Page 1 of 1

Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:25 am
by jeidsath
Did Homer use the Ϝ (or something like it) in performing his poem? I read recently that it's just an artifact of his base of poetic material, and he wouldn't have ever pronounced it himself.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:39 am
by mwh
The erstwhile digamma is sometimes inoperative in Homer (i.e. the meter behaves as if it were non-existent), so it must have already fallen of use. It’s conceivable that it was still pronounced in some cases, but the evidence is against it.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:35 pm
by jeidsath
If that is the case, digamma should be buried in an inherited phrase nearly every time, right? If the distribution looked more random, you would suspect later editors instead.

For example, in this case, the following would be a completely inherited phrase:

ατρειδης τε ϝαναξ ανδρων και

If "ϝαναξ ανδρων" were all the poet had inherited, I would think that he would have naturally elided τε.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:01 pm
by Paul Derouda
Actually this is somewhat similar to French "aspirated h". In French, the letter h is no longer pronounced, but in some cases (called "aspirated h" or "h aspiré) it has left vestiges and still causes hiatus at word boundary, preventing contraction and liaison from happening.

For example:
la hache (the axe)

However, in some cases the h doesn't affect pronunciation in any way ("h muet", "mute h") and is only an orthographic convention.

l'heure (the hour), pronounced exactly like l'Eure (a place name).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_h

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:08 pm
by Paul Derouda
What I mean is that even if ϝ is no longer be pronounced in Homer's time, it's quite possible that it still causes hiatus. What happens with present day French "h aspiré" is a good parallel.

Note that in both cases there are many exceptions to the rule. Homer doesn't always respect digamma, and in French, many native speakers make "mistakes", which shows that this sort of thing must be pretty unstable and will probably disappear from the language quite quickly.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:42 pm
by jeidsath

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:49 pm
by Timothée
The French parallel is an interesting way of understanding the question. The non-hiatising h- has, from the point of view of the French language, never been pronounced but is merely orthographic. The hiatus-inducing h (“h aspiré”) used to be pronounced in French but is no more; they are all loan-words, particularly from neighbouring Germanic languages. For example, haut ‘high’ is interesting as it derives from the Latin altus but was mixed with Germanic hoch uel sim., which gave its formerly pronounced and now hiatus-inducing h. Romanian, by the way, is the only Romance language I know which has the sound [h], which is fascinating.

An example near me and Paul: it should be Université de Helsinki, but I think Université d’Helsinki is nowadays more common.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:10 pm
by Paul Derouda
French h is a mess, and only the "aspirated" ones are relevant here. I think with huile "oil" the h was added as an orthographic convention to distinguish from vil(e) "vile" at a period when v and u were not distinguished.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:13 pm
by Paul Derouda
Just in case I still wasn't clear enough, the question is whether the finite article le/la is elided before a word beginning with h + vowel.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:05 pm
by Timothée
In the same manner French huit ‘8’ has an orthographical h- to distinguish it from vit ‘lives’, and huis ‘door’ << Latin ōstium again has an added h- to distinguish it from vis ‘I live / thou livest / live thou!’. Homme has and an etymologic h-, whereas avoir hasn’t although it should have < Latin habēre (Italian avere, but Spanish haber). It’s indeed a mess.

Hodiē ‘today’ gives the obsolete hui, which has however been preserved in aujourd’hui, actually au jour de hui ‘on the day of today’, and in spoken French au jour d’aujourd’hui (!) can sometimes be heard, although it’s definitely not recommendable.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:18 pm
by mwh
Before this turns into a thread about French …

Joel, What the poets inherited were fixed and adaptable phrases in which τε αναξ (e.g.) was always three syllables: the metrical effect of the erstwhile digamma was built in, a persistent relic of an earlier stage of the language. (The aspirated or rather “aspirated” h in French is analogous up to a point.) More novel locutions were apt to be rather less true to tradition.

Editors don’t really come into it, any more than F does. In the written tradition conventions such as movable nu and double consonants often serve to eliminate what had become metrical irregularities consequent on loss of digamma (hiatus, for example, or εδ(δ)εισεν), but even that may reflect Homeric performance practice. What stayed unchanged was what was least amenable to modernization. Isn't that always the way?

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:59 pm
by Timothée
Wasn’t there a Homeric edition (Iliad or Odyssey or even both?) from 1800’s I think with digammas printed? I’m sure I saw a page of it displayed by the teacher in my Greek metrics course. Do you know what and by whom it is (there can’t be many different ones, can there?) and could it by any chance be freely accessible online? Just for the sake of curio. I’m sure it’s already out of copyright. And I’m sure I have asked this from Paul in person but unfortunately forgotten his answer, for which I apologise.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:35 pm
by Paul Derouda
At least Fick's edition, though I'm not sure if it's the only one or the first one.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:39 pm
by jeidsath
Here is Fick: https://archive.org/stream/diehomerisch ... 9/mode/2up

He seems to insert word-initial digamma in several place, but nothing for line 33.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:36 pm
by Timothée
Thank you. How wonderfully quaint! A lot of psilosis and Doric α (μᾶνιν), as well. And you’re right, Joel, it should be ἔδϝεισε. Strange that Fick doesn’t mark it, as he should have known it. Fick’s preface might shed light on his editing principles, but he is obviously reconstructing according to his views.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:22 pm
by mwh
Richard Bentley, who (re)discovered the digamma in Homer, characteristically believed that all verses where it couldn’t be restored were corrupt. Some of his emendations have been confirmed by papyri and have rightfully gained a place in the text (without a written digamma, of course). Between him and Fick towards the end of the 19th century were quite a number of scholars (mostly German and Dutch) who made important follow-up investigations and discoveries; they often wrote the digamma when quoting Homer, and many of them believed that Homer himself wrote it too, but so far as I know Fick was the first (and I expect the only) scholar to produce whole editions with it. That's certainly what he's best known for.

