464 Miscellanea / R.

Domínguez Casado / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 464-470

On Cyrenaean Middle Participles in -είμενος*)

0. Facts1)
In some Cyrenaean inscriptions we meet middle participles in -είμενος in the -έω
verbs. These forms are the following: χρειμένος (acc.pl.) in the Great Sacred Law2)
(Cyrene, 4th c. BC); ποιείμενος in SEG 26.1817 lines 8, 13 and 18 (Arsinoe, end
2nd-1st half 1st c. BC); προθυμείμενος in the same inscription, in lines 49-50;
πολιορκειμένας in SEG 28.1540.7 (Berenike, 62-61 BC), and προαιρείμενος in
the same inscription, in line 38.

1. Striano Corrochano’s Explanation

Until now only Striano Corrochano (1989) has taken into account all the parti-
ciples and not only the form χρειμένος in her explanation.3) Before her the tradi-
tional explanation was that this participle was a form of the dialect of Delphos,

*) I would like to thank Catherine Dobias-Lalou for some very helpful comments on an
earlier version of this paper, and Katerina Trassi and Theodora Panopoulou for revising
my English.
1)
I accent Greek words in the Attic way.
2)
= SEG 9.72.3.
3)
In the monograph on the Cyrenaean dialect by Lonati (1990) we do not find any expla-
nation about the origin of these participles in -είμενος. Lonati (1990, 36) only points out
that these participles have a NW origin, but she does not explain how they have arrived in
Cyrenaica. In the monograph by Dobias-Lalou (2000) there is also no satisfactory explana-
tion of the Cyrenaean participles in -είμενος: Dobias-Lalou (2000, 147-8) only mentions
possibilities that in her opinion do not explain the phenomenon. Firstly she believes that
all participles must be explained in the same way and, hence, the form χρειμένος cannot be
the explanation of the other participles understanding these as a visual memory of the first
one. Secondly she also rejects the possibility of koinê influence on the Cyrenaean dialect
through the following analogy: *ποιεύμενος → ποιείμενος, parallel to feminine ποιεῖσα by
analogy to koinê ποιούμενος: ποιοῦσα. The forms in this kind of analogy do not have any
logical connection between them: how could the declension of a participle in -οῦσα have
influence on a participle in -όμενος? Moreover the grapheme <ΟΥ> of koinê ποιοῦσα is not
a real diphthong (!). Thirdly Dobias-Lalou also rejects a potential influence of the Cyre-
naean participle ποιεῖσα on *ποιεύμενος only by the fact that both of them have a diph-
thong in the same syllable. Finally she implies that the case of the Cyrenaean participles
in -είμενος might be explained by a connection between the conjugation in -έω and the
one in -ημι.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/156852511X548009
 Miscellanea / R. Domínguez Casado / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 464-470 465

from the original text of the oracle sent to Cyrene, as in the first commentators of
the Great Sacred Law, like Devoto 1958, 277,4) and in Thumb-Kieckers 1932,
§148.15a. The other forms ποιείμενος, προθυμείμενος, πολιορκειμένας and
προαιρείμενος were not known to these first commentators.
Striano Corrochano rules out the possibility of χρειμένος as a Delphic form
because of the other testimonies. In this way she prefers to explain all forms in the
framework of the Cyrenaean dialect. So, Striano proposes that all these Cyrenaean
participles must be explained from -eémenos (< -eómenos). This replacement of
-eómenos by -eémenos can be understood only as an analogical generalization of the
e-grade thematic vowel in the -έω verbs paradigm from the forms that had origi-
nally this e-grade thematic vowel (that is from forms like ποιεῖς, ποιεῖ, ποιεῖν,
ποιεῖται, . . .) in forms that originally had an o-grade thematic vowel, namely in
middle voice participles and maybe in the 1st sg. and pl.
However there is a problem: the regular result of e + e in Cyrenaean is /ε:/, writ-
ten as <Η>. From the point of view of Striano, the use of <ΕΙ> in all these Cyre-
naean middle voice participles is a graphic incongruity due to the progressive
penetration of the koinê 5) in the Cyrenaic dialect from the end of the third century
BC. In this way she explains π]οεῖσες and ἐνίκει, from SEG 9.72 in lines 9 and
50 respectively, and the form προδιασάφεισιν (instead of προδιασάφησιν) in
SEG 26.1817.27-8. In the same way the form ζηλόμενος (instead of δηλώμενος)
in the last inscription (l. 41) must be explained.

