PURA. Purism In Antiquity: Theories Of Language in Greek Atticist Lexica and their Legacy

Lexicographic entries

ἀπέκτονα, ἀπέκταγκα
(Moer. α 70, Philemo [Laur.] 355, Thom.Mag. 8.9)

A. Main sources

(1) Moer. α 70: ἀπέκτονεν Ἀττικοί· ἀπέκταγκεν Ἕλληνες.

Users of Attic [employ] ἀπέκτονεν (‘s/he has killed’); users of Greek [employ] ἀπέκταγκεν.


(2) Philemo (Laur.) 355: ἀπέκτονας· οὐκ ἀπέκτανας.

Cf. Philemo (Vindob.) 392.4 | ἀπέκτανας cod. L, corrected from ἀπέκτεινας : ἀπέκτονες cod. V : ἀπέκτακας Cohn. See F.1.

[Say] ἀπέκτονας (‘you have killed’), not ἀπέκτανας.


(3) Thom.Mag. 8.9: ἀπέκτονα κάλλιον ἢ ἀπέκτεινα· ἀπέκτανον δὲ ἀδόκιμον πάντῃ.

ἀπέκτεινα· ἀπέκτανον codd. : Buttmann conjectured ἀπέκτακα· ἀπέκταγκα. See F.1.

ἀπέκτονα is more elegant than ἀπέκτεινα, while ἀπέκτανον is completely unacceptable.


B. Other erudite sources

(1) Poll. 8.74: κἀπὶ μὲν τοῦ ἀνελόντος ῥητέον ἀνεῖλεν, ἀπέκτεινεν ἀπέκτονεν.

And of the murderer one should say ἀνεῖλεν (‘s/he killed’), ἀπέκτεινεν (‘s/he killed’), ἀπέκτονεν (‘s/he has killed’).


(2) S.E. M. 1.238: ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ῥηματικῶν πολλὰ ὁμοίως κατὰ τὸν ἐνεστῶτα χρόνον λεγόμενα οὐκ ἀναλόγως ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις χρόνοις σχηματίζεται, <οἷον εὑρίσκει ἀρέσκει ‒ ηὕρηκεν ἀρήρεκεν>, ἐνίων δὲ συζυγίαι τινὲς ἐκλελοίπασιν καὶ ἔκτονε μὲν λέγεται, ἔκταγκε δὲ οὐ λέγεται· ἀλήλιπται μὲν εἴποι τις ἄν, ἤλειπται δὲ οὐκέτι.

Cod. G has οἷον ‒ ἀρήρεκεν after ἐκλελοίπασιν : Harder transposed it here | εὑρίσκει and ηὕρηκεν Theiler (1956, 286) : αὐλεῖ and ηὔληκεν codd. | ἔκτονε Theiler (1956, 286) : κτείνεται codd. See F.2.

In the case of verbs, many forms that are formed similarly in the present tense are not formed analogously in the other tenses, such as εὑρίσκει (‘s/he finds’) ἀρέσκει (‘s/he likes’) ‒ ηὕρηκεν (s/he ‘has found’) ἀρήρεκεν (s/he ‘has liked’), while certain conjugations of some [verbs] are defective, and ἔκτονε (‘s/he killed’) is used, while ἔκταγκε is not used; one may say ἀλήλιπται (‘s/he has been anointed’) but never ἤλειπται.


(3) Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,2.74.13‒20: δεῖ προσθεῖναι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ λέγοντι, ὅτι παραλήγουσαν δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τῷ μέλλοντι ὁ παρακείμενος, ‘χωρὶς τῶν δισυλλάβων τῆς πέμπτης συζυγίας τῶν βαρυτόνων τῶν παραληγομένων τῷ ε’· ἐπὶ τούτων γὰρ τρέπεται τὸ ε εἰς τὸ α κατὰ τὸν ἐνεργητικὸν παρακείμενον, οἷον κερῶ κέκαρκα, δερῶ δέδαρκα, σπερῶ ἔσπαρκα, κτενῶ ἔκταγκα, στελῶ ἔσταλκα· πρόσκειται ‘δισυλλάβων’ διὰ τὸ ἐγερῶ ἤγερκα, τοῦτο γὰρ οὐκ ἔτρεψε τὸ ε εἰς τὸ α κατὰ τὸν ἐνεργητικὸν παρακείμενον, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστι δισύλλαβον.

