Lesson IV, typo?

[PeterD]

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)?

[Adelheid]

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

Here is a site with the whole paradigm: http://sphinx.metameat.net/sphinx.php?paradigm=_6-t-y!zt

[PeterD]

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.

[Adelheid]

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

[jk0592]

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.

[PeterD]

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.

[Didymus]

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."

[PeterD]

Thank you, Didymus.