No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
An application of the method used by M. Meillet (Mem. Soc. Ling. XIX. p. 181) to the variation οἲχομαι: οίχνέω indicates that this verb probably had non-thematic inflexion at one time. From these two forms we can abstract a stem οίχ- which may be added to M. Meillet's list of presents with o vocalization. The meaning of οἵχομαι(οἲχʵται ‘he has gone away’) has been arrived at by a series of changes which can still be observed. As Buttmann (Sprachlehre II. p. 252) showed, οἲχομαι originally meant ‘to go’ without the notion ‘away’ (‘das eigentliche gehn, ohne den Begriff fort’). In confirmation of this he points to ⋯ποίχομαι (he might have added προσοίχομαι Pind.) and II. E 495: κατ⋯ στρατὐν ᾤχετο πάντη 'Οτρύνων μαχέσαθαι A53: ⋯νν⋯μαρ μ⋯ν στρατ⋯ν ᾣχετο κ⋯λα θεοῖο. He seems right also in his assertion that the use of the present form οἲχεται in a perfect sense (‘he has gone’) is secondary and derived from οἲχεται ‘there he goes.’ The o grade of οἲχομαι has therefore nothing to do with the o grade of the Indo-Eur. perfect, but must be grouped with that of βόλομαι, ὂρομαι and the rest.
page 45 note 1 These seem to belong to a different root, cf. Buttmann, , Lexil. I. p. 101 sqqGoogle Scholar.
page 45 note 2 Bibliography in Brugmann, , Grundriss 2, II. I. pp. 47 sqq.Google Scholar; II. 3. pp. 65 sqq.
page 46 note 1 Hence παρέρπην in inscription of Lycosura (Thumb, Dial. p. 271) is not a sign of Doric κοινἠ.
page 46 note 2 Like ἕρχομαι, στείχω and ἓρπω are restricted mainly to the present stem
page 46 note 3 On the principle see Gauthiot, , La fin de mot en indo-européen, pp. 66 sqq.Google Scholar, who refers to Meillet, , MSL. XI. p. 16, XIII. p. 357Google Scholar ; Wackernagel, , Göttinger Nachrichten, 1906, pp. 147 sqq.Google Scholar; , E. and Marouzeau, J., Divyāvadāna (Mélanges S. Lévi, pp. 151 sqq.)Google Scholar.
page 47 note 1 Possibly 'Eξαίγρετος is itself older than έξαίρετος, and arises from a combination of the first part of ἔξαι-τος with the second part of ά-Υρετός.
page 47 note 2 Since writing this I perceive that Wackernagel (Glotta VII. p. 291 n. 1) has suggested that σκήπτεσθαι became σκηρίπτεσθαι under the influence of Bechtel's *στηρίπτεσθαι. But the πτ of this last form remains unintelligible. Σκήπτεσθαι and στηρίξασθαι (έστήρικτο) are sufficient to explain σκηρίπτομαι.
page 48 note 1 The accent at any rate, if correct, is an objection to Solmsen's view that προσαιτητής became προσαίτης by haplolgy. objection to Solmsen's view that προσ႖τητής