It is, believe it or not, a form of ἔχω. Specifically, it's a feminine nominative singular of the aorist active participle of the compound περι-έχω "have beyond, have in a greater measure than others". The Attic form would be περισχοῦσα.
ἔχω has a rare alternative aorist ἔσχεθον, attested for example in Iliad 14.427-8:
ἀλλὰ πάροιθεν ἀσπίδας εὐκύκλους ...
It's an uncertain fragment, fr. 27.1 in Lobel & Page's Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, per the TLG. It comes from P.Vindob. 29777a.
It's on p. 454 of the Campbell's Loeb on Sappho and Alcaeus. If you have access to the Loeb Library Online, you can view it here.
πόλλ & Ἀτρε are not actually readable from the papyrus.
A fragment quoted by Athenaeus preserves an elided form of φίλημι:
ἔγω δὲ φίλημ᾽ ἀβροσύναν, καὶ μοι τὸ λάμπρον
ἔρος ἀελίω καὶ τὸ κάλον λέλογχεν.
These lines also appear, in a slightly different version, in P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 1, a papyrus that contained, among other things, line endings from the "Tithonus poem". This is fragment 58 in the Loeb ...
This is an interesting question, and one I was surprised hadn't been answered here before!
First and foremost, Ψαπφω is wrong, insofar as ψ indicates the sound /ps/ in Attic Greek. Hephaestion's Handbook on Meters 14.4 has the following example of the twelve-syllable Alcaic line (taken from Loeb 142 p404):
ἰόπλοκ᾿ ἄγνα μελλιχόμειδε Σάπφοι
ióplok' ágna ...
Here's what I've been able to find so far (Loeb and Teubneriana).
Sapphonis (genitive) has two occurrences only (Charianus and Priscianus).
Charisius, ap. G.L., II, 63, 19: Huius ‘Didūs Sapphūs Inūs.’ Sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere . . . Pacuvius sic declinat . . . et Accius—
I woke up this morning, connected to the Internet, and found TKR's comment. I tried to do some more research.
I opened my big dictionary and looked for ἄρμενος, finding a redirect to ἀραρίσκω after a translation to «adatto» or the likes, hence «suitable». Here is the entry I was redirected to, or rather the relevant part of it:
It gives meanings «...
No, you are mistaken - you can easily find it in Campbell on page 454 (checked de visu). Campbell puts it with the fragments that are written in the Aeolic dialect but "there is no means of establishing whether the author was Sappho or Alcaeus."
Zoomable scans of the papyrus known as Vindob. 29777 are available from the Austrian National Library http://data....
I'm not absolutely sure about this, but this looks a dialectal form corresponding to Attic περιέχουσα from περιέχειν, meaning "encompassing" or similar. (The σκε in the Aeolic from would correspond to the by-stem σχε of ἔχειν [‹ *σεχ] with loss of aspiration in Aeolic.)
Google search has finally paid off: it says here that the culprit is Παναγής Λεκατσάς, a Greek «φιλόλογος και από τους θεμελιωτές της θρησκειολογίας και εθνολογίας στην Ελλάδα» (philologist and among the founders of religion and ethnology in Greece). Unfortunately, scribd has deleted his Sapphous Hapanta, formerly here, but this is probably the inventor of ...
Thanks to @AlexB's comment, I now have the scan of the papyrus from an online resource. I actually have two scans. I include one here:
The ink is terribly faint, but with some squinting I would transcribe it as follows:
] ̣ Δ̣ΕΚΕΤ
] ̣ ̣ ̣ỊT
I chose scan 2 at random, but looking at scan 1 better I see it has a whole lot more visible stuff! ...
coniecit. It is Bekker's conjecture.
He seems not to use a capital at the start of a sentence.
yes. It should be explained somewhere what these codices are.
He is saying that Bekker's emendation does not scan properly.
Campbell has been given, let me give Lobel-Page now.
Counting from the coronis in col. iii, the fragment is lurking at ll. 6-7. Apparatus Criticus:
Now let me just point out how nonsens the numbering of the fragments is. From this page, we fully expect an image of this to contain two papyrus fragments, which we are not too sure how to assign the numbers 1(...
Story time continues. Hit post button. Fast forward 5ish-10ish minutes, and I think, "Maybe this gloss is in the critical notes of some fragment? Perhaps the Pandionis one [Lobel-Page 135]?". Well, bedtime it was.
Fast forward 20ish minutes, and I'm like "Ya dum-dum, why not just google ὠράνα?". And in the dead of night, around 1am, I pick up my mobile, ...
The answer to the second question is presumably that Bergk was including all fragments that were thought in antiquity to be Sappho's, even if some dissented. I don't think we can do more than speculate about the first question, since Athenaeus's speaker (the Deipnosophistae is a dialogue) does not explain further.