Fick himself influentially believed—on good evidence—that the poems were in Aeolic before being converted where possible into Ionic (the thesis is still widely accepted today), and he deemed digamma Aeolic (as indeed it is), in conformity with ancient doctrine. Psilosis and “Doric” alpha also Aeolic of course. The result may look “quaint” to us, but it was underpinned by serious and groundbreaking scholarship.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:21 pm
by Hylander
"the poems were in Aeolic before being converted where possible into Ionic (the thesis is still widely accepted today),"

Isn't the current version of the Aeolic hypothesis that the tradition, particularly the epic diction and formulas, and not the poems themselves, was originally Aeolic but eventually taken over by Ionic aoidoi, and the formulas and diction were converted into Ionic where possible b ut remained Aeolic where the Ionic form would not be metrical?

I think the 1895 edition of van Leeuwen and Costa prints the digamma, too.

And Ionic was as psilotic as Aeolic. I understood that rough breathings were added at some point, maybe even in the Byzantine era, to words that had them in Attic, but not to Ionic words that didn't exist in Attic.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:28 am
by mwh
Welcome back Hylander. You’ve been missed.

You’re right of course about the Aeolic thesis. In its modified form it’s the earlier epic tradition that was Aeolic, rather than the poems themselves as Fick thought. The chronology has been pushed back, but in both variants ionicization came later.

The basic thesis has been challenged by the idea that the poems represent a fundamentally Ionic tradition into which seeped forms from a parallel Aeolic tradition (again I simplify, and probably distort), and this competing “diffusionist” theory seems to have been gaining ground in recent years. But there are so many things in favor of an earlier Aeolic phase with subsequent Ionic overlay and partial replacement that I’m reluctant to accept it. Maybe some kind of synthesis will eventually be possible.

van Leeuwen too, yes, I'd forgotten him.

As to psilosis, it’s well recognized that that doesn’t necessarily point to Aeolic, since it was East Ionic too. It’s alphabets with a letter for h that count, of course—inscriptions. Even Attic was not uniform.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:09 pm
by Hylander
A lot of psilosis and Doric α (μᾶνιν), as well.
I think Fick would call it Aeolic α. The raising of α to η was of course a sound change limited to Attic/Ionic (and only partial in Attic), and did not occur elsewhere in Greek, including in "Aeolic" in Asia Minor. I believe it is thought to have occurred relatively late (after 1000 BCE, which is around when the Greek in Asia Minor first came into contact with the Mada, whom later Greeks called Μηδοι).

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:51 pm
by Timothée
I definitely didn’t mean to disrespect Fick. His work is great, but from today’s point of view it gives a “quaint” impression. I like quaint myself. I have added digammas in (small) part of Homer, mainly as an exercise, and tried to separate true ει [ei] and ου [ou] diphthongs from the long closed vowels ε̄ [ẹ] and ō [ọ], the distinction obscured by the (in other ways great) 404 BCE Attic-Ionic spelling reform.

I take your critique on “Doric α”. It was meant a short-hand for “α where Attic-Ionic would have η”, but I realise it is too misleading, as Homer doesn’t have so much Doric.

Is there a list anywhere that enumerates all the words that historically had Ϝ in them? Has it been ever compiled? It would be of great help as a reference. I suppose anyone could collect them oneself gradually as they appear in texts, but better maybe (and faster) if someone has already done it.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:42 pm
by jeidsath
Maybe Knös has what you're looking for: https://archive.org/details/dedigammohomeri00kngoog

