44 Charles E. Bennett, 



however, first lost its intervocalic «r (for which Meister com- 

 pares ^povecol already discussed above), becoming iroi and 

 then TTot. It is this latter form which Meister reads in 

 TTol ToiraKO) Coll. 103. This irol, he considers, became still 

 further reduced to tto- in 7To-e')(ofievov for Trot^-ex^o/xevov Coll. 

 60, 19 (cf. Arcadian Troevrco for Troi-evrco). This would 

 remove the necessity of assuming loss of <r in this word, as 

 explained above, l. 



Against this view of Meister's is to be urged 

 i) Assibilation of t in case of ttotl, though naturally to be 

 expected, is not attested by any Greek dialect. We find ttotl 

 in Homer ; *iToat is unknown. 



2) If the form *7roai had originated from ttotl we should 

 expect it to remain *TroaL, since the <r arising in this way is 

 not wont to disappear. Cf. eUoaL (primitive form pcKaTL), 

 (f)d(TL<i (from *(f>dTL'i). 



3) The example, which Meister cites to illustrate the dis- 

 appearance of o- arising from t before i, vi/y. (^povewl, we have 

 already seen above (2) is quite doubtful and opposed to the 

 clear laws of the dialect. Argive ttoI, which Meister cites 

 (relying evidently upon Cauer, Delectus^, 62, 9 and Etym. 

 Mag. 678, 44) is not sufficiently assured. Locrian ttoI tov, 

 which Bechtel defends in Coll. 1479, 14, is taken by Allen 

 {De dialecto Locrensiuvi, p. 67 = Stndien, iii., p. 271) and Roehl, 

 Inscriptiones Graecae Antiqnissiniae, 322, b, 5, as a mistake of 

 the stone-cutter for ttot tov, in which ttot is by apocope for 

 ttotl. Cf. Meyer, Gr. Gr.^ § 299, note. Allen compares 

 Locrian KAITO, which he takes for kcit to. Coll. 1478, 46. 



4) As to the origin of 7Toe)(6fxevov from TToie^op^evov by the 

 disappearance of the i (through the medium of /,), such a 

 change should be accepted cautiously, even were the exist- 

 ence of TTOL proven. We have no instances of the Cyprian 

 treatment of the l {j) developing from the second part of 

 diphthongs (ai, «i, 01, vi) unless perchance <^vJ7] Coll. 126, 3 

 be such an instance. That certainly would not make for 

 Meister's view, but would lead us rather to expect Troje^o- 

 fievov. 



174 



