Paul Derouda wrote:That's what I was suspecting too. So is it a particularity of Aeolic that the forms aren't nom. ἀντιάων and acc. ἀντιάοντα? Where could I read more about this? (I've read Annis' great introduction to Lesbian Aeolic, but I couldn't find the answer there.)
I apologize. You're absolutely right that if it's from ἀντιάω, it should be ἀντιάοντα.
(I'm not sure whether the accusative participle had this ending in Lesbian Aeolic.)
The placement of the accent, and the ending, suggests it's something different.
It's interesting that in the TLG database, this fragment doesn't have this verb. Maybe
it was edited in the Loeb edition from another manuscript.
All I have is this incomplete line:
πρὶν σὲ καὶ Δί' ἀντ[
I did find this line in fragment 129 of Alcaeus, which is perhaps the source of this addition:
κἀπωνύμασσαν ἀντίαον Δία
σὲ δ' Αἰολήιαν [κ]υδαλίμαν θέον
πάντων γενέθλαν, τὸν δὲ τέρτον
?τόνδε κεμήλιον ὠνύμασς[α]ν