2. Difficulties in Striano Corrochano’s Explanation

Nevertheless there are some problems in Striano’s explanation. Firstly she does not
explain which was the motivation of the analogical generalization of the e-grade
vowel to middle voice participles: wasn’t there anything that caused the spreading
of the e-grade thematic vowel?
Secondly the examples she uses to prove the linguistic phenomenon /ε:/ > /e:/ in
Cyrenaean are wrong. The form π]οεῖσες from SEG 9.72.9 that she mentions,
must be replaced by ἐ]ρεῖσες according to the most recent edition of this inscrip-
tion by Dobias-Lalou (2000, 296-309).6) From the same inscription Striano quotes
the form ἐνίκει, but we can interpret it as an archaic subjunctive with short vowel.7)
About the form προδιασάφεισιν that appears in SEG 26.1817 we must say that

4)
Apud Lonati 1990, 36.
5)
Since in koinê there was a loss of vocalic quantity.
6)
Maas’ reading.
7)
As interpreted in Lonati 1990, 207 and in Dobias-Lalou 2000, 127.
466 Miscellanea / R. Domínguez Casado / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 464-470

it is not an acc. sg., but a 3rd pl. verbal form.8) So the form προδιασαφεῖσιν9) is
really very strange as we should interpret it as a form with the koinê assibilation of
*-ti and with dialectal solution of the secondary group *-ns-, because we can only
interpret the digraph <ΕΙ> as a real diphthong /ej/. The text of the inscription is
full of koinê features together with dialectal ones,10) but it is very strange that a
word simultaneously has a koinê feature as the assibilation of -ti and a dialectal one
as the diphthong resulting from the secondary consonantal group -ns-. We should
expect either προδιασαφοῦσιν or προδιασαφέντι: the latter form is the reading of
Dobias-Lalou (2000, 41, 62, 145).11) In addition, ζηλόμενος12) does not prove
anything because it comes from δήλομαι, not from δηλόω.13)

8)
The whole text (lines 26-8) runs as follows in the edition by Moretti (1976): καθὼς
αἱ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις | τόποις τιμαὶ αὐτῶ προδιασάφει|σ̣ ιν α̣ ἰτ̣ έ[ντων] τῶν
στραταγῶν.
9)
Accentuated as a verb.
10)
Thus we find in the text of Moretti some contradictory forms like the following:
forms with apocopated preverbs like ἀνθέμεν (l. 67) in contrast to non-apocopated ones
like συναναστρο|[φ]ήν (l. 13-4) and ἀνατεινομέναν (l. 47); a dialectal i-stem genitive
πόλιος (l. 9) in contrast to a koinê genitive α[ἱρ]έσεως (l. 17) and dialectal forms without
compensatory lengthening after loss of nasal in final *-ns like τὸς ὄχλος (l. 12), ἐς (l. 22,
32, 60, 69), τὸς ἀγαθός (l. 55) in contrast to forms with mitior type of compensatory
lengthening like συνεπιδιδούς (l. 18). Other dialectal features of the inscription are: geni-
tives in -ω of the o-stem in τῶ ἰδίω (l. 14), τῶ πολέ|μω (l. 21-2), αὐτῶ (l. 27), τῶ σίτω
(l. 34 and 47), τῶ καιρῶ (l. 39), Σωσιστράτω (l. 64, 71); /a:/ from [a: + –:] in πολιτᾶν
(l. 7, 23-4, 38); severior type of the first compensatory lengthening in ἀποστῆλαι (l. 36);
diphthong caused by the i-result of the loss of nasal in the intervocalic secondary group
-ns- in ὐπαρχοίσαν (l. 59), ὐπαρχοίσαις (l. 66), ἔχοισαν (l. 76); loss of o before -nt- in [θ]
εωρέντες (l. 58); the use of the preposition ποτί (l. 12, 33-4). In contrast to these dialectal
forms we find the following koinê forms: infinitives in -ειν like λειτουργεῖ̣ν (l. 53) and
τυγχάνειν (l. 57) and the forms οὐθενός (l. 23) and οὐθέν (l. 29). However, the only
hybrid of the inscription (the same form with a dialectal and a koinê feature together) is
ἁμῶν (l. 9 and 20), very usual in late Doric inscription with koinê influence.
11)
Ms Dobias-Lalou kindly informed me by e-mail (September 11 and 22, 2009) that she
has read personally the inscription many times from 1974 onwards in the Tocra Museum.
She has confirmed me that the reading προδιασαφέντι is correct and that the edition of
Moretti, who did not ever see the inscription, has a lot of mistakes. Ms Dobias-Lalou is
preparing a new edition of the corpus of the Greek inscriptions of Cyrenaica, in which we
will be able to see the definitive edition of SEG 26.1817.
12)
δ]ηλόμενος in SEG 38.1910.
13)
In connection to the other two examples given by Striano to prove the loss of
vocalic quantity I do not see any proof in πεπορθημένας, in SEG 18.1540.14 (Berenike,
 Miscellanea / R. Domínguez Casado / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 464-470 467