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:02 pm
by jeidsath
Cunliffe entires that contain a digamma somewhere in the entry text:
ἀάατος [perh., with ἀ- for ἀν-, ἀάϝατος, fr. ἀϝάω. See
ἀᾱγής, ές (ἀϝαγής) [ἀ- + (Ϝ)αγ-, ἄγνυμι]. Unbroken,
†*ἀάζω (ἀϝάζω) [ἀϝάτη, ἄτη]. 2 sing. aor. ἀ̆/ᾰσας
†ἄγνῡμι (ϝάγνυμι). 3 dual pres. ἄγνυτον Μ148. Fut. ἄξω
ἀ̄δεής (ἀδϝεής) [ἀ- + δ(Ϝ)έος]. Also ἀ̆δειής Η117.
ἀ̄δέω, also written ἁ̄δέω [prob. ἀ(σϝ)αδέω, to be
ἀεικής, ές (ἀϝεικής) [ἀ- + (Ϝ)είκω]. Dat. pl. ἀεικέσσι
ἀέκων, ουσα (ἀϝέκων) [ἀ- + (Ϝ)εκών].
ἀέλλη, ης, ἡ (ἀϝέλλη) [ἀ- + ϝελ-, [Ϝ)είλω].
ἀελπτέω (ἀϝελπτέω) [ἀ- + (Ϝ)έλπω]. To despair:
ἀέξω [ἀϝέξω. Cf. the later αὔξω].
ἀεργός (ἀϝεργός) [ἀ- + (Ϝ)έργον]. Not working or
ἀεσίφρων, ονος [perh. fr. weak stem ἀϝε- of ἄ(Ϝ)ημι +
†ἄημι (ἄϝημι) [cf. ἀΐω, ἰαύω]. 2 dual ἄητον Ι5. Pple.
ἀήσυλος [prob. for ἀϝίσυλος, fr. ἀ- + (Ϝ)ῖσος]. (Cf.
ἀΐδηλος, ον [ἀ- + (Ϝ)ιδ-, εἴδω. 'Making unseen'].
ἄϊδρις (ἄϝιδρις) [ἀ- + (Ϝ)ιδ-, εἴδω]. Ignorant,
αἴσυλος [prob. contr. fr. ἀ(Ϝ)ίσυλος, ἀήσυλος]. Absol.
ἅλις (Ϝάλις) [ἀλ-, (Ϝ)είλω].
†ἀμφιάχω [ἀμφ-, ἀμφι- (3)+(Ϝ)ι(Ϝ)άχω]. Acc. fem. pf.
ἀμφιέλισσα, ης [ἀμφι- (1) + (Ϝ)ελίσσω]. Epithet of
†ἀμφιέννῡμι [ἀμφι- (3) + (Ϝ)έννυμι]. Fut. ἀμφιέσω
ἀνάεδνος, ἡ [app. for ἀνέϜεδνος fr. ἀν- + ἔϜεδνα. See
ἄναξ, ακτος, ὁ (ϝάναξ). Voc. (besides ἄναξ) ἄνα Γ351,
ἄνασσα, ης, ἡ (Ϝάνασσα) [fem. of ἄναξ]. Queen,
ἀνάσσω (Ϝανάσσω) [ἄναξ]. 3 sing. fut. ἀνάξει Τ104, 122,
†ἁνδάνω ((σ)Ϝανδάνω) [σϜαδ-. Cf. ἡδύς, L. suavis]. 3
ἀνιπτόπους, ποδος [ἀ- + νιπ-, ϝίζω + πούς]. With
ἀολλής, ές (ἀϜολλής) [ἀ- + Ϝελ-, (Ϝ)είλω]. Only in pl.
†ἀπαυράω. Impf. ἀπηύρων Ι131, Τ89, Ψ560, 808: ν132. 2
ἀπόερσα, aor. (ἀπόϜερσα) [ἀπο- (1). For the second
ἀπτοεπής [prob. (Ϝ1]ι-(Ϝ1]άπτω as in προϊάπτω + ἔπος].
ἄριστον, τό [prob. ἀϝερ-ιστον. Cf. ἠ(ϝ1]έριος. 'The
ἄρνα, τόν, τήν (Ϝάρνα) [no nom. sing. occurs. Acc. of
ἄστυ, εος, τό (Ϝάστυ). A town or city (used as = πόλις
ἀ̄τέω (ἀϜατέω) [ἀϜάτη, ἄτη]. To act rashly or
ἄ̄τη, ης, ἡ (ἀϜάτη).
αὐερύω (ἀϜϜερύω) [ἀϜ-, ἀνα- (1) (3) + Ϝερύῶ, ἐρύω]. 3
αὐΐαχος (ἀϜϜίϜαχος) [ἀ- + ϜιϜαχ-, ἰάχω]. With united
αὔριον [conn. with ἠ(ϝ1]έριος].
ἀϋτμή, ῆς, ἡ [ἀϋ-τ-μή. ἀϜ-, ἄ(ϝ1]ημι].
αὔω [ἀϜ-, ἄ(ϝ1]ημι]. 3 sing. aor. ἤϋ̄σε Ε784, Θ227,
βείομαι, βέομαι [prob. for βίομαι, subj. fr. βι(ϝ1]-,
βίος, ου, ὁ [βιϜ-]. One's life, course of life, manner
βουγά̄ϊος [app. a compound of βοῦς, perh. in intensive
βοῦς, βοός, ὁ, ἡ (βοϜ-. Cf. L. bovis). Acc. βῶν Η238.
γαίω [γαϝ-. Cf. ἀγαυός and L. gaudeo]. Only in phrase
γουνός [perh. fr. γονϜ-, γόνυ, in sense 'swell,'
δᾱήρ, έρος, ὁ (δαϜήρ). Voc. δᾶερ (see below). Genit.
δαίω [δαϜ-, δηϜ-, δαυ-]. 3 sing. pf. (in pres. sense)
†δείδοικα (δέδϜοικα), pf. with pres. sense. 1 sing.
δειλός, ή [δϜι-, δείδοικα].
δεῖμα, τό [δϜι-, δείδοικα]. Fear, terror Ε682.
δεινός, ή, όν [δϜι-, δείδοικα].
δέος, τό (δϜι-, δείδοικα]. Genit. δείους Κ376, Ο4.
