Here is the quote:
ἐκαλεῖτο δέ τις καὶ βαλανωτὴ φιάλη, ἧς τῷ πυθμένι χρυσοῖ ὑπέκειντο ἀστράγαλοι. Σῆμος δ᾽ ἐν Δήλῳ ἀνακεῖσθαί φησι χαλκοῦν φοίνικα, Ναξίων ἀνάθημα, καὶ καρυωτὰς φιάλας χρυσᾶς. Ἀναξανδρίδης δὲ φιάλας Ἄρεος καλεῖ τὰ ποτήρια ταῦτα. Αἰολεῖς δὲ τὴν φιάλην ἀράκην καλοῦσι
The text is straight off Greek Wikisource. It's from book XI of the Deipnosophists. Translation attempt:
Some φίαλαι were also called acorn-adorned (βαλανωτή), when golden ἀστράγαλοι lay under their bottoms. Semos says a bronze phoenix was laid up in Delos, a votive offering to the Naxians, and golden καρυωτὰς(??) φίαλαι. Anaxandrides calls those drinking-cups Ares's φίαλαι. The Aeolians call φίαλαι ἀράκαι
Now, firstly, let me sort out the untranslated words:
- φίαλαι (Aeolic accent, maybe out of place, but it's irrelevant) seems to be some sort of boiling vessel (bowl or saucepan) or a saucer; I guess it can also mean "goblet" or the likes, as an evolution of sense one due to some shape analogy;
- ἀστράγαλοι (ditto for Aeolic accent) means knucklebone (among other senses), and may be some sort of decoration shaped somewhat like a knucklebone;
- καρυωτὰς is not on Perseus, and I have no access to my bigger paper dictionary now, so it's somewhat mysterious…
Thus here is question 1:
What does καρυωτὰς mean? I assume its the femm.acc.pl. of καρυωτός, or perhaps καρυωτής, but I can find neither on Perseus…
The Wikisource text gives the penultimate word as ἀράκην, but Lobel-Page, quoting it in the critical note for fr. 192 of Sappho, gives ἄρακιν. So:
What did the tradition have, and if ἀράκην why did Lobel-Page change it, and if ἄρακιν where does ἀράκην (reported in LSJ btw) come from?
Self-ironic PS: What? A non-Sappho MickG question, and still about Greek? That's new! :)
Update
Per @TKR's comments, I hereby:
- Change the translation of ἀνάθημα above from curse to votive offering;
- Note that Perseus has καρυωτός as date-palm or, when describing φίαλαι, as meaning nut-bossed, i.e. with nut-shaped bosses; therefore, Q1 is solved;
- Note that it seems the manuscripts have ἀρακίν, making Lobel-Page's form the simple Aeolicization of the tradition (via application of barytonesis); therefore, Q2 gets rewritten as:
Q2.b
Why have editors changed ἀρακίν to ἀράκην when simple Aeolicization yields ἄρακιν and the given form isn't even Aeolic since, AFAIK, an Aeolic form would be ἀράκαν?
