Lexicographic entries

νώ, νῷν
(Moer. ν 2, Moer. ν 3)

A. Main sources

(1) Moer. ν 2: νώ δυϊκῶς Ἀττικοί· ἡμεῖς Ἕλληνες.

Users of Attic [employ] νώ (‘we two’), in the dual; users of (koine) Greek [employ] ἡμεῖς (‘we’).

(2) Moer. ν 3: νῷν μὴ συνεκφωνουμένου τοῦ ι· ἡμῖν.

νῷν (‘to us two’), without pronouncing the ι: [it corresponds to] ἡμῖν (‘to us’).

B. Other erudite sources

(1) Apollon. Lex. 117.13–6: νῶϊ ἡμεῖς οἱ δύο. νῶ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ ἡμᾶς μόνον Ὅμηρος· ‘πρίν γ’ ἐπὶ νῶ τῷδ’ ἀνδρὶ σὺν ἵπποισι καὶ ὄχεσφι’. ἐν δὲ Ὀδυσσείᾳ νῶϊν ἡμῶν τῶν δύο. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡμῖν ‘νῶϊν δυοῖσι δύο φάσγανα καὶ δύο δοῦρε’.

Cod. Par. Coisl. 345 has ἵπποισι, which Bekker did not emend, despite the form being unmetrical : Hom Il. 5.219 has ἵπποισιν.

νῶϊ: [It means] ‘we two’. νῶ for ‘us’ (= accusative) [is] only [used by] Homer [in] ‘Until we two (νῶ), with horses and chariot, (go) to this man’ (Hom. Il. 5.219 = C.1). But in the Odyssey [he uses] νῶϊν for ‘of us two’ and for ‘to us (two)’: ‘But for us two (νῶϊν), two swords and two spears’ (Hom. Od. 16.295).

(2) Apoll.Dysc. Pron. GG 2,1.85.12–22, 86.10–2: αἱ δυϊκαὶ κατὰ πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον πρόσωπον πάσης πτώσεως μόνως ὀρθοτονοῦνται· καὶ ἡ αἰτία εἴρηται. εὐθείας µὲν καὶ αἰτιατικῆς κοινῶς νῶϊ, σφῶϊ · Ἀττικαὶ δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν πτώσεων νώ καὶ σφώ, αἷς καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς προσχρῆται ‘νὼ ἀναβησάμενοι’, ‘σφὼ δὲ μάλ’ ἠθέλετον’· γενικῆς καὶ δοτικῆς νῷν, σφῷν. µονοσυλλάβως Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ‘πεύσεσθε· νὼ γάρ, ἄνδρες, οὔθ᾽ ἱππεύοµεν’. καὶ ἔτι ἐν Φίλοις· ‘εὐφρανῶ δὲ νώ’. […] αἱ Ἀττικαὶ κατὰ τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὀξυτόνως ἀνεγνώσθησαν παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ καὶ ἅπασι τραγικοῖς τε καὶ κωμικοῖς, αἵ τε γραφαὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι τὸ ι προσκείμενον […].

On the context of this passage, see F.2.

The duals in the first and second person of all inflections are only accented orthotonically; and the reason [for this] has been stated. The nominative and accusative [forms] are νῶϊ, σφῶϊ in the common language; but the Attic [forms] of the same cases are νώ and σφώ, which the poet (i.e., Homer) also employed: ‘Putting both of us (νώ, acc. dual) on board’ (Hom. Od. 15.475 = C.3), ‘Both of you (σφώ) were very eager’ (Hom. Il. 11.782). The genitive and dative (are) νῷν, σφῷν. Eupolis [uses them] monosyllabically in the Marikas (fr. 201 = C.4): ‘You will hear; given that the two of us (νώ), gentlemen, are neither horsemen […]’. And again in the Friends (fr. 290 = C.5): ‘But I’ll make us both (νώ) happy’. […] The Attic [forms] in the nominative are read (by scholars) with an acute accent in the poet (i.e., Homer) and in all the tragedians and comic poets, and the readings do not have the added ι […].

(3) Tim. Lex. ν 6 (= Phot. ν 309): νώ· ἡμεῖς.

νώ (‘we two’): [It corresponds to] ἡμεῖς (‘we’).

(4) Tim. Lex. ν 7 (= Phot. ν 309): νῶϊν· ἡμῖν.

νῶϊν (‘to us two’): [It corresponds to] ἡμῖν (‘to us’).

(5) Orus fr. B 108: νώ, νῷν <μονοσύλλαβα…>.

This entry is reconstructed on the basis of B.6 and B.10. See F.3.

νώ, νῷν [are] <monosyllables…>.

(6) Orus Orth. (= Lex.Mess. fol. 281r.20–6): νώ χωρὶς τοῦ ι, ἡ εὐθεῖα χωρὶς ὁµοίως τῇ αἰτιατικῇ· ὡς καὶ τὸ σφώ. ἀποκοπὴ γάρ ἐστιν, ἢ ὥς τινες διαφορὰ θέματος. Εὔπολις Μαρικᾷ· ‘πεύσεσθε· νὼ γάρ, ἄνδρες, οὔθ᾽ ἱππεύοµεν’. καὶ ἐπὶ αἰτιατικῆς ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν Φίλοις. νῷν ἔχει τὸ ι ὡς καὶ τὸ σφῷν· ἐν συναιρέσει [γ]έγονε Ἀττικῶς, καὶ ἴσως τὸ χαρακτηριστικὸν τῆς δοτικῆς ἔχει τὸ ι. Σοφοκλῆς Ἰοβάτῃ· ‘κα[ὶ] νῷν τι σῆμα λαμπρὸν ἐνδεῖξαι βίου’. ὁ μέντοι ποιητὴς τῷ μετὰ τοῦ ν ἀεὶ δ[ι]συλλάβως ἐχρήσατο.

