20 Charles E. Bennett, 



for not taking them as ending in -di is found in the corre- 

 sponding forms from -o- stems; e.g. ep'^oi Coll. 1222, 49; 

 i]fXi(Taoi 1222, 25. These latter must necessarily be regarded 

 as locatives (to explain them as datives, with -oi shortened 

 from -wi is against all principles of Greek phonology), and so 

 after the same analogy the forms from -d- stems are most 

 naturally taken as locative, and as ending in -at,. A confir- 

 mation of this view is found in the similar Boeotian forms 

 from -o- and -d- stems ; e.g. hdfiv {i.e. Sd/xoi) Coll. 380, 3 ; 

 ra/iiiT] {i.e. rafiidi) Coll. 385* 5- 



The above considerations, therefore, are not intended to 

 show the incorrectness of Spitzer's conclusion in regard to 

 the Arcadian forms in -di, but simply the unsafeness of his 

 method in reaching that conclusion. The same theory {vi:j. 

 that -di cannot stand in Arcadian) applied to the closely 

 related Cyprian dialect, as Spitzer {ibid., p. 26) does apply it, 

 leads to a false conclusion. Let us first look at the facts. 

 We find in Cyprian the following dative forms : — 



i) forms in -ai (whether -di or -ai is to be determined). 



Tvyai d^addt CoLL. 37, 3 ; 59-4 5 '' A\a{/ji)'7rp(j drai 60, 8 ; 

 dpovpai 60, 20; W(j)poBiTai I, 3 ; ToXyiai, 61 ; ^dc 60, 8, 1 7, 

 24 ; MaXavijuL 60, 1 7 ; /J'd)^ai 60, 3 ; Ua(f)LaL 1,3; TreSljai 

 60, 18 ; Uepaevrai 45, 3 ; rat, 1,2; 40, 2 ; 60, 3, 6, 8 (twice), 

 17 (twice), 18, 24; 61 (twice) ; 62, i ; rv^ai, 17, 2 ; 27, 2 ; 28; 

 31, 4; 33, 2 ; 37, 3 ; 72, 2 ; Ber/. Phil. Woch., 1886, No. 42, 

 col. 1323; 1887, No. 12, col. 380; 'TXdrai Coll. 27, i ; 28 ; 

 31,4; 32, 2 ; 'AddvuL 17, 2; 'AXaaicorai Bei'l. Phil. WocJi., 

 1887, No. 12, col. 380; ' ApLcnar^opai ibid., 1887, No. 52, col. 

 1644; hojdi, Deecke's earlier reading in Coll. 41, is now no 

 longer maintained by him. (See Bess. Beitr., xi., p. 317.) 



2) forms in -d. 



'AOdva Coll. 62 ; rv)(a 74, 3 ; 120, 4 ; ra 17, 2 ; 60, 8, 17; 

 62, I ; Ta Tla^ia, the correct reading of Coll. 9, according to 

 Hall {your. Am. Or. Soc., xi., p. 212). eh^caXd 27, 2 is best 

 taken as nominative; 'EreoSaV* Coll. 135, which Deecke 

 {ad loc.) says may be taken as either dat. or gen. (with 

 omitted -s ; see § 20, i) is best taken as vocative; oaeja, 



150 



