ἴναι and compounds
(Phryn. Ecl. 7, Philemo [Laur.] 395.33, [Hdn.] Philet. 288)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) lists four prefixed forms of εἶμι (‘to go’) that have the infinitive -ίναι in place of the expected -ιέναι, and he considers them unacceptable. The same issue, and with regard to the same compounded forms of εἶμι, is addressed by the Atticist Philemon (2nd/3rd century CE) (A.2) and in the Philetaerus (A.3), though note that the latter also records προίναι for προιέναι. A further gloss connected with anomalies in the conjugation of εἶμι is Phryn. Ecl. 141Phryn. Ecl. 141. Here Phrynichus condemns the imperative εἰσιέτω, which is created through a faulty analogy with ἰέναι (see εἰσιέτω, ἰέτω).

The compounded forms of εἶμι for which Atticist lexicographers record an infinitive -ίναι are ἄπειμι, ἔξειμι, πρόειμι, πρόσειμι, and κάτειμι, but there is also inscriptional evidence for πάρειμι (C.7). In addition, the simple εἶμι has the infinitive ἴναι in place of ἰέναι (B.1, B.2), though none of the Atticist sources mention it. The Atticist lexicographers probably omit the simple form because uncompounded ἰέναι is especially rare in Hellenistic and Imperial Greek (see Blass, Debrunner 1976, § 99.1 and n. 1). It very likely occurs, however, at least once in a 3rd-century CE inscription (C.10).

While Atticist lexicographers regard the analogical infinitives ἴναι and -ίναι as unacceptable, the other grammatical sources that discuss these forms (B.1, B.2) do not regard them as irregular or reprehensible. On the contrary, the morphological regularity of ἴναι and -ίναι is actually taken as proof that they represent a legitimate form of the infinitive for εἶμι. This comes as no surprise: in light of Herodian’s analogistic point of viewAnalogy, ἴναι sits nicely within the general derivation pattern of athematic infinitives and is therefore a much more obvious form of the infinitive for εἶμι than ἰέναι. The infinitives ἴναι and -ίναι in fact present the typical infinitive ending -ναι, which is predominant in Attic athematic verbs (cf. εἶ-ναι, διδό-ναι, τιθέ-ναι, etc.)Infinitive endings. The ‘correct’ infinitive form ἰέναι has the suffix -εναι, which is also attested in the perfect (e.g. λελυκ-έναι) and in the aorist infinitive of athematic verbs such as δίδωμι, τίθημι, and ἵημι (e.g. δοῦναι < *δό-εναι; see Chantraine 1961, § 326; one should point out that -εναι is a single suffix, and that -ε- in no way belongs to the root or functions as any sort of thematic vowel). The reason why ἴναι and -ίναι were progressively created in place of ἰέναι and -ιέναι is that those forms are analogous to the common zero-grade forms of the indicative and imperative present, such as ἴμεν (1st pers. plur. pres. ind.), ἴτε (2nd pers. plur. pres. ind.), ἴασι (3rd pers. plur. pres. ind.), ἴτω (2nd pers. sing. pres. imper.), etc.Analogy Proof that ἴναι and -ίναι are analogous is that, if ἴναι were some form of contraction from ἰέναι, one would then have expected initial [i:]. This is, however, never the case, as witnessed both in poetic texts (where [i] is metrically guaranteed) and in grammatical sources. One might suspect that, in moving from the use of local dialects to the koine, the development of the forms ἴναι and -ίναι was triggered by analogy. Compared with the case of the Attic-Ionic infinitive διδόναι and the Doric and (partly) Aeolic equivalent διδόμεν, ἴναι was a far more natural equivalent of ἴμεν than ἰέναι. Although the first documented occurrence of -ίναι is comparatively early (it occurs in a late 4th-century BCE inscription from Asia Minor: C.1), ἴναι and -ίναι are generally unattested in texts earlier than the Hellenistic period, and so they are unlikely to represent alternative infinitive forms to ἰέναι and -ιέναι that belonged to an early stage of the Greek language (i.e. forms that could be put on a par with infinitives such as the Homeric ἴμεν < zero-grade ἴ- + athematic infinitive ending -μεν).

