 
 The Temporal Augment. 
 
 The omission of this augment is regarded as Ionic by the 
 grammarians ^, who cite only Homeric forms. 
 
 * But cf. Eust. 152318. 
 
 * The f] of i)dvvdixriv, rjfiov\6fx.t]v, ^fxeWov is merely an analogue of that of 
 9fXov. Of this verb there were three forms 9e\ai, ideXa>, r]6(Auj, in which the 
 
 is a preposition (cf. oipeXos, wcpeAecu). The ij form was cast off except in the 
 mperfect. 
 ^ See Eberhard's Die Sprache der homerischen Hymnen, I 12. 
 
 * In 478 Fick reads iroiScov Tf^effdai e/ieAAe for TraiSaiv Tj/xeWe TeKeaOai ; 888 
 r) &p' 6/U6AA.6 for S'f] p TjfjLfWe ; but S98, where the verse begins TJ/j.e\\ev re^ea-dai, 
 i difficult to correct. The last verse is certainly later than the genuine 
 tesiod. 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 240 B, 242, Greg. Kor. § 23, Hdn. II 282 = 3456 (on A 464), 34,3 
 m B 427) in Schol. Yen. A ; cf. also schol. on A 213 and N 383 (e'A/cev), 
 
 Hh 
 
466 THE IONIC DIALECT. [578. 
 
 578.] Inscriptions. 
 
 In prose inscriptions the temporal aug-ment is preserved except 
 in epydcraro Ej)hesos 1 46, an inscription of the fourth century, 
 and kpyaaavTo No. 263, an Ionic inscription found in Lykia^. 
 In Rheg-ion 5^, where we find ETf a/xrjz^, which may be either r\v- 
 or ev-j the Herodoteian form with ev- (I 48, IV 76) may be 
 adopted. In Attic inscriptions rjy- is the preferable form before 
 300 B. c. In the same document from Rheg-ion, EA^oy is rjkOov. 
 In Teos 159^, an inscription that has lost almost all traces of 
 Ionic, we find k-ncaKohoixriQii. Is this an error of the stone-cutter 
 or are we to read kiroiK- as in Hdt. and occasionally in Attic in 
 the perfect participle (at least in Makedonian times)? An 
 Ephesian inscription [Brit. 3Ius. Ill 2, 449) has avvbioUrjo-ev. 
 
 In metrical inscriptions the augment is preserved (Amorg. ^^y 
 
 iiTi]vwpQuid-i) in an inscription from Mykonos of the Makedonian period 
 (Ditt. Syll. 373i) is an interesting form since no certain example of the 
 double augment in avopdSu occurs on Attic inscriptions. Whether this form 
 is Ionic or Attic must be left undecided. Latyschev, B. C. II. XII 460, calls, 
 for iirr)vopQ(ii6if). , 
 
 avdXwaa (Hellenistic) is found in Amoi-gos, B. C. II. VIII 450,5 (thirc 
 century b. c.\ Cf. avaXw/xa Thasos 72,1. 
 
 Verbs that have lost an initial cr have et — e.g. EIxoj' Halik. 2383^, Elxei 
 2403a' 
 
 579.] Lyric Poets. 
 
 The temporal augment is omitted in the lyric poets as follows 
 A. Elegiac (in imitation of Homer). Tyrt. 4^ ouaS' hecKa' 
 by conj, (Hdt. has -^v^iKav &c.) ; Mimn. 9^ kCofxeO' as always ii 
 the form with no preposition, 1 1^ Ka\bv Xkovto, 142 ot juti' tbov (^ 
 elbov) ; Solon 409 evpe ; Theog. 16 KaXov aeiaar^ 208 e^eTo, 22^ 
 abov, 542 okecrev, 831 oXeo-cra (0 wAecr'), III^ [jlol oretStcra? Berg 
 [rvlgo IX coz^etSto-a? with a double accus. after the verb or a 
 elided juot), 606 ^OeXov from ideXco (see on iOiXco, § 588). In 95; 
 akdira^a is the preferable form because of A 750, p 424, hv 
 ekcLTTa^a fhe reading of is not impossible, as Xairaa-ao) was use 
 by Aischylos and Hippokr. V 176, 628, Aret. 281. 
 
 A 329, 367, K 252, 359, T 259, ■*■ 691, Aristarehos adopting the unaugmentc 
 forms; An. Ox. I 3161^, 395^ {'IcoytKois ^ ttoititikus). III 26oig (Hdn.\ 266 
 (Hdn.), IV 176,0, 178.20, 1852s ; An. Par. Ill 2585, IV 21933, 2 2 2„; Choiro 
 5130.3 'Icoj/. il) ttoi7)tikS>s as 519c, 59123, 5939, 5.S626, 63.^33 = An. Ox. IV 41823 / 
 Choirob. 909,0), 70I17; Et. M. 1240, 2345 ('iwv. Koi ttoivt.), 3323, (eX/ce), 6i7,s; Eufi 
 42i6. 724-,, 380,3, 6465, 922„, 152243, 17597; Tzotz. Ex. II. 734, S323, 105,8, II| 
 and on Hsd. Theog. 555, W. D. 79 ; Max. Plan, in An. Baehm. II 56,2. ] 
 ' In Attic inscriptions of the classical period r)pyaC6/j.r)v, vpyaa-d/ariv are tli' 
 correct forms {KaTfipydadriffav C. I. A. II 809 b, 117 from 325 B.C. and iir€i' 
 yda-avTo in 'Ecp-q/x. apx- 1884, 169-170, 1. 21 from the second century a. d. a| 
 the only exceptions). This shows that the augment was t) not e. Tlie perfe: 
 ("Lpyaff/jLai is correct in the classical period of Attic. In Oropos 'E<t>rifj.. ap 
 1S90, 71 ff. 1. 17 we find (^eipyaff/xai ; Hdt. epyacrfxai. 
 
 i 
 
58o.] THE TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 467 
 
 Elsewhere we find the augment retained: (^x^to Mimn. 11^, 
 Theog. 1 137, 1292. 
 
 B. laTiiboffrap/nc. Though we find evpe in Hipponax 5I3, the 
 support for Bergk^s avvoLKrjcras in 12 and oiKct in 47 is very weak. 
 Codex Marc, has avvoiK'i]aas (sic), the vulgate being (TVimK7]aas, 
 and there is no authority for ouei whatever. I should have no 
 hesitation in adopting the augmented forms. In Herodas 4^ we 
 have (tiKi]Kas, but evpe 6^^, oIxcokcv 23^. In Sim. Am. 24 for 
 Bergk''s a^^vcra (in the text) read a^eva-a. 
 
 Where two consonants follow : Archil, tetr. 67 . . . . av yap 
 
 hi] irapa (j)iX(jov cnrdyx^o from Arist. Pol. VII 6, 3. Here F^ has 
 
 a-ndyx^TO, Pg dTrrjyx^o, Sb Vb cmiyx^o, and P^ aTrayxeat which we 
 
 may adopt though the quotation is too fragmentary to permit 
 
 ;a certain restoration^. In Sim. Am. ijg dxj/avTo is Bergk''s 
 
 reading though Stobaios' B has {]\l/avTo, cf. Hdt. I 19. Solon 
 
 jtetr. 352 has ephov [iepbov in Arist. 'A^. ttoA. ii). 
 
 [ The augmented forms appear in Sim. Amorg. 17 7]X(Tdp.f]v, 
 
 Archil, ep. I04j tjdpotCeTo, tetr. 73 ijjx^kaKov, Hippon. 42^ dTrrjra- 
 
 \pi(rdr}, &c. Not even in Hdt. do all verbs with two consonants 
 
 ;omit the temporal augment. The poets claim an equal licence. 
 
 ;Renner thinks that Solon in his Kadri'^dpiriv tetr. 32., follows the 
 
 [lines of his native Attic. But it is not certain that Herodotos 
 
 rejects the augment in aTrro) (cf. I 176). Where a long syllable 
 
 is necessary (Trapriyayev Archil, tetr. 78^, dffxiXiTo Sim. Amorg. 
 
 92, dvfiXov Solon tr. 364 ^ ^xov Hippon. tetr. 81^ ui-naa-dv Sim. 
 
 Amorg. 7,^.,) the temporal augment is not omitted. On KarrjuAt- 
 
 (rO-qv Hipponax tr. 63^, Renner remarks that the augment r]v is 
 
 an indication of the Ionic fondness for rj. But in Herodotos 
 
 jmany opportunities for 7]v- from av- verbs are neglected, and ev- 
 
 jis the almost universal form in the MSS. in the case of verbs 
 
 beginning with eu. 
 
 I 580.] Herodotos. 
 
 j In the majority of verbs the augment is preserved, but (i) in 
 bertain cases it is never found, (2) in certain others it is omitted 
 ^n isolated forms only, and (3) in others it is at times present, at 
 :imes omitted. The other dialects evidence the fact that the 
 lemonstrative particle utilized to give expression to past time 
 vas recognized more and more as an integral part of the verbal 
 'orm. Even in the domain of the poetry which succeeded to the 
 ;pos the licence to omit the augment was restricted, and only 
 apon certain definite occasions was its absence permissible. The 
 latitude to be discerned in the MSS. of Herodotos is quite ex- 
 eptional. A minimum variation is no doubt supported by the 
 
 ^ Bergk himself suggests that the imperative o7ra7x*<' i'* correct. 
 
 H h 2 
 
468 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [580. 
 
 analog-y of other dialects, e.g. Attic in its treatment of verbs 
 beginning with a diphthong, but such laxity as the presence or 
 absence of the augment in such verbs as ayco is exceedingly 
 strange. 
 
 Various causes may have contributed to this laxity : the view 
 that Herodoteian Ionic was not radically dissimilar to Homeric 
 Ionic, the growth of the historical present in the fifth centuiy, 
 which, by causing the imperfect to be assimilated in form to the 
 present, may have fostered such forms as d/xet/3ero, and the' 
 objection to diphthongs whose first member was a long vowel. 
 Thus at, au, eu, &c., in Hdt. may be normal developments of 
 primitive at, du, rju, and not augmentless forms at all. But the 
 repugnance to these initial diphthongs, it must be confessed, is 
 more strongly marked in non-Ionic dialects, notably North-West 
 Greek. 
 
 For the considerable diversity of opinion between scholars ^ as 
 to the freedom in the treatment of the augment by Herodotos, 
 the confusion of his MSS. is responsible. So great is this con- 
 fusion, which must have existed in the archetypal MS., that theij 
 following summary can make no pretence to reproduce the usage;! 
 of fifth century Ionic, or in fact claim to do more than recordjj 
 the testimony of the MSS. 
 
 All verbs except iteratives [ay^aKov) and those mentioned!] 
 below accept the temporal augment, e.g. ^ixov, 7\<jav, i"]kaa-a,.\ 
 TipriixoiTo. On the augment of verbs once beginning with F, see' 
 
 § 5«2. 
 
 Verbs beginning with A. (i) Unangmenled are ayiufoi, aeOXfo}, aXv/cTo^a.! 
 a/xavp6oo, afxeifio/xai (but r]/jLel\paTo in all MSS. IV 97, cf. v. I. VI 68, VII 109, &c.) ; 
 aj/ciyco, {KaT)apyvp6w, appaiSeu. With but two exceptions these verbs have f 
 liquid or a nasal after the initial vowel. (2) Variable are aydWofiai, oyyeA-oi 
 aXi^co, aWdcrcrcu, avSpovfiat, ai/Tid^ai, anft\ew, Etttw, apjuo^w, apreofiai, acnrd^oiicu 
 (3) Unaugmented only in certain forms are ayopfvai (irpoayopfve), &yai i&x^vy, 
 ayajfl^o) {aywuiSarai), avSpairoSi^oi) {avSpaTroSifffifuovs^, apiQfiiw {apid/xeovTo), &prri 
 fiai [apTtarA), &px(^ {apy/j.fi>os, Kardpxovro). E. (i) Unaugmented are e<Ta6a> 
 iaOeo), e^ofiai, iu, ideXoKaKfw, epSu, erepoiSw, erotfjid^ii}, iXiviw, e^e/jLiroXew and tbv 
 pluperfect of 'iarrtfii. ipyd^o/iai may belong here though there is evidence i)' 
 favour of the augmented form, see § 582. Hdt. has twda, not eiwOa. (2) Vari' 
 able are e\€vd€p6a), eTrelyoixat, eTrlcrrafiai, fpyw, aj/exojuai (fivecrx^f^V*' &t^^ avtaxc 
 M'?")- (3) Unaugmented only in certain forms are '4kkw {avf\Kvcr/j.evas), (v 
 {iripU<pQ7}(Tav), e'<|/a) (d7r€i|/77^eVos) ^. O. (i) Unaugmented are dSotnopecv, Sp/iec 
 6pfj.iC<>i, dprdCou, and 6<pe\ov (but cf. the v.l.liii, III 65). (2) Unaugmente 
 only in certain forms is bpfxaw {dpfj.rjfj.evos, 6pfj.farai, bpfi4a.ro). Al. Unaujij 
 
 * Abicht in Philologus XI 275 ff. held that in verbs beginning with at, ft, a 
 (V, 01 omission is the rule. With this Curtius (Verbum I 139 Germ. ed| 
 agreed ; while Dindorf combatted the neglect of the augment even befoij 
 diphthongs. 
 
 ^ In Hippokrates II 254^ has Tixprjcrdat ; in VIII 192 exprififuos is correct. 
 
583.] THE TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 469 
 
 mented are diairSifiat, alvicti (but -Kapijvee IX 122), alpeu (but 4^Tjpe6T]ffav in VII 
 106), alreai, evai(Ti/j.6a), wpoaiSeofxai. The second aorist of ala-ddvoixai apjjears 
 once (VII 220), and with the avigmented form which is not in harmony 
 with the above, iiraioo or rather eTraoi, has iirfjcre IX 93. AY. (i) Unaug- 
 mented is ivavw. (2) Variable are i^avaivw^, avTOfioKiw {avSdu is augmented). 
 (3) Without the augment only in certain forms are ai/^dvu {at^ero, av^TiTai). 
 El. Unaugmented are eiKciCo}, elpvu, elpwrdoD, etpo/xai. Only in the case of the 
 genuine diphthong wovild 7)t- have been possible. EY. Unaugmented all 
 
 verbs except evSco which has tjvSov I 211 {A B, rjv- R with ev written above, 
 edSov C), ijSSe III 69 in all MSS. Homer uses only the unaugmented form, 
 ei; does not ajipear as in Attic as the augment of av verbs, rjv is rare in Attic, 
 a fact that at least in part may be ascribed to the ever-growing objection to 
 this diphthong. OY. ovpi^co contains a spurious diphthong and owofid^ai is 
 incorrect. 01. is always unaugmented. 
 
 581.] The temporal augment in other Ionic prose writers. 
 
 On verbs beginning with F, see § 582. 
 
 Hippokrates follows the Attic norm^ e.ff. rjp^aTo II 604, 684, 
 7o8j ijp^avTO II 642^ III 80^ irapijv^ov II 226^ fjixoppdyrjcre II 644 
 (^ju.- in A C, alfj.- vulgo), rjvbpMdri V 356, rjiTTeTo III 98, naput^vvOr] 
 II 686 {v. I. -0^), III 24, 34, 62, ij\y€i (-ee) II 708, III 52, 
 avop-aaev III 232. On ribvva[xr]v, see § 577- For iXvTpcoraL IV 
 190 of many MSS.^ the vulgate is iXX-, which we may correct 
 to eiA-. The unaugmented form appears to be due to association 
 with the following kkvTpoia-L. Demokritos 12 has ivpidi]. A 
 noteworthy form is rjKrjKoeL Hippokr. VII 490. From avakoo} 
 we find in the same writer avr]\(Jiixai VII 514, 588, rivaX(a6rjv V 
 122, 126, but drdAcojuat VII 574, avakcaTO I 594. 
 
 Of the pseudo-Ionists Lukian alone (except Aretaios who 
 has eXe 43, -atwprjrat ill) neglects the temporal augment. In 
 the St/ria ilea we find hiairiovTo 16 (Dindorf -J7t-), avXiCpvTo, 
 (XTTero, aiTTeTo, avaiv^ro 22 (which contains fjhi^To and wixoko- 
 yeev), aiJi€i(3€To 18, OLKohopieov 21, apyj^TO 21, 24, ap^aro ly, l)(e 
 17, 24 (et^e 45), ex^TO 17, oppdibee 1 9, 21, avveviCxdr] 27 (^i'etKe 
 22, 25), €(Tav 3, atree 25. 
 
 Arrian 28^ has doov. 
 
 582.] The Augment and Reduplication of verbs once 
 beginning with Digamma. 
 
 Excluded from this list are verbs whose presents have beyond 
 doubt accepted a fixed adulterine et, e. g. dpvoo, dpooTaa). In this 
 section are included verbs from Herodotos, Hippokrates and other 
 sources. 
 
 aYvvjAi. kot5j|o in Hippokr. V 224 recalls ^|€ in "V 392, t 539, for which 
 ea|« " must be substituted ; cf. 5|ot with a taken from the indicative ea|o. 
 
 ' In Attic we find both avaivero and nuaiv6piriv. Hdt. has ^^avdvdr) IV 151 
 but €|i7i57)V€ IV 173. Abicht augments in each case. 
 * Zenodotos read e»;|e, cf. €316. 
 
470 THE IONIC DIALECT. [582. 
 
 Though afa becomes a in Ionic, a form Kar'fiyvvfj.ai was invented to give a 
 supposed Ionic colouring to KaTa.yvvfj.ai wliich was regarded as Attic only. 
 This KarTiyvvfxai appears in Kardywrai Hippokr. Ill 556, Kar-qyvvfjuva III 506 
 {y. I. KOTeTjy/xeVa, an unusual form for Hippokrates, who uses Kariy]y6Ta). Else- 
 where Hippokr. adopts KaTayvvfiai, e. g. IV 278, airayvvixai III 558, or KaTayvioi 
 
 VII 530 ; though Karriyfxa III 498, 500, IV 154, 164, VI 1 18, 134, 150 and /caT7)|ij 
 III 494, IV 118, 170, and not the d forms, are employed. The perfect is etiya 
 found in KareTiye Hippokr. Ill 428, 492, 506, VI 150, Kareriycis Hdt. VII 224, 
 Hippokr. Ill 442, 500, IV 130, 200, 278, 282 where the MSS. often have the 
 Attic a. The feminine must have had t] not o. In Phoinix of Kolophon 
 apud Athen. XI 495 E = Schneidewin Del. 34, KaTr)yvir]s (Porson for Ka\ rT}yviris 
 A B) recalls forms that occur in the MSS. of Hippokrates. Littre edits Kart- , 
 ayv7a in III 426 where several MSS. have Karayvlav, M N •r)yv7av, IV 158 where ; 
 H alone has Kareayvlrjs, BCE &c. Karrjyviris, Karayvitjs {Kar-qya quoted by 
 Veitch from Kiihn 3, 75). Aor. pass, idyrtf. In Homer we find idyn or ayn : 
 except in A 559, where the MSS. have a./j.(p\s idyr]. The substitution by Bekker 
 of dfj.<pl fdyri, perf. subj., (cf. Ahrens, FormenJehre, § 197, note i) still leaves the, 
 text encvimbered with an Attic (or Aiolic ?) d that is found in Hesiod W. B. j 
 534 {ywTa iaye, Bentley vSot idyTj, though he made no further conjecture to, 
 bring this into the verse). The Ionic form would be i-fiyrj. Confusion between; 
 perfect active and aorist passive led to the construction of such augmented' 
 forms as Karerj-yfj Hippokr. Ill 428, Kareayf, IV 220 (-7J7t) M N, -€7)77) B), Kare-.! 
 ayri IV liS {-ayri CO), Kareayels IV 132, 172 {Karayev O, 32^, 346 (Littr^).; 
 KaTayy is well supported, IV 126, 168, 158 {FEJ-eayrj), Karay€7<ra, IV 164,, 
 KaTayila-rjs IV 14S, KaTaye^a-av IV 154 in many MSS. but rejected by Littre,i 
 KaTaye7<Ta IV 166 in CRN (Littre -60761(70), KaTayeii] IV 128 vulgo (Littre^ 
 -6a76iTj with H), Karay^ IV 120 many MSS. (Littre -607fi\ III 442 vulgc] 
 (Littre -riy^^. aXio-Kojiai. TiKicTK^ro Hdt. VII 181, and II 174 (MSS. /caraA.-. 
 and /coTTjA.-) ; 7}Xa> I 78 (so always in Hdt.) and x 230, the only indicative fonr, 
 in Homer (eaAco ?\ In Hdt. IV 127 Sei<ravTes fx^ aKdri (in AB P) ?) Kapr}, the 
 adoption of the Homeric form was aided by the following tj. Read a\^ (I 84 
 cf. II 93). Bekker's oA^'r;, found in Aldus and perhaps in C, is not defensible 
 In Hippokr. VII 284 we find edXu, the Attic form <.TiaKa>. Hipponax (frag 
 74) has an indisputable case of aXwvai, the only occurrence of this form ii 
 literature. Its d might have been borrowed from the indicative edxav: 
 though that form is not attested in Ionic sources. aKwvai recalls d\6vTe h' 
 E 487 : /xri TTcos ws a\f/7(n \ivov aKovre iravdypov. Here the v. I. xivoio remove 
 the difficulty as regards quantity, but creates the worst possible caesura' 
 7]\wKa is better supported in Hdt. than edAuKa: tjXukol I 83, rjXooKecrav 1 84'- 
 
 VIII 61, tiAuikSs I 78, TjKcoKfvai I 7°> ^^^ ed\wKe I 209, iaXaiKSrwv and -KSrai 
 I 191 (read ^A-). Arrian 131,, has eaAoi/c^Tos. dvaXiffKu {dvaxSoo Hippokr. II5, 
 where Galen has dvaXianeTai, VII 5S8 with dvaXiffKOfxai twice on the sam 
 page). In VII 514, 588 we find dt/riKwrai, in V 122 KaT7)va\ud7], 126 /carrjj'aAa 
 dr)(Tav as IX 178, 180. dvaKwaa Amorgos B.C.H. VIII 45O15 (third centur 
 B. c.) is an Hellenistic form often found in the MSS. of Attic write i-s. Atti 
 inscriptions always have -q. avSavu. In Hdt. IX 5, 19 we find 6a;'5ai'6, tb 
 form to be substituted for eT}vSaye n 25, 7 143 ; but in VII 172, VIII 28 iiivSav 
 in almost all MSS. As both forms cannot well coexist, I shotild adopt i^vSai 
 
 * The attempts to cm-e this verse are enumerated by Schulze, K. Z. XXI. 
 236. 
 
■582.] 
 
 THE TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 471 
 
 ((cf. 674), The open form derived its existence from the belief that Hero- 
 Idoteian Ionic was like Homeric Ionic in its preference for open 477, and 
 .perhaps also to the presence of eaSov. eaSe Hdt. I 151, IV 201, VI 106, aSr; 
 \l 133, &c. Hipponax 100 has SStj/cs with the lenis, which is supported by 
 \avSdvei Hippokr. II 230, aSeTv Hdt. Ill 45 in rfs. In Homer we find the non- 
 Ionic eaSoTo in I 173 = 0-422. With S57j/ce, cf. Homeric dSTj/cc^res from dSe'co. 
 je9i5w. iWiafxai Hippokr. IV 254, eWiaro II 294, eieiSaraL twice in 11 298 (in A) 
 lor eWtcrnevoL eiai e9w. eaiOa Hdt. I 133, II 91, IV 134, iajdcds I 34, ill, 
 
 III 27, 31, ewdea I 73, III 31, IV 127, 134, VI 107. Homer has i'lccOa and 
 jewfla each twice, but only elaidiis. Hippokr. has eJfco^a V 610, 718, VI 242, 
 flwdws II 300 as in Attic. cISov Hdt. I 68, II 148 (Idov in PIi3\ etSriffa 
 
 Hippokr. II 436, V 352, IX 230, -pSea Hdt. II 150, jjSee II lOO, IX 94, crwridfaTe 
 jIX 58, p^Seo-av VII 175, VIII 78. In I 45 ijeiSe is supported by AcPs, but rjSee, 
 'the conjecture of H. Stephanus, is to be adojited. The pluperfect always has 
 the augment : avveiSee VIII 113 in ^ B C is to be corrected (cf. VII 164). The 
 spic TifiSris X 280, ^etSet t 206 are certain cases of the augment 7]. Elsewhere 
 Homer has pS- as in New Ionic. eUdSco. etKa^ov Hdt. Ill 133, elKaffa II 
 (104, elKacTfiai II 182, III 28. Attic distinguished imjierf. aor. (?;-, i. e. with 
 jiugment t;^) from perf. (et-). *eiKw, A sharp dividing line separates 
 
 iHerodotos^ from other Ionic writers in respect of the perfect of this verb. 
 hiKa is found in Sim. Amorg. 741, Tlieog. 391, 525, Hippokr. II 24, 52, Anax. 
 [I. iolKaa-t Hippokr. II 12, 68, Herakl. 2, 3. ioiKcis Anakr. 84, Hippokr. II 
 34, Diog. 6, ioiKvTai Hippokr. II 58, ioiKvlav Aret. 169. In Hdt. on the other 
 hand, though toiKa appears in the MSS. I 39, III 71, IV 31, 99, 132, VI 64, 
 
 VII 18, the testimony in favour of the unreduplicated form is so strong as to 
 justify the substitution of oiKa which is read in IV 82, III 71 (in R), o'lKare 
 V 20, VII 162, o'^Kaa-i VII 106, o^KO} IV 180, o'lKcos VI 125, I 155, &c. Eberhard 
 idopts oIkSs in Arrian I3io,,not (Ikos, as in 65, where the MSS. have ioiKos. 
 Hercher edited ehSs. For eiKos it is fitting, found in Hippokr. II 50, Hdt. has 
 )Ik6s V 97. «iK« yield. elKov Hdt. VIII 3, el^a IX 63, 106. elirov and 
 •lira. eipw say<.fepi.w. ilp7)Ka. Hdt. I 155, i'lpTj/xat II 24, VIII 93, Hippokr. 
 
 VIII 20, flptarai Hdt. VII 81, etpTjTo VIII 26, dp-njxivos Hippokr. VIII 20, eipeeTjv 
 iSdt. IV77, 156, and so elsewhere though the MSS. often have eppr}dT]y or 
 '!ppe6tiv, Hippokr. V 196 irpoeppfdriv ; inf. (njdrjvai Hdt. Ill 9, prideis I 9i,&c. fut. 
 ])7]dri(To/j.ai Hippokr. II 362. flp7}(ToiJ.ai is confined in Attic to the form elpri- 
 reroi, which occurs in Hdt. IV 16, Hippokr. I 596. The latter author has 
 iilso the strange form elprja-Sfievos III 516 (where nine MSS. have ^ridri-). 
 j\i<T<rio. Traces of a form kKicraw or rather ixifrtrta appear in Hippokr. KaTeXia- 
 irerat II 470. For S»e|eA.i(r(rov(n Hdt. IV 67, ivf\i^dfj.evos II 95, the recent 
 pditors adopt the forms with ei. There is but little doubt that the Herodo- 
 teian form was elkia-crw. Hippokr. has KaretXi^at VII 32, 42, 50, VIII 426, 
 \l\i^as VIII 166 (e), ivfXi^aa-aYIII 168 (iveXl^as 6), ivfiXi^as VIII 172, Littre 
 \eve\i^as 6), eVeAila^eVr; (-et- 6) VIII 376, ejAt'xctTO Hdt. VII 90 ; ffweiMffdhra. 
 lippokr. II 438. [eXKw has lost <r not f , cf. sulcus.'] eXirt^w. riXiri^ov 
 
 ' Other Attic verbs which have ei in imperfect and aorist according to 
 radition may in reality have had tj ; cf. An. Ox. IV 1792, which says that 
 lome wrote riOi^ov, ricrriuv. ridiCovTo is actually attested. eWia-rai is the 
 lorrect form in the perfect. 
 
 Eust. I 71415 : rb Se flKv7a ov Kara t^v vffrepov 'luviK^iv yXwcraav Ae^erat. 01 
 ./ap ix(d'"Oix7]pov, ODS 5t]\o7 kuI 'HpdSoros, oiKhs ypdcpov(n, Kol aKoXovdws Kal olKvta, 
 ATTi/coi Se ioLKhs Kal ioiKv7a. Homer has ioiKciS) e'lKcis, iiKv7a, eiotKvlai. 
 
472 THE IONIC DIALECT. [582. 
 
 Hdt. VII 168, ^K-Kiaa VIII 24, i,\niCeTO Hippokr. IX 320. Ifxe'u. ^^ee Hdt. 
 VII 88, 7j^6(ra Hippokr. II 696, VII 194 (not TJf^ria-a), ifx-rjixeKee V 232. evvv(i,i. 
 
 ■r]fj.(pif(r/xai Hippokr. VII 456, riij.(ptf(T6ai VI 76. €p7d£o(xai. This verb is 
 
 probably unaugmented in Hdt. and inscriptions, § 578. In Hdt. I 185 
 A Bpr. have ripydCero, elpy- the other MSS., I 93 i^-ripydffavTo A, -eipy- the 
 other MSS., except B2^r. wliich has -epy, II 15 irepiepyd^ovTo d (cf. iJ\ -r)PT 
 A Bt, -eipy Bm CP. Hippokrates does not omit the augment in KareipydcraTo 
 II 58, Lukian Syr. dea 25 elpydaao, but ipyd(ovTO Astr. 23. elpyaarai Hdt. Ill 
 155 is better supported than epyaffrai which Stein and Holder adojit, but in 
 II 121 (e), IX 45 epyaa/j-ai is certainly correct, epyaffro 1 179, epyacr/xevos V53, 
 Lukian Syr. dea 24 (MSS. elpy), i^epyda-dr] IV 179. It may be noted that 
 efepydaaro Hermione, C. D. I. 3383, does not impeach the contention that 
 digammated verbs may have had 77 as their augment. This Argolic form is 
 simjily a new formation from the present. ep7w (Attic etpyu). The correc- 
 tion of a few passages, e.g. Hdt. IV 69, IX 68, where the Attic form has crept: 
 in, will reinstate epyw in complete possession. Homeric iepyw is never well' 
 supported in Hdt. epyw is augmented in i^e'tpyov V 22, and receives no aug-l 
 ment in epyero IV 164 according to Stein (Cobet and Holder eipyero). In VII' 
 197 Stein reads epyero with A B, Holder dpy^To with PRvs, as I think correctly. 
 In III 136 we read 6?p|6 {CPd e>|e or ip^i), Kareip^av V 63 {-ep^av CPd). Th(. 
 perfect is airepy/jLevos I 154, II 99, V 64, VI 79, the aor. pass. subj. is Ipx^fi ^' 
 Hippokr. VIII 26, 36, according to Littre, whei-e epxOy is well supported (ii, 
 26 by C e). epSo). ipSov not epdov Hdt. IX 103, ^p^av V 65, ^opye III 127; 
 
 iopyee I 127 not iwpyee with Rd. oi7vv|xt. Hdt. dvoi^a IV 143, IX 1 18, anc 
 1 68, where all MSS. have ay(^^a, Hi^a in Hijipokr. V 144, Littre with somii 
 MSS., vulfjo S>^e, cf. &i|a Z 298, H 446. Hesychios cites a form fcfi^ei/ with whicl: 
 cf. -€&)|e Hippokr. VI 568. With avecfiyes, quoted from an inscription by Hdt| 
 I 187, cf. avecjiyei' 11 221. This is the imperfect. The second perfect is foun(, 
 in Hippokr. VII 558 avec^yaai ; &iKrai occurs in Hrd. 455. oIk€w. oT/cei 
 Hii>pon. 47, see § 579 B, Hippokr. II 666, 684, III 24, 128, oiKeov Hdt. I 55.; 
 oiK-qcra II 154, IV 105 ; ^ktikus Hrd. 42 ; oJfKrjjuai Hdt. VII 22, 122 ; oiKfarai Hdt 
 I 142, oLKrifievos I 27, V 73, oi'ktjto Hdt. I 193. i(fKeoy appears in Littre^ 
 edition of the letters of Hippokrates, IX 406, where q>Keov is correct. Arria: 
 has cfKfi 1810. oIki^ii). oiKiaa Hdt. Ill 91, V42 ; oiKicrfiai IV 12, ivoiKicr6rivl6i 
 Arrian has avvifiKiae I5, c^Kicrfxai ig, c^Kt(T/j.evos I2, Sis, 1O4, 22jq. oIkoSo|X€o 
 
 olKo56/j.ee Hdt. I 186, olKo56/ji.eov YTLl 71, olKo56/j.r](Te II 127, oi/co5o'/x?jTai I 181 
 o'lKoSofxTicraTQ III lo. olKO(j>0opca>. olKO(pd6prja6e Hdt. VIII 142 ; cf. 14. 
 
 V 29, I 196. olvoxoEu. (j3i'o;;^(i€t Anakr. 32. olvou. otVco/xeVoi Hdt. Vi!! 
 
 opdu' (ope'fcj). See § 582 end. &pa III 72 and often in Hdt., Kardpa VII 20ii 
 eiTiipa I 48. Sometimes there is a variation between &pa and edpa, e.g. 1 1:( 
 123, III 53, where the former form is to be adopted. Hippokrates' use (' 
 foipa is undisputed (cf. II 708) ; Vita Iloin. ewparo 5. wpufiev is read by Stei 
 when the MSS. have wpiosjxev, dpat/j.ei/, dpeo/xev, eaipu/Mev. For eapufiev I 12 ' 
 (v. I. eop- in C) Lhardy conjectured ivoipSinev. ipSre VII 8. In the thii 
 plural the form is &ip- not Iwp- (cf. v. I. V 91) whatever the termination (sr 
 
 under Contract verbs). In later Attic according to Photios S>po>v was usei 
 
 i 
 
 ' Homer has no trace of fopdco. f disappeared before an sound at e; 
 earlier period than it did before other vowels. Ahrens Philol. XXXV 50, / 
 Meyer, K. Z. XXIII 49). Cf. the early loss of f in -fws of the perfect pa; 
 ticiple. j 
 
582.] THE TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 47J 
 
 Perfect S>p')]Ka Hrd. ^^^J and opdprjKa 6,9, ewpaKri Hippokr. V 720. In Doric we 
 
 find oipaKvlav C. D. I. 33405 (Epidauros). oprd^w {koprd^o}). Spra^ov Hdt. 
 
 IX 7. ovpibi. ovpei Hippokr. II 686, ovpeou II 692, ovprjaa II 686, 696, 
 
 V 354, ovp'{}K€i V 354, ovp-fjdriv V 716. This verb is placed in tliis list because 
 
 1 of Trpoa-eovpow Deniostb. 54, 4, eviovpT)a-ev in Eupolis (Koch frag. 45), though 
 
 the ov is probably not i^roetlinic. w6e&)'. wfle'ero Hdt. VI 86, Stra III 78, 
 
 ! YII 167, axra/xTjv IX 25, aTraxr/xevos V 69, aireddria-av, a singular form, occurs in 
 
 1 the MSS. of Hippokr. IX 242 (Littr6 aireaxr-). Hippokr. has the noteworthy 
 
 j form irpdffas for irpouxras VII 314. uveonai. ave6fj.7}v Hdt. I 69, III 139. 
 
 iA singular form is uvrjo-dfiei/os Hijipokr. IX 362. 
 Tliat 77 may be the aug-ment of verbs whose initial sound was 
 F may be inferred from Skt. dvar, dvidhyat, and Homeric rjeCbr]^^ 
 &c. rj€ibr]s is not the preterite of iFeib-, i. e. Feib- with a 
 prosthetic vowel [k^iaaix^vos] which was lengthened as the e of 
 ip)(0[iai was leng-thened to rj in r]pxpixr]v. Other examples of r] 
 that are tolerably certain are -fiKeiv, fJKaCov, ■tJKaa-a, less certain is 
 rip-/aC6iJ.r]v which may have been formed from epyaCoixai, not from 
 FepyaCop.aL, i. e. it is only apparently identical with the old 7]pya- 
 C6p.y]v from rjF^py-. The imperfect and aorist were the tenses 
 j where 77 appeared, not the perfect. 
 
 It has been widely held, since WackernagePs ^ discovery of 
 the existence of tj as an augment of F verbs, that the form 
 ewpcov was to be explained as resulting from rj/iopaov. From 
 the point of view of Attic or Ionic, dialects which permit meta- 
 thesis qtiantitatis, there is no difficulty in the way of such an 
 explanation ; the movement which in Ionic produced tj from a 
 having ceased. In Doric however a shifting* of tjo to eco (at 
 least in verbal forms)* is unknown, and yet we have k(i>pTt] on 
 Epidaurian inscriptions, C. D. I. 333966? 334028- ecopcoi^ will 
 therefore have to be explained as Attic kiapraCov ^ : instead of 
 (opaov, kcapaov was constructed, since the former form did not 
 seem augmented at all ^. In the pluperfect we find kodpaKt], -etv, 
 but in the perfect kopaKa (such is the better form) as eaAwxa. 
 The Homeric iiiyvwro, wi^e, for which Wackernagel '^ proposed 
 to substitute 7)oty-, 7/otfe, are genuine forms from oFCyvviii (cf. 
 
 1 ^ euOeovai, quoted by Gram. Paris. 675= An. Baehm. II 36429 as the Hero- 
 I doteian form of wOovaiv, is due to the supposed fondness of Ionic for ew. 
 
 ^ An. Ox. II 37431. 
 , ^ K. Z. XXVII 272. The idea was first suggested by Hartel Horn. Stud. I^ 
 1 20, but later abandoned by its author. Wackernagel cites An. Ox. IV 1 79, 
 where it is stated that some wrote 7ipya(6ixr)v, TJdiCoy. 
 
 * Upeoiffvvav Kos 40 A 1 1 (Paton and Hicks) from UpriFoffvva; cf. Upri'i 3750, 
 ' 42 B {noKirtX 3812, 13, Ua-xavrii 38^). 
 
 It is not probable that kupi] is a new formation from Sipt). 
 ^ The rough breathing is due to the influence of opau rather than to the 
 lost spirant. 
 ' B. B. IV 304. 
 
474 THE IONIC DIALECT. [58a A. 
 
 Aiolic ocCyrjv). Hippokrates has wi^a. Attic aviut^a looks as if 
 
 it was assimilated to avi<^ya from Foiyvvjxi, or it has a double 
 
 aup-ment. _j 
 
 ® '1.1 
 
 582 A.] Varia. 
 
 1. Augment hefore the Vrejwsition occurs in \xi.]i^Ti\xkvo's Hdt. V 
 io8j VI i^ VII 229 ; elsewhere the augment of this verb keeps 
 its usual place, notwithstanding e/xertero I 12 in ^i^ C^ (e/xeret^rj 
 I 114 in (I z). See also below on 2. Kariaro is now written in 
 III 144, VIII 73 against the augmented form of the MSS. 
 aix^Uvvv\xi augments the preposition only : rifxcfuia-ixivi] Hipponax 
 3, riiJi.(f)ii(r6aL Hippokr. VI 76, VII 456. Hippokr. has UdOivbov 
 V 252. kixTioXy]}j.ivos Hdt. I I may be noted here. 
 
 2. Double Augment. Anakreon used the form e^wrJKev (146) 
 according to the Et. M. 3853, which states that iavvriKe occurred 
 in Alkaios. Hdt. has -qvea-xero V 48, VII 159, VIII 26, but 
 aviaxpvTo V 89, VI 112, VII 139. Hippokr. Ill 94 has rivtii- 
 ■yXeov, V 702 i]V()i)(Xr\6r\v, rjvUi, V 414, ?}0tet V 228 [((ok€Ov IX 
 406 is incorrect). On iTrrjvoipOdodrj, see § 578, note. On kuipoiv, 
 see § 582 end. 
 
 3. Aiigment of some compound verhs. bihoni6pTi]a-€ Hippokr. VI 
 276, cf. Hdt.VIII 129 hiohomopriKtcrav. olKobofxeco and olKocpOopio) 
 are unaugmented in Hdt. ibvarvx^e Hdt. VIII 105, eiiSoKt/xee 
 VII 227, eiiSoKt/xrjua III 1 3 1, evvoixri6r]v I 66, €VTV-)(i](ja VII 233. 
 eTTa At A Aoyr; TO Hdt. I 118 in the perfect without reduplication. 
 Hdt. has TTap€v6[ji.rjcra VII 238 not TTap-qvofirjara. 
 
 Reduplication. 
 
 583.] I. On the absence of reduplication in oLKa, tJAcokc, of. 
 § 582, where the digammated verbs are enumerated. On copi]Ka ■ 
 and 6pu>pi]Ka see the same section. On the syllabic augment of 
 the reduplicated pluperfect in Herodotos, see § ^']6, i. The 
 temporal augment does not appear in ' Attic •* I'eduplicated forms. 
 cTTaXiWoyriTo Hdt. I 118 is due to a desire to avoid a cumber- 
 some form. Reduplication in the second aorist is chiefly Homeric ^ 
 In Herodotos we find jjyayov, ka-TTOjjiT^v, elirov. Reduplication in 
 the present presents no noteworthy features except in the case 
 
 ' The grammarians often call Ionic such forms as \€\a.xi>'(Ti, KeK\vdt, KeKafiu 
 (Aristarchos Ke Ka^w\ rervKouTO, wewaXdy. Cf. Joh. Gr. 240, Greg. Kor. 433 
 (also Doric), 461, Vat. 696, Paris. 676 = An. Bachm. II 36524, Et. M. 86,7, Birnb.' 
 67740, An. Ox. I 3633, An. Par. III. 18334 (cf. 3029^, 34328, Eust. 13621, I57i2', 
 50221, 12256a, 126738, 162917, 17225^, 177459, 196941, Diakonos on Hesiod Asp^^ 
 245 {e/j.e/xapTrot''. By a reverse process the absence of reduplication is called 
 Ionic in ^ATuaevos Greg. Kor. 461, Paris. 676 = An. Bachm. II 36535 (alsc 
 SexOat), Tvx6ai Drakon 16024, cf. 1564. 
 
583.] REDUPLICATION. 475 
 
 of the pseudo-Hippokratic StgiVo-o/xai VIII 66 (Littre with C DK). 
 Here; however^ 6 has huhiacn-]Tai (intransitive), whereas B 190 
 is transitive. Elsewhere both Hippokrates and Aretaios use 
 hibi(T(roixaL in the sense of 'feel afraid.' 
 
 ; From alpio) we find in Thasos 715,11 avaipeprujiivos, in 1. 2, 3 
 - -paLprjixevo?, which was read by Bergmann avai,-, by Blass av^-. 
 Neither of these forms occurs. The reading- of Blass [Ausspr.^ 62) 
 rests upon the view that ai could become e in the fourth century ; 
 a change unattested for this period of Greek ^. Since Herodotos 
 has apaiprjKa, a.paipi^K€€, apaiprnxai, apaipi^inqv, arapaiptip.ivo'S has 
 been read by Bechtel. If this restoration is correct, as seems 
 probable, the perfect of alpioa was formed in Ionic in two different 
 Ways (i) apaipi^ixai, a kind of j)erfect often used in Hdt. in other 
 Iverbs, (2) alpepruxai by inner reduplication, as in rjVLTraTTov, rjpv- 
 kaKov. In Samos 23I35 r/ip7//xeVos shows that by about the year 
 322 B. c. in an official document the specifically Ionic reduplica- 
 tion had been abandoned. 
 
 2. So-called Attic reduplication^. 
 
 Epic are a\aArj/j.ai, ayriyep/xTiy, a\a\vKrr]/j.a,i, aprivodev, iS^Sofj.aL, epriptcrTat, 
 'p'fiptTTTO, ipripLTra, avvoKcox^Te, oSwSvrTTat, oSwSa', opiipeyfxai {Upeyfiat Hipfiokr. I 
 520), ipaipd' (Theog. 909), and opdpeiv, opdipofiai. 
 
 dKY^Koa Hdt. I 37, VIII 109, aKTjKoeLv II 52, VII 208 while 
 Hippokr. VII 490 has the Attic rjKrjKOdv. In Herodas 5^3 occurs 
 :he interesting" form aK-^KovKa^. dXi^Xeo-fAai Hdt. VII 23, Kara- 
 Xrikeapiivovs (?) Hippokr, VIII 456, where the MSS. have -eAi^Aa-, 
 kXTjXao"-, and -eXrjXeo"- (so Littrd). Aretaios 195 has akrikenixivrj. 
 jProm apapiaKO) Homer has dprjpr], apr]p(as, ripripea ; in Archil. 94 
 ;:he MSS. have riprip^iaQa which Berg-k thought fit to change to 
 }7](T6a. dpTipop-^i/os Homer, Hdt. IV 97. ey^Y^PI^"^ Hippokr. 
 [X 340 (ep.), cf. kypriyopa, V 310, 694, Homer. eXriXdKeii' Hdt. 
 
 V^ 90, kXriXaixai Homer, Tyrt. 122c, Hdt. I. 180, IX 9, eAriKaajxai 
 jHippokr. VIII 290, 426 ; rjX-qXdix-qv Homer, iki^Xdixriv Hdt. VII 
 fos. iX^XuQa Hdt. VIII 68, Hippokr. II 266, eXr^Xv^ee Hdt. 
 f 98, VIII 114 (epic ik7]\ov9a, dkr\\ovda, dXTqkovOeL). ljj.T]fjie'Kee 
 Sippokr. V 232. e^ei'T]i'eiYfx.ai Hdt. VIII 37, IX 72. epi]- 
 
 leifffAai Hdt. IX. 152, Hippokr. Ill 294, IV 220, 313, 152 (but 
 rwrjpetKa VI 372). In VIII 272 for ^wepj/peto-rat in D, 6 has 
 n)veprjpehaTai (cf. <i> 284). In VIII 270 avvrjpetaiJLevas is attested 
 )y 6 and the other MSS. Homer has also ripi]peL(TTo, ipripdhaTo. 
 lippokr. VIII 292 has iprjpda^Tai in 0. EpVipiYpai Hippokr. 
 
 ^ In Attic the change occurred in the second century a. d. 
 * Ionic: Eust. 152333. 
 
 This form recalls in a measure the Syrakusan inflection of the perfect as 
 present. Cf. also Knidian Ten^a/cej. 
 
476 THE IONIC DIALECT. [583. 
 
 VII 416 [epeiy^xai. in I)), YIII ^06. oixwkCj not <i)(j]K^, was 
 
 called Ionic by Dorotheos apnd Schol. Ven. A on O 252, and this 
 spelling" was adopted by Apollonios. Aristonikos and Trypho 
 (frag". 99) probably received -napiL^iqKtv. Hdt. VIII 108 has 
 ol\oiKvias, oly^MKOTas IX 98, hioLyT]vrai IV 136 [hioiyovrai'^), 
 ol)(^doK€e IV 128. The vulgate Trapwx^/^eVos is rightly rejected 
 by Littre for Trapoixoix^vos in Hippokr. VI 16. The form with 
 the ' Attic ' reduplication but with co for w also appears in o'i\(iiKiv 
 Herodas 237 and this, and not the form from the stem oiyj^, must 
 be regarded as Ionic. diroXoiXeKa Hdt. I 45 a-noXoyXa Horn., 
 Hdt, II 181 aTrok(joX€Lv Hom., Hdt. Ill 119 o-n-wTra Homer, 
 Hdt. Ill 37, 63, Hippokr. IV 78, VIII 606, pluperf. Homer, 
 Hdt, V 92, Arrian 159. opGipuy/j-ai Hdt. Ill 60, IV 195, andi 
 so II 158 (not wpvyixat), 6poipvyp.ii]v Hdt. I 1 85 (not ^pvKTo), 186 
 
 (not bipdipVKTo). OpoipTJKa i^ 5^^* 
 
 3. Mute followed by a Liquid. 
 
 ^i^Xaix}xaL Hippokr. VIII 418, 494, 498 but ({SXappevois 
 Ephesos, Dittenberger Syll, 344*4 (first century b. c), yeyXvp.iJ.ai 
 Hdt. II 106 etc., Hippokr. IV 386. 
 
 4. Other verbs beginning with a double Consonant. 
 KTciofjLai : In an inscription from Mylasa 248 B 11 (360-61 B.C.) 
 
 we find iKTijadai ^, the form found Iliad I 402 and usually in the 
 MSS. of Herodotus, whether a vowel or a consonant precedes^ 
 KiKTi](To VII 29, iKTi^p.€vos II 173, 1 74, VII 27 (after a vowel);' 
 are to be rejected though occurring in all MSS ^. KeKTi]jxivoi' 
 appears in Zeleia 11320-21 (shortly after 334 B.C.) but KaTeKTrjTat 
 in the same inscription 1. 6 makes for the conclusion that tht 
 former form is an Attic interloper. In Sim. Am. 132 Bekkeii 
 read eKTrjTai for KeKTiqTai of the Schol. 2 407 who quotes the verse 1 
 Aischylos has only one case of the Ionic form and that hy, 
 metrical constraint [Prometh. 797). It w^as preferred by Plate 
 W'hen it followed upon a consonant (plnp. kKiKTr]p.i]v). The plu 
 perfect in Hdt. is kKTr}p.r]v II 108. kti^co yields ^KTicrrai Hippoki 
 
 IV 194. 
 
 kap.vpL(Tp.evos Archil. 30 (cf . Hesych. kap^vpiyp-ivai) from crp-vpiC^^' 
 whereas in Hdt. we have ix^ixvpia-jxevos from pLvpiCcn. The lyri 
 poets have the ordinary forms in kanLaajxivos Sim. Am. 7g6, &c. j 
 
 5. Verbs beginning with p. ' 
 
 There are in Ionic some notew^orthy forms of these verbs whici: 
 in Attic refuse to reduplicate. The reduplicated forms in loni, 
 
 I 
 1 An. Par. Ill 6530 (Attic and Ionic), Gram. Paris. 676= An. Baclim. 1 
 3659 KaOapcos 'Ichvlkt]. 
 
 ^ KeKTTJcrdai is however as old as Hesiod, JV. D. 437. 
 
584.] PERSONAL ENDINGS. 477 
 
 represent a newer method of reduplication^ since they have fol- 
 lowed the analogy of verbs whose initial sound had not originally 
 been preceded by a spirant. 
 
 pepuTTtojueWs in Hippokr. IV 374, VIII 140, ^-s^^, 368 is the 
 same form that occurs in C59i pepaTna[ji4vos is quoted from 
 Anakreon (166) by Choirob. II 55524, cf. Bekk. An. Ill 1287 
 (where the Pindaric pepicpdai, is compared), An. Ox. IV 1851^, 
 4i5g, An. Par. IV 226^.7. pepvOpLoicrdaL was used, according- to 
 some, by Demokritos. Cf. pv6p6s Demokr. 205 according to 
 Stobaios (§ 358). In Hdt. IV 71 for (Tvv€ppap.p.ivr]v of the editors 
 ^[A (Tvvepa-), B and C have avppep-. The spiritns asper in the 
 above forms should doubtless be changed to the letiis. 
 
 6. Verbs beginning with A. 
 
 Xap,P(lra): Archil. (143) is reported by Lukian [Pseudolog. 1) to 
 have said riTTiya tov Trrepov a-vveiXrjcpas, out of which Bergk made 
 the dimeter Timya 8' etkrjcpas Trrepov. The form is interesting 
 because Hdt. has AeAd/SrjKa III 42^, IV 79, VIII 122 (and in the 
 mouth of an Ionian in Eupolis ^ according to Meineke II 570), 
 XiXap-pai III 117, IX 51. Hippokrates however has d\y]^e VIII 
 584, (iXrjppivai VII 490, aTT€L\r}pi,pL€vos V 616 but on the same 
 page aTTokeXap.p.€VOs, and avaXeXacfidai ^ III 308 [vulgo -XeXap.- 
 •^6ai). X(Xrj(f)aTaL is called Ionic by An. Ox. I 26825. etArj^a 
 Ionic-Attic, Et. M. 29852- 
 
 Xayxavot) yields AeAo'yxao-t Hdt. VII ^^ (not eiATjxa^) as in 
 Homer. Xeyoo collect has -XiXeyp-ai. in Hdt. VII 26 ; cf. Arrian 
 l5n. Aeyco say has AeAey//at in Hdt. II 21, &e. 
 
 Personal Endings. 
 
 The following is a summary of the specially noteworthy 
 ;endings of the Later Ionic. See also under the various tenses 
 jwhere fuller reference is made to the thematic and modal 
 
 vowels. 
 
 584.] Endings of the Active. 
 
 I. First Person. 
 
 fAi : Analogues of the Homeric e^eAcojut, tSco/xt, ayaycapi, &c. do 
 jnot appear in the New Ionic. 
 
 I ^ According to PRz and Bekk. Anecd. ; other MSS. have the pluperfect, 
 jwhich Veitch adopts. AeAa/Brj/co in Doric (Archimedes II 290 Heiberg) as well 
 IS ei\d(pa. 
 
 '■' Eupolis' (II 533) oivTicraTo may occur in an Ionic proverb ; cf. Hippokr. 
 [X 362. 
 
 ^ Cf. Archimedes' Ke\d(pea>. 
 
 * Ionic-Attic, Et. M. 29852. 
 
47^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [584. 
 
 a : The imperfect of et/xt is ea < rja in Homer and Herodotos ; 
 of et/xi, f]a, of TLOrjixi, cTidea in Hdt. In the aorist we find, 
 besides elirov, also elira which is rare in Attic. The phiperfect 
 has €-a, an ending* which shows the aoristic connexion of this 
 tense. 
 
 2. Second Person. 
 
 -9a : This original perfect ending occurs in oi(r6a< olb + 6a and 
 in ripripeLaOa (§ 619). i^aOa in Theog. I3l4 = ea? in Hdt. is 
 strictly a jDerfect, 7]? an imperfect. The abandonment of the 
 perfect of dixi brought with it the confusion between -s and -aOa ; 
 whence followed the creation of such forms as ex^ia-Qa in Theog. 
 1316 (MSS. exoLcrda) and Sappho, etrjaOa Theog. 715. Cf. 
 Homeric TiOriaOa from riO-q's, ^laOa, kdiXija-Qa, ^dkoLoOa. 
 
 s has been added in el? fJtou art (Hdt. and Archilochos) to 
 et for primitive eVt. In Syrakusan ecrcrt was the regular form, ' 
 which indeed may be read in all passages in Homer except 
 p 388. On et in Hdt. see § 705. To olada, -s was also added, 
 thus producing olaOas found in Herodas 255 and adopted by 
 Zenodotos in his recension of the Homeric text (cf. Eust. 17 7327)- 
 olaOas also appears in comedy, and was ' Hellenic' as well as 
 ola-da according to Ailios Dionysios. ea-y in the pluperfect 
 happens not to occur in Hdt.\ but in the plural we find avvri- 
 beare. In the optative aorist Hdt. has -e-ta-s (never -ais)^. In 
 the plural of the second aorist we find o-irj-re not -o-t-re, e.g. 
 boLrjTe in Hdt. VII 135 ; so -atrjre not -aire, -oirjs except in Horn. 
 (TxoCrjs (?), and in Aiolic, occurs only in evpoirjs, Hippokr. I 590, 
 where evpoLs is a v. I. The pluperfect has -eas, not -ees, as the 
 Et. M. 38603 states. 
 
 3. Third Person. 
 
 <Ti < -TL in the singular, Ionic being an assibilating dialect, 
 -overt < -ovTL, -cocri < -(ovtl. The sporadic cases of -olctl and -men. 
 in Chios sife due to Aiolic influence. The instances of -770-1 in the 
 subjunctive are rare in the elegy (Theog. 139). -jjo-l never, 
 occurs in iambic poetry or in prose, though ABC have ekavi'r]L<Ti 
 Hdt. I 188. Theognis has elsewhere -7/. On primitive -ti in 
 the subjunctive, and on -et < -7jt in Euboian Ionic, see § 239.; 
 In the perfect we find -do-i, except in a few instances where the 
 poetical -am comes to light (§ 595) by imitation of Homer. In 
 the pluperfect we find -ec in Hdt. with no case of -et or -€lv as in; 
 Homer and in Attic. The inscriptions have -et. In the plural 
 -evav in Hdt. with no case of -^icrav. The imperative has -tu, -twv. 
 
 ^ eTfO-fjTreas ca 90 is an unmctrical variant for Qr)T)(rao. 
 
 ^ Cf. iroir'ja-etas Hippokr. VII 260 in d against other MSS. 
 
585.] PERSONAL ENDINGS. 479 
 
 and -I'Twi'. €(TTMv occurs on inscriptions, ^a-Toxrav is found in 
 Hdt. I 147, and -rotcrav in Teos i58„, 25, ge? a late document 
 composed under Attic influence. In Attika by 300 B.C. -TUicrav 
 had almost entirely displaced the older form. 
 
 In the present optative of -ecu verbs we find -eon] in Teos 156 
 A 10 and -otTj in line 4, elsewhere -oi, as in Hdt., with but few, 
 if any, exceptions. Hippokrates has however many well-attested 
 instances of -olt]. In -am verbs Hdt. prefers the ending* -wtj 
 (and -uiev). Both etrjcrav and elev occur, and irape^iOLev is found 
 in IV 120, VII 103. 
 
 In the aoi'ist Herodotos adopts -ete (-ai twice only: II 100, 
 III 156, and these are doubtful), and -eiav {-atev only VI 101, 
 VII 152 C?}, VIII ^^). In inscriptions we find -eiav. In the 
 second aorist we find boUv in Hdt. The perfect optative has -ot 
 not -Oil]. In the aorist passive optative we find both -enqaav 
 and -€L€v. 
 
 585.] Endings of the Middle. 
 
 1. First Person. 
 
 -fA6CT0a, in Homer, appears once in Theog. 671 (cf. 183, 888, 
 983, 1047, 1056, &c. -ixe6a), Hrd. 321, never in Ionic prose. 
 
 2. Seco7ul Person. 
 -aai preceded by the thematic e, becomes either -eat or -tj in 
 
 Ionic. 
 
 -rj-crai yields -rjai and -rj in the subjunctive, which also admits 
 of -eat for -rjat, by retention of the short thematic vowel. 
 
 -a-<ro becomes -ao ; -ecro becomes eo or ev. 
 
 In the imperative we have -o-o, -o-Gw. 
 
 3. T/iird Person. The perfect and pluperfect endings are -i/rai, 
 fTo, and -axat, -aro. The terminations -arai, -aro ^ are not the 
 
 exclusive property of the Ionic race, though retained by Ionic 
 jand Attic with greater tenacity than by other dialects. Two 
 lexamples of the ancient form in -arat < nrai occur in Doric : 
 Kretan Kiarai and Herakleian yeypa\j/dTat. 
 
 -aro in the optative for -vto is one of the best attested forms 
 jf Herodoteian Ionic. This ending is here more ancient than 
 ■VTO, since it is derived from uiro. 
 
 The terminations -arat, -aro have in Herodotos been trans- 
 ferred from their home in the indicative perfect and pluperfect, 
 ifter stems ending in a consonant, to the present and imperfect 
 [)f ixL verbs. On bvva-fxai, eTTto-ra-jnat, whose a apparently passes 
 nto e before the endings -arat, -aro, see § 688, i, note 2. 
 
 (a) Present. irpoTLdeaTat Hdt. I 133 (IV 26 in C), aTnareaTai 
 ll 113, VTtavicTTiaTai II 80, k^avia-riaTai. V 61, hwiarai II 142, 
 
 ^ See Abicht, Philologus XI 275 ff., and § 612. 
 
4^0 THE IONIC DIALECT. [585. 
 
 IV 30, eTTLo-TeaTai'^ III 2, 103, IV 174. (For hhboaTai of Cm 
 
 11 47 read -ovrai.) These forms do not occur in Homer. In 
 
 12 verbs these forms are incorrect, e.ff. ayiarai II 47, K-qhiarai 
 I 209 (both in C). -vrai^ is preserved in the following forms : 
 eTTiCTTavTai Solon 4^, bvvavrat, Hippokr. II 290, cf. dTroAAwraiij 
 III 254, V 624 6is, 680 bis, pr\yvvvTaL III 200. ' 
 
 {b) Imperfect, -aro, introduced from the pluperfect (cf. -arat 
 in the present) in eiravia-TiaTo Hdt. IV 80, ibwiaro VII 211, 
 rjTTLaTiaro II ^^^, where a apparently changes to e ; and also in 
 TrapeTidiaTo I 119, ivaTtebcLKvvaTo IX 58- The -vto form may 
 also occur in the imperfect, as witness aTrebeUvvvTo VII 223, 
 1X40. 
 
 Improper are all such forms in H verbs (i) in imperfects:, 
 TtpoaihiaTo I 61 with -earo in all MSS. is nevertheless to be! 
 rejected^, as are all other such forms no matter how wellj 
 they are supported by MS. evidence : as k^ovXiaro I 4 [kjiovkovTo 
 Plutarch), kvaireviCiaro II 172 (in all MSS.), kyiviaTo I 67 {bdz), 
 cLTTeypafpeaTo V 29 (in all MSS.), virebeK^aTo IV 167 {P Rz), 
 kaiviaTo VII 147 (in all MSS.), iixjixaviaro V 6^ (in all MSS.).'; 
 opixiaro I 83 is regarded by Stein as pluperfect*. Bredow'si 
 (p. 330) wpixiaTo is incorrect. (2) Second aorists : iyeviaro II 66' 
 where Stein suggests iyeyev^aTO, Trepieyerearo I 214 (R -eyevovro) 
 airiKeaTo often, i-nvdeaTo VII 172 [P R z). The inscriptions havtj 
 -VTO invariably. 1 
 
 The imperfect of jut verbs, where -aro was in place, was tb! 
 source of this error, which seems to have been inserted bv 
 copyists into no other text than that of Herodotos. The form:! 
 in -earat and -earo in the imperfect and aorist of 12 verbs do noi 
 occur in the MSS. of the logographers or of Hippokrates ^. Th 
 latter does not adopt, even in p.i verbs, the ending -aro ; airdiX 
 kvvTo III 88, aviarravTo II 608. The presence of the above 
 mentioned misshapen formations in the MSS. cannot be laid ti 
 
 * iwiffTTjTai n 243 (subj.) was read by Zenod. eirta-Tearai. e-KiaTarai is th^ 
 reading of A L. G. Meyer, Gramm. § 485, holds it to be indicativ(, 
 Zenodotos' reading indicates the prevailing uncertainty as to the place ( 
 •earuL. Zenodotos is also reported to have read ireTrotearot (sing.) in Homer, 
 
 ^ Homer has -j/rot after a and o invariably. i 
 
 * No verb which has the short vowel in the future before sigma, and stgro, 
 in the perfect middle, has either -arai in the perfect or -aro in the pli 
 perfect. We must read irpoaiSeoi/ro. irpoaiSearo would be a strange plupe:, 
 feet (as Abicht takes it to be). 1 
 
 * Stein reads bpjxiaro here, and in evei-y other passage with MS. authorit;; 
 ^ The pseudo-Ionic movement did not affect in an equal degree all Ion 
 
 literature. While such forms as masc, neutr. rovrioiv, avr^cov were insertti 
 into the texts of Hippokrates and Aretaios, these writers were spared froi; 
 the irregular -earai and -earo. It is also noteworthy that Arrian's Indike W; 
 spared the intrusion of such forms as iyeviaro. 
 
1587.] PERSONAL ENDINGS. 48 1 
 
 the charg-e of tlie teachings of the grammarians, who make 
 [absohitely no mention of their occurrence. 
 
 I I. -avrai for -vrat after vowels is si^pported only by the statement of Hera- 
 'Meides Milesios (Cohn, p. 77), who cites as used by some lonians the forms 
 weiroUavTai, yeyeufavraL. 
 
 2. -arai is not used in the singular despite the statement to the contrary of 
 (the Et. M. 36740) o'lKearai, a poor variant in Hdt. I 151, &c., KeaTai often in 
 jLukian's Syria dea, ireiroieaTai Zenodotos in Homer (above p. 480, footnote i). 
 I 3. -oTo in the singular is also incorrect : wapeiaro Kovprj in Kallimachos 
 cited by An. Ox. I 37330) Et. M. 653.20. In Hdt. IX 100 : ws 5' &pa irapeffKevdSaTo 
 :To7(Ti"E\\r]ai, Reiske proposed to insert wdyTa or to read 'aa-To. 
 I 4. -Sarai for -arai and -Saro for -dro are indefensible in KaraKexv^arai Hdt. 
 [ll 75 (Ppr. Ed) and eVreAa- or eVraAa-Saro VII 90 in all MSS. (Dobree 
 leffTciAoTo). 
 
 t -fjQbjv. In the imperative -adcov is often preceded by e (present 
 land 2nd aor.), never by 0. o-o-^wy in early Attic inscriptional 
 documents is even more frequent than e-aOoiv [e. g. evpL(TK6(j6(i)v). 
 .aOuaav in ^p^o-^axraz; Hippokr. VI 82 is suspicious. 
 
 586.] Endings of the Passive. 
 
 -0if]CTai', not -6€v, is the form adopted in iambic poetry and 
 jprose. The 3rd pi. ^juavdriv in A 146 is not to be rejected; cf. 
 Kretan bi^Xiyqv, Delphic aireXvOriv. 
 
 CONJUGATION. 
 
 Introductory Hemarks. 
 
 587.] Many peculiarities of usage of the Ionic verb do not 
 
 iffect our estimate of the position of the dialect in respect of 
 
 ts interrelation with other idioms. Many details of verbal usage 
 
 md even of formation belong more properly to a history of the 
 
 ;jreek verb or to treatises dealing specifically with the diction of 
 
 pdividual authors. Not wishing to trench upon the domain of 
 
 he lexicographer, we have therefore in general excluded from 
 
 he present discussion verbs of regular formation which occur in 
 
 .onic alone, though many points of interest are thus passed by, 
 
 uch as the appearance in Ionic prose of a large number of 
 
 lo-called epic and poetic verbs, the affinities of the dialect for 
 
 jhe active in place of the middle and vice verm. Ionic forms 
 
 ot dissimilar to those in vogue in Attic have as a rule not 
 
 een incorporated, chiefly because it may be assumed that the 
 
 onic verb is inflected on the same general lines as the Attic 
 
 erb. Sometimes, however, where Ionic and Attic are alike, 
 
 I i 
 
482 THE IONIC DIALECT. [588. 
 
 the forms in question are adduced provided their Aiolic or Doric 
 equivalents are differently constructed. Forms of this character 
 are treated under the special tenses in which they occur. 
 
 On hvvM, hvvioi and similar examples of the co-existence in 
 later Ionic of such parallel forms, see under Contract Verbs. 
 On \xL verbs inflected as co verbs, see § 691 ff. co verbs inflected 
 like }XL verbs, and tenses of taT-qui, tlOtiixl etc. other than present, 
 imperfect, and second aorist, are mentioned under jut verbs. 
 
 588.] Variation between 6e\o) and eOiXco. 
 
 OeKw was regarded as Ionic by the grammarians ', and it is the only fonr' 
 which appears in the inscriptional monuments of the dialect^: Thaso; 
 7216, Halikarn. 238ifi, 33, Miletos 10O7. OeAco occurs in the iambographs ir 
 only two passages (Sim. Amorg. 7,3, Hipponax 22 B), and Anakreon employs; 
 it in catalectic iambic dimeter (92). Solon 371 (trim.) has ^de\ov. In th( 
 elegists we find deKou in Phokyl. 12, Solon 27,2. Homer adopts the fuller font 
 with only one or two possible exceptions^, and this, too, is preferred by thi 
 elegy : Archil. 62, Tyrt. 1 24^, Solon 428, 335 (imperfect ; trochaics), in Theogni 
 over twenty times, Bergk changing 139 {A 0e\ri(nv) and 919 (neither A no, 
 has ede\r;). In 6o6 we find an imperfect e6e\oy (Stob. eOeXovat). Anakreoi 
 uses iOekai in ehoriambics (2I7, 242). In Pindar, Mommsen (on 01. II 97) cai 
 count a few instances of 6f\w which he regards, in opposition to Boeckh, a 
 certain : 01. II 97, VIII 85, P. II 69, X 5, Isthm. VI 43, Nem. X 84. It i 
 therefore imj^robable that tragedy, which uses only de\w in dialogue, shoul , 
 have derived this form from Pindar. That its very rarity gave it a certai ' 
 element of distinction adapted for the purpose of the tragic poets, is cori 
 firmed by the attitude of comedy towards the word. Here it is only i, 
 paratragedic passages and in the formulae fjv Oths BeXri, el dehs 6e\ot that th' 
 shorter form finds a place. So in early Attic prose, which follows tragic usag; 
 to a certain extent. May we see the influence of Gorgias' theories upo' 
 Antiphon in his use of 9e\co ? When deAai became the common form, iBtX 
 carried with it the distinction that df\u had once enjoyed *. It is to be note 
 that ee\u is not, like KeTvos, made by Aristophanes the mark of the 'Iwvixi 
 avrip. 
 
 Out of the confusion in the MSS. of Herodotos, Stein thinks to establis' 
 the principle that, while in the present both forms were employed, e'fifA 
 was merer common, but that deXw was regularly used in such collocatioi 
 
 as fiaeova-i rb OeKei (r-qfjiaiveiv rh repas (I 78, cf. Ill 65, IV 131, V I3I,VI 3. 
 
 VII 8, 37, loi)'. In the imperfect and future 4ee\a) is certainly preferre' 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 240, Gram. Aug. 668, Birnb. 678J5 citing rhv dfKa> = iy dfkt 
 dtKcc was also thought to be Alexandrian. See on Kf7vos, § 564. ] 
 
 ^ On Attic inscriptions iOeXai is found until 300 b. c. The shorter for, 
 appears after 250 b. c. The Koii/tj adopted OeAai except in augmented forms. 
 
 ^ Aristarchos could save ideKu and his theory as to its universal adoptic] 
 by Homer, only by having recoui'se to an outrageous synizesis A 277. C' 
 also 317, and A 554. I 
 
 * Cf. Wilamowitz, Herakles II 57. Contemporary preferences ft'om tl 
 same point of view are discernible in the history of fiovKofiai and iOeXw (n 
 in Pindar). 
 
 ^ VII 162 tJ) fOeKfiv \fyeiu, Stein must brand as a spurious addition. I 
 has no objection to rh Se Ittos tovto edfKei Kfyttv II 13. 
 
 k 
 
591.] INDICATIVE PRESENT ACTIVE. 483 
 
 put in the aorist this is not so certain. At all events it will not do to follow 
 Bredow in rooting diXw out completely. Herakleitos adopts ed4\o) in 65, 
 >6, 91, QiXbi in 104. Demokritos has only the former form: 53, 54, 109, 
 Demokrates), 144, 188 (fleAet in A), 236. ^e4Xw appears in Littre's Hippo- 
 irates I 570 (0e'\co A), II 228 (0eAa» C), 244, 424 (J.\ III 234, 242, VI 46 (e/Aco 
 1), 50 {ei\w A C), VI 252 twice (fleAco in 6 once), VII 530, 542, 562, but in 
 .98 Littre reads OeXois (id- in C), ^OeAec III 90 (efleAes D). This looks as if 
 e'Actf had a better claim to a place in the text than that assigned it by Littre, 
 nd that it was forced out in malice prepense. OeXw is certain in VII 198, VIII 
 16. In Aretaios we find iBeKu 26 (fleAw G H), 107, 255, 256 twice. 
 
 589.] Variation between yiyvofxat and yivofxat. 
 , To § 196 may be added the fact that yivojuai occurs as early as Pindar. 
 Ivojxai of the Common dialect is the prevailing form in Arrian, while Hippo- 
 rates^, Aretaios, Lukian's Syria dea and Astrologia, the Vita Homeri and the 
 jseudo-Hippokratic letters have ylyyofiat. Eusebios Myndios accepts now 
 Lyvo/xai, now yiyo/iai. The latter form should be banished from all classic 
 ,.ttic writers. 
 
 i yelvofiai beget was used in Ionic prose only in y€ivdfj.evos (Hdt.) ; cf. iyiivaro 
 im. Am. 757. 
 
 I 580.] Varia. 
 
 , References may here be made to' the variation between rpfirio and rpdiras 
 
 [1 128), reyuj/o) and TayUi/o) (§ I29),)taAi»'5€0^ot, /cuAiVSco, and /ci/Atj'Se'a) (§132; Hippo- 
 
 jrates has KvXiw, as well as KvAii/Seto, Aretaios 302 KaMvSeofjLai), eiwfxai (§ 224, 
 
 ')), ^o(j)4ci) pv(pew (§ 154, where Hippokr. II 306, 456, VII 60 might have been 
 
 Iduced in support of the former, V 370, 374 of the latter form). o-zcaAAw is 
 
 j!ippokratic II 426, but for er/cTjAeie "V 191, cTKeiKete should probably be read. 
 
 ceSattf in Hdt. and Hippokr. is from a different root from (rKiSvri/j.i (Hdt., 
 
 ippokr., Herakleitos, Aretaios). The latter is connected with the root of 
 
 c'lC'"^. \d(ofj.ai occurs frequently in Hippokr. (VI 276, 330, VIII 88, 108, 
 
 .2), who also uses AaCv/xai (VII no, VIII 42, 274). The latter is chiefly 
 
 ttic. TETp^w in T€Tp^v€Tot Hippokr. VII 498 is a doubtful form alongside 
 
 nrpaivu (Hdt., Hipponax, Aretaios). C and | have TfTpaiverai. Si'^Tj/ioi, 
 
 )t the poetic Sifo^oj, is the correct form in Hdt., Demokritos and Lukian, 
 
 \ria dea, § 22. 
 
 ACTIVE VOICE. 
 
 I 591.] 
 
 Indicative Present. 
 
 I. Verbs in -l<a. It is well-known that the Dorians^ notably 
 
 ose of Sicily, evinced a fondness for verbs in -a^co parallel to 
 
 ose in -aw, e.ff. o-tya^co, yeXdCoo, aKpoaCp^xai. Analogous cases 
 
 ^om Ionic are rare: aKpodCofxai Hippokr. VII 70 (Littre); 
 
 '|ipdC<«) V' 114? TTeipaCo^evos, the vulgate reading- Hippokr. VII 
 
 ,|.6 (Littre T:tipa(Ta\j.ivo}v). iT€ipr]TLCoi is also epic M 257, O 615. 
 
 In the treatises of the younger school of Hippokrates, yivofiai is frequent, 
 *. rV 120, VII 198, 332, 478, 542, VIII 94, 98, 408 ; also in I 574. 
 ' See Moulton in Class. Rev. Ill 45. 
 
 f ^ OF THE -^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
484 THE IONIC DIALECT. [592., 
 
 Verbs in -(m are frequent in Ionic. The following- are ex- 
 amples of such as do not occur in classic Attic prose : ayXai^o) 
 Hippokr VIII 368^ aKOvaCoi VII 94, aXvKraCco Hdt. IX 70, 
 aki-\6i^o}xaL III 72; apfj-o^o) Hippokr. I 580^ II 368^ but ap/xoWoj 
 III 558 ^, apiJ.6(oiJ.ai Aretaios 21 4; aTpejjLiCo^ Hdt., Hippokr. (rarej 
 in Attic) by the side of arpeixioD, laKx^C"^ Hdt. VIII 6^^, ixivvdi(o. 
 Hippokr. VI 118 (A -eco) transitive, <TvpiC<^ Hippokr. V 378, VI] 
 190, (P(i)C(^ VI f)66, xctTt'C"^ VII 558. 
 
 Herodotos uses a-cfmCo}. (r(})dTTa} did not come into use in Atti( 
 until TT had supplanted (to-. 
 
 2. The presence of iVco in Ionic prose is open to suspicion 
 It is retained by Littre in Hippokrates III 238 [rJKoo MN), 24: 
 [sic MN), V 224, but in VI 32, where the vulgate has a(f)[K€i. 
 A has a(f)i]Ket, H €(pt]Koi.. Here Littre reads ecjiriKci.. Herodoto; 
 uses rJKOi only, with which ikw is connected in meaning but noj 
 in etymology^. As regards the objection to I'/cco in Hippokrate,' 
 based upon his adoption of a verb (not employed by Herodotos 
 which is poetical, it may be said that in Korinthian we fin(; 
 tpojoie?, C. D. I. 3119', in the Xuthias inscription (Lakonianrf 
 TToOiKis, Cauer 10, B 9, and in Delian Xkov [B. C. H. II 579ff.: 
 a(f)LK6ixr]v occurs in many dialects. ' 
 
 3. x^o) for )(^eco is doubtful in Aretaios 299, where Par. ha. 
 X^ov. a-noyvaavTa from yyvod Hij)pokr. VIII 200 is not found i' 
 6 or in C, which have aTTo^iai. \ 
 
 For some reason Eust. 15415 (cf. 62143, 7i^go) regards £; 
 Doric hvvoi for hvoi, and 6vvm for Ovoi. That the Dorians use 
 hvvu) for hvcii not for hvo}xai is, we believe, unvouehed. So far i, 
 the form hvvod is concerned, it is frequent in Ionic, rare in Atti; 
 prose ; and Homer as well as Pindar has Ovvm. 
 
 4. Examples of -i<tk added to roots ending in a vowel a: 
 Xprjta KOfxai, Hdt., KviaKopiai Hdt. (kvlctko} Hippokr.), pvtanouc 
 perhaps. Archil. 142. Hdt. was probably the first to use ap^a-Ki^ 
 the only^old verb in -eo-Kw. 
 
 I 
 
 592.] 
 
 Future. - s 
 
 1. Liquid Verbs were probably inflected in the dialect of € 
 fifth century as follows : — 
 
 lj.€vi<j} {-{o}) ixei4op.€v {-ivp.^i') ■ 
 
 fxsi-ei'i fxeretre , 
 
 [xevtl p.tviovo'i (-eu(rt) 
 
 ^ Hippokr. has Xawdffffw. 
 
 "^ Tln' most recent discussion of the relation of the two verbs will be fou' 
 in Johansson's Beitrdge stir gr. S2)rachkt(nde, p. 62 ff. 
 
592.] INDICATIVE FUTURE ACTIVE. 485 
 
 The adoption o£ the liquid future form in the active does not 
 'of course necessitate the appearance of the liquid stem in the 
 middle forms. Thus Herodotos has Kephaveca, but K€ph]<ToyLaL 
 (the only future middle form of this verb^ and that not found 
 lin Attic). 
 
 I The following examples may serve to illustrate the paradigms 
 jgiven above : — 
 
 A. 6/)ea)i Hdt. II 38, IV 129, VI 43, IX 42, Hippokr. II 52, 
 158, VII 490, VII 550 (but epw VII 530)^, Lukian Sjjr. clea 27, 
 36, of. epeo) Archil. ']().,, 89^^ Hipponax 21 A, kpS> Theog. 1236 ; 
 ovoixavicti Hdt. IV 42, arjjjiaveo} 1 75, 209, IV 1 27, VI 39, Trepareco 
 jHippokr. VII 496, a-noipavioo VII 542, 548, VIII 408, re/ieco IV 
 ,530 (the future of t^plvm is unusual). 
 
 j B. In Hdt. we usually find -eet?, e.g. aTroXeeis VIII 60 {a-no- 
 \eTs Theog. ^6, 245), nepbavieLS I ^^, a7ro/3aAccts I yij biarerpa- 
 tvieis III 12. epeis occurs in all the MSS. VIII 100. 
 i C. epei Mimn. y^, Theog. 32;, 492, okel Tyrt. 3, a-KoXd Theog. 
 ki04, VtaAei is a conjecture of Bergk, Hipponax 21 B, Karav- 
 ivel Archil. 61 (or -eei?)^. In the MSS. of Herodotos the open 
 forms prevail, e.g. airokia 1 34, 8ta<^^epeet V 51. Hippokrates 
 has epeet VII 478, but vyiavd VI 662 (6), irrapd VIII 484. 
 j[n Herakl. 26 Hippolytos has Kpivel (Bywater Kpiviu), in 
 Melissos 10 Simplicius has irepavd (Mullach -eet). From the 
 pseudo-Ionists we note €K(f)avi€i Lukian, Sj/r. dea 32, tv^pavin 
 dstr. 29, 7rpo0ayeei, epe'et Euseb. Mynd. 6^. Compare -iet in 
 ■1^6) verbs with -eei in liquid verbs. 
 
 D. kpiop.€v Hdt. IV 118, [xevioixev IV 119, VII 141, Kepbaveo- 
 l€V VIII 60. 
 
 E. vTToijL€V€ov(ri. Hdt. IV 4 (Attlc -oSo-t Ccl), VII loi, kpiovcn 
 ilippokr. VII 440 ; onxwivai Hdt. IX 6. 
 
 2. Verbs in -il,ui. From verbs in -CCa^ of more than two 
 yllables we find numerous instances of the forms devoid of the 
 igma, e.g. in Hdt. KaraKOfrtet IX 17, KOjutei II I2i (y), vopLievp-ev 
 -I 17 (not -ovp-ev, the Attic form which Stein has adopted from 
 |he MSS.); in Hippokr. a^avtet VI 360, epediel IV 346, Ttapa- 
 \a6ul VII 608 (cf. Hdt. IV 190 Kanarovari), (jypovTt^ls Epist. IX 
 'I34 {^povTiCjis vulgo). ep.(f)avL(TH, on an inscription from Priene 
 Brit. Mus. Ill I, no. 421 19), is Hellenistic. 
 
 The future in -i4<o has driven out the older form in -iw (cf. 5i/caa>). -tu, 
 ?hich was extremely common in liquid verbs, was substituted for the -« 
 
 * Cf. Tzetzes Ex. II. 11 89. 
 ' The unique ejpV« i^iay be correct VII 448. 
 
 ' Cf. Hephaist. p. 88. The active form of this verb does not occur in the 
 est Attic prose ; in fact the verb is poetic and Ionic. 
 
486 THE IONIC DIALECT. [592, 
 
 3. 'Attic Futures/ btaa-K^bas Hdt. VIII 68 (/3), cf. o-Ke8d-i 
 o-ets Theog-. 883 ; aTrogoKt/na I 199 may possibly be present, but 
 is probably future ; bLKav I 97 but biKaa-ofjievoi I 96, as always in 
 Attic. boKHxq, biKav are analogues of dki(r{(r)co : oXico, &c. On^ 
 €\qs, iXSxTL, see under the next section. 1 
 
 4. Short stem vowels in the Future. In the first of the 
 following lists are given only those cases (active and middle) 
 from post-Homeric Ionic in which siffma was the final consonant 
 of the stem. No verb with a dental stem is here included. In 
 the second list are enumerated the analogues of the first class. 
 See under the Aorist. i 
 
 Sigmatic stems. apKeu Hippokr. IV 282; 6\dw Hippokr. VII 276 {ivQxiffai. 
 in d) ; Kopeffu) Hdt. I 212, 214 (epic Kopeai) ; Trrvai Hippokr. IX 70, tttuo-o^oi U 
 396, VI 198, VIII 98, 100 ; ffiraca Hdt. VII 236, Hippokr. VI 534 (o-Trcto-o^aO- 
 
 For (p\d<rfi the reading adopted in Hippokrates by Kiihn (III 358), we reac' 
 with Littre the present (p\^ (III 218 L). j 
 
 From analogy with the above verbs we find the following with 
 short vowel before siffma, where the stem ending was originall}! 
 
 vocalic. > 
 
 ! 
 
 Non-Sigmatic Stetns. eiraiyecD Sim. Am. 71,2, -irjirw Theog. 93, v. I. -eaa-- ; bu; 
 fivni^ai Hippokr. II 334 ; iXavvca : eXdcrfi Hippokr. VI 342, VII 348, 428, Hdt' 
 
 I 207 {i\as, e'Awo-t), V 52 {Sie^eXas) ; ifj.4w Hippokr. VII 28, VIII i6 {ifjifaai]' 
 
 II 184, VI 42 {infofjiai, cf. o/xeo/xai &c.); [etpi/ffet adopted by Ermerins ii! 
 Hippokr. VI 198 (Littr6) is not supported by 6]. /coAeoi Hdt. Ill 74 ha; 
 KaAeffiLV, Bredow, Veitch, with R, other MSS. -Kefiv, which is adopted b; 
 Stein and Holder. Where the participle occurs after irffiiru it may b- 
 present (cf. VII 15 and 152). Ka\w in Attic is better than Ka\€<ra>, whic" 
 in inscriptions does not appear till the second century. Cf. KaXewv S 53; 
 Ifiaxofiat yields fiax-ficrofiai Hdt. IV 125, 127 bis, VII 102 (Rv, -eer- ABss), 10 
 {A B P C R, -e<r- els), 209 bis {-etr- s), A'^III 26 ; epic fiaxeo/xai, and fiax'ricro/j.cu a 
 Solon 25, Attic fxaxovfiai. See on the aorist] ; oWvfit Hdt. I 34, VI 91 6i. 
 VIII 60, IX 18 {d\eoo), VII 209, VIII 57, 69, IX 42 (^XeVaO- o\« is calle! 
 Ionic in Anecd. Par. IV 6711 ; 6(00 Hippokr. VIII 424, 488 (Attic "fja-o!) ; iropt 
 Hippokr. fV 512 (?) ; but iroviiffw is certain in I 598, VIII 16, 30, withoi' 
 regard to the grammatical distinction that irovkaw expresses bodily pain, 
 ^floyw Hippokr. VII 134 ((pdaa-co) may be mentioned on account of epic (pdii 
 aofiai ; xa^«« Hippokr. II 36, V 436. 
 
 5. Varia. Hdt. and Hippokr. have both <rx^(ra> and t^w. The former hi 
 not yet appeared on any Ionic or Attic inscription. Cf. § 607, 6. aue^uv i 
 Archil. 82 may be noted as being the only case of this form of wex" ^ ^^^^ 
 Greek. For riffovres Hdt. Ill 14 we should write reto-oj/Tes, cf. § 214. Hd^ 
 has S(^|co, e. g. VIII 80, and the poetical SoK'fjffw only once (IV 74). On 8e'{< 
 see § 142. Rare forms are aS^ffoo Hdt. V 39; f^afiapT-^iffu Hippokr. II 421' 
 Si- IX 264 (late); a.iroizaTi)au) Hippokr. VII 100; Foes and Ermerins rea 
 aiTavTt)(Tei for diravTyiffri of the MSS. IV 264, though usually Hippokr. uses i\- 
 future after '6kois {diravTitffu is otherwise late) ; Kvi](Tii. V 686 is doubtful, bi; 
 eipiiffw VII 44S, probably correct. A future yvwaw may not be defended C; 
 
593-] 
 
 INDICATIVE P'IRST AORIST ACTIVE. 487 
 
 ithe score of the vuIgate VIII 416 (read yvda-p). davp-affw, VII 530, is unusual 
 an Attic ; so too the uncompounded x'^pV'^'^ iii Hdt. and Hippokr. {x'^PV'^ofxai 
 is not found in Homer or Ionic prose). On ia-da-ei in Hippokr., see § 593, 2. 
 
 ' First Aorist. 
 
 I. Verbs in -aivfa, -aipu. 
 
 Verbs in -aii/co form their aorists in --qva. 
 
 Examples are "[(Txvnva Hdt. Ill 24, Hippokr. Ill 316 {-divai Galen), iKepS-qva 
 Hdt. VIII 5 {(KfpSavev in i?\ iKoiXT)va II 73, to mention only those in which 
 A.ttic regularly adopts -ava from the analogy of the -paivu class. o-Tj/ioiVo) 
 jrields iffiiixriva '■ in Ionic, and this is the proper form in Attic, though itrrifxava 
 ippears several times in Xenophon. ixpaivw yields v<p7iva, not v<pava, which is 
 ;he reading of R d in Hdt. II 122. 
 
 From -laivw we have 4x\iriva Hippokr. VII 388, but Attic xAioj/os VII 150, 
 =/*tV<» VI 112. From Ke{i)aiva}, eKe'njva Hippokr. VIII 360, i\4rjva Hdt. I 200, 
 ^III 142. Verbs in -patyw. From ^rjpaivw we have e^-fipriua in Hdt. VII 109 
 [•ave Rd), Hippokr. V 476. The -dj/o forms are, however, more usual : av^T)- 
 mi/j)^* 347 (thus Aristarchos, i^avaivr] Aristoph.), e^7)paua Hdt. II 99 (in all 
 MLSS.), Hippokr. V 104, Terpaivw yields rerp'fiyas in Hipponax 56, Aretaios 131 ; 
 ')aivu, ippriva in Hippokrates VI 1 28, III 486. The -dva forms above mentioned, 
 io far from representing (as J. Schmidt K. Z. XXVII 322 thinks) an original 
 occa (in contradistinction to -■i)va from -dvtro), are merely Atticisms, -riva is 
 )riginal in Ionic and the direct descendant of -avcra in all cases. In later 
 ;imes in Attic -dva. forced an entrance into verbs which did not have e, «, or p 
 n the stem. This extension of -dva is not so much a Dorism (as Curtius 
 Suggested), as due to the operations of analogy in Attic itself. The proper 
 jiordc form is e/caflTjpa, which is found in Hdt. I 41, 44, Hippokr. II 644, VI 
 |!12, VII 24, 242, VIII 304. The Attic by-form eKadapa appears in ^ B in 
 fidt. IV 26, where R is correct, in i? & rf 2 in I 45, and in Hippokr. II 418 (in 
 :ill MSS.). The only example on inscriptions of a for tj in these aorists is 
 kadapa C. I. A. 11 1054, 8 (347 B. c), Delos B. C. H. V 468 (third century), 
 .bid. VI 23, line 185, 24, 1. 194 (second century). Attic inscriptions of 329 b. c. 
 jiave €Ko07)pa. 
 
 e 
 
 2. Apparent variation between dental and guttural stems. 
 is early as Horner^ we encounter a confusion in -(m verbs 
 )etween these two classes of stems^ which led to the adoption of 
 r in the future and aorist of such verbs as apT;dC(a (by analogy 
 
 * ia-ri/jiava, Aldus in Hdt. Ill 106, R in IV 179. crrifj.T]v[avTi] C. LA. Ill 
 to, 4 (first century b. c.) is the only occurrence in Attic inscriptions of the 
 prist. 
 
 ' This is the only case of an aorist in -dva in Homer. There are 69 cases 
 'f -rji/o. The Townley scholiast on 4> 347 says : 6ipix-l]vri fj.ev Kprjffiv, aW' oii 
 i]p^vri hih. rh KaK6(paivov. See Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 24 ff. 
 
 See Cauer in Sprachwtssenschaflliche Untersuchungen hervorgegangen aus G. 
 'urtius' Giammatischer Gesellschaft, p. 129 flf. 
 
488 THE IONIC DIALECT. [593. 
 
 with hiKaCoi) or tlie like). In the Doric dialects the formations 
 from guttural stems (e.ff. Kadi^el, avixirat^ovvrat, ijpixo^a) gained^ 
 the upper hand and almost entirely displaced those in o-. In post- 
 Homeric Ionic there are a few examples of the displacement of 
 the dental stems. i 
 
 apTTaCo) yields ijpTra^a (cf. apTrayq, apiraKTrip) and {jpiraaa in 
 Homer. In Hdt. VIII 28^ IX 60, we find apiraa-ojjLaL, in II 156 
 etc. J ijpiraa-a (in all fourteen times), I 1, 4, VII 191 ■)]piTda9r}Vy 
 but ijpirdxOiiv in II 90 (apTraaOeis H/f), VII 169 (apTTaa-Oelaav R), 
 VIII 115 (ap-rraxOv^ai all MSS.) There can be no doubt that 
 the forms with a are to be everywhere adopted. Attic, too,i 
 uniformly accepted apTrdcrco, -op.ai, ijpTracra, ■r]p7Td(rdr]v. 
 
 In the fourth book of the pseudo-Hijipokratie tractate rrepl voiktuv, and not; 
 elsewhere, we meet with tlie aorist forms icrdffeiev VII 550, 552, 554, 556,: 
 4(xd(rai 558, and the futures icrda-ei and icrdaeiv 568. These, the vulgate, forms, 
 were generally adopted by Kiihn, and derived by him and Foes from ffdaffw.' 
 See Veitch, p. 582. For the single o- an analogy was, or might be, sought in 
 irAaffctf IV 346, ettXaca Sim. Amorg. 721 > Hdt. II 70 ; ia-dffeiev cannot, however,, 
 come from ffdaaui because of the augment ; and if from iao-dcrffw (which does 
 not occur elsewhere), we encounter the difficulty of an eV- put for i<r<T- ic. 
 literary monuments, examples of which abbreviation we desiderate. Th(; 
 forms above mentioned must be separated from adaaca : — (i) because that, 
 verb yields ecra^a in VIII 440, Hdt. I 194, III 7, &c. (2) because the meanin§^ 
 is inappropriate. Kiihn, to be sure, translates icrda-etev hjgravarit, Littre, whc! 
 displaces the vulgate for the strange form iffdaffeifv, &c., translates bysewitii 
 in all passages but one (VII 558 repletion). • 
 
 adffeiev, first suggested (but rejected) by Bredow, was adopted by Ermerins, 
 The occurrence of Homeric words in the tractate irtpl voia-wv is commoi 
 enough (cf. x«''"^C<«' 55^) iiravplaKm 558, &kikvs 564% but it is difficult to see hov 
 adamv could have been so corrupted. It is better to read iadffeiev from atu 
 cf. iadiovffi 552 where EK have ia-ata-a-ovcri. In 568 we must accept eVafei fo] 
 iffdaei, ecraieii' for iffdanv. The original present is det&>, and &Cov is an aoris 
 (Schulze K. Z. XXIX 250). Hdt. IX 93 has e'Trfjcre (eir^jtre ABC). 
 
 i^ooveipaicre the vulgate in Hippokr. V 196, where CDHIK have -aire, shoulc' 
 be derived from e^oveipScu. Littre reads -oi^e. A guttural stem in the verb; 
 in -aiffffoD dmoting a disease is rare ; but Plato has oveipui^ts, Aristotle ovetptoy 
 fi6s. Cf. dfifi\v(i>(T<T(i} and a/iP\vci}yfj.6s. I 
 
 fjLv^w has in Homer the aorist iirifiv^av A 20 — 0457. In Hippokr. V aod 
 the vulgate efivaev {efivfffffu H I K) has been regarded as a case of the con 
 fusion of a 5 with a guttural stem. But after 6K6Te eir], e/ivCe is clearly right 
 On the same page, further down, J has tfiva-a-e, D G f/xufe, where only thi 
 imperfect is correct. 
 
 For firvpfffe from irupeVerai have a fever, which Kiihn adopts, Littre accept.; 
 iirvpfTTjvfv V 150, and the imperf. iirvpecrae V 216, 230. <r forms in aoris 
 active and passive of tlxlcrcrcii have been discarded by Littre. ' 
 
 There are not a few cases where later Ionic refuses to permit the substitu 
 tion of ff, which was adopted by the post-classical (not Doric) language, e.j 
 arripi^u, iffrripi^a, •dfj.r\v in Hippokr. 
 
 apfxo^cc has a dental stem, despite apfioy^. j 
 
593-] INDICATIVE FIRST AORIST ACTIVE. 489 
 
 Conversely we have the guttural where -a-- was in place. 
 
 eTTteo-a occurs in Hdt. IX 6;^, Hippokr. Ill 436, IV 386 etc., but 
 
 in III 434 TTuirjs is the vulg-ate reading- (here C and other MSS. 
 
 jhave TTte'C^?, whence Littre ttUCj]?); TmiUaixai HipjDokr. II 270, 
 
 JV 196, VII 520, but TTeirUyixaL III 433 bis, 436, 450, 560; 
 
 '^emeo-d-qv VI 368, Hdt. IV 11 (not TTLaa-OivTas), but k-niiydriv 
 
 Hippokr. Ill 324^ 434^ &c. Hippokr. used Trte^t? for Trteo-ts III 
 
 434, 560, IV 272. 
 
 Ktesias^ Pers. 29, 59 has a form not Ionic in -nai^aaa. Hdt. 
 has TtinaicTTai (cf. Eust. 1594^5). Trai^ovvrat Xenoph. Symp. 9, 2 
 is well put into the mouth of a Syrakusan. 
 
 (vapCCco forms its future and aorist in Homer in ^ ; and in 0. K. 
 1733 (^^•) ^® ^^^ (Ttevapt^ov. rjvapLorev in Anakreon's (?) eleg-. 
 IOO4 as well as Hipponax^ (42) a-nrivapicrd-i] and KaT-qvapiap-ivas 
 in Aias 26 point to a dental stem. ivapCCo), like ttoKcplCCo}, is 
 made from an stem^ and both have adopted ^ by analogy to 
 
 avSa.(w would seem to have a dental stem properly (cf. avSdco) ; yet we find 
 rjvSa^dfitjv Hdt. II 57, V 51, and similar forms elsewhere. The verb seems to 
 fall into the class of those in -(ca which express sustained sounds. 0dCa> speak, 
 certainly is derived from the stem /3aK-, whence ifiPifid^avres Hipponax 53 
 (eyu)3i/8a^a)). aXBe^ovrai (sic) Aret. 1 57 is from aKdea-ffoi, aKdeffOTJuai Hippokr. IV 
 126 from &\eo/xai. 
 
 vfvayfiat, Hippokr. VII 520, is probably derived from a guttural stem ; cf. 
 eya^a </> 122, Hdt. VII 36. v4va(Tfj.al (MSS. Ekkles. 840), if correct, has •fffxai, by 
 analogy. Dindorf has vevayfifvai. a-iraSl^as in Hdt. V 25 has the stem 
 xriraSi/c-. 
 
 3. Short stem vowels before the sigma of the aorist. The 
 
 jshort vowel is properly in place only in those primitive or de- 
 jnominative verbs whose stem ended originally in a, and whose 
 iaorist (and future) aa- has, partly even in Homer, suffered 
 !a reduction to a single a: Thus €C^(ra represents ^Cecr-aa, rjKea-d- 
 \u.r]v, riKt(r-ad[xriv. This aorist is an inheritance from proethnic 
 times ^, and thus the property of all the dialects. The later 
 ilonic like Attic uniformly adopted the forms with a single a, 
 jwhich in Homer coexist with those in a-a: 
 
 It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide in all cases 
 
 * The (Tff aorist has been compared by Bezzenberger in B. B. Ill 159 with 
 phe Skt. aorist in -sisham. The original inflection was in the singular -sesm, 
 In the plural -ssnt. Sanskrit (cf. ayasisham) extended the singular forms into 
 the plural, while in Greek the plural gained the upper hand over the singular 
 forms. See also Fick in G. G. A., 1881, p. 1429, Mahlow K. Z. XXVI 584, 
 Schulze K. Z. XXIX 266, and in opposition Brugmann M. U. Ill 83, who 
 issents to the view of Leskien in Curtius' Studien II 67. Another view is 
 brought forward by Fr6hde, B. B. IX 115. See also Curtius' Verbum II 394, 
 fohansson L. V. G. 207, Solmsen K. Z. XXIX 105. 
 
490 THE IONIC DIALECT. [593,, 
 
 whether or not a stem ended in sigma^. Some of the verbs 
 arranged below as non-sigmatic stems are classed by Brugmann. 
 Grimdr. II § 842, with those whose sigmatic ending is beyond 
 doubt. Thus dAe'o), e/xeo) and KaXico are referred (though doubt-; 
 fully) by Brugmann to the first class ; so too (rropioi and dpvui. \ 
 By analogy with the verbs with stems in slgma (or in a dental 
 mute), (rcr(o-) effected an entrance into verbs with vocalic sterns^, 
 Thus we have kKaki-aaa by analogy with hiX^a-aa, and e/caAeo-c 
 = ereAeo-a, as we have eirieaat, (pepovT^aa-L with -ecrcrt borrowed 
 from crTri6e(T-ai, ^mo'-ai. Such forms as Koki-daai, 6[x6-(r(ra 
 appear, so far as the literary monuments are concerned, chief!}! 
 in the Homeric poems and in the literatiire dependent upor 
 Homeric diction. In the dialects they are confined entirely t(; 
 that branch of the Aiolians which settled in Lesbos and thf 
 adjacent mainland ; though no reason may readily be discoverec; 
 for any such restriction. If it was possible for Aiolic, it was' 
 possible for all the dialects in a primitive period to have con-i 
 formed the inflection of KoAeco to that of reAeco. « 
 
 It has been lield by some scholars ^ that originally all verbs with vocali j 
 stems had -a-a; whether the vowel was long or short. This hypothesis woul(i 
 lead to the assumption that Avcrai was formed from *Av(T(rai by a law opera 
 tive in all the dialects in the earliest period of their existence, and tha 
 KaXiffcrai became KaAeVat in earlier or later periods of the dialect life of th' 
 language. That is, that Aiolic and Homeric Greek still represent th; 
 primitive, the other dialects a later stage of development. Of these cod 
 tentions the latter at least may be demonstrated to be erroneous. Dialect 
 other than Aiolic, which uniformly retain ffff after a short vowel in verbs i;: 
 dental or sigmatic stems, show no trace of (tc in vocalic stems, either in thei 
 earliest or their latest monuments. Where the preceding vowel was lonj 
 as in Xvffai, the non-expulsion of cr is due to the analogy of *eA.u<r-s, *e\v(Tr, 8ci' 
 
 As in the case of sigmatic, so in that of vocalic stems, th 
 later Ionic refuses to adopt the aa- of the Homeric dialect. j 
 
 In the development of the inflection of vocalic stems on th 
 lines of those ending in o-, we may observe that the -aa- (0 
 readily found a place in such verbs as had a root or stem of tw 
 syllables, such as wAe-o-a. Much more noteworthy are thos' 
 cases in which -eo--, not -rja-, appears in verbs derived froi' 
 nouns with o stems and those that form some of their tenses b 
 the addition of e to the stem. Many of the latter verbs presen; 
 considerable difficulty, unless we throw them all into the clas, 
 
 » Cf. Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 90 ff. J 
 
 2 The cause of this transference by analogy has not as yet been satisfactorilj 
 explained. Between irf\ea-(ra and iKaXe-ffcra there is not absolute equalitj' 
 and eKaKeffffa, as is shown in the note, is not original. The analogy assume 
 cannot have been effective until eVeAeo-o-a was reduced to ireKeaa. 
 
 3 Mahlow, K. Z. XXVI 585, Hoffmann, G. G. A., 1SS9, p. SSo. ; 
 
(593-] INDICATIVE FIRST AORIST ACTIVE. 49 1 
 
 I represented by wAeo-a ; but in some cases it may easily be shown 
 that the -ecr- forms are late, that is, formed on the lines of 
 (Tik^aa (or in some cases on the analogy of verbs of like func- 
 tion) in the post-Homeric, but pre-Herodoteian period. Such 
 
 I occurrences as show earlier -r]<j- for later -eo-- are noted in the 
 
 , two lists which are given below. Conversely we sometimes find 
 in the later dialect the original, in the earlier the later form, e.g. 
 
 jHerodoteian ^aTeprjaa, Homeric caripeaa. Herodotos does not 
 
 I always show short vowel + o- where Homer has short vowel + a- 
 
 I or (Tcr. 
 
 The two lists contain only such examples of aorists (active 
 
 ■and middle) with a short vowel before a, as we have observed in 
 post-Homeric Ionic literature. As far as was possible, there has 
 
 (been included no aorist which may be ascribed to a present, 
 actually existing or supposed, in -^co^ or -9(o. A 8 stem, too, 
 has o", not the epic ao-, in the later dialect, e. g. eKo/xto-ay Hdt. V 
 98, €KO[XL<ravTo lasos 1057. 
 
 Sigmatic Stems. aKeofiai Hdt. IV 90, Hippokr. IV 368, VI 588 ; apeV/cco Hdt. 
 
 |III 63 (Homer -ct- and -era-; Theog. 762 apeaaafxevoi) ; apKfw Hdt. II 115; 
 
 \yf\da> Hdt. VIII 114 {eyeKaffffe Theog. 9); {aix<pi)(vvvixi Hippokr. VII 194; 
 
 epa/xai : Archil. 30 ripdcrcraTo (cf. rfp^ffaro Lukian, Syria dea 17, from ipdw). Cf. 
 
 § 372. In Homer we find 7)pa(r(Td/j.tjv and 7ipd(Td/j.r}v. few Hdt. I 59, VII 13, 
 
 Hippokr. VII 158, 354, VIII 434 ; ^divwixi Hippokr. IV 122 ; Kopewv/xi Theog. 
 
 .1158, Solon 1373 ; Kepdvvv/xi Hdt. V 124, VII 151, Hippokr. I 57S, VII 348, 422 
 
 \{ct Kpiia-as VII 254, KfKprjfjiai I 600, II 270, Hdt. Ill 106, iKpridriv Hippokr. 1 616, 
 
 |Hdt. IV 152) ; [to fiaio/jiai has been referred by some iainaa-dfievos in Hippokr. IV 
 
 198 ; this would if correct be the only occurrence in pi'ose (cf.Hom. ia(/j.d(T(raTo). 
 
 Since Erotian glossed the word with ifj.fia\iiu, and Galen has i/xPaKSfievos, it 
 
 jis much more probable that it is derived from icrfida-crw. Cf. VIII 148 where 
 
 the participle occurs a second time] ; fiiw Hippokr. V 234 {env<ra.) ; |€« 
 
 Hippokr. VII 276 ; [iroOew : Hdt. IX 22 eTrSdiaav as in Homer O 219, )3 375, 
 
 5 748, but III 36 iirddTjcre and iirtirod-fjcretv V 93, with which cf. eTrodrjaa, iroOiiffai 
 
 jin Xenophon, &c. ; ivoOeaofjiai, iiroQeaa are also Attic. Tro6iiv6s is probably not 
 
 ian analogical formation. a-Kodiffros p 296 is air6-d((TTos not a-iroQiffTos] ; irrvw 
 
 Hippokr. IV 218, V 406, VI 184, VII 82 (v); airdoo Hdt. Ill 29, Hippokr. VI 
 
 210, 212. Aretaios 103 has the strange form <n:riaa.i ; reAe'w Hippokr. Ill 420 
 
 'the rare middle) ; rpeco Tyrt. 1I14. Hdt. VII 231, a verb not often found in 
 
 iarly prose ; (pxdai Hippokr. Ill 218, VII 158. 
 
 Non-Sigmatic Stems, alvita Hdt. I 80, 90, V 113, Thasos 726. The form with 
 7 is morphologically and chronologically older, rjvriffa Homer, Theog. 969 ; 
 i\e'w Hippokr. VI 454, VII 170, 266 (Homer &\f(r<Ta) ; ai/i/« : Hdt. I 91 'qvvffi ; 
 
 ' Curtius was prone to the method of defending the aorists with short 
 irowel which referred the forms in question to supposed presents in -^a>. 
 Thus, because it was derived from *irpoKa\4((i>, he regarded irpoKaXeffffaTo, 
 H 218, as a more archaic form than irpoKa\iCiTo r 19. So yeXda-w he derived 
 rem *ye\dCu, e\Kv(T6rivat from *f\KvCa). Apart from these errors, it is, in 
 ,act, oftentimes difficult to set aside with certainty the reference to a 5 or 
 1' stem. 
 
492 THE IONIC DIALECT. [593. 
 
 7]vvaaTo, Hippokr. IX 420, is now abandoned in Hdt. I 91 ; 5aio/j.ai Hdt. VIII 
 121, II 4, VII 121 ; e'Aawco Hdt. I 59, I 77. Sim. Am. 17 lias ij\a-d/j.r]v which 
 Veitch (p. 240, cf. p. 224) puts under the head of 4\avvcc regarding it as a 
 syncopated form. It rather belongs to tXcra A413 ; cf. Ibykos 55 ; Iakuo) Hdt. 
 I 179, II 65, VII 167 (not e\Kv(rai), Hippokr. VI 46, IV 106 ; ifieo) Hdt. I 133, 
 Hippokr. II 696, VII 12, 28, 60, 86, 100, no, 112, 194, 288, &c. (many cases); 
 fyUfVrjTai II 494, a rare form {i/j.eeTai fut., Ermerins with A C ; uTrepij^Tjo-a occurs 
 in VII 10, 30, 32 (rejected by Veitch) ; elpvw Hdt. I 141, II 38, 136, III 
 30, IV 10, VII 24, VIII 96, IX 96, Hippokr. VI 166, 172, 194, 198, VII 1$ 
 {elpvffcoai and epiiffwai on the same page are read by Littr6. For the latter E 
 has elpvcruffi), VII 552, VIII 108. Hdt. IV 8 and Arrian, Ind. 389 have etpw 
 (rd/j.evos. [Leskien, Curtius, and Brugmann regard the stem of ipvoo as ipva-l; 
 i\d(rKofj.at Hdt. I 67, VIII I12 ; Kakew Hdt. II 107, VI 67 ; Kpefj-avvvfii (late) 
 Hdt. V 77, IX 120, Hippokr. IV 86 (IV 290 not Kpe/j-da-qrai with Galen, but 
 Kpe/xrirai). This may be from the stem Kpf/j.a(T: /xdxofj-ai in the future has 
 fxaxvcofJ-ai in Hdt. The aorist form is, however, e/iaxecciyUTji', e.g. I 18, 82 and 
 in about ten other passages. Sta^axeo-w/iefla IX 48 is the only example of the 
 aor. subj. ; /xedva-Koi Hdt. I 106 ; 6^10 Hippokr. VIII 488 (Attic iJ^Tjcro represents 
 the original form); oAA.VyU(, Hdt. II 121 {0) where ■KpoaawoKiari, not -eVei, is 
 correct, III 36 ; 6//.vvfxi Hdt. I 165, Zeleia 11310 ; Trerdvyv/xi Hdt. Ill 146 ; irovfu 
 Hippoki-. V 696 (A D), VI 146 (-77- in 6), 164 (-7]- in E other hand), 176 (-•»;• in 
 e), 1S4 (-(J- vulgo), but iirSvrja-a II 322 (-e- vulgo), VI 290 ; TrovqaaTo Sim. Am. 
 745 ; iTt6vr)(ra is moi'phologically and chronologically (Homer) older than 
 en6ve(xa ; (TTopfvuv/xi (late) Hdt. VIII 99, IX 69 ; tuvvu Hdt. V 25, Hippokr. 
 VIII 458 (rai'e in prose). The present ravj/vo) cannot be defended (see Veitch). 
 (pedvai, cf. § 592, 4 ; xaAaco Hippokr. V 258, 390. 
 
 4. Varia. On €Se|o, see § 142, on ereia-a, § 214, where it might have been 
 noted that the present in the inscription from Zeleia is e/crtVai (ii3u) ai)- 
 With this variation between present and aorist, we may compare that in 
 Kretan : rivu, Tivofxai, but reiffei, &c. tuvvtid occurs in B. C. H.IX 11. The 
 Hippokratic Sifpffai is difficult of defence ; see §§ 224, 6, and 382. 
 
 Aorists in -o. From Kaiu we have eKuvcra Hdt. VIII 33 [4Kav(rdiJ.r}v 1 202, 
 VIII 19, a form found here only ; cf. epic iKr]d/jLr)v), Hippokr. VII 242, 424. 
 The epic ewrje;/ in Hippokr. V 216 (vulgo eKvfv) is noteworthy, both on account 
 of its appearance in prose (in the sense of KuraKaUi III 258), and because of 
 the retention of the tj. eK€a<e/c7ja occurs in an Attic prose inscription 
 (C. I. A. I 324, A I 43, C II 13) of the year 40S b. c. ' ; and is the Old Attic 
 literary form (tragedy and in a chorus in Ai'istoph.) e/cautro appears in a ; 
 later Attic inscription, and in Thukydides, Plato, &c. In connexion vfith. I 
 the use of the first aorist in Ionic literaiy prose, it may be noted that ^kotii' 
 was adopted by Ionic (Hdt. II 107, 180, IV 79, Hippokr. V 214, VI 330, VIH 
 200), but not by Attic. 
 
 XfOD yields exea Hdt. VIII 57, Hippokr. VII 422. The epic ex^veu appears 
 in Archil. 1033 (epod.), which Fick wrongly attempted to displace by tx^'^^"' 
 a form that does not occur till the Anthology, tx^'^'^''' ^^ Homer has long 
 been abandoned (cf. v. I. H 86, "V 45) : so too airoxvo-as Hippokr. VIII 200. 
 Hdt. and Hippokr. have ex<aM'7»'> "which is a rare form in early prose. Other' 
 -a aorists are ^cej/ca, on which see § 608, and (J-Tra. 
 
 a should be noted in the following : Attic efepoo-jjs Hippokr. VII 96, from 
 
 ^ iyKf^avTi], not iy K-fi[ay ti], as G. Meyer, Gram. § 527, writes. 
 
(593-] 
 
 INDICATIVE FIRST AORIST ACTIVE. 493 
 
 i^epdoj pour out. In iyfipdffa Hdt. II I46, VII 114, yey^puKe Hi'd. 654 we 
 observe an a which recxirs in yr}pd(rf/j.ei' Sim. Keos 859 (eleg.), for which 
 iBergk regarded yr]pri<Tffi€v as the proper Ionic form. But prj never appears 
 lin this verb. May we assume that tlie Ionic pa is due to the influence of 
 iyfipa in Horn, and Hdt. VI 72 and the pa of yrjpas, yripdffKou? iy^pa is an 
 imperfect in form rather than an aorist ( = Skt. ajdi-'it), though yrjpdcn in the 
 ipresent is not attested before Xenophon. If an aorist we should expect 
 i*iyfipri (of. eSpTj). We may assume as the present yhp^jxi {yripas P 197 1 which 
 jin the impei-fect (iyfipa) was inflected as a contract- verb, iyijpa became an 
 jaorist because of the disappearance of yl]pdfj.t, and the general use of yrjpda-KO} 
 <Hom., Sim. Am. 785, Hdt.). In H 148, P 197, | 67, Hdt. II 146 iyfipa has 
 ithe aoristic function. We are unable to observe the shade of difference in 
 use between yijpdo) {yripas) and ynpdcTKco {yfipaais) noted by Ammonios. On 
 yvpeis, see § 636, 2. 
 
