ἱδρῶ, κυκεῶ, Ἀπόλλω, τυφῶ
(Moer. ι 13, Moer. κ 15, Moer. α 73, Moer. τ 14)

D. General commentary

Four entries in Moeris’ lexicon deal with the acc. sing. ending of nouns belonging, respectively, to stems in -os-s-stems (ἱδρῶς) and nasal stemsNasal stems (κυκεών, Ἀπόλλων, Τυφῶν). In both cases, Moeris prescribes accusatives ending in -ω against the ‘regular’ ones ending in -ῶτα (ἱδρῶτα) and -ωνα (κυκεῶνα, Ἀπόλλωνα, τυφῶνα). All such ‘short’ forms of the accusative singular are actually attested in Attic literature and epigraphy, even if only the theonymsTheonyms Ἀπόλλω and Ποσειδῶ (both of these likely formed according to the model of the innovative acc. sing. ἥρωα < *hērōha < *hērōhu̯a, see Alonso Déniz 2022) are widespread (especially in the quasi-formulaic context of oathsOaths and swearing: cf. e.g. C.3; epigraphical data appears in Threatte 1996, 122–4, 212, 311). See also εἰκώεἰκών, ‘probably found only in metrical texts’, as Threatte (1996, 122) notes.

Moeris likely considered these acc. sing. in -ω as cases of what ancient grammarians would have called an apocope, i.e., the lack of a syllable at the end of a word due to phonetic change: for this theory, see B.1, B.2, B.4, B.6, B.7, B.8, B.9.

Ancient views of apocope as a dialectal phenomenon varied. B.1 and B.6 attribute it to DoricDoric, and similarly [Plu.] Vit.Hom. 9 says that Homeric δῶ instead of δῶμα is a case of Doric brachylogy: see Hillgruber (1994, 104). Also of interest in this connection is Apoll.Dysc. Adv. GG 2,1.1.190.17–21Apoll.Dysc. Adv. GG 2,1.1.190.17–21: τὰ τῷ ο παρεδρευόμενα παρὰ Δωριεῦσι τῶν ἐπιρρημάτων ἀπειράκις ἐν ἀποκοπῇ γίνεται τοῦ θεν καὶ ἐν μεταθέσει τοῦ ο εἰς ω, […] αὐτόθεν αὐτῶ, […], τουτόθεν τουτῶ. […] τῇδε εἶχε καὶ τὸ πόθεν λεγόμενον οὕτως, πῶ (‘Among the Dorians those adverbs with ο in the penultimate syllable frequently appear with apocope of θεν and lengthening of ο into ω, […] αὐτόθεν [becomes] αὐτῶ […] τουτόθεν [becomes] τουτῶ. […] In this manner he [i.e., Sophron] also has πῶ instead of πόθεν’; transl. Hordern 2004, 61). Here, adverbial -ῶ is explained as an apocope where it is in fact the outcome of an old Indo-European ablative (-ῶ < *-ōd).

However, other sources (see B.3, B.7, and B.10) consider apocope an Attic feature, and more complex theories are advanced: B.8 speaks of Attic and poetic apocope, while B.9 distinguishes an Attic apocope and a ‘cacophonous’ Doric one (see below).

The view of apocope as Attic was probably fostered by parallels with comparativesComparatives like ἀμείνωἀμείνων, frequently used by Atticising authors (cf. Schmid, Atticismus vol. 4, 580–1; see entry ἀμείνω, ἥττω), although these comparatives are not likely to be the origin of forms such as Ἀπόλλω: see Alonso Déniz (2022, 156–7). The study of dialects favoured the development of a theory of the πάθη (‘phonetic changes’ including apocope), which spread thanks to Didymus, Tryphon, Apollonius Dyscolus and Herodian, possibly with influence upon the Atticist view of the Attic dialect (see Lobeck 1862, 288–9; Wackernagel 1876; Cassio 1993, 85–6; Valente 2015, 617. Tryphon engaged with πάθη even if B.1 is not certainly written by him, see Wendel 1939, 728.27–729.13; Ippolito 2008).