In Hellenistic and imperial times, the infinitives ἴναι and -ίναι are attested in both poetry and prose. The occurrences in poetry are all metrically guaranteed. Some are found in texts that are not linguistically marked (C.2, C.5, C.9), while others appear in inscriptions that are stylistically and linguistically more elaborate (C.4, C.6). In any case, the infinitives ἴναι and -ίναι are metrically convenient variants of ἰέναι that neither affect the overall tone nor provide more ‘colloquial’ or ‘high-register’ nuances. The prose occurrences of -ίναι present us with thornier issues (C.1, C.3, C.7, C.8, C.10; see also F.13). These occurrences are in official (or at least public) texts, which may suggest that εἶμι (and its compounds) became less and less common in koine Greek, to the advantage of ἔρχομαι (and its compounds; see also E.). However, none of the occurrences in prose is certain, and it is difficult to ascertain beyond doubt whether the -ίναι infinitives should be regarded as a slip of the scribe or stonecutter (introducing an alternative form common in informal speech), or whether, on the contrary, such infinitives would have been perceived as an appropriate form in public texts as well. Even if these texts are generally written in a form of middle to high koine, they all nevertheless regularly present features ascribable to an unsophisticated or informal linguistic level, to which one might fruitfully add ἴναι and -ίναι. All in all, the evidence seems to suggest that the infinitives ἴναι and -ίναι were regarded as features of informal language – variants that, though mostly unmarked in terms of register, always remained sub-standard and thus absent from more formal and sophisticated writings. Consequently, although the infinitives ἴναι and -ίναι are occasionally attested as alternative readings among classical and Hellenistic literary authors, modern editors rightly emend them to ἰέναι and -ιέναι: see προΐναι in X. Cyr. 6.2.5 (pointed out by Lobeck 1820, 16), διεξίναι in [D.] Epist. 3.7 (see Blass 1892, 36 and Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 127), and Call. fr. 297,6 SH [     ]ν̣το μὴ ε̣ξ̣ιναι̣[ (see Lloyd-Jones, Parsons in SH, 138: ‘ἐ̣ξ̣ι<έ>ναι̣ potius quam ἐ̣ξ̣<ε>ῖναι̣’); further parallels are collected by Crönert (1903, 253 n. 7).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

No occurrences of ἴναι or -ίναι are documented in Byzantine texts, except as variant readings in the manuscripts of classical authors (see D.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.523.3 = Περὶ διχρόνων GG 3,2.18.2 (B.1)

The Herodianic treatise Περὶ διχρόνων, though certainly not by Herodian in its present form, likely goes back to the Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας. Materials from Περὶ διχρόνων have thus been rearranged by Lentz and edited as book 20 of Herodian’s Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας, which is known to have dealt with vowel lengths (see further Dyck 1993, 778–9 and 783 with n. 58 and Dickey 2014, 332).

(2)    Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,2.4,2.359.11–6 (B.3)

Ancient grammarians discuss εἶναι as (i) the present infinitive of εἰμί (‘to be’), (ii) the present infinitive of εἶμι (‘to go’), and (iii) the aorist infinitive of ἵημι ‘to let go’ (i.e. εἷναι). In discussing (ii), they take the infinitive ἴναι as the expected infinitive of εἶμι (one may compare B.1 and B.2), which they thought had been replaced by εἶναι due to analogy. The origin of the notion that εἶναι might be the present infinitive of εἶμι can be traced back to a faulty exegesis of Hes. Op. 353)Hes. Op. 353 τὸν φιλέοντα φιλεῖν, καὶ τῷ προσιόντι προσεῖναι (‘Cherish those who cherish you and go visit those who come to you’. Here, προσεῖναι has been mistakenly taken as a form of εἶμι (see Haupt 1866, 251–3), also due to the proximity with τῷ προσιόντι. The earliest documented discussion of this issue is found in Choeroboscus, on whom all later sources depend (on Choeroboscus’ likely authorship of the Epimerismi Homerici, see Dickey 2007, 28; on the dependence of the Byzantine Etymologica on Choeroboscus, see Dickey 2007, 80).

