ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

ANCIENT GREEK LANGUAGE

AND LINGUISTICS
Volume 3
P-Z, Index

General Editor
Georgios K. Giannakis

Assaciate Editors
Vit Bubenik
Emilio Crespo
Chris Golston
Alexandra Lianeri
Silvia Luraghi
Stephanos Matthaios

LEIDEN « BOSTON
2014
 GENERAL EDITOR
Georgios K. Giannakis
(Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)

ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Vit Bubenik
(Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s)
Emilio Crespo
(Autonomous University of Madrid)
Chris Golston
(California State University, Fresno)
Alexandra Lianeri
{Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
Silvia Luraghi
(University of Pavia)
Stephanos Matthaios
(Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics / General Editor: Georgios K. Giannakis;
Associate Editors: Vit Bubenik. Emilio Crespo, Chris Golston, Alexandra Lianeri, Silvia Luraghi,
Stephanos Matthaios.

p. cm.
includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-22597-8 (hardback, set : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-go-04-26109-9 (hardback, vol. ı:
alk. paper} — ISBN 978-90-04-2610-5 (hardback, vol. 2 : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-gu-04-26u1-2
(hardback, vol, 3 : alk. paper) 1. Greek language—History. 2. Greek philology. I. Giannakis, Georgios K.,
editor. [1. Buhenik, Vit, 1942- editor.

PAz27.E43 2014
480.3 —dc23

2014027229

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISBN 978-90-04-22597-8 (hardback, set)

ISBN 978-go-04-26109-9 (hardback, vol. 1)
ISBN 978-90-04-26110-5 (hardback, vol. 2)
ISBN 978-90-04-261 1 1-2 (hardback, val. 3)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for
internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided chat the appropriate fees are paid
directly ta The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite gio, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

®
MIX
Paper fram
FSC teapanalbis aourcas
co; FSC* COOMAT2

FRIQTED BY OAUR BERIT WILCO A. AMERAFOOAT, THE NETHERIANI

Table of Contents

VOLUME ONE

Introduction
List of Contributors u
Table of Contents Ordered by Thematic Category
Transcription, Abbreviations, Bibliography
List of Hlustrations
Articles A-F ... [LEELT LITT

VOLUME Two

Transcription, Abbreviations, Bibliography vil

Articles G-O_....

VOLUME THREE

Transcription, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Articles P-Z ......
Index crecsessssssssecececsssceeecees
EAGLL—Transcription, Abbreviations, Bibliography

In principle, Greek words are given onlyin trans- THE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPTION IS USED
literated form, sometimes in phonetic transcrip- FOR ANCIENT GREEK:
tion as well. Greek characters are used only if
it is absolutely necessary, e.g. in quotes from upper case lowercase transcription transcription
inscriptions, in entries dealing with issues of uppercase lower case
phonetics, writing and the like. More specifi-
cally, in the entries on inscriptions, sometimes

IDE >

DR

oe
APCAVCDVORKAZEMA~AZONMTOATS
the Greek script is used (but not consistently)

Gg uhwaAOMAZZrPR-“GCINM
followed by transliteration within slashes or

Hw
square brackets in roman type; the same goes

ea
for Mycenaean: the usual transliteration in ital-

mm
ics, followed by transcription in roman type,

RN
OSs
eg. ga-si-re-u [g’asileus] (or /g*asileus/), ka-
ke-u [khalkeus] (or /khalkeus/}, etc. For Mod-

OH
THT
ern Greek, the Greek script is used followed by

KR

TRE
the IPA transcription, e.g. {ympara [zi'timata],

FY
ayßpurcog ['anSropos], etc.

AG
Some degree of variation has been allowed OMe
with respect to the notation of certain pho-

oR
nemes, as in the following list:
gg

yu
» Semivowels: j, y, j (front), and w, u (back; in
Greek script (F))

EBore
ce

¢ Syllabic consonants: marked either by a sub-

EEK

script circle (r, |, m, g) or a dot (1, |, m, n)

ers

« Laryngeals: h,, H, 3, or simply H when left

Dex

unspecified (although the first is preferred)

OF

aD

« Palatals: k, k, g, & (although there is an effort ta

ge

pick the first of each pair) * rh-

¢ Phonetic transcription: [a] Note: Some authors use the symbol q for (9) (qoppa),
« Phonemic transcription: /a/ a backed [k], especially in inscriptions. Similarly with
« Vowel length: ä or a:, or e: (with a preference digamma (F): it is normally transcribed by w or rarely
for the first) u, whereas in inscriptions it may sometimes be left
« Short vowels: either left unspecified, e.g. a, e, as F,
o, etc. or a, &, 6 (when needed to be marked).
DIACRITICS AND OTHER SIGNS OR
In addition to these, some flexibility is also to be COMBINATIONS USED;
observed with regard to the marking of crasis:
kagö or (rarely) kage (for kai egö). ‘rough breathing’ ( ‘): # (H ifa word must be
Accentuation of inscriptions: for most cases capitalized); in a few instances in compounds,
the Attic accentuation system is applied, but, out the A is kept within parenthesis even though
of respect of the preferences of the individual not written in the Greek text, e.g. hiemai but
authors, we decided not to be absolutely strict compound sun(h)iemai (written cuviguat)
in this matter; hence in some inscriptions no « ‘smooth breathing’ ('):is left unmarked in the
accent is indicated. transcription
* ‘iota subscriptum’: &, y, w = ai, ei, di
e short diphthongs: a, av, et, ev, 01, od, UL = ai, au,
ei, eu, Ol, OU, Ul
viii EAGLL—TRANSCRIPTION, ABBREVIATIONS, BIBLIOGRAPHY
« long diphthongs: a, &u, HL, nu, wt OI = ai, au,
Ei, Eu, Ot, Ui
« gamma-gamma ((yy)) is transcribed as ng;
gamma-kappa ((yx)) as nk; gamma-chi ((yx))
as nkh.
accents are marked as follows:
* acute accent = ( ) e.g. owe = érds, ‘AméMwv
= Apollon, eheyyw = elénkhé; some variation
has been allowed with respect to the notation
of the acute over initial capital vowels, e.g.
“Ares and Arés, ‘Ilion and Ilion, 'Ofunthos and
Olunthos, etc.
« grave accent = ( ' ) e.g. tov dvOpwrov = ton
dnthrapon, th nöAw = ten pdlin
* circumflex accent = ( " ) e.g. TH¢ nöAeug = tes
pöleös, tüv dyvav Gedv = tén hagndn theön;
since vowels with circumflex accent are always
long, a macron is not necessary.
ABBREVIATIONS
For abbreviations of ancient authors and works,
and epigraphical sources the Neue Pauly system
is followed, and alternatively the list of abbre-
viations in the Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell,
Scott, Jones, gth. edn. 1996; for abbreviations
of periodicals the standard lists in the L’Année
Philologique and the Bibliographie Linguistique/
Linguistic Bibliography are used.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
There is no cumulative bibliography for the work.
Each article has a short list of the absolutely nec-
essary bibliographical entries; this means that
not all authors and/or works referred to in the
text are listed in the bibliography. Generally, the
well-known reference works (such as editions
of literary and non-literary works like papyri,
inscriptions, ostraca, etc.) are omitted, and there
has been a conscious effort to keep the list of
secondary literature to the absolute minimum
needed for reference.
GEORGIOS K. GLANNAKIS
Palaeography
1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREEK
ALPHABET
The Greek alphabet (+ Alphabet, Origin of;
+ Local Scripts) was originally taken over from
the Phoenicians between 1000 and 800 BCE and
adapted to the needs of the Greek language. The
original angular form of the characters of the
Greek alphabet shows that this writing system
was devised to be chiselled in stone or scratched
onto other solid surfaces. The letters looked
more or less the same as the Greek ‘capital let-
ters’ still in use nowadays. The oldest preserved
texts in Greek characters, from the 8th c. BCE
onwards (> Dipylon Vase Inscription; + Nestor’s
Cup) are occasional inscriptions in pottery and
stone. This writing material was only suitable for
shorter texts, so for langer texts papyrus came to
be used, inscribed with pen and ink. Papyrus, a
kind of paper made from the papyrus plant and
originally invented in Egypt, was already widely
ı Literary handwriting: Plato's Phaedo (P. Leiden Pap. Inst. inv, 22, and c. CE)
used in 6th c. BCE Greece, both for books and
for documents (although none of these early
papyri survived). The newly invented reed pen
made writing easier and more fluent and the
number of people who were able to write, slowly
increased. This led to changes in the handwrit-
ing and to more cursive letterforms. The surviv-
ing evidence on stone and pottery shows that,
during the first centuries of its use, the Greek
script evolved from long-tailed, uneven letter-
forms sometimes jumping into any direction,
into neat and regular writing in straight lines.
Gradually, cursive letterforms were adopted in
epigraphic writing as well. On epigraphic script
see e.g. Seider (1990:21-115). The different forms
of the alphabet existing next to each other in
earlier times were replaced by the Ionic alpha-
bet, which was officially prescribed for Athe-
nian documents in 403/402 BCE (+ Adoption of
the Ionic alphabet in Attica). Early versions of
the Greek alphabet remained in use to denote
numbers (+ Numerals) and musical notes (West
1992:254-273). Separate writing systerns existed
 PALAEOGRAPHY

2 Ptolemaic handwriting: Loan of wine (P. Leiden Pap. Inst. inv. 64, znd c. BCE)

3 Roman handwriting: Agreement for payment of arrears (P. Warren 8, 86 CE)

4 Roman handwriting on ostracon:

Tax receipt (Leiden Pap. Inst. inv. O 47, 94 CE)
 PALAEOG RAPHY
for Greek tachygraphy (Boge 1974), stenography
(Milne 1943; Torallas Tovar and Worp 2006) and
cryptography (Reinke 1962).
2. GREEK PAPYRI
In the Hellenistic period a growing number of
people used the Greek language due to the more
intensive contacts between Greece and other
countries along the Mediterranean and in the
Near East. Greek became the koine or common
language (+ Koine, Features of, + Koine, Origins
of). At the same time the literacy of the popu-
lation in these areas increased. The evidence
for Greek writing from the Hellenistic period
onwards is no longer mainly limited to stone
and vase inscriptions. In the Hellenistic period,
together with the Greek language, the use of
papyrus had spread over all developed countries
around the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, for
climatological reasons hardly any Greek papyri
have been found in Greece itself (with the + Der-
veni Papyrus as the main exception), and only
few in other countries (such as Syria, Israel,
Jordan, the carbonized rolls from Herculaneum
in Italy). The deserts of Egypt, however, have
preserved many hundreds of thousands of Greek
papyri roughly stemming from the 4th c BCE till
the 8th c. CE (+ Papyrology). These papyri, and
5 Semi-literary handwriting: Letter (P. Warren 20, 3rd/4th c. CE)
6 Byzantine handwriting: Letter (P. Leiden Pap. Inst. inv. 78, 5th c. CE)
3
the pot sherds and other written materials from
the same period in Egypt, form the most impor-
tant source for the study of the development of
ancient Greek writing (+ Papyri, Language of).
3. WRITING STYLES
The origin of every way of writing is found in
the basic letterforms taught in schools or by pri-
vate teachers. The basic Greek letterforms (our
‘capitals') were and still are taught and written
in more or less the same way. Every character or
group of characters has its own ductus: the fixed
order and direction in which the elements of
the character or group are drawn. This generally
unchanging ductus can however be executed
in different ways, resulting in different styles of
handwriting. Many people in antiquity never
learnt more than just the basic school alphabet,
and stayed bradeös gräphontes, ‘slow writers’, as
they were called in antiquity, for the rest of their
lives. Others proceeded to the next stage: that of
the faster cursive writing, used for private texts
as well as for administrative, legal and business
matters. Handwriting has a natural tendency to
change, just like spoken language. In the cursive
writing styles the development of handwriting
can be best observed. A teacher taught the way
of cursive writing which was en vogue in his
4 PALAEOGRAPHY
7 Byzantine handwriting: Loan of money upon mortgage (P. Warren 10, 591/592 CE)
time. This ‘vogue’, in antiquity, was not dictated
by the schoolteachers, but it followed, through
the examples of professional scribes, prescrip-
tions of the government. Changes in the official
chancery style, like e.g. after the conquest by
the Romans, are mirrored in the general cursive
writing style of that period. The style of writing
in a way expressed the nature and conceptions
of a society. One should however realize that the
people expressing themselves in writing were
only a small and privileged part of society, espe-
cially in antiquity when in general not more than
5-10% of the population was able to write at all.
4. EPIGRAPHIC AND LITERARY STYLES
Evolved from the basic school handwriting and
existing next to it, the following main writing
styles can be distinguished in Greek: the more
calligraphic epigraphic and literary styles versus
the more cursive chancery and documentary
styles. Epigraphic and literary hands have in
common that their aesthetic quality came first:
the characters were uniformly and regularly
written, often evenly fitting between two (mostly
imaginary) horizontal lines. But the writing pace
was slow. The literary writing on papyrus was
used for texts, which would nowadays be printed
books. The oldest Greek books, preserved in
papyrus rolls and codices (books with pages),
were written in the so-called ‘majuscule’ (‘large’)
letter type: in capitals, (The term ‘capital’ rather
than ‘uncial’ should be used for these unlig-
atured Greek book letters, as opposed to the
ligatured ‘cursive’ script, according to Turner
1987:1-3.) The ‘majuscule’ is opposed to the
‘minuscule’ (‘small’) letter type known from the
later medieval manuscripts written in European
and Byzantine monasteries (and falling outside
the scope of the present work). These minuscule
bookhands however already had their precur-
sors in the minuscule hands of the papyrus docu-
ments from Egypt from the late Byzantine and
early Arabic period.
The specialized bookhands of experienced
bookwriters have always stayed close to the origi-
nal letterforms; they were more conservative and
held on to a certain style of writing for a longer
time than documentary hands. The characters
were written slower and more precisely, the style
of writing is impersonal. So for bookhands, less
development can be observed than for documen-
tary hands. But also bookhands slowly changed,
and were influenced hy the ‘documentary’ fash-
ions of a certain period. The evolution is percep-
tible and datable for the Greek palaeographer.
Literary as well as longer documentary texts
were usually written in perpendicular columns,
which could, depending on the style of text,
have various widths, The words were written in
scriptio continua or continuous script, without
word spaces, although word division in the form
of punctuation had been used in the earliest
Greek inscriptions, Accentuation, punctuation
 PALAEOGRAPHY
(+ Epigraphy) and lectional signs, such as the
trema or diaeresis, do not occur before the and
c. BCE, and even then they are only written
occasionally and never consequently in literary
papyri. They hardly ever occur in documents,
apart from the occasional diaeresis on iota and
ypsilon.
5. CHANCERY AND DOCUMENTARY STYLES
Documents of all possible kinds were mostly
written in a faster cursive handwriting. A distinc-
tion can be made between official handwriting
and the various private hands. In government
institutions the writing was done by specially
trained official chancery scribes. Especially in
the znd-ath c. CE the so-called ‘chancery style’
may be distinguished as a separate style (Cav-
allo 1965). This stylized official handwriting
was influenced by contemporary bookhands as
well as by the cursive scripts of daily life. The
more common documentary hands are mainly
characterized by their cursiveness, The speed of
writing (advanced by the use of ligatures, and
the increasing use of signs and abbreviations)
was most important, often impeding legibility,
This group of handwriting (by far the largest in
extant documentation) not only shows a swift
evolution of the writing styles in general. It is
sometimes even possible to discern individual
differences between hands (taking into account
that also personal characteristics may change
within one’s lifetime). And, the better a person
was able to write, the more of his personal taste
and character would be expressed in his writing.
The material used of course also influenced the
way of writing. Writing on a sheet of papyrus of
low quality with a rough fibre structure would
turn out uglier than on a sheet with a perfectly
smooth finish; and the effect of writing with reed
pen and ink on the flat or ribbed convex side of a
potsherd would be totally different from writing
with a pointed stylus in the soft wax of a waxed
tablet, Still, the general characteristics of the
documentary writing style of a certain period
are reflected in all its different attestations of
personal hands. A start has been made, for the
papyrus documentation, to even discern differ-
ences of writing styles in different regions within
Egypt (Harrauer 2010:77-79). At the same time,
the sporadic papyri from places outside Egypt
show that the development of the general Greek
5
handwriting was largely the same everywhere in
the Greek-speaking world (Crisci 1996:173).
6, EVOLUTION OF THE GREEK SCRIPT
THROUGH THE AGES
Due to the fast development of cursive writing
it is possible to follow the general evolution of
the Greek script through the ages, from separate
angular majuscules in the Hellenistic period,
through the rounder and more cursive forms
of the Roman period, to the very cursive Byz-
antine flourishes and later minuscules. Since
many papyrus documents from Egypt bear an
exact date, it is sometimes possible to date a
handwriting to a period of even less than 25
years: much more exact than would be possible
with other methods like Cig dating. The evolu-
tion of the Greek letterforms (literary as well as
documentary) is shown in e.g. the hand-drawn
lists of Thompson (1912:144-147,191-194), while
Harrauer (2010:143-171) provides a chronologi-
cal overview of the documentary letterforms
with the help of cut-outs of digital images of
papyri. Abbreviations, signs and symbols may be
looked up in Bilabel (1921) or, more concise, in
Gonis (2009). Palaeography can, however, only
be really learned by studying and deciphering
the original Greek texts or their photographs.
For images of ancient Greek literary writing one
is referred to the plates of e.g. Turner (1987),
Seider (1967-1990: Band Ii) and Cavallo & Mae-
hler (1987 and 2008). For documentary writ-
ing see the plates of e.g. Schubart (1911), Seider
(1967-1990: Band I and Iil,1) or Harrauer (2010).
Online, the images of many Greek papyri can
be found through the websites of the Advanced
Papyrological Information System and of the
Papyrological Navigator. Especially dedicated to
the study of palaeography is the website PapPal,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bilabel, Friedrich. 1921. “Siglae”. In: Paufys Real-Encyclopddie
der Classischen Altertumswissenschafl begonnen von
Georg Wissowa, IT A, 2279-2315. Stuttgart.
Boge, Herbert. 1974. Griechische Tachygraphie und Tiranis-
che Noten, Hildesheim - New York.
Cavallo, Guglielmo. 1965. "La scrittura del P. Berol. 11532:
contribute allo studio dello stile di cancelleria nei papiri
greci di etä romana”, Aegyptus 45:216-249.
—— 1967. Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica. Florence.
. 1983. Libri scritture scribi a Ercolano, Introduzione alla
studio dei materiali greci. Naples.
Cavallo, Guglielmo and Herwig Maehler. 1987. Greek
bookhands of the early Byzantine period, A.D, 300-800.
London.
6 PALAEOGRAPHY
. 2008, Hellenistic boukhands. Berlin - New York.
Crisci, Edoardo. 1996. Scrivere greco fuori d'Egitto. Florence.
Gardthausen, V. 1913. Griechische Paläographie. Die Schrift,
Unterschriften und Chronologie im Altertum und im
byzantinischen Mittelalter. Zweite Auflage, Leipzig. |Indi-
ces von Beate Noack, 1983, Amsterdam. ]
Gonis, N. 2009, “Abbreviations and symbols”. In: The Oxford
handbook of papyrology, ed. by R. S. Bagnall, 170-178.
Oxford - New York.
Harrauer, Hermann. 2007. Handbuch der griechischen
Paldugruphie, Textband und Tafelband, Stuttgart.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1981. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, An
introduction to Greek palaeography. New York - Oxford.
Milne, H. |. M. 1994. Greek shorthand manuals. London.
Reinke Edgar C. igG2. “Classical cryptography”, C/ 38n13-
121.
Schubart, Wilhelm. ıqu. Papyri graecae berolinenses. Bonn —
Oxford,
. 1925. Griechische Palaeagraphie. Munich.
Seider, Richard, 1g67-1990. Paläographie der griechischen
Papyri, Band I-II,ı. Stuttgart.
Thompson, Edward M. 1912. An introduction ta Greek and
Latin palaeography. Oxford.
Torallas Tovar, Sofia and Klaas A. Worp. 2006, To the origins
of Greek stenography. P.Monts.Roca I, Barcelona.
Turner, Eric G. 1987. Greek manuscripts of the ancient world.
Second edition revised and enlarged, ed. Peter J. Parsons.
Oxford.
West, Martin L. 1992. Ancient Greek music. Oxford.
Websites
PapPal: + http://www.pappaLinfo/
Papyrulogical Navigator: + http://www.papyri.infu/
Advanced Papyrological Information System: + http://www.
columbia.edu/cu/lweb/projects/digital/apis/
FRANCISCA HOOGENDIK
Palatalizations
Palatalization is a process by which a consonant
comes to be pronounced with the tongue against
or near the hard palate, as when Eng. miss you
[mts ju] becomes [mif ju] (rhymes with squish
you) or hit you [hit ju] becomes [hıtf ju] (sounds
like Aitch you). In Greek linguistics the term is
often used for coronal stops becoming [s] or [ts],
which is properly + assibilation or affrication,
since only the manner and not the place of artic-
ulation is changed. See + consonant changes.
By the Classical Period, the Greek language
had undergone three rounds of palatalization,
contributing in no small part to the distinctive
shape of the language in general as well as to
the differentiation of the Greek dialects from
each other. All three palatalizations followed
the change of PIE *s to *h (the first palatalization
produced a distinct, new s) and the change of
PIE voiced aspirates to unvoiced aspirates (PIE
*d*y merged with *ty via *t*y) and the first and
second palatalization preceded + Grassmann’s
Law (Att. thattön- ‘swifter’ < *thaccoh- < *thakh-
yoh- vs. takhu- ‘swift’ < *thakhu-). The net effect
was to intraduce morphological complexity into
Greek by complicating morphological alterna-
tions (theind ‘I kill’ vs. &pephnon ‘I killed’ < PIE
*gwhen) as well as to obscure the PIE origins of
certain etyma, most importantly the 3. sg. them.
pres. -ei from PIE *-eti (Ellsworth 201).
In the first palatalization, complete by the
time of Myc. (Lejeune 1982:79), *t(h)y became
*ts between vowels (with further changes in
the dialects, e.g. Att. meso- < Proto-Gk. *metso-
‘middle’ < PIE *med*yo-) and became s- in ini-
tial and post-consonantal positions (*seg”omai
‘worship’ < *tyeg”; *monsa ‘Muse’ < *montya
< PIE *montih,); s similarly results, but only
intermittently, from palatalization before */ (e.g.
thesis < *the-tis but éti ‘still’ < PIE *h,eti). Palatal-
ization before { is found much more often in S.
Gk. (Myc., Arc., Cypr., Att, fon.) than in the other
dialects except Lesb. (N, Gk,, i.e, Dor., NW. Gk,,
Aeol.), but no dialect exhibits completely con-
sistent palatalization or its consistent absence
(+ Dialects, Classification of). Unsurprisingly,
given the complexity, different scholars explain
the inconsistencies in this palatalization differ-
ently (Ellsworth 2011:13-17).
Understanding what is behind the inconsis-
tency in the first palatalization before *i is par-
ticularly important as it affects some of the most
common affixes in Greek, giving us S. Gk. forms
with palatalization (3 pl. -(n)si, 3 sg. athem. -si,
adjectives in -sios as in Artemisios 'of Artemis’)
and corresponding N. Gk. forms without pala-
talization (3 pl. -nti, 3 sg. athem. -ti, adjectives
in -tios as in Artamitios ‘of Artemis’). The usual
solution is to ascribe the palatalization of *t{A)i
to the S. Gk. dialects and non-palatalization to
N. Gk. (Schwyzer 1939:270). Yet this solution is
rendered untenable on the one hand by consis-
tent preservation of & in secure, isolated 5. Gk.
forms such as éti ‘still’ and anti ‘before; against’
and on the other by assibilation in N. Gk. forms
such as -plasio- '-fold’ < *pft-iyo- and, most tell-
ingly, khaös (Theoc. 7.5) ‘good men (of olden
times)', khdios (Aristoph. Lys,) ‘genuine’, bathu-
khdios (Aesch. Supp.) ‘of old nobility’ all reflect-
ing the Laconian/Argolic development of s to A,
ie, *khahios from khasids (Hsch. ‘good, useful’);
although the PIE antecedent is quite uncertain,
the forms are usually compared to eukhatéteron
 PALATALIZATIONS
(Hsch.) 'more opulent’ showing original t. Khaios
can hardly be explained as a S. Gk. word, since,
other than in Hesychius, it is attested only with
a sound change that is specific to N. Gk. dialects
(Argolic and Spartan) and used only by Theocri-
tus, a Syracusan (N. Gk-speaking) author, or by
Athenian authors specifically aiming to evoke
N. Gk. (Argolic and Spartan). Some other fac-
tor than dialect is necessary for explaining why
some forms are assibilated and some are not.
Since assibilation is more frequent in S. Gk., it
likely was conditioned differently in the two dia-
lect groups. Indeed, excluding derivatives with
an obvious leveling source, all the forms in which
N. Gk. has unassibilated forms corresponding to
assibilated forms in S. Gk. have a heavy syllable
preceding N. Gk. tand S. Gk. s (Ellsworth 2011:18).
This is relevant for assibilation in a compli-
cated way: as is often remarked (Nagy 1970103;
Schwyzer 1939:271-272 with references), the
change of *t{h} before *i to *s can be explained
as originally confined to the environment before
vowels and due to the pronunciation of ( as y
before a vowel. The phenomenon should be seen
as an allegro variant -y- in competition with the
full form -iy-, followed by generalization of the
palatal variant of the consonant, but the full-
vowel variant of i-iy. The difference between N.
Gk, and S. Gk, then, was that $. Gk. allowed the
palatalizing allegro pronunciation after heavy
and light syllables, while in N. Gk. the allegro
pronunciation originally occurred after light syl-
lables (Ellsworth zoung-20).
Recently, the first palatalization has also been
implicated in the distinctive devolopment of
final -ei, -oi, and -ai from earlier *-eti, *-oti, and
*-ati, as seen in 3 sg. them. pres. -ei, kal ‘and,
even’, and poé, an Arg. and Locr. variant of poti
‘towards; against’ (Ellsworth zon:20-29) as an
improvement to the former explanation via
metathesis (Kiparsky 1967) or ¢-deletion (Cowgill
1985:100). Such forms are found in all dialects of
Gk. and arose from generalization of the pre-
vocalic sandhi-variant *c (from *-ty) to pre-
consonantal position.
Despite the fact that there are a great many
dialectal differences in the outcomes of the sec-
ond and third palatalizations, they are, by and
large, much more readily understood than the
first palatalization. The second palatalization
dates from around the Myc. period (Viredaz
1993), affecting all instances of consonant fol-
lowed by *y (but not Proto-Gk. *-öy-), most nota-
7
bly in the PIE *-ye-/-yo- present class, feminines
in Proto-Gk. *-ya, and comparatives in Proto-Gk.
*-yoh- (+ Proto-Greek and Common Greek). This
process produced a great many salient dialectal
differences: *ny and *ry gave Aeol. nn and rr in
place of the long vowels from + compensatory
lengthening in other dialects (Aeol. krinnö vs.
kring < *krinya); ky gave first palatal cc, then Att.,
W. Ion., Boeot., late Cret. tt vs. Myc. and early
Cret. 2 (*ts) vs. ss elsewhere (phulattö ‘I protect’
vs. phulässö). The third palatalization, affecting
the + labiovelars before front vowels, was dialec-
tal, partial, and largely Post-Myc. The palatalized
and non-palatalized variants of labiovelars would
originally have alternated within a single stem,
but no Gk. dialect preserves such an alternation,
leveling, for example, the non-palatalized forms
throughout the + present tense (expected de(pa
< *leik”ö, as well as leveled leipei < *leikei), and
throughout consonant-stem paradigms (-fips
‘-forsaken (nom. sg.)' < *-lik’-s and leveled -lipes
“forsaken (nom. pl.)' < *-lék”es), The second and
third palatalizations are responsible for turn-
ing straightforward concatenations into a bewil-
dering array of segmental alternations (bainö '
come’, batds ‘passable’ < *g"ın-yö, *g"ın-to- vs.
klépta 'T steal’, kleptös ‘stolen’ < *klep-ya, *klep-
to- vs. pessö || cook’, peptös ‘cooked’ < *pek”-yö,
"pek*-to-).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cowgill, Warren. 1985. “The personal endings of thematic
verbs in Indo-European”. In: Grammatische Kategorien:
Funktion und Geschichte, ed. by Bernfried Schlerath,
Veronika Rittner, 99-108. Wiesbaden,
Ellsworth, Michael. zou. “The frst palatalization of Greek’.
In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual UCLA Indo-European
conference, ed. by Stephanie W. Jamison, H, Craig
Melchert, Brent H. Vine, 13-31. Bremen.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1967. “A phonological rule of Greek’, Glotta
44:109-134.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonetique historique du mycenien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Nagy, Gregory, 1970, Greek dialects and the transformation of
an Indo-European process, Cambridge, MA.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechischer Grammatik I: allge
meiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wurtbildung, Flexion. Munich.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar uf Greek
and Latin. Oxford — New York.
Viredaz, Rémy. 1993. “Palatalisations grecques: chronolo-
gie et classification”. In: Dialectulogia Graeca. Actas del
H coloquia internacional de dialectologia Griega (Mira-
flores de las Sierra [Madrid], 19-21 de junio de ıggr), ed.
by Emillo Crespo, J.L. Garcia Ramön, Araceli Striano,
331-337. Madrid.
MICHAEL ELLSWORTH
8 PAMPHYLIAN
Pamphylian
1. INTRODUCTION
Pamphylian has traditionally been labeled as
an ‘aberrant’ Ancient Greek dialect (cf. also
+ Macedonian), but has equally been deemed
part of the ‘+ Achaean’ group of Ancient Greek
dialects (+ Southeast Greek), alongside + Arca-
dian and + Cypriot. It may be more accurate
though, to describe Pamphylian as the language
of the Greek colonies of Pamphylia, particularly
Aspendos, Perge, Sillyon and Side. In fact, Pam-
phylian was a rather idiosyncratic, non-standard
linguistic variety of Greek spoken for the largest
part of the first millennium BCE in the cen-
tral southern coastal area of Pamphylia in Asia
Minor, a fertile horseshoe-shaped strip extend-
ing from Lycia (south-west Asia Minor) to ‘Rug-
ged’ Cilicia (southeast Asia Minor), while to its
north lay the Pisidian hinterland.
The name Pamphulla ‘land of all tribes/min-
gled populations’ (cf. Gk. pdm-phulos ‘from/of
all tribes’ from pan ‘all’ + phulé and phülon ‘race,
tribe’) is obviously a reflection of the population
makeup on the ground. Ancient Greek mythol-
ogy related the name to Pamphuloi, one of the
three Doric tribes (Dumänes/-ätai, Hulleis, Päm-
phuloi) or to the homonymous daughter/sister/
wife of the seer Mopsus, who in another myth
had led alongside Amphilochus and Calchas the
first wave of Greek colonizers into Pamphylia in
the aftermath of the Trojan War. But ultimately,
Pamphylia may be the Greek adaptation of some
Anatolian place name. Historical evidence points
to a two- or even multi-stage colonization pro-
cess: first, a small post-Mycenaean population of
‘Achaeans’, i.e., colonizers akin to later Arcado-
Cypriot Greeks; second, waves of essentially
Doric (e.g. Argos, Laconia, Rhodes) and Aeolic
(e.g. Aeolic Kyme, Lesbos) colonizers in the early
Archaic period (ca. 8th c. BCE or slightly later),
The multi-dialectal Greek group of newcomers
found themselves next to a substrate/adstrate
population of south Anatolian ((post-)Luwian?)
aboriginals. Pamphylia retained a degree of
patchwork linguistic character until the very late
centuries BCE when the ongoing Hellenization
process was accelerated significantly; neverthe-
less, this development only reached completion
in the Roman period, i.e., in the first centuries CE
(Brixhe 2002; Garcia Ramon 2007; Mitchell 2012;
Meier-Briigger forthcoming).
2. THE PAMPHYLIAN DIALECT
However difficult it may be to allocate Pam-
phylian firmly to a particular dialect group,
Pamphylian shares important isoglosses with
+ Arcado-Cypriot, and to a lesser extent with the
+ Aeolic dialects and + Doric; hence, it is often
grouped together with Arcadian and Cypriot as
an 'Achaean’ dialect, i.e., within a major South/
Eastern Greek dialectal group. But Pamphylian
ought ta be co-examined with Cypriot in the
framework of contact linguistics too by virtue of
their geographic proximity.
Pamphylian is poorly documented in com-
parison with many other ancient Greek dialects,
even though the available evidence has increased
considerably since Brixhe’s major study of the
dialect (1976a), followed by numerous publica-
tions by himself and others (inscriptions nos.
1-178 in Brixhe 1976a and nos. 179-2gı in Supple-
ments I-VI in Brixhe (& others) 1976b, 1988,
1991b, 1996, 2000, 2007). The available corpus of
texts dates almost exclusively to the Hellenis-
tic period (second half of 4th c. BCE onwards)
and includes scanty epigraphical evidence, espe-
cially short funerary inscriptions with personal
names (e.g. Aspendus, Sillyon), coin legends, a
few glosses (ca. 30), etc.
The idiosyncrasy of Pamphylian, which occa-
sionally led some ancient authors to regard
its speakers as ‘barbarians’ (e.g. Ephorus apud
Strabo 14.5.23), can be attributed to the following
factors (see 3.b.-2.e. for details); (a) a local Ana-
tolian (post-Luwian?) substratum / adstratum
(cf. Sidetic in particular): e.g. personal names,
disappearance of initial *a-, raising of *e and *o
(possibly, but see (c) too), weakening of nasaliza-
tion, etc.; (b) long-term isolation (until ca. and c.
BCE), which ensured some degree of linguistic
conservatism: e.g. <Y> [u], near-absence of the
definite article, -n-ti (verbal ending); (c) the com-
posite, inter-dialectal makeup ofthe Greek popu-
lation: Arc.-Cypr.: raising of *e and *o, -si- (proper
names), terms/names reminiscent of Mycenaean
(+ Mycenaean Script and Language), ex + dat.
‘from’, ath. inf, -enai; NW. Greek / Doric: conso-
nantal metathesis, preservation of digamma and
-(n)-ti (in verbs), forms like Aéiaru ‘holy’, p.n.
Apeloniius, part. ka, *en-s > is ‘in’; Aeolic, espe-
cially Lesbian: p- for t- < *k*-, verbal endings -du
(Attic -ntön), -sdu (Attic -sthön), dat. pl. endings
-aisi, -oisi, -essi; (d) early (quasi)-similar develop-
ments with Koine Greek (+ Koine, Features of ):
 PAMPHYLIAN
thematic nom. sg. -üu(s/n) > -i(s/n), early loss of
vowel quantity and change *ei > é, (quasi)-stress
accent quality, lenition/loss of intervocalic *g, *d;
etc. (Thumb & Scherer 1959:176-179; Brixhe
1976an45-146; Garcia Ramön 2007; Meier-
Brügger forthcoming).
3. BASIC FEATURES
Pamphylian displays a number of distinctive fea-
tures, particularly in phonology and morphol-
ogy; note however several correspondences with
individual dialects, especially Arcado-Cypriot. It
is noticeable that some phonological phenomena
resemble later developments in Koine (> Koine,
Origins of) and Medieval/Modern Greek (e.g.
weakening of nasalization + plosive voicing, leni-
tion of plosives, glide development, (/-egV-/ >)
l-eyV-/ > /-efi(j)V-/ -ioC > -iC, etc.) (+ Develop-
ments in Medieval and Modern Greek).
3.a. Alphabet
Until about the 2nd century BCE, when the post-
Euclidean Attic alphabet was employed in paral-
lel (+ Adoption of the Ionic Alphabet in Attica;
+ Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
{onic Script), Pamphylian was written in a form
of the Greek alphabet which normally lacked
special graphemes for long /e/ - /o/, whereas <Y>
continued to render the back rounded vowel
/u/ rather than the front rounded vowel /y/
(< /u/), as was already the case in the Koine (and
much earlier in - Attic), e.g. Aphordisiiu. The
Pamphylian alphabet also included a few special
graphemes: (1) a special trident-like grapheme
resembling a square-shaped capital ‘psi’ <W>
for affricate /ts/ (< *k(hAjj,"tw(?)) initially, and
later for a (single/geminate) sibilant /ss/-/s/, e.g.
HanaYas (= Wanassas ‘of the goddess’); (2) a
grapheme <H>, which alongside <F> (digamma)
and <B>, and later <> (: spirant /v/ ?} too (from
3rd—2nd c. BCE), was used for the semivowel
iwi, eg. Hunaxionus (Brixhe 1976a:3-9; 2u05;
Panayotou 2007:428).
3.b. Phonology
Many distinctive Pamphylian phonemic/pho-
netic features look common with Arcado-Cypriot
and other Greek dialects. (NB: Pamphylian
+accentuation obviously followed the most
basic Greek rules, but accent marks are omitted
here due to lack of specific information):
9
(1) + vowels: (i) front vowel raising, i.e., /e/
— /i/, usually next to a nasal sound or in a pre-
vocalic position; in the latter case, /i/ is often
followed by a glide [j], eg. prep. in) ‘in’ (cf.
also Arc.-Cypr. in, but Att. en), dia (= Att. did)
‘through, by, because of’, fem. name Artimisia
(cf. Att. Artemis), etc.; (ii) back vowel raising,
Le., /o/ + /u/ in final syllables, usually before
-s/-m (note exceptions), e.g. u ‘the’ (= Att. ho),
neut. hilaru (= Att. hierön) ‘holy’, Wekhidamus
(= [Wlekhedamos); (iii) unlike Classical Attic and
the Koine, /u/ did not develop into a rounded
front vowel /y/ and continued being spelled <Y>
(or <OY>), e.g. gouna ‘woman’ (cf. Dor. gound,
but Att. guné), etc. (iv) dropping of initial *a-,
e.g. Thanadörus (= Athanddoros); (v) lowering
of /e/ + /a/ before /r/, e.g. hüarus (= Att. hierds)
‘priest’, (h)upar (= Att. huper) ‘over, for’; (vi) early
loss of vowel quantity perhaps; (vii) early change
"ef ~+ € (long mid-close), eg. késthai (= Att.
keisthai) ‘to lie’.
(2) +consonants: (i) as in Cypriot, Pam-
phylian nasals weakened and dropped before a
plosive, either in word-medial position or even
across a word boundary (co-articulation); the
following plosive became voiced beforehand
while the preceding vowel may have become
nasalized: e.g, pede [pe"de/péde] (= Att. pénie)
‘five’, genödai (= Att. genöntai) ‘they become’
(subj.), ¢ podéi [iboli(j)i] ‘at/in the city’ (= Att. en
pölei); (ii) in addition, intervocalic /g/ and /d/ are
normally spelled as <i> ([j]) and <r> respectively
(+ Spirantization, i.e., lenition), but disappeared
in an inter-vocalic position later (after an /e(:)/
and probably after an /i(:)/), eg. M(h)e(i)ale,
(= Att. Megäle), Lukomitiras (= Lukométidas);
(iii) p- for t- < *K*- (cf. Aeol.), e.g. petrakis ‘four
times’; (iv) ti > -si-, especially in names (e.g. Phor-
disis) vs. retention of -ti in verbal endings and
numerals, e.g. -di [-"di] <*-nti, phikati ‘twenty’
(=Att.e/kosi)—cf. Argeian Dorictoo;(v) (probably)
th > t, e.g. dat. pl. atröpoisi (= Att. anthröpois(i))
‘men’; (vi) + metathesis phenomena reminis-
cent of > Cretan, e.g. prep. perti (< *preti) ‘in
the direction of', Phordisis (= Att. Aphrodisios);
(3) + semivowels: both /j/ and /w/ are attested
(but /w/ became a fricative perhaps, and merged
with /v/ < /*b/), while often developing as inter-
vocalic + glides as well to prevent + hiatus (cf.
Arcado-Cypriot, but also Mycenaean, e.g. é-je-
re-u ‘priest’), i.e., /j/ (spelled <I>) after an /i/
and /w/ (spelled <B>, <F>, <N>) after an /u/:
e.g. Aphordisiiu (=Aphrodisiou), DiWia [Diwja/
10 PAMPHYLIAN
Diwia] (female deity (dat. sg.), from the ‘Zeus’
stem DiW-; cf. Myc. di-wi-ja/di-u-ja), p.n. Sbalu-
was, |Wanassa] ‘goddess’, phikati (= Att. eikosi)
‘twenty’. Note that /w/ is maintained, in writing
at least, until the very last centuries BCE (cf. also
Cypriot), e.g. Wetia (= Wétea, Att. été) ‘year’ (pl.),
DiWidöra, Wanaxandrus (= Wandxandros) (and
c, BCE),
(Thumb-Scherer 1959179-187; Brixhe 1976a:
11-95; 1985:312, n. 141; Garcia Ramon 2007; Pana-
yotou 2007:428-429: Meier-Brügger forthcoming).
3.c. Morpho(phano)logy
The most important features of Pamphylian mor-
phology, which often resemble Arcado-Cypriot,
basically concern nominal and verbal endings:
(1) Nouns:
}. masc. gen. sg. (a-stem nouns) -au < *-a(h)o
< *-as( Jo, e.g., Kouwau (morphology-depen-
dent back vowel raising, /o/ + /u/ (see 3.b.);
ef. Arcado-Cypriot
ii, dat. pl. endings -oisi, -aisi, -essi (cf. Aeol.), e.g.
atröpoisi (= Att. anthropois(i)) ‘to/for men’,
aw-/autaist (= Att. autais) ‘to/for them’,
dikasteress[i] (< dikaster, but Att. dikastes
judge’; cf. Cypr. iater ‘priest’, Arg. telester ‘an
official’, etc.)
iii. athematic i-stem paradigm: nom. sg. -is/-eis
(e.g. Theopoleis), gen. sg. -jos/-(e)is (later; cf.
(iv) below) (e.g. Newokharis), dat. sg. -ü (e.g.
polii 'city'), acc. sg -i(n) (depending on the
following sound, i.e.. vowel/consonant) (e.g.
poli(n))
iv. thematic nom. sg.-üuf{s/n) > -i(s/n) (cf. Koine
-in(s/n) > -i(s/n) too, e.g. kürios > küris ‘lord,
master’), e.g. Phordisis (= Att. Aphrodisios).
(2) Verbs:
i, 3rd pl. act. pres, ending -di [-"di] <*-nti (see
3.b.), eg, me exagödi (= Att. me exdgosin)
‘are not to release! (subj.)
ii. 3rd pl. act. pres. imp. -du [-"du] < *-nton (cf.
Lesbian), e.g. ephielodu (= ephelöntön, but
Att. helesthön) ‘let them elect’
ii. 3rd pl. mid. pres. imp. -sdu, [-zdu] <
*-(n)sthan, e.g. [z]amiiesdu (= zémiousthan)
‘let them be fined’
iv. 3rd sp. act. -t, medio-pass. -tu (< *to) (cf.
3.b.). The -t- consonantism in verbal endings
(& numerals) is reminiscent of W. Greek
(+ Northwest Greek) despite the close rela-
tionship of Pamphylian with Arcado-Cypriot
(cf. *ti > -si-, e.g. Artimisia)
v. thematic endings (< imperfect) for sigmatic
aorists (cf. Homeric düseto ‘plunged in, put
on’), e.g. ebölasetu ‘(he) decided’ (but ath. (?)
pte. (u) bölemenus ‘anyone who wishes’)
vi. ath. inf. ending -enai, eg. afphjitenai ‘to
release’.
(Thumb-Scherer 1959288-191; Brixhe 1976a:97-
124; 1994; Méndez Dosuna 1993:248; Garcia
Ramön 2007; Panayotou 2007:429; Meier-
Briigger forthcoming; Filos forthcoming).
3.d. Syntax
Pamphylian texts are normally very short and
consist of short + sentences as well. The most
characteristic dialectal feature is the use of
prep. + dat. instead of gen. (cf. Arcado-Cypriot),
for ‘departure/distance from’ (cf. ablative),
eg, ex elpilterüä (= ex epitériai) ‘because of
[his} concern’; case substitution by means of
an ‘unmarked’ dative-locative may have been
prompted by a possibly redundant + genitive
case. Note also the rare appearance of the defi-
nite article (still a demonstrative pronoun’), e.g.
u bélémenus ‘anyone who wishes’ (or a title).
— Prepositions/-> adverbs: temporal + conjunc-
tion hoka ‘when’ (< ho ka = Att. Adi dn (?)); ef.
NW. Greek, but Att. höte); prep. is (<*ens) ‘at, to’,
perti (= Att. prös), e.g, pertedöke ‘she donated’;
pre-/post-position (h)upar (= Att. huper/hüper)
‘over, for’: part. ka (cf. Cypr. ke, Att. dn); emphatic
part. (kai) ni (= Att. (kai) nu ?), etc.
(Thumb-Scherer 1959192-193; Brixhe, 1976a:
125-132; Brixhe et al. 1985:304, n. 88; Panayotou
20077429).
3.e. Lexicon-Onomastics
The Pamphylian lexical stock includes a number
of forms indicative of both its idiosyncratic con-
servatism and the native Anatolian influence: e.g.
abelién (= Att. héliakén, sc. periodon ‘solar year),
ef. Cret. abélios ‘sun'), agos (= hegemön) ‘priest-
ess (af Artemis in Perge)’, wrumalia ‘protection,
upkeep’ (?), etc. Pamphylian onomastics, espe-
cially religious terminology, is occasionally remi-
niscent of Mycenaean, e.g. Diwia [Diwja] (fem.
» theonym), Wanassa [wanassa] ‘goddess’. Note
also Warnopa- (< Warnopatas) ‘shepherd/sheep-
faced’, and compound proper names (= Per-
sonal Names), especially theophoric ones with
(A)pel(Ha-‘Apollo-’ or Diw(e)i- (dat.-abl.) ‘Jupiter’,
 PAMPHYLIAN
e.g. Apeladorus, Diweidorus, Diweiphilos; but also
with Zilo-/Ella- (< esthlo- ‘good’): e.g, Ellaphilos (cf.
Cypr. Esto-/Esla-, e.g. Eslagoras). Proper names
of Anatolian provenance, often (semi-)Hellenized
(e.g. endings) occur too; for instance, names with
the element mowau ‘force’ (gen. sg.), e.g, Koud-
ramowau, Epimouwau, etc.; note also Trokon-
dau (cf. Tarhunt-, the Luwian ‘Storm God’), etc.
(cf. Brixhe 1976a:133-143; 19918; 1999; Panayotou
2007:430; Meier-Briigger forthcoming).
Pamphylian text specimen (no 276, L 34):...]
Wetus petrakis (h)ok(a) arwas hiiaroisi |... (‘four
times a year when prayers/sacrifices by the
priests/sacrifice officers [are...').
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brixhe, Claude. 1976a. Le dialecte gree de Pampirylie. Docu-
ments ef graminaire. Paris.
+—. 1976b. “Corpus des inscriptions dialectales de Pam-
phylie. Supplement I’, Ätudes d’archeulogie classique
519-160.
——. 1988, “Corpus des inscriptions dialectales de Pam-
phylie. Supplement I”, In: L’Asie Mineure du nord au sud.
Inscriptions inedites. Etudes d’archeologie classique VI,
ed. by Claude Brixhe and René Hodot, 167-234. Nancy.
. 1991a. "Etymologie populaire et onomastique en pays
bilinguc", RPA 65:67-81.
. iggib. “Corpus des inscriptions dialectales de Pam-
phylie. Supplement III". In: Hellenika Symmikta, Histoire,
archéolagie, épigraphie, ed. by Paul Goukowsky and
Claude Brixhe, 15-27. Nancy.
. 1994. “Le changement <IO> — <I> en pamphylien, en
laconien et dans Ja koiné d’Egypte”, Verbum 3-4:219-241.
. 1996, “Corpus des inscriptions dialectales de Pam-
phylie. Supplement 4", Kadmos 35:72-86.
. 1999. "Reflexion sur l’onomastique personnelle d'une
vieille terre coloniale: la Pamphylie”. In: Des dialectes aux
lois de Gortyne, ed. by Catherine Dobias-Lalou, 33-45.
Nancy — Paris.
. 2002, “Achéens et Phrygiens en Asie Mineure:
approche comparative de quelques données lexicales".
In: Nevalis Indogermanica, Festschrift G. Neumann zum
80. Geburtstag, ed. by Günther Neumann, Suzanne Zeil-
felder and Matthias Fritz, 49-73. Graz.
. 2005. "Le psi et le ‘trident’ dans l'alphabet grec de
Pamphylie”, In: De Cyrene a Catherine: trois mille ans de
Libyennes, Etudes grecques et latines offertes & Catherine
Dubias-Lalou, ed. by Fabrice Poli and Guy Vottéro, 59-65.
Nancy - Paris.
Brixhe, Claude et al. 1985. “Dialectologie grecque". REG
98:260—314 (: 308, 3u-313).
Brixhe, Claude and Recai Tekoglu. 2000. “Corpus des inscrip-
tions dialectales de Pamphylie. Supplément 5”, Kadmos
391-556.
Brixhe, Claude, Recai Tekoglu and Guy Vottéro. 2007. “Cor-
pus des inscriptions dialectales de Pamphylie. Supple-
ment 6", Kadnios 46:39-32.
Filos, Panagiotis. Forthcoming. “Dialect evidence for Koine
Greek: Pamphylian -ttug (= -t¢) vs. Koine -wog (— -1¢) revis-
ited”. In: Panayotou and Galdi forthcoming.
Garcia Ramon, Jose Luis. 2007. *Pamphylian”, In; Brill's New
Pauly Encyclopedia of the Ancient World ı0 (OBL-PHE), ed.
by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider and Christine F.
Salazar, Leiden — Boston.
u
Meier-Brügger, Michael. Forthcoming. "La Pamphylie et le
pamphylien”. in Panayotou and Galdi forthcoming.
Méndez Dusuna, Julian V. 1993. “El cambio de <E> en <I>
ante vocal en los dialectos griegos: guna cuestidn zan-
jada?”. In: Dialectalegica Graeca: Actas del Lf coloquic
internacional de dialectelogia griega (Miraflores de la
Sierra (Madrid), 19-21 de junio de 1991), ed. by Emilio
Crespo, Jose Luis Garcia Ramén & Araceli Striano, 237-
259. Madrid.
Mitchell, Stephen. 2012, “Pamphylia”. In: The Oxford classical
dictionary, ed. by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth
and Esther Eicinow. 4th ed. Oxford.
Panayotou, Anna. 2007. “Pamphylian". In: A history of
ancient Greek. From the beginnings to late antiquity, ed,
by Anastasios-Phoivos Christidis, 427-471 & 506-307.
Cambridge.
Panayotou, Anna and Giovanbattista Galdi, eds. Forthcom-
ing. Actes du Vie colloque international sur les dialectes
grecs anciens (Nicosie, Université de Chypre, 26-29 septem-
bre 20n). Louvain.
Thumb, Albert and Anton Scherer, 1959. Handbuch der
griechischen Dialekte, vol. Il. and ed., 175-193. Heidelberg.
PANAGIOTIS FILOS
Papyri, Language of
The non-literary papyri differ significantly in
character from the other evidence available for
the late 4th century BCE to the 8th century CE
and are invaluable for the study of the history
of the + phonology, morphology, syntax, > per-
sonal names, and lexicon of Greek, Unlike ver-
nacular and literary texts, they have not suffered
the effects of manuscript transmission (includ-
ing normalization or modernization of their
language). Furthermore, unlike official lapidary
inscriptions, many papyri were pieces of per-
sonal and ephemeral communication. Most per-
sonal and administrative texts are free from the
+ Atticism that dominated contemporary liter-
ary production.
Dickey (2009) outlines the linguistic features
of the papyri (+ Koine, Features of) in com-
parison with = Attic. Horrocks (2010214-123,
165-188) discusses the papyri as evidence for
the development of Greek towards the mod-
em language. Mayser (1926-1938) and Gignac
(1976-1981, 1985:161-165) provide comprehensive
treatments of phonology, morphology, and (for
the Ptolemaic period) syntax.
1. TEXT TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS
The papyri contain types of documents that are
particularly suitable for sociolinguistic research
and that are not well represented in literature and
inscriptions. Petitions to magistrates of various
12 PAPYRI, LANGUAGE
ranks (Mullins 1962), records of court-proceed-
ings, and official, commercial, and personal let-
ters (Parsons 1980-1981) exist in such numbers,
have such conventionalized structures, and are
so formulaic in phraseology that departures
from the standard form(s) are easily identified.
Sociolinguistic explanations can then be sought
for these differences.
(‘Papyri’ is a misleading term: the material is
less significant than the type of text. As the full
titles of Mayser (1926-1938) and SB indicate,
+ praffiti, non-official inscriptions, and writing
on ostraca, mummy labels, animal skins, and
wooden, lead or waxed tablets all reflect the lan-
guage use of a wide range of individuals writing
Greek for different purposes. Their data is rightly
subsumed into the papyrological evidence.)
Some individuals retained the documents
they wrote and received in ‘archives’ (Vandorpe
2009), which facilitate studying variation (+ Lan-
guage and Variation in Greece) in a community’s
or an individual’s use of language with the sup-
port of contextual information (Clarysse 2010,
Evans zoıoa). Some archives (e.g, P Cair.Isid.)
show how an individual interacted with a range
of recipients (even on the same topic), others
(e.g. P Abinn.) show how a range of petitioners
used language in relation to one recipient
Some writers mention that they wrote in a
hurry (Peppard 2008) and many (Parsons 1980-
1981:5) seem to have had little opportunity for
deliberation, planning, structuring, or improve-
ment of their language (if, indeed, they were
capable of such improvement). Other texts are
drafts with corrections and stylistic revisions,
which may indicate where writers were sensi-
tive either to what was correct generally or to
what was appropriate for certain recipients (Lui-
selli 2010, particularly 74-78 on altering terms of
address).
2. LANGUAGE VARIATION AND REGISTER
Since the papyri are specimens of the everyday
language of both the elite and the populace (as
far as it was literate), they provide evidence for
language variation according to status, Letters
and petitions provide a window onto the lan-
guage use of women (Bagnall and Cribiore 2006)
and children (e.g. P Oxy. I ug; Cribiore 2001)
aside from the impressions that can be formed
from literary texts.
OF
Since letters and petitions involve interac-
tions between people of varying social statuses
and levels of familiarity, they provide evidence
for linguistic registers and variation according to
use or context. For example, Mullins (1962:46-
47) found that verbs of request in petitions were
selected according to register: from déomai
‘| beg’ (used when addressing superiors), to
axioo ‘I request’ (the standard verb), to erötdö
‘| request’ (used between equals), and parakaleö
‘I beg’ (the most informal or personally and emo-
tionally involved). All four verbs are more indi-
rect and polite than an imperative (+ Politeness/
Courtesy Expressions). The range of terms of
address and honorific titles (+ Forms of Address
and Sociolinguistic Variation) and their chang-
ing patterns of use have also been examined
(Dickey 2001). Magical papyri are a special case
of language variation according to use, context,
or domain, especially in their lexicon (see Blom
2012 for examples and bibliography), although
they share many morphological features with
the documentary papyri.
The papyri are the products of multilingual
societies (+ Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt;
+ Greek/Latin Bilingualism) and are evidence
of who used what language (as well as what
register) for what purpose. They also indicate
the social contexts in which contact phenom-
ena appeared in writing. Mullin’s list of verbs
of request (see above) needs reassessment in
this light. Dickey (2010) has shown that the non-
Classical use of erdtdé as '] request’ is a result
of interference from Latin rogö ‘I ask’, just as
parakaleö ‘I beg’ (rather than Classical ‘I invite’
or ‘I encourage’) reflects the Latin use of örö ‘I
beg’. The syntax of these verbs also shows Latin
interference.
3. PROVENANCE AND PERIOD
Since the vast majority of papyri were discovered
in Egypt, there is a question of how representa-
tive their evidence is for the sociolinguistics and
history of Greek in general. Although Egyptian
interference explains some phonological fea-
tures (Horrocks 20101u-14}, many morpho-
logical forms and oddities of language (from a
Classical perspective) may prove to have been
common in varieties of standard Koine Greek
(Evans 2012). The few papyri and archives that
have been found in the Judean desert, in Bac-
tria, and at Dura-Europos, Nessana, and Petra,
 PAPYRI, LANGUAGE OF
for example, provide limited comparanda. Since
some of these finds were written elsewhere in
Antiquity and some Egyptian texts originated in
Alexandria, Asia Minor, Italy, Judea, and Syria,
the area for which we have evidence widens.
Although there are some differences in language
and convention, there is considerable overlap
with the Egyptian discoveries (Gascou 2009,
especially 482-483).
The traditional periodization by regime (Ptole-
maic/Hellenistic 330-3ı BCE; Roman 31 BCE-3rd
c. CE; Byzantine, 4th c. CE onwards) reflects
the development of Greek (Evans and Obbink
2010-12). Since the transitions between these
periods entailed changes in social structures, this
periodization is also suitable for sociolinguistic
research. In relation to politeness, for example,
terms of address diversified significantly after
the grd c. CE (Luiselli 2010:76-78), which coin-
cides with the expansion of citizenship (212 CE),
the creation of the Tetrarchy, and the adoption
of Christianity.
This periodization also reflects changes in
the status of the languages spoken in Egypt
in administrative, legal, religious, and private
domains (Fournet 2009; + Language Contact).
Greek became the language of administration
in the Ptolemaic period, but Egyptian demotic
continued to be used in contracts and for reli-
gious purposes until its decline (to extinction
by the 3rd c, CE; > Greek and Egyptian, and
Coptic). After Egypt became a Roman province,
Greek remained the language of administration,
but the considerable linguistic impact of the
new regime is seen in the use of Latin itself
(mainly before the Byzantine period), loanwords
(especially, administrative and military in char-
acter; + Latin Loanwords in Greek), and seman-
tic and syntactic interference (e.g. Dickey 2010),
Earlier, limited contact between > Greek and
Latin speakers is evident: Römaiol ‘Roman trad-
ers’ are mentioned in inscriptions (OG/ 133.7,
146-116 BCE) and individuals with Italic names
and ethnics appear in the Zenon papyri and later
(e.g. P Teb. 1 33, 12 BCE). Also, language contacts
that occurred elsewhere in the Roman East may
account for early examples of Latin contact phe-
nomena (Dickey 2010:218-220), In the Byzantine
period, Coptic emerged in letters and spread
to legal texts, while Latin became restricted to
the language of law and the higher levels of the
administration.
13
4. ASSESSING MORPHOSYNTACTIC
VARIATION
The foundational task is classifying morphologi-
cal forms, word-choices, and syntactic features
beyond a diachronic analysis. A description of
standard, substandard, and superstandard Greek
is required for each of these periods so that the
language of individuals or communities can be
analyzed in relation to these varieties. What was
correct, normal, or acceptable in official and/
or personal writing in various social settings?
What was viewed as inferior, less educated, less
sophisticated, or wrong? It is overly simplistic to
assess the language of a Roman period private
letter against Classical Attic prose (even though
contemporary writers of literature studiously
imitated Classical Attic), against contemporary
administrative texts, or against Ptolemaic pri-
vate letters.
For example, if we take the Classical acc. sg.
form gunaika ‘woman’ as our reference point,
the analogically-remodelled acc. sg. gunaikan
‘woman’ and the analogically-levelled acc. pl.
gunaikes ‘women’ (for gunaikas) are substan-
dard (+ Analogy). However, since these forms
became commonplace throughout the papyri
and are the basis for the Mod. Gk. analogically-
levelled nom. sg. gunaika ‘woman’, at some point
they became the standard forms, while acc. sg.
gunaika and pl. gunaikas became superstandard
and increasingly restricted to literature. (Gignac
1981:45-46 presents the attestations.)
Starting with the Classical Attic 2nd pers. pf.
sg. oistha ‘you know’ as our reference point,
vidas ‘you know’, which was adopted from
+ lonic, was non-standard in Attic and a feature
of so-called Vulgar or Great Attic (+ Linguistic
Variation in Classical Attic). However, it is clear
that oidas was the standard form in Koine texts
as diverse as inscriptions, papyri, the Septuagint,
Diodorus Siculus, the + New Testament, and
Epictetus (Horrocks 2010:73). The and pers. pf.
sg. cides was substandard. If ofstha were found in
a document, it would be a superstandard feature
reflecting a higher level of (literary) education,
The very rare 2nd pers. pf. sg. form oisthas ‘you
know’ (Mayser 1938:81, Gignac 1981:410) would be
hypercorrect in this scheme (it was a short-lived
regularization that appeared in New Comedy
(> Comedy, Diction of); Horrocks 2010:103).
Different conjunctions for introducing pur-
pose clauses were the standard at different
Id PAPYRI, LANGUAGE
times. Classical Attic inscriptions show that
höpös with dn was the standard Attic conjunc-
tion for purpose clauses, while the use of höpös
on its own spread from lonic (Horrocks 2010:74).
However, Aina became increasingly widespread
from the Hellenistic period. Consequently,
hina survived as Mod. Gk. va [na], while Adpds
became extinct (except for the kathareuousa
variety). Some papyri show instances of the stan-
dard Aina being ‘corrected’ to the superstandard
höpös (Hellenistic: Clarysse 2010:43-45; Roman:
Luiselli 2010:94-95). The combination hopös
dn is found in Ptolemaic papyri (mainly in the
Zenon Archive) and in the Septuagint (e.g. Gn
12.13), but, later, it was a reflection of ‘super high’,
purist Greek. It is nearly absent from the New
Testament (Lk 2.35, Acts 3.20 only) and was the
preferred choice of the Atticists.
+ Orthography should not be taken on its
own as a reliable indicator of the level of profi-
ciency in Greek. Although letters may show non-
classical spellings throughout (consistently or
inconsistently), they may well be better written
in other respects (e.g. P Oxy. LIX 3999, 4th c. CE).
Conversely, a letter with consistently correct
orthography may be full of syntactic oddities
(e.g. P Oxy. XX 2276, 3rd/qth c. CE). A text may
be official in content and style, but may have
been very poorly produced (e.g. P Lond. VI 1912,
Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians). Internal
evidence may help: a writer's claim to be able to
write with special ease may be substantiated by
the letter’s language and handwriting itself (e.g.
P Oxy. X11 1467).
Some individual features in morphology, word-
choice, and syntax can be classified one-by-one
in this way statistically, with reference to the
broader history of Greek, and through their
attestation alongside easily classified features.
Classification will be aided by the creation of
linguistic descriptions of standard Greek in each
period. Texts that, on the basis of internal and
external evidence, represent the language of edu-
cated native Greek speakers can provide control
groups from which such descriptions may be
formed. Such a group is being explored by Evans
(20104, 2010b, and 2012) for the grd c. BCE from
the letters of Apollonius (Ptolemy IPs finance
minister) and his close associates, including
Zenon (Apollonius’ secretary). Again, drawing
on the extra-linguistic and contextual informa-
tion of archives is more viable than building
conclusions on the basis of isolated texts.
OF
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bagnall, R. §., ed. 2009. The Oxford handbook of papyrology.
Oxford.
Bagnall, R. S. and R. Cribiore. 2006. Women’s letters from
ancient Egypt, 300 BC-AD 8no. Michigan.
Blom, A. 2012. "Linguae sacrae in ancient and medieval
sources: an anthropological approach to ritual language.”
In: Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman worlds, ed, by
A. Mullen and P. James, 124-140. Cambridge.
Clarysse, W. 2010. “Linguistic diversity in the archive of the
engineers Kleon and Theodoros.” In: Evans and Obbink
2010:35-50.
Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the mind: Greek education in
Hellenistic und Roman Egypt. Princeton.
Dickey, E. 2001 "«üpıs, deonote, domine: Greek politeness in
the Roman empire",
/HS 1211-11.
. 2009. "The Greek and Latin languages In the papyri.”
In: Bagnall 2009149-169.
. 2010. "Latin influence and Greek request formulae.” In:
Evans and Obbink 2010:208-220.
Evans, T. V, 2010a. “Identifying the language of the individual
in the Zenon archive.” In: Evans and Obbink 2010:51-70,
. 2oiob, "Standard Koine Greek in third century BC
papyri.” In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international
congress of papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007, ed. by T. Gagos,
A. Hyatt, A. Verhoogt, and T. Wilfong, 197-206. Ann Arbor.
—. 2012, “Complaints of the natives in a Greek dress: the
Zenon archive and the problem of Egyptian interference.”
In: Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman worlds, ed. by
Alex Mullen and Patrick James, 106-123. Cambridge.
Evans, T. V. and D. D. Obbink, eds. 2010. The language af the
papyri. Oxford,
Fournet, J. L. 2009. “The multilingual environment of Late
Antique Egypt: Greek, Coptic, and Persian documenta-
tion.” In: Bagnall 2009:418-451.
Gascou, J. 2009. "The papyrology of the Near East.” In: Bag-
nall 2009:473-494.
Gignac, F. ‘I. 1976-1981. A grammar uf the Greek papyri of
the Roman and Byzantine periods, volume 1, phonology:
valume 2, morphotogy. Milan.
. 1985. “The papyri and the Greek language”, YCIS
28:155—-165.
Horrucks, G. 201u. Greek: a history of the language and its
speakers, Second Edition. Chichester.
Luiselli, R. 2010. “Authorial revision of linguistic style In
Greek papyrus letters and petitions (AD i-iv).” In: Evans
and Obbink 2010:71-96.
Mayser, E. 1926-1938. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus
der Ptulemäerzeit mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka
und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften. Berlin.
Mullins, T. Y. 1962. “Petition as a literary form", NT 3:46-34.
Parsons, P, J. 1980-1981. "Background: the papyrus letter”,
Didactica Classtca Gandensia 20-21:3-19.
Peppard, M. 2008. “A letter between two women, with a
courier about to depart”, ZPE 167:162-166.
Vandorpe, K. 200g. “Archives and cdossiers." In; Bagnall
2009:216-255.
PATRICK JAMES
Papyrology
Papyrology is the study of ancient texts writ-
ten on papyrus (> Papyri, Language of ). Before
 PAPYROLOGY
the invention of paper making, papyrus was
the writing material in Classical antiquity. Most
papytus texts were found in Egypt; they are writ-
ten in Greek and date from the period 330 BCE-
ca. 800 CE (divided into the Ptolemaic, Roman
and Byzantine-Arabic periods). They are unique
primary sources for our knowledge of the culture
and society of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Texts writ-
ten on other materials, such as potsherds (ost-
raca), tablets of (waxed) wood or lead, linen and
leather or parchment, also belong to the field of
papyrology since their content is very similar
to that of texts written on papyrus. Writing on
stone, on the other hand, belongs to the field of
~ Epigraphy.
1. HISTORY OF WRITING AND
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF OUR
FINDINGS
Papyrus as a writing material was invented in
ancient Egypt ca 3000 BCE. It was made by past-
ing together, crosswise, two layers of strips of
the stem of the plant Cyperus Papyrus L., which
grew abundantly along the shores of the Nile.
The ancient source on the method of papyrus-
making is Pliny the Elder, who describes the
technique in his Naturalis Historia (13.74-80; cf.
Lewis 1974, Turner 1968, Hendriks 1984). Origi-
nally, sheets of papyrus were pasted together
to form rolls that mostly were inscribed on the
inside along the fibers of the papyrus (longer
texts would be written in columns). Later, from
the ist c. CE (for Christian literature) and the
zrd/ath c. (for pagan literature), longer texts
were written in book form with pages bound
together; this format is called a codex.
The use of papyrus spread across the Medi-
terranean, and beyond. Because organic mate-
rial perishes in humid conditions, papyri are
found mainly in the dry parts of Egypt, with
some exceptions like Herculaneum (Italy), Dura-
Europos (Syria), Qumran and Petra (Jordan),
Nessana (Israel), Bu Njem (Libya, only ostraka),
Ai Khanum (Afghanistan) and Vindolanda (UK,
only wood); cf Cotton et al. (1995:214—235). What
presumably is the oldest papyrus with a Greek
text comes from Greece itself: a carbonized roll
from Derveni (Macedonia). It dates to ca 340
BCE and contains a commentary on a poem that
is ascribed to the legendary poet and musician
Orpheus and possibly stems from the circle of the
philosopher Anaxagoras (+ Derveni Papyrus).
15
In Egypt, approximately one million papyrus
fragments have been found (van Minnen 1993);
for the most part, they are still unpublished. With
some exceptions (such as carbonized rolls), the
places where papyri are found are largely limited
to the Egyptian desert. The majority of papyri
have been found in the garbage dumps (Ara-
bic: sebakh) of ancient villages and cities that
were abandoned to the advancing desert, and in
graves, where mummy coverings such as masks,
pectorals and foot cases were sometimes made
out of cartonnage consisting of layers of used,
i.e., inscribed, papyrus rolls. Unfortunately Alex-
andria, Egypt’s then capital in which the most
interesting papyri were found, has not yielded
many texts because of its humid climate and its
coastal location.
2, LANGUAGE
The majority of papyri is written in Greek. Greek
language and culture were introduced to Egypt
when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt
in 332/331 BCE. After his death (323 BCE), the
country fell under the rule of one of Alexander's
Macedonian generals, Ptolemaios, son of Lagos,
who declared himself King of Egypt in 305 BCE
and became the first of the Greek dynasty of the
Ptolemies. This dynasty ruled over Egypt until
the last Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra VII, lost
Egypt to the Romans in the battle of Actium
(31 BCE). After Egypt became a Roman prov-
ince, Greek remained the main language not
just of administration and law but alsa of daily
use within the upper classes. It maintained
its position until the conquest of Egypt by the
Arabs in 641 CE gradually brought an end to the
local Greek culture; Greek papyri still appear,
in dwindling numbers, until the very end of the
8th c. CE, while Arabic texts become more and
more numerous,
3. EARLY HISTORY OF THE DISCIPLINE
The first Greek papyri (labeled ‘Turkish’) turned
up in Europe already at the end of the 16th c. Dur-
ing the 17th c., papyri were occasionally brought
home from Egypt by travelers. Also, from 1752
onwards, carbonized papyrus rolls, which turned
out to belong to a specialized philosophical (Epi-
curean) library (cf. D. Sider 2005), were found
at Herculaneum. The first Greek papyrus roll
from Egypt was bought in 1778; Nicolaus Schow
16 PAPYROLOGY
undertook its decipherment and published it in
1788. More papyri found their way to European
scholars after Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt
(1798) had opened up the country to Westerners.
Gradually, important papyrus collections were
acquired by institutions in Europe and America.
4. MODERN DEVELOPMENTS
The beginning of serious papyrological research
started in 1877/78, when a spectacular find of
many thousands of papyri was made in the
Fayum province by native Egyptians, The first
systematic archaeological excavation took place
in 1897, led by W. M. Flinders Petrie. Important
work was done by the British Classicists Grenfell
and Hunt, who were supported by the recently
founded Egypt Exploration Fund (now Egypt
Exploration Society). The mid-Egyptian town
Behnesa (ancient Oxyrhynchus) turned out to
be another major place for papyri.
Since the end of the ıgth c., excavations have
been organized by research groups from various
countries; papyri are found today in many parts
of Egypt. Already by the beginning of the zoth c.,
papyrology had become a well-organized field,
and monograph editions of papyri appeared
on a regular basis (cf. Worp 2009). Nowadays,
papyrology is an international scholarly pursuit
characterized by multi- and interdisciplinarity
(on the history of papyrology see further Bagnall
2009:ch. 3).
Within Greek papyrology one may distinguish
between literary and documentary texts. Lit-
erary papyri (by far the smaller category) can
often be recognized by their careful handwriting
and layout (> Palaeography). They demonstrate
which authors were popular among the Greeks
in Egypt (especially Homer). Literary papyri
provide us also with versions of ancient texts
that sometimes were written many centuries
closer to the original author than our earliest
medieval manuscripts. Comparisons between
the literary papyri of an author's work and the
medieval manuscripts of the same author have
shown that, in general, the medieval manu-
scripts are less corrupt than had been assumed
so far. Above all, such papyri provide literary
works that had not been transmitted through
medieval manuscripts. Among these texts, ear-
lier thought to have become ‘irreparably lost’ but
now retrieved on papyrus, are not only works by
various already known famous Greek authors
(e.g. Aristode, Sappho, Bacchylides, Menander),
but also original new works of unknown authors,
e.g. an anonymous sequel to Xenophon’s Hel-
lenica, known as the 'Hellenica Oxyrhynchia’,
and poems of the Byzantine notary Dioscorus.
A recent spectacular addition to our corpus of
literary texts from Egypt is a large papyrus with
fragments of Artemidorus’ Geographoumena.
Information on each literary papyrus may be
found in the Leuven Database of Ancient Books.
Documentary papyri (written in an enor-
mous variety of cursive hands) provide detailed
information about all aspects of ancient life.
These ‘historical snapshots’ represent all that
was found and worth recording. They produce
important authentic primary sources for ancient
historians in a way that is completely different
from that of epigraphical sources. At the same
time, papyri are subject to certain limitations.
Their preservation, for instance, is subject to
chance as far as their geographical distribution
is concerned (most papyri have been found in a
limited number of places), and not all centuries
within a span of 1000+ years are equally well rep-
resented. Many texts from the Ptolemaic and the
Roman periods were found in smaller villages
along the edges of the desert; these papyri pro-
vide information on the life of lower-class coun-
try people, farmers and other laborers. From the
Byzantine period, however, most papyri come
from larger cities, housing the social elite and
large landowners, with matching wealth and cul-
ture. Of course, papyrus texts should always be
interpreted within their geographical, social and
temporal contexts.
Even despite such limitations, papyri add
enormausly to our knowledge of the ancient
world. The exact dates furnished by many texts
have enabled us, for instance, to develop very
precise chronologies of Ptolemaic kings, Roman
emperors and Byzantine consuls (cf. Pestman
1965; Bagnall & Worp 2004). Tax lists, tax receipts
and various official documents provide detailed
insight into the government and administration
of Egypt. From decrees, crime reports, contracts,
petitions and court records, a legal historian
can infer how laws and regulations known from
other ancient sources were implemented (or
not; see Wolff i978). Papyrus archives with
detailed information on the management of
larger estates (such as the archives of Zenon
(gard c. BCE) and of Heroninus (3rd c. CE)), pres-
ent a much more detailed picture of trade and
economy in Antiquity than had ever been avail-
able before.
 PAPYROLOGY
Historians ofreligion make use of papyrus doc-
uments (and religious literary papyri) to study
the pagan, Jewish and Christian religions in Egypt
(Frankfurter ı998). Various details of daily life
are illustrated by papyri. Although the society
emerging in these mainly Greek texts is basically
Egyptian, one can draw many conclusions per-
taining to contemporary societies that produced
not nearly as much direct source material,
The language of the papyri (> Papyri, Lan-
guage of) is not classical Greek, but Koine
{+ Koine, Features of ), used in (e.g.) the + New
Testament. Special papyrological dictionaries,
onomastica and grammars are available (+ Data
Bases and Dictionaries |Papyrology and Epigra-
phy included]; + Dictionaries of Ancient Greek).
In order to complete the historical picture,
Greek papyri should be studied preferably in
combination with conternporary papyri written
in other languages. Only in recent times has
more attention been paid to the study of papyri
written in Arabic; their overlap with Greek texts
is restricted (see above).
For editions of papyrus texts, standards were
set already early in the 2oth c. Papyrus pub-
lications have abbreviated names like BGU
(Berliner Griechische Urkunden 'Berlin Greek
Documents’), P.Oxy. (papyri found in Oxy-
rhynchus) or O.Wilcken (ostraca published by
U. Wilcken). Each papyrus is cited by volume and
text number, e.g. P.Oxy. 75:5071. Papyri published
separately in articles or contributions to books
are collected in the Sammelbuch griechischer
Urkunden aus Agypten ‘Collection of Greek Doc-
uments from Egypt’ (= SB; 1913—-). A critical list
of various corrections proposed for published
Greek papyrus documents appears in the Berich-
tigungsliste der griechischen Papyrusurkunden
aus Ägypten 'List of corrections for the Greek
papyrus documents from Egypt’ (BL; 1922-).
Papyrological abbreviations can be found in the
Checklist; internet version: http://scriptorium.
lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html). Various
Greek texts, translations and images of papyri
are available through the Papyrological Naviga-
tor (see http://www.papyri.info). Papyrologists
have formed the Association Internationale de
Papyrologues (Bruxelles) (see http://www.ulb.
ac.be/assoc/aip/), with their guiding principle
being the amicitia papyrologorum.
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bagnall, Roger S. 1995. Reading papyri, writing ancient his-
tory. London - New York.
. (ed.). 2007, Egypt in the Byzantine world, 300-700.
Cambridge.
Bagnall, Roger S. (ed.). 2009. The Oxford handbuok of papy-
rology. Oxford.
Bagnall, Roger $. and Klaas A, Worp. 20042. Chronological
systems of Byzantine Egypt. Leiden.
Bowman, Alan K. 1986. Egypt after the Pharaohs. Berkeley -
Los Angeles.
Cotton, Hannah M., Walter E. H. Cockle and Fergus
G. B. Millar. 1995. "The papyrology of the Roman Near
East: a survey", [RS 85:a14—295.
Frankfurter, David. 1998. Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimila-
tion and resistance. Princeton.
Hendriks, 1. H. M. 1984. “More about the manufacture of
papyrus,” In: Atti del XVII congresso internasionale di
papirologia, ed. by M. Gigante, vol 1, 31-37. Naples.
Hunt, Arthur. and C. C. Edgar. 1932-1950. Select papyrt I-IIT
(Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, MA.
Lewis, Naphtali, 1974. Papyrus in classical antiquity. Oxford.
van Minnen, Peter. 1993. "The century of papyrology (18g2-
1992)", BASP 3075-18.
Oates, John F., Roger 5, Bagnall et al, eds. 2001. Checklist of
editions uf Greek, Latin, Demotic and Cuptic papyri, ostraca
and tablets, fifth edition. BASP Supplement 9. Updated
version available online: http://scriptorium.lib.duke,edu/
papyrus/texts/clist.html (accessed March 2013),
Pestman, Pieter W, 1967. Chronologie égyptienne d’apres les
textes démotiques (332 av. ]-C.-453 ap. J.-C.). Leiden.
. 1994. The new papyrological primer. Second edition.
Leiden,
Rathbone, Dominic. 1991. Economic rationalism and rural
society in third-century A.D. Egypt. The Heroninas archive
and the Appianus estate. Cambridge.
Rupprecht, Hans-Albert, 1994, Kleine Einführung in die Papy-
ruskunde. Darmstadt.
Sider, David. 2005. The library of the Villa dei Papiri at Hercu-
faneum. Los Angeles.
Turner, Eric G, 1968 (repr. 1980), Greek papyri. An introduc-
ton, Oxford.
Wolff. Hans-Julius. 1978. Das Recht der griechischen Papyri
Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats,
2. Band: Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten Rechts-
verkehrs. Munich.
Worp, Klaas A. 2009. "A pivotal contribution to the study
of Egypt's past: the PSI’. In: ı00 Anni di Istituzioni Fioren-
tine per la papirologia. Atti del Convegna Internazionale
di studi, Firenze 12-13 Giugno 2008, ed. by G. Bastianini
and A. Casanova (= Studi e Testi di Papirologia, N.S. u),
159-171. Florence 2009.
KLaas Worr
Parataxis
+ Coordination (includes Asyndeton)
Participle
A participle (ptc.) is, as part of the Greek + ver-
bal system, characterized for +diathesis and
18 PARTICIPLE
either for verbal + aspect (+ present, — aorist
or + perfect ptc.), or for + tense (future pte.); at
the same time, it shows nominal features, as it is
characterized for case, number and gender. As
such, it takes a position in between the adjective
and the verb, and is therefore often regarded as a
verbal adjective. Arguments and peripheral ele-
ments like adjuncts or disjuncts can be added to
the participial nuclear predication. A ptc. can be
negated; the negative is ou, but it is mé when the
ptc. expresses a condition.
1, TENSE/ASPECT
The state of affairs expressed by the (non-
negated) aor. ptc. will, with the assistance of our
knowledge of the world, normally be interpreted
as anterior to the state of affairs expressed by the
predicate of the matrix clause, while the pres. or
pf. ptc. will normally be interpreted as present-
ing a state of affairs that is simultaneous with
the state of affairs expressed by the predicate of
the matrix clause. The pres., aor., and pf. ptc. are,
however, not characterized for tense; the choice
of the pres., aor., or pf. stem in the ptc. is purely
aspectual (+ Aspect (and Tense)). An aorist ptc.
may express a state of affairs that coincides
with the state of affairs that is expressed by
the main verb; this use of the aorist participle
is called ‘coincident’, because the participle,
while expressing a completed state of affairs,
is not anterior to the main verb, but coincides
with it (Rijksbaron 2007125). The state of affairs
expressed by the fut. ptc. is always posterior to
the main predication; the fut. ptc. nearly always
has final value.
2. USE
A pte. is used predicatively, attributively, or sub-
stantively.
2.4. Predicative Use of the Purticiple
A predicative ptc. is used either as an argument
(obligatory constituent; + Functional Grammar
and Greek) or as a satellite (peripheral constitu-
ent). The ptc. can be placed before or after the
predicate of the matrix clause.
2,a,i, As Argument
The predicative ptc. functions as an argument
to verba sentiendi and verba affectuum, as well
as to certain other verbs: tunkhdnd ‘to happen
to be’, fanthdné ‘to escape notice’, phthdno ‘to be
beforehand with’, thamizö ‘to be wont’, diateleö
‘to continue’, apagoreüö ‘to give up’, drkhomai ‘to
begin’, paviomai ‘to leave off doing‘, oikhomai ‘to
go away’, among others.
(1) ho thänatos tunkhdnei on... oudén allo é
duoin pragmatoin didlusis
‘Death, in fact, is nothing but the disconnec-
tion of two things’ (Pl. Grg. 524b)
z.aii As Satellite
a. Conjunct ptc.
A ptc. can be added to a nominal constituent,
expressed or implied, which performs a syntactic
function in the matrix clause, as an argument or
a satellite. This noun agrees with the ptc. in case,
gender and number, and performs the syntactic
function of subject of the participial predicate. As
the pres., aor., and pf. ptc. lack markers for tense
and mood themselves, the relation between the
participial predicate and the nuclear predicate
is interpreted in context; the ptc. may receive a
temporal, causal, conditional, concessive, instru-
mental or - in the case of the fut. ptc, — final
interpretation, The following pre-positioned
relators (+ Conjunctions (Subordinating)) can
specify the relation between the content of the
ptc. and the content of the matrix clause: hate,
hoion or hola: primary focalizer-oriented (i.e.
‘objective’) causality: ‘inasmuch as’; Ads: second-
ary focalizer-oriented (i.e. ‘subjective’) causality:
‘on the assumption that’; hösper: comparative:
‘as’; kaifper) and in negative sentences oudé or
mede: concessive: ‘although’; me: negated condi-
tion: ‘if not’. Besides, certain adverbs like Adma
‘at the same time’, metaxü ‘meanwhile’, euthus
‘at once’, autika ‘forthwith’, arti ‘just now’, and
exaiphnés ‘suddenly’, can specify the relation
between the content of the ptc. and the content
of its matrix clause.
(2) Aphikémenon dé par’ auton midi triérei
Alkibiddén xénid te kai déra dgonta sullabon
eirxen en Sdrdesi, phäskön keleuein basiléa
polemein Athenaiois.
‘Alcibiades arrived at his place with a single
trireme, bearing friendly offerings and gifts;
Tissaphernes seized him and imprisoned
him in Sardis, saying that the King ordered
him to make war upon the Athenians.’ (Xen.
Hell. 1.1.9)
 PARTICIPLE
Most conjunct participles can be seen as an
adverbial! modifier equivalent to a subclause,
although such a conjunct participle is more inte-
grated into its matrix clause than a subclause is.
Especially sentence-initially placed conjunct par-
ticiples differ from sentence-initially placed sub-
clauses in that the ptc. is usually found at points
of minor discontinuity in the text with respect
to time, place, participants and/or action. Espe-
cially Herodotus often uses the ptc, to restate the
finite verb of the preceding sentence at the onset
of the next sentence, thus securing continuity of
information units (tail-head linkage):
(3) hotitos dé dn ho Kandauilés érdsthé tés heöuton
gunaikös, erastheis de...
‘Now this Candaules conceived a passion
for his own wife, and having conceived this
passion...’ (Hdt. 1.8)
Some conjunct participles, however, add an
action to the main predicate (clause-chaining),
and require their interpretation on the basis
of the mood of this predicate. The difference
is respectively labeled ‘autonomie modale’ and
‘solidarité modale’ by Oguse (1962), while from a
semantic-pragmatic point of view Pompei (2006)
speaks of a ‘subordinative’ conjunct ptc. in the
former case, and of a ‘cosubordinative’ conjunct
pte. in the latter. A case in point:
(4) Bi gar ego en agordi plethoüsei labön hupö
males enkheiridion légoimi pros sé
‘For suppose that in a crowded market I
should hide a dagger under my arm and
should say to you’ (Pl. Grg. 469d1)
b. Genitive absolute
A + genitive absolute (gen. abs.) is a construction
consisting of, at least, a ptc. in the genitive case,
and, usually, a noun in the genitive case agreeing
with the ptc. in gender and number. The con-
struction is called ‘absolute’ because the noun
in the genitive case does not perform a syntactic
function in the matrix clause; this noun performs
the syntactic function of the subject of the par-
ticipial predicate. The ptc. is characterized for
diathesis and either for verbal aspect (pres., aor.,
or pf. ptc.), or for tense (fut. ptc.). Arguments and
peripheral elements like adjuncts or + disjuncts
can be added to the participial nuclear predica-
tion. A gen. abs. is used predicatively, and can be
placed before or after the predicate of the matrix
1g
clause. A gen. abs. can be negated; the nega-
tive is ou, but it is mé when the pte. expresses a
condition. The gen. abs. can, depending on the
context, receive a temporal, causal, conditional,
concessive, instrumental or final interpretation.
Certain pre-positioned relators and adverbs can
specify the relation between the content of the
gen. abs. and the content of the matrix clause.
(5) Thiontes... kal mélis kallieresantes, epaiisanto.
Legoüses de tes thusias entös pénth’ hemerén
katagoreiei tis prös totis ephörous epiboulen.
‘They made offerings and with difficulty
obtained favorable omens, and ceased sacri-
ficing. Within five days after the sacrifice
was ended a man reported to the ephors a
conspiracy.’ (Xen. Hell. 3.3.4)
c. Dative absolute
Whether a dative absolute exists in Greek or not
is a matter of debate. Maiocco (2005:34-42) dis-
cusses possible instances from classical Greek,
from the Greek of the Gospels, from late, vulgar
Greek and from Greek influenced by Latin, with-
out establishing the absoluteness of the dative
construction beyond ail reasonable doubt. A
probable example from classical Greek:
(6) hösth’ himerds m’ hupelthe géi te kourandi
léxai molouséi deüro despoines tükhas
‘So that a desire came upon me to come
here and tell to earth and sky my mistress’
plight’ (Eur. Med. 57-58)
The pte. in the dat. does not agree with m’, which
should be taken as an acc., and the ptc. therefore
may be said to be a dat. absolute. Compare Phi-
lemon, who parodies the lines replacing the fem.
dat. ptc. with a masc. dat. ptc.:
(7) has himerös m’ hupélthe géi te kourandi lexai
molönti toupson hös eskeitasa
‘What a desire came upon me to come here
and tell to earth and sky what a dish I made’
(Philemon, fragm. 79 (Kock) ı-2)
d. Accusative absolute
A pte. stands in the acc. neut. sg. instead of the
gen. with impersonal verbs, e.g. exdn ‘it being
possible’ to éxesti ‘it is possible’, and with pas-
sive participles/ör+adj. when used impersonally,
eg. eiremenon ‘it having been said’. Personal
verbs when used in the accusative absolute
20 PARTICIPLE
(sg. and pl.) are usually preceded by Ads ‘on the
assumption that’ Adsper ‘just as if’. It is to be
noted, however, that this construction is tradi-
tionally labeled acc. absolute; as with the neuter
pte. the acc. ending is the same as that of the
nom., it might as well be an embedded nominal
clause showing the nominative case marking
(Maiocco 2005:31-32; + Indo-European Linguis-
tic Background). The construction occurs from
the the fifth century onwards:
(8) éti dé, 6 Sdkrates, oudé dikaiön moi dokeis
epikheirein pragma, sautén prodoünai, exon
söthenai
‘And besides, Socrates, it seems to me that
what you are undertaking is not even right -
betraying yourself when it is possible for
you to be saved’ (Pl, Crit. 45¢5-6)
2.b. Attributive Use of the Participle
The ptc. is used as an attribute when it modifies
a noun:
(9) Oikondmos deine kai pheidölös kai akribös
pänta dioikoüsa
‘An impressive, frugal housekeeper, one
who keeps everything in the nicest order’
(Lys. 1.7)
On a par with attributive adj, and without the
article.
(10) Oikidion ésti moi diploün, isa ékhon ta dnd
tols kata
‘T own alittle house with two floors, that has
the upper part equal to the lower’ (Lys. 1.9)
In apposition, equivalent to a non-restrictive
relative clause.
(u) Ten theräpainan ten eis ten agoran badizou-
san
‘The servant-girl who regularly goes to mar-
ket’ (Lys. 1.8)
with the definite article.
2.c. Substantive Use of the Participle
The pte. is used as a substantive when the def.
art. precedes the ptc. and no head noun is added.
Sometimes the substantive ptc. is preferred to a
substantive because of the features pertaining to
tense/aspect and diathesis of the participle:
(12) légein ta progendmena; gigndskein tä
pareönta; prolégein ta esömena
To tell the antecedents; to know the present;
to foretell the future’ (Hippoc. Epid. 1.2.5)
3. PECULIARITIES
In dialogue, speakers may modify the words of
other speakers by means of a ptc. (Clytaemestra
responds to Agammnon’s words):
(13) ho Peleus d’ éskhe Nereös korén. /theoü
didöntos € biäi theön labön?
‘Peleus wedded the daughter of Nereus. /
With the god's consent, or after taking her
in spite of gods?’ (Eur. JA 701-702)
Sometimes a predicative conjunct ptc. used as
a satellite in the nominative case agrees with a
noun that is resumed later on in the sentence in
a different case (so-called nominativus pendens);
this downshift (Slings 1997) in the grammar
of the sentence at hand facilitates participant
tracking:
(14) Ekeinoi de eiselthöntes sun tois huperetais,
hégouménou autön Satirou tot thrasutdtou
te kai anaidestdtou, eipe men ho Kritias
‘They came in attended by their servants —
Satyrus, the most audacious and shameless
of them, at their head ~ and Critias said’
(Xen. Hell. 2.3.54)
BIBLIGGRAPHY
Bomemann, Eduard and Emst Risch. 1973. Griechische
Grammatik. Frankfurt am Main.
Buijs, Michel. 2005. Clause combining in ancient Greek narra-
tive discourse. The distribution of subclauses and participial
clauses in Xenophon’s Hellenica and Anabasis. Leiden.
Fox, Barbara A. 1983. "The discourse function of the par-
ticiple in ancient Greek”. In: Fora Klein-Andreu (ed.),
Discourse perspectives on syntax, 23-41. New York.
Kiihner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1898-1904. Ausführli-
che Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Hannover.
Lang, Mabel L. 1995. “Participial motivation in Thucydides",
Mnemosyne 48.4865.
Maiocco, Marco. 2005. Absolute participial constructions.
A contrastive approach to the syntax of Greek and Latin.
Alessandria.
Oguse, André, 1962, Recherches sur le participe circonstanciel
en grec ancien, Paris.
Pompei, Anna. 2003. “La double nature du participe”. In:
Cécile Brion, and Eric Castagne (eds), Nom et verbe: caté-
gorisation et référence, Actes du collaque international de
Reims 2001, 189-209. Reims.
. 2006. “Participles as a non-prototypical word class”. In:
Emilio Crespo, Jesus de la Villa and Antonio R. Revuelta
(eds), Word classes and related tapics in ancient Greek.
 PARTICIPLE
Proceedings of the conference on ‘Greek syntax and word
classes’ held in Madrid an 18-21 June 2003, 361-388. Lau-
vain-La-Neuve.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2007. The syntax and semantics of the
verb in classical Greek. An Introduction (third edition).
Chicage — London (American reprint of the third edition
Amsterdam 2002).
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechische
Grammatik. Munich.
Slings, Simon R. 1997. “Figures of speech and their looka-
likes. Two further exercises in the pragmatics of the
Greek sentence”. In: Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as
interpretation. Greek literature in its linguistic contexts,
169-214, Leiden.
Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1956. Greek grammar (second edition),
Cambridge, MA.
MICHEL Bus
Partieiples (Morphological Aspects of)
There is an extraordinary amount of variation
of participial forms in Indo-European (IE) lan-
guages; English only has two (breaking, broken);
Latin has four (amätus, amäns, amätürus, aman-
dus); Ancient Greek and Sanskrit have up to
a dozen. The details of the evolution of these
participial systems are also difficult to trace,
although it appears that the Greek system is the
result of an expansion which did not necessar-
ily take place in other IE groups. On the other
hand, the English-like system of Modern Persian
evolved historically from the eight-participle sys-
tem of Ancient Iranian (Bubenik 1997:360). All
that is reconstructible for Proto-Indo-European
(PIE; > Indo-European Linguistic Background)
is a simple system with an aspectual contrast
(+ Aspect (And Tense)), Completive vs. Incom-
pletive (generic terms) and a voice contrast,
Active vs. Medio-Passive (Watkins 1969, Sze-
merenyi 1996, Beekes 1995).
Ancient Greek forms its prolific variety of
participial forms by taking advantage of the full
range of basic aspectual contrasts. Aspectual
contrasts are restricted to the representation
of the verbal event itself, and typically range
over five cardinal viewpoints (i.e. aspects) of the
event, from the position immediately before the
event, to the one immediately after the event,
and including the three internal positions: the
beginning, the intermediate, and the end, as in
(2). The dotted lines represent Event Time, while
the solid lines, extending towards an infinity of
time in the past and the future, represent Uni-
verse Time, which is the basis of tense and tense
contrasts, Tense is the representation of the kind
21
of time that contains the event, such as Past ver-
sus Nonpast, or Past / Present (+ Present Tense) /
Future, whereas Aspect is the representation of
time contained within the event.
The square brackets in (1) represent the ini-
tial and final moments of the event. The capi-
tal letters represent the different phases of the
event as fundamental aspectual positions of
the subject carrying out the event: A = before
the event (Prospective); B = at the beginning
of the event (Inceptive, Situative); C = between
the beginning and the end of the event (Imper-
fective); D = at the end or completion of the
event (Perfective); E = after the event (Retrospec-
tive, also called Perfect, or Anterior). It should be
noted that Prospective and Retrospective form
a contrastive pair, and the word Perfect is now
seldom used because of serious confusions with
Perfective. The term Anterior is used by some lin-
guists, but the term is not clear: one could just as
easily use Posterior, position E is after the event
(+ Tense/Aspect).
All five of the cardinal aspectual positions
are represented by participial forms in Ancient
Greek, although only three of them are found
in finite forms, as in (2), where the three differ-
ent forms of the grd person singular subjunctive
(+ Subjunctive (Morphology of) are presented,
with the older terminology on the left, and mod-
ern aspectual terminology on the right. The
translations are rudimentary, the English aspec-
tual system being different from that of Ancient
Greek; the forms are 3rd person singular, and the
inflections of all three subjunctives are identical
throughout the paradigm. The letters at the end
of the line give the corresponding positions in
(1) above.
(2) Subjunclives
Present gräphei ‘he/she _Imperfective C
stem may be
writing’
Aorist grdpséi ‘he/she Perfective D
stem may write’
Perfect gegraphei ‘he/she _—_ Retrospective E
stem may have
written’
22 PARTICIPLES (MORPHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF)
The corresponding forms of the Indicative,
as in (3), show the binary tense contrast for
the same three aspects. The Past is marked by
the augment /e-/, the Nonpast is unmarked. The
future is represented by a Nonpast Perfective, as
in Czech, Polish, Russian, and other Eastern and
Western Slavic languages. In short, the future
form is not a separate tense, but the Perfective
form of the Non-Past tense, as the morphology
clearly shows.
(3) Indicatives
Of the remaining positions in (1) above, the Pro-
spective (Position A) also has forms in the Infini-
tive (> Infinitives (Morphology Of )), + Optative,
and Participial forms (but not in the Indicative
or Subjunctive)}, whereas the Situative (Position
B) only occurs in the form of > verbal adjectives
of minimal usage, of which there are two, lutdés
‘that may be loosed’ and dutéos ‘that must be
loosed’, Participial examples are in (5).
(5) Other participles

Prospective Situative Situative

Past tense Nonpast Function A Bi Bz
tense
Active hison lutds lutéos M.
égraphe ‘he/she graphei ‘he/she Imperfective lisousa futé lutéa F.
was writ- is lüson lutön lutéon N.
ing’ writing’ Med.-Pass. /usdémenos - - M.
égrapse ‘he/she grapsei ‘he/she Perfective lusomene - _ F.
wrote’ will lusdmenon - - N.
write’
egegräphei ‘he/she gégraphe ‘he/she Retrospective In the Prospective aspect the subject is repre-
had writ- has sented as having the event in view, as something
ten’ written’ that is about to be done, about to be inaugu-
rated. In the Situative (the term was developed
The corresponding participial forms for these by Africanists for this kind of aspect: see the
three aspects have both + Active and Medio- entry Situative in Rose et al. 2002), in Position B,
Passive (+ Middle; + Mediopassive) forms, with the event is already inaugurated, and the subject
nominal morphology of + number, — gender, is situated in initial position, ready to carry out
and case (+ Case (Including Syncretism)). The the event. Situative forms, although not com-
forms given in (4) are + nominative singular, mon in IE languages, have participial forms in
and are listed by gender: Masculine, Feminine, Baltic (Hewson 1997:157-164, where they are
and Neuter. The verb is dein ‘to loosen, break labeled Potential) and Slavic (Bubenik 1997:102,
up’, as used in most of the basic grammars. Again likewise labeled Potential). Baltic and Slavic, like
the capital letters correspond to the positions in Greek and Sanskrit, also have a multiplicity of
(1) above. participial contrasts, some of which, like the two
Situatives in Ancient Greek, have a restricted
(4) Participles corresponding to Subjunctives paradigm.
and Indicatives The Prospective and the Perfective share an
identical stem, which ends in a stem final /-s/;
they differ only in their inflections, the Prospec-
Imperfective Perfective Retrospective tive using the regular ont-participle forms, and
Cc D E the Perfective using the ant-forms as in (6), a
paradigm which shows the singular case forms
Active hidn lisas lelukös M. of both aspects.
hiousa, lusasa lelukuia F.
laon lüsan lelukds N.
Med.-Pass. ludmenos lusdmenos leluménos M.
luumene lusaméné lelumene F.
Iuömenon Iusämenon lelumenon N.
 PARTICIPLES (MORPHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF) 23
(6) Comparison of the sigmatic participles Given that an Imperfective form always rep-
resents the event as partly complete (accom-
pli) and partly incomplete (inaccompli), with
Prospective Perfective the subject forming the boundary (the horizon)
M./N. ftisdn, fason — luisa, lisan nom. sg. between the two parts, as in (7), the /-s-/ of
hisonta hisanta acc 5 both the Prospective and the Perfective marks
hison " lasan j these two forms as having no internal horizon
hisontos hisantos gen between accompli and inaccompli: in the Pro-
hisonti hisanti dat. spective no part ofthe event is complete (it is all
F hisousa hisasa nom. sg inaccompli, still to be done), and in the Perfec-
j hisousan hisasan ace tive the whole event is represented as complete
lusousés lusdsés gen (it is all accompli, already finished).
lusoüsel lusaseéi dat.

(7)

Category Prospective A Imperfective C Perfective D

Representation X[<------------ ] X------- ] [¢——————X]

Stem shape lü-s-ont- fü-ont fü-s-ant-

What these two forms have in common, marked
by /-s-/, is their homogeneity: the fact that there
is no division between accompli and inaccompli
in either of these forms (aorist = a-(h)öristos
‘having no horizon’ (+ Aorist (adristos), Ancient
theories of): see Hewson and Bubenik 1997:359).
The stem final /-ont/ of the Prospective marks
a content of inaccompli, and stem final /-ant/
of the Perfective marks a content of accompli.
This kind of two-stage marking can be seen else-
where, as in (8), where the /-b/ of the Latin indic-
ative marks the two Nonpresent tenses, to which
/-a/ is added to form the Past, and /-i/ is added
to form the Future (the /-t/ marks 3rd sg. subject
and the verb is /auddre ‘praise’), a distinction
that is also found, with different morphs, in the
Latin Retrospective forms lauda-v-er-a-t (past)
and faudd-v-er-i-t (future).
(8)
Present lauda-t
Nonpresent Past fauda-b-a-t
Nonpresent laudda-b-i-t
Future
All four of the regular participles discussed so far
have Medio-Passive forms, all of them using the
suffix /-meno/, to correspond to the Active forms
that have been discussed above. As a curious
irregularity the Prospective and Perfective (the
sigmatic forms) both have Passive (+ Passive
(morphology)) as well as Middle Voice forms. All
ten forms are given in brief paradigmatic form in
(9). There is also a Future Perfect Passive which
is rarely used, and appears to be borderline to
the system: the forms of this participle have
been added in brackets (because it is doubly
aspectual, Retrospective and Prospective) to the
Retrospective column in (g).
The two examples of Situative aspect that we
have labeled Bi and B2 above, are only marginal
participles. They have no distinctive active or
passive morphology, and are in fact ambiguous
as to voice. Situative participles are not com-
mon in Western IE languages, but they are to be
found in Armenian, Albanian, Baltic, and Slavic
(Hewson & Bubenik 1997:359ff.). The subject
‘35g. praises, that is represented as being in initial position
is praising’ is poised (situated) to carry out the action, and
‘gg. praised, may be represented as either static or kinetic. If
was praising’ static, the meaning of the form is often purely
‘38g. will potential, as in Greek praktös ‘doable, workable’.
praise, be If kinetic it may represent an act in progress, as
praising’ in Latvian dzirdams and Greek akoustös ‘audible,
can be heard’ or even something complete that
24 PARTICIPLES (MORPHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF)

(9)

Prospective A Imperfective C Perfective D Retrospective E

Active ltison hidn lüsas lelukös

{üsousa liousa lüsasa lelukuia
lüson lüon lüsan lelukös
Medio-Passive lusömenos ludmenos lusdmenos lelumenos
lusoméné luomene lusamene lelumene
lusömenon ludmenon lusdmenon leluménon
Passive luthésémenos - lutheis (lelusömenos)
luthesomene lutheisa (lelusomene)
luthésémenon luthén (lelusömenon)

will have a subsequent result as in Greek kritös
‘decided’, taktös ‘arranged’. The Situative may
also have a deontic sense, in the same way
that English payable indicates an expectation of
payment. In Greek this sense is made explicit
with the -téos form, so that prakteos means
‘needs to be done’ whereas praktös is simply
‘doable’,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European lin-
guistics, Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Bubenik, Vit. 1997. "The verbal system of Old Church Slavic",
In: Hewson and Bubenik 1997:82-102.
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. 1997. Tense and aspect in
Indo-European langauges. Theory, typology, diachrony.
Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Hewson, John, 1997. “Tense and aspect in Baltic”. In: Hewson
and Bubenik 1997:142-164.
‚2007. "Le systéme du grec ancien: trois distinctions de
temps, ou deux?”, Glotta 82:96—107.
Rose, Sarah, Christa Beaudoin-Lietz and Derek Nurse. 2002.
A glossary of terms for Bantu verbal categories, With spe-
cial emphasis on tense and aspect. Munich.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European
linguistics. Oxford.
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermunische Grammatik. Band III:
Formenlehre. Erster Teil: Geschichte der indogermanis-
chen Verbaiflexion. Heidelberg.
Joun HEwsawn
Particles (Formal Features)
1. DEFINITION OF THE CLASS OF
PARTICLES
The term ‘particle’ (from Lat. particula ‘a small
part’) in Greek linguistic terminology denotes
a group of ‘small’ indeclinable words which
are synsemantic, ie., they neither carry lexical
(autosemantic) meaning nor are they deictic,
but their meaning can only be drawn fram the
contextual connection with autosemantics or
deictics. Functionally, they can only be differ-
entiated from other synsemantic words (con-
junctions or prepositions) very generally, i.e.,
as expressions implying character and interpre-
tation of an utterance in the communicative
context. Syntactically, they usually do not enter
syntactic structures and can be omitted from the
clause/sentence without affecting its grammati-
cal correctness.
This definition — applying morphological,
semantic, syntactic and functional criteria - is
only one of the possible ways of determining
the category of Greek particles. The as yet non-
existent consensus on a satisfactory definition is
probably due to the enormous non-homogeneity
of this class of the lexicon. In the ancient gram-
matical theory of word classes, a separate class
of particles was not being recognized, but it
was incorporated in the eight Aristarchan word
classes that were set out by Dionysius Thrax,
specifically in the eighth word class of conjunc-
tions (stindesmot). This class was usually split
inta eight or nine subclasses which later served
as the basis for the modem division of particles.
Each of them included expressions which are
today classified as particles in the ‘stricter sense’
(see below). Most of them are to be found in the
subclass of the so-called ‘linking’ conjunctions
(Dion. Thrax GG [.1.89.1: sumplektikoi sündesmoi:
alld, atdr, autdr, dé, édé, émén, étoi, ide, kat, men,
te) and ‘expletive’ conjunctions (Dion. Thrax GG
1.1.97.1-100.1: paraplerömatikol sündesmot: ar, ai,
ge, de, deta, then, men, nu, nun, oün, per, pou, pö,
r(h)a, toi). This subcategory is discussed in detail
in Sluiter (1997).
 PARTICLES (FORMAL FEATURES)
There are two most widespread conventional
definitions of particles in Greek linguistics (cf.
Schenkeveld 1988:81ff.), distinguishing between
particles in the ‘stricter sense’ (Denniston 19507,
Blomgvist1969) andin the ‘broadersense’ (Schwy-
zer & Debrunner ı1950:4uff.). For the second
group, we use only the criterion ofindeclinability
in determining the category of particles; thus the
category includes all indeclinable words which
are usually subdivided into other subclasses of
adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, interjec-
tions, negatives and particles ‘inthestrictersense’.
Denniston (1950°soxix), whose study of the
Greek particles has become the standard ref-
erence work, defines particles ‘in the stricter
sense’ as 1) a class of indeclinable words which
express a “mode of thought or mood of emotion
in isolation”, the so-called ‘emphatic/adverbial
particles’, and 2) words “establishing a rela-
tionship between separate ideas”, the so-called
‘connecting particles’. Furthermore, within the
subcategory of connecting particles, Denniston
(1g50%:xlvii) distinguishes four possible ways of
connection: the progressive (kai), the adversa-
tive (alld), the confirmatory (gdr) and the infer-
ential (vür).
Denniston’s definition and categorization of
particles still seems to be the most prevalent
today, owing to the great influence of his work
on the development of research on this topic.
However, there are many problems that emerge
from this traditional categorization. To mention
at least the most apparent ones, it is difficult
to draw a border between connecting particles
and the word class of conjunctions which also
function as connectors. Moreover, a clear-cut
distinction between the various subtypes and
subclasses of particles is difficult because many
of them show a functional fluctuation from one
subcategory to another (like kai, see below).
This is the reason why some scholars suggest the
elimination of the entire category of particles
(Revuelta Puigdollers 2006:468) or, like Duhoux
(2006:520ff.), its redistribution into: a) coordi-
nating conjunctions (kai), b) moda! adjuncts
(ge), and c) intonation particles that indicate
the intonation of the discourse or a part of it,
e.g. interrogative intonation (é). Again, some
particles can still participate in more than one
subclass, e.g. alld can function both as a coordi-
nating conjunction and as an intonation particle.
Recent functionally oriented studies on par-
ticles, which adopt a pragmatic approach, seem
25
to be more effective in determining the cat-
egory of particles. From the pragmatic perspec-
tive, particles relate, according to the speaker's
intention, the message to the context (Coseriu
1988:190), so that the content of the message is
stated more precisely (e.g. affirmed, intensified
or restricted). These can be called ‘commentary
pragmatic markers’ (CPM), specifying the rela-
tion of a discourse unit to its communicative
environment (Fraser 1999:942).
Particles can also indicate various mutual rela-
tionships between a discourse segment (propo-
sition/sentence/utterance) that they are a part
of and the previous segment, thus marking their
coherence (Fraser 1999:938if.). These particles
can be grouped with the ‘discourse markers’
(DM) category. They are further divided into
elaborative, contrastive and inferential discourse
markers. Elaborative discourse markers signal an
expansion of the previous discourse segment in
another item (it is interpreted as its enrichment.
elaboration or augmentation). Contrastive dis-
course markers signal the contrast between con-
tents of relative discourse segments. Inferential
discourse markers are interpreted as indicating
the conclusion that results from the facts stated
in the previous discourse segment (or providing
a reason for the content of the previous dis-
course segment). For the purposes of this article,
Fraser's (1999) approach will be applied.
2. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Greek particles either have their own accent
(dé) or they are enclitic (ge, fe), attached to an
accented word with which they often coalesce
(égoge), The position of enclitic particles in a
sentence is determined by the position of the
word they are attached to. Nevertheless, some of
them, including particles with their own accent
(gär), comply with Wackernagel’s Law (+ Wack-
ernagel’s Law I), according to which they occupy
the second position of the sentence, thus defining
the left sentence boundary. The so-called ‘con-
necting’ particles in particular tend to appear in
the front part of a sentence. For a detailed analy-
sis, see Blomqvist (1969:108ff.). One of the main
characteristics of Greek particles is their ability
to create combinations in which they either cor-
relate (men... dé) or are simply juxtaposed (gar
vün); in some cases they even coalesce (foinun).
The frequency and variability of particles in
Greek is strongly determined by a number of
26 PARTICLES (FORMAL FEATURES)
criteria that need to be considered: 1) the liter-
ary genre: a simple/continuous narrative which
lacks many dialogical and argumentative pas-
sages usually has a lower number and variability
of particles than philosophical or mathematical
works, which by nature formulate the logical
relationships between discourse segments more
precisely (cf. Blomqvist 1969:140ff.); 2) the style
level of the text: high-style texts usually contain
a more varied set of particles (often incorporat-
ing even archaizing particles) than middle- or
low-style Greek; 3) dialogue vs. non-dialogue:
George (2009) points out that particles are more
typical of dialogic Greek than was assumed
by Duhoux (2006:526), The CPMs which oper-
ate on the communicative level of discourse
tend to appear more often in dialogues (ge,
toinun, é), while DMs are more frequent in non-
dialogic passages (gar, men, kai); 4) time period:
the average frequency of particles in 5th—4th
c. BCE texts was estimated as approximately
17% of all words (Duhoux 2006:524). Blomqvist
(1969:132ff.) argues that in the Hellenistic period
the so-called ‘connecting’ particles were not in
decline as far as their frequency is concerned,
but their spectrum started to change because
a) of the appearance of some newly formed
particles (/oipdn), and b) some other particles
or their combinations disappeared or became
less frequent (autdr) or, on the contrary, more
frequent (kai, alla) in a certain kind of text. On
the other hand, an apparent decrease in the
‘emphatic’ particles was observed by Blomqvist
(1g6gna3ff.). He states that this decrease was
probably caused by the change from pitch to
stress accent (around 200 BCE; + Accentuation).
Stress accent replaced the function originally
performed by emphatic particles, above all in
the spoken language (Duhoux 2006:531-532
argues against this view).
3. PARTICLES IN MYCENAEAN GREEK
it is well known that the character of the pre-
served Mycenaean texts is purely administrative.
The tablets we have at our disposal thus contain
a kind of text with restricted syntactic possi-
bilities. Consequently, the variability of particles
is very low (actually, it is confined to a few
elaborative DMs). This, however, does not mean
that there were no other particles in Myc. Gk.,
but only that their existence cannot be proven
(Duhoux 1998:32—33),
Myc. -ge (-k¥e)/o-u-ge (ou-k”e), Gk. te/oüte
‘and'/‘and not‘. Elaborative DM omnipresent in
Myc. Gk; in alphabetic Gk., it is mostly replaced
by kai (Morpurgo Davies 1997:53): i-je-reja e-ke
e-u-ke-to-ge ‘the priestess has and (-qe) affirms’
(PY Ep 704, 5-6) (Duhoux 1998:28).
Myc. -de, Gk, dé ‘but'/‘and’. In Myc. Gk. it is
mostly used as a contrastive DM: do-e-ra ma-te
pa-te-de ka-ke-u ‘the mother (is} a slave, but
(-de) the father (is) a bronze smith’ (PY An 607,
6). There are also several examples where it
functions as an elaborative DM (‘and’), espe-
cially in connection with £o-so (Morpurgo Davies
1997:63): to-so-de (PY Er 312, 5-6).
Myc. o-da-a,, Gk. Ads d’är-a, ‘and (d’) thus
(A6(s)) then (ar) in the following way (a, =
hai: relative pronoun)’ = ‘moreover, in addition’,
This coordinating expression introduces a new
paragraph which has the same basic topic as the
preceding one, and is assumed to function as an
elaborative DM. It occurs on tablets from Pylos
(Duhoux 1998:28ff.).
Myc. o-de-ga-a, Gk. hös dé k"är-ay ‘and so’. It
is attested only once in PY On 300, 8, Its function
is assumed to be similar to that of o-da-a,.
Myc. 0-d2, Gk. hös-a, ‘so’. It is attested only
once, introducing the very beginning of the nar-
rative in PY Vn 20, 1. Its function is assumed
to be similar to that of o-da-a, and o-de-qa-a,
(Duhoux 1998:28!f.),
Myc. jo-/o-, Gk. j6(s) or jd(d)/(hjd(s) or
(h)6(d). If we accept its etymological connection
with the adv. (h)öfs), it may be translated as ‘so,
in this way’, Duhoux (1998:31) argues in favor
of the interpretation of jo-/o- as ‘really’ with
approximately the same force as Class. Gk. €.
4. PARTICLES IN HOMERIC, CLASSICAL,
AND HELLENISTIC GREEK
Below follows an alphabetical list of the most
frequent Greek particles. Each particle entry con-
tains a basic description of its form, origin, literary
evidence and its function. The possible meaning
of each particle as per its function is suggested.
Unless stated otherwise, Blomqvist (1969), Den-
niston (19502), Kühner & Gerth (1955*), Sicking &
van Ophuijsen (1993) and Schwyzer & Debrunner
(1950) were used as the basic bibliography for the
characteristics of particles:
alld ~ contrastive DM. It originates from the
neut. pl. of dilos ‘another’ with the change of
 PARTICLES (FORMAL FEATURES)
accent (Denniston 195071). It functions as a
replacing/corrective adversative which rejects,
replaces or corrects the discourse topic, the
statement or the course of action mentioned
(explicitly or implicitly) in the previous dis-
course. Its meaning then arises from the con-
text and depends on the degree of correction
(a strong break-off is usually translated as ‘but'’).
amelei — CPM. Originally, it is the 2nd sg. imp.
of ameléé ‘| do not worry' which further devel-
oped into an adv. ‘certainly’, ‘of course’. The next
step in its usage was as a CPM in statements
where it confirmed their self-evidence or verac-
ity. In a non-adverbial function it first appeared
in Att. prose (Xen., Pl.) and comedy (Aristoph.).
For its very rare Hellenistic use, see Blomqvist
(1969:103ff.). Several examples are found in Philo
and Strabo (Wahlgren 1995:93).
dra (dr before consonants/rhd after monosyl-
labic words in epic) - CPM/inferential DM of
uncertain etymology. As a CPM it is very often
found in Homer. It expresses that the speaker
considers the presented information interest-
ing (and, consequently, sometimes surprising)
and therefore worth of the speaker's attention
(‘interestingly’, ‘surprisingly’). As an inferential
DM it often occurs in Att. prose (Xen., Pl.). It
expresses a logical conclusion (‘then’) which
is drawn from the preceding facts/argumenta-
tion and is surprising for the speaker (Wakker
1994:343-344).
Gra - CPM/inferential DM. It appears instead
of dra in Att. poetry (Archil.) and drama. In
Att. drama and prose it is also found intro-
ducing questions (here probably the é and dra
coalesced). When used in questions, it does
not itself imply a positive or a negative answer:
it only expresses the speaker's interest in the
answer.
atdr — contrastive/elaborative DM attested in
Homer, Att. tragedy and prose (but not in the
orators). It became very rare in the Hellenistic
period and is entirely absent from ıst-c. BCE and
ıst-c. CE prose (Wahlgren 1995:92). It rejects or
corrects the given topic, usually marking a strong
contrast (‘but’), but sometimes also a slight tran-
sition to another topic. It was largely replaced by
alld because of its similar function.
au - elaborative/adversative DM present in
Homer and in Att. tragedy and prose. It became
rare during the Hellenistic period, but very com-
mon again in the prose of the early Empire,
esp. Philo (Wahlgren 1995:93). Revuelta Puig-
27
dollers (2009) argues that it introduces a further
(either new or previously introduced/inferred)
discourse topic and opens a new thematic
section (further, ‘moreover'/‘in turn’, ‘on the
other hand’). Hom. aüte and aüthis (Att.)/adtis
(Dor., Ion.) have similar functions. For a similar
development of palin, see Revuelta Puigdollers
(2006:455-470).
autär - contrastive DM. A very archaic parti-
cle, probably belonging to the ‘Achaean’ stratum
in Gk, it is found only in Cypr. epigraphical texts
of the 6th-3rd c. BCE (Morpurgo Davies 1997:52),
Homer, and poetry influenced by epic language.
It disappears in later Gk. and is entirely absent
during the Hellenistic period and also from the
prose of the early Empire (Wahlgren 1995:92). Its
function coincides with that of atar.
gar - inferential DM common in Homer and
Herodotus, also in Att. prose and poetry. It pro-
vides the addressee with a reason or an expla-
nation of what had been said in the previous
discourse — or what had not been explicitly said,
but might raise questions in the mind of the
addressee (‘for’).
ge/ga (Dor., Boeot.) - CPM widespread since
Homer well into the Class. period, it very fre-
quently occurs in dialogues. It becomes less fre-
quent in the Hellenistic period (rare in the NT),
where it is found in special fixed combinations
with other particles (mentoi ge) or conjunctions
(Blomgvist 1969:129; 143). It gradually disappears
in Byzantine Greek. Wakker (1994:308) defines
the basic function of ge as “demarcating”, i.e. the
speaker using ge “demarcates the applicability of
his utterance”. As a result, the use of ge can mark
limitation (‘at least’, ‘yet’, ‘precisely’) or intensifi-
cation (‘even’).
goün/goün/gön (lon., Dor.) — CPM mostly
attested in Att. Gk. According to van Ophuijsen
(1993125), goün “basically delimits a topic or
the range of a claim” (‘at least’), thus approach-
ing the simple ge in its function. Denniston
(1950*:455ff.) discusses its possible inferential
or elaborative force in Hippocrates and post-
Class. Gk.
dat - CPM related to dé. Its occurrence in
Homer is disputed (Denniston 1950°:262). It is
very common only in Aristophanes. A few exam-
ples are found in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Plato,
but otherwise it is almost absent from Att. prose.
It is attested again in the preserved fragments
of Polybius and Diodorus’ Histories (Wahlgren
1995:92). Its high frequency in Aristophanes
28 PARTICLES (FORMAL FEATURES)
speaks in favor of its common use in low regis-
ters of Gk. It is always used in questions follow-
ing an interrogative (ti /tis 'what/who', pös ‘how’,
poi ‘where'). Using it, the speaker expresses
surprise, wonder or even anger (‘what then?’,
‘really?’, ‘how so?’).
dé (audé, mede) - elaborative/adversative DM
of unknown etymology, attested since Homer. It
initiates a new discourse segment and indicates
the beginning of the next part of a narrative
which the speaker wants to add to the previous
text as a new unit. Thus the use of dé leads to the
expression of a certain discontinuity in the text
(topic break), while kai ensures the connection
between the previous and the following context
(Bakker 1993:275~311). Its translation can there-
fore range from ‘and’, ‘then’ to ‘but’, especially in
the men... dé combination (see men).
de - CPM/elaborative DM. According to Sick-
ing (1993:51-53), the speaker using dé "presents a
statement as immediately evident to the senses
or the understanding or as common knowledge”
(‘obviously’, ‘as we all know’). Wakker (1997:216)
argues against this interpretation. It is most
frequent in dialogical passages of Att. tragedy/
comedy and in Plato. As an elaborative DM
(‘then’) it can be used in a sentence marking a
“repetition or recapitulation of earlier informa-
tion” (van Ophuijsen 1993:85), thus connecting it
with the previous context (usually accompany-
ing a demonstrative pronoun or another deictic
expression).
déthen — CPM found in lon. prose (Hdt.) and
Att. tragedy, but extremely rare in Att. prose
(Thuc. only). It almost completely disappears
during the Hellenistic period, but emerges again
in the ist c. BCE in Nicolaus of Damascus (Wahl-
gren 1995:93) and is very frequent later with Dio
Cassius. Similar to dé, it functions as an evidential
particle, presenting something obvious or appar-
ent to the addressee, but in most attested cases
this ‘obviousness’ is only pretended. It thus tends
to appear when the speaker wants to express
irony or contempt (‘ostensibly’, ‘indeed’).
dépou - CPM attested in Homer as dé pou
(semantically closer to the separate meaning
of dé and pou). It is common in Att. comedy
but rare in tragedy and prose except Plato. We
have no statistical data about its use in the
Hellenistic period. It is used to express a quasi-
self-evident statement. The speaker using dépou
implies an assertion (dé), but simultaneously
raises real or assumed doubts (pou). When an
assumed hesitation is expressed, there may be
traces of an ironic tone in dépow constructions.
It is often found in affirmative answers such as
mälista depou or pdntos dépou (esp. PL). It is
usually translated as ‘presumably’, 'I believe’,
‘doubtless’. An affirmation even stronger than
dépou is assumed by dépouthen, which is only
attested post-Homerically.
deta - CPM which is not found in epic or lyric
poetry. Its occurrence is also very rare in Hero-
dotus and in Att. orators, but it is common in
Plato and Att. drama. Similar to dé, it is most fre-
quently used in dialogues, especially in affirma-
tive or negative answers accentuating a usually
expected agreement (‘yes’, 'indeed’) or denial
(‘surely not’, ‘really not’). It also comes close to
the use of dé in questions where the speaker
shares some common and/or evident knowledge
with the addressee.
€ — CPM that according to Wakker (1997:218)
is used by the speaker in order to indicate that
the statement which is presented immediately
afterwards is inevitably and really true (‘in truth’,
‘really’), irrespective of what the speaker himself
or the addressee consider as such or would desire
to be true. This ‘objective’ way of presenting the
truth enables us to distinguish between the use
of é and of men, with which the speaker person-
ally guarantees the ‘subjective’ truth of the state-
ment. é also introduces questions in which the
speaker is seeking verification of his conclusions
drawn from what had been said before.
then — CPM of unknown etymology, almost
exclusively Homeric; attested neither in the
Hellenistic period nor in prose from the early
Empire (ast c. BCE/1st c. CE) (Wahlgren 1995:92).
It is assumed to function in a similar way as dé
and dépou.
ide -— elaborative DM (‘and’, ‘then’) found
exclusively in Homer and Cypriot.
kai/kds (Cypr. and parts of Arc.) - elabora-
tive DM/CPM of uncertain etymology. Kai ‘and’
{unlike dé) expresses coherence and continuity
of the narrative in the way that it indicates the
inclusion of the next item in the preceding con-
text. It develops the discourse segment which
the speaker focuses on (Bakker 1993:275—311). It
can also function as a CPM (‘also’, 'even') which
is used by the speaker to focus on a constituent
and to suggest that “there are alternatives" (Wak-
ker 1994:329).
kaiper (oudé per) — contrastive DM marking
concession (‘although’, ‘albeit’). In Homer it is
 PARTICLES (FORMAL FEATURES)
almost always found with an intervening word
(kai... per; oudé... per). The later form kaiper
is common in historiography (Hdt., Thuc., Xen,,
Pol.), philosophy (Pl., Aristot.) and in Demos-
thenes. Its characteristic use in the Classical
and in the Hellenistic periods is with a juxta-
posed participle. For the Hellenistic period, a
tendency of kaiper participial constructions to
become more independent of the main clause
was observed by Blomqvist (1969:46-47).
kaitoi - contrastive DM which usually intro-
duces into an argument a new element that
shows a discrepancy or inconsistency between
the preceding statement and this new supposi-
tion. It thus signals that the conclusion which
was to be drawn initially should be corrected
(‘and yet’), The toi in kaltoi marks something
worthy of the attention of the audience (Jac-
quinod 1997:131-149). It is mainly used in argu-
mentative texts, which explains why it is more
frequent in prose (Hdt., Thuc., Xen., Lys., Isoc.,
P|, Aristot.) and drama (Aesch., Soph., Eur.) than
in poetry. In the Hellenistic period it becomes
less frequent and starts to appear in a ‘weakened!’
function of the meaning ‘although’, thus becom-
ing similar in use to Aaiper (Blomqvist 1969:39).
It differs from aild, which marks a replacement
of a false statement by a true one.
loipén - inferential/elaborative DM. It is sup-
posed to have developed from the acc. sg. neut.
adj. foipén used as an equivalent of the adv. of
time ‘henceforward, hereafter. As early as the
Class. period (Plato), the expression (to) loipon is
attested as an inferential DM (‘so’). The extensive
use of the adjectival/adverbial /oipén in transi-
tional phrases led to its use as an elaborative
DM (‘then’). In the Hellenistic period, Blomqvist
(1969:100-103) recognizes only a few instances
of loipön both as the inferential (Pol.) and the
elaborative DM (present only in papyri, not in
literary or scientific prose), It became much
more frequent during the Byzantine period and
survives into Mod, Gk.
men — CPM etymologically and function-
ally closely connected with men/män, attested
in Homer, Herodotus and Att. Gk. It expresses
the certainty of the speaker that the presented
statement is true (‘indeed’, ‘surely’). It is most
commonly combined with dé (men... dé) in cor-
relative clauses. Here, mén and dé mark “two (or
more) successive sections within a larger whole”
(Sicking 199312), which may (‘indeed ... but’, ‘on
the one hand...on the other hand’) but do not
29
have to stand in contrast (in which case we can
leave them untranslated),
méntoi - CPM/contrastive DM, very common
in historiography (Hdt., Thuc., Xen.), philoso-
phy (Aristot.) and oratory (Dem.) in the Class.
and the Hellenistic period. As a contrastive
DM it is used to deny or to modify the poten-
tially false expectation on the part of the reader
raised in the preceding discourse ('nevertheless’,
‘however’) (Slings 1997:14-ı122). As a CPM it is
usually interpreted as an emphasizing or affir-
mative expression (‘certainly’) often assuciated
with pronouns. Sicking (1993:34-35) argues that
this function of mentoi is misinterpreted and
that in these cases we are also dealing with the
general function of méntoi, which “corrects pos-
sible misconceptions”.
men (Att.)/mdn (Dor, Aeol, epic form of
men)/mä (Att., lon.) — CPM/elaborative DM. It
is found especially in Homer, Sappho and Epich-
armus. In Class. prose, its non-combinatory use
is confined to Xenophon, Plato and Hippocrates.
According to Blomgvist (1969:48-74), it disap-
pears from Att. narrative texts during the Helle-
nistic period. As a CPM it is used to confirm the
truth of the presented statement (‘truly’, ‘really’;
md appears exclusively in combinations with
nal and ou), most often in declarative clauses
in dialogues, thus “anticipating a negative reac-
tion of the addressee” (Wakker 1997:229). As
an elaborative DM it introduces a new step in
the narrative without having entirely lost its
attitudinal force. For the discussion of its use
as a contrastive discourse marker in tragedy see
Wakker (1997:224ff.).
nal (since Hom.)/né (Att.) - CPM which
implies that the speaker insists on the truth of
the presented statement; it is especially frequent
in oaths (ne + acc.).
nin (Att. prose)/nun (Hom,, lyric, Att. trag-
edy)/nu (Hom., Hes., Boeot., Cypr.) - elabora-
tive/inferential DM. It developed from the adv.
nun (‘now’); while using it, the speaker marks
a new step in the narrative (Pind.) (elaborative
DM: ‘now’) which often emerges from the previ-
ous context (inferential DM: ‘then’, ‘therefore’).
otin/én (lon., Aeol., Dor.) - CPM/inferential/
elaborative DM. As a CPM confirming the truth
of a statement or of a ward, it is found mostly in
Homer, esp. in combinations (epel oün, hös oür),
Pindar and Herodotus. From the 5th c, BCE on, it
occurs as an inferential DM that marks a transi-
tion to the next important point in the narrative,
30 PARTICLES (FORMAL FEATURES)
which is logically connected to the previous one.
It can be used by the speaker to introduce a
reason or a conclusion (‘then’, 'therefore’), As an
elaborative DM it can indicate the mext step in
a narrative or resume the main line of thought
after a digression (‘so’) (Wakker 1994:305-306).
For the compound atikoun and oukoün, see Den-
niston (19502:430-441).
per - an enclitic CPM/contrastive DM attested
especially in Homer. In Homer, it can be attached
to almost any word category, while in later Gk.
its use becomes restricted to fixed combina-
tions with relatives (ds per) and subordinating
conjunctions (ei per) (Bakker 1988a—2)}. Bakker
(1988:271ff.) describes its function as a “scalar
(focus) particle which marks a term (focus con-
stituent) that represents the high point of a
scale”. Most typically it is used when the sca-
larity is expressed by a superlative property
of a thing/person by an adj. (Hom. Z. 11.391:
oligon per ‘ever so little'/‘the slightest’) or by a
non-restrictive relative clause (Ads per) which
provides the superlative property of the head
noun - a proper name (Hom. /l. 16.709). The
most frequent use of per is with a participial
phrase, where it appears as a contrastive DM of
a simple concession (‘even though’).
plen - contrastive/elaborative DM. It is attested
in archaic poetry in its original use as a prep-
osition with gen. (‘except’), but in 5th—qth-c.
BCE Att. drama and prose, there already are
instances of its use as a contrastive DM (‘except
(that)’, but’). As an elaborative DM it is used to
mark a new topic or a return to the main topic
after a digression. By using plen in this way, the
topic break is assumed to be sharper than by dé
(Blomqvist 1969:88). A strong decrease in its fre-
quencyis observed during the Hellenistic period.
pou - CPM. Originally an adv. meaning 'some-
where’ from which it developed into a CPM. It is
rare with orators, but common in Herodotus and
Plato. It expresses doubt or uncertainty of the
speaker as to whether the presented statement
is true or not (‘perhaps’, ‘I think’).
te (oute, méte) — elaborative DM (‘and’) origi-
nating from Myce. -ge, but very soon replaced by
kai. In the Class. period, it often occurs in the
corresponsive combination fe...te to connect
words, phrases or clauses. In Hom. Gk., te is
also found in a special non-connecting func-
tion of a sentential adv. (‘epic te’) which is used
in statements giving some essential property
or characteristic information of the presented
facts or things (Ruijgh 1971:2), The occurrence of
‘epic te’ in post-Homeric Gk. is attested only in
Aeschylus in choral “epicizing” passages (Ruijgh
1971:30-32).
toi - CPM attested in Homer, Att. drama and
prose; it appears especially in dialogues. By using
it the speaker desires to attract the addressee's
attention (‘I tell you’, ‘you know’).
toigdr — inferential DM attested in Homer,
tragedy and Jon. prose, but it is absent from Att.
prose and very rare in the Hellenistic period. It
marks a logical connection with the previous
discourse (‘therefore’). It is also found coalesced
with toi (toigartoi) and oün (toigaroün) in Att.
tragedy and prose, as well as in Ionic (Hdt.).
toinun — elaborative/inferential DM not
attested in Homer or Hesiod; common in Att.
comedy and prose, esp. in dialogues. Its function
is very similar to oän, i.e., by means of nun the
speaker marks a new section of the narrative
(elaborative DM: ‘now’) or a logical conclusion
(inferential DM: ‘therefore’). The toi, however,
gives a special nuance to this marker which
differentiates it from oün: It indicates that the
speaker says something which is important for
the addressee and should be noticed (Wakker
2009:6afF.}.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakker, Egbert J. 1988. Linguistics and formulas in Homer.
Scalarity and the description of the particle per, Amster-
dam.
. 1993. “Boundaries, topics, and the structure of dis-
course. An investigation of the Ancient Greek particle
dé”, SL 17:275-gu1.
Bakker, Stéphanie and Gerry, Wakker, eds. 2009. Discourse
cohesion in Ancient Greek. Leiden — Boston.
Blomavist, Jerker. 1969. Greek particles in Hellenistic prose.
Lund,
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1988. "Partikeln und Sprachtypus". In:
Energeia und Ergon. Sprachliche Variation — Sprachge-
schichte - Sprachtypulogie. I. Studia in honorem Eugenio
Coseriu, ed. by Jörn Albrecht, 185-193. Tübingen.
Crespo, Emilio, Jesüs De La Villa and Antonio R. Revuelta,
eds. 2006. Word classes and related topics in Ancient
Greek, Proceedings of the conference on ‘Greek syntax and
ward classes’ held in Madrid an 18-21, June 2003. Louvain-
La-Neuve.
Denniston, J. D. 19507. The Greek particles, Revised by
K. J. Dover. Oxford.
Duhoux, Yves. i998. “Les particules grecques: les situa-
tions homerique et mycénienne”. In: Langue et langues:
hommage 4 Albert Maniet, ed. by Yves Duhaux, 13-42.
Louvain-La-Neuve,
. 2006. “Les particules: une classe de mots a suprimer en
grec ancien?” In: Crespo et al. 2806:519-536.
Fraser, Bruce, 1999. “What are discourse markers?", joP
31:931-952.
George, Coulter H. 200g. “Greek particles: just a literary phe-
nomenon?” In: Bakker and Wakker 2009:155-169.
Jacquinod, Bernard. 1997. "Sur le röle pragmatique de kaltoı.”
In: Rijksbaron 1997:131-149.
 PARTICLES (FORMAL
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1955*. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache Il: Satzlehre. Han-
nover,
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1997. “Particles in Greek epigraphi-
cal texts.” In: Rijksbaron 1997:49-73.
Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonia R. 2006. “Word classes, func-
tions and syntactic level: the case of palin”. In: Crespo et
al. 2006:455-470.
. 2009. “The particles ad and auie in Ancient Greek as
topicalizing devices.” In: Bakker and Wakker 2009:83-109.
Rijksbaron, Albert, ed. 1997. New approaches tu Greek par-
ticles. Proceedings of the colloquium held in Amsterdam,
January 4-6, 1996, to honour C. j, Ruijgh on the occasion of
his retirement. Amsterdam.
Ruijgh, Cornelis J. 1971. Autour de ‘te épique’ études sur la
syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam.
Schenkeveld, Dirk M. 1988. “From particula to particle - the
genesis of a class of words”. In: L’héritage des grammair-
iens Latins de l'Antiquité aux Lumieres. Actes du Colloque
de Chantilly, 2-4 Septembre 1987, ed. by Irene Rosier,
Bi—93. Paris.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechis-
che Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns
Griechischer Grammatik. Handbuch der Altertumswissen-
schaft I), 2. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Munich.
Sicking, C.M.J. and J. M., van Ophuijsen. 1993. Two studies in
Attic particle usage. Lysias and Platu. leiden - New York -
Cologne.
Slings, 5. R. 1997. “Adversative relators between PUSH and
POP." in: Rijksbaron 1997:101-129.
Sluiter, Ineke. 1997. "Parapleromatic lucubrations,” In: Rijks-
baron 1997:233-246.
Wahlgren, Staffan. 1995. Sprachwandel im Griechisch der
‚frühen römischen Kaiserzeit. Gothenburg.
Wakker, Gerry C. 1994. Conditions and conditionals. An inves-
tigation af Ancient Greek, Amsterdam.
. 1997. “Emphasis and affirmation. Some aspects of men
in tragedy.” In: Rijksbaron 1997:209-231.
. 2009. “Well I will now present my arguments’. Dis-
course cohesion marked by oün and toinun in Lysias.” In:
Bakker and Wakker 2009:63-81.
KATERINA BockovÄ LouUDOVA
Particles (Syntactic Features)
ı. DEFINITION
The label ‘particle’ is one of those ghost terms
that populate language descriptions. Its use
poses many problems:
— From a cross-linguistic point of view it is used
to refer to many different phenomena: a) the
Abtönungspartikeln in German (e.g. doch, mal,
allerdings, and so on); b) the adverbial ele-
ment in English phrasal verbs (in and up in to
give in and to give up); c) the so-called Greek
Particles, and many others.
— Although used in practical descriptions, the
category ‘particle’ has no recognition in any
formal theoretical frame.
FEATURES) a
— Other constituent/word classes fulfill the
same functions: the preposition prös + dat.
(‘besides', ‘apart from’) is the prepositional
counterpart of kaf (‘too’, ‘also’, ‘even’).
- Many of the so-called Greek particles belong
to one of the well-established word classes:
a) adverbs (ge, kai); b) conjunctions (te, kai‘);
c) discourse connectors (gär).
The only common feature exhibited by those
words labelled as particles in the linguistic tra-
dition of Greek is the fact that they have a cat-
egorial rather than a lexical meaning and that
this meaning is most of the time difficult to be
defined in a clear way. The tradition and the
respect towards great works of linguistic descrip-
tion like Denniston’s (1954) book on discourse
particles have led us to take the label ‘particles’
as if it were a real and homogeneous category.
In fact, the elements so classified belong to very
different word or constituent classes (Revuelta
Puigdollers 2006):
a. Coordinating conjunctions: kaf, te (‘and’), alld
(‘but’), é (‘or’).
b. Focusing expressions. They compare the
information provided about the sentence
focus with that available about another entity
(Dik et al. 1981, König 1991). For example, kai
(‘toa’, ‘also’, ‘even’) adds another entity to the
repertoire of entities to which the sentence
topic applies, whereas oude/mede (‘either’)
adds another entity to the repertoire of enti-
ties to which the sentence topic does not
apply. The particle ge (‘at least’) leaves as
unknown whether the information provided
about the focus applies to any other entity,
whereas mönon (‘only’) excludes any alterna-
tive. The focusing expressions will be dealt
with in the lemma about focus, but some facts
have to be underlined here: (i) there are other
focusing elements which fulfill the same kind
of function, but are absent from the usual
repertoires of particles, like for example aü/
atte (see Revuelta Puigdollers 1996); (ii) there
are prepositional counterparts (see Revuelta
Puigdollers 2000), as plen + gen. (‘except’)
and prös + dat, (‘apart from’).
c. Propositional disjuncts. Other adverbials
usually classified as particles evaluate the
propositional content of the sentence. To this
category belong the particles pou (‘perhaps/!
suppose’, Denniston 1954:490), depou (‘of
course’, Denniston 1954:267) and déthen
32 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES)
(‘allegedly’, Denniston 1954:264). All of them
refer to the speakers commitment to the
truth of his utterance's content. Other adver-
bials with a similar value, like isös, takha (‘per-
haps’), eikötös (‘reasonably’), anamphisbetetös
(‘undoubtedly’) and asphalös (‘with cer-
tainty’), are never classified as particles,
although they all refer to different degrees of
propositional truth as well. All these proposi-
tional disjuncts could be classified as follows
(Revuelta 2006):
cı. A first group expresses epistemic modal-
ity and they can be objective like dn (pos-
sibility, eventuality and counterfactuality)
or subjective. This subset can express trust
(homologoumenös ‘admittedly ) or distrust
(déthen ‘allegedly’) regarding the source of
the propositional content (‘according to
X’s opinion’) or they can reflect the speak-
ers certainty (depou, anamphisbetetös,
asphalös ‘with certainty’) or uncertainty
(ésds, täkha ‘perhaps’).
C2, A second group conveys deontic modal-
ity and expresses a moral opinion about
the possible fact referred to by the propo-
sition (dikaiös ‘justly’ and orthds ‘rightly’,
Revuelta 1997).
C3. A third group evaluates the State of
Affairs referred to by the proposition
(aprosdokétés ‘unexpectedly’).
Hlocutionary disjuncts. As in previous cases,
elements classified or not as particles appear
to establish or modify the illocutionary force
of the sentence. Some mark their units as
belonging to well-established sentence types
or subtypes: (i) the particles éphelon/dphelon,
ei gdr/ai gar and aithe/e(the mark the sen-
tences as different kinds of wishes (Revuelta
forthcoming); (ii) ithi and phére (‘come on’)
are directive markers (imperative sentences
and the like); (iii) Gra, oukoiin operate as
interrogative markers; (iv) & men (‘I assure
you’) is used to express the speaker's sincerity
in his statement and therefore is a declarative
marker (Denniston 1954:389).
Discourse connectors. Other elements go
beyond the sentence and establish the links
between sentences and other discourse units
either within the same speaker's discourse
or between different speakers’ interventions
(speech turns). Many of Denniston’s (1954)
particles operate on this level (oun, gdr, kaitoi,
mentoi), but there are many other connectors
that do not appear in Denniston's or in other
previous accounts: ad, aüte, éti (‘besides’),
pros toutdi (‘besides’), and so on.
Although the previous account is very sketchy,
it reflects the main issues about the category
particles:
~ Their behavior is too heterogeneous to con-
sider them a single category.
— Many other terms never classified as particles
fulfill the same functions: for example été and
pros toütöl (‘besides’) are used in a similar way
to gdr in order to introduce arguments.
~ The same element can appear at different lev-
els of analysis (Revuelta 1997): kai can operate
as a coordinating conjunction (‘and’) ora focus-
ing device (‘too/also/even’); pou can express
space (‘somewhere’) or epistemic uncertainty
(‘perhaps/I suppose’); eita can operate as a
time adjunct (‘later’), as an illocutionary dis-
junct in interrogatives expressing objection
(‘then’), or as a discourse connector heading a
new argument or counterargument (‘besides’).
The conclusion is that the word class ‘parti-
cle’ does not exist as a homogeneous category
(see also Berenguer 1992, Hellwig 1974:149-150)
and should be avoided. Since all the classes
mentioned in the previous classification (coor-
dinating conjunctions, focusing devices and dis-
juncts) are treated under other lemmata, the
remainder of this article is devoted to discourse
connectors.
2. DISCOURSE CONNECTORS: THE BASICS
The level of linguistic analysis beyond clauses
and sentences is known as discourse, and it
should not be confused with any literary genre:
Lysias' speeches, Sophocles’ tragedies or Plato’s
dialogues are discourses that can be fragmented
into further discursive units.
Along with the iconic disposition of the text
and metadiscursive expressions, connectors are
the third cohesive means that reflect discourse
coherence (see Kroon 1995).
Connectors establish the boundaries of the
discourse units (they head them; see postposi-
tives) and establish the relationships holding
between them (Bakker 1993). Their scope is
variable and can range from one sentence to
many or even several chapters in a given work:
in Lysias’ speeches, for example, the narrative
section is almost systematically introduced by
 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES)
gar. To establish the exact scope of connectors
is one of the main problems they pose. They
mark the initial boundary of their unit, but there
is no formal mark of the unit’s end; the presence
of another connector should not necessarily be
understood as its final boundary, as explained
later in this article.
Connectors can establish the relationships
between the units belonging to the same speak-
er's contribution (presentational level according
to Kroon 1995) or between those of two or more
Thesis
different speakers (interactional level).
From a structural point of view connectors
reflect the hierarchical position of a unit in
regard to the previous one: they can mark their
belonging to the same hierarchical level, as do the
connectors dé, te, eita, and so on (listing connec-
tors) or they can reflect a dependency relation-
ship between them: for example gar introduces
a unit that is subsidiary to a previous one (push
particle, see Polanyi & Scha 1983), whereas oün
marks the transition from a subsidiary to a main
unit (pop particle), Although most connectors
are retrospective (they evaluate their unit taking
into account the previous ones), a few like mén
are retrospective and prospective: they take into
consideration also the next unit.
Apart from their contribution to establishing
the hierarchical structure of discourse, connec-
tors may help to mark different semantic relation-
ships between the units (argumentative, topical
or rhetorical) as exposed in the next sections.
3. PRESENTATIONAL LEVEL
In the previous section only the formal or struc-
tural relationships between discourse units have
been taken into account (linearity or depen-
dency), but connectors can additionally establish
semantic and thematic relationships between
them. These will be discussed in this section.
3.a. Argumentation
Some discourse theories (see for example the
Geneva School: Moeschler 1985 and Roulet et al.
1985) have focused on the argumentative value
of discourse connectors. Following this theory
connectors can be classified according to the
point of view they present:
i. Some of them introduce the arguments that
support a previous claim (argumentative
connectors): gdr (argument), pros toutoi/
toutois, éti (‘besides’, additional argument).
33
ii. Others contribute to undermining a previ-
ous statement (counterargumentative): kai-
toi (‘however’).
iii. A third group allows to draw conclusions
from previous information (conclusive):
ain, dra, toigaroun (‘therefore’).
The following example taken from Xenophon
may help explain how the connectors work:
tei men oün bouléi probeboüleutai humetéran
men einai ten katd thdlattan, Lakedaimoniön
de ten kata gén' emol dé kai autéi dokei tatta
ouk anthröpinei mällon é theläi phüsei te kal
tikhei diöristhai. ("Now it has been proposed
by your Senate that the leadership by sea shall
belong to you, and the leadership by land to
the Lacedaemonians. And J, too, think that this
distinction is based, not so much upon human
judgment as upon divine arrangement and
ordering.”)
Argument ı
pröton men gar töpon ékhete kdllista pephukéta
pros toitto’ pleistai gar pöleis tin deomenön tes
thalattes peri ten humetéran pölin oikoisi, kai
haütai päsai asthenésterai tes humetéras (“In the
first place, you have a position most excellently
adapted by nature for supremacy by sea. For
most of the states which are dependent upon
the sea are situated round about your state, and
they are all weaker than yours.”)
Argument 2
pros toutois dé liménas ékhete, hon äneu oukh
hoiön te nautikéi dundmei khrésthai, ("In addition
to this, you have harbours, without which it is
not possible to enjoy naval power.”)
Argument 3
éti dé triereis kektesthe polläs, kai pätrion
humin esti nautikön epiktästhai (Furthermore,
you already possess many triremes, and it is
a traditional policy of yours to keep adding
ships.”)
Example 1
In this fragment the author establishes a state-
ment about the Athenian leadership by sea.
Later on three arguments supporting this thesis
are introduced by gar: this particle has within
its scope from pröton to epiktästhai. Within the
discourse unit opened by gar the connectors prö-
ton (underlined by men), pros totitois (underlined
34
by dé) and éti (underlined by dé) mark the linear
relationship between the three arguments.
Discourse fragment
PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES}
Through the unit headed by kaitoi the speaker
undermines the accuser’s assertion that he, the
accuser, had given money to the young friend of
both litigants.

Discourse fragment
Thesis Arguments
N
Accuser Defendant
gar

IN
ıstargument 2ndargument 3rd argument
Thesis Counterargument

kaitoi
proton men pros toutvis dé éti dé
Graph 2
Graph ı

In a third group of cases the same elements are

In other cases the speaker's purpose is rather to
undermine a previous thesis. The particle kaitoi
is used in these cases to introduce counterargu-
ments, as in the folowing passage taken from
Lysias:
Thesis
Etdimése gar eipein hös autos men triakosias
drakhmas édoke Theodétéi, sunthekas prös auton
poiésdmenos, ego d’ epibouletisas apéstésa autoü
to meirdkion. (“He had the audacity to state
that on his part he had given three hundred
drachmae to Theodotus, under an agreement
made with him, and that I by intrigue seduced
the boy from him.")
Counter-Argument
kaitoi ekhrén autön, eiper én taut’
parakalesanta mdrturas hös pleistous kata
tous nömous diaprättesthai peri autön. hoütas
de toioliton ouden pöpote phainetai poiesas,
hubrizon de kai tüptön ham’ amphotérous hemäs
kai kamazon kat tds thüras ekbällön kai nuktor
eision epi gunaikas eleutheras. [...| (“And yet, if
this was true, it was for him to summon as many
witnesses as he could and pursue the matter
in accordance with our laws. But it does not
appear that he has ever done anything of the
sort, but only that he has outraged and beaten us
both, and has revelled and broken in doors and
intruded on free women by night”)
introduced, but the order is the opposite, as
happens in the premise-conclusion reasonings.
Instead of proving a previous thesis providing
arguments, the speaker presents some premises
and from them (s)he derives a conclusion, as
in the following passage from Plato, where the
connector dra is used to draw the last conclusion
in the reasoning:
Premise
- Ti dé, ei tis kektéménos elé ploütön te kai ha
nunde elégamen pänta ta agathd, khréito de
autois me, dr’ dn eudaimonol did ten touton
ktesin tön agathön? ("Well now, suppose a
man had got wealth and all the goods that we
mentioned just now, but made no use of them;
would he be happy because of his possessing
alethe,
these goods?) — Ou deta, 6 Sökrates. (“Surely not,
Socrates.”)
Conclusion
— Dei dra, éphen, hos éoiken, me ménon kektésthat
ta toiaüta agatha ton méllonta eudaimona
ésesthai, alla kai khrésthai autois: é oudén öphelos
tés ktöseös gignetai. (So it seems one must not
merely have acquired such goods if one is to be
happy, but use them too; else there is no benefit
gained from their possession.) — Alethé légeis.
(“True.”)
Example 3

Example 2
 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES) 35

Discourse fragment turns this previous unit into a premise that justi-
fies his present request for help,
aN
Exchange 1 Exchange 2

| |
Discourse fragment

N
Premise
N
Conclusion
N
Premises Conclusion

Socrates Cleinias Sacrates Cleinias

Question
|
Answer Assertion
|
Compliance
Previous favors Request

|
ara
oin

Graph 3
Argumentation is not limited to logical reason-
ing. In other cases the issue at stake is not
whether some thesis is true or not, but the rea-
sons or motives why somebody does or should
do something, as in the folowing passage (én is
oan in Herodotus’ dialect):
Premise
Ädreste, egö se sumphoréi peplégménon akhdri,
ten toi ouk oneidizö, ekdthéra kal oikioisi hupo-
dexdmenos £khö parékhén pdsan
(“‘Adrastus, when you were struck by ugly mis-
fortune, for which I do not blame you, it was
I who cleansed you, and received and still keep
you in my house, defraying all your keep’.”)
Conclusion
niin ön [...], phülakon paidds se toa
khreizö genésthai es dgren hormdménou.
(* Now thenI ask that you watch over my son as
he goes out to the chase.’”)
Example 4
Graph 4
3.b. Discourse Topics
Another way to convey coherence and unity to
a discourse is to organize it though its topics
(Yule & Brown 1983, Givön 1983, Hannay 1985,
Prince 1981). Topics could be defined as the enti-
ties a discourse is about. Along a discourse the
entities dealt with can undergo several topical
phases: (i) an entity is introduced for the first
time (new topic); (ii) the topical entity is given
up and replaced by a another (topic change);
(iii) a topic is introduced, which has not previ-
ously been mentioned, but can be inferred from
a previous one (subtopic: for example, the door
dapdnen of a house that has been previously mentioned,
since houses generally have a door); (iv) a topic
entity can be given up and later picked up again
(resumed topic); (v) a topic can be summarized
before being closed and replaced by a another
one (summarized or closed topic). One role of
emoü the connectors is to manage all these possible
topical status of the entities in a single discourse.
In this section I will exemplify some cases (for
a fuller account see Revuelta 2009). The fol-
lowing passage represents the fourth chapter of
Xenophon's Symposium (only the relevant lines
are cited):

Croesus reminds Adrastus of his good treatment

in the past. Through the connector ön/oün he
36 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC
Supertopic
Every participant promises to reveal what he prides
on most (1): - Ek tautou dlexen ho Sökrates‘ Oukoün
loipin an eié hemin ha hékastos hupeskheto apo-
deiknünai hos polloü axid estin. (“At this point Soc-
rates said: ‘I suspect that it remains now for each
one of us to prove that what he engaged himself to
champion is of real worth.’ ”)
Subtopic 1
Calias 1-6) Summary: hoütos men dé ho lögos
entaütha elexen. (“Here the discussion of this point
ended.”, 6.1)
Subtopic 2
Niceratos (6-10) Summary: kai hoütos men dé ho
lögos houitö pos epaisato.(“That was about the way
the discussion of this point ended.", 10.1-2)
Subtopic 3
Critobulus (10-29) Beginning: ho dé Kritöboulos,
Oukviin al egö léxé, éphé, ex hon epi töi källei mega
phronö. (“Then Critobulus said: ‘Shall I take my
turn now and tell you my grounds for taking pride
in my handsomeness” ", 10.1) Summary: Kai hoütoi
men de hoiitös anamix ésképsdn te kai espoüdasan.
(“Such was the mingled raillery and seriousness
that these indulged in.", 28.6-29.1)
Subtopic 4
Charmides (29-34)
Subtopic 5
Antisthenes (34-45) Beginning: — All’ dge de, ephe
ho Sokrdtés, si att lege hemin, 6 Antisthenes, pds
hoütö brakhéa ekhön mega phroneis epi ploutöi. (*
‘Come, now, Antisthenes,’ said Socrates, ‘take your
turn and tell us how it is that with such slender
means you base your pride on wealth.'", 34.1-2)
Subtopic 6
Hermogenes (46-50) Summary: foiitos
men de ho légos hoiités espoudaiologethe. ("Such
was the serious turn given to the discussion ofthis
topic." 50.1-2 )
Subtopic 7
Philippos (50-51)
Subtopic 8
Syracusan (52-55)
Subtopic 9
Socrates (56-64) Summary: kai haute men de he
periodos tén logan apetelésthé. ("And so this round
of discourse was brought to a close.”, 64.10-1 )
Example 5
FEATURES)
The general theme in this chapter of Xenophon's
Symposium is the feat every participant prides on
most: this general theme could be understood as
the supertupic. The chapter can be divided in
as many units as participants; in each one a
different guest refers to his case: these are the
subtopics. The particle aü (‘on the other hand’)
is used to change from one subtopic to the next
in two cases: it first changes the topic from
Niceratos’ to Critoboulos’ pride and then from
Charmides’ to Antisthenes’. On the other hand,
the particle combination men dé is used in a very
systematic way in order to summarize and close
many of the subtopics before proceeding to the
next one; besides a metadiscursive expression
(of the kind ‘and so this round of discourse was
brought to a close’) makes explicit the end of the
topic.
In the next passage taken from Herodotus the
topic is the opinions of the Athenians about an
oracle:
Supertopic
gnémai kai dllai pollai eginonto dizemenön to
mantéion kai haide sunestékuiai mdlista: (“among
the many opinions which were uttered, two con-
trary ones were especially worthy of note.")
Subtopic 1
tén presbuterön élegon metexeteroi dokéein sphi
ton theön ten akröpolin khrésai periésesthai' |...]
((ist opinion: 5-9, “Some of the elder men said
that the gods answer signified that the acropo-
lis should be saved [...]"\Hoi men de [kata ton
phragmön] sunebdllonto toüto to xulinon teikhos
einai (“which, by their interpretation, was the
wooden wall.”)
Subtopic 2
hoi d’ aü élegon tas néas sémainein ton theön,
kai tauitas parartéesthal ekéleuon ta älla apéntas.
(2nd opinion: 9-u, “But others supposed that
the god was referring to their ships, and they
were for doing nothing but equipping these.")
Example 6
 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES) 37

Discourse fragment

Supertopic

Beginning End

eae”
Subtopicı
Subtopicz Subtopicg Subtopicg Subtopic;
SSS
Subtopic6 Subtopicz Subtopic8 Subtopicg men dé

Calias Niceratos Critoboulos Charmides Antisthenes Hermogenes Philippos Syracusan Socrates

End End Beginning End Beginning End

mende mende ai mende aü men de

Graph 5

The topic is divided into two subtopics: the first
opinion, according to which the god is refer-
ring to the Acropolis when speaking about the
wooden wall that will protect the Athenians,
and the second opinion, according to which
the god refers to the fleet; the second opinion
is introduced by aü. As in Xenophon's passage,
the combination men dé appears in the section
where the first topic is summarized before the
second is introduced.
Discourse fragment
Supertopic
mer lover is discussed, who is the person send-
ing the old woman to warn Euphiletus. When
the old woman (the main topic) is resumed the
particle oün is used to mark the return to the
main topic:
Main Topic
prosérkhetai mol tis presbütis (the old woman,
“| was accosted by a certain old female.”)
Excursus
hauté dé orgizoméné kai adikelsthai nomizousa,
höti oukéti homoids ephoita par’ autén, ephülat-
ten héds ex&üren ho ti eié to aition. (the former
lover, “This woman was angry with him and felt
herself wronged, because he no longer visited

N
First opinion Second opinion
her so regularly, and she was keeping a watch
on him until she should discover what was the
cause.”)
Main Topic
Beginning End au proselthoüsa oün moi engüs he änthröpos tés
oiklas tes emés epiteroüsa, "Euphilete” éphé
"medemiäi polupragmosünei proseleluthenai me
nomize pros sé: (the old woman, “So the old crea-
men dé ture accosted me where she was on the look-out,
Graph 6 lear my house, and said, - 'Euphiletus, do not
think it is from any meddlesomeness that I have
approached you [...]'”)
In the next passage taken from Lysias the situa-
tion is different. The text presents an old woman
Example 7
(main topic), who approaches the defendant,
Euphiletus, in order to inform him about his
wife's lover, Eratosthenes. However, this topic
is given up for a while and Eratosthenes’ for-
98 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES)

Discourse fragment The hierarchical structure of this passage and

the role played by the connectors could be rep-

|
Main topic Excursus Main topic
resented in this way:

Discourse fragment

The old woman The formerlover The old woman

Main topic (the two armies)

Graph 7 Elaboration Summary

The combination ge mén operates in a similar

gär men de
way to ai introducing the second or further topic
within a list of topics. In the next passage taken
from Xenophon the particle gar heads an elabo-
ration on the announced topic (the description Lacedaemonians Athenians
of the Lacedaemonian and Athenian forces). The
particle combination ge mén introduces the sec-
ond subtopic (the description of the Athenian Beginning End _— Beginning
forces) after the previous one (the Lacedaemo-
nian forces) has been dealt with. On the other
hand the particle combination mén dé appears mende gemen
twice: first closing the section about the Lace-
Graph B
daemonian troops (before the second about the
Athenians is opened) and secondly at the end
when the description of both sides is closed: 3.c. Rhetorical Structures
The so-called rhetorical structures by Mann and
Thompson (1988) partially overlap with the argu-
mentative relationships discussed by the Geneva
Supertopic
Phräsö de kai td pléthos hekaterön. (Description of
School. From a purely formal point of view this
both armies, “And now I will state the numbers on theoretical frame establishes dependency and
either side.") listing relationships, but within the first group
it distinguishes a large number of notional rela-
Subtopic1 tionships between the central and subsiadiary
sunelégesan gar hoplitai Lakedaimoniön men eis
unit: elaboration, evaluation, antithesis, moti-
hexakiskhilfous, |...] ("As for hoplites, there had
vation, evidence, summary, and so on. The list
gathered together of the Lacedaemonians about
six thousand [...]") haute men de <hé> meta of possible schemes is still an open question as
Lakedaimoniön dunamis én. |...] (“This, then, was well as its grammaticalization across languages
the force on the side of the Lacedaemonians.”} through different markers.
The following passage taken from Herodotus
Subtopic 2
may exemplify elaborations. In this very long
he ge men tön polemiön héthrolsthé Athénaion men
eis hexakiskhilious hoplitas |...) (“But the force of
passage Croesus is informed about the Athe-
the enemy which was gathered together included, nians and the Lacedaemonians. Once it has been
of the Athenians about six thousand hoplites stated that he got informed about the Athenians,
[-..]") the exact details are introduced by a section
headed by gar (elaboration). The initial subsec-
Summary
tion about the Athenians is closed by a summary
Haüte men de hekaterön he diinamis egeneto, (sum-
mary of both armies, "This, then, was the force on
headed by men nun (equivalent to men oün and
either side.”) men dé), Afterwards the section about the Lace-
daemonians is introduced by dé and a section
Example 8 headed by gdr elaborates on this new subtopic.
 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES)
It is necessary to point out that the extension of
text the particles operate upon (and particularly
the elaborations headed by both occurrences
of gär) amounts to many chapters of the work
(for space reasons large portions of the text have
been cut out from the example):
Athenians
Toutén de dn tön ethneön to men Attikön katekho-
menön te kai diespasmenon epunthäneto ho Kroi-
sos fhupd Peisisträtou toü Hippokräteos toüton
ton khrönon turanneiontos Athenalön. (Croesus
gets informed about the Athenians 59 1-4, "Now
of these two peoples, Croesus learned that the
Attic was held in subjection and divided into
factions by Pisistratus, son of Hippocrates, who
at that time was sovereign over the Athenians.)
Elaboration
Hippokrätei gar ednti idiötei kai thedréonti ta
Olumpia téras egeneto mega‘ [...] (detailed
information about the Athenians 59.4-7 to 64,
“This Hippocrates was still a private man when
a great marvel happened to him when he was at
Olympia to see the games: [...]")
End/Summary
Tous men nun Athénaious toiaüta ton khrönon
toüton epunthäneto ho Kroisos katekhonta (Sum-
mary about the Athenians 65.1-2, “So Croesus
learned that at that time such problems were
oppressing the Athenians.”)
Lacedaemonians
tous dé Lakedaimonious ek kakön te megdlön
pepheugötas kai eöntas ede téi polemöi katu-
perterous Tegeeteön. (Croesus gets informed
about the Lacedaemonians 65.2-5, “but that the
Lacedaemonians had escaped from the great
evils and had mastered the Tegeans in war.")
Elaboration
Epi gar Léontos basileuontos kai Egesikleos en
Spärtei tous ällous polémous eutukhéontes hoi
Lakedaiménioi prös Tegeétas moünous prosép-
taton. (Information about the Lacedaemoni-
ans 65.5-7 to 68, “In the kingship of Leon and
Hegesicles at Sparta, the Lacedaemonians were
successful in all their other wars but met disaster
only against the Tegeans. [...|")
Example 9
39
4, INTERACTIONAL LEVEL
Apart from organizing each speaker's material,
discourse connectors can operate on the inter-
actional level regulating the exchanges between
the speakers. From a linguistic point of view
an exchange is made by an initiating unit by
speaker 1 and a reaction by speaker 2 in its
simplest form (Kroon 1995:90). The initiating
unit can adopt the form of assertions, directives
(orders, requests and the like) and elicitations
(questions). Connectors can appear at the begin-
ning of initiating and reactive units specifying
their type and more particularly their connec-
tion to the previous unit or their expectations
about the other speaker's reaction, as in the fol-
lowing passage:
Exchange 1
- Oukoün hen men ti estin eis to aréskein ek toa
prépousan ékhein skhésin kai trikhön kai esthé-
tos? (“— Soc. ‘Now, one thing that contributes
to rendering a person attractive is a comely
arrangement of hair and clothing, is it not?"") -
Pdnu men oün, éphasan. (*- All, 'Certainly.'”)
Exchange 2
- Oukoün kai töde epistämetha, höti éstin
anthröpöi tots autois ömmasi kai philikös kai
ekhihrös prös tinas blepein? (“- Soc.'This, also,
we know, do we not, that it is in a man's power
to use the one pair of eyes to express both
friendship and hostility?’”) — Panu men ain.
(“— All. ‘Certainly.’ ”)
Exchange 3
- Ti dé, téi autéi phönei ésti kai aidemonös kai
thraséés phthéngesthai? (“— Soc. ‘And again, it
is possible to speak both modestly and boldly
with the same voice?’ ") — Pänu men oün. (*- Al.
‘Certainly.’”)
Exchange 4
- Ti de, lögoi ouk eisi men tines apekhthandme-
noi, eisi dé tines hoi pros philian dgousi? (*- Soc.
‘Moreover, are there not words that create ill
feeling and others that conduce to friendli-
ness?’ ") ~ Panu men odin. ("— All. ‘Certainly.’ ")
Example 10
40 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES)

Discourse fragment

Croesus’ actions

Croesus’ information about the Athenians Croesus’ information about the Lacedaemonians

mén (beginning) men nun (end/summary) dé

gar (elaboration) gar (elaboration)

Graph 9

Discourse fragment (dialog)

Exchange 1 Exchange 2 Exchange 4 Exchange 4

Action Reaction Action Reaction Action Reaction Action Reaction

Question Answer Question Answer Question Answer Question Answer

Oukotin menoön Oukoiin men oun Ti dé men oan Ti dé men oan

Graph 10

In this passage there are four interactive units or
exchanges: in each one Socrates poses a question
(initiating unit) and his audience accepts the
suggested answer (reactive unit). The connector
oukoün heads two of the questions, whereas the
combination men otin is used to close every unit
with a positive answer, as usually from Plato
onwards (Denniston 1954:476).
5. BEYOND THIS ARTICLE
Discourse is a quite recent level of linguistic
analysis and there are still many shortcomings
both in theoretical and practical description. As
for the theoretical approach, the reader can find
useful information in Kroon’s (1995) book on
Latin particles and Hengeveld and Mackenzie's
(2008) presentation of Functional Discourse
Grammar (> Functional Grammar and Greek),
As for practical discussions of particles, apart
from Denniston’s (1954) excellent book and other
treatises in the same tradition (Blomqvist 1969
and Thrall 1962), the reader can find more mod-
ern approaches in Rijksbaron (1997), Sicking and
van Ophuijsen (1993) and Bakker and Wakker
(2009). A very good description of Greek con-
nectors following modern linguistic parameters
can be found in Slings’ (1997) article on mentoi
and kaitoi.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakker, EgbertJ. 1993. “Boundaries, Topics, and the structure
of discourse. An investigation of the Ancient Greek par-
ticle DE“, Studies in Language 17:275-3u.
Bakker, Stéphanie |. and Gerry C. Wakker (eds). 2009, Dis-
course cohesion in Ancient Greek, Leiden.
 PARTICLES (SYNTACTIC FEATURES)
Berenguer Sanchez, José A. 1992. “Distintos conceptos de
particula en la descripcidn lingüfstica”, Revista Espariola
de Lingülstica 22.1:55—-76.
Blomqvist, Jerker. 1969. Greek particles in Hellenistic prose.
Lund.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis.
Cambridge.
Denniston, John Dewar. 19542. The Greek particles. Oxford.
Dik, Simon C., Maria E. Hoffmann, Jan R. de Jong, Sie Ing
Djiang, Harry Stromer and Lourens deVries. 1981. “On the
typology of focus phenomena”. In: Perspectives on Func-
tional Grammar, Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst and
Michael Moortgat (eds), 41-74. Dordrecht.
Givén, Talmy. 1983. “Topic continuity in discourse: an intro-
duction”. In: Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative
cross-language study, Talmy Givén (ed.}, 1-43. Amster-
dam - Philadelphia.
Hannay, Mike. 1985. “Inferrability, discourse-boundness,
and sub-topics”. In: Syntax and pragmatics in Functional
Grammar, A. Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot
and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), 49-63. Dordrecht -
Cinnaminson,
Hellwig, Antje. 1974. "Zur Funktion und Bedeutung der
griechischen Partikeln", Glotta 52145-171
Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional
discourse grammar. A typologically-based theory of lan-
guage structure. Oxford.
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles. Lon-
don - New York.
Kroon, Caroline. 1995. Discourse particles in Latin, A study of
nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam.
Mann, William. C. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “Rhetori-
cal structure theory: toward a functional theory of text
organization”, Text 8:243-281.
Moeschler, Jacques. 1985. Argumentation et conversation. Elé-
ments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours. Paris.
Polanyi, Livia and Remko J. H. Scha. 1983. “The syntax of
discourse”, Text 3:261-270,
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. “Towards a taxonomy of given/new
information". In: Radical pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.),
223-256. New York.
Reyuelta Puigdollers, Antonio R. 1996. Estudio de las particu-
las griegas ab, adte, aübıc, dp, may y oniow en griege
artiguo. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Madrid.
. 1997. “Analisis semäntico de dpSaic y drxatus en griego
cläsico”. In: Dona ferentes. Homenaje a F. Torrent, Jess de
la Villa (ed.), 95-106. Madrid.
. 2000. “Parallel focus particles, specially in Ancient
Greek”. In: Congreso Internacional de Semäntica, Cien
anos de investigacién semäntica: de Michel Breal a la
actualidad, Marcos Martinez Hernändez (ed.), vol. I
4175-190. La Laguna.
. 2006. "22. Los adverbios. Las particulas”. In: Sintaxis
gricga, M* Dolores Jiménez Löpez (ed.). Madrid.
. 2009. “The particles ad and adre in Ancient Greek as
topicalizing devices”, In: Discourse cohesion in Ancient
Greek, Stéphanie J. Bakker and Gerry C. Wakker (eds),
86-106. Leiden.
——. Forthcoming. "From tense ta mood: dedey in
Ancient Greek (counterfactual) desiderative sentences”.
In: Papers from 7th International Colloquium on Ancient
Greek Linguistics. Variation in Grammar and Discourse.
Ghent University.
Rijksbaron, Albert (ed.). 1997. New approaches to Greek par-
ticles. Amsterdam.
41
Roulet, Eddy, Antoine Auchlin, Jacques Moeschler, Chris-
tian Rubattel and Marianne Schelling. 1985. L'articulation
du discours en francais contemporain. Bern.
Sicking, Christiaan M. J. and Jan van Ophuijsen. 1993. Two
studies in Attic particles usage. Lysias and Plato, Leiden.
Slings, Siman R. 1997. “Adversative Relators between PUSH
and POP”, In: New upproaches to Greek particles, Albert
Rijksbaron (ed.), 101-129. Amsterdam.
Thrall, Margaret E. 1962, Greek particles in the New Testa-
ment. Leiden.
ANTONIO REVUELTA
Passiva Tantum
Passiva tantum (‘passive only’) are verbs which
do not have an = active voice and have a passive
aor, (with suffix -é-/-thé-; + Passive (morphol-
ogy)). Passiva tantum have a mid. (mediopas-
sive) inflection in the pres. and pf. stems
(> Middle, + Mediopassive). In the fut. stem,
they may have a mid. (-so-mai) or a passive
(-(th)esomai) form, eg. 1 pres. mid, bovlomai
‘want’, aor. pass. ebouléthén, pf. mid. bebouilémai,
fut. mid. boulesomai. Passiva tantum are also
called passive deponents.
Other examples include: dgamai ‘won-
der (at), admire’ (aor. égdsthéen), aideomai 'be
ashamed’ (éidésthén), adkhthomal ‘be grieved’
(ékhthésthén), arnéomai ‘deny’ (érnéthén), déo-
mai ‘need, ask’ (edeéthén), dialégomai ‘converse’
(dielékhthén), dianoéomai ‘reflect’ (dienoethen),
dinamai ‘be able’ (edunethen), enthuméo-
mai ‘consider’ (enethumethen), epimelomai
‘regret’ (epemeléthén), epistamai ‘know, be able’
(Epistäthen), &ramai ‘love’ (érdsthén), eulabéomai
‘be cautious’ (Eulabethen), héttdomai ‘be weaker
than, be inferior to’ (hettethen), ofomai ‘think,
believe’ (öiethen) (see also Smyth 1956:221-222,
Rijksbaron 2006:160—161).
Semantically, most passiva tantum are non-
volitional and have an undergoer-subject (in
most cases an experiencer). This is in line with
the semantics of the suffix -(th)é- which indi-
cates that the subject undergoes a complete
change of state and is thus fully affected as a
result of the event (- Voice),
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2006". The syntax and semantics of the
verb in Classical Greek, An introduction. Chicago,
Smyth, Herbert W. [revised by Gordon M. Messing]. 1956.
Greek grammar. Cambridge, Mass.
RUTGER ALLAN
42 PASSIVE (MORPHOLOGY)
Passive (Morphology)
In the aorist and future stems, Ancient Greek
distinguishes a separate passive voice (> Pas-
sive (syntax)) in opposition to the - active
and + middle voice (+ Mediopassive, + Diath-
esis/Voice (Morphology of )). In the pres. and
pf. stems, pass. meaning is expressed by the
mid. (mediopassive) voice. The passive voice is
marked by the variant morphemes -the- and -é-
which follow the verbal stem. The stem originally
appears in the zero-grade (+ Ablaut (Apoph-
ony, Gradation)), e.g. e-mig-en (from meignumi
‘mingle'). Younger forms often have an e-grade
analogically after the sigmatic aorist or pres.
form, e.g, epeisthen after épeisa and peithomat ‘
am persuaded’. The suffix -the-/-e- is a portman-
teau morpheme which simultaneously expresses
pass, voice and perfective aspect (+ Aspect (and
Tense)). In the fut. stem the pass. morpheme is
followed by the fut. tense marker -so-/-se-. The
pass. morpheme -thé-/-é- is combined with act.
endings in the aor. stem (e.g. epoié-thé-n) and
with mid. endings in the fut. stem (e.g. poie-
the-so-mai). In a number of verbs, -s- is inserted
preceding -thé- (e.g. emnes-the-n from pres.
mndomai ‘be reminded’) after the model of verbs
such as etelésthén : teléo ‘finish’ of which the -s- is
original. It should be noted that the pass. voice
is not only used to mark pass. events but also
intr. events (i.e,, events without (implicit) exter-
nal agent). For the syntax and semantics of the
pass. voice, + passive (syntax), > voice. For treat-
ments of the morphology of the passive voice,
see Lautensach (ig), Schwyzer & Debrunner
(1959 11:756-763), Chantraine (1961165-170),
Bakker (1994), Duhoux (2000:373-383), Allan
(2003:126-202),
The suffix -£- is most probably derived from the
PIE suffix *-eh,-/-h,- which may have had a stative
meaning (e.g. Rix 1992:218, Sihler 1995:497, Fort-
son 2004:90-91, Ruijgh 2004, Beekes 2011:256-
257) or a fientive meaning (e.g. Hardarson 1998,
Rix 1998, Meier-Briigger 2010:307). The variant
morpheme -thé- is a Greek innovation. Its origin
remains uncertain but a connection with the
semantically closely related -&- seems plausible.
Chantraine (1961:168) explains the suffix as a com-
bination of suffix -é- with the suffix *-th- which
occurs in aorists such as éskhethon ‘| got, held
back’ and possibly had a telic meaning. The suf-
fix -the- might have arisen by a re-interpretation
of forms such as eskheth-e-n (ékhé ‘have, hold’)
which contained the root extension *-(e)th-
and suffix -é- (see also Risch 1974:254). Ruijgh
(2004:292-294) explains the suffix -the- as a re-
interpretation of the form e-stdth-é-n ‘stood!’
(with root sta- plus extension -th-). For alter-
native explanations, see Szemerényi (1989:305,
307n.29) [with literature] and Rix 1992:219-220,
For a description of the distribution of the suf-
hxes -é- and -thé, + Diathesis/Voice (Morphol-
ogy of).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger J. 2003. The middle voice in Ancient Greek. A
study in polyserny. Amsterdam.
Bakker, EgbertJ. 1994. “Voice, aspect and Aktionsart. Middle
passive in Ancient Greek", In: Voice: farm and function, ed.
by Barbara A. Fox and Paul J. Hopper, 23-47. Amsterdam
- Philadelphia.
Beekes, Robert 5. P. 200. Comparative Indo-European fin-
guistics. An introduction. Secand edition. Amsterdam -
Philadelphia.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1961. Morphologie historique du grec.
Paris.
Duhoux, Yves. 2000, Le verbe grec ancien: éléments de mor-
phologie ei de syntaxe historiques. Deuxiéme édition,
revue et augmentée. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Fortson, Benjamin W. 2004. Indo-European language and
culture, An introduction. Oxford.
Hardarson, Jon A. 1998. “Mit dem Suffix *-2A,- bzw.
*.(e)h,-ie/o- gebildete Verbalstämme im Indogermanis-
chen". In: Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen: Akten
der X, Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft,
Innsbruck, 22.-28, September ı996, ed. by W. Meid, 323-
339. Innsbruck.
Risch, Ernst. 1974. Wortbildung der hamerischen Sprache.
Berlin.
RuTGER ALLAN
Passive (Syntax)
In the literature on Ancient Greek voice, the
term pass. voice may refer to two different
notions. First, the pass. voice can refer ta the
grammatical construction in which an entity
undergoing the event or other second argument
is selected as the + subject of the clause, while
the participant which is normally selected as
clausal subject (typically the agent, + Agency
and Causation) is backgrounded (detopicalized)
(Kühner & Gerth I:13-119, 126-127, Schwyzer &
Debrunner 1950 1:236-241, Chantraine 1953279-
182, Smyth 1956:394-398, Allan 2003:58-59,
Rijksbaron 2006:138-144). Second, the term pass.
voice (or pass. form) is traditionally used to refer
to the morphological category marked with the
sufhx -thé- or -é- (Kühner & Gerth I:21-126,
 PASSIVE (SYNTAX)
Schwyzer & Debrunner 1959 1:756-763, Smyth
1956:180-182, Chantraine 1958:399-407, Allan
2003:127-177). It should be noted, however, that
the forms with suffix in -thé-/-é- do not exclu-
sively express a pass. meaning but also an intr.
meaning (> Voice).
The pass. meaning is expressed by mid. voice
forms and, in the aor. and fut. stems, also by forms
in -thé-/-€- (+ Voice, — Diathesis/Voice (Mor-
phology of )). With a number of verbs, intransi-
tive active voice forms function as suppletive
pass. forms, e.g. apothneiskö ‘die’, combined with
an agent phrase hupö + genitive, serves as a
lexical pass. ‘be killed (by)’ to apokteind ‘kill’
(Kithner & Gerth I:98-99, Smyth 1956:397-398,
Luraghi 2000, Rijksbaron 2006:139). The regular
formation *apokteinomai does not occur in Clas-
sical Greek.
In a pass. clause, the agent remains unspeci-
fied or is expressed by a prepositional phrase or a
+ dative case, e.g. hubrizömen (hup’ ekhthroü) ‘|
was assaulted (by an enemy)’. A typical function
of the pass. construction is to detopicalize the
agent participant and to maintain + topic conti-
nuity in the discourse by promoting the patient
or another second argument to subject position
(George 2005:19-42). The agent in pass. con-
structions can be expressed by a prepositional
phrase and by a dat. case. The dat. of agent (dati-
vus auctoris) is used with the pf. and verbal adj.
in -tés and -téos, rarely with other tense stems.
The most common preposition used in Classical
Greek is hupé + + genitive, but apd (+ gen.), ek
(+ gen.), pard (+ gen. or dat.) and prös (+ gen.)
also occur (Kühner & Gerth 1127-128, Schwyzer
1942, Luraghi 2000, 2003, 2010, George 2005). The
construction with hupd + gen. typically occurs
when the subject is a highly affected patient. The
latter prepositions tend to occur when the event
shows a relatively low degree of — transitivity,
e.g. in combination with verbs involving move-
ment away from the agent (verbs of sending and
giving) and with verbs of thinking and saying.
The prepositions prös and ek are frequent in trag-
edy for metrical convenience. These alternative
conceptualizations of the agent are ultimately
based on spatial metaphors (Luraghi 2000).
Ancient Greek also allows active verbs with
oblique (i.e. non-accusative) complements such
as drkhö + gen. ‘rule’, katageldé + gen. ‘laugh at’,
pisteiö + dat. ‘trust’, poleméo + dat. ‘fight against’
to be passivized. In the pass. construction of
these verbs, the subject corresponds with the
43
oblique complement of the act. construction, e.g.
drkhetai ‘he is ruled’ (Kühner & Gerth [:124-125,
Smyth 1956:395-396, Mulder 1988, Conti Jiménez
1998, Allan 2003:58, Rijksbaron 20062139, Luraghi
2010). A possible factor which explains these
pass. constructions is the fact that these oblique
complements refer to human entities which are
typical discourse topics. There are verbs with
(non-affected) + accusative complements which
do not have a pass. (e.g. pheügö + acc. ‘flee’).
Impersonal pass. constructions (+ Impersonal
Verbs/Constructions) are rare (e.g. alla pépaistai
metriös hémin ‘well, we've had our share of
fun’ [Aristoph. Thesm. 1227]). In constructions
such as /égetai ‘it is said’ and dédoktai ‘it is
decreed’, the complement clause can be ana-
lyzed as the subject (Schwyzer & Debrunner 1959
1:239-240, n. 4).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger J. 2003. The middle voice in Ancient Greek. A
study in polysemy. Amsterdam.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homérique, Il: Syntaxe.
Paris.
. 1958. Grammaire homerique, 1: Phonétique et morphal-
ogie. 3° tirage avec une vonclusion nouvelle. Paris.
Conti Jiménez, Luz. 1989. "Zum Passiy von griechischen Ver-
ben mit Genitiv bzw, Dativ als zweitem Komplement’,
MSS 58:13-350.
Gearge, Coulter. 2005. Expressions of agency in Ancient
Greek. Cambridge.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth, 1889-1904. Ausführ-
liche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 2. Teil: Satz-
lehre, 2 vols. Hanover.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2000. “Spatial metaphors and agenthood in
Ancient Greek”. In: 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, ed.
by Christian Zinko and Michaela Ofitsch, 283-298. Graz.
——. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and cases. The
expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam —
Philadelphia.
——. 2010. "The extension of the transitive construction in
Ancient Greek”, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42:60-74.
Mulder, Hotze A. 1988. “Non-accusative second arguments
of two-place verbs in Ancient Greek", In: In the footsteps
of Raphael Kühner. Proceedings of the International Col-
loquium in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of
the publication of Raphael Kühner’s ‘Ausführliche Gram-
martik der griechischen Sprache, IT. Theil: Syntaxe’, ed. by
Albert Rijksbaron, Hotze A. Mulder and Gerry C. Wakker,
219-237. Amsterdam,
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2006. The syntax and semantics of the
verb in Classical Greek. An introduction, 3rd ed. Chicago.
Schwyzer, Eduard, 1943, Zum persönlichen Agens beim Pas-
siv, besonders im Griechischen (= APAW 1943, No, 10).
Berlin.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1959. Griechische
Grammatik, 2 vals. Munich.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1956. Greek grammar. Revised by Gordon
M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.
RUTGER ALLAN
44 PATIENT AND THEME
Patient and Theme
Patient and Theme are two of the semantic func-
tions attributable to the second argument of
transitive verbs (> Transitivity). Together with
the Result, the Patient is the most habitual role
of the second argument of transitive verbs. The
prototypical Patient is understood as the entity,
be it animate or inanimate, which undergoes the
verbal action and experiences a change during
the unfolding of this action (for instance, Eng.
The dag broke its toy). In contrast, the Theme
denotes the entity, either animate or inanimate,
which undergoes the action but experiences no
change in state (e.g. Eng. John has two daughters
or Anna put the bottle of wine into the fridge). The
concept of Theme, although accepted by some
scholars, has barely been taken into account in
syntactic analyses of Ancient Greek (+ Func-
tional Grammar and Greek).
It is widely known that, as a general rule, in
Ancient Greek the Patient is encoded via the
~ accusative case (1) as well as - even though on
a much less regular basis - the + genitive (2) and
the + dative (3):
(1) ekpersai Pridmoio polin
‘To sack the city of Priam' (Hom. /l. 1.19)
(2) tes ges étemon
‘They ravaged part of the country’ (Thuc.
1.30.2)
(3) hos fretre fretrephin aregei, phüla de phülois
‘So that the clan defends the clan and the
tribe the tribe’ (Hom. Il. 2.363)
Like the Patient, the Theme is also encoded via
the accusative:
(4) soi dé... dösö ändra téi thugatri
1 will give you a husband for your daughter’
(Xen. Cyr. 8.4.24)
The encoding of the Theme through the geni-
tive is erratic. Moreover, at times it is impos-
sible to rule out other syntactic interpretations,
although these may be less plausible. Thus, in
the following example it would be possible to
interpret the genitive Aés of the relative > pro-
noun as the result of an attraction to the + case
of the antecedent (+ Relative Clauses), Never-
theless, given that the so-called direct attraction
has yet to be documented in Homer, it is prefer-
able to attribute the expression of the Theme to
the genitive:
(5) tés gär toi geneés hés Trai per eurtiopa Zeus |
dékh' huios poinen Ganumedeos
‘You see, they are of the race (sc. the horses)
that far-sounding Zeus gave to Tros in
payment for his son Ganymede’ (Hom. ff.
5.265-266)
It is widely agreed that, as a general rule, Theme
is the role played by the second argument of
verbs expressing giving or transfer, as well as
of those expressing + possession. The argument
serving the function of Theme is thus seen in
both dynamic states of affairs, as in example (5),
and static states of affairs, as in the following
examples:
(6) Aypéntése kai he guné tou Armeniou, tas
thugatéras ékhousa kai tén neoteron huiön
‘He was also met by the wife of the Arme-
nian, who had with her her daughters and
her youngest son' (Xen. Cyr. 3.3.2.7)
(7) ékhontes triékonta tdlanta
‘They, having thirty talents...’ (Hdt. 1.14.8)
In contrast to some modern Indo-European
languages, in Ancient Greek the verb &khö,
which expresses possession, often displays a
first argument which exercises some degree
of control — or total control - over the verbal
action. Possession in the absence of control on
the part of the possessor is expressed with the
verb eimi, ‘to be, to exist’, in combination with
the genitive or the dative.
Like the Patient, in Ancient Greek the Theme
can be employed as the subject of passive struc-
tures (> Passive (syntax)). This phenomenon is
not only possible with verbs of giving or transfer,
but also with those of possession:
(8) hott eikhe ten adelphen Sitälkes
‘whose sister Sitalces had taken as wife’
(Thue. 2.29.1)
(9) tott per de thugdtér ekheth’ Hektori
‘his daughter (sc. Andromache of Eetion)
was taken as wife by Hector’ (Hom. /L 6.398)
It is thus apparent that in Ancient Greek the
semantic difference between the prototypical
Patient and the Theme does not manifest itself
in relevant structural differences. Interesting
 PATIENT AND THEME
morphosyntactic differences may be observed,
however, in the sense that the dative, which
sometimes encodes the Patient, does not encode
the prototypical Theme.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, Paul K. iggi. A new look at the passive, Frankfurt
am Main.
‚1993. “Zur Diathese", HSF 106.2177-231.
Brandt, Patrick and Marco Garcia Garcia. 2010. Transitivity:
form, meaning, acquisition, and processing. Amsterdam.
Conti, Luz. 1998. "Zum Passiv von griechischen Verben
mit Genitiv bzw. Dativ als zweitem Komplement”, MSS
5833-50.
Crespo, Emilio. 1988. “The semantic and syntactic func-
tions of the accusative”. In: Proceedings in Cammemora-
Hon of the ı50th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael
Kühners ‘Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen
Sprache, IT Teil: Syntax’, ed. by Albert Rijskbaron, 219-236.
Amsterdam.
Dowty, David. igg1. “Thematic proto-roles and Argument
selection”, Language 67:547-618.
Grimshaw, Jane B. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity
in grammar and discourse”, Language 56:251-299,
Luraghi, Silvia. 2008. “Case in cognitive linguistics”. In: The
handbook of case, ed. by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew
Spencer, 136-150. Berlin — New York.
Malchukov, Andrej. 2006, “Transitivity parameters and tran-
sitivity alternations. Constraining co-variation”. In: Case,
valency and transitivity, ed. by Leonid Kulikov, Andrej
Malchukev and Peter de Swart, 175-190. Amsterdam,
Riafio, Daniel. 2006, El complemento directu en grieyo anti-
guo. Madrid.
Risselada, Rodie. 1987. “Voice in ancient Greek: reflexives
and passives”. In: Ins and outs of the predication, ed.
by Johan van der Auwera and Louis Goassens, 123-136.
Dordrecht.
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive, A comparative linguistic
analysis. London.
Stein, Gabriele. 1979. Studies in the function of the passive,
Tübingen.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cugnitive semantics. Vol. ı:
Concept systems. Cambridge.
Tsunoda, 'Fasaku. 1981, “Remarks on transitivity", Journal of
Linguistics 21:385-396.
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca.
Luz CONTI
Patronymics
Ancient Greek nomenclature owes much to
+ Indo-European naming practices, which is
clear from the Mycenaean evidence (dating from
the 13th century BCE) as well as the Homeric
poems (dated to the 8th century BCE and com-
posed to evoke Bronze Age society), Greek men
and women were given only one name, fol-
lowing the Indo-European custom. Although
there are many instances of Greeks, particularly
45
those living in Asia Minor and Egypt, who were
given two names, this practice never became
the norm. Thus, a Greek would most likely go
by one name. The patronymic appears to have
only been used as a way to officially identify
and legitimize an individual in a formal context.
The way in which patronymics were used, on
tombstones, for example, seems to have varied
greatly. Furthermore, it is not clear whether,
as in Modern Russian, patronymic address was
common in personal exchanges, even in formal
contexts. While they are common in poetry,
Dickey (1997:8) concludes that, in all likelihood,
patronymic addresses were already not used by
the 5th and qth centuries BCE, and had become
archaizing features in poetry.
Generally, patronymics took the form of the
genitive of the father’s name. In the Aeolic dia-
lect (found in the areas of Boeotia, Thessaly,
Asia Minor, and Lesbos) patronymics could take
the form of an adjective in -ios formed from the
father's name. This formation of the patronymic
is also found in the Homeric poems. There is also
another Homeric patronymic where the father’s
name is made into an adjective with the termi-
nation -idés that possessed patronymic force.
Names formed in this way are attested in the
historical period, but are not patronymics at
that stage.
The Mycenaean evidence seems to indicate
that the persons referred to by either their first
names and full patronymic, or full name and
shortened patronymic weree-qe-ta, thatis, landed
gentry. Palmer (1963), in his analysis of the o-ka
tablets, supposes that these individuals, given
their status, possessed both political and reli-
gious responsibilities within the society at Pylos.
As these patronymic forms call to mind those
used in the Homeric poems (see exx. 1-2 below),
it is commonly thought that these are Aeolisms
in Homer that indicate the close relationship
between Aeolic and Mycenaean. The patronym-
ics themselves are formed from the father's first
name and the Indo-European adjectival *-jos
suffix. Usually, patronymics in -ios occur with
the term huids or 'son', with the notable excep-
tion of Telemonios, Oilios, and Neleios, though
even then, as Aitchison (1964:134) observes, only
in certain contexts. This leads her to conclude
that the forms may have been later interpola-
tions. Aitchison prefers to link the Mycenaean
patronymics in -ios to Homeric personal names
in -ios such as Melanthios or Talthybios and to
46 PATRONYMICS
regard them as an isolated phenomenon, rather
than to link them to the later Aeolic patronymics
in -ios, but this appears to be a minority view. It
should be noted, too, that when she wrote her
study in 1964, the identification of many of the
Mycenaean names in -ios as patronymic forms
was still somewhat doubtful, although now the
majority of these are accepted (although there
remain a few uncertain examples).
The more usual patronymic ending in Homer
is -des. While the origin of this formation remains
somewhat unclear, scholars generally agree that
it was derived from feminine adjectives in -is
and -idos. Significantly, none of these forma-
tions is attested in Mycenaean. In the works of
Homer and Hesiod, terms possessing -is, -idos
feminine endings are usually patronymics, place
names, or ethnics (Aitchison 1964:137). As many
of these place names and ethnics refer to areas
it seems likely that
in Boeotia and Thessaly,
these formations were originally Aeolic. Gradu-
ally, they seem to have taken hold in the rest of
Greece (due, more likely than not, to the influ-
ence of the Homeric language upon Hellenic
culture). By the Classical period, we find that
such names have lost their patronymic force
and have become personal names. In Aeolia, we
find patronymics expressed via the possessive
adjective in -ios, while both + Doric as well as
Attic-lonic used the genitive, still used to express
patronymics in Modern Greek.
Examples:
(1) Me-ta-ye pe-i e-ge-ta a-re-ku-tu-ru-wo e-te-
wo-ke-re-we-tjo.
Meta dé sphi(n) hepetäs Alektrion Eteokleeie.
‘With them is Count Elektryon, son of Eteok-
les.’ (An 654, Docs. 58 from Palmer 1963:149)
Me-ta-ge pe-ie-ge-tadi-ko-na-roa-da-ra-tt-jo.
Meta de sphi(n) hepetäs (Di-ko-na-ro)
Ädrestios
"With them is Count Dikonaros, son of
Adrastos (?).’ (An 656, Docs. 59 from Palmer
19637150)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aitchison, J. M. 1964. “TeAauawiog Alag and other patronym-
ics’, Glotta 42132-138.
Dickey, E. 1997. “The Ancient Greek address system and
some proposed sociolinguistic universals”, Language in
Society 2641-13.
Garcia Kamön,J, L. zou. “Mycenaean onomastics”. In: Yves
Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies (eds), A compan-
ion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek texts and their world.
Louvain-La-Neuve,
Meier, M. 1975. -16-: Zur Geschichte eines griechischen Nomi-
nulsuffixes. Göttingen.
Palmer, L. R. 1963. The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek
texts, Oxford.
Ventris, M. and ]. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean
Greek, and rev. ed. Cambridge.
THOMAS SMITHERMAN
Perfect
1. INTRODUCTION
The term ‘Perfect' is commonly used to refer
to a morphological category of Ancient Greek.
Of course, what is called 'Perfect' by traditional
grammars does not necessarily correspond to the
cross-linguistic semantic category ‘perfect’, as
exemplified by the Classical Latin Perfect, which
is mostly used as a perfective past (I distinguish
between language-particular and cross-linguistic
categories by capitalizing only the labels of the
former). Furthermore, it is worth pointing out
that Ancient Greek had periphrastic construc-
tions at its disposal to express perfect meaning,
most notably eimi ‘I am’ and ekhö '| have' com-
bined with a Perfect or Aorist participle (e.g, eimé
lelukés ‘I have released’; Bentein 2012). While,
from a cross-linguistic point of view, Perfects
are predominantly expressed periphrastically
(Bybee and Dahl 1989-67), in Ancient Greek such
constructions have remained at the periphery of
the verbal system.
Functionally, the Perfect is notoriously com-
plex (for the Perfect as a marked category, see
Porter 1989:245-247). As in other languages, it is
an open question whether this grammatical cat-
egory constitutes an aspect (and if so, whether
it constitutes a third basic aspect), tense or
Aktionsart, a mixture of these, or whether it
represents a category of its own (> Tense/
Aspect). The main factor in discussions of this
nature should be diachrony (Moser 2008): as |
show below, the temporal and aspectual char-
acteristics of the Perfect change quite radically
throughout the history of the language.
THREE MAIN APPROACHES
3. SEMANTICS:
Before discussing the diachronic development
of the Perfect, it is necessary to go into the
semantics of this grammatical category. | focus
on three main approaches, which for ease of
 PERFECT
reference will be called (i) ‘the dual-orientation
approach’, (ii) ‘the resultative approach‘ and (iii)
‘the cross-linguistic approach’.
Traditionally, the Perfect is considered an
aspectual category with dual orientation, denot-
ing completed action and resulting state. Rijks-
baron (20061), for example, writes that “the
perfect stem signifies both that a state of affairs is
completed and that as a result a state exists” (e.g.
tethneke ‘he/she/it has died and is now dead’). A
second line of approach (not entirely incompat-
ible with the previous approach) has been that
of Wackernagel (1953 {1904]) and Chantraine
(1927), who argue that two main types of Perfect
can be distinguished, depending on whether the
state of the subject or that of the object is empha-
sized (e.g. intransitive apélola '| am destroyed’
vs. transitive apolöleka autén ‘I have destroyed
him’), The latter type is referred to with the
term ‘resultative Perfect’. Both approaches have
not been without criticism: the dual-orientation
approach has difficulties dealing with Perfect
forms of stative verbs such as tethele ‘he/she/it
blooms’, where there is no obvious completion
of a past action (commonly called ‘intensive’
Perfects; but see Chantraine 192727). In recent
years a tendency has thus emerged to emphasize
'stativity’ as the sole defining feature of the Per-
fect (e.g, McKay 1980; Porter 1989; Sicking and
Stork 1996). On the other hand, with the resulta-
tive approach it is often unclear in what sense
the Perfect expresses the state of the abject
(others believe that the Perfect ulways expresses
the state of the subject, but this is not unprob-
lematic either). A second unresolved issue is
how the passive Perfect fits into the picture
sketched by Wackernagel and Chantraine (both
synchronically and diachronically).
Various recent treatments (e.g. Haspelmath
1992; Gerd and von Stechow 2003; Haug 2008;
Bentein 2012) make reference to cross-linguistic
research on tense and aspect. Here, two main
types of perfect are distinguished, called the
‘resultative’ and the ‘anterior’ perfect. In the ter-
minology of Maslov (1988), the perfect includes
two temporal planes: that of precedence and that
of sequence. When the emphasis is on the former
we have an anterior perfect, and a resultative
perfect when it is on the latter. While in the
case of the resultative perfect the subject consti-
tutes the locus of relevance (e.g. Gk. gégraptai ‘it
stands written’), with the anterior perfect this is
the here-and-now of the discourse context (e.g.
47
Gk. akékéate taüta ‘you have heard this’ (and
this experience is currently relevant)). Note that
the anterior perfect only requires that an event
has some relevance at a later point in time, not
that it produces a current state (Bybee and Dahl
1989:77), as some scholars seem to believe. Obvi-
ously, the cross-linguistic approach has much
in common with both of the above-mentioned
approaches, and clarifies some unresolved issues
(regrettably, though, the term 'resultative' has
come to be used in the opposite sense of Wack-
ernagel and Chantraine). Moreover, subcat-
egorizations of the two main types of perfect
have been proposed, adding depth to our under-
standing of specific cases (e.g. Ruijgh 2004 and
Bentein 2012 with regard to Ancient Greek).
Here too, however, some difficulties can be
mentioned, as for example the (diachronic)
relationship between stativity and resultativity
(cf. below), and that between semantics and
pragmatics, especially with regard to the sub-
categorization proposed for the anterior perfect.
An interesting perspective towards the second
issue would be a dynamic (diachronically-based)
network model, centered around the notions
of ‘schematicity’ and ‘entrenchment’ (Lewan-
dowska-Tomaszczyk 2007).
3. DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT
While each of the three above-mentioned
approaches has been adopted to explain the
diachronic development of the Perfect, | focus
here on the third, cross-linguistic approach, with
reference to some of the older works. It has been
convincingly shown that Perfects across differ-
ent languages tend to develop along a path that
is the same or similar (a ‘grammaticalization-
path’; Bybee and Dahl 1989:67-77). Two major
changes are typically observed: (a) from resulta-
tive to anterior, and (b) from anterior to perfective
past. Bentein (2012) suggests that the overall
development could be captured in terms of tran-
sitivization (with transitivity in the broad sense
of Hopper and Thompson 1980), but this needs
further research.
a. From resultative to anterior. The archaic Per-
fect is predominantly resultative: intransitive
Perfects (mostly with active endings) such as
pépéga ‘| am stuck’, sésépa ‘| am rotten’ and
téthnéka ‘tL am dead’, indicate the state of the
subject. Observe that these forms are based on
48 PERFECT
telic content verbs, a lexical restriction which
is typical for resultatives. However, one can
also find Perfect forms from atelic content
verbs, such as memela ‘I am concerned’ and
kékhada ‘I contain’. According to Haspelmath,
these can also be classified as resultatives (of
the less common ‘quasi-resultative’ and ‘pos-
sessive’ type), with the exception of Perfects
of sound verbs (Haspelmath 1992:208-209).
Other scholars believe that we are confronted
here with the remnants of the older PIE-system
(Slings 1994:241), and that these cases are better
classified as ‘stative’ (+ Indo-European Linguis-
tic Background). Exceptionally, one also finds
transitive Perfects with an anterior function in
Archaic Greek, as in (1).
(1) folon gar dkhos bebieken Akhaious
‘such distress has overpowered the Achae-
ans’ (Hom. /{. 10.145)
Such examples are generally taken to fore-
shadow a development which took place at a
large scale in the fifth century BCE (but see Rui-
jgh 2004:32). In Classical Greek, anterior Perfects
become widespread, especially after 450 BCE
(Slings 1994:243; differently Sicking and Stork
1996:158 and Haug 2008:288), in both the active
and passive voice, and with both transitive and
intransitive verbs. As there are no longer any
lexical restrictions (as there had been with the
resultative Perfect), there is a major increase
in productivity (Haspelmath 1992:212): any verb
can now be used in the Perfect (note that in this
period the -4- suffix (attested only sporadically
in Homer) appears in the active voice (+ Perfect,
Formation of}). An illustration from Lysias is
given in (2):
(2) hoütos de homoldgéken adikés sullabein,
höste raidian humin ten diapséphisin peri
hautott pepotéke
‘but he has admitted that he laid hands on
him unjustly, so that he has made your ver-
dict on himselfan easy matter’ (Lys. 12.34)
It is important to keep in mind, though, that the
rise of the anterior Perfect does not necessarily
entail that the (old) stative/resultative Perfect
entirely disappears, as shown in (3):
(3) hedomai gar kai gégétha kai péporda kai
gelö
‘for I am glad, I rejoice, I break wind and I
laugh’ (Aristoph. Pax 335)
b. From anterior to perfective past. Example (2)
illustrates the temporal and aspectual charac-
teristics of the anterior Perfect: a past event (i.e,,
admitting something, making something easy)
has current relevance for the here-and-now of
the discourse context. While the emphasis is
on current relevance, the past event is naturally
more salient than with the resultative Perfect.
The second major change, that from anterior to
perfective past, brings about another increase in
the salience of the past event, whereby the sense
of relevance to the current moment disappears
altogether (Bybee and Dahl 1989:77; Squartini
and Bertinetto 2000 speak of ‘aoristicization’).
Chantraine (1927183-ı84) discusses this devel-
opment in terms of a loss of expressivity of the
anterior Perfect (which was particularly suit-
able where responsibility comes into question,
as in legal or laudative contexts). As an illustra-
tion consider (4) (from Haspelmath 1992:218),
where Aorist and Perfect are co-ordinated in
narration:
(4) kai eilephen ho dngelos tön libanötön, kai
egemisen autön
‘and the angel took the censer, and filled it’
(Ape. 8.5)
There is no consensus as to when this aoristi-
cization process took place: while some find
evidence in the Classical authors (Chantraine
1927384189), others maintain that it took place
much later, namely in the 4th or 5th c. CE (Porter
1989:273; McKay 1980:23). The difficulty lies in
the fact that we are dealing with a (continuous)
process, and that the interpretation of specific
examples is subjective. Mandilaras (1973:225)
has proposed a number of criteria, but most of
these are problematic. It seems that we must
turn to discourse here: since the anterior perfect
is a non-narrative category, a generalization of
contexts of use (i.e., historical narrative, as in
(4)) is indicative of aoristicization.
While the Perfect flourished in Early post-
Classical Greek (3rd—ist. c. BCE; Mandilaras
1973:219-220), at a later stage it was desystem-
atized, and largely replaced by the Aorist (and
to some extent periphrastic constructions) in
 PERFECT
Byzantine times (> Aorist; + Compound Tenses
(Hellenistic Greek)}, This is generally consid-
ered to be the outcome of the functional merger
of Perfect and Aorist, which is also reflected
morphologically. However, it remains unclear
why it was the Perfect that lost the battle rather
than the Aorist. One reason might be that the
Aorist was better established morphologically.
Lindstedt (2000:373) suggests that the morpho-
logical type of the perfect (periphrastic vs. inflec-
tional) may also play a role.
3. CONCLUDING REMARKS
As this short overview may have shown, recent
and less recent studies have considerably deep-
ened our understanding of the Ancient Greek
Perfect, while various issues remain under dis-
cussion (perhaps most importantly: the proper
semantic framework), Besides clarifying these
issues, more attention should go to (i) the
(changing) contexts of use of the Perfect, (ii) the
interconnection between the different stages of
the language (at present, most scholars concen-
trate on a single stage), and (iii) more peripheral
constructions, such as the Pluperfect and Future
Perfect, next to periphrastic constructions.
Undoubtedly, future findings will be of great
interest to classical philologists and general his-
torical linguists alike.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bentein, Klaas, 2012. “The periphrastic perfect in Ancient
Greek; a diachronic mental space analysis", TPAS uan7ı-
zu.
Bybee, Joan I. and Östen Dahl. 1989. “The creation of tense
and aspect systems in the languages of the world”, Sid
13:51-103.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1927. L’histoire du parfait grec. Paris.
Dahl, Osten, ed. 2000, Tense and aspect in the languages of
Europe. Berlin - New York.
Gerö, Eva-Carin and Arnim von Stechow. 2003. “Tense in
time: the Greek perfect”. In: Words in time: diachronic
semantics from different points of view, ed. by Regine Eck-
ardt, 251-294. Berlin.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1992. “From resultative to perfect in
Ancient Greek”. In: Nuevos estudios sobre construcciones
resultativos (= Funciön u-12), ed. by Jose L. Iturrioz Leza,
187-224. Guadalajara.
Haug, Dag 2008, “From resultatives to anteriors in Ancient
Greek: on the role of paradigmaticity in semantic
change”. In: Grammatical change and linguistic theory: the
Rosendal papers, ed. by Thörhallur Eythdrsson, 285-305.
Amsterdam.
Hopper, PaulJ. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity
in grammar and discourse”, Language 56:251-299.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2007. “Folysemy, pro-
totypes, and radial categories”. In: The Oxford handbook
49
uf cognitive linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert
Cuyckens, 139-169. Oxford.
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. “The perfect - aspectual, temporal
and evidential.” In: Dahl 2000:365-383.
Mandilaras, Basil G. 1979. The verb in the Greek non-literary
papyri. Athens.
Maslov, Yuriy S. 1988. "Resultative, perfect, and aspect”. In:
Typology of resultative constructions, ed. by Vladimir P.
Nedjalkav, 63-85, Amsterdam.
McKay, Kenneth. 1980. “On the perfect and other aspects in
the Greek non-literary papyri”, BICS 27:23-49.
Moser, Amalia. 2008. “The changing relationship of tense
and aspect in the history of Greek”, STUF 61:5-18.
Porter, Stanley E. 1989. Verbal aspect in the Greek of the New
Testament, with reference to tense and mood. New York.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 20063. The syntax and semantics of the
vera in Classical Greek. Chicago - London.
Ruigh, Cornelis J. 2004. “Over de gebruikswijzen van het
Griekse perfectum. Met speciale aandacht voor Plato's
Politeia”, Lampas 37:24-45.
Sicking, Christiaan M. J. and Peter Stork. 1996. "The synthetic
perfect in Classical Greek". In: Two studies in the seman:-
tics of the verb in Classical Greek, ed. by Christiaan M. J.
Sicking and Peter Stork, 119-298. Leiden.
Slings, Simon R. 1994. “Geschiedenis van het perfectum in
het oud-Grieks". In: Nauwe betrekkingen. Voar Theo Jans-
sen bij zijn vijftigste verjaardag, ed. by Ronny Boogaart
and Jan Noordegraaf, 239-247. Amsterdam — Münster,
Squartini, Mario and Pier M. Bertinetto. a000. “The simple
and compound past in Romance languages.” In: Dahl
2000:385-902.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1953 [1904]. "Studien zum griechischen
Perfectum”, Prayramın zur akademischen Preisverteilung,
3-32. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften, 1000-1021. Göttingen.
KLAAS BENTEIN
Perfect, Formation of
The Ancient Greek perfect was formed by com-
bining the perfect stem (typically characterized
by reduplication) with specific affixes and end-
ings. In the following, “perfect” refers to all cat-
egories derived from the perfect stem, not only
the perfect indicative.
1. STEM FORMATION
The + perfect stem is independent of other ver-
bal stems. It normally has no suffix, and with the
exception of one inherited form it is character-
ized by reduplication (or a substitute of redu-
plication) of the verbal base. Originally it also
exhibited a specific ablaut alternation of o-grade
and zero grade within the inflectional paradigm
(+ Ablaut). This alternation was later only partly
maintained to distinguish active and middle, but
more often, o-grade ablaut was replaced, and
the active was differentiated from the middle by
50 PERFECT, FORMATION
other means, including consonantal alternation
and a new suffix -k-.
1a. Productive Rules of Reduplication
Productive + reduplication is used, if the root or
verbal base begins with a vowel, a simple conso-
nant or a cluster of stop followed by sonorant (cf.
Keydana 2006:83-85). The general reduplication
vowel in the perfect is e (in contrast to {in the
present; + Reduplicated Presents), and it is pre-
ceded by the first consonant of the root, if there
is one: gene- ‘give birth’ > ge-gon-, derk- ‘see’
> de-dork-, *werg- ‘work’ > *we-worg- > e-org-,
hék- ‘come’ > heek-; treph- ‘feed’ > te-troph-,
Afi- ‘incline’ > ke-kli-. In cases of initial aspi-
rates, the general rule of aspiration dissimilation
leads to substitution of the aspirate by the cor-
responding non-aspirate stop in the reduplica-
tion (+ Grassmann’s Law): phü- ‘be’ > pe-phü-;
thné- ‘die’ > te-thné-. When consonants were lost
within the history of Greek, the resulting + hia-
tus sequences could be contracted, cf. heeka >
Attic héka ‘came, have come’, Roots with original
initial vowel lengthen this vowel (but more often
a different treatment is found, see below in 1.b.
(ii)): ag- ‘lead’ > *ag- > ég-.
If the base begins with rh- or an obstruent
cluster, no consonant is copied, and reduplica-
tion is substituted by a prefix e-: streph- ‘turn’
> e-stroph-; rhu- ‘run (for liquids)’ > e-rrhu-; su-
‘put in motion’ > e-ssu-; pseud- ‘lie’ > e-pseud-,
phthi- ‘decay’ > e-phthi-. In some cases, the prefix
is the regular reflex of an older reduplication
with a lost consonant, e.g. errhu- < *ehru- <
*hehru- < *se-sru- ‘have run (for liquids)’. From
such cases it must have been generalized to
other environments where a synchronic redupli-
cation was disfavored.
ub. Special Cases
In other cases which are not easily motivated
synchronically, historical developments have led
to different substitutions of the reduplication.
(i) Roots with initial s + stop originally fol-
lowed the general rule and thus, *s was copied
into the reduplication. When *s in sonorous
environments became A (which often was lost,
+ Consonant Changes), the resulting structure
became more or less opaque: sta- ‘stand’ > *se-sta-
> hesta-; (*hläb-) > leb- ‘take’ > *he-hleph- >
eiléph-; *hmar ‘get one's lot‘ > *he-hmar- > hei-
mar-. A different dialectal (+ Aeolic) treatment
of such a case is found in Homeric émmore <
OF
*hé-hmore < “sé-smore ‘take one’s share, find
one's lot’. Similar irregularities are also found in
the case of *w-clusters, viz. *wre- ‘speak’ > rhe-
> *we-wre- > eiré-; *dwi- ‘fear’ > di- > *de-dwi- >
Hom. deidi-.
(ii) Roots of the type VCVC- often show the
so-called “Attic” reduplication, i.e., the redupli-
cation consists of the initial vowel and the fol-
lowing consonant, followed by the root with
lengthened first vowel: ager- ‘gather’ > agéger-;
el(oJuth- ‘come’ > elél(ojuth-, oreg- ‘reach or
stretch oneself out’ > orörekh-, enek- ‘bring’
> enénokh-/enének-. This irregularity has often
been explained on the basis of an originally
different root structure: the first vowel of such
roots goes back to a pre-Greek consonant (an
IE “laryngeal”: + Indo-European Linguistic Back-
ground; - Laryngeal Changes), which seems
to have been copied into the reduplication
together with the following consonant, and the
developments connected with the loss of laryn-
geals led to the formations attested in Greek,
eg., “Aloud > *hle-hloud*- > Proto-Greek
*elelouth- (Kurytowicz 1927; Beekes 1969:120-121;
Rix 1976:204-205). However, it is difficult to
explain why both consonants should have been
copied over in the reduplicative syllable (for
a recent discussion of this problem, see Key-
dana 2006:g0-g1). And remarkably, this kind of
reduplication is well established for roots of the
shape VC(V)-, too: ar- ‘join’ > *arär- > arér-; ed-
‘eat’ > edéd-, od- ‘smell’ > odöd-, ol(e)- ‘destroy’
> olölfe)-, ela- ‘drive’ > elela-. Since these cases
cannot be explained from older regular redupli-
cation (for instance, *h,e-/t,d- should have led to
“éd-), they have been considered analogical to
the type mentioned above (cf. Beekes 196g121-
122; Rix 1976:205). However, already Szemerenyi
(1972:309-312; see also Schwyzer 1939:276; Sihler
1995:488-489), had argued that precisely this
last type might have been the starting point
for “Attic” reduplication: The shape of regular
stems like *éd- ‘eat’, *ör- ‘lift’ was not trans-
parent enough and was therefore “improved”
by prefixing the first vowel and consonant of
the root (similar to aorists like al-alk-e- ‘ward
off’) > ed-éd-, or-ör-, and similarly also cases like
*élouth- were remade to el-élouth-. This theory
could also explain why we find relic forms like
dn-öga ‘commanded’, Hsch. kat-énoka, which do
not exhibit renewal of reduplication. As for the
secondary ‘ablaut variants’ with shortening of
the second vowel, see Hackstein (20021148-157).
 PERFECT, FORMATION
uc. Root Vocalism
A detailed treatment of ablaut in the early Greek
perfect is now available in Hackstein (2002:168-
238, esp. 172-178). The most archaic type of the
Greek perfect shows systematic root vowel alter-
nation: o-grade in the singular indicative active
vs, zero grade in all other forms. It is but rarely
preserved as such, e.g., in Homeric memona :
memamen ‘have thought’; epepoithei : epépith-
men ‘have persuaded’; éoike : dikton ‘seemed’;
péponthe : pepathuiéi ‘have suffered’. Roots with
a basic vowel @ introduced the normal grade
instead of o-grade, resulting in an alternation of
full grade “a : zero grade “a, e.g. hesta-/hesté- :
hesta- ‘stand’; this ablaut could be analogically
transferred to roots with “a or “a from a different
source, viz. man- ‘to think’ > “meman- > memen-
(cf. Hackstein 2002:205-238).
Most often, one of the ablaut grades is gen-
eralized in the active, e.g., full grade in dedork-
‘have seen’, fetroph- ‘have fed’, leloip- ‘have left’,
emmor- ‘have shared’, pepoith ‘have persuaded’,
eileph- ‘have received’, but zero grade in ereripen
‘have thrown’, érrhige ‘shuddered with cold’. In
later formations, the root vowel is directly cop-
ied from the present or aorist stem, e.g. keüthö
‘conceal’ > kékeuthe; phetigo 'tlee' > pepheugol;
leipomai ‘be left’ > (éleiptai; enenkein ‘bring’
> enenegmai.
Sometimes, the perfect was formed from an
extended base in “e- (cf. Hackstein 2002:239-
245).
1.d. Aspiration in the Perfect
In Homer, some — middle perfects show sub-
stitution of a stem final nonaspirate stop by the
corresponding aspirate (+ Aspiration), viz. orégd
‘stretch out’ > ordrékhatai, eergö ‘shut in/out’
> eérkhato; the aspirate is probably taken over
from other forms of the middle. In later Attic,
aspiration was increasingly used to mark transi-
tive active perfects, e.g., trépd ‘turn’ > tétrophe;
aorist enenkein > enénokha. This is normally
explained by a transfer from the middle to the
contrasting active (Rix 1976:221), but a concrete
connection between the Homeric middles and
the earliest Attic attestations of the active is
difficult to establish; an analogical spread from
lambdno ‘receive, take’ : eilépha has also been
suggested (Sihler 1995:575).
OF ZI
ue. The k-perfect
Already in Homer, roots or verbal bases ending
in a long vowel can have an enlargement -k- in
the active perfect stem, viz. bebe-k- ‘have strid-
den’, pe-phü-k- ‘have become’, tetharsé-k- ‘have
(found) courage’. This was originally confined to
the finite singular and thus distributed like the
k-enlargement found in some aorists, cf. Hom.
3 sg. bébéke vs. 3 pl. bebdasi. These aorists are
normally seen as the ultimate source of -k- (see
Hackstein 2002:136 with n. 1), but Dunkel (2004)
argues for a deictic origin. Already in Homer,
-k- was sometimes transferred to other forms
of the paradigm, viz. 3 pl. pephükasi, hestekasi
‘have stood’, or to other root types, viz. deidoika
‘be afraid’. In later Greek, -k- was then abstracted
as an active transitive perfect marker and trans-
ferred to other root types. This new stem was
normally derived from the middle perfect, e.g.
éstal-tai ‘is dispatched’ > éstal-k-a, pépeis-tai ‘is
persuaded’ > pépei-k-a (with assimilation/loss of
the root-final dental stop). It could contrast with
older &-less intransitive perfects, e.g. diéphtharke
‘has destroyed’ vs. diephthore ‘is ruined’. Cf. Rix
(1976:222-223); Sihler (1995:576-577).
2. INFLEXION
The active perfect indicative may have some
special endings, i.e., 1 sg. -a < PIE *-Ase; 2 sg.
-(s)tha < PIE *-(s)thae; 3 sg, -e < PIE *-e; 3 pl. -asi
~ -ati < PIE *-nti (replacing *-ar < PIE *-7), nor-
mally remade to -anti > Hom. Att. -äsi. From the
1 sg. and 3 pl., -a- was abstracted as a “thematic”
vowel, and the inflexion was largely synchro-
nized with that of the active s-aorist, leading
to the new “alpha-thematic” desinences 2 sg.
-as, 1 pl, -amen, 2 pl. -ate (cf. Rix 1976:207; Berg
1977:234-240; but Dunkel (2004:37 n. 1) suggests
to derive 1 pl. -amen, 2 pl. -ate from PIE endings
*-home, *-hae|+te]). The 2 sg. -tha was normally
replaced by -as, and it had survived only in very
few forms alter s, e.g. ofs-tha ‘you know’. There
are two competing views as to whether its aspi-
ration can be due to the following laryngeal or
has to be explained differently: According to
some scholars, aspiration of voiceless stops by
“fg was regular in Greek before a vowel (Rix
1976:72; Peters 1991, 1993; Hackstein 2002:246
n. 83); others doubt this and take -(s)tha as an
original variant that arose in specific environ-
ments; this is easier if we start from *-st(h,)e,
which should yield -(s)tha after aspirated
52 PERFECT, FORMATION
dentals, liquids, labial and velar stops (cf. Cowgill
1965:172-173; Sihler 1995:571). According to Hack-
stein (2002:246-253) a secondary ending variant
of the 2 pl. *ste is reflected in Homeric forms
like *änök-ste > dnokhthe ‘commanded’,
The active participle had a special suffix in
Indo-European. Its original shape *-woh- was
still preserved in Mycenaean -wo-, but in later
Greek, *-woh- was remodelled to *-wot- > Hom,
-ös/-Öt-, Viz. mema-ös, pl. mema-ötes ‘thinking’.
The feminine was formed from the original
zero grade weak stem in *-uh- > *-uhja-, viz.
mema-ula, In > Aeolic dialects (and hence also
sometimes in Homer), the perfect participle
inflected like a thematic present participle, viz.
keklégontes ‘screaming’. In the middle, the usual
suffix -menos is used, but in contrast to present
and aorist, the suffix was always accented.
All other categories of the perfect stem take
the usual affixes and endings. In the pluper-
fect, however, there was a special development
leading to enlarged desinences in the active:
Somehow, a connecting vowel -e- (abstracted
from the 3 sg.?) appeared and was prefixed to
the endings, yielding -e-a, -e-as, -e-e > -é, -és, -ei,
respectively (later remade to Attic -ein, -eis, -ei)
in the singular, and later -e-men etc. in the dual
and the plural, Beside this usual type, also the-
matic inflection occurs in a few cases (like 1 sg.
dnogon ‘I commanded’), and a special case is the
Homeric pluperfect éidé ‘knew’ which seems to
be derived from a stem *weide-, quite different
from the perfect *woid-/wid-. The origin of this
stem and of the “enlargement” has been much
debated in recent years, but as yet no gener-
ally accepted solution has been suggested (cf.
Berg 1977; Peters 1997; Jasanoff 1997:125 n. 20;
Schrijver 2000; Hackstein 2002:254-272; Ruijgh
2004:54-56; Katz 2008).
In the + optative, the original athematic
inflexion (+ Thematic and Athematic Verbs) is
preserved in forms like Aestaié ‘would stand’,
contaminated with the thematic inlection in
pepheugoie ‘would flee’. Following a stem-final
consonant, the active optative took over the
thematic desinences -oimi, -ois etc., viz. Hom. 3
sg. pepoithoi, beblekoi (cf. Rix 1976:233).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Robert 5. P. 1969. The development of the Proto-Indo-
European laryngeats in Greek. The Hague — Paris.
Berg, Nils. 1977. “Der Ursprung des altgriechischen aktiven
Plusquamperfekts und die Entwicklung der alphathema-
tischen Flexion”, NTS 31:205-263,
OF
Cowgill, Warren. 1965. “Evidence in Greek". In: Evidence for
laryngeals, ed. by Werner Winter, 142-180. London - The
Hague - Paris,
Dunkel, George E. 2004. “The deictic origin of the Greek
xa-aorist and xa-perfect”. In: Indo-European word forma-
tion, Proceedings of the conference held at the University of
Copenhagen, October zoth-22nd 2000, ed. by James Clack-
son and Birgit Anette Olsen, 37-57. Copenhagen.
Hackstein, Olav. 2002. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen.
Faktoren morphologischer Variabilität in literarischen
Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, sprachliche Anach-
ronismen. Wiesbaden.
Jasanoff,Jay H. 1997. “Gathic Avestan ciköitaras”. In: Lubotsky
19977119-130.
Katz, Joshua T. 2008. “The origin of the Greek plupertect’,
Die Sprache 46 (2006):1-37.
Keydana, Götz. 2006. “Die indogermanische Perfektredup-
likation”, Folia Linguistica Historica 27:61-16.
Kurytowicz, Jerzy. 1927. “Origine indo-eurapéenne du redou-
blement attique”, Eos 30:206-10.
Lubotsky, Alexander, ed. 1997. Sound law and analogy.
Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his
Goth birthday. Amsterdam — Atlanta.
Peters, Martin. 1991. ““Oped9- neben ‘Opeot(&}-”, Die Sprache
35:135-38.
. 1993. “Beiträge zur griechischen Etymologie”. In: Mis-
cellanea linguistica graeco-latina, ed. by lambert Isebaert,
85-113. Namur.
——. 1997. “Der armenische Flexionstyp gitem, gitac'l und
das ion.-att. Plusquamperfekt”, In: Lubotsky 1997:209-
217.
Rix, Helmut. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen
(and ed, 1992), Darmstadt,
Ruijgh, Cornelis J. 2004. “The stative value of the PIE verbal
suffix *eh,-”. In: Indo-European perspectives. Stuelies in
Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, ed. by]. H. W. Penney,
48-64. Oxford.
Schrijver, Peter. 2000. "Griechisch dy ‘er wußte", Histo-
rische Spruchforschung 112:264-272.
Schwyzer, Eduard. ı939. Griechische Grammatik, Erster
Band. Munich.
Sthler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. New York - Oxford.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1972. “The agent noun types lawagetas-
lawagos”, Minos 12:301-317.
MARTIN KUMMEL
Period
1. INTRODUCTION
‘Period’ indicates a certain metrical length, simi-
lar to the notion ‘verse’. In ancient rhythmical
terminology it has the technical meaning of a
sequence within which simple and unequal feet
recur in a regular order (such as, for example,
iambus ~-~— and trochee -~-~). In modern
scholarship it assumes the two distinct mean-
ings, both related to the metric level, of ‘melic
verse’ and ‘section of a strophe’. To define the
 PERIOD 53

period, a distinction must be made between the 3. PERIOD IN ANCIENT THEORY OF

sense used in modern scholarship and the sense
used in antiquity. This is true of notions such as
‘verse’ as well.
2. PERIOD IN ANCIENT THEORY OF
METRICS
In the ancient theory of metrics and rhyth-
mics, the term periodos has different meanings,
depending on whether it is employed in metri-
cal or in rhythmic terminology. In the strictest
sense of metrical theory, in which the concept of
‘measure’ is central, periodos indicates a certain
length, similarly to the notion verse. In particu-
lar, each sequence extends more than the stikhos
(+ Verse), where sttkhos properly refers to
a sequence which is equal or shorter than a
tetrameter (the only exception to this is the so-
called dactylic hexameter, actually a hexapodia;
+ Metron). If a tetrameter of any sort cannot
have a duration greater than 32 morae (as is the
RHYTHMICS
In ancient rhythmical terminology periodos has
the technical meaning of ‘periodic sequence’
within which feet that are simple and hetero-
geneous recur in periodic succession, as Aris-
tides Quintilianus attests in his definition of the
rhythms he calls sänthetoi kata periodon (‘com-
posed conforming to the period’, cf. De musica
1 14, pp. 34.19 to 35, 1; Mart. Cap. De nuptiis 9,
979). These are made up of more simple and
heterogeneous feet, consistent with the rhythmi-
cal definition of periodos. Aristides Quintilianus
offers a list of twelve rhythms that are sunthetoi
kata periodon. They are characterized by iambic
and trochaic feet, forming dimeters of four feet
and twelve morae (dédekasémoi), combined in
different ways, with the iambic foot recurring
every three trochees:
u ee
-—_
u

case for the anapestic acatalectic tetrameter, ee

to

eee ee), it follows that ee ee u Bu

—,
[es

—
—
2

a periodos must be longer than 32 morae (also ee ee ee

Bey

known as ‘time-units or ‘primary time-lengths' or

ne

ee llthioe eel eed

om

‘first times’), as we read in ancient sources (van et ete

Ophuijsen 1987122; Lomiento 1995133, fn. 27). ee ee

fs

Accordingly, periodos can indicate portions of nn et

strophes in melic compositions and even entire w— ee oe

wo

strophes (Dion. Hal. de Demosthene 5, 50, 8; eee

ee
~—
ob
—

Dion. Hal. Comp. 6, 25, 1). Strophe here has the ae Ne et et

-_
—_
—

meaning ‘set of lyric members’ (Kola) that cor- ee u wi

fer
Ne
—

responds to one another in poetic compositions.

Its structure can be monostrophic, when the
poem is composed of strophes that are repeated
in a metrically identical shape throughout
the whole song, or triadic, when it is composed
of metrically identical pairs of strophes (stro-
phe and antistrophe), which are immediately
followed by a third stanza, of different metri-
cal form (epodus). According te some ancient
testimonies (whose interpretation is in fact
not entirely fair, namely Marius Victorinus
(Aphthonius), Grammatici Latini V1, p. 58, 18-20
Keil; Atilius Fortunatianus, Grammatici Latini
VI, p. 295, 8 Keil) periodos seems to extend even
to a whole triad.
This testimony shows clearly enough how perio-
dos refers to a combination of simple and het-
erogeneous feet, but it is also significant that
the feet in the composition should belong to the
same rhythmical family, which can be double
(ratio 1:2 or 21 between arsis and thesis, =: -, -:~),
equal (ratio 11, -: ~~, ~~: -), or hemiolian (ratio
2:3 OF 3:2, -!~-, -~:—). In the example above, the
double-rhythm genre is shown with a 1:2 ratio, in
the case of the iambic foot, or with a 2:1 ratio in
the case of the trochaic foot.
The periodic nature of the scheme is in all
likelihood given by the perceived circularity
of the cadence generated by the only hetero-
geneous - foot inside the otherwise uniform
sequence. It is explained by Marius Victorinus
(Aphthonius), as follows: “periodus is also called
circuitus or ambitus in Latin, that is to say a
composition of at least three homogeneous and
54 PERIOD
heterogeneous feet, which goes to the starting
point as a five-year cycle or a three-year celebra-
tion does” (Grammatici Latini Vl:55, 1-5 Keil).
In this same sense, periodos is attested in the
ancient metrical commentary to the odes of Pin-
dar and in the anonymous Rhythmical Treatise
from Oxyrhynchus (P Oxy. 2687+9, col. Ill 20) in
which a similar value is assumed by the adjective
periodödes ‘periodic’.
+ PERIOD IN MODERN SCHOLARSHIP
In modern scholarship period assumes two dis-
tinct meanings, both related to the specifically
metrical level. The first meaning is that of melic
verse, whose boundaries are detected using the
criteria established by August Boeckh in ı8n:
word-end, > hiatus, punctuation mark and usus
rhythmicus (+ Verse). This sequence is also
known in English scholarship as minor period or
simply period. It exceeds the extent of a tetram-
eter determined by the ancients by including
three or more dimeters (kola).
The second modern meaning of period indi-
cates a section of a strophe. The criteria gener-
ally used in modern studies to mark the period
in this case include merrical structure, semantic
structure, syntax and rhetorical partition of the
stanza, as well as internal responsion (in the case
where there are sections metrically identical or
similar); further criteria could include change
of rhythm and presence of kola that function as
clauses, This second type of period, which is usu-
ally longer than the first, is sometimes called a
major period. However, in the above mentioned
cases, the distinctive features seem to refer not
so much to the metrical length of the sequence
as to its syntactic and rhetorical completeness
and autonomy.
It should be noted that this idea of autonomy
and completeness, along with the idea of a cer-
tain size, plays a significant role in the ancient
rhetorical studies on the concept of period. This
is documented in Aristotle's Rhetoric, when he
detines the term as “statement that has a begin-
ning and an end and an extension which is easy
to grasp” (1409 A 35). A statement of this kind,
he continues, is pleasant and easy to understand:
pleasant because it is in a position opposite to
that which is unlimited and indeterminate, and
because the listener has the impression, every
time, to have acquired something complete and
easy to understand because it is easy to remem-
ber. This happens because the periodic condi-
tion is regulated by a number. According to
Aristotle, it is for a similar reason that verses are
remembered better than prose, because they too
have a number by which they can be measured.
The completeness of the period must cover not
only its size; it must also be made with respect
to the meaning (RA. 1409 B 27 ff.). In his trea-
tise De elocutione (11), Demetrius praises the
Aristotelian definition and notes that periodos
directly implies both a starting and an ending
point - in the manner of sprinters at the start
of a race, since for them the start and the finish
are the same. Hence, says Demetrius, the use
of the word perfados, which evokes the idea of
a circular track. The image of the circle gives
the idea of wholeness of thought contained in
the period already current in Aristotle and also
connotes perfection combined with aesthetic
pleasure, as in the Rhetoric. In general terms,
says Demetrius, the period is nothing more than
a certain arrangement of words. If it should
lose its circular pattern, however, and if the
arrangement of the words should change, the
matter would remain the same but the period
would disappear. In the light of this evidence,
one gets the impression that the representation
of the modern period, focused mainly on the
finitude of grammar and semantics, has been
conditioned more by the ancient notion of rhe-
torical periodos than by the strictly metrical (let
alone the rhythmical) periodos.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boeckh, August. 181-1821. Pindar) opera quae supersunt,
1-11. Leipzig,
Cavallo, Guglielmo. 1983. Libri scritture scribi a Ercolanu
(Suppl. 1a Cronache Ercolanesi 13). Naples.
Dain, Alphonse. 1965. Traite de metrique grecque. Paris,
Dale, Amy M. 1951. “The metrical units of Greek lyric verse”,
CQ 1119-129.
. 1948. The lyric metres of Greck drama. Cambridge.
Gentili, Bruno, and Liana Lomiento. 1995. "Problemi di met-
rica greca. || manocrono (Mart. Cap. de nupt. 9, 982; POxy
2687+9); l'elemento alngos (Arist. Quint. de mus. 17)", In:
Mousike: metrica ritmica e musica greca in memoria di
G. Comotti. ed, by Bruno Gentili and Franca Perusino,
61-75. Pisa - Rome.
. 2008. Metrics and rhythmics: history of poetic forms in
ancient Greece (English translation by E. Christian Kopff ).
Pisa — Rome.
Grummatici Latini vol. VI. Scriptores Artis Metricue. 1874. Ed.
by H. Keil. Leipzig.
Hephaestionis Encheiridion. 1g06/ig71. ed. by Maximilian
Consbruch. Leipzig.
lrigoin, Jean. 1967. “Colon, vers et periode (a propos d’un
choeur des Nuées d’Aristophane)”, In: Kuuwöotpayijnate,
 PERIOD
Studia Willem John Koster in honorem, ed. by Reh Westen-
darp Boerma, 65-73. Amsterdam.
Korzeniewski, Dietmar. 1968. Griechische Metrik, Darm-
stadt.
Kraus, Walter. 1957. Strophengestaltung in der griechischen
Tragédie. Vienna.
Lomiento, Liana. 1995. “I colon ‘quadrupede': Hephaest.
Ench. p. 63, 1 Consbr. con alcune osservazioni sull'antica
teoria metrica”, QUCC 78 (ns. 49)927-133.
yan Ophuijsen, Jan Maarten. 1987. Hephaestion on metre,
Leiden — New York - Copenhagen - Cologne.
Pace, Giovanna. 2002. “Ii termine neptodog nella dottrina
metrica e ritmica antica”, QUCC 100 (ns, 71):24-46.
Scholia in Aristophanis Acharnenses. 1975. Ed, by Nigel G.
Wilson. Groningen.
Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Equites. 1969. Ed. by D, Mervyn
Jones, Amsterdam.
Scholia Vetera et Recentiora in Aristaphanis Pacem. Ed. by
D. Halwerda. Groningen 1982.
Snell, Bruno, 1982. Griechische Metrik. Gottingen.
West, Martin L. 1982. Greek metre. Oxford.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich, 1921. Griechische Ver-
skunst, Berlin.
LANA LOMIENTO
Personal Names
Personal names differ from other lexical items
both in their structure and in their diachronic
development due tu a mixture of purely linguis-
tic facts and functional reasons. Personal names
can display a higher level of formal continuity
than other elements of the lexicon: language
change may continue unremittingly, but an older
form of a name can be preserved or revived.
Scholars interested in the study of Greek per-
sonal names can carry out their research nowa-
days on the basis of the accumulated data in the
LGPN, which offers the most up-to-date catalog
of Greek personal names (and of their bear-
ers too), superseding the monumental works by
Pape & Benseler (1875) and Bechtel (1917).
The earliest known classification of Greek
names was by Aristotle's pupil Klearchos:
names were either theophöra ‘god-bearing’
(e.g, Apollönios) or äthea ‘godless’ (e.g. Hektör)
(+ Theonyms). Current conventional classifica-
tions, apart from the semantic grouping, follow
morphological (simplicia, compound names and
their ‘short’ forms) or etymological (+ Etymol-
ogy (etumologia), Ancient Theories of) crite-
ria (pre-/non-Greek (+ Pre-Greek Languages;
+ Pre-Greek Substrate), e.g. Odusseüs vs. indig-
enous Greek names, some of them preserving
archaic elements like Aga- ‘great’ or /phi- ‘with
strength’).
55
1, GENERAL PRINCIPLES
There is early Mycenaean evidence (+ Myce-
naean Script and Language) which shows that
Greeks were given one name only, undoubt-
edly conforming to the Indo-European pattern
(+ Indo-European Linguistic Background; + Indo-
European Historical Background) found through-
out most of Europe (Schmitt 1995b:627ff.). The
standard convention in Greek name giving was
that children should be named after their pater-
nal or maternal grandfather or grandmother;
another pattern, less frequent overall, was the
naming of children after their father or mother
(a particularly popular trend in the late Helle-
nistic and Roman periods). We can trace a large
number of family trees in Attica, though without
much evidence for their female lines. In other
regions, names are rarely attested for more than
two generations. It is also evident that colonies
were onomastically connected with their mother
cities (Megarian and Milesian names reappear
in the colonies of the west coast of the Black
Sea and in Byzantium). Since the Greeks had
no gentile naming principle (like the Romans)
or hereditary surnames, the father’s name in
the + genitive case (Sökrätes Söphroniskou) or
in the form of a + patronymic adjective in -ios
(Acol. also -eios: Thess. Simoun Aristoun-eios)
was used for further identification; the -ios-
patronymics are already attested in Myce-
naean, e.g. a-re-ku-tu-ru-wo e-te-wo-ke-re-we-i-jo
‘Alektruwon, son of Etewoklewes' ~ alphabetic
Gk. Eteoklees, but are less common in Homer,
e.g. Alas Telamön-ios ‘Ajax, son of Telamon’ (but
cf. in Homer: -(/)dés/-ddés/-iddés, e.g. Hektör
Priam-idés ‘Hector, son of Priam’), Under certain
circumstances, individuals could also be distin-
guished by their origin (‘ethnic’ name) or their
membership of a demotic subdivision (‘demotic’
name). Important people often acquired nick-
names next to their given names (Antigonos
Monöphthalmos ‘A. the One-Eyed’, Demetrios
Poliorketes 'D. the City-Besieger’). From the
Hellenistic period onward, we find names
involving the addition of + formulas like Ao/hé
kai { epikaloümenos/epikaloumene) ...and the
(so-called) ...'.
2. DERIVATION
The recessive accent(-+ Accentuation) wasacom-
mon device in Greek for deriving proper nouns
56 PERSONAL NAMES
from adjectives (+ Adjectives (Morphological
Aspects of )) : phaidrds ‘cheerful’ : Phaidra; simös
lat-nosed' : Simos; diogenés ‘sprung from Zeug’:
Diogenes; cf. also the late Christian name
(+ ‘Christian’ Greek; -+ Christian Greek Vocabu-
lary) Staüros : staurös ‘cross’. Much more com-
mon are simplicia with derivational (relational,
individualizing, hypocoristic) suffixes (+ Dimin-
utives/Augmentatives (syntax and morphol-
ogy); — Derivational Morphology), including:
Krit-tas, Plät-ön, Agath-iön, Arkt-inos, Däphn-is,
Thers-ilos, Krat-ülos, Phrün-ikhos, Hipp-akos, fem.
Melanth-ö, Ampel-is, etc., nomina agentis (+ Agent
Nouns): Amun-tor, participles Klä-menos (Myc.
ku-ru-me-no ‘famous’). Many of those names,
formed on the basis of common nouns and adjec-
tives, must have been originally nicknames, e.g.
Plät-ön : platis ‘broad’ for Aristo-klés (Diog. Laert.
3.4). A great variety of semantic groups of Greek
nicknames describe (in a positive or pejorative
way) physical appearance (Pürros ‘flame-colored’,
Strdb-on ‘squinting’, Alskhros ‘ugly’, Lampr-iskos
‘bright‘), human character and behavior (Aspd-
sios ‘welcomed'), +zoonyms (Taüros ‘bull'),
+ phytonyms (Amarak(s ‘marjoram’), utensils
(Pinax ‘board’) etc. (Garcia Ramén 2000:626,
2007:47ff.). Nicknames were also employed to
avoid names considered cacophonous (+ Euphe-
mism and Dysphemism), cf. Theöphrastos, a nick-
name for Tärtamos, Aristotle's pupil (Str. 13.618),
while slaves often have mythological or historical
nicknames: Paris, Kroisos.
3. COMPOUND NAMES
Alongside the uncompounded single names, all
types of compound adjectives used as nouns
(+ Compound Nouns; + Compounding/Deriva-
tion/Construction Morphology) can form per-
sonal names: the possessive type is the most
frequent (Demo-sthenes), but the verb-governing
compounds, eg. Stesi-khoros (including com-
pound formations with a verbal noun as a second
member, e.g. Hérd-dotos) and the preposition-
governing compounds (Huper-énor) are popular
too. Some compound names are based directly
on compound epithets, especially those found in
poetry (+ Poetic Language) (whether or not they
are appropriate for people); some other com-
pounds are attested exclusively in names, often
reflecting junctures in poetry: e.g. Ekhe-médés
(Myc. e-ke-me-de) corresponds to known epic
phraseology: pukind phresi mede’ ékhontes ‘hav-
ing hearts of wisdom in their breasts” (Il. 24.674
and similarly in Od. 13.89;see Thompson 2007:687,
and also Schmitt 1967:63 on Hom. Ekhe-kles,
Ekhe-klos); similarly, in prose (+ Literary Prose):
Ktés-arkhos, cf. Hdt. 6.34. ktésaménow... ten
arkhén ‘after he (had) assumed ... power’. While
‘speaking’ names in poetry, e.g. Hom. Anti-noos
vs. Alki-noos require an interpretation, the
semantic analysis of onomastic compounds
leads in many cases to less meaningful combi-
nations (even though they can be considered
morphologically ‘well-formed’): Lusé-Avitos ‘loos-
ing’-‘judgment’ makes less sense compared to
Lüs-ippos ‘loosing, unbinding’‘horse’. Some of
those ‘irrational names’ (cf. Masson 1990:555)
arose due to a family naming tradition: inheri-
tance and family relationship were indicated
by repetition, not only of whole names, but also
of their elements. Compound names could be
split into their components, one of them being
repeated in combination with another element
to form a novel name, regardless of its meaning:
e.g. Hipp-arkhos, son of Peisistratos, grandson of
Hippo-kratés; Hegesi-stratos, son of Peisi-stratas;
sometimes an element was repeated, with the
help of a(nother) suffix only: Hipp-ias, grand-
son of Hippo-krätes. Strepsiddes (Aristoph., Nud.
6off.) names his son Pheid-ippides after this pat-
tern (Thompson 2007:678-679). Many onomastic
compounds or their elements survive in forma-
tions characterized by a reverse order of these
elements (though not necessarily attested in the
same family or region/period), cf. Hippd-stratos :
Strät-ippos, Theö-döros : Dörö-theos; André-nikos,
son of Niko-kles. The combinations employed
each time were primarily a matter of preference
and fashion (the ‘arbitrary’ use of onomastic
compound elements could even relate to the
variant forms of the first elements: Téle-, Teli-,
Telo-; Protesi-, Pröto- etc.).
Women's personal names are often the fem-
inine equivalents of male names (+ Gender):
Theddotos - Theodöte, Glaükippos - Glaukippé,
etc. The feminine compounds in -a are very old
since we find e.g. Myc. pi-ra-ka-ra ‘Phil-agra’,
te-o-do-ra ‘Theodora’ and a-re-ka-sa-da-ra 'Alex-
andra’. Thus, in women’s names we find the same
range of meanings as in their masculine coun-
terparts, including those with strongly military
and political connotations, such as Andro-makhe
‘who fights with men’, Strat-ippé and Demo-sträte
 PERSONAL NAMES
which contain stratös ‘army’ etc. > abstract
nouns used as women’s names such as Sophia
(‘wisdom’), Areté (‘virtue’) seem to have been
originally servile names. Some women's names
in Greek are neuter: Hilaron, Dörema, Hedistion,
Möskhion (a feature which has continued into
some Modern Greek dialects); but neuter male
names are attested only in hypocoristics, e.g.
Sökratid-ion (Aristoph. Nub. 746).
4. HYPOCORISTICS
From Mycenaean to the Koine (> Koine, Origins
of; + Koine, Features of), compound names can
be replaced by abbreviated, 'short’ forms (Germ.
Kurzformen), a common phenomenon in a names: apart from supra-dialectal names, we
number of languages, obviously Indo-European
(Schmitt 1995a:419-427). These were probably
hypocoristics which ultimately replaced the ‘full’
form of the name. These abbreviations were
formed by means of 1) truncation of the com-
pound, ie., only a part (stem) preserved: Lüsis :
Lusi- (first element preserved), Phradmön : Polu-
phrädmön (second element), Gastri-margos :
Gdstrén and Märgos (first or second element);
or even (in the form of) truncated parts of the
compound; Alki-m-os ; Alki-medön, Kalli-t-os :
Kalli-timos or Kalli-kri-tos 2) suffixation, mainly
through ‘relational’, ‘individualizing’ or hypoco-
ristic suffixes like -dn, -ias, -eus, -is, -ds, etc.:
Nik-on, Nik-ias : Niko-, Euru-sth-eüs : Euru-sthénés
(cf. also Myc. a-re-ke-se-u, ‘Alex-eus’, probably
from an Alex(i)-compound corresponding to
the terpsimbrotos-type), Aléx-is; Alex(i)-, Dex-is:
Dexi-, cf. Dexi-makhos, Dext-theos (the -is-type is
apparently unknown in Mycenaean), and in Hel-
lenistic times almost exclusively -ds, e.g. Zen-äs:
Zeno-, Anti-päs : Anti-patros. We may also find
forms with their initial (& unstressed) vowel
deleted: A-gönippos : Gonippos. Those phonologi-
cal processes are far more common in ‘full’ names
than in other lexical compounds. It is sometimes
difficult to distinguish a particular name based
on a common adjective or noun from the ‘short’
form of a truncated compound. The connection
between hypocoristics and child-language may
also be responsible for the frequent expressive
gemination of the pre-suffixal + consonant, e.g.
Kiéom(m)is : Kleo-ménés, Agaththö : Agatho- (cf.
also Lat. Varro : varus ‘bow-legged’), or the syl-
labic + reduplication, e.g. Sösos : Sökrätes, found
in Greek ‘short’ forms; cf. also Morpurgo-Davies
57
(2000:22). The modality of this ‘mutilation’ is less
clear and does not conform to the rules of Greek
morphology. Malikouti-Drachman & Chrono-
poulou (2003) offer a morphological-prosodic
(+ Prosody; + Prosodic Word) analysis of certain
types of those ‘short’ forms (in the framework
of Optimality Theory; + Optimality and Greek)
where the traditional morphological distinction
between one-stem and two-stem compounds
disappears.
5 DIALECTAL NAME VARIANTS
The linguistic variety and cultural diversity
of pre-Koine Greece is reflected in personal
also find dialectal variants (Dialectology (didlek-
tos), Ancient Theories of; + Dialects, Classifica-
tion of): e.g. -krétés (cf. Aeol. krétos ‘strength’)
vs. -krdtés, Demo- vs. Damo- formations (with
lon.-Att. -é for -2 in other dialects); the popular
female name Bere-nika/-é can be recognized as
the Macedonian variant of a Phere- compound
(cf. Pheré-nikos, masc.), displaying a voiced
occlusive or voiced fricative, according to recent
studies (see the essays in Giannakis 2012, esp.
by Crespo and Méndez Dosuna; > Macedonian)
which corresponds to a Greek voiceless aspirate
(the latter being a reflection of an IE voiced
aspirate), Socio- or extra-linguistic factors were
responsible for the adoption of such variants in
other dialectal areas. The morphology and use of
personal names also varied at all stages of Greek:
e.g. although the historical personal name sys-
tem already matched to a certain extent that
of Mycenaean, some particular archaic-dialectal
features of the latter, such as the addition of the
suffix -eis to compound names, were absent later;
the epic (+ Epic Diction) -eris-names (mainly
heroic, e.g. Akhill-eüs) played a marginal role in
Classical Greek (but note that Myc. -eits-names
referred to real individuals); the Homeric pat-
ronymic suffix(es) -(()dés/-ddés /-iddés survived
into the historical period, but merely in names
of individuals. The frequency of any particular
name may vary according to meaning and local
custom, e.g, the popular element of the Classical
onomastic compounds Hippo- ‘horse’ (Myc. é-go)
is not attested in Mycenaean names (except for
e-u-po-ro [Eupölos/ ‘with many foals’); but there
are several culturally significant names, relat-
ing to sea(faring), e.g. po-ti-jo /Pontios/ ‘marine’,
58 PERSONAL NAMES
a-ka-ta-jo /Aktajjos/ ‘coastal’. Ethnics can also be
used as personal names: Amphisseus : Amphissa,
Dekelei-etis : Dekéleia, later Alexandr-etis : Alexdn-
dreia (alongside the rare form Alexandrei-eus),
Thraix, Doris, (frequently as nicknames of slaves
as well). Greek onomastics can also provide
evidence for the adaptation of foreign names,
especially formations involving ‘folk etymology’,
for instance, the rendering of names with Olran.
baga- ‘god’ as their first element in the form of
Gk. Mega-, e.g. OP Baga-pata, attested in Gk. as
Megabdtés, etc. (Schmitt 2007:137ff.) (+ Greek
and Iranian).
6. ROMAN AND CHRISTIAN NAMES
Throughout the Roman period, we find Greeks
with Roman names, e.g. Titos, Märkos (also
Mark-ion), etc; the Roman system (fria nomina)
was fully adopted (note that after 212 CE all free
inhabitants of the Roman Empire bear the nomen
Aurélius), e.g. Mar(kos) Aur(élius) Athenödöros;
sometimes a patronymicon (in the genitive)
or an ‘explanatory’ formula was appended to
the cognomen, e.g. Tibérios Klatidios Aléxandros
prin (‘formerly’) Philippou ('son of Philippos’),
‘formerly’ referring here to the ‘previous’ Greek
patronymic tradition (+ Latin Loanwords in
Greek; + Greek/Latin Bilingualism; + Greek and
Latin). From the 4th c. CE onward, new Greek
‘Christian’ names appeared next to Jewish ones,
eg. Eu-sébios, Eu-stdthios; but we also find old
‘theophoric’ names: Theoddra and Thedphilos
alongside new ones, such as Thed-/Khristd-doulos
(‘servant of God/Christ’), highlighting Christian
virtues (+ Jewish Greek). Although a new Chris-
tian naming pattern prevailed (children were
predominantly named after saints and martyrs
rather than after ancestors), pagan names like
Demetrios, Diontisios, Isidöra, Phoibé survived
into modern times by gaining new acceptance
and popularity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bechtel, Friedrich. i917, Die historischen Personennamen
des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit. (reprints 1964, 1982).
Hildesheim.
Crespo, Emilio. 2012. “Languages and dialects in ancient
Macedon", In Giannakis 2012:121-131.
Eichler, Ernst, Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger,
Ladislay Zgusta, eds. 1995. Namenforschung/Name Stud-
ies/Les noms propres. Ein Internationales Handbuch zur
Onomastik, HSK 11.1, 419-427. Berlin - New York,
Foraboschi, Daniele. 1971. Onomasticon alterum papyralogi-
cum: Supplemento al Namenbuch di F. Preisigke. Milan.
Garcia Ramön, José Louis. 2000. “Personennamen”, In: Der
neue Pauly, vol. 9 (Or-Poi), ed. by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth
Schneider, Manfred Landfester, 623-624, Stuttgart.
. 2007, "Thessalian personal names and the Greek lexi-
con”. In: Matthews 2007:29-67.
. zou. “Mycenaean Onomastics". In: A companion to
Linear B: Mycenaean Greek texts and their world, vol. 2,
ed, by Yves Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies, 219-228.
Louvain.
Giannakis, Georgios K., ed. 2012. Ancient Macedonia: lan-
guage, history, culture. Thessaloniki.
von Kamptz, Hans. 1982, Homerische Personennamen.
Göttingen.
Landau, Oscar 1958. Mykenisch-Griechische Personennamen,
Göteborg.
LGPN = A Lexicon af Greek Personal Names, ed. by Peter M,
Fraser, Elaine Matthews et al. 6 vols (1987- to date), Vol. I,
The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica, ed. by Peter M.
Fraser and Elaine Matthews, 1987. Vol. Il, Attica, ed. by
M. J. Osborne and S, G. Byrne, 1994 (IIA, revised version,
2007). VoL UL A, The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily,
and Magna Gruecia, ed. by Peter M. Fraser and Elaine
Matthews, 1997. Vol. IlI.B, Central Greece: From the Mega-
rid to Thessaly, ed. by Peter M, Fraser and Elaine Mar-
thews, zoo. Vol. IV, Macedonia, Thrace, Nothern Regions
of the Black Sea, ed. by Peter M. Fraser and Elaine Mat-
thews, 2005. Vol. VA, Coastal Asia Minor: Pontos to lonia,
ed. by Thomas Corsten et al., 2010, The British Academy.
Oxford. [LGPN online: htep://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk}
Malikeuti-Drachman, Angeliki and Christina E. Chronopo-
ulou, 2003. "Periorismoi ston schématismé upokoristikön
kuriön onomätön sta Archala Ellénika” (“Limitations
in the formation of Ancient Greek hypocoristic proper
names"). In: Studies in Greek Linguistics 23 (17-19 May
2002), vol. 1, 406-417. Thessaloniki.
Masson, Olivier. ı9g0. Onomustica Graeca Selecta, vols. I-II,
ed, by Catherine Dobias and Laurent Dubois; vol. I, zanu
(indices de Catherine Dobias and Laurent Dubois), Paris-
Nanterre-Geneva,
Matthews, Elaine, ed. 2007. Old and new worlds in Greek ona-
mustics. Proceedings of the British Academy 148. Oxford.
Méndez Dosuna, julian. 2012. “Ancient Macedonian as a
Greek dialect: a critical survey on recent work”, In Gian-
nakis 2012:133-145.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1999. “The morphology of personal
names in Mycenean and Greek: some observations’.
In: Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. internation-
alen mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.-§.
Mai 1995, ed. by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller and
Oswald Panagl, 389-406. Vienna.
. 2000. “Greek personal names and linguistic continu-
ity’. In: Greek personal names. Their value as evidence,
Proceedings of the British Academy 104, ed. by Simon
Hornblower and Elaine Matthews, 15-39. Oxford.
Pape, Wilhelm and Gustav E. Benseler. 1875. Wörterbuch
der griechischen Eigennamen. 3rd ed. (reprint 1959).
Braunschweig.
Robert, Louis. 1963. Noms indigénes dans {Asie Mineure
greco-romaine I. (reprint 1991). Paris.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in
indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden.
. a. “Morphologie der Namen: Vollnamen und Kurzna-
men bzw. Kosenamen im Indogermanischen”. In: Eichler
et al. 1995:419-427.
. b, “Entwicklung der Namen in älteren indogermanis-
chen Sprachen“. In: Eichler et al. 1995:616-636.
 PERSONAL PRONOUNS, USE OF
——. “Greek reinterpretation of [ranian names by folk ety-
mology”. In: Matthews 2007:136-150.
Solin, Heikki. 2003. Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom.
Ein Namenbuch. and ed. Berlin.
Thompson, Anne. 2007. “Ancient Greek personal names”,
In: A histury of Ancient Greek. From the beginnings to late
antiquity, ed. by Anastassios-Fivos Christidis, 677-692.
Cambridge.
CHRISTINA KATSIKADELI
Personal Pronouns, Use of
Personal pronouns were included by Greek
grammarians in the category of the antönumia
‘pronoun’, whose use is described in a specific
monograph written by Apollonius Dyskolus (2nd
c. CE). Accordingly, personal pronouns such as
egé'l’ are considered the ‘prototype’ (protötupos)
of the + pronominal system, and on this account
they are also called Aapilai ‘simple’. On the one
hand, they contrast with ‘derived’ pronouns
(parägögoi), which have a ‘possessive’ function
(ktétikac), for example emds 'my, mine’. On the
other, they are in opposition with ‘compound’
pronouns (sünthetoi), which are ‘reflexive’ (auto-
patheis), as ernautön ‘myself’. In turn, personal
pronouns are divided into those ‘provided with
one ending’ (monadikai) and those ‘provided
with three endings’ (trigeneis): the former are
indifferent to grammatical + gender and corre-
spond to first and second person pronouns; the
latter are inflected for the three genders and are
represented by demonstrative pronouns such
as ton ‘him’ in Homer or auton ‘id.’ in Classical
Greek (cf. Brandenburg 2005).
The restriction of proper personal pronouns
to the first and second person, compensated by
the use of demonstrative pronouns for the third
person, is inherited from Proto-Indo-European
and finds numerous parallels in other early IE
languages. It is also typologically common that
third person pronouns are either identical or
derivationally related to demonstrative pro-
nouns (cf. Bhat 2005). In PIE the form of first and
second person pronouns could also be used as
+ reflexives, and this distribution is maintained
in Homeric Greek, as in (1):
(1) egon eme lüsomai
‘I will ransom myself’ (Hom. IL 10.378)
Classical Greek innovates in creating specific
forms of reflexive pronouns for the first and the
59
second person, similarly to Modern English, and
therefore restricts the functional domain of first
and second person pronouns to personal use.
The classical correspondent of (1) would be egön
emauton lüsomai, where the personal pronoun
is compounded with the intensifier autön ‘self’.
Equally inherited from PIE is the distinction
between stressed and clitic forms (+ Clitics) of
personal pronouns (cf. Delbrück 1893:462ff.),
and on this point Ancient Greek may offer
some interesting features in comparison with
both the early IE languages and their modern
descendants.
Unlike most early IE languages, Ancient Greek
distinguishes stressed (strong) and clitic (weak)
personal pronouns quite clearly from a formal
point of view. Admittedly, in some cases, as in
the dative of the second person pronoun sof vs.
soi, the two forms are identical except for the
presence of the accent, which was graphically
signaled only from the Hellenistic period on.
In other cases, however, we have to deal with
genuine morphological differences, as can be
especially seen in the singular of the first per-
son, where we find the genitive emo vs. mou,
the dative emo/ vs. moi, and the accusative emé
vs. me. Clitic pronouns are predictably shorter
and formally more homogeneous than stressed
forms, often having the same form for differ-
ent genders, + numbers, cases (+ Case (includ-
ing Syncretism)) or persons; Homeric min and
Doric nin, for instance, function as a masculine,
feminine or neuter accusative. Similarly, a clear
distinction between stressed and clitic personal
pronoun can be seen in Vedic and in Hittite,
while in Latin and in Germanic the same form of
personal pronoun may receive different prosodic
representations and therefore is also formally
more ambiguous. In addition to their morphol-
ogy, clitic pronouns could be identified by their
position: they are more often enclitic than pro-
clitic (in any case they could never occupy the
first position of the clause), and usually occupy
the second slot in the sentence, according to
+ Wackernagel's Law I (1892).
Unlike most modern IE languages, Ancient
Greek displays much freedom in the use of per-
sonal pronouns. In Modern Greek, for example,
clitic pronouns are obligatorily adjacent to the
verb: in declarative clauses, they are always pro-
clitic (hou to é6wae¢ [mu to 'edoses] ‘you gave it
to me’); in imperative clauses, they are always
enclitic (8we' pou to [‘dozmuto] ‘give it to me’).
60 PERSONAL PRONOUNS,
In any case, no element may separate the pro-
nominal object from its verbal head, so that the
distribution of clitics in Modern Greek strictly
follows syntactic principles (cf. Holton et al.
1997:304). These syntactic principles may even
overrule the prohibition of clitic pronouns at the
beginning of the clause, which in Ancient Greek
was the only absolute constraint in the distribu-
tion of clitics. Instead, in non-initial position,
Ancient Greek allowed various possibilities in
the placement of clitic pronouns, and the choice
of the second position was rather a matter of
tendency, as Wackernage! (1892) himself rec-
ognized. See the following passage, drawn from
Herodotus (5th c. BCE):
(2) täphros men prötd min bathéa te kai eurea
kai pléé hüdatos perithéei
‘Round it runs first a moat deep and wide
and full of water’ (Hdt. 1.178)
Here the clitic pronoun is not verb-adjacent;
still, it is not placed in the second, but rather in
the fourth position of the clause, after a noun, an
accented particle and an adverb. At this stage,
syntactic factors were still less relevant to the
placement of clitic pronouns than phonological
factors, according to which a clitic pronoun as
a prosodically weak position had to lean on an
accented word. The preference for the second
position of the clause is due to the fact that the
first position was always accented, and therefore
could host a clitic form much more frequently
than other slots, whose prosodic properties were
more varied. The flexible position of pronomi-
nal clitics of Classical Greek is interpreted by
Goldstein (forthcoming) as a 'prosody-dominant
model’, in which the pragmatic status of the
referents of the pronouns also plays a significant
role. With time, clitics become increasingly fre-
quent in the verb-adjacent position (cf. Fraser
2001), according to a broader change in the
> word order of the language. Owing to its con-
tinuous diachronic record, Greek gives us the
possibility to observe much more visibly a change
that is also typical of other IE languages. In
the Romance languages, for example, clitics are
characterized by verbal adjacency and (except
for Portuguese) by the possibility of occupying
clause-initial position, while Latin pronominal
forms basically share the same flexible distribu-
tional properties as Ancient Greek clitics.
USE OF
Another difference between Ancient Greek
and Modern Greek regards the use of implicit
forms of personal pronouns, which have been
dramatically reduced diachronically. Modern
Greek is a pro-drop language, and therefore
allows the null expression of the subject; how-
ever, for direct and indirect objects, it requires
explicit pronouns. Instead, Ancient Greek shows
competition not only between stressed and clitic
forms of personal pronouns, but also between
clitic pronouns and + null anaphora, and this
holds true for all types of complements or
adjuncts. A null object appears in the following
passage from Homeric Greek:
(3) all’ ouk Atreidei Agamemnoni hendane
thumöi, alla kakös aphiei
‘But this didn’t please Agamemnon, the son
of Atreus, in his soul, he bluntly dismissed
(him)' (Hom. A. 1.378-379)
Null objects are a manifestation of ellipsis,
whereby any constituent of the clause, even
the verb, could be implicit and inferred from
the context in the early IE languages. Moreover,
implicit pronouns are one of the main factors
determining the non-configurational nature of
Ancient Greek and of PIE (cf. Devine & Stephens
1999; Hewson & Bubenik 2006; Luraghi 2010).
Of course, it is much more difficult to deter-
mine the conditions under which a personal
pronoun may be omitted than those under
which the explicit form of a personal pronoun
may be used; and this is the reason why the
phenomenon of implicit pronouns has received
attention only recently. Luraghi (2003) is the
first to examine the use of implicit pronouns in
Ancient Greek, following a previous study by the
same author on null objects in Latin (Luraghi
1997), where a similar situation may be found.
She shows that null objects may be conditioned
either syntactically or by discourse. In the lat-
ter case, null objects refer tu high topical and
low focused discourse referents, although the
selection of a null object in these contexts may
also be unattended. Syntactic conditions, which
make the appearance of a null pronoun much
more predictable than pragmatic conditions,
comprise three basic contexts, that is, conjunct
~ participles, + coordination and yes-no ques-
tions. Conjunct participles entail the same sub-
ject as the main clause and therefore represent
 PERSONAL PRONOUNS,
a tight clause linkage; Luraghi (2003) shows that
null objects are virtually obligatory with con-
junct participles, as in (4):
(4) hökös to séma toi adelpheoit katalüsas
komiet
‘so that he would untie his brother's body
and would take (it) away’ (Hdt. 2.121)
In coordination and yes-no questions, clause
linkage is relatively looser than with conjunct
participles; furthermore, it is formally signalled
that the two clauses belong to the same complex
sentence and form together a coherent content
unit. In the case of coordination, the first of
a series of coordinate clauses has an explicit
(stressed or clitic} pronoun, which is omitted
from the following clauses. Accordingly, Luraghi
demonstrated that null objects are not merely
due to style, but rather belong to the grammar of
anaphora of Ancient Greek.
The differences between Ancient Greek
and Modern Greek in the use of personal pro-
nouns may also concern stressed pronouns.
It is acknowledged that in Ancient Greek, as
well as in the other early IE languages, stressed
pronouns were used when a certain emphasis,
contrast or importance was laid on the refer-
ent; otherwise zero anaphora or enclitic forms
were preferred. A contrastive use of a stressed
pronoun appears, for example, in (5), and this
situation substantially holds true in the various
stages of Greek:
(5) teirha paradrameten pheugan, ho d’ apisthe
diakan
‘Thereby they ran, one fleeing, and one pur-
suing’ (Hom. /l. 22.157)
However, in Ancient Greek stressed pronouns
could also be used at the beginning of a clause,
often in combination with a particle such as
ge or dé, without any contrast, discontinuity or
emphasis being implied. In this sense, stressed
pronouns merely behave as a “support for the
clause-introducing particle’ (“nur eine Stü-
tze fiir die dem Satzanfang zustrebenden Par-
tikeln”: Schwyzer 19502188). This use, however, is
restricted in both grammar and style. Grammati-
cally, it is only found with certain pronouns such
as su ‘you’ and Ad ‘he’ and with certain moods,
especially with the imperative, as in (6):
USE OF 61
(6) alla ti’ hippous. / ee su g’ dndras énaire
‘Loose the horses; or do thou slay the men’
(Hom. IL. 10.480-48:)
Stylistically, while Homer and Herodotus
employ clause-introducing stressed pronouns
quite freely, this device is less common in other
authors and especially in later poetry. This usage
has precise parallels in Vedic and therefore
cannot be considered as being an occasional
innovation of Ancient Greek. Nonetheless, the
constraints imposed on it are an anticipation of
its subsequent decay from the language, where
the use of personal pronouns becomes syntacti-
cally and pragmatically more homogenous.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhat, D. N. S. 2005. “Third person pronouns and demon-
stratives”, In: The world atlas of language structure, ed.
by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath, chap-
ter 43. Munich. [Available online at http://wals.info/
chapter/43].
Brandenburg, Philip. 2005. Apollonios Dyskolos, Uber das
Pronomen. Einführung, Text, Übersetzung und Erläuter-
ungen. Munich.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1893. Vergleichende Syntax der indoger-
manischen Sprachen. Erster Theil. Strasbourg.
Devine, Andrew and Laurence Stephens. 1999. Discontinu-
ous syntax. Hyperbaton in Greek. New York — Oxford.
Fraser, Bruce. 2001. “The clause start in Ancient Greek: focus
and the second position", Glotta 7238-177.
Goldstein, David. (forthcoming). Wackernaget’s Law in fifth-
century Greek. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. 2006. From case to adposi-
tions. The development of configurational syntax In Indo-
Eurapean languages. Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Holton, David, Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-
Warburton. 1997. Greek. A camprehensive grammar of the
modern language. London — New York,
Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. “Omission of the direct object in Latin’,
EF 102:239-257.
——. 2003. “Definite referential null objects in Ancient
Greek", IF 108:167-195.
. 2010. “The rise (and possible downfall) of configu-
rationality”. In: The Continuum companinn to historical
linguistics, ed. by Vit Bubenik and Silvia Luraghi, 212-229.
London - New York.
Schwyzer, Eduard. ı950. Griechische Grammatik. Zweiter
Band. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Vervollständigt
und herausgegeben von Albert Debrunner. Munich.
Wackemagel, Jacob. 1892. "Über ein Gesetz der indoger-
manischen Wortstellung*, /F1:333-436.
CARLOTTA VITI
62 PHAISTOS DISC

Phaistos Disc or accidentally. Its diameter ranges from 15.8 to

The Phaistos Disc is a thus far unique speci-
men of what is most likely a writing system
(+ Greek Writing Systems), one of a number
that are attested during the 2nd mill. BCE in
the Aegean (> Cretan Hieroglyphic Script; + Lin-
ear A; +Linear B). The Disc was discovered
in 1908 in the Minoan palace of Phaistos situ-
ated in south-central Crete (Pernier 1908). It was
found in Building 101 of the North-East Sector
of the palace, together with a Linear A tab-
let; the archaeological layers in which it was
retrieved from were reportedly disturbed, due
to the construction of houses dating to the Hel-
lenistic period. The opinio communis, however,
based on archaeological evidence that dates the
life-span of the building itself (Carinci & La Rosa
2013), suggests that the Disc is a relic of the early
17th c, BCE and thus contemporaneous to the
Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A scripts.
The flat, two-sided disc (Olivier 1975; Duhoux
1977; Godart 1994) is made of clay; there is no
way of telling whether it was fired on purpose
16.5 cm., whereas its thickness ranges from 0.16
to 0.21 cm. On both its faces (A and B), when still
moist, 242 signs were impressed with 45 differ-
ent stamp-seals, each apparently fabricated for
every individual sign, in “a remarkable anticipa-
tion of the invention of engraving and printing”
(Chadwick 1959:20). Some signs had been erased
to be subsequently replaced by others in what
appears to have been orthographic corrections.
The inscriptions cover both faces entirely, leav-
ing no empty spaces. A (practically) continuous
spiral line was incised from the periphery to
the center and designated the writing space,
where sign-groups were stamped. Signs were
organized in groups divided by vertical lines;
they were impressed along the same direction
as the spiral line, but this does not mean that
their reading direction automatically coincides.
The signs depict human figures in various poses,
human heads, objects (head-gear, weapons,
implements), animals, birds and fish, as well as
animal heads (and an animal hide), plants and
certain unidentifiable objects.

