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

Lexicographic entries

ἀνεμιαῖος, ὑπηνέμιος
(Moer. α 144, Antiatt. α 108, Poll. 2.6, Poll. 5.162)

A. Main sources

(1) Moer. α 144: ἀνεμιαῖον Ἀττικοί· ὑπηνέμιον Ἕλληνες.

Users of Attic [employ] ἀνεμιαῖον (‘unfertilised’), users of Greek [employ] ὑπηνέμιον.


(2) Antiatt. α 108: ἀνεμιαῖον ᾠόν· Πλάτων Θεαιτήτῳ, Ἀραρὼς Καινεῖ.

ἀνεμιαῖον ᾠόν (‘unfertilised egg’): Plato in Theaetetus (151e.6 = C.2, 157d.3, 161a.1, 210b.9), Araros in Caeneus (fr. 6 = C.3).


(3) Poll. 2.6: σπέρμα σπορά. σπεῖραι, ἀρόσαι, καταβαλεῖν τὸ σπέρμα, ὑποδέξασθαι, κυῆσαι, γεννῆσαι, τεκεῖν. ἔμβρυον, κύημα, ἀνεμιαῖον κύημα, τρόφιμον, βιώσιμον.

(Expressions concerning parts of the human body and human phenomena discussed by philosophers and physicians are [...]) semen (σπέρμα), procreation (σπορά). To sow (σπεῖραι), to inseminate (ἀρόσαι), to throw down the seed (καταβαλεῖν τὸ σπέρμα), to receive (ὑποδέξασθαι), to be pregnant with (κυῆσαι), to beget (γεννῆσαι), to bring forth (τεκεῖν). Embryo (ἔμβρυον), foetus (κύημα), unfertilised foetus (ἀνεμιαῖον κύημα), capable of life (τρόφιμος) [foetus], vital (βιώσιμος) [foetus].


(4) Poll. 5.162: ἐπὶ τοῦ μηδενὸς ἀξίου εὔωνος, οὐδεὶς οὐδαμόθεν, εὐτελής, τοῦ μηδενὸς τίμιος, ὃν πολλοῦ ἄν τις ἡγήσαιτο τοῦ μηδενός, ἀνεμιαῖος, εὐκαταφρόνητος.

Of someone who is worth nothing [you can say] ‘cheap’ (εὔωνος), ‘a nobody [coming] from nowhere’ (οὐδεὶς οὐδαμόθεν), ‘worthless’ (εὐτελής), ‘of no value’ (τοῦ μηδενὸς τίμιος), ‘[someone] whom one would consider of absolutely no account’ (ὃν πολλοῦ ἄν τις ἡγήσαιτο τοῦ μηδενός), ‘infecund’ (ἀνεμιαῖος), ‘negligible’ (εὐκαταφρόνητος).


B. Other erudite sources

(1) Ath. 2.57e: ᾠὰ δὲ οὐ μόνον ἀνεμιαῖα ἐκάλουν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπηνέμια.

They (i.e. Attic authors) called the (unfertilised) eggs not only ἀνεμιαῖα, but also ὑπηνέμια.


(2) Hsch. α 4878: ἀνέμιον· ὑπηνέμιον ὃ καλοῦσιν ᾠόν.

ἀνέμιον is possibly a corruption for ἀνεμιαῖον, as already suggested by Alberti in his edition of Hesychius’ lexicon, cf. Latte, Cunningham (2018, 227, in apparatus).

ἀνέμιον: The egg which they call ὑπηνέμιον (‘unfertilised’).


(3) Phot. υ 158 (= Su. υ 425, ex Σʹʹ): ὑπηνέμια λέγουσιν ὡς ἡμεῖς· Ἀριστοφάνης Δαιδάλῳ · ‘ἐνίοτε πολλαὶ τῶν ἀλεκτρυόνων βίᾳ | ὑπηνέμια τίκτουσιν ᾠὰ πολλάκις’· Πλάτων δὲ ὁ φιλόσοφος ἐν Θεαιτήτῳ ‘ἀνεμιαῖα’· καὶ Μένανδρος Δακτυλίῳ· ‘ἀνεμιαῖον ἐγίνετο’. τὰ δίχα σπέρματος ἄρρενος.

