## Lesson IV, typo?

Are you reading Homeric Greek? Whether you are a total beginner or an advanced Homerist, here you can meet kindred spirits. Beside Homer, use this board for all things early Greek poetry.

### Lesson IV, typo?

Is this a typo?

Section 554: The enclitics are:

1)...4) The present indicative of εἰμί be, and of φημί say (except . . . and possibly the second singular φῄς of φημί).

Should it not be φής instead of φῄς ( the latter being in the subjunctive, not the indicative mood)?
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast

Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm

### Re: Lesson IV, typo?

This is what I get from the program Diogenes:

Perseus analysis of φῄς:

φημί (Spir. Prooem.): pres ind act 2nd sg

Subjunctive would be:

Perseus analysis of φῇς:

φημί (Spir. Prooem.): subj act 2nd sg

Textkit Enthusiast

Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Mijdrecht

### Re: Lesson IV, typo?

In Section 967 of Pharr, conjugation tables, there is no iota subscript for the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί.

Indeed, Adelheid, the 2nd pers. sing. subj. act. of φημί has the circumflex. Sorry about that.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast

Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm

### Re: Lesson IV, typo?

PeterD wrote:In Section 967 of Pharr, conjugation tables, there is no iota subscript for the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί.

Perhaps we should rule that a typo? Still, it looks like both forms are valid:

Perseus analysis of φής:

φης,φημί (Spir. Prooem.): pres ind act 2nd sg

Textkit Enthusiast

Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Mijdrecht

### Re: Lesson IV, typo?

From Athenaze Volume 2, page 308, φᾑς is present indicative second person singular, while φῇς is present subjunctive second person singular. In the vocabulary section, φημι is mentioned as a postpositive enclictic.
Jean K.
jk0592
Textkit Member

Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:20 am

### Re: Lesson IV, typo?

In one section of Pharr, the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί, has the iota subscript (554); in another section (967), it does not. Which one is correct? Both?

Thanks.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast

Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm

### Re: Lesson IV, typo?

PeterD wrote:In one section of Pharr, the 2nd pers. sing. ind. act. of φημί, has the iota subscript (554); in another section (967), it does not. Which one is correct? Both?

See Smyth sec. 784: "Instead of φῄς, the spelling φής is infrequently found."
Didymus
Textkit Fan

Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

### Re: Lesson IV, typo?

Thank you, Didymus.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast

Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm