Talk:Λεωτυχίδης


 * isn't it +  + ? --Barytonesis (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me! — JohnC5 08:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would've expected that to yield in Doric.  comes from quantitative metathesis in Attic, so it shouldn't appear in the Doric. I would suggest it's related to, but the  shouldn't vanish. Is there a source for the Doric form? Maybe it really is . — Eru·tuon 09:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has crossed my mind as well. Another hypothesis might be that an Attic author (a tragic?) created the artificial Doric form Λεωτυχίδᾱς by simply applying the most obvious correspondance ᾱς::ης, but forgot that λεώς had to be changed as well. Also, the form Λᾱοτῠχῐ́δᾱς you're proposing is mentioned here, along with Ionic . --Barytonesis (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the current Doric form and add the forms listed on that webpage. It can be added again if there's a source for it. — Eru·tuon 22:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)