To the rule stating that the perfect has the same penultimate [syllable] as the future should be added ‘except for disyllables of the fifth conjugation of baritone verbs with a penultimate in ε’: for in these the ε is changed to α in the perfect active, such as κερῶ (‘I will cut’) κέκαρκα (‘I have cut’), δερῶ (‘I will skin’) δέδαρκα (‘I have skinned’), σπερῶ (‘I will sow’) ἔσπαρκα (‘I have sown’), κτενῶ (‘I will kill’) ἔκταγκα (‘I have killed’), στελῶ (‘I will send’) ἔσταλκα (‘I have sent’): ‘disyllables’ is added because of ἤγερκα (‘I have gathered’), for this [verb] did not change the ε to α in the perfect active, but it is not a disyllable.


(4) Σb α 1872 (= Su. α 3372, Phot. α 2534, ex Σʹ): ἀποκτίννυσιν λέγουσι μᾶλλον ἢ ἀποκτιννύειν. Κρατῖνος Βουκόλοις· ‘καὶ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν σκιαμαχῶν ἀποκτίννυσι ταῖς ἀπειλαῖς’. καὶ ἀπεκτόνασιν, οὐκ ἀπεκτάγκασιν. Μισουμένῳ· ‘μισοῦσι μὲν ὦ πάτερ Θράσωνα, ἀπεκτάγκασι δ’ οὔ’.

Cf. Su. α 3000. This entry of Σb was identified by Alpers as a fragment of Orus (fr. B 35): see F.3 | ἀποκτιννύειν Σb, Su. cod. A, Phot. : ἀποκτιννύει Su. cod. F | Photius omits Κρατῖνος ‒ ἀπειλαῖς and Μισουμένῳ ‒ οὔ. | Μισουμένῳ πάτερ μὲν Θράσωνι Σb : μισοῦσι μὲν, ὦ πάτερ, Θράσωνα Su. : ὦ πάτερ, μισοῦσι μὲν Θράσων’ Toup : μισοῦσι μὲν Θρασωνίδην, ὦ πάτερ Dobree : Μέν<ανδρος> Θρασωνί<δῃ ἢ> Μισουμένῳ Arnott : <Μένανδρος> Μισουμένῳ· ‘πάτερ μὲν Θράσωνι Alpers : Μισουμένῳ· ‘μισοῦσι μὲν ὦ πάτερ Θράσωνα’ Cunningham | ἀπεκτάγκασι : ἀπεκτόνασι Alpers, following Cobet | See F.3.

[Users of Attic] say ἀποκτίννυσιν (‘s/he kills’) rather than ἀποκτινύει. Cratinus (fr. 19) [says] in the Cowherds: ‘And fighting with his shadow against the sky he kills (ἀποκτίννυσιν) with his threats’. And [they say] ἀπεκτόνασιν (‘they have killed’), not ἀπεκτάγκασιν. [Menander] in the Hated Man (fr. 13 = C.4) [says] ‘They hate Thrason, o father, but they did not kill (ἀπεκτάγκασι) him’.


C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Pl. Ap. 38c.1‒3: οὐ πολλοῦ γ’ ἕνεκα χρόνου, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὄνομα ἕξετε καὶ αἰτίαν ὑπὸ τῶν βουλομένων τὴν πόλιν λοιδορεῖν ὡς Σωκράτη ἀπεκτόνατε, ἄνδρα σοφόν.

Just for the sake of a short time, o Athenians, you will have the reputation and blame, on the part of those who wish to denigrate the city, of having killed Socrates, a wise man.