 It is generally believed that in iraX^creie VIII 21, Herodotos has preserved 
 the only' occurrence of a verb iraXeoo = ira\aico. iKiraXiiffaffiv Hippokr. Ill 552, 
 iKTraXria-ri IV 240, which were formerly referred to this present, are, we 
 believe, now regarded by most scholars as derived from an iKira\eco<.iKira\ris, 
 Iwhich is to be connected with TraA-Aco. If TraAriffeie is from iroAew, the latter 
 ttnust be held to be an ' Ionic ' form, and placed in the same category as ope'ai, 
 iroAjue'cD, &c. But nothing prevents us from deriving -n-aX-ficreie from TraAaco and 
 regarding the latter as the denominative of irdK-t). iraXaioi is not a denomina- 
 Itive from itd\-q, as Curtius, Verhum I 340, held, because of the retention of i 
 ;as t before w. Whether Aiolic irdXai/xi (Hdn. II 93O5) is anything more than 
 the equivalent of TraAaw may well be doubted. That this Aiolic form is the 
 \ird\aifii which is set up by some as the original form, which was changed to 
 woAa(a) from the analogy of */cvar^i, Kvaiw, is out of the question. The source 
 jof verbs in -aia>, some of which have parallels in -aa», e. g. xaAat'w, araXaioi, is 
 btill under dispute. Cf. Johansson, D. V. G. 176, who maintains that iraXaiai 
 has followed the lines of development of such primitives as Kvaico, \l/aia} ; and 
 jlatterly, Solmsen in K. Z. XXIX 98, who thinks Tzakaios is from *7raAa^(r-ai, 
 liraA^eje from TraA^tw. These two forms are, Solmsen contends, amplifications 
 of the root iraA by -ots and -17. 
 
 The first aorist aviyvwcra. is found only in Ionic prose, and only in the 
 sense persuaded ^, e. g. Hdt. I 68, &c., Hippokr. IV 80. The present avayivctxTKoi 
 is also employed as the present of kviyvwaa. (cf. Hdt. VII 10 (6) ), but is not, 
 jlike that aorist, confined to Ionic. aveyvw(Tfj.fuoi ^a-av, Hdt. VIII no, occurs 
 jin the meaning had heen persuaded, avayvwadeis = auaireiffdiis, IV 154. 
 j ffvvd^avres Hdt. VII 60, if from &yu, is the only example in the Ionic of 
 iHdt. of the first aorist. The preferable reading is crvwd^avres from a-vvvdcrffci). 
 
 * Hesychios has, looking to the passage in Hdt., iraA^treif Sia(p9ape'n) ; and 
 
 llso iirdWricrev' icpOdpri (where iird\-r\(Tiv is to be read), TreiraXriKeuai' iKirecreTi' 
 
 In Photios = e/c7ri7rT€£j' to, ir\o7a), tz e-KaXfifiivai' ^e^Xajj-jJ-ivai. 
 ^ Cf. Greg. Kor. § 95. The schol. on Dionys. Thrax in Villoison's Anecd. 
 
 jraec. II 179 erroneously states that av^yvtav means persxmded, in Hdt. I 87, 
 
 jwhere aveyvu is wrongly cited for aveyvoitxe. Bast quotes from the Et. Leidens. 
 
 {wdyvwats . . . irapa Se OovKvSiSr) r) avdiriicns, koX avayii/ciffKeiv rh avaTreiOeiv [1). 
 
 Suidas' remark (s. v. avdyyoicris) : avayivtacrKeiv irapa p-qropcriv iirl rov avaTreiOeiv 
 ■efers to Andokides. M. Schmidt refers the Hesychian gloss avayvSivai' 
 vairelffai to Hippokrates IV 80, where we read avayviiffai. Erotian and Galen 
 
 have avayvwvai' fieTmreTa-ai, fiiradiSd^ai. Hesychios has also avayivda-Keiu' 
 
 iTilduv. 
 
494 THE IONIC DIALECT. [594- 
 
 Instances of aorists formed from a stem with the increment e or otherwise 
 noteworthy are-. — i(pdiv7ia-a Hippokr. V 468, iKepSrja-a Hdt. IV 152, KaOfvdrjffai 
 Hippokr. VII 198, a verb rarely employed in prose. An unusvial form in 
 early Greek is e^Tjo-a Hippokr. II 112 ; ?i(ra, Anakr. 148, is rare (Pollux III 98: ' 
 ^So) 'lojviKhv Kol rh ^<re {vulgo ^Se) cnrdviov /xev Trap' r]/j,7v, AvaKpetnv S' avrh etpriKev, • 
 "laiu Kal TToiTjT^js avTjp). From a(pd(Tffw we have rjcpaaa {&(pa(Tov Hdt. Ill 69). ; 
 Littre's emendation acpaffcr-fiffr), Hippokr. VII 326, would imply a confusion ' 
 with atpdo) (or a verb a^affffiou). 6 has ffapaffffT), Vat. i(r(ra<p-fj(r(Tr], whence 
 Ermerins i(ra<pd<raris. 1 
 
 594.] Second Aorist. 
 
 TCLixvo) (§ 129) yields heixov in inscriptions, but Herodotos has 
 €Ta\i.ov II 162, IV 201, VII 132, &c. In III 69 the inscrip- 
 tional form is well supported. Hippokrates has €Ta\xov, e.g. VII 
 70j 152. wtjbAee, Hdt. VIII 26 (in Rz), is a false form, ap- ' 
 parently due to a confusion between ocpXtlv and o(f)X€Lv which 
 was a late present. Cf . Cobet, Far. Led., 1 29. Ivdyji^., Hdt. \ 
 I 118, it is vain to attempt to defend, though found in all MSS. 
 Archil. 73 has r\\x^\aKov. In IbykoSj Pindar, Simonides of Keos, 
 and the tragic poets the form is iinTrXaKov. No present djuTrAa- 
 Kto-Kco is found, but in Doric we have ajxlBXaKLa-KOi}. From the. 
 aorist form as a point of departure, it was sought to extend the 
 verb into other tenses, but the attempt was not successful. 
 Bloomfield {A, J. P. VI 46) connects dju/SAaKety with Skt.; 
 7nlecchati, and suggests that the tt of i]\}.-n\aKov is due to associa-. 
 tion of the word by popular etymology with irXiKco or TrAd^o). ' 
 
 (X^ahov, poetic like x^^^^^^^^j occasionally appears in Ionic prose. ' 
 Hdt. has ia-TTov. On eirea-ov, see § 607. j 
 
 595.] Perfect. 
 
 On augment and reduplication, see §§ 578ff., 5832. 
 
 1. Endings, ao-t is the regular termination of the third person 
 plural in prose {e.ff. lasos 1055), and poetry, excej^t Xenophanes' 
 'ne(t)rjvd(TLV and ixefxaOriKda-i. ^, formations similar to Homeric AeAdy-! 
 Xao-t A 3^4, Ti(<j)VKd(rt rj 114, and like forms in Empedokles, 
 Antimachos, and in the dialect of Phokis. This -do-t is equiva- 
 lent to Skt. -dfi of reduplicating verbs, and has been forced into 
 the perfect from its old and proper home in the present ^. 
 
 Assimilation of the perfect to the aorist ending {a-yav occurs in TrapeiKrifoW; 
 Smyrna, Ditt. SyU. 17 139 (246-222 b. c). The form is late, not specially Ionic. 
 In late Lakonian we find SiareTeXeKw (Ditt. SyU. 2553). i 
 
 2. The ' second ' perfect, the older formation which preserve? 
 unaspirated a final k, y, tt, /3 of the stem, appears in later Ionic 
 as in other dialects. j 
 
 ' Cited by Hdn. II 16,9 ; not in Bergk. 
 
 ^ Schmidt, A'. Z. XXVII 394, cf. Osthoff, M. U. I 100, Monro, H. G. § 7. 
 
595-] INDICATIVE PERFECT ACTIVE. 495 
 
 Examples of the unaspirated forms are ftjya (see § 582), eop-yo, eppwya^ (not 
 in Homer, but in Archil, and Hippokr.), KeKpaya (with non-Ionic a in 
 Hippokr, VIII 66), \e\r]Ka. Sim. Amorg. 715, Tr4irp-nya have fared (jewprixa have 
 done is also Ionic), oIku (see § 582), irecpevya, rfdi^ira, T^r-qKa, rerpiya. a.v4(fya 
 lis found only in a letter of Hippokr. (_IX 394), where it has the i-are active 
 sense. 
 
 Other examples of the second perfect worthy of note for various reasons 
 [are SU(pdopa=am ruined Hippokr. VIII 246, as in Homer, StSpofxa Sim. Amorg. 
 789, whereas both Hdt. and Hippokr. have the later k form SeBpS/nrjKa, \4Kri0a 
 ;Sim. Amorg. 79 and Hdt., but not in Homer, eAii]At;9a = epic 4\- and elK-fiKovOa, 
 ■Ki<l>f]va (not izecpayKo) rare in prose, &p-f}pa Hippokr. IX 366 ; St'Sie Hippokr. 
 VIII 36, SeSieVai V 414, SeSicfis VI 210 (rejected by Littre). rerpocpa is the 
 perfect of rpecpw Hippokr. VI 380. yeyova, not yeyevrifxai (Hippokr. IX 382), 
 |is Herodoteian. On ewda, dwQa, see § 582. The absence oiyiy-qOa from Ionic 
 prose is noteworthy, as this form occurs in the epic, in Attic prose and 
 poetiy, and in Doric. y^ypa-K^a, in a late inscription from Priene {British 
 Museum Inscriptions, III, i, no. 4127) might have been mentioned under § 362. 
 
 3. The ' first/ or aspirated, perfect is foreig'n to the epic dialect, 
 but appears in the later Ionic. 
 
 Forms worth special notice ai'e Sta- and e/xTreTrAoxe Hippokr. IX 190, and 
 ifivfirXexe 192 (e'yUTreVXe/ce three MSS.). In the case of the forms with ablaut 
 jthere are variants -irAexe. Hdn. II 35621 = Choirob. 54813, calls TreTrAoxa, &c. 
 Attic, while ireTrKexa (-€|a Lentz), ireireij.cpa, fie^pexa are referred to the Koivrj. 
 The scholiast on H 346 (rfTprixv7a) says that Ttrprixa. is the result of ' Ionic 
 .syncope' for Tfrdpaxa- The later Ionic used rerdpay/xai (Hdt., Hippokr.). 
 
 4. Whatever the orig-in of the k perfect^, the forms that 
 served as models for the ever increasing- spread of this formation 
 itnust be sought in those perfects which are derived from stems 
 lin long vowels. Even in the case of vocalic stems, the only 
 stems which in Homer have k in this tense, the epic dialect 
 does not invariably adopt the k form. The following were 
 'inherited by the later dialect from Homer. 
 
 j PefirjKa, ;8ej8A.7j/co, fie^paiKa, 5eSarj;ca, 5e5e'nrvr]Ka, SeBvKa, e(TTr]Ka, /j.f/j.vKa, Trf(j>vKa, 
 pX^^Ku or olxoKa, Tidvr]Ka, rervxi^a (certain only in k 88 ; in P 748 -xni^s 
 Herakl. Miles.). In Honier the k forms are used in the singular number 
 ivith but rare exceptions. 
 
 ; The perfect without /c, which in the participle of vocalic stems is more 
 freqiient in Homer than that with k, was regarded by the ancient grammarians 
 is a specific mark of the Ionic dialect. Homeric forms are noticed by Theo- 
 ijnostos in An. Ox. II 15)32 ; Choirob. 82911 (cf. Hdn. II 2960, ff.) ; An. Ox. I 
 p933, II 3557) Schol. L on E 698, Et. M. 19325, 50I1; Et. Gud. 106^3, 12I7, 
 ijiSis; Eust. 28238, 443jg (cf. 56111, 59521), 170O48 (cf. 171449)- The a. of t€- 
 htiSnos was held to be Ionic, Eust. 133652- On ire(pv^ws, see § 377, 4, note. 
 
 * Bekker's epp-riy/xai Hdt. II 12, which suggests the Herakleian eppvya, is 
 lot to be defended. 
 
 "^ Cf. Johansson, Beitrage sur gr. Sprachkunde, for the fullest discussion of the 
 lubject. 
 
496 THE IONIC DIALECT. [596. 
 
 From the analog-y of the perfects with k preceded by a longi; 
 vowel, were formed those with k after a short vowel, e.ff. a-oAco- 
 AcKo, eA?/AaKa, kjxi'jjx^Ka, verbs whose future and aorist had cr pre-,- 
 ceded by a short vowel. In such forms as iriirXyKa, the point oil 
 departure was the perfect middle. Finally stems ending ini 
 a dental explosive (KeKoixiKo) fell into line. 
 
 In the following note are given forms noteworthy for various 
 reasons. 
 
 ) 
 Hdt. uses a late formation \e\d0r)Ke III 42, 65, &c.,=Attic dK-qipa and 
 
 ilK7)<pa<*(Ti(r\7](pa. With \e\aP7]Ke, cf. \e\d^riKas Euseb. Mynd. 51, Xdyperai 
 
 Miletos 10O4, KareXdcpdT] Zeleia 11 37. Hippokrates III 308 has avaXeXd^da, 
 
 according to the MSS. In the middle Hdt. has airo\i\aiJ.fxivoi IX 51. Oi' 
 
 vivwKa Hdt. Ill 6, from vevorjKa, see § 296. &5r]Ka, Hippon. 100, is the onh 
 
 occurrence of this tense-form in literature. SeSoi/ccoo-t is found in Hippokrj 
 
 IV 166, SeSoiKcis Hdt. I 107. On ireirXuKa/xev, see § 78, on eKa-x^jfa, § 216. Iij 
 
 Ionic prose we find airelp-qKa, -eiprif^ai, not anriySpevKa, -ev/xai. reduriKa appear 
 
 in composition with a preposition (Hippokrates). yijripaKa is used by Hrdj 
 
 651 (see § 593, 4). On opcipTjKa and aKrjKovKa in Hi-d., see §§ 582, 5S3, 2. | 
 
 596.] Pluperfect. 
 
 The first person ends in -ea^ (ioiOea, j]b€a Hdt.), the seconc^ 
 would end in -ea?^ in the dialect of the fifth century, we ventur; 
 to believe. KaTetA7J0eis^ Hippokr. IX 382 contains the later -eis| 
 In the third person -ee* makes its appearance in about twentyi 
 five verbs in Hdt., whose MSS. reject the form in -ei'i 
 Examples are oTrwTrec, ererei^xee (cf. TeTVxVKV^ Hippokr. Ill 434' 
 aKrjKOie, eor^Kce (-ei Hippokr. V 150)- • 
 
 In Hdt. VIII 79 for wpoaK-fiKoe of all MSS. we read -Set (cf. VII 208 i 
 Occasionally the close association in form between imperfect and pluperfei. 
 (cf. e-Kivi)voQi. iyiycave in Homer) caused such readings as i\r}\v9e VIII ['■ 
 (all MSS.). 
 
 The termination -ee reappears in Lukian^'s Sj/r. (lea iyeyovt' 
 4, 2 J, iiT^rrovOee 25, eco^ee ^^, airoX^XoLiTeev 26, Euseb. d7reo-r(/K(' 
 9. Hippokrates differs from Herodotos in that he adopts -e 
 
 e.ff. ifXTTecjiVKeL II 246, a<f)(i)pixi]K€L V 122, iKeKpdyeL V 396 (witi 
 
 i 
 
 * Cf. Apollon. Adv. 19I7 (Schneider), Hdn. II 326,0 = Choirob. 60O34 (( 
 56425, 86023), Hdn. II 83523 = Choirob. 866,4 ; An. Ox. IV 21I30, An. Par. l) 
 32623, IV 23230, Et. Mag. 38615, Et. Gud. 23604, Eust. 5027, 7i8„, 15894,, (| 
 194620 ; but in 88 1 60 elprjKri and eiVr^/fTj are put down as Ionic. elariiKi, 
 Hippokr. IX 352, is late. { 
 
 '^ -ees is fabricated from the later -ets by Choirob. 60I27 (cf. Et. Mag. 3863/I 
 who was misled by -ee for -et. ' 
 
 3 Thus Littre and Ermerins. KaraXeXafi'fiKets, which occurs in four MSJ, 
 recalls Hdt. XeAa^-r^Kee III 42. 
 
 * Cf. Hdn. II 1 9323 = Choirob. 5607 (cf. 6oiu) ; Et. Mag. 38624. J 
 
 * Homeric -ei {oSuSet, opcipei) Eust. 152343, who is there treating of tj 
 reduplication. Asios 4 has etcrriiKei. Homeric -eiv {ea-riiKeiy, ^i^K-i]Keiv) 1: 
 referred to by Choirob. 5604. I 
 
598.] . SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE. 497 
 
 I 
 
 Attic a), eyeyoVei IX 383-^. The single example from the in- 
 jscriptions^ is of too late a date to render certain, what on the 
 kvhole seems probable enough, that in the ordinary, inartistic 
 ispeech of the fifth century -ee had yielded to -et. 
 I Plural forms are not at hand in the case of the first person ^. 
 avvrjheaTe occurs in Hdt. IX ^8. -ecrav'^, not -eicrav, is Ionic. 
 Thus Hdt. has eaOecrav, (yeyoveaav, 7]X(aK€crav, Hippokr. ixeixaOrj- 
 K€crav I 592, 7Tpoript(TTriK€<Tav II 290, e^cTrec^VKeo-ai; V 124 (Littre 
 aaav). 
 
 597.] Subjunctive. 
 
 Present, -r/cn appears in Theog. 139, e^e'Arjo-ty (Bergk with 
 most MSS. -T]-, but A has -?;-), and in kkavvr]i<TL Hdt. I 188, in 
 ^uch excellent MSS. a.s A £ C. The form has no justification in 
 prose. 
 
 Aorist. Traces in later Ionic of the original identity of 
 ihe aorist subjunctive and the future indicative are given 
 n § 239. The proper form of the aorist of Tiv(a is eVeicra, as is 
 evident from eKTeCa-ooa-L Zeleia 11 335 (cf. § 214), dating shortly 
 ifter 334 B.C. An earlier and Attic example of iKTeCa-coai is 
 lound in C. I. A. II 14, A 8, 13 (before 378 B.C.). Hdt. has 
 l7ri/3€ft)jixei' VII 50. 
 
 Perfect. Hippokrates, IV 166, makes use of the rare form 
 ieSoiKwo-t. geSoiKw? is rare in prose (Hdt. I 107, Hippokr. II 
 '6). Other examples of the simple (not periphrastic) form are 
 ■ervx^KT]? Hippokr. Ill 434, /3e/3pcoK77 VIII 350, Ted-qki] VI 654 
 conj.), e^€Xr]\vdj] VII 24, eK-n^TTTWKr] IV 240, VIII 1 48. 
 i ivdyoifxev Hrd. 33^ may be noted because this verb is used in 
 "onic prose (Hdt. VIII 104 avotyr]). Hrd. 710^ has a present 
 ivcoyovaa; cf. avuiyci, Hdt. VII 104 (avcaye?). In Hdt. Ill 8 1 
 he imperfect avo)ye is probably perfect. On avcoye see Mekler 
 Beitr. z. Bilcl. cl.gr. Verb. p. 48. Danielsson Norcl. tidskr.f.Jilol. 
 /II 138, refers avcayoi to avdyco. 
 
 598.] Optative. 
 
 1. An occurrence of the rare future optative is ij^oL Hdt. I 
 
 27 {ijiu Pel). 
 
 2. The endings of the first aorist optative are -etas, -ete (-ai?)^, 
 
 ^ These forms show that i\e\iiB-q, the vulgate reading in III 418, is an 
 rror for -ei ; cf. V 208. i-yi-yovei appears in Menekrates, e5e5i€« Aretaios 81. 
 
 ^ iirriyopaKei Erythr. 206 A 1 7. 
 I ^ -eifiev Choirob. 56425. 
 
 ;* Hdn. II 2793 = Choirob. 60614; An. Ox. IV 19316, An. Par. IV 19a, Et. 
 i^ag. 38643. 
 
 : ' pi\f/ai ll 100 may be read as an infinitive, ffvfj.fiov\ev<Tai III 156 is due to 
 tephanus. Both are adopted by Dindorf. pi}\iai is generally accepted by 
 
 •cent editors (Baehr p2\l/ai). 
 
 Kk 
 
498 THE IONIC DIALECT. [599^ 
 
 -€Lav, and -aier. Hdt. has Troirjo-ttar (ef. Teos 156 B 30), opitq- 
 a-eiav, etc., with -eiaz- as in Homer. This ending is therefore not 
 specifically AioUc (of. Hdn. II 823,^, Sec). ItacpvXd^auv Hdt 
 VI lOlj a-ooe'fater VIII ^j, avv^veiKauv ^ II 152 (the only 
 eases of -ater) contain an ending constructed from the moddi 
 -oiev. 
 
 3. In the second aorist we may note evpoirjs, adopted by Littrel 
 in Hippokr. I 590. Here there is the v. I. evpois which is 
 adopted VIII 326; ef. Hrd. 6-3. Hdt. uses et-oi not eiTrot. 
 
 4. Herodotos does not use the perfect active optative form in 
 -OLTjv. Cf . TTepuXijXvdoL, ^e^pcoKOi, -ze-oiriKoi, ^Aco/cot ; in the 
 plural -oier in Tre-oajKoter. Tedrau]i- occurs in Mimn. i, 
 KaOecm'jKOL in Hippokr. IX 380. Hdt. has both etSetTjo-ai; and, 
 eibdei', § 703. '■ 
 
 599.] Imperative. ! 
 
 In Anakr. 75 we find kXvOl, a form occurring in Homer anc' 
 trasredv : z-it^t Hrd. To.,. From tl-ov we have the second aorisi 
 form ei-e Hdt. V iii. ■zpo^-erui Hippokr. TK 376, but xarei' 
 TTo-co B. P. ir. 1889, 1 1 94, 1. 7. Hrd. 3.^e has et-a. A pTin| 
 perfect optative is fL'/i/ie/xi'\eVa; Hippokr. IX 54, 
 
 Infinitive. 
 
 \ 
 
 Some of the ancients held that the occurrence of -euej' in Homer waj 
 warrant of its Ionic character. Cf. An. Ox. I 13I32 eXxtfiey, 152- evptfiiB^ 
 So too the Aiolic -.uevoi is called Ionic ^and Doric} in An. Par. Ill I4£::i 
 On the occurrences of these two forms in elegiac, not in iambic poefcn 
 see § /CO. 
 
 600.] Future. 1 
 
 1. Liquid Verbs, -e'ety is the usual traditional reading if 
 Herodot^ and Hippokrates, though contraction had ensued i 
 the fifth century. Hdt. has apLvvieiv VII 168, al(r\vveeu- IX 5^ 
 (the active is rare in prose)^ Hippokr. a-oc^avUu- VII 330, eiriic^' 
 vie.iv IV 63c. I 
 
 2. Verbs in -iTo). After the close vowel i, ee are merged int; 
 ei. KaTayulv Hdt. I 86, KaTa-irXovTieiv ^ I 132, drpe/xteu' \J1\ 
 68 (/3)^ dea-ulv VIII 1 35-, pLaKapuh- IX 93. I 
 
 3. Verbs in -d(^(j). From 8tKa(,a) we have the noteworthij 
 a-obiKCLv Hdt. I 97. In Attic the cr was never dropped in thj 
 verb, and Hdt. has 8tKao-o'/xej'oi I 96. The lonians seem to ha^' 
 pursued a different course from the Attics in differentia ting til 
 
 1 Here P R have arpefjueiiv. 
 
 - Stein adopts eea-irieetv, the reading of i?, by a strange inconsequence. 
 
l^ 
 
 oa^] INFINITIVE SECOND AORIST ACTIVE. 499 
 
 ctive and middle forms. Late writers contract the future 
 
 liddle. KaTacTKivav appears in a late document from Olbia, 
 
 I.G. 2058 B 29, j^. Hdt. has biaa-Kebav I 79 (crKe6aCa) is late). 
 
 601.] First Aorist. 
 
 Hdt. has el-ai and d-elv, the very rare olcrai in avoTa-ai I 157, 
 correction of dz'cDcrat of the MSS. Cf. avoLo-ros VI 66. In 
 [omer we have otaov, in Arkadian €1:0107] (subj.). 
 
 602.] Second Aorist. 
 
 The infinitive in -e'etr-^, while not unknown to the MSS. of 
 le early Ionic prosaists and the pseudo-Ionists, occvu's nowhere 
 se in the monuments of Greek prose literature. It is certain 
 lat this form did not first appear in a prose text. Whether 
 
 came into existence in a pre-Herodoteian period of the history 
 [ the Homeric text (as seems probable), or whether it must be 
 jcribed to a later date, cannot be definitely determined. At all 
 rents the -e'etr forms in Homer represent a misunderstanding 
 
 the old -e'ei'. They were foisted upon the epic language by 
 
 se transcription of EEX through the analogy of (fnkeeiv and 
 |)ngeners-. That -eetr was substituted for EMEX, as has often 
 j?en maintained, is not probable. 
 
 ! No Ionic inscription has any other form than -di: In Theognis 
 \l6 one MS. has Iheav, and in 11 90 one (K) has Trpo^uyeeiz;. 
 [he genuine forms are amply attested. In the elegiac poets we 
 ;id everywhere else -eti-, and no iambographic poet has -e'etz;. 
 jhis holds good of some sixteen verbs occurring fifty-one times 
 legy 43, iambics 8). 
 
 In Herodotos by far the greater number of second aorists end 
 
 -(Iv. In some cases, however^ all the ]MSS. agree in the 
 nger f orm^ . 
 
 That these forms are due to the activity of psendo-Ionizing 
 Ij-ammai-ians and scribes, who held that the language of Hdt. 
 '^ the language of Homer, is clear from the fact that Hdt. is 
 iver made guilty of an attempt to create an eA^e'eu*, an d-eeiv, 
 
 ' Et. M. 465,5 (cf. 22451), Et. Gud. 27032, An. Ox. I 216^ refer ISeeiv, daveeiv 
 ithe lonians. 
 
 f It is but seldom that any aorist in -e'eiv is follo'wed in Homer by a word 
 l^inning witli a vowel. This makes against our assuming that -eeiv is a 
 aauine contamination of an aorist -eev {e-f^ev or e-o-ev^ and the present -e'eiv 
 ^ Rhodian BifjLuv by contamination of -fxev and -nv ■ 
 
 I The following are only those verbs in which there is absolute consensus. 
 ikeetr U ill, III 12. 35 bis), avfj.- II 10. Ill 32, 160 (cf. TV 42), diro- III 4' 
 i Vin 6f . {nrep- YII 168 ; 6\4eiv 1 36': SiTro'dayeeLV I S:;. VII 229 ; ISeetv V 
 i; raOffiy II 141. \U II cf. VI 12. VII 17; : Trfo-fW II 141, III 53, 81, V 
 P avfji- III 120. ^€To- V 61 ; (payeeiv II I41 ; aTrocpvyeeiv I 91, 5io- I 10, 204, 
 ''jll 88. In other passages the correct forms of each of these verbs occur, 
 tragh not without the r. ?. -e'ejv. AH of these -htv forms are Homeric, 
 tjjugh the prepositions do not always agree. 
 
 K k 2 
 
500 THE IONIC DIALECT. [603. 
 
 or an ayayieiv, forms which could not find admission into the 
 hexameter save by a synizesis which had equalized them with 
 the ordinary -tiv. The occurrence of these (false) Homerismsl 
 in Hdt. is a signal instance of the effort to render poetical the 
 diction of the historian. The ^ sweetness'' of the Ionic dialect 
 was due, according- to the rhetoricians, to its poetical nature 
 (?'; yap 'la? ovaa 'noLi]TLKi] (pvaet iarlv ^Seia). Herodotos'' 770tKi\iai 
 became his perversion. 
 
 In the editions of other Ionic pi'osaists there are to be fomidii 
 many occurrences of -eeiv. The MSS., however, often pronounceii 
 ao'ainst their correctness. 
 
 "&' 
 
 Herakleitos 6 has eiVeij/, 114 KOToAtTreri' ; Demokr. 188 \afie7v (Stob.), 70 
 Tyxei"" (Stob."), but 135 ajxaprieiv, 20]4 KaKotradeeiv (both in Stob.); Diogen. 3 
 elwe7v. In Hippokrates' KwaKol irpoyvdaeis, iiriS. rpirov there are no traces ofj 
 -€€11'. In wepl SmiTTjj o|e'«v, II 224 (cf. I 620), 7rpo«:aTa^a0€ri/ occurs, but in IL 
 290 a(pe\€€iv is adopted by Littre, and I 624 KaKoiraQieiv (-e7u is however found 
 in A in both places) ; in -jrepl twv 4v Ke<pa\^ Tpav/xaTwy, III 258, 260, a(peXeeiv is 
 found without a variant. Elsewhere -eTv is, we believe, in the genuine works; 
 the only form. In the supposititious treatises, as well as in those that arCj 
 genuine, we have often observed -feiv in Littre's text, e.g. IV 184. ayaye'eii. 
 was not foisted upon Hippokrates in IV 142, where xa^e'e"' occurs. Aretaio;! 
 has TTaQ^iiv 12, eiyhiv 126, ISenv and I5e7v 126, ^vfifiaKeeiv 241, Lukian's Syr. 
 dea iradeeiv 25, Euseb. Mynd. aireXdeTv i, fupelv 13, 61, Xa^eiv 51, /coTO(rx«ti' 53. \ 
 
 603.] Perfect. On the ending- -yai in the perfect of Ovr\<Tm 
 see § 700. TeOriXivai occurs in Arrian, Ind. 40^. 
 
 604.] Participle. 
 
 1 . Future. In verbs derived from liquid stems, -eo)-, -eo- an 
 uncontracted, e.g. cpecav Hdt. VII 49, ayyeXiovra IV 14, d/xv 
 veovTes IX 60. From -iCoi verbs we have oTrcoptewres IV 172 
 182. ota-ctiv is found in II 91. 
 
 2. Firsi Aorist. Greg-. K. § 72 says that etTra?, not cittwi', i.' 
 the lonip form. In Hdt. I 27 dirovra is, however, correc 
 {d-navra A"^). eiTra? is very common (also in Euseb. Mynd. i|^ 
 vi](Tas, not vrirjo-a^, Hdt. I 50, II 107 {vqioa is not later Ionic; 
 On TTpuxras, see § 267, 4. Hippokr. VII 254 has Kp-^cras (' 
 Ktpvds) as 7j 164 KpijcraL. Cf. kKpr\6T]v. 
 
 3. Second Aorist. airoKkas Anakr. 17 recalls Homeric ovra 
 picvos, yrjpdi, and is formed as if the present were dTTOKXrjpi. 
 
 4. Perfect. The grammarians ^ state that the lonians had 
 not vi, in the feminine of the perfect participle. The onl 
 support for this view to be found in the monuments is th 
 reading of 6 in the following participles in Hippokrates : kwdoir, 
 
 1 Hdn. II 36821 = Choirob. 83225 (and = Bekk. An. Ill 129215). 
 
r 
 
 14.] PARTICIPLE ACTIVE. 501 
 
 ''I 200, (oiOoiav 304 (-UI- vulgo, -a- Xy, TeroKoij] and TeroKolav 
 III 10, TTpoaTTcnrodKo'iaL VIII 312, with which cf. eKTreTrrcoKvta 
 V 80. Elsewhere we find only the -vt- forms, with perhaps 
 I variant -et-, e.ff. aprjpvlai, IX 394, aprjpvirj IX 366 (-et- t\/.), 
 e(i)dopvij] VIII 246. 
 
 Lobeck^ held that the -01- forms represent merely the con- 
 iision between vi, 01, and v that prevailed in later times. This 
 : not probable. Perhaps -vca was changed to -oia under the 
 ifluence of -cos of the masculine. G. Meyer (Gram. p. 308) 
 tes (ptakaL TTeTTovrjKOTat from ^ Delian inscription (B. C. H. VI 
 ji, 207), where a much more audacious assault has been made 
 ijT the masculine. In Lakonian we find fi[h€oi (i.e. Ftbeoi.) and 
 ibvoi, ibvioi and IbvoL oversee?' (mentioned by Brugmann Grundr. 
 L p. 412, 4)- 
 1 
 
 iOn a late Oropian inscription {'E(p7iix. apx- 1889, 3 ff.) we meet with Sieppai- 
 Ua, airoKarayfTai. The -eta forms occiu" in inscriptions from Thera(€7riT6T6A.6K€ro, 
 iraKfla, avvayayoxf'tct), from Herakleia {epprjyeTa.), and from Attika {yiyove7a). 
 '[le Oropian forms may therefore be Attic. 4ppccye7a as well as Herakleian 
 
 oriyela retain the long vowel which is unoriginal in the feminine. We 
 
 pect ippaye7a; cf. Homeric ap7]pcis, apapvla. In Hippokratic ap-qpvta the 
 jasculine form prevailed. The relation of the fem. -era to the ordinary -vta 
 
 to be explained thus : the fem. nom. was -eia, the gen. -vias, whence -eTa, 
 
 as and -via, -vias. Cf. J. Schmidt, K. Z. XXVI 329 ff. 
 
 Later Ionic generally adopts the forms of the first in prefer- 
 ice to those of the second perfect. 
 
 PePpaiK(is is the only k participial form in Homer which reappears in later 
 nic (Hippokr. VI 268). The perfect and pluperfect active and middle of 
 r3pai<TKw are well represented in Ionic. The following cases of the k form in 
 |e post-Homeric dialect may be noticed. Homer has redvricos, -tjoDtos and 
 •iros (and Theog. 1205), -rjcort and -ewTi, -riwra and -riSra, -rjaiToov, -rjaJras and 
 Was ; -qvirjs, •T]v7av (not -Kvlav 5 734). In post-Homeric Ionic we find the k 
 ■m in Te6vr]Kv7av Hippon. 29, cf. TsQvi]K(is Theog. 1230. The prose forms in 
 e are TiBveus Hdt. IX 120 {j^Oveus Theog. 1192), redveuTos V 68, reOvewTa 
 .ippokr. VIII 146, redveSs Hdt. I 112 (-ecos in B), Hippokr. V 212, VII 350, 
 l-II 220 (-(Js in 0). Cf. effrr]Kv7a and eareiis, § 701. Homer has fie^ads, 
 ■ora, PefiaxTa, and ■fiepav7a. Hippokr. Ill 282 has iTn^efiwra (cf. Attic fie^ws", 
 ujSejSoJTos IV 184. The k form appears in /Se/STjKcos Archil. 584 (tetr.), ^Ss/Stj- 
 iraj 563 (tetr.). ■7re<f>vaiTas, •vv7a, in Horn., irecpvKviri Hdt. II 56, -Kvias Hippokr. 
 •jist. i6g. Homer has ireirrfwras and -ewr' from ttitttco. Hekat. 360, Hippokr. 
 I 434 have ireirraiK^s ; but in Hippokr. VIII 146 we find in and four 
 •iaer MSS. imrrriaiTa (Littre •7)6Toi) which recalls ire-nT7)wTas in Apoll. Rhod. 
 jl 321. Is the form with -tjw- due to confusion with itttjo-o-o)? Attic has 
 ith ■K^TrrwKilis and irenTd>s<.d-f(is, as it has reOvriKcis and redpedos. 
 
 ' In VI 228 e has iwOviri^viri. 
 Pathol. II 25, note 5. Lobeck compares yl/o7ai ij/viai and Tpirroia = rpirrva. 
 Soio7v Choeph. 944 (Jf). 
 
503 THE IONIC DIALECT. [605. 
 
 Middle Voice. 
 
 605.] Indicative Present. \ 
 
 -eat^ < -t-aai remains uncontracted in ^aiveai Archil, epocl.94^ 
 XapiC^ai 752 troch., epx^ai Theog. 1374. In Anakr. 12 B, hviai 
 or bCr^ai, has been formed from biveeai. Contraction has sei, 
 in in irpoeK-novri (or -^^) Sim. Amorg. 22 and in several forms 
 in Anakreon : — ki:i(jrpi(^eai 24, Tre'reat 9, ^ocTKeai 755, TavTaXl(i 
 78 (if Love is addressed), k-niarrj Theog. 1085 (cf. below) occur; 
 at the end of the hexameter. Cf. apxji I 102, e'A/c?/ cr 10, &c 
 €V€vxji 647 and /3ovAet (?) 5g appear in the Herodas papyrus. 
 
 In Homer, whenever -7? occurs it is almost always followed by a vowel 
 hence we may read e'(tti). Most of the instances of eoi before a consonan 
 occur in n and the Odyssey. 
 
 In the Ionic prose of Hdt. -eat is preserved after a consonan, 
 and after diphthongs [e.ff. StaKeAeveai 1 42^ VIII 80, j3ov\eai I 206 
 j3ovkiveaL VII 12, (ru/a- VII 235). After a vowel we find a:; 
 unwarranted -eat, as in (^o;3e'eat I 39 even in good MSS., Se'ecj 
 
 VII 161. P sometimes prefers the longer form, where th; 
 other MSS. adopt the form shortened by hyphaeresis, e.ff. i:po6i 
 /xe'at I 206, kiraiviai III 34, ^v(Ppav€aL IV g, ^o/3e'at VII 52, &' 
 B has Statpeat VII 50 where Stein reads -e'eat, as elsewher' 
 Lukian, S^r. dea 18, has XtVo-eat. -et is not Herodoteian, at leas' 
 in the present (see § 607) ; but /SowAet appears in Hippokr. II 3(1 
 in Herodas 5g, and Ion e-n-tS. i. In Hij)pokrates at least ^' 
 doubt its correctness. In pseudo-Ionic literature this ending 
 more frequent. Cf. Hippokr. epist. 1720- ^^® grammarians ( 
 the Roman period regarded -et as specifically Attic. 
 
 In verbs whose themes end in -a, Ionic has -e((r)at for-a((r)ai; 
 (§ 688, I, note 2). Thus Hdt. has einVreat VII 104, 135. Th 
 -eat is contracted in eTrto-r?/ Theog. 1085. In the Doric of Find; 
 we have e-n-to-ra from -ao-at, e.(/. Pyth. Ill 80, but k-niaTavy 
 
 VIII 7 as usually in Attic. Aischylos however has emVi 
 as well as eirt'o-rao-at. hvvap.ai yields hvvaa-ai in Homer, Pinda 
 and classic Attic prose, but hvvq in Attic poetry (see Porson c 
 Hek. 353). The Doric form is also hvvq. Ionic would be hvvic 
 
 ^ -eai is called Ionic in Hom. KeXeai : — An. Ox. I 215,,, 242,3, An. Par. I. 
 32633, Tzetz. Ex. II. 1 178, Et. M. 502,, Et. Gud. 27039, 31338 ; fJ-e/j.<peai Et. Gu 
 38721, An. Ox. I 27O5. The ancients thought Ke\e(T)aL yielded KeKeat. _ ' 
 
 ^ -eai from -aaj is Ionic according to Hdn. II S4O3 = Choirob. S795 if ^, 
 accept Lentz' reading. 'Icdvlkccs is wrongly said of Swaai, iiriaraat in ChoirC 
 (ct Hdn. II 29817 = Choirob. 6731-2 for the Ionic loss of the a-). Cf. also Au.C; 
 IV 186,1 , Eust. 96921. The scholium Hesiod W. D. quoted by Gaisford p. 2 
 is corrupt. 
 
joy.] INDICATIVE FUTURE MIDDLE. 503 
 
 , form that has been contracted in bvvrj, Anakreonteia 29^^. 
 wvaa-ai Hippokr. IX 342 is Attic. 
 
 Faria. It may be noted, in view of the objections raised to 
 ;he occurrence of Kade^oixat in early authors, that Hippokr. VIII 
 \g2, which is cited by Veitch in support of its early existence, 
 s not supported by 6 ; and in VII 348 for KaOe^iaOoi, 6 has 
 a9L<T9ui. 
 
 On -arai, -earai, see § 5^5- 
 
 606.] Imperfect. 
 
 Hdt. has €0<e(TO, e.g. ej'ereAA.eo I 117^ €TTriyy€\eo VII 39; 
 jukian F. A. 5 ((pavrdC^o. On rjiricrTeaTo Hdt. II ^^, &c., and 
 aTo, -euro generally, see § 585. Whether cnrdyx^o, Archil. 67, is 
 In imperfect is uncertain, -eu seems not to occur in Hdt. {rjeiev 
 iallimachos^ Hymn to Zeus ^^). 
 
 We do not recall a case of -co in the second person in the later 
 [ialect. eKpe/xo)^ occurs O 21. In Attic we find t/tt toraa-o and 
 CO (the latter in prose), rjbvvaa-o occurs Hippokr. IX 344 = 
 Vttic kbvvM. 
 
 The non- Attic 7]px6fJ^y\v appears in Hippokr. V 426, IX 328 (uncompounded). 
 vripxSfiTiy is found V 402, vire^- V 414. Hippokr. also used the stibjunctive 
 ni 598, €'|- VIII 508, the infinitive VIII 546, IX 418, air- VIII 42, the 
 participle Ste^- II 138 (in a genuine treatise). Cf. Kutherford, New Phrynichus, 
 1. 103 ff. 
 
 607.] Future. 
 
 I. First Person Singular. -eSjuat is the ending in -1(00 verbs : 
 vayuivuviiai Hdt. Ill 83, opteC/ixat Hippokr. VI 4, IX 264. 
 
 a. The termination of the second person singular, 
 ' (a) -eai^. The lyric poets generally preserve the form -eai. 
 rhus in Archil. 792 Tep\//eat, Ananios I3 a^tfeat, Theog. ■^^ 
 laOi^aeaL and in several other forms (100, 884, 991, 1161 cf. 
 Stobaios, 1285, 1299, 1333). Of the prose writers Herodotos 
 las o^j/eaL I 155 (and so MSS. Andro?n. 1225), d-naipriaeai I 71 
 see § 6'^'^), d-ni^eai II 29 (a rare future in prose : for Aldus^ t£eat 
 u the same chapter, TJ'^et? is read), TrAei^o-eat II 29, Ttapaiid^mt. 
 V 52, kdix\\rMi I 199, and in all other forms. Demokritos 2O25 
 las Stcoo-eai. 
 
 I Lukian has airi^eai S^r. dea 25, jxefJiVQaeaL 30, kvacrKriaeai V. A. 
 !}, eto-eat 4, 5, yvcaaeaL 4, \iaTa^r](T^ai ^, d\l/€ai 6 ; Euseb. Mynd. 
 las Icreai 63, Kara^r/o-eat 51, cf. vofiLcrdricreaL 52, Aret. 30 o\j/eai. 
 
 In liquid verbs, -eat not -eeat is correct, e.g. iv(ppav4aL Hdt. 
 
 ^ Hdn. II 31721 = Choirob. 8831 (cf. Et. Mag. 32411) calls e'/cpe/to. Attic, 
 Kpf/xao Ionic because of the loss of o-; cf. An. Ox. I 17I5, IV 21322, 379i* 
 , * -eat is called Ionic Et. Mag. 23715, Et. Gud. 128,^ {yvwffeai) , Et. Mag. 38X21 
 ifftai), An. Par. Ill 3353^ {ixdcra-eat) . 
 
504 THE IONIC DIALECT. [607. 
 
 IV 9 (-eeat Pz only), a-noQaviai IV 163 (-eeat Pz only), airoXay.- 
 TTpvveai I 41 {-eeat no authority). 
 
 (/3). -77. Theog-nis has yvcacnj 6^ and Trwrrjo-rj 238, in each ease 
 followed by a consonant. With yvwar], cf. B 367 yvuxTeai 8'^ 
 and 365 yvaxrf] eTret^'. Hrd. 259 has -nXuxrr], 63, yvaxxr], 8^ Keto-jj. 
 
 Xa/)try should be read in Hdt. I 90, kohltj in II 121 (y); cf. 
 VII 49. DindorFs -teeat, Bredow's and Stein's -tet are impos- 
 sible : the former because of the mass of vowels (cf. -eat from -c'eai 
 in liquid verbs), the latter because -tji does not become -ei Id 
 Eastern Ionic. Hippokr. has yvuxrri VII 340. 
 
 (y) When contracted -eai becomes -77 in Ionic, -et is possibk 
 in Euboian Ionic, but not elsewhere. We have therefore nc 
 hesitation in branding" as spurious e^evpriaet Herakl. 7. Ir, 
 Hippokr. VIII 342 9 has o\/^7] : hence we read oxfrri, not ofi, 
 with Littre, as there is no need of assuming a retention of tht, 
 later Attic o\//-ei. ov//-et 'Obvao-ev fx loi is an error, as it is iri 
 ^ 620, where A D have oxlfrj kv ; in both passages o\//-e' may b( 
 read, -et in Hrd. ii, 593, 791 is an Atticism. 
 
 3. -etrat is the correct termination of the third person 0'' 
 liquid verbs and those derived from a present in -iCcn. This 
 ending is not generally preserved in the MSS., where it hasbeei' 
 supplanted by -e'erat. 
 
 (a) -eirai occurs as follows: avavejxelrai Hdt. I 173 (^ ■^) 
 fxavelTai I 109 (all MSS., the fut. middle is very rare); (n]ij.av€l 
 Tab Hippokr. II 228, davelrai, (not airo-) VIII 70 {C 6), 98, aixjikv'., 
 velrat, IV 464, avaxavelraL VIII 498 (for avaxo.vr]TaL), TeKpapfaa 
 VI 24; (^aretrai Demokr. 135 [sic Stob. ; cf. 6). Solon 4^ 
 Theog". 867 have oAetrai. ayhpa-nohulTai Hdt. VI 17, Kadapelra 
 Hippokr. VII 24, 330, 338, 508, gtopetrat IV 102. On ■jreaeiTa 
 Hdt. VII 163 {H; -hTai all MSS. in VII 168), V 92 (/3, oracle) 
 and on irpoa-n^o-dTai Hippokr. VIII 34, see below. 
 
 (^) -eerat is found in airoOavieTai Hdt. IV 190, bLacpdepiera, 
 VIII 108 (note that -(pd sprier erai is not used); aripapiira 
 Hippokr.* VII 276. 
 
 4. Plural. -€vp(6a in Kop.uvp.eda Hdt. VIII 62 (hence vopiov; 
 fxev II 17 is wrong), d.pvvevpe6a VIII 143 (-eo- Abicht), (pavev, 
 Ij.e6a Hippokr. IX 424. yapida-Qe Hdt. IV 98. (paviovra, 
 Hdt. Ill ^^, biaipOepiovTai. IX 42, e^avbpa-nobuvvTat VI 9. ' 
 
 5. Doric Future. Ionic, like Attic of the best period (cf. Rutherford' | 
 Phrynichus, p. 91), usually rejects the 'Doric' forms. Thus Hdt. has irAei'i 
 ffofiat II 29, III 135, (pev^ofxaL I 207, Trevao/xaL IX 58, Hippokr. irapa-rrvevtrofu' 
 
 * Barnes read yvda-eai el with asyndeton. In N 81 8 we find ap^irj? Aifj i 
 I 102 &pxr! (subj.) at the verse end. These two cases of -77 and yvdcreai abov 
 are the only occurrences in the Iliad of the closed forms, -r) in the futurii 
 always occurs before vowels, so that we may read -e'. i 
 
^o8.] 
 
 INDICATIVE FIRST AORIST MIDDLE. 505 
 
 VTII 2S4, pivffoixai VI 440, 442, VII 224, 556, VIII 100, a form found in 
 ,riieog. 448. (In VIII 596 the active ^evo-ft is probably corrupt). In Homer 
 isve find iffffetrai and TreffeovTai, irefffeaOai. TrecreTTot occurs in Attic and in 
 Hdt. VII 168, Hippokr. VIII 34 ; but iffffurai is rejected by both Attic and 
 Ionic. Wackernagel {K. Z. XXX 313) in setting up a new theory of the genesis 
 pf these two forms, regards the ' Doric ' future as alien from Ionic speech. 
 [t is, however, improbable that iffaelrai should be a contamination of tafferai 
 iind *iiTai, and that Trereofiai should have passed into irefffo/jLai by assibilation 
 )f T before a vowel not iota. (TreprjcrelTai in Olbia, Dittenberger SijU. 35411, 17 > 
 s no doubt a contamination of ffrep-ficrerai and crrepuTai, but is a poor support 
 j'or the above explanation of ia-a-eTrai. 
 
 I The derivation of ire(Tov/j.ai from *irer(Teofxai does not carry with it that of 
 fneffov from *eTreT(rov. An *iirtT(Xov would have yielded an *eire(T<Tov, which 
 'vould have been preserved in Homer : but of such a form there is no trace. 
 Trom *ireTcreo/j.ai the epic forms with crff were necessarily limited ; in fact 
 jJomer has only ireffeovrat and wecreeadai where the single a was inevitable. 
 iVe must assume that eweirov was substituted for eirerov, which is attested as 
 poric and Aiolic, at a time when *ire(TfffoiJ.ai had given way to ireafo/xai. As 
 In Sappho 42 ffnna-div has been installed in the place of the earlier and 
 ;enuine t form, so in Homer firea-ov has usurped the place of the regular 
 
 ireTov. Cf. Brugmann, Gram. p. 170. 
 The appearance of TrioC^ai in Hippokr. VII 196 is not more surprising than 
 
 ts occurrence in Aristotle. It is a form used by late writers that has crept 
 
 nto Xenoph. Symp. 4, 7, but disapproved by Athen. X 446 E, Phryn. p. 91 (E.). 
 jlomer N 493 and Theognis 962 have irfofiai, Ion 2io Trtofxai. On iixirtoixai 
 rheog. 1129 (present), see M. Schmidt, R. M. XXII 186. Pindar, Ol.YI 86 
 lias the present irfofiai < *iruoiJ.ai. Cf. rice, rtw. iriofiai is a subjimctive used 
 '•■s a future. 
 6. Varia. In Miletos 10O1.2 we find \a.\f/fTai, whereas Hdt. has A.a/tt^'Oyuai I 
 
 99, IX io8. The former of these forms is built on the model of tXaPou (cf. 
 
 opiofiai edopov, Kafj.eoij.ai eKafxov), the latter on that of \afj.fidveo. With Kafxif/ofxat, 
 
 f. ffv/xirfpuveyxOeis C. I. G. 2058 A 32, 79 B 70 (Olbia), and see § 130. A 
 [ontamination of the Attic A^^f-o^ai (which appears in Hippokr. VII 490, VIII 
 \6, 34) and \dfj.if/oixai is \^/j.\ponai C. I. Q. 4244^, 424720, 42499. 4253i5 (.Lykia), 
 
 .nd in the N. T. See §§ 619, 634, 4. Hdt. has xd^ofiai VII 144 with the a of 
 e present : *\oiy^ofiai would have been parallel to Kan^ofiai. 
 6|a|ovTai Samos 2 2iig.2o recalls &^€(reai Hdt. VII 8. The inscriptions have 
 
 rought us as yet no example of ^^a or of r)^dnr]v. Hippokr. VI 504 has 
 
 ■apa(xxh<^ovTai. e^opiai is Homeric but not later Ionic ; cf. § 592, 5. On 
 
 ax'ficrofj.ai, see § 592, 4. 
 
 608.] First Aorist. 
 
 I. -ao remains open in the MSS. of Hdt. in k^^pyaaao (16 
 
 lines), KarexpTjo-ao, eixLfjLrja-ao, and in niunerous other forms ; in 
 
 *nly one instance does contraction appear : k-noiriaM VIII 103. 
 
 he open -ao < -a<rFo is noteworthy because medial aFo became 
 
 as early as the sixth century^ (§ 277}. Xenoph. 5^ has rjpao, 
 
 i * Homeric -00 is called Ionic in An. Ox. I 21 1„, An. Par. Ill 3045, 35627 
 i^ao) ; An. Par. Ill 13S27, 2485 {ixicrao) ; cf. An. Par. Ill 8515. 
 
 !h, 
 
 V^ 
 
 ^£SE LlBR/„ 
 
 '^ or THE 
 
 tJNIVERSITT 
 
 OF y 
 
506 THE IONIC DIALECT. [6o8. 
 
 but Archil, epod. 941 has ecfypAa-co (in the seventh century it was 
 not permitted to resolve the arsis), and ebi^ca loi at the end of 
 an Archilochium iambicon ctcrtum. Lukian Sp\ dea 35 has dpya- 
 aao, Hippokr. IX ^6^ ifxifjixj/a} (epist.). 
 
 2. Eelation between the stems iueiK- and iyejK- of the first and second 
 aorist. These stems are not etymologically akin, that of the former being 
 derived from the preposition eV + ei/c which is connected with ico or with 
 Lith. sekiu, reach with the hand. See § 214, 2. iy-eyK is reduplicated (cf. Skt, ' 
 dndiifa). iveiK- was soon regarded as uncompounded, conjoined ^vitli eVe-y/c- 
 as an aorist of (pepa, and in modern times explained as a development of 
 iveyK- (Schmidt, Vocalismus, I 122). In Ionic poetry and prose (with the 
 exception of the medical writers) eVeiK- gained the upper hand. It appears 
 as early as Homer and is found in Pindar, but in the former author the' 
 second aorist is exceedingly rare, and its forms referred to a present eVe/zca. ' 
 In Ionic inscriptions we find ev^ElKavroiv Chios 174 B 4. eVei/c- also appears in 
 the Attic stone records after 370 b. c, but disappears after 322 b. c. A pecuhari 
 form from the weak stem ik (cf. tKrap) is the aorist passive f]^evixdrji Keos 
 4254, for which i^evex^V'' li^s been substituted by Beehtel on the ground that 
 the stone is not perfectly intact. With the Keian form we may compare- 
 Boiotian ivfvtxBfUi C. D. I. 488150, Aiolic eaeviKai 304 B 39, ^vikuv Mytilene, 
 Arch. Zeit. 18S5, p. 41, and other forms in Kalymna, B. C.H. X 242 (cf. p. 143),: 
 Troizen, C. D. I. 3364, Epidauros 3339uo. (Tvfj.wfpieveyx6fis Olbia, C. I. G. 2058,: 
 A 32, 79, B 70 recalls Delphic -eveyxSvi (see Curtius in BericMe der sdchs. Gesell 
 1864, 2 2 8), and the presence of the nasal in such forms as Xd/x^ofiai. Thf 
 inscriptional Attic jjvetyKa, -ov are mixtures of the two forms. Cf. ifveiyKdvTi 
 in Hesychios and Boiot. ijveiy^a Hdn. II 37421 (and eivi^av). In th(. 
 post-Homeric Ionic poetry we observe ivuKov Anakr. 623, evuKav TjTt. 41-, 
 iveyKe Herodas 717, 54, iveyKeiv 1 33 as usually in Attic, where the fii"st aorisf 
 iveyKai^ is rarely employed. Herodotos has TJveiKe II 146, III 155, -avlli] 
 30, IX 70, iveiKeie YI 61, avveyelKaiev VII 152, ivuKai I 32, eVci/cas II 23, IV 64 
 TiveiKaTO V 47, riveiKayTO I 57, II 180, VII 152, eveiKcovrai IV 67, avevfiKaniVO 
 I 86, ivelKaa-Oai II 23, VI 103 ; i^evnveiyfxfvos VIII 37, IX 72, as if fron 
 ive'iKiTai Scutum Here. 440. In the aorist passive Hdt. has 7}ffixdri>', a forn 
 which is not confined to Ionic (Epidaurian i^eueixOds C. D. I. 3339115). I' 
 two cases all the MSS. of Hdt. unite in presenting the form in -ex^iis (VI , 
 220, 232).^' Hippokrates has only iveyK-, e.g. ^jyeyKev III 88, V 426 
 ^peyKav II 606, V 388 (-oj/Erm. \ iv4yKoi II 294, eviyKonv II 296, -eviyKai V 
 210, VII 3^o, -eveyKiiv V 214, VIII 68, inravtveyKavTis V 5S8, e<xevtyK(iy II 36 
 iv4yKj}Tai I 592, IV 640, iueyKOsvrai I 582, irpodeveyKaaOai IV 640, iffeveyKd/J-fvo 
 IV 640; -evex^V V 516, 602, 652, 722, IX 186, 356 epist. Lukian has evtiK-. 
 Syr. dea 16, 22, 25, 27, 48, 49, 58 {A V -exBiVTa), KaTT]v4xSv ^sfi: 15, Eusebio 
 
 § 5 ivexdei-n ; Euseb. Mynd. KarevexSevras 63, Sjevex^eis i ; Abydenos 5 ive) 
 Kaffdat, Vita Horn. eveyK- 12, 13, 15, airijvexSv 34; Aretaios 108, 112 rjvfx^-n, 17 
 ^vvTjp'fyKe. The usage of the medical writers is sharply differentiated froi 
 that of Hdt. and his imitators. 
 
 3. Varia. ayopeva-acrdai Hdt. IX 26 may be noticed because of Cobet 
 onslaught on this tense in classic authors (Var. Lect. 36ff.\ fTravpacrBi, 
 Hippokr-. IV 632, iiravpdfxfda IX 424 (epist.) are occurrences of the unusui 
 
 ^ Attic inscriptions have only ivfyKe7u, 
 
6lO.] INDICATIVE PERFECT MIDDLE. 507 
 
 first aorist ; airenra.iu.r]v Hdt. I 59, V 56, is not classic Attic, i/x-rio-dfi-nv Lukian 
 Astr. 6, 21 is the only occurrence of this tense in prose, ifivriaa.fjL7)v Hdt. VII 
 39, Syr. dea 39 is rare in prose. vTroyrjcrafieyTj Hippokr. IX 192 {vnovift.- MSS.) 
 jis to be referred to yeofiai (though this verb occurs only once in Attic prose) 
 -ather than to t>ea> swim or vecu heap vp. vifxa) would scarcely yield (the 
 in-Attic) ivefirjcrdfxr]!' in Ionic. HcTcppavro Hdt. I So (Stein) where &(T(ppovro 
 plight be expected. Other forms, such as e(\aTo, SielKavro are certainly to be 
 •ejected, and we incline to the view that io<r<ppavTo is not genuine, though 
 ,.;he lonians not infi-equently adopt aorists that were not in good odour in 
 Attika. fivcp-liffaffOai Hippokr. V 3S6 occurs here only (see § 154). Of the 
 •eeent German editors of Herodotos, Abicht alone does not challenge the 
 tjorrectness of the derivation from &y(u of the forms iad^avro V 34, npoeffd^avro 
 { 190, VIII 20. They are to be referred to (xdaffco. dtacpev^aadai appears only 
 in Hippokr. IX 400 ; ((ppaadfi-qv and (ppd(ofj.ai are often found in Ionic, though 
 |iot in Attic, prose. ex^'^A"?'' Hdt. VII 43 is rare in prose, wv-rja-dfievos 
 3ippokr. IX 362 recalls the fact that Meineke regarded dij/TjiraTo in Eupolis 
 T 533, the only occurrence in classic Attic, as savouring of Ionic origin. In 
 ytic inscriptions of the Eoman period wvr)(rdix7)v is used for iirptd/j.7iv. 
 
 609.] Second Aorist. 
 
 In the second person we find -eo^ and -ev. (i) -eo in Hdt. 
 ■ipeo I 32, iy&eo I ^^, riydyeo IX III^ iirUco VII 9, &C. (2) 
 eu in aiTLKev 1 124, eUeu III 52, II9, erpd-Trev VII 39. The 
 )resence of the latter form makes up for the non-diphthongal 
 iharacter of -eo. Attic -ov appears in kyivov Theog. 454, 1273, 
 'ivreXd^ov I '^6%. In the later parts of Theognis -ov is doubtless 
 )riginal. 
 
 On -mro incorrectly transferred to the aorist, see § 585. 
 
 Ionic does not support a second aorist, active or middle, of kyyiWui ', cf. 
 Idt. IV 153, III 142, VII 37. Noteworthy forms in prose are &p/j.euos Hippokr. 
 II 420, ovrjadai IX 392 (uvrjcrdai C and Ermerins, the only example of the 
 erfect). 
 
 610.] Perfect. 
 
 After stems ending in a vowel the original ending -vrai may 
 lemain in Ionic ; after stems ending in a consonant -vrai. becomes 
 \aTai., with or without aspiration of a preceding tenuis. In 
 ilomeric and later Ionic the latter ending has been transferred 
 ia the perfect to stems ending in vowels, -arat has even found 
 |. lodgment in the present of -{jll verbs (§ 585, 3) in the later 
 jlialect ; a noteworthy mark of difference between the older and 
 he later language. 
 
 In only one inscription do we find the third plural in a form 
 i^ot Attic: etprjrat (dprJTai?) in Oropos 18^7 (between 411-402 
 [^ 3^7-377 B.C.), a form contracted from etpe(< etpr;) + arai. 
 pompare the form in Hippokrates adduced below. yeyiyrjvTat. 
 
 * eirKeo is called Ionic in An. Par. Ill 35431. 
 
508 THE IONIC DIALECT. [6ll. 
 
 occurs twice : Samos 22 15 (shortly after 322 B.C., an inscription 
 strongly marked by Ionic spellings) and lasos 1052 (end of the : 
 fourth century, with some traces of Attic). 
 
 611.] The Lyric Poets like Homer have -vraL and -arai, ■ 
 which they have transferred to stems ending- in a vowel, (i) 
 -VTat in the elegy occurs in -napKeivTai Xenoph. ig, kirU^vTai 
 Theog. 421. (2) -arai in elegiac and iambic poems is found in 
 TeTpdcparaL Theog. 42, K^iarai Mimn. llg, Ke'arai Archil. 169.' 
 (3) -earai. In Anakreon 81 iKK€K(o(f){aTai and in Hipponax 62 
 K^KLvearai, the long vowel of the perfect stem has been shortened 
 before -arat to e, and this e, together with a, forms a single 
 syllable. This shortening of the long stem vowel in the lyric 
 poets and in prose constitutes a mark of division between the ■ 
 older Ionic of Homer and the later language. Homer has 
 fiejSX^aTaL^, -aro, KeKA.7jarat^, TreTrorrjaTai. The beginnings of the' 
 later usage appear in Homeric earai, '^aro. 
 
 Now if by the time of Anakreon and Hipponax -rj-arat had not 
 only become -e-arat but even -earai (to say nothing of Homer's 
 earai), it is impossible to regard as correct the form TteTiXT^arai 
 which is reported as having been used by Sim. Amorg. (31 A).: 
 The Et. M. 3674Q, which quotes the word, takes it to be singular 
 number, not only on account of the subject [^v\a), but also 
 because of the confusion in the minds of the grammarians 
 between the singular and plural forms in the perfect. See' 
 § 613, note at end. TreirX-qarai has long ago been corrected toi 
 TTeirXearai, the t] of the Et. M. being due to recollection of like 
 Homeric forms. Cf. § 281, 3, note. 
 
 612.] In Ionic prose we find -vrai and -arai, not merely after 
 consonantal, but also after vocalic stems. 
 
 Herodotos has -arat, e.ff. in the following cases : — 
 (i) After consonants (usually with aspiration of gutturals s 
 and labials, but not of dentals): avaixep.iyaTai, aT^ohehiyarai 
 Terpa<parai, Ke\(iipibarai, ayuyviharai, ecTKevabarai, €<p6dparat. (2' 
 After v: KaraKexyarai (p. 481), fvibpyarai ; cf. dpvarai C '^^5' 
 (3) After e<77 in verba pura, and, by analogy, in the perfect oi 
 Kelpiai: rjyearai, olniarai, eKrearai, opfxiarai, dpearai, KCKXearai 
 (TTiKearai, Karearai, &c. (cf. earai F 134). The latter form is ii 
 reality derived from a consonant stem (7^cr-rTat). In dvaiteTrria- 
 rai a has apparently been dissimilated to e. 
 
 Herodotos has also -vrai, e.g. SeSoyrai VII 134, iKdeSwpUvfTai VIII 73 in -^ 
 (adopted by Stein ; Dindorf fKSeSwpiSaTai). 
 
 * Tliese forms, and T^arai, are adduced by the Gram. Vat. 694, who does nc 
 mention the -earai formation. 
 
 ^ Except airiKaTai {airlKaro) ; see below. 
 
5l3.] INDICATIVE PERFECT MIDDLE. 509 
 
 In other Ionic prosaists we find -vtm very frequently. The 
 'ollowing- cases of -arat occur. Hekataios ixeixerpearaL (§ 613, 2, 
 'ootnote). Demokr. 204 \xeixviaTaL. Hippokr. hiaKeKocparat III 
 112 {v. I. -}xhoi etcrt), 7rept/iie/3Aearat IX 80 (by anacoluthon ; 
 Littre would adopt the singular^ with which -earat was some- 
 imes confounded by the g-rammarians), neKpvcpaTaL VII 382, 
 \QII 342, rerexv^CLTai, I 628 (not in A), yeypdcpaTaL VII 178, 
 IBLhaTai II 298 bis, each time supported by A, but ill-ad visedly 
 ■ejected by Littre who adopted ddio-jxivoi dcrCv, elpiarai II 226 
 et/jTjrat A), but eipr]VTai 278 (etprjrat in II), IX 170. Kiovrai is 
 requent, e.g., II 18, 22, 24^ 48 ; ^arecpdvcovTai II 72. Lukian 
 las Trepi/cearat Astr. 3 and Kearat often for /cetrat, the subject 
 ')eing singular, /^le/xt/xearat Astr. 6, d7ro§e§dxarat S^r. dea 10, 42^ 
 Vretaios y^ypd<parai 331, &c., Euseb. Mynd. (Kriarai 2, 34, 
 'rpoKearai 6^, TernxiaTai 59 (rejected by Mullach), cLTrea-TepiaTai, 
 onj. 23. 
 
 The only verb in Hclt., compounded of a preposition ending in a vowel and 
 verbal theme beginning in a vowel and ending in a guttural, that admitted 
 if -oTat in the perfect, is aTriKveofiai. The isolated absence of aspiration in 
 wiKaTat and airiKaTo is to be explained as due to the desire to avoid dTrixarai, 
 iri'xaTo, which had been too different from the aspirated a,(p-. In compounds 
 he lonians did not always adopt psilosis. Cf. p. 326 and §§ 406, 407. 
 
 In Thukydides especially (but only in the verbs rda-irco, Tpicpu, (pOeipoo) and 
 ilso in Plato {Rep. VII 533 B) and Xenophon (Anab. IV 8, 5) we find these 
 o-called Ionic forms. That they were not confined to the literary dialect is 
 vident from avayeypdcpaTai (and irerdxaTo) upon Attic inscriptions prior to 
 10 B.C., after which date the periphrastic form obtains sole mastery. Thuky- 
 [ides indeed has both forms, sometimes in close conjunction {SieTerdxaTo and 
 erayfifvot ?i(rav in IV 31). In Aiolic and Boiotian also -arat occurs in the 
 :erfect. In late non-Ionic authors it appears very rarely, e.g. vevofiiSarai Dio 
 |!ass. 51, 23. 
 
 I 613.] Testimony of the Grammarians. 
 
 The grammarians quote as Ionic the following forms in (i) 
 arat, (2) -earai, (3) -iiarai, and even (4) -eavrat. Most are 
 aken from Homer, others do not usually rest upon actual obser- 
 ation. Some are mei'e figments : — 
 
 (l) -arai : aynyeparaL Hdn. II 2243 (An. Ox. I 39650, cf. Et. M. Qu) ; aKtjxe- 
 vrai Hdn. II 38421 (Et, M. 485), An. Ox. I 744, Eust. 15701 ; yeypa(paTa.i Greg. 
 i.or. § 74; SeSeWot Eust. 1837,5; Se- and SetSexarat Eust. 156S33, Et. M. 
 5247. 59927, An. Ox. I 1085 (cf. I 300i2\ An. Par. Ill 1621, Hdn. II 2257 = 
 Ji. Ox. I 300,2; 'iaTtti Hdn. II 4971, Et. M. 295,, 3084, Et. Gud. 1555,, Eust. 
 34i6- iSSSts) An. Ox. I 12634, I 142.26, I 25530, An. Par. IV 1945 {iaTai) ; eSifj- 
 vrai Hdn. II 299i5=Et. M. 31623 ; elarai Hdn. II 4974, Et. Gud. 15643, Eust. 
 188549, 189545, An. Ox. I 1272, An. Par. IV 1945 ; eipvarctt Hdn. II 22418,5037, 
 Ht.M. 37813, An. Ox. I 15213, 39625, An. Par. Ill 34229 ; ipeiptSaTai An. Ox. II 
 9833 (Choirob.) ; iprjpeSarai Eust. 130I1, 189544.34 (An. Ox. I 3965 'Attikois 
 iecause of the augment), Choirob. 6981 ; ippaSarai Hdn. II 2243 (An. Ox. I 
 
5IO THE IONIC DIALECT. [614. 
 
 3963% Et. M. 377,j, An. Ox. TV 19728, Choirob. 6983, Eust. 189543; ippiarai 
 An. Ox. I 39625; ipvarai Et. M. 37811, An. Par. IV 7O9 ; tpxarai Eust. 130I5, 
 107163 ; iffiraparai Et. M. 915, Eust. 23412 ; Eust. 130I3 ; iff-raKarai Hdn. II 224, 
 (An. Ox. I 396,1), Diakonos on Hsd. Aspis 288, Eust. 130I3 ; TjAevOarai (!) Greg. 
 Kor. § 74 ; T)xa^oLTai Hdn. II 348^2 (Et. M. 489), An. Ox. I 742 ; Kiarai. Et. M. 
 2954) 3080, Eust. 104356, 183715, An. Ox. I 14228, IV 1983, Choirob. 6971,, 
 69826, Et. Gud. 15554 ; /ceiarai Et. Gud. 15554, An. Ox. I 14225, Et. M. 295,, 
 3085; /ce/caparai Choirob. 69817 ; /ce/cAiarai Hdn. II 22419 (cf. An. Ox. I 396,9, 
 Et. M. 500i4~!, Joli. Gr. 242, Meerm. 655, An. Par. IV 7O10, An. Ox. I 22433, cf. 
 2265 ; /ce/cAij/arat (?) Hdn. II 2249, cf.An. Ox. I 39613 ; KexpycrSarai Choirob. 698^, 
 -uarai (?) An. Ox. IV 19732 ; AeAaxaTat Choirob. 69731, Greg. Kor. § 74 ; AeXe- 
 XaTa£ Greg. Kor. § 74, Theod. 5712, Eust. 23412; XeXTj^arat An. Ox. I 26825; 
 vevearai Hdn. II 2258 = An. Ox. I 300^, Et. M. 59925 ; vevricparai Choirob. 6973, ; 
 vevicparai Greg. Kor. § 74, Theod. 5712', vev6arai An. Ox. I 28723; vevvxarai; 
 Choirob. 69731 ; TreTreldarai An. Ox. I 3967 ; ■7re<ppd5aTai Eust. 130I7, An. Ox. I 
 742, IV 19727, Theod. 5714, Choirob. 69733, Greg. Kor. § 74; Teraxarai Joh. 
 Gr. 242, Meerm. 655 ; t erevxarai An. Ox. I 39531, 41I15 ; TeTiAarat Choirob. 
 69818; rerpdcparai Hdn. II 22317 (An. Ox. I 39525), Job. Gr. 242, Et. M. 3667,] 
 An. Ox. I 127,5, Meerm. 655; reTiKparai Choirob. 69629, Theod. 5710, Max. 
 Plan, in Anecd. Bachm. II 531, Diakonos on Hsd. Aspis 288, Eust. 234,2,! 
 130I3 ; iivoixaSarai Eust. 130I5 ; uptxarai An. Ox. I 451,5, Schol. Ven. A on 
 A 26. (2) -EaTai : ^e^Xearai Hdn. II 225,4 (An. Ox. I 28S5) ; /SeySofarat Greg. , 
 Kor. § 74 ; jSe^oAeWcn An. Ox. IV 19733, Choirob. 69826 ; elpearai Eust. 23415J 
 (not specifically called Ionic) ; iKKeKoxpeaTai Hdn. II 22514 (An. Ox. I 2884) ;1 
 K^Kiviarai Hdn. II 225,3 (An. Ox. I 2882), An. Par. IV 7O2 ; KeKKtarai Eust. 
 189545; ixefiiTpiarai Hdn. II 2259^=An. Ox. I 28733; fJ-e/J-vearai An. Par. IVi 
 1915 ; vevoiarai Hdn. II 2533 (Et. M. 60121', Choirob. 697,4, 69825, An. Ox. II 
 28723, IV 19732, Eust. 188543, 189545 ; Treiroie'aTot Hdn. II 224,7 (Et. M. 500,5),! 
 Choirob. 69824, An. Ox. I 28729,19732, Eust. 188553, Greg. Kor. § 74, Theod. j 
 57i7 ; ■n-eiroTfarai Et. M. 66221 ; Trepifie^Kearai An. Ox. I 2885 ; v/xvearai Eustj 
 23419. (3) -tittToi : ireirXriaTai Et. M. 36740 ; TTfiroTriaTai Et. M. 66220 , ^- ^^■ 
 I 973, Eust. 23415. (4) -cavTai (?) : Hyper-Ionic irfTroiiavTai, yeyeveavTat &k] 
 quoted from the Na|mKa of Philetas or Kallinos by Herakleides Milesios 
 in Eust. 188552. For Philetas read Philteas. j 
 
 The grammarians derived the plural directly from the singular forms.! 
 To their doubt as to what was the singular, what the plural, may be ascribed, 
 such forms^s Ke/cAeorot for KfK\rirai in late Ionic monuments (pseudo-Hippo- 
 kratic letters). Perhajjs such collocations as ravra . . . elpearai Hippokr. Vlli 
 484, and Tavra . . . e^pTjTot VII 496, 556, Hrd. 234 , aided the confusion. I 
 
 614.] Perfects with cr before -p.ai^. I 
 
 In the following are collected from post-Homeric Ionic writerSj 
 
 Jirsi those instances of perfects and pluperfects of verbs whos(| 
 
 1 /xefierpearai is here referred to Hekataios, though the passage quoted i:; 
 found in Hdt. IV 86. Evidently two citations have been fused. In Et' 
 M. 57841 the passage is ascribed to Hipponax, who is quoted in Hdn. a;' 
 having used KeKivearai. Another instance of confusion between Herodoto:. 
 and Hekataios is Hek. 135, where a citation from Hdt. and from Hek. liav'' 
 been fused. Nothing is thereby proved as to the spuriousness of the Periegesi; 
 of Hekataios. 
 
 2 See Lobeck on Alas 704, Bredow p. 341 ff., Solmsen E. Z. XXIX 90 ff. 
 
tl4.] INDICATIVE PERFECT MIDDLE. 511 
 
 terns ended originally in -?, and in wliicli -crixaL (though itself 
 lie to analogy) is relatively more primitive than in the verbs 
 f the second class. Original -o--//at could not remain in the 
 ialects : where it is apparently retained it is due to the influence 
 |E those forms before which the siffma could not disappear (-o-rat). 
 'econdly, those verbs whose stems did not end in a sibilant, but 
 hich have borrowed -<y\i.ai from the first class. Not all the 
 samples in these two classes are certain, (i) because of the 
 ifficulty of determining the etymology, and (2) because of the 
 jiistence of by-forms in -^co or -Qin, which might have carried 
 qma into the third person. 
 
 But few examples of -C<ji verbs have been admitted, and such 
 jSrbs as irt/ixTrA.r^jut, iriixTrprjixL have been excluded because of irXriOo), 
 hi^Oo) which are both as early as Homer. Here the 6 is adven- 
 Itious in other stems than the present. It is noteworthy that 
 l^erodotos and Hippokrates avoid using 7re7rArjo-/ixai and Tr^Trprjo-- 
 M, though both have eirXria-drjv and k-npri(Tdy]v. Stems ending 
 1 dentals are not here enumerated as they are easily recognized, 
 \g. Tti-nvcTixaL with -cr/xa6 borrowed from TreTruo-Tai, bebacrfxai from 
 fbar, not from baa--. Ionic sometimes fails to adopt the adven- 
 ifcious (T where Attic has it. Cf. vev-qixivqv yoipov Hrd. 4^5 with 
 fouds 1203 vevrjapiivot (^vevacr-?) 
 
 I. Sigmatic Stems. 
 
 ■fivviw (cf. dia^vverai Hdt. II 96), Hdt. VI 125 (pluperf.), Hippokr. VIII 12. 
 • wfii Hipponax 3, Hippokr. VII 456. In Homer we find eT/xai, elrai, and 
 ■ TO. (ew Hippokr. V 324. ^(ivvvfii Hdt. II 85 (P), VII 69 (in Bs, not adopted 
 I Stein). |ea) Hippokr. VII 430. irrla-ffw Hippokr. I 600, VI 536, VIII 102^ 
 iivwixi Hippokr. VII 274. TcAeco Hdt. VII 118. XP^'^ Hippokr. Ill 430, but 
 iiXpifiM Hdt. IV 189 ('(j-n- A. Eust.), 195. XPvC'^ Hippokr. V 390 (or is the 
 (jiue to the dental ?). 
 
 [Perhaps the stems of the following verbs once ended in s : olfiai : wi<Tfxr][v'] 
 -j-d. 816 . irpfo) Hippokr. Ill 242. ffirdu Hdt. I 59, Hippokr. VI 178. cl>Xevu : 
 ■ionr€<j>\ev(rfj.evovs Hdt. V 77. 
 
 p. -o-yuot is due to analogy in dAe'oi Hdt. VII 23 ; yiyvdaKw Hdt. VIII no, 
 Ippokr. II 344 ; [Seu has SeSefiai, but Se5eafj.4vos appears in the vulgate of 
 Ippokr. IV 220, where Littre with ample MS. support reads iiriSeSf/xevov ; 
 (! IV 266, 268, 302]. [iXavvo! : iXi'iKaa-fxai Hippokr. VIII 290, 426 is a form 
 lither Attic nor Herodoteian (on r)\ia6r]v in Hdt. see under the Aorist passive). 
 iriMfffiai does not occur again until Pausanias. The stem may be regarded as 
 <iiS- ; if so the c is regular]. kKKvw Hdt. IX 98 (eKKva-fievos), Hippokr.VIII 484 
 (jV/ciKTyueVos), V 1 78 (pluj^erf.). Kavw Hippokr. VII 242, but elsewhere KsKavrat 
 •'154) ^424. VI 174, 192, 330, 442, VII 242 (and iKavBrjy, Kavdriffofxai). KeXeiw 
 lit. VIII 93 (pluperf.). K\du Hippokr. Ill 420. K\eiw Hippokr. V 528 has 
 4:X€j(r/i€Vov (some MSS. -t/xevoy), KeK\7iifj.ai is the correct form in Hdt. II 
 i ^ {-itfx-ABC, .ei(r/x- PRds), III 117 {-eifj.- C, •■riiff/j.-P, -ijir/t-E), VII 129 (-et/i- 
 (j-»;/t- A Bd, -Tia-fx- Pcorr., -Tji'tryu- R q s). The Aorist passive always has er. 
 §) Hippokr. VIII 372 (cf. lucrrJy Hdt.) (TKeSdca Hdt. TV 14, Hippokr. VI 152. 
 iia Hippokr. Ill 202, 232. x<^w Hdt. II 13S, VIII 144; see Schulze K.Z. 
 
512 THE IONIC DIALECT. [615. 
 
 XXIX 265. xpa-^ Hdt. II 147, 151, III 64, IV 164 (-rj^- CRz\ VII 141, 220. 
 The vai'iant -r)fj.ai is very frequent. ;(paojuat has /cexpiyttat Hdt. I 42. ^aiut 
 Hippokr. VII 556. 
 
 3. Perfects in -ffpiai from verbs in -vw ; which have also -ixfiai <.-vixa,i in 
 other dialects. Here too -fffi.ai is analogical. The aorist passive has -vB-r\v. 
 Bt)Xvv(i3 Hippokr. II 60, VI 202. KoiXaiycc Hippokr. IX 216 (cf. iKoi\dvdriv 
 V 420). XeiTTvvw Hippokr. II 26, IV 510, VI 174 {iXe-rrrvvBriv IV 548). Au^oiW 
 Hdt. IX 112. iTjpaiW Hippokr. VI 172, 322, 586, 588, Hdt. I 186, VII log 
 {i^-npavQ-nv Hdt. I 75, Hippokr. V 228, VI 174). aripLaivco Hdt. II 39. v(paiva., 
 Hdt. Ill 47 {vtpavQrjv I 2 03). In connection with these verbs we may notice 
 airr]fj.^\vvTai Hrd. I 4. 
 
 615.] Varia. 
 
 IxifxveaL and fiiixvi)ai (* 442) are called Ionic by Choirob. 6731^. ^eVvj? O i{ 
 has been regarded as contracted from fxijxveai from ixefuvofxai because -ijo.; 
 <-i7(rai is usually retained in Homer. But for ixeixvri we may read n^fivi). 
 
 Hdt. has both SeSoyfxai and SeK6KriiJ.ai, the latter form only once (VII 16 y^ 
 The form KaraKeKpafj-ixevou, Hippokr. Ill 490, has now given way to th(i 
 present -Kpe/j.dfj.ei'oi'. KeK6pr)fj.ai, not KeicSpeafiai, is the Ionic perfect of Kopivvvfu' 
 In Attic we find the latter form. Peace 1285 is an epic parody. Aap-fidvc 
 yields AeXafx/jLai Hdt. IX 51, but ava\f\d<peai Hippokr. Ill 308 according t<; 
 the MSS. (the vul gate has here -Xdiu-cpeai). Cf. § 130. The form t€07jA.7?jii€Vo 
 Hippokr. VI 654 was displaced by Littre. vevay/xai, not veva(X/j.at, Hippokr' 
 VII 520. From daf-iu we have SeSav/jLevos Sim. Amorg. 30, the only certaii 
 occurrence. The perfect of a\i(w is also confined to Ionic. On eKTrjiiai, se j 
 
 §§ 583, 4- i 
 
 616.] Pluperfect. | 
 
 -aro is the ending" in Hdt., thougli -vto occurs, e.ff. kiiiiravvT'' 
 
 I 83, Karia-TpcovTo VIII ^^. We find -aro ', 
 
 (i) after consonants (generally with aspiration): ereraxciro an*, 
 in compounds of Tdcrau) [bta, Trapa, Trpos), €iAt)(aTo, KarecrTpcKpaTc 
 bLe(f)ddpaTo, kcTKivdbaTo, diriKaTo (without aspiration, § 61 2^ note' 
 For ecTTaXabaro or eoreA- VII 89, which was constructed on th 
 analogy of (XrjkdbaTo, we accept Dobree^s ecrraAaro. , 
 
 (3) after v : IhpvaTo. 
 
 (3) after €, with shortening of rj to e in -eco verbs : eKCKOo 
 fxiaTo, TTepi€l3ej3XiaTO, eSeSearo, opixiaTo (not wpfxiaTo), e/xejure'arc; 
 dvapaipiaro, (TerLixiaTo, TreTretpearo, KardaTO (cf. ear H 414, ?.i. 
 rjcrvTo), and by analogy in (Kearo ; aTreKeKAearo, or aTroxeKAean, 
 in IX 50 has now given way to cnreK€K\i]Laro. It is to fc 
 noticed that Homer, in contradistinction to Herodotos, alwaj! 
 uses -VTO after e (present and aorist) and either -rjaro or -rjvTo i 
 the pluperfect. 
 
 The Homeric -tjoto appears in the MSS. of Hdt. in irepte^ePX^aro VI 24 i' 
 ABCd, TTfpifPaXeaTo reliqid, whence we restore •e$($\€aTo. Here fiefiX'fia' 
 E 28 was the cause of the mistake. 
 
 ZiicpQapiaro Hdt. VIII 90 in all MSS. except P, which has -cpenpearo, shouJ' 
 be changed to Si€<pddpaTo (plup.). 
 
pl8.] SUBJUNCTIVE MIDDLE. 513 
 
 In other Ionic prosaists these forms are very rare. Eusebios, 
 1^ 8^ has TTpocreKaTeaTo. -vro is adopted^ e.ff. in KariKHVTo Hippokr. 
 J 660^ iyeyivTjVTo V 184. 
 
 With the occurrence of -arai, -aro in Hdt. and the lyric poets, compare the 
 lomeric usage throughout : (i) after consonants and t these forms are 
 Necessary, (2) after v, tj', and w they are possible, but (3) not after a*, e^, and o. 
 I'he lyric poets and Hippokrates, if his text has not been Atticized in this 
 iegard, stand nearer to Homer than to Herodotos in the admission of the 
 prms with v. 
 
 j Testimony of the grammarians. The following forms in -aro, -earo, and 
 jjoTo are called Ionic in grammatical treatises : — (i) -aro : a.yr\yepaTo Et. M. 
 L, An. Ox. I 396,0; in^4x°'To Eust. 23443, 43622, 78255; eWo Hdn. II 9218 
 Bchol. Yen. A on O 10), An. Ox, I 17416 {siaro TronfiTiKcis, earo 'laKds as An. 
 I'ar. rV 1914 where the smooth breathing is found), 2562 ; elAlxaro Eust. 23413 ; 
 ;>po5aTo An. Par. Ill 2619, etxeffaxaro Eust. 23412 ; e<nrdpaTo Et. M. 927 ; 
 \pdiaTo An. Ox. I 12431, An. Par. Ill 343i8, rereuxaTo An. Ox. 1 41 ii,, reTixparo 
 jheod. 58,1, Choirob. 6972) 7oiio. (2) -earo : d/coxeoro Et. M. 4611, cf. An. Ox. 
 [975 ; SeSfieuTo Et. M. 25255, Et. Gud. 1355 ; flKixaro Eust. 2341^ ; e/cTearo Eust. 
 |J4ii; IweSeSeoTO Et. M. 25234, Et. Gud. 41615, cf. 1608. (3) -Tjaro : SeS^^oro 
 
 t. M. 25254, Et. Gud, 1355, An. Ox. I 963,, 11232 (cf. Schol, Ven. A. on r 183, 
 
 3); efiffio\'fiaro Et, M. 19351, An, Par. Ill 4711, ^^^ohiiaro An. Ox. I 9412, 
 
 ■. 9627. 
 
 617.] Varia. 
 
 ripripeLo-Oat Archil, ep, 943 is the MS. reading of the second 
 erson, which we adopt with the change to -da, the original 
 erfect ending. We should expect either rip-qpeaaOa or at least 
 oriprjada (cf. ■^brjaOa T 93 and in the drama) which Bergk 
 
 icepts. If the et be correct, it is due to the desire to bring 
 16 form into line with ripripetaTo. A direct interchange of et 
 ad rj is out of the question. 
 
 On ea)pTo see § 289, 1 ; on kvivoiTo § 296. 
 
 Subjimctive, 
 618.] Present. 
 
 I. From Herodotos we are able to discover traces of a double 
 flection of hiivajxai. 
 
 (a) Forms similar to those of the Q. conjugation : hvv-rj-Tai 
 I 125 (cf. Kpip,i-\Tai Hippokr. IV 290), hvv-M-p.i9a VII 143, 
 v-(i)-vTai IX II as Samos 22I25 (cf. Kipcavrai. A 260}. In bvv- 
 
 ^ When -arai would follow a in Herodotos, we have e-arat. 
 
 ' With the apparent exceptions earai, earo. Homer has even ijvTo as well 
 
 5)aTo. The former is due to the analogy of ^/j.eda, &c. < *Tia-fj.eda. 
 
 Ll 
 
514 THE IONIC DIALECT. [6l8. 
 
 rj-rat tlie long* modal vowel of the subjunctive, instead of appear- 
 ing" after the final vowel of the stem (bvvd-Tai Thasos 725), actually 
 takes its place. bvvrjTai (cf, iTrC-cTT-rj-Tai from eTTL-a-Td-Tai, and 
 Skt. (la-dh-d-tdi from indie. dd-dJid-ti) is constructed as if the 
 present were hvvo\}.ai, a form which, we may incidentally remark, 
 chances to have been used in a very late period of the language 
 {PapT/r. du Louvre 39ioj 161 B.C.) and in Modern Greek. With 
 hvu(x>iJL€6a cf, ixapvatfi^a-da in Hesiod, \xapvoi}x^6a in the Odyssey. 
 A different formation is represented by Kretan bvvdfxaL^ and the 
 Hipponaktian p-qyvvrat 19^ (cf. p-qyvvvTat Hesiod, ((ovvvvrai 
 Homer). Here a subj. like Messenian Trport^rjyri seems to have 
 been the model, or we have a very old formation by vowel 
 lengthening in the subjunctive. 
 
 If Kretan 5vva/j.ai represents the primitive type of this inflection, the Ionic 
 form would have been hvvnixai, which became Biivufiai through influence of 
 \v7)rai, \vw/j.ai. This may be possible, even though Swafiat does not contain 
 a pre-Hellenic contraction of 0+ 0, as Osthoff held, M. U. II 116. pji-yvinai is 
 certainly an analogical formation. 
 
 [b) hvva\xai actually passes into the 12 inflection in bwetajxeda |l 
 Hdt. IV 97 (A B C, bvvcoixeea R), bweowrat VII 163 (R), which 
 forms are not mere blunders made through recollection of 
 hwiaraL^. Cf; Thessalian hwderaL or hvvdr]Tai (as Delphic 
 'npidiiraL) B. B. XIV 301, So too in the case of k-nia-Taiiai : for 
 (TTLo-TCtiVTaL WO liavc iTTia-ricovTat III 134 and in the decree in' 
 Demosth. Be Corona § 91. bwicovTM has another parallel inj 
 fiovkioovTat Teos [Alitt/i. XVI 293, 1. 19), jBovKoixai. and 8wa/xai. 
 going hand in hand in post-Homeric. Cf. ^ovk-qaopLat, bwrja-oixai, 
 il3ovk')]6r]v, ebvvi]Oriv. The eco of hwioiVTai is perhaps reduced 
 from 77W as that in 6iu>aL, aTrUuxn, k-ni^ioi^x^v in Hdt. (Cf . jue/xrew- 
 }xe6a, § 620.) 
 
 Swufiai with this accent is well attested (Herodian II 557 : on Z 229 SwTjat'/ 
 but SvvS>iJ.ai, as if the result of a contraction of dvvfbijxai, found a defender ir' 
 Tyrannio, \#ho accented the Homeric form hvvr\ai. Hdt. has Sw??. 
 
 In n 243 is iTTiffTaerai. (cf. Swdfrai) correct? The editors adopt iiricTTriTa. 
 {C D G H), which is rightly taken to be subjunctive. Zenodotos' iviareaTa 
 may point to a confusion with the singular (cf. §§ 611, 613) of the indicative 
 which Meyer, § 485, thinks is the proper mood ; but, as Leaf has suggested' 
 i-Ki(TTiaTai and eiricTTOTat {A L) hint that the original reading was €'7rj(rToeTC«.ji 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 2. -7] is the termination in the second person of the subjunctivi 
 present and aorist in the prose documents. (3ov\ri Thasos 68, a,| 
 in Hippokr. VII 120 and Hdt., who has also -neiOri, hvvrj, avv^;, 
 
 ' Subj. Svvai'Tai Hdt. IX 11 in one MS., VII 163 in Aldus are mere errors.! 
 
 ' jjLev^wffi Hdt. IV 97 in it! (Aret. 251) is an example of the 'pleonastic' e; 
 
 which was regarded as a mint-mark of Ionic. 
 
620.] SUBJUNCTIVE MIDDLE. 515 
 
 (thus, and not -eat V 23 with C P dr, or -rjai^ with Aldus). 
 Herodas 633 has irevdrj. ■neivr]aL occurs in Theog. 929 at the 
 verse end. /3i7j(reat Theog". 1307, TreiVeat Solon %o, are probably 
 imitations of the epic usage, though in the fifth century -et was 
 still used for -r]i in the aorist subjunctive active (§ 239). 
 
 619.] Aorist. 
 
 Mimn. 3 in Trapa/xetx/^erat retains the short modal vowel (cf. 
 § 239). -noLria-oaixai, Hipponax 43, is a post-Homeric form. 
 Homer has no instance of -o-w/xat. 
 
 itapakr}\l/r]Tai Hippokr. VI 326 is a conjecture merely, and 
 ekaixxjrdiJLrjv finds no support in Hdt. bvvr]<T(t)vTaL Sim. Amorg. 
 ij7 is a rare form and perhaps incorrect, as is vireXevarjTai 
 Hippokr. II 494 (-eAevo-erat). For hr]^r\Tai Hippokr. VII 330, 
 336, 6 has h-q^iTai. ^vix^tja-qTaL Hippokr. IX 28 is an interest- 
 ing form. biajjLax^o'coiJi.GOa Hdt. IX 48 [-croixeOa Rz) is the only 
 (example of this aorist subjunctive in early Greek. 
 
 620.] Perfect. 
 
 fx€[j,v€(aixe6a has the support of all the MSS. in Hdt. VII 47, 
 
 jwhere /le/ixywjue^a of Aldus and Eust. 'j6y^^, who quotes the 
 
 passage, is adopted by recent editors. But -ewjue^a is not an 
 
 ^impossible form in Hdt. /xe/x^co/xat, \xe\ivriTai, KeKTrJTaL, KeKTrjcrdc in 
 
 jAttic point to contraction, and -ew/xe^a may represent -■qcoi^eOa 
 
 or -r]6ixG6a. That Homer has /xe/xj/w/xe^a | 168 renders, it is 
 
 'true, the appearance of the earlier form in Hdt. somewhat sur- 
 
 {prising ; unless we assume that the epic form is derived from 
 
 iiiiivojxai. ixiixvo\iai has indeed been conjectured by Scaliger in 
 
 Archil. 92, but is not certainly attested before Xenophon, who 
 
 has [liixvoio, Anah. I 7, 5 (MSS.). But as Homer has ij.€ixv€(oto 
 
 * ^61^, we hold it preferable to adopt ixejxv^ixeOa in f 168, and 
 
 to reject Abicht^s derivation of the Herodoteian form from 
 
 fie/xz;o/xai. See §§ 6 1 5, 626. Cf. also xp^^^^vo^ ^ 834 from 
 
 yjir\6ix€vos. In Hdt. I 96 C Pz have ixvecofx^vos for ixvcajxevos of 
 
 the other MSS. and the editors. 
 
 Hippokr. VI 212 has both jiifipoiTai and jSejBpMixivos 17 (cf. 
 ^vyaeKavixevT] 77 VII 242), VII 24 rjkKcoTai (eA/c- E IJ K), i^Kkm- 
 \iivov fi VIII 262. irpocraprjpeTat. is called Ionic for -Tjrat by 
 Tzetzes on Hesiod, W. D. 429 (431). Cf. Eust. 186934. It is 
 the only example of the short modal vowel in the perfect. Vat. 
 '2 has irpoa-ap-qaerai as a correction of -aprfpi^Tau 
 
 ^ -7/ot is called Ionic because it is Homeric : An. Ox. I 215,4, 29621, An. 
 Par. Ill 31 634, 34I5. iS-nai is found in all MSS. but one in Hdt. IV 9. 
 ^ fieiJ.vyTo Bekker : cf. fj.tjj.vrf/j.Tii' ii 745* 
 
 L 1 2 
 
i 
 
 516 THE IONIC DIALECT. [621. 
 
 Oj)tative. 
 
 621.] Present. 
 
 -otoTo^ for -oivTo occurs in hiyoiaTo Sim. Am. 7jq^, hwaiaro, 
 crvvaTTKTTaCaTO, yivoiaro, Xvneoiaro, \xr]\av(!daTo in Hdt.^ TpaiioiaTo \ 
 Arrian 2i,2j StaSexotaro Euseb. Mynd. 38^ kXeyxoiaTo 39; 
 Hippokr. II 280 has (BXairTOLVTO. 
 
 622.] First Aorist. 
 
 -ataro^ for -aivro occurs in Hdt. ycvcraiaTo, he^ataro, ava- 
 KTi]craCaTO ; KOixiaaivTO Samos 22Ijj. 
 
 623.] Second Aorist. 
 
 -oiaro^ for -oivro occurs in iriOoiaTo Sim. Am. igg? yivoiaro 
 Hdt., Hippokr. II 666, VIII 94 his (but yhoivro Theog. 736 in 
 A), ekoLaro, cmLKoiaTO, v-nip^akoLaro &c. in Hdt., Tru^otaro Hippokr. 
 II 224 (vulgate). 
 
 Impei'ative. ' 
 
 624.] Present. 
 
 Herodotos has botb -€o*^ and -eu from €-(to, e.g. (1) -eo in Trpoo"- 
 8eKeo III 62, Avaijaveo V 19, -ndOeo VIII 62, i-mcfyaiveo VIII 1 
 143, &c., TTpocTKeTTTeo Dcmokr. 172, (2) -ev in ayev VII 38, aye'xfu ] 
 I 206, V 19, repTreu II 78 (Greg. Korinth. § 60). 
 
 The poets have -eu in ivdbev [ava 8' e'xeo ?) Archil, tetr. 662, 
 aXi^ev 66.^, yapi^^v 753; 5iKa^eu Demodok. 6 (tetr.); /3oi;Aeveo ^i 
 Theog. 71, ^'px^^ 22° (-^j other MSS. ipx^v)) hrpiirev 400, Tre'Aeu 
 (and e^eTTou) 1073 ; -nX^jKriCev Hrd. 5^,9, aKi-miv 792- Cf. appendix. 
 
 Attic -ou appears in Theognis in several passages : €vyov 129, . ,; 
 171, ((piTTcM) aiy, 1073, yti-ou 217 (so Demokr. 174), Tpi^ov 465, I 
 ^ovXevov 6^;^, a-irevbov 980 [A, -eiv Bergk), ax^ou 1032 (v. I. axQa 
 &c.). The -ov form, which in no case is to be regarded as due to 
 Megarian influence, may be adopted in those portions of the poet 
 which are demonstrably late. 
 
 Hdt. has eTTio-Tacro (not -ao) VII 29, 39, 209 in marked con-ljl^ 
 trast to Attic prose (which admits, however, the uncompouuded 
 
 ^ Ionic according to Et. M. 50739, Et. Gud. 31825, An. Ox. I 10913, 244io,(| 
 Gram. Vat. 694. 
 
 2 Et. M. 32543, 50733, Et. Gud. 31804, An. Ox. I 244,0. 
 
 ' Et. M. 25851, 50733, 40, Et. Gud. 13930, 31825, An. Ox. I 244,0, An. Par. Ill, 
 34328) IV 7I06 ; irXwiaTo An. Ox. I 14832 (Ionic, Doric, and Aiolic !). 
 
 * An. Ox. I 1614, on fpxev Z 2 So, quotes as Ionic ipxfo {(px^o); 5f^€0 An.' 
 Ox. I 21528, Et. Gud. 2732s (-eu Doric) ; pveo Et. Gud. 49414. 
 
628.] INFINITIVE MIDDLE. 517 
 
 taraa-o). In Attic poetry only is there freedom to use either 
 €TTL(rTa(To or eTrio-rco. For Attic xpw we have XP^^ ^^ Hdt. I 155 
 (except in A B) ; cf. § 687, 2. In Hdt. and the inscriptions we 
 find only -a-Ocov {iiayicrOaiv, xP^^^^v Hdt., evex^cOoiv Zeleia 11320)3 
 but Hippokr. VI 82 has the later xp^o-^coo-ai- (A). KTetvia-doDv in 
 Hdt. VII 10 [6) may be noted because of its use as a passive. 
 
 625.] Aorist. 
 
 yevov Archil. 753 (tetr.) is an Atticism for yeveg or yevev. 
 Hdt. has -eui in irvOev III 68, I3d\ev VII 51, VIII 68 (y) as 
 Theog. 1050. On the accent, see Chandler § 783. bLKaada-doiv 
 Thasos 72^5, He]Aeo-^a)y Chalkidian Ionic, 133. 
 
 626.] Perfect. 
 
 fxefiveo Hdt. V 105, Hrd. 439, might be derived from ix^ixvofxai 
 (cf. jue/Xj8Aerat <J> 516 and § 620), since from fjLeixvrjfxaL we might 
 expect ixeiJ-vrjcro in Ionic = Doric jxeixvaao (Epicharmos, Pindar). 
 It is not likely that d-a-o has become eo in ixeixveo. [xi^jLveo also 
 occurs in the Anthol. Pal. and in Orph. Lith. 603. Cf. Attic 
 kclOov and Kddrjcro. TreTrpijcr^a) Halikarn. 23835. 
 
 Injinitive. 
 
 627.] Future. 
 
 In the future of liquid verbs the MSS. of Hdt. usually have 
 -eeo-^at, e.g. diioXiecrdai I 38, 11 2, ^avi^crdai I 60, viroKpiviecrOaL 
 I 164 and by conj. in V 49. In VIII loi all MSS. agree in 
 h-noKpiviicrOai. The future of diroKpivoiiai is certainly rare, if 
 correct, in Ionic. Furthermore in eTriTeAeeo-^at VI 140. Hippokr. 
 has aTToAeeo-^at VII 218, but -etcr^atlX 320, and ^amo-^at VIII 
 ^S^ (as Sim. K. 859). 
 
 In -i^oi verbs we find -da-dai: x^P'^to-^at Hdt. I 158, III 
 39^ dvacrKoXoTn^lcrOai II 132, IV 43, kTricriTulcrOai VII 176. 
 (DindorFs -lUa-Qai is wrong). Theog. 47 has drpeixulcrOai (MSS. 
 drpe^eeo-^ai). 
 
 Tidi^a-ea-OaL Hippokr. IX 424 is a unique form (from rt^eco). 
 
 628.] Aorist. 
 
 aTToiaaa-dai Hippokr. (epist.) IX 418 ; fivqa-acrOai Hdt. VII 39, 
 Syr. (lea 39, does not occur in Attic prose or in comedy. 
 
 * -€o in Homer is Ionic : An. Ox. I 32223, Et. Gud. 43623 (opcreo), An. Par. 
 Ill 1381, {irepiax^o). 
 
51 8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [629. 
 
 Farficiple. 
 
 629.] Future. 
 
 i^avbpaTTobLoviJievoi, adopted by Stein in Hdt. I 66 is incorrect. 
 Cf. e^avbpaTTobievvTai, VI 9, kirtcriTiiVixevoL IX ^o, oiraycorteu- 
 ixivovs V 109. In Arrian 242 Diibner^s a-noixayovii^voi is non- 
 Ionic. StKocro/Aerot Hdt. I 96 should be noted because of hiKav 
 I 97. 
 
 630.] Aorist. ! 
 
 d(Ta\xevoi Hdt. I 66 has borrowed its et from the indicative 
 {daaO' Theog. 13). The epic form is kcrcr- (tt 443); which recurs 
 in Anakreon (?) epigr. 11I3 (Ko^eWaro). ' 
 
 631.] Perfect. 
 
 On avatpepr^ix^vos and ^vapatp-qpiivos, see § S^3' ^TToAeAoju/xeyoi 
 Hdt. IX 51, 6taAeXaju./xero? Ill 1 17 deserve notice because of 
 TTapa\€kdj37]Ke III 43 and avaX^\a(^dai Hippokr. Ill 308 (-ajxcpOai. 
 vulgo). See also kapj\lrop.ai § 607, 6, and cf. § 130. eji\ap.\xivois 
 occurs on a very late Ephesian inscription^ Ditt. Si/ll. 34433. 
 Hippokrates VIII 418, 494, 498 uses j34l3Xapiixat. vevo(Tcr€vp.iva ■ 
 Hdt. I 159 has awakened suspicion because of veocra-os II 68, v^oa- 
 (Tiicav III III. Portus^ conjecture vev^oaa- is adopted by Dindorf . 
 See § 287, 2, note, and cf. Modern Greek voaaos, voaa-is. Aldus 
 and d have vocra-Uctiv in III 11 1. 
 
 632.] Future Perfect. 
 
 ^e^Xdrperai Hippokr. II 256. yeypd\piTai Hippokr. II 304, 330, 676, III 70, 
 IV 104, 108, 114, 174, 252, Aretaios 280. In IV 80 for yey pa\p6fj.evos, the only 
 example, except SiairfTro\ri(r6p.fyov Thuk. VII 25, of the pai'ticiple of the 
 reduplicated future occurring in a classical author, we may read ypa^6/j.evos 
 with J. ypaTpofxai is a v.l. II 304, 676. Galen regarded as genuine the . 
 treatise Trepl iLydpuv, in which yfypa\p6!JLevos appears. SeSrjAdKrovrai Hippokr. IV 
 190. elprifferai Hdt. II 35, IV 16, 82, VI 86 (5), Hippokr. I 596, II 250, IV 142. 
 Hippokrates has the following noteworthy forms : elprjcrofxepoia-iv IV 238 in 
 many MSS. {tlpTj/xivoLcrit' vulgo), elpri(ro/j.ev(ev III 516 {pr)dT](Tofj.iVi»v in many 
 MSS.), dp-hffio-eai, VIII 28 (omitted by several MSS. ; eiprja-dai 9). In Attic 
 we find flpTjcreTai, but the participle and infinitive are not used. These un- 
 usual forms in Hippokrates are hardly due to a confusion with the forms of 
 flp{iaofx.ai ask {i-rreipTjaSfievos Hdt. I 67, 174, IV 161, VI 52). ipripeiaeTCu 
 Hippokr. VIII 292 i^e). KeK\^aofxai Archil. 24, Theog. 1203 (?), and perhaps in 
 Euseb. Mynd. 47. KeKp^erai Hippokr. VIII 86 (0), not Kpv\peTai as passive, 
 98. AeAt'leToi Aretaios 280. a.yafj.ffj.i^erai Hippokr. VII 498 (fil^erai C, |). 
 fiefivTia-eade bear in mind, Hdt. VIII 62, cf. Srjria clea 27, 30. ireirav<TeTai Hippokr. 
 VI 238 (not in d), IX 14, -ovrai 52. irewoirifferai Hippokr. VIII 46, 92 (C, 6). 
 ffj.TTfTrp'ficriTai Hdt. VI 9 ABPm and Stein ; other MSS. ifiirp-fjcreTai. reTinoip^- 
 creoi Hdt. IX 78, all recent editors following Suvern (MSS. TeTifxcipria-ai). 
 
6^^.] FUTURE PASSIVE. 519 
 
 i 
 
 Passive. 
 
 ! 633.] Future Passive. 
 
 I. Examples of the future passive formed from the aorist 
 passive stem are rare in early Greek. In Homer there is no 
 future passive built from the first aorist stem^ and only one 
 (jxiyriaeaOaL) from that of the second aorist. In the Attic 
 liialect, when there exists a future 'middle/ from intransitive 
 jacrists in -dr^v or -r]v (so-called aorist passives) a future ' passive ' 
 may be formed^ which differs essentially from the future 
 [^middle/ not in its voice relations (though the one tense may 
 be intransitive, the other transitive), but in its tense meaning-. 
 The future passive is aoristic (ingressive, complexive, &c.), the 
 future middle is durative. That is to say, the signification of 
 the stem as an instrument to denote the character of the action 
 is carried from aorist and present respectively into the two 
 futures. It is not a matter of great consequence in Attic 
 tvhether both the future ' passive '' and the future ' middle ^ are 
 'attested in the monuments. See Blass"" Bemosthenisclie Studien in 
 iS. M. XLVII 269 ff. In Attic the passive forms are used much 
 Itnore extensively than in Herodotos. Ionic has so few instances 
 ifco show of the coexistence of both future passive and future 
 middle, that it is impossible to subject the dialect to the test 
 bhat yields important results in Attic. The future middle in 
 [onic did duty for the former; indeed, the language did not 
 seek to mark passiveness as a thing distinct from reflexiveness. 
 
 In Herodotos occur the following instances of the future 
 
 jpassive from the first aorist stem: — alpedrjo-ovTaL II 13 (in all 
 
 MSS., aoristic) gives support to aiTaLpsO/jaia-Oai, V ^^ (aoristic), the 
 
 reading oiABvsr, where CPz have -T^atcrOaL. a-naipriareai in I 71, 
 
 \'naipy](T6\x€vos in IX 82 are middle, as may be the case in Attic, 
 
 though Euripides used a(paipr}aop.ai and Lysias aipr\aojxai as 
 
 passives. The natural interpretation of the two future middles 
 
 Ln Hdt. is that they are aoristic. IkacrcrMOricriadai. is adopted by 
 
 Stein in VI 1 1 on the authority oi A B etc. Here I would read 
 
 •Aao-crwcrecr^ai with B"^ Pvz {ekacrauxrOai R, (Xda-aoiadai s). The 
 
 .ction is aoristic. a-vyKevrqOrio-ecrOaL VI 29 (-rTjo-ecr^at Kriiger), 
 
 .eristic. (Tv\XvTTr]dr](r6p.€voL VI 39 [-TTrja-opievoL Cobet) Join in an 
 
 'xpression of sympathy. In Attic, which uses Xvirrjo-op-ai as the 
 
 bassive, Xvnr]dri<Top.ai does not appear before Aristotle. iiv7](Tdrj- 
 
 To/xat will mentioti VI 19, iTrLiJ.vq(r9ri(Top.at II 3 (eTrtjuz^rjcro/xat van 
 
 jHerwerden). Cf. eTrt/xi'Tjo-o/xat I 5, 177, II loi, Lukian Sy7'. dea 
 
 I36, avaixvr](Top.ai Hippokr. II 650, V 98, \xvr\(Teai Theog. 1 00 
 
 epic). p.vr](TO}iai is so rare in Attic prose that its correctness 
 
 lias been disputed. 
 
520 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [^33- 
 
 2. In Hippokrates, Aretalos, and Arrian we have noticed the 
 following cases of the future passive from the first aorist passive 
 stem. 
 
 al(op€co III 468, IV 294, 382, 390 ; a\€[(f)(o in KaTaXet(f)d-i]<T(- 
 cr6ai IX 320 ; avbpaTTobCCco Arrian Ind. 28^ (av^paTTobia-Orjcroix^vriv)] 
 hcLKvoi VII 386 [h]^oiJ.ai is of course active) ; 8ea) III 444 ; etpco 
 II 362 (prjd-qcreTaL) and as v.l. in many MSS., Ill 516 (Littre 
 dpif](Top.ivMv), epist. 2741', eTj/jio-Kco I 572, III 436; KadapiCoi VIII 
 330 ; Koio) VII 422 (the future middle appears in C, VI 302 — 
 the only occurrence in early prose) ; k€v6o) Aretaios 204 (Kava- 
 aojjLab in Empedokles is passive) ; klv^co VII 332, VIII 484 
 (passive or reflexive ; cf. KivrjcnTaL VII 90) ; Kparim III 482 ; Avo) 
 VIII 484 (cf . KaraXva-ovTai Hdt. IX 1 1 come to terms) ; bpoXoym 
 VI 6 (a doubtful instance because A has o//oAoy7jo-erat) ; ofwo) 
 II 426 ; 6pd6(t> in KaTopdaxTeraL III 446 (perhaps passive) ; TTvm 
 Aretaios 200 ; o-w^co II 1 1 2 ; i/z^xco II 4 24 ; vyLd(oo V III 34 (in C); 
 b)(j)e\4(o VII 256 (Attic generally prefers the middle form). 
 
 Of these examples only pr]dri(reTai and (ro}6rja-op.€rovs occur in 
 the genuine writings of Hippokrates (cf. §1). Future passives 
 from both of these verbs occur in Attic^ but not in Herodotos ; 
 and aaxToixai was never used as a passive. From the above it is 
 evident that the genuine Hippoki'ates is as little fond of this 
 formation as Herodotos. 
 
 3. From the second aorist passive stem are formed, e.ff. drraAAa- 
 yrjo-o/xat Hdt. II 1 20, Hippokr. VII 1 74, 234 as in Attic prose (in 
 tragedy and comedy -x6r]ao}xai) ; ypa^iia-oixevos Hippokr. II 278 ; 
 pvrjcreTai. VI 42 ; aTTOTaK-qa-op-ivai, VI iio, according to the vulgate 
 reading adopted by Ermerins (rrj^op-evat A, Littre). [rr/^erat, 
 transitive, is now abandoned, VII 478.] It is noteworthy that 
 Hippokrates has irrJxOrjv, not iraKriv ; (pavrjcropLaL Hdt. IV 97j 
 VIII 108 etc., five times as frequent as (f)avovixaL ; aaTrria-oixai 
 Hippokr. IX 6 ; (fiOapT^aop-ai Hippokr. I 59^ 5 KaTappayr\(Top.a\. 
 V732. 
 
 In an Henenistic inscription from Smyrna in Dittenberger's Sylloge i7i56> 
 from 246-226 B. c. we find ^iaXiyt)ffovTai. Cf. [5(a]A€7€fs Lam^jsakos, I. J. 
 200^1. Sia\fyfiffoiJ.ai does not seem to occur elsewhere {(Tv\\eyr)a6iJ.fvos in 
 Aischines). Attic inscriptions have SieKexdriv, never SieXeyTjv. The latter 
 form first appears in Ai-istotle. 
 
 4. Ordinarily the future middle supplies the place of the future passive, Jf 
 passive and middle not being differentiated. Of the following instances 
 
 a few may be refiexive, and in others the pure passive force is doubtful. 
 
 ay6p€(a in ■Kapt)yopi](TOfjLai Hii:>pokr. V 478, Ai'etaios 341 ; aywvi^w Hdt. Ill 
 83 ; adiXyw Aretaios loS (cf. aOfXyerai passive in Hippokr. V 478) ; alpfw in 
 a.iTaip7\ffia6ai a reading in Hdt. V 35 (but see above under i); a/j.$Kvyu) Hippokr. A 
 IV 464 ; avSpaTroSi(oo Hdt. VI 9, 17 (I 66 is not passive ; cf. above under 2); I 
 avaffKoXairi^Q) Hdt. Ill 132, IV 43 ; fiidu Hippokr. VIII 280 ; eVw in irtpie\l/ofiai A 
 
634-] AORIST PASSIVE. 52 1 
 
 Hdt. II IT5, VII 149 ; Cnf^t^o Hdt. VII 39 ; evuiaco Hippokr. VIII 272 (pas- 
 sive ?) ; eia, Hdt. VII 197 (?) ; V^ Hdt. V 35 (/xer^f^afo-eai) ; Iviw Hippokr. VI 
 31S (?), middle VIII 112, 258 ; KaOaipu Hippokr. VII 24, 330, VIII 338 (middle 
 VII 54) ; Kiyecc Hippokr. VII 90 (reflexive ? ; see above under 2) ; k\ov4o3 
 Hippokr. VII 474 (reflexive or passive) ; \4yw, say, Aretaios 304 ; AeiTrw Hdt. 
 