Phaistos Disc, side A (drawing by L. Godart). Source: Godart, Louis. 1994. I! disco di Festo. Lenigma di una
scrittura. Turin, 49.
 PHAISTOS DISC 63

Phaistos Disc, side B (drawing by L. Godart). Source: Godart, Louis. 1994. Il disco di Festo, Lenigma di una
scrittura. Turin, 50,

Because of its uniqueness, doubts have even
been expressed as to its authenticity; the excava-
tion notes and testimonies show it however to
be an actual archaeological discovery to the spot
and under the conditions reported. Additionally,
some similarities have been noticed between
the Disc signs and an inscription on a bronze
double axe from a cave at Arkalokhori in cen-
tral Crete, which speak not only in favor of the
Disc’s authenticity but also in favor of its local
(Cretan) provenance. Although the Disc consti-
tutes a unique sample, the original stamps could
have been used more than once. The object has
attracted the interest of scholarly but mostly non-
scholarly audience, and has been the subject of
innumerable decipherment efforts, the validity
of which remains to be demonstrated. Despite
its idiosyncratic and unparalleled features, it has
come to be considered as emblematic of the
Minoan civilization in popular fantasy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carinci, Filippo and Vincenzo La Rosa. 2013. “A new Middle
Minoan ILA ceremonial building and the so-called ‘New
Era’ at Phaistos”. In: Intermezzo. Intermediacy and Regen-
eration in Middle Minoan Ill palatial Crete, British School
at Athens Studies 21, ed. by Colin F. Macdonald and Carl
Knappett, 107-122. London.
Chadwick, John. 1959. The decipherment of Linear B. Cam-
bridge.
Duhoux, Yves, 1977. Le disque de Phaestos. Archéolagie, épig-
raphie, edition critique, index, Louvain.
Godart, Louis. 1994. Il disco di Festo. L’enigma di una scrit-
fura, Turin.
Olivier, Jean-Pierre. 1975. “Le disque de Phaistos. Edition
photopraphique”, BCH 99:5-34.
Pernier, Luigi. 1908. “Il disco di Phaestos con caratteri pit-
tografici”, Ausonia 3:255-302, pl. IX-XIN.
ARTEMIS KARNAVA
Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Ancient Linguistics
1. INTRODUCTION
It is a commonplace in the historiography of
ancient linguistics to argue that throughout the
Greek and Roman Antiquity there was no sepa-
rate discipline whose own and exclusive objec-
tives were both to study human language as a
universal phenomenon and describe and analyze
the structure of particular languages, in this case
Greek or Latin. What we nowadays understand
as ‘linguistics’ was not an autonomous scientific
field in Antiquity. Nevertheless, the theoretical
approach to language traversed a long period of
64 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION
time in Greek tradition, which actually encom-
passes the whole of Antiquity. This approach
produced in fact plenty of linguistic concepts
and descriptive patterns as well as several obser-
vations referring to the realization of language
and its correct use in specific contexts. Ancient
linguistics, however, was constantly — and this
ought to be emphasized — the by-product of vari-
ous disciplines and, as such, remained always
subordinate to their general scope and aims.
Philosophy, rhetoric as well as literary theory
and, finally, scholarship actively participated
in the development process of ancient linguis-
tics. In the framework of ancient philosophy
(— Ancient Philosophers on Language) the theo-
ries of cognition and logic gave the strongest
impulse to the study of the nature and structure
of language. Within rhetoric (> Rhetorical Tra-
dition in Ancient Linguistics) it was the theory
of argumentation and of correct application of
language to a certain discourse topic which ini-
tiated the theoretical discussion on language;
poetic and literary theory focused on the ques-
tion of the appropriate word selection and word
combination for a specific literary genre. Finally,
in the framework of ancient scholarship, the
interpretation of literature as well as the prob-
lems concerning the edition of literary texts and
the questions relating to textual criticism moti-
vated the formulation of a grammatical system
applied to the description of language and its
usage in certain literary contexts (on the vari-
ous stages of the ancient linguistic theories, cf.
Ax 2006:227; the model of a threefold origin
of ancient linguistics is mostly followed by the
historians of the Greek tradition of language
theories, see e.g. Steinthal 1890-1891, Robins
1951:1-47 and 1990:11-52, Schmitter 1991 and Aur-
oux et al, 2000).
Viewed through the process of its develop-
ment, ancient linguistics apparently formed
its core principles in the framework of ancient
scholarship. This modern view is not simply
due to the innovative character of the linguistic
theory formulated by ancient philologists and
grammarians, but it may often be traced back
to the extent, unity and solidity of the system
developed for the purposes of language descrip-
tion. Another major factor in connection with
the particular position which scholarship holds
in the history of ancient linguistics is the con-
textualization of the objectives of the philologi-
cal linguistic analysis. The abstract value and
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
universal character or the cognitive potential
of language were not in the foreground of the
theories developed by scholars and grammar-
ians, as was in fact the case for the philosophers
(+ Cognitive Linguistics and Greek). Instead, the
concem was about the concrete use of language,
documented mainly in literature, and especially
in poetry (+ Literary Prose). Although at the
beginning literary language was the focus of
linguistic analysis, common usage soon became
the measure for the comparison and the crite-
rion for the description of the peculiarities of
literary language. This led to the formation of a
general grammatical model for the analysis of
Greek independently of its realization in litera-
ture. Moreover, ancient linguistics traditionally
displays in the framework of scholarship a high
number of connecting elements with modern
linguistic science. Modern linguistics owes the
use of the term ‘grammar’ to the ancient schol-
arship tradition. Furthermore, the emergence
of linguistic analysis from philological contexts
in Antiquity reflects, from a historical point of
view, a similar procedure in modern times which
resulted in the establishment of linguistics as a
separate science,
The present entry aims at investigating the
development of (the) ancient linguistic theories
within the philological tradition of Greek Antiq-
uity both from a historical and a systematic per-
spective. In chapter 2 of the article the emphasis
of the analysis will be on terminological matters,
especially on the origins of the term ‘grammar’,
as well as on the definitions of ancient scholar-
ship, with an aim to establish the position of
language theory in the framework of the philo-
logical discipline as well as highlight the con-
tents and objectives of linguistic analysis. After
some preliminary remarks on the periodization
of ancient linguistics and on the epistemological
character often attributed to each period for the
purpose of language analysis, chapter 3 is going
to focus on the development of the major lines
of ancient linguistic theory, namely the theory
of the word class system (3.1) on the one hand,
and the theory of hellönismös, iL.e., — linguistic
correctness (3.2) on the other. The time span
covered in this survey has its starting point in
the Hellenistic period, i.e., from the 3rd c. BCE
onwards, when scholarship was established as an
autonomous science, and continuing well into
the first centuries CE it reaches the end of Antiq-
uity. Finally, the development and transmission
 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATIGAL TRADITION IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
of ancient linguistic theories in the Byzantine
era will also be outlined to some extent.
2. THE TERM ‘GRAMMAR’ IN GREEK
ANTIQUITY: CONNOTATIONS AND
CONTENTS
As has already been indicated, the term ‘gram-
mar’ is one of the representative connecting
elements between ancient linguistics in the
philological-grammatical tradition and modern
linguistics, The modem notion of ‘grammar’ is
still by no means identical with its forerunner
grammatike tékhné which has been established
since the Hellenistic era as the term defining
‘scholarship’, the discipline founded as a sepa-
rate scientific field in Ptolemaic Alexandria (on
the foundation of ancient Greek scholarship see
Pfeiffer 1968:87-279), The words grammatiké
and granmatikoös — the latter used in the sense of
‘philologist’ - are not new coinages by the Helle-
nistic scholars. They represent traditional terms
applied through + semantic change and exten-
sion of their old meaning to the characterization
of the philological discipline and its representa-
tives, i.e., ‘the experts in the interpretation of
literature and in textual criticism’. Plato and
also Aristotle used the term grammatike in the
meaning of ‘knowledge in reading and writing’;
its pendant term grammatikös designated the
elementary teacher of reading and writing (on
the development of the terms grammatiké and
grammatikös see Pfeiffer 1968:157-158). After the
introduction of the terms grammatiké and gram-
matikös for ‘scholarship’ and ‘scholar’ respec-
tively, ‘grammar’ was divided into two kinds:
a ‘perfect’ (teleios, teleiatéra, or entelés) and an
‘inferior’ one (atelestéra; see Sext. Emp. Math.
1,44-48, Phil. Congr, erud. §148, III 103,24-103,3
and Somn. 1,205, [I] 249,14-16) - or according
to the Scholia to Dionysios Thrax into a megdlé,
‘large’ or neötera, ‘younger’ and a mikra ‘small’
or palaia, ‘old’ (see Schol. Dion. Thrax 114,23-34
and 164,23-29; cf. Matthaios 2011:60-67). The
words grdmma or grammata underlie both
usages of the terms grammatike and gramma-
tikös: grämma in the sense of ‘letter’ has to be
understood in the word grammatiké as meaning
‘expertness in reading and writing’; but when it
refers to ‘scholarship’ and ‘scholar’ grämmata
means sungrämmata, the products of every writ-
ing activity, i.e., ‘texts’. In this sense, the term
encompasses historical, philosophical as well as
65
scientific treatises; the emphasis, however, lies
mostly in the literary, both poetic and prosaic,
texts of the past (cf. Sext. Emp, Math. 1,47-48,
Schol Dion. Thrax 7,25-29, 304,38-305,5 and
447,31-448,10; see Blank 1998:u14 with n.u3-u16).
In Antiquity, grammar in the modern sense did
not lose its relation to literature nor, as such,
to the Janguage documented in written/textual
form, which often belonged to a previous level
than did the spoken language in the time of its
interpreters. Priority to the language of literature
within the scope of ancient scholarship was also
given in a later period in the history of the phil-
ological-grammatical tradition during which the
study of language achieved a quasi-autonomous
status. The connection of ancient grammatical
studies with written, especially literary language
influenced to a great extent the character of the
linguistic approaches and theories developed by
scholars, primarily on issues relating to appro-
priate usage and linguistic correctness.
The first attested definition of ‘grammar’, i.e.
scholarship, already testifies to its exclusive refer-
ence to texts and literature. This definition goes
back to Eratosthenes (3rd c. BCE). According to
the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax (160,10-1) Eratos-
thenes defined grammatiké and grammatikés
(‘the art of writings’) as ‘an epistemological con-
dition which presupposes the highest possible
acquisition of knowledge relating to texts (gräm-
mata)’; with the term grämmata Eratosthenes
seems to refer to written works of any type, i.e.,
everything that was written down and passed on
by the medium of writing (on Eratosthenes’ defi-
nition of ‘grammar’ see Matthaios 2011). The sub-
ject of scholarship is more narrowly defined by
Dionysius Thrax (ca170—ca go BCE) (Ars gramm.
§1, 52-3): “ 'Grammar’ - i.e. scholarship - is the
experience (empeiria) of what is mostly said in
poets and prose writers” (on Dionysius’ defini-
tion see Lallot 1998:69—73 and 2012:113-16; cf. also
Blank 1998:128-129). Another definition which
corresponds to that of Dionysius’ goes back to
his contemporary grammarian Asclepiades of
Myrleia (second half of the 2nd c.-ıst c. BCE).
In a polemic attack to Dionysius’ views, he
defined scholarship as a ‘skill (tékhne, literally
'art’) of what is said in poets and prose writers’
(Sext. Emp. Math. 1,74 = fr. | Müller; on Ascle-
piades’ definition see Blank 1998:135-137 and Lal-
lot 2012:16-18). Independently of the position
which scholarship held within the system of the
ancient sciences and despite the controversy
66 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION
on its epistemological value, which focuses on
the question whether scholarship is an empiri-
cal or a technical science, it is obvious from the
definitions cited above that the term ‘grammar’
until the first century BCE is used with the
wider meaning of ‘scholarship’. Its subject was
the investigation of ‘what is said by poets and
prose writers’ — despite the fact that under this
formulation both the contents and the diction of
literature should be understood.
A turning point in the history of Greek schol-
arship, with particular respect to the develop-
ment of the notion ‘grammar’, is signaled in the
definition of Demetrius Chlorus, a grammarian
of the ist c. BCE presumably. Demetrius defines
the subject of ‘grammar’ not only in the tradi-
tional way of Dionysius Thrax and Asclepiades,
i,e,, as 'an expertise of what is said in poets and
prose writers’, but interestingly enough, he adds
a second element to the scope of the philological
discipline: ‘the knowledge of the words in com-
mon usage’ (see Sext. Emp. Math. 1,84; cf. Blank
1998144-146 and Lallot 201217-19). Thus, Dem-
etrius’ definition reflects the process which led
to the autonomy of the linguistic theory within
the framework of the philological science, a pro-
cess which must have been initiated already
in the last century BCE. This development can
also be followed through Quintilian’s definition
of ‘grammar as attested in the so-called ‘gram-
matical’ chapters of the first book of his Institutio
oratoria. Based on his forerunners of the Latin
as well as of the Greek philological tradition,
Quintilian (ca 35-100 CE) comprehended 'gram-
mar’ as a twofold-structured discipline which
encompasses not only the poetarum enarratio
(or enarratio auctorum) - i.e., the interpretation
of literature -, but also a second part aiming at
what he called recte loquendi scientia (or ratio
loquendi), i.e., a linguistic theory and a system of
rules according to which the proper and correct
use of language can be achieved (Quint. Inst.
14,2 and 1,9; see Ax 2011:95-97). In Quintilian’s
view, as in that of Demetrius Chlorus, the study
of language appears as an equivalent task to
that of the interpretation of literature. The next
step, the superseding of the philological task,
and consequently the narrowness of the notion
‘grammar, and accordingly the transition to
the modern sense of the systematic description
and normative analysis of language did not take
place before the end of Antiquity and the begin-
ning of the Middle Ages. This development can
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
be followed through the definitions of ‘grammar’
in Cassiodorus (6th c. CE) and Isidore of Seville
(7th c. CE). For Isidore (Orig. 1,2,1 and 1,5,1) gram-
matica is equivalent only to loquendi peritia, i.e.,
the ‘expertise in speaking correctly’. The Byzan-
tine grammarians continued the use of the term
‘grammar’ in the wider sense of ‘scholarship’
(see e.g. the Byzantine definitions of ‘grammar
transmitted in the Schkol. Dion. Thrax 3,1-13 and
164,5-8}, due to the great influence exerted by
the Tékhné grammatike, the grammatical manual
transmitted under the name of Dionysius Thrax;
their grammatical writings, however, testify to
a vivid theoretical interest in the description of
language and its systematic character ~ even if
their approach aims foremost at the interpreta-
tion of and acquaintance with the literary lan-
guage of the Greek past. For the first time ever
in the context of the Greek tradition, the Greek
humanist Nikolaos Sophianos (ca 1500-post
1551), the author of the first grammar of Modern
Greek, appears to use ‘grammar' in a sense close
to the modern one. According to his definition
(fol, ga, p. 35 Legrand), “grammar is the art which
teaches us to write and speak correctly’.
The development of the notion grammatiké
from its genera] use and sense of ‘scholarship’
during the Hellenistic era to the modern mean-
ing of ‘grammar’, as well as the process that led
to the autonomy of linguistic studies within the
scope of ancient Greek scholarship can also be
seen in the classification of the ‘parts’ which con-
stitute the several philological tasks (see Blank
2000). Dionysius Thrax, for example, in the
first part of his treatise entitled Parangelmata
(‘Percepts’, on the assumed title of Dionysius’
work, see Di Benedetto 1958-1959 and 1973,
Schenkeveld 1995 and Pagani 2010:398-399) —
the introductory part of the Tékhné grammatike
ascribed to him is, in difference to the systematic
part of the manual (at least from §u onwards),
without doubt authentic (on the authenticity of
the Tékhné transmitted under Dionysius’ name
see Matthaios 20092, Pagani 2010 and 2011:30-40
with references to the older bibliography on
this matter) - divided ‘grammar into six ‘parts’,
which reflect the steps undertaken by a scholar
for the purpose of the interpretation of literature
(Dion, Thrax Ars gramm. §1, 5,4-6,3). Only a
few of these ‘parts’ deal exclusively with linguis-
tic matters and, moreover, imply a theoretical
background and systematization: the first on
‘the proper reading by following the prosodic
 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION
rules’ and, especially, the fourth on ‘the finding
of word etymology’, and the fifth on ‘the work-
ing out of analogical rules’. But it is still obvious
that Dionysius understands the several philo-
logical tasks as a unity, on the basis of which the
interpretation of literature with respect to both
its contents and its diction, may well succeed.
In Dionysius’ system, grammar in the modern
sense represents only an assisting tool for philo-
logical purposes. In a different way from Dio-
nysius’ approach, linguistic contents are clearly
emphasized in the systematization of scholar-
ship and its tasks as postulated by Asclepiades of
Myrleia. According to Sextus Empiricus (Math,
1,91-96), Asclepiades divided scholarship into
three ‘parts’; one of them, the so-called méros
tekhnikén, ‘technical part’, actually implies the
kind of linguistic theory required for the inter-
pretation of literature and its language. From the
account given by Sextus (Math. 1,92), the ‘techni-
cal part’ of ‘grammar’ includes the study of the
phonetic elements (+ Phonetics) and the word
classes as well as questions concerning — orthog-
raphy and the doctrine on linguistic correctness,
the so-called hellenismös. A different position
is maintained in the systematic analysis of lan-
guage traced back in the system by Tyrannio, a
grammarian of the ist c. BCE. According to this
classification model (Schol. Dion. Thrax 164,9-11)
‘grammar’ consists of four ‘parts' ~ text emen-
dation and edition, reading, interpretation and
literary criticism — assisted by four ‘tools’. Apart
from the lexicographic, historical and metrical
tools, there is the ‘technical tool' - the örganon
tekhnikön — which implies the grammatical sys-
tem and the rules that control the use of the
language in literary contexts. Finally, Quintilian
(Inst. 1,9,1) uses the term methodice to character-
ize the part of the philological discipline which
deals with language and linguistic correctness.
Apart from its Greek provenience, the term also
shows the systematic character which linguistic
analysis developed in the first century CE. This
means mainly that from that period onwards
linguistic theories were viewed independently
of the literary context in which language was
attested or examined.
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS 67
3. LINGUISTIC THEORIES IN THE
SCHOLARSHIP TRADITION VIEWED IN
THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The history of ancient linguistics within the
philological-grammatical tradition encompasses
the period from the 3rd c. BCE, when scholar-
ship was founded as a separate discipline, to the
end of Antiquity. This period is primarily exam-
ined in connection with Alexandria, though for
a shorter period of time, i.e., in the and c. BCE,
Pergamon also developed a philological school
which, according to our evidence, stood in
rivalry with the Alexandrian school (on the Per-
gamon scholarship see Pfeiffer 1968:234-251).
The basic criterion for distinguishing the peri-
ods of linguistic theories within ancient scholar-
ship is the process towards the autonomy of the
‘technical part’ of the philological tasks. Accord-
ingly, two periods are usually identified: (i) the
period of the so-called grammatikoi, i.e., scholars
of the ard and 2nd c. BCE such as Zenodotus
(ca 325-mid-zrd c, BCE), Aristophanes of Byz-
antium (ca 257-180 BCE), and Aristarchus
(ca 216-144 BCE) on the Alexandrian side and
Crates of Mallus (2nd c. BCE) on the Perga-
mon side; (ii) the period of the tekhnikot, i.e.,
the theorists of language like Dionysius Thrax,
Asclepiades of Myrleia, Tyrannio and Trypho in
the 1st c. BCE, as well as Apollonius Dyscolus and
Herodian in the and c. CE. (on the grammatikös
vs. tekhnikös opposition see Lallot 1999:43-49).
The borderline between these two periods falls
approximately on the turning from the and to
the ist c. BCE, primarily on the basis of the fol-
lowing reason: while linguistic theory during the
first period was the instrument for the interpre-
tation ofliterature and, as such, it was connected
with language problems arising from certain lit-
erary texts, in the second period it was the need
for theoretical elaboration and systematization
of the grammatical doctrine that prevailed; this
led to the formation of the linguistic theories in
the form of special monographs and treatises.
The turning point from the first to the sec-
ond period is marked by Aristarchus’ pupil, Dic-
nysius Thrax, whose name is connected with
the dubious authorship and authenticity of
the earliest transmitted exemplar of a tékhné
grammatiké, the kind of grammatical manuals
which dealt not only with the definition of schol-
arship and its tasks, but also with the descrip-
tion of the language constituents — phonemes,
68 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
+ syllables, words, sentences (> Sentence;
+ Sentence/Utterance (lögos), Ancient Theories
of } and, ultimately, the text itself — in an ascend-
ing order from the smallest to the largest unit.
The discussion on the authenticity of the Tekhne
transmitted under the name of Dionysius has
triggered a long-lasting debate in recent research
concerning the theoretical competence of the
Alexandrian scholars of the first period in mat-
ters of linguistic thought and systematization of
the grammatical doctrine and its contents (see
Matthaios 2012), The main consequence of this
controversy was to consider the linguistic obser-
vations formulated by the Alexandrian schol-
ars aS a mere empirical approach to language
with practically no theoretical background, and,
moreover, to exclude this period from (the scope
of ) the history of ancient linguistics. However, an
extensive investigation of the linguistic theories
of the two most important representatives of the
Alexandrian scholarship, namely Aristophanes
of Byzantium and Aristarchus (see Callanan 1987
and Matthaios 1999; the results of these works
are summarized by Pagani 2011:44-60) showed
that the Alexandrian scholars had at their dis-
posal a high-level, differentiated and, in the case
of Aristarchus - obviously, also thanks to much
more adequate evidence here in comparison to
that found for Aristophanes — a complete sys-
tem, on the basis of which it was possible to infer
a number of scholarly judgments and solve sev-
eral language problems referring to the literary
text under examination. Ax (2000:107) calls the
apparatus that served the ancient description
of language, namely the system of grammatical
concepts and rules, which in fact presupposes
the investigation of the correct language use
in literature, “Grammatik im Kopf”. Under this
designation, Ax does not mean the competence
of any given speaker in speaking correctly in
terms of grammar rules, but the grammarian's
ability to use the grammatical categories for his
philological and interpretative purposes without
prior elaboration in specialized treatises. Accord-
ingly, the criterion for the reasonable evaluation
of the systematization tendencies formulated
by the Alexandrian scholars of the first period
is the consistency of the grammatical argumen-
tation and the possibility to analyze and explain
language problems on the basis of the assumed
grammatical categories — even if the required
theoretical basis for this evaluation has been
grasped, according to Ax, “im Kopf”.
From the perspective of current research, it
seems more appropriate to examine the gram-
matical theory of the Alexandrian scholars of
the first period independently of the authentic-
ity question of the Tekhne ascribed to Diony-
sius Thrax. At the same time, their linguistic
approach should be evaluated independently
of the empeiria vs. tékhné controversy which
originated in the definitions of ‘grammar’ of Dio-
nysius Thrax and Asclepiades of Myrlea and
was mainly based on objections on the part of
the Pergamon school to the Alexandrian meth-
ods. As Siebenborn (1976:1129-139) convincingly
showed, the notion empeiréa in Dionysius’ defini-
tion of ‘grammar’ primarily refers to the methods
rather than the epistemological state of scholar-
ship. From this point of view, the parameters
empeiria and tékhné in the Alexandrian scholars’
description of language do not form antithetical
poles which exclude each other. On the contrary,
the empirical procedure in stating and solving
problems arising from the literary texts presup-
poses a system of concepts and rules on the basis
of which it was possible to formulate as well as
control the grammatical argument with respect
to its reliability.
Under these circumstances, it is more appro-
priate to divide the periods of the linguistic
theories developed in the ancient philological-
grammatical tradition not on the grounds of
merely historical factors but mainly on the basis
of qualitative criteria. In this way, the period of
the Alexandrian scholars from the 3rd and 2nd c.
BCE is connected with the foundation of a gram-
matical doctrine, separate or even opposed tothat
of the philosophers and rhetoricians, while the
second period, from the ist c. BCE until the end
of Antiquity, can be named the period of system-
atization characterized by a theoretical formula-
tion of the grammatical contents and concepts.
If the Byzantine era were also added to this
model, this third period could be regarded as the
period of adaptation of the ancient grammatical
doctrine by the Byzantine grammarians — but
this procedure is also connected with a trans-
formation tendency of the ancient tradition (on
this model of periodization for ancient linguis-
tics, see Matthaios 2009b:152).
In the following two sections I am going to
present the key points of ancient linguistics and
their development in both periods of the philo-
logical-grammatical tradition. In that respect, |
am going to follow the division of grammatical
 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION
contents of the meros tekhnikön as attested in
Sextus Empiricus’ testimony into two parts: a)
the doctrine of the language constituents with
its focal point on the theory of the word class
system, and b) the doctrine of linguistic correct-
ness and its criteria.
3.a. The Theory of the Word Class System
The system of word classes which, since its forma-
tion and theoretical foundation within ancient
scholarship, constituted over several centuries
the basis of the traditional school grammar in
the West as well as in the East, is the intellec-
tual product of the Alexandrian scholars and
grammarians. It encompasses eight categories
for the classification of the word material of
Ancient Greek: five for declining word classes,
i.e, + noun (the appellatives included), — verb,
+ participle, + pronoun and article; three for
uninflected word classes, i.e., + adverb, conjunc-
tion (> Conjunctions (Subordinating); + Con-
junctions (Non-Subordinating)) and preposition
(+ Adpositions (Prepositions)) (cf. Dion. Thrax
Ars gramm. §11, 23,5-7 and Apoll. Dysc. Synt. I
14-29, 16,12-27,16).
The first person credited within the Greek
grammatical tradition with the knowledge of
the word class theory is Aristarchus. In a doxo-
graphical testimony on the development of the
theory of the partes orationis (‘parts of speech’)
from the philosophers down to the grammar-
ians (Inst. 1,4,17-29; cf. Ax 2011120-143), Quintil-
ian lists Aristarchus among the most notable
authorities who recognized eight word classes -
in that way, appellatives were subsumed by the
cover category ‘nomen’ as one of its species (Inst.
14,20 = Aristarchus fr. 1 Matthaios [1999]). On
the basis of Quintilian’s testimony, the historiog-
raphy of the ancient grammarians assumed for
a long time that Aristarchus was the founder of
the theory of the eight word classes, and in fact
in the same way as it was described theoretically
in the Tekhne of his pupil Dionysius Thrax. It
was also maintained previously that this sys-
tem, through Dionysius’ elaboration, reached its
canonization at a very early time and, through
Remmius Palaemon, a Latin grammarian of the
ist c. CE, became established in the Roman artes
grammaticae too (cf. Matthaios 2002263 with
n. 10). However, since the authenticity of the
work attributed to Dionysius Thrax has been
strongly challenged, Quintilian’s testimony and,
hence, the outlined development of the word
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS 6g
class theory have been met with great skepti-
cism. In place of the older communis opinio, it is
now assumed that it was neither Aristarchus nor
Dionysius Thrax, but Trypho who introduced the
eightfold word class system into the Greek gram-
matical tradition (see Matthaios 2012:1163-165).
On the basis of this recent investigation of
the entire corpus of available evidence from
(the context of) Aristarchus’ philological work
on the doctrine of the word classes and the tes-
timonies referring to his predecessors and con-
temporary scholars in the Alexandrian school,
namely Aristophanes of Byzantium, Callistratus
and Comanus, the achievements of the Alexan-
drians of the first period have now come under
new light (see e.g. Matthaios 1999). The results of
recent research can be summarized as follows:
Despite the categories inherited from the phil-
osophical tradition, önoma, rhéma, sundesmos
and drthron, the word classes added to the Aris-
totelian system of parts of speech and especially
that of the Stoics, i.e. pronoun, participle, adverb
and preposition, were known to Aristarchus and
belonged to the apparatus applied to the lan-
guage description. With the exception of the
adverb, which Aristarchus, following some Stoic
theories, called mesötes, ‘middle words’ (see Mat-
thaios 1999:521-522 and 548-559) rather than
epirrhema, ‘adverb’, as in later tradition (cf. Dion.
Thrax Ars gramm. §19, 72,4-86,1), these terms
were used for the designation of all the other
categories in the following centuries too. It is
worth noting that Aristarchus did not follow the
Stoic dichotomy between proper names (— Per-
sonal Names) and appellatives as two distinct
parts of speech, but regarded the appellatives -
in agreement with Quintilian’s testimony — as a
‘species’ of the category ‘name’ (see Matthaios
1999:225-233). The extension of the parts-of-
speech system inherited from the philosophical
tradition went along with a new definition of
the traditional categories and their respective
notions. The most substantial presupposition fur
the grammatical views was the establishment of
the concept ‘word class’ which, unlike the philo-
sophical notion ‘part of speech’, is not based on
the segmentation of the + utterance according to
logical - or even ontological - criteria, but relies
on morphological, semantic and syntactic fea-
tures which are typical of each word category -
though the grammarians continued to use the
traditional term meros tou lögou (on the notion
‘word class’, see Matthaios 1999:198-200),
70 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
Recent research has also shown that the pro-
cess of development of the grammatical word
class system had already begun in the genera-
tion immediately before Aristarchus. Despite
the scanty testimonies, we can still say with
certainty today that Aristophanes of Byzantium
recognized the preposition as a separate word
class and discussed its peculiar features (see
Callanan 1987:28-30 and Matthaios 2010:316-325
and 362-363). On the other hand, the terminus
ante quem for the recognition of the pronoun
as an autonomous word class is to be set in
the time of Comanus, an older contemporary of
Aristarchus (Coman. fr. 19 Dyck; cf. Matthaios
1999:445-446 and 503-504). The earliest avail-
able evidence for the recognition of the parti-
ciple as a separate class goes back to Aristarchus
in fact, although it is perfectly plausible that his
contemporaries Callistratus and Comanus were
also well acquainted with the properties of that
new word class (see Matthaios 1999:425 with n.
26). Thus the period of the Alexandrian scholars
before and in the time of Aristarchus tumed out
to play a decisive role for the foundation of the
grammatical word class system theory. The codi-
fication of the eightfold system achieved by the
Alexandrians formed the basis for the canoniza-
tion of the following, second period.
The evidence referring to the Pergamenian
views on the word class system is so meager
that we cannot reach any certain conclusions,
Crates of Mallus is credited with a definition
of ‘phoneme’ or ‘letter’ (stoikheion; Crates fr.
95 Broggiato) which is strongly influenced by
the Stoic theories (on Crates’ definition see Ax
1986:218-223, 2000:108-109 and Broggiato 2001
[2006 250-253). Previous research assumed that
this definition was incorporated into a treatise
of Crates dealing with the constituent structure
of language like the Tékhné of Dionysius Thrax.
This view led to the assumption of the exis-
tence of a Stoic-Pergamenian Tekhne as a pen-
dant to the Alexandrian one as represented by
that of Dionysius. Instead, it has currently been
proposed that Crates’ definition derived from
a treatise dealing with several aspects of poetic
diction, such as euphony (the researchers’ views
are summarized by Pagani 2011:53). At the same
time, we also ought to refrain from the former
view (see e.g. Mette 1952:20-21) that Crates is
the authority behind the word class system pos-
tulated by Varro (Ling. 8,44~84), formed on the
mere impression of its closeness to the Stoic doc-
trine: this opinion is a plain speculation which
cannot be supported by the existing evidence.
The fact, however, that Crates dealt with views
of his contemporaries about the classification
of the language constituents — note the relat-
ing testimonies from Philodemus' Rhetoric (see
Janko 2000:82~-187) where there are also terms
referring to the division of the phonemes and
letters into phöneenta, ‘vowels’, dphéna, ‘conso-
nants’ and hémiphéna, 'semivowels’), as well as
to several word classes, such as dnoma, rhéma,
sundesmos and, moreover, the new term pröthe-
sis ‘preposition’ - speaks in favor of the assump-
tion that the word class system established by
the Alexandrian scholars was also known by the
grammarians of Pergamon and formed the basis
of their own linguistic discussions as well.
In the Alexandrian generation after Aristar-
chus, the word class system started undergoing
theoretical elaboration in the form of special
monographs and grammatical manuals. The first
phase in the development of the word class
theory during the second period of the ancient
grammatical tradition is represented by Diony-
sius Thrax. In his treatise Percepts, Dionysius,
as testified through fragments outside the con-
text of the Tékhné, obviously also dealt with
questions concerning the word class system (see
Schenkeveld 1995, Matthaios 2002:192-193 and
Pagani 2010:400-404). The Scholia to the Tékhné
(160,26-27 = Dion. Thrax fr. 54 Linke) credited
Dionysius with the Stoic view that proper nouns
and appellatives represent two separate word
classes. Moreover, Apollonius Dyscolus (Fragm.
71,29-30 = Dion. Thrax fr. 55 Linke) transmits
Dionysius’ definition of the verb, which is differ-
ent from that attested in the Tekhne; in addition,
the verb definition testifies to the Stoic influence
on Dionysius’ views. Finally, Apollonius Dyscolus
(De Pronominibus 518-20) mentions another
view of Dionysius based on the Stoic tradition,
namely that pronouns are also to be called drthra
deiktikd, ‘deictic articles’. Thus, Dionysius pro-
vides us with the earliest evidence for the con-
tamination of the Alexandrian word class system
with the Stoic theoretical background. The trans-
formation and modification of the Alexandrian
doctrine on the basis of Stoic theories can also
be observed in the system adapted by Tyrannio
(see Matthalos 2002:193-195). In his treatise On
the word distribution of the parts of speech sys-
tem, Tyrannio (fr. 56 Haas) expressed the view
that the category ‘nomen’ includes proper and
 PHILOLOGIGAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION
common names as well as participles. The view
that appellatives form no special word class cor-
responds to the Alexandrian tradition traced back
to Aristarchus. On the other hand, Tyrannio’s
definition of the proper names as dtoma, ‘atoms’,
is substantially influenced by the Stoic theories
(see Matthaios 1996:72). Tyrannio’s view that
participles represent a species of the category
‘nomen’ as well as his definition of pronouns
(fr. 58 Haas), according to which pronouns have
to be called semeiöseis, ‘indicators’, since they
point to definitive entities, are absolutely com-
patible with the Stoic theories.
Thus, from Aristarchus’ time until the middle
of the ist c. BCE the theory of the word class
system swung, on its way towards its theoretical
foundation, between the views of the Alexan-
drian scholars of the first period and those of the
Stoics. Thanks to Trypho's contribution, how-
ever, there was a new turning point now. Trypho
is one of the most important figures of the ist c.
BCE who dealt exhaustively with the word class
system (cf. Matthaios 2002:195 with n. 141). From
a theoretical point of view, Trypho is connected
with a polemical tendency against the Stoic the-
ories: He turned explicitly against the Stoic sepa-
ration of dnoma and proségeria into two distinct
parts of speech (Schol. Dion. Thrax 241,17-215,3
and 356,21-357,26) and pleaded against the Stoic
views in favor of the autonomous status of the
participle in the word class system (fr. 39 de
Velsen). At the same time, Trypho followed the
Alexandrian grammarians of the first period in
their views that pronouns and articles as well
as adverbs and prepositions form separate word
classes (cf. Matthaios 2002:96-197 with n. 144).
With Trypho the Alexandrian, the eightfold word
class system acquired its theoretical foundations
and gained in validity during the next genera-
tion of grammarians. Its canonization process,
however, was not fully completed by him. This is
obvious from the evidence from some grammati-
cal papyri (+ Papyrology; + Papyri, Language of )
as well as from the linguistic views of Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (see de Jonge 2008:91-250). The
major question was the number of the word
classes which could possibly be accepted, espe-
cially the question of whether appellatives are
to be considered or not as a separate word class
according to the Stoic theory (cf. Matthaios
20021197). Apollonius Dyscolus is the author-
ity who subjected the Alexandrian theory to a
new thorough examination and ensured general
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS 71
acceptance for its theoretical frame. On the one
hand, Apollonius followed Tryphon’s views in
substantial aspects, like the question on the sta-
tus of the appellatives or of the participle. On the
other hand, he profited from his own profound
knowledge of the Stoic linguistic theories which
he applied in a creative way. A representative
example is Apollonius’ doctrine on the conjunc-
tions with respect to which he completely agreed
with the Stoic views (cf. Matthaios 2002:198).
Apollonius is thus the authority with whom the
Alexandrian and Stoic traditions came into an
efficient synthesis, At the same time he contrib-
uted to the establishment of the eightfold word
class system which was the basis for linguistic
analysis throughout the whole of the Middle
Ages. In a grammatical manual of the early ath c.
CE attested in P,Ahm. Il 21 (nr.14 Wouters [1979])
the system of the eight word classes is character-
ized as the ‘agreed precise tradition’; this is also
the system described in detail in the main body
of the Tékhné attributed to Dionysius Thrax (Ars
gramm. $ı2-20, 24,1-100,2). Through the con-
tribution of the commentators of the Tekhne
during the Byzantine era, this work became the
standard theory throughout the Greek medieval
grammaticography (see Robins 1993:41-86).
3.b. Hellenismos - On the Correct Use of Greek
The theory of hellenismös, namely the correct
use of Greek as well as the criteria applied for its
regulation and control is the most multifaceted
field of the ancient language doctrine developed
by scholars and grammarians. Nevertheless, this
area is only known in its major contours and, as
far as the historical details of its development
are concerned, it still remains controversial. The
main reason for this outstanding issue is the lack
of evidence: treatises have been transmitted in
their entirety only for a small part of the topics
referring to Hellenismos, mainly on — syntax,
> prosody and orthography - though even these
works very often represent Byzantine compila-
tions of the ancient originals. The majority of
the works, however, are known through a mea-
ger number of fragments, whereas in several
cases it is only the titles that have come down
to us. A further difficulty in reconstructing the
theory of Hellenismos in its completeness lies
upon the strong splintering of its contents, but
also on the character of the analysis followed
by several grammarians and the way in which
their approach was formulated. The theoretical
72 PHILOLGGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION
framework is mainly known through its appli-
cation to (solving) concrete problems relating
to word forms and word combinations; hence,
it has very often been the case that the works
on Hellenismos have adopted the form of ‘case-
studies’. On the other hand, it is thanks to the
efforts of scholars and grammarians that we
have a clear idea nowadays about this field of
ancient linguistics, Despite its foundation (with)
in the philosophical and rhetorical tradition,
the Hellenismos theory seems to have been fully
developed by grammarians, and its development
covers both periods of ancient scholarship and
grammar as defined above.
None of the treatises entitled Peri hellenismoü,
‘On Hellenismos’, which deal with the linguis-
tic correctness theory and its criteria in their
entirety, in difference to the ones referring to
the word class system, e.g. the Tekhne ascribed
to Dionysius Thrax and several manuals pre-
served through grammatical papyri (note the
papyri nr. 1-16 edited by Wouters 1979), have
been completely transmitted. Monographs of
this type, however, were composed by Trypho
and Philoxenus in the ist c. BCE, by Seleucus and
Ptolemy of Ascalon in the ist c, CE, and, finally,
by Heliodorus in the Byzantine period (7th c.
CE; on the testimonies about these treatises see
Siebenbom 1976:33-34). Since from all these
works only a few fragments have survived, their
aims and contents can be reconstructed mainly
through indirect testimonies, such as Sextus
Empiricus’ account (Math. 1,92 and 1,175-240)
on the focal points of this theory. Accordingly,
the Hellenismos theory refers to the correct use
of Greek concerning: a) single words regard-
ing their prosody, orthography, inflection and
semantics; b) word combinations on the basis of
syntactic rules. Thus, the Hellenismos theory is
orientated towards linguistic deviations of three
levels: a) the barbarismös, i.e., mistakes in the
formation of a single word; b) the solaikismös,
ie, mistakes concerning + word order either
within segments of a sentence or in the context
of a whole sentence; c) the akurologia, i.e., the
use of a word beyond its proper meaning (on the
several concerns of the Hellenismos theory see
Siebenborn 1976:35-36). The general accepted
criteria for controlling language correctness is
+ analogy (analogia), etymology (etumologia),
dialect (didlektos) (+ Dialectology (didlektos),
Ancient Theories of), common usage (sunétheia)
and literary tradition (parddosis or historia)
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
(see Fehling 1956 and Siebenborn 1976:53-158).
Apart from the monographs On Hellenismos,
the wide thematic spectrum of the theory was
also investigated in treatises devoted to a single
specific topic. The variety of topics relating to
the Hellenismos theory can be approached on
the basis of the writings by Trypho and Philoxe-
nus as well as that by Herodian (2nd c. CE). They
included extensive studies on prosody, orthog-
raphy (for treatises on the latter topic see Sch-
neider 1999), inflection (+ Inflectional Classes)
(with special regard to the principle of analogy),
~ word formation and etymology, syntax, and
several works on onomasiology (+ Onomastica:
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period) and
dialects.
In the short survey below | am going to con-
centrate orı one ofthe most crucial aspects ofthe
Hellenismos theory, i.e,, the principle of analogy
and its application in the examination oflinguis-
tic correctness in the fields ofinflection, prosody
and syntax. (For other aspects ofthis concept see
> Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient
Theories of.)
The surviving evidence on analogy and inflec-
tion, mainly books 8-10 of Varro’s De lingua
Latina, but also Sextus Empiricus’ account of
Hellenismos and analogy (Math. 1,176-240), leads
us directly into the so-called analogy vs. anomaly
controversy which reached its peak within the
first period of the scholars-and-grammarians tra-
dition, especially in the 2nd c. BCE. Considering
the role played by Aristophanes of Byzantium in
this context as well as the theoretical foundation
of the principles of anömalia, ‘anomaly’, ‘irregu-
larity’ and analogéa, ‘analogy’, 'regularity’ through
Stoic philosophy, this controversy must have
originated already in the grd c. BCE. Varro men-
tions as the two main opponents the exponents
of the Alexandrian and Pergamenian scholar-
ship, Aristarchus and Crates respectively. On the
grounds of Varro's account, the main thesis of the
controversy can be sumunarized as fullows (sum-
mary based on Ax 2000:109-114): Aristarchus and
the party of the analogists proclaimed the preva-
lence of analogy, i.e., of language regularity in
both inflection and derivation (+ Derivational
Morphology), whereas Crates and the anomal-
ists’ party laid emphasis on that of the sunétheia,
‘common usage’; Lat. consuefudo. According to
the latter, irregularities are overall present in
language, mainly in inflection, but also in deh-
ciencies of the nominal + gender, + number
 PHILGLOGICAL-GRAM MATICAL
and + case as well as in word formation and
derivation (+Word Formation (Derivation,
Compounding)), which cannot be remedied by
appealing to the principle of analogy. The analo-
gists, on the other hand, defended the validity
of the principle of analogy in language, though
with some restrictions: Analogy is not applicable
in derivation, but only in inflection, i.e., through
maintenance of the common usage. Irregulari-
ties in derivation and inflection do not speak
against the (pre-)condition of analogy, if they
can be explained on a semantic level through
the relation between names and things, and on
a pragmatic level through conditions relating to
the speaker. Thanks to the Roman grammarians
Charisius (Gramm. I 17,149,26-150,2) and Dona-
tianus (Gramm. Lat. VI 276,5-9) we are now
informed that Aristophanes of Byzantium (fr.
375 Slater) had already taken into consideration
for the correct application of analogy in the
nominal inflection five criteria concerning word
comparison and the proportions established, In
order to find out the (correct) unknown form
on the basis of the known one: the similarity in
gender, case, ending, number of syllables and
accent (Callanan 1987:26 and passim; Siebenborn
1976:68-75). Aristarchus extended Aristophanes’
catalog by adding one more criterion, ie., the
avoidance of any comparison between com-
pounds (+ Compound Nouns) and derivatives
(Matthaios 1999:258). The procedure of building
proportions in a proper manner actually reflects
the task of the Tékhné grammatike as postulated
by Dionysius Thrax (Dion. Thrax Ars gramm.
§1, 6,2), namely the ‘calculation of analogical
rules’ (see above, and Lallot 1998:80-8ı).
Considering its foundation and moreover
the reliability of the sources referring to it, the
analogy vs. anomaly controversy is one of the
most debated chapters in the history of ancient
linguistics within the philological-grammatical
tradition (cf. Ax zoooa15 and 129-131; Matthaios
1999:26-32). In modern times, the evaluation
of the existing evidence depended on the ques-
tion of the authorship of the Tékhné ascribed to
Dionysius Thrax and on diverse views on the
development of the linguistic thought in the first
period of the Alexandrian scholarship, which
mainly resulted from the position taken on the
authenticity of this grammatical manual. Under
these circumstances, Fehling (1956-1957) denied
the existence of the controversy as presented by
Varro, while Siebenborn (1976) accepted its his-
TRADITION IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS 73
torical basis under the assumption of the mere
empirical methods followed by the Alexandri-
ans. On the other hand, Blank recently concen-
trated in a series of works (1994, 1998, 2005) on
Varro’s reliability concerning Crates, According
to him, Crates cannot have adopted the anomal-
ist position ascribed to him by Varro; this posi-
tion could have only originated through Varra's
empirical source of an Epicurean or skeptical
provenience, which Varro assigned to the Per-
gamenian scholar due to his closeness to the
Stoic views on language irregularity, As far as the
Alexandrian scholars are concerned, the prob-
lem cannot be solved on a reliable basis, since
the fragments of Aristarchus concerning the
concept of Hellenismos have not been examined
in their entirety (on Aristophanes’ of Byzantium
views on analogy see Callanan 1987:107—-122; but
note also some objections in Ax 2000:100-102,
especially 16-127 on Callanan’s analysis), How-
ever, the material from Aristarchus’ philological
works which has already been taken into con-
sideration leaves na doubt that he, as well as his
predecessor Aristophanes. of Byzantium, were
analogists and relied upon the procedure of the
analogical proportions in order to solve difficult
problems relating to the orthography, prosody
and inflection of words in literary texts. Thus,
this procedure is empirical, but only so far as this
implies the methods rather than the epistemo-
logical value of their grammatical competence.
For example, cases of four-part proportion, the
next step after the simple twofold word com-
parisons, are already attested in Aristarchus (cf.
Matthaios1999:29—30 on this;foran opposite view
resulting mainly from a selective approach to the
preserved material, see Siebenborn 1976:63-71).
Comparisons of this kind are in fact the basis for
the formulation of grammatical ‘rules’ (kanönes).
If Aristarchus had intended to go beyond his
philological purposes and develop a theory or
an inflectional model, he could easily have done
so. In fact, a fully developed theory of inflection
(+ Declension/Conjugation (klisis), Ancient The-
ories of) - for both the declension and the con-
jugation — based on rules which derived from the
common prosodic and morphological features
of the compared words is attested in Herodian
and later in Theodosius’ (4th—5th c. BCE) exten-
sive work entitled ‘Introductory rules of the
nominal and verbal flexion’ (Gramm. Gr. V1 4,
9-99; see Robins 1993:1u-123). Wouters (1988:33-
34) lists some grammatical papyri containing
74 PHILGLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL
conjugation lists from Late Antiquity and the
early Byzantine era.
Beyond inflection, the principle of analogy
found broad application in the detection of
the correct word form in terms of orthography
and prosody. Herodian (2nd c. BCE), the son
of Apollonius Dyscolus, is the most prominent
grammiarian as far as ancient prosadic theory is
concerned. Herodian's oeuvre covers, just like
that of Trypho, the majority of the topics con-
cerning Hellenismos, i.e., + phonology, orthog-
raphy, ‘pathology’, inflection and derivation (for
an overview of his works see Dyck 1993 and
Dickey 2007:75-77); nevertheless, the historiog-
raphy of ancient linguistics has linked his name
to a number of general studies on the theory of
prosody and + accentuation. Herodian devoted
to the accentuation of Greek a work of twenty
books entitled ‘General prosody’ (Gramm. Gr. Ill
1). This work, apart from some passages, has been
transmitted only indirectly, mainly through two
Byzantine epitomes, that of loannes Philoponus
of Alexandria (sth-6th c. CE) and a second one
ascribed to Arcadius (between and and 6th c.
CE). Two specialized treatises on the Homeric
prosody, the first on the accentuation of the Iliad
(Gramm. Gr. Hl 2.1, 22-128) and the second on
that of the Odyssey (Gramm. Gr. {ll 2.1, 129-165),
form the outline of Herodian’s prosodic studies.
For the purposes of prosody standardization,
just like in orthography and inflection, Herodian
based the formulation of a prosodic rule on
the principle of analogy. Herodian developed an
exhaustive catalog of similarity conditions on
the basis of which correct proportions were built
(see Siebenborn 1976:73). Accordingly, words
should be compared with each other, if they
share the same gender, species (this term refers
to the distinction between proper and common
names as wells as adjectives), kind of derivation,
number, accent, case, the ending in the + nomi-
native singular and the form of the penultimate.
in addition to these conditions, the quantity of
the penultimate + vowel, the number of the syl-
lables of the compared words as well as the kind
of the stem — consonants should also be taken
into consideration. All these criteria guarantee
both the correctness of a rule and the limitation
and/or abolishment of exceptions.
Herodian dealt separately with the problem of
language exceptions, i.e. words of an ‘anomalous’
character in a way that burst the frame of a rule,
actually of linguistic regularity; this happened in
TRADITION IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
his treatise entitled ‘On lexical singularity’, which
is in fact the single work of Herodian surviving in
its entirety (Gramm. Gr. III 2.2, 908-952). Even
when he dealt with exceptions, Herodian listed
‘rule[s] with only one instance’, namely rules for
single ‘words that look normal enough and are
in frequent use, but (that) do not conform to the
rules that would most obviously seem to apply’
(Sluiter 2011:292). The deviations from the rules
can be explained on the basis of phonological
or morphological modifications (pathe; see Lal-
lot 2012:21-36 and Nifadopoulos 2005). In his
approach, the gap between the two main criteria
for linguistic correctness, analogy and common
usage, is limited, for the consuetudo paradoxi-
cally becomes its own framework of rules and
regularity (see Sluiter zon).
If analogy applies to the whole structure of
language, Apollonius Dyscolus is the best repre-
sentative of the so-called ‘analogous grammar’,
Together with his son Herodian, Apollonius is
linked to the peak of ancient linguistics and
the establishment of its theoretical framework
within the philological-grammatical tradition.
Moreover, Apollonius dealt exhaustively with
both parts of the grammatical doctrine in Antiq-
uity, the theory of the word classes and Helle-
nismos (on Apollonius’ writings see Blank 1993
and Dickey 2007:73-75). His scholarly achieve-
ment, however, is primarily connected with his
syntactic studies. Apollonius’ work ‘On syntax’
(new edition with French translation by Lallot
1997), which is the single ancient Greek treatise
on this topic that has been transmitted directly
and, in its greatest part, in complete form from
Antiquity, consists of four books. After an intro-
ductory section in which Apollonius defines his
task and argues for his theoretical framework of
syntax, he enters the main subject: in the rest of
the first book (Synt. I 37-157) he deals with the
articles, while in the second book he discusses
the pronouns. The first section of the third book
(III 1-53) focuses on syntactic correctness from
a theoretical point of view, while the remaining
part (III 54-190) is dedicated to the syntax of the
verb. The fourth book concerns the syntax of
the prepositions; the lost parts of the last book
must have dealt with the adverbs and the con-
junctions - Apollonius’ views on the syntactic
features of these word classes can be recon-
structed through a number of special mono-
graphs on them.
 PHILOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL
As far as ancient syntactic theory is concerned,
three traditions, which correspond to the founda-
tion of linguistics in Antiquity, should be distin-
guished: a logical, an aesthetic-persuasive and,
finally, a grammatical one (see Ax 2006:235).
The so-called logical syntax is the product of
the philosophers; its point of departure is the
sentence, analyzing the (main) sentence con-
stituents, + subject and predicate (> Predica-
tive Constituents). The aesthetic syntax, on the
other hand, was developed by rhetoricians and
concentrates on the combination effects of the
elements of diction, i.e., the position and combi-
nation of phonemes and syllables within a word
as well as the effective word order supporting
the argumentation or the poetic purposes. The
so-called grammatical syntax is actually Apol-
lonius’ own achievement. Grammarians before
Apollonius, e.g. Trypha, but also grammarians
from the first period of ancient scholarship and
grammar, e.g. Aristarchus, had already defined
certain specific syntactic features for several
word classes; however, these were thought to
be criteria controlling the congruence between
words in a sentence, but not the sentence as a
whole (see Matthaios 2003). Apollonius, on the
contrary, wied to put the word classes into a
hierarchical order according to their syntactic
relevance (Lallot 2012:289-297): for the consti-
tution of a sentence nouns and verbs are indis-
pensable; the remaining six word classes can
either stand on their own (such as the pronoun
instead of the noun) or be combined with them
(such as the verb and the adverb), The over-
arching principle which regulates syntax is the
rationality of language (on Apollonius’ syntactic
theory see Blank 1982, Blank 1993:713-727, Sluiter
1990:39-142 and Lallot 1997:1,27-73). This is what
Apollonius called katallelötes, i.e, the reason
that makes (or not) something 'sayable’. Syntax,
according to Apollonius, is the syntax of the
noétd, ‘meanings’, and, as such, it must often be
distinguished from morphology. Thus, Apollo-
nius seems to have combined grammatical and
philosophical, primarily Stoic, approaches into
an efficient outcome. Current research shows
that this process was also initiated by literary
critics and rhetoricians, like Dionysius of Hali-
camassus (see de Jonge 2011:475-477); the deci-
sive step towards this development, though, was
made by Apollonius, Apollonius’ Syntax influ-
enced directly and/or through Priscian’s Insti-
tutiones grammaticae (6th c. CE) - in the case
TRADITION IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS 75
of those grammarians at least who could still
read Latin - the Greek syntactic theory dur-
ing the entire Byzantine era, Grammarians like
Michael Syncellus (gth c. CE), Gregory of Corinth
(i2th c,), John Glykys and Maximus Planudes
(both 14th c.) paid considerable attention to syn-
tax and devoted several special treatises to this
topic (see Robins 1993149233) (— Linguistic
Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auruux, Sylvain, E,F.K. Kuerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe and
Kees Versteegh, eds. 2000. History of language sciences.
Ar international handhook on the evolution of the study of
language from the beginning te the present, vol. ı. Berlin —
New York.
Ax, Wolfram. 1986. Laut, Stimme und Sprache. Studien zu
drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie. Göttingen.
‚2000. Lexis und Logos. Studien zur antiken Grammatik
und Rhetorik, ed. by Farouk Grewing, Stuttgart,
. 2006, Text und Stil, Studien zur antiken Literatur und
deren Rezeption, ed. by Christian Schwarz. Stuttgart.
. 201. Quintilians Grammatik (Inst. orat. 14-8). Text,
Übersetzung und Kommentar. Berlin — Boston.
Blank, David L. 1982. Ancient philosophy and grammar, The
Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Chico, California.
‚ 1993- “Apollonius Dyscolus”. In: Aufstieg und Nie-
dergang der Römischen Welt, part Il: Principat, vol, 34.1:
Sprache und Literatur, ed. by Wolfgang Haase, 780-730,
Berlin - New York.
.1994. “Analogy, anomaly and Apollonius Dyscalus". In:
Lunguage, ed. by Stephen Everson, 149-165, Cambridge.
. 1998. Sextus Empiricus, Against the grammarians
{adversus mathematicos I), Translated with an introduc-
tion and commentary. Oxford.
. 2000. “The organization of grammar in ancient
Greece.” In: Auroux et al. 2090:400-417-
. 2005, “Varro's anti-analogist”. In: Language and learn-
ing. Philosophy of language in the Hellenistic age, ed. by
Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood, 210-238. Cambridge,
Broggiato, Maria. 2001, Cratete di Matlo, Edizione, introduzi-
one e note, La Spezia (:= Rome 2006).
Callanan, Christopher K. 1987. Die Sprachbeschreibung bei
Aristophanes von Byzanz. Göttingen.
Di Benedetto, Vincenzo, 1958-1959. “Dionisio Trace e la
Techne a lui attribuita”, ASNP 27:169-210; 28:87~18.
. 1973. “La Techne spuria’, ASNP 3:797-B14.
Dickey, Eleanor. 2007. Ancient Greek scholarship, A guide to
Jinding, reading, and understanding scholia, commentar-
les, lexica, and grammatical treatises, from their begin-
nings to the Byzantine period. Oxford.
Dyck, Andrew R. 1993. “Aelius Herodian: recent studies
and prospects for future research”. Im: Aufstieg und Nie-
dergang der Römischen Welt, part II: Principat, vol. 34.1:
Sprache und Literatur, ed, by Wolfgang Haase, 772-794,
Berlin — New York.
Fehling, Detlev. 1956-1957. “Varro und die grammatische
Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion", Glotta 35:214-
270; 36:48-100.
Haas, W. 1977. Die Fragmente der Grammatiker Tyrannion
und Diokles. Berlin — New York.
Janko, Richard. 2000, Philademus, On poems. Book 1, Edited
with introduction, translation and commentary. Oxford.
76 PENLOLOGICAL-GRAMMATICAL TRADITION IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
de Jonge, Casper C. 2008. Hetween grammar and rhetoric.
Diunysius of Halicarnassus on language, linguistics and
literature. Leiden - Boston.
, 2011. "Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the scholia on
Thucydides’ syntax.” In: Matthalos, Montanari and Ben-
gakos 2011:451-478.
Lallot, jean. 1997. Apotlonius Dyscole, De la construction
(syntaxe}, vol. I: Introduction, text et traduction; vol. Il:
Notes et index. Paris.
. 1998. La grammaire de Denys de Thrace, Traduite et
annotee. and ed. Paris.
.1999. "Philologie et grammaire 4 Alexandrie". In: Actes
du XXXTe Congres International de l’Asseciation des Pro-
fesseurs de Langues Anciennes de (Enseignent Supérieur,
Universités Lumiére — Lyon 2 et Jean Moulin - Lyon 3, Lyon,
5-7 Juin 1998, ed. by Louis Basset and Frederique Biville,
41-49. Lyon.
Lallot, Jean. 2012. Etudes sur la grammaire alexandrine. Paris,
Matthaios, Stephanos. 1996. "Köpıov övopa. Zur Geschichte
eines grammatischen Terminus’. In: Ancient grammar:
content and context, ed, by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons
Wouters, 55-77. Leuven — Paris,
- 1999. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte
und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre. Göttingen.
. 2002. "Neue Perspektiven für die Historiographie der
antiken Grammatik: Das Wortartensystem der Alexandri-
ner”. In: Grammatical theory and philosophy of language
in Antiquity, ed. by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters,
161-220. Leuven — Paris — Sterling, Virginia.
. 2003. “Tryphon aus Alexandria: Der erste Syntaxtheo-
retiker vor Apollonios Dyskolos?", In: Syntax in Antig-
uity, ed. by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters, 97-132.
Leuven — Paris - Dudley, Ma.
——, 2009a. “Aristarch, Dionysios Thrax und die Téyvy
Ypapparum. Zur Echtheitsdiskussion des ersten Lehrbu-
ehs über die Grammatik”. In: Ayrıplängig. Studies on clas-
sical, Byzantine and modern Greek literature and culture.
In honour of John-Theophanes A. Papacemetriou, ed. by
Eleni Katamalengou and Eugenia Makrygianni, 386-400.
Stuttgart.
. zoogb. "Einführung in die griechische Philologie
und Grammatik der Antike, Präsentation eines antiken
Fachgebiets — aber ohne Theorie?” [Review of Dickey
2007], Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft
19:148-160.
‚ 2010. "Von Aristoteles zu den Grammatikern. Die
elxwy-Definition (Aristot. RA. 3.10) und die Entstehung des
grammatischen Terminus rpé@ectc”, RFIC 138:312-363.
. 2011. “Eratosthenes of Cyrene: readings of his ‘gram-
mar’ definition.” In: Matthaios, Montanari and Rengakos
2011:55-85.
——, ania. “Zwischen £ureipla und rexvn. Textinterpreta-
tion und grammatische Argumentation bei den alexan-
drinischen Philologen", RAM 1353:254-290.
Matthaios, Stephanos, Franco Montanari and Antonios Ren-
gakos, eds. 2011. Ancient scholarship and grammar. Arche-
types, concepts and contexts. Berlin - New York.
Mette, HansJ. 1952. Parateresis. Untersuchungen zur Sprach-
theorie des Krates von Pergamon. Halle,
Nifadopoulos, Christos. 2005. “Herodian on the nature of
‘linguistic rddos". In: The origins af European scholarship,
ed. by loannis Taifacos, 41-355. Stuttgart.
Pagani, Lara, 2010, "La Techne grammatike arrribuita a Dio-
nisio Trace e la nascita della grammatica nell'antichitä
greca", RFIC 138:390-409.
. 2011. “Pioneers of grammar. Hellenistic scholarship and
the study of language”. In: From scholars te scholia. Chap-
ters in the history of ancient Greek scholarship, ed. by Franco
Montanari and Lara Pagani, 17-64. Berlin - New York.
Pfeiffer, Rudolf. 1968. History of classical scholarship. Fram
the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age. Oxford.
Robins, Rubert H. 1951. Ancient und medieval grammatical
history in Europe. With particular reference tu modern
linguistic doctrine. London.
. 1990. A short history of linguistics. 3rd ed. London -
New York.
. 1993. The Byzantine grammarians. Their place in his-
tory. Berlin,
. 2000. "Greek linguistics in the Byzantine period.” In:
Auroux et af, 2000:417-423.
Schenkeveld, Dirk M. 1995. “The linguistic contents of Dio-
nysius’ TepayyeAuata”. In: Dionysius Thrax and the Techné
grammatike, ed. by Vivien Law and Ineke Sluiter, 41-53.
Minster.
Schmitter, Peter, ed.1991. Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, vol. 2:
Sprachtheorien der abendländischen Antike. Tübingen.
Schneider, Jean. ı999. Les traites urthographiques grecs
antiques et byzantins. Paris.
Siebenborn, Elmar. 1976. Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit
undihren Kriterien. Studien zur antiken normativen Gram-
matik. Amsterdam.
Slater, William J. 1986. Aristophanis Byzantü Fragmente.
Berlin.
Sluiter, Ineke, 1990. Ancient grammar in context. Contribu-
tions to the study ofancient linguistic thought. Amsterdam.
. 20. “A champion of analogy: Herodian's On lexi-
cal singularity.” In: Matthaios, Montanari and Rengakos
2011:291—310,
Steinthal, Heymann. 1890-1891. Geschichte der Sprachwis-
senschaft bei den Griechen und Römern. Mit besonderer
Rilcksicht auf die Logik, 2 vols, and ed. Berlin.
Wouters, Alfons. 1979. The grammatical papyri fram Graeco-
Roman Egypt. Contributions to the study of the ‘ars gram-
matica’in antiquity. Brussels.
. 1988. The Chester Beatty Codex AC 1499. A Graeco-
Latin lexicon on the Pauline epistles and a Greek grammar.
Leuven - Paris.
STEPHANOS MATTHAIOS
Phonetic Law
In the decade of the 1870's a group of German
Indo-Europeanists who assumed the name of
+ Neogrammiarians (German Junggrammatiker)
defined the model of linguistic change that we
know today as Phonetic Law or Sound Law.
The concept of phonetic law was destined to
transform historical linguistics into a rigorous
discipline with scientific value.
The basics of the said model of sound change
were presented in a programmatic article pub-
lished in 1878 (Osthoff & Brugmann 1878:xiii),
where it is stated: “Every sound change, inas-
much as it occurs mechanically, takes place
according to laws that admit no exception. That
is, the direction of the sound shift is always
the same for all the members of a linguistic
 PHONETIC LAW
community except where a split into dialects
occurs; and all words in which the sound sub-
jected to the change appears in the same rela-
tionship are affected by the change without
exception” (transl by W. P. Lehmann 1967:204),
1. DEVELOPMENTS IN HISTORICAL
LINGUISTIGS BEFORE 1878
The enunciation of the phonetic law was a clear
break with the historical linguistics as practised
before. Bupp not only accepted the exceptions
as something inherent to language, but he also
denied that languages could be ruled by strict
laws (Bopp 183615). What we commonly know
as Grimm's Law, which defined the phonetic
change by which + Indo-European voiceless
stops correspond to fricatives in Germanic, aspi-
rated voiced consonants to unaspirated voiced
consonants and voiced consonats to voice-
less, was not enunciated by Grimm as a law
but rather as a sound shift (Lautverschiebung),
and he described it as a trend with exceptions
(Grimm 1822:590). Interpreted in terms of the
evolution of phonemes from Indo-European to
Germanic, it would be like the following:
*/p. tk, kw} > /f, 8, h, hw/
*/b, d, g, g¥/ > fp, ¢. k, kw/
“bh, dh, gh, gwh/ > /b, d, g, w/
The period prior to 1878 (+ Comparative
Method) had paved the way for the clear state-
ment of the Phonetic Law. In 1863 Grassmann -
a banker with a solid education in mathemat-
ics — developed an interest in Sanskrit after a
forced retirement due to tuberculosis. His work
explained away a series of exceptions related to
the results of aspirated plosives from ancient
Indic and Greek. He also accounted for an impor-
tant number of exceptions to Grimm’s Law.
+ Grassmann’s Law (Grassmann 1863) states
that, in the case of a sequence of two aspirated
plosives (or A) in consecutive syllables, the first
of them loses its aspiration: PIE *dhi-dheh,-mi >
Ved. dadhami ‘I lay’; in Greek this law implies
that the Indo-European voiced aspirated con-
sonants are dissimilated into voiceless ones,
what leads to infer that there is an intermediate
stage consisting of aspirated voiceless stops: PIE
*dhi-dheh,-mi > *thithémi > Gk. tithemi.
In 1876, Verner clarified the second relevant
group of exceptions to Grimm's Law in the
law that bears his name (Verner 1876). As he
77
explicitly asserted: “there must be a rule for the
irregularity; it only remains to discover this”.
As Grimm's Law stated, the regular correspon-
dence of a voiceless Indo-European plosive in
Germanic languages is a voiceless fricative: IE
*pro > Gk. prö, Lat. pro, but Goth. fra. However,
in medial position there were also cases in which
the voiceless Indo-European stop evolved into a
voiced one in Germanic. Verner observed that
all these cases, to which also the evolution of
the IE voiceless sibilant *-s- to the Gmc. voiced
sibilant -z- should be added, are linked to a
voiced context related to the lack of accent in
the immediately preceding syllable. The position
of the accent in Germanic was inferred from its
position in Vedic; for example, IE “p evolves reg-
ularly according to Grimm's Law to a Gmc. f, but
when the accent is not placed on the preceding
syllable it develops into Gme. 6, e.g. Goth. sibun
‘seven’, cf. Ved. saptd (PIE *septmi)
Also in 1876, Brugmann discovered that a
series of correspondences completely opaque
for Bopp — who explained them as a product
of euphony — were the regular development
of a series of sounds that in the reconstructed
language were unknown at that time, namely
the IE nasal sonorants *n and *m (Brugmann
1876). If the zero grade of the Vedic root bhar- ‘o
bear’ was bhy- (for example, in the verbal adjec-
tive bhrtä-), and the zero grade of Ved. man- ‘to
think’ appears in matd- ‘thought', this implies
that Ved. ma- is the regular outcome of *mn-.
This assumption is confirmed by the regular
evolution of the same etymon in Greek, which
coincides with that of Vedic, as, for example,
in the compound Greek word autö-matos ‘self-
moving/acting’. On the other hand, the vocal-
ization of the nasal sonorant differed in the
different Indo-European languages: Lat. e-, e.g.
nom. sg. mens, gen. sg. mentis ‘thought’; Lith.
in, as in mintis ‘thoughts’; Gmc. un, e.g. Goth.
ga-munds ‘remembrance’; OCS e, e.g. pa-menti
‘memory’, etc (+ Syllabic Consonants).
Leskien had stated in 1876 that the acceptance
of optional changes, contingent and unrelated,
blocked any possibility for the study of linguis-
tics to receive scientific recognition (Leskien
1876:xxviii). This principle is still basic for his-
torical linguistics (Campbell 1998127). In fact,
a basic premise of historical linguistics is that
the phonetic correspondences by which it can
be determined that two or more languages are
78
related can only be justified if we accept that
phonetic change is regular (Lass 19971132).
z CONSEQUENCES AND CRITICISM
Subsequent to the declaration of 1878, numerous
phonetic laws appeared, commonly named after
the scholar who first stated them (fora ‘collection’
and discussion of such laws, see Collinge 1985),
The theoretical bases that determine phonetic
laws are mechanical and exclusively of phonetic
nature, considering that they are independent
from the morphological, the syntactic and the
semantic function of the affected segments of
the word. Phonetic laws operate without excep-
tion, meaning that all the data that fall within
the sphere of its operation must be explained
by these laws. Even data that do not comply to
the specific law must be explained by way of a
new law, just as it happened with Verner’s Law,
which explained the exceptions to Grimm's Law
(Bynon 1977:25).
However, the fact that sound change is com-
pletely independent from the structure in the
grammatical level entails that the phonologi-
cal and grammatical structures of the language
affected in a particular phase lag throughout its
evolution. For this reason, the rules that link the
phonological and the grammatical structures
may need a certain degree of readjustment for
every time stage of the history of the language
(Bynon1977:35). This readjustmentis conditioned
by a principle of regularity, triggering what is
known as "Sturtevant's Paradox”: Sound change
is itself regular but causes irregularity, whereas
analogy is irregular but produces regularity.
The main criticisms against the postulates
of the Neogrammarians came from the field of
dialectology (Schuchardt 1885). The detailed
examination of the way living languages change
in small communities showed that dialectal
divisions are not as rigid as suggested by the
Neogrammarians. Nevertheless, the closer
examination of a dialect, the clearer the realiza-
tion that dialectal divisions were in constant
fluctuation, making the whole process much
less clear.
On the other hand, thanks to recent advances
in sociolinguistics (Labov 1994:440-471), we can
understand much better the process defined by
the Neogrammarians: the law of phonological
change or Neogrammarian Regularity Principle
is not a mechanical process operating blindly
PHONETIC LAW
across the board, but it is rather a gradual change
that operates in the linguistic community and is
directly linked to other factors such as prestige,
social status, etc. The most direct consequence of
the implication of sociolinguistic factors in stud-
ies on language variation and language change is
that it has become clear that phonetic laws are
not without exceptions, since certain changes
do not affect the entire body of lexicon, whereas
some changes affect the speech of only a group
of speakers (Clackson 2007:32-33). This has been
documented by Labov's study of the vowel sys-
tem at Martha’s Vineyard. Furthermore, individ-
ual innovations, or “mini” sound changes, must
be adopted by a wider speech-community in
order to be considered language change. Socio-
linguistics has thus refined the traditional idea
of phonetic laws and modified the hypothesis of
the exceptionless Regularity Principle put forth
by the Neogrammarians.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bopp, Franz. 1836. Vreulismus oder sprachvergleichenden
Kritiken, Berlin,
Brugmann, Karl. 1876. "Nasalis sonans in der indogermani-
schen Grundsprache". In: Studien zur griechischen und
lateinischen Grammatik, ed, by Georg Curtius and Karl
Brugmann, 9287-338, Leipzig.
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. flistorical linguistics. Cambridge.
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical linguistics. An introduction.
Edingburgh,
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics. An intro-
duction. Cambridge.
Collinge, N. E. 1985. The laws of Indo-European, Amsterdam -
Philadelphia.
Grassmann, Hermann. 1863, “Ueber die Aspiraten und ihr
gleichzeitiges Vorhandensein im An- und Auslaute der
Wurzeln“, Zeifschrifi für vergleichende Sprachforschung
auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Latein-
ischen 12/2:81-138,
Grimm, Jacob. 1822. Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen,
Lahov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Volume
1: internal factors. Oxford — Cambridge, MA.
. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: social
‚factors. Oxford - Cambridge, MA.
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical finguisties and language change.
Cambridge.
Lehmann, Winfred P, 1967. A reader in nineteenth century his-
the
torical Indo-European linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana.
Leskien, August. 1876. Die Declination im Slawisch-Litauis-
chen und Germanischen. Leipzig,
Osthoff, Hermann and Karl Brugmann. 1878, “Vorwort”.
In: Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der
indogermanischen Sprachen 1ili-xx.
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. Über die Lautgesetze. Gegen die
Junggrammatiker. Berlin.
Verner, Karl. 1876, “Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschie-
bung”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf
dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 23/2:97-130.
JUAN ANTONIO ALVAREZ-PEDROSA
 PHONETICS
Phonetics
1. INTRODUCTION
Despite the fact that Ancient Greek is a language
known only through written records, so that
insights into the phonetic reality concealed in
the writing are inferential at best, we actually
have a fairly accurate picture of the phonet-
ics of the language (+ Written versus Spoken
Language). Our understanding of the phonetics
of Ancient Greek comes from several sources,
including direct testimony by ancient grammar-
ians, philological interpretation of written mate-
rials, including inscriptions, comparative data
from related languages, and evidence from loan-
words, both into Greek from other languages and
from Greek into other languages (> Philological-
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics;
> Comparative Method; + Language Contact).
The evidence is surveyed effectively and thor-
oughly in Sturtevant (1940) and Allen (1987) (this
latter taking evidence from + Mycenaean Greek
(on which see below) into consideration that
was not available in Sturtevant’s day); see also
Petrounias (20072, 2007b),
2. ANALYTIC PRELIMINARIES
Before moving into a presentation of the pho-
netic details of Ancient Greek, it is essential
to locate the language in time and space. The
reason for this is that what is usually considered
‘Ancient’ Greek spans some 1500 years and a
range of different dialects occupying the greater
part of the southern Balkans and neighboring
areas. The earliest recorded Greek, Mycenaean
Greek written in the + Linear B script, dates from
c. 1400 BCE, and Greek into the + Koine period,
the Hellenistic era, up to c. 300 CE, can still
be considered ‘ancient’. Geographically, Greek
in that period of time is found not only in the
Balkan peninsula but also the Aegean islands,
southern Italy, the west coast of Asia Minor,
Cyprus, the Alexandrian coast, a good part of
the Levant, and points even farther east due to
the conquests of Alexander the Great (+ Cypriot;
+ Magna Graecia, Dialects). Even with such a
broad temporal and geographic swath for the
ancient language, there is remarkable unifor-
mity for all the chronological and regional vari-
eties, though not exact identity (+ Variation in
Mycenaean Greek; + Language and Variation in
7
Greece). This uniformity is to be taken not in the
sense that all of the sounds match up in every
word but rather in the sense that the range of
sounds, the phonetic inventory, of each variety
ts not strikingly different from that of any other.
For instance, to take a fairly extreme case, the
word for ‘bridge’ (even if ultimately a loanword)
is gephura in Attic-lonic, béphura in Boeotian,
and déphura in + Cretan, with three different
initial consonants but in each case, a > conso-
nant found in the other dialects, but just not in
the initial of this word (> Dialects, Classifica-
tion of). Still, statements about the phonetics
of Ancient Greek are best localized to particular
dialects at particular time periods, in the inter-
ests of complete accuracy and to demonstrate
the degree of uniformity.
Nonetheless, due in large part to the politi-
cal, economic, and intellectual prominence of
Athens in the Classical era, the general point of
reference for talking about ‘Ancient Greek pho-
netics’ is the dialect, Attic-lonic, of that period
and that region as represented in the great liter-
ary, scientific, historical works of especially the
5th and 4th centuries BCE. That is the viewpoint
adopted here, though where relevant, com-
ments about other varieties of Ancient Greek
are included.
3. PHONETIC INVENTORY: CONSONANTS
For the most part, the consonant inventory of
Ancient Greek would seem to be easy to read off
of the most widely used writing system, namely
the Greek alphabet, as adapted from the Phoe-
nician alphabet in the 8th century BCE, but
some interpretation is needed to move from the
alphabetic representation of the sounds to their
phonetic reality (+ Alphabet, Origin of ).
The standard interpretation of the stop con-
sonants is that there are three manners of artic-
ulation (voiced, voiceless unaspirated, voiced
aspirated) and three points of articulation (labial,
coronal, dorsal):
Table ı: Ancient Greek Stops
(Classical Attic dialect)
Labia] Coronal Dorsal
Voiced b d g
Voiceless unaspirated p t k
Voiceless aspirated p® th kb
80 PHONETICS
The finer phonetic details behind these sounds,
such as the force of the -aspiration or the
voice onset time of the voiced stops, are lost
to history and cannot be recovered, but there
is general agreement, based on various strands
of evidence, including ancient testimony and
loanwords, such as Latin words borrowed from
Greek (e.g. balneum ‘bath’ < balaneion, poena
‘punishment’ < poiné, camaralcamera ‘arched
roof’ < kamdra ‘vaulted room’), that the 6 dg
series represents voiced stops, the p t k series
represents voiceless plain (unaspirated), the 6 p
p* set represents bilabials, and the g k k* series
represents velars (though the use in the oldest
inscriptions in the Attic dialect of a special letter
for a back consonant before [o], what is known
as ‘koppa’ (9), deriving from the symbol for the
Semitic uvular stop [q], suggests an allophoni-
cally backer pronunciation before a back vowel)
(+ Local Scripts). There is a bit of controversy
about whether the coronal set dt f is dental
or alveolar (the Hellenistic grammarian Diony-
sius of Halicarnassus describes them somewhat
imprecisely as involving ‘the tongue pressed
hard against the extremity of the mouth near the
upper teeth’), but evidence from Greek words
with d ¢ t* borrowed into Sanskrit and Prakrit
with dentals and not retroflexes, e.g. Skt. pa(r)
thonas Virgo (zodiac sign)’ < parthenos, point to
these Greek sounds being dentals (note that Eng-
lish words with alveolars end up with retroflexes
in Hindi today, e.g. stesan < station, Landana <
London) (+ Greek and Indian Languages).
The interpretation of the p# t® k* set as voice-
less aspirates is somewhat more controversial,
though most scholars accept that they were
indeed voiceless and aspirated. Especially tell-
ing is the fact that a voiceless plain stop, when
occurring before the [h] of Greek (from vari-
ous sources but generally from PIE *s), is real-
ized as the corresponding voiceless aspirate;
for instance, epi ‘on’ before hemin ‘us’ becomes
(with apocope of the final + vowel) eph’ hemin.
The evidence of loanwords, in both directions,
points to the same interpretation: Prakrit sak-
khara is the source of Gk sdkkharis ‘sugar’, and
as noted above, Gk parthenos occurs in Sanskrit
as pa(r)thonas.
The voiced stops and the voiceless aspirates
end up in Modern Greek as fricatives (+ Conso-
nant Changes), and there are some indications
of such pronunciations in ancient times, more
so for the voiceless aspirated than for the voiced
stops (+ Developments in Medieval and Mod-
ern Greek). The sporadic omission of the letter
gamma, which usually represents g, in the 4th
century BCE in the Boeotian dialect, as in id '’
(cf. Att. ego), and even in Attic, as in oliarkh- (for
oligarkh- ‘oligarch’), suggests, but does not con-
clusively demonstrate, an early fricative realiza-
tion of the sort that was fully generalized later
on (by approximately the zrd century CE). On
the other hand, among the voiceless aspirates,
th is found represented by s in 4th century BCE
> Laconian inscriptions, and some ist century
CE inscriptions in Pompeii use the Latin letter
< f > for Greek loanwords with ph, whereas Clas-
sical Latin uses < ph > (despite having an [f])
(+ Greek/Latin Bilingualism). The aspirate pro-
nunciation most likely passed from vernacular
Greek by the 3rd century CE, but it can be noted
that it was retained in the Byzantine scholastic
tradition as late as the gth century CE (+ Byz-
antine Phase and Reception of Ancient Greek,
the).
These stops are found in all of the Greek dia-
lects, though not necessarily in direct correspon-
dence to one another. In addition, Mycenaean
Greek has a further set, usually transcribed with
<q >, which is distinct from the labials, coronals,
and dorsals and corresponds etymologically to
Proto-Indo-European - labiovelars (e.g. < qo-u-
> ‘cow’, cognate with later Gk boils, Skt. gau-);
it is best interpreted as reflecting a Mycenaean
labiovelar, indicated further by the fact that the
same symbol is used in the word for ‘horse’
(< i-go >), which etymologically contained a
dorsal stop (specifically, PIE palatal *%, which
yielded a velar * in Proto-Greek) plus a labial
+ glide (thus, from PIE *eXwo-). By the Classical
period, these labiovelars of early Greek became
labials, coronals, or occasionally velars, depend-
ing on the phonetic environment and the par-
ticular dialect.
In a similar way, comparative evidence from
other Indo-European languages, as well as mor-
phophonemic alternations within Greek itself,
shows that certain instances of Class. Gk s and t
and orthographic < z > (the letter ‘zeta’), derive
from clusters of stops with glides, e.g. *tj, *tw,
*kj, “dj, *gj, and a few others, and these allow
for inferences about early Greek consonantism
(> Greek Phonotactics). Thus i6sos ‘so much’,
as its Latin cognate toti-(dem) 'so many’ indi-
cates, is from *totj-o-; seb-'respect’, as its Sanskrit
cognate tyaj- ‘abandon’ shows, is from “tjeg™-;
 PHONETICS
orthographic < elpiz- > ‘to hope’, is from *elpid-
j-+, as the nominal stem elpid- together with the
comparative evidence of *j- as a present stem
verbal formative (cf. Lat. cap-i- ‘to take’, Skt.
div-y- ‘to play’) shows. To take the clusters that
yielded later Gk. s or ¢ first, it is generally held
that at a stage prior to attested Classical Greek,
these clusters turned into affricates that then
simplified into s or ¢, as the case may be; that
prior stage was presumably in the second mil-
lennium BCE, and may well be attested in Myce-
naean Greek. Mycenaean here shows a special
series of symbols, usually transcribed with < s >
and < z > but not necessarily phonetically [s] and
[z], in just those places where etymologically a
cluster with *% can be recognized. For instance,
Mycenaean has <to-so> corresponding to later
tdsos, as above, and <ka-z0-> seems to stand for
*kakjos- ‘inferior’ (*kak- ‘bad’ with the compara-
tive suffix *jos-). The Mycenaean forms may be
representations of affricates, and in any case,
plausible pathways for sound change would sug-
gest an affricate stage between such clusters
and later s or ¢ (+ Phonological Change). As for
the clusters with voiced stops, it must be noted
that the letter ‘zeta’ seems to have mostly stood
for phonetic [zd], and such is the case clearly
in some forms such as Att. < dzos > ‘bough’,
for this word is written < azdos > in the dialect
of Lesbos and is cognate with Gothic asts, so
that it reflects a Proto-Indo-European *ozdos.
However, in those cases where the sounds repre-
sented by ‘zeta’ derive from a stop + glide cluster,
as in <elpiz->, it is most likely that there was an
intermediate stage of [d*]; Mycenaean here uses
the < z > series symbols, as in <-pe-za> ‘having
legs’, from *-ped-j- (*ped- being the root for ‘foot’,
cf. Class. Gk. trdpeza ‘table’, etymologically ‘hav-
ing four legs’), so that one interpretation is that
the Mycenaean sound represents that presumed
affricate stage, as with the voiceless clusters.
Besides these possible early Greek affricates,
there are other cluster outcomes that are spelled
in some dialects < ss > and in others < tt >, as in
Att. phulatt- ‘to guard’, Ion. phulass-, where the <
ss / tt > variation points to a “4/ cluster, as indi-
cated too by the base noun phulak- 'guard' from
which the + denominal verbs derive with the
now-familiar *j- + present stem furmative - or
Att. mélitta ‘bee’, lon. mélissa, where the related
stem melit- ‘honey’ shows that this derives
from a *#- cluster. What this orthographic
81
< ss / tt > really represents at least in Classical
times is a matter of some dispute; while Schw-
yzer (1939:318ff,) thinks these are orthographic
attempts at rendering an affricate in the Classi-
cal period, Allen (1987:61) argues that they are to
be taken at face value as geminate [tt] and [ss],
respectively, though most likely they are devel-
opments from an early affricate.
As noted above, the Greek letter zeta mostly
represented phonetically a cluster of [z] and [d].
The sound [z] is allophonic in most varieties of
ancient Greek, occurring in the Classical period
only before voiced stops, so that, e.g., the word
spelled < sbénnumi > ‘I extinguish’ was most
likely pronounced [zbénnymi]. Somewhat later,
in the post-Classical era, the voiced pronun-
ciation begins to occur before all vaiced conso-
nants, so that the word spelled < kosmos > ‘order,
world’, was most likely pronounced [kozmos] at
that stage (i.e., its Modern Greek pronunciation).
Thus the [zd] cluster in Classical times could be
phonemicized as /sd/, with the /s/ phoneme that
is straightforwardly represented by the Greek
letter sigma and most certainly is realized as
a voiceless sibilant in all environments except
before voiced staps (+ Phonology (Survey)).
From the description in Dionysios of Halicarnas-
sus of the pronunciation of sigma as involving
the tongue reaching up towards the palate, it
may well have been alveolar and not (as in Mod-
em Greek) (apico-)dental; there is no reason to
believe that it was a palatal [J], and loanword
evidence in languages that distinguish [[] and [s]
confirms that it was not palatal.
Ancient Greek also had liquids and nasals
among its consonants: r, 4 m, n (as well as [n]
allophonically), and A, the ‘aspirate’, also known
by the name ‘rough breathing’ based on its
orthographic representation. Some comments
on these sounds are in order.
First, the A almost certainly was a voiceless
glottal fricative, its value as ‘pure aspiration’
being shown by the voiceless aspirate evidence
discussed above, whereby, e.g., p plus # yields
[p"]. The A occurred in Classical Greek only in
word-initial position, with just one non-ono-
matopoetic exception, the word tahös ‘peacock’,
a loanword of unknown origin (and found as
simply tads in some dialects), but A may have
occurred in earlier stages intervocalically as the
outcome of PIE *s: *s yielded A in initial position
and @ between vowels, so it is likely that the
82 PHONETICS
intervocalic *s passed through a stage of # on
the way to ultimate deletion. Mycenaean Greek
most likely shows the stage with h between vow-
els from earlier *s; the symbol transliterated as
< ag > seems to stand for [ha], as the interpreta-
tion of <pa-we-ay> ‘cloths' as corresponding to
later Gk, phärfw)ea, plural of phdr(w)os and thus
from *p*arwes-a, would suggest. Some ancient
dialects, e.g. Laconian, develop intervocalic A
from secondarily created s, e.g. from earlier t
before i, as seen in the divine name Pohoidan
‘Poseidon’, where the initial part of the name
is Posei-/Pot(e)i- in other dialects (+ Theonyms
{Names of Gods)).
The sounds m, x, and { have the straightfor-
ward interpretations that the symbols suggest. A
velar nasal occurred as an allophone of n before
velar stops, and also as a realization of g before a
nasal, perhaps only the labial nasal m. Thus the
verbal root /eg- ‘to say’ (present active isg. /ég-0)
has a > perfect non-active 1sg. form spelled <le-
leg-mai> and pronounced [leleymail].
The situation is a bit trickier with r, however.
In word-initial position, [r] itself does not occur,
but rather only what is said by the grammarians
to be an ‘aspirated r’ and the same description
applies to the second of a doubled r word-medi-
ally (cf. the spelling of Greek loanwords in Latin
with < rh- >, as in rhetor ‘orator’ or proper names
like Pyrrhus); this ‘aspirated r is usually inter-
preted to refer to a voiceless sound (+ Greek
and Latin).
Finally, regarding individual consonant seg-
ments, there are important points to make con-
cerning the glides (or + semivowels) palatal [j]
and labial [w]. As the discussion of clusters that
may have yielded affricates shows, outside of
its occurrence as the second element in diph-
thongs, a [j] is posited for some stages of Greek
as an independent segment, and it is indeed
evident as such in Mycenaean. Moreover, con-
cerning the labial glide, it is noteworthy that
some dialects had [w], occurring in a variety
of positions: word-initially before vowels, word-
initially before [r], after certain consonants, e.g.
sand ¢, and intervocalically. In Classical Attic
Greek, however, it is found only as the second
member of diphthongs, having been lost in all
ather positions, This [w], often referred to as the
‘digamma’ after the early Greek letter used for
[w], eventually is lost in all but a few varieties
of Doric Greek (persisting even into the present
day in the Tsakonian variety of Modern Greek,
which derives from ancient Laconian more or
less directly (or from a Doric Koine), instead
of from the Koine of Hellenistic times). The
off-glide {j] or [w] of diphthongs is generally
assumed to be doubled before vowels, so that
/ejo/ was phonetically [ejjo] (Allen 1987:81-84).
The phonetics of consonantal combinations
(clusters) for the most part do not require any
special comment. It can be noted that Ancient
Greek distinguished geminate (doubled) con-
sonants from singletons, e.g. Adma ‘at once’ vs.
(h)ämmos ‘sand’, dllos ‘other’ vs. halös ‘of salt’,
atdr ‘but’ / atta ‘father’, though this distinction
was made only with [pt ks mar], That such
a distinction was not merely orthographic in
ancient times is indicated by its occurrence in
southeastern dialects of Modern Greek in inher-
ited lexemes. Similarly, with combinations of
aspirates, restricted to just pt“ and k4t*, despite
some doubts as to whether both members were
aspirated (Jannaris 1897:58), the aspiration is
not just an orthographic convention and [pth /
khth] seems to be the best phonetic interpreta-
tion (Allen 1987:26-28).
4. PHONETIC INVENTORY: VOWELS
The vowel system in Ancient Greek shows varia-
tion across dialects and across centuries but gen-
erally holds no great surprises: throughout the
entire ancient era, there are distinctions of long
and short vowels, front and back, rounded and
unrounded, and high and low; in addition, there
were + diphthongs consisting of (some of) the
simple vowels, both long and short, with [j] or
[w] off-glides. The Classical Attic Greek system
is given in Table 2 for vowels, and in Table 3 for
diphthongs; note that y, u, o, and a are rounded
vowels:
Table 2: Ancient Greek Vowels (Classical Attic
dialect)
Front Central Back
High ikyy: u:
Mid-close ee; a0:
Mid-open E: 2:
Low aa:
 PHONETICS
Table 3: Ancient Greek Diphthongs
(Classical Attic dialect)
yj ej ew ew
Qj oy
aj aj aw a:w
At an earlier stage, in the second millennium
BCE, the system was more symmetrical as to
vowel quality, with ie a o u; the vagaries of the
Mycenaean writing system do not reveal length,
but a system with balanced longs and shorts (é i:
ee:aa:00;uu:) and some diphthongs (includ-
ing ef and ow, missing from later Attic) can
be assumed. Several developments in the first
half of the first millennium BCE affected that
balance, with different results for different dia-
lects (+ Vowel Changes). These changes include
+ compensatory lengthenings from clusters of
liquids or nasals with a preceding or following s
which introduced long mid vowels, either close
or open depending on dialect, the + monoph-
thongization of earlier [ej] to [e:] and [ow] to
[o:], the + fronting of original back [u u:] in Attic
to [y y:], and the shift in Attic-lonic of [a:] in
most environments to [e:]. This last change most
likely involved an intermediate stage of [z:], a
vowel otherwise not found in Ancient Greek.
The long diphthongs with [j] lost the glide early
in the Hellenistic period, and throughout this
period, the distinction between long and short
vawels began to be lost. Further, the front round
vowels and the mid front long vowels moved in
the direction of (ij, values found in most dialects
of Modern Greek; the diphthong [oj] similarly
moved toward [i], though most likely merging
first with [y], and the change of this (and earlier
Attic [y]} to [i] may not have been completed
until approximately the ıoth century CE (a pro-
cess known as iotacism).
5. PHUNETICS UF ACCENT
it is known from discussion in Plato's Craty-
lus (Sturtevant 1940:94) that Ancient Greek had
accentual distinctions, labeled ‘grave’ (barüs)
and ‘acute’ (oxis) (> Ancient Philosophers on
Language; + Accentuation). These terms are
used in reference to music as well, as is the term
for ‘accent’ (fönos), suggesting that these distinc-
tions involve > pitch. The ancient grammmarians
also mention a third type of accent, the ‘cir-
83
cumflex’ (perispömenvs), described as ‘the grave
fused with the acute on one and the same syl-
lable’ (Sturtevant 1940:95). Later in the Hellenis-
tic period, by about the second century CE, the
accentual system shifted to one of + stress rather
than pitch, with accent of intensity, i.e., stress,
replacing the high pitch (the acute accent) of
earlier Greek, This is the system that is found
across all Modern Greek dialects.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney, 1987. Vox Greece. The pronunciation of
Classical Greek. 3rd ed. Cambridge.
Devine, A. M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 1994. The prosody
af Greek speech. Oxford.
Jannaris, Antonius N. 1897. An Aistorical Greek grammar
chiefly of the Attic dialect as written and spoken from clas-
sical antiquity dawn to the present time: founded upon
the ancient texts, inscriptions, papyri and present popular
Greek, London.
Petrounias, Evangelos B. 20074. “The pronunciation of
Ancient Greek: evidence and hypotheses”. In: A history nf
Ancient Greek. From the beginnings to late antiquity, ed, by
A.-F, Christidis, 545-555. Cambridge.
. 2007b, “The pronunciation of Classical Greek". In: A
history of Ancient Greek. From the beginnings to late untiq-
uity, ed. by A.-F. Christidis, 556-570. Cambridge.
Probert, Philomen. 2006. Ancient Greek accentuation: syn-
chronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory, Oxford.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939, Griechische Grammatik, (Handbuch
der Altertumswissenschaft H, i. 1). Munich.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1940. The pronunciation of Greek and
Latin. 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1920). Philadelphia.
BRIAN JOSEPH
Phonological Change
Phonetic changes can bring about phonological
changes, i.e. alterations in the phonological sys-
tem (+ Phonology (Survey)) of a language, either
in the number of phonemes and/or in the nature
of the relations between these phonemes. The
results can be of three major types:
(1) phonologization (phonemic addition): anew
phoneme is added to the existing inventory
and the language acquires at least one new
phonemic contrast. This happened to vari-
ous degrees in the Greek dialects (excepting
Doris severior ‘strict Doric’) as the result of
the three + compensatory lengthenings and/
or vowel contractions {+ Vowel Changes;
+ Contraction); e.g., in Attic the final our-
comeofclusterslike*[esm |/*[osm] or*[ens]/
*fons] was the loss of the first consonant of
Ba PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE
the cluster and a lengthened vowel, [e:] <et>
or [o:] <ov>. These new long vowels were in
contrast to the inherited [e:] <y> and [9:]
<w> in the same environments.
(2) dephonologization (phonemic loss): a pre-
viously-existing phoneme is given up and
the language loses at least one phonologi-
cal contrast. In Mycenaean (+ Mycenaean
Script and Language) the inherited labiove-
lars were still kept in most environments,
as proved by the use of a series of Linear B
signs for the syllables consisting of a labio-
velar plus a vowel (transliterated as ga, ge,
etc.). In later Greek, labiovelars evolved into
labials, velars, or dentals depending on the
phonetic environment (and with differences
among dialects: Dialects, Classification of ).
The three labiovelar phonemes (/k*/, /g”/,
and /g*4/) disappeared from the phonologi-
cal inventory of ist millenium BCE Greek
and the feature [+labialized] stopped being
constrastive.
(3) transphonologization (rephonemization):
the structure of the phonological constrasts
in which a phoneme is involved is reshaped.
The number of phonemic constrasts remains
the same, but there is a variation in the pho-
netic features involved. A good example of
this is the evolution of the stops from PIE
to Greek (+ Indo-European Linguistic Back-
ground; + Consonant Changes). For PIE
three series of stops have been tradition-
ally reconstructed: voiceless (/p/, /t/, /k/),
voiced (/b/, /d/, /g/) and voiced aspirates
(bh, /d*/, /g'"/) (but see + Glottalic Theory
and Greek). In Proto-Greek (> Proto-Greek
andCommonGreek)thevoicelessand voiced
stops (> Voicing) were kept, but the voiced
aspirates became voiceless: (/p*/, /t"/, /k"/).
The number of phonemes was the same,
but the way they contrasted had changed.
These alterations in the phonological system of
a language are usually the result of one or more
of the following processes (in the generalizations
/x/ and /y/ stand for two phonemes whatsoever
and @ stands for zero):
i, PHONOLOGICAL Loss
There are two types, complete and partial loss.
(a) Complete loss. Due to a phonetic change or
a series of related phonetic changes, a pho-
neme is lost in all environments. This results
into a dephonologization.
{x/ — @
This was the case with wau or digamma (/w/)
in Greek. This phoneme was inherited from PIE
and it existed in 2nd millenium BCE Greek, as
proved, e.g., by Myc. ne-wo /newos/ ‘new’ (cf.
néos) or wa-na-ka-te-ro [wanakteros/ ‘related to
the wanax’ (cf. Hom. Gk. anax ‘lord, king’). /w/
was lost in the Greek dialects of the 1st mil-
lenium BCE, except for Cypriot, Doric and the
scattered remains of digamma in the Homeric
poems (- Epic Diction).
(b) Partial loss. A phoneme is only lost in cer-
tain environments:
No phoneme disappears from the inventory of
the language and the phonological! contrast is
only partially given up. This change results in a
decrease of the functional load of a phonemic
constrast.
In Greek the inherited stops were lost in final
position in phonetic words but kept elsewhere;
cf, eg, nom. meli ‘honey’ (from *melit) vs.
gen. melitos. It is controversial whether this pro-
cess was pre- or post-Mycenaean (+ Mycenaean
Script and Language).
2. MERGER OF Two OR MORE PHONEMES
There are two types, complete (or uncondi-
tioned) merger and partial (or conditioned)
merger.
(a) In a complete merger the contrast between
two phonemes is neutralized, ie., they con-
verge in either of them in all environments.
There are no conditioning factors of the
merger and it results in a dephonologization.
 PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE
In the history of Greek this has been the case
with various vowels and diphthongs (/i/, /e:/
<el>, fer] <y>, fesi/ <y>, /oif, /y/ <u>), which have
come to merge in Modem Greek /i/ through
various stages (+ Koine, Features of; + Develop-
ments in Medieval and Modern Greek).
Once a merger is totally achieved no rever-
sal is possible. A complete merger happened
in Ionic: the inherited vowels /a:/ and /e:/ fell
together into /e:/ regardless of the environment,
via an intermediate stage in which /a:/ evolved
into /z:/. It was at this stage, previous to the
merger, when in Attic /a:/ reverted back to /a:/
after |e] <>, [i] <i>, and [r] <p>. Otherwise, ifthe
merger had already taken place, the reversion
(Rückverwandlung, > Attic Reversion) would
have not been possible.
(b) Ina partial merger (also known as a ‘primary
split’) the two phonemes fall together only
in certain contexts. There are thus condi-
tioning environments for the merger.
Ix} NL [xf
ly! ——— 8 fy;
After such a process has been completed the
number of phonological contrasts is still the
same, but there is a redistribution of the envi-
ronments in which they are functional. The fre-
quency of the phonemes is altered and there
may be gaps in their distribution.
For instance, the phonemic contrast between
the PIE nasals /n/ and /m/ was kept in Greek
except in final position of a word, in which
/m/ merged with /n/ into /n/, as in the acc. sg.
thematic ending Gk -on (cf. Lat. -um, Skt. -am).
The two phonemes were still in contrast by their
place of articulation (dental vs. labial), but this
contrast stopped being functional in final posi-
tion in a word.
3. PHONOLOGICAL SPLIT
(also referred to as ‘Secondary Split’ vs. Partial
Merger or ‘Primary Split’). A phoneme splits into
Bs
two contrasting phonemes in certain environ-
ments:
Ixi
Ix! <u
ly!
No unconditioned, spontaneous split is possible
in a language, so there must always be phonetic
factors governing it. The process is completed
through an intermediate stage in which we find
two conditioned allophones of the original pho-
neme. Only when the conditioning environment
of the allophones is lost, as a result of phonetic
changes or the adoption ofborrowings from other
languages, is the phonological split achieved.
This results in the addition of a new phonemic
contrast in the language. For instance, in Proto-
Greek “/s/ developed an allophone [h] (glottal
fricative) at the beginning of a word before a
vowel, as in heptd ‘seven’ (cf. Lat. septem, Skt.
saptd) and in medial position between vowels,
as in the nom.-acc, pl. of neuters in -es-, e.g. Myc.
pa-we-a, [p"arweha] ‘pieces of cloth, mantles’,
from *-es-hg. The conditioning factors were clear
until new initial and intervocalic [s]'s emerged
as the result of such processes as the evolution
of [ti] into [si] or the adoption of loanwords
from substrate or adstrate languages (- Pre-
Greek Substrate; — Pre-Greek Languages). The
conditioning factors were then blurred and /h/
came to be in contrast to /s/ in the same environ-
ments: cf. nom. sg. a,-te-ro [hateros/ ‘another’ vs.
nom.-acc. pl. sa-sa-ma /sasama/ ‘sesame’, or dat.
pl. te-pa-i /tepahi/ ‘thick cloth, carpet’ vs. nom.
sg. a-pu-do-si /apudosis/ ‘delivery’, A new pho-
nological contrast had arisen in 2nd millenium
Greek and lasted at least as long as [h] was kept
in medial position.
Anderson (1973) determined a series of 'para-
digmatic factors’ that help to explain and under-
stand why and under which circumstances these
processes are more likely to happen. The prob-
ability that a phonemic contrast is abandoned
in a language is related to the notions of marked-
ness, functional load and frequency. The more
marked a phoneme is or the lower the functional
load or the frequency of a contrast is, the more
likely for a merger to take place. Mergers occur
more frequently when the phonemes already
share a certain number of features (place of
articulation, manner and so on). Beyond indi-
vidual phonemic changes, the structure of the
86 PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE
phonological system accounts for the likelihood
that certain changes may take place. Phonologi-
cal systems show a strong tendency towards bal-
ance, symmetry and correlation in the operating
contrasts. Isolated phonological contrasts tend
to disappear and empty cells in pairs of contrast-
ing phonemes tend to be filled by phonemiza-
tion processes.
Furthermore, in the history of languages
we find instances of interrelated phonological
changes or ‘chain shifts’. Depending on whether
the shift originates in an empty cell that ‘attracts’
a phoneme or is due to the pressure of a pho-
neme whose allophones are ‘invading’ the space
of another phoneme, they are classified as ‘pull
shifts’ or ‘push shifts’. Nevertheless, when work-
ing with limited documentation, as is frequently
the case with past stages of languages, it may
be difficult to determine how a shift started. In
Attic, as in the Ionic of Asia Minor and Euboea,
/u:/ underwent fronting and became /y:/. This
allowed the vowel /o:/ <ou> (resulting from the
inherited diphthong /ou/ and from the contrac-
tion of vowels and compensatory lengthenings)
to evolve into /u:/ without merging with the old
fu:/, We can schematically represent this chain
of changes as follows:
for! > /u/ > fy:
There were thus two successive stages in the
language:
Ist stage: /o:f /u:f
NL N
and stage: fu:f fy:/
So far we have described phonological change
in terms of standard structural approaches to
language. In Transformational Grammar, pho-
nological change is accounted for as a variation
in the rules of a language or in the underlying
representations. The phonological level is not
conceived of as autonomous but as interacting
with the other modules of the grammar of a
language, so that phonological change can be
conditioned by non-phonological factors, From
this perspective the major types of change are
rule addition and rule loss, rule reordering, rule
simplification, input reduction, and rule reversal
(Bynon 1973:10-139). When completed, a phono-
logical change can result in a modification of the
underlying representations: due to lack of suf
ficient exposure, new speakers may not be able
to re-create the rules and the original underly-
ing representations; they only have access to
the forms resulting from the application of the
rules, so they reanalyze the surface forms as the
underlying ones and delete or change the rules.
As reformulated by Bermüdez-Otero and Hogg
(2003:93) from the perspective of optimality
theory, “in the absence of robust evidence to the
contrary (such as may be provided by alterna-
tions), input optimization compels the learner
to adhere to the default assumption that at each
level of the phonology, input representations are
identical with the given outputs.”
For instance, in Attic a new rule was added to
the grammar at a certain point:
[ul] —— |yl
The addition of a rule is the only change that
can happen in adults beyond the acquisition
phase. The surface forms in Attic thus showed
[y], e.g. in [he:dys] ‘sweet’, but the underlying
representations still had [u]: /he:dus/. When this
innovation had spread among the community,
new speakers in the process of acquiring their
grammars did not have access to the underly-
ing representations — the phonetic change was
unconditioned and took place in all possible
environments. The new speakers assumed that
the underlying representations had [y], eg.
fheidys/, At this point, the change was com-
plete: the new sound had been transferred to the
underlying representations and the rule trans-
forming [u] into [y] could be left out.
Recently, a number of studies have paid
renewed attention to the idea of the ‘life cycle’
of sound change. Although there are divergent
views, the basic elements can be summarized
as follows (Salmons 2010:103; cf. also Bermüdez-
Otero 2007):
(1) articulatory processes give rise to new
phonetic variants and sound patterns in
speech;
(2) new speakers of the language generalize on
those variants, so that phonetic patterns are
turned into phonological ones;
(3) phonological patterns become sensitive to
morphosyntax and integrate into morpholo-
gical alterations; eventually, the phonological
 PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE
tule may disappear and morphology can
come to govern the alternation.
This must have been the case with ablauting
grades in nominal and verbal morphology.
Although the question remains controversial
(see, e.g., Meier-Brügger 2003:144-132 and Clack-
son 2007:71-74), ablaut (> Ablaut/Apophony)
possibly originated in early PIE as a phonetic
alternation and was subsequently phonologized,
and then employed as a morphological device.
In Greek the ablauting grades, as found, e.g, in
the various tenses of the verb (pres. leipö ‘leave’,
aor. élipon, pf. léloipa) are no longer phonologi-
cally governed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, James M. 1973, Structural aspects of language
change. London.
Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 2007. “Diachronie phonology”.
In: The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. by Paul de
Lacy, 497-517. Cambridge.
Bermüdez-Otero, Ricardo and Richard M. Hogg. 2003. “The
actuation problem in optimality theory". In: Optimality
theory and language change, ed, by D. Eric Holt, 91-119.
Dordrecht.
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge.
Christidis, A.-f., ed. 2007. A history of Ancient Greek from the
beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge.
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics. Cam-
bridge.
Crowley, Terry and Claire Bowern. zoıo. Historical linguis-
tics. Oxford — New York.
Hock, Hans H. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin -
New York — Amsterdam [znd ed. 1991].
Huenigswald, Henry. i960, Language change and linguistic
reconstruction. Chicago.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonetique historique du mycénien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Meier-Briigger, Michael, 2003. /ndo-European linguistics.
Berlin — New York.
Rix, Helmut. 1976. Historisehe Grammatik des Griechischen.
Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt.
Salmons, Joseph, 2010, “Segmental phonalogical change”, In:
The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, ed. by
Silvia Luraghi and Vit Bubenik, 89-105. London.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. Oxford — New York.
EuGENtTO R. LUJAN
Phonological Phrase
The phonological phrase (2), also known as the
minor phrase or minor phonological phrase, is the
layer of prosody immediately beneath the into-
national phrase that combines + prosodic words
and — clitic groups into a single prosodic unit
(Nespor & Vogel 1986:165-186; Selkirk 1980, 1986;
87
Horne 1986; Devine & Stephens 1990; Trucken-
bredt 1995, 1999; Devine & Stephens 1994:377).
Metrically, the phonological phrase affects verse
structure (Devine & Stephens 1994:398-401) and
generally corresponds to the hemistich or half-
line (Devine & Stephens 1994:398, 400; Golston
& Riad 2000):
(1) [öptesan te periphradéds|o [ertisantd te
panta|p
‘They roasted [spits of meat] carefully and
drew them off’ (Hom. Od. 14.431)
This is not of course the case in every line of
verse (Devine and Stephens 1994:400).
While the prototypical syntactic correlate
of the phonological phrase is a + noun phrase,
+verb phrase, or adjective phrase, ie. a lex-
ically-headed XP, it goes without saying that
deducing prosodic constituency solely on the
bases of corpus data is a delicate affair. There are
nevertheless correlates that enable us to detect
the boundary of a phonological phrase. These
come above all from metrical phenomena and
inscriptional punctuation. Devine and Stephens
(1994:240, 246, 383) demonstrate on the basis of
Euripidean evidence that onset-to-coda resyllab-
ification (V.CC + VC.C; known in the philological
literature as lengthening by position: + Syllable
Weight) of word-initial s+stop is licit when the
second word is part of the verb phrase, and
avoided when it is not: pollous ölese stratéldtas
‘destroyed many generals’ at Supp. 162 the verb
and object are syllabified 6.le.ses.tra.té.ld.tas.
Clusters of ststop need the greater rhythmic
cohesion of a phonological phrase for resyllabift-
cation, whereas clusters of s+stop+liquid do not
(Devine & Stephens 1994:246). The + elision of
final vowels before a vowel-initial preposition
is more common with intraphrasal sequences
like ephthenxat’ eis hémds ‘uttered against us’ at
Phoen. 475 (Devine & Stephens 1994:384).
Onset-to-coda resyllabification also obtains
outside of verb phrases, e.g. strings of noun+
adjective (e.g., melana. stolmön ‘black apparel’
at Alc, 216 scans as me.la.nas.tol.mön), noun
phrases with branching + modifiers (en t’ dmmasi
skuthröpön ‘and in appearance sullen’ at Bacch.
1252 scans dm.ma.sis.ku.thro.pén), as well as
two modifiers that modify the same head but
do not themselves form a constituent (senda
stemmdtén mustéria ‘holy implements of gar-
lands’ at Supp. 470 scans sem.näs. tem.md.ton).
88 PHONOLOGICAL PHRASE
Remarkably, resyllabification can also take place
between adjacent items that do not form a con-
stituent, e.g. in the combination of noun phrase
plus noun phrase toisi prägmasi sköton ‘dark-
ness over the matters’ at fon 1522. Cf. Devine &
Stephens (1994:397) for inscriptional evidence.
While generative approaches to syntax as well
as other traditions that break the clause down
into a subject+predicate structure generally
assume that the subject of a verb phrase is more
loosely integrated in the phrase structure than
the object, evidence from resyllabification sug-
gests that it is also possible for a subject and verb
to form a phonological phrase (Devine & Ste-
phens 1994:386-387). For a verb-subject string
to form a phonological phrase “cohesive enough
for coda resyllabification to apply, the verb must
be in sole contact with the subject phrase and
not in contact on its left with any lexical] ele-
ment of the verb phrase; furthermore, a subject
noun undergoing resyllabification must not be
followed by any element of the subject phrase”
(Devine & Stephens 1994:387; cf. 392). In short,
what this means is that V and S must be syn-
tactic sisters, as well as immediately dominated
by the clausal node. For phrasing of SV together
as a phonological phrase in Spanish, see Prieta
(2006).
As Devine and Stephens note (1994:388), met-
rical evidence reveals tendencies, but does not
allow an exhaustive parsing of an actual stretch
of text. Inscriptional evidence both confirms
and supplements what we deduce from metri-
cal texts, There are some philological caveats to
bear in mind, however. First, punctuation can be
used to mark off prosodic constituents of varying
sizes, fram the + clitic group (Devine & Ste-
phens 1994:326-330) to the phonological phrase
(for the texts, see Devine & Stephens 1994:388)
to the intonational phrase. The function of
punctuation can even shift within the same text
(Devine & Stephens 1994:389). Generally speak-
ing, the phonological phrase is based on phono-
logically, as apposed to syntactically, branching
structures (Devine & Stephens 1994:391-393): a
phonological phrase can be built from head-
modifier and modifier-head structures, from two
words that simply form a constituent, and from
more complex structures such as a branching
prepositional phrase, e.g. 1G I? 45.16-17 ek tes
phules tes prutaneuoses. Interestingly, when two
branching constituents occur on either side of
a verb, they can each be caded as a phonologi-
cal phrase without the verb: talanton k' argure :
apotinoian : toi Di Olunpioi (Devine & Stephens
1994:393). For further details, see Devine & Ste-
phens (1994:388-397).
Certain sandhi phenomena also take place
within the phonological phrase, such as the
assimilation of final -r and -s to an initial d- in
the + Gortyn Code from Crete (see Devine &
Stephens 1994:397-398, with references to ear-
lier literature; more generally, Nespor and Vogel
1982, Reece 2009). In Attic, assimilation of a final
nasal to a following initial consonant is most
common in clitic groups, but also occurs across
clitic groups as long as they occur within the
same phonological phrase.
A further effect of phonological phrasing is
phrase-final lengthening: the preferance for dura-
tionally longer syllables in metrical positions that
fall at the end of a phonological phrase is argued
to reflect final-lengthening (Devine & Stephens
1994:274, 401-402; + Metrics). Evidence from
musical notation suggests that within catathesis
domains, a slight boost in pitch occurs at the
beginning of the phonological phrase (Devine &
Stephens 1994:402-408). Inscriptional evidence
suggests that information structure, especially
~ focus, can alter phonological phrasing. Devine
and Stephens (1994:478) cite possible examples,
as well as cross-linguistic evidence. This ques-
tion is in need of further research.
Taylor (1996) argues that in + Koine Greek
enclitics associated with noun phrases are sen-
sitive to phonological phrase boundaries. So in
the following two examples, we have in one
case syntactically-conditioned clitic distribution
(2) and in the other prosodically-conditioned
clitic distribution (3). The NP ten särka below is
assumed to form a phonological phrase, which
the possessive clitic sou adjoins syntactically to
at the left edge, i.e. [=sou ten sdrka]:
(2) ean de midnéis [ten särka=sou]@
‘If you defile your body...’ (Shepherd of Her-
mas, Similitude 5.7.2)
As the boundary of the phonological phrase lies
immediately to the left of sou, it is blocked from
finding its host by adjoining leftwards. Instead,
it undergoes prosodic inversion (Garrett 1989,
Halpern 1995), whereby it moves one prosodic
word to the right, to yield the surface form (ten
sdrka=sou)p. This mechanism does not, however,
 PHONOLOGICAL
cover every distribution pattern of NP-domain
clitics, as (3) makes clear, from Taylor (1996:49a):
(3) kai peisthésontat=sou tois rhémasin
‘And they will trust your words’ (Shepherd
of Hermas, Mandate 12.3.3)
The prediction is that sou should undergo pro-
sodic inversion and occur after rhemasin, but
this is not what we find. Taylor argues that cases
like (3) are the result of an optional phonological
phrase restructuring process, the result of which
is that tois rhemasin does not form a phono-
logical phrase, so that there is now no boundary
blocking the leftward association of sou. Her
analysis is inspired by that of Nespor and Vogel
(1986) for raddoppiamento sintattico in Italian,
whereby word-initial consonants are geminated.
They argue that the gemination occurs within
the phonological phrase, but does not occur
under phonological-phrase restructuring (cf.
Absalom & Hajek 2006). Taylor (2002) extends
her prosodic account to include pronominal
object clitics. Agabayani and Golston (2010) also
argue for the phonological phrase as a domain of
for second-position items (see further + Wacker-
nagel’s Law I).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Absalom, Matthew and John Hajek 2006, “Raddoppiamento
sintattico and prosodic phonology: a re-evaluation”. In:
Proceedings 2005 Conference of the Australian Linguistics
Society, ed. by Keith Allan, 1-14. Monash.
Agbayani, Brian and Chris Golston. 2010. “Second-position is
first-position: Wackernagel's Law and the role of clausal
conjunction”, Indogermanische Forschungen 159-21,
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. iggo. “The
Greek phonological phrase", Greek, Raman, and Byzantine
Studies 31:421-446.
1994. The prosady of Greek speech. Oxford.
Garrett, Andrew J, 1989. "Ergative case assignment, Wacker-
nagel’s Law, and the VP base hypothesis”. In: Proceedings
of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 19, ed. by Juli
Carter and Rose-Marie Déchaine, 13-126. Amherst, MA.
Golston, Chris and Tomas Riad. zoa0, “The phonology of
Classical Greek meter”, Linguistics 38.1:99-167.
Halpern, Aaron, 1995. On the placement and morphology of
clitics, Stanford.
Home, Merle. 1986. “Focal prominence and the “phanologi-
cal phrase” within some recent theories", Studia Linguis-
tica 40701-121,
Keating, P., T. Cho, C. Fougeron, and C. Hsu. 2003. “Domain-
initial articulatory strengthening in four languages”. In:
Phonetic Interpretation (Papers in Laboratory Phonol-
ogy 6). edited by J. Local. R. Ogden. R. Temple. 143-161.
Cambridge.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1982. “Prosodic domains of
external sandhi rules”. In: The structure of phonological
PHRASE äg
representations, ed. by Harry van der Hulst and Norval
Smith, vol. 222-255. Dordrecht,
——. 1986, Prasadic phonology. Dordrecht.
Prieto, Pilar. 2006. “Phonological phrasing in Spanish’.
In: Uptimality-theoretic advances in Spanish phonology,
ed. by Sonia Colina and Fernando Martinez-Gil, 39-60.
Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Reece, Steve. 2009, Homer’s winged words: the evolution of
early Greek enic diction in the light of oral theury. Leiden.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. “Prosodic domains in phonology:
Sanskrit revisited”. In: /uncture, ed. by Mark Arnoff and
Mary L. Kean, 107-129. Saratoga, CA.
. 1986. "On derived domains in sentence phonology’,
Phonology Yearbook 3:371-405.
Taylor, Ann. 1996. “A prosadic account of clitic pusition in
Ancient Greek”, In: Approaching second: second position
clitics and related phenomena, ed. by Aaron L. Halpern
and Arnold M. Zwicky, 477-503. Stanford,
. 2002. “The distribution of object clitics in Koiné
Greek”. In: Indo-European perspectives, ed. by Mark R. V.
Southem, 285-315. Washington, DC.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonalagical phrases; their rela-
tion to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral disserta-
tion, MIT.
- 1999. "On the relation between syntactic phrases and
phonclogical phrases”, Linguistic Inquiry 30:219-255.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Phonology (Survey)
1. INTRODUCTION
An overview of Ancient Greek phonology neces-
sarily ranges over some centuries and a variety
of dialects (> Dialects, Classification of, + Dia-
lectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of), so
that historical references and comparisons are
unavoidable. Thus, the developing segmental
system (via the relevant isoglosses) is outlined
here up to Class. Attic of the sth to qth c. BCE,
Through its political and intellectual hegemony
at that time, Athens was destined to take over
and develop further to a unified Greek language.
To this, + lonic dialect features and civilization
contributed too.
The first documentation in alphabetic writing
begins in the 8th c, BCE with a reference to ath-
letic games. After the decipherment of + Linear
B (Ventris & Chadwick 1953) the attestation of
Greek now goes back some centuries to + Myce-
naean Greek, in syllabary writing and represent-
ing a form of Greek perhaps of the 16th c. BCE for
Crete and of the 14th-12th c. BCE for Pylos. This
attestation stops around the 12th c. BCE due toa
sudden change in the civilization. It is not clear
if the homogeneity between Pylos, Mycenae and
90 PHONOLOGY (SURVEY)
Knossos represents the language of the speakers
or of the rulers, or simply reflects scribal tradi-
tion (Vilborg 1960:23).
In contrast to the homogeneity of Mycenaean,
characteristic of alphabetic times is a mosaic of
more or less closely related dialects. As Meil-
let (1943:75) puts it, Greek, together with Indo-
Iranian and Hittite, preserves the most archaic
form of Indo-European, but is also the language
with the largest variety of dialects. Every dia-
lect-variant was used both orally and in writing
and was recognized as expressing the linguistic
identity of its speakers; equally respected was
the language of literature. The differences, how-
ever, were not so large as to make Greeks feel
that they did not speak the same language. The
notion Panhéllenes was grounded in this linguis-
tic unity, to which a common religion and the
Olympic games contributed further.
Alphabetic Greek is divided into four main
groups: Attic-lonic, — Arcado-Cypriot, Aeolic
(+ Aeolic Dialects) and West Greek (+ Doric,
+ North-West Greek) (Meillet 1943:79), these
being further subdivided into smaller local vari-
eties. The four main dialects form two larger
groupings: East vs. West, a division generally
accepted by scholars (for a proposed division
into Southern vs. Northern groupings, as well as
a transitional area between them, see below ($2)
on — palatalization; see also + Dialects, Classifi-
cation of). However, there is controversy regard-
ing the relation between Mycenaean and the
later alphabetic dialects. Apart from the main
Doric dialects, common features indicating
genealogical relation can be found in the other
three dialects. There are two main proposals.
Risch and Hajnal (2006) support a close rela-
tion of Mycenaean with Attic-Ionie and Arcado-
Cypriot, since they share remarkably ancient
isoglosses, probably resolved in Post-Mycenaean
time, e.g. > assibilation of “ti to si (*ti > sé),
and * to s (“tj > s) morpheme-internally. On
the other hand, for Ruijgh (1967:35-41) there
are ancient isoglosses between Mycenaean and
Arcado-Cypriot indicating a group of Achaean
dialects. Ancient isoglosses are also found in
Aeolic, separating the Achaean group from
Attic-lonic as well as from Doric, North-West
Greek, e.g. the outcome of the first + compensa-
tory lengthening discussed below.
2. VOWELS
Comparing the segmental system of Classical
Greek with that of Mycenaean, it becomes clear
that during the development of Greek the con-
sonantal system becomes poorer, as detailed
below. In contrast, the vocalic system of Myce-
naean, consisting of five short (+ Length) and
five corresponding long + vowels (that is, a
three-height system), survived only in some of
the alphabetic dialects (as in Strict Doric, below).
Other dialects, including Attic, expanded the
vowel system to seven long vowels (a four-height
system). This proceeded by processes such as
compensation of the positional time of a lost
segment (compensatory lengthening), but also
by + monophthongization and + contraction.
The three Mycenaean continuants (s, j, w) were
periodically weakened and lost, leaving clear
marks of their presence in several areas. In the
lexicon, we see their effects in corresponding
lexical forms like Dor. seläna vs. Att.-Ion. selene,
and Lesb. selannä < *selas-na ‘moon’ (+ Lesbian
(and Aeolic Asian)), all reflexes from s-loss (see
below). In the morphology, as morphologized
synchronic rules, we see their effects in forma-
tives like the Att. verbal -tt-: kerittö < *kerük-j-ö
‘T announce’ (cf. kerux ‘herald’) as a reflex of
floss (see palatalization, below). And in the pho-
nological system, we see traces of these sounds
in vowel lengthening and gemination, compen-
sating for s- and w-loss. These historical reflexes
form isoglosses of varying importance for the
division of the dialects.
3. COMPENSATORY LENGTHENING
Three types of compensatory lengthening are
usually posited, depending on the chronology
and the consonant lost (Bartonék 1966:62ff,;
+ Consonant Changes). The first is the loss of
the sibilant s next to a resonant; it is consid-
ered the oldest type of lengthening and forms a
major isogloss. The second refers to the derived
-ns- (word-medial from -nt/nt"+j) or suffixal, as
with the verbal ending -nsi < -nti, and partly to
the final -ns, as we see in Att. tds < tdns ‘the (acc.
pl. fem.)‘. This follows the first compensatory
lengthening chronologically (cf. below Attic-
lonic a-fronting) and also has diverse outputs
(vowel lengthening or — diphthongization) in
a rather constrained area. The third affects the
sequences -nw-, -Iw-, -rw-, and -sw-, and applies
 PHONOLOGY (SURVEY)
later to even fewer dialects, constituting a minor
isogloss. Notice that inside the Attic-Ionic group
it applies only to the lonic of Asia Minor and to
the Cyclades, but neither to Attic nor to Euboea,
e.g. lonic xénos with a long raised vowel (below),
vs. Att. xénos < xénwos, with a short vowel e.
The first compensatory lengthening was the
main source of derived long &/ö. The sibilant s
had already weakened to an aspirate A before
Mycenaean, word-initially as well as medially
before a vowel or a resonant (R = r, 1, m, n), sur-
viving only before an obstruent. The outcome
of s > A loss in the historical dialects forms an
important isogloss, gemination of the resonant
VRR in the Aeolic dialects (Lesbian and + Thes-
salian, also below). In the other dialects (Arcado-
Cypriot, Attic-Ionic and Doric} Ai was further lost
with compensatory lengthening of the preceding
vowel; e.g, Thess. kherrös vs. Att.-Ion. kherös <
*kher-hös < “g*esr-ds ‘hand’, Thess. khéllioi, Ion.
khelioi, Dor. khéliai < *ktehlioi < *g*esliol ‘thou-
sand’. The different quality of the derived long
vowel, seen in the spelling, forms an additional
isogloss, discussed below. There is controversy
as to whether the vowel lengthening compen-
sates for the simplification of the geminate RR
(Ruipérez 1972:234, 247) and thus follows gemi-
nation, or compensates for the loss of the non-
assimilated (+ Assimilation) and metathesized
h < s (Malikouti-Drachman 1975:146, based on
Kiparsky’s + metathesis), The question takes on
special interest since both these isoglosses —
gemination vs. compensatory lengthening — dis-
tinguish the two groups of dialects, Aeolic vs.
Attic-lonic and Arcado-Cypriot, one of which is
argued to be closer to Mycenaean (see above),
The murky spelling of Linear B allows both inter-
pretations (discussion and comments in Risch &
Hajnal 2006, 5:289-290, Bartonék 2003:147).
As mentioned, the three-height vocalic sys-
tem of Mycenaean is seen only in a subset of the
historical dialects. This is due to a further iso-
gloss inside the s-loss compensatory lengthening
dialect group, formed by the split quality of the
derived middle long vowel with respect to the
existing long vowels of the system. Thus, whereas
the derived long vowels i & u fall together in all
dialects with the already existing long ones, the
outcome of the derived mid long vowels 2/ö split
the dialects into two groups. The first group con-
sists of those like Lac. Dor., where the derived
long e/ö coincide with the existing ones, e.g.
pater ‘father’, with an original long vowel, or émé
gi
< *esmi ‘I am’ with a derived one, with the same
writing <H/N> and pronunciation for both. The
second group consists of those like Attic, where
the quality of the derived long vowels &/ö differs
from that of the corresponding original long
vowels in that the new vowels are closer: cf. Att.
pater written with <H> vs. eimi, phonetically
[émi] with the derived closer vowels &/5 writ-
ten as > diphthongs <EI/OY>, called ‘spurious
diphthongs’. The final outcome is thus a four-
height vocalic system, with five short vowels
corresponding to seven long ones. Three pro-
posals account for the different quality of the
derived mid long vowels &/ö. There is a tendency
to a narrowing (closer) pronunciation, either
of the corresponding short e/o vowels (Leje-
une 1972, Bartohek 1966) or of the new derived
long ones (Allen 1987), but also by phoneti-
cally conditioned changes (Malikouti-Drachman
1975). Dialects with three-height systems are the
peripheral ones (i) + Arcadian, + Cypriot, (ii)
Strict Doric {+ Laconian, Messenian, Central
+ Cretan and +Cyrenaean), and (iii) Lesbian
as well as Thessalian, though the latter shows
a three-height system with closed ¢/6 due to a
tendency towards narrowing of the original long
ones: cf. original mé > mei. phonetically [me]
‘not’. Parallel narrowing processes took place
in + Boeotian (Bartonek 1966:84,14,122). Dialects
with a four-height system apart from Attic-lonic,
include (i) the North-West dialects, (ii) Doric
mitior (Corinthian, Megarian, E. Argalic) and
(iii) Doric media (W. Argolic and E. Aegean Doric,
in the latter with some restrictions) and + Pam-
phylian, In other words, an isogloss extended
from the North-West area over the Isthmus to
Corinth and over Attica and the Cycladic Islands
as far as Asia Minor (Bartonek 1966:48ff., 57-61,
2003486).
4. CONSONANTS
In contrast to the vocalic system, the consonantal
system becomes poorer during the development
of Greek. As an example take the Mycenaean
system of stops. It consists of four places (labial,
dental, velar, labiovelar) in three series (plain,
voiced, aspirated), though Myc. spelling does not
make all of these distinctions. Contrast the Attic
system, which is reduced to three places by the
loss of the + labiovelars.
And finally, at the end of the Ancient period
and the beginning of Byzantine times, to one
g2 PHONOLOGY (SURVEY)
series of voiceless stops due to the > spirantiza-
tion of the corresponding aspirated (> Aspira-
tion) and voiced (+ Voicing) stops (Bartoniek
2003:453). Two tendencies characterize this
development: weakness of articulation (Meillet
1943:20ff, Lejeune 1972), and palatalization (Leje-
une 1972, Brixhe 1996), seen as strengthening.
Characteristic is the simultaneous application
of the two opposing tendencies in the develop-
ment of the + semivowel / in word-initial posi-
tion. (For this see also Giannakis 201266-169).
The semivowel weakens to an aspirate ( j > A). as
shown by the written alternation of the adverbial
"jo (= jos) ‘thus, this way’ between its presence jo
(= jdés) and its absence o (= (h)ös). But it also
strengthens to dy: cf. ze-u-ke-si (= dzeüges(s)i
dat. pl.) < *jeug- (cf. zeügos ‘carriage, pair’), which
develops further in parallel with the cluster d +
y into dz > zd of the historical dialects. For these
changes see e.g. Lejeune (1972:167), vs. the Labo-
vian sociolinguistic approach of Brixhe (199638,
68). Reflexes of both tendencies are seen in
the historical dialects. Weakness of articulation
is exemplified by the loss of labiovelars, the
converse ‘strengthening’ by the palatalization of
obstruents.
A labiovelar is a velar stop with superimposed
lip-rounding. By different processes of + dissimi-
lation or assimilation, the labiovelars developed
into simple velar, dental or labial consonants
(+ Labiovelars). These changes took place in
three stages. First, when next to a high back
vowel u and by dissimilation from it, lip round-
ing is lost, leaving a simple velar. This is common
to all historical dialects, indicating that it had
already taken place before Mycenaean times, as
seen in Myc. qo-u-ko-ra (= g’oukdlof) (nom. pl.),
‘cowherds’ < *g"ou+k"oloi (cf. Hom. boukölos)
with dissimilation. This example with two labio-
velars and their Mycenaean spelling, illustrate
two of the stages of their development. The
second labiovelar, the voiceless k¥, has already
dissimilated to a plain velar next to u. The first
labiovelar, the voiced g™, remains before a vowel
o (see below) and develops later to a plain labial
6, as in the Homeric example.
Vis (2008142) attributes the dissimilation
changes to the avoidance of featural identity on
adjacent sounds (the obligatory contour prin-
ciple, Leben 1973) and the avoidance of complex
segments. Second, a labiovelar before a front
mid-vowel e becomes a dental stop, a change
seen in most Greek dialects, except Aeolic and
Cypriot. (For the development of a labiovelar
to a dental before a high front vowel { (e.g.
tis < *k*is 'someone’) and related problems,
see Lejeune 1972:49-50). Clear examples of a
dental before a front vowel e are seen word-
initially, as below, otherwise + analogy and bor-
rowing obscure the output (Lejeune 1972:47):
Att. téttares, lon. tésseres, Dor. tétores vs. Boeot,
péttares, pétrares, Thess. pétrores, Lesb. pésures
‘four. Third, in contact with the two vowels
a/o, both elements of the labiovelars (labiality
and closure) correspond to a labial stop in all
dialects, e.g. änthröpos ‘man’, cf. Myc. a-to-ro-g0,
leinö ‘I leave’, cf. Myc. re-go-me-no (pass. ptc.)
(= leipömenos). To conclude with Lejeune
(1972:53), a consequence of this threefold devel-
opment - even within one and the same dialect —
is loss of historical reflexes; by lexicalization,
words from the same root lost connection and
recoverability, cf. e.g. Att. Auzklos ‘circle’, tellö ‘]
accomplish’, pdlin ‘back, backwards’ < *k'el-,
in contrast to other cases of historical reflexes,
mentioned above and below, with morphologi-
zation and hence recoverability.
The palatalization of obstruents took place in
two stages. First, dental ¢ spirantized to s before
é, j, u. This is already attested in Mycenaean and
part of the later historical dialects, that is lonic-
Attic and Arcado-Cypriot, forming an isogloss
between the Southern vs. the Northern group
(cf. the position of Risch & Hajnal above). For
example:
i. *ti > sf (assibilation) Att., Ion.: -si (35g.)
phési vs. Dor. phati, Myc. pa-si (= phasi)
< “phati ‘says')
ii, *tj > s (through ss and simplification) pro-
vided there is no morpheme boundary
between the two segments (below): *totja
> Att., Ion. tösos vs. Dor. tössos, Myc. to-so
(= tös(s)os) 'so big, so much’
tii, *u > sd Att., Ion., Lesb. sii vs. Dor, ti ‘you
(sg.)
At a second stage, palatalization affected dentals
and velars + j, applying in Mycenaean and all
Greek dialects (for a phonetic explanation, see
Brixhe 1996:44ff. and Lejeune 1972:62-66), These
clusters became palatals and developed further
in historical times to affricates and geminates.
Based on reflexes of the Proto-Greek clusters
"hi, *kh)j, (and “tw, “ts, *ss), Bubenik
(1983:0-111) classifies the historical dialects
 PHONOLOGY (SURVEY)
into three broad dialectal groups (+ Proto-Greek
and Common Greek). The first group includes
Arcado-Cypriot and Sonic dialects (the Southern
group). These show a geminate sibilant /ss/ for *
t(h)j *k(h)j, and *tw, but single /s/ for “ts *ss
and “t(h)j, as mentioned above: *methjos > lon.,
Arc. mésos 'middle', *melit-ja > Ion. melissa ‘bee’,
*karuk-jo > lon. kerüssö, Arc. karusso ‘| announce’.
The different reflexes of the *tAj cluster relate to
the presence of a morpheme boundary (Bubenik
198311, with reference to Chadwick 1969:92).
The second group consists of Aeolic and West
dialects (the Northern Group) which have only a
geminate sibilant for all these Proto-Greek clus-
ters: *méthjos > Lesb. méssos, *karukjd > Lesb.
kartiss6. The third group is Attica, Euboea, Boeo-
tia and possibly Crete, which represent transi-
tional areas where “khj, *tw and partly even “t/
develop into ft; in Boeotia also *ts > tt: *methjos
> Boeot. mettos (cf. Att. mesos above), *melit-
ja > Att. melitta, *käruk-jö, Att. kéruttd, Boeot.
kärüttö, Central Cret. kärissö. The voiced clus-
ters dj and gj develop in parallel to the voiceless
ones, but only up to the progressive assimilation
of dz to dd in Boeot., Central Cret,, El. and Lac.,
possibly in Thess. too, as we see in “psdfid-jé
> Boeot. psdfiddd, *dikad-ja > El. dikäddö. In
other dialects, such as Attic-lonic and Lesbian,
the cluster dz metathesizes to zd (see Bubenik
1983:15ff.).
5. THE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF ÄTTIC
The isoglosses discussed above define the main
characteristics of the Attic-lonic dialects and
their relations to the other dialect groups. This
brings us to the phonological system of Attic
itself. An important historical change, further
limiting the Attic-lonic group, is the fronting of
long /ä/, which through the intermediate stage
of a low front vowel [#] - attested in the Cycla-
dic islands Keos, Naxos and Amorgos up to 6th
c. BCE - finally fell together with the exist-
ing long vowel open /é/ of the system, writ-
ten as <H>. Thus we find Att.-Ion. time ‘honor’,
phemi '\ say', meter ‘mother’ vs. Dor. etc. tima,
phämi, mäter. The chronology of this change
varies from about the ıst millennium BCE (for
Lejeune ı972, end of the and millennium BCE)
down to the &th c. BCE, the time of the first
inscriptional attestation (Bartonék 1966:99ff.,
Bubenik 1983:49). A relevant chronology com-
pares the outcome of the two compensatory
93
lengthenings mentioned above. From the first,
we find fronting and raising of the long /a/ to a
long open /é/, Att.-lon. éphéna ‘| showed’ vs. Dor.
etc. dphäna < *ephansa, but retention of along a
from the second, which covers the missing long
low vowel /ä/ of the system. Thus päsa < pänsa
< *pantja ‘every’ (fem.), or even tas < tdns (‘the’
acc. pl. fem.) from a still later lengthening. Thus
it seems that fronting took place between the ist
and 2nd compensatory lengthenings (Lejeune
1972, Bartonék 1966), although Bubenik (1983:58)
remarks that such forms could be due to analogi-
cal paradigmatic restoration. A further problem
here is the distribution of a-fronting. It starts
from lonic, perhaps as a substratum influence
(Bartonék 1966:101), and expands to Attica and
Euboea, where it is blacked after [i, e, r}: Tonic
oikié ‘house’, genee ‘generation’, &mere ‘day’, vs.
Attic oikiä, genea, hemerä (+ Attic Reversion).
The question is whether this constraint shows
regression to the original stage of a long /a/
(Lejeune 1972:234-236, Szemerényi 1968:139-
157), or uninterrupted retention of the original
stage (Schwyzer 1953 1:187-189). There are con-
tradictory data, and both views can be supported
(Bubenik 1983:49).
With the above changes the early Attic-Ionic
system circa 1000-800 BCE (de Haas 1997) with
fronting of /a/ to /a/ is:
short vowels:
m
th
long vowels:
mom
eS:
[=]
wu
Bı
oa
i
The four-height Attic vowel-system of the clas-
sical period after the final fronting of /ä/ to /é/
is then;
short vowels: u
Lal
oO
m
long vowels: gou
DE
De
Di
Di
Later synchronic changes in the above system
affected the back vowels first. Two tendencies
contribute to these changes. First, fronting of
both short and long high back vowels /u/, /ü/
to the corresponding front vowels /y/, /y/, tykhé
‘fate’, thymos ‘soul’, but not of the second ele-
ment of the diphthongs az, eu as shown in Ionic
aotös for autds ‘self’. And second, the long closed
vowel /d/ raised to /ü/, filling up the empty posi-
tion of the fronted /¥/: üsa < Osa < onsa < *ontja
‘been’ (nom. fem. ptc.). These further changes
provoked a new asymmetry in the back vowels of
94 PHONOLOGY (SURVEY)
post-Classical Attic. The high long vowel /a/ had
no corresponding high short vowel /u/, so that
the second element of a Vu diphthong remained
isolated, developing later to a spirant: pheugo ‘I
flee’ vs. aor. éphygon. Thus, the system of post-
Classical Attic ca. 350 BCE is (Bubenik 1983:38):
short vowels: iy eao-
Attic has a number of diphthongs. Apart from
the inherited diphthongs, any of the above vow-
els (but not the derived closed long /é 5/) could
combine with a high vowel i/u to form a new
diphthong. This is one of the hiatus-resolving
processes and presupposes re-syllabification of
two monophthongs into a single monophthong,
This occurs provided that the rightmost vowel is
[high]; otherwise the two vowels contract: e.g.
dat. sg. *teles-i > *téleh-i > télei vs. gen. sg. *teles-
os > *téleh-os > tele-os > télds ‘end’.
short diphthongs long diphthongs
ei ai oi Li ei ai Oi
eu all ou (éu au)
A common feature in the development of both
short and long diphthongs is monophthongi-
zation, a tendency to avoid complex articula-
tion (cf. also above for the labiovelars) as well
as + hiatus. The latter is seen in the fact that
monophthongization occurred before conso-
nants earlier than it did before vowels. Monoph-
thongization in short diphthongs results from
assimilation of the two diphthongal elements,
especially when these are articulatorily similar.
This is the case of the diphthongs ui, ef and ou
which monophthongized early into correspond-
ing long vowels. Monophthongization of ui > ü
before a consonant occurred very early; ikhthui-
dion > ikhthiidion ‘small fish’. In Attic, with the
fronting of u/a to y/y, monophongization of yi >
jy is also attested before a vowel Ayios > hyds ‘son'
in the 4th c. BCE. The date ofei/ou monophthon-
gization to long é/¢ vowels varies from the 7th
to the 5th c. BCE. An inscriptional attestation
with a form toton = touton ‘this one’ shows a
possible monophthongization of ou > ö as early
as the 8th c. BCE. For Bartonék (1963:u8) this
must be prior to or simultaneous to the change
of u > y. This early monophthongization of the
ei and ou diphthongs is the only case of their
parallel development. Further, whereas the Vi
diphthongs continued to monophthongize, the
second element of the Vu diphthongs developed
into a spirant: pheugo ‘I flee’ > Mod. Gk. pevyw
['fevyo] In general, the short diphthongs show
an asymmetrical prosodic status, depending on
their second element. For example, the ai, oi
diphthongs count as short for stress word-finally:
nom. pl. moüsai ‘Muses’, pdloi ‘foals’. An indica-
tion of the asymmetry is also seen in their writing
in the Mycenaean syllabary. The second element
of a Vi diphthong before a consonant is omitted,
in contrast to Vu, where u is almost never omit-
ted: e.g. po-me (= poimen) ‘shepherd’ vs. re-u-ko
(= feukds) ‘white’. (On diphthongs generally,
their asymmetry and their prosodic status, see
Golston 2006). Of the long diphthongs, dé, &i, öi
are relatively common, but not au, &u. Monoph-
thongization of the long diphthongs obtains by
loss of a mora (a time unit) of the long vowel
(éi > ei) or by loss of the second element of the
diphthong (é > é). Loss of a mora also occurs
with the diphthong &i in the early Attic form
kleis < *klawis ‘key’ (cf. Lat. clauis) with w-loss
and d-fronting; in Classical Attic the long vowel
became kleis by mora loss, with further manoph-
thongization later on. Loss of the second element
is seen in inflectional endings, e.g. dat. sg. -é > &,
as we see in bouléi > boulé ‘counsel, will’. In Attic
the second element ceased to be pronounced at
the end of the and c. BCE.
The consonantal system of Attic (Bubenik
1983:83, Brandenstein 1954:82) is as follows:
Stops ptk bdg, pot kb
Continuants s[z]h
Nasals mon [ny]
Liquids 1, ¢ [x]
In the above system the status of h is prob-
lematic. Brandenstein (1954100) claimed that
h cannot be a phoneme since, as its idiosyn-
cratic behavior shows, it lacks ‘position’, e.g.
it does not block processes such as vowel loss:
téthrippos < *tetra + hippos ‘with four horses
yoked abreast’. In contrast, others (e.g. Bubenik
1983, Allen 1987), accept phonemic status for /h/.
Steriade (1982:154) proposes that the features of
the segment A (detached from its skeletal posi-
tion) are autosegmentalized and assigned to the
first segment of the syllable, whether vowel or
consonant: in ¢éthrippos, the floating features are
 PHONOLOGY (SURVEY)
assigned to the first segment of the new syllable,
the onset [t].
As for the sounds in brackets, the velar nasal
[n] (written <I>), is an allophone of n before a
velar sound, and the voiceless [7] is an allophone
of r word initially, as second member of a gemi-
nate r or next to an aspirate. Turning now to [2],
voiceless s assimilates before a voiced consonant
to the corresponding voiced [z] written as <Z>.
As mentioned above, in Attic the final outcome
dz, from a voiced affricate [d*} of dental and
velar palatalization, is metathesized to zd. This
phonetic value is seen in cases like Athenaze
< Athenas + de (Allen 1987:45-46). However
later spellings like anabaszmoüs (acc.pl) ‘ascent’
about the 4th c. BCE, show the change of pro-
nunciation from [zd] to a simple voiced [z].
Ail the consonants of the Attic system (except
h) could be geminated between vowels, either in
the lexicon (hippos ‘horse’ vs. Epos ‘word') or by
grammatical processes, as seen in present ballö
< *bal-j-6 ‘1 throw’ but aorist ébalon 'I threw’, A
third source is expressive gemination, as seen in
child language, dtta ‘daddy’, or in noun hypoco-
tistics like Strattis from Stratönikos. In expres-
sive forms, geminated aspirates are also attested:
e.g. titthe ‘nurse’, or in nouns like Sapphö, Bäk-
khus, Atthis (see Threatte 1980:541, 571 for refer-
ences). The spelling of such forms with <TI®, TO,
KX> shows dissimilation of the first member of
the aspirate geminate, and this differs from the
spelling of aspirates in clusters: cf. 3sg, pass. aor.
eleiphthé < *e-leip-the ‘it has been left’, elékhthé <
*e-leq-thé ‘it has been said’ with <@@, X@>, where
both consonants are written as aspirates without
dissimilation. The question is whether or not the
script represents the phonetic values of these
forms. The view that spellings and phonetics do
not correspond is held by Curtius (1879), Lejeune
(1972:54, 79, 61), Threatte (1980:571), and others.
The opposite proposal is supported by Allen
(1987), Steriade (1982:280ff ), and others. To this
latter proposal Malikouti-Drachman (1998) adds
that the difference in dissimilation rests on the
requirement for a common feature enabling their
syllabification in the coda and onset positions of
a syllable, Thus, geminate aspirates may be dis-
similated, since they already share a common
place of articulation; then, aspiration is superflu-
ous and may be lost as in *Saph.phé > Sap.phö. In
contrast, aspiration is the only common feature
of the non-homorganic aspirate consonants in
95
a cluster, and this may therefore not be lost, as
seen in *e-leip-then > e.leiph.thén.
A special Attic characteristic — less provincial
than geminate tt (below) — is geminate rr, cor-
responding to the rs of Ionic and other dialects:
ärren ‘male’, thdrros ‘courage’ vs. Ion. drsén, thdr-
sos. However the cluster r + s in morphological
formations remains; cf. dat. pl. rhétor-si ‘pub-
lic speaker’, nom. sg, Adthar-sis ‘cleansing from
guilt’. Notice here the special environment of a
morpheme boundary (more in Miller 1976).
As mentioned above, geminate tt in Attic is a
reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared
with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to
the geminate ss of Jonic and other dialects: cf.
lexical forms like thdlatta ‘sea’, glötta ‘tongue’
vs. Ion. thdlassa, glössa, or verbal formations
like *eret-jö > erétté ‘I row' (cf. eretes ‘rower’),
*käruk-jö > kérutté ‘| announce’ vs. lon, eréss6,
kerüssö. Chadwick considers the geminate tt an
Aeolicism surviving in Boeotia and extended to
West Attica. The geminates tt and rr are con-
sidered provincialisms; although used in com-
edy, they are avoided in tragedy and prose up
to Thucydides (Allen 1987:45). Both are later
replaced by the more general lonic geminate ss/
rs. Thus Modern Greek has §¢Aacca ['@alasa] and
apgevixög [arseni’kos] but &ppev [‘aren], too,
6. CONCLUSION
We see here once more the importance of the
reflexes of historical processes. Words like
thdlatta are lexicalized, and thus not recover-
able (but see Lejeune 1972208). However, the
morphologized rule is present in the verb forma-
tion, indicating the common historical dental
and velar palatalization and their recoverabil-
ity. These are of course the bases for the claim
we made concerning ‘the essential unity of the
Greek language’, as Meillet (1943) so eloquently
put it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. 19879. Vox Graeca, The pronunciation of
Classical Greek. Cambridge.
Bartonék, Antonin. 1966. Development of the long vowel sys-
tem in Ancient Greek dialects. Prague.
. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidel-
berg.
Brandenstein, Wilhelm. 1954. Griechische Sprachwissen-
schaft, I. Einleitung, Lautsystem, Etymologie, Berlin.
Brixhe, Claude. 1996. Phonétique et phonologie du grec
ancien. Louvain-la-Neuve.
96 PHONOLOGY (SURVEY)
Bubenik, Vit 1983. The phonological interpretation of Ancient
Greek. A pandialectal analysis. Toronto - Buffalo - London,
Chadwick, John. 1969. “Greek and Pre-Greek”, TPAS 1969:80-98,
Giannakis, G. K. zou. foropixd FAwocodoyla xat Prdcdoyla [His-
torical linguistics and philology}. Thessaloniki.
Golston, Chris. 2006. “Diphthongs”. In: Encyclopedia oflan-
guage and linguistics, and edition, ed. by Keith Brown, vol.
4, 601-603. Oxford.
de Haas, Wim. 1988. A formal theory of vewel coalescence. A
case study of Ancient Greek. Dordrecht.
Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. PhD dis-
sertation, MIT.
Lejeune, Michel, 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki. 1975. “Derived long mid-
vowels in Greek: a controversial rule", Sprache 21135-1956.
. 1998. “Tapampyces ora Sarda ohpava me ATES
{Remarks on the aspirate consonants in Attic], MeAétec
ya mv EAAnvon} yAwooa = Studies in Greek Linguistics
18:304-316.
Meillet, Antoine. 19437. Apergu d'une histoire de la langue
greeque. Paris.
Miller, D. Gary. 1976. “Liquids plus s in Ancient Greek",
Glotta 54:1159-172:
Risch, Ernst and Ivo Hajnal. 2006. Grammatik des mykenis-
chen Griechisch, (Published online at http://www.uibk,
ac.at/sprachen-literaturen/sprawi/mykgr.html],
Ruijgh, C. J. 1967. Etudes sur fa grammaire et le vocabulaire
du grec mycénien, Amsterdam,
Ruipérez, M. S. 1972. “Le dialect mycenien". In: Acta Myce-
raea I |= Minas 1], ed. by M.S. Ruipérez, 136- ı69. Sala-
manca.
Schwyzer, Eduard 1953. Griechische Grammatik. Erster Band,
Munich.
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosudies and the nature af syl-
tabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1968, “The Attic Rückverwandlung‘
or atomism and structuralism in action". In: Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift für
Wilhelm Brandenstein (1898-1967), ed, by Manfred May-
rhofer, 139-157. Innsbruck.
Threatte, Leslie, 1980. The grammar of Attic inscriptions.
Volume One. Phonology. Berlin — New York.
Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick. 1953. “Evidence for
Greek dialect in the Mycenaean archives”, JHS 73:84-103.
Vilborg, Ebbe, igfo. A tentative grammar af Mycenaean
Greek. Gothenburg,
Vis, Jeroen. 2008. Aspects of the phonology of Mycenaean
Greek. PhD dissertation, University of Crete.
ANGELIKI MALIKOUTI-DRACIIMAN
Phonotactics
Phonotactic constraints define permissible
sequences of + consonants and > vowels (for a
detailed description of licit consonantal com-
binations, see Lupas 1972133-41 and Steriade
1982:293-4; for vowels, see Lupas 1972:141—51).
We illustrate this here with consonant phonot-
actics in Ancient Greek.
Within a word, Attic Greek permits conso-
nants to cluster with considerable freedom (for
possible segmental sequences between words
see + Sandhi). In this article we will look mainly
at word-initial and word-final possibilities; simi-
lar restrictions apply to the onset, nucleus, and
coda of + syllables. Tautomorphemic stops agree
in + voicing and > aspiration (> Assimilation),
so we find word onsets like the following, where
the first two consonants agree:
— kteis ‘comb’
~ khthés ‘yesterday’
- gdoupéd'! thud' (epic)
No words in Greek begin with [kth, kd], [kht,
khd], or [gt, gth], where the initial consonants
disagree in aspiration and voicing. Across mor-
pheme and syllable boundaries stops need not
agree in this way:
— ék-thusis ‘atonement’
— ék-dusis ‘way out
Word-initially, [s] can be followed by any stop
other than [d] and [g], ie, by p/t/k, b, ph/th/kh;
it can also be followed there by [m] but not by
In, I, r]. [s] is the only consonant allowed in CCC
clusters word-initially: spl-, spr-, sphl-, sphr-, stl-,
str-, skl-, skr-, etc, The only consonants that can
precede [s] word-initially are [p, k, t], though the
latter is only true if the letter Z represents [ts].
Stops can be followed word-initially by nasals,
but not all combinations are attested: (pr, im,
thn, dm, dn, kn, khn, gn) occur but *(pm, phm,
phn, bm, bn, tn, thm, km, khm, gm) do not. Labial
and dorsal stops can be followed by coronals
word-initially (pt-, phth-, d-, kt-, khth-, gd-), but
never the reverse *(tp-, thph-, db-, tk-, thkh-, dg-).
Any stop (p, ¢, k, ph, th, kh, 6, d, g) can be followed
by any liquid (fr).
Word-initial [m] can only be followed by [n];
word-initial [n, |, r] cannot be followed by any
consonant.
Word-internally, a wide range of segmental
combinations is possible; some of these, how-
ever, are leveled out by assimilation over time
(for changes in consonant clusters, see Sihler
1995:196-224).
Word-finally only three consonants are per-
missible in Greek: |r], [n], and [s]. The set of pos-
sible word-final consonant clusters is thus small
in comparison to what one finds word-initially
 PHONOTACTICS
and word-internally. The following are the pos-
sible word-final consonant clusters, all of which
end in [s]: [ls, (m)ps, nks, rks]. For systematic
gaps in consonant-cluster patterns, see Steriade
(1982:215-6).
In general, phonotactic configurations are
conditioned by the sonority hierarchy (in order
of decreasing sonority: vowels > glides > liquids
> nasals > fricatives > stops), according to which
the syllable nucleus is the sonority peak and
sonority decreases tawards either edge of the
syllable (see generally Blevins 1996; for Greek,
Devine and Stephens 1994:22-6). To take a clear
example, stops [p, t, k, ph, th, kh, b, d, g] are
lower on the sonority scale than liquids [I], so
stop + liquid is permitted in onsets while liquid
+ stop is completely excluded there. Within the
syllable onset in Greek, sonority must rise (pl,
tm) or plateau (mn, pt), but never fall *({p, mt).
The converse is true for syllable codas, where [ls,
(m)ps, yks, rks] can occur but [sl, pr, tn, etc.] are
impossible.
The distribution of [s] is exceptional with
respect to this sonority sequencing in Greek
and cross-linguistically (+ Movable s). Alongside
expected [ps, ks] onsets with rising sonority,
we also find in Greek [sk, skh, sp, sph] onsets
with falling sonority. And while coda [sp, sk]
are ruled out on general grounds (word-final p,
k are prohibited), coda [ks] and [ps] should be
impossible (X and p being less sonorous than
s) but are well-attested. Word-internally, [s] is
deleted between stops, e.g. leleg-sthai > lelégthai
> lelékhthai (Steriade 1982:216; Devine and Ste-
phens 1994:43). Since Fudge (1969), exceptional
cases of [s] like this are treated with the offend-
ing [s] somewhere outside of the onset or coda
proper, considered nowadays as licensed by the
+ prosodic word directly, rather than by any
part of the syllable. Greek would then allow
exceptional [s] only at the edges of words, not
within them. See Cété (zou) for a recent over-
view of final consonants and Goad (2011) for
s+consonant clusters.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blevins, Juliette. 1996. "The syllable in phonological theory”.
In: The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John Gold-
smith, 206-244. Malden - Oxford.
Cété, Marie-Héléne. zou. “Final consonants”. In: Oosten-
dorp et al. z011:848-872.
Devine, Andrew M. and Lawrence D, Stephens. 1994. The
prosody of Greek speech. Oxford - New York.
Firth, John R. 1930. Speech. London.
97
Fudge, Eric C. 1969. “Syllables*, Journal of Linguistics
§:253-285.
Goad, Heather. zon. “The representation of sC clusters”, In:
Oostendorp et al. 201-898-923.
Lupas, Liana. 1972. Phonologie du grec attique. The Hague.
van Oostendorp, Marc, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume and Keren
Rice. zon. The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 2.
Malden — Oxford.
Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. Oxford — New York.
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of
syllabification, Ph.D. diss. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Phytonyms (Names of Trees)
Ancient Greek attests a number of tree-names
(dendronyms and phytonyms) whose origins are
diverse: some were inherited from PIE (> Indo-
European Historical Background), others con-
structed within Greek itself (+ Greek Lexicon,
Structure and Origin of), taken from the sub-
strate language(s) (> Pre-Greek Substrate), or
borrowed fram neighboring languages (> Greek
and Anatolian Languages; + Greek and Semitic
Languages (Early Contacts)); the origins of some
remain obscure, These dendronyms may be clas-
sified according to their origin into the following
groups:
L TREE-NAMES WITH INDO-EUROPEAN
COGNATES
dgnos (H. Hom.) ‘/willow-like chaste-tree/Vitex
agnus-castus': Slav. *agneds ‘black poplar’.
aigilaps (Theophr.) ‘Turkey oak/Quercus cerris’,
lit. ‘crack-barked’: Lith. diZa ‘crack’, Gk. laps:
khlamüs (Hsch.). Gmc. *aikö ‘oak’ (BlaZek
2002:23-24).
äkarna: däphne (Hsch.) ‘sweet bay’: Gmce.
*ahurna- ‘maple’ < *hzekr-(n-), cf. dkastos:
sphendamnos (Hsch.) ‘maple’.
aktea (Kmp.) ‘elder-tree/Sambucus nigra’ <
*atkeua: Avest, ak$aena- ‘dark-colored’.
apellön: aigeiros (Hsch.) ‘black poplar < *sm-
pelno-: Germ. Vielbaum, Lat. populus (Blazek
2003:6). Cf. E. Caucasian *philV ‘poplar/asp/
ash-tree’ (Nikolaev & Starostin 1994:870).
dpion (Aristoph.) ‘pear'/dpios (Aristot.) ‘pear-
tree/Pyrus communis': Lat. pirum/pirus <
*(sm-)piso- (BlaZek 2003:6).
ärkeuthos 'juniper/Juniperus macrocarpa’ (Hip-
poc.) / ‘Phoenician cedar/Juniperus phoenicea'
98 FHYTONYMS (NAMES OF TREES)
() //'prickly cedar/funiperus oxycedrus’ ()/|
Cret. ärgetos: ärkeuthos (Hsch.): Old Czech
rokyta, Russian rakita ‘willow/Salix fragilis’
(< *arküta) vs. Lat. arcus ‘bow'(?).
drua: ta Herakleötika kdrua (Hsch.)//auard: ta
Pontika kärua (Hsch.): Alb. arré ‘nut-tree’,
Hitt. harau- ‘poplar’.
dkherdos (Hom. Od.)/akhrds, -ddos (Teleclid.)
‘wild pear/Pyrus amygdaliformis': Macedo-
nian agérda: dpios (Hsch.) < *(sm-)¢*erd-/
g'rd-, cf. Alb. dardhé 'pear(-tree)/Pirus com-
munis’ (BlaZek 2003:6).
balänos 'acom’ (Hom. Od.)/'tree with acorns’
(Theophr.) < *g*lhz-eno-: Arm. katin ‘acorn’,
déndreon (Hom.) ‘tree’ < “derdreyo-: Gmc.
*trewa- ‘id’.
doru, pl. doüra (Hom. Il), Myc. (KN) do-wa /
dorwa/ ‘tree/stem/spear-shaft’ < *doru,
coll. *doruhz.
drüs ‘oak’ (Hom. /Lı2.132)/'tree’ (/l. 22.126) < *dru-
H,-s; Alb. dru 'wood/tree' < “druyeHy.
eldté (Il, Od.) ‘silver fir/Abies cephalonica’ |‘oar',
Myc. (KN+PY) place-name e-ra-te-i /elatehi/
< *H,int-eH,; Gmc. *lenpjö(n) ‘linden’ (Beekes
2010:401).
Arc. heliké (Theophr.) ‘crack willow/Salix fragi-
lis’, Myc. (KN) e-ri-ka /(h)elikas/: Latin salix
< *sH,l-ik-, vs. Helikön (Hes.), Boeot. welikön
‘willow-mountain’, OE welig ‘willow’ < *yel-ik-
(Schrijver 1991:103).
itéa (IL), lon. itee, gitéa: itea (Hsch.) 'willow/Salix
alba' < *uiteya: Pruss. witwan ‘willow.
ipsos/ipsös (Theophr.) ‘cork-oak/ Quercus suber’ |/
ipsön: kissén (Hsch.) ‘ivy’: Pruss. wipis ‘twig’ <
*yeip/b- (Pokorny 1959:1132).
kadrtia (S.) ‘nut-bearing tree’: ‘hazel/Corylus
avellana'//'walnut/ Juglans — regia'/|‘sweet
chestnut/Castanea vesca’ (Theophr.), Mye.
(PY) ka-ru-we /karuei/: Lat. carina ‘shell of a
nut’, Welsh ceri ‘stone of a fmit’ < *Ay- ‘hard’
(Schrijver 1991:208).
klethra (Od.), Ion. klethre ‘alder/Alnus glutinosa’:
Germ. ludere/lutter/ludern ‘Alpine alder/Bet-
ula nana’ < *kläd'ra.
krdneia (IL)/krdnon (Theophr.) ‘cornelian
cherry/Cornus mas’: Lat. cornum ‘id.', Prussian
kirno ‘bush’ < *krn-.
lügde: leiké (Hsch.) ‘white poplar’: Alb. lajthé/
lejthi, Prussian faxde, Lith. la(g)zda ‘hazel-
tree’ < *logsda (Witezak 1997:217).
melia (fl), lon. melié ‘manna ash/Fraxinus
ornus//ashen spear’: Gaulish *melatia/*meletia
‘larch’, cf. *meli(t)- ‘mead/honey (Delamarre
2001:189).
melon (Il), Dor.+Aeol. mälon ‘apple-tree/fruit’,
Myc. (PY) place-name ma-ro /Malon/: mälos:
leukds (Hsch.), Latvian maldbols ‘kind of apple
of a light color’, Lith. mölinas ‘yellowish’ <
*meH,t-; cf. Hitt. mahla- ‘grapevine (of a light
color?)' (BlaZek 2004:25).
da/olta/de (Theophr.)/dia/oa (Pl.) ‘elderberry-/
service-tree/mountain ash/Sorbus domestica’:
Lat, üva ‘grape’ < *HojyeH,- (Beekes 20101041—
42).
oisos ()/oisös (Theophr.) ‘withy/Vitex Agnus-
castus'/oisia (Poll.) 'Ligos/osier < *yojtuo-/a:
Slav. *vétve ‘twig’ (Beekes 2010:1061).
oxtia/oxué ‘beech/Fagus silvatica’ (Theophr.)/
‘spear-shaft’ (Archil.), Myc. (MY) personal
pl./ name o-ku-su-wa-si /oksuansi/: Arm. owsi
'storax-tree/holm-oak' < *“HoksujeH, (Martiro-
syan 2010:641—42).
peüke (Il) ‘pine/Pinus laricio/Gorsican pine’:
Prussian peuse < *peuk-, cf. peri-peukes 'sting-
ing/sharp'.
pitus (Il) ‘pine/Pinus faricio/Corsican pine’:
Wakhi pit 'sp. tree’, Skt. pitu-ddru- ‘Pinus deo-
dora’, cf. Lat. pituita ‘gum from trees/mucus’.
prinos (Hes.) ‘holm-oak/Quercus ilex'/{priné
(Eup.) ‘kermes-oak/Quercus caccifera’: Gaulish
prenne ‘arborem grandem’, Welsh prenn, Olr.
crann ‘tree’ < *k"resno- (Pokorny 1959:633).
smilax (Pl.), Att. milax (Cratin.)/smilos (Nic.)/
milos (Theophr.) ‘yew/Taxus baccata’, Arc.
smilax (Theophr.) ‘holm-oak/Quercus Hex’,
Myc. (PY) mi-ra, {(s)miljas/ < *sm-il-: Mace-
donian flax: prinos (Hsch.), Lat. lex ‘holm oak’
(Blazek 2003:6).
phegös (il.), Dor. phägos () Valonia oak/Quer-
cus aegilops’, Myc. (PY) place-name pa-ko
/Phagos/: Lat. fagus ‘beech’ < "b"eH,go- (Blazek
20024),
2, GREEK INNOVATIONS (WITH PARTIAL
INDO-EUROPEAN ETYMOLOGY)
agris (EM) Valonia oak’; cf. dgrippos (Zen.)/
ägriphos (Hsch.) ‘wild olive’: agrios 'wild'(?).
aigeiros (Il.)/aigeros (Com. Adesp.) ‘black poplar/
Populus nigra’ < “aigei-eros (cf. treis < *treies);
aix ‘goat’+éros ‘love’, i.e., 'goat’s love'(?).
aliphalos: drüs (Hsch.) < *ali-+ phellös (Theophr.)
‘another oak'(?).
haliphloios (Theophr.) ‘sea-bark oak/Quercus
pseudosuber’: hals 'salt/sea'+phloiös ‘bark’.
 PHYTONYMS (NAMES OF TREES)
dspris (Theophr.) ‘Turkey oak/Quercus cerris’:
Lat. asper 'rough/harsh'.
glinos/gleinos (Theophr.) ‘Cretan maple/Acer
creticum’, lit. ‘sticky’: gliné ‘glue’, Welsh glyn
‘sticky’.
atigia (Theophr.) 'maple/Acer campestre//horn-
beam/Carpinus betulus’, lit. ‘yoke-wood":
zugon ‘yoke’.
klind-trokhos (Theophr.) 'sycamore/Acer pseu-
doplatanus': OF Alin ‘maple’; cf. klinö ‘bend/
incline’.
feike (Theophr.) ‘white poplar/Populus alfa’ =
‘white’ (f.).
lugéa (Eust.) ‘willow’: fügas (Longus) ‘withy/
Vitex agnus-castus’, pl. ‘twigs’ (Hom.) < *leug-
‘bend/twist’ (Beekes 2010:874-75).
ostrüalostrüelöstrus (Theophr.) ‘hop hornbeam/
Ostrya carpinifolia’ < *ost-druya ‘bone-hard-
wood'{?).
plätänistos (ll.)/plätänos (Aristoph.) ‘plane-
tree/Platanus orientalis': platüs ‘broad/wide'
because of its broad crown.
saronis, -idos (Callim.) ‘old hollow oak’//soranis:
eldté palaid (Hsch.): place-name Sdrén in
Troizenia (Fick 1905:72).
sphendamnos (Theophr.) ‘Olympian maple/
Acer monspessulanum'//sphendamnos: xulon
(Hsch.) 'wood': sphedands'vehement' = sphodrös
‘id./strong/robust’, cf. Lat. röbur: robustus.
phellös (Theophr.) ‘cork-oak/Quercus suber’
< *b*elno-: Slovenian blanja ‘stem’, Russian
bölon' 'sap-wood/weak bark’ < *boln’a/*bolnv.
philüra (Theophr.), fon. philüre (Hdt.) ‘lime
tree/Tilia platyphyllos’ < *phulirä; cf. philüke
(Hdt.)/phuliké (Theophr.) ‘evergreen buck-
thorn/Rhamnus alaternus’; compatible with
phiilia (Od.)?
phiilia (Od.) ‘sp. tree: wild olive”: phüllon (Il.)
‘leat’, Olr. bile ‘tree’ (Pokorny 1959:122).
3. SEMITIC (VIA HURRIAN?) BORROWINGS
amugddléa (Eup.), Cyrenaic arnusgela, -ula
‘almond-tree/Prunus amygdalus', amikhtha-
léessa (Il. 24.753) ‘rich in almonds’, Perhaps an
adaptation of unattested Heb. *misq*da ‘place
planted with almond-trees’, cf. rrsugadim
‘shaped like an almond blossom’: saqéd
‘almond-tree’, Phoenician sgd, Ugaritic tqd,
Aramaic sigdd, Akkadian Ssigdu(m)/Suqdu/
sigdu, Neo-Assyrian dugdu id., perhaps influ-
enced by Heb. degel ‘date-tree’, Mandaic
digla/ziqla ‘date-palm' (Cohen et al. 1970-:303;
99
m-prefixes see Brockelmann 1908:377-78, 201).
Cf. also soüklai: phoinikobälanoi (Hsch.).
elaia (Hom.), Att. elda, Cypr. élaiwon, Myc. (KN)
e-ra-wa, e-ra-wa jelaiwa, -won/ ‘olive-tree’:
Arm. ewt ‘oil’ (Beekes 2010:400) < ?Hurrian <
Akk. ulülm) 'best oil/butter'/Sumerian w,-li/
i-4f (von Soden 1965-8114u). Gk. > Berber:
Ahaggar äleo, pl. äliwen ‘wild olive-tree’ (Fou-
cauld).
erineds (Il.), Att. erineös (Lync.) ‘wild fig-tree/
Ficus caprificus', Myc. (PY) place-name e-ri-
no-wo [Erinwos/ < ?Hurrian, cf. Hitt. irimpi-/
eripi-/irippt- 'cedar(wood)' (Puhvel 1984:284-
85) < Akk, erenu/erinnu ‘cedar-tree/forest’,
Heb. ‘ören 'cedar/pine/laurel' (Cohen et al.
1970-33) < Sumerian eren (von Soden 1965-
81:237).
kedros (Od. 5.60) 'cedar-tree' < ?Hurrian < Akk.
gatru ‘smoky’: gatränu ‘cedar resin’ (Black
et al. 2000:286) > Syriac gatran, Arabic gatran/
giträn ‘pitch’ (Leslau 1987:454).
kerdsds (Xenoph.) 'bird-cherry/Prunus avium’,
Myc. (MY) place-name ke-ra-so /Kerasö/ <
?Hurrian < Akk. kami/e/asSaru(m) ‘pear-tree’
(von Soden 1965-81:432).
küparissos (Od.), Att. küparittos ‘cypress/Cupres-
sus sempervirens’, Myc. (PY) place-name ku-
pa-ri-se-ja /kuparissej(j)a/, cf. Heb. göper
(Gn. vi, 14)/göprit (Gn. xix, 24) fir-tree' (Muss-
Arnolt 1892:111).
q CULTURAL TERMS OF UNCERTAIN
ORIGIN
äbin: eldtén, peukén (Hsch.) ‘silver fir; pine’: Lat.
abiés, -tis ‘fir-tree’, ?Scythian place-name
Abike (Steph. Byz.) = Hulaid (Hdt.) (Schrader
& Nehring I:310).
akheröis, -idos (IL) ‘white poplar/Populus alba’:
adaptation of Hitt. Aaraw- ‘poplar(?).
kastanéa (Gp.), Att. inscr. kdstana/kasténon
(Nic.) ‘chestnut-tree’, kdstanos: kardai (Hsch.),
in Elymologicurn Magnum derived from Ihe
place-name Kastanéa in Asia Minor; but cf.
Arm. kask 'chestnut', kaskeni ‘chestnut-tree’ <
"kast-(u)k-eni (Beekes 2010:655; Martirosyan
2010:353).
önkhne (Od.), okhne (Theoc.) ‘pear-tree/Pirus
communis', énkhnia: dpion (Hsch.), besides
könkhnai: önkhnai (Hsch.) < ?Hurrian, cf.
E. Caucasian “yon’V ‘pear (Nikolayev &
Starostin 1994:475), besides Akk. uhuinnum/
uhinnu(m)/upe(n)num ‘fresh date(s)’, Syriac
100 PHYTONYMS (NAMES OF TREES)
'ahnä (Black et al, 2000:419; Cohen
1970-15).
proumné (Theophr.) ‘plum-tree/Prunus’, proüm-
non (Gal.) ‘plum’, *protwnon > Lat. pränum;
cf, the place-name Prumnessös in Phrygia.
pteléa (il), lon. ptelee, Myc. (KN) pte-re-wa or
pe-te-re-wa |ptelewäs/ ‘elm/Ulmus glabra’:
Arm. t‘efi ‘elm’, Lat. tilia ‘linden’ (Martirosyan
2010:284-85).
sukéa (Od.), Dor. sitkia ‘fig-tree’, sükon (Od.+Hdt.),
Boeot. tükon (Stratt.), Myc. (KN+PY) su-za
/sütsai/. No common denominator
Lat. ficus, Arm. t‘owz ‘fig-tree’ (Martirosyan
2010:295).
5. MEDITERRANEAN SUBSTRATUM
askéra: eidos ti tön kastaniön (Hsch.) ‘sp. chest-
nut', äskra: drüs dkarpos (Hsch.) ‘fruitless
tree’: Basque azkar ‘sp. oak’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aura Jorro, Francisco. 1985-93. Diccionario micenico,
Madrid.
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Beckes, Robert. 2010. Ftymological dictionury of Greek, \~II.
Leiden - Baston,
Black, J., A. George and N. Postgate. 2000, A concise dietion-
ary of Akkadian, Wiesbaden.
Bladek, Vaclav. 20028. “The 'beech’-argument — State-of-the-
Art", HS usagn-217.
. 2002b. “A Baltic key to the etymology of Germanic
*aiké ‘oak’ ", Baltistica 37 [1:23-24.
——, 2003. “The prefix “si-/*som- in the Indo-European
tree- & plant-names", Linguistica Brunensia A5.:5-11.
——. 2004. “Indo-European ‘apple. In: Die Indugermanistik
und ihre Anrainer, ed. Thorwald Poschenrieder, 11~30.
Innsbruck (IBS 114).
Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden
Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, |, Berlin.
Cohen, David et al. 1970-. Dictionnaire des racines sémi-
tiques. Paris,
Delamarre, Xavier. zoo. Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise.
Paris.
Fick, August. 1905. Vorgriechische Ortsnamen. Göttingen.
Leslau, Wolf. 1987. Comparative dictionary of Geez. Wiesbaden.
Martirosyan, Hrach. 2010. Etymolegical dietionury of the
Armenian inherited lexicon. Leiden - Boston.
Muss-Amolt, W. 1892. On Semitic words in Greek and Latin.
Ann Arbor.
Nikolayev, 5, L. and 8, A, Starostin. 1994. A North Caucasian
etymological dictionary. Moscow.
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. /ndogermanisches etymologisches
Wörterbuch. Munich - Bern.
Puhvel, Jaan. 1984-. Hittite etymological dictionary. Berlin —
New York — Amsterdam.
Schrader, Otto and Alfons Nehring. 1917-29, Reullexikan der
indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Berlin - Leipzig.
Schrijver, Peter. 1991. The reflexes of the Proto-Indu-European
laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam — Atlanta.
et al. von Soden, Wolfram. 1965-81. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch.
Wiesbaden.
Witczak, Krzysztof. 1997. “Greek and Albanian: new evi-
dence for lexical connection”, Zeitschrift für Balkanoloyie
33/2:214—220.
VACLAV BLAZEK
Pitch
When we hear a sound with regular vibration
with (such as that of a + vowel), the pitch sensation
that we perceive corresponds closely to the fre-
quency of vibration of the vocal cords: the higher
the frequency of the vibration of the vocal cords,
the higher the pitch we perceive; the lower the
frequency, the lower the pitch (see Gussenhoven
20041-u, Devine and Stephens 1994157-194).
The number of cycles per second (or any other
measure of time) is known as the fundamental
frequency (or F@ “f-zero”) of an acoustic sig-
nal. While pitch and fundamental frequency are
I-11. often used interchangeably, they are technically
different: pitch is an auditory or psychoacoustic
property of sound, while fundamental frequency
is a measure of the number of cycles per second
of a periodic waveform.
Ancient Greek speakers used pitch to give
prominence to certain - syllables (or rather
+ moras) within a word. There is a range of evi-
dence for this claim, including: native descrip-
tions of the accent (e.g. Pl. Phdr. 268d; Aristot.
Rhet. 1403b), much of which relies on metaphors
from music (Allen 1987:16); the correspondence
between Greek accentual patterns and those
of Vedic Sanskrit, which we know were based
on pitch (see Allen 1953); Greek + accentua-
tion itself, which is conditioned more by moraic
structure than by syllabic structure, a typical
feature of pitch-accent systems; and musical
texts, in particular the Delphic Hymns (Devine
and Stephens 1994:172-173), as melodic contour
and word accent sometimes correlate (see Allen
1987:18-122; Devine and Stephens 199466,
171-194; Cosgrove and Meyer 2006; — Song and
Recitation).
Ancient Greek sources themselves (Pl. Crat.
399a) recognize two categories of accent, a
high-pitch one labeled oxis ‘sharp, acute’ and
a low-pitch bariés ‘heavy, grave.’ It is the for-
mer that gives prominence to a syllable in a
word, and is therefore referred to sometimes as
the duirios tönos or ‘pitch proper.’ Dionysius of
 PITCH
Halicarnassos (De comp. verb, 11.40) reports that
there is only one high tone per word (Devine and
Stephens 1994172). The low tone by contrast is
characterized as sudlabikds, or ‘intrinsic to the
syllable,’ which suggests that low pitch is essen-
tially the absence of high pitch (Allen 1987218;
Devine and Stephens 1994172). The high-pitch
accent is represented in modem texts with an
acute (”), while the low tone is unmarked, (In
an earlier system, every non-high syllable was
marked with a grave: see Laum 1928; Schubart
1962.) When the accent falls on the final mora
of a word (and the word occurs in continuous
speech), it is represented with a grave (') mark;
Devine and Stephens (1994:181-182) argue that
this represents a lowered high tone. With long
vowels and + diphthongs, a high pitch can occur
on either the first or second mora of the vowel.
When it falls on the first mora, the fall in pitch
occurs on the second mora, and thus carries
some variety of low pitch, The presence of such
a high-low tonal contour on a syllable nucleus
(i.e, a contour tone) is represented in modern
texts with a circumflex (*); for the descriptive
labels from the ancient grammarians, see Allen
(1987:122). In addition to these two categories, a
number of grammarians refer to a mésos ‘middle’
accent, but the meaning of the term has been
debated (see Allen 1987122). Devine and Ste-
phens (1994172), however, confidently propose
a phonetic mid-tone.
Pitch plays a role post-lexically, as well; in
many languages it is used, e.g. in questions, to
convey affective meaning, and to signal infor-
mation structure (+ Information Structure and
Greek). In this role, it is usually referred to as
intonation (for a general overview of which, see
Cruttenden 1997; Gussenhoven 2004; Ladd 2010;
+ Intonational Phrase). The Greek accentuation
system is used almost exclusively to characterize
word-level pitch patterns, with the result that
information about sentence intonation is very
difficult to come by. Onc example is the accen-
tuation of the interrogative pronoun fis ‘who’,
whose acute accent does not become grave when
followed by another word, as happens with other
lexical items accented on the final mora. Its
fixed status presumably reflects sentence-level
prosody and not word-level prosody. Intonation
is widely used to encode pragmatic meaning
such as affect and information structure; while
it is hard to imagine that Greek speakers did not
101
use pitch to this end, evidence for this practice is
scant (see further Dunn 1989).
BiBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. 1953. Phonetics in Ancient India. London.
. 1987. Vox Graeca: the pronunciation of Classical Greek.
ard ed. Cambridge.
Cosgrove, Charles H. and Mary C. Meyer. 2006, “Melody
and word accent relationships in Ancient Greek musical
documents: the pitch height rule", The Journal of Hellenic
Studies 126:66-B1.
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Jntonation, and ed. Cambridge.
Devine, Andrew M. and Lawrence D. Stephens. 1994. Tre
prosudy uf Greek speech. Oxford — New Yurk,
Dunn, Graham. 198g. “Enclitic pronoun movement and the
Ancient Greek sentence accent”, Glotta 671-19.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phenology of tone and into-
nation, Cambridge.
Ladd, D. Robert. 2009. Intonational phonology. Cambridge.
Laum, Bernhard. 1928. Des alexandrinische Akzentuations-
system unter Zugrundelegung der theoretischen Lehren
der Grammatiker und mit Heranziehung der praktischen
Verwendung in den Papyri. Paderborn.
Schubart, Wilhelm, 1962. Das Buch bei den Griechen und
Römern. ard ed. Heidelberg.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Pluperfect
+ Perfect
Plural/Pluralia Tantum
The plural number is used in Ancient Greek
to denote more than two referents; in the lat-
ter case, the + dual should be used. Unlike the
dual, the plural is productive and fully integrated
into the Ancient Greek + number system. This
especially becomes evident in pluralia tantum,
used for referents that occur in a multitude or
consist of numerous parts. This is the case of eth-
nonyms such as Danaoi, whose singular Danaös
refers to a hero. The use of the ‘general’ singular
(Schwyzer 1950:41) for people, as ho Pérsés in the
sense of 'Persians’, ho Makedon ‘Macedonians’, is
only found in the classical authors (esp. Herodo-
tus). Other types of pluralia tantum are attested
for constellations (Pleiddes) and for some terms
denoting body parts such as spldnkhna ‘inward
parts, guts’, referring to heart, lungs, liver, and
kidneys, or phrénes ‘midriff’, metaphorically
referring to the seat of passions. Similar expres-
sions are also found in many other languages,
where nouns that refer to objects consisting of
102 PLURAL/PLURALLA TANTUM

two parts are expressed by the plural, like Engl. the second person of the plural as a polite form
scissors or trousers. of address is unattested in the early texts. This
Even when the same noun allows both a sin- illustrates how politeness was grammaticalized
gular and a plural, it is not always the case that late in the history of Greek and other IE lan-
an opposition between one and more referents guages,
is implied; rather, the same single referent may
be conceptualized in two different ways, that is, BIBLIOGRAPHY
as an undivided whole in the singular and as a Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge.
Saas, F. W. 1965. Pluralia tantum: bijdrage tot de kennis van
group of clearly identifiable units in the plural. het gebruik van de Indoeuropese numeri, in het bijzonder
The singular kéramos, for example, is ‘earth- in het Grieks. Assen.
enware’ in general (Ziegelmasse, Wackernagel Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, Volume Il:
1926:92), while the plural Aéramoi denotes sev- Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Munich.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1936. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel.
eral ‘pieces of pottery’ (die einzelnen Kriige, ib.). Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. “Oats and wheat: the fallacy of
Crosslinguistically, it is also commonly found arbitrariness". In: Ieonicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman,
that the terms for homogeneous substances, 311-342. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
such as ‘flour’ etc., are in the singular, while
CARLOTTA VITI
the plural characterizes those substances that
are composed of clearly perceivable separate
particles such as ‘oats’ (Wierzbicka 1985). This
Poetic Language
is consistent with the fact that nouns ranking
lower on the Animacy Hierarchy often lack a
1, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
plural (Corbett 2000).
It should be observed that the plural form
Poets, bards, seers, and other craftsmen of the
kéramoi is masculine, while a corresponding
word have traditionally been a distinct class of
neuter plural form Aérama would also have a
people endowed with special skills and enjoy-
collective meaning like keramos. Thus, there is
ing a high social esteem and recognition. This
a significant interaction between number and
position is even more conspicuous in preliterate
gender in Ancient Greek, whereby the plural of
societies in which the poets functioned, so to say,
the neuter can also have a collective function in
as the archivists of the past and as the custodians
opposition to the plural of the masculine. For
of tradition. In Indo-European societies, poetic
example, merds ‘thigh’ has two plural forms, a
craft was considered a special art and was highly
masculine mérof that denotes several human
valued. Studying the language and culture of the
thighs and a neuter méra for thighs of animals
ancient Indo-Europeans necessarily also involves
that are used in the ritual of sacrifice; the latter
the study of poetic craft and poetics in general.
are tantamount to a mass noun (+ Collective/
Poetry is coded in a special kind of language, and
Mass Nouns). This collective meaning of the
one needs to decipher this code in order to fully
neuter plural is grammaticalized in the so-called
understand the encoded message. This activity
ta zöia trekhei-rule, according to which a neuter
has developed into a distinct field within Indo-
plural noun selects a singular verb. This rule
European philological studies since the 1850s
also occurs in Hittite and is inherited from PIE
when the first systematic attempts for study-
(+ Indo-European Linguistic Background). Its
ing Indo-European poetic language had been
loss in Modern Greek parallels how the seman-
launched, first in the works of Adalbert Kuhn
lic basis for the plural number became more
and subsequently by many others. Today, one
obscure.
talks of reconstruction not just of linguistic fea-
In addition to gender, the plural number may
tures of the protolanguage but also of elements
interact with person, also in this case with a
of the Proto-Indo-European poetic language. In
complex array of non-literal meanings. Ancient
the following we will focus on this poetic tra-
Greek shows an interesting asymmetry between
dition in Greek within the wider cultural and
the first person plural and the second person
philological context of Indo-European,
plural in denoting a single referent. While the
use of the pluralis majestatis is attested since
Homer (e.g. Il. 22.393, cf. Wackernagel 1926:98),
 POETIC LANGUAGE
2. LINGUISTICS AND POETICS
Poetics concerns itself with the art and craft of
the language, and as the latter is the main tool
for constructing linguistic structures, the art of
speech, i.e., poetics, must be a central concern
of linguistics. Poetics is both theory and applica-
tion: it is theory since it searches for principles
and analytical tools that provide the theoretical
framework for the analysis of poetic texts, in
other words its scope and aim is the establish-
ment of the general principles that underlie the
structure of texts. In this sense, poetics is a sort
of language, or better metalanguage, and as such
it consists of different levels of organization and
of various parts and subparts, that is to say it
consists of the level of deep structure, the level
of surface structure and the level of transforma-
tions that generate the surface from the underly-
ing structure. Stated differently, poetics is a kind
of grammar, and the search object of the linguist
is the discovery of the organizing principles of its
system (cf. van Dijk 1972165fl.).
The long tradition of research on the Indo-
European poetic language (Dichtersprache) since
the 1850s culminates in two works, namely Rüdi-
ger Schmitt's 1967 classic collection of data and
the relevant discussion therein, and Calvert Wat-
kins' 1995 paradigmatic analysis of the mythopo-
etic theme of dragon-slaying and its implication
on the overall study of poetic language. To be
sure, there is a lot of activity on this problem,
both in producing full-fledged monographs and
shorter essays, organizing special workshops and
conferences, etc. (e.g. Pinault & Petit 2006).
Watkins adopts Jakobson’s (1960) thesis that
poetics is part of linguistics, and develops on it
a theory of Indo-European poetics. In his semi-
nal work of 1995 he elaborates on the idea that
poetic language constitutes a kind of grammar,
the poetic grammar. Structurally, this grammar
consists of levels of sound and levels of mean-
ing. The first level, that of sound organization,
comprises the domain of metrics and other
rhythmic features and sound devices, what he
terms phonetic figures, such as alliteration and
rhyme. The level where the phonetic compo-
nent and that of meaning are combined is the
higher level of grammatical figures. A still higher
level of organization is that of formulaics, i.e.,
the level that combines the lexicon and the
syntactic components. The + formulas are the
103
vehicle of themes, i.e., the various things that
the Indo-European poets talk about and which
constitute the verbal expression of the culture of
the Indo-European speakers, All the above nar-
row down to the three main facets of the study
of poetic language: formulaics, metrics, and sty-
listics. As explained by Watkins (1995712): “For-
mulaics — the oldest — examines and compares
lexically and semantically cognate or closely
similar phrases in cognate languages... Metrics
examines and compares similar versification
systems... Stylistics examines and compares all
the other linguistic devices, figures, and other
recurrent phonological, morphological, and syn-
tactic variables which may be in play in verbal
art in cognate languages.” Thus, the full and
combined treatment of all these levels and/or
elements of poetic language amounts to writing
the grammar of this poetic language.
Up until now the efforts aimed at recover-
ing traditional features of the Indo-European
poetic language on the phrasal level (formulas).
It seems that this is the upper limit that the com-
parative method as applied can reach. However,
one would also like to move to larger units of
language and more particularly to experiment
with textual reconstruction. Textual reconstruc-
tion has been attempted in the past (e.g. by
Schleicher and by others), but the effort is met
with caution; an effort to formulate a ‘theory’
of textual reconstruction of Indo-European has
been put forth by Matasovid (1996).
As a methodological procedure for compari-
son and reconstruction it should be added here
that ideally the best cases are those where the
data provide full etymological equations of the
type, for instance, of Gk. kle(w)os aphthiton and
Skt. sravas aksitam ‘unquenched fame', but in
reality such perfect matches are quite rare, What
we find instead is partial formal correspon-
dences, as a result of lexical replacement, but
with the same or similar meaning, With the pro-
viso that a number of criteria and conditions are
met, we can accept such material as trustworthy
comparative evidence for (mytho)poetic recon-
struction. On this see Campanile (1993), Watkins
(199515, and for application of this methodologi-
cal principle 297ff.). For a discussion of the prin-
ciples and the criteria of cognacy, especially with
respect to the reconstruction of metaphors, see
Giannakis (2007).
ing PORTIG LANGUAGE
3. ‘POET’ AND ‘POETRY’ IN ANCIENT
GREECE
All ancient Indo-European languages attest
many words for poet and poetry, so that one
draws the plausible conclusion that poetry must
be a common inheritance in the dialects from
the protolanguage. See, among others, Schmitt
(1967:301ff.), Meid (197818), Bader (1989:18),
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995:731-740), and West
(2007:26ff.). For a detailed discussion of the ori-
gin of the Greek poetic tradition, see Durante
(1971 and 1976).
The terms ‘poet’ and ‘poetry’ in various Indo-
European branches exhibit a special relation
to the semantic field of making, constructing,
weaving and the like. This metaphorical nomen-
clature is in line with the poet's position in
ancient Indo-European societies, where his pro-
fession was considered a craft, with the differ-
ence that in this case the material to be crafted
consists of words, Another difference is that
poets performed a rather special task for their
patrons, and this afforded them with equally
special privileges and esteem. A poet is a demi-
urge (démiourgés), a creator, like many other
creators, e.g. wood workers, weavers, potters or
smiths. Like them, poets weave and ply together
the speech into a harmonious and functional
whole.
3.a. The Poet as Craftsman
The idea of the poet-as-craftsman is established
by evidence that poets are like many other pro-
fessionals, and this justifies the metaphorical
comparison of poetic art to other crafts (> Anal-
ogy). Thus, Greek and Indo-Iranian (+ Greek and
Indian Languages) attest a formula that must be
of PIE antiquity, namely *wek”os teks- ‘word
plaiting/crafting’, e.g. Gk. (w)epeön tektones,
Skt. vdcas-taks-, and Av. vacas-tasti-, with literal
meaning 'word-craftsmen', terms that apply to
the poet. In these cases the root “teks- from its
primary reference to construction and plaiting
(e.g. wood} metaphorically extends to poetry
and poet. Thus, poets are tektones sophoi ‘wise
carpenters’ (Pind. Pyth. 3.113) and meligaruon
kömön ‘(carpenters) of honey-voiced praises’
(Pind. Nem. 3.4ff.), while for Sophocles (fr. 162 N)
the Muse of poetry is tektönarkhos ‘chief mason’.
Similarly, Pausanias (10.5.8) attributes ta the
mythical poet Olen the qualification of tektaé-
nein aoidan ‘song making’. Latin attests not a full
but only a partial etymological comparandum in
the phrase texere sermones (Plaut. Trin. 797) to
which one also compares texamus... navis let us
build...ships’ (Verg. Aen. 11.326). Similarly, the
etymologically cognate Sanskrit verb tamsayate
whose common meaning is ‘draw to and fro,
weave’ also applies to poetic composition. By
way of partial or complete lexical replacernent
we also find other ways of expressing the same
idea of the poet as maker or constructor of songs,
as in Old Irish bard and Welsh bardd, from Proto-
Celtic *bardos, compound terms from IE “g*yhp-
d'h,-os, ie, “g’rhy- ‘song’ plus the zero-grade
*d"h,- of the root *d*eh,- ‘put, make’. In Indo-
Iranian this compound is also found analyzed in
the phrases Skt. giras... dha- and Av. gard... da-
‘offer praises’, a phrase that, as noted by West
(2007:28), testifies to the custom of conferring
praise to gods or humans by means of poetry,
something that becomes commen practice in
many branches of Indo-European. The fact that
these terms are attested in the two remotest cor-
ners of the linguistic continuum argues for their
Proto-Indo-European inheritance (cf. Mallory &
Adams 1997:436).
A similar image relating poetry to crafts, espe-
cially chariotry, is reflected in textual evidence,
particularly in the RigVeda where the poem is
metaphorically compared to a chariot (rdtha-),
which reminds of Gk. ofmé and oimos, lit. ‘way,
path’, and then ‘song, poem’.
Campanile (1977:36) believes that the paral-
lelism of poetry to technical crafts, carpentry in
particular, is based on the fact that both profes-
sionals follow traditional and inherited patterns
for their art, where innovation and individual
freedom are allowed to a limited degree and
always within the bounds of the prescribed tra-
dition. “The truth is that the poet's task is pres-
ervation of tradition by the constant re-creation
of it" (Lord ı960:29). On the other hand, the
poet employs a selected vocabulary that codihes
the basic concepts of a prototypical universe,
which is quite different from what happens in
a carpenters workshop. Perhaps, what stimu-
lated the parallelism of poetry and the crafts
is the similarity in the way each professional
treats his respective material: poets build, so to
speak, their poetic compositions on the basis of
pre-existing, technical or thematic, patterns of
poetic tradition, just like craftsmen do in their
area of specialty.
 POETIC LANGUAGE
3.b. Poetry as Weaving/Sewing
Related to the above is also the idea of the poet
as weaver and sewer: like those professionals
who use the thread as the basic material in their
art, so does the poet with words. He weaves and
sews together his raw material, creating a color-
ful quilt made of words and an entire host of
phonetic, morphological and stylistic figures that
adorn his composition. The locus classicus of this
metaphor is the Greek term rhapsödßs, lit. ‘song-
sewer’ and then ‘poet’ (cf. verb rhaptö ‘sew'), a
word that seems to find its underlying form in
the phrase rhäptein aoidan 'sew a song’, attested
in Hesiod (/r. 357.2). With partial or full lexical
substitution many verbs of the same semantic
field are also employed in various combinations
with words meaning song or speech, e.g, the
verbs huphainö ‘weave’ and plekö ‘plait’, and
others. See, for instance, Homer’s mithous kai
medea päsin hüphainon ‘they wove for everybody
tales and contrivances’ (/l. 3.212), or, combined
with Aumnos ‘song’ in the phrase... huphdnas
himnon ...'having woven a song’ (Bacchyl. 5.9),
the noun mythdplokos 'plaiter of tales' (Sappho’s
Fr. 188, and elsewhere), etc. The word hümnos
has been connected either to the IE root *web*-
‘weave’, or to IE *sehz- ‘tie, bind’ (the latter con-
nection suggested by Bader 1989:23, n. 35) (or
even to *su-mn-o-, which reflects a compound
formation of IE “seu-/su- ‘good’, as in Gk. en,
Skt. su- 'good’) and the zero grade of the IE root
*men-H- ‘think’, From this root and by means of
various derivational suffixes a number of items
are derived in the semantic sphere of sewing,
binding and the like, but also with various exten-
sions to contiguous semantic areas. This root is
the etymon of Skt. saman- ‘song, praise’, Iranian
haiti-, a term that refers to a group of texts,
but also Skt. sétra-, originally referring to verses
sewn together, thus a text, and later to a gram-
matical rule as in Pänini's Astadhyayi. Other
cognates include Hitt. ishamai- ‘song, sing’ and
ishamatalla-'singer‘. Bader also adds to the same
family of words the name of the poet Hesiod,
thus its meaning being ‘song sewer’. Despite
the phonological difficulties (e.g., how is the
hu- to be accounted for?), most likely the word
hümnos derives from the first root, ie. from
the zero-grade *“ub’- with the suffix -no-, that
is a protoform *ub"-no-s (with analogical rough
breathing). This etymology agrees with formal
and semantic cognates in other languages, e.g.
OE wordcreft wef'| wove the word craft, i.e.,
105
poetry’ (Cyn. El. 1238), and the Avestan verb vaf-/
uf- which usually means ‘praise’.
4. POETS, SEERS, AND PRIESTS
As was alluded to earlier, in archaic Indo-Euro-
pean societies the poet performed multiple tasks,
as encomiast of heroic figures and their deeds, as
custodian of tradition, as critic of social values,
and as poet-seer and priest. The poet conceives
and reproduces in his composition archetypes
of cosm(ogon)ic nature, presenting a synthesis
of the various components of his art into a har-
monious whole, just like the primordial Creator.
This image of the poet's art was also evident in
his parallelism with weavers and carpenters, in
whose artistic creations one sees images repre-
senting the mythological past, especially themes
drawn from cosmogonic and etiological myths.
{n more or less all Indo-European mythologi-
cal traditions we find some sort of cosmogony.
These compositions are the work of poets who,
either as a collective persona or as an eponymous
figure, occupy a central place in the social and
cultural milieu, since they try to explain in their
work the mystery of the creation of the world.
As we discuss in more detail below, the poets
are the custodians of tradition, and tradition is
built primarily by means of memory. Memory
(mnämä/mneme) enlists features of myth and
religion, as well as achievements of heroic fg-
ures. Memory is also the bridge that links the
past with the present, an activity in which poets
and priests are for preliterate societies the cru-
cial factor. In this respect, the poets’ word is as
important as that of the priests; in both cases it is
sacred irrespective of how it is called, as in Greek
müthos, (w)épos, Sanskrit väc- or by any other
name, a fact also noted by Gonda who writes
that “...there was in those ancient times no
hard and fast line between ‘religion’ and ‘poet-
ics', between a ‘prophet’, a poet, a divine man,
and a 'philosopher” (1963314).
The sacerdotal function of Indo-European
poets is well documented by linguistic and phil-
ological testimonies which are used with refer-
ence to both poets and priests. As suggested by
Benveniste (1969 [:zooff.), in Greek the verb
spendö/-omai and the noun sponde refer to a sac-
rifice which, in addition to the libation itself, is
accompanied by the performance of some sort of
song or hymn, quite often composed on the spot
for the needs of the specific occasion. The ritual
106
also comprises wine drinking. Thus, the offers of
sacred liquid mixture, wine drinking (and food
sharing) and song are insoluably combined in
the ritual. This may be the context within which
one can see the semantic similarities of lexemes
that refer to drinking and singing/composing
(ritual) poetic speech, as in the Sanskrit verbs
(1) gr-, grnati, giräti ‘praise, eulogize' and (2) gr-,
giräti, gildti, grnati ‘swallow, drink’, or the Proto-
Slavic verbs *péti and “pojo ‘sing ritual songs’,
which may go back to a still older form *pojiti,
*pojo with the meaning ‘offer drink’ in the same
sense as the Greek verb spéndo that we just saw.
Based on cross-linguistic evidence from many
Indo-European languages we can detect for the
poet the following four qualifying features: a) his
role within society as encomiast or as a critic,
b} his technical qualifications, c) his special
knowledge and insight and d) his divine inspira-
tion. In Indo-European, vision and insight are a
sort of light emanating from some primordial
center. This special kind of light provides the
appropriate context for poetic inspiration and
poetic production (cf. Gonda :963:26ff.). In this
context it is interesting to note that the concepts
of ‘vision’ and ‘knowledge’ are related both on
the level of semiosis and on that of etymol-
ogy. The Indo-European root *wejd-/*wojd- gives
items with both meanings, e.g. Gk. olda ‘know’
and eidon 'saw' (aorist), Skt. vede ‘know’, Lat.
vidére ‘to see’, Olr. ro-fetar ‘he knows’, OE witan
‘know’ (see Mod, Germ. wissen ‘know’), OCS vede
‘know’, Lith. véizdmi ‘see’, Arm. gitem ‘know’,
Av. vaéda ‘he knows, he sees’, etc. The
root is also present in the Celtic noun druid
‘priest’ (from a proto-form *dru-wid-, literally
‘tree knowledge’), an archaic piece of Indo-Euro-
pean culture, namely the special skills of priests
and seers who derived their arcane and sacred
knowledge from their association with the oak,
Zeus’ sacred tree. To be sure, the same concepts
are also expressed with other verbs, namely by
derivatives of the root *grehz- ‘know’ as in Gk.
gignöskö, Lat. (g)ndscd, Skt. jänäti, OE cunnan,
Mod. Eng. know, etc. In the /liad (17.334) it is
once combined with the verb ‘to see' in a sort
of complementary function: egnö esänta idon
‘recognized him (viz. Apallo) as soon as he saw
him face to face’.
Traditionally and cross-culturally poets
acquire their poetic ability in a way that is paral-
lel to the priest’s training, a process involving
different stages. The first stage is the god-driven
POETIC LANGUAGE
inspiration which instills in the poet’s mind the
divine power to express godly things with human
voice, The poet becomes Enthous 'possessed by
god > inspired’, a fact that allows him to act like
the god’s proxy and reveal to humans divine
truth. This is an interesting point that pervades
our concept of divine inspiration through time
and cross-culturally. In Plate (Ap. z2be), it is
stated that poets speak not so much by means
of wisdom or personal skill but rather as a result
of divine inspiration: “And then I came to realize
soon this thing with regard to the poets, namely
that they do not do what they do on account of
wisdom but by some inbom ability and by being
possessed by god, just like the diviners and the
soothsayers; the latter speak a lot of good things,
but they understand nothing of what they are
saying”.
A similar idea is reflected in the Indian
scholiast and author of the etymological trea-
tise Nirukta Yaska who says about the Vedic
seers that “they had direct inspiration from the
dharma, the divine law, and by the means of oral!
instruction they bequeathed their art to the next
generation of poets who had no direct contact
with dharma’.
Then, once the poetic inspiration has taken
place, the poet ‘has seen’ > ‘has acquired knowl-
edge’ (eiden > nide), and this works as a revela-
tion to him of al! the secrets of traditional poetry.
Now the poet is ready to transfer this message
into human speech and encode it with linguistic
signs. This stage requires a high degree of con-
same sciousness and special skill from the poet. Poetic
art is god-driven and therefore moves in the ter-
ritory of cosmic order, and its power may even
affect the gods. At this level, poetic art is a fully
effected product that operates beyond human
bounds and beyond bounds of time, since it
encompasses the entire universe. In this sense,
then, poetry is equal if not identical to sacred
speech; poets become priests; human word
turns Into divine Word and universal Order (Skt,
Dharma, Vac, Gk. Légos, etc.). Such seems to be
the picture of the world depicted, for instance,
on Achilles’ shield in Homer's /iad 18.478-607,
in similar descriptions in the Vedas, and in other
texts throughout Indo-European: the poet, just
like the priest, paints the picture of the universe,
that is, he ‘explains’ the genesis of the Cosmos
through his god-sent and god-inspired speech.
The Celtic druids performed special tasks that
traditionally belong to priesthood: they were
 POETIC LANGUAGE
a sort of philosopher-priests, occupied special
knowledge, had close ties with the sacred, pre-
sided over sacrifices and other ritual ceremonies,
performed judicial functions, and in general they
were associated with sacred and arcane knowl-
edge. Their association with trees, particularly
the oak brings them close to the oracular and
prophetic functions, as is the case, besides Celtic,
also in the Greek tradition and the practice at
the old oracle of Dodona.
From the Indo-European root *wot- ‘prophet,
seer derive a number of words for poet and
poetry, primarily in the western dialects. This is
the case with Lat. vates ‘prophet, poet’, Old Irish
faith and Welsh qwawd ‘cause, poem, prophesy’
and oudteis (oödreig) ‘prophet’, Old Norse ddr
‘poetry, (poetic?) rage; inspired poetry’, (cf. Gk.
ménis), OE wöd ‘frenzied; poetry’, OHG wuot
‘frenzied’, Goth. wops ‘possessed, ecstatic’, OCS
vétiji ‘orator’. To the same etymon also belongs
the name of the ancient Germanic god Woden or
Odin, who among his other characteristics was
the patron god of poetry and poetic inspiration
(cf. the Skt. verbs vat-'blow’ and api-vat- ‘inspire’;
see Meid 1990714).
5. THE FEATURES OF POETIC LANGUAGE
As said earlier, what distinguishes poetic lan-
guage from normal everyday language is a num-
ber of features that make this language artistic
language, and these are meter (+ Lyric Meter;
~+ Epic Meter), style, and special diction (> Lyric
Poetry, Diction of; + Epic Diction). Similarly, the
study of poetic language focuses on the study of
the metrical organization of traditional poetic
language, the study of the expressive means
such as lexicon and lexical combinations, e.g.
the + formulas, and the study of syntactic, pho-
netic, phonaesthetic and stylistic figures. Among
these are: + figures such as hyperbaton, hyper-
bole, various analogical figures such as similes,
synecdoche, symmetry, antithesis and paral-
lelism, zeugma, merisms, etymological figures
(e.g. Epos eipein ‘so to speak’, Skt. vacas-vac-,
etc.), antonymic pairs (e.g. bios abiotos ‘life unliv-
able’, fimen alimenos ‘harbor that is no harbor’,
numphé dnumphos ‘bride with no bride’, etc.),
chiastic structures, ring compositions, repeti-
tions, polyptoton, accumulation of synonyms,
anagrams, alliteration, and many others.
107
In the following we will make a cursory men-
tion of four characteristic examples of such
features of poetic language, namely allitera-
tion, polyptoton, anagrams, and the distinction
between the “language of gods” vs. the “language
of men”.
5.a, Alliterative Effects
Soph. OT 371: tuphlos td t’ öta tén te noün td
t' ömmat’ ef ‘you are blind in both your eyes,
your ears and your mind’ is said of Teiresias by
Oedipus in what seems to be an outright case
of tragic irony, Here the repetition of [t] sounds
like a weapon that hits its victim with repeated
blows. The phonetic structure of the line is in a
way analogous to the visual images created by
its sounds. Such phonetic figures are exploited
effectively throughout Indo-European poetic
traditions. For comparative purposes we will cite
a similar case from Armenian (Birth of Vahagn
1.31), where the repetition of the syllable [erk]
aims at putting emphasis on the meaning of the
verb which is also fronted to the prominent first
postition (quoted from Watkins 1995167):
erkner erkin Heaven was in labor,
erkner erkir earth was in labor,
erkner ewcovncirani the purple sea too was
in labor
erkn icovun uner Labor pangs in the sea
seized
zkarmrikn etegnik the little crimson reed
As noted by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995:736),
“Alliterative repetition has the semantic func-
tion of singling out a syllable or phoneme group
of some key word that carries the major seman-
tic load within the relevant poetic segment”. Cf.
further cases like Skt. ägium dsvam (acc. sg.) ‘fast
horse’, the classic formula Skt. dhann dhim ‘he
killed the snake’, and many other similar com-
binations.
5.b. Polyptoton
In the following fragment from Anacreon (fr.
303), the name of Cleobulus is used in three dif-
ferent cases (gen., dat. and acc.) in an effort to
create a special effect for its use, especially as is
also fronted to the beginning of the line main-
taining the old word order OSV:
108 POETIC LANGUAGE

hidden in them which can be decoded only by

Kleoboulou men I for sure love Cleobulus, the expert eye. Such is the case in the following
Egög'ereö example from the Hymn to Apollo 362:
Kleoboulöi d’ Iam mad for Cleobulus,
epimainornai
(1) leipe de thumön | phoinön apopneious‘; ho d’
Kleöboulon de Il look earnestly at epeüxato Phoibos Apöllön
dioskeö Cleobulus 'and so she left her life, breathing forth
blood; then Phoebus Apollo boasted over it’
A famous example of polyptoton is found in the
first hymn of the RigVeda where in the first five The phonetic structure of the line forms an ana-
stanzas the first word is the name of the god Agni gram for the god’s name hidden in the bold
given in the acc., nom., instr., and voc. (Agnim, portions of the phrase (phoi...apo...), prolep-
Agnis, Agninä, Agne), as if the poet wishes to also tically anticipating it as it comes at the end of the
give the inflection of the god’s name, used along verse (cf. Watkins 1992:89).
with fronting of the name, creating a special The second example is from Hesiod’s Theo-
phonaesthetic and poetic effect. gony 64-71, where one can read behind several
words tlıe names of the Muses who are men-
5.c. Anagrams tioned a few lines later (77-79):
In anagrams the arrangement of the sounds of a
word or phrase is such as to allude to messages

par d’ autéis Kharités te kai Himeros oiki' ekhousin

65 en thalléis; eraten dé did stöma dssan hielsai
melpontai, päntön te ndmous kai éthea kedna
athandton kleiousin, eperaton dssan hieisai
hai tét’ isan pros Olumpon agallömenai opt kaléi,
ambrosiei molpéi; peri d’ iakhe gaia melaina
70 humnetsais, eratös de podön hipo doüpos orörei
nisoménon pater’ eis hén; ha d’ouranöi embasileüei

And beside them the Graces and Himerus (Desire) live

65 in delight. And they, uttering through their lips a lovely voice,
sing the laws of all and the goodly ways of the immortals,
uttering their lovely voice. Then went they to Olympus,
delighting in their sweet voice, with heavenly song, and
the dark earth resounded about them as they chanted
zo anda lovely sound rose up beneath their feet as they went
to their father. And he was reigning in heaven’ (transl, by Evelyn-White)

In this passage, a number of items (bold in
the text) are anagrams of the names of seven
Muses, drawing thus the following correspon-
dences: Thaleia (thaliéis), Erato (eraten, eperaton,
eratös), Melpomene (mélpontai, molpéi), Cleio
(Aletousin), Calliope (opi kalei), Polymnia (hum-
neusais) and Ourania (ourandi). The proximity
of the catalogue with the names of the Muses
cannot be a coincidence; it ratheris an anagram-
matic inscription of their names by the poet.
See also the comments by West (1966:180-181)
and the discussion by Matasovid (1996:17-118)
and Giannakis (2005:313, 2008:58). On anagrams
see Starobinski (1971) and Bader (1993). Cf. also
Giannakis (2005:310-324).
5.d. “Language of Gods” vs. “Language of Men”
Another feature of ancient Indo-European poetry
that may also demonstrate the poet-priest rela-
tionship is reflected in the well known division
into two language idioms, namely the “language
of gods” vs, “the language of men”. This distinc-
tion is essentially one of high versus low style of
poetic diction, or as is put by Watkins (1995:38),
 POETIC LANGUAGE
it “refer[s] to a hierarchy of aesthetically marked
versus aesthetically unmarked appellations of
the same entity’. This distinction can explain a
number of phenomena such as the use of syn-
onyms (lexicon), special phonetic and phonaes-
thetic devices, eg. anagrams (phonology),
morphologically marked types of language (mor-
phology), and a whole series of special syntactic
and stylistic figures (syntax). Space limitations
do not allow us a full treatment of this matter
here. One or two examples will suffice to give
us a glimpse (cf. Watkins 1995:38). For a brief
overview of the matter, see the following items:
Giintert (1921), Lazzeroni (1957), Toporov (1981),
Bader (1989), and Watkins (1970).
In Iliad 20.74 two names are used for the
same river, one for the language idiom of the
gods and the other for the language of men:
hon Xanthon kaléousi theoi, änthröpoi dé Skd-
mandron ‘which the gods call Xanthos, but men
Skamandros’, Similarly a bird carries two names,
khalkis and kümindis (Il. 14.290-29:), a giant is
called Brigreös and Aigaion (Il, 1.403), a hill’s
name is both séma poluskdrthmuio Murines ‘the
barrow of far-bounding Myrine’ and Batieia (Il.
2.813-814), whereas in Homeric Greek the blood
of the gods is ikhör and that of men just haima.
A similar case is attested in Indic (Satapatha-
Brähmana 10.4.6.1), where four different words
for ‘horse’ are used, one (asva) for the language
of men, and three (Adyo, vajin, drvan) for the
language of gods.
6. THE POET’S POSITION WITHIN THE
INDO-EUROPEAN SOCIETY
The preceding discussion demonstrates that
poetry was part of the activity of the Indo-
Europeans both during the common predialec-
tal period and in the documented history of the
individual languages. Much of what was pre-
sented earlier constitutes part of the common
Indo-European tradition, but it is also possible
that some features may be dialectal innovations
and/or local idiosyncrasies in the individual
branches. In any case, in all this the central fig-
ure is the protagonist of this tradition, the poet. If
poetry is for Indo-European society as significant
as it appears to be, we have the right to assume
that the figure of the poet enjoyed an equally sig-
nificant position within this society. Considering
the nature and the character of the prevalent
109
social values, that is a code of values emanating
from and revolving around the achievements
of its prominent members, the heroes, one can
understand the poet's position and his mission:
his task is to highlight and preserve for the future
generations the memory of the heroic past by
means of his poetic compositions. Being things
as they are, one can imagine that between poets
and leaders there has been a close relation of
mutual interest and service.
Poetic art was a professional and well paid
employment, The poets were part of the pro-
fessional staff of the class of leaders in society,
in other words they were a sort of propaganda
team working for and under the auspices and
jurisdiction of their patrons. In India (and we
imagine that the same also happened elsewhere)
this special position and mission of the poets is
evidenced in a category of praise poetry called
dänastuti, literally ‘praises for gifts’, implying
that the poets composed poems in which they
expressed their gratitude to their patrons for the
gifts that they received from them.
As is the case in general with heroic societies,
poetic art too is (ant)agonistic: there is an antag-
onism for influence and better rewards, and
this leads to a form of poetic competitions and
similar events, which are often accompanied by
athletic performances, The repetition of such
events on an annual basis and in regular inter-
vals, as well as their association with seasonal or
religious events (for instance, the celebration of
the New Year and the winter solstice as in India
and elsewhere) led to the establishment of cel-
ebrations of mythological, religious, cosmogonic
and social significance. In all this activity poets
played the crucial and central role.
It is the significance of their work that made
poets highly valued amongst the circles of the
powerful and leading authorities. A good poet
was considered a good and worthwhile invest-
ment, and this also involved a financial agree-
ment between the parties. This type of relation
between patron and poet is also documented by
the relevant terminology. The word cerd of Irish
and cerdd of Welsh are etymologically cognate
with the Greek word kerdos, and mean ‘reward,
payment’, but also ‘poem, poetry’, revealing pre-
cisely the economic aspect of this relation. Other
terms that refer to the same kind of transaction
are Gk. misthds, Iranian migdam, Eng. meed (cf.
also Skt. daksind), all referring to the economic
10 POETIG LANGUAGE

reward of the poet for his services; cf. further the him alone, becoming in this way the recipient
reference by Pindar areomai... misthön ‘I will of some message coming to him from a dis-
eam ..,as reward’ (Pyth. 175-77). tant and unseen source. In many Indo-European
The patron-poet relation is often part of the philological traditions, and most likely in Lndo-
traditional institution of xenia. As noted by Wat- European per se, an invocation/vow by the poet
kins (1995:70), perhaps the best proof for this to the source of inspiration (Muse, god, etc.) is
relation is provided by the following lines from a attested, in which the poet uses the phrase ‘Hear
poem by Ibycus written for Polycrates, tyrant of mel’, e.g. Gk. klüthi moi, Skt. grudht me, Messapic
Samos (PMG 282 = SLG 151.47-48): klahi, etc.
The etymological relation of the verb of
(3) kai st, Polukrates, kléos aphthiton héxeis the above opening invocation with the noun
hös kat’ aoidan kai emon kléos klé(w)os underlines the significance of these
‘Andyou, Polycrates, willsecure (for yourself ) terms for the civilization of epic heroes and
unquenchable fame analogous to my song for the Indo-Europeans in general. Let us not
and my fame’ forget that we are dealing with an oral tradition
where social and individual values are subject to
On the other hand, a song that is not com- constant criticism and evaluation by the com-
missioned is an unworthy song, as we read in munity. What the community hears and thinks
Aeschylus (Ag. 979): akéleustos dmisthos avidd about its leading figures is measured by what
‘a song not commissioned is a song with no the leaders actually do for their community. In
reward’, i.e., it is as if it never happened. Cf, fur- oral societies, words equal deeds, especially in
ther Pind. /sthm. 2. heroic societies, which are mostly “shame cul-
As was already noted, the creative ability of tures", j.e., public opinion really matters. After
the poet relies on some extraordinary insight all, the archetypal hero is the one who is good
which allows him to see things through his poetic in both words and deeds (cf. Hom. Il. 9.443:
composition, or as stated in Sanskrit “to see and muthon te rhétér’ émenai prektera te érgon 'to
hear his verse” (sa etat stiktar apasyat). This - be speaker of words and performer of deeds’).
special god-sent insight as a characteristic fea- This invocation can also be seen as the way in
ture of poetic creation is reflected in words for which the poet associates himself to his patron:
the poet deriving from the root *kew-/*kow- 'to he addresses his poem to the person who has
sense, to feel, to predict, to know’, as in Sanskrit commissioned it, intending to draw the patron's
kavi- ‘seer, priest, poet’, Avestan kavay- ‘leader’, attention that he is responding to his wish and
Lydian kaves- and kaues ‘priest, poet’; cf. also now it is the patron’s turn to show analogous
Hesychius' gloss ko(w)iés: hiereus Kabeirön; ho response with gifts and other rewards. In other
kathairon phonéa; hoi de köes (‘ko(w)iés: priest words, the invocation strikes at once many tar-
for the Kabeiroi; he who cleanses a murderer; gets, the patron god for inspiration, the human
but these call him Adés’). The same etymon also patron for rewards, and the public’s opinion
underlies the Greek noun kudos ‘glory, renown’, for praise. Thus, poems are part of the complex
OCS &udo ‘miracle’, and the verb ¢ujg ‘to have nexus of public opinion-making and power bal-
a premonition, understand’, and later we also ance within society, an area in which poets play
have the derivative Greek verbs akaiié and koeö a crucial, though at times risky, role as image
‘to hear, to notice’, Lat. caved ‘to take precau- makers.
tion, beware’, Goth. Aausjan, OE hieran, with We assume that this opening phrase is also
the meaning ‘to hear’ (cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov part of the poet's formulaic mnemonic devices,
1995:734-35). and in this sense it belongs to the repertory
Personified, poetic and sacred speech in of traditional poetic art of the Indo-Europeans.
the form of Vdc helps the poet “hear what is Formulas are capsules of archaic linguistic
said though he does not know it” (RV 10.125.4), structure, but are also carriers of important cul-
whereas in Ireland the phrase “it is said, it is tural facts, and this alone explains their sur-
famed” (co cloth ni) is the most common open- vival through time in so many languages. Along
ing phrase of old poetic compositions. The poet with other poetic devices, formulas are techni-
is inspired by a voice which is addressed to cal features of poetic art that the poet must
 POETIC LANGUAGE
acquire during his long training. As is emphati-
cally stated by Watkins (1995:68), “the totality
of themes as expressed in formulas was in these
preliterate societies entrusted precisely to the
PROFESSIONALS OF THE WORD, the poets”
(Watkins’ emphasis), since the poets are the
custodians of tradition. Watkins adds that this
mission of the poet-custodian of tradition is
linguistically expressed by derivatives of the root
*menh,-/*mneh,- ‘remember; put to memory’,
Interestingly enough, the semantics of this root
expresses the mental power of the poet in a
way that, semiotically and symbolically, matches
the etymologically cognate term mén-os ‘men-
tal force, courage’ (and its derivatives, e.g, Gk.
ménis ‘wrath’, see below) that characterizes
the epic hero during his aristeia ‘excellence (in
battle)’. One derivative of this root in Ancient
Greek is mnémé (Doric mnämä) ‘memory’, the
opposite of léthé ‘forgetfulness’, concepts with
special semantic load in epic poetry. In Greek
another term for the poet (mainly in Pindar) is
mäntis ‘prophet, seer, poet’, again derivative of
the root *menhz- (i.e., *mn-tis). The poet under-
takes through his poetic composition to secure
everlasting memory of this heroic tradition, by
telling (or inventing) the ‘truth’ (aletheia, lit.
‘non-forgetfulness’, thus ‘truth’).
The term for the Muses, (moüsai), is another
derivative of the root *menh,-, as is also their
mother Mnémasiiné ‘Remembrance’. The Muse
(moüsa: from *mon-tih,) is the personified
poetic inspiration, and represents the collective
concept of the remembrance of the past, a fact
that is realized through poetic art. This function
of the Muse is also evidenced by the prominent
position it occupies in the great epic works of
ancient Greece. In all of them we find right at the
beginning some word that derives from the root
*menhy-: in the [liad we have the very first word of
the epic ménin ‘wrath’: ménin deide thea ... Tell
me, goddess, of the wrath...’ (//.1), in the Odyssey:
dndra moi énnepe, moiisa ...'Muse, tell me of the
man...’ (Od. 1), in Hesiod’s Theogony: mousaön
Helikéniddon arkhémeth’ aeidein... We shall
start the song with the Heliconian Muses...’ (Th.
1), and Works & Days: modsai Pieriéthen aeideisi
kleiousai...‘Pierian Muses, you bring fame with
your songs...(Op. 1). Furthermore, the future
mnesomai and mnesömetha ‘I/we will remem-
ber’ is regularly the verb in the closing formula
of many hymns, e.g. autér egö kai seio kai alles
ım
mnesom’ aoides ‘I shall again remember you in
another song...’, and similar statements.
7. CLOSING NOTE
Although we cannot attribute to Proto-Indo-
European a common term for poet and poetry,
no one doubts the existence of an Indo-European
poetic tradition with common features beth in
form, structure, and theme (see on this Schmitt
1967), On the basis of the available evidence one
can speak of a class of people equipped with a
special talent in the art of speech who served as
poets, singers, composers, seers, and priests in
the courts of rich people or in cult places. Their
art was exclusively oral, and sources talk about
the time and the effort needed in order for them
to be trained in the secrets and the techniques of
poetry, memorize a great number of traditional
compositions, and finally claim to be full-fledged
and, so to say, certified poets. There is also evi-
dence regarding the attitude of archaic societies
towards poetry and poets. Poetic art was heredi-
tary and the exclusive privilege of a few families,
which often formed “poetic societies” or poetic
clubs. For instance, the Vedic rishis belonged
to a handful of families of Brahmans, whose
names are often known through mentions in
the Vedic texts (see Renou 1947). A similar situ-
ation, though in a much less rigid form, was also
true in ancient Greece, while in Ireland the gift
of poetry was the exclusive right of only a few
families.
This seems to have been the place and the role
of the poet within Indo-European society. As a
skilful master of words, the poet is extremely
important for the survival of the memory of the
past, the maintenance of tradition, the cohe-
sion of society and preservation of social order.
This role of the poets was amply recognized
and widely exploited by the leading figures of
ancient societies. The study of traditional poetic
language offers a window on the study and
understanding of not only poetic art per se but
of cultural life and cultural tradition as well. In
this sense, the study of ancient Greek poetic
traditions within the comparative framework of
Indo-European philology is a much-promising
field of study of antiquity. (NB: This text is to
a large extent reproduced from the author's
similar study published in 2008 in the journal
Alskävöpsta/Alessandria 2:47-65.)
12 POETIG LANGUAGE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bader, Fr. 1989. La langue des dieux, ou [hermétisme des
poetes indo-européens. Pisa.
. 1993. Anagrammes et alliteration. Paris - Lauvain.
Benveniste, E. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-
eurapéennes. Paris.
Campanile, E. 1977. Ricerche di cultura poetica indoeuropea.
Pisa.
——., 1990, La ricostruzione della cultura Indoeuropea. Pisa,
. 1993. “Reflexions sur la réconstruction de la phraseolo-
gie poétique indoeuropeenne", Diechranica 102-12.
Costa, G. 1998, Le origin! della lingua poetica indoeuropea.
Florence,
Darmesteter. J. 1878. “Iranica VI. Une métaphore grarnmati-
cale de la langue indo-europ&enne", MSL 3319-321.
van Dijk, T. A. 1972. Some aspects of text grammars. A study
in theoretical linguistics and poetics. The Hague - Paris.
Durante, M. 1971 & 1976. Sulla preistoria della tradizione
poetica greca, vols, 1, 2. Rome.
Elizarenkova, T. J. 1995. Language and style of the Vedic rshis.
Albany, NY.
Gamkrelidze, T. V. and V. V. Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and
the Indo-Europeans. Berlin - New York.
Giannakis, G. K. 2005. The Indo-Europeans. Part |: Language
and culture, Athens (in Greek).
. 2007. “Indo-European metaphor’, Studies in Greek
Linguistics 27:65-77.
. 2008. “The Indo-European poet and his craft’,
Alefdvöpsın/Alessandria 2:47-65.
Gonda,J. 1963. The vision of the Vedic poets. The Hague.
Giintert, H. 1921. Von der Sprache der Götter und Geister.
Halle.
jakobson, R. 1960. “Closing statement: linguistics and poet-
ics”. In: Style in language, ed. by T. A. Sebeok, 350-377.
Cambridge, Mass.
— 1987. Language in literature. Cambridge, Mass.
Lazzeroni, R. 1957. "Lingua degli dei e lingua degli uomini”,
ASNS 262-25.
Lord, A, ig60. The singer of tales. Cambridge, Mass, — Lon-
don.
Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-
European culture. London — Chicago,
. 2006. The Oxford introduction ta Proto-indo-European
and the Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford — New York.
Matasovid, R. 1996. A theory of textual reconstruction in Indo-
European linguistics. Frankfurt.
Meid, W. 1978. Dichter und Dichterkunst in indogermanischer
Zeit. Innsbruck.
. 1990. Formen dichterischer Sprache im Keltischen und
Germanischen. Innsbruck.
Pinault, G.-]. and D. Petit (eds.). 2006. La langue poétique
indo-europeenne, Louvain — Paris.
Renmı, L. 1947. Les écoles vediques et la formation du Veda.
Paris.
Schmitt, R. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indoger-
manischer Zeit. Wiesbaden.
——. (ed.). 1968. Indogermanische Dichtersprache. Darmstadt.
Starobinski, J. 1971. Les mots sous les mots. Les anagrammes
de Ferdinand de Saussure. Paris.
Tadorav, T. 1981. Introduction te poetics. Minneapolis.
Toporay, V. N. 1981. "Die Ursprünge der indoeuropäischen
Poetik”, Poetica 13:189-251
Watkins, C. 1970. “Language of men and language of gods:
Remarks on some Indo-European meta-linguistic tradi-
tions”. In: Myth and law among the Indo-Europeans, ed. by
J. Puhvel, 1-17. Berkeley - Los Angeles - London.
——. 1992. “Stylistic reconstruction”, In: International ency-
clepedia uf linguistics, ed. by W. Bright, vol. IV, 86-89.
New York — Oxford.
. 1995. How to kill a dragon. Aspects of Indo-European
poetics, New York — Oxford.
West, M. L. 1966. Hesiod, Theogony. Edited with prolegomena
and commentary. Oxtord.
. 2007. Inde-European poetry and myth. Oxford — New
York.
GEORGIOS K. GLANNAKIS
Politeness/Courtesy Expressions
Politeness forms consist of linguistic strategies,
universally widespread, by means of which a
speaker avoids potentially aggressive or directive
requests in order to save his ‘face’ or his social
reputation, according to the most influential
theory by Lakoff (1973) and Brown & Levinson
(1987). These strategies, as a part of pragmatics,
concem the appropriateness of language use
and imply colloquial interaction as well as socio-
linguistic variants depending on both registers
and the social and/or cultural background of
the interlocutors. Additionally, politeness forms
serve to mark the social status and the personal
identity of the speaker. More specifically, the
politeness system rests on three tightly intercon-
nected main factors: (a) the way of addressing
when starting a conversation; (b) the way of mit-
igating an illocutionary act (a request, a directive
expression); (c) the way of replying and/or end-
ing a conversation (i.e., how to say "no”, “thanks”,
“sorry”, “goodbye” and their combinations).
The main sources of these utterances for
Ancient Greek are basically conversational con-
texts, such as colloquial texts conceived for an
oral level (e.g. theatrical plays and philosophical
dialogues) and interaction texts appointed to a
written level, such as letters (mostly preserved
by papyrus),
Different literary genres ranging from the
Homeric poems to the late Byzantine period dis-
play a considerable variety of politeness forms
that change their pragmatic sense depending on
the context and the diachronic evolution of the
language. Hellenistic drama and late papyri dis-
play considerable varieties of politeness forms,
so that a distinction between language evolu-
tion, foreign influence and social convention
is not easy to be outlined. As for (a), + forms
of address and sociolinguistic variation. With
respect to (b) politeness forms mostly consist of
 POLITENESS/COURTESY EXPRESSIONS
strategies of avoiding or mitigating a directive
expression, specifically an imperative. The opta-
tive (accompanied or not by är) and subjunctive
moods are most frequently used in requests and
directive expressions (+ Orders (Imperative/
Prohibitives)) instead of an imperative since the
Archaic to the Classical age (e.g. Hom. Il, 3.407;
Od. 1.304; Soph. Ant. 444). The decline of the
+ optative starting from the Hellenistic period
is balanced by the increasing modal use of the
future in injunctive expressions, which is already
found (rarely) in Homer (Zilliacus 1946:270) and
(increasingly) in classical prose (e.g. Plat. Prot.
338a, where significantly the future is conjoined
to an imperative). This use of the future occurs
frequently in the New Testament, such as where
the future contrasts with the + imperative:
(1) ékodsate höti erréthé: agapéseis tan plésion
sou kai miséseis ton ekhthron sou. Ego de legö
humin agapäte tous ekhthrous humén kai
proseükhesthe huper tön adiköntön humäs
'Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy:
but I say unto you, love your enemies, and
pray for them that persecute you’ (Mt. 5,
43-44)
Further strategies for a polite exhortation (also
shared by Latin and the Romance languages)
may consist in a > conditional phrase, that is an
ei formula (e.g, Hom. Od. 4.388-389; Hdt. 7.235).
even without apodosis (e.g. Eur. Phoen. 724) or
an interrogative negative sentence (frequently
introduced by ¢/‘what, why’ with present or past
tense (e.g, Hom. Od. 1.210; Aristoph. Lys. 182)
and by medal verbs, essentially 'can’ and ‘will’:
(2} dr’ éstin höste känguthen théan labein?
‘may I examine it more closely?’ (Soph. Phil.
656)
(3) etheléseis ti moi, ö päter, én soü ti deéthd?
‘do you like to please me, father, if I am
addressing you a request?’ (Aristoph. Vesp.
291)
In papyri and late ostraka we frequently find
ean théléis ‘if you like’ (see Leiwo 2010); but
also ‘must’ in negative or interrogative sentences
may function as polite form as well, e.g. kai ti def
se,..'and what need do you have...’ (Xen. An.
4.6); ti sé khré...‘id.' (Hom. Od. 14.364).
13
More generally, a request or an injunction can
be mitigated by a wider set of strategies, such as
parenthetical phrases, e.g, e/ ti pou est! (Hom. Od.
4.193) ‘if you can, if it is possible’, ei etheleis emoi
peithesthai ‘if you want to listen to me’ (Pl. Men.
g4e) and most often by the first person of the
present of verbs meaning “I beg you” > “please”,
among them lissomai, hiketeuo, gounoümai,
deomai frequently occur since Homer till Attic
and Hellenistic drama, whereas in post-classical
texts, especially in papyri, erötö and parakalö
are influenced by the corresponding use of Latin
rogo and oro as request formulas (Dickey 2010).
Further expressions serve to attenuate an illocu-
tionary act, such as efi (kalös) poieseis (Zilliacus
1949; Leiwo 2010) and me ameleseis ‘do not for-
get’ (Leiwo 2012), which are quite common in
letters written on ostraka and papyri since the
Hellenistic period. Passive aorist participles, like
axiötheis and erötheis, are also used in introduc-
ing requests in late letters.
As for (c), ie, how to say “no’, "thanks",
“sorry”, “goodbye” and their combinations in
polite manner, a large set of variants are found
depending on the context and the speaker's atti-
tude. For instance, expressions for “thank you”
differentiate an acknowledgement, that is “I am
grateful to you for..." (e.g. khdrin ékhein, said
formally, e.g. Pl. Prot. 328d, and less formal kalös,
eit (légeis), kdllista ékhei, epaind) from a refusal
(e.g. kalös, kdllista ékhei moi, kallist’ epainö ‘no,
thank you’, e.g. Aristoph. Ran. 508). Actually, to
say “thank you” often constitutes a polite man-
ner for saying “no” (Quincey 1966), alongside
other expressions for denial such as phobéomai
mé ‘I am afraid that...’ (Ferri 2012). In post-
classical Greek eukharistö in the meaning ‘thank
you' becomes extremely common, as shown by
its frequency in the New Testament. For saying
“excuse me” or “sorry” the imperatives of the aor-
ist sungnöthi or (less frequently) of the present
sungignöske are used until the Byzantine period.
The verb lup&ö occurs in the meaning ‘to bother’,
whereas in medial diathesis fupoiimai is increas-
ingly used in the sense of ‘pardon’ or ‘sorry’ till
Modern Greek.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness:
some universals in language usage. Cambridge.
Dickey, Eleanor. zoo. “Latin influence and Greek request
formulae". In: The language of the papyri, ed. by T. V.
Evans and D. D. Obbink, 208-220. Oxford.
114 POLITENESS/COURTESY EXPRESSIONS