After the first ὑπηνέμια, Photius’ manuscripts have a punctuation mark that the editors omit. Su. has ὑπηνέμια· ὑπηνέμια (ὑπηνεμία Adler 1971, 665) ὡς ἡμεῖς λέγουσιν | πολλαὶ Phot. Et.Gen. : πολλοὶ Su. | ἐγίνετο Phot. Et.Gen. : ἐγένετο Su. | τὰ δίχα σπέρματος ἄρρενος is only in Su.

They (i.e. Attic authors) say ὑπηνέμια (‘unfertilised [eggs]’), as we [do]. Aristophanes in Daedalus (fr. 194 = C.6): ‘It happens that many hens are often forced to lay unfertilised eggs’. The philosopher Plato instead [uses] ἀνεμιαῖα in Theaetetus (151e.6 = C.2, 157d.3, 161a.1, 210b.9); and [so does] Menander in The Ring (fr. 99 = C.4): ‘It was unfertilised.’ The [eggs] that [have been generated] without the male seed.


(4) Thom.Mag. 19.10: ἀνεμιαῖον, οὐχ ὑπηνέμιον.

[You should say] ἀνεμιαῖον, not ὑπηνέμιον.


(5) Σb α 1352 (= Phot. α 1802, ex Σʹʹʹ): ἀνεμιαῖα· τὰ ὑπηνέμια τῶν ὠῶν. κατὰ μεταφορὰν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄχρηστοι καὶ μάταιοι τῶν λόγων.

ἀνεμιαῖα: The unfertilised eggs. And, metaphorically, also useless and idle words.


(6) Σ υ 103 (= Phot. υ 159, Su. υ 426, EM 780.27): ὑπηνέμιοι· ὑπὸ τὸν ἄνεμον.

ὑπηνέμιοι: By the wind.


(7) Hsch. υ 536: ὑπηνέμια ὠά· τὰ δίχα τοῦ ὀχευθῆναι γεννώμενα.

Cf. EM 780.27–8. In the manuscript the interpunction is ὑπηνέμια· ὠά, with ὠά being part of the interpretamentum, not of the lemma.

ὑπηνέμια ὠά: The [eggs] which are produced without copulation.


(8) Hsch. ζ 131: ζεφύρια· ὑπηνέμια ᾠά.

ζεφύρια (lit. ‘[eggs] fertilised by Zephirus’): Unfertilised eggs.


(9) Schol. Ar. Av. 695: τίκτει πρώτιστον (RVE) ὑπηνέμιον (VEΓ)· ὑπηνέμια καλεῖται τὰ δίχα συνουσίας καὶ μίξεως. καὶ τοῦτο δὲ οὐχ ὡς ἔτυχεν αὐτῷ προσέρριπται, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ ἱστορίας τῆς κατὰ τοὺς Διοσκούρους. φασὶ γὰρ ἐξ ᾠοῦ αὐτοὺς γεγονέναι. (RVEΓMLh)

[Night] generates the very first unfertilised [egg]: the [eggs laid] without copulation and mating are called ὑπηνέμια. And this [remark] (cf. C.5) is not thrown in casually, but [comes] from the history of the Dioscuri. Indeed, they say that they were born from an egg.


C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Ar. fr. 592.16–21:
(A) τί ἐστι τοῦθ’ ὃ λέγουσι τ[ὰς Μιλησίας
παίζειν ἐχούσας, ἀντιβολῶ, [τὸ σκύτινον;
(B) φλυαρία καὶ λῆρος ὕβρεω[ς
κἄλλως ὄνειδος καὶ κατ[άγελως
το[ύτ]ῳ γὰρ ὥσπερ τοῖσιν [ᾠοῖς
τ[οῖς] ἀνεμιαίοις ὅτι νεοτ[τ

In line 20, after ᾠοῖς van Herwerden restored χρῶντ’ ἀεί, followed by Henderson (2007, 402–3: ‘whenever they use’) | In line 21, Kassel (PCG vol. 3,2, 314) supplements νεοτ[τοὺς οὐκ ἔχει (‘that [have no] chicks’).

