Is there precedent in the Peloponnesian dialects of the classical era for the morphology of ἐποῖκαν? Or is it simply a later analogous development along the lines of ἔδωκαν?
At this stage of the language, or in this dialect region, was there an actual difference in meaning between this tense of ἐποῖκαν and the ἐποίησαν, which is found in say section '180?
κι ἀφότου εὐλογήθησαν κ᾿ ἐποίησαν τὴν χαράν τους,
τὰ κάτεργα τοῦ βασιλέως ἐστράφησαν στὴν Πόλιν.
I never did reply to this, but the -k- aorist does turn out to be quite common in Modern Peloponnesian dialect, particularly Mani. Its origins are indeed analogical, and I’d have thought ἔδωκα a more plausible origin than πεποίηκα, because the perfect active died out so much earlier.
Early Modern Greek texts are astonishingly macaronic not only between archaic and vernacular morphology, but also between Modern dialects. (This is something that also occurs in much more recent Modern folk song, and has led Hans Eideneier to postulate a Dichter-Koine for Early Modern Greek, a conventional bardic language that eclectically drew on various dialects.) There’s no reason at all to assume a linguistic difference between ἐποῖκαν and ἐποίησαν.