3. Participles in -είμενος in the Northwestern (NW) Dialects

The NW dialects are the only ones in which the participles in -είμενος appear
systematically. Méndez Dosuna’s explanation (1985, 502-5) for participles in
-είμενος in the NW dialects is the most satisfactory: according to him there should
be a contrast in the -έω verbs paradigm between ‘short’ contracted forms like
ποιεῖσθε from *ποιέεσθε and ‘long’ forms with hiatus like ποιεόμεθα, ποιέονται,
etc. in a first stage. So the replacement of -εο- by -ει- in middle voice participles
was a way to regularize the -έω verbs inflection aiming at the avoidance of a dis-
equilibrium between isovocalic and heterovocalic forms. According to Méndez
Dosuna the starting point is in the -όω verbs paradigm: the conjugation of these
verbs in NW dialects had an alternation between a ‘short’ grade in forms like
βεβαιοῖ and close ‘long’ grade (from o + o contractions) in forms like βεβαιοῦντι,
from which the following analogy: βεβαιοῖ : φιλεῖ :: βεβαιοῦται : φιλεῖται ::
βεβαιοῦνται : x where x = φιλεῖνται. In this way, the analogy βεβαιούμενος :
φιλείμενος would fit in the regularization process of the -έω verbs paradigm.

4. A Revision of the Cyrenaean Participles in -είμενος

In the Cyrenaean dialect an explanation like the one of Méndez Dosuna for the
participles in -είμενος cannot be possible because in Cyrenaean another series
of analogies must have taken place. These analogies distorted the -έω verbs
inflection:14) so in rules for a sacrifice in SEG 20.719A10 (Cyrene, 2nd c. BC)
we find the form ποτοισές15) that seems to prove an analogy with a type λέγες
from the following equation: λέγες : ἔλεγες = τίθης : ἐτίθης.16) If, in addition,
we take into account forms like the infinitive εὐτυχέν,17) participle forms like
τελεσφορέντες, a future form ἐκτιμασέντι and a present form προδιασαφέντι
the most logical would be to think of a remade form *ποιέμενος.

62-61 BC). The form χρέσθωσαν must not be taken into account because the inscription
in which we read it is completely written in koinê: SEG 9.1.37 (Cyrene, 322-307 BC).
14)
We do not have many forms of -όω paradigm in Cyrenaean inscriptions. We might
expect to find forms like 2nd sg. pres. δηλοῖς, 2nd pl. pres. δηλῶτε, 3rd pl. pres. δηλῶντι,
inf. pres. δηλῶν, ptc. act. pres. δηλῶν δηλῶντος, ptc. mid. pres. δηλώμενος. An analogy
to these forms would create a middle ptc. *ποιήμενος, but, as we will see infra, the -έω verbs
inflection suffered some disfigurements that deleted any analogy to -όω verbs paradigm.
15)
I accent ποτοισές (not ποτοῖσες) in agreement with Ruijgh 1984, 60 n. 10.
16)
Cf. Ruijgh 1984, 60 n. 10 again.
17)
It is not necessary to interpret these forms in ‹EN› as notation of /e:/, as Dobias-Lalou
(2000, 28-30) suggests.
468 Miscellanea / R. Domínguez Casado / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 464-470

On the other hand, a phonetic explanation to the change *ποιεόμενος >

*ποιεέμενος > ποιείμενος is really unlikely for two reasons: firstly a change of the
vowel pitch in a stressed syllable is a rare phenomenon,18) secondly we should
expect the form *ποιήμενος as result from the vocalic contraction in accordance
with the data of the dialect.19)
Therefore I think that the explanation of the middle participles in -είμενος
must be in the Great Sacred Law. Chronologically we find in this inscription the
first proof of participles in -είμενος in Cyrenaean. As Devoto and Thumb-Kieckers
pointed out, I also believe that the form χρειμένος of the inscription must be
considered as taken from the dialect of Delphos, where the most important oracle
of Apollo was situated: Apollo is mentioned in the first line of the inscription as
giver of the oracle. In accordance with Dobias-Lalou (2000, 297), the text we
have in the Great Sacred Law must be a copy of an original older text, maybe the
‘Cyrenaean translation’ of an original text written in the dialect of Delphos. So
the participle χρειμένος could be a trace from that older inscription written in the
dialect of Delphos. The fact that χρειμένος is the participle of the verb χράομαι
(χρέομαι in Doric dialects), a technical religious term, and the fact that the -έω
verbs inflection was highly irregular maybe contributed to the fossilization of the
form χρειμένος in the text of the inscription we have today. If we take into account
that the Great Sacred Law orders how to execute purifications, sacrifices and rites
necessaries that took place in several occasions of everyday life, we can easily
understand that literate people read this inscription very often. Since the inflec-
tion of -έω verbs was very irregular, it is not very strange that Cyrenaean people
took the form χρειμένος as paradigm of -έω verbs middle participles instead of the
expected *χρευμένος: in both of them we find a diphthong, a fact that maybe
made easier the replacement of /ew/ by /ej/.20)
It is true that in Cyrenaean dialect there was not any form with the diphthong
/ej/ in -έω verbs paradigm, although there were many forms with /ew/: ποιεῦμεν,

