ἀπολλύασιν, ἀπολλύουσιν, and other 3rd person plurals of -νυμι verbs
(Phryn. PS 10.22–3, Moer. δ 29, Moer. ζ 8, Μοer. ο 15, Moer. ρ 5)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) and Moeris (A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5) uniformly proscribe the thematised ending ‑ύουσι(ν) for the 3rd person plural of the present indicative of verbs in ‑νυμι in favour of the Attic ‑ύασι(ν) (A.1, A.4, A.5). In entries A.2 and A.3, Moeris departs from his usual bipartite structure ‘users of Attic vs. users of Greek’ (on which see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής (forthcoming)) and presents the rare ending -ῦσι(ν) as the proper Attic form and ‑ύασι(ν) as belonging to ‘secondary’ (i.e. ‘later’ or ‘second-rate’) Attic (οἱ δεύτεροι Ἀττικοί or ἡ δευτέρα Ἀτθίς, see the discussion below).

Athematic present forms with the suffix ‑νῡ‑/‑νῠ‑ arose in Greek by analogical remodelling of the inherited ablaut alternation in the suffix *‑neu‑/-nu‑ (possibly a shared Graeco-Armenian innovation, see Clackson 1994, 83‒4) after presents in ‑νᾱ‑/‑νᾰ‑ (< PIE *‑neh₂‑/‑nh₂‑). The suffix *‑neu‑/-nu‑, in turn, arose at the Proto-Indo-European stage from reanalysis of nasal-infix presents built to roots ending in ‑u‑. In Prehistoric Greek, this class also absorbed presents in *‑nō‑/‑no‑ (< PIE *‑neh₃-/‑nh₃‑), where /o/ between a nasal and a labial consonant turned to /u/ by regular sound change (Cowgill’s Law, on which, see Vine 1999). Presents in ‑νυμι continued to spread in Post-Homeric Greek, sometimes replacing older formations. Meanwhile, as part of the general trend towards the thematisation of athematic presents, verbs in ‑νυμι-νυμι with a root ending in a consonant developed variants in ‑νύω, such as ζευγνύω (Hdt.+) next to ζεύγνυμι or δεικνύω (Hes.+) next to δείκνυμι, while those with a vowel-final root were thematised in ‑νϝω (Attic τίνω, Ionic τῑνω < *τίνϝω next to Homeric τίν(ν)υμαι, ‘avenge’; cf. Cassio 1991–1993, 194–202). On the origin and history of this class, see Schwyzer (1939, 697); Rix (1992, 210); Sihler (1995, 525‒7); Duhoux (2000, 349); Willi (2018, 18).

In Attic, many athematic presents with a vowel-final stem have an analogical 3rd pers. plur. ending ‑ᾱσι, originating in the perfect, which may be explained from *‑ανσι, with assibilationAssibilation (cf. West Greek ‑αντι) followed by the second compensatory lengtheningCompensatory lengthening, second. In turn, ‑αντι shows analogical reintroduction of the nasal from *‑ᾰτι, the expected outcome of the post-consonantal zero-grade allomorph *‑n̥ti of the athematic 3rd-pers. plur. primary active ending, under the influence of thematic ‑ο‑ντι (> Attic-Ionic ‑ουσι). The spread of ‑ᾱσι to the presents in ‑νυμι is exclusively Attic (see e.g. C.3), while Homeric Ionic has a single example of the ending ‑νῦσι (C.1 ῥηγνῦσι, where both ῥηγνύᾱσι and ῥηγνύουσι would have been unmetrical), which developed from *‑νυνσι < *‑νυ‑ντι, with the position of the accent influenced by contract forms such as ἱστᾶσι < *ἱστάᾱσι (Dieu 2022, 213‒4). Forms in ‑(ν)ῦσι are also attested in Herodotus (9x, e.g. ἀπολλῦσι 4.69.1) alongside a slightly smaller number of forms in ‑(ν)ύουσι (7x, see e.g. C.2 and ἐπιδεικνύουσι 4.168.2; see Untersteiner 1949, 137; Rosén 1962, 121). The latter are usually interpreted as thematised forms, but they may theoretically also stem from an ancient o-grade variant *‑onti of the athematic ending (on the 3rd-pers. plur. endings see Schwyzer 1939, 663‒5; Rix 1992, 252; Duhoux 2000, 485; Sihler 1995, 469‒70; Willi 2018, 4).