Ferri, Rolando. 2012. “How to say Na in Latin: negative
turns, politeness and pragmatic variation”. In: Variation
and change in Greek and Latin. Papers and Monographs
of the Finnish Institute at Athens XVII, ed. by M. Leiwo,
H. Halla-aho and M. Vjerros, 115-197. Helsinki.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmac. 1973. “The logic of politeness, or
minding your p's and q's", Chicago Linguistics Society
9:292-305,
Leiwo, Martti. 2010. "Imperatives and other directives in the
Greek letters from Mons Claudianus”. In: T. V. Evans and
D. D. Obbink 2010:58-119. Oxford.
——, 2012. “Introduction. Variation with multiple faces”. In:
M. Leiwo, H. Halla-aho, M. Vjertos 2012: 2-9.
Quincey John H. 1996. “Greek expressions of thanks”, Journal
of Hellenic Studies 8633-158.
Zilliacus, Henrik. 1946. “Notes on the periphrases of the
imperatives in Classical Greek”, Eranos 44:266-279.
‚ 1949. "Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredefor-
men und Höflichkeitstiteln im Griechischen”, Commenta-
tiunes Humanaurm Litterarum XV, 3, Helsingfors.
PaoLo PoccetTTi
Polysemy
Polysemy is the property of any element of lan-
guage of having different meanings. It is opposed
to monosemy, or single meaning. Polysemy is
usually dealt with in the study of lexical seman-
tics, since in every language it is easy to find
cases such as Gk. /égo ‘gather, pick up'/‘count,
tell’/'say, speak’; hexis ‘possesion’ /‘state, habit’;
oxts ‘sharp, keen’/‘quick, swift’; or entaütha
‘here, there’/‘then’. Nevertheless, polysemy
is also found in grammatical morphemes and
word formation patterns. Functional-typological
research in the last decades has shown how the
same case or preposition is frequently employed
for various semantic functions, e.g. Gk. en for
Location, Time, Instrument, Means, and
ner (see Luraghi 2003 for further examples, and
— Case (including Syncretism)). Something simi-
lar happens with word formation patterns, too
(Lujan 2010); e.g., the suffix -ter was employed
in Greek for deriving Agents, Instruments and
Location nouns, as typified by thuter ‘sacrificer’,
glupter ‘chisel’, and bater ‘threshold’ /‘place from
which one jumps’ (+ Agent Nouns). Grammati-
cal categories can also be polysemic (see, e.g.,
Allan 2003 on the + middle voice).
The limits of polysemy and homonymy are
not straightforward: in both one linguistic form
is associated with various meanings. Homonymy
involves a merger in form of two different words,
usually by phonetic change, but it can also origi-
nate by borrowing or morphological reshaping.
In contrast, polysemy arises through a process
of semantic extension of the meaning of a word.
In lexicography the usual practice is writing
one entry for a polysemous word and different
entries for homonyms. However, this distinc-
tion is, to a certain extent, artificial and relies on
the basis of the analyses carried out by linguists
when there are enough data in the history of a
language. Synchronically, what originally were
two meanings of a polysemous word can be
perceived by the speakers as two different words
or what started out as two different words may
not be easily differentiated. In Greek we meet
this problem, e.g., with the verb ei/é ‘roll up’ and
related words, such as efluma/éluma, eil&ö/eleo
and eilud/elug — it would seem that the various
meanings of these words originated in different
forms, but in practice it is not possible to make a
strict distinction between them.
Philosophical reflection about language has
pointed out polysemy as one of the flaws of
natural languages and it is thus carefully avoided
in artificial languages like logic or mathematics.
Nevertheless, it appears that, due to the cogni-
tive organization of the human mind, polysemy
is inherent to language at various levels. Only in
specialized technical vocabulary non-polysemic
words are easy to find. Following cognitive
approaches to languages, like Geeraerts (1997:6—
31), the organization of meaning is radial and
there are central or prototypical meanings (or
senses) and peripheral ones, E.g., in Greek the
prototypical meaning of aner is ‘adult human
male’; however, in specific contexts it can just
mean ‘human male’ (e.g., tön andrön apais ‘one
who has no male children’, Pl. Leg. 877e) or
Man-
even ‘human’ (when aneres is opposed to theoi
‘gods’ and includes women, e.g. Hom. ff. 1.544).
Determining when we have two different senses
(‘ambiguity proper) or simply modulation of
a general meaning is very problematic (Cruse
1986:49-83). This has led some linguists to side-
stepping the problem by avoiding such distinc-
tions (cf. the concept of ‘multifunctionality’ in
Haspelmath 2003:211-213 for semantic maps).
Recent research has emphasized how impor-
tant polysemy is for + semantic change (Croft
2003:262). Semantic change typically involves
a phase in which both the older and the newer
meaning coexist until the older one is finally
given up. Schematically:
A>AB>B
 POLYSEMY
This can be exemplified in Greek with didbolos,
meaning first 'slanderer’ and then specialized in
Jewish and Christian literature as ‘devil’, until
the first meaning was not possible anymore.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger. 2003. The middle voice in ancient Greek. A
study in polysemy. Amsterdam.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals (and ed.).
Cambridge,
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge.
Cuyckens, Hubert and Britta E. Zawada, eds. 2003. Patysemy
in cognitive inguitics, Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic protatype semantics.
Oxford.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. “The geometry of grammati-
cal meanings: semantic maps and cross-linguistic com-
parison”. In: The new psychology of language: cognitive
and functional approaches to language structure, ed. by
M, Tomasello, 211-242. Mahwah, N. J.
Lujan, Eugenio R. 2010. "Semantic maps and word formation -
Agents, Instruments, and related semantic rales". In:
Semantic maps: methods and applications (= Linguistic Dis-
cavery 8.1), ed. by Michael Cysow - Martin Haspelmath —
Andrej L. Malchukov, 162-175.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and
cases: the expression of semantic roles in ancient Greek.
Amsterdam ~ Philadelphia.
Nehrlich, Brigitte et al, eds. 2003. Polysemy, Mexible patterns
ofmeaning in mind and language. Berlin.
EUGENIO R. LUJAN
Possession
1 RELEVANT NOTIONS
Although cross-culturally universal, the notion
of possession is extremely complex and difficult
to define in a uniform way. Not surprisingly,
possession and related linguistic structures are
discussed quite extensively in the literature — see
for instance Seiler (1983); Taylor (1989:202-203);
Heine (1997). For the present purpose, it can
be said that the specific conceptual content of
possession is related to cognitive entities known
as ‘relations’, which it seems was first nated by
Aristotle (Cat. 7, 6 b34-35).
The cognitive domain of possession poten-
tially covers a considerable range of conceptual
relations such as ownership, availability, kinship
and part/whole relationships. According to Leh-
mann (2002:3), such conceptual delimitations
of domain can ultimately be viewed from two
different perspectives: a prototypical notion that
provides core meaning (Grundbedeutung) and a
general schema based on cognitive processing
ns
which defines the general meaning (Gesamtbe-
deutung).
Prototypical instances of possession involve
two entities that can be called the Possessor
(henceforth Pr) and the Possessee (Pe). The pro-
totypical Pr is a human and highly individuated
entity that has something at his disposal or within
his personal sphere, whereas the prototypical
possessed item is a concrete, not necessarily
highly individuated, entity which is actually or
metaphorically controlled by the Pr or related
in a habitual way to the personal sphere of the
Pr. The nature of the relation between the two
entities is essentially asymmetrical since their
role or status involves different specifications
in terms of empathy (see Lehmann 2002), con-
trol and/or agentivity, and pragmatico-cognitive
salience. Different values of these parameters
combine in the rendering of every possessive
relation: for instance, kinship relations entail
two entities which are both human and cannot
be characterized in terms of control. Despite
these differences, all the diverse relationships
that characterize the domain of possession can
be reduced to one semantic common denomi-
nator represented by the relationship between
an element and the personal sphere to which
it belongs (Lehmann 2002:5). In more abstract
terms, according to Langacker’s characterization
(1995:81-108; 2009), the basic cognitive principle
that seems to instantiate the paradigmatic unity
of domain, accounting for a general schema of
asymmetry in the relation, is based on the rela-
tionship between the main reference point, i.e..
the Pr, the more salient entity, and the other
item, i.e., the Pe.
Various subtypes of possession can also be
characterized in terms of the different ways
they affect the parameters regarding the dura-
tion (temporary or permanent) of the posses-
sion, the physical proximity of the Pe to the
Pr and the alienability/inalienability of the
Pe. Many languages, for instance, distinguish
between inalienable (or inherent) possession
and alienable (or established) possession (Heine
199717-25; Seiler 1983). It is worth noting that
the boundary between alienable and inalien-
able possessed items shows appreciable cross-
cultural variations. Notwithstanding this, there
are entity concepts, such as body part, kinship
and organic part/whole, which are intrinsically
relational at the universal cognitive level, and
thus it can be said that possessive relationship
116 POSSESSION
is inherently given or necessary (Heine 1997:20;
Seiler 198313).
When these concepts are mapped onto lin-
guistic expression, they are encoded in the form
of conventionalized structures which are spe-
cific to each historical language. From a cross-
language perspective, the various constnuctions
differ particularly in how they represent the par-
ticipant of a possessive situation in the morpho-
syntactic and/or informational structure.
On the morphosyntactic level there are two
basic types of encoding strategies, namely
adnominal/attributive as in (1a) and predicative
as in (1b):
(1) a. Robert's caris red.
b. Robert has a car.
In the adnominal/attributive constructions,
morphosyntactic representations of Pr and Pe
form a Nominal Phrase (NP) and the possessive
relation is presupposed (Heine 1997143). When
one of the participants is part of the predica-
tive act and the possessive relation is the main
assertion of the sentence, we are dealing with
predicative possession. The predicate can be a
lexical verb specific to the semantic possessive
function or a copular/existential verb.
There is a major distinction within predica-
tive possession patterning between Aave- and
belong-constructions. The earliest formulation of
this distinction dates back to Benveniste (1966),
where it is discussed in terms of ‘possession’
vs. ‘appurtenance’ (i.e. ‘'belonging'), respectively.
The former is an ascription of possession (Leh-
mann 2002:9) that adopts the viewpoint of the
(generally definite) Pr encoded as the clausal
subject or topic (Heine 1997:29-33), whereas the
indefinite Pe is an object or complement as in
(2a), A belong-construction, on the other hand,
is a predication of belonging (Lehmann 2002:9)
that displays a largely definite Pe encoded as
the clausal subject and/or topic, and a largely
definite Pr as a direct/indirect object or as an
adverbial adjunct/complement as in (2b) (cf.
Heine 1997:29-33).
(2) a. The student has a book
b. The book belongs to the student
This background information serves as the gen-
eral framework to introduce the present discus-
sion of the Ancient Greek possessive system.
The linguistic encoding of possession in A.Gk.
can be described as a sort of constellation of
structures. As is well known, possession and a
range of related meanings could be expressed in
A.Gk. not only by attributive constructions that
are characterized by an inflectional marker on
the Pr, but also by predicative constructions of a
verb with highly specialized possessive meaning,
e.g. ékAG ‘have, possess’, as well as by construc-
tions with a copular/existential verb in com-
bination with accompanying morphosyntactic
encoding (genitive and dative) on the Pr. It is
worth noting that the coexistence of different
possessive constructions in a single language
is a well-known phenomenon noted in typo-
logical and other cross-linguistic studies (Heine
1997:104-109). It also generally involves different
types of functional profiles, as will be seen below.
Certain aspects of the linguistic expression of
the possession relationship in A.Gk. have occa-
sionally been investigated (see, among others,
Bauer 2000; Kahn 1979: Kulneff-Eriksson 1999;
Guilleux and Bortolussi 201; Benvenuto and
Pompeo 2012), but there has been no systematic
analysis of the issue.
2. PREDICATIVE POSSESSION
Throughout the history of Greek, possessive
predication has been characterized by the gram-
matically important split between two major
construction types. These constructions are
identified by different configurations of fun-
damental syntactic relations and different dis-
course-related features of constituents, such as
+ definiteness, pragmatic saliency, focality and
topicality.
In the first type, the Pr is the grammatical sub-
ject of a lexical predicate, ékhd, with a specific
possessive predicational function: to govern the
object clause, i.e., the Pe NP. In the second, the
Pe NP is constructed as the grammatical subject
in the nominative case controlling a copular/
existential verb agreement. It is worth noting
that these constructions are both present at all
chronological stages of the language from the
Mycenaean period on (Guilleux and Bortolussi
2011; Kulneff-Eriksson 1999). From the earliest
stages, moreover, the copular/existential pattern
is characterized by two possible schemata on the
basis of the morphological form assigned to the
Pr NP, which can be expressed by the + genitive
or the + dative case,
 POSSESSION
A strictly form-based analysis of syntactic
relations is not itself sufficient to account for the
precise nature of the variation ofthe different con-
structions and the relationships between them.
The consistent semantic and discourse-based
linguistic features relating to constituent parts
lead to the recognition of two rather different
profiles at the functional level.
In the construction with be plus genitive Pr,
the Pe typically is a definite element, already
part of the discourse universe and performing
the topic role in the > information structure of
the utterance, whereas the genitive Pr is in the
focus domain. The pragmatic profile of geni-
tive constructions allows us to classify them as
instances of predication of belonging, ie., as
belong-constructions.
A. Have [Prin + Peony] Nom. ekhö Acc.
Nom. eimi Dat.
B. Be [Pen + om
Nom. eimi Gen.
Table 1, Construction types (TOP = the topic expression; FD = focus domain)
This different pragmatic profile is a specific
marker which reflects a diverse possessive cat-
egory at the semantic level but does not seem
to distinguish definitively between alienable
and inalienable possession. The predication of
belonging involves ıhe strong bond between Pr
and Pe that is required by a membership or
part-whole reading and, to some extent, by legal
ownership. The ascription of possession, on the
other hand, is more fluid when compared to the
rigidity of the possessive relation.
2.4. Predication of Possession
The possessive predication by means of ekhö is
syntactically transitive: ‘XPr has YPe’. The Pr,
encoded as subject, is depicted as a kind of Actor
controlling the Pe, which can thus be considered
the Undergoer. According to data from Kulneff-
Eriksson (1999), it is evident that ekhö is more
commonly used in expressions of prototypical
possession with a predominance of [+human]
feature in the Pr and concrete or inanimate
features in the Pe, as in (3), Moreover, Pe's are
largely indefinite and, together with the predi-
cate, form the focus domain.
u7
Conversely, constructions with the posses-
sion-based verb &khö and with the verb be plus
dative, despite differing in the choice of verb
and in the argument status as well as in the mor-
phosyntactic treatment of the two participants
involved in the situation of possession, have to
a large extent the same pragmatic profile. In
both constructions, the Pe is a largely indefinite
element that represents the assertive part of
the proposition, whereas the Pr is the topic of
the sentence. Given these characteristics, the
ékhé-construction and the dative construction
can be classified as instances of the ascription of
possession known as have-constructions. Table 1
shows the major morphosyntactic patterns and
their pragmatic profile.
Predication of possession
[Pr] sop [to exist/to have Pe],
Predication of Belonging
[Pe],or [to be Pr] m
(3) kal hoi pezoi ekhousi men gerra kui kopldas
kal sagdreis
‘The infantry still have their wicker shields
and bills and sabers’ (Xen. Cyr. 8.8.23)
The data provided by Kulneff-Eriksson (1999)
furthermore show that the ekhö-construction
can also occur with a definite Pe and a focus on
the Pr, as in (4):
(4) exapoloménan de toütön ékhousi ten khören
hoi Nasumönes
‘So they perished utterly, and the Nasamones
have their country’ (Hdt. 4.173.1)
The topic of the previous discourse, as can be
inferred from the context, are the Psylli and how
they are destroyed. The purpose of the assertion
in (4) is to say that, after the death of the PsylHi,
their country, previously mentioned, was occu-
pied by the Nasamones.
An alternative indefinite focal/definite topical
Pe is made possible by the fact that a transitive
sentence can have more than one focus read-
ing. Yet what is more interesting is that on the
HB
basis of Kulneff-Eriksson's data, the Pe is the
unmarked focus argument in the predicative
construction with ekhö.
The earliest discussion on the semantics of
ekhö is Aristotle's observation on possessive-
ness in his native language; in the Metaphysica
(10233) and the Categoriae (15618), the philoso-
pher outlines a very broad and rather non-spe-
cific range of meaning(s) of the verb. Aristotle's
characterization of ékhé is supported to some
extent by the textual analysis of Kulneff-Eriksson
(1999).
According to her data, possessive predication
with ekhö is used, in addition to prototypical
possession, in a large number of contexts and
in the expression of a wide semantic range of
relations such as ownership, availability,
ship and part/whole relationships, the mental or
other experience of a participant such as ékhein
areten, didnoian ‘ta possess virtue, mental capac-
ity’, and so on.
The parameter of control allows the nature of
the relation to be specified with greater preci-
sion: the Pr is in control of the Pe which, in turn,
is under the control of the Pr. Indeed, the pos-
sessive predication with ekhö can be used with
a human Pe, with an abstract Pr as in (5) and in
any situation where the Pr seems to be in some
sort of superior position when compared to the
Pe (Kulneff-Eriksson 1999:170).
(5) héméas ékhei phöbos te kai déos
‘We are in fear and dread’ (Hdt. 4.15.2)
This construction is used with body parts, but
in the most significant cases, the noun denoting
the body part is accompanied by a modifier with
an attributive function that represents the focal
assertion. It also appears in descriptions of an
entity whose shape cannot be imagined. This is
the case in passages such as ı8ge-ıgoa in Plato's
Symposium, where a spherical entity is described
that has four arıns, many legs, two faces and a
round neck.
The ekhö construction can also express a rela-
tion of kinship, but the majority of occurrences
concem a descendant relationship, preferably
accompanied by quantifying modifiers as in (6):
(6) egé gar ek sett treis paidas &khö
‘For I have three sons by you’ (Hdt. 4.9.3)
POSSESSION
The husband/wife relationship is extremely rare
in this construction, as are other pair-level or
ascendant relationships. Aristotle sheds some
light on the fact that ‘this meaning [of having
a wife] is very far-fetched. When we say that a
man has a wife, then we merely mean that he
lives with her (Arist. Cat. ı5b18). The few occur-
rences concerning wife or husband are char-
acterized by the presence of the modifier in an
attributive function.
2.b. Existential Construction
Predication of possession in A.Gk. has a con-
structional variant that is realized by means of
eimi plus dative, thus involving a non-copular
use of einai ‘to be’.
kin- As is well known, in many Indo-European
languages there has been a conflation of two
major uses of the verb ‘ta be’: grammatical, con-
sidered as a linking verb (or copula), and lexi-
cal, in the case of the abstract verb of existence
(see Benveniste 1966). Such a merging into a
single lexeme, particularly into one verbal root
*h,es-, makes it difficult to determine when einai
means ‘to exist, to be there’ and when it is used
as copula. However, on examining features of
possessive clauses with eimi plus dative, it can
be argued that these are existential/presenta-
tive clauses, as in ‘there is a YPe to XPr'/‘to XPr
exists a YPe’. As a matter of fact, the eimi plus
dative possessive structures respect the most
common diagnostic tests for recognizing the
existential-presentatives clauses, such as the
presence of a spatio-temporal adverb or loca-
tive element, an inverse VS word order and an
indefinite non-anaphoric referent for a subject
introduced into the discourse for the first time
(Givén 2001:255-261).
In dative constructions, almost all Pr's, repre-
sented either by nouns or, to a large extent, by
personal pronouns, are human and, in the over-
whelming majority of cases, definite. Typically
they are a previously mentioned referent and
therefore treated as given, This feature explains
the high occurrence of pronominal expressions
for the Pr. Pe’s, on the other hand, are mainly
indefinite and either concrete or abstract, rather
than human, as in (7) and (8):
(7) ésti toi en Klisiei khrusds polus, ésti de
khalkos
kai pröbat‘, cisi dé toi dmaiai kai mönukhes
hippoi
 POSSESSION
'you have in your tent a lot of gold, and you
have bronze
and sheep, and handmaids too, and single-
hooved horses’ (Hom. Il. 23.549-550)
nün dé de enthdd’ emoi kakén éssetai
‘and now even here shall evil come upon me’
(Hom. ff. 21.92)
In both of these clauses there is a locative ele-
ment, which allows for their unambiguous inter-
pretation as existential clauses. Moreover, the
sentence in (7) is an instance of a typical pre-
sentative construction with the verb in initial
position (see Luraghi 1995). Likewise in (8), the
presence of a spatio-temporal adverb and the
subject in the assertive focus domain require
an existential reading of the sentence. Both sen-
tences have the same features: a non-topic mark-
ing of the subject and a lexical expression of the
subject argument; in other words, they share the
same pragmatic profile.
The most transparent evidence of the infor-
mation structure in dative constructions is pro-
vided by wA-questions, as in example (9).
(9) tisphisin éstai, edn kratesösin
‘what should be given to them, in case of vic-
tory’ (Xen. An. 1.7.8)
In this example it is clear that the focus element
of the question is an interrogative pronoun that
requires information about the Pe referent.
The results of the observations made so far
indicate that constructions with eimi (or rather,
its third-person form) plus dative are existential
clauses. They are syntactically intransitive: the
Pe, constructed as the grammatical subject of
the predicate, is depicted as a Theme, ie., the
argument whose existence is asserted with ref-
erence to the Pr, which is encoded as locative/
adessive complement.
The existential! / presentative construction can
express different possessive relations which,
unlike the ékho construction, do not necessarily
involve any physical contact or any degree of
control, i.e., prototypical possession, ownership
as in (7), abstract possession as in (8), or kinship,
The semantic constraints on this construction
are related precisely to the fact that the relation-
ships do not involve control, First of all, the co-
occurrence of a non-concrete Pr (such as phöbos
‘fear’) and an animate Pe is not possible with an
existential predication of possession (Kulneff-
119
Eriksson 1999170). Moreover, when the Pe is
human, neither Pe nor Pr can be interpreted
as superior in rank to the other (Kulneff-Eriks-
son 1999:159). Finally, as noticed by Benvenuto
and Pompeo (2012), the ascending kinship and
body part notions are excluded by the existen-
tial predicative possession, as an unmodified
affirmative sentence meaning simply “Y has a
father/a mother” is unattested, As in (10), this
type of sentence means rather “Y has a father/a
mother still living”:
(10) [Älkestis] ethelésasa méné huper toü hautés
andros apothanein, öntön autdi patrös te kal
metrös
‘{Alcestis...], who alone was willing to
die for her husband, though he had both
father and mother (still living)’ (Plat. Symp.
179b8)
The assertion of a natural and intrinsic relation-
ship with one’s own parents would make little
sense here. Nevertheless, the sentences become
informative and potentially relevant when the
Pe is modified or negated, as in (11). In this occur-
rence it is evident that, as observed by Kahn
(1973:267), “Andromache means that her parents
are dead."
(11) oudé moi ésti pater kai pötnia métér
‘Neither father have I nor queenly mother
(Hom. /l. 6.413)
2.c, Predication of Belonging
The grammatical construction to form a predi-
cation of belonging in A.Gk. is a copular clause
whose subject is the Pe and in which the main
possessive semantic load of the predication is
carried by the non-verbal predicate in the geni-
tive case or by a possessive pronoun in place of
the constituent in the genitive, rather than the
copular verb.
The clearest example to explain the syntactic
structure and the essentials of the pragmatic
functions is the question-and-answer pair where
the question word and the corresponding word
group in the answer each are the Focus of their
clauses, as in (12):
(12) NIKARKOS tauti tinos ta phortt’ esti;
BOI téa’ ema.
Nicarchus: ‘Whose is this merchandise?
Boeotian: Mine. (Aristoph. Ach. gio—g11)
120 POSSESSION
What is of most interest in such passages is what
comes early in the question. In wh-questions,
where the speaker knows one specific referent
and the connected idea ‘of belonging to’, the
interrogative pronoun seeks to discover infor-
mation about the Pr referent.
The exchange above also represents a conve-
nient testing ground for syntactic description.
The answer has a possessive pronoun ema that
stands in the same position and expresses the
same properties as a genitive Pr. This possibility
for substitution provides ample evidence that
the Pr is a predicate nominal in a copular clause.
Obviously the two constructions are not wholly
synonymous, as the genitive can refer to specific
referents and can be modified by adjectives,
but their syntactic function is the same: both
constructions tend to code the Pr as an intrinsic
attribute or feature of the Pe.
As stated by Benvenuto and Pompeo (2012),
the great majority of Pr’s in the genitive construc-
tion are human and definite. The Pe is almost
definite and can be [human] or [+animate],
and is usually an entity that has been previously
mentioned within the discourse.
This construction designates a relation given
by nature or by a cultural convention such as
legal ownership or moral-based entitlement
(Benvenuto and Pompeo 2012). in the former
case, the possessive relationship involves a
pre-existing relation of kinship or membership
defined by the specification of the identity of
Pr/relative, as in example (13); in the latter, the
possessive relationship specifies or, more fre-
quently, assigns legal ownership to a given Pr
and not to someone else, as in (14):
(13) Ao gar Amphitheos Demetros én kai Triptolé-
mou
‘For Amphitheus was the son of Demeter
and Triptolemus’ (Aristoph, Ach. 47-48)
(14) ou Korinthiöntoü dömosiou esti ho thesauros,
ulla Kupselou tod Eetionos
‘The treasure does not belong to the city of
Corinth, but to Kypselos, the son of Eetion’
(Hdt. 1.14.2)
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that nega-
tive sentences (such as (14)) deny the identity of
the Pr, not his existence.
The general profile of constructions with a
possessive pronoun is thus essentially the same
as the genitive one: the Pe is almost invariably
definite and topical, whereas the possessive pro-
noun denotes well-defined and human entities.
2.d. Diachronic Implications
From a diachronic point of view, the three con-
structions do not have an even distribution. The
genitive possessive construction has a very defi-
nite functional area, contextually restricted and
semantically specialized, and thus, despite being
remarkably less frequent, is relatively stable over
time (Benvenuto and Pompeo 2012).
‘The use of the dative construction, by contrast,
decreases over time. This tendency is already
observed by Kulneff-Eriksson (1999), who con-
vincingly asserts that the increase in the use of
ékho (denoting ‘have’) occurs at the expense of
the dative construction.
In the earliest texts, the construction with
eimi plus dative is more frequent than ékhd. In
these texts, and in the archaizing language of
poetry, the verb ekhö still has its primary physi-
cal meaning of ‘to hold’, as in (15):
(15) palämei d’ekhe khälkeon énkhos
‘with her hand she held the lance of bronze’
(Hom. Od. 1.104)
In this example, a greater sign of the consistency
of physical control is provided by the presence of
the instrumental phrase in the dative. In (14), the
verb ékho has full lexical meaning (in this case
‘to hold, keep’) and expresses a durative, atelic
activity that involves the notion of physical con-
trol or handling and an agentive human subject.
It is interesting, however, that the semantic
bleaching of concrete possession is evident even
in the earliest occurrences, where the posses-
sive construction with ekhö can also be used to
express abstract concepts such as ownership,
usership rights and so on. Nevertheless, in these
early stages, existential predication of posses-
sion is the default construction with an abstract
noun as the Pe, while é4Ad is clearly preferred
with a concrete and inanimate Pe.
In time, the verb ékho increases its functional
domain, becoming more dominant also with
abstract Pe’s, while the dative type decreases
considerably because of the high degree of
semantic overlap that makes both construc-
tions synonymous. Indeed, both possessive and
existential clauses witness a semantic and dis-
course-pragmatic convergence; both construc-
tions predicate an intimate relationship between
 POSSESSION
the primary reference point, the Pr, and another
participant, i.e., the Pe; both constructions have
a strong tendency to be used to express alienable
possession, while correspondingly they seem less
likely to be used for more predictable relations
such as part-of-body relationships and ascend-
ing kinship. Yet on closer inspection, it emerges
that the use of dative sentences appears to be
consistently limited to indefinite Pe’s. On the
other hand, &ekhö-constructions can contain a
definite as well as an indefinite Pe. Their stron-
ger relation in terms of effective control and the
pattern of transitive syntax moreover warrant a
higher degree of variation.
3. ADNOMINAL POSSESSION
On the morphosyntactic level, adnominal pos-
session consists of nominal] phrases whose head
noun denotes the Pe while the Pr functions as
its dependent. Although there are many stud-
ies of NP structure and the organization of its
constituents in A.Gk. (including Bakker 2009;
Devine and Stephens 1999), the discussion of the
structure of the possessive NP is limited to a few
studies on the + word order and the - informa-
tion structure of NPs.
As is well known, A.Gk. is a typical depen-
dent-marking language in that the dependent
item bears the possessive marker. In this respect,
adnominal expressions can appearin several dis-
tinct formal variants, characterized by a cluster
of syntactic, morphological and semantic proper-
ties: genitive constructions involving a nominal
Pr marked by the genitive case, and pronomi-
nal constructions involving a Pr encoded either
by genitive pronouns, such as + personal (mou)
and + reflexive (emautoi) pronouns, genitives
of +demonstratives (touitou) or by possessive
adjectives (emds) that agree with the head noun
in gender, number and case.
This variation is conditioned by a complex
series of factors which cannot be evaluated in
detail here. The most striking differences can
be described in terms of the information status
of the two nominals within the phrase and the
corresponding word order. Indeed, the semantic
relation itself creates different word order pat-
terns that can be accounted for by their different
pragmatic functions (Viti 2008a).
Some scholars (Viti 2008b; Dik 1997; Bakker
2009) claim that the choice of + word order of
the constituent at the level of the NP, as well as
121
at the level of the clause, is largely conditioned
by pragmatic factors rather than by principles
concerning the syntactic function or semantic
value of the items. In particular, they argue, the
+ modifier is prenominal if it forms the most
salient part of the message conveyed by the NP;
if it is less salient, it follows the head.
As far as the position of the genitive operat-
ing in the possessive phrase is concerned, Viti
(2008b) argues that pre-nominal genitives are
preferred if they provide new or discontinuous
information, whereas pre-nominal 'old/known’
possessors are associated with contrastive and
emphatic information. Moreover, as stated by
Bakker (2009:46), the preposition of the modifier
designates the existence of a possessive relation
rather than the precise nature of the relation
between the referent of the genitive/possessive
and the possessed items. In other words, the
main function of this word order pattern is to
specify the identity of the Pr.
On the other hand, postnominal genitives are
used for ‘old/known’, non-ambiguous and non-
contrastive information (Viti 2008b), and the
initial position of the noun specifies the nature
of the possessive relationship rather than the
existence/identity of the Pr (Bakker 2009:46).
The main function of the postnominal position
is the characterization of the Pe by means of a
possessive relationship.
Bearing in mind what has been said above,
one might have the impression that the pre-
nominal position of a modifier corresponds to
a predication of belonging in the area of posses-
sive predication, while the postnominal position
corresponds, in possessive predication, to the
ascription of possession. As far as the relation-
ship expressed by a possessive noun phrase is
concerned, it can be considered semantically
polysemous since it can express different posses-
sive relations — ownership, kinship, abstract pos-
session, etc. - and does not seem to distinguish
alienability. The only expression associated with
inalienability in A.Gk. focuses, in one way or
another, on external possessor constructions, as
in (16), cross-linguistically investigated in detail
by König and Haspelmath (1997).
(16) enéplésthen dé hoiämphö haimatos ophthal-
moi
‘and both his eyes were filled with blood'
(Hom. /L 16.348-349)
122 POSSESSION
In this construction, traditionally labeled dativus
sympatheticus (Havers 1911), a possessive modi-
fier does not occur as a dependent constituent
of the modified NP, but as a constituent of the
clause encoded by means of a dative phrase.
As with predicative possession, external pos-
session constructions have the feature of the Pr,
being a separate clause-level constituent, even
if not licensed by verb valency. On the other
hand, as with attributive possession, the exter-
nal possessive construction is characterized by
the fact that the possessive link is presupposed
rather than asserted by a verb. Moreover, while
adnominal possession can be used for virtually
any possessive relation, the possessive relation
in cases of external possession is strongly asso-
ciated with the inalienability of the Pe and the
affectedness of the Pr.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakker, Stephanie J. 2009. The noun phrase in Ancient Greek:
a functional analysis of the order and articulation of NP
constituents in Herodotus. Leiden — Boston.
Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European: the
spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin.
Benveniste, Emile. 1966. “«ftre» et «avoir» dans leurs fonc-
tions linguistiques”. In: Problémes de linguistique générale
1, 187-207. Paris.
Benvenuto, Maria C. and Flavia Pompeo. 2c12. "The expres-
sions of predicative possession in Ancient Greek: "zlvaı
plus dative" and "elvaı plus genitive” constructions", AION
1:77-103.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 1999. Discon-
tinuous syntax: hyperbaton in Greek. New York - Oxford.
Dik, Helma. 1997. “Interpreting adjective position in Hero-
dotus”. In: Grammar as interpretation: Greek literature in
its linguistic contexts, ed. by E. J. Bakker, 55-76. Leiden.
Givén, Talmy. zoo. Syntax: an introduction. Rev. ed. 2 vals,
Amsterdam.
Guilleux, Nicole and Bernard Bortolussi. zou. *«Etre» et
savoir» dans les langues classiques”, Lalies 31:241-251.
Havers, Wilhelm. ıgu. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der
indogermanischen Sprachen. Strasbourg.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and
grammaticalization. Cambridge.
Kahn, Charles H. 1973. The verb ‘be’ in Ancient Greek.
Dordrecht.
König, Ekkehard and Martin Haspelmath. 1997. “Les con-
structions ä possesseur externe dans les langues d'Europe”.
In: Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Eurape, ed. by
J. Feuillet, 525-606. Berlin - New York.
Kulneff-Eriksson, Karin. 1999. On ‘have'in Ancient Greek. An
investigation on éyw and the construction elva with a dative
as expressions for ‘have’. Lund.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. “Possession and possessive con-
structions”, In: Language and the cognitive construal of
the world, ed, by J. R. Taylor and R. E. MacLaury, 51-79.
Berlin.
. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin -
New York,
Lehmann, Christian, 2002. Possession in Yucatec Maya: struc-
tures, functions, typology. Second ed. Erfurt.
Luraghi, Silvia. 1995. “The pragmatics of verb initial sen-
tences in some ancient Indo-European languages”. In:
Ward order in discourse, ed. by P. Downing and M. Noo-
nan, 355-386. Amsterdam.
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1983. Possession as an operational dimen-
sion of language. Tübingen.
Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic categorization: prototypes in
linguistic theory. Oxford.
Viti, Carlotta. 2008a. “Genitive word order in Ancient Greek:
a functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun
phrase”, Glotta 84:203-238.
. z008b. "Rheme before theme in the noun phrase.
A case study from Ancient Greek", Studies in language
g2:8g4-915.
MARIA CARMELA BENVENUTO
Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Practice
By ‘postcolonial’ we usually understand the
period after former colonies achieve indepen-
dence, often at the midpoint of the zoth c.,
but it may also refer to works of opposition or
resistance produced under colonialism. Given
that post-independence periods in some coun-
tries have been marked by continuing forms of
oppression not directly tied to European impe-
rialism, ‘postcolonial’ can also include resistance
to neo-colonialism.
Although postcolonial writers have some-
times translated Greek and Latin texts in order
simply to disseminate them more widely, their
creative efforts have been more often directed
towards ‘adaptation’, to producing new works
of literature that acknowledge classical works as
part of their genesis but then rewrite them. This
activity of adaptation is part of ‘classical recep-
tion’, a term which encompasses the various
ways in which classical texts and artifacts have
been reused by subsequent cultures. Postcolo-
nial adaptation offers particular insight into this
larger cultural process.
Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) recognized that
classical literature informed a notable propor-
tion of postcolonial drama, and discussed this
development under the rubric of ‘canonical
counter-discourse’. This term suggested that
the postcolonial writing ‘countered’ the ‘canon’,
which was understood to consist of the high-
lights of western literature both by Greeks and
Romans and by more modem Europeans. This
model of canonical counter-discourse drew on
earlier work such as Ashcroft et al (1989), which,
while very influential, has also been criticized.
 POSTCOLONIAL TRANSLATION: THEORY AND
Briefly, the criticism queries the hierarchy which
endows the imperial metropolis with the canon,
perhaps at some unquestioned ‘centre’,
confines the colonies to writing ‘back to’ it from
the position of marginalized aftercomers. Recent
criticism has elaborated further models which
are more varied and open.
Adaptation may be termed a “deliberate,
announced, and extended revisitation of prior
works” (Mee and Foley 2011:8, quoting Hutcheon
2006) such that an oscillation is set up between
the prior and the current, with neither predomi-
nating; the relationship between the two works
is lateral rather than vertical. Yet the colonial
situation, which gives rise to the postcolonial
adaptations, was undoubtedly structured by ver-
tical hierarchy. Colonialism is widely recognized
to have worked via an inculcation of cultural
superiority as well as by military and techno-
logical might, and such assumed superiority was
often explained by the European colonizers’ fan-
tasized descent from Greece and Rome. In this
context, the strategies of the colonized
include adopting versions of Greece and Rome
for their own, as well as asserting the claims of
indigenous cultural resources. For several post-
colonies a further tactic can be to show that
the colonized culture possesses its own separate
relationship to the classical societies, unmedi-
ated by colonial occupation; India and Egypt,
far instance, can show links to ancient Greece
which bypass modern Europe. Adaptations of
classical literature in those contexts can under-
line those relationships.
That the postcolonial adaptations are not
translations was not always clear to commen-
tators; Soyinka’s The Bacchae of Euripides, for
instance, was criticized for not being an accurate
rendering of Euripides (Goff 2006), and plays and
poems might routinely be discussed in terms of
their ‘fidelity’ to originals, or ‘authenticity’ as ver-
sions of originals, rather than being analyzed as
creative works in their own right. The immense
upsurge in classical reception activity over the
last fifty years or so, and the development of post-
colonial literary theory, have worked to ensure a
more sophisticated critical response. Classical
adaptations form part of the creative traditions
of all countries which experienced European
colonization, and they contribute to those coun-
tries’ negotiations with all aspects of the postco-
lonial condition. Issues such as national or local
identity, gender relations, political or cultural
PRACTICE 123
violence, corruption and democratic deficit, his-
torical memory, and linguistic struggles, have all
and been treated via the prism of engagement with
classical models. Conversely, classical cultures
can lay claim to an important role in the forma-
tion of modern postcolonial societies.
One of the most striking of postcolonial! adap-
tations is Derek Walcott’s 1990 poem Omieras, an
epic poem that implicitly draws on the /liad and
Odyssey, as well as Oedipus, Dante and Joyce,
to represent the contemporary Caribbean. The
postcolonial themes of the wounds of history,
slavery and loss, and the possibilities of art and
redemption, are sifted through characters who
recall classical prototypes while refusing to be
simply identified with them. Although the char-
acters may be called Philoctete, Achille, Hector
and Helen, the narrative voice tries also to reject
their classical associations:
Why not see Helen
As the sun saw her, with no Homeric shadow,
Swinging her plastic sandals on that beach alone
could
When would the sails drop
From my eyes, when would | not hear the Trojan
War
In two fishermen cursing in Ma Kilman’s shop?
(271)
Instead of these constraining classical identi-
fications, critics show that the poem invokes a
number of cultures which help to produce the
contemporary Caribbean, and that the multi-
plicity of characters offers different versions of
history and lineage. Greek figures are in circu-
lation, not only integral to European cultures,
and are thus available to be indigenized (Goff
& Simpson 2007:259); the multiple traditions of
the Caribbean mean that nothing simply ‘refers’,
whether to ancient Greece or some other his-
torical condition (Greenwood 2010: 38). Walcott
himself has inveighed against the notion that
Omeros is “a reinvention of the Odyssey, but
this time in the Caribbean. J mean, what would
be the point of doing that? What this implies
is that geologically, geographically, the Carib-
bean is secondary to the Aegean. What this does
immediately is to humiliate the landscape..."
(Walcott 1997:232). In his essay ‘The Muse of
History’ he has similarly resisted the tyranny
of ‘history as time’ in favor of a more enabling
‘history as myth’ (19741). Emily Greenwood
has more recently examined the diversity of
124 POSTGOLONIAL TRANSLATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE
Anglophone Caribbean literature to suggest
that it is informed by the classical tradition,
not as a hierarchy of one-way influence, but
as a sustained dialogue in which authors “read
the Caribbean through Greece and Rome and,
conversely.,.read Greece and Rome through
the Caribbean” (2010:7; see now also McConnell
2013107-154).
Although interest has centered on poetry, epic
and otherwise, in the case of Walcott and other
Caribbean writers who have drawn on classical
tropes, much of the literature characterized by
classical adaptation is dramatic (+ Drama Trans-
lation). In the former British colonies of Nigeria
and Ghana, flourishing indigenous theatrical
traditions were appropriating classical models
as early as the 1960s, even as they worked to
develop cultural forms that would be appro-
priate to independent nations. In the case of
South Africa, Athol Fugard’s famous version of
Antigone, The Island, is credited with helping
to galvanize western opposition to apartheid
when it came to London (Kruger 199913). The
Greek plays of African descent have attracted
substantial critical attention (Wetmore 2002,
Budelmann 2005, Hardwick 2004, 2005, Goff
and Simpson 2007, van Weyenberg 2013) and an
increasingly impressive history of productions
and performances (e.g. Steinmeyer 2007, Van
Zyl Smit 2007). Within the critical assessments,
certain themes recur which can also be relevant
to postcolonial adaptation in other contexts.
Many critics note that African adaptations
draw heavily on indigenous ritual forms, sug-
gesting that ritual is one important area in which
ancient Greek culture overlaps with that of many
African societies. In Ola Rotimi’s The Gods Are
Not to Blame, a rewriting of Oedipus Tyrannus,
the Yoruba system of Ifa divination replaces the
Delphic oracle, and in Efua Sutherland's Edufa,
which invokes Alcestis, the Admetus-figure has
consulted a diviner and obtained a charm which
will alow him to live if another dics for him,
rather than being gifted with that possibility by
deity. In several of the adaptations, however,
‘traditional’ African ritual also comes into con-
flict with modern assumptions about logic and
rationality, pointing to the plays’ double genesis
in African forms and forms acquired through
colonization.
Along with an emphasis on ritual goes a
highly developed use of the chorus, which links
the African plays more securely to the Greek
genre than is the case for many Western adap-
tations. While the latter sometimes reduce the
Greek chorus to a single figure, as in Anouilh’s
Antigone, African adaptations deploy collectives
seriously and skillfully. In Osofisan’s Tegonni,
the lone rebel of Greek tradition is joined by a
trio of equally feisty friends, and in Soyinka’s
The Bacchae of Euripides the chorus of mae-
nadic women is matched by a new chorus of
slaves. Such innovations can also alter the gen-
der dynamics of the plays, and several of the dra-
mas draw on the Greek tradition of challenging,
heroic females to address gender inequalities in
their own societies; this is especially noticeable
in the case of Osofisan (Olaniyan 1999), but it
can also be read as early as Sutherland. Con-
versely, The Island explores women's subjection
by means of the transvestite acting of the male
protagonist (Rehm 2007).
The ‘double genesis’, the plays’ plural origins
in forms both indigenous and colonial, is explic-
itly acknowledged in several features, not least
the language. Although written mostly in Eng-
lish, African adaptations may include passages
of various length in Yoruba or other languages,
which may or may not be translated for the
Anglophone reader. If we suppose a western
reader, unfamiliar with the African language,
that reader confronts the difficulty of moving
between cultures which is one of the products
of colonialism. The double genesis is often
addressed via the topic of the plays, because
African adaptations are inclined to deal with
the tragedies of extreme resistance and revenge
such as Medea and Antigone, inviting us to read
them as contestations of imperial dominance.
Insofar as western dominance also produced the
very forms that the plays take, however, the plays
are always potentially identified with what they
ostensibly reject, in an oedipal dynamic exam-
ined by Goff and Simpson (2007). Other critics
emphasize that the plays are in the process of
emancipating themselves from such dominance
(Budelmann 2005, Hardwick 2005).
Creative activity in Anglophone African and
Caribbean countries has made certain postcolo-
nial adaptations particularly well known. In very
recent years, however, more detail is emerging
about classical adaptations in other postcolo-
nial societies, which will reshape understanding
of the classical tradition in general. Thus Phi-
roze Vasunia (2007; see also 2013) has analyzed
an Indian version of Aristophanes’ Wealth and
 POSTCOLONIAL TRANSLATION: THEORY
the ways in which it addressed contemporary
social concerns, including those arising from
British colonialism, and Peter Pormann (2012)
has undertaken a similar study of several Arabic
engagements with Aristophanes. Both scholars
situate these analyses of adaptations in the con-
text of other work with the classical tradition
undertaken by writers in the cultures concerned
(Vasunia and Hall 2010, Pormann 2009). In South
America, Andrew Laird (2006) has uncovered
a history of writing in Latin among indigenous
people, which can underline the work of Moira
Fradinger (2011) on adaptations of Antigone in
the Americas. In a fitting culmination to the
story of postcolonial adaptation, Fradinger
suggests not that Antigone in the Americas is the
scar left by colonialism, but that it is in fact an
indigenous ‘national tradition’ (2011:68).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, eds. 1989.
The empire writes back: theory and practice in post-colonial
literatures. London.
Budelmann, Felix. 2005. ‘Greek tragedies in West African
adaptations’, In: Goff 2005218-146.
Fradinger, Moira. zon. ‘An Argentine tradition’. In: Mee and
Foley 201:67-89.
Gilbert, Helen and Joanne Tompkins. 1996. Post-colonial
drama. London,
Goff, Barbara ed. 2005. Classics and colonialism. London.
. 2006, ‘Dionysiac triangles: the politics of culture in
Wale Soyinka’s The Bacchae of Euripides', The soul uf
tragedy, ed. by Victoria Pedrick and Steven Oberhelman,
73-90. Chicago.
Goff, Barbara and Michael Simpson. 2007. Crossroads in the
black Aegean: Oedipus, Antigone and dramas of the Afri-
can diaspora. Oxford.
Greenwood, Emily. 2010, Afro-Greeks: dialogues between
Anglophone Caribbean literature and classics in the twen-
tieth century. Oxford.
Hardwick, Lorna, 2004, ‘Greek drama and anti-colonialism;
de-colonising classics’. In: Dionysus since ‘6g: tragedy at
the dawn of the millennium, ed. E. Hall, F. Macintosh and
A. Wrigley, 219-244. Oxford.
. 2005. ‘Refiguring classical texts: aspects of the post-
cofonial condition’. In: Goff 2005:107-117.
Hardwick, Lorna and Carol Gillespie. 2007. Classirs in Post-
colonial Worlds. Oxford
Hutcheon, Linda, 2006, A theory of adaptation. New Yark
- London.
Kruger, Loren, 1999. The drama of South Africa: plays, pug-
eants, and publics since 1910, London.
Laird, Andrew. 2006. The epic of America. London.
McConnell, Justine. 2013. Black Odysseys. Oxford
Mee, Erin and Helene Foley eds. 20u. Antigone on the con-
tempurary world stage. Oxford.
Olaniyan, Tejumola. 1999. ‘Femi Osofisan: provisional notes
on the post-colonial incredible’. In: (Past) Calanial stages:
critical and creative views on drama, theatre and perfor-
mance, ed. by Helen Gilbert. 174-89. Hebden Bridge.
AND PRACTICE 125
Pormann, Peter. zcog. ‘Classics and Islam: fram Homer to
al-Qa'ida’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition
16.2:197-233.
——. 2012. ‘Arabs and Aristophanes, Menander among the
Muslims: Greek humour in the medieval and ınodern
Middle East‘. In: Ancient comedy and reception: studies in
the classical tradition of comedy from Aristophanes to the
twenty-first century, dedicated to Jeffrey J. Henderson, ed,
by Wolfgang Haase, 1-38. New Brunswick, NJ.
Rehm, Rush. 2007. “If you are a woman’: theatrical woman-
izing in Sophocles’ Antigone and Fugard, Kani, and Ntsho-
na's The Island’. In: Classics in postcolonial worlds, ed. by
Lora Hardwick and Carol Gillespie, 21-227. Oxford.
Steinmeyer, Elke. 2007. "Post-Apartheid Electra: In the City
of Paradise”. In: Hardwick and Gillespie eds. 102-118.
Vasunia, Phiroze. 2007. “Dalpatram’s Lakshmi and Aris-
tophanes’ Wealth”. In: Aristophanes in performance 412
BCE-2u05 CE, ed. by Edith Hall and Amanda Wrigley.
17-134. Oxford.
. 2013, The Classies and Colonial India, Oxford
Vasunia, Phiroze and Edith Hall eds. zoıo. India, Greece, and
Rome, 1757-2007. London.
Walcott, Derek. 1974. “The muse of history", /s massa day
tlead?, ed. Orde Coombs, 1-27. New York
. 1997. “Reflections on Omeros’. In: The poetics of Derek
Walcott: intertextual perspectives, ed. by Gregson Davis,
229- 246, Special issue of the South Atlantic Quarterly,
96.2.
Wetmore, Kevin J. Jr. 2002. The Athenian sun in an African
sky. Jefferson NC.
van Weyenberg, Astrid. 2013. The Politics of Adaptation: con-
temporary African drama and Greek tragedy, Amsterdam
and New York.
van Zyl Smit, Betine. 2007. “Multicultura! reception; Greek
drama in South Africa in the late twentieth and early
twenty-first centuries". In: A Companion to Classical
Receptions, edited by Lorna Hardwick and Christopher
Stray, 373-385. Oxford
BARBARA GOFF
Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation
Turning the massive and influential fiad and
Odyssey into comprehensible, effective verse is
a perennial task. More thorny is recasting Greek
epics written after Homer. Whereas Homeric
verse engages the translator in well-known
problems of paraphrase, metaphrase or imita-
tion (+ Homer, Translation), post-Homeric epic
demands 1) capturing basic narratives, while
2) indicating that the original Greek is com-
pletely involved in a mimetic and contentious
relationship with famous predecessor poems,
and 3) signaling the conscious differentiation
from their models practiced by post-Homeric
imitators. To a reader of Ancient Greek, minor
touches like a single changed word in a con-
ventional phrase, or even untraditional metrical
placement of a word, can affect poetic appre-
126 POST-HOMERIC EPIC POETRY, TRANSLATION
ciation. It is almost impossible to convey such
significances within a translation; some have
resorted to analogous embedding of lines from
Milton or Shakespeare.
While ‘post-Homeric’ hexameter poetry could
include hymns (from Callimachus to Proclus),
didactic verse in the style of Hesiod (Aratus,
Oppian, Nicander), late poetry attributed to
Orpheus (the Lithika and ‘Orphic’ Argonautica)
and bucolic (Theocritus, Moschus), the focus
here will be ‘heroic’ or legendary epics. Transla-
tion followed contemporary modes of treating
the /liad and Odyssey. In English, the overarch-
ing story is brief: the examples of Dryden and,
supremely, Pope shaped the later 17th century
and all of the 18th century (the most produc-
tive era); the earlier but ruder (therefore more
‘romantic') Chapman, ‘Ossian’, and translations
of Beowulf, dominated the ıgth. The 20th century
saw sleeker modernist versions. Overall, French
and Spanish translators were less beholden to
all-powerful translation models, Germans had
to surmount Voss (1793), while Italians could
establish distance from Dante's epic Comme-
dia through choosing contrastive poetic formats
(such as ottava rima).
The Aryonautica uf Apollonius of Rhodes,
head of the royal library of Alexandria around
270-245 BCE, narrates the quest for the Golden
Fleece in four books. The poem meticulously cop-
ies archaic style while subtly indicating aware-
ness of alternative scholarly interpretations of
Homeric diction. In this regard, it sets the tone
for later Greek epics, which reveled in recon-
dite allusions to predecessors. Vergil's Aeneid
(1g BCE) and Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica (ca
75-85 CE) were heavily influenced by Apollo-
nius, but the only ancient Latin translation was
by Varro of Atax in Gaul (82-35 BCE), perhaps
to celebrate his patron Caesar's conquests in the
East (Murray 2ou). From the dozen brief quota-
tions that survive, Varro emerges as an artful
translator who even matched metrical effects
of his original. He transforms the end-line spon-
dees of the Apollonian ‘ieié’ kekléguiai (Argon.
2.712 “shouting 'ieie' ” [ritual cry for Apollo]) into
et ‘iete’ conclamarunt (“and they shouted ‘ieie’,”
fr.7 [Courtney]). Vergil’s Aeneid incorporated
phrases from this slightly older contemporary:
for instance, Varro fr. 10 [Courtney] omnia noctis
erant placida composta quiete, “all things were
settled in night's serene repose” (a translation of
Apollonius Argon. 3.749-50), is echoed by Aen.
1.249 nunc placida compostus pace quiescit, "now
he reposes settled in serene peace.”
The Argonautica, like other texts examined
here, was re-copied in manuscript form for centu-
ries in the Eastern Roman Empire, into the mid-
dle ages. Byzantine readers, formally educated
in Ancient Greek, did not need translations. But
the Greek scholars arriving in Italy in the period
around the fall of Constantinople in 1453 had to
teach new audiences how to read the precious
manuscripts they carried with them. Word-for-
word translation into Latin provided elementary
glosses. Bartolomeo della Fonte (1446-1513), who
studied Greek in the 1470s at the Studio Fioren-
tino under the expatriate Andronicus Callistus,
treated the Argonautica this way.
Other Latin versions, such as that by Johannes
Hartung (1550) came after the first printed edi-
tion (Florence 1496), and showed the influence
of della Fonte’s strict translation. Important later
for spreading knowledge of the poem, if not
for literary merit, were poetic versions by Bod-
mer (German, 1779), Flangini (Italian, 1791-94),
and Caussin (French, 1802). The first two com-
plete English translations, by Francis Fawkes
and Edward Greene, appeared in the same year
(1780}. The anonymous commentator for The
Critical Review (1780, vol. 50) preferred the for-
mer, because the latter added “fringe and lace"
which only “disguise and disgrace” Apollonius.
Their respective versions of the description of
the Argonaut Orpheus (Argon. 1.23-29) confirm
this, Fawkes, employing Pope’s heroic hexam-
eters, pads out the lines with extraneous ver-
biage:
First in the list, to join the princely bands,
The tuneful bard, enchanting Orpheus stands,
Whom fair Calliope, on Thrinacia shore.
Near Pimpla’s mount, to bold Oeagrus bore.
Hard rocks he softened with persuasive song,
and soothed the rivers as they rolled along.
But Greene further contorts syntax and piles on
decorative stuff, tendencies endemic to i8th-
century translation:
Ye Sisters smile, sweet harbingers of verse,
Your Orpheus foremost of the train rehearse!
Whom, fair Calliope, thy virgin charms
Gave to the raptures of Oeagrus’ arms;
Sprung from soft Pimpla’s ever verdant hight
First wak'd the infant harmonist to light,
Pierc'd by the magic of whose shell the streams
To silence sink; the rock with beauty teems.
 POST-HOMERIC
Percy Bysshe Shelley in A Defence of Poetry (1821)
listed Apollonius unflatteringly “among the flock
of mock-birds” with two other post-Homeric
Greek poets, Quintus of Smyrna and Nonnus.
In his era (as much later), translations of these
writers were scarce, The Posthornerica by Quin-
tus in 14 books (3rd c. CE), the only surviving
poem to tell the Troy saga from the /liad’s end
to the Greek returns, was unknown in the West
until Cardinal Bessarion in the 1450s unearthed a
manuscript in a Calabrian monastery. The inter-
esting Italian verse translation by Bernardino
Baldi (circa 1595) lay unpublished until 1828.
A substantial selection in blank verse by the
young Alexander Dyce appeared in 1821, a year
before Shelley’s death. Mediocre hexameters by
J.J. C. Donner (1866) comprised the first complete
translation into German. The first full English
version was an often impenetrable blank-verse
attempt by A. 5. Way (1913), who had also done
Apollonius (i901). Better versions now include
James (2004) and Vian (1963-69).
In 1817 Shelley asked his bookseller fora French
translation of another rarely read epic, the Dio-
nysiaca by Nonnus of Panopolis, Egypt (5th—6th
c. CE). At 20,000 hexameters the longest poem
surviving from antiquity, it narrates the adven-
tures of the god Dionysus using a blend of ear-
lier hexameter genres.The only complete French
translation before Marcellus (1856) was in prose
by Claude Boitet de Frauville (1625), English
did not possess one until Rouse (1940) - again,
in prose. Significant for illustrating changes in
popular taste are the verse snippets sprinkled
by Shelley’s friend Thomas Love Peacock within
his novels The Misfortunes of Elphin (1829) and
Crotchet Castle (1831) (cf. Hernandez de la Fuente
2005), and a few pages from Book 47 turned into
energetic flowing couplets by Elizabeth Barrett
Browning in the 1840s (Browning 1900:476-78).
Lesser post-Homeric epics show interest-
ing trajectories as well. The Taking of Troy by
Triphiodorus (late 3rd c. CE), covering the final
three days of the city in Ggı lines, was trans-
lated by the 19-year-old James Merrick of Oxford
in 1739, two years before his important edition
of the Greek text (with reprinted Latin verse
translation by the 16th-century German poet
Nicodemus Frischlin). A more challenging task,
had it survived, would be to translate the ancient
poet's so-called ‘lipogrammatic’ Odyssey, in
which each successive book omitted one letter
of the alphabet. A shorter epic by Colluthus of
EPIC POETRY, TRANSLATION 127
Lycopolis, Egypt, The Abduction of Helen (ca 500
CE), presents in 392 verses the Judgement of
Paris and his subsequent elopement with Mene-
laus’ wife. In the three centuries following the
Aldine editio princeps (1521), eleven translations
appeared. The royalist poet Sir Edward Sher-
burne (1618-1702), an important theorist and
composer of 17th-century English translations
(with his friends Cowley, Denham, and Fan-
shawe) published a version in 1651 that captures
the playfulness of the Greek, as when Paris suc-
cinctly proposes:
Since Venus bids, here let us solemnize
Our nuptial rites; me nor my bed despise.
On what is known, insist we need not long;
Thy spouse from an unwarlike race is sprung:
Thou all the Grecian dames dost far out-vie,
Beauteous thy looks are, theirs their sex belie.
The result hews to the method Sherburne articu-
lated in his later preface to Seneca’s tragedies:
“representing, as in a Glass, his just lineaments
and Features, his true Air and Mien, in his own
Native Colours, unfarded by adulterate Paint”
(Steiner 1975:89).
Like Colluthus, the scholar-poet Musaeus
(later 5th c, CE) was a proponent of the florid
style of Nonnus. Hero and Leander, the tragic
story of a handsome youth from Abydos who
swims the Hellespont nightly to join his beloved
in Sestos, became immensely popular soon after
its first printed editions (1494-95). Direct lit-
eral translation was uncommon: instead, there
were paraphrases, such as that by the father of
Torquato Tasso (1555), and loose adaptations
(Spanish: Almogäver 1540; French: Marot 1541).
The English poet Christopher Marlowe produced
the first part of a much-expanded, imitative ver-
sion, later completed by George Chapman (1598).
Where the original delineates Hero's gorgeous
appeal in fifteen lines (55-70), Marlowe takes
forty-four, lush with imagined details of cloth-
ing, hair-style, skin, and jewels. His Elizabethan
exuberance gave way in the versions of later eras
(some twenty per century) to unpolished heroic
couplets (Stapylton 1645) and smoothly modem
accuracy (Whitman in Gelzer 1975).
Chapman was to become famous for his
robust Iliad and Odyssey, but his last transla-
tion, around 1624, was a mock-heroic epic of 300
hexameters, the Batrachomyomachia (“Battle
of Frogs and Mice"), in antiquity attributed to
Homer but now considered late Hellenistic (ca
128 POST-HOMERIC
ist c. BCE). The poem probably became the
earliest printed Greek text (1474). Ignited by the
drowning of the mouse Crumb-snatcher while
being ferried by the frog Puffjaw, the clash of
small beasts unfolds in ringing Homeric phrase-
ology. The fated mouse’s speech boasting of bit-
ing exploits is among many delights. Chapman
wittily renders part (lines 69-74):
ren No man with affright
Can daunt my forces, though his bodie bee
Of never so immense a quantitie,
But making up, even to his bed accesse,
His fingers’ ends dare with my teeth compresse,
His feet taint likewise, and so soft sease both
They shall not tast th’Lmpression of a tooth.
Nearly a century later, the Irish poet Thomas
Parnell sharpened this into tighter couplets in
the mode of his sometime collaborator Alexan-
der Pope:
Tho large to mine the humane Form appear,
Not Man himself can smite my Soul with Fear.
Sly to the Bed with silent Steps I go,
Attempt his Finger, or attack his Toe,
and fix indented Wounds with dext’rous Skill,
Sleeping he feels, and only seems to feel.
Out-doing fourteen earlier Italian versions, Gia-
como Leopardi (1798-1837) translated the mock
epic three times, starting in 1816. His explicit
method - to make ancient Greek as relevant as
spontaneous speech - inspired his extensive fur-
ther continuation (1831-37), introducing crabs to
the fray in an allegory about Austrian domina-
tion of his homeland (Fornaro 1999).
We could conclude that the trajectory of post-
Homeric epic versions ends in the paradox of
parody. That is, the mimesis of Homeric poetry
that most openly displays deep knowledge of the
originals while flaunting its own all-important
differentiation is that which consciously aimed
to show the gap between the heroic ethos and
the fallen world within which the imitator strug-
gles. The popular Battle of Frogs and Mice is with-
out doubt in its spirit further from the Iliad than
the ‘heroic’ Argonautica or epics by Quintus and
kin (Shelley's “mock-birds”). Yet in technique it is
this parody that crystallizes and perfects the craft
underlying the more serious attempts to echo
Homer: the meaningful manipulation of diction
and image, rhetoric and line-structure. Paradoxi-
cally, translators of post-Homeric Greek poetry
had most to learn from the minor comic parergon
EPIC POETRY, TRANSLATION
attributed to the bard. Thus it is not surpris-
ing that the perfectionist Leopardi was obsessed
with the poem, nor that Chapman engaged with
the short Batrachomyomachia at the culmina-
tion of his career: both translators intuited that
grasping the mock-epic’s mimetic strategies was
deeply essential for after-comers to lost antiquity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Browning, Elizabeth Barrett. 1900. The complete poetical
works of Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Boston.
Chapman, George. 2008. Chapman's Homeric kymns and
other Homerica, ed. by Allardyce Nicoll. With a new intro-
duction by Stephen Scully. Princeton.
Courtney, Edward. 1993. The fragmentary Latin poets.
Oxford.
Fawkes, Francis. 1780. The Argonautics of Apollonius Rho-
dius, in four books. London.
Fornaro, Pierpaolo, ed. 1999. Batracomiomachia e Parali-
pomeni. pseudo Omero, Giacomo Leopardi. Alessandria.
Gelzer, Thomas, ed. 1975. “Musaeus: Hero and Leander",
with translation by Cedric Whitman. In: Callimachus,
Aetia, Iambi, etc. ed. by C. A. Trypanis, 291-389. Cam-
bridge, Mass.
Greene, Edward Burnaby. 1780. The Arganautic expedition,
2 vols. London,
Hemandez de la Fuente, David. 2005. “Shelley, a reader of
the Dionysiaca?", Res Publica Litterarum 41-10.
James, Alan. 2004. The Trojan epic: Posthomerica, Baltimore.
Marchesi, Concetto.1gou. Bartolomeo della Fonte. Catania.
Marlowe, Christopher, 1598. Hera and Leander: begun by
Christopher Marloe; and finished by George Chapman.
London.
Murray, Jackie. 20n. “Shipwrecked 'Argonauticas", In: Brill's
companion to Lucan, ed. by Paolo Asso, 57-79. Leiden.
Parnell, Thomas. 1717. Homer's battle af the frogs and mice.
Dublin.
Polleichtner, Wolfgang. 2012. “Apollonius of Rhodes (Apollo-
nius Rhodius): Argonautica’, In: Brill’s New Pauly Supple-
ments J - Volume 5: The Reception of Classical Literature,
ed. by Christine Walde. Leiden.
Rouse, W. H. D. 1940. Nonnos’ Dionysiaca. Cambridge, Mass.
Stapylton, Robert. 1645. The loves of Hero and Leander: a
Greek poem translated into English verse, with annotations
upon the original. Oxford,
Steiner T. R. 1975. English translation theory 1650-1800.
Assen.
Vian, Francis. 1963-69. Quintus de Smyrne. La suite d’Homere.
Vols, 1-3. Paris.
RıicHARrn MARTIN
Postpositives
Unlike mobile words, postpositives exhibit some
>word order restrictions (+ Wackernagel’s
Law): (i) they occur in the second or (ii) penini-
tial position within their sentence, (iii) they
never begin a clause; (iv) they cannot appear in
isolation (Wackernagel 1892; Fränkel 1933). The

terms belonging to this class are the following
(see Dover 1960):
a. the so-called + particles dn (ke/ka), dra (rha),
ail, gär, ge, dat, dé, dé, déta, then, men, mentoi,
men (man), oün (6n), per, te, toi, toinun, nun;
b. the personal pronouns me, mou, moi, se, sou,
soi, he, hou, hoi, min, nin, sphe, sphea(s)/sphas,
spheön, sphi(si{n)), sphö, autén (anaphoric);
c. the indefinites tis, pote, pou, pds
{+ Pronouns).
The status (or not) as postpositives of some of
these and of certain other words (e.g. egö, Dik
2007:164) is much debated (Dover 196012~13; Dik
1995; 2007).
This fixed position exhibits numerous excep-
tions (see Marshall 1987). There have
attempts to explain some of these exceptions
by taking into account certain general niles (Dik
1995:31—38):
i. Word order means word or constituent order
(Dik 2007:24). Therefore postpositives can occupy
second, third or later position while remaining
second constituent (brackets mark constituents
and subscript number mark word order):
(1) [Ao de, nömos] tois engutata génous tds
kléronomias apodidösi
‘The law gives inheritances to the nearest of
kin' (Dem. Or. 44.25.4)
(2} [ho némos]| dé, légei tanantia
‘The law says the opposite’ (Dem.
22.6.6)
(3} [kata tous nömous] d’, hentina boulei par’
emoü diken lämbane
"Take any legal vengeance you like on me’
(Dem. Or. 21.207,5-6)
ii. Since + sentence second position does not
account for all occurrences, scholars have pro-
posed other units of syntactic, pragmatic (Dik
1995, 2007), prosodic (Goldstein 2010) or unde-
fined character (Frankel 1933). In the following
passage the particle mén appears in the fourth
position of the sentence (if the subject is taken
Into account), but it appears in the second
position of its syntactic unit (the first verbal
predicate), which is in contrast with the next
one introduced by the second dé (with brackets
marking the particles’ scope/unit):
POSTPOSITIVES 129
(4) [Ardbioi de [skeuen men eikhon ten auten kai
en téi pezöl], [élaunon de päntes kamelous
takhutéti ou leipoménas hippön] |
‘The Arabians had the same equipment as
the men of their infantry, and all of them
rode on camels no less swift than horses’
(Hdt. 7.86.9-87.1)
In the next passage the pronoun me occupies the
second position within the + infinitive clause
(with verb sésai), but not in the sentence it is
included in (with verb &stin), where it is the sixth
word (or fourth if the vocative is excluded):
(5) me toinun, [epeide ge éstin, 6 boulé, [sdsal me
dikafös] |, apoléséte adikös
‘Do not, therefore, gentlemen, when you
been can save me justly, ruin me unjustly’ (Lys.
24.7.1~3)
The term unit does not necessary mean syntactic
unit, but can refer to pragmatic units like + topic
or + focus (Dik 2007). In the following example
the pronoun min is after the verb, which is the
sentence focus:
(6) kai hé gune [eporäi min exiönta]
‘The woman glimpsed him as he went out’
(Hdt. 1.10.2)
Asa result, postpositives would operate as bound-
ary markers between syntactic, pragmatic and/or
prosodic units within the sentence (Dik 200721).
Or.
iii. The words usually classified as postpositives
belong to different classes, and this fact explains
some differences in their behavior (Goldstein
2010:3). Pronouns and indefinites are (part of)
sentence constituents and for this reason they
exhibit a larger mobility. The so-called particles
include categorial words that in fact belong to
one or more of the following classes: focusing
particles (ge), + disjuncts (dn, nun, pou), dis-
course connectors (gdr, oün, méntoi), + con-
junctions (te, de). In the following example ge
operates as a discourse connector (Denniston
1954:145) and occupies the absolute second posi-
tion, because it has within its scope the whole
sentence (see the brackets and the subscript):
(7) SOC. Tö poion? -THEAE. [Ten aléthé döxan
epistémén einai). [anamärtetön ge, poü estin
to doxdzein alethe],
130 POSTPOSITIVES
Socrates: ‘The what?’ Theaetetus: ‘That
knowledge ts true opinion; for true opinion
is surely free from error’ (Pl. Tht. 200e4)
In the next example it works as a focusing par-
ticle operating just upon the pronoun in the
dative and therefore appears immediately after
it (second position), but at fourth position in the
sentence:
(8) Tide oün, 6 Sökrates, toiit’ esti soi pros lögon?
[egö dé [sof ge,]ı erd, ö phile pai Kleiniou kai
Deinomäkhes]
‘Well, Socrates, and what has that to do
with your point? | am going to tell you, dear
son of Cleinias and Deinomache’ (Pl. Alc. 1,
105c¢8-d2)
As a consequence of the behavior described
above, postpositives provoke a mismatch
between syntax and word order, and therefore
create syntactic discontinuities (Devine & Ste-
phens 2000): postpositives can separate words
belonging to the same constituent (see tadta
and pänta in the following example) and they
can appear disconnected from their syntactic
domain (mou belongs to eis ten gnömen):
(9) [taütä [mou], pänta], [eis ten gnömen],
eiséiei
‘All these things came into my mind’ (Lys.
117)
This particularity is shared by Ancient Greek
with other older languages (Dover ı960:14-
15), but does not characterize modern Indo-
European languages.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Denniston, John D. 1954. The Greek particles. and
Oxford.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 2000. Discun-
tinwous syntax. Hyperbaton in Greek, Oxford.
Dik, Helma. 1995. Word order in ancient Greek: a prag-
matic account of ward order variation in Herodotus,
Amsterdam.
. 2007. Word order in Greek tragic dialugue. Oxfard.
Dover, Kenneth }. 1960. Greek word order, Cambridge.
Frankel, Eduard. 1933. “Kolon und Satz: Beobachtungen
zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes LI", Nachrichten der
Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften: Philnsaphisch-
historische Klasse, 319-354.
Goldstein, David M. 2010. Wackernagel’s Law in fifth-century
Greek. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Janse, Mark. 1990. “Wackernagel’s Law”. In: Proceedings of
the fourteenth international congress of linguists (Berlin/
GDR, August i0—August 15, 1987), ed. by Werner Bahner et
al., 2648-2649. Berlin,
Marshall, M. H. B. 1987. Verbs, nouns, and postpositives in
Attic prose. Edinburgh.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. "Über ein Gesetz der indoger-
manischen Wortstellung”, Indogermanische Forschungen
1333-436. [Repr. in: Kleine Schriften, vol. 1, ed. by Kurt
Latte, 1-104. Göttingen.)
ANTONTO REVUELTA
Predicative Constituents
Predicative constituents are linguistic units
which form part of the predicate or constitute
the whole predicate. Though the linguistic defi-
nition of predicates is much debated, a predicate,
broadly speaking, is the constituent performing
the function which is generally fulfilled by a verb
in Indo-European languages; nevertheless the
predicate is not necessarily a verb. In Ancient
Greek, the predicate of a main clause can be a
finite verb form, but also a + noun phrase, with
or without a copula. Almost every part of speech
can be used as a predicate, including, in the case
of dauble predications, several clauses.
The notion of predicate came to linguistics
from logic. It dates back to the Stoics and to
Aristotle and has been expanded on by logicians
up to the present time. The commonly held view
is that the term ‘predicate’ has several defini-
tions: it is polysemic and linguists use different
definitions of the predicate, depending partly
on the linguistic level studied (syntax, semantics
or pragmatics), and mostly on the theoretical
approach adopted (see Forsgren, Jonasson and
Kroning 1998, and Merle 2008 for an overview of
the different definitions). The common ground
of the different definitions is that the predicate is
the syntactic center of the clause and that it spec-
ed. ifies a relation or a property between the clause's
linguistic units, whether these are defined on a
syntactic level (arguments of the predicate), on
a semantic level (semantic roles) or on a prag-
matic level (theme vs. rheme). Depending on the
linguistic model in question, the predicate speci-
fies a relation between two elements (including
itself ) or between several elements.
1. VERBAL CONSTITUENTS
In the languages of the world, the predicate is
typically expressed by a term which can bear
the morphological markers of tense, aspect and
 PREDICATIVE CONSTITUENTS
mood, and possibly the markers of person. Thus,
in Indo-European languages, the most frequent
predicate is the verb. In verbal sentences, the
term ‘predicative constituents’ refers to linguistic
units which belong to the predicative part of the
clause, i.e., the verb and its modifiers, such as
nouns, adjectives or adverbs, if they are used as
arguments of the verb. From a typological point
of view, there are various types of predication
(see Lemaréchal 2004): some languages such as
French have an obligatory copula, others such as
Russian a copula that is compulsory in certain
syntactic contexts, yet others such as Tagalog
have several copulas, and in certain languages,
for instance in the Dravidian and Oceanic fami-
lies, any part of speech can become a predicative
constituent with no copula (these languages are
said to be omnipredicative).
In Ancient Greek, the copula can be used even
in existential and equative constructions (e.g.
sentences like “There is a man", and “Plato is a
philosopher’), i.e., in constructions where many
languages use non-verbal structures. As a result,
the predicative constituents of the majority of
clauses in Ancient Greek are based on finite
verbal forms, and when the copula is expressed,
it bears the markers of person, tense, aspect and
mood. However, the copula is not obligatory.
Noting this situation, Benveniste (1950) claimed
that the difference between verbal sentences
with a copula and non-verbal sentences without
a copula was based on the fact that non-verbal
sentences were not able to express person, tense,
aspect and mood, so that they were used for
general and gnomic statements. This idea was
questioned, and Lanérés (1994) proved that non-
verbal sentences without a copula are compat-
ible with tense and especially with modality. As
Lemaréchal (2004 and 201) points out, it is less
a question of understanding how languages can
manage without a copula than what the use of
a copula is in the languages which employ it.
According to Lemaréchal, the copula provides
only redundant information in languages where
the markers of person, tense, aspect and mood
are rarely omitted and systematically borne by
verbal forms. That is the reason why Hengeveld
(1992), drawing upon a different argument
(which however is based on the same typologi-
cal observation), admits that sentences with a
copula come within non-verbal predication.
1341
2, NON-VERBAL CONSTITUENTS
The term ‘predicative constituents’ can also refer
to other linguistic units which make up the
predicate; these constituents are not necessarily
verbs or verbal modifiers. Almost every part of
speech can be used as a predicative constituent
in the languages of the world: the more the mark-
ers of person and tense, aspect and mood can be
associated with any part of speech, the more a
language is omnipredicative (i.e., has the great-
est freedom to make a predicate of any part of
speech). In languages where these markers can-
not be borne by any part of speech, non-verbal
predication is not grammaticalized (see Francois
and Behr 2004). In Ancient Greek, the morpho-
logical markers of tense, aspect and mood and
the markers of person are usually borne by the
verb, and thus non-verbal constituents are gen-
erally not grammaticalized, Yet there are a few
exceptions. The noun khre (‘obligation’), used
as a predicate since Homer, developed the mor-
phology of a verb; even if several forms can be
explained as the univerbation of the noun with
the copula (cf. the imperfect Ahrén ‘it had to’
from khré én ‘there was an obligation to’), there
are forms which cannot be explained as being
based on sucha univerbation with the copula (cf.
the imperfect ekhren, with an augment before
the nominal stem). The adverb deüro, which is
used for orders (‘here!’), developed a second-
person-plural morphological marker, resulting
in an imperative-like deüte: the first examples
can be found in Homer, and the form became
widely used in Christian prose.
Even without being grammaticalized as predi-
cates, many parts of speech can be used as predi-
cates in Ancient Greek (see Lanérés 1994 for an
extensive discussion of the data in the /liad).
Predicative constituents can be noun phrases
in the nominative (Hdt. 3.53.16 turannis khréma
sphalerén ‘tyranny [is] an unsteady thing’), in the
genitive (Hom. Il. 4.13 nike men areiphilou Mene-
{dou ‘the victory [belongs to] Menelaos beloved
by Ares’) or in the dative (Hom. I 23.736 nike d’
amphot£roisin ‘and the victory [is for] both of
them’). Predicative adjectives can also be used
(Hom. Il. 13.222 ot tis aner niin aitios ‘noboby
[is] now responsible’). Predicative constituents
can also be + adverbs (Hom. Il. 10.251 engäthi
d’eös ‘and near [is] the dawn’) or prepositional
phrases (Hom. Jf 22.299 all’ ho men en teikhei
‘but he [is] within the city walls’).
132, PREDICATIVE CONSTITUENTS
According to Hengeveld (1992), the three major
types of non-verbal predication are localizing (as
at Hom. Il, 22.299 above), property-assigning (as
at Hom. I 4.13 above) and equative predications
(as in the example of Hdt. 3.53.13). These three
types, and the other examples already cited,
are instances of predications divided into two
syntactic parts. They are the most extensively
studied non-verbal predications as they need to
be differentiated from the corresponding predi-
cations with copulas. Yet Lanérés (1994) points
out instances of predications divided into more
than two parts (e.g. Hom. Il. 24.437 sol men ego
pompös ‘for you, | [will be] your guide’, where
the predicate is the noun pompds 'guide'). There
also are numerous examples of predications con-
sisting of one part only, employing nouns such as
khré (in the Homeric poems also andnké ‘neces-
sity’, moira ‘destiny’, némesis justice’) or neuter
adjectives (like the Homeric Ads gar dmeinon (it
1.217, etc.) ‘for [it is] better this way’). An interest-
ing insight into non-verbal predication is given
by utterances that comprise a single part and are
used with a directive force in order to express
orders and prohibitions (+ Orders (Impera-
tives and Prohibitives), as in Aristoph. Thesm.
241 (hüdör hüdör, 6 geitones ‘Water! Water, my
neighbors!') or Aristoph. Eccl 695 (deüra par'
hémds ‘Here, close to us!’). In such utterances,
the meaning is neither general nor gnomic, and
it is pointless to compare them to predications
with a (for a discussion of directive utterances,
see Denizot 2011:59-75).
3. DOUBLE PREDICATION
Besides the main predication, which can be ver-
bal or non-verbal, a secondary predication can be
expressed, based either on the main predication
or on an argument of the main predication. As
defined by Furukawa (1996), a double predica-
tion is a phrase which is syntactically integrated
into the main predication but which semanti-
cally expresses a sentential content within the
main predication. The instances of double predi-
cation are sometimes very close to + subordina-
tion. In Ancient Greek, constructions such as
the accusativus cum infinitivo (Pl. Euthd. 287d4
homologeis me sophon einai ‘you admit that I
am wise’) or the use of a participle agreeing
with an argument of the main predication after
a verb of perception (+ Verba Sentiendi; e.g.
Xen. An. 1.4.5.6 ékouse Küron en Kilikiäi önta ‘he
learned that Cyrus was in Cilicia’) are exam-
ples of double predication which are both the
most frequent and the closest to subordinate
clauses.
Other phrases are farther from subordinate
clauses and also less frequent in Ancient Greek:
these are phrases identical to the type of Latin
ab urbe condita (‘from the town founded’, ie.,
‘from the time of the town foundation’, see Bol-
kestein 1981 for a discussion of the Latin data).
Such examples exist also in Ancient Greek, both
in prepositional phrases (Hdt. 1.34.1 meta Séfona
nikhémenon lit. ‘after Solon leaving’, i.e., ‘after
Solon’s leaving’) and in noun phrases that are
arguments of the central predication (Xen. An.
7.7.12.3 elüpei gar auton hé khöra porthoumene
lit. ‘because the land ruined upset him’, i.e.,
‘because the ruining of the land upset him’, see
Jones (1939) for a list of such expressions). A
single noun or adjective can also be used for a
double predication, depending on lexical and
semantic constraints (e.g. the adjective prétai
‘first’ at Lys. 2.4 prötai de tön päntön eph' hippous
anabäsai ‘[the Amazons] first of all the ones
mounting horses’ i-e., ‘they were the first of all to
mount horses’, or the noun katdskopoi ‘inspec-
tors’ at Thuc. 8.411 [...] tous Lakedaimunious
hoi hékon katdskopoi ‘the Lacedaemonians who
went [as] inspectors’, see Wackernagel (1924:65-
68) for a discussion of this construction).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benveniste, Emile. 1950. "La phrase nominale”, Bulletin de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris ı32/1 (= 1966, Problemes de
linguistique générale I, 151-167. Paris),
Bolkestein A. Machtelt. 1981. “Factivity as a condition for
an optional expression rule in Latin: the a urbe con-
dita construction and its underlying representation". In:
Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar, ed.
by A. M. Bolkestein, H. A. Combé, 5. C. Dik, C. de Groot,
J. Gvozdanovid, A. Rijksbaron, €. Vet, 205-233. New York.
Denizot, Camille. 2ou. Donner des erdres en grec ancien,
Etude linguistique des formes de l'injonction, Mont-Saint-
Aignat.
Forsgren, Mats, K. Jonasson and H. Kronning, eds. 1998,
Prédication, assertion, information. Uppsala.
Francois, Jacques and Irmtraud Behr, eds. 2004. Les constitu-
ants prédicatifs et la diversité des langues, Melanges de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris n.s. 14. Paris.
Furukawa, Naoyo. 1996. Grammaire de la prédication sec-
onde. Forme, sens et contraintes, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication, Theory, typot-
ogy, diachrony. Berlin — New York.
Jones, Frank P. ig39. The ab urbe condita construction in
Greek, A study in the classification of the participle (Sup-
plement to Language (Vol. 15, na) 28, Linguistic Society
of America). Baltimore.
 PREDICATIVE
Lanérés, Nicole. 1994. Les formes de la phrase nominale en
grec ancien, Etude sur la langue de !liade. Lille.
Lemarechal, Alain. 2004. "Typologie et theories de la predi-
cation”. In: Melanges de la Société de Linguistique de
Paris n.s. 14, Les constituants predicatifs et la diversite des
fangues, 13-28, Louvain.
- 20u. “Etre et avoir a travers les langues: typologie et
theorisation”, Lalies 31179-217.
Merle, Jean-Marie, ed. 2008. La predication, (=Faits de langue
31-32). Paris.
Wackernagel, Jakob. 1924. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel.
CAMILLE DENIZOT
Prefix
+ Derivational Morphology
Pre-Greek Languages
1. ANCIENT TRADITIONS AND THEORIES
The Greeks never claimed that their language
was indigenous to the land. They identified the
populations that preceded them in mainland
Greece and the Aegean as ‘Leleges’ (Leleges)
and, especially, ‘Pelasgians’ (Pelasgoi), two elu-
sive tribes speaking languages other than Greek
(Hdt. 1.57, Thuc. 4.109) and emerging in different
locations in Greece, Crete, and Asia Minor (for
a detailed account of the ancient sources see
Myres 1907). In addition, Homer once mentions
the Eteocretans (Etedkrétes, ‘genuine Cretans’),
who are said to dwell in Crete side-by-side with
Achaeans, Kydonians (presumably yet another
indigenous population group), Dorians, and
Pelasgians (Od. 19.172-177). Later on, the Pelas-
gians became associated with the Tyrrhenians
(Tursenot, the Greek designation of the Etrus-
cans), inhabitants of the northern Aegean and
particularly of Lemnos (cf. e.g. Thuc. 4.109) but
also of the western Mediterranean. In modern
times, numerous attempts have been made to
establish the identity of pre-Greek populations
referred to in Greek sources. ‘Pelasgians’ espe-
cially have become a peg on which to hang
theories relating to the character of pre-Greek
languages of the Aegean. Yet Greek tradition
of the Pelasgians seems never to have had a
strong historical focus. “Though there was cer-
tainly a pre-Greek population (or populations),
the range of representations and theories in the
surviving texts, and the fact that no one could
CONSTITUENTS
133
agree which contemporary barbarians were
actual representatives of the tribe, shows that
‘Pelasgian’ as a designation of these pre-Greeks
has no historical validity” (Fowler 2011). In con-
temporary scholarship, ‘Pelasgian’ is for the most
part used as a conventional term for designating
a pre-Greek language (or languages) with no
assumption as to the identity of the Pelasgians of
Greek tradition.
2. EPIGRAPHIC AND LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE
Discovery, since the ıgth c., of non-alphabetic
and alphabetic inscriptions in languages that
resist decipherment have allowed the scholars
to test the ancient tradition of pre-Greek popu-
lations of the region against the background of
archaeological and epigraphic evidence. Most of
these inscriptions come from Crete (see further
Finkelberg 2005:57-61; Duhoux 2007:220-222).
These are:
(1) the inscriptions in + Cretan Hieroglyphic
Script, dated to ca zoon to ca 1700 BCE (MM
la-MM II)
(2) the inscriptions in the + Linear A script (syl-
labic), dated to ca 1750 to ca 1450 BCE (LM
Hlaı-z)
(3) the inscription on the + Phaistos Disc (ca
1800-ca 1600 BCE)
(4) the inscription on the Arkalokhori bronze
double axe (ca 1600 BCE)
(5) the so-called + Eteocretan inscriptions
(alphabetic), dated to the 8th to the ard c.
BCE and presumably representing one of
the indigenous languages of the island.
Cyprus, though more closely associated with the
Levant than the Aegean proper, supplies two
additional samples (see further Steele 2013):
(6) the inscriptions in the so-called Cypro-
Minoan script (syllabic; + Cypro-Minoan
Syllabary), which was in use during the Late
Bronze Age both in Cyprus and in nearby
Ugarit; and
(7) the so-called Eteocyprian inscriptions
(+ Eteocypriot) cast in the Classical
+ Cypriot Syllabary but in a language other
than Greek (6th-qth c. BCE).
As the decipherment of the Classical Cypriot
syllabary and the + Linear B script has shown,
134 PRE-GREEK
it would be wrong to assume that an unfamil-
iar script should necessarily be approached as
a vehicle for recording an unknown language.
Nor can we claim with certainty that each of the
scripts mentioned above stood for a different
language: thus, Greek was rendered by means of
at least three different scripts (Linear B, Classi-
cal Cypriot, alphabetic), and Luwian by means
of two (Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic
Luwian).
Another kind of evidence is provided by the
Greek language itself. It has been noticed since
long ago that Greek vocabulary includes an
unusually high proportion of nouns, both com-
mon and proper, that cannot be accounted for
as belonging either to Greek itself or to any other
known language. The lists of such words vary,
but most of them would include elai(w)a (‘olive
tree’, Linear B e-ra-wa), dmpetos (‘vine’), kuparis-
sos (‘eypress’, cf. Linear B adj. nom. pl. neut. ku-
pa-ri-se-ja, ‘of cypress wood’), erébinthos (‘chick
pea’), asdminthos ("bath-tub', Linear B a-sa-mi-
to), fabürinthos ‘labyrinth’, Linear B gen. da-pup-
ri-tojo), the proper nouns Athene (‘Athena’,
Linear B a-ta-na-), Odusseus, Rhaddmanthus, as
well as numerous place-names (e.g. Körinthos,
Knös(s)ös) (for a representative list see Duhoux
2007:225-226). Proceeding from these observa-
tions, Paul Kretschmer in 1896 came to the con-
clusion that since the suffixes -nth- and -s(s)-,
which present a pattern frequently encountered
in both the common nouns and, especiaily, the
place-names belonging to this category, cannot
be identified as Greek, they should be taken
as pointing to the existence of a pre-Hellenic
linguistic substratum (also called ‘the Aegean
substratum’) (Kretschmer 1896:401-409).
Furthermore, Kretschmer drew scholarly
attention to the fact that the suffixes -nth- and
-s(s)-, often attested in place-names in mainland
Greece and Crete, bear a striking resemblance
to the suffixes -nd- and -ss- found in languages
of Asia Minor spoken in the Classical period,
namely Lycian, Lydian, or Carian (+ Greek and
Lycian; + Greek and Lydian; + Greek and Car-
ian). Since the languages of Asia Minor were
then generally considered not to belong to the
Indo-European family of languages, his conclu-
sion was that the linguistic substratum in ques-
tion should be identified as non-IE (Kretschmer
1896:401-409). Kretschmer’s analysis was taken
further in 1928 by the classicist Joseph B. Haley
LANGUAGES
and the archaeologist Carl W. Blegen. In their
seminal article “The Coming of the Greeks"
Haley and Blegen showed that the distribution
on the map of Greece of the geographical names
identified by Kretschmer and others as belong-
ing to the pre-Hellenic substratum closely cor-
responded to the map of distribution of Early
Bronze Age archaeological sites. This allowed
the authors to associate the pre-Hellenic sub-
stratum with the people who inhabited Greece
till the end of the Early Bronze Age and to date
the arrival of the Greek-speaking tribes as having
occurred at the beginning of the Middle Bronze
Age (ca 2050-2000 BCE) (Haley and Blegen
1928). The chronology of the znd-millennium
BCE Greek settlement thus established is still
considered valid today.
3, PRE-GREEK LANGUAGES AND
ANATOLIAN
At the time when Kretschmer formulated his
conclusions no one could have envisaged that
it would soon be shown that a language belong-
ing to the IE family had been in use in Anatolia
in the and millennium BCE. Ironically, the new
picture of IE began to emerge precisely in the
years that gave rise to the hypothesis of the
non-IE pre-Hellenic substratum. The German
excavation of the site of Boghazköy in northeast
Anatolia that started in 1906 brought to light the
archives of Hattusa, the capital of the empire of
the Hittites, a people known from Egyptian and
Assyrian sources as well as from the Bible. The
archives, which belonged to the period between
1600 and 1200 BCE, produced numerous cunei-
form tablets in an unknown language that was
soon given the name of Hittite (first brought
to light in 1891 in the Amarna archives). The IE
provenance of Hittite, deciphered in 1915 by the
orientalist Bedfig Hrozny, was proved conclu-
sively and soon accepted by all (see further Fin-
kelberg 2005:42-48). Two additional languages,
Palaic and Luwian, discovered for the first time
in the Boghazköy archives, proved to belong to
the same group as Hittite; in the course of time,
this group was given the name of the Anatolian
group of languages.
The most eastern of the Bronze Age Anatolian
languages was Hittite. Although in the 14th-
13th c. BCE the Hittite empire spread into large
parts of western Anatolia and even left records
 PRE-GREEK
relating to the people of Ahhiyawa, generally
regarded today as being identical to Mycenaean
Greeks, there is good reason to suppose that the
homeland of the Hittites was in Central Anatolia
or perhaps even further to the east. The Palaic
language, which is very close to Hittite, seems
to have been spoken to the south of the Black
Sea, in historic Paphlagonia. The most western
of the three Bronze Age Anatolian languages
was Luwian. ‘This was the language of the king-
dom of Arzawa, placed by scholars along the
western coast of Asia Minor. Although (he main
characteristics of Luwian are identica] to those
of Hittite and Palaic, there are also some signifi-
cant differences. Thus, noun, adjective and pro-
noun plurals are produced in Luwian by means
of the ending -nzi (-es in Hittite); instead of the
genitive, the relation of possession is typically
expressed in this language by means of adjec-
tives ending in -ussis or -assas, especially pro-
ductive in the formation of place-names; while
the vocalism of Hittite and Palaic is based on
the phonemes e, i, u, a, the vocalism of Luwian is
based on i u, a only (see further Melchert 2003).
Additional discoveries have shown that there
is reason to suppose that in the Bronze Age
Luwian was spoken over even wider regions of
western Anatolia. This had become clear even
before ı960, when Emmanuel Laroche presented
his decipherment (further improved by other
scholars in the 1970s) of the so-called 'Hiero-
glyphic Luwian’, the language of the monu-
mental inscriptions on stone that began to be
uncovered in North Syria and Anatolia in the
last decades of the ıgth c. Although most of
the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions belong to
the so-called Neo-Hittite states which emerged
in Syria and the Taurus mountains at the begin-
ning of the lron Age, the location of the more
ancient ones strongly suggests that in the Bronze
Age Luwian was the dominant language of Cili-
cia and probably of the whole of Asia Minor.
These were the very regions that had been iden-
tified by Kretschmer and others as the home of
the non-IE Aegean substratum.
As the theory of the non-IE pre-Hellenic sub-
stratum had arisen even before the discovery
and decipherment of Hittite and other Anatolian
languages, for a long time these two issues were
not seen as associated with each other in any sig-
nificant way. The languages from which the the-
ory of the Aegean substratum proceeded were
LANGUAGES 135
Lycian, Lydian, Carian, ‘Tyrrhenian’ (the lan-
guage of the Lemnos inscription, closely related
to Etruscan; + Lemnian), all of them attested
in Asia Minor on the inscriptions of the Classi-
cal and Hellenistic periods written in epichoric
variants of the Greek alphabet. However, the
decipherment of the Bronze Age Anatolian lan-
guages has gradually brought scholars to realize
that the igth-c. identification of the languages
of Asia Minor as non-IE was in fact incorrect.
Although the study of the Anatolian languages
uf the historical period is still in progress, the
results obtained so far firmly point toward the
affiliation of these languages to the Anatolian
group (this does not concern Phrygian which,
though also present in Anatolia during the his-
torical period, was a language closely affiliated to
Greek and not an Anatolian language proper).
The language of Asia Minor the study of
which has made the most substantial progress
is undoubtedly Lycian. The decisive identifica-
tion of Lycian as an IE language was achieved in
the 1940s due to the studies of Holger Pedersen;
in the ıg50s Laroche demonstrated the close
proximity between Lycian and Luwian, which
allowed the affiliation of Lycian to the Anato-
lian family of languages. Laroche also showed
that the suffixes -nth- and -s(s)-, which gave
rise to the hypothesis of the non-LE pre-Hel-
lenic substratum, should properly be identified
as Luwian: thus, the place-name Parnassos can
consistently be analyzed as a possessive adjec-
tive typical of the Luwian language, formed from
a root which is likewise Luwian, for the word
parna means ‘house’ in both Luwian and Lycian
(Laroche 1957 and 1961; Heubeck 1961:50-52;
on Greek place-names in -nth- as likely lega-
cies “from one (or more) languages close to the
Anatolian branch which was spoken in certain
regions of Greece before the Mycenaeans settled
there” see Duhoux 2007:228). It has also been
realized that Lydian too is an Anatolian, that
is, an IE language, although it may be doubted
whether it belongs to the same subgroup of the
Anatolian languages as Hittite, Palaic, Luwian
and Lycian (cf. Melchert 2004). As far as Car-
ian is concerned, the results brought about by
the recent decipherment of the Carian alphabet
have confirmed the assumption that Carian too
should be identified as an IE language belong-
ing to the Anatolian family (see further Adiego
2007:345-347 )-
136 PRE-GREEK LANGUAGES
4. THE NON-INDO-EUROPEAN
SUBSTRATUM RECONSIDERED
Realization of the fact that the newly established
affiliation of the Anatolian languages to the
languages of the TE group has direct relevance
to the identity of the pre-Hellenic substratum
came slowly. In 1980, expressing what was then
still considered a dissenting opinion, Leonard
Palmer pointed out in clear and unambiguous
terms that Kretschmer’s original conclusions
issued mainly from the comparison of the sul-
fix -s(s)- of Greek place-names with a similar
suffix in Lycian, which was not then considered
an IE language. With the change of the status of
Lycian, Palmer argued, the scholarly consensus
as regards the linguistic provenance of the pre-
Hellenic substratum should change accordingly:
“For those who accept Kretschmer’s analysis and
conclusions (and modern scholars are virtually
unanimous in doing so) it follows that another
group of IE speakers took possession of Greece
before the arrival of the Greeks, just as Celts
preceded the Anglo-Saxons in the British Isles”
(Palmer 1980:9-ı10; significantly, this conclusion
comes close enough to the modified position of
Kretschmer himself as expressed in 1925 in his
“Die protoindogermanische Schicht" and further
developed in Kretschmer 1940-1943).
With the progress of Anatolian studies, after
it had been shown that the languages spoken
in both prehistoric and historic Asia Minor
belonged to the Anatolian branch of the IE
group, the presence of non-IE speakers in the
Eastern Mediterranean, formerly postulated for
the entire region, became sharply reduced. Thus,
according to Onofrio Carruba, Luwian is the only
substratum language that can be traced west of
a line drawn from the Bosporus in the North to
the Gulf of Alexandretta in the South (Carruba
199528; see also Drews 1997; Finkelberg 1997 and
2005:42-54). We cannot of course exclude the
possibility that some still unknown non-IE lan-
guages had indeed been present in the region.
Yet, as far as the extant evidence goes, there
are no visible traces of non-IE speakers to the
west of the Semitic languages of Syria and to the
north of the Egyptian of Africa. And although in
default of a scholarly consensus as to the prov-
enance of the language of Linear A, we cannot
be absolutely certain that the same would also
apply to the linguistic situation in Minoan Crete,
the even spread of the suffixes -s(s)- and -nth-
over western Asia, Greece and Crete strongly
suggests that before the emergence of Greek-
speaking tribes the whole area in question was
linguistically homogeneous.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adiego, Ignacio J. 2007, The Carian language. Leiden — Boston.
Carruba, Onofrio. 1995. “L’arriva dei greci, le migrazioni
indoeuropee e il 'ritorno' degli Eraclidi", Athenaeum
8375-44.
Drews, Robert. 1997. “PIE speakers and PA speakers”, //ES
25:153-177.
Duhoux, Yves. 2007. "Greek and Pre-Greek languages: intro
duction” and “Pre-Greek languages; indirect evidence”.
In:A history of Ancient Greek, From the beginning to Late
Antiquity, ed. by A.-F, Christidis, 220-228. Cambridge.
Finkelberg, Margalit. 1997. “Anatolian languages and Indo-
European migrations to Greece”, CW gı:3-20,
. 2005. Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Aegean prehistory and
Greek heroic tradition, Cambridge.
Fowler, Robert L. "Pelasgians". In: The Homer encyclopedia,
ed. by Margalit Finkelberg, 637. Malden, MA - Oxford.
Haley, Joseph B. and Carl W, Blegen. 1928. “The cuming of
the Greeks", AJA 32:141-154.
Heubeck, Alfred. 1961. Praegraeca. Sprachliche Untersu-
chumgen zum vorgriechisch-indogermanischen Substrat.
Erlangen.
Kretschmer, Paul. 1896. Einleitung in die Geschichte der
griechischen Sprache. Göttingen.
. 1925. "Die protoindogermanische Schicht”, Glotta
14:300- 319.
——-. 1940-1943. "Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volkss-
chichten”, Glotta 28:231-279 and 30:84-2ıR.
Laroche, Emmanuel. 1957.*Notesdetoponymieanatolienne".
In: MNHMHE XAPIN: Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer.
Vol. 2, ed. by H. Kronasser, 1-7. Vienna.
. 1961 “Etudes de toponymie anatolienne”, RHA 19:57-98,
Melchert, H, Craig, 2003. “Language”. In: The Luwians, ed. by
CH. Melchert, 170-210, Leiden — Boston.
. 2004. “Lydian”. In: The Cambridge encyclopedia of
the world's ancient languages, ed, by Roger D, Woodard,
Gn- G07. Cambridge.
Myres, John L. 1907. “A history of the Pelasgian theary’, {HS
27169~225.
Palmer, Leonard R. ı980. The Greek language. London.
Steele, Philippa M., ed. 2013, Syllabic writing on Cyprus and
its context, Cambridge.
MARGALIT FINKELBERG
Pre-Greek Substrate
1. THE EARLY PHASE
The first important contribution to studies on the
pre-Greek substrate was in the eleventh chap-
ter of Kretschmer’s book on the history of the
Greek language (1896), regarding the oldest pre-
Greek population of Hellas. He demonstrated
the non-Greek nature of place names and com-
mon nouns in -nth- (Kretschmer 1896:402—405)
 PRE-GREEK SUBSTRATE
and also hinted at the possibility that place
names in -ss-/-tt- were pre-Greek (Kretschmer
1896:405-406). Place names (e.g. Labürinthos
and Knossds in Crete; Körinthos in the Pelopon-
nese and Parnassös in central Greece) and other
terms (e.g. asdminthos ‘bath tub’, erebinthos, and
also lébinthos ‘grass pea’: the consonant variant
and vocalic + prothesis can be seen as typical
phonetic phenomena in substrate words) are
considered within the more general context
of Balkan-Aegean and Asia Minor links in the
prehistoric period (Kretschmer 1896:406-407).
Fick's work (1905), published shortly after, is
wholly dedicated to Pre-Greek toponymy and
is an important source of information on Greek
prehistory. It contains a rich selection of top-
onymic material, whereas the formations in -ssds
and -nthos are traced back to Hittite suffixation
in a confirmed, consolidated Anatolian context.
On the other hand, two further important arti-
cles were published in the same period by Meil-
let (1908) and Cuny (1910). The former collected
the Latin and Greek words supposedly borrowed
from ancient Mediterranean languages (+ Pre-
Greek Languages), which were attributed to the
toponymic formations studied by Kretschmer
and Fick; the latter extended this line of research
to the western Semitic languages of the Medi-
terranean basin. These include the names of
well-known metals in the Mediterranean (e.g.
Lat. plumbum, Gk. mölubdos and molfbdos, but
also mölibos and bölimos ‘lead’: one can observe
here the characteristic phonetic and morpho-
logical variations that hint at a condition of
orality within the linguistic interference), the
names of typically Mediterranean flowers (e.g.
Lat. uaccinium, Gk. huäkinthos ‘hyacinth’, the
latter with the well-known suffix -nthos; Lat,
rosa, Gk. (w)rödon but also Aram. wardä ‘rose’
with an ‘irregular’ phonetic correspondence),
and plants (e.g. Lat. menta, Gk. minthos, minthe
‘mint; as well as Lat. ficus, Gk. sükon, but also
Bocot. tükon ‘fig’, again with an ‘irregular’ pho-
netic correspondence), as well as the names
of typically Mediterranean products (e.g. Lat.
uinum, Gk. (w)oinos but also the Hebr. yayin and
Arab, wayn™ ‘wine’, In all these cases, the sub-
Strate words are present Independently in Latin
and Greek, but also in Semitic languages. In this
sense, Cuny (1910161-162) suggests another 19
lexical coincidences — especially between Greek
and Hebrew - that can be traced back to what
he calls the pre-Hellenic base of Greek, Latin and
137
Western Semitic languages (e.g. Lat. taurus, Gk.
taüros, Hebr. sor and Arab. thaur“ ‘bull’).
New perspectives on the pre-Greek substrate
and in general on the linguistic proto-history
of the Aegean-Anatolian area opened up in a
second phase of research, mainly in the form of
studies carried out by Kretschmer over a twenty-
five year period (1925a and ı925b; 1935, 1940-
1943). In the first of these works (Kretschmer
1925a) and within a strikingly complex frame-
work, Kretschmer assigns a specific semantic
value to the suffix -ni- (outside of its use as
a participle formant): for instance, he claims
that this suffix is used to refer to the young of
an animal (such as Picentes referring to ‘woad-
pecker’ (19254:86), whereas in the context of
its recognized Illyrian and Indo-European prov-
enance (1925a:87ff.), he emphasizes the ‘territo-
rial affiliation’ of toponyms that refer to rivers
or mountains (1925a:89ff.); Kretschmer also rec-
ognizes a pre-Greek component in these forms
(1925a:99, 102ff.), as is seen in ancient Italy for
certain ethnic Etruscanisms (19254204). Finally,
he reaches the important conclusion that there
was an extremely early Indo-European or “Indo-
Europoid” wave in southern Europe (Greece
in particular) over and above an “unindoger-
manische Urbevälkerung” (+ Indo-European
Historical Background). These are the premises
for the Pelasgian theory that would recognize
the presence of an Indo-European type of sub-
strate in Greek. In his second work (Kretschmer
1925b), he is even more explicit in recognizing
the existence of a Proto-Indo-European stratum
in Greek, stating that in studying the substrate,
the existence of Indo-European elements both
in Etruscan and in ‘Pre-Greek’ must be taken
into consideration; from this he concludes that
Indo-European peoples had invaded the Hel-
lenic peninsula before the Greeks themselves.An
example of this is the recognition of the IE ele-
ment *Dinos, which shares the same root as Lat,
Dies (piter) and is present in the Lat. noun -dinum
(Kretschmer 1925b:303-307), in the Etruscan
name for Jupiter (Tinia or Tina) and in the Greek
name Tindaridai. The element -dar- in Tindaridai
is recognized as a second compositional element
in some Anatolian names (e.g. Pändaros attested
in Homer), and on the basis of a comparison
with the Lycian name Pixödöros, Kretschmer
establishes an equation between the Anatolian
and Pre-Greek -dar- and the IE name for ‘gift’,
which corresponds to Gk. déron. Note that the
138 PRE-GREEK SUBSTRATE
phonetic mutations (PIE *d > Pre-Greek t, PIE
*o > pre-Greek a) hypothesized by Kretschmer
were later taken up by Georgiev in an effort to
present his general theory of ‘phonetic laws’ in
order to justify the Indo-European nature of
the Pre-Greek substrate in the framework of his
‘Pelasgian theory‘. In a work published ten years
later, Kretschmer (1935) reasserts the possibility
of an Indo-European substrate (not necessarily
pre-Indo-European) not only for Greek but also
for the Germanic languages.
Finally, in an important work published in
two parts (Kretschmer 1940-1943), the problem
of a Pre-Greek substrate seems to disappear in
Kretschmer's desire to trace the Greek origins
in a pre-historic and proto-historic European
and Mediterranean framework, where peoples
and languages or, more precisely, ethnic and
linguistic ‘layers’ (Germ. Schichten) find their
overall if uncertain place. In the first part (1940),
Kretschmer proceeds deliberately from east to
west in his survey of possible Pre-Greek origins.
He begins with the ‘Anatolian layer’ (Germ. die
anatolische Schicht) in an attempt to propose
an etymology for the name of Pelops, justifying
it with somewhat doubtful references to the
black-haired ‘race’ of the primitive population
(Kretschmer 1940:236). He then refers to the
Leleges and their relations with the Carians in
an allusive Aegean-Anatolian picture of the pre-
Greek phase (Kretschmer 1940:239); from this
perspective, he also examines the Carian god
Labraundos in relation not only to Gk. labrus
‘labrys’ but also to the emblematic Laburinthos
in Crete (Kretschmer 1940:244). In the same way,
he notes that the similarly emblematic Parnassds
in Greece corresponds to an identical name of a
mountain in Cappadocia (Kretschmer 1940:251),
and finally he looks for Anatolian links for the
name of Ulysses (Kretschmer 1940:253) (> Greek
and Anatolian Languages).
Subsequently, he turns to the “Danubian
layer” (Germ. die donauländische Schicht) and
the direction of the cultural and linguistic influ-
ences is seen in this case as north-to-south, with
an even more explicit reference to the Indo-
European migratory waves: from this perspec-
tive, he also considers the linguistic position
of Etruscan, highlighting its numerous Indo-
European elements (Kretschmer 1940:260).
From the more specific perspective of Greek
cultural and linguistic pre-history, the identi-
fication of the Pelasgians as the originators of
the Danubian spirals and meanders on pottery,
and as such the first Indo-European wave in
Greece, is very significant for its influence on
successive studies of the Pre-Greek substrate,
and in this sense he recognizes the Pelasgian
nature of the toponyms in -nth- examined earlier
(Kretschmer 1940:268-269). Finally, he recog-
nizes an Etruscan-Pelasgian association for the
Pre-Greek formations with -s-, which in any case
leads back to more general relations between
the Etruscans and the Proto-Indo-Europeans
(Kretschmer 1940:273,276). In the second part
of this important work (Kretschmer 1943), the
picture is enlarged to encompass a broader Med-
iterranean perspective. Kretschmer underlines
the double racial membership of the Etruscans
as well as the Etruscan-Indo-European sharing
of significant parts of their religious vocabu-
lary (Kretschmer 1943:84, 87). Then he takes
up “the Illyrian question” (Germ. die illyrische
Frage), and in a rather unexpected way reaffirms
the pre-Indo-European nature of Illyrian top-
onyms in -nt- and the Pre-Greek ones in -inth-
(Kretschmer 1943:99, 11), while also affirming
the fully Illyrian nature of words in -st- and -s- in
a broadly Indo-European picture (Kretschmer
1943:112, 18) (+ Greek and Illyrian). Kretschmer
goes on to survey peoples and languages that
differ greatly in their historical and documentary
validity: firstly, the relations between the Vene-
tians, Illyrians and Messapians; then the Philis-
tines and their Indo-European or Illyrian origin;
the Dorians; again the Messapians; the Rhaeti,
the Lepontic language, the diffusion of Rhae-
tian elements in north-western Italy, Ligurian,
and the possibility of an IE level superimposed
on the proto-Ligurian-Rhaetian population
(Kretschmer 1943:134, 152, et passim). The final
picture, decisive for Greek linguistic pre-history
and proto-history, recognizes an IE branch from
a certainly more ancient Proto-Indo-European
phase from which the various languages are
derived (including Greek) and a related Rhacto
Tyrrhenian branch which diversified very early
(Kretschmer 1943:213).
2, THE SECOND PHASE
The second phase of studies on the Pre-Greek
substrate began with Georgiev (1937-1938. 1941,
1945) who within Greek recognizes a large num-
ber of residual elements of a more ancient IE
language that he would call ‘Pelasgian’. This
 PRE-GREEK SUBSTRATE
claim attracted widely differing reactions, rang-
ing from complete agreement with his findings
to absolute rejection, that today leave us some-
what bemused at the use of such bluntness when
discussing such a delicate question. What strikes
the modern reader after so much debate is the
fact that the existence of Pelasgian seems to be
justified only in the name of some non-Greek
or rather Pre-Greek phonetic correspondences
with respect to the common IE origin, and not in
the name of a series of ‘irregular’ developments
within Greek due to specific dialectal changes in
a pre-historic phase, at least in the case of etymol-
ogies with a good degree of certainty. Another
negative element of the Pelasgian hypothesis is
the absolute lack of a specific cultural physiog-
nomy in the vocabulary that is attributed to that
language, which ends up being - or at least
seeming to be - a sort of phonetic doubling of
Greek, and is converted into a presumed pre-
historic doubling under the fatally instrumen-
tal sign of an alternative Indo-European-ness.
Moreover, the presumably Pelasgian words do
not seem to be characterized by peculiar forma-
tive processes, a fact that reinforces the impres-
sion that they are replications of Greek words.
In any case, the first effective synthesis of these
studies was made in Georgiev (1948). In this
work, after a short, concise survey of the stud-
ies made from a non-Indo-European perspective
(Geargiev 1948:69-78), he shows that Pelasgian
pürgos ‘tower' is immediately comparable with
Germ. Burg (same meaning) if and only if the
phonetic laws of evolution from Indo-European
to Greek are not applied (which would have
led to the result *parkhos) rather than another
evolution which could be called Pelasgian (PIE
*b’rg"- > *burgh- with the development of *7
into ur and deaspiration of the first occlusive,
as in Greek and Sanskrit (+ Greek and Indian
Languages). As a result of this, along with fur-
ther phonetic evolution, the documented form
emerges as pürgos with the development of the
initial consonant “6*- to p- and deaspiration of
the second (Georgiev 1948:78-79).
In this work, the author also lists the ~ pho-
netic laws that allow the recognition of a word of
the Pelasgian substrate rather than its presumed
Indo-European origin. These laws are as follows:
{1) PIE *ö becomes a. The other vowels remain
as in Greek, though *é becomes / before
n(th) as in Albanian, Armenian and some
139
Greek dialects. It can be noted that the
change of *6 > a also occurs in common
Germanic, whereas the conditioned devel-
opment of *é to i allows a good part of the
Greek formations in -inth- to be led back to
Pelasgian; otherwise, they have to be attrib-
uted to a pre-Indo-European source.
PIE “7, f, m become ur (or ru), ul (or
fu), un, um as in Thracian, Baltic, Ger-
manic, Common Slavic and, albeit sporadi-
cally, Albanian and Armenian (> Syllabic
Consonants).
PIE *p, *t, *k become ph, th, kh and IE *b, *d,
*g become p, ¢, & with a consonant mutation
that is completely parallel to the one found
in Armenian and Germanic.
PIE *k™, *g™ *g”' become kA, & g with a pro-
cess of delabialization also found in Arme-
nian and Albanian (+ Labiovelars).
PIE *k, *G, *g* (the so-called prepalatals)
become s or P and z or das in Albanian and
Iranian.
Prevocalic PIE *s is always preserved, unlike
in Greek.
PIE aspirated stops in consecutive syllables
dissimilate through the deaspiration of
the first aspirate as in Greek or Sanskrit
(+ Grassmann’s Law). According to Geor-
giev (1948:79), a language like this occupies
an intermediate position between Albanian
and Armenian (+ Greek and Armenian).
The rest of the work is dedicated to examining a
series of Pelasgian etymologies: the case of Gk.
tiumbos ‘burial ground, tomb’ from PIE *d'iib4os
(to which the Gk. täphos ‘grave, tomb’ corre-
sponds regularly with the application of other
phonetic laws) is noteworthy and in agreement
with the developments in pürgos and one also
finds a re-examination of the toponyms in -nth-
and other related problems in onomastics (with
unconvincing links between the Trojans and the
Etruscans). Finally, the principal tasks of pre-
Hellenic linguistics in its new Pelasgian formula-
tion are summarized in a list of seven points.
2.a. Other Works
After the seminal work by Georgiev, studies
on the Pelasgian substrate or, at any rate, a
Pre-Greek Indo-European substrate were car-
ried out in the 1950's and 1960's by van Winde-
kens (1952, 1960), Merlingen (1955, 1963, 1967),
Heubeck (1961) and other scholars, among them
140 PRE-GREEK SUBSTRATE
Carnoy (1957) and Haas (1959). These works
were harshly criticized by Hester (1965), which
led to a brief but fierce debate (Georgiev 1966,
Hester 1966, Merlingen 1967, Hester 1967), that
seems to have ended with a further contribution
by Hester (1968). The attempts to identify the
substrate had one thing in common: whatever
the term ascribed to it - “pre-Greek” (Georgiev),
“Pelasgian” (Georgiev, van Windekens, Camoy),
“Proto-Indo-European" (Camoy), “psi-Greek”
(from a phonetic peculiarity: Merlingen) — these
alleged substrate languages today appear singu-
larly evanescent in as much as they are based
exclusively on dubious etymologies not legiti-
mized by ‘phonetic Jaws’ in order to establish
their Indo-European provenience. A partial but
not irrelevant explanation for this interpretative
approach is that it was a reaction to the first phase
of studies, when anything Pre-Greek was seen as
pre-Indo-European. This thesis was based on the
mistaken assumption that Crete and Anatolia
were completely pre-Indo-European, something
that changed with the decipherment of + Linear
B and the discovery that Hittite and some other
Anatolian languages were Indo-European.
Having observed that only twenty or so of
the ca 180 Pelasgian etymologies proposed by
Georgiev seem to stand to careful analysis, van
Windekens (1952) does not hesitate to follow the
same path and claim an Indo-European origin
for a large number of Greek words and names
that seem to be phonetically Pelasgian. First of
all, he proposes a detailed phonetic framework
(ps. 3-21) from which he deduces that Pelasgian
is Greek except for the cases in which it is pro-
venly Pelasgian; he then gives a brief acount of
the formation of names (ps. 25-57) where the
presumed Pelasgian suffixes are in fact conso-
nantal elements or the summation of these, or
apophonic variants of some well-known Greek
suffixes. The third part of the work is dedi-
cated to vocabulary and onomastics (ps. 61-148);
its persuasive air, however, is not matched by
convincing proofs for etymologies. Gk. basileuis
‘king’, for example, is taken to be a Pelasgian
term insofar as it is related to PIE *bha- (cf. Skt.
bhäs ‘light, brilliancy', even ‘majest, power’, with
an easy and in this case instrumental metaphori-
cal shift) precisely because in Pelasgian PIE *h*
> b, and because it is so easy to associate ‘roy-
alty’ and ‘splendor’ (p. 76). Ease is not necessity,
however, nor possibility certainty, and this is
precisely the epistemological problem with most
of his etymologies. In this context, Pelasgian is
a language that is not proven more geometrico
so much as a language not proven more etymo-
logico. Towards the end of his work (ps. 151-159),
van Windekens attempts a ‘cultural’ character-
ization of the Pelasgian lexicon (animals, plants,
minerals, daily objects, body parts, music and
games, navigation, arts and science, construc-
tion, trade, war and hunting, kinship terms and
society, chronology, religion), which in reality
remains generic in a generic Mediterranean
context. Another all too obvious conclusion is
that the presumed substrate language occupies
an intermediate position between Germanic
and Balto-Slavic in the wider Indo-European
picture with its implicit northern provenance.
In any case, a second attempt at a synthesis
(van Windekens 1960) does not seem to have
improved this picture, although the effort to
burrow into the Greek vocabulary in order to
find elements of the Pelasgian substrate leads
to a noteworthy increase in the size and depth of
its lexical heritage. In this work, van Windekens
surveys the positive reaction of other scholars on
the results of a decade of Pelasgian studies, iden-
tifies new phonetic laws that allow for a better
understanding of Pelasgian (even in terms of its
dialectal] differentiation), and searches for extra-
linguistic traces of the existence of this language,
examining the name and languages of the Sinties
from the island of Lemnos.
Another researcher in this area is Merlingen
(1955, 1963, 1967). In his first contribution, he
surveys the most important findings by Geor-
giev and van Windekens, integrating and clari-
fying a number of issues. The case of Gk. phös
‘man, hero, husband’ (etymologically linked to
Gk. phös ‘light’) is emblematic of Merlingen’s
approach, where he links the word already pres-
ent in Homer to PIE *pot- (cf. Skt. patih ‘lord,
husband’), by means of a Pelasgian phonetic law
(PIE *p > ph) (see 1955:14). But we must again
ask: do the etymologies (they are right), justify
the phonetic laws or do the phonetic laws (if
they are well-founded) justify the etymologies?
While Merlingen does not answer the question
(p. 15-16), he does try to trace back important
proper names like Achilles, Tydeus, Rhadaman-
thus, and Idomeneus to a Pre-Greek context,
The satem character of ‘Pre-Greek’ (Merlingen
carefully avoids the term ‘Pelasgian' in this
 PRE-GREEK SUBSTRATE
period of his work) is demonstrated through
another series of etymological suggestions, e.g,,
that Ithäke is the ‘island of goats’ from ig- with
a reduced apophonic degree compared to aig-,
from which Gk. aix, aigds ‘goat’, which means
that he sees ‘pre-Greek’ as Indo-European even
where it is very difficult to identify. Merlingen
would later declare outright that ‘pre-Greek’
existed (1955:22) and recognize further and even
weaker phonetic evidence of its presumed exis-
tence in an ‘Achaean’ superstrate in the linguistic
pre-history of Greek from the Mycenaean period
(ps. 40-51). He later returned to this Achaean
stratum (1963, 1967) and added to it another
prehistoric layer that he recognized by way of a
phonetic route for the transition from PIE *p to
Gk. ps (with the usual doubtful claims, such as
that Gk. psiifla 'flea' = Lat. pulex ‘id.’). Through
this approach, the so-called ‘Psigriechisch’ takes
shape, a layer to join to the already crowded Pre-
Greek Indo-European stratification. Merlingen
traces the phonetic history of this imaginary
language that would make up a true ‘stratum of
loans’ in Greek (Germ. “Lehnwörterschicht”). So,
if in this language PIE *k > x, it then becomes
possible to bring together Gk. xanthds ‘yellow,
blond' and Lat. candidus ‘white, brilliant’, since
the passage of PIE *d > th in word-medial posi-
tion is documented in ‘Psigriechisch’). This
presumed language is (always for etymological
reasons) a centum language that is clearly dis-
tinct from ‘Achaean' (+ Mycenaean) pre-Greek
and has a simplified vocalism. In the second
part of his work, Merlingen (1967) draws conclu-
sions about the vocabulary of this hypothetical
language, going back to the ‘Achaean’ question
and trying to deduce a kind of chronology for
an ancient ‘Psigriechisch’ stratum and a more
recent one, based on a distinction within the
processes of nominal derivation.
Heubeck (1961) is part of this picture only for
the recognition of the IE nature of the pre-Greek
substrate, but as a whole he seems to have dis-
tanced himself from the Pelasgian theory. He
examines the phonetic phenomena of the words
of the substrate, considering their formative pro-
cesses (the names in -ssos are again traced back
to an Anatolian source, in particular Luwian),
and reconsidering some important words like
purgos and pérgamon, again from an Anato-
lian perspective. In his conclusions (ps. 79-82),
he admits the existence of an older substrate
141
whose ethnicity is linked to the Leleges and of
a more recent IE substrate at the beginning of
the second millennium. He defines the latter
as 'Minoic-Minyan’ (Germ. minoisch-minyisch)
and compares it to the language of + Linear A,
placed as an intermediate stratum (Germ. Zwis-
chenschicht), in comparison to the Greek of the
historical period and strictly comparable to the
Indo-European languages of Anatolia (+ Greek
and Anatolian Languages).
Carnoy’s works, on the other hand, reflect his
complete adherence to the Pelasgian theory and
the exaggeration of the etymological associations
by way of presumed phonetic laws and unproven
semantic assertions with regard to numerous
obscure words in Greek (1955, 1957). Haas (1959)
provides a detailed survey of the ‘Pelasgian’ pho-
netic laws (though he uses only the term ‘Pre-
Greek’), comparing the reconstructed IE forms,
those attested in various IE languages, those
reconstructable for ‘Pre-Greek’, and those from
Greek attested through convenient summary
tables offered by van Windekens and Merlingen.
Haas’ emphasis on the need to find a locus and a
chronology for the Pre-Greek elements (p. 42) is
important, even if he then gives in to the temp-
tation to find traces of a further Pre-Greek IE
language in Laconia. His analysis of the pros and
cons of the Pelasgian theory in the final pages is
also useful (p. 44-53).
In the context of an overall critique of this
theory and in the framework of the other theo-
ries of the Pre-Greek substrate, Hester published
a well-documented, far-reaching work which is
recommended for all those wanting to under-
stand more about the approach and about the
limits of this particular vision of the substrate
(1965). Hester's conclusions (p. 383-384) are
decidedly negative; he saves few of the lexical
elements that can be traced back to PIE with
non-Greek phonetics, leading to the conclusion
that most are loans from neighboring languages
rather than a (rue residue attesting to a substrate
or superstrate. The reactions of Georgiev (1966)
and Merlingen (1967) and Hester's subsequent
defense (1966, 1967) shows a debate that was
destined to die out along with further develop-
ment of the Pelasgian theory, due to dubious
and increasingly unconvincing evidence in its
favor. In this context, Hester (1968) attempts
to delineate the status quaestionis of Mediter-
ranean substrates with particular attention to
142 PRE-GREEK SUBSTRATE
the Pre-Greek situation. His call to prudence (ps.
234-235) with respect to both Indo-European
and pre-Indo-European elements in Greek (both
undeniable, albeit in different measure) best
reflects this phase of research.
3. THE THIRD PHASE
The third phase of research begins with E. J.
Furnée’s seminal work on consonant variance
in ‘Pre-Greek' (1972) and continues in a series
of monographs (1979, 1982, 1986) in which he
traces the elements of a substrate in Greek to
a pre-Indo-European or non Indo-European
level. Thanks to his systematic and methodical
approach and to the wealth of data he mus-
ters, his research had some impact within the
scholarly community, although there has also
been detailed criticism and distancing from his
method and from the results of his investiga-
tion. The Pre-Greek substrate that he identifies
appears to be very broad and poorly defined
from a linguistic and above all from a cultural
point of view, lacking both a date and locale.
All too often the linguistic material is late, such
as the frequent use of Hesychian glosses, whose
context is often extremely vague.
The salient features of this substrate are the
following:
i. alternations between voiceless (t), voiced
(d), voiceless aspirated (th), and voiced aspi-
rated (dh);
ii. alternations between labial stops and m or
v (from an “Indo-Mediterranean” extension
of a pre-Indo-European phase) and between
dental stops and s(s) or 2;
iii. pre-consonantal nasalization; and
iv, the appearance of a secondary s before a
velar or dental stop, secondary dental stops
after velar and labial stops, and, a further
appearance of a secondary s after labial
stops.
One fact stands out: there are numerous Pre-
Greek words that are absolutely stable in their
phonetic set-up with respect to these cases of
alternation, so Furnée is forced to trace this
consonant alternation to a sort of ‘affective’ or
‘expressive’ function. In other cases, the rele-
vant consonant alternation can be effectively
explained within Greek. Furthermore, the sub-
strate comparison between Greek words and
words from languages of scarce textual docu-
mentation (such as Thracian and Illyrian) and
the projection of these comparisons to the
Caucasian area make it difficult to evaluate the
legitimacy of the proposals. Still, the impres-
sive wealth of information Furnée has collected
should be appreciated (the appendix dedicated
to vocalic phenomena is especially noteworthy)
and bears witness to his careful reading of the
previous research, even if the attention he pays
to the many Italian studies in the field often
appears uneven and patchy. Furnée’s successive
works (1979, 1982, 1986) shift and focus their
attention on the relations between the non Indo-
European Pre-Greek substrate and a Caucasian
language in the Kartvelian group: apart from
an ‘Aegean’ component that remains linguis-
tically autonomous, the comparisons between
Pre-Greek and Proto-Kartvelian are still lacking
phonetic systematicity and semantic depth.
The most recent development in the study of
a Pre-Greek substrate (again interpreted accord-
ing to a strictly non-IE dimension) is the work
of R.S.P. Beekes (2008, 2009, to cite just two
of his works). Beekes is also the author of the
most recent etymological dictionary of Greek (cf.
Consani 2011), in which a great deal of space is
devoted to the recognition of lexical elements of
the substrate, further elements of the substrate
are identified, and the Pelasgian theory is defini-
tively shelved (cf. also Verhasselt 2009).
BiBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Robert 5. P. 2008. "Pre-Greek”, Glatta 83:13-17.
. 2009. “Pre-Greek names”, JIES 371/2191-197.
Carnoy, Albert J. 1955. Dictionnaire étymologique du Proto-
Indo-Européen, Louvain.
. 1957. "Le substrat 'pelasgique’ du grec”, Orhis 6235-144.
Consani, Carlo. 2011. “U’etimologia del greco, |'etimologia
dei greci. La prospettiva storica, il quadro attuale’, In:
Letimologia, Atti del XXXV Convegno della Societä Itali-
ana di Glottologla, ed. by Alberto Manco and Domenico
Silvestri, 157-196. Rome.
Guny, Albert. ıgıo. “Les mots du fond préhellénique en grec,
latin et sémitique occidental”, REA 12:154-164.
Fick, August. 1905-1909. Vorgriechische Ortsnamen als Quelle
für die Vorgeschichte Griechenlands. Göttingen (repr.
Amsterdam 1987).
. 1909. Hattiden und Danubier in Griechenland, Weit-
ere Forschungen zu den “Vorgriechischen Ortsnamen”.
Göttingen 1909 (repr. Amsterdam 1987).
Furnee, E. J. 1972. Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erschel-
nungen des Vorgriechischen mit einem Appendix über
den Vokalismus. The Hague. [reviews: Kratylos 16, 1973,
164-167 Vladimir I. Georgiev; RHA 30, 1972 (1973), 139-141
E. Laroche; BSL 69, 1974/2, 124-126 Cl. Brixhe; Gnomon
46, 1974, 433-437 Günter Neumann; Lg 50, 1974, 736-738
Wolfgang Dressler; Gymnasium 81, 1974, 164-166 Rüdiger
 PRE-GREEK SUBSTRATE
Schmitt; RPA 49, 1975, 102-106 Francoise Bader; Lingua
36, 1975, 69-85 R. 5. P. Beekes & A. H. Kuipers; /F 79, 1974
(1975), 272-277 Alfred Heubeck; Minos 15, 1974 (1976),
231-233 M. 5. Ruiperez]
.1979. Vorgriechisch-Kartvelisches: Studien zum astmed-
iterraneen Substrat nebst einem Versuch zu einer neuen
pelasgischen Theorie. Leuven. [reviews: Kratylos 24, 1979
(1980), 93-98 K. H. Schmidt; BSL 75, 1980/2 (1981), 120-121
L. Dubois; IF 88, 1983 (1984), 371-378 R. Bielmeier]
. 1982. Beiträge zur georgischen Etymologie. Fasz. 1:
Georgisch-vorgriechische, georgisch-vorromanische und
georgisch-vorindogermanische Materialen. Leuven.
[reviews: Kratylos 28, 1983 (1984), 176-181 K. H, Schmidt]
—— 1986. Paläokartvelisch-pelasgische Einflüsse in den
indogermanischen Sprachen: Nachgewiesen anhund der
spätindogermanisch-griechischen Reflexe urkartvelischer
Sibilanten und Affrikaten, Leiden. [reviews: Sprache 32/2,
1986 (1988), 599-600 M. Peters; Kratylos 33, 1988, 154-157
K. H. Schmidt; REGC 3, 1987 (1989), 252-253 W. Boeder;
BSL 84/2, 1989, 257-258 C. Brixhe]
Georgiev, V. 1937-1938. Die Träger der kretisch-mykenischen
Kultur, ihre Herkunft und ihre Sprache. I. Teil: Urgriechen
und Urillyrier (Thrako-Illyrier), I. Teil: Italiker und Urilly-
rier, Die Sprache der Etrusker. Sofia. [review: CPh 48, 1953,
205-207 G. Bonfante]
. 1941. Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschaft. 1, Sofia.
[reviews: Lg 19, 1943, 269-272 Hoenigswald; Emerita 10,
1942, 366-369 Tovar]
.1945. Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschaft, 1. Sofia.
. 1948. “Etat actuel des études de linguistique préhel-
lenique”, SL 2:69-92.
. 1966. “Was stellt die Pelasgertheorie dar?", Lingua
16:263-272.
Haas, O. 1959. "Die Lehre von den indogermanischen Sub-
straten in Griechenland”, Linguistique Batkanique 1:29-
56,
Hester, D. A. 1965. “‘Pelasgian’ - A new Indo-European Lan-
guage?”, Lingua 13:335-384.
. 1966. “A reply to Professor Georgiev's Was stellt die
Pelasgertheorie dar”, Lingua 16:274-278.
. 1967. “Methods of identifying loan-word strata in
Greek’, Lingua 18168-178,
. 1968. “Recent develnpments in Mediterranean “sub-
strate” studies”, Mines g:219-235.
Heubeck, A. 1961. Pruegraeca. Sprachliche Untersuchungen
zum vorgrlechisch-indogermanischen Substrat, Erlanger
Forschungen, Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften, Band 12,
Erlangen,
Kretschmer, P, 1896. Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechis-
chen Sprache. Göttingen.
. 19258. "Das nt-Sufhx”, Glotta 14:84-106.
. 1925b. “Die protoindogermanische Schicht”, Glatta
14:300-319.
- 1935, “Lautverschiebung im Griechischen”, Glotta
23:1-17.
. 1940-1943. “Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volks-
schichten”, Glotta 28:231-279; 30:84-218, 244-246.
Meillet, A. 1908. “De quelques emprunts probables en grec et
en latin", MSE 15161-164.
Merlingen, W. 1955. Das «Vorgriechische» und die sprachwis-
senschaftlich-vorhistorischen Grundlagen. Vienna.
. 1963. Eine ältere Lehnwortschicht im Griechischen, Teil
I: Lautgeschichte. Graz — Vienna - Cologne.
. 1967a. Eine ältere Lehnwortschicht im Griechischen.
Teil I: Folgerungen, Probleme, weiteres Material. Graz -
Vienna - Cologne.
143
—— 1967b. “Fair play for Pelasgian", Lingua 18:144-167.
van Windekens, A. J. 1952. Le pélasgique. Essai sur une langue
indo-eurapéenne prehellenique. Louvain.
. 1960. Etudes pélasgiques, Louvain.
Verhasselt, G. 2009. "The Pre-Greek linguistic substratum.
An overwiew of current research", LEC 77:211-239.
DOMENICO SILVESTRI
Prepositions
~ Adpasitions (Prepositions)
Prepositions in Homer
In Indo-European languages, prepositions have
their origins in + adverbs, some of which in
turn have their origins in certain fossilized case
forms. Apart from a few specific exceptions, their
meaning is local. Among other functions, these
adverbs are used as predicate complements and
in apposition to any predicate complement.
Grammatical studies of Greek define pre-
positions as a group of invariable, unaccented
words that precede the term with which they are
associated in the accusative, genitive or dative.
Prepositions do not constitute a phrase in and
of themselves. They are generally interpreted
either as elements comprising a discontinuous
morpheme consisting of the preposition and the
case ending, or as elements that govern the case
form. The elements that function as preposi-
tions are also used as preverbs and as prefixes of
nouns and adjectives.
In contrast to these prepositions, known as
proper prepositions, the more recent improper
prepositions (+ Adpositions (Prepositions)) are
accented and usually have a more recognizable
adverbial or case form than do proper preposi-
tions (cf. éndon ‘within’, khärin ‘for the sake of").
Moreover, they are not used as preverbs. The
gradual grammaticalization of proper preposi-
tions and their resulting erosion spurred the
creation of improper prepositions.
Homer bears witness to the final stages of the
evolution of proper prepositions into a class of
words, as defined in ancient Greek grammar.
When they function as such, prepositions are
most likely already unaccented; they normally
precede the term they are associated with and,
at least in certain contexts, cannot be omitted,
i.e., the case morpheme with which they are
144 PREPOSITIONS
associated cannot by itself express the function
expressed by the prepositional phrase. In addi-
tion to these characteristics, Homeric prepo-
sitions also retain other, older features. Thus,
when the nominal or pronominal term is modi-
fied by an adjective, the preposition is usually
located after it and not at the beginning of the
phrase (cf. melaindon epi nédn ‘wpon the dark-
colored ships’, Zi. 5.700). The preposition may
also be located after nominal or pronominal
forms when these are not modified by an adjec-
tive (use in anastrophe: cf. démais éni ‘in the
house’, IL, 11.223).
Furthermore, all prepositions, excluding did
‘through’ and katd ‘down’, evince an apprecia-
ble productive use as adverbs. Finally, it should
be emphasized that prepositions may often be
omitted, particularly when the term they are
associated with functions as an argument of
the predicate and expresses a semantic function
akin to the semantic properties of the referent
(cf. pesen en konieisi ‘fell in the dirt’, Od. 18.398,
and pediöi pese ‘fell to the ground’, Il. 5,82).
Proper prepositions and preverbs are homo-
phones with clear functional and semantic
overlap. In fact, preverbs also have a degree of
mobility and can be used in + tmesis, i.e., non-
contiguously ta the verbal lexeme (cf. khöresan
d’ hupö ‘gave ground’, /l, 4.505). Many examples
illustrate the flexible boundaries between prepo-
sitions, preverbs and adverbs (cf. en de sthenos
örsen hekdstai ‘and [she] roused the strength (in)
to each”, Il. 2.451).
In Homer, some improper prepositions result
from applying derivative morphemes to adver-
bial bases (cf. éktothen outside’) or from com-
bining proper prepositions (cf. diaprd ‘right
through’), Others, such as dnkhi and engüs ‘near’,
originated as case forms or adverbs. Improper
prepositions are used as adverbs, although not
as preverbs, and most of them are combined
only with the genitive. They have a lower degree
of grammaticalization than proper prepositions.
Thus, although proper prepositions have an
essentially local value, they have all developed
temporal meanings, abstract meanings or both,
a phenomenon that occurs only exceptionally
with improper prepositions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bortone, Pietro. 2010. Greek prepositions: from antiquity te
the present. Oxford.
Bubenik, V., J. Hewson and $. Rose. eds. 2009. Grammatical
Change in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam.
IN HOMER
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homerique. Tome I:
Syntaxe, Paris.
Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti and Helena Maquieira. 2003. Sin-
taxis del griego cldsico. Madrid.
Haug, Dag 'f. T. zoog. "Does Homeric Greek have preposi-
tions? Or local adverbs? (And what's the difference any-
way?)". In: Bubenik et al, 2o0g:103-120.
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1990. “Rektionaler und autonomer
Kasusgebrauch". In: Sprachwissenchaft und Philologie.
Jakob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute, ed. by
Heiner Eichner and Helmut Rix, 82-98. Wiesbaden.
. “Präpositionalausdrücke bei Homer”. In: Meier-
Brügger 2013,
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 1981. Space and time in Homer. Preposi-
tional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Il: Syntax. Leipzig.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1973. “Le probleme du classement des
cas”, In: Esquisses linguistiques, 191-150. Munich,
Lehmann, Christian. 1983. “Rektion und syntaktische Rela-
tionen”, Folia Linguistica 17:339-378.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2006. "Greek prepositions: patterns of poly-
semization and semantic bleaching”. In: Word classes and
related topics in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of the confer-
ence on ‘Greek syntax and word classes’ ed. by Emilio
Crespa, Jesüs De La Villa and Antonio Revuelta, 487-499.
Louvain-la-Neuve.
. 2009. “The internal structure ofadpositional phrases’.
In: Form and function in language research: papers in hon-
our of Christian Lehmann, ed. by Johannes Helmbrecht,
Yoko Nishina, Yong-min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas and
Elisabeth Verhoeven, 231-253. Berlin.
Meier-Briigger, Michael. ed. 2013. Homer, gedeutet durch ein
großes Lexikon, Dresden.
Meillet, Antoine. igiz. “L'évolution des formes grammati-
cales". In: Linguistique historique et linguistique generale
1, 190-148. Paris.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner, 1950. Griechische
Grammatik il, Munich.
Luz Cont
Prepositives
Like — postpositives, prepositives include all
those words that (a) are not mobile (+ Word
Order), (b} never stand alone, and (c) cannot be
the sentence focus; but unlike postpositives, pre-
positives (d) tend to stand in initial position in
their unit (+ sentences, phrases), and (e) never
or only in certain special circumstances appear
at its end (Dover 1960:13, Marshall 1987:1).
The words classified as prepositives are the
following (Dover 1960113-14):
i, some of the so-called + particles (alla, atär/
autdr, &, &, kai, nude/mede, oute/mete)
ii. the negative me (‘lest’)
iii, most subordinating markers (the + conjunc-
tions ei, höte, hös, Adti, hina, and the relatives
hös/he/hö, among others (+ Pronouns))
 PREPOSITIVES
iv. ho/he/tö when used as a definite article (but
not in its other senses)
v. prepositions (with some exceptions)
(+ Adpositions (Prepositions)).
The status as prepositives of certain other words
is debated and sometimes such words are classi-
fied as quasi-prepositives (Marshall 1987:1-2):
vi. some discourse connectors excluded in other
classifications (kaltoi, Dik 2007:228);
vii. the negation ou (Goldstein 2010:59, but not
Dover 1960714)
viii. interrogatives like t/s and pös (Marshall
1987:1)
ix. some contextual uses of other wards (ésti;
Dover 1960:40, 48).
Despite the accented form of certain prepositives,
most probably all prepositives (with exceptions
as with the interrogatives) should be considered
to be proclitics (> Clitics). Apart from their fixed
position and their probable clitic status, prep-
ositives do not share other features with post-
positives and they cannot be considered their
negative counterpart.
Prepositives mark the beginning of their
unit: prepositions open prepositional phrases
(+ Adpositional Phrase), conjunctions and rela-
tives head subordinate clauses (+ Subordina-
tion), the article opens (or can open) definite
nominal phrases (Bakker zon9; -+ Definiteness/
Definite Article), and + negation normally pre-
cedes sentence — focus.
The insertion of postpositives between pre-
positives and the remainder of the unit they
introduce is a common characteristic of Ancient
Greek (Dover 1960:6), but not of modern Indo-
European languages. E.g. after the:
(1) article (see, in the following example, dé and
ge): [tas [de ge] Seirenas] ‘the Sirens’ (Xen.
Mem. 2.6.31.5)
(2) preposition (see ge and men): [apd [ge men]
toü sternou] ‘from the chest’ (Xen. Eq. 1.8.1-2)
(3) subordinator (see ge): [ei [g‘] &münato] ‘if
the blow was defensive’ (Dem. Or. 23.50.3)
(4) negation (see gdr): [ou [gar] toütd ge] erötön
‘that is not what I was asking’ (Pl. Euthphr.
8a10-11).
Some rules have been formulated to account for
the order of prepositives and postpositives when
145
in contact (Marshall 1987), but the exceptions are
too numerous and often the word order depends
on the kind of prepositive. All these exceptions
prove that, like postpositions, the class of prep-
ositives includes words whose behavior is quite
heterogenous.
The initial position of prepositives exhibits
some exceptions that are classified as hyper-
bata (Devine & Stephens 2000). Prepositions
may appear postposed to their + noun phrase
and their graphic + accent is placed on the first
+ syllable: demnién dpo ‘from the bed’ (Eur. Or,
44). These cases of prepositional hyperbaton
are called anastrophe, and they are an excep-
tion ta the usual placement of prepositions.
Other + adpositions like Aéneka or khdrin are
normally postposed to their nominal phrase
(Bortone 2010139) and perhaps should be con-
sidered original postpositions rather than cases
of anastrophe. Typologically (Bortone 2010:3ff.)
adpositions can appear heading their unit
(prepositions) or at its end (postpositions, as in
Turkish).
Other cases of hyperbata affecting interroga-
tives and subordinators are left-dislocations
and prolepsis (topicalizations). In the first case
(Devine & Stephens 2000:100) an element
belonging to the unit headed by the prepositive
is extracted from it and anteposed to highlight
its status as — topic (see soi):
(5) sol de [pds phainetai], 6 Sokrates?
‘and what do you think yourself, Socrates?’
(Pl. Crat. 403b)
(instead of [pds dé soi phainetai))
Prolepsis (Devine & Stephens 2000:86) is a
phenomenon that involves pragmatics, syntax
and word order. This label is applied to those
cases where the subject of a subordinate clause
is extracted from its unit and placed before it
(word order) as an argument of the subordinate’s
matrix predicate (syntax) as a means of topical-
ization (pragmatics) (see taüten and haüte):
(6) boulomai dé taüten, [hds éstin aléthés]
epideixai saphös päsin humin
‘| mean to prove conclusively to you all that
this is true’ (Dem. Or. 20.10)
(instead of boulomai dé [hés haüte, éstin
alethes] epidetxai saphös päsin humin)
146 PREPOSITIVES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakker, Stéphanie J. 2009. The noun phrase in Ancient Greek.
Leiden — Boston.
Bortone, Pietro. 2010. Greek prepositions. From antiquity to
the present. Oxford.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 2000. Discon-
tinuous syntax. Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford,
Dik, Helma. 2007. Word order in Greek tragic dialogue.
Oxford.
Dover, KennethJ. ıg60. Greek word order. Cambridge.
Goldstein, David M, 2010. Wackernagel’s Law in fifth-century
Greek. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Marshall, M. H. B. 1987. Verbs, nouns, and postpositives in
Attic prose. Edinburgh.
ANTONIO REVLELTA
Present Tense
1. INTRODUCTION
In the Indo-European languages the present
stem is formed by one or more of the following
processes: (a) > ablaut of the radical vowel, i.e.,
by qualitative or quantitative changes of the
vowel of the root, thus giving different grada-
tions, such as full or normal grade, lengthened
grade, and zero grade when the radical vowel
is reduced either to zero or to a reduced vowel,
usually -i-; (b) affixation (i.e., suffixation or infix-
ation); (c) +reduplication; (d) + suppletion,
when in the formation of the verbal paradigm
different + roots are used for the aspect stems.
These different processes may not be histori-
cally contemporaneous with one another in all
languages, but they are all well documented and,
to varied degrees, used in all or most of the lan-
guages. We also have primary stems and deriva-
tive stems, both deverbative and denominative.
Greek enriches this inheritance by creating a
large number of new morphological types, often
employing a combination of two or more of the
above processes (+ Morphological Change).
A basic division of the conjugational system
of Indo-European is the distinction between
thematic and athematic paradigms (+ Thematic
Vowel, Stem Formation). This bipolar distinc-
tion is also maintained in Greek, although in
the historical evolution of the language the ath-
ematic type tends to lose ground in favor of
its thematic counterpart, until it is completely
eliminated in later stages of the language. The
Greek verb inflects for person, number, tense,
aspect, mood, and voice. All these categories
are expressed by the combination of endings,
primary and secondary, the prefixed + augment
for the indicative past, and various stem forms.
The primary endings are employed for the pres-
ent and future indicative, whereas the secondary
endings are reserved for all other categories.
Greek also innovates in a variety of ways both on
the way the categories are expressed and on the
development of new endings, although the basic
scheme of the ancestral language is maintained
to a large degree (+ Verbal System).
The rest of the article will be devoted to the
discussion of the formation of the various pres-
ent stem types. As mentioned above, many of
these types are inherited from Indo-European,
but some are developments within Greek itself
(+ Indo-European Linguistic Background),
2. GREEK PRESENT STEM FORMATIONS
2.a. Root Presents
(i) Athematic: with root-vowel gradation: eimi
‘go’ vs. 1 pl. imen, eimi ‘be’ vs. 1 pl. esmen (where
full-grade is from the singular), phämi ‘say’ vs. 1
pl. phämen; with no gradation: keitai ‘lie down’,
Hom. Aéstai ‘be sitting’; athematic root presents
from disyllabic roots: dgamai ‘admire’, Hom. éra-
mai ‘love’, krémamai ‘be hanging’, pétamai ‘fly’,
and a few more; some rare forms are survivals
of older forms: inf. édmenai ‘eat', önosai (2 sg.
mid.) ‘blame’, rhüatai (3 sg. mid.) ‘rescue, save’,
but see also rhuomai and erüomai; also heimai
‘be clothed’ (from root *wes-, cf. Skt. vaste); and
perhaps a few more such forms.
(ii) Thematic: this class of present formation
is a well attested group of present stems of IE
origin; usually they show e-vocalism of the root,
and the tendency for them to expand and take
over several other older stem formations, e.g.:
derö ‘flay, skin’, drépo ‘pluck’, &khö ‘hold’, (w)ekho
‘carry, lead’, heikö 'drag', hépomai ‘follow’, legö
‘gather’, méno ‘stay’, némo ‘distribute’, néomai
‘return (home)' (from *nes-omai), Hom. pélomat
‘move’ (cf. Cret., Cyren. telomai), phébomai ‘fear’,
pherö ‘carry’, etc.; with root vowel -a- we have
dgo ‘lead’ (from the root with initial laryngeal:
*haeg-), dnkho ‘compress’, and with -d- (> Attic-
Ionic -é-) verbs like /éthé ‘forget’, sépd ‘make
rotten’, hédomai ‘enjoy oneself’, and others,
Finally, a few presents have the zero-grade root
(the characteristic vocalism of the second aor-
ist), e.g. glipho ‘carve’, grdpho ‘scratch’, whereas
 PRESENT TENSE
some others are formed frem the aorist stem,
e.g. kid ‘go’, klué ‘hear’, etc. (see Chantraine
1984:204-215).
2.b. Reduplicated Present Stems
Reduplication is a very productive morpho-
semantic mechanism with wide application
in the present stem formation, sometimes in
combination with ather means such as suffix-
ation, nasal infixation, etc. Both athematic and
thematic formations are used, but while both
are old, the former seems to be historically the
proto-typical kind. There seems to be some con-
nection of these formations with various aspec-
tual functions, mainly iterativity and emphasis,
although perfective functions have also been
detected (see Vendryes 1917, Giannakis 1997). A
basic characteristic of the thematic stems with
reduplication is the zero-grade root and the -i-
in the reduplicative syllable; the latter feature is
also characteristic of the athematic class, which
furthermore shows grade alternation of the
root between full grade in the singular and zero
grade in the plural. Among the typical exam-
ples are: (a) athematic: didömi vs. pl. didömen
‘give’, histami (Doric) vs. pl. histämen ‘stand’,
tithemi vs. pl. tithémen ‘put, place’; (b) among
the thematic stems we can mention: gignomai
‘be born’ (root *gen-(h,-), cf. Lat. gignö), iskhö
‘hold’ (with + Grassmann’s Law from *si-sg"ö,
root “seg*-), hizö ‘sit’ (< *si-sdö, root “sed-, cf.
Lat. sidé, Skt, sidati), mimnö ‘stay’ (root *men-),
nis(s)omai ‘return home’ (cf. above néomai),
piptö ‘fall’ (with long -7- in the reduplication by
analogy to rhiptö ‘throw’, from the root *pet-),
tiktd ‘give birth to’ (from *t/-tké (root *tek-) with
metathesis -tk- > -kt-), and others (Giannakis 1992
and 1997; + Reduplicated Presents). Sometimes,
we have thematization of the reduplicated stems
upon which new forms are built with the help
of other suffixes, e.g. with suffix -an- in (mostly)
causative function, as in hiz-anö ‘make to sit’,
iskh-anoe 'to hold back’, or -az-, as in mimn-dzö
‘wait’, etc. (see 3.a. below).
2.c. Nasal Present Stems
Nasal affixes (suffix and/or infix) are a common
device used in the formation of the present
stem. On the basis of the Indic material, three
different types of nasal presents are attributed
to Proto-Indo-European (Sanskrit examples are
used as more representative): (a) the yundkti
147
type, seen in Greek 3 sg. pres. mid. däamnatai
‘is subdued’ from *din-n-hg-toi (root *demhz-);
(b) the siyndti type (-o- from *eu), as in Greek
stérnumi ‘to spread’ (with -2- for original *eu);
(c) the prnäti type, where the nasal suffix con-
tains long vowel as the result of the presence of
laryngeal (i.e., from *-nehz-), as seen in the Greek
verb kirnami ‘mix’ (pl. kirnärmen; root *kerhy-)
(+ Nasal Presents).
3. DERIVED STEMS
Derivative stems are deverbative and denomina-
tive formations, i.e., whether they derive from
verbal or from nominal bases (> Deverbative
Verbs; + Denominal Verbs).
3.a. Deverbative Stems
Deverbative present stems are secondary stems
based on other verbal sterns to which several
suffixes are added. Most of them have vari-
ous functions relating to Aktionsart (+ Lexical
Aspect), whereas others fill in gaps created by
the loss of older, mainly athematic verbs. Several
derivational suffixes are used for the creation
of these stems, but the most common are: (i)
-(é)ye/o-, (ii) -ne/o-, and {iii) -(i)ske/o-. The
first, with o-vocalism of the root, creates stems
with mostly causative meaning, like Gk. phobéo
‘frighten’ from primary present phebomai ‘flee’;
the same suffix also creates stems with frequen-
tative and intensive meaning, e.g. potdomai (and
with long ö-root vocalism pdtdomai) ‘fly about’
from basic pétomai ‘fly’; the -ne/o- suffix gives
stems with mainly terminative meaning, e.g. Gk.
limpänö vs, leipö ‘leave’; with -(i)ske/o- we get
many present stems with frequentative mean-
ing, e.g. Gk. bdsko vs. baind ‘walk’, phäskö vs.
Doric phaml'say’, etc.
Other less common suffixes include: -g6, e.g.
Gk (apo)tmegö vs, temnö 'to cut’, -kö, as in Gk.
erükö ‘to hold back’, vs. ertia ‘to drag’, -khö, e.g.
Gk. trikhö 'to consume’ vs. triié ‘to rub’, -td, as in
Gk. anıtö 'to conclude’ vs. anid ‘to make’, and
presents in -thö, e.g. Gk. brithd ‘to be heavy with
a thing’, pléthe ‘be full’, etc, Another pair of suf-
fixes is -/z6 and -azö, historically from combina-
tions of d+y or g+y, but later on generalized and
becoming very productive until Modern Greek
where they thrive (+ Developments in Medieval
and Modern Greek). Perhaps the origin of these
suffixes is with denominative verb stems from
148 PRESENT TENSE
where they were extended to deverbatives as
well: elpiz6 ‘hope’, from noun elpis (stem elpid-),
stenakhizo ‘groan, sigh’, from stenakhö ‘(be)wail’,
erethiz6 ‘irritate’, from eréthd, and many others.
Finally, it should be noted that Greek, like
many other IE languages, is characterized
by a polymorphy in the present stem forma-
tion, sometimes showing two, three or more
different fomations, often with fine differences
in semantic nuances, but other times simply
as free variants. A characteristic example is the
following: baind, bäzö, bdskd, with reduplication
and/or suffixation pres. ptc. bibds (from unat-
tested *bi/bami), -bibaskö (in compounds), bibaö,
bibdzö, all from root *g*eh,- 'step, go’. On the
Greek polymorphic presents, see Kujore (1973);
for other Indo-European languages, see Whitney
(1885) and Vekerdi (1961).
3.b. Denominative Stems
Denominative verbs are those that derive from
nominal bases (adjectives or nouns) with the
addition of some suffix, usually the general suffix
*ye/o-. This suffix has PIE roots, and thus many
derivative verbs are inherited in Greek from
the protolanguage (+ Proto-Greek and Common
Greek), but Greek innovates in many ways by
extending the inherited formative patterns to
other formations as well. To be sure, this suffix
is used for the formation of both primary (e.g.
mainomai ‘to rage’, baind 'go', sképtomai ‘think’,
etc.) and secondary derivative present stems,
both deverbative and denominative, especially
vowel stems (+ Contract Verbs). Thus we have:
spelrö ‘to sow’ (from *sper-ye/o-), timdd ‘to
honor’, from time ‘honor’, phil&ö ‘to love’ (philos
‘loved; friend’), etc. A Greek innovation are the
verbs in -60, like deldö ‘make clear’, from (délos
‘clear’), thanatöö 'to put to death’ (from thdnatos
‘death’), skotöö ‘to kill’ (lit. ‘to send to darkness’,
cf. skötos ‘darkness’), etc. The same suffix was also
used in the formation of denominative verbs in
-eüö (which derive from eu-stems), e.g. basileuö
‘to be king’ (from basileüs ‘king’), aristeüö ‘to be
the best’ (cf. aristeiis ‘the best man’), etc.
The ye/o-suffix is also applied in the forma-
tion of denominative verbs from consonant
bases, with a number of phonological changes in
the C+y- clusters: phuldssa ‘to keep guard’ (from
base phulak-), paizö ‘to play’ (from paid-), rhézd
‘to do’ (from IE “wreg-), köptö ‘strike’ (IE *kop-),
etc.; with the base in a liquid or nasal: speiré
‘sow’ (from “sper-), stélld ‘arrange’ (from *stel-),
mainomal ‘rage’ (from “mn-ye/o-), onomainö ‘call
by name’ (cf. önoma ‘name’ < *(H)nomn-); or
the base in -s, e.g, teléé ‘to fulfill’ (from *teles-
(cf. telos) < TE "k“el-es-), etc. (Tucker 1990). These
phonetic developments led to the derivation of
many other suffixes which later on in the his-
tory of Greek became quite productive (+ Greek
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of ).
4. SUPPLETIVE PARADIGMS
+ Suppletion characterizes both the verbal sys-
tem as well as the nominal system, especially
that of certain adjectives (e.g. adj. ‘good’ agathds,
comparative ameinon / areion / beltian / kreissön,
superlative dristos / béltistos / krätistos), + pro-
nouns, and other lexical groups. Greek has a
number of suppletive verbal paradigms whereby
different roots are used for the formation of the
yerbal paradigm. This implies that the present
stem is built on a root which may be different
from the base of the aorist or the perfect stem.
This is most likely due to semantic factors, and
more specifically to aspectual considerations:
certain verbal roots are inherently present (e.g.
horäö ‘see’: imperfective/progressive), some oth-
ers aoristic (e.g. (w)id- ‘saw’: perfective), and
even others had stative meaning, thus best fit
for the perfect stem (e.g. dpöpa ‘have seen’);
similarly, pres. phérd, aor. enenka/enenkon, fut.
oiso ‘bring’; pres. /égo: aor. eipon: pert. eiréka
‘speak, say’, and many others (see Chantraine
1984:153-156, Duhoux 1992, Kölligan 2007).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chantraine, P. 1958. Grammaire homerique, vol. \: Phone-
tique et morphologie. Paris.
——. 1984. Morphologie historique du grec, and ed. Paris.
Duhoux, Y. 1992. Le verbe grec ancien. Elements de morpholo-
gie et de syntaxe historiques. Louvain-La-Neuve.
Giannakis, G. K. 1992. “Reduplication as a morphological
marker in the Indo-European languages: reduplicated
presents", Word 43161-ı196.
. 1997. Studies in the syntax and semantics of the redupli-
cated presents of Homeric Greek and Indo-Burapean (IBS
go). Innsbruck.
Jasanoff, J. H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb.
Oxford.
Kölligan, D. 2007. Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen
Verhum. Bremen.
Kujore, Obafemi. 1973. Greek polymorphic presents. A study
in their development and functional tendencies. Amster-
dam.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. i992. Griechische Sprachwissen-
schaft. Berlin ~ New York.
Meillet, A. 1964. Introduction a l'étude comparative des
langues indo-européennes. Forge Village, MA.
 PRESENT TENSE
Rix, H. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darm-
stadt,
Ruipérez, M. S. 1954. Estructura del sistema de aspectos y
tiempos del verbo griego antiquo. Andlisis funcional sin-
erönieo. Salamanca.
Schwyzer, E. 1939. Griechische Grammatik, Bd.ı. Munich.
Sihler, A. L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and
Latin. New York - Oxford.
Tucker, E. F. 1990. The creation of morphological regularity:
early Greek verbs in -€6, -2ö, -66, -uö and -io. Göttingen.
Vekerdi,J. 19f1. “On polymorphic presents in the Rigveda’.
Acta Orientalia 12:249-287.
Vendryes, |. 1916. “Type thématique 4 redoublement en
indo-européen", MSL 20:17-123.
Watkins, C. 1969, Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbal-
flexton (= Idg. Gr. IIl/ı). Heidelberg.
Whitney, W. D. 1885. The roots, verb-forms, und primary
derivatives of the Sanskrit language. Leipzig.
GEORGIOS K. GIANNAKIS
Preverbs
Preverbs are originally independent words of
adpositional/adverbial origin (> Adposition and
+ Adpositional Phrase) that in the course of
the history of Greek coalesced with verbs to
form compound verbs, such as eis-érkhomai ‘go
in, enter’ from eis ‘in’ and érkhomai ‘go'. The
ability to function as a preverb is often taken
as an indication of primary prepositionhood,
as opposed to such secondary prepositions like
khärin ‘for the sake of’, which cannot function
as preverbs. The following words function as
preverbs: amphi ‘on both sides’, and ‘up’, anti
‘against’, apd ‘from, off’, did ‘through’, e(é)s ‘(in}
to’, ek ‘out of’, en() ‘in’, epf ‘upon’, katd ‘down’,
metd ‘amonp’, pard ‘by the side’, per! ‘round’,
pré ‘before’, prös/poti ‘to, towards’, sun ‘with’,
huper ‘over’, hupö ‘under’. Compound verbs are
already attested in Mycenaean, whereas Homer
reflects a stage where the preverb can combine
with its verb but can also occur separated from it
(+ Tmesis), Outside the epic language, preverbs
and verbs always form a compound which is
inseparable except for the occasional intrusion
of a clitic word, especially in > Ionic.
Preverbs are found in all branches of Indo-
European, although sometimes only in vestiges.
This suggests an early development. On the other
hand, they have not fully coalesced with the verb
in the most archaic branches, Anatolian, Indo-
Iranian and Homeric Greek, indicating that the
coalescence was not complete when the Indo-
European language community split, although
149
in most branches it was complete before the
literary evidence starts.
The majority of preverbs are local in origin,
and many of them remain fundamentally local
in meaning, The preverb then typically expresses
either the position of the subject of the verbal
process (e.g., en-oikéd ‘dwell in’) or, if the verb
denotes a change of state, the resultant state of
the subject (e.,g., ap-erkhomai ‘go away’) or, if
the verb is transitive, of the object (e.g., ek-teinö
‘stretch out’). Several preverbs can attach to one
verbal stem, as in en-kata-krüptö ‘hide (down)
in‘, By later semantic evolutions, the contribu-
tion of the preverb sometimes becomes opaque
(e.g,, an-aireö ‘answer’, of oracles) or bleached
(e.g., ap-6llumi ‘perish (away)'). Many compound
verbs, and particularly the directional and resul-
tative ones, very early acquire a nuance of com-
pleted action and are recruited as markers of
telicy, cf. kat-edousin ‘eat up! (I. 19.31). This phe-
nomenon is also found in other branches and it
is particularly interesting to observe that there is
a possible etymological connection between the
preverbs that are most often used in this func-
tion, vz. Gk. kata-, Lat. com-, Olr. co-, the Hittite
particle -kan and the Germanic prefix ga-. Again,
we seem to witness a phenomenon that had
already started in the proto-language, but was
eventually completed in the daughter languages.
As the counterpart of this tendency to develop
new meanings when used as a prefix, we also
sometimes observe that prefixes retain mean-
ings that are lost in the corresponding preposi-
tion. This is the case for example with Attic en,
which does not denote motion as a preposition,
having been supplanted by eis in this function,
but still retains this meaning in compounds
(+ Prepositives).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brunel, J. 1939. L’aspect verbal et l'emploi des preverbes en
grec, particuliérement en attique, (Coll. linguistique publ,
par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 45.). Paris.
Horrocks, Geoffrey C, 1981. Space and time in Homer: preposi-
tional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York.
Viti, Carlotta. 2008. “From space words to transitive mark-
ers: the case of ancient Greek en ‘in’,” Transactions of the
Philological Society 106.3:375-413.
. 2008. “Coding spatial relations in Homeric Greek:
preverbs vs. prepositions,” Historische Sprachforschung/
Historical Linguistics 121:114-161.
DAG Haug
 150 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM

Pronominal System Table ia: First Person

1, INTRODUCTION Singular Dual Plural

nom. egö'l(cf.Lat.ego) nö hémeis
The heterogeneous class of pronouns is tradi- gen. emoü | mou ndin hemön
tionally defined as substituting for nouns and dat. emai | moi nöin hemin
adjectives for deictic and/or ana/cataphoric pur- acc. emé | me nö hemäs
poses (Bhat 2007, cf. Siewierska 2004:9fl.). The
inventory of Ancient Greek pronouns consists
of personal and reflexive pronouns, posses- In the singular nom. we also find Lesbian egon
sive, demonstrative, reciprocal, interrogative, (+ Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic)), which looks like
indefinite and relative pronouns (+ Pronouns the form of an n-stem noun, and ~ Boeotian
(Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, Rela- id(n). In the Ionic dialect, the sg. gen. forms
tive)). In general, their declension follows nomi- emeu, meu are attested, while in the + Doric dia-
nal inflection, i.e., they have the same inflectional lect this case is formed as eméos, emoüs, emetis.
categories (except for the lack of the + vocative) We also find the Homeric sg. gen. forms eméo,
and their + number and case (+ Case (including emeio, emethen, all forms coming from nouns.
Syncretism)) marking corresponds to a subset The Homeric and Lesbian pl. nom. is formed
of nominal marking (but lacks ablaut; + Ablaut as dmmes without — aspiration, as it comes from
(Apophony, Gradation)). Neuters have a singu- the IE *ysme, while the corresponding aspirated
lar + nominative, + accusative in -o (except for Attic-lonic (> Attic, + lonic) hémeis was formed
pronouns with adjective inflection), such as the by + analogy with the second person kümeis.
definite article (+ Definiteness/Definite Article). The aspiration was spread analogically in the
No pronouns (only with very few exceptions) whole Att.-Ion. pl. paradigm. The ending -eis was
form a comparative or superlative. derived by contraction of the forms *héme plus
the ending -es of the so-called 3rd declension.
2. PERSONAL PRONOUNS In the pl. gen. we find Lesb. ammeön, + Thes-
salian amméoun, and Boeot. haméan.
Full forms (independent pronouns) bear an The pl. dat. is formed with the locative suffix
accent (+ Accentuation), non-accented forms -in (see Lesb. dmmin), the North-West Greek
are enclitic (+ Clitics), but these variants con- (> Northwest Greek) Admin. In the Att. dialect
trast only in the oblique cases of the unmarked the short -i- became long (+ Length) by analogy
number (singular) ofthe first and second person. with the pl. gen, hemön.
In the singular, where there is an opposition Att. hemäs came from the form héméas,
between full and enclitic forms, full forms are attested in Homer. Although the expected con-
used only for contrastive and emphatic purposes traction should be é< e + a, Aémds was formed by
or after prepositions (Jannaris 1897:153). The analogy with the nouns of the third declension
nominative as subject case contrasts with zero, (for the dialectal forms, see Buck 19552, Schwyzer
because Ancient Gk. is a pro-drop language. 1959°, Hoffmann & Debrunner 19694, Stamatakos
Number contrasts in the ist and and person 1973", Sihler 1995, Woodard 2008b, Beekes 2010).
are expressed by + suppletion. Personal pro-
nouns have many idiosyncratic case markings, Table ib: Second Person
but the singular + genitive has the ending of
Singular Dual Plural
masculine-feminine nouns, whereas the singular
~ dative only faintly resembles nominal datives. nom. su ‘you’ sphö humeis
The endings of the marked numbers plural and gen. soü | sou sphöin humön
> dual have more noun-like case endings. As in dat. sot | sot sphöin humin
most languages, ist and and person pronouns acc. sé | se sphö humäs
(referring as logophorics to speaker and hearer,
respectively) have no -~ gender distinction
(cf. Bhat 2007:109ff., 138ff.).
In the sg. nom. we also find the Doric form ti (cf.
Lat. tit), tané and Boeot. fou. In the Doric dialect
the sg, gen. is formed as téos / téo, teatis / teoü,
 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM 151

teüs /teü. We also have the Homeric gen. forms The normal 3rd person pronoun in Greek is
seito, seio, sethen. In the Ionic dialect the acc. is autös, whose primary and main meaning (espe-
formed as sé and in Doric as ¢é, derived from a cially in the nom.) is ‘self, same’. Its declension
Proto-Gk “fe (Lejeune 1972, Chantraine 19842). is identical with that of the normal nominal -a-
In the sg. dat. the Homeric teén and the Doric and -o- stems (except for the singular nom. and
forms toi are attested; Att. tin(é) was used as a acc. neuter):
confirmatory particle (+ Particles). In the Doric
dialect we find the sg. acc. forms £d, tin and tit Table 2a: Masculine and Feminine of autos
(primarily a nom.).
Masculine Feminine
The Homeric and Lesbian pl. nom. ummes
Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural
is without aspiration, while the corresponding
Att.-Ion. Aumeis is aspirated in the whole para- nom. auiés auté auto aute auta autaf
digm, because it comes from the old form *jü (cf. gen. auloü autoln autén autés autain autön
Goth, jas). The Doric correspondence is Aumeés, dat. autöi autoln autois autéi autain autais
with pl. gen. hümedön. acc. auton auti autotis aufen autd aufds

Similar to the first person (see above), the pl.

dat. shows the suffix -in (cf. Lesbian dmmi, Doric
hümin and humin; Attic again shows analogical
lengthening.
Att. hitmds was derived from the form hümeas,
attested in Homer. And again there is analogical
contraction of e + a in Aumds (for the dialectal
forms, see Buck 19552, Schwyzer 19599, Hoff-
mann & Debrunner 196074, Sihler 1995, Woodard
2008b, Beekes 2010),
Table ıc: Third Person Reflexive
Singular Dual Plural
nom. _ _ spheis
gen. hoü - sphön
dat. hoi - sphisi(n)
acc. he - sphäs
The forms of the 3rd person come from PIE *swe/
se (cf. Lat. se). The meaning of the oblique cases
is only reflexive. Only the datives are frequently
used. No forms of the most marked number dual
are attested. In Homer we find the sg. gen. heio
and Aéo and pl. dat. sphi (probably a zero grade
ablaut of “se + - phi), The variant sphisi(n) added
the plural ending -si.
The form sphe was formed from sphi by anal-
ogy with sg. acc. he. Analogical to the ard declen-
sion are the Homeric pl. gen. spheön / spheiön
and pl. acc. sphéas, as well as all the Attic pl.
forms after contraction. We also find the Doric
dat. sphin and the Lesbian dsphi (for the dialec-
tal forms see Buck 1955, Schwyzer 19593, Hoff
mann & Debrunner 19691, Stamatakos 19733,
Sihler 1995, Woodard 2008b, Beekes 2010).
Table 2b: Neuter of autös
Neuter
Singular Dual Plural
nom, = acc. auto auto autd
gen. autou autain auton
dat. autöl autoin autots
The form aufoü wa used also as an adverb ‘just
here/there’. In Modern Greek (which has lost
the dative and the dual), all persons display clitic
forms in both numbers, in the 3rd person also in
the nominatives (e.g. sg. -tos, -ti, -to). Full forms
have become at least bisyllabic and number
> suppletion has been replaced by more trans-
parent relations, e.g. ‘you’ sg. nom. esü [e'sil, pl.
nom. ecets [e'si-s| (Dressler 1966). Thus 3rd per-
son pronouns are much more similar to ist and
and person pronouns in Modern than in Ancient
Greek (cf. in general Bhat 2007:13ff.; > Develop-
ments in Medieval and Modern Greek),
3. THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS
The reflexive pronouns, evidently used only in the
oblique cases, refer directly or indirectly to the
subject, e.g, directly foo emautön ‘I bathe myself’,
indirectly, foud té emautoü téknon ‘I bathe my
child’. They were formed (similar to other IE lan-
guages, Bhat 2007:82ff.) by combination of the
root of personal pronouns and the pronoun autos
‘self’ in the sg, whereas both pronouns were
conjoined analytically in the plural. Reduplicated
(+ Reduplication) forms (e.g. Delph. autosautön)
were used in some dialects (Woodard 2008b).
152 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM

In the Attic dialect the forms k(e)aut- of the grd Gk. only the 3rd person reflexives have survived,
person gradually replaced the pl. forms also of the with some modifications (Jannaris 1897: 157).
ist and 2nd person (cf. the Slavic languages). Evi- In the tables below we exemplify the declen-
dently, only the 3rd person has a neuter. In Mod. sion only with the genitives:

Table 3a: First Person Table 3b: Second Person

Singular Plural Singular Plural

Masculine Feminine Masculine Feminine Masculine Feminine Masculine Feminine

gen. emautod emautés hemön hemön gen. seautoi seautés hümön hiimén
‘myself! auton auton autön autön

Table 3c: Third Person

Singular Plural
Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine Feminine Neuter

gen, hle)autvü hfejautés Ale)autot hle)autén h(e)autön h(e)autén

(sphön autén) (sphdnautén) (sphön autén)

4. POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS In Homer, we find the 3rd person Ads, which is

different from the homophonous relative pro-
The possessive pronouns are adjectives, formed noun. In the Doric dialect we find the forms
with the thematic vowel -o- for masculine and hamös for the 1st sg. and frequently for the 1st
neuter gender and with -é for feminine gender pl. of the possessor and Admds for the and sg.
in the sg. of the possessor and -tero/a- in the pl. and pl. of the possessor, in the Lesbian dialect
(with normal adjective inflection): the forms dmmos and tzmmos without aspiration
for the same persons, while the Doric and the
Table 4a: For one possessor Lesbian dialect form the 1st pl. of the possessor
as hämeteros and amméteras respectively, and
Masculine Feminine Neuter the and pl. of the possessor as hümeteros and
ıstperson emds‘my, emé emön ummeteros respectively, (for the dialectal forms,
of mine’ see Buck 1955, Schwyzer 1959°, Hoffmann &
and person sds‘your, se son Debrunner 1969+, Stamatakos 19723, Sihler 1995,
your own’ Woodard 2008b). The 1st and 2nd person of the
grd person Aeds‘his, heé heön possessive pronoun, plus the 3rd person pl. of
her own’ the possessor were used also reflexively, The
gen. of autés and of demonstrative pronouns
(see below) replaced the possessive of the 3rd
Table 4b: For multiple possessors
person. This replacement by the gen. of the
(no form for dual possessors)
personal pronoun was extended to all persons
Masculine Feminine Neuter in Mod. Gk.
ist person hemeteros hemeterä hemeteron 5. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS
‘our’
2nd person hümeteros hiimetéra hümeteron Similar to Latin Aic vs. iste vs. ille and to many
‘your, your other (not only IE) languages (Bhat 2007:140ff.),
own Ancient Gk. for simple demonstratives differ-
3rd person spheteros sphetéra spheteron entiated three deictic distances (proximate vs.
‘their, their medial vs. distal), referring to proximity to the
own
three persons (cf. Hatzidakis 1930:146-150). Prox-
imity to the ıst person is given by the proximate
demonstrative:
 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM 153
Table 5a: Masculine and Feminine of mant -to-, The case forms of the three genders
Proximate Demonstrative were formed analogically to the respective cases
of the definite article previous to the sound
Masculine Feminine
change -d- > -&-. Some Doric and Northwest
Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural
dialects spread the initial ¢- in the whole para-
‘this’
digm, i.e. foüfoi, taütai, This pronoun also forms
nom. Adde tade hoide héde töde halide the adverb Aoutd(s) ‘in this way/manner’. In
gen, toüde toinde ténde tesde toinde tönde addition, adverbial usages are attested for the
dat. töide toinde toisde teide toinde taisde inflectional forms taüta ‘therefore’ and tautei
acc. tönde tide toüsde ténde töde täsde ‘here’,
Proximity to the 3rd person, i.e., far distance,
Table 5b: Neuter of Proximate Demonstrative is given by ekeinos, which again has the same
declension as autés:
Singular Dual Plural
Table 7: Distal Demonstrative
nom,=acc, töde töde täde
gen. totide toinde tönde Singular Dual Plural
dat. téide toinde toisde
masc.nom. ekeinos ekelnö ekeinoi
fern. nom. ekeiné ekeind ekeinai
This pronoun is a compound derived from the n. nom. ekeino ekeinö ekeina
PIE demonstrative pronoun and, later, Greek
definite article ho, he, tö and the demonstrative
particle -de. It is accentuated differently from We also find Ionic keinos and Doric kénos. It
the general accent rules (e.g. in the feminine sg. was derived from several elements: *e-ke-enos
nom. and in the masculine pl. nom. and acc.), or “e-kei-enos (Beekes 2010), The initial e- in
insofar as the original accentuation of the first the Attic form was probably spread analogically
component is maintained. This pronoun also from the pronoun ego (cf. Lat. e-quidem). Its
forms the adverb Adde ‘in this way’, the fem. teide distance deixis has been transferred also to the
has also the adverbial use ‘here/ thus’. cognate adverb ekei ‘there’,
Proximity to the 2nd person is given by the As far as textual deixis (phoricity) is con-
medial demonstrative: cerned, all three demonstratives can be used
anaphorically (like Eng. this, that), but only töde,
Table 6a: Masculine and Feminine of Medial toüto can be used cataphorically, not ekeina (like
Demonstrative Eng. this, but not that).
Similar to most Romance languages, triple dis-
Masculine Feminine tance deixis has been reduced to double deixis in
Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural Modern Greek, where only (e.g. singular mascu-
nom. hoütos toutd hoütol hauté toto haitai line nom.) tobtog ['tutos] and exelvog [e'kinos]
‘this’
have survived (cf. Jannaris 1897:160, Clairis &
gen. fotttow toutoin toutén tautes teitoin toutan Babiniotis 2005:299).
dat. fowtai todtoin todtois tautei toutoin tautais
Other demonstrative pronouns with adjective
acc. toéton touté totttous falten ftoutd tatitds
inflection are:
toios — toia — toion ‘such’ (rarely used in prose)
Table 6b: Neuter of Medial Demonstrative
tösos - töse — töson ‘so much’
Singular Dual Plural tellkos — telike - télikon ‘of such an age’. From the
nom. = acc. toilto toiuto taüta above pronouns, only tdsos has survived in Mod.
gen. toutou toutoin touton Gk. (Jannaris 1897262).
dat. toutoi foutoin toutois There are also the combined forms with the
particle -de, which have a stronger demonstra-
tive sense:
This pronoun was formed from alternating PIE
“so/to, the emphatic particle -u- and the for-
154 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM

toidsde - toidde — toidnde / toiottfos - taiaute - Other interrogative pronouns:

toiottte(n) ‘such’ (cf. Lat. talis)
tasdsde - toséde - tusönde / tosoütos — tosatité - poios — poia - poion ‘of what kind’ (cf. Lat. qualis).
tosoütof{n) ‘so much’(cf. Lat. tantus) The adverb pois is attested.
telikösde -telikede - telikönde /telikoütos - télikatite— pösos — pdésé - pöson ‘of what quantity’ (cf. Lat.
telikouto(n) ‘of such an age’. quantus). The sg. neuter pdsen was also used as an
adverb.
The sg. neuter tofon, töson (also tdsdi), tasénde, pelikos — pelike - pelikon ‘how great or large’. It
tosoüton and the pl. neuter teiatita were also forms a comparative form peliköteros and the
used as adverbs. The form tdsds was rarery adverb pelikös.
used. pöteros — poterä - pöteron ‘which of the two’ (cf.
Only toioätos {toiwodto¢ [ti'utos}) has survived Lat. uter). The sg. and pl. neuter pöteron - pötera
in Mod. Gk. as a very scholarly demonstrative were also used as adverbs.
pronoun which has been further substantiated All of them are declined as the adjectival demon-
in the vernacular with the abusive meaning stratives.
‘homosexual’, From the above pronouns only nöcog ['posos]
and motes [pcos] survive still in Mod. Gk.
6. INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS
7. PRONOUNS OF IDENTITY, OTHERNESS,
The interrogative pronoun (from PIE *k-i-s, AND REGIPROCALITY
*k™-L-d) is tonic (always with an acute accent,
even in positions where a grave accent would be Identity is expressed by autos ‘same’, preceded
expected) and does not differentiate masculine by the definite article. Otherness is expressed
and feminine: by the pronoun masculine dllos, feminine alle,
neuter dflo ‘other’, cognate with Latin alius, alia,
Table 8: Interrogative Pronoun aliud, with the same anomaly in the neuter sg.
Masculine and Neuter
nom. and acc., otherwise following the normal
Feminine
adjective declension. The correspondent adverb
Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural is allös ‘otherwise’.
By analogy with tolos ‘such’ (see above), alloios
nom. tis fine tines tf tine tina
‘in another way’ was formed (Beekes 2010).
(cf. Lat.
Whereas reciprocality was expressed in Latin
quis) by “syntactic reduplication” (alius alium ‘one
gen. finos/ tinuin tindn tinos/ — tinoin tindn
tow tot
another’), it was expressed by morphological
dat. tai} tinoin tisi lini } tinoin tist reduplication in Ancient Gk. (plus dissimilation
tdi tdi of the two geminates), obviously only in the
acc. tina fine tinas tf Hine tina oblique cases of pl. or dual (with cross-linguis-
tically rather rare gender distinction, cf. Bhat
2007:86ff.):
The stem-final -n- in the oblique cases origi-
nated from the older sg. acc. *in. When it was Table 9
transformed to fin-a by + analogy with the sg.
acc. of the ard declension (cf. the acc. Ze-n-a Dual (all Masc. Fem. N. Plural
‘Zeus, see Hatzidakis 1930152), the -n- seemed genders) Plural Plural
to belong to the stem, which was generalized
gen. _alléloin allelon allelön allelör
in the oblique cases of the whole paradigm. In
‘each other’
the dialect of Thessaly we find the form kis and
dat. alteloin allelois allelais allélois
in the + Arcado-Cypriot dialect the form sis (for
acc. allelö allélous allélas dlléla
the dialectal forms, see Buck 19552, Schwyzer
19597, Hoffmann-Debrunner 19691, Sihler 1995,
Woodard 2008b). The pronoun tis has not sur- In Mod. Gk., the pronoun &Ao¢ [alos] has sur-
vived in Mod. Gk., in which rows [pcos] is used vived, while the stem of the reciprocal survives
instead. Only the sg. [+Human] tlvog ['tinos] and only as the verbal prefix &AnAo- [‘alilo-] (Clairis
the neuter rı [ti] have survived. & Babinionis 2005:666).
 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM
8. INDEFINITE PRONOUNS
In many languages interrogative and indefinite
pronouns are formally either identical or deriva-
tionally related (Bhat 2007:226). In Ancient Gk,
interrogatives are accented, indefinites identical
in segmental phonology but unaccented, they
are enclitics. Otherwise fis 'some/any(one)' has
the same declension as the interrogative.
The indefinite Ao, he, td deina ‘such a one, so-
and-so' is always preceded by the definite article
that is the only signal of gender. There is no dual
nor a neuter plural:
Table 10
Singular
nom. deina
gen. deinos
dat. dein!
acc. deina
This pronoun, the etymology of which is still
unknown, is very often indeclinable (it is inde-
clinable in Mod. Gk. but not in many Mod. Gk.
dialects}.
The negative pronoun, which functions both
like a noun or an adjective (thus corresponding
to both Lat. nemo, nullus) is formed as the com-
bination of oude ‘and/but not’ and the numeral
‘one’ heis, mia, hen:
Table 1
155
pdteros ~ potérd — pöteron ‘either of the two’. The
sg. and pl. neuter péteron and pötera were also used
as adverbs.
Here we can also mention the following indefi-
nite pronominal adjectives (Smyth 1918:96):
hékastos - hekdsté - hékaston ‘each’ (cf. Lat. nemo
non)
hekdteros - hekatéra - hekdteron ‘each of two’ (cf.
Lat. uterque). It forms the adverbs hekaterös ‘in
either way’, hekatérathen 'on each side’, hekateröthi
‘on either side’.
pas — päsa - pan ‘every’ (cf. Lat. omnis), Its adverb
is pdntos ‘in all ways’.
héteras — hetéra - héteron ‘the other of two’ (cf.
Lat. alter). It disposes of the adverb heterös ‘in one
or the other way’.
Plural ou/medeteros - ou/médetéra - ou/medeteron ‘none’
deines (cf. Lat. neuter). Their adverbs are ou/medeteröse
‘to neither of two side’, oudeteröthi "in neither of
deinön
the two sides’, ou/médetérothen ‘from neither of
-
the two sides’.
deinas
Only the pronouns 8eiva ['dina] and rı [ti] (always
compound in xa@eti [kaße'ti] and xarıri [kati'ti])
have survived in Mod. Gk. We must note that
in Mod. Gk. the medieval innovations xaveig
[ka'nis] / xavevag [ka'nenas] ‘no one’, xdmotoc
[kapcos] ‘someone’, xdtt [‘kati] ‘something’,
xauröcos [ka'mbosos] / xdumogog |'kambosos]
‘a few’ have survived, deriving from the particle
kan + eis, potos, ti, pösos respectively (Jannaris
1897:164—165).
g. RELATIVE PRONOUNS

Singular Plural The pronoun Ads ‘who, which’ is different from

Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine the Homeric possessive pronoun fds. It is
declined like autos:
nom. oudels oudemia oudén oudénes
gen. oudends oudemids oudends vudenön
Table ı2
dat. oudenf oudemidi oudeni oudési(n)
ace. oudéna oudemian oudén oudénas Singular Dual Plural

masc.nom. fds hö hoi

Whenever the negation mé instead of ou(k) is fem. non. hé hö hai
required by syntax, then oudeis must be replaced n.nom. hd ho hd
by medeis (with the same declension as oudeis).
The sg. neuter ouden and meden ‘by no means’
were also used as adverbs. In Homeric and tragic poetry, as well as in the
Other indefinite pronouns: Arcado-Cypriot, the Thessalian and the Les-
bian dialects, the forms of the definite article
poids — poid - poidn ‘ofa certain kind’ beginning with t- are used instead of the above
posds - posé - posén ‘of a certain quantity’. It forms relative pronouns, as in other languages (Bhat
the adverb posös. 2007:267ff,, Woodard 2008b). The gen. hoi
156 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM

‘where’ and the sg. and pl. neuter Ad and Ad were relative pronoun ‘whoever, whatever’. Each part
used as adverbs. Neither survives in Mod. Gk. of the pronoun is declined separately inside the
The relative pronoun can be combined with limits of one word:
the indefinite pronoun in forming a generalizing

Table 13a

Masculine Feminine
Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural
nom. hdstis hötine hoitines hétis hötine haitines
(cf. Lat.
quisquis)
gen. hoütinos | hointinoin héntinon | héstinos hointinoin höntinön
(hétou) (hötön)
dat. héitini{ hointinoin hoistisi | héitini hointinoin haistisi
(hötöi) (Adtuis(i))
acc. hdntina hötine hoüstinas hentina hötine hästinas

Table 13b

Neuter

Singular Dual Plural

nom.=ace. héti hötine hatina | (hatta)
gen. hoütinos | (hdtou) hointinoin höntinön | (hötön)
dat. höitini | (hötöl) hointinoin hoistisi | (hötois(i))

Other relative pronouns (all compound and
declined as their first part):
hösper - heper - höper ‘(emphatically) who / which
is‘. The pronoun forms the adverb Adsper ‘so’. The
forms hoüper ‘where’ and heiper ‘which way’ were
also used as adverbs.
hoios - hoia - hoion 'such as, of what sort” (cf. Lat.
qualis).
hösos - höse - höson ‘how great, how many, how
much, how long! (cf. Lat. quantus). The sg. and pl.
neuter forms Adson and kösa ‘like as’ and the sg. dat.
hösöi ‘by how much' were also used as adverbs,
helikos - heliké - helikon ‘as big as, as old as’,
hopoios - hopoia - hopolon ‘of what sort, of what
quality’. The pl. neuter hopoia ‘like as’ was also used
as an adverb.
hopdsos — hopöse - hopdson ‘as many as, as much
as’, The forms hopösö ‘how much' and hopososoün
‘how great' were also used as adverbs.
hopoteros - hopnterä - hopöteron ‘which of two".
The sg. and pl. neuter hopdson and hopösa ‘like as’
were also used as adverbs, while there was also the
adverb hopaterös ‘in which of two ways’.
hopélikos - hopelike - hopélikon ‘however big’. The
correspondent adverb was hopélikosoain.
From the above relative pronouns, only Adti,
hösos and hopoios have survived in Mod. Gk.
(Clairis & Babiniotis 2005) as 4,11 ['oti], dco¢
['osos] and o orolog [0 o'pıos] (always with the
definite article as a calque from French lequel or
Italian if quale) (Manolessou 2008).
10. CORRELATIVE PRONOUNS AND
ADVERBS
Correlative pronouns are considered to be the
interrogative, indefinite, demonstrative and
relative pronouns and adverbs. In fact this cat-
egory includes pronouns and adverbs related to
each other morphologically and semantically.
The same sub-morphemes p-, t-, A- recur in most
of them, (cf. pöte, töte, höte) (Dressler 1990).
The most important correlative pronouns and
adverbs are the following (Schwyzer 1959, see
also Liddell & Scott 19967):
 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM 157
Table 14a: Correlative Pronouns Table 14b: Correlative Adverbs

Interrogative Demonstrative Indefinite Relative Interrogative Demonstrative Indefinite Relative

tis who" höde ‘this’, tis Adés‘who, pöte'when' töte poté höte ‘at
hoütos ‘this’, ‘someone’ which’, ‘at that ‘at some the time
ekeinos ‘that’ höstis time’ time’ when‘,
‘who, hopöte
which' 'when’
poios tofos ‘such’, polos of holos poü ekei'there', pou hoü
‘of what. toiotitos acettain ‘such as’, ‘where’ enthdde ‘somewhere’ ‘where’,
quality’ ‘such as this’, quality’ hopoios ‘here’, höpou
toidsde ‘of what eniaütha ‘wherever',
‘such as this’ quality’ ‘here’, autoü éntha
pösos tdsos ‘so great, posds‘of hösos just here’ ‘where’
‘how tosoiltos ‘so acertain ‘asmuch pol ekeise poi hot
large or great’, tosdsde quanity’ as’, ‘whither’ ‘to that ‘some- ‘whither’,
great’ ‘so great’ hapösos place’, whither’ höpoi'to
‘as many enthäde which
as ‘thither’, place’
péteras (ho) héteros poteros hopoteros entaütha
‘which ‘one or other ‘either of which of thither’
ofthetwo' = of the two‘, the two’ two’ autöse
‘to the
pélikos ‘of télikos ~ hellkos very place’
what age‘ ‘of such an age’, ‘as old as’ , .
talikouttos hopelikos pöthen ekeithen pothén höthen
‘of such an age’, ‘however Whence ‘from that from ‘whence’,
tölikösde big’ place’ some hopöthen
‘of such an age’ enthénthen place whence’,
‘from this énthen
place’, ‘whence’
aulöthen
BIBLIOGRAPHY from the
Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek, Leiden. ,
Bhat, D. N.S. 2007. Pronouns. Oxford. very spot
Buck, C. D. 19552. The Greek dialects. Chicago. pös 'how' hés ‘so’, pos hös ‘as’,
Chantraine, P, 19842, Morphologie historique de la langue hés'so',hdde "in any höpös 'in
rec. Paris. ae
latte, Ch. and G. Babiniotis. 2005. [payuaroay nig Neag thus‘, houtés way such man
EMyvoojs. Anpolerroupyucj-Erıxotvwviax [Grammar of so net as,
Modern Greek. A structural-funetional-communicative hösper
approach]. Athens. ‘like as’
Dressler, W. U. 1966. “Vom altgriechischen zum neugriechis- . eo es -. acy ;
chen System der Personalpronomina” IF vray fe pet téide ‘here’, pet Aéi ‘where’,
. 1990. “Sketching submorphemes within Natural ‘Which way’ taitöi'here ‘tosome —Aéiper ‘in
Morphology”. In: Naturalists at Krems, ed. by J. Mendez place’ the same
Dosuna & C. Pensado, 33-41. Salamanca. direction
Hatzidakis, Georgios N. 1930. Axadypema Avayvorsparı. Töuog as’, höpei
# [Academic readings. Volume 2]. Athens. in which
Hoffmann, ©. and A. Debrunner. ıg6g". Geschichte der direction’
griechischen Sprache. I, Bis zum Ausgang der klassischen
Zeit, revised by A. Scherer. Berlin. penika tenikäde - hénika ‘at
Jannaris, A. N. 1897. An historical Greek grammar chiefly of ‘of what ‘at this time’, the time
the Attic dialect as written and spoken from classical antiq- hour’ ténikatita when‘,
nity down to the present time. London. , 4 as
Lejeune, M. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du at that time hopéntka
grec ancien. Paris. ‘at the
Liddell, H. and R. Scott. 1996°. Greek-English lexicon (with a specific
revised supplement), ninth edition with revised supple- time when’
ment by H. Stuart Jones & R. McKenzie. Oxford.
Manolessou, lo. 2008. "TAwoomes exagpég otov EAAnvucd
Heoeluve: m ovtuvuzta 'o omoloc’ [Language contact in the
158 PRONOMINAL SYSTEM

Greek Middle Ages: the pronoun a opoios]”. In: FAweons Forms ending in -ou, -ote and -ds (denoting place/
xéptv |For language's sake], ed. by A. Moser, A. Bakakou- time/manner) are then classified as ‘pronominal
Orfanou, Ch. Charalambakis, D. Cheila- Markopoulou,
255-266. Athens. + adverbs’ and forms in -oios and -osos (denoting
Schwyzer, E. 1959°. Griechische Grammatik. Erster Rand. property/amount) as ‘pronominal + adjectives’
Munich. (cf. Biraud 1992).
Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge.
In what follows I more or less combine both
Sihier, A. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and
Latin, Oxford. approaches, in that I leave aside personal pro-
Smyth, H. R. 1918: Greek grammar for calleges. New York. nouns, but concentrate on those forms contain-
Stamatakos, I. 1973°. locopney Fpayparine) me Apyalac EAAnvonjs ing the ontological element ‘person/thing' (for a
xard ta noployara THs auyxpıtuong yAwooodeylac [Historical
grammar of Ancient Greek according to the findings of
fuller overview, see + Pronominal System).
comparative linguistics). Athens.
Woodard, R. 2008a,"Attic Greek”. in: The ancient languages 2. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS
of Europe, ed, by R. Woodard, 14-49. Cambridge.
. 2008b."Greek Dialects". In: The ancient languages of
Europe ed. by R. Woodard, 50-72. Cambridge.
Demonstratives are ‘pointers’, focusing the hear-
er’s attention on elements in the surrounding
WOLFGANG DRESSLER situation (Wallace 1996:325). The most common
GEORGIA KATSOUDA demonstrative pronouns are Adde, hoütos and
ekeinos. In Archaic Greek, we still find traces of
a more ancient form, ho, he, té (from PIE *so/
Pronouns (Demonstrative, to), from which höde and hoätos can be derived
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative) (Meillet & Vendryes 1979:494).
In many languages, demonstratives carry
1. INTRODUCTION spatial deictic meaning, indicating the position
of a referent vis-a-vis the deictic center (Dies-
As noted by Crespo et al. (2003:39), ‘pronouns’ do sel 2006:469) (+ Deixis). While Archaic ho, he,
not form a homogeneous class. In cross-linguis- té seems to have been distance-neutral, it is
tic works, personal pronouns are distinguished generally agreed upon that Adde, hoütos and
from demonstrative, interrogative, relative and ekeinos did contain such a distance feature,
indefinite pronouns (called ‘proforms’ by Bhat which is probably (one of) the reason(s) for
2004) on the basis of the fact that the latter their development (Schwyzer 1953:610). Accord-
have a dual structure consisting of a pronominal ing to most scholars, these pronouns indicate
element (e.g. interrogation, indefiniteness) and three deictic distances, that is, proximate (höde)
an ontological element (e.g. person, place), as vs. medial (koütos) vs. distal (ekeinos). Biraud
shown in figure 1 (cf. Bhat 20042155): (1992:173-179), on the other hand, maintains that
the main distinction is between proximate vs.
distal, and that hoütos should be considered
Demon- Interroga- Relative Indefinite
strative tive
neutral in this regard. An example with Adde is
given under (1):
Person holtos tis hös tis
Thing toute tt he u (1) ouk ésth’ dr’ orthös totide sömatos pater, /
Property toidsde peios haios poids oud’ he tekein phäskousa kai keklemene /
Place ekei poü hoü pou
meter m’ étikte
Time idle pote höte pote
‘You were not, as it nuw seems clear, truly
Manner hoitös pös hös pos
Amount osdsde püsus hösos posds the father of this body, nor did she who
claims to have borne me and is called my
Figure 1: ‘Correlative’ pronouns in Ancient Greek mother really give me birth’ (Eur. Ale. 636-
(simplified) 638; tr. Kovacs)

Traditional Greek grammars take a different
approach (see e.g. Goodwin 1871:60): they restrict
the use of the term ‘pronoun’ to those forms
expressing person/thing, thus implicitly stress-
ing their relationship with personal pronouns.
Related to the deictic or ‘exophoric’ function of
demonstratives is their textual or ‘endophoric’
function. In this case, demonstratives do not
focus attention on concrete entities in the physi-
cal world, but rather on linguistic elements in
 PRONOUNS (DEMONSTRATIVE, INTERROGATIVE,
the surrounding context (Diessel 2006:476). To
be more specific, proximal Adde can be used
anaphorically to refer to what has been said
(+ Anaphoric Processes), or cataphorically to
announce what will be said, while distal ekei-
nos can be used in contrast with either Adde or
hoütos to refer cataphorically to a more distant
textual referent. Biraud (1992:189-190) notes that
hoütos can be employed anaphorically or cata-
phorically to refer to any contextual element,
which explains its frequency.
Syntactically, demonstratives can be used
either independently or attributively.When used
attributively, they are almost always accompa-
nied by the definite article (but note its omis-
sion in (1)) (> Definiteness/Definite Article).
They can either precede or follow the noun they
accompany. Studies have shown that in the for-
mer case there is a particular emphasis on the
demonstrative value (Biraud 1992:43-45).
3. INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS
Interrogatives are question words, which “instruct
the hearer to search for a specific piece of infor-
mation in his or her knowledge store” (Dies-
sel 2003:636). The most common interrogative
pronoun is tis, from the PIE stem *k“i- (compare
Latin quis). The related stem *k¥o- is attested
in the genitive singular téo (Hom.)/tou (Att.),
and more fully in the pronominal adjectives
pösos and poios (Meillet & Vendryes 1979:499).
A second interrogative pronoun consists of the
relative pronoun Ads combined with unaccented
tis (see also section 5 below). Both components
are usually inflected (as in Ads-tis, he-tis, hö-ti),
though some forms are attested where this is
not the case (e.g. Hom. Adtteo; Att. hötou, hötöi,
héton) (Monteil 1963224).
A distinction is typically made between indi-
rect and direct questions, that is, questions
that are introduced by an interrogative verb
versus those that are not (cf. + Direct/Indirect
Speech). In Ancient Greek, ts is mostly used in
direct questions, and Adsfis in indirect questions
(already in Archaic Greek). An illustration of the
latter type is given in (2):
(2) akotisas dé kai autos ho Psammetikhos
epunthdneta hoitines unthropon ‘bekds’ ti
kaléousi
INDEFINITE, RELATIVE) 159
‘When Psammetichus himselfhad also heard
it, he inquired which men called anything
‘bekos” (Hdt. 2.2.4)
It should be noted, however, that tis and occa-
sionally even Ads could be used for indirect ques-
tions (Monteil 1963:64-66), For direct questions,
the competition between iis and hdstis seems to
have been limited (Monteil 1963:145).
Similarly to demonstratives, interrogative
pronouns can be used either independently or
attributively. In the latter case, they are never
accompanied by the definite article, and are gen-
erally anteposed (Biraud 199219). Indirect ques-
tions typically follow the interrogative verb.
4. INDEFINITE PRONOUNS
Indefinite pronouns “introduce a member of a
class without further identification” (Wallace
1996:347). The most common indefinite pro-
nouns are £is and oudeis. Much less frequent,
especially in Classical Greek, is the use of the
+numeral heis as an indefinite (compare
French un 'an’) (Kuhlmann 1997). As can be
noted, interrogative tis and indefinite éis are
formally identical, except for the accent. The
exact relationship between these two types of
pronouns has been under debate; according
to Le Goffic (1994:32), most scholars nowadays
agree that indefiniteness is primary and inter-
rogation derived. In any case, their diachronic
relationship can be explained by the fact that
they have a common trait, that is, they both refer
to persons or things that are unknown (Bhat
2004:227 speaks of an ‘information gap’), oud-
eis consists of the negative scalar focus particle
oudé ‘nor, not even’ and the numeral heis ‘one’
(compare e.g. Spanish ninguno ‘nobody’ (< *nec-
unus); Haspelmath 1997:209, 222).
As noted by Haspelmath (1997:2), while the
other types of pronouns form relatively coherent
sets, “the category of indefinite pronouns seems
to function as a sort of waste-basket category
in many traditional grammars". Crespo et al.
(2003:53), for example, list a large number of
forms, including mid-scalar quantifiers such as
polis ‘many’, universal quantifiers such as pds
‘every’, and identity pronouns/determiners such
as ällos ‘another’,
Within the class of indefinite pronouns more
strictly defined, a distinction can be made
between ‘specific’ and ‘non-specific’ pronouns:
160 PRONOUNS (DEMONSTRATIVE,
in the former case, the referent is known to
the speaker but no further information is given.
While Latin uses distinct forms for these two
types (quidam ‘a certain’ versus aliquis 'some-
one‘), in Ancient Greek tis is used for both func-
tions (Biraud 1992:221).
A second distinction is that between indefi-
nite pronouns used in affirmative vs. negative
sentences: in the former context, Greek typically
uses fis, in the latter oudeis (though in Homer
outis is still predominant; Kuhlmann 1997:88).
In some cases, the negative indelinite may also
be accompanied by verbal > negation, as in (3)
(Haspelmath 1997:210):
(3) humeis kata ten sdrka krinete, ego ou krinö
oudena
You make judgments in a purely human
way; | pass judgment on no one’ (John 8.15;
GNB)
Syntactically, tis and oudeés can be used either
independently or attributively.. When used
attributively, they can either precede or follow
the noun they accompany. They are generally
not accompanied by the definite article (Biraud
1992:124).
5. RELATIVE PRONOUNS
Relative pronouns have a twofold function:
(a) they indicate a link between two + clauses;
(b) they play a role within the — relative clause
(e.g. as subject or object), referring to a pre-
viously mentioned person/thing (Pompei zon:
430). In various IE languages, the interrogative/
indefinite pronoun is also used as a relative
pronoun (Szemerényi 1998:210), as in Latin qui.
In other languages, however, the *yo-stem is
used, as in Ancient Greek hös, hé, ho. It is gen-
erally agreed upon that *yos goes back to an
earlier demonstrative form. Traces of such a
grammaticalization process can still be observed
with demonstrative Ao, hé, t6 in Homeric Greek
(Ruijgh 1971:319-321). Another relative pronoun,
already encountered in section 3 above, is Adstis.
According to Monteil (1963:64), the relative use,
rather than the interrogative use, should be con-
sidered diachronically primary.
Relative pronouns can function ‘determina-
tively’ or ‘digressively’ (Ruijgh 1971:305-306):
they can either introduce a restrictive relative
clause, which helps to fix “the identity of what
INTERROGATIVE, INDEFINITE, RELATIVE)
one is talking about... by narrowing the descrip-
tion”, or a non-restrictive relative clause, which
“provides a secondary comment (predication)
on the head that it modifies, in addition to the
main predication" (Pompei 2011:453, referring to
Croft 1991). An example of the determinative use
of the relative pronoun is given in (4) (Ruijgh
1971:307):
(4) pds etheleis epi néas Akhaiön elthémen nios
/ andrös es ophthalmous hös toi poldéas te kai
esthlous / huidas exendrixe?
‘How are you minded to go to the ships of the
Achaeans alone to meet the eyes of the man
who has slain your sons, many and noble?’
(Hom. Il. 24.203-205; tr. Wyatt-Murray)
We can furthermore distinguish ‘ordinary’ (defi-
nite) relative pronouns from indefinite relative
pronouns. The latter denote an undetermined
referent who may or may not be known to the
speaker, and whose identity may on occasion
be indifferent (Crespo et al. 2003:380). While
Latin uses distinct forms for these two subtypes
(quicumque 'whoever' vs, quivis ‘no matter who’),
Ancient Greek employs a single form, Adstis, as
in (5):
(5) emoi gar héstis päsan euthünön pölin / me
tön aristön häptetai bouleumatén, / all’ ek
phébou tou gléssan enkleisas ékhei, / käkistos
einai niin te kai pälai doket
‘For if anyone who (= whoever, KB) directs
the entire city does not cling to the best and
wisest plans, but because of some fear keeps
his lips locked, then, in my judgment, he is
and has long been the most cowardly traitor’
(Soph. Ant. 178-181; tr. Jebb)
Soon, however, indifference came to be expressed
by hostisde(pote} or hostisoün (Ruijgh 1971:328).
It is also warth noting that Ads could occa-
sionally be used with an indefinite value (Cre-
spo et al. 2003:379), and Adstis with a definite
value (especially in Hellenistic Greek; Cadbury
1923).
The twofold function of relative pronouns is
reflected morpho-syntactically, as their + gen-
der and + number matches that of the ante-
cedent (if present), while their + case indicates
their semantic/syntactic role within the relative
clause. Relative pronouns generally occur at the
beginning of the relative clause, following their
 PRONOUNS (DEMONSTRATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, INDEFINITE, RELATIVE)
antecedent (if present). Wallace (1996:337-343)
discusses a number of less common uses with
regard to the gender and case of the relative pro-
noun, as well as its syntactic position.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhat, D. N.S. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford.
Biraud, Michele. 1992. La determination du nam en grec clas-
sique. Paris,
Cadbury, Henry J. 1923. “The relative pronouns in Acts and
elsewhere”, [BL qz:150-157.
Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti and Helena Maquieira. 2003. Sin-
taxis del griegn cldsico. Madrid.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammati-
cul relations: the cognitive organization of information.
Chicago.
Diessel, Holger. 2003. "The relationship between demonstra-
tives and interrogatives”, Sil 27:635-655.
- 2006. "Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emer-
gence of grammar”, CL 17:463-489.
Goodwin, William W. 1871. An elementary Greek grammar.
ard ed, Boston.
Haspelmath, Martin, 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford.
Kuhlmann, Peter. 1997. “Efg als Indefinitpronomen im
Griechischen in diachroner Sicht”, Glotta 74:76-93.
Le Goffic, Pierre. 1994. “Indefinis, interrogatifs, relatifs
(termes en gu-}; parcours avec ou sans issue”, FdL 4-9.
Meillet, Antoine and Joseph Vendryes. 1979. Traité de gram-
maire comparée des langues classiques. sth ed. Paris.
Monteil, Pierre. 1963. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa
formation, son développement, sa structure des origines a
la fin du Ve siécle A.C. Paris.
Pompei, Anna. zou. “Relative clauses”. In: New perspectives
on historical Latin syntax, vol. 3, ed. by Philip Baldi and
Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 427-547. Berlin — New York.
Ruijgh, CornelisJ. 1971. Autour de ‘te épique’. Amsterdam.
Schwyzer, E. 1953. Griechische Grammatik, Erster Band:
Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. 6th ed.
Munich,
Szemerényi, OswaldJ. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European
linguistics. Oxford,
Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Greek grammar beyond the basics.
Grand Rapids, Mi.
KLAAS BENTEIN
Prosodic Minimality
+ Minima
Prosodic Word
1. INTRODUCTION
A prosodic word is a domain in which phono-
logical processes apply (Hall 1999). The size of
the prosodic word does not correspond in a one-
to-one fashion with the morphological word.
In some cases, the morphological word con-
161
sists of more than one prosodic words, in other
cases, several morphological words form a single
prosodic word. The following examples illus-
trate these claims. In Italian, s-voicing applies
between vowels, but not across a prefix and its
base, e.g. /kasina/ > [kazina] ‘little house’, but
/a+sotfale/ > [asotfale] (*[azotfale]) ‘a-social’. In
Dutch, syllabification spans over the functional
items at the right edge of a lexical item, e.g.
/rip+an/ > [ri.pan] ‘(he) called+a.. .' (Booij 1996).
The processes above have the prosodic word
as their domain of application. Its prosodic
parsing therefore is as follows: Italian (kazinaw),
(aw) (sotfalew); Dutch (ripanw). As can be seen,
the prosodic word in Italian may be smaller
than the syntactic word, while in Dutch it can
be larger.
The precise definition of the prosodic word
may change from language to language, but two
generalizations are supported by a large number
of languages:
a. The right (or left) boundary of the prosodic
word coincides with the right (or left) bound-
ary of a lexical category. This is called edge-
based prosodification (Selkirk 1986; Chen
1987).
Functional categories like articles, preposi-
er
tions, relative + pronouns, conjunctions
(> Conjunctions (Subordinating), + Conjunc-
tions (Non-Subordinating)), anaphoric
pronouns, negatives (+ Negation, — Nega-
tion (Morphology)) and enclitics (+ Clitics)
cannot form a prosodic word on their own
and must be parsed with a lexical category
such as a noun, + verb or > adjective (Sel-
kirk 1984 and for Ancient Greek Frankel 1955,
Devine & Stephens 1994).
The specific combination of clitic+host or
host+clitic is often called a clitic group (> Clitic
Group for a fuller analysis). Whether the pro-
sodic word and the clitic group are two dis-
tinct prosodic domains is subject to a linguistic
debate. Some linguists consider it a subtype of
the prosodic word or the larger phonological
phrase (Inkelas & Zec 1995). If one assumes the
existence of both prosodic domains, a major
difference would be that the prosodic word may
be smaller or equal to the grammatical word,
whereas the clitic group is always larger. For
the purposes of this article, the prosodic word
is described as a prosodic entity, approximately
162 PROSODIC WORD

coinciding with the grammatical word, in which
phonological generalizations apply.
2, MYCENAEAN GREEK
2a. Introduction
With respect to Mycenaean Greek, Vis (2007,
2008, see also + Mycenaean Script and Language)
has observed that there are several phonological
irregularities concerning labiovelar simplifica-
tion and - hiatus resolution. From these data, he
concludes that some compounds consist of two
autonomous prosodic words (see also + Com-
pound Nouns and + Compounding/Derivation/
Construction Morphology).
that undergo simplification are single prosodic
words, {g’oukolosw), while those that do not are
prosodic compounds with two prosodic words,
(g*ouw)(g"Gtasw), and labiovelar simplification
occurs only within, not across, prosodic words,
2.c. Hiatus Resolution
Mycenaean regularly avoids hiatus (Meissner &
Tribulato 2002; Vis 2007, 2008; see also + Hiatus),
usually via deletion or glide insertion (other pro-
cesses are attested, but a detailed discussion of
hiatus resolution is not essential for the analysis
of the prosodic word; see also + Glides). This
can be seen with glide insertion in simple and
complex words:

2.b. Labiovelar Simplification

/koriadna/ > [korijadna] ‘coriander’ ko-ri-ja-da-na
One of the phonological processes in Myce- itritGwes/ > [trijowes] ‘with three ti-ri-jo-we
naean Greek is the simplification of labiovelars handles’ (pl.)
(Bartonék 2003, Ruijgh 1967, Vilborg i960, Lejeune
1972, Ventris & Chadwick 1973; see also — Labio-
velars): any labiovelar adjacent to [u] is realized and with vowel deletion in complex words:
as a plain velar, e.g. /k*u/, /uk’/ > [ku], [uk]. This
process is attested in both simple and complex
jana+agehen/ > [anagehen] ‘tolead up’ a-na-ke-e
words. (Note that the orthographic transcription
of the Mycenaean Greek syllabograms in Latin (inf.
alphabet follows the Salamanca convention of
1970. See Ventris & Chadwick 1973 or Bartonék Some compounds, however, do accept hiatus:
2003 for an overview of the syllabograms and
their corresponding phonetic values.)
/hik"ia+ > [hiklaart"mois] ‘horse- i-za-a-
arthmaois/ chariot' to-me
input > Output Gloss Orthography (dat. pl.)
/g*unaia/ > [gunaja]l ‘female’ ku-na-ja {paga+ > |pagaakaris] ‘unpleasant pa-ka-
/g"ou+k"olos/ > [g"oukolos] 'cow-herd’ go-u-ko-ro akbaris/ source’ a-ka-ri
fid+op"ion/ > [jadp'lon] ‘thushe is jo-o-
debted' po-ro
In some compounds, however, the labiovelar (aor.)
remains unchanged:
Again, these data suggest that some words con-
foutk*e/ > [ouk*e] ‘and not’ 0-u-ge sist ofa single, others of two prosodic words, e.g.
/grou+g"ötäs/ > [g*oug’atas] ‘cow- go-u-go-ta (anagehenw) vs. (hiklaw)(arttmoisw), and that
herd’ hiatus resolution occurs only within prosodic
/su+g"ötähos/ > [sug*ötähos] ‘swine- su-go-ta-0 words, not across them.
herd’ (gen.)

2.4. Defining the Prosodic Word in Mycenaean

These data are usually considered to be irregu-
larities, e.g, the result of analogical processes
(Lejeune 1972). Since this misses the fact that the
irregularity is found only across two members of
a compound, Vis (2007, 2008) suggests that the
lack of simplification should be ascribed to the
existence of a prosodic word boundary: words
Greek
Based on the data, it seems that affixes and func-
tional categories are prosodically dependent and
parsed with a host into a single prosodic word.
Lexical categories, including nouns, verbs, and
adjectives, are autonomous and form a prosodic
word on their own. This observation supports
 PROSODIC WORD 163

the cross-linguistic generalizations stated in the but also across the word boundaries in the case
first section. However, the data are limited in of functional items such as articles or pronouns:
number and more data are needed to support
this claim. Also data with respect to the prosodic
analysis of two morphological words (e.g. article /ho anér/ [höner] ‘the man’ (Ionic)
+ noun) are not attested. /ha ego/ [haga] ‘which I’

3. CLASSICAL GREEK
Coalescence across word boundary is tradition-
ally called ‘crasis’, but it generally follows the
3.a, Introduction
same rules as word-internal coalescence (Sihler
For Classical Greek, Golston (1995) defines the
1995:80-83; see also + Crasis). Crasis is a wide-
prosodic word as a lexical word and the function
spread phenomenon in all Classical Greek dia-
words immediately to its left (enclitics like mou,
lects, both in inscriptions as well as in written
se, tis, -te, etc. are treated separately, since they
literature.
go with what precedes rather than with what fol-
Deletion of the word-final vowel across the
lows; see + Clitics):
word boundary is common when the first word
[apo [tes [arkhes |tés metabäseös]]]]> is a functional item such as oudé ‘nor’, dé ‘and’,
(apo tes arkhésw) (tés metabdseösw) apé ‘from’, did ‘by means of’ or anti ‘against’,
e.g. di’ eikönön ‘by means of images’. The final
from thegen beginninggen thegen migrationgen
‘from the beginning of the migration’
vowel of lexical items is rarely deleted, although
instances occur, e.g. patér’ elauneis ‘father + you
This definition has two implications. First, a sen- drive’ (Devine & Stephens 1994).
tence has as many phonological words as lexical
words; second, the right edge of the lexical word 3.c. Nasal Assimilation
coincides with the right edge of the prosodic Nasal assimilation also has the prosodic word
word, The prosodically dependent functional as its domain of application. In this process,
words include the articles, prepositions, relative word-final /n/ takes on the place of articulation
pronouns, conjunctions, anaphoric pronouns, of the following stop or nasal. This process is
negatives and enclitics. In traditional grammars, observed in word-medial position when a prefix
these categories are referred to as appositives is attached to a stem,
(Fränkel 1955; Devine & Stephens 1994).
This definition of the prosodic word is based
on five aspects of Classical Greek phonology /en-pin-ö/ [empinö] ‘1 drink in’
that have the prosodic word as their domain of /en-khe-ö/ [enkbeö] ‘I pour in’
application (Golston 1995; Agbayani & Golston
2010). These are vowel coalescence and word-
but also in the combination of an article + lexi-
final vowel deletion, nasal assimilation, breaks
cal word:
in poetic meter (+ Metrics), the orthography
(Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theories
of) of inscriptions, and + hyperbaton. /ten polin/ [tém polin] 'the city'
/ton kalén/ [ton kalön] ‘the beautiful’
3.b. Vowel Coalescence and Deletion
Vowel coalescence is a widespread phonological
The main evidence for this process comes from
phenomenon in Classical Greek (De Haas 1988;
inscriptions. Common are writings such as tép
De Lacy 2002; see also + Contraction). It occurs
nöAepov ‘the war [tom pölemon], thy BowAnv
when two adjacent vowels are fused into one,
with features of both vowels preserved. Vowel
[tem boulén] ‘the council’, toy wjpuxa [toy
kéruka] ‘the herald’ in which the underlying
coalescence occurs word-internally,
nasal /n/ in the definite article is written as <u> =
[m] or <y> = [n] (Sihler 1995:205-206).
/tima-omen/ [timémen | ‘we honor’ In earlier inscriptions, assimilation affects
/tima-ete/ [timate] ‘you (pl.) more segments. In this stage of the language,
honor’
164 PROSODIC WORD

word-final nasals can also assimilate to a follow-

ing liquid OZTIZ # EXTHN # THNTHIHN
(höstis)w (es gen)w (ten teien)w
whoever to land the Tean
/ton lögon/ (tol lögon] ‘the word’
‘whoever to the Tean land...’
and a final [s] can assimilate to a following con- Breaks after function words are very rare.
sonant as well: There is also evidence in poetic meter and
the use of word-breaks in inscriptions that a
sequence of two or more functional items behave
/toüs nédmous/ [ton ndmous] 'the laws’ as a lexical item and thus can form a single pro-
sodic constituent. More research, however, is
Such data suggest that an article forms a single needed to give a more accurate analysis of the
prosodic word with the following lexical word prosody of these sequences of words.
(see also Sihler 1995:209-213).
3.e. Hyperbaton
3.d. Breaks in Poetic Meter and Inscriptions Hyperbaton also suggests a strong coherency of
Other support for this understanding of pro- the word group functional word + lexical word.
sodic words comes from poetic meter. Every Hyperbaton in Classical Greek can be defined
line in poetic meter has a short break, called the as displacement of words, often resulting in dis-
caesura. This break may take several positions continuous constituents, e.g. (see also -- Hyper-
somewhere in the middle ofa line, but it is heav- baton):
ily avoided after a function word, e.g. Hom. Jl.
9.145 (Frankel 1955; Devine & Stephens 1994; see épempees summakhläs>es épempe summakhids
also + Caesurae): tas tas
dallas allas
khrüsöthemis kal laodike # kai iphiänassa
sent to allies >to sent allies
‘Chrysothemis and Laodice and Iphianassa’ the the
other other
This systematic application of caesura suggests
that there is prosodic coherency within the word
group consisting of a function word + lexical ‘(he) sent to the other allies’ (Hdt. 1.82)
word.
Also the violation of metrical generalizations
by functional items supports the different pro- epitättonti kata nömous >katd epitättont! ndmous
sodic behavior of this class of words. More spe- tots tous
cifically, functional items may occur in positions toa tot
where lexical words are far more uncommon or patros patros
ordering bythe customs > bythe ordering customs
not even permitted. For example, in tragedy a
the the
long syllable may be replaced by two short syl- father’s father's
lables. However, in this position lexical words
are far more restricted than functional items. ‘ordering (things) by the customs of the father' (Pl.
Especially in Aeschylus (8.6%) and Sophocles Crit, 120b)
(13.9%) replacement by a lexical word is very
uncommon (Devine & Stephens 1994). From a syntactic point of view, the material that
The coherency of the group function word is fronted does not form a constituent, given
+ lexical word is also supported by punctua- that it belongs to different syntactic phrases.
tion (the use of spaces) in inscriptions (Frankel Agbayani & Golston (2010) observe, however,
1955, Devine & Stephens 1994). Usually spaces that the fronted material consists of a content
or word-breaks are not used at all, but some word and all its leftwards functional words (es
inscriptions put breaks after a lexical word, e.g. tas älläs, kata tous toi patrös). Based on this
SIG 37 (as cited in Fränkel 1955): observation, they claim that hyperbaton is a
 PROSODIC WORD
phonological process and that the material that
is fronted constitutes a single prosodic word.
4. SUMMARY
The prosodic word isa domain in which a number
of phonological generalizations apply. Its shape
may be larger or smaller than the grammatical
word and languages vary in its precise definition.
In many languages, though, the prosodic word
consists of a content word and its leftwards func-
tional words. Classical Greek seems to be one
such language, as can be seen by the application
of vowel coalescence, nasal assimilation, breaks
in poetic meter and inscriptions, and hyperba-
ton. Data from Mycenaean Greek suggest that
compounds consist of two autonomous prosodic
words in this period of the Greek language. Evi-
dence comes from Jabiovelar simplification and
hiatus resolution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agbayani, Brian and Chris Gelston. zo10. “Phonological
movement in Classical Greek", Language 86:133-167-
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Buoij, Geert. 1996. “Cliticization as prosodic integration: the
case of Dutch”, The Linguistic Review 13:219-242.
Chen, Matthew Y. 1987. “The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi",
Phonology Yearbook 4:109~149.
De Lacy, Paul V. 2002. The formal expression of markedness,
Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 1994. The
prosody of Greek speech. New York - Oxford.
Frankel, Hermann. 1955. Wege und Formen frithgriechischen
Denkens. Munich.
Golston, Chris. 1995. “Syntax outranks phonalogy: evidence
from Ancient Greek’, Phonology 21:325-357-
de Haas, Willem G. 1988. A formal theory of vowel coales-
cence. Dissertation, Radboud University of Nijmegen.
Hall, Tracy A. 1997. “The phonological word: a review”. In:
Studies on the phonological word, ed. by Tracy A. Hall &
Ursula Kleinhenz, ı-22. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec. 1995. “Syntax-phonology inter-
face". In: The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John
A. Goldsmith, 535-549. Cambridge, Mass.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Meissner, Torsten and Olga Tribulato. 2002. ‘Nominal com-
position in Mycenaean Greek", TPAS 100:289-330.
Ruijgh, ComelisJ. 1967. Etudes sur le grammaire et le vocabu-
faire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam,
Selkirk, Elisabeth 0. 1984. Phonology and syntax: the relation
between sound and structure. Cambridge - London.
Sihler, Anrew L. 1995. A new comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. Oxford.
Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick. 19732. Documents in
Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge.
Vilborg, Ebbe. 1g60. A tentative grammar of Mycenaean
Greek. Gothenburg.
165
Vis, Jeroen, 2007. “The phonological word in Mycenaean”.
In: Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics,
ed. by Eleni Agathopoulou, Maria Dimitrakopoulou and
Despina Papadopoulou, 74-81. Thessaloniki.
. 2008. Aspects of the phonology of Mycenaean Greek
[Zitimata apo ti fonologia tis Mikinaikis Ellinikis], Disserta-
tion, University of Crete, Rethymnon.
JEROEN VIS
Prosody
Prosody (Gr. prosdidia, Lat. accentus) is the study
of all phenomena related to intonation and
rhythm in language; as such, it includes + foot
and syllable structure, accent, and phrasal into-
nation. We have no direct information at all about
Greek phrasal intonation (Allen 1987:128-129),
and the evidence for accentuation is complex as
well (+ Accentuation, — Lesbian Accentuation,
+ Doric Accentuation). Our knowledge of syl-
labification in Greek comes mostly from poetic
meter and from writing systems, which are pres-
ent both in syllabic (Lineal B and Cyprian) and
alphabetic inscriptions.
Certain characteristics of Greek accent are
essential for understanding the rhythm and into-
nation of Greek wards and phrases. First, Greek
had a + pitch accent characterized by a tonal
rise and subsequent fall (contonation or tonal
inflection), Second, that tonal melody was at
least partially independent of > stress and so of
phrasal rhythm. According to Plato (Crat. 399a-
b) and Aristotle (Rhet. 1403b29) three kinds of
accent are to be distinguished: acute (prosdidia
oxeia, high tone), grave (bareia, low tone), and
to méson, which may designate the circumflex
accent (perispömene), though there is little agree-
ment on the matter (see Allen 1973:253-254).
Circumflex occurs only in the two last syllables
of the word (Perikiés, Phaidros), while the acute
occurs in the last three (Hésiodos, Aristophänes,
Sapphö). The position of the accent is determined
by > syllable weight, i.e., there is a rhythmic fac-
tor that governs the position of the accent in the
word and it relies on the heavy/light distinction
of syllables, Whether an accent is high (’) or fall-
ing (*) depends as well on the length of the vow-
els involved (+ Accentuation). So, for instance,
an accented penult with a long vowel must be
realized as falling (*) if the final syllable has a
short vowel: sötera ‘savior (acc.)', kérux ‘herald’,
motsa ‘muse’ (+ Sotéra Rule). Again, these high
166 PROSODY

and low tones are all about pitch (melody) and Greek prosody is intimately connected with
not about stress (rhythm). syllabification in words, but also with syllabifi-
Rhythm is created by the alternation of heavy cation in larger units of speech, like + prosodic
and light syllables, which were probably stressed words, > phonological phrases, and - intona-
in different ways (> Stress). Light syllables are tional phrases. A Greek syllable begins with up
all those that end in a short vowel, which bears to three consonants in the onset, a nucleus with
a single mora: one or two vowels, and ends with a coda with up
to three consonants:
Onsets may be:
Light syllables
ma ‘by (particle)'
dé ‘but’ Empty Simple Complex
ti ‘what’ _eis ‘into’ heis ‘one’ treis ‘three'
pro ‘before’ en ‘if? den ‘long’ splén
sul ‘thou’ ‘spleen’

Heavy syllables are all others: i.e., those that Nuclei may be:
have a long vowel (4, é, 4 6, &), a + diphthong
(ai, ai, Gi, au, etc.) or are closed by one or more
consonants within a word (ap, ak, an; ep, ek, en; Simple Long Complex
etc.) or by two or more consonants at the end of
the word (aps, aks, als; etc.): dé ‘but dé'indeed’ _— def ‘is necessary’
tön ‘the tön ‘the tofn ‘the (dual)’
(masc.acc)' (gen.pl)
Heavy syllables
ge ‘earth’ Codas may be:
dd ‘house (epic)
ei ‘if?
géi ‘earth (dat.)’ Empty Simple Complex
thrix ‘hair’ ti_ ‘what’ lis ‘lion’ lips ‘south
hats ‘salt’ wind’
su_ ‘thou’ sus ‘swine’ hifnks]
‘lynx’
This weight-based terminology ofheavy and light
should be kept distinct from the terms long and
short, which are properly applied to the length Inside a word a coda consonant always makes a
of vowels (long @ vs. short a), diphthongs (long syllable heavy (+ Mora and + Syllable Weight),
ai vs. short af) and even consonants (long or so words like ds.tu ‘city’, fep.tés ‘peeled’, fém.nd ‘I
geminate pp vs. short p). The weight of a syllable cut’, der.ma ‘skin’ have a heavy first syllable. But
does not depend directly on its actual duration stop + sonorant (r, |, m, n) clusters behave differ-
(Devine and Stephens 1994:43-45). The duration ently in different types of Greek. In Homer and
of consonants and vowels is a fact of production lyric poetry we find syllabifications like mak.rds
that can be measured in milliseconds and is con- ‘long’, pat.rds ‘father (gen.), puk.nös ‘compact’,
trastive (dé ‘but' vs. dé ‘indeed’), while the weight ték.non ‘child’, with the first syllable closed and
of syllables is a fact of grammar that can only be therefore heavy. But in Attic the syllabification is
seen in how it affects other things, like + stress, different (correptio Attica) and we find ma.krds,
+ accentuation, + word formation, and poetic pa.trös, pu.knös, té.knon (Allen 1973:210-213; Ste-
+ meter. Heavy and light syllables behave differ- riade 1982:186-195). In early poetry such syllabifi-
ently with regard to accent. Heavy syllables can cation is also found at the beginning of words, so
be tonic and capable of bearing tonal inflection, that the kA of khré below goes with the following
whereas light syllables cannot. syllable and leaves the preceding syllable (de)
codaless and light (~):
 PROSODY 167
1. -v~| _ ~ ~|-
Toidde khré Khariton damömata kallikömön
such(acc.pl.) one-should Muses(gen.) songs(acc.) beautiful-haired(gen.)
‘such songs of the beautiful-haired Muses we must (sing)' (Stesich. fragm. 212 P-D)

But it is usually found inside and at the begin-
ning of a word, both in tragedy and generally
in comedy, so that when br, gr, dr, etc. make
a preceding syllable heavy in comedy, we can
say that the verse is paratragic. This divergence
suggests that the change of syllabification is not
ancient and probably that it is characteristic
of colloquial Attic. When the onset is a voiced
stop, there is correptio in clusters with r (hu.
bris ‘insolence’), rarely in those with / (bü.blos
'papyrus’), and never in those with nasal (hag.
nös ‘holy’). This fact may be interpreted as evi-
dence that correption is of a recent date, at least
in the first two cases, but also as evidence that
syllabification is phonetically conditioned. Like-
wise the existence of a morpheme boundary in
the word can modify the syllabification (Devine
and Stephens 1994:35): for example, reduplica-
tion creates light syllables word-initially (ke.kies.
thai 'summon'), but the prefix ed ‘out’ frequently
produces forms that begin with a heavy syllable
(ek.feipei ‘leave out’, ek.tüei ‘release’). Sometimes
we even find examples of n, r, s adding weight to
the word’s final syllable in choral lyric, like word-
final 7 below:
2.70 - = —
édramon athröoi
‘ran together’ (Pind. Nem. 1.51)
Syllabification also applies across words, in so-
called external sandhi, and this brings about
more changes to sounds and the syllables they
are in. The most common change occurs when
the first word ends in a consonant and the sec-
ond begins with a vowel. In this case the final
consonant of the first word becomes the onset
of the second. This phenomenon is probably the
base of the error of the tragic actor Hagelochus,
who pronounced-the phrase galen’ horö 1 see
a calm’ (Eur. Or. 279) as galén horö ‘I see a cat‘,
probably changing the syllabification and accen-
tuation from ga.len.ho.rö to ga.lé.nho.ré (Devine
and Stephens 1994:239, 265). In Homer and epic
generally we find scansions that preserve ancient
syllabification. The most common occurs when
digamma (Ff, = the labiovelar glide [w]) has been
lost (see Chantraine 1958:16-164). Thus,

3 - -| - vu|- -|- we

esthlön d’ oute ti po (w)eipes (w)épos

fine(acc.) but not some(acc.) ever you said word{acc.)
‘a fine word you have never yet said’ (Hom, Il. 1.108)
where the first - keeps the preceding 6 from the coda. The cluster dr- has the same effect ona
shortening and the second ¢ makes the last syl- preceding light syllable:
lable of Feipes heavy by pushing its final s into

4. _ ~ ~|- u

au toi Epi d(w)eos

not youfdat.)-on fear
‘there's nothing for you to fear’ (Hom. A. 1.515)

6 --+4- 4--
hemeis dé d(w)eisantes
we but scared
in fear, we...’ (Hom. Od. 9.236)

There is a similar treatment of the initial cluster fr-, as we see again in Homer:

6, - - ~|-
+
entha panomphaiöi Zeni (w)rezeskon Akhaioi
where voiced(dat.) Zeus(dat.) sacrificed Achaeans
‘where the Achaeans made their sacrifices to Zeus of the voices' (Hom. /[. 8.250)
168 PROSODY
7 - ~~l[- -l- >
hos s' agatha (w)rézeskon
who you(dat.) good(acc.pl.n.) sacrificed
‘who sacrificed good things to you’ (Hom. Od. 22.209)

ae ee ee ee >
niz' hidati liarö, epi dé (w)rizan bäle pikrén
washed water(dat.) warm(dat.) on-and root threw bitter
‘and washed it with warm water and applied a bitter root’ (Hom. JL 11.846)

All these phonetic phenomena with their etymo-
logical F gave rise Lo a useful metrical device that
enabled poets to produce a heavy syllable before
any liquid or nasal consonant regardless of the
etymological origin of the word, as we can see
in the following, where word-initial /- makes the
preceding syllable heavy:
g. ~~|--|-~~
epi te lin egage
to-and lion(acc.) leads
‘and leads a lion there’ (Hom. /l. 11.480)
In these cases we find creation of heavy syllables,
but there is also the opposite effect in relation to
several consonant clusters that can be both initial
and medial. These cases are practically limited
to specific literary genres (esp. epic) and types of
word (e.g, proper names) (Gentili and Lomiento
2008:48), and probably arise due to require-
ments of the meter. The most common cluster
that offers this treatment is sk-. In the following,
we see that the s- in sképarnon, Skamändrion,
skié, and skoteinön stays with the following k and
does not add weight to the preceding syllable:

10. _- ~|- nu -| - er -|- ~~

döke d’ épeita sképarnon etixoon.,..

gave-but then adze(acc.) polished(acc.}
‘then she gave him a polished adze’ (Hom. Od. 5.237)
er ae | - u
tön r' Hektör kaleeske Skamdndrion..
whom-PRT Hector called Skamandrius
‘whom Hector called Skamandrius’ (Hom. /l. 6.402)
12. —}- -|- x ~|- -| _ “| --

eié petraié te skié kai biblinos oinos..

be(opt.) rocky-and shade and Biblian wine
let there be the shade of a rock and some Biblian wine’ (Hes. Op. 589)
13. -— ww St ett tet te ~~

Xeinds eimi skoteinon apékhon psögon

Friend Lam dark(acc.) averting blame(acc.)
'l am your friend, averting dark blame’ (Pind. Nem. 7.61)

There are also examples where z- [zd] fails to in Eur. LA. 68 mnösterön ‘suitors (gen.)' and
lengthen a preceding vowel: Homer Zdkunthos in Epicharm. fragm. 80 edumnos 'celebrated in
‘Zante’, Zéleia (town at the foot of Mt. Ida), hymns’, where the cluster fails to add weight to
Theoc. zes ‘alive (fem.)'. Similarly for s/- in Dor. the preceding syllable. An interesting case is the
esiös ‘good’, kt in Hippon. baktériéi ‘staff’, mn- following:

14.
athänatoi de Pteröta, dia pterophiitor’ andnkén
immortals-but winged(acc.) through feather-producing necessity
‘but the immortals (called him) ‘winged’, due to his need to grow feathers’ (Plat. Phdr. 252b)
 PROSODY 169

where pt- in Pteröta does not lengthen dé, while first syllable light are probably due to an earlier
pt- in pterophütor' does lengthen did. Cases of syllabification with a syllabic r:
andr- and ambr- that unexpectedly scan with the
15. - aed aoe | „= we ou —~ | --

hön pötmon godésa lipoüs’ androtéta kai heben

her destiny bewailing leaving manliness and youth
‘bewailing her destiny, leaving manliness and youth’ (Hom. /. 16.857)

Here we know that androtéta was earlier anytéta u u, or »-—» in hexameter (Chantraine
(syllabified as a.ny.té.ta), where n was the onset 1958:94-115). In these cases one of the short syl-
to the syllabic liquid and did not lengthen the lables becomes long:
preceding vowel for that reason (also at Jf. 24.6).
Note that such clusters often appear in manu-
atha.natos +athd.natos ‘deathless’
script variants without the nasal, emphasiz-
a.ne.Tes > ä.ne.res ‘men’
ing this way the onset character of n: adrotéta
diabolian -+diäbo.li.än ‘fraud (acc.)’
(for androtéta), abrété (for ambroté ‘immortal
hu.perop.li.é + hu.pe.rop.i.& ‘arrogance’
(fem,)’). Similar cases include andreiphöntes
‘man slaying’, abrotdzö 'I miss’, abrotdxomen
A.pöl.lö.na +Apdéllé.na ‘Apollo (acc.)'
anemdeis + Enemöeis ‘windy’
‘we miss’.
earinds + eiarinös ‘vernal’
The treatment of vowels in verse produces
önoma + olinoma ‘name’
a wide range of phenomena, which can be
classified into three groups: adaptation to meter,
preservation of vowels in contact, and reduc- This procedure also spreads to less problematic
tion. Adaptation to meter takes place when the sequences like the following, where dia scans
syllabic pattern of the word does not fit in a with the first syllable heavy (did) rather than
given meter, as we find with sequences like short (dia):

dia men aspidos élihe phaeinés

through -PRT shield(gen.) went shining(gen.)
‘went through the shining shield’ (Hom. /f 3.357)

or this case where the final short vowel of huie scans heavy:

me
6 huie Petedo
Ye e+]
diotrepheos basiléos
o son(voc.) Peteos(gen.) blessed(gen.) king(gen.)
‘o son of the blessed King Peteos’ (Hom. IL 4.338)

The final -i of the dative singular frequently
scans as if long, perhaps due in part to the old
dative desinence -ei. It is also possible to find
oscillations of quantity in words such as hudor
‘water’, khrüseos ‘golden’, anér ‘man’ or däpedon
‘floor’ and generally in the vowels a, 4 u. The
most notable case is found in Homer Il. 5.455,
Ares, Ares brotoloigé ‘Ares, man-destroying Ares’,
where the first Ares has a long a and the second
Ares a short. The long scansion of o in öphin
‘snake (acc.)'(Hom. /L 12.208) and of the first e
in Zephurié ‘south wind’ (Hom. Od. 7.119) has
been explained as an effect of the aspiration in
ph (Gentili and Lomiento 2008:48), Outside epic
there is also an example in Aristophanes (Eccl.
571) phi.lö.so.phon ‘philosopher (acc.)' is scanned
~~-~ with its third syllable heavy; this has been
explained as a register of high language.
The presence of adjacent vowels in separate
syllables, within or across words, is called + hia-
tus (khasmodia), Hiatus is frequent inside words
(theds 'god', neanias ‘young man’, aer ‘vapor’),
but there is a strong tendency to avoid it across
words, in poetry as well as in prose. In poetry
hiatus inside the verse only occurs when the
first word is non-lexical (t/ ‘which’, e ‘or’, peri
170 PROSODY
‘around’, Adti ‘that’, etc.) and forms a + prosodic
word with what follows, in some fixed expres-
sions of a similar mold (mede héis ‘and not one’,
oude Adis ‘but not one’, eü oida ‘I know well’), and
with exclamations or interjections (Aristoph.
Lys. 393, aiai Adénin ‘ah! ah! Adonis’), and it
shows a tendency to appear at caesura or across
lines (Devine and Stephens 1994:254). In Homer
almost every case of hiatus occurs before a lost
digamma F- (e.g, IL 1.30, ent woiköi'in the house’),
but there are also cases where it is impossible to
remove the hiatus (Chantraine 1958:89-93), as
seen in the bold cases below:
(18) Smintheü ei pote
‘Smintheus, if once (it pleased you... )’
(Hom. Il 1.39)
(19) ékhéi, hos höte
‘with a roaring noise, as when...’ (Hom. If.
2.209)
(20) aith’ opheles dgonos t’ émmenai, dgamds t’
apolésthai
that you.ought unborn-and to.be unwed-
and to.be.killed
‘better had you remained unborn or been
killed unmarried’ (Hom. /f. 3.40)
ékhei m’ dkhos, 6 olé daimon
holds me pain, o deadly spirit
‘pain holds me, o deadly spirit’ (Alcm. fragm.
116 P)
Hiatus is also frequent when the first word ends
in iota or upsilon:
(22) timéson moi huidn
honor me(dat.) son(acc.)
‘honor my son’ (Hom. IL 1.505)
(23) é ett ée kakös nostésomen
or well or badly return.home(ipl.)
‘whether we return home well or badly’
(Hom. IL 2.253)
(24) kai euloglan prostitheis
and praise(acc.) winning
‘and winning praise’ (Pind. Ol. 5.24)
(25) kai nin eit eidös
and him well knowing
‘and knowing him well’ (Bacchyl. 5.78)
In these cases a final -i becomes a glide y, as final
-u becomes w, providing an onset for the follow-
ing syllable (Allen 1987:96).
‘Reduction’ includes different treatment of
vowels when they are in contact within and
across words, including diverse types of con-
traction, shortening, or elimination (+ synizesis,
> crasis, + elision, + aphaeresis, correptio epica,
and consonantalization). The main difference
between these treatments lies in the quantity of
the resulting vowel: ifit is long, call it contraction,
if not, it is a type of elision (Devine and Stephens
1994:236). Synizesis or synecphonesis (Threatte
1980:411-413; Bettezzato 2000) is the contraction
of two vowels that results in a diphthong that the
language otherwise lacks, Synizesis can occur
within and across words and it is especially tre-
quent when e precedes another vowel, as when
we find theds ‘god’ or theön 'gods (gen.)’ scanned
as one syllable, dnthea ‘flowers’ scanned as two,
or porphuréé ‘purple’ as three. Synizesis is less
common with other vocalic sequences, though
we do find things like the following:
daéron ‘brother-in-law (Hom. Il. 24.769)
(acc.)'
tetraoron ‘four-yoked (Pind. Pyth. 10.65)
(neut.}'
Öariona ‘Orion (acc.)' (Pind. Nem. 2.12)
druds ‘oak (gen.)’ (Hes. Op. 436)
Across words synizesis occurs when a final diph-
thong or a long vowel precedes an initial vowel.
It is frequent with the monosyllables ka‘ ‘and’, é
‘or’, é ‘truly’, dé ‘indeed’, me ‘lest’, 6 ‘oh’, alld ‘but’,
epei ‘when’, egö ‘I’. So,
(26) me dllén
‘lest another (fem. acc.)’ (Aristoph. Thesm.
476)
(27) € oikhömestha
‘or we are gone’ (Soph. Trach. 85)
(28) epei oudé
‘when neither’ (Soph. Phil 948)
Crasis occurs only across words and inside the
prosodic word (appositive group) formed for
example by an article and a following substan-
tive. Crasis requires a strong cohesion both of
words constituting the prosodic word like the
one mentioned above and of words which are
typical of lexicalized phrases, like tukhagathei
‘fine fortune (dat)' (< tükhe agathéi ‘fortune
fine’, Aristoph. Av. 436) or hosémérai ‘day by day’
(< hosai hémérai ‘as many days', Aristoph, Plut.
1006). The main difference between crasis and
synizesis is the outcome: synizesis results in a
 PROSODY
diphthong the language does not already have,
while crasis results in a diphthong or long vowel
that already belongs to the phonological inven-
tory. Crasis is also graphically marked with a
korönis ('), rather like the apostrophe in English
contractions (can't, won't, etc.). Thus egö oida ‘I
know’ is written ¢y@da (egdida) with a korönis
over the omega showing the crasis. When féi
hémérai ‘the day (dat.)' is written $4uépe, we can
see that the initial aspiration [h] of the second
word is preserved on the stop of the first word
(9 = th}. The coronis is not written when it
coincides with a rough-breathing mark ('), so
that ho emds ‘the my' is written oduds (houmos)
with the (*) that denotes aspiration but without
the (’) that denotes contraction. Similarly for
ho aner ‘the man’ when written vip (höner): w
denotes the contracted vowels [oa], the rough-
breathing denotes the aspiration (h), and the
coronis is absent. Coronis is also absent when
the crasis is no longer felt as such, as in gpotdo¢
(phroüdos) ‘gone away’ (< pro hodoü ‘further on
the road’) or ypfjv (khrén) ‘is necessary’ (< khre
én ‘necessary was’ (Lejeune 1972:321). Crasis is
most frequent with definite articles, relative pro-
nouns, the interjection 6 (önthröpe < ö änthröpe
‘oh man (voc.)'), the pronominal forms egö ‘I’,
moi ‘me (dat.)', soi ‘you (dat.}’, the preposition
prö ‘before’, the particles dn (conditional), toi
‘surely’, méntoi ‘yet' and the subordinating con-
junctions ei ‘if'and epei ‘when’.
In Attic the vowel resulting from crasis pre-
serves the quality of the vowel that starts the
lexical word, i.e., ho anér yields haner (dvjp) and
toi Apollönos yields tapallonos (taxcAAwvoc, Aris-
toph. Av. 982); but in Jonic and Doric the out-
come of crasis in those cases fuses the two vowel
qualities so that ho anér yields honér (dvip).
This lengthening occurs even when the lexical
word begins with iota or upsilon, where the
lengthening is not shown in the spelling but is
recoverable from the meter. Thus td Audar 'the
water’ is thüdör (906wp, Crates 17.5 KA), kai hupd
‘and under is khüpd (yörö, Eur. A 108), and kai
hikéteue ‘and he begged’ is khikéteue (yixézeve,
Eur. Hel. 1024). We also find crasis like thotida-
tos (< tou hidatos ‘the water (gen.)’ (Soddaroc,
Aristoph. Lys. 370) where crasis can be inter-
preted as elision with lengthening of the vowel
(Schwyzer 1959:402; Devine and Stephens
1994:267). There is also at least one example
where the lexical word has an initial long [i]; it
is the case of himation ‘cloak’ where the result of
171
crasis preserves the preceding vowel that forms
a diphthong, i.e., thoimdtion ($oludriov, Aristoph.
Nub. 179; cf. plural thaimdtia (Iaiudria, Aristoph.
Vesp. 408). When the first word involved in cra-
sis ends with a diphthong ai or oi, the resulting
vowel has no trace of [i] and shows the expected
result: hai arkhai ‘the origins’ + harkhai (apyal,
Aristoph. Nub. 1197), moi esti ‘to me is’ + moust!
(uovot/, Eur. Bacch. 1355), moi ho hetairos ‘to
me the companion’ + moutairos (woüraipog,
Aristoph. Eccl 912), Aoi epikhörioi ‘the natives’
+ houpikhörioi (obryydprot, Soph. OT 1046). The
+ accentuation resulting from crasis is the one
required by the second word. In Attic we some-
times find a change in accent as a result of
the sotéra rule, so td Adpla ‘the tools’ + thdpla
(SdrAx); but there are fluctuations in the manu-
script tradition. We always find händres (ävöper)
‘the men’, for example, but we sometimes find
talla ‘the others’ and sometimes tälla.
Elision (ékthlipsis), marked graphically by the
apostrophe ('), normally occurs between lexical
words in contact or combinations of polysyl-
labic function word plus lexical word, when the
first word of the group ends with a short vowel
(Devine and Stephens 1994:259-266). Elision
generally occurs with the vowels [e, a], with
[o] in the neuter singular, and in the endings
of verbs; with [i] in the endings of verbs, in the
prepositions amphi ‘around’, anti ‘against’, epi
‘upon’, and in the adverb ééi ‘still’; with [ü] in
Aeolic api ‘from’; and finally with the diphthong
ai in the endings of verbs, of in the pronouns
moi ‘me (dat.)’, sof ‘you (dat.), toi ‘you (dat.)
(for Homer, Sappho, Alcaeus) and in Attic oimoi
‘ah met‘, The elision of final [e] is widespread,
but Attic avoids it in the ending of third per-
son singular where a + movable consonant (n)
prevents hiatus. In prose inscriptions elision in
dé ‘but’ and oudé ‘but not’ is more frequent
than in te ‘and’ and ozte ‘and not’. Elision is
also found inside compounds such as phéraspis
‘shield-bearing’, philänthröpos ‘person-loving’,
and dekarkhia ‘government of ten’, as well as in
demonstrative pronouns lengthened with the
deictic particle [i], as we can see in hodi ‘this
here’ (< Adde + /), tauti 'these here’ (< taüta +
f), entauthi ‘right here’ (< entaütha + /), deuri
‘right hither’ (< deüro + /). Aspiration (h) is pre-
served in elision (kat’ hodén ‘down the road’),
even within a word (tethrippos ‘four-horsed’
< téttares + hippos), but the accent, whenever
the last vowel is tonic, gets retracted to the
172
preceding syllable: pöl!' eidon ‘saw many things’
(< polla eidon), dein’ épathon ‘suffered much’
(< deinä épathon). The diphthong [ai] is elided in
the medio-passive verbal endings both in Homer
and in Attic: bodlom’ egö ‘I want’ (< botilomai
ego, Hom. IL. 1.117), kolds’ éxesti ‘is allowed to
punish’ (< koldsai éxesti, Aristoph. Nub. 7), and
also occasionally the dative singular ending [oi]
of personal pronouns, as with m’ oiöi ‘me alone
(dat.)' (< moi oföi, Hom. /L 13.481). Such cases
might be explained by the creation of an inter-
vocalic glide y and its subsequent loss before
the elision of the vowel (Allen 1973:100-101), but
this does not explain the different treatments of
sequences like kai ego ‘and I’ or moi est{'to me is’
that retain the vowel instead of eliding it.
Aphaeresis or prodelision occurs when the
first word of a pair ends in a long vowel that can-
not be elided. In this case, the first vowel of the
next word can be elided if it is short e or a. It is
frequent with e and it can occur across a pause,
as we see below where epeidé ‘when’ loses its
initial vowel:
(29) ego phräsö: ‘peidé gar eistiametha
1 will.tell when-for we.feasted
‘ will tell you (how it started): for when we
were feasting...’ (Aristoph. Nub. 1354)
Such loss is impossible in crasis. Normally the
elided vowel belongs to a preposition (‘pd < apd
30. - u -/- -|| - -|-~ ~} -
öphra me aüte | neikheiéisi pater
that not again scold(opt.) father
‘that our father may no longer scold her' (Hom. IL. 1578-579)
This procedure (called correptio epica because it
is common in epic, and defined as vocalis ante
vocalem corripitur ‘a vowel before a vowel is
shortened’) is common in Homer and probably
goes back to Indo-European (Allen 1962:35-37).
Beyond Homer it occurs in dactylic and anapes-
tic contexts, as we see in dzö Athenön 'scions
of Athens’ (Eur. Hec. 123) and ouk apodamou
Apöllönos ‘Apollo not being abroad’ (Pind. Pyth.
4-5), where the bold vowels scan light because of
the following vowel. Correptio epica also occurs
inside words: thus heröos ‘hero (gen.)' scans
(---)} in Hom. Od. 6.303, as does Aérdes in Pind.
Pyth. 4.58. There are also examples of this phe-
nomenon in inscriptions, e.g. me endikon emen
for me éndikon einai ‘not to be just’ (IC IV, 41, I,
PROSODY
‘from’, Soph. Trach. 239), to a pronoun (’gö < ego
'l’, Aristoph. Equ. 182), to an adverb (‘nguthen
‘nearby’, Soph. Phil, 467), to the verbal augment
('döken < éddken ‘gave’, Soph. Aj. 1303), or to
esti (pou 'stin ‘where is he?’, Aristoph. Ach. 129).
Nevertheless, there are also examples with lexi-
cal words ('sthie < ésthie ‘she ate’, Aristoph. Equ.
no6; ‘khousa ‘having’, Aristoph. Lys. 646). It is
quite impossible to distinguish crasis and apha-
eresis in many contexts, such as Soph. Ant. 389,
where we can read Aé ‘pinoia ‘the thought’ with
aphaeresis ur hepinola with crasis. In other con-
texts, however, the processes can clearly be dis-
tinguished. Aphaeresis maintains the phonetic
independence of words as regards accentuation
(Devine and Stephens 1994:270), but it can also
take away the accent, as when me éthiges ‘would
that you had not touched’ is realized as me
‘thiges and we lose the high tone on é. Aphaer-
esis of initial [e] generally leaves the diphthongs
oi and ai intact as we see in kelétisai ‘kéleuon for
kelétisai ekéleuon ‘| asked [my whore] to ride me’
(Aristoph. Vesp. 501), periöpsomai 'pelthönta ‘Tl
overlook [your] running away’ for peridpsomai
epelthénta (Ran. 509), and emai 'dökei for emoi
edokei ‘it seemed to me’ (Plut. 73).
Correptio epica shortens a long vowel before a
vowel in the following syllable (West 1982:11-12),
as we see in the following, where the long vowel
é counts short for the meter because of the fol-
lowing vowel in aüte:
12; cf, Lejeune 1972:320). The shortening of final
diphthongs is also included in this category,
even though the phonic treatment is different.
When a final short diphthong precedes a vowel,
the second element of the diphthang becomes
a transitional glide that constitutes the onset
of the subsequent syllable: thus moi énnepe ‘tell
me’ is syllabically mo.jen.ne.pe (Hom. Od. 11),
térpetai éndothen ‘enjoyed from within’ is syl-
labically tér.pe.tajén.do.then (Pind. Pyth. 2.74),
and ou seu egöge 'I won't [care] for you’ is syl-
labically owse.wé.gd6.ge (Hom. Hl. 8.482). This
phenomenon explains spellings like pod for poiö
'| make’ or ae/ for aiel ‘always’ that are present
in Attic poetry manuscripts. Correptio epica also
occurs in long diphthongs as we can see in petrei
 PROSODY
épi probléti ‘on a jutting rock’ (Hom. Il. 16.407)
where the syllable in bold must be light for the
meter. Correptio epica is not automatic, how-
ever, but conditioned by metrical concerns. For
this reason we can find divergent treatments in
the same stretch of text, such as
hemeteröi eni oiköi en Argei
our(dat.) in home(dat.) in Argos (dat.)
‘in our home in Argos’ (Hom. IL 1.30)
where the first oi scans long before eni and
the second scans short. The shortening is not
allowed in the first case because it would put a
short vowel in a metrically long position, but is
allowed in the second where it makes the other-
wise long vowel suitable for the metrically light
position. For the same reason, we see that a word
like me ‘lest, not’ scans heavy at the beginning of
a line in me fomen Danaoisi ‘let’s not go to the
Danaans’ (Hom. Il. 12.216) but light in dphra me
dspermos genee ‘that he not become childless’
where the meter demands a light (—~~) (- -).
A high vowel can easily become a glide before
another vowel, as we have seen with the second
halves of diphthongs. When a high vowel (i, u)
is not part of a diphthong and precedes another
vowel, its syllabic position is lost entirely (Thre-
atte 1980:393-395). Thus Firétrian scans as if it
were Eiretrja
3. eto
Khatkida t’ Eiretrjan te
Chalkis(acc.)-both Eretria(acc.}-and
‘Chalkis and Eretria’ (Hom. Il. 2.537)
Similarly, tetrasyllabic Aémiekton ‘half’ and
Eriniön ‘Erinys (gen.)' scan as trisyllabic
hémjékton and Erinwon (Hippon. 21; Eur. IT
970), trisyllabic diaine ‘moistened’ and kardla
‘heart (acc.)' scan as disyllabic djaine and kardja
(Aesch. Pers. 1038; Suppl. 72), and disyllabic duoin
‘two (gen.)' scans as monosyllabic dwoin (Soph.
OT 640). There is then a consonantal pronun-
ciation of é and uw that takes place when the
high vowel is forced into the syllable onset. This
phenomenon is very similar to synizesis and
identical to it when the result is a long syllable;
it can be dated at least to the late 5th c. BCE,
since Plato comicus (fragm, 168) ridicules a cer-
tain Hyperbolos for saying deitömen and olfon
instead of the correct digitomen ‘I treated’ and
oligon ‘little’ (Threatte 1980:393).
173
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. 1962. Sandhi. The Hague.
. 1973. Accent and rhythm. Cambridge.
1987. Vax Graeca. Cambridge.
Battezzato, Luigi. 2000, "Synizesis in Euripides and the struc-
ture of iambic trimeter”, BICS 44:41-70.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1958. Grammaire homerique I. Paris.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 1994. The
prosody of Greek speech. New York — Oxford.
Gentili, Bruno and Liana Lomiento. 2008. Metrics and rhyth-
mics. History ofpoetic forms in Ancient Greece. Pisa - Rome.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1958. Griechische Grammatik, |. Munich.
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syl-
labification. MIT Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA.
Threatte, Leslie. i980. The grammar of Attic inscriptions.
Phonology. Berlin — New York.
West, Martin L. iq82. Greek metre. Oxford.
IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ ALFAGEME
Prothesis
Prothesis is properly the addition of a + vowel
at the beginning of a word, as seen in the Span-
ish loan espray for English spray. For Greek the
term is used more generally for words in which
Greek has a word-initial vowel that most of its
sister languages lack; while some linguists treat
these vowels as added ('prothetic’) in Greek (e.g.,
Wyatt 1972), the general consensus is that they
often come from vocalized laryngeal consonants
in Proto-Indo-European. Greek usually has an
extra initial vowel (usually e) in words that begin
with r- in related languages:
érebos ‘darkness’ rigis (Goth.), rdjas
‘space’ (Skt.)
eref{pein 'to dash' ripa {Lat.), rifa (ONor.)
eréptesthai ‘to snatch’ rapiö (Lat.), rapas (Skt.)
ereügesthai ructö (Lat.), raügti
‘to eructate’ (Lith.), orcam (Arm.)
eruthrös 'red’ ruber (Lat.), rudig
‘ruddy’ (OE), rudkira
‘bloody’ (Skt.)
aregein ‘to aid’ rokian (OSax.)
orégein ‘to reach’ rego ‘I rule’ (Lat.), riht
‘straight’ (OE), rrijdti
(Skt.), rigim ‘stretch
out’ (Olr.)
Words that begin with /- (r- in Sanskit), m-, and
n- in other Indo-European languages often show
the extra vowel in Greek as well:
174 PROTHESIS

ndra, with + compensatory lengthening of the

elakhüs ‘little’ levis ‘light' (Lat.), /éoht
(OE), faghü, raghu (Skt.)
eletitheros 'free' liber (Lat.)
elaphrös ‘light’ lungar (OHG)
ennéa ‘nine’ novem (Lat.), nigon (OE),
nava (Skt.); cf, in& (Arm.)
amelgein ‘to milk‘ mulgeö (Lat.), milzti
(Lith.), melcean (OE)
aner ‘man’ Nero (Lat. p.n.), nara
(Skt.), ner ‘hero’ (Welsh)
omeikhein ‘to piss’ mingö (Lat.), mehati (Skt.)
önoma ‘name’ nomen (Lat.), nama (OE),
naman (Skt.)
onux ‘nail’ nägas (Lith.), naegel
(OE), nakhd (Skt.)
preceding vowel in the compound, and is vocal-
ized in Armenian (ayr, from earlier *aner), Greek
(anér), and Phrygian (anar). Finally, the fact that
prothetic vowels are generally found only before
liquids and nasals can be related to laryngeals
being less sonorous than sonorants: laryngeals
should precede sonorants in the onset of a sylla-
ble (Ara, hla, Ama, hna) but follow obstruents in
that position (pha, tha, kha), explaining why pro-
thetic vowels are so common before sonorants
and so rare before obstruents (> Ablaut (Apo-
phony, Gradation)). There are of course words
that begin with r-, [, m-, and n- in related lan-
guages that do not have the extra vowel in Greek:

These words are thought to have begun with an rhégos ‘rug’ raga (Skt.)
initial laryngeal consonant in PIE, which was rhukdné ‘plane’ runcare (Lat.)
lost in most IE languages but vocalized in Greek lodein ‘to wash’ loganam (Arm.), favare
(Austin 1941, Beekes 1969, Szemerényi 1973). PIE (Lat.)
is thought to have had three laryngeals, A,, ha, leipein ‘to leave' linguö (Lat.), rindkti (Skt.)
and Ag, which regularly vocalized in Greek to e, meter ‘mother’ mater (Lat.), mätr (Skt.)
a, and o, respectively (+ Indo-European Linguis- meli ‘honey’ meir (Arm.), mel (Lat.), milib
tic Background). A laryngeal source for prothetic (Goth.)
vowels explains why it is exactly these vowels néos ‘new’ nor (Arm.), novos (Lat.),
that show up in the words above: elakhüs came nayva (Skt.)
from a root with f,-, amelgein from a root with néphos ‘cloud’ nebula (Lat.), ndbhas (Skt.)
Ha-, önux from a root with Az-, etc. (+ Laryn-
geal Changes). Additional support for a laryngeal Such words make it unlikely that the extra
source for these vowels comes from the fact vowels in Greek are actually prothetic, i.e., that
that Armenian and Phrygian often have them they were added to consonant-initial roots by a
too: compare Greek dnoma ‘name’ to Armenian regular sound change: if initial [o] was added in
anown and Phrygian onoma, or consider the fol- words like önoma and dnux, it should have been
lowing Greek and Armenian correspondences added to words like neos and nephos as weil,
(Clackson 1994:34): The laryngeal account does not suffer from this
drawback: PIE roots began either with a laryn-
geal + consonant sequence (yielding the extra
aster ‘star’ astt (Arm.) vowel in Greek) or they began with a simple
odoüs ‘tooth' atamn (Arm.) consonant (yielding nothing in Greek) - nothing
aner ‘man' ayr (Arm.) more needs to be said.
alöpex ‘fox’ atowes (Arm.} The laryngeal account does not solve all the
öneidos ‘reproach’ anéck ‘curse’ (Arm.) mysteries of these extra vowels, however. First,
ophellein ‘to sweep’ awe! ‘broom’ (Arm.) the extra vowel does not always appear consis-
tently in Greek: certain words sometimes have
Furthermore, prothesis in these three languages the extra vowel in some forms of the word but
often correlates with otherwise unexplained not others (ale/pho 'annoint' but liparös ‘shining
lengthening in Sanskrit. Thus the Skt. + com- with oil’), or have the vowel in some dialects
pound visvd-nara- ‘(pertaining to) all men’ has but not in others (elakhüs ‘little’ in most dialects
an unexpected long vowel at the end of visva-. but /akheia in Homer). Second, the extra vowel
Positing an initial *%, in PIE *h,ner- ‘man’ allows never appears before a palatal glide: why this
for a unified explanation: *A, is lost in Sanskrit sonorant alone should never have had a preced-
 PROTHESIS
ing laryngeal is not clear. Third, there are a few
cases of an extra vowel before an obstruent, e.g.
the stop in odoüs or the fricative in aster:
odeus ‘tooth’ dent- (Lat.), tap (OE), danta (Skt.)
aster'star __ stella (Lat.), steorra (OE)
If laryngeals are more sonorous than stops and
fricatives they should not occur before them
syllable-initially (“h,dont, *haster).
In short, the prothetic vowel is almost as a
rule before r, less common before | m, n, and w
and questionable before y. There are only rare
doublets of roots beginning with r- without a
prothetic vowel, some cases of roots beginning
with 4 m, n, and regular cases of roots beginning
with w that lack a prothetic vowel.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Austin, William M. 1941. “The prothetic vowel in Greek,"
Language 17:83-92.
Beekes, Robert S. P, 1969. The development af Proto-Indo-
European laryngeals in Greek, The Hague.
Clackson, James. 1994. The linguistic relationship between
Armenian and Greek. London.
Lejeune, Michel, 1972. Phonétique historique du mycenien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Szemerenyi, O. 1973. “La theorie des laryngales de Saussure
a Kurylowicz et A Benveniste. Essai de réévaluation”, BSL
6B:1-25 (= Scripta Minora 1987:191-215).
Wyatt, William F., Jr. 1972. The Greek prothetic vowel. Philo-
logical monographs of the American Philological Associa-
tion, 31. Cleveland.
CHRIS GOLSTON
Prothetic Vowel
+ Prothesis
Proto-Greek and Common Greek
1. INTRODUCTION
Proto-Greek and Common Greek are two terms
which refer - with a potentially different(iated)
meaning — to the Greek of the 2nd millennium
BCE, which on the one hand, wasalreadya distinct
Indo-European language and on the other, com-
prised traits that were normally common to the
later attested dialectal varieties of Ancient Greek.
Proto-Greek is the assumed ancestral form of
all the later attested varieties of Ancient Greek,
175
i.e.,-» Mycenaean (ca. ı5th/ı4th-ızth c. BCE) and
the Greek dialects (8th c. BCE onwards), even
though this conventional term does not neces-
surily refer to a fully homogeneous Indo-Euro-
pean language of the (late) Early/Middle Bronze
periods (ca. 2200/2000-1700 BCE, but estimates
vary). In fact, alternative scholarly hypotheses
have gone as far as to discuss the existence of
a continuum of very closely related, but still
distinct post-Proto-Indo-European/Greek-to-be
(sub-)varieties right from the beginning, which
through a process of gradual, yet not necessarily
linear linguistic ‘coalescence’ came to be what is
later known as Greek.
By most standard accounts, Proto-Greek grad-
ually grew out of a post-PIE centum variety, but
had particular linguistic affinities to Indo-Ira-
nian, Armenian and Phrygian, at least (+ Greek
and Indian Languages; + Greek and Iranian;
~ Greek and Armenian; + Greek and Phrygian);
cf. for instance common features like prothetic
vowels derived from laryngeals (+ Laryngeal
Changes), the verbal + augment, the prohibitive
particle (+ Negation; > Particles), etc. The emer-
gence of Proto-Greek happened during a long,
continuous linguistic process which involved
numerous changes in all major linguistic fields
(> phonology, morphclogy, + syntax, lexicon),
as a migrating population of (soan-to-become)
Greek speakers were en route to/on the outskirts
of Greece, i.e., somewhere to the north(-west) of
the Greek peninsula proper. But Proto-Greek was
practically formed after the arrival of its speak-
ers in Greece and their merger with pre-Greek
populations (> Pre-Greek Languages; + Pre-
Greek Substrate), as is indicated, inter alia, by
the high number of loanwords (e.g. sükon ‘fig')
and suffixes (e.g. -nthos, -s(s)os/-tos) which were
borrowed into Proto-Greek (see (6), (7) below).
Modern scholarship has downplayed earlier
theories (originally by Paul Kretschmer), which
partly relied on ancient Greek sources, arguing
that Proto-Greek had quickly been fragmented
into the clearly distinct — dialects of the his-
torical period even before its speakers started
entering Greece in consecutive migration waves
(eg. lonians (+ lonic), Achaeans (> Arcado-
Cypriot), Dorians (+ Doric)), roughly every
three-four centuries during the second millen-
nium BCE (Middle-Late Bronze periods); the
so-called Doric ‘invasion’ (ca 1200 BCE or slightly
later) is probably the most plausible event
among those southward dialect group move-
176 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON
ments, although the term does not necessarily
entail an intrusion from outside Greece proper
(+ Indo-European Historical Background). By
contrast, it seems much more plausible - note
eg. the high number of common innovations
and shared pre-Greek lexical loans among
the later Greek dialects - that it was primar-
ily later intralinguistic developments that led
to clear dialectal differentiation within Greece
(structural pressures, sociolinguistic tendencies,
geographical parameter, possible adstrate/sub-
strate influences, (later) interdialectal diffusion,
etc). As the Mycenaean evidence indicates (e.g.
3 Sg. pres.: Myc. -si vs. Proto-Gk. *-ti), dialectal
fragmentation had begun before the Mycenaean
period, although it is hard to tell how many
dialects existed at the time (two or three per-
haps) and which was precisely the position of
Mycenaean within Greek - note also some later
‘aberrant’ varieties like + Macedonian.
On the other hand, the term Common Greek,
which is not used in a uniform manner in mod-
em scholarship, also refers to a (partially) com-
mon Greek linguistic background of the and
millennium BCE. In older accounts, the Ger-
man terms Urgriechisch (: Proto-Greek) and
Gemeingriechisch (: Common Greek) were basi-
cally thought to refer to two different stages of
early Greek:
(a) Urgriechisch was linked to the develop-
ments which distinguished the emerging
unitary Greek from Proto-Indo-European,
but before its eventual splitting into dialec-
tal varieties (e.g. change/loss of laryngeals,
devoicing of aspirated plosives, *s > A, etc.);
Gemeingriechisch was associated with com-
mon developments across the early Greek
varieties (‘dialects’) after the fragmentation
of Urgriechisch; Mycenaean evidence has
occasionally complicated this puzzle - note
here attempts to discern different chrono-
logical stages even within Mycenaean itself
(e.g. Lejeune 1976; + Variation in Myce-
naean Greek) — since some changes which
seem to be pan-dialectal — e.g. elimination
of the + labiovelars, loss of /y/ even Inter-
vocalically (through an /h/ stage), and to a
lesser extent of /w/ (except for the > diph-
thongs) and > Grassmann’s law (probably,
but see also (3) about its chronology) -
must have occurred during the post-
Mycenaean ‘Dark Ages’ (1:2th-8th c. BCE)
GREEK
when the dialects of the alphabetic period
were being shaped. In that case, it is not
clear whether these common features are
due to e.g. parallel innovations, cross-dia-
lectal diffusion or predisposition (‘drift’) or
even some other reason (substrate influ-
ences, etc.).
But should this (originally German) theory of
Urgriechisch vs. Gemeingriechisch be true, then
we ought to allow two consecutive stages along
this temporal line: (PIE) > Proto-Greek > (frag-
mentation of Proto-Greek) > Common Greek
(: common dialectal developments). The fact
however remains that it is difficult to define
with absolute certainty this two-stage tempo-
ral distinction, as for example the chronological
uncertainty of Grassmann’s law shows. Hence,
in the relevant modern literature the term Com-
mon Greek is often used more vaguely, namely
in the sense of Proto-Greek and Common Greek
together and without any strict reference to
some specific 2nd millennium BCE stage(s);
note also some alternative generic terms like
pre-dialectal Greek, etc. (cf. e.g. Lejeune 1972113;
for some methodological issues see Morpurgo
Davies 2012).
In what follows, there is going to be a detailed
discussion of the common linguistic traits of the
Greek of the 2nd millennium BCE. Given the
caveats about Common Greek (post-Mycenaean
times) referred to right above, there will be lim-
ited explicit use of the term in comparison to
the term Proto-Greek (pre-Mycenaean times),
which can be used with relatively more (ter-
minological) certainty (Chadwick 1975:812-819;
Dunkel 1981; Morpurgo Davies 1986, 1992; Drews
1988:25-45, 158-201; Hooker 1999; Hall 2002:
30-55; Garrett 1999, 2006; Finkelberg 2005:42-
64, 109-139; Adrados 2005:3-41; Giannopoulos
2012).
2. RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-GREEK
One major problem with the Proto-Greek
hypothesis is that the list of the assumed
Proto-Greek innovations, which differentiate it
from PIE, is rather small (see the evidence in
(3)-(7)). One may point to the later and more
robustly reconstructed list of the shared post-
Mycenaean innovations (cf. the Linear B evi-
dence) which are also attested in the Greek
dialects of the historical period (parallel devel-
 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON GREEK
opments, substrate influence, cross-dialectal
diffusion?): e.g. change of the labiovelars into
other classes of plosives (+ Consonants; > Con-
sonant Changes), loss of intervacalic /h/ (<*-s- or
-y-) and prevocalic /y/ (note eg. /py/> /pt/ in
(pre-)Mycenaean times already), change -m >
-n in morpheme-final positions too, and not only
in word-final position (e.g. Myc. masc.-neut. dat.
sg. /hemei/ > Gk. /heni/ ‘one’}, vowel > contrac-
tions, (new) instances of + compensatory length-
ening(> Phonological Change), quasi-completed
+case syncretism and loss (through merger)
of three Indo-European ‘spatial’ cases, emer-
gence of the definite article (originally a demon-
strative — pronoun) (-~ Definiteness/Definite
Article), etc. (cf. Lejeune 1972:21-23, 367-370).
The basic features of Proto-Greek can be traced
back through a number of well-established lin-
guistic techniques, including > internal recon-
struction and the + comparative method, even
though one cannot overlook the usual caveats
of linguistic diffusion, parallel innovations,
preserved archaisms, language choice, contact-
induced changes, and the role of accidentally
meager and/or later attestations (cf. Morpurgo
Davies 1986, 1992; Hajnal 2003, 2006; Garrett
2006; Garcia Ramön 2010).
By and large, the reconstruction of Proto-
Greek primarily relies on the following:
i. internal reconstruction on the basis of later,
attested forms of Greek, particularly (a)
Mycenaean (but note the difficulties arising
from the deficiencies of + Linear B script),
even though some later pandialectal features
are absent from Mycenaean, e.g. the suffix
-wot- (cross-dialectal spread?); (b) Homeric
Greek (but cf. the challenges posed by Hom-
er's Kunstsprache) (> Epic Diction); (c) the
Greek dialects of the archaic and classical
periods (dialectal comparison) [NB: *b*, “p*
(phonemes) vs. 6A, ph (transliterated let-
ters}; more precise phonological transcrip-
tion (traditional/non-IPA) between / / (in
Roman letters)]: e.g. pandialectal 1 sg. pres.
act. phéro ‘I bear’, 2 pl. pres. act. pherete ‘you
bear’ < Proto-Gk. *p*erd, p*erete; 3 pl. pres.
Dor. phéronti, Arc. phéronsi, Lesbian pheéroisi,
Att.-Ion. pherousi, Myc, -(C)o-si (/-(C)onsi/
(?}) < Proto-Gk. *p*eronti ‘they bear (recon-
struction through dialect comparison; simi-
larly for e.g. thematic acc. pl.: -ons, -as, -ds,
-ous, -ois, -oir < *-ons); but note here 1 pl.
177
act. pres. + Northwest Greek pheromes vs.
+ Southeast Greek phéromen < Proto-Gk.
*pterames/(-n) (7) (< PIE *b4eromes), which
is more difficult to analyze in the context of
Proto-Greek; are they different choices made
or just cross-dialectal spreading innovations
(across a dialectal continuum) after all?
ii. the comparative method, which essentially
takes stock of the evidence from other
Indo-European languages and particularly
Sanskrit, Latin (+ Greek and Latin), Hittite
(+ Greek and Anatolian Languages) and
Armenian (e.g. Proto-Gk. prohib. part. *mé—
Ind.-Iran. ma, Arm. mi < PIE *meh, ‘not’;
Proto-Gk. *p''eronti - Ved. bhäranti, Lat. fer-
unt < PIE *b*eronti ‘they bear, carry’);
iii. the linguistic filtering of numerous non-
Greek elements, which appear from a very
early stage, be it from peoples which Greeks
met en route to Greece (Balkan peninsula?)
or found in Greece upon their arrival around
the beginning of the second millennium
BCE; note also a number of peaples who
came into contact with the Greeks through
trade and seafaring in the Aegean and
beyond (Anatolia, Black Sea, Mediterranean
Sea, particularly the Levant) since the early
Mycenaean period at least (see (6)) (Chad-
wick 1969, 1975: 817-818; Forssman 2004;
Beekes 2010:xiji—xlviii).
In what follows, Proto-Greek is going to be
sketched out through its safest reconstructible
features in every majorlinguistic field (phonology,
morphology, syntax, lexicon). For more details
about the Indo-European background, the reader
may consult the entry + Indo-European Linguis-
tic Background.
3. PHONOLOGY
Greek retained fundamental features of PIE
phonology, and that must hold even more true
for the Proto-Greek stage, as dialect compari-
sons and Mycenaean, which often functions as a
terminus ante quem, indicate. Some of the most
fundamental traits of the Proto-Greek segmental
inventory were in all likelihood the following
[NB: /y/ or /i/ = IPA [j], except for the transcribed
Mycenaean words where the conventional <j>
sign is retained]:
178 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON
five inherited Indo-European short vowels
(a, e, i, 0, u) plus the corresponding five long
the Indo-European plosive classes were
maintained too, but palatals and velars
merged (phonologically): labials (p, b, b*),
dentals (t, d, dh), (palato-)velars (k, g, gP)
and even labiovelars (k*, g”, g*") as evi-
denced by the Mycenaean texts: e.g. Myc.
part. -ge /k*e/ ‘and’ (vs. Gk. te), except
when found next to /u/ (> dissimilation),
e.g. Myc. 3 sg. pres. e-u-ke-to feuk"etoi/ ‘he
announces (in Myc.)' (< *h,eug”*-);
iii. Indo-European voiced aspirates became
voiceless aspirates before the Mycenaean
period (devoicing; but note + Macedonian:
PIE /*b"/ > Mac. /b/ (> /v/ ?)): *bb, *db,
*gh, *gwh > “ph "ch, *kh, *kwh: e.g, Myc. (n.)
e-re-u-te-ro ‘free’, Gk. eleütheros, Lat. liber
(< PIE *h,deud*-)). Unfortunately Linear B
has special symbols only for syllables con-
taining a voiceless plosive (plus signs for
syllables with a voiced dental), but not for
syllables which include an aspirated den-
tal or voiced/aspirated labials, velars and
labiovelars;
nv, probable early loss of PIE word-final conso-
nants (e.g. inter.-indef. neut. pronoun “kid
‘which; something’ > Gk. ti, ef. Lat. quid,
Skt. cid) although the Mycenaean texts are
inconclusive in that respect, since final
consonants are not spelled in Linear B; in
alphabetic Greek, the only possible non-
vocalic final sounds were normally -r, -s
(including clusters like -ks and -ps) and -n
(< PIE *-n, *-m), e.g. 1 sg. pret. act. *ebter-om
> Gk. épher-on ' carried’ (but 3 pl. epher-on
<“*eber-ont), Some final plosives in certain
proclitics (+ Clitics) were not really at the
end of the word originally; thus -k in e.g.
prep. ek and neg. part. ouk are due to special
phonological developments;
PIE resonants “{ *, "m, *n, probably sur-
vived into Proto-Greek given their different
coloring (/a/-/o/) in Mycenaean and the
various Greek dialects; but syllabic ‘y7 and
*y may have developed into /a/ already, at
least in certain instances like the negative
particle a(n)- (e.g. Myc. a-no-we /anou(w)es/
‘without handles’); but also *septri ‘seven’
> Gk. heptä (cf. Lat. septem, Skt sapta);
note also some instances in -o (esp. after a
GREEK
labial), as indicated by later evidence: e.g.
Myc. pe-mo (vs. Gk. spérma) ‘seed’, Arc.
deko (vs. Att. déka) ‘ten’ or hekotön (vs. Att
hekatön) ‘hundred’, Lesb. strötos (vs. Att.
stratös) ‘army’ (in alphabetic Greek, “r, *|
> ar/ra, al/la (or with o-vocalism); *m, *y
> a (or o) — or am, an when followed by a
(semi-)vowel);
PIE + semivowels *y (or *) and *w (or *y)
were maintained too in Proto-Greek, but
only /w/ must have survived as an indepen-
dent phoneme (ie., outside diphthongs)
into Common Greek since it is attested
in some later dialects like + Arcadian,
+Elean, +Pamphylian: /w/ (alphabetic
digamma [less than] F >) in all positions
(e.g. Myc. we-to /wetos/ ‘year’), while ini-
tial /y/ eventually developed either into
an aspirate sound /h-/ (cf. Myc. rel. part. or
adv. o-/ ja- (/ho(s), höfs)/, /yo(s), ya(s)/):
Gk, Ads ‘who (relative)’ vs, Skt. yah) or into
/dz/, /t®/ - note here that /zd/ in alphabetic
Greek is due to + metathesis (e.g. Myc. dat.
pl. ze-u-ke-si /dzeuges(s)i/ ‘pair’: Gk. zeug-
< PIE *yeug-); intervocalic *y may have
partly remained in place until the Myce-
naean period, but was ultimately lost
through an /h/ stage (e.g. Myc. masc. gen.
sg. -Ca-jo /-C-ohya(?)/);
i, postconsonantal /y/ (in clusters like /py/, /
ty/, /ky/, /dy/, /gy/) triggered early conso-
nantal palatalizations, which were normally
followed by further changes (e.g. Myc. adj.
me-zo /medzos/ ‘bigger’ (< *meg-yos(-s)):
Gk. mezön/meizön; Myc. pron. to-so (< *tot-
yos) ‘so much’: Gk. tös(s)os);
viij. PIE vocalized laryngeals *h,, *hz, *hg (or
“An “ha "ha | "ay, “aq, *33) > Proto-Gk. short
*e, *a, *o respectively between consonants
or before a consonant at the beginning of
a word; in other Indo-European languages
they often develop into a single vowel, e.g. a
(Latin) or i (Vedic), or are lost respectively:
eg. thetds ‘set, placed’ (< *d*h,tös), statds
‘stood’ (< “sth,tds), dotds (< "dhztös) ‘given’.
Note also the regular change ofan initial pre-
consonantal laryngeal *h, into e- in Greek
(cf. also Armenian), e.g. Myc. fem. adj. e-ru-
ta-ra /erut®ra/ ‘red': Gk. eruthrds, Lat. ruber,
Skt. rudhirah (< *h,reud'-), Before a vowel,
especially a PIE *e, they normally brought
about a similar vowel coloring, while after
 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON GREEK
a vowel they often enforced vocalic length-
ening too (e.g. PIE *di-deh;-mi > di-dö-mi 1
give').;
ix. PIE *s > A (voiceless sibilant > voiceless
glottal fricative, i.e., > aspiration) both inter-
vocalically and initially (prevocalically), but
probably in some preconsonantal contexts
too; the former change may have happened
first (e.g. masc.-neut. dat. sg. Myc. e-me
[hemei/ — Gk. heni ‘to/by one’ — cf. also Gk.
süs/hüs, but Lat. sus ‘pig, swine’; Myc. infin.
e-ke {(h)ek®ehen/ ‘to have’), Note, though,
the frequent preservation or restoration of
secondary intervocalic /s/ through + anal-
ogy, reanalysis, secondary sound changes
(+ Phonetic Law), borrowing, etc.: e.g. Myc.
dat. pl. ze-u-ke-si /dzeuges(s)i/ ‘pair’; Attic
neut. dat. pl. génesi ‘for/to the races, kins’
(< *genessi), fem. adj. pdsa ‘every’ (< *pant-ya
< *"pehzntihz), aor. 3 sg. éluse ‘(s)he unfas-
tened, released’ (with intervocalic /s/ after
the example of e.g. aor. 3 sg. épraxe ‘(s)
he did’ (postconsonantal /s/)), non-IE loan
sélinon ‘celery’ (Myc. se-ri-no), etc.
Finally, note that there are several other phe-
nomena which appear in Mycenaean, but are
difficult to assign to Proto-Greek since they may
either have a dialectal character and/or their
+ relative chronology indicates a later date, e.g.
ti > si (Chadwick 1975:807-809; Lindeman 1982;
Lejeune 1972; Rix 1992:11-97; Sihler 1995:35-233;
Forssman 2004; Clackson 2007b:186-188; Rau
2010:174-178; Morpurgo Davies 2012).
Proto-Greek phonology was also affected by a
number of phonological laws which were often of
Indo-European origin and applied to other Indo-
European languages too. Sometimes, though, it is
hard to detect them in other cognate languages
(e.g, Grassmann’s law is safely attested only in
Greek and Sanskrit), in which case we may think
of parallel developments and/or even some kind
of late Indo-European ‘areal diffusion’ factors(?),
however difficult a hypothesis. Among the most
well-known ones are: + Osthoff's Law (vowel
shortening when it is followed by a resonant and
a consonant), which is probably pre-Mycenaean
(cf. dialectal 3 pl. aor. égnon ‘they learned’ <
*egnönt (?), i.e., the law may have been in effect
before the pre-Mycenaean (?) loss of final -¢);
+ Cowgill's Law (change /o/ > /u/ between a res-
onant and a labial /labiovelar, e.g. *nok*t-s > Gk.
179
nix ‘night'); Grassmann's law (e.g. *t#ak’-tis >
takh-us ‘fast, quick’), which is probably, though
not certainly, post-Mycenaean; etc.
Proto-Greek retained its Indo-European
+ pitch accent (> Accentuation), but in the
course ofits history introduced a number of rules,
which often had the character of constraint(s)
on accent placement rather than the role of laws
that dictated the precise position of the accent.
The most well-known law of Greek accentuation
(of Proto-Greek, or alternatively Common Greek
date) is the + law of limitation (or ‘trisyllabicity
jaw’), which confines the accent to one of the
last three > syllables of the phonological word
(or up to the fourth + mora), e.g. mediopass.
pres. ptc, pherömenos ‘being brought’ (vs. Skt.
bhdramanas), Further morpho(phono)logical
factors (for instance, vowel > length in the final
syllable) would often determine which syllable
would be accented, e.g. mediopass. pres. ptc.
nom, sg, pherömenos, but gen. pl. pheromenön).
Alongside this law, one may also add, espe-
cially for Proto-Greek, the so-called + Wheeler's
Law (or ‘dactylic retraction’) whereby oxytone
words became paroxytone when they ended in a
H(eavy)- L(ight)-L(ight) syllable sequence (— Syl-
lable Weight), e.g. *poikilös > poikilos ‘multi-
colored’. Finally, note that some Proto-Greek
suffixes, Indo-European and non-Indo-European
alike, must normally have had a lexically stressed
accent (e.g. -ikös, -ssds), although the applica-
tion of several posterior accentuation rules (e.g.
+ Vendryes' Law, + Bartoli’s Law) as well as the
appearance of the ‘columnar’ accent in some
paradigms (e.g. 1 sg. pres. eimi ‘I go’, 1 pl. imen
‘we go’ (< “imén < PIE *imes; cf. Vedic Skt. emi
~ imäs) often obfuscates the picture (Collinge
1985; Lejeune 1972:293-300; Rix 1992:13-14; Sihler
1995:233-239; Probert 2006).
4. MORPHOLOGY
The nominal inflection and the verbal conju-
gation of Proto-Greek preserved most of their
fundamental Indo-European features: cases,
numbers, genders for nouns (cf. also adjectives
and pronouns); persons, numbers, tenses, moods
for verbs. In addition, + derivational morpholagy
(and + word formation) were characterized by
an amalgam of presérved IE patterns and Greek
novelties, especially as regards suffixation.
180 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON
The most distinctive IE morphophonological
feature, though, of both the nominal inflection
and the verbal conjugation was the presence of
accent-dependent root + ablaut, traces of which
have been preserved in the Greek of the alpha-
betic period: accented vowel > full grade vs.
unaccented vowel > zero grade: eg. (w)oid-a
I know’ vs. (w)id/(w)is-men(/-s) (< *wid-mes)
‘we know’; nom. sg. Zeüs vs. gen. sg. Di(w)ds,
pater-a (acc. sg.) vs. patr-ds (gen. sg.) ‘tather’;
note also laryngeal-related ablaut for several -mi
verbs, e.g. 1 sg. di-dö-mi (< *dehz-, full-grade) 'I
give' vs. ı pl. dé-do-men ‘we give’ (< *dhg-, zero-
grade; cf. also the verbal adjective do-tös ‘given’).
There was also an e-/o-grade distinction: e.g. ı
sg. indic. pres. leip-ö vs. pf. le-loip-a (but zero-
grade in aor. é-lip-on) ‘to leave, abandon’; but
also between many thematic verbs and related
deverbative nouns (e.g. 1 sg. pres. /ég-d ‘I (am)
say(ing)' vs. nom. sg. lög-os ‘speech’) as well as
between certain basic and derivative forms, e.g.
noun pater-a (acc. sg.) ‘father’ vs. adj. apdtor-a
(acc, sg.) ‘without/of unknown father (see (4.a.),
(4.d.)). However, as the contrast between the
reconstructed PIE vs. the later attested Myce-
naean/Homeric forms indicates, the impact of
accent mobility/ablaut was progressively being
sidelined within the Proto-Greek paradigms,
although it did retain its effect upon e.g. vocalic
timbre/quantity, particularly in derivation (Chan-
traine 1961-15; Rix 1992:32-39; Meier-Brügger
1992 II:106-107: Sihler 1995:108-135).
4.a. Nouns-adjectives
The Proto-Greek + nominal system descended
from late Indo-European; however, there is a
clear sense of transition with new paradigms
emerging/ proliferating (e.g. the new -éu- nouns
of the type dasileus ‘king’), and old ones gradu-
ally going into oblivion. Proto-Greek obviously
comprised the major inflectional categories of
the alphabetic period, which are by and large
attested in the Mycenaean texts too: athematic
(but not precisely the same as in alphabetic
Greek), thematic (o-stem; + Thematic Vowel,
Stem Formation), and a-stem nouns, which grad-
ually developed into a separate major declen-
sion, although this was in fact made up of two
paradigms: (i) -& (< *-eh,) and (ii) ablauting stem
-iti/-id (< *-thy/-yeh,), e.g. khörä (gen. -as) land’
vs. sphaird (< *sp*arid) (gen. -äs) ‘sphere, globe’
(cf. also e.g. eleuther-iä (gen. -las) ‘freedom’);
note that the a-stem masculines were morpho-
GREEK
logically undifferentiated at the beginning and
the masc. nom. sg, -Gs must have acquired its -s
marker at a somewhat later stage, probably ana-
logically to the thematic nom. sg. -os.
Proto-Greek had also retained all three
+genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) and
+numbers (singular, + plural, + dual) of the
Indo-European nominal inflection. Nonetheless,
it is uncertain whether all eight Indo-European
cases were in full use throughout the Proto-Greek
period since the Mycenaean evidence is rather
inconclusive in that respect. It seems more likely
that alongside the five standard cases of Classi-
cal Greek (> nominative, + genitive, + dative,
> accusative, — vocative) one should accept the
morphosyntactically independent use of the
+ instrumental, especially in the plural (/-pfi/,
but /-dis/ for the o-stem nouns: vowel length
depending on the date of Osthoff's law). As far
as the two other cases are concerned, i.e., abla-
tive and locative, their status is less certain since
in the Mycenaean texts they appear already in
a process of merging with the genitive and the
dative respectively (but note that in the plural
the ablative must have functionally merged with
the dative, while the instrumental too merged
with the dative-locative in the post-Mycenaean
period), e.g. dat.-loc. pl. -si (but IE loc. pl. *-su),
and ath. gen.-abl. in -as - them. abl. in -6 (< IE
abl. *-dd?). In general terms, + case syncretism
seems to have proceeded faster in the plural.
Nate also the occasional use of nominatives next
to/in place of vocatives in syntax (5) as well as a
few possible cases of vocativus pro nominativo,
especially in Homer (e.g. hippötä ‘horseman’)
(Rix 19921111-114; Sihler 1995:243-248; Bartonék
2003:151ff.; Rau 2010:178).
Some pandialectal features of the Greek nom-
inal inflection, which distinguish it from Indo-
European, arose during the Proto-Greek period:
(i) nom. pl. -aé and -of endings for the a- and the
o-stem nouns in place of the original *-ds (< *-a-es)
and *-ds (< *-a-es) respectively through bor-
rowing from the pronominal! paradigm; (ii) gen.
sg. -@o (< *-ähyo (or "-äyyo?) < PIE *-dsyo) for
the a-stem masculine nouns (e.g. Myc. -a;jo;
cf. Hom. -do; Att. -ou was borrowed from the
o-stem inflection); (iii) dat-loc. pl. -si (athematic
stems) from IE loc. -su (cf. Vedic -su), probably
in analogy to loc. sg. -i (e.g. dat.(-loc.) pl. bous/
‘to/for cows, bovines'); (iv) gen.-dat. du. -of(i)n
(cf. Arc. -oiun), which seems to be exclusive to
Greek.
 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON GREEK 181

In the table below there is an attempt to recon-
struct the case endings of the Proto-Greek nouns
(NB: the thematic vowel -o- in the -o-stems is not
separated here from the genuine grammatical
ending).
Dual: athematic: nom, — acc. - voc. -e
(<"h,(/e)); gen. - dat. - instr.: -of(i)n; -a-stem:
nom. - acc. - voc.: -ae > -d / {-0); gen. — dat. -
instr.: (-ai(Ün); thematic (-o-stem): nom. — acc. -
voc.: -6 (<*oh,(/e)); gen. — dat. — instr.: (-oifün).
The athematic declension was a conglom-
eration of various inflectional paradigms: e.g.
root-nouns (pür ‘fire’), stems in -i- and -u- (polis
‘city’, drüs ‘oak’), diphthongal stems (Zeüs ‘Zeus’,
graüs ‘old woman’, botis ‘cow, ox'), and several
consonant-stem formations (with suffixes) like
r/n-stems (which became r/-at-sterns, e.g. hüdör,
gen. Atidatos ‘water’), r-stems (pater, gen. patrés
father‘), n-stems (poimen, gen. poimenos ‘shep-
herd’), s-stems (ddsos, gen. ddse(h)os ‘forest'),
etc. (cf. (6) too).
A major characteristic of the Indo-European ath-
ematic declension consisted in the ablauting
patterns of its forms due to accent movement
in the morphemic sequence root-suffix-ending
(> Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation)): (i) acrostatic
(or acrodynamic) nouns: accented root vs. zero-
grade insuffix & ending, e.g. döru, gen. dourds (but
cf. PIE *dér-u-s) ‘wood; spear’; (ii) proterokinetic
(or proterodynamic) nouns: accented e-grade
root (strong cases) vs. accented e-grade suffix
(weak cases), e.g. hédiis, gen. -éos ‘sweet’; (iii) Ays-
terokinetic (or hysterodynamic) nouns: accented
e-grade suffix (strong cases) vs. accented ending
(weak cases), e.g. pater (< *ph,ters), gen. patrös
‘father’; (iv) amphikinetic (or amphidynamic)
nouns: accented e-grade root & o-grade suffix
(strong cases) vs. accented endings (weak cases),
eg. hekön, gen. heköntos ‘readily, willing’; cf.
also the mesostatic (or mesodynamic) type with
the accent on the suffix. We can often detect
this old ablaut feature through certain phono-
logical differences between case forms in later
alphabetic Greek (cf. also the comparative evi-
dence), even though this old accentuation pat-
tern had disappeared at an early stage in Greek,
especially as regards ablaut in the root and the
ending; hence, with the exception of some Indo-
European relics, Greek was synchronically
marked (on the surface) by a plain nominal suf-
fix ablaut (e.g. nom. sg. poimen — gen. sg. poime-
nos 'shepherd').
Finally, the Proto-Greek nouns must have
been characterized by some other features like
change of gender (cf. e.g. masc. sg. Aiik/os vs. neut.
pl. kükla ‘circle, wheel’), and heteroclisy (+ Het-
eroclitics), i.e., stem alternation, e.g. Audor, gen.
hüdatos ‘water’ < *uöd-r/*u(e)d-n- - the original
-r/-n- stem nouns were ultimately reshaped into
-r/-at- stem nouns; the oblique -at- stem gradu-
ally proliferated across the athematic Greek neu-
ters (cf. Petersson 1921; Rix 1992:115-160, esp. 119,
122-126; Sihler 1995:248-341; Rau 2010:178-183).