18)
Cf. Méndez Dosuna 1985, 502.
19)
We have forms like δησῆται, Κλητόμαχος, Κλησίππω, etc. Cf. Lonati 1990, 34-8 and
Dobias-Lalou 2000, 26-30. I think that it’s not necessary (contra Dobias-Lalou) to suppose
that forms like ιαρΕς, γραμματΕς, ΑρσινοΕς and ευτυχΕν allow us to see in the grapheme
<Ε> of these forms a writing for /e:/. In my opinion in the <Ε> of these forms we must see
a writing for /e/: the endings -ες and -εν of these forms must be explained as analogical
from forms like πάντες in the case of the nouns and θύεν in the case of the infinitives.
20)
The inherited diphthong /ej/ was conserved as such a diphthong until the first century
BC. Cf. Dobias-Lalou 2000, 20.
 Miscellanea / R. Domínguez Casado / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 464-470 469

ποιεῦμαι, ποιεῦμεθα, etc.21) However, the -έω verbs paradigm was sufficiently
irregular22) to make the participles in -είμενος appear not too strange to a speaker
of the Cyrenaean dialect. Moreover, participles are marginal forms in the verbal
inflection system and changes in them are easier to accept for speakers. Finally,
and above all, the Great Sacred Law was a religious text and people might consider
the language used in it as correct:23) if in this text the form χρειμένος appeared,
people might believe24) that this was the correct middle participle form of the -έω
verbs paradigm.
In any case the origin of the Cyrenaean middle participles in -είμενος cannot
be found neither in a phonetic change -eómenos > -eémenos nor in an analogy to
some other form of the -έω verbs Cyrenaean middle inflection.

Mikras Asias 60A Street Raúl Domínguez Casado

15233 Halandri (Athens), Greece
doxografia@hotmail.com

Received: June 2009; accepted: September 2009

Bibliography
Devoto, G. 1956. Il dialetto delle iscrizioni cirenaiche, Riv.Fil. 28, 365-403 (= Devoto, G.
1958. Scritti minori (Florence), 260-84 [quoted from] )—non vidi
Dobias Lalou, C. 2000. Le dialecte des inscriptions grecques de Cyrène (Paris)
Lonati, F. 1990. Grammatica delle iscrizioni cirenaiche (Florence)
Maas, P. 1927. Deutsche Literaturzeitung, col. 1951-3 (= Riv.Fil. 55 (1928), 41-51)—non vidi

21)
I see no reason to doubt that there would not be a diphthong /ew/ in every form of the
-έω verbs paradigm with thematic vowel o, contra Dobias-Lalou (2000, 148).
22)
To remember, it would have forms like 2nd sg. pres. φιλές, 3rd pl. pres. φιλέντι, 2nd
sg. impf. ἐφίλες, pres. inf. φιλέν, ptc. pres. gen. φιλέντος.
23)
Also, we cannot exclude the possible existence of other inscriptions arrived in Cyrene
from Delphos with other participles in -είμενος that have not reached us.
24)
Regardless of the fact that the digraph <ΕΙ> in Delphic dialect was read as /e:/, Cyrenae-
ans would read it /ej/.—Dobias-Lalou (2000, 147) rules out this possibility because Arsi-
noe and Berenike, the other two places in which we find middle participles in -είμενος, are
too far from Cyrene to believe in a “souvenir visuel” of χρειμένος. I find no problem in an
explanation to participles in -είμενος from Arsinoe and Berenike from the form χρειμένος
of the Great Sacred Law of Cyrene because the whole Cyrenaica was a dialectally unitary
region: it is very logical, in my own opinion, for people from Cyrene to have exported
middle participles in -είμενος to the rest of Cyrenaica.
470 Miscellanea / R. Domínguez Casado / Mnemosyne 64 (2011) 464-470

Méndez Dosuna, J. 1985. Los dialectos dorios del Noroeste (Salamanca)

Moretti, L. 1976. Un decreto di Arsinoe in Cirenaica, RFIC 104, 385-98 (= SEG 26.1817)
Ruijgh, C.J. 1984. Le dorien de Théocrite: dialecte cyrénien d’Alexandrie et
d’Egypte, Mnemosyne 37, 56-88
Striano Corrochano, A. 1989. Los participios cirenaicos en -είμενος, CFC 22, 209-14
Thumb, A., Kieckers, E. 1932. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Heidelberg)