(A) What is that thing [with which] they say the women of Miletus can play, I beg you, the leather [object]? (B) [You are talking] nonsense and [this is] a trumpery out of insolence and above all [worthy of] reproach and laughable; [using?] it is indeed like [using] unfertilised eggs, which [have no] chicks.


(2) Pl. Tht. 151e.4–6: εὖ γε καὶ γενναίως, ὦ παῖ· χρὴ γὰρ οὕτως ἀποφαινόμενον λέγειν. ἀλλὰ φέρε δὴ αὐτὸ κοινῇ σκεψώμεθα, γόνιμον ἢ ἀνεμιαῖον τυγχάνει ὄν. αἴσθησις, φῄς, ἐπιστήμη;

Good! Excellent, my boy! That is the way one ought to speak out. But come now, let us examine your utterance together, whether it is something fertile or unfruitful. Perception, you say, is knowledge? (Transl. Fowler 1921, 41).


(3) Arar. fr. 6 = Antiatt. α 108 re. ἀνεμιαῖον ᾠόν (A.2).

(4) Men. fr. 99:
ἀνεμιαῖον ἐγένετο.

It was unfertilised.


(5) Ar. Av. 694–7:
                                                            Ἐρέβους δ’ ἐν ἀπείροσι κόλποις
τίκτει πρώτιστον ὑπηνέμιον Νὺξ ἡ μελανόπτερος ᾠόν,
ἐξ οὗ περιτελλομέναις ὥραις ἔβλαστεν Ἔρως ὁ ποθεινός.

And in the boundless bosom of Erebus black-winged Night generated without impregnation (by a man) the very first egg, from which, as the seasons revolved, Eros the desirable was born. (Transl. Henderson 2000, 117, adapted).


(6) Ar. fr. 194:
ἐνίοτε πολλαὶ τῶν ἀλεκτρυόνων βίᾳ
ὑπηνέμια τίκτουσιν ᾠὰ πολλάκις.

It happens that many hens are often forced to lay unfertilised eggs.


(7) Theoc. 5.114–5:
καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ μισέω τὼς κανθάρος, οἳ τὰ Φιλώνδα
σῦκα κατατρώγοντες ὑπανέμιοι φορέονται.

And I hate the beetles that nibble Philonida’s figs and are borne upon the wind. (Transl. Gow 1952, 49).


(8) Tz. H. 12.439.727–31:
πέντε δ’ ἡμέραις πρὸς πυγὴν πετόμενοι ἀνέμοις,
κυρίως συλλαμβάνουσι γονὴν ὑπηνεμίαν.
ἐν ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσιν ἡμέραις δὲ γεννῶσι
τὰ ὑπηνέμια ᾠά. Ἐν δὲ τοσαύταις ἄλλαις
ἐκ τῶν ᾠῶν ἐκλέπουσι καὶ νεοσσοὺς ποιοῦσιν.

After flying for five days with the winds at [their] back, [vultures] regularly conceive an offspring fertilised by the wind. One hundred and twenty days later, they lay the eggs fertilised by the wind. In the same number of days, they free the chicks from the shell and give birth to them.


D. General commentary

Many erudite sources deal with the synonymsSynonyms ἀνεμιαῖος and ὑπηνέμιος (‘unfertilised’), which are technically used to denote the eggs which are laid by hens without being fertilised (cf. the English idiom ‘wind-egg’, for an egg without a yolk). While some sources focus on the meaning of these adjectives (B.6, B.7, B.8, B.9) and their figurative use (B.5), Atticist lexicographers are concerned with the admissibility of these forms: indeed, they prefer ἀνεμιαῖος, which they unanimously acknowledge to be the correct Attic (A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, B.4), ὑπηνέμιος is instead discouraged by Moeris (A.1, echoed by Thomas Magister, B.4).

