κρεμῶ, κρεμάσω, ὀμοῦμαι, ὀμόσω
(Antiatt. κ 38, Moer. ο 8, [Hdn.] Philet. 54, Thom.Mag. 254.18)

D. General commentary

Based on an attestation in the comic playwright Alcaeus (C.4), an entry in the Antiatticist (A.1) defends the sigmatic future κρεμάσω for κρεμάννυμι (‘to hang up’) alongside the contract (‘Attic’) future κρεμῶ. Meanwhile, stricter Atticist lexica – i.e. Moeris (A.2, followed by Thomas Magister, A.4) and the Philetaerus (A.3) – proscribe the sigmatic future and only accept the contract form with regard to another verb in -νυμι-νυμι – namely ὄμνυμι (‘I swear’), for which they prescribe the form ὀμοῦμαι instead of ὀμόσω.

The Greek future is characterised by the addition of σ to the verb stem (hence the name ‘sigmatic future’). However, verbs ending in a resonant or with a polysyllabic stem in -ιδ- (e.g. κομίζω) have a contract (also known as ‘Attic’) future. For a comprehensive discussion of sigmatic and contract futures in Greek, see Hauri (1975); cf. also Rix (1992, 223–5); Sihler (1995, 556–7); Willi (2018, 441–52). Suffice it to say here that, in Post-classical Greek, many verbs that originally had only the contract (or ‘Attic’) future went on to develop an analogical sigmatic future (e.g. κομίζω ‘I take care of’ with contract future κομιῶ already attested in Homer, e.g. Od. 15.546, and sigmatic future κομίσω first appearing post-classical texts, e.g. LXX Si. 29.6 κομίσεται).

Atticist lexicographers surely acknowledged the phenomenon of two competing futures (contract and sigmatic) for the same verbal root. Unsurprisingly, strict Atticists typically exhibit a clear preference for the Attic future (see e.g. Moer. β 37Moer. β 37 on βαδιοῦμαι ‘I will walk’ from βαδίζωβαδίζω; Moer. δ 19Moer. δ 19 prescribing διαβιβῶ ‘Ι will carry over’, instead of διαβιβάσω, as the future of διαβιβάζωδιαβιβάζω; and Moer. ε 24Moer. ε 24 recommending ἐλῶ ‘I will set in motion’ as the future of ἐλάυνωἐλάυνω and proscribing ἐλάσω; cf. also Moer. κ 16Moer. κ 16, Moer. κ 21Moer. κ 21, and La Roi 2022, 214). The Antiatticist, rather, defends the analogical sigmatic future not only with regard to κρεμάννυμι (A.1) but also to καθίζωκαθίζω (‘I sit’, see Antiatt. κ 4Antiatt. κ 4 and entry καθίζω, καθέζομαι, καθιζάνω).

The two verbs in -νυμι discussed by the Antiatticist (A.1), Moeris (A.2), and Thomas Magister (A.4) – i.e. κρεμάννυμι and ὄμνυμι – each have a contract future – namely, κρεμῶ and ὀμοῦμαι (the latter being an example of the Greek future’s tendency to inflect in the middle voice even when the corresponding present and aorist stems are active: see K–B vol. 2,2, 244–5; Willi 2018, 445–9; on the Atticists’ preference for the middleMiddle voice in the future, see Moer. α 81Moer. α 81, Moer. α 83Moer. α 83, Moer. β 33Moer. β 33, Moer. β 36Moer. β 36, Moer. θ 7Moer. θ 7, Moer. ο 8Moer. ο 8, Moer. π 2Moer. π 2, Moer. π 3Moer. π 3; Thom.Mag. 229.8Thom.Mag. 229.8, Thom.Mag. 240.15Thom.Mag. 240.15; see also La Roi 2022, 209; 215).

As a result of the general trend towards regularisation in the verbal system of Post-classical Greek (see e.g. Gignac 1981, 284–5), both κρεμάννυμι and ὄμνυμι (like the majority of verbs that originally had a contract future, see above) developed an analogicalAnalogy sigmatic future – i.e. κρεμάσω and ὀμόσω, respectively – that competed with the ancient contract future (cf. Hauri 1975, 19, 92–4, 162–3, 190). The gradual replacement of ‘Attic’ futures with analogical sigmatic forms did not begin systematically until the early imperial period, and documentary texts mostly retain the contract forms (see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 356–8; Threatte 1996, 526–7; for the scanty cases of analogical sigmatic futures in papyri, see Gignac 1981, 285). In this respect, Luiselli (1999, 153) highlighted that the presence of contract futures in documentary texts is an indicator of educated speech but not of intentional linguistic purism.

