TΥΓxanΩ for TΥΓxanΩ Ωn in Attic Prose

The question whether τυγχ⋯νω can be used forτυγχ⋯νω ὥν in Attic Prose has been differently answered by different scholars. Phrynichus (p. 277 Lob., p. 342 Ruth.) held that it could not, and Porson ( ad Eur. Hec. 788 [782]) followed him. The generality of modern scholars, however, have taken the other view—so, e.g., Locella, Heindorf, Lobeck, Ast, Schneider, Madvig, Stallbaum, Krüger, W. H. Thompson, Rutherford, Jebb, Adam, Kühner-Gerth. The object of the present note is to show that the ‘modern’ view, if it is to be maintained, must be based on other evidence than that hitherto given for it

Archaeology · Art · Attic · Generality · Linguistics · Literature · Object (grammar · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Classical Antiquity Studies · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies · History · Philosophy · Psychology