(2) Lys. 10.1: μαρτύρων μὲν οὐκ ἀπορίαν μοι ἔσεσθαι δοκῶ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί· πολλοὺς γὰρ ὑμῶν ὁρῶ δικάζοντας τῶν τότε παρόντων, ὅτε Λυσίθεος Θεόμνηστον εἰσήγγελλε τὰ ὅπλα ἀποβεβληκότα, οὐκ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ, δημηγορεῖν· ἐν ἐκείνῳ γὰρ τῷ ἀγῶνι τὸν πατέρα μ’ ἔφασκεν ἀπεκτονέναι τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ.

I believe that I shall not be at a loss for witnesses, gentlemen of the jury; for I see many of you in this place of judgement who were present at the time when Lysitheus was prosecuting Theomnestus for speaking before the people, since he had lost the right to do so by having cast away his armour. Now it was during that trial that he asserted that I had killed my own father. (Transl. Lamb 1930, 199).


(3) Arist. Pol. 1324b.16‒8: ἦν δέ ποτε καὶ περὶ Μακεδονίαν νόμος τὸν μηθένα ἀπεκταγκότα πολέμιον ἄνδρα περιεζῶσθαι τὴν φορβειάν· ἐν δὲ Σκύθαις οὐκ ἐξῆν πίνειν ἐν ἑορτῇ τινι σκύφον περιφερόμενον τῷ μηθένα ἀπεκταγκότι πολέμιον.

ἀπεκτανκότα P3 : ἀπεκτακότα π3 : ἀπεκτονότα P1 : ἐπταικότα Ms | ἀπεκτανκότι P3 : ἀπεκτανκότι MsP1π3.

At one time there was also a law in Macedonia that a man who had never killed an enemy must wear his halter instead of a belt. Among Scythian tribes at a certain festival a cup was carried round from which a man that had not killed an enemy was not allowed to drink. (Transl. Rackham 1932, 543).


(4) Men. Mis. fr. 13 = Σᵇ α 1872 re. ἀπεκτάγκασιν (B.4).

(5) Plb. 3.786.11: διανύσας τε τήν τε τῶν Ὄμβρων καλουμένην χώραν καὶ τὴν τῶν Πικέντων ἧκε δεκαταῖος πρὸς τοὺς κατὰ τὸν Ἀδρίαν τόπους, πολλῆς μὲν λείας γεγονὼς ἐγκρατής, ὥστε μήτ᾿ ἄγειν μήτε φέρειν δύνασθαι τὸ στρατόπεδον τὰς ὠφελείας, πολὺ δὲ πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων ἀπεκταγκὼς κατὰ τὴν δίοδον.

ἀπεκταγκὼς codd. AZ : -τακὼς codd. BC : -ταγὼς codd. DE.

Passing through Umbria and Picenum he reached the coast on the tenth day, having possessed himself of so large an amount of booty that his army could not drive or carry it all off and having killed a number of people on his road. (Transl. Paton, Walbank, Habicht 2010, 233).


(6) D.S. 4.55.4: τὴν δ᾿ οὖν Μήδειαν ἐν Θήβαις φασὶ καταλαβοῦσαν Ἡρακλέα μανικῷ πάθει συνεχόμενον καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ἀπεκταγκότα, φαρμάκοις αὐτὸν ἰάσασθαι.

ἀπεκταγκότα : ἀπεκτακότα cod. C.

As for Medea, then, they say that in Thebes she found Heracles possessed by a manic frenzy after having slain his own sons, and that she cured him with her philtres.


D. General commentary

An entry in Moeris’ Atticist lexicon (A.1) discusses the perfect forms of the verb ἀποκτείνω ‘to kill’, rejecting the innovative formInnovative forms ἀπέκταγκα in favour of the older ἀπέκτονα. Entries in the lexica of Philemon (A.2) and Thomas Magister (A.3) likely address the same issue, although their textual status is problematic (see F.1).