As far as ὄμνυμι is concerned, its ‘Attic’ future is found already in Homer (see the formula ἐπὶ μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμοῦμαι/ὀμεῖται, ‘I/(s)he will swear a mighty oath on it’, in Il. 1.233, 9.132, 274, Od. 20.229; similar phrasings in Hymn.Merc. 274 and Hes. Op. 194) and later in Aristophanes (C.2; see also Lys. 193–4: ἀλλὰ πῶς ὀμούμεθα ἡμεῖς, ‘how will we swear?’). The analogical sigmatic variant, instead, occurs first in LXX Pr. 30.9.2 and then in authors of the early imperial period, such as Plutarch (2x), Appian (2x), Epictetus (2x), and Dio Chrysostomus (1x).

When it comes to κρεμάννυμι, the form κρεμῶμεν, ‘we will hang’ from Aristophanes’ Wealth (C.3), is the earliest attestation of the contract future. The sigmatic variant is apparently attested considerably earlier than the corresponding form of ὄμνυμι, given that – if one is to trust the Antiatticist’s testimony (A.1) – the future κρεμάσω occurred already in the 5th-century Attic playwright Alcaeus (C.4; on this author’s chronology, see Orth 2013, 12). Actually, we cannot discount the possibility that the Antiatticist – perhaps working on a second-hand citation already deprived of its context – misinterpreted a 1st-person singular aorist subjunctive κρεμάσω for a sigmatic future, given that the two forms are homographsHomography. Indeed, except for Alcaeus, the earliest occurrences of the sigmatic future of κρεμάννυμι are all post-classical: Erotianus (in his Hippocratic lexicon) uses the form as the interpretamentum of the corresponding contract future (B.1, see also B.2, where it explains the Homeric future κρεμόω, see below). Aside from this, the form is found in texts characterised by a lower register, such as LXX Gen. 40.19, Orac.Sib. 7.33, and Cyran. 2.4.30.

In keeping with the progressive shift of athematic verbs towards the thematic conjugation (see e.g. Horrocks 2010, 303; CGMEMG vol. 3, 1273), both κρεμάννυμι and ὄμνυμι developed thematic equivalents in the present, which eventually led to confusion with the forms of both the contract and the analogical sigmatic future. κρεμάννυμι had several alternative presents, i.e. κρεμαννύω (see e.g. Arist. HA 612a10), κρεμνάω (see e.g. Demetr. Eloc. 216), κρεμάω (see e.g. Arist. Mir. 831a8), and κρεμάζω (see e.g. LXX Ib. 26.7), with the latter two inevitably overlapping in the paradigm (see B.6). Moreover, the Homeric future κρεμόω (C.1) constituted a further thorny issue for ancient grammarians (see B.6). As far as ὄμνυμι is concerned, B.3 and B.4 illustrate that the ‘Attic’ future ὀμοῦμαι was at some point reanalysed as a present, thus favouring the ad hoc creation of the active from ὀμῶ (< *ὀμόω), which is attested only in grammatical texts (see Β.5 and, e.g., Hdn. Περὶ ῥημάτων GG 3,2.788.15; Hdn. Περὶ ῥημάτων GG 3,2.808.21): in these works, ὀμῶ is used to explain not only the sigmatic future ὀμόσω but also other forms of the regular paradigm of ὄμνυμι, such as the aorist ὤμοσα and the perfects ὤμοκα and ὀμώμοκα. B.5 attributes ὀμῶ both to the 3rd (i.e. *ὀμόω) and the 1st conjugations (i.e. *ὀμέω) to explain the forms ὀμοῦμαι, ὀμεῖ, and ὀμεῖται in Aristophanes (C.2) and Hesiod (Op. 194).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The contract future of ὄμνυμι is retained in late antiquity (see e.g. Libanius 7x, Cyril 10x, Procopius 10x) and throughout the Byzantine period, especially in texts whose tone is elevated and reminiscent of Homeric diction (see e.g. Anna Comnene Alexiad 13.12.17; Manuel Moschopulus Paraphrasis in Homeri Iliadem 140.16; Demetrius Moschus Circa Helenam et Alexandrum 101. See also Theodorus Metochites Carmina, 3x). The analogical sigmatic variant, instead, is initially typical of lower-register texts, particularly religious ones (see e.g. Gr.Nyss. V.Gr.Thaum. 5.17, Phot. Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos 534.18, and Marcus Monachus Florilegium 29.1.13, but also Cecaumenus Strategicon, 3x) and is found in higher literature only at a later stage (see e.g. Ioannes Galenus Allegoriae in Hesiodi Theogoniam 351.9; Maximus Planudes Publii Ovidii Nasonis Heroides versus in linguam Graecam, 2x). Regarding κρεμάννυμι, the ‘Attic’ future is attested alongside the analogical sigmatic future throughout the late antique and Byzantine periods (see e.g. Agathan. Historia Armeniae 54.13; Procop. Goth. 6.15.22; Georgius Pisides Hexaemeron 842; Phot. Bibl. cod. 72, 49a.21; Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, 4x; Michael Italicus Orationes 2.80.30).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A