δεύω (δέϜω). 3 sing. aor. ἐδεύησε ι483, 540. Also in
δήϊος, ον (˘%40) [conn. with δαίω. Perh. orig. δά̆Ϝιος.
δήν (δϜήν). For a long time, for long, long: ἀκέων δ.
δίον, aor. [δϝι-, δείδοικα]. To be afraid Ε566, Ι433,
δόρυ, τό. Genit. δουρός (for δορϜός) Γ61, Ρ295, Ψ529,
δρίος [δρῦς. For δρϜ-ος]. A coppice ξ353.
ἑᾰνός, οῦ, ὁ (Ϝεσανός) [Ϝέσνυμι, ἕννυμι]. With ἐ-
ἔαρ, ἔαρος, τό (Ϝέαρ. Cf. L. ver). The spring: ἔαρος
ἑάφθη, 3 sing. aor. pass. [prob. fr. (Ϝ)ι-(Ϝ)άπτω. See
ἕδνα, τά (Ϝέδνα) [prob. conn. with (σϜ)ανδάνω, and
ἑέ (ἐϝέ). Acc. ἑέ Υ171, Ω134. ἕ Δ497, Ξ162, Ο241, etc.:
ἔθνος, τό (Ϝέθνος).
εἰαρινός, ή, όν (Ϝειαρινός) [(Ϝ)έαρ, with the ἐ
εἶδαρ, ατος, τό [ἐδ-Ϝαρ, fr. ἐδ-, ἔδω].
εἶδος (Ϝεῖδος) [εἴδω]. (One's general bodily)
†εἴδω [Ϝιδ-. Cf. L. video].
εἴκελος, η, ον (Ϝείκελος) [εἴκω. Cf. ἴκελος, E)I/+SKW].
εἴκοσι, indeclinable (Ϝείκοσι). Also, with prothetic ἐ,
†εἴκω (Ϝείκω) [Ϝικ-]. 3 sing. impf. εἶκε Σ520. 3 sing.
εἴκω (Ϝείκω) [cf. L. vicis]. 3 sing. aor. εἶξε Ω100. 3
†εἰλύω [ϜελϜ-, Ϝελυ-. Cf. εἴλω]. Fut. εἰλύ̄σω Φ319. 3
εἴλω, εἰλέω (Ϝείλω, Ϝειλέω) [Ϝελ-, ϜελϜ-. Cf. εἰλύω,
εἷμα, ατος, τό (Ϝέσ-μα) [ἕννυμι].
εἰνάετες [εἰνα- (prob. = ἐνϜα-, ἐννέα) + ἔτος]. For
εἴνατος [prob. for ἔνϜατος fr. ἐννέα]. = ἔνατος. The
εἰνοσίφυλλος [ἐνϜοσι- (ἐν- (3) + Ϝοθ-, ὠθέω) + φύλλον.
εἶπον, ἔειπον, aor. (Ϝεῖπον, ἔϜειπον) [cf. (Ϝ)έπος]. 2
†εἴρω (Ϝείρω. Cf. L. verbum, Eng. word). In pres. only
†εἰσείδω, ἐσείδω [εἰσ- (4), ἐσ-]. Aor. ἐσεῖδον (ἐσϜ-)
ἐΐσκω (ϜεϜίσκω) [app. for ϜεϜίκσκω, fr. Ϝικ-, εἴκω. Cf.
ἑκάεργος (ϜεκάϜεργος) [ἑκάς + ἔργω]. The farworker, the
ἑκάς (Ϝεκάς).
ἕκαστος, η, ον (Ϝέκαστος).
ἑκάτερθε(ν) (Ϝεκάτερθε) [Ϝεκ-, ἕκαστος].
ἑκατηβελέτης (Ϝεκατηβελέτης) [ἑκατη- (see next) + βελ-,
ἑκατηβόλος (Ϝεκατηβόλος) [ἑκατη-, conn. with ἑκάς +
ἕκατος (Ϝεκ-) [a short or 'pet' form of ἑκατηβόλος]. =
ἑκηβόλος (Ϝεκηβόλος) [ἑκη-, ἑκάς + βολ-, βάλλω]. =
ἕκηλος (Ϝέκηλος) [cf. ἑκών, εὔκηλος].
ἕκητι (Ϝέκητι) [cf. ἑκών]. By the grace or aid of. With
ἑκυρή, ῆς, ἡ (σϜεκυρή). A mother-in-law Χ451, Ω770.
ἑκυρός, οῦ, ὁ (σϜεκυρός). A father-in-law Γ172, Ω770.
ἑκών (Ϝεκών) [cf. ἕκηλος, ἕκητι].
ἔλδομαι (Ϝέλδομαι). Also, with prothetic ἐ, ἐέλδομαι
ἑλίκωψ, ωπος, ὁ (Ϝελίκωψ) [prob. (Ϝ)ελικ-, ἑλίσσω +
ἑλίσσω (Ϝελίκ-σω) [cf. εἴλω]. Aor. pple. ἑλίξας Ψ466. 3
ἕλκω (Ϝέλκω). (ἀν-, ἐφ-, ἐφ-, παρ-, ὑφ-.)
ἐλλεδανός, ὁ [(Ϝ)ελϜ-, (Ϝ)ελυ- as in εἰλύω]. A band for
ἐλπίς, ίδος, ἡ (Ϝελπίς) [ἔλπω]. Hope π101, τ84.
ἔλπω (Ϝέλπω). Pf. ἔολπα, -ας (ϜέϜολπα) Υ186, Φ583,
ἐλπωρή, ῆς, ἡ (Ϝελπωρή) [ἔλπω]. Hope. With fut. infin.:
ἐννέα, indeclinable (ἐνϜέα) [cf. L. novem, Eng. nine].
ἐννοσίγαιος (ἐνϜοσίγαιος) [ἐνϜοσι- (ἐν- (1) or (3) +
†ἕννῡμι (Ϝέσ-νυμι. Cf. L. vestis). Fut. ἕσσω ν400,
ἐνοσίχθων, ονος [for ἐνϜοσίχθων, fr. ἐνϜοσι- as in
ἕξ, indeclinable (σϜέξ) [cf. L. sex, Eng. six]. Six
†ἐπιάχω [ἐπι- (5)]. 3 pl. impf. ἐπί̄αχον (or rather
ἐπιεικής [ἐπι- (19) + (Ϝ)είκω].
ἐπιεικτός, όν [app. ἐπι- (4) + (Ϝ)είκω. For the form
