^{page 38 note 1} ‘Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht’, Museum Helveticum, xii (1955), 61–76. I am indebted to Professor Risch for having read and criticized this article in draft; but on points where this differs from his article the responsibility is mine. I also wish to acknowledge helpful suggestions from Dr. M. Ventris, Dr. F. H. Stubbings, and Mr. R. M. Cook.

^{page 38 note 2} ‘Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Dialekten’, Indogermanische Forschungen, lxi (1954), 147–69.

^{page 38 note 3} “Ελληνος δ' ⋯γένοντο φιλοπτολέμου βασι⋯λς | Δ⋯ρός τε ο⋯θός τε κα⋯ Αἴολος ἱππιοχάρμης (Fr. 7).

^{page 41 note 1} An admirable history of this argument has been provided by Tovar, A., ‘Primitiva extensión geográphica del Jonio’, Emerita, xii (1944), 253–67.Google Scholar He himself defends the view of three invasions.

^{page 41 note 2} vii. 94.

^{page 41 note 3} ii. 37. 3.

^{page 42 note 1} for the sake of clarity this ignores two other possibilities: the presence of an inherent tendency leading to the same change but actualized after the separation of the dialects; and the independent development of the same change in unrelated areas. The latter are characterized by few or single isoglosses; a common origin will be shown by their number.

^{page 43 note 1} Contrary to the traditional view the Doric-Ionic form has recently been proved to be the innovation; see Ruipérez, M. S., ‘Desinencias medias primarias indoeuropeas’, Emerita, xx (1952), 8–31.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} On the dialect see Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J., ‘Evidence for Greek Dialect in the Mycenaean Archives’, J.H.S. lxxiii (1953), 101–3Google Scholar; Chadwick, J., ‘My cenaean: a newly discovered Greek Dialect’, Trans. Phil. Soc., 1954, 1–17Google Scholar; Ruipérez, M. S., Minos, iii (1953), 166–7.Google Scholar I am not able to agree entirely with Pisani, V., ‘Die Entzifferung der ägeischen Linear B Schrift und die griechischen Dialekte’, Rheinisches Museum, xcviii (1955), 1–18Google Scholar, but he too emphasizes the connexion with Ionic.

^{page 44 note 2} We have now abandoned the transcription of Mycenaean spellings into the Greek alphabet; here and elsewhere the first form represents the syllabic trans literation, the second the probable phonetic shape of the word denoted by the spelling.

^{page 45 note 1} The cases in which it appears to be missing are probably due to erroneous etymologies or are otherwise to be explained. But it is not safe to be too definite.

^{page 45 note 2} On this see further Palmer, L. R., Bull. Inst. of Class. Studies London, ii (1955), 30–42.Google Scholar There is also an apparent instance of this confusion before e (in the man's name appearing in the genitive as Qe-re-qo-ta-o, in the dative as Pe-re-qo-ta, if this represents classical τηλε-). Cyprian as well as Aeolic has traces of labialization here.

^{page 46 note 1} Merlingen, W., Bemerkungen zur Sprache von Linear B (Vienna, 1954), 3–5.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} v. 58. 2.

^{page 47 note 1} The possibility that Horn. ποτί is a replacement for Myc. posi does not alter the deduction, for on the older view that Lesb. πρός is original, the only possible origin for ποτί is West Greek, or the mainland Aeolic dialects supposed to be under West Greek influence. The transmission of such an isolated form to Ionia seems most unlikely.

^{page 49 note 1} There is no evidence yet that the Mycenaean (Linear B) script survived the fall of Pylos; the classical Cypriot syllabary appears to be derived from a related but not identical Bronze Age script known as Cypro-Minoan. I remain sceptical of Prof. Wace's view that Linear B continued in use until it was replaced by alphabetic writing, and that the gap is due to the lack of suitable explored sites.

^{page 49 note 2} Odyssey xix. 177

^{page 49 note 3} Hdt. v. 65. 3.

^{page 50 note 1} See Brandenstein, W., ‘Bermerkungen zur Völkertafel in der Genesis’, Festschrift Debrunner (Bern, 1954), 66–70.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} Iliad xiii. 685.