 VII 8 (o), 48, IX 56 (passive?) ; vojjli^o) Hippokr. VI 352 ; ^i^paiuai Hippokr. 
 VI 236; ofiotSco Hdt. VII 158 (shall be like); ofioXoyew (see above under 2); 
 6plCci) Hippokr. IV 102 (active in VI 4, IX 264) ; iriiyvvixi Hippokr. II 36 (shaU 
 freeze or he frozen), the only occurrence of ir^|o/Aat in early Greek ; 4fj.tr(/ii7rprtiJ,i 
 Hdt. VI 9 (enireirpria-eTat A B Pm and Stein) ; airow\7]p6ca Hippokr. VIII 12 ; 
 iroiew Hippokr. IX 238 (middle Hdt. VIII 4) ; iroXiopKew Hdt. V 34, VIII 49, 
 IX 58, 97 ; (T-nixalvo) Hippokr. VII 276 (?), middle II 228 ; ravva Archil. 3^ ; 
 TeXew Hdt. VI 140 ; Tpicpai Hippokr. VII 482, 518 ; vco Hdt. II 14 ; (pipoo Hdt. 
 
 VIII 49, 76, Hippokr. VII 580 {pXaofiai is also middle as in Hdt. VI 100, 132). 
 
 634.] First Aorist. 
 
 1. The endings of First and Second Aorist. 
 
 The third plural always ends in prose in -drjo-ap (-rjcrav second 
 aorist) not in -dev (-ev). The occurrence of the latter (primitive) 
 form in Homer led to its being called Ionic by the grammarians, 
 though they more frequently refer it to Aiolic and Doric ^. 
 
 2. eco remains open in the subjunctive, e.ff, a-Tratpe^e'co Hdt. Ill 
 
 6^, k(r<r(a6ecoiJ.ev IV gy, T^kioiOioicn Hippokr. II 18, fjnyicoa-Lv VIII 
 
 62. Out of line are airobexOut Hdt. I 124, eirtjuyTjo-^w II 3, avfx- 
 
 TiiixOOxTiv Hippokr. VI 292, ^rjpavOStcnv VI 280 etc. Tt^ip-qOia 
 
 ! Theog. 506, or -€&>, was a necessity. 
 
 i it] is always contracted ^j e.g. fxvrjaOjjs Hdt. VII 159, bibaxdrj^- 
 i Theog. ^6^, T€p(})dfJ9 594, acrrf6fii 989; k^^v^iyOy Hdt. II 90, 
 
 l^ivixdrji Keos 4324, hiapavdrji 4317, abLKrjOel Oropos l8j^ (§239), 
 .<l>avrp. Zeleia 11320? H-^dvarOfj Herakl. 73, (rviJ.[j.tyfi ^6, aTTaXKaxdfi 
 ■Diog. Apoll. 5, avarapaxOfj Hippokr. Ill 42, inea-dfi Solon 1337, 
 
 Tpe(})dfj Theog. 379 ; fxvqadrJTe Hdt. I 36, Treio-drJTe Hrd. 752- 
 In the optative Hdt. has a-naip^Od-qaav I 70, dcpdeirjcrav VIII 
 
 24 (cf. eib€Lr]aav III 61) with the ingression of trj from the 
 
 singular. The shorter form appears in aXiaOeUv I 6;^. 
 
 3. fipTrdadrjv is the form to be adopted in Hdt,, though -xdr]v 
 lis supported by good MS. evidence in II 90 {-adeis Bel), VII 169 
 |(-o-0eTo-ay R), VIII 115 (all MSS.). The form with .(Tdy]v occurs 
 
 I I, 4, VII 191 ; and in the future and aorist active cr is correct. 
 
 Hippokr. II 34 has apTraa-dfj. Cf. § 593, 2. 
 
 TTuCoi varies between iTiUaOrjv Hdt. IV 11, Hippokr. VI 368, 
 J Solon 1337, and eTrte'x^^z^ Hippokr. Ill 324, 434, VI 292. In 
 [Hippokr. V 430 occurs cru/xTrtao-^^yat, which is a surprising form 
 
 ^ An. Ox. I 9j9 refers it to Ionic, Doric, and Aiolic ; An. Par. Ill 34323 to 
 .Ionic and Doric; An. Ox. I 4295 to Doric or Aiolic; as also An. Par. Ill 
 32332) 36337. ireKaa-dey M 420, <p60T]d€v 11 290 are called Ionic by Schol. Ven. 
 I A, rather on account of the omitted augment. 
 f ' Bekker's Sender) Hdt, IV 154 is an error. 
 
523 THE IONIC DIALECT. [634. 
 
 because Hippokrates does not make use o£ the Doric Tria^co. Cf. 
 TTieo-^r) VI 368 and § 136. Littre refers the form to avix-niaivui, 
 but it may have forced its way in from late Greek, -maivui 
 yields k-niavOijV VII 242, not emacr^rjy. 
 
 4. In Zeleia No. 11 37, one of the latest inscriptions to preserve 
 the character of the dialect (it dates after 334 B.C.), we read 
 KaT€\dcj)dri, a form which agrees in its construction with AeAa/3j]Ke 
 Hdt. IV 79, avaXekd(f)6ai Hippokr. Ill 108. Hdt. has diroXe- 
 Kaix}xivoi IX ^1, €Xdix(j)6r}crav IX 1 19, kaiK^OelaaL VI 92; 
 Hippokr, kXr]4)6it] V 1 12. The forms devoid of the [i do not render 
 impossible kdiMxi/oixai or €kdiji.(f)6riv, which contain the nasal of the ' 
 present stem. See §§ 130, 615. 
 
 5. Despite hpa)6r]v Hippokr. VI 146 etc.^ we find in the 
 vulgate TirpiodGxTiv V 698 for which we must read TpcoOuxriv. 
 ^vve^epevdeir] Hippokr. II 176, adopted by Littre, is noteworthy! 
 because of the retention of the diphthong. Two MSS. have 
 -epvOet For Attic hv^drivyve find in Hippokr. IX 242 irevxdrjv. 
 KaTr]vaku)dr]v Hippokr. V 122, 126 is an unusual form. e^epdOeCs 
 Hippokr. VIII 262 has the d commented on in § 593, 4. On 
 ripdr]v, depdr]v, see § 305 and appendix. On the aorist passive of 
 (f)epoi {riveLx67]v), see § 608, 2. ia-avOfj Hippokr. VII 502 cannot 
 be correct though preserved in all MSS. ((KavOfj?). Aretaiosi 
 96 kaavdri is the only certain occurrence of the simple verb iii| 
 prose. dpi6r\v, the regular form in Ionic (Hdt. IV 77, 156, VI' 
 15 etc.), is from "^iFepiOrjv, €ppri9i]v, the strict Attic form, from; 
 ^eFprjdrjv. Ionic and Attic etp?]/ca, dpr]p,ai are from ^F^Fep-qKa,: 
 ^FeFeprjixai. In Hippokrates we meet with the mixed form' 
 eppeOrjv, e.ff.Y 1 66, where /has '7rpoeppi]6T]. kppiO-qv also appears; 
 in the MSS. of Plato, &c., but is rarely adopted by the editors' 
 of the classic authors. In the indicative only we find the; 
 e ; in the other moods r], e.g. pjj^ets, pr]6rjvai. alvioi also refuses: 
 (as in Attic) to lengthen the stem vowel in this tense : alvrjO^is. 
 Hdt. V 102, with which cf, eTrpTjrat Hippokr. II 334. A 
 difficult form from evvdco would be ^vvevveOfj adopted by Kiihn. 
 in Hippokr, VIII 338. has however -rjOT]. Some rare forms' 
 are KkovrjOeis Hippokr. VII 532 (only in Ionic prose), e(rKi(f>6r}ii' 
 Hippokr. VI 18, irepUcperiv Hdt. VI 15, VIII 27. 1 
 
 6. An interesting case of the survival of the use of the aorist' 
 ' passive '' in the transitive sense occurs in Archil. 12 : 
 
 et K€ivov Ke({)aXr}v kol yapUvra fxikea \ "HcpaicrTOS KadapolaLV «; 
 (l\xa(TLv dp-ipeTTovriOri. , 
 
 With which we may compare an inscription from Korkyra, 
 C.D.I. 3188: I 
 
 Upa^ifxivris 8' avrwt y[ata]s airo TrarptSos (vdoov \ avv 8a/>tc«)i Tob( 
 (rajxa Kaaiyvi]Toio iToi'rjdi]. ; 
 
6$$.] AORIST PASSIVE. 523 
 
 TTovridr] may be taken as a representative of the original 
 i indifference of the 6r} forms towards the transitive-active use, 
 ' on the one hand, and, on the other, the intransitive meaning-, out 
 of which grew the passive. Originally iirovriOr] was no more 
 [passive than epp-u-qv. In Attic k-novrid-qv became intransitive; 
 jbut in Plutarch, Perikles 4, i, biaTrovrjOrjvat, is 'middle/ We 
 rarely find in Ionic examples of the aorist passive used, now as 
 a passive, now as a middle ; e. g. iirevo-qdrjv, which is active in 
 Hdt. Ill 122, VI 115, Hippokr. VI 612 {TTpovor]6ds), passive in 
 Hippokr. IV 184. Occasionally Attic and Ionic vary in this 
 respect. 
 
 635.] 
 
 1. Aorist passives with o-. 
 
 The following list follows the lines laid down in the con- 
 sideration of the perfect middle or passive : 
 
 (i) Sigmatic Stems. 
 
 I aUo/Mai Hdt. VII 141, IX 7; &\eofiai Hippokr. IV 126 (jh &\eos Et. M,, 
 iHesychios) ; ^x^^A"" Hdt. II 103 ; ipdai, ipajxai Hdt. I 8, II 131 ; ^iw Aretaios 
 [213 ; Kopevvvfj.i (late present) Homer, Theog. 1249, but KeK6p7]/j.ai Horn., Theog. 
 751, Hdt. Ill 8c, Peace 1285 (epic parody). Attic K^KSpecr^iai in Xenophon ; 
 \Kpoiio} Hippokr. Ill 148 ; Aeuco Hdt. I 167, Hippokr. IX 412 ; (x^ivwixi Hdt. I 
 187, Hippokr. II 446 ; aeiw (?) Hdt. VI 98 ; T€\e« Hdt. IV 79. Perhaps from 
 jsigmatic stems are Kvaiw Hippokr. VIII 132, 262 ; irpi(» Archil. 122, Hippokr. 
 |V 214, 226 {wpi^co occurs first in Plato, Tfieag. 124 B); o-n-aw Hdt. VI 134, 
 
 rippokr. VII 172. 
 (2) .(Ter]v by analogy occurs in dya/nai Solon 333 ; apvu Hippokr. VII 524, 
 1526 ; fiidcc Hippokr. VIII 96 (Hdt. 4pi-f,er,>' VII 83) ; fiodw Hdt. VI 131, VIII 
 [124 {f^ioa-e-nv), but Pf^wfjieva III 39 ; yiyvwcTKu Hdt. IV 42, 154 ; Swa/nai Hdt. 
 
 II 19, 140, VII 106 (-7]9- in s), Hippokr. IV 214, where most of the MSS. 
 jhave SvvTjeeiri or the like ; eSw Hippokr. VI 558 vulgo ; liKavva yields iiKaffdriv 
 laccording to the better tradition. The best support for the other form, which 
 lis that in use among the Attics, is Hdt. VII 165 where all MSS. have r)\dd7]v 
 lln IV 145 7)\a.Qr)v bis is attested hj A Bds in the first case, A d Bcorr. z in the 
 jsecond, in V 42 by Pr, in V 97 by all but ACP, in VII 6 by all except C. 
 jrhe testimony in favour of riKad-nv is weakest in I 168, 173, III 46, 51, 54, 
 |IV 4. riXdcrdriv is to be adopted against Veitch. It is best to regard the stem 
 {as f\aS; cf. i\ri\dSaTo ri 86] ; e\Kvu Hdt. I 140, Hippokr. V 152 ; i\vw Archil. 
 '103 ; ipiu (elpvui) Hippokr. V 234 {ipvad-), III 26, VI 194, VIII 84 (elpvad-) ; 
 ^\do) Hippokr. VI 406 ; [/caAew. e/<:A7)0r)v Archil. 783, Hdt. I 173, Hippokr. II 
 544 etc., render irpoa-eKaKeard-n the vulgate reading in Hippokr. V 330 extremely 
 mspicious. Littre adopts irpocnKaXevQri on the authority of four MSS.] ; KeXevco 
 te:dt. VII 9 (a) ; K\da! Hippokr. VII 516; KAetco (kAtj/w) always with tr ; Kpe- 
 Idvvvfii Hdt. VII 26, 194, IX 122 ; nedvu Herakl. 73, Hdt. II 121 (5), Hippokr. 
 ¥1 636 ; ixijxv^ffKw Hdt. II 3 (yuvTjo-eTjtroyUot VI 19 ; see § 632) ; ovoixai Hdt. II 
 [136; iraucj Hdt, I 130, V 94, VI 66. Of these occurrences I 130 offers the 
 5est support for iiravdriu {A corr. Rds) ; elsewhere d has the -07}v form ; irialvu 
 jffippokr. V. 430 (?) but -venv VII 242 ; irrva) Hippokr. VI 194, 19S ; (TKeSdw 
 Hdt. V 102 ; (Tropevvvfji.1 (a late form) Hippokr. I 618 ; crxaw Hippokr. VI 428 
 
5^4 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [636. 
 
 (but perhaps from (Txo.C<^ which is Hippokratic) ; vcc Hdt. Ill 10 ; </)\e(« 
 Hippokr. Ill 200, 218, 220, VI 306, 402 ; x<^«<' Hdt. II 11, 137 ; xpoi'OfJ-o.i Hdt. I 
 
 VII 144, IX 120 (but Kexprj/uat I 42) ; xpaw Hdt. VI 19, VII 178, IX 94. 
 
 2. Aorist passives of verbs in -voi. See § 614, 3. 
 
 A. Verbs in -aCvca, whicli form tbeir perfects in -a-fxai,, have ' 
 -v97]v. vyiaboi shows the regular vyiavd-qv in Hippokr. V 174,1 
 
 VIII 410; vyiacrQ-qv in V 678, VI 8 [ter in Littre)^ is fromi 
 vyia^oi. 
 
 B. Verbs in -vvca. al(Tyyv(a, Idvvco have -v6rjv, IbpvM (lhpvvo))^^ 
 has IbpyOr^v in Hdt. I 172, II 44 {-vO- in C Pz), 118, IV 203 {-vO-l 
 in Apr., B), and Hippokr. V 150 {-vO- in CD), VIII 314 (-1;^-] 
 vulgo, -6- in C, 6). Littr6 adopts lbpvvdr]v in III 144, 146 (-6- 
 in FGHIK), SS^, IV 118 {-6- in C and seven other MSS.), V 
 652 {-6- in AD). I would reject the -v6- forms. Epic is; 
 IbpvvOrjcrav T yS, H 56; cf. ripTvvdi]v. 
 
 C. Verbs in -ivu>. In Archilochos 34 (Kkivdrjcrav is Toup'sj 
 conjecture for hivT^Orjcrav. In Homer we find both iKkiOrjv and J 
 €K\Lv9riv, in Ionic prose only (KXidrjv. Homer has also the pair) 
 €KpLvdr]v and cKpiO-qv (B 815), later Ionic only the latter. 
 Archilochos, it may be noted, has a-noKpiOds in frag. 893. In| 
 kkcux^O-qv Hdt. VI 92, IX 119 we meet with the nasal intruded l| 
 from the present as in the Homeric enXivOriv, kKpCvO-qv. 
 
 D. Schneidewin^s KareKTavdri, Hipponax 132, is wide of thej 
 mark. iKrdvdrjv, if correct, occurs only in late authors. 
 
 636.] Second Aorist. 
 
 I. Coexistence of First and Second Aorists. The followingj^j 
 instances in the New Ionic may serve to illustrate the two[J 
 forms ^ : — 
 
 aWdxOvv^ Hdt. I 170, II 2 (.7. in C), 
 152, V 4, 65, VIII 18, Diog. ApoU. 5. 
 
 ied^e-nv Hd% ii 81, vii 228. 
 
 fKaiOvv Hdt. I 19, rV 69, VI loi, 
 Hippokr. V 146, 208 ; cf. yeoKai- 
 Tois Smyrna, D. S. 17148 (late). 
 
 ilWdyvy Hdt. VIII 84, Hippokr. Vjj 
 206. 
 
 iTd(p-nv Hdt. Ill 10, 55, IX 85. In, , 
 II81 Rd have Ta(pfivai, which is due; 
 to the well-known substitution in 
 later times of the light for the' ; 
 heavy form. |j 
 
 t' 
 
 iKdrjv Hdt. I 51, II 107, 180, IV 79, i i 
 
 Hippokr. V 214, VI 330. 
 
 ^ In two of the three cases there is authority for -rflrjf. 
 
 * See Valckenaer on Phoin. 972 (D), Veitch p. 50, Headlam On EdiUtii^ 
 Aeschylus, p. 104. 
 
 ^ rrrr^^Vi' is poorly supported (Rd) in Hdt. II 121 (5). R has iyyeAro ii 
 VII 37. 
 
636.] AORIST PASSIVE. 525 
 
 fKXidt]v Hdt. I 211, Hippokr. II 682, e/cXi»'»jv Hippokr. V 444, the only place 
 III 40, 94, 140, 146, VIII 312. On {v.l. -ie-tiv), Hdt. IX 16 Dindorf and 
 
 iK\lvdr]y, see 635, 2, C. Herwerden, KKlvai Stein. 
 
 ifilx^V Hdt. I 199, IV 9, Hippokr. ifilynv Hdt. II 131, VIII 38, Hippokr. 
 VII 534. VII 180, VIII 62. 
 
 ippilX^-qv (?) Hippokr. VII 242. eppdyrjv Hdt. II 173, Hippokr. Ill 
 
 214, V 424, VII 20, 534, VIII 68. 
 
 i(rrpd<t)6r]v Hdt. 1 150 {•(pTja-av C Eds). eVrpa^Tji' Hdt. Ill 129, Solon 375, 
 
 Hippokr. V 426, VII 514, 534. 
 
 (TWf\ix^7)v Hdt. I 97 and often (rare cw^Xiynv Hdt. VII 173, IX 27, 29, 32 
 in Attic). (rare in Ionic). 
 
 i<T(pdxOy)v Hdt. V 5 (not in Attic ia-cpdynv Hdt. IV 62. 
 prose). 
 
 irp'icperjy Hippokr. V 206, VIII 380. erplpriv Hdt. VII 120. 
 
 ^(pdvdriv Hippokr. VIII 50. icpavriv Hdt. I 36, and often (perhaps 
 
 also I 165 for ava<prtviu intrans.), 
 Hippokr. II 658, V 186. 
 
 2. In the following list of those examples of second aorist 
 passives which we have observed in the post- Homeric lonists, 
 we have pointed out those cases which are Homeric in order to 
 show the growth of this tense in the later dialect. Homer has 
 twenty-two or twenty-three examples of the second aorist pas- 
 sive forms, most of which do not recur in Ionic prose ; and this 
 number is about one-sixth as large as that of the first aorist 
 passive. Of the forms here included some belong only to late 
 Ionic writers. On the forms in -tj- which coexist with those in 
 -6y]-, see above under 1. 
 
 i-ywixi, see § 582 ; aWdcra-ai above ; ^dirrw Hippokr. V 664 ; ^Kdinw Horn., 
 Hippokr. V 418, 460; fipex<» Hippokr. VIII 200; ynpels in yripfvros Xeno- 
 phanes 8, from yi)pr)fji.i. Hdn. II 2669 cites yi)pe\s eV oIkioktiv from an unknown 
 source : othex"wise there is no further trace of yiipr]fiL. The form yrjpels la 
 remarkable not only on account of the long vowel (cf. however yi)pa\4os by 
 the side of yepai6s), but because of the existence of a yfipd/j-i whence cornea 
 ',ynpds P 197. Pairs such as y7]pd/j.t and y-rip-n/xL are strange. On this verb cf. 
 JLobeck on Buttmann II 138, Brugmann, M. U. I 76, III 87. It does not 
 [suffice to say that yripeis is constructed like Beis or pvtis. We need definite 
 analogues. I do not find Kipveis given as a parallel to Kipvds in Buttmann II 
 '13, but we have -n-j^TrAas (Plato) and ifiwiwAeis (Hijipokr.). It is unlikely 
 that Xenophanes should have employed an Aiolic form {yripriiJ-i- from yrtpew) ; 
 [ypdipu) Hdt. IV 91 ; Mkvu Ai-etaios 134 ; *5aa) Horn., Lukian Syria dea i ; Sepw 
 Hdt. VII 26; Siio)? (for SieKduTJvai in Hippokr. VI 374, Veitch suggests that 
 dieKSvvai is to be read). Cf. i(pvr)v, ippvrjv ; QaTnu above ; /caico above ; /ceipw 
 
526 THE IONIC DIALECT. [637. 
 
 Hdt. IV 127 ; kAjj/w above ; kStttw Hdt. VIII 92 ; Xavdivu (?), Hippokr. VII ■ 
 532, Sie\-fier)(Tavvulgo (SteA-eX^fletroj/ Veitch) for which Littre adopts Sif^X-fidTiffav : 
 from CE ; -Keyu above ; fiaivu Hdt. Ill 30 &c., Hippokr. Ill 140, V 186 ; ftly. ; 
 vv/xi above ; welpco Hdt. IV 94 ; Tr-fiyyv/xi Horn., Hippokr. V 222, VI 194 (Horn., 
 has also ■trrjxOfv); irKeKw Hdt. VIII 84, Hippokr. IX 194 ; ■jr\'fi<r<Tu : inKriyiiv 
 Horn., Hdt. V 120, i^eirXdytiv Hdt. I 119 ; irviyco Hippokr. VII 150 ; -Kriaam 
 Hippokr. VII 284 ; tttvw Hippokr. V io5 ; ^d^rw Hippokr. Ill 524 ; pew Horn., 
 Hdt. VIII 138, Hippokr. II 658, V 114 ; fi{iyvv/j.i above ; o-^irw Horn., Hdt. Ill 
 66, VI 136, Hippokr. VII 190 ; CKawTU) Hdt. VI 72 ; o-reAAeo Hdt. IV 159, V 
 126 ; a-rpecpoi) above ; trt/xx^co above ; (TcpdWw Hdt. IV I40,VII 168 ; t'/jkoi Hippokr. 
 Ill 330; Tpfcpu Horn., Hdt. Ill III &c. ; rpi^w above; (paivu above; (pOdpu 
 Hdt. VII 10 (e), Hippokr. VIII 66 ; ^\i/3a) Hippokr. VI 292 (here Chas e/c0Ai;37)) ; 
 (ppdffa-w Aretaios 13; 4)piiyu Hippokr. VI 414; <j>vpw Aretaios 241 ; <pva) (y), 
 Hippokr. VI 182 (in 0), VII 514 (now rejected in III 286 by Littre). Cobet; and 
 Nauck brand ipirjv as a product of the decline ; x^'P^^ Horn., Hdt. VIII loi. 
 
 I 
 
 Contract Verbs. : 
 
 Forms of fxt verbs inflected like Contract Verbs will be found 
 § 691 ff. 
 
 637.] I. Denominative verbs formed by tbe addition of -to-, 
 -(,€- to the nominal stem lost tbeir -i- in the primitive period of 
 the language^. The vowels thus brought into contact are treated 
 as follows in Ionic. 
 
 ! 
 
 (i) -aw verbs. ! 
 
 a + j7 = a a + oi = (i) 
 
 a + et=a a + ov (spurious) = o) 
 
 The inscriptions and the lyric poets without exception adopt 
 this schen^e of contraction. The prose writers follow it in the 
 main. The differences consist (i) in the contraction of a + e to r/' 
 chiefly in Hippokrates^, (2) in the contraction of a + o, a + w/ 
 
 * Between vowels^ was retained only when it was preceded by i; (vi). ! 
 
 " Only one example occurs in the MSS. of Hdt. [6v/j.irJTaL IV 75, where A^B\ 
 have -laTat). In Bemohritos Phys. i, Sextus Empiricus has opr\v, but in Melissos 
 17 Simplicius has 6pav (Mullach opfiy). In Hipjwkrates (but chiefly in the 
 supposititious treatises) there are numerous examples according to Littre. 
 Good MSS. often have the correct forms : alovTJv VIII 342 (-au in 6) ; alriTJrat' 
 
 VI 606 (-a- in e] ; avirJTai IX 3S4 (-jSrai VI 388) ; apiffr^v II 478 {-Zv in A\ ^ 
 
 VII 220 (0) ; aari (?) VII 252, ao-^rai IX 384, but acraTai VI 388, VIII 78?' 
 /SiTJraJ VIII 328 (C, xulgo, -larai Littre), 560 bis ; ye\fi IX 336 (-a CD, and yeAfs' 
 338), yeA^v 338 {-S.U CD). Cf. also v.l. 322, 356, 360 &c. It would be possible 
 to refer ye\7jy to ye\7]u, since ye\aa> occurs in Doric (C. D. I. 333935> la) i 
 
^637'] 
 
 CONTRACT VERBS. 527 
 
 a + ov in some twenty verbs to eo, cm, eov in tlie Parisimis (P) of 
 iHdt., and to eco in the Fiorenfmns (C). See on these points § 688, 
 where the instances of -eo) for -aw verbs are collected. Examples 
 |of the 'distracted^ verbs are suspicious in Hdt. Stein adopts 
 iriyopocovTO VI II [-covto AB^), Koyuooicn IV 191 (-wcrt R). 
 
 (2) -eo) verbs. 
 
 ^ I Lyric poets and inscriptions agree with Herodotos and Hippo- 
 krates in their treatment of dissimilar vowels in contact, but 
 differ from them in respect of the contraction of like vowels. 
 In the lyric poets and inscriptions we find : — 
 
 e + ?j = 7j e + CO = eco, eco 
 
 C + et=:et (eei) e-|-ot = eot, 01 
 
 e + ou = eou, eu. 
 
 Thus the inflection of (^ikica was the following, as early as the 
 seventh century, in all respects except perhaps -ev- for -eo- in the 
 poets ; certainly by the time of Herodotos. 
 
 SiotrV^w VIII 340 ; eriv "VII 296 (eav H), VIII 204 (C, iav vulgo), but fS.v VIII 
 
 '184, 232 ; etprjv VIII 366 {e\f/e7v 6, &c., e^dca is late, if correct at all) ; on 
 
 liBftiro, see § 685 ; viroeviJi.irjv VII 332, 342, dv/xiTiffew VII 320, 342, VIII 318 
 
 l^o- in 0) ; iTJTai III 294, IV 608, IX 312 (cf. Ir/ro Sijr. dea 20), lija-dai III 258 
 
 !(-a- in C), VI 386 (-a- in 0), VII 28, 252 bis, Aret. 302, Arrian 15J2, but laaBai 
 
 Hippokr. VI 316, IX 328, lufxivos Pherekyd. 76; [kv^toj III 490 does not 
 
 i belong here because of Attic KvriTai] ; ji^Xerriv VII 204, 236, but fieAerav VII 
 
 j 190 ; /j-vS-firi III 244 (so Littre) is wi'ozig as regards the ' distracted ' r] ; dSwTJrai. 
 
 TI 424 (-a- in A), but -arai VII 70, -aro V 206. Cf. oSwfwvrat IV 166 ; Sprjv 
 
 II 442 {-av A) VI 146 (0, -av vulgo), VII 244 {-av in 0), avoprji' VII 178, avvopriv 
 
 II 440 (-5;/ ^), vTTfpopTJv Aret. 312, &e., irpoopriffdai IX 366; ireiprjarBai II 178 
 
 j(-a- two MSS.) ; Ttvpiriy VII 322 bis, 420, 422, VIII 138, 280 (•ai' in 0), 340, but 
 
 \wpiav VII 26, TTvpiTiaeai VI 516, -:i](r0£y VII 322, VIII 340 (-a- in 0) ; ^upTJi/ VIII 
 
 198. In Herodas we find \u0rJTai III 3 (but cf. Aui/SeC/xai 359) ; fiAfj 2,3, exrj-rai 
 
 344, perhaps dire/i7roA.^[^] 755, and lopr^ 617; opfjs 42s, 351 sei 558 and 257 (cor- 
 
 irected from opas) ; SpTj 350, 427 ; ^pm 2^,^, 722, but 6pav 655. Most of these 
 
 j forms have 77 in place of o after i and p, that is to say, they owe their origin 
 
 [to a belief (held in part even by Buttmann, Ch-amm. § 105, 12) that a + e in 
 
 Ionic became 17 after i and p. [It is noteworthy that some of the trj incorrect 
 
 forms occur in close proximity to futures or aorists where 77 is in place. Cf. 
 
 mpiTJv, TTvpi{)(TriTai VII 422, irvpiTJv, wvpiricrai VIII 340, virodviJ.ir]V, •Ov/u.ffiaeis VII 
 
 370. Cf. § 272, 3. fjLaXKiTJu (see L. S. s. v.) is a eorrui^tion of -Uiv, not an 
 
 lonism.] prj was Ionic too in the verb, e. g. in Sprjv. The examples with 77 
 
 not after t or p, are more difficult. To refer them to primitive -77&> verbs is 
 
 especially hazardous because they occur only in late works and even there 
 
 the best MS. tradition is often against their correctness. We prefer to 
 
 ascribe them in general to the grammarians whose hyper-Ionisms advanced 
 
 to the point of resembling Dorisms. In the case of Herodas the possibility 
 
 of 77 being a Doric contraction must not be overlooked. Only a thorough 
 
 investigation of the question can disclose how many, if any, of the 
 
 forms in question are to be regarded as having stems in 77 = 0, parallel 
 
 to those in a. 
 
528 THE IONIC DIALECT. [637.J 
 
 Indie. Sjihj. Iniperf. 
 
 (^tAgo) (-e'd)) (f)t\4oi> (-fco) ((pCkeov {-fov, -€vv) 
 
 (pikHS cf)i\fjs e0iAe6s 
 
 (piXei ^lAr) e^tAet 
 
 (piXioixev (-eo[X€v, -eujuei') (pL\4(o[X€v (-fg)-) l0iAe'o/u.ey [-ko\x^v, -eu/xez/)' 
 
 ^lAetre ^tAr)re ec/jtAetre 
 
 (jytXiovcrt. (-eucrt) <pi\4(o(n (-eco-) i(pikeov {-igv, -^vv) 
 
 A noteworthy difference between Herodotos and Hippokrates 
 is the avoidance by the former of the forms of the optative in 
 -oirjy, and their frequent use by the latter. The infinitive is 
 (piX^iv, the participle (piXicov, -iovcra (-eCca), -iov {-^vv), ^tAeoiros 
 (-eSrros)^ -eovcnjs (-ewTjs), -iovTos {-(vvtos). 
 
 In the MSS. of the prose writers ee, erj are generally retained 
 (especially after consonants) and eei is very frequent. 
 
 It is certain that the Ionic of the fifth century contracted e + e, 
 i + r], e + et. Unless we admit that Herodotos and Hippokrates 
 consciously adopted a system of inflection antiquated in their 
 time, we are forced to the conclusion that the introduction of 
 open ee, erj, eet in the texts of the early prose writers is due tc 
 the ix€Taypay\raix€voi. The cause of their error was the belief thai 
 the New Ionic did not contract e with a following vowel 
 Meeting with eco in Ionic where Attic had co, the grammariam 
 opined that the difference between the two dialects consisted 
 solely in the possession by the former of a 'pleonastic ' e^. Agau 
 they observed that eo, even if contracted in Ionic, did not lose its 
 e as it did in Attic, and that e was often preserved before a 
 Furthermore, though e/^e may become et, eFr] is actually uncon- 
 tracted in -eFoi verbs. Thus unable to distinguish Ionic fron 
 Attic, and New Ionic from Old Ionic, and possessed of the belie 
 that Herodotos was a species of prose Homer, it is not surprising 
 that the grammarians or copyists were led to change hoKO. t<i 
 hoKieL^ and reinstate the e everywhere before a following vowe 
 (§ 108). T?he inflection thus seemed to them to gain in coherenc 
 and to approximate more closely to that of Homer who was th 
 main source of their knowledge of the dialect. 
 
 The MSS. of the other prosaists anterior to the pseudo-Ionist 
 have fared better than those of Herodotos and Hippokrates. I: 
 the pseudo-Ionists the open forms may claim a species 
 genuineness (§ 107). 
 
 The contraction of eo and eov. Dindorf ^ was an adherent c 
 
 * Cf. xp^W"' fi'om xP'^f^"-'- i^ Eust. on "V S34. From this som-ee of ern 
 may have sprung some of the hyper-Ionic verhs in -e«. See under 3. 
 
 ^ The citation by Greg. Kor. (§ 14) of Sok6€j and \a\4eiv is inapposit; 
 Both forms occur in a pseudo-Anakreontic fragment (no. 62). 
 
 ^ Hdt. Pmefaiio p. xxix. 
 
637-] 
 
 CONTRACT VERBS. 
 
 529 
 
 the view that, while the ordinary speech of the lonians may have 
 preferred the closed to the open forms, in their literature some 
 verbs were written with eo, others with ev, and still others 
 indifferently, and that certainty in so elusive a matter was to be 
 despaired of. Bredow appears to have been of the same opinion. 
 Abicht^ first sought to bring order into a chaos which he con- 
 ceived as foreign to the language of Herodotos. In those verbs ^ 
 in which e was preceded by a vowel, eo and eou, he contended, 
 [became eu ; in those in which e followed a consonant eo and eou 
 were retained. The former contention has some support, the 
 latter may readily be disproved. Thus in verbs ending in 
 a consonant we find -eov, but also -eu/x-, -evvr-. Stein refuses to 
 adopt the innumerable changes necessary to the carrying out of 
 (Abicht^s theory, and prefers to edit that form which he thinks 
 [the MSS. in each ease show to have existed in the archetype. 
 jSpreer'^ is an adherent of Abicht so far as the five verbs men- 
 jtioned in note 2 are concerned, but joins issue with him in 
 respect of that part of his theory which demands eo after a con- 
 sonant. In the case of ayLvico, aiveoo, atre'co, boKeo), (rtTeofjLai, 
 {(ppovio) and xcopeo) he thinks Hdt. adopted eo. His attempt at 
 iifferentiating between various portions of the text as regards 
 jthe preference of the scribes for one or the other writing leads to 
 [do important results. We present below ^ a table, taken from 
 !Spreer''s treatise, of verbs employed by Hdt. at least five times 
 in present and imperfect, in order to show the afiinities of the 
 jMSS. for eo or eu, eou or fv. 
 
 \ The views of the scholars above mentioned are all vitiated by 
 the fact that they assume a radical difference between eo and eu, 
 '. e. that eo is a dissyllable, eu a diphthong. While it may seem 
 
 * Quaest. de died. Herod, spec, primum, 1859, UebersicM des herod. DicdeMs. p. 39. 
 ^ 6T}eofj.ai, Siavoeo/xai, ayuofo) always avoid eo, voew has voevvTes VIII 3, Sia- 
 
 'oevvTai IX 54, but iirevSeov V 65, voeovcri III 81, yoeovcra VIII loi. 
 ibout 243 ev forms to 41 in eo, and ev is much preferred to eov. 
 ^ De verbis contraciis apud Herodotum. 
 
 TTOiew 
 
 has 
 
 iyiv«ti 
 
 aVectf 
 
 upew 
 
 'tiropeu 
 
 '.pv€Ofj.ai 
 
 Jorjee'ft) 
 
 )y(Ofj.ai 
 Kveofxai 
 o'Topeci) 
 :oA.e'ctf 
 
 60 
 
 eu 
 
 eou 
 
 eu 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 24 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 ■•^o 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 172 
 
 19 or 21 
 
 33 
 
 I 
 
 oiKeco 
 
 6/J.o\oyea> 
 
 iroXLopKeo) 
 
 irpodv/j-fo/xai 
 
 (riTfOfxai 
 
 TeAeco 
 
 ri/jLccpeiii) 
 
 (popiai 
 
 (ppovfca 
 
 Xoi>pi<» 
 
 wveojxai 
 
 eo 
 
 eu 
 
 eov 
 
 73 
 
 I 
 
 36 
 
 8 
 
 
 9 
 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 7 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 II 
 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 
 M m 
 
^^O • THE IONIC DIALECT. [637 
 
 harsh to hold that nothing is indicated by the distinct pre-i 
 ferences, indicated in the MSS., of many of the verbs in questioni 
 for the one or the other writing, the evidence of the inscriptions! 
 (§§ 246, 287) is conclusive that no great difference in pronun-i 
 ciation existed between eo and ev (i.e. eu) on the one hand 
 and €ov and eu (i.e. eu) on the other. The difference is not 
 phonetical, but orthographical, as Merzdorf^ first recognized , 
 With the material at our command it is impossible to reconstruci,' ^ 
 the exact system of orthography adopted by Herodotos or an) 
 other Ionic writer^. In Herodotos the preponderance in favou: 
 of eo over ev is very great, except in the case of four of Abicht'f, 
 five verbs; in Hippokrates, the other early Ionic prose writen 
 and in the pseudo-Ionists eo prevails over ev, as is natural ii 
 literary monuments, which are conservative. The inscription:; , 
 have eo, never eu. In the lyric poets there is not a single case 
 except Mimn. 143 (see § 661), of dissyllabic eo. Herodas prefer! 
 €v, perhaps because the Alexandrians regarded eo as dissyllabic'' 
 The contraction of eo to ov is an Atticism which has no plac. 
 in any portion of Ionic so long as the dialect retained its nativ 
 vigour*. 
 
 The writing eou is generally preserved in the inscriptions. Ir 
 a document from Kos (Paton 375^, gj) coloured by lonisms, we fini 
 Kv4o(ra = Kveova-a, Hippokr. VIII 484; but a like spelling we d 
 not recollect to have encountered on any inscription from loni, 
 or the Ionic islands, eou rarely usurps the place of eu<eo, e.r 
 Evpva-O^veovi Samos 217, 'AplcttokX^ovs Thasos 72^^. Strictl' 
 speaking eou is not contracted to eu. When, as in Troteuo-t, tb 
 one writing is substituted for the other, the dialect merely fai 
 
 ^ Curtius' Studien, Till 167. 
 
 * 61; befoi'e fi is, A favourite spelling. When an -aoj verb appears under tl 
 form of one in -ea (§ 688), the evidence points to eo, not ev, except in a coe 
 paratively few cases. These are elpdrfw v. I. 5 251, Hdt. I 158. Ill 140, 15 
 IX 89, 93 generally in CPdz, flpooTevvras III 62, aviewrai VII 236, (pva-evftfv 
 IV 2 in P,$7reip€v/.L€vos Hippokr. IX 354, opevyres IX 358, 376, Aret. 42 and i 
 Theokritos (Ahrens II 310"), opevaa Hrd. ^^^, KuKev/xfuos Solon 37^, juco/ueuvr 
 Theog. 369, jxcofxev/Mfvos 169, \a>^ev/j.ai Hrd. 3f,9, TniSevvra 3.,6. irKapev/j.fi'os Arrh 
 7o is a bad conjecture. On -eu- in -oca verbs, see § 690, and on irtfxTrXevffai 
 Hesiod, see § 691, note 4. Cf. also Theokr. xa-ctievy-^vos IV 53, oTrreu/ierosVIlK 
 XXIII 34, (TvXiVfxevov XIX 2, yeXivaa v. I. I 36, crirapyfvcra i^?) Quint. Smyr 
 XIV 283, (TKipTevcn 0pp. Kyn. IV 342, Si^pfvaav Anthol. Pal. VI 2I7. Wht 
 a verb in -ow is incorrectly inflected like one in -ecu (§ 690), eo is very rai 
 Hence ffraO^cufxivos Hdt. VIII 130 is probably correct. 
 
 ^ 60 which was copied from the earlier monuments by the pseudo-Ionif 
 was regarded by them as more Ionic than eu, and perhaps classed as d 
 syllabic. 
 
 * The confusion between eu and ov, starting from a comparison of Sixoioi 
 and -Koiova-i produced such forms as Si/caievo-i in the MSS. Hrd. has xoc^^"^ 
 442, re/xevaa ^gg, Spafj.evcra 55,, which are unique of their kind. 
 
 * fifovjj.ei'ot in the oracle, Hdt. VII 140, should give way to ^eeu/ie, 
 (Clemens Alex.), and be referred to an otherwise unattested ^ee'co. 
 
6^J,] CONTRACT VERBS. 53I 
 
 to differentiate between €v = eu and €v = eu. In the lyric poets 
 €ov is almost always a monosyllable. In Hdt. it is preferred to 
 €v, except in the case of iroteco ; Herodas prefers ev. The later 
 prose literature generally adopts eov. 
 
 I 60) is open about 190 times in Hdt. There are only three or 
 •four cases of the Attic co. 
 
 In the optative, eoi is retained as an old-fashioned spelling in 
 a Teian inscription and in Ionic prose. In the poets we have 01 
 for €0L, and even in prose there is ample support for ot after 
 consonants as well as after vowels. It will not do to say that 
 Ionic prose contracts eot only after vowels as was held by 
 Merzdorf and Spreer. How far the spelling- eoi after consonants 
 jis a genuine survival, how far reinstated by the writers of the 
 MSS., cannot be determined, eot is found, outside of Troie'co, 
 about forty times in all the MSS. of Hdt. In the case of ttoUco, 
 the contracted ot is found up to VII 45, after which chapter we 
 have €0L. Stein adopts the latter form throughout, even when 
 t has no suj)port from the MSS., e.(/. V 75 Tvototei'. 
 
 (3) -ow verbs. 
 
 + o = ov, never eu -f- et = ot 
 
 o + e= „ „ „ o + ot=:oi 
 
 o + a) = co o + ov (spurious) = ov 
 
 o + Tj = a) 
 
 All the witnesses for the dialect agree to these contractions. 
 'On -ev- for -ov- erroneously introduced into certain forms of 
 ifchis inflection, see § 690. 
 
 2. Verbs in -ef-co. 
 
 In dissyllabic verbs in -eF-u> the contraction of like vowels is 
 hot imperative, as it is in the case of verbs in -e-tco and -ecr-oo, 
 iwhich are inflected like those in -e-to). The prose writers vary 
 [between ee eet, and et, with the exception that 8et is always 
 pontracted. In the lyric poets eFe, eFei generally become et (in 
 Herodas always), but er] remains open, eco is never contracted, 
 'fo only once (in Herodas), and eou is so written (except once, in 
 Herodas), even when it may be monosyllabic. 
 
 8^ci> : in the poets we find Se7, Hipponax 6 (trim.), Anakr. 98 (eleg.), 
 Herodas 3<,(„ 5,5, j^, 62, 31, 7129. The only occurrence of the word in Homer 
 lUpfa-fiiia I 337) takes this form, for which Seei should not be substituted 
 e. g. Ti Se'ei with omitted Se) . In Herodotos there are about 50 cases of Set 
 |o 3 of 5e6( (III 127, VIII 68 (o), 143). Hippokrates uses Se?, e.g. II 52, 374, 
 I76, VIII 190 (next to TToUeiv), so too Herakleitos 94, Melissos t6, Demokritos 
 P> 47> 7°; 735 205, 219 {sic Stobaios, Mullach Se'ei), Ion i, Euseb. Mynd. i, 21, 
 petaios, e. g. 55. Eberhard's Se'ei in Arrian 435 has no MS. support (Se? or 
 lejToi?). Seii/ occurs in Hdt. I 129, II 133, VI 135, IX 33, Hippokr. II 248, 
 |o2 &c., Se'eti/ but once in Hdt. (VIII 62). A much used word would tend to 
 lontract (cf. Boiotian rav &c.}. Sej? Zeleia 11339, Hdt. I 90, Hippokr. II 246, 
 
 M m 3 
 
^^2 THE IONIC DIALECT. [637. 
 
 Ill 258, Aret. 198, Arrian 12^. So too^ in Clouds 493 and in Attic inscriptions: 
 II 809 B 32 [Seet with ei from tji). TJie contracted form 5f), which occursj 
 sporadically in Attic literature, appears in Lebadeia (Ditt. Syll. 35362)1 and ii 
 the form Se?^ Teos 1583, and B. C. H. 1890, p. 393. In the imperfect] 
 in Herodotos we find eSee 15, eSet 7 times by consensus of the MSS. Stein' 
 changes to eSee four times where the MSS. have eSei, but leaves eSet in three] 
 passages with the MSS. eSee was perhaps the Herodoteian form. luj 
 Hippokrates we find eSei II 46. Herodas has %^ei 679, gu, 92, Lukian, Sijr. dea,\ 
 25 e^iev (cf. TrSis Se? iVt. crvyyp. § 18 citing from an anonymous ■writer in Ionic). 
 ScS/iat Hrd. 519 is an instance of the rare contraction of eo. Se'eai' Hdt. VII! 
 161 is probably incorrect (cf. Se'77 in R). Se'erai is found in Hdt. I 32 &c.,j 
 Hippokr. II 36 (-6t- vulgo), 256 {-u-vulgo), 34S and 372 (-«- A), VII 288, and] 
 occasionally in Attic ; SetTot in I 616, II 356, III 210, 212,232 Us, Arrian 362, 
 Herodas I79, 641, 749. Seeade Hdt. VIII 22. In the subjunctive we find 5e?jTai| 
 Olynthos 8 B 4, Arkesine (MUih. XI 107, late), Hdt. Ill 96, Hippokr. Ill 204 j 
 (Set same line"), as in Attic insci'iptions (C. I. A. II 40 A 13, 54 B 15), and 
 with the glide i (SeiTjrat II 167, 43, 48) ^ SewvTai Hdt. II 173, IV 94 (Attic j 
 deicovrai C. I. A. II 1 19, 14). Seoiaro Hdt. V 73, Hippokr. Ill 230; Sefo-flaj 
 appears in Hippokr. VIII 340, Hrd. 435, deeaOai. Hippokr. II 28 {-ei- vuJgo), IX\ 
 334, Hdt. IV 145 &c. i.also Attic), 5e7(rdai IX 8 (in all MSS. except R), and in. 
 MSS. Arrian 3I7, and Hippokr. VII 176. SeS/nevos Hdt. IV 11, Euseb. Mynd. ; 
 I, SeiofJL- Oropos iS^e. Theokr. XXX 32 has Seuyuej/or, which is not, as G-. Meyer, 
 Gramm. § 485, note i, states, an unthematic form. In the imperfect : iSeS/xtiv 
 Hdt. Ill 36, iSeo VII 161 (Bredow, MSS. iSeov), ^Seero Hdt. IV 162, &c. (also 
 Attic), iSeovro I 196. dim yields Oe? Hdt. I 181 ; Oeeiv VIII 140 (a), but 
 6e7v III 105, both in all MSS. ; deovres Hippokr. epist. IX 350 ; edee Hdt. I 43, 
 edeov I 82. viia sivim has vfeiv Hdt. VIII 89 {uf7v VI 44 AB^Cd) ; ei'tocj 
 VIII 89. irXe'o) yields ir\e7 Hekat. 284, Aret. 69, Hrd. 2.,,, irXfovat Hdt. Hi 
 60, Hippokr. II 60, IX 368 epist., Kallimachos frag. 94 (choliambic) ; wAej/j 
 Hdt. Ill 138, irKewfXiu VIII 1 09, TrXeoxrt IX 98 ; TrXe'oi II II5 ; irAteij' VIII logf 
 but irXelv Arrian 60, Vita Horn. 6, 7 ; TrXeovrfs Hdt. II 60, irX^ovcras VIII 10 ;; 
 67rA66 ' Tlieog. 12, Hdt. IV 43, but e-TrAei Ion i, iirXiov Hdt. I 164. irvew yields! 
 TTViii Hippokr. II 62, VII 4S6, but Tree? VI 384 {6), VII 16, vviovin Aret. 102 : 
 ■KViri Hrd. igj, Aretaios 5 ; irveeiv Hippokr. V 204. irfeTv VII 50; irviovres Hdt 
 
 11 22, TTviovra Diog. Apoll. 5 ; iirveiv Sim. Keos 1153; ■Kve6fjievos Hippokr. U 
 122. p€ii) yields peei Mimn. 5^ ( = Theog. 1017), Hdt. I 51, 72, 180, 185, &c..' 
 Hippokr. Ill 252, VII 12, 562, 570, VIII 260, Aret. 109, Herakl. 41 (but ^€ 
 42) according to Bywater. pe? is found in Hippokr. II 65S, VII 12, VII 34 
 Arrian 8j. pej? Hdt. I 193, II 149, Hippokr. VI 314, VII 34, Aret. 98, 271: 
 (but pf) 303) ; pe'oi Hdt. II 22 ; pe'eij/ Hdt. II 2 1, Hekat. 27S, Hippokr. II 38, 
 136, Aret. 248, pe7v Theog. 639 {ev pe7u for ^'s evpelv, vidgo eupe7v), Hippokr. VI^ 
 
 12 ; petav Hdt. I 6, Hekat. 202, peoi/ra Hdt. II 121 (S) ; eppee'^ II 121 (5), fppt 
 
 ^ Cf. also 5er](T6fj.evos, SfqOeis, irepiSe-f^s, ivSe-qs. 
 
 ^ Iir Hort. Aden. p. 187 B Set is given as the Attic subjunctive. Cf. Demoki 
 188 where Stobaios has Se7. 
 
 ^ iTTiSevfuL B 229 is Aiolic rather than Ionic. An. Ox. I 109, calls it loni' 
 because Homeric. 
 
 * Trpoo-SsTToi Ditt. Syll. 33711-12 (320 b. c. ) is an indicative form used in Atti' 
 as a subjunctive, a substitution made easier after Se'?? had become Sjj, the:! 
 Set (above). Cf. also StjAo? indicative and subjunctive. 
 
 5 Eust. 1892^8, cf. 8S22. ■« Cf Eust. 189233. 
 
6;^J.] CONTRACT VERBS. 533 
 
 Hippokr. V 226; ippuro Aret. 180; pfofiefos Hippokr. I 572, VII 320, VIII 
 48. From xe'w we have xe'e' Hclt. Ill 96, x^ova-i IV 195, x^V Hrd. '/^ ; x^eTw 
 Sim. Keos 1675 ; eKx^'iv Keos 43.,o, Arefc. 1S4, but x""' Hdt. IV 127, Hippokr. 
 II 356 ; x^'oufa Hdfc. I 185, x*''''''* Hrd. 677 ; x^fraj Herakl. 23, Hippokr. VII 
 570, but xet'Tat Arrian 325, Aret. 296 ; xeef^" Aret. 202, but x«iV9a)v Anakr. 
 42 ; ix^tro Hippokr. Ill 54. 
 
 3, Variation in the Present between -w and -eco (-aw) verbs. 
 
 This list includes only such verbs as show both forms in the 
 same dialect. Omitted are cases analogous to hwiui in Hippokr. 
 = 8ti;rj) in Hesiod and Herakleian, and also variations of the epic 
 dialect; e.g. ekKu>, kkicico, atboixat, atSeo/xat. This section does not 
 'treat of the addition of an e to the stem in other tenses than the 
 present. Some of the undermentioned verbs are due to the error 
 by which Ionic was thought to have eco in place of m, an error 
 assisted perhaps^ but not directly caused^ by the analogy of 
 lax€(o, TTopcjivpeco, iJ.eXave(o, &c. The genuine forms recall the 
 causatives in -dyafi in Sanskrit, which in Greek were confused 
 with the denominatives. The Greek representatives of -dijati are 
 either causatives or iteratives (intensives and frequentatives), but 
 in most cases the original signification has been lost. 
 
 a7€6|xevos Hdt. Ill 14 in 53 cannot stand. It is a confusion between 
 T^jfOfiai. and Syco, parallel to iireipeS/xevos below. axOojiai Hdt., Aret. 183, 
 ax^e'ei Aret. 1S3. ^aWEco does not exist. virep^aWem' Hdt. Ill 23, a-vfn,- 
 
 ^aWeS/xevos I fi8, III 95, &c., are stupid blunders of the Aldine edition. Cf. 
 vTrep^aWeeiv, the vulgate reading in Hippokr. IV 92. The existence of fia\\-fi<Tco 
 (not attested in Ionic) may have furthered the error, but it is more probable 
 that the false -eety of the second aorist induced the mistake. Cf. also virep- 
 Bopeovra Hdt. VI 134 (ss) from Oopfeiv. PovXecovxai Teos, Mitth. XVI 293, 
 
 1. 20 ; cf. Svvfoovrai and § 618. Notice also fiovXricrofiai, i^ov\i\9r]v. ^pvyo^a,\. 
 in fipxjxo^vrai, a doubtful reading of Littre VI 360. Hippokrates has usually 
 fipvxdofiai. (Sia^PvveToi Hdt. II 96, but StaPweovrai IV 71. In the Peace 
 
 646 we read i^vj/ow. 8£\|/£i Hdt. IV 64 ^£C is a mistake for 5ei//ei Bz 
 {5^(1 P). Svvo) 16 times in Hdt., Swew once, in ivdweoucn III 98 {ivSwovtri 
 R). Cf. Ouveu in Hesiod's Scutum 210, 257 with Skt. dhiln-aya-ii by the side of 
 dku-nd-H. ei'Xw perhaps in T]\adfx.riv Sim. Amorg. 17, etAe'cc Hdt., Hippokr. 
 €ipo|xai Hdt., firftpe6iJ.€vos Hdt. Ill 64 in ABdz, eiTTjpeSixfvos C. Read eVeipJ- 
 fiivos with s, V. Confusion between eipoixai and ipeoi led to the incorrect form. 
 £\|;w is Herodoteian (II 94, III 100, IV 61, IX 118) and Hippokratic, e.g. in 
 the following cases i—e^/eiv II 32, III 236, e'^^e VII 158, 160, 374, VIII 174, 
 392, Ir^eVftj VIII 182, e'vf'ax/ VIII 162, eif/oj/ra VIII 13S, lif-J^ez/oj VII 276. Since 
 we have the te.stimony of a grammarian (wrongly supposed by Hermann {de 
 emend, rat. p. 313) to be Herodian) to the effect that no ancient author used 
 ft^ovv, e(|/66 or 7}<|/6€ in Hdt. I 48 has been abandoned by the editors. The best 
 support for this form in Hippokrates is II 51 8, where e'l^/ee occurs twice. In 
 the first case A has e<^6, in the second eil/e is the vulgate reading and the 
 majority of the MSS. have €i|/ee. This example is however from the spurious 
 appendix to the izep\ Siairrts o^eoov. Other cases in the supposititious works 
 are ^eTu V 244, VII 85, 156 (ei//et same page), 196, 254 (0), 276, 374, VIII 82 
 
534 THE IONIC DIALECT. [637. 
 
 (_-eiv CO, 92, 174, 194, 200, 338 (e^eiu (T), 366 (6, Littre t^i/rjv), 392. Instead of 
 eyj/wv, which appears VII 48, 160, 222, 266, 276, 420, we have traces of the 
 early form in ^oyraYl 566 (0), a.(pe\pouTa YlII 138 {6), and dire'il/cov VII 402 
 (C). Aretaios has e^l/eTv 250, expeia-Oco 331, e\f/ei(r6u(rav 256 (Kiihn), (ruj/ei^eio-ew 
 170, 13 (Ermerins). The future, aorist, and perfect e^pr]- started the -eco form. 
 That Kvpw and Kvpeu coexisted in post-Homeric Ionic may be inferred from 
 KvpaoD in Demokritos, iveKvpffa in Hdt., iyKvptw Herakleitos, Kvprjcra) Hdt., 
 iKvpy](Ta Archil., Hdt., Hippokr. kvw Hdt., Hippokr., kv4w Hdt. (Kvfjffo) 
 Hii^pokr.l. iiaprvpofiai Hdt. I 44, V 92 (7;% fxaprvpel VIII 94 {hear ivityiess), 
 i-TrffiaprupeovTo C?) V 93. fiapTvpovfiai is late, and due to a confusion between 
 txaprvpui (eyd>) and jxapTvpofnai (tre). The only testimony to fiaxeofiai ' occurs in 
 Hdt. VII 104 (_.4BCd3, juaxoyu-i?rs), 225 {Rs), 239 (Suidas), 1X67(^5,^0x0/1- 
 PR), 75 {s). In VII 104 occurs ixowojiaxioiixi which is formed like (xvfj./xaxi<t) 
 and must be considered apart from fiaxeo/j.ai. The -e- form in the simple verb 
 appears in the future /xaxfTo/j-ai in Hdt. (xeXofiai. is Herodoteian (I 98, II 
 2, 174) and Hippokratic (eVt/^eAfJ^ueros III 522, vidgo -eo-). fieTa/x€\rjrai Hdt. 
 Ill 36, in all MSS., should be read --rjrai. In Hippokr. Ill 476 we find 
 eTTifKXrjTai (as in Demokr. 41), in III 492, IX 256, 420 -eecrdai. On inscrip. 
 tions we find both forms : eirifxiKoivrai Thasos 7i8> einfj.e\e(Tdai 'ji-,, firifxeXeTcrdai 
 Oropos 187. jxivvOu Hippokr. IV 360, fuvvQita III 330. p.v£(i) Hippokr. 
 VIII 592, 594, yuu^e'cc VII 252. ^vpo) and Ivpew are both Hij^pokratic. Cf. 
 e|i;pa VII 118 (aorist, not imperf. of ^vpdoi), i^vpncra'Vl 212. Hdt. has only 
 ^vpew. dp.ix<» in Hipponax 55 A ii/j.i^€v ; cf. ofjuxeoo in Hesiod. -TreToiAai 
 Hdt. II 75 renders KaraireTicafxivas III m (C) impossible. Read -irerofievas 
 with AB. iTiilia Hdt. V 35, Hippokr. II 18, 92, III 334, 504, 522, 524, VII 
 190, 276, 496. irteCeo in Trie^euyuei'os Hdt. Ill I46 {A BR), VI 108 {TrieCofx- Cz),- 
 VIII 142 {iru^on- B Cz). In these passages we adopt the contracted form, but 
 in IX 21 TTieCS/j.evos (irie^ei;- R), and elsewhere (I 142, II 25, IV 13, 105, 118, 
 VI 139, VII 121, IX 60, 61), ini^onai is undisputed. Bredow and Dindorf 
 would read this form throughout. Hippokr. has Triefeto in irie^evvrai II 184, 
 •n-icCewTo III 450, irii^ivixevos VII 566, VIII 262. Aretaios has i:i4(w 77, 107, 
 irii^tvijiivos 107. Apio adopted irif^eai in Homer, Aristarchos and Herodian 
 TTie'Co'^ irive'oj in ■mvfv/j.evos {?) Hippokr. II 38. piirTu Hdt. Ill 41, IV 
 
 61 &c., ^.TTTeco IV 94, 188, VII 50, VIII 53. Of o-ive'ofiai (cf. IV 123, IX 13, 
 49) 73' 87) there is now no reading accejited in Herodotos. Even in V 81 
 iffivovTo or icriKvfovTO is adopted. In all other passages except those referred 
 to, the MSS. Jiave a-lvofxai. Hippokrates has aiveSfievos VII 552, 562, 592 twice 
 and (Tivo^jLevos once, aivono III 4S2, VII 550. (irepilo-irepxeu is correct in 
 Hdt. VII 207, since it is derived from nepLO-irepx'hs- Hdt. elsewhere has 
 (Tirtpxt^, (TTTfpxoixai, &c., and in the passage cited Abicht adopts Valckenaer's I ■ 
 ■Kepiffirepx^^v'i^v. <nrepxv'» in the sense of a-irtpxci) is mentioned by Erotian 
 (Lex. Hippokr.). <j)6iv£V(riv, dat. pi. Hippokr. II 674 {-ovcriv A), cf. <pdivi\(ras 
 V 468. (t>vpd(i> Hdt. II 36 ; cf. ifvp-qcra Hippokr. VI 460, &c., irecpvpriixai VI 
 540, but rcicpvp^ai Hdt. Ill 157. 
 
 ^ Gram. Vat. 698 fxax^l^fvos, fiaxfofieyos, but Meerm. 652 fxaxovfuevos, fiax^o- 
 fievos ; in each tractate in conjunction with a present {Xvireo/jifvos). The 
 reference, we think, has in mind the epic fiaxadfJ-cos and fj-axfovfievov rather 
 than a New Ionic fMaxfofiai. 
 
 ^ TTis^co Ionic (Homeric), Attic, Aiolic, iriaCu Doric, Hdn. II 3485, cf. I 443io> 
 II 949-21. In II 14O23 Herodian reports that Apio read (incorrectly, as he 
 thinks) TTLi^ivv in ^ 174. 
 
I 
 
 637.] CONTRACT VERBS. ^;^-^ 
 
 In this list we have not included such monstrosities as ez^et'xee, 
 in all MSS. Hdt. I 118, c50Aee {Ez) VIII 26. 
 
 4. -eco varies with -euco as in other dialects, a^dkioo and adkcuco 
 both occur in Hdt., but Hdt. has always rvpawevoi, never 
 rvpavviot) ; Sti^e'co is rare in prose (Hippokr. V 274, VI 494, Hdt. 
 [I 14), while biv^vM is epic and trag-ic. 
 
 avaXoco appears in Hippokrates II 50, VII 588 ; elsewhere it 
 is mainly older Attic. Aretaios has draAiV/cco 198. 
 
 KpejjLdojjLaL in Hippokr. I 592, II 288 is suspicious. Kpeixafxai is 
 sertain in II 152. 
 
 Xovco and Ao'co. The existence of a present Xovm, \ovop.ai in 
 Homer is open to grave doubt. Verbs whose stems ended originally 
 in -ous [aKov(jd, Kpovu)) reinstate in the present their ov from future 
 and aorist ; but verbs whose stems did not end in -ovs regularly 
 lost their u< fin primitive Greek. Homeric a-jToXova-oixai^ Siud 
 \ov(ra have as their present, not Xovm, but Ao'co. For Xoveadat 
 in Z 508 = 265, which is merely an Aiolism [ = X6F^(Tdai), 
 XoiicrOai is the older form. iXovtov Hymn to Demeter 290 is 
 also an Aiolism, or it is a confusion between Aoecu and Xovio 
 (Gemoll reads with Biicheler eXovov). Xovca itself was formed 
 from Xovaco after the principle regulating the movement of the 
 ov had passed into abeyance. 
 
 X6op.ai occurs in the following forms : — Xovrai. Sim. Amorg. y^^ 
 (first foot); Xovvrat Hdt. I 198, II 37 ; Xovadca Hippokr. VII 
 24, 26, 78, VIII 162, 260 (C d); XovaOai Hdt. Ill 124 (Aoveo-^at 
 AB), Hippokr. VII 74, VIII 298 {6, Xom(r6at vidgo, Littre); 
 IXovTo Hdt. Ill 1 25. All these are formed directly from Ao + e 
 or Ao + o. It is not true that the present and imperfect 
 / generally drop e and in their terminations ' (Veitch, p. 424). 
 Veitch cites the inf. Xovv from Hippokrates in Galen. 
 
 Aovo) is found in AoCe Hippokr. VIII 162 ; Aovet Hdt. VI 52 ; 
 Xovi^iv Hippokr. II 374, 376, VII 26, 34, 90 ; Aoi;ois Hippokr. II 
 372, as in Attic ; Xovovrai Hdt. IV 75 ABB., Stein, but Xovvrai 
 is better; XoviaOco Hippokr. VII 276, 334, 380, VIII 198, 242, 
 420 ; Xovea-dai, Hippokr. II 376, V 244, VI 252, VII 330, 
 Aretaios 301 ; Xovofxevos Hdt. Ill 23 (Dindorf Xovp.evoi). The 
 last form appears in Hippokr. VII 276, Hellen. VII 2, 22 (Dindorf 
 Xovp.-), &C.2 It is certain in the comparatively late inscription 
 from Andania (Cauer 47109)* 
 
 * This form cannot be resolved into airoAoeVoyuai as can 25 occurrences of 
 the aorist (Aouo-p H 7, Aoucare C 210 resist resolution). 
 ' Cf. Rutherford, New Phrynichus, p. 274. 
 
53^ 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 1 
 
 [«38. I 
 
 Present Indicative. 
 
 On -eo) instead of -aoa see § 688. Verbs in -^Fod are omitted 
 (§ 637, 2). 
 
 638.] Singular First Person. 
 
 1. -aco is always contracted^, e.g. Anakr. 192 koXvjjljSu), Hrd. 
 3gg (ria)7ra), 524 ^P(^} Hdt. VI 130 eyyvco, IV 36 yeAoi. 
 
 2. -€0D^, thougli thus written, is always monosyllabic in the 
 lyric poets of Ionic birth. ^iXeco Archil. 58^ (tetr.), Anan. 4^, 
 Anakr. 72 B, 94^ (eleg-.), Herodas igg and so 7^ where <pi\a} has 
 slipped in ; boKeco^ Anan. 5^, Solon 32^ (iamb, tetram., boK<a Fick), 
 Hrd. ijQ, 604, 742; alvfw Theog. 873 in n alone, Hrd. 3g2; oIk4m 
 Hrd. ij3, 222 (Theog. oIkS> 1210 in all MSS.). Anakreon has 
 also StocTKeo) 33, ixL(r((o 74^, Theognis olvo^apeoy 503 {AO), Hrd. 
 reXio) 2^^, /uerpeco 65, vKaKTco) 6^^, (pcaveca 547^ 75- 
 
 In the spurious Anakreontics we find SoKew 287, iroOeo} 4O1, (pt\ew 4O3 («j^^-). 
 
 -eo) is the ending in Ionic prose : boKeco Hdt. I 8, &c., Hekat. 
 331, Hippokr. V J96, 714, Lukian V. A. § 14, Hdt. TroJui I 38, 
 roeco VII 8 (a), €TTLvoi(a III 134, &c., Hippokr. CTrati'eco II 244. 
 
 3. -oco^ = a): StKatw Hdt. Ill 142, &c. 
 
 639.] Singular Second Person. 
 
 1. opas^ Archil. 87^, 882, Anakr. ig. Fit. Aact. 4; Hipponax 
 apeias 65, Trepvas 52 (conj.), Anakr. ^/3as 182, Herodas ycXqs 2^4, 
 epas 2^9, Hdt. viKas I 40, XP^? I^ ^55^ ^^^'- Anct, 13 (pu>Tqs. 
 
 2. Koe?? Anakr. 42, SoKeet? 752, ^tAets Theog. 88, 6ju,tAeTs 1377 
 (-e'eis here impossible); Herodas has Soxetj igg, 342, 517, '<f)apap- 
 rets (?) 54a? ''''oers 6^^, (piXels 643, apaOpeHs 6g. In Hdt. the 
 incorrect -eeis is more frequent than -els : 8oKeet? I 27, 207, 
 III 34, IV 126, VII 237, vohis VII 38 (evvoel VII 237), but 
 ^Tjreis I 32 in all MSS. and in Stobaios, (fyXvrjpeis VII 103 (B). 
 Good MS, evidence supports api6p.eis and 8oKets Vit. Anct. § 4, 
 
 ^ Vat. 694 cites as Ionic fiodw parallel to the open irotew and xp^f^ou. An 
 open -aoi is unknown in post-Homeric Ionic. The Doric A&j is called Ionic in 1 
 An. Ox. I 7931. 
 
 '■' KaXiw Hdn. I 444i3, II 3322 (Et. Gud. 29441), oSj/ceoi Hdn. II 33I25, oKviu* 
 II 267,4 (,Et. M. 62O45), (piKeui, yofw Apollon. Adv. 14311 (Schn.), (ppoveco, vofU' 
 Joh. Gr. 242, Meerm. 653, iroiew Vat. 694. 
 
 "* Cf. Peace 46 'Iwvik6s ris <pr}(n irapaKaOrj/jLeyos " SoKeai fj.4v, is KAe'cora rovr 
 alviaa-fTai ..." Open -eoo may occur in lyric passages in tragedy : KoAeoi | 
 Agamein. 147. 
 
 * XpvffScc Vat. 694 does not exist. 
 
 ^ Karopas (Anakr.) Joh. Gr. 240, aTtfiSs An. Par. Ill 35O23 {arifieis Aiolic,i 
 aTi/xo7s Attic). 
 
[640.] CONTRACT VERBS: INDICATIVE ACTIVE. 537 
 
 iroids § 6 (in C). In Plippokr. ep. 14 (IX 338) we find ^eojuaxeis, 
 but -eets is more common (e.ff. SoKeeis IX 360). 
 3. biKaiols Hdt. VII 159. 
 
 640.] Singular Third Person. 
 
 1. opq'^ Sim. Amorg. 7^5, g^,, Theog". 168^ Solon 13^^, Hdt. I 10, 
 Diog-. Apoll. 6, Ion i ; Hippon. 76 Aatjua (conj.), Theog. 320 
 ToX^Jiq, Solon I3j5 TeXivrq, Hrd. I,j^ ivyeXq, 3g op/xa, 799 ^otra, 
 7g^ epS, Hdt. I 55, &c. XP^} VIII 69 ea, Demokr. 15 vlkS., 71 
 dwa, Hippokr. VII 578 efepS, II 40 kiOiq. 
 
 2. The only case of open -e'ei in the post-Homeric authors here 
 investigated is SoKeet Theog. 221, which is a reproduction of the 
 epic form in Z 338, 4' 470, a 376, e 360^ &c. (nine times in all). 
 Homer employs also 8oKet M 215, v 154, &c., but never boKeei. 
 This hoKeei appears at the end of a trimeter in Hipponax 74, 
 though Sim. Amorg. 7jQg, and Solon 1343, have 8oKeT in the same 
 place. The form with synizesis in the former poet (19) is also 
 improbable. Solon has So/cei l/xjuei^ai in 1 339, but the passage is 
 spurious, and Herodas the same form V 3 (8o(cet Bergk). The 
 only other trace of a possible -eei is (^tAeet Anakr. yo, where the 
 dactylo-epitritic permits ^tAeet (cf. the metre of 71). -ei is found 
 at the verse end in Archil. 116 epod. [KaOaipu), 69 tetr. (fTrt/cparei), 
 Sim. Amorg. 7gg {4>opd), 727 {vod as Sim. Keos (?) 853), Theog. 
 1270, 1368 ((^tAet)^, Anakr. 2i-,3 (^opei). Other cases of -et 
 are k-napK^i Solon 5i (-e'et impossible), dpxet Hrd. 53, cnrapKel 3g3, 
 evTvx^ Sim. Amorg. 7g3, dypet Theog. 294, (fypovel Theog. 395. 
 Herodas has alvel 4^7, airet 3jf,, I'/^ei 333, KaAet 556' '''■otet 786- 
 
 On an Hellenistic inscription (Ephesos I47g) dating about 
 300 B.C. we find biaTeXd, and reAet on one from Teos [Mi/tA. XVI 
 292 (1. 8, 12)] from the fourth century. 
 
 Herodotos: (1) -eet preceded by a consonant is left uncon- 
 tracted in yu>piti I 192, ay-qkaTiti V 72 (only occurrence of 
 the present in classic Greek), but the correct form appears in 
 KLvd III 80, dTTOorepet VI 65, fxaprypd VIII 94 in all MSS., 
 and in some : Kt,vd II 68 [PRdz), airuyOel II 25 (CBd), abiKel VII 
 10, 77 (PR), papTvpd II 18 [f]), xa)per II 96 (C), hoKO. Ill 5 {AB). 
 (2) -e'et, preceded by 01, is retained in the MSS. in ttoUh I 142, 
 II 25, III 47, IV 26, &c. (cf. TToikiv in Hdt.). Preceded by 0, 
 -eet contracts in ewoet VII 237 (but voe'ets VII 38 !). Cf. the 
 forms after o in the infinitive and in the imperfect. The con- 
 tracted forms are correct. 
 
 In the editions of other Ionic prosaists we find the open forms 
 where the MSS. often pronounce in favour of the contraction. 
 
 ' Joh. Gr. 240. 
 
 ^ ^(Aei Theog. 1255 is possibly Solonian. 
 
538 THE IONIC DIALECT. [641. 
 
 ayi/oe? Euseb. Myiid. 54 ; dSi/cei Demokr. 203 ; af/uoppoe? Hippokr. V 606, 618, 
 626, 726; a\ye7 Melissos 4, 11 (MuUach aXyfoi), 13 (.Mullach -e'et) -e'ei, Aret. 
 69 ; a\vKTf7 Hippokr. VIII 30 (an epic verb : near by is ajxevrivd ; avaipei 
 Pherekyd. of Leros 4S, Hippokr. V 624; apKe7 Hippokr. VI 210 (6) ; 70^1x6? 
 Pherek. Lcros 22, 40, 4S, 55 (Atticized fragments), 85 ; SoKt? Hekat. 332, 
 Melissos 17, Demokr. 184, 185, 188, 208, Diog. Apoll. 2, 3, 6 bis, Arrian 94,5; 
 open SoKeei in Demokr. 25, 161 (Demokrates\ Diogen, Apoll. i (Diog. Laert.), 
 Lukian V. A. 13, Hippokr. II 38, 52, 56, 60, 76, 78, 128, 244, 250, 288, III 
 228, V 696. The vulgate of Hippokr. sometimes has -e?. In VI no A, iu 
 276 C has So/cet; e'laj/ee? Hippokr. V 710 ; elapHreTHerakl. 91 ; eirfSTj/xel Hippokr. 
 II 20; e:rj6i;/x€r Demokr. 71 ; /cpaTe? Anax. 6, Herakl. 91, -e'ei Hippokr. II 38; 
 /lapTvpe? Herakl. 3 (Clemens, Theod.) ; ixaTaioiroueti Demokr. 59 ; oj/ce? Demokr. 
 I, Pherek. Leros 16, 20 ; 6/xo\oye7 Melissos 17, -eei Herakl. 45 (in Hippol. -eW); 
 ■7rapaKo\ovef7 Hippokr. V 632 ; ttoiu Anax. 11, Demokr. 35, 88, 133, Hippokr. 
 
 II 256 (in A) Arrian 475 ; Troieei Demokr. 24, Hippokr. II 20, 298, 358, 374, 
 
 III 220 bis, 242, 258, V 656, 726 (-poet same page); avix<pwvi7 Hekat. 144; 
 TaKanrwpe7 Demokr. 184; <pi\e7 Herakl. 10 (-eej 117"), Demokr. 20, 235 ; x«P" 
 Meliss. 14, Diog. 2, Anax. 6 (-e'ei Hippokr. VIII 30 and often) ; w(pe\e7 Hippokr. 
 V 646, 650, 708, 720, but -hi II 12S, 138, V 196 {oDx^uTo same page), 622 bis, 
 710. 
 
 In a majority of eases Hippokrates has -e'et. a\Xo(})poveeL VII 
 30 is an interesting use of an epic verb. Aretaios has about 130 
 cases of -eet to 20 of -et. An unusual form in Aret. is viei 274 , 
 = the poetical vUrai. Lukian's St/r. dea has only open forms, . 
 Arrian 14 cases of -eet to 4 of -et. 
 
 3. aaol Theog. 868, aixavpoi Solon 435, eTrtAo^oi Hrd. 47U 
 -nXripoi Hdt. II '] , hr\Xol II 44, Hippokr. V 634, Vit. Horn. 37, 
 opQoi Demokr. 1 28. 
 
 641.] Plural First Person. 
 
 1. Hdt. lQi\xiv 11 1 14 as in Homer, B 236, K 344, besides elcap-ev 
 a- 420, 260. Cf. Schmidt Neutra, p. 326. opSipiev is the read- 
 ing of all MSS. Hdt. I 120 (as regards -w/iei^) ; elsewhere ABB 
 have the contracted form, Cd -ico-, P -e'o-. 
 
 2. Kakeop^v Hdt. V 49, Hippokr. ep. 17,2, Aret. 25, voevpev 
 Solon 1333 (Attic Ka\ovpL€v Theog. 1207), Hrd. avrkevp-ev 4-^^, 
 Te\€vp.ev Class, liev. V 481, frag. 2^. On bpio\itv see § 688. 
 
 3. di]\ovp.€v, &c. 
 
 642.] Plural Second Person. 
 
 I. Spare Solon 11^, Siairare Hrd. 28g. 
 
 a. Kail. SoKcire I3, aibdaOe i, (where ee is metrically impos- 
 sible), Hdt. dapaUre IX 18, Troteere IV 136, &c.^, but avxdre VII 
 103 (in all MSS.), a reading rejected by Stein. We require the 
 contracted form. 
 
 3. a^LovTi Hdt. IV 115. 
 
 ^ Cf, also airiffriere. 
 
643-1 CONTRACT VERBS: INDICATIVE ACTIVE. 539 
 
 643.] Plural Third Person. 
 
 1. SpuxTLv Kail. 120; Solon 342, tlixSjo-i Tyrt. 1237, Tlieog-. 169, 
 Hdt. II 50 {CP -ecrio-t, cf. § 688), Herakl. 103. Hdt. has also 
 (Two-i I 200 from a-doi siff^, (uktl II ^6, ^o(a<Ti III 117 (Sim. 
 Keos ii46)j vlkGxtl VIII 94, Hijipokr. TeAeurwcn V 598, 624, 
 ri^Qat II 23. 
 
 ko/llSokti Hdt. IV 191, adopted by Stein from all MSS. except R, is an epic 
 form here out of place. So koix6covt€s in Arrian 34^, 353, and afj.<()a<t>6ou(n Aret. 
 141. araKaovaiv Astrol. 19 is an error ^cf. Lobeck Rhemat. J 75). 
 
 2. Open forms in -iovai {y—<S) are very rare in the lyric 
 poets : hoKiovcn Phokyl. 9 (hex.), Kakiovai Xenoph. 2^ — the only 
 iinstances in poets of Ionic birth — and a-Tvyiovcr Theog-. 278. 
 -euo-t occurs in (ppovevcrt Archil. 7O3 (tetr.). It is interesting to 
 observe that Herakleitos 5, where he states a belief in opposi- 
 ition to that expressed in the fragment of Archilochos, employs 
 \^povlov(Ti. Theog. has (pi\ev(nv 169, 337, 871, Anakr. (?) yoip^vai 
 
 1083 eleg., Hrd. anapKivcTiv 3g, KaroiK^vcriv ^^q, TroieCo-t 6gg, TTop- 
 6^v\cnv\ 6j(jj, Kallim. II 82 ayinvai. dcroixytvaiv Prometk. 123 
 (anap.) is from i 130. 
 
 Solon's verse {1^^ containing TrXovrivcriv is reproduced in Theog. 315 where 
 vXovTQvffiv is read. The existence of Kvirpoyivovs 261, and iKvovyrai 424, make 
 it probable that Solon used here the genuine Attic form in -ovffiv, which was 
 expelled on the ground that he was entirely dependent upon Ionic models. 
 irXovTovffiv stands in Solon 24i = Theognis 719, aSiKovcri in 402 ^reading eV ffwSSots 
 6* ots aSiKovci (l>iKovs for Bergk's eV cTvvSSois rfis &5ik iffrl (p'lAa). Forms in 
 •ovffiv occur elsewhere : (ppovovcriu Hipponax 73 tr., (payovffi 82 tetr. are clearly 
 due to an Attic copyist ; Theognis has reXouffi. 142, ^rjTovcnu 684. Perhaps we 
 should read naTayeva-Lv for Eustathios' iraTayoviny in Anakr. 6^. SiareKova-Lv 
 Ephesos 1475 is Attic also. 
 
 Hdt, has -eov- over 360 times in the 3rd plural and particij^le in 
 other verbs than -jroteco. In the case of noiioi, nouvcri^ is so much 
 more frequent, that ttoUovo-l in I 71, II 121, where there is no 
 isupport for -ev-, should perhaps be corrected. So too voeovcn III 
 181 (but cf. voiovcra VIII loi). Exceptional, on the other hand, 
 |in having -ey-are /caAeuo-i II 94 (with v. I. -iovcri in C), AerjAareSo-t 
 III 152, rjVLOx^evcTL IV 193, TTcoAeCcri V 6, eTTireAeSo-t V 49, 8tare- 
 iMvai VII III, all these verbs having a consonant before e. 
 \-ovai is best supported in Koafxovcn III 34 (all MSS, except E). 
 
 -iova-i is very frequent in the other monuments of Ionic prose, 
 le.ff. Demokr. (fyiXiovat yo, tioviovcri 87, kTndv\xiovcn 47, aa-Kiovcri 
 
 * Hippokr. has both ffdw and (T-i]6w {ffio-ttixevos and creffTjfffifyos). 
 
 ^ Scarcely any passage has not the v.l. -4ovffi, which occurs most frequently 
 in R, often also in Pd, rarely in ABC (II 49, 60, VI 138). Twice at least R 
 alone has -eCtr* (,1V 146, VII 148). 
 
540 THE IONIC DIALECT. [644. . 
 
 103, TTjpiovcn 126, (Toxfypoveovcn 137; a-nopiovcri 168, evhaiyioviovcri 
 5 (MSS. -0V-); Hekat. oiKiovai 67, 78, 114, 175 (Steph. Byz.), 
 but olKovdiv 173 (Atbenaios and Steph. Byz.), b\xovpiov(n 190, 
 195, (f)op€ov(Ttv 189, KaTokiovaiv 290 (Atlien.); Anaxag-. kKyjjd- 
 piovai () ; Herakleitos hoKiovcn 5? 132, (^poveovcn 5j ^yKvpiovcri. I 
 5 (MSS. -0V-), TToUova-iv 2 (MSS. -0V-), op-iKiova-t 93 (MSS. -ov-); ' 
 Charon of Lampsakos 2 has knavayoipovai though Plutarch has ; 
 in the same fragment jSaatXritov; Hellanikos avdeovcn. A thorough i 
 investigation of Hippokrates does not exist. Our impression is i; 
 that -€ov<n is more frequent than ev for eo. Examples may he ' 
 found II 28, 76, 78, 86, no, 128, 130, 132, 154, 158, 166, 176 i 
 (iToUovaL), 178, 184, 262, 290, 312, VI 100 (the poetic Tpop-eco),] 
 294 (cLKeo), the only occurrence of the present active), 494 (8ii;ea), | 
 a rare verb in prose), IV 192 {anoTiKripiovcnv, if not from TrAr^pooo), ' 
 
 In Arrian the MSS. generally have the Attic form. boKfovai 1 
 Aret. 248. I 
 
 Forms in -evat are rare : Tiouvat Demokr. 66 in Stobaios (with 
 which cf. TTouovrrt Hippokr. II 18, 76, 296), btovpevcn Hippokr. 
 II 38, with ovpiovcTLv on the same page, p-Laevaiv IX 364, 
 TaXaLTToipevaLv II 64, olKevaiv II 68, btaTeXeva-Lv II 238, KaXevaiv 
 II 410. 
 
 3. a^Lova-L Priene 1449, Hdt. Ill 20, opOovcnv Archil. 56^, tetr., ; 
 aaovaL Tyrt. 1 1 13, ap.avpovcnv Hippokr. II 84. ; 
 
 Siihjutictive. i 
 
 644.] Singular First Person. 
 
 I. TToteco Hdt. IX 79 (hence dh5> II 114 is probably incorrect).; 
 
 645.] Singular Second Person. 
 
 1. Tip.q.'s, &c. 
 
 2. Herodotos has o-TpaTrjXaTe'ps VII 1 4, the contracted and 
 correct form in irotf/s III 36, VII 235 (so in the archetype MS.)/ 
 Demokr. 24 has k-mOvp-iris , Hippokr. II 256 a^atpe?/?, LukiaiT 
 S^r. clea 32 kaophj'i (§ 688). In the plural ayiv7]re Hrd. 355. 
 
 646.] Singular Third Person. ; 
 
 I. etpcora Theog. 519, bpa Theog. 932, Sim. Amorg. 7i-. ! 
 
 3. On inscriptions we find l-niKakrji Halik. 238^3, hoKrii Olynth, 
 8 B 14, apL(f)ial3aTriL Zeleia 11318, TrotT/t Chios 174 C 9, tepoTroi?) , 
 Miletos lOOg, (Tvvxoop^'i Orop. i8;i^.2o, irapd 1825, ei T^^3i = ''l 
 Halik. 2383^. On ei<T7i, see § 239, 2. In the poets we observ( 
 only -r/ : — boKfj Sim. Amorg. 7^,3, TrpoeK-jTovfj 22, yapf] Hippon. 
 
 I 
 
648.] CONTRACT VERBS : SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE, 54T 
 
 292- In Theog. 1166 A has obovs reXerji, the other MSS. 6hov 
 TeXerj (0 reXeot?). Neither reading- makes sense and Bergk 
 edits crreAArj. In 929 the MSS. have el ixkv ... -nKovTeis ... i]v he 
 irevT^ai where there is no reason to chang-e to rjv irXovrfj^. In 96 
 we have (ppovfj, 609 TTpoaoixapTfj, 1008 vofj (Mimn.) In the last 
 instance a vowel precedes the contracted syllable^ as in voel 
 (indie.) Sim. Amorg. 727. Solon has Kivfj 123, yeycovfj 42^, 
 Herodas ahfj 2^^, Xa\fj 6^^. 
 
 The MSS. of Herouotos vary between -e?j and -fj. The former 
 occurs, if we exclude the subjunctives from -eFca verbs (§ 637, 2), 
 seven times : iroiej] I 2c6^, biareXej] I 32, boKeji I 122, IV 120, crvvoi- 
 Key] II 120, oiKeij VIII 106, a-Tratre?/ VI 86 [a], the contracted seven 
 times: olKoboixfj I 21, Trotr) III 69, eTn(i]Tfj III 36, tto^tJ III 36, 
 alpf] IV 127, 8oKr] VII 10' (8) in ABCd, and IX 48. Tliere is no 
 support for the view that after vowels -fj, after consonants -h] 
 was the Herodoteian form. In the aorist passive -h] is invariably 
 contracted, and -ij is the only correct form here. 
 
 In the texts of other Ionic prosaists we usually find -ej], often- 
 times against the MSS. Demokr. aStKerj 213 (Stob. -17), boKeti 
 188 (Stob. -fj). Hippokrates has very many examples of -eri 
 [e.g. II 38, 114, 122, 146, 156, 158, 160, 180, 186, III 102, 216, 
 232, 238, 254, 258, 260, VII 74, 76, V 618, 660). Forms in 
 -17 are very rare : -noOfj II 360, -napaKokovOf] V 668, ox^fj V 704, 
 pLyfj V 706. 
 
 Luk. laropei] Sj/r. (lea 32, eiratver] ^6, but opfj 31, 32, 48. 
 Aretaios o-xdey] 134 (rare and late use of this form of the 
 present; cf. 183 when a-xOeei and d)(^6eTaL occur in close 
 proximity). We have noted in Aretaios -77 on pp. 91, 92, loi, 
 114,165, 168, 245, 270, 279, -ej] on 10, 22^ 68, 69, 70, 71, 270. 
 
 3. Hdt. IX 93 bLKUtol. 
 
 647.] Plural First Person. 
 
 ! I. Anakr. 63^^ [xeXeTu>ixev. 
 
 2. Theog. 1 134 Cv^&ixev in the first foot, Hdt. Troteco/xey I 159. 
 
 648.] Plural Third Person. 
 
 1. TijjiSxnv in the MSS. of Solon 13, ^ is now generally read 
 \xeTmcnv. Bergk^s suggestion of juwcocrt is not in keeping with 
 the dialect of the elegiac poets, who do not adopt the epic distrac- 
 tion of vowels. Hdt. (pvpSxn II '^6, &c. 
 
 2. Archil. eyKvpecoatv 7O3 tetr., Ananias rpaireMai ^^, irareMa-iv 
 54 tetr. Hence hoKSxnv Sim. Amorg. 75,^ is to be read hoKec^aiv. 
 ■napaiiiTvSxn Samos 220.^p is Attic, but TrcokecocTLv Teos, Mitth. 
 XVI 292, 1. 8 (and ecocrt 1. 4) is the regular Ionic form. 
 
 ^ This is the only instance where er; iu the verb -koUw is supijorted by all 
 
 the MSS. 
 
542 THE IONIC DIALECT. [649. 
 
 In Hdt. eco is not contracted in the MSS. except in the case 
 of TTeptTTotwo-t VIII 76, where the contraction may be due to thai 
 influence of the neighbouring Sta^^eipcoo-t. Cf. Trote'coo-t IV in. 
 In Hippokr. -e'coo-t is without exception, e.g. II 142, 156, 162, 186. 
 
 Optative. 
 
 649.] Singular First Person. 
 
 Verbs in -a(a always contract^. From -eco verbs we have 
 boKeoijXL Theog. 339, but ttoloIixl Hdt. V 106 (PE -ioifxC). eot 
 after a vowel probably contracts in this verb in Hdt. In pseudo- , 
 Ionic sources open forms are common, e.g. Euseb. Mynd. i kinQv- '. 
 lX€Oi}xi, iirapKioLixi, a(JKioi\xi, alveoLjxi, but also epi^rjv, VLKMrjv, rt/xcoiji;, 
 KpaTOLrjP, 7:po9viJLOL)]v, aTToaTvyoLi]v. Hippokrates makes frequent! 
 use of -oL-qv, whereas Herodotos prefers the -ot/xi ending. See 
 § 651. I 
 
 650.1 Singular Second Person. I 
 
 1. The only possible case of the open form in the later poetical 
 monuments is 7;/3aot? Theog. 877, which is now abandoned for 
 ?;/3a //ot. The v. I. 7;/3wots is not to be defended, since the dis- 
 tracted verbs form no part of the linguistic apparatus of the 
 elegy. In 107 Theognis has d/xw?. j 
 
 a. Theog. has reAeot? 926 and v. I. (in 0) 1166. Lukian hasj 
 8oKeois S//r. (lea 46, Hippokr. Trjpoir]^ I 634, kvvooir\^ III 2,^4,'. 
 aloipoiri'i VII 524, btappouis VI 84, but w^eAeots VII 34 (d). ! 
 
 651.] Singular Third Person. 
 
 1. -W77 in vLKiori Tyrt. 124, ottto)?] Hdt. VIII 137, ivopco-q I 89. 
 biaLTwrj Hippokr. II 254, -w in vlk<^ Xenoph. 2^1. No ease of -eot 
 for -0) occurs in the active. ' 
 
 ffafo7 ( = f(jj^oO'j tli6 reading of Eoehl and Roberts, is not adopted bj] 
 Bechtel (No. 5). He adopts Saaa foi on the ground that troos, ffcis neveh 
 contained a f. For this view, cf. § 277, Philol. Am. 1886, 14 note 8. Ficl 
 explains the o) in (roxppoveiv Sim. Amorg. 7i^g, &c., as originating from o(rol 
 Phokylides (gO alone has the open cra6(ppoves. ! 
 
 2. Teos 156 A 2 ■noLol, but avoiOeoCi], 1. 1 1 (whose eot is a lega, 
 archaism); in 1. 4 of 156 B, Roehl supplies [d77et^eo]i?7, Boeckl' 
 [dTTet6o][ri ; avvreXoLi] Teos 158^^ (Attic)^, 6801?; (?) Roberts 1 15c 
 (Amorgos). Theog. (f)Lkol 11 19, Tyrt. ttXovtou] i2g, Solon a-vp.-, 
 [laprvpoirj '^6 trim., a form suspected by Renner (p. 42) on th(, 
 
 ' ayaircf-nu Et. M. 6^, Et. Gud. 3,6, An. Ox. II 33800. ; 
 
 ^ iinopKo 1]t]v C. I. A. II 57812 is the only example of the optative of I'i 
 contract verb we have met with on a purely Attic inscription. 
 
6S3-] CONTRACT VERBS: OPTATIVE ACTIVE. 543 
 
 ground that it is not in line with the lonisms of vv, 1 1 and 1 2, 
 and of 37. It may however be regarded as the earliest proof in 
 Attic of the transferring- of the -trj of non-thematic verbs to the 
 ^ \ verba contracia, a phenomenon that grew apace in the Attic 
 dialect though it was but sparingly adopted by Herodotos, and 
 old-fashioned in the Ionic of the fifth century. See Kutherford's 
 Phrpiichus, p. 442 ff. on the optatives in -trj in Attic. Tyrtaios' 
 irkovToij] may be regarded as an imitation o^(popoiri i 320 (though 
 this is the only case in Homer of this class of new forms) and 
 not as a Dorism (cf. dhiKoir] in Kretan, C. I. G. 25564^). 
 
 In Hdt. -eot is not contracted after consonants : KaXioi I 11, 
 IokIol I 24 ; after vowels, to avoid hiatus, ttoioT II 169, -noiol or 
 TToiotTj VI -^^ as Stein reads. This would be the only case of 
 -oiTj in Hdt. In VI ■^^ Dobree read -n-otrj. The first person is 
 
 TTOlolnL V 106 (§ 649). 
 
 The coexistence of KaAe'ot and ■jroto'i in Herodotos is paralleled 
 by that of dvoaOeoir] and ttoioi in the Teian inscription of the fifth 
 century. Merzdorf, Stein, G. Meyer and others accept the con- 
 traction of €oL to ot after vowels as genuine Ionic, but hold the 
 uncontracted forms to be equally genuine. While this is not 
 disputed, the uncontracted KaXioi, &c., represent an antiquated 
 orthography. Cf. § 637, i (2), end. 
 
 Hippokrates and the other writers of prose often have -eot, but 
 -017] is preferred, at least by Hippokrates. Thus ^vv<jo(j)€kou] IV 
 132, TrpocruxpeXoLri II 356, but l//Trote'ot ibid, according to Littre, 
 where A has -Dotrj. ttoloCt] is correct ; cf. IV 82. l-nix^ipoir] I 572, 
 ampoiT] VII 522 (an unusual verb in classic Greek), 1-niKpa.Tobf] 
 VI 82, aljjLOppayoiri IV 112, dypvuvoir] II 1 36, dirooOoiri IV 226, 
 304 (in BMN, Littre -eot) but dvT(x>6ioi IV 82 on the same page 
 with TTototrj. Cf. pocpoLT) and yoipioi VII 608. w^eAe'ot is certain 
 in III 524, e//e'ot II 144, eKxojpe'ot II 160, SoKe'ot II 14, IV 92, 
 Iwhereas Herakleitos B. M. XV 605 has hoKoi-q. Melissos 13 has 
 akyioi twice according to Simplicius, and also in 4 according to 
 Mullach; Lukian Sj/r. dea 19 aTteiOioL. 
 
 3. -0(1} verbs have -ot and -otr/. 
 
 652.] Plural First Person. 
 
 T. -w/iey e.ff. viKwp,ev. ipi^fxev Sim. Amorg. r 23 (others ipol[xev). 
 
 2. Sim. Amorg. (})povoLiJiev 2,^, I7j3 ^vvepyoiiMev. 
 
 3. -oljxev in brjXolpiev, &c. 
 
 653.] Plural Third Person. 
 
 1. Theog. 81 ToXp.(2ev, Hdt. IX 69 viKwev. 
 
 2. Anakr. (f)iXoUv 45 j, Hrd. reXoZ^v %^. Such forms as 
 Herodotos' (jypoveouv I 46, VIII 34, TroUoiev VII 103, 208, IX 
 104 represent conservative spellings of the fifth century, if 
 
544 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [654- 
 
 indeed they may claim admittance into the text at all ; of. 
 6€u>pol€v VIII 26 (R has decapeotev), dSt/cotey I 196, V 84, e7nx.ei- 
 polev IX 54 {AB), TTotoUv V 75. Anaxag-. 17 has KaKoUv, 
 Herakl. R. 31. XV 605 airaroUv (sic, -wev ?), Hippokr. V 662 
 boKoUv. The longer forms of this conjug-ation are still in their 
 infancy in Homer. 
 
 Imperative. 
 
 654.] Archil, eleg-. (potra 4^, tetram. |a 51, 6pa ^4, aaxd^a 65g, 
 Theog. 1 151 epevva, 877 (cf. 1070) 7]f3a p.oL by conjecture for 
 ■i]j3doLS or i7/3c.jots. Hrd. ed T^g, eipdora 3^3, Kv(3€pvaT€ S^qq, Hdt. 
 opa III 134, TTpoaboKa I 42, &C. 
 
 655.] Upon inscriptions we find reXetVco Erythr. 204^ and 
 hence e7rtKaA[et]raj Halik. 238^^ ; avvTekeiTOio-av Teos 158^3 andi 
 eirt- 1. 25 are Attic. 
 
 (a) Forms in -ee. 6/xtAee Theog. 37. (/3) Forms in -ei. Archil. 
 ay pet 4^ eleg., in the first thesis ; Theog. Trpocro/xtAet || 31, o/xtAet || 
 597j 1243, djjidpTei II 1 165, kinyjeipei \\ 75 ; 'nivd^i 830, o)(0et 1033, 
 avAet 1056 have their et in the first thesis; 80/cet 63, second] 
 thesis, 310 II where <^ w w was metrically impossible. Solon j 
 Kpdrei II 36^3 tr. (Blass with one MS. KpciTi]), Tyrt. klv^lto) 1I26JI 
 Theog. olvo)(oeLT(ti 473? Tyrt. Oapa-elr Ilg^ ^lAoxp-uxetre lO,g. In| 
 the case of kiv^Itm and dapa-dr the open forms were metrically] 
 possible, but as in Homer the contract forms are written. Hrd. 
 has evTV)(^et Igg, KcxAet 59? X'^P^' ^74^ ^^-f TfAetVo) 2^g, SoKctre 292. 
 The proj)ortion of open to contract forms in Homer is somewhat! 
 greater than that in the lyric poets. Homer has 32 forms in; 
 -61, three in -ee (77 303, K 249, 4> 288), -etro) 5 times, ei in thel'j 
 dual 3 times, -eire 6 times in plural. j 
 
 It is to be lamented that we have no example of the imperative! 
 in an ear]||^ iambic fragment, otherwise we might estimate thejj 
 value of the Herodoteian forms in -ee, which, if genuine, stand jj 
 in sharp contrast at least to the elegiac use. But if the elegy j 
 has -et, except in a single instance, it is highly probable that,! 
 iambic poetry would have only -ei. Herodotos has o-r/oar?]AdTeei| 
 I 124, V 31, VII 5, 10 (6), XLirdpee V 19, irapaivee VIII 143, 
 (TVi'OLKee IX III (dis), iroUe I 124 (l^is), 209, V 40, VII 18, VIII; 
 100, IX 91, TTote'ere IV 98, but ttoUl I 8, 206 ( J^P), VIII 140 aj 
 (AB). Other forms are read with -ee by Stein [Odpa^i I 9, 120,! 
 IX 76 though in all the MSS., Ill 85 ABR, i.e. in the arche- 
 typal MS. according to Stein; w^et III 78, X'^P^'- ^ 7^' ^or\Qii\ 
 VII 157, 159 (as Hippokr. IX 350), hv(Tdvp.H VIII 100). Id^ 
 the plural Hdt. has avyw^ Vll 103 in all MSS., rejected 
 
658.] CONTRACT VERBS: INFINITIVE ACTIVE. 545 
 
 by those who hold that the evidence of Oapaiere IX 18, &c., 
 is all-conclusive. Merzdorfi (p. 148) attempts fruitlessly to 
 find a reason why Hdt. should use the imperative in -et in one 
 instance, that in -ee in another. The former only is correct^. 
 
 In Hippokrates we find ttoUl VII 428, VIII 162 (Trotet 6), 
 jpo<^etra) II 276 (A), VIII 92 (6), VII 328 {vnlffo, -ee- /), e/xeeVco 
 VII 74. Demokritos (Demokrates) 177 aaKeiTco, Euseb. Mynd. 
 fuyXcopeeTO) 20, Kvp^irui 44. In the plural : (pojBeovTcov Hdt. VII 
 
 235- 
 
 656.] (TTpej3\ov Hrd. 2^9, a(})LbpovT(a Hippokr. II 516, Oropos 
 
 Infinitive. 
 
 657.] opav Samos 2153, Xenoph. 2g, Hdt. I ^^, ^oirav Oropos 
 182; Hdt. 1 182, viKav Solon 5g, Demokr. 75, ri^av Anakr. 242, 44. 
 
 658.] In the inscriptions occur : eTriKaXeti; Halik. 23845, a form 
 unjustly suspected by Renner, p. 39, who assumes that one E 
 might have been omitted from ETTIKAAEN^. But the con- 
 traction is supported not only by kiriKaXrii 23823, &c., but also by 
 hhiK^iv Mylasa 248 A 9, B 8, 9, C 11, and a-KOTT^lv Orop. 1843, 
 emrt^ety Orop. 1825, (KriOelv 1^40 ) ^i^X^'^^ Keos 4322 j iTnTekeiv 
 Erythr. 20429, not to speak of other inscriptional forms such as 
 hca-TJareL Zeleia 114 B I, TeAeiVco Erythr. 2049. I. Gr. A. 489 
 (Didyma) has ttolE^v) = Troieiy. An Ionic -eav is not to be defended 
 by aTTocrtvieLv C. I. A. II 8342^ (330-300 B. c), the only example. 
 
 Lyric poets : Sim. Amorg. o)(})e\eXv 79^, Ovixrihelv 7io3J o-oicppoveXv 
 7ios; Hippon. pv^eT:^ 132; Hrd. Kivelv ^.^j Solon KoapLelv 4^^, Cv'^'^^ 
 27iq; Xenoph. aivelv ijg; Theog. boKciv 405, <^i\elv 874, 1092, 
 1094, 1258 (MSS.), 1364, -novdv 919, evhoKip^elv 587; Anakr. 
 bia-Kelv 4O3. 
 
 In but two instances does the ill-famed form -htv appear : 
 Archil. 64 KepTO[x€€iv and 0tAeetv 80, where the shorter forms are 
 required by the metre. In the first instance Keprofxhiv is found 
 in Clem. Alex, and Schol. Odyssey x 4I2; Stobaios has -dv. 
 The longer forms may have been introduced by scribes who had 
 the epic and supposed Herodoteian -eety in mind. 
 
 * After alluding to the fact that the quick utterance of the imperative 
 demands the contraction, he says : Accedit, quod praeter Sv(T6vjj.ei breviora tantum 
 vocabula contradam prae se ferunt formam ddpcrei, &0€i et quod non negligendum ^o-fiOei, 
 cum in longioribus (TTpaT-nAdree ^c. quae ipsa natura ad vocandum et ad celerius 
 ■pronuntiandum minus apia sunt itaque in lentiore quoque oratione assumi possunt, 
 semper ee appareat. 
 
 ^ y6ei, <pp6vei Joh. Gr. 240 B. 
 
 ' A supposed {^anlvveev Roberts I 2614 (Naxos) gives no support to this 
 assumption. 
 
 N n 
 
54^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [6^i: 
 
 Herodotos : -eetr occurs (i) after consonants e.ff. in alricLv I 2, c 
 a-nairUiv I 2, 3, &c. But the correct forms in -dv are no 
 infrequent. We find the following cases in which all the MSS 
 agree: — evhelv I n^ (icpr^ixdv III 38, h'ejxdv II 172, TroAe/jieti 
 V 120, TTjpe'iv IX 104. In seven other cases there is som' 
 support for -ety in the MSS. (2) After the diphthong 
 eet holds its place in TroueLP^, which is attested as the soli 
 Herodoteian form in over a hundred passages. After 0, €>' 
 suffers contraction in Karavoelv II 28 (c/), 93 [P Rd), ayvoi.lv I 
 162 in all MSS., tvvofXv IX 79 {PR). The contracted forms ai 
 correct. | 
 
 Other prose writers : Herakleitos b\xoXoyhiv 1 is due 1 
 Bernays, \xoy6iiv 82, ttouIv 94, 107, <T(jij(f)pov€iv 106, IC] , (}>pov€lv 9 
 {vulgo) ; Demokritos, according to Stobaios and other excerptor 
 in the following forms has -dv : -noidv 100, 208, 235, ifXTroU 
 2O4 (in A"), eTTLKaivovpy^lv 20j7, virovpyelv 2I5> kTiiBvixuv 4J,(Ppove 
 73' ^39} ^OKelv 92, €TTaivelv I20, (vepyerelv 197, Tipioopelv 20 
 dStKety 206, irpoTeXilv 215, offKepSety 14, 7ro87]yeiv II, o)(etv I 
 TTOvelv 235, -e'ety in dStKe'etv 107, 109, 112, 205, aa-Kceiv 14 
 eTTt^v/xecty 83, ixeravoieLV 227, ayvoieiv 95> Kparieiv J J, dict^pU 
 20^^, ^vyyjapiiiv 44, KaKoiraOieiv 20^^; Anaxag. Kparelv 6, KLveiv 
 hoKelv 3, 4 in Simpl., who read Kparelv in Diog. Apoll. ( 
 Hekat. eKxcopelv ^^^, Ion (TTpaTi]y€LV and Troteii' I. i 
 
 In Hippokrates, Littre edits -e'ety even when -eti; has the bettj- 
 support, though such cases^ we think, are not frequent. It ji 
 common to find -elv in the vulgate, but the -eeu> forms preponders;; 
 over those in -elv. There is no genuine treatise in which -eeLvi 
 not more frequent. We believe this to be true also of the spurioli 
 tractates. We cite from Littre^'s text: II 12 Q^tUiv [-dv \, 
 14 (TKOTT^eiv (-etv ?), avafxerpieiv ^6 {rv/go -eiv), 82 Kwietv, If 
 I'oeety, 136 y^^copieiv, 138 and 7°^ iroveeiv, 138 ^poviav, I jS 
 alvieiv, 272 OKvhiv {fulgo -dv), 290 and 368 kva-LTeXeeiv (hvd'i 
 has -eu'^n 290), ^^6 (and III 58) iacpeXeeiv, 642 voainv ; III % 
 aXyiiiv, 242 fe'etr, 248, 258 alpeeiv. iroUeLv occurs in II 12, J 
 (Galen -dv), 264, III 234, 236, aliJioppoe'LvY 656, 724, 726, ox^'^ 
 626, (l)Xvi]pd.v, avepLclv 660, ^vohe't.v 664, 6iO)peiv 692, \j/Q(p€'iv 6<', 
 e/xeiy 710, appcoa-re'Lv 718, with 12 cases of -4etv in the Trpo". 
 KOiaKaL IV 640 shows dyioeti^ by the side of Troteei. 
 
 Lukian F. y/. 3 KaXenv, 4 apiOixleLv (v. I. -dv)'", -Ulv 17 timesa 
 the /Syy/a r/ea, twice in the AsfroL, Abydenos (.vTvxieiv. Arets.s 
 has 106 cases of -itiv, about 20 of -elv. Arrian has -Uiv 10, •jv 
 5 times. ' 
 
 I 
 
 ' Joh. Gr. 235, Gram. Leid. 628. I 
 
 ^ It is interesting to note that in § 4 the tendency to hyper-Ionize char 'd 
 in MS. V the apiOfxtTv of the ' Q.vi)Tis to apiOinfety. Or the -eeiv might have In 
 caused by the previous api.6fj.eitv (where XI has -e7y). 
 
 I( 
 
66l.] CONTRACT VERBS: PARTICIPLE ACTIVE. 547 
 
 659.] Verbs in -oco contract + e or ei (spurious) to ov ; in Hdt. 
 Kaii'ovv, k^opKovv (as Halik. 23826), x°^^} veoxfj-ovv IV 201 (the 
 only occurrence o£ this tense in classic Greek); apovv Tyrt. 5 
 Theog-. 582 ; pt^aiovv Halik. 240^, 5, and so hihovv Orop. i8^^, 
 
 3' 
 33* 
 
 Participle. 
 
 660.] Verbs in -au> always contract. vai^rAovres Sim. Keos 
 84, is not Later Ionic. ala-vp-vDA Teos 156 B 8-9 has been read 
 as -5>v, and hence i't[Ka)y] Samos I. G. A. 388 A. etVopcSt- Archil. 
 74g, kaopGiv Mimn. 52^ Trpoaopcov ibid, ig, opcovri Theog". 1059, 
 6pS)VT€s Sim. Amorg. y^-^^, Archil. vikSiv 66^, bpQvra 6^,^, Hipponax 
 fxabQvTa 23, Theog-. /Socavros 887, Anakr. o-KipToia-a 755, Solon 
 (Tiyuxia 4jg. 
 
 In Herodas we find bpu>vTa ^^st (pva-Mvres 2^^, aTravTuxra 5^5, 
 yeXwcra 6^^, Stc^wcr 6^3, Karayl/Sxra 6^^, irprjixovoicrav 6.,, TTTjSiScrat 4gj. 
 i In Ionic prose we encounter the variation between -aco and -ew 
 j verbs, on which see § 688. Certain examples of the former are 
 i t€K(vtS)V Hdt. Ill 6^, &c., -a>vTos I 24, &c., rt//£y III 21, IV 43, 
 rip,5)(Tav VI 52j TT/jocrSo/cwi' VII 235, ToXjjLOJVTas IV 150 (all MSS.), 
 all of which verbs show in other forms or in other places variants 
 I from -ect) verbs. The following verbs never have such variants : 
 I 6vpL(avT€sin. 107, ewy VII47, &c., ewresY g6, &c., ewo-aVIIIlOl, 
 \ ^o&vTas III yS, TTUvGivTas I 133, vik&v I 207, &c., airavToja-as II 
 j 75' p^X^Toyv III 115, vccpLcovres IV 1 28, (rtyQv VIII 26, cnywvTcav 
 [IX 42, (TKairdvTOiv VII 10, Karaxj/uxrav VI 61, epevvS)V VII 19, 
 I XeDo-(7(Sz^ra IX 71, oTTTcoyri IX 120, eAwv II 162, &c. In 
 j Hippokrates we have e.ff. a-iyOxra III 52, 142, 144, reAeurwcra 
 I III 184, ixvhSicrav III 242, x.«'^^i'''"fs V 590 ; ecrrtwiro? Ion I. 
 
 ^inrSwvTas Arrian 347 is an error ; cf. Hippokr. IX 374. 
 
 661] Verbs in -eco^ 
 
 I. On inscriptions : v-noT^kioiv Chalkis 16 A 16, rekiovcn Olynth. 
 
 8 B 8, T^kiovTa'i 8 B 6, yeyoji^eoi'Tes Chios 174 B 13, vcpopji^ovri, 
 
 j3ovKQXeovTi. Chios, £. P. W. 1889, p. 1195, 1. 10, pnadapveovTOiv, 
 
 ■ $vkr]ye6vTcov Teos, Mitth. XVI 292, 1. 7, ripovx^ovres Teos 156 
 
 'B 29, piebeovarjs Samos 216, [xebeova-qi Phanag. 164, Latyschev 
 
 III I9i.2, 28 (Pantikap.)^, 'ApKecov Styra 191.^. foi/cecoy Bhegion 5 
 
 is not Ionic. On jBaa-iXiovros, cf. § 248. It is to be observed 
 
 , ' -eW Joh. Gr. 240 B, 242, Meerm. 653, Birnb 678g, Et. M. 5245, An. Ox. I 
 ; j 23212, An. Par. IV 3839 ; .^ovcra An. Ox.l 36025. 
 
 Cf. usSeovcrav, dureuc Hippolytos 168, and see § 74- 
 
 !i2, An. i'ar. iV 3839 ; -eovcra An. Ox. I 36O25. 
 Cf. usSeovcrav, dureuc Hippolytos 168, and see § 74 
 
 N n 2 
 
54^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [66l. 
 
 that in the epigraphical monuments we have no case of ev for eo, 
 and none of ev for eou. 
 
 Attic contractions: — altrrv'lvofj.ovvros Olbia 131, 2 and 14, ivoiKovvra Keosi 
 473, KaroiKovvres Samos 22I18 (after 322 B.C.) ; '7roi[ov]vTas has been restored by 
 Roehl (I. G. A. 395 B 9) and adopted by Cauer (530 B) in an addition (of a 
 later date) to a Keian inscription whose first part dates before 400 b. c. 
 iroiovfTuv is found in Teos 15813. 
 
 2. In the lyric poets we find -icoy, -cov, and -ecoi; in Theognis 
 and once in an Ionic elegist. -eu>v appears in Phokyl. aTratrecoi; 
 162, Anakr. 6[xtX€(ov 2i-j, (f)opi(av 2lj2^ Hrd. Kivioiv 1^^, Oapaioivi 
 2^8, oiKe'coy 652^ €VTToXi(ov 6(.^^. j 
 
 -a>v : Theog". boKwv 13^, k€vtS>v 37i,Te\a)i' 914, ttoOwv 12^l.'\ 
 OrjTTwv is improbable in Hippon. 14. 
 
 -eoiv (^— ): Theog". (f)pov€(Dv 27, hoKecov 137^ evcrejBicav 145; I144)i 
 ox^dov 534. These examples from the eleg-y are not surprising.;' 
 Remarkable however is rekicov Mimn. 1I3, the only example of: 
 open eo) in the poets of Ionic birth. Meineke proposed re e\(av.\ 
 Fick TiXeacov, rekdcav (cf. 8tereAete Eresos)^, or perhaps TeXijoiv.] 
 Meister re Aecoy ?.^. = Homer XaoDv r 229. But if one instance of' 
 open eo [KkoviovTa, see below) is certain, no objection is possibk; 
 on the score of an isolated case of open -ewr. With the phrasti 
 TeAecoz/ aedXov in Mimnermos, cf. reXiovres aedXovs y 262. Oij 
 C)L\}/i(j)v Archil. 68, see § 687. 
 
 In the feminine occur -eovcra and -evcra. 
 
 hoKo(f)pov€oy(Ta Archil. 930 (epod.), olKevcra Phokyl. 52 {-^ova( 
 Tick), hoK€va Hrd. 309 and seven other forms in -^vaa. 
 