The Greek female names ending in -ō have two declension options, Greek style and Latin style.
(The Greek style is not fully Greek; it has been Latinized but not fully.)
For example, consider Dido:
| Greek | Latin
NOM | Dīdō | Dīdō
ACC | Dīdō | Dīdōnem
GEN | Dīdūs | Dīdōnis
DAT | Dīdō | Dīdōnī
ABL | Dīdō | Dīdōne
As the L&...
Lobel-Page (p. 37) give .[.......] γὰρ ἐφίλει δυ[, saying, "Sub coloph. 2076 schol. vestigia...quod quorsum spectet obscurum est." I'm not trained in papyrology (I much prefer inscriptions—far easier to read!), so it's difficult for me to judge, at least without seeing the papyrus in person.
This is actually LP 66(c), from a papyrus published directly in Lobel's Σαπφοῦς μελῶν. From LP's text and notes, we get his transcription as follows:
] . ΚΑΤ̣€Γ[
Where some options for the vestige in l. 2 are ινρ and l. 3 could end in a nu or lambda too. To reconcile my transcription with his:
I see now I missed the top of the gamma in l....
As announced in his comment, AlexB got ahold of Puglia 2007, sent it to the mods, and our tricipitous mod forwarded it to me. I read it, and I can now answer that part of this question.
So, with a lot of pretty solid arguments, the article proposes the following collage of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments (where 87(13) and 87(14) have swapped numbers):
From this, we ...
Scherer and Thumb 1959 (v.2) call this use of the geminate μμ instead of a single μ Hyperaiolismen (cf. 'hyper-Lesbian' in Miller 2014: 243 ὄρημμι).
They write that
"Nicht selten sind Hyperaiolismen im überlieferten Text in den Papyri. So galt μμ für μ anderer Dialekte (ἔμμι, ἄμμες) als “aiolisch” und wurde deswegen nach langem Vokal geschrieben, wo es ...
Your post deserves a response from a scholar. In the meantime here's an opinion from an amateur.
Your choice will be influenced by the three ideas being played with here:
A: infans /infant, baby ::ἄφωνος:: unable to form words
B: voiceless ἄφωνος :: the infant's persistent phonan (cries?)
C: oblation at the feet of the goddess :: crawling ...
Lobel and Page (1963) include fragments 92-99 into ΜΕΛΩΝ Ε - note the question marks throughout pp. 74-83 for all those fragments though.
Greek metrics could give you a strong headache (see e.g. West 1982); luckily, Eva-Maria Voigt did all the work for us - see her Conspectus Metrum for Book 5 below (Voigt 1971: 20):
Asynarteton (plural: asynarteta) is ...
@MickG, I am happy you ask these questions about Sappho, and unhappy that these questions are above us. I'll just offer the one guess about ἔφλυξας:
The only verb I can see in LSJ that it might conceivably relate to is φλύω ~ φλύζω "to bubble over, to burst out". LSJ reports the metaphorical usage "overflow with words, babble" in Aeschylus, and Nicander ...
Hesychius ω 302.
ὦ ’ράνα χελίδων· ὀροφή
In Lobel & Page, this is fr. 135
τί με Πανδίονις, Ὤιρανα, χελίδω ...;
—based on a less corrupt transmission of the verse in Hephaestion: τί με Πανδιονὶς ὤραννα χελιδών "Why, O Irene, lovely swallow, Pandion's child, dost thou [weary] me?"
Hesychius somehow thought the verse needed to be glossed as "roof", or ...
OK, I'm going to build on @alex-b's answer, having looked at Lobel-Page 90 and Campbell 90. Those more game than me can look at the original papyrus: http://22.214.171.124/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH01f6.dir/POxy.v0021.n2293.a.01.hires.jpg
Sean Palmer of http://inamidst.com/stuff/sappho/ has done a great service in putting Sappho online, and something ...
safopoemas itself kind of answers this. The critical note says frr. 88-89 both come from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45. Now, fr. 88 is a mishmash of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments, so that "both" part is BS. However, looking at P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45 in Grenfell-Hunt The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 15 (available on archive – at least when I downloaded it), we find:
I'm assuming Hanlon's Razor: that they've mangled Hunt's ὀλοφώ[ιος, by removing the inflection, because they didn't want to commit to a case (ὀλοφώ[ι-), and then going back and reaccenting the word, because noone told the proofreader that ὀλοφώ[ι was not a complete word.
As for the meaning "astute", LSJ notes that ὀλοφώϊος in Homer may mean not "destructive"...
This morning I inspected the English version of Una Mitra per Cleis, the book by F. Ferrari which contains this text.
First off, @NickNicholas was right: the supplement of the question is actually ὀλόφ[ῳ(), with ὀλόφ[ῳα suggested in the app. crit.
I answer here because I want to address the translation. The Italian antholog mangled not only that supplement,...