Sounds and Inflections of the Cyprian Dialect. 35 



6^, I ; abbreviated to pa- 154; favda{a)a^ '^S, 4; 39, 2 ; 40, 

 I ; peiKova 76, 2 ; peirija (ctto?) 60, 26 ; firei 59, i ; 60, I ; 

 pol {i.e. apoT) 59, 3 ; 60, 29 ; poiiccoi 60, 6 ; foiVo) 73, i ; ppi'/rwi 

 (cf. pp}]Tpa) 60, 28, 29; pavda{a)a<i Bess. Beitr., \i., p. 315; 

 316. 



The only exceptions are amo-(cr)a9 Coll. 33, i ; eVei 'jG, i ; 

 /jt'^o) (doubtful) 150. The absence of initial f in eXet Coll. 

 60, 9, furnishes clear evidence, in view of its retention else- 

 where in the same inscription, that the word has no etymo- 

 logical connection with Lat. vallis, as still maintained by 

 Curtius, Grnndsiige der GriccJiischen Etymologic,^ p. 360. 



Medial p is also regularly retained, always in the Bronze 

 Tablet. The instances are : alpei Coll. 60, 3 1 ; a\pw 60, 9, 

 18, 21 {cf. the Hesychian gloss akova ' kPjttoi, Kvirpioi, where 

 ou is used to represent the bilabial character of Cyprian f (see 

 § 13, i) ; ^aaiXripo^ 39, I ; 46 ; 47 ; 59, I ; 60, 6, 8, 17 ; 153 ; 

 154; 176; 177; 178; 179; Atp€i6efj,i<; 60, 21; hopevat 60, 5, 

 15 ; eppe^a 71 ; eppr^rda-aTV 60, 14 ; '¥jrepd{v)Zp(i) 46 ; 67 ; evpep- 

 yecria^ 71; evppr^TdcraTV 60, 4; 'HSaXt^e? 60, 2; S6ppo{v) 

 60, 19; leprjpo'; I, i; KurepopKcov {cf. Hom. {p)epKO<i) 60, i; 

 Kevevpov {i.e. Kevepov ; see § 13, i) 20, 2; vepoaruTa'^ 59, 2; 

 NLKOK\eprj<i 40; NtKO/cXe'po^ 179; Oi'/rwt 60, 14; 'OvaaipoLKO^ 

 27, 183; SraaipoLKO<; 193; 27; 183 ; Ti/xopcopco 143; Tt/io- 

 /cXe/reo? 36; 64; 'Apiaropdva^ Bcrl. Phil. Woch., 1886, No. 

 41, xii. ; 'Apta-TOKXeprj^ Berl. Phil. Woch., 1884, No. 21; 

 Tifx.opdvaKTo<; ibid. ; ^OvacjipoUw Berl. Phil. Woch., 1887, No. 

 52, col. 1644; NtKOKXepv^ Bess. Beitr., xi., p. 315; p. 316; 

 e/re|^e ((/! Lat. z;^/?^) Stndia Nicolaitana, p. 67 ; /^//ra (= t,waa ; 

 <^ /3t(f)o9, Lat. -z/zWi-) Prellwitz's reading of Coll. 134 (see 

 Bess. Beitr., ix., p. 172). 



'KpiaroKopcov, Deecke's reading in Coll. 45, i, is not cer- 

 tain. Hall {Jour. Am. Or. Soe., xi., p. 216) after a fresh 

 examination of the inscription in New York reads 'Apta-roycov ; 

 but this does not seem possible, judging from the copy of 

 the inscription given by Schmidt {Sammlung Kyprischer /v- 

 scJiriften, xx., 6 a). 



Si^dpco Coll. 70 is extremely doubtful. 



165 