 In tragedy we have vfivevcrai Medea 422 (see Verrall's note), fj.vdev(Tai. I. A-^ 
 789 : both choric passages. ' 
 
 Variation between -eo-, -eo-, -6u-. In only one case is eo a dis 
 syllable in a poet of Ionic birth : Kkoviovra (pakayyas Mimn. 143;' 
 the phrast of E 96^. Theog. has ^poviovTa 62 j, (popiovras 827; 
 (pikeovTes 739? ^ok4ov 162. j 
 
 -eo- is found in aypvirveovra Theog". 471 (or v before ttv ma 
 be short]. 
 
 -eu-^ was certainly used by the time of Theognis : (ptkevvros 38^' 
 
 VOevVT€S 737} T^OieVVTL 5^9; TTkoVTeVVTL 1 153 (BrUUclv ; MSS. -01 
 
 as 315 TTkovTov(n ; see § 643, 2), (jicovevvres 495 (A' has (f)ov€OVT€s 
 But whether it was employed by Sim. Amorg. 7^^.^ (0tAewn i 
 MSS.) may be doubted. Herodas has bevvra ^^i {^'>^'^)} nLvevvT 
 
 1 Cf. Bechtel, Goft. Nachr. 18S6, p. 375. 
 
 ^ KXoveou, wliich is poetical in the active, reappears in Aretaios 2; 
 (/cAoreouffai). 
 
 ^ KooTivvTa (M 283) is called Doric or Ionic by Hdn. II 336^5, 7773 (Choiro: 
 3953u)- 
 
66l.] CONTRACT VERBS: PARTICIPLE ACTIVE. 549 
 
 3g7, V0€vp6^ 355, \}/o(j)€vvTa 7jj, hoKevvT€9 4g5, aKOTTevvres 299, 
 TToiivvTis Class. Rev. V 480, frag, i^g, kiv^vctl 7^3, otKeCcrt 2r,^, 
 di/^eSyras 1 52- The only non-Ionic form in Hrd. is (ppovovvra 
 
 7l29 • 
 
 3. -ecoy remains open in Herodotos in the present, as it does in 
 the future, participle. Exceptions are Cit^^ VI 62 [R), oUo- 
 
 [So/xwy II 121 (a) in ABC, aKo-nSiv I 117 (in all MSS.). 
 
 j In the feminine -iovaa is the usual form. In voiovaa VIII 
 lOI, TTOiiovcrai I 93 (as iToUovcrav Arrian ^Iq), Kviovaav VI 68 
 
 Ja vowel precedes, -^vaa appears in laropevcnj I 61, Xvirevo-a VII 
 
 1 190, l3or]d€vaav^ II 1 18, (iz^^evo-Tjs IV I, KevTivcras V 87; and in 
 Ttouva-a III 119, IV 9 (-eouora CPU), VI 52 i/*. 
 
 -eo- preponderates generally over -eu- in Hdt. Some interest- 
 
 iing examples are: aeXTrrdovTes VII 168 (elsewhere only H 310), 
 akko(f)pov€ovT€s YIl 205 (an epic and Ionic verb: cf. Hippokr. 
 
 jVII 30), areovres VII 223 (epic), tclx^ovtos V 23 (Ionic retx^'w 
 
 ' and TetxtC"^; Attic retx^^)- Examples of -ev- are exceedingly rare 
 in the case of verbs other than Trote'co : II 34 ia-Topevvra, TV 156 
 ayvoevvT€s, 157 otKcwrfs, the only case, in 74 occurrences of olKea), 
 of the contraction {-eo-AB, oh^ovres above in same chapter), VIII 
 3 voevvTes. The -eu- forms are, however, far more frequent in the 
 
 case of ■770666) [tTOUVVTL VII 29, TTOL€VVT€S II 36, IV 98, V 81, 
 
 &c.) But in the following cases -eo- is attested without any 
 variant: I 140 {noLevvTai same chapter), 158, 216 (iTOievixevoL 
 same chapter), VII 8 (8). 
 
 The archetypal MS. of Hdt. rarely had -ou- : iroiovyres I 90, olKovvres I 1 75- 
 
 In the other Ionic prosaists the contraction of eo to ev is very 
 rare, ew remains open. Demokr. has vovOeriwv 59, (j^Oovicov 30, 
 Kparioiv ^6 (Stob. -c5y), dSiKe'coy 205, decopevcra ]47, ahiKiovTi, 
 d/xeXeWrt 213, k-ni6vp.iovTL 20^3, (r(i)(f)poveovTos 42, TroteCirt 205, 
 (piKoveiKeovTa 212, dSiKe'oi^ra 112, 2o6, ivQ-qXiovra 18^, ixv9oT:Xa- 
 ! <rreovT€S 119, SoKe'oires 151, SuoTDxeotres 137, ^vixcpcoviovTes 152, 
 ' raAatTTW/seoWcoz; 20iq, <ppove6vTu>v 79> apLeXeovras 21^, abLKiovras 
 205; Herakl. 8iatpecoy 2, SoKeoVrcoy I18 ; Melissos dAyeoirt 13; 
 Pherek. oiKe'oi^re? 85; Ion cKpatpereovra, 80/ce'oi; I : Ktesias (f)(joi>4ovn; 
 Lukian F.J. 5 boKeovra, Si/r. clea 26 evvoiovras ; Vita Horn. 
 l(TTopi(j)v 6, but TTotwi; 15. Simplicius has Atticized Anaxagoras' 
 •nepiyutpeovTOiv il. Aret. has wcpeXevvra 312, &c. 
 
 We note the following cases of -eu- in Hippokrates, who has 
 -i(t)v, -€ovTos, &c., in almost every instance: aXyevvra II 132, 
 biTjOevvTes II 240, eKTTuewra V 626, i^aipevvra III 258, (f)dLV€V(TL 
 II 674 ((pdiv^o) here only, § 637, 3), -rrouvvTa VI 210 ((?, -eo- 
 
 1 Greg. Kor. § 60. 
 
550 THE IONIC DIALECT. [662. 
 
 Littre), c£. II 278, IX 362, OLKevvra IX 354, cf. 360, irarevvTa 
 and ojjLiXevvTa IX 382, aypvirvevvTa V 59°) ^'T>'-Ppi-y(-Vvra V 592 
 {-iovT^s 588). Usually we find -eo-. In the feminine : Trote'ouo-ai 
 II 66, (pLXeovaa Sj/r. dea 26. 
 
 662.] Verbs in -oo). 
 
 d^to(v)y7coi; Priene 1443, Ki]pov(T Hrd. 355, x^v Hdt. I 162, 
 KaKovvTe^ III 82. On SuaceCyros IX 42, see § 690. For 
 6novvT€s Hdt. I 153, as if from an unheard-of 61x6(0, 6[xvvvTes is 
 to be substituted. 
 
 Imjjerfecf Active. \ 
 
 663.1 Singular First Person. \ 
 
 -■ , j 
 
 -aw verbs contract -aov to -coi- (ivUcdv Samos 215}. Occasionally ' 
 we have -eov for -aov, and this -eov may become -evv (§§ 637, 
 I (2), 688). Verbs in -eo) have -eov, not -euy so far as we are • 
 aware in Ionic literature^. In Hijjjjo^j/tos 168 we have however 
 an Ionic avrevv. iboKovv Hrd. 4(;3 is an Atticism ('boKeou Hrd. in 
 Class. Rev. V 481, frag. 2^). Verbs in -ow have -ovv, not -iw 
 (§ 690). 
 
 664.] Singular Second Person. 
 ilKd<TTp€i9 Theog. 600. 
 
 665.] Singular Third Person. 
 
 1. €(j)6pa (Uoia Fick in G. G. A. 1883, 125), I. G. A. 370, [ 
 generally referred to Euboia, but perhaps Asiatic Ionic. Hdt. ( 
 has u>pa III, &c., icpoira III 90, rjvba II 57 (a rare verb in prose; i 
 cf. aTTr]vh]K€ Hippokr. VIII 570). 
 
 2. -ei'^ is the correct form. On inscriptions : eVotet Eretria 14, ^ 
 Samos 1. G. A. 388 a, Amorgos I. G. A. 390, Naukratis I 342, ■ 
 Klazomenaif Head H. N. 491, eTro'et Samos 222 (pre-Roman), 
 Delos 57 (middle of second century). e-noUiv INIiletos 95 resem- 
 bles i](rK€ii> r 388 in adopting the -v after a contracted ee, con- 
 trary to the ordinary rule. Other forms are iirea-Tdrei lasos, ^ 
 /. H. S. IX 341, Nos. 2 and 3, 342 No. 4, Zeleia 114 B i and j 
 perhaps in the Parian inscription, C. I. G. 2384^, add. 1. 2-3; 
 w/xoAo'yet Mykonos 9224. In BechteFs No. 6 eTroi?/ is Eleian. 
 The testimony of the inscriptions is unanimous in favour of -et. 
 
 In the lyric poets, exclusive of cTrAee Theog. 12 (cf. H 251), , 
 
 • In Hrd. 6,3 ^Xnrdpeov we may have synizesis ; but the tribrach is per- 
 mitted in the second foot. 
 
 ^ When the Gram. Vat. 699 cites v6et, voUi it is for the purpose of showing 
 the omission of the augment. 
 
t66.] CONTRACT VERBS : IMPERFECT ACTIVE. 55 1 
 
 jve find only -et : eSo'/cei Theog. 960, €(f)6pei Archil. 93, where 
 jK^\y^ would have been the alternative ; Hippon. tr. 47 co/cet in 
 he MSS. (Schneid. and Berg-k ot/cet, Meineke oUel). At the 
 leriod of Hippon ax it was not usual for the first foot of the 
 ambic measure to consist of — ^ ^. Sim. Amorg. 28 e/ctVei 
 ■^^ was not admissible in the arsis of the trimeter); Anakr. 
 Jz^oxo'ei 32i; €7ro[t]ei Hrd. 422- 
 
 In by far the greater number of instances Herodotos has -ee. 
 Thus iboKee, ^xwpee, (KaXee and even after in the case of voeo) 
 hoee I 155, VIII T03, €TT(v6ee I 27, III 31, but eTreyo'et II 152 
 IBCd), and 01 in Troiew (erroUe III 9, VII 156]. Forms in -ei 
 iccur as follows : rjTTopet III 78, oi<p€ka III 126, e^r/p/cet VII 161. 
 5ee also on the imperfect of -jixt verbs. 
 
 In Hippokrates, both Littre and Ermerlns contract -ee in voia), 
 )ut after consonants we find now -ee now -ei. Thus Karevoet II 
 586, 690, 692, 702, 706 (bu-), 714, III 34, 40 (bis), 42 [qvater), 
 1.4, 48, 50, 62, 64, 110, 112, 122, 140, 142; -nap^vou III 140 ; 
 itei'o'ei rejected by Littre III 42. Other examples of -et are : 
 Xripn II 688, 706, 712; wKet II 666 {bi.'<), 682, 684, 702, III 
 14; €hv(Tc})6p€L III 40 ; TippcacTTeL II 290; TiaprjKoXovdii^ 37^ j 
 iiere'Aet I 626 ; e^eirvei II 706 ; 7/^wret II 714 ; ovpei II 686, 692, 
 I'oS and many other forms in the genuine tractates. Littre edits 
 ■ee in 7/Ayee II 690 (i-.I. -ei), 704 (-et viilgo), 708 bis (-et ■?;./.), Ill 
 )2 (-et z'./.), 64 (-et vvlgo)\ iirovee II 290 (-et ^), III 44 (-et v. I.), 
 ;o (-et V. I.); eboKce V 204; fnxoppdy^^v II 600 (-et A). 
 
 Aretaios 201 has e-n-o'^ee. 
 ; The MSS. of the excerptors of the other prosaists have -et, e.g., 
 07rex«/)et Melissos 14, eSo'/cet 17, l-noUi Anaxag. 6 [-nepix^^P^^ ^^ ^ 
 s due to Mullach), w/cet Pherek. Leros ^^. In Protagoras iboKec 
 las been read. 
 
 The iteratives appear in our texts with the form -eeffKov, which is open to 
 luspicion. In Hdt.1 1 86 iJds only have oTratpeW/coj', in IV 200 all the MSS. have 
 iX€<rK6, z €X€(r/c6, which recent editors change to TtxffffKe (^Bredow €x«'e(r/te)- 
 Isios in Athen. 525 F used (poireaKov, from Ionic ^oiT(<>i = <poiTa.<i). In the 
 Iniddle the forms with hyphaeresis are better supported, but in the following 
 )ccurrences of the active -eeffKov is the uniform MS. reading : ircehhffKe I 196, 
 weea-Kov I 36. In Herodotos iteratives from contract verbs are confined to 
 hose in -eu, while Homer had -air/ce and -e(TKe. 
 
 • 3. Hdt. rj^Lov, ebiKaiov (e8tKateu, an hyper-Ionism, v. I. Ill 118, 
 [V154; cf. §690). 
 
 666.] Plural First Person. 
 
 1. -aofxev = otip.€v except when it passes into -eo/.ier. 
 
 2. -eojuey is either retained or becomes -ev/xei'. 
 
 3. -oui verbs always have -ov^ev. 
 
552 THE IONIC DIALECT. [667. 
 
 667.1 Plural Second Person. [ 
 
 -■ II 
 
 1. -are. •] 
 
 2. -eire, not -eere as often in the prose monuments. i 
 
 3. -ovT€ from -060 verbs. j 
 
 668.] Plural Third Person. 
 
 I. -aov = -())V, e.g. (.Qv\i.l(xiV Hdt. VIII 99, KariKkcav IX 62. 
 
 a. -eoy is generally retained, -evv is very rare. The inscrip- 
 tions have -eov in iOop^ov Thasos (L.) 7 A 2, 8 A 6, 97. 
 
 Herodotos has eiroUov'^ VII 36, IX 6, 8, 11, 104, eTrei^oW V 
 6^, aiOkeov I 6^, VII 212 (Xenophanes 231 has aedkeva) as Hdt; 
 V 22), eirkovT^ov III 57 (Greg. Kor. § 14), €(pp6veov II i62; 
 KaTr]y6p€ov II 113 (though there is a notable number of €vs in 
 its vicinity (113, 115, 118). etpwreuy I 158 (§ 637, i (2)) con- 
 tracts -€ov < -aov. Cf. eTretpwreoy I 67. 
 
 Herakl. has v{j.veov 127^ Hippokrates dtereAeoy II 640, kireppi- 
 yeov II 642 ^i^ (cf. § 687, 3), eTreyoVeoy II 646, ypiov V 88 (else- 
 where in the late epic). j 
 
 Menekrates has eboKeov, ^iroXepieov, Vita Horn. vXaKTeov. 
 
 In the poets -€ov is never open. Cf. ecf)p6v€ov Archil. 112 
 -cvv in ((pikevv Theog, 786, (avk^vv <-aov, Hrd., Class. Bev.^ 
 481, frag. 2,) ^TTopvoj36aKevv 2-j-j . 
 
 Atticisms are iS6Kow Tlieog. 1381 (where it may be original), iKd\om. 
 Hdt. IX II. i 
 
 3. -ovv in k-nkripovv Hdt. I 17 1, khr]iovv V 89 [khiKaUvv III 7( 
 is an hyper-Ionism ; § 690). On iir^ppCyovv Hippokr. II 642; 
 (A, Littre -€ov), see § 637, 6. j 
 
 PRESENT, MIDDLE AND PASSIVE. { 
 
 Indicative. 
 
 669.] Singular First Person. 
 
 1. appiyjapiai Hippon. 104, TiToiCiixai Mimn. 52^ kaaSipa 
 Hrd. 819. 
 
 2. (popivp.aL Anakr. 38, dAeS/xai Theog. 575, albevpLai Soloi 
 tetr. 324 [v III go -ovpLai, which may be correct), a-napvivp.ai Hrd 
 274, Tra/iatreu/xat 572- 
 
 Examples of -eC/ixai in prose are 8irjyei5/xai Herakl. 2 (in th 
 Tit. auct. 14 Herakl. uses -iop.ai), Hippokr. Ill 100, 77oie5/xa 
 Hdt. IX III, Hippokr. VII 490. Hdt. has elsewhere « 
 
 * HoUvv is called Doric and Ionic Hdn. II 3305 (Choirob. 528^5). 
 
571.] CONTRACT VERBS: INDICATIVE MIDDLE. ^^^ 
 
 generally, but eu in 'npoaihivy.ai III 140, atpeC/iat III 142, the 
 )nly case of any contraction in this verb (c£. alpiovrai, aipiovTo 
 md even alpeon^vos), and also a^uvp.ai V 106 (§ 690J. 
 
 Lukian Vit. and. 6 has aLTiop.ai.. 
 I 3. yovvoviiai A-Uokx. Ijj 2g. 
 
 ' 670.] Singular Second Person. 
 
 In verbs in -ew we may admit -eat from -eeai by hyphaeresis. 
 Of. Homer's TrcdXe" 5 811, [ivOiai ^ 202^ p.vOfiai 6 180. As it 
 ;tands, p-vOuaL is an old form (=:-eeat, which might be read) 
 ihough preserved in a very late book. In Anakr. 12 we find 
 ')iviai, in Hdt. Ill 34 kiraiviai (not -e'cat as Pz), (fiojS^aL I 39 
 
 eeat P). Here -4 C^ have (f)o[3iat with superscribed e between 
 
 and at. 
 
 671.] Singular Third Person. 
 
 I. Uparai Miletos loo^; 'nkavarai Archil. ^6^, p-varai Anakr. 
 )8, fiiarai Solon 1341, akarai 1343. Hdt. has p.Tqy^avaTai I 21, 
 fee. eTratnSrat II 121 (/3), /3tarat III 80, (r/xSrat IX 1 10 ((Tp.i]Tai 
 Vntiph. com. frag. Ill 81), Demokritos Krarat 184 (§ 687, 2), 
 Hellanikos avappi-^arai 178. ai^tarat occurs in Demokr. 184, 
 Melissos 4, II (Simplicius). Hippokr. Ill 204 has eo-i^Aarat. 
 
 2^. iKvelraL Halikarn. 23826 (fifth century); Sim. Amorg. 
 jTotetrat 7^2, Kt-velraL 7^5. Even if the forms had been properly 
 )penj synizesis was not permitted in the arsis of the iambic 
 neasure. TrpoKaAetrat Anakr. 14^, dp)(^e'LTai 2O3; Hrd. has 
 ilpaTaL 354, bcopelraL 6^^, wdelrai. 4^^. 
 
 Herodotos : Trote'erat, &c,, with -ee- everywhere, except /luetrat 
 In all MSS., VIII 65. In all these forms -ee- is out of date in 
 -he fifth century. Lukian puts p.v9ieTai into the mouth of Hdt., 
 de Domo 20. In other writers of Ionic prose : Herakl. a^iKveirai 
 ;:8 (Stob., -e'erat is conjectural), k^iKveirai I2 (Plut.), 8iax«rat 
 1§ 637, 2), and ixerpkraL 23 (Clem. Alex.), wvierai 105 (lambli- 
 ihos); Demokr. epUrai 6 = €paTat, (Demokrates), d/ce'erat^ 80 
 where Clem. Alex, has acpaipelTai in the same frag.), Troteerat 123 
 Stob.); Melissos avyxi^pelraL (Simpl.) l, Ktz^etrat 5, 14 {(>is), 15) 
 iiccording to Simpl. ; Hekat. KLvdrai. 284 (Steph. Byz.), /xutJeirat 
 l;32, KoAetrat 260. Pherekydes of Leros has Trotetrat 44, a frag- 
 nent containing several genuine lonisms. All the cases of 
 :aAetrat (16, 85, 89, 1 14 A) are in Atticized fragments. So too 
 't<^tKz;etrat 34 ; Hellanikos has KaAeerat in 160, which contains 
 
 '(VOlKOVVTeS. 
 
 In Hippokrates there are many examples of the correct form, 
 
 * leoiXitTM is called Ionic in contrast to a supposed Aiolic irwA^rot in An. 
 )x. I 36225, 
 
 Hippokrates YI 294 used the active h.Kiov(nv. X^^^^ of ri?'^'^'^^ 
 
 I WfsriVERSITY 
 
554 THE IONIC DIALECT. [672. 
 
 e.g. KaXelrat V 6^6, acjuKv^'iTai 664, ovpfirai 7 20. The resolved 
 form appears in Littre, e.g. in ac^tK^eerai II 70 {vulgo -€t-], 
 ovpUrai II 38, VII 160 (so Q, vulgo -et-), KokUrai III 84, 208, 
 V 588, VIII 366 {d), T.oiUrai II 128 bis, V 644, KparUiai II 
 638, evirophrai III 102 [vulgo -et-), ejueerat II 184 {vulgo -et-). 
 
 Euseb. Mynd. 59 has anoarepUTai, 6^ y-jyUrai, Aretaios 32 
 cases of -ee- to 3 of -ei- (e/i>ierrfu i, Kakilrai 102, Trapco^etrat 297). 
 In Arrian we have 12 cases of -ee- ; Abydenos hutpUrai 9. 
 
 3. rpux*^^^'^' Mimn. 2221 Aa^i^oCrai Solon 27g, AoGrat Sim. 
 Amorg". 7(53, (TTecpai'ovTaL Anakr. 4I2) aWorptoCrai Hdt. I 120, 
 ^Lovrai II 177, aXAotoCrat Herakl. 36, erepotoOrat Meliss. 12, ji 
 KapiTovTat Demokr. 236, aixavpovrai Hippokr. V 644, p.ta6ovTai 
 Vita Horn. 4. 
 
 672.] Plural First and Second Persons. 
 
 A. I. htaiTu>ix(6a Hdt, IV 114. 
 
 2. -coixeda and -evixeda. 
 
 3. -ovp-eOa. On avrievpLeOa Hdt. IX 26, see § 690. n 
 
 B. I. TTeLpaa-ee Hdt. IV 1 27. " 
 2. rjyelcrde Herakl. in E.3I. XV 605, where Neumann read^ 
 
 -ee- in order to accommodate the form to Hdt.^'s -noU^ade IX 7. 
 3 -ovadi. 
 
 673.] Plural Third Person. 
 
 1. aiTiSiVTai Hdt. IV 94, Hippokr. II 78, do-juwyrat Herakl. 
 38, ISivTai Hippokr. II 78, kuKnrwvTai II 312, 6piyv5>vrai'' 
 Hrd. 737 . 
 
 2. Theog. 290 fjyeovTaL but jucoju-eCyrai 369, as if from /ucojueo/xai 
 (cf. fxcoixevixevos 169); Solon 424 has preserved the Attic iKi/oSirat. 
 (f)opevvTaL Parmenides 48. 
 
 In Hdt. we expect, and find, Trotewrat I 132, 140, IV 70, &c., 
 except IV 180, where all MSS. have -eo-. Elsewhere we have 
 -eovrai, except fjy^vvTaL IV 2 (-eo- P H z), KaXevvTai V 108 (-eo-. 
 CP^), and 8tai;oewrai IX 54 in all MSS. [cf. § 637, I (2)]. 
 avuvi'Tai VII 236, if correct, is used in a future sense and as an 
 analogue of Kop.uvvTai, &c. Stein accepts d/ceCz^rat in his school' 
 edition. 
 
 Herakl. atpewrat in, iiv^vvrai 125; Demokr. bcopiovrai 13 
 (Stob. -0V-), TTouovTai, 47, 126, alriovTai 46^; Pherek. KaXeovrai 
 85 ; Hippokr. biairevvTai II 68, 72, KaXevvrai II 68, 76 
 aaOivevvTai II ^^6, d^eOzrat II 68, bvaapearevvrai IX ^60 
 Tjy^vvraL II 240 (^), a<^iKviovTaL II 50^ 15'-'^ -noUovTai II 56, &C' 
 7i7fl! Horn, has ainKviovTai ^, 6, Luk. 7. ^. KiviovTai 4, avvH- 
 
 XiOVTOL 14. I 
 
 ' j'tCi'Taj Mullach I 371, cited sometimes from Demokritos, does not exis' 
 (MSS. yovi/rai). The fragment is hard to restore. 
 
678.] CONTRACT VERBS : SUBJ. AND OPT. MIDDLE. 555 
 
 3. aiToxoo^ovvTat Hippokr. II 78, pucr/xowrat Demokr. 16, 
 \\ovvTai, Hdt. I 198, To^ovvrai, Aret. 10. 
 
 Suljutictive. 
 674.] -aco verbs are inflected as in Attic. 
 
 I 
 
 I 675.] From -eco verbs we have TrotfJTaL Chios 174 C 11 (c£. 
 kpodrJTai. Hahkarn. 23833). This exemplifies the contraction 
 isupported in the MSS. ot Hdt. in brjXrjraL IV 187, c^-qyrjraL VI 
 I74 all MSS. (-677- V 23), IX 66 (-erj- R), Trot^rat IX 45, VI 57 
 'ABC f7), III 8 and IV 6^ (A B E, i. e. Stein's archetype), <^o^^- 
 rai VII 36 [ABB). Herodas has rjyrjTai 5^3, d^ooprJTat 5^g. 
 
 Demokritos has eTrt/xeA^rai (?) and yL^TprjTaL 41, -noirjTai 188. In 
 'Hippokrates the hyper-Ionic -e??- is very frequent, e.g. w^^Xh]TaL 
 
 II 374, KLvii]Tai III 258^ TrourjTai. VII 514- 
 
 Lukian has aTr-qyerjraL Astrol. 22, Euseb. Mynd. ^-^ aTraireTjrat, 
 Aretaios aKi-qrai, 2^, ejuerjrat 31, y.iTaKLV€r\Tai 62, but av€}xriTai 
 
 In the third plural we have Ktyecoyrat Hippokr. II 126, ttoUcov- 
 rai, ^.^. Philip of Perg-amum, B. C. H. II 273. 
 
 676.] -ooj verbs are inflected as in Attic. 
 
 Ojotative. 
 
 677.] x^^*^"^^ Theog-. 325, (Ti,y<fTO Hdt. Ill 82, vik^to IX 13, 
 KoijMwro III 38, OTTTwro VIII 137, &c., oSwwro Hippokr. Ill 256, 
 %vi(2to Melissos 4 and 1 1 , according- to Mullach (Diels with 
 iSimplicius aviarai). drtwro Hdt. Ill I, aviCdaro IV 1 30. 
 
 678.] -eo) verbs: hOvixoiixeOa Sim. Amorg-. 2i. In Hdt. after 
 ponsonants we find both the older and the younger forms : 
 caAeotro V 76, cmiKvioiTo I 29, XvireoCaTO I 99, and bcopolro II 
 126 (^r/), </)o/3o(:ro VII 87 (B); after vowels Trototro VII 48, VIII 
 37 (-oiyro J B, -ioLVTo C). The rule has been accepted by some 
 phat after consonants eoi, after vowels ot, is the correct form in 
 Tonic. This is, however, applicable to the MSS. of Hdt., not to 
 >he wider horizon of Ionic literature. The testimony of (Ppovoip-ev 
 md h6viJ.oijj.eda in Simonides of Amorgos and of ^ikouv in 
 'A.nakreon shows, not that the forms in eoi above mentioned 
 ire wrong, but that contract forms had been adopted in pre- 
 Herodoteian Ionic. The archaism avoid^oir] Teos 156 A 11 does 
 lot invalidate this statement. 
 
$^6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [679. 
 
 Demokr. has according to Stobaios aixeXiotTo 213, but TrotoiTo 
 2. Simplicius has preserved Melissos' /;xeraKoo-/xeotro (11). Hip- 
 pokr. has TTOiioao II no, XvnioiTO II 134, a(j)aLpeoLTo II 356, 
 ovpioiTo II 140, aTToAox^eotTo ep. I7ig. Lukian Si/r, dea 26 
 Kv-nioiTOy k^a-narioiTo 27 as if from -ioixai. 
 
 679.] -00) verbs are inflected as in Attic. 
 
 Imperative. 
 
 680.] Tretpw Theog. 358, kvS> Hrd. 8g, TreipaaOo} Tyrt. 12^^. 
 
 681.] 77otou Theog. 753 and alhov 11 79 are Atticisms, even if 
 the latter is from at6o/iat (atSeo <t> 74, &c.). 
 
 Hdt. has -eo^ in atVe'o I 90, aKc'o III 40, Xvneo VIII 100, 
 e^Tjyeo III 72, IV 9, aiiLKveo V 24, (/)o/3eo VII 50, 52, Troie'o VIII 
 68 (a), Demokr. 142 irpodvixio ; -ev in (f)o[3€v I 9, ttoicS IV 9, VIII 
 ICG. On the hyphaeresis see Fritsch in Curtius Stndien^l 128, 
 where it should have been noted that in -ete-o-at, not in -efe-crat, 
 is the loss of one e permissible in Homer. Cf. [xvOiat by the side 
 of fxvdelaL. In the imperative however we do not find -no. 
 
 In Oropos 182Q we find reAetcr^co, in Chalkis 139 alpeiaOoi. 
 Tyrt. 1I3 has (polSelaOe, Hrd. 721 OrielcrOe, Anakr. 42 ava)(jei(Tdm: 
 
 Hippokr. has -€6- in ipL^La-Ooi V 708 and II 144 (several MSS.) 
 hnt TTOL^iaOco VII 190. Aret. eviiopeLo-da) 279, ky}/eL(rdo) 202, 331. 
 
 682.] -00) verbs are inflected as in Attic. avaKoivio Theog. 73 
 must come from -kolv^m, not from -Koivoio. Pindar has KotvdoD. 
 
 Injinitive. 
 
 683.] I. Verbs in -aw have throughout -aaOai except ic 
 TT^Lpija-dai, hiaiTi](T6ai, &cc., in Hippokrates, ^^37> i {^)- Herodotos 
 has e,ff. opacrdai, aviacrBaL, Theognis laaOat 433, ayopacrOat 159 
 Miletos lOOg Trpotepao-^at, Diog. Apoll. 6 KVJ^epvaaOai. Kpep-aadai 
 Hippokr. I 592, II 288 should be read Kpip-aaOai, which occuk 
 in II 152. ivvaaOai Aret. 372 is the only i)rose instance of tli( 
 un compounded form. 
 
 2. Verbs in -eco^. eTrt/xeAeicr^at Orop. 18^ (cf. em/xeAeo-^a 
 
 ^ The Homeric airoatpeo is called Ionic by the interlinear schol. Ven. A on i^ 
 275. For &\ev {lecviKuis) Diogen. II 56, read dAeO (Schulze, Quaest. epicae, 64). 1 
 
 ^ Joh. Gr. 235, 240, Greg. Kor. 36, Gram. Laid. 629 iroviiadai (TroveaSa 
 Meerm. 650, Vat. 694, KKovetrdai Meerm. 650, on the view that e might appea 
 in place of et as in Sefoi = Sei^w). 
 
684.] CONTRACT VERBS : PARTICIPLE MIDDLE. 557 
 
 [Thasos 7I7); Tyrtaios has ixvOdaOai 4^, where [xvOi^aOai would 
 have been impossible ; Hrd. j/yeio-^ai i^g- Herodotos : Trouea-Oai. 
 about twenty times, but H has TroulaOai II i. Contraction after 
 ot in the finite forms of this verb is very rare in the MSS. 
 After we have hiavoi^a-dat II 1 21 (8), but hiavoa.(T6ai. VI 86 (8) 
 in AB Cd. Cf. the present and imperfect of voioi. 
 
 Other Ionic prosaists have -et- very often according- to the 
 MSS. of their excerptors : Demokrates has alpeia-Qai 3, 92, 807660-^06 
 71, alhelaOai lOO, 235) TTOuicrdaL 128, iiraLvelcrOaL 204, i]ye'ia6aL 
 212. The open forms are kvOviiUadai 2O20 [sic Stob., but -et- in 
 92), apKhcrdai 20^ (various conj.), jjLLixeea-dai 114 (cf. 113), 0t\ee- 
 crOaL 161 (Demokrates). Diog-en. Apoll. kvvo^ladai 4 (Sim pi.); 
 iMelissos KivdaOai 5 (Simpl.). 
 
 Hippokrates has -ee- in many cases, e.g. evOvixiecrOai II 14, 
 il70 (most MSS.) 188, TtoueaOai II 280, III 214, 228, 230, 252, 
 jaz/eiAeeo-^at II 138 (-et- one MS.), V 694, TaXaiTtcapkadai II 72, 
 \al(Dpie<r6ai III 442, cr/co-Treeo-^at II 634, 678 (-et- vnlgo), III 1 00, 
 eKAaAe'eo-^at IV 630, irovi^adai II 184 his, apidp-i^crOai II 1 70 bis, 
 aiTdaOai II 246 [A), but -haOai II 288, (TKO-ndaOai III 212, 258, 
 260. Arrian^s only case of -et- is e^LKveia-Oat 24^ ; Aretaios has 
 -eto-^at only 73, 321. Lukian^'s Fit. aiict. has alp^eaOat 6. 
 
 3. Verbs in -oco. eTravaveova-Oai Eretria 15^; Theog. jxavpov- 
 (rOai 192, Hdt. KaTopOovcrOai, i^LcrovcrOaL, &c., kTepoiovcxOai Melissos 
 17, Diog. Apoll. 2; XovaOai Hdt. Ill 124, Hippokr. VII 74. 
 
 Participle. 
 
 684.] I. -ao) verbs have -(ajxevos, e.g. KVK(a[X€vos Archil. 66^, 
 and MSS. Solon I3gi (naKovfxevov Bergk), aAw/xew? Tyrt. 10^^, 
 (rTp(0(})U)iJ.€Vos Theog. 247, -nXavcoixevo^ Sim. Amorg". y^^, Solon 
 '36jQ, Aco/3co]ue'i^r/ Sim. Amorg. 7iq,,, d/x^t8?jpta)//eyos 7^13, ■jret/aw- 
 fxei'os Solon 1367? yeyavuiixivos Anakr. 13 A. 
 
 Herodotos has -co/xero?, without any variant, in the verbs 
 aiTidoixai, aXdopLai., avaKTaopiai, /3taa), Statrao), epdco, Oeaofxat, Orjpao), 
 Kpavyavdu), Xdi^dofxaL, viKdo), irkavdcti, (7Tpo)(f)d(o. On other forms 
 {-eoixevos, -ecofxevos) see § 688. 
 
 TLjjLiaixevo^ Hippokr. II 80, Demokr. 231, Tretpco/xeyo? Herakl. 2, 
 Pherekydes of Leros ^^/i, iMjxevos Pherekydes 76. 
 
 2. Verbs in -eco^. In the lyric poets we have unanimous 
 testimony to the contraction of -eo-. Archil, trim. 322 irovevixevr], 
 44 TTotev/xei'os, 46 TroAev/xeVw, I02 (Tak^v[xivri, 128 e^aXev^evo's ; 
 Sim. Amorg. Kkovevix^vot 1^^, iJLv9eviJ.€vos J^g, (popev\xivr] 7^5 (Stob. 
 
 ^ \vTri6ixevos Joh. Gr. 240 B, Gram. Meerm. 652, Aug. 668, Vat. 69S, Birnb. 
 6784, irotetJ/teros Aug. 668, fiaxeSfx-eyos Meerm. 652, Vat. 698. 
 
558 THE IONIC DIALECT. [684. 
 
 B-OV-), aXevixivrj J^-y ; Solon 13^5 (fyopevixevos, trim. 3622 rpofxevixivovi, 
 the only contracted form of this poetic (and Hippokratic) verb, 
 trim. 375 KVK€vix€vos ; Mimn. y^ br]kevix(vos ; Theog". 169 yLonx^v- 
 fjievos. TTOL€vix€voi occurs in an iambic line preserved by Stobaios 
 2^, 18; QiviVfxivq'i in Hrd. y^.^. The cases of -ei>- in the early 
 iambists awaken suspicion, as we elsewhere have eo. The writing 
 tv recalls that in vogue in the fifth century. 
 
 Attic forms are ■novQVfx^vov Theog. 1359, ^iXov/xfvrj Paros 66, aSiKovixevov 
 C I. G. 2919 (.but the document is a modern forgery). Genuine Ionic is 
 a<piKVi{p fxivoiv Oropos iSg. 
 
 Verbs in -eco usually show -^oiih'os. This is the case eveo 
 in Herodotos^ who has the greatest number of cases of -^vix^vos. 
 These are g'iven in the note below. Before ja there is evident 
 a tendency to write eu ; as if the scribes thought eo (which they 
 judged to be dissyllabic) with -jx^vos would produce too many 
 short syllables. 
 
 aloopioo VII 61, 92 ; awoXoyiw VII 161 (-ov- -B) ; airopfoo II 121 (7); el\eu I] 
 76; riyeo/xai II 93 {rjyeoyTai bis same chapter), 113 {Karrjyopfou soon after) 
 115, VII 161 ; fljjeo/uot VII 44, 146, 212, VIII 88 ; dv/j.€0/xai IX 72 ; iKveofiai I; 
 105 (-€0- Rd), 178, III 9, VI 65, 86 o (-60- C), cf. VI 65, 84 (-ev- R) ; /caAeo I 
 56, 72, 79, 97, 113 {-eo- C), ilS, 124, 156 (-eo- CPD), 178 {-eo- CP), III I0( 
 {oiKfo/xevos same chapter), IV 20 (-eo- R), 85, 93, 175, V 31 {-to- r), 108 (-eo 
 ABCd),Yl 79(-eo-P-R3), VII 77, 170 (-eo- ABCd), IX 48; cf. II 41 {-ev- AB). 
 154 (-eu- R), Ka\e6/x€vos III 13 and elsewhere ; KaWiepew VI 82 ; \vir4ui IX 94 
 fivdeco II 121 (5) ; vaviT7)yiOi II 96, VI 46 ; vo4(» III 122, V 36 ; Trte^e'cu III I41 
 {ABR), VI 108 (-0- Cz), VIII 142 (-0- £Cs) ; iro\iopKeu V 115 ?^zs (-eo- r, an(| 
 -eo- £V) ; cf. I 26 (-eu- CP), II 157 (-eu- R), III 13 (-eu- CPds) ; reXeo II 152' 
 III 134 (-eo- ri^), VII 16 (-0U- P) ; Ti/LLwpew III 50 (-eo- ii) ; inriaxveofj-ai II 152 
 III 74 {-ov-AB), VIII ic6, cf. V 51 (-eo- all MSS.) ; <pop€oo III 106, 146, VI 
 10 [6) ; &j0e'co VI 83 ; uveofjiai I 165 ; w<pe\4oo II 68, -eo- PRs (-eo- same chaptei 
 where d has -eu). 
 
 In the case of ttouco, Hdt. has TTouvjj.evos very frequently. I)' 
 a small lAimber of instances we find Troteojueyos : I 37, 68 (sam 
 chapter -evixevos), 73. drj^oiiai, too, contracts eo to eu. 
 
 In other prose writers than Herodotos : Herakl. Kweofxevos 8<i 
 (conj.) ; Demokr. 6vix€6}xevo<s 27 Us, -/xev/xe^•os 20^^, reAev/xera 71 
 Xvireoixevos 29, Kweoixevos 20^ (Stob. -ou-), v'n)]y€oy.ivy]s 92, fXMjjieo 
 jxevMV 123, KQAeo/xeV?js 211, epeofxevoi (?) (with accus.) for epcajjievo 
 6 ; Anaxag. Ktveopievos his 7 (Simpl. -ou-); Diog\ Apoll. /caAeo 
 /xei'o? 6 (Simpl. -ou-); Meliss. Kti'eo'juero? 4 (Simpl. -ou-); Hekal 
 TTOieoVei'o? 350 (Longinos -ov-). Hippokrates has -eo'jixei^oi 
 Visually, e.g. a(f)LKV€6p.€Vo^ II 14, eTrippo^eo'juei'os II 358, KaAeo'/iej/o, 
 
 * Forms in -ov are to be rejected : a7roA.o7ou^e»'os VII i6i in B, TroXtopKov/ievt 
 I 26 in A, III 13 in AB, fTTLfieTpov/xevos III 91 in all MSS., afaipovfien 
 Ilippokr. VI 494, ffKOTTov/xeyos III 258, f)yov/j.evos I 612 (A) &c. 
 
685.] CONTRACT VERBS: IMPERFECT MIDDLE. 559 
 
 II 224, but a<piKV€V}X€vos II 76, (jxevixevos II I44 (same page 
 ejueo/xei-o?), Trotev/xcro? II 362, III 442, VI 74, 514, ivdvix€vij.cvoi 
 II 42, evvoeviJ.€i'09 II 50, (rKOTTevjxevo^ II 50 (-ov- vulgo, of. Ill 
 258), (TLTeviJievos VI 54 (.t/) whereas Hdt. VI 57 as Hippokr. II 
 282, 288^ has -eo-, Kkovevixevos VIII 18, d8?7Aei;/Liei>os VIII 18, 
 <r]yevixevos II 1 10, 242, haLcopevjjLevos II I16, ^tA.ort/xev/uei'os IX 
 358. /^^7/a ^Oi%i. 33 Kakeoixevos (only case of -eo-), Troievixevos 23, 
 Lukian's F. ^. wv^oixevos 14, Aret. 313 bt-vevixevo^. Attic forms 
 isometimes occur in Lukian [Asfrol. 1 9) and Arrian (2O3). TrcoAei;- 
 Ijuei'ai Prometh. 645 trim, as j8 55, p 534. 
 
 3. Verbs in -ow. Archil, yovi'ou/ixerw 75], xoXovfxevo^ 95, and 
 
 «o Solon 34j. In T3gj Bergk follows Lobeck in reading KaKov- 
 
 [juei^ov for the MS. KVKUijx^vov. Herodotos has ka-aov\xevos, avnov- 
 
 ijueyos, Hippokr. airoKopvcfioviievos, &c.j Diog. Apoll. 6 krepoLovixivuiv, 
 
 Vita Horn. 5 avbpovixevos. 
 
 Imperfect. 
 
 685.] I. Verbs in -ao). ^pao Xenoph. 5,, ((XTpoocjiaTo Archil. 
 33, ^TTOTCLTo 186, €KOLp.aro Hippokr. Ill 48, aTTe-neLpaTo Hdt. I 46. 
 KaTr]pG)VTo Hippon. ii. ripyopoMVTo Hdt. VI II cannot stand. 
 
 2. Verbs in -fw. Hdt. has ijyevpirjv II 115, eTrote'ero about 30 
 times^ i-nopOeero I 84, ([xipiieTo V 67. Hippokr. has cocfxXeero V 
 204, but coxAetro V 196 (dxpekeet same page), -ev- occurs in 
 (■noievfxeaOa, Hrd. 4^„. -eozro^ and -eu^ro in the third plural: 
 rjyeovTo PIdt. VII 40, Stet'oeSiro VI 1 33, itpo-qy^vvTo VII 40, 
 leKoAewro VII 74, k-notevvTo \ 6-^, VII 138, Hippokr. IX 348. 
 kppmrevvro Hrd. Class. Rev. V 481, frag. 2^. Forms that have 
 been Atticized occur^ e.g. eiroLovvTo Herakl. 127. 
 
 The inflection of the verb behold presents great difficulties''. Two forms 
 'are certainly Ionic : Qrjeojxai, Oedofiai. ( i) dr)ioixai = Doric da.iofj.ai ^<*eafe-io-fjiai, 
 [is found in drjilro ri 133, (6rie7ro Hdt. I 10 (-tj^to Rbds), 68, IV 85 {-rjriTO ds), 
 jVII 44, 56, ICO, 208 (-77r)TO d) ; idrjevvro III 136, VIII 25 ; er]el(Tee Hrd. 721 ; 
 'e7j€v/t€j/oj Hdt. VII 44, 146, 212, VIII 88. Homer has eight forms from dveofiai, 
 one from efdofiai. Hesiod has erj{i(TOfj.ai, OtitjtSs, Aret. 3 1 2 drii^Tos in G {OirjrSs 
 H.V.). (2) Oedofiai*, as in Attic, from *e7iaoixai <*Qd.fa-Lo-ixai. Hdt. has 
 
 ' ivKoviovTo Joh. Gr. 240. 
 
 2 Cf. Johansson, D. V. C. 149, B. B. XV 173. 
 
 ' daiofxai (Pindar^ from *0af d, Syrakusan Qaa. eddro in Theokr. is not from 
 't*6adfT0, but from *9de'eTo, because o becomes e before o, not before € (Schmidt, 
 Keutra, p. 327). edrjrJs is found in Pindar and Theokritos. With earripas' 
 [Beards < edd-, cf. Horn. G-qjiTrip, whose second ij is different from that of 
 OrjTjrSs. 
 
 } * Dindorf, praef. XXXVII, thinks the forms from Bedo/xai in Hdt. are due 
 |to a copyist, and doubts even Ofnrai, e4-i\Tpov. a^tode-qTos he is constrained to 
 j accept because of derjs &^ios. 
 
560 THE IONIC DIALECT. [686. 
 
 Odi/xevos III 32, VI 67, VII 208 (as Aret. 91), Offiaeat, OfriarSfieuos, -craffQai (as 
 Hippokr. IX 348), -a-afievos often (I 11 ^P, other MSS. -r)r)<rdfjLevov), I 30(6 
 -ri7)(r6.fXfvov), II 106 {Rd -€nj(Ta/xe)/ov\ IV 87 {Rd -■rjTjcrdfj.fvos), iOericraTo VII 128 
 (IV 87 Eds -rffia-aTo), -avroYl 120 (III 23 PRz, 24 PRdz -t)iiffavTo). From 
 the same stem we have eii) < *e^rj, in Hdt. I 25, IX 25 (fleaj Hrd. 129)= Attic 
 0eo, 6ir]Tal Hdt. Ill 139, OeriTpov VI 21, Oerjua Sim. Amorg. 757 (Doric 0o7)^a< 
 6afr]/jia), a^io0er]ro5 Hdt. often. OeTj- is contracted to dij- in '///a ^uiv eTja-aiaT a 
 191 ('/j/a Ori-ncTaiaT' Kirchhofif), e-r)(Tatxivos Abdera 162 (metrical), e-fia-etrde Hrd. 
 755. We see no reason for accepting an Ionic daofiai in these contracted forms. 
 The Doric forms (Ahrens II 342) may be referred to Qao[j.ai or to Gafiai, and 
 Qitifievos in Hdt. is not necessarily from 6dofj.at. Odfo is certain in the 
 Anthology and Hesychios, who has also Odoura' Bewpovvra, but Roehl's (I. 6. A. 
 409) 6dev Tov \i6ov in the Naxian inscription must yield to Bentley's [t]oi 
 afiiTov \idov. Two forms cause great difficulty : i67)rjTO, the v. I. in Hdt. and 
 iderJTo in Hippokr. VII 490 according to Littre {fOeirJTo in e, idearo in seven 
 MSS.). These forms, if correct, could come only from an hitherto unknown 
 dri-flo/LLai < 6dfd-to-ixat, and from diiiofiai < Atjtj-. edriTJTO, we think, has its t/t 
 wrongly transferred from iOTj-fjo-aro, &c. (a reading adopted by Abicht), and 
 idfi^To its eTj from edf-fiffaro. Johansson suggests the possibility of deriving 
 iderJTo from f9rie7To, i. e. ed^fiero, by metathesis quantifatis. We prefer to regarc 
 the forms as simple blunders. \ 
 
 The editors adopt -e^a-Kero, e.g. in Troteeo-Kero Hdt. VII 5, wHcb 
 has the support of only one MS. (^, liioiUro PRz). The pre- 
 ferable form would be -noUdK^ro found va. AB Cd. So in VII 11 c 
 z alone has -Troieeo-zcero, the MSS. (except R i-noUero) TroiirrKeTo. 
 
 3. Verbs in -oca. rjvTiovTo Hdt. I 76, eKaKovro Hippokr. IL 
 74, 7}T€poiovro Diog". Apoll. 2, Trap€KvrjfxovvTO Hippon. 130. Oi^ 
 ibLKauvvTo Hdt. Ill 39, see § 690. 
 
 T/ie Contraction of -ee, -eet. 
 
 686.] To afford a survey of the usage of Hippokrates, Aretaio! 
 and the ijpitators of Herodotos in respect of their adoption of th 
 obsolete forms in -ee, -eet from -eon verbs, we present the following 
 table. See Lindemann de dialecto lonica recentiore, pp. 31 fl 
 The names of Asinius Quadratus and Uranius are omitted froB 
 the list, since they present no pertinent forms. Forms of -ef( 
 verbs (§ 637, 2) are included in the enumeration. 
 
THE CONTRACTION OF -ff, -eei. 
 
 561 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P« 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 .• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ho 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 &4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t--. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -i 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 l-H 
 
 M « >*• 
 
 5j 
 
 fin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t>. 
 
 CI 
 
 ro 
 
 ON 
 
 1-4 
 
 
 
 (-1 i-i 
 
 
 ,_, 
 
 ^ 
 
 2 °° ^ 
 
 M- 
 
 >=; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 -i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (S 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 1 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 fl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 Oh 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ►? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -J3 
 
 
 
 
 ON 
 «7> 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 l-l C< CO CO 
 
 hH 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a; 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 ?j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 l-l w 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 M H-t M hH 
 
 CO 
 
 •*^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lU 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 "i 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'e 
 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 U5 
 CI 
 
 
 ro 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 !>. 
 
 
 
 1— I 
 
 CO 1-1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 'r-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :i 
 
 HH 
 
 U 
 
 -M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (-4 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 
 w ujrCj^ 
 
 r^' 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 Si" 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J-t 
 
 N 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 1-4 
 
 M 
 
 
 ^ 2 
 
 
 <N 
 
 10 
 
 c. 00 ^ « 
 
 (-H 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 ^ 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vo 
 
 
 
 rcto ^ 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 ^ r^ ^ /^ * 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 ^' — ' 
 
 ^ c^ r^. ^^ 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cfl 
 
 ro ^ilT <s 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 < 
 
 fO 
 
 '*- 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 VO 
 
 GO fO 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 ^ 2 ?-, "^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 [ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 =5i 
 
 ■k^* 
 
 
 '§ 
 
 
 
 ^d 
 
 a 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '« 
 
 ;g 
 
 
 >s; 
 
 02 
 
 
 >j 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 , 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 S tn 
 
 
 
 S ui 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .3 
 
 a 
 
 _o 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ti^ 
 
 h-H 
 
 1-1 <; <1 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 J3 
 
 to © 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 u 
 
 H 1=: c c 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ¥ ■ 
 
 
 u 
 
 ,Q 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UBI3[Tl']; 
 
 < 
 
 <J 
 
 H 
 
 m < 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j^ 
 
 
 r< 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 h-l 
 
 O) 
 
 M) 
 
 © 
 
 ;h 
 
 a 
 
 -4-3 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 h-j 
 
 t~~. 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 CQ 
 
 %. 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 eS 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 •4^ 
 
 eS 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 C« 
 
 
 ^ 
 <+:> 
 
 W 
 
 ri 
 
 (Jl 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 © 
 
 s. 
 
 A 
 
 !§ 
 
 tn 
 
 © 
 fen 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 j^ 
 
 cS 
 
 a 
 
 © 
 
 si 
 
 u 
 
 © 
 
 H 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
562 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [687J 
 
 The Injiection of Verhs in --qco, -tow. 
 
 687.] I. -r]ta)<-atco. 
 
 Siil'f) Hippokr. VI 488, VII 258 (-« Ermerins wrongly), as in Pindar, Sv^iji 
 Hdt. II 24, Sirpewv (- u -) Archil. 68, from Si^pijoov (cf. Si^daiv A. 584 and Maxo««» 
 Maxeoiiv § 140, i). The contracted form appears in 5i^wi>Ta Anakr. 57, foJ 
 which Fick would read SiipewvTa, Si\pwvres Aret. 134, Sixpucrav Asirol. 24= 
 Sti/zeCo-cij' Anthol. Pal. VI 2I7. In the imperfect, e'Si'ij/rj Hippokr. Ill 36, 42^ 
 iSiipaiy II 652. 
 
 The origin of the long vowel in Si\l/dai, ireivaw still remains obscure 
 Schulze, K. Z. XXIX 269 refers these two verbs to 5n|/d(r_ico, ireivaatu, an«j 
 connects their latter part with Vas burn. But 5i\prjv, as Treivriv, may be mereli 
 an analogue of verbs with primitive tj, e. g. \f/?]v. 
 
 dprjv Hippokr. Ill 290, Spwvra (Attic?) Hrd. 533, for which we should 
 expect 5pea}yTa, ^piovra, or Bpevvra (cf. irTiSewTa Zoi)- Verbs in -tjw in Hrd 
 always contract (cf. under Kvaw and \|/ixa)\ and the closed forms are known iS 
 us from the prose monuments. Attic Spav may be from Spa-etv. 
 
 6v/xtriTai Hdt. IV 75, inroQvixi-ftcrQoi Hippokr. VII 320 have been regarded a| 
 derived from Oy/xi^co. We class them with the hyper-Ionisms (§ 637, 1 footj 
 note), and in Hdt. read Ovfiiarai with A'^R. 
 
 ixvaofxai we expect to yield fiveci/xevos in Hdt. This is found in I 96, bul 
 only in CPz, MSS. which often affect -ew- where it is not in place. In I 2cj 
 all MSS. have -&)-. ifivaro I 205 and /xvarai Anakr. 68 are also from fivdofiai 
 if the other forms in -co- are correct. Homer has fxvdixevos A 117, but alsj 
 envdovTo, fivdaffdai, &c. /j.vwo/j.evos is a certain emendation of Wolf in Hyinj 
 I 209. 
 
 ireivfi Hippokr. VI 488, but Treivuvras Hdt. I 133 which would seem to If 
 Attic, cf. ireivdccv r 25, &c. 
 
 2. -r]L(o (with pan-Hellenic r?). 
 
 Whether pan- Hellenic 17 exists in all of the following- form 
 e.ff. a\xi]v, \lfi]v (y^a(f)os), is uncertain. j 
 
 ^7)< *^?;-6i, Herakl. 25, Diog. Apoll. 6, Hippokr. Ill 192, VI 42 (subj.l 
 ^wfji.ev Sim.j|Amorg. 32 might be from *(ewfx.ev < *C7io/j.ei', could we not assuDfj 
 a weak stem (a-. Improbable is the derivation from *^6co/j.ey < (wojxfv. f« i 
 Hdt. II 92, IV 22 {ABE), 23 (Cdiovffi R\ 103, Hippokr. II 46, V672. Bekke 
 Dindorf, Abicht accept only (woven in Hdt. ^tjj/ < *Cv-e''f Hdt. V 6 (cf. VII ^ 
 in Pi?, Stob.\ Demokr. 54, Theog. 1156, Aret. 10. Hdt. elsewhere has (de'^ 
 which Merzdorf would, and Stein does, adopt in V 6. (aiv Herakl. 78, (avr 
 Hippokr. Ill 246, Aret. 183, (iovTi Hippokr. Ill 246, Hdt. IV 94, VII 2. 
 {A BR), (oivra Hdt. I 86 his (in one case B'^C have (tiovTa; Ca>6vTwi> in san 
 chapter), II 162, III 10, IV 14, VII 33, 166, Cypres Hdt. IV 22, 23, 46 (C«j 
 Pd), IX 119, Herakl. 67, (wi/ra Hippokr. VI 488, (divrwv Herakl. l\ 
 (Bernays), (wffi. Hdt. VI 58, (wvTas II 69 {(ow- C), VII 146, (wcra IV 205. 
 
 On the forms of (doj, see below under 3. The second ablaut form Ji 
 cannot be supported by a supposed Kyprian (afe'ire, or by Siaira (wi : 
 Schmidt, K. Z. XXV 151). (rj is, moreover, not from *(i)f-ei, but from *(h-i\ 
 Kwr C^^' ^I'e not original forms, the -fxi conjugation of ^tjucu being later th;ij 
 
687.] THE INFLECTION OF VERBS IN -ria,, -wo). 563 
 
 that in -w. (rjei is an analogue of a-Trjei (cf. (Tt7]to>, Cr)Tw), and i^nv is built on 
 the pattern of %(Tfir)v. Cf. Brugmann M. U. I 7. €(riv displaced the earlier 
 f(a>v (Cobet, Misc. Crit. 546). 
 
 Hdt. has no trace of the 77 of *Kvi)iui : Kvav VII 239, despite epic kvTi and 
 Kvrirai Hippokr. Ill 490. Herodas has kvw Class. Rev. V 481, frag. I5. If Kvas 
 in Aristophanes is incorrect, as Cobet, Meineke and Dindorf maintain, kvuv 
 would be erroneous in Hdt. But in the case of both Ionic and Attic we 
 may assume the existence of kvo.-. See below, p. 565. 
 
 Hdt. contracts Kraofxat (§ 168) in KTavrai I 135, III 98 (-eco- s), 105, no, 
 trinivos I 29, III 134, IV 80. The contraction to -o- is also supported by 
 ABR in KTwvTai III 107, where P has Kreovrai, Cdz -eco-, II 79 (-60- P, -ecc- Cs), 
 illl 74 iKrewvTO {-fo- P, -eon- Cs), Euseb. Mynd. ktco/xsvos 15, 24 ; KTaaOai Hdt. I 
 !5l, III 21, 73, VII 9 ; Krarai Demokr. 184. iKTearo, imperfect in Hdt. VIII 
 ^12 in ABd) (-€6- PR), is certainly wrong (Dindorf eKTrjTo, all the recent 
 3ditors iKTUTo^ ; as is -eero, unless a form Kre-, laarallcl to XP«-) can be shown 
 to exist in this verb. See on xp^^ofiai below. e/cTearat IV 23 is correct. 
 
 A.7J Theognis 299 is not the result of a Doric contraction of Aaei, but of 
 pan-Hellenic \71e1. If the Kretan form were Kri'ioi} = Xrjecc, Afj might also be 
 jxplained as = Ar; + 6r. It is, however, certain that Ae'ot is to be read in Museo 
 Ual. II 678, 6, and this may stand for \e{i)oi (Bechtel, Goit. Nachr. 18S8, p. 400). 
 A. Xrjecp would, however, be a parallel of xpV^o/xai {'Xrios, xpvos^. 
 
 vi\(j} heap up {vi]ei' actipevei Hesychios) has passed into the inflection of vew in 
 Eerodotos : eirwiovai IV 62, irepiue^v VI 80 (so R, -eeiv other MSS.), (rvvveveaTai 
 [V 62. Perhaps we should read j/Tje? in the gloss (cf. Horn. j/Tjew). Photios' 
 'WVTOS' (TwpevovTos would i^oint to moo. vcvvra' vrfiovTa has the same con- 
 iraction. In Hesiod TF. D. 777 we may read v^ for vil and in Hesychios j/tjj/ 
 'or veiv (spin). 
 
 fffxaoo would seem to be Ionic, not tr/ii^cti : e^effp.wv Hdt. Ill 148 (cf. Hesychios), 
 'laff/iooi'Tes II 37 (only Cs -ew-, P -eo-), cr/xaTai IX no (cf. fffioD/x^vriv Aristoi^h. 
 rag. 326 D). (TfieovTai was a conjecture of Valckenaer in Hdt. VII 209. 
 lippokr. uses (Tfi^x^- 
 
 I Xpas uiterest an oracle, Hdt. IV 155 = Attic XPV^ j XP§ I S.'' ^^'^ ^5 times 
 ilsewhere ; xpS" IV 155, VIII 135 Us; xpe'cuo-a VII in (xpiovcraPs) fem. of 
 ipioov Hymn I 253 ( = 11 75), cf. XP''?'^" S 79 ; exPV Tyrt. 33 as in Attic. 
 
 Xpfil>i^evos consulting an oracle Hdt. IV 151 (P -eoA ; xP^'^""^"' ^ '57 ^^^ MSS. 
 
 •Xpa-ffBai Stein), XP"-'^^"-'- ^H ^A^ (xp'jo'^at R), XP'V^«' I 47 ^^^ MSS. (xpSo-^at 
 
 ^tein) ; ixp^wvro I 53, IV 157 (-eo- BPR), V 82 (-eo- Pr), VII 141 (-eo- P). 
 
 ' xp"''^ ixP'h)} cf- Epicharmos' airoxpeoo, and epic 6/j.oK\ecc derived from kAtj. 
 
 araxp? Hdt. I 164, awoxpS IX 79, anoxpolxn V 31 (cf. xp*' (XP"'^/ ^*' ^'^ 
 
 lesychios, and airoxpfovri in Archimedes) ; subj. diroxpfi Hijipokr. IX 156 ; 
 
 iroxpav (cf. Bekk. An. 43900) Hdt. Ill 138, VI 137, VII 14S, IX 48, 94 ; xP^ov 
 
 '■ 49 {-edi/ ds), 109 (-eaJi/ ds) ; airexpo- I 66 (-jj 6ds), Karexpa VII 70 ; airoxpew- 
 
 levos, content, 1 37 ; d7r€xp«To 1 102 all MSS., VIII 14 {-eero Rs, -rjro other MSS.). 
 
 From primitive *xprj-io-^ai r(se (§ 167) we have the genuine Ionic ^ forms 
 
 peoofiai, xpeaivrat in all MSS. of Hdt. to II 77, excejit in a few passages where 
 
 liere is a slight support for -eo-, or Attic -co-. From II 77 on we find that P 
 
 as -60- (except IV 104), all the other MSS. -eco-. Hippokrates prefers 
 
 ^ Also Kretan : xp^<^f^^Sa Mus. Hal. Ill 563, 1. 32. *xP'n,ofj.ai may stand for 
 Xp^feffiOfiai, Kretan xpviojxai < xpvos. Or xP'O^ofj.ai. may be a causative like 
 le Skt. pijuijdyati. It is more probable that we have two distinct forms 
 Xp^ioixat and *xpri^ofxai. 
 
 2 
 
564 THE IONIC DIALECT. [687 
 
 Xpfovrai, e.g. II 12, 48 (-co- vulgo), 54, 60, 72, 74, 88 {-co- vulgo), 246 f-w in A. 
 -toi- vulgo), 344 {-w- A) ; xpef^M^^" ^H 224. Herakleitos iii has xp«'>'>'toi ir 
 Bywater, following Bernays, before whose time -xpeovrai was read. Neithei 
 form occurs in the MSS. In Anaxag. 10 Simplicius has xp^^'^"''- XPf'^"'''"* i- 
 found in Syr. dea 1 (6 MSS., -eo- in E), xpeovrai in 4, Arrian 13,, 16,, Aret 
 174. x/'i^''''""' is found in Theog. 161, and the MSS. Arrian 29,5; xp^f^e<^^' 
 Herodas 321. x/'"''"''' occurs 8 times in the MSS. of Hdt. (in I 58 z has -€€• 
 in III 78 -77-, in IV 50 Pi? have -ee-) ; elsewhere there is no variation. XP^^'''" 
 is found in Aret. 63, 133, 176, 179. The second person singular is xpa, loni 
 and Koiv-n according to the Schol. Ven. A on A 216. Attic is XPV- 
 
 In the imperfect Herodotos has ixP"''''''^ eight times in all MSS., s'xp^T 
 once (III 41). Variation exists in II 173 (y.l. -ee-), III 129, VIII 14, 11 
 {v.l. -ee-), IX 37. exp'jTo is found Herodas 6-,5, Hippokr. Ill 106. 
 
 Hdt. has e'xpe'coj'To, not ixp^ovro ^ which is found in P (and in other MS? 
 occasionally), II 108, III 57, IV 157, V 68, 82, VI 46 ; Hippokr. has expeW?' 
 II 226 (-eco- S\ -CD- gloss. FO). So too Astrol. 7, 23. Euseb. § 4. 
 
 In the subjunctive we find xp^<^vrai, e. g. Hdt. V 87, Hippokr. II 264. TLi 
 optative is xp^olto Hippokr. II 346, but {xP'^'''^ "^ -^ ^^^ gloss\ 358 (xp«i; 
 gloss), VII 448. 
 
 Imperative XP^'^ Hdt. I 155 in all MSS. excejjt AB which have XP^'"; tl; 
 reading of Littre in Hippokr. II 516 (xpcS A^, 520 (xpe'o) A C), VIII 440. Stei 
 and Kallenberg adopt xpe'o in Hdt., but the other form is preferable. XP^® ' 
 from *xpvo, *xP'neo. The Attic xpw occurs in Herodas 5^ ; xpac^'" Hdt. II 12' 
 Xpefffdo) Hippokr. VII 176, 182, 1S4, 216, 234, 244, 246, 288, in VII 168 ar 
 VIII 260 [-7]- in e) ; xpV'tOcc VII 22 bis, 24 ter, 26, 28, 348 (-ej- v.L), VIII <; 
 (Ce), 502 ; xpcio-de Hdt. V 92 a) with -17- in A B d ; xpo-ffBoov III 81 ; xpeec^'"''' 
 Hippokr. VI 82 is read by Littre (A has XP'?"^ The ending is late. 
 
 Xpao-Oai appears 22, xp'/c^aj only 6, xpffo"^"' ^3 times in all MSS. of He; 
 Elsewhere there is variation (12 times), in 3 of which xp^^-flai is bett' 
 attested than xp«''"0cn, and in 3 others better than xp«'''0at. [x]pE(r6[c: 
 Keos 432 may be xp^c^ct' or xpe7a-9ai, of which the former is correct, XP')"'' 
 is found in Demokr. 1S8 (Stobaios, who has xpacrdai in 11), Hippokr. Ill 2: 
 VI 302, 342, 516, VII 26, 100, 234, VIII 440, to cite passages where Litt 
 adopts this form. In a large number of passages Littre adopts XP^**^'' 
 against the authority of the best MSS. or of the vulgate. A has xp'?"'^'" 
 II 254, 356, 364, 366, VI 72, 74 Ms, 78, 80, 84 his, 9 has xPWSai VI 602 ; 
 also III 3j^, VI 72. The vulgate has -rj- in II 78, 180, 268, VI 76, &c. 
 variant from xpefc^"' is given in II 30, IV 162, VI 516, 662, VII 16S, i : 
 I90> 330' Littre even reads on the same page (VI 516) xpe'fc^ni and XP^*'''" 
 Kiihn adopts xpe'ecflaj in Aretaios 188, 195, 198, 202, 203, 204, 303. 1 
 
 Xpd/J-evos (cf. xpt^i'-evos "V 834 and Eust. ad loc.) is the cori-ect form 
 Herodotos. P and sometimes other MSS. have -eo-, e. g. II 108 PR. XP*^/**, 
 is foreign to the dialect of the historian ^. This form in Kallenberg's frf 
 I 131 must be an error, xp"^/"^'"'* is edited in Herakl. 62 (?), Hippokr. II 
 (-W- vidgo), IX 404 epist. {vulgo, -eo- v.l.'^, Abydenos 9 (-eo- r. I.). ; 
 
 Xpe6fj.evos is generally adopted in Hippokrates : II 254 (-cd- A), 260 (:'■ 
 vidgo), 264 (-co- A), 280 bis (-eco- v.l., -oc- A), 30S (-co- A, -eco- C), 342 (-eco- VU., 
 
 ^ Cf. Bekk. Anecd. I 42325. 
 
 ^ Greg. Kor. § 15 cites this form as Ionic : expaoj/ro ^xp^ovto rh a e f 
 TpeTTOvres. 
 
 ^ It occurs in Sim. Keos loo^. 
 
687.] THE INFLECTION OF VERBS IN -77a), -wco. ^6^ 
 
 .»- A), 372 (-6W- A, -co- gloss FG), III 102 (-w- nj.), 364 (I), -ew- S\ -cc- A), VI 
 
 72 6/s (-e«- vulgo, -a>- A, and -eco- G J Q\ -co- VK?fifo), 662 (0, where Littre has -co-) ; 
 
 [Lukian, Syr. dea 55 (-eco- v, A^, Astrol. 15, 29 {E), Arrian 122, 288, 2919, Aret. 
 
 103, 241, 274, 306, 311. 
 *^T)iO) yields /carar/zcoo-a Hdt. VI 61, Hi-d. 675 (cf. KaTw^wv Peace 75). 
 Eemarks. On the evidence above adduced we conclude that in the case of 
 ,Qn; «>"?-; f'^'?-) <^t^V-, XPV- and ^V-> Ionic builds, with a few exceptions in the 
 forms from xp^-) the inflections from the weak ablaut stem in d. The 
 [presence of these stems in d relieves us of the necessity of regarding the 
 jcontracted forms in co as the result of a union of rjco, tjo in co. The inter- 
 jrelation of the stems xP'7-> XP"" ^^d xP^'i ^^^^ ^"^ ^ less degree that of ktti-, /cto- 
 ,and KTe- is of extreme difficulty. The most probable explanation is that of 
 the two ^ ablaut forms xp'7"j XP^" (cf- XP""''/'^^''" ^nd Kvrjv, nvaico) kttj-, kto.- the ij 
 iform appeared originally before 0, that in d before e sounds'^. Thus xpf'^vrai, 
 ixp^uyro, xpe'oM^'"'^) XP^'^> XP^'^'^'^ on the one hand, and xpnrai, ixpo-'t'o, xpcicrffco, 
 XpaffOai, XP?^5 ^e. on the other, represent the original function of the two 
 types. Later on this dichotomy was abandoned and the resulting confusion 
 j)roduced xpcico, xp'^M-^""^ Attic and Messenian, xpv'^^^^h ktcHih^vos, Krwvrai, &c. ; 
 junless we maintain with Schmidt K. Z. XXVII 297 that Attic xpw- is from 
 iXpio- (cf- riotreiScov ■<i-7)oiv). 
 
 1 The xpe- forms' are historically and morphologically later. They came 
 linto existence when xp«o/tai, instead of xp^"M«') had established itself in use. 
 From this xpao^uat came Ionic, Rhodian, and Kretan xpfOM«'> ^s 6pa.o> became 
 tipiw (§ 688). xp^ojjiai soon led to xp^^'^^'-h ^XP^^'''°> XPf*""^*'- 
 I Without the assumption of an original differentiation in use between xpi- 
 and XP'^'J the shifting between xP*'^M€''os ^n*i XP"'''"' in Hdt. cannot be 
 defended. If we attempt to carry the stem xpf)' through the singular present 
 and imperfect, and infinitive, it is inconceivable why Hdt. does not have 
 XP^Toi and xpTJO^^ai. If xp«'''a* is not original in Hdt., it was introduced at 
 a time when Attic XP^'''*' h^d been supplanted by xparai. 
 
 3. -COlft). 
 
 feico* Theog. 914, ^co6Js Hrd. 410, ^coei Hdt. Ill 22, Hippokr. VI 482, 506. 
 fcoojue;' Sim. Amorg. i^ is the traditional form, but the verse will not scan 
 (C^ooi/iny Ahrens, Hiller, ^uixev Bergk). ^wovai Herakl. 92, Hdt. I 216, II 36, 
 
 * The existence of an ablaut series rj (co), e, d in one and the same verb is 
 not to be accepted with Johansson, who D. V. C. p. 156 (hesitatingly) suggests 
 !its possibility. iriyUTrArj^i has ttAij-, irAe-, TrAd-, but of these TrAe- is a weakened 
 foi"m of irAr)- before a vowel (TrAe-icov) that was carried into the inflection of 
 the verb by the analogy of ridrifii, riQefxev. See § 691, note 4. 
 
 ; ^ This was not recognized in § 167. The weak point in the above explana- 
 [tion is that original xp"''^'''^ in Attic was supplanted by xp^""""' (whereas xp^rai 
 does not appear in inscriptions till the second century b.c.) and then Avas 
 driven out by xparai. an analogue of rifiarat. Perhaps xp^t"' was formed like 
 
 ; ' Meister, Herodas p. 796, thinks that xpV- became xpe- before the vowel 
 (When followed by a double consonant. Johansson, B. B. XV 172, suggested 
 
 (doubtfully) that accent-shifting produced the change (xpTjfJ/ievoj, xpeoMei'ov). 
 
 Neither theory has the support of facts. 
 
 * Very frequent in Homer. It occurs also in Kretan, Lakonian, Boiotian, 
 North West Greek. Kyprian Zc6f tjs does not belong here. In Rhodian we 
 find ^uvri, ^a>vTa.s, in Lakonian, Delphic, &c., ^wvtl, in Boiotian ^wvdi. 
 
566 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [688. 
 
 Ill 22 ; (dor, Thasos, J. H. S. VIII 402, 12 ; (doini Theog. 112 1, (^-nv (?) Hrd. 
 379> cf. [CI?''? 570! C^<^'' Kallinos ijg, Cc^J/ztcov Hdt. I 86 {(civroov Rd), III 119, 
 C^ovffav Hrd. V 2, (dovras Euseb. Mynd. 42 ; ^dinv Theog. 182, Herakl. 86, 
 Hdt. I 31, VII 46, Hippokr. VIII 70, Hrd. 2^9, Syr. dea 6, Sim. Amorg. ij^ at 
 the verse end (hence Person's C^eiv) ; fC^ov Hdt. IV 112. 
 
 (du is well established in the language as early as Homer. From an 
 ablaut perfect e'Cw/co (which chances to occur on a late inscription fi-om 
 Kyzikos C. I. G. 36845, where it is doubtless from Cwco), the stem (w was 
 abstracted, (dw is not a contracted verb, as irKwu is not. The stem (w- we 
 find in Cf^pSs, (cintvpov, (ws which was later on enlarged to ^w6s [Archil.] 63^, 
 Hdt. I 194, CvoV' *• ^' C't'-'o-;/, C'^i) (Aret. 41). ^wi), C<^6s, (deiv, (wes became 
 respectively Corj (Hdt. IV 112, Hrd. I 4, 32), (065 (Archil. 63, Porson), (6eiv 
 (Sim. Amorg. ij,), C^^s' Cv Hesychios. 
 
 From the stem ISpwa- ' (epic tS/xj), i5pa>) the denominative IZpwffiw is formed. 
 Of. epic i^ptiiovaa, iSpdovTas. ISpdo} yields ISpdei Syr. dea 10, tSpc^ri Hippokr. II 
 34, iSpdeiu Syr. dea 17, etpiSpcovres Hippokr. V 598 {-ov- vidgo, cf. 594), VI 19a 
 bis {0, -ov- vulgo). The forms in Lukian may be derived from the future or 
 aorist ISpu-a; but neither Ionic nor Attic admit, in an early period of their 
 existence, such forms as Delphic <TTe(pavdo} formed from ffTe<pa.vd-(To>. From 
 the weaker stem we have j'Spocnw which yields in Hippokr. i^pol II 34, iSpov(riu 
 
 V 610, 626, 'ISpow II 642, ISpovTu II 516, ISpovv V 5S8, 596, ISpovvTss 11 612, V 
 590, 594 ier {A has -a>- once), 596 ter {-aio- twice in A), 676, 710. 
 
 The earlier type of the forms of pLy6w is derived from the stem piyaxr- (c£ 
 Latin rigor-) : piyia Hijjponax 16,, i7i, ^179^7; Hippokr. VII 190, piySxra Sim. 
 Amorg. 726. f)iyiw shows its later origin in the fact that it is constructed in the 
 ordinary fashion from the stem piyeff-. Examples of piyice are piyot Hippokr. 
 
 V 588, piyeovcri V 624, 626, piyevtri V 1 12 (Attic piyomi V 656, 710), piyri V 706, 
 piyovv Hdt. V 92 (17), piyiovTis Hijjpokr. V 588, piyiovra V 590, piyevvra V 592 
 (A), {piyovvTo. V 540), ippiyeov II 642 bis {-ow vidgo, -eoy C in one case only), 652 
 (-ouf vulgo). 
 
 The Inflection of -aco Yerls. 
 
 688.] I. The original inflection of rijuaco was as follows, e.g. 
 in the present and imperfect indicative : 
 
 Ttjj.a-te-is 
 
 whefic 
 
 ce rt/j.ea> 
 
 TL/J.aS 
 
 Ti/xa 
 
 irifia-io-v whence irlfxeov 
 irifMa-ii-s ,, eTl/iias 
 iri/j-a-te ,, trifia 
 
 Tijj.a-m-fj.ev whence TLfxeofiev 
 Tifjia-ie-re ,, Tj/tare 
 
 TtfXa-lO-VTt ,, TlfJ.(OV(n 
 
 irifj.a-10-fxev whence inixiofxev 
 fTi/uLa-te-Tf ,, (TifjLaTf 
 
 irifj-a-io-v ,, irifxeoi' 
 
 Before an sound, a became e^ in the verb (and noun, >§ 136)]! 
 in a very early period of the language^; a substitution of e for a J 
 
 ^ ISpds in post-Homeric is a t stem. Cf. Horn. yeXdw <C y^^oxriw, yf\ifA 
 yikw. yeKws is later a t stem. 
 ^ Schmidt, Neutra pp. 326-334. 
 ' Original a became e in primitive Greek only before an sound. In verbsi 
 
588.] THE INFLECTION OF -ao) VERBS. 567 
 
 cound in Homeric ii^voiveov (ef. \xevoivaox), ojxoKk^ov, 6//oKAeo/xey 
 I'cf. ofxoKXa), TTOTeovrai, e/cTToreWrat (afxcpciroTaro), ijVTeov, eavXeov, 
 '•.I. E 48, aveL- or ain]pooT€vv, v. I. 8 251. It also aj^j^ears in 
 rnany of the dialects knoAvn to us only from inscriptions, but has 
 been completely abandoned in Attic, that dialect reinstating the 
 original a by analogy to the other forms (-aet, -a^r^), and then 
 contracting this a with the following sound. The process that 
 f iias thus recalled in Attic the older a forms was also active in 
 V Lhe other dialects ; and to such an extent that the regular forms 
 ( svith eo, eo), eou are the exceptions. The impetus towards the 
 i reinstatement of ao, aco, aov was vigorous enough and early 
 '. enough to have left Homer with only a handful of instances in 
 / svhieh e has displaced a. The coexistence of such forms as rt/xdo), 
 rijueoj shows that the original dichotomy has been abandoned. 
 J When the dialects diverge in respect of a verb's variation between 
 ; -ao) and -eco, it cannot be said that Ionic always stands on the 
 side of the latter. Hippokrates has atoAaco, Plato atoAew. 
 
 3. The rule appears to be broken in the following forms (see 
 the list given below): alove'LV, hiaiTi^crOai, kpierai (?), epcam (?), 
 n-qXpLveeo-dai, bp^ei, opirjs, operj, Trrjbelv, (rKop'hivh]Tat, ^otrects, (pOLTrj. 
 1 Of these the only form that may be old is epi^rat (?), which is, 
 however, reported as used by Demokrates, not by Demokritos. 
 The analogy of epeojuie^os, opioiv, &c., introduced the e in forms 
 : where the primitive a was not followed by an sound. On 
 [non-Ionic) inscriptions we have rtpidv and o-Kavelv. 
 
 3. In poetry scant traces of e for a occur: ipio) Archil. 253, 
 582 (both tetram.), /icojutewrat Theog. 369, fxcoixevixevos 1 69, KVKev- 
 u.evos Solon 37^ (trim.), j3povT€U)v Hrd. 755, viKoav I51, ^otrecoz; 
 365, Trrjh^vvTa 3gg, Aw/SeS/iai 3g9 (cf. -rjraL III 3); St^eoj in Krina- 
 goras, Anthol. Pal. IX 559, and a-KipTivcn Oppian Kyn. IV 342. 
 jWhile no Ionic inscription has a trace of e for a in any verbal 
 Iform, it should be remembered that a (potrav (Oropos 1 8^) does 
 not disprove a (^otreco. 
 
 j 4. In the following note are collected from the prose writers 
 'those verbs which show any tendency in the MSS. to substitute, 
 before an sound, e in place of a contracted with that sound. 
 The examples from Herodotos are complete save that an enumera- 
 tion of all the MS. variants is not attempted in the case of opdco, 
 
 in -a-ixat, e. g. Swa/nai, iiriffraixai, airlffrafxai, -earai (§ 585) is not dissimilated 
 from a-arai, but derived from such perfects as have -earai ■< -Tjarot (§611 ff. ). 
 Dissimilation is generally, but wrongly, accepted in firia-reat, Sweat, whence 
 Svvri (§ 605). The 2 sing, follows the analogy of the 3 plur. When Swa-vrai 
 became Sw-earai, Swa-ffai (A 393) became Sw-€(o-^ai. These two persons alone 
 have, or seemed to have, vocalic endings. In Attic both eViVra^oi and Svva/j.ai. 
 contract their 2 sing. (eVro-Tco, eSvvw) contrary to the usual practice of /xi verbs. 
 That the analogy of /3ouA.j? helped the formation of Svyri (§ 618, i) may be 
 idoubted. 
 
568 THE IONIC DIALECT. [688. 
 
 dpcarao) and (f)OLTao)'^. All other verbs than those included in the! 
 list and those so included in other cases than those specially- 
 mentioned, contract ao, aui, and aov to co. 
 
 aioveiv Aret. 194, 198. ofxiXXeciixevoi Hdt. IV 71 R, -w ABCPd. onra. 
 TeouTO Syr. dea 27. dpco|xat. Hdt. Ill 65 Pz, -ea>- Cd, other MSS. -co-, -eovTai. 
 II 39 Ps, -€U3- C, other MSS. -co-. Kretan ^irapiSfjuvov. On apreofiai, see Veitch 
 s.v. PpovT^oJV Hrd. 765. SaTraveWxai Hdt. II 37 CPs, other MSS. -».. 
 SaiTavo7ev Euseb. Mynd. 6, Aitolian Sairai/ovfj-eva (Andania). SiaireovTO Syr.' 
 dea 26, Siaireo/jLfvoKnv Hippokr. II 354, the second hand in R^ (other MSS. 
 -01-), ivdiaiTeeadai R in Hdt. VIII 41 ; -wx/to VI 514, -d/xevos Aret. 321. 8i(t>cu 
 Krinagoras, Anthol. Palat. IX 559. irpoo-SoKeovxas Hdt. VII 156 CPds,> 
 -00- ABR; TTpoffiSSKee Aret. 201. «p{w Archil. 253, 6S2 (both tetram.), a 
 possible form, but not handed down, for ep&j in Anakr. 3i, 89 bis ; ipeo/xevos^^, 
 ipeerai Demokritos (Demokrates) 6. eperav v. I. for 4par6v^, Archil. I2, ipeTfj- 
 eTTidv/xTjrr] Hesychios (without stating the dialect), Delos, 'Adrjy. IV 463, Attic 
 in Kumanudes' iniyp. iirir. 3037*, and Arkadian 'Epe^fVo C. D. I. 1227 are' 
 to be derived, not from e'pe'w, but from eparSs by dissimilation, the a beingi 
 assailed by an e sound before and after. It is assimilated to the former. 
 elpuTOLO) in Hdt. shows 6 cases of elpwroiv in all MSS., but in I 158, IV 131! 
 no MS. has the contracted form. In 10 other passages there is variation' 
 between -wj', -eov or -ei/i/. In the Vita Homeri one MS. has epwree, butBPJU' 
 have ijpuTa, i. e. Ionic elpdna. In the nom. masc. of the active participle wt 
 find -S>v twice in all the MSS. of Hdt., and twice variation between -wv and; 
 -eW. -SivTa VI 86 (7% IX 55, -uvtoiv VI 66, -uiai I 67, 158, VII 148 occur ii! 
 all the MSS. Variation exists in V 13, IV 145, 155, III 62, I 47. Tht 
 statistics of the middle participle are the same as those of the nom. masc' 
 active. ldop.ai, yields avuvvrai Hdt. VII 236, a form constructed on th(i 
 
 analogy of the 'Attic' futures. On irjrat, see § 637, i footnote. Koi,p,E'ovTa 
 Hdt. II 95 Pz, -eco- G, -u- other MSS., IV 172 Pd, -ew- Cz, -w- other MSSi 
 KO|j,£ovai Hdt. II 36 ^ BPC, -oov- R, -oco- d ; IV 180 -eou- Ps, -eco- Cd,-oi- ABI. 
 (here even Stein accepts KO/xfovcri). Elsewhere -w-, except IV 191 -oai- (R -u-) 
 retained by Stein. In I 82, 195 all MSS. have KOficovTes which represents thi 
 contraction to be adopted in IV 180, 191, if not in II 36. Ko^Joio-i is a: 
 inappropriate as fiyop6wvTo VI 11 (in all MSS. except AB''^), KVKe'ovTOS ii 
 three MSS. Hippokr. IX 374 epist. ; cf. KVKevfievos Solon 375 trim. (/cwXev 
 Lobeck), biit in 1351 eleg. KVKu/xevov {KaKov- Lobeck and Bergk). Xu^tovjo, 
 Hippokr. IV 158 {-wptui many MSS.). Cf. Aoj/SeP^oi Hrd. 359. p.ap7a(i)(?: 
 in Karafj-apyeaiv Hdt. VIII 125. This example may however be a case 0' 
 variation between /lapyeu and -6(1) (Pindar, Aischylos). e/Aijxave'ovTi' 
 
 Hdt. VIII 6 -eo)- d, VIII 52 PR, -c- ABC't), VII 172 CP, -ew- dz, -«- ABE 
 •e6iJLei'oi VII 1 72 P, -eu- Cd z, -«- ABR, 1 76 P, -ew- R s, -w ABC. Cf. ifirixavfar 
 V 63 {-iovTo Stein). Elsewhere -w-. -4e(Tdai Aret. 192 (-acrflat Hippokr. D 
 
 * On this point, see Spreer p. 13, Merzdorf p. 195. On verbs with Ion; 
 stem vowels such as XPV-, '"■'?-> see § 687. 
 
 ^ Cod. Pal. 4pfw/x€vos, a vicious form. The accus. in 6 rrjs ^vxv^ ayoB' 
 4pe6/jLfvos, ra deiSrepa ipeerai is suspicious, Orelli conjectured aipeofifvos 
 aipeerai. Cf. Cobet's -ppedris for ripdadrjs in Alkiphron I 18. 
 
 ^ eporijs Anakr. 944 eleg. Cf. also fpa/xai Anakr. 44, epdcrfJLios Anakr. 2C 
 Sim. Amorg. 7^2. 
 
 * KATjvepeTTj 1. 1. 1648 is an error for -apeVij. 
 
688.] THE INFLECTION OF -ao) VERBS. 569 
 
 252, -daa-dai Littre). vikeovo-i. Demokr, 200, fi/ceW Hrd. I51. In Aitolian 
 we have viKfSvrois. Hdt. contracts viKaai 31 times. In respect of Ivpcu, the 
 forms in Hdt. II 36, 37, 65, 66, III 8, 12 are divided between -oi, -eu-, -eo-, 
 •ov. Since |upaw is not classic, the forms with -co- (which are adojited by 
 Stein, Kallenberg) may be explained as derived from ^updco, abstracted from 
 ^vprja-at, which seemed to come either from -ew or -aco^ The only other form 
 of the verb is ^vpeai, on whose -ov- (adopted by Holder), see § 690, i (B). 
 ^Suveovrai Aret. 141, dSwecui/rai Hippokr. IV 166 in C [-o}- vulgo), but hhvvwvTai 
 V 7i4> oSi'VTjTat II 424 {o'Swarai VII 70, wBvvaTo V 206). opw is the better 
 attested reading four times in Hdt. (I 89, 207, V 20, VIII 140 fi). In VII 
 236, only A B support bpw. Stein's 6piw ^ is found only once in all the MSS. 
 (I in). Hippokr. has bpiw IX 340 (epist.), but opSo II 314 (in A^, Demokr. 
 185. Hdt. 6pa correctly, but Lukian, Syr. dea 29, opeei. In the plural (present 
 and imperfect) Hdt. has -ci/xev once in all MSS. (I 120), elsewhere (5 times) 
 ABR have -w. C -iw, P -eo-. opeofiev occurs in Hippokr. VII 548 {ko>pwiJ.iv 
 vulgo^, Arrian 153^, but the same form in Melissos 17 is a conjecture of 
 Mullach. In Herakl. 64 it has the authority of Clement. In the third pi. 
 Hdt. has opSicTi I 124 {CP -eoo-), 138 (C -eai-). In the subjunctive we find dpe-ps 
 Syr. dea 32, Aret. 30, Spe-p (?) Hippokr. V 480 [dpa A), Syr. dea 32 (elsewhere 
 ip^). In the plural we have opaicri Hdt. IX 66 (^Stein -eW: with s). bpewai 
 appears in Aretaios 187. Imperfect, i sing, and 3 pi. in Hdt. 20 times, with 
 \&p(iiv 10 times in all MSS.; elsewhere there is fluctuation between -wv, -eoDV, 
 ■eov, but ABB have &puv 7 times. In the third sing, we have S>pa, whereas 
 Hippokr. has eiipa II 708 ; see § 582. Participle: dpewy, 18 times out of 38 
 in all MSS. in Hdt. ; 6pwu once (VII 44) in all. Elsewhere A B usually have 
 -uv, CP -fwv, while R fluctuates, thus making bpecov attested more frequently 
 than the eco forms elsewhere, bpeuv Hippokr. Ill 238 {BMN, -Siv vulgate), 
 IX 332, Astrol. 24, Aret. 10, and Protagoras. Hippokr. has bpHv III 256 ; 
 bpeovTi Aret. 10 (op.) ; bpiovTa is not the better reading in Hdt. {ABR -wvTa, 
 -6W- C, -60- Pds), bpwvTa in all MSS. VII 36. bpeovra Hippokr. Ill 214 BM, 
 ■ew- N, -co- vulgo, and on same page bpwvra ; bpeovra Aret. 207 ; the nom. plural 
 ;(3i times in Hdt.) varies greatly. In VI 68, VII 206 all the MSS. have 
 i-uvTis, and the contraction is well supported in I 82, 96, 99, VII 211. Else- 
 ! where ABR have -co- generally, the other MSS. either -eo- (C sometimes -eco-), 
 ,or, when they divide, -eo- Pd and -ecu- C. In Demokr. frag, physic. 4 Mullach 
 edits bpeovTis, but Sextus has -wvTes ; bpeovTes is edited in Hippokr. VI 44, 
 IX 374> -ewres IX 358, 376 (-co- many MSS.), and Aret. 42 ; bpeSurcau Hdt. Ill 
 41 in Pds only ; ABR -co-, C -eo- ; bpuffi Hdt. I 99 (-eco- CPs) ; bpeovras Hdt. 
 IX 37 Pdz, -co- ABR, -eco- C ; bpuaa Hdt. I 185, IX 76 in all MSS., VI 61 in 
 AB^Cd; bpaxrav VI 61 in all ; bpeovffai Aret. 167 ; neuter : bp&y Hdt. VII 16 -> 
 (all MSS., Stein bpeov), bpiecrOai Astrol. 21 ; bpeo/jLevos Hippokr. IX 3S2 (epist.), 
 Vit. and. 5 (-00- in n). Forms with e appear in Alkman, Archytas, and 
 Theokritos. From 6p|j.ab> we have -ufiev Hdt. VII 209 in all MSS., -coj/to VII 
 88 in ABR, -eoi- Cs, -eo- Pd. bp/j.djj.evos is found 4 times in all except Cs or 
 Cdz, and in 21 other passages -dfievos has the support of ABR, -eco- of C, -eo- 
 
 ^ So oi'Scico, abstracted from olS-fjffw, in olSwa-av Plutarch Mor. 734 E. 
 Siitterlin, Verba denominativa p. 91, suggests that opydw helped the creation of 
 an oiScico. With these late forms in -aco, cf. fiv(eoi in Hippokr., fM^du in. 
 ,Ailian. ,"--.- -~ 
 
 2 
 
 Greg. Kor. § 15, Et. M. 62133 (opeco). /tr-K t "" '"' 
 
 It is very unusual for Arrian to accept the e forms. \®^ NIVERSITY 
 
 x-^- *, OF ^ > 
 
^•]0 THE IONIC DIALECT. [688. 
 
 of P. In 5 other place3 there is greater variation. Forms in e (or i) occur in 
 Archytas and in Kretan. irEipdofJiai usually yields -co- forms in Hdt. except 
 I 46, III 73, 128, IV 3, VII 211, where the MSS. vary between -a>-, -eo- -ew-. 
 ■ireipsvfxevos appears Hippokr. IX 354 {-w- many MSS.). In Ehodian we find 
 ireipov/xfvoi. OTTjSe'uv Syr. (ha 36, Tr^jSeCvTo Hrd. 395. In Hdt. VIII ilS B has 
 iKir7\hiiLV. irXaveovxai Hdt. II 41 Ps, -ew- C, -co- otlier MSS. Elsewhere 
 -co- in Hdt. Astrol. 11, 24 ir\ave6/jiej/os, but in Arrian 72 this form is not in the 
 MSS. cTKopStveTjTai Hippokr. VIII 4S6. Whereas o-TaOfxao) contracts ao in 
 
 Hdt. usually, we have -ev/j.evos VIII 130, -e6/xfvos II 150 (-eco- (Is), as in 
 Hippokr. VII 532. Since forms from o-raflyudco also exist, it is difficult to 
 decide whether the forms in -eo- or -en- are variations of the -oco verb, or 
 false inflections of a verb in -oco (§ 690, i (B) ). But eo for ev is very rare when 
 from an -oco verb. avXe'co appears in a v.l. E 48 (eo-i^Aeov iadKol eraTpoi for 
 iavKivov OepaTTovTes). In Xanthos, frag. I, Miiller edits (rvXavaiy which is not 
 in the MSS. We prefer the ciKKovctiv of A. Hippokrates IX 406 (epist.) 
 uses ffvKeovTis of the Krisaians. Cf. the numerous examples of o-uAe'co in 
 Delphic inscriptions. Hrd. has icrvAew Class. Bev.Y 481, frag. 3i, [Theokr.] 
 XIX 2 av\evfj.evov, Quint. Smyrn. I 717 avXeov. The only evidence in Hdt. 
 for reXcDT^co is the reading -e'oj/Tas in C'Ps and Celsus in III 38. Eberhard 
 reads irpoTeAeuTe'ouo-ij/ in Arrian 145, which we think wrong. Ti\).iav Hdt. 
 VI 39 (all MSS.), but in other passages the open forms are not well attested : 
 -eovres V 67 Fd, -eco- Cs ; -e'coj/res II 37 C ; -iwai II 50 CP2 ; -e($yuei/os V 20 P, 
 -ew-Cclz. Elsewhere only -co forms. In 13 Herakl. has n/te'co (Hippolytos), 
 but in 102 Tifj.w(rt. Lukian puts Tijxitev into the mouth of Hdt. {de Domo 20), 
 and has Ti/xiovaiv Astrol. i, rifxiovTis 10. Ti^ue'co is attested in the dialect of 
 Deli^hi, Phokis, Rhodes, Krete, Agrigentum, and perhaps in Boiotian. 
 ToXjie'to Hdt. Vlil 77 in all MSS., but -iivTes IV 150, ToXfxdvTccv VII 10 in all 
 MSS. Stein edits -eo-. Hippokr. Ill .450 and IV 166 (-eco- MN), Aret. 67 have 
 roKfjLeovffi, Hippokr. IX 332, Ai'et. 200 roXniovTa. In the subj. Demokr. 215 
 has To\/j.e(jicn. <^oirita occurs in (poireeis epist. Thai, i (Diog. Laert. I 43), 
 
 (poiTuxTi Hdt. VII 103 all MSS. (Stein -fovcri'f. In 6 other passages : II 22, 60, 
 66, III 69, IV iSo, 182, the MSS. vary between -iovcri, -e'coct and -Siffi ; <poiT^ 
 subj., Aret. 76, 168 ; <poiTolr] Aret. 285 ; (poireaii' S^jr. dea 15, -eoiv Hrd. 355, Hdt. 
 Ill 6 except in A B, II 174 except BB ; (poirwffa Hdt. IV 116 his in all MSS. ; 
 III I T 9 -co- ^ -B i?, -eco- C, -eov-Pd; c^oireW Hippokr. V 646, 652, Aret. 114, but 
 (poiruv Hdt. VII 15 {B -(poirov) ; <poireovTos Hdt. I 97 (-eco- C) ; (poiTeovra Hdt. 
 I 37, VII 126 (-eco- d), Aret. 21 (neut. pi.) ; (poiTeovres is certain in Hdt. I 60, 
 but in I 78, ^6, II 63, 172, IV 172, VI 49, VII 125 there is variation. In IX 
 28 -aivTfs is certain ; tpoiTiovrwv Hdt. I 73, VI 125 ; (poireovras Hdt. I 37. The 
 eo forms are therefore well established. It is noteworthy that (poiTeovTos, &c. 
 remain open while etpcoTcorrej is closed. i<poiTwv Hdt. VII 22 in all MSS., but 
 variation in I 96, IV i, IX 25, 49 ; i^oireov VI 126 in all MSS. In Asios apui 
 Athen. 525 F we find cpoWiaKov. «j)vo-e6vT(dv Hdt. IV 2 Pdz, -co- ABRsv, 
 -evfxeuos IV 2 P, -eco- Cds, -co- ABB.; (pvcrrJTai Hijipokr. VIII 484, (pva-ewvrai 
 320, but -co- in e ; -wj/res V 598, -ufxevos V 596, 616, cpvcrwai Hdt. IV 2. 
 
 The preservation in all the MSS. of Hdt. of e for a (con-; 
 tracted) is exceeding-ly rare : iinTiixicDv, roA/xeco, opixeoixevos, 
 e/j,r;xaz;€orro (in all except r/), each of which occurs once^ opiovres 
 (once), opeo) (once), opecDv (18 times), dpcarevv or -eov (twice), 
 €<poiT(ov (once), otlier cases than the nom. sing, of (poirecav (five 
 
'688.] THE INFLECTION OF -aca VERBS. 571 
 
 stimes). Not one of these verbs does not show other forms in 
 which all the MSS. contract a with the following sound. In 
 general when the MSS. diverge, A BR (Stein's ai'chetype^ which 
 lis however not infrequently deserted by Stein) have -w-, C P the 
 [e forms^ C having -eco-, P -eo-, -eov-, -eco- as the case may be, 
 I The problem of the dialect of Herodotos is thus fraught with 
 peculiar difficulties. First it is impossible in certain cases to 
 discover the reading of the archetype, and, secondly, we have to 
 face the question whether the inconsistencies of the archetype 
 reproduce the text of Herodotos. That there should have been 
 such confusion in Herodotos himself as there exists in the arche- 
 type in the case of opdo) may safely be denied ; certainly it would 
 be unparalleled in any other monument of prose literature. Lack 
 ;)f consistency between two different verbs may be admitted, and 
 is a phenomenon known to us from other departments of Greek 
 and from the modern languages. But an absolute diversity of 
 inflection in one and the same verb must be viewed with 
 suspicion. To preserve uniformity tradition must be deserted 
 lit some point. Thus if roA/xeo) is correct in VIII 77, roA/xwz'res" 
 ;IV 150 and ToXixwvToov Yll 10 would seem to be wrong. Yet 
 both sets of forms have the support of all the MSS. Stein 
 idopts -eo- in the participial forms of roAjnaoo, while Kallenberg 
 and Holder retain the MS. readings in both cases. In the case of 
 jhe participle of o/jaw, all editors would be forced to rely at times 
 ipon the slightest MS. support, or to desert the MSS. altogether, 
 ^n order to adopt a uniform system of inflection. 
 
 From a survey of the MS, tradition in reference to the inflec- 
 tion of all the -aco verbs, it will be seen that the burden of proof 
 s thrown on the adherents of the e forms. No less than 38 
 yerbs invariably contract a with a following sound, and in 
 I large majority of those which show any trace of e (in CPd), 
 :he testimony is such that we may fairly conclude that they were 
 contracted ^, In respect of the others, notably Spdco, etpwraco, 
 poLTCLco, the archetype was in a state of such confusion that we 
 lire utterly unable to discover the original readings of an inflee- 
 ion consistent with itself. Thus opca, opdixev, opSxra but opecov, 
 poiT^ovTos, &c,, but (poLTSxra would seem to have stood in the 
 irchetype. 
 
 \ With our present evidence it is impossible to demonstrate 
 vhether the e forms of C Pd are survivals of the original scheme 
 
 ' See footnote, p. 93, We have been unable to compare throughout the 
 eadings of s and v, which undoubtedly deserve a higher place than that 
 ceorded them by Stein. Their contractions support those of ^ 5 and R. 
 
 ■^ These are afiiWdo/xai, apdofiai, Sairavdu, SoKtiai, Koi.fx.dai, /xvao/xat. ireipdofj-ai, 
 ■Xavdofiai, TeAeuraco, Tifidoi, (pvadu. In the case of roAfieoi, /jLTixavdofiai, opfxao) 
 he fluctuation is greater, but the bulk of the evidence tends towards 
 ontraction. 
 
572 THE IONIC DIALECT. [689. 
 
 of inflection not adopted by tlie archetypal MS., or whether they 
 are mere errors of jxiTayapaKTr]pi(T\x6s. We incline to the belief 
 that the readings in question in P and C (apart from the question 
 of the peculiar eco in C) do not antedate those oi A B + Rvs. 
 The attempt has been made to refer Cs eco to an original type, 
 but it failed ; and was in fact withdrawn (in part) by its author \ 
 It is significant, as regards the eo of C, that the hyper-Ionic ew 
 appears in the inflection of nouns in this MS. Cf. §480. We 
 have little hesitation in regarding the eco as the work of a 
 copyist w^ho thought to give a specially Ionic tone to the 
 inflection of verbal forms. If opect) is a genuine form in Hdt., 
 it may have been the exemplar followed in the construction of 
 6'^s €(a. 
 
 Verls in -aco in the pseudo-Ionists. ! 
 
 689.] a + e, €t become a regularly in the imitators of Herodotos 
 and Hippokrates with but few exceptions (§ 6(S8, 2, 3). In 39 out 
 of ^6 verbs a contracts with an sound to w. There is no com- 
 plete agreement between Herodotos and the pseudo-Ionists as to 
 which verbs have e in place of a ; nor do the later lonists agree . 
 with each other. Arrian contracts opdco, while Aretaios prefers ' 
 opeco. When Arrian does not have -ew for -a(M, he contracts. 
 Many of the forms used by him are those which are usually, or 
 invariably, contracted in Herodoteian, as well as in Attic, prose. ' 
 Arrian has dpcoixeva 30^ and KadopGxnv 32g, 37^ which vary as to ' 
 their form in the MSS. of Hdt. The Vita Ilomeri always ' 
 contracts. In Herodotos there are 13 contracted verbs which 
 are used in the contracted form by the Ionic writers of the age 
 of Hadrian. 
 
 $ Forms in ^v from Verls in -oca. 
 
 690.] In a few -oco verbs, and chiefly in those in which' 
 the of the stem is preceded by a vowel or a diphthong, the ' 
 MSS. of the prose writers contain forms in which 00, oov, and oe 
 are apparently contracted to eu. Most of these peccant forms 
 occur in Herodotos, all modern critical editions of whose text are 
 disfigured by their adoption. To cite merely those examples 
 which have the unanimous support of the MSS.^ : 
 
 (i) 00, oou = ev. (A) A vowel precedes. aySpevfj-epcf Hdt. I 123, d|i€5/ioi V 
 106, -fj.e6a IX 26, -fifuos I 199, VII 16 (init.), IX iii, SiKaiev<Ti I 133, II 47, HI' 
 
 ' Johansson, De derkatis verbis contractis pp. 139 flf., but see B. B. XV 174. 
 * See Spreer p. 17, Merzdorf, Studien VIII 218. 
 
69O.J FORMS IN ev FROM VERBS IN -oco. 573 
 
 8, IV 186, -€VVT0S IX 42, iSiKaievu III 79, VI 73, 138, IX 19, -fdvTO III 29, 
 avTifvufda IX 26, i^o/ioifvvres III 24, bjxouvfxevoi VII 50, olKr]ievfji.€Vos IV 148, 
 airoffievixevoi IV 203. Variations in favour of eu are found in the case of hrti6ui 
 (V 89 in r), ■7rapi(r6ofxai (VIII 140 o in R). (B) A consonant precedes. In 
 jHdt. VIII 78 Ps have ivepiKVK\ovvTo, the other MSS. -4ovto {ABCi), or -evvro 
 [R), and in VIII 16 JR has (KVK\iovTo, the other MSS. -ewz/To ; III 131 /xi- 
 (Tdevvrai in CPds, VIII 59 (TTicpavivvrai in R. On (rra6nevfj.evos, ^vpevf^fvos, see 
 § 688, 4. 
 
 (2) o€ = eu. A vowel always precedes in Hdt. An attempt has been made 
 in certain MSS. to contract oe to en: iSiKaiev 1 100 (-ou in -4), III 52 and 148 
 yCPdz, -ov A BR), 118 (C?, s), IV 154 (sz), Si/coieCf VI 82 (ds). No form has 
 the support of all the MSS. 
 
 In Hippokrates we find SiKateovai, the vulgate reading, III 524 and 526 
 (-ovcriv in 10 MSS.), aTroir\7]p4ov(nv IV 193 {-ovcriv gloss F G), TtXrjpev/xfvos I 624 
 i(-ov- A), VI 84 (Galen -u-). Perhaps these forms are from -eoi. In VIII 78 
 iLittre edits TrXayievixeuou where 6 has the ov foi'm. 
 
 In the pseudo-Ionists we find StKaievai Syr. dea 54, a^ievcri Euseb. Mynd. 
 17, 29, a^ievvras 42, ofioieifxevoi 63. 
 
 All of the above mentioned forms are the result of hyper- 
 I Ionizing' tendencies which affected even the archetypal MS. of 
 jHerodotos. This is certain from the following reasons: (i) Of 
 the verbs in question almost all have many forms, in other 
 passages than those cited, in which oo, oov, oe contract to ov in 
 all the MSS. The remainder show in the aorist or perfect 
 that they are -oco, not -eto verbs. (2) Even if some of these 
 forms can be explained from -eto verbs, this would not apply 
 to such eases as ibiKaUv (for -oe). (3) In the case where it 
 is known that doublets in -oco, -eco existed, we are prevented 
 by other reasons from assuming the presence of an -eco verb. 
 The rule of Thomas Magister (Ku/cAe'co to orpe'c^co, kvkXoco to 
 n^piXaii^dvoi) is not in place. (Cf. Hdt. Ill 76 and Anakr. 129.) 
 
 The forms in eu instead of ov < 00, oov are due to the ignor- 
 ance of grammarians who did not distinguish between Ionic 
 ov< 00, GOV, oe and Attic ov< 00, oov, oe and eo. ev thus seemed 
 specifically Ionic. That ov < oe was not changed to eu in the 
 archetype of Hdt. is evident from the fact that the comparison 
 of an -ew verb^ deserted the theorist. eStKatou had to be com- 
 pared with eTToiet (-ee), StKatow wdth ttouIv (-eeiv) and not with 
 *e77otet), "^TToievv. The forms in those MSS. in which oe is con- 
 tracted to ei», are merely analogues of those in which 00, oov 
 became ev in the archetype. 
 
 ^ trowvffi (iTroiovv) : irouvcri (iTToUvv) : : SLKaiovcri {eSiKaiovv) : diKanvfft {iSiKalevv). 
 The confusion may have been assisted by the knowledge that there did exist 
 verbs in both -oco and -eoi. Examples are : Koivew, koivou}, § 682, oyiceoi Hippokr. 
 IV 248, oyKSoj Hdt. VI 123, ixaffTiyew Hdt I 1 14, naaTiySci III 16. piyeo), -6a) 
 § 687, 3. For other doublets (factitives) in -eco, -ooi, see von der Pfordten, 
 Denominativa p. 121. 
 
574 THE IONIC DIALECT. [691. 
 
 In three cases in Herodas eu is written for ov : x^-'^'^^^'^'V 4*2' "refievcra 4^3, 
 Spafiivcra 554. This ev stands for eov [KaAevaa &c.). Tlie confusion is thus 
 between en { = eov) and ov, and is different from that discussed above. 
 
 I 
 
 Ml Conjugatioti. 
 
 In the following- §§ attention is directed chiefly to the substi- 
 tution o£ the (0 inflection for that in //t. This substitution does 
 not occur in the first person present indicative^ and in general is- 
 such that the older co-exists with the young-er conjugation^ never 
 abandoning the field to its successor. j 
 
 691.] Indicative Present, i. Second Person Singular : 8t8oty 
 (Ihad I 164) Hdt. V 18, VIII 137. Theog. 1162 has the non- 
 epic hihoi's, according to the reading of Stobaios {hihov Bergk).i 
 oXkvHs Archil. 27.;, (the uncompounded verb is poetical in early' 
 Greeks and occurs in the present only), TrpocraTTokkveLs Hdt. i 
 
 I 207. irepvas is a conjecture for irepvas in Hipponax 52 (cf.' 
 frag. 46 and Hesychios^ irepvas). On e^eTrtWfat Hdt. VII 104,! 
 ^35^ see §§ 605, 688, i. 
 
 2. Third Person Singular: ri^rjo-t (A 83) Sim. Amorg. i^,; 
 Theog. 589, Solon 4^^, 13^2, 262- nOel (N 732) Mimn. i,, 5;,; 
 Theog. 282, Xenophan. i^, (conj.), Hdt. I 113, 133, IV 73' 
 (irapaTLdel in B, other MSS. -TiOrjcn retained by Stein only), V 95/ 
 VII ^^, Hippokr. I 622. MerzdorFs rt^e'et is out of place in. 
 Hdt. and Homer never has TiOiei. An uncontracted form is' 
 unknown in those forms of Ti6-\]\ii which represent the substitution 
 of the (0 for the /xt conjugation. 
 
 iTjcrt (7/ 130) Xenophan. i,^, acpirjcn Hippokr. II 38, 152, IH 
 256, [X€eu](Tt VIII 310; airtr^o-i Hdt. VI 42 in ABCtl (oTrier 
 Stein, Abicht, aTnel Holder, Kallenberg). tet (iTpoteL B 752,. 
 fj-ediel or jiet K 121) occurs in Hdt. as follows: avUi II 113, 
 III 109, IV 28, ^ttUl II 96, ef^et I 6, 180 \ 191, II 17, VI; 
 20, VII 124, Kariet V 16, jueriet II 70, VI 37, 59. This,| 
 the traditional accentuation, is retained by Bekker, Gaisford, 
 Dindorf, Stein, and Abicht. Holder, and Kallenberg (except in 
 
 II 113) circumflex the forms. The paroxytone accent is often 
 found in the MSS. in the subjunctive. Hippokrates has a(f)iet' 
 I 616, VI 370, 474 {a(f)[7](nv C), VII ^6, 572, (^avUi VI 46,, 
 gttet II 34 (Littre 8aet), 38 (8ttei vulffo, btid E, Littre ; a(pu](nv 
 in the preceding line), V 492 (Littre 8ttet), fxeOUb VII 474, 572 ier.' 
 
 i'o-rrjo-t Hdt. II 95, V 16, Hippokr. II 28, 32, V 608, 624, 710,' 
 
 * Hence avlrj, Cf.uer 1744 (Abu-Simbel), should not be changed toavUii 
 with Baunack, R. M. XXXVII 472, who sees in this form the verb iai^flfii. ' 
 
 \ 
 
691.] MI VERBS: INDICATIVE PRESENT. 575 
 
 VI 558, 560, ^66, 574 ; l(TTq Hdt. II 143 (I'o-rarai A£Cd, Dindorf, 
 Abiclit), IV 103, Bredow would adopt only XaTi](n. 
 
 Kipva {(KLpva ?? 182) Hdt. IV 52, 66. 
 
 bibojo-L (p 387) Archil, eleg. 16, Solon i y,y Theog-. 149. Hippokr. 
 
 V 684, VI 556, Pherek. Leros 48 (?), Hdt. II 2 (-01 Rdz), 154, 
 VIII 24. Ag-ainst 70 occurrences of 81801, 8t8ajo-i(Dindorf, Stein, 
 Abicht, Holder) cannot maintain its ground in Herodotos^. 8t8oi 
 (I 519, 8 237, p 350^) Miletos lOOp Samos 22:^3, Mimn. 2,g, 
 Sim. Amorg. 75^, Hdt. II 29, 48, III 119, and ofiten, Hippokr. 
 II 54, 676 {kiiavabiboi A), VII 8, VIII 283, Pherek. Leros 44, 
 Aretaios 6, 1 08, Lukian Si/r. rlea 8 (rid-qa-t in same chapter). 
 
 pi]yvv(n Hippokr. I 616, III 196, VII 486; Tn]yvvo-i II 410, 
 
 VI 574 {Tir]yvvovai same page), pfavvva-i IX 98. aj3ivvvai Hippokr. 
 
 VII 474 but (T^evvvei II 342 {-vaiv li ^, S'^, Galen). 
 haKvvei (Hsd. IF. D.451) Hdt. VII 37. 
 
 3. Third Person Plural^: Tt^^elo-t (IT 262, /3 125, and Agamem. 
 465, ch.) Hdt. I 20, II 91, 96, III 53 (-tao-t Stob.), IV 34, 67, 
 VII 197; Attic (TvvTiOiacn IV 23 (-Ti(9eto-t R and the editors), 
 'npoTiOeacTL V 8 (-TiOeun r). Hippokr. has nOeaa-L II 66, 76, 84. 
 In VI 12 A has avaTtd-qa-L which suggests avaTiOeia-i. Lukian 
 Astrol. 7 has TiBiacrt. 
 
 teto-t (r 152) Hdt. I 133, II ^6, 87, IV 30 &c., Attic -aac in 
 aincKn I 1 94 (Bdz) and II 41 in all MSS. (rejected by all later 
 editors except Dindorf). Hippokr. A^I 368 has ac^tao-tf, 488 
 ^vviaa-iv in 6, and so viilgo IX 332, Lukian Sp-. dea 49 hiam, 
 58 ainacn, 60 his arrLacn or airiacn (in one case aiTLacn in ?', in the 
 other in Aa; Jacobitz edits both forms). In 29 the MSS. have 
 Kartarrt. la-raa-t (N 336) Hdt. I 167, II 6^^^, III 24, IV 160, 
 
 V 16, 27, VI 38, but avLCTTiacTL V 79, in all MSS. (now rejected). 
 Hippokr. V 680 has e^tcrracrt, VI 374 KaOio-Taat (6 has Ka^iVracrt). 
 Ktesias, Pers. 6, has laruxTi, 52 acf)L(rTS)(TL (cf. qz in Hdt. Ill 24, 
 d in VI ^^) with the same transference to the -aco conjugation 
 that we observe in irapairiTvGxTi Samos 220^q. Trepvaat Theog. 
 1 2 15, Hippon. trim. 46^ [nepvwcri C), cf. 52. On -niimXacn see 
 below (note 4). 
 
 bibovai (T 265, a 313) Theog. 44^,. 5 H, 575, 59h 86_i, Hdt. 
 II 30, 89 &c., Demokr. 13. The solitary case of -aat in Hdt. 
 