Both adjectives derive from ἄνεμοςἄνεμος (‘wind’), but their pattern of formation is different. ἀνεμιαῖος is built with the adjectival suffix -ιαῖος, a subtype of -αῖος that produces denominal adjectives. The suffix -αῖος derives from the IE suffix *-(i)yo-, with the diphthong resulting from the feminine suffix *-a- joined to the consonantal *-yo-, from *-(i)yo- (see Ruijgh 1967, 212), or from a vocalic form of the suffix (see Leukart 1994, 299). The first ι in -ιαῖος may be part of the root, or may result from an analogical extension of the suffix -αῖος added to stems in -ι, reinterpreted as a suffix -ιαῖος (see Chantraine 1933, 49; for an example of an analogical extension of -ιαῖος to a theme in -εσ-, see Blanc 2017). Most of the adjectives in -ιαῖος involve a notion of measure (whether of size or duration) or refer to body parts (on their use in the Hippocratic corpus, see Rousseau 2019). From this perspective, ἀνεμιαῖος would be an exception, as it does not belong to either of these categories. One can consider the possibility that the suffix -ιαῖος in ἀνεμιαῖος is morphologically and semantically analogicalAnalogy: in this case, the addition of -ιαῖος would be motivated by the strong presence of the suffix in medical and scientific jargon, the specialised register where the word ἀνεμιαῖος is expected. Alternatively, if the adjective derives from ἀνεμία (‘flatulence’, but this derivational pattern is only postulated in GE s.v.), -ιαῖος would be morphologically regular, and ἀνεμιαῖος would contain the expected adjectival suffix -ιος added to a noun in -ία. However, the adjective cannot regularly derive from a stem already suffixed with -ι-, since the only such suffixed noun ἀνεμία is a hapax with a very specialised meaning. It is also remarkable that ἀνέμιοςἀνέμιος, with the suffix -ιος, is only attested much later in Christian texts, as an attribute of the Holy Spirit manifesting itself as wind (see E.), or as a corruption of the standard ἀνεμιαῖος (as is probably also the case in B.2). ἀνεμιαῖος is also sometimes corrupted into ἀνεμίδιος, which has no literary attestation: this often happens with the suffixes -ιαῖος and -ίδιος because of the graphic similarity between Α and Δ (on the oscillation between -ιαῖος and -ίδιος in medical terms, see Rousseau 2019).

ὑπηνέμιος is instead a prepositional governing compound of ἄνεμος; see also, e.g., ὑπήνεμοςὑπήνεμος, ‘sheltered from the wind’ (on which see Rousseau 2016, 448–50; note that ὑπήνεμος is attested in the sense of ὑπηνέμιος in Alciphr. Ep. 4.17.7, see Rousseau 2016, 451 n. 2277) and the bahuvrihis compounds ἀνήνεμος, ‘without wind’, and εὐήνεμος, ‘serene’. ὑπηνέμιος is formed with the suffix -ιος (with the η at the junction of the two compound members resulting from regular Wackernagel’s lengthening). Although interpreted by some scholars as a possessive compound meaning ‘having wind underneath’ (Dunbar 1995, 41), ὑπηνέμιος is better interpreted as a prepositional governing compound corresponding to the syntagm ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνέμου, ‘by the wind’ (see Jouanna 2006, 101, who argues that B.6 proposes this interpretation; Skoda 2016, Rousseau 2016, 450–1). As for B.6, note that the lemma is ὑπηνέμιοι (nom. masc. pl.) and so can hardly refer to eggs; perhaps, it could rather refer to Theocritus’ passage, C.7). An egg which is ὑπηνέμιον is thus not ‘empty’ or ‘full of wind’, but rather ‘produced under the effect of the wind’, ‘fertilised by the wind’, in accordance with the archaic image of the wind fertilising birds’ eggs instead of the male (see Jouanna 2006; Tartaglia 2019, 266–7, with bibliography). This meaning is evident in the genealogy of birds presented by Aristophanes (C.5, on which see Dunbar 1995, 441–3), where Eros is said to have been born from an egg created by Night without impregnation by a man. This ancient belief is still well known to Tzetzes (C.8), who argues that since (allegedly) all vultures are female, they reproduce without being impregnated by a male, but are instead fertilised by the wind during a five-day flight (note that these eggs cannot be unfertilised, since the chicks are said to hatch out of them one hundred and twenty days after they are laid).