Table 1: Case endings of Proto-Greek nouns

Athematic stem -a-stems -o-stems
Case sg. pl. sg. pl. Sg. pl.
(-gender)

nom. masc.[ -s/-@ -es masc. -ä(s) / fem. -ai (<-as) -08 -Di (<-6s)
fem -ü &- id (-yd)
acc.mase./ -äf-n -ns/-as masc.-fem. -dn & -ans -on -OnS
fem. (<*m) (<*ms) fem.-iän (-ydn)
voc.masc./ -s/-O -€5 masc.-fem. -d & -ai(<*äs) -e -oi (< *-68)
fem. fem. -id (-yd)
nom-acc.- -@ “i ~ - -on -d (>-d)
voc. neut.
gen. “0S -on masc.-fem. -as (& -a(hjon -ohyo(?) -ön
masc. -Ghyo(?)) — (< *-eh2-(s)-dm?) (<*-oHom)
abl. -08 (?) (cf. gen.) (?) -ö (?) (?)
dat. -eif{-i)(?) (cf. loc.) “ai (cf. loc.) -Öf (cf. loc.)
instr. -&(?) -p*i(s) -G/-ap"i (?) -ap'i(s) -6 (?) -ois
loc. -i (9) -Si ai(?) -ahi -oi (7) -eihi(?)
182 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON
4.a.i. Adjectives
~ Adjectives did not differ significantly from
nouns: thematic (e.g. hägios ‘holy’) and athematic
(e.g. n-stems like melas ‘black’, vocalic stems in -i
and -u like hédiis ‘sweet’; but note also forms like
mégas < *megh,- ‘great’, with an oblique stem
megal-, which is somewhat obscure but found
in a similar -/-form in Germanic too). However,
they were morphosyntactically characterized
by gender > agreement. Regular adjectival suf-
fixes included -went- ‘endowed with [X]' (e.g.
Myc. n. adj. wo-do-we /wordo-wen(t)/ ‘perfumed
with roses’, cf. Gk. n. rhodden < "rhodöwent,
masc. rhoddeis < *rhodöwents); -eyo- ‘made of
[X] (eg. Myc. wi-ri-ne-(j}o /wrine(y)o/ ‘made
of leather’, cf. Attic adjectives of the khrusoüs
type < khrüse( y)os); -i(y)o-s (<*-io-s), which was
often used for + patronymics, but also for many
other meanings (note also here the dialectal
Gk. -eios and -éios variants through resegmenta-
tion); and probably another /-eyo-/ suffix with a
possessive meaning (+ Possession), but without
any -2-0 or -i-yo- variants in Mycenaean as is the
case with the identical suffix -eyo- right above;
however, the origins of this suffix are unclear.
Note also the so-called ‘Caland’ adjectives (4.e.;
+ Caland System and Greek).
Proto-Greek adjectives probably formed com-
paratives in “-yo-s-/-is- (but note also a n-stem
variant *-is-on-, which proliferated in later
alphabetic Greek) since the -teros suffix must
have retained its original contrastive value in
the light of some Homeric evidence: e.g. Myc.
me-zo-e /medzohes/ ‘bigger (m./f. nom. pl.}'
< *meg-yos-es, cf. later Gk. me({)zous (con-
tracted). The superlative was formed with the
suffix -tato- which is exclusively Greek and dif-
ferent e.g. to Indo-Iranian -tama- (< *-tmmo-),
although the two JE branches are otherwise
close on this issue. The inherited superlative
suffix -ist(h,)o- is continued in forms like Gk.
mégistos. Note also some ~suppletive forms
like agathös (- ameinön — Gristos) ‘good’ (Chad:
wick 1975; Rix 1992:160-173; Sihler 1995:356-368;
Forssman 2004; Bartonék 2003:210-224; Clack-
son 2007b:18g; Rau 2010182-183).
4.b, Pronouns
The Greek pronominal paradigms (personal,
demonstrative, interrogative-indefinite, relative
pronouns; + Pronominal System) were inher-
ited from Indo-European (e.g. rel. pron. *(H)yos,
*(H)yeh,,*(H)yod),indef.-inter. pron. *k™is, *k*id).
GREEK
Some preserved archaic features notwithstand-
ing (e.g. heteroclisy as in egö 'T’ vs. oblique stem
(e)m-), they partially differentiated from PIE in
terms of both stem-formation and endings. For
instance, the Proto-Greek personal pronouns
were characterized by the presence of an -m- ele-
ment in the stem of the plural forms of the first
and second persons (e.g. 1 pl. ham-!hem- < *ahm-
< *ns-m-; 2 pl. hüm- ‘you’ < *uhm- < “us-m-);
also notable is the unique stem sp*ü-/sp*e- (Myc.
pe-i {sp"ei/) in the plural of the third person.
On the other hand, the demonstrative pronouns
were the most innovating class: for instance, the
novel forms hoütos (- haute - toüto) (cf. Myc.
neut. sg. to-to) ‘this’ and (e)keinos (- (e)keine -
(e)keinon) 'that'; the old demonstratives ho, ha,
td (< “so, *sehz, *tod) gradually developed into
definite articles, probably in post-Mycenaean
times (still found as demonstratives in Homer).
Moreover, note the intensive pronoun autdés
(—auté—autd) ‘self, same’ (cf. Myc. gen. sg. au-to-jo
/autoio/) and the oblique stem tin- (from acc.
sg. tin-a < *k*im) of the interrogative-indefinite
pronoun(s), which should also be listed among
the Greek novelties (Rix 1992:174-189; Katz 1998:
Clackson 2007b: 189-190; Fortson 2010140-145;
Rau 2010183; + Pronouns).
4.c. Numerals
Greek + numerals, particularly the basic num-
bers ‘one’- ‘ten’, were derived directly from Indo-
European and belonged to the core vocabulary
of Proto-Greek. Nonetheless, the form of many
numbers continued evolving from Proto-Greek
down to Homeric and Classical Greek through
a series of primarily phonological changes (e.g.
compensatory lengthening, -m > -n, s- > h-, lass
of the labiovelars, etc.). In alphabetic Greek,
only the first four numbers have different inflec-
tional forms, and among them only ‘one’ has a
full inflectional paradigm: e.g. ‘one’: masc.-neut.
*hen- < *hem- < *sem- (cf. Lat. adv. sem-el ‘once’,
Myc. e-me /hemei/ (dat.), Att.-Ion. masc. Aeis,
neut. hen) - fem. m(h)ia (< *sm-ih,); ‘two’: *dıiwö
(cf. Myc. du-wo /duwö/, Hom. dio, Att.-Ion.
(and Hom.) dio); ‘three’: nom.(pl.) m./f. *tréyes
(> trées), acc. *trins, nom./acc.(pl.) n. *tria (cf.
Myc. acc. ti-ri /trins/, Att-Ion. treis, n. tria;
Cret. trees, etc.); ‘four’: nom. *k*étwores/-eres,
*kw,twres (cf. Myc. ge-to-ro-we /k*etrowes/ ‘four-
eared’; Att. téttares; lon. tésseres; Lesb. pisures;
Dor. tetores); ‘five’: *penk*e (cf. Att.-Ion. pénte;
Aeol. pempe); ‘six': hex < *sex; ‘seven’: heptä
 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON
< *septd < *septris ‘eight’: oktö; ‘nine’: ennéa
(< *hyn(e)un, via *en(e)newa (?), cf. prothetic e-
in Greek; + Prothesis); ‘ten’: déka < *dekm; ‘one
hundred’: hekatén < *(d)ky-tém (or he- (< sm-)
in analogy to ‘one’(?); for -km- note dekm ‘ten’);
etc. (Waanders 1991; Forssman 2004).
4.d. Verbs
There are many moot points about the Proto-
Greek verbal morphology, but by and large, it
seerns that Greek maintained many PIE features,
while a number of innovations arose too. As
Homeric Greek indicates, the Proto-Greek verbal
system was rich in athematic -mi forms while
thematic forms (barytonic in -C-6, e.g. leg-6 ‘Tsay’
or (un)contracted in -V-6, e.g. tim-d-6 ‘I honor’)
were obviously fewer than in (later) alphabetic
Greek (+ Thematic and Athematic Verbs). Verbs
belanged to several types: + deverbative and
— denominal verbs (e.g. phuldssd/-tta < Proto-
Gk. “p4uddtso ‘to guard’ < p*ulak- ‘guard’ + -yo-),
reduplicated verbs (> Reduplication; + Redupli-
cated Presents) (e.g. di-d6-mi ‘I give’), root verbs
(e.g. phami ‘1 say’), iterative forms (e.g. phaskö
‘T regularly say, affirm’; cf. Myc. pres. pte. to-ro-ge-
jo-me-no /trok“eyomenos/ ‘being turned’ which
belongs to an iterative-causative *-eye/o present),
etc. Ablaut was still present in certain old verb
types, especially -((nnu)-mi verbs (e.g. 3 sg. phäs!
‘(s)he says’ vs. 3 pl. phasi ‘they say’), but was grad-
ually becoming an obsolete feature (cf, Sihler
1995:442ff; Rau 2010:185-186; + Present Tense).
The old contrast between an - active and a
—+ mediopassive + voice was retained, but the
latter would eventually be supplemented by pas-
sive forms in future and > aorist (+ Aorist For-
mation) (cf. the -the- suffix). The Proto-Greek
Table 2: Active Verb Endings
Primary
athematic thematic
ısg. -mi (<*-mi) -6 < -(0-Az)
25g. -si(<*-si) -eis (<*esi)
353g -tl-si -ei (<*-eti)
(<*-ti)
ipl. — -mes /-men (<*-mes) -omes|-omen (<*-omes)
2pl. -te(<*-te) -ele (< *-ete)
gpl. -a(n)ti/-nti/-(n)si -onti/-onsi/-ousi
(<*-ntil-nti) (<*-onti)
GREEK 183
— verbal system must have functioned initially
on the basis of two tenses; present (present-
perfect) — past (imperfect-aorist); the classical
sigmatic future was formulated in the course of
time since it already appears in Mycenaean, e.g.
pte. dat. sg. ze-so-me-no /dzes(s)omendi/ ‘which
will be boiled’. But on the other hand, the Proto-
Greek verbal system relied on three stems, which
primarily represented + aspect distinctions (cf.
Vedic Sanskrit): imperfective (present, imper-
fect), perfective (aorist), and stative (-resulta-
tive) (perfect, pluperfect), Greek inherited its
four standard moods (indicative, + subjunctive,
+ optative, + imperative) to which one ought
to add the injunctive, although only a few rem-
nants of it are found in texts, especially in epic
poetry (cf. West 1989).
The verb endings underwent some changes,
including both innovations and replacements,
although the precise date (pre-/post-Mycenaean)
may be debatable at times. Innovations include
thematic act. pres. 2 sg. -eis, 3 sg. -ei instead of
*-esi and -eti (the latter only dialectal afterwards)
and 1 pl. -men (partially, cf, also preserved -mes);
mediopass. pres. 1 sg. -mai and imperf. 1 sg, -man
in place of -ai (< *-Agai) and -a (< *-(fyJahga (?))
respectively; the common -st# cluster of the
mediopassive endings and the well-known -k(-a)
suffix found in both active aorist (e.g. éthéka
‘I put, set’)) and perfect forms (e.g. Aéstéka ‘I
have stood, | stand’). Of particular interest is
the development of the endings of the sigmatic
aorist (-sa, -sas, -se etc.) formed upon the 1 sg,
-sa (< *-sm) ending. Note conversely the loss
of the distinctive 1 du. ending and the partial
replacement of the original perfect endings (cf.
-ka endings above).
Secondary
athematic thematic
-af-n on
(<*-m / -m) (<*-om)
-s (<*-s) -es
-B (<*-t) -e (<*et)
-mes/-men -ames/-omen
(<*-mes) (<*-omes)
-te (<*-te) -ete (< *-ete)
-an|-n (<*-nt | -nt) -on (<*-ont)
184 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON GREEK

Dual: Primary: -wes/-wos, -tos -tos (or -tes, ary endings); Secondary: *-we, -tom, -täm
-tes, both replaced ultimately by the second- (<*-tehgm)

Table 3: Mediopassive Verb Endings

Person Primary Secondary

1 sg. -mai (<*-hoal: -min — (<*-(h, ah,a(?);
cf. also *-Asor) cf. also *-Ay0)
2sg. sol] -sai (<*-soi; “SU (<*-so: cf also
cf. also *-th,or) *thyo)
38g. -toi } -tai (<*-toi: -to (<*-(t)o)
cf. also *-(t)or)
ı pl. -mest'a (<*-mesd"hy) -met"a (<*-med*hy)
2pl. = -sthe (<*-(s)d"ye) -sthe = (<*-d'ye)
3 pl -ntoi | (<*-ntoi | -ato | (<*-nto | -nto)
(-atai /-ntai) -ntoi; cf. also -nto
*-ntor/ -ntor)

Dual: Primary: -est"a (<*-yesd"hg), (?), (7); Sec-
ondary: -etta (<*yed*h,), (?), (?). Note also
the perfect endings: Singular: -a (<*-Aye), -tha
(<*-thze), -e; Plural: -me(-s/-n), -(t)e, -er/-ar(?)
(<*-er/-r) (replaced later by -s-anti); Dual: (?).
The other moods were characterized by a vowel
efo (é/6 for the thematic verbs) in the subjunc-
tive and an -yeh,/-ih, suffix (-oy- in lieu of the
thematic vowel for the thematic verbs) in the
optative (cf. Rix 1992:240; Sihler 1995:454, 470-
471; Rau 20101184-185).
On the other hand, one ought to point out
some particular Greek characteristics:
absence of -ir from the Greek mediopassive
forms (cf. also Phrygian). The presence of the
+ augment e- in the past indicative forms in
Greek (e.g. 1 aor. é-fab-on ‘I received’) and other
Indo-European languages (Indo-Iranian, Phry-
gian and to a lesser degree, Armenian) may
point to a common legacy of a particular Indo-
European sub-group (areal diffusion (?) — but
other IE languages could also have had it ini-
tially) rather than parallel innovation; besides,
its use until the Archaic Period was not system-
atic, which rather points to a sentence particle
referring to the past (e.g. Homeric phdto ‘he
said’; but cf. Myc. a-pe-do-ke /ape(s)ddke/(?) ‘he
rendered, paid’, with a possible augment, next to
a-pu-do-ke which has no augment).
The non-finite forms, i.e, + infinitives and
+ participles, gradually acquired importance in
Greek morphosyntax, e.g. in periodic construc-
tion (+ Period); eventually, there were active and
mediopassive forms for both of these non-finite
types built upon the three basic verbal stems;
in that way, all possible aspectual distinctions
could be expressed. In the Proto-Greek period
the range of use for ‘infinitives' was consider-
ably more modest - probably one should think
ofa situation similar to Vedic Sanskrit, in which
several types of deverbative nouns could be used
as ‘infinitives’; there was apparently a process
of gradual grammaticalization of locative case
forms of certain s-stem nouns and change into
infinitive forms of thematic verbs. Mycenaean
texts point to an uncontracted thematic infini-
the tive ending in -e(h)-en (e.g. e-ke-e /(h)ek"ehen/
‘to have’ (< * -e-sen); cf. Att. ekhein, West Greek
ékhén, but apparently plain (?) -n in Arc. ékhen)
while later dialectal evidence adduces endings
like -en-ai and -men. On the other hand, there
was a mediopassive participle ending in -menos,
which was used both in the present (eventually
with an -o- vowel in the thematic conjugation)
and the perfect (e.g, Myc. neut. du. de-de-me-no
/dedemenö/ ‘bound (with)'; cf. Skt. -manah). In
addition, there are some active participles in
Mycenaean already: e.g. pres. ptc. (pl.) e-ko-te /
(h)ek*ontes/ ‘having’, perf. ptc. (fem.) a-ra-ru-ja
/araruyya(i)/ ‘fitted out (with). Finally, note also
the existence of — verbal adjectives in -tés which
go back to Indo-European, e.g. dotds ‘given’,
thetos ‘set’, Myc. a-ki-ti-to /aktitos/ ‘uncultivated’
(zero-grade root), etc.
4.e. Derivation-Compounding
Greek is characterized by a strong tendency
towards coining new forms through derivation
 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON GREEK
and + compounding, a tendency that reached
its peak in post-classical times with many new
derivatives coined through affıxation (particu-
larly suffixes), and the proliferation of compound
forms (+ Derivational Morphology; + Word For-
mation (Derivation, Compounding)). But as the
Mycenaean texts and the Homeric epics demon-
strate, the Proto-Greek potential in word-forma-
tion was already by no means negligible either.
On the basis of certain comparative evidence,
it seems that the Proto-Greek derivation must
have possessed a decent number of affixes: e.g.
prefixes like the a-privativum (< *n, zero grade
of the negative particle ne) or the negative dus-;
infixes like -n-/-m- and -sk- (cf. Sanskrit, Latin,
Hittite forms); and several suffixes, nominal and
verbal alike: e.g. -ya (nouns), -ikds (adjectives),
-tér, -täs, -tör (nomina agentis; + Agent Nouns);
verbal -yö, etc. On the other hand, Greek has a
number of suffixes which are not common in
other Indo-European languages and may have
become gradually part of the language stock
during the Proto-Greek period: -éu- (masc. nom.
-eus), commonly found in — personal names
(e.g. Pröteüs, cf. Myc. po-ro-te-u) and profes-
sions/occupations (e.g. khalkeüs 'bronze-smith’);
-id-, which is found in feminine names, adjec-
tives and occupations, but also in + diminutives
(e.g. Hom. fem. kunöpis 'dog-eyed', cf. Myc. dat.
pl. ku-na-ki-si /kunagis(s)i/ ‘female hunters’);
-ad- which is also used with feminine nouns,
deverbative and denominative alike (e.g. Hom.
epidiphrids ‘chariot breastwork’) (Chantraine
1933; Meier 1975; Bartonék 2003:351ff.; Forssman
2004; Clackson 2007b:1g0).
Greek compounds {see also (6) below) dem-
onstrate some basic Indo-European types (e.g.
possessive, determinative, and governing com-
pounds) which must have therefore existed in
Proto-Greek too (+Compound Nouns). These
types are already found in the Mycenaean texts,
particularly in the form of personal names (see
also (7)), which are naturally easier to identify
through the intricacies of the Linear B script: e.g.
e-u-ru-da-mo /Eurudamos/ ‘who has a broad/
large community’, pu-ra-ta /Pulartés/ ‘gate-
opener’, etc. The list includes possessive com-
pounds (or Skt. bahuvrihi (exocentric)), e.g. Hom.
adj. rhododäktulos ‘rosy-fingered’, determinative
compounds (endocentric) like the old formation
dapedon ‘floor (< *dm- + ped-), preposition-
governing compounds like adj. amphialos ‘of two
seas/round the sea’ (cf. Myc. pers. name a-pi-
185
a,-ro [amphihalos/), verbal-governing forms like
lagétds/-és ‘people’s leader’ (cf. Myc. ra-wa-ke-ta
/lawagetas/ ‘military high commander’), etc.; but
note also some right-oriented forms (endocen-
tric/determinative of the armstrong type, rather
than left-headed exocentric/possessive), like
onomäklutos ‘who is famous for his name’, or
even compounds like gastrimarges ‘glutton’ -
both types must have arisen from earlier univer-
bations. The regular presence of a proper linking
vowel (or Kompositionsfuge) between the two
compound parts in Proto-Greek is debatable
given its virtual absence from Mycenaean com-
pounds; besides, many Proto-Greek compound
members were probably closer to juxtaposed
forms. But if in use, it was not exclusively an
-o-vowel, as in Classical and particularly post-
Classical Greek; see, for instance, alphabetic
Greek forms in -a- (e.g. itha-genés ‘born in lawful
wedlock, aboriginal’, and some compounds with
certain numerals as a first part, e.g. hepta-etes
‘seven-year old’), -ai-, -e- (e.g. Ekhepölos ‘hold-
ing-the-foals’; cf. Myc. e-ke-da-mo /Ek®edamos/
‘who overcomes men’) and -i-, esp. in Caland
compounds like argipous 'white- or swift-footed'
(< *argro- + pod-). Finally, note some lexicalized
forms like hodoipöros ‘traveler’ (< loc. hodoi )
and univerbations like despötes ‘{house)-master’
(< gen. sg. “dems- + nom. sg. pot-is; but Myc.
do-po-ta), which must go back to older patterns,
juxtapositions or similar (Schwyzer 1939:415-445'
Risch 1974; Meier-Brügger 1992 11:33-34; Meiss-
ner & Tribulato 2002).
5. SYNTAX
The syntax of Proto-Greek can be reconstructed
with less certainty given the complexity of many
(morpho-)syntactic constructions. Nonetheless,
there is little doubt that the Proto-Greek syntax
was less elaborated than that of Classical Greek;
Mycenaean texts and Homeric poems offer use-
ful insights, and so does the reconstructed PIE
syntax, which draws particularly on Indo-Ira-
nian, Greek, Latin and Hittite evidence. The most
important features were probably the following:
i. case morphosyntax remained close to the
Indo-European patterns, e.g. verb + subject
in nominative, direct objectin accusative—
+ indirect object in dative (complements),
possessor denoted by the genitive, instru-
ment/means/accompaniment through the
186 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON
instrumental, etc.; but note also case syn-
cretism (see (4.a.))
case agreement between noun and adjec-
tive or other conjoined terms as well as
number agreement between subject and
finite verb form were normally preserved;
note, though, cases like Hom. IL 3.277 Zed
pater... Eéliés te ‘Father Jupiter (voc.)...
and Sun (nom.)' (cf. also Vedic parallels;
+ Conjunction Reduction) and the appar-
ent ‘violation’ of number agreement in
constructions with neuter plurals like ta
zöia trékhei ‘the animals run (lit. 'runs’)',
which may also be an inherited feature (cf.
Avestan and Hittite), and probably relating
to Indo-European collectives (‘Attic figure’;
+ Collective/Mass Nouns)
tii. + word order was much simpler than in
later (literary) Greek although it allowed
different combinations of the major clause
elements (e.g. Subject-Verb-Object (SVO);
but also SOV, VSO; note that PIE was prob-
ably an SOV language)
gradual morphosyntactic proliferation of
infinitives and participles within a clause
(e.g. Myc. e-re-ta pe-re-u-ro-na-de i-jo-te
/eretai Pleurönade iontes/ ‘rowers going
to Pleuron'), but also in subordinate syn-
tax (e.g. indirect speech; + Direct/Indirect
Speech; + Purpose Clauses)
the inherited fixed second-position for
+ clitic particles, conjunctions (> Conjunc-
tions (Non-Subordinating)) and pronouns
after a fully stressed word remained in
place (+ Wackernagel's Law I, e.g. ego men
ou...‘I do not...’)
clause subordination was far less advanced
(note that relative clauses preceded the
main clause, which is also the case in other
Indo-European languages, e.g. Hittite) in
favor of clause + coordination (cf. also
Homer)
vii. one probable development is the pri-
mary establishment of separate - pre-
verb/+ adposition classes with more fixed
positions, which gradually became dis-
tinguishable from the adverbial elements
proper; nonetheless, this change did not
reach completion until much later — note
here the ‘Homeric + tmesis’ (e.g. Il. 8.94
meta nöta balön ‘having turned your back’),
which still points to that earlier stage of
‘free syntactic elements’
GREEK
viii. conjunctions (> Conjunctions (Subordi-
nating)} (and particles) were fewer and
included inherited forms like the enclitic
“k”e'and’ (cf. Myc. <-ge>, Att.-lon. te, etc.) -
the use of the main coordinate conjunction
kai is probably later, at least in its Classical
Greek sense
ix. some absolute constructions (> Genitive
Absolute) were inherited from Indo-Euro-
pean (see e.g. Crespo and Garcia-Ramdén
1997; Willi 2003; Hajnal 2004; Hewson &
Bubenik 2006; Clackson 2007a:157-186; Fort-
son 2010:152-169, 262-263; Ruppel 2013).
6. LEXICON
The reconstruction of the Proto-Greek lexicon is
possible only in rough terms given the problem-
atic + etymology of a considerable part of the
attested Greek lexical stock {+ Pre-Greek Sub-
strate). In particular, one ought to point out the
uncertainty about the time and the channels of
lexical borrowing from other languages (Greece,
Anatolia, the Balkans and over the Levant) during
the second millennium BCE; in that respect, the
Mycenaean evidence provides a useful terminus
ante quem, even though many words may simply
not occur in the relatively few Linear B tablets.
In general terms, the gradual transformation
of the Proto-Greek lexicon was based on three
basic mechanisms of lexical enrichment, while
at the same time some parochial elements of the
IE vocabulary must gradually have fallen out of
use: (i) borrowing from Indo-European and non-
Indo-European languages alike (e.g. pre-Greek,
Anatolian, Semitic languages etc.), particularly
personal names, toponyms and terms referring
to Mediterranean flora and fauna, e.g. Artemis
‘(theonym)’, Körinthos ‘(city name)’, ofnos ‘wine’
(ef. Myc. wo-na) (see below); (ii) word forma-
tion (derivation, compounding) (see 4.e.); (iii)
through + semantic change (see below; + Greek
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of ).
The core of the Proto-Greek lexicon was obvi-
ously of Indo-European provenance since there
are well-established cognate forms in other
Indo-European languages. It comprised basic
semantic fields such as:
i. kinship terms: e.g. pater ‘father’ (< *phyter-),
mäter/meter (< “*mehgter-), thugäter
(< *d*ughy-ter-, originally oxytonic), phräter
‘member of a fraternity’ (< *bfrehyter-
 PROTO-GREEK ANT) COMMON
‘brother’, cf. Lat. frater, Skt. bhratar), etc.
(see Szemerenyi 1977).
ii. body parts: e.g, Ahefr (gen. kheirös) ‘hand’
(< *gfes-r-), poüs (gen. podds) ‘foot’ (< *ped/
pod-), gonu ‘knee’ (< *genu-/gonu-), kardia
‘heart’ (< “Ard-), etc.
iii, nature, including -+phytonyms and
+ zoonyms:e.g.khthén ‘earth’ (<*d*g*e/om-),
hélios ‘sun’ (< *sehzu-el-), Auidor ‘water’
(< *yod-r, oblique ud-n-/ (later) (A)ud-at-),
pur ‘fire’ (< *pfe)h,-ur, oblique phz-uen-),
beüs ‘bovine, cow’ (< *g"ous), kudn ‘dog’
(< *ku(w)on-)
iv. daily culture and domestic life terms: e.g.
(w)oikos "house(hold)' (< *woik-), dömos
‘house, building’ (< *dom-o-), zugös/-ön
‘yoke’ (< *yug-), kuklos ‘circle, wheel’
(< *k(e)-k™l- (redupl.)), drotron ‘plow’
(< *hzerhg-tro)
v. _ religion:e.g. Zeus (gen. Diwds) (< *dyeu-/diw-
‘daylight deity’), hagios ‘holy’ (< *yag-yo-))
vi. basic common verbs denoting experi-
ence, sense(s), action (+ Verba Sentiendi;
+ Verba Dicendi): e.g. (w)ofda ‘I know’ (an
old perf.) - eidon (< *(é-)widon) ‘I saw’ (aor.)
(< *woid-/wid-; note some ablaut-suppletion
features here), deiknumi ‘I (am) show(ing)'
(but Lat. dico ‘I say’) (< *deik-), zdö/zeö
‘I live’ (cf. bios life‘) (< *g*e(i)hg-/g*iehg-),
pherö ‘I (am) carry(ing)' (< “b*er-), etc.
On the other hand, there are elements of the
Proto-Greek lexical stock which despite their
undeniable IE ancestry have evidently under-
gone morphological and/or semantic change,
partially or completely: eg. hippos ‘horse’
(< *ekwo-, cf. Lat. eguus, but Myc. i-go /hikkwos/
and rare dialectal (lonic) tkkos), oblique stem
örni-kh-/örni-th- ‘bird’ (< *hzern-i-), oblique stem
gunai-k- ‘woman! (< *g*(e)n(e)hz-; ch. Myc. nom.
sg. ku-na-ja /gunaiä/ and Arm. cognate stem
kanay-); phrater (see above), thumös ‘spirit,
mind, anger' (< PIE *d*ümos ‘smuke, vapor’). But
note also the opposite: some terms may display
certain IE features (e.g. sound changes, patterns
of inflection or formation), but it may be more
difficult to establish for them, at first glance, a
direct connection with Indo-European cognates:
e.g. xénos ‘stranger’ (< *ghs-en-wo), glétta/-ssa
‘tangue’ (< *gleh3q’-ya), adj. kalds ‘beautiful,
noble’ (< *ka/w-(y)-?). In the same category there
are some grammatical elements too: e.g. part.
ou ‘not’, prep. xun ‘with’, pron. hoütos (already
GREEK 187
in Mycenaean: o-u, ku-su and to-to (neut. sg.),
respectively}; note also the -éu- suffix in the
numerous, but unparalleled nominal forms and
proper names in -eus, which are already attested
in Mycenaean (e.g. basiletts ‘king’: Myc. qa-si-re-u
[g”asileus/ ‘officer’, AkAil(lJeus (proper name)’:
Myc. A-ki-re-u /Akhil(l)eus/), etc,
Finally, there are several loan terms, mostly
from pre-Greek languages: personal names (see
(7)) and place names (which often relate to
discovered sites of the Early Bronze period in
Greece, and/or also show regular affinities to
Anatolian languages, especially Luwian), habitat
(flora-fauna), materials-metals, cultural-techno-
logical terms (clothing, pottery), religion (pre-
Greek deities): e.g. thdlassa (Att. -tta) ‘sea’ (vs.
pöntos ‘sea’, which is of Indo-European origin),
kupdrissos ‘cypress’, khiton ‘tunic’ (Myc. ki-to),
asdminthos ‘bath-tub'’, Parnassés '[mountain
name]' (cf. Luw. parna- ‘house’ + suffix -assa),
ddphné/{dphné ‘laurel’, sükon ‘fig’ (Myc. gen.
pl.(?) su-ko /sukön/ ‘(of the) figs’), dlunthos ‘wild
fig’, sélinon ‘celery’ (Myc. se-ri-no), eléphas ‘ivory’
(Myc. e-re-pa), khrusös ‘gold’ (Myc. ku-ru-so),
khalkés ‘bronze’. The large scale of lexical bor-
rowing from other languages led to an influx of
loan derivational suffixes too, e.g. -nthos, -ttos/-
s(s}os, s(s)a, -mnos/-mna (see Clackson 2007b:191;
cf. also Benveniste 1969; Chadwick 1969, 19757810;
Morpurgo Davies 1986; Rau 2010:187-188; Beekes
2010:xiii-xlviti and passim).
7. PERSONAL NAMES
The Proto-Greek onomastic pool (+ Onomas-
tica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period)
must have comprised personal names of both
Indo-European and non-Indo-European ori-
gin. On the basis of Indo-European, but also
Mycenaean and later alphabetic Greek, it seems
likelythattherewerebothsimplicia(e.g.Myc.e-ru-
ta-ra [Erutträs/ (or fem. /Erut"ra/), cf eruthrds
‘red') and compounds (especially possessive,
determinative and verbal-governing compounds:
e.g, Myc. ma-na-si-we-ko /Mnasiwergos/ ‘who
thinks of/remembers his work’, a-ko-ro-da-mo
/Akrodämos/ ‘head of the community’; Gk.
Menélaos ‘who abides by his men’, Hippönax
‘horse-lord’, etc. (see 4.e. above), Note also some
early ‘short’ forms of the later Pätroklos or Sösias
types (cf. e.g. Myc. pe-ri-mo /Perimos/ in lieu of
pe-ri-me-de /Perimédés/}. In the process of set-
tling in Greece, Proto-Greeks borrowed a large
188 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON GREEK
number of pre-Greek names, including several
+theonyms, which they used alongside their
own traditional theonyms of PIE provenance
or at least etymology (e.g. Zetis, Pötnia, Diwia,
Poseiddäön etc.; cf. the Mycenaean evidence). In
their vast majority, these pre-Greek names were
seamlessly adapted to the grammatical struc-
ture of Greek: eg. Athenda/-ä (cf. Myc. gen./
dat. sg. a-ta-na /Athänäs/ or /Atbänäi/), Ärtemis/
Artamis (cf. Myc. gen. sg. a-te-mi-to /Artemitos/),
etc. (Risch 1974; Bartonék 2003:399-429; Garcia
Ramon 2011).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adrados, Francisco R. 2005. A history of the Greek language.
From its origins to the present. Leiden.
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Benveniste, Emile. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-
eurupdennes, 2 vols, Paris,
Chadwick, John. 1969. "Greek and Pre-Greek’, TPAS
68.1:80—98.
. 1975. “The prehistory of the Greek language”. In: The
Cambridge ancient history, vol. Il.2. 3rd ed. ed. by 1. E. S.
Edwards et al, 805-819. Cambridge.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1933. La formation des noms en grec
ancien. Paris.
. 1961. Morphologie historique du grec. and ed. Paris.
Clackson, James. 2007a. Jndo-European linguistics. An intro-
duction, Cambridge.
. 2007. “The genesis of Greek". In: A history of Ancient
Greek. From the beginnings to late antiquity, ed. by A.-F.
Christidis, 185-192. Cambridge.
Collinge, N. E. 1985, The laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam —
Philadelphia.
Crespo, Emilio and José Luis Garcia Ramon, eds. 1997.
Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy: actas
del Cologuio de ta Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid,
21-24 de septiernbre de 1994. Madrid - Wiesbaden.
Drews, Robert. 1988. The coming ofthe Greeks. indo-Eurnpean
conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, Princeton.
Duhoux, Yves. 2000. Le verbe gree ancien: éléments de mor-
phologie et de syntaxe historiques. znd ed. Louvain-la-
Neuve.
Dunkel, George. 1981. “Mycenaean and Central Greek”, Kad-
MOS 20.1-21132-142.
Finkelberg, Margalit. 2005. Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean
prehistory and Greek heroic tradition, Cambridge.
Forssman, Bernhard. 2004. “Greek”. In: Brilfs New Pauly
Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, vol. 5 (EQU-HAS), ed.
by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider and Christine F.
Salazar. Leiden - Boston.
Kortson, Benjamin IV. 2010, Indo-Eurapean language and
culture. Malden, MA. - Oxford.
Garcia Ramén, Jose Luis. zoio. "On the genetic classification
of Ancient Greek dialects: comparative reconstruction
versus hypercriticism and atomism at work". In: Stucies in
Greck linguistics 30. Proceedings of the annual meeting of
the Department of Linguistics, School of Philology, Faculty
uf Philesophy, Aristotle University of Thessaluntki (May
2-3, 2009}, 219-236. Thessaloniki.
. 2011. "Mycenaean Onomastics”. In: A Mycenaean com-
panion to Linear B, vol. U: Mycenaean Greek texts and their
world, ed. by Yves Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies,
213~251. Louvain-la-Neuve - Walpole, MA.
Garrett, Andrew. 1999. “A new model of Indo-European sub-
grouping and dispersal”, In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth
annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Febru-
ary 12-15, 1999), ed. by Steve S. Chang, Lily Liaw, and Josef
Ruppenhofer, 146-156. Berkeley.
. 2006, “Convergence in the formation of Indo-Euro-
pean subgroups: phylogeny and chronology”. In: Phyloge-
netic methods and the prehistory uf languages, ed. by Peter
Forster and Colin Renfrew, 139-15). Cambridge.
Giannopoulos, Theodoros G. 2012. The Greeks. Whence
and when? [in Greek, with extensive English summary].
Heraklion.
Hajnal, Ivo, 2003, "Methodische Vorbemerkungen zu einer
Palaeolinguistik des Balkanraums”. In: Languages in pre-
historic Europe, ed, by Alfred Bammesberger and Theo
Vennemann, 117-145. Heidelberg.
——, 2004. “Die Tmesis bei Homer und auf den mykeni-
schen Linear B-Tafeln: ein chronologisches Paradox?”.
In: Indo-European perspectives, Studies in honour of
Anna Morpurgo Davies, ed. by J. H. W. Penney, 146-178.
Oxford - New York.
. z005. “Das Frühgriechische zwischen Balkan und
Ägäis. Einheit oder Vielheit?", In: Sprachkontakt und
Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der indoger-
manisegen Gesellschaft (17-23. September 2000, Halle an
der Saale), ed. by Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein,
185-214. Wiesbaden.
Hall, Jonathan M. 2002. Hellenicity. Between ethnicity and
culture. Chicago.
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. 2006. From case te adposi-
tion. The development of configurational syntax in Indo-
Eurapean languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theary).
Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Hooker, James T. 1999. The coming of the Greeks. Claremont,
CA,
Katz, Joshua T. 1998. Topics in Indo-European personal pro-
nouns. PhD thesis. Harvard University.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonetique historique du myoénien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
. 1976. “Prémycénien et proto-mycénien”, BSL 7111g3-206.
Lindeman, Fredrik Otto, 1982. The triple representation of
schwa in Greek and some related problems of Indo-Buro-
pean phonology. Oslo - Bergen - Tromse.
Meier, Michael. 1975. -i8-: Zur Geschichte eines griechischen
Nominalsuffixes. Göttingen.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. ı992. Griechische Sprachwissen-
schaft, 2 vols, Berlin - New York.
Meissner, Torsten and OlgaTribulata. z002. “Nomina! com-
position in Mycenaean Greek”, TPAS 100.3:289-330.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1986. “The linguistic evidence: is
there any?”. In: The end of the early Bronze Age in the
Aegean, ed. by Gerald Cadogan, 93-123 Leiden.
. 1988 [1985]. “Mycenaean and Greek language". In:
Linear B: a 1984 Survey, ed. by Anna Morpurgo Davies and
Yves Duhoux, 75-125. Louvain-la-Neuve.
——-, 1992. “Mycenaean, Arcadian, Cyprian and some ques-
tions of method in dialectology”. In: Mykenaika (Bulletin
de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 25). ed. by
J.-P. Olivier, 415-432. Paris.
. 2012. “Phonetic laws, language diffusion, and drift:
the loss of sibilants in the Greek dialects of the first mil-
lennium BC". In: Laws and rules in Indo-European, ed. by
Andreas Willi and Philomen Probert, 102-121. Oxford.
Palmer, Leonard R, 1980. The Greek language. London.
 PROTO-GREEK AND COMMON GREEK
Petersson, Herbert. 1921. Studien über die indogermanische
Heteroklisie. Lund.
Probert, Philomen. 2006. Ancient Greek accentuation. Syn-
chronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford.
Rau, Jeremy. 2010. “Greek and Proto-Indo-European”. In:
A companion to the ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert}.
Bakker, 171-188. Malden, MA - Oxford - Chichester.
Risch, Ernst. 1974. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache.
and ed. Berlin.
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen.
Laut- und Formentehre, and ed. Darmstadt.
Ruppel, Antonia. 2013. Absolute constructions in early Indo-
European. Cambridge.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939-1950. Griechische Grammatik, 2 vols.
Munich.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New cumparative grammar af Greek
and Latin. New York - Oxford.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1977. Studies in the kinship terminatagy
of the Indo-European languages, with special references to
Indian, franian, Greek and Latin. Leiden.
Waanders, Frederik M. j. 1991. “Greek”. In: Indo-European
numerals, ed. by Jadranka Gvozdanovi¢, 369-388. Heidel-
herg.
West, Martin L. ig8g, “An unrecognized injunctive usage in
Greek”, Glotta 67:135-138.
Willi, Andreas. 2003. "kai -mykenisch oder nachmyken-
Isch?", Glottu 79:224- 248,
PANAGIOTIS FILOS
Proverbs
1. INTRODUCTION
The Greek word for ‘proverb’, paroimia, is a com-
pound from the preposition pard (beside) and
the noun vimos (way), and denotes something
that is told sideways, rather than straightfor-
wardly. A proverb, therefore, is an anonymous.
concise and usually allegorical expression of an
observation regarding some truth, value, or fact
af everyday life, sometimes giving a warning
or an admonition. It is regarded as a popular
phrase summarizing experience or expressing a
collective knowledge of a people, and incorpo-
rating venerable practical wisdom handed down
over generations, Aristotle (fr. 13 Rose) defines
proverbs as those remnants of man’s early phi-
losophy that managed to escape extinction
because of their brevity and cleverness. Proverbs
are often characterized by certain stylistic fea-
tures such as brevity, assonance, or parallelism,
and are sometimes expressed in verse rhythms,
especially Aemiepes, lecythion, paroemiacus and
prosodiacus.
189
2. PROVERB COLLECTIONS
We know from Diogenes Laertius (5.26) that
Aristotle wrote a study on Greek proverbs in a
book entitled Paroimiai. His pupil Theophras-
tus followed in his footsteps, writing a book
Perl paroimiön (cf. Diog. Laert. 5.45), and the
Peripatetic Clearchus of Soli tried to give a his-
torical explanation of certain proverbs in his
two books Pert paroimiön (fr. 63-83 Wehrli),
while the Stoic Chrysippus probably applied his
own philosophical analysis in the interpretation
of proverbs in his two books Peri parvimiön (fr.
XLV.1-8 von Arnim, SVF 3, p. 202.4-36). In the
Alexandrian period the study of proverbs shifted
from philosophical to literary concerns. In the
3rd c. BCE the historian-antiquarian Demon
wrote a voluminous work on proverb expla-
nation (Peri paroimiön, fr. 5-2ı Müller, FHG 1
Pp. 379-383), the grammarian Aristophanes of
Byzantium wrote four books on non-metrical
proverbs (Paroimiai dmetroi, fr. 354-357 Slater,
pp. 125-126), and two books on metrical prov-
erbs (Emmetroi paroimiai, fr. 358-262 Slater, pp.
127-128), whereas in the ist c. BCE Didymus
Chalcenterus made an extensive collection of
proverbs in 13 volumes, criticizing his predeces-
sors, as one can guess from the title Pros tous peri
paroimiön suntetakhötas (‘Against the authors of
proverb collections’), attested by Photius (Bibl.
279, 530a10-12). In the ist c. CE Lucillius of Tar-
rha composed another proverb collection, partly
drawing on Didymus.
In the time ofHadrian, the Greek sophist Zeno-
bius, who worked at Rome, made an epitome in
three books of the collections of Didymus and
Lucillius (cf. Suda, z 73 Adler), probably arrang-
ing the material by literary genre (preserved
in an altered version in the Athos recension).
Around the end of the gth c. CE a corpus was
formed, consisting of (a) an excerpt from Zeno-
bius, arranged alphabetically for scholastic
purposes, (b) a collection named Ploutärkhou
Paroimiai hais Alexandreis ekhrénta (‘Proverbs
of Plutarch used by the Alexandrians’), probably
deriving from Seleucus of Alexandria (cf. Suda,
s 200 Adler), and (c) a collection of Paroimiai
demödeis (‘Popular proverbs’) deriving from
the same sources as Zenobius and circulating
falsely under the name of Diogenianus (during
the period of Hadrian), but probably composed
by an anonymous writer. This corpus is pre-
served in three Byzantine recensions: Zenobius
190 PROVERBS
Parisinus, Zenobius Bodleianus, and Zenobius
Diogenianus. From these derive the later collec-
tions, expanded from Byzantine texts, of Gregory
of Cyprus (13th c.), Macarius Chrysocephalus
(14th c.), and Michael Apostolius (15th c.). There
are also shorter Byzantine collections of prov-
erbs, either published (e.g. Appendix proverbio-
rum, Mantissa proverbiorum) or unpublished,
containing still more proverbs not included in
the major collections, mostly prepared for rhe-
torical use.
Most Greek proverbs can be found in the
two-volume collection Corpus Paroemiographo-
rum Graecorum (hereafter: CPG), published by
Leutsch and Schneidewin (1839-1851), as well as
in the subsequent Supplementum (1961). How-
ever, there is a considerable number of prov-
erbs which are not included in these collections,
as one may ascertain from Strémberg's (1954)
study, which presents a large number of Greek
proverbs not listed by ancient and Byzantine
paroemiographers. In Strémberg’s work we also
find a comprehensive and systematic bibliogra-
phy, both general and specialized, relating to the
proverbs attested in various ancient writers.
3. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES
Greek proverbs cover a wide range of subjects
and have varied origins, discussed in the intro-
duction of Paroimiai démadeis (‘Popular prov-
erbs’) ascribed to Diogenianus (CPG I 177-180).
In examining the proverbs preserved both in
paroemiographical collections and in ancient
authors, one can note references to a variety of
different topics, including the following:
. Reference to historical events, e.g. Zenobius
2.17 (CPG 1 36): “more true than the events
near Sagra” (i.e, “unbelievable, yet true”,
originating from the eventual confirmation
of a message to Sparta, dubious at first, that
Epizephyrian Locri had beaten the stronger
and more numerous Crotoniats in a battle
near the river Sagra); Id. 4.27 (CPG 1 88):
“he is either dead or teaching the alphabet”
(the answer given in Athens to a question
concerning the fate of a lost soldier; when
the Athenian expedition to Sicily (415-413
BCE) ended in disaster, many Athenian sol-
diers were killed, while others were taken
captive and used as slave-tutors to the Sicil-
ians’ children); Id. 5.71 (CPG 1 148): “there is
a lot between the cup and the lip” (said to
Ancaeus, king of the Samian Leleges, by one
of his servants, when Ancaeus was about
to try the first wine from his new vineyard,
which the same servant had predicted he
would not live to taste; the prediction was
fulfilled, because Ancaeus was killed by a
wild boar before tasting the wine).
Reference to mythical events, e.g. Zenobius
2.87 (CPG 1 54): “Bellerophon carries the
letters" (because the mythical Bellerophon
himself took to lobates, king of Lycia, a let-
ter from Proetus the king of Argos, ordering
his own (Bellerophon’s) execution); Dio-
genianus 7.47 (CPG 1 294): “pretence over
Patroclus” (because the female slaves of
Achilles pretended to lament over Patro-
clus, while they were weeping over their
own misfortunes).
ili. Reference to well-known traits of specific
historical persons, e.g. Appendix proverbio-
rum 3.98a (CPG 1 414): “more temperate
than Zeno” (the Stoic philosopher); Grego-
rius Cyprius 3.79 (CPG I 374): “more silent
than Croesus’ son” (who was mute).
Reference to well-known traits of specific
mythical figures, e.g. Zenobius 4.3 (CPG |
84): “nobler than Codrus” (the mythical
king of Athens); Appendix proverbiorum
4-30 (CPG 1 440): “more keen-sighted than
Lynceus” (the mythical Argonaut who could
see even through tree trunks).
Reference to certain local characteristics,
eg. Diogenianus 6.24 (CPG 1 274): “the Lyd-
ians are cunning, the Egyptians come sec-
ond, and third, the greatest scoundrels of
all, are the Carians”; Appendix proverbiorum
5.28 (CPG I 463): “when a man from Chios is
present, he doesn’t let a man from Cos get
a word”.
vi. Reference to the excesses of authority, e.g.
Diogenianus 1.g (CPG | 181-182): “levying
taxes even on the dead”, Appendix prover-
biorum 2.99 (CPG I 415): “tyranny is the
mother of injustice”.
Vil. Reference to human relationships, e.g.
Zenobius 4.12 (CPG I 87): “if the pot is
boiling, friendship is alive” (i.e, as long
as one prospers, one has friends); Dio-
genianus 5.16 (CPG 1 253): “these of the
same age please one another” (i.e., what-
ever one's age, one is happy with people
of the same age); Appendix proverbiorum
 PROVERBS
3.36 (CPG 1 423): “potter detests potter” (ie.,
every craftsman detests his own kind).
viii. Reference to human behavior, e.g. Dioge-
nianus 4.18 (CPG I 235): “old folk are chil-
dren twice over”; Macarius 6.25 (CPG Il 192):
“wine prompts an old man to dance, even if
he doesn’t want to”.
Reference to human physical conditions,
e.g. Ps.-Plutarch, Selection on the impossible
26 (CPG 1 346): “lending combs to a bald
man”. Ibid. 27 (CPG I 346): “giving a looking-
glass as a present to a blind man’.
Reference to human fortune, e.g. Dioge-
nianus 8.45 (CPG I 314): “fleeing the smoke
I fell into the fire’; Apostolius 6.14 (CPG II
367): “good things hardly come by seeking
them, while bad things come without seek-
ing them”.
Reference to technical matters, e.g, Dioge-
nianus 2.89 (CPG I 213): “the rope will break
under the strain’; Apostolius 3.50 (CPG II
298): “life is suspended from a thin thread”.
xii. Reference to the power of money, e.g. Dio-
genianus 2.81 (CPG 1 209): “fight with silver
spears and you'll defeat them all” (i.e., use
money in your affairs and you'll always suc-
ceed); Apostolius 3.43a (CPG II 297): “every-
thing is submissive to richness”.
xiii, Reference to the animal world of the land,
eg. Zenobius 1.93 (CPG | 30): “if a lion-
hide isn't big enough, add a fox-skin” (i.e,,
if strength is not enough, add cunning);
Diogenianus 1,65 (CPG I 191): “a horse on a
plain” (i.e., challenging someone in an area
where he is most at ease).
xiv, Reference to the animal world of the sea,
e.g. Zenobius 3.30 (CPG | 65): “teaching a
dolphin to swim”; Appendix proverbiorum
3.45 (CPG I 426): “walking like a crab’.
Reference to the animal world of the air,
eg. Zenobius 5.12 (CPG I 120): “one swal-
low doesn’t make spring”; Diogenianus
4.56 (CPG I 240): "among the unmusical
even the lark sings”.
Reference to the plant world, e.g, Appen-
dix proverbiorum 1.60 (CPG | 388): “a grape
ripens close to another grape"; Dioge-
nianus 6.52 (CPG I 277): “shouting louder
than green laurel on fire’.
xvii. Reference to natural phenomena or natu-
ral laws, e.g. Diogenianus 3.39 (CPG I 222):
“a person as changeable as the Euripus
strait’; Zenobius 2.56 (CPG I 47): “the
191
sources of the sacred rivers are flowing
uphill” (i.e., the natural order of things has
been reversed).
Expressions denoting the impossible, e.g.
Zenobius 1.80 (CPG | 27): “counting [grains
of] sand”; Id. 3.46 (CPG 1 68): “aiming one's
bow at the sky”; Id. 3.55 (CPG I 70): “sow-
ing [seeds] in water’.
Exaggeration expressed by a comparison,
e.g. Diogenianus 3.98 (CPG | 232): “more
naked than a pole”; Id. 6.31 (CPG I 274):
“more oily than an oil-lamp”; Appendix
proverbiorum 3.41 (CPG 1 424): “blacker
than a beetle".
Exaggeration expressed by a metaphor,
e.g. Zenobius 4.43 (CPG I 96): “an Iliad
of misfortunes”; Diogenianus 5.63 (CPG
1 263): “you're bleary-eyed with cooking-
pots and pumpkins’ (ie, you don’t know
what you're doing, you don’t know what's
going on).
Greek proverbs are usually expressed alle-
gorically, according to the definition given by
Michael Apostolius in the introduction of his
proverb collection (CPG II 234.14-17): a prov-
erb “is a saying which covers the obvious with
obscurity, or denotes things intelligible using
things perceivable, or indicates the truth in a
concealed way”, There are certainly non-allegor-
ical proverbs, which can be considered maxims
(+ Gnomes), a fact mentioned already by Aris-
totle (cf. RA. 2.21.12, 1395a 19-20: “some proverbs
are also maxims”). Aristotle also recommends
the use of proverbs as evidence to support an
argument in a rhetorical speech (cf. RA. 2.15.14,
1376a 2-3).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bühler, Winfried. 1982-1999. Zenobü Athoi proverbia, vulgari
ceteraque memoria aucta, ı (Prolegomena, 1987), 4 (Libri
secundi proverbia 1-40, 1982), 5 (Libri secundi proverbia
qi~-108, 1999), Göttingen.
Carnes, Pack, ed. 1988. Proverbia in fabula. Essays on the rela-
tionship of the proverb and the fable. Bern - New York.
Dobesch, Gerhard. 1965. “Die Interpolationen aus Apol-
lodors Bibliotheke in der Sprichwörtersammlung des
Pseudo-Zenobios”, WS 78:58-82,
Grünwald, Eugen. 1893. Sprichwörter und sprichwörtliche
Redensarten bei Plato. Berlin.
Haefeli, Leo. 1934. Sprichwörter und Redensarten aus der Zeit
Christi. Lucerne.
Karathanasis, Demetrios K. 1936. Sprichwörter und sprich-
wörtliche Redensarten des Altertums in den rhetarischen
Schriften des Michael Psellos, des Eustathios und des
Michael Choniates, sowie in anderen rhetorischen Quellen
des ATI. Jahrhunderts. Munich.
192
Keim, Joseph. 1909. Sprichwörter und parvemiographische
Überlieferung bei Strabo. Tübingen.
Kindstrand, Jan F. 1978. “The Greek concept of proverbs”,
Eranas 76:71—-85.
Lazaridis, Nikolaos. 2007. Wisdom in louse form. The lan-
guage of Egyptian and Greek proverbs in collections of the
Hellenistic and Roman periods. Leiden — Boston.
Lelli, Emanuele and Francesco P. Bianchi. 2006. / proverbi
grect. Le raccolte di Zenobio e Diogeniano, Soveria Mannelli,
von Leutsch, Ernst L. and Friedrich W. Schneidewin. 1839-
1851. Corpus paroerniographorum Graecorum, 1-2. Göt-
tingen. Supplementum, 1961. Hildesheim.
Pokorny, Petr. 1994. “Griechische Sprichwörter im Neuen
Testament". In: Tradition und Translation: zum Problem
der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene.
Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by
Christoph Elsas et al., 336-343. Berlin - New York.
von Prittwitz-Gaffron, Erich. ıg12. Das Sprichwort im griechis-
chen Epigramm (Diss. Munich ıgu). Giessen.
Rein, Theodor W, 1894. Sprichwörter und sprichwörtliche
Redensarten bei Lucian. Tübingen.
Rose, Valentin. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum frag-
menta. Stuttgart.
Salzmann, Ernst. ıgıo. Sprichwörter und sprichwörtliche
Redensarten bei Libanivs, Tübingen.
Slater, William J. 1986. Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta.
Berlin.
Stromberg, Reinhold, 1954. Greek proverbs. A collection af
proverbs and proverbial phrases which are not listed by the
ancient and Byzantine paroemiographers. Gateborg.
Tsirimbas, Demetrios A. 1936. Sprichwörter und sprichwörtli-
che Redensarten bei den Epistolographen der zweiten
sophistik Alkiphron - Cl. Aelianus. Munich.
Whiting, Bartlett J. 1932. “The nature of the proverb", Har-
vard Studies and Notes in Philology 14:273-307.
DIMITRIOS CHRISTIDIS
Psilosis
The word-initial glottal fricative [h] in Greek,
represented in literary texts by the so-called
spiritus asper < ‘ > and in epigraphic texts by
<H>, tended to be lost from the Greek dialects,
affecting certain dialects earlier than others; this
loss is known as psilosis (derived from the adjec-
tive psilds 'bare, stripped’), the dialects showing
this loss psilotic (+ Aspiration). Greek initial [h]
is often the reflex of earlier PIE consonants,
namely “s- (e.g, Gk. heptä ‘seven’, Lat. septem),
*w- (hennümi ‘clothe’, Lat. vestis), and probably
*Hy-, where *H is a PIE ‘laryngeal’ (*Hyagnds >
Gk. hagnds ‘chaste, pure’, Skt. yajrids) (+ Indo-
European Linguistic Background); other sources
of aspiration include ‘aspiration-anticipation’,
*‘arhma (cf. Myc. a-mo, probably /arkmo/) >
härma ‘war-chariot’, and initial 7/u (as well as
initial r), which are always aspirated. The pho-
neme /h/ was lost before the beginning of our
epigraphic record from East Ionic and + Lesbian,
PROVERBS
as witnessed by its absence in initial position
(e.g. Lesb. upddikon, cf. Att. hupödikos, on a stone
from Mytilene, 5th or early 4th c. BCE, IG XII 2.,
Buck 1955:n0.25), and the absence of aspirated
stops at word-junctions (e.g. E.lon. katäper vs.
Att. kathdper; on > Attic see Threatte 1980:497).
In the Archaic and Classical periods psilosis is
an areal feature particularly characteristic of
East Ionic and Lesbian, seen also from an early
period in Elean, perhaps Cyprian and at least
central Cretan (Buck 1955:52-54, Colvin 2007:27,
33). Non-psilotic dialects such as Attic used the
sign <H> for [h] until the introduction of the
lonic alphabet (Threatte 1980:24—9; see + Alpha-
bet, Origin of), while in psilotic East Ionic the
letter was used for the long open vowel [e:]
(Jeffery 1990:28-29, 326-327). One must specily
East lonic, since in Central (and West) Ionic the
use of <H> for [h] is well attested, e.g, the early
form HKHBOAOL, hekebölöi ‘far-shooter’ (statue
dedicated on Delos, late 7th c. BCE, CEG 403, Jef-
fery 1990:303 no.2, plate 55; the <H> here actually
represents [he]).
During the Hellenistic period (beginning 4th-
3rd c. BCE), the phoneme /h/ was progressively
lost from the Attic-based Koine dialect, affect-
ing first sub-elite varieties, then later also the
highest registers (Horrocks 2010:171; see + Koine,
Features of). The loss of /h/ dates to around
the and c. CE and was probably completed by the
4th c. CE (Allen 1987:50-51). Evidence for the loss
or retention of initial aspiration comes from a
number of sources, including: the absence of the
written aspirate in dialects that could write an
aspirate; hypercorrection, i.e., writing A where it
is historically unjustified; or writing an aspirate
stop for an underlying unaspirated stop in ward-
junction (e.g. kathäper = kath’ häper from the
preposition katd, so proving an assimilation to
the still-present initial [hj), although phrases
could become lexicalized, and so not subject to
this loss (cf. Mod. Gk. xaGietapat [ka'distame]
‘be(come)’, despite earlier psilosis in the simplex
histamai > istamai). In many areas the aspirate
seems to have been weakly articulated, espe-
cially in the article, as indicated by the fact that
the Greek aspirate did not prevent + elision or
> crasis, or have any effect on metrical quantity.
Latin provides typologically similar examples of
a weak articulation of [h], followed by complete
loss (Weiss 2009:62ff. and 152-154).
The spiritus asper < ‘ > and spiritus lenis < '>
were brought into use only in the Alexandrian
 PSILOSIS
period (the use of these signs is traditionally
ascribed to Aristophanes of Byzantium, ca. 200
BCE). The two symbols show developments of
the left and right halves of the sign <H>, deriv-
ing from such a use in the western colonies
during the 4th/3rd c. BCE. These symbols were
not in the autographs of authors writing prior
to this convention, and texts so printed reflect
Alexandrian editorial work. Concerning aspira-
tion in the literary corpora, we should note that
although our [onic literary corpus is generally
transmitted with aspiration on the model of
Athenian texts (while Lesbian remains psilotic),
this may in many cases be merely conventional.
For instance, all MSS of Semonides of Amorgos’
‘On Women’ 82 give khös, crasis of the particle ke
and Ads, but a recent editor, Martin West (West
1989), prints instead kös to better represent
Semonides’ East {onic os. Whether we should
print aspiration in Ionic authors remains in a
number of cases disputed; as becomes clear from
the evidence discussed above, our most reliable
sources for psilosis are epigraphic.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. 1987. Vox Graeca: the pronunciation of Clas-
sical Greek, 3rd edn, Cambridge.
Buck, Carl D. 1955. The Greek dialects. Chicago,
Colvin, Stephen. 2007. A historical Greek reader: Mycenaean
to the Koine. Oxford.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: a history af the language and
its speakers, Chichester.
Jeffery, L. H. 1961 (=1990), The local scripts of archaic Greece.
Oxford (repr. with a Supplement 1961-87 by A. W. John-
ston, 1990).
Threatte, Leslie. 1980. The grammar of Attic inscriptions. Vol,
t: Phonology. Berlin - New York.
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and compara-
tive grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor.
West, Martin L. 1989. fambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum
cantati. Oxford.
Jesse LUNDQUIST
Punctuation
— Epigraphy
Puns
The Greek word for ‘pun’ — that is to say, a play on
words based on similarity in sound — is parono-
masia (Lausberg 1990%:322-325), a term whose
first certain attestation is in a Roman work, Cic.
De or. 2.256, where it is used to characterize
193
such “a small change in wording” (paruam uerbi
immutationem) as Cato the Elder's description of
Fulvius Nobilior as Nobiliorem, mobiliorem ‘The
Noble, The Mobile’. The same figure of speech
is, however, known already in ath-century BCE
Greek rhetoric: in the Tractatus Coislinianus, the
same two basic elements of paronomasia, para-
‘beside’ and énoma ‘name’, combine to form
a different compound, paronumia (see Janko
1984:175-176); and Aristotle (who may or may
not be the author of the Tractatus) refers in
Rhet, 1412429 to td para grdmma skommata jests
that depend on a letter’. The status ofthe pun in
ancient times seems to have been roughly simi-
lar to today: sometimes it is appropriate, some-
times not, but generally — outside Aristophanic
comedy and the Gorgianic style - the feeling is,
meden ägan ‘nothing in excess’.
Puns are found in all forms of literature, from
high to low. At the bottom of the spectrum is
the only extant Greek jokebook, the Philogelos
(Baldwin 1983), dating perhaps from the 4th or
sth century CE and containing many instances
of punning, as well as other devices intended to
elicit a laugh. At the other end there is the trag-
edy of Oedipus, about whose name Sophocles
throughout the OT positively invites his audi-
ence to speculate: at one level, Oidipous certainly
means ‘Swollen-Foot’ (oideö ‘swell’ plus pois
foot”), a reference to his ankles, maimed by his
father Laius when he was a baby; but there are
also plays with, among other things, the hero's
search for knowledge (ofdd pou ‘perhaps I know’)
and the word dipous 'two-footed' in the Riddle of
the Sphinx, which the hero was the one to solve
(see e.g, Pucci 1992:66-78, 189-194, with refer-
ences). Puns are a presence already in Archaic
epic, with book g of the Odyssey the locus of the
most famous and drawn-out example, which
rests on the phonological near-identity between
the noun métis ‘cunning’ and the + negation me
fis ‘no one’, as well as on the semantico-syntac-
tically conditioned alternative to the latter, ou
tis. Using his métis amimön ‘faultless cunning’
(Od. 9.414) to outwit the Cyclops Polyphemus,
Odysseus, on whom Homer regularly bestows
the epithet polimetis ‘many-wiled'’ (JL 1.311+),
employs the pseudonym Otitis ‘Noman’ (Od.
9.366+; one might translate with the English
name Norman); this causes the other Cylcopes
to fail to understand what Polyphemus means
when he cries out that ‘Noman’ is attacking him
(Od. 9.405-406, 410). Note that the accentual
194
difference between métis and me tis, which here
serves as a driver of the plot, is no different
from that between galén’ haré I see a blue sky
in Eur. Or. 27g and galén horö ‘I see a weasel,’
which is how the actor Hegelochus apparently
accidentally spoke the phrase on stage in 408
BCE, to the hilarity of the theatergoers (see Daitz
1983). Ancient etymology, too, was based in the
first place on phonological similarity, and the
line between puns and serious linguistic ideas
was not always clearly drawn (though Sedley’s
2003 re-interpretation of Pl. Crat. removes most
of the philosophical dialogue’s would-be frivol-
ity); see e.g. Katz (2010).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldwin, Barry. 1983. The Philogelos ur faughter-lover.
Amsterdam.
Daitz, Stephen G. 1983. “Euripides, Orestes 279 galen' >
galén, or How a blue sky turned into a pussycat’, CQ
33:294-295.
Janko, Richard. 1984. Aristotle on comedy. Towards a recon-
struction of Poetics Hf. London.
Katz, Joshua T. 2010. "Etymalogy”. In: The classical tradition,
ed. by Anthony Grafton et al., 342-345. Cambridge, MA -
London.
Lausberg, Heinrich, 19903. Handbuch der literarischen Rheto-
rik, Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart.
[Eng. translation: 1998. Handbook of literary rhetoric. A
foundation for literary study, ed, by David E. Orton and
R. Dean Anderson, transl. by MatthewT. Bliss et al. Leiden -
New York.]
Pucci, Pietro, 1992. Oedipus and the fabrication of the father,
Oedipus Tyrannus in modern criticism and philosophy.
Baltimore — London.
Sedley, David. 2003, Plato's Cratylus. Cambridge.
JosnuvA T, KATZ
Purpose Clauses
Purpose clauses, also known as final clauses,
denote an intention set forth in a definite action
to accomplish or avert a situation, which is the
result of that action and is yet to be achieved
(cf. Kortmann 1998:466). According to Hum-
bert (1960:229) it is difficult to define the differ-
ent types of clauses with a final yalue, because
the idea of purpose is not completely differ-
ent from the idea of result. Likewise, Crespo et
al. (2003:417) point to a functional connection
between purpose and cause. Interestingly, none
of the seven +conjunctions used in Ancient
Greek to introduce a purpose clause were origi-
nally used to express purpase, nor were any of
them originally used for causal or + consecu-
PUNS
tive clauses. The conceptual complexity of the
semantic relation of purpose can be explained
as a blend of several other more basic relations
between the situation expressed in the matrix
clause (M) and the situation expressed in the
subordinate clause (S), plus some features which
characterize the latter. These basic relations are
as follows. Sequence: M precedes S in time. Result:
5 is a result or consequence of M, such that M is
a means or condition to obtain $. Motivation: M
is intentionally performed by an agent (cf. Quirk
et al. 19852104, Crespo 1988), and $ is the reason
(subjective cause) for which M is done. Desire:
S is a purposed or aimed-at result (Quirk et al.
1985:1108), typically desired by the agent of M.
Virtuality: purpose clauses are ‘putative’ rather
than factual, since they express a result that is
yet to be achieved (Quirk et al. 1985:1108). Pur-
pose clauses expressing the canonical relation
show all of these properties, as in (1):
(1) elm’ eis pölin, öphra me meter öpsetal
‘lam going to the city, that my mother may
see me’ (Hom. Od. 17.6)
That is, I go there before I see her, I see her as
a result of having gone there, the reason why |
go is to see her, I want to see her and | haven't
seen her yet. Purpose clauses may also express
non-canonical final relations. For instance, in
(2) virtuality and desire are at stake, but nei-
ther sequence nor intention are denoted, since
no (previous) action is invoked, while result is
merely inferential.
(2) ei öphelon holoi teinai hoi polloi ta mégista
kaka ergäzesthai, hina hoioi t’ésan kai agatha
ta mégista
‘I wish the people could accomplish the
greatest evils, that they might be able to
accomplish the greatest good deeds as well’
(Pl. Crit. 44d)
Purpose clauses are introduced by the following
conjunctions: hina, hos, höpös, 'in order that'
and me, ‘lest’. In poetry heös and dphra are also
used. fina, of uncertain origin (Goodwin 1889),
was also a local relative + adverb (3); Ads and
höpös were originally relative adverbs of man-
ner (4); öphra and heös had a temporal value
‘while’, ‘until’; the use of the negative > particle
me as a final conjunction probably originated in
a paratactical construction, such as (5):
 PURPOSE
(3) deür’ ithi, hina theskela érga ideai
‘Come here, where / that you may see won-
derful deeds’ (Hom. It. 3.130)
(4) krin’ dndras kata phrétras, hos phrétré
phrétréphin aregei
‘Divide the men by clans, in that way by
which clan may help clan’ (Hom. Il. 2.36)
(5) aüthi ménein, mé abrotdéxomen allétotin
‘Wait there, lest we miss each other (Hom.
Il. 10.65)
The mood of the verb (always with Aina and me) is
usually the > subjunctive, aftera primary (present
or future) tense in the main clause. This subjunc-
tive has traditionally been explained as an expres-
sion of will or intention (+ Mood and Modality)
(see Pino 1991 for an overview). It would basi-
cally be the same subjunctive found in the some-
what equivalent paratactic construction of (6):
(6) thdpte me hétti täkhista piilas Aidao peresö
‘Bury me with all speed; let me pass (= that
I pass) within the gates of Hades' (Hom. Il.
23.71)
Amigues (1977) argues that it merely conveys an
abstract representation of the purported result,
whereas Diaz Tejera (1989) argues that in a sub-
ordinate clause it cannot have an impressive
value. The conjunctions Adpés and öphra (rarely
hös and me) usually take the future indicative,
as in (7):
(7) sigdth’ höpös me peusetat tis
‘Speak not aloud, that no one shall hear’
(Aesch. Cho. 265)
After a secondary tense, the verb of the purpose
clause may stand in the (oblique) + optative, but
remains in the subjunctive if it refers to a present
or future situation. The optative may also be used
by attraction, after an optative verb in the main
sentence, with any one of the final conjunctions.
If the main clause denotes repeated action, the
subordinate may take an (iterative) optative:
(8) dierötön an autouis ti légoien, hina ti kai man-
thanoimi par’ autön
‘\ asked them what they meant, that I might
learn something from them’ (Pl. Ap. 22b)
In a counterfactual context, the verb of the sub-
ordinate may stand In the past indicative (very
CLAUSES 195
rarely with dn) to denote a failed purpose as the
result of the failure of the previous act, as in (9):
(9) se ekhrén sunkhorein, hina hé sunousia
egigneto
‘You ought to have made this concession,
so that we might have had a debate’ (Pl. Prt.
335C)
hös and höpös (as well as heös and dphra) may
take the prospective subjunctive or the poten-
tial optative with the particle dn, a construc-
tion which is a remnant of their relative nature
(Goodwin 1889:109). Both moods render the
result more hypothetical (Revuelta Puigdollers
2005) or dependent on external conditions, for
instance (10):
(in) faüta dé epoiee Thrasüboulos, hökös an ho
kérux aggeilei... ta de kai egeneto
‘Thrasybulus did this so that the herald
would bring word of it...and so it hap-
pened’ (Hdt. 1.22)
As a complementary explanation of the choice
of different moods, I suggest that the moods
differ in that they highlight different aspects of
the canonical relation. In cognitive terms, one
might say that they profile different substructures
of an equal base. Thus, the subjunctive lays stress
on intentionality, whereas the future highlights
sequentiality and the forms with ar foreground
the non-factual condition of the purported result.
In any case, as part of a complex construction, all
of them are equally fit to convey both the canoni-
cal and other less canonical relations.
Canonical purpose clauses usually stand
as predicate adjuncts. Crespo et al. (2003:427)
explain that final and causal relations expressed
by adverbial clauses are different semantic rela-
tions of a single (macro)function cause-purpose.
The idea is supported by the fact that they may
stand in adposition to a phrase in the main
clause expressing either purpose or cause (epi +
acc. / dat., heneka + gen., did + acc.):
(u) ekklésian totitou héneka xunégagon, höpös
hupomnesö
‘| have called an assembly for this reason,
that I may remind you’ (Thue. 2.60.1)
As arguments or obligatory adjuncts hös, höpös
and mé are used with verbs of effort or care
196 PURPOSE
(Jiménez 1994) and fear. Humbert (1960:236)
suggests that there is a gradual difference
between objective and adverbial final clauses.
Objective clauses after such verbs denote non-
canonical purpose relations and accordingly
lack some of the properties of canonical purpose
clauses, Thus, object clauses after verbs of effort
do express an intended or purported object,
since they denote means to accomplish or avert
a result. But, as Smyth (1920:497) points out,
they are “incomplete final clauses’, inasmuch
as they do not express an action taken to effect
the desired result. They are commonly built with
höpös (or hös) (mé) plus the future, occasionally
with the subjunctive and never with me alone,
e.g. epimeleitai höpös me apothaneitai, ‘he takes
care that he shall not die’. Object clauses after
verbs of fear express rejection of an undesired
result or fear that a desired result may not be
accomplished. They are commonly built with
me plus the subjunctive, only occasionally with
höpös (or hös) plus the subjunctive or the future
indicative: phobeitai mé apothdnéi, ‘he is afraid
lest he die’. The final conjunction is sometimes
used in an independent clause with the force
of an + imperative. This use apparently derived
from the preceding constructions, by omission
of the governing verb, and is limited to Adpds
and (rarely) Ads, both mainly with the future
tense, in Classical Greek (Monteil 1963:370). In
later periods it was replaced by Aina with the
subjunctive (Sim 2006:96 ff.). Labiano (2008)
sees instances of this use already in the + Attic
prose of the late sth c. BCE, which he explains
as a process of grammaticalization, and Kalén
(1941) even points to one occurence in Homer:
(12) khaire, xein’, hina kal pot’ eon en patridi
galei mnesei emei’
‘Farewell, stranger, and hereafter even in
your own native land may you remember
me’ (Hom. Od. 8.461)
Purpose clauses may be used as style > disjuncts
to express the speaker's comments on his own
speech (Revuelta Puigdollers 200510; Crespo et al.
2003:419). Several functions may be observed,
such as correction (13), text organization (14),
and interaction with the addressee (15):
(13) Aina me efpé mönos
'[I think I'm one of the few,} not to say the
only one’ (Pl. Grg. 521d)
CLAUSES
(14) hina ek toutön arkhomai
‘To begin with these’ (Dem. Or. 21.43)
(15) Zeus esth’, hin’ eideis
‘Zeus it is, I tell you (lit. that you may know
it)’ (Soph. Phil. 989)
There are also other means to express purpose
in Ancient Greek. A special group of purpose
clauses is introduced by the conditional con-
junctions ei, af:
(16) ball’ houtös, ai ken ti phöos Danavisi geneai
‘Shoot on in this wise, ifso you may prove a
light to the Danaans’ (Hom. Il. 8.282)
Here the achievement of the intended result
does not depend directly on the previous action,
but rather on other circumstances (cf. Wakker
1988). The = infinitive alone or with the article
(in the + genitive) can also express purpose:
(17) hous hellesthe ärkhein mou
'[The rulers] you chose to rule over me’ (Pl.
Ap. 28e)
Likewise, — relative clauses with the verb in the
future indicative express an idea of destination
(Humbert 1960:245):
(18) mdrturas pepöristai hoi marturésousin
autdi
‘He procured witnesses to testify (lit. who
would testify) in his favour’ (Lys. 29.7)
Finally, a predicative future + participle (at times
preceded by Ads) may also denote an intended
purpose:
(19) ho Barbaros epi ten Helldda doulésémenos
élthen
‘The Barbarian returned to Greece to subju-
gate it’
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amigues, S. 1977. Les subordonnees finales par örwg en attique
classique. Paris,
Crespo, E. 1988. “La expresiön de la finalidad en las subordi-
nadas del griego antiguo’, RSEL 18:285-298.
Crespo, E., L. Conti and H. Maquieira. 2003. Sintaxis del
griego clasico, Madrid.
Diaz Tejera, A. ı989. “Los modos griegos y la subardinaciön
(subjuntivo y optativo)". In: Actas del VII CEEC, 73-92.
Madrid.
Goodwin, W. W. 1889. Syntax of the moods and tenses of the
Greek verb, London.
 PURPOSE CLAUSES
Humbert,J. 1960. Syntaxe grecque. Paris.
Jiménez Lopez, Maria D. 1994. ““Omws tras verbos de inten-
ciön o esfuerzo en ätica cläsico”, Habis 25:431-449.
Labiano Ilundain, J. M. 2008. “La cronologia de (ve con sub-
juntivo en expresiön de mandato: la lengua de Söfocles,
Euripides y Jenofonte”, CFC 18:55-72.
Kalen, T. ıgqı, Selbständige Finalsätze und imperativische
Infinitive im Griechischen. Uppsala — Leipzig.
Kortmann, B. 1998. “Adverbial subordinators in the lan-
guages of Europe“. In: Adverbial constructions in the lan-
guages of Europe, ed. by J. van der Auwera and D, P. 0.
Baoill, 457-561. Berlin.
Monteil, P. 1963. Lu phrase relative en grec ancien: sa forma-
tian, son développement, sa structure des origines a la fin
du VE siécle a. C. Paris.
197
Pino Campos, L. M. ıggı. “Oraciones subordinadas finales.
La funciön de los modos subjuntivo y optativo en griego
antiguo", Fortunatae 2287-206.
Revuelta Puigdollers, A. zuos. “Oraciones finales y consecu-
tivas.” In: Sintaxis griega, ed. by Maria D. Jiménez Lopez,
http://www.liceus.com/cgi-bi/aco/areas.asp?id_area=4.
Sim, M. G. 2006. A relevance theoretic approach to the particle
iva in Koine Greek. Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh.
Smyth, H. W. 1920. Greek grammar. New York.
Wakker, G. C, 1988. “Purpose expressions in Homeric
Greek”. In: In the footsteps of Raphael Kühner Il, ed. by
A. Rijksbaron, H. A. Mulder and G. C. Wakker, 27-334.
Amsterdam.
RAFAEL MARTINEZ
Quantifiers
ı. DEFINITION AND EXPLANATION
Quantificational expressions are used for dis-
cussing the quantity or amount of things, such as
dozens of apples or liters of water. They answer
questions like ‘How much/many?’ (Cushing
1982211). This entry discusses only quantifiers over
entities, while not taking the A(dverb)-quantifi-
ers into account that quantify over events.
2. CARDINALS
~+ Numerals are typically adjective-type modi-
fiers (+ Adjectives (Morphological Aspects of )),
inflected and co-indexed with the + Noun
Phrase (NP) in the following way: heis 'ı' is fully
inflected for + gender, (singular) + number and
case (+ Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of); dio
(did) ‘2' inflects in Early + Attic in the + dual
number (sometimes occurring with the verb's
plural form if it is in the + subject position)
and case (with nom. = ace. and gen. = dat.), but
later and elsewhere in the plural number or as
invariant dito/duo (cf. Xen. An. 3.4.9); treis ‘3’ and
téttares 'a' are inflected in gender (with masc. =
fem.), plural number and case (whereby nom. =
acc.); the cardinals from 5 to 199 are indeclinable
if represented as a one-word unit; if the numer-
als are coordinated, then the cardinals 1 to 4 do
inflect, e.g, ‘13 treis kai déka ‘three (inflected)
and ten (invariant)’ or, alternatively, as a com-
pound, treiskaideka (invariant).
(1) duoin adelphoin esteréthémen
‘we were robbed of (our) two brothers’
(Soph. Ant. 13)
The numeral heis retains some lexical or
emphatic component, having such readings as
‘single’, ‘(only) one’, ‘alone’, etc. (cf. Aesch. Ag.
1456), since the number ‘1 is already unambigu-
ously indexed on the respective NP (and, if the
latter is the subject, also on the verb).
The cardinals 18-19, 28-29, 38-39, etc. are
usually expressed via a subtraction periphrasis
construction based on the — present + active
— participle of deö ‘lack, need’. which agrees
with the quantified NP in case (and number) and
having either Aends 'one-gen. sg. masc./n.' / mids
‘one-gen. sg. feın.‘, (for Xg cardinals) or duoin
‘two-gen. du.’ for X8 (cardinals) as its object
argument, e.g.:
(2} mids deousais eikosi nausin
‘(They came) with nineteen ships’ (Thuc.
8.17.3)
3. QUANTIFIERS
I distinguish between regular and lexical quanti-
fiers. The main difference between the two types
is that the former are prototypically grammati-
calized quantifiers in terms of their meaning and
syntactic alignment, while the latter often retain
their lexical semantics and pattern syntactically
with NPs. However, even some regular quantifi-
ers may still exhibit a somewhat lexical reading,
such as ‘whole’ for pds (otherwise ‘all, every’).
Quantifiers are not lexically restricted to either
count or mass nouns,
 QUANTIFIERS
3.a. Regular Quantifiers
In addition to the adnominal usage, regular
quantifiers most frequently occur alone exhib-
iting a pronominal (> Pronominal System)
function. The referent being quantified is to be
understood from the context and is by default
a human being, e.g. oligoi [few-pl.] ‘few people’,
päntes [all-pl.] ‘all people’, etc. Regular quanti-
fiers typically align with the quantified NP as
adjectives, ie. agree with their NP in gender/
number/case (adjective-type alignment, AtA). If
the NP is overtly expressed, then the quantifier,
as a default, precedes the quantified NP; though,
generally, its positioning in the clause is subject
to discourse constraints only, and there are no
structural limitations.
Unlike in many languages, several quantifiers
of Classical Greek may restrictedly co-occur with
different kinds of determiners and, semantically,
are vaguely pre-defined in terms of (in)definite-
ness, e.g. with ho/h&/to ‘the’ they are used to refer
to a discursively accessible group that is quanti-
fied over by the quantifier (cf. (3)) or with the
indefinite pronoun hekastös tis [each one] ‘every
one’ (+ Determiners).
(3) Aoi päntes horömen
‘We all see’ (Hdt. 9.58.2)
The singular inflected distributive quantifier
hékastos ‘each’ allows not only the singular, but
also the plural range (cf. (4) and Hdt. 3.158) and
is not restricted to the third person only (cf. (5)),
Xen, Symp. 3.3, as can be observed on the verb:
(4) tén pdnton hoi hekastos din dösousi
‘Each of the(m) all will give him a sheep’
(Hom. Il. 10.215)
(5) dedmémestha hékastos
We) obey (you) each (of us)’ (Hom. If
5.878)
Only the singular number of the indefinite pro-
noun tis'some-sg. allows for the generic, universal-
quantifier-reading ‘every(one)', cf. tis autös ita
‘everyone should come himself” (Hom. Il. 17.254,
cf. Soph. Aj. 417, Eur. Bacch, 346). In this func-
tion, it is opposed to Aékastos, which applies
instead to discursively accessible entities (Biraud
1991:202ff.), does not have the generic interpreta-
tion, and cannot be anaphorically referred to in
the following context. In several contexts, it has
the function of distinguishing the ontological
199
series of other quantifiers, very much like Eng-
lish: pds tis, hekastös tis ‘everyone’ vs. oudén fi
‘nothing’.
3.b. Lexical Quantifiers
Lexical quantifiers are distinguished from regu-
lar ones in that they (i) still have a lexical com-
ponent in their meaning; (ii) can be additionally
modified and quantified by another quantifier;
(iii) have nominal alignment, i.e., they require
the genitive case on the NP being quantified
(partitive alignment, section 4), e.g. noun-like
quantifiers (pléthos ‘amount’, meros ‘part’, etc.)
or adverb-like quantifiers (hdden ‘enough’, halis
‘enough’):
(6) to dé pan pléthos tön hoplitön
‘the whole amount of the hoplites’ (Thuc.
8.93.1)
4. PARTITIVE ALIGNMENT
In addition to the AtA between the quanti-
fier/numeral and its NP, there is the partitive
alignment, which is found in both the partitive
construction (PC) and the pseudo-partitive con-
struction (PPC) (term coined in Selkirk 1977, cf.
also Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001, see also Luraghi
2003:60ff.; Napoli 2010). The PC and PPC are
both equally encoded by means of a genitive
case-marked NP/DP/QP (later also reinforced by
the PP ek(s) ‘from’ or apd ‘from’ with genitive)
that is morphosyntactically dependent on the
head NP, i.e., the respective quantifier (+ Geni-
tive). Despite their formal identity, the two con-
structions are semantically distinct: while the
PC encodes that only a sudéset of a definite,
delimited and temporally established superset
is affected by the predicate with the remainder
(the complement) remaining unaffected (cf. Eng-
lish a cup of that good tea), the PPC denotes that
particular instantiations of a kind or a sub-kind
are affected by the event (cf. English a cup of
tea), whereby the latter does not encode a part-
of relation anymore (De Hoop 2003; Komfit
& Heusinger 2009; Selkirk 1977; Koptjevskaja-
Tamm 2001; Luraghi 2003:6o0ff; Napoli 2010;
SerZant 2012a, 2012b). Contrasting with the AtA,
the PC and PPC are complex expressions with
regard to both their syntax and semantics, con-
sisting of several phrases, and are thus crucially
distinguished from languages with quantifiers
that assign case, such as Finnish or Russian. Cf.
200 QUANTIFIERS
quantifiers within the PC in (7) and PPC in (9),
and cardinal expressions within the PC in (8)
and PPC in (10):
(7) tines autön oligoi
‘Some few (men) from them’ (Xen. Hell.
11.34)
(8) epekhefrésan kai Timoléonti düo tön
demagögön
‘and two of the leaders (of Syracuse) have
attacked Timoleon’ (Plut. Tim. 37.1)
(9) al’ oligoi men tén unthrdpon dediasi ton
thedn
‘There are (some) few men that fear the
god’, lit. ‘few of the people’ (Plut. Non posse
21)
tamlas de tdi demöi dio tan néén édaken
apodeixai
‘(He) gave the people (the rights) ofappoint-
ing two [of the] young men (as) quaestors'
(Plut. Publ. 12.3)
Cf, the PPC also in pds... Hellenön ‘every Greek
(man)’ (Soph. OC 597, cf. also Xen. Cyr. 8.2.24),
panti brotén ‘to every mortal’ (Pind. Of. 1.100, cf.
also Soph. Aj. 682) and polloi Tröön ‘many Tro-
jans' (see Hom. Il. 8.344, 12.226, Hom. Od. 4.257,
etc.),
In (10), the definite article does not encode
definiteness, but rather designates only a generic
or a classification, meaning ‘young men’, not the
meaning of a particular group of people. The
subtle difference between the AtA and the PPC
seems to be that, with the latter but not with the
former, the classification (that the quantified NP
refers ta) is represented as a familiar or restricted
concept, i.e., ‘the men’ and ‘the mortals’ or ‘the
gods’, ‘the Trojans’, ‘the elders’, etc.
5. ADJECTIVE-PARTITIVE ALIGNMENT
A kind of contamination of both strategies,
the AtA and the PPC, can only be found with
mass nouns, as in (11) and (12). Here the quanti-
fier surfaces morphosyntactically; partly as an
adjective-like quantifier in the AtA, as it has
gender agreement with the quantified NP, but
also partly as a head of the PPC, by assigning the
genitive case to that NP (+ Agreement).
(11) étemon tes ges ten pollen
‘they ravaged most (acc. fem.) of the land
(gen. fem.)' (Thuc. 2.56.4}
(12) tön pollön tod khrénou
‘much (acc. masc.) of the time (gen, masc.)'
(Hdt. 1.24)
Analogous examples are found in Aristoph. Plut.
694, Xen. Cyr. 3.2.2, and Dem. Or. 44.6.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biraud, Michele. 1991. La determination du nom en Grec clas-
sigue. Nice.
Cushing, S. 1982. Quantifier meanings. A study in the dimen-
sions of semantic competence. Amsterdam ~ New York.
de Hoop, Helen, 2003, “Partitivity”. In: The second Glat inter-
national state-of-the-article book, ed. by L. Cheng and
R. Sybesma, 179-212. Berlin - New York.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. “A piece of the cake
and a cup of tea: partitive and pseudo-partitive nomi-
nal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages’.
In: The Circum-Baltic languages. Typology and con-
tact. Volume 2: Grammar and typology, ed. by Ö. Dahl
and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 323-568. Amsterdam —
Philadelphia.
Kornfilt, Jacquline and Klaus von Heusinger. 2009. “Speci-
ficity and partitivity in some Altaic languages”. In: MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 58. Proceedings of the
sth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 5),
ed. by Ryosuke Shibagaki and Reiko Vermeulen, 19-40.
Cambridge.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and
cases. The expression of sernantic roles in Ancient Greek.
Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Napoli, Maria. 2010. “The case for the partitive case: the con-
tribution of Ancient Greek", TPAS 108:15-40.
Selkirk, E. O. 1977. “Some remarks on noun phrase struc-
ture". In: Formal syntax. Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine
conference on the formal syntax of natural language,
Newport Beach, California, June 9-n, 1976, ed. by Peter W.
Culicover, Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian, 285-
316. New York.
Serzant, Ilja A. 2012a. “Pragmatics and semantics of the bare
partitive genitive in Ancient Greek", Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung 65(2):213-136.
. 2012b, “Morphosyntactic properties of the parti-
tive genitive in the subject position in Ancient Greek”,
Indogermanische Forschungen 117:187-204.
Tatevosov, Sergej G. 2002. Sentantika sostavljajustix imennoj
gruppy: kvantornye slova [Semantics of the noun phrase
constituents: the quantifier], Moscow.
Inja A. SERZANT
Questions
1. INTRODUCTION
The question is a sentence type found in most
languages ofthe world. The function ofquestions
has been derived from commands as well as from
statements (see discussion in Lyons 1977:753ff.).
Questions fall into two major categories: alterna-
tive questions and constituent questions. Yes/
 QUESTIONS
no questions are a subtype of alternative ques-
tions. When asking an alternative question, the
speaker signals his doubt about the correctness
of a proposition associated with the question.
When asking a constituent question, the speaker
signals that he lacks information about the ele-
ment corresponding to the question word. The
asking of a question is usually accompanied by
the following assumptions:
- the speaker does not yet know the answer to
the question; and
— the hearer may know the answer to the ques-
tion.
Neither of these assumptions need, however, be
true for the question act to be successful. In rhe-
torical questions, the speaker knows the answer
to the question and does not expect the hearer
to answer it. The speaker may also pose a ques-
tion to express his wonder at something without
expecting the hearer to be able to give a correct
answer. While questions are often used in order
to add to the speaker's knowledge, they may be
used to perform a range of other speech acts.
2. QUESTIONS IN ANCIENT GREEK
The form and, especially, the function of ques-
tions in Ancient Greek have not been widely
studied. The different types of questions out-
lined above are all present in Anc. Gk. We find
yes/no questions and other alternative questions
as well as constituent questions.
2.a. Formal Features of Anc. Gk. Questions
In many languages, questions have distinct for-
mal features. These typically include intonation,
word order and special particles.
24.1. Intonation
In many languages, questions are associated
with a sentence intonation different from that of
declarative clauses (+ Intonational Phrase). This
is likely to have been at least partly the case in
Anc. Gk. as well since yes/no questions may have
the same form as declarative clauses: question
particles are not obligatory and word order pat-
terns are not in general tied to sentence types.
The evidence for sentence intonation in Anc.
Gk. is, however, scant. According to Devine and
Stephens (1994), there is both direct and indirect
evidence for intonational differences between
201
questions and statements in Anc, Gk. For direct
evidence, Aristotle (Poet. 1456b10, 1457421) states
that questions and commands differ in the way
they are delivered (hupokritiké). The indirect
evidence comes from the way interrogative pro-
forms (+ Pronouns) never change their acute
accent to a grave (+ Accentuation). This may
indicate that the high tone associated with the
acute accent (> Pitch) was an obligatory feature
of constituent questions (Devine and Stephens
1994:455).
2.2.jl. Word Order
Questions are not associated with specific word-
order patterns in Anc. Gk. in the way e.g, subject-
verb inversion is typical of questions in English.
In general, word order in questions seems to
be regulated by the same factors as the word
order of declarative + clauses, mainly informa-
tion structure (+ Word Order, + Information
Structure and Greek). Interrogative proforms do
show a tendency to be placed early in their sen-
tence. This tendency may be overridden, how-
ever, by the need of other sentence constituents
to occur early (see the seminal treatment in
Thomson 1939 and Dover 1960:20; further work
is needed on multiple topicalization in Anc.
Gk. (+ Topic)). Although various fields of Greek
grammar have received book-length treatment
over the last years, there seem to exist no studies
specifically on the word order of questions of the
language.
2.a.iii. Tense and Mood
Anc. Gk. questions exhibit the same range of
moods and tenses as statements (> Verbal Sys-
tem (Tense, Aspect, Mood)): the indicative and
the (potential) + optative. In addition, the so-
called deliberative subjunctive is typically used
in questions.
(1) eipömen é sigömen?
‘Shall we speak or be silent?’ (Eur. Jon 758)
This use of the subjunctive corresponds to the
hortatory subjunctive in declarative clauses in
that both express will. The hortatory subjunc-
tive expresses the will of the speaker; when the
subjunctive is used in a question, however, the
speaker gives the hearer the privilege of deciding
between the alternatives.
202 QUESTIONS
2.b, Question Types in Ancient Greek
From a formal point of view, we may distinguish
in Anc. Gk. between yes/no questions, alternative
questions and constituent questions. All question
types may occur either as direct questions or as
indirect questions, embedded under a speech
verb like ‘ask’ or ‘want to know’.
2.b,i. Direct Questions
Yes/no questions are formed in two ways in Anc.
Gk. First, they may take the same form as the
corresponding statement. In this case, they were
most likely associated with some kind of ques-
tion intonation, cf. the discussion in 2.a.i. above.
Secondly, they may contain certain > particles
which indicate that they are questions (dra
being the most frequent one).
(2) Aégoumetha ti ton thanaton einai?
‘Do we regard death as anything?’ (Pl. Phd.
64c)
(3) dr’ eimi mantis?
‘Am | a prophet?’ (Soph. Ant. 1212)
(4) é téthnéken Oidipou pater?
‘Is Oedipus’ father really dead?’ (Soph. OT
943)
Historically, the particles that introduce ques-
tions of this type had a meaning like ‘really,
surely’ and served to underline the interest of
the speaker in learning the true state of affairs
(dra is supposed to be a contraction of é ‘really’
and the inferential particle dra). If we look at
example (4) from Oedipus Tyrannus in its larger
context, it has a reading in which the death of
Polybus is already known to the interlocutors by
the time the question is asked:
(5) (941) locaste: té d’; oukh ho présbus Pölubos
enkrates éti?
‘How so? Is not the aged Polybus still in
power?’
(942) Messenger: ou det’, epeinin thdnatos en
domois ékhei
‘No, for death holds him in the tomb’
(943) locaste: pds eipas; E tethneken Oidipou
pater?
‘What have you said? Is Oedipus' father
dead?’ (Soph. OT 941-43, trans. Lloyd-Jones)
The messenger in line 942 clearly states that
Polybus is dead, and it is only the (perceived)
importance of this fact for the fate of Oedi-
pus himself that prompts locaste to repeat the
question. (Note that even if the wording given
above rests on a conjecture by Nauck, the vari-
ous manuscript readings all identify the subject
of téthnéken ‘he is dead’ as Polybus.)
Simple yes/no questions are generally held
to be neutral with regard to the likelihood of
the possible answers, Often, however, the alter-
natives are not on the same level. Rather, the
speaker poses his question in a form that explic-
itly signals that he thinks one answer is more
likely than the other. In this case, Anc. Gk. makes
use of its two negations (+ Negation): ou is used
in questions that expect a positive answer, mé
in questions that expect a negative answer (see
Denniston 1950:47ff. on the combination of dra
and negation). Note that such questions are
only suggestive of the speaker's expectations:
an answer that contradicts those expectations is
possible, but will typically be more emphatic.
(6) dr’ oukh hubris tade?
‘Is this not insolence?’ (Soph. OC 883)
(7) me ti neöteron angelleis?
‘No bad news, I hope?’ (PL Prt. 310b)
The difference in presupposition between the
two questions is clear from the examples. In
example (6), the speaker expresses his own belief
that what he is talking about is clearly insolence.
In (7), on the other hand, the speaker obviously
would like his interlocutor to confirm that he
has in fact no bad news.
Alternative questians are similar to yes/no
questions in the sense that they concern the
confirmation or denial of a proposition pre-
sented by the speaker. In yes/no questions, the
hearer is asked to give his assent if he thinks the
proposition contained in the question is true.
In alternative questions, on the other hand, the
hearer is asked to pick out from the alternatives
presented the proposition which he thinks is
true. So yes/no questions may be considered a
subtype of alternative questions in which the
alternatives are limited to a proposition and
its negated form, Yes/no questions constitute a
separate type of question only to the extent that
there exists in the language a word meaning ‘yes’
(or a word meaning ‘no’ which is separate from
the regular negation).
The key element in forming alternative ques-
tions is the disjunction ‘or’ (in Anc. Gk.: €). An
alternative question may be formed using just
 QUESTIONS
this disjunction, as shown in example (8). In
addition, the word pöteron/pötera may be added
at the beginning of the question, as in (9). This
word was originally a question word meaning
‘which of the two’, referring to the (usually)
two propositions contained in an alternative
question:
(8) en khrémata pollä ékhéi, edis ploutein é
peneta poieis?
‘If he has great wealth, do you let him keep
on being rich or do you make him poor?’
(Xen. Cyr. 3.1.12)
(9) pöteron dédraken é ou?
‘Has he done it or not?’ (Dem. Or. 23.79)
As example (9) shows, an alternative question is
frequently nothing more than a yes/no question
in which the alternatives are spelled out (and
material common to the two conjuncts deleted
in the second).
By posing a constituent question, the speaker
asks the hearer to identify a certain aspect of a
situation. This aspect may refer to the identity
of a person, time, place, reason, way, and so on,
By using the correct interrogative proform as a
question word, the speaker indicates the type of
answer he is interested in. A constituent ques-
tion is answered by providing a piece of informa-
tion of the type indicated by the interrogative
proform.
(10) tf otin kelewd poiésai?
‘What then do I urge you to do?’ (Xen. An.
1.4.14) ; (14a). Alternatively, the so-called indefinite rela-
(m) ti oün poiésantos katekheirotonesate toü
Eudndrou?
‘For what act then did you condemn
Evander?’ (Dem. Or. 21.176)
epeidé peri tinos Athenaloi dianooüntai
boulettesthai, anistasai sumbouleuon?
‘When the Athenians are intending to
deliberate about what, do yau get up to
give them advice?’ (Pl. Alc. J 106c)
The question word in constituent questions may
have any syntactic function and occur at any
level of syntactic embedding. In example (10),
the question word ti ‘what’ is the object of the
~ infinitive poiésai. In example (11), the question
word is the > direct object of the + participle
poiesantos, which is an attribute of the genitive
203
phrase tod Eudndrou ‘Evander’, while in (12) the
question word tinos ‘what’ replaces a constituent
within an adverbial clause (+ Adverbial Con-
stituents).
2.b.ii. Indirect Questions
Indirect questions are questions that function as
the complements of a certain class of predicates
(‘ask’, ‘wonder’, ‘be unsure’, etc.).
(13) a. tines este;
‘Who are you?"
b. eröton autous tines eien
‘They asked them who they were’ (Xen. An.
4.5.10)
The simplest case is the predicate ‘ask’, as shown
in example (13b), The direct question in (13a)
functions as the complement of the predicate
(with the appropriate changes of mood and per-
son) (+ Complementation).
(14) a. aporön poi träpoito epi löphon tina kata-
pheügei
‘Being in doubt whither he should turn, he
fled to a hill’ (Xen. Cyr. 3.1.4)
b. aporön höpoi träpoito...
‘Being in doubt as to where he should
tum...
The Anc. Gk. question types discussed above
may all appear as indirect questions. Indirect
constituent questions may retain the interroga-
tive proform of their direct form, as shown in
tives may replace the interrogative proforms:
this variant is shown in (14b), All indirect ques-
tions must, however, be overtly marked as ques-
tions, whether by a complementizer or by an
interrogative proform.
Indirect yes/no questions add the complemen-
tizer ei ‘whether to the direct question as shown
in example (15). Alternatively, the question par-
ticle dra may be used, as in (16). (For discussion
of the relationship between ei ‘if’ in conditional
protases and ei ‘whether’ introducing indirect
yes/no questions, see Wakker 1994:379ff.; > Con-
ditionals).
(15) éreto ei bletheie
‘He asked him whether he had been struck’
(Xen. Cyr. 8.3.30)
204 QUESTIONS
(16) idémen dr’ houtösi gignetai pänta
'Let us see whether everything is thus pro-
duced’ (Pl. Phd. 70d)
Indirect alternative questions either retain the
direct form (introduced by pöteron) or add the
complementizer ei. The disjunction é 'or' may
be retained or replaced with eite (meaning ‘and
whether‘).
(17) dieröta ton Kéron pöteron boüloito menein é
upienui
‘She asked Cyrus whether he wanted to stay
or go away’ (Xen. Cyr. 1.3.15)
(18) ten sképsin poiömetha eite öpheliun eite
blabén parekhei
‘Let us make the inquiry whether it pro-
duces benefit or injury’ (Pl. Phdr. 237d)
érota ei autols tols undräsi spendoito tols
ioüsi kai apiolsin, € kai tois dllois esointo
spondai
‘He asked whether he was making a truce
merely with the individual men who were
coming and going or whether the truce
would be with the rest as well’ (Xen. An.
2.3.7)
Indirect constituent questions may retain the
corresponding direct form (as seen in the sec-
ond conjunct in example 20) or the so-called
indefinite relative pronouns may appear instead
(example 20, first conjunct):
(20) ou gar aisthänomal sou hopoion nömimon é
poion dikaion légeis
‘For | da not perceive what you mean by
“conformable to law” or what you mean by
“just”' (Xen. Mem. 4.4.13)
3. THE PRAGMATIC USE OF QUESTIONS IN
ANCIENT GREEK
The central function of questions is to allow
the speaker to elicit new information from the
hearer. In reality, questions are used to perform
a range of (indirect) speech acts.
Questions are sometimes used as requests,
typically with the optative mood:
(21) ts auton deür'an dpsin eis emen / kaléseien
‘Someone call him here before me’ (Eur.
Bacch. 1257-8, trans. Kovacs)
Example (21) literally says 'who would call him
here’, but is obviously intended as a request to
a servant.
Rhetorical questions differ from ordinary ques-
tions in that the speaker is not interested in the
actual answer to his question. He may or may not
know the answer. In any case, the speaker uses
the question form to perform another speech
act, typically an assertion.
(22) tis ouk an homologéseien?
‘Who wouldn't agree?’ (Xen. Mem. 1.1.5)
(23) peri men oün tés Bousiridos eugeneias tis ouk
an dunétheié raidiös eipein?
‘Of the noble lineage of Busiris who would
not find it easy to speak?’ (Isoc. Or. 11.10)
Examples (22) and (23) are typical rhetori-
cal questions. The speaker is not interested in
identifying any particular person as someone
who would disagree or find it difficult to speak.
Rather, the rhetorical question is used to empha-
size the speaker's claim that everybody would
in fact agree or find it easy to speak about the
lineage of Busiris. The questions are actually a
way for the speaker to express that his claim is
uncontroversial.
The effective use of rhetorical questions
depends on the uncontroversial nature of the
proposition being questioned: the rhetorical
effect lies in the contrast between the normal
pragmatic constraints on the use of questions
and the speech situation. The speaker in (22) is
not asking his listeners to identify any person as
disagreeing, but rather to confirm the proposi-
tion that everybody would agree. As such, both
(22) and (23) show a mismatch between the
form of the question (constituent question) and
the expected response (confirmation).
Collinge (1988) represents a first exploration
of the pragmatic use of questions in Anc. Gk,,
but contains only a short discussion. The dis-
sertation of Faure (2010) illustrates the renewed
general interest in the semantics and pragmatics
of questions. In a study of the syntax and seman-
tics of indirect constituent questions in Classical
Greek prose texts, the author identifies several
interesting patterns. He shows, among other
things, that the form of an embedded question
depends upon the type of the embedding predi-
cate and that the use of the oblique optative is
linked to the type of the embedded question.
 QUESTIONS
Interest in the discourse function of particles
in Anc. Gk. has led to research into the use of
+ particles in questions. Kip (1997) and Sicking
(1997) are two examples of this type of research.
Kip (1997) discusses the use of the particle
combination é gdr in Greek tragedy. Questions
introduced by these particles are typically used
when the speaker is asking for confirmation (Kip
1997152):
(24) & gär pot’ éstin ekpesein arkhes Dia?
Is it really possible that Zeus will once fall
from power?’ (Aesch. PV 757)
The question cited in (24) occurs in a context
where Prometheus has stated that his sufferings
will continue until Zeus falls from power.
(25) niin d’ oudén esti térma moi prokeimenon /
mokhthon, prin an Zeus ekpéséi turannidos
‘As it is, no end has been set for my toils,
until Zeus falls from his autocratic nıler-
ship’ (Aesch. PV 755-56, trans, Sommer-
stein)
Io responds to Prometheus’ utterance by asking
whether he really means to claim that Zeus will
actually fall from power. The use of é gar ‘really’
indicates both that Io interprets Prometheus’
utterance as adding the proposition ‘Zeus will
fall from power’ to the common ground of their
conversation and that she finds this proposition
surprising.
Another interesting example is (27) from
Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus. Oedipus asks
the messenger who had pierced his (Oedipus')
ankles, but receives the answer in (26) (Kip
1997:151):
(26) ouk oid’: ha dous dé taut’ emoti léion
phronei
‘| do not know. The man who gave the child
to me is better informed about that than
I am’ (Soph. OT 1038)
This answer from the messenger provokes the
following question from Oedipus:
(27) € gar par’ dllou m’ élabes oud' autos tukhon?
‘Then did you not find me, but received me
from another man?’ (Soph. OT 1039, trans.
Lloyd-Jones)
205
Again, the speaker, here Oedipus, reacts to a new
piece of information. Interestingly, the proposi-
tions that both lo and Oedipus react to with
questions demanding explicit confirmation are
introduced into the conversation not as sepa-
rate assertions; rather, they follow from some
smaller part of other utterances and need to
be accommodated. In (25), the claim that Zeus
will fall from power occurs within the temporal
clauses introduced by ‘until', while in (26), the
noun phrase ho doüs ‘the one who gave’ gives
tise to the inference that someone else than
the messenger originally received the baby. This
indirect way of introducing new information
then prompts the use of questions introduced
by é gar ‘really’.
Sicking (1997) studies another aspect of par-
ticle use in questions in Anc, Gk,, viz. the role
played by particles in maintaining discourse
cohesion. He takes his examples from Plato's
philosophical dialogue Gorgias. The question
types discussed by Sicking are as follows:
yes/no questions with oukoün
yes/no questions with dra and är’oün
|
yes/no questions with dra
questions with ¢/ ‘what; why’ and various par-
ticles (oün, dé, dé, otin dé, pote) prefixed to
yes/no questions or alternative questions.
According to Sicking (1997:173), “particles such
as oukoün, oün, dra and dé serve the purpose
of articulating the argument by showing how a
question relates to what has preceded”. Spell-
ing out explicitly the contributions of the vari-
ous particles, he gives the paraphrase in (29) of
Socrates’ question in (28):
(28) Tf oitn dé pote tas ällas tékhnas ou rhétorikds
kaleis ...;
‘Then why don’t you call the other crafts
oratory ...?' (Pl. Grg. 450b3-35, trans. Zeyl in
Cooper 1997)
(29) “When I apply what you have said so far to
the problem at hand (oii), you will find
it only natural (de) that I ask a question
which you very well may find difficult to
answer (pote): why ...?” (Sicking 1997:173)
As we can see from the difference between Zeyl's
translation (‘then’) and Sicking’s rendering, the
use of particles in questions allows Plato to signal
206 QUESTIONS
explicitly the relationship of the question posed
by Socrates to the context on many levels,
4. THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The question is a central sentence type which is
a necessary component of any human language.
Thus, we would expect questions to be a rather
stable part of grammar, and this expectation is
confirmed as far as Anc. Gk. is concerned. While
we may observe changes in the details, on the
whole questions are formed in the same way
in Homer, Plato and the + New Testament. In
this section, we will draw attention to some of
the changes during the Anc. Gk. period while
emphasizing that the main picture is one of
stability.
The oldest Greek texts that are preserved
today are the Bronze Age ~ Linear B tablets
found in Crete and in various places on the
Greek mainland (+ Mycenaean Script and Lan-
guage). These texts are mainly accounts of pal-
ace administration and contain no questions.
The Homeric poems, on the other hand, are
the oldest examples of Greek literature known
to us. The /liad and the Odyssey are long, narra-
tive poems which contain a substantial amount
of direct speech in the form of speeches by
the main participants, Both texts give examples
of questions of different types, both direct and
indirect.
The epics of Homer are composed in a form of
language which is mainly > Ionic, with elements
of + Aeolic alongside archaisms and artificial
elements (Kunstsprache) (+ Epic Diction), The
main exponent of Classical Greek, on the other
hand, is the language of Athens in the Classical
period (fifth and fourth centuries BCE) as it is
found in the writings of philosophers, poets and
orators. It isimportant to keep in mind that while
Homer is our main source for the Greek lan-
guage ofthe Archaic period, the Horneric dialect
is not a direct forerunner of Classical Attic. Con-
sequently, we cannot draw direct conclusions
about the evolution of grammatical categories
from a comparison between the Homeric epics
and Classical Attic. Any differences between the
two may, however, point to more general pro-
cesses in Greek language history which affected
both, e.g. the development of the definite article
(+ Definiteness/Definite Article),
There are two important differences between
Humeric Greek and Classical Attic in the way
questions are expressed. On the one hand, alter-
native questions are not formed with pdteron
‘whether’, but rather with éé/é.,. éé/é...'or’, as
shown in (30):
(30) Tudeiden d’ ouk an gnoies potéroisi metelé /
éé meta Tröessin homiléoi é met’ Akhaiots
‘But of Tydeus’ son couldst thou not have
told with which host of the twain he was
joined, whether it was with the Trojans that
he had fellowship or with the Achaeans’
(Hom. Il. 5.85-6, trans. Murray)
The example above shows, arguably, an earlier
stage of the grammaticalization process that led
to pöteron/pötera being used as a particle in
alternative questions in Classica] Attic. In the
Homeric example, pöteros appears in the dative
case and plays a grammatical role with respect
to the verb of its sentence. In Classical Attic,
on the other hand, pöteros appears in the fixed
form péteron/pétera which goes back to the neu-
ter singular and the neuter plural (nominative/
accusative) form, respectively.
Another difference between Homeric Greek
and Classical Attic relates to the use of the
moods in indirect questions (cf. + Direct/Indi-
rect Speech). In the Homeric poems, the opta-
tive usually appears in indirect questions as the
“past” of the deliberative subjunctive. We do see,
however, the beginning of a tendency to use the
optative for the indicative as well, although still
predominantly in indirect questions rather than
in indirect statements (Chantraine 1953:224), as
shown in (31):
(31) allélous t’ eironto, tis eié kai pöthen élthoi
‘They asked each other who he was and
where he came from’ (Hom. Od. 17.368)
Example (31) shows the embedding of the ques-
tion ‘who is he and where does he come from'
under the speech verb ‘ask’. It is reasonable to
assume that verb forms of the embedded ques-
tion in its direct form would be in the indicative
mood, as in (32):
(32) tis ei kai pöthen élthes?
‘Who are you and where have you come
from?’
The optative serves to mark the embedding of
the complement question under the past-tense
 QUESTIONS
matrix verb efronto ‘they asked’. The Homeric
poems thus document an important stage in the
development of the function of the optative from
“past” form of the subjunctive to a (more gram-
maticalized) marker of subordination (but still
only after past matrix verbs). In Classical Attic,
on the other hand, this development reached
its full flowering with the generalization of the
oblique optative also to complement sentences
which are not questions.
With regard to post-Classical Greek, the
form and meaning of questions mainly persist
unchanged. In the New Testament we still meet
the same question types which were found in
Classical Greek texts, e.g. the unmarked direct
yes/no question in (33):
(33) blepeis tautén ten gunatka?
‘Do you see this woman?’ (Luke 7:44)
The negations ou and mé are still used to form
questions which look for the answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’,
as shown in (34):
(34) Judas: meti egö eimi? Jesus: si eipas
‘It isn’t me, is it?’ ‘You said it’ (Matt. 26:25)
The linguistic development which affected ques-
tions most directly in later + Koine Greek was
the loss of the optative mood, and with it, of
the optativus obliquus. Debrunner and Scherer
207
(1969:119) illustrate the various ways in which
the optative was replaced: for the oblique opta-
tive, the obvious solution was to retain the mood
of the direct form of the question (+ Develop-
ments in Medieval and Modern Greek).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homerigue, vol. 2: Syn-
taxe. Paris.
Collinge, N. E. 1988. “Thoughts on the pragmatics of Ancient
Greek’, PCPAS zı4 (n.s. q):1-19.
Cooper, John M., ed. 1997. Plate. Complete works. India-
nitpulis ~ Cambridge.
Debrunner, Albert and Anton Scherer, 1969. Geschichte der
griechischen Sprache II. Grundfragen and Grundzüge des
nachklassischen Griechisch. Berlin,
Denniston, John D. 1950. The Greek particles. and ed., revised
by K. J. Dover. Oxford.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens, 1994. The
presody of Greek speech. New York - Oxford.
Dover, Kenneth J. 1960. Greek word order. Cambridge.
van Erp Taalman Kip, A. Maria. 1997. “é gär in questions”. In:
New approaches to Greek particles, ed. by A. Rijksbaron,
151-156. Amsterdam.
Faure, Richard. 2010. Les Subordonnees interrogatives dans la
prose grecque classique. Les questions constituantes, Ph.D.
diss., Université Paris-Sorbonne,
Lyons, john. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge.
Matic, Dejan. 2003. Topics, presuppositions, and theticity: an
empirical study of verb-subject clauses in Albanian, Greek,
and Serbo-Craat. Ph.D. diss., University of Cologne.
Thomson, G. 1939. "The postponement of interrogatives in
Attic drama”, Classical Quarterly 3347-152.
Wakker, Gerry. 1994. Conditions and conditionals. An investi-
gation of Ancient Greek, Amsterdam.
EIRIK WELO
Recipient
Recipient is the role taken by the third argument
of some three-place predicates, typically + verbs
of giving such as didömi ‘give’, pémpé ‘send’,
prospherö ‘offer’, according to Luraghi (2003).
Recipients are typically human and as the Greek
+dative has the distinctive property of being
animate, recipients surface in the dative case.
In the generative tradition, the term ‘recipi-
ent’ is used to refer to various theta-roles that
surface as + indirect objects, e.g. goals in verbs
like ‘give’, or IOs of verbs of causation of pos-
session like ‘send’ (Levin 2006). Alternatively,
Dowty (1991) refers to recipients as the 10 of
verbs like ‘feed’, ‘receive’ and ‘transfer’. Insofar as
we follow Dowty’s definition of a recipient, they
can also surface in Greek as ~ genitives as IO of
verbs like hestiö ‘feed’, lambdné ‘receive’, akoud
and manthdna ‘be informed’ among others. Very
rarely the verb akoud ‘hear’ has been reported
with a PP as an IO and not a bare oblique + case
(Bortone 2010).
Let us look at some examples that illustrate
these points:
(1) tata pänta... Kürös moi éddke
‘Cyrus gave me all these things’ (Xen. Cyr.
8.3.38)
(2) mäthe dé mou kai täde
‘Hear these things fram me then’ (Xen. Cyr.
1.6.44)
Example (1) is a prototypical case of a recipient:
the 10 moi ‘to me’ appears in the dative case, as
a typical animate recipient. In (2), however, the
IO mou ‘from me’ appears in the genitive case,
in accordance with the selectional properties of
the main verb.
Recipients in the diachrony of Greek were
obviously affected by the loss of dative case
(Humbert i930; Horrocks 2010107-108 et pas-
sim). As indirect objects, they were one of the
most stable cases where the dative continued to
be used for longer (unlike, for example adverbial
uses of the dative that were replaced with PPs
fairly early).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bortone, P. 2010. Greek prepositions: from antiquity to the
present. Oxtord.
Dowty, D. 1991. “Thematic proto-roles and argument selec-
tion”, Language 67:547-619.
Horrocks, G. 2010. Greek, A history of the language and its
speakers. Chichester — Malden.
Humbert, J. 1930. La disparition du datif en grec du ler au Xe
siecle. Paris.
Levin, B. z0u6. “First objects and datives: two of a kind?".
In: Parasession on Theoretical Approaches ta Argument
Structure, 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society. Berkeley.
Luraghi, 5. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and cases.
The expression of semantic rales in Ancient Greek. Amster-
dam.
CHRISTINA SEVDALt
Reduplicated Presents
1. INTRODUCTION
Cross-linguistically, reduplication is a common
formative mechanism encompassing the entire
system of language, nominal, verbal, and other-
wise. For Indo-European languages in particular
verbal reduplication is a characteristic feature
utilized in the stem formation of the present
 REDUPLICATED PRESENTS
system, the aorist system and the perfect sys-
tem, e.g. Gk. 1 sg. pres. tithemi ‘put, place’, aor.
telathon ‘I missed’, perf. éloipa 'I have left’, Fur-
thermore, it is a common formative feature for
many other verbal categories, such as modal
forms, intensives, + desideratives, etc., e.g. Gk.
intensive pres. darddpto ‘devour’, desideratives
such as Skt. jighämsati ‘wants to kill’, etc. (for all
this see Watkins 1969).
In Ancient Greek, beside other formative pro-
cesses, such as root ablaut (+ Ablaut (Apophony,
Gradation}), affixation (suffixation or infix-
ation), and > suppletion, reduplication is used
for the formation of a number of present stem
types, both of the thematic and of the athematic
conjugations (+ Present Tense). Like other lan-
guages, Greek shows a number of reduplicative
types of the present stem that fall within two
major groups, namely partial or symbolic redu-
plication, whereby only part of the root with the
reduplicative vowel is copied over in the redu-
plicative syllable, and full reduplication where
the entire root is repeated, a type best exempli-
fied by the intensive formations of Sanskrit and
Anatolian. Another way in which the two types
of reduplication are classified is morphological
or aspectual reduplication and expressive redu-
plication (see Duhoux 1992:73-74). The former
type associates with the aspectual system of the
Greek verb, whereas the latter is rather part of
the lexical derivation uf the language. In gen-
eral, reduplicated presents have imperfective
meaning, but many other functions have also
been detected, in certain cases even perfective
(see Vendryes 1916, Giannakis 1997). One type
of reduplicated present that remains ambiguous
as far as its origin is concerned is the one where
the so-called ‘internal’ reduplication is used, that
is a type of reduplication in the interior of the
word, e.g. atitällö, opipeuö, etc. (see below in 3).
A general feature of the reduplicative syllable in
Greek is that in the present it contains the vowel
- (bearing the accent with minor exceptions),
whereas in the rest of the verbal system this is
regularly -e-. There is no satisfactory explanation
as to the origin of this vowel, although it seems
to relate, at least symbolically, to the ‘hic-et-
nunc’ function of the deictic element -i of the
primary endings of the verb (+ Deixis).
20g
2. ATHEMATIC TYPE
It is maintained that the athematic presents (and
especially the root presents) are the oldest pres-
ent formations in Indo-European. Their forma-
tion involves the plain ablauting root to which
the primary endings are added, with no inter-
mediate linking vowel between root and endings
(the characteristic example here is the copula
eimi from *h,es-mi). The reduplicated presents
of this type all seem to have a + laryngeal root,
which shows the normal ablauting alternation
of IE between full grade in the singular and zero
grade in the plural (i.e., they are of the structure
Ci-CVH-/Ci-CH-, where C = consonant, V= vowel,
H = laryngeal, and H = vocalized laryngeal).
Archetypical formations of this class of presents
are considered the verbs Aistami ‘stand’ vs. 1 pl.
histämen (cf. Lat. sistö, Skt. tisthati, Av. histaiti,
from IE *steh,-, though these are transferred to
the thematic class), tithémi ‘put, place; make’ vs.
1 pl. tithémen (cf. Skt. dädhati, Av. dad-, daid.-,
Hitt. tittiya, from IE “d*ef,-) and with Grass-
man’s dissimilation rule (+ Grassmann's Law)),
didämi ‘give’ vs. 1 pl. didömen (cf. Skt. dadami,
Av. dad- or daidi-, from IE *deh,-), and hiémi
‘throw, cast’ vs. 1 pl. Aéémen (IE “yeh,-, although
also the protoform “si-seh,-mi, from root *seh,-,
has been suggested). Other forms of the same
type include: oninémi ‘benefit’ (with so-called
‘internal’ reduplication like opipexö and utitällö,
see below in 3), pfmplemi ‘fill’, pimprémi ‘burn’
(the last two forms with infixed -m-), “piphrémi
seen in the infinitive espiphränai ‘insert’ (cf. Skt.
bibhrati ‘carries’, a thematized form), perhaps an
analogical formation built on the model of the
rest of the laryngeal roots; titrémi ‘pierce’ (next
to the thematic formations titraö, titraind and
tetraino), all from IE *terh,-/*trehz- (cf. simple
present teirö ‘wear out, distress’, aorist farein,
and Lat. ferö ‘to rub’); *bibermi 'stride’ evidenced
in the ptc. bibds, Lac. bibati which corresponds
to Ski. jigaté 'goes’ (cf. simple present ba/nd and
below for thematic forms); a form *didemi ‘bind,
tie’ is evidenced in the 3 pl. imperative didénton
and in the 3 sg. impf. dide; dizemi ‘seek out’
(from simple zeteö ‘id.’), i.e., from a protoform
*di-dya-mi (cf. Hesych. disdemai: zetö, and fur-
thermore the noun dizesis ‘inquiry’ and future
dizesömetha, as well as the Homeric thematic
form dize); kikhremi ‘lend, i.e., give or cause to
use’ (beside kArdomai ‘use’), also found in the
219 REDUPLICATED
middle kikhramai ‘borrow’; cf. also the redupl.
fut. kikhresei (3 sg.) quoted by Hesychius, just
like didösö ‘I shall give’ and dizesömetha referred
to earlier.
There are also a number of other forms, some
of which are clearly later formations modelled on
the old types, as for instance hiptamai ‘fly’ from
the root *pet-hz-/*ptehz- (cf. thematic redupli-
cated present piptd (see below), built on petomai
on the analogical model aor. éstén : pres. hista-
mai = aor, éptén : X; a theoretical form *kikhémi
‘come to reach’ from which the new present
kikhanö, Att. kinkhdno with -n- infixed (next to
simple Ahdzemai) and the aorists kikhémen and
kikheten, all supposedly from IE *g4i-g*eH-mi
(seen in Skt. jahäti ‘he leaves’, Av. zazaiti ‘he
returns’).
3. THEMATIC TYPE
A pertinent feature of this class of present for-
mation is the zero-grade root (Ci-CC-V-, where
V stands here for the thematic vowel). This type
is very productive in Greek, and we find a high
number of forms both in the early language and
in the Classical period. However, certain archaic
prototypes can be discerned that served as the
model for later creations either by analogical
extensions or by other processes. Such are the
following:
gignomai ‘be born, be(come)’ (cf. Lat. gignd, Av.
zizan), from root “gen-h,- (cf also aor. e-geneto
'was born, became'}, with + Schwebeablaut (see
Anttila 1969:59 ef passim); Aéo 'sit, seat’ (cf. Lat.
sido, Skt. sidati), from protoform *si-sd-ö, full-grade
root *sed- (cf. simple present hezomai); iskhö ‘hold,
restrain’, beside simple ekhö, from *si-sg"-ö, full-
grade root *seg’- (cf. Skt. simplex sdhate ‘prevail’);
mimnö ‘stand firm’ (simplex menö ‘stay, remain’
(root *men-); nis(s)omai ‘return home (safely)’, i.e.,
*ni-ns-omai, from root “nes- (cf. simplex néomai,
from *nesomai, to which Go. nasjan ‘save’ must he
cognate); cf, further the similar formation in Skt.
nimsati ‘kiss’, i.e., ‘bring together, unite’; piptö ‘fall’,
from root *pet-A,-, beside simplex pétomat ‘fly’ and
Skt. pätati 'id.'; the i- in the reduplication is long
by analogy to rhipté ‘throw, cast' where the long
vowel is regular, and cf. also the Skt. redupl. aor.
Gpipatat with long vowel as well; tiktö ‘to beget’ (for
the father), ‘to conceive’ (for the mother), originally
from *titko with + metathesis from root "tek- (cf.
aor, &-tek-on). For the semantics of these presents,
see Vendryes (1916), Giannakis (1991 and for all
reduplicated presents 1997).
PRESENTS
A number of reduplicated present forms show
initial vowel (#i-), but in reality originally there
must have been a root with initial consonant
(mainly s-), digamma (w-) or laryngeal, as in the
following: iallö 'shoot, send forth’, from *si-s/-vö
(i.e., root *sel-, cf Rix 2001 s.v.; cf. Skt. sisarti
from root sr ‘flow’); there is a striking parallel-
ism between Homeric kheiras iallein and Vedic
Sanskrit bahavä sisarti ‘stretch the hands’ (for
a connection with Hitt. haläi- ‘set in motion,
thrust’, from a root *Hley- and with associations
to the perfect, see Puhvel 1981:252-261, Glannakis
1997:213-216); idpté 'to hurt, to mar’, is believed
to be a reduplicated present from *wi-wap-yö,
from root *wak”-(?); iakho ‘shout, cry, call’, from
protoform *wi-wak"ö (cf. nouns iakhé and ekhe
‘sound, noise’); but other vowels are also used, as
in opipeuö ‘ta watch’, from a protoform *H,k™-i-
Hk*- (Cowgill 1965:149), to which also Skt. iksate
‘sees’ is cognate; atitd/ld ‘to rear, to tend’ vs.
simplex atallö ‘play like a child, amuse oneself"
(the last twa verbs show what is called ‘internal’
reduplication); finally, other verbs show simi-
lar features with the verbs of this class except
for the initial vowel, e.g. titaind ‘bend (a bow);
pull, stretch’, next to simplex teiné (root *ten-);
there might be a few more such presents, some
of which are attested in the later language, e.g.
(will ‘wind, tum round’ ( *wi-wi-6), pephnö ‘kill’
(from *g**en-) and kéklomai ‘call upon’ (from
*kelh,-/*kleh,-), clearly backformations from the
aorists é-pephnon and e-kekleto (cf. simple pres-
ent kéfomai ‘command, order, bid’).
4. REDUPLIGATED PRESENTS WITH SUFFIX
-(i)ske/o-
The suffix -ske/o- is a common Indo-European
suffix which is used in the formation of the pres-
ent stem of the type Ci-C(C)V-ske/o-. However,
Greek innovates in that this suffix is also used
along with reduplication (the -i- of the suffix is
by analogy to verbs which normally have this
vowel, e.g. heuriskö ‘find’, etc.), and thus we have
a separate class of thematic redupl. presents in
-(i)ske/o-, with mainly emphatic and causative
meaning, although other semantic nuances are
also seen. (Similar patterns are also observed in
the Anatolian branch of Indo-European, a feature
due to external influence from non-IE languages
of ancient Anatolia(?), see Bechtel 1936.) Among
the verbs of this class are the following: gignöskö
‘know, perceive’ ( *gi-gneh,-ske/v-); kikle(i)skö
 REDUPLICATED
‘summon ( *ki-kleh,-(i)-ske/o-);mimnesko'remind’
( *mi-mneh-ske/o-); didaskö ‘teach, instruct’
(*di-dns-ske/o-); didräskö ‘run away’ (*di-dy-
ske/o-); bibäskö ‘stride’ (*gri-g*m-ske/o-), beside
bibaö, bibémi, probably a combination of the
latter with bdskd(?); piprdskomai ‘sell’ beside
pérnémi, pernäö 'id.'; similarly titrésko ‘wound,
injure’ beside titremi, tetraind (cf. Skt. titarti
‘cross’, Av. titara- ‘id.’ and Luw. tatarh- 'break’);
pipisko ‘give to drink’, + causative of pind ‘drink’,
in view of the redupl. pres. of Skt. pibati, Lat.
bibö, and Olr. ibid, we may suppose for Greek
an unattested protoform *pipomi, from which
with transfer to the thematic class and the
addition of the suffix -ske/o- we get the above
attested form of Greek; the form (wJeiskö ‘be
like’ employs redupl. vowel -e- and comes from
protoform *we-wik-skö. On these formations
see Kujore (1973:94-97 and 257-258), Giannakis
(1997:22G1f.).
5. OTHER REDUPLICATED PRESENTS
(C1VC2-CiVC2-ye/o-)
Greek attests a number of other presents which
employ full (‘expressive’) reduplication, most of
which are intensive formations, whereas others
are onomatopoetic creations (+ Onomatopoeia).
Such are the following: daidallö 'adorn with cun-
ning work’, from *dal-dal-yö (cf. noun daida-
las/daidaton ‘adornment’); darddptd ‘devour’
(with dissimilatory loss of the second -r- fram
*dardärpyö), beside simplex drepö ‘pluck, pick
off’; marmairé ‘sparkle, gleam’, from *mar-
mar-yö (cf. noun marilé ‘coal-dust’); mormürö
‘rush, roar’ (said of waters) (cf. simplex muramai
‘shed tears’); poipnud ‘exert oneself, be out of
breath’, beside pné(w)o, pneiö ‘blow, breathe’,
the -oi- is probably analogical to other similar
verbs like moimullo ‘compress the lips’, koikullé
‘look gaping about’, etc.; porphürö ‘gleam darkly,
grow purple’. On these formations see Skoda
(1982:221-222).
The following seem to be onomatopoetic for-
mations, a lexical class that cross-linguistically
seems to exploit the process of reduplication:
alatézo ‘shout aloud’ (cf. Lat. ululäre, and Hitt.
alalmniya- with the same meaning); akakhizé
‘cause grief, grieve, vex’ (cf. noun dkhos ‘pain,
distress’); kankhaldé ‘rejoice, exult’; cf. also
kakkhäzö, kankhazö with the same meaning;
PRESENTS 211
karkairö ‘quake, tremble’ (cf. Toch. A kärk ‘bind,
crouch’); kökiö ‘cry out in grief or distress’, a
formation after the birds' cries; ololıizö ‘lament’,
paphidzo ‘splash, dash’, for the splashing waves
of the sea. For all these onomatopoetic verb
formations, see Tichy (1983); also Giannakis
(1992:167-168 and 1997:279ff.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anttila, Raimo. 1969. Prato-Indo-Europeun Schwebeablaut.
Berkeley - Los Angeles.
Rechtel, George. 1936. Hittite verbs in -sh- A study uf verbul
aspect. Ann Arbor.
van Brock, Nadia. 1964. "Les themes 4 redoublement du hit-
tite et le verbe indoeuropéen’, Revue Hittite et Asianique
75119-1685.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1958-63. Grammaire homerique, 2 vols.
Paris.
— 1961. Morphologie historique du gree, and ed. Paris.
Cowgill, Warren. 1965. “Evidence for Greek". In: Evidence for
faryngeals, ed. by W. Winter, 142-180. The Hague.
Duhoux, Yves. 1992. Le verbe grec ancient, Eléments de mor-
phologie et de syntaxe historique, Louvain-La-Neuve.
Giannakis, Georgios K. 1997. Studies in the syntax and
semantics of the reduplicated presents in Homeric Greek
and Indo-European. (TBS 90). Innsbruck.
—— 1992. “Reduplication as a morphological marker in the
Indo-European languages: reduplicated presents”, Word
43:161-197,
—— 1991. "Homeric mimnö, iskhd, hizd and piptö: a seman-
tic approach", Glotta 69:48-76.
Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb,
New York.
Kujore, Obafemi. 1973. Greek polymorphic presents. A study in
their development and functional tendencies. Amsterdam.
Niepokuj, Mary. 1997. The development of verbal reduplica-
tion in Indo-European. (JIESM 24). Washington, D.C.
Puhvel, Jaan. 1981. "The provenance of Greek id/lé”, In: Ana-
lecta Indoeurupaen, 252-256. (IBS 35). Innsbruck.
Rix, Helmut. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben.
Wiesbaden.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. New York.
Skoda, Francoise. i982. Le redoublement expressif: un univer-
sal linguistique. Analyse de procédé en grec ancien et en
d'autres langues. Paris.
Tichy, Eva. 1983. Onematapoetische Verbalbildungen des
Griechischen. Vienna.
Tischler, Johann. 1976. Zur Reduplikation im Indugermanis-
chen. (IBS Vorträge 16}. Innsbruck.
Vendryes, Joseph. 1916. “Type thematique 4 redoublement
en indo-européen", Mémoires de la Sucieté Linguistique de
Parts 207117-123.
Watkins, Calvert. i969, Indogermanische Grammatik, vol,
MT, part 1: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion.
Heidelberg.
GEORGIOS K. GIANNAKIS
212 REDUPLICATION
Reduplication
1. DEFINITION
Reduplication is the repetition of all or part ofa
word form, creating either a two-word complex
or, most commonly, a new form of the word. In
Indo-European languages, reduplication is a pro-
ductive morphological device which is used in
the formation of nominals, adverbials, particles,
and verbs, with an analogous variety of types,
usages, and functions. Often the semantics of
reduplication is iconic, thus conferring, among
other meanings, plurality, emphasis, perfectiv-
ity, iterativity, distributionality, causativity, tran-
sitivity and an entire host of other functions
and/or nuances, The literature is very rich, but
for cross-linguistic surveys of the semantics of
reduplication, see, among others, Moravcsik
(1978), Kiyomi (1993); for Indo-European (verbal
system) see Tischler (1976), Giannakis (1992 and
1997), Vennemann (1994), Niepokuj (1997); see
also Dressler (1968).
As a means of derivation, reduplication
belongs to the area of + derivational morphol-
ogy {see Inkelas & Zoll 2005 who put forth
the so-called Morphological Doubling Theory
(MDT), placing emphasis on the morphological
aspect of reduplication; Raimy 2000 alternatively
develops a representational theory of redupli-
cation within the morpho-phonology domain),
whereas in its grammatical function it has been
fully grammaticalized, and is used in the forma-
tion of word- or form-stems, e.g. several verb
stems, modal forms, etc. In this sense, reduplica-
tion is, in an extended way, some form of 'stem
ablaut’, parallel or analogous to root gradation
or > ablaut: like the latter, reduplication is a
multifunctional mechanism in the articulation
of language. In Ancient Greek different types of
reduplication are used, depending on the mor-
phological and/or semantic function of each
type. Although reduplication has been mainly
associated with the verb, there are also other
lexical classes employing this process, albeit to
a lesser extent.
Formally, reduplication can be full or par-
tial. In the first case we have iteration of the
entire word, with a variety of meanings, such
as iteration, emphasis, distribution, etc., e.g, Gk.
proprö ‘before, on and on’, Skt. prapra ‘id.', sdsa
‘even this’, Lat. guisquis ‘whoever’, iamiam ‘at
any time now’; Myc. we-te-i-we-te-i ‘every year,
year after year’, Cypr. a-ma-ti-a-ma-ti ‘every day’,
Skt. divé-dive ‘day after day’, pdcati-pacati ‘cooks
repeatedly’, piba-piba- ‘drink a lot’, etc.; or from
modern languages, It. alto alto ‘very high’, tutti
tutti ‘all’, Mod. Gk. xaAd xoAd [ka'la ka'la] ‘very
well’, Alyo Atyo ['liyo ‘liyo] ‘little by little‘, etc.
These formations are also known with the Indic
name ämredita compounds (i.e., iterative com-
pounds). As for partial or symbolic reduplication,
this has been grammaticalized to a large extent,
since it is employed in the stem formation of var-
ious grammatical forms: the present stem, e.g.
Gk. tithemi 'I put’, Skt. dédhami ‘id.’, Gk. didömi
1 give’, gignomai ‘I become’ (+ Reduplicated
Presents); the + aorist stem, e.g. Gk. épephnon ']
slaughtered’, eipon ‘I said’, Skt. dvocam ‘id.’ (both
from a protoform *(e-}we-wk*-om, from root *we/
ok”); the + perfect stem, e.g. Gk. /eluka ‘I loosed’,
Skt. cakdra ‘I made’, Lat. cucurri ‘I ran’; but also
a number of other formations, such as intensives
like Gk. pamphaino '1 shine’, dardäptö ‘devour’,
Skt. därdarti ‘strikes’, jdraghanti ‘strikes, slaugh-
ters’, Lat. tintinnare ‘to make noise’, etc.; modal
verbal forms, such as ~ desideratives, e.g. Skt.
didäsa- ‘wish to give’, SitSrtisa- ‘wish to hear’, etc.
2. RULES OF REDUPLICATION
Reduplication in Ancient Greek follows a num-
ber of rules depending on the type of reduplica-
tion, the particular grammatical formation, and
the + Greek phonotactics. The basic rules of
reduplication are as follows:
i. Roots beginning with a stop or with stop +
nasal or liquid reduplicate this stop, with
a few exceptions, e.g. *derk- ‘watch’, perf.
dé-dorka, lu6 ‘loose’, perf. fé-luka, graphö
‘write’, perf. gé-grapha, etc. but from the
root “gneh3- ‘know’, pres. gi-gnöskö, and
perf. &-gnöka (see iv below).
ii. Root-initial aspirated stops lose their aspira-
tion in the reduplicative syllable (+ Grass-
mann’s Law): root *dheh,- ‘place, put’, Gk.
pres. t/-thénu (from proto-form *dhi-dhémi);
pres. pheügö ‘flee’: perf. pé-pheuga; khorda
‘proceed’: perf. ke-khéréka, etc.
iii. In roots beginning with sC-clusters in Indo-
European both consonants are repeated, but
in Greek the cluster is usually simplified by
the omission of one of the consonants and
the change of s- into A- (rough breathing),
e.g. from the root *stehz- ‘stand’ we obtain
 REDUPLICATION
the presents Lat. sistö and Dor. histami (Att.
histemi), but Skt. tsthati, and the perfects
Lat. -stiti (in compounds) and steti, but Gk.
héstéka.
iv. A special Greek development seems to be a
number of cases where reduplication shows
an initial e-vowel rather than a combination
of consonant + vowel. This is more common
in the perfect stem, and happens mainly
with roots which historically had initial s-,
y-, and w-, and later it spread analogically to
other verbs, as seen in the following perfect
forms: estalmai (from stellö ‘equip’), éstrotai
(from strönnumi ‘spread'), ésparmai (from
speirö ‘sow’), ézeugmai (from zeugnumi
‘yoke’, root *yeug-), ete., but also egnöka
(from root "gneh,- ‘know’), éphthitai (from
phthinö 'decay'), and others.
3. REDUPLICATION IN GREEK
In Greek in particular, we recognize several
types of reduplication, namely full reduplica-
tion, partial reduplication, ‘internal’ reduplica-
tion, and the so-called ‘Attic’ reduplication. In
its grammatical function, the process of redu-
plication is most pertinent in the perfect stem
(one of the characteristic features of the perfect;
+ Perfect, Formation of), but it also occurs in the
formation of the present stem (— Reduplicated
Presents), in a type of aorist formation (+ Aor-
ist Formation), as well as to some other verbal
forms and/or modal types. Reduplication is also
seen in nouns, e.g. mérmeros ‘causing anxiety’,
bärbaros ‘barbarian’, etc., and in other lexical
types (see section 4 below).
Partial reduplication: also called symbolic
reduplication, where the root-initial consonant
(or the cluster sC-) is copied over with a vowel.
The reduplicative vowel is normally -i- for the
present stem, and -e- for the aorist and the
perfect stems (in a few instances also -o-): pres.
tithémi (root “d*eh,-), perf. éthéka, aor. inf, peph-
nein ‘kill’ (root *g”*en-/*g”4n-, cf. pres. theinö),
inf. pepithein ‘persuade’ (root *b‘eid'-/*b*id4-),
pres, gignomai ‘become’, perf. gegona (root *gen-
H-/*gon-H-/*gn-H-), pres. kiklé(()ské ‘call upon’,
aor. e-kékleto, perf. kékléka, etc. As for the origin
of the vowel of reduplication, this remains a
mystery, but there might be some connection
with the -i of the primary endings and the -i- of
the present stem reduplication. In cases of ini-
tial sC- roots, the s- in Greek normally becomes
213
h- before the reduplicative vowel, e.g. histämi
1 stand’ (< *sistehzmi, root *stehy-), hizö ‘seat’
(*sisdö, root *sed-/*sd-, cf. Lat. sidö, Skt. sidati).
Full reduplication: In the case of full (or total)
reduplication the full root is iterated with the
necessary phonological adjustments. Since it has
been associated mainly with emphatic forma-
tions, this type of reduplication is also called
‘emphatic’ reduplication. The shape of this redu-
plication is C,VC,-V-C,VC,-, and the reduplica-
tive syllable is connected to the root by means
of a ‘connective’ vowel (short or long). This type
of formation is very common in present-stem
formations of Anatolian and Indo-Iranian, but
in Greek too we find a number of presents with
the same features; these forms are also charac-
terized by the suffix *ye/o- (on these formations
see Tichy 1983:289-296, Schaefer 1994; > Redu-
plicated Presents):
- daidallö ‘adom with cunning work’ (see noun
daidalon ‘cunningly wrought’), where dai-
< dal-
— dardaäptö ‘devour’ (see simplex drepö ‘pluck,
pick off’)
- marmairö ‘sparkle, flash’
- mormuré ‘rush, roar’ (see also muromai ‘shed
tears’)
- pamphainö ‘shine, gleam’ (see also phainö
‘shine’)
- porphürö ‘heave’ (of the sea), ‘be moved, be
stirred’ (of the heart), beside simplex phürö
‘admix’, and a few more such formations.
A group of presents that seem to be onomato-
poeic formations (+ Onomatopoeia) share some
general features with the emphatic reduplicated
presents, such as the following (for an extensive
discussion see Tichy 1983:229—-385):
- alalazö ‘shout aloud’
- akakhizo ‘cause grief, grieve’
- bambatnö ‘chatter with the teeth’
- kankhaldo ‘rejoice, exult’
- kökuö ‘cry out in grief or distress’
~ ololiz6 ‘lament’
- paphlazö ‘splash, dash’ (for the splashing sea
waves),
Internal’ reduplication: A group of verbs in Greek
show a kind of reduplication that takes place in
the interior of the word, like atitallö 'rear up
a child‘ (see simplex atallö), opipeid ‘watch’,
214 REDUPLICATION
oninémi ‘benefit’, and the aorists erükakon ‘I held
back’, enénipon ‘| reproved’. The characteristic
feature of all these verbs is the root-initial vowel,
which rather echoes an old laryngeal (> Laryn-
geal Changes), i.e., the roots are of the shape
HVC, which reduplicate as HVC-HVC. However,
Schaefer (1994:58-60) argued for the possibil-
ity of a ‘disyllabic’ reduplication of the shape
CeCzi- parallel to the normal reduplication
CjeC,-, something that may be true of Hittite
and Sanskrit but is not certain for Greek.
‘Attic’ reduplication: A peculiar type of redu-
plication in Greek is with vowel-initial roots,
and is known under the label of ‘Attic’ redupli-
cation. With these roots the reduplicative syl-
lable consists of the copying of both the initial
vowel along with the following consonant, with
lengthening of the root vowel, as in the perf.
éréra from pres. örnümi ‘stir up’. This type of
reduplication appears in all stem formations, i.e.,
present, aorist, and perfect, as seen in the follow-
ing examples: pres. arariskö ‘join together’, aor.
inf. agageln (from pres. ago 'lead'), alalkein ‘ward
off’, cf. Skt. ararti ‘moves’, perf. änarica from aric-
‘bend’, etc. With lengthening of the root vowel
we have cases like pte. perf. aréras (of arariskö),
passive perf. elélatui (from elaiind lead’), perf.
eiléloutha (from eleuthd/-omai ‘come’), with
ei- < e- for metrical reasons, perf. ölöla (from
öllumi ‘destroy’), as well as the form we cited
earlier öröra; this formation was later analogi-
cally extended to other verbs and we have: perf.
ödöda ‘smell’, öpöpa ‘have seen’, ptc. ededös ‘hav-
ing eaten’ (cf. Lat. perf. di, edı).
It seems that the best explanation for this
peculiar reduplicative type is that we are deal-
ing with roots with initial laryngeal, thus of
the shape HVC- or HVR (where R = resonant),
whereby the reduplicative syllable consists of
the repetition of the root, and this would also
explain the lengthening of the root vowel. (For
verbal reduplication in Greek, see Rix 1992:202-
205, Sihler 1995:488— 489.)
4. REDUPLICATION IN OTHER TYPES OF
WORDS
As we saw earlier, reduplication is also seen in
nouns, e.g. mermeros ‘causing anxiety’, bdrbarvs
‘barbarian’ (onomatopoeic formation), péplos
‘cover, veil’ (from root *pel- (7) ‘fold’), Auklos
‘circle, wheel’ (root *k“el- ‘move round a circle’),
titthé ‘nurse’ (a baby language form/nurse word),
agégé ‘carriage’, also in other word types (see
also in section 1 above): Gk. proprö ‘before, on
and on’, Myc. we-te-i-we-te-i'every year, year after
year’, Cypr. a-ma-ti-a-ma-ti ‘every day’, which
are also known with the Indic name ämredita
compounds (i.e., iterative compounds). Here
also belong some forms of reduplicated pro-
nouns, such as the reciprocal pronoun allélous
‘each other (acc. pl.), from the doubling of délus
‘other’, etc., which in origin may be some kind
of ‘syntactic’ reduplication also seen in Lat. altus
allum, etc, for expressing reciprocity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chantraine, P. 1948. Grammaire homérique, vol. I: phaneé-
tique et morphologie, Paris.
~——. 1961. Morphologie historique du grec. Paris.
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluratität.
Vienna.
Giannakis, Georgios K. 1992. "Reduplication as a morpho-
logical marker in [Indo-European languages: reduplicated
presents”, Word 43:161-196,
——. 1997. Studies in the syntax and semantics of the redupli-
cated presents of Homeric Greek and Indo-Eurupean. (IBS
go), Innsbruck.
—. zooo. "Reduplication as a morphological feature of
the verbal system of Ancient Greek and Indo-European’,
Studies in Greek Linguistics 20:99-110.
Inkelas, 5. and C. Zoll. 2005. Reduptication. Doubling in mor-
phology. Cambridge,
Kiyomi, 8. 1993. A dypological study of reduplicatiun us a
morpho-semantic process: evidence from five language
families (Bantu, Australian, Papuan, Austroasiatic and
Malayo-Polynesian). Ph.D. Diss. Indiana University,
Marantz, A. 1982. “Re reduplication’, Linguistic Inguiry
13:435- 482.
Moravesik, E. 1978. “Reduplicative constructions”. In: Und-
versals of human language, vol. 3, ed. by ]. H. Greenberg,
297-334. Stanford.
Niepokuj, M. 1997. The development of verbal reduplication ut
Indo-European. (JIESM 24). Washington, DC,
Raimy, E. 2000, The phonology and morphology of reduplica-
tion, Berlin - New York.
Rix, H. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darm-
stadt.
Ruijgh, C. J. 1972. “Le redoublement dit attique dans
l'évolution du verbe grec”. In: Melanges de linguistique et
de philalugie grecques offerts a Pierre Chantraine, 2-230.
Paris,
Schaefer, Chr. 1994. Das Intensivum im Vedischen. Göttingen.
Shields, K. C. 1992. A history of Indo-European verb morphol.
ogy. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Sihler, A. L. 1995. New comparative grammar uf Greek and
Latin. Oxfard - New York.
Tichy, E. 1983. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des
Griechischen. Vienna.
Tischler, J. 1976. Zur Reduplikation im Indogermanischen.
(IBS Vorträge 16). Innsbruck.
Vennemann, Theo, 1994. “Linguistic reconstruction in the
context of European prehistory,” Transactions of the phil-
ulogical society 92:215-284.
GEORGIOS K. GIANNAKIS
 REFLEXIVES
Reflexives
1 THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS
An adequate description of the reflexive system
in Ancient Greek entails a brief overview of the
main assumptions about the notion of reflexivity
and, more generally, requires some preliminary
remarks on the theoretical framework which
forms the background of the argumentation. In
this regard, it is relevant to observe that reflexives
have received a great deal of attention within
different theoretical approaches (see the rich
tradition of studies on anaphora inspired by the
syntactic theory of Chomsky 1981; see also Kuno
1987, to mention only the most fundamental con-
tributions). However, the focus here will be on
the Functional analyses of the concept of reflex-
ivity, which are in turn closely intertwined with
the typological classifications of reflexive con-
structions (+ Functional Grammar and Greek).
Within this framework, the reflexive semantics
has been described as a two-participant event
in which the first participant (prototypically, a
human Agent or an Experiencer) and the sec-
ond participant (a Patient) refer to the same
entity; in other words, there is an Agent acting
on himself rather than on someone else (Faltz
1977:3; Kemmer 1993:42; Lichtenberk 1994:3504).
This semantic characterization is presumed to
have universal value, although a certain amount
of cross-linguistic variation can be observed in
the grammatical encoding. In his (1977) seminal
work on reflexives, Faltz claims that the proto-
typical morpho-syntactic context of reflexivity,
observable in all languages, consists in a simple +
clause involving a two-argument verb. If a lan-
guage has specific grammatical devices (reflex-
ive marker, RM) productively used to signal
coreference between participants, it is said to
have a primary reflexive strategy. The reflexive
strategies can be schematically gathered in two
tundamental groups:
a. Verbal strategies. RMs are part of the verbal
morphology, namely affixes or clitics deriving
reflexive verbs from transitive stems; the par-
ticipant is mentioned only once, as a subject,
and the verbal morphology signals that it cov-
ers multiple semantic roles (i.e., it is affected
by his own action); in other words, we are
dealing with an intransitive clause and verbal
als
RMs can be considered to be intransitivizing
devices.
b, Nominal strategies. RMs are independent
items, namely nouns (e.g. Vedic tanü- ‘body’,
Skt. atmadn- ‘soul’, see Kulikov 2007) or pro-
nouns (> Pronouns (Demonstrative, Inter-
rogative, Indefinite, Relative)), whether
unanalyzable (pure pronominal reflexives, e.g.
Russian sebja, Germ. sich) or morphologically
complex (compound reflexives, e.g. Eng. one-
self); the participant's multiple roles (Agent
and Patient) are encoded separately as argu-
ments of the verb, namely RM functions as
direct object and the subject expresses its
anaphoric antecedent.
This (semantic-) syntactic context (direct reflex-
ive) is assumed to be the prototypical reflexive
construction in languages conforming with the
(pro)nominal type. Languages may use RMs in
more extended domains (e.g, indirect-object
reflexives, non-argumental reflexives, non-sub-
ject antecedents). However, the domain includ-
ing only the arguments of the verb (subject and
object), that is, the most local domain (Comrie
1999), represents the basic context of reflexivity
and assumes an implicational value. In other
words, if a language marks participants’ corefer-
ence in contexts which differ from the most local
domain, it will surely mark coreference also in
the most local domain. Within the (pro)nominal
systems, languages also differ according to the
graminatical persons which receive a reflexive
marking. On the basis of this parameter, lan-
guages fall in two main groups (Faltz 1977218):
a. languages which mark all three persons (by
means of an invariant form, e.g. Russ. sede,
Lith. save, see Geniusiene 1987:25; or a form
marked for person, + gender, and + number,
e.g. Eng. myself, yourself, himself, herself, our-
selves, etc.).
b. languages which mark only the 3rd person,
whereas ordinary personal pronouns are
used for 1st and and persons (e.g. French me,
te, se).
In this case we are also dealing with an impli-
cational value: if a language has RMs, it will
surely mark reflexivity in the ard person (Comrie
1999:337). This is not surprising since the 3rd
person referent is not inherently specified by
216
deixis (+ Deixis (including ist and 2nd Person))
and the lack of an overt RM might give rise to an
ambiguous reading.
2. THE ANCIENT GREEK REFLEXIVE
SYSTEM
The primary reflexive strategy in Greek belongs
to the pronominal type, although some signifi-
cant changes occurred throughout the history
of the language, which require a more fine-
grained diachronic description. According to a
well-rooted grammatical tradition, the Homeric
reflexive system has specific RMs only for the
3rd person:
Table 1. The reflexive pronoun in Homer
Nominative Accusative Genitive
Singular - he hoü
Plural spiteis sphäs sphön
Ordinary personal pronouns are used for ıst
and 2nd persons (e.g. egon emé lüsomai ‘| will
untie myself" (//.10.378)). Reflexive situations are
expressed according to the pattern in Table 2:
Table 2. Pronoun encoding reflexive
situations in Homer
Singular Nominative Accusative
ist person ega eme
2nd person su sé
ard person - he
The form Aé is generally traced back to an Indo-
European 3rd person stem *se-/*s(e)we- (Brug-
mann & Delbrück 1893; Schwyzer 1939:606 inter
al.); the reconstruction ofa bisyllabic stem “sewe-
is justified by sporadic occurrences of hee:
(1) heé d’ auton epotrünei makhésasthai
‘he spurs himself to fight’ (Il. 20.171)
Whether or not a reflexive value was originally
associated to the IE stem has been an important
point of the scientific debate in the course of
the twentieth century (accounting for the rich
literature on this topic, however, is outside the
scope of the present description; the reader is
referred to Lehmann i974 and Watkins 1976 as
REFLEXIVES
examples of the two opposite perspectives; see
Petit 1999 and Puddu 2005 for a comprehensive
summary of the issue). A widely accepted tradi-
tion (Chantraine 1945147-148; Petit 1999:157-159
inter al.) hypothesizes a fundamental opposi-
tion between Ad and its clitic correlate ke, which
functions as non-reflexive anaphor (+ Anaphoric
Processes), as in the following examples (Puddu
20051150-152).
Reflexive:
(2) he porphureei nephelei pukäsasa he auten
‘wrapping herself in a dark cloud’ (//. 17.551)
Anaphoric:
(3) dikheto d’ eis Aidao, lipen dé he Phoibos
Dative Apdllän
hot '[Hector] departed unto Hades and Phoebus
sphisi Apollo left him’ (Il. 22.213)
From a syntactic point of view, the use of he is
anything but restricted to the most local domain;
Homeric Greek rather belongs to the group
of languages conforming to what Faltz (1977)
defines subject antecedent condition, although it
does not fulfil a second syntactic pattern defined
clause-mate condition. The antecedent of RM is
indeed always a subject, but this subject does
not necessarily have to co-occur within the same
clause, that is, there may be a case in which a
RM occurring in a dependent clause refers to
the subject of the main clause (Puddu 2005:150).
In (4), he occurs within a prepositional phrase
(amphi he), which encodes the spatial scope of
the participial form paptenas:
(4) akéntise douri phaeinöi / amphi he papténas
‘he hurled his bright spear glancing warily
around himself! (Il. 4.496-7)
After Homer, both Ad and ke tend to disappear.
The anaphoric form is still used in the trage-
dians in imitation of Homer, but it represents
an archaism in + Attic prose, where it is gen-
erally replaced by the intensifier autos; this is
an emphatic form basically meaning “selfness”
(autös ho aner/ ho aner autds ‘the man himself’)
or “sameness” (ho autds anér ‘the same man’)
(Smyth 1920:302; Taillardat 1983:75). The + nom-
inative case maintains the intensive meaning
during the Classical age, whereas + accusative,
 REFLEXIVES 217

~ genitive, and + dative develop an anaphoric exhibit a fixed word order). Already in Hesiod
value. Autös also contributes to the development the 3rd person compound appears in the uni-
of new reflexives, formed by compounding the verbated form which will characterize Classical
stems of the reflexive and personal pronouns Greek:
with the oblique cases of autos; only the dative
forms Adi, sphisi remain common as indirect (6) Gaia de toi pröton men egeinato ison heautéi
reflexives (Smyth 1920:305): / Ouranön asteroenth’
‘Earth first bore starry Heaven, equal to her-
(5) tous paidas ekéleuon toit Kurou deisthai self’ (Hes. Theog. 126-7)
diaprdxasthai sphisin
‘they ordered the boys to ask Cyrus to get it Progressively, the model of the grd person
done for them(selves)' (Xen. Cyr. 1.4.1) spreads to the other persons, up to the creation
of the paradigm of reflexives in Classical Greek.
These changes can be summarized as follows: The nominative is excluded by the meaning,
and there is no + dual form; on the other hand,
Table 3. Traditional distribution of he and the paradigm includes gender differentiations
autös (Puddu 2005149) on the basis of the regular paradigm of autos,
auté, autön:
Reflexive Intensifier Anaphoric
Hom hé autös he Table 4. Reflexive pronoun in Classical Greek
Cl.Gr. heautön autös autos
singular ist person 2nd person 3rd person
Gen. emautou, seautoi,-és heautoit, -és,
In this perspective, the RM appears to shift from -és -oU
a pure pronominal form (hE) to a compound one (sautoü, -és) (hautoü, -és,
(heautön). Nevertheless, the origin of the new -ott)
form can be observed already in Homer. It has Dat. emautöi, seautéi,-éi heautdi, -éi,
been noticed that occurrences of hé are quite -&i -Di
rare in Homer, especially if compared with those (sautdi, -€i) (hautdi, -&i,
of the anaphoric form (Bolling 1947). Moreover -6i)
in the handful of cases in which it does occur Acc. emautén, seautön,-en heautön, -en,
with a clear reflexive value, he is frequently -en -6
associated with autos (Schwyzer 1939:607; Chan- (sautön,-en) (hautön,
traine 1945151). These traditional observations ~én, -6)
have been recently developed by Puddu (2005), plural
bringing into question the truly reflexive value of Gen. hemön humön sphön
he. She has noted that for #é to be considered a autön autön auton
full reflexive, it should be able to occur alone as a (heautön)
direct object, that is, in the prototypical domain Dat. hemin humin sphisin
of reflexivity. However, in Homer the accusative autois, autois,-ais autols, -als
he is always accompanied with autén, even if no -ais
need for emphatic contrast justifies the pres- (hautois,
ence of the intensifier, as in (1) and (2). Accord- -als, -ois)
ing to Puddu (2005), this distribution suggests Acc. hemäs humäs sphäs autos,
that already in Homer the reflexive function autoüs, autoüs, -ds -ds, -&4
is anything but associated with Aé; it is rather -as
expressed by means of the ard person compound (heautoüs,
he auton. The intensifier loses its emphatic value -a5, -4)
when occurring in the compound form, and the
compound as a whole shows a high degree of
morpho-syntactic cohesion (i.e. the two com- However, the singular forms - in particular, in
ponents can only be separated by means of the 3rd person - are initially more frequent than
the particles d', ¢’, thus preventing > hiatus, and the plural forms (Schwyzer 1939). Sometimes
218 REFLEXIVES
the ard person is used instead of the ıst and znd
(Smyth 1920:306):
(7) det hemds anerésthai heautoüs
‘we must ask ourselves’ (Pl. Phd. 78b)
Moreover, the singular forms show a higher
degree of morphological cohesion, whereas in
the plural both pronouns are declined separately
(sphäs autots, although heautous is also docu-
mented, see Smyth 1920:93):
(8) parédosan hoi pdntes sphäs autous hexak-
iskhilioi
‘they surrounded (themselves) to the num-
ber of six thousand in all’ (Thuc. 7.82)
Beside the regular forms, the 3rd person presents
contracted forms (hautdén), as in (9), which differ
from the anaphoric form (autön) only for the
presence of the initial aspiration; the anaphoric
and reflexive forms will tend to be confused over
time:
(9) rhiptei hauton eis ten thdlattan
‘he threw himself into the sea’ (Dem. Or.
32.6)
The syntactic conditions to which the Classical
language is subjected are analogous to those
already pointed out with regards to Homer;
namely the RM and the subject antecedent do
not necessarily represent clause-mates (Smyth
1920:304):
(10) eboületo Kldarkhos hapan to sirdteuma pros
heautön ékhein ten gnömen
‘Clearchus desired to have the entire army
devated to him’ (Xen. An. 2.5.29)
3. REFLEXIVES AND THE MIDDLE DOMAIN
Up to now, a narrow definition of Reflexivity has
been implicitly used, which includes only tran-
sitive situations human beings typically direct
on other participants (such as events of killing,
throwing, etc.), This narrow sense is justified by
the Greek data, where RMs appear to be limited
to such prototypical reflexive events. A wider
notion of reflexivity may also include commonly
self-directed events (typically activities of body-
care, such as washing, getting dressed, adorn-
ing) which human beings commonly perform
reflexively (Faltz 1977; Haiman 1983; Kemmer
1993; Geniusiene 1987; Haspelmath 2003). How-
ever, although we are still dealing with semanti-
cally transitive events involving two different
semantic roles (Agent and Patient), this situa-
tion-type constitutes the linking area with the
+ middle domain. The contrast between the
two types is not universally encoded (cf, Germ.
Gertrud wäscht sich 'Gertrud washes (herself)’,
Gertrud hasst sich ‘Gertrud hates herself’); how-
ever, body-care activities do not pattern with
teflexive systems in many languages of the world
(cf. Eng. John washed/ John got washed) and are
encoded as middles in languages having middle
markers clearly distinct from the reflexive ones
(cf. Russ. Vanja moet-sja Vanja washes himself’
vs, Vanja nenavidit sebja “Vanja hates himself’)
(Haspelmath 2008:40).
In Greek, body-care activities are only mar-
ginally involved in the reflexive encoding. An
example is represented by the following case in
Homer (Puddu 20053151):
(u) elthein eis Iden ett entünasan he auten
‘to go to Ida, when she had beauteously
adorned her person’ (Il. 14.162)
More typically, body-care activities are middle-
marked both in Homer and in Classical Greek,
cf. lotomailloumai ‘bathe (oneself)', aponizo-
mai ‘wash oneself’, Aathairomai ‘purify oneself’,
xuroümai ‘shave oneself’, kosmoümai ‘adorn
oneself’, aparuittomai ‘blow one's nose’, etc.
(Rijksbaron [1984] 2006:144-145).
Direct reflexive meanings instead are very
rarely expressed by means of middle forms.
Puddu (2005:170-171) locates a few cases in
Homer:
(12) prötos hup’ arneioh luémén, hupelusa d’
hetatrous
‘I first loosed myself from under the ram
and set my comrades free’ (Od. 9.463)
An indirect reflexive situation is exemplified in
(13), in which a human Agent acts on part of his
own body (kephalen ‘head’), which is encoded as
an object, rather than on himself as a whole:
(13) kephalen d’ hé ge köpsato khersin
‘then he beat upon his head with his hands’
(il, 22.33)
 REFLEXIVES
However, indirect reflexive events may also
be encoded by means of middle markers, espe-
cially in the later ages, such as in (14), in which
the agentive subject is better characterized as
a Beneficiary acting on his own interest; Rijks-
baron ({1984] 2006147) observes that a corre-
sponding active construction would not indicate
in whose interest the subject is carrying out the
state of affairs:
(14) Ahoi astoi dleurä te kai dlphita epoieun
päntes
‘the townsmen all prepared (themselves)
wheaten and barley meal' (Hdt. 7.119.2)
Besides these quite marginal overlapping areas,
reflexive and middle situations appear to con-
stitute well-distinguished semantic domains,
prototypically associated with different marking
strategies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bolling, George M. 1947. “Personal pronouns in reflexive
situations in the Iliad”, Language 23:23-33.
Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück. 1893. Grundriss
der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen
Sprachen. Strassburg.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1945. Morphologie historique du grec.
Paris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding.
Dordrecht.
Comrie, Bernard, 1999. “Reference-tracking, description and
explanation”, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschun-
gen 52:335-346.
Faltz, Leonard M. 1977. Reflexivization. A study im universal
syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley (reprinted 1985, New York).
Geniusiené, Emma 1999. The typology of reflexives. Berlin -
New York.
Haiman, john. 1983. “Iconic and Economic Motivation’,
Language 59:781-819.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. “The geometry of grammati-
cal meaning, Semantic maps and cross-linguistic com-
parison”. In: The new psychology of language. Cognitive
and functional approaches to language structure, ed. by
Michael Tomasello, vol. 2, 21-242. Mahwah — London.
. 2008, "A frequentist explanation of some universals of
reflexive marking”. Linguistic Discovery 6.1:40-63.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam —
Philadelphia.
Kulikov, Leonid. 2007. “The reflexive pronouns in Vedic: a
diachronic and typological perspective", Lingua 107:1412-
1433.
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax. Anaphora, discourse
and empathy. Chicago.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax.
Austin — Landon.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1994. “Reflexives and reciprocals”.
In: The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. by
R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson, vol, 7, 3504-3509.
Oxford.
219
Petit, Daniel. 1999. *sue en grec ancien: la famille du pronom
rejlecht. Linguistique grecque et comparaison inda-euro-
peenne. Leuven.
Puddu, Nicoletta. 2005. Riflessivi e intensificatori, Grecu,
latino e altre lingue indoeuropee. Pisa.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 1984. The syntax and semantics of the
verb in Classical Greek. An introduction (3rd edition 2006).
Chicago.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatick. Munich.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1920. A Greek grammur for calleges.
Cambridge, MA.
Taillardat, Jean. 1983. “A propos du grec autos, ipseite, iden-
tité, anaphare”, Lalies 5775-86.
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. “Towards proto-Indo-European syn-
tax, problems and pseudo-problems”. In: Diachrenic syn-
tax, Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, ed,
by S. B. Steever, C. A. Walker and S. 5. Mufwene, 305-326.
Chicago.
EGLE Mocclara
Relative Chronology
Language changes are historical events, and his-
torical events happen in a particular order or
chronology. It follows that one of the tasks of
reconstructing the history of a language is to
establish the order in which the changes took
place. Changes during the recorded history of
a language can often (though not always) be
tracked through contemporary documentary
evidence. As for changes that have been posited
for a language's prehistory, simple experiment
can often establish a chronology by testing dif-
ferent theoretically possible relative chronolo-
gies to see which one(s) produce the correct
outcome. Depending on the nature and number
of the changes involved, it may not be possible
to settle on just one chronology to the exclusion
of others; and not infrequently, figuring out a
relative chronology and identifying prehistoric
sound changes to begin with are interdependent
tasks, where revisions to the one reconstructive
task necessitate revisions to the other and vice
versa.
An extended example from the phonologi-
cal development (+ Phonological Change) of
Ancient Greek will illustrate some of the meth-
ods and complications of determining rela-
tive chronology. Let us begin with three sound
changes in the prehistory of — Attic, listed here
in a random order and given short labels:
ns: Nasals were lost before s with + compensatory
lengthening of the preceding + vowel, Example:
acc. pl. fous ‘the’ < *tons (ou represents [0:]).
220 RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

Ti: t became s before i (+ Assibilation). Example: As is evident, we can eliminate hypotheses

désis ‘giving’ < *dotis. (1), (2), (3), and (5) from the running, since they
AE: “d was raised to € in most environments generate the wrong result. The remaining two
(+ Vowel Changes). Example: meter ‘mother’ contenders allow us to establish that Tt and Ag
< *"mäter.
occurred before Ns but they do not allow us to
These three changes could have happened in establish the relative order of rı and AE with
six theoretically possible orders, labeled (1-6) respect to one another. It is easy to see why. If
below: the input of a change is identical to the output
of an earlier change, then the output of the ear-
lier change will become the input of (or ‘feed’)
1 2 3 4 5 6
the later change. Thus the input to change AE,
NS NS TI Tl AE AE namely *&, is identical to one of the outputs of
TI AE NS AE NS TI change NS (an ä produced by compensatory
AE TI AE NS TI NS lengthening). The historical datum (the form
phäsi) tells us, however, that a produced by com-
pensatory lengthening did not get raised to *e;
A form like 3pl. phäsf ‘they say’ from *phanti thus the raising of AE had to happen earlier than
allows an initial test of these hypotheses. In the the compensatory lengthening of Ns. But the
charts below, a dash (—) means the change did changes TI and AE do not affect related sounds
net apply since the conditions for the change or produce related outputs, and so their order
were not met, and a dagger (+) marks a form that relative to one another cannot be established on
we know or strongly suspect did not exist: the basis of the datum we have just seen.

1 2 3 4 5 6
input phanti phanti phanti phanti phanti phanti

NS — NS — TI phansi T1 phansi AE — AE —
Tl phansi AE — NS phdsi AE — NS — Ti = phansi
AE — Tl phansi AE phési NS phdsi TI phansi NS phäsi
Output Tphansi tphansi tpheési phasi tphansi phasi

