πεινῆν, διψῆν
(Phryn. Ecl. 39)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) devotes an entry in the Eclogue to the present active infinitives of the verbs πεινάω ‘to be hungry’ and διψάω ‘to be thirsty’, prescribing the forms πεινῆν and διψῆν instead of the variants πεινᾶν and διψᾶν. The Philetaerus (B.3) and Thomas Magister (B.7) offer similar prescriptions.

The denominal verbs πεινάω (< πείνη/πεῖνα ‘hunger’) and διψάω (< δίψα ‘thirst’) stand out among other verbs in -άω for consistently displaying a long vowel -ᾱ-, which did not undergo shortening, and consequently became -η- in Attic-Ionic before contracting with the thematic vowel (see K–B vol. 1, 139). By contrast, the ‘regular’ verbs in -άω, although overwhelmingly derived from nominal stems in long -ᾱ- (e.g. τιμάω < τιμή ‘honour’), show -ᾰ- throughout the present stem, probably shortened by analogyAnalogy with the verbs in -έω < *-ĕ-i̯e/o- before the Attic-Ionic shift *ā > η; this -ᾰ- then underwent contraction with the thematic vowel. Both πεινάω and διψάω already exhibit a long vowel in Homer (cf. πεινᾱ́ων Il. 3x, πεινήμεναι Od. 20.137; διψᾱ́ων Od. 11.584: the mixture of Ionic -η- and non-Ionic -ᾱ-vocalism reflects the dialectal blend characteristic of the Homeric Kunstsprache). The lack of analogical shortening in these two verbs remains unexplained (see EDG s.v. δίψα). Proposed explanations include borrowing from Aeolic (as suggested by the Homeric participles in -ᾱ́ων) or failure to undergo analogical shortening due to the verbs’ high frequency (see Meister 1921, 89; Ringe 2024, 198; Nussbaum 2025, 130). Be that as it may, in Attic both verbs display -η- (< -ηε-) in contracted forms where other -άω-verbs have -ᾱ- (< -ᾰε-). This feature made πεινάω and διψάω synchronically resemble verbs such as (-)χρῆν ‘to use’ and ζῆν ‘to live’, whose η-vocalism had entirely different origins (neither of the latter two verbs ever contained /a/; see Moulton 1908, 54; Leroy 1954, 288–9). Although our focus is on the present system, it is worth noting that the ᾱ-vocalism also extends to other tenses: a future πεινάσω and an aorist ἐπείνᾱσα are both attested from the Septuagint onwards, whereas the corresponding forms of διψάω appear later (διψάσει first occurs in Didymus Caecus in Eccl. 148.5).

Turning now to the present infinitive (the focus of the Atticists’ prescriptions), classical Attic attests only the forms πεινῆν and διψῆν, which occur both independently (Plato, for instance, uses πεινῆν 11x, διψῆν 7x) and, as a natural semantic pair, often together (e.g. C.1, C.2, C.3, C.5). In the koine, however, these verbs in -άω- (with the exception of ζῆν) quite naturally entered the ‘regular’ contract conjugation, developing analogical forms in -ᾱ- (see Lobeck 1820, 61; Rutherford 1881, 132–7; Crönert 1903, 222; Gignac 1981, 370 n. 2). As for the present infinitive, early occurrences of πεινᾶν and διψᾶν in late Attic are not beyond suspicion: πεινᾶν occurs in Aeschines of Sphettus (C.4), but the passage – transmitted by Plu. Arist. 25.5 – is unlikely to be quoting the Socratic philosopher verbatim (see Pentassuglio 2017, 497). Similarly, διψᾶν in Macho fr. 16.313 (= C.6, transmitted by Ath. 13.580d–e), a textually problematic passage, was emended to δίψαν ‘thirst (acc. sing.)’ by some editors (see Gow 1965, 115, who judged these lines ‘past satisfactory repair’). Be that as it may, the innovative forms made only limited inroads into the literary koine. A case in point is Plutarch, whose text generally preserves the Attic forms (πεινῆν 14x, διψῆν 18x), while the innovative ones occur just once each (in addition to πεινᾶν in C.4, cf. Alex. 42.10 διψᾶν). Other koine prose authors either adhere to the Attic forms (Philo, Josephus; Dionysius of Halicarnassus attests only the future πεινήσομεν) or do not use these verbs at all (Polybius, Diodorus Siculus). Nevertheless, -ᾶν must have been more widespread in the spoken language, as suggested by its occurrence in the New Testament (C.7), together with other forms of the same verbs in -ᾱ- (πεινᾷ 3x, aor. ἐπείνασ- 10x, fut. πεινάσ- 2x; διψᾷ 2x: see Blass, Debrunner 1976, 66). Above all, the shift to the ‘regular’ contract conjugation is confirmed by the fact that πεινάω/πεινώ and διψάω/διψώ behave in Medieval and Modern Greek like other verbs in -άω (see E.).

Further evidence for the diffusion of -ᾶν in Post-classical Greek may be sought precisely in the Atticists’ zeal to restore the classical infinitive in -ῆν, as seen in Phrynichus’ entry (A.1) and later in Thomas Magister (B.7). Pollux, too, prescribes πεινῆν and διψῆν twice in the Onomasticon (6.31 = B.2; 6.44Poll. 6.44), albeit without reference to the variants in -ᾶν. Their prescriptions accord with other entries concerning Attic contract verbs with a stem in -η-, such as (ἀπο)χράω, recently discussed by Tribulato (2019, 252–3), who shows that the stricter Atticists (e.g. Moer. χ 5Moer. χ 5) sought to reinforce the Attic vocalism, whereas other sources (e.g. Antiatt. α 107Antiatt. α 107; Orus fr. A 13; Σ^b α 2035) may have attempted to defend the analogical forms by appealing to classical precedents.