ἀνεμιαῖος and ὑπηνέμιος eventually end up being synonyms, as most sources show (A.1, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5). Both appear for the first time in Aristophanes, in reference to unfertilised eggs (C.5, C.6, and C.1, where the unfertilised eggs are used as a simile for the ὄλισβος ‘dildo’, see Bagordo 2016, 39–49; Pellegrino 2015, 352–5). The figurative meaning of ἀνεμιαῖος as ‘idle’ is attested since Plato’s Theaetetus, where it occurs three times (C.2, 157d.3, 161a.1, 210b.9), always metaphoricallyMetaphors. It is then used figuratively to mean ‘vain’ by Philostratus (VA 7.14.136), Alciphro (Ep. 3.38.1), and the Christian Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 37 [MPG 36.288.5]). ὑπηνέμιος, instead, is used mainly in its technical sense: it occurs dozens of times in Aristotle’s treatises (see Bonitz 1955, s.v. ᾠόν, for a complete list of occurrences), where unfertilised bird eggs are often referred to as τὰ ὑπηνέμια. However, the use of ὑπηνέμιος is not limited to its technical sense: in Hellenistic poetry, for instance, it is used by Theocritus (5.115) to mean ‘wind-borne’ (see Gow 1955, 113) and by Aratus (839) to mean ‘windy’. ὑπηνέμιος is also used metaphorically, like ἀνεμιαῖος, but only at a later stage: to the best of our knowledge, the earliest certain occurrence of the metaphorical use of ὑπηνέμιος is found in Plutarch (735e.5: τῶν ὑπηνεμίων καὶ ψευδῶν ὀνείρων, ‘of idle and false dreams’; see Rousseau 2016, 451 n. 2276 for further examples).

Moeris’ preference for ἀνεμιαῖος can be explained by several factors. In canonical terms, the isolated use of ὑπηνέμιος by Aristophanes (C.5, C.6) may not have been enough to guarantee the adjective a solid Attic pedigree in his eyes, especially since, on the other hand, ἀνεμιαῖος has more occurrences in comedy (C.1, C.3, C.4) and in Plato (C.2), the latter being a major source of Moeris’ lexicon. Moeris describes ὑπηνέμιος as Ἑλληνικόν, i.e. typical of the koine of his time (see Maidhof 1912, 319–38 and entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής). His statement is supported by the fact that the occurrences of ὑπηνέμιος outnumber those of ἀνεμιαῖος in technical prose (on koine as the language of technical prose, see Horrocks 2010, 98–9). The synonymy between the two forms may have caused Moeris to worry about ὑπηνέμιος as a competitor to the rarer ἀνεμιαῖος, which he favoured as correct Attic.

Three glosses collecting various explanations of ἀνεμιαῖος and/or ὑπηνέμιος have entered the Synagoge’s tradition (B.3, B.5, B.6). One of these (B.3) is of particular interest because of the remark λέγουσιν ὡς ἡμεῖς (‘they say [it] the way we [do]’) referring to the use of ὑπηνέμιος in the ancient sources. The agreement between Photius’ lexicon and the Suda shows that the gloss originally belonged to an expansion of the Synagoge (see Cunningham 2003, 57). B.3 relies on the authority of Aristophanes to defend ὑπηνέμιος and notes that ἀνεμιαῖος is used instead by Plato and Menander. This choice of authors belonging to the Atticists’ canon, together with the parallels in Moeris and the Antiatticist (A.1, A.2), suggests that the entry rests on Atticist material. The gloss arguably legitimises the use of ὑπηνέμιος, which it recognises as a feature of contemporary linguistic usage (ὡς ἡμεῖς). The meaning of ὑπηνέμιος that is taken into account is realistically the technical one, which was more common throughout the ages. In contrast, ἀνεμιαῖος was less familiar in the sense in question, since it was mostly understood metaphorically.