 ^ Cobef-, Mnem. XI 124, says that in compounds we always have -o?, but the 
 uncompounded -ct is sometimes found. TrapaSiSoicrj VIII 24 is one of the few 
 cases of -en, and that in a compound. 
 
 ^ SiSoi in Aischylos' SupiMces loio is the only occurrence in Attic. 
 Kirchhoff thinks the verse is interpolated. 
 
 ^ TiQiiffi, Si5oC(rt, ^ivyvvffi, Iffrafft. Choirob. 8592s (Hdn. II 83331), 86o;8 = An. 
 
 [Ox. IV 33632, 35704. Because of the open ea the Attic forms in -ea<n are 
 
 [called Ionic by'Et. M. 1771s, Theodos. Canon, p. 841, Hilgard (Bekk. Anecd. 
 
 10465). This mistake was not made by ApoUonios. A Uaai is often assumed 
 
 'by the grammarians as Ionic. 
 
57'5 THE IONIC DIALECT. [691 
 
 (ckSiSoWi I 93 in all MSS.), in view of the occurrence of -over 
 nineteen times, should not have been retained by Dindorfi 
 btbovcTL is found in Hippokr. II 80 (aTTohLboaaiv Littre), VI 6c 
 (biabibovaLv A, -oaa-t vtdgo), VII 14, but hihoacn is certain ir 
 II 240, VIII 480. The KoivT] frequently adopted hibova-i (Lobecl 
 on Phrynich. p. 244). 
 
 beLKvva-t Hdt. I 17], IV 8, V 45; beiKvvovcri I 209, II 86 bi 
 {-mam ABC^), III 119 [Bdz], IV 168, V 45. 
 
 aitoXkvcn Hdt. IV 69 but 'npoda-noXXvova-i VI 138. kaepyvvcr 
 II 86 [-vova-i Rd ; cf. b^iKVVova-i II 86), KaTepyvvcn IV 69 
 d/xrSo-t Hdt, IV 105 (-vovaL Rz), 6\ivvov(ti IV 172, V 7. Cf 
 oixwItm T 175, w/xz^ue H 278. oi}xvvov appears in an AttL 
 inscription after 336 B.C., but oixvvvai is the regular form till th. 
 second century B.C. oixvvjjli is the only -vvixt verb in Atti; 
 inscriptions before 200 b. c. that has passed into the -vco inflection 
 TTT^yvvovcTt Hdt. IV 72 {-v(TL R, Diudorf), Hippokr. VI 574' 
 pi-jyvvai (P 751) Hdt. I 80 (this accent in CP only), -vovcr 
 Hippokr. V 632. Eurip. Elektra 1323 (anap.) has (^vyvm- 
 Moiris and Thorn. Mag. say that the forms in -vova-t are V^oivq. \ 
 
 1. Eeference has been made in § 5S5 to -arai, -aro for -vrai, -vto, andt; 
 -earai, -earo. After v, Hdt. always has -vrat, never -arai ; -aro is found one 
 {fvaireSeiKvvaro IX 58), elsewhere -vto. airoWvyTat is found in Hippokr. V 67(1 
 Stjr. dea 47, Siaa-KeSavvvarat Euseb. Mynd. 63. ! 
 
 2. The accent of the 3 singular Present. In the above list of forms fror; 
 post-Homeric Ionic the MS. accentuation has been retained. Barytone form, 
 occur only in the compounds of 'Irj/ni, as in Horner^, who has avieis E 88c, 
 /xeeUis Z 523, 5 372, wpotet B 752 (and Hesiod frag. 202), fieOUi K 121 (Yen. A 
 &c.), but ride? a 192, N 732 (ti0€i has slight support), Sl5o7s I 164 (Aristarchos; 
 Si5o7 I 519, S 237, SafxvS A 221. Later modern editors, where they do not adoj 
 the fxi forms, edit -els, -e?, except in the case of /xeOieis 5 372 (La Eochi 
 Ludwich). 
 
 Though there is no tiOu or lai, iiQelv in Theog. 286 and awielv in 565 ^ sho'i 
 that both verbs have passed into the -eco inflection*. The perispomenoj 
 accent should therefore be introduced in Ionic texts in all cases, even i 
 that of 'li)*i, as there is no good reason why the present should be forme 
 from 'la>, while the imperfect is formed from lew. The paroxytone ^ fornc; 
 
 * 
 
 ^ Cf. Et. M. 177,7. Athenag. and Thom. Mag. support ZeiKvvacri here. ! 
 
 "^ La Roche on E 880, H. T. K. 225, Zeitschr. f. oesterr. Gymn. 1S76, p. 5846: 
 von Bamberg, Zeitschr. f. Gijmn.-Wesen XXVIII 28, Ahrens, Conjiig. auf jxi^l 
 { = Kl. Schr. I 14), Cobet, Misc. Crii. 281, Monro, Horn. Gram. § i8. ' 
 
 ^ Also in 1237 by Lachmann's conjecture, adopted by Bergk. 
 
 * Cf. also eTiOovv Gorgias 500 B (-rji/ is the better reading) and in late Greek. 
 
 ^ Gr. Meyer, Gram. § 71, says merely that if avieis, aviei are correct, the^ 
 accents are due to those of cpepeis, (pepei (cf. Modern Greek SiSco, SlSeis, SiSen 
 Blass, Gram. § 286, accepts only the paroxytone accent as correct, but h 
 explanation is as faulty as that of Ahrens. That there should be an' 
 parallelism between riQei, SlSoi and the Aiolic forms, the latter should 1; 
 rWr), 5iSy (not tIBt), SlSui as they are reported) in which the long vowel coul' 
 be shortened. And crt, assibilated from ri, does not lose its (X. If tl 
 
1591.] 
 
 MI VERBS : INDICATIVE PRESENT. 577 
 
 iiay be explained as possibly due to one or more of several reasons, (i) 
 nfluence of the accent of ridiis, 'li)s &c., supported by a misapplied reference 
 J the fact of the late shifting between rj (t/O and «. (2) Influence of the 
 Iccent of rWeiffi, 'Ui<n, supposing the survival of a knowledge of this original 
 Accentuation ; see under 3 below. (3) The difference in the MSS. between 
 [he paroxytone accentuation of 'l-qfii and the perispomenon of other jxi verbs 
 night be explained as due to a mistaken tendency to equate the present 
 vith the imperfect ; since these two tenses, in the case of '/Tj/it alone, are 
 dike, apart from the quantity of the augmented syllable. Cf. irpoUi A 326 
 ind 336, B 752 and r 118, imperfect and present. (4) Confusion with eifii^ 
 nay have assisted the vicious accentuation in the singular. In the plural 
 ive find cases of -latn (sic) in Hippokrates (rarely), Lukian, and Athenaios. 
 ?hat the transformation of 'Irjfii to 'lea has been accomplished in late Greek is 
 Uyond doubt. Cf. a<peiofj.ev = a(piofj.€v in the N. T. and on an inscription from 
 impa, C. I. G. 2131 B 15. The difficulty lies in the substitution of 'ica for 
 flfit in an early period of the language ^. Uca for 'Irifii would be parallel to eco 
 [or el/j.i, but 'lea lacks analogies. If genuine, 'la took its rise in the indicative, 
 [lot in the optative ; for, in Ionic at least, a<pieoire could suggest only lew, not 
 L which might be sought in Attic acploLre. At all events the existence of i'oi 
 |nce assumed, ^vvie and fxeixerifxevos (§ 701, 3) were constructed from the stem 
 and eventually displaced the genuine ^wiei and fie/jLeretfievos. ^wU-re, it 
 lay be remarked, could be analyzed as ^w-l-e-re. 
 
 3. The accent of the 3 plural Present. The original forms of the 3 plur. of 
 \l6rifii and SiSoi/xi, ^-rlQari and *U^a.Ti (cf. Skt. ddclhati and dddciti), were sup- 
 lanted in primitive Greek by riOevTi and SiSovri (retained in Doric). Their 
 irect descendants would be TiOetcri and SiSovcn, which may have been thus 
 ccented in Homer ^. So too p-fiyvvcri from *pr)yvvvTi. When -w-airt < -vv-apri * 
 ad displaced the older ending of the verbs in -vvfii, -acn was transferred 
 hence to rleeiffi &c., and ridedcn, SLd6a(n, *i(rTdd(Ti came into existence. 
 tffTadcrt became Iffrdai, and in its train followed riQeicn, ^iSovffi, priyyvcri, 
 e. the accent of la-Tdcri was adopted, the form of rieetcn &c. retained. See 
 6sthoff, M. U. IV 2 8y. 
 
 aroxytone forms are correct, I shoixld find in diSodfft the cause of the 
 erispomenon ; for SiSovcn is apparently = 5rjAoC(n. Then dvie7 could follow 
 3 an analogue of 5t5o7. 
 
 ^ Frequent in cod. C of Hdt. in the imperfect. Cf. Hippokr. II 6S6 {SiUi, 
 ,ij/ei), Hdt. V 107 (diriei, oTrj/eO and in many other places. In the subjunctive 
 he interchange of the forms of the two verbs is especially common in the 
 ilSS. The existence in late Greek of a present loi and elce, by-forms of elfit, 
 ;lso brought with it the possibility of confusion with Irjijii. Cf. the following 
 (losses of Hesychios : irpoffiei, airiet, vTranlei, v7re|i€(, Suerai, 'Urai, TrpoffUfiev and 
 fStri/xev ; ivelro (Cauer^ no. 30), eicrliis (C. I. G. IV 9540 , eVo-eirji = eiViT/t 
 ortyna Code, V 36. Homeric hi-nu, though probably an analogue of elSeirjv, 
 resents a resemblance to lelnv. Scholars who accept dwlei in the present 
 idic. in Hdt., accept, as a rule, diriri in the subj. But Bredow and Blass 
 efend both diriei and oirtfj. 
 ■ ^vviov v.l. A 273. 
 
 ^ Holder adopts the proparoxytone accent even in Hdt. The MSS. of 
 iomer (cf. Schol. Ven. A on r 152) and Hdt. have the circumflex forms, 
 races of the acute are very slight. We are ignorant of the accent of the 
 [omeric period, and when, if correct at all, -fitn, -ovcri, -vtrt were changed to 
 Icri &c. 
 
 * Cf. Skt. -nuv-anU, and nu-anti = vf-avri. 
 
 Pp 
 
57^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [692 
 
 4. iriinrXTifii has four sets of forms in Ionic, (i) tti/xttXtj^j in ffxiriirXric 
 Hippokr. VII 10, cf. Hesiod frag. 1732 and W. D. 301 .MSS.) where 7ri,uirAj)c 
 is now unnecessarily read ; ffxirLirXeTs Hippokr. VII 26, ■Kifx-K\i7(TaL in Hesioc 
 Theog. 880 is the preferable reading (JfCj to ■Kip.Thivirai {V a) = -iovaai. i/nr. 
 ir\ri6i or i/xTrl/ji.n\r]9L * 31 1 is formed like SiScodi. tti'ttAtj was Doric and Atti 
 (cf. Suidas s. v.). Forms containing TrAct, weak ablaut form of ttAtj : di'aTri'yi 
 ■jrAafxev Hdt. VI 12, Tri/nrXaTai Hesiod, Scut. 429, Hippokr. VII 8, 22, 30, 19c 
 244, Hdt. II 93, Aret. Iir, eirlfiirXaro Hdt. Ill 108 {-eero PRz) as Tri/jLir^avi 
 8 662, K 248, V 349. {eirifxTrAearo for -irXauTo occurs in Hdt. Ill 88 ; Diudor 
 Abicht -TrAaro). iixtrnrAaadw Hippokr. VII 30, TviixizXaaQai Hdt. II 93, efXTiirKi 
 fievoi I 212, VIII 117. Cf. ■KiixivKaverai Iliad I 679. 12) iriixirXaixi. in ttijUitAoc 
 4> 23, Hdt. II 40, efXTrnrXaai IV 72, airoTrtfj,ir\dvai II 1 29. (3) Tri^TrAatu i 
 ifxnmXooyTa Hippokr. VII 20 (-aj/ra in ; cf. Repuhlic 586 B), irifnTXicrai V 34. 
 Cf. irifjLirXdu in Plutarch, Diodoros, Dio Cass. (4) iri/LLirAeo) in eij.irnr\e7 Hd; 
 
 VII 39 (-est 2?, -n-iVAa Stob., -TTiTrAa Maximus), Hipi^okr. VII 18 (-TrtirAa J S"^/' 
 lin.), the same treatise as that containing e/xTrnr\eis, e^TriTrAoJj/Ta or -d.vT 
 Some forms cannot be referred positively to one of the above classes, e. j 
 viijnT\T)Tai Hdt. VII 37 {-rJTai Pcorr.,s), iinrUX-qTai Hippokr. VII 30 (0, -ijr! 
 Littre), TnfnrXwvTui VI 202. 
 
 Whatever the relation of ■Ki/j.irKriiJ.t fwith pan-Hellenic tj) and iriixTzKajifv 1 
 Skt. iniKirmi, piprmds, and the probability or improbability of the existence i 
 Indo-European of an inflection -7j,ui, •a/xevK there is no doubt that ir'LfjLwXafie 
 firifj.n\aTo &c, were regarded as parallels of 'iara/j-fv, 'IcttSlto. Hence irlfjLTrXrjixi 
 'la-rrtiJii, with Ionic- Attic tj, and iri/j.irKdco {Io-tS). Dindorf indeed would ado] 
 in Hdt. only the forms from -dfit, -ctco. The analogy with ridyi/xL, on the othi 
 hand, led to the type 7ri^TrAe&) (ridel). The coexistence of TrifiTrXew and tti^itAc 
 is therefore not to be exjjlained on the principle mentioned in § 688, i. 
 
 5. 'Trifi'TrpT)(ji.i is inflected like '/(Trrj/ut in a.vreve-n-lfj.iTpacrai' Hdt. V 102, efnnirp, 
 
 VIII 109, eixTTi-Kpajxevov I 19. iveirlfiirpr) I 17 recalls the v. I. i/xirnrpeis (A B) ! 
 VIII 109 and '/(TTTj, which is not above suspicion. Dindorf {Praefaiio XXXVII; 
 would read -irinirpa. 
 
 692.] Imperfect, i. vTrepeTiOea (i Person) Hdt. Ill 15. 
 2. Improper ' uiieontracted •" forms of the 3 Person are irpoerld 
 Hdt, I 206 (R alone has a different reading- : TrpoeTtOeTo), Yl] 
 49. Following- Bredow, the recent modern editors (Stein, Abich' 
 Kallenb^ipg-, and Holder) wrongly edit -ntpuridee. in VI 69 again 
 all the MSS. (-n-epten^et : adop>ted by Dindorf). Homer h 
 iriOet, never -ee. avUe is found in IV 125 {R correctly avU^ 
 and so the editors), avUc IV 152, aTrtet IV 157, V 42, lo, 
 rjvUt Hippokr. V 414, i](l)kL\ 228 (cf. acpUt C. I. A. II 3o6ig-.; 
 287 B.C.). 
 
 tora Hdt. II 106 [R tari]), VI 61, KaTiara VI 43, but ai'tV 
 T 196, kvi<TTr] II 102. Dindorf edits IWa throughout, Steij 
 Abicht (except in II 102), Kallenberg, Holder (iVrrj in II 10. 
 retain the MS. readings. Bredow would adopt tor?] throughov 
 
 * Cf. Brugmann, M. U. I 44, Gram. § 115 c, Grundi: II, p. 935, Becht 
 Lautlehre, pp. 191, 242, FrOhde, B. B. IX 119, Collitz, B. B. XVIII i\ 
 note. ' 
 
694-1 ^^I VERBS : IMPERFECT. 579 
 
 Homer has apLo-Tr], but iWrj and Kadia-ra in the imperative. 
 
 A like variation is not to he denied to Herodotos. 
 
 •' kUhovv Hdt. VI 86 a (first person), Hippokr. V 1 26, VIII 446 
 
 t; third), khihov Theog-. 916, Hdt. I 208, III 128 &c., Hippokr. 
 
 ly 158, IX 380, as C. I. A. II 811 C 110, 323 B.C. Homer has 
 
 Ihihovs, khlhov. 
 
 I kheUvv^ Hdt. I 112, II 162, IV 150, of. § 699; '^C^vyvve (cf. 
 
 |r 393) Hdt. IV 89. The third plm-al has hiO^aav Hdt. I 144, 
 
 Ucrav IX 135, Hippokr. Ill 94 &c., khiUvva-av Hdt. I 30, II 144, 
 
 [X 80, not khiUvvov, iC^vyvvcrav (li 783) VII ^c^, 36, iireC^vyvvov 
 
 ^11 ^6, aTTcakXvov Hippokr. VII ^j6. 
 
 693.] Aorist. I. Forms with k^ are €di]Ka Archil. 743, Solon 
 
 3^2, 3613, Tlieog. 196, Sim. Keos 120^ &c., Hdt. I 113, IV 196, 
 
 ividrjKav Olbia I29ii (late), Naukratis 139 C 3 (fourth century) ; 
 
 ]67}Kao Hdt. VII 15, -aro I 26, V 69 (Lukian, Si/r. (lea 25), -avTO 
 
 'Ht. II 160, IV 65, VI 21, 108, VII 125, iX ^^, 6r]KdlX€V0L 
 
 rheog". 1 150. Cf. 6-r]KaTo K 31. i^vvrjK^v Anakr. 146; cf. 
 jUkaios k(TVvriKe ; eTrrJKav Hdt. VII 176 &c., fxeOrjue Hippokr. 
 Ill 570, ixerrjuav Hdt. V 120. ebouKav Hdt. I 89, Sim. Amorg. 
 
 22; Theog. 813, 1057. 
 a. Second Aorists are idecrav Archil. 9g eleg., Bechtel no. 261 
 
 f uncertain provenance, Miletos 93, 94, Keos 40 (avHdHaav), 
 
 lippokr. VI 486, aviOev (poetical) Sim. Keos 1342- ^boaav Theog'. 
 
 72, 463, lasos 1058, Hdt. VI 21. Middle e^eu Hdt. VII 209. 
 3. Aorist Passive : kd€Oi]v Kumai, Roberts I Ij4 = hi6iiv Hdt. 
 
 V 45, ixeTe[6ri I II 4, aTret^r/y VII 122. 
 
 694.] Perfect. iTpoiaTaTi Hdt. V 49 (-eare z). ka-racn occurs 
 ver 20 times in Hdt. without any variant ; hence we may 
 orrect avta-riaai III 62, KaT€(TT4acn I 196 (CP, other MSS. 
 ia-Tearat for -earavrai^), II 70 (-edaL z), II 84 (-eacrtz; C), IV 63 
 •eao-t d). Mimn. I2iq has ka-Tacri. (-ecrrTjKao-t 2^) Pluperfect 
 TTaaav Hdt. IV 79. 
 
 ridetixai (by analogy with el/xat) is foreign with Attic inscrip- 
 ons ; but in a Smyrnaian inscription (Dittenb. Sj/ll. 171), we find 
 vvTideiixai 1. 62, 71, 93, with which cf. Kretan TipoeKT^QdjieOa. 
 he Smyrnaian inscription cannot be regarded as Ionic evidence, 
 lough it contains not a few non- Attic forms. 
 
 avioivrai^ Hdt. II 165 contains the a)(rj) ablaut of tv;jui trans- 
 
 ^ Attic inscriptions employ, with rare exceptions, till 300 b. c, the forms 
 ithout K in the dual and plural. 
 '^ IVrayuai is very tmusual (Plato, Polybiosi. 
 
 '' Cf. Hdn. II 2362 = Et. M. 17615. The Et. M. and Et. Gud. <)% call tlie ea> 
 ;rms Attic. Suidas (s. v. acpilKa) says that acpdoiKa is Doric, but also used by 
 |e lonians (Herodotos). Bekk. Anecd. 47014 calls apeccKa Doric, a(peiKaro 
 btic. Hdn. compares ireTrrriKa irenTcoKo. with friKa fooKa. ewKa would be 
 liralleled by reduKa, which miglit have been the exemplar for irenTuiKa. 
 
 P p 2 
 
580 THE IONIC DIALECT. [6951 
 
 ferred from the active €(DKa to the middle. C£. avkwaOai Herakl, 
 Tables I 153, d^ecoo-^co Arkadian C. D. I. 1222-14, a^imvrai 
 in Matthew IX 2, 5, Mark II 5, Luke V 23. 
 
 Hdt. has elsewhere -ei- : avelrai II 65 (Hrd. 455), aireiro VIII 49, aveifxivoi 
 II 167, VII 103, /jLeTiia-dco IV 98 from *e6-Tai &c., but /iie/xeri/xevos (§ 701, 3) 
 Bredow regarded avewvTai as a Dorism and wished to read avilvraL. 
 
 695.] Subjunctive Present, i. Singidar. The MSS. oj 
 Herodotos have -ij], not -i?;, in the 3 sing", of l'T;ju.t (d77t?? IV 190 
 iTTiT] VII 161, TTapCi] III 72), and Hippokr. has acj)ti] VI 24 
 ;xc% VI 223, VII 474, avLT] VII 56 (-t^T, ERe, -fi vvlgo). Th(' 
 perispomenon accent is correct, since the plur. is aineuxn. Tr 
 Attic there are a few instances of -t?/ in the books. In Theog; 
 94 the MSS. have u?o-t, for which we substitute hja-L with Bekker' 
 not Irja-L with Bergk. Homer has jne^a/o-t N 234. taTt-JixL yield; 
 avia-TT} Hdt. VII 53. From hih^ixi we have StSw Theog. 186! 
 Hdt. II i'^ (MSS. -ol, cf. Hrd. 2^^, Aret. 26 where the analog-) 
 of the -00) verbs gives us 81801), Hippokr. II 142^ 260, d/xWij 
 Thasos, J. U.S. VIII 402, 15. 'i 
 
 Middle: eyto-rTjrat Hdt. VI 59, TrapaStSwrat III II 7 [-hihcuTCL. 
 By. For pi]vw]Tat Hippokr. VII 26, the older form is pi]yi>vTa 
 Hipponax 19^, the jdural of which is pi]vvvTai Hesiod Sciduni '^']') 
 See § 618, 1, a. 
 
 2. Plural. dTTtecjo-t Hdt. VII 226 (d</)tcoo-t -^). DindorFs aTTttoa: 
 is wide of the mark. bLOuxnp Theog. 45, Hdt. Ill 45 &c. 
 
 Middle : Trport^w/xe^a Hdt. V 18 in all MSS. (-eo)-?), ava-rrT^ae 
 IV I 33 (avdiTT- Holder), 6 TTtoTecoz^Tat III 1 34, cKpio-Tiu^vTai Hippoki 
 VIII 280, but KaOicTTcovTaL in 6, same page. On bvvecop.e6a, se 
 § 618, I, ^. I 
 
 698.] Subjunctive Second Aorist. i. Singular, (i) irpoa 
 eico- Hdt. I 108, Hippokr. II 346, 358 (Oco in Hrd. 5i^, 7ii3 (;, 
 should be 6ioo), acpfM Hipponax 75, Hrd. 5-4, irapabcd Hdt. V lof' 
 (2) 6f/? Theog. 276, Hrd. 5^3, d^?/? Hippokr. VII 30, j3[js Theoc 
 244, Sw? Hdt. Ill 53. (3) TTpodrji Teos 158^ (late), TrpoaOy Hd; 
 VI IC9, /Me057 Hippokr. VII 570, 572, acfifj 572, VIII 112, -o-t, 
 Hdt. VII ^^, VIII 130, Hippokr. VI 368, -(Bfi Theog. 974, loi. 
 Hdt. II 13, 68, VII 209, 8a) Theog'. 1385, yv<2> 990, dAw Hd 
 I 84. For 7)1; .. . Scot; Hippokr. II 256 (cf. 318) read et . . . boirj. 
 
 (4) Middle: -^e'cojuat Hdt. V 24 &c. (and so to be read Hn 
 8g for 6b}p.ai), -07/ VI 109, -Orirai Halikarn. 23833, Hdt. I 29, &(■ 
 -8<3T-at Erythr. 2045. 
 
 2. Plural, (i) ei(x)p.ev Hdt. Ill 81, oreco/xey Hdt. IV II. 
 
 ' In this accent nothing Ionic is to be sought : it is tlie ordinary vari 
 tion from Herodian's rule. 
 ^ Cf. Hesychios s. v. 
 
)99] MI VERBS : SUBJUNCTIVE. 581 
 
 Hippokr. VI 112, -/Se'cojuey Hdt. VII 50, -8c3//€y V 91. (2) -Swre 
 IX 87. (3) eicao-t IV 71, -o-recocn I 155, III 15 (but (^wcrt IV 68), 
 icocrt Solon I3,j, Hdt. VI 133, &c., aKuxn II 93. 
 (4) Middle: ^wjue^a Theog. 983 should be ^ewjue^a; -^e'coiTat 
 ! |Hdt.'l 194, VII 191, VIII 4. 
 
 697.] Subjunctive Aorist Passive, eco is left open in the 
 ![ and 3 plural (exceptions are to be corrected, § 634, 2), while 
 7; is always contracted in prose and poetry. Hippokrates agrees 
 vith Herodotos. 
 
 698.] Optative. 818017; Hdt. I 86, Hippokr. II 168, VIII 
 
 |8o, -8t8oi VII 562; hoii]v Hdt. IX iii, 8otr/ IX 94, Soirjrf (not 
 
 jioire) VII 135 (c£. (p6a[r]Te VI 108), bolev Hippokr. II 240 but 
 
 poiTjcrai; Hrd. 3^, yvotr] Hdt, I 134, IV ^4, yvoii](Tav Hippokr. 
 
 l 622; kirdi] Hdt. Ill 113; aiTobeiKvvoLixev II 15; Ka^eorrjKoi 
 
 Hippokr. IX 380. 
 
 TiO€iixi]v Tyrt. I2i; irpoOelTo Hdt. Ill 148 is opposed by 
 
 I TpoadioLTo I ^;^ bis, viroOeotTo VII 237. In III 41 Aldus' 
 
 , 'moTidoiTo was adopted by Bredow, Dindorf, and Abicht. irpo- 
 
 , Jetro is abandoned by Bredow, Kriiger, Abicht, and Kallenberg, 
 
 1 'etained by Bekker, Dindorf, Stein, and Holder, but not to the 
 
 i ixclusion of -Oiono. The latter's eot recalls Horn, lot?, eoi, and 
 
 '■viol in Hdt. VII 6, where oi from the co verbs is added to the 
 
 item. If Attic -OoIto, &c. are formed, as Curtius, Verbam II J07, 
 
 naintains, by the substitution of o for e, Attic and Ionic adopted 
 
 lifferent methods of breaking down the [xl inflection. Rather 
 
 ;han accept such a conclusion, we prefer to explain the Attic 
 
 "orms as arising from eot. 
 
 > ^wtoTwro occurs in Hippokr. VI 82. In Hdt. IV 166 
 
 Schweighauser read kiraviaTaiTo (for -eatro AB, -earo CPE). 
 
 699.] Imperative, i. Present, rt^et (A 509) Archil. 56, 
 , vulgo), Hippokr. VII 440, VIII 170, 380. Archil. 43 has to-rrj 
 IS 4) 313 [KadidTa I 202); 8t8ou Theog. 4, 1303, Hdt. Ill 140. 
 is if from tco, ^vvie Theog. 1240 (better ^wUl, as a 2ji, 
 Buttmann, Gram. I 523), but ^vvUre'^ Archil. 50, as Kratinos 
 [1 123, Peace 603. okkv Archil. 272 shows that the jut form may 
 )e abandoned even before a short vowel ^. 
 ' Middle: rt^eo-o Theog. 1096, emo-rao-o Hdt. VII 39, 209. 
 
 2. Second Aorist. aTrjOi Theog. 1366, e77t/3d 847, /:xeVes Hdt. 
 'f 37> 39- 
 
 , * The long i is due to the confusion, Avhich began as early as Homer (A 234) 
 Hth fU/xai (Hdt. II 70, IX 78). 
 
 ^ Cf. Si'iKvve Hesiod, W. D. 502, Plato, Xenojih., Demosth., iZeUvve,^ ((evyvve 
 1 692, 2, iSe'iKvvev Babrios 50, 10, Antiphon, &c., Oyuj/i/erco T 175, 6/xvv6vtuii' 
 jUtic inscriptions {o/xwdi Theog. 1195), &ixvvov fj. 303, 0437, 0- 58, Tliukyd., 
 jVttic inscriptions, Hfiwe k 345, t 288, Lysias, Babrios 50, 6. 
 
58a THE IONIC DIALECT. [yco, 
 
 Middle : Meo'^ Tlieoj^. 1321, e^eo Hdt. V 39. 
 
 3. Perfect, eo-rdrco Tyrt. 1I28, ju.eTei(7(9a) Hdt. IV 98. 
 
 700.] Infinitive, i. -vat is the termination of the (a) Present, 
 e.ff. elvat (§ 709), Tidevai, Uvai, laTavat &c., ajSevvvvai Hdt. II 66, 
 ixtyvvvai Hippokr. VII 142, VIII 503, oixvvvai Hdt. IV 68. 
 (evyvvvat IV 189, b^LKVvvat II 148, Theog. 771, Kipvdvai Hippokr 
 VIII 244 {-aval CGK). {b) Second Aorist. Odvai Hdt. IV 179. 
 Theog-. ^T"], Kardvai Hdt. VII ^,5, bovvai Theog. 561, 861 (from 
 e^Ferai, kFevai, 8ofemi)^; -bpfjvat Aret. 1 12. (c) Aorist Passive 
 TedfivaL Hdt. II 42, lasos 3Iitth. XV 154, 1. 2, 4, (f)avrivai 
 Hippokr. I 624. (d) Perfect. kcrrriKevaL (rare) Hippokr. VIH 
 498, in Demosthenes and Attic inscriptions (C. I. A. II 812 C 
 149}. Older forms are ; ka-rdvai Hdt. I 69, &c., Hippokr. Ill 
 324, -^e/3dmt Hdt. Ill 146, V 86, redvavai I 31, Sim. Amorg. 3. 
 (the trimeter ends reOvdvat. xpdvo'i), Amphipolis jo.q. ; 
 
 In Mimn. 2^^ the MSS. have avriKa Sr) redvavai fie\Tiov i) ^ioros. Bergk 
 following Bach, read avriKa TeOvdixevai, Cobet {Var. Led. 390, cf. Mnem. XI 124; 
 suggested auri/ca ^ Odvaros — not a felicitous emendation (cf. TjTt. lOi) 
 Stephanus conjectured reOvavai. It is, however, possible to retain the MS 
 reading, since, though dv usually makes position, it need not do so. Cf 
 Sim. Keos 993 (eleg.) : ovSe redvaffi davovres, iiri'i <T<p' aper^ Kadvirepdev anc; 
 reevaffiu Septem 805. Cf. Tick, B. B. XIII 175. redvavai is well supported a. 
 Theog. 181 {deJiln, -dvai bcfgm, -dfievai A)^ and by a passage in the Agamemnw] 
 (539)3. (We demur to Pick's displacement of reOvd/j-evai, Tyrt. lo^, b;; 
 redvavai. See below 3, note.) The evidence of the grammarians* in favou:; 
 oi redvavai is all late and therefore untrustworthy, but the form is neverthe 
 less correct, redvavai is from redva-fevai (as arivai from a-rj-fevai), not froni 
 redva-vai (Renner) or redvr^-evai (Paley), both of which had given -Tjvai ii 
 Ionic, redvavai is a younger form, since it contains the ending -vai, whicl 
 was abstracted from the forms containing -fevai. No form in -vai (present 
 aorist, or perfect) is archaic, -vai usurped the place of the older -^er. 
 
 2. -eiy ^ (by transference to the co conjugation): tlQ^Iv Theog. 286 : 
 Oropos i^e, 4^.40, o-wteiz/ Theog. ^6^, and 1237 by Lachmann's 
 
 1 Cf. Tzetz. Exeg. II. 11 89. ; 
 
 ^ From these aorists and from Uvai, the -vai form spread, usurping th( 
 jjlace of the older -^ec. Thus nde/j-ev preceded ridevai ; otherwise we shoulc' 
 laave had a form ndTJvai. 
 
 3 Xaipca rf redvavai 5' ovk avrepw deo7s, where Hermann has x°'^P'^' ^^o7ff 
 redvdvai 5' ovk avrepSi, Dindoi'f x- ''''■' redvavai S' ovKeri a. d. ; Enger %. 76 &c 
 Ahrens, Philologus, Suppl. I 539, defends the genuineness of the MS. reading 
 which is not to be impeached because of the presence of this archaism. ] 
 
 * Et. Gud. 637, (appendix), schol. Frogs, 1012, Thom. Mag. 355, Hort. Adon^ 
 186, Drakon 3913, 10835. See Hermann on Agam. 517 = 539. 
 
 * Whatever the relations of the inf. in -eiv to that in -ev, the siiffix -ev dicj 
 not hold over into a later period of the dialect. Johansson's defence {D. V. C. 
 202) of I.E. en in Thasian 0*EIAEN (Bechtel, no. 7I1,) is vitiated by th<i 
 parallel AFOAnSEN C. I. A. H S04 A 33 (334-33 b. c), the last Attic inscripi! 
 tion containing E = ei. 
 
loo.] MI VERBS : INFINITIVE. 583 
 
 onjeeture for a-vvibeXv ; Kadtarav Hippokr. VIII 498 (cf. la-rav 
 a Eust. on N 745), bLbovu Oropos iHg], 33, Theog-. 1329 (oiSoW 
 (ISS., btbovv'^ Hermann), (covvveiv Hippokr. VIII 144, afievvveiv 
 lerakl. 1 03 (-vvai Cobet) and in Diog-enes^ (IX) Life of Hera kh' if as 
 2 (-vTjv L, -vvai 31, Cobet). In the aorist we have fi^Tabovv Theog-. 
 04 (Buttmann). We do not accept the elision, though it is indi- 
 ated in many MSS. and attested elsewhere^. When hibodv was 
 abstituted for btbovai, bovvaLg&Ye way to bovv (cf.boixev, bojjievat). 
 ' ovv has been emended to bovv in Phoinix of Kolophon (Ioq)- 
 'armenides (66) has (f)vv, an Erythraian inscription [Berichfe ikr 
 Vieuer Akademie 1873, p. o^o,^ f.) -rrpoa-Tav, Isyllos of Epidam-os 
 [TTijdijv, Hesychios (f)dv- Aeyety^. ElAEIN, Epidauros C. D. I. 
 32511s, is reg-arded by Prellwitz as = dbivai.. We expect the aorist 
 owever. Cf. the Aiolic inf. pass, dyre^rji;, &c.* On ety see § 709. 
 3. -fxevai is foreign to classic Ionic prose. 
 
 -tievai is found occasionally in MSS. of Hdt., e. g. iffrdfievai I 17 (in all MSS. 
 scept A), airiffTanivai I 76 (Cdz), TV 1S9 (Tu^evyvv/xevai (rf). The jiseudo- 
 Dnists aifect the form, e.g. Aretaios aireAOefievai 10, a.ve\e^/j.fvai 45, o(5aAerj0€- 
 ei'at 207, and in Qefiivai 332, where its appearance would be more justifiable. 
 rom elfxi we have ifxtvai 68, 75, e/j.fj.evaL II, 37, 38, 39, 47, 53, 97, 151, and 
 rukian, Syr. dea 4, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 33, 35, 46, Astrol. 26. In fact, while Arrian 
 sfuses to adopt eixixevai, both Aretaios and Lukian prefer it to ilvai ; thus 
 iaking of it one of the most strongly marked hyper-Ionisms of the late 
 9nic literature. Apart from these traces in Ionic, -/xevai scai-cely exists in 
 rose : aXf^ifievai in the Spartan treaty preserved in Thukyd. V 77 is a 
 oetical, not a Lakonian prose form. Hesychios has yiffajxevai' et'SeVai for 
 'hich yi(xa.fj.ev should be read, fljxevai in Acharn. 775 is not a Megarian prose 
 )rria, whatever else it may be. 
 
 In the lyric (but not iambic) poets of Ionic birth -[xevat occurs 
 irely: l/x/^evat Phokyl. g, 14, 16 (elvat I2)j e'jueyat Evenos of 
 'aros 9j (ixelvai Fick) with elvat, in verse 2, Tideixwai Anakr. gi^ 
 •[livoi Gottling, Hiller). Of the non-Ionic poets, Theognis uses 
 fxevat in Oeiu-evac 152, Ld[xevat 221, (f)vXa(raeixevaL 806, TeOvdixevai. 
 81 (in A only). [Solon] 1339 has eufxevaL. In 22i Bergk edits 
 hiixevat, following the scholiast and Proklos on Timaios 25 F. 
 Lristotle, Rliet. I 15, who also quotes the passage, has, however, 
 l-nfiv \xoL (cf. Hdt. VIII 68 a), and this is correct. The longer 
 orm was taken from H 501 {diriixival. [jlol) and the pronoun 
 
 ^ SiSovvai is an uncouth form handed down in n 425, wiere ^e Leaf. A 
 arallel instance a^jpears to be SiSeTvar HSrja-ai ih Hesychios (StSelv '?; ; but 
 f. StSeoucrai Delphi, Cauer 220,3. 
 
 ' B. C. II. XIII 315, no. 2 2g (Paphlagonia) : Qpeirrpa (piXois a-n-oSowai, o? ffibv 
 OTfj.ov yoowvns- In 1. 5 iSeffOat. Hesychios has aTroSovv' airoSovvat. 
 
 ^ On the range of these inf. in -v, see Nauck Mel. greco^oni. IV 29. 
 
 * Brugmann, Grimdr. II 2, p. 141 7, thinks that Sovv, eh, Aiolic -e-qv were 
 riginally locatives in -fev. 
 
584 THE IONIC DIALECT. [701. 
 
 omitted. Tyrtaios lo^ lias Tedvajxevat, a conjectural form iii 
 Mimn. 2^^. Wherever -ixevat occurs it is an epic reminiscenced 
 
 According to Fick (B. B. XI 252, XIV 253, ef. Class. Rev. 1889, pp. 37, 91): , 
 -jxevai does not occur in the Ionic and Attic lyric before 540 b. c. This isj 
 true only if we expel TiOvafievai from Tyrtaios. See on reOvavai § 700, i (d). 
 
 4. -jxev ^ is not found except in poetry ^ : Theog-nis has hOi\xiv,\ 
 430^ d^ixev 845, 846, 80/xez; 919. In 960 Bergk reads d\iiv\\ 
 despite the fact that A has the more usual -qii^v, a Doric form; 
 which reappears in the Acharmans 741, 771, though in the' 
 inscriptions the Megarian dialect has always d\xtv. Dindorf; 
 has adopted etjuey in Aristophanes. hihaa-Keixev seems sufficiently' 
 well attested^ Phokyl. 13. Sim. Keos 3I2 has ixiyvvixev. Inj 
 Doric -jj-ev is widely used, but in the above mentioned poets it isl 
 an epic reminiscence. 
 
 701.] Participle. i. Present. TiOds, Id's (Steij Hippokr.! 
 VIII 434; hUvra VIII 170, IV 162 are second aorists"^), to-ras. 
 hia(TKibva<5 Hdt. II 25; Kipvas Hippokr. VII 256, pr]yvvs Hdt, 
 II 14, (evyvvs I 206, but -voov I 205, beiKvvs II 78 {-beKvvvTes 
 Chios 174 B 14); but -i;a)y III 79, -cr(3evvvcov Hippokr. VIII 162.1 
 fxtyvvs VIII 504> -ixLyvvMV VIII 340, -ayvvMV VII 530 ; 6/j,owresi 
 Hdt. I 153 should be oixvvvres (cf. II 118), and eKKpeixavvvrc^ 
 Hippokr. VIII 482, -avvvvra. 2. Aorist. 6ds, ds, ards, airoKXai 
 Anakr. 17^ (only case of the second aorist of kAuco. Cf. bvu) 
 bvs). avaaraddara Hrd. 6.2=dvaaTaaa, a use alien from prose, 
 3. Perfect. k(TT(.(iis ivom*kaTriFws (Attic ecrrco? from^ecrrafajj) Hdt, 
 I 132, &c., Ion of Chios 1, ka-nQTosK-riFoTos, Hdt. II 38, &c.; 
 Hippokr. Ill 288, €o-T€QTa Hdt. I 6^, kc, Hippokr. VHI 50.' 
 Attic forms are found occasionally in the MSS., e.ff. Demokr 
 205. Neuter ecrreo's Hippokr. IV 298. Fem. ecrrewo-a Hdt 
 
 V 92 (8) is probably an analogue of rt/xwo-a. (o-Taores Aret. lai: 
 is one of the epic^ forms of late Ionic literature. On redvedi. 
 (also Attic) and Te6vriKu>s, &c., see § 604. The later perfect 
 participle *with k is found in Halikarn. 23823, Teos 1585, Hdt; 
 
 VI 140, VIII 79 {-KOTMv), II 126 {-Kvlav), Hippokr. II 44' 
 (-Kvtwr, not -kov(tS)v ^ vulgd). 
 
 The perfect middle of t);ju,t is regularly formed with -ei-< ee ii- 
 all cases but two : a<\)ioivrai § 694, and \}.^\i.iri\xkvos = Attic 
 
 * Ionic : An. Par. IV 14513. 
 
 * The grammarians called -fiev either Ionic and Doric (An. Par. Ill 3463 
 Et. Gud. 383,7) or Ionic and poetic (An. Ox. I 132,, cf. 13I33, Et. Gud. 220,5V 
 
 3 elfxev in By water's Herakl. (81) cannot be the original reading, ehai ii 
 frag. 1 is a correct conjecture. 
 
 * So SieffOat VIII 504 (Littre SUaOat). 
 ^ Ionic: Choirob. 829,5. 
 
 ^ Older Ionic did not develop a pjesent k(nr,Kw. Note ivffT-rjKT) Aret. 282. 
 
702.] oTSa. 585 
 
 Ix^Oeiixivos, Hdt. V 108, VI i, VII 229. Apart from the 
 irregular reclujilication \ /Me/xert/xeVos is difficult because of the 
 form of the radical. In view of the existence of aveiixivovs 
 (II 167, VII 103) we are tempted to read -etjjiivos with ABC in 
 V loS. But this form is not elsewhere directly supported 
 {-■qixevos Ppr.dr V 108, Rd VI i, where A B C P corr. have 
 -'nxevos, d VII 229). As it stands therefore, the form in -Ljievos 
 is from the perplexing ico (§ 691, note 2). 
 
 702.] oi8a, oiba Archil. 772, Hdt. I 209; olba^ (a 337) 
 Theog. 491, 957, Hippon. 89, Hdt. Ill 72 (B), Hippokr. II 370; 
 olaOa (A 85, &c.) Theog. 375, Hippokr. IX 332; oladas^ Ilrd. 
 2r,g; olbajjiev^ Hdt. II ly, IV 46 (same chapter as t§//ey), VII 214, 
 IX 60, Hippokr. I 622, V 196, VI 120; Antiphon II A 3 an 
 Ionizing tetralogy. iS/xei- (Hom.), Hdt. I 6, 142, 178, IV 46^, 
 &c. (over 30 times, with an occasional v. I. ta-jjiev, e.g. II 12); lore 
 Tyrt. II7, Hdt. IX 42; oiSao-t* Hdt. II 43; to-ao-i (Hom.) 
 
 - Theog. 598, Sim. Keos (?) 85^^. 
 
 Sidijunctive. etSeco^ Hdt. Ill 140 (correct -w II 114 to -ecu), 
 et8rjj Theog. 963, dbicoa-L Halikarn. 2382^ (fifth century), 
 Demokr. 87. The Attic contraction appears in eibcaaiv Ephesos 
 147^^, 300 B.C., and perhaps elbio Hrd. 6^,5 (Crusius, -i]a-(o Biicheler). 
 Ojjtafive. dbeLr]s Theog. 641, Hdt. I 206, etSetr; Theog. 770, 
 Hippokr. I 624 (not -0177 with Littre), elbdev Hdt. IX 42 {-oUv z), 
 -eir]<7av III 61 (-oirjaav z). Imperat. &c. laQi Anakr. 753, Hdt. 
 VII 159, dbivai Anakr. 752, Hdt, III 11, Hippokr. I 622 
 {'ibixevai, Hom., Theog. 22i), et'Sws Theog. 193, Hdt. VIII 13. 
 Pluperfect, rjb^a^ (Hom.) Theog. 853, Hdt. II 150. f^betv "is 
 Attic in Theog. 667 (unless we read jjbea, or fjbr] smce A has -Ijbr]) 
 and Hippokr. Ill 500. ?/8ee'^ (Horn.) Hdt. II 100, IX 94, &e. 
 {fjbei. ?). Later Ionic does not use the Homeric forms in 77618- 
 
 ! (v. I. Hdt. I 45). o-w77§e'are Hdt. IX 58 ; rjbeaav Theog, 54, Hdt. 
 VII 175, VIII 78. ' 
 
 ^ i/xerieTo V. I. 1 12, i/xeTeld-r] v.l. I 114 are accepted by none. 
 
 ^ Hesychios calls both o'la-das and oJSas Attic. Moiris calls olo-Qa Attic, olSas 
 Hellenic. Cf. Rutherford's Phrynich. 227, and above § 584, 2. 
 
 2 Kirchhoff thinks o'iSa/xev in Hdt. is an importation from post-classical 
 Greek. oJSas occurs in tragedy, comedy, and Xenophon. 
 
 * KoivUs Moiris. 
 
 " In Homer we should read, with Tyrannio and Fick, feiSw, -tjs, -okti &c., 
 not the forms with the circumflex, because ew is not contracted after con- 
 sonants. See W. Schulze, K. Z. XXIX 251. 
 
 * Apoll. Adv. 19I7 Schn., Hdn. II 31015 = Choirob. 56118 (cf. 602,4 = An. Ox. 
 I"^ 41718), II 3267, Et. Gud. 23605, An. Ox. I 6829, An. Par. Ill 297s, 3262.;, 
 Bust. 503^, 718,7, 88i62, 194622- IvSees is a figment in An. Ox. I 6S3,, An. Par. 
 Ill 2978 (cf. pSeis a 237 Zenodotos, and now removed from Attic poets to the 
 advantage of-^hnada. Demosthenes has however ^5ets). 
 
 ' Hdn. II 3iOij = Choirob. 56127, II 3267 = Choirob. 56225, An. Ox. I 69.2, 
 
 . IV 18625 
 
5^6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [jOS.- 
 
 ■flSea is generally explained with Brugmann, M. U. Ill i6 if., as an aorist = 
 *TjfeiSeaa ', of which elSew < *feLSicr(ii is the subj. (cf. videro), elSeir^y < *ffiSe- 
 (T'l-nv, flSe7fxev < *fet5e(riij.fv the optative (cf. viderimus). This explanation 
 supposes that the e before era is the minimum (schiva) vowel. A simpler 
 means of dealing with tlie form is to hold to its pluperfect character. In : 
 Homeric icrau < *fiS(rav, -ff- was added directly to the weak stem, in fjSfa -e<r- 
 was added, as in the 3 sing, of the pluperfect (-€i < -ear-e^. rtSet/jLev is from 
 *TJ5fa-iJ.ev, and as its analogue appears rjSeire for original *^56(rT€. rjSeiv, jiSetj 
 have their -eiv, -eis as the rest of the pluperfects. Cf. Wackernagel, K. Z. ' 
 XXV 266, XXIX 126. 
 
 To the above may be added the formations from the stem 
 Feibe-, Future dbj](roo (Hom.) Theog". 814, Hdt. VII 234, Hippokr, 
 VII 476, VIII 430, Herodas 5.^3 and Aorist dbrjcra Hippokr. 
 II 436, V 353, IX 230. da-oixat (Hom.) is also Hippokratic ' 
 (I 622, 626). 
 
 703.] etjjii. I. I. Present Tti/Uc. etjmi (Hom.) Theog. 579, 1203,1 
 Anakr. 34 ; ets not attested in later Ionic (Hesiod W. I). 208, 
 da-Oa Hom.) ; eicn (Hom.) Sim. Amorg-. 7^4, Theog. 1204, Hdt, , 
 VII 197, Hippokr. VIII 148, Hrd. 2^3 = dovai'^ in e77[e]tovo-t[i^] . 
 Hrd. in Class. Hev. V 481, frag. 6^ ; t/xev (Hom.) Theog. 844,: 
 Hdt. IX 42, la<n 3 (Hom.) Hdt. VIII 60, for ^Srrt < ^livTi = Skt. 
 y-dnti. lacn is -am plus the t of t/xey, tre. etm eunt, Hesiod 
 Scutnm 1 13, Theog. 716, is too imcertain to be made the basis of 
 conjectures as to the primitive form of the 3 Plur. in Greek , 
 (Osthofe. M. U. IV 288 ff., Schmidt K. Z. XXV 591 ). 2. SubJ. U [ 
 (Hom.) Theog. 912, instead of '^€(,1)00 (cf. Skt. dj/dni). Im, with ' 
 the I of Ifxev, follows the thematic conjugation ; u/s Theog. 566 ; ; 
 hj Olynthos 8 A 6, B 17, Hdt. II 41, &c., Hippokr. IV 268,: 
 poetical lojuey (Hom.) Solon 2^,', Imo-l Samos 221.^0, Hdt. I 67, &c. \ 
 3. Ojotat. lot (Hom.) Hdt. II 108, &c. (forold^fTj : H-ai-v^^U. 
 -iydin)\ Trapefiotey IV 120. 4. Imperat. Wt (Hom.) Hippon. 153, 
 Hdt. VII 234. 5. L/Jii/. Uvai (Hom.) Theog. 352, &c., Hdt. , 
 VI 134 &c. 6. Particij). Idv (Hom.) Tjrt. iigg, Theog. 71, &c. ' 
 Hippon 4%2, Hrd. 4^^, 45, Hdt. Ill 25. -npoauvaav Hippokr. 
 IX 340 is a mistake for -lovaav (in many MSS.). Cf. Herodas' ; 
 Te/xeC(ra, &c. t 
 
 II. Imperfect^. 
 
 1 Sing. f]a (Attic) Hdt. I 111 {^laAB, 771a C), IV 82 {?]iaAB, 
 jja C d), I 42 (rjia B). In V 62 all MSS. have ?/ta, which is the ; 
 
 ^ Tifii contracted to ri as ^iiriifeKTe to eV^o-e Hdt. IX 93 ^ J5 C, Schulze, K. Z. ■ 
 XXIX 252. 
 
 - On eJ'o) for elfjii, see Baunack in Curtius' Studien X 97, R. M. XXXVII ' 
 (1882) 472. 
 
 ^ An. Ox. I 1283,,. Et. M. 301,4, Ionic for lai (cf. Hdn. II 82810 = Choirob.j 
 84911). Brunck and Hermann read Icn in Theog. 716. i 
 
 •i See Wackernagel, K. Z. XXV 265, Philol. Anzeiger XVII 239, Brugmann, ' 
 Grundr. II 2, § 836. ' 
 
703.] elixL. 587 
 
 reading in I 42, iii of the MSS. not mentioned above. The 
 editors read 771a, the form found 8 427, 433, 572, k 309 ^ yetv 
 Hippokr. IX 350. iJlov Sp: dea 25 {ritov E, tjov A, pov a). 'Cf. 
 \avriLov K 146; 274, 446, a form for which Nauck^ substitutes ?/ia. 
 
 3 Sing. 176 (M 371, 0-257, r]€v a 253, r 126, v 89), though the 
 icorrect form in Hdt,, is but poorly sup2)orted : I in (T/te A B, 
 i7]e C), VIII Z'] (C), y 12 (-rjie B). fiet {9 290, K 286, N 247) 
 .Archil. 893, though i-'e would suit the verse, Hippokr. V 388, 
 \hnju II 686, 688, 692, 694, 704, III 94, 128, 142, 144, V 164, 
 IvTrT/'et V 232, -ryet Hdt. I 116 (-Tjtet CP, -r/ei z, -rjet A £ R d), 192 
 :(-?]tet CP according to Stein, -rjet reliqni, -jju Holder) and v. L in 
 isome other places (I 109, III 90, 91, 96, V 12 (Suidas), 32, 
 jVI 46). rjie (A 47 and very often) Hdt. I 119, II 26, V 51, &c. 
 '(about 50 times without v. /.), rjt^v Sp: dea 24 {tjIw E, rjev A a, 
 j]U reliqtd). The editors of Hdt. adopt i'jie everywhere. 
 
 3 Plur. fjcrav {iiTrjcrav r 445^ fxerfja-av Knights 605) is the correct 
 form in Archil. 81 (Meineke, r](Tav vnlgo). In Hdt., though in 
 the MSS. of the latter it occurs (in exactly this form) only in 
 II 163 (in all MSS. except A B, which have -ijiaav). rjaav is 
 found in all MSS. I 62, III 19, VIII 129. In III 14 all 
 have -jja-av except B (-i]e(rav), and in IV 123 rja-av is found in 
 B R. Elsewhere ^ support for the genuine form may be sought 
 in the reading ijiaav (or ffiaav) varying with tjo-av. We cannot 
 believe with Bredow that the latter reading is due to a confusion 
 with the imperfect of etjut [constrndio praegnans). ridav also 
 occurs in the MSS. of Attic writers (Thukyd. I i). r\^(yav^ 
 Xenophan. 33, where Bergk adopts i]i(jav with Meineke and 
 Renner; €7re^tU<Tav Hippokr. II 226 in many MSS., fjeaav 
 IX 340, as Arrian 369, k-nyi^a-av Arrian 24^. Attic ■i]e(7av (or 
 rj^aav) is a v. I. in Hdt. (I 80, 158, 191, III 14, 76, IV 201, 203, 
 V 92 (77), 108, VII 210, 211, 223, VIII 130, 138, IX 5). i]Laav 
 (t 436 and in 7 other passages) Hdt. I 43 (in over 10 passages 
 ■without V. I.), Hippokr. Ill 212 (vu/go et7]aav, Scaliger daUaav, 
 iLittr^ and Ermerins iJLcrav). The editors of Hdt. adopt 7)10-02; ^ 
 fthroughout. iJHcrav Si/r. dea 28 (cf. cod. d Hdt. IV 123, VII 
 211, 223, 233). 
 
 The original inflection (A) in the i Sing, was ^a = I. E. etin, whose direct 
 ;descendant would have been *^_(a. This, after passing into *r]a, regained its 
 I from that of the plural \ ^, the 3 Sing., has been lost and in its stead we 
 have pe, inflected like a thematic verb, ^crav from augment + ei + atxv, is the 
 
 ^ For rfeiv, by Ionic StaKvcris Eust. 5O09. Suidas s. v. ^a calls rjta Ionic, and 
 s. V. rpiTTjixopls cites Hdt. VII 121 with Tj^e. 
 
 * Mel. greco-rom. Ill 255. 
 » Cf. I 105, III 28, IV 140, VII 71, 178, VIII 130, 138, IX 5, 56. Here .4 B 
 
 generally have riiffav, C (sometimes P and d) ^aav. 
 
 * Suidas s. v. ^a, calls ffecrav and rjicrav Ionic. 
 
 * On the 17 of^ixtv, see Brugmann, Grundr. II 2, § 481, note i. 
 
588 THE IONIC DIALECT. [704. 
 
 most ancient form of the 3 Plur. As old as Homer is (B) a second formation 
 of a pluperfect (or aoristic) ^ character, the mark of which is -ea-a added to 
 the verbal stem: -^ea (or perhaps riea &c.) from augment + e{i) + e\a)a, rjee 
 {rjei), fjeffav. Of these forms one only {rjee, in rjei) has been preserved. (C) 
 fjiou in Hom. i Sing. 3 Plur. has passed into the thematic conjugation, rjia,] 
 TJL€, Tjiffav in Homer, Herodotos and elsewhere ^ are vicious forms. Augment 
 + the verbal stem €i cannot become rji, because an hiatus is thereby created 
 which is opposed to the laws of the language ^ (ijia &c. would be conceivable 
 only if the present were eifxi, a form as impossible as Herodian's oiSa). Tor' 
 the misshapen words tjlu, rjie, rjicrav in the text of Homer we must substitute, 
 when we need trisyllabic forms, fjea (or fjea &c.) rjee ( = ^€i N 247), fjeffav (and 
 ^eov ior -^oy). For these archaisms* were substituted in course of time pa, 
 776, ^aav, which, to conform to the verse, suffered a 'distraction' that had 
 the advantage of apparently restoring the radical vowel i (T-^ev &c.\ The 
 text of Hdt. with its ^a, ^e, paay was then equated with that of Homer, 
 SiaKva-is being a chief feature of the later, as of the older, dialect according 
 to the grammarians \ A similar case of the disturbance of tradition is that 
 of eirTjicre Hdt. IX 93. Here the genuine reading (in ABC) is enficre which 
 was lengthened to -rjicre in order to show Ionic diaeresis. Just so ApoU.' 
 Rhod. I 1023 &c. introduced diaeresis in iirriia-a^. \ 
 
 fjei and -petrav, having apparently pluperfect endings, -pav and ^eiaav were: 
 constructed to fill out the tyjje. ' 
 
 704.] <|)T)fjii. This verb presents few noteworthy forms. </)7|s 
 (Hom.) occm-s in Hdt. I 39, where AB have 07/ts ; Hrd. i4gi 
 (^7/[sJ? Anakr. 41 has 0?/ [sky for 07](ti (Hdt., Hippokr. e.g^ 
 IX 360); subj. (pr](n sic Hrd. 3^4 = ^f] Hippokr. VII 422; ^wai! 
 Hdt. IV 68 ; ^aiez; Hippokr. II 242 ; 4>6.vaL Hdt. I 27, &c.,, 
 Hippokr. VII 222, 0as (Hom.) Hdt. I iii, &e., Hippokr. IV 78,; 
 Zeleia I1318; ecpaaav Hdt. II 118 ; ^tjctco II 49 ; ^(prjcrav Hippokr.i 
 IX 358, subj. (pTjaca VI ^6 ; ^aaQai Xenojihan. 63, (pafj-evos (Horn.); 
 Hdt. II 18, Hippokr. VI 342, i(j)dixr]v^ (Hom.) Hdt. VI 69. 
 
 et/xi. 
 
 i 
 705.] Present Indicative. eliiC Archil, i^, Hippon. 832,' 
 
 Anakr. 15^ Theog-. 314, &c., Hdt. VI 86 (a), &c. d,^'' (Horn.); 
 
 1 
 
 ^ The type is represented by 7?5ea < *i]feiSe(ra ; cf. § 702, note. Hdn. II 
 79430 called ■pa perfect, fjeiv pluj)erfect. 
 
 ■^ EIE, Gortyna Code II 47, is either pe or -fjii, not ^le. rjia is even found in- 
 the MSS. Xenophon, Kyrojy. V 4. 
 
 3 Cf. Schmidt, K. Z. XXIV 304, note. 
 
 * ^ei was retained because of its (apparently) modern look. Nauck would 
 displace ^€i, which occurs at the verse end, by pe;/. J 
 
 " Cf. Bust. 5023. ' \ 
 
 « See Schulze, K. Z. XXIX 252. 
 
 ' Cf. Apollon. Adv. 1335 Schn., Hdn. I 43I9, II 2103 (Joh. Alex. 2I4). 
 
 * i(pao Ionic: Choirob. 8S225 = An. Ox. IV 37823; so too imperat. ^do An..j 
 Ox. IV 2i3,g, Choirob. 88236 . 
 
 " In Hrd. 374 the grave accent appears in the papyrus. On this accentua- 
 tion in Homer, cf. Hdn. II 13I17, 14O15, La Roche, H. T. K. 241. In Hamer 
 eVtr' can be read everywhere except in p 388. 
 
7o8.] et/xt. 589 
 
 Archil. 107 (MSS. eh), Hrd. j„ 3,^, y,., Hdt. Ill 71, &c., and 
 perhaps in Anakr. 7 (MSS. ?]?). 
 
 Attic el (morphologically an older form than els ; cf. (p-fj-s for *(|)i7(n') has 
 been introduced into Theog. 456, Anakr. 57, Hrd. 520, Hdt. Ill 140, 142 &c., 
 Hippokr. IX 338, Ion i. 
 
 €(T(TL Homeric and Syrakusan, not later Ionic, Theof^. 875 
 (epic reminiscence), eort Archil. 39^, Anakr. 92, Theog-. 376, &c. 
 elfxev Hdt. VII 9, &c., Hrd. 6-0 (e[t]/xei;). Attic (o-jxiv is to be 
 displaced in Archil, ,59.2, Diog. Apoll. 6. eore Tja-t. ii^, Anakr. 
 84, Hrd. 2^. eto-t (Horn.) Hipponax 29^, Hrd. i^^, Archil. 3^, 
 Theog. 163, Phokyl. 15^, Hdt., Hippokr., &c. eacn^ (Horn.) 
 Xenophan. 7,, Theog. 623, Hrd. 4g^ (the only example in Hrd,, 
 and that in the pra3-er of the temple custodian), not in Hdt. (v. I. 
 
 I 125), but often in the pseudo-Ionists (Aretaios at least 12 
 times, Euseb, Mynd. no. 58). 
 
 706.] Subjunctive, eco (Hom.) Hdt. IV 98. r\s Theog. 1208, 
 Hdt. VIII 102, Hippokr, IX 338, 7/ (r]cn Horn,) Kallin, 1,3, 
 Xenophan. igp (conj.), 5^, Phokyl. 10, Theog. 154 and 10 times 
 elsewhere, Solon 43^, Sim. Amorg-. 7gg, Sim. Keos (?) 85jq, 
 Ananios 5^, Hrd. 2^, 345, ^.g, 7^2; Hdt. IV 66, &c., Hippokr. II 
 14, 368, ill 236, 240, 506, IX 480, &c., Aret^ 35, 36, 46, 59. 
 Always in the inscriptions: r\i Halik. 2383^, et Oropos iS^g, 34 
 (€t< •^t< €?7t, cf. § 239), 7rap(r/)t Chios, Paspates 9^^. er; in the 
 subjunctive was contracted in all branches of the later Ionic. 
 The uncontracted form e?? (Hom.) is found in Theog. 466, 1354, 
 as an epic reminiscence. It has been wrongly introduced into 
 Hippokr., e.g. I 606, IV 80, V 482, VI 62, and Aret, 5, 158 
 (17 same page) and very often elsewhere, S/xez^ Theog, 595, 597, 
 1243 (eWe^^?). eojo-i (Hom.) Teos, M'dfli. XVI 292, 1. 4, Hdt. 
 
 II 39, IV 66, &c., Demokr, 205, Hippokr, II 18, 20, 58, 66, 74, 
 142, 156, 232, 266, 730, III 236, V 730, Aret, ^37, 74, 106, 
 158, For So-t (Horn,) in Hdt. II 89 read eajcrt. wcri occurs in 
 pseudo-Hippokratic treatises (VII 422, ecoo-t same page). 
 
 707.] Optative. d-r]v (Hom.) Theog. 6^'>^, etrjs (Hom.) Theog. 
 1 177, di]<T6a Theog. 715, elrj (Hom.) Xenophan. 3g, ,(,, Tyrt. 125, 
 Theog. 349, 979, 1153, &c., Archil, 583, Hdt,, &c., but evioi 
 Hdt. VII 6 (the only case in Hdt.), eot Aret. 169 (cf, Hom, lot?, 
 eot), elev (Hom.) Theog, 327, Hdt, I 6^, 170, &c, etrjcrav Hdt, 
 I 2, II 6, 102, IV 46, &c., Hippokr. Il']6, 88. The -i](Tav form 
 becomes more frequent after the time of Hdt, In early Attic 
 poetry it is nowhere metrically certain. 
 
 708.] Imperative. On Hekataios' eV^t, see § 144, i ; "lo-Ol 
 ^ An. Ox. I 13O10, 1623, Choirob. 860,0= An. Ox. IV 35724- 
 
590 
 
 THE IONIC DIALECT. 
 
 [709. 
 
 Theog. 301, Hclt. I T18. iJTca appears in Hippokr. VIII 340 
 (where d, C, H have eorco) and Aretaios 203. It is not lonicj 
 only late Greek (N. T., &e.). Curtius, Terbum I 177, regarded it 
 as contracted from ■^earo) ^ It is rather a ' springing- ' analogical 
 form (cf. 7/rco, eoro) with "jcrTrjV or yr-qv, earrov). ea would not 
 have been contracted in Ionic, ea-rca Olynthos 8 B i, Chios 
 174 A 15, ecTTcov Chalkidian 13^, Chios 174 A 21, Thasos /. H. S. 
 VIII 402, 6, 9. Attic €(rT(ti(Tav appears in the MSS. in Hdt. 
 I 147, Hippokr. VII 222. 
 
 709.] Infinitive, ehai, Eretria, 'E0?]|m. apx- i890-i,pp. 195-6,, 
 Erythr. 1995, ^q, Amphip. lOj^ and often, Mimn. 50, Phokyl. 4^, I 
 Anakr. 73, Solon 279^ Theog. 129, 405, 1283, Hdt., &c. eh in 
 Eretria, 'E(/)Tj/x. apx- i^^7s P- 77? 1- 1°^ Olynthos 8 A 3, e£eii;'j 
 Oropos 183^.3^ (eti'ai 1. 32). For eti^at" iTe(j)VKevai, in Hesychios, 
 Baunack in his Studien I 176 happily suggests that we read I j 
 elv. This form is an analogue of hovv, &c., § 700, 2. On e///xemt, 
 see § 700, 3 ; on ei/j.ei- § 700, 4. 
 
 710.] Participle^, i. Jnscriptions. l^v Arkesine "^^ twice 
 (metrical), Paros 58, eo'tros Oropos iSjo, 24 j Halikarn. 23823, 
 lovri Zeleia 114 C 3, eo'f[ra] Halikarn. 2383, , Iovt^s Chios 174 ij 
 B 26, eoVras Thasos 713; eovcrrj? Mylasa 248 C 5. (| 
 
 Attic &v appears in Thasos 724 (after 300 b. c), ivri Mylasa 248 A 6 (367-1! 
 66 B.C.), ivras Halikarn. 240 A 6 (fifth century'') ; ovaa. Erythr. 206 C 40!] 
 (after 278 B.C.). 
 
 2. Lyric Poets. (U)v Kallin. i^^, Tyrt. iOoq, 1233, Mimn. 3j, 
 72, Solon [1339], 27i, 18, Theog". 28, 122, 570, 866, &c. hiv 
 Xenophan. 2^, Hrd. 23^; iovros Theog. 21 ; eoVrt Theog. 1060; 
 eovra Archil. 80, Phokyl. 13, Solon 4^^ (neuter), Theog. 502, ; 
 1368, Hrd. 7jo9; e6vT€s Phokyl. 9^, kovre^ Hrd. 23^, the only case ! 
 in Hrd. of the writing eo when eo is closed (elsewhere eu), evvroiv \ 
 Hrd. 285, '^36 with an unusual ew; kovaa Archil. 31, Theog. 267, \ 
 Hrd. 632 ; iovaav Theog. 193. 
 
 Forms from the monosyllabic stem : Hiv Theog. 92, 102, 407, 516, 666, 668, 
 916, 1118, 1380, Hrd. 546, 78 (read idv)* ; uvra Sim. Amorg. 754, Theog. 98, f| 
 6pT(ev Theog. 515, 517 ; ova-i Theog. 1133, evaav Hrd. ig (?), Sjg, oiiaas Solon 49. 
 Homer has only two cases of the shorter form : ovras ri 94, ov(T7)s r 4S9. 
 
 ' So too Brugmann in Curtius' Stvdien IX 310 (1876). 
 
 2 Greg. Kor. § 17, Tzetz. Ex. II. ii^jj. 
 
 ^ Dittenberger (no. 6) places this document only slightly later than the IjJ 
 Lygdamis inscription (Bechtel 238) which is earlier than 454 B.C. Other 
 scholars do not regard no. 240 as so old. In any case this instance of ovras J 
 is the earliest in the inscriptions. 
 
 * Hiv in Hi"d. VI is now shown to be wrong (cf. i^). 
 
j7I3-] ei/^t. ' 591 
 
 , 3. Prose, ecav, eovTos, (ovcra &e., are the proper^ forms in 
 iHdt. (cf. Lukian de Domo 20), Herakl. 2, 7, 62, 92, Anaxag-. i, 
 
 4, 6j &c., Melissos^ i, 2, &c., Diog. Apoll. 2, 6, Demokr, 20^, j^j 
 21, 31^ 214, Hekat. 362, Ion i, Hippokr. II 68, 78, 238, 256, 
 I334, 626, 690, 698, III 36, 50, 72, 190, 222, Menekrates (Dion. 
 Halik, I 77). In the pseuclo-Ionists we find the same forms: 
 ILukian o^-^ times, Arrian 1 3, Abydenos i, Eusebios once, Euseb. 
 Mynd. 17, Vita Horn. 18, Ai-et. very often. Attic lav in Lukian 
 7 times, Arrian 11, Euseb. Mynd. 1, Vita Horn. 2. 
 
 711.] Imperfect, i. ea^ (Hom.) Hdt. II 19 is derived from 
 Hom. 17a ( = 1- E- ^^^}^) by shortening of the latter's rj, not by 
 metathesis quantltatis, though in Hom. the a of ea appears 
 to be long (A 31, E 887, £ 222 ^ 352). Contracted from la 
 is Attic ri which appears in Hrd. 5^4, where we may read |a, 
 perhaps the original reading in the intention of the copyist. 
 2. ea? Hdt, I 187 and ^ar^ are later forms constructed from ea. 
 Cf. e'xeas, exeare. rjs Anakr. 7 (eU?). rjcrOa (Hom.) Theog. 
 1314 is a perfect form. 3. rjv Theog. 700, 788, 900, Archil. 32., ^ 
 115, 126, 139, Sim. Amorg. 162, Hippon. 38, 51^, Hdt., &c. 
 Itjj^* in an epigram of the fifth century, Chios 175^, is a poetical 
 (Homeric) form which was adopted in the late Ionic, e.f/. Lukian 
 Sfr. (lea 18, Aret. 43 ; it is out of place in Hdt., though found in 
 all MSS. VII 143. Hom. ?]ey is also foreign to New Ionic. 
 i(TKi.^ (Hom.) Mimn. I4jq, Hdt. 4. 7//xey Hippokr. IX 340, 350. 
 
 5. eare Hdt. IV 119, V 92(a). 6. r]<Tav (Hom.) Xenophan. 3^, 73, 
 Anakr, 85, Hdt. (Hom. eVay often in Aldus). 'Ictkov Hdt. 
 
 712.] Future. 'i(To\xai Theog. 872, 878 ; eWrj (cf. Hom. 
 lo-o-eat) Theog. 239, 252, eVeat '^ (Hom.) 884, Hdt. II 5, 78, &c., 
 Lukian V. A. 4, 5, Euseb. Mynd. 6'>^', eo-?/ (Hom.) Theog. 1106, 
 1242; Icrrai (Hom.) Kumai, Roberts I 173, Hdt. Ill 134, 
 Theog. 659, 1048, Solon 133^; eWerai (Hom.) Kallin. \^, Tyrt. 
 10^, Theog. 801, 1280, Archil, eleg. 33, Hrd. i-^oxi ^IF- '^'^^ 20; 
 eo-fTot 19, 25; l(T(T6\i(.Qa Theog. 1246; eaovTac Hdt. Ill 134, 
 Theog. (Mimn.) 877; eaoLTo Hdt. VII 226; eo-eo-^at VII 219, 
 Hippokr. II 42, Theog. 1077; ea-aojj.ii'OLaiv (Hom.) Theog. 251. 
 
 713.] K€ifi,ai. 
 
 I. Present (Perfect) Indicative. From the analogy of Sanskrit 
 
 ^ Attic forms occur as v. I. in Hdt. I 20 &c., Hippokr. Ill 88, VII 450 (next 
 line eovffiv^. ovTcov is cited from Protagoras. 
 
 ^ Hdn. II 53,5 (Schol. Ven. A on E 887), 32630, cf. Choirob. 60I3 and 564J9, 
 60253, S6625; Eust. 61813, i759ioff (Herakleides), 176151 and 4774, 88313. 
 
 ^ See Monro, il. G. § 12. 
 
 * Of obscure origin : generally compared with erayn. Brugmaun, Grayn. 
 p. 164, derives it from icrTjcr-. 
 
 ^ An. Ox. I i59^a- ^ Et. M. 38I21. 
 
592 THE IONIC DIALECT. [713. 
 
 we expect in Greek two types o£ inflection : (1) K.dTaL = gefP, with 
 a surprising retention o£ the strong- stem, (2) K€€rai< K6(t)erai= i 
 gdyate. Whether Horn. Keovrai ( = Vedic (^dijanie) and the New ({ 
 Ionic forms with ee are a direct inheritance representing the 
 second type o£ inflection, or whether they are innovations -udthin 
 Greek itself, cannot be determined beyond doubt. This fact that 
 Homer rejects Keerat ^ and KeeaOat makes for the view that these 
 two forms at least are late analogues of Keovrai. Keovrai itself is 
 suspicious for the additional reason that it occurs only at the 
 verse end^; but it will have to stand. Cf. eoi, e cot' with thematic 
 vowel. Nauck^'s Keevrac occurs in Aretaios 14T, but it is there 
 a vox ni/iiti, made from KelvraL to match Keerai and show Ionic 
 8taAi;(n?. After its appearance in Homer^ Kiovrai does not occur 
 again until Hij)pokrates. 1, 
 
 1 Singular: Ketjuat Hdt. IV 1 1. 
 
 2 Singular: Kilcrai (Horn.) Hrd. 4^^, 53- rrpoKeat epist. Thales 
 is an error for -Ketat or -Keio-ai. In the Hymn to Hermes 254 
 all MSS. have KaraKetai, which Gemoll emends to -Keicrat. 
 
 3 Singular: KeZrat (Horn.) Sim. Amorg. 7^ (cf. Sim. Keos(?) 
 85i^), Hrd. 7io, and without a variant in the following chapters 
 of Hdt.: — I 9, 50, 51, II 123, IV J 8, 22, 99, VII 198^ 200, 216, 
 VIII 60. In II 149, 155, III 57, VII II Kdrat is supported by 
 A B n, in VIII 1 35 by J ^ <7 d, in IV 45, 59, VIII 1 38 by A B, 
 in IV 62 by B, &c. In Hippokr. Ill 190, V 674 Littre and 
 Ermerins adopt Keirai. In the letters IX 322, 338, 416, 418, 
 422, 424 Kelrai may be Attic. 
 
 Ke'erai occurs in the MSS. of Hdt. over 30 times without 
 a variant, e.ff. I 14, 118, 142, 178, 181 bis, 183, II 17, 34, 38, 
 83 Ms. Littrd adopts it in Hippokr. II 12, 14, 54, 70, 90, &c. 
 But in II 14, 54, 70 (L.) Ermerins reads Kelrat. Keerat occurs in 
 Lukian Syr. dea 39 {v. I. Kkarai), Arrian 31^, Aret. 3, 15, 60, 
 251, 282. 
 
 Kearai in the 3 Sing, is a mistaken form, found in the iMSS. of 
 Hdt. (I 185, II 83, III 31, IV 62, 64)'', and freqvient in Lukian: 
 S^r. dea 6, 8, 27, 30 ; in 28, 29, 35, and 45 there is found the v. I. 
 KeeraL. In 10, 28, 51 a neuter plural is the subject. 
 
 3 Plural : KelvraL, the original and Attic form, does not appear 
 in Ionic until Ilippokrates^ where in II 24 codex B and the 
 vulgate adopt it (Littr^ Keovrai). Cf. VII 442, IX 406 epist. 
 (v. I. Keovrai). It also occurs in Hrd. 320, 460- 
 
 1 The indicative Kiirai never has its penult in the thesis. The only 
 possible occurrence of «€ in Homer is where, for kyitui. or KeiTai of the MSS., 
 kUtoli may be read. This is however the subjunctive ; see below. Kta-Kero is 
 not from KeeffKero according to Schmidt, K. Z. XXVI 381. 
 
 = X 510, A 341. T 232. 
 
 * Ke'eTot is even written for Ktarai (plural) in E in Hdt. VIII 27 ; and m 
 Hippokr. II 22 one MS. has kutul for the plural. 
 
'1 3-] Kelfiai. 593 
 
 Kearai = K€(i) + arm for -vrai (§ 612) appears in Homer, Archil. 
 69, Hdt. I 14, 105, 133, VI 58, VIII 27, Lukian ^.s^/W. 3, 
 Vretaios 295 (276 ?), Euseb. Mynd. 6^. 
 
 Kdarai (Horn.) is found in Mimn. ii^. It is a later form 
 han Kearai, its i having been reinstated from the analogy of 
 etrat, Keifjieda, K^Xad^. 
 
 KeovTUL (Horn.) Hippokr. II 18^ 22 bis, 24, 48, Aretaios 51, 
 31. Ermerins reads Kearat, not ncovTai, in Hippokrates. 
 
 False forms are Kiavrat v. I. Hdt. I 133, a supposed plural to 
 e'arat (of. § ^^^), and KUvrai Aretaios 141 (see above). 
 
 2. Subjunctive. Kirirai^ occurs in Hippokr. VII 40, 206, but 
 etrat in IX 40, 50 as in T 32, X2 554, /3 102, t 147, co 137, and 
 ccording to Hermann in e 395. Here KTJrat is usually read 
 ince the time of Wolf, except by Ludwich who adopts Ketrat. 
 rjTai has the support of Ven. A in the passages from the Iliad, 
 lut is not well attested in those from the Odyssey. Curtius 
 bgarded Ketrat as contracted from Keterat (Stndien VII ico, 
 'erhum II 85 ; cf. Hartel, Horn. Stud. Ill 11). It is better to 
 splain it as representing an older Kierai. k(Ut would seem to 
 e required in il 554, where the verse begins with Ketrat hi. 
 ts position here is however due to a late shifting of the word 
 •om the place in the verse where it might stand with propriety. 
 
 Kecoyrat^ Hippokr, III 438, Aretaios 19, 147. In 220 Aretaios 
 as KirjVTaL (G V, KirjTai H). 
 
 3. Optative. Ke'otro^ Hdt. I G'] , Hippokr. IV 122. 
 
 4. Imperative. KeCa-Oca Hdt. II 171 bis. 
 
 5. Infinitive. Keto-^at (Hom.) Hdt. II 127, IV 22, VI ^y, 
 K 105 in all MSS., and to be adopted in II 2 (so R d), III 34 
 ?), IV II, i<^^ (A £ R) where KeeaOai is found in some MSS. 
 his holds even in III 22, where no MS. has K^iaOai. Littre 
 ,3cepts Keto-^ai in Hippokr. Ill 438, V 694 his, but KeeadaL 
 i 24, 118 {vulgo KdaQai). Aretaios certainly has Kieo-dai g, 49, 
 14, 236, 285. 
 
 6. Participle. k€L[x€vo9 in Hdt., Hippokr., &c., Aretaios 237, 
 ij, 318 has Keofxevos but Keiixevos ^^. 
 
 7. Imperfect (Pluperfect). eKetro (Hom.) is found nearly 20 
 mes in Hdt. without any variant, e.ff. 1 119, 123, VII 158, 
 III 41, IX 40. eKe'ero is generally not well supported : I 51 
 11 MSS. except Ac), 196 (6'), III 12 (all except E which has 
 erat), VI 61 (-eKcaro A B C d), VII -3,6 {B). Hippokrates ha^ 
 
 ^ The open vowels do not here violate the laws of contraction. When a 
 n-thematie verb passes into the XI conjugation, contraction need not ensue. 
 ^ Cf. irapaKedfieOa' (yKii/juvoi Ssfxev in Hesychios. 
 irpoffKfoi.To' ■KpoKeip.ivos iir), Hesychios. 
 
594 THE IONIC DIALECT. [714 
 
 €K€iTo often, e.ff. II 644, 650, 666, 694, 698, 704, 712, 716 
 III 32^ 46, ^6, 58, 62, 102, 112, I22j 124, 142; Aret. 184 
 Arrian 280. 
 
 iKiaro (Horn.) Hdt. I 167, III 83, VI 49, VII 229, VIII 2^ 
 84, IX 22, 57 without variation. In Lnkian's S?/r. dea 20, 4c: 
 this form is used in the singular. Cf. v. I. Hdt. VI 61. 
 
 heLVTo (Horn.) Hippokr. II 660. 
 
 8. Future. (Keicreai Horn.) Keia-erai is to be read in Hippoki 
 III 438 where Littre has Keto-rjrai. 
 
 Great inconsistency exists in the recent editions of Hdt. i 
 respect of the inflection of Kelfxai. 
 
 Kferai only, S (Stein), K (Kallenberg), and B (Bredow) ; neerai and kut 
 H (Holder), A (Abicht) ; fVeero only, AB ; eKfiro only, K ; fKeero and e/ceo 
 S H ; KfiffOw B S H K, KefffOu A ; Ke7creat only, B ; Kucrdai and KeecrOai S H A I 
 Dindorf adniits no variation from nee-. 
 
 The only objection to the adoption throug-hout of Ket- whic 
 we favour, is the preponderance of Keerat over Keirat. It look 
 as if the open forms were due to the grammarians^ who, misle 
 by KiovTai and the open subjunctive and optative forms, regarde 
 K€L- as contracted from Kee- ^. 
 
 714.] T)|jiai. 
 
 1. Present Indicative. Kd6i]ixai Archil. 873, Theog. 128: 
 KaTi](Tai Hdt. Ill 134 {Ka6- A B d), ijcrTat (Hom.) Hdt. IX 5 
 KaO^Tai Hrd. 3^^, earat (Hom.) Hrd. 7^- (?), KaTtarai Hdt. I 191' 
 II 86, IV 66, ig6. darat K 100 (where ijaraL'-^ is correct) hi 
 forced an entrance into Lukian^s Sj/r. dea 31. 
 
 KcidrifjLai is from *Kd67i<r-/u.ai, Karriaai from *KaT7)(T-(Tai ; bnt Ka.Gi]Tai follows tl 
 analogy of KaQT\tiai. We should expect KadricrTai. earai represents 7)0x01 
 ?l(T-VTai, Skt. asate ; § 612, i. 
 
 2. Imperative. Ka6r\ao (Hom.) Hrd. 6^, Hippokr. IX 354. ; 
 
 3. Participle. Karr'jixevos Hdt. VIII 73, Kad- Eusebios §§ 8, 
 
 4. Imperfect. Kadrjaro in all MSS., Hdt. I 46, III 83whe; 
 Kar- is now generally adopted ■*. So too KaOrjaro Hippokr. IX 35^ 
 Hdt. does not use the later form Kadrjro. In the plural (see § 616, ., 
 we find -earo in Karearo III 144, VIII 73, IX 90, irepLKaria- 
 
 1 Apollonios Dyskolos Adv. (Bekk. Anecd. II 55325) cites Kew ; but it is 
 figment. \ 
 
 '^ KfeffOai has even been introduced into the text of Archimedes (II 142, ^ 
 cf. 16S, 12) and of the pseudo-Pythagoreans. ' 
 
 ' Eeported as Ionic : Gram. Vat. 694, Eust. 18954,; (from Herakleides). 
 
 * On the uncertainty in reference to the breathing in such compounc' 
 see §§ 406, 407. Homer has KaOrjffTo A 569, KaOrjfxevos E 5. The unorigir 
 asper is due to association with e^iffOai, 'iC^iv, '{(((tBch which complement tj 
 inflection. 
 
p5-] 
 
 PREPOSITIONS. 595 
 
 VI 23, VIII III, tliough the MSS. often have the augmented 
 forms (all MSS. in III 144, VI 23, VIII 73) and 6 for t. 
 Homer has earo H 414, and Eusebios § 8 Trpoo-eKarearo according- 
 to Miiller. Epic rjvTo (footnote 2, p. 513) and Attic KadrjVTo do 
 not appear in Hdt. 
 
 Prejjositions. 
 
 715.] a.v&. The form with apocope appears in djw irehCov 
 Mimn. 14^ and in aintavcri's 120. Homer uses neither avaiTavoiiai 
 lor aixiravoixai, but Hdt. (§ 322) has the latter as well as other 
 [ivords with av-. Solon has avrapd^as ('Ad. ttoA. 12, 5), Herodas 
 \i<TTr]6L 8j , j4^ but ava<TTa6el(ra 6^, avacrrricrr} l^g. Forms showing the 
 lisappearance of v before a occur as v. I. in K 32, 176 (cf. B 398, 
 594) and in the dialects of Attika, Boiotia and Argos. a/xTrcorts 
 jcf. § 367) is found once in Arrian (21^), who usually emj)loys the 
 f'orm without apocope (299, 303, 375). ayL-noiTis is frequent in 
 ate literature (Dio Cass., Longinos), and, in fact, is more common 
 han ava-nooTis ^. Even in the dialogue parts of tragedy we meet 
 vith apocope, which occurs in Xenophon alone of the classic Attic 
 )rose writers (aju,77cort?, aju,/3oAa?, &c.). 
 
 axpi of space, Hdt. II 138, Hrd. i^^, Chios 174 A 3—4, of time 
 5olon 1335, Hrd. 7^^. From the prepositional use has been 
 [eveloped the use as a conjunction (Hdt., Hippokr., Hrd. 33, gg). 
 n all the above passages Hrd. has axpt? (cf. § '^(>^)- o-xpi- ov or 
 [:xpt as a conjunction appears neither on Attic nor Ionic inscrip- 
 ions. /xexpt is preferred to a^pi- in the inscriptions and in 
 lerodotos. 
 
 Sie'l, Archil. 5 (one MS. StcK), 164 before a consonant; cf. 
 ■a/)e£. 
 
 j Ik takes the form €Ky in exy MaKeboviris Olynthos 8 B 9, 
 ihe stone-cutter having first engraved e/c, and then bethought 
 iimself of the pronunciation. Cf. eKy Mayvrja-ias Smyrna, 
 ')ittenb. S?/ll. I7I]06^ iosj ^'^V NauTraKrou Delphi, ibid. 1893, 
 Kyh-qfxMv Lampsakos, 200^3 (but €yhriixr]o-as 1. 15). On f^" ^^^ 
 k- see § 351, I, on iy- for ck- see § 411. e^aXa/xtyos = eK 2aA-, 
 iriene 14I1, an inscription in Ionic orthography, not in Ionic 
 ialect. €x is not used when cr follows. 
 
 ciMCKec occurs first in Pindar, Ist/im. VIII (VII) ^^, and in fact 
 3 a conjunction (eheKev ireTTpcoix&ov tjv), where we do not hesitate 
 
 accept Donaldson^s ovveKcv. No passage before the Alexandrian 
 priod which contains the conjunction in any of its various forms 
 
 ' See Lobeek's Phrynichus, p. 340. Hvdea-av (Trap-, kut-) are Ionic : Bekk, 
 n. 7193. 
 
59^ THE IONIC DIALECT. [715 
 
 is free from error. See below. As a preposition, etveK^v occur 
 nearly 30 times in Herodotos without a variant. In about 4( 
 passages it varies with etvcKa, the advantag-e being on the side 
 the form in -ev ^ Bredow contended that etveKev alone wa 
 correct in Hdt., and Dindorf and Abicht adopt it throughout 
 Plippokrates uses it in II 270 (eveKev D S^ K R^), 290 (A S^ R 
 fXveKa F/or., €veKev vvjgo) according to Littr(^. There are also trace 
 of its presence in IX 404 (epist.). Aretaios adopts it in 94^ 102 
 178, '>,'>,'>)) 344 '} so too Archimedes II 294, 6 according to the MSS 
 
 dLv^Kiv is found on very late metrical inscriptions from Attika : ''h.Q-r\v. VII 
 531, Kaibel, Epigram., 1525 eleg., 953 trim. Epigrams in iambics of the in 
 perial period do not hesitate to introduce a form tliat belongs properly to tli 
 elegiac epigram. In Demosth. 45, 11 it is not to be adopted. Attic pros; 
 inscriptions have no trace of its occurrence till a very late date : C. I. A. IV 
 697, 9, 1218, 5. ilveKev was elsewhere used in very late prose inscriptioiji^ 
 (Siphnos, C. I. G. 2423 h, 3, Thespiai 1. 1. 1630, 2, Lakonia 1445, 6, Kephalleni| 
 1929, 7 ; and in Keil's Anall. p. 96 ff., 1. 8). In all these cases it owes il 
 presence to the influence of Ionic upon the Koivt]. •• 
 
 elVcKe is probably a mistaken form in Aret. 201, v. I. Hd 
 VII 133 (so Aldus I 73, 80), though it is paralleled by ere/ce. 
 
 eii'eKa^ is emplojed by Homer, Hesiod, Theog. 46, 730, 120c 
 Sim. Amorg. 7j^g (etVeK'), Anakr. 45^, [Sim. Keos] 184^ It 
 found in Herodotos about 80 times without any variant. Stei 
 confesses his inability to decide whether eiVe^a or eiVe/cei' is moij 
 in harmony with the genius of the dialect, and gives a place f 
 both forms; a procedure adopted by Kallenberg and Holdej 
 eireKa is found in Demoki-. 184 and in A in Hippokrates II 24 
 (Littrd iV€Kev; some MSS. 'iveKa). In Hippokr. epist. 17 
 Ermerins adopts etreKa, Hercher etveKev (the word is omitted b 
 Littr^ IX 358). In IX 328, ^^6 Littre adopts eu-e/ca despi' 
 variants, and this form is read by Kiihn in Aret. 288. Lukian; 
 St/r. (lea has 9 cases of dveKa in all MSS., Arrian only one (33gi 
 and Eusgb. Mynd. one (frag. 24). 
 
 Aischylos has e'lyeKa in Frometh. 395, Siqjpl. 188, but 4 cases of ovveKu in i' 
 Sophokles has not a single case of e'lveKa, 25 of ovueKa in L ; in Euripidt 
 e'lvsKa rests on the evidence of inferior MSS. ; Aristophanes and the othl 
 comic dramatists have 12 cases of e'lyeKa to 30 of ovveKa (apart from 11 casj 
 of fluctuation) . Undoubtedly e'lvena has usurped the place of ovveKa in traged j ( 
 In Attic metrical inscriptions e'lveKa may be followed from 450 b. c. to tl{ 
 empire. In Attic prose ovveKa prevails except in Demosthenes, but there aj 1 
 sporadic occurrences of e'lveKa in Thukydides, Xenophon, Antiphon, Plal'i 
 IsaioSj &c. When Demosthenes desires to avoid the tribrach form he preffi ' 
 
 i, 
 
 ^ On the terminations -ev, -e, -a, see under eireire, § 716. ) 
 
 ^ On this form in its relation to ovveKo, see Wackernagel, K. Z. XXVIi 
 
 109 fl". I 
 
ns-] 
 
 PREPOSITIONS, 597 
 
 (f;'e/co (at least 20 times in 2) to ovveKa. ^'IviKa does not make its appearance 
 n an Attic prose inscription till 30 b. c.-68 a. d. (C. I. A. Ill 785, 3, where 
 veKa is written), nor on a Lakonian inscription till the period of the empire 
 C. I. Or. 1446, 17). In Attic prose the presence of the non-Attic form, if 
 orreet at all, can be explained only as an indirect reflection, through tragedy, 
 f the epic. In the language of the Koij/tj it is borrowed from the Ionic 
 lialect represented by the prose writers of the fifth century. 
 
 IvtKiv appears in Homer (twice only: p 2H8, 310), and in Pindar 
 except Isthm. VIII (VII) ■^^, 01. II 5). On an inscription 
 rom Erytlirai (2040), slightly older than the oldest Attic epi- 
 jraphical document containing- the form (see the note), we find 
 vi.K^v. This form reappears in Thasos 726 (300-250 b. c.) and 
 fi Priene 14 ig (metrical), an inscription in Ionic orthography, 
 lot in Ionic dialect Neither of the two inscriptions in dialect 
 s free from Atticisms ; and the initial e for et makes for the 
 onclusion that ev€K€v is one of these Atticisms. It is immaterial 
 vhether a vowel or consonant follows the form. It is also an 
 ccasional v. I. in Hdt. (I 80), and was adopted by Littre in 
 iippokr. II 248, IX 320, 360 (both letters). 
 
 The oldest occurrence of eVe/cei' in Attic inscriptions is C. I. A. II 987 A 2 
 IviKo. 1. 5) dating after 350 b. c. The next oldest is Dittenb. Sijll. 4273^ 
 302 B. c). Both documents deal with the religious affairs of the BiaaicTai. 
 .n the third century eveKev first appeal's in state decrees and in the following 
 entury is three times as frequent as eVe/ca. It is not in good odour in Attic 
 )rose, but as it occurs on fourth century inscriptions, we see no reason to 
 eject it. Ai-istophanes uses eVewa often, and Euripides in anapaests and 
 yric measures. 'ivsKev (and eVe/ca) appears on late Doric inscriptions : 
 l^stypalaia, C. I. G. 24885, Kalymua 267I10, Kalaurea, C. D. I. 33794. 
 
 ! li/EKe is known from a Samian inscription in Dittenb. 8>/U. 
 [3215 (from about 302 B.C.) whence it may be read in Mitth. 
 IX 196 1. 7 (322 B. c.) though only the final letter is to be seen 
 )n the stone. It also appears in Kyzikos (C. I. Gr. '^^SSxa 
 >econd or third century B.C.) and in a Spartan document (/. l. 
 ^3476-7 whence it is conjectured in 1404). None of the inscrip- 
 :ions from Ionia contain any trace of lonism. Only late 
 iterature admits the presence of eVeKe. 
 
 ei'6Ka is used by Homer \ Theog. 518, [Sim. Keos] 186. In 
 [onic prose it is to be regarded as an Attic intruder : Hippokr. 
 [I 248 — see under dv^Ka — , epist. IX 428 [dv€Ka C), epist. 
 iHerakl. in Diogenes'" Life § 14, Lukian Asfrol. 27, Arrian 155, 
 234 (Eberhard el'-), Euseb. Mynd. 5 tunes. 
 
 ^ Because his theory of the Homeric dialect will not permit the coexistence 
 Df «'(fi/€/ca and eVe/co from kvf-, Schulze in his Quaest. Horn. pp. 135, 494 conjec- 
 tures oe/ca in place of eVe/ca (about 30 times in Homer). iveKa is simply not 
 Ionic. 
 
598 THE IONIC DIALECT. [715 
 
 In connection with the above we may here mention ovveKev ant 
 ovveKa, both preposition and conjunction. As a prepositior 
 ovv€Ka took its rise from such combinations as iK^ivovveKa, e/^oiJ- 
 veKa, i.e. cKeivov + eveKa, &c., and in contradistinction to eveKa is 
 postpositive. The forms in Ionic are derived from the contract 
 tion of -ov + et (spurious). The conjunction ovveKa is formec 
 from ov + ii>eKa, as rovv^Ka from tov (=^tovtov) + ev€Ka. As 
 ovv^Ka as a preposition usurped the function of eveKa, &c., sc 
 (XveKev and ev€Ka finally usurped that of ovveKa the conjunction - 
 in Kallimachos frag-. 287 and 471. Cf. /xe'xpt as preposition anc 
 conjunction. ouvcKec (ij prep.^ Hrd. ig^, Demosth. 289 (322 
 epigram 1. 5, and even in prose : Phaidros 259 D according- t( 
 three MSS. followed by Bekker where the Bodleian^ according 
 to Thompson, has ovv ev€K€v. (2) conj. Pindar^ Hrd. 221, 6^5 
 Aret. 102. Cf. oTovvenev Hrd. y^^^ with Attic ov for ev (cf. 440) 
 Trometh. 330 bQovvi.Ka. TouVeKei/ Xenophan. 219, Sim. Keos 5,5 
 oufCKa (i) as a prep, occurs in the drama (see under eiVeKo 
 and Attic prose. On poetical inscriptions we find it ii 
 C. I. A. IV b, ^11, no. 4 (perhaps before 600 b. c), IV h, 491, \ 
 (fifth century). Wilamowitz [Herakl. II 83), alluding to th( 
 fact that the last named inscription has reference to an hetaera 
 regards ovveKa as plebeian. It is used by Solon (3755 trim.), anc 
 in Kaibel 241 a, 12, 82 ig, 869^, 888 a, 6 (Roman). (2) conj 
 Homer, Pindar, tragedy, Theog-. 854, 1349, Hippokr. As i 
 conjunction ovv€Ka is very rare in ordinary Attic. rouVeKa Theog 
 488, Lukian Sj/r. (lea 2,'^.^ 39, 54; cf. oTevveK Hrd. 520, 622, Ji 
 which is probably for -v€Ka, not -v^Ke. 
 
 h, els ^. The question arises whether only one of these fonn; 
 is Ionic, or whether both are the property of the dialect. 
 
 I. Inscnj)tions : On the inscriptions from the Kyklades an( 
 the Asiatic mainland and neighbouring islands we find E! 
 invariably before 400 b. c. A (metrical). Samos 2152^ ^ certau 
 example of h. B (Prose). Naxos 26, Keos 43^^, Prokonnesos 103^ 
 Ephesos f45g, Teos 156 A 6, 7, 10, Chios 174 A 2, 4, 8 (eVo)) 
 B 3, 8, Halikarn. 23 8^^,. In those later inscriptions in which E 
 represents the spurious diphthong- et, E2 may be transcribed e? 
 Olynthos 8 A 6 (389-383 B.C.), Amphipolis lo^^ (eoTTjATjj; 
 357 B.C.), Erythrai 202i8 [kaTi]Xi]v; about 350 B.C.), 202j<, 
 2032, 9 (about 350 B. c), 20431 {k(TTr]ki]v ; not much earlier thai 
 
 * Cf. Apoll. Dysk. 2394 Schn. and Kallimachos I 187, Schneider. In tli' 
 ancient grammarians there is scarcely a trace of the preposition ovviKa. 
 
 2 L. & S. are in error when they deny the existence of ovueKiv as a prei 
 position. _ ; 
 
 ^ is is Ionic, Attic, and Doric, according to Greg. Kor. § 13, but iicoi i 
 Ionic according to Joh. Gram. 241. 
 
715-] PREPOSITIONS. 599 
 
 345 B.c.^), Mylasa 248 B 5 (361 B.C.), Teos, inttk. XVI 
 2923, 12^ 16J ^^^ \_i\l(TTpi[(l)f\iv, 1. 9 (perhaps before 350 B.C., but 
 referred to the early Hellenistic period by its editor). The other 
 example of EI = spurious et in this document is Ebat, a word 
 Iwhich was so written at an early date (§ 224, 10). Less certain 
 is the transcription of E2 in Keos 47, ^ (about 400 b. c), because 
 of (f)€pEv and the Attic hoiKovvTa and HoiaaaiMv. While the 
 document has iJ.W = ^ri, the fact that it still preserves two cases 
 of E = pan- Hellenic r? (§ 1 66), may justify the form h ^. Another 
 (doubtful transcription is the ES of Zeleia 11325J, 34, 36^ 3s (after 
 I334 B. c), because the adulterine et is represented by E as well as 
 EI. We find et? (EIS) in Thasos, /. H. S. VIII 401, 16 (an 
 inscription referring- to the oligarchy of 411 B.C.), lasos Bechtel 
 I05jo (about the end of the fourth century), Oropos iSg, jg, go? 23 
 (411-402 or 387-377 B.C.), Erythrai 2012,5,12,17^21^23^24 
 (400-350 B.C.), Samos 221^7, jg, 3,, gg (after 322 B.C.), Priene 144., 
 (eis (TTi]X'r]v), 5 (about 350 B.C.), Ephesos 147 4,5, ^^, ^3, ^^, ^g (about 
 300 B.C.), Teos 1589, jQ, 23 (very late), Chios, in Paspates^ Ckia7i 
 Glossary, 9^, g, 12- . . 
 
 From the foregoing it appears that E2 disappears after 
 350 B.C., and that EIS, which is occasionally found before that 
 date^, supplants the spelling with E. The transcription of E2 
 in the oldest inscriptions by h is supported by the f) 's of Chios 
 174 A 2 (cf. \)}f] \d(r(Toves Chios 174 B 24), though i)\ in FroffS 
 86 should warn against attaching undue importance to cases of 
 aphaeresis. Aristophanes usually has els. No difference in the 
 treatment of the two forms is noticeable in respect of their 
 occurrence before vowels or consonants. 
 
 As regards the date of the occurrence of EI 2 in the inscriptions, 
 we may observe that the earliest cases do not occur on the Ionic 
 mainland. The two instances of EI2 that deserve notice are those 
 in Oropos and Thasos. In all the others Attic influence cannot 
 be gainsaid. Since the Oropian document has EI throughout, it 
 is more probable that the later (387-377 B.C.), and not the earlier 
 date (411-402 B.C.), is correct. The same inscription contains 
 several spellings that recall those that came into vogue in Attika 
 
 * E2 in an Aiolic inscription, C. D. I. 215,^4 (about 150 b.c.\ in honour of 
 Erythrai, may possibly be Ionic, because of the Aiolic EI2 in lines 15, 21, 48. 
 But is occurs in Aiolic Pordoselena as early as 319-317 ^.c, where it is 
 probably Hellenistic. It should be noted that eh in Aiolic has a genuine, 
 Ionic-Attic eis a spurious, diphthong. 
 
 " In the contemporary inscription from Oropos (no. 18) we have EI2. 
 
 ' The Thasian £12 is the only certain case of this writing before 400 b. c. 
 either in Ionic or Attic. Though this spelling is unusually early, it must not 
 be forgotten that we find EINAI in Bechtel 7I5, e, an inscription which cannot 
 be placed much later than the fourth century, because of 0*EIAEN, and that 
 in the Thasian insci-iption containing ets, the hybrid ei is everywhere repre- 
 sented by EI ; cf. also (5)V0Y 1. 21, KA.eoS??juOY 23. 
 
6oO THE IONIC DIALECT. [715 
 
 about 380 B. c. The Thaslan decree is noteworthy because 0; 
 EIli2 = eoj?, 1. 12, and other fourth century spelhngs. The glida 
 iota (§ 220) does not appear on any Attic ^ or Ionic inscriptioi 
 before 400 b. c. 
 
 The constiniction QCivai is (Upov) occurs in Zeleia 11335! 
 Erythrai 202^g, 2039. TTapavo[xi(D is occurs in Hdt. VII 238 
 Mylasa 248 B 5. 
 
 2. Z_>/rie Toetry : A. is in the thesis before vowels occurs as 
 follows, (i) lambographs : Hrd. 395, Phoinix 222, Aischrion ig 
 (2) elegists : Archil. 5^ 9^, Mimnerm. ^^, 129, Tyrt. u^d Simon 
 Keos I74i, Solon 27j2 (Clemens), Theog\ 58, 127, 386, 426' 
 630, 780, 858, 863, &c. (sixteen times in all); (3) melic . 
 Anakr. 2O2, 25^, 34, 435, Simon. Keos 584. B. Befoni 
 consonants, when the metre permits either form, we find €i' 
 as follows. (1) lambog-raphs : Archil. 52 (tetram.), Simon^ 
 Amorg-. 7io5, jqq, Hipponax 6, 2O2, 66, Herodas 1^3, 2g,j, 3^3, &ci 
 (in all twenty-two times); (2) elegists : Mimnerm. 93, Ty^^- ^^u^ 
 Theog. 12, 16, 136 &c. (in all twenty-four times in BergkV| 
 text^); (3) melic: Anakr. ig, 193. C. Before vowels and ii( 
 the arsis we find ets as follows, (i) lambographs : Archil. 74! 
 (tetram.), 783, 5 (tetram.), Hrd. I23, 755, Solon ^6^^ ; (2) eleg-ists j 
 Mimnerm. 2^4, 124, Xenophanes 33,4, Tyrt. lOjg (vnlffo), I23g.j 
 Solon 27jo, Theog-nis 162, 194, 244, &c. (thirteen times in all, in-i 
 eluding eio-o) 917, looi)^. D. Before vowels and in the thesis! 
 there is one instance : Tyrt. 1243, where we read ds uKpov iKiadai; 
 Cf. Hesiod JF.D. 291 els aKpov LKrjTaL and els ciKpov Hipponax 4J' 
 (see under E). E. Before consonants, when the metre permitii 
 either form, we find els as follows : (1) lambographs : Hippona?; 
 462, 48 ds aKpov at the beginning of the choliambus, Herodaii 
 
 I77' ^82, 370' 444' 532 (cf- f? 533), 76C' <^^«**- ^^V' ^ 4^1, f^g- Zg | 
 
 Solon ^6q, Phoinix j^^.^, ,3; (2) elegists : Tyrt. 1I4, ^^, Solon 35I 
 4jg, 93, Theog. 311, 372, 1359 in Bergk^s text. See the footnotij 
 to B (above) for the v. L els before consonants. 
 
 From ftie foregoing it is evident that the iambographers anc 
 elegists of Ionic birth used both is and els, but that the latter ir 
 employed only before a vowel, and in the arsis. The use of et;' 
 in thesis seems foreign to pure Ionic lyric, is is to be adoptee 
 before consonants, and before vowels when either a short 01 
 a long syllable is possible. Hipponax 462, 48, as well as tin 
 seven passages in Herodas, are to be freed from the Attic eis 
 
 ' NrjA.6i£os, 'Ecprifi. apx- 1884, 161-162 (418 B.C.) is a blunder. Ao^TTTpe/aij, 
 C. I. A. IV B 491, 35, b I, is regarded by Kirchhoff as dating from the fiftl 
 century. This is, we think, doubtful. i 
 
 '■' The variant eh occurs in 175, 404, 563, 58S (well supported), 607, 755'; 
 783, 974, iiosCallMSS.). _ ' 
 
 3 To be noted are the cases of is in one or more MSS. : 566 (but oho 
 follows), 726, 1054. 
 
7^5] 
 
 PREPOSITIONS. 5oi 
 
 I 
 
 Solon used et? except when e? was called for in thesis. Theoo-nis 
 used es or els before vowels as the metre required, and seems to 
 have almost excluded els before consonants. 
 
 Homer has both e's and els, the former more frequently than the latter 
 according to the received text, and usually before consonants ; etaw in Homer 
 is almost eight times more common than ecrco. Fick's attempt {Ilias 537 flf.) 
 to exclude the Ionic is from the Homeric epos is a failure. His allegiance to 
 an Aiolic els is purchased at the price of emending many passages in the (se 
 judice) older books, and by regarding the unassailable cases of is as substitutes 
 for an (original) Kyprian h. Wecklein Curae epigraph. 59 concludes that 
 Homer and the other ei)ic poets have els in jjassages metrically authoritative 
 
 I 3. Prose autliors: Herodotos adopts es, thoug-h els occurs 
 frequently as a variant (etVayerat III 70 in all MSS.), and 
 likewise eo-co (eto-co A B C d VI '^6). es and eW are also Hippo- 
 kratic accoi'ding- to Littre^ I 494, who shows that els, el(X(a are 
 far less frequent, es is found in II 92, 130, 156, 252, III 134^ 
 298, V 598^ 600, and often where the vulg-ate has els, e.g. II 6^, 
 70, 76, 128, 234; cf. also II 282, III 96, 140. Littre reads 
 e<T(^6ev III 84, elcroieev V 606. The oldest MS. {6) pronounces 
 in favour of es, e.g. VI 366; but all MSS. have eU in V 662. 
 Pherekydes of Leros 0,0^ h has es, Ion i els. In Lukian^s Vita 
 auct. we have twenty-four cases of es to two of els, in the 
 Byr. (lea A has twelve cases of els., the remaining- MSS. 134 of 
 es ; in Arrian's Indike there are 232 occurrences of es, nine of 
 els, and three places where the ]\ISS. vary; Eusebios has es 
 three times ; Eusebios Myndios sixteen cases of es, and but two 
 of es ; Abydenos three cases of els. Philip of Pergamum [B. C. H. 
 .II 373) has es. In the Ionic letters we have es at least 76 
 times, els 18 times. In the Vita Homeri the proportion is 50 to 
 20. Aretaios adopts es. 
 
 I. The form es is the result of a displacement of evs { = ev + s sm 6|=e/c+ s) 
 
 ivrhen followed (in primitive Greek) by a consonant ; whereas els arose from 
 evs before a vowel ^. Later on either form was used before vowels or con- 
 sonants. If Attic adopted K6yovs <.*k6'yovs before vowels, and abandoned 
 \iyos < *x6'yovs before consonants, it may be asked why els is not the only form 
 of the preposition. Because the preposition, as a proclitic, could not attain 
 
 ■the same fixity of form as the accusative, which may stand in a free position. 
 
 \els cannot exist in absolute ' pause.' See Brugmann Grundr. 1 485 if. It is 
 
 ■incautious to say, with Rutherford Neiv Phrynichus p. 432, that is is the older, 
 els the younger, Attic form. All we know is that E2 is written in the fifth, 
 
 1EI5 in the fourth century. The difiference, as will be stated in note 2, may 
 be one of spelling, not of pronunciation. The supposed rule that is appears 
 
 [before consonants, els before vowels, is not borne out by the inscriptions. 
 
 leUw, from *ev(ru, is an analogue of e^w, and not from *ivTiw (Bezzenberger 
 in B. B. IX 334). ecTQi was formed from is. 
 
 ^ Cf. Brugmann Berichte d. sacks. Gesell. 1883, pp. 181 ff. The Gortyna codo 
 has is before consonants, ivs before vowels. 
 
6oa THE IONIC DIALECT. [715.. 
 
 2. els, es in Attic. Solon seems to prefer eh to is even before consonants, 
 adopting the latter form only when he needs a short syllable. In tragedy els 
 is more frequent than is before vowels, but before consonants we find it 
 impossible to formulate any rule (see Dindorf's and Ellendt's Lexicons). E2:^ 
 was written, and no one but the dramatist himself can tell us whether he" 
 meant els or is. That the form of popular speech was in general els may be \ 
 inferred from two facts: (i) that Aristophanes avoids es except in para- 
 tragedic passages and when he adopts the form with aphaeresis {'s before 
 vowels or consonants), and (2) that the inscriptions, which uniformly have 
 E5 in the fifth century, adopt EI2 as soon as the new orthography has an 
 opportunity to display the pronunciation. In fact by 350 b. c. E2 was 
 practically an obsolete spelling. Meisterhans (note 1459 «) argues from j 
 the spelling in the Ionic and Attic inscriptions that els is the only form 
 proper to Ionic and Attic prose ; and even asserts that, from the point of' 
 view of mori^hology, is can be only a Doric form. Kaibel's Epigram 26 is no ' 
 doubt a Doricizing inscription (is in 1. 6, but els 1. 9) of the fourth century, 5 
 but C. 1. A. IV 477 C 2, of the sixth century, contains an indisputable casei 
 of es, which Meisterhans cannot explain away. And, apart from the ej of| 
 tragedy, it is impossible that is in late Aiolic inscriptions should be any- 
 thing but an Hellenistic form '. Furthermore, the existence of is in Attic is; 
 guaranteed by ffKopaKi^eiv < is KipaKas, and rendered probable by the phrase 
 is /j.aKapiav. It is stated by many scholars that Thukydides used is only '. i 
 Heretofore, we believe, this form has been regarded simply as one of two' 
 forms current in the fifth century. Admitting Thukydides' exclusion of els, '■ 
 another explanation presents itself of the contrast between his diction and i 
 that of Aristophanes. In discussions upon the Attic els, is it has been over-' 
 looked that in the exclusive adoption of is, nascent Attic prose may have 
 followed the same literary convention that has introduced, through tragedy, 
 forms unfamiliar to the ordinary language of the fifth century. 
 
 Kara. From the scant occurrence of the apocope o£ Kard in thel 
 poetry representing popular speech, it may be inferred that thel 
 ordinary dialect used only the full form. The only example in 1 
 point is KarOavova-L Archil. 64, which is trochaic tetrameter (of. '" 
 § 52). Here Karadav- is possible (cf. 66^). Auakr. 80 has Ka8; 
 hi, but the fragment contains jxirra-qv which is not a prose form' 
 (cf. § 373)11 In the elegy, where Homeric^ forms are reproduced,: 
 we find KaXXiTTov Archil. 62, and KOKKeiju.ei'os Tyrt. 11 ^.j [KuraK^i- 
 has MS. support). 
 
 ^ Perhaps derived, like so many other Hellenistic forms, from Ionic. 
 
 ^ Thukydides wrote E2 invariably. If the is of the MSS. is correct, their 
 archetyije may be derived either (i) from a MS. in the older orthography, or 
 ( 2) from an unknown source which was informed of the historian's distaste to 
 els. Plato doubtless used EI2 after he grew to manhood, and his MSS. have 
 the form els almost invariably. To Isokrates and Demosthenes E2 must 
 have seemed an old-fashioned spelling ; and their MSS. have els. Thel 
 genuineness of the MS. orthography is, however, doubtful in the case of the 
 tragic poets, if we suppose the archetype was made from a pre-Eukleideian 
 text. The constant variation between els and is before consonants looks more 
 like an arbitrary variation than the reproduction of an official state text 
 dating between 400 and 350 b. c. 
 
 ^ Job. Cxram. 241 B cites Kairirecrov as Ionic, Bekk. Anecd. 7193 KarQeaav. 
 
