38 Charles E. Bennett, 



Spitzer assumes that the spelhng with f was retained in these 

 and similar words, as an archaism, even after the had lost 

 its sound. Cf. in Latin the retention of C as G in Cajiis, 

 Cuaeus, long after C had assumed the sound of K. So in 

 Cyprian he believes that /3acnXi]po<i etc. continued to be 

 written, even after /3aaL\i]o<; began to be spoken, and that 

 after this analogy Ti./xo^dpii:o^ and Kv7rpoKpdTipo<i arose, 

 though Tifj,oxdpio<; and Kv7rpoKpdTio<; were spoken, the f 

 being superfluous. 



This view of Spitzer has much to commend it, especially 

 the fact that one of the inscriptions in which Tiij,o^dpifo<? 

 occurs (Coll. 39) belongs clearly to the transition period 

 when f was beginning to disappear (at least in the vicinity of 

 Paphos), as is evinced by the form lep7]o<; beside Favda(a)a<i 

 and ^aaiXripo^. Cf. also Coll. 38 and 40. This period of 

 uncertainty in the employment of p would furnish just the 

 conditions for the rise of forms like KvTrpoKpdrLfro'i and Tifio- 

 Xdpipo'i. 



UpcoTifo^ Bed. PJiil. JFoc/i., 1887, No. 12, col. 379, if cor- 

 rect, is to be explained in the same way. So also the second 

 f of EvFd{v)6efo^ (for E i}/ra(f )^609, nom. l^Vfd(v)6r]<i) Coll. 

 161, were the reading at all certain. 



18. 



J- 



1. Between i and a following a, € or i, a semi-vocalic i 

 has frequently been developed, which is generally written J. 

 This is often called the parasitic j. The instances are the 

 following : — 



a) j between i and a. 



^AXa{jji)7rpijdTai CoLL. 60, 8; ^A/xrjvija 60, 18 ; d{v)Spt- 

 jd{v)Tav {cf. Att. dvSpid'i) 59, 2; dvoaija 60, 29; 'Apiarijav 

 20, I ; dreXija (Ion. cLTeXea) 60, 23 ; Aijatdefit 74, I ; peTrija 

 (Ion. peirea) 60, 26 ; leprjjijav 60, 20 ; ijdaOai 60, 3 ; IjarPipav 

 60, 3; MaXavi'jai 60, 17; Mi\fcijd6ci)vo<; 59, i; Ila^ija<; 15, i; 

 Tla(jiija{v) 69; irehijai 60, 18; Sraai'ja^ 18; Sraaijav 17, I ; 



168 