It is not easy to ascertain at what stage in the transmission of the doctrine the expression ὡς ἡμεῖς was introduced. As far as the chronological distribution of the two adjectives is concerned, ὑπηνέμιος was probably more current than ἀνεμιαῖος for a long time (see Moeris’ claim, A.1, and its use as an interpretamentum in Hesychius’ lexicon, B.2, B.8). Furthermore, attempts to defend the admissibility of ὑπηνέμιος can already be detected in Athenaeus (B.1). Thus, ὡς ἡμεῖς seems appropriate to express the perspective of both imperial and Byzantine scholars. Although Sakalis (1977, 458) and Matthaios (2010, 91–2) have noted that in Photius ἡμεῖς does not express the perspective of a user of the common language of his time, but that of a learned user of classicising Greek, thus marking his adherence to Atticism, one should not assume that the acceptance of the note ὡς ἡμεῖς by a Byzantine scholar is uncritical, even if it is borrowed from an earlier source. On the use of the pronoun ἡμεῖς as a marker of group linguistic identity in Byzantine sources, see AGP vol. 3, forthcoming.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Both ἀνεμιαῖος and ὑπηνέμιος are attested throughout the late antique and Byzantine periods, although with differences in distribution and context. Particularly in Christian texts, ἀνεμιαῖος means ‘of the wind’, mainly in reference to πνεῦμα (‘blast’, ‘spirit’), as one of the ways in which the divine spirit can manifest itself. It is also often used metaphorically: as ‘idle’, ‘unfruitful’, frequently together with κοῦφος (‘light’, ‘vain’) and φαῦλος (‘slight’), but also as ‘foolish’ (see Eust. in Il. 3.202.22–203.1: διὸ καὶ τοὺς κατὰ νοῦν ἀστάτους ἀνεμιαίους φαμέν, ‘that is why we call ἀνεμιαῖοι those who are mentally unstable’). While in Classical Greek ἀνεμιαῖος was a double-ending adjective, in later Greek its paradigm was regularised by the addition of an ending in -α for the feminine. This process is attested in mixed-register texts from the 5th–6th century CE onwards: see, for instance, the acc. sing. ἀνεμιαίαν in pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (De caelesti hierarchia 15.6, p. 55.24 Heil, Ritter: τὴν τοῦ ἀερίου πνεύματος ἀνεμιαίαν ἐπωνυμίαν, ‘the naming ἀνεμιαῖος [given] to the aerial blast’), and later (8th–9th century CE), the gen. sing. ἀνεμιαίας in Ignatius the Deacon (Vita Nicephori 140.1: τῆς κουφώδους καὶ ἀνεμιαίας ἀπιστίας, ‘of unwise and foolish disbelief’). The feminine form in -α later also enters high-register texts: indeed, we find it used by Eustathius (in Il. 4.434.3: τὴν ἁπλῶς ἀνεμιαίαν ῥιπήν, ‘the simple rush of the wind’).

ὑπηνέμιος is instead mainly used in its technical sense, referring to procreation. An exception is the use of ὑπηνέμιος by Nonnus (5th century CE): he uses it more than ten times in his Dionysiaca to mean ‘windy’, ‘in the wind’, ‘swift as the wind’, often in formulaic hemistichs such as ‘ὑπηνέμιον βέλος ἕλκων’ (‘throwing a windy dart’, i.e. ‘a dart swift as the wind’, in 10.57, 17.109, 37.732, 39.322). The paradigm of ὑπηνέμιος was also regularised by the addition of a feminine ending in -α, but the only evidence we have for this process is the acc. sing. ὑπηνεμίαν in Tzetzes (C.8). Like ἀνεμιαῖος, it is continuously attested until the 15th century; the latest occurrences of ὑπηνέμιος recorded in the TLG are found in the writings of Neophytus Ducas (1760–1845), a promoter of the use of Classical Greek in education.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Arar. fr. 6 (C.3)

As evidence for the use of ἀνεμιαῖος, the Antiatticist (A.2) mentions Araros (C.3) and Plato (C.2). Whereas Plato is often mentioned by lexica and other erudite sources for the use of ἀνεμιαῖος (A.2, B.3), Araros is only mentioned by the Antiatticist. The attention to Araros, a less canonical author of Middle Comedy, is characteristic of the Antiatticist, to which we owe ten of the twenty-one extant fragments of this playwright (see Tartaglia 2019, 225–6). Among other Atticist lexicographers, only Pollux uses Araros as a source.