One further change can be thrown into the mix
that might be of use, one whose conditioning
environment and output overlap both with Tı
and AE, namely:
1: The + labtovelars *k” and *q” became the corre-
sponding dental stops (t and d, respectively) before
a front vowel (fie é in the case of *k™; only before
e € in the case of “g™ + Consonants; + Consonant
Changes). Examples: t/s ‘who?’ < *k¥is, adén ‘gland’
< pre-Altic “ag*én.
This change must have happened after TI, since
the (*)tis that developed from pre-Attic *kris
did not further become fsis. Lejeune (1972:51-
52), followed by Brixhe (1994:87), says that this
change has to be placed before az because of
forms like eben '| walked’ < *eg™dan: if this had
first become *eg”en by Ag, it would have fed D to
become tédén. If he is right, then this allows us
to establish an order of T1 before Ag. But in fact
the testimony of ébén is not so clear at all. The
beta in eben arose from yet another change:
Gs; *g* became labialized to 6 before a or 4.
Example: batos ‘accessible’ < *g“atos.
lt is clear that this change had to happen before
the raising in AE, or a sequence of changes *eg”an
> *eg"en > Teden would indeed have happened
just as Lejeune averred. But the labialization in
G“B changed those labiovelars that had stood
before @ into something else, meaning those
labiovelars that could (theoretically) have fed
change D down the road, after (theoretically) *a
had been raised to é, were no longer in existence
as labiovelars. To put it another way, if G"B
turned labiovelars in front of a into labials before
the raising of @ > é (change AE) happened, no
labiovelars would have stood before the new €'s
 RELATIVE GHRONOLOGY
at the time of change D. So while Gs definitely
did happen before AE, the relative timing of D is
still indeterminate.
At this point, any of the following three orders
is theoretically possible:
Input eg*an eg"an eg”an
D - GWB ebän GWB ebän
G’B eban AE eben D -
AE eben D — AE eben
Output eben eben eben
Thus we know only the following so far: rı *té > si
and Ag *@ > é happened before Ns “ans > as; Ti *ti
> si happened before D *k™i/e “ge > ti/e de; and
GWB “g’a > ba happened before AE *a > e. The
order G’B > AE + NS is fixed, as are the orders
Ti + D and TI + NS. We can only eliminate two
theoretical combinations: the order AE + T1 + NS
(hypothesis (6) above) is not compatible with
either the order D + GYB > AE (because Tı had to
happen before D) or the order GB + D + AE (for
the same reason). But (6) is still in the running
because it is compatible with the order GYB > AE
> D. In all, nine possible combinations of the five
changes remain, hypotheses (7-15) below:
There is no purely internal evidence that will
allow us to decide among these; we must now
turn to external sources. First, it will be noticed
that there are two broad groups in the scenarios
above, thuse beginning with Ti and thuse with
GB. The change of TI *ti > si is attested already
in Mycenaean and is also found in Attic-lonic
(+ Ionic), + Arcadian, and + Cypriot (so-called
South Greek (+ Southeast Greek); a paral-
lel change happened in + Lesbian (and Aeolic
Asian), but only later). Change GB, part of a
more general labialization of the labiovelars,
occurred in all Greek dialects except Mycenaean
(+ Mycenaean Script and Language). To judge
by the presence of T1 in Mycenaean but absence
221
of GB, then, TI was earlier, which means that we
should eliminate hypotheses (1-15), To evaluate
the remaining four contenders, the next ques-
tion we face is whether the dentalization of
labiovelars (change D) was earlier or later than
their labialization (change G“B). Now the den-
talization is actually the second of a two-part
process which began with palatalization; this
palatalization is generally regarded as having
occurred early. According to the recent analysis
by Parker (2008:445-446; 2012:gff.), there were
actually two rounds of palatalization: in the first,
there was affrication just of *k"i/ito *tsi/z, which
later became ti/t in all post-Mycenaean dialects
except for Arcadian and Cypriot, which pre-
serve the affricate. Then, in the second round,
all remaining labiovelars before front vowels
became palatalized in Attic-lonic, Arcadian,
+ Doric, and + Pamphylian (but not in Lesbian,
> Thessalian, + Boeotian, or Cypriot); in Attic-
Ionic, Doric, and Pamphylian these subsequently
became dental stops before e and & but (accord-
ing to Parker) reverted to labiovelars before i and
i. (At least the first of these palatalizations could
theoretically have begun as early as Mycenaean
if the resultant sound at that time was still pho-
nemically identified with the labiovelars in other
positions; we do not in fact know the > phonetic
reality behind the - Linear B signs transcribed
with g, just that they were different from p, ¢,
and &.) All remaining labiovelars (including the
ones just mentioned before / and 7) subsequently
became labials by a change that swept through
all the dialects,
If this is true, then D preceded Ge and we can
eliminate (8-10) and narrow everything down
to (7). For all the forms we have considered, this
then yields the following correct derivations:
Input phanti kis ag”en eg"an
Tl phansi - - -
D - tis aden -
GB - - - eban
AE - - - eben
NS phäsi - - -
Output phasis aden eben
Parker's scenario differs in certain ways from the
handbook presentations, according to which the
labial outcomes before e in Lesbian, Thessalian,
and Boeotian are viewed as an isogloss separating
224 RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
these dialects (under the rubric “Aeolic’,
term that he does not believe reflects any lin-
guistic reality; + Aeolic Dialects). In his view,
labialization was the default treatment of labio-
velars, affecting any that had not previously been
affected by palatalization. A full treatment of
this issue is not possible here; we simply flag that
this is still an open question (Parker's conclu-
sions concerning Aeolic have for instance been
strongly challenged by Garcia Ramon 2010), and
subsequent findings might lead to a revision
of the chronology settled on above. Lejeune’s
statement that D precededAk has been corrobo-
rated after all, but only on the basis of material
beyond the forms that he had considered already
probative.
Relative chronology says nothing about abso-
lute chronology, that is, when a change took
place in actual time. Even changes that occur
during the recorded history of a language are
not necessarily reflected in contemporaneaus
documents. Orthographic conventions have a
tendency to conservatism, standardization, and
artificialization, in some cases effectively never
changing. Written Greek (in the form of the
Jonic alphabet and orthographic conventions;
+ Local Scripts) has maintained a distinction
among the graphs or digraphs y, 1, v, ei, ot, and
ul for over two and a half millennia even though
almost all the phonetic distinctions among the
sounds originally represented by these graphs
were effaced already before the end of Antiq-
uity; eventually they all merged as [i]. Historical
linguists and philologists must often seek other
sources of information than standard orthog-
raphies to identify and date the instantiation
of a sound change. Such information can come
from sources including meter and assonance in
poetry, spelling errors, loanwords into and from
other languages, and contemporary linguistic
descriptions. For the prehistory of a language,
even knowing how many changes occurred dur-
ing a given period is not enough to assign pos-
sible dates, or a possible prehistoric time-span,
because there is no uniform rate of language
change from which to extrapolate any dating.
Further complicating the picture is the nature
of speech communities to borrow forms from
one another. No language or dialect is “pure’,
and one of the biggest challenges of Ancient
Greek dialectology has been to ascertain which
changes had occurred by the end of the Proto-
Greek period (> Proto-Greek and Common
a Greek) and which ones came about later in one
dialect or dialect area and subsequently spread
to the others. (On this issue recently see Gar-
rett 2006.) One might think that an innovation
common to all of Greek would have taken place
earlier than a feature limited to a certain dialect
area; but this is not automatically the case. The
change of *ti > si that we saw above is com-
mon to Mycenaean, Attic-lonic, Arcadian, and
Cypriot, and belongs to the second millennium
BCE, while the labialization of labiovelars before
back vowels and most consonants occurred later;
and possibly even later than what was — Grass-
mann’s Law (the change whereby the first in a
sequence of two aspirated stops separated by at
least one intervening vocoid lost its aspiration),
which may not have affected + Boeotian until
perhaps the fifth century (Miller 1977243-144).
though this is disputed. The ability of an inno-
vation to spread beyond the boundaries of the
speech communities in which it originated is
always dependent on sociolinguistic conditions
specific to that time.
Most efforts towards establishing relative
chronologies (and all of the discussion here so
far) focus on sound changes, But all compo-
nents of the grammar change, and not infre-
quently it is possible to date a morphological
change (for example) relative to a sound change
if the morphological change could not have hap-
pened without it. Thus the Greek sigmatic + aor-
ist (> Aorist Formation) is characterized by a
thematic vowel -a- between the tense/aspect
suffix -s- (> Aspect (and Tense)) and the per-
sonal endings that was not part of the sigmatic
aorist paradigm in Proto-Indo-European, where
the personal endings were added directly to the
tense/aspect-suffix *s-. Now in two of the end-
ings, 1sg. *-s-m and gpl. *-s-né, a syllabic nasal
followed the s; this nasal was vocalized to -a-
in Greek, whence historically attested ısg. -sa
and ultimately gpl. -san (a recharacterization
of expected +—sa by the addition of the produc-
tive secondary 3pl. desinence -n), These forms
were the basis for the spread of -a- to the rest of
the paradigm outside of the asg., where -e was
taken over from the thematic aorist (possibly
reinforced by the -e in the perfect and the the-
matic imperfect). Thus 2nd 3rd sg. *-s-s *s-t ist
and pl. *s-me(-) *-s-te became -sas -se -samen
-sate. In other cases, it is not so easy to tell.
Pre-Greek inherited from Indo-European the all-
purpose verb-forming suffix *-ye/o-; this suffix is
 RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
indirectly continued in many of the + contract
verbs as well as in suffixes like -iz6 -@26 -ainö that
were abstracted from combinations of old *-ye/
o- added to various stem-final sequences (*-id-
ye/a- *-ad-ye/o- *-n-ye/o-) (+ Present Tense). The
loss of yod between vowels (yielding ultimately
the contract verbs) and after consonants (often
with palatalization of the consonant) of course
erased *-ye/o- from the inventory of suffixes per
se, but it is not guaranteed that this loss was nec-
essary for e.g. -iz0 to have become reanalyzed as
a suthx. That reanalysis could have taken place
already at the stage *-id-ye/o-.
Relative chronologies can be determined for
other kinds of changes as well, such as + seman-
tic change (this is the task of historical lexi-
cography) and + syntactic change. The latter is
especially challenging because of the poor state
of knowledge regarding the + syntax of proto-
languages, A language learner must deduce
phonemes, morphemes, and words from the
linguistic data that he is exposed to, but these
items are memorized and passed down as dis-
crete linguistic units and surface as specifiable
physical (acoustic/phonetic) entities. Compara-
tive linguists (+ Comparative Method) thus have
concrete forms to work with to base their recon-
structions on. By contrast, the acquisition of syn-
tax involves deducing syntactic rules, rather than
memorizing discrete entities or outputs of those
rules (phrases, + clauses, + sentences). Many
theoretical models for characterizing syntactic
rules abound, and there is no direct connection
between the surface structure of syntactic units
like phrases and clauses and the rules used to
generate them. Without inherited phrases and
sentences to compare, historical] linguists must
compare syntactic patterns instead, which raises
a number of still unsettled issues. Much of the
focus has been laid on + word-order and changes
thereto, but word-order itself is not syntax. Many
possible word-orders are typically available that
can be used to encode grammatical relations (as
in placing the object after the + verb in English)
or that can correlate with different pragmatic
needs in the + discourse situation (for example,
to highlight new information or to background
old information, and to indicate different types
of contrast or emphasis). Modern Greek has
much of the same variety of possible word-
orders available as the ancient language did,
with some change in their statistical frequencies
(verb-final clauses were commoner in Ancient
223
Greek, verb-initial and + subject-initial are com-
moner today); but that alone does not tell us
whether the movement rules themselves have
changed, or just the pragmatic interpretations
of their output.
Changes to morphology (e.g. loss of cases;
+ Morphological Change) are often thought to
trigger changes in syntax (e.g. replacement of
“free” word-order with “fixed” word-order), and
thus it would seem that determining a relative
chronology of certain morphological vis-a-vis
certain syntactic changes would be straightfor-
ward. But the details are often extremely messy.
English lost the + dative and + accusative cases
close to a millennium ago; though one would
expect that other means (use of prepositions,
word-order) had to take over more or less imme-
diately in order for these grammatical relations
to be effectively expressed, and that these means
would also be fixed relatively quickly, consid-
erable freedom of word-order continued for
centuries. It is likewise difficult to gauge the
effects on the syntax wrought by the loss of
some of the morphology of Ancient Greek, partly
because of differences of opinion as to what con-
stitutes a syntactic change. The loss of the dative
removed a nominal case from the morphological
inventory of the language, but the functions of
the dative have been taken over by preexist-
ing machinery - the genitive or prepositional
phrases with se ‘to’ plus the accusative. The syn-
tax of the genitive and of prepositional phrases
has not changed; only their functions have been
added to. The loss of the infinitive (> Infini-
tives (Morphology of)) has likewise removed a
morphological category from the verb, but in its
place is a construction (na plus + subjunctive)
that is ancient (< Aina + subjunctive, used for
complement clauses in place of complementary
infinitives at least by the time of the + New
Testament). The spread of this construction was
an important factor leading to the demise of the
infinitive rather (han (he other way around, but
infinitives survived in some constructions well
into the medieval period (see in general Joseph
1983; + Developments in Medieval and Modern
Greek). Without the detailed documentation of
Greek that we possess since antiquity, however,
we would not know any of this.
This last example also illustrates the chicken-
and-egg problem that besets establishing relative
chronologies for interrelated changes in two dif-
ferent areas of the grammar; even with detailed
224 RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
documentary evidence, it is not always possible
to ascertain which change happened first to trig-
ger the second, or whether both were triggered
by another factor, The issue is to some extent
moot, because ‘the language’ is not a monolithic
entity; each speaker has his or her own gram-
matical system, differing in subtle ways from the
grammars of their neighbors, and the written
record only reflects the tiniest fraction of the
grammars in existence at a given time.
Historical grammars of languages are usually
highly modularized into separate sections on
~+ phonology, morphology, and syntax, and these
are themselves further modularized into subsec-
tions on consonants, vowels, + nouns, — pro-
nouns, verbs, and so forth. As a result, rarely if
ever does one see attempts to reconstruct a rela-
tive chronology that is a synthesis encompassing
all the changes across all grammatical domains
of a language. Such a task might not in fact be
realizable - not only because many changes
in morphology and syntax are not the result of
changes elsewhere in the grammar and thus
cannot be dated relative to the latter, but also
because of the unidimensionality of a linear list
of changes, which would have to be expanded
by additional dimensions to incorporate the rep-
resentation of simultaneous changes in other
domains. But attempting such a project could
well reap significant insights by revealing pre-
viously obscure cross-domain interconnections
of certain developments. This is true even of a
language as fully studied as Greek.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brixhe, Claude. 1994. Phonetique et phonologie du grec ancien.
I, Quelques grandes questions. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Garcia Ramon, José L. 2010. “On the genetic classification of
the Ancient Greek dialects: Comparative reconstuction
versus hypercriticism and atomism at work.” In: Studies
in Greek Linguistics 3a, Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki,
219-236.
Garrett, Andrew. 2006. “Convergence in the formation of
Indo-European subgroups: phylogeny and chronology’.
In: Phylogenctic methods and the prehistory of languages,
ed. by Peter Forster and Colin Renfrew, 139-151. Cam-
bridge.
Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the
Balkan infinitive, A study in areal, general, and historical
linguistics, Cambridge.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et
du yrec ancien, Paris.
Miller, D. Gary. 1977. “Was Grassmann’s law reordered in
Greek?", AZ 9131-158.
Parker, Holt. 2008. “The linguistic case for the Aiolian migra-
tion reconsidered”, Hesperia 77:431-464.
—~, 2013. "Palatalization of labiovelars in Greek”. In Mutti
Nominis Grammaticus: Studies in Classical and Indo-Euro-
pean linguistics in honar of Alan }, Nussbaum on the occa-
sion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. AdamJ. Cooper, Jeremy
Rau, and Michael Weiss, 214-227, Ann Arbor.
BENJAMIN FORTSON
Relative Clauses
1. RELATIVE CLAUSES IN GREEK: GENERAL
FEATURES
Relative clauses are typically marked in Greek by
the use of a relative pronoun, which acts as the
linking element between the relative clause and
its head noun and/or the main clause (+ Pro-
nouns (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite,
Relative)). As in other languages that employ
this strategy, the Greek relative pronouns have
a two-fold dependence: (a) they agree in gender
and number with their antecedent or head noun
in the main clause, when there is such noun (it
is this + agreement that allows for processing
the anaphoric reference of the relative pronoun
to its antecedent); (b) the relative pronoun is
inflected for case, thus signalling the syntac-
tic function and semantic role that its anteced-
ent plays inside the relative clause (but there
are some exceptions to this; see below). Unlike
other languages (cf. Eng. that vs. who and which),
in Greek there are no pronouns exclusively for
headless or free relative clauses (see below); the
same pronouns are employed in all types.
The most common relative pronoun in Greek
is hös, h&, hd, which is inflected for gender,
number and case. This pronoun is sometimes
anaphoric when it is placed at the beginning of
a sentence and the noun referred to is found in
a previous sentence, but this is by far less com-
mon than with Lat. qui, quae, quod. The relative
pronoun also occurs in subordinate clauses that
are camplements to verbs ofspeaking and know-
ing, as in (1):
(1) éxoid’ akouén ténd’ hös esth' ho prostates
‘Hearing these (words), I have leamt who
the suppliant is’ (Soph. OC 1171)
As Crespo et al. (2003:379) remark, in such cases
there are two possible structural analyses: either
the pronoun Ads is used as an interrogative for
 RELATIVE CLAUSES
indirect questions, introducing a nominal, com-
pletive clause that would refer to a state of
affairs, or else hös is a relative pronoun introduc-
ing a free relative clause that refers to an entity.
The originally anaphoric pronoun hd, hé, t6
(formally identical with the definite article) has
also been grammaticalized as a relative pronoun
and it is found in this function especially in
Homer, Aeolic, + Arcado-Cypriot, the Doric and
northwestern dialects, as well as in Attic poetry.
It also occurs in the Ionic dialect of Herodotus
with some exceptions for certain morphologi-
cal cases for which the forms of Ads are favored.
Syntactically, ho, he, tö is employed in a similar
way as Ads, he, Ad, thus occurring in different
strategies and even showing ‘> attraction’,
The relative pronoun could combine with
other pronouns or ~ particles, which led to the
grammaticalization of a number of relative pro-
nouns that have specific semantic nuances:
« höstis, hetis, höft)ti has a generalizing value
(‘anyone who’, 'whosoever'), as in (24) below.
From the classical times onward, and specially
in the Koine, it may give up its proper meaning
and be used with head nouns that have a definite
referent, as in (2):
(2) eis pölin David hetis kaleitai Béthleém
‘To the town of David that is called Bethle-
hem’ (Luke 2:4)
» The forms of the pronoun fds te occur In
archaic poetry in non-restrictive relative clauses
with a definite antecedent, as in (3):
(3) ek potamoio Alpheiod hös t eurü rhéei Pulion
dia gates
‘From the river Alfeius, which flows wide
through the land of the Pylians’ (Hom. Il.
5.545)
Relative clauses introduced by Ads te are primar-
ily used for expressing an intrinsic or permanent
characteristic of the referent or a repeated action
or situation, being thus frequently equivalent to
an epithet, as in (3), but not always.
* The pronoun Adsper (also written Ads per; in
Homer the two elements can be separated by
other words) emphasizes the coincidence with
the referent of the head noun (‘the very person
who’, ‘the very thing which’), as in (4):
225
(4) kalhemin exelthön ho thurörös, hösper eiöthei
[...] Aupakouein
‘And the jailer, the one who used to answer,
came out to us...’ (PI. Pad. 59e)
Greek also has a number of relative adjectives,
some of them with a very specific meaning.
These are the following:
e hösos and hopdsos (‘as much/many as’)
are + quantifiers and their reference to the class
that the head noun belongs to is made by the
number or quantity (see (5)). In correlative
structures, idsos and iosoßtos are used within
the main clause. From its original meaning hdsos
has evolved into a generalizing relative similar to
höstis in function and meaning.
(5) dlloi men gar päntes hösoi theoi eis’ en
Olümpöi / soi t’ epipelthontai
'For all the other gods who are in Olympus
obey you’ (Hom. Il. 5.877-878)
* hotos and hopoios (‘such as’, ‘of the same kind
as’) are adjectives of quality and their refer-
ence to the class that the head noun belongs to
depends on sharing certain properties or charac-
teristics (see (6)). In correlative structures, tolos
and toioütos are expected in the main clause.
(6) ...Ad ou düo g’ dndre pheroien / hoioi niin
brotoi eis(i)
‘(A stone) that not two men could bear, such
as mortals are now’ (Hom. Il. 5.303-304)
« hélikos and hopéltkos (‘as old as’) are adjectives
of quality and their reference to the class of the
head noun points to sharing the same age or size
(real or metaphorical), as in (7). In correlative
structures, télikos and telikoütos are expected in
the main clause.
(7) hordis men hemäs hélikoi prosemetha bömaisi
tols sois
‘You see the age of us who sit at your altars’
(Soph. OT ızf.)
» hopöteros (‘which of two’) stresses the fact that
the referent belongs in a pair or couple, as in (8):
(8) hopdteros an sphöin niin me mällon eit poiéi,
toütöi paradoso tes puknos tas henias
226 RELATIVE CLAUSES
‘To whichever of you two will treat me bet-
ter I will give the reins of the Pnyx’ (Aris-
toph, Equ. no8t.)
« hopodapds (‘of what country, what country-
man’) underlines the fact that the referent has a
specific geographic origin or location, as in (9):
(9) rhädiös su Aiguptious kai hopedapous an
etheleis lögous poicis
‘You easily make up Egyptian stories or of
whatever country you want’ (Pl. Phdr. 275b)
As adjectives, within the relative clause they
are expected to appear as ~ modifiers of a noun
(see (5)), while agreeing in number and gender
with the head noun in the main clause, when
there is one. However, they are more frequently
used as pronouns and in that case they show
no significantly different behavior from relative
pronouns proper, e.g. (10). These relatives
quite frequently found in indirect questions, in
similar structures to (1).
(10) allai poietai polloi hösoi légousin hos...
‘Many other poets, all the ones that say
that...’ (Pl. Crat. 398b)
Furthermore, there exist relative adverbials. The
most frequent ones are the following:
Place (meaning ‘where’): hou, höpou, hath,
|
hopothi, éntha, hina
- Direction (‘to where’): Avi, hopot, hdpuse
- Origin (‘from where’): höthen, hapothen
- Extension (‘through where’): hei, Adpéi
— Time (‘when’): hote, hopate
— Manner (‘in the same way as’, ‘like’): Ads,
höpös
As can be seen, many of these are morpho-
logically related to the relative pronoun. In fact,
a good number of + subordination markers in
Ancient Greek ultimately derive from relative
pronouns, Syntactically, the analysis of various
types of subordinate clauses, especially tempo-
ral, local, and modal ones, could be unified with
that of relative clauses, simply considering them
free or correlative relative clauses.
In later Greek we And an invariable relative
marker pou (also hopou or hopoü), which origi-
nally was the relative adverb ‘where’. When it is
not the subject, the syntactic function inside the
relative clause of the entity referred to is taken
up by a resumptive anaphoric pronoun.
Several different strategies for the construc-
tion of relative clauses are attested in Ancient
Greek. As we will see, some of them involve a
change in meaning or function. However, in
other cases these variations do not carry a dif-
ference in meaning in contrast to the ‘standard’
embedded head-external postnominal relative
clauses, but are due to stylistic or pragmatic
factors or ditterences in the dialect or idiolect of
the speaker.
2. EMBEDDED VS. ADJOINED RELATIVE
CLAUSES
Relative clauses can be embedded or adjoined,
depending on whether the relative clause is
syntactically part of the main clause or not. If
are the relative clause does not belong to the main
clause, the two clauses appear as correlatives and
the link between them is an anaphoric element
occurring in the main clause (for an exhaus-
tive review of correlatives see Liptak 2009). It is
this anaphoric element that shows the syntactic
function and the semantic role that the head
noun and its relative clause have in it, as is the
case with autot in (11):
(u) hös ke theois epipeithetai mdla t’ ékluon
autou
‘Whoever obeys the gods, they listen to
him’ (Hom. Hl. 1.218)
In Greek, relative clauses are typically embed-
ded; however, adjoined relative clauses are also
frequently found and this type is generally con-
sidered to be older and go back to Proto-Indo-
European (cf. Mendoza 1998:230-239). Adjoined
clauses are more common in Homer; in later
authors their frequency decreases until they are
finally given up in Koine. Word order is also
significant for discriminating embedded and
adjoined relative clauses: embedded relative
clauses generally appear in the middle of the
main clause; in contrast, adjoined clauses are
extraposed and appear either before the main
clause (left-adjoined relative clauses) or after it
(right-adjoined relative clauses). In Greek both
are possible (see (11) and (12)), in contrast to
languages that only allow for one type.
 RELATIVE CLAUSES
(12) toäto dé toi ereö ho m’ aneireai
‘That [ will say, what you are asking me’
(Hom. ff. 3.177)
9. HEADED VS. FREE RELATIVE CLAUSES
Embedded relative clauses are, therefore, part
of the main clause and have an identifiable syn-
tactic function within it. Depending on whether
they have an overt head noun or not, they can
be further classified into headed or free relative
clauses. Free relative clauses are usually referred
to in the scholarly literature on Ancient Greek
as nominal or substantivized relative clauses, in
the sense that they lack an antecedent and the
relative clause itself appears in one of the posi-
tions of the main clause in which a noun or noun
phrase is expected, as in (13):
(13) dialégesthai par’ hön [an] läboien ton mis-
thon
‘Talk to those from whom they would take
their salary’ (Xen. Mem. 1.2.7)
The usual complement of the verb dialégomai is
a dative and traditionally it has been assumed
that the antecedent (e.g. the pronoun autois in
the dative) has been elided. In such cases, what
happens is simply that the syntactic function
of the relative clause within the main clause
must be inferred from the context since there
is no overt marker of its function. However, the
relative pronoun frequently appears in the case
expected according to the function of the whole
relative clause in the main clause (and not in the
case that it should according to its function in
the relative clause), as in (14). This phenomenon
is called ‘attractio relativi’ (attraction of the rela-
tive) and it also occurs when there is an anteced-
ent (+ Attraction).
(14) totiton ekpiein sitn hois mälista phileis
‘Drink up that with those that you love
most’ (Xen. An. 1.9.26)
With free relative clauses the ‘attraction’ of the
relative may happen when the relative pronoun
is expected to be in the nominative, accusative,
or dative case. In (14) the verb phileis is expected
to govern a direct object in the accusative case
(and not a dative like hois). When there is a pred-
icative of the ‘attracted’ relative, it frequently
227
appears in the same case as the pronoun, as
happens with the adjective dikafon and the par-
ticiple sumpheröntön in (15), which agree with
the relative hön (genitive and not accusative).
(15) hön ékrina dikalön kai sumpherdnton téi
patridi ouden prodoünai
‘To betray nothing of what I deemed fair
and convenient for my country’ (Dem. Or.
18.298)
4. HEAD-EXTERNAL RELATIVE GLAUSES
The head noun of headed relative clauses in
Greek is typically external, i.e., it appears outside
the relative clause, whence its designation as the
‘antecedent' in the traditional grammar. Embed-
ded head-external relative clauses are the most
frequent type of relative clause in Ancient Greek
and they are characteristically postnominal, with
the relative clause following its head noun, as in
(16), in which the relative clause introduced by
hows comes after the head noun theous:
(16) Sökräte phesin adikein [...] theows hous he
polis nomizei ou nomizonta
‘They say that Socrates commits a fault
because he does not believe in the gods
that the city believes in’ (Pl. Ap. 24b)
The antecedent is expected to appear in the case
required by the syntax of the main clause, while
the case of the relative pronoun depends on its
syntactic function inside the relative clause, as
is the case in (16). However, in a similar way to
free relatives, cases of ‘attraction of the relative’
are also frequent with these structures, as in (17),
in which the accusative of the relative pronoun
(hén) would be expected according to the usual
syntax of the verb ktdorai ‘acquire’, while the
genitive Aés occurs, instead. In Homer there is
only one instance of this phenomenon (Hom. H.
5.265 ff.), but it becomes much more common in
later times.
(17) ésesthe andres dxioi tés eleutherias hés
kektesthe...
‘Be men worth the freedom that you have
procured for yourselves’ (Xen. An. 1.7.3)
‘Attraction’ of the relative in head-external rela-
tive clauses differs from free relative clauses in
228 RELATIVE CLAUSES
that in the former it is limited in the classical
language to those instances where the relative
pronoun should be in the accusative case accord-
ing to its syntactic function in the relative clause
(and not in the nominative or dative). As in free
relative clauses, when there is a predicative of
the ‘attracted’ relative, it may appear in the same
case as the relative, as happens with despoinön
in (18), which is in the genitive, like Aon:
(18) hupo ge toitton hön su despoinön kaleis
koldesthui
‘Be hindered by those that you call mis-
tresses’ (Xen, Oec. 2.1)
Even if head-external relative clauses are typ-
ically postposed in Greek, some instances of
preposed clauses can also be found. Examples
like (19) are interesting for the relative clause
appears exactly in the same position in which
a functionally equivalent sequence of definite
article plus adjective would be expected, that is,
between the demonstrative and the head noun
of the nominal phrase. Bakker (2009:80) remarks
that this happens when the relative clause has a
contrastive function or is the most prominent
element of the noun phrase.
(19) Aéti toitön han diexélthon ktematén, oud’
Cl...
‘Because from these possessions that |
have enumerated, not even if...’ (Dem. Or.
24.217)
5. HEAD-INTERNAL RELATIVE CLAUSES
Even if head-external relative clauses are the
usual strategy in Greek, we also find head-inter-
nal relative clauses, with the head noun inside
the relative clause, as in (20):
(20) hemeis d’ hoisper enkeimesth’ aei threnoisi
[...|, pros aithér’ ektenotimen
‘We will raise up to the sky the laments in
which we always are’ (Eur. Andr. gıf.)
As (20) shows, in these instances the head noun
(dat. thrénoisi) displays the same morphological
case as the relative pronoun (dat. hoisper) and
that case depends on the syntax of the relative
clause, The syntactic function within the main
clause of the entity referred to by the relative
clause is not specified and must be deduced from
the gap in its expected syntax (the direct object
in the accusative in (20)). When the marker of
the relative clause is a relative adjective proper
(not substantivized), it can only be head inter-
nal, as typified by (5) above.
Embedded head-internal relative clauses must
be distinguished from adjoined relative clauses,
since they are structurally two different types,
even if they share the feature that the head noun
appears inside the relative clause. A free clause
stands in correlation to the main clause and has
no syntactic function in it, their linkage being
provided by a resumptive anaphoric pronoun in
the main clause. In contrast, in (20) the relative
clause has a syntactic function within the main
clause (direct object of the verb ektenoümen)
and fulfills one of the slots in which a noun
phrase is expected. However, when there is no
anaphoric pronoun in the main clause and the
case expected both in the relative and in the
main clause is the same, it is not possible to
distinguish these structurally different types, as
n (21), where the accusative is governed both
by the infinitive féein and by the verb dedeken in
the relative clause.
(21) diein exiösen hous dédeken ta dikastéria
‘He intended to free those that the tribu-
nals had imprisoned’ (Dem. Or, 24.207)
Midway between head-internal and head-exter-
nal relative clauses, we find instances of what
traditional grammars considered to be cases of
‘attractio inversa’ (reverse attraction). In these
cases, the head noun of the relative clause is
placed before the relative clause, a feature that
they share with head-external relative clauses.
However, syntactically the head noun cannot
be considered part of the main clause, given
that its case is the same as that of the relative
pronoun and is thus governed by the syntax of
the relative clause (and not by the syntax of the
main clause): see (22), in which nées stands in
the nominative, like the relative Adsai, and not
in the accusative, which would be expected if its
case depended on the verb of the main clause
(helkömen). Structurally, instances of reverse
attraction can be considered special cases of
head-internal relative clauses with fronting of
the head noun, which is placed before the rela-
tive clause to which they belong.
 RELATIVE CLAUSES
(22) nées hösai prötai eiruatai ankhi thalässes
helkömen
‘Let us drag the ships that are drawn up in
the first line by the sea’ (Hom. Il. 14.75-76)
6. RESTRICTIVE VS. NON-RESTRICTIVE
RELATIVE CLAUSES
There are two major types of relative clauses in
the languages of the world: restrictive and non-
restrictive or appositive relative clauses (they are
also known as defining/non-defining or identify-
ing/non-identifying}, From a semantic point of
view, restrictive relative clauses allow for iden-
tifying the entity referred to by the head-noun
of the clause, while appositive relative clauses
provide additional information about it. Syntac-
tically, restrictive relative clauses are part of the
noun phrase to which the head noun belongs,
while appositive clauses are not and they usually
show the intonation of parentheticals (see Loock
2010:7-52 for a thorough review of the criteria).
All languages have strategies for building at least
some types of restrictive relative clauses (Down-
ing 1978:381; De Vries 2005110), while appositive
relative clauses may or may not be possible in
a given language. In Greek both types exist: we
have already seen many examples of restrictive
relative clauses, like (17), (18), (19), etc., and we
can add now an instance of a non-restrictive one
(23). Appositive relative clauses are particularly
expected when the antecedent is definite (e.g.
proper name, noun phrase with definite article,
etc.), so that there is no need for further specifi-
cation and the relative clause just provides addi-
tional information. As in other languages (cf. De
Vries 2001; 2005), of the various strategies occur-
ring in Greek, only embedded relative clauses
can be both restrictive and appositive,
(23) Akai ton Apöllö ton Püthion, has patröios esti
tei pölei
‘And the Pythian Apollo, who is the ances-
tral (divinity) of the city’ (Dem. Or. 18.141)
If we accept Grosu and Landman’s (1998) and
De Vries’ (2001:236; 2005:11) views about the exis-
tence of a third kind of maximalizing relative
clause, the various strategies employed in Greek
can also serve for this purpose. Maximalizing
relative clauses differ from restrictive relative
clauses basically in their universal scope. The
229
frequent ‘generalizing’ value of preposed free
and correlative clauses has been previously
acknowledged in cases like (24).
(24) höstis de héna gignöskei, kai pollous
gnosetai?
‘But he who knows one, will he also know
many?’ (Pl. Erast. 137e)
In (24) it could be argued that the maximalizing
er generalizing meaning of the relative clause is
due to the use of the generalizing relative pro-
noun /déstis, but such meaning is also frequent
when the relative pronoun is plain Ads, as in (11)
above.
7. THE SYNTACTIC FUNCTION OF
RELATIVE CLAUSES
In traditional grammars, relative clauses have
been usually defined as adjectival in nature.
However, not all of them have the function of an
adjective or adjectival phrase. According to the
classification that we have provided, there are
the following possibilities:
a} Embedded head-external relative clauses
are the ones that are adjectival. They are part of
the noun phrase to which the head noun belongs.
This is proved by the fact that they can appear
coordinated with adjectives and participles.
b) Free relative clauses and embedded head-
internal relative clauses are functionally equiva-
lent to a noun or > noun phrase; subsequently,
they can have any syntactic function of a noun
phrase. For instance, they frequently function
as nominal predicates with copulative verbs, as
in (25):
(25) höti kai tén summäkhön humin eisin hoi
dialégontai peri philiäs tois polemiois
‘that even among your allies there are those
who are holding converse about friendship
with your enemies’ (Xen. Heil 6.4.24)
c) Free relative clauses introduced by an
adverbial relative can be functionally considered
equivalent to an adverbial phrase.
d) Appositive relative clauses are also equiva-
lent toa noun phrase functioningasan
apposition.
e) Finally, adjoined relative clauses are cor-
relatives and thus play no syntactic function in
the main clause.
230 RELATIVE CLAUSES
8. FINAL REMARKS: PERSON, VERBAL
Moon, AND LEVELS OF PREDICATION
Certain languages that have relative clauses
introduced by relative pronouns show restric-
tions conceming the person of the finite verb
in the main clause, which is limited to the third
person even when the antecedent is a first or
second person. There is no such restriction in
Greek, as shown by (26), in which the finite
verbal form (eükhomai) is in the first person
since the antecedent of the relative clause is the
pronoun emai ‘to me':
(26) |...]@ermoi, hös per hoi thaleros pésis eiikho-
mai einai
‘, „than for me, who vaunts to be her stout
husband' (Hom. Il. 8.190)
As for the verbal mood of the relative clause,
it is basically the one expected according to its
semantic content, and in most cases it would be
the same one if the clause were the main one.
Therefore, the + subjunctive may occur in rela-
tive clauses with a consecutive or final meaning.
In Homer there are relative clauses with a verb
in the subjunctive with dn (or ke), but they are
given up in later times. Just like in other subordi-
nate clauses, in relative clauses the verb may be
in the + optative as a marker of subordination
(‘oblique optative’), instead of the indicative.
Particularly remarkable is the fact that in rela-
tive clauses certain verbal moods occur that are
otherwise proper to main clauses. This is the
case with the imperative, which can exception-
ally appear in free relative clauses (Crespo et al.
2003:384), as happens with drdson in (27) (see
+ Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives)):
(27) oisth’ ottn ho dräson
‘You know then what you will have to do’
(Eur. Hec. 225)
Relative clauses can appear not only in the level
ofthe predication, but also in that ofthe propo-
sition. In this case, they have a phrase or clause
as antecedent and are typically introduced by
the nominative/accusative neuter singular
plural of the relative pronoun, as in (28), where
the relative clause expresses the judgment ofthe
speaker about the predication.
(28) thaumdzö tön |...) khrönou diatriben
empoiésanton, hö esti pros tan édikekdtor
mällon
‘| wonder at those who have caused a delay,
which favors those who did the injury'
(Thue. 3.38.1)
Relative clauses are attested in Mycenaean, but
the interpretation of jo-/o- is not uncontrover-
sial: it must be the equivalent to the Greek
adverbial Ads rather than a relative proper. How-
ever, on PY Un 1314 we have a relative clause
introduced by jo-qi /jokk*i/ (= Aö ti) and the
construction seems to be similar to those found
in later times.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adrados, Francisco R. 1992. Nueva sintaxis del griego anti-
guo. Madrid.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris
Wilder. 2000. “Introduction”. In: The syntax of relative
clauses, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, Andre Mei-
nunger and Chris Wilder, 1-51. Amsterdam - Philadel-
phia.
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. "Relative clauses”. In: Language
typulugy and syntactic description, vol. 2 (and ed.), ed. by
Timothy Shopen, 206-236, Cambridge.
Bakker, Stéphanie J. 2009. The noun phrase in ancient Greek,
A functional analysis uf the order and articulation af NP
constituents in Herodotus. Amsterdam,
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homérique, vol 2: Syn-
taxe. Paris,
Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti and Helena Maquieira, 2003. Sin-
taxis del griego cläsien. Madrid,
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 2: Gram-
matical topics. Oxford.
Downing, Bruce T. 1978. “Some universals of relative clause
structure”, In: Universals of human language 4, ed. by
Joseph H. Greenbery, 357-418. Stanford.
Dryer, Matthew. zou. “Order of relative clause and noun”. In:
Wortd atlas of language structures online, chapter go, ed.
by Mathew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (=http://wals.
info/chapter/go).
Grosu, Alexander and Fred Landman. 1998. “Strange rel-
atives of the third kind”, Natural Language Semantics
6225-170.
Hendery, Rachel. zo1z. Relative clauses in time and space.
Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Jiménez Lopez, Maria Dolores. 2006. "Las oraciones de rela-
tivo en griego antiguo”. In: Liceus E-excellence (=http://
www.liceus.com/cgi-bin/aco/areas.asp?id_area=4).
Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie. 1977. “Noun phrase
accessibility and universal grammar”, Linguistic Inquiry
8/1:63-g9.
Kidd, Eva, ed, 2011. The acquisition of relative clauses. Amster-
or dam - Philadelphia.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1955. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, vol. 2: Satalehre (4th
ed.). Leverkusen.
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tübingen,
 RELATIVE CLAUSES
Liptak, Anikö. 2009. “The landscape of correlatives". In:
Correlatives cross-tinguéstically, ed. by Anika Liptak, 1-46,
Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Loack, Rudy. 2010. Appositive relative clauses in English.
Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2000. “Der Nebensatz und seine Konkur-
renten in der Indogermania: der altindische Relativsarz”,
Historische Sprachforschung n3:71-87.
Mendoza, Julia. 1998: "Sintaxis”. In: Manual de lingilistica
indoeuropea, vol. 3, ed. by Francisco R. Adrados, Alberto
Bemabé and Julia Mendoza, 111-246. Madrid.
Monteil, Pierre. 1963. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa
formation, son développement, sa structure des vrigines a
fa fin du Ve siécleA. C. Paris.
Murelli, Adriano, 2011. Relative constructions in European
non-standard varieties. Berlin - Boston.
Rijksharon, Albert. 2002. The syntax and semantics uf the
vero in classical Greek. An intreduction (3rd ed.). Chicago.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechis-
che Grammatik, vol. 2: Syntax und syntuktische Stilistik.
Munich,
de Vries, Mark. 2001. “Patterns of relative clauses”, In: Lingués-
tics in the Netherlands 20a, ed. by Tom van der Wouden
and Hans Broekhuis, 231-243. Amsterdam.
. 2005. “The fall and rise of universals on relativization”,
The Journal of Universal Language 61-33.
EUGENIO R. LujAn
Relative Tense
Relative Tense can be defined as any linguis-
tic device that provides information about the
temporal location of a certain event in relation
to other events, or to a temporal reference that
may coincide or not with the moment of the
speech act (+ Tense/Aspect). Thus, the expres-
sion of Relative Tense is described not in terms
of past, present and future, but in terms of ante-
riority, simultaneity and posteriority (Comrie
1985). Every world language can express Relative
Tense, although the means can be linguistically
diverse: by + word order, by lexical means, and
by the use of grammatical affixes on the verb,
among others.
For Indo-European, linguists have not recon-
structed a grammaticalized procedure to express
Relative Tense. Nevertheless, Ancient Greek
developed several parallel strategies to express
it and, we can surmise, reached a level close
to grammaticalization in certain contexts. The
procedures employed in Ancient Greek are the
following:
1) Word order: the sequence of > sentences
or ~ clauses reproduces the real sequence of
events (the weni, uidi, uici-model).
231
2) Lexical expressions: by means of + adverbs
or prepositional phrases (+ Adpositional Phrase)
that express anteriority (prin, pröteron, etc.),
simultaneity (en toutöi, mekhri totitou, etc.) or
posteriority (meta, eita, épeita, etc.).
3) As in many other languages, aspectual
stems can, secondarily, express Relative Tense
(Martinez Vazquez 1995): the present stem,
whose main content is that of imperfectivity, can
express total or partial simultaneity in relation to
another event; the > aorist stem, whose content
is perfectivity, sumetimes expresses anteriurily
(e.g., with conjunctions such as epei, höte, etc.),
and sometimes posteriority (the ending point,
e.g., with Aéos, öphra, etc.); finally, the + perfect
stem expresses that an event has finished before
another event, but that its results and conse-
quences are still ongoing in relation to this sec-
ond event. The contexts in which this happens
are, typically, temporal, causal and conditional
~ subordination, predicative — participles, and
in narrations (Rijksbaron 1988, 20023:76-83, 117).
4) As a particular development of the indica-
tive, some tenses can be used as expression of
Relative Tense in addition to their main uses
to indicate absolute temporal reference. In this
case the reference time can only be the past.
So, the aorist indicative can describe, in certain
circumstances, an event prior to another past
event. The present indicative can express simul-
taneity, and the future indicative can express
posteriority. This system was valid in contexts
of completive and relative subordination, and
it has been attested in Greek since the Homeric
texts (Goodwin 1889:7-8, De la Villa 1999).
5) The oblique optative: in certain cases of
subordination, when the main verb - which is
also the temporal reference - was in the past,
the aorist + optative introduces a prior event.
The present optative introduces a simultane-
ous event, and the future optative introduces
an event posterior to that of the main clause
(Kühner & Gerth 1989 1:183, 188). It is remarkable
that the future optative form can only be used as
oblique, Its creation as a morphological possibil-
ity within the verbal paradigm came rather late
in the history of the Greek language - it is not
attested until the end of the 6th c. BCE — and the
best justification for its creation is precisely the
impulse to fill a gap in the system: once anterior-
ity and simultaneity in relation to a past main
event could be expressed by means of aorist and
present oblique optatives, respectively, a form
232 RELATIVE TENSE
was required to express temporal posteriority,
and this was the future optative. This can be
interpreted in the sense that the grammaticaliza-
tion ofthe notion of Relative Tense had reached
such a level in Greek as to create this specific
verbal form to express Relative Tense.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge.
De La Villa, Jesus. 1999. “L’indicatif du passe dans les propo-
sitions completives du gree ancien”. In: Les complétives
en grec ancien, ed. By Bernard Jacquinod, 353-365. Saint-
Etienne
Goodwin, William W. 1889. Syntax of the muods and tenses of
the Greek verb, London.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache IL Hannover -
Leipzig.
Martinez Vazquez, Rafael. 1995. “Tiempo relativo en griego
antiguo”, Philologia Hispalenses 10157-197.
Rijksbaron, Albert. ı988, "The discourse function of the
imperfect”. In: On the foutsteps of Raphael Kühner, ed. By
A. Rijksbaron et al., 237-254. Amsterdam,
——. 30023, Syntax and semantics of the verb in Classical
Greek. Amsterdam.
Jess DE LA VILLA
Renaissance, Translation
1, INTRODUCTION
It may be argued that the Calabrese Leonzio
Pilato’s Latin versions of the fliad and the Odys-
sey mark the beginning of Renaissance transla-
tion from Greek into Latin, both because of
what they are and because of the reactions they
caused. Commissioned by Francesco Petrarca
and Giovanni Boccaccio shortly after the middle
of the fourteenth century, Leonzio’s translations
of Homer not only constitute the first complete
translation into Latin of the two poems, they
also herald a shift in focus of Western interest
towards Greek literature and culture. During
the Middle Ages, Latin translations of Greek
works — whether done directly from the Greek or
from translations into an intermediary language
such as Syriac or Arabic (+ Arabic Tradition,
Translation; + Greek and Syriac) - had primar-
ily been of philosophical or scientific texts.
Petrarch's and Boccaccio's interest in Homer
show that Western readers began to be interested
in other aspects of the Greek cultural heritage.
Following generations would see translations of,
and gradually also commentaries on, works of
Greek historiography, satire, rhetoric, biography,
pastoral, epic and didactic poetry, and eventu-
ally also lyric poetry and drama. Along with
these new genres, interest persisted in Greek
philosophy and scientific literature, but existing
medieval Latin translations were often super-
seded or substituted by new ones that suited
changing conceptions of what would be a satis-
factory Latin garb for a Greek work.
Even though Leonzio’s translations inaugu-
rated a new interest in Greek literature, the
actual text of his translations point in a different
direction. They are basically interlinear transla-
tions that follow the original word for word, as
medieval translations had tended to. The results
of such a procedure, however, were no longer
satisfactory to the contemporary cultural avant-
garde: both Petrarch and his follower Coluccio
Salutati criticized Leonzio’s work in terms that
clearly show how a different conception of trans-
lation was under way, a conception that paved
the way for the new method of translation that
became widespread in Italy from around 1400.
This article will first discuss Petrarch’s and
Salutati’s criticism of Leonzio's translations and
early Renaissance theory of translation, then will
point to some trends in Renaissance translation,
and finally discuss the influences of Greek lan-
guage on Renaissance Latin, influences that pre-
dominantly came about through translations.
2. EARLY RENAISSANCE THEORY OF
TRANSLATION
In the winter of 1358-59, Petrarch had met
Leonzio, a Greek-speaking native of Calabria.
Some months later, Leonzio was persuaded
by Boccaccio to come with him to Florence to
translate the fliad and the Odyssey into Latin.
For more than two years, from 1360 to 1362, he
lived in Boccaccio's house, worked with him on
Homer and taught Greek at the Studium (Pertusi
1964 and Pade 2001). Upon seeing it, Petrarch
expressed his disappointment with Leonzio’s
work, quoting St Jerome regarding the absurdity
of translating Homer ad verbum, a procedure
that rendered the most eloquent of poets almost
unable to speak (Petrarca 1994, ep. 46 (var. 25),
2). To prove his point, Petrarch argues that the
qualities that make language attractive differs
from one language to another, so a word-for-word
rendering of Homer cannot be aesthetically
pleasing. Nor can a prose version. Petrarch is
clearly concerned to have not only a rendering
 RENAISSANGE, TRANSLATION
of Homer's words but also of his style: he is con-
scious that a work of literature is much more
than the sum of its individual words.
Petrarch’s insistence on the aesthetic and sty-
listic aspects of translation became very influen-
tial. Some thirty years after their completion, the
Florentine chancellor Coluccio Salutati got hold
of a copy of Leonzio's translations and his reac-
tion mirrored that of Petrarch’s. His pupil Antonio
Loschi had planned to embellish Leonzio’s Latin
Iliad, and Salutati offered the young man ample
advice about how to proceed with this great
undertaking. Loschi had no Greek; what Salutati
proposed was that he should reproduce the style
of Homer, of which, in some mysterious way,
they both had clear notions. Loschi should dis-
card Leonzio’s wording and concentrate on the
content. This he should render in such an ornate
and splendid style that not only the story and
the phrases, but also his very words would ring
Homeric — such as they understood it. Quoting
Horace about the fidus interpres (A. P. 133-134)
and referring to Cicero (Opt. gen. 14), Salutati
warned Loschi about the dangers of making too
literal a translation. According to him, Loschi
should allow himself greater freedom in order to
obtain the proper majesty of style, inserting, for
instance, conjunctions or exclamations at will,
and adding material to make the narrative more
pleasing (Salutati 1891-1911 11:356-357 to Antonio
Loschi, Firenze, 21.7.1393; see also Schwarz 1944
and Witt 2000:292-337).
Petrarch's criticism of Leonzio’s versions and
Salutati’s advice to Loschi both herald a change
in the conception of translation. The next gen-
eration of translators would quote Cicero and
Horace - as Salutati did - to express their ideal
of rhetorical translation and would distance
themselves from medieval translation practice.
Anticipating this development, Salutati empha-
sizes that he wants to render meaning, not nec-
essarily the order in which things are said.
The tendency to transform not only words
and phrases but also style and literary form into
the idioms of the target culture is a hallmark
of humanist translation, both in theory and in
practice. Salutati was responsible for inviting the
learned noble Byzantine Manuel Chrysoloras to
teach Greek at Florence. During his tenure there
(1397-1400) he taught his pupils to avoid a literal
word-for-word rendering of the original (conver-
sio adverbum) and instead to aim at a translation
that rendered both style and content (conversio
233
ad sententiam; Bertalot 1929-30:207-23), and
we often find translators excusing a too faith-
ful or literal translation. However, we also see
that Chrysoloras’ pupils, and later generations
of humanists, stress aspects of translation which
he apparently did not concentrate on, namely
what we today would call cultural translation
(Burke and R. Po-chia Hsia 2007). With regard
to his translation of Plato’s Phaedo, Leonardo
Bruni, another of Chrysoloras’ pupils, defends
his method of translation by explaining that he
had imagined for himself an image of Plato as a
man who knew Latin well and who was able to
express his own opinions in it, and that he had
wanted to translate so that it would be pleas-
ing to that eloquent Latin man (Bruni 1741: ep.
I 8 a. 1404-1405). Bruni elsewhere emphasizes
the importance of translators imitating Latin
auctores. In practice this could mean that trans-
lators adapted expressions or stylistic traits of
Latin authors who had imitated the Greek one
they were translating, even if this implied con-
siderable deviations from any literal rendering
of the original (Bruni 19961158; see also Hankins
20021192 and Pade 2008:93).
The early humanists were generally far more
interested in Latin culture than in Greek, and
saw the study of Greek language and literature
as a means to enhance their understanding of
the Latin cultural heritage. Petrarch wanted to
be able to read the admired models of Vergil and
Cicero, and humanists like Leonardo Bruni trans-
lated works of interest for Roman history, as, for
instance, Polybius or Plutarch's Roman Lives.
Lorenzo Valla’s 1452 preface to his translation of
Thucydides is an eloquent expression of this. He
compares Pope Nicholas V, who had commis-
sioned the work, to the ancient emperors who
remained in Rome while they sent their generals
to conduct foreign wars and expand the empire
(Pade 2003:121-122). It therefore seems that the
attitude of Petrarch and Salutati regarding the
method of translation is not primarily an expres-
sion of their concern to have the content and
style of the Greek original rendered as exactly as
possible. Rather, it is connected with a change
in their conception of the target language, i.e. of
the Latin that would be the proper vehicle for
these texts. These views appear at the beginning
of the humanist endeavors to return to the idi-
oms of ancient Latin, when classical Latin texts
were increasingly being read with a view to close
linguistic as well as stylistic imitation (Hankins
234 RENAISSANCE, TRANSLATION
1991:18-26), a process that eventually would lead
to the excesses ridiculed by Erasmus in his Cice-
ronianus. In the case of Petrarch and Salutati, it
led to a critique of texts that fell short of a certain
rhetorical standard.
The earliest humanist treatise on translation,
Leonardo Bruni’s De interpretatione recta (On
good translation, 1420; on which see Baldassarri
2003:93-103 and Botley 2004:41-62) is com-
pletely in accordance with this trend. This trea-
tise clearly shows one characteristic difference
between medieval and early humanist transla-
tion theory, namely, a fierce insistence on the
translator's mastery of the target language and
on his ability ta translate into good, idiomatic
Latin:
A translator must first see that he has a profound
knowledge of the language from which he trans-
lates, This he can only achieve by long, varied, and
diligent reading of writers in all genres. Further-
more, he must have such a grasp of the language
he wants to translate into that he is somehow in
control when he writes it, that he has complete
mastery of it. Then, when he has to render a word
with another, he does not beg for it, or borrow it,
or leave it in Greek out of ignorance of Latin. He
is subtly aware of the significance and character of
these words (translated from Bruni 1996:158).
From this demand, it follows that loan trans-
lations or, even more, loanwords coined by
transliteration from the Greek were deprecated.
In theory, at least, for in practice Renaissance
translation abounds with neologisms that are
either loan translations or loanwords.
3. THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK ON
RENAISSANCE LATIN
The rise in Greek studies during the Renaissance
led not only to a greater knowledge of Greek lan-
guage and literature, but also to a new exploita-
tion of Greek vocabulary, especially in scientific
Latin literature. But Greek words found their way
into other kinds of literature as well. They were
often used to display the erudition of the writer
and, e.g. in letters, as an implicit compliment
to the reader who could appreciate the stylistic
refinement. In spite of the strictures of theoreti-
cians such as Bruni, this may also have influ-
enced the taste of translators, since the many
humanist translations of Greek works produced
after 1400 provided an important source for such
loanwords. Some of these neologisms shared
the fate of the text in which they are first found,
but others enjoyed a long and varied fortune,
passing first into the Latin of other writers, and
from there sometimes even into the vernacular.
In this, of course, they share the fate of loan-
translations and loanwords coined from Antiq-
uity onwards. As an example, this article will
now discuss the fate of one such loanword: myr-
ias, from the Greek numeral for ten thousand.
Myrias appears to have been introduced into
neo-Latin by Guarino Veronese, the famous
humanist educator (on his translation practice,
see Pade 2011). It is attested a couple of times
in antique Latin texts, but it apparently was not
used in medieval Latin. The earliest instance of
its use seems to be in a translation by Guarino,
namely his Latin version of Plutarch’s Caesar
that was completed c. 141-1413 (Pade 2007 I:
Ch. 3.18). Guarino renders Putarch’s muridsi...
triakosiais (15.5) with trecentas... miriadas, that
is 3.000.000. As is the case with the antique Latin
writers who used the word, Guarino maintains
the Greek accusative plural in -as. About four
years later, Guarino’s student Francesco Barbaro
completed his version of Plutarch’s Aristides &
Cato. In the accompanying Comparatio (5.2) Bar-
baro, too, used myrias as a loan-word. Appar-
ently, Guarino did not expect his readers to be
familiar with the term; some twenty years later
he added the note myrias est numerus.X.M. (myr-
‘as is the numeral ten thousand) in the margin
opposite the passage in a manuscript. We find
similar notes in other manuscripts connected to
his circle, including opposite the passage in Bar-
baro’s translation (Pade 2007 I: Ch. 10.1.2),
From the second half of the 15th c. and
onwards, myrias became very common in neo-
Latin texts, now most often with regular Latin
accusative plural in -es, and meaning ‘indefi-
nitely great numbers‘, It soon migrated into the
vernaculars: in Italian miriade is attested as early
as 1494 and myriade was used in Middle French
in the 16th century. Today the word, with the
meaning ‘indefinitely great numbers’, is used in
English and in a number of other modern lan-
guages (Pade 2006 and Ramminger NLW).
For fuller coverage of the theory and prac-
tice of Renaissance translations see Baldassarri
(2003) and Botley (2004). Thorough surveys of
Renaissance translations of single authors and
text corpora are found in Pade (2003) and Pade
(2007), Seminal surveys of Hellenism in the
Italian Renaissance are found in Weiss (1977) and
 RENAISSANCE, TRANSLATION
Hankins (2002). An excellent analysis of human-
ist Latin is in Rizzo (2002). Greek loanwords in
neo-Latin may be traced in Ramminger's list
(NLW).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldassarri, Stefano, 2003. Unianesimo e traduzione
Petrarca a Manetti, Dimore 5. Cassino.
Bertalot, Ludwig. 1929-1930. "Cincius Romanus und
Briefe”, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen
Archiven xx1:207-223, quoted from id, 1975. Studien zum
italienischen und deutschen Humanismus Uagi-180.
Rome,
Botley, Paul. 2004. Latin translation in the Renaissance. The
theory and practice of Leonardo Bruni, Gianozzo Manetti
and Desiderius Erasmus. Cambridge.
Bruni, Leonardo, 1741. Epistolarum libri VI, vols. I-Il, ed.
L. Mehus. Florence.
. 1996. Üpere letterarie e politiche di Leonardo Bruni, ed.
by Paolo Viti. Turin.
Burke, Peter and R. Pa-chia Hsia, eds. 2007. Cultural transla-
tion in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge.
Guarino Veronese. 1915-1919. Epistolario 1-3, ed. Remigio
Sabbadini, Miscellanea di storia veneta 8, 11, 14. Venice.
Hankins, James. ı990. Plato in the Italian Renaissance, 1-2.
(Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 17, 1-2).
Leiden - New York. (Repr. 1991).
. 2002. “Chrysoloras and the Greek studies of Leonardo
Bruni.” In: Manuele Crisolora e il ritorno del grecu in acci-
dente, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, 26-29
giugno 1997), ed, by Riccardo Maisano and Antonio Rollo,
175-197. Naples.
Pade, Marianne. 2003. “Thucydides.” In: Catalogus Transla-
tionum et Commentariorum, 8, ed. Virginia Brown,
eds. J. Hankins and R. A. Kaster, 103-181. Washington.
. 2006. “New words in neo-Latin.” In: La linguistique
au Coeur. Valence verbale, grammaticalisation et corpus.
Melanges offerts 4 Lene Schasler a loccasinn de son Goe
anniversaire, ed, by H. Leth Andersen, M, Birkelund, M.-B.
Mosegaard Hansen, 249-257. Odense.
. 2007. The reception of Plutarch's Lives in fifteenth-
century Italy, (Renessancestuclier 14), Copenhagen.
. 2008. “Niccolé Perotti and the ars traducendi.” in: Sof
et homo, Mensch und Natur in der Renaissance. Festschrift
zum 70. Geburtstag für Eckhardt Keßler, ed. by Sabrina
Ebbersmeyer, Helga Pirner-Pareschi, Thomas Ricklin,
79-100. Munich.
——. zun. “The Latin Dion: Guarino Veronese’s translation
of the Plutarchan life (1414}", Humanistica: an interna-
tional journal of early Renaissance studies, vii 201 [i.e.
2012]. 33-42.
Pertusi, Agostino. 1964. Leonzio Pilato fra Petrarca e Boccac-
cio, Le sue versioni omeriche negli autografi di Venezia e la
cultura greca det primo Umanesimo, (Civilta veneziana.
Studi, 16). Venice - Rome, (reissued Florence 1980).
Petrarca, Francesco, 1994. Epistole de rebus familiaribus et
varie, Epystole Extravagantes. In: F. Petrarca, Lettere dis-
perse, varie e miscellanee, ed. by A. Pancheri. Parma.
Ramminger, Johann, NLW. Neulateinische Wortliste (avail-
able at: www.neulatein.de).
Rizzo, Silvia. 2002. Ricerche sul latina umanistico, | (Storia e
letteratura, raccolta di studi e testi 213). Rome.
Salutati, Coluccia, 1891-191. Epistolario 1-4, ed. by F. Novati.
Rome.
235
Schwarz, W. 1944. "The meaning of Fidus Interpres in medi-
eval translation", /TAS 45:73-78.
Witt, Ronald G. 2000. In the footsteps of the ancients. The
origins of Humanism from Lovata to Bruni (Studies
in Medieval and Reformation Thought 74). Leiden -
Boston — Cologne.
MARLANNE PADE
da
seine
Resonants
— Consonants
Responsion
Responsion is the agreement between the cor-
responding parts of repeated structures. In the
study of poetry, this can refer to verbal, syntac-
tic, thematic, prosodic, but above all, metrical
repetition. The measurement, or meter, of Greek
poetry is based on the quantity, or duration,
of syllables (+ Syllable Weight), and in modern
descriptions of Greek meter we identify certain
traditional sequences of long and short posi-
tions called ‘metra’ and ‘cola’, which are strung
together to form longer units called ‘periods’
and 'strophes’ (> Metron; + Metrics), When any
asst.
of these units are repeated systematically, their
agreement, or correspondence, is called ‘respon-
sion’, and one unit is said to ‘respond’ with
another, The correspondence of repeated metra
and cola within + periods and strophes is known
as ‘internal responsion’, while the correspon-
dence of repeated periods and strophes is known
as ‘external responsion’. The unmarked use of
the term ‘responsion’, however, usually refers to
external responsion. It is noted by the symbol
'~" (eg. Pind, Ol. 11.1-6 ~ 7-12: lines 1~6 respond
with lines 7-12). In principle, a long + syllable
responds with a long syllable, and a short with
a short, but in practice there is a degree of free-
dom, the extent of which is a matter of consider-
able debate among scholars.
This freedom of responsion is represented
by special symbols in the abstract notation of
metrical structures, which must be carefully dis-
tinguished from the scansion of any particular
example of verse (+ Metrical Laws). In addi-
tion to the symbols for a long (-) and short
(-) position, where a long syllable can respond
with a short we note an ‘anceps’ (x) position in
the abstract scheme. Where a long syllable can
236 RESPONSION
respond with two short syllables a ‘biceps’ (==)
position is noted; in these cases, where the posi-
tion is typically occupied by two short syllables,
we speak of the ‘contraction’ of two shorts into
a long syllable, but where the position is typi-
cally occupied by a long syllable, we speak of the
‘resolution’ of a long syllable into two shorts.
Where there is a tendency in a metrical scheme
for ‘anaclasis’, the transposition of x — and - x,
this is sometimes represented by the symbol 00
(West defines it as “two positions of which at
least one must be long” [1982a:xi]}; in situations
where this anaclactic sequence could also be
occupied by two short syllables (~~), itis marked
by the symbol xx, which is known as the ‘Aeolic
base’ owing to its exclusive period-initial appear-
ance in Sappho and Alcaeus. Other less common
symbols can be found in West (1982a).
In some types of poetry, the period can be
divided into equal metra with a standard repeti-
tion designated as dimeter, trimeter, tetrameter,
etc., depending on the number of metra in the
period, This is an example of internal respon-
sion. For instance, the iambic metron has the
sequence x - - —, and so a period composed of
three iambic metra (x -- — x -+ —x —~-)is
known as an iambic trimeter, used already by
archaic poets, and later by dramatists as the
standard meter for spoken dialogue (> Trag-
edy, Diction of; + Comedy, Diction of). In such
meters as these, the internal responsion often
exhibits an irregularity, known as catalexis, in
which the final metron is shorter than the rest by
a syllable or two. When this occurs the period is
said to be ‘catalectic’; when it does not occur the
period is said to be ‘acatalectic’. Less frequently
the final metron is longer by one or two syllables;
this type of period is known as ‘hypercatalec-
tic’. The foregoing rhythmical features of Greek
meter have been described in terms of respon-
sion, as in Maas (1962), but not all scholars fol-
low this course. See West (1982a) for contrast,
who does not avail himself of the distinction
between ‘internal’ and ‘external’, but reserves
the term ‘responsion’ for the phenomenon of
external responsion in strophic poetry. This type
of responsion constitutes the bulk of scholarly
discourse on the subject, and to it we now tum
our attention.
Strictly speaking, external responsion is a fea-
ture of stichic meters, such as the dactylic hex-
ameter of epic poetry (+ Epic Meter), in which
a single period is repeated without any broader
structural principle (a a a); likewise it can be
used, if they repeat, to describe distichs like
the elegiac couplet (ab ab ab) (> Elegy, Diction
of), and even tristichs (abc), such as Theocritus
epigr, 21, and tetrastichs (abcb) such as Theocri-
tus epigr. 18 (Maas 1962:48), The term ‘respon-
sion’, however, is most commonly used with
reference to the elaborate strophic structures of
the Dorian poetic tradition, in which poets com-
bined cola into complex metrical patterns of one
or more periods called ‘strophes’, Whereas the
metrical schemes of Ionian and Aeolic strophes
(often called 'stanzas’) are sometimes found
recycled in other contexts, the strophes of the
Dorian tradition seem to be unique creations.
A key feature of this poetry is the replication of
the strophic structure, which probably mirrored
the musical repetition (West 1982a:5). Strophic
responsion can be continuous (a a a), but in
cases where the strophe was repeated just once,
the second strophe is known as the ‘antistrophe’.
Responsion in this type of poetry tends to be
rigid: resolution in one strophe will usually occur
at the same place in the others, for example,
and anceps positions are usually realized with
a syllable of the same length in all strophes
(West 1982a:60-61). Another level of complexity
is reached in the ‘triadic system’, which con-
sists of a strophe and antistrophe followed by
a third and metrically different strophe called
an ‘epode’; the triad itself can then be repeated,
with each additional triad responding metrically
with the first, which is to say, every triad has the
same metrical scheme. Pindar’s triadic poetry
ranges in length from one to five triads, with the
conspicuous exception of Pyth, 4, which con-
tains 13 triads. Bacchylides reaches at least eight
triads (+ Lyric Meter). In the metrical scholia
we are told that the triadic structure reflects the
song's choreography in performance, whereby
the chorus would dance in one direction during
the strophe (otpopy [strophe], turning’), reverse
its direction during the antistrophe, and stand
in place for the epode; but these descriptions are
all late and therefore of dubious value (+ Metrics
(métron), Ancient Theories of). Dramatic poetry
combines three different types of performance:
spoken, chanted to instrumental accompani-
ment, and sung to instrumental accompaniment.
There is some uncertainty about the boundaries
between these three elements, but spoken parts
were typically composed in stichic meters, and
those which were sung typically had strophic
 RESPONSION
structure (+ Dramatic Meter). Whereas non-
dramatic choral poetry tended to have either
continuous (a a a) or triadic (aab aab) repetition
of strophes, the most common pattern in drama
was a series of strophic couplets (aa bb cc), often
concluded with an epode. Sometimes a unique
strophe called a 'proode' opened the series; occa-
sionally there was a unique strophe among the
pairs known as a ‘mesode’. More complex pat-
terns are attested only rarely and examples can
be found in West (1982a:79-8ı). The nature of
dramatic poetry meant that often a strophe was
split between singers, in which case its anti-
strophe almost always has the same division
(although not always with the same singers).
In tragedy we sometimes find spoken scenes
intervening between responding strophes; this
is more common in comedy.
Responsion allows us to identify and describe
the elements and rhythmical features of Greek
meter, and, thanks especially to the work of
Maas, it has come to be recognized as the main
structural principle in some poetic traditions,
but it has interest and utility beyond bare met-
Tics. It can be a powerful tool in textual criticism.
In tragic poetry, where no strophe is repeated
more than once, it has limited potential for
the critic: when corruption in the text spoils
responsion it is often impossible to determine
whether it is the strophe or antistrophe — or
perhaps neither — which preserves the original
metrical scheme. In poetry where strophes are
repeated further, on the other hand, the true
scheme is usually made clear by comparison,
and corruption therefore easily identified. This
was appreciated already by Hellenistic scholars,
as evidenced in a scholium on Pind. Ol. 2.27,
which informs us that Aristophanes detected an
interpolation by examining strophic responsion:
“Aristophanes athetized this colon, because he
said it was superfluous in comparison with the
antistrophes." We also find the word apolelu-
ménos used by ancient scholars to mean ‘lack-
ing strophic responsion’. The study of strophic
responsion in Pindar is greatly facilitated by the
schemes of Snell and Maehler in Maehler (1987).
The study of responsion is also important for the
appreciation and interpretation of poetry. Care-
ful analysis of ‘recurrent words’ was a central
project of ıgth c. Pindaric interpretation, and
tautometrical instances received special empha-
sis (+ Lyric Poetry, Diction of). The influence
of this approach has continued to the present
237
day, and although it has been taken to absurd
lengths at times, it is based on a valid obser-
vation of Pindar’s use of verbal and syntactic
responsion as a compositional device, An excep-
tionally clear example can be found in Pind, Ol.
1, where anephröntisen gdmon ‘devised marriage’
at the end of the third strophe responds with
anabälletai gamon ‘delays marriage’ at the end
of its antistrophe, filling the metrical sequence
“+ —-»—-~-, Not only do both strophes end
with the direct object gdmon ‘marriage’, but in
each case the verb stands immediately before it
and is compounded with the preverb ana-. The
verbal, metrical, and syntactic responsion, more-
over, draws attention to an antithesis in sense:
whereas Pelops ‘devised marriage’ with Hippo-
dameia, her father Oinomaos ‘delays’ it (by kill-
ing off her suitors). The modern reader can only
imagine the added effect of choreographic and
musical responsion at these points in the origi-
nal performance. For a fresh approach to the
subject in other genres, see Christopher Faraone
(2006, 2008), who sees in examples of syntactic
and thematic responsion evidence for stanzaic
(or strophic) structure in early Greek elegy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Sylvia. 1974. “Metrical innovations in Euripides’ later
plays”, A/Ph 95.3:207-234.
Dale, A. M. 1968. The fyric metres of Greek drama. Cam-
bridge.
Faraone, Christopher. 2006. “Stanzaic structure and respon-
sion in the elegiac poetry of Tyrtaeus’, Mnemosyne
5919-52.
——. 2008. The stanzuic architecture of early Greek elegy.
Oxford.
Günther, H.-C. 1998. Ein neuer metrischer Traktat und das
Studium der pindarischen Metrik in der Philologie der
Paläologenzeit, (Mnemosyne Supplementa 180). Leiden —
Boston — Cologne.
Korzeniewski, Dietmar, 1974. “Die Binnenresponsion in den
Persern des Timotheos”, Philafogus u8:22-39.
Lidav, Joel. 2010. “Meter, colon, and rhythm: Simonides
(PMG 542) and Pindar between archaic and classical’,
CPA 105:25-53.
Maas, Paul. 1962. Greek metre (transl. by H. Lloyd-Jones).
Oxford,
Maehler, Herwig, ed. (post B, Snell), 1987. Pindari carmina
cum fragmentis. Part ı, Epinicia. Leipzig.
Schürch, Peter. 1971. Zur Wortresponsion bei Pindar. Bern.
Wahlstrém, Erik. 1970. Accentual responsion in Greek strophic
poetry, (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 47).
Helsinki.
West, M. L. 19824. Greek metre. Oxford.
.1982b. “Three topics in Greek metre’, CQ 32.2:281-297.
—. 1987. Introduction to Greek metre. Oxford.
NIGHOLAS SWIFT
238 RHETORICAL TRADITION
Rhetorical] Tradition in Ancient
Linguistics
Linguistic theories hgure prominently in ancient
rhetorical teaching. Greek and Roman rhetori-
cians engaged in a systematic study of style
(fexis), for which grammatical knowledge of let-
ters, parts of speech, syntax and word order
was indispensable. Grammar and rhetoric were
the two dominant disciplines in the Hellenis-
tic system of education, which was adopted by
the Romans (Marrou 1975; Bonner 1977; Morgan
1998). In the standard curriculum, grammar-
ians were responsible for the primary stages of
education, while rhetoricians taught at a more
advanced level. The precise division between
grammar and rhetoric, however, was a mat-
ter of discussion, and there was a considerable
exchange of knowledge between the teachers of
both disciplines. Quintilian (1st c. CE), who pres-
ents a detailed account of grammatical teaching
in Rome (Inst. 1.4-8: Ax 201; tr. Russell 2001),
records that the teaching of some grammarians
included elements that properly belonged to the
expertise of the rhetorician (Inst. 2.1.4-13). On
the other hand, rhetoricians made abundant use
of grammatical theory, especially in their studies
of stylistic writing. When students had learned
the basic rules of grammar in their primary
education, they could be expected to employ
their knowledge at a more advanced level in
the school of the rhetorician. Many ancient rhe-
torical treatises on style are extant, all of which
are in one way or another related to teaching.
This article will discuss a number of linguistic
theories and categories that we frequently find
in these rhetorical treatises: (1} keilenismös (cor-
rect use of the Greek language), (2) — phonet-
ics and euphony, (3) parts of speech (+ Word
Classes (mere tou lögou), Ancient Theories of),
(4) +word order, (5) syntax (+ Syntax (sün-
taxis), Ancient Theories of) and solecism, and
(6) the grammatical figures of speech (+ Figures
(skhemata), Ancient Theories of).
1. HELLENISMOS: THE CORRECT USE OF
THE GREEK LANGUAGE
The correct use of language was considered a
basic requirement for good stylistic writing, The
third book of Aristotle's Rhetoric (tr. Kennedy
1991), which is the primary source of all later
discussions of style, presents ‘to speak Greek’
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
(td hellenizein) as the first principle (arkhe) of
expression (Ah. 3.5, 1407a-b). Aristotle (384-322
BCE) lists five rules of correct Greek, three of
which are purely grammatical: the correct use
of connectives (stindesmoi), the observation of
~gender (‘masculine’, ‘feminine’, and ‘inani-
mate things’) and the correct use of + num-
ber (‘many’, ‘few’, or ‘one’). Aristotle's examples
illustrate the principle of grammatical concord,
which is a central aspect of Greek syntax (Basset
2003). Two further Aristotelian rules of ‘speaking
Greek’ could be regarded as matters of clarity
rather than grammar: calling things by their spe-
cific names and avoidance of ambiguity. Aristo-
tle's student Theophrastus (371-287 BCE) seems
to separate grammatical correctness from clarity
(fr. 684 Fortenbaugh) when he presents a theory
of four ‘virtues of style’ (aretai lexeös; + Style
(féxis}, Ancient Theories of). In this list, which
was highly influential for Greek and Roman sty-
listic theory, the grammatical virtue of linguis-
tic correctness (Gk. Aellénismds, Lat. Latinitas:
— Linguistic Correctness (hellénismds), Ancient
Theories of) precedes the three rhetorical virtues
of clarity, propriety and ornamentation. In order
to determine whether a word or phrase was in
accordance with the rules of grammar, teach-
ers could make use of a number of guidelines
(Siebenborn 1976). The main criteria in Greek
treatises are + analogy (analogia), literary tra-
dition (historia, parddosis) and common usage
(sunétheia). Different versions of this list appear
in the Roman tradition, including Quintilian’s
system of four criteria (Inst. 1.6.1); analogy (ratio),
antiquity (vetustas), authority (auctoritas) and
usage (consuetudo). Ancient rhetoricians distin-
guish two types of grammatical mistakes: a bar-
barism (barbarismds) is a mistake in the form
or pronunciation of a single word, whereas a
solecism (soloikismds) is a mistake in syntactical
construction.
2. PHONETICS AND EUPHONY
The letters of the Greek alphabet and their pho-
netic values received attention in the teaching
of grammarians, musicians and philosophers.
Rhetoricians were interested in letters and syl-
lables as well, because the acoustic properties of
these elements determined the aesthetic percep-
tion of a text (Porter zuog). Ancient rhetorical
views on euphony were influenced by the philo-
sophical tradition as well as by music theory. An
 RHETORICAL TRADITION IN ANCIENT
early debate centered on the aesthetic quality of
words; some words were considered to be more
beautiful than others. Aristotle (Rh. 3.2, 1405b)
cites the definition of Licymnius (sth c. BCE:
Radermacher 1951:17-u9): “Beauty in a word
consists in the sounds (en tois psöphois) or in
the meaning.” Theophrastus (fr. 687-688 Forten-
baugh) distinguishes “words that are naturally
beautiful” (ondmata phüsei kald) from unattract-
ive words (Fortenbaugh 2005:281-286). Building
on Theophrastus’ theory, Demetrius (2nd or ist
c. BCE) observes that some words are pleasant
to the ear due to specific combinations of let-
ters (e.g. double / in the name Kallistratos). Such
beautiful words contribute to the euphony of
the smooth style (Eloc. 173-175). Demetrius also
refers to the theories of ‘the musicians’ (Eloc.
176-178), who claimed that a word is smooth
(lefon), rough (trakhu), well proportioned (eupa-
ges) or weighty (onkerön), each category having
different properties of speech sound.
A systematic account of the phonetic values
of letters is offered in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’
On Composition (end of ist c. BCE: ed. Aujac 1983;
tr. Usher 1985). It forms part of the discussion
of ‘melodious sound’ (melos), one of the four
means of composition (sunfhesis) (Comp. 14: see
Ax 1986:213-215). In agreement with the Tékhné
grammatiké (attributed to Dionysius Thrax),
Dionysius of Halicarnassus distinguishes twenty-
four letters (grämmata) or elements (stoikheia),
which he also calls “primary and indivisible units
of articulate and human speech" (arkhai... tés
anthröpines phonés kai enarthrou mekéti
dekhömenai diairesin). He lists seven > vowels
(phdnéenta, of which there are two short: £, 0
(e, 0); two long: 7, w (6, ö); three common: a, |, v
(a, i, u)), eight semivowels (kemiphöna, of which
there are five simple: A, p, v, p, ¢ (1, m,n, r,s); and
three double: 2, § (z. x, ps}) and nine voice-
less letters (dphona, of which there are three
smooth: x, , T (k, p, t); three rough: x, , @ (kh,
ph, th); and three intermediate: y, 8, 8 (g, b, d))
(+ Consonants).
Dionysius explains how the human mouth,
tongue, lips, nostrils, palate, windpipe, etc. pro-
duce the various sounds of speech. As a rhetori-
cian, he is especially interested in the aesthetic
quality of each sound: the long vowels are said
to be more attractive than the short vowels, the
double semivowels are more pleasant than the
simple ones, and among the voiceless letters
the ‘rough’ letters (pronounced with - aspira-
LINGUISTICS 239
tion) are best. When letters (and the correspond-
ing sounds) are juxtaposed, the result can be
either a smooth continuity or a rough clash of
sounds (Vaahtera 1997). In combining letters and
syllables (Comp. 15-16), writers can therefore cre-
ate certain acoustic effects that are appropriate
to the subject of their discourse. If unattractive
words with inferior sounds are unavoidable, they
can be mixed with other words with more pleas-
ing sounds, as Homer shows in the catalogue of
ships (Comp. 16.16-19, citing Hom. I. 2.494-501).
Different sounds also result in different types
of composition: + hiatus and rough clashes of
certain semivowels with voiceless letters are
characteristic of the ‘austere harmony’, whereas
a continuous stream of melodious sounds pro-
duces a smooth harmony (Comp. 22-23).
3. PARTS OF SPEECH
One of the most influential doctrines of ancient
Greek linguistics is that of the parts of speech (ta
mere toti lögou; + Word Classes (rmere tou lögou),
Ancient Theories of). Although various systems
continued to be used until late antiquity, a cer-
tain list of eight or nine parts of speech was most
influential: noun (drama), verb (rhéma), + par-
ticiple (metokhé), article (drthron; + Definite-
ness/Definite Article)), + pronoun (antönumia),
preposition (préthesis; + Adpositions (Preposi-
tions)), > adverb (mesötes, later epirrkema) and
+ conjunction (sündesmos). Under Stoic influ-
ence, some granımarians made a distinction
between proper noun (önoma) and appellative
(proségoria).
The theory of the parts of speech had different
functions in various language disciplines. Philos-
ophers divided the assertion (/égas) into its com-
ponents, whereas grammarians distinguished
grammatical word classes in order to catego-
rize different types of words. For rhetoricians,
the parts of speech were the building blocks
of + clauses, periods and discourse. Hence, the
‘parts of speech’ (méré lögou) were sometimes
called ‘parts of expression’ (mere lexeös) or 'ele-
ments of expression’ (stoikhela lexeös). In some
cases the term möria (‘small parts’, ‘constituents')
was used instead of méré, because in rhetoric the
mere lögou usually referred to the introduction,
narration, etc. of a speech.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus presents the his-
tory of the theory of the parts of speech (Comp.
21-3). This first ‘history of linguistics’ in the
240 RHETORICAL TRADITION
western world describes the gradual evolution of
word-class theory from Theodectes and Aristo-
tle, who are said to have known only three parts
of speech, to the grammarians who recognized
nine or more parts. Dionysius ignores the fact
that the parts of speech were different items
(with different functions) for philosophers and
grammarians respectively. But his approach to
the history of linguistics, which is echoed by
Quintilian (/nst. 1.4.17-21), was very influential: it
remains characteristic of many modern histories
of grammar (De Jonge 2008:168-183).
The theory of the parts of speech proved to be
a helpful tool for rhetoricians, who made use of
it for various purposes. Dionysius of Halicarnas-
sus defines composition (stnthesis) as “a certain
arrangement of the parts of speech, or the ele-
ments of diction, as some call them” (Dion. Hal.
Comp. 2.1: tr. Usher 1985). The parts of speech are
thus the basic material to which the techniques
(érga) of composition are applied (Comp. 6.4-u).
Having established the right basic order ofnouns,
verbs and other words (harmogé), the writer
selects the correct and appropriate form of each
part (skhématismés). This process includes the
selection of the correct number (singular or plu-
ral), + case (nominative or oblique cases), and
gender (feminine, masculine, neuter) of nouns,
as well as the correct + voice (active or passive)
and + mood of verbs. The final technique of
composition (metaskeué) is the modification of
words by the subtraction, addition and altera-
tion of letters, so as to achieve a more harmoni-
ous effect.
Dionysius’ three composition types (Comp.
21-24) are characterized not only by the use of
certain sounds of speech (see above), but also by
their preference for certain word classes: the aus-
tere composition (Camp, 22.1~6), which is exem-
plified by passages from Thucydides and Pindar,
is ‘sparing of conjunctions’ (oligostindesmos) and
‘avoiding articles’ (dnarthros). Both grammatical
features contribute to the impression of discon-
tinuity, which is characteristic of the austere
composition type (De Jonge 2008:204-213).
The parts ofspeech and their accidentia (num-
ber, gender, case, etc.) were also used in the
analysis of style, The grammatical terminology
allowed rhetoricians to give a detailed account
of the stylistic particularities of a specific text.
An example is the discussion of Thucydides’
style in Dionysius’ Second Letter to Ammaeus: the
rhetorician observes that Thucydides uses nouns
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
instead of verbs, verbs instead of nouns, etc. and
that he does not preserve the grammatical agree-
ment between words (see below on syntax).
4. WORD ORDER
A crucial aspect of stylistic composition is word
order. Teachers of rhetoric illustrated the impor-
tance of composition (sünthesis) by changing
the original word order of well-known literary
passages from Homer, Herodotus, etc. A change
in word order may affect the logical order of
ideas as well as the rhythm and the sequence
of sounds, Critics like Demetrius, Dionysius and
Longinus frequently employ the method of rear-
rangement (metdihesis) in order to bring out the
stylistic virtues or shortcomings of a given text,
or to illustrate different styles of composition
(De Jonge 2005).
Greek words can be arranged in many differ-
ent ways, but ancient rhetoricians believe that
there is always one ‘natural’ formulation. The
ancient concept of natural word order has two
related aspects. On the one hand, ‘nature’ (phü-
sis) is contrasted to ‘art’ (tekhne), i.e., the art of
rhetoric. Hence, natural word order is associated
with the straightforward language of laymen,
who are not trained to speak in public. Orators
had to be able to adopt this kind of language,
because audiences in the courtroom or assembly
might be suspicious of the overly artistic style
of trained speakers. On the other hand, natural
word order is also understood as following the
logical order of ideas. This idea is conveyed by
the term akolouthia (logical order), which rheto-
ricians adopted from Stoic philosophy (Sluiter
1990:13-16; De Jonge 2011:473-476).
Various approaches to the problem of natural
word order are suggested in the ancient treatises
on style. Demetrius (Eloc. 199-201) deals with
natural word order (phusike täxis) in his discus-
sion ofthe plain style. He cites an example from
Thucydides (1.24.1: Epidamnds esti pélis...'Epi-
damnos is a city...’), in which the ‘topic’ (to peri
how) precedes ‘what it is’ (Ad toüto estin). This
pragmatic approach can be seen to anticipate
modern pragmatic views on Greek word order
(De Jonge 2007). Dionysius (Comp. 5) attempts —
and subsequently rejects - a more grammatical
approach, which is inspired by Stoic ideas (De
Jonge 2008:273-315). According to nature, Dio-
nysius suggests, nouns should precede verbs;
verbs should precede adverbs, etc. Having cited
 RHETORICAL TRADITION
a number of lines from the /liad and Odyssey in
order to test these principles, Dionysius con-
cludes that Homer frequently ignores the rules of
nature. Longinus (Subd 22.1) defines hyperbaton
as “the arrangement of words or thoughts out of
the natural sequence” (lexeön € noeseön ek toü
kat’ akolouthlan kekinemene täxis). For Longinus,
however, hyperbaton itself is natural as well,
because it imitates the language of people who
are carried away by emotion.
5. SYNTAX AND SOLECISM
Rhetorical analysis of style may involve observa-
tions on syntax (+ Syntax (süntaxis), Ancient
Theories of). In their discussion of literary
passages from the past, the models of stylis-
tic imitation, Greek rhetoricians often point to
grammatical irregularities in the combination
(sünthesis, stintaxis) of the parts of speech. One
classical author whose syntactic license was
often criticized was the historian Thucydides.
His style is analyzed in detail in Dionysius of
Halicarnassus’ Second Letter to Ammaeus, which
shows remarkable similarities with the scho-
lia on Thucydides (De Jonge 201). Dionysius
observes for example that the historian com-
bines a feminine noun with a masculine article
and adjective; he also finds that a verb governs
the wrong case, or that a collective noun in the
singular is combined with a verb in the plural
instead of the singular. In some cases Thucy-
dides' style is said to depart from ‘grammatical
agreement’ (é0 katällelon). This term points to
the idea that there is a grammatically correct
formulation underlying the variations that liter-
ary writers may adopt (Blank 1982:55-57).
When a construction was found to be
ungrammatical (akatdllélos), it could be called
a solecism. But acknowledging Thucydides’ high
status as a literary model, Dionysius (Amm.
11.18) formulates this reproach rather cautiously:
“Those authors who construct masculines with
feminines, as Thucydides has done, could be said
by us to be committing solecism.” Elsewhere,
Dionysius (Din. 8.2) labels Thucydides’ construc-
tions as “figures that make the impression of
solecism" (soloikophaneis skhématismoi).
6. GRAMMATICAL FIGURES
The grammatical figures form a specific category
of figures of speech (skhémata lexeös; + Figures
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS 241
(skhemata), Ancient Theories of), which consist
in the variation of word classes and their acci-
dentia (case, number, person, etc.). By adopting
a grammatical form that is not normally used in
that context, orators and writers can make their
style more attractive and catch the attention
of the audience. This group of stylistic figures
(Lausberg 1960 §509-527; Scheuer 1992; Schen-
keveld 2000) is discussed in a number of ancient
rhetorical treatises (Caecilius of Caleacte fr. 15
Augello = Tib. Fig. 47; Longin. Subl 23-27; Quint.
Inst. 9.3.2-27; Alex. Fig. 33.15-34.21 Spengel; Ps.-
Plut. Vit. Hom. TI 41-64).
The concept of linguistic 'change' or 'varia-
tion’ was already very prominent in Hellenis-
tic philology: in his critical discussions of the
Homeric text, Aristarchus frequently points to
certain grammatical ‘variations’, by which he
explains textual difficulties (Matthaios 1999).
The rhetorician Tiberius (ed. Ballaira 1968) states
that Caecilius of Caleacte (ist c. BCE) introduced
the figure of alloiösis (change, alteration) in rhe-
torical theory: Caecilius discussed the variation
in nouns, cases, numbers, persons and — tenses
(fr. 15 Augello). Longinus (Subl 23-27) explains
how grammatical variations (enalläxeis) can
result in sublimity. He cites literary examples
of the change of number (the substitution of
plural for singular and of singular for plural),
the change of tense (the use of present for past
tense) and the change of person (the use of sec-
ond person for third person, the use of first per-
son for third person, and finally (what we call)
apostrophe),
In later theory, the number of grammatical fig-
ures quickly increased: Quintilian (Inst. 9.3.2-27)
already discusses sixteen different alterations,
including change of voice (active for passive),
change of mood (subjunctive for indicative), and
the confusion of the word classes themselves,
such as the use of verbs for nouns and parti-
ciples for verbs. He observes (Inst. 9.3.11; 9.3-27)
that each of the figures corresponds to a lin-
guistic error (vitium) or solecism (soloecismus):
normally, the use of a present instead of a past
tense would be considered a fault, but if there
is a literary precedent (e.g. a passage in Cicero:
see Inst. 9.3.11), the same confusion of tenses
is regarded as a figure. Various terms are used
in the rhetorical handbooks to denote the fig-
ure of grammatical ‘change’: allofösis, endllaxis,
exallagé, heteroidsis. As the tendency towards
systematization grew, the grammatical figures
242 RHETORICAL TRADITION
acquired a fixed position and separate status
within the rhetorical system.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Augello, Irene. 2006. Cecilia di Calatte. Frammenti di critica
letteraria, retorica e storiografia. Rome.
Aujac, Germaine. 1978-1992. Denys d’Halicarnasse. Opus-
cules rhétoriques. 5 vols. Paris.
Ax, Wolfram, 1986, Laut, Stimme und Sprache. Studien zu
drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie. Göttingen.
. zou. Quintilians Grammatik ("Inst Orat.” 14-8).
Berlin.
Ballatra, Guglielmo, 1968. Tiberii de figuris Demosthenicis.
Rome.
Basset, Louis, 2003, “Aristate et la syntaxe”. In: Syntax in
antiquity, ed. by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Woulers,
43-60. Leuven — Paris - Dudley, MA.
Blank, David, 1982. Ancient philosophy and grammar. The
syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Chico, CA.
Bonner, Stanley F. 1977. Editcation in ancient Rome. From the
elder Cata to the younger Pliny. London - Cambridge.
Fortenbaugh, William W., Pamela M, Huby, R. W. Sharples
and Dimitri Gutas. 1992. Theophrastus of Eresus, Sources
for his life, writings, thought and influence. 2 vols. Leiden.
——. 2005. Theophrastus af Eresus. Sources for his life, writ-
ings, thought & influence, Commentary vol. 8; Sources on
rhetoric and poetics. Leiden — Boston.
de Jonge, Casper C. 2005. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and
the method of metathesis", CQ 55:463-480.
——. 2007. “From Demetrius to Dik. Ancient and moder
views on Greek and Latin word order”, In: The Language
of literature. Linguistic approaches to classical texts, ed.
by Rutger J. Allan and Michel Buijs, 21-231. Leiden —
Boston.
——. 2008. Between grammar and rhetoric. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus on language, linguistics and literature,
Leiden — Boston,
. 20. "Dionysius of Halicamassus and the scholia on
Thucydides’ syntax”. In: Ancient scholarship and gram-
mar. Archetypes, concepts and contexts, ed. by Stephanos
Matthaios, Franca Montanari and Antonios Rengakos,
451-478. Berlin — New York.
Kennedy, G. A. 1991. Aristotle, On rhetoric. A theory af civic
discourse. New York - Oxford.
Lausberg, 1. 1960. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine
Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Munich.
Marrou, Henri-Irénée. 1975. Histuire de l'éducation dans
UAntiquite. Paris.
Matthaios, Stephanos. 1999. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik
Aristarchs, Texte und Interpretationen zur Wortartenlehre,
Göttingen.
Morgan, Teresa. 1998. Literate education in the Hellenistic
und Roman worlds. Cambridge.
Porter, James, 2009, “Rhetoric, aesthetics, and the voice”. In:
The Cambridge companion to ancient rhetoric, ed. by Erik
Gundersson, 92-108, Cambridge.
Radermacher, L. 1951. Artium scriptores (Reste der voraristo-
telischen Rhetorik). Vienna.
Russell, D. A. 2001, Quintilian. The orator’s education. Cam-
bridge, MA - London.
Schenkeveld, Dirk M. 2000. “Figurae grammaticae and sole-
cisms. The embarrassment of grammarians and rhetori-
cians”, Acta antigua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
40:389-397-
Scheuer, H. J. 1992. “Alloiosis”, Historisches Wörterbuch der
Rhetorik 15-417.
IN ANCIENT LINGUISTICS
Siebenborn, Elmar. 1976. Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit
und ihre Kriterien. Studien zur antiken normativen Gram-
matik, Amsterdam,
Sluiter, Ineke, 1990. Ancient grammar in context. Contribu-
tions ta the history of ancient linguistic thought. Amster-
dam,
Spengel, L. 1853-1856. Rhetores Graeci. 3 vols. Leipzig.
Usher, Stephen. 1974-1985. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The
critical essays. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA - London.
Vaahtera, Jaana. 1997. "Phonetics and euphony in Dionysius
of Halicarnassus”, Mnemosyne 50:586-595-
CASPER C. DE JONGE
Rhodian
The Rhodian dialect is a + Doric variant spoken
on the island of Rhodes, which is situated in the
southeast ofthe Aegean Sea, and in the so-called
‘Rhodian Peraea', in the territory of the region of
Caria in Asia Minor, located opposite the island.
The Rhodians were involved in the founding
of the Sicilian settlements of Gela and Agrigen-
tum, the inscriptions of which present character-
istics of the Rhodian dialect{+ Magna Graecia,
Dialects).
There are three important cities on the island
of Rhodes that already appear in Homer's cata-
logue of ships: Lindos, Kamiros and lalysos. A
significant number of Rhodian inscriptions origi-
nate from these three localities. Lindos seems
to have been the most important of the three
because of the number of inscriptions found on
its acropolis (Blinkenberg 1941). From 408 BCE
onwards, a pan-Rhodian political unit arises and
the city of Rhodes, located in the north of the
island, becomes its capital (by synoecism, a join-
ing together of several towns to form a single
community).
1, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RHODIAN
EPIGRAPHICAL DATA
The number of inscriptions originating from the
different locations on the island is significant,
especially when it comes to Rhodes and Lindos.
Some of these inscriptions are unique in charac-
ter, such as the so-called Lindian Temple Chron-
icle, which is a good example of an epigraphical
text of a literary nature. This long chronicle (99
BCE) records the dedications made to Athena
in the Lindian temple from its foundation. The
inventory seeks to glorify the god, the Lindian
temple and the city. The last part of this docu-
ment narrates three epiphanies of the deity.
 RHODIAN
The new inscriptions coming from the island
have been published in the last years by Vassa
Kontorini.
The local script of the archaic inscriptions
from the three cities is the same. It is a red-
type alphabet (+ Local Scripts; + Greek Writ-
ing Systems), although it is influenced by the
lonian alphabet from the end of the Archaic
period onwards (+ Transition from the Local
Alphabets to the Ionic Script). The island is
one of the places in which <H> stands for /e:/
since the earliest documents. The absence of
<F> since the time of the earliest documents is
also remarkable.
2. DIALECTAL FEATURES
Rhodian belongs to the so-called Doris Media
group (Bartonék 1972), which means that after
the first + compensatory lengthening it has lon-
ger vowels like the Doris Severior group (e.g.
böld ‘council’, émi‘lam’), but a triangle of seven
long vowels after the homophonic -+ contrac-
tions (tow, masc./neut. gen. sing. article, and
the thematic + infinitive ending -eir) and the
second compensatory lengthening. We have no
examples which prove that the third compensa-
tory lengthening took place.
Further features are:
- Athematic infinitive ending -mein, most prob-
ably due to - analogy with the thematic infini-
tive -ein: anathémein ‘dedicate’, paradiddmein
‘give’, etc. This unique feature is the only one
that is not found in other > dialects, appear-
ing not only in the inscriptions of the colonies
of Gela and Agrigentum, but also in other
places in Sicily, such as Tauromenium, Entella
and Halaisa, and in southern Italy, in Rhegium
and Crotone.
- /eo/ > /eu/ {at least from the end of the sth c.
BCE onwards): p.n. fsaméneus (= Att. Isome-
nous). It ia probable that the — hiatus /co:/
also evolved into /eu/: kuetisa (= Att. kuoüsa,
fem. part. of verb Auéé ‘to be pregnant’),
epoikodomeün (= Att. epoikodomön, masc.
part. of epuikodoméd ‘to build up’).
- fe+a(:)/ > fe:/: p.n. Arkhés (= nom. Arkhéas),
p.n. Aristé (= gen. Aristeä), p.n. Timakräte
(= Timakrdte(t)a).
- 3rd person plural > imperative with a short
vowel: -onton, -sthon.
243
- Thematic infinitive of the + perfect (gegonein
‘to be burn’).
The Attic-lonic Koine (+ Koine, Origins of,
- Koine, Features of) made its influence felt
from early on and the dialect became an example
of Doris Mitior in the inscriptions of the Hellenis-
tic period (+ Formation of Doric Koines, the).
Some hybrid forms are found: eimein (instead of
émein, Att. einai ‘to be’), timointes (part. nom. pl.
of timdo ‘give as an honor’, Att. timöntes, instead
of the expected timeüntes with the inflexion
changing from -aö to -eö:), ekénos ‘that person’
(Rhod. kénos, Koine ekeinos).
According to Suetonius, Tid. 56, the dialect
continued to be spoken in the Roman Imperial
period, but the Roman author refers probably to
the Rhodian Koina.
Same terms that were specific to the dia-
lect can stilt be found: maströs (title of some
financial officials), Atoina (the Rhodian term for
a local division and the only surviving form
related to + Mycenaean ko-to-na), thias ‘uncle’,
as well as the names of certain objects handed in
at the temple of Athena Lindia (Lindian Temple
Chronicle), as krosds ‘water-pail, pitcher’.
Epigraphical sources from Rhodes provide
us with a large collection of + personal names:
we can mention three different groups which
have special features nearly unknown out of the
island:
- Many Rhodian personal names have the
Homeric elements -mérotos ‘mortal’, -kreön
‘ruler': Aleximbrotos, Timömbrotos, Arkhém-
brotos, Timokreön, Philokreön, Puthokreön, etc.
- There is a small group of local personal
names ending in -r(r)odos/-é as Peisirrodos,
Klesirodos, Kleirodos, Kalliröde, Philoröde, etc.
- Another exclusive small group attests to the
unexpected spellings Aglou- and Timou-
(instead of Aglö- and Timo-): Agloudamos,
Agloumbrotos, Timoürrodos, etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartondk, Antonin. 1972. Classification of the West Greek
dialects at the time about 350 B.C. Amsterdam.
Bile, Monique. 1996, “Une koind Est-Egeenne?”, In: La koiné
grecque antique Ii. La concurrence, ed. by Claude Brixhe,
193-146. Nancy.
Blinkenberg, Christian. 1941. Lindos: fouilles de {' Acrapale, H,
1-2. Inscriptions. Berlin.
Blümel, Wolfgang. 1991. Die Inschriften der rhodischen
Peraia, Bonn.
244 RHODIAN
Bresson, Alain. 1991. Recueil des inscriptions de la Pérée rho-
dienne. Besangon.
. 2006. “Relire la Chronique du temple lindien", Topoi
14,2:527-551.
Fraser, Peter M. and Georges E. Bean. 1954. The Rhudian
Peraea and istands. Oxford.
Fraser, Peter M. and Elaine Matthews, 1987. Lexicon of Greek
personal names I: Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica.
Oxford.
Higbie, Carolyn. 2003. The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek
creation of their past. Oxford.
Kontorini, Vassa. 1983. Inscriptions inédites relatives a
{histoire et aux cultes de Rhodes au Ile et au fer s.av. f.-C.
Louvain-la-Neuve,
——. 1989. Inscriptions inedites de Rhodes If. Athens.
Martin-Väzquez, Lourdes. 1988. {nscripciones rodias 1, H, 11.
Madrid.
Striane Corrochano, Araceli. 2012. “Un documento literario
rodio: la Crénica del Templa de Lindo”. In: Et lingüistu
def siglo XXT. ed. by Adrian Cabedo Nebot and Patricia
Infante Rlos, 247-251. Madrid.
ARACELI STRIANO
Rhotacism
The term rhotacism refers to the replacement
of a non [r] sound with [r]; more specifically in
the case of Greek this phenomenon refers to the
change [s] > [r] intervocalically and less com-
monly in word-final position. The term derives
ultimately from the name of the Greek letter
‘rho’ (cf. the linguistic term ‘rhotic’).
The change of s > r occurred primarily in
two Greek dialects: it is attested epigraphi-
cally in word-final position in the dialect of Elis
(+ Elean), and intervocalically in the dialects of
Eretria and Oropos (Euboean, West Ionic; Buck
1955:56-57 and Lejeune 1972:99, 271-272). Rhota-
cism of [s] before voiced consonants (+ voice) is
also attested in a handful of Greek dialects (Ere-
trian, late Cretan from Gortyn, + Thessalian and
+ Laconian; Buck 1955:57). This sound change
is common enough typologically: compare the
stem-allomorphy in Latin caused by rhotacism
of an intervocalic s, e.g. nom. sg. genus ‘origin,
race’ but gen. sg. generis < *geneses, or the verb
es-t ‘one is’ but future er-i-t, cf. earlier ESED
(CIE 12.1; cf. Weiss 2009:150-152).
In the dialect of Elis, word-final s > r occurs
sporadically already in the earliest inscriptions,
uniformly in later ones (Minon 2007:345-349).
This change typically occurs first in prosodi-
cally weak forms such as the (enclitic)(> Clit-
ics) articles and pronouns: toi waleiois dat. pl.
‘for the Eleians’, cf. Att. tols (Bronze tablet from
Olympia ca. 500 BCE, Minon 2007:n0.10.1, plate
IX; Colvin 2007170). After ca. 350 BCE Elean
inscriptions regularly show original, word-final
s asr: tair dé geneair acc. pl. ‘the offspring’ (ca.
350 BCE. Minon 2007:no.30.1), or theör, cf. Att.
theös (late 3rd or early and century BCE, Minon
2007:n0.34.1) . Word-internal s never rhotacized,
but became A in the 4th c. BCE, before being
completely lost (Minon 2007:344).
In the dialects of Eretria and Oropos many
examples of secondary or restored intervocalic
s > r occur, though there are exceptions (Barrio
1991:24-26). In inscriptions dated after 450 BCE
forms such as the following are attested: pairin
dat. pl. ‘sons’, cf, Att. paisin; epidem£örin, 3 pl. pres.
act. subj. ‘they are in town’, cf. Att. epidemösin;
suneleutheröranti, dat. sg. aor. act. pte. ‘for him
having freed’, cf. Att. suneleutherösanti (all on
a stone from Eretria, 411 BCE; /G XII 9.187, Buck
1955:no.13, Colvin 2007224-5). Ancient writers
who commented on this linguistic phenomenon
include Strabo and Plato. Strabo (Geo. X.1.10)
records that the Eretrians were ridiculed for
“often using the letter R (töi grdmmati tdi rhé)
not only at the end of words but also in the
middle”. According to Plato (Cra. 434C), "We say
sklérdtés, but the Eretrians skleröter"; either he
is referring to a phenomenon for which we have
no direct evidence or, as Wachter (2010:55) sug-
gests, he may have confused his example with
word-final rhotacism in the dialect of Elis.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buck, Carl D. 1955. The Greek dialects. Chicago.
Colvin, Stephen. 2007. A historical Greek reader: Mycenaean
to the Koing, Oxford.
Del Barrio, Marisa, 1991. Fi dialecto euboico. Madrid.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et
du grec ancien. Paris,
Minon, Sophie. 2007. Les inscriptions éléennes dialectates
(VIe-Ile siecle avant j.-C.), Geneva.
Wachter, Rudolf. 2010. “Inscriptions”. In: A companion to the
Ancient Greek language, ed. by E. Bakker, 47-61. Chichester.
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and cumpara-
tive grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor.
Jesse LUNDQUIST
Riddles
Riddles — linguistically playful questions or
statements that require ingenuity to answer
or interpret — are found the world over, part
of both the carefree language of children and
 RIDDLES
the most serious and elaborate forms of written
literature. The two main Greek words for ‘riddle’,
griphos (original meaning: ‘fishing-basket’, i.e.,
an intricate net) and ainigma (a derivative of
ainos 'fable’), are not consistently distinguished
(see Ohlert 1912717-22), though according to
a scholion to Lucian’s Vitarum auctio, “in the
ainigma one is aware of being ignorant whereas
in the griphos one is ignorant but thinks one
understands” (see Luz 2010:144-145). By far the
most famous Greek riddle, best known from
Soph. OT and with a significant afterlife in mod-
em times, thanks among others to Sigmund
Freud, is the one the Sphinx posed to travelers
to Thebes, all of whom — until the enigmati-
cally named Oedipus came along - she killed
because they could not answer it. The canonical
hexametric version of her riddle, ascribed to
Asclepiades of Tragilus (FGrH 12) and preserved
in Ath. 10.456b and Ant. Pal. 14.64, begins, ‘There
is something on earth with one voice that is
two-footed and four-footed and three-footed ...';
the solution is 'man’, who crawls on all fours
as a baby, walks upright as an adult and relies
on a stick when old. A common feature of rid-
dling, however, is that more than one solution is
possible, and in a parodic epigram of Nicarchus
(POxy. 4502.30-37), it is ‘pathic homosexual’.
An allusion to the riddle, and one that is sexu-
ally charged to boot, may be present already in
the phrase “like a three-footed man” in Op. 533
of the archaic poet Hesiod, whose poetry is in
any case filled with enigmatic utterances that
have analogues in languages such as Sanskrit
and may thus be of Indo-European provenance
(Katz 2006).
Examples of riddles and riddling language,
most of them in + yerse, are known from all
periods of Greek from Homer onward, with sig-
nificant collections preserved in book ı0 of Ath-
enaeus’ Deipnosophistae (mostly from comedy)
and book 14 of the Anthologia Palatina. Other
high points include the pronouncements of the
oracle at Delphi recorded in Herodotus’ Histo-
ries (on the seeming incompatibility of riddles
and such presumably authoritative utterances,
see Naerebout and Beerden 2013) and the infa-
mously obscure Alexandra of (ps.-)Lycophron,
whose hyper-allusive style has been the subject
of much recent scholarly discussion. In addi-
tion to the riddles themselves, the ancients have
preserved for us valuable theoretical and socio-
245
cultural information about the genre. As to the
former, Aristotle brings ainigmata and the verb
ainittomai ‘speak in riddles’ together with + met-
aphors in his Rhetoric (1405b4-6, 1412a24-26)
and Poetics (1458a26~-30); the best-known trea-
tise on the subject of riddles (Peri griphön) is by
his pupil Clearchus of Soli. And as to the latter,
the most famous venue for creating and solv-
ing linguistic puzzles was surely the classical
symposium, at which increasingly intoxicated
men participated in agonistic verbal contests,
engaging in ludic one-upmanship; in Pl. Resp.
479b-c, Socrates’ interlocutor Glaucon compares
banqueteers' puzzles to the riddling activity of
children. For overviews of Greek riddling, see
Schultz 1909-1912 and the papers in Kwapisz
et al. 2013.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Katz, Joshua T. 2006. “The riddle of the sp(h)ij-: the Greek
Sphinx and her Indic and Indo-European background".
In: La langue poétique indo-europeenne, ed. by Georges-
Jean Pinault and Danie! Petit, 157-194. Leuven - Paris.
Kwapisz, Jan, David Petrain and Mikolaj Szymariski, eds.
2013. The Muse at play. Riddles and wordplay in Greek and
Latin poetry. Berlin — Boston.
Luz, Christine. 2010. Technopaignia. Formspiele in der
griechischen Dichtung. Leiden — Boston.
Naerebout, Frederick G. and Kim Beerden. 2013. "Gods can-
not tell lies’: riddling and ancient Greek divination”. In:
Kwapisz et al. 2013:121-147-
Ohlert, K. 1912”, Rätsel und Rätselspiele der alten Griechen.
Berlin.
Schultz, Wolfgang. 1909-1912. Rätsel aus dem hellenischen
Kulturkreise, 2 vols. Leipzig,
JosnuA T. Katz
Rix’s Law
~ Laryngeal Changes
Roman Translation of Greek Texts
1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Translation from Greek into Latin stood at the
very origins of Roman literary culture and con-
tinued throughout the Republic, Principate, and
well into late antiquity. The tutelary influence of
Hellenic culture upon the conquering Romans
was well acknowledged throughout Roman
literary history and aptly characterized by the
poet Horace: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit
240 ROMAN
et artes / intulit agresti Latio "Captured Greece
captivated her fierce conqueror / and brought
the arts to rustic Latium” (Epist. 2.1.156-157).
While more attention is applied to literary trans-
lation here, mention should also be made of the
continuous reality of legal and official transla-
tion between Greek and Latin, particularly in
the Eastern half of the Empire. Such examples
as Greek translations of decrees of the Senate
and the Res Gestae of Augustus, incised in both
Greek and Latin for display in the provinces, are
a reminder that Whe Roman world was polyglot,
with particular dominance given to Greek (in
the East) and Latin (in the West) overlaid upon
a complex linguistic terrain (McElduff 2013:17-
38). Though a language of imperial domination,
Latin was always circulating in situations of
language contact that shaped and changed it
(Adams, Janse and Swain 2002; Adams
Leaving aside questions of diplomatic interpre-
tation, trade languages, and other non-literary
forms of translation, we can approach the topic
by considering the diverse practices of literary
translation across a variety of literary genres,
which show the variation in strategies as well
as the changing cultural situation of translation
from the Republican era to late antiquity.
The first literary translations from Greek
into Latin were the work of an Italiot, Livius
Andronicus (ca 284-204 BCE), a freedman of
the Livii who originally hailed from Tarentum.
He produced a comedy and a tragedy at the
Ludi Romani in 240 BCE, and thus effectively
inaugurated the project of Roman literature as
a translational process. Besides translations/
adaptations of Greek drama, he also rendered
the Odyssey into Saturnian verses, shifting the
names of gods to native Italic deities (Mousa >
Camena; Zeus > lupiter, etc.), and even Latiniz-
ing Odysseus as ‘Ulixes’. The importance of this
‘translational foundation’ of Roman literature
cannot be underestimated, for it highlights how
Latin literature is articulated against the norms,
genres, meters, and diction of Greek literature.
From their inception, Roman translational prac-
tices were complex maneuvers geared tu render
Greek texts within the context of Roman impe-
rial appropriation not only of Greek culture,
but of Greece and the Greeks themselves. This
can be shown more clearly through looking dis-
tinctly at the literary genres concerned.
TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS
2. TRANSLATING DIFFERENT LITERARY
GENRES
2.a. Epic
Livius Andronicus’ Odusia has long elicited
interest as a case of early literary translation,
but it was just the first of a line of Roman trans-
lations of Homer. Andronicus’ poem was not
divided into the Alexandrian 24 book units, so
it may have been a compendious translation,
though extant fragments make it hard to judge
(Blänsdorf 2011:21-34). The poem lasted well Into
the first century as a school text (Hor. Epist.
2.1.69-71), though someone later seems to have
reworked it into dactylic hexameter and intro-
duced the Alexandrian book divisions (Courtney
1993:46). Later in the Republican period, there
were translations of the /liad by Cnaeus Matius
2003). and Ninnius Crassus, of which little survives;
Cicero himself translated small Homeric pas-
sages with some finesse (Fin. 5.49 [=Od. 12.184-
191]; Tusc. 3.65 [=/L 19.226-229]), but did not
make a full translation. During the Principate,
a freedman of the Emperor Claudius, Polybius,
was said to have made prose translations of
Homer (Seneca ad Polybium 11.5), though noth-
ing else is known of them. In the reign of Nero,
Attius Labeo produced translations of both
Homeric poems that were so literal that they
became the butt of Persius’ satire (1.4-5, 50). It
is telling that none of these Roman translations
appears to have secured a place as an enduring
‘classic’ in its own right, no doubt because of
the problem of the ‘co-circulation of the source
text’; ie, the Roman elite had ready access to
Homer in the original and the Roman Hom-
ers had little staying power on their own. How-
ever, probably in the Neronian period a certain
Baebius Italicus produced a compendious Ilias
Latina that recounted the whole of the /liad in
one book, and this would become the closest the
Latin Middle Ages would get to Homer until the
Renaissance (Scaffai 1982; 1994).
Homer is an understandable point of con-
centration; but Hellenistic tastes infiltrated the
Republic as well. P. Terentius Varro Atacinus (b.
82 BCE) made a translation of Apollonius’ Argo-
nautica, of which some fragments survive (Court-
ney 1993:238-243); this work was still thought
worth reading in imperial times (Quint. Inst.
10.87). It is perhaps harder to explain the Roman
enthusiasm for translating Aratus’ Phaenomena,
 ROMAN TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS
an astronomical didactic poem in hexameter
verse, translated at different times by Atacinus,
M. Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), Germanicus
Caesar (15 BCE-19 CE), and Avienus (fl. mid-
4th c. CE), all of whom took a degree of artistic
liberty with the source text (Possanza 2004). In
addition to such overt attempts at translation,
there is a subtler matter of emulation or inter-
textuality involved in the works of poets like
Q. Ennius (239-169 BCE) and P. Vergilius Maro
(70-19 BCE), who clearly ‘translate’ in some
sense elements from Greek literature into their
works, Ennius successfully established the dac-
tylic hexameter as the official meter of Roman
epic, but also introduced phrases of Homeric
epic diction and even whole similes from Homer
into his Annales, which Vergil in turn echoed and
transformed (Armstrong 2008:174-184). Thus an
internal process of implicit translation — as a
Roman poet assimilates a Greek author — leads
ta a technique of what Conte terms ‘integra-
tive allusion’ in the explicit creative composi-
tion (1986:63). Roman readers like Aulus Gellius,
however, clearly analyzed Vergilian passages
inspired by Greek authors using the same terms
as those used for translation (interpretari, trans-
‚ferre - see Noctes Afticae 17.10).
2b. Drama
Romanliterature effectively begins with the adap-
tation of Greek drama by Andronicus, and the
Republican period would see a constant stream
of such adaptations by Gn. Naevius (fl. 235-204
BCE), Titus Macc(i)us Plautus (fl. 205-184 BCE),
Ennius, M. Pacuvius (ca 130-220 BCE), Caecilius
Statius (fl. ı79 BCE), P. Terentius Afer or ‘Terence’
(fl. 160s BCE), and L. Accius (170-ca 86 BCE),
among others (Gratwick 1982:93-137). While the
Romans largely adapted sth-c. Greek tragedy
(particularly Sophocles and Euripides), their
preference was overwhelmingly for later Greek
Middle and New Comedy, not Aristophanes. In
fact, the ‘Greekness’ of drama was su strongly
established that the Romans later devised sepa-
rate terms for plays in Roman settings (fabulae
togatae — for properly Roman comedies; fabulae
praetextae — for serious drama in Roman dress)
to distinguish them from adapted Greek plays
(fabulae paltiatae, ‘cloak plays'— Greek comedies —
and fabulae crepidatae, ‘buskin plays’ — Greek
tragedies). Drama translation appears to have
responded to audience demands and expecta-
tions for entertainment more than for fidelity to
247
Greek original(s), and consequently free adapta-
tion was quite common. Here the influence of a
broad and diverse audience might explain the
difference from epic translation at Rome, which
had literalists like Attius Labeo. From prologues
by Plautus and Terence, it is clear the playwrights
felt free to graft scenes from one Greek play
onto another if it improved the action, a pro-
cess perhaps known as contaminatio (McElduff
2013:87-89). It is also clear, however, that the
playwrights’ competitors could readily find fault
with such practices, and could cry plagiarism if
a Roman adapted a Greek play already adapted
by another Roman (Ter. Eun. 23-43). The degree
to which Greek originals were reconfigured for
performance is the object of much study, but it
is clear from the terms of discussion in Plautus
(e.g. Casina 30-34) and Terence (e.g. Eun. 7),
and later in Cicero (Fin, 1.4-5) and Aulus Gellius
(2.23), that such adaptation was described in
the usual Roman terms of translation (vortere/
vertere), which can also convey ‘transformation.'
The later tragedies ascribed to Seneca depart
from the Republican-era practices of adaptation
and draw their inspiration more loosely from
Greek source texts (though for Thyestes, there is
no known Greek model).
2.c. Epigram and Lyric Poetry
Hellenistic culture had living representatives in
Rome, so it is not surprising that contemporary
epigram made early inroads. Q. Lutatius Catulus
(1450-87 BCE), a member of the highest aristoc-
racy, had contacts with Antipater of Sidon and
the poet Archias. His version of Callimachus
epigram qi, a homoerotic poem in elegiac meter,
was no doubt a strikingly new phenomenon
to the Romans (Blänsdorf 2011107) and is an
example of work that paved the way for Latin
epigram and love elegy (cf. Gellius Nocies Atticae
19.9). Gaius Valerius Catullus (ca 85-54 BCE) was
a poet from a later generation deeply imbued
with such Hellenistic culture, and in his extant
corpus we find a translation of Callimachus’ Lock
of Berenice, an episode from the latter's Aitia.
Though reframed by a dedicatory poem (65),
Catullus’ version (66) is clearly a gift of trans-
lated verse (haec expressa tibi carmina Battiadae
“these lines of Battiades translated for you”) that
becomes a medium of exchange among a refined
social class. Catullus’ poem 51, however, toys
more interestingly with translation by rendering
a famous poem of Sappho (31) rather closely,
248 ROMAN TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS
until a new stanza breaks in with a rebuke of the
poet himself for having too much leisure time.
This shift has been interpreted as a defensive
strategy to fend off the erotic invasion of Greek
lyric into the body of Roman poetry (Young
2011:31). The poetry of Q. Horatius Flaccus (65-8
BCE) or ‘Horace’, however, represents so thor-
ough a melding of Greek form into Latin that
there is a purposeful dissolution of the bound-
ary between target and source; though a Latin
poet, he strives to write so true to Greek form
and tradition that he might be ranged among
Greek poets (Carm. 1.35-36). Horace was perhaps
too successful in this lyric agenda in that subse-
quently lyric fails to continue forward in Latin,
as either a cultured exercise in translation or in
original composition (Spencer 2011:115).
2.d. Oratory
Unlike drama or lyric, oratory was a practice cen-
tral to Roman political culture and the self-pre-
sentation of the ruling elite, Roman aristocrats
who obtained fluency in Greek often studied
with Greek rhetoricians, and M. Tullius Cicero
(106-43 BCE) is the leading example of a Roman
so fluent in Greek he was said to have caused his
Greek teacher to fall into despair (Plutarch Life
of Cicero 4.6-7). Besides such bilingual fluency,
however, we find in the dialogue On the Orator
the notion that the Roman orator can train up
by translating the best Greek orators, since this
gives the opportunity not just to find precise
and current Latin words for Greek expressions,
but also to discover words in Greek that are new
to Latin (1.155). Thus the activity is not merely
an exercise in linguistic equivalence, but also in
creativity. This practical exercise of translation
remains clearly ensconced in M. Fabius Quin-
tilianus’ Institute of Oratory (ca 96 CE), where
he declares that the point of such rhetorical
paraphrasing is not merely translation (inter-
pretationem), but “a contest and rivalry over
the saine meanings" (circa eusdem sensus certa-
men atque aemulationem [10.4|). As for Cicero's
actual translation of Greek oratory, the trea-
tise On the Best Kind of Orators was meant to
be a preface to translations of Demosthenes’
On the Crown and Aeschines' Against Ctesiphon,
produced to show the Roman audience the
true nature of Attic oratory. Cicero's purpose
was to silence detractors who claimed his ora-
tory was not Attic enough, so the polemical
frame is relevant. The famous statement that he
“translated not as an interpreter, but as an orator"
(nec converti ut interpres, sed ut orator — 14) is
often thought to contrast a literal or word for
word translation with one that seeks rather to
render the general force (vim) and tenor of the
source text. But McElduff suggests instead that
it be seen as Cicero's attempt to avoid standing
selflessly between the reader and the source
text like a professional interpreter. Rather, he
interjects himself into the role of the source text:
“He hijacks the Greek original and layers his own
voice over it to create a Ciceronian Atticism that
has the advantage of seeming authorized by him
and the original author. In other words, Cicero's
text becomes the persona of Aeschines in Rome”
(2013:119). Thus translation, like oratory gener-
ally, is a way for the Roman elite male subject to
assert himself in the public sphere. The irony is
that the two translations are not extant, and may
never have been finished. Through the works
of Quintilian, we learn that some prominent
Romans continued to translate Greek oratory
and rhetorical works, especially M. Valerius Mes-
sala Corvinus (64 BCE-8 CE), C. Valgius Rufus
(suffect consul 12 BCE), and P. Rutilius Lupus
(early ist c. CE).
2.e. Philosophy
Unlike oratory, philosophy had a more difficult
entry into the Roman cultural sphere, though
we find that Q. Ennius (239-169 BCE) already
attempted to transmit some cosmological think-
ing in his Epicharmus and rationalizing theo-
logical ideas in his Euhemerus, in addition to
his foundational work in drama and epic. We
know from complaints made by Cicero that a
C. Amafinius (late and-early ist c. BCE), a Rabir-
jus (ist c. BCE), and a Catius (fl. sos—4os BCE)
had written or translated Epicurean tracts in an
unsophisticated prose style, yet with alarming
success among the plebs. Quite differently, Titus
Lucretius Carus (ca 97-55 BCE) made an enor-
mous effort to transfer Epicureanism doubly
from Greek prose into Latin poetry, in spite of
Epicurus’ genera! disdain for poetry. He did not
translate from a singular original, but acted more
as a filter of Greek thought, drawing not just
from Epicurean writings but also Thucydides
(on the plague of Athens), Homer, Callimachus,
Sappho and Euripides. His poetry was not so
much aimed at communicating philosophy to
the Greekless as it was “to make the original's
ideas palatable" to the doubtful, stolid Romans
(McElduff 2013152). Cicero privately admired
the genius and art of Lucretius, against which an
 ROMAN TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS
Empedoclea by Sallustius (presumably an analo-
gous didactic poem with Empedoclean content)
measured badly (Ad Q. Fr. 2.10.3).
These early works form the background to the
philosophical dialogues of Cicero, which give us
the richest view of the topic of translation, since
he clearly states his desire to give responsible
versions of Greek philosophy rendered appro-
priately for a Roman audience, In On Moral
Ends, he uses the Roman translation of Greek
drama as a precedent to argue that a Roman
should be no less eager to read serious things
in Latin (1.4-6). Like the Roman dramatists, he
finds no difficulty in lifting what he needs and
combining it with other things, interjecting his
own judgment (iudicium) on the matters in dis-
cussion. He acts, therefore, more assertively to
present Greek thought to his reader, and does
not play the mere interpreter in his dialogues,
which create a dramatic recontextualization of
philosophy. He was known, however, to have
made more straightforward translations, namely
of Plato’s Protagoras (now lost) and Timaeus, of
which part (27b-47b) survives (it is thought he
prepared this extract for inclusion in a general
work on cosmology). Overall, the importance
of Cicero's project of creating a Latin-speaking
philosophy cannot be underestimated; in the
absence of Greek texts, the dialogues would help
to carry forward the idea of philosophy into the
Latin Middle Ages and Early Renaissance.
To the Ciceronian corpus we must add other
projects of translation from later antiquity,
which underscore the enduring need for Latin
mediators of Greek thought. The African Pla-
tonist Lucius Apuleius of Medaura (125-ca 180
CE) translated the Phaedo of Plato; this work
is now lost, but Sidonius Apollinaris judged
it favorably as a work not translated literally
(Epist. 2.9.5). C(h)alcidius, a Christian philoso-
pher, made a translation of the first part of the
Timaeus (up to 53c) around 321 CE, to which he
added an extensive commentary. This would be
the main Platonic text known in the West for
nearly 800 years. The African Marius Victorinus,
a Platonist who converted to Christianity around
355 CE, made translations of Aristotle’s Catego-
ries and On Interpretation (no longer extant)
as well as works by the neo-Platonists Plotinus
and Porphyry (also lost) that were a great influ-
ence on Augustine. Because of this influence on
the West's greatest church father (see Conf 8
2.35.10), Victorinus’ contribution as translator-
mediator should not be underestimated. Lastly,
249
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (ca 480-
524/525 CE) was a pivotal figure in giving shape
to philosophy for the Latin Middle Ages, not just
for his Consolation of Philosophy, but also for an
ambitious project to translate all of Plato and
Aristotle along with commentary. His execu-
tion in his mid-forties cut this project short, but
he did succeed in translating a significant por-
tion of Aristotle's Organon along with Porphyry’s
Isagoge (in the latter case, apparently using the
previous work of Victorinus). These translations
along with his other logical works constituted all
that was known about logic until the middle of
the 12th century CE.
3. THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT AND
SEPTUAGINT
Latin translations of the + New Testament, per-
haps originating in North Africa in the 2nd c. CE,
circulated piecemeal through Latin-speaking
Christian communities. The texts of these Old
Latin versions show a high degree of variability,
suggesting they were ad hoc products made from
the Greek for various uses. By 397 CE, Aurelius
Augustinus (‘Augustine’) had to declare in On
Christian Teaching (2.15) that such Latin trans-
lations must be corrected in deference to the
Greek, thus showing already the distinct differ-
ence in attitude that would characterize biblical
translation. Besides great textual variation, the
early translations also contained many grammat-
ical solecisms that reflected badly on the Bible's
cultural status in the eyes of educated Romans.
At the instigation of Pope Damasus I, Eusebius
Hieronymus (ca 347-420 CE) or ‘Jerome’ set
about a revision of these Latin biblical materials,
and completed an edition of the Gospels by 384
CE. As he turned to the Old Testament, Jerome
first relied on the + Septuagint text, which was
considered by some Christian thinkers to be as
authoritative or even more so than the Hebrew
text (Aug, Doctr. christ, 2.15). Thus the ‘Gallican
Psalter’ — the text used in Gregorian chant -
was translated from the Greek Psalter. But
around 390 CE, Jerome, then living in Palestine,
realized a translation made directly from the
Hebrew was necessary and set about a new ver-
sion using the pre-Masoretic Hebrew with help
of the literal translation of Aquila and the more
periphrastic and elegant work of Symmachus,
both Jews whose work had been included in the
multi-version Hexapla edited by Origen (com-
pleted 244/245 CE), Though Jerome’s translations
250 ROMAN TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS
vary in approach, he largely observed the mule
that the Bible should not be rewritten in stylish,
classicizing Latin and thought even the word
order of the source text contained mysteries
that should not be toyed with. As such, Jerome,
though a self-professed ‘Ciceronian’, suppressed
the Roman urge to improve upon the original
and interject himself as cultural mediator. These
translations only gradually gained acceptance,
and coalesced into the standard Latin Vulgate
Bible in the 8th c. CE. The official status of the
Vulgate was finally promulgated at the Council
of Trent (1545-1563 CE).
4. PROSE NARRATIVE
Texts of seemingly small importance within the
canon of Roman literature came to have a much
larger influence on subsequent ages; hence our
survey shauld include some mention of prose
romance or narrative works. In the absence
of the Homeric poems, the Latin Middle Ages
would make much of two prose works relat-
ing Trojan material. The Ephemeris belli Troiani,
probably from the 4th c. CE, is a Latin work pro-
fessing to be a translation by one L. Septimius of
an original Greek diary ofthe Trojan war written
by Dictys of Crete, a companion of [dameneus.
The discovery of a fragmentary Greek version
of the and or ard c. CE (PTeb. 2.268) proved this
to be very likely. Similarly, the de excidio Troiae
Historia attributed to Dares the Phrygian (a Tru-
jan priest in the /liad) is a Latin text suppos-
edly translated by the historian Cornelius Nepos
(ca 10-25 BCE) from a Greek original, but it is
clearly much later (4th or 5th c. CE). In spite of
their peripheral status to the literature of antiq-
uity, these works would loom large in the medi-
eval conception of the Trojan saga. Similarly, the
colorful translation by Julius Valerius Alexander
Polemius (mid-ath c. CE) of Pseudo-Callisthenes’
Alexander Romance was to give long life to the
legendary tales of the Macedonian conqueror.
5. MEDICAL WRITINGS
Finally, some consideration should be given to
another aspect ofthe Roman attempt to acquire
and digest Greek expertise; namely, Latin
versions of medical works, which would be of
great influence in subsequent ages when direct
contact with Greek medicine had ceased. Dur-
ing the reign of Tiberius (14-37 CE), A. Corne-
Hus Celsus produced an encyclopedia covering
many things, of which the extant De medicina
shows considerable knowledge of Greek medi-
cine and its history. In this work, Celsus repeat-
edly faced the challenge of translating Greek
medical vocabulary into Latin, and his coinages
would prove enduring (e.g. cancer for the Greek
karkinos, to describe malignant tumors), form-
ing the original basis of the medical Latin termi-
nology still used today (+ Medical Vocabulary).
Some of the writings of the imperial physician
Soranus of Ephesus (98-138 CE) were translated
in later antiquity, which helped to secure their
survival. Thanks to the Numidian doctor Caelius
Aurelianus (fl. 5th c. CE), we possess a Latin ver-
sion of Soranus’ On Chronic and Acute Diseases,
but the Greek is lost. We can compare frag-
ments, however, of Aurelianus’ Gynaecia with
extant gynecological works of Soranus and see
he abridged but translated fairly closely. A cer-
tain Muscio, also from North Africa, translated
parts of Soranus’ Gynaecology around 500 CE ina
simplified and abbreviated form, and this Gynae-
cia circulated widely until the 16th c. Lastly, the
old Latin translations of Pedianus Dioscorides’
ist-c. CE work On the Materials of Medicine
made available to readers a vast pharmacopeia
of plants and drugs, and remained a standard
reference work in the West for nearly sixteen
centuries. While such examples show the vital
continuity provided by Latin translations par-
ticularly from the late antique period, there are
glaring and curious omissions; namely, the vast
works of Galen, whose influence in Western med-
icine would be delayed until Latin translations
were made from Arabic versions in the uth c.
6. CONCLUSION
It is an enduring irony that the great imperial
power of Rome should have been so subjugated
by Greek culture that it seems, like the moon,
to shine with reflected light. But we should
not underestimate the cultural importance of
the Roman precedent, which provided a para-
digm for a culture of translation that absorbs
and transforms elements well beyond itself. Nor
should we forget that the status of Latin as an
interlingua for Western thought guaranteed a
continuity of civilization that otherwise would
have been ruptured. Later times would pick par-
ticular foci classici from Roman authors to justify
their own translational practices, and in this
 ROMAN TRANSLATION
they could range from the freedom of Cicero-
nian tradition (making light of the interpres, or
faithful /literal interpreter in favor of the orator's
sense of force and sense) to the strictures of
Jerome's biblical translation (in which even the
order of the source text’s words contains vital
mysteries). But the current trend in the study of
Roman translation is to contextualize and weigh
the variety of approaches instead of looking for
the foundations of a singular ‘Western tradi-
tion’ of translation (McElduff 2013: 3-11; see also
Bortolussi et al. 2009; Seele 1995). Roman trans-
lation comprised public, performative contexts
like drama and oratory; private contexts like
lyric and philosophy; and professional situations
like medicine and other technical fields. Our
approach should bear these different situations
in mind in order to fully appreciate the range
and reach of the Roman achievement (> Trans-
lation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, James N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language.
Oxford.
Adams, James N., Mark Janse, and Simon Swain, eds. 2002.
Bilingualism in ancient society: language contact and the
written word. Oxford.
Armstrong, Richard. 2009. "Classical translations of the clas-
sics: the dynamics of literary tradition in retranslating
epic poetry”. In: Translation and the ‘classic’, ed. by Alex-
andra Lianeri and Vanda Zajko, 169-202. Oxford.
Blänsdorf, Jürgen, ed. zon. Fragmenta poetarum latinarum
epicorum et lyricorum. Berlin,
Bortolussi, Bernard, Madeleine Keller, Sophie Minon and
Lyliane Sznajder, eds. 2009. Truduire, Transposer. Trans-
mettre dans l'Antiquité gréco-romaine. Paris.
Conte, Gian Biagio. 1986. The rhetoric of imitation: genre and
poetic memory in Virgil and other Latin poets. Ithaca,
Courtney, Edward. 1993. The fragmentary Latin poets, Oxford.
Gratwick, A. 5. 1982. “Drama”. in: The Cambridge history of
classical literature: Il. Latin literature, ed, by FE. J. Kenney
and W. V. Clausen, 77~137. Cambridge.
McElduff, Siobhan. 2013. Roman theories of translation: sur-
passing the source, New York.
McElduff, Siobhan and Enrica Sciarrino. 201. Complicating
the history of western translation: the ancient Mediterra-
nean in perspective. Manchester.
Possanza, D. Mark. 2004. Translating the heavens: Aratus,
Germanicus, and the poetics of Latin translation. New
York.
Richter, Hans E. 1938. Übersetzen und Übersetzungen in der
römischen Literatur. Coburg.
Scaffai, Marco. 1982. Baebii /talici Ilias Latina. Bologna.
Scaffai, Marco, 1994. "Traduttori latini di Omero", In; La
traduzione fra antica e moderno: teoria e prassi; atti del
convenvo, Firenze 6-7 dicembre 1991, 59-72. Florence.
Seele, Astrid. 1995. Römische Übersetzer. Nöte, Freiheiten,
Absichten. Verfahren des literarischen Übersetzens in der
griechisch-römischen Antike, Darmstadt.
Spencer, Diana. zou. "Horace and the con/straints of transla-
tion” In: McElduff and Sciarrino zous01-16.
OF GREEK TEXTS 251
Young, Elizabeth M. zon. “Sappho under my skin: Catullus
and the translation of erotic lyric at Rome”, In: McElduff
and Sciarrino z01:25-36.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG
Root Structure (and Ablaut)
1. ABLAUT
The basic components of the Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean (PIE) ablaut system are the > vowels /e/
and /o/ (“e-grade”, “o-grade”), both short ("full
grade”) and long (“lengthened grade”), and the
absence of either of them (“zero grade"). In the
stage of PIE reconstructable by the compara-
tive method, ablaut is a morphophonological
system marking and differentiating grammatical
categories that are associated with a certain pat-
tern of ablaut, e.g. root presents, where + pres-
ent tense stem-formations built directly to the
verbal root without the addition of derivational
affixes show a pattern “sg. CeC : pl. GC”, i.e., full
e-grade of the root in the singular vs. zero-grade
in the plural, e.g. Gk. ei-mi ‘I will go’, but {men
‘we will go' (in PIE terms *A,ei-mi vs. *h,i-mé(s));
cf, also kinship terms such as PIE *pAgter- ‘father’
with a lengthened grade of the suffix *-ter- in the
nom. sg. (*phyter, Gk. pater), a zero-grade in the
gen. sg. (*ph,trés/ds, Gk. patrös) and a full-grade
in the acc. (*phzter-m, Gk. patera). Compounds
that have a second element with an ablauting
stem usually show an o-grade in the latter, e.g.
Gk. nom. sg. eupdtor ‘having a good father’, acc.
sg, eupdtora (PIE *-phztör, -phytor-m) or phren
‘midriff; mind’ : eu-phrön ‘well-meaning’, etc. In
many cases ablaut is concomitant with a change
in the position of the + accent such that the
accent is associated with the e-grade, while o-
and zero-grade tend to be unaccented. Usually,
this feature is taken to be the origin of this sys-
tem of vowel gradation, i.e., the basic vowel /e/
was either changed into /u/ ur reduced to zero
by a shift of the accent. In most IE languages the
tendency is to reduce the allomorphy created
by ablaut and either continue a reduced set of
allomorphs or abandon ablaut altogether, cf. in
Gk. nom. kitön, gen. kunds, etc. ‘dog’ with length-
ened o-grade of the suffix in the nom. sg. vs. zero
grade in all other forms of the paradigm, whereas
in Sanskrit the word has retained more ablaut
variants: nom. sg. svd ‘dog’ < *kuo(n), acc. sg.
svänam < *kuön-m, gen. sg. sunah < *kunes/-os;
252 ROOT STRUCTURE (AND ABLAUT)
cf. also Gk. nom. agön, gen. agönos with no
ablaut in the suffix.
2. F. DE SAUSSURE'S LARYNGEAL THEORY
Ferdinand de Saussure’s hypothesis of “coéf-
ficients sonantiques” A, O, and E (added by
Maller), later termed laryngeals (Saussure
1879), has made the ablauting behavior of cer-
tain roots, previously seen as containing long
vowels and/or as being disyllabic, much clearer
and more consistent with what was known of
the ablaut pattem in other types of roots. For
example, a seemingly long-vacalic root like *sta
with its zero-grade *sta can be understood as
*steA (*stehz), i.e, as containing the same basic
vowel as other roots followed by a consonantal
element, with a zero-grade *stA (*sth,) (the ele-
ment *A/*A, being reflected as /a/ in most Indo-
European languages (and as /i/ in Indo-Iranian
between consonants), The ablaut pattern of
the (+ reduplicated present) 1 sg. *sti-stehz-mi :
1 pl. *sti-sth,-me(s) thus coincides with that of
*h,ei-mi : *h,i-me(s) described above. In turn,
this means that in a case like Gk. 1 sg. emi ‘I am’:
2 pl. este ‘you are’, where one might recon-
struct as immediate preforms *esmi and *este,
an ablauting paradigm *h,és-mi : *h,s-té (with a
development “*#h,C > #eC typical for Greek) is
more likely.
3, ROOT STRUCTURE
Generalizing from cases such as *A,(e)s, it has
been assumed that all roots in PIE began with a
> consonant, hence there were no roots of the
structure V(C). The simplest root structure in
PIE would thus have been CV, as in the nom. sg.
masc. of the demonstrative + pronoun *so ‘this’.
Usually, more complex structures are found,
ranging from CVC to (s)CRVRC/s (where R =
sonorants: liquids /r/, /l/, nasals /m/, /n/, and
approximants /i/, /uf); cf. CVC *teg ‘cover’ (Lat.
tego), CVRC “bed ‘split’ (Lat. fi-n-dö), *brend®
‘bind’ (Goth. bindan), CRVC *prek ‘ask’ (Lat. pre-
cor), CRVR *k(“)jeu ‘move’ (Skt. cyav-), sRVC
*suep ‘sleep’ (Gk. hüpnos), sRVR *syel ‘burn’
(OE swelan), sCRVR *strey 'strew’ (Lat. strud),
sCRVRC *streug ‘be exhausted’ (Gk. strezigomai),
etc. The order of decreasing sonority to the left
and right of the central vowel excludes root
structures such as **RCV, **CVCR, etc. in Indo-
European, hence *klep is possible, but not **/kep.
As to the combinability of phonemes within a
root, some restrictions are recoverable (cf. May-
rhofer 1986:95 fn. 19, Szemerényi 1996:97—101,
Ringe 2008:7-9): a root cannot contain both a
voiced onset and coda, e.g, **ged (the root gud
attested in Sanskrit is probably an innovation,
cf. Mayrhofer loc. cit.). Also impossible are com-
binations of voiceless plosives and voiced aspi-
rates, e.g, *g4et, except when the voiceless sound
in the onset is preceeded by the PIE sibilant /s/.
Thus, possible combinations are (schematically)
*ket, *ked, “get, *ged*, *g*ed, *gted", and *steg",
but not **ged, **ked", or **g*et, Furthermore,
a combination of two phonemes as onset and
coda with the same place of articulation is not
allowed in PIE, e.g. **ted or **mep. This restric-
tion also applies to the three series of tectal plo-
sives in PIE, i.e. palatals, velars and labio-velars,
hence **kek, **k*ek, while roots with different
tectals can be reconstructed, e.g, *kenk ‘hang’,
*krek ‘beat’, *k”ek ‘see’, *kneig”* ‘incline’ (Ringe
loc. cit.). The restriction does not, hawever, apply
to the PIE sibilant /s/ nor to the laryngeals (*A,,
hy, hg), as roots such as *ses ‘to sleep’ (Skt. sas,
Hitt. ses) and *h,reh, ‘to row’ (Gk. eréa) show. In
a complex onset consisting of three non-syllabic
elements the first can only be the sibilant /s/ fol-
lowed by a stop and a resonant, e.g. *streu (see
above). Onsets with two resonants are rare, e.g.
*mieyuh, ‘to speak’ (Skt. brdviti, Toch, B patwar),
*mneh, ‘to have in mind’ (Gk. mimneskö, mndo-
mai, probably not originally a root, but a deriva-
tive of *men ‘think’), *mieuh, ‘to move’ (Lat.
moved, Skt. mivati), *ureg ‘to trace’ (Skt. vraj-, Lat.
urgeo), cf. also Kurytowicz (ig68:goff.) (+ Indo-
European Linguistic Background).
4. ABLAUTING ROOTS
As the root vowel is determined by the ablaut pat-
tern of the morphological categories, we obtain a
series of forms combining different types of root
and ablaut. In ablauting roots containing R the
zero-grade implied its syllabicity (here marked
<R>) between consonants:
e-grade o-grade é-grade ö-grade zero-
grade
ı Ce CoC Cec CoC cc
2 CeR CoR CéR CoR CR/R
CeRC CoRC CeRC CoRC CRC
CReC CRoC CRéC CROC CRC
 ROOT STRUCTURE (AND ABLAUT) 253

Examples:

e-grade o-grade é-grade ö-grade zero-grade

3 Lat. teg-ö ‘cover’ tog-a ‘garment’ tex-i‘l covered’

Lat. ped-is ‘foot’ Gk. pod-ds Lat. pes Goth. fotus Gk, epi-bd-a
(gen.sg.) ‘foot’ (gen.sg.) foot’ (nom.sg.) ‘foot’ (nom.sg.) ‘day after the
festival’
2 Gk. ten-d ‘Iwill tön-os ‘cord, ta-tös
stretch’ stretching’ (<*tm-tos)
‘stretched!
Gk. despötes Lat. dom-us Arm. town < Arm. tan
< *dem-s pot- ‘house’ * dam ‘house' < *dm-o/es
‘master of the ‘house’
house’ (gen.sg.)
3 Goth. wairpan warp < “uorg™- waurpum
< *yerg”- ‘to ‘I threw’ < *urg”- ‘we
throw’ threw’
Gk. leip-ö 'Tleave' le-Ioip-a ‘I have é-lip-on ‘I left’
left’
4 Gk. tréph-6 1 té-troph-a e-trdph-én
feed’ ‘TL have fed’ (<*e-trp"-)
‘T was fed’
Gk. klépt-6 ké-kloph-a'l klöps ‘thief e-kldp-én
‘| steal’ have stolen’ (<*e-klp-)
‘T was robbed’

5. BENVENISTE’S ROOT THEORY laryngeal hypothesis Benveniste described what

While it is uncontroversial that the simple root
type CV(C) cannot be derived from any sim-
pler structure, roots with more consonants have
been taken to derive from simpler roots by “raot
enlargements” (Germ. Wurzelerweiterung, Wur-
zeldeterminativ; for a short history of research
see the references in Taillardat 1984175 and Sze-
merenyi 1996201), e.g. in *¢*ey-d ‘pour’ (Goth.
giutan, Lat. fu-n-d-ere) beside *g*ey ‘id.’ (Gk.
khe(w)ö, Skt. Au) and in Skt. dra-ti ‘runs’ (Gk.
aor. apé-dra ‘ran away’) beside dram-a-ti ‘id.’
(Gk. aor. é-dram-on ‘I ran')and also drdv-a-ti
‘id,’ (Gaul. (river name) Dru-entia) which seem
to speak for a basic root “dre enlarged with
*-hy-, *-m- and *-u-, respectively (cf. Szemerényi
1996:100ff.). However, since these enlargements
are reconstructed ad hoc for any root in ques-
tion, their explanatory power is void. A signifi-
cant improvement was made by Benveniste (see
especially Benveniste 1935:147-173) who distin-
guished non-ablauting “élargissements” from the
ablauting suffixes such as *-4-/-ew- that he saw in
root alternations of the type *déru: *dréu, *déju :
*diéy, etc. Taking into account de Saussure’s
in earlier literature had been labelled “disyl-
labic” roots, e.g. ““qweiya” ‘to live’, as consisting
of the root *gӎi enlarged by an ablauting suffix
*-(e)hy-, ie, *g”éi-hg- beside *g™{-éhg-. The form
with full-grade of the root and zero-grade of
the suffix he termed ‘theme I’, the opposite case
‘theme Il’. This assumption seems to account for
a large number of cases of what otherwise had
been called “Schwebeablaut”, i.e., a vacillation of
the position of the full-grade within the root as
in Gk. (w)erg-on 'work' beside (w)réz-6 < *wreg-id
‘do’ or in Gk. auxdno ‘increase’ beside aexö ‘id.’
(*hoeugs : "hauegs), In Benveniste’s system all
roots are originally monosyllabic and “trilitére’,
Le., of the structure CeC (an assumption contra-
dicted by forms such as *so, see above), and any
root may receive both a suffix and an enlarge-
ment. However, it may neither have two suffixes
nor a suffix and two enlargements, e.g. *uer may
carry a suffix -g- (“theme I”: *uer-g-, "theme II":
*ur-eg-) that, if the root is in state II, may be fur-
ther enlarged, e.g, *ur-eg-u- or *ur-eg-{-. In state 1
no enlargement is possible, since neither two full
grades (**per-ek-) nor a succession of two zero-
grades (**per-k-s-) are allowed.
254 ROOT STRUCTURE (AND ABLAUT)
The dissection of roots into ever simpler ele-
ments enlarged by suffixes and/or “élargisse-
ments” leads Benveniste to posit etymological
connections between words otherwise classified
as belonging to different roots, e.g. *nek ‘dis-
appear, perish; (caus.) kill’ (Skt. mas, Lat. nex,
nocére, Gk. neküs, nekrös) is analyzed as theme Il
““an-ek-", i.e., with a suffix *-ek-, beside theme |
“*gén-k-" which he finds in Hitt. Aenkan- ‘mort
fatale’ and Gk. andnké (which together would
specify *3 as *h,) (Benveniste 1935154-155).
However, if Gk. neküs and nekrös belonged
to this ‘root’, one would expect a prothetic
vowel /a/(<*hy, i.e, *aneküs, *anekros), hence
the connection must be abandoned (for a dif-
ferent etymology for Hitt. henkan- cf. Kloek-
horst 2008:339-340, for Gk. andnké cf. Beekes
2010:1.97). The anatomizing process leads to the
assumption of “roots” that are unattested, i.e.,
that cannot be reconstructed by the comparative
method (cf. Szemerényi 1996232). For example,
in order to connect *syep ‘sleep’ with Gk. heido
‘id.’ Benveniste posits a root “sey suffixed with
*-d- on the one hand and with *-(e)p- on the
other; what is generally assumed to be a root of
its own, “syep, would thus be a théme Il of *sew.
However, there is no other evidence for such
a root. Finally, there is no functional descrip-
tion of the élargissements and the suffixes Ben-
veniste posits for the proto-language (Taillardat
198428if.). The problem present in the theory of
“Wurzelerweiterungen” thus remains.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek.
Leiden.
Benveniste, Emile. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en
indo-europeen. Paris.
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Erymological dictionary of the Hit-
tte inherited lexicon. Leiden.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1968. Indagermanische Grammatik. Vol,
2: Akzent. Ablaut. Heidelberg,
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1992. Ftymologisches Wörterhuch des
Altindoarischen. Heidelberg.
——. 1986. Indagermanische Grammatik. 2. Halbband: Laut-
fehre. Heidelberg.
Ringe, Donald A, 2008. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-
Germanic, Oxford.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1879. Mémoire sur le systeme primitif
des voyelles dans les langues indo-europeennes. Leipzig
[repr. Hildesheim, 1987].
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European
linguistics. Oxford.
Taillardat, Jean. 1984. “La théorie benvenistienne de la
racine: quelques faits grecs”. In: £. Benveniste aujourd htui,
ed. by Guy Serbat, Jean Taillardat and Gilbert Lazard,
175-182. Paris,
DANIEL KÖLLIGAN
Rosetta Stone
The Rosetta Stone is famous for the crucial
part it played in the decipherment of the hiero-
glyphic script by Jean-Francois Champollion in
1822. It was discovered in mid-July 1799 to the
north of the village of Rosetta (el-Rashid) in the
western Nile Delta, during Napoleon's expedi-
tion to Egypt, by a French detachment under the
command of a Lieutenant of Engineers named
Pierre Frangois Xavier Bouchard. According to
the most plausible account, the stone was found
embedded in an old wall that prevented workers
from extending the foundations of the fortress
known as ‘Fort Julien’. Before being reused as
building material, it is likely that the stone first
arrived in Rosetta as a ship's ballast sometime
during the medieval period. It consists of a large
fragment of a stela of grey granodiorite stone
with pink veining, often misidentified as basalt
before its cleaning, measuring 112.3 cm in height,
75.7 cm in width, 28.4 cm in thickness, and
weighing about 762 kg (Parkinson 2005:7). The
stone is quite damaged, as it is missing a large
part of the upper left corner, a small portion of
the upper right edge, as well as the lower right
comer. The original stela, the height of which
can be estimated at ca 149 cm, probably had a
rounded top with a lunette which showed the
winged sun disk above a scene depicting the
king before various deities. It was set up in a
temple, most likely in Sais, an ancient city situ-
ated on the same branch of the Nile as Rosetta.
This stela was inscribed with a trilingual
decree issued at Memphis by a synod of Egyp-
tian priests, on 27 March 196 BCE, for the cel-
ebration of the anniversary of the coronation of
king Ptolemy V Epiphanes (205-180 BCE). The
linguistic and cultural diversity of Egypt during
this period is the reason why this text, known
as the Memphis Decree, was written in two dif-
ferent stages of the Egyptian language, namely,
Classical Egyptian and Demotic, as well as
Greek, and three different scripts: hieroglyphic
(top, 14 lines preserved out of an estimated total
of 29), Demotic (center, 32 lines), and Greek
(bottam, 54 lines) (+ Epigraphy). The question
of whether the original draft was in Demotic
or Greek has been much debated, but it can
also be argued that both versions were com-
posed simultaneously by a bilingual priesthood
(Simpson 1996:22-24) (> Bilingualism in Helle-
nistic Egypt). As for the hieroglyphic version, it is
generally considered to be a translation from the
 ROSETTA STONE
The Rosetta Stone. From Budge, E. A. Wallis. 1913. The Rosetta Stone. London, frontispiece
Demotic (Clarysse 1999:52-53) (> Translation in
Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Models),
The purpose of the decree was to establish a cult
in honor of the king in the Egyptian temples in
gratitude for his favors and services to Egypt,
such as the granting of priestly privileges, the
defense of Egypt, the victory over the rebels, and
the promotion of the sacred animal cults. Other
fragmentary copies of the same decree are also
known (Simpson 1996:4-5), while similar bilin-
gual or trilingual inscriptions have been discov-
ered as well (Clarysse 1999:42-43). The Rosetta
Stone was confiscated from the French by the
British, brought to England in February 1802,
and deposited in the British Museum, where it
is still exhibited today as registered ‘Egyptian
Antiquity 24’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Budge, E. A. Wallis. 1913. The Rosetta Stone. London.
Clarysse, Willy. 1999. “Ptolémées et temples”. In: Le décret
de Memphis: Colloque de la Fondation Singer-Polignac a
255
foccasion de ia célébration du bicentenaire de la decou-
verte de fa Pierre de Rosette, ed, by Dominique Valbelle
and Jean Leclant, 41-65. Paris.
Parkinson, Richard. 1999. Cracking codes: the Rosetta Stone
and decipherment. Berkeley.
——. 2005. The Rosetta Stane. London.
Quirke, Stephen and Carol Andrews. 1988. The Reasetia Stone:
facsimile drawing. London.
Sethe, Kurt. 1916. Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-
römischen Zeit Ii: Historisch-biographische Urkunden aus
den Zeiten der Könige Ptolemdus Soter und Ptolemäus V.
Epiphanes, 166-198. Leipzig.
Simpson, R. 5. 1996. Dernotic grummar in the Ptolernuic sucer-
dotal decrees, 4-5 (0.1.3), 7-13 (0.2.1), 19-24 (0.3), 258-271,
289. Oxford.
Spiegelberg, Wilhelm. 1922. Der demotische Text der Priester-
dekrete von Kanopus und Memphis (Rosettana) mit den
hieroglyphischen und griechischen Fassungen und deut-
scher Uehersetzung nebst demotischem Glossar, 38-65,
77-86. Heidelberg,
FRANCOIS GAUDARD
Sandhi
The term 'Sandhi', coined by ancient Indic
grammarians, literally means ‘joining’. While
extremely widespread in Sanskrit itself - hence
the term - sandhi also appear in many other
languages, including Ancient Greek. The term
refers to the + phonological changes that occur
across morphemes or words. When these affect
words at their boundaries, we talk about external
sandhi and contrast them with internal sandhi,
i.e., those that apply at morpheme edges. Greek
sandhi phenomena can be informally classi-
fied into three groups: (1) hiatus-related sandhi,
(2) non-hiatus-related, and (3) consonantal.
1. HIATUS-RELATED SANDHI
This group contains several processes, all of
which militate against hiatus. + Hiatus occurs
when two vowels belonging to different syllables
are placed side-by-side, as in na.ds ‘temple’. Greek
circumvents it through various strategies, Word-
internally, we find contraction (internal sandhi);
across word boundaries, a wider range of pro-
cesses is admitted, namely, > crasis, - elision,
+aphaeresis and the + movable consonants
(external sandhi).
~ Contraction and crasis are essentially the
same process, that is, the fusion of two succes-
sive vowels into one, but differ in their domain
of application (morphemes vs. words, respec-
tively). In both cases, the original vowels may
either consist of two simple vowels or of one
vowel and a diphthong. The product of fusion is
always long (single vowel or diphthong).
Contraction usually applies in positions where
an original *A, *s, */ or — much later on - *w
deleted intervocalically, rendering the neighbor-
ing vowels adjacent. Some basic rules of contrac-
tion are as follows (for details and exceptions,
see +Contract Verbs, > Contraction; Kühner
& Blass 1890/1992, Goodwin 1900, Smyth 1956,
Sihler 1995:80-82, Probert 2010:96—99):
a. Identical vowels merge into a single long one
of their shared quality, philééte > philéte ‘you
love-subj. 2 pl.’, deldö > délé ‘I manifest’;
b. dissimilar vowels merge, keeping the quality
of one of the two, depending on the vow-
els involved; compare fimdä > timö ‘I honor,
deem worthy’ vs. imp. hörae > hörä ‘look’;
however, if the adjacent vowels may form a
ne
diphthong, then this is preferred over merg-
ing them into one vowel, génesi > génei ‘race-
dat.sg.’ (where it remains as a diphthong).
Note that contraction often generates ‘spurious’
diphthongs (+ Diphthongs and — Phonetics).
Overall, contraction is frequent in + Attic, but
much rarer in Homer. Its (non)application may
also be determined by metrical needs. Hack-
stein (2010:407) provides the following example:
Tudelde, met’ dr me mal’ ainee mété ti nelkei ‘Son
of Tydeus, praise me not more, neither blame me
at all' (/l. 10.249). Of the two bold strings, the first
presents non-contraction (ee), whereas the latter
emerges contracted (ei = /e:/).
Crasis, e.g. he aner > häner ‘the man-nom.sg.',
pro ekhön > protikhon ‘excelling’ (ou = long close
/o:/), is especially common in poetry and quite
frequent with the orators. It generally applies
when the first word is an article, a relative Ad
 SANDH!
or hd or the monosyllabic kai ‘and’, prö ‘before’,
exclamation d. Although crasis largely follows the
rules of contraction, the two processes diverge in
some respects (see the corresponding lemmas
above and Goodwin 190016).
Elision eradicates hiatus by deleting a word-
final vowel before a vowel-initial word, edök(a)
ennéa ‘| gave nine’, ant(i) ekeinés ‘instead of her’.
Elision primarily appears in poetry, but it must
have also affected oral speech. In epic and comic
poetry elision sometimes applies on the ai of
the verbal endings -mai, -sai, -tai and the infini-
tive -sthai (-thai). In tragedy, of of oimoi ‘alas’ is
elided. Elision is avoided in prose; this is espe-
cially true for some writers, e.g. Thucydides, over
others such as Isocrates and Demosthenes. The
process is also applicable in + compounding, e.g.
oudeis ‘no one' < oude heis, kathordo ‘look down
upon’ < kata huraö.
Aphaeresis, also called inverse elision, closely
resembles elision, the difference being that the
deleted vowel - virtually always e - is initial in
the second word. Aphaeresis usually occurs after
the words me ‘not’ and é ‘or’, e.g. me egö > me ‘gd
‘not I’, poü estin > pod 'stin ‘where is’.
Some movable consonants also tackle hia-
tus. The consonant n (labeled ephelkustikon =
dragging after) adjoins to words ending in -si,
-e (3 sg.) and to esi? ‘is’ when the next word
is vowel-initial, hence, päsi didösi taüta ‘(he/
she) gives these to all’, but pasin edöken ekeina
‘(he) gave those to all’. In contrast, the s in
hotités ‘thus’ and ex ‘out of’ disappears when
the following word begins with a consonant, cf.
houtös epoiei ‘he acted thus’ vs. houtö poiei ‘he
acts thus‘. Presumably while the presence of s
before a vowel-initial word is justified so as to
obstruct hiatus, its retention before a consonant
merely complicates syllable structure and thus
is avoided (~+ Syllables). The negative particle ou
emerges with comparable variants; as ou before
consonant-initial words or clause-finally, as ouk
before smooth breathing (simple modal vowel)
and as oukh before rough breathing (A, i.e,, ini-
tially aspirated vowel). In addition, the plain
stops p, t, k - when occurring as the products of
elision and crasis - become aspirated ph, th, kh
when a rough breathing follows (Smyth 1956:31},
nukt(a) hölen > nukhth’ hölen ‘the whole night’,
met(a) hiemi > methiémi ‘I let go’.
257
2. NON-HIATUS-RELATED SANDHI
This group comprises vowel shortening and
~ apucope (external sandhi). In Homeric scan-
sion and occasionally in inscriptions, a word-
final long vowel or diphthong shortens when
the next word begins in a vowel (+ Metron).
Apocope is like elision but applies before con-
sonant-initial words, e.g. apö > ap, pard > par. It
is common in Homer and in many dialects, but
very rare in Attic-lonic.
3. CONSONANTAL SANDHI
This final set of sandhi receives mere cursory
mention, since it encompasses multiple pro-
cesses that involve consonant-consonant or
consonant-vowel interaction (+ Consonant
Changes). Noteworthy processes in this group
are + assimilation and deletion (either across
morphemes or across words). For example, s
deletes between vowels that belong to different
morphemes, e.g. genes-os > géne-os (uncon-
tracted, e.g. in Homer) > genous (with con-
traction, as in Attic) ‘of a race’. The nasal n
assimilates to the place of articulation of the
following consonant, either partially as in
en-piptö > empiptö ‘fall upon’ or totally before a
liquid or another nasal, as in en-menö > emmenö
‘abide by’, sun-logos > süllogos ‘assembly’. The
same pattern emerges across word boundaries
too in some dialects, cf. tam pölemon ‘the war-
acc.sg’, ton ndmous ‘the laws-acc.pl.' as well
as in forms that have undergone apocope, e.g.
kat(a)-bale > kdébbale ‘threw down’, kat(a)-désai
> kaddüsai ‘entering into’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. 1987. Vox Graeca: the pronunciation of Clas-
sical Greek, 3rd ed. Cambridge.
Bakker, Egbert J., ed. 2010. A companion to the ancient Greek
language. Malden, MA - Oxford.
Buck, Carl D. 1955. Introduction to the study af the Greek
dialects: grammar, selected inscriptions, glossary, and ed.
Boston.
Goodwin, William W. tgoo, Greek grammar. Boston.
Hackstein, Olav. 2010. “The Greek of epic’. In: Bakker
2010:401-423.
Kühner, Raphael and Friedrich Blass. 18go/igg2. Ausführli-
che Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Hannover.
Probert, Philomen. 2010. “Phonology”. In: Bakker 2010:85~
103.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik, vol, 4.
Munich.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. New York - Oxford,
258
Smyth, Herbert W. 1956. Greek grammar. Revised by Gordon
M. Messing, Cambridge, MA.
Vendryes, Joseph. 1904. Tratté d'accentuation grecque. Paris.
NINA TOPINTZ1
Saronic
In Greek dialectology, the term Saronic is used
to refer to the common variety of West Greek
dialect spoken in the regions around the Saronic
Gulf, Corinth, Megara and East Argolis, at the
middle of the qth c. BCE (+ Doric). At that time,
West Argolic had a long vowel system that was
closely related to that of the other dialects spoken
around the Saronic Gulf, but differed from that
of East Argolic (> Argolic). To account for this
difference, Bartonék (1975) introduced the schol-
arly convention of applying the term Saronic to
refer to such dialects, This practice could imply
that the Saronic dialects come from a genetically
unified group, a view that entails that East and
West Argolic did not make up a genetic dialec-
tal unit. Although the inhabitants of the region
called Argolis seem to have belonged to the same
original ethnic group, it is generally agreed that
East Argolic shared a ‘Mild Doric’ long vowel
system with Corinthian and Megarian, that is, a
seven long vowel system after the + compensa-
tory lengthenings and isovocalic + contractions.
West Argolic, on the other hand, is reported to
belong to the ‘Strict Deric’ group, and has a five
long vowel system, at least after the first com-
pensatory lengthening. It is interesting to note
that the region named Argolis in antiquity was
divided into two geographical areas separated by
mountains; the territory of Argos and the Akte
peninsula, which is adjacent to the Saronic Gulf
(Hansen & Nielsen 2004).
Any implication that the Saronic dialectal
group contradicts an originally unitary Argolic
dialect has become controversial insofar as it
goes against the traditional view according to
which East and West Argolic are secondary
branches of a common original Argolic dialect.
Another point of controversy stems from the
paucity of ancient attestations of Megarian and
Corinthian. If the Saronic dialects constitute a
genetically unitary proup, the features that are
shared by East and West Argolic would be the
outcome of one or more secondary processes of
convergentce. At any rate, the Saronic hypothesis
SANDHI
is at least suitable when referring to the dialectal
distribution within the region of Argolis at the
middle of the 4th c. BCE.
When undertaking the difficult task of provid-
ing a linguistic account of the prehistory of the
dialect or dialects spoken in the region of Argo-
lis, several premises must be taken inte account:
(1) the linguistic usage of the term Argolic from
an early period does not necessarily refer to a
common ethnic group; (2} the existence of geo-
graphical units within the region of Argolis can
help us hypothesize about its or their spoken
dialects, but geographical distribution may not
coincide with dialectal areas.
From a linguistic point of view, it is important
to establish whether East Argolic existed from
the very beginning of the settlement, forming
with Corinthian and Megarian an archaic proto-
type of ‘Mild Doric’, or, on the contrary, the two
Argolic varieties emerged more recently. In any
case, a hypothetical unity of the Argolic dialect
must be based on linguistic grounds, taking into
account phonetic, grammatical and lexical fea-
tures. If we can confirm that the Argolic variants
share non-trivial features based on available evi-
dence, we might assume that they belonged to
the same linguistic community. As Colvin (2010)
says “to some extent the problem reduces to
the theoretical question of how many isoglosses
constitute a dialect”. Three common character-
istics have been highlighted by Nieto Izquierdo
(2005):
— the shift from /eo/ to /io/ is lexicalized in a
single word, thids (= theds 'god'). Therefore,
the spread of this change must have been
stigmatized;
— the aorist in -xa or -sa of -z6 verbs has a par-
ticular distribution, with -xa avoided in those
verbal roots that end with a velar stop;
- the preposition pof (from poti, Attic prds
‘towards’) only occurs before a dental stop,
These three features would be the only specific
linguistic remains of the ancient unitary Argolic
dialect that have been kept. Where the differ-
ences sprang from we do not know, but from
Classical times onwards, changes must have
occurred making East Argolic seemingly more
similar to the neighboring dialects of the Saronic
Gulf than to West Argolic. The probabilities of
linguistic innovations occurring and spreading

increase as time goes by, but homogenization
also occurs: three sub-dialectal areas have been
identified (Nieto Izquierdo 2005). The appear-
ance of new inscriptions in the future could
provide some relevant data.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartonék, Antonin. 1972. Classification of the West Greek
dialects at the time about 350 B.C. Amsterdam.
Colvin, Stephen. 2010. “Greek Dialects in the archaic and
classical Age". In: A Companion to the ancient Greek lan-
guage, ed. by Egbert, J. Bakker, 200-212. Malden, MA -
Oxford.
Hansen, Mogens Herman & Thomas Heine Nielsen. 2004.
An inventory of archaic and classical pateis. Oxford.
Nieto Izquierdo, Enrique. 2008. Gramatica de las inscrip-
ciones de la Argölide. Madrid,
ARACEL! STRIANO
Saussure’s Law
+ Vowel Changes
Schist Fragments from the Academy
Eighteen, mostly very small, inscribed schist
fragments were discovered during the period
Jul. 4-Oct. 2, 1958 in excavations by Phivos Stav-
ropoullos near Plato’s Academy (ca. 500 m. from
the late 6th-c. BCE Academy horos, IG P 105),
found in situ); these were found with numerous
(Stavropoullos: “hundreds”), mostly small, unin-
scribed schist fragments. Stavropoullos’ Acad-
emy excavations (1955-1963) and accompanying
finds remain unpublished. Inaccessible until the
appearance of Balatsos (1991), all 18 inscriptions
finally received definitive publication in Thre-
atte (2007), based on ten years of examining
the actual fragments in storerooms, including
consultation with other scholars, and using not
only the excavation reports, but also Stavropoul-
los’ own hand-written field notebooks for 1938
and 1959, provided by the Third Ephorate
Antiquities of Greece. One fragment is opistho-
graphic; 2 others are thought by some scholars
to match so that they can be joined. Of 13 tiny
fragments (several can be placed on one’s palm,
cf. Threatte 2007:Pl. 5) only a few have interpre-
table text. Of 4 medium-sized pieces (up to ca.
0.015 thick) 3 contain recognizable lexemes. One
fragment (M3946), exceptionally larger (0.555 x
SARONIC 259
0.238, thickness up to 0.035) than all others
(inscribed and uninscribed), is also unique if,
as it appears, it preserves finished edges (on top
and partially preserved right and left sides); but
this is disputed, Its crudeness, poor alignment,
and variation in individual letters are typical
(Threatte 2007:Pl. 28-34).
The two-line text (vacantur both sides):
A@INA APIZ APTEMI [Athind Aris Artemi]
AIMOS.O@E [Dimosothe] (= Dimos{o}thé(nés), or
dimos ha the(ds) [R. S. Strond]).
Stavropoullos theory (mentioned AJA 63
[1959]:280) that these fragments were slates of
schoolboys, who, learning to write, inscribed
letters with a nail or pin, received wide, uncriti-
cal acceptance because of the texts’ inacces-
sibility and poor photographs. But their hard
surface cannot be inscribed with pins; many
letter-strokes are deep, certainly made with
tools, probably knife-blades, not chisels. Tool
use rules out the schoolboys’ slates interpreta-
tion, as does the immense size of M3g946 (weigh-
ing over 5 kilos). Another serious objection to
it is the impossibility of erasures to allow reuse
as slates: even shallowly inscribed lettering can-
not be erased. Intentional incompleteness in
some texts suggests doodling, passing time with
inscribing. Holes thought for attachment by
Stavropoullos are actually the result of deliber-
ate smashing with spikes. The small size of most
fragments suggests that they were all smashed
from only a few large slabs (like M3946?). The
holes and edge breakages certainly damaged
some letters. Dating is also highly controversial.
Doubts persist whether the fragments, found at
different depths in a locality often flooded, were
in a stratified deposit. Using pottery (unpub-
lished), the (8) crossbun thetas (cease ca. 480
BCE), an L-like Attic lambda, and 3-barred sig-
mas, Stavropoullos suggested an early 4th-c. BCE
date, even ca. 450-400. In fact all sigmas are
4-barred, L is not a nurmal Attic lambda, the
of
thetas seem not otherwise archaic. lota for eta
and rhos (7) with sublinear verticals (not before
300 CE in Attica) (4 also have unparalleled sub-
linear tops) indicate lateness. Persistent rumors
that the fragments were carved by the workmen
are disproved by deposits laid down in letter-
strokes and wear along their broken edges. Final
dating must await publication of the whole exca-
vation, if even then attainable.
260 SCHIST FRAGMENTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Balatsos, Panagiotis. 1991. “Inscriptions from the Academy”,
ZPE 8645-154.
Brixhe, Claude. z2ao0. “Les ‘ardoises' de l'Académie", Philaky-
pros. Mélanges de philologie et d'antiquités grecques et
proche-orientales dédiés a {a mémoire d’Olivier Masson, ed.
by L. Dubois and Emilia Masson, 61-89. Minos, Supple-
ment 16, Salamarıca.
Stavropoullus, Phivos. “Anaskaphai Arkhaias Akademias”,
PAAH 195812; 1959:8; 1960:321 (published excavation
reports), Athens.
Threatte, Leslie. 2007. The inscribed schist fragments from
the Athens Academy excavations. Athens (contains earlier
hihlingraphy) {= SEG 57-19; cf. SFG 56.40)-
LESLIE THREATTE
Schwa Secundum
‘Schwa secundum’ refers to an epenthetic vowel
inserted to break up certain word-initial conso-
nant clusters in Proto-Indo-European (Fortson
2010:68). In the standard version of this theory
(Schindler 1977:31, Mayrhofer 1986:175-177), the
word-initial sequence #(s)TTRV- is adjusted
to #(s)T..TRV-, where T = obstruent, R = reso-
nant (i.e, liquid, nasal, or glide), V = vowel (or
other syllabic segment), period indicates + syl-
lable boundary, and subscript “e” indicates the
position of the inserted vowel (although other
notations are also used, such as subscript “a”
[schwa] or superscript “o”), Such sequences
tend to occur in PIE zero grades (+ Ablaut) (i.e.,
root forms with no vowel at all), where #(s)TT-
is the zero grade of a PIE root, and RV- cor-
responds to suffixal material. The best-known
example involves the PIE word for the number
‘4: its initial syllable had e-grade vocalism in
some forms, as in nom. pl. *k”etwores (> Att. Gk.
téttares, Old Church Slavic éetyre, Welsh pedwar,
etc.); but other forms had zero grade in the first
two syllables, as in loc. pl. *k*twrsu, which thus
displays the typical schwa secundum context.
The regular result of schwa secundum in Greek
is /i/ (Lejeunc 1972:208), hence the ivocalism of
Hom. (Aeol.) pisures ‘4’ (nom, pl., but based on
the zero grade *k™,.twy-). Another example is
the nasal-infixed (+ Nasal Presents) verb stem
PIE *pt-ne-h,- ‘spread’ > “p,.tnehg-, whence
Gk. pitnémi ‘spread out’. (The regular result of
schwa secundum in Italic is /a/, hence the Latin
cognates: Lat. quattuor ‘4’, pandö ‘spread out’.)
Examples like pétnémi (Iliad and later) and (with
similar structure and background) skidnamai
‘be scattered’ (/liad and later) led to the analogi-
FROM THE ACADEMY
cal extension of é-vocalism in the initial syllables
of forms with similar morphology, e.g. kirnémi
‘mix’ (Odyssey and later), krimnemi ‘hang’ (Pin-
dar and later).
The original version of the theory (Güntert
1916), formulated in terms of a poorly-defined
PIE ‘reduced grade’, was highly unconstrained;
the theory was designed to address many prob-
lems of Indo-European vocalism that have now
been solved in other ways, and most of Güntert's
proposals have been abandoned. (On the term
‘schwa secundum’, as opposed to 'schwa pri-
mum’, see Mayrhofer 1986:176-177.)
Forms like Aidriid ‘establish’ (< *s..dru-ye/o-,
based on the zero grade of PIE *sed- ‘sit’) show
that for the schwa secundum context in Greek,
the initial “T” (in the above formula) is not
restricted to stops, It has also been suggested
(Vine 1999) that the same process accounts for
the i-vacalism of some Gk. forms with other
environments, e.g., rhiza ‘root’ (Myc. wi-ri-za)
< (oblique stem-form) *wr..dyV- and rhimpha
‘swiftly < “wr.nkhwa. There may also be
instances in which the process applied, within
Greek, to medial sequences -TRRV- (> -T..RRV),
as in the fem. + agent noun allomorph Myc.
-ti-ra, |-tirra/, Thess. -tarra (< *terra), Hom.
(Aeal,) -teira (all ultimately from *t.rya < PIE
*tr-ih,) and Att. oiktirö have pity’ < Proto-Gk.
*oikt,.rye/o-, denominative to oiktrös ‘pitiable’.
(See on these forms Hajnal 2007:151-152.) The
morphological background of Gk. rhiza and the
inner-Greek word-medial examples suggest that
the PIE vowel-insertion processes persisted into
the development ofthe individual IE languages.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. zo1o. Indo-European language and
culture: an introduction. Chichester.
Güntert, Hermann, 1916. Indogermanische Ablautprobleme:
Untersuchungen über Schwa secundum, einen zweiten
indogermanischen Murmelvokal. Strasshurg.
Hajnal, Ivo. 2007. "Die Vorgeschichte der griechischen
Dialekte: ein methodischer Rück- und Ausblick.” In: Die
altgriechischen Dialekte: Weser und Werden, ed. by Ivo
Hajnal, 131-156. Innsbruck.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonetique historique du nıycenien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik I/a:
Lautlehre. Heidelberg.
Schindler, Jochem. 1977. “A thomy problem”, Die Sprache
23:25-35.
Vine, Brent. 1999. “Greek rhlza ‘root’ and ‘schwa secundum.’ “
In: UCLA Indo-European Studies, vol. 1, ed. by Vyacheslav
Ivanov and Brent Vine, 1-27. Los Angeles,
BRENT VINE
 SCHWEBEABLAUT
Schwebeablaut
In addition to the normal Indo-European (= IE)
ablaut alternation *e ~ o ~ @ in the roots of the
shapes CeC (including CeR[C], ReC, and ReR)
where the position of the ablauting + vowel does
not change (> Root Structure (and Ablaut)),
some have suggested another kind of ablaut
with a regular alternation in the position of the
vowel. Such a vowel “hovers” (Germ. schweben)
around a medial resonant (R). This is ‘Schwe-
beablaut’, or ablaut of the heavy bases or disyl-
labic roots (i.e., roots of the type CeRH, a subtype
of CeRC, in which *H>V (> Laryngeal Changes)).
Thus terna- ‘cut’ (*temhz-), aro- ‘plow’ (*hzerh;-),
and bele- ‘throw/hit’ (*g*elh,-) display two syl-
lables (as also in Sanskrit in parallel situations).
Forms with the vowel before R give so-called
‘state I’, those with the vowel after it ‘state Il".
When one writes in both vowels, one gets the
heavier underlying roots/bases CeReC (still there
in Szemerényi 1996:89-92 with CeReH repre-
sented as CeRV). A sequence like CeCR does not
belong here (although such is often maintained)
because a morpheme boundary emerges, as in
pet-r- ~ pt-er- ‘fly’. A source of confusion in Greek
has been the -RH- roots, in which the zero grade
produces -RV-, whether state I or II, as seen in
the table below.
I I zero 1 ll zero
tema- tmä- — —
bele- ble- ple- ple-
boro- bro- gnö- gnö-
The strongest piece of evidence has been the
pair gene- ‘be born’ and ynö- ‘recognize’, Com-
bination of these suggests a base CeReH. But
the situation is not after all so clear: note the
perfect passive participles gnétds vs. gnotds with
seemingly different laryngeals. To combine the
semantics of these two roots also results in some
forced meanings, although there is some con-
tamination here and there (e.g. kinship by birth
vs. marriage). Generally, zero grade is avoided
for gnö- in IE, although a few analogical state
I's appear (e.g. Eng. can vs. Il know; and cf.
Goth. -kunds (1} vs. -kunps (II), both zero grade).
Furthermore, it is not valid to suggest alternat-
ing consonants in the same root (*genh,- vs.
*gneh,-). A case like polis ‘much’ is not a state
att
| to plé-, but rather labial + assimilation from
"pals (*plh,-u-; cf. Skt. puri). Benveniste (1935)
solidified a root theory whereby one cuts off a
word after the second consonant to get the root;
the remainder is considered an ‘extension’ (see
the historical table in Anttila 1969:20). Thus if
we understand *gen-h,- with root in full grade
and extension in zero grade vs. “gri-ehg- with the
ablaut grades reversed, the roots are the same,
but with different extensions showing Schwe-
beablaut between the units. In some cases differ-
ent extensions are a fact, cf. pétomai, petdomai
‘fly’ and ptéma ‘fall’, Often the semantic gamut
allowed is quite broad. In the case of *genh,- vs.
*gneh,-, however, there really is no reason to
connect the two roots.
The leading idea of Benveniste's root theory
was that it was central in verbs, with state II,
e.g. aorists (as opposed to metathesis triggered
by an s- cluster), There is no good evidence for
this, and more recently scholars, e.g., Rix (2001),
do not employ Schwebeablaut in discussions
of verbs, Cases such as (*)pet-r- - (*)pt-er- sug-
gest that it appears in nouns only. For döru a
root shape CeRR is impossible, and the forms
in fact bear witness to an archaic u-stem *dor-u,
oblique stem *dr-ew-. As the oblique stem is
often the base of derivation, we get *drew-o-
(Gmc. *trewa- > Eng, tree, Gk. *dém-dre[w]o-n-
> déndron “building tree’). Roots of the shape
CRR have the full grade CReR: *g*yem- (> khiön),
*dyew- (> Zeüs). The oblique stems in zero grade
“g*im- and *diw- produce *greim-n (> kheima,
original nom. pl. kheimön), and *deiwö- (> Lat.
deus, Skt. deva) (Antilla 1969:164, 171, cf. Gam-
krelidze and Ivanov 1995:210-13). Thus original
Schwebeablaut is only apparent, and rather
opaque in Greek (for the latter Greek shows a
different development: *diw-yo-s > dios). The
contamination or confusion caused by the suf-
fixes *mp- and *-wo- creates havoc here,
Greek allows vowels on either side of an R:
dérkomai/édrakon. Further remodeling based
on — analogy is also possible: *wrg-yö > *ardö,
“rhazo, and then the e from the aorist and the
noun érgon produce érdo ‘do’ and rhezö ‘deal,
perform’.
The only good Greek cases are déru/
(dem-)dre[wlon and petros/pterön (some ten
cases in IE in Anttila 1969:175-6, nineteen in
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:208). Peripheral
archaic inflection or derivation is involved here.
262 SCHWEBEABLAUT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anttila, Raimo. i969. Proto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut.
Berkeley - Los Angeles.
Benveniste, Emile. 1935. Origine de la formation des noms en
indo-europeen. Paris,
Gamkrelidze, Thomas and Vjadeslav V. Ivanov. 1995. /ndo-
European and the Indo-Europeans, vol. |. Berlin - New
York.
Rix, Helmut et al. 2001. Lexikon der indo-germanischen Ver-
ber. and ed. Wiesbaden.
Szemerényi, OswaldJ, L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European
linguistics. Oxford.
Raimo ANTTILA
Scientific Vocabulary
1, INTRODUCTION
Scientific language is a technical language used
by the experts of a scientific discipline to express
its content. Because the Greeks had no earlier
(foreign) scientific knowledge to build upon,
Greek scientific language is Greek-based and
closer to daily language than most of modern sci-
entific languages, whose vocabularies are mainly
based on Latin or Greek roots (+ Root Structure
(and Ablaut)).
To discuss scientific problems, scientists need
to use a language that enables them to achieve
two goals, both as precisely as possible: 1) to
describe a physical phenomenon, often previ-
ously unknown; 2) to derive conclusions from a
set of assumptions.
To a large extent the former goal pertains
to natural sciences, which privilege the phe-
nomenological description of the world in an
attempt to understand it; the latter goal is typical
of ‘deductive’ sciences like mathematics. Scien-
tific language adopts two different strategies to
achieve each goal. Greek medicine and biology
are the best examples to discuss the language
used to achieve goal 1, while mathematical lan-
guage is the best example for goal 2.
2. TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY FOR
DESCRIPTIVE SCIENCES
Greek scientific terminology is especially well
developed in the field of medicine and biology
where a precise description of tissues, organs,
illnesses, and so on is most important (+ Medi-
cal Vocabulary). In order to create a scientific
vocabulary there are three linguistic strategies.
The first and most ancient one is the use of exist-
ing terms. Already the Presocratics resemanti-
cized common Greek words with more specific
or charged meanings (e.g, arkhé, ‘beginning’, but
also ‘principle’; {ögos, ‘reason’, but also ‘ratio-
nal principle’ behind the cosmos). Hippocratic
writers also adopted commonly used terms for
organs like phiébes, generically ‘blood-vessels’ in
‘daily’ Greek but specifically ‘veins’ (opposed to
‘arteries’) in Hippocrates (+ Semantic Change).
The second strategy consists in the coinage of
new terms. The Greek language is particularly
generative through suffixation and compounding
(+ Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding);
+ Derivational Morphology; + Compounding/
Derivation/Construction Morphology). Typical
suffixes used in medicine to denote diseases,
inflammations and other sicknesses are: -ie/-ia
(eg. Ahaimorragia, ‘hemorrhage’); -itis (e.g.
arthritis, ‘inflammation of the joints’); -aina (e.g.
gängraina, ‘gangrene’); -smds (e.g. pepasmös,
‘suppuration’); -dön (e.g. spadön, ‘convulsion’.
Adjectives in -ikös often mean ‘suffering from’
(e.g. husterikös, ‘suffering in the womb’), Quali-
ties are described using suffixes -otes for nouns
(e.g. stegnötes, ‘density’) and -(i)odés/-eidés
for + adjectives (e.g. ikterfi)ödes, ‘jaundiced’,
kirsoeidés, ‘varicose’ from kirsés, ‘enlargement
of the vein’). + Verbs indicating ‘to suffer from’
are often + denominal in -(()dé (e.g. podagr(i)aö,
‘to have gout’), in -é@ (e.g. kephalalgéd, ‘suffer
from headache’), and in -ainö (e.g, puretainö,
‘to be feverish’), Compounding (+ Word For-
mation (paragögö/sünthesis), Ancient Theories
of) is less used than suffixation, but we find
privative a- (e.g. a-phlegmantos, ‘free from
inflammation’), dus- (e.g. dus-särkötos, ‘healing
with difficulty’, of ulcers), and eu- (e.g. eü-sarkos,
fleshy’). Sometimes prepositional prefixes are
used (e.g, hupd-leukos, ‘whitish’; peri-psukhros,
‘very cold’).
The third strategy consists in using terms from
other semantic fields metaphorically: words
from daily language indicating a common object
or phenomenon are used for a ‘new’, unknown
scientific object somehow resembling (usually
in its appearance or, more rarely, in its func-
tion) the common one. Metaphors (> Metaphor;
-+ Metaphor (Metaphorä), Ancient Theories of)
are especially used in anatomy and pathology.
They can come from similarity in shapes like,
for example, for bones: e.g. kerkis, ‘tibia’, but lit.
‘weaver's shuttle’; Aotulé, ‘socket of a joint’, but
lit. ‘cup’. Herophilus (ca, 330-260 BCE) even
 SCIENTIFIC VOCABULARY
called a pointed bone in the skull ‘pharoid pro-
cess’ in analogy to the Pharos of Alexandria.
Organs are also named metaphorically like iris,
lit. ‘rainbow’, but also ‘iris’ of the eye. In pathol-
ogy, khälaza, lit. ‘hail’, is a small eye-cyst or a
pimple in a swine.
Metaphors can also originate from similarity
in function: e.g. pulörös, the ‘gate-keeper’, is the
‘pylorus’ regulating what exits from the stomach;
pöros, lit. ‘strait’ in the sea, indicates also a ‘pas-
sage’ (‘pore’) in the skin as well as other ducts of
the body (e.g. womb, ovaries, esophagus). Many
internal membranes are called kAiton, ‘tunic’.
Even internal parts of the human body are
metaphorically called by the name of external -
hence known - parts of the human body with
which they share some similarities: e.g. the
‘head’ (kephalé) of the femur or of the heart; the
‘mouth’ (stéma) used for various orifices.
A particular subcategory of metaphors based
on the similarity between the anatomical part
and another ‘known’ object or reality includes
those taken from other disciplines. Metaphors
borrowed from biology include müs, ‘mouse’,
indicating the human muscle, or kokkux,
‘cuckoo’, for the coccyx. Pathology also borrows
from the animal world: karkinos, ‘crab’, for can-
cer; polüpous, ‘octopus’, for a skin excrescence
(> Zoonyms (Names of Mammals}). Botany pro-
vides e.g. rhiza, ‘root’ of a tooth, eye, or tongue;
sükon, ‘hg’, and krithe, ‘barley’, for excrescences
in the eye (+ Phytonyms (Names of Trees)).
Cross-borrowing happens between anatomy
and mechanics. Erasistratus (ca. 315-240 BCE)
describes the heart as a pump with valves. Con-
versely, machines can be described as human
bodies: for example, war-machines can have
legs’ (skélé), ‘heels’ (ptérnai), ‘arms’ (ankönes),
and ‘hands’ or 'claws' (kheires).
As for the criteria for medical and biological
terms, the names of the diseases are chosen
after the sick part of the body (e.g. nephritis,
‘kidney disease’), how the body is affected (e.g.
linothumia, ‘swoon’, from leipein, ‘to leave’, ‘to
be lacking’, and thumds, ‘life’, ‘spirit’}, how the
affected part looks (e.g. alphot, ‘dull-white lep-
rosy’), or how the patient feels (e.g. kaüsos, a
bilious remittent fever causing a ‘burning’ sensa-
tion). Some diseases are named after the first
who suffered from it: Galen knows of a ‘Chiro-
nian’ and a ‘Telephian’ type of ulcers. Similarly,
medical herbs are called after their first user (e.g.
Chiron’s and Asclepius’ all-heals), discoverer (e.g.
263
gentiané, ‘gentian' from the Illyrian king Gen-
tian) or from the place they grow (e.g. stoikhds,
the French lavender, from the Stoichades, the
modern [les d'Hyéres off the Céte d'Azur). The
‘anatomical’ place is also used to name parts of
the body in relation to others, e.g. metakdrpion
indicating the bones of the hand ‘after’ (meta)
the karpös, ‘wrist’.
Greek terminology for descriptive sciences is
thus rich and sophisticated. However, it is far
from perfect; for example, in medicine there is
no standardized and monosemous language and
the same organs can be named in different ways
(— Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiq-
uity and Byzantine Period).
The ~ syntax used by descriptive sciences is
rather standard. Some medical texts are char-
acterized by a pronounced rhetorical style,
especially those aimed at ‘persuading’ laypeople
that medicine is more accurate than magic, like
The Art of Medicine (+ Secret Language/Codes/
Magica] Language). Sometimes the first person
(> Deixis (including 1st and and Person)) is used
when the doctor wants to highlight his own
contribution to scientific research (following
the model of Herodotus’ historie). Also, medical
prose is sometimes not ‘syntactically’ correct; for
example, the Epidemics are rich in elliptic and
anacoluthic syntax more typical of notes than
polished prose (> Literary Prose), as a conse-
quence of the ‘research in progress’ that many of
these texts record.
3. TECHNICAL SYNTAX FOR DEDUCTIVE
SCIENCES
Beyond ‘naming’ new phenomena, objects,
organs, etc., science needs to convey logical rea-
soning. The deductive and abstract science par
excellence in Greece is geometry, which for us
represents the bulk of Greek mathematical pro-
duction and its most deductive branch. Geom-
etry is not so much concerned with ‘describing’
because geometric objects are small in number.
Therefore, geometric terminology, as compared
to medical terminology, is rather limited: e.g.
sémeion, ‘sign’, hence ‘point’; gonia, ‘corner’,
hence ‘angle’; küklos, ‘ring’, hence 'circle'; lögos,
‘reckoning’, hence mathematical ‘ratio’; stereds,
‘firm’, hence geometric ‘solid’; sphaira, ‘ball’,
hence ‘sphere’. Compounds are, for example,
trigonon, ‘triangle’, and tetrdgonon, ‘quadrilateral’
(but lit. ‘quadrangle’). Metaphorical names are
264 SCIENTIFIC VOCABULARY
pleurd, lit. ‘ribs’, for ‘side’ of figures, and kén-
tron, originally the horse-goad, then used for
any pointed objects, among which are the points
of a pair of compasses and hence the ‘center’ of
the circle.
In a proposition, however, geometric objects
are also named in a more abstract way, using
the letters of the + alphabet (denotative letters);
e.g. to A, said of point (sémeion) A; he AB, said
of straight line (eutheia gramme) AB; hé hupö
tén AB, BC, said of angle (gonia) (contained by
lines) AB, BC; td ABC, said of triangle (trigdnun)
ABC; td apö tes AB, said of square (tetragönon)
(described) on (straight line) AB.
These are precise designations of geometric
figures; however, they do not use any ‘technical’
terminology, but only + definite articles, letters,
and -+ prepositions. Articles and letters in par-
ticular helped the reader to identify clearly (with
the denotative letters} and unambiguously (with
the definite articles) the geometric objects dealt
with in the text in a time when symbolism was
absent from mathematical language.
Each mathematical proposition (i.e., either a
theorem or a problem) can be divided into five
parts (the fifth one being attested only in Euclid's
Elements): 1. Enunciation (protasis); 2. Setting-
out and determination (ékthesis and diorismds);
3. Construction (kataskeue); 4. Proof (apédeixis)
and 5. Conclusion (sumperasma).
In the enunciation, geometrical figures
are simply named without letters; theorems
are expressed with a ~+ conditional clause of
the type: edn, ‘if’, + aorist or present + subjunc-
tive in the protasis and present or future indica-
tive in the apodosis (e.g. Euc. EL 1.13: “If (eds)
a straight line set up on a straight line make
(poiei) angles, it will make (poiesei) either two
right angles or angles equal to two right angles”);
problems are formulated by the > infinitive used
as -+ imperative (e.g. Euc. El. 6.11: “To two given
straight lines, to find (proseurein) a third propor-
tional”) (+ Mood and Modality; + Mood (enkli-
sis); + Tense/Aspect; + Tense (khrönos)).
Setting-out, determination and construction
are characterized by the imperative (> present or
+ perfect) in the + middle > passive: the + focus
is on the geometrical object being set out or
constructed rather than on the + agent (e.g. Euc.
El. 8.22: “Let there he (éstosan)} three numbers A,
B, C in continued proportion"; Euc. El. 2.7: "Let
a square ADEB be described (anagegraphth6)
on AB"); here the resultative force of the perfect
helps to visualize the result of the construction.
The beginning of the proof is a paracondi-
tional structure introduced by epei, ‘since’, but
the rest of the proof is characterized by parataxis
and the use of many particles (> Particles) that
help to develop deductive arguments: alla, ‘but’;
ara, ‘therefore’; gar, ‘for; de, ‘while’; dé, ‘hence’.
In proofs, hypotaxis is present almost only in
‘reductio ad absurdum’ proofs which use ei, ‘if’,
+ present indicative in the protasis, and the
present or future indicative or imperative in
the apodosis: “For if possible (ei gar dunatön),
let (some property) be (estö) (true)", which is
always ring-compositionally concluded by:
“therefore (dra)...which is impossible (höper
estin adunaton). Therefore (dra)... (> negation
of the property)”.
in the conclusion, which repeats the enuncia-
tion, denotative letters are absent (theorems) or
they are present, but the verb (> Verb (rhéma),
Ancient Theories of) is conjugated into the per-
fect tense (problems).
Such a language with a small lexicon and
very peculiar syntactical choices tends to be
repetitive, so that scholars even speak of ‘= for-
mulaic language’ for Greek mathematics. This
language is also impersonal, as the first person
is rarely used and the author tends to disappear.
A notable exception is Diophantus, who often
employs the first person within proofs, while
normally the first person is limited in Euclid
(/L 300 BCE) and Archimedes (ca. 287-212 BCE)
to the determinations, introduced by “I say that"
(legö höti), and to a handful of formulaic expres-
sions within the proof, such as “similarly we shall
prove” (homoids de deixomen).
4. BETWEEN DESCRIPTIVE AND
DEDUCTIVE SCIENCES
The language of mechanics used for example in
llero's Pneumatica (first century CE) is hybrid:
superficially it is mathematical (use of denota-
tive letters and identical structure of a proposi-
tion); however, there is no real proof and no use
of inferential particles. Rather, this part is substi-
tuted with a description of how the machinery
works. Hero's Belopoeica still uses denotative
letters and often imperatives when describing
the constructions of the machineries, but in gen-
eral it is much more personal (frequent use of
 SCIENTIFIC VOCABULARY
verbs in the first person) and closer to standard
Greek prose.
Philo of Byzantium’s Belopoeica and what
remains of his Mekhanike Süntaxis (early second
century CE?) are even more discursive, with a
few cases of denotative letters but far less math-
ematical structure. Mechanics seems thus gener-
ally much more concerned with terminology to
‘describe’ the machines rather than with the syn-
tax to explain them. However, like in medicine,
in Hero and Philo terminology is still not unified
and monosemous.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acerbi, Fabio. 2008. “Disjunction and conjunction in Euclid’s
Elements", HEL 30:21-47.
——. 20n. “Perché una dimostrazione geometrica greca &
generale”. In: La scienza antica c la sua tradizione. IV Semi-
nario di studi (Gargnano, 13-15 ottobre zouß), ed. by Fer-
ruccio F, Repellini and Gianni Micheli, 25-80. Cisalpino.
——. 2012. "I codici stilistici della matematica greca:
dimostrazioni, procedure, algoritmi", QUCC 101:167-214.
Aujac, Germaine. 1984. "La langage formulaire dans la geo-
metrie grecque”, RHS 37:97-109.
van der Eijk, Philip J. 1997. "Towards a rhetoric of ancient
scientific discourse”. In: Grammar as interpretation. Greek
literature and its linguistic contexts, ed. by Egbert Bakker,
77-129. Leiden — New York - Cologne.
Federspiel, Michel. 1995. “Sur l'opposition definı/indefini dans
la langue des mathématiques grecques”, LEC 63:249 293.
——. 2003. “Sur quelques effets du ‘principe d’abréviation’
chez Euclide”, LEC 71:321-352.
Hellweg, Rainer. 1985. Stilistische Untersuchungen zu den
Krankengeschichten der Epidemienbücher | und tH des
Corpus Hippocraticum. Bonn,
Jouanna, Jacques. 1984. “Rhétorique et médecine dans la
Collection Hippocratique", REG 57:26-44.
Langholf, Volker. 1977. Syntaktische Untersuchungen zu Hip-
pokrates-Texten. Wiesbaden.
Lanza, Diego. 1983. “Quelques remarques sur le travail IIn-
guistique du medecin”. In: Formes de pensée dans la
Collection Hippocratique, ed. by Francois Lasserre and
Philippe Mudry, 181-185. Geneva.
Lloyd, Geoffrey E.R. 1983. “The development of Greek ana-
tomical terminology". In: Science, folklore, and ideolagy.
studies in the life sciences in Ancient Greece, 149-167. Cam-
bridge — New York.
I.dpez Férez, Juan. A. 2000. "Algunos datos sobre el léxico de
los tratados hipocraticos". In: La lengua cientifica griega:
urigenes, desarrollo e influencia en las lenguas moder-
nas europeas, ed. by Juan A. Lopez Férez, vol. 1, 39-51.
Madrid.
Mugler, Charles. 1958. Dictionnaire historique de la termi-
nologie géomeétrique des Grecs, Paris.
Skoda, Francoise. 1988. Médecine ancienne et metaphore.
Le vucabulaire de lanatomie et de la pathologie en grec
ancien. Paris,
von Staden, Heinrich. 1998. “Andréas de Caryste et Philon de
Byzance: médecine et mécanique a Alexandrie”. In: Sci-
ences exactes et scienves appliquées ü Alexandrie (fIf* siécle
ay. [-C. - [er siécle ap. J.-C.), Actes du colloque international
de Saint-Etienne (6-8 juin 1996), ed. by Gilbert Argoud and
Jean-Yves Guillaumin, 147-172. Saint-Etienne.
265
Thesleff, Holger. 1966. “Scientific and technical style in early
Greek prose”. Arctos 4:89-113.
Wenskus, Otta. 1982. Aingkomposition, anaphorish-rekapit-
ulierende Verbindung und anknüpfende Wiederholung im
hinpokratische Corpus. Frankfurt am Main.
FRANCESCA SCHIRONI
Scribes, Mycenaean
1. INTRODUCTION
Mycenaean scribes are the anonymous individu-
als (Bennett 1960) who wrote, in the + Linear B
script, texts on the clay administrative docu-
ments discovered in excavations of important
sites (most often palatial centers) throughout
clearly defined territories of the central and
southern Greek mainland and the island of Crete
during the period roughly 1450-1200 BCE.
The Linear B texts do not preserve any identi-
fiable words used to denote (a) the acts of writ-
ing or reading, (b) individuals who write or read,
(c) the materials that are used to write (writ-
ing implements, parchment or papyrus scrolls
ar pages, various forms of clay documents) or
(d) the places where written materials are
stored (archives, deposits, formal libraries). This
sets Mycenaean ‘scribes’ and scribal systems
(+ Mycenaean Script and Language) epistemo-
logically apart from their counterparts in the
cuneiform and hieroglyphic cultures of ancient
Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt.
The English word ‘scribe’ has many associa-
tions from the long history of its use in studying
the education, training, work habits, assign-
ments, and the social, economic and political
statuses and functions of writers of formal docu-
ments within the power hierarchies of different
cultures, ancient and modern (Pluta 2011:250-
256). Because of these strong associations and
the restricted uses of writing attested in the
Mycenaean palatial culture, the term 'tablet-
writers’ has been used lately in discussing the
roles of Mycenaean ‘scribes’ (Palaima 2011:34,
55 n, 39). Sumerian and Akkadian scribes in fact
are literally called 'tablet-writers': DUB.SAR and
tupsarru, respectively.
In contrast to Near Eastern scribes, Myce-
naean tablet-writers are distinguished by their
anonymity and by the limited range of areas of
social, political, economic or religious activity
for which writing was used. None of the names
266 SCRIBES, MYCENAEAN
recorded in the Linear B documents can be
identified securely as the name of a tablet-writer.
No tablet-writer wrote his name, or impressed
his seal as a personal identifier, upon any of
the three standard shapes of clay documents
used within Mycenaean economic and political
administration. The absence of signatures or seal
impressions implies either that the tablet-writers
were not required to note their responsibility for
the information they recorded upon the tablets
ar that such information was otherwise known
when the texts were of active interest.
2. THE TABLETS
The texts that the Mycenaean tablet-writers
recorded deal with the operation and concerns
of the palatial centers and the territories they
controlled, directly or indirectly, The surviving
documents focus on economic management.
There are no literary texts, lexica, compilations
of laws or judicial precedents, decrees or proc-
lamations, annals or reign lists, religious hymns,
prescriptions of cult ceremonies, standard-
ized versions of prayers, official proclamations,
inscribed public monuments (political, dedica-
tory or burial), or private or diplomatic corre-
spondence. There are also no private contracts,
documents of ownership or property transfer,
direct records of trade, or any records that were
kept in the possession of any of the individuals
mentioned in the texts (Palaima 2003:154-155).
All extant tablets deal with manufactured items
and products, raw and processed materials,
and resources (human, animal and inanimate),
where they are located, to whom and by whom
they are to be or were distributed or from whom
they are being or were collected and for what
purposes or under what conditions, and what
individuals, offices or other responsible agents
within the regional palatial systems are inter-
ested in these goods and activities.
The three relatively standard shapes of clay
accounting documents written by Mycenaean
‘scribes’ are page-shaped and leaf-shaped tab-
lets and labels (Palaima 20037161; 2011190-112).
In addition, small pieces of clay each formed
around a knot made with a fine string and then
impressed with a seal may be inscribed with ideo-
grams and related short written texts. These clay
devices are known as sealings or more precisely
nodules. The information inscribed on nodules
consists of personal and place names, descrip-
tions of quality, or technical vocabulary relating
to the transactions involved and the obligations
pertaining to the materials with which these
devices were associated (Palaima 2000).
The records that the tablet-writers wrote were
of short-term use. They were probably meant
to be kept for a single administrative period,
rarely longer than a year, perhaps with some
overlap into the next or from the preceding
period. Related to the ‘historical anonymity’ of
the records of Mycenaean scribes and to the cul-
tural expectation that the information on these
documents had a limited time span of relevance
or validity is the absence of any dates designated
by period of a magistrate’s office (e.g. historical
Greek ‘archonship’) or day and month within
the year of reign of a royal figure. There are three
to five month names within the extant Linear
B tablets from Pylos and seven in the larger
(in terms of numbers of documents) corpus
of tablets from Knossos (Palaima 1995:627-631;
2003:169-173; + Names of Months). The tablets
also have references to religious festivals and
ceremonial events.
Due to the limited nature of the inscribed
data, Mycenologists have been forced to study
the textual evidence from a variety of perspec-
tives. Through close study of the signs drawn
into moist clay and of other aspects of the writ-
ten records (including tablet typology, text struc-
ture and layout, spelling), it has been possible to
assign tablets to different tablet-writers. The tab-
let-writers are identifiable by their writing styles
and habits. Fingerprints on tablets have been
studied, too. Mycenologists generally use the
term ‘scriba] hand’ to make clear that the tablet-
writers have been identified by such means.
Fortunately, the sequence of lines compos-
ing individual signs is usually clear in the clay.
We can also readily see the ductus (the track
through the clay) of the stylus. And many of
the signs themselves have component elements
that vary idiosyncratically according to scribe in
length, degree of straightness or curvature, and
position and proportion relative to one another.
This makes identification of 'scribal hands’ fairly
secure in most cases,
Linear B texts are difficult to read and under-
stand, especially in isolation and without con-
text. By identifying scribal hands and sets (or
‘stylus groups’) within scribal hands, we can cre-
ate an interpretive context (Palaima 2011:46-55,
72-94). These identifications have been used to
 SCRIBES, MYCENAEAN 267

Figure 3 Examples of Significant Sign Variations

—
Vt
9.)
|
(Hand 21)
We
(Hand |) (Hand 2!)

wi AR)
b.) 17

(Hand |) (Hand 21)

f (
!

(Hand I) (Hand 41)

wi
%

(Hand 21)

c.) ©
(Hand 2!)
‘i
I}
lo

(HandI) (Hand 21)

d.)
I
=
Il)A
A
(Hand1} (Hand 21)

e.) Wy (3)

(Hand) (Hand 34)

Significant sign variations. Source: Thomas G. Palaima, The Scribes of Pylos (Incunabula Graeca LXXXVII:
Rome, Edizioni dell’Ateneo 1988), p. 24.
 a ii a,
cv _ Nr

F r T e e 4 i : a 5 8

e e A N Y b e G e
a4 7 \Ky an na m facet
mo
[>
—
an

Ki

a I in If
—_——.
|

Fr AM N Un

lie
Ti k
Eee
Pylos Hand ı Sign forms. Source: The Scribes of Pylos, p. 229.
270 SCRIBES, MYCENARAN
clarify various archival and linguistic issues in
the Linear B texts. Ca. 33 ‘scribal hands’ are iden-
tified at Pylos and at least 70 at Knossos.
3. THE 'SCRIBES'
The status of the 'scribes’ within Mycenaean
society is still a matter of debate (Palaima
2003:173-176; Bennet 2001:31-35; Pluta 2011:254-
296). Olivier is right to call them administrative
“fonctionnaires” (Olivier 1967:135-136). Palaima
(2003175) asks “whether their status was inti-
mately connected with their ability to write
or whether their ability to write was acquired
because of their prominence as palatial or pro-
vincial administrators or as members of mili-
tary, economic, or social élites.” The answer to
this question remains unclear. That the 'scribes'
had multiple roles, at first as students, then as
members, or at least facilitators,of the palatial
administration, is clear. Both Bennet (2001:31-
33) and Kyriakidis (1996-1997:220) argue that
what we here call tablet-writers must “belong
among the performers of the administration,
not the 'back-stage' staff." They (and Pluta
2011:284-285) identify persons recorded as play-
ing prominent roles in important texts, e.g., a-ko-
so-ta (/Alxoitas/ or /Axotäs/) and pis-ke-gi-ri
(/Phugeg”ris/ > Phugebris), as the tablet-writers
of the texts. But Palaima (2003:25-37) lays out
the problems with, as Bennet (2001:35) puts it,
“collaps{ing] the categories ‘scribes’ and ‘mem-
bers of the elite’”.
Discussions about the training of the ‘scribes’
(cf. Duhoux zou) have focused on whether
there were scribal ‘schools’ per se. We have no
unequivocal traces in the Linear B texts or the
Mycenaean archaeological record of scribal
schools, although they are identifiable com-
monly in the clay-tablet cultures of the ancient
Near and Middle East (Pluta 2011:56-58). Future
tablet-writers may have been trained in appren-
ticeships within family or clan groups. A site
like Pylos (Pluta 2011) would have a need for
only a limited number of ‘scribes’ at any given
time. Two to five new scribal trainees per year
would be a sufficient number to keep the record-
keeping system operating smoothly.
The interactions of the ‘scribes’ are also a
matter of some debate. It is known from the
Archival Complex at Pylos that certain ‘scribes’
would modify the information on tablets origi-
nally written by other ‘scribes’. In particular,
bronze allotment texts written by Hand a1 are
used as the basis for final documents by Hand 2
(Smith 1992-1993:203-204) and two of Hand 21's
livestock texts (Cn 595 and 599) have been
physically altered and/or corrected by Hand 1
(Palaima 1988:51-54). Thus, it is arguable that
Hand 21, although a prominent tablet-writer,
was somehow still subordinate to Hands 1 and 2.
It is still unclear how such relationships played
out in the larger scheme of palatial administra-
tion intra- and extra-regionally.
4. VARIATION IN MYCENAEAN GREEK (7)
Another unresolved issue relating to tablet-
writers is the two purported dialects of Greek
found in Linear B, called ‘normal’ Mycenaean
and ‘special’ Mycenaean (Risch 1966; + Variation
in Mycenaean Greek). The distribution in the
texts of characteristics of the two ‘dialects’ bears
upon the ethnic, cultural and linguistic affinities
of the ‘scribes’. The differences are helpfully enu-
merated in several articles on the subject (Risch
1966, Nagy 1968, Thompson 1996-1997, Palaima
1998-1999). There are at most five diagnostic
features:
— Feature 1: The dative singulars in the ath-
ematic class spelled with -e (normal) vs. -i
(special), e.g. po-se-da-o-ne vs. po-se-da-o-ni
(dative of Poseidddn = ‘Poseidon’).
- Feature 2: The reflex of IE sonant nasals in
the environment of bilabial consonants, -o
(normal) vs. -a (special), most conspicuously
pe-movs. pe-ma(/spermo/ vs. /sperma/,‘seed’).
- Feature 3: Occasionally, the use of -- (normal)
vs. -e- (special) in the environment of a labial
consonant, eg. the toponym ti-mi-ti-ja vs.
te-mi-ti-ja. Also, note well the use of -i- in the
vase name di-pa vs. Homeric dépas (‘cup’).
- According to Nagy (1968) there is a Feature 4,
which Risch (1979) rejected: assibilated
-si (normal) vs. unassibilated -& (special)
(+ Assibilation).
- The final Feature 5 is that of the spellings
of words such as thrönos (‘formal chair,
‘throne’), the normal spelling of which is to-no
(/thornos/) and the special spelling is to-ro-no
(/thronos/).
Although there is much debate concerning
the reasons for the varieties of features in the
Mycenaean dialect(s), one thing is agreed upon:
 SCRIBES, MYCENAEAN
no tablet-writer wrote consistently in special
Mycenaean. All that we see is the use of cer-
tain features in certain hands, but without a
clear clustering of multiple features in one hand,
whether narrowly, i.e., with only features 1-3,
or broadly, i.e., features 1-5, defined. Thompson
(1996-97) has argued that instead of ‘dialects’,
what we see happening in the Linear B tablets is
the early stages of ‘lexical diffusion’.
Later Greek dialects show a distribution of a
much wider variety of features than is known for
Mycenaean Greek. In the words of Thompson
(1996-1997:313), “Mycenaean is a weird dialect,
or so it is often perceived.” This raises the ques-
tion: how could the ‘scribes’ of the Linear B texts
have spoken and written so homogeneous a
version of Mycenaean Greek over such a wide
area and for as long as two centuries with so few
variations, especially if they were not trained
within scribal schools with set curricula and
standardized instructional exercises?
Were the ‘scribes’ speaking and hearing a fin-
gua franca that they acquired from their senior
predecessors and superiors in the art and pro-
fession of tablet-writing? Were they recording
(or using) a restricted ‘chancellery dialect’ that
prevailed among elites at palatial and regional
centers who may have been related by ‘dynastic’
or 'social-register’ intermarriage? Were the few
instances of variant ‘special’ forms then traces of
an Umgangsprache or -sprachen more generally
used among the extra-palatial population at large
and in areas away from the palatial or regional
centers, with whom tablet-writers sometimes
had to interact (cf. Palaima 1998-1999)? Was the
use of a standardized and static form of Greek
(a kind of bureaucratic Koine, at least in writ-
ing and probably in speech) an effort, in a still
predominantly oral culture, to facilitate com-
munication between administrative, political,
economic and social elites in different palatial
territories? Or were the ‘scribes’ themselves
taking the words and phrases of informants
and writing them down in the ‘dialect’ that
they, a closed group of writing specialists, used
among each other? After all, if the Mycenaean
‘scribes’ were the only ones capable of writing
texts, they were also the only ones capable of
reading them.
Finally, it is important to note that there is
a widespread and systematic uniformity of lan-
guage features across scribal hands over two
hundred years, from the earliest tablets at Knos-
271
sos on Crete until the latest tablets from Thebes
in north central Greece, in how to represent
spoken language in the visible speech of syllabic
writing. Take, for example, the graphic problem
of consonant clusters. In writing clusters such
as the /rg/ between the first two syllables in
the word drguros (‘silver’) with an open-syliabic
script, Mycenaean tablet-writers everywhere did
not represent the /r/ that is pronounced before
the /g/, spelling a-ku-ro. By contrast, in later
historical open-syllabic Cypriote Syllabic script
(+ Cypriot Syllabary), very akin in basic struc-
ture to + Linear B, the natural Greek perception
of the word leads to a spelling that distinguishes
the /r/ clearly: a-ra-ku-ro.
A possibility suggested by Palaima (2008) (cf.
also Sharypkin 2008), with modern documented
parallels (Peperkamp et al. 2008), is that the
Mycenaean tablet-writers did not represent such
consonants graphically because they did not per-
ceive them. This would be understandable if the
tablet-writers grew up and lived within a social
milieu where the primary language spoken and
heard was open-syllabic in structure and lacked
such consonant clusters, namely the Minoan
language.
Stephens and Justeson (1978:278), in their
study of universals in writing systems as applied
to Minoan phonology (> Linear A), stress that
in 82% of the syllabaries they studied, graphic
underrepresentation is “due to borrowing from
a model that does not fit the phonological struc-
ture of their languages”. Thus the long-term
peculiar conservatism of both the Mycenaean
dialect and the ‘rules’ that guided Mycenaean
scribes in representing comtemporary speech
might derive from the fact that tablet-writers
from the time of creation of the Linear B script
onward were Minoan in ethnicity and kept con-
trol of the narrowly applied art of writing within
their kin groups from generation to generation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bennet, John. 2001. "Agency and bureaucracy: thoughts on
the nature and extent of administration in Bronze Age
Pylos." In: Econumy und politics in the Mycenaean palace
states, ed, by Sofia Voutsaki and John T. Killen, 25-35.
Cambridge.
Bennett, Emmett L fr. 1960. “Anonymuus writers in Myce-
naean palaces’, Archaeology 13:6-32.
Driessen, fan, 2000. The scribes of the Room of the Chariot
Tublets at Knossos: interdisciplinary approach ta the study
of a Linear B deposit. Salamanca.
Duhoux, Yves, zou. “How were the Mycenaean scribes
taught?”, Pasiphae 5:95- 18.
272 SCRIBES, MYCENAEAN
Kyriakidis, Evangelos. 1996-1997. “Some aspects of the
role of scribes in Pylian palace administration”, Minus
31-32:201-229.
Nagy, Gregory. 1968. “On dialectal anomalies in Pylian
Texts." In: Atti e memorie del 1° congresso internazionale
di micenolngia, ed. by C. Gallavotti, 663-669, Rome.
Olivier, Jean-Pierre. 1967. Les scribes de Unossos. Essai de
classement des archives d'un palais mycénien. Rome.
Palaima, Thomas G. 1988. The scribes of Pyios, Rome.
. 1995. “The last days of the Pylos polity.” In: Politeia:
society and state in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. by Robert
Laffineur and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, 623-633. Liege and
Austin, Texas.
——. 1998-99. “Special vs. normal Mycenean: Hand 24 and
writing in the service af the king?”. In: A-na-go-ta. Stud-
ies presented to J. T. Killen (= Minos 33-34), ed. by John
Bennet and Jan Driessen, 205-221. Salamanca.
——, 2000. “Transactional vocabulary in Linear B tablet and
sealing administration.” In: Administrative documents in
the Aegean and their Near Eastern counterparts, ed. by
Massimo Perna, 261-276. Turin.
——, 2003. “Archives' and ‘scribes’ and information hier-
archy in Mycenaean Greek Linear B records." In: Ancient
archives and archival traditions, ed. by Maria Brostus,
153-194. Oxford.
——. 2008, “The Minoan factor in Linear B writing.” Unpub-
lished paper delivered at the Onassis Cultural Center,
Octuber 13, 2008. New York.
. 2011. “Scribes, scribal hands and palaecography.” In: A
companion to Linear B Mycenaean Greek texts and their
world II, ed. by Yves Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies,
33-136. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin and Kimihiro Nakamura.
2008. “On the perceptual origin of loanword adapta-
tions: experimental evidence from Japanese”, Phonalagy
25:129-164.
Pluta, Kevin. zou. Aegean Bronze Age literacy and its conse-
quences, Diss., University of Texas at Austin.
Risch, Ernst. 1966. “Les differences dialectales dans le mycé-
nien.” In: Proceedings of the Cambridge colloquium on
Mycenaean studies, ed. by Leonard R. Palmer and John
Chadwick, 150-157. Cambridge.
——. 1979. "Die griechischen Dialekte im 2. vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend”, SMEA zu:gı-112.
Sharypkin, Sergei. 2008, “Irrelevant phonetic features and
the rules of the Linear B script.” In: Colloguium Romanum,
ed. by Anna Sacconi, Maurizio Del Freo, Louis Godart,
and Mario Negri, 743-752. Pisa - Rome.
Smith, Joanna. 1992-1993. “The Pylos Jn Series“, Minos
27-28:127-259.
Stephens, Laurence D. and John $, Justeson. 1978. “Recon-
structing ‘Minoan’ phonology: the approach from uni-
versals of language and universals of writing systems”,
TAPRA 108:271-284.
Thompson, Rupert f. E. 1996-1997. “Dialects in Mycenaean
and Mycenaean among the clialects”, Minos 31—32:313-333.
THOMAS PALAIMA
WILLIAM BIBEE
Secondary Articulation
— Palatalizations
Secret Language/Codes/Magical
Language
1. INTRODUCTION
As soon as three people have gained knowledge
of reading and writing, there is a fair chance that
two of them will need to send messages to each
other that the third cannot read. Steganography
and cryptography develop ways to keep written
words secure from prying eyes. Both terms are
compounds of learned origin whose second part
-graphy reflects the Greek noun graphé, ‘writ-
ing’. Moreover, the first part of steganography
contains the Greek adjective stegands ‘imperme-
able, covered’, while the crypto- of cryptography
is Greek kruptös ‘hidden, concealed’. Steganog-
raphy is the art and science of writing secret
messages in such an expedient manner that no
one, except for the sender and the addressee,
has an idea of the existence of the message. Put
differently, steganography is a form of security
by way of obscurity. Cryptography makes use
of linguistic and mathematical techniques for
securing information. Steganography has the
advantage over cryptopraphy, as steganographic
messages, which are disguised and may appear
to be something else, do not attract attention
to themselves, while messages which have obvi-
ously been encrypted never fail to arouse suspi-
cion. Therefore, cryptography covers the content
of a message, whereas steganography protects
both the message and the communicating par-
ties. Historically, cryptography was interested
in encryption alone, viz. a means to change
the usual comprehensible form of information
into an incomprehensible format, which should
ideally remain illegible in the absence of secret
knowledge.
2. SECRET LANGUAGE IN ANCIENT GREECE
A great deal more is known about cryptologi-
cal systems in Greece, both steganographic and
cryptographic, than those of earlier civilizations.
Herodotus mentions the first recorded uses of
steganography in his Histories (5.35). Histiaeus
was the former tyrant of Miletus and an ally
of Darius of Persia, who had invited him to
be a ‘king’s companion’ at Susa. Yet Histiaeus
was unhappy about having to stay in Susa, and
devised a plan ta return to his position as tyrant
 SECRET LANGUAGE/CODES/MAGICAL
of Miletus by stirring up a revolt in Ionia. In
499 BCE, he cut off the hair on the head of his
most trusted slave, tattooed a message on his
scalp, and then waited for the hair ta regrow.
The slave was then sent to Aristagoras, who was
instructed to cut off the slave’s hair again and
read the message, which told him to rise in rebel-
lion against the Persians. Another case is that of
Demaratus. In 440 BCE, this exiled king of Sparta
sent a warning about an imminent attack to
Greece by writing it directly on the wooden sur-
face of a wax tablet and then spreading beeswax
over it (Hdt. 7.239).
The Greeks also offer one of the first literary
references to cryptography. /liad 6.155-203 con-
tains an embedded narrative of Bellerophon's
myth. Since the Greek hero had rejected the
queen of Tiryns, she accused him of attempt-
ing to ravish her. Her husband Proetus did not
have sufficient courage to kill Bellerophon, who
was his guest. Thus he sent him to king Iobates,
his father-in-law, bearing a sealed message in a
folded tablet on which he had traced a number
of symbols with a deadly meaning.
All things considered, the Spartans surpassed
the other Greeks in ingenuity. In the 5th c. BCE
they used a system known as a skutdlé. Accord-
ing to Plutarch (Lys. 19), this had been in use
since the days of Lycurgus (gth c. BCE), and more
likely during the time of Lysander (ca 420 BCE).
It consisted of a stick on which a strip of leather,
long and narrow like a belt (the encryption algo-
rithm), was wrapped like a spiral. On the strip,
the sender wrote in longitudinal rows, forming
columns parallel to the axis of the stick and thus,
letter by letter, the secret text. The key was in the
diameter of the cylinder, which directly affected
the resulting encryption. Removing the strip
from the stick, the text appeared meaningless,
but it regained its significance when the strip
was rewound around the twin skutd/é possessed
solely by the recipient.
Between 390 and 360 BCE, Aeneas the Tacti-
cian, general of the Arcadian League, compiled
a treaty on sieges, called Poliorkétikd, whose
twenty-first chapter dealt with secret messages.
There, a disc is described whose outer part con-
tained 24 holes, each corresponding to a letter of
the alphabet. A thread was wound from a central
hole through the holes of the successive letters
of the text. The recipient unwound the thread
and copied the letters indicated sequentially: the
text was then read in reverse.
LANGUAGE 273
Polybius (10.44) describes an important
method of encryption. The idea was to encrypt
a letter with a pair of numbers between ı and 5,
according to a 5 x 5 matrix containing the letters
of the alphabet. Each letter was represented by
two numbers, taken from the row and column
of its location in the matrix. For example, a = u
and r = 42.
Polybius further relates that Aeneas the Tacti-
cian described an instrument, perhaps invented
by the Carthaginians, suitable for long-distance
communication. The device was based on the
use of cylindrical copper vessels, of equal size,
having a hole at the base of equal diameter,
closed by a plug. Each cylinder, when filled with
water, brought to the surface a plug of wood that
rose vertically along the axis of the container as
water was added. On this plug was attached a
vertical rod on which, at different heights, were
carved either painted or engraved figures that
represented various events. By means of a torch,
the sender let his correspondent know the pre-
cise moment in which, simultaneously, the plugs
were to be pulled. The water, as it flowed out from
both vessels in equal amounts, would cause the
float to gradually sink lower, eventually bring-
ing the rod and the chosen message to coincide
with the edge of the cylinder. At another signal
with the tarch, the plugs were replaced to block
the draining of the water, thereby completing
transmission of the communication and its con-
tents. With this ingenious system, the message
rapidly arrived at the recipient.
Covert messages were also given by oracles,
The word oracle originates from the Latin noun
öräculum related to the verb öräre ‘to speak’, and
properly denotes the priest or priestess enounc-
ing the prediction. In common usage, oracle also
refers to the site where prophecies are made, as
well as to the oracular utterances themselves,
which were called khresmoi in Greek. Naturally,
predictions and precognition of the future were
taken to be inspired by a god.
The oracle at Delphi on the slopes of Mount
Parnassus was the most celebrated of Greek
antiquity. The site was sacred to Apollo, and the
priestess of the god was called Pythia. From him
she received the gift of prophecy, and in the early
period her predictions were delivered to those
consulting the oracle in lines of verse, either hex-
ameters or pentameters - later they were made
only in prose. The oracle only gave prophecies
during the nine warmest months of each year.
274 SECRET LANGUAGE/CODES/MAGICAL LANGUAGE
Once a month, after a series of purification rites,
the Pythia went down into the ddyton, the 'inac-
cessible’ place, and sat on her three-legged stool.
While chewing laurel leaves she held a bowl of
water from the Kassotis spring onto which she
gazed. Her stool was placed over a crack in the
rock from which noxious volcanic fumes ema-
nated. The omphatds, 'navel', was flanked closely
by two golden eagles representing the power of
Zeus. Confused and unable to react properly, the
Pythia would then be possessed by Apollo and
utter inarticulate sounds with the god's voice
before fainting. Only the male priests present
there were entrusted with the task of express-
ing her utterances in plain speech. Yet their
responses were not plain at all. They always gave
the supplicants ambiguous and hardly compre-
hensible answers. Suffice it to consider the fol-
lowing example: Heradotus (1.55ff.) narrates that
in 560 BCE Croesus, king of Lydia, sent an emis-
sary to the oracle at Delphi to ask whether his
reign would last long. The answer of the Pythia
took this form: “Should a mule become sovereign
king of the Medes, then you, Lydian Delicate-
Foot, flee by the stone-strewn Hermus, flee, and
do not think to stand fast, nor be ashamed to be
a coward”. Since Croesus thought it impossible
that a mule should become king of the Medes, he
felt sure that he would never lose his power, and
therefore attacked Persia in alliance with certain
Greek city states of Asia Minor. Unfortunately,
he was defeated: he had forgotten that Cyrus,
his adversary, was half Mede by his mother,
half Persian by his father, and hence could be
deemed a mule.
Oracles were regarded as portals through
which the gods talked directly to man. In this
sense they were different from mdnteis, ‘seers’,
who interpreted signs sent by the gods in the
form of unusual occurrences, bird signs, animal
entrails and various other forms. In a later period
a mäntis was also a magic practitioner. Other
names for a magic itinerant professional were
göes ‘sorcerer’, agürtes ‘begging priest’ and mages
‘enchanter’. The last of these terms is a loan word
taken from Old Persian makus/magus. Originally
a magus was one who belonged to an ancient
Median tribe or clan which had specialized in
religious performance. Herodotus (7.113-114; 191)
writes that in 480 BCE the members of this clan
were accomplishing things that other classical
and post-classical sources call goéteia ‘sorcery’,
pharmakeia ‘witchcraft’, manganeia ‘trickery’, or
even mageia ‘magic’. According to the historian,
these men performed pharmakefa — what these
entail is unfortnuately not better specified else-
where — on the Strymon River in Thrace and a
little later made gusty winds calm off the coast
of central Greece by means of chanting spells.
The Greek language of magic can be appraised
by resorting to the messages of katddesmui, ‘ties,
bands’, i.e., binding spells engraved on tablets
or shapes made of flattened lead and folded up.
These forms of cursing, which were called defix-
iones in Latin, were used primarily in relation
to lawsuits, musical and sporting competitions,
sexual rivalries and private contests (+ Curse
Tablets). So, for example, two brief texts dating
to the sth c. BCE are inscribed at different points
on the same surface. The first says: “I enroll
(katagrdpho) Isias, the daughter of Autoclea,
before Hermes the Restrainer. Restrain her by
your side!”. The second is even more explicit:
“| bind (katadesmeiö) Isias before Hermes
the Restrainer, the hands, the feet of Isias, the
entire body”, Other texts are the incantations
inscribed on phulakteria, ‘amulets’. One of the
most ancient, going back to the 6th c. BCE, is
a golden lamella (MS 5236) containing a “writ-
ten” invocation to Phoebus Apollo, who should
raise his arms against someone or something,
On the whole, the text can be read, but much of
it cannot be understood because of grammati-
cal and syntactical oddities, and because some
sequences of letters do not transmit any sense.
A series of magic rites can also be apprehended
thanks to the Egyptian papyri from the post-
classical period.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brekle, Herbert E. 2010. Analyse der Herstellungstechnik der
Inschrift auf einem Goldamulett in der Schoyen Collection
(London/Osto). Technischer Bericht. Regensburg. ({n.y.p.).
Broad, William J. 2007. The oracle: anctent Delphi und the
science behind its lust secrets. New York.
Nickie, Matthew W. 2n01. Magic and magicians in the Graeco-
Roman world. London — New York.
Faraone, Ch. A. and D. Obbink, eds. iggi. Magika hiera.
Ancient Greek magic and religion, New York - Oxford.
Fontenrose, Joseph Eddy. 19742. Python. A study of delphiec
myth and its origins. New York.
. 1978. The delphic oracle, its responses and operations,
with a catalogue af responses, Berkeley.
Graf, Fritz. 1997. Magic in the ancient world. Cambridge,
MA.
Jordan, David R. 1985. "A survey of Greek defixiones not
included in the special corpora’, GRBS 26:151-197.
Montserrat, Dominic. "Report on Early Greek gold lamella’.
(Unpublished study).
 SECRET LANGUAGE/CODES/MAGICAL LANGUAGE
Parke, Herbert William. i939. History of the Delphic oracle.
Oxford.
Petropoutos,J. C. B., ed. 2008. Greek magic: ancient, medieval
and modern, London - New York.
Preisendanz, K. and A. Henrichs. 1974. Papyri Graecae Magi-
cae. Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri. z vols. Stuttgart.
Singh, Simon. 1999. The code book: the science af secrecy from
ancient Egypt ta quantum cryptography. New York,
Lucio MELAZZO
Semantic Change
Spoken languages experience continuous change
through time. Semantic change affects the mean-
ing of words and consists of the alteration of
the relationship between a given word and
the set of referents such a word may denote.
Changes in meaning can affect lexemes and
morphemes, and thus we find them in both lexi-
cal and grammatical notions. Conventionally,
however, the term ‘semantic change’ refers to
lexemes, while changes in the meaning con-
veyed by morphemes are the concern of histori-
cal morphology and morphosyntax. Given that
semantic change involves linguistic signs, their
meaning and their potential referents, different
branches of linguistics are concerned with it:
etymology, onomasiology, semantics and lexi-
cology, Semantic change can be identified by
comparison between different stages of the same
language or between languages which stem from
a common root, that is, it is studied in historical
and comparative linguistics.
1. CAUSES OF SEMANTIC CHANGE
The causes of semantic change are complex.
At first sight, the fact that we can see constant
changes and at the same time elements of stabil-
ity in languages seems to be paradoxical. From a
theoretical viewpoint it would seem unexpected
for a language to change: if speakers understand
each other when speaking, the expected ten-
dency should be to perpetuate the code system.
However, in practice we know that speakers,
referents, salient concepts and the system itself
all change.
Research into the causes of semantic change
has focused on the study of changes in the mean-
ing of individual words. It has not generated
instruments to evaluate how far a semantic
change in a given word affects other words from
the same semantic field, or the language as a
275
whole. Among the causes which can motivate or
facilitate semantic change are the following:
a. The disparity between the countless num-
ber of entities that can be referred to and the
limited number of the lexical entries of natu-
ral languages. The number of linguistic units is
limited, but the entities that can be referred to
are much more varied and subject to change.
Linguistic units are carriers of a nuclear meaning
together with other less central meanings that
are used in specific contexts. These peripheral
meanings make up a field or area of dispersion
with respect to the exemplary uses; e.g. ‘bird’ is
used to refer ta a sparrow, but less prototypically
to an ostrich or a penguin, and it is incorrect
for a bat. These variations cause the system to
shift. Thus, epistémé, which originally indicated
‘acquaintance with a matter, understanding,
skill’, e.g. ‘skill in warfare’ (Thuc. 1.121.4), could
also appear in contexts where it meant ‘knowl-
edge’ in general (as e.g. at Soph. Ant. 721).
b. The characteristics of the transmission
of human language. One important factor of
change is children’s language acquisition, as they
are exposed to numerous but accidental gram-
matical manifestations of the meaning conveyed
by the linguistic units, but never to the grammar
per se, a circumstance which explains why they
make generalizations which are not necessarily
identical to those of the adults who teach them
their language. Given that linguists have noticed
certain parallels between children’s mistakes
and social, geographical, historical or dialectal
variations in languages, it has been speculated
that children’s language deviations can remain
and cause changes in the uses of language.
c. Changes at other levels of the language.
Thus, in Ancient Gk., a number of phonetic
changes such as the loss of the final element
of the old ‘long’ diphthongs [a:i], [ei] and [o:i]
(ai, éi, öl) and the weakening of final -n led
to the loss of distinction between the singular
dative and the accusative of many lexical items,
and to the later disappearance of the + dative
with the subsequent widening of the meaning
conveyed by the + accusative (+ Developments
in Medieval and Modern Greek). On the other
hand, morphological reasons help to explain the
development of the — perfect from its primi-
tive value as a tense present to past tense: since
some often used active aorists (like éthéka ‘I put’,
edöka ‘| gave’) had the same ending as the active
276 SEMANTIC CHANGE
perfect, this similarity quickly led to using some
perfects in -ka (égnoka ‘I have known’, heuréka
‘| have found’) with the tense value of the aorist
stem. These overlaps favored the appearance of
new forms ending in -ka with + augment (e.g.
epoiéka '| have made’), which came to be used
in the Koine as a synonym of the aorist epoiesa
‘| made’ (+ Koine, Features of). As a result of
this change, the opposition between aorist and
perfect was lost and most of the perfect forms
disappeared.
d. Pragmatic factors. According to Traugott
and Dasher (2002), semantic change is largely
due to pragmatic meanings which are conven-
tionalized and re-analyzed as semantic polyse-
mies thanks to communicative and cognitive
processes. That is, a unit that expresses a mean-
ing X frequently acquires a value X+Y as a result
of interpreting Y, which is just a pragmatic impli-
cation, as a part of the meaning of X. This Y
notion is conventionalized and ends up being
re-analyzed as (part of) the meaning expressed
by that unit. So, the perfect in Homeric Greek
and up to the end of the 5th c. BCE expressed the
present relevance ofa past action. Due to the fact
that pragmatically recent events tend to be more
relevant for the present time of the speaker, the
perfect suffered a semantic reanalysis and came
to refer to recent past (against the aorist which
was an unmarked form of expressing the past),
a notion that had earlier been a mere pragmatic
implication of its previous value. The last step
was the disappearance of one of these gram-
matical forms of expressing the past through
redundancy. As a result, only epoiéka ‘| made’
survived. Traugott and Dasher (2002) call this
process “semantic change through invited infer-
ence” and, given that these invited inferences
appear in various languages with no genetic or
geographic relationship, they consider them as
constituting a regular change mechanism.
e. Extra-linguistic forces can give rise or con-
tribute to the production of gradual or sudden
semantic changes, as in the following cases:
- Changes in the referents: basileus in the
Homeric poems denotes the king; in classical
Athens, the second of the nine archons and in
the Imperial period, the emperor.
- Changes in world view: in Homer, psukhe
is what keeps a person alive (Il. 5.296), but
towards the end of the Archaic period it is
used to refer to the center of emotions, like
thümos (Anacr. fr. 360), or to something close
to ‘character’ (Pind. /sthm. 4.53). In the Clas-
sical period, the playwrights use psukhé to
refer to the center of emotions as well as to a
person’s character (Aristoph. Ach. 393). This
sense made psukhé appropriate for express-
ing in a general way the essence of something
(isoc, 7.14) and, as such, it acquires different
values depending on the philosophical system
in which it appears.
Changes induced by a social or cultural group
which highlights a concept. Labov (2001)
reconstructs a pattern for the social spread of
linguistic change according to which linguis-
tic peculiarities or habits of social leaders tend
to be spread among the speakers under their
leadership. His study affects mainly phonet-
ics, but it can also be transferred to linguis-
tic change. Thus, in the area of vocabulary,
+ Atticism led to the restoration of abandoned
terms, and to the loss of other lexical items
that were alive in common speech. By build-
ing bridges with literary Classical Attic, the
Atticist movement was an important mile-
stone in the historical continuity that charac-
terizes the Greek language and differentiates
it from other languages.
Contacts of Greeks with speakers of other lan-
guages are the cause of the borrowings from
other languages, as in the work of Hipponax,
who employs Lydian and Phrygian loanwords
(+ lambic Poetry, Diction of ).
Interaction between different Greek dialects
or between a vernacular dialect and the con-
ventional diction of a literary genre. Thus,
Corinna writes in the language of Epic poetry
(+ Epic Diction), but she uses features of the
+ Boeotian vernacular as it appears in inscrip-
tions (> Lyric Poetry, Diction of).
New needs of the society that need to be
expressed give rise to, on the one hand,
changes in meaning (e.g. pdroikos ‘dwelling
beside or near’, ‘neighboring’, came to denote
(3rd c. BCE) ‘colonus’, a farmer tied to the land
he cultivated) and, on the other hand, the
emergence of new terms, both newly-created
(adelphds ‘brother’ lacks cognates In other
Indo-European languages) and borrowed
(elata, 'olive-tree', khrusas ‘gold'). In the area
of grammatical notions, throughout the his-
tory of Ancient Greek we observe the progres-
sive appearance and spreading of the passive
voice (+ Passive (syntax)), which allowed to
 SEMANTIC
present the patient of an action as the primary
vantage point of the clause.
The aforementioned causes explain the devel-
opment of new terms or new meanings which
are added to the previous ones or which, less
commonly, substitute them, but it is more dif-
ficult for them to account for the loss of words
when the referent does not disappear, as hap-
pens with knephas, dnöphos, zöphos (‘darkness’),
all of which went out of use to the benefit of
skötos. While certain regularity can be witnessed
in the increment in the meanings of linguistic
units, the loss is much more unpredictable and
has received less attention.
2. TYPES OF SEMANTIC CHANGE
Nothing similar to the principles of linguistic
change like the + phonetic law in historical pho-
netics, or > analogy in the field of morphology
has ever been formulated for semantic change.
The described typology of semantic change
is extremely varied and can refer to different
aspects of language. Thus, the change can affect
one or all the registers of a language; between
the Classical age and the Hellenistic period, for
example, there is a profound change with the
introduction and spreading of the Koine as the
unmarked form for written prose, but it is pos-
sible that the spoken register did not change at
the same pace, since vernacular dialects were
preserved for some communicative uses until
the start of the CE (> Koine, Origins of). Besides,
the changes can be spontaneous or provoked; in
Aristotle, for example, psukhé acquires with a
sense (412b5) which is undoubtedly provoked.
The majority of changes are progressive and
gradual, but they can also be sudden.
Research in the area of typology has tradi-
tionally focused on the search for regularities
in meaning changes of particular lexical items
(+ Typology of Greek). Its result is the descrip-
tion of a series of recurrent mechanisms, such
as restriction (semantic narrowing), when the
scope or context in which the word can be used
is reduced, e.g. Gk. phräter < IE *b*rater ‘brother
> ‘member of a phratria'; extension (generaliza-
tion), when the scope of a new notion becomes
wider than that of the original, e.g. sitos ‘grain’ >
‘food made from grain, bread’, 'food'; metaphor,
when a word extends its meaning as a result of
the association based on some analogy between
CHANGE 277
two objects, concepts, entities, etc., e.g. l&ön ‘lion’
> ‘brave man’; metonymy, when a word includes
additional senses based on associations of con-
tiguity or nearness in space or time, e.g. arktos
‘brown bear’ > ‘the constellation Ursa Major’
> ‘the north’; synecdoche, when a term extends
its meanings on the basis of a whole-to-part rela-
tionship, e.g. Athénai ‘the city of Athens’ > Attiké
‘Attica’; litotes or change from weaker to stron-
ger meaning, e.g. bdsanos ‘touchstone’ > ‘inquiry
by torture’ > ‘torture’; hyperbole, which involves
a shift from a stronger to a weaker meaning, e.g.
karios ‘lord’, ‘master’ > ‘guardian (of a woman)’,
‘trustee’; amelioration (elevation), when a word
acquires a positive association in the minds
of the speakers, e.g. xénos ‘stranger, foreigner’
> ‘guest’; pejoration (degeneration), when a
word develops a negative association, c.g. pais
‘child (boy or girl)’ > ‘slave, servant (man or maid
of all ages)’; or euphemism, when a word which
is rough, unpleasant or taboo, is replaced by
another of milder or vague connotation, e.g. ta
aidoia ‘privy parts’, ‘pudenda’ for genitalia.
As can be seen, some of these categories over-
lap and intersect. Recent research considerably
reduces them and considers that extension and
reduction, or metaphor and metonymy, are the
main mechanisms by which words acquire new
meanings.
3. UNIDIRECTIONALITY AND PREDICTION
OF SEMANTIC CHANGES
The study of semantic change has also been con-
cerned with the direction observed in some of
its types, focusing on the possibility of predicting
their occurrence. Unfortunately, it is not possi-
ble to make reliable predictions in this area, but
it has been demonstrated that semantic changes
are not bi-directional as was traditionally main-
tained (both narrowing and broadening), but
unidirectional. The main lines around which
these unidirectional changes are organized are
as follows:
— Meanings based on an external situation
change to meanings based on an internal sit-
uation: lambänö ‘take’ becomes ‘apprehend’
through the senses or with the mind (‘under-
stand’). Many of the amelioration and pejora-
tion procedures follow this direction.
— Meanings based on external or internal situa-
tions become meanings based on textual and
278 SEMANTIC CHANGE
metalinguistic situations: e.g. demonstratives
become phoric (+ Pronouns (Demonstrative,
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative)).
- Avery active tendency is that of ‘self-orientation’
and 'subjectification'; linguistic units tend to
become semiologically enriched by receiving
new senses which are based on the subjective
vision of the speaker, or which are related to
their personal attitude or evaluation of the
referenced world. Thus, gludus ‘sweet to the
taste or smell’ becomes ‘pleasant, delightful’,
and with reference to people ‘sweet, dear’;
ophthalmös ‘eye’ becomes ‘the dearest, the
best’. Many of the metaphor and metonymy
procedures respond to this tendency.
- A case of a unidirectional phenomenon also
related with semantic change is grammati-
calization. This term refers to those changes
by which a lexical element acquires a gram-
matical meaning in certain linguistic contexts
(Meillet 1912132), or a unit changes from a
lower grammatical status to a higher one.
Thus, it is thought probable that the modal
particle dn was originally an optional modal
adverb (as it seems to be in the Homeric
dialect; + Epic Diction) which over time
became a grammatical marker for declarative
sentences representing non-factual events.
Grammaticalization always involves a re-
interpretation and, sometimes, implies a pho-
nological reduction and a development from
an independent word to a clitic or affix. Thus,
the verb thelö, ‘to want’ in Ancient Greek
became the grammatical marker of the future
in Modern Greek (Anc. Gk. thélei hina > Mod.
Gk. 8 [tha]) (+ Developments in Medieval
and Modem Greek).
Even having experienced dramatic semantic
changes throughout its history, the Greek lan-
guage displays a considerable degree of continu-
ity if we compare it to other languages of the
same environment, such as Latin.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beckes, R. S. P. 2081. Compurative Indo-European linguistics.
Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Bremmer,J. N. “Yuyy”. In: Christidis 2007:146-1153.
Campbell, L. 1998. Historical linguistics. Edinburgh.
Caragounis, C. C. ed. zoo. Greek. A language in evolution.
Hildesheim — Zürich - New York.
Christidis, A.-F., ed. 2007. A history of Ancient Greek: from the
beginnings to late antiquity. New York - Cambridge.
Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization.
Cambridge.
Horrocks, G. 1997 [2010]. Greek. A Aistory of the language and
its speakers. London - New York.
Humbert, J. 1930. La disparition du datif en grec (du ler au
X siecle). Paris.
Joseph, B. D. “Early movement towards Modern Greek”, In:
Christidis 2007:693-598.
Joseph, B. D. and R. D. Janda, eds. 2003, The handbook of
historical linguistics. Malden.
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. iii: Social
factors, Malden - Oxford.
Meillet, Antoine, ıgı2. “L'evolution des formes grammati-
cales", Scientia 12/26149-158. (Reprint 1951 in: Linguis-
tique historique et lingwistique generale, 130-48. Paris).
Orriens, 5. 2009. “The Classical Greek perfect as a situating
cohesion device". In: Discourse cohesion in Ancient Greek,
Ed. by S. J. Bakker and G. C. Wakker, 221-239. Leiden -
Boston.
Setatos, M. “Semantic change®. In: Christidis 2007:667-676.
Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher, 2002, Regularity in semantic
change. Cambridge.
ELENA REDONDO MOYANO
Semiotics in Antiquity
+ Ancient Philosophers on Language
Semitic Loanwords in Greek
The number of Semitic loan-words in Ancient
Greek has always been a matter of dispute. While
quite uncritical etymologists have claimed sev-
eral hundred items, hypercritical researchers
have reduced the number to less than ten! The
last monograph study of the earliest Semitic
loans by E, Masson (1967; her 2001 and 2007
articles repeat her former results) lists 37 words
“really borrowed from Semitic”, sometimes only
via Semitic, and 12 “probable hypotheses” but
these numbers are certainly too low and could be
at least doubled according to the results of more
recent research. Most if not all loan-words are
nouns, which confirms that the Greek-Semitic
(most probably preponderantly or even almost
exclusively Greek-Phoenician) contacts were lim-
ited to trade, commodities and some techniques,
not to mention the borrowing of the Phoenician
> alphabet by the Greeks. We have to remember
that our knowledge of the Phoenician lexicon is
quite imperfect, since only epigraphic texts have
survived and, like in the case of Ugaritic, only in
a few words some vowels have been written in a
basically consonantal writing system. Virtually
all attempts to reconstruct abstract nouns and
verbs have given either clearly mistaken or, in
 SEMITIC LOANWORDS
the best case, doubtful results. Obviously, the
knowledge of the Semitic languages among the
Greeks was very limited (+ Greek and Semitic
Languages (Early Contacts)).
Cyprus was an important center ofthe Greek-
Northwest Semitic contact (see Masson 1967:70-
76 on the Semitic loans occurring in Ancient
Cypriot Greek) beingso close to Phoenicia (today
the Lebanese coast and a part of the Syrian and
Israeli coast). A few words of Mediterranean
and Near Eastern origin which are common to
Greek and to the Semitic languages are found
already in + Mycenaean Greek. The most impor-
tant Semitic loan-words are ku-ru-so [khrusös]
‘gold’ < eg, Akk. xuräsu, Phoen. h-r-s, Heb. harüs
and ki-to [khitön] ‘linen, linen tunic’ < Phoen.
k-t-n ‘linen, linen tunic’, Akk. kitü, kitinnu ‘linen’,
Ugar. k-t-n, Heb. katön(-et) ‘tunic’. It is highly
probable, however, that most if not all other
common Mycanaean-Semitic words have been
borrowed from a third, unknown source rather
than directly from the Semitic languages spoken
on the south-eastern shores of the Mediterra-
nean, i.e., from the Canaanite languages and dia-
lects such as Phoenician, Hebrew (> Greek and
Hebrew) and Ugaritic, not to mention the Semitic
lingua franca of the Near East, i.e., at first Akka-
dian (with the main Assyrian and Babylonian
dialects), then Aramaic (> Greek and Aramaic).
Here we have, e.g. sa-sa-ma [sösamon/säsamon]
> ‘sesame’ found in Phoen. and Ugar. as $-$-m-n
and in Akk. as Samassammu, but it is not quite
clear whether it is of Akkadian origin; then there
is Au-mi-no [küminon] > ‘cumin’ found in Akk. as
kam(m)-unü, in Phoen. as k-m-n (Punic in Greek
script as kkamän), Heb. kammön, and perhaps
re-wo [lé6n] ‘lion’ can be related to Akk. /abu,
fabbu and Ugar. t-bu ‘lion’, Arab. dabu’ ‘lion’ and
labu’a/ labwa ‘lioness’, Hebr. labi’ 'id..
The names of 15 letters (see Rosen 197912-15)
borrowed together with the Phoenician alphabet
are the most important set of ancient Semitic,
in this case certainly Phoenician loan-words in
Ancient Greek. Obviously connected with the
art of writing is déltos (Cypr. ddltos) ‘writing
tablet’ < Phoen, d--t ‘id.’, Ugaritic d-I-t ‘id.'(7),
Heb. defet ‘writing tablet, column of writing’. The
etymology of biblion, pl. biblia ‘'book' (> Bible)
connecting it with the name of the Phoenician
harbor town of Gyblos/Byblos (today Jubayl in
Lebanon) is widely accepted but it was rejected
by Masson (1967:101-107), who uses mainly pho-
netic but not quite convincing arguments. As a
IN GREEK 279
matter of fact, thus far no better etymology has
been suggested, while Beekes (2009:246) does
not take a stand.
A number of terms connected to commerce
are of Semitic origin: arrabön ‘advance payment,
pledge, deposit’ goes back to Ugar. ‘r-b-n ‘guar-
antor, surety’, Phoen. “r-b ‘to guarantee’, Heb.
‘érabon ‘pledge’, Aram. “r-b-n ‘security, pledge’,
Akk. erubatu ‘pledge’; mnd > 'mina/mine (a mea-
sure of weight and a coin)’ < Phoen. m-n(-A) (final
-h is a mater lectionis, i.e., it indicates *a), Akk.
mani, Ugar. m-n, Heb, mane 'id.'; siglos/siklos
‘Hebrew coin’ has a Semitic root s-g-! ‘weight’,
e.g. Akk. Seqiu ‘a unit of weight (gold or silver)’,
Ugar. t-q-l ‘id.', Punic $-g- id‘, Heb. segel (used
as the name of the Israeli currency unit today);
Kanna | kanné ‘reed’ > kanön ‘measuring rod’
< Akk. ganü ‘reed, cane’, gan mindati ‘measuring
rod’, Ugar. q-n ‘reed', Pun. g-n(a) ‘reed’, Hebr.
qan@ ‘reed’, qné hammidda ‘measuring reed/rad’;
kädos ‘big jar, measure of liquids’ (> Slavic kad’
‘big container for liquids’) goes back to Phoen.
and Punic &-d ‘pitcher, jar’, Ugar. &-d ‘jar, mea-
sure’ (especially for wine and oil), Punic k-d ‘jar’,
Akk. kandu and kannu ‘big jar, vessel, bucket’,
Heb. kad ‘pitcher, container used to store flour’;
gaulds ‘a kind of pot, vessel’ is attested in Akk.
as guilu ‘bowl’, Phoen. g-f(-n), Ugar. g-! ‘round
pot’, Heb. gülla ‘basin (for oil)’ - this word is
also the source of Gk. gaulés ‘a kind of merchant
ship’; sipué ‘a kind of container (for bread)’ has
a good source in Semitic, e.g. Phoen. s-p ‘bowl,
basin’, Akk. sappu/Sappu/Sapp-atu ‘bowl, vessel’,
Heb. sap, Ugar. s-p ‘id’. Among nouns denot-
ing objects of trade we have: miirra > ‘myrrh’
which goes back to Phoen. m-r, Ugar. m-r, Arab.
murr, Heb. mör; libanos ‘Boswelia Carteri, frank-
incense, olibanum': libanötös is attested in Punic
I-b-n(-a) ‘frankincense’ (also /-b-n ‘white’), also in
Heb, fabond and Arab. luban, Epigraphic South
Arab. L-n(-t), Ugar. I-b-n ‘incense’; bälsamon
> ‘balsam tree, balsam oil’ found in Heb. as begem
‘balsam tree, balsam oil, perfume’ with lateral /s/
which explains Greek -Is-, Arabic basam; büssos
‘very fine linen = byssus’ is Phoen. b-s, Akk. büsu,
Heb. büs ‘fine white valuable web’; sindön ‘very
fine cloth/fabric’ < Akk. saddinu ‘tunic (of linen)’,
Heb. sadin ‘undercloth, wrapper’; sdkkos ‘cloth of
goat-hair, sack’ < Akk. saqqu ‘sack (cloth)', Aram.
$-q ‘id’, Heb. sag ‘id.'; among precious stones
there is éaspis ‘yaspis’ which occurs in Heb. as
yaspe, Akk. yaspu, but it is also found in several
other non-Semitic languages of the Ancient Near
28a SEMITIC LOANWORDS
East and therefore the way of borrowing is not
clear; kdmélos ‘camel’ must have a Semitic origin
since in Arabic (+ Greek and Arabic (Early Con-
tacts)) it is jamal/gamal, in Heb. gämäl, in Ara-
maic g-m-l, cf. also Coptic kamül/camül. These
are probably genuine Semitic words.
Among ‘cultural’ terms there is a musi-
cal instrument rdbla (> Lat. nablium, nablum)
‘string instrument’ attested in Phoen. n-b-/ ‘musi-
cal instrument with 10 or 12 strings’, Heb. nébel
'harpe', Syr. nabl(-a) 'id!.
There are also some less convincing etymolo-
gies of words connected to building technique:
plinthos ‘brick’ is most probably connected with
Akk. ibittu < *libintu ‘mudbrick’, Ugar. I-b-n(-t)
and Aram. ¢-6-n-h ‘id.’; güpsos > ‘gypsum’ < Akk.
gassu, Arab, jiss/giss ‘id.’; titanos ‘lime’ is proba-
bly connected with Akk. tidu ‘clay, mud, plaster’;
kharax ‘pale, stake, palisade' may be connected
with Akk. farisu ‘city ditch, moat’ and hardsu
‘to cut off, cut in, excavate; incise’, Heb. Adras
id.'; megaron/mdgaron ‘large room, chamber,
crypt’, most probably connected with Phoen.
m-‘-ra(t) ‘cave, burial cave’, Heb, ma‘ara ‘cave’,
Arab. magära(t) ‘cave’ and Ugar. m-g-rat 'id.’,
Then there are some nouns connected to
transport: apéné ‘four-wheeled wagon, chariot’,
probably going back to Ugar. -a-p-n ‘wheel’,
Heb. ‘épan ‘wheel of a vehicle’; /éméos ‘a ship’s
cock-boat’ probably goes back ta Akk. eleppu
‘river-boat, sea-going vessel, fishing boat’, and
in connection with fishing there is also sagéné
‘large drag-net’ to be compared with Akk. sikinnu
‘large fishing net with floats and weights’.
In the majority of cases plant names have
been only transmitted most probably via Semitic
and they can be counted as borrowed from
Semitic only with reservations: kinnämömon
> ‘cinnamon’ (Lat. cinnamon) has a correspon-
dent in Heb. ginnämön and Syr. qunndm-a;
krökos ‘saffron, ‘Crocus salivus’ is associated with
Akk. kurkanu and Heb. karkom, but Semitic lan-
guages could only have transmitted the word
together with this plant and product most prob-
ably from India; nardos > ‘nard’ goes back to Skt.
nalad-, most probably via Semitic (< Persian),
where it is recorded at least in Heb. as nérd, in
Akk. fardu, in Arab. as nard, nardin; it is not
clear whether Greek soüson ‘lily’ came directly
from Egyptian $-$-n or from Semitic where there
is Heb. susan ‘id.'; khalbäne > ‘galbanum, kind
of incense’ has a good correspondent in Heb.
IN GREEK
helbana, Arab. halbana, but it is not clear what
its original source might be.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Robert. 2009. Etymological dictionary uf Greek.
Vol. 1-2. Leiden.
Bernal, Martin, 2006. Black Athenu, Vol. II: the linguistic
evidence. New Brunswick, NJ.
Brown, John P. 2000, /srael and Hellas. Vol. 2. Berlin.
Burkert, Walter. 1984. Die orientalisierende Epoche in der
griechischen Religion und Literatur, Heidelberg. (English
translation: The orientalizing revolution: the Near Eastern
influence on Greek culture in the Early Archaic Age. 1992.
Cambridge, Mass.)
Francis, E, D. 1992. “The impact of non-Indo-European lan-
guages on Greek and Mycenaean”. In: Reconstructing
languages and cultures, ed. by Edward C. Polomé and
Werner Winter, 469-506. Berlin.
Krause, Wilhelm. 1970. “Griechisch-orientalische Lehnwort-
beziehungen”. In: Festschrift Karl Vretska, ed. by Doris
Ableitinger and Helmut Gugel, 89-115. Heidelberg.
Lewy, Heinrich. 1895. Die semitischen Fremdwörter im
Griechischen. Berlin.
Masson, Emilia. 1967. Recherches sur les plus anciens
emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris,
. 2007. “Greek and Semitic Languages: early contacts”.
In: A history of Ancient Greek: fram the beginnings to Late
Antiquity, ed. by A.-F. Christides, 733-738. Cambridge,
Mayer, Maria-Luisa. 1960. “Gli imprestiti semitici in greco.
Rendiconti dellistituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere”,
Classe di Lettere 94:311-451.
Rosen, Haiim B. 1979. L’'hdhreu et ses rapports avec le monde
classique. Paris.
Salonen, E. 1974. "Über einige Lehnwärter aus dem Nahen
Osten im Griechischen und Lateinischen", Arctos
Ba39-144.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1974. “The origins of the Greek lexicon:
ex Oriente lux", JHS 94:144-157.
ANDRZE| ZABONSKI
Semivowels
Semivowels are vowel-like sounds that behave
as consonants. Crosslinguistically, the palatal /j/
and labio-velar /w/ are the most common semi-
vowels. Phonologically, these sounds are the
non-syllabic counterparts of the high vowels /i/
and /u/: cf. imen ‘we go’ vs. eimi ‘| go' and zugön
‘yoke’ vs. zeügos ‘yoke of beasts’,
/w/, inherited from PIE, survived in + Myce-
naean and many first-millennium Greek dialects.
The early Greek local alphabets had a specific
sign for /w/, <F>, originally called wad and later
digamma. /w/ occurred word-initially and word-
internally: Myc. wo-i-ko-de /woikénde/ ‘to home’,
Selinuntian woikei ‘inhabit (3rd sg. pr.)’, Cret.
woikdpedon ‘site of a house’, Arc. wrésis ‘speech’,
 SEMTVOWELS
El. wrdtra ‘treaty’, Myc. di-we /Diwéi/, Arg. Diwi
‘Zeus (dat.)’, Myc. mi-to-we-sa /miltöwes(s)a/
‘painted ochre (fem.)’, Corinthian stondwes(s)an
‘causing sighs (acc. sg. fem.)’, Myc. ko-wa
fkérwa/, Arc. körwa ‘girl’, Myc. o-da-twe-ta
/odatwenta/ ‘provided with teeth (acc. sg. masc.)',
Aetolian p.n. Khelidwön. In dialects where /w/
was preserved, it could eventually become a
bilabial voiced fricative [8]: early Cret. proweipei
‘he would proclaim’ vs. late Cret. diabeipdme-
nos ‘agreeing’ (masc.). Some dialects also had
a voiceless or aspirated /m/ (< *sw-) ın initial
position (+ Aspiration}: Pamph. whé ‘him/her’,
Arg. whediestas ‘citizen’. Although /w/ was lost
very early in Attic-lonic, the evidence of meter
shows that it had not yet eroded in the earliest
phases of epic (+ Epic Meter): eeikoston (w)etos
estin ‘it is the twentieth year’ (Hom. Od. 19.222),
where /w/ forces a preceding consonant into
the coda.
The evidence for /j/ as an independent pho-
neme is scant. Mycenaean still preserves some
instances of inherited intervocalic /j/, which
did not survive in later Greek: to-ro-ge-jo-me-
no /trok’ejémenos/ ‘turning around (pres. pte.
masc.)’, e-ke-jo-to /enkéjotoi/ ‘lay (3rd pl. pres.)’
(cf. Hom. kéontai = keintai). Spelling variations
like o- vs. jo- (= Ad, relative pronoun, with /j/
probably from early “/,j-) suggest an on-going
lenition of /j/ word-initially, which was com-
plete in later Greek. For the outcome *j- > z-, see
+ palatalizations.
Semivowels in Classical Attic appear exclu-
sively as the second element of falling + diph-
thongs. Interestingly, the diphthongs in /w/ are
sporadically written with <w> instead of <u>
in some early inscriptions: Cret. owtoi ‘these
(masc.)', Locrian Nawpaktion ‘of Naupactus
(gen. pl.)', Lac. Elewthia ‘Eleuthia’. Conversely,
spellings like Cret. uergon for wérgon ‘work’ are
extremely rare. Although /u/ and /u:/ changed in
Attic-Ionic to /y/ and /y:/ (+ Vowels), this devel-
opment did not affect /w/ in diphthongs, which
was not pronounced as a labio-palatal ([y]):
phugein /p*ygém/ ‘flee (aor. inf.)' but pheügein
(pr. inf.) /p®ewge:n/.
In some dialects new semivowels [e] and [9]
emerged via + synizesis of /e/ (before /o/ and
/a/) and /o/ (after /e/), and eventually became
ff and /w/: theds ‘god’ /teés/ > /t"eds/ > thiös
[thjds/ (Lac., Cret., Arg., etc.), p.n. gen. sg. Theoge-
neos /teogéneos/ > /t'eggénegs/ > Theugéneus
281
/thewgénews/ (Rhod. and Ion.) = Att. Theagénous
(see also + Yodization, + Diphthongization).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. 1987. Vox Graeca. A guide to the pronuncia-
tion of classical Greek. Cambridge.
Méndez Dosuna, Julian. 1993, “El cambio de <z> en <> ante
vocal en los dialectos griegos: zuna cuestiön zanjada?”.
In: Dialectolagica Graeca. Actas del 1 coloquio internacin-
nal de dialectologia griega, ed. by Emilio Crespo, Jose L.
Garcia Ramön and Araceli Striano, 237-259. Madrid.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1972. “Greek and Indo-European
semi-consonants: Mycenaean u and w". In: Acta Myce-
naea. Proceedings of the fifth international colloquium on
Mycenaean studies, held in Salamanca, 30 March-3 April,
ed. by Martin 5. Ruipérez, 80-121. Salamanca.
Probert, Philomen. 2008. “Mycenaean o- is accusative; jo- is
nominative”, Glotta 8426-168,
ALCORAC ALONSO DENIZ
Sentence
1. DEFINITION
A sentence is usually defined as a sequence
of connected words in speech or writing that
constitute the complete grammatical expres-
sion of a thought. This type of definition goes
back to antiquity; Dionysius Thrax defined sen-
tence (lögos) as pezés léxeds sunthesis dianoian
autotelé deloüsa ‘a combination of plain (prose)
speech that expresses a self-standing thought‘.
The importance accorded to the semantic
content of the sentence is evident in the term
‘sentence’ itself, which is the Latin translation
(sententia) of Gk. didnoia ‘thought’. This link
between speech and thought is rooted in the
Greek word lögos, which points to both aspects
at the same time. For modern linguistic theory,
however, the definition of sentence is rather
controversial and many different proposals
have been put forward. Lyons (1977:29-31), in an
attempt to keep the sentence as a unit of linguis-
tic analysis, established a distinction between
system- and text-sentences. System-sentences
would be abstract, theoretical entities in the
linguist's model of analysis, while text-sentences
are the product of language behavior (utterances
or parts of utterances). Accordingly, system-
sentences would be “sequences of words in a
one-to-one order preserving correspondence
with what would be judged, intuitively by
native speakers, to be grammatically complete
282 SENTENGE
text-sentences” (Lyons 1977:30). In recent years,
some linguists have even abandoned the sen-
tence as a unit of analysis (Miller z0n:23-26),
especially for the study of spoken language,
due to the difficulty of finding objective crite-
ria for establishing its limits in speech, since
speakers do not even signal them consistently
with pauses. Experimental work has shown
that educated speakers of the same language
strongly disagree when dividing transcriptions
of speech into sentences, and in developmen-
tal approaches to language it appears that the
capacity of young children to build clauses into
sentences is directly related to their exposure
to written texts. The sentence would thus be a
more appropriate unit of linguistic analysis for
written language.
Sentences must be distinguished from other
units of syntactic analysis (+ Syntax (suntaxis),
Ancient Theories of), even if the definitions
of some of these terms sometimes overlap.
> Clauses can be sentences, but not every clause
is a sentence. Utterances are the minimal units
of discourse and must carry illocutionary force:
sentences are usually utterances, but not every
utterance is a sentence, since fragments of sen-
tences (e.g. émuige ‘to me’, meaning ‘yes, I do' in
an answer to a question, Pl. Thi. 152d), words or
phrases (e.g., thalatta, thalatta ‘Sea! Sea!’ Xen. An.
4.7.24), and non-predicative units (like affirma-
tive nai ‘yes’ or + interjections or exclamations
such as aia? or eleled) can also be. Sentences
have been traditionally defined as the highest
units of syntactic analysis and, accordingly, syn-
tax has been considered the study of the inter-
nal structure of sentences. Recent research has
emphasized that there are higher linguistic units
than the sentence, but their coherence is of a
different kind, pragmatic or discoursive and not
properly syntactic, since there are no depen-
dency relations across sentence boundaries, in
spite of ellipsis and certain types of binders,
2. SENTENCE TYPES
Sentences can be classified as simple or complex,
depending on whether they consist of one clause
or more than one. Simple sentences are self-
standing clauses that are not syntactically linked
to any other; they can be verbal (see example
(1) below) or nominal, depending on whether the
predicate is a verb or not (+ Predicative Constit-
uents). In Greek grammar sentences either with
or without a copulative verb ((2) and (3) below,
respectively) can be classified as nominal:
(1) entautha émeinan hemeräs treis
‘They stayed there for three days’ (Xen. An.
2.3.17)
(2) su ef ho Khristös
"You are the anointed’ (Mark 8:29)
(3) philophrosune gar ameinön
‘Kindliness is indeed better (Hom. Al. 9.256)
Complex sentences can be subclassified accord-
ing to the type of relationship between the com-
bining clauses. Traditionally, this relationship
was considered to be + coordination or > sub-
ordination, which can be restated in terms of
clause chaining vs. embedding. Recent studies
on syntactic complexity (e.g. Givén 2009) have
pointed out that such difference is directly linked
to hierarchical organization, with subordination
involving more levels of hierarchy than coor-
dination, However, a bipartite approach is not
completely satisfactory for the analysis of Greek
complex sentences: it should be completed in
at least two directions. First, there is a group of
correlative structures (+ consecutive, — condi-
tional and concessive clauses and some types
of + relative clauses), which cannot be properly
characterized as subordinate clauses in the same
way as temporal or modal clauses, given that,
unlike the latter, they lack a syntactic function
inside the main clause. On the other hand, it
must be stressed that subordination appears at
different layers, that is, subordinate clauses can
be found in the core, nuclear, and extended
predication, but also in the proposition and in
the enunciation, as in (4) - all of them would be
cases of complex sentences, but their complexity
is of different kinds:
(4) glauké dé se tikte thdlassa pétrai t’ élibatoi,
höti toi ndos estin apénés
‘The gleaming sea and the stiff cliffs bore
you, because your mind is hard’ (Hom. X.
16.34-35)
3. SENTENCE AS PART OF SYNTAX
Following Aristotle (Ahet. 1409a24ff.), in stylis-
tic studies on Greek syntax it is customary to
distinguish between ‘periodical’ (from periodos
'period’) and continuous structures (see, e.g.,
Blass & Debrunner 1954:289-290). Continuous
 SENTENCE
structure is characteristic of texts of lesser liter-
ary quality: clauses are linked by copulative ka/
‘and’ and new information is added by means
of participial (> Participles), relative, or Aöfi-
clauses, It is also possible to find an asyndetic
(unbound) structure when even those elements
are lacking and clauses simply follow each other.
This traditional, stylistic approach to the sen-
tence can be connected to recent ideas derived
from the study of oral speech. Miller and Wein-
ert (2009) have argued that the sentence is a low-
level discourse unit, not a syntactic one, relying
on the fact that there is strong variation concern-
ing what constitutes a well-formed sentence,
even within the same language. Miller (2011:25)
adds that for stylistic reasons authors can pro-
duce very atypical sentences strongly deviating
from what grammars and style manuals consider
‘normal’, The ‘periodical’ structure should then
be considered the result of artistic elaboration of
clause combination and sentence building. For
Latin and other languages it has been noticed
that complex sentences were developed by gen-
erations of writers making a conscious stylistic
effort; this situation resulted in the teaching of
certain conventions in schools that then became
the norm (Miller 2011:234-236). To a great extent,
this is also valid for the analysis of the develop-
ment of complex sentences in Ancient Greek,
but in this case we should not underestimate the
impact of artistically elaborated oral discourse.
Modern studies discussing issues of syntax and
discourse in oral speech tend to overlook the
importance of literary oral texts, but the first lit-
erary records of Greek, the Homeric poems, were
orally composed and we find in them already
a high level of complexity in sentence organi-
zation (+ Epic Diction), The organization of a
sentence in Homer differs from Classical Attic
prose, but it must be the result of a long period
of artistic elaboration of the language in oral
poetry, which favored certain types of clause
linking and sentence structure. We can recog-
nize in this the typical variations of style in sen-
tence arrangement that have been emphasized
in recent approaches to syntax. From a stylistic
point of view, it should also be mentioned that in
Greek we find a tendency for a rhythmical orga-
nization of the sentence (+ Epic Meter).
Word order in simple sentences is that of the
clause, As for complex sentences, the order tends
to be iconical in clause chaining, reflecting the
sequential or logical order of the predications.
283
In correlative sentences too the order is usually
iconical (e.g., conditional before main clause),
but, since there are overt markers (+ conjunc-
tions) showing the type of semantic relationship
between the clauses, that order can be reversed.
Embedded clauses typically appear in the same
position of the sentence in which a phrase with
the same syntactic function would be expected;
the exception in Greek is noun clauses, which
usually come after the verb, even when they are
syntactically the subject. As with other struc-
tures, the usual order can vary due to pragmatic
or stylistic factors (+ Word Order).
Sentence structure can be altered when we
find parenthesis or anacoluthon. With parenthe-
sis, and parentheticals in general, the sentence
is interrupted by the introduction of a thought
expressed by means ofa grammatically indepen-
dent clause or fragment. Grammatical constitu-
ency is generally respected by parentheticals,
which in Greek tend to be placed at phrase
boundaries (Devine & Stephens 1994:423). Par-
entheticals must have induced a specific pho-
nological phrasing in the sentence, but, as with
other aspects of Greek + prosody, we lack direct
evidence. In anacoluthon (+ Figures (skhemata),
Ancient Theories of ), which is characteristic of
spoken, colloquial language, the initial syntac-
tic arrangement is abandoned in the middle of
the sentence and the resulting utterance is not
coherent from a syntactic point of view, as in
(6), an instance of nominativus pendens, which
is then taken up by an accusative:
(6) ho nikön poiésd autén stülon en töl nadi...
‘The one who overcomes, | will make him a
column in the temple...’ (Apoc. 312)
4. SEMANTIC CRITERIA
From a semantic point of view sentences are
usually classified into three main types (cf. Lyons
1977:746-760 for general discussion, and Borne-
mann & Risch 1978:277-278 for the strategies
employed in Greek): a) declarative sentences,
employed for making statements; b) jussive
sentences, employed for issuing commands;
and c) interrogative sentences, employed for
asking + questions. These last can be partial
or total. In partial questions the action, event
or state of affairs is taken for granted, but one or
more of the participants or circumstances is
not known - an interrogative + pronoun or
284
+ adverb, usually placed at the beginning of the
sentence, is employed in this case, as in (7):
(7) ‘An eita;
Kai d pdshoweteldid 57a)
he die?’ (Pl. Pha.
In total interrogatives the question concerns the
action, event or state of affairs as a whole and
the expected answer is a confirmation or nega-
tion, as in (8):
(8) Oupo gar he tälaina patetat göon;
‘So the poor woman has not stopped crying
yet?’ (Eur. Med. 59)
In natural languages these various types are
characterized by different intonations (+ Into-
national Phrase). As Mithun (2009) and Miller
(2011:227-229) have recently discussed, intona-
tion also signals to what degree two successive
clauses are integrated into a higher structure
(a sentence or, more loosely, a clause complex).
When studying Ancient Greek, however, little
can be said with certainty about intonation,
since we rely on written evidence.
5. PUNCTUATION
The division of a written text into sentences is
marked in most languages by various types of
+ punctuation marks and orthographic devices.
The usual convention when editing Ancient
Greek texts - which follows practices going back
to antiquity (+ Philological-Grammatical Tradi-
tion) — is that initial capital letters are only
employed for the beginning of larger paragraphs
or text sections, not for every sentence. As for
punctuation, the end of a sentence is marked
either by a low dot (.) or a high dot (-), depend-
ing on whether there is a stronger or lighter
semantic or discursive connection between the
sentences; a question mark (;) is placed at the
end of interrogative sentences.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. 1954. Grammatik des
neutestamentlichen Griechisch. gth ed. Göttingen.
Bornemann, Eduard and Ernst Risch. 1978. Griechische
Grammatik. and ed. Frankfurt.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homérique, vol. 2: Syn-
taxe. Paris.
Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti and Helena Maquieira, 2003. Sin-
taxis del griego cldsico. Madrid,
Devine, A. M. and Laurence D, Stephens. 1994. The prosody
af Greek speech. New York - Oxford.
SENTENCE
Givon, Talmy. "Introduction". In: Givon and Masayoshi
2009:1-19.
Givön, Talmy and Masayoshi Shibatani, eds. 2009. Syntactic
complexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolu-
tion. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1955. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, vol. 2: Sutzlehre.
4th ed. Leverkusen.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semanties, 2 vols. Cambridge.
Matthews, P. H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge.
Miller, Jim. 2011. A critical introduction to syntax. London.
Miller, Jim and Regina Weinert. 2009. Spontaneaus spoken
language. Syntax and discourse. Oxford.
Mithun, Marianne. 200g. "Re(e)volving complexity. Adding
intonation”, In: Givén and Shibatani 2009:53-80.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechis-
che Grammatik, vol. 2: Syntax und syniaktische Stilistik,
Munich.
EUGENIO R. LujAn
Sentence/Utterance (lögos), Ancient
Theories of
L INTRODUCTION
The history of the word lögos in Greek thought
is a perfect illustration of the power of nouns in
the Indo-European languages, Lögos is the sub-
stantive form corresponding to the verb /égein,
which originally meant ‘to gather’, and later,
principally, ‘to say’ or ‘to speak’. But whereas
the verbal form never gave rise to any particular
conceptual elaboration, the noun lögos served as
a foundation for a key notion in Greek thought
from Heraclitus to the first words of the Gospel of
John: en arkhéi én ho lögos ‘in the beginning was
the Word’. Ever since Antiquity, there has been
a regular insistence on the polysemous nature
of this term, made clear by the fact that even
authors who define precisely what they mean by
lögos in no way feel dissuaded by their definition
from using the same word to denote apparently
quite different things. In fact, even in the most
technical contexts, there is no absolutely rigid
metalanguage that would authorize, for example,
an identical translation of all occurrences of the
word. It will be no surprise, therefore, to find /éges
included in the nomenclature of the Dictionnaire
des intraduisibles (Cassin 2004), which offers
possible translations from which the following
is just a selection: “statement, speech, account,
discourse, proverb, language, reckoning, pro-
portion, consideration, explanation, reasoning,
reason, proposition, phrase”. However, if we ask
ourselves what renders a word untranslatable,
 SENTENCE/UTTERANCE (LOGOS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
then whatever it is, it is certainly not its poly-
semy. If this were all, then in any given context it
would suffice to translate the polysemous word
using whichever particular word happened to be
apposite. Polysemy, then, forbids only the trans-
lation of a single word by another single word.
Yet this is precisely what philosophy does when
it ‘translates’ /égos as...logos, which seems
the smoothest way of evading the problem! In
reality, what makes translation difficult is the
fact that the meaning or meanings of a word
are not themselves words. We are not dealing
with atoms of meaning, precisely because the
function of the word is to gather together vari-
ous representations in order to make of them,
depending on the degree of technicality, a more
or less vague idea or an exact concept. But in all
cases, the word, by its phonic specificity, pro-
vides a manifest and unified form to a ‘packet’ of
representations. Our objective, in the extremely
limited space of this entry, will be to ascertain,
by way ofa briefhistory of the term and its use in
philosophy, rhetoric and grammar, the different
facets to which the noun /ogos lends a unity that
is quite lacking in any other language.
2. GREEK lögos
With this in mind, it is necessary to cite in
its entirety the passage from Plato’s Sophist
(261c-264b) in which Plato shows that a series
ofnouns or verbs can never make an utterance,
while conversely, if one brings together a noun
and a verb, one indeed constructs an utterance.
This is what makes it possible to emerge from
the aporia of the Cratylus, where the truth of
nouns is undecidable, while a combination of
a noun and a verb is sufficient to permit a judg-
ment, and hence to distinguish what is true
from what is false . Above all, though, this pas-
sage explicitly deploys the full palette of facets
of logos. To begin with, there is the opposition
between the simple sequence of nouns or verbs,
which produces nothing, and the combination
of a noun with a verb, which suffices to produce
a discursive unit. Legos, then, is at once an
ordering principle, a creation based on a synthe-
sis, and a unifying whole. This synthetic power
of logos, as signalled in the article cited above
(Cassin 2004), is entirely in agreement with the
etymological sense of ‘gathering’. Plato then goes
on to draw our attention to the need for har-
monization, which prefigures syntax. Not any
285
noun is compatible with any verb. Moreover,
fegos should refer to something. Finally, the pas-
sage ends with a crucial play on words: thought
(dianoia) and speech (lögos) are the same”
(Pl. Soph. 263e), and thought is then defined as
“a silent inner conversation (did/oges) of the soul
with itself", where the word diälogos appears
as a portmanteau combining didnoia and lögos.
This wordplay thus permits us to perceive the
dialogical and intersubjective dimension of
logos. We might add that, if the association of a
noun with a verb constitutes a minimum utter-
ance for Plato, the passage seems to imply that
the dimension of logos could be greatly enlarged
without losing its unity. From this point of view,
a complete discourse is not a combination of
minimum utterances, but quite simply a great
discourse, a great logos. For discourse is not
defined by its morphosyntactic composition
(i.e., from below), but by its synthetic function
and its unity (i.e., from above).
If logos facilitates knowledge for Plato while
also allowing true and false discourse, it plays
an even more crucial role for Aristotle. However,
much more space would be needed in order
to describe its function in his philosophy. To
put it briefly, the same components occur, but
since the philosophical framework is different,
important modifications are introduced. For
example, fogos as ordering principle is not lim-
ited to thought and language, but also extends
to reality, seeing that it is both definition and
raison d'étre. From this perspective, the rational-
ity of the discourse in Aristotle takes the place
of thought (identified with the doxa, therefore
untrustworthy) in Plato. This reflects another
facet of logos, namely the principle of establish-
ing relationships, which could also be said to
characterize rational thought, discourse and the
world as ordered cosmos. [t is in this sense that a
human being, for Aristotle, is the only animal to
possess logos, In the texts examining language,
one of the must significant properties of logos is
also associated with this faculty of coordination:
as utterance, it is effectively defined as a ‘com-
posite’ (sünthetos) ensemble on the semantic
level, inasmuch as its constituent elements are
also significant (Aristot. Poet. 20,1457a23, Int.
16b26), anticipating the ‘expressibles’ (lektad) of
the Stoics and the ‘construction of concepts’
(süntaxis tön noetön) of Apollonius Dyscolus
(Synt. 1,2). Above all, what Aristotle highlights is
unity, whether that be by virtue of referring to a
286 SENTENCE/UTTERANCE (LOGOS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
unique being (e.g. the definition of a man) or of
unity ‘by conjunction’ (e.g. the fliad), Here, we
recognize the ability of logos to manifest itself
as a minimal ‘discourse’, equivalent to a proposi-
tion, or as a discourse in the wider sense, as in
the Iliad. The extension and the processes may
change, but the properties remain the same: a
complex ensemble corresponding to a unique
representation, referring to a unique reality and
to a single point of view (which may either be
true or false) of this representation and this real-
ity. In defining minimal discourse as an utter-
ance of semantic composition, Aristotle now
no longer limits it to a noun/verb combination,
but to a relation of subject and predicate (in
the definition “(a) man (is) a rational animal”,
the predicate in Greek does not contain an
explicit copula), This may also be an apt inter-
pretation of the example “(it is a) beautiful
horse" (Int. 16a22), if this is not a simple pred-
icative relationship between the adjective and
noun in a nominal group, qualified by logos in
the sense of ‘expression’, likewise of semantic
composition.
The Stoic philosophers reinterpreted the same
conceptual ensemble from the perspective of
their vision of the world. In each of the three
topoi (= domains) of their philosophy (physics,
ethics and logic), foges plays the role of guid-
ing principle, both causal force and exegetic
principle, In the sphere of logic, this leads to a
theory of language which is particularly rich, and
the importance of the role of Stoic philosophy
in the development of grammar is well-known,
this development owing much to the coupling
of the rational with the discursive. The definition
of logos in the sphere of logic, as transmitted by
Diogenes Laertius (7,56), is as follows: “speech
(phöne) that issues fram the mind (didnoia)
and signifies something, e.g. ‘It is day’.” Based
on this example, we might interpret logos as
meaning a ‘proposition’ or ‘sentence’, but this
would not take account of the question, already
present in Aristotle, of the homogeneous nature
of language whatever its extension. The cited
proposition is a minimal sample, but a complete
discourse would surely have served just as well
as an example. The essence of definition rests
on the combined properties of intentional ratio-
nality, complexity — both horizontal (at least a
noun and a verb) and vertical (a vocal form and
a meaning) - and unity. In parallel with the idea
of fogos, that of /éxis, may be exemplified by a
single word: ‘day’, Equally, however, it could
have been represented by a wider ensemble. It
is the product of the human faculty for con-
structing articulated forms. Seen in this light,
the Stoics stand at the watershed between the
more traditional sense of ‘form of expression’
and the meaning lexis goes on to acquire in
grammar: ‘word’.
Given the variability of the range of logos, it
comes as no surprise that rhetoric, in turn, has
tended to privilege the dimension of usage of
the term that suits it best. Not only does logos
here refer to discourse as a verbal or written
ensemble of great extent, but it opens the way
to a problem of genres of discourse (judicial,
epideictic and of the assembly). But when, in a
rhetorical context, the question of the parts of
discourse arises (ta mere tot lögou), this may
equally refer to the organization of words within
a phrase (as in grammar) or to the different ele-
ments of a discourse, namely exposition (pröthe-
sis) and argumentation (pistis) in Aristotle (Rhet.
3,1414335). Yet for Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
the noun and the verb are parts (mere, or möria)
of the /exis just as of fogos. This indistinctness
of terminology should remind us to be cautious
in considering the proper level of logos. If the
smallest fogos is indeed a proposition, that logos
(or féxis) of which the word is the smallest part
is not limited to a proposition.
The grammarians (notably Dionysius Thrax
and Apollonius Dyscolus) eschew neither poly-
semy nor complexity in their usage of logos.
It may be thought of either as an uncountable
noun, as in ‘language’ or ‘speech’, or a count-
able one, as in ‘an utterance’, ‘a proposition’,
The expression meros fou lögou (‘part of lan-
guage’), which has become a technical term, per-
tains to the former sense (+ Word Classes (mere
tot lögou), Ancient Theories of), What leads
some translators to choose words like ‘utterance’
or ‘sentence’ is the fact that the grammarians
were working principally with simple sentences,
Apollonius going as far as to give an example of
the maximum diversity of an utterance compris-
ing seven of the eight ‘parts of language’, exclud-
ing the conjunction because it would make it
impossible to keep the sentence simple. But, as
we have seen, reasoning on the basis of mini-
mal examples does not mean that the reasoning
would not apply beyond them. The definitions
of grammatical persons pertain also to these
senses. For example, the second person is the
 SENTENCE/UTTERANCE (LOGOS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF 287

one addressed by the logos. The second sense Antiquity, ed. by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters,
is illustrated in Apollonius’ treatise On the Con- 77-94. Leuven - Paris — Dudley, MA.
Powell, Jonathan (ed.). 2007. Logos. Rational argument in
junctions when he asserts that a conjunction Classical rhetoric. London.
joins two /dgous. In fact, then, these are neither Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Protagoras and logos: a study in
sentences nor clauses, but a combination con- Greek philosophy and rhetoric, Columbia.
sisting on a minimum level of a nominative
FREDERIC LAMBERT
and a verb, from which the conjunction itself is
excluded. We note that if the word (/éxis to the
grammarians) is indeed a part of the logos, the
Septuagint
logos is not itself conceived as a part. It is the
fundamental unit oflanguage, which must obey
The Septuagint is an unstructured corpus of
the order of säntaxis (proper order) and refer to
sacred writings for Jews and early Christians,
a representation that is sufficiently autonomous
comprising both ancient Hebrew works trans-
(didnoia autoteles) (+ Syntax (süntaxis), Ancient
lated into + Koine Greek and works originally
Theories of). Thus, the clause ‘it is day', when
written in Greek. The resulting corpus of original
preceded by the conjunction ‘if’, loses its auton-
and translated Koine Greek encompasses a com-
omy and must be followed, for instance, by ‘there
plex variety of interlingual translational tech-
will be daylight’ so as to form a new logos. Once
niques, as well as varying genres or text-types
more, we find ourselves facing a synthetic com-
and registers. Some scholars wish to reserve the
plexity that renders this word decidedly difficult
term Septuagint for only the first five books of
to translate. What is certain, however, is that
the corpus, the Pentateuch, with the term Old
the grammarians are the true heirs to Plato and
Greek used for the other books. The Septuagint
his successors. The grammatical usage of logos
was the earliest and most significant interlin-
integrates the essential features of the properties
gual translation of an eastern religious text into
brought together in his concept: the gathering
Greek (Brock 1972:12, 14).
together of diverse elements, the constitution of
There are a variety of ancient and modern the-
a coherent unit, the role of a rational ordering
ories on the origins of the Septuagint, witha range
principle, the awareness of interlocutory play
of linguistic credibility. Some of the ancient the-
and of referential Function. In a nutshell, all the
ories include that at least part of the Septuagint
play of language and thought is to be found art-
was translated before the time of Plato and that
fully assimilated in the word fogos.
the translation was divinely guided and hence of
equal status with the original (both explanations
BIBLIOGRAPHY
de Brauw, Michael. 2007, “he parts of speech". In: A corn- are attempts to give the work linguistic prestige).
panion to Greek rhetoric, ed. by Tan Worthington, 187-202. Modem theories include the views that the Sep-
Oxford, tuagint was a revision of a previously translated
Cassin, Barbara. 1997. Aristote et le logos. Paris
work that was given an incredible account of its
(ed.). 2004. Vocabulaire européen des philosophies. Dic-
tionnaire des intraduisibles, 727-741. Paris. origins to establish it as the standard transla-
Crubellier, Michel and Pierre Pellegrin. 2002. Aristote. Paris. tion; that the translation at least of the Penta-
Dalimier, Catherine. zoo. Apollonius Dyscole, Traité des con- teuch took place in Palestine, necessary for it to
Jonctions. Paris. have religious authority; and that the need for a
Dupont-Roc, Roselyne and Jean Lallot. i980. Aristote, La
poetique. Paris. Greek translation arose out of liturgical necessity
Fournier, Henri. 1946. Les verbes ‘dire’ en grec ancien. Paris. (see Porter 2000:100-uor). The traditional view
Hdefonse, Frédérique. 1997. La naissance de la grammaire found in the Leiter of Aristeas (and c. CE) and
dans !’Antiquite grecque. Paris.
repeated by others - that a 3rd-c. BCE king of
de Jonge, Casper C. and Johannes M. van Ophuisen. 2010.
“Greek philosophers on language”. In: A companion to the Egypt (Ptolemy I] Philadelphus), desiring to fill
ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert J. Bakker, 485-498. his library at Alexandria with all of the world’s
Oxford. books, commissioned his librarian to arrange for
Lallot, Jean. 1989. La grammiaire de Denys le Thrace. Paris.
——. 1997. Apollonius Dyscole, De la construction, 2 vols.
a translation of the Hebrew Bible by seventy (or
Paris. seventy-two) Palestinian Jewish scholars — is full
van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. 2003. “Parts of whaf speech? of legendary elements, but probably contains
Stoic nations of statement and sentence, or: how the several kernels of linguistic truth (see Wasser-
dialectician knew voice and begat syntax”. In: Syntax in
stein 2006; Meecham 1932).
288 SEPTUAGINT
Many Jews resident in Egypt — like the vast
majority of Jews living outside of Palestine at
the time - no longer knew Hebrew (and most
did not know Aramaic) (see Porter 2012). They
were probably Greek Li (first or native language)
users, or possibly Greek Lz (second language)
users with a local language as their Li who did
not have linguistic access to their sacred writ-
ings (+ Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt). As a
result, they organized an unprecedented trans-
lational project to provide their sacred writings
in the dingua franca of the time, probably utiliz-
ing Egyptian Jews with active Greek and pas-
sive Hebrew knowledge. They first translated the
Pentateuch — the first five books of the Hebrew
Bible, which contain the Law or Torah - some-
time in the grd c. BCE. The entire project was
finally finished by the ist c. CE (after which
major revisions began), with most of the books
translated in Egypt, although some were prab-
ably translated in Palestine (Trebolle Barrera
1998:303). Although most of the books were
translations from Hebrew, others were originally
written in Greek and originated in a variety
of places, including Palestine (+ Bilingualism,
Diglossia and Literacy in First-Century Jewish
Palestine}. As a result, the corpus is not fixed,
as various ancient religious groups differed over
the canonical status of a few individual books.
There are five major linguistic issues related
to the Septuagint: its content in relation
tts Hebrew source text, apparent differences
between source text and receptor text, the vari-
ous translation techniques, the history of further
translational efforts, and the linguistic charac-
teristics of the Greek and its relationship to sub-
stratal Hebrew (> Greek and Hebrew).
The Septuagint contains three types of books
within its corpus. These include the twenty-
four books of the Hebrew Bible translated into
Greek, books not included in the Hebrew Bible
but translated into Greek (e.g. ı Esdras, Sirach,
Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Macca-
bees), and books composed in Greek (e.g. 2, 3 and
4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, additions to
Esther, and Prayer of Manasseh), There are vari-
ous theories regarding this compilation. Scholars
used to think that there was an Alexandrian
canon of sacred works used by the Jews, but
most now believe instead that, roughly speaking,
the Greek Bible was used by Jews throughout the
Diaspora and even in Palestine.
Where we have a source text, examination of
the Septuagint has made clear that the transla-
tors were, in a number of instances, using differ-
ent versions of their source texts than found in
the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, the later rabbinic
tradition developed to preserve the Hebrew text.
This affects such books as Jeremiah, Job, Proverbs,
Daniel, and Esther, although in different ways. In
some instances, such as Jeremiah or job, the Sep-
tuagint version reflects a much shorter Hebrew
source text. In others, the Septuagint version is
longer than the extant Hebrew text, as in Daniel
with its additions of Susanna and Bel and the
Dragon or in Esther with its additions. These
differences indicate that, at a number of points,
the Hebrew Bible tradition was different from
the Greek Bible and its translational tradition.
The development of this interlingual transla-
tional project is reflected in the variety of trans-
lational techniques in the various books, and
even sometimes within a given book. Whereas
much recent debate over translational method
has tended to bifurcate between literal vs. free
or formal vs. dynamic (see Dines 2004:119-20),
the Septuagint is much more complex than such
categorizations. The types of translational tech-
nique have been variously described, but few
have attempted thorough classifications. One of
the earliest and still most useful is by Thackeray
(1909:17), who classifies the styles of Greek found
to in the various books, whether translations or
not, in the following way:
— Good Koine Greek: Pentateuch, Joshua (part),
Isaiah, and 1 Maccabees
~ Indifferent Greek: Jeremiah 1-28, Ezekiel, the
Minor Prophets, 1 and 2 Chronicles (apart from
the end of 2 Chronicles), some of Kingdoms,
Psalms, Sirach, and Judith
- Literalor unintelligent:Jeremiah 29-51, Baruch
11-3:8, Judges, Ruth, the rest of Kingdoms,
Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Theodotion
(see infra) Daniel, 2 Esdras (possibly Theodo-
tion), and Aquilan (see infra) Ecclesiastes
— Literary paraphrase: 7 Esdras, Old Greek Dan-
iel, Esther, Job, and Proverbs
— Literary or Atticistic free Greek (Wisdom, Let-
ter ofJeremiah, Baruch 3:9-end, 2, 3, and 4 Mac-
cabees) or vernacular free Greek (Tobit),
Several observations on this classificatory scheme
are warranted (see Thackeray 1909:13-16).
 SEPTUAGINT
The earliest books translated, such as the Pen-
tateuch and Joshua (which would follow tra-
ditional Hebrew canonical order), along with
two major prophetical books (according to
Septuagint arrangement) (see Müller 1996:13-
15), reflect relatively standard Koine Greek -
although even here there are some internal
developments, especially in the later books of
the Pentateuch. Three of these four books, as
well as large portions ofthe fourth, are narrative
genre or text-type. The next two categories are
either what Thackeray calls indifferent or literal/
unintelligent in translational style. The works
include a range of genres, including narrative,
poetry, and apocalypse, among possible others.
These translational styles are reserved for most
of the rest of the books translated out of Hebrew.
There are instances especially within some of
the literal or unintelligent books where there is
question whether the translator understood the
source text. There are also a number of features
within some of the books that resemble the
style of Theodotion, one of the later revisers.
There are several possible explanations of these
similarities, one of them being that these books
were translated much later and reflect a more
literalistic style that was adopted as a means of
preserving the prestige of the sacred text. The
literary paraphrastic style is reserved for books
within the Writings of the Hebrew Bible, which,
when they were translated sometime around
the turn of the millennium, according to Thack-
eray, were not subject to the same strictures
on the rendering of the text as were those por-
tions that were already considered canonical.
The paraphrastic style is seen in not only addi-
tions being made to the text but the freedom
with which the text is rendered. The tendency
to produce non-standard Greek in translation
of non-narrative books is understandable. Nar-
rative tends to produce a clearer correlation
between linguistic structures in the source and
receptor texts, certainly for verbal tense-forms,
that is lost in other genres and results in possible
deviant translational practices (as shown by Barr
1987; cf. Sailhamer 1991).
There are two sets of major revisions of the
Septuagint to note. There has been debate over
their relationship and purpose, but most schol-
ars today see them as one set of revisions of
the Old Greek version by Christians and the
other by Jews (see Jobes and Silva 2000:37-56).
289
The Jewish revisions were made by Theodotion
(and c. CE; now called the kaige-Theodotion
recension, because it reflects use of the transla-
tional feature of kaige already incorporated in
earlier revisions), Aquila (early and c. CE), and
Symmachus (late znd or early 3rd c. CE; he may
have been an Ebionite Christian). The Christian
recensions were made by Origen in his Hexapla
(presenting the Bible in six columns, one his
revision), Lucian in Syriac (grd/ath c. CE; or
proto-Lucian), and Hesychius (with many ques-
tions as to its existence). These revisions vary,
with some revising more towards the Hebrew
source text (Theodotion), others paraphrasing
and interpreting (Symmachus), and others cre-
ating more stylistically elegant Greek (Lucian).
Some of these later versions have supplanted the
Old Greek versions of books, as in Daniel.
The Septuagint is a major corpus of vernacular
or Koine Greek, even if it reflects its substratal
Hebrew source at various points. There are syn-
tactical features of standard + Koine that the
Septuagint enhances under influence of transla-
tion. These include:
(1) violations of concord
(2) independent > nominatives
(3) sense constructions (esp. with singular
~ collective nouns and plural verbs)
pleonastic Greek legön ‘saying’
5) neuter plural subjects with singular or plu-
ral verbs
adjectival use of the — genitive of quality
semantic downgrading (and periphrasis) of
comparative and superlative adjectives
redundant instances of oblique case uses of
the intensive + pronoun
causal use of intransitive verbs
the + historical present with verbs of seeing
(Pentateuch) or of motion (later historical
books)
some aspectual downgrading (+ perfect
tense-form used as > aorist)
12) extension of periphrastic verb forms
13) restricted use of the + optative
14) extension of articular = infinitive
15) shift from periodic clauses with the parti-
ciple to parataxis with Greek kai ‘and’
anarthrous dependent genitive word groups
(+ Definiteness/Definite Article)
restriction of > case selection with preposi-
tions
290
(18) increased prepositional use of adverbs
(19) restriction of the semantic range of the
- dative case
(20) parataxis with kai for Hebrew waw (Thack-
eray 1909:23-25; Horrocks 1997:58-59)
There are also a number of syntactical features
of the Septuagint that reflect substratal Hebrew.
These include:
(1) use of anér‘man’ as a pronoun influenced by
Hebrew aysh
increased use of prepositions instead of the
simple case, especially Greek en ‘in’
the Hebrew infinitive absolute rendered
with a Greek cognate noun or participle
constructions with egéneto ‘it came to be’
constructions with the Greek verb prostithé-
nai ‘add to’ instead of the Greek adverb pdlin
‘again’
redundant parataxis with Greek ka/ for
Hebrew waw (Thackeray 1909:45-55; Harl,
Dorival, and Munnich 1988:236-241; Hor-
rocks 1997:58-59)
Virtually all of these are examples of Semitic
enhancement rather than Semitic interference
(Porter 1989:n8; cf. 119-141, for treatment
examples). A number of studies have confirmed
the basic syntactical conformity of the Septua-
gint with Koine Greek (see Evans 2001; Good
2010). The lexicon of the Septuagint also evi-
dences the influence of substratal Hebrew (see
Thackeray 1909:31-50), A number of new lexemes
are introduced, often transliterations of Hebrew
words (e.g. Gk. gdmor ‘omer’ for Heb. omr or Gk.
arrabön ‘pledge’ for Heb. ‘rb on). There are also
instances of various types of semantic shift, due
to the influence of the subject matter and theol-
ogy of the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gk. eiréné ‘peace’
for Heb. shalom or Gk. huiös ‘son’ for Heb. br).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barr, James. 1987. “Translators' handling of verb tense in
semantically ambiguous contexts”. In: VI congress of the
international urganization for Septuagint and cognate
studies, ferusalem 1986, ed. by Claude E. Cox, 381-403.
Atlanta.
Brock, S. P. 1972. "The phenomenon of the Septuagint". In:
The witness of tradition, ed. by A, 5. van der Woude, 11-36.
Leiden.
Dines, Jennifer M. 2003. The Septuagint. London.
Dorival, Gilles, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich. 1988.
La Bible grecque des Septante: Du Judaisme hellénistique
au Christianisme ancien. Paris,
SEPTUAGINT
Evans, T. V. 2001 Verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch:
Natural Greek usage and Hebrew interference. Oxford.
Good, Roger. 2010. The Septuagint’s translation af the Hebrew
verbal system in Chronicles. Leiden.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 1997. Greek: A history of the language
and its speakers. London.
Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva. 2000. Invitation to the
Septuagint. Grand Rapids.
Meecham, Henry G. 1932. The oldest version of the Bible.
London.
Müller, Mogens. 1996. The first Bible of the church: a plea for
the Septuagint. Sheffield.
Porter, Stanley E, 1989. Verbal aspect in the Greek of the New
Testament, with reference to tense and mood. New York —
Bern — Frankfurt am Main - Paris.
. 2000. “Septuagint/Greek Old Testament”. In: Diction-
ary of New Testament background, ed. by Craig A. Evans
and Stanley E. Porter, 1099-1106. Downers Grove, Illinois.
—. 2012, "The Greek of the Jews and early Christians: The
language of the people from a historical sociolinguistic
perspective’. In: Far fram Minimal: Celebrating the work
and influence of Philip 8, Davies, ed, by Duncan Burns and
J. W. Rogerson, 350-364. London.
Sailhamer, John H. iggi. The translational technique of the
Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew verbs and participles in
Psalms 3-41. New York - Bern — Frankfurt am Main -
Paris.
Thackeray, Henry St. John. 1909. A grammar of the Old Testa-
ment in Greek according tn the Septuagint, Cambridge.
Trebolle Barrera, Julio. 1998. The fewish Bible and the Chris-
tian Bible: An introduction to the history of the Bible, trans.
by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden - Grand Rapids.
Wasserstein, Abraham, and David J. Wasserstein. 2006, The
legend of the Septuagint: From classical antiquity to today.
of Cambridge.
STANLEY E. PORTER
Sicily, Dialects in
Both + Ionic and > Doric dialects were spoken
on Sicily, on account of the different origins of
the colonists, who began to settle in Sicily in the
8th c, BCE. The Euboean colonies began with
Naxos (founded in 734), which in turn founded
Leontinoi (730) and Catana (729). Also in the
8th century, Zancle was founded by colonists
from Cumae and Euboea; Zancle then founded
Himera in 649. As for the Doric colonies, the Cor-
inthians founded Syracuse (733), which in turn
founded Heloron, Acrae (663), Casmenae (643)
and Camarina (598). The Megareans founded
Megara Hyblaea (728), which in tum founded
Selinous (628). The Rhodian-Cretan colony of
Gela (688) was also the founding city of Agrigen-
tum (580).
 SICILY, DIALECTS IN
i. THE FATE OF SICILIAN [ONTC
1a, History
Until the end of the 5th c. BCE, the Euboean col-
onies were in conflict with Gela, Syracuse, and
the Carthaginians; as a result they were seized
by the tyrants of the Doric colonies, and their
populations were transferred and massacred at
will. These developments resulted in the gradual
death of the lonic dialect in Sicily, to be eventu-
ally supplanted by Doric.
ub. Inscriptional Evidence
The inscriptions are few and very short. Himera is
the city that has yielded the most material, with
its most important texts coming fram Olympia.
ue. The Language
Until the end of the sth c. BCE, the follow-
ing Euboean features are attested (sometimes
alongside their Doric counterparts): <E>/<H>
for original /a:/ (in some cities alongside Dor.
<A> for /a:/, see below); /a:/ (<Q>, <O>) as the
result of the + contraction of /a:/ + /a:/ (cf. Dor.
/a:/); the passage of stems in *-s to stems in */-a:/
(with gen. <-eö> instead of -eos); article in nom.
pl. fem. hai, cf. Dor. tal (+ Definiteness/Definite
Article); conditional idn (equiv. Attic edn, Dor.
ai ka); + numeral prötos ‘first’, cf. Dor. prätos;
Jon. ath. infinitive suffix -nai (attested both in
them. and ath. forms; cf. Dor. -men/-menai)
(+ Thematic and Athematic Verbs; + Infinitives
(Morphology of )); Ion. géé ‘earth’ (= Att, gé, Dor.
ga); movable -n (absent in Dor.).
Alongside these lonic features, Doric features
are also attested at Zancle (even before a mixed
population settled there in the fifth century at
the request of Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegium),
Himera (founded by settlers from Zancle and
Syracuse, and where the dialect was mixed,
cf. Thuc. 6.5.1}, Leontinoi (which came under
the dominion of Gela and Syracuse during the
5th c. BCE), Longane and Stielana: <A> for origi-
nal /a:/; + apocope of prepositions; gen. in -ios
for the stem personal names, cf. Eub. -idos; dat.
in -i of the i- stems (instead of the expected -ei);
Dor. aorist in -xa of a verb in -2ö: p.n. in nom.
Sixas (Himera), cf. sizö (+ Aorist Formation).
Although the Euboean colonies show lonic
features until the end of the sth c. BCE, Doric
features are also attested as a result of histori-
cal events. As for the situation in the Hellenistic
period, inscriptions from the old Euboean colo-
291
nies are very scarce; they are very short and the
only relevant dialectal feature that they display
is the preservation of original /a:/. However,
Tauromenium, the new city that replaced Naxos,
has yielded long Hellenistic inscriptions in the
koineized Doric which was in use in Sicily at
the time (+ Formation of Doric Koines, the). It
seems, then, that Ionic gradually disappeared
from the island.
2. DORIC IN SICILY
2.a. History
The indigenous populations, which also came
into conflict with the Greek cities, became sub-
sequently Hellenized and therefore abandoned
their language in favor of Greek. As was the
case with the Euboean colonies, at several stages
conflicts between the different Doric cities led
to entire populations being massacred or trans-
ferred by the tyrants. In Hellenistic times, mer-
cenaries and emigrants from all over Greece and
Southern Italy arrived. In 211 BCE the Romans
took possession of Syracuse and the whole of
Sicily became a Roman province. Many Romans
and South Italic allies established themselves in
the island.
These historical developments had an inevi-
table impact on the language: the mixture of
populations must have resulted in some degree
of dialect leveling, Furthermore, the arrival of
new people from outside Sicily probably encour-
aged the spread of the Koine (+ Koine, Origins
of). Finally, when the Romans took control of
the island, Latin began to be used alongside
Greek, and this would eventually lead to the
demise of Greek,
2.b. Inscriptional Evidence
There is a clear-cut divide in the documen-
tation. For the period up to the end of the
5th c. BCE, the number of inscriptions is not very
high and they are usually not very long. Most
documents are private, although there are some
important public inscriptions. The city which
has yielded the most important body of inscrip-
tions is Selinous. From the 4th c. BCE onwards,
after the Carthaginians destroyed some cities,
many inscriptions come from new sites, differ-
ent from those attested previously. The public
inscriptions are quite numerous and sometimes
quite long. The private ones do not yield so
much material because, despite being more
202 SICILY, DIALECTS
numerous, they are usually quite short. The most
important ones are the contracts from Cama-
rina, Morgantina, and other small towns, as well
as some defixiones from Lilybaeum, Camarina,
and Morgantina, and the cadastral inscription
from Halaesa.
2.c. The Language: Basic Features
The basic features of Sicilian Greek during this
period are typical of the dialects of the West
Greek group: <A> for original /a:/; secondary
long mid-close + vowels; /al/ or /la/ from *-{-, /ar/
or /ra/ from *-r-, and fa/ for *m- and “-n- (+ Syl-
labic Consonants); Apeilön/Apollön ‘Apollo’;
Dor. Artam- (Att. Artem-); hiar-, cf. hiarös (Att.
hierds ‘sacred’); histia (Att. hestia ‘hearth’); Doric
contractions; -e0- usually preserved in nouns;
digamma still used to render wau in initial
position (although it gradually falls out of use),
whereas in word-internal position it is never
attested; the outcome of the = labiovelars is
identical to that found in Attic; <ZZ> before a
stop; -ss- (<*#-) in Adssos, etc.; -ss- (<*-ty-) in
hemisson; dékomai vs. Att. dékhomai ‘receive’:
apocope of prepositions; o-stern dat. pl. endings
-oisi and -ois; ath. dat. pl. endings -essi (stems in
stops, liquids and *-s-) and -si (stems in *-éy-,
adj. pds ‘all'); stems in *-i and *-u with stable
-i-/-u-; stems in *-oj- with nom. sg. ending in -0i
and -ö; article in nom. pl. masc. tod (= Att. hoi);
possessive hamds (= Att. héméteros); nom. pl.
demonstr. + pronoun fodtoi (equiv. Att. hoütoi)
and pronoun ténos (equiv. Att. ekeinos ‘that’);
relative pronouns Ads, he, Ad (with no instances
of the article used as a relative pronoun); hopeios
(= Att. Aopoios); reflexive pronouns autautön,
autönta; Dor, numerals (‘four’: téteres, cf. Att.
téttares; ‘twenty’: hikati, cf. Att. eikosi; ‘first’: prä-
tos, cf. Att. prötos; ‘seventh’: hebdemos, cf. Att.
hébdomos. For ‘thirteenth’, ‘fourteenth’, etc. we
find tritos epi déka in the group of tesserae from
Camarina, instead of the expected tritos kai
dékatos or triskaidékatos); Doric prepositions es
(equiv. Att. eis), pedd alongside metd, poti (equiv.
Att. prös), dnis (= dneu); relative adverb häs
(= Att. Aeös); modal particle ka (equiv. Att. an);
conditional conjunction ai; höka (Att. höte);
heneka; word order ai tés ka; occasional 3 pl.
anéthekan and 3 sg. ethekato, instead of the
expected étheto, anéthen; aor. in -xa (occasion-
ally -sa) of the verbs in -z6; perfect with pres.
endings, but also ‘normal’ pf.; éno (equiv. to
IN
Att. enesti); pres. in -é6, -40 and -06 (> Contract
Verbs); occasional transfer of verbs in -45 to
-66; future in -x- of verbs in -zö; ‘Doric’ fut. in
-séo; both contracted and uncentracted forms
of the subjunctive of the verb /é ‘want’ (e.g. 3 pl.
subj. (é6ndi alongside (6nti); occasional 3 pl. imp.
estössan (from eimi); imp. of the middle voice in
-sthön and -sthö; no assibilation in the 3 sg. end-
ing -ti, nor in the 3 pl. ending -nti; 1 pl. ending
-mes; ath. inf. in -mein and -men; ginomai = Att.
gignomai; agent suffix -tér (Att. -tés); hallasma
‘decree’ (cf. halia).
2.d. History of Doric in Sicily
Although the original Doric dialects must have
differed at the start, in the inscriptions there are
hardly any signs of intradialectal differentiation.
On the other hand, the only feature to qualify as
evidence of > dialectal convergence before the
4th c. BCE is the athematic dative plural ending
-essi, which is found in both Selinous and Gela
(it seems unlikely that the presence of this
ending in the two cities is due to independent
developments).
The Sicilian Hellenistic inscriptions, especially
the public ones, show a highly standardized lan-
guage that can be called the Sicilian Doric Koina.
This Sicilian Doric Koina is characterized by
a relatively uniform Doric base, made up of
certain banal Doric features and certain more
specific Sicilian features like the reflexive pro-
noun autönta, and Attic-lonic Koine features
(+ Koine, Features of),
For the Doric base of this Koina, we must
assume a process of dialect leveling and mix-
ture among the dialects (+ Formation of Doric
Koines, the). There are signs of this process, as
some dialectal features seem to have spread
across the island. However, this Koina is not a
completely uniform language, and there is some
variation in features such as the ath. inf. ending
(-men in Syracuse and its colonies, but -mein in
the rest of the island).
To the aforementioned Doric base, a number
of Koine elements were added in a non-haphaz-
ard way. So, for example, we always find ef ka,
but never ai dn, We always find Doric features
such as /a:/, eo preserved in the declension of
nouns and adjectives, dative ath. pl. ending in
-essi/-ois, possessive adj. hamds, preposition poti,
presents in -66, ath. inf. in -men/-mein, Doric
verbal endings such as -nti, and aorists in -xa
 SICILY, DIALECTS
of presents in -izd/-dz6. Yet side by side with
these Doric elements, we very often find Koine
features such as the articles in the nom. pl. hai}
hai, the reflexive pronoun hautoü, the preposi-
tion eis, numerals such as prötos and forms with
the roots Artem- or hier-. Many of these Koine
features may have entered the language via epi-
graphic formulae.
This Sicilian Doric Koina must have had great
vitality, as there are practically no inscriptions
entirely in Koine until the end of the Hellenis-
tic period. Moreover, the Sicilian Doric Koina
was also used as a literary language (in the
scientific prose of Archimedes, ca. 287 to 212 or
211 BCE). Certain dialectal forms are still quoted
by Roman authors, and there are traces of Doric
in inscriptions from imperial times, for example
in some pagan and Christian epitaphs from Syra-
cuse. The reason for this vitality may be that in
Sicily there was an important literary tradition
in Doric, consisting not only of comedy (Epic-
harmus, active during the first quarter of the
sth c. BCE, and Sophron, 5th c. BCE), but also
prose (Archimedes, et al.) and bucolic poetry
(Theocritus, active in the early grd c, BCE).
From imperial times onwards, there was a grad-
ual encroachment of Latin, which would finally
predominate, resulting in the eventual eradica-
tion of Greek in Sicily,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arena, Renato. 1986. “Di alcune particolaritä dei dialetti
greci della Sicilia", Quaderni di Acme 7:75-96.
Bartonék, Antonin. 1973. “Greek dialects of archaic Sicily:
their integration tendencies". Graecolatina et orientalia
5:71-Bg.
Bettarini, Luca. 2005. Corpus delle defixiones di Selinunte.
Edizione e commento. Alessandria.
Brixhe, Claude, ed. 1996. La koine greeque antique I. La
concurrence. Nancy.
Cassio, Albio C. 1ggi. “Lo sviluppo della prosa dorica e le
tradizioni occidentali della retorica greca”. In: Cassio and
Musti 1991:127-157.
Cassio, Albio C. and Domenico Musti, eds. 19gı. Tra Sicilia e
Magna Grecia. Aspetti di interazione culturale nel IV sec. a.
C. (Atti del convegno Napoli ı9-20 marzo 1987). Pisa.
Consani, Carlo. 1996. "Koinai et koiné dans la documen-
tation épigraphique de Vitalie méridionale’. In: Brixhe
1996:113-132.
Curbera Costello, Jaime. 1994. Estudios de onumastica sicili-
ana. Madrid (unpublished doctoral thesis),
Del Barrio Vega, Marisa. 1987. El dialecto de Eubea. Madrid.
Heiberg, Johan L. 1884. “Philologische Studien zu griechis-
chen Mathematikern. TV. Ueber den Dialekt des Archi-
medes”, fahrbiicher für Classische Philologie, Supp).
13:543-566,
Korhonen, Kalle. 2013. “Sicily in the Roman Imperial Period:
language and society". In: Tribulato 2m3:326-369.
IN 293
Mimbrera Olarte, Susana, 2012. Fondtica y morfologia del
griego de Sicilia. Madrid.
——., 2013. “Sicilian Greek: the dialects before the fourth
century BC”. In: Tribulato zo13:191-222.
. 2013. “The Sicilian Doric Koina’. In: Tribulato
2013:223-250.
Molinos Tejada, Maria T. iggo. Los dorismos del Corpus
Bucolicorum. Amsterdam.
Sicca, Umberto. 1924. Grammatica delle iscrizioni doriche
della Sicilia. Arpino.
Tribulato, Olga, ed. 203. Language and linguistic contact in
ancient Sicily. Cambridge,
Willi, Andreas. 2008, Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und
Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (8-5. fA. v. Chr.).
Basel.
SusANA MIMBRERA OLARTE
Sievers’ Law
~+ Vowel Changes
Song and Recitation
In ancient Greece, the possible modes of per-
formance of a poetic text were three: speaking
or reciting without musical accompaniment;
‘recitative’, with or without musical accompani-
ment; and singing, with musical accompaniment
and often dance. Singing could be performed
by a solo singer or by a chorus. Citharodic and
aulodic performances were solo performances
executed with the accompaniment of, respec-
tively, a stringed instrument (cithara, lyre) or a
wind instrument (aulos). All three modes mani-
fest the relationship between word, meter, and
rhythm in different ways. On the verbal level, the
more involved issues have to do with > prosody
and melody, the one being prosodic syllable
quantity, which engages specifically the — met-
ric level of utterance and its interaction with
the rhythm of the song, and the other that of
accent of speech (+ Accentuation), which was in
Ancient Greek a musical accent (tönos) involv-
ing — pitch in its interaction with melody.
From the strictly metrical-rhythmical point
of view, the word-music relationship arises basi-
cally as an adaptation of the rhythmic pattern
of singing to the metrical structure of the verbal
chain (+ Lyric Meter; + Dramatic Meter; + Epic
Meter), at least until the late Archaic period
(beginning of the fifth century BCE). However, it
is reasonable to date the first attempts to break
this archaic “norm” to even earlier than 450 BCE,
294 SONG AND
in the sense that the rhythm imposed by song in
some cases could come to change the temporal
values expressed by the metrical sequence, prob-
ably in conjunction with the adoption of wind-
ing melodic lines so intricate as to suggest to the
poets the image of paths or galleries of crawl-
ing or squirming insects (Taillardat 1965:56ff.,
Hagel 2010:269ff.), especially in certain genres of
poetry such as the dithyramb and the so-called
citharodic ndmes. Once music achieved its own
autonomy, composers were free to treat metri-
cal structures as they pleased. In this respect
the distinction drawn in The Persians by Timo-
theus (4th century BCE), an eminent author of
citharodic ndmai, is significant, Here (PMG 791,
229ff.) the poet asserts the merit of giving the
harp more expressive strength, “with the meters
and rhythms of eleven sounds”. What is strik-
ing in this verse is the very clear understand-
ing of the theoretical separation between the
metrical profile implicit in the verbal chain and
its rhythmic implementation, linked to the suc-
cession of durations imposed by song. The gap
between the verbal text and the music seems
to deepen in the Hellenistic period, when the
song released from strophic + responsion takes
precedence over responding structures, thus
allowing greater rhythmic and melodic variety
and more intense musical expressiveness. In this
context, music could more easily alter the pro-
sodic values of the syllable, prolonging the value
of long and at times short syllables according
to a practice explicitly documented by a Trea-
tise on Rhythm dated to the third century CE
(P. Oxy. 2687+g, cf. Gentili & Lomiento 1995). The
anonymous author, of the Aristoxenic school,
illustrates how words metrically equivalent to a
cretic of five beats (---) could when intoned be
brought to the value of an iamb (—-), a trochee
(—-») or a choriamb (—--) of six beats in con-
texts of cretic-iambic, cretic-trochaic, or cretic-
choriambic meters. In these and similar protrac-
tions the 'monochronon' (so called in antiquity}
was in operation, the single temporal element
whose value in rhythmical realization can vary
in relation to the context in a given metrical-
rhythmical or even melodic sequence (Gentili &
Lomiento 2008:68#.). The signs used to indicate
the rhythmic protraction to three, four, or five
beats of a syllable whose normal value is two
beats (more rarely one), are, respectively —,
LJ and 4 in ancient musical documents and
scholarly sources. If we consider now some lib-
RECITATION
erties in antistrophic responsion in choral and
in dramatic poetry, for example, cretic ~ chori-
amb (--- ~ —~~—), cretic ~ iamb (-~-- = ~-~-},
paeon ~ trochee (---- ~ —--), proceleusmatic
~ paeon (“ou ~ —»~, cf. Gentili & Lomiento
2008:92), we can plausibly assume that already
in the fifth century BCE vocal and instrumen-
tal performance of a text could “normalize”
the “inconsistencies” of meter according to the
same procedure clearly described in the above-
mentioned anonymous Treatise on Rhythm.
The other important aspect of the musical
performance of a text is the problematic rela-
tionship between word accent and melodic
intonation, since accent in Greek is more tonal
than stress-based. One issue that has provoked
a particularly large debate is how the poet could
use the same melody in antistrophic songs,
despite the fact that the words in the strophe
and antistrophe do not have the same accents.
In view of ancient evidence (see Dion. Halic.
Comp. p.u, 8.19 Aujac-Lebel) we may infer that
it was possible for the melody to impose its
own intonation on the words. Due to their frag-
mentary state, the ancient musical documents
do not help to clarify the melodic relationship
between strophe and antistrophe. As far as we
know, we cannot exclude the possibility that
the melody could remain unchanged, although
the sources do not make explicit reference to
this. They refer, rather, to the three harmonic
genres — diatonic, chromatic and enharmonic —
which had to remain unchanged in strophic
responsion, unlike what happened in songs free
from responsion where the transition from one
harmonic genre (and even scale) to another was
possible. In this case, it would have been admis-
sible, although the harmony remained the same,
to introduce variations in the melodic line, espe-
cially in poems with triadic structure of a certain
length, to avoid the effect of monotony through-
out the song. It is understood that in poems free
from responsion it could be easier for the com-
poser to be more respectful of the intonation of
speech accents.
But what were the concrete occasions of sing-
ing, recitation, or recitative mode, and to which
genres of poetry were they linked? The oldest
aulodic performances known to us were exe-
cuted in the Peloponnesus between the seventh
and sixth centuries BCE by the elegiac authors
Clonas, Polimnestus, Echembrotus, and Saca-
das (cf. PEG I 10-13, 42-45). In general we can
 SONG AND
say that the elegiac performance was intended
to be sung with accompaniment of the aulos
(Then. 241, 533, 825, 1041; Mimn, PEG | test. 5.22;
Hermesian, PEG [ test. 2; Anderson 1997758 0.1).
Sappho, Alcaeus, and Anacreon were monodic
poets as well, although some fragments rather
suggest a choral performance, such as Alcaeus’
Hymns, Sappho’s Epithalamia, or other songs
performed by choirs in the thiasos of girls or
women {Lardinois 1996); among these are per-
haps to be considered also Anacreon's Parthe-
nia (PMG 501.6). In all likelihood, the poems
devoted to young boys (paidikd) by Ibycus and
Pindar were intended for solo performances.
The monodies from scenes in Attic theater were
also intended for solo performances and, in the
Hellenistic anthology-theater, for recitals by vir-
tuoso singers like tragöidös and komöidös, as well
as ilardidds (specializing in happy songs) and
simöidos (singer of erotic songs). The so-called
Lament of the Locked-Out Woman (p. 177ff. Pow-
ell, cf. Esposito 2005) belongs to this type of rep-
ertoire. The performative mode of the epic genre
is still debated, since it is not clear whether it
consisted of a true song, like the ancient cithar-
ody of Phemius and Demedocus, or of a sort of
chant or simple recitation (cf. Anderson 1997:26,
43-47; Calame 1997:485).
On the other hand, the collective life of the city,
full of religious and civic festivals, was marked
by a series of ritual events in which the singing of
the choir - usually in unison, often accompanied
by marching or dancing — played an important
role. Sung poetry (hymns, epinicians, encomia,
hyporchemes, dithyrambs, paeans, prosodia,
parthenia, threnodies) was composed by authors
who were at once poets and composers, like the
medieval troubadours. Though nothing remains
of their music, it nonetheless constituted an
essential element of their fame, and it is possible
to get an idea of it on the basis of the surviv-
ing metrical schemes. The most famous were
Stesichorus, Pindar, Simonides, and Bacchylides,
but their number was certainly very great. The
dithyramb must have had a special role among
the many kinds of choral lyric. This religious
hymn in honor of Dionysus was performed by a
chorus of fifty singers (men or boys), who gath-
ered in a circle around the coryphaeus and the
aulete, who accompanied the song with a wind
instrument. Large sections sung and danced by a
chorus are a significant part of the Attic drama.
This was true of tragedy, where the chorus was
RECITATION 295
composed of twelve and later, after Sophocles,
fifteen singers; it was also true of comedy, with
its chorus of twenty-four singers. Surrounding
the choral songs, the episodes were recited, usu-
ally in iambic trimeters (~-~-~---~—~—~_) or, less
frequently, in trochaic catalectic tetrameters
(—~—-+ ~~~»), Some sections could also
be performed in recitative mode: this is found
in iambic trimeters, iambic catalectic tetram-
eters (----—— 4-2), anapaestic dimeters
(wn), anapaestic catalectic tetram-
eters (on un ee), and even
trochaic catalectic tetrameters. For comedy
this mode of performance is documented by
ancient commentaries (Schol. Aristoph. ad Nub.
1352; Av. 682ff.). Hyporcheme (hupörkhema),
the song-dance, deserves a separate analysis. As
the name indicates, it entailed a closer relation-
ship between dance and choral singing than
others. The hyporchematic dance was mark-
edly mimetic, to the point that Plutarch (Symp.
g.748A), transferring the Simonidean adage from
painting to dance, called song ‘talking dance’
and dance ‘silent poetry’. Its origin is very old,
and already in the Odyssey (8.262ff.) the citha-
rodic song of Demodocus was accompanied by
a dance of youths of hyporchematic type; in the
same way, in the /liad (18.572) a young boy sings
accompanying himself with the harp while other
young people, gracefully dancing in front of him,
follow him singing and raising the ritual cry.
Another mode of performance is one in which
the chorus sings and dances along (Ath. 14.631),
In some cases, as Lucian indicates, while one
chorus executed the veritable hyporcheme -
singing and dancing - another chorus at the
same time solely danced to the accompaniment
of the aulos and of the lyre (Saft. 16).
The recitative (or parakatalogé) was a perfor-
mance more or less corresponding to the recitative
mode of the modem melodrama (Pickard-
Cambridge 1988:153ff.). The term is explained
in Pseudo-Plutarch's De musica (1141A—B) in rela-
tion to the iambs of the poet Archilochus, who is
said to have invented the recitative. Itis described
as légesthai para ten kroüsin ‘playing with the
musical accompaniment’, which was usually the
aulos, but sometimes the nine-stringed klepsiam-
bos (Ath. 14.636B). In his Symposium, Xenophon
makes explicit reference to the accompani-
ment of the aulos in performing tragic trochaic
tetrameters (6.3), using the expression katale-
gein pros aulön (‘reciting to the accompaniment
206 SONG AND
of the aulos’), In the sources relating to the comic
parabasis, however, the synonymic expression
légein pros aulön (‘reciting to the accompani-
ment of the aulos‘, Schol. Aristoph. Av. 682-684)
is also found. The aesthetic effect of this kind of
performance is explained by pseudo-Aristotle
(Pr. 19.6) as “tragic” in the sense of “moving’
because of the pathetic result produced by the
contrast between the recited and the sung sec-
tions. This compositional and performative
complexity of the classic drama reaffirms what
Chailley stated in 1979: the musical structure of
a play is as important as its dramatic structure,
and in it each choral song, as well as each actor’s
song and, one may add, every single section be it
sung or recited or recitative, is precisely charac-
terized by a rhythm, which generates a particu-
lar type of expression.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Warren D. 1997. Music and musician in Ancient
Greece. Ithaca - London.
Calame, Claude. 1997. “Feste, riti e forme poetiche’. In:
I Greci: storia, cultura, arte, societd, vol, 2 (Una storia
greca), 1, (Formazione), ed. by Salvatore Settis, 471-496.
Turin.
Chailley, Jacques. 1979. La musique grecque antique. Paris,
Comatti, Giovanni. 1989. “Melodia e accento di parola nelle
testimonianze degli antichi e nei testi con notazione
musicale”, QUCC n.s. 32 (61):g1-108.
DiMarco, Massimo.1973~1974.“Osservazionisul!'iporchema’,
Helikon 13-14:326-348.
Esposito, Elena. 2005. H famento della donna abbandonata
(Etkasmos Studi 12). Bologna.
Gentili, Bruno and Liana Lomiento. 1995. “Problemi di met-
rica greca. I! monocrono (Mart. Cap. de nupt. 9, 982; POxy
2687+9); "elemento alogos (Arist. Quint. de mus. 17)". In:
Mausike. Metrica ritmica ¢ musica greca in memoria di G.
Camotti, ed. by Brune Gentili and Franca Perusino, 61-75.
Pisa - Rome,
——. 2008, Metrics and rhythmics: history of poetic forms in
ancient Greece. Translated by E. Christian Kopff. Pisa.
Gentili, Bruno and Carolus Prato, eds. 1988-2002. Poet-
arum elegiacorum: testimonia et fragmenta (PEC). 2 vols.
Leipzig.
Hagel, Stephan. zoo. Ancient Greek music: a new technical
history. Cambridge.
Lardinois, André. 1996. "Who sang Sappho's sonys?". In:
Reading Sappho. Contemporary approaches, ed, by Ellen
Green, 150-172, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London.
Najock, D., ed. 1975. Anonyma de Musica Scripta Bellerman-
niana, Leipzig.
Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur. 1988. The dramatic festivals of
Athens. and ed. Oxford.
Pintacuda, Mario. 1978. In musica nella tragedia greca.
Cefalü.
Poehlmann, Egert and Martin L. West. 2001. Documents of
Ancient Greek music. Oxford.
Reinach, Theodor. 1926. La musique grecque. Paris,
Talllardat, Jean. 1965. Les images d’Aristophane. Paris.
RECITATION
Wahlström, Erik. 1970. “Accentual responsion in Greek
strophic poetry”, Comm. Human. Litt. 471-323.
LiANA LOMIENTO
Sonority Hierarchy
- Phonology (Survey)
Sotera Rule
Penultimate and final syllables containing a
long vowel or diphthong (VV-syllables) may host
either an acute or circumflex accent (> Accen-
tuation). In accented final VV-syllables, the dis-
tribution of acute and circumflex is essentially
morphological: in nominative and accusative
forms, the accent is acute; in genitive and dative
forms, it is circumflex. In contrast, in accented
penultimate VV-syllables, the distribution is
essentially phonological: if the final syllable con-
tains a short vowel (V), the accent is realized as
a circumflex, e.g. sdféra ‘savior’, oikos ‘house’,
and polupidax ‘with many springs/fountains’; if
the final syllable contains a long vowel, it is real-
ized as an acute, e.g. söterön ‘savior (gen. pl.)’,
oikois ‘houses (dat. pl.)'. The Sotera Rule (‘sötera
rule’) is the name given to the realization as a
circumflex. Since the distribution of acute and
circumflex on accented penultimate VV-syllables
is complementary, the Sotera Rule may be used
to refer to the process governing that distribu-
tion, as below,
The Sotera Rule applies to persistent (i.e,,
lexically inherent) accents, e.g. sötera with its
inherently accented suffix -tér, and to recessive
accents, e.g. polupidax, kheüma ‘that which is
poured/flows', whose accents are assigned by a
phonological process that locates them as early
in the word as the + Law of Limitation permits.
The fact that the Sotera Rule applies to both
shows that it is independent of the phonological
process that assigns recessive accents. For both
the Sotera Rule and the Law of Limitation, the
final diphthongs -oi and -ai count as V-syllables
(as if the -é were a consonant), e.g. oikoi ‘houses’
(cf. oikas), moüsal ‘muses’ (cf. moüsan ‘muse
(acc. sg.)'), paideüsai ‘to educate (aor. inf.)', with
the exception of locative sg. -oi, e.g. ulkoi ‘at
home’ (vs. oikoi ‘houses’), and 3 sg, optative
act. -of and -ai, e.g, paideuoi (not *paideüoi or
 SOTERA RULE
*paideuoi) and paideusai (vs. paideüsai ‘to edu-
cate (aor. inf.)’), which behave as VV-syllables.
There is as yet no communis opinio on the origin
of these differences; the most recent analysis is
Probert (2012, with refs.).
Circumflexes of the sétéra type arose from
acute accents via a linguistic innovation within
the history of Greek, e.g. *(wJotkos > oikos (cf.
Ved. vésah ‘house’), which affected Attic, lonic,
and the Koine. The Doric evidence is difficult to
judge. It is often held that the Sotera Rule did
not apply in Doric (e.g. Probert 2006:71), but a
case has also been made for a phonologically
and morphologically more restricted applica-
tion (Hinge 2006:124-128). This, combined with
meager and ambiguous evidence from Boeotian,
makes it difficult to judge when the change
took place. It could have been as late as Attic-
lonic or as early as Proto-Greek. Since the dis-
tribution of acute and circumflex in accented
penultimate VV-syllables depends only on vow-
els and diphthongs, the tone bearing units of
Greek, it is likely that the innovation originally
had a tonal motivation (cf. Devine & Stephens
19944155).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Devine, A. M. and L. D. Stephens. 1994. The prosody of Greek
speech. Oxford.
Hinge, G. 2006. Die Sprache Alkmans: Textgeschichte und
Sprachgeschichte. Wiesbaden.
Probert, P. 2006. Ancient Greek accentuation: synchronic pat-
terns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford.
——. 2012, “Origins of the Greek law of limitation.” In: Laws
and rules in Indo-European, ed. by P. Probert and A. Willi,
163-181. Oxford.
DIETER GUNKEL
Southeast Greek
1. DEFINITION
The terms South or East Greek refer to one of
the two major dialectal varieties reconstructed
for the Greek of the second millennium BCE on
the basis of studies by Porzig and Risch in the
mid-zoth c. The other major dialectal variety is
referred to as North or West Greek (+ Northwest
Greek). These terms are based on the geographi-
cal locations thought to have been occupied
by these dialectal groups in the second millen-
nium BCE. This system of classification is closely
297
related to the reconstruction of the arrival of
the Greeks in Greece. Before Porzig and Risch,
it was generally postulated that the Greeks had
arrived in three separate waves, in line with the
theory upheld mainly by Kretschmer (1909) and
based on the traditions of Antiquity. In the first
wave, ca. 2000 BCE, the ancestors of the lonic-
Attic speakers were thought to have arrived; the
second wave, ca. 1700-1600 BCE, saw the arrival
of the so-called 'Achaeans’, the ancestors of the
Arcado-Cypriots and Aeolians and creators of
the Mycenaean civilization; finally, the Dorians,
who caused the fall of the Mycenaean civili-
zation, were thought to have arrived with the
third and last wave, ca. 1200 BCE. According to
Kretschmer’s theory, the dialectal fragmentation
of Greek began outside Greece, before the arrival
of the first Greeks, and the dialectal situation in
the first millennium BCE was the result of the
superimposition of the three waves, giving rise
to two types of dialect: “pure” dialects (with little
or no dialect mixing) and “mixed” dialects (with
dialectal features of varying origin).
2, CLASSIFICATION OF THE GREEK
DIALECTS
Porzig (1954) and Risch (1949, 1955, 1959, 1979)
elaborate their argumentation against the three-
wave theory. Independently ofone another, they
come to similar conclusions:
a. The Greeks entered Greece in only two waves:
the ancestors of the lonic—Attics and Arcado-
Cypriots, who founded the Mycenaean
civilization, arrived ca, 2000 BCE, followed
ca. 1200 BCE by some of the Dorians, who
until then had remained in northwestern
Greece; the others, known as the Northwest
Dorians, remained more or less where we
find them in the first millennium BCE.
b. Dialectal differentiation began only after the
ınigration uf the Greeks who entered dur-
ing the first wave, largely as the result of the
innovations in their language that arose dur-
ing the second millennium BCE, differentiat-
ing it from Proto-Greek (+ Proto-Greek and
Common Greek) of ca. 2000 BCE. If the dia-
lects had diverged outside Greece, i.e., before
the first Greeks entered Greece, the differ-
ences amongst the dialects in the first mil-
lennium BCE would have been much greater.
298 SOUTHEAST
According to Risch and Porzig, as a result of
these changes two major dialectal varieties
took shape in the second millennium BCE.
They defined these as follows: a) South
(Risch) or East (Porzig) Greek, more inno-
vative, located in Attica and adjacent areas,
in the Peloponnese and on the islands of
the Aegean, especially Crete, and the pre-
cursor of + Attic-Ionic and + Arcado-Cypriot;
and b) North (Risch) or West (Porzig) Greek,
located in northwestern Greece, which was
fairly conservative and the precursor of the
+ Doric dialects that in the first millennium
BCE we find in northwestern Greece, the
Peloponnese, the Saronic Gulf and the South-
em Aegean.
c. The geographical distribution of the dialectal
features in the first millennium BCE shows
that many of them are shared by contigu-
ous dialects, indicating that they developed
in the historic era, after these dialects had
become established in their final homes. The
post-Mycenaean date of many of these fea-
tures is confirmed by the Mycenaean tablets
and the inscriptions of the first millennium
BCE (cf. the development of + labiovelars,
for example: Myc. ge-to-ro-we vs. Att. téttares,
fon. and Arc. tesseres, Boeot. péttares, Lesb.
pés(s)ures, Dor. téfores, all four‘).
This system of classification does not include
the + Aeolic dialects (+ Lesbian, + Boeotian and
+ Thessalian of the first millennium BCE), whose
dialect status in the second millennium is dis-
puted; + Pamphylian, the origin of which poses
difficulties; or + Macedonian. The dialectal clas-
sification of the Aeolic group is one of the most
problematic issues in Greek dialectology (cf.
Garcia Ramön 1975 and Ruijgh 1995-1996), due
to the heterogeneous traits of its dialects: while
Westem Thessalian, and Boeotian even more
so, have many Western elements (cf. hiarös,
töka, pöka, ka) as a result of the influence of
their Dorian neighbors, Lesbian shares a series
of features with the — lonic of Asia Minor, some
of which (*-tif-) > -si(-), *g()ol-, oi, ai, eikosi,
prös) are characteristic of the Southern dialects
and can therefore be dated to the second mil-
lennium BCE. Porzig and Risch attributed the
presence ofthese features in Lesbian to the influ-
ence of Ionic in the post-Mycenaean era, after
both dialects had become established in their
GREEK
homes in Asia Minor. Another school of thought
(cf. Wyatt 1970 and Moralejo 1996), which has
become the majority view in recent years, posits
that the Southern features of Lesbian, particu-
larly assibilation, derive from the fact that before
the Dorian invasions and the migration of the
future Lesbians and future Ionians to Asia Minor,
the Proto-Lesbians occupied an area of influence
of East Greek in Greece, while Proto-Thessalian
and Proto-Boeotian were located in an area of
Western influence in which there was no assi-
bilation or other Eastern features. Although the
mixed nature of Pamphylian, which shares some
features with Arcado-Cypriot (bolémenus, en >
in, ex + dat.), Aeolic (-essi) and Doric (-tif-),
hiards, wikati, höka) could be explained as a
result of the superimposition of a Dorian super-
strate on a Mycenaean-era colonial ‘Achaean'
substrate, the fact that Pamphylian lacks assibi-
lation, the most characteristic Southern feature,
is difficult to explain. Macedonian, on the other
hand, remains a mystery due to the scarcity of
our sources, although some inscriptions found
recently on Macedonian territory seem to indi-
cate that the Macedonian dialect was close to
Doric (but see + Macedonian),
+ Mycenaean, the only dialect of the second
millennium BCE for which we have written
documents, is Eastern or Southern, although its
writing system, the + Linear B syllabary, has
some deficiencies and ambiguities that some-
times make it difficult for us to interpret some
Mycenaean features correctly (something similar
occurs in the first millennium with the + Cypriot
Syllabary). Despite this, the decipherment of the
Mycenaean syllabary in 1952 confirmed that the
conclusions reached by Risch and Porzig with
regard to the dialect situation in Greece in the
second millennium BCE were correct. Although
opinion on the subject is not unanimous, the
majority of scholars consider Arcado-Cypriot to
be the direct or closest successor of Mycenaean
in the first millennium BCE.
3. EAST GREEK VS. WEST GREEK:
THE MAIN DIFFERENCES
The main differences between East Greek, or
Proto-Attic-lonic-Arcado-Cypriot, and West
Greek, or Proto-Doric, are the following (some of
these, such as -ti(-) > -si(-), -ss- > -s-, oi, ai, *g'*ol-,
are E.Gk. innovations):
 SOUTHEAST GREEK
— *-ti(-) > -si(-) in E.Gk. (Att.-Ion. anatithesi,
Poseidon, Arc. kathérponsi, Cypr. e-ke-so-si =
éxo(n)st, ka-si-ke-ne-to-i-se = kasignetois, Myc.
di-do-si = didunsi?) vs. W.Gk. -ti(-) (unatitheti,
3 pl, fégonti, Poteidan);
— s<ss(<*s +s, *ts and *t(*)/) in E.Gk, (dat. pl.
posi, etélesa, tösos, pdsos, mésos), vs. W.Gk. ss
(possi, etélessa, tössos, pössos, méssos);
~ *gwol- in E.Gk, (Att.-lon. botilomai, Arc. bölo-
mai) vs. W.Gk. *gel- (deilomai, délomai);
- E.Gk. hierös (but E.lon. irös) vs. W.Gk. Aiards;
- nom. pl. ni, ai in E.Gk. vs. W.Gk. toi, tai;
- ı pl. act. -men in E.Gk. vs. W.Gk. -mes; how-
ever, this dialectal distribution does pose cer-
tain difficulties, as there are some sporadic
examples of -mes in Arcadian;
- ath. inf. in -nai in E.Gk (Att.-Ion, apodoünai,
einai, Arc. énai, Cypr. to-e-na-i = doenat) vs.
-men in W.Gk. (apodömen, émen, eimen);
- E,Gk. *e(w)ikosi vs. W.Gk. wikati:
— E.Gk. prös (Arc.-Cypr. pds, Myc. po-si) vs.
W.Gk. poti;
— temporal adverbs: E.Gk. -te (höte, pöte, Myc.
o-te) vs, W.Gk. -ka (höka, pöka)
— inE.Gk. the conditional conjunction is ei (Arc.
eik as well) and the modal particle dn (but
Cypr. e = é and ke) vs, W.Gk. ai and ka.
It is highly probable that there was no absolute
homogeneity in East Greek, but rather some
internal differences as early as the second mil-
lennium BCE. Some isoglosses that are shared by
+ Arcadian and — Cypriot but not by Attic-Ionic
(or, ro vs. Attic-lonic ar, ra; -0 > -u; en > in; api,
ex + dative, etc.), seem to indicate this. It would
therefore not be incorrect to speak of a Proto-
Attic-Ionic and a Protu-Arcado-Cypriot as early
as the second millennium BCE.
The so-called Dorian invasion of ca. 1200 BCE,
which marks the end of the Mycenaean civili-
zation and of the relative unity of East Greek,
radically altered the historical and dialectal pan-
orama of the second millennium BCE, giving
rise to the situation we find in the first millen-
nium BCE. Although, as stated above, the terms
East Greek and West Greek are based on the
geographical locations of these dialects during
the second millennium BCE, they are also used
for their successors in the first millennium BCE.
We therefore describe + Rhodian and + Cretan
as Western dialects, for example, even though
in the first millennium BCE their geographi-
299
cal location is rather Eastern. Meanwhile, some
Doric dialects that in the first millennium BCE
were spoken in areas that in the second millen-
nium BCE were occupied by East Greek, such as
the Peloponnese or Crete, have some Southern
features that can be attributed to traces of the
pre-Doric substrate (cf. + Laconian, Messenian
Pohoidan < Posoidan < Poseidän < Poteidän; Cre-
tan balomai, oi, ai, ı pl, -men).
BiBLIOGRAPHY
Adradous, Fransciscu R. 1952, Lu diulectvlogia yrieya cumu
fuente para el estudio de las migraciones indveuropeas en
Grecia. Salamanca.
Bartonék, Antonin, 191. “L'evoluzione dei dialetti greci nella
dimensione geografica delle eta oscure”, In:La transizione
dal micenen all’alto arcaismo. Dal palazzo alla cittd, ed. by
Domenico Musti et alii, 241-250. Rome,
Chadwick, John. 1956. "The Greek dialects and Greek pre-
history”, G&R 3:38-50.
. 1976. "Who were the Dorians?", PP 1103-7
Coleman, Robert. 1963. “The dialect geography of Ancient
Greek", TPRS 1963:58-126,
Duhoux, Yves. 1988. “Les éléments grecs non doriens du cré-
tois et la situation dialectale grecque au [le millénaire’,
Cretan Studies 157-72.
Garcia Raman, José L. 1975. Les origines postmycéniennes du
groupe dialectal &olien. Salamanca.
. 2006. “La fragmentaciön dialectal griega: limitaciones,
posibilidades y falsos problemas”, {Ling 29:61-82.
Kretschmer, Paul. igog. "Zur Geschichte der griechischen
Dialekte: 1, lonier und Achäer”, Glotta 1:9-34.
Löpez Eire, Antonio. 1978. "Problemätica actual de la dia-
lectologia griega*. In: Actas del V Congresa Espanol de
Estudios Cldsicos, 457-479. Madrid.
Méndez Dosuna, Juliän, 1985. Los dialectos dorios def
Naroeste. Gramaticay estudio dialectal. Salamanca.
Moralejo, Juan J. 1996. “Posicién del dialecto lesbio”. In: Las
fenguas de corpus y sus problemas lingülsticos, ed. by Ana
Agud et alil, in—127. Madrid ~ Salamanca.
Porzig, Walter. 1954. “Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen
zu den altgriechischen Dialekten”, /F 6147-169.
Risch, Ernst, 1949. "Altgriechische Dialektgeographie?", MH
619-28,
. 1955. “Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in
neuer Sicht”, MH 12:61-76,
——. 1959. "Frühgeschichte der griechischen Sprache", MH
1215-27.
. 1979. "Die griechischen Dialekte im 2. vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend". SMEA 2u:g1-ın.
. 1985. "La posizione del dialetto dorico”. In: Le origini
dei greci, deri e mondo egeo, ed. by Domenico Musti,
13-35. Rome — Bari.
Ruijgh, CorneliusJ. 1995-1996. “La genese de I'éolien d’Asie”,
Verbum 18.3-4:289-297.
Wyatt ]r., W. F, 1970. "The prehistory of the Greek dialects”,
TAPhA 101:557-632.
Maria Luisa DEL BARRIO
300 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
Space (Adpositions)
1. INTRODUCTION
It is widely acknowledged that Greek inherited
from Proto-Indo-European a system of adver-
bial elements which, depending on their syn-
tactic position, could arise as actual adverbs,
(primary) prepositions or preverbs (+ Adposi-
tional Phrase; + Preverbs; + Adpositions (Prepo-
sitions); + Adverbs). In Homeric Greek, these
adverbs coexisted with prepositions and pre-
verbs, whereas in Classical Greek only prep-
ositions and preverbs are productively used
(Schwyzer 1950:41gff.).
Prepositions and preverbs express the spa-
tial relation linking two discrete entities; a fore-
grounded entity, a trajector (TR), and a landmark
(LM), which constitutes the point of reference of
the former and is elaborated by the nominal fol-
lowing the preposition (Langacker 1987:215). The
relation between TR and LM is basically con-
ceived as a spatial location lacking a dynamic
component: prepositions describe the ‘place!
(or location) of a TR in respect to a LM. The
dynamic component depends on the presence
of a verb denoting a processual relation, i.e.,
an event (action, movement, etc.) obligatorily
brought about within a time-span and, thus,
inherently expressing temporal directionality,
i.e., a sequence of sub-events along which the TR
metaphorically ‘moves’ (Langacker 1987:244ff.).
According to Viti (2008), in Homer prepo-
sitions and preverbs are selected in different
contexts: when the LM is instantiated by a com-
mon inanimate noun, a preposition frequently
occurs; when the LM is represented by a per-
sonal pronoun (human, specific and topical), a
preverb + verb complex is typically found. Viti
also observes that preverbs are more often used
when Location, Direction or Source are meta-
phorically conceived, whereas in the concrete
expression of spatial relations prepositional
phrases (PP) are more common. The semantic
contribution of the preverbs is typically more
abstract if compared to prepositions, precisely
because it concerns the verbal process in itself,
and, for these reasons, preverbial input elements
will not be addressed in this paper.
In Homeric Greek the prepositions mostly
retain their original spatial meaning; after Homer,
the meaning of spatial prepositions leaves room
for the development of more abstract seman-
tics. Therefore, the expression of local mean-
ings can be assigned to adverbial elements that
can govern 4 Noun Phrase but, unlike primary
prepositions, they cannot occur as preverbs
(secondary prepositions; + Adverbial Constitu-
ents). In what follows an overview of the main
ways of encoding spatial relations through pri-
mary prepositions will be provided. Reference is
made to Luraghi (2003) for a detailed account of
the issue.
2. LOCATION
2.a. Location of the TR in(to} the LM
Greek has a variety of ways for encoding the
static location of a TR in relation to a LM, the
most basic of which is provided by the PP en +
dative. This PP mostly indicates the location of
a TR within a bounded LM; the latter, therefore,
is originally conceived as a container whose area
coincides, at least partially, with the TR (Hor-
rocks 1981198; Luraghi 2003:93). In the historical
evolution of Greek the implication of contain-
ment is weakened and en is mostly used to
indicate the contact between TR and LM or their
proximity (Schwyzer 1950:455).
En usually occurs with LMs denoting spatial
referents, social lacation and body parts:
(1) nesölen amphiriitéi
‘In a sea-girt island’ (Hom. Od. 1.50)
(2) Aé en Salamini makhe
‘The battle in Salamis’ (Isoc. 5.147)
With plural (especially animate) LMs, en
indicates the same relation as English among:
(3) en gunaixin dikimos
‘Strong among women’ (Eur. Or. 754)
It may also occur in elliptical expressions with
the possessive genitive, in which a noun denot-
ing the typical place of residence of a person or
god is suppressed (Horrocks 1981:199):
(4) en paidotribou dé kathizontas
‘In the school of the Gymnastics-master'
(Aristoph. Nub. 973)
In expressing basic location within the LM en +
dative is stable throughout the history of Ancient
Greek.
 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS) 301

2.b. Other Locations
In Greek, almost all prepositions, when con-
structed with a predicate of rest, may express
Location. Quite obviously, depending on the
semantics of each preposition, the characteris-
tics of the spatial scene in which it is involved,
the case with which it occurs and its paradig-
matic interaction with other spatial elements
of the systern, the location will assume further
specifications. The table below shows the main
ways to encode a locative relationship between
TR and IM in Greek.

