1

enter image description here

Looking at this in different editions, you find μεμειχμένα in Lobel-Page, Voigt (whence the above snippet), and Campbell, μεμειγμένα in Edmonds, and μεμιγμένα in Bergk. None of those offer any "original form", that is none of them tells us what was readable in the tradition. From Voigt, I infer it could have been παντοδάπαις* μεμ*ιχμένα χροίαισιν, with the stars being any letter group subsequently amended to the contents of Voigt's angled brackets. But then the critical note has «-χμ- L.», suggesting the chi was Lobel's suggestion. So what was actually in the tradition? And why tamper with that participle if, as Bergk would suggest, the tradition reads μεμιγμένα, which AFAIK is the correct form of the perfect participle of μίγνυμι? Would the other forms come from other verbs, or am I missing something about μίγνυμι's conjugation? And if the tradition was indeed παντοδάπαις μεμιγμένα χροίαισιν, why force it into book 2 when a simple diaeresis (χροΐαισιν) would put it in book 1 and the quoter doesn't tell us what book this is from?

Improve this question
1

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

The old books about Aeolic have now been thoroughly superseded by:

https://www.academia.edu/14532954/The_Aeolic_Dialects_of_Ancient_Greek_A_Study_in_Historical_Dialectology_and_Linguistic_Classification_Frontmatter_and_ToC_

not yet (it seems) available as a published book, but you could approach the author with questions.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Thank you. I was going to say, it's ain't superseding anything until it's published, but I see it's a dissertation, which means formally it's already out there.
    – Nick Nicholas
    Oct 1, 2018 at 12:24
1

Angle brackets normally mean editorial addition, which strongly implies that the stars in your reconstruction are empty: παντοδάπαις μεμιγμένα, with the App Crit saying that μεμειχμένα was Lobel's idea.

Lobel's emendation in turn is because there is evidence that the Aeolic form of the verb is μείχνυμι: per LSJ, both ὀνεμείχνυτο and ὀνεμείγνυτο show up as readings in Fr. 44.30. The catch is that ὀνεμείχνυτο may also be Lobel's emendation of the more regular ὀνεμείγνυτο there, so Lobel may be drawing both emendations from some other source.

Right now, I know that the source exists, but I can't pinpoint it with free online materials. The 1909 edition of Thumb's Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte does not mention μείχνυμι: https://archive.org/details/handbuchdergriec00thum . The 1959 edition, which is not free online, does, as the Google search snippet shows:

Βemerkenswerte Ρrăsenssta mme, δείχνυμι, μείχνυμι s. 8 255, 14; statt αποδείκνυμι das einfache Verbum: δείχθεις χελληστυάρχας mehrmals aufΙnschr. Gegenüber thess. βέλλειτει, boiot. βειλόμενος heiβt es βόλλομαι (Sa., Αlk., Τheokr. ) ...

... I just hope that it has more evidence to bear than "because Lobel said so". I have a copy of Hamm, Eva.-Marie. 1957 Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios, and I will look it up when I go home. Stay tuned; as is our tradition with Sappho answers here, there will be a few iterations.

UPDATE: I haven't looked it up yet, but if Lobel did introduce μείχνυμι into the text without manuscript warrant (which I don't know yet), he presumably did so by appealing by analogy to the form δείχν-, which DGE reports for "Alc.73.13, 303Ab.14".

(Unless Lobel made that up too. I'm worried whether the grammars adequately differentiate between the words in the manuscripts and editorial conjecture.)

As for

why force it into book 2 when a simple diaeresis (χροΐαισιν) would put it in book 1 and the quoter doesn't tell us what book this is from?

Because we're taking plenty of liberties with the source as is, and the conservative thing to do is not to posit a diaeresis unless the original reading is clearly not acceptable.

Improve this answer
14
  • Of course, if someone else has access to Thumb/Scherer 1959 (I've read it, I just don't have immediate access to my university library), they can put us both out of our misery....
    – Nick Nicholas
    Oct 1, 2018 at 3:32
  • I guess adding an -i to get the "normal" Aeolic dative plural is more conservative than positing a diaeresis then. Modulo the participle, the differences amount to that. For some reason adding a diacritic seemed less drastic to me than adding a letter...
    – MickG
    Oct 1, 2018 at 10:47
  • I thought angled brackets meant simply a changethat wasn't an omission of a letter! How do you represent changing a letter to another, e.g. náï sym pléai to náï syn pléai as happened in P.Sapph.Obbink? I thought that would be náï sy<n> pléai...
    – MickG
    Oct 1, 2018 at 10:49
  • 1
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden_Conventions: "No sigla were suggested for literary corrections. Instead, it was proposed that these should be dealt with in an apparatus or in a commentary."
    – Nick Nicholas
    Oct 1, 2018 at 12:25
  • 1
    @NickNicholas That being said, considerable progress has been achieved in the quality of data used in the grammatical description and analysis of Ancient Greek. For example, Blümel 1982 Die aiolischen Dialekte uses a lot of epigraphical data, and abbreviations such as EG, IG or SEG are virtually on every single page.
    – Alex B.
    Oct 24, 2018 at 2:58
1

Since we all wanted to see certain relevant passages in Handbuch der Griechischen Dialekte (Thumb and Scherer 1959), I've decided to upload two screenshots:

enter image description here

enter image description here

A relevant entry from Index I in Hamm 1957 Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios:

enter image description here

Improve this answer
4
  • @Nick Nicholas There you go!
    – Alex B.
    Oct 23, 2018 at 2:49
  • So essentially this starts out as an effect of the suffixes -σθε -σθαι and spreads out, at least in screenshot 1. But then screenshot 3 seems to imply almost all the chi's are editorial corrections, so what gives?
    – MickG
    Oct 23, 2018 at 7:40
  • Αsterisk in Hamm means "in papyrus", which is meant to be more faithful to the source than the literary attestations. But you're right, even some of the instances in papyri are in fact emendations, and there has been a Neogrammarian assumption of grammatical regularity in these emendations. I'm reassured that Hamm at least indicates which ones the emendations are. A secondary source like Thumb/Scherer has no such compunctions...
    – Nick Nicholas
    Oct 23, 2018 at 23:29
  • 1
    @NickNicholas Well, emendations are better than nothing (i.e. fragments), as long as they are clearly marked so, and at least Voigt (nee?/aka Hamm) did so in her research.
    – Alex B.
    Oct 24, 2018 at 3:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.