The Philetaerus (B.3), quite interestingly, observes that the forms in -ῆν were the norm in classical Attic – and should therefore be imitated – despite being ‘Doric’ (on this lexicon’s attention to dialectal differences see entry [Herodian] Φιλέταιρος (Philetaerus); on the entry’s textual difficulties, see F.1). In fact, since the regular outcome of the contraction of /a/ and an /e/-vowel is -η- in the West Greek dialects, including Doric and Boeotian (Buck 1955, 37), the paradigm of verbs in -άω exhibited a pervasive η-vocalism where Attic had ᾱ (cf. e.g. τιμῆν ‘to honour’ < *τιμά-ε-εν, Att. τιμᾶν). This Doric feature was well known to ancient scholarship (cf. B.5, B.6), and the Philetaerus employs it to explain the anomalous Attic infinitives in -ῆν, despite their having a different origin. Apollonius Dyscolus (B.1) similarly mentions πεινῆν and διψῆν as parallels for other Attic forms displaying (allegedly) Doric features, such as the variant ἅτερος for ἕτερος ‘other’, presupposed by the Attic crasis θάτερον ‘the other one’. Conversely, other erudite sources (cf. Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,2.165.10–1; Choerob. Epim. in Ps. 38.16–7; EM 202.18–9) explain the late futures πεινάσω ‘I will be hungry’ and διψάσω ‘I will be thirsty’ for classical πεινήσω, διψήσω (which arose from the same analogy that produced πεινᾶν and διψᾶν) as the result of the Doric ‘change’ (τροπή) of η to α, i.e. by appealing to the well-known synchronic correspondence between West Greek ᾱ and Attic-Ionic η, from Proto-Greek *ā (see Lobeck 1820, 204).

Yet other sources (e.g. B.8) instead explained πεινῆν and διψῆν as Ionic, by analogy with ὁρῆν ‘to see’. Forms of ὁράω with η-vocalism do indeed occur in Ionic literature (Hippocrates, Democritus, Herondas), and the variant ὁρῆτο for the vulgate ὁρᾶτο in Il. 1.56, 1.98 was defended by Zenodotus (see Wackernagel 1916, 71; Le Feuvre 2022, 32). The schol. (Ariston.) Hom. Il. 1.56c condemns Zenodotus’ reading ὁρῆτο as ‘Doric’, and ὁρῆν is indeed also a Doric form, attested in Laconian inscriptions and imitated by Ar. Lys. 1077 (see Colvin 1999, 134, and cf. B.5). It is worth noting that the identification of the forms in -ῆν as Doric (or Ionic) did not prevent their endorsement by the Atticists: as this case shows with particular clarity, the decisive factor was the unanimous usage of canonical authors.

For the Atticising writers, as well, -ῆν is the norm (πεινῆν: D.Chr. Or. 14.7; Luc. 4x; Philostr. 4x; διψῆν: D.Chr. 2x; Luc. 6x; Aristid. Or. 47.9 Keil [= 23.447.17 Dindorf]; Ael. fr. 86.3; Philostr. Ep. 64.11). A rare exception is πεινᾶν in Ael. NA 7.30, which was emended to πεινῆν by Hercher, against the MSS tradition (on Hercher’s excessive tendency to restore a uniformly Atticising Greek in Aelian’s text, see Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén 2005). The puristic preference for -ῆν persisted into the medieval period (see E.).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Despite the completed shift of πεινάω and διψάω to the ‘regular’ conjugation of -άω-verbs in spoken Post-classical Greek, Byzantine authors mostly conformed to the Attic norm, exhibiting a majority of forms in -η-. In the case of the infinitive, moreover, influence from the spoken language was less likely than in other parts of the paradigm, since the infinitive itself was gradually disappearing (note, however, that it was precisely the present active infinitive in -ᾶν of the contract verbs in -άω that resisted levelling to /in/ during the medieval period: see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1684). In Modern Greek, as already noted above, πεινάω/πεινώ and διψάω/διψώ follow the conjugation of other verbs in -άω, with a 2nd pers. sing. in -άς, etc. (see Kriaras, LME and LKNE s.vv.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    [Hdn.] Philet. 275 (B.3)

This entry’s text is slightly problematic, since its precise interpretation depends on one’s views regarding the punctuation, the syntactic referent of ἡμῖν, and the meaning of ἄπειρα (either ‘countless’ or ‘unused to’). The general sense, however – that πεινῆν and διψῆν, despite appearing Doric, are the norm in Attic – is clear enough. In particular, the punctuation adopted here differs from that of Dain (1954, 69), who placed commas after both ὄντα and ἄπειρα, implying a reading such as ‘despite being Doric, [these forms] are countless to us (i.e., according to our research)’ or ‘are unusual to us (i.e., in the koine)’. Yet another possibility, suggested to me by Jacopo Cavarzeran, is to move the full stop to after ἄπειρα and to read εὕροις for εἴποις, in which case the second sentence would mean ‘you could find [these forms] countless times in the Attic [authors]’.