Bibliography

Bagordo, A. (2016). Aristophanes fr. 590–674. Übersetzung und Kommentar. Heidelberg.

Blanc, A. (2017). ‘Adjectifs sigmatiques et adjectifs de mesure en grec ancien. La formation de χειροπληθιαῖος’. RPh 89, 29–35.

Bonitz, H. (1955). Index Aristotelicus. 2nd edition. Graz.

Chantraine, P. (1933). La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris.

Cunningham, I. C. (2003). Synagoge. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων. Texts of the Original Version and of MS. B. Berlin, New York.

Dunbar, N. (1995). Aristophanes. Birds. Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.

Fowler, H. N. (1921). Plato. Vol. 2: Theaetetus. Sophist. Translated by H. N. Fowler. London, New York.

Gow, A. S. F. (1952). Theocritus. Edited with a Translation and Commentary. Vol. 1: Introduction, Text, and Translation. Cambridge.

Gow, A. S. F. (1952). Theocritus. Edited with a Translation and Commentary. Vol. 2: Commentary, Appendix, Indexes, and Plates. Cambridge.

Heil, G.; Ritter, A. M. (1991). Corpus Dionysiacum. Vol. 2: Pseudo-Dionysius Aeropagita. De coelesti hierarchia. De ecclesiastica hierarchia. De mystica theologia. Epistulae. Berlin, New York.

Henderson, J. (2007). Aristophanes. Vol. 5: Fragments. Edited and translated by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA.

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

Jouanna, J. (2006). ‘L’œuf, le vent et Éros. Sens de ὑπηνέμιον... ῷόν (Aristophane, Oiseaux, v. 695)’. Brillet-Dubois, P.; Parmentier, É. (eds.), Φιλολογία. Mélanges offerts à Michel Casevitz. Lyon, 99–108.

Leukart, A. (1994). Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und ās. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den Nomina auf eús). Vienna.

Maidhof, A. (1912). Zur Begriffsbestimmung der Koine besonders auf Grund des Attizisten Moiris. Würzburg.

Matthaios, S. (2010). ‘Koinè et Atticisme dans le Lexique d’Hésychius’. Rengakos, A.; Arapopoulou, M.; Chriti, Μ. (eds.), Ζητήματα γλωσσικής αλλαγής. Από την Κοινή προς τη νέα ελληνική. Questions relatives au changement linguistique de la Koinè au Grec Moderne. Thessaloniki, 81–96.

Pellegrino, M. (2015). Aristofane. Frammenti. Lecce.

Rousseau, N. (2016). Du syntagme au lexique. Sur la composition en grec ancien. Paris.

Rousseau, N. (2019). ‘-ιαῖος versus ‐ίδιος. L’étude des suffixes à l’appui des choix textuels dans les textes médicaux grecs’. REG 132, 1–36.

Ruijgh, C. J. (1967). Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam.

Sakalis, D. Th. (1977). ‘Ανάττικα και ψευδάττικα από την Αττικιστή Μοίρη’. Δωδώνη, 441–70.

Skoda, F. (2016) s.v. ἄνεμος. Blanc, A.; de Lamberterie, C. (eds.), ‘Chronique d’étymologie grecque n. 14 (CEG 2015). Notices rassemblées et relues par Alain Blanc et Charles de Lamberterie’. RPh 87, 157–202.

Tartaglia, G. M. (2019). Alkenor – [Asklepiodo]ros. Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento. Göttingen.

CITE THIS

Giulia Gerbi, 'ἀνεμιαῖος, ὑπηνέμιος (Moer. α 144, Antiatt. α 108, Poll. 2.6, Poll. 5.162)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2025/01/037

ABSTRACT
This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the adjectives ἀνεμιαῖος and ὑπηνέμιος discussed in the Atticist lexica Moer. α 144, Antiatt. α 108, Poll. 2.6, Poll. 5.162.
KEYWORDS

CompoundsSuffixesTechnical language-ιαῖος-ιοςἡμεῖς

FIRST PUBLISHED ON

20/06/2025

LAST UPDATE

20/06/2025