ἐπιήρανος [ἐπι- (19) + (Ϝ)ήρ. Cf. ἐρίηρος]. Pleasing,
ἐπιίστωρ, ορος, ὁ [ἐπι- (5) + (Ϝ)ισ-, οἶδα. See εἴδω
ἔπος, τό (Ϝέπος). [Cf. (Ϝ)εῖπον.] Dat. sing. ἔπεϊ Ε879.
ἐργάζομαι [(Ϝ)έργον].
†ἔργνῡμι [= (Ϝ)έργω]. 3 sing. impf. ἐέργνῡ. To shut
ἔργον, ου, τό (Ϝέργον) [cf. (Ϝ)έρδω].
ἔργω, and, with prothetic ἐ, ἐέργω, contr. to εἴργω Ψ72
ἔρδω, ἕρδω (Ϝέρδω) [Ϝεργ-, Ϝέργςw. Cf. (Ϝ)έργον,
ἐρίηρος [ἐρι- + (Ϝ)ήρ. Cf. ἐπιήρανος]. Pl. ἐρίηρες.
ἔρρω (Ϝέρρω).
ἕρση, ης, ἡ (Ϝέρση). Except in ι222 with prothetic ἐ,
†ἐρύω (Ϝερύω). Pres. pple. ἐρύων, -οντος Δ467, 492,
ἐσθής, ῆτος, ἡ [Ϝέσ-νυμι, ἕννυμι].
ἔσθος, τό [Ϝέσ-νυμι, ἕννυμι]. A garment Ω94.
ἑσπέριος [(Ϝ)έσπερος].
ἕσπερος, ὁϜέσπερος. Cf. L. vesper).
ἔτος, τό (Ϝέτος. Cf. L. vetus). A year
εὔκηλος [app. ἐϜέκηλος, ἔϜκηλος. Cf. (Ϝ)έκηλος]. =
ἐφέπω [ἐφ-, ἐπι- (5) (11) + ἕπω]. 3 pl. pa. iterative
†ἐφί̄ημι [ἐφ-, ἐπι- (11) + ἵημι]. Only in mid. Fut.
ἡδύς, ἡδεῖα, ἡδύ. Also fem. ἡδύς μ369 [σϜαδ- as in
ἠέ (ἠϝέ), ἤ.
ἠέριος, η (ἠϜέριος) [ἀϜερ-. Cf. ἠώς, ἄριστον, αὔριον,
ἦθος, τό [conn. with ἔθω and orig. σϜῆθος]. In pl., the
ἧλος, ου, ὁ [Ϝῆλος. Cf. L. vallus]. A nail or stud used
ἡμιδαής [ἡμι- + δα(ϝ)-, δαίω]. Half-burnt Π294.
ἤρ (Ϝήρ) [referred to var, to choose, wish]. What is
ἦρι [ἀϜερ-. See ἠέριος]. Early in the morning Ι360:
ἠχή, ῆς, ἡ (Ϝηχή) [cf. (Ϝ)ι(ϝ)άχω, (Ϝ)ι(ϝ)αχή]. Sound,
ἠχήεις, εσσα (Ϝηχήεις) [(Ϝ)ηχή]. Sounding. Epithet of
ἠώς, οῦς, ἡ (ἠϜώς) [ἀϜοσ-. Cf. ἠέριος]. Dat. ἠοῖ (ἠόϊ)
†θάομαι [θαϜ-. Cf. θαῦμα, θηέομαι]. 3 pl. aor. opt.
θαῦμα, τό [θαϜ- as in θάομαι].
θεοειδής (θεοϜειδής) [θεός + (Ϝ)εῖδος]. Divine of form,
θεοείκελος (θεοϜείκελος) [θεός + (Ϝ)είκελος]. Like the
θεουδής (θεοδϜής) [for θεοδϜεής fr. θεός + δϜ-,
θεσπιδαής, ές (θεσπιδαϜής) [θε-σπ- as in θεσπέσιος
θέω [θεϜ-]. Also θείω [prob. for θή(ϝ)ω, fr. θηϜ-, long
†θηέομαι [θαϜ-. Cf. θάομαι]. 2 sing. opt. θηοῖο Ω418. 3
θοός, ή, -όν [θεϜ-, θέω].
ἰάπτω [app. distinct fr. (Ϝ)ι(ϝ)άπτω. See ἑάφθη,
ἰαύω (ἰάϜω) [redup. fr. ἀϜ-, ἄ(ϝ)ημι]. 3 sing. pa.
ἰαχή, ῆς, ἡ (ϜιϜαχή) [ἰάχω]. A shouting Δ456, Μ144 =
ἰάχω (ϜιϜάχω). [For the impf. forms, 3 sing. ἴ̄αχε and
ἴδιος, η, -ον [conn. with (Ϝ)ε, ἑ. See ἑέ]. Private,
ἰ̄δίω [σϜιδ-. Cf. Eng. sweat]. To sweat υ204.
ἰδρείη, ης, ἡ (Ϝιδρείη) [ἴδρις]. Skill: ἰδρείῃ πολέμοιο
ἴδρις (Ϝίδρις) [(Ϝ)ιδ-, οἶδα. See εἴδω (C)]. Skilled,
ἵ̄ημι (Ϝίημι). Only in mid. Fut. εἴσομαι (Ϝίσομαι) Ξ8,
ἴκελος, η, -ον (Ϝίκελος) [ἰκ-, εἴκω]. = εἴκελος (1):
Ἰλιόθεν (ῑ) (Ϝιλιόθεν) [-θεν (1)]. From Ilios Ξ251:
Ἰλιόθι (ῑ) (Ϝιλιόθι) [-θι]. As locative of Ἴλιος:
ἰ̄νίον (Ϝινίον) [ἰν-, ἴς]. The double tendon running up
ἰοδνεφής, ές (Ϝιοδνεφής) [ἴον + δνεφ-, δνοφ-, δνόφος.
ἰόεις, εντος (Ϝιόεις) [ἴον]. = prec. Epithet of iron.
ἴον, ου, τό (Ϝίον. Cf. L. vio-la). The blue violet.
ἰ̄οχέαιρα (ἰοχέϜαιρα) [ἰός + χεϜ-, χέω]. Shedder of
ἴ̄ς, ἰ̄νός, ἡ (Ϝίς) [ἴς, ἶφι, ἴφιος show resemblances,
ἰ̄σάζω (Ϝισάζω) [ἶσος]. 3 sing. pa. iterative mid.