[γ]έγονε Rabe (1895, 149) : [ ]αγυνε cod., Rabe (1892, 407).

νώ (‘us two’) [is written] without ι, the nominative [is] without [it] just like the accusative; as also [is the case with] σφώ. For it is (a case of) apocope or, as some [claim], a difference in the basic stem. Eupolis in the Marikas (fr. 201 = C.4) [writes]: ‘You will hear; given that the two of us, gentlemen, are neither horsemen […]’. The same author also [uses it] in the accusative in the Friends (fr. 290 = C.5). νῷν has an ι, as does σφῷ: [it] arose from synaeresis in the Attic manner, and still it has the characteristic ι of the dative. Sophocles [writes] in the Iobate (fr. 297): ‘and to display us some brilliant sign of life’. However, the poet (i.e., Homer) always used the [form] with ν as a disyllable.

(7) Hsch. ν 774: νώ· ἡμᾶς ἡμεῖς.

νώ: [It means] ‘us’, ‘we’.

(8) Hsch. ν 775: νῷν· ἡμῶν τῶν δύο. καὶ ἡμῖν.

νῷν: [It means] ‘of us two’. And ‘to us’.

(9) Phlp. Ton. 99.1–100.7 (= Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.475.3–11): αἱ δυϊκαὶ πρώτου καὶ δευτέρου προσώπου κοιναὶ καὶ ἀπαθεῖς προπερισπῶνται, νῶϊ, σφῶϊ, <καθ’ εὐθεῖαν> καὶ αἰτιατικήν. ταύτας κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ -ι μονοσυλλάβως Ἀθηναῖοι προφέρουσι, νώ, σφώ, οὐκ ἔτι περισπωμένως, καίτοι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀποκοπῆς ὀφειλούσας περισπᾶσθαι, ὡς τὸ Ποσειδῶ, κυκεῶ. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν δυϊκῶν εὐθείας πτώσεως <καὶ αἰτιατικῆς εἰς -ω λῆγον> περισπᾶται· ὅθεν ὠξύνθησαν μετὰ τὴν ἀποκοπήν. αἱ δὲ τούτων γενικαὶ <καὶ δοτικαὶ κοιναὶ>, νῶϊν, σφῶϊν, προπερισπῶνται. ταύτας δὲ κατὰ συναίρεσιν Ἀττικοὶ προφέρονται μονοσυλλάβως, τοῦ -ι- γραφομένου μὴ συνεκφωνουμένου· ὧν καὶ ἡ περισπωμένη φυλάττεται μετὰ τὴν συναίρεσιν, οἷον νῷν, σφῷν.

The common and unmodified duals of the first and second person have a properispomenon accent, νῶϊ, σφῶϊ, <in the nominative> and accusative. The Athenians pronounce them monosyllabically with loss of -ι, νώ, σφώ, never with a perispomenon accent, although according to the principle of apocope they should have a perispomenon accent, like Ποσειδῶ (‘Poseidon’, acc. sing.), κυκεῶ (‘kykeon’, acc. sing.). Yet none of the duals <ending in -ω> in the nominative <and the accusative> case has a perispomenon accent; therefore, they were accented with the acute after the apocope. Their genitive <and dative common forms> νῶϊν, σφῶϊν have a properispomenon accent. But the users of Attic pronounce these [forms] monosyllabically as a result of synaeresis, with the -ι- written but not pronounced, and their circumflex accent is retained after synaeresis, i.e. νῷν, σφῷν.

(10) Et.Gen. AB s.v. ἐπὶ νῷν: ἐπὶ νῷν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν. σὺν τῷ ι παρὰ Λυσίᾳ, ὡς Ὦρος λέγει. εἴρηται εἰς τὸ νώ.

νῷν Reitzenstein : νῶϊ cod. B : νώτης cod. A.

ἐπὶ νῷν: Instead of ἐφ’ ἡμῖν (‘upon us’). With ι in Lysias (fr. 488), as Orus says (cf. B.6). It is discussed [in the entry] νώ.