Table ı: Location

Location PP Example Comments

away/far from apo + gen. (5) ape thaldsses...
the LM öikisthesan ‘(The towns) were
built away from the
sea’ (Thuc. 1.7)
out of the LM ek(s) + gen. (6) hoi de makhairas eikhon
khruselas ex arguréon
telamönön ‘The young men
had daggers of gold that
hung by silver baldrics’
(Hom. /l. 18.598)
near/beside the para + dat. (7) ta para thaldttéi |...]
LM khoria ‘The lands beside/by
the sea’ (Xen. An. 7.2.25)
before/in front prö+ gen. (8) he keitai pro Megdron
of the LM ‘which lies before Megara’
(Thuc. 3.51)
(9) tönde patröiön / prod
thurön ‘In front of the doors
of my father’ (Soph. Zi. 109)
on/upon the LM and (am) + dat. (10) harmata d’am bomoisi
tithei ‘He set the car upon the
stand’ (Hom. /l. 8.441)
(11) lukodiöton hös damalin
am petrais / élibatois ‘Like a
heifer chased by wolves upon
precipitous crags’ (Aesch.
Supp. 351)
down/beneath katd + gen. (12) khoi kata khthonös
the LM theot labein ameinous eisin é
methiénai “(he gods beneath
the earth are readier to seize
than to release’ (Aesch. Pers.
689)
Location is conceived as a
result of a motion away from
the LM (Luraghi 2003:119).
Location is conceived as a
result of a motion away from
the L, often conceptualized
as a container.
Location results from an
implied motion of the TR
that comes to be in close
contact with the LM through
an upward trajectory (also
with verbs denoting rest)
(Luraghi 2003188-9). Used
in poetry; in prose it is only
found in the lonic authors or
in those influenced by Koine
(Humbert 1986 [1945]:301).
Rare (Smyth 1920:380). As
in the case of and + dat.,
locative meaning results
from an implication of
motion. In this case the
PP profiles the end of a
downward trajectory (but
after Homer it is restricted to
the phrases kata khthonds/
gés ‘underground’; cf. Luraghi
2003:197—205).
302 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
Table 1 (cont)
Location PP Example
over/throughout Kata + acc. of (13) polloi gar kata ästu
the surface of extent mega Priamou epikouroi
the LM ‘For there are many allies
dispersed about the city of
Priam’ (Hom. /L 2.803)
(14) keltai de he Kephallénia — (Luraghi 2003:201). After
kata Akarnania kai Leukdda
‘Cephallenia lies in front of
Acamania and Leucas’
(Thuc. 2.30.2)
above/over the = Aupér + gen./ (15) peritd Parthénion dros
LM (with vertical acc. td huper Tegees ho Pan
orientation) peripiptei ‘When he was in
the Parthenian mountain
above Tegea he encountered
Pan’ (Hdt. 6.105)
(16) tödeteikhos hüperpän
doüpos orörei ‘And the whole exploiting the value of
wall was in an uproar’ (Hom.
Il. 12.289)
under/ below/ hupö + dat./ (17) herdomen athandtoisi
beneath the LM gen./acc. teleessas hekatömbas /kaléi
hupö platanistöi ‘We were
offering to the immortals
hecatombs that bring
fulfillment, under a fair
plane-tree’ (Hom. fl.
2.306-307)
(18) Ads dra tön hupd
possi mega stenakhizeto
gaia erkhomenön ‘Even so
the earth groaned greatly
beneath their tread as they
went’ (Hom. /l. 2.784)
(19) bathiston hupo khthonds
esti bérethron ‘Far into the
deepest pit under the earth’
(Hom. Hl. 8.14)
(20) hoi d' ékhon Arkadien
hupo Kullénés dros ‘And
those that held Arcadia,
under the high mountain of
Cyllene' (Hom. Il. 2.603)
Comments
Typically with multiplex
trajectors, scattered over
the surface of the LM (an
extended location); in this
meaning, overlaps with dia
Homer, katd + acc. may also
express location in front of
the LM.
No contact between TR and
LM, the latter being located
“on a vertical line above the
uM" (Luraghi 2003:214).
In Homeric Gk huper +
accusative also occurs in
locative expressions
‘extent’ of the Accusative.
Luraghi (2003:217) argues
that this use is typical of
multiplex TR's described as
covering the LM. After Homer
the roductivity of Aupér in
locative expressions is found
only in connection with the
genitive.
In Homer hupö + dative
_expresses location below/
beneath (= at the lower edge
of ) the LM, depending on
the context. The same
meaning may also be codified
by hupö + genitive, albeit less
frequently and in connection
with different LMs, e.g. Aupo
khtonés, but never *hupö
khtoni (Luraghi 2003:225-231).
Accusative may occur as
well with Aupö in locative
expressions implying lack of
contact (Luraghi 2003:235).
In post-Homeric Gk. the
locative use of hupö decreases
especially for genitive and
accusative (Smyth 1920:387).
 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
Table 1 (cont.)
Location PP Example
berween/among meta + dat./ (21) € phildtéta met’
the entities gen./acc. amphotéroisi balömen ‘Or put
constituting friendship between them’
the LM (Hom. IL 4.16)
(22) hös meta zéntén hot'én —
ékou’ drista ‘Who was most
renowned when he was
among the living’ (Saph.
Phil. 1312)
(23) toisi dé thumon eni
stéthessin drine päsi meta
pléthin ‘He moved the soul __
of everyone in the crowd’
(Hom. fl, 2.142-143)
(24) kai ha men meta
kheiras ékhoi kai exégésasthai
‘Whatever he had inhand he
had the power of explaining
to others’ (Thue. 1.138)
on both sides of amphi + dat./ (25) khitöna / thék’ amphi
the (=allaround gen. sthéthessi ‘She put a cloak
the/in the vicin- around his shoulders’ (Hom.
ity of the} LM Od. 16.173-174)
(26) amphi tautés oikéousi
tes pölios ‘Those who dwell
around this city’ (Hdt. 8.104)
in an extended amphi + acc. (27) amphi Threiken ten
area khiöni katärruton tirannon
éskhes andra ‘You had had
as husband a king in snowy
Thrace’ (Eur. Andr. 215)
303
Comments
In Homer metd occurs with
multiplex LMs in the dative,
accusative, and more rarely
in the genitive. More
specifically, with the dative
it may select biplex or
multiplex LMs, and only
multiplex LMs with the
genitive and the accusative.
In the choice of genitive or
accusative, it seems also
sensitive to the continuity
of the LM, selecting genitive
for discontinuous entities,
and accusative for
continuous entities (Luraghi
2003:244-246). After Homer
it is no longer used with the
dative, and in Attic prose it
is productive only with the
genitive, the accusative being
rare (Smyth 1920:381) and
almost always metaphorically
used.
Etymologically, amphi
expresses location on both
sides of the LM (any area,
not necessarily circular).
This meaning easily shifts in
denoting location all around
the LM or in its vicinity;
amphi + genitive is very
rarely attested; with the
dative it is no longer used
after Herodotus (Humbert
[1945] 1986: 300).
amphi + acc. generally
expresses the location of the
TR (often multiplex) on both
sides / on all sides / close
to / along the LM which is
an extended area (Luraghi
2003:260). The original
meaning ‘on both sides’ is
largely dependent on the
physical features of the LM
which is not necessarily, how-
ever, a circular area (as it is
for peri). With human LMs
304 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
Table 1 (cont.)
Location PP Example
round about/ peri + gen./ dat./ (28) tetdnusto peri speious
around the LM acc. glaphuroto / hemeris heboösa
(often a circular ‘A vine was trained and
area) grew luxuriantly about the
mouth of the cave’ (Hom. Od.
5.68-69)
(29) peri de téi kheiri khru-
soün daktilion önta ‘And that
there was nothing else but
a gold ring around its hand'
(PL. Resp. 359e)
(30) phulakäs dé moi dokei
dein peri to stratöpedon einai
‘So it seems to me that we
ought to have guards around
our camp’ (Xen. An. 5.1.9)
nearby/towards pros (in epic (31) oude ti min paides pati
the LM also prot! and gounasi pappdzousin ‘Nor do
pati ) + dat./ his children prattle on his
gen./acc. knees’ (Hom. /l. 5.409)
Comments
and human multiplex Trs it
denotes a group of persons
in somebody’s train (e.g.
tots amphi Euthüphrona ‘to
Euthyphro's followers’, Pl.
Crat. 399e). In these uses it is
stable throughout the history
of Greek.
In the history of Greek the
functions of amphi tend to be
absorbed by peri (Schwyzer
1950: 437).
peri + genitive expressing
location around a LM is very
rarely attested (only two
occurrences in Homer).
With the dative it is also
attested, albeit rarely, in
Attic prose; it mostly
occurs with uniplex ıMs,
especially body parts,
denoting close contact
between TR and LM (Luraghi
2003:268). With the
accusative it is more frequent
throughout the history of
Gk.; it occurs with verbs of
rest and multiplex TRs
occupying the space around
the LM (Luraghi 2003:274).
In this case no contact
between TR and LM is
implied. In Attic-lonic peri
+ acc, conveys a less specific
meaning and denotes the
proximity of TR and LM
(Luraghi 2003:278).
With human Ls and human
multiplex TRs, in Attic prose
it denotes a group of persons
in somebody's train (e.g. Aoi
pert ton Peisandron presbeis
‘the old men, those of
Pisander's group’ {Thuc.
8.639).
In Homeric Gk, prds + dat.
mostly expresses location
implying a close contact
between TR and LM. After
 SPACE (ADPOSETIONS) 305

Table 1 (cont.)
Location PP Example
(32) hekasterö tön Perseön
oikéousi kai pros nötou
anémou ‘They dwell far
away from the Persians
southwards’ (Hdt. 3.101)
(33) hoiprös nöton oikoüntes
Thessalol "The people
farther south, such as the
Thessalians’ (Thuc. 2.101.2)
on/upon/nearby epi+dat/gen./ (34) kaitainias ekhontaepi
the LM acc. tes kephalés panu pollds‘And
wearing a great array of
ribands on his head’ (Pl.
Symp. 212e)
(35) pas gar ho t’ epi gés kai
hupo ges khrusös aretés ouk
antdxios ‘Yet all the gold on
earth, or under it, does not
equal the price of goodness’
(PL. Leg. 728a)
(36) epi gan mélainan
émmenai kdlliston ‘To be the
most beautiful thing on the
black earth’ (Sapph. 16.2)
(37) en agordi epi tön
trapezön ‘In the square
near the moneychangers’
counters’ (Pl. Ap. ı7c)
Comments
Homer this implication is
not always maintained and
it simply denotes vicinity.
When the LM is in the
genitive or in the accusative,
it specifies the orientation
towards which the TR is
located. (Luraghi
2003:284-293).
Local meanings ofep/ are
well attested throughout the
history of Gk. With the dative
and the genitive it largely
conveys the same semantics
(Schwyzer 1950:469-470),
mostly expressing TRs close
contact on/upon the LM
(with or without vertical
orientation, depending on
the features of the LM), With
the accusative of extent epf
may denote location on the
surface of an extended LM
(Luraghi 2003:298-306). With
all three cases epi may also
express TR’s simple proximity
to the LM.

2.c. Final Location (Direction)
A construction that combines a dynamic predi-
cation with a static PP may occur with verbs
implying motion such as pégnumi ‘to fix’, ballö
‘to throw’, piptö ‘to fall’, tithémi ‘to put‘, héstémé'to
set, place’, throiskö ‘to leap’, hizö/hezomai ‘to sit’,
and virtually with every verb entailing that the
movement of the TR ends up in a static relation-
ship with the goal of motion. Traditional gram-
mar has named this use ‘constnictio praegnans’
(cf, Kühner and Gerth 1898 I:540-542), pointing
out that it is common with “tenses of completed
action implying rest" (Smyth 1920:368). It is,
therefore, a resultative construction; it occurs -
especially in Homer and Xenophon - in contexts
in which a motion event is performed until its
end, thus profiling a final (resulting) state (cf.
Skopeteas 2008:59-60), as in (38) and (39):
(38) hippö plexante khamai bälon en koniéisi
"The two horses kicked him and cast him
onto the ground in the dust’ (Hom. Il. 5.588)
(39) en tdi potamöi épeson
‘They fell down into the river’ (Ken. Ages.
1.32)
In these cases the SR expressed by en-PPs is Final
Location: it is neither a Location proper, because
it is connected with a verb implying motion, nor
a typical SR of Direction, because it is expressed
by a static PP.
Luraghi 2003 analyzes many cases in which
Final Location is expressed by different preposi-
tions with the (locative) dative (e.g. para, hupd,
amphi, prös, epi) and kata with the genitive, all
constructed with the aforementioned verbs. An
example is the following:
306 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)

(40) kat’ dr’ hézet’ ep’ eskhärei en koniéisin par Eis typically occurs with LMs denoting spatial
puri referents, but it is also found with nouns denot-
‘de sat down on the hearth among the ing bady parts and human referents (although
ashes by the fire’ (Hom. Od. 7.153-154) in this case it is much less common in post-
Homeric Greek, where pard and prés usually
3. DIRECTION cover this function):

3.a. Direction of the TR (in)to the LM
The direction of the TR towards the LM is basi-
cally encoded by means of the PP eis/es plus
accusative, productively used throughout the
history of Greek.
Eis is more recent then en and is etymologi-
cally based on it (*ens); it occurs in expressions
in which a TR moves towards a LM eventually
conceived as a container, depending on the rel-
evant context. According to Luraghi (2003:107),
compared to en, the implication of containment
is less salient for eis, since in many occurrences
the motion of the TR does not necessarily end in
coincidence with the LM.
(41) fod’ eis amphoterö Diomedeos harmata bétén
‘And the two mounted both upon the car of
Diomedes’ (Hom. /t. 8.115)
(42) hoi Athénatoi strateüsantes es Pldtaian
‘The Athenians marched to Plataea' (Thuc.
2.6)
Finally, eés is also found in elliptical expressions
with the genitive, comparable to those found
with en (see section 2.a.):
(43) epi deipnon eis Agdthönos
‘To dinner at Agathon’s’ (Pl. Symp. 174a)
3.b. Other Directions

Table 2: Direction

Direction PP Example Comments

towards the pard + acc. (44) phoitdn para ton
area by the LM Sökräte ‘To go visit Socrates’
(-contact) (Pl. Phdr. 59d)
to the exterior of prös + acc. (45) pdlin pros Argos |...)
the LM (/gen.) eleusetai ‘He will return to
(zcontact) Argos’ (Aesch. PV 854)
(46) autos de poti pidlios
pétet’ aiel‘And he himself
always flew to the city’
(Hom. Il. 22.198)
beyond/over huper + acc. (47) karpalimös huper oudan
the LM ebéseto dématos eisö ‘He
crossed the threshold and
went within the
precincts of the house’ (Hom.
Od. 7.135) _
(48) Tudeideö d’ huper ömon
aristeron eluth’ aköke énkheos
‘The head of the spear passed
over the shoulder of the son
of Tydeus’ (Hom. Il. 5.16)
Relevant only with animate
nouns (Smyth 1920:382).
In Homer it is also fotınd
with the genitive in the
same function. Similar in
meaning to para (especially
when occurring with animate
LMs), prös differs from it
regarding the implication
of contact (Luraghi 2003:284)
In Homer, huper + acc.
may convey a directional
meaning in occurrences
in which the TR moves
beyond the LM, across
its boundaries (Luraghi
2003:217); it is also found
in expressions in which
the TR (often multiplex)
moves over the LM. After
Homer, huper + acc. is
only sporadically used in
directional expressions.
 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
Table 2 (cont.)
Direction PP Example
under/beneath upd + acc. (49) Nün d’ epei oün Patrokle
(/behind) the Lm sett histeros elm’ hupo gaian
‘But now, Patroclus, I shall
pass beneath the earth after
you' (Hom. Il. 18.333)
(50) kai min ekeiné, |...],
katakriptei hupö ten auten
thüren ‘She hid him behind
the same door’ (Hdt. 1.12.1)
towards the LM metd + acc. (51) be dé meta Xdnton te
Thöönd te Phainopos ‘Then
he went on towards Xanthus
and Thoön of Phaenops’
(Hom. IL 5.152)
(52) all’ höte dé rh’ hikonto
meta Tréas kai Akhaioüs
‘When they arrived among
the Trojans and the
Achaeans’ (Hom. Il. 3.264)
(on)to the LM epi + acc. (53) ex hippön apobäntes
epi khthöna pouluböteiran
‘They stepped forth from the
chariot upon the bounteous
earth’ (Hom. Il 3.265)
(54) kal ho Küros de kai
ho Kuaxdrés anabdntes epi
tous hippous hégotinto ‘Then
Cyrus and Cyaxares mounted
their horses and led the way’
(Xen. Cyr. 5.5.37)
(55) parateinousa apo
Thebeön ton Aiguptiéon
ep’ Herakleas stélas "lhat
stretches from Thebes of
Egypt to the Pillars of
Heracles’ (Hdt. 4.181.1)
(56) € kai pareste kapi term’
aphiketa ‘And did he get near
us? Did he reach his goal?’
(Soph. Aj. 48)
307
Comments
The directional meaning of
hupö + acc. is not frequently
attested. It portrays the TR
in an inferior position with
respect to the LM (under/
beneath the LM), in both
static and dynamic events.
In some occurrences the
meaning ‘beneath’ shifts
to ‘behind’ (Luraghi
2003:233-241).
In Homeric Gk,, meld +
acc. may denote Direction
towards a LM in motion
events; with multiplex LMs,
the result of the motion
event is the location of the
TR among the entities
constituting the LM. With
uniplex LMs, it may also
convey the meaning ‘after’,
denoting succession
(Smyth 1920:381; Luraghi
2003:246-247). After Homer,
the spatial function of the PP
tends to be lost.
epi + accusative may occur
in directional expressions in
two related functions: 1) it
may convey the direction
of the TR onto the LM; 2) it
may express generically
orientation towards a LM,
with no reference on
verticality.
308
4. SOURCE
The SR of Source individuates the point in the
space from which the TR departs. Compared to
Location and Direction, the expression of Source
in Greek is considerably less articulated and is
closely connected with the genitive case.
The notion of Source can be further speci-
fied depending on the initial position of the TR
relative to the LM (Luraghi 2003). While this
parameter is crucial in Greek for the occurrence
of ek(s) ‘out of, from the interior of the LM’ or
pard ‘from nearby the LM’, it is not relevant at
all for apé '(away) from the LM’. More precisely,
in Homer ek{s) preferentially occurs with LMs
conceived as containers (especially town names
or other bounded areas); the TR is described as
moving out of this container:
(57) ek Piilou elthön / telöthen ex apiés galés
‘Coming from Pylos, from a distant land far
away’ (Hom. Il. 1.269-270)
Parä indicates detachment from the vicinity of
the LM and for this reason is frequently found
with human LMs (it will be found exclusively in
such use after Homer):
(58) Adstis d’ aphikneito ton para basil&ös pros
auton
‘When any of the King’s court came to visit
him’ (Xen. An. 12.5)
Apo is semantically lighter and, therefore, can be
more easily used in highly diversified contexts
(even in those where one would expect to find
ek). In Classical Greek the semantic distinction
between ek(s) and apd bleaches and they tend
to overlap as in (60):
(59) lambdnomen de oüte ek tés ges ouden {...]
out’ apo tén oikiön
‘We get nothing from our land, and nothing
from our house property’ (Xen. Mem. 2.7.2)
Moreover, kata and Aupdé + genitive,
peripherally, may also profile a relation in which
the TR moves starting from a LM that is gener-
ally located above the TR with katd, below it
with hupo. In this use, however, they become
very rare after the Archaic period (Schwyzer
1950:523).
SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
(60) kat’ ouranot eilélouthas
‘(A god) came from heaven’ (Hom. /l, 6.128)
(61) Aupd khthonds héke phöösde
‘Out from under the earth (Zeus) made
them move towards the light’ (Hes. Th. 669)
Finally, prds + genitive expresses the more
abstract SR of Origin if used with animate LMs:
(62) Adpds me ménon pros patrös alla kai pras
metros apo Dids ésontai gegonotes
‘That they should be descendants of Zeus,
not only on their father’s side, but also on
their mother's’ (Isoc. 10.43)
5. PATH
The path to get fram point A to point B or to
explore the LM is basically codified in Homeric
Greek by means of the PP did + gen./acc.
With the genitive, did frequently describes
a unidirectional trajectory from one side of a
LM to the other, thus implying a Goal to cross
through a progression of contiguous locations:
(63) tö dé dia Skaiön pediond’ ékhon ökeas hippous
‘And the twain drove the swift horses
through the Scaean gates to the plain’
(Hom. 11. 3.263)
With the accusative it generally portrays a con-
figuration in which the TR's scope is entirely
inside the LM:
(64) karpalimös d' éixe dia druma pukna kai hilén
‘She flees quickly through the thick forests
and woods’ (Hom. fl. u.u8)
This kind of trajectory may also be multidirec-
tional, i.e., the TR randomly moves within the
LM describing a path potentially covering the
entire area of the LM. In this usage the preposi-
tion conveys the tneaning ‘throughout’:
(65) helixdmenos dia bessas
albeit ‘Roaming around throughout the valley’
(Hom. Il. 17.283)
After Homer, while did + gen. retains its spatial
function, did + acc. generally occurs in more
abstract functions.
The table below shows the other ways to
encode a perlative relation in Greek:
 SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
Table 3: Path
Path PP Example
alongside the LM pard + acc. (66) para rhéon Okeanoio/
éiomen ‘We went along
by the stream of Okeanos'
(Hom. Od. 11.21-22)
(67) hai dé para skopien
kai erineon enemöenta |...)
essetionto "They ran past the
lookout station, and past the
weather-beaten wild fig-tree’
(Hom. Il. 22.145)
along an upward and + acc, (68) taüta ta plola ana men
trajectory to the ton potamön ou dünatai
LM/over the LM pleein ‘These boats cannot
move upstream’ (Hdt. 2.96.3)
(69) mnemeia men tes
heautoü aretés ana päsan
ten gen ktesämenos ‘Having
raised up monuments ofhis
virtue throughout the world’
(Xen. Ag. 11)
along a kata + acc. (70) kata rhdon de komizetai
downward höde ‘Downstream they are
trajectory to managed thus’ (Hdt. 2.96.3)
the LM (71) ei kath' Helläda önoma
dusklees pherö ‘If | bear a
name infamous throughout
Hellas’ (Eur. Hel. 66)
(72) hai men nun ékhid-
nai kata pasan ten gen eisi
‘Although there are vipers in
every land’ (Hdt. 3.109.3)
along a pert + acc. (73) Ads [...] peri térmata
circular monukhes hippoi [...]
trajectory trökhösi ‘As horses in a
around the LM chariot race speed round the
turning-posts’ (Hom.
Il. 22.162)
(74) hot Athénaiai
apésteilan tas hekaton nails
peri Petopénnéson ‘The
Athenians sent off the
hundred ships round
Peloponnese’ (Thuc. 2.23.1)
309
Comments
Depending on the
characteristics of the LM and
the verb involved, pard +
accusative expresses: a) the
trajectory along which the
TR moves, and b) the path
through which the TR goes
beyond [past the LM.
Usually avoided by Attic
prose writers (Smyth 1920:372;
Schwyzer 1950:440). With
uniplex LMs, and + acc. may
denote the upward trajectory
along which the TR moves;
with continuous/multiplex
LMs, it resembles the
function of the English
preposition over, conveying
a “point for point
correspondence of the TR with
the Lm” (Luraghi 2003:190).
Parallel to and, katd is also
its directional opposite
with respect to the spatial
orientation. Like and, it tends
to retain the implication of
the spatial orientation only
with specific types of LMs
(usually the current of a
river or a wind); unlike
and, it tends to be used in
expressions in which the TR
covers a path in which only
a few random spots of the
area of the LM are touched
(Luraghi 2003:209-210).
With motion verbs, peri + acc.
profiles the circular trajectory
performed by the TR around
the LM.
gro SPACE (ADPOSITIONS)
6. POSTPOSITIVES
The SR’s of Location, Direction and Source can
also be encoded by postpositive clitic elements
of Indo-European origin (+ Postpositives) whose
application is, however, lexically constrained.
Location can be expressed by postpositive
-thi (IE *-dhi), as in amphoteröthi ‘on both
sides’, dllothi ‘elsewhere’ and oikethi ‘at home‘;
the notion of Source can be conveyed through
the postpositive particle -then, which is an
innovative Hellenic elaboration of an original
Indo-European locative particle *-dhe (Bube-
nik 2008:36), as in amphoteröthen ‘from both
sides’, allothen ‘from elsewhere’ and ofkothen
‘from home’. Finally, the SR of Direction may be
encoded by the postpositive particle -de occur-
ring with motion verbs, commonly hikneomai,
hika and hikanö, which always imply “reach-
ing a point” (Monro 1891:233), more rarely, with
other verbs, e.g. heimi, érkhomai, néomai, agö,
hégéomai (cf. Civilleri 2010:95).
Differently from -thi and -then which are
added to the stem, -de is added to the accusative
ending of inanimate nouns, typically toponyms
or nouns with local reference (e.g. vikönde,
Thébasde) with the exception of Pälefönäde ‘to
Peleus’ son’ and Afdésde ‘to Hades (the nether
world)’, which is moreover formed from the
genitive ending. In the Classical Age, postposi-
tive -de does not disappear completely: it is
maintained as fixed residual, used mainly in
poetic contexts. Civilleri (2010:97) observes that
it might be thought that these forms survive only
as fossils, recorded in the lexicon of the Greek
language as a natural consequence of a school
practice based on the rote learning of Homeric
verses, but she suggests that it is quite plau-
sible that Greek speakers/writers had a certain
perception of the functional value of -de, since
forms such as Athenaze ‘to Athens’, Megdrade ‘to
Megara’, Eleusindde ‘to Eleusis’ are formed out of
the Homeric context (but probably by analogy
with Homeric usage).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bubenik, Vit. 2008. "On the expression of spatio-tempo-
ral relations in Late Proto-Indo-European”. In: Internal
reconstruction in Indo-European, ed. by J. E. Rasmussen
and T. Olander, 33-48. Copenhagen.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homerique. Tome
Syntaxe, Paris.
Civilleri, Germana. 2010, “Codifica della direzione nel
sistema nominale indoeuropeu: un’ipotesi scalare”, Studi
e Saggi Linguistict 48:83-108.
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 1981. Space and time in Homer, Preposi-
tional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York.
Humbert, Jean. 1986 [1945]. Syntaxe grecque. Paris.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Teil Il: Satziehre,
Hannover.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive yrammar.
Vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and
cases. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
. 2009. "The evolution of local cases and their gram-
matical equivalent in Greek and Latin". In: The role of
semantics and pragmatics in the development of case, ed.
by J. Barödal and S, Cetliah, 283-305. Amsterdam - Phila-
delphia,
Monro, David B. 1891. A grammar of the Homeric dialect.
Oxford.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Band 2:
Syntax. Munich.
Skopeteas, Stavros, 2008. “Encoding spatial relations: lan-
guage typology and diachronic change in Greek”, Lan-
guage Typology and Universals 61.1:54-66.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1920. A Greek grammar for colleges. New
York.
Viti, Carlotta. 2008. "Coding spatial relations in Homeric
Greek: preverbs vs. prepositions”, Historische Sprachforsc-
hung 121:114-161.
Luisa BRUCALE
Space (Cases)
1. INTRODUCTION
The issues relating to the linguistic expression
of space are on the agenda of contemporary
linguistic debate. The cognitive and functional
approaches to the internal organization of lan-
guages, in fact, assign a crucial importance to
the question of the grammatical encoding of
space, supporting the centrality of this topic
with respect to a proper understanding of the
synchronic structure, on the one hand, and the
diachrony of a language, on the other. ‘Spatial’,
then, would be the original content of a number
of grams that, in the diachronic development
of a given language, have given rise to highly
polysemous entities through processes of met-
aphorical extension and/or metonymic shift.
These entities will be the object of this paper,
which will be conducted within a localistic
model of their meaning, consistent with current
research on polysemy and grammaticalization.
The main contemporary analyses on linguistic
2: expression of space in Greek are, in fact, car-
ried out in this theoretical framework, see Niki-
foridou (1991), Luraghi (2003), Skopeteas (2008),
among others.
 SPACE (CASES)
Every human being, of any historical age, has
a mental representation of space, i.e., (s)he con-
ceptualizes the static or dynamic location of
entities in space. Moreover, each speaker makes
use of lexical or grammatical means to encode
such location, i.e., to talk about entities locating
them in space. In the conceptual act of localizing
entities in space a specific set of elements inter-
venes with a key role, Entities are not, in fact,
located in space in an absolute fashion, but in
reference to other entities. Human beings estab-
lish, then, more or less explicit and specific rela-
tions between the entity they want to locate and
the entity with respect to which such location is
obtained. Such a relation typically involves an
asymmetry between two entities: a movable and
salient one typically conceived as foregrounded,
the trajector (TR), and a second typically larger
entity, the landmark (LM), which provides points
of reference for locating the TR. As Langacker
(1987:217) points out, “the term trajector suggests
motion, and in processual predications describ-
ing physical activities [...| the trajector generally
does move through a spatial trajectory. Note,
however, that the definition makes no reference
at all to motion, either physical or abstract, so
this schematic description is applicable to both
static and dynamic relations.” In other words, a
spatial relation basically describes the place (or
location) of a TR in respect to a LM; the expres-
sion of directional motion along a trajectory
is rather brought about by the presence of a
motion verb and, hence, of a movable TR. There-
fore, different Semantic Roles (SRs) may be dis-
tinguished depending on whether the TR is just
statically located (Location) or, rather, displayed
in its dynamic relationship with the LM. In the
second case, the relationship will involve some
kind of motion event. The main motion events
are related to the displacement of a TR from a
starting point (Source), its movement towards a
place (Direction), and the trajectory to get from
point A to point B or to explore the LM (Path).
The spatial region of each location, then, can
be further specified, i.e., the sector of space iden-
tified in relation to the LM, e.g. its inner / outer
space, the space above / below it, the space in
front / behind it (cf. Svorou 1993).
In Greek the distinction between static and
dynamic relationships is grammatically encoded
by the interaction of cases and adpositions
(> Space (adpositions)).
gu
2. (BARE) CASES
Proto-Indo-European possessed a subsystem of
spatial cases suitable for expressing the basic
spatial relationships of Location (locative),
Source (ablative), Direction (allative accusa-
tive). The Proto-Indo-European case system was
somewhat simplified in Greek (+ Syncretism/
Syntax-Morphology Interface) by the mainte-
nance of grammatical cases and the reduction of
concrete cases (see Kurylowicz 1964.179ff.).
As Luraghi (2009:285) notes, this reduction
brought about a renewed distribution of the
functional load of disappeared concrete cases on
maintained grammatical cases which, therefore,
may be used with the function of locative (the
dative), ablative (the genitive), and allative
(the accusative).
The use of bare dative, genitive and accusa-
tive in the encoding of spatial relations between
TR and LM is not systematic and is restricted to
specific lexical domains. As in many other lan-
guages, when the TR is in a stereotypical (char-
acteristic, or normal and expected) relation to
the LM, the marking of the spatial relation may
also be omitted (Levinson 2006164165). Creis-
sels ([2009] 2011:612) observes that geographi-
cal names together with common nouns, which
can be characterized as ‘natural locations’, have
less morphological marking than other nouns;
moreover, they display the tendency to be more
conservative in diachronic development affect-
ing the codification of spatial relations. This is
an effect of their high predictability as LMs of
a spatial relation, and of their frequent use as
spatial complements (see also Comrie 1986:104;
Luraghi 2003:26-27 and 2009:285).
In most Indo-European languages, the use
of bare spatial cases is, as mentioned, lexically
constrained, and the occurrences of cases whose
spatial meaning is not motivated by the seman-
tics of the verb or the NP involved are very rare.
Moreover, the spatial use of cases is significant
only for the oldest documented stage of Greek
in which bare cases can merely encode the rela-
tion between TR and LM without any reference
to the spatial region. The expression of the latter
is, however, conflated together with that of the
SRs of Location, Source, Destination, and Path
in the systems of spatial cases proper attested in
the languages of the world (e.g. Akhvakh, some
Daghestanian languages, Finnish, cf. Creissels
312 SPACE (CASES)
[2009] zou) and, in Greek, in PPs expressing
spatial relations (cf. Skopeteas 2008:36-37).
The spatial semantics of cases intervenes in
the relationship with adpositions. The result of
this relation is a PP that encodes spatial func-
tions with greater specificity. Consistently, the
genitive will be involved in relations typically
denoting Source, the dative in locative expres-
sions. The accusative may be found in locational
and perlative expressions (exploiting its ‘extent’-
value), and finally in directional expressions.
However, as will be seen, these correspondences
do not always match, and cases other than those
identified may be used in the expression of major
spatial relations.
The encoding of the main spatial SRs through
bare cases will be examined in detail in the fol-
lowing section.
2.4. Location
2.a.1, Locative Dative
To encode the place where the TR is statically
located, Homeric Greek makes a constrained
use of the locative dative. This case occurs
only in association with certain types of LMs,
namely very frequent toponyms, such as Mara-
thöni, Plataiais, Delphois (but it is unattested
with other toponyms, e.g. *Lakedaimoni, *Sura-
kousais, cf. Humbert [1945| 1986:292), nouns
with local reference, such as aithéri ‘in the sky’,
ouresin ‘in the mountains’, péntai ‘at sea’ (see
Chantraine 1953:78), nouns denoting ‘social loca-
tion’ (Luraghi 2003:66), such as agoréi ‘at the
council’, mäkhei ‘in battle’, etc., as in (1):
(1) geinato heio khéreia mäkhei, agoréi de t’
ameind
‘(The son that) he generated is worse than
him in battle, though in the place of gather-
ing he is better’ (Hom. Il. 4.400)
Luraghi {2z009:289) shows that in the above
example bare dative may express Location even
when “the NP in the dative is an adverbial, i.e.,
when its semantic function is not in some way
specified by the verb.”
In Attic prose the locative dative is used only
with some toponyms (Olumpiäsi ‘at Olympia’,
Isthmoi ‘at the Isthmus’), and especially with
the names of Attic demes (as in 2), e.g. Phalérci,
Thorikel, Marathéni, but some deme-names
require en, e.g. en Koléi (Smyth 1920:351):
(2) tön te Marathöni makhesaménon kai tön en
Salamini naumakhesantön
‘The soldiers who fought at Marathon and
the sailors who fought at Salamis’ (Pl. Menex.
241b)
Although an animate LM in the bare dative,
especially in the singular, can only be viewed
as a dative proper, when the LM is multiplex
(Talmy 2000:177-254), i.e., it consists of separate
entities (e.g. a noun in the plural), it may express
Location in the bare dative, conveying the same
relation expressed by the English preposition
among (Luraghi 2003:27):
(3) ariprepéa Tröessin
‘Conspicuous among the Trojans’ (Hom. Ji.
6.477)
Finally Smyth (1920:351) also notes that the
bare dative is often used in locational expres-
sions involving body parts, such as the Homeric
kardiéi 'in the heart’, phresi ‘in the pericardium’,
kheiri 'in hand', Chantraine (1953:78-79) dis-
cusses these cases trying to determine whether
in this usage the dative has a locative or rather
an instrumental value. Luraghi (2003:66-67)
shows that body parts are “natural instruments’,
ie, they have a natural instrumental function
for humans and for this reason they can be
interpreted either as locations or as instruments.
Moreover, Luraghi (2004) observes that in Greek
the connection between the two SRs is pro-
vided by the container metaphor (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980; > Metaphor, Ancient theories on;
> Metaphor): nouns for body parts are normally
conceptualized as containers and, consequently,
they may occur with grammatical constructions
implying containment.
The occurrence of the bare dative in the
encoding of Location is, however, not so com-
mon already in Homer, also in relation to the
type of NPs mentioned above. The use of the
dative in combination with the preposition en is
much more frequent in expressing Location and
becomes the norm in the Classical Age (Smyth
1920:351; Luraghi 2009:289).
2adi. Genitive
Smyth (1920:337) states that, more frequently in
poetry than in prose, the place within which or
at which something happens may be expressed
in the genitive, as in the following:
 SPACE (CASES)
(4) lelouménos Okeanoio
‘Having bathed in Oceanus’ (Hom. J. 5.6)
(5) Laiäs de kheiros hoi sidérotéktones / oikoüsi
Khdlubes
‘The ironworkers, the Chalybes, dwell on the
left hand’ (Aesch. PV 714)
It is plausible that, in these examples, the loca-
tive meaning arises as an extension from the par-
titive (prominent in the Greek genitive) value.
The locative use of the genitive is also testi-
fied by the formation of some adverbs, as poü
‘where’, autoü ‘in the very place’, certainly based
on the ablative value.
2.b. Direction/Destination
2.b.i. Accusative
The SR of Direction may be expressed in
Homeric Greek through the use ofthe bare accu-
sative. In Homer it occurs in combination with
verbs of motion (especially with verbs such as
(ap)hikneomai, hikö and hikdné ‘to reach’, cf.
Smyth 19207358) and expresses the endpoint of
the movement of the TR toward animated and
inanimate LMs, as in (6) and (7) respectively:
(6) he d’ héte dé mnéstéras aphiketo
‘When she reached the suitors...’ (Hom. Od.
1.332)
(7) hé d’ dra Küpron hikane philommeides
Aphrodité
‘And laughter-loving Aphrodite reached
Cyprus’ (Hom. Od. 8.362)
As pointed out by Luraghi (2003:55), the entities
constituting inanimate LMs in the accusative are
typically nouns with spatial reference, as in (7),
or nouns that denote ‘social locations’, as in (8);
(8) toi d’ ham’ héponto Argeiön basilées, hésoi
kekléato boulen
‘And with him came the other chiefs who
had been called to the council’ (Hom, I.
10.194-195)
After Herodotus, the bare accusative expresses
this function only sporadically, mostly in poetry
(cf. Humbert [1945] 1986:260) and always with
LMs denoting spatial referents, as in (g) and (10):
(9) dstu Kadmeion molan
‘Having come to the city of Cadmus’ (Soph.
OT 35)
313
(10) pémpsomen nin Helldda
‘We will convey her to Greece’ (Eur. Tro. 883)
2.b.ii, Bare Dative
In Homeric Greek a particular emphasis on the
endpoint of the path through which the TR
reaches the LM is expressed by means of the
bare dative case. This use is limited to a few
verbs implying motion, in particular, pegnumi
‘to fix’, ballö ‘to throw’, piptö ‘to fall’, and tithemi
‘to put’ (cf. Luraghi 2003:66), and entails that
the movement of the TR ends up in a static rela-
tionship with the goal of motion (typically the
ground) as in (11) and (12):
(u) peksamen akrotdtöl timbdi euéres eretmön
‘We planted the shapely oar on the top of
the mound’ (Hom. Od. 12.15)
(12) khrémata men mukhéi dntrou thespesioio /
thelomen autika niin [...]
‘Let us now, instantly, lay the goods in the
innermost recess of the wondrous cave’
(Hom, Od. 13.363-364)
With the same verbs the adverb khamai ‘on the
ground’ may occur: it is a genuine locative (cf.
Lat. Aum) that has extended its use to express an
allative/terminative function, yet in the oldest
documented stage of Greek, as in (13):
(13) Ao d’en koniéisi khamai pesen
‘He fell to the ground in the dust’ (Hom.
Il. 4.482)
The directional construction with the bare dative
also occurs, albeit sporadically, in Attic poetry,
as in (14):
(14) kathéka sumptüxas’ alampes héliou / koilöi
zugäströl döron
‘And folded up the gift, and placed it in a hol-
low, sunless casket’ (Soph, Trach. 691-692)
A similar construction may occur with the same
verbs (and also with other verbs, eg. Aistémi
‘to set, place’, thröiskö ‘to leap’) but using the
dative accompanied by a preposition (mainly en;
~» Space (adpositions)).
Finally, with motion verbs a bare dative may
occur with human LMs, as in (15):
(15) élthe dé kai tois Athénaiois |...] he angeliä
‘The message came to the Athenians’
(Thue. 1.61)
214
According to Smyth (1920:342), “with verbs of
motion the dative of the person to whom is
properly a dative of advantage/disadvantage.”
2c. Source
The SR of Source, i.e., the point in the space from
which the TR moves away or detaches, may be
encoded by the bare genitive case.
Since the Greek genitive results from the merg-
ing of Proto-Indo-European genitive and ablative
(+ Syncretism/Syntax-Morphology Interface), it
may express the point in the space from which
the TR departs: it specifies the origin of the
action and also measures the distance between a
starting point and an end-point, i.e., the separa-
tion or removal from a source.
At least in + Attic, Humbert ([1945] 1976:278)
postulates that when the ablatival genitive has a
concrete value it is usually preceded by a prepo-
sition (typically apd); on the contrary, if the
source it expresses is taken figuratively, the case
does not need to be further specified:
(16) müthön érkhe Gerenios hippöta Nestör
(abstract)
‘Nestor, horseman of Gerene, began
speak’ (Hom. I. 2.433)
(17) en soi men l@xö, seo d' drxomai (concrete)
‘With you, I will both begin my speech and
end it' (Hom. ff. 9.97)
The bare genitive occurs sporadically in encad-
ing Source, and only in connection with verbs
denoting a distancing of the TR from the LM,
such as eikö 'to retire from’:
(18) eikousi tes hodou
‘(Younger men) yield the way’ (Hdt. 2.80)
Occurrences in which the verb is prefixed with a
preverb denoting Source are especially frequent
in prose:
(19) Ads apékhei tön Epipolön hex © heptd
stadious
“Which is six or seven stades far from Epipo-
lae’ (Thuc. 6.97)
According to Luraghi (2009:293), while the mean-
ing of the verb plays a cnıcial role in the expres-
sion of Source by the bare genitive, the locative
meaning of the bare dative is constrained by
the semantics of the NP involved. Moreover, she
SPACE (CASES)
observes that dative NPs with spatial reference
may express Location also when the valency
of the verb does not require them (i.e, when
they syntactically behave as adverbials). On the
contrary, a syntactically adverbial NP cannot be
found in the bare genitive expressing Source.
This reduction in the autonomy of the ablatival
genitive results, according to Luraghi (2003:60-
61), from the frequent use of the genitive as Parti-
tive (+ Genitive).
2.d, Path
Since the oldest written documents, the SR of
Path may be expressed by means of the bare
accusative (accusative of extent, cf. Smyth
1920:357). Very common throughout the history
of Greek is the phrase plein thdlassan ‘to sail the
sea’, where thd/assan conveys a perlative value.
More specifically, with dynamic verbs the
Accusative may indicate the spatial extension
over which the TR moves, as in the following:
(20) pöthen pleith’ hugra keleutha?
‘Where do you come from, through the wet
paths (of the sea)?’ (Hom. Od, 3.71)
to (21) siratiän [...] dgein [...] € stends € plateias
hodoüs é oreinds € pedinds
‘To lead an army [...] by narrow ways or
broad, over mountains or plains’ (Xen.
Ages. 1.6.43)
With non-dynamic verbs (especially apekhö ‘to
be far from’) the accusative measures the dis-
tance of the TR from a given LM (see Luraghi
2003:55) as in (22):
(22) apékhei dé he Plataia tön Thebön stadious
hebdomékonta
‘Platea is seventy stades distant from The-
bes’ (Thuc. 2.5)
According to Luraghi (2003:55), occurrences
such as (22) represent an instance of the Talmian
notion of fictive access path, i.e., “a depiction of
a stationary object's location in terms of a path
that some other entity might follow to the point
of encounter with the object” (Talmy 2000:136).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homerique. Tome 2:
Syntaxe, Paris.
Comrie, Bernard. 1986, “Markedness, grammar, people, and
the worlds”. In: Markedness, ed. by E. Moravesik and
J. Wirth, 85-106. New York - London.
 SPACE (CASES)
Creissels, Denis. [2009] 20u. “Spatial cases”. In: The Oxford
handbook of case, ed. by A, Malchukov and A. Spencer,
609-625. Oxford.
Humbert, Jean. [1945] 1986. Syntaxe grecque. Paris.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-
European. Heidelberg.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar.
Vol. ı: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. “The language of space in Yeli
Bye”. In: Grammars of space, Explorations in cognitive
diversity, ed. by §. C. Levinson and D. P, Wilkins, 157-205.
Cambridge.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions und
cases, Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
——. 2009. “The evolution of local cases and their gram-
matical equivalent in Greek and Latin”. In: The role of
semantics and pragmatics in the development of case, ed.
by J. Barddal and $, Celliah, 283-305, Amsterdam - Phila-
delphia.
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. “The meaning of the genitive", Cogni-
tive Linguistics 2.2149-205.
Skopeteas, Stavros, 2008. “Encoding spatial relations: lan-
Buage typology and diachronic change in Greek", Lan-
guage Typology and Universalis 61.1:54-66.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1920. A Greek grammar for colleges. New
York.
Svorou, Soteria. 1993. The grammar of space. Amsterdam —
Philadelphia.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. ı:
Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA.
LUISA BRUCALE
Spirantization
Spirantization (+ Consonant Changes) is the
change of oral stops to fricatives (spirants).
Voiced stops undergo spirantization as a result
of the reduction of oral compression to facili-
tate glottal voicing: /b/ > /B/, /d/ > /d/ and /g/
> /y/. In voiceless aspirated stops, the release is
often misinterpreted by listeners as frication, i.e,
/pP/ > /p¥/, {th/ > /t8/ and /kb/ > /k*/, and these
affricates further evolve into fricatives /f/, /9/
and /x/ (Stuart-Smith 2004:202-203). Ancient
Greek voiceless aspirates and voiced stops have
become fricatives in Modern Greek (+ Develop-
ments in Medieval and Modern Greek). Although
the chronology of these changes is controversial,
fricatives were mainstream by the 4th c. CE (Hor-
rocks 2010:170). Voiceless stops did not undergo
spirantization in Ancient Greek.
Early interchange of <w> and <b> attests
to /b/ > /B/: p.n. Bastias (Laconia, sth c. BCE)
for Wastias, diabeipdmenos ‘say (aor. ptc. mid.
masc.)' (Crete, 5th-4th BCE) for diaweipämenos.
Moreover, a fricative /ß/ is confirmed by other
spellings (+ glides): p.n. Eübandros = Eüandros
(Dodona, Hellenistic), rdudous = rdbdous ‘rod
315
(ace. pl.)' (Egyptian papyrus, and c. BCE). Latin
words with intervocalic <u> = /w/ are often
spelled with <> in late periods: e.g. p.n. Phidbios
= Lat. Flauius. In some areas <z> for <d> attests
to spirantization of /d/ in all positions (Mén-
dez Dosuna 1991-1993), e.g. zeka = déka ‘ten’
(Olympia, 5th c. BCE), töze = töde ‘this (nom./
acc. neut.)’ (Rhodes, 6th c. BCE); cf. the reverse
spelling khré(i\deis = khre(i)zeis ‘need (and sg.
pres.)’ in late Egyptian papyri (3rd c. CE). In
Cret, weronti for wérdonti ‘do (3rd pl. pres.)'
(5th c. BCE) spirantization accounts for d-loss
and + compensatory lengthening of /e/. Forms
like olfois = olfgois ‘little (dat. pl. masc./neut.)’
(Athens, 4th c. BCE), Phialetis = Phigaleüs ‘of
Phigaleia (masc.)' (Arcadia, Hell.), betray spiran-
tization and occasional loss of intervocalic /y/
(+ yodization). Voiced stops escaped spirantiza-
tion after nasals.
A fricative pronunciation of /p*/ is attested
in Pamph. phikati = wikati ‘twenty’ (4th c. BCE).
Spirantization of /t®/ also occurs quite early in
> Laconian: sids = theds ‘god' (Laconia, 4th c.
BCE; cf. + Tsakonian sdti ‘daughter’ < Anc. Gk.
thugdtér). Other evidence is controversial. p.n.
Ephronis for Euphronis (Athens, Hell.) might
reflect an assimilation of contiguous homorganic
fricatives (/bpb/ > /b/ with simplification to
/d/ before a consonant}, but careless omission
of <u> is more likely. The spelling of <ph> for
<th> in worphaia = worthaia ‘(Artemis) Ortheia’
(Laconia, 6th c. BCE), pheön = theön ‘god (gen.
pl.) (Dodona, Hell.) purportedly reflects spiran-
tization of /t®/ and /p"/, since the fronting /8/
> /f} is more natural than /t"/ > /p*/ (Cockney
three [fri:]). But a confusion between <@> = th
and <®> = ph may also be behind these exam-
ples (Threatte 1980:470-471). However, in Pom-
peian + graffiti (ist c. CE) <f> for <ph> probably
mirrors a fricative in the Greek words: Venus
Fisica. Arguably, voiceless stops underwent spi-
rantization and voicing in — Macedonian: p.n.
Boulomäga /Bu:lomaya:/ < /P®urlomäxa:/ for
Phulomäkhe, month name Xandikös /ksandikos/
< /ksandikös/ for Xanthikös (Hatzopoulos 2007,
Méndez Dosuna 2012). Furthermore, these spell-
ings confirm the spirantization of voiced stops
in the area, Spellings like gegrappha = gegrapha
‘Ihave written’ (Caria, 2nd cc. BCE), metellakkhötas
= metellakhötas ‘change (pf. pte. act. acc. pl.
masc.)' (Caria, 2nd-ist c. BCE) are unlikely to
attest to an affricate pronunciation prior to com-
plete fricativization. Lack of spirantization of
316 SPIRANTIZATION

fth/ and /k"/ after /s/ is confirmed by early nasal + vowels from Latin, where nasal vowels
spellings with <t> and <k> in NW Greece and were allophones of oral vowels before nasal con-
elsewhere: Aeléstai = helesthai 'seize (aor. inf. sonanits, to French, where oral and nasal vowels
mid.)' (Chaleion, 5th c. BCE), päskoi = päskhoi now contrast. Within Greek, the phenomenon
‘suffer (3 sg. opt. pres.)' (Olympia, 5th c. BCE). is illustrated by the distribution of /s/ and /z/.
Apparently, /tb/ spirantized after /s/ in some It is likely that from an early date /s/ underwent
areas (Méndez Dosuna 1985:364-366): apoddssai + voicing to [z] before a voiced segment like [d]
= apodösthai'give back (aor. inf. mid.)' (Olympia, (via — assimilation). In the fourth century the
4th c. BCE). The scantiness of <sp> for <sph>, e.g. cluster [zd] developed into [zz] intervocalically
aspalisai = asphalisai ‘secure (aor. inf.)’ (Egyp- and [z] elsewhere. Once this change took place,
tian papyrus, ist c. CE), also indicates spiranti- [s} and [2] were no longer in complementary dis-
zation of /p*/ after /s/, which is confirmed by tribution, and became independent phonemes.
Modern Greek. The opposite of a split is a + merger, when
For the fricative pronunciation of /w/, see two phonemes become one over time. Hoenig-
~ Glides. swald (1960) uses the terms ‘primary split’ for
(conditioned) merger and ‘secondary split’ for
BIBLIOGRAPHY what I have called split here.
Hatzopoulos, Miltiades B. 2007. “La position dialectale du
macédonien 4 la lumiére des découvertes épigraphiques
BIBLIOGRAPHY
récentes". In: Die altgriechischen Dialekte, Wesen und
Hoch, Hans H. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics, Berlin.
Werden. Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Universität Ber-
Hoenigswald, Henry. 1960. Language change and linguistic
fin 19,-22, September 2001, ed. by lvo Hajnal, 157-176.
reconstruction. Chicago.
Innsbruck.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 20107, Greek. A history of the language
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
and its speakers. Oxford.
Méndez Dosuna, Julian, 1985. Los dialectos dorios del
Noroeste. Gramätica y estudio dialectal, Salamanca.
. 1993-1993. “On <Z> for <A> in Greek dialectal inscrip- Stative (and Middle/Medium) Verbs
tions", Sprache 95:82-114.
‚ 2012, “Ancient Macedonian as a Greek dialect: a criti-
cal survey of recent work”. In: Ancient Macedonia. Lan- According to some scholars, Proto-Indo-Euro-
guage, history, civilization, ed. by G. K. Giannakis, 147-153. pean (PIE) (+ Indo-European Linguistic Back-
Thessaloniki. ground) had three > voice categories: — active,
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2004. Phonetics and philology, Sound
change in Italie, Oxford. + middle (+ mediopassive) and stative voice
Threatte. Leslie. ıgBo. The grammar of Attic inscriptions, Vol. »: (Oettinger 1976, 1993, Rix 1988, Kiimmel 1996,
Phonology. Berlin - New York. Meier-Brügger 2010). The stative voice was mor-
phologically marked off from the act. and mid.
ALCORAC ALONSO DENIZ
by its distinct personal endings. Semantically,
the stative differed from act, and mid. in that
it had a stative meaning. The existence of the
Split
stative as a separate verbal category in PIE is not
generally accepted. See e.g. Jasanoff (1978 and
A phonemic split occurs when two allophones
2003) for an alternative view on the PIE voice
of a phoneme cease to be in complementary
system.
distribution: each takes on a life of its own and
The endings of the PIE stative as reconstructed
the original phoneme ‘splits’ into two over time.
by Kiimmel (1996) are:
The process is also called ‘phonologization’,
since an allophone becomes its own phoneme
over time. Stative
Split sounds themselves do not change. Rather Primary Secondary Perfect
it is the merger of other sounds in their environ-
1 sg. *foe-i * hye * Age
ment that causes the phonemic status of the
2 *-thye-i *_thoe *.thoe
sounds involved to change from being predict-
3 *-0-f/-e-{ *-of-e *-e
able conditioned variants of sounds (allophones)
to unpredictable, contrastive, distinctive sounds
1 pl. ? ? *_me
(phonemes). A classic example of a split is the 2 ? ? *_(t)e
development of a contrast between oral and 3 * ro-f/-reij *-ro/-re %.er/-r
 STATIVE (AND MIDDLE/MEDIUM) VERBS
The endings of the PIE (secondary) perfect have
also been included in the table, as reconstructed
by Rix (1992), (Note that some scholars recon-
struct the 3 pl. pf as *-er, eg. Sihler 1995:572,
Fortson 2004:93-94, Beekes 2011:265-266.) As
can be seen in the table, the endings of the stat-
ive and pf. show a strong similarity. Many schol-
ars therefore assume that the perfect belonged
to the category stative. Another indication of
their connection is the fact that both stative
and perfect had a stative meaning. The perfect
differs from other stative verbs by its + redu-
plication, its ablaut/apophony (+ Ablaut) and
possibly also by its semantics in that the perfect
expressed a state which is the result of a previous
event (+ Perfect), rather than a state tout court.
As for ablaut, a stative verb had e-grade in the
root (bearing the accent), while a perfect had
o-grade in the singular and zero-grade in the
plural. Compare the following PIE paradigms of
the stative verb *Kei- ‘lie’ (cf. Gk. keimai) and the
perfect *me-mén-hze (cf. Gk. memona) from the
root *men- ‘have in mind’.
Stative
Primary Secondary Perfect
12. *kéi-hye-j *kei-hze *me-mon-hge
2 *kéi-thye-j “kéi-the *me-mön-thae
3 *Kéi-o-{/-e-j *kéi-o/-e *me-mén-e
ıpl. ? ? *me-mn-me
2 ? ? *me-mn-é
3 "kei -ro-{/-re-{. *kei-ro/-re *me-mn-er/-er
There were probably also a small number of PIE
stative verbs with zero-grade in the root (e.g. Skt.
3 sg. duhé ‘gives milk’ < PIE “d*ug*-dé), but this
type is disregarded here since these verbs did not
survive in Ancient Greek. The old Greek pf. end-
ings 1 sg. -a, 2 sg, -tha, 3 sg. -e, 1 pl. -men are the
only relics of the PIE stative endings. In Greek,
the endings of PIE stative verbs of the type
*fei-o/-e ‘lie’ were replaced by middle endings,
e.g. 1 sg. *kéi-hye-j > keimai, 3 sg. *kéi-0-j/-e-{ >
keitoi (> keftai). Compare, by contrast, Vedic Skt.
which has retained the original stative endings,
e.g. 35g. Säye < *kéi-oj/-ej, 3 pl. sére < *kei-roj/-rei.
The only morphological feature in the Greek
verb keimai which can be seen as a relic of the
PIE stative class is the e-grade in the root which
distinguishes it from regular middle verb forms
which have zero-grade in the root (e.g. apéktate
‘he was killed’ < *ktn-to). Also its stative mean-
2317
ing can be seen as a trace of the PIE stative class.
Synchronically, keimai also functions as pf. mid.
to tithémi ‘put (down)’.
It has often been noted that there is an affin-
ity between the PIE stative and the mid. voice.
A number of scholars assume that the old stative
category became detached from the perfect and
merged to a greater or lesser extent with the
reflexive-passive mid. voice (Rix 1988, Meier-
Briigger 2010:396). Others do not reconstruct a
separate stative category and assume that the
mid. voice of the type found in Ancient Greek
(-mai, -sai, -tai, etc.) has developed from the old
PIE perfect-middle conjugation (1 sg. *-Aze, 2 sg.
*-thye, 3 Sg. *-0, etc.) through a process of assimi-
lation with the act. inflection (*-m, *-s, *-t, etc.)
(e.g. Jasanoff 2003). Beekes explains the similar-
ity between the PIE stative and mid. inflection by
assuming a distinction between trans. and intr.
(stative) mid. in PIE. According to Beekes, the
endings of the trans. mid. were a combination of
act. endings with the intrans. mid. (stative) end-
ings. Thus, the 1 sg, ending of the trans. mid. was
*-m-h,, which is a combination of act. 1 sg, end-
ing *m and the intr. mid. (stative) ending *,.
In the same way, 2 sg. trans. mid. *-sth,o = act. *-s
+ intr. mid, *-{A20, 3 sg, trans. mid. *-to = act. *-t +
intr. mid. *-o, etc. (Beekes 2011:268-270, 282-283).
Apart from keimai, a number of other Greek
mid. verbs can be recognized as possible rem-
nants of the PIE stative on the basis of their
e-vocalism in the root and their stative semantics.
(1) Imperf. déato ‘seemed’ (Hom. Od. 6.242)
< *dejha-to (with -to replacing older *-o) from
PIE root *deih,- ‘flash up’. Cf. also Arc. subj.
form deatoi (IG V 2, 6), Hsch. 3 sg. déatai, 1 sg.
imperf. dedmeén. For the semantic develop-
ment, cf. Germ. es scheint ‘itshines' >‘itseems’,
heimai ‘wear < *yés-mai. Cf. Vedic Skt. 3 pl.
avasran ‘they were wearing’ (containing a
remnant of the stative ending *-ro}. The mid.
inflection of the verb possibly dates back to
PIE, cf. Greek hesto ‘was wearing’, Hitt. wésta
‘was wearing’, Skt. vdste (< *yes-to(i)). Syn-
chronically, the verb heimai functions as mid.
pf. tothe later pres. formation hénnumi‘dress’.
hémai ‘be seated’ < *és-mai (from PIE root
*heh,s-). Avest. 3 pl. dnhäire ‘they are seated!
has the old stative ending *-roi/-rei (cf. also
Hitt. esar(ri) ‘sits down’). Synchronically,
hémai functions as a mid. pf. to Aézd ‘sit
down, seat’/ Aizomai ‘sit down’.
gis STATIVE (AND MIDDLE/MEDIUM) VERBS
(4) kremamai ‘hang (intr.)' (originally ‘be/hang
limp’? from PIE root * krermh,- ‘be lax’), Syn-
chronically, Arémamai functions as mid. pf.
to pres, krimnemi (old nasal present with
caus, meaning?) and kremdnnwmi ‘hang
(trans. )‘ (recent formation
after aor. ekrémasa
‘hanged (trans.)'; - Causative Formation).
More problematic are the following mid. verbs:
(5) Hom. 3 pl. pres. dekhatai (Il. 12.147), impertf.
edegmen (Od. 9.513, 12.230), pte. dégmenos
(il. 2.794, ete.) ‘wait for, be on the lookout
for, expect’ (PIE root *dek- ‘receive, take’).
The stative meaning of these forms may
point to an old stative. The e-vocalism in
the root can alternatively be explained as
a Narten ablaut (> 'Narten’ Presents). The
Hom. form dekto ‘accepted’ (cf. Myc. de-
ko-to) is probably an aorist. The verb dokeö
‘appear’ is an old caus. form (cf. Lat. doceö
‘teach’) with the meaning 'make someone
perceive something’. The thematic verb
(+ Thematic and Athematic Verbs) dékomai
(Iorı., Aeol., Dor.)/dekhomai (Att.) is prob-
ably of more recent origin.
\6) Hom. éramuié ‘love’ (PIE root *A,erhy,-) pos-
sibly has e-grade in the root and stative
semantics, The variant erdö is later. There
are no certain cognates in other languages.
The verb petamai ‘fly’ (from PIE root *peth,-)
is first attested in Sappho. It has e-vocalism
in the root and its meaning can be viewed
as stative in the sense of ‘be airborn‘, The
aor. éptato ‘flew up’ can be interpreted as
ingressive in relation to the stative pres-
ent. However, pétamai may not be very old
and created analogically (+ Analogy) to aor.
éptato. The thematic verb pétomai is more
common.
Hom. steütai ‘declare, boast, promise’ (from
PIE root *stey- ‘be known, praise’), Vedic Skt.
stäve ‘be praised’ (< *steu-oi) is a stative for-
mation. The Greek verb also shows e-grade
in the root but is semantically non-stative.
The vocalism may alternatively be explained
as a Narten ablaut.
Hom. erkhatai (Il. 16.481, Od. 10.283), erkhato
(Hl. 17.354, Od. g.221, 14.73) ‘are/were shut
in, enclosed’ (from PIE root *yerg- ‘shut
in’), Since these forms have e-grade in the
root and stative meaning, they may go back
to a PIE stative verb. Alternatively, these
forms can be explained as perfects, i.e., as
equivalents of the Hom. reduplicated plupf.
eérkhato. However, the absence of redupli-
cation in érkhatai and erkhato and their
e-grade (instead of zero-grade) remain prob-
lematic foran interpretation as perfect forms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Rohert §, P, 201. Comparative Indo-furopean. lin-
yuistics, An introduction. Second edition. Amsterdam —
Philadelphia.
Fortson, Benjamin W. 2004. Indo-European language and
culture. An introduction. Oxford.
Jasanoff, Jay. 1978. Stative and middle in Indo-Burupean.
Innsbruck.
. 2003, Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford.
Kimmel, Martin. 1996. Stativ und Passivaorist im Indairanis-
chen. Göttingen,
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwis-
senschaft. 9., durchsehene und ergänzte Auflage. Berlin -
New York.
Oettinger, Norbert. 1976. “Der indogermanische Stativ”,
Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34109-149.
——. 1993. "Zur Funktion des indogermanischen Stativs’.
In; Indogermantca et Italica, Festschrift für Helmut Rix
zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Gerhard Meiser, 341-361.
Innsbruck.
Rix, Helmut. 1988. “The Protn-Indo-European middle: con-
tent, forms and origin", Münchener Studien sur Sprachwis-
senschaft 4901-100.
——., 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut-
und Formentehre. 2., korr, Aufl Darmstadt,
‚ et al. 2001, Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. 2.
Aufl. Wiesbaden.
Sihler. Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. Oxford - New York.
RUTGER ALLAN
Stress
Modern Greek has stress (like English or Span-
ish) and it generally has stress where Ancient
Greek had a written accent-mark (acute ’ or
circumflex *); orthograhically, stress is shown
in Modern Greek with an acute accent over the
stressed vowel and probably for this reason it
is common to read Ancient Greek words like
änthröpos with stress on the first syllable and
anthröpou with stress on the second. But this is
misguided and there is now consensus that the
acute mark in Ancient Greek marks high tone
(tén ‘the (fem. acc.)’) rather than stress; that the
circumflex (tön ‘the (gen.pl.)’) marks falling tone,
with a high on the first mora of the long vowel
and low on the second [t6ön]; and that the grave
accent marks a high tone that has gone low
due to its placement in the sentence (ton ändra
 STRESS
‘the man (acc.)'). Pairs of words like phös ‘light’
and phos ‘man’ make it highly unlikely that writ-
ten accent marks a difference in stress: we would
need to assume that these monosyllables had
stress in different places, the first on its first
mora [phöos], the second on its second [phods];
and stress is pretty much by definition not some-
thing that can fall on different parts of a syllable.
Languages that differ in stress in this way do not
exist as far as is known; we therefore assume that
phös ‘light’ and phos ‘man’ differ in tone but not
in stress, Similarly tor pairs of words like phords
‘bearing’ vs, phöros ‘tribute’. We can surmise
from the Ancient Greek writing system that the
tone was different in these words, but it does not
follow from this that the stress was different, or
indeed that there was any stress at all.
The issue of stress in Greek is somewhat vexed
because it depends in great part on patterns in
+ metrics and phonology, especially patterns of
Greek accentuation, the placement of the tonal
marks within words. It will therefore be useful
to separate the metrical and grammatical evi-
dence for stress. Neither is conclusive, though
it seems increasingly likely that Greek did have
stress. In what follows I will use the terms tone
and stress and avoid the more ambiguous term
accent wherever possible.
1. METRICAL EVIDENCE FOR STRESS
Greek meter is based on patterns of heavy and
light syllables, and it has long been recognized
that the written accents in the language in no
way line up with heavy and light positions in the
meter. But since tone (high and low) and stress
(syllable prominence) are distinct, it is possible
that Greek meter is sensitive to stress while insen-
sitive to tone, an idea pursued by W, S. Allen.
Allen (1966) attempts to locate linguistic
stresses in words by working backwards from
the patterns of heavy and light syllables in the
meter. He assumes that dactylic (-~~) and iam-
bic metra (=---) are both metrically prominent
on their heavy (—) syllables and looks to see
which syllables in the text line up with these
(ex hypothesi) prominent positions in meter. He
finds that word-final heavy syllables in the text
line up especially well with the (-) positions in
dactyls and iambs and therefore proposes that
word-final heavy syllables in Greek bear stress.
More generally, he finds that words with certain
shapes (-~,~—,~—~, for instance) show up with
319
the (—) syllable in the prominent (beginning)
part of a dactyl and the prominent (ending) part
of an iamb, suggesting again that the heavy syl-
lables in words with those shapes are stressed
(> Syllable Weight); words with more than one
heavy syllable tend to align the last one with the
prominent positions in the meter. Newton blasts
the methodology and statistics Aen employs
and concludes that there is “no evidence of the
existence of dynamic stress in Classical Greek”
(1969:370). Partially in response to this, Allen
(1973) changes a number of details of his analy-
sis, allowing, among other things, pairs of light
syllables to be stressed in Greek as well, as they
are in Latin. He proposes that if the final syllable
in a word is heavy, it receives primary stress; if
the final syllable is light, then the next heavy
or double-light sequence in the word receives
primary stress. Any additional heavy or pair of
lights receives secondary stress, unless they are
adjacent to another stress. This makes Greek
stress much more like Latin, where both heavy
and double light are stressed.
That much constitutes a plausible stress sys-
tem, from a phonological perspective, but to
get it to fit the meter, Allen has to postulate
for Greek stress a number of properties that
are rare or unattested among the stress systems
of the world. These properties include having
no primary stress on bimoraic words like Zeüs
‘Zeus’ and mdla ‘very’, because Allen thinks it
takes three moras to show a stress pattern. They
also include having sentence-final word stress
dependent on the stress of the preceding word. If
sentence-final auéous ‘them’ follows a word with
final stress (blepö), it gets final stress for Allen,
but if it follows a word with non-final stress (blé-
pomen ‘we see’), it gets initial stress:
blépo autous. ‘Lsee them.’
blépomen autotis We see them.’
Finally, Allen’s proposal has stress shift in a word
ending in a short vowel + consonant (blepomen
or blepomen), depending on whether the fol-
lowing word begins with a vowel (ekeinon) or a
consonant (toüton):
blépomen ekeinon. ‘We see that one.’
blépomen tofiton ‘We see this one,'
Ajl these weird things are done to make the
stress-theory fit the meter. West (1975), Newton
320
(1976), and Devine & Stephens (1985) review
Allen's research with jaundiced eye and conclude
that the evidence for Greek stress from meter is
weak and often contradictory, and that seems
to be the common understanding of the matter
today. If Greek had primary and/or secondary
stress, we need evidence from elsewhere.
2. ACCENTUAL EVIDENCE FOR STRESS
A number of authors have worked with the idea
that the recessive accent in Greek is based on
grouping the syllables into trochaic feet of some
kind. Not all of them even mention stress, but
l assume here that any analysis which uses tro-
chaic feet necessarily makes use of stress, overtly
or not. Steriade (1988), Sauzet (1989) and Noyer
(1997) use a syllabic trochee (two syllables, the
first of which is stressed) to model + accentua-
tion in Greek, while Golston (1990) and Kiparsky
(x yo. - (x .)
änthröpo<s> anthröpou
Steriade’s feet go at the end of the word, but never
include a final light syllable, so that anthröpou
has a foot right at the end but dnthröpos and
blépomen have it one syllable further back. Lay-
ing down syllabic trochees in this way puts stress
(‘x’} on the same syllable that the graphic accent
goes on; whether that accent is acute or circum-
flex depends on other factors (see Steriade 1988).
A nice result of having stress where the accent
goes is that the change from Ancient to Modern
Greek stress is then simple: the Ancient Greek
(x) (x). (x) (x) (x)
änthröpo<s> anthröpou
Note that the high tone ( ’ ) falls on the syllable
preceding the main stress in these words (Sauzet
1989). Moraic trochees make Greek very similar
(x) (x .). {x} (x) . (x...
centuri<o> jactä<tus>
‘centurion’ ‘a throw’
The only difference between Greek and Latin
stress on this view is how much of the word is
invisible to stress, the final consonant in Greek
and the final syllable in Latin. In Latin primary
stress falls on the final moraic trochee (heavy
STRESS
(2003) use a moraic trochee (two moras, the
first of which is stressed); as mentioned earlier,
the moraic trochee (one heavy or two light syl-
lables) was introduced into the Greek context
by Allen (1973), though not for conisderations of
accent. These trochaic foot-based proposals work
roughly as follows: the trochaic foot locates a sin-
gle prominent (stressed) syllable in each word
and that syllable is assigned one or more tones
that show up as the written accent. For details,
which need not concern us here, see Accentua-
tion and the review in Probert (2010). Alternative
footings of dnthröpos ‘man’, unthröpou (gen.),
and blepomen ‘we see' are given below to illus-
trate how syllabic trochees parse syllables into
feet. Here and below, a final consonant is invis-
ible to stress assignment (<s>, <n>), the letter ‘x’
marks stressed or otherwise prominent syllables,
dots mark stressless syllables, and parentheses
enclose feet:
(x Steriade (1988): syllabic trochees
blépome<n>
tonal accent simply changed to a stress, but the
location remained the same.
Golston’s feet put stress (‘x’) on all heavy syl-
lables and on all pairs of lights, so that dnthrdpos
has two stressed syllables, anthröpou three, blé-
pomen one; the last stress is the primary stress
and any preceding stresses are secondary. In tra-
ditional terms, primary stress falls on the ultima
if it is heavy (anthröpou), else on the penult
(änthröpos, blepomen):
(x) Golston (1990): moraic trochees
blepome<n>
to Latin. In Latin, primary stress falls on the
penult if it is heavy, else on the antepenult:
Allen (1973): moraic trochees in Latin
adi<pis>
‘fat’
or double-light) with the final syllable invisible
(Allen 1973277); in Greek it falls on the final
moraic trochee with the final consonant invis-
ible. Additional evidence for moraic trochees
(= one heavy or two lights) in Greek includes
 STRESS 321

prosodic minima for roots and affıxes (Golston
1991), trochaic shortening (kheüma > khuma,
Gunkel 2011), the size of metrical positions in
metra (Golston & Riad 2000, 2005), and inexact
responsion in Aristophanes (Gunke] 2010:43-75);
none of these makes use of syllabic trachees. (See
Mester 1994 for evidence that Latin is based on
moraic trochees as well.) The historical change
from Ancient to Modern Greek on this analysis
requires only that speakers at some point misin-
terpreted high tone as marking stress rather than
marking the mora before the stress; wherever
an acute (high tone) or a circumflex (high-low)
appeared in Ancient Greek, stress would appear
in the modern language.
There is general agreement then, that sylla-
bles were paired into trochaic feet of some kind
in Greek, Where there are feet there is usually
stress, so in this sense there is general agreement
that Ancient Greek had trochaic stress and that
this stress was responsible for the placement
of tones in the recessive accent. To bring the
discussion full circle, we turn now to how these
various theories of Greek stress work themselves
out in the meter.
3. STRESS IN METER
If Greek did have stress, it might well have shown
up in meter, and there are a number of propos-
als for this. Allen (1966, 1973), as we have seen,
suggested that word-final heavies took stress in
Greek, as did other heavies and pairs of lights
as long as they were not adjacent to each other or
fo the main stress. Applied to dactylic meter this
yields the following type of stress profile:

x . .) @&. ) «& de.) 0:98)

andra moi ennepe, moüsa, polütropon, hös mala polla
man tomedescribe muse crafty who very many

(OEY
plankhthé, epei troiss hierdn ptoliethron épersen
wandered when Troy's holy city he. sacked

‘Describe to me, o muse, the crafty man who wandered

far and wide after he sacked the holy city of Troy.’ (Homer, Odyssey 11-2)

The result is satisfying insofar as the stresses dactylic meters. But the stress rules Allen needs
tend to go with the hypothesized falling rhythm to make one meter rhythmic can work against
of dactylic meter: the stress profiles (x ..) and other meters: Devine & Stephens point out that
(x .) of the words more or less match the weight “terminal stressing at the caesura removes dif-
profiles (---) and (—) of dactylic meter (+ Met- ficulties in the trimeter but creates them in the
rics). This is probably how most classicists hexameter” (1985:129).
understand dactylic hexameter, and it allows us If we apply Allen's stress-rules to words in an
to read the meter in a falling rhythm (DUMdidi anapestic meter, the stresses patterns fail to be
DUMdidi...), as we do with modern European rhythmie:

(. x X) . .. X
pollén tamlas zelis en Olümpöi
ofmany dispenser Zeus on Olympus

(x. +X) (, x. . Xx)

pollad’ —_aélptos krainousi theoi
many and unexpedtedly accomplish gods

‘Olympian Zeus is dispenser of many things,

and many are the things the gods do unexpectedly.’ (Euripides, Medea 1415-1416)
322 STRESS

Allen's stresses do not make for a rising or Nobody has suggested that we apply the syl-
a falling pattern in these lines, casting more labic trochees of Steriade (1988) to meter, that is,
doubt on his method of extracting stress fram to assume that the stresses she uses for accentua-
meter. More generally, the theoretical under- tion are appropriate for the meter. But we will do
pinnings of Allen's stress theory have been so here, to make the comparison with Allen and
called into question by Devine & Stephens, others more clear, as some of them do test their
Newton, and West and it is fair to say that theories of stress against the patterns of meter. If
his analysis of stress is not generally followed we parse the words into syllabic trochees following
today. Steriade (1988), we get this for dactylic hexameter:

x . .) (x . (x IR.) (. x.) (x .)
andra moi énnepe, moüsa, polütropon, hos mala pollä

(x . xy x} X. X). 2. x) )
plänkhthe, epel troies hieron ptoliethron épersen

The hypothesized stresses line up well here with ekses fall at the beginning of the dactyl (x..),
the accent-marks in the text, but it is well-known in the middle (.x.), at the end (..x), sometimes
that accent marks do not generally line up with twice in one dactyl (x . x), sometimes not at all
heavy positions in the meter. Syllabic trochees (..). Applying Steriade's stress system to words in
result in no clear metrical patterns here: the anapestic meter is surprisingly different:

(x. . xX.) (x X.)

pollén tamias zeus en Ohimpoi

(x. x) (x o. , x.)
pola d' aelptös krainousi theo i

The result is a recurrent pattern (x.,x.), at least trochees argued for by Allen but without the
for these lines, so the results for Greek meter so requirement that stressed syllables are never
far are mixed: not so good for dactyls, good but adjacent. The results for dactyls are as excep-
unexpected for anapests. tionless as they are surprising:
Golston & Riad (2000, 2005) pursue the idea
that stress in meter is based on the moraic

xx .) (x x.) (x x ax) @ x.) (xx)

andra mei énnepe, motisa, polütropon, hos mala pollä

(x x x x)ax xX. )(X x(x x (x x)

plankhthé, epei troiös hierön ptoliethron épersen

Stressing every heavy or double-light means that (x x x.x) (x x. xX Xx)

every dactyl has stress clash, two ekses next to pollön tamias zeus en Olümpöi
each other, and thus that no dactyt is ever rhyth-
mic in Greek (or in Latin). Dactylic hexameter
(x x .X xX) {x XX x)
on this analysis is inherently arrhythmic, with
stress clash six times per line, every line, with no polla d’ aelptös krainousi theoi
exceptions. Applied to anapestic meter, there is
a mix of stressed and stressless syllables: But if we look at stressed and stressless moras
instead (Kager 1993), where the first + mora of
 STRESS
a heavy syllable like pol or /6n is more stressed
than the second (pol, lön), the meter becomes
exceptionlessly rhythmical, alternating stressed
and stressless moras perfectly all the way through
every line:
(xX. xX x.x.) (x. xX. xk. xX)
pollén tamias zeus en Olümpöi
(x. x -X. X.) (x. xX.x x.)
polla d' aelptös krainousi theoi
Golston & Riad conclude that just as dactyls are
marked by exceptionless syllabic stress clash,
anapests are marked by exceptionless moraic
rhythm. They go on to show that iambic and
trochaic meters are marked by exceptionless
moraic stress lapse (..), giving distinct rhythmic
profiles to each of the basic types of meter. Their
2005 paper extends the results to lyric meter.
4. CONCLUSION
The evidence for stress in Greek is therefore
somewhat contradictory. If we take the meter
to be perfectly rhythmic (Allen), we end up
with internal inconsistencies and an odd stress
system for the language. If we start with syllabic
trochees in accentuation (Steriade), we end up
with mixed results in meter and little in the way
of support from the rest of Greek phonology and
morphology. If we start with moraic trochees
in accentuation (Golston), we end up with sup-
port from the phonology and morphology, and
thoroughly clear and exceptionless patterns in
meter, but ones that violate our expectations of
meter as inherently rhythmic.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. S.1g66. “Prosody and prosodies in Greek”, Transac-
tions of the Philalogical Society 65:107-149.
.1973. Accent and rhythm. Prosodic features of Latin and
Greek: a study in theory and reconstruction. Cambridge.
Devine, A, M. & L. D. Stephens, 1985. “Stress in Greek?”,
Transactions of the American Phitological Association
115:125-152.
Golston, Chris. 1990. “Floating H (and L*) tones in Ancient
Greek”. In: Proceedings of the Arizona phonolugy confer-
ence, vol. 3, ed. by J. Myers and P. E. Perez, 66-82, Tucson,
AZ.
. 1991. "Minimal word, minimal affix’. In: Proceedings of
the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 21, ed. by T. Scherer,
95-110, Amherst, MA,
Golston, Chris, & Tomas Riad. 2000. “The phonolugy of Clas-
sical Greek meter”, Linguistics 38.1.1—69.
323
. 2005. “The phonology of Greek lyric meter’, Journal of
Linguistics 4477-15.
Gunkel, Dieter. 2010. Studies in Greek and Vedic prosody,
marpholagy, and meter. Ph.D. diss., University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles.
. 2011. “The emergence of foot structure as a factor in the
formation of Greek verbal nouns in -pa(t)-", Münchener
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 65:77-103.
Halle, Morris, & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987, An essay on
stress, Cambridge.
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Chicago.
Kager, René. 1993. “Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law’.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11:381-432.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. “Accent, syllable structure, and mor-
phology in Ancient Greek’, In: Selected papers from the
ısth international symposium on theoretical and applied
{ingulstics, ed. by Elizabeth Mela Athanasopoulou, 81-106.
Thessaloniki.
Mester, Armin. 1994. “The quantitative trochee in Latin’,
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:1-61.
Newton, Brian. 1969. “Metre and stress in Greek”, Phoenix
23.4:359-371.
. 1976. “Review of Accent and rhythm. Prosodic features
of Latin and Greek: a study in theory and reconstruction”,
Language 51.2:472-475.
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. “Attic Greek accentuation and intermedi-
ate derivational representations", In: Derivations and con-
straints in phonolugy, ed. by Iggy Roca, 501-27. Oxford.
Probert, Philomen. 2o10. “Ancient Greek accentuation in
generative phanology and optimality theory", Language
and Linguistics Compass 41-20.
Sauzet, Patrick. 1989. “L'accent du grec ancien et les rela-
tions entre structure métrique et représentation autoseg-
mentale", Langages 24:81-111.
Steriade, Donca. 1988. “Greek accent: a case for preserving
structure”, Linguistic Inquiry 19:271-314.
West, M. L. 1976. "Review of Accent and rhythm. Prosodic
features of Latin and Greek: a study in theory and recan-
struction", Gronion 481-8.
Curis GOLSTON
Structural Linguistics and Greek
1. INTRODUCTION
The structuralist insistence on the systemic
nature of the mother tongue of every speaker
was emphasized by Saussure’s followers, as in
Meillet’s oft quoted (1957:475): “Une langue est
un systerne olı tout se tient” (a language is a
system where everything fits together), repeated
by Louis Hjelmslev (1935:86), and exemplified in
the work of Saussurians such as Gustave Guil-
laume (e.g. 1984:103-130), and Roman Jakobson
(e.g. 1991:332-385). In such systems everything
is inter-connected, giving each langnage its
own coherence and stability. These European
structuralists followed Saussure’s analogy of the
game of chess: that the system of the game lies
324 STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS AND GREEK
not in the chess pieces themselves, but in the
way they move. The chess pieces are secondary,
they are merely markers, and can be replaced
if pieces get lost (as when a pawn is replaced
by a small coin), a fitting analogy for irregu-
lar morphs, American structuralists, however,
under the anti-mentalist influence of Bloom-
field (1926) sought to find system in the directly
observable morphology, and resorted to hocus-
pocus mules to regularize the irregular morphs,
an instance of a misguided empiricism leading
not to empirical results, but to sterile and even
absurd abstractions.
An emphasis on system in + phonology leads
to a rejection of the atomistic listings that we
have in our traditional alphabets: a, b, c, d,
e, fi g, etc. (where + vowels and + consonants
are promiscuously scattered) and an insistence
on the establishment of parameters. The conso-
nants, for example, will be presented separately
in a table based on familiar parameters that
reveal the patterns of plosive, fricative, voiced,
unvoiced, etc. A vowel prid will likewise reveal
the structure of the vowel contrasts: patterns
just as coherently organized as the crystalline
patterns of the snowflake, an indication that
a language is a creation of nature, The role of
the linguist is to search for these patterns and
reveal them, avoiding atomistic lists, and the
imposition of patterns that are not natural to
the data itself.
Systems also determine the value of the ele-
ments of which they are composed. It is obvious,
for example, that the high front vowel /i/ of a
three vowel system will have a wider range of
allophones than the high front /i/ of a five vowel
system: any area divided into three will have
more space per unit, than if divided into five.
The high front /i/ of a seven vowel system will be
even more tightly constrained.
2. GRAMMATICAL PATTERNS IN LATIN
Similar patterns exist in the grammatical sys-
tems of languages, such as the verbal contrasts
of tense and aspect. It is possible to draw simple
diagrams that reveal the parameters of these
systems (see for example, the diagrams at
the end of each chapter in Hewson & Bubenik
1997) in much the same way that vowels are
shown in vowel grids. There is nothing new
or unusual in this: the six forms of the Latin
indicative, for example, were shown by the Latin
grammarian Varro (116-28 BCE) to form a sys-
tem based on two parameters: a vertical one of
+ aspect (Infectum vs. Perfectum) and a hori-
zontal one of > tense, as in (1).
1. Past Present Future
Infectum lauddbat laudat laudäbit
Perfectum laudaverat laudävit laudabit
The verb is faudare ‘to praise’, and the forms are
all 3rd person singular, marked by /-t/ (laudat ‘3
praises’; faudavit '3 has praised’). The Infectum is
unmarked, the Perfectum marked by stem final
/-v/, The + Present is unmarked, the Nonpresent
marked by /-b-/ in the Infectum, by /-er-/ in the
Perfectum, and to these /-a-/ is added for the
Past and /-i-/ for the Future. This is the morphol-
ogy of a typical regular verb, which transpar-
ently shows the systemic contrasts, but there
was much irregularity in the marking of what
was traditionally called the + Perfect, a term
now avoided because of multiple confusions. In
what follows the term Retrospective will replace
the term Perfect, since this form presents a retro-
spective view of the event (see Comrie 1976:64).
Greek, like Latin, had different ways of marking
the Retrospective (e.g. e-reduplication and stem-
final -X) but these irregularities do not change
the meaning, In Saussure’s Game of Chess (see
above) irregularities are permitted in the mark-
ers, but not in the moves of the game: a rook may
be replaced by a spice bottle, but it cannot move
like a knight or a bishop: the system is not in the
morphology.
3. GRAMMATICAL PATTERNS IN GREEK
The Greek verbal system also has six Indica-
tive forms, but the system, on the basis of the
morphological evidence, is markedly different
from the Latin system: the Latin Retrospective
has three forms, whereas the Greek Retrospec-
tive in (2) has only two. Of the remaining four
forms, two are unmarked, and two are marked
with a stem final /-s/, in the same position as
the Latin aspect marker /-v/, so that the data
reveals a system of three aspects and two tenses.
The verb is graphein ‘to write’: the Imperfective
is unmarked, and the Perfective is marked by
/-s/ (which combines with the aspirated [p] of
ph to form ps), and the Retrospective is marked
by e-reduplication in initial position. Of the two
 STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS AND GREEK 325
tenses the Nonpast is unmarked, and the Past
Past Nonpast
marked by the + augment, an initial /e-/ in pre-
verb position. Imperfective heüriske heuriskei
Perfective heüre heuresei
2 Past Nonpast Traditional Retrospective heurekei heüreke
terms
Imperfective égraphe grdphei Present stem: The irregular second aorist of this verb (it has
graph- no /-s/, and shares the secondary inflections
Perfective égrapse gräpsei Aoriststem; of the Imperfect) is formed on the basic stem
graph-s- {heur-/ which, by Aktionsart, already represents a
Retrospective egegräphei gegraphe Perfect stem complete event. But the future, being historically
ge-graph- a late development, is formed with the sigmatic
suffix common to the regular Perfective forms.
The form grdpsei has always been treated in Occasionally however, the future of some verbs
the traditional grammars of Ancient Greek as may be formed on the same Aktionsart stem
a future tense, a proposal which imposes an as the > Aorist, as in (4). The verb is pinein 'to
analysis that does not fit the morphological data, drink’ which in Greek is completive by Aktion-
and completely ignores the fact that in Eastern sart, and consequently adds an imperfectivizing
and Western Slavic, it is a commonplace that n-suffix to form the Imperfective stem for both
the future is represented by Perfective forms of Nonpast and Past.
the Nonpast. In short, the aspectual formation
of the Ancient Greek future parallels that of the
4. NPast Past Past NPast
future forms of Czech, Slovak, Polish, Belaru-
(IPFV) (IPFV) (PFV) (PFV)
sian, Ukrainian, and Russian, and is significantly
Present Imperfect Aorist Future
different from the future forms of Romance,
Germanic, and Celtic, the language families of 1sg. pind épinon épion pio
Western Europe (Hewson & Bubenik 1997:28-32, asg. pineis épines Epies pieis
45, Hewson 2006). 38g. pinei épine épie plei
ıpl. pinomen epinomen eplomen piomen
4, AKTIONSART 2pl. pinete epinete epiete piete
gpl. pinousi épinon épion _ piousi
The PIE suffix */sk/ is found on the Imperfec-
tive stems of both Latin and Greek, and is found The Future in this paradigm uses the regular
on all three forms of the Latin Infectum, but in primary inflections that it shares with the Pres-
Greek only on the two Imperfectives, as in the ent, attached to the bare stem that it shares
paradigm in (3), again, because there are only with the Aorist. The distinctive feature in the
two tenses in Greek, a Past and a Nonpast. The whole paradigm is the stem final /-n/ that marks
Aktionsart (or lexical aspect) of heuriskein ‘find’ the Imperfective stem. This is an irregular verb
is Completive (unlike walk or breathe, for exam- which vividly demonstrates the regularity of
ple, which are activities, find has a necessary meaning in the content system that licenses the
conclusion, without which there is no finding). paradigmatic morphology, whether regular or
When the lexical aspect of the stem clashes with irregular.
the grammatical aspect that is needed, there is
often an adjustment to the stem: here the [-sk] 5. POST-BLOOMFIELDIAN STRUCTURALISM
suffix is added to create an inchoative stem,
more suitable for an Imperfective aspect. Since It is regrettable that many of those in the past
this verb begins with an aspirated vowel, the who claimed to be structuralists had never prop-
Perfect is not marked by > reduplication, but by erly understood that every grammatical para-
a stem final /-k/, which is frequently used as a digm, regular or irregular, is entirely dependent
perfect marker in Classical Greek. It should also upon the parameters of its underlying content
be noted that the /e-/ of the augment length- system. The Post-Bloomfieldians, for example,
ens the initial vowel (+ Perfect, Formation of; because of their anti-mentalist bias, were unable
> Tense/Aspect).
326 STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS AND GREEK
to accept that there was any other scientific real-
ity than the directly observable morphology of
the paradigm, which therefore (for them) formed
the system. Greenberg stated, for example, “By
structure is meant here facts about a language as
an abstract calculus without reference to mean-
ing" (see Hoijer 1954:16), and Hockett at the
same conference declared: “...we may have to
use semantic evidence in order to find out what
the linguistic system of a language is, but...the
system does not include the semantics" (Hoijer
1954152). This dogmatic insistence on the sepa-
ration of syntax and semantics has no basis in
linguistic fact as shown by the minimal pairs
pinei | piei and épine | épie. Here the Perfective
(aorist) stem is unmarked (by Aktionsart), and
the Imperfective marked (by Aktionsart, by the
derivation marker /-n/ in stem-final position),
but the Perfective and Imperfective meanings
are identical to those of any other verb in the
language, regular or irregular.
The efforts of the Bloomfieldians to regular-
ize the irregular morphology by hocus-pocus
rules, adding, for example, an invisible -ed suf-
fix to took, and other irregular past forms, to
make them into regular verbs (Bloch 1947), gave
structuralism a bad name. But structuralism in
the style of Saussure and Meillet, when applied
to the data of Ancient Greek, a language with
extensive morphology both regular and irregu-
lar, gives rise to insights into the data of the lan-
guage that are valuable not only to the scholar,
but also to the teacher and the student. The
structuralism of Saussure and Meillet does not
theorize the data, but attempts to discover, by
means of the comparative method, the theoreti-
cal realities that lie hidden in the surface data, in
much the same way that the hidden realities of
proto-languages may be discovered from exam-
ining and comparing the directly observable data
of daughter languages. The role of the linguist is
to discover the underlying reality that is only
theoretical because it is not directly observable,
but nevertheless manifestly interpretable, as in
the paradigms in (1-4) above, where the same
regular meanings are marked by a variety of
morphology. This secondary level of intelligent
interpretation of what is directly observable, is a
fundamental part of scientific method, in a tradi-
tion that runs from Aristotle and Archimedes to
Einstein.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloch, Bernard. 1947. “English verb inflection", Language
23:399-418. (Reprinted in Readings in Linguistics I, ed,
Martin Joos, 243-254. Chicago 1957.)
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge.
Guillaume, Gustave. 1984. Foundations for a science of lan-
guage. (Translation of Principes de linguistique théorique.
Quebec - Paris 1973). Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Hewson, John. 2006, “Le systéme verbal du grec ancien: trois
distinctions de temps, ou deux?’, Glotta 82:96-107.
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. 1997. Tense and aspect in
Indo-European languages. Theory, typology, diachrony.
Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935. La Catégorie des cas, Munich,
Hoijer, Harry, ed. 1954. Language in culture. Conference on
the interrelationships of language and other aspects of
culture, Chicago.
Jakabson, Roman. 1991. On language. Cambridge, Mass.
Meillet, Antoine. 1937. Introduction a (‘étude comparative des
languages indo-européennes. 8th edn, Paris. (ist edn. 1903.)
de Saussure, Ferdinand, 1916. Cours de linguistique générale.
ed. by Charles Gally and Albert Sechehaye with the col-
laboration of Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne — Paris,
JOHN HEWSON
Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of
Stylistics, the study of style or expression (Greek
féxis, phrasis, or herméneia), was in ancient
Greece a branch of rhetorical theory. Rhetori-
cians investigated the linguistic devices used
for the effective formulation of subject matter
in spoken as well as written communication.
Lexis (Lat. elocutio) is thus listed as one of the
parts of classical rhetoric (Lausberg 1960; Ken-
nedy 1994), next to ‘invention' and ‘arrangement’
(Isoc. Or. 16.16; Aristot. Rk. 3.1; later versions of
the list add 'memory' and ‘delivery’). Whereas
the English term ‘style’, derived from Lat. stilus
(cf. Gk. stülos: a stylus used for writing on waxen
tablets), carries a connotation of writing, the
ancient Greek terms refer to the verbal expres-
sion of thought in any type of communication.
Herméneia means the ‘interpretation’ or ‘expla-
nation’ of thoughts by words, Phrdsis is a ‘way
of speaking’ (‘expression’), Léxis primarily refers
to the formal aspects of ‘speech’ ('style’, ‘expres-
sion’), as opposed to the contents of ‘what is said’
(lögos, 'account'). The term /éxis can also refer to
‘diction’ (the choice of words), a specific subdi-
vision of ‘expression’, or to a single word. At the
base of ancient Greek theories of style stands
the idea that one thought can be formulated in
several ways, with different effects. Lf ordinary
words are put together in a straightforward way,
rhetoricians speak of a ‘natural’ style. In a more
 STYLE (LEXIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
‘artistic’ style the speaker or writer departs from
everyday language. His devices include various
types of words, variation of word order, prose
rhythm, sound effects and figures of speech.
Ancient theorists developed elaborate systems
for classifying, analyzing and evaluating the
styles of poets and prose writers. Starting from
(1) a historical overview, this article discusses
the central concerns of Greek stylistic theory:
(2) the units of expression, (3) the virtues of
style, (4) the theory of styles, and (5) the literary
models of style.
1, HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
From its beginnings, Greek literature showed
interest in expression. Characters in the Homeric
epics speak in different ways, thus providing
rhetoricians in later times with models of dif-
ferent styles. Early Greek prose writers explored
the boundaries between prose and poetry. The
sophists (5th c. BCE) composed model speeches,
which impressed the audience through stylistic
devices such as antithesis and balanced clauses,
The surviving speeches of Gorgias (Helena, Pala-
medes), in addition to demonstrating the poetic
elements in his stylistic practice (cf. Aristot. Rh.
3.1, 1404a20-39), reveal his theoretical interest
in the magical power of speech, which he calls
“a mighty ruler’ (Helena 8). In the sth c. BCE
treatises on rhetoric were produced, which pre-
sumably contained some discussion of diction
(Radermacher 1951). Nothing remains of the
handbooks of Thrasymachus (Dion. Hal. /s. 20),
Polus and Licymnius (Pl. Phdr. 267b-c), or of
Protagoras’ Correct Diction (Orthoépeia: Pl. Phdr.
267c).
Plato’s dialogues Gorgias and Phaedrus exam-
ine (and criticize) the impact of rhetoric, which
is at one point defined as psukhagögia (leading
the soul’, Pl, Phdr. 261a), Matters of expression,
such as the lucidity, precision and brevity of a
speech (Pl. Phdr. 234e) are obviously relevant
to such reflections. Plato’s contemporary rival
Isocrates, whose own prose style was admired
by many, wrote a rhetorical handbook that
discussed avoidance of > hiatus, selection of
words and the use of connectives (Radermacher
1951:157-158).
Two rhetorical treatments of style survive
from the classical period. The pseudo-Aristo-
telian Rhetoric to Alexander deals with diction,
composition, and figures (+ Figures (skhémata),
327
Ancient Theories of) like antithesis, parisdsis
(balancing of clauses) and parallelisms of sound
and construction. The discussion of style in the
third book of Aristotle's Rhetoric (tr. Kennedy
1991) had enormous influence on later stylis-
tic theory. In his treatment of diction (3.2-4),
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) defines ‘virtue of style’
(see below), offers an account of metaphor and
simile, and emphasizes the differences between
prose and poetry. In his discussion of combined
words (3.5-12), he turns to grammatical cor-
rectness, propriety, prose rhythm, periodic style,
visualization, and the difference between the
agonistic (performative) and written styles. Aris-
totle’s Poetics, which considers expression from
the perspective of poetry, includes observations
on the ‘parts of /éxis’, metaphor, neologisms
and (again) the virtue of style (Poet. 19-22: tr.
Halliwell 1999).
Aristotle’s student Theophrastus (371-287
BCE) wrote a handbook On Style (Peri léxeos),
fragments of which survive in later criticism
(Fortenbaugh et al. 1992; Fortenbaugh 2005).
Theophrastus’ work interpreted and explained
Aristotle’s succinct notes, thereby contributing
to the profound influence of Peripatetic thought
on later stylistic theory. In the Hellenistic period
stylistic expression received the attention of
philosophers, philologists and rhetoricians. The
Stoics adhered to a simple, direct style, claiming
that ‘brevity’ was a virtue in itself. The Epicurean
philosopher Philodemus (10-35 BCE) wrote on
style in his On Rhetoric (especially book 4) and in
On Poems, which reviews the theories of a num-
ber of Hellenistic critics of poetry (+ Ancient
Philosophers on Language). Style was also a
central concern of the Alexandrian philologists,
who wrote commentaries on Homer as well as
the classical playwrights, historians and orators
(Nünlist 2009) (+ Philological-Grammatical Tra-
dition). The only complete treatise on stylistic
expression to survive from the Hellenistic Age
is Demetrius’ On Style (Peri herméneias) (and or
ist c. BCE), which offers an extensive discussion
of four different styles (see below), with analysis
of numerous examples from classical prose and
poetry (tr. Rhys Roberts 1902; Innes 1999).
In the ist c. BCE many Greek teachers of
rhetoric settled in Rome, where they came into
contact with > Atticism. A group of Roman
rhetoricians, who preferred the plain and clear
style of the Attic orators Lysias and Hyperides,
had accused Cicero (106-43 BCE) of employing
328 STYLE {L&XIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
a bombastic ‘Asian’ style (+ Asianism). Cicero
(Brut. 284-285) countered that Athens had also
produced the richer styles of Pericles and Dem-
osthenes. A few decades later, a Greek variant
of Atticism emerged in the works of Caecilius
of Caleacte and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (late
ist c. BCE), who stimulate the eclectic imitation
of the best qualities of various Attic authors. The
extant works of Dionysius (tr. Usher 1974-1985)
include essays on the style of orators and his-
torians (Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes,
Thucydides), as well as che treatises On Imitation
and On Composition.
During the Imperial period stylistics remained
a highly prolific branch of rhetorical theory. The
treatise On the Sublime (Peri hüpsous) attributed
to Longinus (presumably ist c. CE; tr. Fyfe -
Russell 1999) concentrates on the overwhelm-
ing impact of the 'sublime’, which partly results
from diction, composition and figures. Hermo-
genes (2nd c. CE; tr. Wooten 1987) offers a clas-
sification of ‘types of style’ (ideai). A number
of treatises of the 3rd and 4th c. CE provide
students with detailed discussions of the figures
of speech (skhémata) (Spengel 1856) (+ Figures
(skhemata), Ancient Theories of).
2. WorpDs, COMPOSITION, FIGURES
Rhetoric deals with subject matter and style.
Both components can be divided into two parts:
on the level of thoughts, there is the inven-
tion of ideas (heüresis, paraskeué) and their
‘arrangement’ (oikonomia, khrésis). On the
level of expression, rhetoricians likewise distin-
guish between the selection of words (ekloge
onomätön) and the combination of words or
composition (sünthesis onomdton) (e.g. Dion.
Hal. Dem. 51). Figures of speech (skhemata) are
in some cases treated as a separate, third item
(Theophrastus fr. 691 Fortenbaugh). The basic
distinction between diction and composition is
already present in Aristotle's Rhetoric, where the
treatment of choice of words (3.2-4) precedes
the discussion of combining words (3.5-12). The
latter topic includes a discussion of antithesis
(antithesis), pdrison (equality of clauses) and
homoioteleuton {the similar ending of clauses)
(Rh. 3.9), which later theorists treat as figures.
A typical subject under the heading of dic-
tion or ‘selection of words' (ekloge onomdtén)
is the distinction between ‘proper words’ (küria
onömata), i.e., words used in their prevailing
meaning, which aim at clarity and precision, and
metaphors, which belong to more ornate or dig-
nified language. Some words are felt to be close
to everyday language, whereas other words are
considered to be more poetic or exotic. Poetry
can use the latter category more freely, but the
language of prose should not rise above its sub-
ject matter (Aristot. RA. 3.2).
Composition (sunthesis) deals with the effec-
tive combination of words (endmata), clauses
(köla) and periods (periodoi). In putting together
his words, the speaker or writer must pay close
attention to issues of euphony and sound (melos),
rhythm (rhuthmds) (> Ancient Prose Rhythm),
variety (metabolé) and appropriateness (td
prépon). Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On Com-
position (late ist c. BCE) is the only surviving
technical treatise on this subject. Longinus, the
author of On the Sublime, also wrote a work On
Composition, in two books (cf, Subl. 39).
The classification of figures (sthémata) forms
one of the most detailed doctrines of ancient rhe-
torical theory. Rhetoricians distinguish between
tropes (the semantic change of one word;
+ Tropes (trépoi), Ancient Theories of) and fig-
ures (the variation of combined words), and
between figures of speech (e.g. anaphord, anti-
thesis, etc.) and figures of thought (e.g. rhetorical
question, apostrophe etc.) (+ Figures (skhémata),
Ancient Theories of). But these distinctions are
irrelevant to the earliest Greek treatments. The
treatise On Figures by Caecilius of Caleacte (late
ist c. BCE), which survives in fragments (ed.
Augello 2006), seems to have been influential.
Later Greek discussions include those of Alexan-
der (2nd c. CE), Tiberius (3rd or 4th c. CE) and
Phoebammon (collected in the third volume of
Spengel’s Rhetores Graeci).
3. VIRTUES OF STYLE
According to Aristotle (Rh. 3.2, 1404b1-4) there is
one virtue of style (areté féxeds); “Let the virtue
of style be defined as ‘to be clear’ {...) and nei-
ther flat nor above the dignity of the subject, but
appropriate” (tr. Kennedy 1991). Aristotle's virtue
of style is thus not clarity alone (as some scholars
have suggested), but a tripartite virtue consisting
of (1) clarity, (2) propriety and (3) ornamen-
tation, i.e., the right mean between lack and
excess of ornament (Innes 1985; Fortenbaugh
2005: 267-268). Aristotle’s discussion of clar-
ity includes remarks on grammar, but his pupil
 STYLE (LEX/S), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
Theophrastus seems to have separated gram-
mar from lucidity in his work On Style (fr. 684
Fortenbaugh): Cicero (Orat. 79) attributes to
Theophrastus a list of four stylistic qualities, viz.
correctness of language, clarity, propriety and
ornamentation. Although there is some uncer-
tainty as to the exact terminology, it is plausible
that Theophrastus did indeed elaborate Aristot-
le’s tripartite notion of virtue into a list of four vir-
tues, which he presumably labeled hellénismds,
saphéneia, tö prépon and either kekosmemenon
(the Aristotelian term) or kataskeue (the term
adopted by the Stoics) (Fortenbaugh 2005:268).
The system was extended by the Stoics: Dio-
genes of Babylon added ‘brevity’ (suntomia) as
a fifth quality (Diog, Laert. 7.59), and rhetori-
cians seem to have suggested more distinctions
in Hellenistic times (cf. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 22). At
the end of the ist c. BCE, Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus (Pomp. 3; Thuc. 22) uses a complex sys-
tem of ‘essential virtues’ (anankaiai), viz. ‘purity
of language’ (td katharön), ‘clarity’ (saphéneia)
and ‘brevity’ (suntomia), and ‘additional virtues’
(epithetoi). The latter category covers such quali-
ties as ‘vividness’ (endrgeia), ‘representation
of character and emotion’ (he tön ethön te kai
pathön mimésis), ‘grandeur and impressiveness’
(ta mega kai thaumastön), ‘vigor’ and ‘power’
(iskhus, tonos), ‘charm’ and ‘persuasiveness'
(hédoné, peithö) and ‘propriety’ (tö prépon). The
elaborate system of virtues of style provided crit-
ics with a useful framework for the analysis and
evaluation of speeches and literary texts (Bonner
193915-21).
In later centuries the theory of stylistic quali-
ties was further refined. Hermogenes' On Types
uf Style (2nd c. CE) lists seven main types (idéai):
‘clarity’, ‘grandeur’, ‘beauty’, ‘rapidity’, ‘charac-
ter’, ‘sincerity’ and ‘force’ (saphéneia, megethos,
källos, gorgötes, éthus, alétheia, deindtés), Some
of these have various subtypes, resulting in a
complex system of twenty ideai (Woaten 1987).
Different systems are found in Pseudo-Aelius
Aristides, On Political Language and On Plain
Lanquage (Rutherford 1998).
4 THE THEORY OF STYLES
From an early period, the Greeks felt that dif-
ferent ways of speaking could be distinguished.
A basic dichotomy is already present in Hom-
er's Iliad: Menelaus speaks ‘fluently, with few
words, but very clearly’, whereas Odysseus pro-
329
duces ‘words like snowflakes on a winter's day’
(Hom, Il. 3.212-224). In this passage we find
three ideas that remain prominent in later sty-
listic theory: the dichotomy between two styles,
which have been seen to anticipate the ‘plain
style’ and ‘grand style’ recognized in later cen-
turies (Radermacher 1951:6-g); the connection
between style and its impact on the audience;
and the comparison between language and nat-
ural phenomena, a common feature of ancient
criticism: Odysseus’ ‘snowflakes’ are almost as
impressive as Demosthenes’ ‘flash of lightning’
(Longinus Subl. 12.4). The classic dichotomy
between the grand and plain styles is presented
in Aristophanes’ Frags (405 BCE), which stages a
competition between the tragedians Aeschylus
and Euripides. Both characters object to each
other's tragic style: Aeschylus employs heavy,
bombastic language that fits his impressive
subject matter, whereas Euripides’ plain words
do not rise above his scenes of everyday life
(Aristoph. Ran. 939-943; 1367). This contrast
between the grand and the plain deeply influ-
enced Greek literary criticism (O'Sullivan 1992;
Hunter 2009:10-52).
The idea that one should find the right mean
between two extremes is central to the thought
of Aristotle, who believes that style should be
“neither flat nor above the dignity of the sub-
ject” (RA. 3.2, 1404b1-4: see above). Theophrastus
seems to have followed his teacher in adher-
ing to the Peripatetic ‘mean’ of style. Dionysius
(Dem. 3 = Theophrastus fr. 685 Fortenbaugh)
tells us that according to Theophrastus the ora-
tor Thrasymachus (5th cent. BCE) invented the
‘middle (or mixed) style’ (mikte léxis, mesötes).
On this basis some scholars have argued that
Theophrastus was the first theorist to recognize
three styles (‘grand’, ‘middle’, ‘plain’), but it is
more likely that he merely presented Thrasyma-
chus as adopting the appropriate mean between
lack of omament and extravagance (Innes 1985;
Fortenbaugh 2005:273-278).
Demetrius’ On Style (probably znd or ist c.
BCE) presents a system of faur types of style
(kharakteres tes hermeneias): ‘plain’ (iskhnös),
'grand' (megaloprepés), ‘elegant’ (glaphurds) and
‘forceful’ (deinds) (for the ancient terminology of
the styles, see Chiron and Levy 2010). Although
it has been argued that the system of four styles
is a later extension of the system of three styles
(Marini 2007, who dates the treatise to the
ist c. CE), it is more plausible that Demetrius’
330 STYLE (LEXIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
system historically precedes the emergence of
the tripartite system (De Jonge 2009). In fact, the
system of four styles appears to be a refinement
of the well-known dichotomy of two styles, for in
Demetrius’ discussion we clearly recognize two
pairs: the grand and the forceful styles versus
the elegant and the plain. For each style Dem-
etrius discusses three subdivisions: ‘subject mat-
ter’ (diänoia or prdgmata), ‘diction’ (féxis) and
‘composition’ (stnthesis). Each style has a cor-
relative vice, which orators should avoid: 'frigid-
Ity’ (tö psukhrdn) is the negalive counterpart Lo
grand style, ‘affected style’ (kharakter kaközelos)
to elegant, ‘arid style’ (kharakter xérds) to plain,
and 'graceless style’ (kharakter dkharis) to force-
ful style.
The system of three styles (plain, middle, and
grand or elevated) may have developed in the
late Hellenistic period. In extant sources we do
not find it before the ist cent. BCE, first in two
Latin works, Rhetoric to Herennius (4.1-16) and
Cicero's Orator (20-21), and then in the Greek
works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dem. 3).
Dionysius’ styles (kharaktéres) are litös (apheles),
mésos (miktös) and hupselös (‘simple', ‘middle’
or ‘mixed’, and ‘elevated’). Cicero emphasizes
that orators should employ all styles, because
each has its own function. Dionysius prefers the
middle style (Dem. 34), a mixture of the grand
and the plain styles, which recalls the Peripatetic
mean of style (Bonner 1938).
From the ist c. BCE, some Greek and Roman
rhetoricians refer to the ‘grand style’ as the ‘ele-
vated’ or ‘sublime’ style (Aupsélds in Dionysius;
altus, elatus, sublimis in Latin authors). The ele-
vated style should not be confused with the con-
cept of the sublime (Adpsos), a “special effect”
(Russell 1964:xxxvii) that inspires and elevates
both the speaker and his audience. The sublime
does not depend on elevated style, for it can
emerge from plain and simple words. The trea-
tise On the Sublime (presumably ist c. CE) lists
five sources of the sublime: ‘greatness of thought’,
‘emotion’, ‘figures’, ‘diction’ and ‘composition’.
Apart from three styles, Dionysius of Hali-
carnassus also distinguishes three composition
types (harmoniai or sunthéseis: Comp. 21-24):
‘austere’ (austérd), ‘smooth’ (glaphurd) and
‘well-blended’ (eükratos). The system of com-
position types has a narrower focus than the
system of styles, which cover not only stylistic
composition but also diction, and in some cases
(e.g. in Demetrius’ Or Style) subject matter. The
theory of composition types, which focuses on
euphony, seems to draw on Hellenistic poetic
and music theory.
5 MODELS OF STYLE
An essential part of rhetorical teaching in the
imperial age was the close reading and analy-
sis of classical Greek literature. Students were
encouraged to study the examples of orators,
historians and poets from the past (5th and
4th c. BCE), and to imitate the best stylistic quali-
ties of each of them (mimésis), One consequence
of this procedure was that certain Greek writers
came to be closely associated with a particular
style: Aeschylus and Thucydides represent the
grand style, Sophocles and Herodotus the mid-
dle style, and Euripides and Xenophon the plain
style. A more refined version of this procedure
is the reading list in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’
On Imitation, which informs the student on the
best stylistic qualities of each classical author
(cf. the Roman version of the canon in Quint.
Inst. 10.1.46-131). The most admired orators
were listed in the ‘canon of Attic orators’, which
may have been compiled in Alexandria (znd or
ist c. BCE), The early proponents of Atticism
preferred the plain style of Lysias, but from the
ist c. BCE Demosthenes is generally admired as
the most successful orator ofall time. Both Cicero
and Dionysius present Demosthenes as their
champion, who excelled in all styles (Cic. Orat.
23; Dion. Hal. Dem. 8). Hermogenes celebrates
Demosthenes’ force (deindtés), which forms the
perfect combination of all types of style.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Augello. Irene. 2006. Cecilio di Calatte. Frammenti di critica
letteruria, retorica e stortografia. Rome.
Bonner, Stanley F. 1938. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the
Peripatetic mean of style”, CP 33:257-266.
——, 1939. The literary treatises of Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus. A study in the development of critical method.
Cambridge.
Chiron, Pierre and Carlos Lévy, eds. zo1o. Les noms du style.
Dans (antiquité Greco-Latine. Louvain — Paris - Walpole,
MA.
Fortenbaugh, William W., Pamela M. Huby, Robert W. Shar-
ples and Dimitri Gutas. 1992. Theophrastus of Eresus.
Sources for his life, writings, thought and influence. 2 vols.
Leiden.
Fortenbaugh, William W. 2005. Theophrastus of Eresus.
Sources for his life. writings, thought & influence, Com-
mentary vol. 8: Sources on rhetoric and poetics. Leiden -
Boston.
Halliwell, Stephen, W. Hamilton Fyfe, Donald A. Russell
and Doreen C. Innes. 1999. Aristotle, Poetics. Lunyinus,
 STYLE (LEXIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
On the sublime. Demetrius, On style. Cambridge, MA -
London.
Hunter, Richard. 2009. Critical moments in classical litera-
ture: studies in the ancient view of literature and its uses.
Cambridge - New Yark,
Innes, Doreen C. 1985. “Theophrastus and the theory of
style". In: Theophrastus of Eresus. On his life and work, ed.
by William W. Fortenbaugh, Pamela M. Huby and Antony
A. Long, 251-267. New Brunswick,
de Jonge, Casper C. 2009, Review of Marini 2007. BMCR
2009.08.32.
Kennedy, George A. 1991. Aristotle, On rhetaric. A theory uf
civic discourse. New York — Oxford.
. 1994. A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton.
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1960. Handbuch der literarischen Rheto-
rik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Munich.
Marini, Nicoletta. 2007. Demetrio, Lo stile. Rome,
Nünlist, Rene. 2009, The ancient critic at work: terms and con-
cepts of literary eriticism in Greek scholia. Cambridge.
O'Sullivan, Neil. 199z. Alcidamas, Aristophanes and the begin-
nings of Greek stylistic theary. Stuttgart.
Radermacher, Ludwig. 1951. Artium scriptores (Reste der
voraristotelischen Rhetorik). Vienna.
Rhys Roberts, W. 1902. Demetrius, On style. The Greek text of
Demetrius, De elocutione, Cambridge [reprint Hildesheim
1969].
Russell, D, A. 1964. Lenginus’, On the sublime, Oxtord.
. 1981. Criticism in antiquity, London.
Rutherford, lan. 1998. Canons of style in the Antonine Age.
Idea-theory and its literary context, Oxford.
Spengel, Leonhard. 1853-1856. Rhetores Graeci. 3 vols.
Leipzig.
Usher, Stephen. 1974-1985. Dionysius of Haticarnassus, Critt-
cal essays, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA - London.
Wooten, Cecil W. 1987. Hermogenes'On types of style. Chapel
Hill, NC - Landon.
CASPER C. DE JONGE
Subject
1, INTRODUCTION
Subject is the name given to a central grammati-
cal function identifiable in most of the world's
languages. Whether subject is a linguistic uni-
versal is the topic of ongoing research and dis-
cussion. Various properties associated with the
subject function are found in a wide range of
languages, although not all subjects display all of
the same properties (see Keenan 1976 for a classic
discussion and Falk 2006 for a recent treatment).
The subject function, especially with transitive
verbs (> Transitivity), correlates strongly with
the semantic role of ‘agent’ and the information
structure role of » topic. In Keenan’s terminol-
ogy, ‘coding’ properties include case marking
and agreement. Properties of ‘behavior’, on the
other hand, include the control and deletion of
coreferent noun phrases (> Noun Phrase). The
33!
subject function must be defined on the basis of
language-internal features, and this article will
discuss subject properties insofar as they are
relevant to Greek.
2. SUBJECT IN ANCIENT GREEK
In Greek, the subject of a finite verb is identified
as the phrase with which the verb agrees (sub-
ject-verb + agreement). Nominative case mark-
ing is also relevant to identifying the subject
of a finite verb in Greek. Behavioral properties
such as control over noun phrase deletion in
coordinated clauses cannot be used directly to
identify the subject in Greek, since both subjects
and objects may be realized as zero for discourse
pragmatic reasons. The ability to undergo rais-
ing, however, is a defining characteristic of all
subjects in Greek. Greek is a pronoun-dropping
language: non-contrastive pronominal subject
phrases are in most cases not overtly expressed
(> Null Anaphora).
2a. Agreement
The subject in Greek finite clauses shows agree-
ment with the main verb of its clause: the per-
son and number values of the subject phrase
agree with those of the verb (see in general
Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950:607-609 and
Smyth 1956:262-265). An important exception
is plural neuter nouns which agree with a verb
form in the singular for historical reasons: the
neuter plural was in its Proto-Indo-European ori-
gin probably a collective formation with singular
semantics and was only later incorporated into
the inflectional paradigm of the old neuters.
Subject phrases consisting of a coordination
of singular forms show various agreement pat-
terns depending on the + word order. The verb
may appear in singular, dual or plural form. Also,
dual subject phrases often occur with plural
verb forms.
The agreement between subject and verb is
determined on the basis of both the form and
the meaning of the subject phrase. When there is
a mismatch between form and meaning, either
of the two may take precedence. Singular nouns
with a collective meaning are a typical example:
(1) 76 stratépedon en aitiai ékhontes tan Agin
anekhöroun
‘The army, holding Agis at fault, departed’
(Thu. 5.60)
332
The subject phrase to stratöpedon ‘the army’ is
a neuter singular in form; its plural meaning is
brought out, however, by the plural form of the
finite verb.
2.b, Case
The subject of a finite verb is marked by nomi-
native case in Greek, as in all other old Indo-
European languages. The oblique arguments of
impersonal verbs may, however, also show sub-
ject properties (see examples (8) and (g) in the
section on control below, and for further details
see Conti (2008) and (2009) and + Non-Canonical
Subjects).
Partitive expressions in the genitive case may
also appear as subjects:
(2) Pelleneis dé kata Thespiéas gendmenoi
emäkhontd te kai en khöräi &pipton hekaterön
‘The Pellenians who were opposed to the
Thespians kept up the contest and several on
both sides fell on the spot’ (Xen, Hell. 4.2.20)
In (2), the genitive phrase hekaterön ‘of both’
arguably functions as the subject of the verb
épipton ‘they fell’, the plural subject triggering
plural agreement on the verb (Conti 2008). This
phenomenon is, however, very rare.
In the so-called + genitive absolute construc-
tion, a genitive noun phrase which is typically
not an argument of the main verb of the clause
(see Smyth 1956:460 for exceptions) functions
as the subject of a predicative participle in the
genitive case,
(3) Tat’ epräkhthe Könönos stratégoiintos
‘These things were effected while Conon
was in command’ (Isoc. Or. 9.56)
The genitive subject-predicate structure func-
tions as an adverbial modifier of the main verb
and may express all kinds of adverbial relations:
time, cause, manner, concession, condition,
Because the predicate of this structure is a par-
ticiple, the subject phrase agrees with its verb
in number and gender. Otherwise, the subject
of the absolute construction behaves like the
ordinary subject of a finite verb and may be
realized as zero ifits referent can be easily recov-
ered from the context. The genitive subject is,
however, usually overtly realized since it is less
salient because of the subordinate status of the
absolute construction with respect to the main
clause.
SUBJECT
2.c. Control and Raising
Controlled subjects behave differently with
regard to case marking and agreement from the
subjects of finite verbs. Typically, a governed
subject will appear in the accusative case if it is
not coreferential with the subject of the govern-
ing verb, as shown in (4):
(4) Ton... ändra eudaimona einai phémi
‘T say that the man is happy’ (PL Grg. 470e)
If the governed subject is coreferential with the
subject of the governing verb, it appears as a
zero subject phrase in the nominative case (its
case may be inferred from the case of predicative
nouns and adjectives). If the governed subject
is coreferential with another argument of the
governing verb, it will appear in the case of that
argument {see Hudson 2003 and Creider and
Hudson 2006 for detailed discussion). Governed
subjects typically appear in constructions with
infinitives and participles.
(5) éphé ethélein
‘he said he was willing’ (Xen. An. 4.1.27)
(6) Pdntes aitoüntai tous theous ta phadla apo-
trépein
‘Everybody asks the gods to avert evil’ (Xen.
Symp. 4.47)
In example (5) above, the subject of the infini-
tive ethélein is controlled by the subject of the
verb éphé ‘he said’. In example (6), on the other
hand, the subject of the infinitive apotrépein is
controlled by the object of the verb aitoüntai,
fous theous ‘the gods’. Controlled subjects may
be realized as zero also when the controller is in
the genitive or dative case.
(7) Kürou edéonto hös prothumotdtou genesthai
‘They entreated Cyrus to show himself as
zealous as possible’ (Xen, Hier. 1.5.2)
etc. (8) ...Aupo tén deomenön mou prostdtén
genésthai
.. by those who begged me to become their
chief’ (Xen. Cyr. 7.2.23)
In (7), the subject of the infinitive genésthai is
coreferential with the genitive object of the verb
edéonto ‘they entreated’, viz. Cyrus. The predica-
tive adjective prothumotdtou agrees in case with
the zero subject of the infinitive, which must
carry the genitive case. In (8), the zero subject
of the infinitive is again coreferential with the
 SUBJECT
genitive object of the governing verb. But in this
case, the predicative noun prostaten appears in
the accusative case, thus agreeing with an accu-
sative zero subject.
The same pattern is seen when the controller
is in the dative case:
(9) Nün soi éxestin andri genésthai
‘Now it is in your power to prove yourself a
man’ (Xen. An. 7.1.21)
(10) Edoxen autols prophulaküs katastesantas
sunkalein tus stratiötas
‘They decided to station pickets and to
assemble the soldiers’ (Xen. An. 3.2.1)
The impersonal verb éxestin ‘it is allowed, pos-
sible’ requires a dative argument. In both (9) and
(10), the subject of the infinitive is coreferential
with this dative argument. Nonetheless, the zero
subject of the infinitive may appear either in
the same case as the coreferential element (as
in (9), in the dative) or in the accusative (as
in (10)).
When the subject of an infinitive is coreferen-
tial with the nominative subject of the main verb
of the clause, predicative nouns and adjectives
will appear in the nominative case. This holds
even if the infinitive is an adjunct, rather than an
argument selected by the main verb.
(11) toutén axiötheis dia to patrikös autéi philos
einai
‘... justifying these requests on the ground
that he was his hereditary friend’ (Aeschin.
In Ctes. 3.52)
In (11), the nominalized infinitive fo einai ‘to be’
is governed by the preposition did. The preposi-
tional phrase functions as an adverbial modifier
of the participle axiötheis and so is not an argu-
ment. The zero subject of the infinitive, however,
is coreferential with the subject of the participle,
causing the predicative noun to appear in the
nominative case.
While the subject of an infinitive coreterential
with the subject of the verb governing the infini-
tive is regularly realized as a nominative zero
pronoun, the distance and amount of interfering
elements may influence the realization of the
subject.
(12) Alla nomizeis hemäs men an(hjéxesthai
sou, autos dé tuptesein? kai hemäs men
apopséphieisthui sou, se d' ou pausesthai?
333
‘But do you think that we are going to put
up with you, while you strike us yourself?
And that we are going to acquit you, while
you will not cease?’ (Dem. Or. 21.204)
In (12), the subjects of the infinitives tuptesein
‘strike’ and patisesthai ‘cease’ are both coreferential
with the subject of the main verb nomizeis
‘you think‘. The first is realized as zero (autös
‘yourself’ is predicative); the second, as accusa-
tive. This shows that the constraint on corefer-
ent subjects may be overridden by discourse
traits.
In Greek, as in many other languages, only
subjects may be raised. The example in (13) illus-
trates this point:
(13) Nan ge hemön éoikas basileus einai
‘Now at least you seem to be our king’ (Xen.
Cyr. 1.4.6)
The verb eoike 'it seems’ is often used imper-
sonally. The personal construction is, however,
also possible, with the constraint that the raised
subject of &oike must also be the subject of the
complement infinitive. The predicative noun
basileus shows that the subject of the infinitive
has nominative case.
2d. Subjects in Discourse
The subject is the preferred means to encode
the topic (+ Anaphoric Processes). Due to its
intimate relation to discourse structure, the for-
mal realization of the subject referent depends
to a large degree upon its degree of activation
in the discourse context (see in general Gundel
et al. 1993, and Levinsohn 2000 for + New Testa-
ment Greek).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Conti, I. 2n08, “Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechis-
chen Genitivs als Semisubjekt’, HSF ı21:94-113.
——. 2009. "Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im
Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen
Konstruktionen", HSF 122:182-207.
Creider, C, and R. Hudson. 2006, "Case agreement in Ancient
Greek: implications for a theory of covert elements”. In:
Word grammar: new perspectives on a theory of language
structure, ed. by Kensei Sugayama and Richard Hudson,
35-53. London.
Falk, Y. N. 2006, Subjects and Universal Grammar. An explan-
atury theory. Cambridge.
Gundel,J. K., N. Hedberg and R. Zacharshi. 1993. “Cognitive
status and the form of referring expressions in discourse”,
Language 69(2):274-307.
Hudson, R. 2003. “Case-agreement, PRO and structure shar-
ing”, Kesearch in Language 117-332.
334 SUBJECT
Keenan, E. L. 1976. “Towards a universal definition of ‘sub-
ject of”. In: Subject and topic, ed. by C. Li, 303-333. New
York.
Levinsohn, S. H. 2000, Discourse features of New Testament
Greek, Dallas.
Schwyzer, E, and A. Debrunner. 1950. Griechische Gram-
matik. Zweiter Band: Syntax und syntaktische Sulistik.
Munich.
Smyth, H. W. 1956. Greek grammar. Revised by Gordon M.
Messing. Cambridge, Mass.
EIRIK WELU
Subjunctive (Morphology of)
The subjunctive mood (+Mood and Modal-
ity), also called ‘conjunctive’ ( Jannaris 1897:179,
Schwyzer & Debrunner 1950:309-319) signals
futurity (especially in Homer), commands,
exhortations or prohibitions, and it occurs most
typically in subordinate clauses (+ Subordina-
tion), for example, in purpose/final clauses, fear-
clauses and conditional clauses.
1. MORPHOLOGY
The so-called 'short-vowel subjunctive’ in
Homeric Greek, East Ionic and many other
dialects, but not Attic-Ionic, continues the
Indo-European subjunctive of athematic stems
(-+ Verbs (Thematic versus Athematic)), which
was formed by adding the thematic short vowel
*e/o- to the verbal e-grade stem, e¢.g., Lesb.
kölüsei act. aor. subj. 3 sg. of köliö ‘prevent’ and
Hom. edxeai mid. aor. subj. 2 sg. of eikhomai
‘pray’ (Weiss 2010;1u-12). On the other hand,
in Classical Greek and already in some cases
in Homer the subjunctive of thematic stems,
formed by contraction of the suffix *-e/o- with
the + thematic vowel, spreads and replaces the
athematic subjunctives through analogical pro-
cesses, ¢.g., Hom. Od. 20.383 pempsömen act.
aor. subj. pl. of pempö ‘send’. This is general-
ized as the ‘long-vowel subjunctive’; Examples
from pauö ‘stop’: pati-6-men act. pres. subj. 1 pl.;
paüs-ö-men act. aor. subj. 1 pl.; paui-é-te act. pres.
subj. 2 pl.; pads-é-te act. aor. subj. 2 pl. (Chan-
traine 1961:258-9; Jannaris 1897296; Kühner &
Gerth 1898a:492, 523, 535; Rau 2010286; Schwyzer
1939:790-3; Weiss 2010:111-112). The subjunctive
adds the primary endings in all its tenses. In the
first + aorist the final -a- of the stem changes to
-ö/6-, The subjunctive of the active and medio-
passive » perfect and pluperfect is formed with
the change of the final tense stem -a- to -6/é-, e.g.,
léluka > lelükö act. perf. subj.ı sg. of fad 'unbind'.
These forms are not often attested; instead, it
is mostly expressed periphrastically using the
subjunctive of eimi ‘be’ + participle, eg. act.
pepaukös 6, éis, éi, etc., and mid. pepauménos 6,
eis, &i, etc. from pauö ‘stop’.
2. MORPHO-SYNTAX
The subjunctive selects the negative me (+ Nega-
tion) and it is most typically used in subordinate
purpose/final clauses, fear-clauses (after verbs
of fearing), object clauses of effort, conditional
clauses (where the subjunctive expresses a
future or general supposition), and conditional
+ relative sentences (Jannaris 1897:428; Rydberg-
Cox 2000). The subjunctive expresses:
(1) a hortatory meaning (commands, requests,
invitations or proposals, mainly in the first
person; ‘conjunctivus adhortativus');
(2) a prohibitive meaning, mainly in the second
person and aorist;
(3) a deliberative meaning (doubtful questions
and hesitating interrogations of delibera-
tion, mainly in first person) (Hewson 1997;
Humbert ı960:13-u6; Kühner & Gerth
i8g8b:179-189; Lightfoot 1975; van Emde
Boas & Huitink 2010:138; Schwyzer & Deb-
runner 1950:309-319).
In Homer the so-called 'Homeric subjunctive’
(negative ou) may be used in independent
clauses and expresses futurity, e.g., Hom. IL. 1.262
ou gar pö toious idon anéras vude idömai ‘Never
yet have | seen nor will see again such men as
these were.’ (Goodwin 1889:2—4, 87-101).
In late antiquity and early + Koine the pres-
ent and the aorist subjunctive coincide formally
with the present and the future indicative respec-
tively as a result of sound changes (+ Vowel
Changes), i.e., loss of distinction of vowel quality
and length by the middle of the 2nd c. BCE, and
analogical leveling (Browning 1983:31; Horrocks
1997:317-318). Beginning in late antiquity and
continuing through the Medieval Greek period,
the subjunctive is marked with the mood marker
(h)ina, and it is used in a wider range of con-
structions, e.g., with thelö/tha in place of the
future (Bubenik 1997; Horrocks 1997:94, 129,
152) (+ Developments in Medieval and Modern
Greek),
 SUBJUNCTIVE (MORPHOLOGY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakker, EgbertJ., ed. 2010. A companion to the Ancient Greek
language. Oxford,
Browning, Robert. 1983. Medieval and Modern Greek.
Cambridge.
Bubenik, Vit. 1997. “From Ancient to Modern Greek." In:
Hewson and Bubenik 1997:249-264.
Chantraine, Pierre. i961. Morphologie historique du grec.
Paris.
van Emde Boas, Evert and Luuk Huitink. 2010. “Syntax.” In:
Bakker 2010:134-150.
Goodwin, William W. 1889. Syntax of the moads and tenses of
the Greek verb. Baston.
Hewson, [ohn and Vit Bubenik, 1997. Tense and aspect in
IE languages: theory, typology, diachrany. Amsterdam -
Philadelphia.
Hewson, John. 1997. “The verbal system of Ancient Greek."
In: Hewson and Bubenik ı997:24-a5.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 1997. Greek. 4 History of the language
and its speakers. London — New York,
Humbert, Jean. 1960. Syntaxe grecque. 3rd ed. Paris.
Jannaris, Antonius N. 1897. An historical Greek grammar.
London.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1898a. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Erster Teil. Erster
Band. Hanover,
—— 1898b. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen
Sprache. Zweiter Teil. Zweiter Band, Hanover.
Lightfoot, David. 1975. Natural logic and the Greek moods: the
nature of the subjunctive and optative in Classical Greek.
The Hague.
Philippaki-Warburton, [rene and Vassilios Spyropoulus.
2004. “A change of mood: the development of the Greek
mood system”, Linguistics 42:791-817.
Rau, Jeremy. 2010. "Greek and Proto-Indo-European.” In;
Bakker 2010:169-188.
Rydberg-Cox, Jeffrey A. 2000. Overview of Greek syntux.
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus
‘Yogatext%3a1999.04.0052 |
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grummatik, I. Band:
Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Worthilding, Flexion. Munich.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechische
Grammatik. 1. Band. Syntax. Munich.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1956. Greek grammar. Revised by Gordon
M. Messing. Cambridge MA.
Weiss, Michael. 2010. “Morphology and ward formation.” tn:
Bakker 2010:104-119.
NıkoLAos LAVAS
Subordination
1. INTRODUCTION
The definition of what subordination is strictly
depends on the theoretical framework within
which subordination is analyzed and described.
In the functional-typological perspective basi-
cally adopted here “[s]ubordination will be
regarded as a particular way to construe the
cognitive relation between two events, such that
one of them (which will be called the depen-
OF) 335
dent event) lacks an autonomous profile, and is
construed in the perspective of the other event
(which will be called the main event)” (Cristo-
faro 2003:2).
Given the purposes of the present entry, how-
ever, some formal, i.e., morphosyntactic criteria
turn out to be crucial for the analysis of the
subordinate clause and, therefore, will be
adopted to provide a basic description of the
subordinate clause system in Ancient Greek:
“... morphosyntactic criteria are suitable as long
as one wants to investigate a particular morpho-
syntactic structure, and possibly its functional
correlates across languages” (Cristofaro 2003:1).
From a structural viewpoint, instead, the follow-
ing basic definition of ‘subordinate’ is accepted:
"[iln general sense, if an element a is subordi-
nate to an element §, it is less prominent than B
and usually is dependent on 6” (Aarts 2006:248;
in Aarts’ contribution a concise but useful list of
features that characterize subordination cross-
linguistically is also supplied).
As is well known, three types of subordinates
are traditionally identified among the world’s
languages by means of both morphosyntac-
tic structure and their semantico-pragmatic
functions: the completive (but see below), the
adverbial (also labelled ‘circumstantial clauses’
or ‘+ adjuncts’, depending on the theoretical
framework adopted) and = relative clauses.
The label ‘completive’ refers to the fact that
these clauses ‘complete’ or fill asyntactic position
implied by the verb of the main clause and cor-
respond to a syntactic argument (+ Functional
Grammar and Greek). The labels ‘relative’ and
‘adverbial’ are intuitively clearer. In particular,
the adverbial clauses perform the correspond-
ing functions that the so-called semantic cases
do within the phrase. Although these functions
are sufficiently different from one another, how-
ever, not infrequently they overlap both formally
and functionally. This happens for two reasons:
first of all, from the beginning the subordina-
tion system of Ancient Greek was introduced
by a limited set of polysemic + conjunctions;
secondly, despite their different functions, sub-
ordinates can be described as a cognitive con-
tinuum. For example, a conjunction such as hös
introduces several clauses (+ purpose clauses,
~+ temporal clauses, causal, declarative, + con-
secutive clauses, among others), in which the
verb can occur exhibiting the same mood and
the same tense.
336 SUBORDINATION
For the purposes of the present entry the poly-
semy of subordinates is not an irrelevant feature:
several scholars (Prandi 2007, among others)
have demonstrated that some clauses regularly
described as final, and therefore traditionally
classified as circumstantial or adjuncts, have in
fact to be described as completive because they
obligatorily fill a syntactic position of the predi-
cate. Likewise, when a subordinate can be omit-
ted without affecting neither the grammaticality
nor the well-formedness of the period, such a
subordinate can only be a circumstantial and not
a completive. This remark is important because
it involves one of the criteria frequently invoked
in the literature to classify the different subordi-
nates, namely obligatoriness or non-obligatoriness
of the clause (for Ancient Greek see Crespo 1984).
The issue has been recently re-discussed
by Crespo, who has proposed certain criteria
according to which the completive clauses can
be identified. The most important are the fol-
lowing: “The completives in Ancient Greek are
linguistic expressions which occur in the forms
described...or showing the following proper-
ties: they are employed performing the function
of an utterance, or the function of a predicate
or of a complement...on the level of the sen-
tence or in the function of a modifier of a nomi-
nal or pronominal phrase on the level of the
phrase...; when they are complement they are
either obligatorily or optionally expressed...;
from the point of view of semantics, they express
a situation, a proposition or an utterance, but
never an entity...; finally, they are employed as
the subject or the object of a sentence” (Crespo
1999:61-62; see also Conti 2010).
Beside this three-fold distinction, there is
another syntactic feature that is crucial: the
distinction between the subordinate clauses
expressed by the nominal forms of the verb
and the subordinate clauses expressed by the
finite verbal forms, regularly encoding values (or
categories, according to other frameworks) like
mood, tense, person and number. In traditional
terms, this distinction corresponds to non-finite
vs. finite subordination or implicit vs. explicit
subordination.
2. SUBORDINATION IN ANCIENT GREEK
Jean Humbert had already identified five mark-
ers that would be peculiar to the subordinate
clause in Ancient Greek: “...one has to ask
according to what markers one can recognize
that a sentence depends on another: these mark-
ers amount to the number of five and are of
different nature:...1) A short pause between the
main clause and the subordinate clause - or, in
the reverse order, between the subordinate and
the main clause.... 2) The relative pronoun Ads
as well as the conjunctions based on the relative
stem like hös, höpos, höte, dphra, and also the
adverbs such as epei (epeide), perceived as not
separable from the conjunction of relative origin
(epeidé = höte).... 3) The change of person is also
an irrefutable marker of subordination in the
case of some important categories of dependent
sentences - in particular with the declarative
completives (other than the subordinate with the
infinitive) and the indirect interrogatives.... 4)
Likewise, one can consider as a marker of sub-
ordination the replacement of a non-personal
form of the verb (infinitive or participle) in the
constative indicative that allegedly characterizes
an independent utterance: this modal change is
sufficient to define, if any other marker of depen-
dency is absent, the completives with infinitive or
the completives with participle of perception as
sharing the status of subordinate. . . 5) However,
one has to envisage the most important indirect
marker of subordination — in opposition to the
subordinate directly expressed by a conjunction
of relative type - in the possibility of substitut-
ing an optative with an indicative {or with a
subjunctive) when the main clause belongs to
the domain of the past: it is the so called oblique
optative, which can be more correctly labelled
optative of secondary subordination...” (Hum-
bert 1960:89-91).
In a less abstract and sophisticated way,
the traditional viewpoint on subordination in
Ancient Greek was some years later expressed
by Adrados in the following way: "A set of
adverbs and particles (including a subset in
which prepositions occur: aph’ hoit, eph'öl, etc.)
also sometimes function as conjunctions, i.e., as
elements that introduce a subordinate clause.
This depends on the verb of the main clause as
a determining element: as the one correspond-
ing to a direct complement (completive sen-
tences: explicative and indirect interrogatives)
as well as to a case less properly grammatical
(optional, adverbial) or an adverb. These last
subordinates are labelled ‘circumstantial adver-
bials’ and are traditionally classified as local,
comparative, causal, temporal, final, depending
on verbs of fear, conditional and consecutive”
(Adrados 1992:727-728).

The picture has been recently systematized by
Revuelta Puigdollers (2010), who has taken into
account, beside the morphosyntactic
functional considerations as well.
The nature of the markers mentioned above
should be reformulated in more updated terms.
In any case, it must be observed that, except for
some relational features mentioned
Ancient Greek there is no grammatical category
or value that can exclusively occur in the subor-
dinate clause and not in the main clause or vice
versa: obviously the only difference concerns
their frequency and markedness.
2.4. Finite vs. Non-finite Subordination
The first basic distinction concerning the sub-
ordination in Ancient Greek is the use of finite
vs. non-finite moods, in which some values (or
categories} like person, number, tense, aspect
are partially or completely neutralized (for un
updated survey see Diaz de Cerio 2010),
As the majority of the oldest Indo-European
languages such as Vedic or, to a limited extent,
Hittite, Ancient Greek still witnesses a system
of subordinates — rather complex ~ expressed
by means of non-finite verbal forms. The subor-
dination of nominal origin probably represents
the remnants of Late Proto-Indo-European (see
Fortson 2004).
Since the more a subordinate clause is mor-
phosyntactically autonomous from the clause
on which it depends, the more it is also semanti-
cally and pragmatically independent (Cristofaro
2003, among others), the different
nates expressed by means of non-finite verbal
forms tend to be more integrated into the event
expressed by the verb of the main clause. Two
features are typically associated with this fact:
i, The syntactic control, ie, an argument of the
main clause predicate — usually but not always
the + subject — “governs the interpretation of an
unexpressed argument of a subordinate-clause
verb” (Joseph 2002, who has also shown that in
formal, i.e., generative, terms pro seems to be
the controller in the entire history of Ancient
Greek), as in (1):
(i) to gar apokinduneiein; prös anthröpous;
aponenoémeénous;
‘to tryi a forlorn hope against desperatej
menj’ (Thuc. 7.81.5)
SUBORDINATION 337
ii. The subordinate clauses expressed with a
non-finite mood are less freely positioned with
features, respect to the main clause than the subordinate
with finite mood, which can freely occur before
or after the main clause. One of the reasons for
this is that they are less involved in the back-
ground/foreground dichotomy. A partial excep-
above, in tion is represented by the past — participles,
typically in + absolute genitive, that mostly
occur before the main clause, independently of
what subordinate they correspond to (see belaw
in .b.ii.):
(2) Naxiön de dexamenön téi pdlei parépleon es
Katänen
‘Since the Naxians had accepted them to
the city, they coasted alang Katane’ (Thuc.
6.50.3)
Of course, both the infinitive and the participle
can be accompanied by — particles that add
modal nuances to the verb:
(3) oud’ an kratésai autous tes ges hegoümal
‘t think they would not even be masters of
the land’ (Thuc. 6.37.2)
In addition, the infinitives and the participles
do not share the same degree of the speaker's
commitment. "Differently from Latin, there are
in Greek clear semantic differences between the
AcI on the one hand and the double accusa-
tive, Le,, accusative with participle on the other
subordi- hand: in rendering a state of affairs as real or
considered as already completed a participial
construction occurs. When a pure assumption or
an expectation is expressed instead, then this is
expressed by means of the infinitive or the Acl.
This clearly turns out in contrastive construc-
tions after an identical main verb: for instance,
akouö auton parönta ‘| realize that he is there’,
but, on the contrary, akoud auton pareinai "| hear
that he should be there’ (1 know, but it is not
certain)” (Hettrich 1992:230; emphasis added).
However, see below.
2.a.i. Non-finite Subordination: the Infinitive
In Ancient Greek two non-finite moods that
were regularly employed from the beginning to
perform the functions of the subordinate clause
were the > infinitive and the + participle: the for-
mer, originally, a verbal noun, and an adjective.
As for the infinitive in particular, “unrelated to
the distinction between primary and secondary
338 SUBORDINATION
endings, the infinitive... should not express, in
theory... but the values inherent to the aspect of
the stems on which it is built. But the infinitive
developed in the subordinate clauses in such a
way that it very frequently replaces an objective
mood, so that it very frequently also implies
values that are properly temporal... every infini-
tival form always expresses the aspectual values
inherent to its stem, whereas it can also exclude
any temporal value, or regularly express it, or
simply express it optionally” (Humbert 1960:159;
see also Joseph 1983).
In (4), the first infinitive is punctual, the sec-
ond is durative, and neither expresses a purely
temporal value:
(4) kreisson gar eisdpax thanein / é tas hapdsas
hemeras paskhein kakös
'it is better to die once for all / than to feel
pain all days’ (Aesch. PV 750-751)
It is interesting to observe that from Homer's
time onward the infinitive performed several
functions and was thus employed to express
several subordinate clauses that are still reg-
ularly attested during the Classical period. In
particular, it is frequently attested with a final-
consecutive function, mostly preceded by the
conjunction hös, or with limitative function (e.g.
in the fixed phrase hös Epos eipein ‘so to say’), or
in temporal clauses introduced by prin ‘before’.
A special use of the infinitive is represented
by the so called Accusative with Infinitive, i.e.,
one of the most regular strategies to express a
completive in Ancient Greek. This construction,
already present in Mycenaean Greek (e.g. PY
Ep 704 5-6), is puzzling because the grammati-
cal subject of the infinitive occurs in the accusa-
tive. To solve the problem Hettrich (1992) rather
convincingly derives the pattern from verbs
that originally governed an accusative, whereas
Ruijgh has proposed an alternative solution:
“It is better to connect the subject in accusative
with the ‘thematic’ object that occurs in the so
called proleptic construction of the type legei
Pidtona höti asthenel ‘He says about the person
of Plato that he is ill” (Ruijgh 1999:228).
It is a well known fact that Ancient Greek,
together with Latin, is the Indo-European lan-
guage in which the employment of the infinitive
after verbs of saying and thinking was very pro-
ductive, more than in any other language (see
Cristofaro 1996):
(5) eimai gar humäs ouden agnoein ton
eiremenön
In fact J think that you do not ignore any-
thing of what has been said' (Dem. Lept. 167)
Comparing the function of the different strate-
gies of subordination, i.e, the finite subordi-
nate with the non-finite ones, Basset observes:
“The construction with the subjunctive stresses
the fact itself...The construction with the
infinitive stresses the content of the comple-
tive...The constructions with participle are
close to constructions with subjunctive centered
on the speaker (corresponding to layer 3 within
the framework of the Dutch Functional Gram-
mar)” (Pierluigi Cuzzolin 1999742).
za.ii. Non-finite Subordination: the Participle
According to the functional-typological perspec-
tive, the less a subordinate exhibits independent
morpho-syntactic traits, the more integrated it
is within the event structure expressed by the
main clause (Cristofaro 1996; 1998; 2003).
In Ancient Greek the participle could express
all types of subordinate clauses, even though it
is very frequently used as circumstantial, adding
information about temporal setting as in (6):
(6) apantésas de tdi nosoitnti peri lögön akoen,
idon men hésthé hati...
‘Having met /after meeting a man sick for
listening discourses, having seen this man
he enjoyed that...’ (Pl. Phdr. 228b)
It must be noted that additional circumstances
sometimes correspond to more than one subor-
dinate. In (6), for instance, the participle could
also be rendered as a causal clause: “Since he
had met...”.
The participle is frequently accompanied by
some conjunction that specifies its function: in
particular, when preceded by /ös or the less
frequent Adte ‘because, inasmuch’ it has a causal
meaning:
(7) hate ouk apa xumbäseös anoikhtheisan (i.e.
ten pdlin)
‘because the city had not been opened by
agreement’ (Thuc. 4.130,6)
The participle is obligatorily employed to express
the subordinate clause and is traditionally called
‘predicative participle’, when there is identity of
 SUBORDINATION
grammatical subject and the participle depends
on one of the following types uf predicates: of
judgement, of perception (Boehm 1999), both
physical and psychological, or of beginning or
stopping:
(8) eldthomen hemäs autous paidön ouden
diapherontes?
‘did we forget that we ourselves do not differ
from children at all? (Pl. Crit. 49b)
(9) all’ hedomai men s’ eisidon par’ elpida
‘Lam pleased to see you beyond hope’ (Soph.
Phil. 882)
2.b. Finite Subordination
The commonest strategy to introduce a subordi-
nate clause in Ancient Greek, as in many other
languages of the world, was by means of the
syntactic pattern consisting of an introductory
element, called ‘conjunction’ (or ‘complemen-
tizer’) plus the verb occurring in one of the finite
moods, Since this particular syntactic pattern is
supposed to have developed gradually from the
situation reconstructed for Late Indo-European,
not unexpectedly one conjunction introduces
more than one subordinate clause. In addition,
these conjunctions frequently merge various
related functions.
2.b.i. Connecting Particles
The above fact clearly illustrates one point that
in the history of Ancient Greek (and indepen-
dently in the other Indo-European languages) is
relevant: the various connecting particles intro-
ducing the different subordinate clauses slowly
developed out of a limited set of conjunctions,
mainly derived from pronominal stems. Particu-
larly productive turned out to be the pronominal
stem *jo-, from which several conjunctions were
derived: beside the relative pronoun itself Ads, he,
hö employed to introduce the various subtypes of
relative clauses, at least the following are worth
mentioning: Adte ‘when', Aöti ‘that, because’,
hös ‘that, because, when’, höste ‘so that’ (see
Garcia Ramön 1999), Adpés ‘as, in such a manner
as’, hdpou ‘where’. In one case the conjunction
is derived from the stem of the demonstra-
tive pronoun *f,e-/h,o-, namely ei 'if', gener-
ally etymologized as its original locative form.
Frequently, especially in the late period of
Greek, some of these conjunctions were 're-
determined’, as it were, by means of other ele-
ments. Since many of them were light, i.e., their
339
phonetic weight and shape were easy to undergo
phonetic erosion, the majority of them were
reinforced by means of a synonym or a preposi-
tion as in the case of Adti and diöti (on which
see Lillo 1999), or epef and epeide (on which see
Muchnovä 2006).
2.b.ii. Moods
Except for the + imperative, which can also
occur in some rather infrequent cases in subor-
dinate clauses, as in (10):
(10) oisth’ vin hé dräson
‘so you know what you have to do’ (lit. so
you know what you do it!) (Eur. Hec. 225),
the indicative, subjunctive and + optative are
the moods regularly employed in the subordi-
nate.
Since almost all subordinates admit more than
just one exclusive mood, it has to be presup-
posed that there has to be a functional difference
between the moods employed; quite frequently
the difference has to do with the presence or
absence of the speaker's viewpoint or commit-
ment to the truth content of the subordinate.
Within the mood system of Ancient Greek
the indicative is the mood of reality: “The indica-
tive as the mood of reality represents a verbal
content as a state of affairs (usually temporally
determined)” (Schwyzer 1959:307). The indica-
tive occurs whenever the state of affairs of a
sentence is supposed to be represented objec-
tively, even though mostly not permanently,
i.e., independently of the speaker's (or author's)
viewpoint:
(u) all’ héte dé Troien hixon potamö te rhéonte
hékhi rhoas Simdeis sumballeton ede
Skamandros
‘but when they arrived at Troy, there the riv-
ers flow,
where Simoeis and Skamander join their
streams’ (Hom. Ul. 5.773-774)
In (11) the moment when the Argives arrive and
the place where they arrive are presented as
objective facts, with statements to whose truth
the speaker is committed.
In his treatment of the moods, Humbert
states: “This mood expresses the founding can-
ditions of reality. Among them there are some
that are objectively observed at a moment at any
340 SUBORDINATION
point of time, others instead were (or have been)
possible in times already gone by; finally, others
are formally excluded from the reality of present
time. In other words, the indicative states what
was, what is, and what will be; but it also records
what could be (or could have been) in the past
and what could not be but in the present." (Hum-
bert 1960:110; emphasis in the original).
Whereas Humbert’s presentation is objective,
as it were, and the different perspectives seem
to be ascribed to the mood itself, independently
of the speaker, Schwyzer's words point out the
fact that, although the indicative is frequently
implicitly considered as the mood of reality or
objectivity, in fact the speaker's viewpoint is
always implied: “usually the speaker does not
realize that, basically, in the indicative there is
a subjective statement on his part” (Schwyzer
1959:307).
The indicative is typically employed with all
subordinates that give objective information
about time, place, cause, judgement:
(12) epeide de én pros hemeran, héken ekeine
‘since it was towards day, that (woman)
arrived' (Lys. 92.14)
(13) höte Naxos hedlo
‘when Naxos was conquered’ (Aristoph.
Vesp. 354)
The subjunctive is a typical marker of subordina-
tion, even though it can also occur in indepen-
dent sentences. “In Ancient Greek, as already in
Indo-European, the subjunctive possesses two
distinct values: the idea of will and the idea
of eventuality. These notions are not equally
subjective: whereas will does not envisage other
than its object, eventuality is based on prediction
of reality, conjecturing on previous observations.
With the former, ‘myself’ establishes itself} even
apart from reality, with the latter, a judgment
inseparable from reality is expressed” (Humbert
1960:113; emphasis in the original):
(14) tous dilous pdntas toioutöi tröpöi makarious
poiein, hina de hole he polis eudaimonei
‘to make all others happy this way, so that
the entire city may be prosperous’ (Pl. Resp.
420€)
The last mood, the optative, according to Hum-
bert’s viewpoint, “owes its name...to the most
apparent function of the two that it performs:
first of all, the optative formulates a wish,
although furthermore it expresses possibility”
(Humbert 1960:116).
The optative typically serves to express the
speaker's viewpoint:
(15) eipen, höti oudén autdi méloi tod humetérou
thorübou, epeide pollous Athénaious eideie
tous ta hémoia prättontas hautöi
'(Theramenes) said that he cared nothing
for your uproar, since he knew of many
Athenians who were promoting the same
kind of scheme as himself' (Lys. 12.74)
“The subordinate sentence must be marked... as
subject’s thought of the governing verb... The
optative replaces the subjunctive in final sen-
tences and with verbs of fear, the indicative in
declarative sentences, the subjunctive in rela-
tive sentences and dependent interrogative sen-
tences as well as in the oratio obliqua” (Schwyzer
1950 II:331; see also Cristofaro 1996).
For a different opinion on the traditional view
we cite Méndez Dosuna's statement (1999:349):
“The hypotheses that describe the oblique opta-
tive as a marker of subordination or a procedure
of displacement towards the past (temporal dis-
tance) are not well grounded...in the oblique
optative the notion of modal distance has almost
completely disappeared. Its function was to
mark indirect speech. This was the reason that
brought about its decline and its quick disap-
pearance along with the spread of Koine."
2.b.iii. Tense
Even though it has been sometimes discussed
whether in Ancient Greek the choice of the dif-
ferent tenses was determined by the consecutio
temporum, however it is widely accepted that
the choice of tense in Ancient Greek depends on
the moment of utterance and not on the tense
of the matrix clause (+ Consecutio Temporum
et Modorum):
(16) kai polun men khrénon epöroun ti pote légei
‘and for a long time I was asking myself
what he wanted to say’ (Pl. Ap. 21b)
In Ancient Greek there is basically no such a sys-
tem as the consecutio temporum of Latin. Tenses
are regularly selected with reference to the utter-
ance time, and in any case independently of the
tense of the matrix clause.
 SUBORDINATION
3. NEGATION
Another relevant parameter for the description
of subordination is negation, As is well known,
in many languages there is a negative marker for
verbal moods expressing an objective state of
affairs (typically, the indicative) different fromthe
marker employed in clauses with moods express-
ing a subjective state of affairs (typically, involv-
ing will, wish, hope, possibility). In Greek, for the
former case the negative particle which is used
to express negation is ou(k), and for the latter me:
(17) potamös d' ei men kai ällos dra hemin esti
diabateos ouk oida
‘whether there is any other river that we can
cross, I don’t know’ (Xen. An. 2.4.6)
(18) kai epnigeto höstis nein me etünkhanen
epistdmenos
‘and whoever happened not to be able to
swim drowned’ (Xen. An. 5.7.25)
This distinction involves both the finite and the
non-fnite subordinates.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aarts, B. 2006: "Subordination”, In: Encyclupecdia uf languaye
and linguistics, vol. 12, and ed., ed. by Keith Brown, 248-
253. London,
Adrados, Francisco R. 1992. Nueva sintaxis del griega anti-
guo. Madrid.
Basset, Louis. 1999. “Des participiales parmi les complé
tives”. In: Jacquinod 1999:33-44.
Boehm, Isabelle. 1999. “Syntaxe et sémantisme des verbes
d'audition chez Homere", In: Jacquinod 1ggq:251-264.
Conti, LuzJ. 2010. “Las oraciones completivas en griego anti-
guo”, www.liceus.com/cgi-bin/aco/
Crespo, Emilio. 1984. “On the system of substantive clauses
in Ancient Greek", Glotta 62.1/21-16.
. 1998. "Parametres pour la definition des completives
en grec ancien”. In: Jacquinod 1999:45-62.
Cristolaro, Sonia. 1996. Aspetti sintattici e sernantlei delle
Jrasi completive in greco anticu. Florence.
——. 1998. “Gratnmaticalization and clause linkage strate-
gies: a typological approach with particular reference
ta Ancient Greek”. In: The limits of grammaticalization,
ed. by P. Hopper and A. G. Ramat, 59-88. Amsterdam -
Philadelphia.
. 2003. Subordination. Cambridge.
Diaz de Cerio, Mercedes. 2010. “Sintaxis de las formas nomi-
nales del verbo en griege antiguo". www.liceus.com/cgi-
bin/aco/
Fartson, Benjamin W. IV. 2004. Indo-European language and
culture. An introduction. Oxford.
Garcia Ramon, Jasé Luis. 1999. “Les completives infinitives
avec höste”. In: Jacquinod 1999167-199.
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1992. “Die Entstehung des lateinischen
und griechischen Acl, Rekonstruktion und relative
Chronologie". In: Rekonstruktion und relative Chronalo-
gie. Akten der Vill. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
341
Gesellschaft, Leiden 31 August-4 September 1987, ed. by
R. Beekes, A. Lubotsky, J. Weitenberg, 221-234. Innsbruck.
Humbert, Jean. 1960, Syrtaxe grecque. Paris.
Jacquinod, Bernard, ed. 1999. Les camplétives en grec ancien.
Actes du colloque international de Saint-Etienne (3-5
septembre 1998). Saint-Etienne,
Joseph. Brian D. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the
Batkan infinitive. Cambridge.
——. 2002. “On some control structures in Hellenistic
Greek: a comparison with Classical and Madern Greek’,
Linguistic Discovery val, 1, pt. ı.
Lillo, Antonio. 1999. “Sur lorigine du &örı complétif”. In:
Jacquinad 1999:313-329.
Méndez Dosuna, Julian V, 1999. “La value de l'optatif oblique
grec: un regard fonctionnel-typologique”, In: Jacquinod
1999:331-352.
Muchnovä, Dagmar. 2006. Entre conjonction et particule ; le
cas de epei. Prague.
Prandi, Michele. 2007. “Un capitola esclusivo della gram-
matica dei dialetti: la deissi ambientale.” In: Linguistica:
linguaggi specialistici. Didattica delle lingue. Studi in onore
di Leo Schena, ed. by G. Garzone and R. Salvi, 61-72. Rome.
Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio R. 2010. “Coordinacién,
parataxis y hipotaxis en griego antigua’. www,liceus
‚com/cgi-bin/aco/
Ruijgh, CornelisJ. 1999. “Sur l'emploi completif de linfinitif
grec”. In: Jacquinod 1999:215-231.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1959 [1950].
Griechische Grammatik, Band Il: Syntax und syntaktische
Stilistik, Munich.
PIERLUIGI CUZZOLIN
Suffix
+ Derivational Morphology
Suppletion
1. INTRODUCTION
The term suppletion derives from the Latin verb
suppleö ‘fill up, make up for a loss’, and first
appears in linguistics in the late ıgth c. (Ost-
hoff 1899). With the advent of structuralism in
the zoth c., the term has been established for
denoting a phenomenon which encapsulates
exceptions found in the encoding of grammati-
cal features, in the sense that when a regular
morpho-syntactic pattern is broken, unrelated
forms fill the gap. Suppletive forms occur in
a variety of languages, are detected in most
grammatical categories, and are often aligned
with certain morpho-syntactic features, such as
aspect, tense, gender, case and number. It is
generally difficult to provide an explanation of
why the phenomenon has emerged. For the gen-
esis of suppletion, one of the reasons given by
342 SUPPLETION

Maiden (2004:248) is the existence of synonyms
whose meanings differ by a semantic nuance not
clearly perceived by speakers.
As a theoretical notion, suppletion has been
a controversial issue in linguistics. For instance,
there is disagreement whether it affects only
lexemes or it extends to functional categories
as well. For Bloomfield (1933) — and recently for
Carstairs-McCarthy (1994) - suppletion is a mat-
ter of stems and affixes, while Matthews (1974)
restricts it tostem replacement. Moreover, asmall
number of scholars (e.g. Mel’&uk 1994) accept
suppletion as a phenomenon applying to all
word-formation processes, contrary to the wide-
spread view that the phenomenon is confined
to inflection. Another matter which has evoked
conflicting reactions among linguists concerns
the tendency to regard suppletion as a marginal
phenomenon. For instance, within the genera-
tive-grammar tradition, it is rather ignored, or
at best, it is considered as a problem assigned to
the lexicon. For the natural-morphology frame-
work (Dressler et al. 1987), suppletion is seen as
the most ‘unnatural’ phenomenon and proper to
inflection, Nevertheless, there are linguists, such
as Fertig (1998), Carstairs-McCarthy (1994) and
Maiden (2004) who have conducted thorough
investigations of the genesis and the characteris-
tics of suppletion, trying to determine its impact
on paradigmatic relations as well as its relation
with other morphological phenomena (e.g. allo-
morphy), It is also worth pointing out the work
by Veselinova (2006) who, by drawing evidence
from a variety of languages, argues against the
marginal character of suppletion.
2. SUPPLETION IN ANCIENT GREEK
Ancient Greek displays all types of suppletion
described above. It affects all major grammati-
cal categories, but it is particularly discernible
in verbs. This peculiarity is probably due to the
fact that Ancient Greek had inherited from Indo-
European the property to have a conjugation
with verbal stems not necessarily related to each
other (Chantraine 1973:153-154, 156). Moreover,
in certain cases, the Aktionsart (+ Lexical Aspect)
of certain roots is associated with the function of
specific forms marked for aspect and tense (i.e.,
the paradigms of present, aorist, future and per-
fect). As a result, different roots could be used
for the formation of the inflectional paradigms
expressing the same verbal notion. For instance,
roots denoting the duration of a process were
better fit for the formation of the present tense.
Other roots designating the process itself were
introduced in the context of the aorist tense. For
example, the root *bher- 'to bring’ appears in the
present tense (e.g, pherö), but not in the aorist,
for which another root created forms such as
énenkon. An illustration of verbal suppletion is
given below:

(1)

Present Aorist Future Perfect Meaning

haireö heilon hairesö heireka ‘to seize’

eimi egenomén ésomai gegona ‘to be’*
erkhomai elthon eimi elélutha ‘to come’
esthio éphagon édomai ededoka ‘to eat!
zÖ ebion zeso / bidsomai** beblöka ‘to live’
legö eipon | elexa erö [lexö eiréka ‘to tell’
hora eidon öpsomai hedraka | dpopa ‘to see’
trekhö édramon dramoümai dedraméka ‘to run’
pherö enenka |enenkon visö enenokha ‘to bring’
*As noticed hy Fertig (1998), the verb ‘to be’ is a major locus of suppletion in many languages.
**zésq is based on the root of the present tense, #/dsomai on that of the aorist; in the case of
heöraka and dpdpa we are dealing with the present and the future stem.

The study of the suppletive forms in (1) is crucial they usually derive from the other two, as also
because it shows that the Ancient Greek verb is mentioned by Chantraine (1973158), though not
built around two stems, the present stem and the always, as is seen here with efmi, erö, öpsomai,
aorist stem, As for the perfect and future forms, and oisö, Generally, the existence of suppletive
 SUPPLETION
forms proves that not all verbs conform to a
coherent conjugation system the forms of which
would be created from one particular base. It
should be noted, however, that the tendency to
use different roots for the formation of verbal
paradigms rather reflects an archaism in the his-
tory of Greek. Already in the historical period,
the vast majority of the Ancient Greek verbs
have complete conjugation paradigms formed
from the same root. Nevertheless, a good num-
ber of old suppletive paradigms seem to persist,
perhaps due to their high frequency (e.g. /égo
versus eipon ‘say’). Crucially, for some of these
cases, the emergence of new forms, alternating
with the suppletive ones, can also be detected.
This innovation optimizes the paradigms by reg-
ularizing them, since the new forms are usually
built on the present tense stem. For instance,
élexa and lexö in the aorist and the future tense,
respectively, are typical examples of this change:
they are created from l&gö in analogy to regu-
lar verbs (e.g. ft6 : élusa : lüsö ‘untie’, graphö :
égrapsa : gräpsö ‘write’, etc.; + Analogy). The
use of the present stem for shaping the verbal
inflection constitutes another innovation of the
language, since this stem was originally used for
the inflection of denominal verbs, the inflection
of the rest of verbs being usually built on the aor-
ist stem (Chantraine 19733159).
With respect to the other grammatical cat-
egories, it is worth pointing out that the appear-
ance of suppletion is quite restricted in nouns, it
can also be observed in the numeral ‘one’ (heis.
MASC, mia.FEM, hen.NEUT ‘one’), the definite
article Ao. MASC, hé.FEM, tö.NEUT ‘the’ (it origi-
nates from a corresponding form of the demon-
strative pronoun which is attested in the /liad
and Odyssey, — Definiteness/Definite Article),
and is quite frequent as far as the pronouns and
some common morphologically simple adjec-
tives are concerned. For an illustration, consider
the personal pronouns in (2) and the adjectives
in (3):
(2) Personal pronouns
Singular Plural Dual
ego T' hemeis nö
sé ‘you’ humeis sphö
343
(3)
Adjective comparative superlative
degree degree
agathös ameinon | äristos | beltistos
‘good’ areion | beltion | | krätistos |
kreisson | laian löistos
kakös 'bad' kheirön | hessön khetristos |
hekistos
oligos little meiön | hessön | meistos | hekistos
hétton | elassön | | eläkhistos
eldtton
Interestingly, the distribution of suppletive forms
is not fortuitous. As shown by the examples (1-3),
it is arranged according to the syntactic context
and the morphosyntactic features assigned to
lexemes. For instance, suppletive verbal forms
are allotted according to the features of aspect
and tense (> Aspect (and Tense)), while sup-
pletion in nouns and pronouns is distributed
according to case and number; in pronouns and
numerals suppletion relates with different gen-
der values, while the feature of degree (compara-
tive or superlative) seems to be a crucial factor
for its appearance in adjectives. Therefore, in
fusional languages, such as Ancient Greek, the
observation that suppletion is closely related
to inflection (e.g. Dressler et al. 1987) is a com-
mendable one.
As already stated, suppletion may also arise
within the category of functional elements,
although in this case, it is much restricted when
compared to what is observable in lexemes. For
instance, suppletion manifests itselfin the expres-
sion of negation, where two different forms, the
so-called ‘objective’ ou(k) and the ‘subjective mé
(see Humbert 1973:345 for details) appear in vari-
ous contexts (e.g, Thuc. 2.15 hopdte me ti deise-
ian, ou xunéiesan bouleusdmenoi hös tön basiléa
‘When they did not have any subject, they did
not meet in the king’s place to deliberate’). The
suppletive forms expressing negation are phrasal
functional elements, but suppletion may also
arise within the context of bound affixes. More
particularly, while in the aorist of many verbs
the usual morpheme of the perfective value is
-s- (e.g, élusa ‘I untied’ of the verb (6), there are
verbs, the so-called athematic ones, displaying a
-k- (e.g, edöka ‘I pave’ of didomi, éthéka of tithemi
‘to put', heka of hiemi ‘to throw’), which is typi-
cal of the paradigm of the perfect tense of many
344 SUPPLETION

verbs (féluka, dedöka, tetheka, heika). Given the Ralli, Angela. 2008. “Compound markers and parametric
affinities between the perfect and the aorist variation", Language Typology and Universats 6119-38.
Tserepis, Georgios. 1902. Ta sintheta tis Ellinikis glössis |Com-
during the Classical period, it is not surprising pounds in the Greek language]. Athens.
that for some verbs -k- may be shared by both Veselinova, Ljuba. 2006. Suppletion in verb paradigms,
paradigms. However, after the Hellenistic period Amsterdam.
(ca 3rd c. BCE—3rd c. CE), this type of suppletion
ANGELA RALLI
disappeared and the aorist of the three verbs,
didami, tithemi and hiémi, became regularized
by assuming the -s- form (édesa, é9esa, dfisa, also
Syllabic Consonants
subject to the change of pronunciation during
the Hellenistic period).
Although syllahic + consonants are not unam-
Finally, an interesting case of suppletion, one
biguously present at any stage of attested Greek
that demonstrates that the phenomenon should
(but see below for the proposal of Heubeck 1972),
not be considered as proper to inflection, can be
their development from Proto-Indo-European
detected in the form variation of the so-called
has received an enormous amount of attention.
‘linking element’ which appears in compound-
A set of four syllabic consonants (two nasals, [m]
ing, namely between the first and the second
and [nj, one lateral []], and one rhotic [r]) are
constituent elements. Tserepis (1902) provides
reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European as allo-
a huge number of compounds where the link-
phones of their consonantal counterparts (Sihler
ing element assumes the form of -o- (e.g. hul-
1995:§93; Fortson 2010:61-62; Weiss 2010:39—40;
o-tömos 'wood-cutter’), -é- (e.g. thalam-E-polos
Meier-Brügger 2010:230). Sanskrit has phonemic
‘chamber maid', lit. ‘who comes in the nuptial
[r] and [I], although the latter is only attested
room’), -i- (e.g. khalk-i-naos 'temple of bronze’),
in one root, klp ‘arrange’ (on which see Jamison
As argued by Ralli (2008), this linking element
1983124-125). The development of the syllabic
originates either from a thematic vowel (-0-) or
consonants into Mycenaean and later Greek
from an inflectional ending. In the early Helle-
exhibits considerable complexities, which can
nistic period, -o- was spread to all compounds,
only be sketched here (see further Meillet 1gi0;
and subsequently reanalyzed as a semantically
Ruijgh 1961; Lejeune 1972:195-199; Moralejo 1973;
vacuous compound marker.
Rix 1992:65-67; Sihler 1995:§§93-109; Bartonék
To sum up, the study of suppletion is crucial
2003135; Bernabé and Lujan 2006:127-131; Risch
for both the morphological analysis and the his-
and Hajnal 2006:201-218; Thompson 2010191192).
tory of Greek, since it may shed light on various
structural and highly idiosyncratic tendencies of
1. SYLLABIC NASALS
the language.
In word-final position, as well as before a conso-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1934. Language. New York. nant, syllabic *s and *n merge with /a/ or /o/.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. "Suppletion”, In: Ency- It is often held that the syllabic nasals merge
clopedia of language and linguistics, ed. by $. Asher and with /o/ in Aeolic, + Mycenaean, and Arcado-
F. Simpson, 4410-4411. Oxford.
Cypriot, and /a/ in all other dialects (Rix 1976:65;
Chantraine, Pierre. 1973. Morphologie historique du grec.
Paris, Weiss 2010:94; for a more nuanced view, see
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, Risch and Hajnal 2006:212). So for instance PIE
and Wolfgand LI. Wurzel. 1987. Leitmotiß in natural mor- *m in *dekm ‘ten’ yields déko in + Arcadian, but
phology. Amsterdam.
Fertig, David. 1998. "Suppletion, natural morphology, dia-
déka elsewhere. Before a + vowel, a glide, or a
grammaticity”, Linguistics 36 (6):1065-10g1. sequence of laryngeal plus vowel, we find an or
Humbert, Jean. 1973. Syntaxe grecque. Paris. am, e.g. dnudros ‘waterless’,
Kölligan, Daniel. 2007. Suppletion und Defektivität im A closer look at the data, however, reveals
griechischen Verbum. Bremen.
Maiden, Martin, 2004. "When lexemes become allo-
that the distribution of /a/ and /o/ does not cor-
morphs — On the genesis of suppletion”, Folia Linguistica respond so neatly to dialect. Within Mycenaean
38 (3-4):227-256. itself, for instance, we find /a/ in some lexical
Matthews, Peter. 1974. Morphology: an introduction to the items and /o/ in others, e.g. e-ka-ma, alphabetic
theary of word structure. Cambridge.
Mel’£uk, Igor, 1994. "Suppletion: toward a logical analysis of Greek ékhma ‘support’, and a-mo, alphabetic
the concept”, Studies in Language 18 (2):339-410. Greek harma ‘wheel, chariot’. The final seg-
Osthoff, Hermann. 1899. Vom Suppletivwesen der indoger- ment of both words continues *n. In two cases,
manischen Sprachen. Heidelberg.
we find both outcomes: pe-mo and pe-ma for
 SYLLABIC CONSONANTS
alphabetic Greek spérma ‘seed' (with the latter
far more common than the former); and a-re-pa-
zo-o beside a-re-po-zo-o, ‘unguent boiler’, which
are both written by the same hand. Generally
speaking, however, the outcome /o/ preponder-
ates in labial environments (Risch and Hajnal
2006:212-213); cf. the outcomes of *7 in Indic, ar
and ir, with the former characteristic of labial
environments (Sihler 1995:§102).
Risch (1966) argues that the distribution of
fo/ and /a/ from *m and “n in Mycenaean is con-
ditioned by diglossia: /o/ is characteristic of the
palace aristocracy (or a fossilized scribal dialect),
while /a/ is what was found outside the pal-
ace walls. Thompson (1997) by contrast argues
that we are dealing with a sound change in prog-
ress: the outcome of the syllabic nasals is /a/, but
in the presence of a labial, it was rounded to /o/.
The labial feature was then lost, however, which
returned the segment to /a/.
2. SYLLABIC LIQUIDS
The syllabic liquids *r and * also develop /a/ and
fof vocalism, but in this case the liquid is always
preserved as a consonant on the margin of the
~ syllable (see further O'Neil 1969). Thus there
are four possible outcomes for each sonorant:
ar/ra and or/ro, allla and olllo. As far as the
vocalism is concerned, this is again often held
to fall out along dialectal lines: /o/ in Aeolic,
Arcado-Cypriot, and Mycenaean, /a/ elsewhere
(Rix 1976:65-66). So beside Lesbian and Boeo-
tian strotös ‘army’, we have Attic-lonic stratds,
both of which continue PIE *strtös (cf. Sanskrit
strta-, Avestan staratö). Morpurgo Davies (1969)
has shown that the distribution, as with the syl-
labic nasals, is not so neat, She argues that in fact
the normal development in Arcado-Cypriot is
*r > arfra, whereas the development to or/ro
happens only under certain conditions.
As for the variation between ar and ra or
af and da, one view is that ar and af are the
outcomes word-internally before vowels, glides,
sequences of laryngeal plus vowel, and word-
finally; while ra and fa develop word-internally
in all other environments (so stratds above; see
Rix 1976:65-66). Exceptions to this pattern are
sometimes explained by > analogy to full- and
lengthened-grade forms (> Root Structure (and
Ablaut)). So the expected outcome of zero-grade
*krd- ‘heart’ is Homeric kradie. The metathesis in
Attic kardia is thought to have been induced by
analogy to either lengthened-grade *kerd-, which
345
we have in ker (nom.) and keri (dat.), or full-
grade *kerd-, which is found in Germanic, e.g.
Gothic hairtö (see Lejeune 1972:196; Rix 1992:65;
Meier-Brügger 2010:231). Sihler (1995:895) states
flatly, however, that the conditions determining
the alternation have not been established. The
alternation between ra and ar or {a and al may
have been to some extent conditioned by speech
tempo and register. As such, the precise condi-
tions oftheir distributions maybe unrecoverable.
Heubeck (1972) argues that the spelling varia-
tion that we find in the toponym ma-to-pu-ro and
ma-to-ro-pu-ro “Mother Pylos’ reflects a scribal
attempt to represent [Tr] (see further Garcia Ramon
1985; Bernabé and Lujan 2006:130 as well as Risch
and Hajnal 2006:202-203 offer arguments against
this view). The Homeric formula androtéta kai
heben ‘manliness and youth’ (Il. 16.857 = 22.363)
has given rise to similar claims: the first two
syllables are in light positions in the meter
(+ Syllable Weight), which presents no problem if
we can assume a sequence *anr (see Wackernagel
1916172, and more recently Janko 1992:1, Watkins
1995:499, Hackstein 2002:5-7, Haug 2002:49-67,
Fortson 2010:254-255; Tichy 1981 and Berg 1978
argue that we are dealing with a metrical, and
not a prosodic, archaism; for a different tack
altogether, see Barnes zou). Such a claim raises
the question of when the syllabic consonants
were lost on the way from Proto-Indo-European
to Proto-Greek, for which see Haug (2002:61-62)
(+ Proto-Greek and Common Greek).
The situation with the long syllabic liquids (e.g.
*F) is murky. First, these segments were extremely
rare; second, it is not always clear if we are dealing
with a long syllabic consonant or a sequence of
syllabic consonant plus laryngeal, i.e., with *74,
which one expects in the zero-grade forms of
sef-roots, for instance. Generally the outcome of a
syllabic consonant plus laryngeal in Greek is con-
sonant plus long vowel, with the vowel quality
determined by the laryngeal, e.g. tlh, to- (from “telfg-
‘bear, carry’) > Dor. tatös ‘patient’ (+ Laryngeal
Changes). See further Rix (1970), Lejeune (1972198-
199), Risch and Hajnal (2006:216-218), Fortson
(2010:62), and Meier-Briigger (2010:251-255).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adrados, Francisco R. 1958. “La yocalizacién de las sonantes
indoeuropeas”, Emerita 26:249-309.
——. 1973. Estudios sobre las sonantes y laringales indoeu-
ropeas. Madrid.
Bader, Frangvise. i969. "De mycénien materepury, arepuazov
A grec patpémoatc, dAct@dBiog. Le traitement des sonantes-
voyelles au premier millénaire’, Mines 1077-63.
346 SYLLABIC CONSONANTS

