ἀναβιβῶμαι and the Attic future of other verbs in -άζω
(Phryn. PS 50.12–3, Antiatt. δ 48, Moer. δ 19, Philemo [Laur.] 354)

D. General commentary

One entry in Phrynichus’ Praeparatio sophistica (A.1), one in the Antiatticist (A.2), one in Moeris (A.3), and two in Philemon (A.4, A.5) deal with the ‘Attic’ future of several verbs in -άζω (on this type of future in general, see Hauri 1975; cf. also Rix 1992, 223–5; Sihler 1995, 556–7; Willi 2018, 441–52; for a more comprehensive discussion of the Atticists’ perspective on the Attic future, see AGP vol. 2, Verbal morphology, forthcoming; cf. also the entries βαδιοῦμαι and the Attic future of other verbs in -ίζω; ἀλῶ and other Attic futures (ἐλῶ, καλῶ, and ἀναπετῶ); κρεμῶ, κρεμάσω, ὀμοῦμαι, ὀμόσω). All entries except for A.4 (cf. below) derive their lemma from a clearly identifiable literary passage, which constitutes the only extant attestation (or one of the very few) of that specific form: A.1 relies on a passage from Demosthenes (C.5), A.2 on Herodotus (C.1, as explicitly stated in the interpretamentum), A.3 on Plato (C.4), and A.5 on Aristophanes (C.2 or Ar. Pl. 801).

Unlike verbs in -ίζω (which in Classical Greek generally have a contract, i.e. ‘Attic’, future and tend to develop an analogical sigmatic one in the post-classical period, cf. βαδιοῦμαι and the Attic future of other verbs in -ίζω), verbs in -άζω do not display a comparably uniform tendency. Indeed, some verbs – such as, e.g., βιβάζω and its prefixed forms – have only the contract future in Attic and receive an analogical sigmatic one in Post-classical Greek (cf. A.1, A.3, B.2, C.3, C.4, C.5; Hauri 1975, 24–5, 163–4). Others, however, only have the sigmatic future in Attic and may be inflected as contract futures in post-classical (or non-Attic) texts.

A case in point is ἁρπάζω (‘to snatch away’): its more common future in classical times is the sigmatic middle ἁρπάσομαι (cf. e.g. C.2), but in the Septuagint one finds the contract forms ἁρπῶμαι (‘I will plunder’, LXX Os. 5.14) – which Philemon (A.5) condemns in favour of the sigmatic form – and ἁρπᾶται (‘he shall not rob’, LXX Ez. 18.7). Similarly, the future of ἐργάζομαι – and its prefixed derivatives such as ἀπεργάζομαι (‘to finish off’), cf. A.4 – is sigmatic in Attic (cf. Plato 10x, e.g. C.3) but could apparently be contract in the post-classical period (cf. Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 129). In the case of ἀπεργάζομαι, the contract future occurs once in BGU 16.2590.col. ii.12 (= TM 23313) [25 BCE] (ἀπεργώμεθα, ‘we will finish off’) and is proscribed by Philemon (A.4) in favour of the sigmatic ἀπεργάσομαι (this exact form occurs once in Lucian and once in Galen, but the lemma likely refers to the sigmatic future of ἀπεργάζομαι in general, rather than to a specific attestation of it).

In the case of δικάζω, Attic authors invariably employ the sigmatic form (see e.g. Ar. Eq. 1089 δικάσεις ‘you will judge’, Pl. Phdr. 260a.2 δικάσουσι ‘they will judge’), while Herodotus’ future δικᾶν (C.1) can be explained as an Ionic trait (based on epigraphic attestations: cf. Hauri 1975, 164). Meanwhile, the Septuagint offers three attestations of ἐκδικᾶται (LXX Le. 19.18; LXX De. 32.43; LXX Iu. 11.10), which appears to be a contract middle future of ἐκδικάζω (‘he/she/it will avenge’). In fact, the Antiatticist’s mention of Herodotus’ δικᾶν (A.2) may be understood as the lexicographer’s attempt to defend a post-classical contract future of δικάζω, although no other extant attestations of this form exist apart from the prefixed ἐκδικᾶται in the Septuagint (indeed, the use of Herodotus to support post-classical usages is well attested throughout the lexicon: see e.g. the entries ἀρχῆθεν; ἱστών and other place-nouns in -(ε)ών, and Antiatt. δ 21Antiatt. δ 21).

Overall, the Atticists agree with the evidence provided by classical texts: they recommend using the contract future when it is clearly attested in the works of canonical authors (cf. A.1, A.3, B.2), but reject it when it appears to be a post-classical innovation (cf. A.4, A.5).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A