(11) EM 609.39–610.14 (= Hdn. Περὶ παθῶν GG 3,2.218.16–219.9): νώ· ἅπαξ ἐχρήσατο ταύτῃ τῇ λέξει ὁ ποιητὴς ἐν τῇ Ὀδυσσείᾳ, καὶ ἐν Ἰλιάδος εʹ, ‘πρίν γ’ ἐπὶ νὼ τῷδ’ ἀνδρί’ ἀντὶ τοῦ πρὶν ἡμᾶς· ἐπὶ τούτων πληθυντικῶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν· ἢ κατὰ τούτου τοῦ ἀνδρός. ὅτι τὸ νώ καὶ τὸ σφώ σὺν τῷ ι τινὲς γράφουσι, λέγοντες ἀπὸ τοῦ νῶϊ καὶ σφῶϊ γίνεσθαι, κατὰ συναίρεσιν τοῦ ω καὶ ι εἰς τὴν ωι δίφθογγον. ἀλλ’ ἡ παράδοσις οὐκ οἶδε τὸ ι ἐγκείμενον· ἔτι γὰρ κατὰ συγκοπὴν λέγουσι χωρὶς τοῦ ι. ἀλλὰ λέγει ὁ τεχνικὸς, ὅτι, εἰ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῶϊ καὶ σφῶϊ συνεκόπη, ὤφειλε περισπᾶσθαι. ἄλλοι δὲ λέγουσι, τὸ νώ καὶ σφώ οὐκ ἐγένετο ἀπὸ τοῦ νῶϊ καὶ σφῶϊ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῦτα ἑτέρων θέματά εἰσι, καὶ ἐκείνων ἕτερα θέματα. λέγει δὲ ὁ τεχνικὸς, ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῶϊ καὶ σφῶϊ γέγονε κατὰ συγκοπὴν τοῦ ι, καὶ ὀξύνεται ἀναλόγως· καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τοῖς δυϊκοῖς ω ἀποστρέφεται τὴν περισπωμένην τάσιν. διατί δὲ ἡ νῶϊ καὶ σφῶϊ δυϊκαὶ ἀντωνυμίαι ἀποκόπτονται καὶ γίνονται νὼ καὶ σφώ; ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἐν τοῖς πτωτικοῖς τὸ ω εὑρίσκεται πρὸ τοῦ ι περισπώμενον, ἀλλ’ ἢ προπαροξυνόμενον, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἥρωϊ· ἢ ὀξυνόμενον, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Τρωΐ. ἐπεὶ οὖν αὗται προπερισπῶνται, διὰ τοῦτο πάσχουσιν, ἵνα διὰ τῆς ἀποκοπῆς ἐξαμαυρωθῇ ἡ παράλογος τάσις. τοῦτο γὰρ ἔπαθον καὶ ἡ νῶϊν καὶ ἡ σφῶϊν, κατὰ συναίρεσιν γενόμεναι νῷν καὶ σφῷν, ἵνα διὰ τῆς συναιρέσεως ἐξαμαυρωθῇ ἡ παράλογος τάσις. δεῖ γινώσκειν ὅτι Ἀρίσταρχος τὸ ‘οὐ γάρ σφων ἀπόλωλε τοκήων’ (ἔστι δὲ Ὁμήρου) χωρὶς τοῦ ι ἀξιοῖ γράφεσθαι, λέγων ὅτι τρίτου προσώπου ἐστὶ τῶν πληθυντικῶν, ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, σφῶν, ἀντὶ δευτέρου δυϊκοῦ· ἀντὶ γὰρ τοῦ σφῶϊν κεῖται. ἀλλ’ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι χωρὶς τοῦ ι γράφεται· ἐπειδὴ οὐδέποτε τῇ γενικῇ καὶ δοτικῇ τῶν δυϊκῶν κέχρηται ὁ ποιητὴς, εἰ μὴ κατὰ διάλυσιν, τοῖν, τοῖϊν· ὤμοιν, ὤμοιϊν. εἰ οὖν ἐνταῦθα τὸ ι εἶχεν, ὤφειλε κατὰ διάλυσιν εἶναι.

νώ (acc. dual): The Poet (i.e., Homer) used this form once in the Odyssey (C.3), and in the fifth [book] of the Iliad [he says] ‘until we two (νώ), to this man’ (Il. 5.219 = C.1), instead of ‘until we’: [‘to this man’ corresponds to] ‘these men’, as a plural, or ‘against this man’. [Note] that some write νώ and σφώ with ι, saying that they come from νῶϊ and σφῶϊ through synaeresis of ω and ι into the diphthong ωι. But the paradosis does not attest to the added ι; still, they say [that these forms are] without ι by syncope. But the Grammarian (i.e., Herodian) says that if [these forms] came from νῶϊ and σφῶϊ by syncope of ι, they ought to have a perispomenon accent. Others, however, say that νώ and σφώ did not come from νῶϊ and σφῶϊ, but that they have different base forms. But the Grammarian says that [νώ and σφώ] did come from νῶϊ and σφῶϊ through syncope of ι, and that they have an acute accent analogically: for the -ω [ending] in the duals resists circumflex accentuation. Why do the dual pronouns νῶϊ and σφῶϊ undergo apocope and become νώ and σφώ? Because in declinable [forms] ω is never found with a perispomenon accent before ι, but either with a proparoxytone accent, as in ἥρωϊ (‘hero’, dat. sing.), or with an oxytone accent, as in Τρωΐ (‘Trojan’, dat. sing.). Thus, since these [forms] have a properispomenon accent, they undergo a modification whereby the irregular accentuation is concealed by the apocope. For also νῶϊν and σφῶϊν underwent this change, becoming νῷν and σφῷν by synaeresis, so that the irregular accentuation is concealed by the synaeresis. It should be known that Aristarchus held that the [verse] οὐ γάρ σφων ἀπόλωλε τοκήων (‘for [the lineage] of you two’s parents is not lost’, cf. Od. 4.62 = C.2) – it is by Homer – should be written without ι, saying that it is a third-person plural [form], ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, σφῶν, instead of a second-person dual: for it is found in place of σφῶϊν. However, it is possible to say that it is written without ι, since the Poet never uses the genitive and dative dual, if not with resolution (of the diphthong into separate vowels), [as in] τοῖν [which becomes] τοῖϊν, [or] ὤμοιν [which becomes] ὤμοιϊν. Thus, if there were an ι there, it would be the result of resolution.

