Discussion of imperative forms: accentuation, homocatalexis with indicative, second aorist behavior, oxytone imperatives, poetical forms, and examples (Euripides).
Πᾶν προστακτικὸν ὑπὲρ μίαν συλλαβὴν ὁμοιοκατάληκτον τῷ οἰκείῳ ὁριστικῷ καὶ ὁμότονόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ, ἔτυπτε τύπτε, ἐνόει νόει, ἐβόα βόα, ἐτίθη τίθη, ἐπίμπλη πίμπλη, ἵστην ἵστης ἵστη καὶ ἵστη, ἐκρήμνην ἐκρήμνης ἐκρήμνη καὶ κρήμνη, ὡς παρ´ Εὐριπίδῃ «κρήμνη σεαυτὴν ἐκ μέσης ἀντηρίδος»· ἐτύπτου τύπτου. τὸ δὲ λαβοῦ καὶ πιθοῦ παρὰ Ἀττικοῖς περισπᾶται. οὐ πάντῃ δὲ τὰ προστακτικὰ τοῦ δευτέρου ἀορίστου περισπῶνται, εὑρίσκεται γὰρ τὸ ἀφίκου βαρυνόμενον καὶ τὸ ἴδου. ἔτι καὶ τὸ ἐλθέ καὶ εἰπέ καὶ εὑρέ ὀξύνουσιν. ἔστι δὲ ἀπολογεῖσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν κατὰ δύο τρόπους. τὰ γὰρ ἀπαρέμφατα τοῦ βʹ ἀορίστου εἴωθεν ὁ ποιητὴς κατὰ διάλυσιν προφέρειν οἷον φαγεῖν φαγέειν, ἰδεῖν ἰδέειν, ταῦτα δὲ οὐ προφέρεται κατὰ διάλυσιν· τὸ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν οὐκ εἶπεν ἐλθέειν οὐδὲ τὸ εἰπεῖν εἰπέειν οὐδὲ τὸ εὑρεῖν εὑρέειν. ἐπειδὴ οὖν ταῦτα ἡμαρτήθησαν κατὰ τοῦτο, φημὶ τὸ μὴ διαλύεσθαι, τούτου χάριν καὶ ἐν τοῖς προστακτικοῖς κατὰ τὸν τόνον ἡμαρτήθησαν καὶ ὠξυτονήθησαν. ἄλλως τε δὲ ὁ βʹ ἀόριστος οὐ θέλει μακρᾷ παραλήγεσθαι, ἀλλὰ βραχείᾳ οἷον ἔλαβον ἔφαγον ἔνυγον. ταῦτα δὲ μακρᾷ παραλήγεται οἷον ἦλθον εἶπον εὗρον. ἐπειδὴ οὖν διήλλαξε περὶ τὸν χρόνον τῆς παραληγούσης ἐν τοῖς ὁριστικοῖς, τούτου χάριν διήλλαξε καὶ περὶ τὸν τόνον ἐν τοῖς προστακτικοῖς καὶ ὠξυτονήθησαν. * Τὰ εἰς 'τε' προστακτικὰ ὁμοιοκατάληκτα ὄντα τοῖς ὁριστικοῖς
Every imperative of more than one syllable has the same ending as its proper indicative and has the same accent as it: ἔτυπτε τύπτε, ἐνόει νόει, ἐβόα βόα, ἐτίθη τίθη, ἐπίμπλη πίμπλη, ἵστην ἵστης ἵστη and ἵστη, ἐκρήμνην ἐκρήμνης ἐκρήμνη and κρήμνη, as in Euripides, “κρήμνη σεαυτὴν ἐκ μέσης ἀντηρίδος”; ἐτύπτου τύπτου. But λαβοῦ and πιθοῦ among the Attics are circumflexed. Yet the imperatives of the second aorist are not in every case circumflexed; for ἀφίκου is found with a grave accent, and likewise ἴδου. Further, ἐλθέ and εἰπέ and εὑρέ they accent with an acute. Now it is possible to give an account of these in two ways. For the poet is accustomed to utter the infinitives of the second aorist with resolution, for example φαγεῖν as φαγέειν, ἰδεῖν as ἰδέειν; but these are not uttered with resolution: for he did not say ἐλθεῖν as ἐλθέειν, nor εἰπεῖν as εἰπέειν, nor εὑρεῖν as εὑρέειν. Since, then, in these cases there was an error in this respect—I mean in not being resolved—for this reason in the imperatives too there was an error with respect to the accent, and they were given an acute. Alternatively, the second aorist does not wish to have a long penult, but a short one, as ἔλαβον, ἔφαγον, ἔνυγον. But these have a long penult, as ἦλθον, εἶπον, εὗρον. Since, then, there was a divergence in the quantity of the penult in the indicatives, for this reason there was a divergence also in the accent in the imperatives, and they were given an acute. * The imperatives in -τε, being of the same ending as the indicatives