We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
occurs in two classical contexts. They are: (i) Alc. 320 L.-P. (23 Diehl) 
(ii) Democr. 156 Diels (in Plut. Adv. Colot. 4, 
. Further, Diels adds two other passages showing Democritus' use of the word. Simpl. De Caelo, p. 294. 33 f. Heiberg (Diels, Frag. d. Vorsokr. ii. 93) 
Elm. Sec. Hipp. 1. 2 (Diels, op. cit., p. 97)
page 235 note 1 A brief reference will suffice for Pisani, , Rendic. Accad. Lincei, vii (1931), 71 ff.Google Scholar He derives 
from 
, the latter supposedly an emphatic particle built upon a new form 
and on the analogy of 
. There is no justification at all for this view, which also leaves out of account the pronominal use of 
in Alcaeus and Democritus.
page 235 note 2 I owe the reference to Professor L.J. D. Richardson.
page 235 note 3 Hence it might have been better for L.S.J, to use Bev as their lemma, and not the form 
, which only appears in Et. Mag. as part of its explanation of the form 
.
page 236 note 1 Schwyzer, , Griech. Gramm. i. 426,Google Scholar n. 1, and Frisk, Et. Wb., use the terms falsche Auslösung, falsch ausgelöst. Schwyzer makes this comment on 
in reference to cases of compounds in which ‘das Hinterglied für das Sprachgefühl vollig undeutlich wurde’. But it it is quite clear that these words could not be applied to 
.
page 236 note 2 I take the reference from Diels, , op. cit., ii. 174,Google Scholar discussing Democr. 156. Notice also Philoponus' comment on the passage: 
.
page 236 note 3 It is necessary to remove from the text 
, which was corruptly inserted after 
. A later reference in Et. Mag. (639. 17, s.v. 
) is a source of the fragment Alc. 320 L.-P., but does not go into the question of meaning.
page 237 note 1 
appears both a simple and a desirable emendation of 
replacing 
: so Edmonds, , Lyra Graeca, i. 426).Google Scholar It is still possible to make sense with 
. The article in Et. Mag., after saying that 
is made up of 
and 
, then goes into a long discussion of the accent of 
, so that this form is foremost in the mind. It would therefore not be out of the question to continue by referring to it: ‘of this word 
we have the neuter form 
without the added 
in Alcaeus’. Contrasted with this, 
returns to the earlier mention of the word: 
will then draw attention to the rarity of the form 
, as compared with the frequency of the compound 
. It will be seen that the problem of the reading does not vitally affect the general sense of the passage.
