What was the accepted form for pluperfect of φέρω?
We have 2nd perfect ἐνήνοχα. But I cannot find anywhere ἐνηνόχη or ἠνηνόχη for plup.
I was able to find the later personal endings: ἐνηνόχεις, ἐνηνόχει but ἠνηνόχειν.
Thanks.
I searched as well and couldn’t find any forms, so the answer to your question is that nobody can know for sure. That’s the problem with rarer forms – in fact I’ve read that there’s not a single Greek verb that’s attested in all its forms and I searched for pluperfect forms of λύω, one of the usual textbooks verbs and only found ἐλελύκει.
About the augment I believe it would be ἐνηνόχη. You can check out Smyth 444 - 446 and see if you understand it better than I do, but that’s the impression I get.
Many thanks, modus. From those sections and section 529, it seems you were right and that it should be ἐνηνόχη, by “Attic” reduplication
plus vowel gradation in the second perfect to ο (and in the aorist syncope). Can you please explain why is it χ and not κ? if the stem already
ends in kappa, what prompted a morphological change to xi?
These “aspirated perfects” are of the unresolved issues in the history of Greek and as far as I know there’s no widely accepted explanation for where they came from.
Modus wrote:
These “aspirated perfects” are of the unresolved issues in the history of Greek and as far as I know there’s no widely accepted explanation for where they came from.
χαιρετε φιλοι.
How about, “formed on analogy with the aorist passive?” 
χαῖρε, ὦ Μᾶρκε. That may very well be a possibility.
I was wondering if there was any difference in meaning between the 1st Aor. ἤνεγκα and the 2nd Aor. ἤνεγκον.
Smyth doesn’t say much other than listing these two forms. LSJ, however, has a long morphology section
listing the different roots used in Attic, Ionic, etc. and he referenced the forms that were commonly used for the aorist.
2sg. always “ἤνεγκας” [but theoretically, when I create a table, if I chose to use 2nd aor., it’s ok to put ἤνεγκες, right?]
pl. always ἠνέγκαμεν, -ατε, -αν [same as above?]
2 sets of Aorist conjugations mean throughout incl. inf./part./subj./opt./imp., correct?
I’m very confident in saying no. In those cases where alternate forms have a difference in meaning (e.g. πέποιθα vs. πέπεικα) it’s always explicitly mentioned in the entry.
[but theoretically, when I create a table, if I chose to use 2nd aor., it’s ok to put ἤνεγκες, right?]
I searched the TLG and there are two (late) attestations of ἤνεγκες so I don’t think it can be considered wrong.
2 sets of Aorist conjugations mean throughout incl. inf./part./subj./opt./imp., correct?
In theory, yes. But Ancient Greek wouldn’t be different from modern languages, so I’d assume that some forms would be preferred – and probably in a way that’s hard to predict.