Verbum ‘Aiax’ volo declinare:
n. Aiax
v. Aia (?)
a. Aiacen / em (?)
g. Aiacis
d. Aiaci
ab.Aiace
Āiax/Ājax vocativo
Āiācem/Ājācem accusativo
Adriane
Cur haec bis scribes?
Nonne utrum verbum - Aiacen / Aiacem correctum est?
Vide http://www.mun.ca/alciato/f168.html ubi utrum Aiacen et Aiacem usi sunt.
To remind to check either spelling in searching for the name. (Aiax in L&S but Ajax in OLD)
Ut altera orthographica quaeratur in nomine inquirendo.
Non est at Aiacem justum correctum, ut opinor, quod tertiae non secundae declinationis hoc nomen.
In isto loco “Aiacen” mendum typographicum esse credo, non minùs quod “Aiacem” accusativo unâ cum “Aiacen” inflectione in eodem loco invenitur.
I think “Aiacen” is a typo in the passage you refer to because Aiax is third declension, not second, and additionally you have “Aiacem” accusative in the same passage further down.
Apologies I didn’t notice…
I noticed both uses of the accusative ending from the text. I understand that -en is a frequent accusative ending for Greek names in Latin…though it looks odd having -em and -en in the same passage…I was thinking that either is found..
e.g. Anchises, Anchise, Anchisen, Anchisae, Anchisae, Anchisa/e (m)
See the fourth line of http://agoraclass.fltr.ucl.ac.be/concordances/ps_ciceron_ad_Herennius_02/ligne05.cfm?numligne=20&mot=ferumfor another example.
You must be right, then, pmda, and both Ajacen and Ajacem are used. You do have Paridem, Parim and Parin for Paris in the accusative and Periclem, Pariclea and Pariclen for the accusative of Pericles in the 3rd declension (according to A&G §82).
The Loeb edition does, however, give “Causam ostendemus Ulixi fuisse quare interfecerit Aiacem” there. (http://ia600508.us.archive.org/4/items/adcherenniumdera00capluoft/adcherenniumdera00capluoft.pdf)
Tunc rectum dicis: et Ajacen et Ajacem accusativo exstare. Et exstat quidem accusativus tertiae decinationis casus per “n” terminantem cum Paridis et Pericli nominibus (secundum A&G §82).
“Aiacem” ibi autem scribitur in editione de Loeb.