The ablauting root *tken-/*tkon-/*tkn̥-, originally formed an o-grade active perfect ἀπέκτονα (never found uncompounded) next to the e-grade *-i̯ō-present (ἀπο)κτείνω (the compound is the norm in Attic prose and comedy), the athematic nasal present (ἀπο)κτ(ε)ίννυμι (with a vocalism influenced by the thematic present: see F.3), the ‘asigmatic’ aorist (ἀπ)έκτεινα, and the thematic root aorist (ἀπ)έκτανον. While ἀπέκτονα is the norm in classical Attic prose, with abundant attestations in Plato (e.g. C.1), Lysias (e.g. C.2), Xenophon, and Demosthenes, slightly later a new perfect ἀπέκταγκα was created, with the ablaut grade of the aoristAorist ἀπέκτανον and the productive kappatic suffix. The innovative perfect is first attested in Aristotle (C.3) and apparently in a fragment of Menander (C.4) transmitted by an Atticist entry in the Synagoge tradition (B.4), possibly going back to Orus (see F.3 for the textual difficulties). Forms of ἀπέκταγκα are also occasionally found in the koine (Plb. 3.786.11 = C.5, 3x in LXX, D.S. 4.55.4 = C.6, who also employs the pluperfect ἀπεκτάγκει at 14.47.2). Polybius (11.18.10), however, also attests to ἀπεκτακότες, from a nasal-less stem ἀπεκτακ- that is found as a varia lectio in the other texts too (see C.3, C.5, C.6). It is possible that both innovative variants ἀπέκτακα and ἀπέκταγκα coexisted; indeed, Thomas Magister’s entry, as restored by Buttmann (see F.1), would imply a descending order of preference from ἀπέκτονα to ἀπέκτακα to ἀπέκταγκα. From a morphological perspective, ἀπέκταγκα apparently copied the root allomorph κταν- from ἀπέκτανον, while ἀπέκτακα shows the original pre-consonantal reflex of zero-grade *tkn̥- as seen in Homeric athematic aorist forms (sometimes taken up by Attic tragedy) such as ἔκτα, ἔκταμεν, κτάμενος, κτάσθαι, and ἔκτατο (on these forms and their relationship with the thematic aorist, see Willi 2018, 329‒30).

A recent study of analogical levelling in Ancient Greek verbal inflection by Sims-Williams (2016, 333–4) demonstrated that the perfect active is particularly susceptible to replacement and more likely to be influenced by the mediopassive than the other way around. This is due to the fact that the allomorph on which the perfect active stem is built often stands isolated in the paradigm, while the perfect mediopassive stem never uses a unique allomorph but shares it either with the perfect active or with other passive forms (aorist, future). The perfect active of (ἀπο)κτείνω fits the profile for this kind of analogical levelling, since the allomorph (ἀπ)έκτον- is not shared with any other form in the paradigm, while the perfect mediopassive (ἀπ)έκταμαι is backed up by the aorist passive (ἀπ)εκτά(ν)θην and the future passive (ἀπο)κτανθήσομαι. However, the perfect mediopassive of ἀποκτείνω has very few and late attestations (LXX 1Ma. 5.51 ἀπεκταμμένων, Plb. 7.7.4 ἀπεκτάνθαι), making it an unlikely source of analogical pressure on the active. Moreover, the passive forms of (ἀπο)κτείνω are rare, with (ἀπο)θνῄσκω(ἀπο)θνῄσκω ‘to die’ normally used in their place. Thus, ἀπέκτανον remains a more plausible intraparadigmatic model. The analogy, however, may have been based on external models: Chantraine (1927, 140) suggested that ἀπέκταγκα was created on the model of πέφαγκα, itself a relatively recent creation (attested since Deinarchus, who uses ἀποπέφαγκεν 9 times) next to mediopassive πέφαμαι (Hom.+). In this vein, we may also cite verbs whose stems terminate in a resonant that had a zero-grade kappatic perfect next to an e-grade present in *-i̯ō and a contract future: Choeroboscus (B.3), indeed, puts κτείνω ‒ κτενῶ ‒ ἔκταγκα precisely in the company of verbs like κείρωκείρω ‒ κερῶ ‒ κέκαρκα (elsewhere Choeroboscus [in Theodos. GG 4,2.105.20] assigns to κτείνω the perfect ἔκτονα to illustrate a different derivational rule; on which, see Benedetti 2019). It should be noted that ἀπέκτα(γ)κα is not the only innovative form replacing ἀπέκτονα in the koine: an o-grade kappatic perfect ἀπεκτόνηκα is attested in Aristotle (SE 182b.19) and some later prose authors (Parth. 24.2.6, Ios. AI 4.220, Plu. Tim. 16.10, Serap. Man. 32); the corresponding mediopassive is attested only in LXX 2Ma. 4.36 (inf. ἀπεκτονῆσθαι). One may compare Phryn. PS 63.4‒7Phryn. PS 63.4‒7 and Moer. δ 31Moer. δ 31, contrasting Attic διέφθορενδιαφθείρω ‘s/he has destroyed’ with the innovative διέφθαρκεν.