(12) Eust. in Il. 1.236.1–10: ἰστέον δὲ ὡς Ὁμήρου εἰπόντος ἐνταῦθα ‘εἰ δὴ σφώ’, ἤγουν εἴπερ ὑμεῖς, ‘θνητῶν ἕνεκα ἐριδαίνετον’, φασὶν οἱ τεχνικοί, ὅτι τε τὸ νώ καὶ σφώ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῶϊ, σφῶϊ γεγόνασιν ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ι καὶ ὅτι οὐ περισπῶνται διὰ τὴν ἀποκοπὴν κατὰ τὸ ἱδρῶτα ἱδρῶ, δῶμα δῶ, ἀλλ’ ὀξύνονται ἀναλόγως ὡς δυϊκά· καὶ ὅτι ἀναγκαίως ἀπεκόπη τὸ νώ καὶ τὸ σφώ ἐκ τοῦ νῶι καὶ τοῦ σφῶι. οὐδέποτε γάρ, φασί, τὸ ω κείμενον πρὸ καθαρεύοντος τοῦ ι περισπᾶται, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὀξύνεται, ὡς ἐν τῷ Τρωΐ καὶ δμωΐ, ἢ προπαροξύνεται, ὡς ἐν τῷ ἥρωϊ, Μίνωϊ. διὸ καὶ ἐν τῷ νῶϊν καὶ σφῶϊν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ ω προκείμενον τοῦ ι περισπᾶται, ἐπενοήθη συναίρεσις τοῦ νῷν καὶ σφῷν πρὸς ἀποφυγὴν παραλογίας, οἷον ‘οὐ γὰρ σφῷν γένος ἀπόλωλε τοκήων’, τὸ ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ κείμενον.

It should be known that when Homer says here ‘if you two (σφώ) are to wrangle for mortals’ sake’ (Il. 1.574), the grammarians say that νώ and σφώ were derived from νῶϊ and σφῶϊ by loss of the ι, and that they do not have a perispomenon accent because they result from apocope – just as ἱδρῶτα ἱδρῶ (‘sweat’, acc. sing.), δῶμα δῶ (‘house’, acc. sing.) – but have an oxytone accent analogically, as duals; and that νώ and σφώ must have been apocopated from νῶι and σφῶι. For, they say, the ω before a pure ι (i.e., when it is preceded by another vowel) never has a perispomenon accent, but rather has either a oxytone accent, as in Τρωΐ and δμωΐ (‘slave’, dat. sing.), or a proparoxytone one, as in ἥρωϊ, Μίνωϊ (‘Minos’, dat. sing.). Therefore, also in νῶϊν and σφῶϊν, since the ω preceding the ι has a perispomenon accent, the synaeresis of νῷν and σφῷν has been devised to avoid irregularity, as in οὐ γὰρ σφῷν γένος ἀπόλωλε τοκήων (‘for the lineage of you two’s parents has not been lost’), the [verse] appearing in the Odyssey (4.62 = C.2).

(13) Schol. (Hdn.) Hom. Il. 1.574.a (= Hdn. Περὶ Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,2.30.19–20): σφώ· πρωτόθετον αὐτήν φησιν Ἡρωδιανός, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῷ σφῶϊ· διὸ ὀξύνεται· τὸ γὰρ ω τῶν δυϊκῶν ἀπέστραπται τὴν περισπωμένην (bT).

πρωτόθετον codd. : <οὐ> πρωτόθετον Lentz | οὐκ codd. : δυϊκὸν Lentz.

σφώ: Herodian says that it [is] a primitive form, not [derived] from σφῶϊ: for this reason, it has an acute accent, for the ω of duals resists the perispomenon accent.

(14) Schol. (Hdn. | Ap.Dysc.) Hom. Il. 5.219.a: {πρίν γ’ ἐπὶ} νώ· τὸ νώ βαρυτονητέον. ἅπαξ δὲ ἐν Ἰλιάδι, καὶ ἅπαξ ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ ἐχρήσατο κατ’ αἰτιατικὴν πτῶσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐνθάδε, ‘νὼ ἀναβησάμενοι’. ὁπότε μέντοι γε σὺν τῷ ι λέγεται, καὶ ἐπ’ εὐθείας αὐτὸ τάσσει καὶ ἐπ’ αἰτιατικῆς καὶ προπερισπᾶται· ‘νῶϊ δ’ ἐγὼ Σθένελός τε’ καὶ ‘οὐδ’ ἂν νῶϊ διαδράκοι ἠέλιός περ’. | περὶ δὲ τῆς τάσεως τοῦ μονοσυλλάβου, διὰ τί οὐ περιεσπάσθη, ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀντωνυμιῶν δηλοῦται. καὶ τάχα ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν δυϊκὸν εἰς ω λῆγον περισπᾶται· οὕτως γὰρ ἔχει καὶ τὸ σφώ, τασσόμενον καὶ ἐπ’ εὐθείας καὶ ἐπ’ αἰτιατικῆς. καὶ παρ’ αὐτῷ ‘σφὼ δὲ μάλ’ ἠθέλετον’, ‘Ζεὺς σφὼ ε<ἰ>ς Ἴδην’. (A)

{πρίν γ’ ἐπὶ} νώ: νώ should have a baritone accent. Once in the Iliad, and once in the Odyssey, [Homer] used [it] in the accusative case, as also here: ‘putting both of us (νώ) on board’ (Od. 15.475 = C.3). But when it is said with a ι, [Homer] adds it in the nominative as well as in the accusative, and uses a properispomenon accent: ‘we two (νῶϊ), Sthenelus and I’ (Il. 9.48) and ‘not even Helios could discern us two (νῶϊ)’ (Il. 14.344). | As regards the accentuation of the monosyllable, the reason why it is not perispomenon has been shown in the [treatise] On Pronouns (B.2). And perhaps [this is] because no dual in -ω has a perispomenon accent; and the same applies to σφώ, which is employed in the nominative as well as in the accusative. It is also [used] by him (Homer): ‘both of you (σφώ) were very eager’ (Il. 11.782), ‘Zeus [asks] the two of you (σφώ) [to go] to Ida’ (Il. 15.146).