(3)    Theangela 8.15–6 McCabe (= Staatsverträge vol. 3, no. 429.5–6) (C.1)

This inscription is written in a higher form of koine, though it occasionally displays later features such as ζμηνῶν in place of σμηνῶν at l. 5 (on σμ- > ζμ- see Threatte 1980, 548–9). The infinitive ἀπίναι could be placed on the same level as ζμηνῶν. Robert (1936, 70) also stresses the advisability of retaining ἀπίναι.

(4)    Macho 302 Gow (C.2)

The infinitive κατίναι is one of the elements of informal language that characterise Machon’s Chreiai (see Gow 1965, 22 and n. 2).

(5)    UPZ 1.110.col. iv.109–10 (= TM 3502) (C.3)

The Memphis papyrus, which contains the official correspondence between the governor Herodes and his subordinates, presents a number of colloquial lapses that never became ‘official’ Greek (e.g. ὀλίους for ὀλίγους at col. iv.103). The infinitive προσίναι may well belong to this category.

(6)    I.Egypte métriques 7.4–6 (= Peek, GVI 1138.4–6) (C.4)

This fragmentary sepulchral epigram presents a number of epicisms and poeticisms (ταρχυθέντι at line 6, the dative τοκῆι at the end of line 7, ἕρπε with the meaning ‘to go’ at line 8). Weil (apud Miller 1885, 145 n. 1) compared δόμους εἰς Ἀίδα κατίναι (‘To go to the houses of Hades’) with Hom. Il. 14.457 κατίμεν δόμον Ἀίδος εἴσω (‘To go down inside the house of Hades’), but the image is quite common in sepulchral poetry.

(7)    Str. 9.2.23 (= Diogenian. 4.93) (C.5)

This hexameter is presented as a proverb by Strabo. It also features in Diogenianus’ collection. Parlato (2010, 54–6 and 62) includes it among other anonymous hexametrical proverbs. Although it does not present as many remarkable metrical deficiencies as other popular hexametrical proverbs do, it is unlikely that it derives from a literary source. The presence of ἴναι could lend support to this conclusion. The proverb may well have circulated, whether locally or beyond the borders of Boeotia, as a form of popular humour.

(8)    Smyrna 223.10 McCabe (= I.Smyrna 728.10 and I.Smyrna vol. 2,2, 377) (C.6)

This text is a rather elaborate piece of poetry. To quote just one eminent feature, the adjective μελανφάρους, which occurs in the same line as προσίναι, is a poeticism also attested in IG 12,5.739.43 (from Andros; reign of Augustus) in the spelling μελάμφαρος and is also paralleled by μελαμφαρής in B. 3.13 Snell–Maehler, Trag. adesp. fr. 660.7, and Adesp. papyr. fr. 991.col. i.4 SH (see Daux 1958, 358–9).

(9)    IG 12,1.789.2–3 (= Syll.³ 983) (C.7)

Dittenberger (Syll.³ 983) was the first to recognise that παρίναι = παριέναι rather than παρῖναι = παρεῖναι (the latter view is shared by IG too). To Dittenberger’s parallels (none of which are with περιέναι), one may add Labraunda no. 30 lines 2 and 14–5 McCabe.

