Yes a difficult exercise but a good one, though no-one could blame you for getting stuck on these particular forms. Don’t be fooled by Qimmik’s “very learned,” by the way. I’m a rank amateur at this sort of thing, and too lazy to check up on anything I write here, which could be quite off the mark. Others may have more authoritative explanations.
But to follow up on the irrelevant dat./gen. question and what West says about it, since it does have bearing on the reliability of the medievally transmitted Homeric text and on West’s editing principles, so fundamentally different from van Thiel’s. He makes the point that after κλῦθι or κέκλυτε variation between μευ and μοι is frequent (sc. in the manuscript tradition), but “it’s not credible that the poet said now this now the other.” “If you prefer the genitive, it should be written μευ or rather με’” (i.e. elided μεο), he continues (gratuitously: he already covered this at xxii). But he argues for the dative since it seems to be the older construction and was liable to displacement by the ordinary genitive. He adds some bibliography, incl. Meier-Brügger.
The argument seems to me a good one, if one buys into desiderating Homeric consistency, which I’m not sure I do. The ancient manuscripts here and elsewhere tend strongly to support the dative, it seems (West gives refs to this passage and also A451 E115 K278 and T101). That’s what I’d build a case on; the fact that the later manuscripts give the ordinary genitive counts for less. And I note that the Odyssey scholia seem consistently to have read μοι. On the other side is the scholium on this Iliad passage (West’s “sch”, not connected with the papyrus but transmitted in a few medieval manuscripts), which explicitly prescribes genitive not dative (hence μοι “deprec(avit) sch”), and neatly adduces τοῦ δ’ ἔκλυε in verse 40 in validation. It’s one of the bT or so-called “exegetical” scholia, though it reads more like an Aristarchan one, being text-critical in nature (hence West’s “sch (Ar?)”, no doubt). If it is in fact an “exegetical” scholium it could well be taking tacit issue with an Aristarchan preference for the dative, a preference overridden by the tradition as with so many of Aristarchus’ preferences, while if it is in fact Aristarchan then his (mistaken?) preference for the genitive eventually prevailed. It would be in line with Aristachus’ critical practice if he took τοῦ δ’ ἔκλυε as dictating the analogous genitive with κλῦθι.
“r” will be for “recentior”, i.e. a late manuscript not normally cited. (“rr” is standard for “recentiores.”) Pretty worthless, but evidencing the non-universality of the genitive in medieval times.
w44 is a quotation in a papyrus of magic, tt are the testimonia (listed in West’s upper register), Z is a 9th-cent. manuscript of an earlier Homeric glossary (the so-called “scholia minora,” also known as the D-scholia [though nothing to do with the manuscript labelled D]). Ω, all-important, is a shorthand designation of the consensus of all the main medieval manuscripts of the poem (from 10th cent. on).
EDIT. This posted before I saw Paul’s latest. Yes we have to bring δαμαᾳ into this. But how? Would that be diectasis from δαμᾷ rather than the reverse (contraction)? Gotta go.
(Dare I say mumpsimus?)