εἰνάτερες in Ω769

[ἑκηβόλος]

δαέρων ἢ γαλόων ἢ εἰνατέρων εὐπέπλων,

If the singular is ἐνάτηρ, why is the initial epsilon diphthogonalised in the plural to εἰνάτερες?

[Hylander]

This is a simple one. Again, this is a phenomenon of the Homeric Kunstsprache: a fudge, representing graphically an artificial stretching of the first syllable in performance so that the plural form could be accommodated in the hexameter, which normally excludes sequences of three short syllables.

The Homeric poems are full of similar fudges, where short/light syllables are treated as long/heavy, or sometimes vice versa, to fit the meter, and this is sometimes represented graphically in the spelling, sometimes not.

Cf. Il. 5.31:

Ἆρες Ἄρες βροτολοιγὲ μιαιφόνε τειχεσιπλῆτα

I don't have an answer to your query on δαήρ, which must stretch back into pre-Greek or even PIE. I doubt that if it was originally a suffix rather than a root it would have been perceived as such in the classical era.

[ἑκηβόλος]

Dis-splelling for a moment the 1am fairies, how I got through three or four courses with Homer without understanding the metre, I don't know, but once more for the καθυστερημένους what is the Homeric metre?

[Hylander]

The meter is dactylic hexameter. I don't mean to be condescending (and I'm no authority), but if you're going to delve into the history and pre-history of Greek you really need to understand the meter and the formulaic method of composition-in-performance out of which the Homeric poems emerged. These explain many apparently random and puzzling phenomena.

[jeidsath]

Here is Morwood in "A Little Greek Reader" which presents a very straightforward description:

https://imgur.com/a/CMEBK

[ἑκηβόλος]

From Morwood,
Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος (Α1)

Why synizesis of the εω, rather than giving the iota a consonantal value? The resulting scansion appears to be the same.

[Hylander]

Synizesis of -εω is regular; consonantal treatment of ι is rare.

[jeidsath]

I disagree a bit with Hylander on this one. ηι is often a diphthong, even before a vowel. Perhaps, as Allen claims, the ι is a glide, and therefore a "consonantal," though I think the term isn't really used like that? Regardless, a quick search gives lines like:

A24 ἀλλ’ οὐκ Ἀτρεΐδῃ Ἀγαμέμνονι ἥνδανε θῡμῷ

A143 θείομεν ἂν δ’ αὐτὴν Χρῡσηΐδα καλλιπάρῃον

A better justification for Πηληϊάδεω, I think, is lines like the following.

P381 ἄμβροτοι οὓς Πηλῆϊ θεοὶ δόσαν ἀγλαὰ δῶρα

[Hylander]

A24 ἀλλ’ οὐκ Ἀτρεΐδῃ Ἀγαμέμνονι ἥνδανε θῡμῷ

A143 θείομεν ἂν δ’ αὐτὴν Χρῡσηΐδα καλλιπάρῃον

The second element of the long diphthongs (ι) may have been articulated as a glide, and this probably also accounts for instances of correption of -οι and -αι at word-end before vowels. However, A 24 and 143 are not instances where treating an ι as a consonant is necessary for the scansion. (The hiatus in A24 occurs after the princeps and at the caesura, where it's more acceptable, but perhaps the glide treatment helped.)

The most compelling justification for scanning Πηληϊάδεω as _ _ υ υ _ (note hiatus after princeps) is that εω is always treated as (and was pronounced as) a single (contracted) vowel. See West, Greek Metre, p. 12. (I shouldn't say "always" but I'm not aware of any exceptions.) And Πηληϊάδεω won't scan properly if ι is treated as a consonant and εω is treated as a single vowel.

I'm not aware of any instance where intervocalic ι within a word must be treated as a consonant, but post-consonantal ι sometimes is, usually to accommodate proper names that could not otherwise scan. See West, p. 14.

[jeidsath]

Taking a look, I think that you mean only genitive εω at the end of names (otherwise εω, ερεω, μενεω, θεω, etc.). Among names only obvious exception that I can find is Βορέω:

Ξ395 ποντόθεν ὀρνύμενον πνοιῆι Βορέω ἀλεγεινῆι
Ψ692 ὡς δ’ ὅθ’ ὑπὸ φρικὸς Βορέω ἀναπάλλεται ἰχθύς

But it's not quite a name, so not really an exception, I guess.

[Hylander]

Yes, you're right, I shouldn't have been so categorical. It's the genitive of first declension masculine nouns with nominative in -ης. This is from original -αο (long α; sometimes this ending is preserved where -εω with synizesis is metrically impossible, e.g., at the end of a verse) > *-ηο in early Ionic > -εω by quantitative metathesis and contracts to a single vowel (or diphthong?).

The nominative of Bορεω is Βορεης, so ε is part of the stem, and -ω alone is the genitive ending. Does -ω represent the sound of -εω?