κωὔτε τις [^ ^ οὔ]τε τι
ἶρων οὐδ᾽ ὐ[^ – ^ ^
ἔπλετ᾽, ὄππ[οθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπέσκομεν·
Wharton seems to not even have the fragment, and then safopoemas. This weird doc full of horrid typos, which is no longer available at the link it was at, which is now broken, but can be found as a pdf here, with the same garbage typos as the doc version, and is based on a Spanish edition of Sappho, has this semi-garbage:
χωΰτε τις[λόγος οδ]τε τι Τρον ούδ' ύ[δατος ρ6χ]
ϊπλετ' όπ π [όθεν Εμ]
This is very messy, but it allows us to almost complete the above as:
κωὔτε τις [λόγος οὔ]τε τι
ἶρον οὐδ᾽ ὔ[δατος †ρ6χ†
ἔπλετ᾽, ὄππ[οθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπέσκομεν·
The safopoemas translation reads:
Y no hubo colina profana | And there was no sacred hill
o sagrada, ni fuentes de aguas | Or profane, nor springs of water
a donde no hayamos ido | Where we haven't gone to
This tells us that "λόγος" is probably a typo/mojibake for "λόφος", given by LSJ as quoted by Perseus's Greek Word Study Tool as various things including "crest of a hill", and that the incomprehensible "ρ6χ" must somehow mean "spring". I looked for all possible combinations of vowels substituted for the 6 and endings, and found nothing on Perseus, but found "ραχία", "flood-tide", on the Rocci dictionary. Not too fitting, but maybe. Back in the days when I translated Sappho, I had temporarily settled for "ῥέον", but now I guess a better way to do this would be "ῥόος", both meaning "stream" and keeping the initial consonant and possibly a vowel. Analysing other fragments in that safopoemas, 6 is almost certainly an omicron, and the chi could be a kappa, so we could have "ροχ" or "ροκ", neither of which yields anything interesting on Perseus.
I looked around for another source for this completion (possibly Reinach, which this document claims to be following in the quote below), but was unable to find any. So my question is: what was this reconstruction supposed to look like, and who proposed it, and of course, how supported is this amongst critics?
Quote from safopoemas.doc's introduction
El texto griego que hemos utilizado fue el que preparó Theodore Reinach, en atención a su magnífico aparato crítico y como homenaje mínimo a su severo y conservador trabajo, que prefiere, sin audacia, leer lo mínimo con la seguridad de que esas escasas palabras fueron de Safo, en lugar de las largas, interesantes y arriesgadas reconstrucciones de otros autores. Como la edición de Reinach, que finalmente revisó Aimé Puech, fue anterior a la publicación de varios papiros importantes y de otras ediciones útilísimas, hemos consultado permanentemente las de Edmonds, Diehl y Page, y en varias ocasiones las hemos seguido.
The Greek text we have used was that which Theodor Reinach prepared, with attention to his magnificent critical apparatus and as a minimal hommage to his strict and conservative work, who prefers, without boldness, to read the least with the sureness that these scarce words were of Sappho, in the place of the large, interesting and risked reconstructions of other authors. Since Reinach's edition, which Aimé Puech finally revised, was prior to the publication of various important papyri and of other very useful editions, we have permanently consulted those of Edmonds, Diehl and Page, and in various occasions we have followed them.
Diehl p. 49 also has an incomplete (in fact, even more incomplete than the others) version. Can't get ahold of Bergk, but seen as this doesn't give the Bergk number for this poem, Bergk probably didn't have the poem at all. Voigt is also either to be paid for, a Google Book, or on researchgate which I'd have to join for something which is not my field of study, which feels like lying.