^{page 374 note 1} If legimini = λεγμεναι.

^{page 375 note 1} Mr. Marindin writes to me that he regards τν κρυκα as an acc. of reference, the noun being taken out of its sentence : he compares Av. 651, : he compares also οῖδ σε τς εῖ, &c. : the sentence is then equivalent to δεινν γ' στν εἰ δ κρνξ κ.τ.λ. I do not find this inconsistent with the above, since this very acc. of reference would seem to be in its nature exclamatory.

^{page 375 note 2} The acc. after ν and μ and in oaths without these particles is of a similar nature. So also the phrases, .

^{page 377 note 1} The ablatival inff. in Sanskrit after purā, ā, &c, essentially identical with this, prove the great antiquity of the construction.

^{page 379 note 1} Not however to be confused with aposiopesis.

^{page 381 note 1} After a verb meaning ‘ explain ’ the optative might be again exact ; hence perhaps the use after ‘ say. ’

^{page 381 note 2} Cf. τς λγοι ; Goodwin, § 242.

^{page 382 note 1} The reporter in fact corresponds to the character in the drama, who when A says to B ‘ You hare insulted me ’ repeats with a glance at the audience ‘ He has insulted him,’ meaning that A says B has insulted him.