(10)    BGU 5.1210. col. viii.181–2 (= TM 9472) (C.8)

The infinitive προίναι found in one of the financial regulations included in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos is regularly emended into προι<έ>ναι by modern editors (see most recently Messerer 2017, 33). One should question this practice. Naturally enough, this text is replete with legal vocabulary that has no literary pedigree (col. ix.211 προφητεύειν with the meaning recorded in LSJ s.v. III). It also presents later Greek uses (col. iv.80 γυναίκαν), koine-isms at large (col. iv.79 ἀγύναιος), and the very sort of forms and constructions that are condemned by Atticists (col. iv.85 γαμήσῃ with a woman as a subject, for which see e.g. Poll. 3.45 and [Hdn.] Philet. 306 and 310). The analogical infinitive προίναι, too, may possess the kind of informal linguistic feature that indicates the use of unmarked language, and it should probably not be emended (and indeed, προίναι is regularised, though not corrected, in the text of this papyrus on the website papyri.info). Note that editors – correctly – do not amend the accusative γυναίκαν either. One can see that an almost identical prescription and formulation is found in P.Fouad. 10.8–10 [unknown provenance, 120 CE] μηδὲ ἐρεὰς ἐσθῆτας ἀμφιενν[ | ]πους προειέναι τοὺς προγεγρα[μμέ|]νους πάντας (‘Nor any of the people mentioned above should come forth in public dressed in wool clothes’). However, in this case the infinitive is προειέναι (a fairly common alternative itacistic spelling of προιέναι) rather than analogical προίναι. P.Fouad. 10 is painstakingly written, which might suggest that more care was devoted to the language of this text.

(11)    [Luc.] AP 11.404.1–2 (C.9)

This epigram is written in simple language, a choice that is perfectly in line with the humorous content of the text. Mildly Atticising features such as διαπλεῖ (as opposed to koine and Ionic διαπλέει) may stem from metrical convenience. However, note that κηλήτης (line 1) is condemned by Phrynichus (PS 81.18–9 καλήτης καὶ κάλη· Ἀττικοὶ διὰ τοῦ α, κηλήτης καὶ κήλη Ἴωνες).

(12)    I.Lindos vol. 2, no. 487.1–3 (C.10)

The supplements [ἴ]ναι and βδ̣[αλλόντων] are by Blinkenberg in I.Lindos. The former, which restores the only known occurrence of ἴναι in a prose text, provided the basis for also restoring παρίναι in line 2 (see Blinkenberg in I.Lindos vol. 2, 873). For a recent discussion of these lines, with special consideration given to βδ̣[αλλόντων], see Petrovic, Petrovic (2014) .

(13)    Uncertain and debated occurrences of infinitive -ίναι

It has long been thought that an infinitive ἐπίναι also occurs in SEG 52.602.25 [Kranochori, 192/193 CE] ἐπιμελεῖσ|θαι δὲ τούτων τὸν κατὰ ἔτος γεινόμενον πολει|τάρχην, ὥστε ἐπιέναι μετὰ τῶν πολειτῶν (‘That of these [i.e. lands] should take care the annual politarch, so that he may inspect [them] with the citizens’). This form has been defended by Woodward (1913, 344 with n. 7, followed by Gschnitzer 1980, 155 n. 18), while other editors (such as Rizakis, Touratsoglou 1985, 170) have emended it into ἐπι<έ>ναι. However, the autoptic examination by Buraselis (1993, 280 n. 6) has revealed that previous editors failed to recognise the ligature ΙΕ: the correct reading is thus ἐπιέναι. Another possible instance of -ίναι is P.Sakaon 30.11–2 (= P.Thead. 49 = TM 13048) [Theadelphia, 307–324 CE] τὸ τουντεῦθεν (lege ἐντεῦθεν) φημὶ     ̣ε τῆς ἐκ τοῦ προγράμμα|[τος ? ἀπὸ τοῦ ν]υ̣νὶ κατὰ̣ τὸ παντελὲς ἐξιναι τοὺς ν̣εολέκτας ἀ̣πὸ δόσεως χρ̣η̣μάτων (‘Hence I say … from the edict … from now and forever that the recruits go out from the contribution of money’), although it remains uncertain whether ἐξιναι stands for ἐξίναι (= ἐξιέναι) or ἐξῖναι (= ἐξεῖναι) (see Parassoglou 1978, 68).