(15) Schol. (Hdn.) Hom. Od. 4.62.c1: σφῶν γε γένος· χωρὶς τοῦ ι ἡ ‘σφῶν’, ὡς Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ Ἡρωδιανός. Ἀπολλώνιος δὲ ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀντωνυμιῶν γράφει αὐτὴν μετὰ τοῦ ι, ἵν’ ᾖ δευτέρου προσώπου κατὰ συναίρεσιν· ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστι ποτὲ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ γενικὴ καὶ δοτικὴ μὴ ἐκφωνοῦσα τὸ <ι· οὐ> γὰρ ἔστιν ‘ὤμοιϊν’ καὶ ‘ποδοῖϊν’ μετὰ τοῦ ι λέγει<ν> δισυλλάβως. ἐπίτηδες δὲ Ἀρίσταρχος ἀθετουμένων τῶν στίχων καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ι εἴασε τὴν γραφήν, ἵνα καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν ἀθέτησιν λαμβάνῃ (HM^a).

σφῶν γε γένος: The [pronoun] σφῶν [should be written] without the ι, as Aristarchus and Herodian [do]. But Apollonius in the [treatise] On Pronouns (= B.2) writes it with ι, so that it is a second-person [form] with synaeresis; but in the Poet there is never a genitive or dative with an unpronounced ι, for it is not possible to pronounce ὤμοιϊν (‘shoulders’, gen.-dat. dual) and ποδοῖϊν (‘feet’, gen.-dat. dual) with ι disyllabically (in the ending). Cunningly, Aristarchus, while athetising the verses, also maintained the spelling with ι, so that he could take it too as an argument for athetesis.

C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Hom. Il. 5.218–20:
μὴ δὴ οὕτως ἀγόρευε· πάρος δ᾿ οὐκ ἔσσεται ἄλλως,
πρίν γ᾿ ἐπὶ νὼ τῷδ᾿ ἀνδρὶ σὺν ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν
ἀντιβίην ἐλθόντε σὺν ἔντεσι πειρηθῆναι.

Do not speak that way; things will not be any better until we two with horses and chariot go to face this man and make trial of him in arms. (Transl. Murray 1924, 223).

(2) Hom. Od. 4.62–4:
οὐ γὰρ σφῷν γε γένος ἀπόλωλε τοκήων,
ἀλλ᾿ ἀνδρῶν γένος ἐστὲ διοτρεφέων βασιλήων
σκηπτούχων.

For the lineage of the parents of both of you has not been lost, but you are a lineage of sceptred kings, fostered by Zeus.

(3) Hom. Od. 15.474–5:
οἱ μὲν ἔπειτ᾿ ἀναβάντες ἐπέπλεον ὑγρὰ κέλευθα,
νὼ ἀναβησάμενοι· ἐπὶ δὲ Ζεὺς οὖρον ἴαλλεν.

Then they embarked and sailed the watery ways, putting both of us on board; and Zeus sent them a favourable wind.

(4) Eup. fr. 201:
πεύσεσθε· νὼ γάρ, ἄνδρες, οὔθ᾽ ἱππεύοµεν.

You will hear; given that the two of us, gentlemen, are neither horsemen. (Transl. Olson 2016, 202).

(5) Eup. fr. 290:
εὐφρανῶ δὲ νώ.

But I’ll make both of us happy.

(6) Soph. El. 75–6:
νὼ δ᾿ ἔξιμεν· καιρὸς γάρ, ὅσπερ ἀνδράσιν
μέγιστος ἔργου παντός ἐστ᾿ ἐπιστάτης.

But the two of us will go: for the occasion [has come], which is the greatest commander of every human enterprise.

(7) Pl. Phdr. 259a: εἰ οὖν ἴδοιεν καὶ νὼ καθάπερ τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐν μεσημβρίᾳ μὴ διαλεγομένους ἀλλὰ νυστάζοντας καὶ κηλουμένους ὑφ’ αὑτῶν δι’ ἀργίαν τῆς διανοίας, δικαίως ἂν καταγελῷεν, ἡγούμενοι ἀνδράποδ’ ἄττα σφίσιν ἐλθόντα εἰς τὸ καταγώγιον ὥσπερ προβάτια μεσημβριάζοντα περὶ τὴν κρήνην εὕδειν.

So if they were to see us two as well, just like most people in the middle of the day, not talking to each other, but snoozing and beguiled by them through the idleness of our minds, they would rightly laugh at us, thinking that some slaves had come to their resting place, sleeping at noon around the spring like sheep. (Transl. Emlyn-Jones, Preddy 2022, 457).

(8) Luc. Sol. 6.1–3: εἰώθει δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς σολοικίζοντας Ἀττικῶς παίζειν ἀνεπαχθῶς· πρὸς γοῦν τὸν εἰπόντα, ‘νῶϊ τοῦτο δοκεῖ’, ‘σύ’, ἔφη, ‘καὶ νῶϊν ἐρεῖς ὡς ἁμαρτάνομεν’.

He was also in the habit of making good-natured jokes at the expense of those who committed solecisms when speaking Attic. Thus, to someone who said ‘So it seems to we both (νῶϊ, nom.-acc. dual.)’, he said ‘You will also say that us both (νῶϊν, dat. dual) are wrong’.

(9) Theodorus Metochites 7.37–8:
νυνὶ δ’ ἔμελλες ἀπειρεσίῃσ’ ἀλγηδόσιν αὐτή
συμβαλέειν νώ, τεθνᾶσ’ ἄφαρ ἀνόιστ’ ἀδόκητα.

But now you were destined yourself to bring countless sorrows upon us both, having died suddenly and unexpectedly.