From a purely numerical perspective, the 3rd pers. plur. ending -ύουσι(ν) is slightly more attested than -ύασι(ν) in 5th-century Attic authors (while -ῦσι(ν) is absent). The numbers, however, should be interpreted with great caution, given that word endings are particularly prone to scribal errors and may be also influenced by modern editors’ choices (moreover, in this case, -ύασι and -ύουσι are also metrically equivalent). -ύουσι(ν) is found in Pherecrates (fr. 152 κὠμνύουσι) and Antiphon (fr. 44a.11 ὀμνύουσι); it is the prevalent form in Xenophon (10x against 4 cases of -ύασι(ν)); and it also occurs in Lysias (2x) and Isocrates (2x). Meanwhile, -ύασι(ν) occurs in Aristophanes (Ec. 843 ἀναπηγνύασι), Plato (6x, against a single occurrence of -ύουσι(ν)), and Demosthenes (1x), and it is seemingly found once also in Herodotus. Documentary texts provide virtually no attestation of ‑ύασι(ν) and -ῦσι(ν), with -ύουσι(ν) being the only attested 3rd-person plural ending (for an overview of the verbs in -νυμι in inscriptions and papyri, see Threatte 1996, 619–25; Gignac 1981, 375–8).

The Atticists’ prescription of -ύασι(ν) (see A.1, A.4, A.5) is easily understandable in light of both its attestations in canonical authors, such as Aristophanes and Plato, and its rarity compared to ‑ύουσι(ν), which was the standard form in koine Greek (see above. On the contrary, Antiatt. κ 39Antiatt. κ 39 prescribes κεραννύουσιν, ‘they mix’; cf. entry κεραννύουσιν, κιρνᾶσιν). Remarkably, Moeris’ treatment of these forms – at least, with respect to the verbs δείκνυμι and ζεύγνυμι, see A.2 and A.3 – is more complex than Phrynichus’, given that the entries juxtapose three different endings: -ῦσι(ν), presented as ‘Attic’ (although it occurs only in Homer, C.1, see above, and 9x in Herodotus); -ύουσι(ν) as koine; and -ύασι(ν) as ‘secondary Attic’ (see Swain 1996, 51; Gammage 2018, 189–90). Moeris also avails himself of this distinction in π 79Moer. π 79 (πλυνεῖς κατὰ τὴν πρώτην Ἀτθίδα· κναφεῖς κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν Ἀτθίδα, ‘πλυνεῖς (‘clothes-cleaners’) in first Attic. κναφεῖς (‘cloth-carders’) in secondary Attic’), and a distinction is made between οἱ πρῶτοι Ἀττικοί, ‘the first Attic speakers’, and οἱ μέσοι, ‘the middle Attic speakers’ in χ 12Moer. χ 12 (see entries χολάς, χόλιξ and Moeris, Ἀττικιστής (forthcoming)).

Precisely what Moeris means by ‘first’ and ‘secondary’ Attic is not easily determined: the distinction may be qualitative (i.e. he may be signalling the ‘best’ and ‘second-best’ Attic forms), but it seems more plausible that the distinction is diachronic (see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής (forthcoming)). Indeed, some degree of awareness of Attic’s diachronic development was already present in Hellenistic philology, not least among Homeric scholars: in particular, AristarchusAristarchus likely distinguished between ‘old Attic’Attic, old (παλαιὰ Ἀτθίς) and ‘recent Attic’ (νέα Ἀτθίς; see Choerob. in Theodos. GG 86.7–24 [= Hdn. Περὶ παθῶν GG 3,2.326.11–9] and Schironi 2018, 621–2), and his pupil Callistratus appears to have applied a similar distinction (see schol. Hom. Od. 2.410a). The diachronic partition of Attic was linked to the idea that HomerHomer had been an Athenian (see Schironi 2018, 622) and that ancient Attic was closely related (or almost identical) to IonicIonic (see Str. 8.1.2Str. 8.1.2: τούτων δ’ αὐτῶν (i.e. τῶν διαλέκτων) τεττάρων οὐσῶν τὴν μὲν Ἰάδα τῇ παλαιᾷ Ἀτθίδι τὴν αὐτὴν φαμέν, ‘although these (i.e. the dialects) are four in number, we say that Ionic is identical to ancient Attic’. See also Schironi 2004, 73). The distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new Attic’, however, was also tightly interwoven with the periodisation of comedyComedy in ancient scholarship (see Su. τ 1049; Prolegomena de comoedia 5.4–5, 11b.53). References to ‘old’ and ‘new Attic’ can be found throughout the erudite tradition: Herodian refers to οἱ νεώτεροι Ἀττικοί twice when discussing matters of prosody (see Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.541.1; Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως GG 3,2.938.27), and the same category also appears in later grammatical works and lexica: see Theognost. Can. 292.4–5; Phot. π 155; Su. α 3708. Other notable references to ‘old’ and ‘new Attic’ in the erudite tradition include Phot. ο 82Phot. ο 82 (οἰκέα· τὸν οἰκογενῆ οἰκέτην οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἀθηναῖοι· οἰκέτας καλοῦσιν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν πάντας, ‘οἰκέα: Ancient Athenians [call thus, i.e. οἰκεύς] the slave born in the house. Attic speakers call οἰκέται also all [the slaves] in the house’, cf. entry οἰκόσιτος, αὐτότροφος, οἰκότριψ, οἰκογενής); schol. Hom. Od. 8.186.20–2schol. Hom. Od. 8.186.20–2 (τῶν δὲ Ἀττικῶν οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι μονογράμματον αὐτὸ προεφέροντο, οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι σὺν τῷ ν καθάπερ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τινές, ‘among Attic speakers the ancients pronounced this (i.e. the 3rd-pers. sing. imperfect of the verb εἰμί) as a single sound (i.e. ἦ), while some of the later Attic speakers [pronounced it] with ν (i.e. ἦν) following the more ancient [authors]’); and schol. (ex. (Hdn.)) Hom. Il. 14.372b (παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαιοτέροις Ἀττικοῖς, ‘in the more ancient Attic [authors]’).