Bames, Timothy G. zou. “Homeric androteta kai eben,” Jour- Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How én kill a dragon: aspects of Indo-
nal of Hellenic Studies 1311-13. European poetics. Oxford — New York.
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg. DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Berg, Nils. 1978. “Parergon metricum. Der Ursprung des
griechischen Hexameters’, Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft 37:1-36.
Bernabe, Alberto. 1977. “La vocalizaciön de las sonantes Syllable Weight
indoeuropeas en griego”, Emerita 45:269-298.
Bernabe&, Alberto and Eugenio Lujan. 2006, Introduccion al Like a great many languages, Ancient Greek dis-
griego micdnico. Zaragoza,
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2o10. Indo-European language and
tinguished two types of + syllable, Aeavy and
culture: an introduction. Secand edition. Malden, MA. light (also called fong and short). A light syllable
Garcla Ramön, José L. 1985. “The spelling Ta and Ta-ra for in any language is one that ends in a single short
inherited Trin Mycenaean: sound law, phonetic sequence + vowel: be, pa, tro, i, All other syllables are heavy,
and morphological factors at work’, Minas 19:195-226.
Hackstein, Olav. 2002. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. i.e., those with long vowels, + diphthongs, or
Wiesbaden. final + consonants: be, pai, tron, iks. Like modern
Haug, Dag. 2002. Les phases de Evolution de la langue epique: French, a word-final consonant in Greek was pro-
trois études de lingnistique homérique. Göttingen. nounced together with the next word if the latter
Heubeck, Alfred. 1972. “Syllabic r in Mycenaean?". In: Acta
Mycenaea. Proceedings of the fifth international colle- began with a vowel, so that fon andra ‘the man’
quium on Mycenaean studies, ed. by M. 5. Ruiperez, 55-79. (acc.) would be syllabified [tö.nän.dra], with the
Salamanca. first syllable being light. This provided vowel-
Jamison, Stephanie. 1983. Function und farm in the -tya-
initial words with syllable onsets and minimized
formations of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. Göttingen.
Janko, Richard. 1992. The Mad: a commentary, vol. 4: Bouks the number of coda consonants in the language.
13-16, Cambridge. A more advanced notion of syllable weight
Lejeune, Michel. 1955. Traité de phonétique grecque. 2nd uses the notion of mora, an abstract unit of
ed. Paris.
Meier-Briigger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwis-
weight or > length. Syllable onsets have no
senschaft, gth ed. Berlin - New York. moras; codas and short vowels have one; diph-
Meillet, Antoine. igio. "Sur une origine de prec u”, Mémoires thongs and long vowels have two:
de fa Société de Linguistique 16:217-220.
Moralejo, Juan J. 1973. “Sonantes y griego micénico", Emerita
41:409-426, ho he hai ton ton
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. ig6o. “L’esito delle nasali sonanti in
miceneo", Rendiconti dell Accatlemia dei Lincei 137321- 336.
| A [| [| Al
—. 19618. “The Treatment of *r and * in Mycenaean and H KH KH KH KRH
Arcado-Cyprian”. In: Atti e memorie del prio congresso
internazionale di Micenulogia, 791-814. Rome. Monomoraic syllables are light (short); all others
O'Neil, James L. 1969. “The treatment uf vocalic R and I. in
Greek", Ghuta 47:8-46. are heavy (long). The evidence for trimoraic (so-
Risch, Ernst. 1966. “Les differences dialectales dans le myce- called 'superheavy’) syllables in Greek is weak
men”, In: Proceedings uf the Cambridge colloquium on (Deniz 2011) except for the fact that long vowels
Mycenaean studies, ed. by Leonard R. Palmer and John
and diphthongs can occur with codas;
Chadwick, 150-159. Cambridge.
Risch, Ernst and Ivo Hajnal. 2006. Grammatik des mykenis-
‘goat’
chen Griechisch. Band +: Einleitung und Phonulagie. http:// aiks
www.uibk.ac.at/sprachen-literaturen/sprawi/nykgr.btnl.
Rix, Helmut. 1970. “Aniautender Laryngal vor Liquida oder
IV
Nasalis sonans Im Griechischen”, Münchener Studien zur edt ad
Sprachwissenschaft 2779-10.
——. 1992, Historische Gremmaeatik des Griechischen: Laut- aikh.me ‘point of a spear’
und furmentehre. Darmstadt.
Ruijgh, €. J. 1961. “Le traitement des sonantes voyelles dans
IV
les dialectes grecs et la position du mycenien”, Mnemus- KHK
ne 1999-216.
. 1967. Etudes sur la grammuire et le vucabulaire du gree öm.mai ‘I have been seen’
mrycénien, Amsterdam.
Thompson, Rupert. 1997. “Dialects in Mycenaean and Myce-
Al
naean among the dialects", Mines 31-32:313-333. KR
. 2010. "Mycenaean Greek”. In: A companion to the
Ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert ]. Bakker, 189-199. en.gel.ka ‘I have reported’
Boston - Leiden.
Tichy, Eva. 1981. “Hom. &vdporite und die Vurgeschichte des Al
daktylischen Hexameters”, Glotta 59:28-657. UHH
 SYLLABLE WEIGHT 347
If these syllables do not have three moras, the phonology, HIL Phonology Papers II, ed. by Geert Baaij
syllable-final consonants must either be non- and Jeroen van der Weijer, 61-101. The Hague.
Deniz, Alcorac Alonso. zon. “El supueste alargamiento com-
moraic, licensed directly by the syllable (Lamon- pensatorio *nevopa > wetoyo 'amarre, cuerda’ en griego
tagne 1993) or by the prosodic word (Rubach and antiguo y otras cuestiones relacionadas’, Die Sprache
Booij 1990 for Polish), or the third mora is not 49.2:217-253.
Golston, Chris. iggi. "Minimal word, minimal affix’. In; Pre-
part of a syllable (Bagemihl 199: for Bella Coola;
ceedings of the Annual Meeting uf the North East Linguistic
Bye 1997 for Estonian and Saami; Kiparsky 2002 Society 21, ed. by Tim Sherer, g5-no, Amherst, MA.
for certain dialects of Arabic). Kiparsky, Paul. 2002, “Syllables and moras in Arabic". In:
In Greek + metrics, as in the meters of Classi- The syllable in Optimality theory, ed. by Caroline Féry and
Ruben Vijver, 147-182. Cambridge.
cal Arabic and Sanskrit, heavy and light syllables Lamontagne, Greg. 1993. Syllabification and consonant co-
occupy distinct positions in the verse - feet, eceurrence conditions. PhD dissertation, University of
— metra and cola of various meters. Metrical Massachusetts, Amberst, MA.
positions that can be either heavy or light occur Mester, R. Armin. 1994. "The quantitative trachee in Latin’,
Natural Language & Linguistic Theary w.aa-&1.
as well and go under the name of anceps posi- Rubach, Jerzy and Geert Booij. 1990. "Edge of constituent
tions. > Responsion is an incredibly intricate effects in Polish”, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
tracking of patterns of heavy and light syllables 8:427~469.
across long stretches of metrical text. Ancient
CHRIS GOLSTUN
Greek meter was entirely quantitative, based on
heavy and light syllables, and not stress-based,
so that no understanding of the meter is possible
without a solid understanding of syllable weight.
Syllables
As in many languages including Arabic, Eng-
1. INTRODUCTION
lish, and Latin, word > accentuation is attracted
to heavy syllables or to the first of a pair of light
The syllable is a phonological unit composed of
ones (Allen 1973), and the high and low tones
sounds. Although its phonetic basis and a pre-
that constitute word accent are situated difler-
cise definition are still controversial, speakers of
ently on heavy and light syllables.
typologically different languages have an intui-
Word — minima in many languages are depen-
tive (psychological) notion of the syllable (Ohala
dent on mora count (e.g., Mester 1994 for Latin),
& Kawasaki-Fukumori 1996). Moreover, the syl-
and Greek is no exception to this (Golston 1991).
lable plays a fundamental role across languages
Lexical words(+ nouns,— verbs,and-— adjectives)
in + prosody (e.g. stress assignment), + metrics,
are minimally a heavy syllable or two lights (up),
word games, and script. Evidence for syllabic
while function words (+ prepositions, articles,
structure in Ancient Greek is drawn from meter,
conjunctions, etc.; + Conjunctions (Non-Subor-
stress rules, + phonological change, and script.
dinating); + Conjunctions (Subordinating)) and
Syllables consist of a nucleus (usually a vowel,
derivational affixes (> Derivational Morphology)
V) and its margins (or edges), i.e., the sound(s)
are minimally a light syllable (u). This is true not
preceding and following the nucleus, known
only of full words but of truncations as well.
respectively as onset and coda (usually conso-
A number of synchronic and diachronic
nants, C). In terms of sonority, the nucleus con-
pro-cesses require reference to syllable weight,
stitutes the peak of the syllable, and sonority
including + compensatory lengthening, + Ost-
gradually decreases towards the margins (Sonor-
hoff's Law, + Vendryes’ Law, and + Wheeler's
ity Sequencing Principle). The nucleus and coda
Law. It is of course highly important that all
together constitute the rhyme. Nuclei (V) are
uses of syllable weight in Greek are based on the
required in all languages and many languages
same criteria for heavy and light.
prefer to have onsets and no codas in syllables
(CV), but the number of segments in onset and
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen. W. Sidney. 1973. Accent und rhythm. Prosodic features
coda varies considerably from language to lan-
of Latin and Greek: a study in theory and reconstruction. guage (Maddieson 2005). Ancient Greek belongs
Cambridge. to the group of languages with a complex syl-
Bagemihl, Bruce. iggt. “Syllable structure in Bella Coola",
lable structure.
Linguistic Inquiry 22:589--646.
Bye, Patrik. 1997. “Representing ‘overlength’: against tri-
moraic syllables’. In: Phunology in progress | Progress in
348
2. SYLLABLE STRUCTURE IN ANCIENT
GREEK
In Ancient Greek the nucleus is always a vowel
(short or long). + Diphthongs (ai, of au, eu,
etc.) were probably complex nuclei since tones
occurred on both their first and their second
member. Syllables without margins are allowed:
ef ‘you are (2nd sg.)’, Hom. &ö, Dor. &ö ‘dawn
(ace. sg.)’, etc. In Proto-Greek (> Proto-Greek
and Common Greek), liquids, nasals and
-+laryngeals could stand as syllabic nuclei. For
instance, patrdsi ‘father (dat. pl.)' goes back to
an older *pA,.tr.sü. Similarly, in the Homeric
formula lipoüs’ androtéta kai heben ‘leaving
behind manliness and youth’, the anomalous
scansion of androtéta (heavy-light-heavy-light)
probably conceals an older *a.ny.td.ta (light-
light-heavy-light).
Any ~+consonants preceding the nucleus
constitute the onset. The syllabification of VCV
clusters is always V.CV within words in Anc. Gk,
eg. thu.ga.te.ra ‘daughter (acc. sg,)', phö.ne.sö
‘speak (ist sg. fut. indic. act.)', and usually so
across words, e.g., kalon agöna ‘beautiful contest
(acc. sg.)' ka.lö.na.gö.na, showing the universal
preference for onsets. Any consonants after the
nucleus constitute the coda. Generally speaking,
the syllabification ofa VCCV cluster is VC.CV, e.g.
sun.tém.non.tos ‘cut down (masc./neut. gen. sg.
ptc. pres. act.)’, plek.tes ‘striker’ (for exceptions,
see 3). The same principle holds for geminates:
hippos ‘horse’, alle ‘other (fem.)'. The camplex-
ity of tolerated onsets and codas in Anc. Gk.
varies according to the position of the syllable
in the word. For instance, while st- is a possible
word-initial onset in stöma ‘mauth’, the syllabic
structure in Aistamai ‘I stand’ was his.ta,mai, not
**hista.mai, as shown by the scansion of such
syllables in meter.
3. COMBINATIONS OF CONSONANTS
Not all combinations of consonants were per-
mitted as word-initial onsets and some occur
more often than others. Actual combinations are
given below:
- stop (labial or velar) + stop (dental): pterdn
‘wing’, bdéd ‘break wind’, phthönos
ktizö ‘build’, khthön ‘earth’.
- p/k + /s/: psukhe 'soul’, xiphos ‘sword’.
SYLLABLES
- stop + liquid: prötos ‘first (masc. sg.)', blöskö
‘come’, phren ‘mind’, treis ‘three’, thrönos
‘seat’, tlemön ‘enduring (masc./fem.)', gräphö
‘scratch’, khrusds ‘gold’, etc.; df- occurs in Myc.:
de-re-u-ko /dlefikos/ ‘sweet (new wine)' =
Attic gleükos,
- d + w: Corinth. p.n. Dwenia.
- stop/nasal + nasal: pneüma 'wind', tmétds ‘cut’
(masc.), dnöphos 'darkness', dmésis ‘taming’,
thneiskö ‘die’, knizö ‘scratch’, gnösis ‘inquiry’,
khndé ‘nave’, mnéma ‘remembrance’.
- 5 + stop: spoudé ‘haste’, sphén ‘wedge’, stöma
‘mouth’, sthenö ‘have strength’, skélld ‘dry up’,
skholé ‘leisure’, sbennumi ‘put out’, zeügos
‘yoke’ /zdetigos/.
- s + m: smerdaleos ‘terrible to look (masc.)’.
- w+r (only in dialects with no w-loss): Elean
wratra ‘covenant’, Arc. wrésis ‘resolution’,
Myc. wi-ri-za /wriza/ ‘root’.
Three consonant onsets are limited to s + voice-
less stop + liquid or nasal: sklerös ‘hard (masc.)',
stratös ‘army’, sphragizö ‘close’, stlengis ‘sort of
tiara’, splen ‘milt’, sknipös ‘dim-sighted (masc.)'.
Most clusters above conform to the Sonor-
ity Sequencing Principle (Selkirk 1982): sonority
increases from the onset to the nucleus and
decreases from the nucleus to the coda. Clusters
not abiding by this principle (sonority plateaux
like pt or mn and sonority reversals like sp or
wr) cannot be accounted for as sequences with
an empty nucleus; there is no evidence that e.g.
spheis ‘they’ had an underliying syllable struc-
ture /sa.phé:s/ (a = empty nucleus), Complex
onsets resyllabified across words when possible,
e.g. mega sthénos ‘great force’ me.gas.the.nos.
Only s, r and n are allowed at the ends of
~ prosodic words in Anc. Gk. (proclitics like ek
‘out of’ and ok ‘no, not' do not constitute pro-
sodic words on their own, as shown by their lack
of accent). Complex clusters occur word-finally
only if they end in s: phleps ‘vein’, phldx ‘flame’,
sphinx ‘sphinx’. In some dialects final -ns and -rs
are preserved: the Cret. and Arg. definite article
tons (masc. acc. pl.) = Att. fous, Cret. maiturs
‘witness’ = Att. ımärtus.
Unlike +Ionic and Proto-Greek, ~ Attic
and other dialects favored stop + liquid/nasal
(known as muta cum liquida clusters) as onsets
‘envy’, word-internally: pa.tr/ ‘father (dat. sg.), hu,pnos
‘sleep’. The recurrence of this structure in Attic
drama suggests a feature of everyday speech.
 SYLLABLES
So-called correptio Attica (‘Attic abbreviation’)
seldom affects voiced stop + liquid clusters and
never voiced stop + nasal.
Determining syllable affiliation in word-inter-
nal clusters of more than two consonants is not
an easy task. If a muta cum liquida is involved,
the cluster of voiceless stop + liquid/nasal
probably formed a complex onset in Attic and
elsewhere: ekh.thrds ‘hated (masc.)', ös.tra.kon
‘(fragment of a) vessel’, per.Ands ‘dusky (masc.)’,
stil pnds ‘glittering (masc.)', dr.thron ‘joint’, splän.
khna ‘innards’, Cypr. p.n. a-ku-we-u-su-ti-ri-jo
/Aguweus.trid/ (gen. sg.). In other cases, com-
plex codas with an increasing sonority slope are
perhaps preferred to complex onsets, but the
evidence from the meter and script is inconclu-
sive (Allen 1973): pemp.tos ‘hfth (masc.)’, mdrp.to
‘take hold of’, drk.tos ‘bear’, plank.tös ‘wander-
ing (masc.)’, &melp.sa ‘celebrate with song and
dance (ist sg. aor. act.)', drxai /ark.sai/'command
(inf. aor. act.), érg.ma ‘work’, Myc. a,-ka-sa-ma
faiks.mäns/ ‘point of spear (acc. pl.). The only
four-consonant clusters permitted are nasal/lig-
uid + stop followed by muta cum liquida: kamp.
tra ‘case’, thélk.tron ‘charm’, and these must of
course be heterosyllabic.
Morphological transparency sometimes plays
a role in syllabification. In Arg, awréteue ‘act as
president (3rd sg. imperf. act.)' (< an(a)-wréteue)
and in Arg. wewréména ‘decide (nom./acc. n.
pl. ptc. perf. mid./pass.)' the spelling -wr- cor-
responds to the morphological syllabification
a.wré.tewe and we.wrömena. Expected “au.
ré.teu.e and *weu.r2.mé.na would be morphologi-
cally opaque. A morphological boundary pre-
cludes correptio Attica in ek.luö ‘undo’, ek.nikaö
‘win completely’.
4. SYLLABLE WEIGHT
+ Syllable weight (Gordon 2006) plays a funda-
mental role in the prosody of many languages,
with syllables acting light (monomoraic) or heavy
(bimoraic) depending on their internal composi-
tion. In Anc. Gk., open syllables with a short
vowel as their nucleus are light: td.de ‘this (nom./
acc. n.)', &phere ‘bring (3rd sg, imperf. act.)’.
All other syllables are heavy: tek.tön ‘carpenter’,
poiei ‘do (3rd sg. pres. indic. act.)’, t&.kö ‘melt’.
There is no evidence that superheavy syllables,
eg. skép.t6 ‘pretend’ contrasted phonologically
with heavy ones (Alonso Deniz 2010-2011). As
with most languages, onsets play no role in syl-
349
lable weight: the first syllables of skho.é ‘leisure’
and stro.phé ‘twist’ are light. Unexpectedly, word-
final syllables ending in a single consonant (s, r
or 77) are phonologically light as regards + accen-
tuation (+ Rule of Limitation): dnthrépos ‘man’,
änthröpon (acc. sg.), but anthrépou (gen. sg.).
Anc. Gk. poetry was fundamentally based on
regular patterns of light and heavy syllables. Sta-
tistical analysis of heavy syllables in the biceps
position of the hexameter (> Epic Meter) alleg-
edly suggests that CV:C(C) syllables (i.e., syl-
lables with a coda and a diphthong or long vowel
as nucleus) were heavier than CV: ones, and that
both types of syllables were heavier than CVC(C)
ones (Ryan 20). The hypothesis remains highly
controversial (Devine and Stephens 1976).
5. PHONOLOGY AND SYLLABLE STRUCTURE
Six phonological facts are also significant for the
syllable structure of Anc. Gk. (Hermann 1923,
Devine and Stephens 1994):
(1) In Jonic and other dialects w-loss in inher-
ited -rw-, -Aw- and -nw- clusters triggered the
+ compensatory lengthening of a preceding
short vowel: xén.wos > lon. xei.nos ‘stranger’,
kör.wa > lon. kouw.ré ‘girl’. Syllable weight is
preserved by vowel lengthening.
> Osthoff’s Law. A long vowel followed by a
cluster of resonant + consonant was short-
ened prehistorically: *gnehz-nt-os > Proto-
Gk. *gnöntos > Anc. Gk. gnöntos ‘know’
(pte. masc./n. gen. sg. aor. act.). Since this
shortening is explained by a cross-linguistic
tendency to avoid overlong syllables, the
syllabification in Proto-Gk. must have been
*gnön.tos.
(3) Rhythmic lengthening (light-light-light-light
> light-heavy-light-light). When adding the
ending -oteros to form the comparative of
adjectives, the first -o- was lengthened if
the preceding syllable was light: *sophöteros
> sophöteros ‘cleverer (masc.)' vs. kouphöte-
ros ‘lighter (masc.)’. Note that leptöteros
‘smaller (masc.)' confirms that the original
syllabification was “lep.td.te.ros, not *le.ptö,.
fe.ras.
(4) + Wheeler's Law. Polysyllabic oxytone
words originally showing a final dactylic
structure retracted the accent to the penul-
timate: *g”ouk"olös > boukölos ‘cattleman'
(vs. strategös 'general') and *patroktonds
350 SYLLABLES
> patrokténos ‘patricidal’ (masc./fem.),
*kourotraphds ‘one who looks after chil-
dren’ (masc./fem.) > kourotröphos (vs. psuk-
hopompös ‘conductor of souls’), Had the
original syllabification been **pa.tra.kto.nds
and **ko.rwe.tro.phds, the stress would have
remained unchanged.
(5) + Law of Limitation. Stress assignment in
words with recessive accentuation is lim-
ited by the weight of the final syllable. In
possessive compounds like polübotrus
‘(place) abounding in grapes (masc./fem.)’,
poikilönötos ‘with back of various hues
(masc./fem.)' and governing verbal com-
pounds like philöxenos ‘fond of strangers
(masc,/fern,)' stress systematically falls
on the antepenult. The accent cannot be
retracted, however, if the last syllable is
heavy: gen. pl. polupürgön, poikilomérphon,
philoxenön. The same principle applies in
nominatives ending in VCs: poludnthrax
‘rich in coal (masc./fem.)', poikilophörminx
‘accompanied by the various notes of the
lyre (masc./fem,)', philokdlax ‘fond of flatter-
ers (masc./fem.)’ (Steriade 1988),
(6) Anc. Gk. dialects attest to consonant gemi-
nation in heterosyllabic Cj and Cw clusters
(Méndez Dosuna 1994): Att. borräs ‘north-
em wind’ (<*bor.eäs < boréas), Meg. örras
‘boundary’ (= Att. Adros < *(w)or.wos), Thess.
iddian ‘particular (fem. acc. sg.)' (< hidjan
< hi.dian).
6. WRITING AND SYLLABLE STRUCTURE
Writing provides additional evidence for syllable
structure in Anc. Gk. In the > Linear B script,
some complex CC clusters are regularly rendered
with a ‘dummy’ vowel that, with few exceptions,
replicates the quality of the vowel of the follow-
ing syllabic sign: ko-sa-ma-to p.n. /Kosmatér/,
pe-ko-to /pektén/ ‘carded’, e-na-ri-po-to /enalip-
tos/ ‘painted (masc./fem.)' (cf. endleiptos), etc.
According to some (eg. Consani 2003), these
spellings are prima facie evidence for syllabi-
fication as Ko.smd.tor, pe.ktön, end.liptos, but
this openly contradicts other linguistic evidence
discussed above. The orthographic syllabifica-
tion ko-sa-ma-to, pe-ko-to, etc. probably con-
forms to the spelling rule of word-initial clusters
(cf. the Law of Initials in Vennemann 1988):
e.g. si-mi-te-u /Sminthéus/ ‘Smintheus', ko-to-na
/ktoina/ ‘plot’ (see Morpurgo Davies 1987). A
similar rule was applied by ancient grammarians
some centuries later for the purpose of splitting
words at line ends. According to Herodian (2nd
c, CE), since At was permitted word-initially
(e.g. Atéma ‘possesion’), étikton ‘give birth (1st sg.
imperf.)’ should be syllabified as é.tikton (Herod.
Il, 393 Lentz). Conversely, the spelling rules of
the Cypro-Greek syllabary usually fall into line
with the evidence of meterand phonology. Unlike
Linear B, most word-internal CC clusters here
are heterosyllabic, as the ‘dummy’ vowel shows:
a-la-wo /al,wö/ ‘threshing-floor’ (cf. Att. aldé),
a-ra-ku-ro Jar.gürö/ ‘silver’, p.n. a-ri-si-ta-ko-ra-se
[Aris.tagöras/, etc, but Au-pa-ra-ko-ro p.n.
/Ku.pragoräo/. Unexpected ka-ra-si-ti /grasthi/
‘eat (and sg. imp. aor. or pres.)' in a metrical
inscription (CEG 868, 4th c. BCE) is notewor-
thy: despite the spelling, meter shows that the
phonetic syllabification was grds.thi, and not
**ord.sthi.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, William S, 1973. Accent and rhythm. Prosodic features
af Latin and Greek. A study in theory and reconstruction.
Cambridge.
Alonso Deniz, Alcorac. 2010-200. “El supuesto alargamiento
"Teva > meicpe ‘amarre, cuerda’ en griego antiguo y otras
cuestiones relacionadas’, Die Sprache 49 [2012 |:217-253.
Cairns, Charles E. and Eric Raimy. zon. Handbook af the syl-
lable. Leiden — Boston.
Consani, Carlo, 2003, Sillahe e sillabari fra eompetenza_fono-
lagica e pratica scrittoria. Alessandria.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 1976. “The
Homeric hexameter and a basic principle of metrical
theory”, CPA 71:143-163.
——. 1994. The prosody of Greek speech. New York — Oxford.
Gordon, Matthew K. 2006. Syllable weight. Phonetics, phonal-
ogy, typology. New York.
Hermann, Eduard. 1923. Silbenbildung im Griechischen und
in den andern indogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen.
Maddieson, lan. 2005. “Syllable structure”. In: The world
atlas af language structures, ed. hy Martin Haspelmath,
Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, 54-57.
Oxford - New York.
Méndez Dosuna, Julian. 1994. “Contactos silabicus y proce-
sos de geminacion en griego antiguo, A proposito de las
variantes dialectales oppos (at. dpog) y Koppa (at, Koupy)",
Die Sprache 34203-123.-
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1987. “Mycenaean and Greek syl-
labification”. In: Tractata Mycenaea, ed. by Peter H.
Ilievski and Ljiljana Crepajac, gi-103. Skopje.
Ohala, John and Haruko Kawasaki-Fukumori. 1997, “Alter-
natives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmen-
tal sequential constraints”. In: Language and its ecology.
Essays in memory of Einar Haugen, ed. by Stig Eliasson
and Ernst H. Jahr, 343-365. Berlin — New York.
Ryan, Kevin M. 20u. “Gradient syllable weight and weight
universals in quantitative metrics”, Phonology 28:413-454.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. “The syllable’. In: The structure of
phonological representations Il, ed. by Harry van der Hulst
and Norval Smith, 337-383. Dordrecht.
 SYLLABLES
Steriade, Donca. 1988. “Greek accent: a case for preserving
simicture”, Linguistic Inquiry 19:271-314.
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable struc-
ture and the explanation of sound change. Berlin - New
York - Amsterdam.
ALCORAC ALONSO DENIZ
Syncope
Syncope is the loss of a medial, usually unac-
cented vowel, frequently associated with the
effects of a stress accent. Although not com-
mon in Greek while the accent was one of pitch
(+ Accentuation), there are isolated early exam-
ples, including: (i) the aorist stem of érkhomai
‘so, come’, elth- < eluth-, the latter already an
archaism in Homer preserved only in the indic-
ative éluthon and infinitive eluthein; (ii) éstai
‘he will be’ < és(s)etai, again already in Homer;
(iii) in — Attic, ofmai ‘I think’ < ofomai. Being
so marginal, some have denied that these are
proper examples of syncope: oimai, for exam-
ple, has been explained as an allegro form in a
word reduced to little more than a particle (so
Lejeune 1987:223; Sihler 199575). On the other
hand, Szemerényi (1964), who rejects a connec-
tion between syncope and stress and proposes
a sporadic process of the deletion of vowels
whose length falls below a certain threshold
as the result of various environmental factors,
claims to identify several dozen examples of
early syncope, some of which rest on more or
less doubtful etymologies, e.g. knödontes ‘pro-
jecting teeth on the blade of a hunting spear’ if
< kunödantes ‘dog’s teeth’ (Szemerényi 1964:78-
82), accepted by Sihler (1995:75) but rejected
by Beekes (2010:726); or Homeric tipte if < ti
pote (Szemerenyi 1964:218-219) rather than, e.g.
"krid-kre > *krit-kre > “kvikvte (with Beekes
2010:1478).
Boeotian and Thessalian dialect forms seem
particularly prone to syncope-like phenomena.
Names in -Ondäs < -Onidäs are common in Boeo-
tian but are also present marginally in Thes-
saly, Phocis, Megara, Euboea and Cos; the qth c.
BCE general Epaminondas is a famous example,
but the type is already present in Aristophanes.
(If this is syncope, it perhaps originates in the
recessively-accented voc. -Onidd.) The name of
the people of the Thesalian town Larisa appears
in the forms Lasaiois (=Larisaiois) and Lassaioi
(=Larisaiou) in two inscriptions, one written
351
after 214 BCE, the other in the and quarter of
the and c. BCE, but coins from the early sth c.
have Larisaiön, Larisaeön. > Thessalian shows
the same syncope of -ris- in names in Aristo-,
e.g. Astagéras, and has Aploun for the theonym
Apöllön (Pl. Crat. 4050).
In Attic inscriptions of the Hellenistic period
syncope of one of the vowels in the sequence
-eRe- or -oRo- (where R stands for the liquids
r and /) becomes common, e.g, skérudon 'gar-
lic‘ > skördon, and the woman's name Berenike
> Bernike. This may suggest that the accent had
already become one of stress (cf. Teodorsson
1974:294; > Accentuation).
For the similar phenomenon of hyphaeresis,
the loss of a medial vowel in + hiatus without
contraction, cf. Lejeune (1987:253-253).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Robert. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek.
Leiden — Boston.
Lejeune, Michel. 1987. Phonétique historique du mycénien et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin, New York — Oxford.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1964. Syncope in Greek and Indo-Euro-
pean and the nature of Indo-European accent, Naples.
Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The phonemic system of the
Attic dialect 400-340 B.C. Gothenburg,
RUPERT THOMPSON
Synizesis
Synizesis is the loss of syllabicity (desyllabif-
cation) of a vowel followed in hiatus, e.g. Sp.
linea [‘linea] ‘line’, cacao [ka’kag] ‘cocoa’. Like
+ contraction, + elision and + aphaeresis, it is
a strategy to avoid — hiatus. After synizesis, the
reduced + vowel often rises: Lat. habeat > It.
abbia ['abbja] ‘may (s)he have’, Joannes > Sp.
‚Juan |'xwan] ‘John’. Synizesis can be right- or
left-orientated: Lat. ego > *eo > Port. eu [eu], Sp.
yo [jo] T.
The phenomenon is well attested in Ancient
Greek for /i/ as shown by scansion: diaprépon
(Aesch. Pers. 1007) ‘appear prominent (pres. ptc.
nom./acc. neut.)’. It is often used to accom-
modate a name otherwise unfit for the meter
(> Verse): Aiguptious (Hom. Od. 4.83) 'Aegyptian
(acc. pl. masc.)', Complete loss of the + glide
occurs after two + consonants: pötnia > Hom.
pötna ‘queen’, tridkonta ‘30’ > Thess. träkonta.
Synizesis of /y/ is uncommon: duoin ‘two (gen./
452 SYNIZESIS
dat.)' (Soph. OT 640). A preceding light + syllable
exceptionally becomes heavy due to the synizesis
of /j/{: Médeian Jdson gaméei [me;.dej.an.jäz.so:n.
ga.me,ej] ‘Jason marries Medea’ (Paus. 5.18.3).
Synizesis of /i/ in word-juncture is occasion-
ally attested: Pal(ljddi Athanatai [pal.läd.ja.t"a:.
naj.aj] ‘to Pallas Athena’ (Attica, 6th c. BCE).
Although elision and scriptio plena is an alter-
native interpretation in this example, the pro-
nunciation /j/ is perhaps confirmed by cases
where synizesis of /i/ word-finally makes a pre-
ceding light syllable heavy: phrontidi cuschias
heneka [p"ron.tid.jeu.se.bi.a:.she.ne.ka] (Attica,
4th c. BCE) ‘in wisdom because of her piety’.
In various dialects eo and ea become /jo/ and
/ja/ (spelled ia and ia) through synizesis: theds
‘god’ > Cret., Boeot., Cypr. thids, Lac. mono-
syllabic siaf = theai ‘goddesses’ (see Méndez
Dosuna 19934). Diaeresis of the reduced vowel
may occur, as shown by disyllabic Lac. siös and
Arg, thiids [t"ijös] (with an intervocalic glide).
Synizesis without rising occurs in e + long vowel,
as in hemeön (dissyllabic) ‘we (gen. pl.)’, and
exceptionally in e + short vowel where a light syl-
lable is required, as in fedn ‘your (acc. sg. masc.)'
(Praxilla, PMG 748) and theds (Pind. Pyth. 1,56).
The cluster eo becomes /ey/ through synizesis
of fo/: Hom. philégntas > phileüntas ‘love (pres.
ptc. acc. pl. masc.)', Rhod., Coan p.n. Theagénés >
Theugénés. A similar development is attested for
eou (/eo:/): Hom. vikhnéousin > oikhneüsin 'come
(grd pl. pres.)’ (see Passa 2001). The alleged syn-
izesis of /2:/ in thedrds 'envoy' > lonic theurös is
problematic.
Synizesis plays a fundamental role in the fol-
lowing phonological developments:
a. Gemination: pölios ‘town (gen. sg.)' > Thess.
péllius, Att. Boreas ‘northem wind’ > Borräs
(Méndez Dosuna 1994)
b. + Palatalization and aflrication: Lesb. did
‘through’ > za, “aigia > Myc. ag-2a /ajddza/
‘goat's skin’
c. +Compensatory lengthening triggered hy
synizesis (so-called quantitative metathesis):
*näwös ‘temple’ > Hom. néds > Att. neds,
metreömenai ‘measure (pres. pte. nom. pl.
fem.)' > metriömenai (Heracleia) (Méndez
Dosuna 1993)
d. So-called hyphaeresis: Arg. diateléonti >
diateleönti > diatelönti ‘they accomplish’, Ion.
neossös > nenssös > Att. nossds ‘young bird,
animal’, p.n. Leöntikhos > Légntikhos > Lénti-
khos (Cyrene)
e. + Diphthong formation: Hom. pdis /pa.is/ >
pais [pais/ ‘child’, *hesu- > *ehu- > Hom. eü-
fey! > eu- /ey/ ‘good’
Although + accent shifting induced by syniz-
esis is expected, orthographic evidence is scanty
and blurred by manuscript incoherence: epaineö
> Lac. epainiö ‘praise’, aphormdonti ‘depart
(pres. ptc. dat. sg. masc./neut.)' > aphormeonti
> aphormjönti (Tarentum). Accordingly, some
modern scholars accentuate cases like kardias
‘heart (gen. sg.)' > kardjäs (Aesch. Sept. 288, as
edited by Martin L. West).
Ancient Greek grammarians used sunizésis
(or sunekphönesis) ‘co-pronunciation, coales-
cence’ when in poetic texts two vowels written
separately made one heavy syllable. But in cases
like &ar ‘spring’, génea ‘race (acc. pl.) there is
> contraction rather than synizesis of /e/, as
shown by ér for éar and gene for génea.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Méndez Dosuna, Julian. 19932. “El cambio de <e> en <ı> ante
vocal en los dialectus griegos: ;una cuestiön zanjada?.“
In: Dialectologica Graeca. Actas del Il coloquio internacio-
nal de dialectologia griega, ed. by Emilia Crespo, Jose L.
Garcia Ramon and Araceli Striana, 237-259. Madrid.
. 1993b. "Metätesis de cantidad en jönico-ätico v hera-
cleota’, Emerita 61:95-134.
——. 1994. "Contanctos silabicos y procesos de geminacién
en griego antiguo. A propösito de las variantes dialec-
tales oppos (at. Spog) y Koppn (ät. Köpn)”, Die Sprache
34:103-122.
Passa, Enzo. zuoı. “L'antichita della gratia ev per eo, ou
nell epica: a proposito di una recente edizione dell’/liade”.
RFIC 129:385-417.
West, Martin L, 1982. Greek metre. Oxford,
ALCURAC ALONSO DENIZ
Synonymica: From Antiquity to the
Byzantine Period
Greek investigations on synonyms (sunönuma,
sciL onomata, ‘names’), that is “words having
different forms but the same sense” (LSJ s.v.
III; see Aristot. Rh. 140521), are twofold: the one
(see §3) is mainly linked to dialectal glossop-
raphy (> Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antig-
uity to the Byzantine Period) and to onomastica
(+ Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Period), aimed at collecting different words for
the same things among different people; the
 SYNONYMICA: FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE BYZANTINE
other was developed during the Roman empire
in works mostly devoted to pointing out the dif-
ferences among synonyms (§4). The philosophi-
cal background of the latter type can be traced
back to research on language first by the Soph-
ists and later by Plato and Aristotle (§2) (Wendel
1939:511-512).
Systematic investigations on synonyms were
undertaken for the first time by Greek Soph-
ists in the Classical age, especially by Prodicus
of Ceos (5th/4th c. BCE; Mayer 1913; Heitsch
1972:23-29), “the first authority on ‘synonyms”
(Pfeiffer 1968:34; on the history of the terms
‘homonym' and ‘synonym’ and their relationship
in the Classical age, see Heitsch 1972). Prodicus
was particularly concerned with problems of
language and “the correct use of words” (Pfeiffer
1968:40), paying attention to the ‘distinction’
(diairesis) and the explanation of terms having
different forms but referring to the same seman-
tic field (Prodicus VS 77 A 9, 11, 13-19, B 4). Prodi-
cus’ investigation primarily had an educational
purpose and deployed itself as a comparison/
confrontation of two forms (something positive
is usually opposed ta something negative), in
order to distinguish different usages and rela-
tive contexts (Mayer 1913:5-41; Wendel 1939:511;
Pfeiffer 1968:39-41, 78; Heitsch 1972:23). Prodicus’
methodology is developed by Plato and especially
by Speusippus (sth-ath c. BCE; frr. 32a—c Lang =
45-47 Isnardi Parente), and was later improved
by Aristotle (Heitsch 1972:37-72), not only in the
Tupica (e.g. 107b417, 10gb6) and in the Categories
(1a6), where the concept of synonymy is used to
refer to things (prdgmata), but also in the Poetics
(fr. 3 Kassel; Simpl. in Cat. 33.22-36.31) and in the
Rhetoric (14u4b37-1405a2), where he deals with
the use ofsynonyms, especially by poets (Mayer
1913:40-41; Pfeiffer 1968:78; Heitsch 1972:65-72).
In Hellenistic times, glossographs and schol-
ars collected dialectal glosses, usually arrang-
ing them in works with an onomastic structure:
within such an arrangement — mostly organized
according to semantic fields - synonyms, i.e.,
different words for the same things (Realien)
among different peoples, authors and languages,
were also listed and explained (Wendel 1939:5u1-
512). Thanks to Athenaeus, who used Pamphilus’
onomasticon (+ Onomastica: From Antiquity
to the Byzantine Period), some fragments of Hel-
lenistic works on synonyms, very likely charac-
terized by an onomastic-glossographic approach,
are preserved (Wendel 1939:511). Simaristus’
PERIOD 353
Synonyms (before the and/3rd c. CE; Ath. 3.99¢,
9.395f; 399a-b, n.47Be; 481d; 483a; 496c), for
instance, dealt with names of chariot accessories
and cups, sometimes with reference to dialects
(Ath. 11.4834). Hermonax (before the ist c. CE)
probably wrote a collection of synonyms: the
only extant fragment of it - if Dobree's con-
jecture stands - is concerned with cups (Ath.
11.480f: Degani 1991186, 235 [on Hippon. fr. 202];
Degani 1gg5:510 n. 18; Pagani 2005). Later,
Seleucus of Alexandria (ist h. of the ist c. CE)
wrote On the difference between synonyms (Peri
tés en sundniimois diaphords, according to the
biographical entry of Suda ¢ 200 Adler), possibly
to be identified with his collection of Glosses
(Müller 1891:21; Razzetti 2002) in at least two
books (Steph. Byz. ß 168 Billerbeck) and onomas-
tically arranged (Latte 1925173).
The same attitude towards collecting syn-
onyms, also related to dialectological inquiries,
can be identified in scientific researches on
natural history, especially concerning botanical
nomenclature. This topic was developed by Dio-
cles of Carystus (4th c. BCE), whose Rootcutting
(Rizotomikön) probably contained synonymical
lists of plants, It was one ofthe primary sources
for later works on this subject, from Theophras-
tus’ Historia plantarım, where different (some-
times dialectal) denominations of the same
plants are mentioned (see e.g. Theophr. Hist.
pl. 9.11.5, 9.13.1), until Pedanius Dioscorides’ De
materia medica (1st c. CE; Wellmann 1903 with
full account of later reworking and interpola-
tions of synonym lists; Latte 1925:160-161). More-
over, a close relationship between synonyms and
dialectal interest in the early Hellenistic era can
possibly be recovered in the Rootcutting (Ath.
15.681f) of Amerias of Macedonia (3rd c. BCE?:
Hoffmann 1906:5-6, 14). These synonymica, writ-
ten in the Hellenistic or early Roman Imperial
age, were later reworked in larger lexicographi-
cal works, especially in Pamphilus’ onomasticon
as well as in his synunymic lexicon On plants
{Peri botanön) in six books that were alphabeti-
cally arranged (Wendel 1949:344-346).
The close relationship between synonymica
and onomastica ts once more testified ta by Pol-
lux' (2nd c. CE) preface to his work, where he
emphasizes that his onomasticon “shows how
one can exchange all words that are synonyms
and by which names of each thing could be
indicated” (Poll. 1.2, see also 5.103, 6.122, 7.158).
Moreover, the heritage of these typologies can
354 SYNONYMICA: FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE BYZANTINE
be recovered in some Late Antique and Byzan-
tine lexica such as in Hesychius (sth/6th c. CE):
some entries here display a synonymic structure,
that is to say a series of terms which are either
synonyms or related to the same semantic field
(Tosi 1988:87-88; Bossi 1999:224). However, the
usage of the synonymical arrangement is also
attested to for rhetorical instruments, such as
Telephus of Pergamon’s Okutékion (lit. Medicine
for promoting a quick birth; and c. CE), “a ten-
book collection of epithets related to the same
object, for readiness in speech” (Suda t 496 and
w 61 Adler; Degani 1995:521; Pagani 2009).
Prodicus’ theoretical approach constitutes
the basis of lexicographical works on the dif-
ference of names produced from early Imperial
times onwards; Ptolemaeus of Ascalon (ist c. CE)
is said to also have written a book on word dif-
ferences (Suda 7 3038 Adler), which is, however,
by no means related to the Byzantine epitome
transmitted under his name (Nickau 1966:LXVI-
LXVII; Razzetti 2003). Yet one of the most impor-
tant works in this field was that of Herennius
Philo of Byblus (ist/and c. CE), who composed a
lexicon, probably called On similar and different
words, that is known through later reworkings
(Erbse 1960:295-310; Nickau 1966:LXIII-LXXI;
Palmieri 1988:15-48; Nickau zooob:221-223). In
his work, Herennius for the most part collected
and explained synonyms, ie, terms which
somehow differed in spite of being similar in
meaning and/or (written) form; terms having
the same form (homonyms) or meaning occur
as well (Nickau 1966:LXVII-LXVIH; Dickey
2007:95). The general structure of entries is ‘x
and y (and z) differ’ (ti kai ti [kai ti] diapherei),
followed by an account of different meanings
and/or usages, sometimes supported by liter-
ary quotations. Such a synonymic structure also
occurs elsewhere in Late Antique and Byzantine
lexicographical works (Bossi 1999:224-226). The
philosophical roots of Herennius’ work can be
recovered in some entries (Ammonius gll. 150,
203, 246 Nickau) in which he gathers the dis-
tinctions suggested in Plato’s Pretagoras, and
where Prodicus’ theories are introduced (Erbse
1960:298; Nickau 1966:LXXI). Moreover, among
his sources there also is “Hellenistic scholarship
and scholarship of the early Roman period now
lost” (Dickey 2007:95).
Herennius’ lexicon underwent later rework-
ing, and its largest remaining section is pre-
served by Ammonius’ (or Ptolemaeus') and
PERIOD
(H)eren(n)ius' works (Nickau 2000b:221-222),
More generally, it is one of the main sources of
Byzantine synonymica, most of which are still
unedited (see the survey in Nickau 1966:XXVIII-
LXIN; Palmieri 1988:49-75). Moreover, these (or
similar) lexica were constantly reused by other
Byzantine scholars (Nickau 1966:XLVIII-LXIII)
such as, for instance, Eustathius of Thessalonica
(12th c. CE: Erbse 1950:4-5) and the grammarian
Symeon (izth c. CE: Nickau 2000a; 2001), who
also wrote the so-called Etymologicum Symeonis
(Reitzenstein 1897:254-286, esp. 256; + Etymo-
logical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byz-
antine Period).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bossi, Francesco. 1999. “Meccanismi e strutture nella les-
sicografia greca”, Eikasmds 10:221-240.
Degani, Enzo. 19912. Hipponactis testimonia et fragmentu.
Stuttgart — Leipzig,
. 1995. “La lessicografa”. In: Lo spazio letterariv della
Grecia antica, ed. by Giuseppe Cambiano, Luciano Can-
fora and Diego Lanza, 505-527. Rome (= Degani, Enzo
2004. Filotogia e storia. Scritti di Enzo Degani, 790-812.
Hildesheim — Zurich - New York).
Dickey, Eleanor. 2007. Ancient Greek scholarship, A guide to
finding, reading, and understanding scholia, commentar-
ies, lexica and grammatical treatises, from their beginnings
to the Byzantine period. New York,
Erbse, Hartmut. 1950. Untersuchungen zu den attizıstischen
Lexika. Berlin.
—. 1960. Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien.
Munich.
Heitsch, Ernst. 1972, Die Entdeckung der Homonymie, Mainz,
Hoffmann, Otto. 1906. Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr
Volkstum. Göttingen.
Latte, Kurt. iga5. "Glossographika", Philolagus 80136-174
(= Latte, Kurt 1968, Kleine Schriften zu Religion, Recht,
Literatur und Sprache der Griechen und Römer, ed. by
Olof Gigon, Wolfgang Buchwald and Wolfgang Kunkel,
631-666. Munich).
Mayer, Hermann. 1913. Prodikos von Keos und die Anfänge
der Synonymik bei den Griechen. Paderbom.
Müller, Maximilian. ı891. De Sefeuco Homerico. Diss. Göt-
tingen.
Nickau, Klaus. 1966. Ammunä qui dicitur liber de adfinium
vocabulorum differentia, Leipzig.
——. 20004. “Neues zur Überliefering der Synaguge des
Symeon (Paris. gr. 2552, Paris. Suppl gr, 1238, Vatic, gr.
2226)", GFA 314-91.
. 2000b. “Schiffbruch in der Wüste des Sinai. Zu Heren-
nios Philon, Neilos von Ankyra und dem Ammonios-
texikon", Hermes 128:218-226.
——. 2001. “Altes und Neues zur Überlieferung der Synagoge
des Symeon”, GFA 4:221-223,
Pagani, Lara. 2005. “Hermonax”, LGGA s.v, (httpi/[www.lgga
‚unige.it/schedePDF/Hermonax.pdf).
. 2009. "Telephus”, LGGA s.v. (http://www.lgga.unige.it/
schedePDF/200909161240370.Telephus.pdf),
Palmieri, Vincenzo. 1988. Herennius Philo, De diversis verbo-
rum significationibus. Naples.
Pfeiffer, Rudolf. 1968. History of classical scholarship from the
beginnings to the Hellenistic Age. Oxford.
 SYNONYMICA: FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE BYZANTINE
Razzeiti, Francesca. 2002. “Seleucus [3] Homericus”, LGGA
sy, (http://www.lgga.unige.it/schedePDF/201103181:059060
‚Seleucus_3_Homericus.pdf),
——. 2003. Prolemaeus [1], in: LGGA s.». (http://www.lgga.
unige.it/schedePDF/200809101328390.Ptolemaeus_t.pdf )
Reitzenstein, Richard. 1897. Geschichte der griechischen Ety-
nologika, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philologie in Alex-
andria und Byzanz. Leipzig.
Tosi, Renzo, 1988. Studi sulla tradizione indiretta dei classici
greci. Bologna,
Wellmann, Max. 1903. "Dioskurides [12]", RE 5.1:11g1—-1142.
Wendel, Carl. 1939. “Onomastikon”, RE 18.1:307-516.
—. 1949. "Pamphilos [25]", RE 18.3:336-349.
STEFANO VALENTE
Syntactic Change
L INTRODUCTION
Syntactic change is a type of natural language
variation that languages experience through
time. Languages change on all levels (phonetic,
morphologic, semantic, etc.): syntactic change
refers to changes in the grammar of a language.
Syntactic change can be caused or facilitated
by two factors: (1) socio-cultural factors, such
as failure of learning in the course of language
transmission, both when native speakers of a
language learn it in an imperfect way, or in
situations of contact with another speech com-
munity, when second-language speakers fail to
acquire some features of the second language
and, for example, borrow them from their native
language; (2) language-internal factors arising
from the features of regularity and equilibrium
of language, such as > analogy or the tendency
towards regularization, i.e., the simplification or
elimination of exceptions; or to avoid semantic
vagueness or ambiguity; or with changes in other
levels of the language, such as the meaning of
words or the phonological and morphological
structure. These factors may operate separately,
simultaneously or successively, but no general
rules have as yet been discovered that explain
why such changes take place in some languages
but not in others, or why these changes expand
on some occasions but not on others.
Compared to the usual evolution of most
European languages, the grammar of Ancient
Greek is remarkably continuous, a continuity
that is demonstrated even in the Hellenistic
period and still later, in spite of the geographical
expansion of the language and its use as an inter-
national language. The syntactic changes that
PERIOD 355
Ancient Greek underwent can be grouped into
two categories: grammaticalization and changes
pertaining to clause structure.
2. GRAMMATICALIZATION
One type of syntactic change is grammatical-
ization (alternatively termed grammatization,
grammiaticization), a process whereby inde-
pendent linguistic units are transformed into
grammatical or more prammatical ones. The
study of this process shows how an independent
linguistic unit, usually a content word (nouns,
adjectives, verbs, some adverbs), changes in
grammatical function and becomes a grammati-
cal word whose function is to signal grammati-
cal relations between the different elements
within an utterance. The process by which a
word moves out of its syntactic category or its
grammatical function is usually a slow evolu-
tion that happens in several stages, a gradual
continuum (or 'cline’) that always involves syn-
tactic, semantic, morphological or phonological
elements. The result of this process is the change
of some (morpho-)syntactic categories of the
grammar of the language. There are usually cer-
tain mechanisms linked to grammaticalization,
namely desemanticization or semantic bleach-
ing (loss of semantic content): see (1), (3) and (4);
decategorialization or morphological reduction,
where the linguistic unit loses morphological
or syntactic features characteristic of its initial
category: see (1), (3) and (4), phonological reduc-
tion or phonetic erosion, where the linguistic
unit loses phonetic substance (syllables, stress,
etc.): see (4); and obligatorification, where the
linguistic unit becomes obligatory: see (2).
(1) alld ‘but' lost its adjectival status and became
a particle, thus changing its syntactic iden-
tity. alld has a clear etymology as the neuter
plural of dflos ‘other’; originally it was a con-
tent word, a pronoun, with the meaning ‘the
other things’. By an accent shift it changed
from this status into a particle, and the word
appears in this function already in the first
Greek texts.
(2) The use of the particle dn becomes obliga-
tory in certain constructions as we move
from Homer to +> Attic, eg, the poten-
tial optative may be used in Homer with
(Hom. /L 5.311) or without dn or ke(n) (Hom.
Il. 9.515) for counterfactuals for both present
355 SYNTACTIC CHANGE
and past time; in Standard Attic, on
other hand, for such counterfactuals second-
ary tenses are employed in the indicative,
always accompanied by the particle an.
(3) plén changed from preposition to conjunc-
tion. When plén first appears, it is a prepo-
sition (+genitive), meaning ‘except’ (Hom.
Od. 8.207), a construction also found in
various authors from the Archaic period.
However, the following constructions are
also found: (1) from Pythermus (4th c. BCE),
plén is followed by the same case as that on
which the exception is established, and this
is a common construction in the Classical
period (Soph. Phil. 100); (2) from the Clas-
sical period onwards, plen may be followed
by an infinitive (Aesch. Zum. 125); or (3) by
a clause with a finite verb (Xen. Cyr. 4.2.28).
In addition, in this latter usage, plén may
appear in combination with other words,
like Adti or höson (hösa, kathöson). When
introducing a clause, plén shifted from being
a preposition to being a conjunction. As
such, it is not only exceptive, but on some
occasions it can be interpreted as adver-
sative (see the above-mentioned example
from Xen. Cyr. 4.2.28). This adversative use
(with pién alone or combined with Adti or
hdson) is common from the Classical period
onwards and extends to later Greek (eg.
Lk 23.28), while in the Imperial period it can
be combined with alla to express an adver-
sative relation (Hld. 7.26.6).
The Ancient Greek verb dphes (2nd per-
son singular imperative of aphiemi) changes
into the Modern Greek imperatival particle
as [as] ‘let’. The verb aphiémi is used in
Ancient Greek in a variety of constructions
and meanings: it can be accompanied by an
accusative with the meaning ‘to let, leave,
discharge’; by an accusative plus infinitive
with the meaning ‘to allow, to permit’; by a
simple infinitive and meaning ‘to abandon,
to stop’, or by an accusative and a genitive
and meaning ‘to acquit’. Now, since the time
of the Koine, dphes may be followed by the
subjunctive forms of other verbs but with
no subordinative conjunction to mark its
syntactical dependence from the imperative
(Matthew 27.49 hoi de loipoi élegon: äphes
idömen ei érkhetai Elias sösön autön ‘The oth-
ers said: Let us see if Elijah will come to save
him’). In this construction, which would be
the impossible in Classical Greek (where a sub-
ordinate clause or an infinitive complement
would be required), dphes has lost its verbal
meaning and together with (domen expresses
a request for agreement on the part of the
listener. This change was influenced by two
other changes that took place in the same
period on different levels of the language.
On the one hand, some phonetic changes,
namely the loss of vowel length, leading
to the merger of o and ö (both phoneti-
cally [0]), and the + monophthongization of
diphthongs (ei, € and ei were all phonetically
[i]). As a result, the distinction between
the indicative and the subjunctive was lost,
and thus the latter was in some contexts
unmarked. On the other hand, the general
trend of the replacement of synthetic verbal
forms by periphrases led to the replacement
of the subjunctive by a construction consist-
ing of particle + verb. All these syntactic and
morphophonetic changes, together with a
reduction in the phonetic structure of the
word (dphes > as) created a new particle
which is documented since the 7th c, CE
(Amherst Papyrus 2.153, dated in the 6th or
nd c.: As läbösin hoi oneldtai mian artäben
krithes huper hekdstou gaidariou ‘Let the
donkey-drivers receive one artaba of barley
for each donkey’. By that time, the original
meaning of dphes (permission) had evolved
into a suggestion marker.
3. CHANGES IN CLAUSE STRUCTURE
Another type of syntactic change involves the
structure of the entire clause. This change
can involve all the clauses (1), or only some of
them (2).
(1) Shift from free + word order to verb-initial
word order. In Ancient Greek, the syntac-
tic relationship was expressed by the sys-
tem of cases and by agreement. As a result,
in Ancient Greek the relative order of the
important syntactic constituents (predicate,
subject, object) is not regulated by strict
placement rules, unlike the situation in lan-
guages that lack a case system. On the other
hand, some words usually occur in a fixed
position, like prepositive words (such as
conjunctions, negations, articles or relative
pronouns), which occupy the first position
 SYNTACTIC CHANGE
in their syntactic unit (sentences, clauses,
noun phrases), or postpositive words (such
as some indefinite adverbs and pronouns or
some particles) that occupy second position
(+ Wackernagel’s Law). This relative free-
dom in word order was a structural char-
acteristic of Classical Greek, so that placing
words or phrases in a specific spot in the
sentence hardly had a syntactic function,
but served only pragmatic or stylistic ones.
The shift of this pattern has been con-
nected with + clitic pronouns. These, like
other clitic elements, were normally placed
after the first constituent of a clause (Wack-
ernagel’s Law), sometimes being dislocated
from the head verb (the relevant items are
in bold): Hdt. 6.63.2, en dé hoi khrönöi elds-
soni... hé guné hauté tiktei ‘and in a shorter
period of time... that wife bore him a child’.
In order to avoid misunderstanding, these
pronouns were often placed immediately
after the verb, e.g. Dem Or. 54.u, puretoi
de parékolouthoun moi sunekheis ‘And con-
stant fevers hounded me‘.
During the Hellenistic period the tension
between the two aforementioned clitics
placement-trends began to be resolved by
placing the clitic pronouns (which remained
in the second place of the clause) after the
verb. As a result, the verb moved to frst
position (Verb + clitic + Subject + Object),
or near the initial position in cases where
some clausal constituent occupied that
spot, e.g. + focus, backgrounding or use of
a sentential operator (expressing negation,
interrogation, or modality), and was pre-
posed to the clause (Focus/Complemen-
tizer/Operator + clitic + Verb). The trend
to this new word order predominates in the
Hellenistic period over verb-Anal structures
(which were inherited from Indo-European)
and persisted throughout spoken Medieval
Greek, still surviving in some modern dia-
lects (Cypriot). However, with the exception
of imperatives and genunds (which seem to
occupy the initial position), the clitic-Verb
order has now been generalized in Standard
Modern Greek (+ Developments in Medi-
eval and Modern Greek),
Replacement of the infinitive by a subor-
dinate clause (‘to' + verb). The complex-
ity of subordination patterns of Classical
Greek underwent a considerable reduction,
357
whereby the use of infinitival and participial
constructions during the Hellenistic period
was displaced in favor of structures with
finite verbs (indicatives and subjunctives).
The classical use of accusative + infinitive to
complement verbs of ‘thought’ and ‘belief’,
or impersonal modals, or control verbs of
‘waiting’ and ‘expecting’, was replaced by
clauses with kéti + indicative in the first
case, and with Aina or Adpos + subjunctive
in the latter two cases, pravided the subjects
of main and subordinate clauses were differ-
ent. Sometimes new and old constructions
were used side by side, as a stylistic variant,
eg. ı Cor. 14.5, thelö (verb ‘wish, want’) de
päntas humös lalein (inf.) glassais mällon de
hina propheteüete (hina ‘that... + subj. of
verb) ‘I want that all of you speak in tongues
rather than you prophesy’. Otherwise the
infinitives that had no clear subject of their
own were still used throughout antiquity
and into the Byzantine period. However, in
the later Middle Ages they too were elimi-
nated in favor of finite constructions with
hina (later na) in the central Greek speak-
ing areas, persisting only in the eastern and
western peripheries.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bers, V. 1984. Greek poetic syntax in the classical age. New
Haven - London.
Blomqvist, J. “The nature of post-Classical Greek”. In: Cara-
gounis 2010:139-152.
Caragounis, C. C., ed. 2010, Greek. A language in evolution.
Hildesheim - Zürich - New York.
Christidis, A.-F. ed. 2007. A history of Ancient Greek; from the
beginnings to Late Antiquity. New York - Cambridge,
Crespo Güemes, E. 1983. “Sobre el orden de palabras en
griego: de SOV hacia SVO". In: Unidad y pluralidad en el
Mundo Antiguo. Actas del VI CEEC, 287-294. Madrid.
—— “The significance of Attic”. In: Caragounis 2010:119-136.
Dik, H. 1995. Word order in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam.
Heine, 8. “Grammaticalization’. In: Joseph and Janda
2003:575—Hal.
Horrocks, G, 2007. “Syntax; from Classical Greek to the
Koine”. Ln: Christidis 2007:618-631.
Joseph. B. D. and R. D, Janda, eds, 2003. The Handbaok of
historical linguistics. Oxford.
Joseph, B. D. 2007. “Early movement towards Modern Greek".
In: Christidis 2007:693-698.
Kroch, A. 2003. “Syntactic change”. In: The handbook of con-
temporary syntactic theory, ed. by M. Baltin and C. Collins,
699-729. Oxford.
Mithun, M. “Functional perspectives on syntactic change”.
In: Joseph and Janda 2003:552-572.
Nikiforidou, K. "Ac: an example of syntactic change”. In:
Christidis 2007:1443—-1447.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. “The syntax of Classical Greek”. In:
Christidis 2007:590-598.
 358 SYNTACTIC CHANGE
Redondo Moyano, E. 2003. “Estudio de los usos de nAyy y de
su empleo en la novela griega antigua’. Veleia 20:4u9--435.
Traugott, [. C. “Constructions in grammaticalization". In:
Joseph and Janda 2003:624-647.
Wackernagel, J. 1892. “Uber ein Gesetz der indogermanis-
chen Wortstellung”, IF 1:333-436.
ELena REDONDO MoYAnO
Syntax (suntaxis), Ancient Theories of
The Greek word suntaxis has given us the modern
word syntax, but does not express precisely the
same idea. It denotes the rational organizational
processes of an + utterance, in which semantic
aspects, both on the lexical and the grammati-
cal levels, join together in an ordered combi-
nation of linguistic units. This concept(ion) of
language, which reached its zenith with Apol-
lonius Dyscolus in the 2nd c. CE, owes much to
philological, rhetorical, logical and philosophical
traditions, and in particular to Stoic philosophy.
Various obstacles impede a more elaborate
narration and analysis of a history of syntax in
Greek antiquity. The first problem is the nature
of the sources, direct and indirect alike (quo-
tations and possible translations), which are
highly incomplete. For instance, our limited and
all but practical knowledge of Stoic philosophy,
to which language was so crucial, and which
played so essential a role in the development
of grammar and especially of syntax (theory),
is essentially derived from the fragments and
the epitomes transmitted by Diogenes Laertius
since very few complete grammatical treatises
have survived up to our day (+ Ancient Philoso-
phers on Language). The reference collection of
the Grammatici graeci contains absolutely noth-
ing between the dates of the very brief manual
by Dionysius Thrax (2nd-ist c. BCE), and the
much more substantial treatises of Apollonius
Dyscolus (2nd c. CE) - and as is well known,
a significant part of the treatises attributed to
Dionysius Thrax is of dubious authenticity,
while even the preserved treatises of Apollonius
Dyscolus are far from complete. It is therefore
very fortunate indeed that his treatise on syn-
tax (Peri suntäxeös) has been preserved all but
intact (+ Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Ancient Linguistics).
A second problem consists in the state of the
study of syntax in that period. Far from being an
autonomous discipline, defined and identified, it
was an emergent field of knowledge, at least up
to the time of Apollonius; thus, the lack of texts
from the preceding period hampers the work
of historical research. Another difficulty arises
from the very nature of what we call ‘syntax’. It
is not easy to define the criteria for eliciting a
purely syntactic analysis in a period when the
study of syntax itself was in an embryonic status.
Is it sufficient to distinguish classes of words or
cases to produce a study of syntax in a language
where these properties are clearly morphologi-
cally marked (+ Case (ptésis), Ancient Theories
of)? Yet another problem, apparently under-
lined with irony in the nickname given to Apol-
lonius (‘Dyscolus’ is derived from the + adjective
duskolos meaning ‘troublesome’), is the frequent
obscurity of the arguments which Apollonius
above all, but others too, produce on matters of
syntax, a fact which often renders our inferences
and points of interpretation highly uncertain.
Finally, there is the problem which perhaps
encompasses all the others (and which probably
applies to the entire history of linguistic ideas):
the constant overlap of two points of view for
anyone who wishes to read and interpret texts
that discuss syntax in Greek antiquity. The first
of these points of view is that of the author of
the ancient text, who constructs his own dis-
course in reference to those that preceded it,
thus creating an epistemological standpoint, an
epistémé (referring to Foucault's concept) for his
analyses. The second point of view ‘intervening’
in our reading is the idea we ourselves have of
the questions tackled in these texts, which we
are now reading so long after they were written.
There is, thus - to borrow a phrase by Auroux
(1980) - a double "horizon of retrospection” that
further obscures what is already the arduous
process of reading texts on syntax: firstly, there is
the ‘horizon’ of what the ancient authors under-
stood by syntax, and then our own ‘horizon’
as we attempt - with whatever clarity or lack
thereof - to perceive this discipline for ourselves.
First and foremost, süntaxis is a common
word in Ancient Greek, It is a noun derived from
the verb suntässein/-tättein, which was produced
through the addition of a prefix siin to the stem
of the verb tdssein/tdttein (‘to marshal’, ‘to put in
order’). Hence, it refers to the putting-in-order
of a whole. The simple noun täxis, from which
tax- is derived, took on the metonymic sense
of ‘command’, ‘order’ (as in ‘setting in order’,
e.g. typically an army), which, by subsequent
 SYNTAX (SUNTAXIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
metonymy produced the sense of ‘tribute’, a
sense also present in suntaxis, along with that
of ‘pension’. Obviously, it is the sense of ‘putting
in order’ that applies to the use of the word in
linguistics. The sense that has led to syntax in
modem languages refers to the putting-in-order
of words in the phrase, but, even in Apollonius
Dyscolus, we regularly find suntaxis in the sense
of ‘covenant’, ‘work’, as if it were the result of the
putting-in-order (: assembling) of the parts of a
piece of work (+ Word Order). Hence, the term
describes a process of allocating a position to
various elements, in order to combine them into
an organized whole.
The word süntaxis, along with all of the
related terms of its lexical field, was occasionally
used to refer to the construction of a phrase, but
this usage is far less frequent before Apollonius
(see Lambert 20n). The definition of the term
‘word’ (/éxis) is found in Dionysius Thrax, who
mentions the term in this sense, but, as has
been noted, the authenticity of this passage is
precarious. Conversely, the term is more clearly
present(ed) in the texts attributed to the Stoic
philosopher Chrysippus. As we are going to see,
this dissimilarity is no mere coincidence.
It is clear that the Greek grammatical tradi-
tion was not built up within a day and cannot be
separated from the various other linguistic prac-
tices within the Greek civilization: the practice
of writing, culminating in what Sextus Empiri-
cus called grammatistiké, i.e., learning to read
and write; the reading of texts, necessitating
the philological work of textual consolidation
as well as the establishment of tools for the
understanding of often important diachronic or
dialectal variations (+ Ancient Greek Sociolin-
guistics and Dialectology), in other words, all the
hermeneutic refinements of what is technically
termed {iterature (Latin littera = Greek grdmma);
the elaboration of the scientific discourse in
the context of the philosophical tradition; the
techniques of discourse in the sphere of legal or
political oratory as elaborated in the manuals
and treatises on rhetoric (+ Rhetorical Tradition
in Ancient Linguistics). Therefore, it would be
possible, however a paradox, to argue that in the
strict sense of the simple demonstration of an
understanding of the language for its own sake,
there was no such thing as grammar in Greek
antiquity.
Furthermore, it is important to underline that
the Greek grammatical tradition was founded
359
on the basis of a remarkable continuity. Apol-
lonius, who seems to be rather harsh towards
many grammarians, treats Aristarchus (ca. 217-
145 BCE), who wrote four centuries earlier, with
such high respect as if he were his own master.
The same goes for the Stoics: Apollonius speaks
of the grammarian Tryphon (ist c. BCE), a con-
temporary of Augustus and Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus, as ifhe had lived just a generation before.
There were probably schools that contributed to
the preservation of the teachings of the masters
long after their own lifetimes, but at all events,
historians of ideas should bear in mind the con-
tinuity of the Greek tradition: knowledge in the
context of that tradition developed on the basis
of a reappropriation of transmitted knowledge,
even if the traditions were far from monolithic
and regularly enlivened by heated disputes.
Obviously, the above also applies to the his-
tory of süntaxis. It has long been noted that the
names of the parts of speech (+ Word Classes
(méré tou lögou), Ancient Theories of) and the
metalanguage of syntactic construction are
characterized both by remarkable stability and
cumulative enrichment in which the old forms
constitute the foundation of the new in a process
of sedimentation that has continued well into
our own contemporary metalanguage and even
some of our own problem issues. Taking the
terms dnoma and rhéma as examples (> Noun
(önoma), Ancient Theories of; + Verb (rhema),
Ancient Theories of), we may note that they
explicitly appear for the first time in Plato (Soph.
2624). Not only would this pair ofconcepts persist,
with a goodly portion of grammatical metalan-
guage, throughout the whole of the antiquity -
including their respective Latin forms — down
to modern day, but the problem with which
this metalanguage is also associated too would
endure time, with each scholar reinterpreting
this fundamental pairing in his own way. Plato
used it to found a scientific theory of utterance
which would make it possible for him to say
what is true and what is false. Aristotle made it
the basis for a much more sophisticated theory
of assertion and predication. The Stoics, who
distinguished the dnona (‘proper noun’) (> Per-
sonal Names) from the proségoria (‘common
noun’), went on to establish a highly refined
classification of predicates (+ Predicative Con-
stituents). Apollonius returns to the pairing of
dnoma/rhéma and seems to limit it down to
two morphosyntactic categories, but in tact he
260 SYNTAX (SUNTAXIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
accords them a special status, which is probably
a way of assigning them the status of ‘heads’ of
the nominal and verbal syntagmata respectively
(+Noun Phrase; > Verb Phrase), actually not
far from the Platonic ‘utterance’. We may pro-
ceed even further since Apollonius justifies the
precedence of the noun over the verb in a way
that clearly harks back to earlier philosophical
deliberations: action presupposes that someone
acts. Here, we find the double reading of the
act proposed by the Stoics who developed even
further the reflections of Plato and Aristotle.
While in reality the act is inseparable from the
agent, language and thought, their perspective
being abstract and 'incorporeal', they separate
the naming from the action, which eventually
permits assertion and hence the construction
of the entire edifice of logic. The representa-
tional foundation of the relation between + sub-
ject and predicate remains astonishingly stable
beneath these different formulations.
This example also shows that the different
analytical traditions of language, described
above, have not proceeded independently, but
have mutually enriched one another. Several
scholars (Frede 1987; Blank 1982; Luhtala 2000)
have shown how most of the concepts and pro-
cedures used by Apollonius depend on the work
of the Stoic school. It is hardly surprising, then,
that the lexical field of säntaxis is found more
frequently in Chrysippus than in his predeces-
sors. But it would be an error to see Apollonius’
Syntax as a mere application of Stoic catego-
ries. Apollonius does not adopt a philosophical
perspective. As Blank has shown, he proposes
a rationalist theory of stintaxis, opposed to the
strictly empirical ideas of Sextus Empiricus, for
instance, to whom the observation of usage is
all that can be said about language. Like the
Stoics, Apollonius takes the + polysemy of logos
(- Sentence/Utterance (lögos), Ancient Theories
of) seriously in the sense of ‘faculty of speech,
act of speaking, phrase’, as the result of the act
of speaking, but also with the meaning of ‘rea-
san’. Siüntaxis is the principle of rational order
that presides over the elaboration of meaningful
speech. In that sense, we see that it is not merely
syntax, or even syntactic construction. That
is why, in Apollonius’ view, not all utterances
may exhibit their real söntaxis directly: inher-
ent order is sometimes disturbed by usage, or
by ‘poetic license’, On another level, Apollonius’
method is characterized by his use of a range of
arguments which bear upon diverse linguistic
properties concerning form or meaning. He was
the creator of a model of rational reasoning on
language that goes far beyond syntax, and which
confirms that syntax must not be confused with
suntaxis.
The conceptual tools that Apollonius uses
in these arguments are many and varied. The
principal one, the name of which dates back
to Aristotle and the Stoics, but which Apollo-
nius rendered particularly systematic in usage, is
katallelötes (‘congruence’): the term aims to show
how the semantic components (noétd ‘concepts’,
heirs to the Stoics’ lekta, ‘expressibles'), whether
grammatical or lexical, obey logical rules of good
formation, independent of reference. This logic
is also associated with the requirement for logi-
cal saturation regarding the components of the
utterance, to which Apollonius gives the tradi-
tional name of autoteleia, Yet this remarkable
system does also betray an attention to interlo-
cution, pragmatics, memory and the optimum
hierarchy of categories and rules. Hence, there is
also syntax in süntaxis after all.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auroux, Sylvain. 1980. “L'histolre de la linguistique", Langue
Frangaise 48:7-15.
Basset, Louis. “Aristote et la syntaxe". In: Swiggers and
Wouters 2003:43-60,
Blank, David L. 1982. Ancient philosophy and grammar. The
syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, Chico, CA
Dalimier, Catherine. 2001. Apollonius Dyscole: Traite des von-
fonctions. Paris,
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mats et les choses. Paris.
Frede, Michael. 1987. Essays on ancient philosophy, Oxford.
Householder, Frederic W. 1981. The syntax of Apollonius
Dyscolus, Amsterdam.
de Jonge, Casper C. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the
Scholia on Thucydides’ syntax". In: Matthaios et al.
2011:451-478.
Lallot, Jean. 1997. Apullonius Dyscule: De ta construction.
Paris.
——, "Considerations intempestives sur la nature des rap-
ports syntaxiques selon Apollonius Dyscole”. In: Swiggers
and Wouters 2003.153-160,
Lambert, Frédéric. “Apollonios Dyscole: la syntaxe et
l'esprit”. In: Swiggers and Wouters 2003:133--152.
. “Syntax before syntax: uses of the term ovyraéis in
Greek grammarians before Apollonius Dyscolus’, In:
Matthaios et al. 2011:347-359.
Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the origin of syntactical description
in Stoic logic. Münster.
Matthaios, Stephanos, "Tryphon aus Alexandria: Der erste
Syntaxtheoriker vor Apollonios Dyskolos?", In: Swiggers
and Wouters 2003:97-132.
Matthaios, Stephanos, Franco Montanari and Antonios
Rengakos, eds. 20n. Ancient scholarship and grammar.
Archetypes, concepts and cantexts. Trends in Classics -
Supplementary volumes, 8. Berlin - New York.
 SYNTAX (SUNTAXIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
Sluiter, Ineke. 1990, Ancient grammar in context. Amsterdam.
Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, eds. 2003. Syntax in
Antiquity, Paris - Leuven,
Viljamaa, Toivo. “Colon and comma. Dionysius of Hali-
camassus on the sentence structure’. In: Swiggers and
Wouters 2003:163-178.
FREDERIC LAMBERT
Syntax-Phonology Interface
Most linguistic theories divide language into
computational systems, such as the phonologi-
cal, morphological, and syntactic (a practice that
goes back at least to Morris 1938 within the
linguistics literature). The syntactic component
is responsible for the construction of sentences,
the phonological component for how those sen-
tences are pronounced. The syntax-phonology
interface refers to the relationship between the
syntactic structure of an utterance and its pho-
nological encoding. The prosodic encoding of a
sentence is modelled within the prosodic hier-
archy, which includes the + utterance, + into-
national phrase, > phonological phrase, + clitic
group (on some accounts), and + prosodic word.
The division between these two components
raises a number of questions, a small sample
of which | offer here: (i) How are syntactic pro-
cesses affected by prosody (broadly construed
to include stress, rhythm, intonational phrasing,
and word length)? (ii) At what point in the syn-
tax is prosody computed? (iii) To what extent
do prosodic structures reflect morphosyntactic
information? (iv) What kind ofsyntactic informa-
tion plays a role in determining prosodic form?
(v) Haw is morphosyntactic structure encoded?
A standard assumption of generative syntax is
that syntactic operations manipulate linguistic
units devoid of phonological make-up. In the
course of a derivation, the syntactic component
makes no reference to the sounds or prosody of a
word. It is only after the morphosyntactic struc-
ture of a sentence is built that it is then handed
off to the phonological component, where its
phonological properties are “filled in". In short,
syntax feeds phonology (and conversely, pho-
nology just interprets syntax). While syntactic
structure obviously plays a significant role in
the prosodic coding of an utterance, it is worth
bearing in mind that this is only one of many fac-
tars: speaker disposition (surprise, anger, irony),
speech situation, and the pragmatic (or cogni-
tive) status of constituents can all play crucial
361
roles in how a speaker encodes an utterance
prosodically, One consequence of this step-wise
syntax-to-phonology derivation is the principle
of phonology-free syntax (PPFS, Zwicky and Pul-
lum 1986, 1988; Truckenbrodt 2007): syntactic
computation does not access and is not subject
to the phonological properties of lexical items.
Intuitively this idea seems correct, as we would
never expect a syntactic generalization of the
sort “place words beginning with [p] in clause-
initial position.” In the vast majority of cases, the
principle is unquestionably sound, and its pro-
ponents consider it a linguistic universal (Miller
et al. 2007:67-69 and references therein), Never-
theless, significant attempts have been made to
argue that the relationship between syntax and
phonology is neither so neat nor unidirectional
(see for instance Hetzron 1972; Inkelas and Zec
1990). Challenges to the PPFS come especially
from second-position clitics, in as much as their
distribution often requires reference to both
syntactic and prosodic structure: see Boskovic
(2001) for an overview of both the problems
and the solutions that have thus far been pro-
posed; Schütze (1994) offers detailed discussion
of many of the problems involved in the dis-
tribution of second-position clitics in Bosnian/
Serbian/Croatian. According to + Wackernagel's
Law, for instance, second-position clausal clitics
are hosted by the first phonological word within
their domain, as we see for instance in the follow-
ing example, where the second-position modal
+ particle dn occurs after the article + noun,
and not after the article itself, as one might have
expected (from Hdt. 2.26.2):
(1) [ho helios]=an
‘the sun'-PRT.
Together the definite article ho and the noun
hélios constitute a prosodic word, which is here
signalled by square brackets. (It should be noted
that other clitics in Greek, such as the discourse
particle dé can occur between an article-noun
string. Slightly more complicated is the follow-
ing alternation:
(2) ouk=an oid’ ei dunaimén häpanta en mnéméi
pälin lahein
not-PRT I know if I could(opt.) all in mind
again take
‘I don't know if 1 could retain everything in
memory again’ (Pl. Tim. 26b4-5)
362 SYNTAX-PHONOLOGY
The modal particle dn occurs second in the
matrix clause (the equals sign marks the host-
clitic relationship), although it is interpreted
with the verb of the embedded clause dunaimen.
While this might at first glance remind the
reader of negative-raising in English (e.g. / don’t
think he’s going to be here’), dn would normally
be found in the embedded clause where it is
interpreted (e.g., Pl. Resp. 414c7). On the assump-
tion that dn selects a host at the left edge of an
intonational phrase, then one wonders if in this
case, there was no intonational phrase between
the matrix and embedded clauses, as a result of
which the only licit host was then the ouk of the
matrix clause.
The relationship between morphosyntactic
form and prosodic form is complex, and not
one-to-one (cf. the remarks of Bolinger 1972).
While there may be certain general correlations
between syntax and prosody, such as a proto-
typical mapping of a root clause onto an into-
national phrase, this is by no means always the
case (see e.g. Devine and Stephens 1994:414—416,
Selkirk 2005, Nespor and Vogel 2007). Even in a
theory where prosody is not banned from syntac-
tic derivation, it can play a role at a higher-level,
for instance, between two contextually-felicitous
constructions that differ rhythmically, such as:
(3) a. the car's wheel
b. the wheel of the car
As Shih et al. (to appear) argue, while prosody is
not the sole factor in the choice between the two
constructions, it is certainly one of them.
Investigating the syntax-prosody interface in
Ancient Greek presents first and foremost meth-
odological challenges (and indeed there is no
small amount of skepticism in the literature as
to whether we can really know anything: see
e.g. Bornemann and Risch 19747162). The biggest
problem to contend with is how to determine
prosodic structure on the basis of written cur-
pora. In short, it has to be done indirectly. As dis-
cussed in Allen (1975) and Devine and Stephens
(1994), indicators of prosodic structure include
inscriptional punctuation; + movable conso-
nants, including -n and -s; + sandhi-phenomena,
including - elision; resyllabification; + accentu-
ation; the distribution of + clitics and > particles
which is the basis of the Kolon-model of Frän-
kel (1964); see also Goldstein 2010); paren-
thetical constructions (Frankel 1965); + verse
INTERFACE
structure (including > caesurae and -+ bridges);
and musical settings, above all those of the
Delphic Hymns (Pöhlmann and West 2001). This
list is intended as a general collection; some of
these diagnostic tests can only be used to detect
specific prosodic domains.
Turning to a less theory-oriented topic, a long-
standing question of the philological literature
is: To what extent is prosody used to mark infor-
mation structure? Greek is famous for its rich
particle lexicon, among which are various mark-
ers of information structure (e.g., ge, de, de, men,
men, oün, pou, rha, and tar, none of which is
easily glossed). Given this rich stock, one might
wonder whether Greek had less in the way of
prosodic marking of information structure. We
should not, however, think of lexical marking
and prosodic marking as in complementary
distribution. We da have some evidence for
sentence-level prosody; I will name just three
examples here. The first is the retraction of the
accent that we find with egö ‘I’ and emof ‘me
(dat), whose accent occurs on the final syllable.
In the presence of the enclitic particle ge, how-
ever, the accent shifts to the first syllable:
(4) a. ego + égdge ‘I at any rate, as far as I’m
concerned'
b. emof + émoige ‘to/for me at any rate’
One would normally expect the accent to simply
remain acute in the presence of enclitic ge. What
we have in the case of égdge and émoige seems
to be the production of sentence stress that
effectively overrode the expected word-stress
pattern. On the basis of similar evidence from
accentuation, we are able to determine that
interrogatives in Ancient Greek could be formed
with the question particle dra as well as the
typologically-common rising intonation. We
have indirect evidence for the latter feature, as
rising intonation has left its mark on wh-words.
When a word has an acute (H) accent on its final
syllable and is followed by another word, the
accent becomes grave (L), This process never
takes place with wA-words, however:
(5) ti tadta?
‘What's this?’ (Eur, Cyc. 36)
Further evidence for the rising intonation of
interrogatives comes from individual lexical
items, such as alethes. When the adjective is
 SYNTAX-PHONOLOGY
used to mean ‘true’ the accent occurs on the
final syllable; when used as a discourse-marker
to mean 'really?', the accent occurs on the first
syllable, ie. dléthes (LSJ s.v. dAney¢ Wz, and
Ammonius, ed. Nickau 26).
While the prosodic correlates of informa-
tion structure may now by and large be beyond
recovery, there are other questions of the syntax-
prosody interface that can be profitably inves-
tigated. One example is that of Heavy-NP shift
(Hawkins 1983), a tendency to move lengthy noun
phrases to the right edge of the sentence. This
would be an especially interesting investigation
in Ancient Greek, where we have texts of complex
rhetorical structure, at both the NP and clause
levels. The relationship between syntax and pho-
nology raises nosmall number of theoretical ques-
tions: for recent overviews, see Elordieta (2008),
Selkirk (201), and Truckenbrodt (2007).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agbayani, Brian and Chris Galston. 20108. "Second-position
is hrst-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal
conjunction", Indogermanische Forschungen 1511-21.
——. 200b. “Phonological movement in Classical Greek",
Language 86.1133-167.
Allen, W. Sidney, 1973. Accent and rhythm. Prosodic features
of Greek and Latin: a study in theory and reconstruction.
Cambridge.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1gqz. A-morphous morphology.
Cambridge.
——. 1993. "Wackernagel's revenge: clitics, morphology, and
the syntax of second position", Language 69:68-98.
——. 1996. “How to put your clitics in their place", The Lin-
guistic Review 1365-191.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. "Accent Is predictable (if you're a
mind-reader)”, Language 48:633-644.
Bornemann, Eduard and Ernst Risch. 1974. Griechische
Grammatik. Frankfurt am Main
Boskovid, Zeljko. 2000, “Second position clitics: Syntax and/
or phonolagy?”. In: Clitic phenomena in European lan-
guages, ed, by Frits Beukema and Marcel den Dikken,
71-119. Amsterdam.
——- 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface:
cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens, i994. The
prosody of Greek speech. Oxford.
Elordieta, Gorka. 2008, “An overview of theories of the
syntax-phonology interface”, Journal of Basque Linguistics
and Philolagy 42:209-286.
Fränkel, Eduard.1964. “Kolon und Satz, II; Beobachtungen
zur antiken Gliederung des Satzes”, Kleine Beiträge zur
klassischen Philologie, vol.l, 319-354. Rome.
Goldstein, David M. 2010, Wackernagel's Law in fifth-century
Greek. Doctoral Dissertation, Berkeley.
INTERFACE
363
Habinek, Thomas N. 1985. The columetry of Latin prose.
Berkeley.
Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the placement and morphotagy of
elities, Stanford.
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York,
Hetzron, Robert. 1972. “Phonology in syntax", Journal of
Linguistics 3:251-265.
Inkelas, Sharon and Draga Zec. 1ygo. “Prosodically con-
strained syntax”. In: The phonology-syntax connection, ed,
by Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec, 365-378. Chicago.
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: the transformational
cycle. Cambridge, MA.
. 1989. "Null subjects and clitic climbing”. In: The null
subject parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth
Safir, 239-261. Dordrecht.
- 1994. The untisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA.
Miller, Philip H., Geoffrey K, Pullum and Arnold M. Zwicky.
2007. “The principle of phonology-free syntax: four appar-
ent counterexamples in French’, Linguistics 33:67-90.
Morris, Charles W. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs.
(International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, volume 1),
Chicago.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vugel. 2007. Prosadic phonology.
Berlin,
Nickau, Klaus. 1966. Ammtoni qui dicitur Liber de adfinium
vocubulorum differentia. Leipzig,
Pählmann, Egert and Martin L. West (ed.}. 2001. Documents
af Ancient Greek music: the extant meladies and fragments.
Oxiord.
Schütze, Carson T. i994. “Serbo-Croatian second position
clitic placement and the phonology-syntax interface”. In:
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, Papers on phonology
and morphology, ed by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley and
Tony Bures, 373-473. Cambridge, MA.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 20u. "The syntax-phonology interface’.
In: The handbook of phonological theary, ed. by John
A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle and Alan C. L. Yu, 435-484.
Oxford.
——. 2005. "Comments on intonational phrasing in Eng-
lish”. In; Prosodies: with special reference to Iberian, ed. by
S. Frota, M. Vigario, and J. Freitas, 11-58. Berlin - New York.
Shih, Stephanie, Jason Grafmiller, Richard Futrell and Joan
Bresnan (to appear). "Rhythm's role in genitive construc-
tion choice in spoken English”. In: Rhythm in phonetics,
grammar and cognition, ed. by Ralf Vogel and Ruben van
de Vijver. Berlin.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. "The syntax-phonology inter-
face”. In: The Cambridye handbook of phanatagy. ed. by
Paul de Lacy, 435-456. Cambridge.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. “Aspects of the syntax of clitic place-
ment in Western Ramance", Linguistic Inquiry 26:79-123.
Zwicky, Arnold and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1986. “The prin-
ciple of phonalogy-free syntax: introductory remarks”,
Ohio State University working papers in linguistics,
vol. 32:65~91,
. 1988. “The syntax-phonology interface”. In: Lingeis-
ties. the Cambridge survey, ed. Frederick J, Newmeyer,
255-280. Cambridge.
Davi GOLDSTEIN
Taboo Words
> Semantic Change
—+ Euphemism and Dysphemism
+ Aischrology
Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy
The long-standing tradition of the teaching of
Ancient Greek (AG) in Italy is rooted in at least
the Roman world. Suetonius (Gram. 1.2) claims
that Livius Andronicus, the initiator of Latin
literature, and Ennius were recorded to have
taught in both languages [i.e., Greek and Latin]
in Rome and abroad. Further, Ennius used to say
that he had three hearts because he could speak
Greek, Oscan, and Latin (Gell. NA 17.17).
These and a variety of other testimonies ( Joyal
et al. 2009) indicate that the Roman elite (Mor-
gan 1998:162-163) was educated in both AG and
Latin. In the ist c. CE Quintilian (Inst. 1.1.12) even
recommended starting to learn AG before Latin:
AG was the language of culture, and its knowl-
edge was so important that it had to be mas-
tered as Latin was. Long is the list of the famous
ancient Romans whose ability in speaking both
languages is mentioned in literature, and a great
number of Latin authors wrote works in AG
(Rochette 1997:61-63). Macrobius' De verborum
Graeci et Latini differentiis vel societatibus also
provides the most robust extant evidence in Late
Antiquity for a scholarly interest in Greek-Latin
comparative linguistics (Ciccolella 2008).
In the 4th c. CE, however, the learning of AG
in the West appeared to languish: the Western/
Latin and Eastern/Greek parts of the Roman
Empire increasingly deviated from each other,
and AG was more and more perceived as a
distant language (see, for example, Aug. Conf.
1.14.23). In the Middle Ages the divorce between
AG and the Western culture was almost finalized
(Hankins 20012249): there were few teachers
available and grammars devised for Latin speak-
ers did not exist (Berschin zoo), There were
some bilingual glossaries and manuals, but these
tools could allow the learning not of the lan-
guage but only of some words and quotations.
AG literature was known through Latin transla-
tions and reworkings (Ciccolella 2008:84-88).
While this picture in general held true also for
Italy, it is to be noted that in Sicily and Southern
Italy forms of Greek may uninterruptedly, since
at least the Great Greek Colonization, have been
spoken, some of which are still alive today in
some parts of Apulia and Calabria (cf. H. &
R. Kahane 1973). An important Greek literary
production had been attested in Italy since the
7th c. CE onward: some of the most represen-
tative authors were Constantine of Sicily and
Theodosius the monk in the oth c., and George
of Callipolis, Joannes Grasso from Otranto, and
Nicholas of Otranto in the ıgth c. CE (Rotolo
2007; for a more detailed overview see Gigante
1982).
In the 14th c. CE Barlaam of Calabria taught
some rudimentary AG to Petrarch, and one of
his pupils, Leontius Pilato, was convinced by
Boccaccio to hold the first chair of AG in Flor-
ence in 1360. Of great importance for the Renais-
sance revival of the study of AG in Italy was the
work of the Byzantine Emmanuel Chrysoloras:
he taught AG in Florence between 13997 and
1399/1400 and wrote an elementary AG grammar
 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK
(perhaps for Latin/Italian speakers), which, in
both the original form and that of compendia/
reworkings, became one of the main references
for the learning of AG in the 15th c. (Rollo 2012;
Ciccolella 2008:97-102).
Beyond Chrysoloras’s grammar, a consider-
able number of other AG grammars, such as
Theodore Gaza’s and Constantine Lascaris's, cir-
culated in Italy during the Renaissance, which
evidence the reborn interest for the learning of
AG. The language began to be taught to selected
students, mostly belonging to the wealthy elite
of the time, in schools, such as those of Gua-
rino da Verona in Ferrara and Vittorino da
Feltre in Mantua (Wilson 2000:45-63). Following
Quintilianus, the son of Guarino, Giovanni Bat-
tista Guarini, theorized in his treatise De ordine
docendi et studendi (1459) that the knowledge of
AG was necessary to understand Latin scholar-
ship. One of his pupils, Aldus Manutius, was
among the most active promoters of the study
of AG, publishing a great variety of AG texts and
schoolbooks.
During the Renaissance, a great deal of man-
uscripts were brought into Italy from Greece.
Giovanni Aurispa was able to gather 79 volumes
of AG texts, which seem to have been the best
collection of this kind in the first quarter of the
15th c. (Wilson 2000:34). The work of translation
of AG texts into Latin was intense, being both
an exercise to improve one’s knowledge of AG
and a way to make AG literature accessible to
a wider public. Among the most noteworthy
translators were Leonardo Bruni and Lorenzo
Valla. The former is known for his translation
of works of Aeschines, Demosthenes, Aristotle,
Plato, and Basil of Cesarea’s essay on the value
of AG literature, which is, by virtue of the many
copies produced, likely to have at the time been
used as a justification/exhortation to the study
of pagan Greek literature. The latter translated,
among other things, Demosthenes’ De corona,
Herodotus, and Thucydides, and was an acute
philologist, as is evidenced by his studies on the
text of the New Testament and The Donation of
Constantine, the document justifying the papa-
cy’s temporal power, which Valla, on the basis of
textual criticism, argued to be false.
In the second half of the 15th c. the teaching
of AG can be regarded to have acquired a firm
place in the Italian culture. Courses were offered
in Florence, Padua, Bologna, Ferrara, Naples,
and Messina. Furthermore, three libraries had
IN ITALY 365
by then gathered hundreds of volumes of AG
texts: the library of Cardinal Bessarione, who was
in the 15th c. among the most active promoters
of the study of AG and the patron of many schol-
ars, such as Niccolo Perotti, Theodore Gaza, and
Andronicus Callistus (Wilson 2000:76-88); the
Vatican Library; and the library of Lorenzo de’
Medici (Hankins 2001:1257). Poliziano is usually
credited as the first Italian scholar whose knowl-
edge of AG could compete with that of the Byz-
antines, who in general dominated the teaching
of AG in the first half of the 15th c.
The reborn enthusiasm for AG studies began
to decline in the second half of the 16th c. Symp-
tomatic of that is Carlo Sigonio’s defense of studia
humanitatis (De laudibus studiorum humanitatis,
1559) and Bartolomeo Ricci’s criticism (ca 21550)
that the study of AG was scarcely useful (Curione
1941:28-37). During the 17th c. the interest for AG
diminished considerably: some chairs, such as
those of Turin and Naples, were suppressed,
while others, such as that of Padua, were asso-
ciated with the chairs of eloquence (Curione
1941:55-58). Nevertheless, in 1671 Cardinal Gre-
gorio Barbarigo introduced the teaching of AG
in the Padua seminary, which was an important
center for the promotion of AG studies up tu and
beyond the middle of the 18th c.
From the end of the 16th c. the teaching of
AG, as the Ratio et Institutio Studiorum Societatis
Jesus shows, became part of the curriculum stu-
diorum in the schools of Jesuits, who considered
it to be necessary to understand Church fathers
and dispute with Protestants. It did not however
raise much enthusiasm among students, since a
variety of documents attest that the leaders of
the order had often to recall them to the study
of AG (Curione 1941:44-52). The Jesuits were
removed from teaching in the second halfof the
18th c., as Italian states began to take control of
their educational systems.
In the same half-century there was a revival
of AG studies in many Italian cities, especially in
Venice, Florence, and Naples (Curione 1941:130).
Ancient Greek book trade intensified and many
editions and translations were published (for a
list see Curione 1941:137-155). A great number of
new AG grammars appeared (Curione 1941135;
see also Karantzola 2007).
Inthe igth and aoth c, the history of the study of
AG is tied to that of Altertumswissenschaft (‘sci-
ence of antiquity’). In Italy the focus of the new-
born science was mainly on textual criticism and
366 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK IN ITALY
the history of literature. Among the most prom-
inent scholars were Enea Piccolomini (1844-
1901), Giuseppe Fraccaroli (1849-1918), and Giro-
lamo Vitelli (1849-1935), the teaching of whom
much influenced the subsequent generations
of Italian classical philologists (for a detailed
account see Degani 1989 and 1988; a more gen-
eral account up to Italian unification can be
found in Mancini 1939; for an overview of the
period 1860-1920 see Rossi 1983). From the zoth c.
onward the study of the language has been
mainly undertaken In linguistics departments.
After the Italian Kingdom was created in 1861,
the Casati Law was extended to regulate the edu-
cational system of the newborn country. Second-
ary education was divided inte two branches:
the classical one (ginnasio and ficeo) and the
technical one. The former, which was devised
to educate the ruling class, was heavily based on
the study of literary disciplines, among which
Latin and AG held a privileged status (Bruni
2005:25-47). The elite character of the study of
Latin and AG was maintained in the reform of
Gentile (1923), who conceived of the liceo clas-
sico as the school par excellence. However, as
other kinds of secondary school (especially the
liceo scientifico) were introduced, the ficeo clas-
sico gradually lost ground as the preferred edu-
cational cycle of studies preparing for university
entry. Notwithstanding, it remains the only kind
of Italian secondary school where AG is taught.
At the university level, AG can currently be
studied in departments of classical philology
and linguistics; while the focus of the former
is on textual criticism and literature, the latter
concentrates on the study of the language and its
development over time (+ History of Teaching
of Ancient Greek),
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berschin, Walter. 2001. "Il greco in Occidente: Cunoscenza e
ignoranza (secoli [V-XIV)". In: Settis 2001:1107—-1115.
Bruni, Elsa M, 2005. Greco e fatino: Le lingue classiche nella
scuola italiana (1860-2005). Rome,
Christidis, A.-F,, ed. 2007. A history of Ancient Greek: From the
beginnings ta Late Antiquity. Cambridge - New York,
Ciccolella, Federica. 2008. Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in
the Renaissance. Leiden - Boston.
Curione, Alessandro. 1941. Sullo studio del greco in Italia nei
secoli XVI e XVII. Rome.
Degani, Enzo. 1988. “Gli studi di greco”, In: Giorgio Pasquali
e la filotagia classica del Novecento: Atti del convegno
Firenze-Pisa, 2-3 Dicembre 1985, ed. by Fritz Bommann,
203-266. Florence.
. 1989. *La filologia greca nel secolo XX (Italia)". In: La
filologta greca e latina nel secolo XX: Atti del congresso inter-
nazionale, Roma 17-21 Setternhre i9&4, Hf, 1065-1140. Pisa.
Gigante, Marcello. 1982. "La civiltä letteraria". In: / Bizantini
in Italia, ed. by Guglielmo Cavallo et al., 615-651. Milan.
Hankins, James. 2001. “Lo studio del greco nell'Occidente
latino”, In: Settis 200112551262.
Joyal, Mark, lain McDougall and John C. Yardley. 2009.
Greek and Roman education: A sourcebook, London ~ New
York.
Kahane, Henry and Renée Kahane. 1973. “Greek in Southern
Italy, III: Byzantine notes”, ByzZ 661-37.
Karantzola, E. 2007. “From Humanism to Enlightenment:
The teaching of Ancient Greek and its grammar”. In:
Christidis z0071241-1249.
Mancini, Augusto. 1939. “Spirito e caratteri dello studio del
greco in Italia”. In: /talia e Grecia: Saggi su due civilta e i
loro rapporti attraverso i secoll, 409-424. Florence.
Morgan, Teresa. 1998. Literate education in the Hellenistic
and Roman worlds. Cambridge - New York.
Rochette, Bruno. 1997. Le latin dans le monde grec: Recher-
ches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans
les provinces hellénophones de !’Empire romain. Bruxelles.
Rollo, Antonio. 2012. Gli Erotemata tra Crisolora e Guarino.
Messina.
Rossi, Luigi E. 1988. “Grammatica preco-latina ¢ metrica in
Italia fra il 1860 e il 1920". In: Philologie und Hermeneutik
im ıq. Jahrhundert Il, ed. by Mayotte Bollack and Heinz
Wismann, 275-306. Göttingen.
Rotolo, V. 2007, "The fortunes uf Ancient Greek in the
Middle Ages”. In: Christidis 20071225-1236.
Settis, Salvatore, ed. 2001, / Greci: Storia, cultura, arte, societa.
Turin,
Wilson, Nigel G. zo00. Da Bisanzio ail'Ttalia; Gli studi greci
nell’Umanesimo italiano. Alessandria,
GIUSEPPE GIOVANNI
ANTONIO CELANG
Teaching of Ancient Greek,
Teaching Methods
1. INTRODUCTION
The teaching of Greek is closely associated with
the aims and objectives it is called to fulfill in the
educational system in each country. The long
history of the teaching of Greek reveals that the
subject has been approached as a high quality
educational good on the grounds that it nur-
tured students’ linguistic and mental develop-
ment. For over two centuries, the main emphasis
was placed primarily on form, i.e., grammar and
syntax, leaving little space for interpretation
and meaning. Alternative teaching approaches,
however, came to challenge these teaching ste-
reotypes. Depending on their focus, they can
be distinguished as language-centered and text-
centered. This article investigates linguistic
approaches, which put either the sentence or the
text at the center of their analysis, moves on ta
theories of interpretation and translation, and,
 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING
based on current pedagogical trends, explores
teaching methods that can revive apprentice-
ship in the Greek world, such as the project
method and the application of reader response
theories in the teaching of literature. Finally, it
provides a critical overview of the role of ICT in
the teaching of Ancient Greek today.
2. TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK
The teaching of Ancient Greek in school relates
to the aims of the subject and the general ori-
entation of education in each country. A study
of the history of the subject worldwide reveals
that in its long history, particularly after the
Enlightenment, Ancient Greek has served two
important aims, the teaching of Greek language
and the teaching of Greek literature as separate
entities.
2.a. Teaching the Ancient Greek language
Initially, Ancient Greek as a language subject
served the aim of providing the contact with
the classical language which, in the context of
Atticism (Kazazis 2001), was considered of high
educational value since it nurtured students’ lin-
guistic and mental development. This attitude
imposed a focus on form, which gradually led
to grammar formalism and a kind of ritualism.
The adopted teaching method was language-
centered, focusing on grammar and translation,
and dogmatically promoting Ancient Greek lan-
guage in education as the absolute, timeless
model of linguistic education.
The resulting teaching practice, which became
the teaching tradition for the last two centuries,
involved:
~ Focus on grammar: formation, exceptions to
rules, irregular verbs, etc.
- Syntax: learning syntactic rules and conduct-
ing syntactic analysis of the text.
- Translation: as faithful as possible to the origi-
nal text, with single-word explanations and
the practice of providing lists of synonyms for
each vocabulary item (Varmazis 1999:27).
For a long time, the Ancient Greek discourse
was approached with rote learning and sterile
reproduction, emphasizing not the language and
the texts but rather the metalanguage (Chatzi-
mavroudi 2007:64).
METHODS 367
2.b. Teaching Ancient Greek Literature
As a classical and humanistic subject, Ancient
Greek was associated with the idea ofthe revival
of classical humanities by creating a classical
context that disparaged the present and ideal-
ized the ancient world, which was selectively
presented, ignoring the variety of Ancient Greek
literature, with its conflicting or complementary
tendencies.
The model of civilization promoted by Ancient
Greek texts and resplendent with human values
legitimized the subject's high status and impused
a specific interpretive strategy. The approach of
an ideal and flawless world allows neither devia-
tions nor critical approaches, requiring solely
cognitive objectives and a specific body of knowl-
edge that cannot be challenged. The teaching of
Ancient Greek literature was adapted to the
purpose of moralization. It was believed that
Ancient Greek classical texts expressed specific
moral and aesthetic models of perfection, pro-
viding a moral and aesthetic rule for the students
of any age. The dominant views dictated that
the unique ‘high’ meaning of classical texts is
inherent in them and can be approached by the
students regardless of the time they live in. In
this context, the students are merely the receiv-
ers of meaning, whereas the beneficial influence
of classical texts makes them a core subject
far education. The subject was teacher-centered
because of its emphasis on cultural transmis-
sion, which views literature as a cultural para-
digm and civilization as a timeless educational
ideal and a homogeneous historical expression
of a community. The teachers’ knowledge and
qualifications allowed them to make the appro-
priate associations, reveal new data, and master
the truth which should then be passed on to the
students. The students were not asked to engage
in a dialogue with the ancient world but to adopt
the teachers’ interpretations and specific views
on this world.
3. ALTERNATIVE TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
In their effort to disengage from the formalism
described above, scholars turned to Applied Lin-
guistics and Language Didactics for alternative
approaches in the teaching of Ancient Greek.
These approaches distanced themselves from
promoting a model language and from focusing
on single words and grammar or syntax types.
They all share the view that language is not the
368 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING METHODS
sum total of words, grammar forms and syntactic
relationships but rather a complex whole, a dis-
course that produces meaning through various
relationships and strategies. These relationships
and strategies cannot be decoded in isolation,
independent from their context, but only in the
complex construction of language as a whole.
In the context of this different stance to
Ancient Greek, new teaching approaches devel-
oped that challenged the teaching stereotypes.
Based on their focus, these approaches can be
categorized into language-centered and text-
centered approaches.
3.a. The Structural-Functional Approach: From
Word to Sentence
Under the influence of modern linguistics, the
followers of the structural-functional approach
claim that the word receives its meaning in
its linguistic environment, promoting thus the
phrase as the basic unit of analysis within its
semantic context. Now there is an effort to dis-
engage from the traditional descriptive grammar
and the passive/static teaching approach and
focus on the functional relationships between
words and sentences in natural discourse condi-
tions, making the student an active participant
in the educational process.
The student acquires the structural-functional
system of Ancient Greek by means of linguisti-
cally elaborate lexical syntagmata and whole
phrases; grammatical and syntactic rules or iso-
lated vocabulary are not to be memorized. The
variety of transformative exercises, frequent test-
ing, multiple choice exercises and the elabora-
tion of autonomous sentences guide the student
in the sentence construction, which, in turn,
leads in the investigation of language in natural
discourse conditions. This process involves the
constant help of reference books (grammars and
handbooks on syntax), so that students gradually
and effortlessly acquire cumulatively the neces-
sary knowledge for understanding the Ancient
Greek texts (+ Structural Linguistics and Greek;
+ Functional Grammar and Greek).
3.b. The Text-centered Approach: From Sentence
ta Text
3.b.i. The Thematic-Experiential Approach
As the sentence is investigated in the context of
a text, it gradually becomes obvious that it can-
not be approached independently. The focus
now shifts from the sentence to the text, in a dyna-
mic new approach: the textual-communicative
approach. According to this holistic approach,
which is founded on modern linguistic theories,
no sentence, isolated or in text, can be inter-
preted unless it is linked to its interlinguistic
environment, that is the whole text.
The aim is to approach the text thematically,
understand its thematic centers, and compre-
hend its content experientially, without having
to elaborate or translate its structure and words.
The text is an autonomous meaningful unit, and
the right questions are used to help students to
locate the main structures (who acts and what
is s/he doing), take account of the context and
the linguistic information, and perceive the total
meaning of the text. In the context of orga-
nized discourse, the students then study specific
elements, their dynamic relationships, and the
meaning that arises from them.
In this teaching framework, teaching text-
books promote the holistic approach to language,
selecting simple, autonomous, comprehensible
excerpts from Ancient Greek texts accompanied
by the necessary vocabulary explanations, or
even modifying or creating texts on issues that
are interesting and attractive to students (see, for
instance, the textbooks series by the Joint Asso-
ciation of Classical Teachers’ Greek Course 1978;
Balme and Lawall 1995; Bissinger et al. 2002).
This approach focuses on the Ancient Greek
language. Although it requires students to
understand the whole text, the next stage is to
acquire the grammar and the syntactic phenom-
ena, even if they are now defined as the text's
structural-functional system or morphosyntactic
structures.
3.b,ii. The Textual-Linguistic Approach
The development of Sociolinguistics provided
a clear theoretical framework, guiding teaching
towards a holistic view of the text as something
more than the sum of its phrases, and stressing
the linguistic mechanisms and rhetorical strate-
gies that construct multiple phrase structures,
which provide the text with cohesion. The text
is viewed as the main unit of discourse analysis,
consisting of specific smaller units and organized
in a broader textual framework. This approach
investigates all mechanisms that turn a group
of sentences into a text, considering all relevant
parameters in order to understand the text.
The textual analysis includes:
 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING
- The textual units of the total text (temporal
markers, gerunds, infinitives, full sentences,
subject of the action, etc.).
- The intertextual relationships of these units
in the organization of the text (time sequence,
causal relationships, the development of
the parts of the text, conjunctions, textual
cohesion or lack thereof, meaning cohesion
throughout the text, hierarchical features of
the discourse).
— The textual context, that is, the institutional
context and the communication conditions
in which the text is produced, its intention, its
function and its message, as well as the way
the author handles this context.
The main aim of this text-centered approach
is to investigate the mechanisms according to
which the text is organized in order to uncover
its meaning. In this way, we can then understand
the function of the parts and see how they con-
strict the text as a meaningful whole.
3.c. From Teaching Language to Interpreting Text
The ultimate goal of the study of the Ancient
Greek texts is their interpretation. In this sense,
the acquaintance with the language and the
familiarization with the civilization are not two
independent processes; language and civiliza-
tion are viewed as interconnected. In this way,
language teaching gains an educational aspect
that transcends the mere mastering of linguistic
skills. In a contemporary approach to Ancient
Greek texts, language as carrier of civilization
can only provide the means to understand and
interpret these texts.
Two ways of approaching original texts are
proposed. The first attempts to translate the
original text in modern languages, a phase that
may crucially link the linguistic to the interpre-
tive approach; the second way guides us towards
interpreting the text by comprehending its con-
tent as a whole.
3.c.i. Translating Original Texts
The grammar-translation approach, which
involved the word for word translation of
the ancient text in a modern language, sug-
gests a synthetic method for simple texts and
an analytic method for more challenging texts.
In the former, the ancient lexicon is replaced
with words from the modem language without
changing the word order or the text structure.
METHODS 369
In the latter case, the rational sequence of the
text is studied so that the students can generally
understand its meaning, overcome any difficul-
ties and translate it.
Modern methods, on the other hand, move
towards a more holistic approach to language,
based on the autonomy of genres and the active
and creative participation of students in the
translation process.
These methods include:
— Replacing written translation with oral or
alternative translations in class (Maronitis
2001:3-7), which is just a temporary inter-
vention in the ancient discourse. Students
attempt multiple alternative translations of
the text under study, taking account of dif-
ferent parameters in order to reveal the text's
sequence and cohesion.
— Viewing translation as just one alternative
approach among many, including para-
phrasing, free interpretation of the meaning,
answering questions on the main points of
the text, revealing the text's meaning and
seeking the elements that construct this
meaning, studying the logic behind the text's
structure, etc.
~ The simultaneous approach of both trans-
lated and original text (see Voskos and Papa-
konstantinou 1992), asking students to study
the degree to which the two languages are
interrelated, how the one language is used
in the effort to interpret the other language,
or the potential provided by the linguistic
processing for communication between two
civilizations.
- Utilizing other alternative or complementary
translations of the text under study, so that
students can compare and relate the transla-
tions and the interpretations, recognize the
different solutions opted for and identify
the different interpretations proposed by the
choices of scholarly translators.
3.cJii. Towards an Expanded Interpretive
Approach
In the 1980s it became necessary to redefine
the interpretation of Ancient Greek texts in
education, as dictated also by the development
of hermeneutics since the beginning of the
zoth century. From the Romantic hermeneutics
of Schleiermacher and Dilthey, the text-centered
theories focusing on the internal approach of the
470 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING
text (formalistic, structural, neocritical, semi-
otic), and contemporary reading theories that
view readers as important agents of meaning,
hermeneutics provides many alternative prac-
tices that can be utilized in the framework of an
expanded interpretation of Ancient Greek texts
not only in scholarly activity but also in the edu-
cational practice.
However, contemporary attitudes on the
educational process shift from revealing the
‘authentic meaning’ to constructing accepted
interpretations. The need for teacher and stu-
dent emancipation requires a research
reflective climate that promotes experimenta-
tion. In this framework, teacher and students
try out and utilize action strategies, discover
the scope and perspective of the texts, as well as
their own potential in interpreting them. They
are not limited to established views on the goal
and process of the interpretive act, but rather
ure critically disposed towards the texts, the
ways of approaching them. and the interpreta-
tions to be reached.
This shift from explaining to understanding
cannot take place in a vacuum; it is not inde-
pendent of those who seek it, but is gradually
constructed with the participation of everyone
involved in decoding the text, without
defined interpretive ideas. This understanding is
historically and individually defined, since both
author and reader are influenced by their time
and their attitudes towards their time and their
tradition. In this way, we stop dealing exclu-
sively with the objective data of the text, which
constitutes but one of the available interpretive
tools, and move on to the involvement of the
reader in the text.
A contemporary interpretive approach
Ancient Greek texts would allow readers
understand these texts in a personal way, attrib-
uting elements from their own world and from
the way they have learned to view the texts and
the world these texts represent. The final objec-
tive of the process followed when approaching
Ancient Greek texts should be for students to
master the skills that allow them to synthesize
a new meaning, based on both the text and the
students’ personal experience. Students must
feel free to stand against the text and contribute
to its interpretation on the basis of their own
experience and thinking, which relate to their
cultural practices and reading experience.
METHODS
4. APPRENTICESHIP IN ANTIQUITY:
TEACHING STRATEGIES
4.a. The Project Method
The projects based on research, active and par-
ticipatory learning help develop independent
thinking, self-confidence, and social responsibil-
ity. This method involves group or individual
learning activities, presenting students with
problems to be solved through active and col-
lective participation in research (see Katz 1994;
Frey 1998; Clark 2006) over a period of days or
and weeks. Topics for research may be suggested by
the teacher, but the actual projects are planned
and executed as far as possible by the students
themselves, individually or in groups.
Projects may involve research on an issue
relating to Ancient Greek language (e.g. elements
that survive in modern European languages) or
literature and the world it promotes. Greek lit-
erature has established a long-lasting dialogue
with other forms of literature. It has also influ-
enced various other forms of art, and there is
now a significant field of research dedicated to
the reception of Greek literature in art, music,
cinema, theater and intellectual history, focus-
ing on the interrelationship between the Greek
pre- material and the ways it has been transmitted,
translated, interpreted, adapted, rewritten, rep-
resented (Hardwick and Stray 2008). This area of
research provides ample opportunities for stu-
dents to explore the richness of the Greek world
through project work. (On this see the articles
in the thematic area + History of Translation of
Ancient Greek to various languages.)
Students can choose the projects from among
a variety of themes suggested by the teacher
to or arising from their own studies and interests.
to Students then organize a research process in
order to systematically approach the issue of
interest and study its parameters to gain insights
in it. The research will lead to a wide range
of possibilities: a classroom paper, a school
paper article, an essay or a visual composition, a
theatrical play or even a festival on various
themes relating to the Ancient Greek language
and culture, such as athletic competitions,
poetic competitions and drama, education, poli-
tics, diet, etc.
The project method can be divided into five
main stages:
 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING
~ Selecting the theme: The teacher and the stu-
dents explore different themes that could be
the basis of a project. They thereby identify
issues and questions that require further work.
After discussion, they choose the theme/s to
be investigated.
— Setting out the aims and objectives: The stu-
dents with the help of the teacher narrow
down specific project aims and objectives.
These inform the planning and execution of
the task.
- Planning the process: Students set ques-
tions and outline the framework on which
their task will be based. Different groups are
formed according to the skills and interests of
the students involved and roles are assigned
to individuals or groups.
- Performing the task: Students use the library,
local museum or search internet sources in
their research on the specific questions, then
they bring together their information and
find an effective way to present their project
to the class.
- Evaluating the process and the final results:
The evaluation can be progressive and on-
going (during the task) or conclusive (after
completion}, and can be written or oral, The
evaluation stage helps the students not only
to summarize the outcomes of their research,
but also understand the process by which
they reached their conclusions through iden-
tifying and solving problems as, and when,
they arose.
Through this method of learning students not
only become familiar with the research process,
but they also take responsibility for their own
learning; they realize that they can form their
own personal views, based on the analysis and
synthesis of the data they gradually collect and
on the dialogue they establish with their peers,
rather than automatically and passively accept
the views uf uthers. This collaboration fosters a
classroom atmosphere where students can prof-
itably work together and develop their critical
skills and competences.
The list of possible topics for research projects
is very long and depends each time on the stu-
dents’ choices and/or the teachers’ skills. Some
such topics are:
a. private and public life in antiquity (feasts,
wedding ceremonies, education for boys and
METHODS 371
girls, the house and the roles of its inhabit-
ants, architecture and decoration, women in
society, entertainment)
b. institutions (slavery, judicial system, reli-
gious ceremonies, warfare, army life, role of
women)
c. creative activities (re-enacting a dramatic
scene, theatrical reading, dramatization,
adapting Ancient Greek plays, film adapta-
tions of classical literature)
d. interdisciplinary projects (classical themes in
literature and in art, heroes now and then,
the foundations of democracy and the mod-
ern world, audio-visual projects), etc.
4.b, Reader-response Theories and the Teaching
of Greek
In their book A very short introduction to Classics
(1995), Beard and Henderson argue that clas-
sicists today should approach Greek (and Latin)
as a multi-faceted subject with strong cultural
afhliations with the ideas of Western society
and civilization. They seek a broader definition
of the languages more closely connected with
the Humanities than with traditional linguistic
studies, arguing that the learning of grammatical
rules alone is an outdated way to approach the
subject, with very limited educational merit for
those studying the ancient world.
Modern curricula are, to a large extent, rather
oriented towards the wider appreciation and
understanding of the classical world. The inter-
est has now shifted away from translation and
factual comprehension towards deeper appre-
ciation and close literary analysis. The deeper
understanding of the classical world requires
active learning on the part of the students, in
which they have the opportunity to engage in
discussion, express their own views and chal-
lenge the views of others. Reader response
theories provide a link between active learning
and greater understanding of literature, and
have influenced the teaching of Ancient Greek
both at school and university levels, Reader
response can be divided into five main branches:
textual, experiential (Rosenblatt, Iser), psycho-
logical (Holland, Bleich), social (Fish), and
cultural theories (Beach), depending on the
emphasis they assign to the different elements
of reading.
Reader-response criticism is really a collec-
tive term used to describe a number of critical
theories that have emerged since the 1960s, all
372 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING METHODS
of which focus on the response of the reader to
the text rather than the text itself as the source
of meaning in a literary work. In reader-response
criticism a text is viewed as a process that goes
on in the mind of the reader rather than as a
stable entity with a single ‘correct meaning’. In
this sense, the reader actually participates in
creating the text and meaning is produced in a
transaction of a reader with a text, based on
the reader’s past experience of literature and
what preconceived notion about literature the
reader muy pussess. That means that there can
never be two identical responses; the similarities
observed in different responses derive not from
the text but from the readers’ shared assump-
tions regarding both what the characters mean
and how they should be interpreted.
Reading is not just the understanding of writ-
ten speech, but a creative act, which involves the
exercise of choice, organization, anticipation and
retrospection. Each reader performs these func-
tions in a different way, and as a consequence
there are different receptions of a text, based
on what readers bring to the reading activity
(see Seranis 2000). Applied to the area of litera-
ture teaching, the emphasis now shifts from the
outcomes of reading to the process of reading.
Attention is therefore paid to the development
of techniques that can elicit and assess the qual-
ity of individuals’ responses to literature.
Well-known techniques that have been used
in the teaching of literature, including Greek, are
prediction techniques, cloze exercises, fill in the
gap exercises, hot seating, role playing, continu-
ation of stories, reader response logs, creative
writing exercises (character biographies/post-
cards, character diaries, shorter stories writing),
poster projects (Seranis 2003; McKnight and Ber-
lage 2008). Such activities invite students to take
an active part in the meaning-making process
and highlight the importance of the different
needs and expectations that each student brings
to literature, They also stress that active learning
is a prerequisite for any reader-centered class-
room and emphasize the need to provide stu-
dents with multiple opportunities for reflecting
on their encounters with classical texts. Multiple
modes of learning can also help students and
teachers alike develop the awareness of their
responses to literature.
This can be particularly important for the
reading of classical texts, since they have been
traditionally approached as sacred works, where
the quest for the right interpretation has been
at the center of the reading activity, rather than
living texts.
The need for classical texts to provide links
with the lives and experiences of young students
was expressed by Rosenblatt as early as i970,
when she argued that “those who squeeze into
the school years everything that ought to be
read, evidently assume that the youth will never
read again after school years are over” (1970:217).
In short, it is essential that the reading of clas-
sical texts in the classroom focuses on ways in
which students become actively engaged in the
reading process and derive pleasure from read-
ing outside as well as inside the classroom.
5. INTEGRATING ICT IN THE TEACHING
OF GREEK
The introduction of computers in the classroom
back in the 1980s was viewed with a mixture of
enthusiasm and skepticism by classicists (Lister
2007). This skepticism derived from the teach-
ers' own lack of computer skills, the reaction
to a new learning medium which could poten-
tially replace their role, and the lack of appropri-
ate training for the effective use of ICT in the
classroom. Today, three decades later, the atti-
tudes to ICT have changed significantly. The
majority of classicists now realize that com-
puters can facilitate and speed up tasks, such
as looking up words or parsing texts, enliven
routine activities (e.g. vocabulary testing) and
help pupils and teachers alike improve the pre-
sentation of their work (Lister 2007), Further-
more, today most teachers have developed their
own computers skills, are comfortable with
software packages and exploit web resources
(online lexica, grammars and online activities/
exercises, classics databases) in their teaching.
Some teachers have also developed their own
websites or blogs. Integrating computer activi-
ties into classroom teaching has been further
improved by the steady enhancement of iCT
infrastructure in schools (slide projectors, data
projectors, DVD and CD players and high speed
internet connections; + Computational Linguis-
tics and Greek).
At the same time, software developers and
publishers have designed ICT resources to sup-
plement, and sometimes replace, traditional
learning media, such as text and grammar books.
School curricula in Europe acknowledge in their
 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING METHODS
aims and objectives the role of ICT in the teach-
ing of Ancient Greek, and universities around
the world have now designed distance learning
courses for the teaching of Ancient Greek (Royal
Holloway, London and Robert Welch University
in Appleton, USA), maintain dedicated websites
for the learning of the language on the web
based on print textbooks (Thrasymachus from
Bristol Classical Press) or have developed elec-
tronic resources to supplement the teaching of
the subject at a distance (Lectrix at Cambridge
University, for instance, is an online resource,
which integrates selected classic works of Greek
(and Latin) literature with commentaries from
the Cambridge University Press series, Cam-
bridge Greek and Latin).
Greek is now an optional subject in most
European curricula, whereas Latin, due to his-
torical, cultural and political reasons, still occu-
pies a place in the secondary education in many
European countries. Most reformed European
curricula devote space in the integration of ICT
in the teaching of the subject in a vague and
unsystematic way and are associated with the
ambitious aims and objectives that the subject
should fulfill. These aims, influenced mainly
by the notion of new literacies in the teach-
ing of modern languages, focus on technical
or functional aspects of ICT (search engines,
web resources, interactive web-board, electronic
databases, online drills) to facilitate the learn-
ing of the language. These in turn influence
further moves ta integrate ICT in the classics
classroom.
The Circe Project (www.circe.be), for instance,
a European funded project for the teaching and
learning of the classical languages through ICT,
is primarily concerned with the development
of computer skills and does not address issues
of pedagogy or raise questions examining cur-
rent shortcomings in pedagogy. Nor does the
Circe Project seek to justify the creation of new
pedagogical tools and examine whether these
needs are best addressed by computer-assisted
learning.
Although there is an array of electronic
resources for classics teachers available (clas-
sics databases, computerized language drills,
vocabulary testers, online grammars and lexica,
educational fora with useful links), there are sur-
prisingly few attempts to integrate the use of ICT
in the teaching of specific modules/units or to
provide teacher training designed to cover these
373
specific educational needs in the classroom.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the usefulness
that this material can have for learners of the
Greek language (combining text, visual images
and sound, facilitating time consuming tasks,
learning at one’s own pace, sharing resources at
a distance), there are few qualitative and quanti-
tative differences when these materials are com-
pared to print resources. This also leads, to a
large extent, to the failure of electronic material
to motivate and engage individuals in meaning-
ful language learning (Hill 2003).
ICT can support a multilevel reading of the
ancient Greek language and literature provided
that it is structured around a sound teaching
framework. Perseus, for instance, the well-
known digital library of the ancient world, is
equipped with a number of useful tools (origi-
nal texts and their English translations, com-
mentaries, tools of morphological and statistical
analysis, Greek grammars, a large collection
of images, the Liddell-Scott lexicon, etc.). The
interconnections it offers between texts, images,
maps, and timelines (Mahoney 2001) and the
pedagogy that has been developed around this
useful resource allow for interactive, exploratory
and critical encounters with the ancient world
(+ Data Bases and Dictionaries [Papyrology and
Epigraphy included)).
Summarizing, ICT has certain characteristics
that can facilitate learning and encourage stu-
dents to be more critical and active learners. Its
integration in the classroom needs to be accom-
panied by major changes in educational objec-
tives, teacher training and national curricula.
Teacher training should explicitly address teach-
ers’ beliefs that their role is that of ‘the sage on
the stage’, requiring the transmission of informa-
tion, as opposed to that of ‘the guide on the side’,
empowering students to take responsibility for
their own learning, This is not always easy, as it
may contradict teachers’ perceived need not to
“lose control of their class" (Vlachopoulos 2009).
Furthermore, policy-makers should rethink and
evaluate the role of the subject in the curriculum
and, consequently, design courses that could
fully integrate ICT as a means of change and
progression and not as a substitute of or add-
on to current, more traditional practices (Pol-
kas 201). Reducing the authority of the teacher
and enhancing the role of technology will not
necessarily lead to more effective use of ICT
in the classroom nor will it necessarily restore
374 TEACHING OF ANCIENT GREEK, TEACHING METHODS
the fortunes of Ancient Greek in the school
curriculum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Balme, Maurice and Gilbert Lawall. 1995. Athenaze; an intro-
duction to Ancient Greek, Vol. 2. New York - Oxford.
Beard, Mary and John Henderson. 1995. A very short intro-
duction to classics. Oxford.
Bissinger, Manfred, Stephan Brenner, Jörg Eyrainer and
Friedrich Maier. 2002. Hellas. Lehrgang des Griechischen.
Würzburg.
Chatzimavroudi, Eleni. 2007. Teaching of ancient Greek fram
the original in the Gymnasium and Lyceum (in Greek).
Thessaloniki.
Clark, Ann M. 2006. “Changing classroom practice to include
the project approach”. In: arly childhood research and
practice 8 (a). Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://ecrp.
uiuc.edu/vBnz/clark.html
Frey, Karl. 1998. Die Projektmethode, Basel.
Hardwick, Lorna and Christopher Stray, eds. 2008. Compan-
ions to classical receptions, London.
Hill, Timothy. 2003. “Hyperrote? The role of IT in ancient
language teaching’. Retrieved December 18, 200 from
hitp://www.epea.gr/content/content/files/Microsolt-
Word-HyperRote_learning THE. pdf
Joint Association of Classical Teachers, 1978. Reading Greek.
Cambridge.
Katz, Lilian. 1994. “The project approach. ERIC Digest.
Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and
Early Childhood Education". Retrieved December 3, zon
from http://ceep.crc.uiue.edu/eecearchive/digests/1994/
Ik-prog4.html
Kazazis, loannis N. 2001 “Atticism”. in: A history of Ancient
Greek: fram the beginnings to Late Antiquity, ed. hy Anas-
tassios F. Christidis, 1200-1213. Cambridge.
Lister, Bob, 2007. “Integrating ICT into the classics class-
room". JCT i:4—7.
Mahoney, Ann. 2001. “Tools for students in the Perseus
library”, Calico Journal 18.2:269-282.
Maronitis, Dimitrios N. (2001). "Issues and problems ofintra-
linguistic translation”, Philologiki 74:3-7.
McKnight, Katherine $, and Bradley P. Berlage. 2008. Teach-
ing the classics in the inclusive classroom. San Fransisco,
Polkas, Lampros. aoıı. “Integrating ICT in the teaching of clas-
sics in curricula acrass Europe" (in Greek), Retrieved on
January u, 2012 from: http://www.greeklanguage.pr/sites/
default/files/digital_school/conclusions_ancient.pdf
Rosenblatt, Louise. 1970. Literature as exploration. London.
Seranis, Panos, 2000, The place of reader response in the
teaching of Ancient Greek literature in translation. Unpub-
lished Plı.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
—— 2003. “Reader response and classical pedagogy: teach-
ing the Odyssey”, CW 98.1:61-77.
Tsafos, Vassilios. 2004. The teaching of ancient Greek litera-
ture and language, Towards an alternative study in ancient
world (in Greek). Athens,
Varmazis, Nikolaos. 1992. The Ancient Greek language as a
problem of Greek Education. From the Renaissance to the
establishment of dimatiki (in Greek), Thessaloniki.
Vlachapoulos, Dimitrios. 2009. “Introducing online teach-
ing in Humanities: a case study about the acceptance
of online activities by the academic staff of classical
languages”, Digithum u. Retrieved January 17, 2012 from
http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/16602/1/
Vlachopoulos_engAQ.pdf
Voskos, Andreas and Theodoros Papakonstantinou, eds.
1992. From the translated to the original text, Contribution
to the renewal of the teaching of ancient Greek in secondary
education (in Greek), Athens.
VASILIS TSAFOS
PANAGIOTIS SERANIS
Temporal Clauses
Temporal clauses are subordinate clauses that
express the reference Lime with respect to which
the main clause must be interpreted (> Subordi-
nation). They usually have a finite verbal form,
but with some markers (mainly prin and pdros)
the > infinitive can be selected as well (+ Tense/
Aspect). Functionally, temporal clauses are equiv-
alent to time adverbials or prepositional phrases
with temporal meaning. Temporal clauses have
been traditionally classified into clauses of ante-
riority (or precedence), simultaneity, and pos-
teriority (or subsequence), depending on the
temporal relationship between the event, pro-
cess or state referred to by the temporal clause
and that contained in the main clause, as typi-
fied by (1), (2) and (4) below. Simultaneity can
be total, as in (2), or partial (or punctual), as in
(3), depending on whether the actions denoted
by the temporal and main clauses overlap in
whole or there is just a coincidence at a certain
point of time.
(1) epeidé ek tés thölou exélthomen, hoi men
téttares dikhonto eis Salamina
‘When we came from the rotunda, the (other)
fourwenttoSalamis’ (Pl.Ap. 32d) [anteriority]
(2) en hdsdi de tonndmon... lambanei, boitlomai
mikra pros humds eipein
‘While he is taking the law, I would like to
tell you a few things’ (Dem. Or. 21.108) [total
simultaneity]
(3) pais dé pou én, höte td pröteron epedémésa ek
Klazomenön
1 was only a boy when I first came from Kla-
zomene’ (Pl. Prm.ı26b) [partial simultaneity |
(4) prin kai humds elthein, egö tois paroüsin polla
epedeixdmen
‘Before you arrived, I had demonstrated
many things to those that were present’
(Pl. Grg. 458b) [posteriority]
The main subordinating + conjunctions employed
in Greek for each of these types are the following:

anteriority: epel, epeidé, epeite (lon.). simultane-
ity: höte (Lesb. Adta, Dor. and Pamph. höka),
hopéte, eüte (Ion. and poetry), hös (also hösper
in Herodotus), Adpés (lon. hokös), höpou (Att.),
émos (Hom. and poetry), henika (Dor. hanika),
hopenika, öphra (Hom. and poetry), heös, en
höi, en hösöi. posteriority: prin (é), paros (Hom.);
prösthen é and pröteron € can also occur, but
they are far from usual.
Besides the subordinating conjunction, the
verbal tense of the temporal clause is also sig-
nificant for the interpretation of the temporal
relation between the subordinate and the main
clause. In general, when the verb is an + aor-
ist, it denotes an action prior to that of the
main clause; when it is a + present, the actions
are simultaneous. Some subordinators,
cially the more general ones that usually express
simultaneity, like höte or hénika, are not marked
for relative time by themselves and the explicit-
ness of the temporal sequence basically relies
on the verbal tenses of the clauses, as in (5) and
(6) (+ Subordination).
(5) höte gar to desmöterion diorüxas apédra, töte
pros qunalka tin’ erkhetai...
‘When he broke the prison and ran away, he
goes to a certain woman...’ (Dem. Or. 25.56)
[anteriority }
(6) haste sunébé, henika taumoén Gnom’ ekaleito,
skétos einai édé
‘So it happened that, when my name was
called out, it was already dark’ (Dem. Or.
57.9) |posteriority]
Recent developments in Greek syntax (e.g. Crespo
1997, Crespo et al. 2003:399-406; cf.
2001:330-331) have shown that not all tempo-
ral clauses have the same semantic function
within their main clause. Crespo et al. (2003:399)
differentiate two semantic functions for tem-
poral clauses: Time and Frequency-Periodicity.
However, within Time several different
tional notions can be distinguished. In fact, it is
doubtful whether these relational notions con-
stitute different semantic functions. As Crespo
(1997:25-28) warns, they do not comply with
some of the criteria usually employed for distin-
guishing semantic functions. However,
times the complements occur in the same layer
of the clause and are not coordinated; further-
more, they seem to correlate with different par-
tial questions: e.g. a temporal clause expressing
TEMPORAL CLAUSES 375
final boundary is not expected as an answer to
a question with pöte ‘when?’, but, rather, as an
answer to a question with mékhri tinos or mékhri
hou ‘until when?’, as typified by (7) and (8):
(7) hemeis hupeménomen hdpanta. Mekhritinos?
Heös ho Leokrdtés .. . teteleüteken dpais
‘We submitted to everything. Until when?
Until Leocrates died without children’ (Dem.
Or. 44.24)
(8) ho de teleutaios, mekhri tinos an änthröpon
kalös ékhoi zen, mékhri hott mé nomizei ta
tethndnai tou zén dmeinon
'nd the last, [when asked] until when it
would be worth for a man to live, [answered
that] until he does not consider dying better
espe- than living’ (Plut, Alex. 64)
Accordingly, it should be advisable to distinguish
at least the following meanings for temporal
clauses: Time proper (time at which), with the
above mentioned subordinating conjunctions
for anteriority, simultaneity, and posteriority.
Duration (time within which). The subordinat-
ing conjunctions of simultaneity can be used
for this meaning, especially en Adi and en hösöi,
as in (g), as well as the conjunctions of terminal
boundary in certain contexts.
(9) tous Plataiés étrephon hoi Peloponnésioi
hemeras tinds, en hösöi hoi ek tes Lakedai-
monos dikastai... aphikonto
‘The Peloponnesians fed the Plataeans for
some days, while the judges from Lacedae-
mon arrived’ (Thue. 3.52)
Givon Initial boundary (time since which), in clauses
introduced by ex hai, ex hötou, aph’hoü, as in (10):
(10) kaitoi duoin déont’ efkosin été ex hötou
eneimö
‘However, it has been eighteen years since
rela- you accepted the distribution’ (Dem. Or.
36.19)
Terminal boundary (time until which), in clauses
introduced by mekhri(s) hoi, mekhri hösou,
ükhri(s) hoü, heös, heös hot (lon.), eis hd ke(n),
some- es Ad (Ion.), es hoü (Ion.), öphra (Homer and
poetry), and éste; see (11):
(11) kai ekei émeine...mékhri hoü Kiros eis
Sardeis aphiketo
376 FEMPORAL CLAUSES

‘And he stayed there until Cyrus arrived to ‘We used to wait about until the prison was
Sardis’ (Xen. Hell. 1.5.2) opened’ (Pl. Phd. 59d)

Frequency-Periodicity, with hosäkis (Hom. and
poetry hossaki, Heracl. hossäkis, Cret. hoththakin)
and Aoposdkis ‘every time that, whenever’, as
in (12):
(12) en püsais tais ekklesiais, hosakis logos
gegonen pert touton, kai kategoroüntos
akoueté mou... totttous
‘In every assembly, whenever there is a dis-
cussion about this, you hear me denounc-
ing them' (Dem. Or. 19.207)
In Greek temporal clauses, the verbal + mood
is also relevant for interpreting the subordinate
clause. The indicative is employed in factual
temporal clauses that presuppose that the state
of affairs referred to by the predication actually
occurred, whether this is a single event, as in
(1), (10), etc., or a repeated event (factual itera-
tion), as in (12), In contrast, the indicative mood
will not be employed when there is uncertainty
about the actual completion of the event or pro-
cess. The + subjunctive (plus dm) will be used
for: a) a future action, as in (13); and b) a habitual
action in the present that usually occurs associ-
ated to the action denoted by the main clause
(as opposed to a factual iteration), as in (14):
(13) kai heösper an empneö kai hoiös te 6, ou me
pausömai philosophön
‘As long as I breathe and I am able to, I will
not give up philosophy’ (Pl. Ap. 29d)
(14) moi viddnetai kradie khölöi, happét’ ekeinön
mnesomai
‘My heart swells with wrath when | remem-
ber that’ (Hom. Il. 9.646-647)
Many markers of temporal clauses are etymo-
logically related to the relative pronouns or are
combinations of a preposition plus a form of a
relative pronoun. In fact, temporal clauses can
be structurally considered free > relative clauses
without a head noun and, as such, they may
have a generalizing meaning. Temporal clauses
frequently appear in correlative structures, in
which an + anaphoric or deictic element in the
main clause takes up the temporal reference
of the subordinate clause, as in (17), in which
töte resumes the preceding temporal clause.
They can also complementize verbs of saying
and knowing, as in (18), in which the temporal
clause introduced by Adte is the + direct object
of mémnéi ‘you remember’.
(17) émos d’ Eélios méson ourandn amphibebekei,
kai töte de khriseia pater etitaine tdlanta
‘When the Sun had reached mid heaven,
then the Father held out his golden scales’
(Hom. Il, 8.68-69)
(18) é ou mémnéi, höte keise kateluthon hume-
teron dé...
‘Do you not remember when I went there to
your house...’ (Hom. Od. 24.115)
Temporal clauses, as functionally equivalent to
time adverbials, are usually adjuncts and belong
in the extended predication. However, with cer-
tain verbs that denote temporal duration (e.g,
diaméné or diatelö ‘last'), they can be arguments
of the predication, as in (19). Temporal clauses
can also appear in the interactive layer of the
sentence, thus conveying information about the
speaker or the hearer, as in (20):

The - optative appears with the same values (19) diamenei, mékhri an hupo thermotetos exik-
as the subjunctive when the action denated by masthéi to hugrön
the predication is a past action, as in (15) [future ‘It lasts until the humidity is dried up by the
action in the past] and (16) [habitual action in hear’ (Plut. Mor. 950a)
the past]: (20) € pou khalepös an tous dllous anthrapous
peisaimi... höte ge med’ humäs dünamai
(15) Pharndbazos...periémenen en Kalkhedoni, peithein
mekhri elthoi ek tot Buzantiou ‘Hardly could I persuade the other peo-
‘Pharnabazus stayed at Calcedon until he ple, when I am not able to persuade you’
would come from Byzantium’ (Xen. Hell. (Pl. Phd. 84d)
1.3.11)
(16) perieménomen olin hekédstote heös Temporal clauses are close in meaning to other
anoikhtheie td desmöterion types of subordinate clauses. It is customary
 TEMPORAL
to recall the proximity between temporal and
conditional clauses, as typified by (21). Some
temporal conjunctions, mainly epe/ and epeide,
are very common in causal clauses, and oth-
ers can contextually acquire a meaning quite
close to causal, as en Adsdi in (22). As for hös, it
is in fact more common in modal clauses than
in temporal clauses. Special mention should
be made to the relationship between temporal
and preference clauses, since the latter have
not been recognized as a specific type of clause
until recently (cf, Polo Arrondo 2008:62—78); by
metaphor (earlier > better), some subordinat-
ing conjunctions of anteriority come to express
preference, as typified by pröteron é ‘earlier/
rather than’ in (29). Finally, like in other areas
of grammar, the spatial and temporal domains
overlap here, too: subordinating conjunctions of
terminal boundary like mékhri hod or akhri hoi
can be employed both for space and time, and
local relative adverbs like éntha develop tempo-
ral uses as well, as shown by (24).
(21) hemeis... apioimen an hopöte tön misthön
ékhoien... ei dé me, erkhömetha men...
‘We would leave when they have their
pay ...;ifnot, we go... (Xen. An. 7.7.17)
(22) hoi Khioi, en h6söl autols ho Astüokhos
Epörei höpös boéthésol, naumakhe-
sai... €nankasthésan
‘The Chians, while/given that Astyochus
did not know how to help them, were com-
pelled to fight at sea’ (Thuc. 8.61)
(23) ekeinöi tai didaskalöi läkhe dikén pröteron
é emoi
‘Obtain leave to bring a suit against that
teacher, rather than against me’ (Pl, Euth-
phr. 5b)
(24) phronein has deinon éntha me télé lüei
phronoünti
‘How terrible it is to have wisdom when it
does not benefit the one who has it’ (Soph.
OT 316-317)
As for their position in the sentence, temporal
clauses tend to be arranged in an iconical order
in respect to the main clause, that is, temporal
clauses referring to a prior event usually appear
before the main clause, while temporal clauses
of posteriority more frequently follow their main
clause.
CLAUSES 377
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adrados, Francisco R. 1992. Nueva sintaxis del griega anti-
gue. Madrid.
Chantraine, Pierre, 1953. Grammaire homérique, val. 2: Syn-
taxe. Paris,
Crespo, Emilio. 1997. “Sintaxis de los elementos de relacién
en griego cläsico." In: Actas del IX congreso esparial de
estudios cläsicos, vol, 2: Lingiiistica griega, ed. by F. R.
Adrados and A. Martinez Diez, 3-42. Madrid.
Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti and Helena Maquieira, 2003. Sin-
taxis del griego cläsico. Madrid,
Givon, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: an introduction, vol. 2. Amster-
dam — Philadelphia.
Heberlein, Fritz. zon. “Temporal clauses.” In: New perspec-
tives on historical Latin syntax, vol, 4: Complex sentences,
grammuticalization, typology, ed. by Philip Baldi and Pier-
luigi Cuzzolin, 235-371. Berlin - Boston.
Kortmann, Bernd. 1996. Adverbial subordination. A typology
and history of adverbial subordinators based on European
languages. Berlin.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1995. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, vol. 2: Satzlehre
(4th edition). Leverkusen.
Polo Arrondo, Jesus. 2008, Algunas formas de suburdinacion
en griego antiguo: Sustituciön, Preferencia, Causa, Prapur-
ciön y Excepeiän (Ph.D. Diss.}, Madrid.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2002. The syntax and semantics of the verb
in classical Greek. An introduction {ard edition). Chivago.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechis-
che Grammatik. vol, 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik.
Munich.
EuGENIO R, LUJAN
Tense (kArénos), Ancient Theories of
1. TIME AND TENSE
The Greek word khrönos, meaning ‘time’, is
first attested in the Homeric epics. Often con-
trasted with kairds, ‘(critical) moment’, khrönos
is applied above all to time that passes and lasts,
lending rhythm to events and human experi-
ence. Conceived as divisible and measurable,
khrénos lends itself to denoting quantified dura-
tions and to expressing fundamental chrono-
logical relations of anteriority, simultaneity and
posteriority.
The specific use of khrönos in linguistics con-
sists in the application of the term to ‘tense’ as
an attribute (par(h)epömenon) of the verb — and
the participle - or as a defining trait of a class
of adverbs. Like the French temps (primarily
‘time’), the word can also, in the sense of the
English ‘tense’, denote a verbal paradigm con-
ceived as expressing a particular temporality
(+ Tense/Aspect).
The narrow association of khrönos with the
verb (rhéma) goes back to Aristotle, who defines
378 TENSE (KHRONOS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
(Poet, 20, 1457a10-18.; cf. Int. 3, 16b6) dnoma and
rhéma, respectively, as dneu khrönou vs. metd
khrönou, ‘without time/tense’ vs. ‘with time/
tense’ -, a definitional trait that is found in
various grammatical papyri (cf. P. Yale 1.25, 1 8,
12, and <29> [ist cent. AD]} and in Varro (Ling. X
zı and VIII 1). The absence of kArdnos from the
Stoic definitions of rhéma that have come down
to us is attributable to ellipsis rather than to any
Stoic indifference to verbal tense (cf. infra and
+ Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of).
It seems beyond a doubt that Aristarchus,
whose use of terminology is known only indi-
rectly, applied khrönos to the temporal para-
digms (tenses). In the indicative, these are the
present (en(h)estös), the imperfect (paratatikés,
‘extensive’), the future (mellön) and the aorist
(suntelikös, ‘completive’), all expressions whose
masculine gender implies khrdnos understood
(cf, Matthaios 1999:326—351).
2. THE SIX TENSES OF THE GREEK VERB
AND THEIR NAMES
In the Tekhne attributed to Dionysius Thrax
(Dion. Thrax 46,5-47,2), khrönos is (with the
exception of conjugation) the last of the eight
attributes of the verb to be discussed. The para-
graph devoted to this attribute reads: “There are
three kArönoi: present, past and future. Among
these, the past has four varieties (diaphorai):
the extensive (paratatikds) [= imperfect], the
adjacent (parakeimenes) [= perfect], the over-
completive (hupersuntelikos) [= pluperfect], the
indefinite (aöristos) [= aorist]. Among these,
there are three kinships (sungéneiai): of the pres-
ent with the extensive, of the adjacent with the
over-completive, and of the indefinite with the
future.” Taken in its entirety, this text well attests
to the polysemy of khrönos described above: the
three initial khronoi — present, past and future,
concepts taken directly from the philosophical
tradition (the divisions of time) — by the subdivi-
sion of the past into four ‘varieties’ become six
khrénoi, the six constitutive ‘tenses’ for the para-
digm of the indicative of the Greek verb.
The scholia on this paragraph of the Tekhne
amply confirm the impact of philosophical
thought on grammatical thought here. On the
one hand, the grammarians, faced with the the-
ory of a present without substance, a perpetu-
ally shifting threshold between past and future,
assert the existence of an extended grammati-
cal present (platikds ‘involving width’: Choero-
boscus 12,1). Meanwhile, the enumeration of the
six tenses of the Greek system brings us, through
the Tékhné scholiast Stephanus (Schol. Dion.
Thrax 250,26-251,25), precious information on
the Stoic definitions of the verbal tenses — com-
plex aspectual-temporal definitions of which the
canonical tense names as given in the Tekhne
seem to be nothing more than ellipses. Hence,
the Stoics called the ‘present’ the ‘present
extensive’ (en(h)estös paratatikds), the ‘extensive’
the ‘past exlensive' (paröikhermenus parula-
tikds), the ‘adjacent’ the ‘present completive’
(en(h)estös suntelikös) and the ‘over-completive’
the ‘past completive’ (paröikhemenos suntelikös).
By itself, this terminology strongly suggests that
the logicians of the Stoa were indeed sensitive
to the dimension of temporality that we know
as ‘aspect’ (pace Berrettoni ı98ga, b). As for the
‘kinships' arranging the tenses into three pairs,
these are described in terms of morphological
resemblance, but this does not exclude the pos-
sibility of another facet implied insofar as they
respectively reconcile the two ‘extensives’, the
two 'completives’ and the two ‘indefinites’ (aorist
and future, presented as not signalling temporal
distance in relation to the present of enunciation).
3. VERBAL AND ADVERBIAL khrönos
Deprived of Apollonius Dyscolus' lost treatise
On the verb, we have no methodical reflection
from Apollonius on khrönos as a verbal cat-
egory. Two points are, however, evident. 1) Apol-
lonius explicitly declares (Synt. III 60, 325,12)
that the characteristic property (idion) of the
verb is none other than to express khrönos and
diathesis (+ Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theo-
ries of ). The presence of khrönos in this reduced
list of verbal attributes shows that grammar-
ians had not abandoned the Aristotelian view of
the verb. 2) Moved to Investigate the possibility
of past tense in volitive moods (optative, Syn. {II
98-100, 354,11f., imperative, ibid, 101-102, 357.11f.),
Apollonius, interpreting the aorist optatives /
imperatives, seems torn between an aspectual
interpretation (perfective) and a temporal for-
mulation (in terms of ‘past'). This may be seen
as an indication that, although the aspectual
configuration of tense had been observed by
the Stoa, the Alexandrian grammarians did not
really take it on board (cf. Schöpsdau 1978, Lallot
1985; + Mood (énklisis), Ancient Theories of ).
 TENSE (KHRONOS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
In both the Tékhné (Dion. Thrax 73,3-74,2)
and the grammatical papyri (Wouters 1979), the
adverbs ‘of khrönos' appear in the first group of
the long series of adverbial subcategories. Shar-
ing as they do the capital expression of time with
the verb, these adverbs ought more or less to be
seen as ‘ad-verbs’ par excellence. In parallel with
the ‘three khrönoi’ of the verb — present, past and
future (cf. supra) - a canonical short list exem-
plifying the adverbs of khrönos will typically be
of the type ‘now’, ‘formerly’, ‘later’. Thus in the
Tékhné, which also distingnishes adverbs of ‘the
moment’ (kairös) as a subspecies of adverbs of
khrönos, we find examples more specific than
these, namely ‘today’, ‘tomorrow’ and adverbs of
the type ‘then’ (töte), the morphology of which
predisposes them to enter into correlative con-
structions suitable for defining the moment to
which reference is made.
As attribute of the verb and defining trait of
a subcategory of adverbs, khrönos functions as
a restriction imposed on certain syntactically
related words: a construction of verb + adverh,
to be congruent (katallelos), may not incorpo-
rate different temporalities (‘I wrote/was writ-
ing yesterday‘, but not “I write/have written
yesterday’), cf. Apoll. Dysc,, Adv, 123,16.
4. Khrönos ‘AUGMENT': A DISCONCERTING
POLYSEMY
It is worth drawing attention to one curiosity
in the usage of khrönos in grammar. Apollonius
(Synt. UI 73, 336,8), dealing with the morpho-
logical phenomenon of the + augment in the
conjugation of verbs, says: “it is a property of
verbs to augment themselves in the past tenses
(khrénoi) with an external time (khrönas)”. The
‘external time’ here is a phonetic designation
of the augment, as a vocalic duration that has
been prefixed to the verbal root. An acciden-
tal and incidental juxtaposition of two uncon-
nected accepted linguistic meanings of khrönos?
Probably. Nevertheless, to a modem scholar
accustomed to describing the augment as a
past morpheme, such a juxtaposition is slightly
disconcerting.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berrettoni, Pierangiolo. 1989a, "An idol of the School: the
aspectual theory of the Stoics”, Rivista di Linguistica
L1:33-68.
——. 198gb. “Further remarks on the Stoic theory of tenses’,
Rivista di Linguistica 1.2:251-275.
379
Caujalle-Zaslawsky, Francoise. 1985. “La scholie de Stéph-
anos. Quelques remarques sur la theorie des temps
attribuée aux Stoiciens’, HEL 7.1:19-46.
Lallot, Jean. 1985. "La description des temps du verbe chez
trois grammairlens grecs (Apollonius, Stephanos, Pla-
nude)", HEL 7.1:47-81 (= Lallot 2012:37-n2).
‚1997. Apollonius Dyscole. De ta construction. Vol. I:Intro-
duction, texte et traduction, val. Il: Notes et index, Paris.
. 1998. La grammatre de Denys le Thrace. Paris,
. 2000. “Chronos chez les grammairiens". In: Construc-
tions du temps dans le monde grec ancien, ed, by Catherine
Darbo-Peschanski, 287-297. Paris,
—. 2012, Etudes sur la grammaire alexandrine. Paris.
Matthaios, Stephanos. 1999. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik
Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre.
Göttingen.
Schöpsdau, Klaus. 1978. “Zur Tempuslehre des Apollonios
Dyskolos", Glotta 56:273-294.
Wouters, Alfons. 1979. The grammatical Papyri from Graeco-
Roman Egypt. Contributions to the study of the 'Ars gram-
matica’ in Antiquity. Brussels,
JEAN LALLOT
Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to
Early Byzantine Greek
1. INTRODUCTION
Ancient (Classical) Greek is commonly said to
have seven synthetic ‘tenses’ (‘Present’, ‘Imper-
fect’, ‘Aorist’, ‘Future’, ‘Perfect’, ‘Pluperfect’ and
‘Future Perfect’), corresponding to five verb stems
or ‘themes’ (‘Present’, ‘Aorist’, ‘Future’, ‘Perfect’
and ‘Future Perfect’) (+ Verbal System (Tense,
Aspect, Mood)). Given that these tense forms
encode two different types of distinctions, a tem-
poral (present vs. past vs. future) and an aspectual
one (imperfective vs. perfective vs. perfect), the
temporal-aspectual system can be represented as
in Table 1 (see e.g. Joseph 1987:428—429). Note that
there is no form for present perfective, and that
the Future tense does double duty.
Table ı: The temporal-aspectual system
in Classical Greek
past present future
imperfective Imperfect Present Future
perfective Aorist 0 Future
perfect Pluperfect Perfect Future
Perfect
The purpose of this article is to give an overview
of the diachronic evolution of the temporal-
aspectual system inthe post-Classical (3rdc. BCE-
380 TENSE AND ASPECT FROM HELLENISTIC TO EARLY BYZANTINE
6th c. CE) and Early Byzantine (7th-ıoth c. CE)
period. For reasons of space, I will focus on the
main structural tendencies rather than giving
a detailed chronological overview of the differ-
ent changes. Regrettably, an in-depth diachronic
study of the combined temporal-aspectual devel-
opments is still a desideratum.
Recent scholarship has mostly concentrated
on what is called ‘Biblical Greek’, Le., the Greck
of the > Septuagint and the + New Testament.
In the wake of Porter (1989) and Fanning (1990),
various studies have appeared that address ques-
tions of tense and aspect (see e.g. Olsen 1994;
Decker 2001; Campbell 2007). One point of debate
which has been particularly prominent concerns
the temporal dimension (the horizontal axis in
Table 1): according to Porter (1989) (and oth-
ers), temporal reference is not grammatically
encoded in Ancient Greek. Rather, propositions
are tensed on the basis of contextual elements
(‘deictic indicators’) such as temporal adverbs,
genre and historical references (see Decker
2001:55-56 for the major categories of + deixis).
The distinction between the Present and Imper-
fect, and the Perfect and Pluperfect respectively,
is then analyzed in terms of ‘remoteness’, a spa-
tial rather than a temporal category. As for the
Future, Porter (1989:438) claims that it forms a
separate category altogether (which is neither
temporal, aspectual nor (fully) modal), grammat-
icalizing the semantic feature of ‘expectation’.
Porter's controversial view has attracted con-
siderable criticism (see Ruijgh 1995 and espe-
cially Evans 2001:40-50; for a positive evaluation,
see Decker 2001), which | will reduce here to two
major points. On the one hand, more attention
needs to be paid to the diachronic development
of the verbal system: as Evans (2001:42) writes,
“linguistic systems are not static, but constantly
mutate". While it might well be that at some
point tense was not grammatically encoded in
Ancient Greek (see e.g. Moser 2008:10 for Archaic
Greek), it seems undeniable that in the indica-
tive mood temporal distinctions have become
increasingly important. On the other hand, a
more flexible approach towards the ‘default’ ver-
sus ‘non-default’ usage of the tenses is necessary
(what Ruijgh 1995:357 calls ‘'emploi primaire,
prototypique’ and ‘l'emploi secondaire’). To take
the case of English, the existence of non-default
cases such as / wanted to ask you a favor (past
tense with present temporal reference) or The
train leaves tomorow at eight o'clock (present
GREEK
tense with future temporal reference) does not
necessarily entail that time is not grammatically
encoded: in the first case the past tense is used as
a ‘pragmatic softener’, while in the second case
the present tense indicates a scheduled event
(compare Magnien 1912:140-143).
2. THE TEMPORAL-ASPECTUAL
SYSTEM IN POST-CLASSICAL AND
EARLY BYZANTINE GREEK
In his essay on the verb in Byzantine Greek,
Mirambel (1966168) emphasizes the importance
of not treating its evolution exclusively in terms
of decay (cf. e.g. Heyse's dictum (referred to by
Hatzidakis 1892:228) “die griechische Sprache
[ist] eines langsamen Todes gestorben’)). Indeed,
while a trend towards simplification is undeni-
able, as in any stage of the language there is also
a considerable amount of stability, as well as
variation.
The most dramatic changes occur with the
synthetic Perfect and Future, which by Early
Byzantine times have largely disappeared from
the spoken language (see e.g. Mihevc 1959; Ton-
net 1982; — Perfect). The loss of the Perfect is
commonly associated with its gradual functional
merger with the + Aorist (see e.g. Haspelmath
1992): having started out as a stative (resulta-
tive) perfect in Archaic Greek, it became more
and more event-oriented in the Classical period
(expressing the current relevance of a past
event), and functionally similar to the synthetic
Aorist in post-Classical Greek (simply expressing
a past event, without relevance to a later point
in time). In (1), for example, the two tenses are
coordinated in narration (see Fanning 1990:299-
303 for further discussion of NT examples). For
reasons which are still not entirely clear, this
functional competition was eventually lost by
the Perfect.
(1) kai élthen kai ellöphen ek tes dexids tot
kathéménou epi toi thrönou
‘(the Lamb) went over and took (the scroll)
from the right hand of the one who sat on the
throne’ (Apc. 5:7)
The decline of the Future can be attributed to
phonetic factors (l.e., the phonetic leveling of ei
with é and o with 6, which had the result that
the Future indicative and Aorist Subjunctive in
the active paradigm of verbs with vocalic stems
 TENSE AND ASPECT FROM HELLENISTIC TO EARLY BYZANTINE
such as la ‘resolve’ (e.g. füsei ~ hiséi), contract
verbs such as poieö ‘make’ (e.g. poiesomen ~
poiésomen) and most of the barytone verbs with
consonantal stems such as bläptö ‘do hanm’ (e.g.
bläpseis ~ blapseis) (Dieterich 1898:243) became
identical). At a later stage, the Aorist Subjunc-
tive was extended to other contexts, where there
was no such formal identity. In (2), for example,
the form anteipei is used instead of anterei (also
note the coordination with the regular synthetic
Future (see Magnien 1912:147-148)):
(2) kai ouk éstin hös diapheuxetal me é anteipéi
moi
‘and there is none who shall escape me or
contradict me’ (Jes, 1024)
Undoubtedly, other elements also played a role
in the decline of the Future tense. For example,
the identification of Future and Subjunctive was
stimulated by their semantic affinity, which is
evident already in Archaic and Classical Greek
(Tonnet 1982207). Furthermore, the restructur-
ing of the temporal-aspectual system on the basis
of two aspects, each with its own stem, contrib-
uted to the disappearance of the Future (which
did not distinguish morphologically between
imperfective and perfective aspect) (Browning
1969:38 even calls this “the main factor").
The opposition between imperfective and
perfective aspect was maintained throughout
the entire period under consideration (see e.g.
Joseph 1987:431). As stressed in particular by
Browning (1969:69), with the loss of the Perfect
and the Future, the verbal system had become
‘bi-aspectual’ by Early Byzantine times. How-
ever, there has been some discussion with regard
to the ‘balance of power’ between the Aorist
and Present stems, especially in the indicative
mood: it has been suggested that the Aorist
would have entered in competition with the
Imperfect, too, at the expense of the latter (see
e.g. Dieterich 1898:240: “nachdem so der schwa-
che Aorist sowohl das Perfekt wie den starken
Aorist paralysiert hatte, dehnte er seinen Ein-
fluß auf das Imperf. aus”). Indications for this
process would be (a) a general increase in fre-
quency of the Aorist forms, (b) novel formations
with Imperfect forms taking Aorist endings (e.g.
hübrizan ‘they insulted’ in UPZ 1.13, I. 27; 158
BCE), and (c) ‘confusion’ in the use of Imperfect
and Aorist, as would appear from examples such
as (3):
GREEK 381
(3) khronizontos de toü numphiou enüstaxan
päsai kai ekätheudon
‘now while the bridegroom tarried, they all
slumbered and slept’ (Mt. 25:5)
We must be careful not to over-estimate the
developmental parallel between the Imperfect
and Perfect (as Dieterich 1898:241 himself seems
to recognize). Counter-arguments are not very
hard to come up with: (a) the increase in fre-
quency of the Aorist may be related to other fac-
tors, such as the loss of the Perfect, the fact that
the proportion of contexts in which the Imper-
fect could be used was relatively low (Mandilaras
1973:129-30), or (in the case of the Septuagint)
Hebrew interference (Evans 2001198-219);
(b} navel formations of the type mentioned
above can be attributed to an overall leveling of
the past tense endings (Hatzidakis 1892385-186);
(c) it is doubtful whether there really is ‘confu-
sion’ in cases such as (3): we can interpret the
Aorist ingressively and the Imperfect durative-
progressively. All things considered, it would
seem that in post-Classical and Byzantine Greek
the Aorist became the default tense for the nar-
ration of past events, without there being a pro-
found change to the aspectual function of the
Imperfect (Evans 2001:208, 218-219; Gerö and
Ruge 2008),
As for the temporal-aspectual functions for-
merly expressed by the synthetic Future and Per-
fect, a number of alternative expressions were
employed. Both the (synthetic) Present Indica-
tive and the Aorist Subjunctive could express
future meaning (the present Indicative being the
most common; see Magnien 1912:145 for some
examples from Classical Greek), In (4) (from
Browning 1969;41), these are used next to each
other. As we have already seen, the synthetic
Aorist came to replace the Perfect.
(4) koiméthd eis ten hodon tov léontos, kai en töi
erkhesihai auton... trögei me
I will lie down on the path of the lion,
and when he comes...he will devour me’
{Mosch. Prat. 101)
Next to these synthetic alternatives, we also
encounter numerous periphrastic construc-
tions (-» Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek)).
Not surprisingly, these are used in the domains
of perfect aspect and future tense, though we
also find periphrastic constructions expressing
382 TENSE AND ASPECT FROM HELLENISTIC TO EARLY VYZANTINE
imperfective aspect. Porter (1989:476) has argued
that the construction of eimé 'to be’ with aor-
ist participle should be considered a perfective
periphrasis, but this must be dismissed (for the
post-Classical and Byzantine periods, at least).
An overview of the major constructions is given
in Table 2. While different constructions have
been grouped together for reasons of space, it
must be kept in mind that each of these had
specific conditions of use in terms of register and
diachrony (see e.g. Markopoulos 2009; + Devel-
opments in Medieval and Modern Greek).
Table 2: Periphrastic constructions
Participial periphrasis Infinitival periphrasis
gignomai + part.pres./ boulomai + inf.pres./
perf. /aor. aor.
eimi + part.pres./perf./ ekhö + inf.pres./aor.
aor.
Ekhö + part.pres./perf./ (e)thelö + inf.pres./aor.
aor.
tunkhänö + part.pres./ mellö + inf.pres./fut./
perf./aor. aor,
hupdrkhé + part.pres./ opheilö + inf.pres./aor,
perf. /aor.
In this table, a main distinction is made between
‘participial’ and ‘infinitival’ periphrasis. The dis-
tinction is not entirely formal, as periphrases on
the left side are often called ‘aspectual’ (e.g. én
fabon‘he had taken’ (perfect aspect), én eukhöme-
nos ‘he was praying’ (progressive aspect)) while
those on the right are often labeled ‘temporal’
(e.g. ekhö apothanein ‘I will die’, mélld graphein
1 will be writing’ (future tense)). Of course, a
strict distinction between ‘aspectual’ and ‘tem-
poral’ periphrases cannot be upheld: note, for
example, that with the use of periphrases the
perfective-imperfective opposition has pene-
trated the future as well (cf. Tonnet 1982:119; but
see Markopoulos 2009:57-58).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Browning, Rabert. 1969. Medieval and modern Greek. Cam-
bridge.
Campbell, Constatine R. 2007, Verbal aspect, the indicative
mood, and narrative: soundings in the Greek of the New
Testament. New York.
Decker, Radney J. 2001. Temporal deixis of the Greek verb in
the Gospel of Mark with reference to verbal aspect. New
York.
Dieterich, Karl, 1898. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
griechischen Sprache: von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zum
10, Jahrhundert n. Chr. Leipzig.
Evans, Trevor V. 2001. Verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch:
natural Greek usage and Hebrew interference. Oxford.
Fanning, Buist. 1990. Verbal aspect in New Testament Greek.
Oxford.
Gerö, Eva-Carin and Hans Ruge. zoo8. “Continuity and
change: the history of two Greek tenses”, In: /nterdepen-
dence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, ed. by Folke
Josephson and Ingmar Söhrman, 105-129. Amsterdam.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1992. “From resultative to perfect in
Ancient Greek", In: Nuevos estudios sobre construcciones
resullatives (= Funciön u-12), ed. by José L. Iturrioz Leza,
187-224. Guadalajara.
Hatzidakis, G. N. 1892. Einleitung in die neugriechische Gram-
matik. Hildesheim.
Jeseph, Brian D. 1987. “Greek”. In: The world’s major fan-
guages, ed. by Bernard Comrie, 410-439. London.
Magnien, Victor. igiz. Le futur grec. 2: emplois et origines.
Paris.
Mandilaras, Basil G. 1973. The verb in the Greek non-literary
papyri, Athens.
Markopoulos, Theodore. 2009. The future in Greek: from
Ancient to Medieval, Oxford.
Miheve, Erika. 1959. La disparition du parfait dans le gree de
la basse époque. Ljubljana.
Mirambel, André. 1966, “Essai sur I'évolution du verbe en
grec byzantin”, BSL 6167-190.
Moser, Amalia. 2008. "The changing relationship of tense
and aspect in the history of Greek”, STUF 61:5-18.
Olsen, Mari J. 1994. A semantic and pragmatic model of lexi-
cal and grammatical aspect. Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern
University.
Porter, Stanley E. 1989. Verbal aspect in the Greek of the New
Testament, with reference to tense and mood, New York.
Ruijgh, Cornelis]. 1995. "Review of S.E. Porter, Verbal aspect in
the Greek of the New Testament", Mnemosyne 48:352—366.
Tonnet, Henri, 1982. "Note sur la constitution du futur grec
moderne’, CB 3105-119.
KLAAS BENTEIN
Tense/Aspect
1, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Tense and aspect are two different verbal cat-
egories in Ancient Greek. Tense refers externally
to the moment when a certain event takes place,
be it either in the past, in the present, or in the
future. Aspect refers to the internal temporal
charactcristies of the event, that is, if it is still in
its development (imperfective), or if it is con-
sidered to be a finished event (perfective), or,
finally, if it is considered to be finished but has
left some result which is still active (perfect).
The basic configuration of these two categories
in Ancient Greek preserves the basic structure
of the Indo-European verb. In Indo-European,
the two main verbal categories were organized
into two axes: one expressed the notions of
tense and mood, the other aspect. Within the
 TENSE/ASPECT'
temporal-modal axis, it was possible to indicate,
among other things, if an event could be con-
sidered as factual because it had actually taken
place (indicative past) or is taking place at the
moment of the speech act (indicative present),
or as non-factual (modal values of the subjunc-
tive, optative, and imperative), in which case the
event would happen in the future. There was no
possibility of presenting future events as factual,
that is, no form for future indicative can be
reconstructed for Indo-European. The aspectual
axis was structured similarly to what we know
from Ancient Greek: the events were presented
as imperfective, as perfective, or as perfect.
The two main innovations in the verbal sys-
tem of tense and aspect in Ancient Greek were,
first of all, a full development of nominal forms,
the infinitive and the participle, which were neu-
ter for temporal or modal contents, but that had
aspectual content, and, secondly, the creation
of specific forms for the future tense. The future
tense received as its distinctive mark the suffix
-s-, added to the root; its original content could
have been that of expressing a wish.
However, the forms of the future tense, did
not reach an automatic and clear position within
the system of Greek verbal categories, either
in the temporal-modal axis or in the aspectual
axis. On the one hand, like the other elements
of the temporal-modal axis, the future can be
combined with different aspectual contents: the
future tense was neuter in relation to the oppo-
sition imperfective (present stem) / perfective
(aorist stem) (e.g. poiésé ‘I will do‘), but there
was a special form for the future perfect (e.g.
pepoiesö 'I will have done’). On the other hand,
like the elements of the aspectual axis already
mentioned, the future could be combined not
only with the indicative mood, but also with
one of the modal paradigms, the optative (e.g.
poiesoimi). These forms of future optative were
only used in contexts of subordination (oblique
optative). Moreover, like the present, aorist, and
perfect, the Ancient Greek future also devel-
oped forms for the infinitive (e.g. poiésein) and
the participle (e.g. poiesön). Therefore, the sit-
uation of the future forms within the system
was irregular and unstable. Nevertheless, the
evolution of the Greek language since ancient
times has eventually placed the future within
the temporal-modal axis as a third fully devel-
oped indicative element, along with the pres-
ent and the past, capable of expressing all the
383
aspectual possibilities — imperfective, perfective
and perfect. This evolution had already started
in Medieval times and is the situation in Modern
Greek (Mozer 1994).
2. TENSE IN ANCIENT GREEK
In the case of tense, the Ancient Greek verb
was capable of expressing two kinds of content:
absolute tense and relative tense. Absolute tense
is a deictic category and takes as its reference
point the moment of the speech act, whereas
relative tense takes as its reference point a sec-
ond event related to the first one. Absolute tense
is organized in Ancient Greek with only three
possibilities: past, present, and future, in other
words, anteriority, simultaneity, and posterior-
ity in relation to the moment of the speech act.
In contrast with other languages, Greek did not
have specific verbal forms to express a longer
or shorter distance within the past or the future
(remote / close past; remote / close future).
In principle, absolute tense is only expressed
through the verbal forms of the indicative mood.
Nevertheless, the modal forms of subjunctive,
optative, and imperative, as far as they express,
respectively, probable, possible, and desired
events, can also refer to future events as a sec-
ondary implication of their grammatical mean-
ing. The verbal forms in moods other than the
indicative (subjunctive, optative, and impera-
tive) apart from their modal value, also express
aspect and, secondarily, relative tense. The infin-
itive and the participle express aspect and can
also carry relative tense.
Temporal notions are marked in the indicative
by means of prefixes, suffixes, and desinences.
Past tenses have as their distinctive mark a pre-
fix technically known as + augment which con-
sists in the vowel ‘e’ added in front of the stem,
when it begins with a consonant (e.g. pempomen
‘we send’ / e-pémpomen ‘we were sending’), or
the lengthening of the first vowel when the stem
begins with a vowel (e.g. ethelomen 'we wish’ /
ethelamen ‘we were wishing’). Future tense is
typically marked by the suffix -s- (with several
allomorphs) (e.g. pémp-s-omen ‘we will send’).
In every case, there are suppletions and irregu-
larities in certain verbs as a result of particular
morphological and lexical evolutions (+ Supple-
tion). Finally, desinences for number and person,
although they are not specific marks for tense,
may also contribute to the identification of the
384 TENSE/ASPECT
temporal content of a form: primary desinences
(e.g., for thematic verbs, -6, -eis, -ei, etc.) are typi-
cal of the present and future, whereas secondary
desinences are typical of the past.
Prototypically, the forms of the indicative
express an absolute tense: imperfect (épratton
‘| was doing’), aorist (épraxa ‘I did’) and plu-
perfect (epepräkhein ‘| had done’) express past.
Indicative present (prdttd ‘| do / I am doing‘)
and perfect (péprakha ‘| have done’ [literally
'! am having done’]) express present time.
Finally, future (prdxé ‘I will do’) and future per-
fect (pepraxö ‘I will have done') express future
time. In principle, each one of the basic aspectual
stems — imperfective, perfective, and perfect -
tends to express the three temporal possibilities,
past, present, and future. Nevertheless, future did
not distinguish between imperfective and per-
fective; furthermore, a form to express perfectiv-
ity in the present time (a hypothetical ‘present
of aorist') was lacking, The cause of this second
phenomenon is that the two notions, perfectiv-
ity and present time, are hardly compatible: it is
difficult to think of a situation that is at the same
time finished and actual at the speech moment.
This lack has survived in Modem Greek.
Beside the prototypical temporal meaning of
verbal tenses, there are also less typical or figura-
tive uses of these forms. This happens because
temporal deixis is, to a large degree, subjective.
So, it is often difficult to distinguish between
a just-finished event and a present one, or
between the present and the immediate future.
In consequence, we find many cases where a
particular verbal form is used to describe events
that are slightly different from their prototypi-
cal uses (Kühner & Gerth 1898 Il.ın32-ı81). For
example, the present tense can be used to refer
to a just finished situation (e.g., hekö pard se
‘l am arriving to you’, viz. ‘] have just arrived to
you’, Thuc. 1.137.4) or to indicate a past situation
that is still relevant in the present (e.g., ou man-
thäneis höti...? ‘Don't you learn that...?, viz.
‘Haven't you learned that ...?', Pl. Resp. 377a).
On the other hand, present tense can be used
with future content in two contexts: either when
referring to events which are going to happen
in the immediate future (e.g., ego parerkhomai
‘| am going myself’, viz. ‘1 will immediately go',
Xen. Cyr. 7.1.20), or when, within a conditional
period, the speaker/writer wants to indicate that,
as soon as the event of the protasis takes place,
the event of the apodosis can also be consid-
ered an accomplished fact (e.g., ei auté he pdlis
léphthésetai, ékhetai kai he päsa Sikella ‘If this
city will be captured, the whole of Sicily is
<already> dominated’, Thuc. 6.91.3). In parallel
to the present tense, there are also uses of the
perfect tense whose temporal proper meaning
is that of a present, with reference to the near
past and the near future. Finally, Ancient Greek
also had the use known as ~ ‘historical present’
(see Lallot et al. 2019). This type of usage can be
recognized when, in the course of a narration
about past events, one or more forms of indic-
ative present appear instead of the expected
past tense forms. The historical present is not
found in the oldest texts, such as the Homeric
poems. Its origin and nature are still controver-
sial, although there are parallels in many other
languages. So far it has been shown that it is
mostly used to focalize a certain event or a series
of events within a larger narration.
The aorist indicative, whose prototypical
value is that of a past tense, can be used with an
atemporal or universal value in + proverbs (the
so-called + ‘gnomic' aorist), e.g. hai dé phrenön
tarakhai paréplanxan kai sophön ‘Disturbances
of the mind led (= do lead and will lead) astray
even a wise man’ (Pind. Ol 7.31). This use can
be justified as the result of an inference: if
something happened in the past, it can happen
again. A similar use of the aorist is what appears
in typical Homeric scenes, where a past event
can be taken as a model to describe present
facts. A second figurative use of the aorist is
when employed in lieu of a present or a future
when a not-yet-finished event has such a clear
or evident end that it can already be considered
as finished, e.g. ha Diös m’ dlokhos ölesen ‘Zeus’
wife killed me (= is certainly going to kill me)’
(Eur. Hel. 673).
3, ASPECT IN ANCIENT GREEK
As stated above, aspect refers to the temporal
internal characteristics of events. Three different
kinds of aspectual content are usually recog-
nized: lexical aspect or Aktionsart, grammatical
aspect, and sequential aspect. Lexical aspect is
part of the lexical meaning of verbs and is not
grammaticalized. The other two types are gram-
maticalized to different degrees: Greek inherited
a highly developed system ofgrammatical aspect
from Indo-European, but apparently, in Indo-
European, no grammaticalized system existed to
 TENSE/ASPECT
express sequential aspect; in consequence, dur-
ing its history Greek developed different devices
to express sequential aspect. Each of the three
types of aspect has its own ways to be expressed,
and their combinations produced a rather com-
plex system of aspectual expressions,
Lexical aspect or Aktionsart expresses the
internal temporal characteristics of events: they
can be states, such as ‘lie’ or ‘stay’; durative
actions or events, such as ‘run’ or ‘talk’; punctual
events, such as ‘hit’ or ‘stop’, and so forth. The
description of the lexical classes of verbs accord-
ing to their Aktionsart properly corresponds to
lexicology. Nevertheless, as far as the lexical
aspect of a verb imposes restrictions on the inter-
pretation of grammatical aspect, both kinds of
aspect have been traditionally studied together
within Ancient Greek grammars (e.g. Ruipérez
1954, Sihler 1995:369-401, Napoli 2006). There
is no particular work devoted exclusively to the
description of Aktionsart in Ancient Greek, but
the general proposal by Rijksbaron (1989), based
on Aristotelian arguments, can be of use.
Grammatical aspect was the central category
of the verb in Ancient Greek. The internal orga-
nization of grammatical aspect is still to some
extent controversial. Ancient Greek grammari-
ans did not clearly distinguish between tense and
aspect, and they described the contents of both
categories within the common label of khrönos,
time/tense. However, commentaries on the use
of certain forms, as well as the names given
to certain tenses show that they were aware
not only of the temporal contents of verbs, but
of aspectual contents as well (Lallot 1998:171-
179; > Tense (khrönos), Ancient Theories of).
However, ancient authors did not succeed in
understanding and describing the whole system.
This confusion was inherited by Latin gram-
marlans in their adaptation of Greek grammati-
cal descriptions to the Latin language, and this
continued until the ıgth century in the Western
grammatical tradition. At that time, the study of
some Indo-European languages, such as Slavic,
where aspect is a very prominent category, led
linguists to recognize it for Ancient Greek and
other languages as well (Lorente 2003:19-21).
The verbal category of aspect was formed in
Indo-European by three members of the verbal
system, which correspond to the stems of the
present, the aorist, and the perfect. This was
exactly the structure that Ancient Greek pre-
served. These three stems can be formally dis-
385
tinguished by means of the presence or absence
of different affixes, through the vocalism of the
root (+ Ablaut), and, sometimes, also through
the endings. For example, from the root gnö-/
gno- ‘know’, the present has both a prefix and a
suffix (the infinitive form is used in the following
examples): gi-gnö-sk-ein ‘know’ (imperfective),
whereas the aorist offers the root without affixes
gné-nai ‘know’ (perfective), and the perfect has
both a prefix (+ reduplication) and a suffix -k-:
e-gnö-k-enai ‘have known’, In contrast, in the
case of the verb paideu- ‘educate’, it is the present
that does not have any affix: paidei-ein, whereas
the aorist has a suffix -s-: paidei-s-ai, and the
perfect has both a prefix (reduplication) and a
suffix -k-: pe-paideu-k-énai. As for the root vocal-
ism, from a root like /eip- leave’, the present has
the vocalism -e-: leip-ein ‘leave’ (imperfective),
the aorist is based on the root without the basic
vowel: lip-ein ‘leave’ (perfective), and the perfect
has, besides the typical prefix (reduplication),
a vocalism -o-: fe-foip-énai. Sometimes, histori-
cal evolutions, either phonetical or morphologi-
cal, have yielded large divergences in the stems;
for example, from an original root pet-/pt- ‘fall
down‘, the present has a reduplicative prefix:
pi-pt-ein ‘fall down’ (imperfective), the aorist has
a vocalism -e- and a modification at the end of
the root with an -s- instead of the original -t-:
pes-ein (perfective), and in the perfect the ini-
tia] prefixal reduplication and the vocalism -o-:
pe-ptö-kenai. The endings can also contribute
to the differentiation among aspectual stems:
for example, very often the infinitive of the the-
matic present tense has -ein as its ending (for
athematic it is -nat), whereas the sigmatic aorist
has -ai, and the perfect has -énai. The endings
are maximally relevant when, as the result of
phonetic developments, two aspectual stems
have become identical; for example, from the
root ten-/tn- ‘stretch’, the imperfect is é-tein-on
(< *é-ten-y-on), whereas the aorist is &-tein-a
(< *E-ten-s-m). In general, it can be said that it
is a combination of affixes, root vocalism, and
inflectional endings that makes the distinctions
among aspectual stems.
3.a. The Function of the Verbal Stems
The meaning of each of the stems - present, aor-
ist, and perfect - has been the subject of a long
debate since the recognition of the category of
aspect in the middle of the igth century (Lor-
ente 2003:22-47). In general, this debate can be
386 TENSE/ASPECT
summarized as follows: the present stem has
been associated with notions such as duration,
repetition, and imperfectivity; the aorist has
been associated with punctuality, perfectivity,
and the consideration of the event as a whole,
without internal structure; finally, the perfect has
always been interpreted with a stative content:
the state that results from an already finished
event. More recently, a pragmatic differentiation
has also been proposed to distinguish between
present (for non-focalized events within a narra-
tion) and aorist (focalized events) (Sicking 1991).
Methodologically, one of the biggest advances in
the understanding of Ancient Greek aspect came
from Structuralism, which proposed recogniz-
ing a single basic meaning for each aspectual
stem (valeur de langue) and different contextual
actualizations (valeurs de parole) (e.g. Ruipérez
1954). Actually, in spite of the persistence of the
controversy, on the basis of the combination
of historical studies within Indo-European and
of typological approaches (e.g. Comrie 1976),
the mainstream of Greek linguistics assumes
that the basic opposition among aspectual stems
is based on the notion of perfectivity, where
the present is used to refer to events taken
in their development, without consideration of
their temporal end (imperfective), the aorist as
referring to events considered until their end
(perfective), and the perfect can be seen as a sort
of combination of both possibilities: a finished
event (perfective) leaves as a result a still actual
state (imperfective) (cf. e.g. Friedrich 1974:9-19,
Rijksbaron 2002). These three basic values are
active in every use of each one of the three verbal
aspectual stems of Ancient Greek. The frequency
in the use of each aspectual stem can be associ-
ated with their meaning and the lexical and
syntactical context where they are integrated
(cf. Duhoux 1992:501-505). Actually, each stem
can adopt different uses and interpretations in
particular contexts.
Firstly, there is a direct connection between
the lexical aspect (Aktionsart) of a verb and the
frequency of use of its different aspectual stems.
It has been noticed (e.g. Duhoux 1992255-168,
Napoli 2006) how telicevents (thatis, those whose
semantic meaning implies that the action is
directed towardsanaturalend,suchas'say’, ‘build’,
‘persuade’, ‘arrive’, etc.) are used more often in
the aorist stem, that is, the stem that expresses
perfectivity: there is an obvious notional affin-
ity between them. In contrast, non-telic events
(those which describe events that can develop
indefinitely without a natural end, such as ‘talk’,
‘run’, ‘look at,’ etc.) are more often used in the
present stem, which expresses imperfectivity.
Moreover, some types of lexical meanings of
verbs can also trigger particular interpretations
of the aspectual stems. For example, verbs that
refer to punctual events (e.g. ‘hit’, ‘throw’), com-
bined with the present stem, force an iterative
interpretation (e.g. hot hoplitai eköntizön te kai
éballon ‘the hoplites were throwing javelins and
other missiles’ Xen. Hell. 3.5.20). This happens
because imperfectivity cannot be applied to a
single punctual fact that cannot develop indefi-
nitely. Consequently, the imperfective notion is
applied to a repetition of similar punctual facts.
Another example is provided by verbs that refer
not to a punctual, but to a durative event; these
can be either telic or non-telic; the combination
of a telic event and the present stem (imperfec-
tive) is possible; in that case, rather often, the
verb has what has traditionally been called a
‘conative’ use; that is, the verb does not refer
to the end of the event, but only to the attempt
to reach that end, e.g. the use of the imperfect
of peithö ‘persuade’ in: dngeloi épeithon apo-
trépesthai; hoi d’ oukh hupekouon ‘messengers
tried to persuade them to turn back, but they
did not listen to them’ (Xen. An. 7.3.7). Inversely,
the combination of a durative non-telic event
with aorist renders an ingressive sense, that is,
what is presented as reached (perfective) is not
the temporal end of the event as a whole, but
the moment when that event can be considered
as accomplished in its internal features, and in
this particular kind of event this happens from
the first moment of action. The sense of the
verb in these cases can be interpreted as ‘once X
had started to happen’, e.g. the aorist participle
oikésantas of the verb oikéd ‘inhabit, occupy, live
in' in oikesantas totiton ton khöron ton kal niin
oikeousi...'having started to live in the country
where they still live now...’ (Hdt. 11.1).
Finally, the combination of aspect and Aktion-
sart is also related to morphology and verbal
defectiveness. It has been noted (e.g. Garcia
Ramön 2002) that root aorists, that is, those
formed without any kind of affıxation or der-
ivation, are typically associated with telic or
punctual roots such as gnö-/gno- ‘know, real-
ize, to enter in the knowledge of something’ or
 TENSE/ASPECT
bé-/ba- ‘take a step’ (e.g. the infinitives grö-nai,
bé-nai); the reason is that there is a particular
affinity between the lexical meaning of the verb
and the aspectual meaning of the aorist, and, as
a result, no other mark to build up an aorist was
needed. In contrast, the present stem of these
verbs usually has different forms of affixation
or derivation, which are marks of a secondary
formation (e.g. the present infinitives gi-gnö-
sk-ein [with the prefixed reduplication gi- and
the suffix -sk-], bainein < *ban-y-ein [with the
suffix -y-]). In the case of defective paradigms,
typically stative verbs such as eimé ‘be’ or keimai
‘lie down’, which refer to events without internal
changes and are usually developed for an inde-
terminate time, have only the present stem and
no aorist. This has been explained as the result
of a certain incompatibility between the lexical
meaning of those verbs and the perfective con-
tent of the aorist. On the other hand, punctual
roots like that of phagein ‘eat’ have no form for
the present; this has been related to the fact
that for a verb of typically punctual meaning the
imperfective meaning of the present stem was
not suitable (+ Suppletion).
A second context where aspectual stems
develop particular uses is in combinations with
nonfactual modes of the verb, that is, with sub-
junctive, optative, imperative and with the so-
called ‘dynamic’ infinitive (that is, when it has
imperative use or when it depends on verbs of
order, necessity or possibility) (cf. eg. Bakker
1966, Ruijgh 1985, Rijksbaron 2002:44-48). The
present stem in these contexts implies that the
event, if it has already started, is going to con-
tinue (e.g. the present imperative apokrinou ‘go
on answering’ in Adthen oün apelipes apokrinou
‘so go on answering where you left off’ Pl. Grg.
497c). The present stem, when the event has
not yet started, implies that it is expected to
start and go on indefinitely, as the subjunctive
legömen ‘let’s speak’ in tautei oün legömen ‘let
us therefore speak in that way’ Pl. Phdr. 246.a).
The aorist stern, on the other hand, states that
an event must be completed to its very end,
whether or not it has already started, as in the
use of the imperative eipe in hömös mentoi eipe
mai tosönde... ‘However, tell me concretely just
this...’ Pl. Crat. 429d). Finally, the perfect stem
implies that there is foreknowledge or wish that
an event will end and will leave some permanent
result (e.g. the perfect imperative eiresthö in
387
eiresthö toinun toiito...‘Then, let it stay estab-
lished this’ Pl. Parm. 166c).
A third sort of syntactic phenomenon asscci-
ated with aspect affects the type of arguments
and adjuncts a verb is normally used with. For
transitive verbs, their absolute use, that is, with-
out any complement, is typically associated with
the present, and the same happens with generic
or indefinite complements (e.g. élege kai dlla
hoidper eiöthei Periklés ‘Pericles still said other
things as those he used to’ Thuc. 2.13.9). In con-
trast, the aorist stem is more often accompanied
by explicit and concrete objects (Oréal 2000,
Wakker 2000). Similarly, when there are expres-
sions of frequency or duration in the sentence,
the present stem is used when the reference
is indefinite or generically quantified, such as
aiei ‘always’, polldkis ‘many times’. By contrast,
the aorist is the compulsory form for quanti-
fied and limited frequencies and durations, e.g.
Psammetikhos dé ebasileuse Aiguptou téssera kai
pentékonta étea ‘Psammetichos ruled Egypt for
fifty four years’ Hdt. 2.157.1) (Armstrong 1981). All
this reflects the imperfective nature of the pres-
ent, which refers to unfinished events, and the
perfective character of the aorist.
Fourthly, in certain contexts of subordination,
aspectual stems take the temporal reference of
the event of the main clause as the reference
point to indicate that the event of the subordi-
nate clause is still on-going (present stem) or
it has already finished (aorist stem) (Hettrich
1976:25-31, Rijksbaron 2002:76-84, Buijs 2007).
This typically happens in temporal, causal, and
conditional subordinate clauses, as well as with
predicative participles. In these cases the aspec-
tual content of verbal forms can also be inter-
preted in terms of relative tense. Thus, the use of
the present stem in the subordinate clause indi-
cates that the event is not yet finished (imper-
fective) when the main event takes place and,
in consequence, both events are, at least, par-
tially simultaneous (e.g. the present participle
dgontes ‘bringing’ in tas de naus hoi Athenaloi
dikhonto dgontes hapdsas eis Prokönneson ‘the
Athenians went away bringing with them all
the ships towards Proconessus’ Xen. Hell. 1.1.18).
On the other hand, the aorist stem describes
the subordinate event as finished, and therefore
anterior with respect to the main event (e.g. the
aorist participle agagöntes ‘having brought’ in
hoi de taüta epolesan agagöntes hös triskhilious
388 TENSE/ASPECT
hoplitas ‘And they did that after having brought
about three thousand hoplites’ Xen, An. 1.6.4).
Finally, the perfect stem indicates that the sub-
ordinate event has already finished when the
main event takes place, but that its results are
still active in parallel to the main event (e.g,
the participle perfect nenikekötes ‘being the win-
ners’ in égoge epainö hoitines... kai nenikekötes
Ede polldkis ... houtö philoneikoüsin héste ...'l for
my part praise those who, being the winners in
many contests, ... still display such a combative
impulse as ta...’ Xen. Hell. 6.3.16).
Finally, aspectual stems present a particular
use in narrative texts (Hettrich 1976:84-93, Rijks-
baron 1988, Crespo 1991). In these cases, where
sequences of more-or-less-connected events are
described, imperfect (this is, imperfective past)
is used when an event is still happening when
the following one starts. The aorist, in contrast, is
used to describe sequences of non-simultaneous
events, The pluperfect, finally, is employed when
there is a sequence of non-coinciding events,
but the result of a previous event is still relevant
when a posterior one takes place. Apart from
this basic scheme, it is very common that a form
in the aorist begins a particular narration (e.g,
Sdrdies dé helösan héde ‘Sardis was captured in
the following way:... Hdt. 1.84.1) and finishes
it (e.g. faüta men nun houté ké egéneto ‘And this
actually happened in that way’ Hdt. 5.22.2) as a
summary of the whole scene (the so-called ‘com-
plexive’ aorist).
3.b. Sequential Aspect
The last kind of aspectual content that could
be expressed in Ancient Greek was the sequen-
tial aspect. This refers to the different phases
that an event undergoes: before its beginning
/ at the very moment of its beginning / during
its development / at the moment of its end /
after it has already finished. Ancient Greek did
not inherit any grammatical means to express
these nuances, but it developed a certain num-
ber of semi-grammaticalized verbal periphrases
capable of expressing them (Aerts 1965, Bentein
2012), These periphrases are formed by the per-
sonal form of a verb with a very general and
basic meaning (eimi{ ‘be’, ékho ‘hold’, tunkhdnd
‘find oneself’), which are usually called ‘support
verbs’, plus a participle, an infinitive, or any
other verb. The degree of grammaticalization of
these constructions is typologically determined
by two typical features: the loss of the original
meaning of the support verb and the tendency to
keep both members of the periphrasis together
within the sentence. In Ancient Greek, there was
a rather high number of constructions that dis-
played some of the characteristics of periphrasis,
but it seems that none of them reached a com-
plete level of grammaticalization. Among the
most frequent and developed constructions are
eiml / tunkhänö + participle, which roughly cor-
responds to a continuous expression of the type
‘to be -ing’; mellö ‘have the intention to’'+ (typi-
cally future) infinitive, which means ‘be about to
do something’; paviomai ‘stop’ + participle: ‘stop
doing something’. There was no fixed expression
to indicate notions such as ‘to start to' or 'to have
just finished something’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aerts, Willem J. 1965. Periphrastica: an investigation into the
use of einai and ékhein as auxiliaries ur pseudo-auxiliaries
in Greek from Homer up ta the present day. Amsterdam.
Armstrong, David. 1981. "The Ancient Greek aorist and the
aspect of countable action”. In: Syniax and Semantics
14. Tense and aspect, ed. by P. J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen,
1-12, New York.
Bakker, Willem F, 1966. The Greek imperative: an investiga:
tion into the aspectual differences between the present and
aurist imperatives in Greek prayer from Homer up to the
present day. Amsterdam.
Bentein, Klaas, 2012. Verbal periphrasis in Ancient Greek.
Congnitive and diachronic studies. Diss. Gent.
Buijs, Michel. 2007. “Aspectual differences and narrative
technique: Xenophon's Hellenica & Agesilaus". In: The
language of literature. Linguistic approaches to classical
texts, ed. by R. Allan and M. Buijs, 122-153. Leiden.
Crespo, Emilio. 1991, “El uso de Ins temas de aoristo y de
presente para la expresiön de la repeticiön distributiva”,
In: Homerica, Estudios lingülsticos, ed. by Emilio Crespo,
13-34. Madrid,
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect, An introduction to the study of
verbal aspect and related prablems, Cambridge.
Duhoux, Yves. 1992. Le verbe grec ancien. Elements de mor-
pholagie et syntaxe historiques. Louvain-La-Neuve,
Friedrich, Paul. 1974. On aspect theory and Homeric aspect.
Chicago.
Garcia Ramon, José Luis. zoo2. "Zu Verbalcharakter, mor-
phologischer Aktionsart und Aspekt in der indoger-
mianischen Rekonstruktion’. In: Indogermanischen
Syntax, Fragen und Perspektiven (Akten der Arbeitungstay
"Indogermanische Syntax“, Würzburt, 29.9-3-10.1999), ed.
by H. Hettrich, 105-136. Wiesbaden.
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1976. Kontext und Aspekt in der alt-
griechischen Prosa Herodots, Gottingen.
Jacquinod, Bernard, ed. 2000. Etudes sur laspect chez Platon.
Saint-Etienne.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 18984, Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. H Satzlehre. Han-
nover — Leipzig.
Lallot, Jean. 1998. La grammaire de Denys le Thrace. Paris.
——. 2000. "Essai d'interpretation de l’oppasition PR-AQ a
l'impératif de apokrinesthai dans louvre de Platon”. In
Jacquinod 2000:247-265.
 TENSE/ ASPECT
et al,, eds. zou. The historical present in Thucydides.
Semantics and narrative function, Leiden.
Lorente, Paula. 2003. L aspect verbal en grec ancien. Les choix
des themes verbaux chez Isocrate. Louvain-La-Neuve.
Mozer, Amalia. 1994. Character and aspect of the verb.
Athens,
Napoli, Maria. 2006. Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek.
A contrastive analysis. Milan.
Oréal, Elsa, 2000 "Determination et indétermination:
parametre du fonctionnement de l'aspect en grec ancien".
In: Jacquinod 2000:285--302.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 1988. “The discourse function of the
imperfect". In: On the footsteps of Raphael Kühner, ed. by
A. Rijksbaron et al., 237-254. Amsterdam.
——.. 1989. Aristotle, verh meaning and Functional Grammar.
Amsterdam.
. 20035, The syntax and semantics of the verb in classical
Greek, Amsterdam.
Ruijgh, Cornelius J. 1985. "L’emploi ‘inceptif’ du theme du
present du verbe prec", Mnemosyne 381-61.
Ruiperez, Martin $. 1985. Estructura del sistema de aspectos y
tiempos del verbo griegv antiguo. Salamanca.
Sicking, Cornelius M. J. 199). “Tbe distribution of aorist and
present stem forms in Greek, especially in the impera-
tive”, Glotta 69:14-43 and 154-170,
Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. New York - Oxford.
Wakker, Gerry, 2000. “Infinitif PR et infinitive AO;
Vopposition apokrinesthal — apokrinasthai chez Platon”,
In Jacquinod 2000:203-230.
jesös DE La VILLA
Text Linguistics and Greek
Text linguistics may be defined as the part of
linguistics that studies texts as communication
systems. Text linguistics takes into account not
only the form of a text, but also its setting, ie., its
(linguistic and non-linguistic, situational) con-
text. One could say that text linguistics is the
study of how texts function in human interac-
tion, De Beaugrande & Dressler (1981:3ff.) define
a text as a “communicative occurrence which
meets seven standards of textuality”. These stan-
dards are: > cohesion (i.e., the ways in which the
components of the text are connected within a
sequence, see below for more details), > coher-
ence (i.e, the ways in which concepts and rela-
tions, which underlie the text, are linked and
used to achieve efficient communication), inten-
tionality (i.e., the text producer's attitude and
intentions as the text producer uses cohesion
and coherence to convey his message), accept-
ability (i.e., the text receiver's attitude that the
text should comprise useful and/or relevant
details or information which is worth accept-
ing), informativity (i.e., the extent ta which the
389
contents of a text are already known or expected
as compared to unknown or unexpected), sit-
uationality (ie., the factors that make a text
relevant to a situation of occurrence), and inter-
textuality (i.e., the factors which make the use
of one text dependent upon knowledge of previ-
un ously encountered texts). If these standards are
not met a ‘text’ cannot be communicative. Non-
communicative ‘texts’ are considered 'non-texts',
Text linguistics developed out of and partly
parallel to disciplines such as rhetoric (+ Rhe-
torical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics), sty-
listics (— Stylistics (/éxis), Ancient Theories
of), discourse analysis (+ Discourse Analysis
and Greek) and functional sentence theories
(+ Functional Grammar and Greek), Text lin-
guistics is closely akin to, but not the same as
discourse analysis. A text may be defined as an
extended structure of syntactic units, such as
words, word groups, > clauses and textual units,
which is marked by both coherence among the
constituting elements and completion (Werlich
1976:23). A text defined in that manner refers to
a static object, the product of speech or writing
detached from its situational context, cf. Brown
& Yule (1983:23-25)}, Hoey (2001:212-213), and
Kroon (1995:30, n. 50). Discourse, on the other
hand, refers to the dynamic process of speech
and writing in its situational context (+ Written
Versus Spoken Language). However, with regard
to Ancient Greek (and dead languages in gen-
eral), only texts exist; therefore, text linguistics
and discourse analysis more or less overlap in
this case.
As tothe development of text linguistics, in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, linguists started look-
ing beyond the sentence boundary (> Sentence;
~ Sentence/Utterance (lögos), Ancient Theories
of). It started as the study of ‘text grammar’
(van Dijk 1972) or ‘text syntax’ (Dressler 1978),
in which the prevailing methods were projected
from sentences over to texts. However, what one
could call non-grammatical phenomena, such as
the use of > pronouns, articles, particles (+ Par-
ticles) and tense and aspect (+ Tense/Aspect),
were still difficult to account for in this way.
More and more texts were viewed within their
communicative context and the situation in
question. See, for instance, de Beaugrande and
Dressler (1981), Longacre (1996). For a concise,
but comprehensive history of text linguistics see,
for instance, De Beaugrande (2011).
390 TEXT LINGUISTICS AND
The same type of development occurs in
the study of Ancient Greek language and texts.
Nowadays most scholars of Greek text linguis-
tics or discourse analysis explicitly or implicitly
adopt a functional or cognitive (> Cognitive Lin-
guistics and Greek) framework for their stud-
ies. Phenomena which could not be adequately
accounted for in a sentence-based approach, like
+ word order, particles, speech acts, anaphoric
references (+ Anaphoric Processes), tense and
aspect usage became central topics, both in the
study of New Testament Greek (see e.g. Black
1992, Levinsohn 2000) and of Ancient Greek in
general. One of the most important phenomena
studied is discourse cohesion or text cohesion.
Text cohesion is defined as the grammatical and
lexical elements in the text which form rela-
tions that connect parts of the text (Tanskanen
2006:19-20; Halliday & Hasan 1976:4). Text cohe-
sion differs from text coherence, defined as the
degree at which parts of a text make up a unified
whole instead of remaining a set of unrelated
+ utterances, see Bakker & Wakker (2009:xii-
xiv). A text may display coherence without the
presence of cohesion devices (e.g. speaker A:
‘Are you going to the cinema tonight?’ Speaker
B: ‘I have a lot of homework to do’; there are no
cohesion devices, but it is clear in the context
at hand that B’s answer is meant as a refusal). It
is, however, commonly believed that in normal
texts cohesion devices help the reader/addressee
to perceive the coherence of a text. Cohesion
devices may be grammatical or lexical devices.
Pronouns referring to previously mentioned
entities, conjunctions (+ Conjunctions (Subor-
dinating); + Conjunctions (Non-Subordinating))
specifying the semantic relations between suc-
cessive utterances, substitution phenomena
and ellipsis are considered grammatical cohe-
sion devices. Among the lexical devices are,
for instance, lexical repetition, synonymy and
hyponymy. Jn Greek linguistics, the following
cohesion devices have been studied in a rather
extensive way.
As to pronouns, studies from the text linguis-
tic perspective focus on anaphoric references
and participant tracking. They often adopt a cog-
nitive-pragmatic approach, taking into account
the accessibility and discourse relevance of the
referent, cf., for instance, Bonifazzi (2009), who
describes the ways in which a referent previ-
ously introduced into the discourse is referred to
GREEK
by demonstrative pronouns, enclitic pronouns
or no pronouns at all.
As regards conjunctions (i.e., conjunctive par-
ticles) and particles, it is common to distinguish
different types of particles depending on their
function: presentational, attitudinal and > focus
or scope particles. A combination of the parti-
cle’s function, semantics and contextual factors
may explain the interpretation of the particle in
the text involved; see e.g. Rijksbaron (1997) and
Bakker and Wakker (2009:41-155) for a sketch of
Greek particle studies and also for various case
studies.
Subordinate clauses (+ Subordination) and
participial clauses (+ Participle) may also be con-
sidered as functioning within the larger (con )text.
They can play a role at the different levels of the
text: at the level of the events described, of the
presentation or text articulation, of the proposi-
tion or of the illocution of the utterance. This
may influence the type of the subordinate clause
or participial construction chosen, as illustrated,
for instance, by Buijs (2005).
The grammatical categories Tense and Aspect
are studied from a grammatical and morpho-
logical perspective, but also as a means of text
structuring and as a cohesion device; one of
the earliest studies was Hettrich (1976). Other
studies are, for instance, Rijksbaron (1985), Bas-
set (2003, 2009) and Orriens (2009), who all
deal with the discourse function of tenses, espe-
cially of the imperfect, aorist (+ Aorist; Aorist
(adristos), Ancient Theories of) and > perfect
indicative.
Within a text different text types may be
distinguished. It is quite common to distinguish
five main text types; narrative, descriptive, argu-
mentative, instructive and comparison/contrast.
Narrative discourse (being one of the important
text types in Ancient Greek literature) is often
focused upon, It has been demonstrated that
narrative discourse (but the same holds for the
other text types toa) is a mixed text type and
it may include various non-narrative elements.
Those different narrative types are also called
narrative modes (Allan 2009), which concern
the relation between the point of view of the
narrator and the presentation of the text. Each
narrative mode has conceptual features which
are reflected in formal linguistic properties
such as tense-aspect marking and the use of
specific particles.
 TEXT LINGUISTICS AND GREEK
The functioning of the diathesis system (voice)
(+ Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of); — Diath-
esis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of) in Ancient
Greek can also be better explained within text
linguistics, making use of factors such as the
maintenance of perspective/> topic of the dis-
course. Thus, for instance, Allan (2003) explains
the Greek + middle voice by means of prototype
theory showing that the middle voice has mul-
tiple usages which are motivated, structured,
related and united, whereas the overall seman-
tics may be described as subject-affectedness
(the active forms are neutral in this respect).
Text type, style and semantics of the verb in
question all play a role in order to reach the right
interpretation of a given middle voice form.
Recent studies on + word order show that
Greek word order is by no means free or based
on syntax, but is rather determined by pragmatic
factors. Thus, Dik (1995; 2007) showed that the
basic Greek word order was T(opic) - F(ocus) -
V(erb) — X (other elements). A phrase describ-
ing the setting may precede (‘in the morning’,
‘things being thus’, etc.), for this setting does not
belong to the clause proper. The clause proper
tends to start with the old or given information,
followed by the most important constituent or
the new information of the clause, the verb
(> Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of) and then
all the remainder. This system has been refined
by Mati¢ (2003). Bakker (200g) has applied this
approach on the level of the + noun phrase and
demonstrates that in noun phrases with single
+ modifiers, the modifier precedes the noun if
it is presented as the most important or, using
Bakker’s terminology, the most salient part of
the noun phrase in the context in question. The
noun precedes the modifier if the noun is more
salient than the modifier or if neither of them is
singled out as salient. Sometimes this tendency
is overruled by other factors, but it remains the
most common explanation of word order.
From this succinct overview it may be con-
cluded that the typical factors influencing
choices in Greek for the phenomena which cross
the boundaries of the sentence appear to be:
status, familiarity (on the basis of the preceding
text) and accessibility to the information pro-
vided by the utterance in question; presupposed
common knowledge; presupposed attitude of
the addressee; relation between the participants;
text type; discourse relevance; text structuring
and narrative mode. For an example of a text
391
linguistic interpretation of a Greek text, see, for
instance, Rijksbaron (2009).
BiBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger. 2003, The middle voice in Ancient Greek.
A study of polysemy. Amsterdam.
. 2009. “Towards a typology of the narrative modes
in Ancient Greek, Text types and narrative stricture in
Euripidean messenger speeches”. In: Bakker and Wakker
20092171—199.
Bakker, Stéphanie. 2009. The noun phrase in Ancient Greek.
A functional anatysis of the order and articulation of NP
constituents in Herodotus. Leiden ~ Boston,
Bakker, Stephanie and Gerry C. Wakker, eds. 2009, Discourse
cuhesion in Ancient Greek. Leiden - Boston.
Basset, Louis. 2003. “Le previsible et Pimprevu. Opposi-
tions de limparfait et de l'aoriste indicatif dans Thuc. YI,
50-52.", Syntaktika 26-7.
. 2009. "The use of the imperfect to express completed
states of affairs. The imperfect as a marker of narrative
cohesion.” In: Bakker and Wakker 2uog:205-220.
de Beaugrande, Robert A. and Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Intro-
duction to text linguistics. London - New York.
. 2011. “Text linguistics”. In: Discursive pragmatics, ed.
by Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Ostman and Jef Verschueren,
286-296. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Black, David A. 1992. Linguistics and New Testament interpre-
tation: essays an discourse analysis. Nashville.
Bonifazzi, Anna. 2009, “Discourse cohesion through third
person pronouns. The case of keinos and autds in Homer."
In: Bakker and Wakker 200gu—2a.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1989. Discourse analysis.
Cambridge.
Buijs, Michel. 2005. Clause combining in Ancient Greek nar-
rative discaurse. The distribution of subclauses and par-
ticipial clauses in Xenophun’s Nellenica and Anabasis.
Leiden — Bostun.
van Dijk, Teun. 1972. Some aspects of text gramimars. The
Hague,
Dik, Helma. 1995. Word order in Ancient Greek. A pragmatic
account of word order variation in Herodotus, Amster-
dam.
. 2007. Word urder in Greek tragic dialogue. Oxford.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1978. Textlinguistik. Darmstadt,
Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English.
London.
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1976. Kontext und Aspekt in der alt-
griechischen Prosa Heradots, Göttingen.
Hoey, Michael. 2001. Textual interaction: an introduction to
written discourse analysis, London — New York.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. 1995. Discourse particles in Latin: a
study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam.
Levinsohn, Stephen H. zo00. Discourse features af New Testa-
ment Greek: a course book on the information structure of
New Testament Greek. Dallas.
Longacre, Robert E. 1996, The grammar af discourse, 2nd edi-
tion (ist edition: 1983). New York.
Matic, Dejan. 2003. “Topic, focus, and discourse struc-
ture, Ancient Greek word order”, Studies in Language
27:373-633.
Orriens, Sander. zoug. “Involving the past in the present. The
Classical Greek perfect as a situating cohesion device.” In:
Bakker and Wakker 2009:221-240.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 1985. “The discourse function of the
imperfect”. In: Jn the footsteps of Raphael Kühner, ed. by
Albert Rijksbaron et al., 237-254. Amsterdam.
392 TEXT LINGUISTICS AND GREEK
. ed. 1997. New approaches to Greek particles. Amster-
dam.
——. 2009. ‘Discuurse cohesion in the proem of Hesiod's
Theagony." In: Bakker and Wakker 2009:241-265.
Tanskanen, Sanna K, 2006. Collaborating towards coherence:
lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam.
Werlich, Egon. 1976. A text grammar of English. Heidelberg,
GERRY WAKKER
Theater Translation and Performance
Milan Kundera wrote with much bemusement
about the vagaries involved in the translational
process for his novel, The Joke:
Another country: | meet my translator, a man who
knows not a word of Czech. ‘Then how did you
translate it?’
‘With my heart,’
And he pulls a photo of me from his wallet. He
was so congenial that I almost believed it was pos-
sible to translate by some telepathy of the heart.
As if participating in some scene from an Absur-
dist play, Kundera is soon brought rudely back
to stark reality when he learns that his translator
“had worked from the French rewrite” (Kundera
1988).
What was shocking to Kundera in his early
years of international stardom has become the
norm in professional anglophone theater, where
translators often translate from a ‘literal’ - that
is, a literal translation produced by a translator/
scholar - and without any direct knowledge of
the source text. This is partly dictated by the
marketing department: when even the ancient
or modern playwright may well be unknown
to the target audience, the name of an obscure,
workaday translator/scholar is clearly not going
to act as any kind of lure. The addition of an
established poet and/or playwright, however,
makes commercial sense, and sometimes even,
pace Kundera’s skepticism, aesthetic sense as
well, Like Kundera’s unnamed enrapt translator,
these poets/playwrights have their access to the
unknown language mediated in complex ways.
And even without the playwright's photo in their
wallets, it would seem that sometimes the pas-
sions of the scholar/translator who supplies the
‘literal’ can prove highly infectious and manage
to ignite the spark for further creativity.
The process of commissioning translations
from those who are not competent in the lan-
guage of the source text is considered by some to
be uncomfortably close to the longstanding met-
aphorical association between the servile trans-
lator and his/her ancient ‘master’. The scholar/
drudge in this modern transaction is all too
easily written out of the history of the produc-
tion and subsequently of the translation itself.
A striking example is Ted Hughes’ Oedipus (1969).
No one recalls the role of David Turner, whose
translation of Seneca’s tragedy Hughes inher-
ited, and whose imprint is deeply engrained in
the final work. Hughes’ reasons for writing his
predecessor out of the historical script are com-
plex and appear to have had more to do with
anxieties about copyright claims than personal
spite, at a time when Hughes’ domestic responsi-
bilities were particularly financially burdensome
(Stead, forthcoming). But equally, as many have
noted, there are never just two texts involved in
the translational process: even when the transla-
tor has competence in the language of the source
text, translation is never simply a two-way pro-
cess. In addition to the source and ‘target’ texts,
there are always multiple sources and intertexts;
and, in this sense, Hughes’ multivalent transla-
tion is no different from those of others.
The commissioning process for theatrical
translations is also considered by other commen-
tators to be deeply flawed. Lunacies, of course,
can emerge when non-linguistically trained
‘translators’ take plays to the stage without any
direct knowledge of their source. For example,
the comments of the theater director Laurence
Boswell (Euripides’ Trojan Women (1992) and
Hecuba (2005)) leave much to be desired: for
Boswell, the “bad translation” is preferable, he
says, because “then you won't be bamboozled by
the language” but can get straight to the “deeper
meanings, deeper themes” (Boswell 1996:148).
As Michael Meyer, the translator of Strindberg
and Ibsen for Penguin Classics, pointed out, it
is clearly fanciful for Boswell to imagine that a
“bad” translation will grant him access to any
“deeper meanings, deeper themes” (Meyer 1996).
Boswell's desire to negotiate with a text at one
remove may well have been one of the many rea-
sons behind his clash with the classically trained
poet/playwright Tony Harrison during the 1992
production of Harrison's Hecuba. For Harrison,
direct access to the Ancient Greek text is para-
mount; after an unhappy run under Boswell's
direction with Vanessa Redgrave in the lead at
the Albery Theatre in London in the spring, the
play went on to tour the States that summer
 THEATER TRANSLATION AND
with the same cast, but under Harrison’s own
direction.
Though flawed, abused and occasionally
downright impracticable, this traditional com-
missioning process in the contemporary theater
has nonetheless yielded some notable successes.
There are two examples in particular that seem
to have been especially fruitful. First, the Irish
playwright Frank McGuinness, who has become
the playwright of choice for a translation of
an ancient play on the London stage, works
regularly with a ‘literal’, which until recently was
provided by a close friend and Trinity College,
Dublin Classics graduate Fionnuala Murphy,
and for a forthcoming production of the Trojan
Women by the classicist and theater historian
Kathleen Riley. McGuinness has described the
literal as a “plain” text, which he then reworks,
using commentaries and other translations
and above all other Irish intertexts (notably by
Synge, Yeats and Beckett). The final ode to
McGuinness’ Helen (2009), for example, begins:
“I call to mind a sea fleet as the winds” and
concludes “ call to mind a sea free as the wind /
I call to mind my Greece, my kith, my kin". Here
we find a direct allusion to Yeats’ “I call to the
eye of the mind” in At the Hawk's Well (1916),
which in turn had already been appropriated by
Beckett's Winnie in Happy Days (1961). Eurip-
ides in McGuinness’ hands thus becomes part
of Irish theatrical history, just as he had become
an honorary Irish playwright a hundred years
previously, when Gilbert Murray's translations
were readily assimilated and reformulated by
George Bernard Shaw at London's Royal Court
Theatre.
If McGuinness’ practice with a ‘literal’ has
borne much creative fruit, the playwright Tim-
berlake Wertenbaker works equally creatively at
one remove from the Greek text. Wertenbaker,
who is bilingual in French and has translated
plays from French to English, began working
with the classicist Margaret Williamson because
Wertenbaker wanted to gain access to the
ancient text in ways that a ‘literal’ alone would
not afford. For over twenty years and after eight
translations of Sophocles’ and Euripides’ trag-
edies, she has begun the translation process in
dialogue with Williamson about detailed textual
and historical matters. Over the years, Werten-
baker has become an attentive and increasingly
knowledgeable ‘student’ of Ancient Greek, but
she still enjoys the close philological analyses
PERFORMANCE 393
with deep historical knowledge that she gleans
from her collaboration with Williamson.
So far | have dwelled on contemporary trans-
lation practice for the stage. It is important to
stress that the history of stage translation of
ancient plays is comparatively short. Before the
mid-nineteenth century, there was really no
translation for the stage - only adaptation and
improvement on the ancients. And before the
Dramatic Copyright Act of 1833, which finally
granted status to the author and his/her work,
rampant literary piracy in the theater was the
norm. It is common to detect large-scale recy-
cling of whole speeches or even whole scenes of
ancient plays, often in surprising, non-classical
contexts (so the ‘Women of Corinth’ speech, for
example, can be detected in Thomas Middle-
ton's Women Beware Women (1657)). By the mid-
nineteenth century, with an increasing historical
awareness informing stage sets and costumes,
and in the wake of the 1833 Copyright Act, the
act of translation for the stage and the role of
the translator him/herself are finally acknowl-
edged. It is notable that the 1858 translation of
Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus by Jules Lacroix,
which finally eclipsed Voltaire’s heavily adapted
Oedipe (1718) in the repertoire of the Comedie
Francaise, was awarded the Prix Extraordinaire
by the Académie Francaise in 1861, an honor
normally reserved for original works (Macintosh
2009). Henceforth, the translator enjoys status
equivalent to the actor-manager and, by the
early twentieth century, to the director as well.
Towards the end of the nineteenth and at
the beginning of the twentieth century, it is
the scholar-poets who dominate in transla-
tions of ancient plays. In the English-speaking
world it is the classical scholar Gilbert Murray
who reigns supreme throughout the first half
of the twentieth century, and whose transla-
tions of Euripides, above all, can be said to have
significantly shaped the new Drama of Ideas
(notably Shaw's Mujer Burbara) and in turn,
by extending his range to the widest reaches of
the English-speaking world, postcolonial drama
of the next generation (notably Soyinka's Bac-
chae) (Macintosh 2007) (+ Postcolonial Transla-
tion). In Germany, the classical scholar Ulrich
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff's translations of
Euripides’ plays proved equally influential in the
German-speaking world: to fin de siecle Vienna,
for example, they provided the key to Nerven-
kunst (Riley 2008).
394 THEATER TRANSLATION AND
In recent years, as we have heard, the scholar-
poets, with the notable exception of Tony Harri-
son, have ceded ground to the poets/playwrights
who work with the ‘literal’. In some ways the
exemplar for this practice was the classically-
imbued but linguistically uninitiated W. B. Yeats,
whose translations of Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyran-
nus and Oedipus at Colonus from the 1920s have
proved so dominant an influence for Irish writ-
ers, for whom translating an ancient play has
become a kind of rite de passage. Yeats had
originally invited Murray to translate Sophocles’
Oedipus Tyrannus for the Abbey Theatre, and
after Murray declined, Yeats vainly sought a
translation from other classically-trained col-
leagues. When none of these versions proved suf-
ficiently ‘speakable', he produced, with the help
of Richard Jebb's translation and commentary,
his own versions (Macintosh 2008). Not surpris-
ingly, when the Abbey Theatre commissioned
a play to mark the Theatre's Centenary in 2004,
they invited Seamus Heaney (who had already
produced a version of Sophocles’ Philoctetes, The
Cure at Troy (1990)) to translate Antigone, The
Burial at Thebes, the one ‘Theban’ play not yet
produced at the Abbey.
So far | have spoken about the translational
process as if it consisted of producing a text
for performance pure and simple. Translating for
performance, by contrast, consists of multiple
stages in a process, the first of which involves
the ‘literal’ and the playwright/poet. This stage
produces the literary text (or what Stoppard has
called the ‘transcript’ of the event that has not yet
taken place; Drama Translation) that is handed
aver to the director. Subsequent stages involve:
the director with the actors; the actors with the
movement director, the composer and the light-
ing designer; and finally, the actors in front of a
live audience. Each stage plays a key role in this
process and ‘translates’ and shapes the meaning
of the source text in significant ways. Even if this
elaborate process seems to minimize the role of
the individual scholar/translator of the play-text
even further, by reducing his/her status to but
one cog ina large machine, it highlights the need
both to examine each stage in the process care-
fully and also to move beyond the very literary
perspective that criticizes the commissioning
process as if the play-text were the sole vector of
meaning in the theater.
PERFORMANCE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boswell, L. 1996. “Interview. The Director as translator”. In:
Stages of translation, ed. by D. Johnston, 145-152. Bath.
Kundera, M. 1988. “Key words, problem words, words I love",
The New York Times, March 6, 1988.
Macintosh, I, 2009. Oedipus Tyrannus, Cambridge,
. 2008. “An Oedipus for our times? Yeats's version of
Sophocles’ Oedipus ‘'yrannos”. In: Performance, iconog-
raphy, reception: studies in honour of Oliver Taplin, ed. by
M. Revermann and P. Wilson, 524-547. Oxford.
. 2007. "From the court to the national: the theatrical
legacy of Gilbert Murray", In: Gilbert Murray reassessed,
ed, by C. A. Stray, 145-166. Oxford,
McGuinness, F., and Fiona Macintosh. 2010. Adapting Greek
Tragedy (University of Oxford Podcasts). January 28, 2010.
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/people/frank-meguinness.
Meyer, M, 1996. “Bluff your way in Marivaux”, The Times
Literary Supplement, November 8, 1996: 35.
Riley, K. zouß. The reception and performance of Euripides’
Herakles: reasoning madness. Oxford.
Stead, H. Forthcoming. 'Seneca's Oedipus, by hook or by
crook’, In: Seneca in the English Tradition (Canadian
Review of Comparative Literature, special issue), ed. by
T. Grant and K. Fleming.
FionA MACINTOSH
Thematic and Athematic Verbs
1. INTRODUCTION
Ancient Greek shows an inherited morphologi-
cal distinction between so-called thematic verb
stems like ékAd ‘have’ and so-called athematic
verb stems like eimi ‘go’. As the main focus of
this article is the relationship between thematic
and athematic verb stems, it primarily discusses
the properties of thematic and athematic pres-
ent and aorist formations, although the so-called
alpha-thematic aorist stems are also taken into
consideration. The perfect system follows the
alpha-thematic pattern and the future system is
exclusively thematic.
The terms thematic and athematic refer to the
presence or absence of the alternating vowel suf-
fix -e-/-0-, usually referred to as a thematic suffix
which in turn is derived from the Greek term
théma ‘base, word stem’, One may distinguish
several distinct structural types of both thematic
and athematic sterns in Ancient Greek. The most
important inherited thematic stems include the
so-called barytone present of the type p/erö
‘carry’, the so-called oxytone present of the type
glüphö ‘carve, cut out’, the -fe/o- present of the
type Saino ‘walk’ (< g"m-ye/ö-, cf. Ved. gamyd-),
the reduplicated thematic present of the type
gignomai ‘come into being, be born’, the -(i)ske/
 THEMATIC AND ATHEMATIC VERBS 395
o- present of the type baskö ‘come’ or heuriskö lar ending, thematic stems showing -6 and ath-
‘find’, the thematic aorist of the type eidon ‘saw’ ematic stems showing -mi and the third singular
(< *ewide/o- cf. Ved. dvida-) and the redupli- ending, where thematic stems have the end-
cated thematic aorist of the type eipon ‘said’ ing -/ or -ei and athematic stems the ending
(< *ewekre/a- cf. Ved, dvoca-). As regards inher- -si, Comparative data from Indo-Iranian, Italic,
ited athematic stems, we may distinguish the Celtic and Germanic suggest that the first per-
root present of the type ésti ‘is’, the redupli- son endings are both inherited from Proto-Indo-
cated athematic present of the type didömi'give' European, as illustrated by contrastive pairs like
(+ Reduplicated Presents), athematic + nasal Av. ahmi‘l am' vs. parasa ‘T ask’, Old Irish benaim
presents of the types ddmnémi ‘tame’ and I kill’ vs. biru ‘I carry’, Lat, sum 'I am’ vs. ferö
zeugnümi ‘yoke’ as well as the athematic root I carry’ and Goth. im ‘I am’ vs. baira ‘I carry’. It
aorist of the type ésté ‘stood’ (> Aorist Forma- should be noted, however, that the athematic
tion). In addition to these inherited stem types, ending is only attested in isolated relic forms
Ancient Greek shows a number of innovative in Latin and Gothic and that the two endings
thematic stem types which to a large extent have are gradually fused into one in Indo-Iranian,
developed from the thematic -je/o- present in cf. Ved. prechami, Old Persian parsämiy 'I ask’.
its denominal use (cf. e.g. Palmer 1980). The Hence, this morphological distinction may be
most characteristic innovative thematic stems regarded as an archaism in Ancient Greek. As
include stems in -aind, e.g. leukainö ‘make white’, regards the third singular endings, the athematic
stems in -unö, e.g. megalünö ‘make great’, stems ending in -si represents the regular outcome of
in -éz0, e.g. akontizö ‘throw a spear’, gunaikizö ‘be the third singular ending -& which is found in
womanish’, as well as stems formed by means the West Greek dialects and + Boeotian (didöti
of the suffixes -d6, e.g. phondé ‘be murderous’, ‘gives') and in other related languages, cf. e.g.
-€0, e.g. philéd ‘love’, -0ö, e.g, déldé ‘make clear’ Ved. dddati ‘gives’, The origin of the thematic
and -euö ‘e.g. paidedo ‘bring up or rear a child’ third singular ending is somewhat less imme-
(+ Present Tense). diately transparent and remains controversial.
Rix (1992:251) hypothesizes that this ending has
2. MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES arisen by + metathesis and subsequent regular
loss of word final t along the following lines: *eti
Thematic and athematic verb stems display sev- > “eit > *ei. He invokes a similar explanation to
eral morphological differences from an inner- account for the second singular endings them.
Greek perspective, some of which are inherited -eis, athem. -s, neither of which can be directly
from Proto-Indo-European. Table 1 illustrates derived from the second singular ending *si,
some such differences which concern the forms reflected, e.g., in Ved. them. cdrasi ‘you move’,
with primary endings. Only active forms have athem. dtsi ‘you eat’ and Hitt, vocalic stems
been included in this Table and the following, peskesi ‘you are giving’, consonantal stems &zsi
for ease of exposition (> Indo-European Linguis- ‘you eat’. Rix (1992:251) further suggests that this
tic Background). metathesis could have been instigated by the
thematic optative endings 2sg. -ois, 3sg. -oi(t),
Table 1: Thematic and athematic present stem and the corresponding subjunctive endings, 2sg.
inflection -és, 38g. -€(t), A proportional analogy of this kind
seemingly makes most sense in the case of the
Thematic Athematic subjunctive, where we find the same first singu-
Inflection Inflection lar ending as in the thematic paradigm, cf. e.g.
Isg. ekhö eimi didömi subjunctive eidö/eideö ‘I will know’ belonging to
2sg. ekheis eis didös the perfect oida ‘know’. Hoenigswald (1997) also
325g. ekhei eisi didösi opts for an analogical explanation (> Analogy).
ıpL ekhomen imen didomen A second difference concerns the underly-
2pl. ékhete ite didote ing base or stem, which in the case of thematic
gpl. = ékhousi iasi diddasi verbs remains the same, in the present case ékh-
but shows two (or more) variants in the case
The first and most obvious difference between of athematic verbs, in this case ei-/f- and didö-/
these two paradigms concerns the first singu- dido-, a morphological variation pattern which is
396 THEMATIC AND ATHEMATIC VERBS
conventionally referred to as apophony or ablaut
(+ Ablaut). Third, as already noted, thematic
verbs are distinguished from athematic verbs by
an alternating stem-final suffix in -e-/-o- which,
however, is most immediately transparent in the
first and second person plural, cf. ékh-o-men vs.
i-men or dido-men and ékh-e-te vs, i-te or d(do-te.
Furthermore, the thematic sufhx can be argued
to indirectly underlie most of the remaining
forms of the paradigm as well. The thematic
third person plural ending -ousi represents the
regular outcome in lunic-Attic Greek of the
Indo-European ending *-onti, cf. + Doric Greek
-onti, Vedic Sanskrit -anti etc. This ending differs
both in form and origin from the corresponding
athematic ending -dsi which under no circum-
stances can be derived from the ending *-onti,
but according to some scholars rather originates
from an innovative ending “anti peculiar to
Ancient Greek which may have been the result of
analogical leveling in the perfect where we also
find the ending -dsi (cf. e.g, Rix 1990:252; 256).
As regards the second person and third person
singular endings, the stem vocalism of the ath-
ematic forms eis and didös, on the one hand, eisi
and didösi, on the other, clearly is determined
by the vocalism of the stern, whereas thematic
stems always have e-vocalism in these forms.
3. OPEN/CLOSED MORPHOLOGICAL
CLASSES
Comparative data from other Indo-European
languages like Vedic Sanskrit and Latin clearly
show that both of these morphological types
are inherited in Greek. It is noncontroversial,
however, that the thematic type is a productive
open inflectional class whereas the athematic
type represents a fossilized, closed morphologi-
cal class. This is, among other things, reflected
in the fact that in a number of instances, Greek
verbs sporadically show thematic forms beside
athematic ones, cf. e.g. 35g. deikniei (Hes. Op.
451) vs. deiknüst, 38g. damnäi (Hom. Od. 11.221)
vs. ddmnési (Hom. IL 5.711, etc.), and that the
athematic stem in some cases has been fully
supplanted by thematic forms, cf. the margin-
ally attested athematic present participle forms
bibas (Hom. Il. 7.213) and bibänta (Hom. iL
13.701) vs. the stem bainö which is frequently
met with throughout the various periods of
Ancient Greek. Another related point concerns
the coinage of new verbs which always makes
use of a thematic stem suffix, cf. e.g. aerobatéd
‘walk in the air' (Aristoph. Nub. 225, 1503, Pl. Ap.
igc.), sökrateö ‘do like Sokrates’ (Aristoph. Av,
1282), sabbatizö ‘keep Sabbath’ (Ex. 16.30 etc.),
kholerido ‘suffer from cholera’ (Diosc. Med. 4.4)
and gunaikizö ‘be womanish’ (Aristoph. Thesm.
268). Similar tendencies are found in other Indo-
European languages and it is therefore likely
that it is inherited.
4. ALPHA-THEMATIC CLASS
Two stem types which have been left unnoticed
so far are the so-called k-aorist of the type éthéka
‘placed’ and sigmatic aorist of the type édeixa
‘showed’ which have significantly different
inflectional paradigms from the thematic and
athematic stem types discussed hitherto and
may be labeled alpka-thematic since they show
an -a- through most of the paradigm. Table 2
illustrates some important differences between
thematic and athematic forms with secondary
endings, notably élipon ‘left’ and éstén ‘stood’, on
the one hand, and the a/pha-thematic conjuga-
tion on the other. First, it should be noted that
thematic forms with secondary endings show
the same distribution of the alternating thematic
vowel as was shown to be the case in the forms
with primary endings and that forms of this type
show consistent vocalism throughout the para-
digm. Second, an important difference concems
the third plural secondary ending which is -on
in the thematic paradigm and -san in the athe-
matic paradigm. The athematic ending bears an
abvious resemblance to the corresponding end-
ing of the sigmatic aorist which may be assumed
to have gradually spread from this paradigm
and ended up being compatible with all forms of
vocalic stems requiring a secondary endings, cf.
eg. imperfect edidosan 'gave, were giving’ and
present optative dido/ésan ‘would give, be giving’.
As regards the alpha-thematic aorist stems,
they almost consistently show an -a- between
the stem and the ending, apart from the third
person form which is characterized by the ward
final vowel -e, apparently identical with the
corresponding thematic ending. The alpha-the-
matic paradigm is peculiar to Ancient Greek and
is assumed by most scholars to have its origin
in the first person singular ending -a where it
represents the expected development of word-
final *-m, cf. e.g. Ved. dpraksam ‘I asked, have
asked’. According to Rix (1992:207), the third
 THEMATIC AND ATHEMATIC VERBS 397
Table 2: Thematic, athematic and alpha-thematic stem inflection
Thematic Athematic Alpha-thematic
Aorist Aorist k-Aorist Sigmatic Aorist Perfect
Isg. elipon ésten éthéka édeixa léloipa
250, élipes éstés éthékas édeixas leloipas
35g. élipe ésté etheke édeixe léloipe
ıpl. elinomen éstémen ethékamen edeixamen lelotpamen
zpl. elipete éstéte ethékate edeixate leloipate
gpl. élipon éstésan ethekan édeixan leloipasi

singular ending -e in the alpha-thematic aorist
paradigm was introduced via a process of pro-
portional analogy from the corresponding form
of the perfect where it represents the original,
Proto-Indo-European ending. In any case, it is
evident that the Ancient Greek sigmatic aorist
and perfect paradigms mutually influenced each
other, as both of them had athematic paradigms
in Proto-Indo-European which included first
person endings yielding an -a in Ancient Greek
(cf. e.g. Fortson 2004:94, Rix 1992:207).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Duhoux, Yves. 1992. Le verbe grec ancient, Elements de mar-
phologie et de syntaxe historiques. Louvain-La-Neuve.
Fortson, Benjamin W. 2004. Indo-European language and
culture: an introduction. Malden MA.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1997. “Analogy in Cyrene and else-
where". In: A Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp, vel. |, ed. by
Douglas Q. Adams, 93-98. Washington.
Palmer, Leonard R. 1980. The Greek language. London.
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen.
Darmstadt.
Sihler, A. L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and
Latin. New York - Oxford.
EYSTEIN DAHL
Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation
L INTRODUCTION
Stem formation in Ancient Greek, of both nouns
(and adjectives) and verbs, is of two different
types, thematic and athematic. Both types date
back to Proto-Indo-European although the latter
may be older (see 4), In Ancient Greek (and in
PTE) the root is the fundamental part of the ward
that remains after the word has been analyzed
into its components and which carries the core
meaning of the word, e.g. the root leg- (and its
ablaut form /og-; + Ablaut) carries the sense of
‘saying’, When a stem agrees in form with a root,
e.g. pod-ds (gen. of pous 'foot‘), it is called a root-
stem, and is therefore athematic.
In addition to athematic stem formations, it is
quite common for a thematic vowel to be added,
forming, e.g., from the root leg- / /og-, the stems
leg-o- in légo-men ‘we say’ and log-o- in lögo-s
‘word’, The thematic vowel is, therefore, a vowel
that may be attached to a verbal er nominal root
before the endings in order to form a stem. In
most cases, an ending is also added, although
a stem without an ending may also serve as
a word, e.g. khörä ‘land’, lege ‘speak!’, löge ‘O
word!’ (Smyth and Messing 1984:44-45). Stems
and words that contain a thematic vowel are
called thematic. They contrast with athematic
ones, which lack this vowel. The distinction
between thematic and athematic stems (and
words) applies to both nouns (and adjectives)
and verbs, and is a feature that goes back to PIE.
See also Weiss (2010:104).
For the Indo-European origin of these distinc-
tions see Beekes (1995), Hewson and Bubenik
(1997). See also Chantraine (1967), Rix (1992),
Schwyzer (1968).
As concerns the evolution of the athematic /
thematic distinction in later Greek, what char-
acterizes it is the elimination of the athematic
and the prevalence of the thematic formations,
eg. Anc. Gk, pater ‘father’ > Mod. Gk. natépas
[pa'teras], Anc. Gk. deiknumi 'show' > Mod. Gk.
Szixvw [‘dixno]. (+ Developments in Medieval
and Modern Greek).
2. THE THEMATIC STEM FORMATION
OF Nouns
Nouns traditionally classified as belonging to the
first and second declensions are formed with the
addition of a thematic vowel. In contrast, nouns
398 THEMATIC VOWEL, STEM FORMATION
of the third declension do not present this fea-
ture. As concerns the PIE origin of the nominal
inflection, see Beekes (1985).
2.a. First Declension
The first declension consists of masculine and
feminine nouns formed with the thematic vowel
-G-, eg. (ist type) ho nednia-s, stem neänid-
‘young man’; (2nd type) hu polite-s < polita-s,
stem polita- ‘citizen’, with Attic-lonic change of a
to é (ard type) he khdra, stem khörä- ‘land’; (ath
type) he niké < nikä, stem nika- ‘victory’ (also
with d > €). A sth type comprises feminine nouns
ending in -d, e.g, he glötta, stem glötta- ‘tongue’;
most cases of this type are formed with the sufhx
*-ya- < *ihz- | *iehz-, e.g. glötta < *glökh-ya (see
Sihler 1995193; cf. also Weiss 2010108-109).
If the stem contains another vowel (a or e)
before the thematic vowel, then the phonetic
result is their contraction. The stem is thus
formed as follows: he mnä, stem mna- < mnaa-
‘mina’, he süke, stem süke- < stiked- ‘fig tree’,
ho Borrä-s, stem Borra- < Boreä- ‘north wind’,
(with re > rr; see Smyth and Messing 1984:30), ho
Herme-s, stem Hermé- < Hermed- ‘Hermes’, etc.
The thematic vowel -d- is also used to form
the stem of the feminine of adjectives: (masc.)
-os, (fem.) -@ / -&, (neut.) -on, e.g. hu dxios, he
axid, td dxion ‘worthy’; ho ayathös, he agathé, td
agathén ‘good’.
The thematic vowel -@- derives from PIE *-eh,-,
i.c., with the addition of *-A,- to the e-grade of the
thematic vowel *e/o- (see under 2.b.). “The ehz-
stems are found in all IE languages except Hitt.,
in which there is no trace of any distinctively
feminine inflection in either nouns or pronouns.
But in all other IE languages there is a close asso-
ciation between o-stems and what are tradition-
ally known as d-stems” (Sihler 1995:266).
2.b. Second Declension
The second declension consists of masculine
and feminine nouns in -es and neuter nouns tn
-on, e.g. ho hippo-s, stem hippo- ‘horse’, he hodö-s,
stem Avdo- 'way', to döro-n, stem doro- ‘gift’. All
these nouns are formed with the thematic vowel
-o-, or better *-e/o-, with ablaut, because, in PIE
terms, there was only one vowel that formed
stems, and its different ablaut forms must be
regarded as the same element. The same the-
matic vowel *e/o- is also found in thematic
verbs (see under 3).
The o-grade is much more common in the
paradigm, e.g. démo-s ‘common people’, gen.
démou (< *demo-syo), acc. démo-n (< *dem-u-m),
etc., but the e-grade is found in the voc. sg.,
e.g. déme, in forms like pandemei ‘in full force’
(loc.), in the formation of “the feminine para-
digm derived from o-stems with the addition of
*-Ay-" (see under 2.a.), and “as the first element
in the most archaic kind of compounds, and in
denominative verbs” (Sihler 1995-249).
The presence of a vowel (o or e) before the
thematic vowel in the stem is also attested in
the second declension, and the phonetic result
is their contraction. The stem is thus formed
as follows: ho noü-s stem noo- ‘mind’, td ostoit-n
stem osteo- ‘bone’.
A subclass of the second declension is the so-
called Attic declension.
The thematic vowel *-e/o- is also used for the
formation of the stem of the masculine and the
neuter of adjectives in (masc.) -os, (fem.) -d / -é,
(neut.) -on (see under 2.a.), as well as the forma-
tion of the masculine/feminine and the neuter of
adjectives in (masc./fem) -os, (neut.) -on, e.g. ho |
he ddikos, to adikon ‘unjust’.
As regards the origin of the thematic vowel
*.e/a-, see under 4.
3. THE THEMATIC STEM FORMATION
OF VERBS
In the formation of the Greek present the the-
matic stems are much more common than the
athematic ones (+ Present Tense). They are
invariant apart from the e/o ablaut of the the-
matic vowel, which is placed immediately before
the personal endings. For the Greek verbal sys-
tem see also Duhoux (1992) and + Verbal System
(Tense, Aspect, Mood).
The term ‘thematic stem’ can be used in two
different senses; (a) any stem which includes a
thematic vowel, as in the suffixes “ske/o- and
*ye/o-, and (b) the stem which consists of the
*e/o- vowel per se. “Thus when we speak of a
quondam athematic inflection as having been
‘thematized’, we mean that the new stem con-
sists of the theme vowel *e/o- as stem per se.
That is, one would not refer to *y"*en-ye/o-
‘strike, kill’, or “prk-sk“"- ‘ask’ as ‘thematized’
formations, though they are certainly ‘thematic’
ones” (Sihler 1995:481).
 THEMATIC VOWEL,
3.a. Simple Thematic Verbs
Simple thematic verbs are usually formed with
a tonic root in e-grade, and their only stem fea-
ture is the thematic vowel e/o, e.g. pherö ‘carry’.
Sometimes the root appears in other grades,
e.g, grdpho ‘scratch’, glüphä ‘carve’, légé ‘abate’
(Sihler 1995:493-494, 515).
In the active voice, the o-grade of the thematic
vowel is found in the ist sing., the ist pl. and
the 3rd pl., e.g. pherö (< PIE *-0-h2), phero-men,
pherausi (< *-o-nti), while the e-grade is found
in the znd sing, the 3rd sing. and the and pl,
e.g. phére-is, phére-i, phére-te. The dual has the
e-grade in the and and the ard. person, e.g. phére-
ton, phére-ton (o-grade in the ist person in PIE,
e.g. “bhero-wos) (see Sihler 1995:480—481).
In the + medio-passive, the distribution of dif-
ferent grades is the same as above, e.g. phéro-mai,
phere-ai (> pherei), phére-tai, pher-ömetha, phere-
sthe, phéro-ntai, etc., although it may not repre-
sent the Proto-Indo-European state of affairs as
the other Indo-European languages point to a
uniform thematic vowel o. According to Sihler
(1995:473), “it is easier to explain the *-e/o- as lev-
eled on the active pattern, than it is to account
for the loss of a pervasive pattern of alternation’.
In the + subjunctive, the stem has a long vowel
as a result of adding the subjunctive marker
ta the thematic vowel e/v, e.g. (active) phéro,
phére-is, phéré-i, pherö-men, phere-te, pherösi
(< *-d-nti), (medio-passive) pherö-mai, phére-i,
phéré-tai, pherö-metha, phéré-sthe, pherö-ntai,
etc. The + optative stem is formed with an ele-
ment *-oi- in place of the thematic vowel, c.g.
(active) pheroi-a (and later phéroi-mi), phéroi-s,
phéroi, pheroi-men, phéroi-te, phéroi-en, (medio-
passive) pherof-men, phéroi-o, phéroi-to, pheroi-
metha, phéroi-sthe, phéroi-nto, etc.
In the + imperative, the stem is formed with
the thematic vowel e/o, e.g. (active) (2nd sing.)
phére, (ard sing.) phere-tö, (2nd plur.) phere-
te, (ard plur.) pherö-ntön; (medio-passive) (2nd
sing.) phérou, (3rd sing.) phere-sthö, (and plur.)
phére-sthe, (3rd plur.) phere-sthön. Finally, the
thematic yowel e/o also appears in the forma-
tion of the — infinitive, e.g. (active) “phére-en >
pherein, cf. Myc. e-ke-e (= Att. ékhein), (medio-
passive) phére-sthai,
3.b. Other Thematic Classes
A great number of thematic stems are formed
with the suffix “-ye/o-, which, depending on the
STEM FORMATION 399
preceding consonant or vowel, has various pho-
netic effects, e.g. PIE *spek-ye/o- > (by metath-
esis) “skep-ye/o- > sképt-omai ‘watch carefully’;
*pek-ye/o- > pess-ö | pett-ö ‘cook, ripen’ (later
pept-ö); *elpid-ye/o- > elpiz-6 ‘hope’, *stel-ye/o-
> stéll-6 ‘set in order’; “man-ye/o- > main-omai
‘rage’; *khar-ye/o- > khair-6 ‘rejoice’; *ten-ye/o- >
tein-ö ‘stretch’; *phther-ye/o- > phtheir-o ‘destroy’;
*kaw-ye/o- > kai-6 ‘kindle’, *phu-ye/o- > phü-6
‘beget’, etc.
Some PIE n-infix presents (+ Nasal Presents)
were also thematized, e.g. “tyt-ne-fty- > lammn-o
‘cut’; “g*(-ne-h,- > ball-ö ‘throw’; also, * ske/o-
formations, e.g. *g"m-ske/o- > bäsk-ö ‘move’
(Sihler 1995:518-520). Another distinct category
are +contract verbs, e.g. *new-ehz(-ye/o-) >
nedo ‘renew’, *timd-ye/o- > timdö > timö ‘honor;
*metre-y*/o- > metreö > metrö ‘measure’; *aro-
ye/o- > aröö > arö ‘plow’.
3.c. Other Tenses
In addition to the tenses formed with the pres-
ent stem as described above, there are also other
verbal stems having thematic formations, e.g.
the asigmatic (or second) ~ aorist, usually char-
acterized by a zero-grade root, e.g. for the verb
leipd ‘leave’, asigmatic aorist stem formation
é-lip-e/o: élipo-n, élipe-s, élipe, elipo-men, elipe-te,
élipo-n (Sihler 1995:561; cf, also Weiss 2010714—
115). Reduplicated aorists are also found, e.g., for
the verb theino ‘kill’, &-pe-phn-e/o: épephno-n,
épephne-s, épephne, epephno-men, epephne-te,
épephno-n (> Reduplication).
If by ‘thematic vowel’ we refer to any stem
vowel, we can also include here the alpha-the-
matic — perfect, i.e., the linking vowel -a- that
develops in Greek between the original stem and
the perfect endings. In forms like {e-ioip-a-men
‘we have left’ the root syllable is followed by -a-
“in all the indicative forms with the exception of
the grd sg. -e. [...} Here the source of the -a- is to
be found in the early 3rd pl. -ati < “nti, and in
forms like ésta-men and téthna-men, where the
-a- reflects root final *h,-” (Sihler 1995:573).
4. THE ORIGIN OF THE THEMATIC
VOWEL *-e/o-
The origin of the PIE thematic vowel *e/o- is
not clear. As is pointed out by Sihler (19957481),
“The observation that *o occurs before resonants
(*w and the nasals), *e elsewhere, long ago led
400 THEMATIC VOWEL, STEM FORMATION