D. General commentary

The Atticist lexica discussed the correct forms of dual personal pronouns. Since the dual category was a hallmark of Attic, in contrast to the koine, which had lost it entirely, the Atticists were quite naturally keen on prescribing the appropriate forms (see also Moer. α 4Moer. α 4: ἀθανάτω ἀγήρω Ἀττικοί· ἀθάνατοι ἀγήρατοι Ἕλληνες, ‘Users of Attic [say] ἀθανάτω (‘immortal’, nom. masc. dual), ἀγήρω (‘ageless’, nom. masc. dual); users of (koine) Greek [say] ἀθάνατοι (‘immortal’, nom. masc. plur.), ἀγήρατοι (‘ageless’, nom. masc. plur.)’, the entry Διόσκουροι, Διόσκοροι, Διοσκόρω, and AGP vol. 2, Morphology, forthcoming, for a fuller treatment of the Atticists’ stance on the dual). In two consecutive entries (A.1, A.2), Moeris recommends the use of the first-person dual pronoun νώ and νῷν, for the direct and oblique cases respectively, over the plural forms ἡμεῖς ‘we’ and ἡμῖν ‘to us’, which would have been used in the koine (possibly accompanied by δύο ‘two’ or ἄμφω ‘both’). However, the orthoepic prescription in the second entry alludes to another debate echoed in several other erudite sources (cf. B.2, B.6, B.9, B.10, B.11, B.12, etc.), namely that concerning the correct form of the dual pronouns, which compared the Attic forms with the Homeric disyllabic νῶϊ, νῶϊν.

The historical relationship between the attested variants is not always easy to interpret. In the direct cases, νώ is most likely the inherited variant: comparison with related languages (cf. Vedic nau, Old Slavic na) suggests a proto-form *nō, from Proto-Indo-European *neh₃ (EDG s.v.) or *nó-h₁ (Dunkel,LIPP vol. 2, 566–7). The -ι is not found outside Greek and all hypotheses regarding its origin remain speculative (EDG proposes *νω-ϝι, while Dunkel suggests *noh₁ íh₁; see Sihler 1995, 381–2 for other hypotheses). In the oblique cases, the ending -ιν was borrowed from the first- and second-person plural pronouns (cf. Lesbian ἄμμι(ν), ὔμμι(ν), etc.). The second-person dual pronoun σφώ, which has no exact correspondences outside Greek, appears to be formed on the stem of the third-person pronoun σφεῖς with the endings of νώ, but its origin remains obscure (see Willi 2004; Kaczko 2006, 316–20). On all the above, see in detail K–B vol. 1, 594–5; Schwyzer (1939, 600–4). Fero (2013, 20–39) provides an extensive discussion of the etymologies of these forms.

In the Homeric poems, the disyllabic forms clearly prevail (see Chantraine 1958–1963 vol. 1, 266). In the first-person dual, nom.-acc. νῶϊ (51x) and gen.-dat. νῶϊν (25x) are the norm, while the accusative νώ is only attested in C.1 and C.3. In the second person, σφῶϊ occurs eleven times and σφώ four, of which two (Il. 1.574, 15.146) – before a vowel – are not metrically guaranteed; in the oblique, σφῶϊν occurs 14 times, with the monosyllabic form σφῷν possibly occurring only at Od. 4.62 (C.2), where it has aroused suspicions since antiquity (Aristarchus and Herodian corrected it to the 3rd pers. plur. gen. σφῶν, while Apollonius Dyscolus defended the form; see B.11, B.12, B.15). In modern times, Wackernagel (1916, 147–50) argued that in the latter passage σφῶν (i.e. the gen. masc. plur. of the third-person possessive σφός) should be read, but he maintained that the monosyllabic forms νώ and σφώ in the Homeric text were indeed Atticisms. Since the Ionic dialect had lost the dual, the usual Homeric forms νῶϊ, νῶϊν and σφῶϊ, σφῶϊν have been explained as Aeolicisms (e.g. by Wackernagel 1916, 150 and Wathelet 1970, 227), which may also account for their recessive accentuationAccent (the circumflex accentuation of Attic νῷν, σφῷν, on the other hand, would be analogical, modelled on the thematic endings -ῶν, -οῖν, and replacing the expected forms *νωΐν, *σφωΐν, cf. Hom. ἡμίν: see Wackernagel 1914, 106–7; Dieu 2022, 499–500). Wathelet (1970, 291) suggested that νῶϊ was a later replacement for an older Aeolic and/or Achaean νῶε: the latter form, an analogical innovation borrowing the ending -ε from the athematic declension, is attested in Corinna (fr. 661 PMG) and Antimachus (fr. 56), who also attests σφω(ε) (fr. 9). Such forms are indeed transmitted as variae lectiones in some Homeric verses (νῶε: Il. 4.418, 14.344; σφῶε: Il. 7.280, 10.552, 12.366). Kaczko (2006) examines the distribution of these variants in Homer and suggests that, although they are probably more archaic than νῶϊ and σφῶϊ from a linguistic perspective, νώ and σφώ belong to a late phase in the development of epic diction, which they likely entered from Attic; at any rate, they cannot be considered late Attic ‘interpolations’ to an already established Homeric tradition. The antiquity of the disyllabic stems in Homer is also indicated by the possessive adjectives νωΐτερος ‘of the two of us’ (Il. 15.39, Od. 12.185) and σφωΐτερος ‘of you two’ (Il. 1.216). It should also be mentioned that Zenodotus read νῶϊν and σφῶϊν as accusatives in certain Homeric passages (Il. 1.336, 8.377, 22.216); this confusion is likely to have been caused by the early loss of the dual in Ionic (see Le Feuvre 2022, 269).

