<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The aorist infinitives in -εειν in early Greek epic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Hellenic Studies</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper examines the distribution of thematic infinitive endings in early Greek epic in the context of the long-standing debate about the transmission and development of Homeric epic diction. Ιn Homer we find both Ionic -εῖν and Aeolic -έμεν, the latter mostly occupying the biceps of the fourth or the fifth foot, conforming to the well-known preference for a dactylic word-end before the bucolic dieresis and before the sixth foot. Forms in -έμεν have been viewed either as (1) remnants from the “Αeolic stage” of epic diction, not “ionicized” by Ionian bards, because contracted Ionic -ẹ̄n (&amp;lt; *-ehen) would otherwise fill the biceps, resulting in an undesirable spondaic foot, or as (2) products of secondary “aeolicization”, whereby Aeolic -έμεν from the neighboring tradition was substituted for the metrically inept Ionic -ẹ̄n.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This paper provides a novel argument in favor of the second solution (the “diffusionist” approach), starting from the fact that there are no aorist infinitives in -έμεν in Homer which would scan as υ υ - before a consonant or caesura (e.g. *βαλέμεν): instead we find unexplained forms in -έειν (e.g. βαλέειν). It is argued that this artificial “distraction” should be viewed as an actual analogical innovation, resulting from a proportional analogy to the “liquid futures” in *-ehe/o-:&lt;br&gt; inf. fut. βαλεῖν : βαλέειν = inf. aor. βαλεῖν : Χ, where X is resolved as βαλέειν&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the paper proceeds to argue, the total absence of aoristic -έειν from Hesiod is unlikely to be coincidental: this artificial form must have been a product of specifically East Ionic Kunstsprache (aor. inf. in -έειν are absent from epichoric Ionic) and was unknown in the different Ionian school of epic poetry where Hesiod may have been trained.&lt;br&gt; Returning to the debate about the stages of Homeric epics, this paper argues that the striking avoidance of anapaestic aorist infinitives in -έμεν cannot be adequately explained under the “Aeolic phase” theory: it remains unclear why in the process of Ionicisation an Ionian singer would replace an archaic/foreign form in -έμεν by a form in -έειν which likewise did not belong to his vernacular (e.g. *βαλέμεν δέ → βαλέειν δέ). Artificial forms generated by the preference for dactylic word-end in certain metrical contexts abound, but there are no cases in Homer where an Aeolic form can be suspected to have been replaced by a metrically equivalent artificial form. Under the “diffusionist” approach, however, it can be plausibly supposed that in the cases where contraction of *-ehen to -ẹ̄n distorted the meter, the Ionian singers were nevertheless able to continue employing traditional formulae by replacing the former *-ehen before a consonant (e.g. *βαλέhεν δέ) by a form in -έειν (e.g. βαλέειν δέ), created and embedded in their own poetic tradition. But -έειν could not be used if the resulting form had a cretic shape (*ἐλθέειν - υ - ), and therefore the Ionian singers had to resort to borrowing Aeolic aor. inf. ἐλθέμεν. The “aeolicization” theory is thus able to fully explain the distribution of Aeolic έμεν and Ionic -έειν in Homeric epics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>