The erudite debate about ἀπέκτα(γ)κα in the imperial age is witnessed not only by lexicographers but also by Sextus Empiricus (B.2), who opposes the analogist perspective, demonstrating that some verbal forms that would be paradigmatically regular, such as ἔκταγκε, are not, in fact, attested (see F.2). Interestingly, Sextus’ argument implies that ἔκταγκε is a regular form that analogist grammarians would have approved; predictably, the Atticists rejected it precisely as the product of a regularising tendency (‘analogy’ in the modern linguistic sense), valuing instead the synchronically more marked ἀπέκτονα thanks to its attestations in older Attic literature. Contemporary high-register authors apparently shared this judgement: among Atticising writers of the 2nd century CE, the perfect of ἀποκτείνω is found mainly in Philostratus (VA 10x, Her. 13.4) and Lucian (VH 2.7, IConf. 16, DMort. 24.1, Alex. 44.7), invariably with the stem ἀπεκτον- (see also Schmid, Atticismus vol. 2, 28 on ἀπεκτονώς in Aelius Aristides).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Post-classical Greek, the perfect disappeared as a living morphological category, merging with the aorist first functionally and then formally. Although perfect forms are amply attested in the Byzantine period, they are used interchangeably with the aorist and are largely restricted to higher-register texts; the only finite perfect form that has survived in the spoken language is εὕρηκα, which was reinterpreted as an aorist (> Modern Greek βρήκα), while several periphrastic constructions emerged to express the functions of the old perfect (on all the above developments see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1342–3; Horrocks 2010, 131–2; Hinterberger 2014; Horrocks 2020). The verb (ἀπο)κτείνω itself, which already in antiquity suffered the competition of φονεύωφονεύω, occurs in the medieval and early modern periods only in high-register contexts, and should be considered an ‘internal borrowing’ from Classical Greek (see DELG s.v. κτείνω). During this period, the stem ἀπεκτον- is used by classicising authors such as Michael Psellus (4x) or Nicetas Choniates (6x), while lower-register texts tend to favour ἀπεκταγκ-. For the notion ‘to kill’ (in both its literal and figurative senses), Modern Greek uses the verb σκοτώνω, derived from Ancient σκοτόωσκοτόω ‘to darken, blind’ and employed as an equivalent of ἀποκτείνω already in medieval texts (see Chantraine 1949, 147‒8, who observes that sometimes the manuscript tradition oscillates between the two, as in Nicetas Choniates Historia 185.13 van Dieten τοῦτον ἀπεκτονότες, v.l. τοῦτον σκοτώσαντες). The learned borrowing φονεύω remains in use as a more formal synonym for ‘to murder, kill (a person)’.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Philemo (Laur.) 355 (A.2)

