174 Walter Petersen, 



other classes, either because the class referred to falls far below 

 the average size of objects, e. g, ao-TspiT/.oc ' a little star' because 

 a star appears like a mere dot, or because the class is contrasted 

 with other definite classes. So e. g. [jxipaxiT/.o; ' a young lad,' by 

 contrast to adults, or *7ya[j.7:oBi(r/wOc ' a little low bed ' in contrast 

 to larger beds, and perhaps o-TpouQiT/wO; ' a little sparrow ' in con- 

 trast to larger birds. 



58. The diminutive use of -ktao-, though more productive than 

 the deteriorative, can scarcely be said to have been as characteristic 

 as its use to denote similarity, and there are scarcely more than 

 half as many appellatives in which the idea of small size is prob- 

 ably dominant. These belong to all periods, however, and already 

 Hipponax has a number of certain diminutives in -loxo-, while 

 others belong to the later Classical and post-Classical periods. 



59. As to the variety of ' diminutive ' shadings, there is a differ- 

 ence between -lavio- and -lov in as much as the former is applied 

 only to words of the most concrete kind, i. e. words representing 

 visible or tangible objects of a distinct individuality. ^ There is 

 no example of a word in -ktxo- designating a small quantity, as 

 e. g. in -lov (rapxiov ' a Httle piece of flesh,' no word applying 

 purely to the realm of sound, as cpwviov ' a slender sound,' no 

 diminutive of a primarily abstract word, like Py]/jov ' a little cough- 

 ing fit,' a(7[xaTtov ' a little song,' or B-coTrsu^dcTiov ' a little piece of 

 flattery.' 



60. Within the narrower sphere of the use of -taxo- thus de- 

 scribed it is very much like -lov, and the two suffixes no doubt 

 influenced each other in their finer shades of meaning. And aside 

 from this the nature of the primitive to which -lav-o- is applied 

 caused similar modifications as for -lov, and the pattern types, 

 even though dating back to I. E. -ko-, must have brought with 

 them other ideas besides small size, e. g. youth. Thus TCTspt- 

 oy.ov (§ 56) was something that was not only too small, but also 

 too young and too soft and downy to really deserve the name 

 ' feather.' These finer shades will be largely brought out by dis- 

 tributing the diminutives into congeneric groups, to which I shall 

 subordinate the really more fundamental difference betw^een di- 

 minutives designating an individual as small compared to the 

 normal of its class (designated A under each congeneric group) and 

 diminutives designating an object as belonging to a small class 

 (designated B). 



^ The same can be said of the suffix in all of its uses. There are no ab- 

 stracts nor collectives nor words designating quantity. Cf. Janson, op. cit.19. 



