Citing

[ObsequiousNewt]

There is a papyrus, somewhere in Berlin, numbered 9569, and it's the source for Alc.Supp.1-3. How is the papyrus best cited?

[mwh]

P.Berol. 9569 (9569 was the inventory number), normally cited with additional ref. to the first publication: Berliner Klassikertexte [abbreviated BKT] V.2, xii 1.
So: P.Berol. 9569 (Berliner Klassikertexte V.2, xii 1).

Or now it can be cited by its stable online LDAB (Leuven Database of Ancient Books ) number, LDAB 154, or its Trismegistos one, TM 59059. (Trismegistos incorporates and links the LDAB.)
http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=59059

If it’s the note on Alcaeus’ first exile and the plot against Myrsilus you want to refer to, strictly speaking you should add specifically: col.ii marg.

The definitive edition of the papyrus notes is now in the Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris reperta (CLGP) series, I.1.1 Alc. 1. That’s the best form of citation for the marginal notes (not the Alcaeus text itself).

I’m not sure what you mean by Alc.Supp.1-3. More conventional reference would be Alc. 112-114, or for the exile note just Alc. 114 or 114 L-P. (Numeration deriving from Lobel & Page and generally adopted.)

[ObsequiousNewt]

I’m not sure what you mean by Alc.Supp.1-3. More conventional reference would be Alc. 112-114, or for the exile note just Alc. 114 or 114 L-P. (Numeration deriving from Lobel & Page and generally adopted.)

I'm using LSJ citations, so that'd be Diehl's Supplementum Lyricum.

Thanks for the advice.

[mwh]

You shouldn't be citing Diehl but Lobel & Page, as does the LSJ Supplement. It’s been the standard form of reference for the past 60 years.

You'll know of the new Sappho papyri, I trust, enormously important.

[ObsequiousNewt]

I'd been using LSJ off of Perseus (which has "suppl. E. Diehl, Supp. Lyr.3 p. 10.") ... if there's a better way to do it, please enlighten me.

Also, if it's permitted, I'd like to ask, generally: was there any length distinction in pronunciation of ι υ α before two consonants? If there was, why does LSJ never show it, even when it's relevant accentuation-wise? If not, why κεκηρῦχθαι but κεκρύφθαι?

[jeidsath]

Meter is no help in finding vowel length for α ι u followed by two consonants, which is usually how we know about vowels not determined by form or accent.

However, there are some other ways to find out. Dialectical variation or related forms of the word will sometimes tell us. Sometimes the only evidence is the accentual tradition in the manuscripts (which I would guess is what you're seeing here). Some words are specifically mentioned by Herodian, etc. I ran across Δάμων today, where Plutarch mentions that the first α is short in the text.

EDIT:

It turns out that Herodian specifically mentions that the related word is κῆρῠξ.

[jeidsath]

The entries for Κῆρυξ and Υιεύς in the Great Etymologicon discuss the length.

https://archive.org/stream/etymologikon ... 1/mode/1up

But what you're looking for is here (see line 42):

https://archive.org/stream/etymologikon ... 1/mode/1up

[mwh]

A warning, however. The etymologica are not to be trusted on accentuation, scarcely more than on their wild and wacky etymologies. Here we’re told κηρυξ is formed by dropping the –ω of fut. κηρυξω!, and comes from γηρας from γερας. Etc. etc. There was a certain Philoxenus, very influential, who derived all verbs from monosyllables. No kidding. Herodian is better—he was a first-rate grammarian—but not totally reliable. We have better knowledge today, thanks to historical and comparative linguistics. The go-to authority on accentual matters is now Philomen Probert (2 bks, a short version and a long one). She puts the subject on a solid linguistic footing, so that it all makes sense. But a wonderful old book I can't resist mentioning (with a must-read preface, unfortunately not included in the google books version) is A Practical Guide to Greek Accentuation by Henry Chandler, a remarkable scholar. It is what it says, a practical guide, but it makes clear how contradictory and nonsensical some of the accentual prescriptions are.

