Aeolic ἔδοντας‧ ὀδόντας, ἐδύνας‧ ὀδύνας (Greg. Cor. Περὶ Αἰολίδος § 22)

One of the fundamental issues pertaining to the use of Greek dialectal material in comparative studies is the challenge of evaluating the reliability of linguistic data. Our understanding of Greek dialects hinges on the interpretation of three distinct types of information sources: Greek inscriptions, dialectal forms within the literary register, and materials found in ancient dictionaries and gram-matical works, either dedicated to dialects or containing dialectal examples. It is crucial to highlight that when interpreting forms designated as dia-lectal – i.e., those labelled as such by grammarians or lexicographers - parti-cular caution must be exercised, similar to dealing with so-called glosses. This material is intriguing but primarily originates from unknown sources. While glosses play a pivotal role in the exegesis of classical texts, there is no definitive answer to whether they can be deemed reliable sources of dialectal data or can attest to the actual state of spoken language in various regions of Greece. This paper concentrates on the interpretation of two related Ancient Greek forms as transmitted in the secondary tradition, namely ἔδοντας and ἐδύνας (for Attic ὀδόντας and ὀδύνας). These forms are particularly interesting from a historical perspective and have been frequently cited in Indo-European com-parisons. The paper analyses the forms with respect to their phonology and word-formation. The assumed laryngeal (*h1) seems to be confirmed based on external comparisons, and the purported issue regarding the competing Indo-European root with *h3 is resolved through an examination of the derivational history of the root. The forms appear to function as archaisms in Greek; how-ever, their dialectal (Lesbian) status cannot be confirmed based on the extant material.