Among those Attic authors who habitually use the dual, the forms νώ, νῷν and σφώ, σφῷν are the norm in both verse and prose: νώ is not only attested in Plato (e.g. C.7; see LSJ s.v.) and the orators, but is also ‘used by the 5th-century Attic poets as a metrical expedient in place of disyllabic ἡμεῖς/ἡμᾶς’ (Olson 2016, 448–9, who provides a list of tragic and comic passages, including C.4, C.5, and C.6). From the end of the 5th century BCE onwards, the dual underwent a rapid decline in Attic (see Threatte 1996, 18–20 and 91–5 for the epigraphic evidence; Cuny 1906, 247–453 for 4th-century BCE prose). Nevertheless, several dual forms are still employed by the poets of Middle and New Comedy; in particular, νῷν occurs twice in Menander (frr. 241 and 457). In the koine, the dual had already disappeared as a morphological category, as shown by its complete absence from the Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 1 n. 1 mentions a single, very uncertain example of νῷν in BGU 4.1185.3 [= TM 5554], 1st century BCE, Heracleopolites, but the integration προγό]νων is generally accepted). Accordingly, the dual personal pronouns are largely absent from literary texts of the Hellenistic period, except where they occur in quotations from older works. The Atticising authors of the 2nd century CE, however, were keen to employ dual forms in order to impart an Attic flavour to their writings. Only Lucian – who uses a total of 80 dual forms in his works (see Schmid, Atticismus vol. 1, 234) – extended this practice to the personal pronouns, with three occurrences of νώ (Prom. 202, DMort. 338, Nau. 247) and four of σφώ (Charid. 494, Herm. 776, Am. 409, Anach. 894).

Ancient lexicography took note of the Homeric (B.1) and Attic (B.3, B.4) use of the dual pronouns where the koine would have employed the plural; see also B.7, B.8. The correct morphology and phonology of the different variants were thoroughly discussed by Apollonius Dyscolus (B.2) and Herodian (B.9), who – drawing on earlier Homeric scholarship – distinguished the Attic forms from the Homeric ones and explained the divergences in accentuation between them (see F.2). The prescriptions in the Atticist lexica relied on this scholarship: while Orus (B.5) depends directly on Apollonius, Moeris’ entries (A.1, A.2) are also compatible with his teaching (see F.1).

Homer’s use of the dual personal pronouns surely reinforced their Attic pedigree in the purists’ eyes, in accordance with the theory – endorsed, among others, by Aristarchus – that Homer was an Athenian and that his language represented a primitive form of Attic. The use of the dual, in turn, was one of the features adduced as proof of Homer’s Atticness (cf. schol. (Ariston.) Hom. Il. 13.197, and see entry ἀκολουθοῦντε). At the same time, when – as in the present case – the dual forms employed by Homer and by Attic authors differed, the lexicographers needed to point their readers to the correct variants. Lucian’s Soloecist (C.8) attests to the errors that could befall aspiring Attic speakers – in this case, the confusion between νῶϊ and νῷν The use of the former in place of the latter is wrong not only syntactically (and thus a solecismSolecism stricto sensu), since a dative is required (cf. the schol. ad loc.), but also morphologically, as νῶϊ is the non-Attic form. The reply itself probably contains a joke in the form a deliberate solecism, with νῷν being incorrectly used as the incorrect subject of ἁμαρτάνουμεν: in fact, as an anonymous reviewer points out, it cannot even be excluded that σύ is coordinated with νῷν as the subject of the ὡς-clause (‘You and us you’ll say that are wrong’).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In the medieval period the dual personal pronouns are extremely rare even in cultivated usage, despite featuring regularly in grammatical works. A notable exception – remarkable also for its late date (14th century CE) – is found in Theodorus Metochites (C.9), who may have chosen the accusative νώ for metrical reasons.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1) Moer. ν 3 (A.2)

The verb used by Moeris, συνεκφωνέωσυνεκφωνέω, literally ‘to pronounce together’, usually refers to two vowels forming a single syllable (see Bécares Botas 1985, 363). However, it is also used to indicate that the ι should be written but not pronounced when it is the second element of a ‘long diphthong’ (cf. e.g. D.T. GG 1,1.58.4: ἡ δὲ δευτέρα διὰ τῆς ᾳ διφθόγγου, προσγραφομένου τοῦ ι, μὴ συνεκφωνουμένου δέ, οἷον βοῶ βοᾷς βοᾷ, ‘The second (conjugation of contract verbs) [is] with the diphthong ᾳ, where the ι is added in writing, but is not pronounced, as in βοῶ βοᾷς βοᾷ (‘to shout’, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pers. sing.)’; Phot. α 1289 = Phryn. PS fr. *16Phryn. PS fr. *16: ἀμυκλᾷδες· ὑποδημάτων εἶδος. προσγράφεται μὲν τὸ ι, οὐ μὴν καὶ συνεκφωνεῖται. […], ‘ἀμυκλᾷδες: A kind of shoe. The ι is added in writing, but is not pronounced. […]’, etc.). Moeris’ prescription is clarified by the fuller treatments of the topic found in Apollonius Dyscolus (B.2) and Orus (B.5, B.6), who state explicitly that both the direct and the oblique cases of the dual pronouns should be monosyllabic in Attic. However, whereas the former are written without ι, in the latter the ι is present but not syllabic, since it forms a ‘long diphthong’ with the preceding ω. The need for such a prescription arose from the fact that the second element /i/ in diphthongs with a long first element had ceased to be pronounced, so that speakers required guidance as to when it should still appear in the written form of a word. According to Vessella (2018, 61–2; 119), who does not discuss A.2, the monophthongisation was entirely acceptable even in the careful pronunciation prescribed by the Atticist lexica. Therefore, Moeris’ expression μὴ συνεκφωνουμένου τοῦ ι specifies that the recommended alternative to ἡμῖν is the Attic νῷν, rather than the Homeric νῶϊν (where the ι, being syllabic, was of course still pronounced even in post-classical phonology). This clarification was necessary because both forms would have been written the same in Moeris’ time.

