Posted: Jun 08, 2017 4:22 pm
I haven't said that Brunt regarded the text as ungrammatical, but that he thought it was spurious.
That aside, all I've asked you to do is support a position which you articulated. I've invited you to do so multiple times, yet you haven't. This suggests that you're not able to, yet you seem unwilling to clarify whether that's the case.
I also checked the old and new Teubner editions: the former retains the text, whereas the latter doesn't. I've yet to read Brunt's piece, but I'll let you know when I do so.
That aside, all I've asked you to do is support a position which you articulated. I've invited you to do so multiple times, yet you haven't. This suggests that you're not able to, yet you seem unwilling to clarify whether that's the case.
I also checked the old and new Teubner editions: the former retains the text, whereas the latter doesn't. I've yet to read Brunt's piece, but I'll let you know when I do so.