Sounds and Inflections of the Cyprian Dialect. 43 



This change is well assured for other dialects, e.^. Laco- 

 nian ev))/3coah for ivi'j^coaaf? Cslucv, I?e/ectns'^, 17, 15; 'A^?;- 

 '{(TTparoq for ' Ay rj a LcrTpaTo<i 22, 8. The Hesychian glosses 

 KaiviTa, I.e. Kacnyv/^ri] ; craa/jia, i.e. (rrjcraixri ; I'fjiaov • irdra^ov, 

 and others, given as Cyprian, also point to the change in 

 question, at least for some period of the Cyprian dialect. 

 But the reading in the two instances claimed by Deecke can- 

 not be regarded as certain, especially in view of the numer- 

 ous difficulties of the context ; see pp. 2, 3. Moreover, the 

 prevailing usage of the dialect in all other cases is to retain the 

 <r arising secondarily by assibilation of t, such as we have in 

 (j)pov6a>aL and hi[X(ticroi<i, e.g. e^jSaai^ 31, 2; e^o{v)aL 60, 31 

 (the {v) not absolutely certain). Cf. also Kaaiyvriro<i 60, 14; 

 /3acn\€v<i 17, I- 



It is, therefore, impossible from existing inscriptions to 

 admit the existence of any such change of o- to the spiritus, 

 as is insisted upon by Deecke. The glosses given by Hesy- 

 chius are doubtless to be referred to a much later period 

 than that to which our inscriptions belong. Cf. the parallel 

 case of the Laconian glosses exhibiting rhotacism cited by 

 Hesychius, /Sovayop (i.e. ^ouayo^), yoivop {i.e. ywvo^). Yet 

 this change is not attested by a single pre-Christian inscription. 

 See Mullensiefen, Be Titnlonun Laconicornvi Dialecto, p. 54 f. 



3. Meister in the Berl. Phil. JVoch., 1885, No. 51, col. 1604 

 (cf Baunack, Die InscJirift von Gortyn, p. 23), seeks by cir- 

 cuitous combinations to explain another word on the above 

 principle of ' for o-, t//^'. ttoI in Trot TmraKO), von deni Ohren- 

 kranken., his proposed reading of Coll. 103. This prepo- 

 sition TToi he explains as follows. From primitive Greek 

 iroTi arose in the Arcado-Cyprian dialect ^Troai by assibila- 

 tion. Before vowels this appeared as tto?, e.g. Arcadian 

 iroaoSo'i Coll. 1222, 9. After the separation of the Arcadian 

 and Cyprian, tto? in Arcadian excluded its sister form ^iroal, 

 and we accordingly find tto^ alone; e.g. 7ro<i rau 1222, 54; 

 iroa-KaTu^Xd-^T) 1222, 38. But Trocri, and tto? were both 

 retained in Cyprian. The latter occurs in tto? %6ppo{v) Coll. 

 60, 19; TTO? rdv 60, 19; TTO? Uaaayopav 60, 21 ; *7roai, 



173 