This entry is transmitted in both recensions of Philemon’s lexicon, as well as in Thomas Magister (A.3), albeit in a textually problematic form that the editors attempted to emend in various ways. While both codd. of Philemon transmit ἀπέκτονας as the approved form, for the rejected one cod. L has ἀπέκτανας, corrected from ἀπέκτεινας, while cod. V has ἀπέκτονες. Neither version is likely to preserve the original text, since ἀπέκτανας and ἀπέκτονες are not otherwise attested. Thomas Magister, meanwhile, has ἀπέκτονα as the first and most approved form, ἀπέκτεινα as the second best, and ἀπέκτανον as the last and least favourable. Buttmann (1825, 174) argued that Thomas’ text makes no sense as transmitted, since it would be awkward to contrast a perfect with two aorist forms; accordingly, based on the comparison with Moeris’ entry, he proposed to correct ἀπέκτεινα and ἀπέκτανον to ἀπέκτακα and ἀπέκταγκα, respectively. In his edition of Thomas Magister, Ritschl (1832, 8) reported Buttmann’s conjecture in the apparatus. The editores principes of Philemon, however, corrected the respective texts of L and V based on the paradosis of Thomas: so, Osann (1821, 292) changed L’s ἀπέκτανας to ἀπέκτεινας, while Reitzenstein (1897, 392) changed V’s ἀπέκτονες to ἀπέκτανες, thus restoring in both cases one of the attested aorists of ἀποκτείνω. Cohn (1898, 355), who edited L and V synoptically, argued that ἀπέκτακας should be restored in both versions. Cohn’s emendations would make Philemon’s prescription one about competing forms of the perfect, in line with Moeris (A.1) and with the interests of Philemon himself, who often contrasts conservative and innovative verbal morphology (see Brown 2008, 217–9) but never comments on the use of different tenses of the same verb.

Meanwhile, a prescription recommending the use of the perfect over the aorist is not implausible and may find some support in Pollux’ Onomasticon (B.1), which lists both ἀπέκτονεν and ἀπέκτεινεν among verbal forms (all in the aorist, except for ἀπέκτονεν itself) that may be used to express that someone killed someone, suggesting that aorist and perfect might be perceived as equivalent in this context, at least by less strict Atticists. Indeed, the Greek perfect may be used to characterise the subject as having committed something (e.g., a crime) and thus presently bearing responsibility for it. For semantic reasons, ἀποκτείνω was a verb whose perfect was frequently used in this manner to emphasise the subject’s responsibility for the killing and could be contrasted with the aorist indicative, which merely reports the fact: ‘ἀπέκτεινε ‘he has killed (someone)’, ἀπέκτονε ‘he is (someone’s) murderer’’ (Rijksbaron 2002, 36; see also the influential discussion by Chantraine 1927, 168–71, with examples from Xenophon and Plato). To 2nd-century-CE speakers, living in an age when the functional distinction between aorist and perfect was being lost in spoken Greek (see E.), such nuances of classical usage may have been difficult to acquire; hence, some Atticists may have recommended the perfect as a more appropriate stylistic choice.

(2)    S.E. M. 1.238 (B.2)

This passage is taken from the first book of Sextus Empiricus’ Against the Mathematicians, comprising a broad attack on the technical study of grammar, and in particular from the section (176‒247) discussing two kinds of ἙλληνισμόςἙλληνισμός or ‘linguistic correctness’, one based on analogy, which Sextus rejects, and one based on συνήθειασυνήθεια or ‘common usage’, which he embraces (on Sextus’ attack on technical grammar see Sluiter 2000; on the evolution of the concept of Ἑλληνισμός, see Pontani 2011; Pagani 2014). Here, the author responds to the grammarians’ argument that common usage is inconsistent by pointing out, with examples taken from both nominal and verbal morphology, that the analogical rules extracted from that usage are likewise inconsistent. Sextus shows that, on the one hand, nouns and verbs that are similar in one case or tense, respectively, are dissimilar in others and that, on the other hand, some verbal forms that are predicted by the rules of analogy are not attested, with others used in their place. Several of the examples adduced in this passage are textually problematic. Blank (1998, 253‒5) accepts the corrections made by Theiler (1956, 286); in particular, the codd. transmit the present mediopassive κτείνεται, which must be incorrect, as it makes no sense in opposition to the perfect active ἔκταγκε. Theiler’s correction of the former to ἔκτονε is likely right, particularly considering that the other example given (attested ἀλήλιπται for expected ἤλειπται) likewise concerns the formation of the perfect stem; ἔκτονε might have become κτείνεται under the influence of the immediately following λέγεται. Interestingly enough, the other example also echoes entries in Atticist lexica (cf. Phryn. Ecl. 23Phryn. Ecl. 23, Phryn. PS 32.12‒4Phryn. PS 32.12‒4; see entry ἤλειπται, κατώρυκται, ὤμοκε); on other coincidences between forms discussed by Sextus and the Atticists, see Blank (1998, 182 and passim). Dickey (2019) , however, argues that Sextus’ main polemical target is linguistic expertise based on analogy rather than Atticism, implying that Sextus (whose date may be only approximately placed sometime between 100 CE and the early 3rd century, see Blank 1998, XV) was writing at a time before Atticism became fully established (on the contrast between analogist and Atticist views regarding correct Greek, see Probert 2011).

