I have another question for you. It's about the epigram 41 of Callimachus and a textual emmendation. This text is the one editated by Wilamowitz:
ἥμισύ μευ ψυχῆς ἔτι τὸ πνέον, ἥμισυ δ᾽ οὐκ οἶδ᾽
εἴτ᾽ Ἔρος εἴτ᾽ Ἀίδης ἥρπασε, πλὴν ἀφανές.
ἦ ῥά τιν᾽ ἐς παίδων πάλιν ὤιχετο; καὶ μὲν ἀπεῖπον
πολλάκι 'τὴν δρῆστιν μὴ ὑποδέχεσθε νέοι᾽.
ουκισυνιφησον: ἐκεῖσε γὰρ ἡ λιθόλευστος
κείνη καὶ δύσερως οἶδ᾽ ὅτι που στρέφεται.
As far as I have seen -I must admit I haven't read a full critical apparatus on this- there are at least three corrections to this ουκισυνιφησον, which is obviously incorrect.
· οὐκ ἲσον ἔφη σόν (H. W. Tytler)
· οὗ τις συνδιφήσον (A. W. Mair)
· οὗ Κῖσος, δίφησον (H. Beckby)
The first one would be the most accurate according to the common errors of the copists, but makes no sense to me since νέοι is plural, not singular; the second one is my favourite (even if the use of τις as a second person pronoun could be discussed), and the third one is where the struggle is: why is Κῖσος in nominative, if it's for sure the subject of the imperative δίφησον? Could it be some weird abbreviated vocative of Κίσως? Shall we understand "where Kisos (is), (and you) must help"?