ἴσκω (Ϝίσκω) [app. for Ϝίκσκω, fr. Ϝικ-, εἴκω. Cf.
ἰ̄σόθεος (Ϝισόθεος) [ἶσος + θεός]. Godlike, like the
ἶσος, η, -ον (Ϝῖσος). Also (always in fem. and only in
ἴστωρ, ορος, ὁ (Ϝίστωρ) [ἰστ-, οἶδα. See εἴδω (C) 'One
ἰ̄τέη, ης, ἡ (Ϝιτέη. Cf. L. vitex, Eng. withy). The
ἰ̆/τυς, ἡ (Ϝίτυς) [conn. with ἰτέη]. The felloe of a
ἴφθῑμος, ον, and (in sense (2)) -η, -ον [prob. not
ἶφι (Ϝῖφι) [see ἴς]. With or by might, power, force:
ἴ̄φιος (Ϝίφιος) [see ἴς]. Epithet of sheep, well-grown,
καίω (καϜ-, κηϜ-, καυ-). Aor. ἔκηα (ἔκηϜα) Α40, Θ240. 3
καλαῦροψ, οπος, ἡ [perh. fr. κάλος in sense 'string'
†καταέννῡμι [κατα- (5)]. 3 pl. impf. καταείνυσαν
κατᾱρῑγηλός [κατα- (5)] + (Ϝ>ριγηλός in sim. sense,
†καταρρέζω [app., κατα- (1) + (Ϝ>ρέζω, though it is
καταρρέω [κατα- (1) + (σ>ρέ(ϝ>ω]. To flow down: αἷμα
καῦμα, ατος, τό [καϜ-, καυ-, καίω]. Heat, hot weather:
καύστειρα, ης [fem. of *καυστήρ, fr. καϜ-, καυ-, καίω].
κεινός, ή, -όν [κενϜός] Γ376, Δ181, Λ160, Ο453. Also
κήλειος [prob. for καυάλεος or κηάλεος fr. καϜ-, καίω].
κῆτος, τό [καϜ-. Cf. L. cavus and κοῖλος. Orig. sense
κηώδης [*κῆϜος, incense, fr. κηϜ-, καίω + ὀδ-, ὄζω].
κηώεις, εντος [*κῆϜος. See prec.]. = prec. Γ382, Ζ288,
κλαίω [κλαϜ-]. Dat. pl. masc. pple. κλαιόντεσσι μ311. 3
κλαυθμός, οῦ, ὁ [κλαϜ-, κλαυ-, κλαίω]. Weeping,
κλείω [κλεϜέω, fr. κλέ(ϝ>ος]. Also κλέω. Fut. κλείω
κλέος, τό (κλέϜος). Acc. pl. κλέα (for κλέεα) Ι189,
κοῖλος, η, -ον (κόϜιλος. Cf. L. cavus and κῆτος).
κοτήεις [prob. for κοτέσϜεις fr. κοτεσ-, κοτέω].
κυνέη, ης, ἡ [commonly taken as fem. of κύνεος (sc.
λᾱός, οῦ, ὁ (λαϜός).
λεῖος, η, -ον (λεῖϜος. Cf. L. lêvis). Smooth, free from
λευρός [λεϜ-ρός. Cf. λεῖος]. With even surface, level:
λοετρόν, τό (λοϜετρόν) [λοϜ-, λούω]. In pl., water for
†λούω (λόϜω) [λοϜ-. Cf. L. lavo]. 3 sing. aor. λοῦσε
λυσσώδης [app. for λυσσοϜείδης, fr. λύσσα + (Ϝ)εῖδος].
†μεθίημι [μεθ-, μετα- (1) + ἵημι]. Only in mid. Aor.
νάω (σνάϜω). To flow Φ197: ζ292.
νέατος, νείατος, η [superl. Cf. νείαιρα, νειόθεν,
νέος, η, -ον (νέϜος).
νέω [σνυ-]. 3 pl. impf. ἔννεον (ἔσνεϜον) Φ11. To swim:
νήδυμος [no doubt (Ϝ)ήδυμος = ἡδύς (cf. καλός,
νῆις, ιδος [νη- + (Ϝ)ιδ-, εἴδῳ. Lacking knowledge,
νηῦς, ἡ [cf. L. navis]. Genit. νηός (νηϜός) Α439, Θ515,
οἰέτης [ὀ = ἀ- + -ι- (app. representing lengthening
οἶκος, ου, ὁ (Ϝοῖκος. Cf. L. vicus).
οἶνος, ου, ὁ (Ϝοῖνος. Cf. L. vinum, Eng. wine). Wine
οἰνοχοέω [οἶνος + χοή]. Nom. pl. masc. pres. pple.
ὄϊς, ὁ, ἡ (ὄϜις. Cf. L. ovis). Genit. ὄϊος Ι207: δ764.
ὅλμος, ου, ὁ (Ϝόλμος) [Ϝελ-, (Ϝ)είλω]. App., a
ὀλοοίτροχος, ὁ [app. for ϜολοϜ-οί-τροχος, fr. Ϝελυ-,
ὀνειδίζω [ὄνειδος]. 2 sing. aor. ὀνείδισας Ι34. Imp.
οὐλαμός, οῦ, ὁ (Ϝουλαμός) [Ϝελ-, εἴλω]. A throng (of
οὖλος [ὁλ-Ϝος = the later ὅλος]. Whole, entire: ἄρτον
οὖλος, η [for Ϝολ-νος. Cf. L. vellus, Eng. wool].
ὄχεα, τά [Ϝεχ-. Cf. L. veho]. Instrumental (in
https://archive.org/details/CunliffeHomericLexicon