715.J PREPOSITIONS. 603 
 
 ficV(|)i Aret, 167, 297 prep, with the genitive, also used by 
 Aret. as a conjunction (342). 
 
 |X€Td is frequent in the inscriptions, e.g. Mylasa 248 C 12 (ef. 
 avv rojt Alt 1. 6), Erythr. 20422, Teos 158^9 (late). 
 
 ,x€'xpi. Oropos 183, JO, 15, Chios 174 A 5 (k^pi A 4), Keos 43^^ 
 \\i.. e77t) before vowels and consonants, Hdt. e.g. Ill 5 (local), jo 
 ■(temporal), and as a conjunction IV 119 (without av). \i.kyj)i 
 [ou I 181, II 19 &c., is the only ease, beside ovv^Ka, in which 
 [a preposition + a dependent relative is used as a preposition. Cf . 
 Ltexpi and Me'xpt 01! in Thukydides as conjunctions. Hdt. has 
 \\i.k\pi and no case in all the MSS. of n^ie'xpt?, whereas Homer has 
 [both. Hrd. uses /u,expt as a preposition in 8,, jue'xpts ov in 2^3, 
 land both forms as conjunctions in 7-, 83, ^. Theog-nis has \i.ky^pi 
 I2Q9, Kallinos jj-kxpi-s i^ (prep.). In reference to the statement 
 jof Meisterhans (p. 209, cf. Schmidt I^eiiira p. 349) that in 
 Attic axpi 'a.v (/^e'xP' ^^) occurs only in poetry, it may be said 
 that we find /xe'xpts av ijXtos bmj ( = juexpi i]kt.ov bvo[xkvov C. I. A. 
 IV 2 A 4) in C. I. G. 236O17, an inscription from Keos entirely 
 Attic in form. Inscriptions from Attika have only the form 
 jixexpt (preposition), and this form occurs in the Keian document, 
 11.26. 
 
 irapa. The form with apocope^ occurs in Ylapixkvcov, name of 
 a Thasian, Roberts I 21. Cf. Styrian Ylapajxivcov, Bechtel 1 9^7, ^g. 
 Cf. Yldp(f)opos, Ylapp.€VL(tiv, Ylepykvrjs, FlepKAetSTjs and Baunack, 
 Stuclia Nicolaitana p. ^'^. 
 
 irapai. It is not clear whether Trapai in Homer is Aiolic or 
 Ionic. It is probably a form of both dialects. TxapaLiSdr-qs (ef. 
 4* 132) was possibly a cult word in Ionic. At least we find it in 
 an Attic inscription C. I. A. I 5^ (500-456 b. c.) dealing with 
 religious matters. Such inscriptions are prone to take cult words 
 ifrom Ionic (cf. ^vvos C. I. A. I 2 C 16, according to Meisterhans). 
 jThe Aischyleian irapatjSaaLa is not sufficient to account for the 
 presence of Trapai in a prose inscription. 
 
 irdpel is used before consonants in A 486, p. 276, 443, ^168 
 (where some modern editors read irapkn), Hdt. I 14 &c., Kyzikos 
 108 B 4, an archaistic inscription of the first century B.C. Cf. 
 8ie^. On the accent, § 125. 
 
 ■nipii occurs in Hdt. with genitive and accusative. 
 
 ireTd, by-form of p.eTd and 7re8a, is found in iiiT€vpov Oropos 
 1842 (§ 249)- 
 
 iroTi, if Ionic in Homer, has passed out of use in the later 
 dialect. Cf. § 368. 
 j CToV, not ^vv, is the Ionic form. Cf. § 380, to which may be 
 
 ! ^ irdpdea-av is Ionic : Bekk. Anecd. 7193- 
 
 'I 
 
604 THE IONIC DIALECT. [716, 
 
 added that Herodas has (tvv invariably (nine times), ^vv in 
 Archil. 862, Solon 193 and Theog. 1063 [Mimnerm.] is not an 
 lonism. In Solon ^vv may be Old Attic. In inscriptions we 
 find only (tvv, e.g. Chios 174 A 6, Halikarn. 238^, ^^j Oropos 
 l8jg, Mylasa 248 C 6 (o-w twi Ati, cf. [k^TO. Maz/iVa 1. 12), 
 Olbia i29j2- 
 
 HoTTu, for v-ao, occurring twice on an inscription from Kyme, 
 Bechtel 3 A = Roberts I 177 A, shows that, of the lonians, the 
 Chalkidians at least held fast to the I.E. pronunciation of u. Cf. 
 also the use of koppa before v on Chalkidian vases (9j;9i'os, 
 A?y9u^o?) and the modern names Kurni-=K.vixr\, Stura^^'^Tvpa, 
 in the old home of the Chalkidians. It was from the Chalkidians 
 of Kyme that the Italicans derived their V (T). See Blass: 
 Anss])?:^ 38. The proximity of Boiotia is no cause for refusing^ 
 to credit the Chalkidians with the retention of the ancient 
 pronunciation of v. 
 
 Xiipiv does not occur in the lyric poets, except in Simon. Amorg. 
 7jq4. In Hdt. V 99 we find a strained use of x^P'-^ with the 
 article (ot ov ti]v 'AOrjvaicov x^P'-v ^(TTparevovTo), a usage rare even 
 with the pronoun (cf. ti]v ai]v x'^P'-^ ^^^ Sophokles). We have met, 
 with x'^P'-^ on no prose inscription that contains a vestige of the 
 Ionic dialect. No. 261 is metrical. Its prose use in Attic is 
 confined to the period of the empire. In Sterrett^s collections of 
 inscriptions from Asia Minor, x'^P'-^ is a favourite word in the 
 language of memorialists. virep tov vov ^rpaToveiKov x^P'-^y 
 Paros 67 (very late), is a step towards the common use of x^P"' 
 in the latest period. Other impure prepositions are biK7]v Simon,! 
 Amorg. 12 and ixoipav Jiq^. i 
 
 Conjunctions, Adverbs, Particles. ! 
 
 716.] 'f he inscriptions afford us very slight information as tc'; 
 the conduct of the final and other conjunctions. Such as it is' 
 the evidence has been adduced below. ! 
 
 dYxo" Horn,, Hdt., not used in Attic prose, which employf; 
 kyyvs. On ayx'-o'Ta, see Rutherford Fhrynichus p. 31. \ 
 
 dSTiKews Chios 174 B 12 [Ki^pva-aovToov Kal bia r?}? Tro'Aeco? ahr]vim' 
 yeycaveovres) which Roehl regards iis = abriv [q/ianf//ni opus erit)\ 
 Cf. Kai juot TovTo e^ayyeWerat aa(pi]vea)s, Hdt. I 1 40. Haussoullier, 
 £. C. II. Ill 23, refers to Hesychios' ab-qv^cos' abokcus, airXuis, X'«>p''', 
 ^ov\7]s which gives a preferable sense. He might have addec 
 Bekk. Anecd. I 341, where the word is glossed by uttAw? ica 
 draAatTTwpcos, Kara aT^prjaLv tG>v bi]vioiv Ka\ ^tpip-vGiv. Hesychio; 
 
I716.] CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 605 
 
 has also ahrin]s' aKOKo? and ahrfv^iy]' a-n^ipia. His ah-qvecas is as- 
 scribed to Hippoki-ates by M, Schmidt, ah-jvi^i, the conjecture of 
 Valckenaer in Sim. Amorg. 7^3, is inferior to Bergk's akrivi]<i. 
 JL. & S. derivation of abi]in]^ from 8?/co is incorrect. 
 
 On del, aUi, see § 209, to which may be added that Hrd. 5g has 
 I del, 6g9 [a]iet, the latter of which forms is Ionic. On dtStoi^, see 
 §275. 
 
 , dXi'as (vnlffo akLas) = aXi9, Hipponax loi. aktas (-tic) is read 
 by Dindorf in lo/i 723 (chorus). For the ending, cf. aTp€fj.a^'^ 
 -qpefxas, &c. Hdt. uses aAts (IX 27). 
 
 aXXr] Zeleia ii33,j, Teos 15823, Hdt. I 46, &c. 
 dfjLpoXdSr]!/ Hom., Hdt. IV 181 (cf. § 715). 
 dfiiaOi, Archil. 41 and in a late inscription from Teos (Dittenb. 
 Si/ll. I26g), does not owe its t to a reduction of et or I, but to 
 analogy, a principle that will explain the apparent cases of t 
 from et in the paper A. J. P. VI 419 ff. 
 
 av is the conditional particle in the Ionic inscriptions and 
 literature free from Homeric influence. jNIullach {Vnhjanprache 
 p. 89) asserts that Ke is actually in use in the modern Chian 
 dialect. As this assertion, if true, might be tortured into 
 evidence for the Ionic character of Ke, it may be stated that 
 Mullach is in error ^. A genuine instance of the retention of 
 an Homeric word by the Chians of the fifth century b. c. is 
 yeyajj'e'oi^res (174 B 13). The omission of av in oVot ecoo-tr, 
 Tecs, Mitth. XVI 292, 4 may be noted because of its rarity. 
 
 dfaKws carefully, Hdt. I 24, VIII 109, Hippokr. VIII 614, 
 also in Thuk. VIII 102, and Plato, the comic poet (II 687 
 Meineke). The word is called Doric by Erotian, p. 66. Stein, 
 Abicht, and L. & S. refer it to ava^, avaKos ; an etymology 
 which is not to be supported by the ad hoc definition jBaaikLKoHs 
 in Suidas and Bekk. Anecd. I 391. The word is obscure despite 
 the attempt of Baunack in his SUidien I 256 to connect it with 
 dcTKeo). 
 
 d-rrai'Tioi' Hdt. VII 34 (^kvavTia VI 32); cf. KaTavTiov^l 103. 
 
 apo, see under rjpa. 
 
 doTToi'Sei Erythr. 2029, 2035, lasos in /. //. S. IX 341, 342, and 
 to be restored in Amorgos in Mitth. XI 106, 10 (late). 
 
 aaxpapSa Hrd. o^^j^ (the papyrus acrrpa^V). In the dispute 
 whether the word was oxytone or proparoxytone, Apollonios and 
 Herodian decided in favour of the latter. 
 
 dauXei Erythr. 2023, 203^.5, lasos in /. H. S. IX 341, 342, 
 Pantikapaion in Latyschev II ig, Amorgos in Mitth. XI ic6, 
 
 ' For this information I am indebted to the kindness of G. N. Hatzidakis. 
 
6o6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [jlC 
 
 lo (late). On this word and on aa-irovhei, see A. J. P. VI 428 
 where it is shown that the spelling" with -ei is correct^ and tha 
 -6 is itacistic. Hdt. has iravhrnxd. 
 
 drdp Hdt., Hippokr. e.g. II 650. aTap rjU is peculiar t; 
 Aretaios (133, 139, 140, 303). 
 
 aoTis, see § ^^^. Hdt. has [xeravTLS I 62 which is unknown t' 
 Attic prose. 
 
 ctxpi, see § 715. 
 
 Pu^Tii/ con/ertim (with C i^'om. ab), Hippokr. VIII 28 am 
 Thukydides. 
 
 SeuTc Hrd. 4j^ , Homeric, rare in tragedy. 
 
 8T]|j.o(n'r]i Mylasa 248 B 11 (-177 C 15, cf. § 240). Atti«, 
 brifj.o(rCaL is found in 261. 
 
 Syjutc, § 320. 
 
 -8oi'. Adverbs in -bov are frequ.ent in Hdt. (biaKptbov, hbov. 
 rjjBrjbov, Kpeovpyrjbov, KTTjvqbov, dpxi]b6v, irepiaTabov). 
 
 idv, see under ijv. ' 
 
 iQeXovT^y Hdt. I 5, VI 25 (in Hdt. only). | 
 
 eiTci' is Ionic according to Ailios Dionysios apud Eust. 1 15839 ^ 
 and as such used by Herodotos. But Herodotos uses neithe: 
 elrev nor etra, the latter of which forms is not Homeric oii 
 Pindaric, but occurs in Hippokr. Ill 240, Aretaios ^6, 57, 81 
 In Skymnos Descript. orhis elrev is used both before vowels (468' 
 802) and before consonants (330, 502, 597, 643, 676), sometimei| 
 when the other form was metrically possible, elra occurs ir 
 275, 590, 879. Dionysios, son of Kalliphon, makes frequent 
 use of etrev and etra. That the former form was a favourite ir 
 the Koii;?; appears from the injunction of Phrynichos (p. 20ii 
 Ruth.): etrev Kol ^irecTev eax^aTius (3dpl3apa. See under eVe trey. 
 
 IfAirXTji' except, Archil, iii. The inscriptions have ttA?/^, e.g\ 
 Erythr. 2045. ■ 
 
 ekSoo-e Meos 43 14, a new word, i 
 
 efOauxa, ei'Seurei', § '^^6 ; ekrouSa, § 256. \ 
 
 et'iaxiii' Hdt. I 199, not -yj] as L. & S. ! 
 
 egamVT]s Hdt. I 74, eCaLcj}^!^? IX 45, the latter from -a^vi- ; cf ; 
 a(\>vui in Hesychios. \ 
 
 cTreiScii' makes its appearance once in Homer (N 285), wherf' 
 the recent editors adopt various conjectures to displace the later 
 form. In Ionic inscriptions it occurs in Oropos 183, Zeleia, 
 1 1324 (after 334 B.C.), and in Erythr. 204^ (before 345-344 b.C.),j 
 documents containing traces of Attic influence. Attic inscrip-, 
 tions of the fourth, as well as the fifth, century show kr^^ihav. In 
 Hdt. we find the form in all MSS. in VIII 144 [eimbav Tdxi-(y"''a),^ 
 
\yi6.] CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 607 
 
 j where it is rejected by Abiclit, Holder, and Kallenberg-. The 
 phrase was used by Xenophon Aaab. Ill i, 9 (ef. Heihav 
 BcLTTov Trotag. 325 C). In I 193 {iireLbav A) and IV 61 (Cd), 
 
 . Stein adopts eTteibdv, but rejects it III 21 {C P z), 117 (6'), IV 22 
 [Bz). Hippokr. employs it II 12, 34, 78 (eTretS' av, treated as 
 oT av), III 238, 258, &c., Arrian 1O5, 303. In tragedy the 
 word is rare and does not often occur in positions to show 
 the quantity of the final syllable. But in Sept em 734 (ch.), 
 we scan ^^ - ^ (Verrall cTrel 8' av), and so in JRIiesos 469 (trim.). 
 The short ultima is surprising- in view of hav, Sophokles' Elektra 
 314 {L). Cf. the MS. e7T€t8' 'dv in Hippokr. 
 
 I cTTciTa Keos 43i6j Miletos, Dittenb. S//U. 39X10^, Archil. r^6^, 
 
 'Tyrt. 4g, Theog. yo^^, 742, 747, 869, Herodotos over ninety 
 
 times, Hippokr. II 12, 78, III 254, 310, IV 204 (-rey Dietz), V'l 
 
 I 140, IX 350 and very often, Aretaios 42, 51, Sp\ clea 20. New 
 
 1 Ionic has also the Homeric jjiereTTeiTa, which is not Attic before 
 
 Aristotle. eTreire Miletos, Dittenb. S^ll. 39I2, of the fourth 
 
 century (els rbv eTretre yjpovov, whereas in 1. 12 we read et? tov 
 
 iTretra xp^vov), in Hdt. only as a v.L, e.g. II 52 {A B C), VI 83 
 
 \{hd re B), 91 (iTreiVe AB^ d, krrd re C), IX 98 {kir^i re B). 
 
 \ iiteiTev is explicitly stated to be Ionic and Herodoteian by 
 
 JAUios Dionysios in Eust. 1 15839. Theognostos (An. Ox. II 
 
 16I20) does not refer the form to any dialect. The statement of 
 
 Ailios, who is generally trustworthy, is, however, vitiated (i) by 
 
 , the fact that, in all the occurrences (about 100) of the adverb 
 
 iin Hdt., there is no MS. authority whatever for eTretrei', and 
 
 [ (2) by the avoidance on the part of Hdt. of elrev, a word which 
 
 ' Ailios says was used (in this form) by the historian. 
 
 If Ailios' statement has any foundation, he must have read 
 i iTretrey where the MSS. have tTretra or eTret re (cf. I 146, II 52, 
 IX 84, 98). Ailios might have been misled by the occurrence 
 i of fTTetrey in the Kolvi] into regarding it, like so many other 
 , Koivri forms, as Ionic ; and elrev was then rashly included because 
 I of eTretrei;^. See under drev. 
 
 iviirev appears before the Koivi) in Pindar Pyth. IV 211, Nem. Ill 54, Isthm. 
 VII (VI) 20 and pei'haps Nem. Ill 49, Aristophanes AcJiarn. 745 in tlie mouth 
 of a Megarian. In later poetry it occurs in Skymnos Descript. orbis 569, and 
 perhaps in 947 where eweira S' is foreign to the autlior's style, though ^wtiTa 
 occurs, e.g. 461, 661, 709 ; in Dionysios, the son of Kalliphon, 116 (eTretra 3 
 times), and in Machon apud Athen. 581 F (by Person's certain emendation). 
 
 * Ehegion 5^ should not be regarded as certainly Ionic. 
 
 ' In his paper on the adverbs in -rev, Usener (JahrbikJier, 1S78, p. 62) 
 thinks that eir^iTev is to be sought in the reading eirei re. it should be noted, 
 however, that when the copyists misunderstand the forms in -reu, they 
 divide thus : ^ttut' eV Pind. Isthm. VII (VI) 20, Pyth. IV 211, eh' iv, &c. 
 
6o8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [716 
 
 That the form was frequent in the Koivri is evident from Phrynichos, quoted 
 above under elrev. 
 
 Of all the certissima vestigia of firfirev (Dindorf Praef. XXXVI) in the MSS. 
 not one is certain. Rather all speak for eneiTe. Dindorf, Stein, Abicht, and 
 Holder adopt Reiz's ^neiTev in I 146, where the MSS. have iireire. Whenevei! 
 the form eTreira is not supported by all the MSS., the only variant found iff 
 eiretre {eirfire, or possibly iird re even when the adverb is called for). exeiTf 
 as well as tTreira, is certainly Ionic, because attested in the inscriptions. Tc 
 be distinguished from eireiTe = eir€iTa is eVetre ^ = eTrei re in VIII 22, IX 84, 93 
 bis (in one case the MSS. have eneiTo). A single occuri-ence of eireiTev in the 
 MSS. of Ionic prose is ticLrev {sic 6) in Hippokr. VII 332. 
 
 eiTeir\^ Ephesos 14834, Hdt. II 77, V 18, &c. 
 
 i-nr]i', see under t]v. 
 
 iacxTvai Hdt. VI 125, Hippokr. VIII 28. 
 
 ecTTe (preposition and conjunction) is used by Theog". 959 (of. 
 vj. 394), Hdt. VII 141, 158, 171, VIII 4, 142, Hippokr. II 138,; 
 IV 220, Arrian 20^, 5 (eVre (ttl), Aret. 52, 86, S^>: (lea 12. 
 Whether Eleian iara stands for eore or represents an original, 
 form with -ra, as Kretan fxiara, is uncertain. The nearest 
 analogue in other dialects is hre, occurring in Lokrian, Delphic.; 
 and Boiotian {erre). This hre may, however, be due to form-: 
 association and therefore a combination of ev + re, or it may be 
 the equivalent of Gothic und<nte, which has the same meaning 
 as the Greek conjunction -. 
 
 In Archil. 14 we meet with the peculiar form eo-zce, whose -/ce, if correct,| 
 cannot be the equivalent of the Homeric «:€, because of etrre /ce in Thcokr. "V, 
 22, VI 32. So far as we are aware, eff/ce occurs in only one other passage 
 Anthol. VII 727, i(TK€ edvT). Both passages should probably be corrected tc 
 ecrre, unless the analogy of Thessal. kis, tis, quis, and Kai. re, que is sufficient 
 to prove the genuineness of the -k€ form, effre is not from evs re because ol 
 Eleian ecrra, that dialect using eV, not is, with the accusative. The congeners 
 of ecrre are Skt. dccha, Slav, esfe, Lat. usque '. 
 
 €UT€ (Horn.) Hdt. II 6^, VI 27, VII 209, /S>-. dea 25, ^6, 55: 
 Aret. 62, (89 (eSre orav). 
 
 €ws ou Hdt. II 143, where many editors adopt Struve's es o^ 
 (§ 5^9)- ^'^^ '^^ might be defended by the analogy of /xexpt ov*' 
 
 * Greg. Kor. § 26. 
 
 » Cf. Solmsen, K. Z. XXIX 333. 
 
 s Cf. Burda in Kuhn-Schleicher's Beitrcige VI 89 ff., Bloomfield A. J. P. VI 
 41, Wheeler NominaJaccent 22, and also Zubaty K. Z. XXXI 12, cf. 61. The 
 last-named scholar would connect €(rx<'''^os. on the etymology of which see 
 Wackernagel K. Z. XXXII 40. The etymology in the text disposes of Meister-, 
 hans' objection (note 16S2) to the Attic character of the word. Et. Mag. 3829 
 refers io-re to the Dorians. 
 
 * Meister Zum eleischen, arkadischen, und kyprischen BialeMe p. 42, would- 
 retain es ov in Hdt. I 67, 98, III 31 &e., where is '6 is adopted, and finds here 
 a genitive of limit. See his Diakkte II 298 flf. 
 
7l6.] CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 609 
 
 md ovveKa. eco? with the genitive occurs in a decree in De 
 iorona 108 and in Aristotle. Cf. eore with the genitive in late 
 prreek. eo)? as a conjunction occurs in Hdt. Ill 134 (cf. v. I. 
 [ 86, 94, II 169, all MSS. VIII 74) and often in Hippokr. e.ff. 
 [I 23 (subj.), 66 lis and IV 222 (av with subj.). 
 
 r\hi in late prose^ Aretaios ^^y, also after ardp (303). 
 
 Tjp.d5, see under 6rr/ju,o?. 
 
 r]!/ (iTry]v), edv (eireaV), av. 1. Inscrij)tions. i\v occurs as 
 follows: Amphip. lo^, ^g, Thasos 71^, g, Miletos loo^, ^, ^,,,, g, 
 l^eleia Ii3j8 (etay 1. 20, 39), Ephesos 145^, ^,^, ^, Teos 1585 (a very 
 late document with kdv, 1. 2, 31), Chios 174 A 9, \6, 20, B 16, 
 |5. P. IF. 1889, p. 1 194, Halikarn. 2385^, 33, 3^, lasos in Greek 
 Tyiscript. in the Brit. Mns. Ill \, no. 440, 1. 6, 7 (etay 1. 2, 3). 
 cay Ephesos 145,3, 4? Chios 174 C 5 stands for kox^i\v (by 
 irasis through contraction, not elision, as k?/i; in Herodas and 
 jHippok rates). In an epigram, Kaibel 1106 IV, where the 
 briginal has Kav, the Anthol. Pal. IX 75 has ki]v. 
 
 i-wt\v is found in Keos 4317, Chios 174 C jo. iiredv, which is 
 3referred to irrriv in Hdt., does not occur in the Ionic inscriptions. 
 
 caV appears in Olynthos 8 B 1 7 and thence to be supplied in 
 ? A 5, B 14 (between 389 and 383 b. c). This inscription is 
 ilmost entirely free from Atticisms (a/x^ore'pot?, //tS?). Further- 
 ctiore in Teos 1582, 31 (first century B.C.), Erythr. 204^2 (not much 
 oefore 345-344 B.C.), in a West-Ionic document (no. 22y, found 
 jQuth of Eretria) which is almost entirely Attic, and in a Chian 
 inscription in Paspates'' CJdan Glossary (9io)- ft«J^ appears in 
 iZeleia 11320J39 (shortly after 334 B.C.), with y\v in 1. 18, in Teos, 
 Mitth. XVI, 292, 19, an inscription perhaps as old as 350 B.C., 
 iind in lasos, Greek Inscript. in the Brit. Ilns. Ill i, no. 440, 1. 2, 3. 
 pf. § 220. 
 
 ! av occurs in Oropos 18^,, ^2, i4n9 (^^^^'^^^^ 411-402 or, more 
 •probably, 387-377 B.C.), Keos 47.^ (about same date as Oropos 
 |i8 ; both inscriptions contain traces of Atticism), Paros in Boss's 
 \Tnscr. ined. 148, Thasos 72j5, i^ (300-250 B.C.), in an Asiatic 
 j[onic inscription (2633) found in Lykia and probably of the 
 Eourth century, and in a Chian inscription in Paspates' Cliiaii, 
 Glossary (9g). 
 
 Both ddv and av are Atticisms, and there is no inscriptional 
 3vidence that does not admit of eay being likewise regarded as Attic. 
 
 j With the above we may compare the testimony of the Attic stone record?. 
 Before 400 b. c. ecte is tiie invariable form with only two exceptions in favour 
 pf av. In the fourth century we find, besides ^iv, the forms elav (between 
 S87-350), and av twice, and in the third century eof, and av once. Vjv and eirTjr 
 ire foreign to all Attic inscriptions, iirdv occurs first in the third century 
 ^265 B. c). 
 
 R. r 
 
6lO THE IONIC DIALECT. [j^^-' 
 
 2. Lyric poets. ^v, the Homeric form, is found in Sim. 
 Amorg-. 7,5, 25 J G9 5 97 > Hipponax 43, 46, 495, Herodas (thirty 
 times, with no ease of lav), Theog-nis '3,^, 109, 186, &c., Kritias 
 of Chios. In crasis Hrd. uses only kt/j/ (254, 3in, &c.). eTnji; 
 (Hom.) occurs in Theog-. 299, Hrd. 24,,, 345, 527, 6gi, but eVeai; 
 3303 43J 584- Homer has fVet av in Z 412 (cf. Eust.), I 304, P 4J59, 
 cTTet Ke often. Cf. cTretre ai; Hdt. I 200. 
 
 3. Pf(?<se vmters. yv is the form adopted by Herodotos, Hip- 
 pokrates, e.ff. II 18, III 194, 206 (-ijvTrep), V 660, VI 142 (6), 148, 
 VII 1 74, Aretaios, e.ff. 50, 112, 258, 259, 288, Lukian Sj/r. dea 47, 
 Vit.auct. 6, epistle of Pherekydes (twice), epistle of Thales 1 (twice), 
 epistles of Hippokrates (three times). jSToteworthy is the crasis 
 KTqv, Hippokr, II 48, III 192, Aret. 258, 259, 261, 293, 337 [kov 
 60), because of Kav in inscriptions. See above under i. Attic 
 kav appears in By water's Herakleitos 7, 113, Hippokr. II 78, III 
 236 (Littre and Erraerins), Lukian 8yr. dea 52; av in Hippokr. 
 
 III 232 (cf. ^]v 234), in ^ V 604, in B J/ A" III 218. In the 
 tractate Trept K€(j)aXris Tpoi^aTutv Littre edits i]v, kav, av. 
 
 e-irrif is bcst Supported in Hdt. in V '^^ Aill MSS. except P and z), 
 
 IV 134 [A B Cd), not so well in II 40 [P). We find it rarely in 
 Hippokr., e.g. Ill 248, VI 140, VII 474, VIII 306 {6), 320, 334, 
 and in Aret. 42, 296, 303, '^'^J. In the spurious letters of 
 Hippokr. it occvirs once, and also in the epistle of Pherekydes. 
 e-neav occurs almost fifty times in Hdt.^ without a variant. 
 Lukian has it in the ^S^;-. dea 6, 29, 49, 51, 57, 60, Arrian 13^, 14^, 
 I52> i6g, -^r,, 257, 29,,, Euseb. Mynd. 53, 6'^. lirav, not eir^dv, is 
 used by Hippokrates according to Littre (I 483), and is often 
 written eir' av or iirav in the MSS. The Attic form was used by 
 Aretaios in 288, &c. 
 
 I. The position occupied by eVectj/ in Hdt. and his imitators is pecmiar< 
 from the fact that in all the other monuments of Ionic literature from Homer j 
 to Herodas (who has however three eases of eTredu) and in all the inscriptions ' 
 eirriv is the only form. (Hippokrates, we venture to believe, did not adopt ; 
 iirdv, which is a relatively late Attic production.) If idv appeared in any: 
 Ionic document anterior to, or contemi^oraneous with, Hdt., or if any case of 
 fdv in the inscriptions were certainly Ionic, the coexistence of eTredv on the ' 
 one hand, and of ^u on the other, would present little difficulty. It would 
 be simply the coexistence of an older and younger form which is common 
 enough in Greek and other languages. Compare, for example, the use of jiff 
 and «^' (the latter after butt, alls) in the Ormulum (jiff \\i, 139, 145, (^603, 
 3164) and of jif and if in the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales [jij 
 144, if 148, of the Lansdowne MS.). As it is, the retention of the uncon- 
 tracted form in ^iredv does not c:irry with it the existence of an open 4dv. In 
 a much used word .such as edv the tendency towards contraction would be 
 
 ^ Cited as Ionic from Hdt. by Greg. Kor. § 55. iiridv is mentioned, but: 
 not as dialectal, by Apollon. Conjug. 2157 Schn. 
 
Ii6] 
 
 CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 6ll 
 
 threat (cf. § 444), though e + o rarely unite in Ionic. We are tempted to regard 
 ireav as due to ixeTaxapa.Krriptfffj.6s. 
 
 2. In respect of idy it should be noticed that the ordinary explanation 
 from el + &v) fails to account for idf in 0. K. 1407, Wasps 288 ^ If we adopt 
 [he explanation which sees in Attic edv the union of ri'' + &u, idv, in Ionic 
 I'lredv, was constructed after d had ceased to pass into 7], or the Ionic form 
 k idv derived from 71 + &v by shortening of the rj before a vowel (cf. Ionic 
 haffiKfa, Attic /SatrtAed). If idv existed alongside of idv in Attic or elsewhere, 
 |ve must, at any rate, adopt a different explanation in the ease of each form. 
 j 3. In the enormous preponderance of tjv over idv in Aristophanes (268: 69 
 ficcordingto Sobolewski's enumeration), it is difficult not to see a fact necessi- 
 lating the assumption that tjv is a form native to the ordinary speech of the 
 jUhenians (,cf. § 75). We can discern no principle making for a difference 
 !n Aristophanes between the two forms in respect of their use, e. g. a para- 
 ragedic preference for ^v, a legal preference for idv in the Wasps (idv 9 times, 
 V 37) or in the Lysistrata (11 : 29), or in the chronological order of the 
 omedies. The proportion of 4dv to tjv in the Knights is 78 "/„, but in the 
 ^ouds only 9 "/„. Petri De enuntiatorum condicionalium apud A. formis et usu 
 ). 31 erred in thinking that there was a steady growth of ijv. See Sobolewski 
 'yntaxis Aristophaneae capita selecfa p. 14. 
 
 4. To § 75 may be added a statement in reference to the use of ijv and edv 
 a Euripides. When the metre permits, the former is invai'iably emploj-ed, 
 \dv occurs in Hel. 1071, El. 954, Herakleid. 256, 516, Ion 425, Kykl. 427, Med. 727, 
 'road. 713, Phoin. 757, Rhes. 143, frag. 2943. In the above passages idv is 
 pllowed by a consonant. In I. A. 1193 for ihv avriHv, Hartung's idv ffcpuv is 
 jenerally adopted. In Herakleid. 1020 Elmsley restored V foi" &v, in Herakleid. 
 163 Kirchhoff emended yUTjSer h.v ffv ffwppovrjs to ffoKppovoTs (Nauck read tjv), in 
 ittppl. 180 Scaliger read avrhv av for avThs dv tlkt-ti fieXij. For &v Dindorf read 
 IV in frag. 3791. k&v with subjunctive also occurs, e.g. frag. 3453, 364,7. All 
 he passages cited occur in dialogue parts. Cf. Johnson Se conjunctivi et optaiivi 
 su Euripideo in enimiiatis finalihus et condicionalibus (1893) p. 48. 
 
 ^pa and apa (§ 283)^. Arcliilochos is the first Greek author to 
 aake use o£ the asseverative apa<i] apa found 2 429 (7] ap a 357). 
 ilippokrates and Herodas are the only authors writing- in Ionic 
 vho use rjpa : thus placing Ionic in the position o£ being- the only 
 i.ialect having both forms. In Doric and Aiolic we have ripa, in 
 Vttic^and the Kotvt], apa. In Hrd. 401 ripa is = apa, in ^..^^ it is 
 he interrogative. Cf . the like use of 7) as an asseverative and as 
 
 ' See Dindorf ad loc, who proposes to delete ye in several passages, thus 
 laking idv possible {Pliitus 126, 481, Wasps 1231, and in the post-Aristophanic 
 •Dmic poets). Cf. Bekk. Anecd. g^Ais- 
 
 * 71 i/ occurs in inscriptions from Krete and Kypros. It is perhaps identical 
 dth 71, the interrogative in indirect questions, which appears in inscriptions 
 -om Herakleia, Dodona, and Astypalaia. 
 
 ' Cf. also scholiast on Dionys. Thrax in Bekk. Anecd. II 96837, and Ahrena 
 leine Schriften I 60. 
 
 * Attic has the epic ^ pa followed by dpa in Persai 633, 637 ich.). ■? pa 
 C5curs also in Aias 172, 954 (ch.). Cf. Pindar Pyth. XI 38, IV 57 affirmative, 
 mm. VI (VII) 3, Pyth. IX 37 interrogative. With the last example, cf. 
 atrach. 174 (^ pa postponed). 
 
 Era 
 
6j2 THE IONIC DIALECT. [716. 
 
 an Interrog'ative particle. In Hippokrates there exists considerable 
 variation between the two forms o£ the interrogative. In the 
 Upoppi]Ti.K6s I we have noted, after a rough count, in Littre^s 
 text: apa two times, apa ye lO, rjpa 4, rjpdye 16 ; in the KcaaKol 
 Trpoyycocrets : apa 1 3, apa ye 2, apa tl 1, i]pa 4, 7/pa ye 9, ?/pa rt 3. 
 In V 278 we find -norepov i]pa . . . // (cf. Pindar Pi/(h. IX 37). 
 The MSS. vary constantly. Hdt. has apa, e.g. VII 1 7, apa IV 64. 
 Littre^s apa V 554 is not to be defended. 
 
 r\^ol where Oropos i8,g, a new word, comparable to Homeric y\)Q. 
 A 607, &c. The evidence of the Oropian inscription should 
 settle the question as to the orthography of the Homeric form ' 
 in favour of Aristarchos"" 7^)(t (against the MS. tradition, followed 
 by Apollonios). Cf. Hdn. I 505^3, where the Doric form is said ; 
 to be axt \ La Eoche H. T. K. 278, and Roscher, in Curtius' 1 
 Studien III 143. We accentuate the locative j/x^'- o^ ^^ 
 analogy of 'Epy^ot, -navTaxoi, hdavdol'^ (C. I. A. IV B 2'] h 13, 
 from 439 B.C.), rather than as a paroxytone, like oIkol. 
 
 -0e(i'). Local adverbs which have almost, if not entirely, lost; 
 the original whence idea, may, if not formed from substantives,! 
 lose their -v in Homer ^. In the inscriptions we find o-made' 
 (before a consonant) in Halikarn. 340^5 (fifth century according 
 to Dittenberger), Samos 220^7 (346-345 B.C.), Erythrai 201,3; 
 (fourth century). Herodas 2g9 has KarcoOe Kav(o6ev, Theognis: 
 and Tyrtaios irpoaOe and -npoaOev, Sim. Keos 163 (eleg.) -npoade,. 
 379 (threnos) inrepde vu/f/o, Tyrtaios ii^^, ^o oinade. Elsewhere; 
 the poets have -dev. In Herodotos we find -dev except in Trpoade, 
 epL-npoaOe, vnepOe, KaTV-nepOe, o-niaOe, hepOe, and perhaps in irep-qde*.: 
 Hippokrates, on the other hand, always adopts -6ev, e.g. Ttpoadiv 
 III 192, vTToirpocrOev 68 (Hippokratic only), airoirpoaOev 212 (also 
 in Plato Epiii. 987 A), ipLTTpoadev 74, 192, 194, oinadev II 78, 
 III 72, 182, 184, 190, 192. Aretaios has -rrpoaOev, e.g. 76, 
 v-nepdev 52, vepOev 28, but Lukian Sp'. dea 29 has irpocrde. Of' 
 the adverbs in -Oe in Hdt., irpoaOe and epLirpoa-Oe are occasionally 
 well supported in the MSS. of Plato, Isokrates, and Demosthenes. 
 So too iiriiTpoa-Oe in Plato (-ev Aret, 69), but oina-de, KaToitta-dey 
 e^oTTLo-Oe, efco^e, and akXode in that author occur only in inferior' 
 MSS. e/xTTpoo-^e, KadvirepOe, and ovrto-^e are found in Attic' 
 inscriptions between 350-317 B.C., and even Movi<L)(^La6e, 'AAco-; 
 
 1 But of. Et. Mag. 4173 : Sx'' Sttou, and Dionysios in schol. B. L. on A 607. , 
 
 ^ In Plato ivravOi should not displace ivravdoT. 
 
 ' awdvevde, Tzetz. Ex. 11. 9O9 ff. * 
 
 * In VI 33 TrfprjOe is the reading of the best MSS., adopted by Stein, Holder 
 and Kallenberg, but rejected by Abicht for the Treprjdev of B- sz. In VI 126^ 
 there is no authority for aveKadev ( ==&vai6ev in Attic prose) except Aldus, whc; 
 is followed by the recent German editors because the -dev idea is still un- 
 obscured. (fj.T7poa6f in VII 126 occurs in AB only, oiriadf in II 96 in s only. ; 
 
 I 
 
7l6.] CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 613 
 
 TTeKrjOe occur in the fourtli century. On the occurrences of 
 "rrpoaOe, &c., in late prose, see Lobeck Elementa II 153. 
 
 'Be occurs also in Thessalian avevQe, Aiolic irpSffOe. Aiolic has in addition 
 to -^e, both -061/ and -da, which are likewise Doric. It is still a moot point 
 whether -Oev {-6e), -da are independent suffixes, whether -0a represents d «, 
 and -Oe a contamination of -dev and -da, or whether -6a is original and 
 the other forms analogues of fcec, »ce' '. The same uncertainty exists in the 
 case of iiTHTfv, eireire, eireira, f{vfKev, e'lveKe, f'iveKa. That -a and -e may be 
 distinct formations, not derived from a parent-form with sonant nasal, may 
 be inferred from -re and -ra (Sre, Aiolic Sra), ye and yd (Epeirotic yev, if 
 [correct, being a late formation), -5e and -5a (Arkadian OvpSa). 
 
 -01 occurs much more frequently in Ionic than in Attic prose. 
 ovhajxodL is found only in Hdt. VII 49. avrodt and avrov occur in 
 both dialects (Hdt. II 44, Hippokr. II 24, Sj/r, dea 45, Arrian 
 2610); so too akkoQi Hdt. Ill ']'3^, Sp'. dea 29. 
 
 181T11 appears in the weakened form tStet, Oropos 18^^. In Thasos 
 725 (300-250 B.C.) and lasos 105^ (end of the fourth century) we 
 find the Attic lUai. 
 
 i0u's Ephesos 1457, cf. Hdt. I6vs, Wv, Idiois and see § 198. 
 
 Xva, the particle that in Herodotos occurs more than twice as 
 frequently as all the other final particles combined, is, but for 
 a sing-le instance, excluded from the language of the inscriptions ; 
 a matter of no surprise, when we remember the preference of the 
 Attic inscriptional documents for ottcos av. I have noted IVa av 
 in Thasos 72^0, from the first half of the third century. In fifth 
 century Attic inscriptions we find 'iva twice, in the fourth century 
 never, in the third century twice. The genuine Hippokrates never 
 uses Lva in complete final sentences, of which he has exceedingly 
 few. It occurs in Theog. 776, Hrd. IX. 
 
 The phrase ctt' larji Kal ojaoitii (Hdt. IX 7) is frequently used in 
 Ionic decrees : Samos 22i27.2s> Ephesos I47nj Wood's Discoveries 
 at Hp/iesus, appendix 2, no. 2, 10, 18, 19, 21, 22. In the Ephesian 
 documents we have icf)' not ctt'. 
 
 lo-CTai is an interjection like aial, and derived from ta-aa (Plato 
 in Meineke II 637, 4, Menander IV 80, 6). In § 395 end, 1<t' av 
 was wrongly suggested as the reading in the passage from 
 Herodas 393, where la-cral should be adopted with Meister. 
 
 KaOoTi Samos 22I02 (cf. Hdt. VII 2). 
 
 Ka9(is Hdt. IX 82. 
 
 Kapra^kiav (Greg. Kor. § 58), Hippon. 1 7, Hdt., Hippokr., 
 Aretaios, Lukian. 
 
 Kard = Ka0d appears in Hdt. I 208, II 6, 116, III 86. In 
 VII 199 kot' a is = rT/ wkere. See appendix to § 406, 2. 
 
 1 Cf. Osthoff Per/ed 332 ff., G. Meyer Gram. 30. 
 
6l4 THE IONIC DIALECT. [7161 
 
 KaraVrT) (es to. k.) Hippokr. Ill 298. 
 
 KaraTTep Hdt. I 170, &c., Priene 1 449, Halikarn. 238^9, Kaddiref 
 Ephesos I47ii (about 300 b. c), Teos 158^, 25 (first century b.c.) 
 Cf. § 369. In Halikarn. 238^3 we find Karo-mp (§ 132}. Se( 
 appendix to § 406, 2. 
 
 Kar^Ti Hdt. VII 2. 
 
 K61 Archil. iyo = K€Wi Archil. 132, Hdt. II 122. 
 
 K-^, Kou, &c., § 342. 
 
 Xeiojs completeh/, at all. Archil. 112 (MSS. Aetcot corrected b} 
 Porson). Cf. Hesychios Aetcoj* (MSS. Aetpcos) pabicos, cr(f)6bpa 
 TcAetco?, KaA<3?, part of which gloss might be explanatory oJ 
 Aeico? T/waifefos 144 B^ from Aeto? smooth. Elsewhere the gram- 
 marians (Apollon. Pronom. 58, ^ Schn., Et. Mag. 56O3J, Photios 
 2183) refer to the form either as Aetos ^, usually explaining it af 
 derived from rekecos (Hdt., Hippokr.-) by hyphaeresis ^, or asi 
 Ato)?, Erotian 240. The same stem appears in the Hesychian 
 AecoAjj?" reAeto)? i^coXrjs (cf. AetwArjs on a Rhodian inscription.. 
 Mitth. XVI 112); AewAe^pos* TraireAws k^(X)\oQpivpivo^\ Aeio- 
 Ko'ytros" 7/ reAeiaj<ns {^sic MSS.), a>s Koyts hiaki\vp.kv)]^ Aetco? yap 
 reAetcos ; XeLOKopi-js' [sic MSS. Aetco- Voss) 6 reAetto? inK^Kavpivovs 
 Tovi 6(j)daXpovs e'x toy, with which cf . AewKO/STjros' 6 e^(D\o9pevpivoi 
 Photios 2183, keojKovLTos' i) XecoKoprjTos [sic MSS.) TrayreAws' efwAo- 
 dpevpevos HesychioSj and AecoKo'i'jjroj 6 ((pOappivos Theognostos 
 (An. Ox. II 932). , . ^ ! 
 
 The etymological connection of Aeco9 with Attic and Ionic' 
 Xecapyos, defended by L. & S. and Wecklein on Pronietk. 5.! 
 would be easier, did we not have reported Xaopyor dro'o-ioy.; 
 StKeAot in Hesychios and X^ovpyos as Doric in Photios. CurtiuSj 
 Et. p. 361, derives Aecopyo? from Ad from Xd((ro)-Fopy6s, which 
 suits the meaning, but Ad- as a comj^ressed stem from Xdao- is 
 difficult. Fo may be dropped when it is the final syllable of the, 
 first part of a compound whose second part begins with F-,' 
 e.g. A);[/^g]fd57js, h.y]\Fo\Fava^, KAe[fo]fa2;af = AedSrj?, Aeaya^, 
 KAeara^, and perhaps in vo[Fo\Fop6s=-vap6^ and vavpo's. But; 
 we desiderate examples of Xa((To)-Fo-. The Ad of Xdpaxos,, 
 XaKaTa-nvycov, XaKardpaTos, if genuine Attic, is difficult, and not 
 comparable to the Ae- of Aeco?. j 
 
 \l-(\v (Hom.) Archil. 66g, Hdt. IV 96, Hippokr. Ill 94, Aret.i 
 34. Hesychios' A?;i; was formerly read by Bergk in Theog. 35a. 
 
 i 
 
 ^ Galen, Gloss, p. 514, has \euis- TravrtMcs, airav. ' 
 
 '^ L. & S. say tliat Sio reXovs serves as the adverb of SioteAtjs. But A has^ 
 
 SmTeAecos, Hippokr. Ill 324, and Littre adopts it in III 48 (where reAtoos also' 
 
 occurs) ; Sia reKeos 38, 62, 132, &c. 
 
 ^ So even Kiihner-Blass I 286. The hyphaeresis cannot be defended by; 
 
 (Te)T^a7re^o. | 
 
7l6.] CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 615 
 
 fia occurs frequently in Herodas (42^, 33, 43, 5^3, jg, &c.) as an 
 'interjection employed by women to express astonishment or 
 indignation. The scholiast on Theokr. XV 89 errs in restricting- 
 ,the word to the dialect of Syracuse and in limiting the range 
 of its use to vexation. It is doubtless the same as fxa, Aischylos' 
 Snjjjil. 890. Meister Herodas p. 684 sees in the word (originally) 
 an invocation to the ix€ya\i] iJ.rJTrip. Cf. English many! 
 
 \kiv = iir]v, § 139. 
 
 fieo-iiYu (Hom.; Theog.) in Ionic prose occurs in Hippokr." only. 
 
 ^e'xpt, see § 715. 
 I jjiT]8afjia Halikarn. 23839.40, Hdt. I 68, II 91, III 65, VII 50, 
 (not -\xa with Aldus, d, and once in R and B. Jacobitz' -/ua in 
 , Lukian's Si/r. dea 31, 22, 23 is not Ionic. ovha\xa appears twelve 
 [times in Hdt. with -\}.a in Aldus and often in R b d. ovhajjid occurs 
 lin Anakr. 50, Theog. 1363, 1373. Hdt. has also ovbaixfi I 24, 34, 
 156, II 43, 116 (ovbafxri Aret. 25). /x7;8a]u,co? and ovbaixS>s are also 
 i Herodoteian. 
 
 firiKorej}er//aj)s[?),HYd.^-^^. 
 
 i mi in VOL \xd (Hom.) Archil. 108, Anan. 4, Theog. T045, Hrd. 
 igg, 7^^, 93, vol Ai]ixT]Tpa igg, vol Movcrav Class. Rev. V 481, frag. 6^ 
 [vi] Ai" 281 is Attic). 
 Kewra, cf. § 289, I. 
 
 j I'TjTToii'ei Amphip. lOjQ, and so to be read in Andokides, Plato, 
 
 j and Demosthenes. Cf. da-irovbel, davXei above. 
 
 ' vu (Hom.) occurs in Arefc. 171. 
 
 j vuvi Hdt. VII 229 {R vvv), is excluded from the language of 
 
 j tragedy and history (except Xenophon), but used by the orators 
 and Plato. Lukian has ravTi, Syr. dea 23. 
 
 oTTou, irou, &c. are the regular forms in the inscriptions, which 
 
 'never have okov, kov, &c. Cf. § 342. In Keos 43^,3 we find 
 oTTov dv with the subjunctive, elsewhere otiov is followed by the 
 indicative. 
 
 oTTOJs is frequent in Ionic inscriptions considering the chances 
 for its occurrence. It is found with the subjunctive in Thasos 
 7ig, Ephesos 14717-^, ^^^^^ ^^® optative in Samos 'Z%\^Q,yni\\ the 
 future indicative in Samos 22113. Herodotos has no liking for 
 OKO)? (twelve times) or for okco? dv (five times) in the pure final 
 sentence, though he allows greater scope for the okco? of incom- 
 plete finality. The imperative oko? occurs once (III 142)- 
 Hippokrates uses dK(a^ with the subjunctive in II 64 bis, III 
 242, VII 230, oKcos dv II 74, III 254, IV 228, VII 212 {oKm 
 
 ^ Sttcos i.v is probably Attic in an Ephesian inscription in Dittenb. Syll. 
 1345,9. 
 
6l6 • THE IONIC DIALECT. [7l6lj 
 
 av 8oKer/ and o)i av boKer) VIII 498), oko)^ with the optativ* 
 I 634 and Lukian Sp'. (ha 26, 27. In complete final sentence 
 the poets use o-noi's twice only (Hipponax 853 hexam., Anakil 
 632). Exclusive of Pindar^ ottw? (and oas) in these sentence, 
 occur chiefly in Hipponax and Anakreon; a fact which maj 
 have its explanation in local preferences (Gildersleeve A. J. t 
 IV 432). In the incomplete final sentence ottcos appears in Sim; 
 Amorg-. 7gQ, who also uses oVcos with the future (I5). i 
 
 oTYJiJLos Hrd. 3^5 may contain a prefixed 6-, as in okoIos, 6-nr]vUa 
 When ore and f/juo? are conjoined, the latter precedes as in ApoU 
 Eh. IV 267, 452, 1310, Anthol. Pal. app. 5I25 (cf. eSre oTa 
 Aret. 89, ecos ore Zosimos I 5, 3, if not in Thuk. IV 11; 
 Xenoph, Kyrop. V i, 25, &c.). Both Hdt. and Hippokr. us; 
 7]jLios. That TT/juo? was not restricted to poetry is clear fron- 
 Thessalian ra\iov. In Hippokr. IX 14 Littre reads t i]\i.o%\ 
 where some MSS. have rr]\}.o^. \ 
 
 ou8a|Ad, see under ix-qbaixd. 
 
 ouVcKa, see § 715* ' 
 
 ouTw, ouTws. To § 366 may be added that in Herodas ovtv 
 occurs before consonants and at the end of the verse, ovtco? onl ;■ 
 before vowels. In 4^^ ovtms eTrtAofot of the MSS. is metricall;; 
 inferior to ovtm iirtXo^ol. But in 6^^ we have another case oj 
 the anapaest in the second foot (or shall we write /xaAKo's wit.i 
 Meister ?). In the fourth foot we find the anapaest in 23^, 655. | 
 
 o(j)pa was not used by any post-Homeric writer of Ionic stocli 
 It occurs four times in Theog-nis. 
 
 Trayx" (Homer) Hdt. I 31, IV 135, and in trag-edy [Septetn 641] 
 In Froffs 1531 it occurs in hexameters. Attic prose uses ttuv] 
 instead. 
 
 iraXiv (cf. p. 289, note 4): in Hrd. 252 '7raAi[i^] ixvriv is preferabl; 
 to -naXt, whose nasal may have been omitted because of thi 
 jji. Before other consonants than jx we find ttAXlv (44-, Jg^l 
 Kallimachos epigr. 122 uses irdXi to obtain a pyrrhic. In Home; 
 we find TTaAtcoAj. 
 
 TTci^ interjection, Hrd. 7^4 {'if fifs/ also '■enough'). hia\mo.{\ 
 aTTOTTa^, iiTLTTa^, iadira^ Hdt. VI 125 (cf. ehi-fadi), are from thj 
 same root {tiay-, cf. iri'iyvvixt). Cf. dvajxC^ Hdt. I 103 an^ 
 aviJ-jxtyaYl 58, ivaXXd^ III 40, Hippokr. V 728. 
 
 Tre'p occurs often in Hdt. and Hij^pokr., where Attic prose haij 
 KaLTTep. I 
 
 irepT)!/ Hdt. VI 44, 97, &c., Hippokr. IV 380 {ri(///i through cj 
 Kdvai's). The word is connected with Trepdco, iTopos, not witj 
 Tre'pas. There is no form Tre'p?/ = Attic Trepa, but Hdt. VI ;^^ hai; 
 ■nepi]9€. i 
 
7l6.] CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 617 
 
 irXcofus occurs only in Hdt. (Ill 34, V 18). 
 
 TrpiV in Ionic inscriptions is found with the infinitive, Olynth. 
 8 B 5. TTplv i] with the infinitive in C. I. A. IV B 53 a 9 is 
 probably Ionic, as the document deals with matters pertaining- to 
 cult. TTplv Tj is a specific peculiarity of Ionic, since it occurs in 
 Homer (E 288 = X 366), then in Herodotos and Hippokrates, while 
 no Attic poet or prose writer uses the locution. In the pscudo- 
 Hippokratic works -nplv ?/ (ten times) is much less frequent than 
 i:piv (twenty times) with the infinitive ; a sign of the decline of 
 the former construction. Hippokrates uses itpXv 17 with the 
 subjunctive once (III 248) in a g-enuine treatise, whereas in the 
 spurious works it occurs eig-ht times ^. With the subjunctive, 
 the g-enuine Hippokrates omits av twice (II 52^ '^'^'^)) l^is imitators 
 insert it six times. 
 
 irpoi'^, see § 298. 
 
 Ttp6Ka = tv6v'i, -napaxpw^^ ^^ Hdt. I ill, &c., is always followed 
 by re (TrpoKare). Cf . avTUa, i]viKa for the extension of -npo by -Ka. 
 
 irpuTji' (Homer-), Hdt. II ^'^, also Attic (though some texts 
 
 have Trpcorjv), is contracted to irpSiv in Hrd. 562* -^^ Doric 
 
 irpa;(f)ai;'Theokr. VIII 23, XIV 5, or Trp6{F)dv, Theokr. IV 60, 
 
 V 4, XV 15, became irpav^, so Ionic and Attic 'np(i){F)r,v became 
 
 ■npwvva. Herodas. In Kallimachos' eholiambies (frag. 84, Schu.) we 
 
 find Trpwz; according to Job. Alex. 329 (Hdn. 1 4949). It would seem 
 
 therefore that Herodas' -npSiv is wrong {-npc^v Biicheler), or that 
 
 Kallimachos' irpwy is a mistake [-np&v, Meister Herodas p. TJS)- 
 
 ' The fact that Joli. Alex, gives as the full form irpwryf, not 7rpw'»]y 
 
 . or T:pmv as Lentz writes, inclines us to the view that we should 
 
 I read -npSiv in Kallimachos. Both Job. Alex, and Suidas regard 
 
 irpw as the base of the word ''. An enlarged form of the same 
 
 word is TrpcoFios (cf. Skt jmrvi^a, Slav, jrnvj/jl, 'the first') which 
 
 becomes Trpwtos (Hdt. VIII 130, TrpoiCnv VIII 6; cf. Horn. 
 
 Trpctnov adv.) and TTp<2os in Attic. 
 
 (Tuveyyu^ (of place) Hrd. 1 43, Hippokr. IV 180. 
 
 T€ is separated from its pronoun, after the epic fashion, in to. 
 Trip re Hdt. I 74. Noteworthy uses in New Ionic are ewetre or 
 
 1 On irph &c. in Ionic writers, see Sturm's treatise, pp. 73 ff. and the works 
 there cited. 
 
 ^ The schol. Yen. A on O 470 reports that Zenodotos wrote irpt^v" and that 
 Aristarehos knew of this reading. In E 832 nearly all the MSS. have Trpw-qv 
 {A G ttp^'tjj/), in n 500 irpwriv is supported by Eustathios alone. 
 
 3 This accent is 'found 'in p, Theokr. V 132, in k in VII 51. If the vulgtite 
 irpdv in seven other passages is correct, we must suppose a form irpwfav, 
 I which ill suits the traditionary accent of ■Kpun)v. Trpdriv could not become 
 irpav in Doric as L. & S. state. 
 
 * Apart from the difficulty in the way of a paragogic v, the Ionic torm is 
 however open ; irpui Hdt. IX loi, Hippokr. II 682, III 4*5 (cf- Hom. irpm, 
 vptii^a), irpwiairepov Arrian 26^. 
 
6l8 THE IONIC DIALECT. [716. 
 
 €7761 Te, vvv re I 125, VIII lOT. In I 58, ejuoi re, quoted by 
 L. & S. as another example, is now changed to e/^iotye with 
 Reiske. Ionic has clt^ qnippe (Hdt. I 154, Hippokr. IV 224) as 
 other dialects. 
 
 Ttcjs ^ in Herodotos is most frequent in the sense oifor a time 
 (I II, 82, 86, 94, II 169, VI 83, VIII 74 where all MSS. have 
 eco?). In VI 112 it means np to this time. In IV 165 all MSS. 
 have re'cos the while, which is retained by Holder, abandoned by 
 Stein and other recent editors for ecos. In the spurious tractates 
 of Hippokrates we observe a like usage (VI 180 where Q has ecoj, 
 VII 232, VIII 344, 596 liis, 602). Cf. Galen gloss, p. 578. This 
 use of re'cos is now regarded by editors of the Attic prose writers as 
 due to the Alexandrians, who used it as a relative. Lukian 8yr. 
 flea 25 has re'co? ixev .... eTiet hi, whereas Hdt. uses re'Aos 8e, eTretra 
 hi, or jxtTCL de in apodosis. Wco? occurs on Attic inscriptions. 
 
 TT) there ! Hrd. 1^2 (t//, -niOi, with which cf. i 347 r^, -nU olvov). 
 Tr] is the instrumental (cf. Lith. te"), rfj the dative. Cf. Kyprian 
 TCL, Tuhe, Doric rahe, Attic and Ionic rijhe, Attic T-qhL : 
 
 -Ti. Adverbs in -rt occur in iyKVTL Archil. (Et. Mag. 3ii4o)> 
 aixayjiTL, avcojjLOTL. airapri, airovrjTL, aTifxcoprjTL (Hdt.) ; -ort in . 
 jjLeyaAcoaTL, vectxTTi, 'S.Kvdta-TL (Hdt.). Cf. ^. /. P. VI 429. Where 
 -TL takes the place of -ret it is not derived from it, at least in the 
 classical period of the language. i 
 
 Toi may be noted in eTret rot, Hippokr. IV 216. 
 
 Tourei, adverbial locative, Kyme 3 A, is also Doric (Theokr. V : 
 33> 45, 103). ^ . 
 
 xaXKiVSa reported by Hesychios (ro et j x^^'^oy Kvjievtiv) appears 
 in Hrd. 3^. 
 
 -Xou occurs e.g. in Hdt. in Tptxov (and Tp'iya), hiyov (and hi\a), 
 TToKXayov (and iiokkayri), Ti^vra^ov (III J 17? not navTaxov for 
 which we have liavra^i]). 
 
 Xwpis. To § 366 we may add that in Olynthos 8 B 13 we find 
 [)((o/)(,]s eKdh-epovs, in Miletos lOOg, Hippokr. II 18 xoopts + conso- 
 nant, in V 668 ^(copts followed by a comma. ' 
 
 al8e hither, Hippokr. VI 476, 478 as Frotag. 328 D and the' 
 tragedians. Aristarchos denied that this use obtains in Homer. : 
 
 u)v and ow. To § 206 may be added that orecotovy occurs in 
 Amphip. io.>-^, i]iovv in Teos 158^,, gg (late). In respect of the 
 etymological relation of the two words (§ 252), Meister [Herodas , 
 p. 867) suggests that mv is to be derived from 7] ovv, as apa and 
 rjpa from 1) apa, and ixG)v from pJi] ovv ^. If oov is from ?/ ovv, it 
 
 ^ Cf. the story in the schol. on Plato's Hipparchos p. 335 in reference to Te'ais ' 
 from Tfcos. 
 
 ^ So Hdn. I 51621, II 33234 (.Toh. Alex. 4026\ schol. on Dionj^s. Thrax in 
 Bekk. Anecd. II 96914 , who assume a Doric change of ov to w, which is out of , 
 
7l6.] CONJUNCTIONS, ADVERBS, PARTICLES. 619 
 
 must, like v, have once been interrogative and asseverative. 
 Meister quotes J^JnJokt. 121 (») ixvrnxovev^Ls ovv a aoL Trap/]V((ra) as 
 an example of ?; ovv interrogative. Here, however, the words are 
 separated and each has its owai peculiar function. As a particle 
 of asseveration, u)V< rj ovv became (we must assume) postpositive, 
 usurping the place of ovv (cf. the postpositive 7/pa, apa). That 
 a)v could in course of time be regarded as an uncompounded 
 particle (cf. y&v), and thus vacate its proper functions, is less 
 difficult to understand when we observe the use of [j.u)v in Choeph. 
 177 \}.Oiv ovv ^OpidTov KpvlBba bwpov ^v robe; Androm. 82 p.Q)V ovv 
 hoKHi (Tov (ppovTiaai tlv' ayyikuiv ; SojjJnst. 250 D jxC^v ovv ev 
 kkaTTovi TLVt vvv eafjikv airopM Trept 70 6v ; and Laics 966 B. Cf. 
 also piMv 111] Hep. 351 E, &c., and such cases as ^ . . . . apa (from 7] 
 apa) in Soph., frag. 670. But where Z^v is interposed between 
 preposition and verb, as is frequently the case in Hdt. {e.rj. II 47, 
 85, 86, 96, IV 60 ; cf . Homeric ovv in the relative member) it is 
 not easy to believe that it is derived from ?] ovv. Meister is forced 
 to admit that Ziv may have been forced into the MSS. of Hdt. 
 at the expense of ovv. 
 
 Adverbs from -es stems regularly end in -ecos, not -ws (§ 289, 2), 
 except when the stem form is preserved, as in e-n-trrySes in Hdt., 
 Hippokr. d/cAews and dSews should j^robably be written -ecoj. 
 
 ws 0.V appears in Zeleia 113^3, 35 (after 334 B.C.), whereas in 
 Attic inscriptions it does not occur with any frequency till the 
 first century B. c. In Hdt. a>s and ws av are more frequent than 
 oKco? and OKO)? av in the complete final sentence, though ws and 
 oKcoy are more common than ia^ av and okcos av. In Hippokrates 
 (according to Weber Ahsichfssdtze p. 138) in complete final 
 sentences we find ws only {e.g. Ill 256, 258). See on ottcos. 
 Hipponax 433, Archil. 109 have ws av, Anakreon 623, 635, 
 Hipponax 19^ have d?. 
 
 the question in an Attic word. Perhaps Hdn. had in mind such cases as 
 'Doric X6yws, 4iraivw/j.fv. To the above etymology Tryphon objected (i) that 
 the two jjarticles, whose contraction was assumed, differed widely in 
 meaning, (2) that ficiv was prepositive, odv postpositive, and (3) that the 
 loss of the V was inexplicable. ApoUon. {de Conj. 22811 Schn.) meets the 
 phonetic objection by the statement that, though some regard the loss of 
 the i; as due to euphony, the truth is that ficov is from firi Siv, Siv being also 
 Attic, as tliat dialect is Ionic dwdfuL. So far from defending the derivation 
 from jx)^ ow (as Meister states \ by equating Attic with Ionic, he deliberately 
 avoids the point raised by Trj-phon in respect of the v. If the ov of ovv is 
 a genuine diphthong Tryphon was correct, av, ev. ov retaining their v in 
 crasis in all dialects ; but if the ov is adulterine, Tryphon was wrong and 
 Meister may be correct. Spiu-ious ov is retained in crasis only when actual 
 ' contraction does not take place (e. g. ovpo<l>v\aKfs = ol ovpo<p., Chios 174 A 15-16). 
 Its V of coui-se disappears in genuine contraction (e. g. Attic ti(j.w). If we 
 regard the ov of ovv as a spurious diphthong, I see no objection, on the score 
 . of phonetics, to the crasis co < tj + ou, though no other example is at hand. 
 
 [ Cf. flfllV(^jJ.7IV < IJ.€fiV7]0ijJ.riV. 
 
APPENDIX I 
 
 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS 
 
 17 13 f. b. (from below) : on dreXe'r; see add. to p. 175. 32 9 f. b. : read 
 
 fjLTJvis. 33 f. n. 1. 2 : read 4 for 6. 45 (§ 42) : add Meister Die 
 
 Mimiamben des Herodas 1893, Preger Inscriptiones Graecae meiricae 1891 (see the 
 
 review by Kaibel in G.G.A. 1892, p. 89). 47 7 : on the contraction to 
 
 ij of o + e, see additions to ]>. 242. 51 8 (and 58 note i) : the probability of 
 
 such an anacrusis is doubtful. The statement in the text is made on the 
 
 authority of Rossbach Griechische Metrik 233. 56 21 : Kovpai, C. I. A. IV 
 
 B 373'°^, is not Attic. The inscription is furthermoi-e noteworthy from 
 
 the fact that it presents the only example of crai^- for (ra)i(- in an early 
 
 document found on Attic soil. The inscription is earlier than 400 b. c. 
 
 67 15 : it may here be mentioned that some scholars still hold that there 
 
 are cases of d in tragic trimeters which are heirlooms of the period when d, 
 
 even after other sounds than e, i, v, p, had not become ?j. So Weeklein 
 
 regards /3aAoV Choeph. ^'ji, yaQovari 772 as Old Attic. Verrall justifies the 
 
 u-regular d by assuming that the words in question are due to literaiy 
 
 association. 57 12 : opeW, see add. p. 225. 69 26 : dele (,§ 428}. 70 7 f b. 
 
 note I : etymological considerations speak in favour of deriving Tvavis, ixav6s 
 
 and perhaps oSoAeVx'js in Attic from *Trci.vf6s, *ixavf6s and dSf-, but the 
 
 whole trend of the dialect is against compensatory lengthening upon tlie loss 
 
 of f. These Attic forms, like Ionic o\os, are a stumbling-block to the 
 
 uniformists. Kretschmer's theory, mentioned in note 2, will not hold 
 
 ground in the face of ' AiraTovpia, which contains a non-Attic ov. 'AirarOpios 
 
 appears in C. I. A. IV B 462 d 11 an archaic inscription, 'A-n-arOTpios in 
 
 III 2499, 2594 and perhaps 1057 (^^1 late). On Ionic soil we find 'AiraTovp- 
 
 ;in Phanagoreia, Bechtel 1643, and also in Amorgos -B. C. H. XIII 344, no. 2, 
 
 I though the document has ' A-KarOpiUvos and also KAeuSi'/cOT. A Sarmatian 
 
 inscription, I. Gr. A. 350, contains 'AirarOpO. The word is from 'Axaropf- 
 
 with the ' cojiulative ' a (cf. ofxoiraTpia). Boiotian Haivvxio-v C. D. I. 71 .17 
 
 does not prove that the Attic mowixia- is tlie direct result of the loss of the 
 
 spirant in fjLovf-. As Schulze Q. E. 79, 514 suggests, it is possible that 
 
 Boiotian Mof- may be a dialectal echo of Mouj/-. The v of tlie Boiotian form 
 
 is noteworthy, not only because of its appearance in that dialect, hut hocause 
 
 U.OVVV occurs only three times in all the Attic inscriptions (once in the 
 
622 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 fourth century, twice in the period of the empire). It may be regarded 
 as certain that other causes than the desire to avoid a succession of short 
 syllables produced the diphthongal forms 'Airarovpia, Mowix'^a in Attic. 
 Keller in his Lateinische Volksehjmologie derives Movvixia from a Semitic source, 
 on grounds that seem insufficient, so far as I am able to judge of their value. 
 71 12 : compare the variation between K6pa 1. i and Kovprj 1. 5 in a Thessalian 
 epigram, Kaibel no. 505 ; notes i and 2 : see § 716. 75 16: In Prometh. 353 
 the MSS. have kKarovTaKapiivov with a written over the tj. 78 8 f. b. : 
 yivurai Soph. frag. 191 (§ 296), cf. Dindorf's e'lri^w Fersai 1054. 79 note 2 : ' 
 read Meineke. Kock (elsewhere so spelled) is misprinted four times on p. 79, and 
 p. 140 n. I. 91: add the following treatises on the Dialect of Herodotos: 
 
 Bumke : De augmenio verbi Herodotei, 1835, Forstemann : De vocaiuUs quae 
 videntur esse apud Herodotum poeticis, 1892. Kloppe : De augmenio Herodoteo, 1848. 
 Molhem : De augmenti apud Homerum Herodotumque usu, 1876. Noreu's ' 
 treatise was published in 1876 (Upsala\ 93 22 : for V, S, read r, s and so ' 
 in the note below. Holder uses the signs V, S ; 25 : for the Florentine MS. 
 (A) of the tenth, read (C) of the eleventh. 95 note i : Maunde Thompson i 
 
 {Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, 1893, p. 119) thinks the papyrus 
 is at least as old as 250 b. c. 100 6 : for specifically read specially, as a >c form 
 has appeared in Aiolic. See additions to p. 290. The statement on p. 26, ■ 
 1. 6 must also conform to the new evidence presented. 101 8 : add vol. X, 
 xxxii, 1 861. 101 note 2, 1. 2 : read 57 for 56, and add reAecos Kos 375,, 
 
 3^11 ) 16) 40 A 5 (Paton and Hicks) to the list of Koan lonisms. 104 16, 17 : 
 dele orav, odev. 106 : add to the list of differences between Hdt. and 
 Hippokr. : -de Hdt., -dev Hij^pokr. § 716; Svai Hippokr., not in Hdt.; the 
 inflection of Kepas, § 544. 117 22 : Kabbadias in AeXriov 'ApxatoX. 1S91, p. 129 
 refers the inscription in question to the first century before Christ. 129 20 : 
 the grammarians usually accent oareov without reference to the dialects. In 
 Theokr. k has oa-rioy, Ahrens oo-tlov. In Hrd. 452, 55 (cf. p. 256, 8 f. b.) we find 
 apyvpevv which I have written -fvv, though this accent is quite uncertain ; 
 last line: add "A/uoAyos Arkadies 4757, 'A/uopyJj Steph. Byz. 130 i7f. b. : 
 for TTTJxeo"' the MSS. of Hdt. usually have TrT]x^(^v, e.g. I 178. 131 (§ 126): 
 on the accent of the forms from Uw, rtOecc &c., see § 691, and note 2. ' 
 132 20: after KparepSs, insert Kaprepos. 133 16: for rpe\pw. aTpi^oo read 
 Tpe(paj, (Trpi(po} ; 21 : after ' a form' add : apart from the doubtful iTpanSfirju. 
 These cases occur in II 80, IV (So, V 15, VI 33, 119, VII 18. In the . 
 active, rpdirca is found in all the MSS. only once (III 81), whereas rp^irw 
 occurs iS tinies without a v. I. When there is variation in the MSS., ABCd 
 have rpeiro) (VI 26, VII 52), except in II 92 where d alone supports the e form. 
 In the middle rpfireaOai occurs in V 86 {ABCd), rpeirovTai V 61, TpeirfTai I I17, 
 II 17 in all MSS. irpaTrSfirji' &c. (20 times) is certain and the aoristic use . 
 is not difficult in many cases. It is a significant fact that TpaweffOai, the 
 reading of all the recent German editors in the present, is never without 
 the v.l. TpaiTiffQai (I n, III 157, VI 52, VIII i6\ The adoption of Tpdirat 
 throughout involves the assumption that at least in the active the original 
 form has been almost completely obliterated. On the other hand, it should 
 be stated that a rpctTrco alongside of Tpi\\ioi, erpexl/a &c. is an unusual, and ' 
 therefore, a probable form. Homer has rpair- only in the denominative 
 TpoTreo) K 421, 7j 125 ; 3 f. b. : /capSi'rj Theog. 366, 1236, Hrd. I57, KapSi-nfiSKei 453. 
 Homer has dpaa-vKapdios. 134 20: Hrd. has re/j.e7v 641, 7117, refxeva-a 469. 
 
 TtfjiVM appears in the Hymn to Demeter 384, Solon 13,7. 135 3: aptuSiSs 
 
.APP. I.j ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS: PP. 71-163. 623 
 
 Hrd., Class. Rev. V 4S1, frag. 54= Attic 4p(f>5i6s Babrios 942 without the iota. 
 136 14: read KaTa\e\d$-nK€. 140 7 : Schmidt lias now discussed in full 
 the question of the assimilation of vowels in K. Z. XXXII 321 ff. To the 
 [examples mentioned by me (epexTj, eparju, axTfAeySos, 'Ep/xdi/ocrffa, 60o\6s, 
 Topdvri, reacrepes, appaiSew, eVepos, fj.iye9os), Schmidt adds many others, e.g. 
 'AirSWwu, aSa^ofiai, aaraKos, y6pyvpa, -K6vropos p. 142, Kp6/j./j.va, ovKal, xf/aKcis. 
 \pa(pavis p. 141 might be added to the list. 141 19 f. b. : in opposition to this 
 dissimilation, see now footnote 3 to p. 566; 4 f. b. : cf. also a\eTpi^avos 
 Hdn. II 2594, East. 183,0 for aAo-, 'ArSpe'aios Thessalian, C. D. I. 326 III 10, 
 '.'Opa-eas in Pindar. 143 3 f. b. : Hrd. has e(T(Tufj.ai, Class. Rev. V 480, 1,5. 
 ;144 5 : the analogy of secus, seems is defective. See Arch./, lat. Lex. IV 602 • 
 ;2i : Hrd. has '/Aecus 4ii, 25- 'iKaQi, on a late metrical inscription from 
 i^Paros (C. I. Gr. 23883, ,3) contains the weak, epic '1\t)Qi the strong form ; cf. 
 lirlfxirXadi and TrlfiirATiOt formed from tti'^ttAtj. 145 11 f. b. : add Aew<pi\os 
 
 |Ai'chiI. 69 ; footnote 1. 2 : read pd for op. Cf § 478, where it is shown that 
 {'A/Jupidpeos, not 'AiJ.(})ia.pews, may be tlie form native to the New Ionic of 
 Hdt. 146 13: add i'ea)K6pq> Hrd. 41,0, veaiKSpov 44,, 45, vewKopos Oropos 
 1 85,7, 24> 41) 2 f. b. : ayaio/xai is from *aya(rioiJ.aL, as Saiofiai from *5a(r_(o^ai. 
 A supposed TraAeo) by the side of iroAaico (§ 593) is not to be regarded as a sup- 
 port for ayeofj-at by the side of ayaio/j-ai. 147 14 : ixi^ova Orop. 18,5; 14 f. b. : 
 read 13 times, fjul^aiv twice (^og and V 3). 149 11 : on the expulsion 
 of c before 0, see § 287 and additions to pp. 254, 255. 152 9 : -ir) also occurs 
 in irpoeSpli] Xenophan. 27, rvpavvit) 3,, raiviais Empedokles 402, fiiff-qfxfipi-q 
 Kaibel 44I3; 12 : add Schulze Q. E. 291 ; 19 : -^wv may be regarded as an 
 independent sufSx ; cf. ix^i^iov and ix^v^i^ov. '^TparwvSrjs, Meyd)i'ST]s arc found 
 in 'E^Tj^. apx- 1887, 83 ff. (Eretria > ; 22: AaptKos Hrd. 7](,o, 12,. The Ionic 
 'form is Aap^iKis Hdt. VII 28, Erythr. 202j7_,8. Meister Herodas 746 regards 
 Aapi/cJs as Koan Doric. The form with i appears in Tegea, I. G. A. 69. Cf. Xaipw 
 veiKSs and XaipwviK6s. 153 6 f. b. : cf. Johansson Sprachkvnde, p. 8 ; aa-TUKos 
 is assimilated from cxnaKos as a^alerai ka. Hipi^okr. VIII 214, 330, 352 (cf. 
 568) from o5a|6Tat (Schmidt A'. Z. XXXII 390, 391) ; 2 f b : Kafiaaapir) occurs 
 lin Latysch. II 191,5; note: pdOpaKos is the form in the modern dialect of 
 Amorgos. 154 (§ 150): cf. p. 265, § 295, III A and appendix; end : Hrd. 
 Sg has rSvdpv^e (as Babrios 973), but Tov9opv(<i} 6-,, 777- Cf. Lobeck's Phrynichus 
 J358. 155 (§ 153): verbs that have u in Homer usually do not protract 
 |the vowel in the later literature, e.g. (pvco <.*(pv}ai, in Mimn. 2j, Archil. 42, 
 jTheog. 1164, Sim. Keos 85^ (Sim. Amorg. ?), Empedokl. 70, 154, 202 (but (po 
 iin Solon 435, Theog. 537, 11 34, Empedokl. 66), QveffKe Hippon. 37.2, fipvovTa 
 Anakr. 652. On the other hand for 0w <i*(rmw, we find vrj Hrd. 'j^^/TdSes 
 12 486, v€t6s Nikand. Ther. 273. Cf. tttvw in Apoll. Rhod. II 570, IV 925, 
 Theokr. VI 39, jVxuo) in Babrios 195 (as Pindar frag. 61) with five cases of 
 iffxva ; 6 f b. : Hippokr. has pv(p- V 370, 374, 386, po(p- II 306, 456, VII 60, 
 &c. 156 1 7 f b. : after Greek word, add except in the case of ^fivav p. ijj. 
 il57 : before § 156 insert KiJSiAAa Hrd. 541, so, a word showing the shortening 
 [of the radical vowel that occurs in proper names. 162 15 : aivaov 
 j(MSS. aivvaov) Herakl. 111 (not III). 163 18: ifiw-ns occurs in Aret. 54; 
 i(§ 162, 2): eVdpTj Teos 156 B 30, 36, Chios 174 C 11, Mylasa 248 A 12, B 12, 
 C 15, (Trdpda-eai Chios 174 C 9, UoXvdp-nros Thasos 723, "Apr^ros, a Chian, Ross 
 llnscr. ined. II 147, a Samian, Dittenb. Syll. 396.3 (bufAparoj Erythr. 206 B 44), 
 t'Ap^rr) Olbia, Bechtel 133, Ar]/xdpriTos Hdt., Pelos 56, Styra iQiso, AvKdprjros Hdt. 
 ;Hrd. 54t has Ka.T-i]py]Tos, which Brugmann (in Meister's Herodas p. 876) 
 
624 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 explains as derived from ap?j on the principle referred to in § 165, note. 
 The final o of Attic apd is difficult. It may be mentioned that Schulze 
 Q. E. 90 derives it from *apafd. See Danielsson Epigraphica p. 41. 164 
 
 footnote 3 : in regarding the a of Attic koAtj as long, I have followed L. & S. ; 
 but whence they derive their authority for this quantity I do not know. 
 From the ancient gi-ammarians we learn merely that the Attic form is KaAij. 
 The congener is haull rupture (as in Hippokr.) found in the Older Edda. 
 Ka\r) might be regarded as KafeK-, Ki]Ky) as KafK-. If /caA.17 has a, it is from 
 Kaf\: Hesychios does not refer KaKa^ui or KaKafia to any dialect. 165 4: 
 Ka,\6s is found on a Delian inscription (53i) and in Herodas 7n5- To the 
 occurrences of Ka.x6s in Herodas, add 1,54. The word always has its initial 
 syllable in the arsis of the second foot, except in 7,1,. Kallimachos has 
 14 cases of Ka.\6s, 8 of /cdAo's, Bion 5 and 11 respectively; 7 f. b. : yxdiraa. 
 ■<Cy\ax!a, is the correct form, and is reported by Et. Mag. 55850. Homer, 1 
 Hdt., Hippokr., Miletos 10O5, Aischrion ig &c. have the common form 
 y\a>(T(ra. With yAacrcra, of. yxdcracou' fioopSs, avovararos, in Zonaras 439. Has 
 Kapis, Ananios 52, its ap from apf ? dKo\ovdi](Tas Hij^jjonax 55 B has an, 
 d that I cannot explain, if the reading is correct. 168 lof. b. : for not' 
 read may he, and cf. aj^pendix to p. 163. 169 13 : cf. ira/j.irriffla Ekkles. 868. 
 170 2 : in later Greek 177; was regarded as cacophonous. Cf. a-n^iC^ix7)v for. 
 rjr/S-, Hdn. II 78722. Schmidt K. Z. XXV 23 supposes an inflection aierl 
 whence 7]rip, rjepa, and dmros or avros whence Homeric avpt). Schulze Q. E. 6'j 
 thinks d^p is due to a like contamination as that which produced if/ap, yf/apos 
 from ^-fjp, \pa.p6s (cf. K. Z. XXV 20); but on p. 27 he can give no reason for 
 the retention of the d in drjp and in Horn. Si/o-drjs. Hesychios has ^pa' rh 
 depa, an Ionic gloss ; 3 f. b. : analogy with fiaffiXeos would better serve! 
 to explain ve6s = veus. 174 note i : aireiprjs Papyr. du Louvre 69 C 7, C. I. G.j 
 3132, 3615, 5050, Arch. Zeit. XXXVII 136, no. 269, Papers Amer. School li. 
 no. 33, 7, ^fKTovpris edict of Diocl. J. H. S. XI 317. 175 23 : Kiihner-Blass' 
 cite dreXer^v from Eretria, 'Ecpri/n. dpx- 1S90, 196 ff. ; 30 : the Teian inscriptioc 
 may date before 350 b. c. 176 4 : Hrd. 455 has ^7^??, not vydr) as stated,; 
 with an anapaest in the fifth foot. In 45 'Ty ila is possible. In 455 Meistei 
 reads vyt(a\ a form found in Kos 345,6 (Paton and Hicks). The jmssagt 
 is however quite uncertain (perhaps 1^71^ = vyLe(i)ri). The form vyfr; is fron' 
 vyitrj rather than from iiydri as stated. 177 1 (cf. p. 200, 4 f. b.) : Schulz* 
 
 Q. E. 489 calls attention to the fact that the penult of Attic lepeia is neveil 
 long beyond doubt, and i^roposes to read lepdd for -td. With hprj, cf. MeWieprj 
 irapiepf);?) rtutarch {an sent 24); 6 : for Hdt. read Ionic. 179 7 : irp-qv/xfuri 
 Kaibel 6184,, (late). Pausan. VII 18, 5 even gives Jlpevyevris as the name oj 
 the father of the ancient Agenor, and on a late Spartan inscription (C. I. G, 
 1253) we find npevK\r]Tia. 180 15 f. b. : dele AlyivriTai. 181 10 f. b. 
 
 read I7 for gg. 185 20: Jaos or rather ia-cros, in Homer is from *fir(rfo 
 
 (cf. § 395)) which contains the weak stem of fe7Sos, feiSo/xat. Cf. Bechte' 
 Philol. Anzeiger 18S6, p. 15, Brugmann Grundriss II p. xiii. The objection ti' 
 the old explanation from ficrfos, a form preserved in Kretan, is that media. 
 af does not become aa^ff). Schulze Q. E. 88 asserts that when af foUowj 
 the accent, it becomes o-(r((r), but when the accent follows, erf disappear' 
 with lengthening of the preceding vowel (fo's- fi"om *l(rf6s, ya.6s from va.af6s , 
 but both forms may have had originally a long radical vowel). This lav; 
 is not borne out by the facts, and Schulze himself {\>. 55) regards *iffa.l' 
 as the descendant of *i(rfaSe. Homer uses Icros (^traos) in the arsis only. 
 
App. I.] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS: PP. 1 64-1 99. 62.5 
 
 except in a single instance (n 607). Et. M. 477,0 says : eSp-nrai rb i fiaKphv Kal 
 Ppaxv' ■"■"pa y"*" "TV troiTiTri ad fjLaKphv, Trapa de tois ■Ke^o\6yois 0paxv. Kal Trap^ 
 To7s iiroTTOiois evpTjrai Kal (rvvfffTaXjXfvov cos Trapa KaAAi^axy. Tapo Se roh 
 \ rpayiKols Kal koi/xikoTs a-vcrriWerai ael ro i. Kara Se la/uL^iKovs ^Traf/.(t>oTepi(ii. 
 \ Hesiod has taos W. D. 752, Theognis in 678, Kallimachos "(a-os and la-os, cacli four 
 1 times, Theokritos both. In Babrios we find Jaos once (i5ii\ iffos 35^ 67 
 I and [10616]. In Herodas the word occurs four times, but of these 2^5 is the 
 only passage showing the quantity. Here the original reading ipSs /xh ta-uis 
 was changed by the copyist, who inserted <tv before yueV. The recent editors 
 of Herodotos accept 1[(tos, except Holder, whose Tffos is not well supported 
 in the MSS.; 25 : 'Ep/xfas occurs in a verse attributed to Hipponax by Suidas 
 I (Bergk II 362). It is however not certain that the verse is a choliambic ; 
 I8f. b. : Hrd. has only ytpo/j.ai (I27. 735) I 2), Babrios only yivdaKu, yivoixai. 
 II86 7 : Homer has $paxTcov N 532, the Aithiopis frag. 32 KvStoya, Theog. kiikIov 
 j8ii, 1175, Sim. Keos epigr. 1423 KaWlov, Babrios 567 KaWtcvv. See Schulze 
 Q. E. 300 ; 8 : ^wfere has the i of fie/xai (§ 699). In Ananios 5 the tetrameter 
 ends, according to the MSS., in v. 3 with Kpeas, v. 4 with iaeUtu, v. 5 with 
 I KoKonreKoov, for which are substituted KpeTos and a\ooTri]Kwv. 187 (§ 199) : see 
 on p. 155 above ; last line : add v by crasis, as in xi"ro5r;/iOTa>i/ Hrd. 7^; 4 f. b. : 
 KKvdi, which occurs in Archil. 75, Anakr. 76, Empedokl. 75, Theog. 4, 13, 
 is the Homeric form. In the epos its place is always at the beginning of 
 the verse. Solon 132 makes use of the epic KXvre, but post-Homeric Ionic 
 refrains from employing the form. Whatever the explanation of kaDte, kKvGl 
 must be held to represent a pre-Hellenic contamination of *KXfvdi and *K\v9t, 
 and not a naetrical licence. kAvcc occurs in Phoinix of Kolophon 2^, at the 
 end of the choliambic, and Eudokia, whose metrical sins are many, counten- 
 ances the same quantity in II 323. For kXvu in Phoinix, 'kovoo has been 
 suggested by Schulze Q. E. 332, who has treated in full the verbs in -So;. 
 188 I : Schulze Q. E. 5 derives opcroBvpri from -dvpia. opaoeipr} has no suffix. 
 Cf. irX.-qfj./j.vpis by the side of irXijix^ijpa <l.-vpia ; 3 : ctkvKos is correct ; cf. (tkvKov 
 and ffKvKos ; 14 : ©eoScoT^s Thasos 77 A 8 may be correct. Cf. @^oZwras in 
 Keil's An. epigr. et onom. 106 ; (§ 201) : the stem irKef in Homer and Hdt. 
 belongs to the present, irXwf to the aorist and perfect ; 7 f. b. : read QHkos. 
 OuKos is from 06faKos, which maybe read in Homer j3 14, e 3, o 46S. 190 12 : 
 for six read nine. For a discussion of ovv S>v, see § 716. 192 11 : Hrd. Sc, 
 has 'AxcttKcts in agreement with Simonides' ' hxai-ns . Meister would even 
 read 'Axai'ij, -aCKos in Hdt. (cf. F.vI3oik6s). 193 16 f. b. : vaTou is not an 
 example in point. When an apparent diphthong is formed by the glide 
 iota, a long syllable is not the result. ^aUvvov is u — , Vlaix(pair]s - u - &c. 
 vdii) is from *vafiw, of which vafw is a by-form. Cf. KXaita and KKaoo. Schulze 
 Q. E. 51. 195 19 : for 609 read 608 ; 1. 22 : cf. § 517. 197 8 : artXer^v 
 Eretria 'E^rj^. apx- 1890, p. 196 ff. Sw/cporea is the name of a Parian woman, 
 Kaibel 2184 (second century a. d.). 198 : Spi/xea is not used liy Hdt. 
 
 Insert iBeTav Hrd. 553, TrXanlav Hrd. 653. With TpaxTjar, cf. yXvKrjau Hrd. 42, 
 'Hdfiav Delos, B. C. H. VI 338, no. 41, irax'^a Sappho 55, o^rja, $ap7Jai Ahrens 
 II 163, raxrjos An. Ox. I 34I33, iroXiTrjav § 232. 199 5 : if it can be proved 
 
 that the feminine follows the inflection of the masculine, the exception 
 TaxfSiv vanishes, and a change is necessary in the statement made in § 124. 
 In Longinos Trepl v\povs 32, 3 epacriwv has support. Cf. Diels Bus dritte Buck 
 f. aristotelischen Ehetorik 26, and Usener Index led. Bonn. 1880-81, viii. Meister 
 \Herodas 826 thinks that the -ea forms for -eta are due to a confusion 
 
 S S 
 
 I 
 
626 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 with the masculine which took its rise from such collocations as ei)\ea 'I-kttov. 
 Greg. Kor. p. 440 quotes as Ionic rwv 6T)\iwv 'Inirtav fj-iau ; 19 : for 13 read 14; 
 Hrd. 385 has irAe'o ; 10 f. b. : 'AfxaXdiri may be treated like an abstract noun 
 in -IT), whereas 'A^aAfleiTjs is comparable to -etTj. -eia. Cf. irpofxT^Oir) and 
 vpofXTjOeir). Babrios has 'AyuaA0€i7js loSj,, a\r]6fia, -eiTjs, but 'KKfiOitjv 1262 which 
 may be added to the list on p. 196. An instance of the disapjiearance of j is 
 KAeovs Hrd. 3;,., fi'om *K\efiui; i f. b. : Hippokr. has reAet- e.g. II 124, 306. 
 200 I : read 345 ; 11 and 17: on (xovvoyivi-qv, a8e\(pe6s see add. to p. 235 ; 14 
 f. b. : with eiiixaper) cf. areXerj, add. p. 175; 3 f. b.: read TlavaKri and cf. 
 B. P. W. 1892, p. 1411. 201 (§ 220): add veiis Samos, Mitth. VII 367 fif., 
 
 ilav Teos, Mitth. XVI 292, 1. 19, lasos, Greek Inscript. in the British Museum III i 
 no. 440, 2, 3. Hellanikos 39 has @ftofj.evriTa, whose ei may be epic as the 
 numerous examples of dtio- in Alexandrian literature and in Kaibel's Epi- 
 grammata. This 6eto- is different from dei6v cited from the inscription from 
 Priene, in that the initial syllable is long; 13 f. b. : ^aaiXeioiv Septem 820 
 in M contains an example of the glide iota ; so also eiwcre = ecocre in Hesychioa. 
 
 202 I : f^apos may be an imitation of feiapov6s, whose €j is certainly due 
 to the ictus. It is found in the Anakreontea 42^, Babrios 13I5. eiap blood 
 stands for ^ap < esar, as Beiofiev for d'fio/j.ev. The Kyprian form is eap, whose 
 € is from tj. elpeffirj, which in Homer is due to metrical licence, appears 
 in Hdt. I 203, II II, IV no and even in Thuk. VII 14. An analogous case 
 is areiKaiSs Hipijokr. Ill 444, VIII 216 with the ei of Homeric trreiAej^. 
 I know of no etymology which will render the ei of these words a spurious 
 diphthong due to compensatory lengthening. Babrios [14I1] has crTe\ti. 
 
 203 6 f. b. : ^flvos Hrd. 233, 94. Names in ^eiv, partly through influence of 
 the epic, have extended their range to dialects, to which the spurious ei 
 is not native. Cf. Attic s,evoK\rjs HeiViSos, Rhodian Eeivios, EetvidSas, KaWi^eivos, 
 and "EfLvcti in an inscription from Kar^jathos. Tlp6^(vos EeividSov occurs on 
 an inscription found near Kyzikos, B. C. H. XII 1S9, 18. 204 16 : read 
 'S.revvKKapos, which, like arevvypSs, is formed from o-rej/ + the suffix v. The 
 spirant f does not pass into v in such positions as arevf + consonant ; 
 20 : after ouVe/co, insert Sfc. ; footnote i : add Pseudo-Plutarch Life of Homei 
 1075 B (where jxiiKav is wrongly added, the i being due to the ictus in 
 IxelAavi 0, 79). 205 4: etpiou Hrd. 813 but epiov 6t2. Theokritos too has 
 both forms. Hdt. has elpiveos. 208 10 : on the second ei of EtAetflui'iji, and 
 on Eldvfiaxos, see now § 392. The first ei of ElXeiOviriL is borrowed fron;' 
 Homer, where it is the result of the same metrical production as thai 
 appearing i#i el\7]\ov9a. ElXeLduirn occurs again in Delos, B. C. R. 1890, 399. 
 209 18 f. b. : read before e, rj, et. This e appears as i e.g. in Herakleiac; 
 f^(i:6'Cov, Boiot. -Ko'CSixevos ; 9 f. b. : Anakr. 60 may be read TroiTjo-eis. Hrd. has 
 iroevcra in 6y„, and ten cases of Trot-. Babrios 26^, 12915 has i\\6ri(re, but T)\ok 
 98)5, a\oL7](ras 12213. Schulze Q. E. 52 distinguishes aKoidcD strike from dAoioo 
 thresh, the latter verb often losing its i in Attic. 210 4 : Hippokr. II 36. 
 has fioffi ; 16 : the existence of such doublets as ttvot] <i:vopa and irvoia, irvoi 
 <.TTvofid might tend to produce the inconsistency we observe between vol) 
 &c. and x^^'ty <p66r}. It is not clear why Plato (I 652 Kock) should adopi 
 an Ionic cp06r]. Perhaps, as in the case of x^o'rj, the Attic dialect lost th<i 
 intervocalic _( before the law of the Attic a came into existence. 211 11 f. b. 
 cf. Schulze Q. E. 29. 215 6 f. b. : we should write Aj/aA«oj, AetaA/coy ii 
 order to reach Aea\Kos. 218 6: KareiTret Chios, B. P. W. i88q, 11945 
 Cf. Stolz 1. F. II 154, Biicheler R, M. XLI 119 ; last line : optaKoos -^-(eoi 
 
App. I.] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS : rr. 200-227. 627 
 
 Archil, in Lexicon Messan. R. M. XLVII 409. 219 i : avrm, ovto?, to? 8^/toj 
 occur in two early Eretrian inscriptions C'E(^r),u. apx- 1890, 196, 200); 10: 
 I Hekat. 353 has Krjv^ and so Babrios 1152, but Lykophron Alex, has koutjI 425, 
 741, 789. 220 last line : Kveoaa Kos, Paton and Hicks 3757, f,, . 221 5 : 
 
 tepe6s and EoiraOlSTjs (not on coins) belong in § 246, 2 (fourth century) ; 7 f. b. : 
 cf. aypvirvevovTo. {sic) v.l. Theog. 471, 4Tro\fv6fj.riv Babrios 1281,, I29._,3, eopvpev6- 
 fjLfVov v.l. Hippokr. IX 360, <Ta\€Vjj.4vr] conj. Archil. 102 for -euo/icVrj. 222 9 : 
 
 Hipponax Kiveiv (u-) in the Anecdota Graeca of Studemund and Schoell p. 45. 
 If in (ra\ev/j.evri, Archil. X02, evo became eo and then ev, we have the most 
 advanced stage of the process. Photios cites ffaXew, the denominative from 
 (ToAos, and from it the form in Archil, may possibly be derived. 223 1 3 : 
 \X\TpovQii)s Styra, I. G. A. 372, 355, from (rrpovQSs Samos 22O33. 224 9 : cf. 
 § 716 ; 10 f. b. : cf. K0Dvofia(TT6v in Phoinix of Kolophon in. 225 2 : 0REH2 
 on an archaic inscription from Amorgos, B. C. H. XII 23^1, no. 9, does not 
 settle the difficulty as regards the ov of olpos. So far as the evidence in Ionic 
 is concerned, there is only one form in ov (eV ovpecri Simon. Amorg. 141) that 
 may not be referred with certainty to the influence of the epos, where ovpos 
 may be ascribed to ictus lengthening. If 6pos is the Ionic prose form, then 
 the passage in Simonides must be epic too, and one of the rare epic reminis- 
 cences in trimeter, iv ovpecrt occurs also in Sappho 94 (hexameter), where 
 oppeffi may be correct, and in Pindar Pyth. VI 21. Outside of Ionic, all 
 [that makes for the loss of a spirant after p is S>pos, whose appearance in 
 jTheokritos and Kallimachos, Ahrens II 162 regards as hyper-Doric (secundum 
 \analogiam a poeta fictum). However this may be, 'n,pei9vta is not an Alexandrian 
 ifigment. 'Opei- or Ovpei- do not occur, so the word remains a puzzle. TreVpos 
 opeias in Hipponax is of course the proj^er form if opos was used in prose. The 
 iphrase recurs in Euripides' Hek. mo. Hdt. has opfivSs I no in all MSS. 
 ■ovpos in Hdt. is never supported by MS. consensus, and is never found 
 in AB, rarely in Rs, very often in s alone; 22 : ovpoi refjLfvovs (sic) lasos, 
 MiUh. XIV 108, no. 61, ovpos Theog. 826, Theokr. XXV 27, opos Hrd. 253. 
 The old Ki'etan form is S>povs Mon. Ant. I 50. ovpeia, ovpevwvTi probably belong 
 to fopdoi. The asper in Attic opos is due to the influence of the article ; 
 9 f. b.: read all MSS. AovpiSos is the name of a Samian in C. Curtius' Samische 
 )Inschriften no. 13 ; 3 f. b. : insert 'AnaTovpia (addition to p. 70). 226 8 f. b. : 
 
 por 'we look . . . form' read : Hdt. has no case of oii\os in the MSS., always 
 \o\os e.g. II 126, IV 64. 6A[o](rx6p'^e'al Keos 437 may be Ionic as the inscrip- 
 ition contains scai'cely a trace of Atticism ; but oXo^x^P'hs in Hippokr. IX 106 
 tieed not be Ionic. A difference between Herakleitos and Herodotos in 
 respect of the form of the word would be highly remarkable. Skt. sdrvas 
 should be represented in Ionic by oSaoj only. The scholiast on Nikander's 
 Ther. 377 reports that Herodas used ovXri in the verse ovXrj kolt idv ^ary)piri 
 mXtnlrp (read Kj/ai/.j)\ The papyrus (Class. Rev. V 481, frag. 83) has oAtji at the 
 beginning of this verse. In the other passages where the word occurs (3,^, 
 5i2, 67) and the papyrus has o\os, the ou-form would suit the metre equally 
 pvell. Aratos 717 has oSaos, but Theokritos and Kallimachos make use of 
 i\os only; i7f. a: in epic parody Epicharmos may use Ionic vocalism, 
 '..g. Hea xav^s KaXeKTopiSoov irirerivtiov Lor. p. 2S0 (no. 73), and iv ireVre Kpirav 
 yoivaa-i Kelrai according to Ahrens (no. 161 c), whereas Lorenz thinks yovvaai 
 •^ceirai does not belong to the fragment ; cf. also Lor. p. 253 no. 2 (= Ahrens 
 1^8) and pp. 1 34 ff. 227 10 : read 78 B 6 for 78 B 1 1 ; 9 f. b. : novKvriwu may 
 pe due to the influence of the epic names in nouAu- which have choriambic 
 
 S S 2 
 
628 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 measure. Examples of names in prose whose forms are due to epic authority 
 are : TleipiOoos, Teipffflas, Elpecriov, ElKaritvv, 'ElK^iOvia. Latin jwJypos inclines 
 us to believe that ttovKvttos is a folk's etymology. 228 15 f b. : the Samian 
 oSoC is the Attic form of the Ionic ovZov threshold (Hdt. I 90), not from 
 o^6s way. ovS6s thieshold was adopted by the Koivfi (Jahrhilcher, SiqipJ. XVI 799, 
 Heliodoros Aithiop. I 29, II 3, scholiast Old. Kol. 163, 192). In the Ion 
 of Plato 535 B, an epic passage, we find ov56v ; and in Aristotle's Metaph. H 
 chap. 2, 3 this form of the word occurs. The etymology of ovSas is uncertain. 
 Hdt. Ill 14 borrows the epic phrase girl y-fjpaos oiiScji, as does Plato in the 
 Eepublic 328 E : but the Attic form is oSij) (Menander IV 264, Lykurgos Leokr. 
 § 40, Hyperides XX (XIX) 14) where we find eVl yrtpws o5^. TrpoffovSiCca in 
 Hdt. V 92 (7) and the Hesychian w56v also point to a form derived from 
 oSf; i. e. a spurious diphthong oy, not an ov lengthened to suit the metre. 
 See Schulze Q. E. 114, 517. The etymology of vovcros (Old Norse snauSr) 
 mentioned is that of Bezzenberger G. G. A. 1S87, p. 419. 230 11 : in § 565, 
 2 the wv forms are shown to have come from the dat. 233 14 : examples 
 of tmesis (Greg. Kor. 446, Vat. 699) are : avh yap hv o\oito rh vyies Melissos 13, 
 Hdt. II 39, 40, 47, 87 (with Siv), Archil. 9, 70, Hipponax 32, 61, Simon. Amorg. 
 26, Anakr. 501, 58, 72, 80, Hrd. 35, ig, 55, 4,8, 29, 49, 93, 7uf Cf. Meister 
 Herodas p. 678 ; 16 : cf. footnote 2 p. 463 and Schulze Q. E. 443. 234 3 : 
 
 7)x^fVTa &c. are from -ijevTa. In UfpiKXets, ee is from efe and hence open, 
 as in (See, cf § 637, 2. efe is contracted in elpedrji', § 634, 5 ; 4 f. b. : hiatus 
 is allowed in the case of /irjSe eV Hrd. I73 and ovSe eTs I^s. Aphaeresis occurs 
 in SeT'vSov 7, .,9. 235 I : ver^v Hrd. Class. Bev. V 481 frag. 5j, ve7)vi(TK0i i.g ; 
 
 5 : Upr\ § 219, 9 and appendix to p. 177. On erj-ya &c. see § 582 ; 12 : KfpSa\ea 
 is the proper Attic form ; cf. ved from vefd. The loss of f between vowels 
 in Attic (except when o precedes^ is older than the change of ?j to d (or d to t} 
 and then back again to a), whereas the loss of the spirant after liquids (KSprf) 
 is later than this change. See Solmsen K. Z. XXXII 519, 520, who there 
 treats of a5e\(l>f6s. Adjectives in -aXfos lost f not i (§§ 2S7, 3. 311); 15: 
 aSeXfperj Hijipokr. V 94 ; 13 f. b. : read yfvrjs Hrd. 2i, 4^^, yej/?! 23.3. It would 
 seem to follow from Kretan yovedv (Museo Ital. Ill 736, 1. 3-4) that this word 
 as well as yeufd has lost p not ,(. 236 4 : 'Per; may be for *'Pr)7j <*'P7jd. 
 'Peij) occurs in Babrios 1379. 237 3 : synizesis afxapreTr) Hrd. ^g- . 2389 : 
 
 synizesis in rpirii/ji-fipri Hrd. 60,, cf. 3,4. 239 14: the examples of -ovxos 
 are from -{ff)oxos, not from -(/^)oxos ; 25 : StTr\6ov Hrd. 254 but SnrXovu 245. 
 6p€ffKoos <-6jos in Archil., R. M. XLVII 406 (Lex. Messan.^l ; 11 f. b. : synizesis 
 in fiiov ovi\(ns Hl-d. 73^. 240 17 : synizesis xp{^]'^ ''"'"* Hrd. 55. 242 19 f. b.: 
 the occurrences of the crasis of a + e = rj in Herodas may, it is true, be Doric, 
 so far as the laws of crasis go ; but the mixture of a + e to tj in later literature 
 is so frequent as to render it improbable that we have here to deal with 
 a special loan from the Doric of Kos. Krjpav is found in Phoinix 2j„ , Krjv 
 in the Anthology over twenty times, and Krjycl), Krjiri and ktj^ are not infre- 
 quent. KT]irfjj.v(r' occurs in Kallimachos epigr. 41, kt/v in Kaibel 559-,, Kr]Tr6deou 
 55O4, &c. Schulze Q. E. 472 proposes to refer this form of crasis to the late 
 pronunciation of Kai as ke. Meister {Herodas p. 788) prefers to regard the 
 crasis as comparable to that which lengthens the initial vowel of the 
 following word (x"^"''^) o.pa § 7i6\ and compares Krijxe. kt)v in Aiolic. But in 
 Herodas rh + e- results in ra-, never in ttj- ; 18: with Anakr. 83, cf yap at 
 'Ecpeffiov Hrd. 47,; 16: read Key 77)1 Key BaXda-crrji 1. 6, but Ka/xoi 1. 17. The 
 elision of ai takes place only before two consonants in this ancient papyrus 
 
App. I.] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS : PP. 2:^8-254. 629 
 
 (cf. Meister 789). 243 6 f. b. : the reference § 182 belongs after in 1. 8. 
 Homeric Sa'iSaiv SatSas may be derived from the old nom. dafis, or they 
 arise from Sa{i)i-, since au may become dt or di, ct. In no. 193 Bechtel edits 
 'AOrivais K'Ae-qvads in B. C. H. XIII 431, no. 3 (Imbros). 'AQrivas had been 
 possible ; 5 : synizesis TraCcrat iKavai Hrd. 3^1, crasis kitjctco Hrd. 4^, x'AapTj i,;,. 
 244 3 : atSiov occurs in Empedokles 2, where its a is under the ictus, and in 
 Halikarn. 2405 ; 7 : the old inflection of aio) was as follows : present ^afeicroo, 
 whence aw, second aorist ^&f'i(Tov, participle kitSiv. The old present occurs 
 in Hippokr. VIII 354 iiraeUi (so 6 without the accent), the first aorist 
 {Tjffio-a) may be sought in firfja-e [,c{. § 703 end), or this form may be derived 
 from the later present atw {aoo) which is found in Hippokr. VII 120. eirdico 
 in Attic is lengthened from iirao) under the influence of a'ico in Homer ; 
 12 : read 'AxaiKcis (sc. weSas); 19 f. b. : Demokr. 137 has ffoo^poviovcri, Herakl. 
 106, 107 awcppoviiv. That f was the intervening spirant is now certain from 
 Kyprian 'S,afoK\4f-r)s. Contraction probably ensued when neither a. nor 
 o was accented, as in crco<ppove7v (cf. aeiVcos). The w of craxppojv is borrowed 
 from ffoKppoveTu or ffo>^p6va>v. Spitzer Lautlehre des Arkadischen 43 regards aaif- 
 as the strong form of ffaf-, and the numerous names in Sco- as formed 
 directly from the former. It may be noted that Lykophron Alex. 679 has 
 aadxrei; 15: Boiotian Qiawpiav (Oropos, 'Ecprin. apx- 1S92, 33 no. 62) shows 
 that drifafoopSs is the ground-form of Ionic deoopos, 0evp6s and Doric 0ea.p6s. 
 0vpwp6s in Hdt. I 120 is from 6vpafwp6s (Horn. evpa(iip6s). Hdt. Ill 72, 156 
 has {v. I.) irv\oip6s = 'ilom.. irv\aoop6s (§ 279). Kiihner-Blass II 58S (.on p. 326) 
 erroneously think that -ovp6s is the second part of the compound (jruXaovpos 
 v.l. XI 681) and that the co is due to assimilation. Hesychian irvAevpSs may 
 be from irvXriccpSs, TrvXavpSs from irv\a.ccp6s or •op6s. 245 11 f. b. : xvpf^i^^V^ 
 Hrd. 2g^= Kal + d + 'Hp-. 246 17 f. b. : AeavaKros and Aed5T]s are derived 
 
 from Ar){Fo)fa- ; 6 : Hippokr. has aAi/roetSiis V 720 from a\efa- (cf. Hesych. 
 &K7)rov' aKevpov). 'Hyrivai, appears in Smyrna 1 5 313 (cf. 'Ayriva^ Kos 49). 
 Hrd. 623 has yKvKta<!. 24:7 20: on eV5ea, see §§ 5333, 5363; last line: cf. 
 
 § 716. 248 3 : dele the sentence and cf. p. 567 footnote ; 17 : for 453 read 
 454. 249 3 : Hrd. employs synizesis in ^ 'ApraKT)vi] 792, aphaeresis in 
 
 ^Stj '(pafxapre7s 543 (cf. avrij a.Tr6 64, ^ atrrSs 2,) ; 22 : Qpe'iacra Hrd. I79 is from 
 &p7ii<T<Ta. 250 i6 f. b. : add eVfjcre p. 58S ; 5 : Hrd. 6^7 has KKilcrov, Hippokr. 
 KArjift) and /cAeio). 251 9: Hrd. 759 has priSius, Hdt. II 121(0)^771-. For 
 p-t)arwvi) we must read p-r)i- or pri- ; 20 : Hrd. has tt) iUri 537 by synizesis. 
 253 14 f. b. : KXeo^wvTos Thasos 78 B 12, /cAe'os Hrd. in Class. Eev. V 481, 
 frag. 61. 254 8 : 0eop6s Pares, Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterreich XI 187, no. 2 
 (cf. Mim. aus Athen XV 75). The latest attempt at explaining the inter- 
 relation of €0, €v, eu in Ionic is that of Schulze Q. E. 145, who sees in these 
 forms nothing but differences of orthography. Schulze would even read 
 AecDo-e/Seo Chios 1 773 and not -eo[s], though no other instance of -eo for -en 
 in the genitive is known. In Eretria 16 C 43 we find 'Apx^^^os (cf. the 
 epigram attributed to Sophokles : 'Apx^^ecos' -^u yap ffv/x/xfTpop w5e Ktyeiv) 
 whose eo cannot well be very different from the eoi of Aeai(re'|3eo[s]. Parallel 
 with AevTvxiSris for Accotux'Stjs, the form of the name used by Pausanias 
 and other writers for the native Doric AarvxiSas, is Leuchares in Pliny 
 XXXIV 7, 19 = AecoxopTjs Loewy 77-83, and 320-321 (the later artist\ eo 
 appears for €ai<7)o in the first part of compounds outside of Ionic, e. g. Kio<p6pos 
 Hesychios (Aeco- MSS. exlra ord.), apxiepeotrvuri C. I. G. 5001, 5006, veoKopos in 
 Delphi ; cf. no for ew<7jo in 6petoK6fji.os, yuoKSfnos in Hesychios. Confusion 
 
630 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 between and « is very common in Attic inscriptions after 100 b. c. {e.g. 
 AeoviS-ns, Aeovas, AfovrlSos from \fwv^, but Aeovris comes to light as early 
 as 320-1 7 B. c. (C. I. A. II 83562). Other cases of eoi for eo (§ 248, and Bpo/Beaj 
 in § 509, note) are too infrequent or singular to permit us to assume that 
 the dialect adopted either eo or eoi at the pleasure of the writer or speaker. 
 Schulze's explanation of lepecas as an analogue of the forms containing 
 fu = eo = ev is false (§ 477). Outside of the genitive, eu became eo, eu when 
 the accent followed ; and it is more likely that the source of the change 
 is not to be sought, with Bechtel, in the genitive, but in compounds whose 
 eco did not bear the accent ; 21 : in Hrd. 5,5 the verse ends eopr^v e| tofyrrjs, 
 with which cf. Ion frag. 21 Nauck : iviavcriav -yap Sei yue tV ioprrfv Dindorf 
 bprr)v) aynv. Meister would explain bpri) from kopT-r] I'cf. Hdn. II 1852, 56I24) 
 as vo<tj6s from vtoffaos. See appendix to p. 255. 'EopxTj occurs on a late 
 inscription from southern Phrygia, Mitth. XVIII 2c6, no. 2, and kopraiti 
 in Babrios 1323. 255 24 : Meister {Herodas p. 813) proposes to modify the 
 ' law ' of Wackernagel in respect of the contraction or non-contraction 
 of names compounded with Beo- {K. Z. XXIX 138) to the effect that Geo-, 
 when followed by two consonants, became 0o-, provided the accent fell 
 originally neither upon e nor o ; but when the accent falls on o, then ©eo- 
 either remains ©eo- or becomes 0o-. When a single consonant follows, ©eo- 
 remains 0eo- or becomes 0e- (accented). @6kXos Styra i9„„ 5 would, on this 
 view, follow the pattern of 0o«:A.^s C. D. I. 3028, and @oBiwv Styra 19073 might 
 reflect BfoSficev (cf. Hom. eeov5r)s and AioSrjs C. I. A. I 322, 2 where Kirchhoft 
 reads AidSris) ; but KKoSeivos Styra 19221 violates the proposed rule, which 
 is observed, according to Meister, in 'ETOK\e[i]s] Styra 19,5, in opr-fi from foprii, 
 and in voaads from yiocraos. Hdt. has j/eocrcr- II 68, III iii but voffiT- I 159. 
 voffff- occurs also in Panyasis (Kinkel 264, no. 26), Aischylos frag, no, 
 in the Anthol. Pal. IX 346, 2, 567, 2, the Septuagint, and Diodoros II 4, 
 III 69. Kespect for the etjTuology caused the rule of Phrynichos (287 K.) 
 and made possible the retention of veo- where the metre requires vo- {Birds 
 547). Hrd. has vocra-- 620, 22? 33) 757>72> veoffcr- (w -) 749, Babrios i/eocrff- {xj -) 
 881, 1 1 84; 4 f. b.: some MSS. have ©eSyviSos. 257 (§ 288): the fusion of mj- 
 and 66- {uO-) produced vudris Hdt. Ill 53, Babrios 9518, vwepiri Hrd. 453. 
 Cf. odws- Taxf'a'S in Hesychios. 258 18: on Oeoopos see app. to p. 244; 
 27 : on Aewpyd, see § 716, s.v. \eicos (Ae'cus) ; 15 f. b. : other examples of eo; are 
 Aeoi/xeSopTos Hrd. 4^, XeucpSpos Chios 175 as Rhesos 881, aXeccp-f) Hrd. 235, 
 ivvfcopoi 85, raxecs 3u, 7io (second foot: cf. "Jij first, 350, .5u ^^^^ ^oot), 
 whereas r]S4uis ivo^is open ; vewKipcp 4.J0 (cf. addenda to p. 146), yvacpeecs 4^i, 
 ffKvTfwv 7,0, ['05] uo-tr e'ois Class. Rev. V 4S1, frag. 3„, yoviwv Theog. 1330; 
 8 f. b. : Af03Kovp7]v {"i) Hrd. ig, <ATjo-<Ado-. Atjw is a clip-name of Ariix^firvp 
 (Kallim. frag. 48 has ATjcoivri), At/co of Arjidveipa ; 2 f. b. : UocrfiSe&vos B. C. H. 
 XVI 323 Chios (late) ; on the thematic verbs with stems ending in o or i\, 
 which show to, see § 687, i, 2. It is maintained by many scholars that in 
 these verbs ta is the result of the contraction of et»<.t]o. 260 7 : Hrd. has 
 eoi in fVTe\4ais 479, 4trifjLr]deciis 391- Hence we read (racp[f]cos 7,21, and so 
 e'KTej/[e'jCos Vita Hoyyi. 7; 13: OeZv Hrd. 7^1 but Bea>v I30, 475- 261 13: 
 
 Tavpidiv, name of a month in Samos, Kyzikos, and Sinope i^Bisehoif De fastis 
 Ch-aecis 396, 40o\ Hrd. '/gc, has Tavpecoifos ; 17 : to be noted is eoiv as a single 
 syllable in Hrd. 7^9. Meister thinks that ecev in Hrd. is monosyllabic 
 without exception. But the papyrus has only three cases of ecou and in two 
 of these (20,, 575) it is dissyllabic (Meister (re[o]vT^^ and e[a]vT6v) ; 15 i-^-' 
 
^pp. I.] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS: PP. 255-273, 63 1 
 
 laffjwv Babrios 1205; synizesia in tt) ude Hrd. 4^2 ; 4f. b. : Schmidt Neutm 
 ). 147 regards Attic av6a^i)s, instead of avdci5r]s, as evidencing a desire 
 o avoid confusion with the many v^rords ending in -oiSrjs. Other occurrences 
 if -uva^ are : TlvOwva^ Thas. (L.) 10 B 6, 13 A 9, Arch.-epigr. Miith. aus Oesterr. 
 Q 187, no. I, I, riAeio-Taij'al Chios 1776, 'A^pSiva^ Thasos 81 A 5, MrjTpciva^ 
 Jmyrna 153,9, Arifiiiva^ Thas. (L.) 7 B 5, 14 A 6, B 3 (not 143), Moipwua^ 
 ilrythr. B. C. H. Ill 389 (late). 262 13 : ofa = co also in Owkos § 202. ^HvSpos 
 Lrkesine32 is scarcely from cro + avSpos. 263 13 : Hdt. has ^aoypica fourteen 
 imes, Ca>ypli) VI 28, 37. Homer has (wypeoo Z 46, A 131. For elsewhere with 
 'Axented w, read the uncontraded form occurs only when the a is accented ; 17 : Hrd. 4,9 
 las the hiatus S> ci,ya^, a formula restored in Phoinix 1,9 by Crusius Herondae 
 limiambi p. 71 for S> Va| of the manuscripts. 265 10 : cf. § 716 on Xeiais 
 
 \eoos); 21 : Meister Herodas 821 reads -opy- in all the compounds in Hdt. 
 n VFhich the accent does not fall either upon or e, except in the Lakonian 
 .yadoepyoi which I have marked as a possible exception. This -opy- from 
 oepy- he proposes to explain by the principle mentioned in the addenda 
 o p. 255. A thorough investigation of the subject can alone determine 
 he correctness of this theory. Sa/j.tepy6s p. 265 last line Meister would 
 xplain as due to the operation of the same principle. The contraction 
 ■f o + 6 to ov is certain when either vowel bore the accent, e. g. in KaKovpyos. 
 i'rom such forms, -ovpyos may have been transferred to forms where it was 
 lot properly in place, e. g. in Attic a\ovpy6s. Schulze Q. E. 498 has shown 
 hat the Samian a.Kopy6s (mentioned in III A) represents the original form 
 rom -v/rea colour, dye {peC<^, poyevs, Skt. rajyati). That the Samians did not 
 hange a\opy6s to a\ovpy6s is due to the fact that they did not possess the 
 'orm SrifitovpySs. 266 2 : read II A for II B ; 17: for KXeovixiropos we 
 hould read K\e6/j,Tropos, which takes the place of KAee'/^iropos (Wackernagel 
 )ehnungsgeset3 'p. 60) ; 11 f. b. : as no certain case of /u(oi) occurs in Hrd. we 
 ead fxoi 'vevxn 6^^ for ivevxn. In 353 the first foot is ov ffoi €t*. 267 7 : Hdt. 
 las also KaTa^uaS/nevos VI 85 and jSe^ccfjifvos III 39; 12: Hdt. has vivoiKa 
 II 6, ivevu>TO I 77, ivivwvTo VII 2o6, ApoU. Khod. vdaaro IV 1409, Kallim. 
 rag. 345 and Theokritos XXV 263 vwa-a./xevos. The contraction is unknown 
 Plomer in the case of voeca ; vevccrai Soph. frag. 191, vevwvTai in the "S.afj.ioiv 
 poi, perhaps in vufiva-rpa Hrd. 615 (cf. vov^vo-tikSs in comedy). The contrac- 
 ion did not ensue originally when either or tj was accented (Meister 
 lerodas p. 821). Cf. above on p. 263, 13. Contraction also ensued in /cara- 
 ■^Soffai Hrd. 539 according to Brugmann, Indogerm. Forsch. I 501 ff. (t^o may 
 lowever be the ablaut of or^ij. irpuv Hrd. 552, Kallim. choliamb. 84 (§ 297, 
 ) is perhaps from *iTp6y)v <.Tvpdn]v. irp(fy)u is read in Babrios 67, 11 in, 1255, 
 -pw'CvSiv 1241J ; 10 f. b. : synizesis AtikvOov r}fxi<uv Hrd. 321. 268 13 : olwvSs is 
 
 ssimilated from afia>vos {avis), Schmidt ' A'. .Z. XXXII 174; 10 f. b. : cf. the 
 HpoSSrov Ae'leiy, Stein II 456. 270 17 : add Hrd. igj, 812, Kallim. 86. 
 peis occurs in Priene, Inscript. British Museum III i, no. 401, 20. 271 15 : 
 
 hough the ground-form of ip6s is still uncertain, a contraction of i + e 
 o r may be confidently denied. The divorcement of lfp6s from ishirds 
 ittempted by Schulze Q. E. 210 is improbable. 272 21: deiSeii/ Hippokr. 
 
