Typical examples of the forms found in our editions are ‘Aχαιοισι, ‘Aχcuoις, and θ∊
σι, θ∊
ς. We need not linger over the fact (cf. Wackernagel 53 n.) that forms ending in -αις are found: without variant at M 284, ∊ 119, in a noteworthy number of MSS at A 238, χ 471, and sporadically as a weakly attested variant elsewhere. That is of interest for the history of the transmission of the text, but not in any other connection. In Homer we have to do only with three dialects, Aeolic, Ionic, and Attic; and as these forms are neither Aeolic nor Ionic they must be Attic. That the ending -αις is found in the earliest records of other dialects is irrelevant. It can lend no support to the suggestion (Hirt 335) that these Homeric forms may be old. On the contrary we can date the Attic intruders: forms in -αις are found in Attic inscriptions after 420 B.C. and cannot have got into the Homeric tradition much earlier. As a first step we must replace the Ionic forms they have ousted: άκ
ς, θ∊
ς, πaλáμ
ς, πáσ
ς.