Going back to Moeris, the different treatment of the 3rd-person plural endings of the verbs in -νυμι in A.2 and A.3 – with the three options -ῦσι(ν), -ύασι(ν), and -ύουσι(ν) – and A.4 and A.5 – with only -ύασι(ν) and -ύουσι(ν) – may be attributable to the lexicographer’s use of different sources. In particular, Moeris may have derived the doctrine on the 3rd-person plural of δείκνυμι (A.2) and ζέυγνυμι (A.3) from a source that presupposed the equivalence between ancient Attic and Ionic and thus treated forms occurring in Homer or Herodotus as ‘Attic’ (one could even speculate that οἱ πρῶτοι, οἱ παλαιοί, οἱ ἀρχαῖοι or similar was lost before Ἀττικοί in the first section of both entries). In this respect, the idea that the ending -ύασι is a development from an original -ῦσι(ν) is already implied in HerodianHerodian (quoted in Theodosius and Choeroboscus, B.1, B.2). Other entries in which Homer is treated as a model of Attic by Moeris are Moer. η 9Moer. η 9 (see entry ἥρῳ), Moer. ο 31Moer. ο 31 (see entry οἶσε), and Moer. χ 12Moer. χ 12 (see entry χολάς, χόλιξ). Moeris’ approval notwithstanding, the ending ‑ῦσι(ν) remains vanishingly rare in written language beyond grammatical and erudite texts (see Gammage 2018, 189). The ending ‑ύασι(ν) is also considerably rarer than ‑ύουσι(ν) during the post-classical period, particularly ‒ though not exclusively ‒ for those verbs such as ὄμνυμι/ὀμνύω that had developed a thematic variant already in the classical age.

Late Byzantine grammarians also discuss the three endings -ῦσι(ν), -ύασι(ν), and -ύουσι(ν): Thomas Magister (B.3) establishes a clear hierarchy in which -ύασι is the preferable form (as is expected, since it is the marked form, which had entirely fallen out of use), followed by -ῦσι, while -ύουσι is rejected as κοινόνκοινός. By contrast, Manuel Chrysoloras (B.4) features ζευγνῦσι in his paradigm of the present indicative of the verbs in -νυμι but indicates -ύουσι(ν) as the correct form while rejecting -ύασι(ν) entirely.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The ‑μι presents as a class were gradually replaced by thematic equivalents in spoken Greek, a process that had already begun in the classical period for some verbs (e.g. ὀμνύω for ὄμνυμι, see above D.) and reached completion by the early modern period (see Gignac 1981, 375‒8; Horrocks 2010, 303‒4; CGMEMG vol. 3, 1273). Verbs in ‑νυμι were included in this process and developed innovative forms in ‑νύω that were inflected as vowel stems, with the possibility of ‘contraction’ (or, rather, deletion of one of two consecutive vowels) between the stem vowel /i/ and the endings (CGMEMG vol. 3, 1287‒92). In the 3rd pers. plur., both the conservative thematic ending ‑ουσι(ν) and the innovative ‑ουν(ε) (developed analogically after the compresence of 3rd. pers. plur. ‑ασι and ‑αν in the past tense) occur during the medieval and early modern periods, producing the ‘uncontracted’ terminations ‑νύουσι(ν), ‑νύουν(ε) or ‘contracted’ ‑νοῦσι(ν), ‑νοῦν(ε). Several of these verbs developed alternative present stems: for example, alongside ὀμνύω we find ὀμνύγω, with the insertion of a hiatus-breaking /ɣ/ (as in ἀκούω > ἀκούγω, etc.), and the regional variants ὀμνέω, ‑όω, with an unparalleled change of stem vowel (CGMEMG vol. 3, 1388‒9). Meanwhile, δεικνύω (still in use today as a learned form, see LKN s.v.) gave way in popular speech to the velar stem δείχνω, based on the perfective stem δειξ‑ and already attested in the Byzantine period (CGMEMG vol. 3, 1281; the variants δείκνω, δείκτω, δείχθω, δείχτω are also attested, see Kriaras, LME s.v. δείχνω).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A