Moeris’ prescription of a ‘Homeric’ acc. sing. ἱδρῶ as Attic (A.1) is unparalleled, since the form is only found in poetry and not attested in Attic literature, as far as we know (see C.1; Apoll.Rh. 4.656; Posidipp. fr. 36.3 Austin–Bastianini; Nic. Alex. 587; cf. K–B vol. 1, 509–10; Chantraine 1933, 423; Chantraine 1958–1963 vol. 1, 54, 211; Risch 1974, 88; Meissner 2006, 136–7). Nevertheless, ancient grammarians found many Attic features in the language of Homer, as evidenced in the Homeric scholia and other sources (see e.g. Montanari 2012): cf. e.g. [Plu.] Vit.Hom. 12, according to whom Homer ‘uses above all the Attic dialect’ – not to say that Aristarchus thought Homer to be an Athenian (cf. Hillgruber 1994, 102–3, 114–5, with bibliography; see entry ἥρῳ, entry οἶσε, entry χολάς, χόλιξ, entry ἀπολλύασιν, ἀπολλύουσιν, and other 3rd person plurals of -νύμι verbs). Further, see schol. (ex.) Hom. Il. 5.416b [b], which discusses ‘apocopated’ ἰχῶἰχώρ instead of ἰχῶρα. In light of these parallels, it is at least conceivable that Moeris’ lemma could depend on Homeric scholarship that treated ἱδρῶ as an instance of apocope, that is, a ‘typically Attic’ πάθος (relevant scholia on ἱδρῶ include schol. [Hdn.] Hom. Il. 4.27a [A], schol. [ex.] Hom. Il. 4.27b [bT]). Furthermore, other words and analogical reasoning may have helped find ‘Attic’ apocopes in Homer: see the Homeric κυκεῶ, also attested in Eupolis fr. 99.81, 105 (C.3).

As for the other lemmas, Ἀπόλλω (A.3) as well as Ποσειδῶ are often found in Atticising authors, above all Aristides and Philostratus (see Schmid, Atticismus vol. 4, 17–8, 580–1): note, however, that Ἀπόλλω is also attested in the koine, while Ἀπόλλωνα was not unfamiliar to Attic authors (see e.g. B.5). κυκεῶ and τυφῶ met with little or no favour in later Greek. Also of interest is the divergence between Moeris (A.4) and Thom.Mag. 348.18–349.3Thom.Mag. 348.18–349.3: τυφώς τυφῶ τυφῷ τυφών. ὡσαύτως καὶ πάντων τῶν μονοκλίτων αἱ αἰτιατικαὶ εἰς ν λήγουσι κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τὸν λέγοντα· πᾶσα εὐθεῖα εἰς ς λήγουσα, ὅταν ἔχῃ τὴν αἰτιατικὴν ἰσοσύλλαβον, εἰς ν αὐτὴν ἔχει λήγουσαν (‘τυφώς τυφῶ τυφῷ τυφών. In like manner, the accusative of all words which decline according to only one type of inflection also ends in -ν, in conformity with the general rule which says ‘every nominative ending in -ς, has an accusative ending in -ν, if the latter is isosyllabic’’).

Atticising authors do not show significant use of these short forms, perhaps due to their rarity in canonical literature. Apart from theonyms and comparatives, the acc. sing. in -ω was probably felt to be ‘poetic’ and thus not useful in prose writing (cf. B.8). B.9 considers such forms as Doric and ‘cacophonous’, even if this is inexplicably untrue for ‘Attic’ comparatives like ἀμείνω. B.9 may depend on a view of Doric as ‘not in the least euphonious’, as Paus. 3.15.2 states about the Laconian dialect (cf. e.g. Cassio 1993, 76). To be sure, this statement could also be a later addition, perhaps based on Theoc. 15.88Theoc. 15.88, where a man complaining of Gorgo and Praxinoa’s endless chattering says ἐκκναισεῦντι πλατειάσδοισαι ἅπαντα, (‘they’ll bore one to death with all their broad vowels’, transl. Gow 1950 vol. 1, 115), as the anonymous referee kindly suggests.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A