6. Another mode of avoiding the sound of Σ was to omit it altogether. This suppression was made at an early date in the third person plural, which consequently retained a nearer resemblance to the original form in the Doric than in the Ionico-Attic dialect, in which the preservation of Σ soon caused the ΝΤ to be dropped. Examples of this, as πεινῶντι, ἀποδίδωντι, κεχάναντι, αἰνέοντι (_bhavanti_, in Sanscrit, corresponding to the ancient high German _ant_; the Bœotians wrote -ωνθι, -ανθι) are found in all the Doric inscriptions; yet Alcman uses the termination -ουσι as well as the ancient form. Sometimes this elision of σ lengthened the preceding vowel, as in Πηρεφονεία Lacon. for Περσεφονεία, according to Hesychius, with which we may compare πῆριξ for πέρδιξ in the Cretan dialect (ibid.); also πρειγεύτας, πρείγιστος, πρειγηία in Cretan inscriptions for πρεσβεύτης, &c.; the Argives also used Γ for Β in πέργεις. (See Hesychius.) Concerning the omission of Σ before Φ, _e.g._, φὶν for σφὶν, in the Laconic dialect, see Koen p. 254.; the Syracusans changed the place of the Σ, and converted ΣΦΙΝ into ΦΣΙΝ, _i.e._ ψίν. This aversion to Σ also appeared in the substitution of the aspirate for this consonant, in which change the pure Doric dialect is directly at variance with the Latin, in which the aspirate was often replaced by Σ, for example, ἅλς, _sal_, ἡμι, _semi_, ὕλϜη, sylva,(1965) &c. The Laconians, on the other hand, used μῶἁ, instead of μῶσα, and on the same principle μωἱκὰ, _music_, as also in the participles κλεῶἁ, ἐκλιπῶἁ, &c, to which we may add ὅρμαὁν for ὅρμησον, as in Aristophanes; also ποιῆἁς, πᾶἁ, βίὡρ for ἵσως,(1966) βουὅα for βουσόα;(1967) the same usage also prevailed among the Argives, as we learn from Dercyllus, among the Eretrians, who borrowed it from the Eleans, and also among the Pamphylians; with whom several Argive and Rhodian peculiarities of dialect appear to have been preserved.(1968) Lastly, with this aversion to Σ is connected the rhotacismus, which we have already observed in the Spartan and Elean dialect, and of which the interpreters of the decree against Timotheus,(1969) particularly Casaubon, have collected many examples. Of these I will only cite ἐπιγελαστὴρ, _the mocker_; καλλίαρ, _an ape_ (Hesych. in vv. comp. Boeckh Exp. Pind. Pyth. II. p. 251); κιλλακτὴρ, _an ass-driver_ (Pollux VII. 13. 56.); σάριρ, _a palm-branch_ (Hesych.); τίρ, τίς, (ib. and in the Elean Rhetra), παλαιὸρ (Aristoph. Lys. 988.), σιὸρ θεὸς, πὸρ ποῦς, νέκυρ νέκυς, βόμβυρ _a kind of flute_ (Hesych. in vv.). Whether in the oblique cases Σ could always be changed into Ρ is uncertain, since, besides the Elean Rhetra, no genuine monument, and only a few and obscure glosses, afford any information on the point. However, ἀμ᾽ ἀρκᾶρ for ἀπ᾽ ἀρχᾶς (according to Koen’s conjecture ad Gregor. p. 283.) is an instance, as also the Cretan τέορ for σοῦ (Hesych.), where the pronoun is declined, as ἐμοῦς, ἐμέος, ἐμεῦς in Epicharmus.(1970) We may