ὀμοίιον: this form is elsewhere always used of strife or battle, except “θάνατος” Od. 3.236. Nauck would in every case read “ὀλοίιος”. The sense of ‘common to all’ (which itself is not very appropriate as a general epithet of war in spite of “ξυνὸς ἐνυάλιος” 18.309) is not supported by any use of “ὁμοῖος”. Pind. Nem. x. 57, which is quoted, is not in point, for there “πότμον ὁμοῖον” obviously means ‘the same fate’ for the two brothers (like “ὁμοίην γαῖαν ἐρεῦσαι” 18.329), and is explained by the following lines. There is therefore an undoubted case against “ὁμοίιος”, which anyhow ought to be separated in the lexicons from “ὁμοῖος”. Indeed Aristonikos says that the “γλωσσογράφοι” explained “ὁμοίιον” = “τὸ κακόν”. But there is no obvious reason why it should have displaced a word so clear in meaning as “ὀλοίιος”. Christ, followed by Fick, conj. that the right form may be “ὀμίϝιον”, conn. with Skt. amIva = aerumna, and “ὠμός”. For ὡς van L. reads “ὥς ϝ᾽” (sc. “γῆρας”), comparing for “ϝε” as neuter “μιν” in 143, 6.221, 20.287, etc.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.