(3)    Σb α 1872 (= Su. α 3372, Phot. α 2534, ex Σʹ) (B.4)

This entry is transmitted in the expanded Synagoge, Photius, and the Suda; Alpers identified it as a fragment of Orus (see Alpers 1981, 56‒69 on the attribution to Orus of Atticist glosses in the Synagoge). The first part of the entry discusses the correct form of the nasal-suffix present built from the root *tken-, arguing for athematic ἀποκτίννυμι (supported by a quotation from Cratinus’ Boukoloi, on which see Bianchi 2016, 128‒33) against thematic ἀποκτιννύω (this present is treated elsewhere in Atticist lexica: Phryn. PS 51.12Phryn. PS 51.12 argues for the spelling with a single ν, while Moer. α 56Moer. α 56 prefers ἀποκτειννύναι to ἀποκτείνειν). The second part of the entry turns to the perfect, expressing a preference for 3rd pers. plur. ἀπεκτόνασιν over ἀπεκτάγκασιν: the latter form is exemplified with a quotation from Menander’s Misoumenos (C.4). However, the textual status of this quotation is highly problematic: both the text transmitted by the Synagoge (Μισουμένῳ πάτερ μὲν Θράσωνι…) and that transmitted by the Suda (μισοῦσι μὲν, ὦ πάτερ, Θράσωνα…) must have undergone some corruption, but consensus has yet to emerge as regards how the text should be reconstituted (see Arnott 1968; Furley 2021, 194; Kassel, Schröder PCG vol. 6,1, 317). The only words that all editors agree belong to Menander’s fragment are πάτερ and ἀπεκτάγκασι δ’ οὔ, with the important exception of Alpers (1981, 208), who follows Cobet (1858, 55‒6) in restoring ἀπεκτόνασι. While Cobet’s argument that the form ἀπέκταγκα belongs to Byzantine Greek is weak in view of its attestations in koine prose (C.3, C.5, C.6), Alpers may be correct in observing that the quotation should exemplify the approved rather than the rejected form; moreover, Orus (unlike Phrynichus) usually cites Menander as a model of good Attic. However, the editors of Menander have not generally accepted this correction. If Menander did use ἀπεκτάγκασι, this would be one of several innovative perfects for which he provides the first – or one of the first – attestations together with some other 4th-century-BCE author – in this case, Aristotle (C.3) (see Goldberg 1996, 27‒57; Cartlidge 2014, 229‒35).

Bibliography

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

Arnott, W. G. (1968). ‘A Little Less Menander (Misoumenos fr. 13 Körte)?’. CR 18, 11‒3.

Benedetti, M. (2019). ‘Rules for o-Ablauting Perfects in Ancient Grammatical Treatises. Reflections on Theodosius’ Κανόνες’. Giannakis, G. K.; Charalambakis, C.; Montanari, F.; Rengakos, A. (eds.), Studies in Greek Lexicography, In Honor of John N. Kazazis. Berlin, Boston, 207‒18.

Bianchi, F. P. (2016). Cratino. Archilochoi ‒ Empipramenoi. Introduzione, Traduzione, Commento. Heidelberg.

