A short and troubled entry (taken over unchanged by ps.-
Zonaras); perhaps the work of more than one hand.
The headword as transmitted, from the verb
e)pi/stamai (cf.
epsilon 2606), is
e)pi/sth, but in fact it should almost certainly have an iota subscript, i.e. the second person singular form
e)pi/sth| (and as such is probably one of the many instances of this in the
Septuagint, from
Genesis 47.5 onwards: so Latte on
Hesychius epsilon5242). The connection between
e)pi/sth| and
e)pi/stasai [n. 2 below] is a commonplace in grammarians and lexica, including
Choeroboscus: see ps.-Herodian,
On verbs ending in -mi 839.45-840.5, and elsewhere;
Lexica Segueriana 93.8;
Etymologicum Magnum 290.33-41.
1Correct elsewhere in the Suda (alpha 1264, epsilon 1031, epsilon 2788, pi 1586, pi 1587, pi 2608, pi 3126), but not here: see above. If, as seems likely, the gloss has intruded here from another entry, the obvious one is epsilon 2623. ↩2See LSJ s.v. e)pi/stamai (web address 1): the second person singular present is attested as e)pi/stasai in Attic (e)pi/sta| in poetic Doric, e)pi/sth| in Theognis, and e)pi/steai in Herodotus). ↩3Seemingly an alternative interpretation of the headword as an imperative, with e)piti/qei intended as an analogous form rather than a substantive gloss.