κηρυξ, -υκος, and cognates always have long υ, except (according to dogma) in the nominative singular. I don’t understand why nom.sing. should be an exception, and suspect that it isn’t. Similarly with Φ/φοινιξ. But I haven’t checked Probert. — I see that this same Etym.Magnum entry (linked by Joel) itself acknowledges that nom.sing. “ought” to have had long υ. Not that I’d set much store by that, even if Herodian lies behind.

ObsequiousNewt: Any given α ι υ will be long or short. υ long in κεκηρυχθαι, short in κεκρυφθαι (cf. perf. act. κεκρυφα short). I think—not quite sure about this—LSJ’s practice is to mark otherwise ambiguous long vowels but not always short ones; except that accented vowels carry no such marking (was it typographically too difficult?). I presume κηρύττω has long υ (not signalled in LSJ).

I'd been using LSJ off of Perseus (which has "suppl. E. Diehl, Supp. Lyr.3 p. 10.") ... if there's a better way to do it, please enlighten me.

A Supplement to LSJ was published in 1968, replaced in 1996 by a Revised Supplement, bound in at the back of more recently printed LSJ's. If it's not online it should be. Anyway, it's what should be used. The Supplement cites Alcaeus (and Sappho) from "E. Lobel, D.L. Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, Oxford 1955 [1968 corr.]", cited in the lexicon as "Alc. .. L.-P." (the two dots standing for the fragment number in question). There have been more recent editions—as well as more subsequently published fragments!!!—but L-P is still the standard form of reference for fragments known before 1968.

The newest Sappho poems are discussed in recent volumes of the Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik—must reading for any classicist. (There, Joel, you will find Martin West at his unostentatious finest.)

[jeidsath]

I will try to get a hold of the ZPE Article, unfortunately locked behind a very expensive subscription wall.

The Internet Archive has the Practical Guide together with the Preface -- which really is brilliant and funny, thank you. I had come across this before (was his proposal ever carried out?).

Regarding κηρυξ -- for anyone confused by the discussion, someone should probably have mentioned (sorry) that the rule is that words accented on the penult are properispomenon when the penult is long and the ultima is short (there are some exceptions, listed in the book above). Hence all the discussion of vowel length and accent as interchangeable.

[ObsequiousNewt]

κηρύσσω has long ῡ in the present, perfect, and aorist/future passive, at least according to Smyth, but LSJ doesn't mark it at all (except perfect κεκήρῡχα), unless the comment on κῆρυξ counts—it doesn't even include forms like κεκηρῦχθαι which leave the length obvious. Similarly, Smyth has ἔθλῑψᾰ (θλίβω), (κᾰτᾰ-)κεκῠ́λῑσμαι and ἐκῠλῑ́σθην (κυλίνδω), πέπνῑγμαι (πνίγω), etc. I did find LSJ had length notes for ῥίπτω, but it said nothing about those other three I listed.

[mwh]

I don't know how ι of κυλίνδω is determined (by inference from κυλίω perhaps?). The rest are straightforward.

[ObsequiousNewt]

But LSJ says nothing, and doesn't give the infinitive form of any of them either, so how am I to tell when Smyth doesn't specify?

[mwh]

θλιβ(ω) and πνιγ(ω) have long ι, as LSJ records, and that will carry through the other forms, unless LSJ indicates otherwise.

If LSJ doesn’t specify the value of ι in κυλινδω (before 2 consonants) that may be because it’s not certainly known. How Smyth thinks he knows, I don’t know.

[jeidsath]

I believe that it is from κυλίω, the Koine simplification with long ι. The forms given in the entry on Smyth pg. 704 all seem to be for that.

[mwh]

That’s what I suggested above, but I wouldn’t infer long ι in κυλίνδω from that, rather the opposite, then compensatory lengthening. (And I don't think I've ever seen κυλεινδρος, the expected spelling if the iota were long.)