Blank, D. L. (1998). Sextus Empiricus. Against the Grammarians. Oxford.

Brown, C. G. (2008). An Atticist Lexicon of the Second Sophistic. Philemon and the Atticist Movement. [PhD dissertation] Ohio State University.

Buttmann, P. (1825). Ausführliche griechische Sprachlehre. Vol. 2,1. Berlin.

Cartlidge, B. J. (2014). The Language of Menander Comicus and its Relation to the Koiné. [PhD dissertation] University of Oxford.

Chantraine, P. (1927). Histoire du parfait grec. Paris.

Chantraine, P. (1949). ‘Les verbes grecs significant ‘tuer’’. Sprache 1, 143‒9.

Cobet, C. G. (1858). Novae lectiones quibus continentur observations criticae in scriptores Graecos. Leiden.

Dickey, E. (2019). ‘What Does a Linguistic Expert Know? The Conflict Between Analogy and Atticism’. Adams, S. A. (ed.), Scholastic Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras. Greek, Latin, and Jewish. Berlin, Boston, 103‒18.

Furley, W. D. (2021). Menander. Misoumenos or ‘The Hated Man’. Introduction, Translation and Commentary. London.

Goldberg, D. F. (1996). Studies in the Language of Menander. [PhD dissertation] University of Oxford.

Hinterberger, M. (2014). ‘The Synthetic Perfect in Byzantine Literature’. Hinterberger, M. (ed.), The Language of Learned Byzantine Literature. Turnhout, 176‒204.

Horrocks, G. (2010). Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers. 2nd edition. Chichester.

Horrocks, G. (2020). ‘The Perfect in Medieval and Modern Greek’. Crellin, R.; Jügel, T. (eds.), Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 484‒503.

Lamb, W. R. M. (1930). Lysias. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA.

Pagani, L. (2014). ‘Hellenismos tra filologia e grammatica. Riflessioni antiche sulla correttezza della lingua’. Philologus 158, 235‒60.

Paton, W. R.; Walbank, F. W.; Habicht, C. (2010). Polybius. The Histories. Vol. 2: Books 3‒4. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by F. W. Walbank, C. Habicht. Cambridge, MA.

Pontani, F. (2011). ‘Ex Homero grammatica’. Matthaios, S.; Montanari, F.; Rengakos, A. (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar. Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts. Berlin, New York, 87‒104.

Probert, P. (2011). ‘Attic Irregularities. Their Reinterpretation in the Light of Atticism’. Matthaios, S.; Montanari, F.; Rengakos, A. (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar. Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts. Berlin, New York, 270‒90.

Rackham, H. (1932). Aristotle. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA.

Rijksbaron, A. (2002). The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek. An Introduction. 3rd edition. Chicago, London.

Sims-Williams, H. (2016). ‘Analogical Levelling and Optimisation. The Treatment of Pointless Lexical Allomorphy in Greek’. TPhS 114, 315‒38.

Sluiter, I. (2000). ‘The Rhetoric of Scepticism. Sextus against the Language Specialists’. Sihvola, J. (ed.), Ancient Scepticism and the Sceptical Tradition. Helsinki, 93‒123.

Theiler, W. (1956). ‘Review of Mau, J. (1954). Sexti Empirici opera rec. H. Mutschmann. Vol. 3. Leipzig’. Gnomon 28, 282‒8.

Willi, A. (2018). Origins of the Greek Verb. Cambridge.

CITE THIS

Roberto Batisti, 'ἀπέκτονα, ἀπέκταγκα (Moer. α 70, Philemo [Laur.] 355, Thom.Mag. 8.9)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2024/01/019

ABSTRACT
This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the perfect forms ἀπέκτονα and ἀπέκταγκα, discussed in the lexica Moer. α 70, Philemo (Laur.) 355, Thom.Mag. 8.9.
KEYWORDS

AnalogyComedyMenanderMorphology, verbalPerfect stemsἀποκτείνυμικτείνω

FIRST PUBLISHED ON

28/06/2024

LAST UPDATE

02/09/2024