Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T04:28:23.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , September 1911 , pp. 170 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1911

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A fair search gave, among many cases of κα⋯ x γε ye, the following of κα⋯ xy γε: Soph. Ai. 1123; Eurip. Ion 1415, Elec. 986, Rhesus 481, Herac. 683, Andr. 244, Bacch. 488. 937, Phoen. 601, Orest. 784, I.A. 894, Cyc. 573.684; Aristoph. Eq. 422. 716. 942, Nub. 1068, Vesp. 201. 1003. 1139, Pax 625. 913. 979, Av. 949, Lysistr. 88. 516. 572, Ran. 70. 80. 695, Eccl. 54. 445. Of these some are simply not to the point: κα⋯= ‘both,’ ‘even,’ etc. In very many the two words are one, e.g. . I omit cases of Aristophanic .… In all cases where κα⋯…γε is not accidental, I submit that 4. infra holds good.