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:07 pm
by jeidsath
LSJ entries with a digamma somewhere in the text.

There are some characters in the above that I can't paste to textkit, so I've linked it above. Here is my source:

https://archive.org/details/Lsj--LiddellScott

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:05 pm
by Timothée
Thank you Joel, this is really wonderful. What modern technology renders possible—when someone with practice like yours uses it. And Knös would seem to be an example of the great German positivistic scholarship from the 19th century.

Happy Easter all!

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:41 pm
by Paul Derouda
I wonder if Knös was really German. The work linked by Joel was published in Uppsala, Sweden. That doesn't need to mean of course that he wasn't part of a "German school" of philology (I think the whole of Scandinavia was more or less in the German sphere of influence in those days).

I actually spent five nights in Uppsala just a week ago on a course in myography and neurography (that doesn't probably mean much to you :) ). It's a very nice little city, though I had little time for tourism, the course being so intensive. If you ever were to visit the place, the Cathedral is a must!

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 11:38 am
by markcmueller
Why wouldn't Homer have pronounced the digamma when performing? Obviously when he went to the cafe, he'd have asked for an 'oinos', not a 'woinos', but in performance why would he not use a pronunciation when it was required by the meter (and ignore it when it was not)? Homer retains archaic words for metrical reasons. According to Simon Pulleyn (Homer Odyssey 1), the epic bards would sometimes modify words to fit the meter.

If the bards go to such lengths to preserve the meter, wouldn't it seem natural to use an archaic pronunciation for the same purpose?

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 2:52 am
by Hylander
There's no reason to think that "Homer" was aware of the F or its pronunciation in earlier times.

The author or (as I and others suspect) the respective authors of the Iliad and the Odyssey probably didn't pronounce digamma in their everyday speech, because they didn't observe F consistently. It's not found in the texts that have come down to us from antiquity; rather , it's inferred from metrical and prosodic irregularities that are pervasive throughout the texts, and it only shows up in more or less fossilized formulas inherited in the traditional language of epic.

The authors/composers of the Iliad and the Odyssey (and other archaic Greek hexameter texts) tended to modernize inherited formulas in accordance with their Ionic F-less dialect whenever that could be done consistent with the meter and hexameter verse, but they would preserve otherwise prohibited hiatuses and syllable lengthening reflecting earlier F when the inherited formulas couldn't be modernized.