(2) Apoll.Dysc. Pron. GG 2,1.85.12–22, 86.10–2 (B.2)

In his treatise On Pronouns, Apollonius Dyscolus devotes an extensive discussion (GG 2,1.85.12–88.12) to the forms of the first- and second-person dual pronouns. Only part of this discussion is reported here (a useful schematic summary is provided by Brandenburg 2005, 600). First, he clearly distinguishes the Attic forms νώ, σφώ from the ‘common’ forms νῶϊ, σφῶϊ (here, κοινῶς must refer to the consensus of non-Attic dialects, rather than to the koine, where the dual was not in use). He then observes that both sets of forms are found in Homer, and that the Attic nominative is written without an ι in the texts of the canonical authors (Homer; the tragic and comic playwrights). In the following section, Apollonius argues that the Attic forms and the ‘common’ ones cannot be derived from each other in a regular way. He then proposes two possible solutions: either both stems were primary – as suggested by the fact that both are attested in Homer – in which case Ionic would have preserved the disyllabic forms, and Attic the monosyllabic ones; or the Attic forms were derived from the common ones by apocope, and received an acute accent by analogy with the usual dual ending -ώ. The latter explanation was endorsed by Herodian, as preserved in John Philoponus’ epitome of the Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας (B.9), the Iliadic scholia (B.13, B.14), and the Etymologicum magnum (B.11); Eustathius’ discussion (B.12) probably also depends on Herodian’s teaching (see Van der Valk’s comment ad loc.). Herodian also distanced himself from Apollonius with regard to C.2, where he rejected the reading σφῷν precisely because it conflicted with Homeric usage (see B.15).

(3) Orus fr. B 108 (B.5)

Alpers (1981, 238–9) inferred the existence of an entry devoted to the forms νώ, νῷν in Orus’ Collection of Attic Words on the basis of a passage (B.6) in the excerpt from Orus’ Orthography dealing with the iota subscript and preserved in cod. S. Salvatore 118 (the so-called Lexicon Messanense edited by Rabe 1892; see also Rabe 1896; Alpers 1981, 80–1), as well as an entry in the Etymologicum Genuinum (B.10), where Orus is cited and which may depend on his Orthography, either directly or through Choeroboscus’ Orthography. Although Alpers could not reconstruct the text of Orus’ entry, the above-mentioned sources make it clear that the lexicographer, following Apollonius Dyscolus (B.2), prescribed the spellings νώ and νῷν, specifying that the latter should be written with an iota, but that both forms should be monosyllabic. As a parallel for this prescription, Alpers pointed to Orus fr. B 140, which advocates a monosyllabic pronunciation for the adverb πρῴ ‘early’, against Phryn. PS 106.5Phryn. PS 106.5, who also admitted the disyllabic πρωΐ.

Bibliography

Alpers, K. (1981). Das attizistische Lexicon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe. Berlin, New York.

Bécares Botas, V. (1985). Diccionario de terminología gramatical griega. Salamanca.

Brandenburg, P. (2005). Apollonios Dyskolos. Über das Pronomen. Einführung, Text, Übersetzung und Erläuterungen. Munich, Leipzig.

Chantraine, P. (1958–1963). Grammaire homérique. 2 vols. Paris.

Cuny, A. L. M. (1906). Le nombre duel en grec. Paris.

Dieu, E. (2022). Traité d’accentuation grecque. Innsbruck.

Emlyn-Jones, C.; Preddy, W. (2022). Plato. Vol. 3: Lysis. Symposium. Phaedrus. Edited and translated by Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy. Cambridge, MA.

Fero, B. (2013). Studi sul duale in miceneo, nella poesia omerica e nel teatro attico del V secolo. Variazioni morfologiche, dialettali, stilistiche. [PhD dissertation] University of Bologna.

Kaczko, S. (2006). ‘I duali νώ e σφώ e le fasi della dizione epica’. SemRom 9, 313–30.

Le Feuvre, C. (2022). Homer from Z to A. Metrics, Linguistics, and Zenodotus. Leiden, Boston.

Murray, A. T. (1924). Homer. Iliad. Vol. 1: Books 1–12. Translated by A. T. Murray. Revised by W. F. Wyatt. Cambridge, MA.

Olson, S. D. (2016). Eupolis. Heilotes – Chrysoun genos (frr. 147–325). Translation and Commentary. Heidelberg.

Rabe, H. (1892). ‘Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto’. RhM 47, 405−13.

Rabe, H. (1895). ‘Nachtrag zum Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto’. RhM 50, 148−52.

Schwyzer, E. (1939). Griechische Grammatik. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. Munich.

Sihler, A. L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York.

Threatte, L. (1996). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Vol. 2: Morphology. Berlin, New York.

Vessella, C. (2018). Sophisticated Speakers. Atticistic Pronunciation in the Atticist Lexica. Berlin, Boston.

Wackernagel, J. (1914). ‘Akzentstudien III. Zum homerischen Akzent’. GN, 97–130 (= Kleine Schriften vol. 2, 1154–87).

Wackernagel, J. (1916). Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Göttingen.

Wathelet, P. (1970). Les traits éoliens dans la langue de l’épopée grecque. Rome.

Willi, A. (2004). ‘Griechisch σφι(ν), σφε, σφώ zwischen Etymologie und Philologie’. HS 117, 204–28.

CITE THIS

Roberto Batisti, 'νώ, νῷν (Moer. ν 2, Moer. ν 3)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2025/02/012

ABSTRACT

This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the dual personal pronouns νώ and νῷν discussed in the Atticist lexicon Moer. ν 2 and Moer. ν 3.

KEYWORDS

DualHomerOrthoepyPersonal pronounsAdscript ισφώ

FIRST PUBLISHED ON

16/12/2025

LAST UPDATE

19/12/2025