Looking at the entry for γιγνομαι in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon:
γιγνομαι, Ion. and dial. γινομαι mid. vb…
What does it mean by dial. which in the Abbreviations section at the front of the book is short for dialect(al)?
Thanks! –Mitch
Looking at the entry for γιγνομαι in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon:
γιγνομαι, Ion. and dial. γινομαι mid. vb…
What does it mean by dial. which in the Abbreviations section at the front of the book is short for dialect(al)?
Thanks! –Mitch
It’s not very precise. It may refer to dialects other than Attic and Ionic (e.g. Aeolic, Doric) and/or to the prevalence of the γιν- spelling from 4th cent. on. Cf. γι(γ)νώσκω.
The big Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon, available online, provides a more precise list of dialect and later forms.
It’s definitely odd to call it dialectal given it seems to end up being the pervasive form in Koine even in really high register writing. My copy of Middle Liddle says “later Greek” rather than dialectal, which seems more correct.
I would guess there are dialectal forms of γίνομαι, just as there are of γινώσκω. (That’s why I said “Cf. γι(γ)νώσκω.”)
Yes, cf. e.g. ἐγείναο (i.e. ἐγίναο) at Callim.Hymn 5.105 in literary Doric. CGL would hardly have called it dialectal if all they meant was koine.
What confused me is that some entries in CGL specifically call out different dialectical forms of certain words using abbriations like Ion. for Ionic, Aeol. for Aeolic and Boeot. for Boeotian and Lac. for Laconian. But dial. seems to just mean “various dialects” and I wondered why they aren’t more specific about which dialects, like in the entry for γι(γ)νώσκω which says:
γι(γ)νώσκω, Ion. and dial. γινώσκω vb.
Why not list which specific dialects besides Ionian in which the form γινώσκω is found?
–Mitch
Because it would take up too much space. Remember it’s a dictionary very sparing of detail (provision of references, i.a.) except in the definitions themselves, where the differentiations are arguably excessive. Maybe one day we’ll get a look at the underlying documentation. (But I doubt it—it was mostly in Diggle’s head.)
Ah, good point, thanks. But IMO the sparcity of detail is what makes CGL more accessible (and useful) to me than LSJ, at least as a (still) relative novice in Classical Greek ![]()
And as for Diggle’s head, would be nice to get in there more for the remaining time it’s still around ![]()