Maybe they were aware that the metrical irregularities could be explained by Fs that had dropped out of their language, and maybe they were aware of how F was pronounced, but I doubt it.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 10:34 am
by markcmueller
Thanks, Hylander. I realize now that if the bards were pronouncing F the scribes would have found a way to record it.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 12:38 pm
by Hylander
That's a good point, but we need to keep in mind that we really have no idea how or when the Iliad and the Odyssey came to be composed and written down. Dictated by an illiterate aoidos to a literate scribe? Composed in writing by a literate poet who was a master of the oral tradition? Composed and transmitted orally for a few generations before being written down? A "fluid" text that didn't become fully fixed until the Hellenistic period (after Alexander)? Those are some of the speculative ideas that have been in circulation, but there's no way to tell which is right or whether any of them is.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:11 pm
by jeidsath
The language change wouldn't have been uniform either. Not geographically, not temporally. Especially in the generations around the change, Homeric bards would have had the chance to hear Ϝ pronounced during their travels, and from old people. There are a million stories that could be spun here: imagine that city dwellers (due to increased foreign trade and language exposure) lost Ϝ first, and they didn't write it down because they didn't write in in their day-to-day transcriptions. Or maybe it happened in rural areas first, and the volkmaterial was altered to fit the new sounds with only the educated classes in the cities remembering the old lines.

But let's try to imagine that first generation of Ϝ-dropping bards. They didn't use Ϝ in daily speech, but they heard it from the bards teaching them the songs. Did they drop Ϝ in performance? Did they tread all over the meter to do it? Or maybe they consciously rejected Ϝ in performance as old and stale, and preserved the meter with other fudges?

All of those seem somewhat unlikely. I think that first generation of bards, growing up without Ϝ in their daily speech would have kept Ϝ in performance. But imperfectly. And the less contact they had with Ϝ-users the more imperfect it would have become. When composing new lines, they would have been more imperfect still. Sometimes they would keep it, sometimes they would drop it. The next generation would have been more imperfect still, perhaps only thinking of the sound as a permissible metrical fudge, maybe one that could be added anywhere they wanted to fix a vowel juncture.

At what point in this process did everything get written down and set in stone? All the way at the end? Maybe. But maybe earlier. An oral tradition that really didn't use Ϝ would have been able to fix itself quickly enough. They would have fixed the old unmetrical lines, or dropped them if they couldn't be fixed. Our text doesn't look like that. A glance at Homer tells you that Ϝ is everywhere, and not just in stock phrases. It often occurs in places that are obviously contextual.

I don't think that the evidence is good enough to be an extremist about Ϝ. And it's an extreme claim to say that Homer (our writer), had never even heard the sound, not from any rural hick or old geezer teaching him a line, and that he never once used it himself to fix a verse that didn't flow.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 11:43 am
by markcmueller
Thanks, Folks. I realize now that the scribe who first recorded the poems was not, of course, an anthropologist. He was using the alphabet he had and recognized 'woinos' as an old way of pronouncing 'oinos'. My feeling is still that if the bards preserved all of the archaic words for the sake of meter, then the bards must surely have kept the Ϝ sound where required. This leads me back to my initial thought after reading the first book of the Odyssey -- why not restore the Ϝ where metrically required?

I am aware of some of the controversies surrounding "restoring" the text of the epic where ML West's editions are the latest occasion. Do you also inline the iota subscript, use the lunate sigma, etc? You could end up with an odd-looking text. However, given on-demand publishing nowadays, theoretically you could have the text you want. The order form would offer a list of yes-no options. A rather different sort of multi-text Homer.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 12:25 pm
by Hylander
He was using the alphabet he had and recognized 'woinos' as an old way of pronouncing 'oinos'. My feeling is still that if the bards preserved all of the archaic words for the sake of meter, then the bards must surely have kept the Ϝ sound where required.
The poet or poets of the Iliad and the Odyssey didn't compose by stringing together individual words, bur rather by putting together traditional formulas consisting of groups of words that fit specific slots in the hexameter, and even after F dropped out, these formulas would remain intact, preserving the prosodic/metrical effects of the lost F. The repertory of formulas continued to be added to after F dropped out, and the new formulas didn't preserve the effects of the lost F -- F is observed or disregarded inconsistently throughout the poems.

Sometimes, fairly frequently in fact, F is both observed and disregarded in the same identical word. That's the strongest evidence that the F was not pronounced even in formulas where its effects had been preserved. The poet(s) of the Iliad and the Odyssey didn't perceive the words in question as beginning with F.

That's a gross over-simplification, of course, but the mechanisms of the oral formulaic compositional technique of the Iliad and the Odyssey have been fairly well understood for nearly 100 years, and explanations can be found in any modern discussion of Homer's compositional technique published in recent years. It's worth reading up about this before trying to draw any conclusions about the pronunciation of F in the Homeric poems. (And any conclusion are inevitably speculative, anyway.)

Talking about a scribe transcribing a bard is speculative. We actually have no idea when or how the written texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey came into being, despite several centuries of speculation. It's clear, however, that the texts we have date from a period after the loss of F, because, as I noted, F is not observed with any consistency and its effects are preserved in older pre-fabricated formulas.

Texts purporting to restore digammas (e.g. van Leeuwen and Dacosta in the last decade of the 19th century) were in fact published before Milman Parry's explication of the oral formulaic process in the 1920s. But they were a mess and editors have abandoned this anachronistic practice.

Re: Ϝ in Homer

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 6:43 pm
by seanjonesbw
I happened across Thompson's 1890 treatment of the F question when I was looking for something else - pages 4-11 here

https://archive.org/details/homericgram ... g/page/n24

It was an interesting read, but then I have no idea how many of the ideas he introduces would be seen as suspect or completely out-of-date today. Perhaps someone au fait with less ancient scholarship on F could shed some light here?