 ^11 124, Hrd. Class. Rev. V 481, 6<, irpoffaeiffdev Hippokr. VI 482. 273 9 : 
 Ird. has ape7T 2ei, &paLS 571, ijeipas 'J^, Anakr. apOeis 19,. Hippokr. has 
 ;eipcoVIII 236 (alp e), 354 (e), aepOeis 122 (ap e\ 124, arpco V 646, VIII 144, 216, 
 :82, 328, 368, ^prat 280, ^p07jj/ II 24, V94, 236 ; Hdt. has in the present aeipai 
 ; 204, II 125, III 144, IV 150, VII loi, 143, 209, VIII 140, oTpco VII 10 (7,), in 
 
6;^2 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I 
 
 ^, 
 
 the imperfect ieipai II 125, VIII 56, atpw IV 130 (?\ VI 133 (?), in the aorist 
 aei> I 87(?),VI 14, 44, I26(?), VII 132, 156, 212, VIII 94, IX 59(?), atpu, 
 I 90 (?), II 162 (?), VI 99, VIII 57, 60, IX 79, 107 in the aorist passive deipco 
 I 165, 170, VII 9(7), IX £;2, aipu I 90, 212, V 81, 91, VI 132, VII 18, 38, 1X49. 
 Sim. Keos iii^ has ijpOriv, Ion 3, a^ipafievos ; 23: for KoepJj read Kaf'pos ; 
 24 : Horn. (paeiv6s belongs after <pdv6s, which is also Ionic (^avSOe/ais, app. 
 p. 285) ; 14 f. b. : [a^Sai eicri synizesis Hrd. 699; 9 f. b. : Hdt. has Kidapcjj56s 
 
 I 23, paipcfSovs V 67, (TwcjiSSv V 92 (7\ xpic'M'J'Secoz/ VII 6 all foreign to the 
 epic. On the other hand the open epic forms occur : a.oi56s I 24, aoiS-fjv I 202, 
 
 II 79, aoi5i/ioy II 79, 135, eTraoiSriv I 132; last line: xoi Hrd. 4, = /cal ot. 
 Cf. Philokt. 565. x**^ is prescribed by Et. M. 816,,,. In Lysistr. 38S the MSS. 
 have x"') t»ut the Lex. Messan., R. M. XLVII 411, cites the verse with x^^- 
 Both forms are possible. 274 14 f. b. : /BouAt) Hrd. 55 is the probable 
 reading ; 12 f. b. : Si(eai is called Ionic for Si'^rjat in the Lex. Messan., R. M. 
 XLVII 408 ; 8 : 4. deal Hrd. 4n, t6 fiev aT/Ma 57 in the second foot. 275 9 f.b. : 
 56 01 Theog. 178, 391, ovSf ol 1376 (cf. § 389); last line : deoys Hrd. 759 but 
 w- in 7,09, KXeoCs Hrd. 392 from K\i{fi)<i. 276 7: Kai fj.fv ovre Hrd. i^g 
 in the first foot. 277 3 : Hrd. 59 has /xavrSv ; 6 f. b. : iyi^fit Hrd. 515 is the 
 better reading as shown by the circumflex over the w in the papyrus ; 5 f. b.: 
 synizesis Ae'yco outtj Hrd. 4^2. 279 9 (after the table): here r is read. 
 282 2 : Srj/j.opiwy Oropos 182s ; 6 f. b. : on TleKapySs, see Johansson SprachkiouU 
 18 ff., whose arguments against the existence of rhotacism in the word seem 
 well founded, whatever be thought of his etymology. 284 19 f.b. : ippos 
 Galen, Lex. Hippokr. is from *'6p(Tos, ovpa from *op(ra. epped-rjv (§ 634, 5) 
 is not properly Ionic, being a contamination of Attic epp-fjOnv and Ionic 
 elpeOriv. [Siajppalvetv Keos 4315 contains pp from ap, whereas the single p of 
 SiapavBrji 1. 1 7 is due to the influence of the uncompounded paivw. Cf. iaop- 
 poiros and Iffiponos. Hrd. 6,8 has eppaxf/e where the metre calls for epai(/e. 
 285 5 f. b. : ^avSde/jiis is the Ionic form, Kyzikos, B. C. H. XIV 535, no. i, 6. 
 That dialects other than Aiolic evinced a fondness for w in names from 
 (pafes- may be inferred from the name of the Grace ^devva, Alkman 105, 
 ^dei/vos Anth. Pal. IV i, 29, C. I. G. 2306 (an Oinean), ^aevvis Pans. X 12, 10, 
 ^aevvd Zosim. II 36, 2. 290 7 f. b. : the representation of I. E. q by 
 K. before a in the pronominal forms has been hei-etofore accepted as the 
 speciflc peculiarity of the Ionic dialect. That Aiolic also employed k is now 
 clear from the occurrence of okul on an archaic inscription {B. P. W. 1892, 
 514). If Aiolic once possessed both forms and gradually displaced that with 
 the guttural, Icjpic may likewise have possessed both. 291 i : read kov, 
 Kov and for Hrd. 3^3 read 350 ; under Skws read Hippokr. II 64, 74, III 242, 
 under 6ko7os dele Hrd. 1^4. 292 : Hippokr. VII 96, 378 has otttj. Hdt. 
 has iroi or wrj in all MSS. V 73. 294 15 : Kiddf occurs also Delos, B. C. H. 
 XIV 480, n. 4 {Kirwuos), Louvre papyri LII 6, LIII i, 11, 15, LIV i, 13, 16, 
 in the Banks' MS. of n, Aegypt. Vrkunden des Berlin. Mus. II 22, 16 0"., Isaiah 
 XXXVI 22, LXI 10 (Buresch Philologus LI 96). Here it is merely a late 
 form, not specially Ionic ; i 2 f. b. : KvOpoiruXai Pollux VII 197 (in C), KvBpoi 
 the Attic festival, C. I. A. Ill 116004 (192-193 a. d.) ; cf. Et. M. 54337. 
 295 II f.b. : ovx'^ is also Homeric. The suflix is -x', cf. Skt. nahi. 296 i : 
 read r for K; 18 : the form from the Behistan inscription does not prove 
 that y is original in 'Ayfidrava. 297 last line : epSoiT? (?) Amorgos, Mitth. 
 XVIII 32, according to Diimmler. This would be the only case of p in 
 a preposition, and before S. 298 6 : avTiyevrjs would seem to be an hyper- 
 
App. I] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS : PP. 274-352. 6;^;^ 
 
 lonism due to the influence of avns. avns occurs also in Hrd. 4„, and 
 is referred to as Homeric by Suidas s.v. aidts ; 8 f. b. : rwed^ui Hrd. 7,03. 
 Kallim. in schol. Ven. A on IX 193 uses Tdfi/xas for "Aea/uas ; cf. Et. Gud. 
 52242. 299 II f. b. : the aspiration of the media in /xridev &c. is due to such 
 collocations as ov6' 01 C. I. A. 11 7892^ (373 B.C.). After 330 b. c. oi/eeis, nrjOels 
 are the regular forms in Attic. The old forms reappear under the empire. 
 Schmidt K. Z. XXXII 372 regards ov0afj.(7 in Epidauros, C. D. I. 3340.22, 
 /i7)daiJ.ws in Korkyra 3206,08, firi6a./x60iv in Aitolia 141O3 as evidencing the 
 original asper, which has been lost in Ionic fj.riSafj.oi &c. 302 7 f. b. : 
 
 yeypaiTpa Priene, Inscrii:it. of the Brit. Mas. Ill i, no. 412, 7. Such expansions 
 cf the aspirates are frequent on Hellenistic documents, e. g. a-vvSiairfcpvKaKxfv, 
 Mylasa, B. C. H. V 102. 308 9 f. b.: Wackernagel R. 31. XLVIII 299 
 
 shows that in Kj'zikos 108 B 4 i/ava-ffov is to be read and that a-ff is expressed 
 by satnpi. vava-ffov occurs in Kos, Mitth. XVI 407,. If a Karian word it is 
 important for § 21. The T of BahaTris is probably not sainpi ; at least sampi 
 is certain only in non-Hellenic words. 309 2 f. b. : whether (d-TrfSov is 
 from Bia-ireSov may be doubted. At all events, Horn. SdirfSou, which occurs 
 in a fragment wrongly attributed to Anakreon (124), is not the equivalent 
 of the intensive Sa- in Sa(t)oiv6s, SdffKios, as is suggested by Curtius Et. 621. 
 SdireSov is StnireSoy, i. e. the level floor of the house, the first part being 
 connected with hufia, Seo-n-Jrrjs, Sdfxap. From the above mentioned meaning 
 was evolved the use as plain, ground. SdweSov in Prometh. 829 is clearly impos- 
 sible, whatever be thought of Choeph. 798. 312 12 f. b. : Kvpa-oi Demokr. 87, 
 sKvpaa Theog. 698, Sim. Keos 120, Pindar Pyth.X 21, repa-r]Tai Hippokr. VIII42 
 from *Tep(T-a--r]Tai. 319 1 9 : that for antevocalic f, v may be used in the Ionic 
 alphabet after it had lost the f follows fi-om TERmN in Knossos, Museo Ital. 
 II 678, col. 2, 1. 5. 8. 322 21 : read 352 ; 25 : read iaffcu and cf. § 716. 
 332 6 : in view of the occurrence of Kardnep 64 times in Hdt., it is better to 
 read Kara than /caret rd. The latter appears in all MSS. IV 162, V 89, VI 54, in 
 all except d (and s) II 99, in all except d VI 89. Kora = KaOd appears in I 208, 
 11 6, 116, III 86, VII 199 (here only = where). Furthermore in all MSS. 
 in IV 201, in all except Psv IV 76, in all except PrY 12, 112. war' a is a v. I. 
 IV 76, 201. Cf p. 454, 3 ; 13 f. b. read Lenis. 333 12 f b. : see Lobeck on 
 Aias 805 for t^Aws, iniros &c. in compounds in literature ; 8 f. b. : i(p' 'la-qi koI 
 dfioiTii Ephesos, Inscript. of the Brit. Mus. Ill 2. 334 15: Herodas has 
 
 iySovffa 69,, iyXvcrai 69,, iv^KeTreis 64,, it/iroKeaii/ 653. In 5,5 Meister edits 
 (TV yle] (jy'tyye ; last line : ro7v fxa^o7v VII 514 (several MSS. the plural), dfj.<po7i' 
 VII 486. 335 16 : aarpaydKai occurs also in the Anthol. VI 3093, cf. 
 
 Didymos schol. on 'V 88, Eust. ad loc, and schol. on 2 551. v xidos is called 
 Ionic by Porphyries Quaest. Horn. 8, p. 229. It occurs in Hrd. 421 (a work 
 in marble), but in 434 6 KiOos = the stone. 337 10 f. b. : 'Epfx^s Hippon. 
 55 B. 340 7 f. b. : the following examples of nouns in -ri occur in Herodas, 
 to which there are in Attic and other dialects parallel forms in -d ; fj.dfi.fj.7i 
 33^, 38, ^repw 7n (Hippokr. V 236), (rfj.T\v 7u9- 3*1 ^5 ■ A^eT^] should be 
 
 read, fiyas in Hippon. and Hrd. is the Attic form, for which fiveas should be 
 substituted. On the inflection of yrj, see Schmidt K. Z. XXXII 349. 346 4 : 
 'AiroWwviSfu, Th. 78 B 10 (HI Century), iVirapxe'" also in Kyzikos, Miifh. XVI 
 141 1. I (under Caligula), 'rffrda-ireo} in the letter of Dareios which is other- 
 wise a late Atticized reproduction of the original {B. C. H. XIII 529, 1. 3). 
 350 f. n. I : this law of hyphaeresis obtains in Homer only (Schmidt\ 
 352 15 : yfvijs Hrd. 2,, 434 ; 19 : yevefis Hdt. Ill 33, 122 ; last line : for Zeleia 
 
 €' 
 
 ^^^^1.^1^"^ 
 
 OF THE 
 
 xtniversitt) 
 
634 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 read Abdera {'Epjxrji). 353 22 : rtl /SouAtjj and re? /SouAei Eretria 'Ecprm. apx- 
 
 1890, 196 (411 B.C.), 200. 354 7: 'Epfifi Anakr. 11I3 epigr., 761/7) Hid. 233. 
 
 357 2 : Swpffjv Hrd. 2,9, vfTiv Class. Rev. V 481, frag. 51. 358 5 : insert Hdt, 
 before IV. Meister Herodas p. 830 conjectures that the nom. was 7oA^. 
 In Hdt. IV 192 d has yaXai. yevtai occurs in Hdt. II 142, yeai in Hrd. ig^; 
 § 445 : d\(A)HOj/ represents -eaiv, not 'tjcov (§ 140, i n.) or -rjov ; see § 289, 2. 
 360 12 f. b. : dele PpovreaiV, 10 f. b. : for ^eo read 55^, and add wopvecov 235, 
 alp(wv6gfi. 361 6 : Hrd. 222 fx.vfcgv'ATTiKwv speaks in favour of the inflection 
 of the feminine adjective like the masculine (cf. p. 363). x"-^'^'^" Tso should 
 however be x^-^^fS" J ^ '• Anakr. 124 has Mova-duv C?) ; 4 f. b. : yeccv Hdt. IV 
 198. 365 (§ 451) : to this section add Solon in Aristotle's 'Ad. iro\. : iroWai- ^ 
 fftv 12^, apiraycucnv 1 23. Herodas rfis i/xfjcri 553 (not e/^Tjcri with the papyrus ■ 
 and § 450, 3), raTcri fi7]\d.v6ai<n III 2 ; fieTprjlais I74 is corrupt (ypyaiai Blass). 
 In 6joo avT^[<Ti] is certain, in 654 ra7s. Hrd. uses -jjs only when it stands 
 in conjunction with -770-1, a rule that will not hold in the early Ionic poets. 
 376 (§ 466) : v6ov Mimn. 59, vovu Mandrokles of Samos in Hdt. IV 88, 
 Hrd. 475, ttAovu Hrd. I40, apyvpew 462,65- 380 (§ 474): add Solon in 
 
 Aristotle's 'Ad. ttoA. : /xerpioKri 53, avOpdiroiaiv Sffois /ult] 12^, KaKolcriv 1 23, 6<p6a\- 
 ixoiffiv 125, Tolffiv 124, Toiff' ivavrloiffiv 124 ; Herodas tojitS' 425, fierdnrois i- Class. 
 Rev. V 481, frag. 25. 383 i : the Koan forms reAecos Paton and Hicks 3751, 
 T€\fCDi 38]4, 15, 42 B 6, TeAecDj/ 40 A 5, may be regarded as lonisms. The 
 native dialect had however the non-Ionic dual (reAeco 392) ; Hrd. 720 has 
 TfXiwv neuter ; 10 : 'AprvaiKew Thasos 78 B 11. 384 4 : Hrd. has Kws 295, 
 Ko>v 42 ; 9 f. b. : read 'l\e(f ; Hrd. has the accus. pi. evKepws in Class. Rev. 
 V 480, frag. I14. To this declension Meister would refer 'AKeVtoj Hrd. 351, 
 (cf. § 428, I A) because the accent is on the papyrus and words in -ews are 
 paroxytona, while clip-names in -tjs are generally perispomena. Exceptions 
 are however very frequent, and there seems to have been no certain tradi- 
 tion in respect of many hypocoristic names. See addenda to jj. 429 and 
 Chandler §§ 59, 60. The difficulties on the score of vocalization have been 
 ignored by Immisch, who {R. M. XLVIII 290 ff.), in attempting to show that 
 the proper form of the name of the author of the 'l\iov ir^pffis was AeVxewS) 
 explains the name as derived from an hyper-Ionic *Aea-x^"'^ <A6(rxa7oj, and 
 in like manner 'AKeVeccs from *'A/c€(r^£os <.'AKeffa1os. But it is only when 
 f, not I, intervened between vowels, that metathesis quantitatis occurs, and all 
 of Immisch's examples of etc <7jio are vicious. 'A/ceo-eus and 'AKe(ra7os are not 
 connected as regards the endings, tlie latter being a development of 'A/cecras, 
 which was fori<ed directly from 'AKea-avSpos (§ 165, note). If by the side of 
 Aeffxaios we have AeVxTj^, by the side of 'AKeacuos we may have 'AKfcrrjs. 
 Though not prepared to pronounce against the incorrectness of AeVxews, 
 there does not seem to me to be any great difficulty in su^jposing that AeVxea' 
 in Proklos is the genitive of Aeo-xT^s. Hdt. often retains the native vocalism 
 (§ 158), so too Thukydides, Xenophon, and Plato (§§ 73, 429, 484); and 
 inscriptions (cf. p. 346 1 show that even in Roman times the -eon of the 
 genitive was retained ; footnote 2 read cf. Wackernagel Philol. Ameiger XVI -jj 
 and place this after p. IV. 387 1 1 f. b. : after -kSKios). add km. 'linroKpdT-qs 
 (peiaios (IV 536). 389 18 : 'A/ceVtos Pares, Mitth. XVIII 172. 391 ,§ 486) : 
 Hrd. has ■k6\ios 2^^, 31 ; in 2^ TroAecos has been corrected to iroAios, thus 
 introducing a certain anapaest in the fifth foot, which at best is very rare. 
 In 231 Tr6Kios brings an anapaest into the fourth foot, which appears beyond 
 doubt in only one other passage (655 , cf. 623). To avoid the metrical difficul- 
 
App. I.] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS : PP. 353-429. 635 
 
 ties and because he makes much of -eos as an Ionic form, Meister recommends 
 the adoption of the form irSAeos in all three passages. His correction of .Toh. 
 Gr. 240, Meerm. 650, where -los is called Ionic, is wide of the mark, though 
 it cannot be denied that the statements of the grammarians (§ 481) are 
 elsewhere obscure in reference to the form of the genitive. ttSxis was one 
 of the first words to show the Kowri inflection in the various dialects, e. g. in 
 Kretan (Cauer 122^, 9, 2o» 127^, h, 13232; to, G. I. G. 2567), Lakonian (Cauer 
 279), Phokian (Koss 81), to cite merely occurrences of the genitive. I find 
 no mention in Meisterhans of [StJaSJo-eos in an Attic inscription from 
 341-40 B. c. (B. C. H. V 364), which, if correct, should be added to the 
 examples of Attic -eos. It is the only example of -eoj in Attic outside of 
 literature. The document in question has OT and n. By 320 b.c. o was 
 written for w in AiovTis, but there is no early instance of -eos for -ecus in an 
 ev stem. 392 9 : in Theog. 1043 ttSx^vs is the vulgate reading, and A has 
 TrJAeais. Ziegier adopts izoKeos. 394 6: o'c is not 6i <oli, but 6t<,o[l)t; 
 
 cf. ol6s (ww) in Mnesimachos III 570 (v. 47) and § 227 ; 19 : we must read 
 ri^A.A.r[s] in Hrd. 157, g^, i.e. the nominative is used for the vocative (cf. I7, 9, ,1) ; 
 vocative forms are Kopirri 6^5, Kvvui 47,; 17 f. b. : Lykophron Alex. 292 has 
 eiraA.|tes. 395 18 f. b. : rpfs Hrd. I40, 621? 72a is probably itacistic, though 
 
 rpcis occurs only once (iso)- C!f. § 571. 398 iS : a.Tr6^rj Hippokr. Ill 298 
 must yield to -|€a or -^vpa. 399 6 : yAviceas Hrd. 623 will avoid the 
 anapaest in the fourth foot ; note : after unvouched for, add to any extent except 
 in Hdt. ; 2 f b. : add § 419 to § 219. 402 6 : Hrd. has yvaip4ces 473. ['05]u(r- 
 ffiws Class. Rev. V 481, frag. 3i6 (« — possible) ; in Lykophron's Alex, we 
 find -r;os, e. (/. inro/crjos 1394, Ki;xp7)os45I ; I2f. b. : o-kut eg Hrd. 672 . 403 23: 
 •yoveav as \_aK]vTiwv Hrd. 770. 405 8 : read 23 ; 14 f. b. : Kallim. has yprtvs 
 epigr. 41, 51 and epigr. incert. 6. 408 1 : 'ApKfo-ovv Oropos, 'E<p7]fi. apx- 
 
 1892, 54 ; 7 : read ireiOci ; 16 f. b. : add xf^'So? Simon. Keos 74. 414 : 
 
 'Epfiocpdufvs Th. 78 B 8. 416 i : epa(Tvd\Kevs Th. 78 B 9. 422 6 : cf. 
 
 avriXea C. I. G. 5172 and such forms as eii/cATjs in Hesychios. eu/cAijs may 
 be either a contraction of the trisyllabic nom. form eu/cA.6r)s (whereas the 
 dissyllabic k\€os resists contraction), or built from evK\ea ^eu/cXee'a by 
 hyphaeresis ; 9: HiKri, iravdiKi] lasos, Mitth. XV 154; 12 f. b. : ATEAE2, 
 Kyzikos 108 B 7, is a copy of the original spelling = areKiis, as Dittenberger 
 Syll. 312 correctly reads. 423 16 f. b. : Hrd. has aKridea. 536, ^ev^ia 535, 752, 
 
 crKe\fa 52, ffKiirea 7^3, X^'^^tS 7n2) ^t^^S Class. Rev. V 481, frag. 61, fieXea frag. 7,1 . 
 Rutherford's [ye]v€a (vcu) 756 is therefore not to be defended, and Tfixv Ai 
 is to be corrected ; 8 : KaTdvrr] Hippokr. Ill 298 is Attic. 424 7 : Saxpi\fwi/ 
 Hrd. 784, xe<Ae£<;j' 34. K€p5eW 737 would be the only case of open ew from 
 an -ea- stem in all post-Homeric Ionic poetry (except Tlpri^irfKeu p. 348). 
 Meister suggests that KepSecov is meant. 429 6 f. b. : clip-names in -Ss 
 in Herodas are :Si(TvjjLfipas 2^e, Btraros 625, si- The latter name has the genitive 
 BiTctSos in Choirob. 4259, BirraSos in Joh. Alex. 850 as in Hdn. (see footnote 2). 
 like variation exists in 'EpfiapovSos, 'Afi/napovros from -ovs, 'Ep/x^Sos, noSrJTos 
 from -Tjs, but it is only in Egyptian inscriptions that the genitive of -as 
 in proper names is -5tos. Schulze R. M. XLVIII 252 suggests that the 
 grammarians derived their knowledge of the genitive Bnaros from Herodas, 
 in whose text BiraSos originally stood. In 6^7 we may read Kav^aT[os]. 
 Hdn. II 6837 (cf. Choirob. 4414, 4632, 136,5, schol. Yen. A on O 302) accepts 
 two inflections of the name Thales : OaATjs, -oO, -tJ, -r^v and 0aA.7)y, -tjtos, -tjtj. 
 
6^6 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 0iA.TjTa. This difference in accent finds a defender in Crusius who reads 
 ©OA.7JS in Hrd. 255, but 0aA7jTos in 253. If the nominative is &a\ris we must 
 accent -tjtos. Other words varying in accent and declension according to 
 the ancients are Mey?)?, 4>a\^y, ^aurjs, Kvris. 430 24 : 'Aprefus (or -els, -is or 
 -eis) Hrd. 687, ,,9, 'Apre/xlv 6si, a woman's name found in Knidos, Krete, 
 Pisidia and Kos. Where tlie name occurs, indications point to its not being 
 native to Greece; so even in Thessaly {MMh. XII 361, no. 151), Atliens 
 {B. C.H. XIII 78). Genitives occur in MrjTpelSos C. I. G. 3141, 30 (Smyrna), 
 Movapxe'iSos Paton-Hicks 185 (Kos), ^iKeTSos B. C. H. VIII 378 (Lydia), &c. 
 Names of women may end either in -is, -"iSos or in -Is, -tdos. Stems in -t5- 
 in Hrd. are Sop/caATSes 319, irvpylSa 715. 434 last line : Hrd. has also fieCova 
 
 487; TjSlova 1 87, ixeCova 75 are sing. In Phoinix we find irAeiora I17 in the 
 MSS, where izKeova (as in 23) is correct. 436 12 : 2002 Styra 19309 > ct23 is 
 
 to be read 2wos as 200N C. I. A. I 369 crwov. Boeckh's Sw^ (Snn) in C. I. G. 
 39 cannot stand. The contracted forni aws is probably non-Homeric : at least 
 all cases of its occurrence (except X 332) readily yield to the substitution 
 aaos or (t6os. The latter is possibly a contamination of ffoif- and aaf-. crSai 
 in Hrd. is either a case of the retention of the early form, or, as seems 
 to me more likely, derived from (Twos as opeaKoos from -ko}{i)os. The forms 
 with ( subscript are neither Ionic nor known to Attic inscriptions. In 
 Babrios 94, A has o-cojjj', Suid. (rwav. In 7^ a^>os is written with no other 
 spelling noted in Eberhard. 440 13 : 5 rtKvov fioi Mr/Tpix^? Hrd. lei may 
 serve as an example of the old possessive use of the pronoun : cf. Orestes 124 
 dj TeKvov fjLoi, Hdt. I 207 TO. fxoi Tra6T)fjiara, and the use of 01 in Hdt. I I, III 3, 
 Trachin. 650. See Wilamowitz Herakks v. 626, Wackernagel /. i^. I 362 ; 7 f . b. : 
 read 735 ; 6 : in I45 there is authority for avQpwirois instead of rjfjulwv, but 
 it is a correction by a later hand. 441 7 : in citing the forms of the 
 pronoun I have almost always followed the MSS., winch do not as a rule 
 differentiate between the emphatic and unemphatie forms. In Anakr. 431, 
 622 Tjtiiv is no doubt unemphatie, as it is in 631, and in all three passages 
 the MSS. have T]jXiv ; but in 43^, 631 the metre requires 7)^lv. Whether we 
 should write ^/uiV, '^ijllv or ftniv cannot be determined, since we have no MS. 
 authority for either accent in the monuments of early post-Homeric Ionic 
 poetry. That the difference between the emphatic and unemphatie forms 
 found expression in a different accentuation in the poetry of Alexandrian 
 times may be inferred from 7}/ieas Hrd. 29 and vjx^s 2e(,, where the papyrus 
 has the proparoxytone. In 1,9 vijav is emphatic and has the perispomenon 
 in the MS. J^have written rifuv, vfjuv in Hrd. in all cases except where the 
 ultima is certainly short. In Babrios 9O4 , 987 , 1 1 34 where Bergk, Eberhard^ 
 and Rutherford edit '^fxiv at the verse end, the Athoan MS. has rjixlv ; so 
 in 26^,, 27,, 33n &c. A has 7]tJia.s. 443 i : for often read 753. 445 12: 
 
 viv is not more frequent than fxiv, which occurs, in addition to the passages 
 stated in 10, in 343 (?), 579 (?), 713. That viv occurs after s or ;' is pure 
 chance. Meister thinks viv was smuggled into the text of Hrd. from tragedy; 
 448 6 f. b. : Hrd. has k^Ivos also in 230, 459 (after T]/xf prj so that 'Keivrj would be 
 possible; cf. SouAr/ Vti 453), iKe7i'os in 259. In 4,6 one case of iKuvos is uncer- 
 tain [hs SfKiTyou 7) epya to eKfifov). 450 last line: for elision read crasis. 
 wvTTJs in Hrd. G^j would be an example of Apollonios' wv, were [IJoji/t^s i 
 not a probable correction. On the origin of the reflexive forms, see now * 
 Wackernagel K. Z. XXXIII 2 ff., Meister Hvrodas 849 ; footnote i : (Ahmis) ] 
 after elision belongs after favru. Apoll. has eavrw. 452 17 : aol avrif \ 
 
App I.] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS : PP. 430-473. 637 
 
 I 108 shovild give way to a-fuvrf. aio r avrov occurs in I 124 (cf. Oid. Kol. 
 141 7), but when avrSs is prefixed we have avr^ /xot as in IV 134, VII 28 
 (cf. E 459), oiiT(p 0! Ill 72, uvtSv ire III 145, as avToTa-i rifuv V 49, gi. I now 
 see that Dryoff Pronomen Rejlexivmn emends avT6v in I 24 to avrov. 454 7, -. 
 
 see p. 3325 and appendix : 7 f.b. in note : read ^XP'- 455 n : reo Hrd. 8,, 
 the only case of eo in a pronoun in that poet, should be corrected, cf. reC 2gg, 
 ^Te^veKa 5oq. 456 footnote I : Wackernagel R. M. XLVIII 301 proposes 
 to avoid the f in Lokrian fSn by reading ^ on ; to § 570 add : fxert^f repot = 
 fvioi, rives, Hdt. I 63, 95, 199, II 125, &c., Hippokr. Ill 454, IV 220, 230 
 (where Galen says that the word is = erepos in the language of his time), 
 Aretaios 5. In Nikander s Ther. 588, Schneider reads ixer e^frepriv • cf. 
 i^erepoL 412, 744. To ottj/jlos in § 716 add that Hdn. I 51213 (Theognos., An. 
 Ox. II 1645") mentions dirrj/xos and Arat. 568 has oTnrrjfios. tttj^os is mentioned 
 by Hesychios and Hdn. II 92500. rri/xos is relative in Hippokr. IX 14 (0' fj/xos 
 in one very old MS.). 463 10 f. b. : it is better to read XPV" in Hdt. 
 In Hrd. 228 the papyrus has expvavTou, where the e belongs with the pro- 
 noun. 472 (epydCo/LLai): Hrd. 653 has ipyd^er. This author always adopts 
 the Attic rules for augment; (epSoi) : eepBov in Solon ('A0. iro\. 12); note: 
 dele the ). 473 2 f.b. to end of §, and p. 472 s.v. otywfj.i : the original 
 
 inflection of otyuv/xt was as follows: (i) strong forms : 6{f)eiya), found in the 
 Aiolic infinitive 6eiyr]v C. D. I. 21443, Sieiyov, &ei^a. The imperfect a.v6eiye 
 may be substituted for avetfye n 221, n 228, avoeiyeffKov for avaoiyeffKou 0, 455. 
 For &i^e Z 298, O, 446 &c. we may read Hei^e (cf. Attic efiei^a for the incorrect 
 efii^a). (2) iveak forms: 6{f)iyvii/xi from the stem fty-; cf. reio), rfw/xai. 
 feiyvvfxi had been the counterpart of SeiKvu/xt, (evyvv/xi with the retention 
 of the irregular diphthong in a form properly weak. The initial prosthetic 
 has been carried from 6iyvvfj.L into 061701 where it is strictly not in place. 
 The stem 017- appears in wiywvTo B 809, 58, and perhaps in Hrd. 45-,, whose 
 &iKTat may, however, be an itacistic spelling for HeiKrai (cf. ireireia-Tai). 
 Theokr. XIV 47 has avwy/aai. Later on hiyvvfjn was contracted to otyw/xi 
 (cf. ofs, oXoixai from ofia-), and the stem 017- transferred to the active in 
 avijiyev E 168 (for which Nauck substituted &votyev, Fick 06*76), cp^e fl 457 
 (of|6?\ o1^a(Ta Z 89, Epidaurian avw^e G. D. I. 333987, Theokr. dv(?|o XIV 15, 
 Attic avolyw, aroi'lo) {woiyov, Tjvoi^a may be corrupt) and jjpoiyfiai in Hippokr. 
 V 436 {aveify Ermerins). &i^a, which is glossed as Hippokratic by dr^y|a in 
 Erotian, can be defended only on the view that 047- and not 017- was trans- 
 ferred from the weak to the strong form, or on the assumption that it was 
 'distracted' from f^a. While the latter is not an impossibility, the former 
 suggestion would seem to deserve more consideration because of Aiolic 0*70;' 
 (Hdn. II 777,5 = 11 3t32s = I 2^0^^) and myaiv (Zonaras 224,). But &iyoi> 
 is impossible in Homer, and it may be doubted whether we should not read 
 ieiyov, oeiyoiv in Aiolic, &ei^a in Hippokrates. The explanation of 06^701 and 
 olyvvfii here put forward, rejects the possibility of a stem ^017-, which 
 Kiihner-Blass § 198, 6 hold to have originated from ofiy by the transference 
 of the spirant from the middle to the beginning. Though the existence 
 of a stem ^017- would be welcome, such a shifting of f must however be 
 pronounced impossible. Since no form in 047- had an initial f, the explana- 
 tion of Wackernagel must fall to the ground, though in itself well adapted 
 to clear up the mysterious ^ in ei^ya, et^^a, ec{iy/xai (i.e. from *rjfoiya &c.). 
 We believe that ^76^ from 0^70; became ei^yeu under the influence of the 
 perfect (originally fefoiya), and that the perfect became 6^70 under tho 
 
638 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. I. 
 
 influence of the imperfect (cf. edl)pa, e6paKa koipaKo). After the imperfect 
 had adopted the extraneous t, the aorist ^|a became €(f>|a. Meister Herodas 
 p. 823 would refer to oXyvvfxi the Hesychian ooiya.' c^aperpa with substantively 
 ablaut of ei to 01. The quiver is the ol(rTo5iyiJ.oua Oyjcravphv fie\4e(Tcnv Persai \ 
 1020. 476 18 f. b. : read Herodotos. 482 14 : Hrd. has diXco eight times, . 
 ideKco once, and that in an augmented form {ijOeKov 539). This is the usage ! 
 of the Koiff). 485 : Hrd. has only contracted forms in the future : tpew ^g„ 
 fiaKfw 3s5, ipeh 405 and in seven other passages, Sia^a\i7s 622, airoKTivils 535, 
 ■7rpo<Tfji.eue7s 83, ep€t 335, 6avevfx Class. Rev. V 48 1, frag. 85, apelr 351, iK0a\ev<n 4^4, , 
 TiXivaiv Class. Rev. V 4S1, frag. 815. 493 14: Babrios has yey-qpaKei 461,,, 
 1032) ynpo.<^a.s 74i5 ; Anakr. idatis 56, eacrou 57 (Fick d), Hdt. I 90 eda-as ; 
 note 2, 4 f. b. : read Antiphon. In Hrd. 322 we have yvwvai read for which the 
 regular avayvivvai is used in 392. In Hdt. II 91 aveyvoiu is = agnovi. 494 16 : 
 the verb fuc\>\4i» is now attested in Arkadian. On an inscription from 
 Mantinea (B. C. H. XVI 568. perhaps older than 450 b. c), we find \_fo](p\iaffL 
 1- I) \_fo]<pK4oi 1. 14, foi^Ki]K6(n 1. 18. 497 last line: the second per.son 
 of the optative in Hrd. ends in -ais (357, 571, 63), never in -eiaj. In the third 
 person we find -eie in 3ii)75> -«« in 651, 782- 498 19: Hrd. has elTro also j 
 in 537, efn-are 762, e^irov 643, etVe 647, ^^, &venre 242, ^Itt^'lv 693 ; read imperat for opt. ] 
 502 9 : fiovKei in Hrd. is wrong. Apart from this form there are five cases ] 
 (in the future) of -ei, but there are four of -j? in the indicative. SiCeai is called I 
 Ionic for Si(r]ai in the Lexicon Messan., R. M. XLVII 408 (cf. § 590). 503 14: ' 
 Theog. 455 i(paiveo. ¥ipao p. 504 end, and 55917 belongs here. 505 11 : i 
 Solmsen K. Z. XXXII 546 defends Wackernagel's derivation of iaa-urai ; ■ 
 23 f. b. : irterai in Ion cannot stand {itUtw Cobet); 22 f. b. : for M. Schmidt 1 
 read Nietzsche. In connection with the above may be mentioned the fact 
 that in Hippokr. V 386 we find irifovffa, which is more probably a blunder 
 for TTiovaa (V 38 2) than the participle to ttiei (C. I. G. 8046, 8096-81 10, Bergk 1 
 P. L. G. Ill 668 &c.), whose et is a genuine diphthong according to the Attic 
 vase inscriptions. Cf. Roscher in Curtius' Studien IV 194, Bergk in Jahrb, j 
 CXVII 195, Kretschmer in A'. Z. XXIX 482 ; 11 f.b. : Hippokr. has dd^ofiai ! 
 VIII 338 (so probably\ but SV)|o^oj VII 336 i^cf. § 619^ 506 15 : [elae^vel- j 
 Kuvres, Erythrai, in Dittenberger's Syll. 15920 (shortly after 2 78 B. c), but j 
 i<rT}Vie']yK€v 16O7. 509 10: elpvarai Hippokr. V 596, eyreT/xeaTat IV 298 ; i 
 
 14: AeAe'xctTaj Aret. 260, 284. 511 22: in Clouds 1203 vevr)ix(voi is | 
 
 preferable; 8 f . b. : read Kaita. 512 7: in Hippokr. II 26 we even find ' 
 
 KaTaXeXfTTTvcrOat {vulgo -riffdai), where -vvOai should be read with Cobet. The \ 
 participle occ]|rs in VI 192 Us. Hippokr. has the -a-fxat form also in the case | 
 of Oepfiaivoi VI 190, 192, vypaivw 192, (TKXi)pvv(t> 132, yutairco 96. Almost all 
 of the -(Tfx.ai forms occur in the pseudo-Hippoki-atic tractates. 516 9 f.b.: 
 of the poets, Theognis has -eo in 30, 32, 47, 100, 145, 331, 353, 547, 557, 1095, 
 1297, 1351, Archil. 664 aydWfo, 665 oSvpeo ; Hrd. has also ala-xwev 2^g, 
 yivev I 2, e7rei» 439, KarmpevSov in 1^ is corrected to -eo or -ev on the papyrus ; 
 enevxeo 35^ should be changed to -eu. 518 21 : see appendix to p. 255. 
 520 iS:- So97](reTai Samos 22I21, vo/jnadria-eai Euseb. Mynd. 52; 13 f.b.: 
 ^Xafi-i^fffTai Aret. 39. 530 footnote 2 : add iavXevy Hrd., Class. Rev. V 481, 
 
 frag. 3i, irpofftivaay Hippoki". IX 340 (many MSS. -ov-). 537 17 f. b. : afiapru 
 Hrd. 495? (cf. '(pafiapTsis 543) is the first occurrence in literature of this equiva- 
 lent of 6/j.apTe<a. It is attested in Hesychios and Eust. 59220. 543 22 : with 
 the variation between Ka\fot and ttoioT, compare that in Eleian : So/ce'oj 11 563, 
 ^j/TToioi 1156^, a.TTofr]\iot 11547, itoio7to o. 544 4 : Hermes not R.M. 563 19: 
 
App. I.] ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS : PP. 476-596. 639 
 
 or read KeoT and derive the form from x-qfioi. If this is correct, we must assume 
 two verbs *Ar;^co and *\r]ff(Ttec. \tj feoi could become \eeo( after the loss of f , 
 and then Aeo?. Solmsen A'. Z. XXXII 515, 517 regards as Krotan both Arjtu* 
 <Ar)ea), and Aeo? <A7jf 60(. 566 1 2 : in Hrd. 4c8 the papyrus accents (6r}v, 
 which may be regarded as an adjective. The adjective was thus accentuated 
 by Hdn. (I 11I25, II 77810, 947in where Epicharmos 120 is cited). In the 
 passage in Archil. 632 the vuIgate has (aiov, and in Theokr. II 5 we find (ooL 
 The substantive (6r] had the oxytone accent according to Hdn. II 901^8 . 
 568 ff.: to the list add awaro^ev Herakl. in Hermes XV 605 (Ijut probably an 
 error for -cciev), airoKoKpeoiro Hippokr. IX 356 epist., yuco^eojueWj' Demokr. 123. 
 As regards (TTadfiow it should be noted that Kallim. 94 (clioliambic) has 
 ffraefiricracreai. 596 : to § 715 add elyeKev Hippokr. IV 220, eVe/cej/ III 514; 
 
 irev e'lffKu Syr. dea 27, 28, 34 ; Aret. ouVe/ca 52, ouVe/cei' 66, rovviKe 45. 
 
 ■i 
 
APPENDIX II 
 
 THE lONISMS OF THE LATE WRITERS OF 
 IAMBICS AND CHOLIAMBICS. 
 
 We present below a survey of the chief lonisms of Kallimachos (K.), 
 Aischrion of Samos (A.), Phoinix of Kolophon (Ph.), Parmenon of Byzantion 
 (P.), Kritias of Chios, Babrios (B.), and Lykophron's Alexandra (L.). K. is 
 cited from the text of Schneider, A., Ph., P., and Kritias from Schneidewin's 
 Delectus (and Crusius, in the case of Ph. i ; see Crusius' Herondas p. 70), ' 
 B. from Rutherford, and L. from Kinkel. Some of the Homerisms of L., 
 and most of the Homerisms of B., have been included. In the case of the ■ 
 writers who aim at reproducing the dialect in all except a few details, 
 i.e. in the above writers with the exception of B. and L., we have included 
 such matters as crasis &c. The lonisms of B. and L. ai'e practically confined 
 to the Ionic rj and a few cases of Ionic ei, eu and on. In L. the occurrences 
 of T) are sporadic merely, in B. they are so frequent as to lead to the belief 
 that he intended to adopt it in the first declension throughout. There are ' 
 some open forms that I have ventured to include, though uncertain whether 
 they might not more properly be regarded as examples of the licence per- 
 mitted Attic poetry. But attention should be called to the fact that no 
 instance of an uncontracted aco, ew, or oco verb occurs in any of these writers. 
 
 1. Vowels.ji r) for a : cAafj? K. 93, verjicaiy 78, KaaTvirJTiv 82 6. ; X'^PV -A.. 23 ; 
 dvpriu Ph. ig, Kaa-rrlris 2^; fxuKp-fiu P. i^. In Babi'ios there occur about 150 
 cases of nouns of the first declension and adverbs where the Ionic 77 was 
 possible. In about 70 of these the Athoan MS. has o, which Rutherford 
 changes to r). Sometimes where this MS. has a, Suidas has r) (iS^, 26,, 
 81.2, g2g), and sometimes the reverse is the case (lo,, 3O1, 825,7, 86,, 948, 
 10825). Ii^ the spurious fragments Rutherford leaves a, e. g. in aavpav 4I2, 
 but changes to 17 in 10626, 1164. Hyjjer-Ionic 77 api^ears when ei became c: 
 o|6Tj 774, o^e-nv [73i, I33i], ^a04-i)v in the Athoan 25, where Suidas has -ilav. 
 fjLiriv has been incorrectly read in 47^ (yuiai' A), 13I2 [fiiav V]. In the middle 
 of a word, tj is comparatively rare. I have noticed uxp^'fio'as 923 in Suidas 
 (KptOiaaas 622, ■pOpiacre 459\ I'ho'V 12O7 {larpSs, laTpevu), 'yfvn^]Tt)v 1241, , irpriwas ■ 
 proem. B 15 {irpaos I02;,, [iijo], iTpa.6T-r\s [18,5]), vii)viffKois 10710, viri proem. 
 B 6 (j/ea 2 2ii, v4a,s 225, veavis 225), KvrjKiav 1 2 2^2 sic in Suidas [jivaKiav A, 
 
App. II.] lONISMS OF LATE WRITERS OF IAMBICS, ETC. 641 
 
 KfaKov 1132), airelpTjTos 9553 (netpd(ras 95,6, iweipdOnv 5712, i^ic), aKoff)(Tas 122,3, 
 riASria-e 263, 12916, nai^wv 12O5 (Traidvwv 244). The fallowing always liavo a : 
 ©poK-Tj (L. always 0pj?/cr?~i, npdacrw or irpdrroj, KeKpaye, yripd<Tas, yiynpaKft, ^oSit)!/. 
 ^ot'o;/, ftadvixiw, jpavs. Lykophron very rarely adopts the Ionic form : A«i/3rj- 
 epi7]v 275, KaXvTrrpris 337, Xvyp^v 910, orpyipTjs 997, apovprfs 1060, ^KpTjs ill 
 Bachmann's edition 714, Tir^raj 709, Tu;U(^pijT(^;/ (^?j 420, Kapy)&ap(ZvTas 3.S4, 
 Xa.KKeiri<nv (so in F) 1077. Scheer adopts ij only in 384, 420. Of about 60 
 occurrences of the long form of the dative plural, Bachmann read-jjiriin 18,59, 
 106, 107, 193, 266, 442, 454, 470, 728, 729, 802, 817, 1055, 1358. 7;' is also used 
 in 7)(iis 16. 2. Diphthongs. El : B. has ^elvo^ [1067] , elsewhere lev-, <rT6«/^y 
 10822, dpvaaas 122,, dapos 13I5, fKirvfiuv 1292, conj. {iKTveccv 60.2^ ; L. ^eivo- 
 PdKxV^ 175) «a«<^|e'J'os 1286, aveipvaas 1322, elva<pd!)(T<T<Dva loi. EY : irpfv/xfvfis 
 L. 53^ 1055. OY : ^oCfos B. 25^, 1262, 1312 [10624, as] elsewhere ^oVoj (10 
 times'), L. 179 (no- Sch.), fxovos K. 76, 82 6, oijuofxa L. 339, 370 but Ph. i,, kwvo- 
 f).a<Tr6v, yovva Ph. Ij3, yovvaa-fidrcct/ L. 1243, ovKafiripSpois L. 32, ov\afxaivvfiov 
 L. 183, /coiJpos and /coup?? A. I5, Ph. iio,i2,i3> L. 58, 182, 712, 1131 {Kop- Sch.), 
 KovprJTis L. 671, Koup^res 1 297. Elsewhere L. has /cop- as Babrios always. 
 SovpaToy\v(pov L. 361, ovpr}e(r(riv B. 12903. L. 557 has oZSas, 49, 698 ouSajos. 
 None of these later writers have any other form than '6\os and 6pos. HI : 
 Sri'ioi Ph. 220, Popvicp 35, ovfiXaros 3i, ATjtai/ B. Ilg, 883, L. 252, 'Hicoc L. 417 ; 
 elsewhere jj as in xPvC" Ph. I3 &c. fli : irpuCvoov B. 12417 but TrpaJTjf 67 &c. 
 Loss of J from the diphthongs : B. 59, has 'AOrjva but -ai'rj 72, „, 'Ep/xrjs 30^ and 
 often, but -eiV .^Oj, 483, 1196, 1271; ole'r? B. 77^, ^I^V [7,^i. i.S3i], /3a9eV 25, 
 (Athoan, -uav Suidas), wKeova Ph. 23 and probably ij, ; ttot] B. 46^ but iroii) 95,1, 
 12812, [1422]. Cf. also xp<^V 136, [653]? X^'^'? 4^2, 882. -irvo'h 36,^, 1145. B. has 
 ri\6ri<re 26g, 129,5. ^- Contracted and Open Vowels. a + i: "AiSjjr 
 
 Ph. 222, B. 95((7, 1228, I^- I97j 1188 (both first foot), 51, 404, 437, 497, 
 564, 655, 809, 813 (all second foot), a + ei: aelSovra K. 90, oei'Soi Babrios 
 proem. B 16, aSu elsewhere in B. and in Ph. i,j, 2,0. e + e: aKtes K. 86, 
 avr}\f€s B. 7I4, e + e = ei always in the verb, e + 7) : yeve-q B. pi-oem. A i, 
 {yovr\v A. I,\ ©aA^s K. 95, Ph. 3, , apyvpr/u Ph. 223, xpvcrrjv 33 . y€rjT6i'os B. 108,4. 
 a noteworthy form for yew, occtirs in Aristotle according to L. & S. e + r] 
 always becomes i] in the verb, e + ei always contracts in the verb, e + o: 
 (pcaXeSv B. [1060] ; =€U in /xeSevyTi K. 95, reixfvs 86, Troifv A. I4, iiruXfvfjLTjv 
 B. 12811, 12923, Kap7]^apevuTas L. 384. e + cc : KVKewva Kritias, KewKoyitv Ph. 2g, 
 In L. \e<i5s is Attic. 17 + e : v\r,evTa B. 95^. ■»; + ej : ^eicra Ph. 2,,. t) + co : izpi)<iiv 
 L. 769, 1069 (Hesiodic), irpccv 1237. j + e (not genuine contraction) : Ipov K. 86, 
 JpTjl B. [7221]. + 0: iT\6os K. (Meineke choliamb. frag. i). o + tj: '7ri/3a>Toy 
 A. ii. o + i: ois B. 1321, oiv 1325 but o?j 1281. &> + «: ^ojaypiot/s B. 50,5 but 
 Cuyypelv 53.2, Caiyprjffu 534. See also under 6 below. 4. Crasis &c. Ph. has 
 
 TaTr6Wci>vos lo, a)i''^p 2,1, x<i«^<5<''a 2i8, Trirepr] 35, Kr/pav 2^Q, K. 97 raniSuTos, A. I, 
 ^ V1/3&1TOS. 5. Consonants, k forms of the pronoun occur in K. 85, 93, 
 
 Ph. 2j2, ,8, 19 (tt in i,s, 2je). Neither Babrios nor Lykophron uses the Ionic k. 
 oStis B. 88,3 elsewhere avOts in B. L. has avns in B 546. o-(r occurs in B. 
 ToWos 365 (L. I461), lieaffos 129,3 (fifcros 129,5, ,9 &c.), TrJ(r(ros 12I14, irotro-iV 194, 
 ovpiiicTffiv 12923, elpva-ffas 122, (aveipvo-os L. 1322), x'^P'-'^'^V^ '-21! Me<^o'a3oi/»' 
 L. 817. Babrios varies between aa and tt : the former in irpdaaoi sic 2f),.>, 
 11935 12710, but irpdrrw always in the spurious parts (512, 4O3, 3333). ir^'h(r<ro 
 369, but TT always in ^tto, firTao/xai, tJttco;/. L. uses only o-tr. afudpvcrai 
 occurs in Ph. 25. 6. Declension (Nouns). (i) Kptdiav Ph. ii and 
 
 Kritias, but Ki^vSiv Ph. 2^. -aiat (and -ais) Ph. 1^5 where there is MS. authority 
 
 Tt 
 
643 THE IONIC DIALECT. [App. 11. 
 
 for Mov(Tri(Ti -n-phs dvprjff aSwv. Babrios has -ais except in 5915, 1298, 134,:;, 
 while Lykophron uses the longer form about 60 times (see under i). 
 (2) Homeric -010 occurs in B. 721, over ten times in L., who even adopts 
 -ao (848). -otat is found in Ph. 25, g, 35 ^sj Kritias, -ois in Ph. i^ to7s Kaaiyvfi- 
 Tois at the end, and A. i,. -oitri occurs in B. about 16, in L. about 40 times. 
 This enumeration takes no account of 'ois before a vowel. o<tt4wu appears in 
 15' 9590- XP^'^^V proem. B. 7, xp^cea's L. 708. Whether such open forms 
 are to be regarded as Ionic is doubtful, \ayu6s is often read in B. where 
 it may be merely a late form, and not Homeric. (3) Open forms in the 
 -es declension are: /iepe' (?) B. 1344, opiwv 922, reixecou L. 1418, fxt^iwv 762; 
 pd/M<j)€(rcri 598. "Apfos is found in B. 68^. B. has ovara 9540 (wt6s 9570), ix^vas 
 96, vrja 7I1 {vrj6s L. 618, va- Sch.), j/o/ifja 128, (conj.), ovp-fiea-aiv (conj.) 129,3, ois 
 (above 3). irSprios L. 320, indx^ies 292. yovva appears in Ph. i^, Zevv in A. I5. 
 Cf. app. p. 402. 7. Pronouns. Kf7uos K. 87, Ph. 2,, B. 37,, 956, L. 128, 304, 
 1139, iKe'ivos K. 89, B. over ;,o times, L. 258, 259, 1081, Keidi 686, 7)fji.iwv Ph. 2nQ. 
 rifxeaiv (-w-) is noteworthy B. 90.2. The relative twv appears in Ph. i^, 
 8. Verb. An uncontracted 'i^ure' verb is unknown, idv is found in 
 B. 367, where some read ns &v for t' iuv. &v occui's in B. elsewhere at least 
 13 times. dvairXwcras B. 743, eKTrcTrAw/ct^Tes L. 1084, and olSas B. 9514 may be 
 noted. We have the Homeric eVtri in B. 777, 1197 (MSS. el), elpva-a-as 1227, 
 Xoopia-a-ris 122,, a-aaxrei L. 758. 9e\ai, not eOeXai, is used by B. The pluperfect, 
 which is used with remarkable fondness by B., is sometimes devoid of the 
 augment (46,0, 103,2). Absence of the syllabic augment occurs in imperfect 
 (95«) 'ind aorist (333 1?), 685. iiigX but this is not in imitation of the iambo- 
 gi-aphic style. 9. Prepositions, Conjunctions, els is used by K. 94 
 
 (MSS.), Ph. 1,2, 13, es in K. 86, 96, 98a, Ph. 2^0, A. is, a consonant following 
 in all cases except Ph. 222 and A. ic Since Babrios used ex only when 
 compelled to do so by the metre Eutherford corrects to eis in i^, 1I5, 10S22. 
 So in L. who has before vowels is in 497, 603, els about 20 times, before 
 consorants els about 35 times. (Bachmann had es in 14, 158, 326, 338, 463, 
 501, 512, 1472 ; Scheer in 139, 747 also, but not in 326, ^12). avQijcrei L. 1259. 
 T/j/ appears in B. 2is, 47i3, 64,, 9562? '^^7\(n 1285, L. 2, 623. av is found over 
 ten, edv three times in the MSS. of B. eiriiv occurs in 6,0 . 
 
INDEX OF FORMS 
 
 The references are to sections except when p. page) is prefixed. An a after 
 a numeral signifies that the indexed word is treated in the section denoted 
 by the numeral and in Appendix I ; an a before a numeral signifies that 
 the word is referred to in Appendix I only. A footnote is denoted by/, n. 
 
 aarr] 26 1, p. 463/. n. 
 d/3A7;pn 249 
 ayndoeiyyos 295 I, I « 
 dyai 25 
 
 ayaiofiaL 14I tt 
 'Ay^drai/a 1 29. 349 a 
 dyydov, -rjiov 232, 6. 
 
 dyyeWo) aor. pass. 636 
 
 'Ay6- 130. 399 
 
 076145. 156.284,2.532 
 
 AytXfcos 29 
 dyeofxai (nya) 637, 3 
 ayeojJiai (dyaiofjiai) I4I a 
 dy^jpco 2,7 
 I ayXaoy 261, I. 277, I 
 Ayveciv 21 f. n. 
 dyvoeco p. 529 
 ayvvfxi 582. perf. 604, 4. 
 
 aor. pass. 636, 2 
 dyopivu, perf. 595, 4M. 
 
 aor. 608, 3 
 tiyvin 119 
 dyxiBaairj 1 30 
 dyxov 716 
 fiyco fut. 607, 6. aor. 
 
 ^ 608, 3 
 «S«^y 553 
 
 dSd^onni a 147 
 nSe/r/ 3IO, 2 
 
 dde\(jifTj 263, Irt. 447, I 
 d8f\<pi^<o 87 
 dSTji'e'o)? 716 
 
 «S';s 273, I 
 d8v6v 357, 6 
 
 dSolHCTTWf 227 
 
 n8os 17 
 
 aSo) 63. 305, I 
 
 ciedXov 272, I 
 
 del 99 ; see nifi 
 
 dei8(o 160. 305, I 
 
 deiKeXios 305, I 
 
 ddKrjS 305, I 
 
 deiKiS) 40 
 
 dei'vaos 160 a. 209 
 
 deipco 68, 3. 272, I /3. 
 
 305, I «. 319. cf. 165 
 
 deKcov 272, I 
 aepyos 272, I 
 'AerioJi' 159. 209/. n. 
 afirdp 75, I. 243. 393 
 afiroi 243. 390,2. 393 
 "Afwros 377 
 dijp 169 a 
 d^tii/aro? 1 65 
 'Adrjfd 209 
 'A^f;mf; 209 
 'Adrjvaia 68, 6 
 "ABrjvairi 74. 78. 209 
 ^A6t]vnis a 274 
 Tt 3 
 
 'A<J;7J/»; 68, 6 
 ai'a 326 
 aiSa(r/ioy 2IO 
 alSearo 5851 3 
 
 "AiBrjs 77, 6. 160. 169. 
 
 ^^397. 546 
 didios 275 * 
 atSotos 298, 2 
 
 atSo/xai aor. pass. 635, i 
 
 al8a>s 542 
 
 a/et 209. 716 ; see del 
 
 lueXovpos 137. 272, I 
 
 aUros 209 
 
 niKi^o) 40. 274. 3°5) I 
 
 d'LKoos 305, I 
 
 aijur^TTOTij? 553 
 
 aifiov 87 
 
 AiVerj? 157. 219, I 
 
 atj/ew fut. 592, 4. aor. 
 593, 3- aor. pass. 
 
 aloXeo) 688, I 
 atoi'ea) 688, 4 
 
 alpeo) 397. perf. 583. 
 
 fut. pass. 633, I 
 n'lpco 165 ; see deipco 
 A'ia-Kpaoi 209. 348 
 diVcrco 169 
 al(Tvp.VTjrr]i 154. 155 
 al^rjpos 326 
 
644 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 aroj275fl. 593, 2. 703 
 
 ^(p. 588) 
 aia>i> 209 
 aKavdiov 346 
 *AKeaea) a 477 
 aKimKris 438- 454 
 dKo\ovdr]crns a 1 65 
 oKovo) 242. plup. 581. 
 ^ 583, 2. 596 
 aKpod^ofini 591, I 
 'AKTaav 209 
 'AXaXiJj 327 
 'AXfpi'a 327 
 AXerpi^nvos « 137 
 aXeo) aor. 583, 2. jjerf. 
 
 dXrjdein, -fir}, -rjir) 174- 
 
 177. 232, 6 
 
 akr)i 272, I ^ 
 dX7;roei6ijf a 28 1 
 ^A^finifieprji 1 95 
 dX^atVo) 100 
 dX^eWo) 593, 2 (p. 489) 
 'AXdr]pevr]il68. 1 95. 211 
 
 aXdopni aor. pass. 635, i 
 ciXias 716 
 
 dXiXa) 272 i/^. perf. 615 
 
 'AXiKtipi^aTecoj' 22. I 59 
 A\iKapvr](T<ri')S 373 
 akiaKopni 582 
 'A\Kpeav 140. 141 
 dXAdcro-co aor. pass. 636 
 
 uXXfcop 140, I, 289, 2. 
 
 ^ 445 «• 447, 2 
 «XX»; 716 ji 
 
 dXXoyvofco 207. 296, 2 
 aXXopni 397 
 dXXo0a'{jtra) p. I02 f. II. 
 dXoidco 227 rt 
 aXopyus, -ovs I4. I50. 
 287, 3. 295 I III a. 
 
 aXoiT] 582 
 sXcbi'ai 582 
 dXcoTT/;^ « 196. 480 
 rip. 292, 3 
 n/Li- 322 
 ^ApaXBlr] 219. 4 a 
 
 "Ffl^a 397. 400 
 dpapreco a 640 
 ap^od(o 322 
 dp^oXddr)i> 322. 716 
 dp-fipoiv 224, 12 
 apiOpds 333 
 dpiXXeopai 688, 4 
 dpiaOi 716 
 
 appopos 46. 191. 339, 3 
 A^oXyoj 327 
 'A/iopyof a 123, 4. 327 
 apnavopaL 322 
 'ApniddXr}! 36 1 
 ^ApnpaKuiTai 1 94. 363 
 <ipna>TiS 22. 204. 322. 
 
 dpvpwv 199 
 'Ap(f)idpfos 140 rt. 478 
 
 Ap<piKTvoves 155 
 ap(f)i(T0aT(a> I30 
 ap(f)n7i> 412 a 
 
 Apu>pr]Tos 199 
 apcopos 199 
 aV 41. 60. 716 
 dj'- 322 
 ofd 715 
 dvaKcof 716 
 
 di/aXoco augm. 578. aor. 
 pass. 634, 5. 637, 4 
 
 aj'dXco/^a 1 65 
 
 aw^ compounds 292, i 
 
 'Ai/fi|iXea 171 
 
 di/Siii/o) 582. fut. 592, 5. 
 
 ^ perf. 595, 4 
 dvBpdtfya^us 357» 4 
 
 ApSpecuos Cl 127 
 dv^pf(f)6pns 137 
 dfSpeco 690 
 dp8pT]T(pni 554 
 npeypa 2IO 
 dp€Kn6ev 716 
 fii^fo 246 
 dvepidiVTOs 167 
 di/e\co augm. 582 A. 
 fut. 592, 5 
 
 ai/fcoi/Tdi 694 
 
 ai/ijp 165 
 
 dpTjplQfVTOS 13' 167. 192 
 
 di/iewTai p. 530. 673, 2 
 'A»/*cnof 209. 41 1 
 appr]<TOV 339, 3 
 'AppikS) 339, 3 
 dvopdi'ioi perf. 578 
 avTieopni 690 
 cifuo) 593, 3 
 di/u)ya) 597 
 d^ifo) 690 
 
 '^^"'XP^"^ 478 
 doiSd? 305, I. 306, I a 
 aoTos 243 
 aiTaPTda) 592? 5 
 anavTiop 716 
 aTrnrea) a 688, 4 
 ' Anarovptn a J^ 
 dTTfiprjK't 595, 4 
 dn-fXXat 129 
 'AttAXcoi' 137. ap. 140 
 dnepprjcTTOv 181 
 awspoTvos 165 
 anf]yr](Tis 399 
 drriKaTni 6l2 
 an-Xaroj 1 39 
 ('iTrXfTos 139 
 linXriTos 139 
 aTTO^eo-Tos- 593, 3 
 anoKpiuopai fut. 627 
 'AttoXXcoi/ 137. rtp. 140 
 anoauopni 690 
 nTTTraXXd^ct) 1 29 
 opa 169. 283. 716 
 dpdopat 162 « 
 
 dpapuTKo) perf. 583, 2. 
 
 604, 4. 620 
 dpyfpvos 17. 337 
 Apyfjios 232, 6 
 
 "pyi^pf'? 263, 3 & 
 
 dpyupew 287,3. ^ P- ^^9 
 dpeopai 688, 4 
 
 dpe'aKo) aor. 593, 3 
 
 "z'*'"''? 95- 167 a 
 dp/} 162 a. 517, 5 
 "Apr]s 165. 166. 233, 4. 
 239, I. 288. 428, 4. 
 
 'ApTjTr] &C. a 162. 181 
 dpi- 128 
 
INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 645 
 
 •Apior/3a 158 
 AptoTOKXeouy 529. p.530 
 apia-Tov 169. 272, 2 
 apKeco fut. 592, 4. aor. 
 
 593, 3 
 «PM« 397 
 ApfjioCco 591, I. 593, 2 
 
 ApflOTTCO 591 > I 
 
 «poj 517, 5 
 
 apovpa 250 
 
 a/)7rdfw 593, 2. aor. pass. 
 
 634, 3 
 apne^ov 25 
 apnvia II9 
 
 "PP"?" 134 
 appixos 413 
 
 dppadicc 100. 112. 131 
 Spo-iji/ 77, 6. 134. 382 
 'Apra- 131 
 ^ApTacppivrji 134 
 Aprepis a 546 
 'Aprio-Ko's 123, 5 
 'Apro- 131 
 dprononos 364 
 'ApTV- 131 
 
 apijo) aor. pass. 635, 2 
 'Ap)(i'\eos a 287, I 
 dpX»?7eVt 78. 487 
 "PXPf^os 350 
 apcoStoy a 1 29. 564 
 acr^oXos 413 
 AaKXrjTTios 68, 4 
 ao-TTOfSei 716 
 dora/cos 1 23, 5. 147, 4« 
 a(TT(os 287, I 
 d(TT€ponr] 128 
 aarpa^Sa 716 
 doTTpd-yaXor, -»; 25. 4I3« 
 dcTTpanrj 1 28 
 a(TTpdnTa> 326 
 dcrTpa(f)r] 365 
 dtruXfr 716 
 drdp 716 
 drapTrtTos 1 28 
 dreXfLT], -fT] II. 175 a 
 arepo? 1 34 
 ott; 261. p. 463/. >(. 
 drdf 245 
 
 drpa7rir()r 1 28 
 drpfKtcos 25 
 arrdo) 369 
 drr/Xe/:Jo? 123. 134 
 ai8dC<o 593, 2 
 avda8r]s 292, I rt 
 aldiyevt'js 355 rt 
 avXrjpov 249 
 AuXiTjrai 1 84. 256 
 ai;|a) 272, I 
 auris 97. 112. 355 a 
 nvTOibrjS 292, I a. 397 
 aCpnpei 9 
 
 d0(io-o-co 593, 4 end 
 d077 397 
 
 d^iSeas 336. 454 
 d(/)UJj 229 
 'AcpvTios 357, 4 
 *Axai'»j 209 a. 275 
 n;(^opai aor. pass. 635, 1. 
 637, 3 
 
 'A;^lX\€a)s 25. 220. 221 
 d)(pe'ios 123 
 
 «xp' 715 
 
 liojpTO 289, I 
 
 ^d^a) 593, 2 
 
 jSa^ea 2 1 9, 2. 506 
 
 iSa^e'jj 108. 419 
 
 ^adpos 358 
 
 ^(i^pa»coJ 147 ffi. 335.356 
 
 /SatVco aor. subj. 619. 
 
 perf. 604, 4 
 jBaWioi 116. 637, 3 
 
 ^dpayxoi 127. 333 
 QdpaOpnv 128 
 jSapea 21 9, 2 
 ^aaikeia 1 77 
 Bao-iXei'Sf/f 233, I 
 /3a(jiXfiOi- 25. 220 «. 221 
 /3acrtXe(i3)oj/Tos 248 
 ^(laiXsvs 507 fF. 
 ^aalXr] 1 77 
 Bao-tXTjtfi^y 235, 2 
 ^aa-iXrpoi 23I. 232 
 /3aa-po's 358 
 BaTovo-idSjjy 295, I 
 ^drpaxos: 147,2.335.356 
 
 /3e0pdf 2 1 . 44 
 ^epfdpov 128 
 ^rja-iXfvs II 
 
 /3ida) aor. pass. 635, i 
 ^i^pdicTKa perf. 604, 4. 
 
 620 
 ^iXXoi 9 
 
 Birrav 1 24. a 545. 546 
 /^XaTTTO) perf. 583, 3, 
 
 631. aor. pass. 636, 2 
 ^\rjxo> 523 
 ^odo) 296, I a. aor. pass. 
 
 635, I 
 
 I3or]6e(o 92. 99. 296, I 
 
 ^o>}66i 152 
 
 ^otij 228 
 
 /3dX/3iToi/ 15. 25 
 
 BoXiacTos 17 
 
 /3op^j 36. 263, 3. 289, 2. 
 
 334. 429, 2. 438 
 ^OTpaxos 147, 2 
 ^ovXfi 605 a 
 
 jSouX/cOI'Tdl 637, 3 
 
 /3oi;X7; 318. 605 a 
 jSovXopai 254, 2. 359. 
 
 585, 3. augm. 577. 
 
 subj. 618, I 
 /3oi's 112. 413. 517 
 ^pdyxos 127. 147,2.333 
 ^pdSpaKos 147. 2. 335 
 ^paxfa 219, 2. 506 
 
 ^pfVKOS 250 
 
 Bpidpeioy 37 
 /3pdyxo? 147, 2 
 ^povTeo) 688, 4 
 /Spdrnxos 25. 147, 2 
 ^povKOs 25. 250 
 Bpvaoro-if 379 
 ^pvravevoi} 349 
 ^pvxopai 637, 3 
 /3pu;i(u 348 
 l3vj3\iou 155 
 
 /Si^C'?" 716 
 
 Bl)(CKOr)l' 9 
 
 /3wfco 614, I. 637, 3 
 
 /3urw 199. 637, 3 
 
 jSca- = ^ojj- 34. 118.207. 
 
 296 a. cf. 077, 6 
 
646 
 
 INDEX 0¥ FORMS. 
 
 yain 141. 326. 42 1 
 
 ya\(rj 443 a 
 
 yuWos 25 
 
 Tapvfovrjs 5. 1 57. 1 59. 
 
 390, 3- 391 
 ya(TTT]p 551 
 
 ye, yiv 136 
 
 ykydo^ 87 
 
 yiy paiT(l>n a 362 
 
 •ye'fj see 7*^ 
 
 yeii'Ofiai 589 
 
 -yeXau) p. 526 
 
 ■yeXoIos' 123 
 
 7f J/617 263, 3 ff 
 
 -yfpfuof 209 
 
 yepus 136. 544 
 
 y(pyi]d€s 25 
 
 yepivos 25. 123. 143 
 
 7e&)-289, 3. cf. 112.478 
 
 y^ 122. 141. 421 
 
 yrjdeio perf. 595, 2 
 
 yi^ij/oy 286, I 
 
 yrjoxfO) 288. 289, 3 
 
 y^pay 136. 277, 2. 544 
 
 yjjpao) 593, 4 
 
 •y»;pety 636, 2 
 
 yivvopivov 196 
 
 y'lvopni 112. 196 ft. 589 
 
 ■yi»'a)(i)cr/ca) 24I 
 
 ■yti'coaKa) I96fl. 241. fut. 
 
 592, 5. aor. 593, 4. 
 perf. 614, 2 
 
 yXaacrn 165 « 
 y\ilX^v 353 
 yXvKrjav 168. 21 9 « 
 yvapTTTdi 349 d 
 yva(f)evs 349 
 yvoeo) 200. 207. 296, 2 
 •yi/co- = yro?;- 207. 296, 2 
 yovv-{y6i'v)6^. 69. 77,4. 
 
 78. 112. 252. 545 
 ypain 1 82 
 ypdtjioi perf. 0362. fut. 
 
 perf. 632 
 yprjvs 182. 257. 517 rt 
 yvvuiKe'iov 232, 2. 235, I 
 
 8a- 377 
 
 ^nrjp 169/. «. 
 fintpo)?' 211 
 
 Sdi's- 208. 274 a 
 
 ddid} 615 
 
 Sa/cro) a 607, 6. 619 
 
 daXeopai 1 82 
 
 SaXoy 25. 242 
 
 5fi/:i(epyof 295 I, III B 
 
 8apiopy6s 295 I, III A a 
 
 Afij/S, -ai»; 210. 273, I 
 
 danaveu) 688, 4 
 
 SoVeSor ff 377, 3 
 
 SiIttis 357, 4 
 
 AaptKOf « 145 
 
 fiao-f'a 18. 219, I, 2. 506 
 
 daaer] 419 
 
 Sareopai p. 33/. >i. 614 
 
 SuvAof 25. 242. 386 
 
 dnvTe 258 
 
 Sncfyoiveos 123, 3 
 
 Se enclitic 53 
 
 Ae.iXKos 219, 7. 236 
 fie (IS 87 
 
 8(8avpiPOi 242. 386. 615 
 SfSicrcropdt 583, I 
 fieS6K;^^ai 35 1 
 AftaXKoy 236 
 fieifie/cro 221 
 fieiSiV(ri?7(u 583, I 
 deida 221. 595, 4. 597 
 bdKavacfOni 221 
 
 SeiKPvpi 691-701. see 
 
 fie/ci'vpi 
 fift'opat 220 
 fif'pav 75, I 
 
 fif.p/; 77,3. 119. 224,3 
 AeKeXfjdiv 219, 9. 263, 
 
 3C 
 deKvvpi 69, 3. 95. 100. 
 
 130. 142 
 deKopai 100. 1 01. 348 
 tfKo)v 13. 571 
 fie J/ 570 
 fiei'fit'XXo)!' 25 
 divdpov 479 
 Afoi/{}y 13. 138 
 Afowir 138. 247 
 tfpTj see fieipy 
 
 Sea-TTniTOs 228, 3 
 fifO-Troi/J^frti/ 151. 228, 3. 
 
 450. 3 
 fiecTTTOTjyy 438. 454 
 Afvvvans 138 
 fieCrf 716 
 fie_\;opat 12. lOO. lOI. 
 
 348 
 
 8f\/^€'w 637, 3 
 fifo) bind 614, 2 
 fieo) (fia) III, 8. 637, 2 
 AiuiKovpr] a 289, I 
 ATjaX^of 233, 4 a. 236 
 drjieoi 690 
 8r]i()u> 286, I 
 8r]\eopm 1 82 
 fij/piofpyos- 295, I rt 
 drjpoauj 716 
 fi^iire 258. 320 
 Aj;'a) rt 289, I 
 fit(i/3iiT6s- 123, 4 
 biaireopai 688, 4 
 diappiilvo) a 334 
 StarTaci) 369 
 8i8i(Tcropcu 583, I 
 
 Sifioao-t accent 691 w. 3 
 
 fii'fiwpt 691-701 
 
 Ateirpec^jjy 215. 517 
 
 Atei'vcros' 1 37 
 
 fiie'^ 715 
 
 fiupof 134 
 
 fi/f»jpat p. 33/. n., rt309, 
 
 2. 590 
 StrjKoa-iwv 1 84 
 Att 270 
 8u7reTt]i 215 
 fitKtj^o) fut. 592, 3. 600, 
 
 3. 629 
 StKnioo), -eo) 690 
 fitpffcoy 140, 5. 421 
 8ive(u 309, 2 
 fit^oy 3S0 
 Aioi/ucroj 138 
 AiodKovpoi 61. 77- 78- 
 
 253, I 
 Si7rXj^(rios 191 
 
 SiTrXoof 263 3, i. 266, 2. 
 
 424. 441 
 
 .!'^ 
 
INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 647 
 
 8(060) 688, 4 
 
 di\j/^v 264, 2. 289, 3. 
 
 687, I. p. 530 
 
 Aiaiuvcros 1 38 
 Sv6(pus 357) 6 
 
 8o{i)>'] 227 
 
 SoKeco 78. fut. 592, 5. 
 
 perf. 615 
 8oKea> = -a(io 688, 4 
 Sovi' 700, 2 
 
 Sovp- (6opv) 69. 77, 4. 
 
 78. 253 «. 545 
 dpafjieva-a p. 530. 690 
 8/jao) 687, I 
 
 ApOTTtKoi 123, 5 
 
 Sui; 229. 271 
 
 8vfifi/ 271 
 
 8^0^^577.585,3.605. 
 
 606. subj.6i8, 1. 619. 
 aor. pass. 635, i. 
 
 688, I /. n. 
 dvvdpei 12, 433, 3 
 dvvew 637, 3 
 Swewfj-eOa 618, I 
 8vv<o 591 
 
 SuCTi a 100 
 
 8i;co 636, 2 
 
 Scopeia 171. 185. 282, 2 
 Aa>po(f}ea 1 72. 364 
 fiwft) = ^0)0) 200 
 
 EaX/ciS7;s 248 
 eoKaKa 582 
 edi/ 75, 2, 716 
 €ap 221. 281, 2 
 eaw 165. 221. p. 527 
 ey/cpiVco 81 
 iyKVTL 366 
 €yX12^ 63. 282, I 
 ieparj, eepaai 122 
 t^opai aor. 630 
 c»;ya 582 
 (6(dr]v 356 
 fde\ovT7]v 716 
 e^eXo) see ^eXo) 
 
 €(9<C« 582 
 
 eidi' 220 c. 716 
 
 ctap 221 a 
 
 eiapivos 221 
 
 f'lnpos 65. 112. 221 a 
 
 el/io) 326 
 
 eiSeij' yoo, 2 
 
 Ei8o6feia 25 
 
 EtSoyH€l/6V? 197 
 
 (tr]i 238, 2 
 
 EWvKapridtji 198. 392 
 Et'^iipajj^of 198. 392 
 etKa^o) 582 
 ei/ceXos 1 45 
 etKco 582 
 fiKoM/ 523 
 6tXdrii/of 221 
 ElXeidvlrj 225 « 
 «t'\»/ 197 
 
 flXrjXovda 34. 221 
 €tXiV<ra) 77, 3. 224, 4. 
 
 405. 582 
 el'Xco 637, 3 
 etXcof 448. 545 
 flpdriov 224, 9 
 ff/xt 703. p. 577/ «• I 
 «>t 224, 9, 10. 607, 5. 
 
 705-12 
 flv- = iv- yj, 3. 224, 12 
 eii/ 709 
 eiVai 224, 10 
 flvakios 69, I. yy, 3. 
 
 221. 224, 12 
 eiVuTOS 224, 2 
 etj/fKa 61. 77, 3. 78. 7I5« 
 ilvfKev 224, 2. 715 « 
 f'lvvpi 224, 10 
 eloiKv'iai 221 
 *toi/ 286, 2 
 etVa, ftTrov 239. 599 a. 
 
 601. 604. 608, 3 
 eiTTepei/ai 61. 700, 3 
 etpdva 68, 6.' 217 
 ei'pyw 142 
 (Ipedtjv 224, 14. 582. 
 
 elpeopai 637, 3 
 elpeaiT] a 221 
 Elptrpia 34 
 etpjjKa 595, 4 n. 
 
 elprjvrf 68, 6. 1 83. 2 1 7 
 ftpiov 224, 3 a 
 fipopai 224, 3 
 ftpuQ) 224, 3. fut. 593, 3, 
 _^ aor. 635, I 
 fipto 224, 14. fut. act. 
 
 592, I. fut. perf 632. 
 
 fut. imss.633,2. perf. 
 
 281,3- 595' 4 "-,610, 
 
 612. aor. pass. 0334, 
 ^ 634, 5 
 
 elpwTeu) 688, 4. p. 530 
 (h4i. 50. 99. 142. 715 
 eicrdpei/os 630 
 (laxiKa 216 
 eiVo) 715 (p. 601) 
 eiTii 716 
 Eire a 197 
 etVej' 716 
 
 f1a)S 220. 716 (sub (Is) 
 fK, fKy 715 
 'E<Cj3drn^n 1 29. 349 « 
 fKSiipev 271 
 fKf'ivos see /celrof 
 
 (KK(Koicf>fnTai28l,2- 611 
 
 e'Xat?; 209 
 
 eAdtrcroa) 633, I 
 
 e'Xdo-atoi^ 1 63 
 
 eXavvQ} perf. 126. 583, 2. 
 
 614,2. plup.596. fut. 
 
 592, 4. aor. 593, 3. 
 
 aor. pass. 635, i 
 fXeyKdfi'Tos: 35 I 
 eXevdnpos lyi 
 fXrjXciptvoi 126 
 e'Xt|397 
 
 iXiacroi see «tAio"(T(i) 
 eXKiio) 582. perf. 614, 2 
 eA/cco 582 
 ekXaxff 330 
 
 «^M'7^ 549 
 eXptvy 338 
 
 eXTTi^o) 5^2 
 eXnopai p. 33/.M. 
 e>fa) 582. fut. 592, 4. 
 
 aor. 593, 3 
 eppevai 61. 112. 700, 3 
 •iy.p.opiv 339, 3 
 
648 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 f^nas 161 a 
 
 efinXrjt' 716 
 
 (inpl^o) aoi*. 593, 2 
 
 €v36ae 716 
 
 eVeyK-, e'veiK- lOO. 112. 
 
 130. 214. 222. perf. 
 
 583, 2. aor. 608, 2 a 
 ei/f/ca &C. 715 a 
 fVf vrjKovrav 1 3. 57^ 
 eVr; 397 
 ivOavdo'i 356 
 ivQavTa 356 
 evOfiiTtu 356 
 fviaxji 7 id 
 ivviin 220 
 fvvene 338 
 evvvfti 224, 10. 337. 
 
 582. perf. 582A, 614, 
 
 I. aor. 593, 3 
 (VToida 256. 356. 716 
 f^nidpanevovTOi I43.21I 
 f^aiperus 1 23, 4 
 f^ni<pvr]i 716 
 f^mrifTjs 716 
 e^/c- 378 
 f^aarpinrrji 143 
 i^vvrjK'v 582 A 
 f'^wXea 176. 219, I. 
 
 281, 3 
 eojKa see niKa 
 EoTTu/xoi'or 246 
 copr^ 287, I a. 397 
 iovTwv 256. 258. 565 
 iivapf] a 162 
 €TTavpi(rK<i} aor. 608, 3 
 eneav yi6 $ 
 
 eneiSdv 716 
 tneiTa 716 
 iTTiirev 716 
 fTTe^rjs 716 
 eneffov 607, 5 
 eVr/Xtj 397 
 
 *''■'?'' 75) 2. 716 
 firfjae see 0^0) 
 ETTtaXTTjf 361 
 ETTtKoupos 253, I 
 (TrifieXrjav 232, 6 
 fViVeioj/ 286, I 
 
 inltiKoiov 228, I 
 fTn<T(Tai 87. 370 
 ini(TTOjjiai 585? 3- 605. 
 
 606. 618, I. 624. 
 
 688, I /. «. 
 {■mry]8fos 219, 5. 554 
 fnobwKei 410 
 epapai fut. 593, 3. aor. 
 
 372. 635, I 
 eparai 25 
 
 e'paw ^w?o- aor. 593, 4 
 epyd^op-cn 578. 582 
 epyavov I49 
 epyvvpi 691 
 epyv\ov 25 
 epyo) 142. 405. 582 
 epSo) p. 33/. «. 582 
 
 e'pfiSco perf. 583,2. 617 
 
 epe'iKU) perf. 583, 2 
 fpeiofxei/ 221. 224, 3 
 f'pfTor 688, 4 
 
 epeidco aor. pass. 634, 5 
 
 f'peo) = epaco 1 67. 688, 4 
 eprjfios 123 
 epij? 197 
 e'pi- 128 
 epiypa 1 44, 4 
 epiof « 224, 3 
 Epfid(f)i\os 184 
 'Epp^s 219, 10 
 EppJai a 196 
 'Epp/eco 289, 2. 429, 2 
 Epficauocrcrn 1 47, 4 
 f'pprjyfla 1 37. 604, 4 
 eppo) 326 
 epo-ot 224, 6. 382 
 (pcrT]i> 100. 112. 134. 
 
 197 
 'Epvdpal 122 
 ep^opai perf. 583, 2. 
 
 imperf. 606 
 epwSidff see apcoSio? 
 epcos 57. 545 
 es see els 
 iaana^ 716 
 ivdcTfi 593) 2 
 iadaeuv 593, 2 
 (adrjv 545 
 
 eo-^i 144 
 icrOuLv 196 
 eo-Kf 345. 716 
 €VXo9 13. 357, 7 
 eacreiToi 1 26. 607, 5 
 eaarju 9. 25 
 e(T(Tavp.aL 1 39 
 ecracov 1 39 a 
 e'(TTaXdSaro 585, 3 «. 4. 
 
 616 
 eo-re 345. 716 
 eWews 279, I. 701 
 eariT] 144 
 eo-o) 715 (p. 601) 
 eVnlpo?, -apos 1 23. 1 33. 
 
 210 
 erepos I34 «. 295, 5 
 eroifios 123 
 'Ero/cX^y a p. 255 
 Ev^ofvs 227 
 Ev/3oia 174/. «. 
 Ev^ois 227 
 tvyrjpoi 123, 3 
 evBofiov 247 
 ei'6ci) 580 
 
 EldvKapTidr]! 1 28. 392 
 Eti^i'paxoy 198. 392 
 ei^iij 198 
 ev\r]pov 249 
 evpaperj 2 1 9, 8 « 
 ev/xfinrj 1 76 
 evv(ico 634, 5 
 evvoia 178 
 evi/our p. 238/. ». 2 
 evvTcov 287, 2 
 evpd^ 326 
 evpe'a 2 1 9, 2. 506 
 ftiper) 419 
 
 Evpi;;ieSoj/Tia6fa 572 
 Evpva6eveovs 247. 529. 
 
 P- 530 
 eiJcrac 287, 2 
 6ure 716 
 eil<» 398 n. 
 tcj)6opa 147, 2 
 'E^i-pj? 73 
 
 fX35i 
 €XP»7 264, 2 
 
f'XPnv 574- 576 n 
 (X^ 216. fut. 592, 5, 
 607, 6. see avex^ 
 
 e'f ecu 637, 3 
 
 6\/.a) 580. 637, 3 
 
 ((06a 582 
 
 eto^fj/ 289, I. 290 
 
 (codo'ia 604, 4 
 
 ecooy 228, 5 
 
 tupro 289, 1 
 
 ecoy 34. 140, 5. 716 (sub 
 
 Tecos) 
 ((OS ov 716 
 
 fdmi 387 
 fapyov 171 
 fe'Xos 390, 3 w. 2 
 fepleief 387. 389 
 fi(j)iKnpTi8i]S 390, 2. 392 
 
 T''^ 390, 3 
 
 /^oi 387. 389. 390, 3 
 /^oiKeo) 390, 3 
 fdo-o-a 390, 3 
 fori 569 a 
 
 fa- 365- 377> 3 « 
 
 Znvos 182 
 
 ffiw aor. 593, 4 end. 
 
 687, 2 
 Zeijs 270. 517 
 few fut. 593,3, aor.pass. 
 
 635. I 
 Ztjvos 68, 4. 77, I 
 Zv? 182 
 
 ^TjTpdOV 25 
 
 C^apaySos 377, 4 
 
 foes 200 
 
 ior) J J, 6. 200. 296, I. 
 
 687, 3 a 
 Cooi 268. 317. 687, 3 a 
 iopKCLS 377 
 
 foco 200. 267, 3. 314 
 fwti-ypia 294 
 ((oypeco 294 « 
 fojj; 200 
 ZojtXos 299 
 (wov 299 
 ftods 200. 268, 553 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 Coys 200 
 
 Caiu 200. 268. 269. 687, 3 
 
 rjydvea 25 
 
 rjynvov 1 91. 326 
 
 'Hye- 130 
 
 'Hy^i/a£ a 281 
 
 17yds 25 
 
 ^Se 716 
 
 TjSfir] 419 
 
 7J8vp.os 68, 4 
 
 ;75a) fut. 593, 4 (l3. 494) 
 
 ^etV 582 (p. 473) 
 TjeXios 59. 112. 264, I 
 fjepios 169. 264 
 'HeTicoi/ 2ogf. n. 
 ^'')P 169 «. 413 
 ^'ta provisions 286, 2 
 ^'10 went 703 
 rjldfos 286,1 
 ^itaj/ 286, 1 
 
 ^KT} 169. 191 
 
 17/ca) 591, 2. fut. opt. 598 
 J^XncTKafa) 191 
 ^Xeds 123, 3 
 
 T]\i6lOS JO 
 
 TjXios 264. 397. 410 a. 
 see ijXios 
 
 iik(Tap.r]v 593, 3 
 r]kwKa 582 
 
 Vi' 112. 582 A I. 612. 
 
 616. 714 
 TJjx^XaKOv 594 
 Tjixepai 122 
 TjiJ.epo(p(i3Vos yo 
 r]peT€pos 68, 9 
 r]pidiov 381 
 
 7]fiia€a 124. 219, 2. 506 
 rjfiKTer] 419 
 
 ;5^Ml(TV 155. 195 
 
 ijVuo-v 134. 155 
 Tjiiopis 191 
 
 fjpopos see hpp.opos 
 
 ^^09397. 716 sub OT^jUOS 
 
 7V 75, 2. 716 
 
 )7i'6a»'e 281, I. 582 
 
 TjveiyKa 608, 2 
 
 jjveiKa see fveyK-, iveiK- 
 
 649 
 
 ^wpe'^ 165 
 ']^e 582 
 
 f;oioy 228, 5. 299 
 V/J 99- 221. 281, 2 
 V/w 169. 283. 716 
 'Hpd»cXeo£ 219, I 
 HpnfcXecorrjs 2 1 9, I 
 "Hpr; 172 
 
 r]p{jp€UTd<i 583, 2. 617 
 ^/Ji- 264, 1 
 rjpivos 69 
 'Ho-io^rjaj 57. 191. 283. 
 
 , 513 
 ^TTn 139 
 
 fjTCO 708 
 
 f^V- 578. 580 
 
 "H(f)niaTos 397 
 
 17X01 716 
 
 ^moy 228, 5. 299 
 
 T]d)S 119. 266, 2. 290. 
 
 542 
 
 ^df<i 171, 685 
 
 BaKos 202 
 
 edAfd 219, I 
 
 QaXijs 263, 3. 429 a. 545 
 
 ddWco perf. 603, 615 
 
 Bdnpai 685 
 
 ddnrui 355. aor. pass. 
 
 636 
 
 0apy)7Xtos 139. 355 
 (9(ip(7os 77, 6. 128. 382 
 ddaaui' 163 
 dnrepos 1 34 
 davjxa see doivpit 
 -de, -6ev adverbs 716 
 dea,6er] 171. 263, I. 685 
 dedofiai 685 
 ^eapos 160 f.n. 202. 277, 
 
 I a 
 (9eir;i 238 
 
 eeto- = eeo- 220 « 
 Qfia-av 168 
 
 eeKkibj]s 144. p. 255 rt 
 GeXyivef 356 
 ^Ao) 31. 51. 577- 579- 
 
 588 « 
 
 Oepis 548 
 
 t*eSE,LIB«>^ 
 
650 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 Geo-, GfD- 287, 2 
 
 SeopSoreof 33 1 W. 
 
 6eopf'a> 287, 1 
 
 dfopoi 287, I a 
 
 Geos 287, 2. 289,2. 311. 
 
 312, 2«. 413. 459 
 dfpaTTflr], -T)ir] 232, I 
 depaus 128 
 Of ant a 1 19 
 GfTtJ 546 
 QevTTopnos 333 
 Bevpos 202. 2S7, I rt 
 ^ei's 123, 3. 287, 2 
 ^fDri? 355 
 
 6fo) 637, 2 
 
 ^etopos- 202. 287, I a. 
 
 289, I. « p. 244 
 Qrj^ats 209 
 
 Brjiopai 258. 685. p. 529 
 6i]fiUi 205 
 ^^/^oy 205. 258 
 ^/;Xea 2 1 9, 2. 506 
 6rj\(S)v 124 
 Qrjpas 158 
 Brjpevfi 248 
 6t}adpfvos 263, I. 685 
 -^t adverbs 716 
 ^Afico 364. p. 527. fut. 
 
 592,4 
 
 ^Al/3a) 364 
 
 6vj']aK(0 233, 6. perf. 
 
 595, 4. 604, 4. 701 
 GokXoj 144. p. 255 « 
 Bpacria 2 1 9, 2 a 
 Opdaos 128 
 Qpetaaa 237 
 
 GprjK') yy, I. 260 
 eprjUioi 63. 77, I. 237. 
 
 285. 286, I 
 Gp.7^ 77, I. 286, I 
 
 BvpirjTai 637, I. 687, I 
 ^LiJ/oj 591 
 
 6vp(op6s 277, I « 
 6v(j}X6i 356 
 
 ^wiiij 299 
 6S>Kos 202 o 
 
 ^(iyixa 32. 100. lOI. 205. 
 258 
 
 Qa>pdi>Tai 205 
 ^wpr;^ 185 
 
 (9coTaC'co 346. 355 
 
 Soivfjn 100. 205. 258 
 
 'in 119 
 
 jdopai 688, 4. p. 527 
 lackey 34 
 lacTCTfvs 373 
 IfivKiveu) 25 
 lyi'va 122 
 (Si'j; 716 
 iS/xej/ 358 
 Idpoco 687, 3 
 lepaTeat 2 1 9, I 
 le'peia 177 a. 2 1 9, 9. 
 
 232, 7 
 le'peo)? II. 18. 289, I. 
 477. a p. 254 
 
 Upf(xl(TVVT] 289, I 
 
 Upifiov 232. 234 
 
 (epr;oi/ 234 
 
 Upos 300 «. 398 
 
 Upaavvrj 289, I 
 
 te'o) 691 n. 2 
 
 iijXepos 77, I 
 
 'ir^XDO-oj 184 
 
 I'rj/ii I96rt. augm. 582 A 
 
 I, 2. accent 691 n. 2. 
 
 691-701 
 Iijcro)*' 184 
 
 ''?T"VP 95 
 
 hjTpeiT] p. 104 /. tt. 
 
 IrjTpos 184 
 
 Wayfprji 1 65. 2IO 
 
 tWa 219, 2. 506 
 
 We'r) 419 
 
 t^L-f 198. 716 
 
 'UeXos p. 33/. M. 145 
 
 iKeTfvo) 248 
 
 hviopai 397. perf. 612 
 
 iKo) 591, 2 
 
 iXaos 139. 196 
 
 tXeof 139. 196. 287, I 
 
 iXfcoff 139 a. 477 a 
 'l-M 197 
 
 'iXto-oy 373 
 'iXXi/piot 123, 5 
 
 tXijs 196 
 tp.arioj/ 224, 9 
 ^Ip^dpaidos 128. 373 
 ti/a 716 
 "ivuKoy 123, 2 
 'loXnof 62. 160 
 'louXiTjron' 173 
 liTne^dpov 137 
 iWo? 397. 410 « 
 ipeb] 177 
 
 W 144, 4- 197 
 ip-?^ 185. 300. 397 
 Ip^s 144, 4. 197 
 ipopyia 2% I, III A 
 
 Ipcti 100. loi. 300 a. 
 
 398 n. 
 Idli 410 rt. 716 
 iVoy 196 a. 395 a 
 iVffrtt a 395. 716 
 ta-TTjpi 585, 3. plup. 596. 
 
 691-701 
 'loTtai'?; 144. 179 
 IcTTuuSiTis 144' 194 
 ItTTirj 144. 397 
 
 tVe'v 197 
 l)(dvci)8r]S 314 
 
 Kdfipa 305, I a 
 Kad- in compounds 399 
 KaBmpoi aor. 593, I 
 Ka^e'^o/;iat 605. aor. 630 
 KadoTi 716 
 Kadws 716 
 
 Kato) 209. aor. 593, 4. 
 
 aor. pass. 636. perf. 
 
 614, 2 
 KaKiou 196 
 /ca/citf 196 
 KaXe'o) fut. 592, 4. aor. 
 
 593,- 3. aor. pass. 
 
 635> I 
 KoX ivbeoi 132 
 
 KoXos 164 a 
 KaXxr]86vios 347 
 Kap(i(Tapvr] I47>4* 
 KapnTo} 349 
 Kaj/SaCXa 44 
 KaoKaaicov 243 
 
INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 651 
 
 Kapad'iKe'u) 165. 261, 2. 
 
 545 
 KcpSir) 128 a 
 
 Kaprj 545 
 
 Knprjaos 9. 1 23, $ 
 K(i piKevpye'os 295 I, II A 
 Kapos 130 
 KopTra^ioj 1 28 
 Kaprn I28. 716 
 Kaprepas 1 28 a 
 Kapros 128 
 KaT- 52. 330. 715 
 Kara = Kara ra 406 a. 
 716 
 
 KOTti 131. 132. 715 
 
 KaTii^oiij 228, I 
 KiiTavTi) 716 
 
 (car(i77€p 399. 406 a. 716 
 KUTaTTCJiipeiris 362 
 
 KllTopfoV 162 
 
 KaTiTjya 582 
 
 Kfire/jyora 1 82 /. n. 
 
 Karon 716 
 
 Ka^j?^ 242 rt. 339, 3 
 
 (tai'jjf 242 
 
 KaiiKaad 1 7. 243 
 
 K€, KeV 41. 50. 716 sub 
 
 av 
 Kii 716 
 Kelarai 2 1 9, 7 
 K€ipai 713 
 
 /ceivo? 69. 77, 3. 224, 2 
 (ceii/oj 31. 48. 77, 6. 78. 
 
 224, 15. 326. 564 a 
 Kflos 286, I 
 KdpvXoi 167 
 KfKipenTai 281, 3. 61I 
 KfKXrjyd 327 
 KfKpaya 1 82. 327 
 KeXeiico perf. 614, 2 
 KEj/edr 86, 2. 123, 3 
 K(v<Tni 224, 5. 338 
 
 K€VT€U> fut. pass. 633, I 
 
 Kepavvvpi 182. aor. 604,2 
 Kf'pay a 100. 544 
 KfpbiAr] 263, I a. 423 
 K>?yXo* 25. 125 
 Kijios 286, I 
 
 Kr)X>; 164 a 
 Ki]^ 242 
 KjjpvXos 167 
 
 K^V^ 242 « 
 
 Ki/3a)T0j 87 
 Ki6a)V 346 a 
 
 KlK\rj(TK(x> 233, 6 
 
 Kivaais 188 
 Kt|ii\Xa9 379 
 
 KipVTJJJil 691, 2 
 
 KirraXjjs 25. 379 
 
 KtrW/;? 371 
 
 Kt;^aj'a) 1 62 
 
 /ctajj/ 413 
 
 KXiiyos 349 
 
 KXaicii 209 
 
 kXcij 604, 3 
 
 -k\€T]s, -KXrjs 5. 6. 7. 526 
 
 /cXetj'dj69. 224,10. 310 
 
 KXeiTOi 262 
 
 KXfo-, KXev- 287, 1 
 
 KXeopnopoi 295, 4 rt. 
 
 312, I 
 KXeco 219 a 
 KXr]8a>u 263, I 
 k\t)'l^cci 2 86, I 
 KXriicTKeTai 233, 6 
 /cX^to) 233, 5. 286, I. 
 
 aor. pass. 635, i 
 KXPjpi 604, 3 
 KXijBavos 327 
 kXiVcb aor. pass. 635, 2. 
 
 636 
 KXdSeti"if p. 255 a 
 KXoveovTa 661, 2 
 kXi'o) a 199. 598 
 Kwio) 593, 4, aor. pass. 
 
 635, I 
 
 Kvacj^ev^i 349 
 
 Ki/do) fut. 592, 5. 687, 2 
 
 KVtJO-TOS 25 
 
 KouXri 228, I 
 KotXa 17 
 KOipeM 688, 4 
 
 /C0(2/t'(U 682. 690 
 KOlVOf 380 
 
 KoKKvas 25 
 KoXcdv 254? I 
 
 Kopioi 688, 4 
 
 (co/ida)0"t 643, I 
 
 KOV€(t> 341 
 
 KovtaKe 21. 44 
 KdpSivrjpa 384 
 Kopsvvvpi fut. 592, 4. 
 
 perf. 615. aor. pass. 
 635, I 
 
 Kop^d 128 
 
 K<)p7, 62. 75 a. see Koi'pj; 
 
 Kopjjo-d? 373 
 
 Kopn-r] 382 
 KoviXaL 228, I 
 KovXeoi' 254, I 
 Kovpoy, Koi'pr; 6 1 «. 69. 
 
 75, 2 a. 77, 4. 78. 
 
 188. 253, I 
 Kov(f)OTris 123, 2 
 KpadiT] 128 
 (cpd^ft) 182. 327. 596 
 Kpiinados 1 28 
 (cparifrros- 128 
 KpuTOi 128 
 /fp/ay 221. 544 
 Kpdas a 196. 221 
 Kp€p.ap.M perf. 61 5- 
 
 637,4 
 Kpepdvvvpi aor. 593> S- 
 
 aor. pass. 635, i 
 Kpf(T<T(ov 86, 3. 128. 142 
 Kprj- 182 
 Kprjiov 232, 6 
 Kp/>;; 183 
 Kpijaas 604, 2 
 KpTjcrc^vyiTov 165 
 KpiSavos 327 
 
 KpiVo) aor. pass. 635, 2 
 
 Kp(oi (cdXoi 3- 25 
 Kpoaivfo 313 
 KpoKiiSeiXos 154 
 KTUOpai 167. 169.687,2. 
 
 redupl. 583, 4 
 KTelvopui 624 
 KTeiVw aor. pass. 635, 2 
 KTficn'aji' 168 
 KTepuo 40 
 Krr;pii/of 33 1 
 KvSiXXd a 155 
 
652 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 Kvnvoxj/iwv 149. 344 
 
 pass. 633, 3. aor. 
 
 Xt.),9«opai688, 3,4.p. 530 
 
 Kv8pr]\os 184 
 
 pass. 636 
 
 Xoiios 299 
 
 Kveoaag^. 246a. p. 5 30 
 
 Xeifiu) 326 
 
 XcOOVTO 200 
 
 Kvea 637, 3 
 
 X(lOV(TL 221 
 
 Xoyrovvra 295, I. 66l,l 
 
 Kvdjjr] 346 
 
 Xelci) 687, 2 rt 
 
 2 /. M. 
 
 KV pidinv 23/. )i. 
 
 Af/d)8?;f 160. 221 
 
 n 
 
 KvBpo- 346 a 
 
 AeioJKpiTOS 160. 221 
 
 /[i, name 136/. n. 
 
 Kv6p6yavXos 23 /. 71. 
 
 Xfiws 295 I, II A. 716 
 
 pa 716 '1 
 
 KVKeo) 688, 4. p. 530 
 
 XeXaapevos 1 30 n. 
 
 MaSoi 171 4 
 
 KVKeMV 289, I. 523 
 
 AfiiKcoj/ 246 
 
 M«fof 377 " 
 
 KVKflO) 38 
 
 Xeovpyos 295 I, II A. 716 
 
 Maiadev 572 
 
 KvKXeo) -00) 690 
 
 sub Xficos 
 
 Mai^Tis 194. 546 
 
 Kv'Kivdco 132 
 
 Aenadfvs 363 
 
 painpni aor. 593, 3 
 
 Kvnarayt] 292, I 
 
 Aeo-;(eft) or 477 
 
 puKap 551 
 
 Ki'irepos 142 
 
 X€i;fii' a 248 
 
 /xaXjoi/ 163. 556 
 
 Acvpe'o), -0) 637, 3 
 
 AevKopio? 287, I /. n. 
 
 paXKUjV p. 527 
 
 Kvpao) 382 a 
 
 AevTvxt^rji 29. 287, I a 
 
 poXXoi' 163 
 
 '^'^'^ 637, 3 
 
 Afvxdpr]s a 287, I 
 
 paXov 68, 10 1 
 
 Kwa? 136. 544 
 
 Xexo'i 523 
 
 pdppt] a 420 * 
 
 *cm/irt 205 /. n. 
 
 AecoSfi's 289, I 
 
 par 139 
 
 Kaf)i8es 45. 253, I 
 
 Xeaipyoy 289, I. 295 I, 
 
 pavos 75 f*. 386 
 
 Kws 477 a 
 
 II A. 716 sub Xeius 
 
 pavTTjiov 231. 232, I 
 
 
 Xeo)? 29. 140, 4 a. 158. 
 
 Mai'TiJ/^ 263, 3 («) 
 
 Xu^eade accent 1 26 
 
 160. 166. 170. 289, 1. 
 
 Mao\|/os 277, 4 
 
 Aa^vvrjros 328 
 
 477 
 
 pdpadov 335 
 
 XdlSmatp 1 3, 9. 241 
 
 Xews see Xfioii 
 
 pnpyeo) 688, 4 
 
 Xayof 123, 6 
 
 Xrl 687, 2 
 
 pdpfonai 618, I 
 
 X(i-y;^(iVa) fut. I 30. 607,6. 
 
 Xijeo) 687, 2 a 
 
 pnpTvpeopai 6^7, 3 
 
 perf. 583, 6 
 
 Af;^ntou 209 
 
 papruy 55 1 
 
 Xnycof 267, 3. 478 
 
 Xrjirj 286, I 
 
 Mapcoj/etTjj? &C. 197* 
 
 Xd^opai, -VIJ.IIL 590 
 
 X;7<oi' 286, I 
 
 233> 5 
 
 Aai\|/-r/pos 326 
 
 Xijp\l/i>p,ai 130 
 
 pdrraco HOY. 593) 3 
 
 Xnp/^ai'o) fut. 1 30. 607, 6 ; 
 
 X^o? 27 f.n. 55. 288 
 
 paoTiytd) = -oco 690 
 
 aor. 130. 619 ; aor. 
 
 and see Xews 
 
 pavXi(TTT]piou p. 46 y. W. 
 
 pass. 130. 634, 4 ; 
 
 XrjTOvpyeu' 234 
 
 Maya-wXXof 329 
 
 perf. 130. S^3>6. 595. 
 
 X1771/ 180. 716 
 
 paxeop"' 637, 3 
 
 4«. 615. 631 
 
 Xi'^of ff 413 
 
 Maxfo)" 140, I. 158 
 
 X«p\//-o/iat 130 
 
 Xii/fp-yi^f 295 I, III B a 
 
 pdx"pni fut. 592, 4. 629; 
 
 \av6dvo) aor. pass. 636, 2 
 
 Xina 550 
 
 aor. 593, 3. 619 
 
 Kd^eadai 1 30 
 
 X'ls 484 
 
 peyados lOO. 1 29 
 
 Aa^is 130 
 
 ^'V 553 
 
 pf^eovaa 74- 7^ 
 
 Xaos see Xj;oy, Xecos 
 
 Xirpov 328 
 
 peSos 139. 377 
 
 XaTrdaaa 579. 591/.??-. 
 
 XoyxT 25 
 
 pefiip»/os 123 
 
 AaTT/; 328 
 
 Xof'to 200 
 
 M'Co? 139- 377 
 
 Xapivos 272, 2 
 
 Aoyo) 637, 4 
 
 pefwi' 86, 3. 142 a 
 
 'Xdyj/opai II. 18. 130 
 
 Aoxay6s I 57. 1 83 
 
 Mfffapr] 202 
 
 Aea- 281 a 
 
 Xoco 637, 4 
 
 pt/j 224, 5. 543 
 
 Aey'^ perf. 583, 6. fut. 
 
 Xi/Treo) fut. pass. 633, I 
 
 peXXd) 577 
 
INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 (>53 
 
 fifHaKina 1 30 /. 11. 
 fiefierifievos 582 A. 69I 
 
 n. 2. 701 
 ufuvfoifieda 020 
 fieixvofiai see txi^vTj(TK(x> 
 /if/iopDXMe"" 35° 
 fifv = M" 139 
 jjLf&afi^pLr) 130 
 fiear^yi 373. 716 
 IxfCTodfii] 358 
 /*eV(TOS 373 
 fieacpi 715 
 ^era 85 /.». 715 
 fi€Taaa<n 370 
 /icravTis 716 sub (iiViy 
 fierf^tTfpoi ffi 570 
 fiereuipoi 289, I 
 MeVutKos 154. 226 
 
 ^f'w 715 
 
 Mr;Sft7 179 
 Mr]8ot 171 
 fifjdoixai 608, 3 
 ft77(9€V357, 2« 
 
 flTjKOTf 716 
 
 HrjXiBes 68, 10 
 Mr/Xi'y 77, I. 158 
 firjXnv 68, 4 
 fir]\ii(f)6p(,)v 77) I 
 
 A"?" 543 
 
 Mrjoviari p. 46 /. M. 
 286, I 
 
 fiTjTpCOS 25 
 
 p.r]\av4op(U 688, 4 
 
 /ita 41. 115, 3. 119. 
 
 419 
 piiyvvp.1 196. aor. pass. 
 
 636 
 /iifptjy 134 
 /xirjf/)di/oii 195 
 
 fllKKOS 25. 352 
 
 MtKpof 112. 352. 384 
 
 fJLLp.Utj(TK(a fut. 633, I ; 
 
 aor. 608, 3. 628 ; aor. 
 
 pass. 635, I ; perf. 
 
 615. 620. 626 
 piv 559 a 
 MivSaop 209 
 
 MivBaiotiv 144, 2 
 fXLvvdio), -o) 637, 3 
 M('pya)»/33I 
 fjiia-yu) 196 
 
 fJLl(Tt]T7] 122 
 
 /HT^eo) 690 
 jj-vaialoi 141. 421 
 pvauov 231 
 p-vaopai 620. 687, I 
 /nWa 140, 5. 421 rt 
 p.oiprj 418 
 
 /xoXdx'7 I47> 3 
 MoXTrds 165 n. 
 fioXv^Sos 155 
 Moui'i;(ta 75, I « 
 p.nvfos 52. 69. 75, I. 
 
