40 Charles E. Bennett, 



of Coll. 41, 3 {Bcrl. Phil. Woch., 1887, No. 52, col. 1644) is 

 very improbable. 



2. Besides this- parasitic j we also find j in the proper 

 names Aajariaao Coll. 58, which Deecke suggests may be 

 for Aairlaao. But this is purely conjectural. Aaja(f)a<; and 

 "A/apo? Coll. 31, i ; 32, i, which Deecke previously took in 

 the same way, are now read by him Be^s. Beitr., xi., p. 319, as 

 Tap/3a9 and dp'^o'?. 



3. Deecke's reading Upejijav in Coll. 60, 20 makes diffi- 

 culty by the presence of the first j. This might possibly be 

 taken as indicating merely that the e and i were spoken sepa- 

 rately, i.e. as ii. But ei elsewhere in the same inscription is 

 not so written, vis. in eXei, line 9 ; peTet, line i ; and it seems 

 to me better on the whole to write lepy'ijijav and to consider 

 the Tj as developed from €, just as in case of the Doric adjec- 

 tives in -77^09 for -€ios (see Meyer, Gr. Gi'.^ § 6"]) ; e.g. Cretan 

 irpvTav/fiov GIG. 2554, 51 ; Delphian lapt^a CIG. 1688, 14 ; and 

 the Ionic substantives akrjdrjtrj, fiavrrjtr]. Cf. also Boeotian 

 fxavTeiia {i.e. /xavTrjia) Coll. 494, 2. 



Cyprian Upyijijav is identical with these formations except 

 that it retains the j, which in the other dialects disappears in 

 the preceding i^ ; or, we may assume that a new j has devel- 

 oped between r^ and following i. 



4. 'HSa\t%'i (Deecke writes -eji) Coll. 60, 3 1 is still more 

 perplexing. We should have expected here 'HSaXtf//ri, dat. 

 sing, of 'HSa\teu9 ; cf. 'll8a\Li]f:€<i Coll. 60, 2 ; Keriijpef; 

 60, I. The form 'HSaXwy't cannot be derived from 'HSaXifjpt 

 by any phonetic process, nor can I see any plausible explana- 

 tion of its origin by association or analogy. 



5. Change from i to j before a vowel has been assumed by 

 Deecke in case of the diphthongs a, 01, vi in oaeja for ocreia 

 {i.e. oaidi) CoLL. 41, 3 ; hojat (for Sotdi) 41, 3 ; <f)vj'y] (for 

 (j)ut7]) 126, 3. The two former of these examples are no 

 longer maintained by Deecke (see Besz. Beitr., xi., p. 317), 

 and the last one, (fyvjtj, is not by any means certain in its 

 reading. 



I believe therefore that we are not as yet justified in claim- 



170 



