This article is part of an ongoing investigation into the meaning, origin and use of the augment in Early Greek prose and poetry and discusses the use and absence of the augment in the forms of the simplex ἔειπον/εἶπον in early epic Greek (Homer, Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns). I first explain why this verb was chosen and then proceed to determining the corpus. I start by listing the criteria to determine which forms are metrically guaranteed; when a form is not secured by the metre, I use the “Barrett–Taida” method, which analyses metrically insecure forms by comparing them to the metrically secure forms of the same paradigm and to the attestations and positions in the verse. The corpus that is thus established is then analysed by using previous scholarship on syntactic constraints (Drewitt–Beck’s clitic rule and Kiparsky’s “conjunction reduction” rule) and on the semantics (Koch–Basset’s distinction of narrative versus speech and Platt–Bakker–Mumm’s theory of recent past versus Hoffmann’s remote and timeless past); special attention is also paid to the exceptions. At the end, I investigate if the augment use in epic Greek can be explained as a visual evidential marker.

中文翻译：

---

早期史诗希腊语中 Εειπε 和 Ειπε 的扩展使用：一个证据标记？

本文是对早期希腊散文和诗歌中增广的意义、起源和使用的持续调查的一部分，并讨论了增广在早期希腊史诗（荷马，赫西奥德）中以单纯形 ἔειπον/εἶπον 形式的使用和缺失。和荷马赞美诗）。我首先解释为什么选择这个动词，然后继续确定语料库。我首先列出标准来确定哪些表格是有公制保证的；当一种形式不受韵律保护时，我使用“Barrett-Taida”方法，该方法通过将它们与同一范式的韵律安全形式以及诗句中的证明和位置进行比较来分析韵律不安全形式。然后使用先前关于句法约束（Drewitt-Beck 的 clitic 规则和 Kiparsky 的“连词还原”规则）和语义（Koch-Basset 的叙事与语音的区别和 Platt-Bakker-Mumm 的理论）来分析由此建立的语料库最近的过去与霍夫曼遥远而永恒的过去）；还特别注意例外情况。最后，我调查了史诗希腊语中的增强使用是否可以解释为视觉证据标记。