 77, 4- 99- 252 
 
 poixra 69. 25s 
 MOX^os 348 
 /i.Dt«'a) 637, 3 
 
 M'^f<" 593, 2 
 pvO'iTai 154/. ». 301 
 MuKrjl'ai' 68, 6 
 /iUK»y? 545 
 Mi^Xfiupoy 244 
 fivKcupoi 244 
 fjivoao^ai 229 
 pivpia^fcov 74, 2 
 /Lti-pi'C" 350. 583, 4 
 livpixfievtts 13. 350 
 /xC? 541 
 pvTTaKSi 25 
 piapeopaL 49- 688, 3, 4 ^*' 
 
 P-530 
 
 yuwl/ 206. 252. 716 sub 
 pa>p6s 123, I 
 vafvTTiyoi 75, I- 393 
 
 i/ni 716 
 va'tov 210 rt 
 Nao- = Ndv- 243 
 i-dpKa 418 
 
 i/ao-o-o) aor. 593 end. 
 perf. 615 
 
 vuvr)ylr] 1 82 /. n. 
 vavKpapoL y^' 158 
 I'nCr see vrjis 
 
 vavaa-dv rt 375 
 Nau(TTfi'pi;$- 224, 14 
 J^e'^ 263, 1 rt 
 Vfrjvirjs 1 84 
 i/f^ffy 263, I 
 CftKi; 197 
 t'fiojs a 220 
 ffo-, i/fv- 287, I 
 viopai aor. 60S, 3 
 
 NfOTToXlf 184 
 
 l-foo-crfjs- rt p. 255 
 
 via> heap up 608, 3. 
 
 614 rt. 687, 2 
 i/t'o) spin 289, 3. 687, 2 
 i/f o) swim 608, 3. 637, 2 
 
 fECOKOpOS rt 140, 5. 478 
 ffOJTTOUM 140, 5 
 
 Vfcarn 289, I 
 v^ = I'er; 263, I 
 VTjVi 263, I 
 
 Vrjl'LUTOV 44_/. W. 
 i"7dy 140, 5. 478 
 vrjTTOivii 716 
 
 N'7P?;s- 233, 2 
 vTjpiTov 68, 10 
 i/ijo-o-oj 373 
 
 i/^Sf 77, 5- 139- 170. 
 
 190. 191. 200. 517 
 i/ijo) heap up 687, 2 
 NiKa? 209 
 viKeuo 688, 4 
 J^LKi]va)p 183 
 
 rti/ 559 rt 
 
 )/oeco a 77, 6. 99. 207. 
 
 296, I rt. p. 529 
 i/6oi 266, I. 458 if. 
 v6ar]pa 97. 255 
 1/0(70? 45. 255 
 voaaeoo 63 1 
 Nocrtri/cay 165 ". 
 voaaos 144, 3. rt p. 255. 
 
 631 
 i/oOffoj 69, 2. 77. 4. 97- 
 
 99. 104 «. 105. 255 
 
 vv 716 
 
 fi'/i^a 130 end 
 vvvi 716 
 j/cD^ijs rt 288 
 
^54 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 Seivi'iprji 167 
 
 ^e'tvoi 69, I. 75, I. 77,3- 
 
 224, 2 a 
 SeviipfTO'; 1 67 
 SevrjpeTos 1 67 a 
 SefOKpaTi'iin 232, 6 
 ^f fos 5 /. ?!., 224, 2 « 
 ^rjpn'ivio aor. 593, I 
 IlV 85/. n., see dvv 
 ^vvIfTe 196 
 ^vfos 86, 3. 199. 380 
 ^WMvit) 289, I 
 Ivpe'to, -co 637, 3. 688, 4 
 ^lici) perf. 614, 2 
 
 o(i 250 
 
 o^oXo? 134 a. 137. 359 
 
 oyScBKOi/Tfi 34. 207. 296, I 
 oyKeco, -00) 690/'. H. 
 o5a^o/xat a 1 47, 4 
 ofif 67. 561, 2 
 oS/i^ 358 
 ofios-255«. 397 
 oSii/'fo/xdt 688, 4. p. 527 
 
 '06v(rei~s 38. 507 
 
 obiiv 545 
 
 *of<mV 5- 390, 3- 391 
 
 o^^er; 2 1 9, 4 
 
 oiyvvpi 582 a 
 
 ot<5n 702 
 
 otSaco p. 569/. n. 
 
 ol^vpos 199. 298, I 
 
 ol^vs 298, I 
 
 o?j; 17 
 
 orK« 51. 228, 4. 582 
 
 otK€M 579 B. 5S2 
 
 olKrjteo) 690 
 
 oiKijoi Attic 73. 509 
 
 niKljOTUTOi 554 
 
 oiKL^oy 582 
 olKo8npea> ^jS. 582 
 ()lKO(f)dopeciy 582 
 
 ot/xot 614, I. 582 « sub 
 
 oti/o;^0€a) 582 
 
 oros 397 
 
 oij 78. 298, I. 490a 
 
 oi(Tn 601, 628 
 
 ojVtos- 298, I 
 o'lxoK( 583, 2 
 oiito 298, I a 
 oi'diK)? 298, I a 
 oKtj 86, 4. 342 
 
 OKfUoy 86, 3. 99. 342 
 OKXns 362 
 
 OKOJS- 78. 342. 592, 5. 716 
 
 oXi^ov 25. 123, 2. 377 
 
 oXiov 25. 377 
 
 oXXujut fut. 592, 4. aor. 
 
 593, 3. perf. 583, 2. 
 
 691 fF. 699 
 OXopnos 154 
 oXovdoi 154 
 oXof 254, I a 
 oXuxpew a 688, 4 
 oprjyepen 68, 5 
 o/itxeco, -o) 397. 637, 3 
 
 opi'vpi 691, 3. 699/. n. 
 
 opntfOLi 690 
 opoios 123, I 
 Ofi(f)aXr]r('po^ 25 
 Ovarriuiv 156 
 oi'fipoco aor. 593, 2 
 
 oy/;ioTOf 233, 6. 555 
 
 ovrjiriirnXii 70 
 ovi"t]pi. perf. 609 
 
 ovopn 252 « 
 ovvpa 154 
 o|ea 219, 2 
 
 o^e'? 419 
 6^6^(i(f)nv 154 
 
 OTTftai' 124. 140, I 
 
 onicrSe 716 
 
 oTTicrcru) 373 
 
 oVoi; 716 
 
 OTTTTOTf 53- 342. W. I 
 
 oTTTeu) p. 530 
 
 07r(f)is 362 
 
 OTTojy 46. 342. 716 
 
 opno) 86, 5. 397. 582. 
 641. 688, 4. 689. 
 p. 527. see opeo) 
 
 Opydi'T] 149 
 Spyvia 119. 178 
 opfioj 253, I rt 
 <jpe(TK00S a 241 
 
 op/o) 115, 4. 688, 4. 
 689. p. 530. see op(iw 
 "opiKos 123, 5 
 
 opKir^Topos 553 
 op pea 688, 4 
 'Opi/euTdi 185 
 opi/is 77, 5. 547 
 
 opoy see ovpm 
 
 'Opocj)fpvr]S 327 
 
 oppo? 253, 2. «334 
 
 oppcoSe'w 131 
 
 6p(Tod{ipr] 199 rt 
 
 6pr<i^&) 5 82 
 
 oprr; 287, I a V' 
 
 opvanu} perf. 583, 2 
 
 Of 397. 566 
 
 oo'fiopfi'of 377 
 
 oa-pt] 358 i 
 
 "OaraKos 147, 4 a 
 oaTfov 123, 3 ff. 287, 3. 
 _ 289, 3 
 
 6ir(f)paiua> aor. 608, 3 
 orei/VeKa 570- 7^5 
 oTiipoi a 570. 716 
 ov8np(k 454. 571. 716 
 ovBns 136. « 255. 544 
 ov8(piri 61. 115, 3. 419 
 ov8(k 255 rt 
 ov9ets 357, 2 « 
 oiXfu' 254, I 8^! 
 
 oiXr; 254, 2 
 OvXiann 256, cf. 1 84 
 oi'/Xopej'Of 69, 2. 254, 2 
 ovXo;^i'r(ii 78 
 ovXof entire 254, 1 a 
 ovXos crisp 254, 2 
 Oi'Xf^Tro? 34. 69. 2. 7 J, 
 4. 78. 254, 2 
 
 ovp 567, see wi/ 
 ouj/€Krt yy, 3. 715 « 
 ovi/fKfi' 715^ 
 oi-'i'o^a 45. 77, 4. 99. 
 252 
 
 ouoi/ 250 
 
 oupai'or 266, I 
 
 ovpeu) 582 
 
 ov/n; 199. 253, 2 
 
 ovpmat 253, I /. n. 397 
 
INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 655 
 
 ovpov 253, 2 
 
 ovposo 75, I. 77, 4. 78. 
 
 253, I a 
 ovpoi TO 62. 69, 2. 253, 
 
 I a. 400 
 ovy 255. 266, I. 292, I 
 ovTos 67 (p. 61). 108. 
 
 115, I. 472. 562 
 
 OVTCO -? 366. 716 
 
 ovxi 136/. «. 348 « 
 oc^et'Xco 224, 13 
 oc^t'XXu) 224, 13 
 o(f)is 363 
 6(f)Xeu) 594 a 
 6(f)\i(rKdv(o aor. 594 
 o0p(i 716 
 o\//7/ 607, 2 
 
 irdyxv 716 
 Trai'^co aor. 593, 2 
 nairjwv 34. 160. 184. 
 202. 288 
 
 TTOIS 63. 274 
 
 naLwu 61. 288 
 7raia)pi(u) 1 84. 202 
 TraXaiaTi; 2IO 
 TToX/jcrete 593) 4 
 7niXt(i') 340 «. 4. 716 
 ira\i[v)(rKLos 338 
 Ha/iei'or 169 
 Trafirjdrjv 1 69 
 HafKJinLrjs 210 
 Trai', TTui/ 161 
 
 nai/uK?; 219, 9. 281, 3 
 
 Traj/dr 75, I a 
 
 navooXea 1 76. 2 1 9, I. 
 
 281, 3. 533 « 
 7rd^ 716 
 
 Trdofxai 169 a. 246. 275 
 XlaouXXIfa 247 
 irapd 715 
 TTopai 715 
 
 irapaij3dTr]s 2IO. 715 
 Jrdpe^ 125. 715 
 nnpijopos 288 
 naprjpia 288 
 Trapicreopiai 690 
 napixevidrja 572 
 
 nnpvr]a(a)[i 77, I 
 n(ipj/r;(j(rd? 373 
 Tcatra 161 
 riacrjKVTrpos' 1 69 
 TTrtrdpa 171 
 miTpir'j 361 
 Trarpcoio? 299 
 Trdrptoj 25 
 
 TTai'o) aor. pass. 635, i 
 na)(€a 506 
 7r«fv 191. 420 
 TTfimco 687, I 
 Trei'i'/; 19 1. 420 
 TTfipd^^co 591, I 
 TTeipdofxai p. 527 
 Trerpnp 75, I. 224, 3 
 netpeojxai p. 530. 688, 4 
 Trero-pa 224, 5. 338 
 TTfi(rnfj.ai 224, 5 
 rif Xnp-ydj 331 fl^ 
 TreXdco 139 
 rieXij'i/aioi' 17 
 neXi^ 386 
 neWis 386 
 Trfcra/cdcrioi 19I 
 
 TTiVTrjKOVTUiV 1 3. 57 1 
 
 TT(Tvacrdai 1 69 
 vreneipng 224, 1 4. 553 
 TreTrXe'ttTOi 281, 3. 61I 
 7r€7rXe;^/neVn 35^ 
 TTfnXi'jaTaL 61 1 
 TrenXooKafKv 78 
 7r€7rrci)K(ua 6o4) 4 
 Trep 716 
 Dep-yapoi/ 25 
 TTfpijde 716 sub -^«(i') 
 TTf'pr;!/ 180. 716 
 Tre'pi^ 715 
 nepvrjxi 69 1 
 Trepvrjcritv 181 
 
 126. 607, 5 
 7Te(T0vp.at ) 
 
 TTird 715 
 
 neTavpov 249. 715 sub 
 
 TTerd 
 ■KfTiofxai 637, 3 
 nenvpov 249. 715 sub 
 
 Trerd 
 
 TTfi^ip^drfj 25. 377 
 nrjteo) 688, 4. p. 530 
 7rr;X(ii- 25 
 niji/eXews 37 
 nr]ie\n\j/- 68, lo 
 TT^pds- 123, I 
 
 7ri(i^(o 136. aor. pa98. 
 
 634, 3 
 Triuu'O) 634, 3 
 TTtnp.iy 553 
 TTief/o) 637, 3 
 
 mf'^oj aor. 593, 2. aor. 
 
 pass. 634, 3 
 TTift a 607, 5 
 Tvuvai a 607, 5 
 TTtdea-de accent 126 
 iT'ijjiTv\r]p.i 614. 691 n. 4 
 nipnpripi 614. 691 ». 5 
 Tni/e'o) 637, 3 
 TTtOfiai 607, 5 a 
 IT an- pill 607, 5 
 TrnTpr']crKu> 1S2 
 TriWo) fut. 607, 5. aor. 
 
 607, 5. perf. 604, 4 
 niT^eu?247. 357,5- 362 
 TrXayteo) 690 
 TrXai'eo/Liat 688, 4. p. 530 
 nXdroja 1 19 
 TrXarea 2 1 9, 2. 506 
 nXaTtr) 419 
 TrXer; 263, I 
 
 nXelov 99. 219, 3(7. 552 
 nXelaToi 2l8 
 TrXe/o) 221 
 
 nXeKco perf. 350. 595, 3 
 wXeov 219, 3 a 
 TrXedfcoy 716 
 nXfos 166. 263, I. 287, 
 
 3. 288. 312, I. 478 
 TrXfLi/xaJi/ 328 
 ■nXevpd^ 326 
 TrXeco 201 a. 328. 637, 2. 
 
 fut. 607, 5 
 nXecov 552. 555 
 TrXfcoj 288. 289, I 
 TrXr; 263, I 
 
 TrXr]ijLfivpis a 199. 339,3 
 nXqpeo} 643. 690 
 
656 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 ■nXrjaios 367 
 ttX^o-io? 191 
 TT^rjaa-a igi. aor. pass. 
 
 636, 2 
 7r\()o? 266, I. 267, I. 
 
 317. 458 &c. 
 7r\ovcrir] 367 
 ttXcoo) 78. 201 a 
 nveiit) 221 
 TTVevixatv 328 
 uvea 637, 2. fut. 607, 5 
 TTVorj a 227 
 TTI'OO? 45^ ^''^* 
 TTcew 227 a 
 m>6eu} aor. 593, 3 
 7ro(i)ea) 227 a 
 Trot'?; 122. 227 
 TTOirjTeav 2 1 3. 219, I 
 TToXdrr]'; 1 97 
 TToXficoff 220. 486 
 TToXeoy 287, 2. 486 rt 
 TToAewy 13. 166. 289, 3. 
 
 486 
 TToXtjm 283. 486 
 7roXr;ey 112 
 ■n6\r]i 286, I. 489 
 77-()X7;o? 288/. W. 486 
 770X11^7779 301 
 TToXiy 486 &C. 
 TToXiTt'jav 232, 6 
 
 7roXXos77,6. 100.254,1. 
 479 
 
 rioXuei'Srjy 1 97 
 
 noXutSoy 197 
 
 TToXv/CTiy/icoi' 35. 246,4''. 
 IldXvTrdi^T] 27J 
 niiXvnaixuiv 169. 246,4>*- 
 
 TToXi'y 100. 254, I. 479 
 TToveia fut. 592, 4. aor. 
 
 593,3. aor. pass. 634, 
 
 6. perf. 604, 4 
 TTopSnKos 128. 147, 2 
 TTopSnXtf 1475 2 
 TTopo-co 333 
 
 rioo-eiS- 145 
 
 rfocreiSawj' 140, !• 185. 
 280 
 
 nofffiSewj/ 232, 5. 236 
 
 UofTtihSiv 280. 289, I 
 IToa-jS- 145 
 IloiriSeoy 2 1 9, I 
 lioaihewv 140. 289, I 
 ■noraivM p. 102 f. n- 
 lioTfibearai I36ffl 
 TTOTi 77, 6. 368. 715 
 
 TToilXviTOi 254) I ^ 
 TTOvXl'? 100. 254, I rt. 
 
 479 
 77 par OS 68, 10 
 IIpfai/^Tjj 182. 257 
 TTpevixefi'js yy, 2. 1 82 a 
 Uprj^iTeXeo} 428 
 TTpTj^otaiu 13. 228, 6 
 npr](T(Tii> 68, 4- 182 
 
 ripr/i^Aof 182. 257 
 
 TTprjvfj.evjjS a 182 
 
 TTp/Jl's- 182. 257 
 
 Uprjvx^oi 182 
 TTp^^xp-a 13. 182. 350 
 npT]o)v 124. 280 
 
 nptTjXfji 14. 328. 510. 
 
 513 
 
 Hpi^i/T? 173. 184 
 
 Trpif 716 
 
 npio) perf. 614, I. aor. 
 
 pass. 635, I 
 irpoi^ 298, I 
 Tvpoiptj 241 
 71-pd/ca 716 
 IlpoKOi/i/r/croy 337 
 7rpop.rjd([r] 175 
 TTpoade 716 sub -^e(i/) 
 Trpoo-o-o) 333 
 
 npvfxi'r] yy, I. 78. 420 
 
 npvrai'eovTos 248 
 npatrjv yi6 
 TTpati 125. 716 
 npooirju 180. 297, 2. 299. 
 
 716 
 npai'ipit 299 
 Trpcoj/ 124. 280 
 TTpoji/ 297, 2. a 296. 716 
 TTpaxras 267, 4 
 Trpcoroj 292, I 
 TTTepvr] a 420 
 TTTTjaau) 203. perf. 604, 4 
 
 7TTo{l)f(0 227 
 
 7rri)<B fut. 592, 4 
 Trrtoacrw 203 
 TTveXns 135 
 nv6ev accent 126 
 nvXapos 279, I 
 TTuXaupos 244 
 TrvXfiipds 287, I 
 TTvXovpos 244. a 277 
 TTuXoopd? 244. « 277' 
 
 279, I 
 nwddiioixtu fut. 607, 5 
 nvp€(jau) aor. 593, 2 
 nvpidco p. 527 
 TTi^ppd? 334 j^ 
 
 "■i-po-d? 334 
 TTobXiin-os 45. 254) I ''f 
 
 770)1/0) 204 
 
 padvpeco 182. 208 
 
 pni^co 208. 274 
 
 patoi' 208. 286, I 
 
 pnniCco perf. 583, 5 
 
 pacpavis 1 36. rt p. 1 40 
 
 pd;^ty 182 
 
 pao)i/ 182. 286, I. 555 
 
 peedpov 262 
 
 peeo) p. 530/. Ji. 
 
 pe(f)avLK 136 
 
 peo) 637, 2. fut. 607, 5 
 
 'P^ 263, 3 (rt) a 
 
 pTjyvvpi. 6gi-yoi. prest. 
 
 subj. 618, I. perf. 
 
 137,604,4. aor. pass. 
 
 . 636 
 
 pr]i8ios 182. 286, I a. 
 
 . 555 
 pijvi^ 549 
 
 prjardivri 182, 2S6, I « 
 
 m''? 182 
 
 piye'o) 687, 3 li 
 
 ptydo) 267, 3. 295, I end. 
 
 ptrrreo) 637, 3 
 
 por; 122 
 
 po'i^os 41s 
 
 ptnr] 122. 227 
 
 poor 266, I. 317. 458&rc 
 
 '^1 
 
 "^1 
 
INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 ^51 
 
 fio^eoa 154 a. 590 
 pv6fj.6s 358 
 pvdfjLou) perf. 583, 5 
 pvtcTKOnai 153 
 pvTToca perf. 583, 5 
 pvapLOS 358 
 pvcpeco 154 a. 590 
 pcpdios 564, see apcoStoff 
 
 aafi^aka 364 
 
 Saj/QTri; 1 46 
 
 o-dor 277, I. 553 a 
 
 crapydvr] 369 
 
 (rdcrcra) 593, 2. 608, 3 
 
 o-do) 369. 643 
 
 (x^evvvpi aor. pass. 635, i 
 
 (T^oxrai a 296, I 
 
 ^fikrjvr] 225 
 
 creico 219, 4. aor. pass. 
 
 635, 1 (l) 
 
 (Tekrjvr] 1 66 
 2eXX>;tSeco 233, I 
 (revTXoj' 369 
 
 (Tfvo) aor. pass. 634, 5 
 
 a-rjlia 369 
 
 ai]iiaiva) aor. 593, I 
 
 crripipov 369 
 
 (TTifi^Lov 99. 232, 2, 4 
 
 2r]p.ovid7]$ 193 
 
 o-ijTes 25. 369. p. lOI 
 
 /. n. 2 
 crt'eXos 1 35 
 (Tiveopai 637, 3 
 0-10) 219, 4 
 (TKaTrap8ev(Tai 1 28 
 (7/cej3d^&)( = o-KfDdfco) 247 
 (TKeSdo) 590. fut. 592, 3. 
 
 perf. 614, 2 
 aKidfrjpii 590 
 
 o-Ki(p.)Tvoiv 337 f.n. 
 
 (TKtpTfW p. 530 
 
 (TK\r]poTJ]p 332 
 (TKophiveop.ai 688, 4 
 (TKopSivrjpa 384 
 (TKopiri^opai 87 
 (tkv^mXov 25 
 o-/CL'Xos- 199 a 
 (TKvn(pos 362 
 
 (TKVTa 165 
 
 or piapaybos 385 
 o-judo) 289, 3. 687, 2 
 2pep8is 385 
 ofiiKpos 112. 384 
 a-|ut\j; « 420 
 (T/xupi'^o) 385. 583, 4 
 a-pLvpvrj 385. 420 
 cr/xd);^(B 25 
 Soti/aurou 241 
 "■oo^ 553 ffl 
 aruapyeco p. 530 
 (TTrdco fut. 592, 4. perf. 
 614, I. aor. pass. 
 
 635, I 
 CTTTspxew 637, 3 
 Sn-eco 219, I 
 STTOi'Saof 209 
 crTadp.ea>, -oco 688, 4 rt 
 (rreiXaids a 221 
 (TTeivos 224, 2 
 (TTfipa 224, 14 
 orei'dTepos 75, I. 224, 2 
 o-rej/uypof 224, 2 « 
 SrefjjKXapos 224, 2 a 
 arepeoi aor. 593, 3 
 areponT] 1 28 
 (TTfp(j)os 25 
 a-Te(f)avr]Cf)6pos 68, 5 
 arrjpi^o} aor. 593, 2 
 (TTOij 227 
 <jTpaKT(o 326 
 a-Tp€(pa> aor. pass. 636 
 aTpond 128 
 (TTpoTOs 147, 2, cf. 157 
 o-rpon^ds 123, I. 0250 
 '^Tvp.apyiU) 154 
 (jTvpa^ 185 
 avycr<pLyye 411a 
 SuKeeuo-ii' 1 55 
 
 o-uXeo) 688, I, 4. p. 530 
 aiiv 86, 5. 99, 2. 100. 
 
 lOI. 380. 715 
 (Tvveyyvs "/iG 
 'SvpaKoaLos 255 
 SvpaKovcrios 255- 295) ^ 
 o-i-p^V 369 
 acpadai^a 2o8. 274 
 
 U U 
 
 o-0dfa) 591. aor. pass. 
 
 636 
 
 ff(/jdf 39. 559, 7 
 
 (T(j)dTT(0 591 
 
 o-j^do) aor. pass. 635, 
 
 1(2) 
 o-oifco 299 
 
 Scoj/Spoj 294. rt p. 262 
 (Taos 26S. 553 a 
 (Twj 553 a 
 (Tcocppoveo) 277 (f 
 
 (TWX(^ 381 
 
 Td/i/ias «355 
 rd/xj/co 1 29 a 
 Tavvo) aor. 593, 3 
 TttSra 93. 243 
 Tdnrjs 357, 4 
 rdTroXXcoj/of 292, 3 
 rapdo-o-o) perf. 595, 3 
 TapyrjXios 355 
 Tapairj 1 28. 382 
 rdp(/)oj 333 
 rdo-o-o) perf. 6l2 
 Tavpeav a 289, 3 
 raiiTO(ravroii 22 f. n. 
 rd(j)os 355 
 
 raxecot^ 1 24. 219, 2rt 
 T€ 716 
 -Tf{v) 716 
 Teye»; 185 
 TcOvdvai 700, I 
 T€tp- 197. 214 
 Teipeaias 225. 544 
 reio-- 197. 214 
 TeXiOpiov 357, I 
 TeXfos 219, 5 
 reXevTeco 688, 4 
 TeXew aor. 593, 3. aor. 
 
 pass. 635, I 
 reXeo)? rt p. lOI. 477 
 T€X(pS)<xa-a 295 I, II B 
 Tfpeva-a 690 end. p. 5 30 
 
 /• n. 4 
 T6>i/£o 129 rt. 594- 690 
 
 end 
 Tei/^ei;? 357, I 
 T€0 568 a 
 
658 
 
 INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 Tfpas 136. 544 
 Tfpa-ofiai. a 382 
 TepoiPaov 1 37. 209 
 Teaaapes 41. 1 34 
 TecraepaKovTcov 13. 134' 
 
 reaaepes 32. 1 34. 395 
 Terapros 1 28 
 TeTOKo7a 604, 4 
 reropcov S3f- ''• 
 Terparoi 1 28 
 Terprjva) 1 86. 59° 
 TeruKfri/ 34^ 
 t€v6ls 355 
 TtvprjaaTo 369 
 tcCtXoj' 369 
 
 rev^" 348- aor. pass. 
 634, 5 
 
 T€<a? 34. 716 
 T/; 716 
 
 Ti]ynvov 191. 326 
 Tijio? 231. 286, I 
 Tf]p.epos 369 
 Trjpos a 570 
 "Wa 77, I 
 TJjjpr; 184. 413 
 
 Tideaai 31. accent 691 
 
 n. 3 
 Tidrjpi 585, 3. fut. mid. 
 
 627. 691-701 
 TiKTO) perf. part. 604, 4 
 Tifxaos 209 
 Tt/xeo) 688, 4 
 TiprjfLv 319 
 
 Tipcopeai fut. i:j^rf. 632 
 Tipapos 277> I 
 riVw 197. 214. 593, 4. 
 
 597 
 TiTOKOf 123, 5 
 TiTpaxjKO) aor. pass. 
 
 634, 5 
 
 Tin 558. 716 
 ToX/ia 418 
 ToXpea) 688, 4 
 TOvBpv^U) rt 152 
 Topoovalos 137 
 Too-o-of 373 
 TOVVeKev 71$ d 
 
 Tovrel 716 
 rpcOTO) 128 a 
 rpaair] 1 28 
 rpd4>os 333 
 rpina 128 a 
 Tpe)(w 128 
 Tprjpcov 166 
 rprjxea 2 1 9, 2. 506 
 
 TP'?A'e'7 419 
 Tprj^vs 182 
 
 Tpi'/3w aor. pass. 636 
 
 rpiTjKovTa 184 
 
 Tpi|o? 380 
 
 Tpioiai 22 f. n. 44. 571 
 
 Tpoi^i]Vioi 228, 2 
 
 Tpi(paKT0S 335. 357, 4 
 
 Tptutos 299 
 
 rpapa 99. 205. 258 
 
 rpaipr] 25. 205 /. ». 
 
 rpcovpa 205. 258 
 
 rpcoM 25 
 
 TuSft'Sew 36 
 
 Tuz/Sapeo) 1 23, 6. 478 
 
 ruxxaJ"" 351 
 
 rw^tifa) 355 
 
 TWKtStoi/ 315 
 
 TOJTrdXXtBi/os 292, 3 
 
 rcovrou 316 
 
 u-yta -i) 171 
 
 vyiaivco aor. pass. 635, 
 
 2 A 
 vyielrj &C. I7'5 ''^ 
 'YeX)? 154. 390 
 vfXoy 135 
 vepyov a 39^ 
 vto'v 229. 479, 498 
 vXi]eiv 319 
 ids 229 
 vireari 405 
 vndpoxos 77, 3 
 vrrepTfpos 25 
 VTTOKpivopai 25. 627 
 I'TTu 154. 715 
 VTTwpeit] 175. 219, 5 
 ius 229. 498 
 vco « 153 
 
 (f)a€iv6s 305, I a 
 ^aew- 69, I. 337 rt 
 $at6j/t/o? 210 
 $ai7jXoj 184 
 (paivoXls 124 
 (f)aLvco fut. pass. 633, 3. 
 
 aor. pass. 636 
 (^Sv 70O) 2 , 
 
 4>ai/(i/)d^e/itr 224, lo. 
 
 337 a 
 (})aos 277, I 
 0appaKOs25.I23, 2. 1 62. 
 
 395 
 (f)apos 165 
 •JapaaXiKof I23, 5 
 ^apu| 413 ; 
 
 (jidris 367 
 06a = Bed 172. 364 
 (peoyeiv 246. 287 1 
 
 4>ep€pp€XiT]V 339, 3 I 
 
 0ep6) aor. 601. 628 
 (pevyco fut. 607, 5. perf. 
 
 25- 377- a-or. mid. ; 
 
 608, 3 ! 
 
 (f)i] 126. 704 _ 
 
 (pT]pi 704 
 
 (pripis 25 
 
 cf)6dvcc) 162. fut. 592, 4 
 
 (jideppco 326 
 
 0^a'eco 637, 3 
 
 0^djj 122. 227 a 
 
 (^leXr; 1 35 
 
 4>tXecoi/ 140, I. 158 
 
 ^tXoSeo-TTOiTOf 228, 3 
 
 ^LTTCOV 361 
 
 (^Xdo) 364. fut. 592, 4. 
 
 perf. 614, 2. aor. 
 
 pass. 635, I (2) 
 (f)Xevco perf. 614, I 
 <pXi^a> 364. aor. pass. 
 
 636, 2 
 
 (pXoios 227 ^ 
 
 (f>oireco 688, 4 
 (povrjii 52. 57. 264, !• 
 513 
 
 (ppd^opni aor. 608, 3 
 
 (ppnTpia 361 -St 
 
 (ppeap 282, I 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
INDEX OF FORMS. 
 
 659 
 
 ^pvviKidrjs 347 
 (f>vXaKos 123, 2. 479. 
 549 
 
 (f)vi' 700, 2 
 
 (j)vpdo} 637, 3 
 
 (fyvaeco 688, 4. p. 530 
 
 (jivco a 153. perf. 604, 4 
 
 (f)cois 299 
 
 ^wKaevs 209 
 
 $a)Ka(a 1 79 
 
 $ci>Ka(e)jf 209 
 
 ^(OKair] 179 
 
 ^ooKats 209 
 
 (f)oci\(6s 25 
 
 (pfOVrjefTa 264, I 
 
 (paaKoi 205 
 
 ^oXklvSu 716 
 XajJ-aBev 1 48. 1 65 
 ;^ni'Sai'CB aor. 594 
 X(ipa8pa 128. 418 
 
 Xa^ty 548 
 
 Xaa-Kivarj 247. 690 end. 
 
 p. 530/. n. 4 
 X'lo-jueco p. 530 
 ;(etAof 224, II 
 XfiperXov 347 
 Xfip 69, I. 551 
 jj^eXlScBy 523 
 ;^eX\j7o-ri;s 1 7. 57 1 
 X^pa^os 128 
 ^fpo'ovvrjtTOS 337 
 ^^'"282, I. 591,3. 637, 
 
 2. aor. 593, 4. 608, 3 
 Xdes 564 
 
 ;^iXia§ea)i/ 74. 124 
 XXavSiov 146 
 
 ;^XtatVco aor. 593, I 
 X'Xiepas 134 
 ;^Xor; 227 
 ;YXocrcros 25 
 xXovvTjs 252 
 XoD? 266, I. 267, I. 470. 
 517,4 
 
 XO(o perf. 614, 2 
 
 Xpdopai 167. 264, 2. 
 
 272, 3. 289, 3 ; perf. 
 
 614,2; aor. pass. 635, 
 
 I (2) ; 624. 687, 2 
 ;YpaQ3 167. 264, 2. 289, 
 
 3. perf. 614. aor. 
 
 pass. 635, 1 (2). 687, 2 
 Xpi'ios 218 
 Xpei^ 25 
 XpeopaL 167. 289, 3. 
 
 687,2 
 ;<pfos 286, I. 287, 3 
 Xpeco 624. 687, 2 
 Xpecopai 289, 3. 687, 2 
 Xprjeopai 1 67. 687, 2 
 AfP.'yCw 286, I 
 XP?;tos 218. 286, I 
 XP^os 167. 218. 286, I 
 Xpi{p)nTu> 337 f.n. 
 Xpl-o) perf. 614, I 
 Xpotr] 122. 227 
 Xpia-fos 34 
 XP<uC« perf. 614, I 
 
 XP^y 545 
 Xi^rXoi/ 347 
 
 Xico 591. aor. 593, 4 
 
 X(opi 366 
 
 Xwpi'f 366. 716 
 
 yl^aKiis 129. « p. 140 
 
 ^da> 687, 2 
 
 \/'f KHf I 29 
 
 ^//■eXioi/ 329 
 y^tripvOiov 193 
 ■^iiOos 134 
 yj/^ipidinv 381 
 yj/^ovdia 258 
 ^v8pa^ 25 
 ■v/'o) 25 
 \//a)X<» 381 
 
 wa 250 
 
 'i2yf/i/ 349 
 
 a)Se 716 
 
 cpSij 306, I 
 
 ajfoj* 297, 1 
 
 'nfaTh]9 5. 390, 3. 391 
 
 u>6eu> 582 
 
 o)p,e(rdai 1 37 
 
 Sf 32. 99. 206. 252 «. 
 
 567 (ovv). 716 
 wveopai 582. aor. 608, 3 
 cooV 250 
 cJd»/ 297, I 
 'npeidvlrj 178. a 253 
 apt} II. 25. 199 
 a>piaTos 200. 258/. ». 
 'Qpicov 294 
 ws 716 
 Ss = ovs 256. 266, I. 
 
 292, I 
 coros = (lurof 205 
 avTT] 108. 320 
 wiiroj 200 
 wvTos 316 
 ox^fXir; 145. 215 
 w^oxce 583, 2 
 
 U U 2 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 The arrangement of the work and the Table of Contents render unnecessary 
 frequent references to the vai'ious cases, tenses, &c. The references are to 
 sections unless p. (page) is prefixed. An a (italicized) after a numeral denotes 
 that the matter referred to is treated in Appendix I in addition to the section 
 mentioned ; before a numeral it denotes that the question is treated in Appendix I 
 only. Otherwise a (not italicized) refers to sub-sections; app. 2=Ai3pendix II; 
 /. m. = foot-note ; h. =note in the text. 
 
 Abecedarium 390, 2 C. 
 
 Abliut: d : a 156. 167; d : <u (?) 202 ; 
 e : o 137. 147, 2. 149. 295, I ; ei : I 
 145. a 196. a 582. 608, 2 ; iv : v 153 ; 
 (V : ov 250; 77 : a 130. 139 167 (cf. 
 p. 565). 687, 2. 691, H. 4 ; r; : 6 139 ; 
 7; : 6 : a p. 565 /'.w. I ; Tj : w 200. 201. 
 242. 694; o) : a 553 a; aiv : av 258 
 (cf. 205) ; oj : o 688, 3. 
 
 Abydenos 110, 6. 
 
 Accent: 1 19-126 with app. to p. 129; 
 exspiratory 253, 2. 287, i ; in con- 
 traction 126. 287 (p. 252). 294 a. 
 716 sub TTpwrjv ; influence on vowel or 
 consonant relations 164. 196 a. 219, 
 3. 227 end. 253, 2. 254, I. 255. a 277. 
 287 {app. pp. 254, 255), 289, 2 n., 3. 
 294 a. a 295. a 296. 367. 382. 386. 
 P- 565,/.!'. 3; nom. accent regained 
 in accusative ^2; in pronouns 557 a; 
 in adjectives 145. 30o?(., ^otjv]}. 566 a; 
 in adverbs 'j 16 sab darpa^Sa andi7Xor; 
 in verbs Swai/jiai 618, l n., f'iSai 702 
 /.«. 5 ; in pre.«ent and imperf of /xi 
 vei-bs 691. n. 2, 3. 695, i ; on Herodas' 
 papyrus 477 a. 557 a. p. 566 a. 
 
 Adjectives : of two or thrte endings 
 553 ; comparison 554-555; -v^os, -hos 
 232 ; yprjvs 182. 517, 3; -la 174, cf. 
 232;-6(0a 219. 419. 506. TTjixepos 36Q. 
 ■npvjjLvrj 420 ; gen. pi. of barytone adj. 
 447, 2 Ij (cf. a^'ip- p. 199) ; T!o\\us, 
 irokvs, TTOvAvs 254. 479 ; of material 
 282, 2. 287, 3. 289, 3. 309. 3. 311, 3, 
 &c. See Suffixes. 
 
 Adverbs: 180. 716: accent 125; com- 
 
 parison 556; -ewj 2S9, 2. p. 619; in 
 -s 366. 716 suh o'vTOj ; SiareKtQjs 716 
 sub Aeiws. See also Suffixes. 
 
 Agathokles iii, 5. 
 
 Ailios Dionysios 716 sub trrcira. 
 
 Aiolisms, see Dialect. 
 
 Aischrion app. 2. 
 
 Aischylos, conception of dialect, 22. 
 
 Akusilaos 81. 84. 
 
 Alexander of Ephesos 1 1 1 , 9. 
 
 Alkman, lonisms in 65 ; jxiTaxapaKTrjp- 
 iffixus 106. 
 
 Alphabet: the Milesian 18. p. in 
 fn. 2, 3; E = pan-Hellenic 7; 166. 715 
 sub «y, =spurious ei 213, 2. 224,9, 1°' 
 ^3> 15- 715 *"^ "' H=77 (from a. or 
 6 + a) 166. p. 259, 1. 2, =T] or h 396. 
 399 ff., =he p. 327 /.Ji. p. 329/. w.; 
 EI = genuine ei 213, ^^ spurious «i 224, 
 9, 10, 13, 15. 715 suh h, =r]i 433, 
 3; 0= spurious ov 251. 459; OT = 
 genuine ov 250, = spurious ov 251. 
 254, 2. 459. 476 ; n = 250 ; n added 
 by the Milesians p. 22 f. n. i, cf. 
 p. Ill f.n. 2; f 390. 392; koppa 
 354 ; sampi 375 a. See also under 
 Abecedarium, Orthography. 
 
 Amorgos 166. 
 
 Anakveon 63. 376. 38S, 3. 
 
 Ananios 44. 
 
 Anaptyxis of a 127; of t 210. 216. 
 22S, 2. 
 
 Anaxagoras 86. 115. 
 
 Anaximander 81. 
 
 Anaximenes 79. 81 f.n. 6. 
 
 Antiochos 84. 
 
 ii 
 
 1 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 66l 
 
 Aorist : pass, used transitively 634, 6 ; 
 
 aoristic use of fut. pass. 633 ; aa in 
 
 aor. 372. 593, 3; €777pa p. 493. 
 Aphaeresis 62. a 262. 264, 4. 283 a. 
 
 295, 6 ff. 297, I. 324. 575 B. p._ 599. 
 
 See app. i to the §§ on contractions. 
 Apion p. 534. 
 Apocope 52. 56. 61 end. 322. 715 siih 
 
 ava, Kara, napa. 
 Apollonios Dyskolos pp. 9. 81. 131 
 
 (§§ 125, 126). 442/-n. 2. 445/-"- 2. 
 
 450.476. 594/. ?;. I. 619/. ». 
 Apollonios of Tyana no, i. 
 Archelaos 85. 
 
 Archilochos 27/. w. i. 44 fF. 52. 62. 
 Aretaios 1 07-1 10. 112. 
 Aristarchos pp. 16. 127. 129. 168 n. 
 
 190. 202. 2}f>f.n. I. 262 f.n. 2. 263. 
 
 35i/.«. 2. 406 and/.?;. 447/-«- 2. 
 
 455. 460. 462/. «. 466/.M. 482/ M. 3. 
 
 487- 534-6I7/.M. I. 
 Aristarchos junior p. 2?,'] f.n. 
 Aristophanes of Byzantion 593, i. 
 Arrian 107 ff. 112. 
 Article 561; in Karian Ionic 9; as 
 
 a relative 100. loi. 566 ; gen. pi. 
 
 444 Ji.; dat.pl. 451a. 452. 474 a. 475. 
 
 p. 98/". 3- 
 
 Artist's signature 172, i. 573. 574, 2. 
 
 Asinius Quadratus no, 8. 
 
 Aspiration : transposition, etc. 346 a- 
 347, cf. 348. 350-351- 355-356 «■ 357, 
 2, 5- 361-363 ; in perfect 595, 2. 612 ; 
 in plup. 616. 714/. ?i. 4. 
 
 Assibilation 367. 544 mh rkpoif.n. 2. 
 584, 3. 607, 5. 
 
 Assimilation of vowels (cf. ajpp. 
 p. 140): € from a 129. 136. 688, 4 
 sub fpiw. p. 140 a ; o from a 131. 147, 
 4 a. 256. 295, I. 298 a ; o from « 137. 
 359- 545. i; ^ from i 155; of conso- 
 nants 56. 411; from T 356; TT 
 from 5t 569, i f.ii. i; XX ^om yx 
 351, 3. See also Consonant Com- 
 binations. 
 
 Attic: Ionic forms in 72-78. 159 n. 
 184. 210. 224 a. 227 end and app. 
 229. 264, I. 287, 2. 298. 300 n. 357, 
 4. 410. 427 n. 429 K. 484. 551 n. 
 583, 4, 6. 608, 3 end. 663. 702. 715 
 sub f'ivfua, -napai. 716 «?<?> ""P'" ; Doric 
 in, p. 602 n. 2 ; Old Attic = Ionic 24. 
 71- 75- 95- (P- 102 /.n. 2). 119. 123; 
 agreement with Western Ionic 5. 371 ; 
 accent of Later Attic = that of Later 
 Ionic 123; declension 37. 123, 6. 
 477 a; -(OS in i stems 486 a; elegy 
 61 ; epigram 67 ff.; a 61. 71 ff. with 
 app. 75 a. 162 o. 164 /.M. 3 with 
 o^p. 172. a 263, I. a 377, 3. 693. i; 
 /"?i83- 217- 
 
 U 
 
 Augment 49. 52, 62. 233, 5. 257. 574 ff. 
 with app. 
 
 Babrios 44. app. 2. 
 
 Bacchios p. 102 f.n. i. 
 
 Bacchylides, lonisms in 68 ff, 
 
 Bion 85. 
 
 Breathings 46. 99. 100. 396 ff. 410 a; 
 m' 277, 4; V 405; /5 583, 5; W 
 714, 4 ; ' varies with i/* 381. 
 
 Chalkis 5. 9. 154. 391. 715 guh vnv. 
 
 Chariton in, 10. 
 
 Charon 84. 
 
 Chios 9. 13. 17. 4S6, 3. 
 
 Clip-names : in -as 165 n. 282 n. a 545. 
 
 546 ; gemination in 352. 361, 2. 
 
 477 a and f.n. 2; 158. 336. p. 383. 
 
 '^'PP- P- 258. 357, I. 399*it6 Amorgos. 
 
 477 «• 483- 572. p. 254/.?). I. 
 Comedy, lonisms in 78. 
 Comparison 554-56; iin compaiative 
 
 197 a. 
 Compounds : -fepyos, -fopyos 295 ; 
 
 -ava^ 292, I a; -vrjaos 337; as]ii- 
 
 ration in 399 (p. 326). 406, 2. 407 ; 
 
 excision of a syllable in 716 $iih 
 
 Keiojs ; adopt r] for 68, 5. 553 end ; 
 
 of Sidoifii p. 575/-M- I- 
 Conjunctions 716, and app. 2. 
 Consonants : 
 
 1. Dentals : t for 6 355 a. t9 for 
 357. 5 ; T for TT 35. 357, i"; 9 for t 23 
 end,/.M. 346 a. 356, for 5 357, 2 o ; fl 
 expelled 13, 7. 224, 5. 357, 7 ; varia- 
 tion of T and 5 357, 3, 4 ; or 5 and 7 
 357, 6 ; of 5 and ^ 377, 2 a ; variation 
 of dental and guttural stems in the 
 verb 593, 2. 634, 3 ; declension of 
 dental stems 544-48 (546 a). 
 
 2. Gutturals : n for tt 46. 53. 56. 
 341 a. 342 a. 343. 344 ; kt for n 35. 
 169 ; K for T 345 ; « for X 346 «■ 347- 
 348 a. 23 end/.». i ; 7 for /c 349 « ; 
 7 for /3 353; 7 for yv 196; 7 lost 
 between vowels 377 n. ; x for /< 348. 
 351, I ; xfor7.^5o;xfor7X 35i. 3; 
 K in perfect 595, 4. 604, 4 ; in aonst 
 693 ; variation between guttural and 
 dental stems in the verb 593, 2. 634, 
 3 ; declension of guttural stems 549 ; 
 gamma, Demokritos' name of 136; 
 koppa 354 a. 
 
 3. Labials: w for k 364, for (p 361, 
 I ; TT for /3 363, does not vary with n 
 339, 2 ; /3 and 5 359. 364; /3 = 7 360; 
 ,3 for V 247. 249; (p for jt 361, 2, 
 (p for /3 363, <?> for 6 364 ; declension 
 of labial steins 550. 
 
 4. Liquids: variation between \ 
 and p 327, A andi/ 328, X and XA 
 
 U 
 
66i 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 329; gemination of 330; rhotacism 
 33ia-332; metathesisof 333 ; expul- 
 sion of/) 335. 361, I w. ; medial p and 
 pp a 334. 395 ; declension of liquid 
 stems 551 ; liquid verbs, see under 
 Verbs. 
 
 5. Nasals : omitted in writing 
 130- 336- 339' 2. 35[, 3- 716 suh 
 ■naXiv and app. ; gemination of 337 a. 
 339; 3; " moveable 35. 51. 340, in 
 jironouns 562, 563 ; guttural nasal 
 350 ; vary with liquids 32S ; in perf. 
 pass. 614, 3 ; in aor. pass. 635, 2 ; 
 declension of nasal stems 552 ; mu, 
 Demokritos' name of 136. 
 
 6. Spirants. On spirants lost 
 between vowel? see the §§ on Con- 
 traction, (a) Digamma 46. 56. 75 
 
 f.n. I. 160. 2S7, 1 n. at end. 386 ff '. ; 
 becomes v 390 a ; augment of digam- 
 mated verbs 582. ()3) Sigma = AXi\cT 
 369 ; from era- 373. 593,3 and M.;between 
 vowels .^98 n. ; pleonastic 378 ; a and 
 f 380; initial a dropped 377, i; final 
 a in adverbs 366. 716 suh ovtco; 
 declension of sigmatic stems 525-44 
 with ajip. ; sigma in perf. pass. 614 ; 
 in aor. pass. 635; sampi 375 a. (7) 
 asper and lenis, see Breathings. 
 (8) yocl 365; =1 227 end. p. 493 
 sub iraXaioj. See also Alphabet, 
 Aspiration, Assimilation, Decapi- 
 tation, Dissimilation, Pronuncia- 
 tion, Orthography, Rhotacism, 
 Sentence Phonetics, app. 2. 
 Consonant Combinations. 
 
 1. Double Letters. ^ from ctS 377, 
 I ; varies with 5 377, 2 a, with a 377, 
 4, with 7 377 «.; £378ff.; ^381. 
 
 2. Existing Combinations. 2/^358, 
 
 1- C/* 377. 4- ^/" 358; 2. KK 162. 
 342 n. I. 352. 395. K\ 329. 330. 
 383.386.411. A(r382. MA^ 336- 339. 
 3. /ii' 358, I. vv 337 a. 339, 3. p. 492 
 {TavvvaJ). va 224, 5. 338. p. 60I n. I. 
 
 TTTT 35. 342 n. f. 364. 395. pp 334 O. 
 
 383- 395- P<^ 224, 6. 334. 382 a. <rS 
 377, I. a\ 357, 7. 0-/* 350. 358, I, 
 
 2- 377) 4- 384- 385- 614, 1-3 a. aa 
 22 end f.n. 370 ff. 375 a. 379. 593, 3. 
 
 TT 35- .^70- 371- XA* 350- 
 
 3. Lost Combinations. 8p 255 a. 
 «f 162, 3. 352. 395. \f 224, 4. 386. 
 vf 75 a. 162, I. 199, 2. 224, 2 H. 338. 
 380. pf 75 a. 162, 2 a. 165 a. 224, 3. 
 af 196 a. 255. 395. tF 395. /:-/)395. 
 So- 372. Xo- 224, 7. 382. fff 224, 5. 
 338- 543- /"^ 224, 6. 334. T(j 607, 5. 
 614. <rA. 224, II. crp. 224, 9. av 
 224' 10- 337 «• 338. <rp 300 w. 
 « 334- 7-' 377 «• 5i 365. 377, 3. 
 
 61, KL, xi 370. KTi 380 end. A^ 224, 
 
 13. vt 199, 2. 224, 12. 380. /)i 224, 
 
 14. Ti 367. 370. See also Assimila- 
 tion, Decapitation, Lengthening, 
 Metathesis. 
 
 Contraction, including Crasis and 
 tSynizesis. References to the cases 
 occurring in the §§ on Declension and 
 Conjugation are not inserted except 
 in a few instances. In Homer 28. 
 
 a-t-a 261. p. 26l_/. ». 3. a -f 01605, 
 a + av 307. a + e 164 a. 242. 272 a. 
 637, I (1). 687, 2. a + fi a 274. 
 305 a. 687, 2. a + Ti 273. 421 n. 
 a + i 160. 274 a. d + i 160. 275 a, 
 a + o 277 a. a 553. 687, 2. d + o 
 
 278. + 013060.. + 01/308. O + ttI 
 
 279. a^jj. to p. 244. d + co28o. a£+o 
 261, 5. ai + oi 304. ai + av 307. 
 aj + 6 272,4. 01 + 61305, 2 a. ai+rj 
 273, 3- 7 16 SM?> 371'. ai + { a 274. 275. 
 ai + 0277, 5. at + 01306,30. oi + ov 
 308. ot + cw 279, 4. 
 
 € + 281 o. 716 .smJ 771/. € + 0282. 
 €+01 309 a. 605. 607. e^e 262 a. 
 634) 5- 637. 686. 687, 2. e + et 
 310. 637. 686. e + 77 219, 9, 10. 
 263 CI. 634, 2. 637. 685 «. 713, 2. 
 
 p. 2 32_/.«. € + 1284. £ + 1237. 285. 
 
 e + 34. 38. 60. 77, 2. 2S7 (opjx 
 pp. 254, 255). 486, 5 a. 637. € + 01 
 
 311 a 637, I (2). 651. 678. e + ou 
 
 312 a. 637, I (2J. 6 + 11 291. e + oi 
 36. 40. 280. 289 a, 537. 620. 634, 2. 
 687, 1, 2. 61 + 7; a 263 end. 
 
 77 + a 283 a. 77 + 01 318. 615. 618, 
 2. 77 + 01/320. 77 + 6264. 77 + 61 319. 
 p. c^86 f.n. I. 687, 2. 77 + 77 265 a. 
 77 + 1286 a. 77 + 02880. 77 + 01/320. 
 "jiGsuhSiv. 77 + 0/2900. 771 + 0283. 
 771+0/ 290 o. 
 
 1 + ^(^)2,00 a. I + 77 301. 1 + 1270. 
 
 + 0134.2020.2920. + 01313. 
 o + ov 316.565. + 62950.637,4. 
 
 690. + 61 314. + 7734.207.2960. 
 
 + 1 298. + 266 o. 637, 4. 690. 
 o + 01 315. o + ov 317. 690. + W 
 267. 01 + 0292. 01 + OU3160. 01 + e 
 295) 5 '^^ 01 + ov 317. ot/ + o 292. 
 
 01/ + 6 295, 5. OU+61 p. 598 top. 
 
 01/ + 77 o 296, 2. ov + o 266, 4 o. 
 
 i; + i 271. 
 
 oj + o 292, I. 294 o. 0/ + O1 321. 
 a; + ai; o 321. oj + e 297 I. a/+6i 
 321 a. 03 + r) 297, 2. 716 suh irpwrjv. 
 
 M 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 663 
 
 co + i 299. co + 26s a. oj + co 269. 
 ct« + €297, I. cu( +01/321. See alsi) 
 throughout app. 1 on the §§ in 
 Contraction, and app. 2. 
 Crasis, see Contraction and apj). 2. 
 
 Dative : for genitive in Kolophoniau 
 I Ionic p. 16 ; -T]<n 450, 3. 451, 4 a; 
 
 -((Ti 491;. 552; -«ff(r( 47. 61. 376. 
 
 4S0. 504. 538. 549. 552- 56I; 2. 
 Decapitation 326. 716 sub Afwr. 
 Dedicators, dialect of names of, p. 173 
 
 and^. n. 
 Demetrios pp. 84/. n. i. gSf.-n. 4. 120. 
 Demokrates iii, 6. 115. 
 Demokritos 79. 81. 85. 86. iii, 6; 
 
 'poetical' words in, p. 33 n. ; naming 
 
 of letters 136. cf. 570. 
 Diaeresis (and SidXvcns) : a'i 160. 274. 
 
 275 «• ?>°5, i; "■" 393 and/. ». : ei 
 156, 197. 284. 500. 532, p. 250 end; 
 Tj'i 197. 231. 286. 703 end n. ; 01 298 ; 
 cui 299; 6i) 291 ; vi 302. 500. 
 
 Dialect : sub-dialects of Ionic 10-22 ; 
 'pure' and 'mixed' Ionic 22. 79 fT. 
 87. 102. 103 ; mixture in Homer 
 26 ff., in epigram 67 IF. p. loi f. n. 2, 
 .in melic 64-69, in elegy 1S7-190; 
 non-Ionic proper names in Ionic 
 literature and inscriptions 68. 75, 
 I f.n. 128. 140, 4. 157-159. 160 
 f.n. 4. 373: Aiolisms in Ionic 13, 9, 
 10. 17. 54. 63. 220. 224, 10. 241. 
 337 «• 377- 571. under 2, 10. 50. 90; 
 Dorisms in Ionic 5 n. 44 11. 45. p. 52 
 f.n. 272, 4 a. 391 ; lonisms in Attic, 
 see under Attic ; late retention of 
 Ionic forms 23. 172. 173 a. 430. a 477. 
 528. See Divisions. 
 
 8id\\j(ns, see Diaeresis. 
 
 Diogenes of ApoUonia 86. 115. 
 
 Dionysios of Halikarnassos pp. 66 
 f.n. 3. Si f.n. I, 3. 84/. ?i. I. 
 
 Diphthongs : 
 
 Al by epenthesis 208, by anaptyxis 
 210, by contraction 274, from a + 
 glide I 210; =a of other dialects 
 210; loses its 1 209. 211, 3. a 274; 
 shortened before a vowel p. 583 
 f.n. 2; ai and rji 182 sitb prjSiais 
 and 208 ; does not vary with rj 211, 
 I ; varies with ec 211, 4 ; elided, 
 see Elision ; in crasis, see under 
 Contraction ; augment 580. Ai (a) 
 160. 208 (cf. 274 a). 275 a. 305, I, 2. 
 AY 242 a ; written ao 243 ; varies 
 with fv 249, with cu 205. 244, with 
 ov 256, with wv 258. 565, with 77V 
 170; in crasis, see under Contrac- 
 tion; augment 580. El (i) genuine 
 212 ff. ; by anaptyxis 216; from 
 
 j € + glide^( 220 Of. 221 ; by eontractioM 
 
 I of € + . 2S4. 510 (cf. p. 250, 1. :;); 
 
 from rji 237. 239. 286 o. 433, 3. 605 „. 
 607; fiir 7; 221a; from ictus 221 a] in 
 subjunctive 13, 8. 239, I ; in suffixes 
 232 ; by dissimilation from (v 392 ; 
 for VI in perfect 604, 4; varies with 
 ai 211, 4 ; does not vary with tj i6S. 
 617; itacistic 197; rein.statcd liy ana- 
 logy 219, 4. 713, i; in adverbs 716 
 sub davKei; loses its 1 31. 51 . 219 « ; 
 augment 580. 582. (2) spurious, by 
 j compensatory leiigtliening 224 a, in 
 ! -eiv for -eu p. 202 f.n. 2. 319; from 
 t + f , « + «(, see under Contraction. 
 See app. 2. EY written to 246 a, 
 eov 247, evo 247 a ; varies witli av 
 249 ; relation to i 198 ; by contraction 
 of 6 + 0, 6 + 01;, e + 1; see under Con- 
 traction ; = ecu 287, 1 (p. 254 a). 427 ; 
 loses its V 248 ; shortened before a 
 vowel 248 a ; confused with on 295, 
 I and II A 71. 690 ; for v in aor. pass. 
 634, 5 (^vve^fpfvOfirj) ; augment 578. 
 580. See app. 2. (eco 289, 42S. 446.) 
 HI 231 ff, 233 a. 239 a. 286. 554 ; in 
 suffixes 232; from rj + 1, t + ai see 
 under Contraction ; vnrics witli (i 
 197. 232. 235. 239. HY 257. 517, 
 3; augment 578. 579 B. 5S0 sub 
 iv. 01 from m 241. 462; from + 
 anaptyctic i 228, 2 ; for w in perf. 
 604, 4; for ov {of) 22S, I ; loses its 
 £ 227 a. a 490 ; from o + i, + (i see 
 under Contraction ; augment 580. 
 5S2. OY (i) genuine 250 a; varies 
 with av 256, cf. 258, with cu 250; 
 reinstated in present 242. 637, 4; 
 (2) spurious 251 ff. ; by compensatory 
 lengtliening 75 a. 252. 253 a. 254_^«. 
 255 a. p. 473, 1. 6 ; in ovv 716 sub Siv ; 
 by contraction of + 0, o + e, ( + ov, 
 o + OK, o + ei see under Contraction ; 
 augment 580. '&ee app. 2. Yl 229. 
 271. iii 241 n. 299. 306. Seeaj)^. 2. 
 f2Y205. 258. 320. 321. 565. 
 Dissimilation of vowels : ea from aa 
 136. p. 567/. H.; «t from fv 392; of 
 consonants: liquids 327, gutturals 
 347, labials 361 ; jxaprvs 551 ; (parts 
 
 367- 
 Distraction of vowels 221. a 275. 
 
 637, I (I)- <543, i «-648, I. 650, 1. 
 
 660 n. 685, I. 703 n. 
 Dittography4i5, 5/.n. 
 Divisions of Ionic : chronological 
 
 23-26 ff. ; geographical 4 ff. 102, 2; 
 
 sub-dialects 10-22; Eastern Ionic 
 
 divided into four divisions by Hdt. 
 
 9, Littre^'s explanation of the same 
 
 rejected 102. 
 
664 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Doric: not in Homer 164; not in 
 Anakreon 63; in Herodas 44. 272, 
 4a; in epigram 67 ff-; in elegy 188 ; 
 in Theoki itos 118; perhaps in Hali- 
 karnassian Ionic p. 26 n.; Doric 
 conceptions expressed by Doric forms 
 p. 101 f.n. 2; future 607, 5. See 
 Dialect. 
 
 Elegy 53-61. 92 end. 187-190 ; elegiac 
 forms in iambic epigrams 715 snb 
 
 Elision 258. 272, 4 end and app. 281, 5. 
 a 295, 6. 323. 368. p. 609 sub fiv, of 
 ai in infinitive 700, 2 ; of in gen. 010 
 62. 460. 
 
 Endings, see Personal, Suffixes. 
 
 Epenthesis 208. 
 
 Ephesos 9. 12. 
 
 Ephoros 24 f.n. 4. 
 
 Epieharmos 106, 2. 253, i a. 
 
 Epigram 61, 67. p. 596 1. 11. 
 
 Eretria 5. 3.^. 332- 
 
 Erythrai 9. 13. 17. 
 
 Eusebios 110, 9. 
 
 Eusebios Myndios 110, 11. 
 
 Festivals, names of 232, 5. a 346. 
 
 355- 
 Folk-Etymology 134. I38(?). 140, 4 
 
 f.n. 143. 254 a. 
 Future : Doric 607, 5 ; opt. 598, i ; 
 
 fut. and aor. subj. 597 ; passive has 
 
 aoristic signification 633 a; middle 
 
 633; df leCi/Tai 673, 2. 
 
 Galen, view of the dialect of Hippo- 
 krates 95. 116. 
 
 Gemination of Consonants. See 
 Clip-names, Consonants, Conso- 
 nant Combinations. 
 
 Gender p. 15 1. 7. 413 a. 455 end. 
 
 Genitive in -ew 36. no, 7. in, 4. 118. 
 427 ff.; in -co 13, 3. 36. 289, 2. 427 a 
 ff. ; in -ev I3||2. 2S7, i end and cqjp. 
 427 ff. ; in -fcui/ 36. 74 (Attic ?). 140, 3. 
 444 ff. ; hyper-Ionic -(uv, see Hyper- 
 lonisms ; -010 29. 47. 52. 53. 67. 69. 
 460. ap2}. 2 (6) ; -00 29 ; t stems 5. 6. 
 7. 124. 483 ff. ; with ecus and h ov 
 716 sub e'ttiy. 
 
 Geoponika p. 112 f.n. i. 
 
 Gorgias 75 end. 588. 716 sub ds end. 
 
 Grammarians 3. 22. 25, 
 
 Halikarnassos 22 end. 90^". n. 
 Hekataios 79. 84. 87. 114. 144, i. 613 
 
 f.n. 
 Herakleitos 25 end/. ». 81.86.105, 115. 
 Hermogenes pp. 80/. n. 1. 82/. ». 4. 
 Herodas 44. aj>p. to 272, 4. 
 
 Herodian pp. 10 «. 31 f.n. y.o f.n. 
 
 358. 387. 462/.U. 534. 619/.M. 
 Herodotos 27. 79 ff. 
 Hesiod, influence of, on elegy, 53 ; 
 
 augments with t] 577 ; reflexive in 
 
 p. 449/ "• 3- 
 Hiatus 46. 62. 227 end. a 262. 340. 389. 
 
 482. 703 M. See §§ on Contraction. 
 Hippokrates 79. 85. 94 ff. (100 o). 
 Hipponax 15.^ 27. 44. 571, 3. 
 Homer: Ionic element in 26-41; 
 
 influence on later language, e.g. 25. 
 
 43-46. 52 ff. 61. 65-72. 87. 112. 128. 
 
 140, I. 157. 160. 165. 169. 191. 221 a. 
 
 224 «. 225 a. 252. 253 rt. 254(1. 255 a. 
 
 274. 306 a. 330. 339, 3. 365. 373. 376. 
 
 382. 387. 389. 403. 428, 2. 446, 3 rt, 
 
 459. 460. 489. 509. 511. 513. 516. 
 
 517, 2, 4, 5. 522. 529, 4. 544. 545. 551. 
 
 561, I. 566. 576, 2. 585, I. 593, 2 n. 
 
 595. 602. 618, 2. 630. 640, 2 end. 643. 
 
 658. 661, 2, 3. 700, 3, 4. 701. 705, 
 
 706. 711. 714. 715 sub ei'vfKa. n. 716 
 
 nib dv. 
 Hyperbaton 260 n. 
 Hyper-Ionisnis6i.74, 2. 88 end. 96. 97. 
 
 108. 113. 115. 116. 117. 177. 191. 232, 
 
 i,6«.247. 258. 262, 3. 272, 1 «., 3. 289, 
 
 2. 419. 435. 438. 447, 3. 464 end. 472. 
 480- 545/-"- 1- 551 (X<'»- 557> 5- 
 558, 5 ./■•«• 562. 563- 565 IP- 452). 
 582 {sub dyvvixi). 613, 4. 618, I (i) 
 
 f.n. 637, I (i) f.n. 2. 658 (p. 546 
 f.n. 2). 675. 6S7, I. 690. 700, 3 M. 
 
 713, I, 2. 
 Hyphaeresis : of e 126. 295, I, II B. 
 309, 2.3ioend. 429, 2 a. 533, 3 a. 536, 
 
 3. 575 B. 605. 665, 2 n. 670. 681 ; of 
 o 152. 
 
 Iambic Poetry 31. 62. 43 ff. 189. 
 
 Ibykos, lonisms in 68 ft'. 
 
 Instrumental 161. 716 sub tj. 
 
 Interjections 716. 
 
 Ion 84. 
 
 Itacism 145. 175 a. 197. 214, i. 224, 9. 
 
 716 sub davXti. p. 597 1. 3. 
 Iteratives 262, 4. 576, 2. 665, 2 n. 
 
 685- P- 592/-». I- 
 
 Kallimaclios, app. 2. 
 Kallimorphos in, 8. 
 Karian Ionic 9. n, 5. 21, 329, 373. 
 
 " 375- 379- 483, 2. 
 
 Keos 6. 166. 
 
 Kephalion no, 5. 
 
 Klazomenai 9. 571, 3. 
 
 KoivTi 23. 109. no. 112. 123, 1. 124. 134. 
 135. 194.221. 266, 1.346 (t. 355. 357, 
 2. 39S. 481. 486, 5 a and f.n. 571, 
 2 f.n. 576, I. 588/. ?i. 2 and app. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 665 
 
 589. 6c)i (p. 576^ 702/.n. 4. 715 sub 
 avd, i'lviKiv. e'ivfKa. 716 sub elreu, 
 (WdTa ; KOivij 'las 23 (p. 2<jf.n.i). 1 1 8. 
 
 Kolophon 9. 
 
 Koppa 354 a. 
 
 Korinna 106, 2. 
 
 Kos, lonisms in 95. 
 
 Kritios and Wesiotes 573. 
 
 Ktesias 79. 102. no, if.n. 
 
 Kyme 9. 154. 715 sub v-nv. 
 
 Kyzikos 9. 
 
 Lengthening ; compensatory 69. 77, 
 
 2. 78. 196 a. 224 a. 252 fF. with aji'p. 
 338. 386 ; in compounds 167. 295 ; 
 in clip-names 165 n. ; under the ictus 
 34. 165. a 220. 221 a. 253 a. 254. 275. 
 
 Leontis, the tribe 158. 
 
 Lesbonax 9. 
 
 Letters, pseudo-Ionic 23/.M. 3, 4. 105. 
 
 111,7. 
 Locative 215 (cf. 517, i). 286, i. 433, 
 
 3. 462, 3. 482. 497> 4 (2I. 510. 700^, 
 2 /. n. 4. 716 dCTTrorSei, davKei, tovtu. 
 
 Logographers 79 ff. 87. 
 
 Lukian 107 ff. no, 4. 112. 576 n. 
 
 Lydian Ionic 12. 21. 447*. 
 
 Medical Terms, Ionic the dialect of, 
 
 pp. loi /. 11. 2. no/, n. III. 
 Melie Poetry, lonisms in 62 ff. 
 Melissos 85. 86. 115, 4. 
 Menekrates iii, 4. 
 Metathesis : ap, pa 128. 147. 333; av, 
 
 "« 339> I- 349; o/), po 147, 333; 
 
 a.^llepus 333. 
 Metathesis quantitatis : ecu from 770 
 
 140. 170. 2S7. 288. 289. a 477. 
 
 582 (p. 473). 687, 2 ; id from 77a (?) 
 
 281, 3 M. 282 ; H from 7;t (?) 237. 
 
 285 a ; fTj from rje (?) 262, 1 /. w. 
 
 264, 2. 685 n. ; 001 from wo (?) 267, 3. 
 p.€TaxapaKTt]pLo-|j,6s 106. 108. 305, I. 
 
 438. 637, I (2). 
 Miletos 9. II. 18 fF. 92. 219, I. 
 Mixture of dialects : see Attic, 
 
 Dialect, Doric. 
 Modern G-reek 1 34 end. 1 47, 2 /. v. 
 
 and app. 181 end. 205. 296, i n. end. 
 
 348 /.w. I. 618, I (a). 6^1. p. 576 
 f.n. 5. 
 
 Ifaxos 6. 166. 
 
 Number p. 15 1. 17. 41, dual 412 a. 
 
 573 ; sing, and pi. confused 585 n. 
 
 I, 2, 3. 611. 612. 613 end. 618, I 
 
 (b) n. 
 Numerals 571. 
 
 Optative v 271 ; fut. 598, i. 
 
 Orthography: ao for av 243; to for 
 
 (V 246; 6OU for (V 247. 52'y, ,; ,yo 
 
 for ev 247; 01 for 011 241 ; cu for 01 
 578; & = v 247. 249; modes of 
 writing i 378. 379 „., ^ 38, ; 
 7r</) = ^ 362 a ; t9 = 357, 5 ; i^y f„r 
 6/r 716- «X« 351, 2. XX 351. 3- 
 
 -if 3.SI, 2. x-/* 351, I. ^'P=<pe 
 
 362 ; nasals omitted 130. 336; see also 
 Alphabet, Dittography," Sentence 
 Phonetics, Transcription, Trans- 
 position. 
 Oropos pp. 13/. M. I. 306. 599. 
 
 Parthenios p. 442/. n. 2. 
 Participle : in Chalkidian Ionic p. 15 
 
 1. 15 ; gen. pi. 447, 2. 
 Particles 41. 60. 716. 
 Passive : transitive use of aor. pass. 
 
 634, 6 ; and middle, force of 633 ; 
 
 of KTUVOJ 624. 
 
 Patronymics 146, 2 a. 197. 233. 235. 
 
 572. 
 Perinthos 9. 
 Personal Endings 584 ff. 595. 597. 
 
 598 rt. 
 Pherekydes 79. 84. 114. 
 Philip of Pergamum in, i. 
 Philodemos 26. 
 Philteas in, 3. 613, 4. 
 Phoinix, see app. 2. 
 Phokylides 53/. n. 526, 2. 
 Phrygian 44 n. 
 Pindar, lonisms in 68 ff. 
 Plato philos. 81. 190. a 255. 474, 2 w. ; 
 
 comic poet 227 a. 
 'Poetic' and Ionic 22. 25. p. 461 
 
 f.n. 2. p. 465/ H. 5. 
 iTOiKLXCa 22. 87. 89. 224, 14. 602. 
 Praxagoras no, 10. 
 Prepositions 715, and app. 2. 
 Pronouns : demonstrative 561-564 a. 
 
 67 end, see Article ; indefinite 568 ; 
 
 interrogative 568 n ; personal 557 ff. 
 
 with app., 39 ; possessive 560 ; re- 
 flexive 565 ff. with app. 58 ; relative 
 
 406 a. 566 ff. 569. 31. 389; other 
 
 pronouns 570 a; gen. pi. 447, 3. 
 
 472. See also app. 2. 
 Pronunciation : ai a 272 ; av 243. 
 
 393 ; ev 246. 287 ; fo; 289 ; C 377. ' ; 
 
 7] 166; f 378; aa, TT 374. 375; 
 
 V 154. 250. 271. 715 sub vnv ; <p9 
 
 362"; x^ 35i» 2 ; 9 354. 
 Prosthetic vowels: a 147, i. 575, 
 
 B/.«. 2. 564 «.; € 143. 224, 3. 287, 
 
 I n- 395- 564 "• ; M7> '• 7^6 mb 
 orrjjxos. 
 
 Reduplication 5S2 ff. 
 Khegion 5. 39 1- 4^5 "• 
 
666 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Rhetoricians' view of ancient dia- 
 lects 22. 79. 
 Rhotacism 331 a. 332. 
 
 Salmasius 23 end,/.M. 2. 
 Samos 9. 14. 21. 
 Sampi 375 a. 
 
 Sentence Phonetics 326. 340. 366. 
 384. 411 a. 715 siib eiy, 3 n. i. 716 mh 
 
 OVTQJ. 
 
 Short Syllables, succession of, avoided 
 77>4/-"- 2. S5I f.n. 684, 2; cf. 075. 
 Sikilian 346. 
 Simonides of Amorgos 44 fF., name 
 
 193- 
 
 Simonides of Kos, lonisins in 68 fF. 
 
 Simplicius 115. 
 
 Skythinos 44. 
 
 Smyrna, dialect of, in Lukian's time 
 p. 2"] f.n. 2. 
 
 Solon 61. 73. 75, I, 3. 189. 643, 2 n. 
 
 Sophron 253. 
 
 Stesichoros, lonisms in 68 ff. 
 
 Strabo pp. 66/. «. 2. S^f.n. i. 
 
 Styra, dialect of, free from Eoiotian 
 influence 147, 2. 154. 157. 226. 371. 
 
 Subjunctive: in et 13, 8. 239, 2; 
 -ajiat, -oiOL 13, 9 ; indie, used as 
 296, 2. p. 532/. n. 4 ; -nioixai 607, 5. 
 
 Suffixes and various Endings : 
 aYcoyos 194/- n. ; a5ei;s 572 ; aia, atrj 
 179 ; aievs 209 ; air] 209 a ; aiir] 209 a. 
 275; aiiKos 209; a'ijcos 209 o. 274; 
 aus 209 ; ai'j 208. 209. 274 a; a\Kr)S 
 527; a\os 135; ava 68, 6. 202. 217; 
 ava^ 292, 1 a ; ds in clip-names 124. 
 282, 2 ?i. a 545. 546; as 716 sub 
 dXias ; aCT((T)os 373 ; arat present 585 
 and n. 2, perf. 610 fF. with app. ; aro 
 585. imperf. 585 and n. 3 ; plup. 616 ; 
 Yaios 211. 47S ; yeios 211 ; yeais II2. 
 211.289,3.478; 8aTai585n.4; S653; 
 Se»?s 633. 3- 536, 3 ; drjs 572 ; Siov 
 146 a; Sov 716; SaiTr]s = SoTTjs app. 
 p. 188; eavrai 585 «. I. 613, 4; 
 earat 585. 611-613; iaro 616; eets 
 262, I ; (r)<^iir] 219, 4 a, 8a, 9 ; ti 716 
 s«/?) aavKti; eia, htj 176. 177 o. 179. 
 219 a; eia for via 604, 4 ; eiSrjs 197. 
 233- 235. 2. 572 ; itSrjs 314 ; ar] 175. 
 177. 179. 215. 219, 2a; eiv = fv 319 ; 
 611/0969, I. 224, 10. 305, I B. 337; 
 e'ivos 284; fios 219, 5, 6. 231. 232: 
 (tTT]s 197; f'irrjs 2S4; eAos 135; 
 fvvos 17. 69, I. 210. 224, 10. 337 a; 
 tpyos 295, 1 ; epos 134, fpos (opos) 
 137 a; ecov 289, 3 a; ecus 289, 2. 
 p. 619 ; fap 250; fej/T 295 ; ffpyos, 
 fop-^os 21 /.?;. 3. 150. 295, 1 o; 
 fo/)os 244. 277, 1 a. 279, I ; fos 
 162, 3. 199. 334. 352. 380; fcuv 
 
 124. 140, 1. 280; faipos, see f opos; tja 
 = eia 219, 2 «. 232, 6 ; Tjarai 611-613 ; 
 rjaro 616; rjyajos 194/". n.; 7;€tv 319 ; 
 r]eis 100 J", n. 3. 264; tjiStjj see eiSjys; 
 7;ioj 100. 101. 231. 232. 286; rjfia 
 68, 8 ; rjVTi 183. 217; rjs 233, 2. 286, 
 I ^ ; 7;o-ios 68, 8. 232, 6 ; ■qa{a)os 
 373; 0a p. 613 ?!. ; ee-eei/ 53. 716; 
 &£ 716 ; 6I0, 6*^0 335 ; 60, ao 339 ; la 
 174. 418. 420 ; ladris, laSeuy, tSijs 572 ; 
 iZiov 146 «; ^e, -10 3S2. 637, i; irj 
 145 end and app. 174. 175. 215. 
 227 C a. 419; £7? opt. 649 ff. ; irjTr]s 
 185. 301; L-qrLS 'j'j, i; tKos 123, 5. 
 a 146. 209 a; los 199. 334. 380; 
 IS 124. 546; nrjs 197. 301; iwv 
 141 end. patron. 572 ; Ka 716 sub 
 TTpoKa; Ka, Kev, Ke 715 sub uveKev; 
 Kairj 209. 274; Kia 369 /.w. 3; ftXe^s, 
 wXt/s 5. 6. 7. 260 /. >?. 526; KOVTfpOS, 
 KovTopos 137 a; aovaios 255 ; \eos 59. 
 263, I a. 287, I, 289, 3. 311, 3. 423. 
 431; nevTis 530; fieada 585, i; 
 vacrcros, vr}a(a)os 373; J'STys 146 o; 
 j'^T^i' 614, 3; 01 716 sub fjxoi; oia, 
 017] 178. 179; 01a = wa 604, 4; oiaro 
 621-623; oeij/p. 202/. w. 2 ; 06ts 100 
 /. M. 3. 295, I. 314 ; op7os, see fopyos ; 
 opos {epos) 137 a, opos, see fopos; 
 itreSos (voSos) 137; imO-qs 527; ttXtj- 
 fftos 191 ; rrAoos 263. 3 b. 266, 2 a. 
 296, 2. 424. 441 ; TTODs 546 ; pa 418 ; 
 a0a 53. 584, 2 ; aOrjv 635, ff^??!/ and 
 X^'H^ 634, 3 ; o'^oij', adwaav 585 end. 
 624; o-£ 53. 584, 3; o-/xa, (T/ios 358; 
 c7(ff)os 373 ; awri 77, I ; Ta, T€(v) 
 
 pp. 607. 613; T€ 136, T€ 716 sub 
 
 eare ; r-qp, ttjs 332 n. ; ttjs 68, 7 ; rt 
 
 367. 716; TVS 497, i; V a 224, 2; 
 
 Via, wt; 1 78 ; up 250 ; vtt] 1 54 ; <})dvTis 
 
 527 ; (pepvT]s, (ppevrjs 134. 540; (pi 26. 
 
 53- 4i3> 3 ; 'P"'" 277, I ; X«- i36/.«- 2. 
 
 « 348; X/^°. X/'c-s 350; XOf 716; 
 
 Xpeos 478. p. 257 1. 2; <oSt)s 314; 
 
 o^Sos 306 a ; aiios 299 ; cuASos 329 ; 
 
 oj\(\)os 329; ojv, see /^wr ; avrj 202 ; 
 
 (upos, see foipos; ojtjjs 194. 363; oiris 
 
 194. 
 Syncope 146, 2 a and see Hyphae- 
 
 resis. 
 Synizesis in Homer 28. See §§ on 
 
 Contraction. 
 
 Tenses, mutual influence of: present 
 stem from fut. or aor. stem 224, 3. 
 242. 275 a. 594. 637, 4. pp. 566 
 on ISpuai. 569 /'. n. I ; present from 
 perfect 200. 201. 203. 204. 585, 3. 
 687, 3 ; interrelation of imperfect 
 and perfect 582 a {oifvvfj.L). 584. 2 ; of 
 perfect and present 583, 2 {dKTjKoa) 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 667 
 
 595, I. 597. 620. 626; perfect and 
 
 aorist 595, i «. ; pluperf. and imperf. 
 
 5^5) 3- 596 It-; perf. act. and aor. 
 
 pass, confused 582 sub ayvv(xi. See 
 
 also Aorist, Future. 
 Teos 12. 488 H. 
 Thasos p. 599/. n. 3. 
 Theognis 53. 60. 190. 387. 624. 
 Theokritos 118. 
 Thukydides p. 602. 
 Timaios 343 11. 
 Tmesis 260 a. 
 Tragedy, lonisms in 77. 
 Transcription, false : ft = ?; 34. 221; 
 
 ovvofxa 252; 474; Scjovs 531, III; 
 
 -((iv 602 ; adv. in -nv p. 60'jJ'. n. 2 ; 
 
 in forms of otjvvfit 582 a. 
 Transposition, of letters 40o,<((i!>Paros, 
 
 of words, 576 a. 
 Trochaics 52. 61. 189. 376. 
 Tryphon pp. 8. 314/. h. i. 2,20 f.n. i. 
 
 476. 619. 
 Tyrannion pp. 16. 131. 514. 585/.?;. 5. 
 Tyrtaios 53. 188. 
 
 TJranios no, 7. 
 
 Verbs: -a^oj fut. 592, 3. 600, 3. 629 ; 
 -aivoj aor. 593, i. aor. pass. 634, 2. 
 635^ 2. perf. 614, 3 ; causative 637, 3. 
 p. ^dif.n. I ; contract 637-690 and 
 under /x( verbs 691 ff. ; denominative 
 637, 3. 687, 3 sub iSpwa) ; distracted, 
 see Distraction ; -ecr/coj 591, 4 ; -fvai, 
 -foj 248. 637, 4 ; -ew, -a; {-aw) 637, 3 ; 
 -so? for -aoj p. 530/. n. 2. 668. 688 a. 
 689 ; -ecu for -oaj 690 ; -(ai 591, I. aor. 
 593, 2, express sustained sounds 
 p. 489 n.; ■T}co 637, I (i) /. n. ; -ifco 
 274. fut. 592, 2. 600, 2. 604, I. 607, I, 
 2, 3, 4. 627; -tfcy aor. pass. 635, 2; 
 liquid, fut. 592 a. 600, i. 604, i. 607, 
 2, 3, 4. 627. aor. 593; /j-i verbs 691- 
 714, (fjfj.1 687, 2 ; sigmatic stems, 
 fut. 592, 4. aor. 593, 3. perf. 614. aor. 
 pass. 635 ; -wai perf. 614, 3. aor. pass. 
 635, 2 ; -Qjco 687, 3. See also aj)p. 2. 
 
 Vita Homeri in, 2. 
 
 Vowels: A by anaptyxis 127; varies 
 with 6 34, 128 a, 129 a, with o 131, 
 with T) 130. 169 a, with 1/132, with ai 
 133; in conjunction with p 12S. 147. 
 333 ; prosthetic 147, i. 575 Bf.n. 2. 
 564 n.; from ai 209; in declension 
 176 ff. 418. 419. 439. 441. A from 
 af 160, avi 161 a, avf, apf, aKf 
 162 a, a\i 164 «, aif 169 /.n. 3 ; in 
 the comparative 163; due to metrical 
 licence 165 ; in Attic, see Attic; in 
 Solon 6). 189; in the epigrams of 
 Simonides of Keos 68 ; hyper-dia- 
 
 lectal 182 n.; in proper names in 
 Hdt. 158; in inscriptions of Styra 
 157, and elsewhere 150, 172 &c. ; in 
 genitive sing. 427. 42S, 3. 546; in 
 jTjpaoj,^ fpdoj 593, 4 a ; in aor. of 
 verbs in -aivco and -aipo} 593, i ; by 
 crasis of o + a 292, 3; decl-.nsion of 
 a stems 414 ff. See Contraction 
 a + a, n + (, a + ft, a + rj, and Meta- 
 thesis quantitatis ; varia 165 a. E : 
 from ante- vocalic rj 1 39-1 41. 200. 
 ^35-237. 239. 262, 1. 263, I (b), 3(^ 
 283. 285 a. 287-290 with ap2). 421 n. 
 486» 3-593. 4- 611. 616. 61 8, i b. 620. 
 685 ». 6S7, I, 2 end. 711. p. 611, 1. 7; 
 from antevocalic et 219. 419. 506; 
 from a before an sound 49. 51. 136. 
 644- 593, 4- 685 fool-note 3. 687, 
 2 (p. 565 I. 14). 688. 6S9 ; from a by 
 dissimilation 136. p. 567^. n.; varies 
 with o 134-136, with o 137 «, with i 
 138, with 7? 139 a, with d 140 a, with 
 at 141 a. 583, I. (in perfect), with <t 
 142 ; lost before 0, ajyp- to p. 255 w. ; 
 lost in compounds of fopyos 295, I 
 II B, III A ; minimum vowel 702 n.; 
 varia 143. See Hyper-Ionisras. 
 H : pronunciation 166 ; =d of otlier 
 dialects 169-190 with app. ; = Attic 
 d 191. 420 a ; varies with e 192, with 
 ( 193, with 01 194, with ai 195, 211 ; 
 in melic poetry 68, in Attic inscrip- 
 tions 72-74, in tragedy 77, i, in 
 comedy 78, in Tyrtaios 188, in Solon 
 61, 189, in Xenophanes, Theognis 
 and the later elegy 190 ; from rji 234. 
 240 ; in late iambics app. 2 ; leng- 
 thened from e in compounds 167 ; in 
 compounds for o 68, 5. 553 end ; 
 shortened before vowels, see under e ; 
 Attic 77 in i\pT)vq 217; rj-q avoided 
 169 a; hyper-Ionic 419. 506. npp. 2 
 (i); j; stems 478 n. 545; augment 577. 
 See also under Contraction of a + €, 
 e + a, e + a, 6 + a(, « + ?;, rj + i, r} + r], 
 ■q + a. I: from €144; varies with 
 ii 145, with a 146; lost between 
 vowels 31. 51. 124. 209. 219 n. 227 a. 
 229. 232, I. 241. 271. 419. 506. 552. 
 app. 2 ; iota suhscript. 238, 2. 240. 
 433, 2. 462. 564 n.; a glide 220 a. 
 221. 227. 507; anaptyctic 228, 2 ; eli- 
 sion 36S. p. 326; expelled by syncope 
 146 a ; a minimum vowel 224, 9. 300 
 n. ; relation to yod 365 ; in adverbs 
 716 snh dp.i(r9i and -ti ; declension of 
 I stems 481 a ff. 1: I45 end app. 
 196 rt. 301 : itacistic 197 ; relation to 
 fv 198; from I. E. ai 214, 1; in 
 adverbs 716 sub afMaOi, davXfi; by 
 contraction 270. a 175. 300 «. O: 
 
668 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 varies with a 147, witli e 149, with ov 
 150.254, I a. 255 a. 295, I III a, with 
 01 151. 227. 228, 3, with V 154; from 
 a in ov 256; from € in ov 258 ; from 
 antevocalic cu 200. 314. 687, 3 ; from 
 o (01;) before consonants 295, i III A; 
 prosthetic 147, i. 716 sub ottjixos; 
 expelled in compounds 295, i III B a. 
 app. to p. 255 n. ; elided in -olo 52. 
 460; expelled by hyphaeresis 152; 
 declension of o stems 455 fF. Y : and 
 153 a. 155 end o. varies with o 
 154 a, with I 155 ; lost between 
 vowels 245. 248. 250. 272, 2; =f 
 390 n. a ; declension of v stems 497 ff. 
 
 Y: 199 a; in subj. 618, i (a). 695; 
 in opt. 271. J2 : varies with a 200, 
 with e 201, with d 202, with tj 203, 
 with r 204, with av 205. 244, with ov 
 206. 250, with wv 258 ; from I. E. ai 
 
 367. See under Contraction a + o, 
 a. + C0, a + ov, 6 + w, o + a, + 77, o + w, 
 C0 + a, oj + r), u + 0, cu + w. See also 
 Ablaut, Alphabet, Anaptyxis, 
 Aphaeresis, Apocope, Assimila- 
 tion, Diaeresis, Dissimilation, 
 Distraction, Elision, Hiatus, Hy- 
 phaeresis, Itacism, Lengthening, 
 Metathesis, Metathesis quantita- 
 tis. Orthography, Pronunciation, 
 Prosthetic Vowels, Short Syl- 
 lables. 
 
 Xenokritos p. \02f.n. 1. 
 Xenophanes 190. 
 
 Zenodotos pp. 16^ f.n. 2. 262 f.n. 2. 
 469 f.n. 2. ^80 f.n. I. 514 n. 585 
 f.n. 6. 61'j f.n. I. 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ OF THE ' 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 $* 
 
Clatenbon press, ©yforb. 
 
 SELECT LIST OF STANDARD WORKS. 
 
 STANDARD LATIN WORKS . 
 STANDARD GREEK WORKS . 
 MISCELLANEOUS STANDARD WORKS 
 STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS . 
 NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY . . 
 
 Page I 
 .. 3 
 ,. 7 
 
 1. STANDARD LATIN WORKS. 
 
 Avianus. The Fables. Edited, 
 
 with Prolegomena, Critical Appa- 
 ratus, Commentary, &c., by Robinson 
 Ellis, M.A., LL.D. 8vo. 8s. 6cl. 
 
 Catulli Veronensis Liber. 
 
 Iterum recognovit, Apparatum Cri- 
 ticum Prolegomena Appendices ad- 
 didit, R. Ellis, A.M. Svo. i6s. 
 
 Catullus, a Commentary on. 
 By Robinson Ellis, M.A. Second 
 Edition. Svo. i8s. 
 
 Cicero. De Oratore Libri 
 
 Tres. With Introduction and Notes. 
 By A. S. Wilkins, Litt.D. Svo. i8s. 
 
 Also, separately, 
 Book I. 7s. 6d. Book II. 5s. 
 Book III. 6s. 
 
 ■ Philippic Orations. 
 
 With Notes. By J. R, King, M.A. 
 Second Edition. Svo. los. 6d. 
 
 Cicero. Select Letters. With 
 
 English Introductions, Notes, and 
 Appendices. By Albert Watson, 
 M.A. Fourth Edition. Svo. 1 8s. 
 
 Horace. With a Commentary. 
 
 By E. C. Wickham, M.A. Two Vols. 
 Svo. 
 Vol. I. The Odes, Carmen Secu- 
 lare,and Epodes. Second Edition. 
 
 I2S. 
 
 Vol. II. The Satires, Epistles, 
 and De Arte Poetica. 1 2.s. 
 
 Livy, Book I. With Intro- 
 duction, Historical Examination, 
 and Notes. By J. R. Sooley, M.A. 
 Second Edition. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Manilius. Nodes Manilianae; 
 
 sive Bissertationes in Astronomica Ma- 
 nilii. Accedvnf Coniecturae in Get' 
 mania Aratea. Scripsit R. Ellis. 
 Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 Oxford : Clarendon Press. London ; Henry Frowde, Amen Corner, E.C. 
 
STANDARD LATIN WORKS. 
 
 Ovid. P. Ovidii Nasonis Ibis. 
 
 Ex Novis Codicibus edidit, Scholia 
 Vetera Commentarium cum Pi*o- 
 legomenis Appendice Indice addidit, 
 E. Ellis, A.M. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 P. Ovidi Nasonis Tris- 
 
 tium Libri V. Recensuit S. G-. Owen, 
 A.M. 8vo. 1 6s. 
 
 Persius. The Satires. With 
 
 a Translation and Commentary. 
 By John Conington, M.A. Edited 
 by Henry Nettleship, M.A. Second 
 Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Plautus. Rudens. Edited, 
 
 with Critical and Explanatory 
 Notes, by E. A. Sonnenschein, 
 M.A. Svo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 King and Cookson. The Prin- 
 ciples of Sound and Inflexion, as illus- 
 tra (eri in the Greek and Latin Languages. 
 By J. E. King, M. A., and Christopher 
 Cookson, M.A. Svo. i8s. 
 
 An Introduction to the 
 
 Comparative Grammar of Greek and 
 Latin. Crown Svo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Lewis and Short. A Latin 
 
 Dictionary, founded on Andi'ews' 
 edition of Freund's Latin Dic- 
 tionary, revised, enlarged, and in 
 great part rewi'itten by Charlton T. 
 Lewis, Ph.D., and Charles Short, 
 LL.D. 4to. *iL 5s. 
 
 Lewis. A Lat 171 Dictionary 
 
 for Schools. By Charlton T. Lewis, 
 Ph.D. Small 4to. i8s. 
 
 Nettleship. Lectures and 
 
 Essays on Subjects connected with Latin 
 Scholarship and Liieraiure. By Henry 
 Nettleship, M.A. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 The Roman Satura. 
 
 8vo, sewed, is. 
 
 Quintilian. M. Fahi Quin- 
 
 tiliani Institutionts Oratoriae Liber 
 Becimus. A Revised Text, with In- 1 
 troductory Essays, Critical Notes, ■ 
 &c. By W. Peterson, M.A., LL.D. 
 Svo. i2s. 6fZ. 
 
 Scriptores Latini reiMetricae. 
 Ed. T. Gaisford, S.T.P. Svo. 5s. 
 
 Tacitus. The Annals. Edited, 
 
 with Introduction and Notes, by 
 H. Furneaux, M.A. 2 Vols. Svo. 
 
 Vol. I, Books I-VL 18s. 
 Vol. II, Books XI-XVI. 20s. 
 
 Nettleship. Ancient Lives of 
 
 Vergil. Svo, sewed, 2s. 
 
 Contributions to Latin 
 
 Lexicography. Svo. 21s. 
 
 Papillon. Manual of Com- 
 parative Philology. By T. L. Papillon, 
 M.A. Third Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 Pinder. Selections from the 
 
 less known Latin Poets. By North 
 Pinder, M.A. Svo. 15s. 
 
 Sellar. Roman Poets of the 
 
 Augustan Age. By W. Y. Sellar, 
 M.A. ; viz. 
 
 I. ViKGLL. New Edition. Crown 
 Svo. 9s. 
 II. Horace and the Elegiac 
 Poets. With a Memoir of the 
 Author by Andrew Lang, M.A., 
 and a Portrait. Svo. 14s. 
 
 Roman Poets of the Re- 
 public. TJiird Edition. Crown Svo. los. 
 Wordsworth. Fragments and 
 
 Specimens of Early Latin. With Intro- 
 ductions and Notes. By J. Words- 
 worth, D.D. Svo. 1 8s. 
 
 Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
 
STANDARD GREEK WORKS. 
 
 2. STANDARD GREEK WORKS. 
 
 Allen. Notes on Abbrevia- 
 tions in Greek Manuscripts, By T. W. 
 Allen. Royal 8vo. 5s, 
 
 Chandler. A Practical Intro- 
 duction to Greek Accentuation, by H. W. 
 Chandler, M.A. Second Edition. 
 I OS. 6d. 
 
 Haigh. The Attic Theatre. 
 
 A Description of the Stage and 
 Theatre of the Athenians, and of 
 the Dramatic Performances at 
 Athens. By A. E. Haigh, M.A. 
 8vo. I2S. 6d. 
 
 Head. Historia Numorum: 
 
 A Manual of Greek Numismatics. 
 By Barclay V. Head. Royal 8vo, 
 half-bound, 2I. 2s. 
 
 Hicks. A Manual of Greek 
 
 Historical Inscriptions. By E. L. 
 Hicks, M.A. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 Aesehinem et Isocratem,>S^(?^o- 
 
 Ua Graeca in. Edidit G. Dindorfius. 
 8vo. 4s. 
 
 AescMnes. See under Ora- 
 tores Attici, and Demosthenes. 
 
 Aeschyli quae supersunt in 
 
 Codice Laurentiano quoad effici potuit et 
 ad cognitionem necesse est visum typis 
 descripta edidit R. Merkel. Small 
 folio, il. IS. 
 
 Aeschylus : Tragoediae et 
 
 Fragmenta, ex recensione Guil. Din- 
 dorfii. Second Edition. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Annotationes Guil. Din- 
 
 dorfii. Partes II. 8vo. los. 
 
 Anecdota Graeca Oxoniensia. 
 
 Edidit J. A. Cramer, S.T.P. Tomi 
 IV. 8vo. ll. 23. 
 
 King and Cookson. The Prin- 
 ciples of Sound and I>i/!exion, as illus- 
 trated in the Greek and Latin Lamjuagcs. 
 By J. E. King,M. A., and Christopher 
 Cookson, M.A. 8vo. 18s. 
 
 Liddell and Scott. A Greelc- 
 
 Eufjlish Lexicon, by II. O. Liddoll, 
 D.D., and Robert Scott, D.D. Seventh 
 Edition, Revised and Augmented through- 
 out. 4to. ll. 1 6s. 
 
 An Intermediate Greek- 
 English Lexicon, founded upon the 
 Seventh Edition of Liddell and 
 Scott's Greek Lexicon. Small 4to. 
 I2S. 6d. 
 
 Papillon. Manual of Cora- 
 
 Xtarative Philology. By T. L. Papillon, 
 M.A. Tliird Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s, 
 
 Veitch. Greek Verbs, Irregidar 
 
 and Defective. By W. Veitch, LL.D. 
 Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6<f. 
 
 Anecdota Graeca e Codd. niss. 
 
 Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis. Edidit 
 J. A. Cramer, S.T.P. Tomi IV. 8vo. 
 
 ll. 2S. 
 
 Apsinis et Longini Rhetorica. 
 E Codicibus mss. recensuit Joh. 
 Bakius. 8vo. 3s. 
 
 Archimedis quae supersunt 
 
 omnia cum EutocH commentariis ex re- 
 censione J. Torelli, cum nova ver- 
 sione Latina. Fol. ll. 5s. 
 
 Aristophanes. A Complete 
 
 Concordance to the Comedies and Frag- 
 ments. By H. Dunbar, M.D. 4to. 
 
 II. IS. 
 
 /. Caravellae Index in 
 
 Aristophamm. 8vo. 3s. 
 
 London : Henry Fbowde, Amen Corner, E.G. 
 
STANDARD GREEK WORKS. 
 
 Aristophanes. Comoediae et 
 
 Fragmenta, ex recensione Guil. Din- 
 dorfii. Tomi II. 8vo. iis. 
 
 Annotationes Guil. Din- 
 
 dorfii. Partes II. Svo. i is. 
 
 Scholia Graeca ex Co- 
 
 dicibus aucta et emendata a Guil. 
 Dindorfio. Partes III. Svo. il. 
 
 Aristotle. Ex recensione 
 
 Im. Bekkeri. Accedunt Indices 
 
 Sylburgiani. Tomi XI. Svo. 2I. 10s. 
 
 The volumes (except Vols. I and 
 
 IX) may be had separately, price 
 
 5s. 6d, each. 
 
 Etitica Niconiacliea. Re- 
 cognovit brevique Adnotatione 
 critica instruxit I. Byvrater. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Contributions to the 
 
 Textual Criticism of the Nicoma- 
 chean Ethics. Byl.Bywater. 2s. 6rf. 
 
 Notes on the Nicoma- 
 
 chean Ethics. By J. A. Stevrart. 
 2 vols. Svo. 32s. [Just Published. 
 
 The Politics, with Intro- 
 
 ductions, Notes, &c., by W. L. 
 Newman, M.A. Vols. I and II. 
 Medium Svo. 28s. 
 
 The Politics, translated 
 
 into English, with Introduction, 
 Marginal Analysis, Notes, and In- 
 dices, byB. Jowett, M.A. Medium 
 
 Svo. 2 vols. 2 IS. 
 
 Aristotdian Studies. I. 
 
 On the Structure of the Seventh 
 Book of the Nicomachean Ethics. 
 By J. C. Wilson, M.A. Svo, stiff 
 covers, 5s. 
 
 The English Manuscripts 
 
 of the Nicomachean Ethics, described in 
 relation to Bekker's Manuscripts and 
 other Sources. By J. A. Stewart, 
 M.A. (AnecdotaOxon.) Small 4to. 
 3s. 6d. 
 
 Aristotle. On the History of the 
 
 process by which the Aristotelian Writ- 
 ings arrived at their present form. By 
 K. Shute, M.A. Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Physics. Book VII. 
 
 Collation of various mss. ; with In- 
 troduction by R Shute, M.A. (Anec- 
 dota Oxon. ) Small 4to. 2s. 
 
 Choerobosci Dictata in Theo- 
 
 dosii Canones, necnon Epimerismi in 
 Psalmos. E Codicibus mss. edidit 
 Thomas Gaisford, S.T.P. Tomi III. 
 Svo. 15s. 
 
 Demosthenes. Ex recensione 
 
 G. Dindorfii. Tomi IX. Svo. 2I. 6s. 
 
 Separately : — 
 
 Text, il. IS. Annotations, 15s. 
 
 Scholia, I OS. 
 
 Demosthenes and Aeschines. 
 
 The Orations of Demosthenes and 
 Aeschines on the Crown. With 
 Introductory Essays and Notes. By 
 G. A. Simcox, M.A., and W, H. 
 Simcox, M.A. Svo. 12s. 
 
 Euripides. Tragoediae et 
 
 Fragmenta, ex recensione Guil. Din- 
 dorfii. Tomi II, Svo. I OS. 
 
 Annotationes Guil. Din- 
 dorfii. Partes II. Svo. los. 
 
 Scholia Graeca, ex Codi- 
 cibus aucta et emendata a Guil. 
 Dindorfio. Tomi IV. Svo. il. i6s. 
 
 Alcestis, ex 
 
 G. Dindorfii. Svo. 
 
 recensione 
 
 2s. 6d. 
 
 Harpocrationis Lexicon. Ex 
 
 recensione G. Dindorfii. Tomi II. 
 Svo. 105. 6d. 
 
 Hephaestionis Enchiridion, 
 
 Terentiamts Maurus, Proclus, Ac. Edidit 
 T. Gaisford, S.T.P. Tomi II. los. 
 
 Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
 
 I 
 
STANDARD GREEK WORKS. 
 
 Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae. 
 
 Recensuit I. By^vater, M. A. Appen- 
 dicis loco additae sunt Diogenis 
 Laertii Vita Heracliti, Particulae 
 Hippocratei De Diaeta Lib. I. , Epi- 
 stolae Heracliteae. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Homer. A Gortijjlete Con- 
 cordance to the Odyssey and Hymns of 
 Homer; to which is added a Con- 
 cordance to the Parallel Passages in 
 the Iliad, Odyssey, and Hymns. 
 By Henry Dunbar, M.D. 4to. 
 
 \l. IS. 
 
 Seberi Index in Home- 
 rum. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 A Grammar of the Home- 
 ric Dialect. By D. B. Monro, M.A. 
 8vo. Second Edition. 14s. 
 
 Hias, cum brevi Anno- 
 
 tatione C. G. Heynii. Accedunt 
 Scholia minora. Tomi II. 8vo. 
 15s. 
 
 Hias, ex rec. Guil. Din- 
 
 dorfii. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Scholia Graeca in llia- 
 
 dem. Edited by W. Dindorf, after 
 a new collation of the Venetian mss. 
 by D. B. Monro, M.A. 4 vols. 
 8vo. 2I. I OS. 
 
 Scholia Graeca in Hia- 
 
 dem TownUyana. Recensuit Ernestus 
 Maass. 2 vols. 8vo. il. i6s. 
 
 Oclyssea, ex rec. G. Din- 
 
 dorfii. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Scholia Graeca in Odys- 
 
 seam. Edidit Guil. Dindorfius. 
 Tomi II. 8vo. 15s. 6d. 
 
 Odyssey. Books I-XII. 
 
 Edited with English Notes, Appen- 
 dices, &c. By W. W. Merry, D.D., 
 and James Riddell, M.A. Second 
 Edition. 8vo. i6s. 
 
 Oratores Attici, ex reeensionc 
 
 Bekkeri : 
 
 I. Antiphon,Andocides,etLyaias. 
 8vo. 7s. 
 
 II. Isocrates. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 III. Isaeus, Aeschines, Lycurgus, 
 Dinarchus, &c. 8vo. 7s. 
 
 Paroemiographi Graeci, quo- 
 rum pars nunc primum ex Codd. mss. 
 ndgatur. Edidit T. Gaisford, S.T.P. 
 1836. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Plato. Apology, with a re- 
 vised Text and English Notes, and 
 a Digest of Platonic Idioms, by 
 James Riddell, M.A. 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 Philebus, with a revised 
 
 Text and English Notes, by Edward 
 Poste, M.A. 8vo. 7s. 6rf. 
 
 Sophistes and Pol Ulcus, 
 
 with a revised Text and English 
 Notes, by L. Campbell, M.A. 8vo. 
 1 8s. 
 
 Theaetetus, with a revised 
 
 Text and English Notes, by L. 
 Campbell, M.A. Second Edition. 8vo. 
 I OS. 6d. 
 
 The JDialogues,tra.nsla.ted 
 
 into English, with Analyses and 
 Introductions, by B. Jowett, M.A. 
 Tliird Edition, 5 vols, medium 8vo. 
 Cloth, 4?. 4s. ; half-morocco, 5?. 
 
 The Republic, translated 
 
 into English, with Analysis and 
 
 Introduction, by B. Jowett, M.A. 
 
 Medium 8vo. 1 2s. 6d. ; half-roan, 
 14s. 
 
 Index to Plcdo. Com- 
 piled for Prof. Jowett's Translation 
 of the Dialogues. By Evelyn Abbott, 
 M.A. 8vo, paper covers, 2s. 6rf. 
 
 London : Henry Fbowde, Amen Corner, E. C. 
 
STANDARD GREEK WORKS. 
 
 Plotinus. 
 Tomi III. 
 
 Edidit F. Creuzer. 
 
 4to. \l. 8s. 
 
 Polybius. Selections. Edited 
 by J. L. Strachan-Davidson, M.A. 
 With Maps. Medium 8vo, buckram, 
 
 2 IS. 
 
 Sophocles. The Plays and 
 
 Fragments. With English Notes and 
 Introductions, by Lewis Campbell, 
 M.A. 2 vols. 
 
 Vol. I. Oedipus Tyi'annus. Oedi- 
 pus Coloneus. Antigone. 8vo. 
 1 6s. 
 
 Vol. II. Ajax. Electra. Trachi- 
 niae. Philoctetes. Fragments. 
 8vo. 1 6s. 
 
 Tragoediae et Frag- 
 
 menta, ex recensione et cum com- 
 mentariis Guil. Dindorfii. Third 
 Edition. 2 vols. Fcap. 8vo. il. is. 
 Each Play separately, limp, 2s. 6d. 
 
 The Text alone, with 
 
 large margin, small 4to. 8s. 
 
 The Text alone, square 
 
 i6mo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Each Play separately, limp, 6d. 
 
 Tragoediae et Fragnienta 
 
 cum Annotatidnibus Guil.Dindorfii. 
 Tomi II. 8vo. los. 
 
 The Text, Vol. I. 6s. 6d. 
 The Notes, Vol. II. 4s. 6d. 
 
 Stobaei Florilegiuni. Ad 
 
 Mss. fidem emendavit et supplevit 
 
 T. Gaisford, S.T.P. 
 II. 
 
 Tomi IV. 8vo. 
 
 Eciogarum Physicarum 
 
 et Ethicarum libri duo. Accedit 
 Hieroclis Commentarius in aurea 
 carmina Pythagoreorum. Ad mss. 
 Codd. recensuit T. Gaisford, S.T.P. 
 Tomi II. 8vo. i is. 
 
 Theodoreti Graeearum Affec- 
 
 tionum Curatio. Ad Codices mss. re- 
 censuit T. Gaisford, S.T.P. 8vo. 
 7s. 6d. 
 
 Thucydides. Translated into 
 
 English, with Introduction, Mar- 
 ginal Analysis, Notes, and Indices. 
 By B. Jowett, M.A., Regius Pro- 
 fessor of Greek. 2 vols. Medium 
 
 8V0. ll. I2S. 
 
 Xenophon. Ex recensione et 
 
 cum annotationibus L. Dindorfii. 
 
 Historia Graeca. Second Edition, 
 8vo. I OS. 6d. 
 
 Expeditio Ci/ri. Second Edition. 
 8vo. I OS. 6d. 
 
 Institutio Cyri. 8vo. lOs.Sd. 
 
 Memordbilia Socratis. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Opiiscula Politica Eqtiest?'ia et 
 Venatica cum Arriani Lihello 
 de Venation e. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
 
 { 
 
MISCELLANEOUS STANDARD WORKS. 
 
 3. MISCELLANEOUS STANDARD WORKS. 
 
 Bacon. The Essays. Edited, 
 
 with Introduction and Illustrative 
 Notes, by S. H. Reynolds, M.A. 
 Demy 8vo, half-bound, 1 2s, 6d. 
 
 Bentham. An Introduction 
 
 to the Principles of Morals and Legisla- 
 tion. By Jeremy Bentham. Crown 
 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 A Fragment on Govern- 
 ment. By Jeremy Bentham. Edited, 
 with an Introduction, by F. C. 
 Montague, M.A. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Casaubon (Isaac), 1559-1614. 
 By Mark Pattison, late Rector of 
 Lincoln College. Second Edition. 
 8vo. 1 6s. 
 
 Clinton's Fasti Hellenici. 
 
 The Civil and Literary Chronology 
 of Greece, from the LVIth to the 
 CXXIIIrd Olympiad. Third Edition. 
 4to. il. 14s. 6d. 
 
 Fasti Hellenici. The 
 
 Civil and Literary Chronology of 
 Greece, from the CXXIVth Olym- 
 piad to the Death of Augustus. 
 Second Edition. 4to. iZ. 12s. 
 
 Fasti Ro7}iani. The 
 
 Civil and Literary Chronology of 
 Rome and Constantinople, from the 
 Death of Augustus to the Death of 
 Heraclius. 2 vols. 4to. 2I. 2s. 
 
 Pinlay. A History of Greece 
 
 from its Conquest by the Romans to the 
 present time, b. c. 146 to A.D. 1864. 
 By George Finlay, LL.D. A new 
 Edition, revised throughout, and in 
 pai-t re-written, with considerable 
 additions, by the Author, and edited 
 by H. F. Tozer, M.A. 7 vols. 8vo. 
 3Z. I OS. 
 
 Gaii Institutionum Juns 
 
 Civilis Commentarii Quattuor ; or, Ele- 
 ments of Roman Law by Gains. 
 With a Translation and Commen- 
 taiy by Edward Poste, M.A. Third 
 Edition. 8vo. i8s. 
 
 Gardthausen. CatalogusCodl- 
 
 cum Graecorum Sinmticorum. Scripsit 
 V. Gardthausen Lipsiensis. With 
 six pages of Facsimiles. Svo. 25s. 
 
 Hodgkin. Italy and her In- 
 vaders. With Plates and Maps. By 
 Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L. a.d. 
 376-553. Svo. Vols. I and II, 
 2l. 2s. Vols. Ill and IV, il. i6s. 
 
 Justinian. Imperatoris lus- 
 
 tiniani Institutionum Libri Quattuor ; 
 with Introductions, Commentary, 
 Excursus and Translation. By J. B. 
 Moyle, D.C.L. Second Edition. 2 vols. 
 8vo. 22s. 
 
 Machiavelli. II Principe. 
 
 Edited by L. Arthur Burd. With 
 an Introduction by Lord Acton. 
 8vo. 14s. 
 
 Pattison. Essays by the late 
 
 Mark Pattison, sometime Rector of 
 Lincoln College. Collected and 
 Arranged by Henry Nettleship, 
 M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s. 
 
 Selden. The Table Talk of 
 
 John Selden. Edited, with an In- 
 troduction and Notes, by Samuel 
 Harvey Reynolds, M.A. Svo, half- 
 roan, Ss. 6d. 
 
 Smith's Wecdth of Nations. 
 
 With Notes by J. E. Thorold Rogers, 
 M.A. 2 vols. Svo. 2 IS. 
 
 Stokes. The Anglo -Indian 
 
 Codes. By Whitley Stokes, LL.D. 
 Vol. I. Substantive Law. Svo. 30s. 
 Vol. II. Adjective Law. Svo. 35s. 
 
 London : Henry Frowde, Amen Comer, E.G. 
 
STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 
 
 4. STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 
 
 Bigg. The Christian Platoniats 
 
 of Alexandria ; being the Bampton 
 Lectures for 1886. By Charles Bigg, 
 D.D. 8vo. I OS. 6c?. 
 
 Bright. Chapters of Early 
 
 English Church History. By W. Bright, 
 D.D. 8vo. I2S. 
 
 dementis Alexandrini Opera, 
 ex recensione Guil. Dindorfii. Tomi 
 IV. 8vo. zl. 
 
 Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae 
 
 Praeparationis Libri XF". Ad Codd. 
 Mss. recensuit T. Gaisford, S.T.P. 
 Tomi IV. 8vo. il. los. 
 
 Evangelicae Demonstra- 
 
 iionis Libri X. Recensuit T. Gaisford , 
 S.T.P. Tomi II. Svo. 15s. 
 
 contra Hierodem et Mar- 
 
 cellum Libri. Recensuit T. Gaisford, 
 S.T.P. Svo. 7s. 
 
 Hatch. Essays in Biblical 
 Greek. By Edwin Hatch, M.A., D.D. 
 Svo. I OS. 6d. 
 
 A Concordance to the 
 
 Greek Versions and Apocryphal Books of 
 the Old Testament. By the late Edwin 
 Hatch, M.A., and H. A. Redpath, 
 M.A. F&rtl. A-Bojpie. 21s. 
 
 NouumTestamentum Domine 
 
 Nostri lesu Christi Latine, se- 
 cundum Editionem S. Hieronymi. 
 Ad Codicum Manuscriptorum fidem 
 recensuit lohannes Wordsworth, 
 S.T.P., Episcopus Sarisburiensis. 
 In operis societatem adsumto Hen- 
 rico luliano White, A.M. 
 Fasc. I. Euangelium secundum Mattheum. 
 4to. I2S. 6d. 
 II. Euangelium secundum Marcum. 
 
 p. 6d. 
 III. Euangelium secundum Lucicm. 
 I2S. 6d. 
 
 I 
 
 5. 
 
 A NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY on Historical Prin- 
 ciples, founded mainly on the materials collected by the Philological 
 Society. Vol. I (A and B). Imperial 4to, half-morocco, 2I. 12s. 6d. 
 
 Part IV, Section 2, C— CASS, beginning Vol. II, 2^rice 5s. 
 
 Part V, CAST— CLIVY, 2^>ice 12s. 6d. 
 
 Part VI, CLO— CONSIGNEE., i)rice 12s. 6d. 
 
 Part VII. In the Press. 
 Edited by James A. H. Murray, LL.D. 
 
 Vol. Ill, Part I (E— EVEKY), edited by Henry Bradley, M.A., 
 price I2S. 6d. 
 
 Vol. Ill, Part II. In the Press. 
 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 LONDON: HENRY FROWDE 
 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.G. 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 California- 
 
 B 
 
 s 
 
 /. 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 TO*^ 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 1 -month loans may oe renewed Oy callinQ 642-3405 
 
 1-year loans may be fecharged by brmging the books to the Circulation OesK 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 NOV 9. 1 198< 
 
 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 BY 
 
 
 
 ""t 
 
 
 C1RCULA''<"'>M D 
 
 £PT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 
 FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 1/83 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 ®$ 
 
 ¥ 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY -U.C.BERKELEY 
 
 B000^2S^71