[21] “ ὠμά, ” Od. 18.87 “μήδεά τ᾽ ἐξερύσας δώηι κυσὶν ὠμὰ δάσασθαι”, where the neut. plur. is natural; cf. “ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον” 4.35. Here, where there is no subst. for it to agree with, it may either be due to the implied notion of “κρέα” (“ὤμ᾽ ἀποταμνόμενον κρέα ἔδμεναι” 22.347) which might be omitted when “ὠμὰ δάσασθαι” had coalesced into a single phrase; or more probably it is analogous to the ordinary adverbial use of the neut. plur. as in “ὀξέα κεκληγώς”, etc. The difference here evidently is that the adj. expresses a quality of the object of the verb, and does not qualify the meaning of the verb itself. But the logical inaccuracy though real is not unnatural. P. Knight and others regard 21-3 as an interpolation to explain what Achilles refers to, made up from 18.336-37 with a reminiscence of Od. 18.87. This is quite possible. Note the neglect of “ϝ” in “ἑρύσας” (“ϝερύς” Schulze; see App. D, vol. i. p. 594).