to attempts to connect the origin and distribu- Weiss, Michael. 2m10. “Morphology and word formation’. In
Bakker 20107104—-119,
tion of the alternation. When however *-oh,- as
ısg. took the place of the reconstruction “6, GEORGIOS PAPANASTASSIOU
the original generalization became harder to
maintain’,
it is worth quoting here Sihler (1995:482) who Theonyms (Names of Gods)
makes three observations with regard to the
issue at hand: “{1} W thematic inflection started Greek theonyms (i.e., divine names) may be clas-
in athematic inflections in which vowels ‘prew' sified according to their origin into the follow-
anaptyctically between the stem and the end- ing four categories: names of Indo-European
ing, as some have speculated, it is difficult to heritage, names which constitute innovations
understand how or why any athematic para- of Greek, names that were borrowed inta Greek
digms could have survived. That is, if *legeti and underwent reinterpretation, and names
‘gathers’ is an automatic development of “legti which are direct borrowings from other ancient
(*lekti), how did *yunekti ‘joins’ survive? |...] languages.
(2) If the thematic types are somehow an organic
development from athematic types, the fixed 1, INDO-EUROPEAN HERITAGE
tonic accent and the lack of quantitative ablaut,
which are properties of all thematic types, are In this group belong names which have a clear
not only unexplained but an embarrassment. Indo-European etymology, such as the following:
(3) Most theories of the ultimate origins of the-
matic inflection naturally take the simplest the- Zeüs (Il.), Myc. (KN+PY) di-we /Diwei/ (dat. sg.),
matic type - root plus stem *-e/o- (*legeti) - as (PY) di-wo /Diwos/ (gen. sg.) < *diuös; cf. Ved.
the most original. This reasonable opinion is dyäuh ‘heaven’, pater Zeus (IL 4.235, 5.33), Zeus
undercut by Hitt., in which the simple thematic pater (Aesch. Sept. 512) = Lat. /uppiter/lapiter
type is extremely rare (some would say nonexis- (from voc.*dieu pater), Ved. dyauh pita ‘heavenly
tent) but the characterized affixes “ske/o- and father’.
*.ye/o- abound. This indicates that the simple Helios (Od., Att.), Hom. éélios, Dor. Aeol.
thematic type of the familiar IE languages is a aelios, Cret. abelios (Hsch.) ‘sun' < *sehzuel-jo-:
secondary development, abstracted from such Ved, Sürya-.,
suffixes as *ske/o- and *-ye/o-, with their para- Hera (il), Cypr. Erai, Myc. (PY+TH) e-ra
digmatically uniform root grade and columnar /Hérai/ (dat. sg.) < *sera ‘lady/woman’: Lat. Jano
(non-mobile) accent.” Soröria, Avest. hairi$i female' (Willi 2010).
Eös (Il.+Hes.), Dor. ads < *auhös < *hzeusös:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Ved. usäh ‘aurora’
Bakker, Egbert]., ed. 2010, A companion to the Ancient Greek
language. Malden - Oxford - Chichester.
Ourands (ll.+Hes.), Dor. örands ‘Uranus/
Beekes, Robert 5, P. 1985. The origins of Indo-Europenn nomi- heaven’ < *uorsanos: Ved. varsd- ‘rain’ (Wacker-
nal inflection. Innsbruck. nagel 1888:129) or Ved. varsman- ‘height’ (Specht
——., 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics, An intro- 1939:199f1.) or *uorunnos: Ved. Varuna-, varu-
duclion. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1967. Morphologie historique du grec
‘cover ( Jackson 2006:21).
ancien. Paris, Pän (H. Hom.+Pind.), Arc. Paoni <*Pauhon:
Duhoux, Yves. 1992, Le verbe grec ancien. Elements de mor- Ved. Pusdn-, from *pehz-u- ‘to protect’ (Beekes
phologie et de syntaxe historiques. Louvain. 201071149).
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. 1997. Tense and aspect in
Indo-Europeun languages: theory, typology, diachrony. Gkeands (IL+Hes.) < *a-kef-m{h,]no-, cf. Ved.
Amsterdam - Philadelphia. äsäyäna- ‘epithet of Vitra’, lit. ‘lying on’ (Kuhn
Rau, Jeremy. 2010. “Greek and Proto-Indo-Eurapean”. In 1860:240; Janda 2006:4).
Bakker 2010304-119.
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen:
Laut- und Formentchre. Darmstadt, 2. GREEK INNOVATIONS
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1968. Griechische Grammutik, Munich.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek Att. Hdidés, Dor. Aidas, Thess. inscr. Awidan <
and Latin. New York — Oxtord. *n-uid-d- ‘invisible’: afdelos ‘destructive/hateful/
Smyth, Herbert W. ancl Gordon M. Messing. 1984. Greek
grammar, Cambridge, Mass. invisible’ (Beekes 2010:33-34), cf. Hitt. awiti- ‘sphinx’
 THEONYMS (NAMES OF GODS)
(Puhvel 1984:247); otherwise Thieme (1952)
‘meeting place (with one’s forefathers)’ (from
*"sm-wid-) and Janda (2000:67ff.) as ‘Binder’ (from
"seh, (i)uid-).
Ares (A.+E.), Aré (/L+Hes.}, Myc. (KN) a-re
[Arei/ (dat. sg.) < “horély-/*hoyh,-és: are ‘damage’
(Barnes 2009:11).
Artemis (IL), Dor. Artamis, Myc. (PY) a-te-mi-
to /Artemitos/ (gen. sg.), a-ti-mi-te /Artimitei/
(dat. sg.) < *arti-tamos ‘exactly-cutting’ (ho eis
ärtia t&mnön, Eust. 577.45).
Aphrodite (H. Hom. 5 + Hes. Th. 195), Cret.
Aphrodita < *abf'ro-/*abtor-dihat(e)h, ‘very-shin-
ing’, originally the epithet of the love-goddess
attested in Myc. pe-re-wa,, Pamph. Preiia: Old
Norse Freyja (Witczak 1993).
Gaia (il+Hes.), Dor. gaia/gd, Ge (Il.), Cypr.
dza, Myc. (PY) ka-ja /gaias/ (gen. sg.), (KN+TH)
ma-ka {Ma(trei)-Gai/ (dat. sg. (?}) < *gnh, (eh,
‘fertile’ (Meier-Brügger 1994): Ved. jaya ‘wife’,
perhaps contamined with WSem. "gawy-aft)
‘kinswoman’ (Hebr. göya ‘gentile woman’: göy
‘people’; Klein 1987:94).
Diönüsos (Ui), Diönüsos (Od.), Thess.+Cret.
Diönnusos, Aeol. Zénnusos, Myc. (PY) di-wo-nu-
so-jo (gen. sg. (?)}< *diuos-sünos ‘Zeus’ son’ (con-
sonantal metathesis (?)) (Szemerenyi 1977:11).
Eileithuia (Hom.), Cret. Eleüthuia, Myc. (KN)
e-re-u-ti-ja /Eleuthiai/: Hom. eileloutha ‘came’
< *hyleudh-.
Enüö (Il.) < "hynuhziö, from *hnehzu- 'dead/
to die’, cf. Old Polish Nyja ‘idolum’ (Pokorny
1959:756; Witezak-Kaczor 1995:271).
Enidtios (Il), Arg. Enuwatios, Myc. (KN) e-nu-
wa-ri-jo /Enuwalioi/ (dat. sg.), called andrei-
phöntes (Il. 2.651) 'man-slaying'.
Erebos (il.) < *hreg#os,-esos ‘dark’: Arm. erek
‘evening’ (Beekes 2010:451).
Erinüs (Il), Myc. (KN) e-ri-nu /Erinus/, e-ri-
nu-we /Erinu(w)ei/ (dat. sg.) < *eri-snhg-u- 'quar-
rel-provoking’: éris (Od.) ‘quarrel’ (Neumann
1986:43-51).
Hermes (Od.), Dor.+Boeot. /lermäs, Hermaön
(Hsch.), cf. Myc. (TH+PY) e-ma-a, /Herma(h)ai/
(dat. sg.); called diaktoros (Hom.) ‘conductor’:
hermeé: éxodos (Hsch.), horme (Il) ‘onset/outset/
effort’, Rormainö (Hom./Aesch.) ‘debate/ponder/
think/wish/set in motion, drive forth’, Ved.
sdrma- ‘flowing/streaming’: sdrati ‘hurries/
drives’, besides the divine bitch Sarama; cf. Hitt.
sarmeya- ‘wild dog’: Hermes kundnkhés (Hip-
pon.) ‘dog-throttler’ ( Janda 2005:71-72).
401
Dor. Paidn, Hom. Paieön (IL), Ion.-Att. Paiön,
cf. Myc. (KN) pa-ja-wo-ne [Paiäwönei/[/Pajja-.../
> /Paia-.../; cf. Garcia-Ramön, Companion
Linear B, vol II, 232] (dat. sg.) [added] < *sing-
ing magic’: Old Russian poju/peti, Tocharian
B pi-, pret. päyäa- ‘sing’ (Schrader & Nehring
1929.87).
Persephöne (Hes.+H. Hom.), Phersephöna
(Pind.), Locr. Periphöna, Att. inser. Persöphatta
/ Pherröphatta < *perso-g¥'onehg / g*"ntih, ‘rich-
in-(sun-}rays': perra (Lycoph, Alex.) ‘sun’ (Peters-
mann 1986:302-04; Janda 2000:178).
Poseidön (Aristoph.), Hom. Poseidon, Corinth,
Poteidäwön, Myc. (PY) po-se-da-o [Poseidä(h)ön/
< *potei dahon ‘Lord of destructions!’ (deios
(iL), Dor. ddios ‘destructive’; Hamp 1968:204:
*potis Das ‘Lord Das’) or *potei (u)dahon ‘Lord
of waters!’ (dat.sg, of hüdei (Hes.), cf. Myc. (PY)
u-do-no-o-i ‘water’ (dat. sg.)).
Rhéa/Rheié (Il) < *sreyja: rheö (Il.), epic rheiö
‘I flow/stream’ (Chryssipus Stoicus).
Khdos (Hes.) < *g"ehzun- ‘yawning opening’
(Beekes 20101614-1617): Old Norse Ginnungagap.
3. BORROWINGS WITH GREEK
REINTERPRETATION
Apöllön, Dor. Apéllon, Cypr. Apeilan, Thess. Aploun
< *Apeliön, possibly from *dpelos, reconstructed
after Hom. oligépelié ‘weakness’, nepeleö (Hippo-
crates apud Galenum) ‘I am powerless’, euépelés
(Hes.) ‘prosperous’, an-apeldsas: anarröstheis
(Hes.), anépelié: asthéneia (Hes.), cf. Old Norse
aff ‘strength’ (Pokorny 1959:52); or from Hurrian
> Akkadian (Nuzi) apellu ‘kind of arrow’ (von
Soden 1965:57), cf. Apolloni... klutotöxöi (IL 4.101,
119) ‘to Apollo ... famous archer’.
Demeter (i.), Dor./Arc./Boeot. Damäter, Aeol.
Dömater, Thess. Dammateri, Myc. (PY) da-ma-
te, consisting of Hom. démos, Dor. dämos, Myc.
(PY) da-mo ‘country/land/people’ + meter, Dor.
mäter, Myc. (PY) ma-te ‘mother’, adapting Linear
A (AR) é-da-ma-te / (KY) da-ma-te - NWSem.
*P’um] ’adamati ‘[mother] of earth’: Hebrew
*@dmati ‘my earth’ (Aspesi 1997:253-264).
Hestia, lon. (cf. H. Hom.+Hes.) Histié/Hestié,
appellative ‘hearth’: gistia: eskhdré (Hsch.) <
coll. *ufejstia : Lat. Vesta; with regard to Myc.
(PY) woman's name e-ti-e-ja /Estijeia/, perhaps
from NWSem. *isSatu ‘fire(-goddess)': Ugaritic
iSt/i-Sa-t,/1-Si-tu,, Hebrew “es (del Olmo Lete &
Sanmartin 2003219).
402 THEONYMS (NAMES OF GODS)
Héphaistos (lt.), Att. inscr. Héphastos, Dor.
Haphaistos / Aphaistos, cf. Myc. (KN) place-name
a-pa-i-tijo /Apaistion/ < Adpto pir ‘kindle fire’,
haphé ‘kindling’, besides Egyptian *hat-Ptah-i
‘Ptah’s house’ (BlaZek 2010:32-35).
Kronos (Il): Perhaps a NWSem, adaptation of
Hurrian Kumar=bi, perhaps via Phoenician *67-
grnm ‘Two-horned-Ba‘al’, reconstructed after
Lat. (CIL viii.24u3) Saturnus Balcaranensi (Krah-
malkov 2000:28) and reinterpreted as Ba‘al
‘[son] of Qaran(?)’.
Semélé (ll), Dor. Semelä < *tuemelä ‘gravid’:
Ved. tümra- ‘strong/fat/thick’ (Janda 2005:147,
155), besides NWSem.: Ugaritic Smif ‘mother of
eagles/falcons’ (Astour 1967:163-175; del Olmo
Lete & Sanmartin 2003:786).
4. DIRECT BORROWINGS (HURRIAN/
SEMITIC/EGYPTIAN)
Athénd (Hom.), Dor, Athdna, cf. Myc. (KN) a-ta-
na-po-ti-ni-ja /Atan-ai/-as Potniai/ (‘to mistress
Athana' (dat.-dat. sg.) or ‘to Athana’s mistress’
(gen.-dat. sg.)), adapting WSem. “ba‘at-‘anat
‘Lady ‘Anat’ > “pallad°-At*ana, besides NWSem.
*bat(V)lat- ‘anat ‘Virgin ‘Anat’, maybe influenced
by the city-name of substratal origin motivated
by the ‘stool/table-like-hill’ in perspective of
Hurrian adani- ‘stool’ (BlaZek 2007),
fapetds (Il. 4.478-481) < NWSem.: Hebrew
(Gn. 5.32; 6.10; 7.13; 9.18-23) Yepet, {LXX) lapheth
(Ia@e6) ‘Noah's son, ancestor of many nations’
(Lewy 1895:243), ; Specht, F. 1939. "Griechische Miszellen’, KZ 66197—221.
Leto (IL, + Hes.), Dor. Lata, Myc. (KN) place-
name ra-to [Lätö/ < NWSem. *"ilätu: Ugaritic ilt
‘goddess (Atirat)', Phoenician '/t (DUL 66).
Kharön (Eur.+Aristoph.), Myc. (KN) ka-ro
[Kharön/ < NWSem. *Hawrän: Ugaritic Hrn
‘chthonian deity’ (BlaZek 2007).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aspesi, Francesco. 1997. “Possibili connessioni egee di ebra-
ico “damd: a proposita di lineare A (i-)da-ma-te". in:
Afreasiatica Neapolitana, ed. by Alessandro Bausi and
Mauro Tosco, 253-264. Naples.
Astour, M. C. 1967. Hellenosemitica. Leiden.
Barnes, Timothy. 2009. “Homeric p@dcg "Apnos, Hittite
mallai harrai”. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual UCLA
Indo-European Conference, ed. by Stephanie W. Jamison,
H. Craig Melchert and Brent Vine, 1-17. Bremen.
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Beekes, Robert. zo1o. Etymological dictionary of Greek, vols.
I-II. Leiden — Boston.
Blazek, Vaclav. 2007. “Theonymica Helleno-Semitica i: Cha-
ron; TI: Pallas Attänä/Attand Potnia “Virgin” or "Lady"?”,
DO-SO-MO. Fascicula Mycenologica Polona 7255-159,
161-176.
. 2010. The Indo-European "Smith". Washington D.C.
Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio and Joaquin Sanmartin. 2003, A
dictionary of the Ugaritic language in the alphabetic tradı-
tion. Leiden — Boston.
Hamp. Eric. 1968. “The name of Demeter”, Minos 9:198—204.
Jackson, Peter. 2006. The transformation of Helen, Indo-
European myth and the roots ofthe Trojan cycle. Dettelbach.
Janda, Michael. 2000. Eleusis. Das indogermanische Erbe der
Mysterien. Innsbruck.
. 2005. Elysion. Entstehung und Entwicklung der griechis-
chen Religion. Innsbruck.
——. 2006. “The religion of the Indo-Europeans”. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 17th Annual UCLA Indo-European Cenfer-
ence, ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley et al, 1-30. Washington
D.C,
Klein, Ernest. 1987. A comprehensive etymological dictionary
of the Hebrew language. New York - London.
Krahmalkov, Charles. 2000. Phoenician-Punic dictionary.
Leuven.
Kretschmer, Paul. 1930. "Griechisch (Literaturbericht für das
Jahr 1927)", Glotta 18:200-241.
Kuhn, Adalbert. 1860. "Nxeavöc”, KZ g:2.40.
Lewy, Heinrich. 1895. Die semitischen Fremdwörter im
Griechischen. Berlin.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 1992 [1994]. "Zu griechisch, yi und
yaote”, MSS 5319-116.
Neumann, Günter. 1986. "Wortbildung und Etymologie von
"Epivöc", Die Sprache 32.1:43-51.
Perersmann, Hubert. 1986. "Persephone im Lichte des altori-
entalischen Mythos”, Die Sprache 32:286-307.
Pokomy, Julius. 1959. Jndogermanisches etymologisches
Wörterbuch, vols. 1-I. Munich - Bern.
Puhvel, Jaan. 1984-, Hittite etymological dictionary. Berlin -
New York.
Schrader, Otto and Alfons Nehring. 1917-1929. Reallexikun
der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, vols, 1-IL Berlin -
Leipzig.
von Soden, Wolfram. 1965. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch |
(= AHw ), Wiesbaden,
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1977. Studies in the kinship terminol-
ogy of the Indo-European languages. Leiden - Teheran
- Liege,
Thieme, Paul. 1952. Studien zur indogermanischen Wort-
kunde und Religionsgeschichte, Berlin,
Wackernagel, Jakob. 1888. “Miscellen zur griechischen
Grammatik”, KZ 29124-132.
Willi, Andreas. zoıo. “Hera, Eros, luno Sororia”, [Fus:234-267.
Witezak, Krzysztof. 1999. “Greek Aphrodite and her Indo-
European origin’. In: Miscellanea linguistica Graeco-
Latina, ed. by Isebaert Lambert, 15-123. Namur.
Witezak, Krzysztof and Idaliana Kaczor. i995. “Linguistic
evidence for the Indo-European pantheon”. In: Collec-
tanea Philologica i! in honorem A.M, Komornicka, ed,
by Ignacy R. Danka, Stefan O$wlecimski and Anna M.
Komornicka, 265-278, Lodz.
VACLAV BLAZEK
 THESSALIAN
Thessalian
1. DEFINITION
Thessalian is the name of the ancient dialect of
Thessaly in Northern Greece, with several local
variants. Of these variants, those of Pelasgiotis
(with the towns of Larisa and Crannon; and
Phalanna in near-by Perrhaebia) and Thessali-
otis (with the towns of Pharsalus and Cierium)
are the best known. Thess. did not develop a lit-
erary language; therefore, one has to turn to epi-
graphic sources for information about it. On the
+ accentuation of Thess., one can perhaps draw
indirect conclusions from the frequent loss or
change of vowel quality: this seems to point to a
stress accent, unlike the pitch accent of the other
Gk. dialects (Probert 2006:73-74; Chadwick 1992,
who argues that the Thess, stress normally fell on
the initial syllable). Because of the uncertainties
regarding the Thess. accentuation, examples of
dialect forms will be given without accents.
Useful selections of Thess. inscriptions, with
linguistic commentary on the dialect, can be
found in, among others, Buck (1965%:220-227)
and Colvin (2007:92-101).
2. FEATURES OF THESSALIAN
Thess. belongs in the Aeolic branch of dialects
(+ Aeolic Dialects), together with + Boeotian
and East Aeolic (Lesbian) (+ Lesbian (and Aeolic
Asian)). Proto-Greek (3rd mill. BCE) (+ Proto-
Greek and Common Greek; + Southeast Greek)
developed into four proto-dialects (2nd mill.
BCE) which can be readily characterized along
two parameters:
a. change of non-initial t(h)i to si (except after
s): ‘assibilation’, as against preservation of
tth)i, and
b. development of the syllabic (or ‘vocalic’) liq-
uids (r and {) to either Ro/oR or Ra/aR.
Combination of these two parameters yields
the early characterization of dialects as either
(1) t(h)i-Ro/oR (Aeol.), or (2) t(h)i-Ra/aR (+ Doric,
or West-Greek), or (3) si-Ro/oR (+ Arcado-
Cypriot / Achaean, including Mycenaean), or
(4) si-Ra/aR (Att.-lon.). Thess. exhibits the first
combination, ¢(h)i-Ro/oR. Examples are ikati ‘20
(Att.-Ion. eikosi), p.n. Brokhus ‘Short’ (Att.-Ion.
403
brakhis), petro- 'four-' (Att.-lon. tetra-; for p- ~
t- from > labiovelar *K”, see below).
Aeol. features are best represented in E.Thess.
(Pelasgiotis, Perrhaebia, Magnesia), whereas
W.Thess. (Thessaliotis, Hestiaeotis) was more
heavily influenced by W.Gk. According to
ancient sources (Herodotus, Thucydides, Pau-
sanias), the Thessalians originated from Thes-
protia, a region in Epirus, i.e. W.Gk. territory,
whence they migrated into the Aeol. regions
of Thessaly. From West to East, originally Aeol,
Thessaly was - decreasingly — ‘doricized’.
As the preservation of Proto-Gk. t(h}i is a
feature of both Thess. and Boeot., it must prob-
ably be considered Proto-Aeol., the assibilation
in Lesb. then being due to influence of E.Ion.
spoken to the immediate South of the E.Aeol.
territory. The alternative position, viz. that ¢(h)i
in Thess. and Boeot. is due to influence of W.Gk.,
is less likely.
2.a. Aeolic doubling
Apart from the t(h)i and Ro/oR characteristics,
Thess. shares with Lesb. the so-called diplasi-
asmös Aiolikös, ‘Aeolic doubling’: the typical
occurrence of geminate nasals and liquids pre-
ceded by (mostly) short vowels where other
dialects (including Boeot.) have single nasals
and liquids preceded by long vowels (mostly)
resulting from + compensatory lengthening. The
forms under consideration originally contained
combinations of:
(1) old (ie. IE / Proto-Gk) s + nasal or lig-
uid (*sn, etc.): Thess. emmi 'I am’ (<*esmi;
Att.-Ion. eimé), place name Krannoun ‘Cran-
non’ related to kranna ‘spring, fountain’
(<*kräsnä; W.Gk. kränä, Att.-Ion. krene), acc.
plur. fem. khellias, of khelliot '1000' (<*khes-
liai; Att.-Ion. khilioi [for kheilioi, with long
close e]);
(2) nasal (or, in some cases of + analogy, liquid)
+ old s (*ms, etc.): aor, emenna ‘I stayed’
("émensa; Att.-lon. émeina);
(3) nasal or liquid + y (*ny, etc.): inf. krenne-
men ‘judge’ with re < ri (<*kriny-; Att.-Ion.
krinein);
(4) “l+n: Thess. stadia '(memorial) stone slab'
(<*stdina; Att.-lon. stele).
For an original long vowel preceding *rs, one
can adduce (gen.) Aeol. mennos (also ménos,
404 THESSALIAN
with simplification of the geminate after a long
vowel) 'month’ (in Thess. eventually becoming
mei(n)nos, with long close e, for which see below),
Att.-Ion. etc. mends, always with single n (but
no compensatory lengthening, since the vowel
was already long). Roughly parallel, though not
specifically Aeol. (: also W.Gk.), is ss after short
vowels where Att.-lon. and Arc. have single s,
as in tossos ‘so much’, messos ‘middle’ ~ tösos
(tasösde), mésos. Forms like these, with (un-Ion.)
geminates mm, nn, ff rr, ss, are not infrequently
found as Aeolisms in the epic Kunstsprache of
Homer and his epigones: not only acc. dmme
‘us’, ämme ‘you’ (with mm < *sm; lon. heme-as,
hüme-as, or by psilosis without A-), but also, e.g.,
adj. erebennds ‘dark, gloomy’ (nn < *sn), ophellö
‘Lowe’ (ff < *in; Att-Ion. opheilö - also in Hom.,
beside Aeol. opkeilö).
The absence of the dipl. Aeol. in Boeotian
could be due to influence of neighboring dialects
(NW. Gr., Att.), but dialect-internal simplifica-
tion with compensatory lengthening of preced-
ing short vowels seems also possible. As a matter
of fact, it is frequently assumed nowadays that
at one time during the 2nd mill, BCE, geminates
arising from the clusters mentioned above were
panhellenic, with subsequent simplification and
compensatory lengthening in most dialects, but
not in (conservative) Thess, and Lesb. However,
if from *by is all but panhellenic.
2.b. Labiovelars
An outstanding feature of the Aeol. dialects is
the development of the former inherited labio-
velars (k*, g™, gh) to labials (p, 6, ph) before e/é,
where the other dialects have dentals (t, d, th).
Examples from Thess, are petro- ‘four-’ (Att.-Ion.
tetra-), P(h)etthaloi ‘Thessalians’ (Att. Thettaloé),
aor. peisai ‘pay’ (Att.-Ion. teisai). E.-Thess. kis, ki
from *k*is, *krid ‘who, what, which?; somebody,
something, some’; the other dialects have tis/tis,
ti/ti (with traces of something like tsés in Arc. and
sis or sis in Cypr.). These E.-Thess, k-forms are
reminiscent of interrogative/indefinite &-forms
in Ion. (e.g. Herodotus) like kös, kos ‘how?, in
some way’, kdte, kote 'when?, at some time’.
The most convincing explanation is that the
k-forms were extracted from constructions with
the negation ou: ott kis, ou kote, etc., where k¥
regularly became 4 after u.
2.c. Vowel system
Primary (+ Proto-Greek) as well as secondary
(from + contraction of vowels) long € and 6
have a close quality in Thess., at least by the
4th c. BCE, when the (Att.-Ion.) spelling with
ei and ou allows us to observe it: hexeikontu
‘Go’ (Att. hex&konta), onetheike ‘dedicated’ (Att.
anétheke), edouke ‘gave’ (Att. &döke), gen. plur, in
-oun (other dialects -ön), place name Krannoun.
At an earlier stage, secondary long e and o had
probably merged with primary long open é (n)
and 5 (w).
The weakening of vowels referred to in the
first paragraph is conspicuous in the extensive
apocope of prepositions (in brackets the Att.
forms): ap (apd), ep (ept), hup (hupö), kat (kata),
on (and), par (pard), per (peri), pot < pati (prös),
showing complete loss of the final vowel. The
final consonants were then susceptible to assim-
ilation or even loss, so that the Thess. preposi-
tions are sometimes hard to recognize from an
Attic point of view: e.g. at and et in IG IX 2.517
(Larisa, 214 BCE.; Colvin 2007:97-101): |. 12 Aous
at (= ap) tas preisbeias egenontho (Att. hös apa
tes presbeias egenonto) ‘when they came on (lit,
from) the embassy’, 1. 14 et (= ep) toi (from toio,
with apocope, = Att. toi) pareontos 'for the time
being’, Another instance of assimilation is pok
(= pot) ki ‘why’ (formally = Att. pros iz). There
are also syncopated forms: Aploun (= Appion
‘Apollo’), Lasaios (= Larisaios ‘Larisian, from
Larisa’}. An inscription from Metropolis (SEG
36.548; Il. 1-11 and 19-21 in Colvin 2007:94ff.; and
half of ard c. BCE) seems to show extreme cases
of vowel weakening, with the (more or less) neu-
tral vowel e (perhaps even [3], like a in Eng. ago)
instead of o in unstressed syllables (cf. Chad-
wick 1992), e.g. ten panta khronen ‘all the time,
in perpetuity’ (= ton... khronon), p.n. Kliandres
(= Kleandros), Hekatombien (= -on) ‘to whom
hecatombs are dedicated’, epithet of Apollo; and
instances of + syncope, e.g....made tagan doin
(< [prohibitive optative] doien) exou tas sunge-
neias ‘nor let them bestow the taga (the chief
Thess. magistracy) outside the clan’, Epikratidais
(< -aios) patronymic adj. ‘son of Epikratidas’,
xendokoi (< xenadokoi) ‘witnesses’.
2.d. Particulars
Finally, the following particulars should be men-
tioned: conjunction ai ‘if’ (Aeol. [Boeot. > é]
and W.Gk; Att.-lon. and Arc. have ei); particle
 THESSALIAN
ke (Att.-Ion. dn); the use of kis, ki as the indef.
rel. pron. (other dialects Adstis, höti). Homer
has both ai and ke (also ken) as Aeolicisms
beside Ion. ei and dn. Inflectional peculiarities
are E.Thess. gen. sing. of a-stems in -oio, or (more
often) apocopated -oi (whereas -ou is the ending
of the dat. sing., < -d/ with loss of the é of a long
diphthong), the Aeol, dat. plur. of consonant
stems in -essi, and active infinitives of athematic
verbs, and subsequently also thematic verbs, in
-men, e.g. emmen ‘be’ (athematic), krennemen
‘judge’ (thematic). The gen. sing. of o-stems in
-oio is the rule in Mycenaean, and frequent as an
archaism (Myc., or older Aeol.) in Homer; dat,
plur. -essi is also a frequent Aeolism in Homer, as
is the inf. ending -men (and also E.Aeol. -menai).
Furthermore, Aeol. replaced the original pf. act.
pte. stems in s/h (Myc. -woh- before vowel) with
-ont-, as a result of which all Aeol. act. (masc. and
neut.) participle stems ultimately ended in -nt-.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blümel, Wolfgang. 1982. Die atolischen Dialekte. Göttingen.
Buck, Carl Darling. 19653. The Greek dialects. Grammar -
selected inscriptions - glossary, Chicago - London.
Chadwick, John. 1992. “The Thessalian accent”, Glofta 70:2-14.
Colvin, Stephen. 2007. A Aistorical Greek reader. Mycenaean
to the Koiné, Oxford.
Garcia Ramon, José L. 1975. Les origines pastniycéniennes du
groupe dialectal éolien. Etude linguistique. Salamanca.
Meier-Briigger, Michael. 1992. Griechische Sprachwis-
senschaft. I. Bibliographie - Einleitung -— Syntax. I,
Wortschatz - Formenlehre - Lautlehre - Indizes. Berlin -
New York.
Probert, Philomen. 2006. Ancient Greek accentuation. Syn-
chronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford.
Rix, Helmut ı992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen.
Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1977. Einführung in die griechischen
Dialekte. Darmstadt.
Thumb, Albert and Anton Scherer. 19597. Handbuch der
griechischen Dialekte. 2. Teil Heidelberg,
FRITS WAANDERS
Time
1. TIME VS. TENSE
In English and in German, but not in Greek,
nor in the Romance languages, there are two
words at least to describe the multifarious idea
of time. Tense means time qua grammatical
category expressed by the morphology of the
verb. Time refers to the physical or Euclidean
time and to temporal notions expressed by
linguistic non-verbal means, such as temporal
405
adverbs (+ Adverbs) and temporal adjectives as
well. Aristotle (/nt. 16b, 1gb) made a clear divi-
sion between the expression of time by the verb
and temporal meaning as the specific content
of some words. Temporal content is the only
meaning of a temporal adverb, but it is only a
side-meaning in the verb:
(1) rhema de esti to prossemainon khrönon
‘A verb is that which, in addition to its proper
meaning, carries with it the notion of time’
(Aristot. Int. 16b)
Linguistic time, expressed by the morphology
ofthe verb as a category, or expressed by lexical
items, is different from real or physical time. But
physical time as well as linguistic time is under-
stood via space. Thinking and talking about time
is not by means of time words: any reference to
a time-line implies that the time is conceptual-
ized as involving an imaginary spatial construct
(the line) on which any number of points can
be placed. Movement and Space are the com-
ponents of the image of time, hence the use of
expressions such as 'the flow of the time’ and
others which locate events ‘in time’. The lin-
guistic problem of time (Evans 2005:5) is the
reason why we use linguistic means pertaining
to motion through three-dimensional space and
locations in three-dimensiona] space in order to
think and talk about time. Lakoff and Johnson
(1980, 1999) have developed the theory that we
use lexical content from the domain of motion
because this reflects the way we conceptualize
and experience time: events are perceived but
time itself is not. Time results from abstracting
relations between events, and therefore consti-
tutes an “intellectual achievement” (Gibson 1975,
1986). But evidence from discourse (Grady 1997)
suggests that temporal processing, which may
serve to structure conscious experience, shows
up in language. Some findings from neuroscience
seem to lead to the conclusion that temporal
experience, at least partially, is a real and direct
experience rather than being an intellectual
construct derived from, for instance, the com-
parison of external events (Evans 2004, 2007).
2. CONCEPTUAL MODELS
Temporal experience seems to be achieved not
only through the experience of the Ego, through
Ego-based models, including the Moving Time
406
Model and the Moving Ego Model, but through
the Time-based Model. The first two models
conceptualize temporal experience on the basis
of an egocentric experience of the ‘now’. In
Moving Ego, the temporal experience serves to
locate the Ego. It is the GROUND which serves to
locate the FIGURE: the Moving Ego. In Moving
Time, temporal experience constitutes the FIG-
URE. The stationary Ego serves as the GROUND.
The third model is not concerned with locating
temporal events with respect to the ego. It con-
ceptualizes temporal experience as later than
or earlier than a particular event (Evans 2004,
2007:750, 758). Ancient Greek shares the same
properties with modern European languages, so
the cognitive models ‘Moving Time’, ‘Moving
Ego’, ‘Acting Time’ and ‘Time-based’ are well
represented:
Moving Time:
(2) hös d’ölthen khrönos
‘when the time came’ (Eur. /on 15)
Moving Ego:
(3) pös d’eis géras pot’ aphixontai?
‘how will they get at old age?’ (Aristoph.
Av. 606)
Acting Time:
(4) Adpanth’ ho makrés kanarithmetos khrönos |
phüei t' ddéla
‘all things the long and countless years first
draw from darkness’ (Soph.Aj, 646-647)
The Greek terms for verbal tenses: paraleluthös,
literally ‘gone’, enestös, ‘standing upon’ and
mellön, ‘going’ (Szemerényi 1951:346ff.), also
exemplify ‘Moving Time model’.
Time-based:
(5) pro gar tén Troikén
‘for before the Trojan war’ (Thuc. 1.3.1)
3. TEMPORAL REFERENCE SYSTEMS
There are different frames of temporal reference,
+ deictic and non-deictic systems. Non-deictic
systems would situate events in calendar-time
terms or in clock-time terms. Deictic frames
relate the time of the situation being described
ta the time of the utterance, the zero-point of
the deictic context (Lyons 1977:678). Comrie
TIME
(1985:16) admits the existence of “deictic centers
other than the present moment” in order to pro-
vide a complete description of tenses (+ Tense/
Aspect).
Reichenbach’s tense theory is that tenses do
not express the relationship between the tem-
poral zero-point of the utterance and the time
of the state of affairs described; rather, tenses
express the relationship between event time
and another interval of interest, which Reichen-
bach refers to as Reference Time. Speech Time
(denoted $) is differentiated from Event Time
(denoted E) and from Reference Time (denoted
R) as well. If Speech Time is the Reference Time,
the common denominations are deictic time
and absolute tense. If the Reference Time is not
Speech Time but another different moment set
by the situation or by the discourse, we speak
of relative time. Reinchenbach's model allows
a formal description not only of deictic and
non-deictic tenses, but also of other means of
expressing temporal relations such as adverbs or
temporal adjectives. The model is an improve-
ment upon previous systems of description and
it is generally used as a framework for analyzing
the complexity of tenses in languages.
However, there are several problems with
Reichenbach’s framework: its inability to dis-
tinguish between events and states, its overly
restrictive view of the reference of temporal
adverbs, and its static conception of R have been
improved upon.
4. TEMPORAL ADVERBS AND ADJECTIVES
Temporal adverbs and temporal! adjectives con-
tribute to the temporal reference of a sentence to
the same extent as tenses do. Time adverbs are
mapped into reference time or event time and
modify them. This capability explains the com-
bination of temporal adverbs in the same sen-
tence: not only are they working at different
levels of the sentence (+ Functional Grammar
and Greek), but they are also working at differ-
ent levels in which time expresses itself. In addi-
tion, they specify the time of the event in terms
of duration. In some languages they are the
unique device to express the interval between
an event and its situating reference point. Tem-
poral adverbs and temporal adjectives are said
to be deictic and/or anaphoric, and calendar-
type, ie., to be understood only in reference to
the moment of speech or to be understood in
reference to a date said before or pointing to a
 TIME
specific calendar date (Smith 1981), So a term
as proteraion ‘previous’ (cf. Pl. Phd. 58a) is ana-
phoric, but témeron ‘today’ is deictic. Some of
them seem to be only anaphoric (+ Anaphoric
Processes), and others, such as Austeron ‘lat(t)er’
to be deictic or anaphoric. The compatibility of
a temporal adverb meaning simultaneity with
past and future tenses should be understood as
a proof of the adverb modifying reference time,
not event time, This is the case with niin ‘now’ in
the following sentences:
(6) niin mén gar Menélaos enikesen
‘for this present hath Menelaus vanquished
me’ (Hom. Il 3.439)
(7) niin dé sit delöseis, ei alethé éleges
‘now then, you shall prove if you spoke the
truth’ (Xen. Cyr. 4.1.23)
Usually temporal adverbs in sentence initial
position tend to be reference time modifiers,
whereas temporal adverbs in preverbal or post-
verbal positions tend to modify event time:
(8) nin men gar toutoi Kronidés Zeus küdos
opdzei semeron
‘now to yon man doth Zeus, the son of Cro-
nos, vouchsafe glory for this day’ (Hom. I
8.141-142)
Reference point does not coincide with speech
time:
(9) ethaumdzomén ge höti pdlai genomenes
autes pollöi hüsteron phainetai apothanön
‘we wondered that although it took place
a long time ago, he was put to death much
later’ (Pl. Phd. 58a)
Temporal adverbs modifying event time make
harmonic and non-harmonic combinations.
Combinations between present tenses and
adverbs meaning anteriority should be under-
stood as non harmonic. In non-harmonic combi-
nations the adverbs have scope over the verb and
modify the event time, so in the example ikhneuö
palai 'T watch you for a long time’, perseverative
present, the presence of an adverb which means
‘previous time’, modifies the temporal descrip-
tion provided by the present tense to include
past time too. The presence of the adverb trig-
gers an inclusive (in Benveniste's terms) use of
the tense (Martinez Vazquez 2007). The prin-
ciple of ‘positional use of the point of reference’
407
(Reichenbach) could be invoked to explain this
use and other non-harmonic combinations.
5. ADVERBS AS SPEECH TIME MODIFIERS
Reichenbach’s model incorporates adverbs as
modifiers to reference time and event time, but
does not consider the possibility of adverbs work-
ing as speech time modifiers. Smith (2007:429
inter alios) assumed that adverbs have relational
features that express their relation to speech
time or another orientation time. From a dif-
ferent point of view, for Schiffrin (1984:228ff.)
and Risselada (1996:u7ff.) temporal adverbs as
modifiers of speech (discourse) time play a role
in the path to discourse markers (+ Discourse
Analysis and Greek). Nevertheless, when Rand S
coincide it is difficult to prove that the adverb is
nat modifying speech time.
(10) nomizö d’ dmeinon dn humäs peri hön niin
erö krinai
‘I believe, however, that you will form a bet-
ter judgment of what in this moment I am
going to propose’ (Dem. Or. 5.4)
Other parameters too should be taken into con-
sideration in the description of temporal systems.
Reichenbach’s conception of R is static; he argues
that assertions in a narrative must share a refer-
ence point (Reichenbach 1947:293). It is difficult
to combine this view with the fact that narra-
tives describe a time course, The idea that R is an
interval that is mutually identifiable to speaker
and hearer underlies Partee’s (1984) claim that
in narrative texts the past tense sentences ‘refer
back’ to an already established reference time.
Narrative pattern has its own rules and the selec-
tion of verbal tenses expresses relationships apart
from purely temporal ones. (Kamp & Rohrer 1983;
Sicking 1g96:103ff.). The type of discourse mode in
which a sentence appears determines the inter-
pretation of tense in that sentence (Smith zoo3,
2007:424ff.). In the construction and interpreta-
tion of temporal systems two main interactions
must be taken into consideration: the interac-
tion between temporal domains of location and
aspect {+ Aspect (and Tense)), not only in the
domain of subjective aspects but, primarily, in
the domain of ‘situation types’, in the distinc-
tion between states and events (Vendler); and the
interaction between modality content (+ Mood
and Modality) and temporal content (Lyons
1977:800ff., Comrie 1985:43~44).
408
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Camrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge.
Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The structure of time: language, mean-
ing and temporal cognition, Amsterdam,
. 2007. “How we conceptualize time: language, mean-
ing and temporal cognition”. In: The cognitive linguistic
reader, ed, by V. Evans, B. Bergen andJ. Zinken, 733-765.
London.
Gibson, James J. 1975. “Events are perceivable but time
is not”, In: The study of time Il, ed. by J. T. Fraser and
N. Lawrence, 295-301. New York.
Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of meaning: primary meta-
phors and primary scene. PhD dissertation, University of
Califomia, Berkeley.
Kamp, H. and C. Rohrer, 1983. “Tense in texts.” In: Mean-
ing, use and interpretation af language, ed. by R. Bauerle,
R. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, 250-264, Berlin.
Lakoff, George and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by,
Chicago.
——. 1999. Philosophry in the flesh. New York,
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics 2. Cambridge.
Martinez Vazquez, Rafael, 2006. “Tiempo verbal en griego
antiguo, Valores inclusivos y exclusives: un ejemplo”. In:
Actas del IV Congreso andaluz de Estudios Cläsicos, ed. by
M. Rodriguez-Pantoja, 47-54. Cordoba.
Partee, Barbara H. 1984. “Nominal and temporal anaphora”,
Linguistic and Philosophy 7:243-286.
Reichenbach, Hans, 1947. Elements of symbolic logie,
London.
Risselada, Radie. 1996. “Temporal discourse markers: Latin
nune and English now”. In: On Latin, Linguistic and liter-
ary studies in honour of Harm Pinkster, ed. by R. Risselada,
C. Jong and M. Bolkestein, 105-125. Amsterdam.
Schiffrin, Dehorah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge.
. 1991. “The proximal /distal temporal axis: the meaning
and use of then in discourse”. In: The function of tense
in texts, ed. by J. Gvozdanovi¢, T. A. J. M. Janssen and
Ö. Dahl, a1g-236. Amsterdam - Oxford.
Sicking, C. M. J. 1996. “Aspect choice: time reference or
discourse function?” In: Two studies in the semantics
of the verb in Classical Greek, ed. by C. M. J. Sicking and
P, Stork, 9-16, Leiden,
Smith, Carlota. 2003. Modes of discourse. The local structure
of texts. Cambridge.
. 2007. “lense and temporal interpretation", Lingua
117:419-430.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1951. "Greek eu: a historical and
comparative study”, A/Plt 72:346-368.
Vendler, Zeno, 1957. “Verbs and times”, The Philosophical
Review 66:143-160.
EMILIA Ruiz YAMUZA
Tmesis
1, DEFINITION AND SYNCHRONIC
DESCRIPTION
Tmesis is the separation of a + preverb from its
host verb, commonly found in Homer and in the
later epic dialect (+ Epic Diction). Consider the
following example:
TIME
(1) ton kai Meriönes pröteros pros müthon éeipe
‘him Meriones addressed first’ (Hom. I.
13.306)
It is obvious that prös does not form a prepo-
sitional phrase with müthon here, but that it
rather belongs with deipe forming what we, from
the standpoint of Classical Greek usage, would
call a compound verb. The three most common
positions in which the preverb can appear when
it is not directly preverbal are: preceding the
direct object (as in 1 above), in sentence-initial
position (as in 2), or directly following the verb
(as in 3):
(2) hupo te trömos éllabe guia
‘fear seized his limbs’ (Hom. IL. 3.34)
(3) nizontes dpo bröton
‘washing off the blood’ (Hom. JL 7.425)
Notice the different accentuation when the pre-
verb follows its verb (3). It is sometimes difficult
to decide whether a verse in fact exhibits tmesis
or not, especially when the preverb/preposition
governs the same case as the compound verb
and appears next to a noun, as is the case with
amphi in (4).
(4) amphi d' dr omoisin bäleto xiphos argurdélon
‘he threw his silver-studded sword around
his shoulders’ (Hom. Il. 2.45)
Here we have either amphi + dative or amphi-
baleto + dative, and the distinction is moot. Yet
notice that sometimes the compound verb is
transitive rather than governing the same case
as the preverb:;
(5) a. thed d’en dömata naiei
‘the goddess lives in the house’ (Hom, Od. 1.51)
b, Zenös d’en dämasi naiei
‘he lives in Zeus’ house’ (Hes. TA. 285)
In (5a) we have a transitive use of the com-
pound verb en-nafei, although en governs the
dative. Hence (5a) is in fact an unambiguous
case of tmesis. From a typological perspective,
such examples look like applicatives, and this
relationship has been explored in Viti (2008).
Traditionally, tmesis is also distinguished
from the use of prepositions as ‘free adverbials'
as in (6):
 TMESIS
(6) gélasse de päsa peri khthon
'the earth was laughing all around’ (Hom.
IL 19.362)
Here, peri has no overt nominal complement,
so it cannot be a preposition in the traditional
sense, but its connection to the verb gélasse
seems too loose for it to qualify as a preverb and
(despite Ap. Dysc. Synt. 447.2 Uhlig) no verb
perigeldé appears to exist. In fact, there is a close
relationship between the distinctions of tmesis/
free adverbials on the one side and argument/
adjunct on the other. At least in the first stages,
compound verbs are only formed from verbs +
prepositions that would qualify as arguments
(as in 5a, 4) or as resultative predications (1).
Free adverbials, then, are different from Classi-
cal usage not by their position in the sentence
but by their appearance without a governed
nominal. Preverbs in tmesis, by contrast, often
do relate to an overt nominal, but strictly speak-
ing this nominal is governed by the compound
verb rather than the preverb.
2. THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION
OF TMESIS
There can be no doubt that the freedom of word
order which allows the separation of preverb
and verb is inherited (+ Word Order). Tmesis
disappeared from Greek some time between
Proto-Indo-European and the Classical period.
But what about its existence in Homer? Does
it reflect the vernacular of the poets or are we
rather dealing with a stylistic feature without any
basis in the spoken language, even at this early
stage of the tradition? The traditional answer
(e.g, Pierson 1857, Wackernagel 1928) was that
preverb and verb had not yet coalesced in the
vernacular of the epic poets.
Since 1953, many scholars have come to think
that the fusion of preverb and verb had taken
place already in Mycenaean (+ Mycenaean
Script and Language), because there are no
cases of tmesis in the Linear B texts. This view
was strongly argued by Horrocks (1981) and sup-
ported by Morpurgo Davies (1985), and since
then it has figured as a stock argument for the
pre-Mycenaean roots of the Greek epic tradi-
tion. But this does not necessarily follow: It is
possible that univerbation happened earlier in
Mycenaean than in other Greek dialects. More
importantly, the Mycenaean evidence is far from
409
compelling: there are few finite verbs in Myce-
naean, and only nine of them are compound
verbs. Moreover, the most frequent type of tme-
sis in Homer is that where the preverb precedes
the direct object (the type kata dakru khéousa
‘shedding tears’). This is only possible with tran-
sitive verbs - and there are only four attestations
of transitive compound verbs in Mycenaean.
That none of these four verbs show tmesis could
be due ta chance, or even have a linguistic reason
in the way information is presented in the Myce-
naean texts, as argued in Haug (2002:42-44). At
any rate, the evidence is too weak to allow the
conclusion that tmesis was disallowed by the
syntactic rules of Greek in the Bronze Age.
Nonetheless, some factors conspire to make
it likely that univerbation happened before the
composition of the Homeric poems. Ancient
Greek inherited an alternating case pattern with
the adposition en (< PIE *en), which gaverned
the dative (PIE locative) when no motion was
implied and the accusative when motion was
implied. In Attic-Ionic and Doric (as well as
Lesbian, although this could be due to Ionic
influence) the alternation was replaced by a
lexical alternation whereby eis/es (< *en-s, by
expansion of the old form) is used with the accu-
sative and en with the dative. In the light of this,
it is interesting to observe that the more recent
form is not often used in tmesis. In Homer, there
are only 13 cases of the eis/es in tmesis, and 171
cases of en (and eni) in tmesis. Furthermore,
en in tmesis can have the directional mean-
ing that would normally demand eis or es in a
prepositional phrase in Homer (> Prepositions
in Homer), cf. (7)
(7) en dé ta méla labontes ebesamen
‘we took the sheep and made them walk
aboard’ (Hom. Od. 11.4)
It should also be noted that even in Attic,
compound verbs show a clear preference for
en instead of eis (Chantraine 1942). It is there-
fore likely that the univerbation of particle and
verb happened before the creation of eis/es,
and therefore that the poets of the last genera-
tion before Homer, who no doubt had eis/es in
their vernacular, did not have tmesis in their
vernacular.
But even if tmesis is an archaism in Homer's
language, it does not quite behave like other
archaisms. It is a commonplace in the literature
410 TMESIS
on the epic language that archaisms tend to
be replaced by more moder features unless
prevented by meter. And yet tmesis very often
seems to be unnecessary from a metrical point
of view. For example, it would be easy to replace
(1) with (8).
(8) *ton kai Meriönes pröteros müthon proséeipe.
In (9) below we actually have tmesis and viola-
tion of digamma, when it would be easy to ren-
der it as (10) instead, with univerbation and no
digamma violation.
(9) döke d’ dra splänkhnön moiras, en d’ oinon
ékheuen
‘He served them inner portions and poured
wine’ (Hom. Od. 3.40 = Od. 6.77 = Od. 20.260)
(10} *döke d’ dra splankhnon moiras, enekheue
de woinen
The digamma of oinos is otherwise a high pri-
ority: according to Chantraine (1958:145), it is
required about ı00 times and ignored about
15 times. In other words, it seems as ifthe poet
has voluntarily produced tmesis, even atthe cost
of violating digamma. This shows that even at
a late stage of the epic diction, after poets had
started neglecting digamma, tmesis was sought
after and deliberately used by epic poets. We
can conclude that, while tmesis might be handy
for composing hexameters, it is not conditioned
solely by metrical factors. In this it is similar to
Ionic forms, which can have any metrical form,
and different from Aeolic forms, which are only
permitted when their metrical structure differs
from that of their lonic counterparts. From this
perspective, it is interesting to observe that, as
argued in Haug (2011), tmesis does not follow
the diachronic trend of archaisms of becoming
ever less frequent throughout the history of early
Greek epic, as described for a number of other
features in Janko (1982). For example, it is more
frequent in the Odyssey than in the Iliad.
We observed that there were only 13 cases
of eis/es in tmesis in Homer. And in fact, in u
of these 13 cases (Il. 22.166 and 24.193 being the
exceptions), only dé intervenes between preverb
and verb. This type of tmesis recurs in classi-
cal Greek, where we find for example apo gar
oladmai ‘I will perish’ in Aristophanes, Nub. 792;
Herodotus too has a number of cases of tme-
sis, always with an enclitic element intervening
between particle and verb; similar examples are
found in other Ionic authors such as Hipponax
and Hippocrates, Wackernagel was no doubt
right in claiming that this limited kind of tmesis
by means of a clitic was possible for a long time,
especially in Ionic.
But outside of this limited form of tmesis
which persisted in the vernacular, tmesis con-
tinues to be used in the epic tradition and in the
genres that are influenced by it, such as Attic
drama. It is interesting to observe that the distri-
bution of tmesis becomes less strict. In Moschus
we read:
(u) lusimeles peddäi malaköl kata phdea desm6i
‘the limb-looser fettered the eyes with a
sweet bond’ (Mosch. Eur. 4)
All scholars would agree that Moschus is here
not following the syntactic rules of his own ver-
nacular, but rather imitating a feature ofthe epic
style. However, if we take Homeric language as
the norm, Moschus has made a mistake: while
Homer does in some cases put the particle after
the verb, he always lets it follow immediately
upon the verb. This rule is broken by Moschus,
who lets a dative adjective intervene between
the verb and the particle. At some stage, then,
it seems as if the phenomenon of tmesis was
interpreted as a licence to cut up any compound
verb and place the results anywhere depending
on the meter.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boley, Jackeline. 2004. Tmesis and Proto-Indo-European syn-
tax, Innsbruck.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1942. “Le role et la valeur de &v- dans la
composition", Revue de philologie 16:15-125.
——. 1958. Grammaire homerique |, Phonétique et morpholo-
gie. Paris.
Haug, D. 2002. Les phases de Evolution de fa langue épique.
Göttingen,
——. zo “Tmesis in the epic tradition”, In; Relative chro-
nulagy in early Greek epic poetry, ed. by @. Andersen and
D. Haug, 96-105. Cambridge,
Horrocks, G. C. 1981. Space and time in Homer. Prepositional
and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York.
Janko, R. 1982, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: diachronic
develapment in epic diction. Cambridge.
Morpurgo Davies, A. 1985. “Mycenaean and Greek language”.
In: Linear B: a 1984 survey, ed, by A. Morpurgo-Davies and
Y, Duhoux, 75-125, Louvain-La-Neuve.
Pierson, W. 1857. “Uber die Tmesis der Präposition vom
Verburn bei den griechischen Dichtern, insbesondere bei
Dramatikern und Lyrikern”, Rheinisches Museum i:go-
128, 260-292, 379-427.
 TMESIS
Viti, Carlotta. 2008. “From space words to transitive mark-
ers: the case of Ancient Greek en 'in'”, Transactions of the
Philological Society 106:375-413.
Wackernagel,J. 1928, Vorlesungen über Syntax. Zweite Reihe.
Basel. (Nuw see Eng. edition Lectures on syntax, with
notes and bibliography by D. Langslow, Oxford 2009.)
Dac Have
Topic
ı INTRODUCTION
Linguists have worked on quite different defi-
nitions and connotations of the term ‘topic’.
Analogously, the treatment of topic functions in
Ancient Greek confirms the multifaceted nature
of the subject. A selection of landmark works
on ‘topic’ in general linguistics shall therefore
precede the presentation of the analyses con-
cerning Ancient Greek. Reinhart (1981) reminds
us: “the term sentence-topic is the Anglo-Saxon
equivalent of the term theme, coined by the
Prague School of functional linguistics’ (55;
italics in the original). ‘Topic’ has been vari-
ously defined in terms of linear order (the first
expression of the + sentence), in grammatical
terms (the + subject), in intonational terms (the
non-stressed expression), in psychological terms
(the center of the speaker's attention), in terms
of communicative dynamism (the less dynamic
material), and within a topical hierarchy defined
by different parameters (see Reinhart 1981:56—
57, with relevant bibliography). Kuno (1972) and
S. C. Dik (1978) define ‘topic’ as what a sen-
tence is about. Overall, there is no agreement
on what counts as ‘topic’. Reinhart (1981) talks
about ‘sentence topics’ as defined by the “rela-
tion of pragmatic aboutness” (53). ‘Pragmatic’
refers to what the + utterance of words implies
by means ofa certain structure and by reference
to the utterance context. ‘Aboutness’ is taken as
a notion specifically dealing with the speaker's
intentions to check his/her knowledge about
certain referents. In spite of an easy association
between ‘topic’ and ‘something already known’,
‘topic’ and ‘old information’ are conceptually
independent. Reinhart claims: “representing old
information is neither a sufficient nor a nec-
essary condition for an expression to serve as
the topic expression” (78). Rather than being a
property of referents, topics are a means used
by speakers. Sentence-topics are the speakers’
4
means to “organize, or classify the information
exchanged”; by borrowing the metaphor of the
organization of a library catalog, they can be
said to signal “under which entries to classify
the new proposition” (80). Chafe (1976) favors
‘subject’ over ‘topic’ with reference to what the
sentence is about, and questions the notion of
‘topic’ as difficult to maintain across different
languages. For example, in Chinese ‘topic’ may
have to do with “the establishment of a spatial,
temporal, or personal frame or domain for an
assertion which follows”, whereas in English it
deals with “the sentence-initial position of cer-
tain contrastive items” (55). Lambrecht (1994) is
in agreement with Reinhart by saying that ‘topic’
denotes a pragmatic relation between an entity
and a proposition, while the topic expression
(or topic constituent) is the linguistic expres-
sion encoding such a relation (128). He does not
believe in a necessary association of ‘topic’ with
sentence-initial position, with ‘theme,’ and with
the role of discourse participants. However, he
endorses the vagueness of the notion of ‘about-
ness’ by pointing out the “absence of unam-
biguous formal marking of the topic relation
in many languages” (119), He also stresses the
relationship between topic and presupposition
(a topic must be available from the context),
and the pragmatic principle of the separation
of reference and role for topic expressions (that
is, “Do not introduce a referent and talk about it
in the same clause" 185). Gundel and Fretheim
(2006) explain the relationship of topic and pre-
supposition in terms of familiarity: "the refer-
ents must already be familiar” (180). Along the
same line, they prefer to associate ‘topic’ with
the idea of “relational givenness” (as different
from “referential givenness’; see 186); ‘relational’
evokes the subjective and the interpersonal
character of representations and assessments.
Chafe, Reinhart, Lambrecht, Gundel and Fre-
theim deny a one-to-one correlation between
topic/focus and specific syntactic constructions.
Scheppers (zou) (focusing on Ancient Greek,
but nevertheless including broader linguistic
considerations) stresses the importance of the
relationship between two discourse fragments
over the status of each single fragment, when-
ever a topic-comment or topic-focus structure
is inferred. In line with many others, the author
repeats that ‘topic’ does not necessarily coincide
with ‘given information’ (he simply notes: “in
topic-switch...the topic represents the “new,”
412
302, n. 271), or with ‘theme,’ nor does it neces-
sarily represent the 'background'; conversely, he
states, ‘topic’ concerns an item that is “central”
in the “scene” (292). In the introduction of an
entire volume devoted to topic continuity, Givon
(1983) raises issues concerning the grammatical-
ization of topics, and summarizes why ‘topic’ is
not a discrete entity. The focus of the volume
shifts to the accessibility and predictability of
topics across chains of clauses, that is, in larger
discourse units (sections, paragraphs, chapters).
Likewise, Brown and Yule (1983) consider ‘topic’
above the sentence level. The authors introduce
the notion of “topic framework" (75), that is, the
features of the context that are activated in
the text and constitute its framework. When-
ever the topic framework changes, certain mark-
ers indicate a topic boundary, either verbally
or non-verbally. The authors support the view
according to which “it is speakers and writers
who have topics, not texts” (68).
2. TOPIC IN ANCIENT GREEK
Generally speaking, the assumptions underly-
ing the analyses of Ancient Greek narrow down
the extent to which ‘topic’ can be considered.
For example, ‘topic’ appears to coincide with
actual words (instead of representing a relation
inferable by the speaker); it ts largely taken as
overlapping with + noun phrases; finally, the
discussion over the role of topic constituents is
frequently bound to the sentence that includes
those constituents. A first set of works spot-
lights some aspects of topicality without draw-
ing conclusions regarding Ancient Greek + word
order. For example, Slings (1992) includes a
'topic-related’ reading of Homeric anacoluthon,
that is, typically + nominative or — accusative
phrases that are syntactically separated from
the main > clause and lack a predicate (> Pred-
icative Constituents). The author sees in these
anacolutha the expression of a provisional topic
that is followed by some focal information as
well as by the repetition of the topic itself - this
time in the syntactical form required by the co-
text. His paradigm ‘topic-focus' is borrowed from
S. C. Dik (1978). Slings holds that nouns modi-
fied by a definite article (+ Definiteness/Definite
Article) and anaphoric pronouns (+ Pronouns
(Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, Rela-
tive), + Pronominal System) are typical topic
expressions in Ancient Greek. In a later article
TOPIC
(1997), Slings adds remarks about anacolutha in
Plato, and offers further examples of anaphoric
expressions as ‘topic constituents’ taken from
Homeric and tragic poetry (180-192). Bakker
(1993) proposes, instead, a relative notion of
‘topic’ instead of just 'what the sentence is
about’, or ‘topic’ as ‘given information’, ‘Topic’
can be applied, for example, “to the degree of
continuity in the tracking of the referents of a
discourse (...) or, alternatively, to the structure
of the discourse itself” (275). ‘Topics’, therefore,
can be assessed only in cunnection with dis-
course boundaries and with switch-reference,
Bakker is more interested in topic discontinu-
ity than topic continuity, and, consequently,
in clause combining more than in clausal con-
stituents, Revuelta Puigdollers (2009) takes into
account smaller as well as larger discourse units
by illustrating how ad and aüte are used to intro-
duce new topics, topic change, and to resume a
previous topic after some break or digression.
Accordingly, he calls au and aüte “topicalizing
devices”, Examples are taken from Homer, Hero-
dotus, Thucydides, Lysias, Euripides, Plato, and
Xenophon. Scheppers (2011:385-399) offers an
analysis oftopic development in an excerpt from
Plato’s Cratylus by focusing on topic-cola, that is,
intonation units expressing key concepts which
the subsequent words comment on. Topic-cola
turn out to be fronted noun phrases working
as headings. In this specific passage such cola
present the lemmas Socrates singles out in order
to discuss their etymology and their essence.
Scheppers stresses that topic switches may be
signalled by + particles such as men and de.
A second set of works shares with the first
one the discussion of partial phenomena; how-
ever, remarks regarding word order are included,
which leads to models and general conclusions
(in some cases also rules and principles). H. Dik
(1995) sees Herodotean word order guided by
the informational status of sentence elements,
which she analyses, after S. C. Dik (1978), in
terms of (Setting)—Topic—Focus~Verb—Remain-
der. ‘Setting’ includes the optional occurrence
of adverbial phrases (> Adverbial Constitu-
ents) more or less integrated with the following
clause; ‘Remainder' includes all the post-verbal
constituents. The author's general conclusion
is that topic is commonly organized before
focus, with topic providing the grounding for
the focus. An entire chapter is devoted to predi-
cate constituents as topics (207-235). H. Dik
 TOPIC
(2007) resumes her previous framework in ana-
lyzing texts by Sophocles. General observations
on tendencies are added with respect to the
metrical format of the texts; they concern line-
beginnings and line-endings as emphatic and
non-emphatic respectively. Matic, who defines
‘topic’ and ‘focus’ as the “referents/denotata car-
rying these pragmatic roles" (2003:579), offers
an elaboration of H. Dik’s model. Examples are
taken from different prose authors (Herodotus,
Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Dem-
osthenes, Isocrates). Beside the differentiation
between a narrower and a broader focus (the lat-
ter including a predicate and some of the argu-
ments), the author distinguishes two types of
topic position, namely Frame-Setting Topic, and
Continuous Topic. Frame-Setting Topic typically
occupies a preverbal position and “is used for
contrastive topics, topics active in the same spa-
tio-temporal frame or appearing in interaction,
reintroduced or newly introduced topics etc.”
(591). Conversely, Continuous Topic typically
occurs after the verb, and marks “the continuity
of the referential frame” as well as “the disconti-
nuity of the spatio-temporal frame/perspective”
(600). Extraclausal topics form an “introductory
domain” separate from the main clausal domain,
and it does not necessarily correspond to a noun
phrase. Starting from H. Dik’s and Matid’s pro-
posals, Allan (forthcoming) expands on the sen-
tence positions of topic expressions by including
what 5. C. Dik calls ‘theme’, ‘setting’ and ‘tail’.
What is common to the three of them is the
syntactical (and intonational) detachment from
the main clause; they represent extraclausal top-
ics (pre- or post-clausal). Further topic positions
can be postverbal, that is, either after the predi-
cate in a ‘setting’ clause, or after the predicate in
the main clause. Allan's study is based on Hero-
dotus’ prose (and, in particular, on the clausal
position of 'Xerxes' and ‘Darius’ in the nomi-
native form). The idea of multiple topic posi-
tions, along with the consideration of several
discourse factors that may determine the topic
positions in a sentence (e.g. the salience of the
topic referent, or the articulation of discourse),
makes Allan hypothesize that 'topic’ and ‘focus’
in Ancient Greek correspond to two separate
“sets of constructions”. ‘Topic’ and ‘focus’ are
conversely puired in two possible configurations
by Celano (2008), that is, either topic-focus or
focus-topic. The Ancient Greek sentence is seen
as built upon such a functional contrast, which
413
operates “at any syntactical level” (g). Celano
proposes to drop any mapping oftopics and foci
onto morphosyntactical and word order features
(especially in consideration of other than declar-
ative sentences), and suggests relying, instead,
on the notion of “sentence accents” (borrowed
from Lambrecht and Michaelis 1998). Finally,
Ancient Greek allows the topic-focus contrast
to be detected also at the intraclausal level (for
example, in éfege täde ‘began to speak so and so’
vs, täde eipen ‘this is what (s)he said’).
The overall development of thoughts about
what counts as ‘topic’ in Ancient Greek seems
to increasingly point to the flexibility of the lan-
guage with respect to topic-focus assignments,
at least in the following directions: topic constit-
uents are more and more considered indepen-
dent from their syntactical form as well as from
the sentence-initial position; attention is drawn
to other sentence types than the declarative
one, on the one hand, and to the organizational
strategies of a text beyond the sentence level,
on the other; intonational prominence starts
to be investigated (> Focus, + Subject, + Deixis
(including ist and 2nd Person), — Deixis in Lin-
guistics and Poetics),
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger J. forthcoming, “Changing the topic: topic posi-
tion in ancient Greek word order", Mnemasyne.
Bakker, EgbertJ. 1993. "Boundaries, topics and the structure
of discourse. An investigation of the Ancient Greek par-
ticle de”, StudLang 17:275-311.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse anulysis.
Cambridge.
Celano, Giuseppe G. A. 2009. "Topic-focus and focus-topic:
the first and foremost motivation of ancient Greek word
order”. In: Current issues in unity and diversity of lan-
guages. Papers selected from the 18th International Con-
gress of Linguists, ed. by Manghyu Pak, 251-260. Seoul.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. “Givenness, contrastiveness, defi-
niteness, subjects, topics, and point of view". In: Subject
and topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 27-55. New York - San
Francisco,
Dik, Helma J. 1995. Word order in ancient Greek. A pragmatic
account of word order variation in Herodotus. Amsterdam.
. 2007. Word order in Greek tragic dialogue. Oxford -
New York.
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam,
Givön, Talmy. 1983. “Topic continuity in discourse: an intro-
duction”. In: Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative
cross-language study, ed. by Talmy Givän, 3-41. Amster-
dam - Philadelphia.
Gundel, Jeanette K. and Thorstein Fretheim. 2006 [2004].
"Topic and focus”. In: The handbook of pragmatics, ed. by
Laurence R. Horm and Gregory Ward, 175-196. Malden,
MA - Oxford,
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. "Functional sentence perspective. A
case study from Japanese and English", Linguistic Inquiry
3:269-920,
414
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. information structure and sentence
jonm. Topic, focus and the mental representations of dis-
course referents. Cambridge.
Lambrecht, Knud and Laura A. Michaelis. 1998, “Sentence
accent in Information questions: default and projection’,
Linguistics & Philosophy 21:477-544-
Matid, Dejan 2003. “Topic, focus, and discourse structure”,
StudLang 27:573-633.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. “Pragmatics and linguistics: an analy-
sis of sentence topics", Philosophica 27:53~94.
Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio. 2009. "The particles au and
aute in ancient Greek as topicalizing devices”. In; Dis-
course cohesion in ancient Greek, ed, by Stephanie Bakker
and Gerry Wakker. 84-109. Leiden - Boston.
Scheppers, Frank. 2011. The colon frypothests. Wore order, dis-
course segmentation anıl discourse coherence in Ancient
Greek. Brussels.
Slings, Simon R, 1992. "Written and spoken language: an
exercise in the pragmatics of the Greek sentence", CPh
87:905-1n9.
. 1997. “Figures of speech and their lookalikes: two fur-
ther exercises in the pragmatics of the Greek sentence”.
In: Grammar as interpretation. Greek literature in its lin-
guistic contexts, ed. by Egbert |. Bakker, 169-214 Leiden.
ANNA BONIFAZI
Toponyms
When a toponym cannot be readily analyzed and
interpreted solely on the basis of the lexical and
grammatical means of the language in which
it is attested, it is supposed to belong to the
language(s) of earlier populations, In connection
with Greek history, numerous cultural elements,
a great number of toponyms and anthroponyms
(+ Personal Names) as well as a considerable
amount of appellative vocabulary items are
arguably of ‘Pre-Greek’ origin (> Pre-Greek
Languages; + Pre-Greek Substrate). In contrast
to those cases, there are toponyms of genuine
Greek origin. The term ‘Pre-Greek’ may refer
(a) to Pre-Greek non-Indo-European (> Indo-
European Linguistic Background; — Indo-Euro-
pean Historical Background) autochthonous
layers that originate with the prehistoric Medi-
terranean population, or alternatively (b) to Pre-
or Para-Greek material of Indo-European origin,
a fact which means that there existed IE ethnic
groups in the Balkan peninsula before or during
the settlement of Greeks in this area. Greeks
seem to have coexisted with those people(s) for
some centuries (Lindner 1995:690-705). The old-
est layer of ‘Greek’ place names consists of top-
onyms of Pre-Greek origin. Different names of
‘Pre-Greeks’ have been handed down by ancient
Greek authors: Pelasgoi, Léleges, Käres. Many
TOPIC
scholars since the end of the ıgth c. tried to for-
mulate adequate theories about this pre-Greek
substrate: the most prominent among them are
Kretschmer's (1953) ‘Leleges-Theory’ (referring
to the tribe of the Leleges, cf. Str, 13.1.58) and the
‘Pelasgian theories’ by Georgiev (1964/65), van
Windekens (1960), Carnoy (1955), Haas (1959)
and Merlingen (1967). The decipherment of
Mycenaean (+ Mycenaean Script and Language)
introduced new dimensions to the debate (cf.
Heubeck 1961). Beekes (2o10:xiii-xlii) revising
Furnee (1972) offers an approach tothe phonology
(+ Phonology (Survey)) and morphology of the
Pre-Greek ‘dialect’, Schachermeyr (1954) (cf. also
Finkelberg 2005:42-64) summarizes the theoreti-
cal positions of earlier researchers and argues for
a synthesis involving the ‘Mediterranean-Near
East’ language area as the locus of the relevant
substrate. This thesis is supported both by lin-
guistic and external evidence (e.g. solid archae-
ological data). This ‘Mediterranean-Near East’
stratum presumably ranged over an extensive
geographical area encompassing the region NW
of the river Euphrates and Cilicia, Asia Minor,
the Aegean, the Mediterranean sea area as far
away as Spain, the Danube basin (and what
was later called Pannonia); cf. e.g. the same suf
fix in Kaldsarna (Lucania), Mikarna (Aetolia),
Phalasarna (Crete), Aldsarna (Cos), Allsarna
(Mysia). The name Ldrisa, frequently occur-
ring in Greece, is attested at least twice in Asia
Minor and it also occurs in Campania. Telmessos
is both a river (Sicily) and a cape name (Lycia).
Since the geographic distribution of a toponym
is of utmost importance, especially when it
comes to 'Pre-Greek' place names, the name
of the major region of the location referred to
usually accompanies the relevant toponym. Top-
onyms which cannot be derived and interpreted
on the basis of Greek are supposed to belong
to the language(s) of (not sufficiently known)
Pre-Greek populations and (a) may be totally
opaque: e.g. Thébai (Myc. te ga), Ölumpos (for
an IE etymology, cf. Janda 2010164), Phaistös
(Myc. pa-i-to) — note that, later, some of these
place names were adapted by means of ‘folk’
etymology (> Etymology (etumologia), Ancient
Theories of), eg. Aptera ‘without wings’ ~
Myc. A-pa-ta-wa /Aptarwa/); or (b) they were
formed under utilization of transparent deri-
vational suffixes (+ Derivational Morphology;
> Compounding/Derivation/Construction Mor-
phology) (“Leitsuffixe’, cf. Krahe ıgag:uff.) and
 TOPONYMS
prefixes (“Leitpräfixe”), which in fact occur in
appellative nouns as well, e.g. Alikarnassös, Luka-
bettös and kupdrissos/-ttas ‘cypress’; Körinthos,
Zakunthos and asäminthos ‘bathtub’. The most
common suffixes in Pre-Greek toponyms are:
-s(s)- (with the variants -assds, -éssds, -dssés etc.,
depending on the preceding ‘thematic’ /connect-
ing vowel). The exact relation between the two
suffixes -ss- and -s- is considered unclear (Kamptz
1982:157, fn. 85) ornon-existing, (cf. Garcia Ramon
2000:930-934); -ds(s)-: Parna{s)sös (mountain,
Phocis), Imbras(s)ös (river, Samos), Alikarnassös
(Caria), Thebasa (Lycaonia), Mülasa (Caria),
Carcasso (S. France), Asso (N. Italy); -és(s)-/-ett-:
Keressös (Boeotia), Tegéssds (Cyprus), Kores(s)ös
(Caria), Lurmessös (Mysia), Termessös (river,
Boeotia; place, Pisidia), Tartés(s)ds (Andalusia);
-étt- (almost exclusively in Attica); Supaléttds,
Sphettös, Targettös (demes), Ardettös, Luka-
bettös, Humettös (mountains); also in Boeotia:
Mukalettös (beside Mukalessös); -is(s)- (for the
geographical distribution cf. Merlingen 1967:35):
His(s)és (river, Attica), Képhis(s)ds (river: Phocis,
Attica, Argolis, Eleusis, Salamis, Skyros), Laris(s)a
(common in Thessaly, also in Crete, Attica, Argo-
lis, Lesbos}, Amnisds (port of Knossos), Bolis(s)os
(Chios), Amisds (Pontus), Hudissös (Caria);
Karissa, Méntisa, (Pyrenean peninsula); -os(s)-
(rather rare): Alössös (Caria), Kolossai (Phry-
gia); Libisosa (Pyrenean peninsula), Nemössos
(Aquitania), Tolosa, Segosa (France); -us(s)-
(rare): Ambrus(s)os (Phocis), Amphrusos (river,
Thessaly), Lardsion (mountain, Laconia), /älu-
sos/lelusos (Rhodes), Tnussds (Caria). One and
the same designation may appear in connec-
tion with various geographical locations, e.g.
Mukalessös in Boeotia and Caria, Parnassös
(Phocis, Cappadocia), Märpessa (mountain,
Paros) and Märpessos in Troas; extremely fre-
quent is the name Kephis(s)ös (Phocis, Attica,
Eleusis, Argolis, Salamis, Skyros).
-nt-soffix: including the variants -nth-
(primarily in Greece, in Crete and the Cycla-
dic islands, but also in Bruttium and Calabria),
-nt- (Asia Minor, rest of Southern Europe) and
-nd- (Asta Minor), this suffix can be traced back
to an original -nt- (Kretschmer 1896:293ff.); occa-
sionally, there may be some overlaps, especially
in border areas (cf. Brénthis in Troia, Lindos
in Rhodes and Sicily); -anth/d-: Bisdnthé (Pro-
pontis), Erämanthos (mountain in Arcadia/Elis),
Püranthos (Crete); Alaban(d)a (Caria), Lälandos
415
(Phrygia), Läranda (Lycaonia), Aridnthé/Arinthé
(S. Italy); -enth/d/t-: Brénthé (Arcadia); Aspendos/
Asphendos (Pamphylia), Taren/-um (Calabria),
Grumentum (S. Italy); Lucentum (Spain); -inth/d-:
Kérinthos (Peloponnesian Isthmus), Probölin-
thos (Att. deme), Périnthos (Propontis), Hyakin-
thos (mountain in Attica; deme of Tenos; deity
in Laconia); Lébinthos (Aegean island), Lindos
(Rhodes); -ond/t-: (rare -onth-): Mormonda/Mép-
mounta (Lydia), Trékonda (Phrygia); Sipontum
(Apulia); -unth/d/t-: Tiruns, gen.-nthos (Argolis),
Trikörunthos (Att. deme); Zdkunthos (Jonian
island), Kämundos (Rhodes), Ölunthos (Mace-
donia), Kalunda (Lycia), Aguntum (Noricum),
Carnuntum (Pannonia).
Other Suffixes: -r-: Titaron (Thessaly), Kerkura/
Körkura (Ionian island); -I-: Kardamüle (Laconia),
Kimölos (island of the Cyclades), Mukale (Caria);
-mn-: Ldrumna (Boetia, Locris), Lémnos (Aegean
Island), Methumna (Lesbos) etc. (cf. Lindner
1995:690-705, Garcia Ramön 2000:930-936).
Prefixes: -[-prefixes: Gurai pétrai (Euboea) :
La-gura (Crimean peninsula); Pithos (Att.
deme) : Ld-pithos (mountain, Arcadia); Murai
(Thessaly) : La-murön (port in Pontos) : Ld-mura
(Lycia) : La-muros (river, Lycia); Kéreia (island,
near Naxos) : La-kereia (Thessaly, Argolis);
Arümnion (mountain, Achaia) : Ld-rumna (Boeo-
tia); -p-prefixes: Gurai pétrai (Euboea) : Pa-guri-
tai (tribe in Sarmatia), Larnassds : Parnassds;
-k-prefixes: Miindos (Caria) : Kd-mundos (deme of
Rhodes); Lazirion (mountain, Attica) : Ka-laureia
(island in the Saronian gulf; city in Sicily); -a-pre-
fix (cf. Brandenstein 1935:66ff.); Thiimbros (river
in Troas), Thumbria (Caria) : A-thumbra (Caria);
Muira (Lycia), Mürina (Lydia) : Ä-muros (river,
Thessaly) (Lindner 1995:690-705). The following
toponyms illustrate some common Pre-Greek
roots (“Leitwurzeln”) (+ Root Structure (and
Ablaut)) to which the aforementioned suffixes
are appended: Ldrisa, Laranda, Lärina, Larum-
nos; Sinda, Sindos, Sindéssds; Tegéa, Tegessös;
Kändanon, Kändasa, Kdndara; Délendros, Délos,
Delessös; Taphön, Taphiassös; Imbros, Imbras-
sos, Imbramos; Sdmos, Säme, Sdminthos; Pindas,
Pindasos, Pindénisos etc. Out of the vast bulk
of toponyms, only a limited number of Greek
place names are known today and we owe our
knowledge of them to the written tradition
(authors, inscriptions etc.). A significant part of
those toponyms has been handed down in the
Gedgraphikd of Straba (ist c. BCE-ıst c. CE) and
the Ethnika of Stephanus Byzantius (7th c. CE).
416 TOPONYMS
The Mycenaean Linear B tablets have preserved
about 430 place names (toponyms and eth-
nica, cf. Bartonék 2003:424-428, Garcia Ramon
2011:214).
Place names can be derivatives of nouns and
adjectives (+ Adjectives (Morphological Aspects
of)). Among other thematic simplicia, com-
mon are the formations with suffixes meaning
‘having, rich in’ (employed on Pre-Gk. or Gk.
bases) like -dn (< IE *-Agon-), e.g. Marath-ön (cf.
mdrathos ‘fennel') or Gk. *-(o)went- (also Myc.
/-wont-/), e.g, Selinoüs (Triphylia, Arcadia; Sicily;
‘rich in celery’) or the respective fem. -(o}wessa,
e.g. Teikhioüssa (lonia) ‘having (many) walls’.
In Mycenaean, we may find an extension of
the acc. sg. of a toponym with the allative suffix
-de (cf. eretai pereuronade ijote ‘rowers heading
to Pleuron’, te-ga-de ‘to/towards Thebes’) pre-
served in later Gk. formations like Athénaze <
*Athénas-de ‘to/towards Athens’. Nominal com-
pounds (+ Compound Nouns) can serve as place
names (Leukd-petra, Khersö-nesos, Akro-körin-
thos, Thermo-pulai), often based on juxtaposi-
tions, cf. also Kunds-kephala¢ ‘hound({s}-"heads';
Myc. e-ra-po ri-me-ne (eläphön liménei ‘deers’
port’, cf. also alphabetic Gk Elaphönnesos);
Néa/é Pölis ‘new city’, Neon Teikhos ‘new wall’;
Äreios pägos ‘Ares' hill’ (> Are(iJopagités);
Samos Thréikié (adj. Samothreikios, back-for-
mation: Samothreike/Samothräke); Astupdlaia
(back-formation from Astupalaieüs < dstu 'city'
palaiön ‘old’); Hellés-pontos. Frequent are the
compounds with -polis (6th c. BCE onwards):
Ampht-polis, Anti-polis, Kalll-polis, (5th/4th c.
BCE) Ned-polis (Str.), Hermoü Polis (Hermoupo-
lis, Hermeö Polis, Hermöpolis); later, in Hellenis-
tic and Roman times, it becomes very frequent,
in connection with the founding of new towns
and cities: Philippo(t)palis, Roman Klaudiöpolis,
Adrianoüpolis, Könstantino(ü)polis.
An elementary classification on an onomasio-
logical basis encompasses the following catego-
ries (cf. Garcia Ramon 2000:930-936):
1. Toponyms referring to the natural char-
acteristic features of a particular location, as
for instance the special nature of the soil or the
landscape or other physical and optical aspects
and properties: a, Edaphonyms’ (“Flurnamen’):
Akte ‘coast’, Argilos ‘clay’, Ant-rön (cf. dntron
‘cave') (Thessaly), Béssa ‘valey’, Eruthra( ‘red’,
Stroggüle ‘round’ etc.; b. 'Hydronyms’ (names of
rivers): Leukös ‘white’, Melas 'black', Sperkheiös
(cf. spérkh-omai ‘to come rushing in’), Bäthos
(< bathüs ‘deep’). Names of geographical loca-
tions: Therme, Thérmai, Thérmon, Thermopilai;
Krénai (Amphilokhion Argos), Krounof (Elis),
Pagat ‘springs’ (Megara, Arcadia, Cyprus). A city
or town may owe its name to a river with the
same name: Géla (f.) : Gélas (river, m.), Himéra
(f.) : Himeras (m.) (S. Italy); c. ‘Dasonyms’ (names
of forests): Drumds, Drumia (Phocis, Boeotia),
Hüle (Boeotia, Locris, Cyprus); d. ‘Dendronyms'
and phytonyms (names of trees and plants):
Aigelros ‘black poplar’ (Megaris), Akanthos
‘thorn’, Ampelos ‘grape vine’, Askra (Helicon,
‘oak tree not bearing fruits’ cf. Hsch.); Daphne,
Daphnoüs (déphné 'laurel'), Helfke (Achaia),
Helikoüs (Arcadia, helike 'willow'), Erineds (Doris,
‘wild fig tree’, cf. synonymous orn(i)ös), Kälamos,
Karrüai (Laconia, karıla ‘walnut-tree’), Kupäris-
sos, Kuparissia (Messenia), Märathos (Arcadia),
Orobiai (Euboea, drobos ‘chickpen'), Sikuon
(sikuos ‘cucumber’), Skhoinos (Boeotia), Skho-
inoüs (Arcadia, skhoinos ‘rush’ ) etc.; e."Zoonyms'
(places named after animals): Astakds ‘smooth
lobster’, Khelön-ätas ‘tortoise’, Leön 'lion', Tigris
‘tiger, Bosporos (Bods pöros 'cow’s passage,
ford’), Ekhinos ‘urchin, hedgehog’, Trdgos ‘he-
goat’, Bou-prdsion (locality for selling oxen and
cows), etc.
2. Toponyms as a consequence of human
intervention on nature: a. Toponyms that des-
ignate the kind of settlements constructed by
humans: Polis, Polikhne, Pölisma, Tripolis, Tetrap-
olis, Kémé, Anti-polis (beside another settlement
that had existed before), Amphi-polis (having the
river Strumön on both sides), etc.; b. Toponyms
that designate the use of a place: Limen ‘port’,
Géphura ‘bridge’, Zetigma ‘bridge of boats’;
3. Toponyms that presuppose anthroponyms
(adjectival formations derived from the cor-
responding personal names): a. Names of dei-
ties, heroes, mythological creatures: Apollénia,
Herdkleia, Artemision, Krönion, Hermeion etc.;
b. Historical persons: Alexdndreia, Thessalonike,
Philippoi, Antiökheia, Seleükeia etc.; c. Names of
tribes (used in acc. pl. denoting direction ‘to’ or
dat./loc. pl. denoting ‘among the people of the
tribe’): Delphoi, -ois; lönidai; Leontinoi (Sicily).
Folk etymology adaptations can be observed
in connection with other foreign toponyms as
well, as the designation for the ‘Black Sea’ dem-
onstrates: Eiixeinos (pöntos) ‘hospitable sea’, a
euphemism for Axeinos pöntos, which, in its turn,
goes back to a reinterpretation of a Scythian
 TOPONYMS
word ~ Avest. axsaena ‘dark’ (cf. Garcia Ramén
2000:930-934). A great number of ancient Greek
toponyms have survived to date (“toponomas-
tisches Konstanzprinzip", cf. Lindner 1995:690-
705) under their old original form (Sdmos, Päros),
etc. or with some phonetic or morphological
changes (Mod.Gk. Tetpoudg [pire'as] : Ancient
Gk. Peiraieds, Mod.Gk. Ladtaplva [sala'mina] :
Ancient Gk. Salamis).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003. llundbuch des niykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Beekes, Robert 5. P. 2010. Eiymological dictionary uf Greek.
Leiden,
Brandenstein, Wilhelm. 1935. “Die Erforschung der Ortsna-
men in Altkleinasien", Zeitschrift für Ortsnamenforschung
11:61-78.
. 1965. “Die vorgeschichtlichen Völker- und Sprachbe-
wegungen in der Aegaeis”. In: Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische
Forschung II [“In memoriam H. Th, Bossert”], 11-132.
Camoy, Albert. 1955. Dictionnaire etymologique du prato-
indo-europeen (Bibliotheque du Muséon 39). Louvain.
Finkelberg, Margalit. 2005. Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Aegean
prehistory and Greek heroic tradition. Gambridge.
Furnee, Edzard. J. 1972. Die wichtigsten konsonantischen
Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen. Mit einem Appendix
über den Vokalismus (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica
150), Diss. Leiden, 29-98. The Hague.
Garcia Ramön, José L. 2000. "Geographische Namen”. In:
Der neue Pauly, vol. 4 (Epo - Gro-), ed. by Hubert Cancik,
Helmuth Schneider and Manfred Landfester, 930-934.
Stuttgart.
. 201. “Mycenaean Onomastics’. In: A companion to
Linear B, Mycenaean Greek texts and their world, vol 2,
ed. by Yves Duhoux and Anna Morpurgo Davies, 236-244.
Louvain.
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1964/65. “L’importance des toponymes
myceniens pour les problémes de I’histoire de la langue
grecque et l'ethnogenése des grecs", Linguistique Bulke-
nique 9:5-39.
Haas, Otto. 1959. “Die Lehre von den indogermanischen
Substraten in Griechenland", Linguistique Balkanique
1:29-56.
Heubeck, Alfred. 1961. Praegraeca. Sprachliche Untersuc-
hungen zum vorgriechisch-Indogermanischen Substrat.
Erlangen.
Janda, Michael. 2010, Die Musik nach dem Chaos. Der Schöp-
‚Fungsmythos der europäischen Vorzeit. Innsbruck.
Kamptz, H. von. 1982. Homerische Personennamen. Sprach-
wissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen.
Krahe, Hans. 1949. Ortsnumen als Geschichtsquelle { Antritts-
vorlesung]. Heidelberg.
Kretschmer, Paul. 1896. Einleitung in die Geschichte der
griechischen Sprache. Göttingen.
. 1959. "Die Leleger und die ostmediterrane Urbev-
ölkerung”, Glotta 32:161--204.
Lindner, Thomas. 1995. “Griechische (incl, mykenische)
Ortsnamen". In: Namenforschung: Ein internationales
Handbuch zur Onomastik. Handbücher zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaf? (HSK), Bd. ı1ı, ed. by Ernst
Eichler, Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löfler and Ladislav
Zgusta, 690-705. Berlin - New York.
417
Merlingen, Weriand. 1963-1967. Eine ältere Lehnwörter-
schicht im Griechischen. Teil I: Lautgeschichte - Teil II:
Folgerungen-Probleme. Weiteres Material, Vienna.
Schachermeyr, Fritz. 1954. “Die vorgriechischen Sprachreste
(s.v. “Prähistorische Kulturen Griechenlands”)”. In: Paulys
Realencyelopüdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
22.2 (Halbband 44: Praefectura-Priscianus), ed. by August
Pauly et al.:1494-1548.
. 1967. Ägäis und Orient. Die tiberseeischen Kulturbezie-
hungen von Kreta und Mykenai mit Ägypten, der Levante
und Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des 2.
Jahrtausends v. Chr. Graz — Vienna,
van Windekens, Albert. J. 1960. Etudes pélasgiques (Biblio-
theque du Muséen 49). Louvain.
IOANNIS FYKIAS
CHRISTINA KATSIKADELI
Tragedy, Diction of
1. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS
OF GREEK TRAGEDY
The earliest extant Greek tragedies belong to
a developed stage of the genre, dating back to
the 5th c. BCE; to a well-defined geographical
and political framework, Athens; to well-known
authorial figures, the most famous tragedians
being Aeschylus (525/524-456/5 BCE), Sopho-
cles (497/6-406 BCE) and Euripides (ca. 485-406
BCE). The tragedies also present a well-estab-
lished structure, articulated in dialogues com-
posed in iambic trimeter (or, less frequently,
trochaic tetrameters; + Dramatic Meter) and
choral sections in > lyric meter, sung by a cho-
rus, and accompanied by music and dancing.
The origins and first stages of Greek tragedy,
with authors such as Phrynichus, Choerilus, Pra-
tinas, Thespis (to whom the tradition credited
the first tragic performance, in 535/534 BCE) are
obscure. At any rate, modern scholars generally
concur in assigning an important role to ritual
elements, connected with the cult of Diony-
sus, as well as to previous literary traditions,
especially Homeric epic, to Arion of Metymna
(7th-6th c. BCE, who composed a dithyramb
and instructed a chorus), and to the Dorians (the
Dorian claim of having invented tragedy is usu-
ally interpreted by modern scholars as referring
to the choral sections). Moreover, during the
6th c. BCE Athens gradually replaced lonia as
the center of the political and cultural life of
Greece, developing its own literature — drama,
history, oratory, philosophy - in a literary ver-
sion of the > Attic dialect, and attracting a large
ais TRAGEDY, DICTION
number of artists, philosophers, and poets from
all over Greece. Several of them, especially
under the Peisistratids and during the years
immediately before and after the Persian Wars,
came from East lonia, which resulted in a great
influence of the Ionian world on Attic culture,
literature and fine arts. Finally, tragedy was, on
the one hand, a phenomenon deeply rooted in
Athens, where tragedies were composed, enjoyed
and performed as a literary, political, ritual and
agonistic event: this strong local dimension was
crucial to shaping the language of tragedy,
which is fundamentally, but not exclusively,
Attic-based. Tragedy was, on the other hand,
an elevated genre: consequently, it was writ-
ten in a high-styled register, which was rich
in elements of the prestigious literary tradition
(chiefly Homer, epics and lyrics) and distanced
from strict vernacular and colloquialisms. Nota-
biy, the various features of tragic Kunstsprache
are linked to the structure of tragedy: although
the high register of tragedy informs its every
part, the tendency to heighten the diction and
achieve an “estrangement-effect” is at the maxi-
mum in choral sections, in which the amount of
poetic elements and archaisms also attested in
the dialogues significantly increases (cf. § 2) and,
moreover, other poetic and high-styled features
are employed, such as figures of speech (e.g. rep-
etitions), kyperbata, and + Doric elements as an
echo of the literary Doric tradition (cf. § 4).
2. HıGH REGISTER AND TRAGIC LANGUAGE
The elevated register of tragic language was
achieved by two main strategies: by avoid-
ing strict vernacular and colloquialism and by
inserting high-styled features. As to the former,
in tragedy Att. -tt- and -rr- (e.g. phuldtia 'to keep
watch’, drrenos ‘of the male’) are substituted by
-ss- and -rs- (phuldssd, ärsenos) found in most
Greek dialects. Judging from prose inscriptions
and Attic comedy, -t- and -rr- were the nur-
mal forms in Attic; therefore they were avoided,
probably because they were perceived as too
local, in genres (such as tragedy and historiog-
raphy, e.g. Thucydides) that aspired to reach an
elevated style and a panhellenic diffusion, and
possibly also in the spoken Attic of the educated
classes. Colloquialisms were used seldom and
always purposefully (they increase significantly
only with Euripides), On the other hand, the
OF
heightening of diction was obtained maiuly by
inserting poetic features and archaisms such as:
omission of the article or its usage as demonstra-
tive; lack of the + augment in past verbal forms;
anastrophe of prepositions; usage of + abstract
nouns, compound adjectives, often mocked in
Attic comedy (e.g, barubremetes ‘loud-thunder-
ing’, palaigenés ‘born long ago’), simple verbs
instead of compound ones (cf. Ateind instead of
katakteinö ‘kill’), periphrases (e.g. Isménés kära
‘head of Ismene' for Ismene; Odusseös bla ‘the
strength of Odysseus’ for ‘the strong Odysseus’),
some morphological epic features (gen. sg. in
-gio; anéres instead of andres ‘men’'), and espe-
cially by substituting lexical items of the poetic
literary tradition for their ‘unmarked’ Attic coun-
terparts: möros for thanatos ‘death’; leüssein for
horän 'to see’; molein for badizein ‘to walk’, dma,
domos for oikia ‘house’; kasignétos for adelphös
‘brother; thélo for ethelö ‘to want’; dämar for
guné ‘wife’, ömma for ophthalmös ‘eye’, etc.
3. ATTIC VERSUS NON-ATTIC FEATURES
The Attic features are not uniformly distributed
in tragedy: some are constantly avoided, such
as -f-, -rr- mentioned above; others are con-
stantly employed; yet others occur alongside
counterparts of other dialects and literary tra-
ditions. Among the elements characteristic of
Attic regularly found in tragedy are: [a:] > [e:]
(via an intermediate stage [ze:]); the quantita-
tive + metathesis (more precisely, both lon.-Att.
features); the so-called “alpha purum", i.e, [a:]
after [e], [i], [r] (properly the outcome of a rever-
sion, Rückverwandlung, from the stage [z:], see
+ Attic Reversion); some contractions proper to
Attic either as to the outcome and/or as to the
(early) period of their realization, e.g. long close
[o:] (spelled ou) < [eo], long open [»:] (spelled
6) < [e2:], long open [e:] (spelled @) < [ee:]
(cf. philoumen < philéomen ‘we love’; orkhestön
< urkhesteön ‘of the dancers’, etc.); in ınorphol-
ogy, the gen. -ou of the masculines in -@- (the
so-called “first declension’, e.g. politou ‘of the
citizen’). Other features of the Attic dialect
are frequent, but not ubiquitous: e.g, the lack of
the so-called third compensatory lengthening,
due to the loss of consonantal [w] (cf. xénos
‘stranger’, Adré ‘maiden’ vs. lon. xeinos, koüre,
Dor. xénos, köra) and the dual, retained in Attic
but lost in the majority of dialects (- East Ionic,
 TRAGEDY,
+ Laconian, etc.). In tragedy the dual is found
only in selected categories (e.g. in substantives
equipped with duo ‘two’), while plural forms
are very often used where dual forms would
have been possible or even expected, probably
because the plural - common to the majority of
dialects including the literary dialects of poetry,
and above all, epic — was preferred to a feature
felt to be (too) distinctively Attic.
The coexistence of Attic elements with their
non-Attic counterparts introduces two impor-
tant characteristics of the tragic Kunstsprache:
the polymorphism and the presence of features
foreign to the Attic dialect, especially lonic. The
former can be defined as the coexistence of two
features with the same semantic value that are
different from a formal point of view: cf. the
occurrence of ‘unmarked’ Attic forms, such as
xénos, kéré, eis ‘(in)to’, ekeinos ‘that’ and mesos
‘middle’ alongside xeinos, koüre, es, keinos and
messos. Such alternate forms were useful for
poetic composition, especially to fit the demands
of the meters, and also offered opportunities for
variation regarding euphony, repetition etc.; at
the same time they were features of the pres-
tigious literary tradition: xeinos is attested in
Jonic and in Jonic poetry (Homer, elegy), méssos
belongs to Doric and + Aeolic dialects and their
respective poetic traditions, and is found also in
Homer. The presence of non-Attic features, espe-
cially characteristic of Ionic, is more complex. In
tragedy there are several elements with lonic
form, derived from the fonian poetic tradition -
epics, elegy, iambus (e.g. xeinos) - due to the dis-
tinctive characteristic of the tragic Kunstsprache
of employing forms of prestigious literary lan-
guages along with / instead of local forms. In the
past, some scholars tended to identify “Ionic”
with “poetic”; it must be observed however that:
a) lexical items found in an lonic author were
not poetic in themselves, but in most cases they
were features of epic or, more broadly, of the
poetic tradition: e.g, xunds (for Att. koinos ‘com-
mon’) is found in Herodotus, but its usage in
tragedy is due to the fact that it was already
attested in Homer (and also in Archilochus and
Hesiod); b) some features with lonic form are
not only lonic, but were shared by other dialects
or poetic languages, such as -ss- and -rs-, plu-
ral instead of dual forms, and lexical elements
(some of them found also in + lyric poetry): the
aim for a panhellenic dimension makes perfect
DICTION OF 41g
sense for the elevated genre of tragedy. On the
other hand, c) tragedy indeed employs some
lonic forms found in lonic prose and not in
poetry, e.g. hedoipuréd instead of Att. badizö
‘to walk’, historéd > historö instead of Att. erotö
‘to ask’; Ads to introduce declarative clauses
instead of the unmarked Att. Adti: hös, hös an,
höpös an instead of hina to introduce final clauses
and, above all, abstract nouns formed with the
suffixes -ma and -sis; the latter were productive
in Ionic prose (historiography, philosophy, med-
ical writings), while in Attic they were found in
genres deeply influenced by Ionic culture - his-
toriography, philosophy and tragedy — and not
in those written in a language closer to “normal”
Attic, such as oratory and comedy (which often
mocked the tragic usage of -ma and -sis, cf. e.g.
paratragic passages of Aristophanes). The items
listed under c) are significant markers of the
great influence exerted by the Ionian world from
the 6th c. BCE onwards (cf. § 1).
4. DORIC FEATURES
As mentioned above, Doric features occur mostly
in choral sections as an homage to the presti-
gious choral lyrics; they consisted basically of the
inherited [a:] vs. Ion.-Att. [e:], cf. e.g. Dor. mäter
‘mother’, hämerai ‘days’ vs. Att. meter, hemerai;
the gen. sg. -@ < -@o vs, Att. -ow (e.g. in Aldä vs.
Aidou ‘of Hades’) of the masculines in -@- and
the gen. pl. -är < -ddn vs. Att. -dn (dusmän vs.
dusmön ‘of the settings’). Other Doric charac-
teristics, such as acc. sg. of the 3rd ps. pronoun
nin (which is moreover found also in Homer),
and some other lexical items occur more spo-
radically. Several are entirely lacking, such as the
particle ka, the ist and 3rd ps. pl. verbal endings
-mes (lon.-Att. -men) and -nti etc. The Doric fea-
tures in tragic choruses were therefore carefully
selected, the more consistent element being
the inherited [a:], which, from a dialectologi-
cal point of view, was not exclusively Doric, but
common to all Greek dialects except for Ionic-
Attic; there is however no doubt that it was per-
ceived as a distinctive marker of literary Doric.
Interestingly, Doric features are also present,
although less frequently and in a more scattered
fashion, in dialogues. In this case, their origin is
to be explained differently from their presence
in choral sections; moreover, various reasons
account for the instances of Doric features in
420 TRAGEDY,
dialogues: in some occasions they are borrow-
ings of necessity (e.g. fokhdgds ‘commander’,
found also in Attic prose), in others polymor-
phic forms used out of metrical convenience
instead of the prosodically different Attic coun-
terparts (eg. timdoros ‘avenger’, pepämai ‘to
acquire’ vs, Att. timöros, kéktémat), yet in others
they were probably a way to heighten the style
without relying on Homer or even by delib-
erately “staying away from Homer” (“los von
Homer”, as Björck 1950 put it), such as dards
‘lang’, balös ‘threshold’ etc. metrically equivalent
to the Ionic, and attested in Homer, dérds, belös.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, William §. 1964. Euripides: Hippolytos. Oxford.
Battezzata, Luigi. 2012. “The language of Sophocles”. in: The
Language of Sophocles, edited by Andreas Markantona-
tos, 1-17. Leiden.
Bers, Victor. 1984. Greek poetic syntax in the classical age.
New Haven - London.
Björck, Gudmund. ı950. Das Alpha impurum und die tragis-
che Kunstsprache. Uppsala.
Breitenbach, Wilhelm. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Sprache
der euripidischen Lyrik. Stuttgart.
Budelmann, Felix. 2000. The language uf Sophocles.
Cambridge.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1933. La formation des noms en grec
ancien. Paris.
Cuny, Albert. 1906, Le nombre duel en grec. Paris.
Goldhill, Simon, 1997. "The language of tragedy: rhetoric
and communication". In; The Cambridge companion to
Greek tragedy, edited by Patricia E. Easterling, 147-150.
Cambridge.
Hasse, Ernst. 1891. Veber den Dual bei den uttischen Drama-
tikern. Bartenstein.
Hoffmann Otto, Albert Debrunner and Anton Scherer, 19694,
Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, 1, 102-114. Berlin.
de Jong, Irene J, F. and Albert Rijksbaron. zon6. Sophocles
and the Greek language: aspects of diction, syntax and
pragmatics. Leiden.
Long Anthony A, 1968, Language and thought in Sophucles.
London.
Moorhouse, Alfred C. 1982. The syntax of Sophoctes. Leiden.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 1991. Grammatical ubservations on Eurip-
ides’ Bacchae. Amsterdam.
Scodel, Ruth. 1993. Theater and society in classical Athens.
Ann Arbor.
Sideras, Alexander. 1971. Aeschylus homericus. Gottingen.
Silk, Michael $. 1996. “Tragic language". In: Tragedy and the
tragic, edited by Michael S. Silk, 458-496. Oxford.
Stevens, Philippe T. 1976. Collaquial expressions in Euripides.
Wiesbaden.
Threatte, Leslie. 1980-1996, The grammar uf Attic inscrip-
tions, I-IL Berlin - New York.
Willi, Andreas. 2002, “Language on stage: Aristophanic
language, cultural history, and Athenian identity”. In:
The language of Greek comedy, edited by Andreas Willi,
11-149. Oxford.
SARA KACzKO
DICTION OF
Transition from the Local Alphabets to
the Ionic Script
The various Greek city-, tribal and federal states
down to the end of the 5th c. BCE, in some
cases even down to the first quarter of the
4th c., used their own local (epichoric) scripts
(+ Local Scripts), which, while corresponding
in main essentials to the common Greek alpha-
bet (+ Alphabet, Origin of; + Greek Writing Sys-
tems), also differed more or less from the scripts
of the other states. Most of the local scripts dif-
fered substantially from that used from archaic
times in the Ionic islands and cities of Asia Minor
(Chios, Samos, Miletos, Ephesos, etc.) and their
colonies. East lonic script, as it is called, was
characterized by the use of the letters H (which
was not needed to represent the aspirate because
of the early loss of it in the + Ionic dialect) and 0
to render the inherited long vowels [e:] and [>:],
respectively, the letters © and Y to render the
consonant clusters ks and ps, Local scripts were
gradually substituted by the East Ionic script. We
do not know of any state decision for the adop-
tion of this script in the other parts of Greece, as
happened in Athens in 403/2 with the decree of
Archinos (+ Adoption of the lonic alphabet in
Attica). In trying to date this gradual adoption
the relevant evidence will be briefly examined.
From each region a few characteristic examples
have been chosen, Few texts are securely dated:
the majority is dated on the basis of the letter-
forms. [NB: All dates are BCE],
1. FROM THE PELOPONNESE
Argos: the dedication LSAG no. 49 pl. 30 (c. 415-
400) shows H for [e:], but it still has the local form
oflambda and a tailed rho. The local script is used
in the late 5th-/beg. ath-c. casualty list, LSAG?
Argos K, and in the inscribed bronze plaques
(about 135; most are dated to the early 4th c.)
from Argos (Kritzas 2006), which record financial
transactions concerning sacred funds of Athena
and Hera; in a very few cases the lonic forms T, A
and A appear, and H is used far [e:] (> Argolic).
Troezen: in the dedication LSAG no. 6 pl. 33 (c.
450-425) there is a confusion in the use of and
H, but otherwise the letters are Troezenian. It
seems that the mason was trying to use the new
letters without fully understanding the rules of
their use (LSAG, p. 177).
 TRANSITION FROM THE LOCAL ALPHABETS TO THE IONIC SCRIPT
Epidaurus: the dedication LSAG no. 17 pl. 34
(c. 450-425) shows Ionic letters but a tailed rho
and a v-shaped ypsilon.
Laconia: the stelai from Tainaron, LSAG no. 54
pl. 38 (IG V1, 1230) and JG V 1, 1231, recording
manumissions were down-dated to the first half
of the 4th c. (Ducat 1991). The first shows E and
O for the inherited long vowels, but © is used in
the nominative second declension dual (énoxdw
[epaköö/ 'two witnesses’, Attic epékda); the sec-
ond one has H for [e:]. In the funerary inscription
of a Lacedaemonian who died in the battle of
Mantineia, LSAG no. 60 pl. 38 (dated to 371) E and
O represent the inherited long vowels and there
is a also a v-shaped ypsilon. A similar text, LSAG?
no. 62a. pl. 75.5 (c. 375), shows the epichoric D
(= delta) and the closed eta (B) for the aspirate.
The asylia granted to Delos by Sparta, LSAG
no. 62 pl. 38 (403-399), is written in the Laconian
script, while the list of the Spartan magistrates
written undemeath is in Ionic, presumably by
a Delian cutter. In a dedicatory inscription,
Kourinou-Pikoula (1992-98 = SEG 46:400), dated
to the first quarter of the 4th c., closed eta (B)
represents both the aspirate and [e:], while 0
is used for the spurious diphthong [e:] in the
dialectal form of the ending of accusative plu-
tal (-wg = Attic -oug; + Laconian, Messenian).
Elis: A dedication at Olympia, LSAG no. 19 pl.
43 (third quarter of the 5th c.), has H for both
[e:] and the inherited long *@ which became [e:]
in certain dialects (+ Elean (and Olympia)). In
the Ionic script are written two inscribed bronze
plaques granting citizenship by the Triphylians
to certain persons, GHI no. 15 (c. 400-370).
Arcadia: The sacred law from Tegea, IG V 2, 3
(beg. of the 4th c.), shows the local script, while
in the manumission from Phigaleia, IG V 2, 429,
of the same date, omega (}) represents [9:], but
E is used both for the inherited long e-vowel {e:]
and the later closer e-vowel [e:] (> Arcadian).
In the Ionic script are written both the casualty
list of men who fell in the battle of Mantineia of
362 (Dubois 1988 [I122-126), and the inscription
(DuSanié 1978:346-358) recording the bound-
aries between Orchomenos and Torthynion
(between 369-361); also two sympoliteia inscrip-
tions, that between Orchomenos and Euaimon,
IG V 2, 343, dated to ca. 378 (DuSani¢ 1978:333-
346}, and that between Elisson and Mantineia
(Te Riele 1987:167-190), dated to the early 4th c.
A dedication on a bronze vessel, IG V 2, 397 (beg.
of the qth c.), shows H both for the inherited long
421
e-vowel [e:] and the short one and 0 for the short
o. This ‘confusion’ is attributed by Dubois (1988
Il:218) to the transition from the local alphabet
to the Ionic one.
Megara: In the casualty list LSAG? Megara B,
pl. 74.4 (c. 425-400) a mixed script is used; along
with the letters of the local alphabet there are
also Ionic ones (T, A, E, =), while in two cases H
is used for [e:].
In Boeotia the local script continued to be in
use in the 4th c. Earlier it was thought that the
introduction of the Ionic script happened in the
mid-390s; Knoepfler (1992; 2009) suggested that
the liberation of Thebes from the Lacedaemo-
nians was the turning point; Vottero (1996175)
argued that by 371 most Boeotian cities had
adopted the lonic alphabet. The evidence pro-
vides a broad date in the first half of the qth c.;
see the monument for the three Boeotarchs
who fell at Leuktra in 371 BCE, IG VII 2462; the
epigram on a statue base signed by Lysippos
(Ducrey & Calame 2006 = SEG 567551); and the
inventory of the sacred property of Thespiai
(probably c. 386 or 378-371; Vottéro 1996:170);
these inscriptions are written in Ionic script.
IG VII 2427 (probably c. 379-371; Vottero
1996163) is written in the local script, but it also
shows some Ionic forms (> Boeotian).
2. CENTRAL GREECE
Delphi: The decree concerning the pelanos (a
mixture, usually of meal, honey, and oil, offered
to the gods) of the Phaselites, CID 1 8, pl. IV (last
quarter of the sth c.), has lonic delta and chi;
the aspirate and the digamma are absent, but
there is no eta or omega; the laws of the Labyad
phratry, CID I 9, pl. V-VIN, (first quarter of the
4th c.: CID I, p. 42) are written in the lonic script,
but they also show H (for the aspirate) and the
digamma (+ Northwest Greek).
Locris: In the treaty of the Messenians and the
Naupactians (Matthaiou & Mastrokostas 2000-3
= SEG 51:642), dated to c. 426, Ionic script is used,
but no case of N occurs; E represents both the
short and the long e vowels; for the latter the
letter H is also used, and there is no aspirate or
digamma.
Thessaly: In the grave stele LSAG no. 14 pl. ıı
(c. 440-430) H appears for [e:]. In the bronze
plaque with a proxeny decree from Pherai,
LSAG? Thessaly 15 (late 5th c.), the Ionic alpha-
bet is adopted (> Thessalian).
422 TRANSITION FROM THE LOCAL ALPHABETS TO THE
3. THE COLONIES OF SICILY AND ITALY
Jeffery (LSAG: 272) has argued that some of the
western colonies (+ Sicily, Dialects in; + Magna
Graecia, Dialects) adopted the Ionic script by
the third quarter of the 5th c.; see the second
inscription on the base of Polyzelos at Delphi,
LSAG Syracuse no. 9 pl. 51 (c. 460); the inscribed
shield dedicated at Olympia by the Syracusans
after a victory over the Acragantines, LSAG no. 11
(c. 445); the statue-base of a Selinountian at
Delphi, LSAG no. 44 pl. 52 (c. 450-425); the
inscribed clay-pellet from Rhegion, LSAG no, 14
pl. 49 (c. 475-450), which shows H for [e:]; the
coins of Rhegion, in which the legend is writ-
ten with the lonic gamma and eta (LSAG: 244);
the latest issues (c. 430-403) of the coins of
Naxos, in which the letter xi has the Ionic form
(LSAG: 241); the dedicatory bronze plaque LSAG
Himera, pl. 49, 19, (c. 450), which shows the Ionic
script (but a crossed theta).
4. THE AEGEAN ISLANDS
Naxos: the base of Alxenor, LSAG Naxos no. 12
pl. 55 (c. 490-475), shows the Ionic H for the
inherited long e-vowel [e:], but also for the aspi-
rate. The rupestral retrograde inscription LSAG
no. 14 pl. 55 (c. 450-425) is written in the Ionic
script.
The so-called theoria of the Andrians found at
Delphi, CID 17 pl. Ill, is written in the Ionic dia-
lect; although the lettering looks more archaic,
the lonic script is present (T= y,4=8, A=A,&
= £); N stands for [>:], E represents both [e:] and
the outcome of the inherited long *a@ (which
became [e:] in most Ionic dialects, “but in Attic
remained after vowels and rho”, LSAG); the latter
is represented also by H, which also denotes the
aspirate only once. The inscription falls in the
period of transition from the local to Ionic script
and therefore the dating to c. 425 suggested by
Daux (1949:65) is likely to be correct.
Thasos: the funeral stele of Philis, LSAG no. 73
dated to c. 430 (phot.: Duchéne 1992, pl. xx. 2),
the list of men whose property was confiscated
during the oligarchy, LSAG no. 74 (c. 411-408),
the gravestone no. 75 pl. 58 (c. 411), and the com-
mercial law IG XII Suppl. p. 150, no. 347 (Pouil-
loux 1954, pl. XII) show eta, omega, and Ionic
lambda and xsi. The two oligarchic laws LSAG
no. 76 pl. 58 (4u-410) show again the principal
characteristics of the Parian/Thasian script.
[ONIC SCRIPT
5. THE Doric HEXAPOLIS
Rhodes: A dipinto on a vase from Rhodes,
LSAG 30 pl. 68 (c. 450), and the inscription of a
bronze hydria, prize from the games of Helios on
Rhodes, LSAG*, The Doric Hexapolis C, pl. 79.9
(c. 450-425), are written in the Ionic alphabet,
although in the former H is used for the aspirate
(> Rhodian).
Cos: A houndary stone of Apollo Pythios,
LSAG 39 pl. 69 (c. 450), is written in lonic, while
N is found earlier, in the first quarter of the
sth c., in the legend of her coins (> Insular Doric).
Halicarnassus; The law concerning disputed
property, SGHI no. 32 (before the middle of the
sth c.) and the gravestone LSAG no. 41 pl. 69
(c. 475) illustrate well the script of Halicarnassus.
Although it belonged to the Doric Hexapolis, its
dialect is the Ionic and its script the East lonic
one, which should probably be explained by a
change in its population in the archaic period
(LSAG: 353).
6. CONCLUSION
The selected material indicates that the East
Ionic script was adopted gradually by the vari-
ous Greek city-, tribal and federal states, roughly
from the beginning of the last quarter of the
5th c. BCE till the 7os of the 4th c. Phonetic
developments such as changes in the pronuncia-
tion of certain vowels and consonants occurred
at different times together with external factors
such as historical events, trade-connections, cul-
tural influences, even fashion, contributed to
this change. The transition happened earlier in
places where the presence of people writing in
Ionic or relationships with them were stronger.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Daux, George. 1949. "Un réglement cultuel d'Andros”, Hes-
peria 18:58-72.
Dubois, Laurent, 1988. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien,
vols, I-I1. Louvain-La-Neuve.
Ducat, Jean. 1990. “Esclaves au Tenare“. In: Melanges Pierre
Lévéque, vol. IV, ed. by Marie-Madeleine Mactoux and
Evelyne Geny, 173-194. Paris.
Duchéne, Herve. 1992. La stéle du port. Fouilles du Port 1.
Recherches sur une nouvelle inscription thasienne (Etudes
Thasiennes XIV). Athens - Paris.
Ducrey Pierre and Claude Calame. 2006. [2008]. “Notes de
sculpture et d’&pigraphie en Beéotie. II: Une base de statue
portant la signature de Lysippe de Sicyone 4 Thébes",
BCH 130:63-Bı.
Dusani£, Slobodan. 1978. “Notes épigraphiques sur l'histoire
arcadienne du [V¢ siécle", BCH 102:346-358.
 TRANSITION FROM THE LOCAL ALPHABETS TO THE IONIG SCRIPT
Jeffery, L. H. 1961. The local scripts of archaic Greece (= LSAG).
Oxford.
. 1990. The local scripts of archaic Greece (= LSAG?),
Revised edition with a supplement by A. W. Johnston,
Oxford.
Knoepfler, Denis. 1992. “Recherches sur l’&pigraphie de la
Beotie”, Chiran 22:40-504.
. 2009. Bull. épigr. 2009, no, 244.
Kourinou-Pikoula, Eleni. 1992-98. “Mnama geronteias”, (in
Greek), HOPOE 10-12:259-276.
Kritzas, Charalambos. 2006. “Nouvelles inscriptions d'Argos:
Les archives des comptes du trésur sacré (TV* s, av. J.-C.)”,
CRAI 2006:397-434-
Matthaiou Angelos P. and Euthymios Mastrokostas(}).
2000-3 [2004]. "A treaty between ıhe Messenians and the
Naupactians” (in Greek), HOPOS 14-16:433-454-
Matthaiou, Angelos P. zon. Ta en tei stelei gegrammena,
Six Greek historical inscriptions of the fifth century B.C.
Athens.
Meiggs, Russel and David Lewis. 1988. A selection of Greek
historical inscriptions (= SGHT) (revised edition), Oxford
1988.
Pouilloux, Jean. 1954. Recherches sur {' histoire et les cultes de
Thasos, vol. 1. Paris,
Rhodes, P. J, and R. Osborne, 2003. Greek Historical Inscrip-
tions. 404-323 BC. (= GHI), Oxford.
te Riele, Gérard-Jean. 1987. “Hélisson entre en sympolitie
avec Mantinée: Une nouvelle inscription d’Arcadie”, BCH
1167-190.
Rougemont, G., ed. 1977. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes.
l. Lois sacrées et reglements religieux (= CiD), Paris.
Vottero, Guy. 1996. “L'alphabet ionien-attique en Beotie". In:
Le IV siécie av. J.-C. Approches historiegraphiques, ed. by
Pierre Carlier, 157-181. Nancy.
ANGELOS P, MATTHAIOU
Transitivity
L INTRODUCTION
In its traditional use, transitivity is understood as
the ability of many verbs to take a + direct object
expressing the Patient (> Patient and Theme)
or the Result of the event described by the predi-
cation. This direct object is specified more often
than the other objects. The direct object nor-
mally becomes the subject in the > passive form
of the same verb.
Evolving out of this traditional use, transitiv-
ity has come to refer to a phenomenon that
includes morpho-syntactic and semantic factors.
Hopper and Thompson (1980) have identified
the parameters that contribute to the transitivity
of a state of affairs in natural languages. Accord-
ing to them, states of affairs with a maximum
degree of transitivity are characterized by the
concurrence of different features, which are also
relevant in the case of Ancient Greek (see 2).
423
The opposition between transitivity and
intransitivity is not clear-cut, and hence transi-
tivity and intransitivity may be understood as
polar extremes of a continuum of properties.
Some constructions will match the prototypi-
cal properties, and will be easily classifiable as
transitive or intransitive, whilst others will dis-
play only some of the properties and will be
described in terms of a gradual scale of proxim-
ity to the prototypical transitive state of affairs.
Prototypical semantic transitivity is usually
associated across languages with both a specific
morpho-syntactic marking and certain struc-
tural properties. In some cases, however, a low
degree of semantic transitivity for some events
does correlate with the morpho-syntactic and
structural properties of prototypical transitive
constructions. Ancient Greek provides an evi-
dent example of this.
2. FEATURES OF HIGH SEMANTIC
TRANSITIVITY IN ANCIENT GREEK
In Ancient Greek, as in other Indo-European lan-
guages, states of affairs with a maximum seman-
tic degree of transitivity display the following
features:
a. A telic action (+ Lexical Aspect (Aktion-
sart)) is described, i.e., a situation involving a
change with an inherent final point.
b. First and second arguments of the predi-
cate (+ Functional Grammar and Greek) estab-
lish an asymmetrical relationship, that is to say,
the first argument of the verb causes an action
that in some way affects the second argument,
but not the opposite:
(1) ...dadn ageiron
‘He, bringing together the soldiers...’ (Hom.
Hl, 4.377)
c. The first argument of the predicate, the
subject (+ Subject; > Nominative) usually has
a human referent and fulfils the semantic role
of Agent. This is generally a human being who
carries out the verbal action in a conscious and
voluntary manner and is highly individuated:
(2) pantas katépephne dios Akhilleüs
'The divine Achilles killed them all’ (Hom.
Il. 6.423)
424 TRANSITIVITY
d. The second argument fulfils either the
semantic role of Patient (cf. The bay knocked
down the sandcastle) or the semantic role of
Result (cf. The boy built a sandcastle). The refer-
ent to which the role of Patient is attributed is
an entity that predates the development of the
verbal action, whereas the referent to which the
role of Result is attributed is an entity that arises
out of the verbal action itself.
e. The referent of the subject does not coin-
cide, either in whole or in part, with the referent
of the second argument:
(3) töphra de Télémakhon loüsen kale Polukasté
'Meanwhile the beautiful Polikaste bathed
Telemachus’ (Hom. Od. 3.464)
f. The lexical content of the verbal predicate
imposes few restrictions on the lexical content
of the argument to which the roles of Patient or
Result are attributed (cf. poieö ‘to do’).
g. The telic action described by the verbal
predicate is effectively carried out by the Agent.
The state of affairs referred to by its clause is,
therefore, encoded as a state of affairs that is
asserted, rather than one that is denied (+ Nega-
tion). Similarly, it is encoded as a real state of
affairs rather than one that is possible or unreal.
Affirmative clauses whose verbal predicates
are used in the indicative mood (+ Mood and
Modality) with a real value thus display a high
degree of transitivity.
3. TRANSITIVITY AS A MORPHO-SYNTACTIC
PHENOMENON IN ANCIENT GREEK
In Ancient Greek, a maximum degree of transi-
tivity is characterized by the occurrence of the
following syntactic features:
a. The first argument of the verbal predicate
is encoded in the nominative case and the sec-
ond in the + accusative. As in other languages
with referential null objects (+ Null Anaphora),
in Ancient Greek the second argument in accu-
sative can be elided in some contexts.
b. The verbal predicate is used with active
personal endings. The use of middle endings
is characteristic of verbs expressing movement
or human feelings or grooming, i.e., body care
actions. Such verbs are known as + media tan-
tum, i.e., verbs that do not combine with active
personal endings.
c. The verbal predicate can function in bath
active and > passive constructions. The subject of
passive constructions corresponds with the sec-
ond argument of active structures (-+ Active).
The morpho-syntactic characteristics shown
above are related to a high degree of semantic
transitivity. In Ancient Greek, when the pro-
perties associated with a high degree of semantic
transitivity lessen, some interesting morpho-
syntactic and structural changes seem to appear.
The most important patterns for measuring
semantic transitivity in Ancient Greek are the
following: 1. Degree of affectedness of the sec-
ond argument of the predicate; 2, Agentivity of
the first argument; 3. Absolute or partial co-
referentiality between the referent of the first
argument and the referent of the second argu-
ment; 4. Symmetrical or asymmetrical relation-
ship between the first and second argument.
The variation of these parameters determines
the coding of the second argument (3.a.), the cod-
ing of the first argument (3.b.) and the employ-
ment of verbal + middle endings in the place of
active ones (3.c.).
3.a. Coding of the Second Argument
A low degree of affectedness of the second argu-
ment is usually associated with + dative (4) or
> genitive marking (5). The dative case des-
ignates an argument whose referent does not
undergo any changes and is affected to a low
degree by the verbal action. The genitive case, on
the other hand, designates an argument whose
referent is just partially affected, even if the
affected portion of the referent is completely
affected or changed:
(4) ex hou hepömen Agamemnoni didi
‘From the moment | followed the divine
Agamemnon...’ (Hom. Od, 1.168-169)
(5) öphra pioi oinoio
‘In order to drink some wine’ (llom. Od. 22.11)
A low degree of individuation, which is closely
related to a low degree of affectedness, also
characterizes employment ofthe genitive for the
second argument:
(6) Adrestoio d’ égéme thugatrön
‘He married (one) of Adrastos’ daughters’
(Hom. Il, 14.121)
 TRANSITIVITY
A low degree of affectedness of the referent of
the second argument is usually related, as would
be expected, to a low degree of agentivity of the
referent of the first argument. Indeed, the pres-
ence of genitive or dative marking for the second
argument is closely linked to first arguments
which fulfil the role of Experiencer (> Experien-
tial Constructions):
(7) ho dé me nikön tois men nikösin ephthönei
‘He who was not victorious hated the vic-
tors’ (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.27)
(8) ...mäkhes erön
‘Longing for the battle...’ (Aesch. Sept. 392)
We can see, then, how the affectedness of the
second argument is deeply related to the agen-
tivity of the first argument, and how this rela-
tionship may have evident morpho-syntactic
consequences.
3.b, Coding of the First Argument
As Ancient Greek is an accusative language with
case marking, both the subject of transitive verbs
and the subject of intransitive verbs are encoded
in the nominative. However, in the case of inde-
pendent sentences, the coding of the first argu-
ment of the predicate in the genitive, dative or
accusative corresponds, without exception, to
the description of an intransitive state of affairs
(+ Non-Canonical Subjects), Personal sentences
with a non-canonical subject in the genitive
normally feature only this argument, and not a
second one. + Impersonal sentences with two
arguments also describe an intransitive state of
affairs, as they do not describe an action trans-
ferred by an Agent to a Patient. As can be seen
in the following example, the first argument
is encoded in the dative and only occasionally
in the accusative; the second is encoded in the
genitive rather than the accusative:
(9) ... hots an tes genéseods elleipei
‘To those who have no issue...’ (Pl. Leg.
740C.3)
3.c, Use of the Verbal Predicate with Middle
Endings
As regards verbs featuring opposition between
active and middle endings (+ Mediopassive),
transitive syntactic constructions are normally
associated with the use of active endings. Middle
endings are, however, used when there is par-
425
tial agreement between the referent of the first
argument and the referent of the second. The
second argument designates a part, normally an
inalienable one, of the first argument. The value
of middle endings in such contexts is reflexive:
(10) aleipsamene to sém’ hölon
‘She rubbed herself from head to foot with
oil...’ (Aristoph. Eccl, 63)
If the agreement between the referent of the
first and second arguments is total, the use of
middle endings goes hand in hand with argu-
ment reduction. Thus, Greek employs intransi-
tive constructions:
(u) eiöthös lotesthai...patamoio
‘Used to bathe in the river’ (Horn. Il. 6. 508)
Argument reduction is also observed in cases
where a symmetrical relationship is established
between the referent of the first argument and
that of the second. The use of middle endings
in the verbal predicate with a reciprocal value
is linked, therefore, to the use of an intransitive
construction:
(12) ... hot d’ageronto
‘And they gathered together’ (Hom. Il 2.94)
The use of transitive constructions is only docu-
mented for verbs that have an inherent reciprocal
meaning and function either as + activa tantum
or media tantum. In these constructions, the
reciprocal + pronoun is of an emphatic nature:
(13) éspdzonto allelous
‘They embraced each other’ (Xen. Cyr.
6.1.47.1)
Agreement between the referent of the first argu-
ment and that of the second as well as a possible
symmetrical relationship between one argument
and another are both, in short, factors that reduce
the agentivity of the subject as well as the degree
of affectedness of the object. We are thus dealing
with an Agent that is also a Patient, and a Patient
that either forms part of the Agent or has -
and exercises — the same capacity for action as
that Agent. As is widely known, sentences with
middle ending and a + reflexive or reciprocal
value do not allow passive structures.
426 TRANSITIVITY
Despite the information detailed above, it
must be borne in mind that in Ancient Greek not
all second arguments encoded in the accusative
are located in sentences with a high degree of
semantic transitivity. Similarly, not all subjects
with a low degree of agentivity are necessarily
placed in intransitive states of affairs. Transitive
constructions of verbs such as oida, ‘to know’, or
päskhö, ‘to suffer’, provide evidence of this. Like-
wise, not all verbal predicates featuring oppo-
sition between active and middle endings are
used with active endings only when the state of
affairs described has maximum transitivity. As
explained above, in Ancient Greek transitivity
is a semantic phenomenon that is gradual in
nature, and its morpho-syntactic reflections are
also gradual. The behavior of passive structures
is a good example of the imbalances seen in
Ancient Greek between the semantic and syn-
tactic properties of transitive states of affairs.
4. THE PASSIVE IN ANCIENT GREEK
Greek differs from other Indo-European lan-
guages featuring case marking, such as Latin, in
terms of a potential correspondence between
the second argument of active structures and the
subject of + passive structures. In Ancient Greek,
correspondence between the second argument
of active structures and the subject of passive
structures is seen not only with verbs whose
second arguments are encoded in the accusative
in active structures, but also with other verbs
whose second arguments are encoded in the
genitive (cf, &ldomai 'desire’+ gen.) or the dative
cases (cf. phthoneö ‘envy, hate'+ dat.). The geni-
tive hearkens back to the ancient Indo-European
partitive genitive, and the dative generally to the
so-called dative ofinterest:
(14) nün toi eeldesthö pölemos kakös
‘That the terrible battle is now desired by
you’ (Hom. JL 16.494)
(15) eudaimonön gar ou phthonétheséi
‘Well, you will not be hated and you will
feel happy’ (Xen. Hier. 11.15)
We are dealing with verbs that allow interpreta-
tion of the genitive or dative as an expression of
the Patient, although the sentences in question
do not always feature a prototypical Agent that
carries out a verbal action that affects a Patient,
which is also prototypical. In any case, verbs that
feature a second object in the genitive or dative
expressing notions outside of the scope of the
Patient, such as the Origin or Company, have
not shown passive structures until at least the
postclassical era. This is the case, for example,
with verbs such as eikö + gen. ‘to quit a place or
activity, and dialégomai + dat. ‘to hold a con-
versation with somebody’. Furthermore, neither
are passive structures seen with verbs with sec-
ond arguments in the accusative case expressing
notions outside of the scope of the Patient (cf.
pheigö + acc. 'to escape something’, and paskhö
+ acc. 'to suffer something’). The passivization of
the second argument in Ancient Greek is thus
the result of factors of a semantic nature, and
only secondarily of factors of a morphosyntactic
nature.
Greek also features another phenomenon
that demonstrates the importance of semantic
factors in the passivization of predicate comple-
ments: the ability to encode the accusative as
the subject of passive structures, in a relation-
ship of dependence with respect to verbs that
normally behave as intransitive (+ Accusative),
We have some examples of the passivization of
the accusative of extent of time or space and of
the cognate accusative:
(16) édé treis ménes epetetriérarkhonté moi
‘Three months have already been used up
by me as a Trierarch' (Dem. Or. 50.23)
(17) polloi men gar pros huméas hemin agönes
agönidatai
‘Well now, the battles battled out by us
against you are many’ (Hdt. 9.26.7)
The accusative of extent functions in Greek as
a satellite as well as an argument. The cognate
accusative, in contrast, is considered a proto-
typical example of an object that is not required
by the verb. Its partial overlapping — and upon
occasion, total overlapping - with the lexical
content of the predicate makes it an unneces-
sary object. The key to the passivization of the
accusative in these contexts, as in the case of the
genitive and the dative, lies in its ability to be
interpreted as the Patient in active structures. It
is this interpretation as the Patient that can even
enable a reinterpretation of the accusative as the
second argument.
In conclusion, in Ancient Greek a low degree
of semantic transitivity often correlates with
the morpho-syntactic and structural properties
 TRANSITIVITY
of prototypical transitive constructions. For
instance, passivization is not unique to second
arguments encoded in the accusative case, but
has also been documented for second arguments
encoded in the genitive and the dative cases.
Furthermore, even satellites encoded in the
accusative that depend on verbs which normally
function as intransitive occasionally correspond
with the subject of passive structures in the
nominative.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger. 2003. The middle voice in Ancient Greek. A
study of patysemy. Amsterdam.
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1991. A new look ut the passive. Frank-
furt a. M.
. 1993. “Zur Diathese", Historische Sprachforschung
106.2:177—23L
Bakker, EgbertJ. 1994. “Voice, aspect and Aktionsart: middle
and passive in Ancient Greek". In: Voice: form and func-
tion, ed. by Barbara A. Fox and Paul J. Hopper, 23-47.
Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Brandt, Patrick and Marco Garcia, 2010. Transitivity: form,
meaning, acquisition, and processing. Amsterdam.
Conti, Luz. 1998: “Zum Passiv von griechischen Verben mit
Gen. bzw. Dat. als zweitem Komplement”, MSS 5813-50.
Crespo, Emilio. 1988. “The semantic and syntactic functions
of the Accusative". In: Proceedings in Commemoration of
the ısoth Anniversary af the Publication of Raphael Kiihner’s
Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischenSprache, i Teil:
Syntax’, ed. by Albert Rijskbaron, 219-236. Amsterdam.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity
in grammar and discourse", Language 56:251-99.
Kemmer, Suzanne, 1993. The middle voice, Amsterdam.
Keydana, Götz and Silvia Luraghi. In press. “Definite refer-
ential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek”,
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, International Journal of
Linguistics.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2008, "Case in cognitive linguistics”. In: The
handbook of case, ed. by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew
Spencer, 136-150, Berlin - New York.
Malchokev, Andrej. 2006, "Transitivity parameters and tran-
sitivity alternations. Constraining co-variation". In: Case.
valency and transitivity, ed. by Leonid Kulikov, Andrej
Malchukov and Peter De Swart, 175-190, Amsterdam,
Mulder, Hotze. “Non-accusative second arguments of two-
place verbs in ancient Greek”. in: Rijskbaron 1988:219-36.
Riafio, Daniel. 2006. Ff complemento directo en griega anti-
guo. Madrid,
Risselada, Rudie. 1987. “Voice in ancient Greek; reflextves
and passives". In: Ins and outs of the predication, ed,
by Johan van der Auwera and Louis Goossens, 123-136,
Dordrecht.
Sasse, Hans J. 1980. “Subjektprominenz”. In: Fakten und
Theorien. Festschrift für Helmut Stimm sum 65, Geburt-
stag, ed. by Hans Helmut Christmann and Richard Baum,
266-286. Tübingen.
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive. A comparative linguistic
analysts. London.
Stein, Gabriele. 1979. Studies in the function of the passive.
Tübingen.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Val. 1:
cancept systems. Cambridge.
427
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. “Remarks on transitivity”, Journal of
Linguistics 21:385-396.
Luz Conti
Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Concepts and Models
1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
The term 'non-western’ is a provisional working
tool, Adopting it uncritically would frame an
analysis in terms of polarities between western
and non-western. Equally, there are issues of def-
inition: ‘western’ is a term usually identified with
European and especially western European geo-
graphical situation, languages and histories and
their associated ideologies and paradigms. The
term ‘western’ is also, by extension, applied to
territories outside the geographical boundaries
of Europe but with strong linguistic and/or socio-
cultural and political links with Europe such as,
for example, the United States and Australasia.
This terminology brings with it intellectual bag-
gage, with implications tor how hierarchies of
power and ways of looking at the world are
constituted and how they frame discourse. The
use of terms like ‘western’ and ‘non-western’ as
markers also situates colonial histories (as car-
riers and resisters of the European connection).
To question their viability opens the way to
more nuanced analysis of changes in patterns of
cultural practice, including overlaps, interweav-
ings, hybridity and networks of communication
and mapping. Translation practices necessarily
negotiate across and between rigid boundaries.
Therefore, in each of the main frames of
inquiry that contribute to this article, I have
tried to avoid accepting the simple and rigid
polarities of ‘western’ and ‘non-western’ as unex-
amined models of inquiry or of explanation.
These terms do, however, figure in the discourse
and modes of thinking and practice used by the
originators of some of the examples and, in that
sense, provide a field for investigation and prob-
lematization. Richard Alston, in a 2010 essay,
has summarized very well the implications of
dichotomous models and has highlighted ways
in which they themselves can provide agencies
for the transmission of values and ideologies:
“Mid to late-twentieth-century models of Empire
have tended to operate in simple dichotomous
428 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
forms. Such models postulated a division between
the ‘imperial’ culture, the culture of the 'metropo-
lis’, and the culture of the native, the subaltern,
the colonised, or the barbarian... these simple
dichotomous models live on in the writings of the
New Right’ [in which he includes recent books by
Niall Ferguson, 2003, Empire: How Britain made the
Modern World and Samuel Huntington, 1996, The
Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of the World
Order)” (Alston 2010:51).
Translation is at the center of such debates,
partly because of its practical role in the trans-
mission of texts and ideas and in the transfor-
mation of understanding, and partly because
it sits at the hub of a complex set of opera-
tions — purposes, mechanisms, agents, consum-
ers, intended and unintended effects. When the
ancient Greek language is brought into this mix,
the urgency of conflict and negotiation between
hegemonic and subaltern languages and their
contexts of use in the modem era is intensified.
Study of translation from the Greek language,
its rationales, methods and effects, provides
a lateral thread that runs through and across
many supposedly discrete civilizations, includ-
ing those that lay claim to exceptionality. Trac-
ing some of the most significant elements allows
for comparisons that reveal convergence and
commonalities. It also provides contrasts that
reveal disjunctions and conflicts. The histories
and geographies of Greek translation thus miti-
gate against neat and tidy conceptualizations as
well as against the smoothing out of difference.
However, the implications of the use of trans-
lations of Greek material (and therefore of the
contexts, aims and understandings that underlie
such use) are only part of the story. We also need
to turn to antiquity and to recent research on the
cultural dynamics of the ancient world itself.
2. CULTURAL DYNAMICS IN ANTIQUITY
Binary structures of thought and action were
not absent from ancient literature (see Hall
1989). Subsequently, they have frequently been
exploited to construct ‘west’ vs. ‘east’ oppositions
and hierarchies and in antiquity, as in moder-
nity, they were often rhetorically contentious
and contested. Equally, however, the fabric of
Greek literature also contains many examples of
cross-cultural contacts, which might involve not
only conflict but also exchange and in which the
labelling of the relationship might shift accord-
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS
ing to context and circumstances — for example,
Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War
Book 8 makes Tissaphernes an actor in the tri-
angular relationship between the Athenians,
their enemies the Spartans, and the Persians in
the late 5th c. BCE, while by the mid 4th c. the
Athenian rhetor Isocrates in his Panegyricus and
Panathenaicus polarizes Greeks and Persians in
his efforts to persuade the Macedonians and
Hellenic poleis to unite against perceived ene-
mies from the east.
Cultural and economic historians have shown
that in archaic and Homeric Greece there was
considerable interaction between north Africa,
the Levant and Greece, along the coasts of the
Mediterannean and the Aegean seas. It should
therefore be no surprise that subsequent use of
Greek texts gives a prime place to contexts that
reflect and facilitate interconnectedness rather
than division and exceptionalism, nor that the
scope and variety of translation practices proves
to be a key factor. This is not to deny that in
individual examples the Greek material is appro-
priated as a marker to boost the superiority of
the user and to exemplify distinctiveness. The
resistance (human, linguistic and political) that
such seizure provoked roughens the texture of
any generalization and underlies the argument
put forward in this article.
So simplistic polarities about western and
non-western (both in terms of what these terms
constitute and the kinds of relationships and
conflicts that they frame) need to be subjected
to challenge, This is both on theoretical grounds
and on the basis of evidence yielded by investi-
gation of examples. This article will mainly focus
on the latter, in order to show how patterns,
intersections and sometimes interweavings have
been provoked and carried by the circulation of
Greek texts and their translations.
3. “NON-WESTERN” CONTEXTS AND
TRANSLATION OF GHEEK TEXTS
Some ‘thick’ examples of ‘non-western’ contexts
will be briefly discussed. All of these problem-
atize in different ways markers of traditional
polarities and histories of the translation of
Greek texts. They cannot be discussed in detail
(and in any case the aim of this article is not to
provide a 'survey'). Rather, key aspects will be
identified that contribute to the overall theme of
this article. No one example will cover the whole
 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
spectrum of themes and mechanisms. Rather,
the aim is to select from each a key aspect that
will contribute to the overall focus of this article,
and which will provide prima facie evidence that
may justify a larger and more systematic analysis
in the future.
Potentially rich areas for analysis include Rus-
sia, India, Latin-America and the Caribbean,
Africa, China and the Arabic language and cul-
tures. The main strands running through the
discussion of the uses to which translated Greek
has been put will include: how Greek was per-
ceived in etiological relationships or in terms of
‘ownership’; the leverage of any external power
in the introduction or disseminating of Greek
(this might result from colonization, religion or
missionary activity); the function of Greek in
serving a desire for self-definition (for example,
the allure of Greek texts as indices of the cul-
tural heritage of the nation or group and/or of
aesthetic or political emancipation); the means
of producing and dissemination translations and
their purpose (for example in different levels
of education, in the creative arts, in rhetoric
and historiography); and the trajectories of rela-
tionships between different areas ot use (geo-
graphical as well as socio-political), including
assessment of the degree of mutuality and reci-
procity (whether or not intentional: unintended
consequences are an important factor).
I use the term ‘translation’ to cover a spec-
trum that ranges from communicating lexical or
cultural equivalence to cultural transplantation
of an art form or metaphor. | also assume that
translation of Greek material in so-called ‘non-
western’ contexts and its interweavings with
‘western’-orientated contexts provide a distinc-
tive infrastructure to what is variously described
as ‘world literature’ or ‘global literature’. In par-
ticular, I maintain that study of the translation
of Greek can outflank the more limiting percep-
tions of world literature and globalization - the
“conflicting multiplicity uf separate national tra-
ditions” and its alternative the confusing noise of
‘global babble’ (Damrosch 2003:5). Furthermore,
I suggest that Greek makes an important contri-
bution to the enterprise characterized by Ngugi
Wa Thiong’o:
“Translation is the language of languages. It opens
the gates of national and linguistic prisons, It is thus
one of the most important allies of world literature
and global consciousness. But most important is
the globalectic reading of the word.... [globalec-
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS 429
tic] reading means breaking open the prison house
of imagination built by theories and outlooks
that would seem to signify the content within is
classified, open only to a few. This involves declas-
sifying theory in the sense of making it acces-
sible - a tool for clarifying interactive connections
and interconnections of social phenomena and
their mutual] impact in the local and global space”
(Ngugi 2012:61).
3.a. Russia
I start with an example that sits at the interface
between ‘western’ and ‘non-western’ traditions.
Russia is culturally and geographically on the
boundaries between Europe and non-Europe,
and during the period of the Cold War was iden-
tified in western consciousness with the Soviet
Empire, including its role as the ruler of the
‘eastern bloc’ (sc. of European countries). Clas-
sical material has been important for the history
of Russia’s cultural and national development,
including aspirations to be regarded as Euro-
pean, and translation has been a crucial strand
in Russian cultural and political practice at least
since Peter the Great's policy of Westernization
in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, which
involved a shift in translation priorities from
religious to secular texts. So far as Greek was
concerned, this was in contrast to the interest
in the classical tradition in Russia in the 14th
and ı5th centuries, which was dominated by the
relationship between Russian Orthodoxy and
Byzantine traditions (Torlone 2009714). Peter the
Great issued a decree in 1724, which prescribed
that the translators must translate into their own
mother tongue. He also encouraged emphasis on
the context as well as the language of the source
text. Although some critics considered Peter's
policies a reminder of Russia’s belatedness in
participation in the wider cultural sphere, these
provisions set a framework, not just for the
translation inte Russian of works of literature
from other languages, but also for the use of
such translation work as part ofthe creation ofa
national literature that acculturated the literary
energy of other traditions.
Literature in modern Russia became a pri-
mary field for discussing political, philosophical
and moral issues, and from the ı8th c. transla-
tion was involved in anti-feudal and anti-clerical
debates as well as in generating neologisms.
Many writers in the 19th and 20th centuries
combined creative work and translation, partly
as an expression of creative energy and partly
430 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
because translation was one way of bypassing
the repressive censorship of original writing that
was a feature both of Tzarist and Soviet regimes
(Baer and Olshanskaya 2013:iv). The importance
of translation practice for writers also led to the
growth of paratextual material such as Prefaces
and Introductions, letters, interviews and dia-
ries. This not only contributes to study of Rus-
sian literature, but also provides primary data
for analysis of the translation of Greek texts
and for the development of translation theory.
For example, Nikolai Gnedich (1784-1833), who
spent twenty years on his translation of Homer's
Iliad which was published in 1829, used a Fore-
word to discuss the problems of balancing the
free word order of Russian, which facilitated the
use of “the simplicity of common language”, with
the need to make sure that Homer's thought did
not “sound like Russian” (Baer and Olshanskaya
2013:10). This was important for social as well as
linguistic reasons - Gogol, who did not translate
from Greek, was scathing in his 1846 comparison
between Homer's patriarchal view of the world
and the socially charged and progressive litera-
ture in Russia. His comments betray an anxiety
about Zhukovski's 1849 Russian translation of the
Odyssey. This was based on a German interlinear
version, but Zhukovski's Russian was considered
by Gogol to be fuller and richer than all the Euro-
pean languages, representing the aesthetic force
of “a restoration, a resurrection of Homer” (Baer
and Olshanskaya 2013:29).
3.b. India
In contrast with the initial anxiety of Russia to
become more European, Indian translations of
Greek epic provide a perspective on the assimi-
lation of translations from Greek into its own
traditions. Russia was a polyglot empire that
used European languages for literary enrich-
ment. It is a commonplace to say that Euro-
pean languages are strongly colored by the other
languages in use around them, Amiya Dev has
pointed out that India’s twenty-two principal
languages themselves form a plenum compara-
ble to that of European literature and as a result
“no Indian literature is ever itself alone” (Dam-
rosch 2003:27). The structure of Indian literature
is comparative, and this by extension provides a
comparative model for the relationship between
Greek (and Roman) literature and the many lan-
guages through which it is interpreted, rewritten
and disseminated.
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS
Much scholarly attention has been devoted
to the priorities set at different times between
competence in Greek and Latin, English, and
Indian languages in the administration of the
British Raj in India (Vasunia 2013). My example
provides one perspective on those questions but,
its primary importance is as an example of the
meeting of two classical traditions. The Bengali
poet Michael Madhusudan Datta (1824-1873)
developed a literary space that drew on the
relationship between Greek and Sanskrit culture
that had been brought to the fore by 18th-c. ori-
entalists and had intensified in the early igth c.
In particular, Sir William Jones had postulated
strong affinities between Sanskrit and European
languages and between their religious and cul-
tural hinterlands (+ Indo-European Historical
Background), He extended those comparisons
to include literary acsthetics, commenting on
the “unity of action, magnificence of imagery
and elegance of style of the Ramayana” ( Jones
1807, quoted and discussed in Vasunia 2013:242),
Such responses to classical Indian epic implied
horizontal rather than hierarchical relation-
ships between the traditions of Hindu India and
European classicism, via common descent from
the Graeco-Roman, and especially the Greek,
since Homer was central. There were implica-
tions in these debates for cultural and racial
equality between Indians and Europeans (Rid-
diford 2013199), but the most important point
for this article is the explicit comparisons drawn
between Sanskrit and Homeric epic. Romesh
Dutt added epilogues emphasizing this to his
English versions of the Mahabharata and the
Ramayana (1899).
Michael Madhusudan Dutta’s work Hector-
badh (The Slaying of Hector, 1871) was a prose
version of the first half of the /liad. It attracted
some criticism for its use of Sanskrit compounds
to render Homeric epithets and for neologisms
that made the Bengali language more cumber-
some, It is au example of a ‘translation’ in which
the glosses embed commentary and which also
includes interpolations adding authorial com-
ments to the Homeric narrative. The ethos of
these is Indo-European: Homeric gods, cus-
toms and religious practices are glossed with
Hindu ‘equivalents’, rather than being translated
or transliterated (Riddiford 2019169). A more
transformative example of the use of equiva-
lences occurs in Sri Aurobindo's /lion: An Epic in
Quantative Hexameters, published in 1957, but
 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
begun in Alipur prison in 1909. The work depicts
the Amazon Penthesilea as an Indian queen
(Vasunia 2013:251). As pressures for Indian inde-
pendence intensified in the early zoth c., the
trope of equivalence was used by Gandhi, who
in 1908 paraphrased Plato’s Apology into Guja-
rati and in 1909 wrote Hind Swaraj, using the
dialogue form based on Plato's works as well as
patterns found in Indian philosophical treatises.
Gandhi also translated this work into English
(Vasunia 2013:335).
Taken together, these examples from India
demonstrate how translation techniques can
subvert linguistic and cultural models that are
based on temporal primacy as an indicator of
influence and value and how ‘equivalence’ mod-
els can be used to link Greek texts and their
hermeneutic and aesthetic effects with those
from other traditions, Patterns of translation
and retranslation are also important. Gandhi’s
success in exploiting the figure of Socrates as
a marker of democratic dissent was of course
double-edged. Like the Indian writers’ parallels
between Greek and Indian literature, it provided
a heuristic approach to influencing Europeans
as well as Indians. However, Gandhi's creation
of Gujarati versions also implies a significant
level of compatibility between Greek and Indian
modes of thought, especially in the choice of role
models (+ Greek and Indian Languages).
3.c. China
Arelated question, that of philosophical
commen-
surability, has been central to recent research
on the relationship between Greek and Chi-
nese, especially because philosophy is based on
the assumption that human reason is a fun-
damental characteristic shared across all cul-
tures (MacIntyre 1991). Latin, not Greek, was
the language that was introduced to China by
missionaries and traders, and Latin was the lan-
guage through which knowledge about China
was communicated in the west (e.g. Athanasuis
Kircher’s China Illustrata, published in Amster-
dam in 1667, while Cordier’s Biblotheca Sinica,
1878-1895, includes examples of Chinese literary
works translated into Latin), However, the most
interesting feature of translation analysis has
been the comparison of cognitive aspects of the
Greek and Chinese languages. Much has been
made of the differences between Greek causal
thinking and Chinese connective thinking, of
styles of communication in diplomatic contexts
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS 431
and of patterns of allusion in archaic Greek
poetry and Chinese classical literature (Tanner
2009:97-98). Inflected languages, like Greek
and Sanskrit, were thought to differ from the
structural properties of Chinese and thus make
translation problematic. However, analysis of
the Ming Li Tan (Investigation into the Theory
of Names) published in early 17th-c. China has
served to question easy polarities. This work
is a partial translation into Chinese of a Latin
translation of Aristotle’s Categories. It was pro-
duced in collaboration between a Jesuit mission-
ary and a Chinese literary scholar and has been
judged by Robert Wardy (in his study Aristotle in
China, 2000) as demonstrating that although it
has problems with some concepts (e.g. fogos and
ratio), the Chinese version captures the Classi-
cal Greek better than does the Latin (discussed
Tanner 20091100).
3.d, Japan
Like China, Japan also encountered Graeco-
Roman culture through missionaries and traders
(initially Portuguese and Dutch), although Greek
and Latin culture had already been introduced in
the 6th c. CE, via Buddhism, especially through
sculptures. In 1612, Christianity was prohibited
in Japan and the introduction of European cul-
ture was interrupted for about 250 years. In
the Meiji period (1868 onwards), there was inter-
est in Greek philosophy and historiography as
well as in Aesop and Homer. Greek tragedy
was introduced, and after World War II, Greek
influences on literature and drama increased
because of the publication of translations from
the Greek (a Complete Works of Greek Tragedy
was published in Japanese in 1960). It is in fact
arguable that the most important modern sym-
biosis between Japanese and Greek culture has
been the influence of Japanese theater tradi-
tion on modern performances of Greek drama,
whether in Japanese or in other languages. This
‘translation for the stage’ uses a range of tradi-
tional Japanese theater traditions and exempli-
fies the cultural exchange that is encouraged by
translations.
3.e. Latin-America
Such lateral relationships between cultures
and the reciprocal loops that subvert models
of unidirectional influence are also important
for translation of Greek texts in Latin America
and in Africa. Generalization across the whole
432 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
of those continents would be misleading. There
is a range of contexts, histories and cultures
involved.
Although attention is increasingly paid to the
general implications of the migration of clas-
sical material in terms of geopolitics as well as
language and culture, the importance of Latin
America is only now taking a more prominent
place in the global picture. It provides a useful
corrective to some of the emphasis on Anglo-
phone contexts as markers of ‘western’ tradi-
tion, providing alternative perspectives on the
mediations generated by the textual histories of
adaptations and by contexts of religion, educa-
tion, languages and empire. In the field of post-
colonial studies, Latin America offers a different
set of variables and different ways of envisaging
texts and counter-texts, challenging simplistic
models. In terms of the histories of cultures
it brings the early modern to the fore; from
1492 onwards, classical translation approaches
were partly imported by colonizers and partly
moulded by the needs of the new contexts, with
complex inter-relationships between people
of indigenous, European and mixed heritage.
Initially Latin, including Catholic mediations
of classical material, was especially important.
Greek-language texts became important later,
offering alternatives to the Christian and impe-
tial ethos associated with Rome and Latinity,
although the first known translation of a Greek
play in Chile was made by aJesuit Juan R. Sales,
who in 1989 translated Aeschylus into Castilian
verse. A French translation provided the mediat-
ing text for the 1924 Oedipus the King produced in
Bolivia by Gregorio Reynolds, who is an example
of the extensive influence of literary modernism.
Later in the 2oth c., the use of Greek material in
translation has frequently focused on countering
imposed ideologies and cultures, for example in
the resistance to dictatorship in Argentina that
has elevated adaptations of Sophocles’ Antigone
into a ‘national tradition’ (Fradinger 201:68).
ei. The Caribbean
The Caribbean has been described as an ‘island
bridge’ that connects North and South America.
It also brings into play a tapestry of interactions
between African, Asian and European migra-
tions (British, Dutch, French, Portuguese, Span-
ish) as well as traces of Amerindian heritage
and the more recent influence of the United
States and of postcolonial African states. With
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS
Latin America, it also provides a commentary
on the distinctive model of a trans-Atlantic ‘tri-
angular’ dynamic of cultural exchange between
ancient Greece and Rome, Western Europe and
the Caribbean and the Americas. This is a model
that reverses the historical routes of exploita-
tion and links with the bypassing of mimicry by
an autonomous Caribbean literature and cul-
tural politics (Greenwood 2010). Greek models
facilitated resonances between islands, the sea
and the plasticity of myths and narratives in
creative work, such as that of Derek Walcott
and Wilson Harris. Homeric epic has taken a
dominant role in shaping poetry and fiction,
and performance practices in drama have drawn
on the traditions of mixed communities. More
directly translational use of Greek texts has been
part of the continuing cultural traffic between
the Caribbean and Africa, as in Kamau Brath-
waite's versions of Greek drama to be performed
and studied in Africa. Brathwaite's translational
techniques were part of his aim to establish a
new ‘nation language’ for the Caribbean (Hard-
wick 2007b:325). In Cuba, on the cusp between
the Caribbean and the United States, Anton Aru-
fat’s play Los Siete contra Tebas used Aeschylus’
Seven Against Thebes as a basis for examining
the relation between external and civil wars.
Despite winning a prestigious drama award, it
was banned in Cuba (either because of its reso-
nances with the 1961 Bay of Pigs incident, in
which Cuban exiles were funded by the US to
overthrow the Castro regime, or because it was
thought to present fratricidal strife in a defeatist
way). The play was eventually published with a
new preface and was staged in Glasgow, Scotland,
in an (unpublished) English translation by Mike
Gonzalez (Hardwick 2004; Torrance 2007), Such
histories of classical translation in Latin America
and the Caribbean remind us that judgments
have to be informed by awareness of differences
as well as commonalities within a continent and
by tracing patterns of communication between
continents as well as within them.
3.f Africa
The historical, cultural and geo-political scope
of the continent of Africa is equally challenging,
West Africa, for example, is radically different
from Southern Africa, and both differ importantly
from the North. However, in each part of the
continent there are complex issues about colo-
nial relationships with European hegemonies
 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
and about the role of classical, and especially
Greek, material in internal cultural politics before
and after independence.
Colonization of West Africa was largely exploi-
tation-based, rather than ‘settler'-based. In both
types of colonization, Manichean cultural mod-
els might be applied in a variety of ways. David
Cannadine’s recent analysis of divisions in his-
tory and society discusses how simplistic polari-
ties between ‘civilized’ and ‘barbarian’ were
refined into a notion of civilization as ‘process’.
This fed into the rationalization of 19th-c. Euro-
pean empires as ‘civilising missions’ (Cannadine
2013:226-7). In the context of education, this
could give a special place to the Greek language
as a means of moving from a state of barbarism
(ie. in the original sense of speaking languages
other than Greek) to that of ‘civilization’, which
in the ıgth-c. context of imperial mission in
Africa involved Greek (or at least Koine Greek)
as a requirement for those whose task was to
spread the Christian gospel (which in the British
Empire was largely Protestant). This could have
unexpected consequences since, in the context
of West Africa, conditions of climate and dis-
ease limited the life expectancy of Europeans.
Thus, educating Africans, who were thought to
be more resistant to endemic disease, to become
religious teachers became an issue of practicality
as much as of Christian principle (and one rea-
son why education of Africans developed more
strongly in West Africa than in East Africa).
Samuel Ajayi Crowther, a Yoruba who became
the first African to be ordained as a bishop in the
Church of England, provides an interesting case.
Crowther had been captured as a child and was
only saved from slavery when the Portuguese
slave ship, en route for Brazil, was seized by the
British and he was settled in Sierra Leone as a
'recaptive’, He was cited in a British Parliamen-
tary Report as having been “instructed in Greek
under the care of the Church Missionary Society”
and as an example that proved that Africans
were “fitted for every branch and grade of ser-
vice” (Goff 2013:34, 37). So Greek became, in an
ironic sense, part of the cultural capital of Afri-
cans, including for some who returned from the
United States and the Caribbean. In the ıgth c.
education was increasingly valued as an indica-
tor of material progress, and even as a means of
producing an African ‘middle-class' who would
self-identify with the west. Some translations
from Greek into African vernaculars were made,
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS 433
initially of the Koine of the + New Testament
and then increasingly in the 2oth c. of school
texts and mythological narratives, including an
Odyssey in Fanti.
However, by the 1930s, the rationales for edu-
cating Africans had changed. For example, where
British colonial rule was to be delivered via the
native chiefs (‘Indirect Rule‘, not abandoned
until 1947), education in classical languages was
considered inappropriate and English transla-
tions were recommended (Goff 2013150). Nev-
ertheless, two significant effects of exposure to
classical texts persisted even after the Classics
departments in West Africa had reduced their
provision. The first was the adherence to rhetori-
cal models for political speech (Ige 2007). The
second was the emergence of adaptations and
rewriting of Greek plays by West African dra-
matists. These put African drama on the world
theatrical map and also, in their exploitation of
‘equivalences’ with the African situation in argu-
ments, contexts and staging, provided a criti-
cal perspective on African history, on colonial
domination and on post-independence politics,
through which writers such as Femi Osofisan
aimed to influence the African elites of the future
(Hardwick 2007a and 20075).
This dialectical relationship between educa-
tion, translation of Greek texts, acculturation
and resistance to internal and external oppres-
sion and conflict has been a significant factor in
South Africa, both under the apartheid regime
and since the establishment of democracy and
the desire for a new multi-racial South Africa.
The Greek language has moved from its ratio-
nale as an instrument of study of the Christian
Bible to a role in an emerging cultural dynamic.
Translation and its hermeneutics has been one
factor framing how different groups within
South Africa engage trans-historically with clas-
sical culture and, through that, engage later-
ally with one another and with constructions of
identity (Lambert 2011). Recent examples of the
translation of Greek drama and epic show how
the multi-vocalism associated with the histories
of translating Greek texts enable a dialectical
relationship between past and present South
Africa. Yael Farber’s Molora (2008), developed
from Aeschylus’ Oresteia, deployed a collage of
translated extracts as a backdrop to the per-
formance of indigenous sung and instrumental
art forms to explore revenge and resolution
(Hardwick 2010, van Zyl Smit 2010), Richard
434 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
Whitaker's translation of the Ifiad into Southern
African English marked not only a classicists’
desire to contribute to the cultural ethos of the
new South Africa but also embodied his sense of
the inadequacy of Anglo-American translations
in the Southern African context. Whitaker con-
sidered that South African English, which is just
one of South Africa’s eleven official languages,
had a vocabulary and register that deserved to
be reflected in poetic translation and that it
could also carry conceptual and anthropological
equivalences: "there were many elements of the
Homeric world, such as payment of bride-price
in cattle and warriors winning praises in com-
bat that might resonate with South Africans”
(Whitaker 2012:7).
3.g. The Arab Tradition
In North Africa and the Arabic-language Near
East, and notably in Egypt, there is a rich trans-
historical and trans-cultural context to the trans-
lation of Greek texts. The translators of the Dar
El Hikmah (Wisdom House), which was founded
in Baghdad as a center of excellence in transla-
tion, did important work in the Abbasid period
(8th and gth centuries CE), especially working
from Greek, sometimes with Syriac as an inter-
mediary language (+ Greek and Syriac; + Greek
and Arabic (Early Contacts)). Together with the
work of the ı2th-c. Cordovan physician and phi-
losopher Ibn Ruéd (Averroes), which often used
mediating Hebrew and Latin translation, Greek
medical, scientific and philosophical texts were
recuperated and incorporated into the western
intellectual tradition during the Renaissance
(Haddour 2008),
Following Napoleon's incursions (1798), links
were developed between Egyptian writers and
scholars and French and Italian culture, Fene-
lon's Les Aventures de Telemaque (1699) was
translated into Arabic by El Tahtawy (1801-1872),
one of the precursers of the Arabic Cultural
Awakening, which was characterized by the
revival, modernization and translation of clas-
sical material (Pormann 2006, Etman zon), This
translation was the first based on a narrative
from classical mythology (Etman 2008). Féné-
lon’s work had been written with educational
aims. Similar motivation was behind Soliman
El Bostany’s translation of the Iliad (1904). Its
lengthy title did not refer to myth, which was
inimical to Arab tradition (although it has sub-
sequently been a factor in modern Arabic lyric
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS
poetry), and instead focused on the historical
and literary aspects, The Introduction included
a comparison between Greek and Arabic poetry
and discussed the problems of translating poetry.
A century later, the publication of a new Arabic
translation of the Iliad (2004) was marked by
a conference in Cairo called ‘Translation and
Cultural Interactions’, which also examined the
orality of Greek and Arabic epic (six major
examples of Arabic epic survive) and the associ-
ated importance of performance. The translation
team was directed by Ahmed Etman, Professor
of Classics at Cairo University, and had three
aims, namely “to remain faithful to the original
texts, to give an accurate picture of Homer's art
and to produce a readable book." The translation
was in prose, since Etman considered that the
rhythms of Arabic literature verse translation
would have been incompatible with precision in
relation to the Greek.
There is continuing debate about the extent to
which a shared classical heritage brings together
the traditions of the Arab and wider Muslim
world and those of Europe and the Americas
(Pormann 2009). However, the trajectories of
reciprocity have been continued with the pub-
lication of translations into English of versions
of Sophocles’ Oedipus written by four leading
dramatists (Carlson 2005). The way to these was
opened up by the 1939 translation from Greek
to Arabic by the scholar dramatist Taha Husayn
(in a volume that also included Ajax, Electra and
Antigone).
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
These examples demonstrate that the histories
of the translation and adaptation of Greek texts
involve intersections and interweavings that
provide both for moments of disjunction and
fracture and also for moments of exchange and
reciprocity. The effect is to challenge easy dis-
tinctions between ‘western’ and 'non-westem'.
David Damrosch has argued that there are
3 defining emergent patterns in world literature
(2003:281):
(1) World Literature is an elliptical refraction of
national literature
{z) World Literature is writing that gains in
translation
(3) World Literature is not a set canon of texts
but a mode of reading: a form of detached
 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS
engagement with worlds beyond our own
place and time.
The potential force of Greek material for test-
ing these assertions is great, partly because of
the temporal priority that enables it to provide
the raw material for such developments and
partly because it provides a body of material
that is both part of many traditions and yet
owned by none, No tradition can be consid-
ered in isolation; Greek language texts and their
translations provide a never-ending source of
data for comparison. Going beyond the histories
attached to Greek language texts, the processes
involved also provide a strand in the develop-
ment of the relationship between the Ancient
Greek language and its translations into world
literature (conceptually and as praxis). This
also has implications for the use of Greek texts,
translated and adapted, in non- or extra-literary
contexts (historiography, international rela-
tions, political science). It also has implications
for the reconceptualization of the meaning of
‘western’ and ‘non-western’ traditions, includ-
ing in a 'new Europe’ to which many citizens
bring world heritages. As well as challenging
simple polarities between ‘western’ and ‘non-
western’ traditions, the histories of translation
of Greek texts raise issues about balancing the
specificities of time and place and the dangers of
smoothing out difference to meet the common
denominators attributed to an imagined wider
readership. In that sense, translation practice
in relation to Greek texts provides a microcosm
of the problems of developing and evaluating a
world literature.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alston, R. 20:0. “Dialogues in imperialism: Rome, Britain and
India,” In: Hall and Vasunia 2019:51-77.
Baer, J. and N. Olshanskaya, eds. 2013. Russian writers on
transtation: an anthology. Manchester.
Cannadine, D. 2013. The undivided past: history beyond our
differences. London.
Carlson, M., ed. 2005. The Arab Oedipus: four Plays. New
York.
Damrosch, David. 2003. What is world literature?. Princeton -
Oxtord.
El Tahtawy, Rifa’a Rafi’. 1867. Mawagt' al-aflak fi waqa’’
Tilimak. Beirut.
Etman, A. 2008. “Translation at the intersection of tradi-
tions: the Arab receptions of the classics." In: A compan-
ion to classical receptions, ed. by L. Hardwick and C. Stray,
141-152, Oxford.
——. 2ou. “Homer in the Arab world." In: Receptions of
antiquity, ed. by J. Nelis, 69-79. Gent.
435
Fradinger, M, 20, "An Argentine tradition.” In: Antigone
on the contemporary world stage, ed. by E. B. Mee and
H. P. Foley, 67-89. Oxford.
Goff, B. 2013. “Your secret language”: Classics in the British
colonies ofWest Africa. London,
Graziosi, B. and E, Greenwood, eds. 2007. Homer in the
twentieth century: between world literature and the western
canon. Oxford.
Greenwood, E. 2010. Afro-Greeks; Dialogues between Angla-
phone Caribbean literature and classics in the twentieth
century. Oxford.
Haddour, A. 2008. "Tradition, translation and colonisation:
The Graeco-Arabic translation movement and decon-
structing the classics.” In: Translation and the classic:
identity as change in the history of culture, ed. by A. Lianeri
and V. Zajko, 203-226. Oxford.
Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian. Oxford.
. 2010, “British refractions of India and the 1857 ‘Mutiny’
through the prism of ancient Greece and Rome." In: Hall
and Vasunia 2010:33--49.
Hall, E, and P. Vasunia, eds, 2010, India, Greece and Rome
1757-2007. London.
Hardwick, L. 2004. "Greek drama and anti-colonialism:
decolonizing classics.” In: Diorysus Since 69: Greek trag-
edy at the dawn of the third millennium, ed. by E. Hall,
F. Macintosh and A. Wrigley, 219-42. Oxford.
——, 2007a. "Contests and continuities in classical traditions:
African migrations.” In: Hilton and Gosling 2007:43-71
. 2007b, “Postcolonial studies.” In: A cumpanion to
the classical tradition, ed. by C. W. Kallendorf, 312-327.
Oxford.
——. 2010. “Negotiating translation for the stage." In: The-
arising performance; Greek drama, cultural history and
critical practice, ed. by E. Hall and 5. Harrop, 192-207.
London.
Hilton, J. and A. Gosling, eds, 2007. Alma Parens Originalis?
The receptions of classical literature and thought in Africa,
Eurupe, the United States and Cuba. Bern.
Ige, J. O. “Chief Bola Ige: the making of a classical orator in
Nigeria.” In: Hilton and Gosling 2007159-174.
Lambert, M. zou. The Classics and South African identities,
London.
MacIntyre, A. 1991, “Incommensurability, truth and the con-
versation between Confusians and Aristotelians about
virtue.” In: Culture and madernity: East-West philosophic
perspectives, ed. by E. Deutsch, 104-122. Honolulu.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o. 2012. Globalectics: theory and the politics
of knowing. New York.
Pormann, P. E, 2006, “The Arab cultural awakening (Nahda),
1870-1950, and the classical tradition”, JECT 13.1 (Sum-
mer):3-20.
. zoog. “Classics and Islam; from Homer to al-Qaida’,
UCT 16,2 (June):197-233.
Riddiford, R. 2013. Madly after the muses: Bengali poet
Michael Madhusudan Datta and his reception of the
Graeco-Roman classics. Oxford.
Tanner, J., 2009, “Ancient Greece and early China: Sino-Hel-
lenic studies and comparative approaches ta the classical
world, A review article”, JHS 129:89—109.
Torlone, Z, M. 2009. Russia and the classics: poetry's foreign
muse. London.
Torrance, I. “Brothers at war: Aeschylus in Cuba,” In: Hilton
and Gosling 2007:291-315,
Trivedi, H. 2007. “Western classics, Indian classics: postcolo-
nial contestations.” In: Classics in post-colonial worlds, ed.
by L. Hardwick and C, Gillespie, 286-304, Oxford.
Vasunia, P. 2013. The classics and colanial India. Oxford.
 436 TRANSLATION IN NON-WESTERN
Whitaker, R. 2012. The Iliad of Homer: a Southern African
translation. Cape Town.
Young, P, H. 2003. The printed Homer. Jefferson, N.C. -
London.
van Zyl Smit, B. zoo. “Orestes and the auth and reconcilia-
tion commission", Classical Receptions Journal 2.114-135.
LORNA HARDWICK
Translation of Greek Texts in
Late Antiquity
t. GENERAL REMARKS
The variety of languages into which Greek texts
were translated during Late Antiquity has dic-
tated the structure of most scholarship on the
subject. Recurring aspects of translation activity
in Late Antiquity have not been widely consid-
ered, due to the multiplicity of languages and
traditions involved. The present contribution
does not aim to propose a different approach,
but rather emphasizes the reappearance of simi-
lar issues in different traditions, and argues that
there is room for comprehensive approaches.
A crucial aspect of translation practice is the
degree of faithfulness to the original text. At the
extremes of the spectrum one finds, on the one
hand, translations that are configured as para-
phrases and, on the other hand, translations that
compromise the structure of the target language
in favor ofa meticulous rendering of the original
text. The degree of faithfulness to the originals
has been explained either through the nature of
the original texts or through the development of
particular translation techniques. Scholarship on
the Syriac tradition has proposed a conciliation
of the degree of faithfulness to the originals with
the chronological development of the transla-
tion technique, while scholarship on the Arme-
nian tradition has shown particular interest in
the linguistic impact of faithful translations on
the target language.
A key concern of cultural-historical scholar-
ship has been to identify translation features
that characterize the specific historical and
cultural milieu in which the translations were
composed. Translations can betray a particular
understanding and interpretation of the original
texts and the choice of particular philosophical
or theological terminology, as well as the use of
loanwords, » calques, or idiomatic translations,
can reveal dependence on, or independence
from, a philosophical, theological or exegetical
TRADITIONS: CONCEPTS AND MODELS
tradition. The recurrence of common linguis-
tic and textual features has been used to sup-
port the assignment of translations to the same
historical milieu or intellectual school. Further-
more, the selection of the texts to translate and
the omissions, additions and changes carried out
on the texts, such as the Christianization of non-
Christian material, can reveal the implementa-
tion of a particular cultural agenda. Also, there
are anonymous works that have been disguised
as translations from Greek.
2. LATIN
Between the 2nd and the qth centuries CE, Bib-
lical books (known as Vetus Latina) and apoc-
rypha, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the
Acts of Peter, were translated from Greek into
Latin (> Greek and Latin: + Roman Translation
of Greek Texts).
Also translated into Latin were Greek hagio-
graphic texts (Martyrdom of Polycarp, Acts of
Pionius), exegetical works, and homilies (Melito
of Sardis), which contributed to the birth of
Latin homiletic literature. These translations are
generally free and, especially in the case of hagi-
ographic literature, they are often arranged as
adaptations. On some occasions, the Greek and
Latin editions of the same text, perhaps originat-
ing from a bilingual milieu, should be regarded
as twins rather than as original and translation
(e.g. Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis; Passion of the
Scillitan Martyrs) — similarly, Tertullian himself
produced the Greek edition of some of his works,
Marius Victorinus (d. ca 365), who held the
official chair of rhetoric in Rome, composed an
Ars Grammatica, possibly drawing from Aelius
Aphthonius, and is credited by Cassiodorus (Inst.
2.3.18) with the translation of Porphyry’s Isagoge
and Aristotle's Categories (lost) and De inter-
pretatione (lost). Vettius Praetextatus (d. 384),
who was also based in Rome, translated Themis-
tius' paraphrases of Aristotle's Analytica Priora
and Posteriora (both lost), Virius Nichomachus
Flavianus (d, 394), a member of the pagan cir-
cle of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus and Quintus
Aurelius Symmachus, prepared a translation of
Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana (lost). It
was, however, in the new capital Milan, where
Augustine could read Marius Victorinus' trans-
lations (Aug. Conf. 8.2.3), that the archdeacon
Calcidius translated and commented on Plato's
Timaeus.
 TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS IN LATE ANTIQUITY
In the second half of the 4th c., monastic lit-
erature appeared among Latin translations, and
Athanasius of Alexandria's Life of Anthony was
translated only a decade after its composition.
An instance of adaptation is the translation of
Josephus’ De Bello Judaica (late 4th c.) — vari-
ously attributed to Hegesippus or to Ambrose -
which is in fact a new work, composed by an
individual with historical ambitions as well as
an openly anti-Judaic agenda. A number of Basil
of Caesarea's and John Chrysostom’s homilies,
lrenaeus' Adversus Haereses, the Physiologus and
the Alexander Romance possibly date back to the
late 4th or early 5thc.
The prolific translation activity of Jerome
(ca 347-420) and Rufinus of Aquileia (ca 345-
410) dates to the same period. The former had
worked on translations of the Psalms and of the
Gospels in Rome before moving on to Eusebius’
Onomasticon (with additions), and, in 390-92,
he translated Didymus the Blind’s De Spiritu
Sancto and a number of Origen's homilies on the
Old Testament. Jerome’s enthusiasm for Origen,
however, subsided with the beginning of the
Origenist controversy in 393.
After composing a shorter edition of Basil
of Caesarea’s Asceticon on the occasion of his
permanence in the monastery of Pinetum out-
side Rome (397), Rufinus translated homilies by
Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus. He
also intended to continue the work, begun by
Jerome, of translating Origen into Latin, and he
claimed to have purged the texts of the errors
of heretical interpolators (De principiis and
homilies on the Old Testament). His transla-
tion of the dialogue De recta fide, attributed to
Adamantius, was perhaps modified in order to
support a dubious attribution to Origen. Rufinus’
translation of Pamphilus of Caesarea’s Apology
in defence of Origen was part of the same apolo-
getic enterprise.
Jerome responded with a further translation
of Origen’s De principiis (lost), which aimed at
emphasizing the heretical statements contained
in the work. Based at his monastic community
in Bethlehem, he also translated a collection of
monastic works attributed to Pachomius and
concluded the revision of the Old Testament,
claiming a stricter fidelity to the Hebrew text
(405). In the same years, Rufinus, based in Aquil-
eia, translated Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, to
which he added two books to cover the period
until 395, as well as the Historia monachorum in
437
Aegypto, the Sentences of Sextus, Evagrius Pon-
ticus’ Sententiae ad Monachos and Ad Virginem,
and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones.
sth-c. translations include Palladius’ Historia
Lausiaca and De gentibus Indiae et Bragmani-
bus, and Evagrius Ponticus (lost) and Timothy
Aelurus by Gennadius of Massalia. It is not clear
whether Sidonius Apollinaris translated Philo-
stratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana (Sid. Apoll.
Epist. 8.3.1).
At the beginning of the 6th c., Boethius set out
to translate and comment on all the available
works of Plato and Aristotle, The young scholar,
an aristocrat belonging to Theodoric’s entou-
rage, wished to emphasize the basic agreement
among the doctrines of the two philosophers.
Boethius fell into disgrace at court before com-
pleting the project, and only Porphyry’s Isagoge
and Aristotle's Categoriae, De interpretatione,
Analitica Priora, Topica and Sophistici Elenchi
had been translated at the time of his death (526).
Similarly ambitious were the cultural efforts
of Cassiodorus (d. ca 585), who also began his
career at Theodoric’s court. Under Cassiodorus’
supervision, Epiphanius Scholasticus compiled
the Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae Epitome,
based on the works of Sozomen, Socrates and
Theodoret, and he translated Biblical commen-
taries by Didymus the Blind and Epiphanius of
Salamis. Cassiodorus promoted the translation
of Flavius Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae and
Contra Apionem (Cassiod. Inst. 1.17), and he rec-
ommended that monks read Hippocrates and
Galen in translation: the works were available at
the monastery of Vivarium (Cassiod. Inst. 1.31). A
friend of Cassiodorus, Dionysius Exiguus, trans-
lated ecclesiastical canons, Gregory of Nyssa’s De
opificio hominis, and the Life of Pachomius.
Authors and translators of medical literature
lived in Africa during the ath and 5th c.: Avianus
Vindicianus composed a medical treatise draw-
ing from Galen; Cassius Felix widely drew from
Galen in his De medicina; and Caelius Aurelianus
translated works by the physician Soranus of
Ephesus. Furthermore, a number of translations
of medical texts were carried out in Rome during
the 6th c.
3. SYRIAC
Among the earliest translations from Greek
are the Old Syriac gospels and the apocrypha,
possibly preceded by the Diatessaron (3rd c.).
438 TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS IN LATE ANTIQUITY
A manuscript from Edessa dated to 4u contains
the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones, Titus of
Bostra’s Against the Manicheans and Eusebius’
Theophania and Palestinian Martyrs. Eusebius’
Historia Ecclesiastica and the sixth book of Jose-
phus’ De Bello Iudaico date back to the end of the
4th or beginning of the sth c., at the time of the
first revision of the New Testament.
In the 5th c., translations appeared of the
works of Basil of Caesarea (De Spiritu Sancto
and homilies), Cyril of Alexandria (attributed to
Rabbula of Edessa) and Theodore of Mopsuestia
(attributed to [bas of Edessa). Late 5th- and early
6th-c. translations include: the Syro-Roman Law
Book; Aristides' Apology; monastic literature (Life
of Anthony, Evagrius, Nilus of Sinai, Palladius);
patristics (Epiphanius of Salamis, John Chrysos-
tom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and
Cyril of Alexandria); and the Christianized trans-
lations of Plutarch’s De cohibenda ira and De
capienda ex inimicis utilitate, the De exercitatione
attributed to Plutarch (lost in Greek), Themis-
tius' De Virtute (lost in Greek) and De Amicitia,
Lucian’s De Calumnia and Pseudo-Isocrates' Ad
Demonicum.
6th-c. translations are characterized by an
increasing degree of adherence to the originals,
a tendency embodied in the revisions of earlier
translations (the New Testament by Philoxenus
of Mabbug as well as patristic literature), in Paul
of Callinicus’ translation of Severus of Antioch
(lost in Greek), and, to a lesser extent, in the
translations by the priest and physician Ser-
gius of Resh‘aina (d. 536), which include works
by Galen, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,
Pseudo-Aristotle's De mundo and Alexander of
Aphrodisias’ On Aristotelian Cosmology.
The 6th c. also marks the beginning of phi-
losophy in Syriac, as attested by the composition
of philosophical prolegomena as well as by the
translations of Porphyry's /sagoge and Aristo-
tle’s Categoriae, De Interpretatione and Analytica
Priora. Other 6th-c. translations include Zacha-
rias’ Life of Severus, Nestorius’ Bazaar of Hera-
clides, the Alexander Romance {perhaps from
Middle Persian), perhaps Pseudo-Aristotle’s De
virtutibus et vitiis, and a version of Dionysius
Thrax’ Tekhne Grammatiké heavily adapted to
the Syriac language.
zth-c. translations are characterized by a
higher degree of adherence to the Greek, some-
times to such an extent that the structure of
the Syriac sentence is compromised. Revisions
of earlier translations of the + New Testament
(the Harklean), of patristics (Basil of Caesarea,
Gregory of Nazianzus) and philosophical works
(Dionysius the Areopagite, Porphyry and Aris-
totle) were carried out at the time when the
monastery at Qenneshre assumed the role of a
primary centre of Syriac learning and transla-
tion. Abbasid rule brought about a new flourish-
ing of translations into Syriac, as they were often
used as intermediaries for Arabic translations
(+ Greek and Syriac).
4. ARMENIAN
The earliest Biblical translations, including apoc-
rypha, date back to the early 5th c., in con-
junction with the introduction of the Armenian
alphabet by Mashtots. Both early Biblical trans-
lations (some of which may have been carried
out from Syriac) and their early revision, which
was based on Greek and completed in the 430s,
emphasize polemic against pagan, and especially
Iranian cults.
sth-c. translators also addressed hagiography,
church canons, early apologetic literature, lit-
urgy and patristics, on some occasions through
Syriac intermediaries, Translations include
homilies by John Chrysostom, Epiphanius of
Salamis and Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of
Caesarea's Asketikon, Aristides' Apology, Metho-
dius’ De Autexusio, the Sentences of Sextus and
the Sentences of Pythagoras, and, through Syriac,
Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica. Translations
of Eusebius of Emesa, Origen, Cyril of Alexan-
dria, Basil's Homilies on the Hexaemeron and
discourses by Gregory of Nazianzus have been
dated to the second half of the 5th c.
Since most translations composed between
the late fifth and the 8th c. demonstrate a
coherent selection of texts and a characteris-
tic translation style, scholars have argued for
a 'Hellenizing School’ of translation. The texts
are characterized by remarkable faithfulness to
the originals, as is evidenced by changes in the
structure of the Armenian language in order
to follow the Greek more closely, as well as by
lexical precision and by etymologic translations.
The selection of the texts to translate, such as
Dionysius Thrax’ Tékhné Grammatiké, which
strives to adapt the Armenian language to the
grammatical categories of the Greek language,
Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata, which includes
some chapters lost in Greek, and the Baok of the
 TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS
Chreiai, in fact a Christianized adaptation of
Aphthonius' Progymnasmata, betrays an inter-
est in the Greek tradition of rhetorical and philo-
sophical studies.
Among the philosophical works attributed
to the 'Hellenizing School‘, mention should be
made of the commentaries by David the Invin-
cible. His works gained considerable popularity
among Armenian writers and he was associ-
ated with Mashtots and with the Cappadocian
fathers. Surviving translations include David's
Un Porphyry's Isagoge (with omissions), On Aris-
totle’s Cutegoriae (the authorship of the original
work is debated), On Aristotle’s De Interpretatione
(Jost in Greek), and David's Prolegomena Philoso-
phiae (with omissions of obscure passages). The
translations of Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle's
Categoriae and De Interpretatione were carried
out by a different translator.
Other translations attributed to the ‘Helleniz-
ing School’ include Pseudo-Aristotle’s De mundo
(attributed to David the Invincible in transla-
tion) and De virtutibus et vitiis, a section from the
Hermetic Corpus, a treatise De Natura attributed
to Zeno, the Alexander Romance, the Pseudo-
Nonnus’ Mythological scholia and Philo of Alex-
andria, whose works had a conspicuous fortuna
in Armenian. Religious authors include Irenaeus
and Timothy Aeluros.
A stylistically uniform group of translations
of the early 8th c. includes Gregory of Nyssa,
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Nemesius’ De
natura hominis, George of Pisidia’s Hexaemeron
and Socrates’ Historia Ecclesiastica. Other trans-
lations include the Life of Secundus and Ulpi-
anus’ Fables, as well as translations of medical
works, There is some debate about the origin
of the Armenian translations of Plato's Apology,
Eutyphron, Timaeus (with expansions), Laws and
Minos, and they have been attributed either to
the Hellenizing School or to the uth c. (+ Greek
and Armenian).
5. GEORGIAN
The translation of Biblical books, possibly from
Greek, was carried out between the 5th and
6th c., and was then revised in the 7th. Apocry-
pha reached Georgian literature through Greek
as well as through Armenian and Syriac inter-
mediaries. Translations carried out between the
5th and 7thc. include homiletic literature (Melito
of Sardis, Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysos-
IN LATE ANTIQUITY 439
tom), Epiphanius’ De mensuris et ponderibus, the
Martyrium of Procopius drawn from Eusebius’
De martyribus Palaestinae, Pseudo-Hippolytos
of Rome's De fide and, through an Armenian
intermediary, Cyril of Alexandria’s Thesaurus de
sancta et consubstantiali trinitate. Hippolytos of
Rome's Chronicon, the Physiologus (from Arme-
nian and attributed to Basil of Caesarea) and
John Moscus’ Pratum spirituale (from Arabic)
date back to the 8th c.
6. COPTIC
A considerable portion of Coptic literature con-
sists of translations, whose composition has
been related to the development of the Coptic
Church and the institutionalization of monasti-
cism. Biblical books, together with apocrypha,
homiletic literature (Melito of Sardis), and works
by apostolic fathers, were translated from Greek
between the 3rd and 4th c.
Coptic was the language of the Gnostic com-
munity that produced, in the same period, the
Nag Hammadi texts, most of which have been
considered translations from lost Greek origi-
nals. The collection contains a translation of a
passage from Plato’s Laws, whose Greek origi-
nal has been skilfully changed and rewritten
as a religious text compatible with other works
contained in the same codex. A quote from the
Odyssey in the Nag Hammadi Exegesis de anima
underwent a similar process of adaptation.
Between the late 4th and early 6th c., the
choice of exegetical and theological texts became
more consistent. Translated texts include the
first seven books of Eusebius’ Historia Eccle-
siastica (partially reworked and continued in
Coptic), ecclesiastical canons, and ascetic and
hagiographic literature (Life of Pachomius, Life of
Anthony, Anthony's letters, Life of Simeon Stylite
and the Apophthegmata Patrum), which had an
impact on the development of a Coptic hagio-
graphic literature.
The selection of patristic texts to be translated
reflects ascetic interests. They include a number
of Basil of Caesarea's moral homilies and ascetic
works, Gregory of Nazianzus’ Encomium for
Athanasius and various homilies, Epiphanius’
Anchoratus and De gemmis, and two exegeti-
cal works by Cyril of Alexandria. Translations
of Gregory of Nyssa's De anima et resurrectione
and the Commentary to the Ecclesiastes - per-
haps the work of a school independent of the
440 TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS IN LATE ANTIQUITY
patriarchate - and of a number of John Chrysos-
tom’s monastic treatises and homilies, where the
choice of the latter may betray an interest in the
polemic format against the Constantinopolitan
see, are especially remarkable,
Among the environments where the transla-
tions were composed, the community at the
White Monastery founded by Shenoute (who
quoted two passages from Aristophanes’ Birds
in his works) must have played a primary role
in the first half of the 5th c. Monasteries seem
to have been the place of origin of two papyri
and an ostrakon (sth to 7th c.) that contain Sen-
tences of Menander in both Greek and Coptic,
which may have been employed within bilingual
instruction. The Christianized Coptic versions
of the Alexander Romance (ca 6th c.), which is
characterized by the addition of a verse from the
Bible at the opening of each chapter and by the
inclusion of hagiographic narratives, presents an
Alexander who foreshadows the figure of Christ.
Coptic literature includes a number of original
works that are disguised as translations of works
by Greek Church fathers (+ Greek and Egyptian,
and Coptic).
7. ETHIOPIC
The translation of Biblical books was carried out
from Greek, possibly between the 4th and 5th c.
The translations of apocrypha date back to the
same period, and their popularity long after their
banishment in the Greek and Latin world makes
Ethiopic literature a sometimes unique source
for such material.
Qerellos (ca 5th c.) is a collection of patristic
translations from Greek, primarily anti-Arian
and anti-Nestorian, and perhaps compiled in a
South Arabian milieu that was sensible to the
controversies with the Nestorian church. The
title derives from the author of the opening
piece in the collection, Cyril of Alexandria’s De
recta fide, while other authors include Acavius
of Melitene and Epiphanius of Salamis. The
Physiologus was translated from Greek, and the
chronicle of John of Nikiu, perhaps composed in
Coptic, survives only in an Ethiopic translation
through an Arabic intermediary.
8. CONCLUSION
Biblical books regularly figure among the earliest
translations of Late Antiquity from Greek into
Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic and
Ethiopic. Patristic literature followed, as repre-
sented by apologetics, homiletics, and hagiogra-
phy. Translations of ecclesiastical historiography
and monastic literature have been explained
through the development of Christian churches
or through the institutionalization of monas-
ticism and, on some occasions, translations
of theological and apologetic literature were
prompted by theological controversies. Transla-
tions into Latin, Syriac and Armenian include
philosophical works primarily belonging to the
Aristotelian tradition.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brock, Sebastian. “From antagonism to assimilation: Syriac
attitudes to Greek learning.” In: Garsoian 1982:17~34.
——. 2006. The Bible in the Syriac tradition. Piscataway, NJ.
Calzolari Bouvier, Valentina and Jonathan Barnes (eds.).
2009. L’euvre de David (Invincible et la transmission de la
pensde grecque dans la tradition arménienne et syriaque.
Leiden — Boston.
Camplani, Alberto, ed. 1997. L’Egitto Cristiano. Aspettie prob-
femi in etä tardo-antica. Rome.
Contini, Riccardo. “Considerazioni interlinguistiche sulla
Téxvy y papper di Dionisio Trace.” In:Finazzi ıg98:95-11.
Fiaccadori, Gianfranco, ed. 1990. Autori classici in lingue del
vicino e medic oriente. Rome.
Finazzi, Rosa B. and Alfredo Valvo, eds. 1998. La diffusione
dell’eredité classica nell’etä tardeantica e medievale. Il
“Romanszo di Alessandro” e altri scritti. Alessandria.
Funghi, Maria S., ed. 2003. Aspetti di letteratura gnomica del
mondo antico. Florence.
Garsoian, Nina G. Thomas F. Mathews and Robert W.
Thomson, eds, 1982. Fast of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia
in the formative period. Washington D.C.
Glucker, john and Charles Burnett, eds. 2012. Greek into
Latin from antiquity until the nineteenth century. London -
Turin.
Hadot, Pierre. 1971. Marius Victorinus: recherches sur sa. vie
el ses oeuvres. Paris,
Jensen, PovlJ. and Jan H. Waszink. 1975. Tisnaeus, a Caleidio
transtlatus, commentarioque instructus. London,
King, Daniel 2007. "Paul of Callinicum and his place in
Syriac literature”, Muséon 120:327-349.
Kittel, Harald et al. eds. 2004. Übersetzung: ein internation-
ales Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforschung, Berlin.
Lassl, Josef and John W. Watt, eds. zon. Interpreting the Bible
and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: the Alexandrian commen-
tary tradition between Rome and Baghdad. Farnham.
Marassini, Paolo. “Traduzioni e citazioni dal greco in copto
ed etiopico.” In: Settis 2001:985-1008.
Nikitas, Dimitrios. “Exemplum logicum Boethii: reception
and renewal." In: Glucker and Burmett 2012:131- 44.
Orlandi, Tito. "Traduzioni dal greco al copto: quali e perché.”
In: Fiaccadori 1990:93-104.
Pernigotti, Sergio. “La redazione capta dei Monostici e il suo
ambiente culturale,” In: Funghi z003:121-138.
Settis, Salvatore et al., eds, 2001. / Greci. Storia Cultura Arte
Societa, vol. Ill: / Greci oftre la Grecia. Turin.
Shurgaia, Gaga. “Traduzioni e citazioni dal greco in geor-
giano.” In: Settis 200111053-1070.
 TRANSLATION OF GREEK TEXTS IN LATE ANTIQUITY
Takahashi, Hidemi. 201. “The mathematical sciences in
Syriac: from Sergius of Resh-‘Aina and Severus Sebokht to
Barhebraeus and Patriarch Ni'matallah”, Annals of Science
68:477-49L.
Taylor, David G. K. “Early translations in the ancient Orient:
from Greek into Syriac.” In: Kittel zoog:11g0-1193.
Téth, Peter. “Honey on the brim of the poison cup: transla-
tion and propaganda: Rufinus’s Latin version of the His-
toria Monachorum in Aegypta. In: Glucker and Burnett
2012:17-29,.
Zuckermann, Constantine. 1995. A repertory of published
Armenian translations of classical texts. Jerusalem.
ALBERTO RIGOLIO
Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of
1, INTRODUCTION
Tropes (Gk. nom. pl. tröpoi ‘turnings; ways/man-
ners of doing something’, a noun form related
to the verb trépein ‘to turn’) are defined in
ancient handbooks of grammar and rhetoric as
‘modifications of words’ (Lat. immutationes uer-
borum: Cic. Brut. 69, Part. or. 19) (+ Philological-
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics;
~ Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics).
The classification of tropes and - figures has as
its basis the relationship between the original and
the transformed meanings of a word (see Drux
2009:810 and Prandi 199223-25). In a rhetorical
context, these “verbal entities with a structurally
marked dynamic” (Shapiro & Shapiro 1976:2) fall
into the concept of ‘ornament’ (kösmos), one of
the four qualities of style (aretai tés lexeös), as
defined by Aristotle's successor, Theophrastus
(Kennedy 1994:6) (> Style (/éxis), Ancient Theo-
ries of), ‘Ornament’ includes figures of speech
and figures of thought, ‘Figures of speech’ con-
cern the linguistic level and denote alterations
of letters or word sequencing (+ Word Order).
‘Figures of thought’ deal with both emotions and
concepts. ‘Ornament’ also includes tropes, the
substitution of one term for another and altera-
tions in the standard meaning of a word.
The number and the meaning of tropes con-
stituted a matter of dispute among grammar-
ians and rhetoricians. In their definitions, the
deviation from a standard meaning of a word
was stressed for both tropes and figures. The ety-
mology from the verb érépein ‘to turn’ differenti-
ates the trope from a figure on a semantic level
(cf. Quint. Inst. 9,1,2; Trypho 3,191,12-14 Spen-
gel, Ps.-Plutarch, De Homero 15). The distinc-
44a
tion between tropes and figures of thought was
never clear, however, and the terms themselves
could have various meanings (Quint. Inst. 9,1,1-2;
Douglas 1966:xxxiii; Lausberg 1998:272). In the
theoreticians’ works, tropes were at times clas-
sified under figures, or alternatively figures were
classified under tropes, though they could also
be considered separately (Lausberg 1998:272;
West 1965:232).
2. PREHISTORY OF THE TERM
The ancient Greek word tröpos had various con-
notations referring to language. In the 4th c. BCE
the concept of what was later termed trépoi
already existed, though the term itself was basi-
cally used in rhetorical discourse for individual
phenomena. Plato, in his dialogue Cratylus, put
forward a four-way classification of transform-
ing names: a letter can be added, transposed,
subtracted or rearranged (Pl. Crat. 394b). This
scheme evolved into a standard fourfold clas-
sification — the so-called guadripertita ratio
(Ax 2000) - in ancient grammar and rhetoric
(> Ancient Philosophers on Language). Plato
applied these categories in his etymologies, an
approach followed by Aristotle (Pl. Crat. 432a,
Aristot. Poet. 1457b35-1458a7; cf. Ax 2000:205-
206). Aristotle's main interest is the impact of
tropes on poetry and oratory. His discussion of
tropes is found in Poet. 1457b7-9, in the related
genus/species definition of metaphor (+ Meta-
phor; > Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient The-
ories of) as “the application of a word that
belongs to another thing: either from genus to
species, species to genus, species to species, or
by analogy” (transl. Halliwell). Aristotle has no
term for tropes, but what he says for metaphor is
relevant in the post-classical tradition for tropes
in general: the poet and orator should pay atten-
tion to clarity, propriety and embellishment in
his selection ofloanwords, metaphors and other
types of word (Arist. Poet. 1458a17, 1458b-1459a,
cf. Cic, De or. 3,157,160; Quint. Inst. 8,2,12),
An anonymous treatise of the 4th c. BCE (con-
temporary with Aristotle), conventionally enti-
tled the Rhetoric to Alexander, discussed three
trépoi onomdtön (‘turnings of names’): simple,
compound and metaphorical (Rh. Al. 1434b33)
and provided some individual cases of use of
the term.
442 TROPES (TRÖPOF), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
3. FIXING THE CONCEPT
Due to the limited survival of Hellenistic texts
concerned with language, it is hard to determine
the point at which the concepts of tropes and fig-
ures were ‘stabilized’, i.e., became standardized.
Aristotle’s student and successor Theophrastus
(ca. 371-ca. 287 BCE) elaborated a theory of styles
(kharakteres ‘characters’) and developed Aristo-
tle’s theory of qualities (aretai 'virtues'), influ-
encing in his turn the grammatical and technical
rhetorical terminology of the Stoics. Theophras-
tus used Aristotle’s terminology and maintained
the casual relationship between stylistic embel-
lishment and the necessity of impacting upon
the audience, which is first found in Aristotle
(Cie. Orat. 79; Innes 1985:254).
The Stoic contribution to the theory of tropes
was a consequence of their particular interest in
grammatical correctness and the idea that every-
thing should be named according to its proper
name (Cic. Fam. 9,22,1). The Stoics were atten-
tive to the creation of words in general, but also
to non-proper words and standard words used
in a novel way (on Stoic distinctions between
complete and incomplete sentences, see Schen-
keveld 1984) (+ Sentence; + Sentence/Utterance
(fagos), Ancient Theories of). They recognized
three forms of relation between the proper and
the transformed names: similarity of sound or
meaning, vicinity, and the ‘opposite’, in other
words the formation of a word from its opposite
(Kennedy 1963:298). The Stoics elaborated eight
types of ambiguity, largely corresponding to the
system of tropes, which they used to interpret
figurative style in poetry (Colish 1985:59, Ather-
ton 1993). Attempts to prove that the Stoics
generated the theory of figures and tropes have
now been rejected, and scholarly opinion seems
to be converging on the view that these theories
are the product of eclectic Hellenistic thought
gradually formulated down to the 1st c. BCE (cf.
Barwick 1957:88-11; Fehling 1958; Schenkeveld
1991; Schenkeveld & Barnes 1999:220-221).
With the development of the theory of meta-
phor after Aristotle, new terms were introduced.
In their commentaries to the /liad from the
ard c. BCE onwards, grammarians used the term
trdpos in the sense ‘mode of expression’ and the
adjective trapikds for metaphorikös, i.e. with the
meaning ‘metaphorical’ (Schol. Hom. Il. 4,343a;
17,4924; cf. Schenkeveld 1991152, 155). In rhe-
torical and grammatical texts, the word tropikds
was connected with tropé ‘turning, change’, used
as a general term for morphological changes
in grammatical contexts (eg. deviations in
+ dialect from + Koine forms, cf. Siebenborn
1976150) and referring to diction in rhetorical
texts (Schenkeveld 1991155).
Tauriscus, a pupil of Crates from Mallos and a
grammarian of the 2nd c. BCE, is said to have dis-
tinguished three constituent parts of ‘criticism’:
the ‘rational’ (logikön), the ‘empirical’ (tribikön)
and the ‘historical’ (historikén), He regarded
tropes (grammatikoi trépoi) to be on the first,
‘rational’ level which concerned diction. The sec-
ond ‘empirical’ level concerned dialects as well
as the distinction of formations (pläsmata) and
characters of discourse. The ‘historical’ level con-
cerned the pre-existing material employed by the
author of the literary text (Sext. Emp. Adversus
mathematicos 248-249; cf. Blank 1998:259-262),
Dionysius Thrax, another grammarian of the
and c. BCE, had a different qualifying word for
the notion of ‘grammatical tropes’, He included
the explanation of the so-called poietikot trépoi,
ie. poetic and therefore uncommon expres-
sions, as a part of grammar (Adv. math. 250;
cf. Schenkeveld 1991:153). These tropes denote
‘poetical modes of expression’, with both figures
and tropes being implied. This broad under-
standing of tropes is found in various later trea-
tises, which may even follow the establishment
of the theory of tropes in a strict sense. On the
use of theories of tropes in the ancient scholia
and on the interpretation of texts determined
by tropes, see Rutherford (1905:183-350) and
Schrader (1904).
Another significant use of the term tropes
should be mentioned here. In the older skep-
tical tradition starting with Pyrrho (ca. 365-
ca. 275 BCE) there was a mention of ten differ-
ent ‘tropes’ (to which a further five were added
in the 1st c. CE) in the sense of ‘ways’ or ‘modes’
of arguing, to show that any claim can be con-
fronted with an equal counter-claim; as a result
ataraxia (‘imperturbability’) could be attained
(Chatzilysandros 1970).
4. GRECO-ROMAN USAGE OF THE
CONCEPT OF TROPES
Tropes are scrupulously treated in the anony-
mous Roman handbook Rhetoric to Herennius
(written around 85 BCE). In all probability, this
handbook was based on a model of Rhodian ori-
 TROPES (TROPO!), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
gin, an eclectic combination of Stoic, Peripatetic,
Pergamian and Alexandrian influences (Calboli
2007:124—127). The author (Rhet. Her. 4, 42-46)
provides the first list of the ten ‘embellishments of
words’ (exornationes uerborum) to have survived:
norninatio (Gk. onomatopotia), pronominatio (Gk.
antonomasia), denominatio (Gk. metönumia),
circumitio (Gk. perfphrasis), transgressio (Gk.
huperbatön), superlatio (Gk. huperbole), intellec-
tin (Gk. sunekdokhé), abusio (Gk. katäkhresis),
translatio (Gk. metaphord)}, permutatio (Gk.
allegoria) (+ Allegory (allegoria), Ancient Theo-
ries of; + Onomatopoeia; > Hyperbaton).
The Rhetoric to Herennius provides clear proof
of the lack of separation of the tropes from the
figures, still at that stage. Cicero (106-43 BCE),
on the other hand, mentions such a separation
and believed it to be of Greek origin (Cic. Brut.
69). In his treatise On fhe orator (published in 55
BCE), Cicero discussed the same tropes (called
by him modi transferendi uerbi, Cic. De or. 155;
on the technical term ‘transferring’, see Mankin
2011:235); he classifies the tropes into three cat-
egories: archaism, neologism and metaphor
(Cic. De or. 3,149-170; cf. Wisse, Winterbottom &
Fantham 2008:304-3ı2, and for a more detailed
study, see Innes 1988).
In his Rhetoric, Philodemus (ca. 11o-after
40 BCE), a Greek scholar who settled at Hercu-
laneum, provides the first distinction of tropes
and figures to have survived in Greek. He dis-
tinguishes three kinds of phräsis: (a) tröpos,
which implies metaphor, allegory, and ‘all such’;
(b) skhéma, which ‘handles periods, clauses,
short clauses, their interweaving and qualities’;
(c) pläsma, which ‘contains adorned writing,
plainness, loftiness, and subtlety’ (Philod. RA.
1,164-165 Sudhaus).
The historian and rhetorician of the second
half of the 1st c. BCE Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
who exhibits a certain knowledge of linguistics
that was common in Rome at the end of the
ist c. BCE, does not distinguish between tropes
and figures, and uses both the terms skhemata
and ftrdpoi tés léxeds for the Gorgianic figures.
Ps.-Longinus in his treatise On the Sublime
(ist c. CE) discussed five sources of sublimity, the
figures and the tropes being the third and the
fourth source respectively. Tropes are regarded
separately from figures as a kind of style, coming
under phrdsis (tropike léxis, Subl, 8,1; 30-32; see
Russell 1964:126-128). There is no clear system-
atization in Ps.-Longinus’ approach to tropes
443
(tropé in this treatise is also a generic term for
metaphor). Further, it is clear that he was aware
of existing lists of figures and tropes, and thus
he focuses on those which he finds significant
for sublimity and their impact on the audience
(Schirren 2009b:495-1496).
5. ESTABLISHED THEORIES ON TROPES
Tropes were also dynamically investigated by
various grammarians, These texts resemble dic-
tionaries of tropes rather than treatises. They
include alist of tropes with a brief account ofeach
one (see West 1965:230). In his treatise On tropes,
the Greek grammarian of the second half of the
ist c. BCE Tryphon provided a definition of trope
as ‘an expression said with the deviation of the
regular word in a more embellished way than it
is needed’ (Trypho 3,191,12-14 Spengel). Tryphon
enumerated fourteen tropes of ‘the most generic
status’ which are also called “poetical because
mainly poets use these and because the gram-
marians make use of these whilst explaining the
proper or figurative diction of poets” (Tryph.
3,191,18-22 Spengel). Eight of these (metaphord,
katékhrésis, allégoria, metönumla, sunekdokhe,
onomatopoila, periphrusis, and huperbatön)
coincide with the list of the Rhetoric to Herennius
(see above). Tryphon adds another six (ainigma,
metdlépsis, anastrophé, pleonasmös, élleipsis, and
parapleröma). The antonomasia and huperbolé
from the Rhetoric to Herennius belong to the
twenty-seven ‘phrastical’ tropes, which Tryphon
discusses in detail.
Quintilian’s (ca. 35-ca. 100 CE) work entitled
Institutes of Oratory represents a narrow inter-
weaving of grammatical and rhetorical dis-
courses; in his detailed discussion of figures and
tropes he considers tropes in a wider sense. He
argues that the “shifting of a word or phrase from
the standard meaning to another" can provoke
an extension of meaning (Quint. /nst. 8, 6, 1), and
disagrees with the tradition of seeing the trope
simply as a substitution of one word for another.
Instead, he maintains that tropes are “not only
the forms of words that undergo change, but also
the forms of sentences and of composition” (Inst.
8,6,2-3, transl. Russell). He also distinguishes
between tropes used to express the meaning and
those used for embellishment. He further dis-
tinguishes between tropes in uerbis propriis and
those in metaphorical use. Quintilian compiled
a list of thirteen tropes by using the previous
444 TROPES (TRGPOL), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
lists but also adding to them the epitheton and
the éronia as a form of allegory (Inst. 8,6,40-43
and 54-59).
In his treatise On figures the rhetorician of
the first half of the 2nd c. CE Alexander, fol-
lowed by the author of the Life of Homer conven-
tionally called Pseudo-Plutarch (second half of
and c. CE), provide a detailed analysis of tropes.
The argumentation of both of them represents
the opposite to Quintilian’s viewpoint, recall-
ing Philodemus’ distinction of tropes and fig-
ures. An alteration in words is called a ‘trope’
and an alteration in > syntax is called ‘figure’.
Alexander’s definition is the stricter of the two:
the trope involves one word whilst the figure
deals with at least two words (Ps.-Plut. Hom. 15,
Alex. 3,9-10 Spengel; cf. Schrader 1904:563-564,
Kennedy 1994:91-92, Hillgruber 1994:67, 124-
125). The 4th book of the treatise On invention,
ascribed to the Hermogenic corpus, deals with
figures and does not distinguish between figures
and tropes. Metaphor (trope) is discussed in the
sense of a ‘use’ of a word (td theinai) rather than
of an ‘application’ (epiphora) as in Aristotle, with
+ polysemy (considered to be) working in lan-
guage due to the tropé (see Hermog. Inv, 4,10,199;
cf, Lau 2006:288-289, Patillon 1988:314-319).
On the use of theories and the use of various
tropes by later Greek and Roman grammarians
and rhetoricians, mostly based on the theory
of Quintilian, see Torzi 2000:37-59. St Augus-
tine (354-430 CE) worked on standardizing the
figurative language of the Biblical text (+ New
Testament). In his work entitled On Christian
Doctrine he defined figurative signs enacted
through tropes such as metaphor, catachresis,
and irony (Aug. Docir. Christ. 3, 29, 40-41).
For the various Byzantine treatises on the
study of figures and tropes, see Conley (1986).
Finally, for a modern elaboration of ancient
approaches to the theory of tropes and figures
(lexis for the structure-oriented, prépon for the
impact-oriented and Adsmos for the stylistic
one), see Gévaudan (2008).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Roger D. 2000. Glossary of Greek rhetorical terms:
connected to methods of argumentation, figures and tropes
from Anaximenes ta Quintilian. Leuven.
Atherton, Catherine. 1993, TheStoicsonambiguity. Cambridge.
Ax, Wolfram, 1991. “Sprache als Gegenstand der alexandrinis-
chen und pergamenischen Philologie”. In: Geschichte der
Sprachthenrie, vol. 2: Sprachtheorien der abendländischen
Antike, ed. by Peter Schmitter, 275-301. Tübingen.
2000. “Quadripertita ratio: Bemerkungen zur
Geschichte eines aktuellen Kategoriensystems (adiectio-
detractio-transmutatio-immutatio)". In: Lexis und Logos:
Studien zur antiken Grammatik und Rhetorik, ed. by
Farouk Grewing, 190-208. Stuttgart.
Barwick, Karl. 1957. "Probleme derstoischen Sprachlehre und
Rhetorik”, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (Phil.-hist. Klasse 49,3). Berlin.
Blank, David L. 1998. Sextus Empiricus: against the grammar-
ians. Translated with an introduction and commentary.
Oxford.
Bradford, Annette N. 1982. Classical and modern views af the
figures of speech: ancient theary and modern manifesta-
tions. New York,
Calboli, Gualtiero, 20n7. "The metaphor after Aristotle”.
In: Influences on Peripatetic rhetoric: essays in honor of
William W. Fortenbaugh, ed. by David C. Mirhady, 123-
isn. Leiden.
Chatzilysandros, Athenodorus E. 1970. Geschichte der skep-
tischen Tropen ausgehend van Diogenes Laertius und Sex-
tus Empiricus. Munich.
Colish, Marcia L. 1985. The Stoic tradition from Antiquity to
the early Middle Ages. Vol. I: Stoicism in Classical Latin
literature. Leiden.
Conley, Thomas. 1986. “Byzantine teaching on figures and
tropes; an introduction”, Rhetorica 4:335-374.
Douglas, A. E. 1966. M, Tulli Ciceronis Brutus, Oxford.
Drux, Rudolf, 2009. “Tropus", Historisches Wörterbuch der
Rhetorik 9:809-830.
Edlow, R. Blair, 1975. “The Stvics on ambiguity’, JHPA
13.4:423-435.
Egli, Urs. 1979. “The Stoic concept of anaphora’. In: Seman-
tics from different points of view, ed. by Rainer Bäuerle, Urs
Egli and Arnim von Stechow, 266-283. Berlin — New York.
Fehling, Detvel. 1958. Review of K. Barwick (1957), GGA
212:161-173.
Fix, Ulla, Andreas Gardt and Joachim Knape, eds. 2008-
2009, Rhetorik und Stilistik: Ein internationates Handbuch
historischer und systematischer Forschung, vols. 1-2. Ber-
lin - New York.
Fortenbaugh, William. W. 2005. Theophrastus of Fresus:
suurces for his life, writings, thought and influence. Sources
an rhetoric and poetics (texts 666-713), vol. 8. Commen-
tery. Leiden — Boston.
Gevaudan, Paul. "Tropen und Figuren". In Fix, Gardt and
Knape 2008:728-742.
Guidorizzi, Guilio and Simone Beta. 2000. La metafora: testi
greci e latini. Pisa.
Hillgruber, Michael. 1994. Die pseudoplutarchische Schrift
„De Homero", vol. ı: Einleitung und Kommentar zu den
Kapiteln 1-74. Stuttgart.
Innes, Doreen. 1985, “Theophrastus and the Theory of Style",
In: Theophrastus of Eresus: un his life and work, ed. by
William W. Fortenbaugh, 251-267. New Brunswick,
——. 1988, "Cicero on tropes”, Rhetorica 6:307-323.
de Jonge, Casper C. 2008 Between grammar and rhetoric:
Dionysius of Halicarnassus on language, linguistics and
literature. Leiden - Boston,
Kennedy, George A. 1963. The art of persuasion in Greece.
Princeton,
—— 1972. The art of rhetoric in the Roman world. Princeton.
-1994. A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton.
——. 2005. Invention and method: two rhetorical treatises
‚from the Hermogenic corpus, ed. H. by Rabe. Translation
with introduction and notes. Leiden - Boston.
Knape, Joachim. ıg96. “Figurenlehre”, Historisches Wörter-
buch der Rhetorik 3:289-342.
 TROPES (TRÖPOI), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
Lallot, Jean, 2003. La grammaire de Denys le Thrace. Paris.
Lau, D. 2006. Metaphertheorien der Antike und ihre philoso-
phischen Prinzipien, Ein Beitrag zur Grundlagenforschung
in der Literaturwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main.
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1998. Handbook of literary rhetoric: a
‚[oundation for literary study, ed. by David E. Orton. Leiden.
Mankin, David (ed.). zou. Cicero, De oratore, book III.
Cambridge.
McCall, Marsh H. 196g. Ancient rhetorical theories of simile
and comparison. Cambridge, Mass.
Patillon, Michel. 1988. Za theorie du discours chez Her-
mogéne le rhéteur: Essai sur les structures linguistiques de
fa rhétorique ancienne, Paris.
Prandi. Michele. 1992. Grammaire philasophique des tropes:
mise en forme et interpretation discursive des conflits con-
ceptuels. Paris.
Rapp, Christof. 2002, Aristoteles. Rhetorik. Übers. und erläu-
tert. Berlin,
Russell, D. A. 1964. ‘Longinus’ On the sublime. Oxford.
Rutherford, William G. 1905. Scholia Aristophanica, vol. 3:
A chapter in the history of annotation. London [repr. New
York 1987].
Schenkeveld, Dirk M. 1964. Studies in Demetrius On Style.
Amsterdam.
——. 1983. “Linguistic theories in the rhetorical works of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus”, Glotta 61:67-94.
. 1984. “Studies in the history of ancient linguistics: I.
Stoic and peripatetic kinds of speech act and the distinc-
tion of grammatical moods", Mnemosyne 37:291-353.
——. 1991. “Figures and tropes: a border-case between
grammar and rhetoric’. In: Rhetorik zwischen den Wis-
senschaften: Geschichte, System, Praxis als Probleme
des „Historischen Wörterhuchs der Rhetorik”, ed by Gert
Ueding, 149-157. Tübingen.
Schenkeveld, Dirk M. and Jonathan Barnes. 1999. “Lan-
guage”, In: The Cambridge history of Hellenistic philosophy,
cd. by Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld and
Malchom Schofield, vol. 1, 177-225. Cambridge.
Schirren, Thomas. “Figuren im Rahmen der klassischen
Rhetorik". In: Fix, Gardt and Knape 200921459-1485.
—. "Tropen im Rahmen der klassischen Rhetorik”.In: Fix,
Gardt and Knape 200gb:1485-1498.
Schmitt, Arbogast. 2008. Aristoteles. Poetik. Übers. und erläu-
tert, Berlin,
Schrader, Hermann. ige4. "EXFHMA und TPOMOE in den
Homer-Scholien. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte
beider Wörter”, Hermes 39:563-603.
Shapiro, Michael and Marianne Shapiro. 1976, Hierarchy and
the structure oftropes. Blaomington, Ind.
Siebenborn, Elmar. 1976. Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit
und ihren Kriterien: Studien zur antiken normativen Gram-
matik. Amsterdam.
Stern, Gustav. 1968. Meaning and change of meaning, with
special reference to the English language (3rd print),
Bloomington - London.
Torzi, llaria. 2000. Ratio et usus: dibattiti antichi sulla dot-
trina delle figure. Milan.
Vickers, Brian. 1988. In defence of rhetoric, Oxford.
West, Martin I. 1965. “Tryphon De Tropis’, CQ 15:230-248.
Wisse, Jakob, Michael Winterbottom and Elaine Fantham.
2008, Cicero, De vratore libri Ill: a commentary on book Ill,
96 - 230. Heidelberg.
ANNA NOVOKHATKO
445
Truncation
Truncation is the shortening of a word or stem
by removing part of it and leaving the rest intact.
Simple cases from English include (personal
names) Michael > Mike [maik], Christopher >
Chris, Peter > Pete, Ronald > Ron, etc, There is
some variation in the usage of the term; Joseph
(2001:352), for instance, uses it to describe the
reduction of phrases like ‘Watergate affair’ to
simply ‘Watergate’. See Zwicky and Pullum
(1987), Spencer (1991) for general discussion and
Benua (1995) for in-depth discussion of trunca-
tion across languages.
Truncation in Ancient Greek is not a produc-
tive word-formation process. There are two main
contexts in which it is found. The first, and most
common, is in + personal names, In Mycenaean,
for example, we find pe-ri-mo, i.e. Périmos,
beside pe-ri-me-de, i.e., Perimédes; and in alpha-
betic Greek Eurustheüs besides Eurusthenes (see
further Bechtel 1917; Landau 1958; Kamptz 1982;
Morpurgo Davies 1999). Geminated consonants
are routinely found among truncated personal
names, as illustrated by Dionnos beside Dionu-
sios (Thompson 2007:680).
A second type of truncation js found in met-
rical contexts, and is argued to be motivated
by prosodic exigency (+ Prosody). In Homeric
Greek, for instance, Hackstein (2010:409; see also
Hackstein 2002195) claims that protithéousin
becomes protheousin at Il. 1.291, dedoupédtos
dedoupötos at IL. 23.679, and propephuldkhthe pro-
phuläkhthe at H. Hom. Ap. 538, all via truncation.
Truncation is closely related to the phenom-
enon of partial + reduplication.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bechtel, Friedrich. 1917. Die historischen. Personennamen des
griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit. Halle.
Benua, Laura. 1995. “Identity effects in morphological trun-
cation”. In: Papers in optimality theory I (University of
Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), ed. by
Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey and Suzanne Urbanc-
zyk, 77-136. Amherst.
Hackstein, Olav. zoo2. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen.
Faktoren morphologischer Variabilität in literarischen
Frühformen, Tradition, Sprachwandel, sprachliche Anach-
ronismen. Wiesbaden.
. 2010. “The Greek of Epic.” In: A Campanion to the
Ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert J. Bakker, 401-423.
Malden, MA.
Joseph, Brian D. “Diachronic morphology’. In: Spencer and
Zwicky 2001:351-373.
von Kamptz, Hans, 1982. Humerische Personennamen.
Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation.
Göttingen.
446 TRUNCATION

Landau, Oscar. 1958. Mykenisch-griechische Personennamen, west of Monemvasia, has recently been proposed
Gothenburg. (Tzitzilis forthcoming a) based on the scraps of
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1999. “The morphology of personal
names in Mycenaean and Greek: some observations’. linguistic material and other geographical infor-
In: Floreant studia Mycenaea: Akten des X, internation- mation given by the Turkish traveller E. Celebi in
alen mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.-5, 1668 (Dankoff 1991). Celebi’s material constitutes
Mai 1995, ed. by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller and
Oswald Panagl, 389-405. Vienna.
the first attestation of Modern Tsakonian, put-
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford — ting an end to a period of more than a thousand
Malden, MA. years from which we have no written evidence
—. “Morphophonological operations”. In: Spencer and for its development, after the last references to
Zwicky 2001123-143,
Spencer, Andrew and Arnold M. Zwicky. 2001. The handbook
Laconian by Hesychius in the 5th century CE.
of morpholagy. Oxford - Malden, MA. The uniqueness of Tsakonian derives both
Thompson, Anne. 2007. “Ancient Greek personal names”. from its exclusive innovations and from the
In: A history of Ancient Greek: from the beginnings to late + archaisms it has preserved. These innovations
antiquity, ed. by A.-F. Christidis, 677-692. Cambridge.
Zwicky, Amold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1987. “Plain mor- include, for example, on the level of + phonol-
phology and expressive morphology”, Berkeley Linguistics ogy, the change of [r] to [[} in word-initial
Society 13:330-340. position or in second position in a consonant
cluster, eg. Ancient Gk, (A.Gk.) rhünkhos >
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
5.Tsak. [fükbo] ‘nose’, A.Gk. meirö > §.Tsak.
[metfü] ‘to count’; on the level of morphology,
the conversion to [i] of the old endings [on] and
Tsakonian
[os] of neuter + nouns, e.g. A.Gk. kälon ‘wood’
> §.Tsak., N. Tsak. [kali], A.Gk. meros ‘share,
Tsakonian (Tsak.) is an outlying, highly diver-
part’ > Tsak. [méri]; on the level of + syntax, the
gent Modern Greek dialect that is spoken today
reversal of the verbal periphrasis in direct ques-
in a small mountainous area on the south-east-
tions, e.g. S.Tsak., N. Tsak. [esi Simuimene] ‘you
ern edge of the region of Arcadia (Pelopon-
remember’ but 5.Tsak., N. Tsak. [fimümener ési]
nese). It is unique in that it is the only modern
‘do you remember’’, etc.
variety of Greek that does not have its origins
The archaic, and specifically + Doric / Laco-
in the Attic Ionic Koine (+ Koine, Origins of;
nian character of Tsakonian was noticed from
+ Koine, Features of; + Dialectology (didlektos),
very early on (Deffner 1880, 1881; Chatzidakis
Ancient Theories of), but rather in the ancient
1896, 1901, 1905; Scutt 1912-1913; Anagnostopulos
Laconian dialect (+ Laconian, Messenian). It is
1926, among others), although there was dis-
often categorized as a separate language, as it is
agreement among researchers regarding the
not inherently intelligible with SMGk. (see, for
nature of the relationship between the two vari-
example, Voegelin & Voegelin 1977). Although
eties (see, for example, Pernot 1934, who main-
today it has the status of a critically-endan-
tains that Tsakonian is descended from a variety
gered language, evidence from place-names and
of the Hellenistic Koine with a small number of
substrate material in local Modern Greek and
Doric elements). The following characteristics
Arvanitika dialects, as well as from historical
of the dialect, mainly involving + phonetics and
sources and folklore, indicates that Tsakonian
vocabulary, have usually been ascribed to its
was once spoken over a wider area that included
Doric / Laconian origins:
the eastern part of Laconia as far as Cape Maleas
(for an analytical presentation of these facts see
a. Preservation of Doric & as [a] where the other
Liosis 2007; for a detailed discussion of the ety-
Modern Greek dialects, including SMGk.,
mology of the name and the history of Tsakonia
have [i] < Att.-Ion. & (Chatzidakis 1905:365),
see Caratzas 1976). Tsakonian is divided into
eg. S.Tsak.,, N. Tsak. [mali] ‘apple’ < Dor.
three subdialects: southern (S.Tsak.), northern
mälon, cf. SMGk. wnAc [milo] < Att. mélon.
(N.Tsak.), and the more distinct Tsakonian of
Tzitzilis (forthcoming a) adds that the [a] is
the Propontis (Pr.Tsak.), which is now extinct,
also preserved in grammatical morphemes
but which, according to Costakis (1951, 1979),
since it serves to distinguish nominal catego-
was spoken by Tsakonian colonists from the 18th
ries according to the position of the > accent,
to the 2oth c. CE near Gönen, Turkey. A fourth
e.g. [proksenita] but [proksenicf] (both with
dialect, also extinct, which was possibly spoken
the meaning ‘match-maker).

b. The pronunciation of A.Gk. <u> (u), Chatzi-
dakis (1901:550-553) already identifies
Laconian the two different pronunciations
of u in Peloponnesian Tsakonian, as Ju], e.g.
[yuneka] ‘woman’, and as [ju], e.g. [ecu] <
*fetjü] < Dor. td ‘you (sg.)', depending on
the phonetic environment (fronting ([y];
+ Vowel Fronting) and analysis ([ju]) before
coronals). However, in Pr.Tsak. [u] is pre-
served, e.g. [(e)tü].
. The pronunciation of A.Gk. <w> (6). Again,
Chatzidakis (1901:558-561) considers the pro-
nunciation of o as [u] in S.Tsak and N.Tsak.,
e.g. [yrüsa] ‘tongue’ < A.Gk. glössa, to be
a Laconian feature, proposing that the dia-
lect has preserved in terms of + vowel qual-
ity the quantitative (+ Length) distinction
between long 6 (> [u}) and short o (> [o]). In
Pr.Tsak., however, A.Gk. 6 is pronounced [o],
e.g. [y“dsa|. Tzitzilis (forthcoming a) believes
that this difference between Pr.Tsak. and the
Peloponnesian subdialects can, as in the case
of A.Gk. <u>, be attributed to dialect-inter-
nal variability in Proto-Tsakonian or even in
Laconian.
. +Apocope of [a] in + preverbs, e.g. S.Tsak.,
N. Tsak. [khambénu] < A.Gk. katabainö ‘to
descend’, cf. Hsch, (Lac.) 2nd sg. + imperative
aor, kdbasi = Att. katdbethi; S.Tsak., N. Tsak.
[bénu] < *[ambénu] < A.Gk. anabaind ‘to
ascend’, etc. For this phenomenon in Laco-
nian and Tsakonian see, among others, Bour-
guet 1927:30, 134 and Pernot 1934:137-138.
. Height > dissimilation in the A.Gk. sequences
ea (> Tsak. [ia]), eo (> Tsak. [io]) and eö
(> S.Tsak., N, Tsak. [iu] / Pr.Tsak. [io]), eg.
§.Tsak. [proéia] ‘sheepskin’ (cf. Medieval Gk.
[provea]; the dentalization {v] > [8] before
[i] demonstrates that the type [prodia] is
ald; for use of the suffix -éa with the mean-
ing ‘skin' see lon. aigéé and Hellenistic Gk.
aigéa ‘a goat’s skin’), AGk. kaimödeä ‘to be
set on edge (of the teeth)’ > 5.Tsak. [mudiu]
‘to numb’, A.Gk. mütheö > Pr.Tsak. [musio]
‘to speak’, cf. Hsch, (Lac.?) mousiddei = Att.
müthizei. Méndez Dosuna (1993; 2002) con-
nects this phenomenon with Laconian and
other ancient Greek dialects but explains it
as a process of glide formation and diairesis
with accent retraction rather than height dis-
similation; for the suffix [ia] in Tsakonian see
Tzitzilis (forthcoming a).
TSAKONIAN 447
f. Preservation of A.Gk. <F> (w). In Laconian,
as the digamma is preserved with the phonetic
value [v], hence it is rendered in Hesychius
by <ß>, which by then represented the sound
[v] rather than [b]. In Tsakonian it is pre-
served, again with the value [v], in a small
number of certain types, e.g. §.Tsak., N.Tsak.
[vane] ‘lamb’ < *wdrnos, cf. Cret. waren;
S.Tsak,, N.Tsak. [davelé] / Pr.Tsak. [zavelé]
‘torch’, cf. Hsch. (Lac.) <defeAd¢> [Savelds]
(where <B> =<F>) etc. (Chatzidakis 1905:367),
and, according to Tzitzilis (forthcoming
a), in a few uncertain types, where the [v]
may be a later anti-hiatus development, e.g.
S.Tsak., N.Tsak. [kuvane] ‘black’, cf. Myc.
ku-wa-no but Hsch. (Lac.) n. pl. + nominative
<xovava> [kuand]; Pr.Tsak. [apövi] ‘nest egg’
< Lac. *éwion ‘egg’, cf. Hsch. (Arg.) n. pl. nom.
<iBea> [Gvea].
. > Rhotacism of final -s. The rhotacized -s is
normally deleted, e.g. Tsak. [kakö] ‘bad’ <
*[kakör] < A.Gk. kakös. But it is preserved
if it is followed by a vowel within the same
phonological word (> Prosodic Word), e.g.
[kakör eni] ‘he is bad’ (Chatzidakis 1905:367)
or for reasons of morphological transparency,
for example, the need to preserve the distinc-
tion between 2nd and grd person, e.g. S.Tsak.,
N.Tsak. [eyrävere] (< *[eyraves] + extension
[e]) ‘you wrote’ and ard sg. aor. [eyrave] (Tzit-
zilis forthcoming a). In Laconian rhotacism
appears in late inscriptions (> Epigraphy)
and glosses (Mitchell 1984:38-39), e.g. Hsch.
siör = Att. theös ‘god’.
. Change [8] > [s]. This has been known as a
Laconian characteristic since ancient times,
and presupposes the pronunciation of <§> as
a continuant [9] (Chatzidakis 1905:365-366);
it is found in a relatively small number of
words in Tsakonian, e.g. §.Tsak. [säti] ‘daugh-
ter’ < Lac. sugdter = Att. thugater, S.Tsak.
[serindu} ‘reap’ < Lac. *seriddö = Att. therizö,
5.Tsak., Pr.Tsak. [äpase] / N.Tsak. [läpasc]
‘monk’s rhubarb’ < Lac. *apason = Att. läpa-
thon, etc. The rendering of <8> as [s] was first
attested at the beginning of the 4th c. BCE
(Palmer 1980:1144-155).
. Deletion ofintervocalics (> [h] > e) (Chatzida-
kis 1905:366-367). In Tsakonian this is found
only in particular areas of + verb morphology
(Tzitzilis forthcoming a), such as the femi-
nine ~ gender of the + present + participle,
438 TSAKONIAN
eg. S5.Tsak., N.Tsak. [orüa] < A.Gk. horösa
of the verb horö ‘to see’, the > aorist > sub-
junctive, eg, S.Tsak, N.Tsak. [@fu] < A.Gk.
thüsö of the verb thié ‘to sacrifice’, in the
3pl. endings [oi] (Tsak.) < A.Gk. -ösi and [ai]
(Tsak.) < A.Gk. -asi, etc. For a general analysis
regarding the evolution of /s/ in Laconian see
Striano (1989:159- 172).
j. Pronunciation of<£> as [nd]. Rarely in lexical
morphemes, e.g. 5.Tsak., N.Tsak. [finda] ‘root’
< A.Gk. rhiza but frequent in the verbal suffix
[ndu] (S,Tsak, N.Tsak.) < Lac. -ddé = Att. -26,
e.g.5.Tsak. [ mat*andu] ‘chew’ < Hellenistic Gk.
mastdzö,S.Tsak. [tavzindu] ‘to pull’ < Hellenis-
tic Gk. taurizö etc. For the change A.Gk. *[zd] >
Lac. [dd] > Tsak. [nd] see Scutt (1912-1913:156).
On the level oflexicon, the old Laconian stratum
in Tsakonian can be discerned in grammatical
words and items of basic vocabulary. Examples
of grammatical words include forms of the defi-
nite article, e.g. fem. sg. nom. Tsak. [a] < Dor.
hä = Att. he, fem. sg. gen. Tsak. (ta(r)] < Lac. tar
= Att. tés, masc. pl. acc. Pr.Tsak. [to(r)] < Lac. tör
= Att. tous), etc.; forms of the + pronominal sys-
tem, which is especially rich in Laconisms, e.g.
demonstrative + pronouns: Tsak. [(e)tine] ‘that’
< Dor. ténos = Att. ekeinos; personal pronouns:
ist pers. sg. gen. Pr.Tsak. [emto] / N.Tsak. [emiu]
< Dor. emiö = Att. emoü; and pers. sg. nom.
Pr.Tsak. [tüfne)] / S.Tsak, N.Tsak. [ecu] < Dor. tu
= Att. sv, cf. Hsch. (Lac.) <todvy> [tüni]; ist pers.
pl. acc. Tsak. [ndm(u)] < ist pers. pl. gen. Dor.
hämön = Att. hemön etc. Items of basic vocabu-
lary: S.Tsak, N.Tsak. [mati] ‘mother’ < Dor. mäter
= Att. meter, Tsak. [psilé] ‘eye’ < Dor. optilos,
S.Tsak, N.Tsak. [ési} ‘(thou) art’ < Dor. éssi = Att.
ef, S.Tsak. [kräka] ‘key’ < Dor. kläix = Att. kleis,
S.Tsak, N.Tsak. [satsi] ‘this year’ < Dor. sdtei,
Tsak. [ayé(l)a] ‘herd’ < Dor. agela = Att. agele,
etc. For a more comprehensive list of archaisms
see Tzitzilis (forthcoming a).
Tzitzilis, in two current papers (forthcom-
ing a, b; already cited above) which overturn
received opinion on the historical depth of basic
aspects of the Tsakonian system, has shown that
the Doric / Laconian elements are much more
numerous and important than has been previ-
ously thought, and are not confined to the levels
of phonetics and the lexicon. Thus Tsakonian is
shown to be valuable for the study and recon-
struction of Laconian in the following ways:
1, PHONETICS
a. Change of final [o] to [e] before a coronal
consonant, {i] or [ j], which has been consid-
ered a characteristic Tsakonian innovation,
is attested in Laconian in two of Hesychius's
glosses: pdssaler ‘stake’ < A.Gk. pdssalos and
skeléfer 'name of a clod’ < A.Gk. *skeléphios,
and the Laconian form käsen ‘little brother,
belonging to the same agélé (pack)' < A.Gk.
*kdsion (for phonetic and semantic support
for these etymologies, see Tzitzilis (forthcom-
ing b); for the presence of this phenomenon
in other ancient Greek dialects see Méndez
Dosuna 2007). Tzitzilis proposes that this
sound change is in fact linked with the front-
ing of [u] > [y] in Laconian in the same
environment (see above), as an example of
a more general tendency for fronting of back
vowels in this dialect.
b. The change to voiceless aspirates ([t"], [k"],
[p"]) of inherited voiceless plosive geminates
(tt, kk), clusters with two voiceless plosives
or aspirates (kt, khth), and nasal + voiceless
aspirate (nth, nkh, mph) or sibilant + voiceless
aspirate (sth, skh) / voiceless plosive (st, sk, sp),
e.g. Hellenistic Gk. kdttos ‘cock’ > Tsak. [köt"a]
‘hen’, A.Gk, kdkkas > Tsak. [koko] ‘grain’, A.Gk.
ddktulon > S.Tsak., N.Tsak. [Sathile} ‘finger’,
A.Gk. dekhthö > S.Tsak., N.Tsak. [Seta] ‘that
I accept’, A.Gk. grönthos > S.Tsak. [yröt"e]
‘fist’, A.Gk. rhunkhos > S.Tsak. [fükto] ‘nose’,
A.Gk. omphalos > S.Tsak., Pr.Tsak. [ap*alé]
‘navel’, A.Gk. ekklüsthe > S.Tsak., N.Tsak.
[ekhfitte] ‘he washed himself’, A.Gk. iskhö
> §.Tsak., N.Tsak. [ik®u] ‘to hold’, A.Gk.
histös > S.Tsak., N.Tsak. [ite] ‘sail, cloth’,
A.Gk. askös > S.Tsak., N.Tsak. [akb6] ‘urticle’,
A.Gk. speird > S.Tsak. [p*iru], etc., should
also be seen not as a Tsakonian innova-
tion, but rather as a characteristic inherited
from Laconian, which already possessed a
new series of voiceless aspirates, or at least
voiceless geminates with final aspiration (e.g.
|kk*]}. This view is supported by the pres-
ence in Laconian inscriptions of types such
as <dntoaAlteuxvia> [a(p)ptisal-] (SEG Add.
11.677¢ 2-3; and-ıst c. BCE) = Att. amphithal-
‘to flourish’ and <pooctryi8ddpevog> [mi:kki(k)
k®-] ‘in third year of public education’ < (Stri-
ano 1989:173) *<pue(x)iyl8du> < *< p(x) byog>
= Att. *mikriskos, as well as by Hesychian
 TSAKONIAN
glosses such as, for example, Lac. <aixyobva>
[e(k)k"ina] ‘shame’ = Att. aiskhiiné, Lac. and
sg. imp. aor. <&ttagi> [a(t}tasi] ‘to get up’
= Att. andstéthi etc. According to Tazitzilis,
the alternations between letters (e.g. <> for
[(p)p*], <x> and <xy> for [(k)k"], <tr> for
[(t}t"] in the above examples) are the result
of uncertainty as to how to represent the new
consonants that had arisen in the dialect (for
a comprehensive list of all such types, their
analysis and the argumentation behind it, see
Tzitzilis forthcoming b).
2. MORPHOLOGY
Also of probable Doric origin are the three basic
characteristics of the verbal system, those, that
is, which distinguish it from the systems of the
other Mod.Gk. varieties:
a. The periphrastic formation of the present
and imperfect indicative. In Tsakonian today,
both + tenses are formed regularly with the
present / imperfect of the copula ‘to be’ and
the present participle, e.g, N.Tsak. jemi yräfı]
‘to write’ = Att. eimi grdphon. The - perfect
participle is used regularly in the formation
of the aorist, e.g. Pr.Tsak. [yravé ma] ‘I wrote‘,
cf. Att. pf. gegraphös eimi. We do, however,
find traces of the use of the perfect participle
in place of the present participle, e.g, N.Tsak.
[emi apostakü] ‘I open my legs’, cf, Att. pf.
eimi aphestekös. The presence of such forms
is attested in twa Laconian glosses in Hesy-
chius: pf. ptc. exelembör (<eEnAnußup>) for
the imperfect of ‘to see, perceive’ (3rd sg.) and
— passive aor. ptc. apesoutér (<dnecoump>)
for the aorist of ‘to be saved’ (3rd sg.). Accord-
ing to Tzitzilis, the first is equivalent to the
Att. exeiléphds (En), while the second has its
origins in the form *apesdsthés (én) = Att.
aposdtheis (én) (with <t> representing the
change [st"] > [(t)t"]). The possibility of omit-
ting the 3rd person auxiliary is retained in
Tsakonian today (for further justification of
these forms, see Tzitzilis forthcoming b).
b. Generalization of the so-called ‘Doric type’
+ active perfect (Tzitzilis forthcoming b) in
place of the aorist. As shown by Tsakonian
types such as S.Tsak, N. Tsak. [oräka] ‘T saw’,
S.Tsak. [ebika] ‘I slaughtered, sacrificed’,
etc. (cf. Att. pf. heöraka, tethuka), the aor-
ist is formed with the element [ka] of the
449
old perfect tense. In the Tsakonian aorists
with stems in a labial or velar consonant
we should also recognize the Doric perfects
with a voiced plosive (instead of the Artic
voiceless aspirate), e.g. Pr.Tsak. [klevé ma]
/ S.Tsak. [ekréva] ‘I stole’, cf. Mess. keklebös
(IG 5(1).1390.75; 1st c. BCE) and Att. kéklopha.
c. Preservation ofa particularly archaic + medio-
passive aorist, e.g. S.Tsak., N.Tsak. [orä-ma]
I was seen’, [orä-t"ere], [orä-t*e], [orä-mai],
[ora-thate], [orä-tPai]. The ist person singular
and > plural of this tense are formed without
the familiar extension -thé- on which is based
the passive aorist of A.Gk., cf. Att. heörd-thö-n
and heord-thé-men. lfit is true that the ancient
passive aorist was formed from the 2nd per-
son singular ending -thés, which is identified
with the equivalent Skt. -thäs (Chantraine
1990:206), then for the + middle aorist para-
digm we could reconstruct the archaic end-
ings *-män, -thes, -to, -metha, -sthe, -nto,
which largely correspond to other Indo-Euro-
pean languages (e.g. Sanskrit), cf. athematic
(+ Thematic and Athematic Verbs) construc-
tions such as Hom. /umén of the verb Ixö ‘to
unbind, resolve’ and Att, edömen of the verb
didömi ‘to give’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anagnostopulos, G. P-1926. Tsakonische Grammutik. Berlin -
Athens.
Bourguet, E. 1927. Le dialecte faconien. Paris.
Caratzas, 5. 1976, Les tzacones. Berlin — New York.
Chantraine, P. 1990. Joropixy poppodoyla ms elnvuic yAuerag.
Athens, [Greek translation of Chantraine, P. 1961, Mor-
phologie historique du grec. Paris. |
Chatzidakis, Georgios N. 1896. “Neugriechische Studien.
Über ein Zakonisches Auslautsgesetz”, KZ 34:98-ı08.
. 1901. /AuggoAoyixcal uederat [Linguistic studies|. Athens.
. 1905. Meoamwvicd xaı ven EAlyvixd [Medieval and Mod-
ern Greek], vol. ı. Athens,
Costakis, Th. 1951. Zövroun ypapnaruentns Traxwvinns diaddxrou
[A brief grammar uf the Tsakonian dialect). Athens.
—. 1979, Bata xat Xaßoute Ta toaxavoyaipea yc
fponavridas | Vatika and Havoutsi. The Tsakonian Villages
of the Prapantis|, Athens.
Dankoff, R. i991. Fviiva Celebi lügati. Seyahat-name 'deki
yabanci kelimeler, mahalli ifadeler |Evtiya Celebi’s glos-
sary afunusual, dialectal and foreign words in the ‘Book of
Travets’}. Cambridge.
Definer, M. 1880. "Das zakonische als Fortentwicklung des
lakonishes Dialektes”, Archiv für mittel- und neugriechis-
che Philologie 11-54.
. 188. Zakonische Grammatik. Berlin,
Liosis, N. 2007. FAwcomés exagés om votioavarodixy
Hedonévence [Language contact in the South-Eastern Pelo-
ponnese|. PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Méndez Dasuna,J. 1993. “El cambio tle <e> en <t> ante vocal
en los dialectos griegos: guna cuestién zanjada?". In:
450 TSAKONIAN
Dialectolagica Graeca. Actas del Il coloquia internacional
de dialectuingia griega (Miraflores de la Sierra, Madrid,
17-21 de Junio, 1991), ed. by E. Crespo, J. L. Garcia Ramön
and A. Striano, 237-259. Madrid.
——. 2002. “Deconstructing ‘height dissimilation’ in Mad-
ern Greek", journal of Greek Linguistics 3:B3-u4.
. 2007. “Ex praesente lux”. In: Die altgriechische Dialekte.
Wesen und Werden. Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Univer-
sität Berlin 19,-22, September 2001, ed. by Ivo Hajnal, 355-
383. Innsbruck.
Mitchell, E. A. 1984, The Laconien dialect. PhD diss., Univer-
sity of Edinburgh.
Palmer, L. R. 1980. The Greek language. London.
Pernot, H. 1934. Introduction a l'étude du dialecte Tsakonien.
Paris.
Scutt, C.A.1912-1913. "The Tsakoniandialect]", ABSA1ga33- 173.
Strianv, A. 1989. El dialecto laconio. Gramdtica y estudio dia-
lectal, PhD diss,, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
Tzitzilis, Ch. forthcoming a. “H toaxwvoen SidAextos [The
Tsakonian dialect]". In: NeoeAdnvixds didAextor [Modern
Greek Dialects], ed. by Ch. Tzitzilis, Thessaloniki.
. forthcoming b. “Byzantine and Modern Greek evi-
dence for Ancient Greek dialects” (in Greek). In: Apyales
AAnvines Srddexro: [Ancient Greek Dialects|, ed. by
A. Bartonék and Ch. Tzitzilis. Thessaloniki.
Voegelin, C. F. and F. M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and
index of the world’s languages. New York - Oxford -
Amsterdam.
Nikos LIosts
Typology of Greek
1. MORPHOLOGY
1a. Verbal Conjugation
Greek is a highly fusional language. Inflectional
categories can be manifested by suffixes, root
vowel alternation, or, less frequently, prefixes.
Suffixes typically display cumulative exponence
in the sense of Matthews (1991179), while vowel
alternation in verbs mainly indicates + aspect,
as in:
(1) leip- ‘leave’ imperfective vs. lip- ‘leave'
perfective
(2) pheug- ‘flee’ imperfective vs. phug- ‘flee’
perfective
(8) id- ‘see’ perfective vs. oid- ‘see’ perfect.
Prefixes can indicate aspect or tense in verbs,
but they always co-occur with at least another
morpheme that indicates the same category and
which functions as main exponent, be it the ver-
bal ending, or root vowel alternation (> Ablaut)
or suffixation (extended exponence, Matthews
1991:181), as in:
(4) leip-ö ‘leave’ present tense vs. é-leip-on ‘leave’
past imperfective (past tense endings also
occur as main exponent)
(5) defp-6 ‘leave’ imperfective vs. fé-{vip-a ‘leave’
perfect (perfect endings also occur as main
exponent).
(Note that this analysis is different from the
one in Matthews 1991281, where it is argued
that + reduplication is the main exponent of
the perfect, because “of the different markers,
reduplication is the most consistent across verbs
and across the paradigm.” On the contrary, it
can be remarked that non-reduplicated perfects
do exist, whereas no perfects exist that do not
bear the special set of endings of the > perfect.
Cf ofda ‘I know’, non-reduplicated perfect to the
root id- ‘see’ also found in efdan ‘I saw.’ Likewise,
Matthews considers the + augment as the main
exponent of past tense, but again, unaugmented
forms of past tenses exist, and are marked as past
by the endings.)
Thus, exponence varies among the three types
of morphological processes along an implica-
tional scale:
Scale ı - Types of exponence and types of
morphological processes
suffixation > vowelalternation - prefixation
cumulative + simple exponence + extended
exponence exponence
It would be tempting to view root vowel alterna-
tion as instantiating infixation; this would imply
that exponence becomes less powerful as expo-
nents move to the left edge of a word. However,
at least in synchronic terms, vowel alternation
is only one out of a number of possible mani-
festations of stem alternation, which serves the
purpose of expressing verbal aspect. True infix-
ation is indeed attested in stem formation, and
involves the nasal infix -n-. This infix cooccurs
with other morphemes and indicates imperfec-
tive aspect, apparently always only in extended
exponence, as in;
(6) temn- ‘cut’ imperfective vs. tam- ‘cut’ perfec-
tive {root vowel alternation also occurs and
is the main exponent).
That vowel alternation must be taken as the
main exponent is shown by the fact that it also
 TYPOLOGY OF GREEK
occurs in derivation (> Derivational Morphol-
ogy) of unsuffixed deverbal nouns from verb
roots, as in:
(7) pherö ‘bear’ vs. phöros ‘bearer’
(8) témno ‘cut’ vs. tömos ‘a portion of a whole’.
(However, it must be kept in mind that suf
fixation is more frequent, and occurs in a great
number of derivatives. )
Prefixation also occurs with verbs; prefixed
verb roots give rise to new verbs, as in:
(9) Sainé 'go' vs. apo-baind ‘go away’, em-bainö
‘step in’, dia-bainö ‘cross over’, etc.
These and other prefixes, such as the polarity
prefix a(n)- ‘un-’, which typically attaches to
adjectives, do not change the lexical class of the
base. Thus, also in derivation prefixes have the
most limited role, while both suffixation and
root vowel alternation, though less frequent, can
be used to create new words that do not belong
to the same word class as the base of derivation.
In doing so, prefixes take a non-prototypical role
in derivation inasmuch as one of the features of
prototypical derivation as opposed to inflection
is change in word class (Dressler 1989).
Interaction of inflection and derivation,
whereby derivation plays a role in the encoding
of grammatical categories normally considered
inflectional, occurs both with verbs and with
nouns, and displays some peculiar patterns of
grammaticalization and degrammaticalization.
In verbal morphology, inflection and derivation
interact in the encoding of voice. The active and
the middle > voice are kept distinct by different
sets of endings, thus resulting in two different
conjugations. The passive (which is only avail-
able in the future and in the aorist) does not
feature a set of endings of its own, but is formed
by the addition of a derivational suffix -é- or
-thé- to the = aorist or future stem and the active
endings. The affixes involved had the original
function of forming anticausative counterparts
of transitive verbs, as one can still appreciate in
Homeric Gk,, in which many of the suffixed form
indicate spontaneous events (Allan 2003).
The peculiarity of passive formation, as
opposed to active and middle, indicates its later
origin. Interestingly, the rise of + passive mor-
phology is connected with a distinction within
451
the active voice, as shown by the fact that, as
remarked above, active rather than middle end-
ings are used for the passive.
1.b. Nominal Inflection
Especially in Homeric Gk., nominal inflection is
supplemented by a set of adverbial endings that
indicate spatial relations: -thi for locative, -then
for ablative, and -de for allative. Their usage
is rather systematic at least for toponyms and
other nouns with spatial reference, but at least
the ablative suffix -then was used as inflectional
ending to such an extent as to produce forms of
personal pronoun, which could replace the geni-
tive (Chantraine 1958). On the other hand, the
suffix -de partly behaves as an adposition and
prosodically perhaps as a clitic. Indeed, while
the other two suffixes attach to the stem, as
do inflectional endings, -de attaches to nouns
already inflected in the accusative. Examples are:
(10) oikathi ‘at home’ / oiköthen ‘from home! /
oikönde ‘to home’
(1) par séthen ‘from you’.
The ending -phi also occurs in Homeric Gk.,
and indicates various types of adverbial relations
(Chantraine 1958). It can be attached to the stem
of nouns from all > inflectional classes, and does
not have a single meaning: rather, it indicates
that a noun is not an argument of the verb. This
ending was in origin the inflectional ending of
the instrumental plural of -#- and consonant
stems, and was still inflectional in Mycenaean.
Later, it became an all-purpose adverbial ending,
and extended to all inflectional classes; in addi-
tion, it also became disconnected from plurality,
as shown in occurrences such as (phi ‘by force‘.
If one considers change from derivational to
inflectional and vice versa as instantiation pro-
cesses of grammaticalization/degrammaticaliza-
tion as suggested in Kurylowicz (1965), then the
above suffixes are examples of such processes,
The endings of local adverbs display different
degrees of gramimaticalization, while the former
instrumental ending constitutes one of the rare
instances of degrammaticalization, as shown in
Scale 2 (Norde 2009; see further Luraghi 1998
and 2005 on this type of change as providing
evidence for degrammaticalization):
452 TYPOLOGY OF GREEK
Scale 2 - Grammaticalization/degrammaticali-
zation of nominal suffixes
-de -thi -then
-phi (< Myc. instr.
case)
adposition/clitic derivational inflectional
ending ending
2. SYNTAX
Greek is often regarded as a rather extreme case
of a free word order language (Dover 1960). In
the heydays of word order typology, Gk. was
shown, with equal ease, to be a typical SOV or
SVO language, depending on who was trying
to demonstrate what (see e.g. Lehmann 1974,
Friedrich 1975), not to forget that verb initial
sentences also feature quite prominently in all
literary genres (Dik 1995, Luraghi 1995). Word
order is quite free not only at the sentence level,
but also within NPs: discontinuous NPs occur at
all language stages. Stranded modifiers can pre-
cede or follow their head noun, with any type of
items intervening (Devine and Stephens 2000).
In addition, the relative position of head noun
and modifier, and the position of modifiers in
complex NPs is extremely flexible (Bakker 2009).
Consider example (12):
(12) Pdntes gar hot te tön epön poiétai hoi
agathoi ouk ek tékhnés all’ entheoi öntes kai
katekhomenoi pdnta taüta ta kald légousi
poiemata
‘For all the good epic poets utter all those
fine poems not from art, but as inspired and
possessed’ (Pl. Jon. 533e)
In (12) we find various discontinuous constitu-
ents, The + subject päntes gar hoi te tön epön
poiétai hai agathol starts with an attributive
adjective (+ modifiers) pdntes preposed to the
head, and separated from it by the + postposi-
tive gar. The noun phrase contains a second
attributive adjective agathoi, which is postposed
to it; its attributive function is indicated by dou-
bling of the definite article (+ noun phrase).
The third modifier of this noun phrase, the geni-
tive tän epön, is placed inside the noun phrase,
between the definite article and the head noun.
The article is separated from the rest of the noun
phrase by the enclitic particle te (+ clitics). The
+ direct object noun phrase is likewise formed
by a head noun with two attributive adjectives,
the first one panta taüta preceding the whole
noun phrase, while the second Aald follows
the definite article. Discontinuity in the noun
phrase is brought about by placement of the
finite verb /égousi between the latter adjective
and the head noun poiemata.
This and other types of discontinuity (also
called +hyperbaton) are discussed in Devine
and Stephens (2000) who see it as the result of
syntactic movement, and in Agbayani & Golston
(zo10) who argue that it must be the result of
phonological movement. They are among the
numerous features of non-configurationality dis-
played by Greek (Luraghi 2010). Beside free word
order and discontinuous constituents, such fea-
tures also include free use of > null anaphora
even for direct objects, as shown in (13):
(13) läbe ton Mandané éteke paida, pherön de es
seöutoü apökteinon ©, meta de thäpson 0;
tröpöi höteöi autös bouleai
‘Take the child that Mandane bore, and
carry him to your house, and kill him; and
then bury him however you like’ (Hdt.
1108.4)
In (13), two referential null objects occur, and
must be rendered with overt pronominals in the
English translation: they are the objects of apdk-
teinon and thdpson. (The verb pherön does not
have an overt direct object either, but note that
in constructions featuring a participle and a verb
that share the same direct object, this is always
overtly realized only once. This is an instance of
argument sharing, see Luraghi 2003.)
The term non-configurationality was created
when linguists ‘discovered’ some exotic lan-
guages such as Warlpiri, in which any order
of constituent was possible without affecting
the encoding of grammatical relations, null ana-
phora were freely used and constituents could
be interrupted by intruding words (Hale 1983,
Baker 2001). Had the linguists who had the merit
of describing these languages also known or
considered Greek, the clustering of such features
would have looked much more familiar than it
has been considered to be for several decades.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010. “Phonological
movement in Classical Greek", Language 86.1, 133-167.
Allan, Rutger. 2003, The middle vaice in Ancient Greek: a
study afpolysemy. Amsterdam.
 TYPOLOGY OF GREEK
Baker, Mark. 2ou1. “Configurationality and polysynthesis",
Language typology and language universals. An interna-
tional handbook, vol. 2, 1433-1441. Berlin.
Bakker, Stephanie. zo0g. The noun phrase in Ancient Greek:
a functional anatysis uf the order and articulation of NP
constituents in Herodotus. Leiden.
Chantraine, Pierre, 1958. Grammaire homerique, tome 4.
Phonétique et morphologie. Paris.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 2000. Discon-
tinuous syntax, Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford.
Nik, Helma. ı995. Ancient Greek word order: a pragmatic
account uf word order variation in Herodotus. Amster-
dam.
Dover, Kenneth. 1960. Greek word order. Cambridge.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. "Prototypical differences
between inflection and derivation’, ZPASK 42:3- 0,
Hale, Ken. 1983. “Warlpiri and the grammar of non-config-
urational languages”, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 1:5-47.
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Prote-Indo-European syntax (JIES
Monograph 1). Butte, Montana.
Joseph, Brian. 1987. “Greek”, The world's major languages, ed.
by B. Comrie. 410-439. London.
453
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1965. “The evolution of grammatical cat-
egories”, Esquisses Linguistiques 11-38-54. Munich.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. PIE syntax. Austin.
Luraghi, Silvia. 1995. "The pragmatics of verb initial sen-
tences in some ancient Indo-European languages’, Word
order in discourse, ed. by Pamela Downing and Michael
Noonan, 355-386. Amsterdam.
——. 1998. “On the directionality of grammaticalization’,
Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51/4:355-365.
——. 2003. “Definite referential null objects in Ancient
Greek", /F 108:169-196.
——. 2005. “Does a theory of language change need unidi-
rectionality?", Logos and Language 6:9-17
——. 200. "The rise (and possible downfall) of eonfigura-
tionality’, Continuum companion to historical linguistics,
ed. by Silvia Luraghi and Vit Bubenik, 212-229. London —
New York.
Matthews, Peter. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge.
Norde, Muriel, 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford,
SILVIA LURAGHI
Utterance They are in turn followed by an utterance that
contains a complex sentence (thaumazö ‘I'm
The utterance (v} is the largest recognized unit amazed’ plus an embedded clause):
of + prosody (Nespor and Vogel 1986:221-248)
and is usually bordered on either side by silence.
Part of the +syntax-phonology interface, it Socrates: [thaumdzö hdpos éthélésé soi ho toü
tends to correspond with the syntactic notion desmöteriou phülax hupakotsai|v
sentence (simple, complex, or compound), but ‘I'm amazed that the prison guard
often consists of less (Selkirk 1980; Nespor and was willing to let you in’
Vogel 1986:221-223), as the beginning of Plato’s
Crito (43a) illustrates. The dialogue begins with
two utterances (marked off in square brackets), What these utterances all have in common is
each of which is a complete sentence: that they are bounded by silence and not con-
tained in any other (known) unit of prosody.
In non-corpus languages, typical phonetic cor-
Socrates: [titenikäde [é ou pröl éti relates of the utterance include final lengthen-
aphixai, 6 estin? |v ing, pause (Devine and Stephens 1994:411; Smith
Kritön?]u 2002), devoicing (Devine and Stephens 1994:80;
‘Why have you Or is it no longer Michelson 1999; Smith 2002; Taylor 2003:249),
come so early, early?’ modulation of voice quality (Duncan and Fiske
Crito? 1977; Gobl 1988; Klatt and Klatt 1990; Epstein
2002; Ogden 2004), accent alterations (Devine
and Stephens 1994:146; Woodbury 1999; Dutta
But the following utterances are made up only of and Hock 2006), and tone shifts (Devine and
sentence fragments: Stephens 1994:430, 438); see also Devine and
Stephens (1994:418-420).
Some of these features are also associated
Crito: |pänu men otin.u with other prosodic constituents, especially
'No, it certainly is.’ the > intonational phrase, but they are typi-
Socrates: [penika men mdlista?]u cally marked more strongly at the end of an
utterance than elsewhere (Joseph 1999; Devine
‘So what time is it exactly?’
Crito: [örthros bathus.|v and Stephens 1994148). Nespor and Vogel
‘Early dawn.’ (1986:223-225) argue that flapping in American
English as well as r-insertion in British English
(1986:226-228) occur within the domain of the
utterance. What phenomena in Ancient Greek
belong to the utterance-level, if any, remains to
 UTTERANCE
be determined, and this remains an underex-
plored area of research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 1994. The
prosody of Greek speech. Oxford.
Dunvan, Starkey and Donald W. Fiske. 1977. Face te face
interaction: research. methods, and theory. Hillsdale -
New Jersey.
Dutta, Indrani} and Hans H. Hock. 2006. “Interaction of
verb accentuation and utterance finality in Bangla’. In:
CDROM Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
on Speech Prosedy, vd. by Rüdiger Hoffmann and Han-
sjörg Mixdorff. Dresden.
Epstein, Melissa A. 2002. Voice quality and prosody in English.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gobl, Christer. 1988. “Voice source dynamics in connected
speech”, Speech Transmission Labaratury-Quarterly Prog-
ress and Status Reports 1123-159.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phanolugy.
Dordrecht.
Joseph, Brian D, 1999. “Utterance-finality - framing the
issues”, In: Proceedings of LP 1998 (4th Linguistics and
Phonetics Conference), ed. by Osamu Fujimura, Brian D,
Joseph and Bohumil Palek, vol. 2:3-13. Prague.
455
Klatt, Dennis H. and Laura C. Klatt. iggu. “Analysis, syn-
thesis, and perception of voice quality variations among
male and female talkers’, journal of the Acoustical Society
of America 87:B20-857.
Michelson, Karin. 1999. “Utterance-final phenomena in
Oneida”. In: Proceedings uf LP 1998 (ath Linguistics and
Phonetics Conference), ed. by Osamu Fujimura, Brian D,
Joseph and Bohumil Palek, vol. 2:31-45. Prague.
Ogden, Richard. 2004. "Non-modal voice quality and tum-
taking in Finnish”. In: Sound patterns in interaction, ed.
by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford, 29-62.
Amsterdam.
Selkirk, E. O. 1980. “Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit
revisited”, In: functure, ed. by Mark Arnoff and Mary L.
Kean, 107-129. Saratoga, CA.
Smith, Caroline L. 2002. “Prosodic finality and sentence-type
in French", Language and Speech 4541-178.
Taylor, John A. 1995. Linguistic categorization: prototypes in
linguistic theory, 4rd edition. Oxford.
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1999. “Utterance-final phonology
and the prosodic hierarchy: a case fram Cup’ig (Nuni-
vak Central Alaskan Yup'ik)”. In: Proceedings of LP 1998
(ath Linguistics and Phonetics Conference), ed. by Osamu
Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph and Bohumil Palek, vol. 2:47-
63. Prague.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Variation in Mycenaean Greek
There has been much debate regarding the nature
of ‘variation’ in the + Linear B texts. Pertinent to
this issue is the dialect position of Mycenaean
within the Hellenic branch of Indo-European.A
number of proposals were formulated:
1, Mycenaean is a forerunner of + Arcado-
Cypriot seen as a branch of southern -+ Aeolic
or Achaean. It possesses words in common with
northern Aeolic dialects (Lesbian, Thessalian,
Boeotian); see M. Ventris & J. Chadwick (1953,
1973); A. Heubeck (1960-1961); C. Gallavotti
(1958) affırmed an affınity between Mycenaean
and northern Aeolic,
2. Mycenaean is a forerunner of Arcado-
Cypriot considered as a dialect group inde-
pendent of Aeolic and + lonic-Attic, of an
intermediate type between these two groups:
F.R. Adrados (1957); > Dialects, Classification of.
3. Mycenaean belongs to an eastern or south-
em group of Greek dialects so that it can be
taken as an ancestor of lonic-Attic (+ Southeast
Greek): V. Pisani (1955) and J. Chadwick (1956).
According to P. Chantraine (1991) Mycenaean
is rather *autonamaus” with respect to both
groups.
4. E. Risch (1955, 1966) suggested that the
tablets present us with "normal” Mycenaean, the
language of the court and the aristocracy. This
variety disappeared with the fall of Mycenaean
palaces while “special” Mycenaean, language of
the lower classes, survived in the dialects of the
southern or eastern group.
5. C. Consani (1984, 2006) maintains that Myce-
naean shares many important isoglosses with
both Arcado-Cypriot and lonic: with Arcado-
Cypriot Mycenaean shares the salient isogloss
-(n)toi (grd ps. + mediopassive) versus -(n)tai
everywhere else (+ Morphological Change);
and with Arcado-Cypriot and lonic Mycenaean
shares the assibilation -ti > -si.
6. According to S. Marinatos (1956) Myce-
naean is a “chancellery” language (perhaps intro-
duced by “non-Greek” > scribes. M. Negri (1981)
supports the idea of a chancellery language.
7. In the opinion of J. L. Garcfa-Ramdén (1975,
2006) the Aeolic group arose in Thessaly postdat-
ing Mycenaean. One of the issues is the chronol-
ogy of the Aeolic gemination where Mycenaean
spellings are surrounded by uncertainty; e.g.
a-ke-re (alphabetic ageirei ‘collects’) can be inter-
preted as agerei or agerrei (< “ager-j-ei).
8. J. Chadwick (1976, 1985) considers Myce-
naean to be a forerunner of Jonic with numer-
ous isoglosses shared with Arcado-Cypriot.
Chadwick introduced a “vertical” sociolinguistic
dimension into the field distinguishing between
the “standard” variety, a palace language (dialect
-si), and a “substandard” variety, a language of
the people, which is of a “Proto-Doric” charac-
ter (dialect in -¢é).
g. According to A. Bartonék (2003:483) the
assibilation -ti > -si should rather be explicated
in “geographic” terms as a process which was
accomplished in the 14th c. in the whole south-
ern area. The alleged Doric elements in Myce-
naean could be a reflex of “a thin layer” of the
population which penetrated the Peloponnese
from the north. In this context it is impor-
tant to realize that the crucial isogloss pher-
onti was shared by Doric and "Proto-Aeolic”
(documented in + Thessalian and + Boeotian);
~+ Lesbian pheroisi was apparently influenced by
Ionic pheronsi.
 VARIATION IN MYCENAEAN
10. Duhoux, in this volume (+ Mycenaean
Script and Language), addressing the issue of
the dialect position of Mycenaean, tentatively
posits “at least three dialect groups” before
ca. ugo: (a) the unassibilating Proto-Doric;
(b) two assibilating dialects - Mycenaean (pre-
verb already joined) versus Proto-lonic-Attic
(preverb still separated). He opines that it is “not
unlikely” that Mycenaean had no first millen-
nium successor.
Given the limited primary evidence the study
of variation in terms of diatopy, diachrony and
social dimension does not yield any decisive
results which would solve convincingly some of
the above issues.
On the whole, there is practically no regional
variation (but see i, v, iv below). Mycenaean
scribes wrote a uniform chancellery language
referred to sometimes as Mycenaean “koine”.
Here are several salient examples of morpho-
logical and phonetic/phonological variants in
Mycenaean texts:
i. The voiceless glottal fricative /h/, going
back to PIE *s in initial or intervocalic position, is
regularly written with the syllabogram 25 (Az =
HA) in Pylos but with the syllabogram 8 (= A)
in Knossos:
a2-te-ro /hateron/ ‘the other’ (< *sm-terom),
cf, Doric Aateros, Attic heteros;
pa-we-a2 /pharweha/ (< *-esa} ‘woolen cloths’
(Homeric phäros) versus pa-we-a /pharwea/
in Knossos.
ii. Syllabic liquids and nasals (reconstructed
for PIE) display different outcomes in Myce-
naean:
*r > or ~ ro. The former reflex is seen in to-pe-
za /torpedza/ ‘four-legged’ (< *(k”e)tr-pedja),
the latter in ge-to-ro-po-de /k“etro-podes/
‘four-legged’ (< "K”etr-podes). (The latter
reflex is found in Arcado-Cypriot and Aeolic
strotös ‘army’, brokhus ‘short’ vs. Attic stratos,
brakhus).
> 0. de-ko-to /dekatos/ ‘Dekotos’ (anthro-
ponym) (< “dekmtos) (cf, Arcado-Cypriot and
Aeolic deko-(tos) vs. Attic dékatos ‘tenth’),
*n > o ~ a. pe-ma /sperma/ 'seed' (< *spermn)
in Knossos (and scribe 24 at Pylos); pe-mo
/spermo/ elsewhere.
GREEK 457
iii. j ~ A (palatal glide alternating with velar
fricative). This alternation is seen in the phrases
jo-do-so-si /jö dösonsi/ ‘thus they will give’ ver-
sus 0-di-do-si {hd didonsi/ ‘thus they are giving’.
The adverb /jö/ ~ /hö/ goes back either to abla-
tive *öd or instrumental *-ö (< “oh,;) and it was
extended by -s (Attic Ads ‘thus’). Its initial h- goes
apparently back to “s found in the demonstrative
pronoun *so ( > Greek definite article ho ‘the’).
The Mycenaean variant /j6/ ‘thus’ is puzzling, It
cannot go back to Y- because word-initial *- was
affricated as in ze-u-ke-si /dzeugesi/. We are left
with an assumption of a rather unusual change
of the voiceless velar fricative into the voiced
palatal glide: (*s >) A > j post-dating the affrica-
tion of initial %-.
iv. The suffix ofthe dat. sg. of athematic nouns
alternates between -e /-ei/ and /-i/. In Knossos
the suffix is always /-ei/, in Pylos mostly /-ei/
but also /-i/ (e.g. po-se-da-o-ni /poseida(h)oni/
‘to Poseidon’), and in Mycenae both suffixes
are found (tu-ka-te-re /thugatrei/ 'to the daugh-
ter’ ~ ka-ke-wi /khalkéwi/ ‘to the smith’). Both
suffixes were inherited from PIE where *(e)
i was used as the dative and *-i as the locative;
this distribution (preserved in Sanskrit (dat. -é <
“el, loc. -i < *-i) presumably reflected the origi-
nal distinction of animacy (the dative was used
with animate nouns, the locative with inanimate
nouns).
v. Preposition me-ta /meta/ ‘with’ is used in
Pylos while pe-da /peda/ ‘towards; with (7) is
used in Knossos, (In the ist millennium peda is
used in Arcado-Cypriot and Aeolic.)
vi.As mentioned above (in 10), the variation in
augmentation was used by Duhoux for dichoto-
mizing the southern si-dialects. There are forms
of the 3rd sg. aorist showing the univerbation
a-pu-do-ke /apu-doke/ ‘he rendered’, pa-ro-te-ke
/pro-théke/ ‘he set before’ versus its absence in
Proto-lonic-Attic ap-é-déke, pro-é-théke, respec-
tively (+ Tmesis).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adrados, F. R. 1957. "Achäisch, lonisch und Mykenisch", /F
63:240-8.
Bartonék, A. 2003, Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch.
Heidelberg.
Chantraine, P. 1991. Morphologie historique du grec. Paris.
Chadwick, J. 1956. “The Greek dialects and Greek prehis-
tory”, GER 3138-50.
——. 1976. “Who were the Dorians’, PdP 31103 ff.
. 1985. "] Dori e la creazione dei dialetti greci”. In:
D. Musti, Le origini dei greci. Dori e mundo egea. Rome -
Bari.
458 VARLATION IN MYCENAKAN
Consani, C. 1984. "Continuitä lessicale e contnuitä culturale
in area greca tra secondo e primo millennio a.C.”. In:
E. Camopanile, R. Lazzeroni and R. Peroni, eds., Seritti in
anore di R. Ambrosini, 69-83. Pisa,
. 2006, "La dialettologia greca oggi", Incontri linguistici
29:11:38,
Gallavotti, C. 1958. “ll caratter eolico deli greco miceneo", RF
36:13-33.
Garcia-Ramön, J. L. 1975. Les origines postmyceniennes du
groupe dialectal eolien. Salamanca.
. 2006, “La Fragmentacién dialectal griega", Incontri
linguistici 29:61-81.
Heubeck, A, 1960-61. “Zur dialektischen Einordnung des
Mykenischen", Glotta 39:159-172.
Marinatos, 5. 1956. “Zur Entzifferung der mykenischen
Schrift”, Minos qnı-21.
Negri, M. 1981. Miceneo e lingua nmerica. Florence.
Pisani, V. 1955. “Die Entzifferung der ägäischen Linear B
Schrift und die griechischen Dialekte", RAM 983-18.
Risch, E. 1955. "Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in
neuer Sicht”, MH 12:61-76.
. 1966, “Les differences dialectales dans le mycenien”,
In: L.R. Palmer and J.Chadwick, eds., Proceedings of the
Cambridge colloquium in Mycenaean studies, 150-157.
Cambridge.
Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. 1953. “Evidence for Greek dia-
lect in the Mycenaean archives", JHS 73:84-101.
. 19732, Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge.
ÜELESTINA MILANI
Vendryes’ Law
Also known as the “law of properispomena in
Attic” or “law egöge”, the original formulation of
Vendryes’ Law is that “all properispomena with
a short antepenultimate syllable became in Attic
proparoxytone” (Vendryes 1905:221), Generally,
we can say that this law is a manifestation of
the tendency, present also in > Wheeler's Law
and the > Sötera rule, to retract the + accent as
far back as possible. Schematically, the change
could be represented as follows: te.féé.te > té.tée.
te where e represents a short vowel, ee a long,
and period a break between + syllables.
Thus where other dialects have a falling (HL)
tone on the penult, + Attic and Koine have
high tonc on the antepenult:
Other Dialects Attic and Koine
agroikos ägroikos
akhreios äkhreios
geloios geloios
erémos éremos
hetaimos hétoimos
GREEK
This change also affected compounds formed
with — particles and prepositions:
egöge <egö + ge ‘T indeed’
émoige <emol + ge ‘me indeed’
épeita < epi + eita ‘then’
The processing of accent in these cases makes
obvious the coalescence of both words (pronoun
and particle, preposition and adverb) and the
shift of accent from the penult to the antepenult,
resulting in Vendryes' Law.
The restriction of the rule to words with short
antepenultimate vowels explains the divergent
accentuations which are common in adjectives
ending in -aios, -eios or -oios. These present
proparoxytone accent when the antepenult is
short (dikaios, téleios), and properispomenon
when it is long (arkhafos, spoudaios, andreios,
asteios, pantotos, alloios). Words like bröteios and
andreios led Allen to point out that in these
adjectives the law was applied even outside of
Attic (1973:239).
The law is sometimes blocked by phonetic or
morphological considerations. Thus the accent
often fails to retract when the word ends in a
consonant cluster (polupidax 'many-fountained',
kalatirops ‘shepherd's staff‘) or when the
accent occurs on a contracted vowel (emoüge
‘I at least (gen)', philoümen ‘we love’). Paradigm
uniformity may block Vendryes’ Law as well, if
words like agöna ‘assembly (acc.)' and dotéra
‘giver (acc.)' are accented on the second syl-
lable because their corresponding nominatives
are agon and dotér. The reverse is sometimes
claimed for words in -tés (gen. -tétos), where the
position of the accent in the nominative (isötes
< isotés 'equality') matches that of the genitive
(isdtétos < *isotétos). Finally, Vendryes' Law is
blocked by the presence of the verbal augment
a
e-, so that we find pareikhe‘he handed over'
(from *par-e-ekhe) rather than päreikhe.
These limitations on the law are a sign of its
late date. In fact we have testimonies saying that
it postdates Aristophanes and Thucydides: we
find tropaion ‘trophy’ in Homer, Thucydides, and
Aristophanes, but tröpaion in Xenophon. The
fact that both testimonies are scholia (ad Thuc. 1.
30 and ad Aristoph. Thesm. 697) and that both
refer to the same word, points to a unique origi-
nal source, perhaps a grammarian. We might
therefore date Vendryes’ Law to the 4th century
 VENDRYES' LAW 459
BCE. Exceptions and doublets are probably due + Attic texts onwards, was to express the pro-
to this. We find exceptional forms like: cess, the result or the general (external) form of
the action of eirö (‘to say’): hence its large range
hésukhaios ‘still, quite’ of meanings, such as ‘story, account, statement,
knephaios ‘dark, dusky’ phrase, formulation, word’, i.e., different forms
lokhatos ‘clandestine’ of linguistic expression. As such, the original
heteroios ‘of a different kind’ semantics of the term is not categorically speci-
knapheion ‘fuller's shop’ fied, and can be applied to various aspects of
lopheion ‘crest case’ the dynamic process of speaking. This general
grapheion ‘pencil’ meaning of rkema is the one we find, e.g., in
khoreia ‘dance’ Xenophon (Mem. 2.1.34; Symp. 2.26), as well as in
lokheios ‘place of childbirth’ Plato's early work (Ap. 17¢1).
The word rhéma acquired a technical-gram-
matical meaning in its usage by philosophers
and doublets such as the following:
and, subsequently, by (professional) grammar-
ians, through a two-fold process: (a) by being
agelaios agélaios ‘belonging ta a herd’ contrasted with other terms; (b) by being ana-
mesaios mesaios ‘middle (adj.)’ lyzed from the point of view of its semantic-
tukhaios tükhaios ‘accidental logical contribution to the sentence (lögos)
geloios géloias ‘amusing’ (+ Sentence/Utterance (lögos), Ancient Theories
homoios hömoivos ‘similar’ of; > Sentence).
This process can be traced in the writings
Finally, we sometimes find the Jaw operating of Plato and Aristotle which refer to language.
exceptionally on words with a long vowel in the Plato, who most often uses rhéma with the gen-
antepenult: eral meaning of ‘saying, + utterance’, presents
the first specialized application of the term in his
douleios ‘slavish’ dialogue Cratylus. His starting point is that, just
théreios ‘of wild beasts’ as we combine letters or ‘elements’ (stoikhela)
oneideios ‘reproachful’ into + syllables, we make up two kinds of words
khéneios ‘of or belonging to a goose’ (viz. nouns and verbs) by combining syllables,
khrüseios ‘golden’ and, at a further stage, we combine nouns and
verbs in order to constitute ‘something great
and fair and complete’ (Crat. 425a). In this pas-
BIBLIOGRAPHY sage, önoma and rhéma are viewed as proposi-
Allen, W. Sidney. 1973. Accent und rhythm, prosodic features tional correlates. This idea, repeated further on
of Latin and Greek: a study on theory and recenstruction.
Cambridge,
in Cratylus (431b-c), receives its syntactic and
Bally, Charles. 1945. Manuel d’accentuation grecque. Bern. logical grounding in Plato's Sophist, where Plato
Devine, A. M. and L. D. Stephens. 1994. The prosody of Greek achieves two things: (a) he defines the distribu-
speech. Oxford - New York. tion between önoma and rhéma, the latter serv-
Meier-Brügger, Michael. igg2. Griechische Sprachwissen-
schaft. 2, Wortschatz, Formenlehre, Lautlehre. Berlin - ing to express the idea of an action (Sophist 262a:
New York. ‘the indication which relates to action we may
Probert, Philomen, 2000, Ancient Greek accentuation: call a verb’), whereas the dnoma is the linguis-
synchronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory, tic term used to designate those who execute
Oxford — New York.
Vendryes, Joseph. 1905. "L’accent de &ywye et la loi des pro- an action; (b) he points out the necessity of a
périspomeénes en attique", MSL 139:218-224. (meaningful) basic linkage between an dnoma
and a rhéma, Plato uses the term ‘primary bind-
IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ ALFAGEME
ing’ (pröte sumploké) in order to refer to this link-
age between the two propositional correlates.
Truth and falsehood arise when there is a correct
Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of or incorrect linkage between a particular önoma
(or a conjunction of onömata) and a rh&ma: the
The original, non-technical meaning of rhema, correctness or incorrectness of the linkage is not
from its earliest attestations in the > lonic and
to be understood in terms of syntactic congruity,
46n VERS (AHEMA), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
but in terms of conformity or disaccord with
the state of affairs referred to. This crucial pas-
sage of Plato's Sophist does not offer conclusive
evidence for translating rhéma as ‘verb’, Plato's
examples involve the combination of a proper
name (serving to illustrate the propositional unit
called dnoma) and a finite verb (serving to illus-
trate the rkéma unit); therefore, the two senten-
tial correlates önoma and rhéma should perhaps
be translated as ‘+ subject’ [of the utterance]
and ‘predicate’ or ‘predicative expression’ [of the
utterance] (+ Predicative Constituents).
Aristotle marks the next stage in the devel-
opment of rhéma as a technical term. In his
Categories (4, ıb25-2a1o) he gives examples of
finite and infinite (viz. participial (> Participle;
+ Participles (Morphological Aspects of))) verb
forms, in order to illustrate four distinct cat-
egories: (a) being in a position (examples: ‘is
lying’, ‘is sitting’); (b) having [something] (exam-
ples: ‘has shoes on’, ‘has armour on’); (c) doing/
acting (examples: ‘cutting’, ‘burning’); (d)
undergoing/being affected (examples: ‘being
cut‘, ‘being burned’). In his Peri Herméneias (= De
Interpretatione), Aristotle starts with mentioning
énoma and rhema as preliminary definienda for
the discussion of + negation, affirmation, stare-
ment and sentence. He defines the réma in the
following terms: “A rhéma is what in addition
signifies > time, (with) no part of it being signifi-
cant separately; and it is always a sign of things
said of something else" (Int. 16b6-12). While
adopting a proposition-based approach, Aristo-
tle goes beyond Plato in two ways: (i) by distin-
guishing the rhéma from the önoma in terms of
what is ‘co-signified’: the rhéma additionally sig-
nifies time; in Aristotle the term rhéma therefore
is endowed with (secondary) time-reference; (ii)
by explicitly assigning to the verb its correla-
tive function; the verb is the sign of what is said
about a subject.
Aristotle thus marks the transition from a gen-
eral discursive-semantic use of the term rhema
(as in Plato's Sophist) to a morpho-semantic
and ‘classematic’ use of the notion. This is even
clearerin his Poetics (ch. 20), where (a) the notion
of utterance is no longer necessarily defined by
the linking of a noun (or proper name) and a
verb; (b) at least four types of word-units are
recognized: sundesmos, drthron, önoma, rhéma,
the latter being defined in the following way: “A
verb is a composite significant sound with [indi-
cation of] time, no part of which signifies on its
own, just as is the case with ondmata” (Poet. 20,
1457214-16). Aristotle then proceeds to speak of
the ptöseis of ondmate and rhémata: these ‘inflec-
tions’ (> Inflectional Classes) are structural units
that mark a secondary category incident to the
noun or to the verb, in order to express a modifi-
cation of their content-in-isolation. Three types
of ptösis are illustrated in the Poetics (ch. 20):
(1) syntactic dependency-relationships (marked
by nominal cases (+ Case (ptösis), Ancient Theo-
ries of )); (2) semantic-referential determination
of lexical terms (singular vs. plural, but + num-
ber opposition is only illustrated for the noun);
(3) modality imposition on the content of a verb
(or of a proposition, since it is not clear from the
context whether Aristotle thought of modalities
as being ‘cases’ of the [unmarked] indicative
forms, or cases of the noetical content expressed
in the proposition). “A ptösis ‘inflection’ of a
noun or verb is either (a) the inflection accord-
ing to the part that signifies ‘of him', 'for him’,
etc., or (b) the inflection according to the part
that signifies ‘one’ or ‘many’, e.g. ‘person’ or ‘per-
sons’, or (c) the inflection according to the [oral]
delivery, e.g. according to whether it is a ques-
tion or an order; for ‘did he walk’? or ‘walk’! is an
inflection of the verb according to these kinds”
(Poet. 20, 1457a18—23).
The Stoic doctrine of the rhéma, as far as it
can be reconstructed from preserved fragmen-
tary passages and from doxographical descrip-
tions (cf. book VIi of Diogenes Laertius’ Vitae
philosophorum), adopted a morphosyntactic
view: rhéma is defined as a word class (more
precisely, as one of the five parts of speech [mere
tot lögou] (+ Word Classes (méré toü lögou),
Ancient Theories of) recognized by the Stoics),
signifying a categorematic content and used to
express something that can be said of one or
several subjects. "A rhéma is, according to Dio-
genes of Babylon, a part of speech signifying
an isolated (unbound) predicate, or, as others
define it, an undeclined (i.e., having no cases)
part of a sentence, signifying something that can
be attached to one or more subjects; e.g. “J write’,
I speak’” (Diog. Laert. VII 58). The Stoic interest
in the morphological properties of the rhéma is
evident from their detailed description of the
temporal(-aspectual) (+ Aspect (and Tense))
layers expressed by verb forms.
in the philological context of Alexandrian text-
exegetical activities, in the course of the 3rd-
2nd c. BCE, grammar became an autonomous
 VERB (RHEMA), ANCIENT THEORLES OF
discipline, and the clearly organized presen-
tation of a narrowly conceived grammatical
doctrine was achieved through a tradition of
‘manualistic’ treatment, the prototype of which
was the Tékhné grammatike of Dionysius Thrax,
a manual whose origins can be traced back to
the kernel ofthe Alexandrian doctrine, as it was
already constituted in the and c. BCE, but also a
textbook which, in a long process of transmis-
sion, adaptation, and translation laid the foun-
dations of the Western ‘Word-and-Paradigm’
model of grammar.
In the Alexandrian doctrine, the rhéma
one of the 8 parts of speech (next to: noun,
article, + pronoun, participle, + adverb, preposi-
tion (+ Adpositions (Prepositions)), conjunction
(> Conjunctions (Subordinating); + Conjunc-
tions (Non-Subordinating))); it is defined by
(a) its (extant and absent) morphological fea-
tures, (b) its (general) meaning (with a biparti-
tion reflecting the opposition between ~ active
and passive diathesis (+ Passive (morphology);
+ Passive (syntax))). “A verb is a word without
cases, accepting tenses, persons, numbers, and
signifying an activity or an undergoing. There
are eight accidences of the verb: moods (+ Mood
and Modality), diatheses (-- Diathesis (didthe-
sis), Ancient Theories of; - Diathesis/Voice
(Morphology of)), species, figures (> Figures
(skhémata), Ancient Theories of}, numbers, per-
sons, tenses, conjugation classes” (Dion. Thrax
46,4-4712).
This gives way to a ‘staircase’ account and
memorization scheme of the verb:
Level A: the general word class status
L the general scheme and the definition of the
Level B: the grammatical categories ['accidents’]
affecting the word class in question
L cide in defining verbum as a word class which
Level C: lists of realizations of the accidents
[with, occasionally, examples |
This is what we find in the transmitted text
of the Tékhne: “There are, then, five moods:
indicative, + imperative, + optative, subjunc-
tive (> Subjunctive (Morphology of)), infinitive
(+ Infinitives (Morphology of); — Infinitives
(Syntax)). There are three diatheses: active, pas-
sive, > middle. |...] There are two species, pri-
mary and derived. [...] There are three figures:
461
simple, compound, decompound. [...] There are
three numbers: singular, + dual, plural (+ Plural/
Pluralia Tantum). [...] There are three persons:
first, second, third. The first [is the one] from
whom the discourse [comes], the second [is
the one] to whom discourse [goes], the third
[is the one] about whom the discourse [evolves].
There are three tenses: + present, past, future"
(Dion. Thrax 47,3-53,4). The conjugation classes
are not defined: they are established on the basis
of formal properties.
The short ‘manualistic’ presentation of the
is verb in the Tékhné reflects the generally admit-
ted definition and characterization of the verb
throughout the later Alexandrian tradition, as
illustrated by the fragmentarily preserved works
of authors such as Tyrannion, Diocles and Try-
phon, all active in the ıst c. BCE, and especially
by the comprehensive, and theoretically and
methodologically incisive writings of Apollonius
Dyscolus (2nd c. CE), which mark the exten-
sion of grammar towards the level of construc-
tion (‘syntax’) between words. However, as is
clear from Apollonius Dyscolus’ definition of the
verb, the general description, and the descrip-
tive frame, of the rkéma remained unaltered:
“The verb is a part of speech which, by means
of special inflections, exhibits different tenses,
in the active or passive or middle voice, as well
as persons and numbers, while it also indicates
the affections/states/dispositions of the mind”
(Apoll. Dysc. Fragm. 70,28-71,1). In book III of
his preserved treatise On Syntax, Apollonius dis-
cusses the illocutionary force of modalized verb
forms.
In the transmission to the Roman world, both
word classes (with the dropping of the article,
and the addition of the - interjection) were
maintained. The Latin artes grammaticae coin-
(a) is characterized by a number of features
(figure, number, person, tense, mood, etc.), and
(b) which expresses either an action or (the)
undergoing (of an action).
In modern ‘functional’ linguistics, the term
rhema {or 'rheme‘) has received, especially
within the theory of ‘Functional Sentence Per-
spective’, a new theoretical status, in combi-
nation with the corresponding term thema (or
‘theme’): the rhema designates that part of the
utterance/sentence which contains new infor-
mation for the hearer/reader, with respect to
462 VERS (RHEMA), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
the thema, concerning which a certain degree of
knowledge is shared by the speech participants
(either deriving from the speech context or from
the preceding discursive exchange, i.e., the co-
text). The textual-discursive thema-rhema rela-
tionship is also referred to as a topic-comment
relationship (> Functional Grammar and Greek;
+ Topic).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Basset, Louis. 1994. "Platon et la distinction nom/verbe”. In:
Les classes de mols, Traditions et perspectives, ed, by Louis
Basset and Marcel Pérennec, 47-65. Lyon.
Bertagna, Maria I. 2006. "All’origine del valore tecnico di
rhéma: Platone”. In: Esegesi letteraria e riflessione sulla
lingua nella cultura greca, ed. by Graziano Arrighetti and
Mauro Tulli, 89-112, Pisa,
IIoekstra, Marieke and Frank Scheppers. 2003. “Onoma,
rhöma ei logos dans le Cratyle et le Sophiste de Platan,
Analyse du lexique et analyse du discours”, L’Antiquite
Classique 72:55-73.
Spina, Luigi. 2001. “Intorno a 'rhema'”. In: Metalangage et
terminologie linguistique. Actes du colloque international
de Grenoble (Université Stendhal, Grenoble IN, 14-16
mal 1998), ed. by Bernard Colombat and Marie Savelli,
253-264. Leuven — Paris.
Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters. 2002. "Grammati-
cal theary in Aristotle's Poetics”, In: Grammatical theory
und philosophy of language in antiquity, ed. by Pierre
Swiggers and Alfons Wouters, 101-120. Leuven - Paris —
Sterling.
Tempesti, Anna M. 1982. "Da 'rhema’ a 'verbum', Contributo
alla storia di una definizione”, Studi e ricerche 5163-197.
ALFONS WOUTERS
PIERRE SWIGGENS
Verb Phrase
1. VERB PHRASE: A DEFINITION
At a syntactic level, a phrase can be defined as
made up of one or more words corresponding
to a single unit in the sentence and, conse-
quently, forming a constituent (any node plus
all the nodes that it dominates). The head of the
phrase is the word which assigns the grammati-
cal features characteristic of the phrase itself,
whereas the other elements are its dependents,
ie. arguments (phrases which are required to
occur with the head) and + adjuncts (optional
phrases expressing information like instrument,
location, manner and time).
A verb phrase (henceforth, VP) is a phrase
headed by a + verb. The traditional descrip-
tion of the VP in linguistics is based on English:
following this description, illustrated here in
simple terms, the VP may be constructed from
a single verb, or it may contain: (i) the auxiliary
which precedes the verbal head; (ii) arguments,
optional specifiers and adjuncts, like preposi-
tional phrases and adverbial phrases.
From a theoretical point of view, the useful-
ness of the category of VP in Greek is disputed.
In the following sections, we will examine some
aspects of the Greek syntax which seem to pro-
vide evidence against or in favor of the syntactic
relevance of the category of VP in this language.
In other words, we will try to find syntactic clues
of the fact that in Greek finite verbs and their
objects, primarily, form a constituent function-
ing as a single syntactic unit. As to how non-
finite verbs (> infinitives and > participles) can
be interpreted in this respect, this is a complex
issue which cannot be treated here (+ Argument
Clause),
2, SYNTACTIC CONSTITUENTS:
WORD ORDER AND DISCONTINUITY
The first and, in some respects, main problem-
atic issue with regard to the identification of the
category of VP in Greek is represented by + word
order: as is well-known, this language is charac-
terized by freedom of word order. In particular,
the verb has been described as the element of
the clause which shows “la plus grande mobilité”
(Humbert 1960:92), with the consequence that
“il ne semble point avoir une place ot il se
complaise. Il en résulte qu’il peut étre précédé
aussi bien que suivi de son objet, précédé aussi
bien que suivi par les participes qui expriment
des circonstances accessoires de l’action ver-
bale” (Humbert 1960:96). In other words, Greek
exhibits every possible order of the verb and its
complement(s): for instance, focusing on the
direct object, both OV and VO are attested (stud-
ies based on statistical analysis have reached
different results with regard to which of the two
orders has to be considered as predominant: cf.
Taylor 1994).
However, what is more relevant to our topic
is the fact that the verb and its direct object
may be separated by other elements appearing
in the same clause. This has been considered as
the main obstacle to admitting the syntactic rel-
evance of the VP in Greek. An example is the fol-
lowing, where the noun functioning as a subject
(Periandros) is located between the direct object
and the verb (from Taylor 1994:7):
 VERB PHRASE
(1) epette gar ten heöutoü gunaika Melissan
Periandros apekteine
‘For after Periander had killed his own wife
Melissa’ (Hdt. 3.50)
In other words, if we admit that the category of
VP is relevant to syntactic processes in Greek,
we should also recognize that permutation of
constituents is allowed, and try to explain why
this type of phrase may be discontinuous.
This approach is followed, for instance, in
Morrel (1989): on the basis of X-bar theory, she
assumed that “the basic structure of Greek con-
sists of an Imax node that will accommodate a
subject noun phrase followed by a Vmax pro-
jection that is headed by a verb form” (Morrel
1989:14), where Xmax represents the maximal
projection of the head and the highest node of a
given phrase. In other words, the VP is described
as consisting of the verb, which is the head,
whereas the complement of this first node is
represented by the object position. In Morrel's
opinion (1989:14-30), what confirms this are sta-
tistical surveys showing a clear preference for
Subject-Verb (SV) over Verb-Subject (VS) order-
ing, and references to word order by ancient
commentators who were native speakers, which
sustain the idea that the underlying structure of
Greek was fundamentally SV(O), although this
structure may greatly diverge from the surface
structure (Morrel 1989:30).
Processes of movement during the delta
phase should be invoked in order to explain
the freedom of ward order, which is only appar-
ent (Morrel 1989:16). An interesting example
is the following, where the head of the VP is
in sentence-initial position, in order to express
emphasis, and precedes both the subject noun
phrase and the object noun phrase, marked as a
+ genitive (from Morrel 1989:138; cf. also exam-
ples in section 5.a.):
(2) thaumazo de égoge tes tölmes tot adelphou
kai tés dianoias
‘l am astounded at the shameless spirit
shown by my brother’ (Antiph. 1.28)
Morrel (1989) also notes that within the corpus
on which her analysis is based, “in comparison
with the number of fronting processes that move
a single minimal or maximal projection to the
first specifier position, fronting processes that
move elements beyond the first specifier posi-
463
tion occur far less frequently” (1989:139). In her
opinion, this happens in order to avoid syntactic
discontinuity, and is particularly interesting in
light of the fact that discontinuous phrases are
allowed in Greek, since this is consistent with
its rich inflectional system. However, “the fact
that elements move far more often in man-
ners that preserve syntactical continuity than in
ways that create discontinuity is strong evidence
for the premise that constituency and hierar-
chical structure play a fundamental role in the
language” (Morrel 1989139). According to this
analysis, movements to the third and fourth
specifier positions, which create highly discon-
tinuous syntactic structures, are comparatively
much less frequent (1989:149), in order to pre-
serve constituency and hierarchical structuring.
As mentioned above, some scholars do not
share this type of approach. Instead, they claim
that freedom of word order and discontinuity
are those features which unequivocally suggest
that Greek lacks a VP, as will be shown in the
next section.
3. GREEK AS A NON-CONFIGURATIONAL
LANGUAGE?
In generative grammar, a distinction has been
proposed between configurational and non-
configurational languages: “the term noncon-
figurational implies that the language has a
rather flat (as opposed to hierarchical) phrase
structure. In the most highly nonconfigurational
languages, there is little or no evidence for the
verb phrase as a syntactic constituent, and there
are no subject-object asymmetries that require
a structural explanation” (Devine & Stephens
1999142), Apart from lacking a VP, non-con-
figurational languages may have the following
properties, among others:
Extremely free word order
Syntactically discontinuous elements
t
Complex case system
Lack of expletives
Null anaphora
It must be said that the distinction between
these two types of languages is not unanimously
accepted nowadays, not even within the genera-
tive framework. Moreover, it has been noted that
languages which are clearly configurational may
share some properties with non-configurational
464 VERS
languages, whereas languages which apparently
are non-configurational may show syntactic
traces of a VP.
As already pointed out in section 2, Greek
has a rich case system and a free word order;
moreover, apart from the existence of differ-
ent possible word order patterns between verb,
direct object and adjuncts (i.e., the hypothetical
constituents of the VP}, we find cases of dis-
continuous noun phrases (+ Noun Phrase) and
adpositional phrases (> Adpositional Phrase).
Furthermore, a special instance of discontinuity
in Greek is represented by + hyperbaton (cf. sec-
tion 3.a.), which, from a cross-linguistic point of
view, appears to be related to the other syntac-
tic features proper to non-configurational lan-
guages (Devine & Stephens 1999:142). Mainly on
the basis of these considerations, Greek has been
described as a non-configurational language:
Taylor (1988) was the first ta assume that Greek
has gradually changed from non-configurational
to configurational.
Devine and Stephens (1999:142-ı53) also
assumed that certain features of Greek syntax,
well attested in particularin Homeric Greek and
presumably of Indo-European origin (+ Indo-
European Linguistic Background), document the
non-configurational nature of the language at an
earlier stage. Apart from free word order and
discontinuity, associated with hyperbaton, these
features are: the absence of articles, the par-
ticular use of prepositions (i.e., their occurring
as adverbs, disjoined by their complements) and
the paratactic nature of Homeric syntax, shared
by Vedic and Germanic poetry, which resembles
the fact that non-configurational languages pre-
fer phrasal juxtaposition for conjunction and
disjunction (Devine & Stephens 1999:147-148).
More precisely, Devine and Stephens (1999:151)
hypothesized that “what we can reconstruct from
survivals in Homer is probably a not so extreme
version of nonconfigurationality, in which some
arguments are admitted into the nuclear phrase
and others are adjuncts, and some modifiers are
integrated and others are paratactic”.
3.a. Hyperbaton
By definition, hyperbaton takes place when the
subconstituents of a noun phrase are not contin-
uous to one another, but are interspersed with
other elements of the clause. In the normal type
of hyperbaton (Y, hyperbaton), one can note the
extraction of an adjective referred to the object
PHRASE
taken by the verb, As pointed out in the pre-
ceding section, following Devine and Stephens
(1999) the phenomenon of the hyperbaton, as
is documented in Homeric Greek, represents a
trace of the prehistoric (Indo-European) non-
configurational syntax. As they state, in Homer
“a single noun could easily form a phrase with
the verb, but a more complex structure like
noun plus adjective or noun plus noun (+ coor-
dination) would run into greater resistance. One
way of handling a modified lexical argument in
a single sentence would be to allow the noun
to form a phrase with the verb and leave the
paratactic modifier in adjunct position" (Devine
& Stephens 1999:151). As compared to Homeric
Greek, Classical Greek presents a partly different
state of affairs: whereas in poetry Y, hyperbaton
is still attested in a non-configurational form, its
occurrences in prose document an intermediate
stage from a non-configurational to a configura-
tional syntax (Devine & Stephens 1999:203).
More precisely, in Classical Greek, the superh-
cial discontinuity caused by hyperbaton implies
that the VP is unordered, but not necessarily
that it does not exist: indeed, although syntactic
discontinuity given to premodifier hyperbaton
“may at first sight appear to be a particularly
strong indication of flat unstructured serial word
order” (Devine & Stephens 1999:3), a deeper
investigation of the Greek data reveals “consis-
tent cross-categorial patterning for premodifters
in both discontinuous and continuous phrases,
which clearly calls for a phrase structural
account” (1999:3).
In particular, following Devine and Stephens
(1999), Y, hyperbaton performs a pragmatic
function in terms of focus marking: the modi-
fer is placed in a left position, different from
its usual position in the noun phrase, since it
has strong focus, whereas the noun referred to
represents tail material. Compare the following
occurrences of the (object) noun phrase pdsan
ten pölin ‘all the city’ (from Devine & Stephens
1999113):
(3) idan d' édikékéta ... päsan ten pölin
‘When | discovered that he had defrauded
all the city’ (Dem. Or. 24.8)
(4) ou gar esti dikaion ten men khärin, he päsan
éblapte ten pölin, tots tite theisin hupdrkhein
‘It is not fair that those legislators should
enjoy a popularity that injured all the city’
(Dem. Or. 3.13)
 VERE PHRASE
In the first example, the verb precedes the adjec-
tive and the object noun phrase, in the second
the adjective (päsan) is focused on by means of
hyperbaton, and precedes both the verb (éb/apte)
and the direct object (ten pölin).
There is another type of hyperbaton (Y,
hyperbaton), where it is the direct object which
precedes both the adjective referred to it and
the verb. Also Y, hyperbaton has a specific prag-
matic function: the noun can be a weak focus or
a topic, whereas the adjective normally repre-
sents a weak focus. In both types of hyperbaton,
an additional element or adjunct can be placed
internally or externally to the structure. I quote
an example illustrating an Y, hyperbaton where
the adjunct (es to Argos ‘to Argos’) appears inside
the structure (from Devine & Stephens 1999:89):
(5) -..aphikömenoi es Tegean légous proupem-
pon es té Argos xumbaterious
‘(The Lacedaemonians] arriving at Tegea
sent on to Argos proposals of accommoda-
tion’ (Thuc. 5.76)
The evolution from a non-configurational
(Homeric) syntax to a configurational syntax
can be considered as completely achieved in
the Greek of the + New Testament (Devine &
Stephens 1999:203; cf. also Palmer 1995).
3.b. Lack of Expletives and Null Anaphora
Greek lacks expletives in syntactic contexts
where they typically appear in configura-
tional languages, as with impersonal verbs (for
instance, with weather verbs and impersonal
passives; ~ Impersonal Verbs/Constructions).
Moreover, it extensively shows a feature gener-
ally attributed to non-configurational languages,
the so-called > null anaphora, i.e., omission of
pronominal arguments.
In principle, the phenomenon of null objects
in Greek may be regarded as evidence against
the existence ofa VP. Indeed, the — direct object
of transitive verbs (+ Transitivity) can be omit-
ted also when it refers to a definite antecedent,
which is not necessarily a direct object.
Luraghi (2003) has examined this phenom-
enon in depth, by focusing on null objects
which are definite and referential (henceforth
NOs). This is illustrated as follows (from Luraghi
20037167):
465
(6) toisi dé dexidn héken eröidiön engüs hodoio
Pallas Athenaie: toi d’ouk idon ophthaimoisi
nukta di’ orphnaién, alla klanxantos dkousan.
‘Athena sent them a heron tu the right of
their route: they could not see it in the
dark night, but heard it screaming,’ (Hom. Hl.
10.274-276)
In example (6), the direct object (eröidiön) is
shared by the verbs (heken, {don and akousan) of
the three subsequent clauses, but is mentioned
only in the first. Indeed, in the other two clauses
we find an instance of definite NOs (as observed
by Luraghi 2003, pronominal objects are neces-
sary in English in order to make the translation
correct from a grammatical point of view).
In Greek, the omission of the definite direct
object may be discourse conditioned - i.e., the
direct object is omitted if it is recoverable from
the preceding mentions of the referent or, more
generally, from the textual context — or it may
be syntactically conditioned. By focusing on the
last case, there are three contexts in which the
omission of the direct object is conditioned by
the syntactic context, with the result of its being
obligatory:
i. Conjunction participles governed by a verb
ferm with which they share the same subject
and the same object: both are expressed only
once.
ii. Coordination: in two or more coordinated
clauses linked by coordinating conjunctions
(especially by kai), the shared direct object
is expressed only once, i.e., in the first clause.
Some examples may simply be interpreted
as cases of VP coordination, characterized
by the reduction of a part of the VP itself, as
may happen in English. In other examples,
however, two distinct coordinated clauses are
found (from Luraghi 2003:179):
(7) kalmin Athénatoi demosieite éthapsan auton
téi per épese kai etimésan megälös
‘The Athenians buried him at public expense
on the spot where he fell and gave him much
honor’ (Hdt. 1.30)
In a case like (7), we could not say that the VP
is reduced: indeed, the omission of the direct
object (min) would be impossible in a language
like English.
466 VERB PHRASE
iii. Yes/no questions: as a rule, the object which
is coreferential with the direct object men-
tioned in the question is omitted in the
answer. As a consequence, often this consists
of the sole verb. I will come back to this point
in section 5.c.
4. WHAT IS EVIDENCE FOR THE
EXISTENCE OF A YP IN GREEK?
Although the phenomena examined so far may
be recognized as formal signs of non-configu-
rationality in Greek, they do not provide incon-
trovertible evidence of its lacking a VP. To sum
up, firstly, the idea that discontinuous phrases
were not constituents in Greek has no explana-
tory force: indeed, “free word order could arise
as a result of pragmatically driven movement
from an underlying configurational structure”
(Devine & Stephens 19991143), which is true also
for discontinuity (cf. sections 2 and 3). Second,
even if we admit that Homeric Greek preserves
traces of a non-configurational syntax, things
are partly different in Classical Greek (cf. sec-
tion 3.a.). Third, there are other phenomena in
Greek which, on the contrary, seem to prove the
syntactic relevance of the VP.
According to Morrel (1989), for instance,
interesting results can be reached by looking
at intrusions, ie. parenthetical expressions
{including the vocative) which interrupt the
expected syntactical hierarchy of a sentence.
By definition, intrusions “show a distinct prefer-
ence for appearing at ‘major’ structural bound-
aries, Intrusions tend to come at the boundary
of a ‘major’ maximal projection” (1989:56). The
data from Morrel's corpus show that intrusions
in Greek often mark the boundaries of verb
phrases as distinct from noun phrases with the
function of subject. An example is the follow-
ing, where the intrusive apostrophe (4 ändres)
appears between the subject and the VP (from
Morrel 1989:58):
(8) He de pallaké tot Philöneö ten sponden
hama enkhéousa ekeinois eukhoménois hä
ouk émelle teleisthai, 6 andres, enékhei to
pharmakon
‘But Philoneos’ mistress, who poured the
wine for the libation, while the men offered
their prayers - prayers never to be answered,
gentlemen — poured in the poison with it’
(Antiph, 1.19)
In the next section we shall briefly examine
some constituency tests for identifying a VP in
Greek.
5. CONSTITUENCY TESTS FOR
IDENTIFYING A VP
Constituency tests can be defined as a diagnostic
means for identifying the constituent structures
of a sentence, i.e., phrases, in a given language. In
the relevant literature, various constituency tests
have been proposed, mainly on the basis of Eng-
lish. Some of them may be applied to Greek, and
they seem to provide evidence for the syntactic
relevance of the VP. The passivization test, for
instance, is easily applicable to Greek, where, as
is well-known, the object of an active verb may
be changed into the subject of the correspond-
ing passive verb (- Passive (Syntax), + Passive
(Morphology)): consequently, on the basis of
this test, the verb and the direct object may form
a constituent. In this respect, Greek differs from
non-configurational languages, which, in prin-
ciple, lack a transformational passive.
Significant results may be obtained also by
applying the coordination test, which is based
on the assumption that only constituents can
be coordinated. As pointed out by Morrel
(1989:40-55), in particular, the conjunction te
functions as a delimiting element for conjoined
phrase structures (+ Coordination (includes
Asyndeton)) and can, thus, be interpreted as
an “indicator of constituency” (1989755). In the
following example (from Morrel 1989:50), for
instance, te delimits the VP the head of which is
mekhanöntai, and separates it from the second
VP (paraskeudzousin):
(9) ou gar dépou martürön g' enantion hoi
epibouletiontes tous thandtous toisi pélas
mekhanöntai te kal paraskeudzousin
‘Those who plot the death of their neighbors
do not, I believe, form their plans and make
their preparations in front of witnesses’
(Antiph. 1.28)
Three other tests are particularly relevant to our
case: (a) topicalization; (b) pro-form substitu-
tion; (c) question test. I will briefly examine each
of them in turn.
 VERE PHRASE
5.a. Topicalization
If in a given language a sequence of words may
be moved to the front of the sentence in order
to be topicalized, this may be considered as a
clue that such words form a constituent in that
language.
In Greek the verb and its complement(s) may
be topicalized: in this case the subject occupies
the (marked) final position. Some examples are
quoted here belonging to different chronologi-
cal stages of the language (from Taylor 1994:9;
on Mycenaean (+ Mycenaean Script and Lan-
guage), cf. Panagl 1999):
(10) all ei men dösousi geras megdthumoi
Akhaiot
‘But if the great-hearted Achaians would
give me a prize’ (Hom. /. 1.135)
épempsan gar de pentakosias mnéas
arguriou hoi Kurénaioi
‘The Cyreneans sent 500 minas of silver’
(Hdt. 3.13)
hös de ékousan tous lögous totitous hö te
strategös toit hieroü kai hoi arkhiereis
‘When the captain of the temple and the
chief priests heard these words’ (Acts 5.24)
5.b. Pro-Form Substitution: do so-Test
To apply the pro-form substitution test implies
to replace the (presupposed) constituent by
means of pronominalization, i.e. with a pro-
form like a pronoun. A special instance of it is
represented by the do so-test: if the verb and
its complement(s) may be substituted by a pro-
form like do so, one can infer that the verb and
such complement(s) form a constituent, ie. a
VP. This test may be indirectly applied to Greek,
by examining the occurrences of do so-phrases
in the second clause, in order to avoid the repeti-
tion of the verb attested in the first clause (this
use is more frequent in prose than in poetry).
The application of this test shows that a do so-
phrase substitutes the whole VP, but cannot be
referred to the whole preceding clause. A clear
example is the following, where todto poiésd sub-
stitutes the VP eröteson autous, with a change in
the subject and in the grammatical features of
tense, aspect and mood (+ Mood and Modality,
~ Tense/Aspect):
(13) ei d’apisteis, eröteson autous, mällon d’ego
toüth' huper sou poiesö
467
‘If you doubt my word, ask them; or rather
| will do it instead of you’ (Dem. Or. 18.52)
5.c. Question Test
The question test is usually applied in order to
verify the constituency of a VP, by testing the
ability of a series of words to stand alone in the
answer to a given question. As already men-
tioned in section 3.b., in the answers to yes/no
questions, the direct object is generally omitted
if it is coreferential with the object mentioned
before. | quote an example illustrating how the
answer may be represented by the verb alone
(from Luraghi 20031183):
(14) - thömen olin boulei, éphé, dio eidé tan
öntön, ta men horatön, to de aidés?
— thömen, Ephe.
- 'Now, shall we assume two kinds of exis-
tence — said he -, one visible, the other
invisible?’
— ‘Let us assume them - said (Cebes).’ (Pl.
Phd. 79a)
Following Luraghi (2003183-184), omission of
the direct object can be explained as due to syn-
tactic constraints only in part: indeed, it rather
can be interpreted as a strategy linked to a
relevance principle, since it allows one to make
the answer shorter and to limit the repetition
of the question to the most relevant part of the
information.
In this respect, it is interesting to note that
the direct object is not the only syntactic ele-
ment which may be omitted. Any part of the VP
can be deleted, including the verb (from Luraghi
2003184):
(15) — tata é tf erodmen?
- taüta ne Dia, 6 Sökrates.
- ‘Shall we say that, or what?’
- ‘That is what we shall say, by Zeus,
Socrates.’ (Pl. Crit. 50c)
In (15), where we have a disjunctive question,
the answer is made up of the only direct object,
without any verb. Similarly, in (16), only the
indirect object required by the unexpressed verb
(dokef) is mentioned:
(16) - kai moi lege; doke? ti soi einai hippou
ergon?
- émoige.
468 VERB PHRASE
~ ‘Tell me then: would you say that a horse
has a specific work or function?’
— ‘I would. (Pl. Resp. 352d8-eı)
It is worth noting that the omission of syntactic
elements may take place in replies to all kinds of
questions, as illustrated below:
(17) if toitto legeis?
t
empeirian égagé tina.
|
“What thing do you mean?'
‘| mean a certain habitude. (Pl. Grg.
|
462c2-3)
In (17), only the subject and the direct object are
mentioned in the answer, whereas the verb is
omitted.
In conclusion, the question test does not give
positive results in the search for syntactic evi-
dence of the existence of the VP in Greek. How-
ever, by means of a deep investigation of the
answers to yes/no questions it is possible to see
that “often they contain a constituent only, or a
part of it, which has the highest communicative
dynamism in the question, and conveys the most
relevant part of the information questioned”
(Luraghi 2003183).
In other words, the deletion of the object as
well as of the verb or of other syntactic elements
in this special type of sentence does not allow us
to identify a VP in Greek, but it does not prove
its non-existence, since it can be interpreted as
pragmatically determined.
6. SuBjEcT/OBJECT ASYMMETRIES IN
GREEK
Apart from the tests examined so far, there is
an interesting aspect of Greek morpho-syntax
which could be relevant to our topic. It is usually
assumed that in languages lacking a VP there is
no structural divergence between subject and
object; on the contrary, in configurational lan-
guages, one expects to find subject-object asym-
metries. By focusing on Greek, traces of such
subject-object asymmetries may be found in
some verbal compounds.
First of all, an interesting case is represented
by verbs in -é6, in which a nominal form pre-
cedes the predicate, as in androktoneö ‘to slay
men’, karpologeö ‘to gather fruit’, oinometreö ‘to
measure out wine’, paidopoiéd ‘to beget chil-
dren (of men); to bear children (of women)’. In
these forms, based on a process which resem-
bles syntactic incorporation (cf. Pompei 2006),
the first element generally corresponds to the
direct object taken by the verb, but cannot cor-
respond to the subject. This is consistent with
the hypothesis that only the object, as opposed
to the subject, is governed by the verb, since it
is part of a VP. Considering that also adjuncts
may be part of the VP, it is equally consistent
that, among verbs in -é6, there are compounds
in which the first element corresponds to a com-
plement expressing instrument (kerodomeö ‘to
build with wax’), location (hulomakheö ‘to fight
in the woods’), or having a comitative value
(androkeitéd ‘to sleep with a man’).
Asimilar phenomenon takes place with verbal
adjectives in -to-: in those which are compounds,
the first nominal element cannot correspond
to the subject. It rather corresponds to a direct
object (aigibötos ‘feeding goats’, odunéphatos
‘killing pain’) or to a different complement
(douriktetös ‘won by the spear’); it may also be
an adverb referred to the action (eupo/étos ‘well-
made’, polüplanktos ‘much-wandering’).
In conclusion, these kinds of subject/object
asymmetries involving the process of composi-
tion seem to offer indirect, although significant,
support to the existence of a VP in Greek.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crespo, Emilio. 1997. “Sintaxis de los elementos de relaciön
en griego cldsico”. In: Actas del IX cangresa esparlal de
estudios cläsicos, 3-42. Madrid,
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 1999. Discon-
tinuous syntax. Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford.
Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik. zo06. From case to adposi-
tion. The development of configurational syntax in Indo-
European languages. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Humbert, Jean. 1960, Syntaxe grecque. Paris.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. “The rise of positional licensing". In:
Parameters of morphosyntactic change, ed. by Ans van
Kemenade and Nigel Vincent, 460-494. Cambridge.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. “Definite referential null objects in
Ancient Greek", /F 198n69-196.
Morrel, Kenneth &. i989. Studies nn the phrase structure of
early Attic prose. Ann Arbor.
Palmer, Michael. iggs. Levels af constituent structure in New
Testament Greek, New York — Bern.
Panagl, Oswald. 1999. “Beobachtungen zur mykenischen
Syntax”, In: Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. Inter-
nationalen nıykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom
1-5. Mai 1995, ed. by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller
and Oswald Panagl, 487-494. Vienna.
Pompei, Anna. 2006. “Tracce di incorporazione in greco
antico”, In: Fonologta e tipologia lessicale nella steria della
lingue greca, ed, by Pierluigi Cuzzolin and Maria Napoli,
216-237, Milan.
Taylor, Ann. 1988. “From non-configurational to configura-
tional: a study of syntactic change in Greek", In: The Penn
 VERE PHRASE
Review of Linguistics. ızth Penn Linguistics Colloquium,
February 1988, 1-15,
——.1994. "The change from SOV to SVO in Ancient Greek",
Language Variation and Change 61-37.
MARIA NAPOLI
Verba Dicendi
Verba dicendi (‘verbs of speaking’) are plentiful
in the literature of Ancient Greece, a tribute to
the high esteem in which speech was held in
the predominately oral Indo-European culture.
Speech divided the human and animal world,
and, to some extent, the human and divine. Verbs
of speaking regularly developed from roots refer-
ring to mental processes: ‘plan’, ‘reason’, ‘judge’,
‘think’, etc. (e.g. *nen- ‘think’ > Hittite memahhi
‘I speak’), and “come later to be used for the oral
expression of these processes” (Buck 1915:137).
Many have cognates in sister languages, allow-
ing a large number of verbs referring to speech
to be reconstructed for the mother language.
Some thirty-five verbs of speaking occur with
notable frequency in Homer, the most com-
mon being phémi ‘say, declare’ (Linear B pa-si
‘says, affirms’ (Hooker 1980:61); cognates Latin
fama, likely Sanskrit bhasate ‘says’, Armenian
bay ‘says’). Preverbs may add nuances to basic
verbs: katdphémi ‘say yes, affirm’. Formulaic
phrases involving speaking verbs (e.g. phasi'they
say, it is said’) are common. Other frequently
occurring verbs in Homer include eipon ‘I spoke,
said’ (directly comparable to Vedic dvocam ‘1
spoke’), with cognates Armenian godem ‘I call’,
Tocharian AB wen ‘will speak, say’, Avestan vac-
‘say’; auddo ‘speak’ (cognate with Sanskrit vad-
‘speak’); peithö ‘persuade’ (with accusative of
the one persuaded + infinitive); phdnéd ‘speak
aloud’; agoreiiö ‘harangue, speak’ (with an aspec-
tual nuance: ‘speak’ rather than ‘say’, and refer-
ring to public address as does agordomai ‘hald
assembly, speak’); eirö ‘say’ (cognate with Hittite
wer(i}ye ‘call, summon’); eikhomai ‘pray, vow,
declare’ (cf. Linear B middle e-u-ke-to = etikhe-
toi (Hooker 1980:53)), with athematic aorists in
Greek and Avestan suggesting antiquity; kaleö
‘call, summon! (cognate with Hittite kalless-
‘lure’); muthéomai ‘relate, tell’ (one of several
Homeric speaking verbs later replaced by lég@);
ardomai ‘pray, wish, curse’ (cognate with Hittite
ariya ‘pray’, Vedic aryaii 'praises’). See Owen and
Goodspeed (1969:4-22) for a full list.
469
Because of their important status and plenti-
ful oecurrence, verba dicendi are especially valu-
able in tracking changes in lexicon, semantics
and syntax. For instance, {al&ö, used originally to
express the inarticulate sounds of animals (dogs
and monkeys in Plutarch), had, by Hellenistic
times, lost this special sense and become the
normal verb ‘to speak’ (Buck 1915:13). The verb
[egö originally referred to counting and sorting,
and still has that sense in Homer (/l. 23.239),
only later turning toward ‘say’ (in Hesiod), from
then on maintaining its role for some 2000 years
as a common verb meaning ‘say’ (Buck 1915:7).
Appearing regularly in reported speech situa-
tions, verba dicendi allow us to track changes in
subordinate structures which follow them. Greek
shared with Latin the accusative + infinitive con-
struction, possibly as an inheritance from the
mother language: kaf té me (accusative) phési
makhéi Tröessin arégein (infinitive) (lit: ‘and she
says me to help the Trojans in battle’) '...and
she says that I am helping the Trojans in battle’
(Hom. Il. 1.521). Both Latin and Greek developed
alternative subordinating strategies to the accu-
sative + infinitive, including ‘that’ clauses with
höti or hös (always an option in Greek (Moore
1957140}), with Latin steadily moving toward
subordinate clauses with quod. Following syntax
may affect word meaning: for instance, eipon,
followed by a subordinate clause with Adti or
hos, generally means ‘said’; follawed by the
infinitive construction, however, the meaning
is ‘commanded’; eipon, followed by the infinitive
with the meaning ‘said’ is rare but “occurs in
good Attic prose” (Smyth 1920:4.45.2017C).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buck, Carl D. 1915. “Words of speaking and saying in the
Indo-European languages", American Journal of Philology
3611-19, 125-154.
Hooker,J. T. 1980. Linear B: an introduction. Bristol.
Moore, R. W. 1957. Comparative Greek and Latin syntax.
London.
Owen, William B. and Edgar J. Goodspeed. 1969. Mumeric
vocabularies. Oklahoma.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1920, A Greek Grammar for Colleges,
accessed from Perseus Digital Library Project. Ed.
Gregory R. Crane. Tufls University. http://www.perseus,
tufts.edu (Updated April 10, 2011)
SARAH ROSE
470 VERBA SENTIENDI
Verba Sentiendi
Verba sentiendi, ‘verbs of perception’, are those
which refer to physical and/or mental percep-
tion: blepö ‘see, have the power of sight’, horaö
‘see’, thedomai ‘gaze on, look at’, akoiö ‘hear’,
akrodomai ‘listen to’, osphralnomai ‘smell’,
thingano ‘touch’, etc. Some other common
Homeric verbs of perception include dérkomai
‘look, see’ (cognate Vedic daddrsa ‘have seen‘);
leussé ‘see, behold' (cognates Vedic lökate ‘per-
ceives’, rdcate ‘shines’, Hittite fukk- ‘be bright’);
punthdnomai ‘learn’, klué ‘hear’, especially com-
mon in entreaties: ‘hear me!’ (cognates Vedic
srnöti ‘hears’, Tocharian words for ‘ear’ (A) klots,
(B) klautso); geiomai ‘taste (of), enjoy’ (cog-
nate Vedic jusdte/jdsate ‘enjoys'). Historically,
many have an original general meaning of ‘per-
ceive, apprehend by the senses’, later moving
toward specialization to a specific sense. Thus,
from Proto-Indo-European root *hgeu/hzeuis
‘perceive’ (with a questionable fourth laryngeal)
come Greek aisthdnomai ‘perceive’, Latin audio
‘hear’, Hittite üuhhi ‘see’ and Vedic uwvé ‘see’. Simi-
larly, a verb with a meaning referring literally
to the physical senses may be extended meta-
phorically to refer to mental perception. Such
alternations may be seen in the ancient root
*yeid- ‘know’ or ‘see’, with cognates alternating
between meanings, or showing both. The Greek
verb eidon (< *e-wid-o-n) ‘I saw’ comes from this
root, as does Vedic véda 'know(s)' and Latin
videre ‘ta see’. In Homer, the middle of this verb,
eidomai, has the meaning ‘appear, seem to be’,
while oida, though perfect in form, is present in
meaning: ‘I (now) know (having seen)’, There is
no active present from this root. Instead, Aordd
(from *wer- ‘perceive, give attention to’) is used
for the present ‘see’ — indeed, it is the most
common perception verb in Homer (Owen and
Goodspeed 19694).
The plentiful occurrence and central status of
verbs of perception in all periods of Greek litera-
ture provide an avenue to track changes in lexi-
con, semantics and syntax. Linear B verb wi-de
{wide/ ‘he saw' (Bartonék 2003:99 et passim)
maintains the (original) digamma, permitting a
glimpse into earlier stages of Greek, and mak-
ing cognates Latin vid- and Sanskrit ved- more
transparent. The verb akowd has the meaning
‘hear’ in Homer, but is later used as the passive
to /égein, has as its cognates Vedic kavi ‘seer’,
akuvate ‘intends to’, Latin caved 'I take heed’
(Sihler 1995:44).
Because of their intimate association with
human subjects, perception verbs often have
unique semantic and syntactic properties: for
instance, they regularly appear in the “middle”
voice in Greek (atmanepada in Sanskrit, depo-
nent in Latin, -f conjugation in Hittite (Rose
2006)). Constructions following perception
verbs, in addition to supplying the “dependent
circumstances” associated with the verb, may
also convey nuances of aspect, modality, or
meaning. With such verbs as hordö ‘see’, akoılö
‘hear’, or aisthänomai ‘perceive’, for instance, if
the verb indicates actual physical perception, it
is followed by a participial complement; if the
perception is intellectual, either the participle or
höti or hös with a finite verb may follow. In indi-
rect discourse, what follows the perception verb
may help establish the reliability of the infor-
mation: thus, akoıö with genitive participle ‘I
hear (with my own ears)’; akouwd with accusative
participle ‘I hear (through others, i.e., am told)
that’; akové with infinitive ‘I hear (of general, not
certain knowledge, as by report) that’ (Smyth
1920:4.46.121, sec. 2145). A significant syntactic
change involves the gradual disappearance of
the “infinitive accusative’ construction after
these verbs (and others with similar semantic
features), to its limited use during the Byzantine
period (as something of an archaism), to its
disappearance in Modern Greek, replaced by
complement clauses with finite verbs (+ Devel-
opments in Medieval and Modern Greek).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003, Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg,
Moore, R. W. 1957. Camparative Greek and Latin syntax.
London.
Owen, William B. and Edgar Johnson Goodspeed. 1969.
Homeric vocabularies. Oklahoma.
Rose, Sarah R. auoß. The Hittite -hi/-mi conjugutions: evidence
for an early Indo-European voice opposition. Innsbruck.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. Oxford - New Yark.
Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1920. A Greek grammar for colleges,
accessed from Perseus Digital Library Project. Ed. Gregory
R. Crane. Tufts University. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu
(Updated April 10, 2012).
SARAH RosE
 VERBAL ADJECTIVES
Verbal Adjectives
1. INTRODUCTION
The term ‘verbal adjective’ is the traditional
label used to refer to forms which, on the one
hand, have a verbal root/stem as their lexical
basis and, on the other, show adjectival mor-
phosyntactic properties, such as + agreement
in + number, + gender and - case, In fact, two
different classes of derivatives are labeled as
verbal adjectives namely those having a suf-
fix -téo- (i.e., -téos, -téa, -téon forms) and those
having a suffix -td- (ie., -tds, -té, -tén forms)
(+ Derivational Morphology). The difference
between these two adjectival classes is tradi-
tionally designated by means of their meaning:
the -téo- forms express an obligation, a necessity
(poieteo- ‘to be made’), whereas the -td- ones
express a possibility (agapetö- ‘desirable') as
well as an accomplished event or an achieved
state (poiétd- ‘made’, agapetö- ‘beloved’), From a
comparative point of view, the -to- forms are tra-
ditionally considered to be related to the Latin
past participles and the Sanskrit -¢d- participles
(e.g. Gk. dotds, Lat. datus, Skt. datds ‘given’), and
therefore are believed to have derived from IE
forms which employed the suffix *td- (+ Indo-
European Linguistic Background). On the other
hand, the -téo- forms do not seem to be related
to forms belonging to other IE languages; thus,
they are considered as rather peculiar to Greek
(see below). The different origin of the two suf-
fixes is confirmed by the time of the first attesta-
tions of the -téo- and -td- forms: many -té- forms
occur in Homeric works (cf. Ammann 1956 for a
survey), whereas the -téo- forms are not attested
before the time of Theognis’ and Pindar's poetic
works (+ Poetic Language):
(1) ou khré pemainein hö te me pemantéon eié, /
oud’ hérdein hé ti me laion ei telésai
‘We should not make ruin where min should
not be made, nor yet do what it is not better
to do’ (Thgn. 1.689)
Theröna de tetraorias heneka nikaphörou /
gegöneteon, dpi dikaion xenön / éreism’ Akrd-
gantos, /euönumöntepaterönäötonorthöpolin
‘and Theron must be proclaimed because
of his victorious four-horse chariot, Theron
who is just in his regard for guests, and is the
bulwark of Acragas, the strength of the city,
471
the choicest bloom of illustrious ancestors’
(Pi. Of 2.5-8)
Scholars noted the proliferation of the -teo-
forms in Attic literature, particularly in prose
(+ Literary Prose), but also in Aristophanes’
poetic works. According to Curtius (1880:384),
this extensive use of -téo- forms in Aristophanic
comedy is a manifestation of the “Attic spoken
language” (“attische Umgangssprache"). As far as
morphology is concerned, both suffixes, i.e., -téo-
and -tö-, may combine with the same lexical basis
(Chantraine 1933:304f., Schwyzer 1939-1950
I:502ff.), namely both suffixes can be attached
to a verbal root: e.g. poié-téo- ‘to be made’ ~
poie-tö- ‘made’, the-teo- 'to be counted, estab-
lished’ ~ the-id- ‘placed, set’, etc. The ablaut-
ing roots (+Ablaut) of the verbal adjectives
generally appear in the weak grade: is-téo- and
is-td- (cf. cida ‘I know’), sta-teo- and sta-tö- (cf.
histémi ‘I stand’), etc. (cf. Schwyzer 1939-1950
l:502ff.). As is argued by Bishop (1899:3ff.), Good-
win (1900167) and Duhoux (2000:313), forms in
-téo- can also take on stems of the passive aorist
as their lexical bases, as e.g. in deld-téo- ‘to be
cleared’ (passive aorist e-delö-the-n), gnös-teo- ‘to
be known’ (e-gnös-the-n). Corresponding forms
in -td- have the same lexical bases: delö-tö- ‘able
to be shown’, gnds-td- ‘known, knowable’.
2, FORMS WITH THE SUFFIX -téo-
The -téo- forms may occur in two different kinds
of syntactic constructions, i.e., either in the so-
called ‘personal’ or in the so-called ‘impersonal’
constructions (+ impersonal Verbs/Construc-
tions). In the first syntactic type, the -téo- forms
show agreement in gender, number and case
with the > subject of the clause: this is the actual
meaning of the ‘personal construction’, in fact,
“where the subject is emphasized” (“wenn das
Subjekt hervorgehoben werden soll") (Kiihner
& Gerth 1898:447). This subject is not the ‘logi-
cal’ subject: it is only the ‘grammatical’ subject
and corresponds to the ‘logical’ direct object. In
this kind of constructions, the -téo- form is in
the + nominative case and may be combined
with a finite verbal form of efnai‘to be’, which
requires agreement in person and number with
the subject:
472 VERBAL ADJECTIVES
(3) höste pantdpasin exaireteoi hémin hoi toiou-
tut eisi
‘And so we must weed out such men at any
cost' (Xen. Cyr. 2.2.25)
The verbal form of einai ‘to be’ may also be lack-
ing: in this case the verbal adjective is the only
verbal form of the clause. The -teo- form brings
along agreement in number, gender and case
with the subject, but there is no verbal form
in person agreement with the subject: this is
the case of the so-called ‘nominal! clause’ (other
clauses containing adjectival or nominal predi-
cates show a similar morphosyntactic behavior)
(> Predicative Constituents).
(4) kal men hoi summakhein ethélontes eit
poiétéoi, hina thelösi prothumeisthai
‘Moreover, those who are willing to fight on
your side must be well treated, so that they
may be willing to exert themselves’ (Xen.
Mem. 2.6.27)
When the -féo- form occurs in accusativus cum
infinitivo clauses (+ Accusative; + Infinitives
(Syntax)), it is obviously found in this case
because it agrees with the subject of its clause,
as in:
(5) all’ ego men, éphé ho Küros, ö dndres,
gignöskö tous toiodtous anthröpous hoion kai
hoütos niin legei |...) exairetéous einai ck tes
stratiäs
"Well, men - said Cyrus —1 am convinced that
such fellows as this one of whom our friend
has just been telling us must be weeded out
ofthe ranks’ (Xen. Cyr. 2.2.23)
The personal construction may contain another
argumental item (+ Argument Clause), which
is the ‘logical’ subject and is semantically inter-
preted in most cases as an agent (> Agency and
Causation): it always occurs in the > dative case
and is traditionally called an ‘agent dative’.
(6) oukoün de heortai tines nomothetétéai en
hais sundxomen tds te nimphas kai tous
numphious kai thusiai, kai himnoi poieteoi
tois hémetérois poiétais prépontes tuis gigno-
menois gdmois
We shall, then, have to ordain certain festi-
vals and sacrifices, in which we shall bring
together the brides and the bridegrooms,
and our poets must compose hymns suit-
able to the marriages that then take place’
(Pl. Resp. 45926)
In the second type of construction (the so-called
'+ impersonal construction’), “it is the verbal
adjective which is emphasized” (“wenn der Nach-
druck auf dem Verbaladjektive ruht”), according
to Kühner & Gerth (1898:447). The -tdu- forms do
not show agreement, and are normally inflected
in the neuter -téon form. They may be combined
with a verbal form of einai ‘to be’ (ex. 7) or may
occur on their own (ex. 8), as is the case with
personal constructions. But if a verbal form of
einai'to be’ is present, this occurs in the 3rd
person singular:
(7) tön oun suneilemmenön Eleusiniön kata-
psephisteon estin, hina tauta hémin kai thar-
réte kai phobésthe
‘Therefore you must vote (for) condem-
nation of the Eleusinians who have been
seized, so that you may have the same hopes
and fears as we (do)' (Xen. Hell. 2.4.9)
(8) alla men oud’ himatiöon ge heneka
khremaltisteon; au gar esthetos poluteleiai
alla sömatos euexläl kosmoüntai
‘Why, there is not even any need of money
to spend on cloaks: for their adornment is
due not to the price of their clothes, but to
the excellent condition oftheir bodies’ (Xen.
Lac. 7.3)
In these constructions, the logical subject of
the verbal adjective may not be expressed (and,
therefore, is only contextually recoverable), as
the following examples show:
(9) eiper otin é sautou kedei e tes patridos epi-
thumeis, aktéon epi toüs ändras
‘Therefore if you really have a care for
yourself or a desire to see your fatherland
again, you must lead against these men’
(Xen, Hell. 6.4.5)
(10) kai hoi geläsantes eipon höti gunaikas
exairetéon eie
They laughed and said that they would have
to choose women for him’ (Xen. Cyr. 4.5.52)
The logical subject may be expressed as well by
means of the dative (ex. 1) or the accusative
(ex. 12):
 VERBAL ADJECTIVES
(n) épeita, Adti ekeinous polloi epainoüsi, kai
tout: pollous epainetas paraskeuastéon
‘Further, seeing that they win the applause
of crowds, he must provide himself with a
large claque’ (Xen. Mem. 1.7.2)
(12) ou mén douleutéon tous notin ékhontas tois
houtö kakös phronoüsin
‘Men of intelligence, however, should not
let themselves be enslaved by men whose
minds are so perverted! (Isoc. Or. 9.7)
In impersonal constructions, the -téon forms
appear to alternate with the neuter plural
-téa form; as such, it may be combined with the
3rd person singular of einai ‘to be’ (in Attic syn-
tax), as in ex. (13) below:
(13) epei d’ ekerükhthe kai katesképsanto ten te
pölin kal tous liménas kai ta peri ten khéran
ex hös autois hormömenois polemétéa én
‘When the proclamation had been made,
and the fleet had taken a survey of the city
and the harbors, and of the ground which
was to be the scene of operations’ (Thuc.
6.50.5)
The distinction between personal and imper-
sonal constructions is sometimes difficult to
make because of the syntactical ambiguity aris-
ing from the combination of the -téon forms with
neuter (pro)nouns (+ Noun (6noma), Ancient
Theories of; + Pronouns) (Poultney 1963:373ff.):
(14) oudé gar touto pheuktéon, alla pdnton
malista diökteon tdi notin ékhonti
‘for an intelligent person ought not to reject
this method; on the contrary, he should
choose it before all others’ (Pl. Tat. 167.d7)
The syntactic difference between personal and
impersonal constructions has been interpreted
by scholars in terms of the passive vs. active
contrast (cf. Goodwin 1900:343, Stahl 1907:763
and Bishop 189g:10ff. who names them ‘+ gerun-
dive’ (verbal adjective) and ‘+ gerund’ (verbal
noun) respectively). Personal constructions are
normally considered + passive, with the subject
of the clause being interpreted as the patient or
the theme since it would be the — direct object
of a hypothetical corresponding active clause
(+ Patient and Theme). On the other hand, the
logical subject never occurs in the nominative,
but is expressed in the dative (see ex. 6). Imper-
473
sonal constructions, on the contrary, appear as
active, either with a transitive (ex. ı5) or with
an intransitive syntactic configuration (ex. 16)
(+ Transitivity):
(15) ei men toinun aiskhrén ti emellon, ergäsas-
thai, thanaton ant’ autoü proairetéon én
‘To be sure, ifthey were going to do some-
thing disgraceful, death would be a better
fate’ (Xen. Mem. 2.7.10)
nin men oiin apantétéon moi eis ten tod
basiléds stodn
‘And now I must go to the Porch of the
King’ (Pl. Tat. 210.d2)
Because of the impersonal nature of the struc-
ture, no argumental subject can appear: so, there
is no ~ noun phrase in the nominative case. The
logical subject, if present, is expressed in the
dative or accusative: in (17), two coordinated
verbal adjectives are found together with two
different forms of their logical subject, expressed
in the accusative and the dative respectively
(+ Coordination (includes Asyndeton)).
(17) lögos te ek tot phaneroü proeirgasto autois
hos oüte misthophoretéon eie ällous €
tous strateuoménous oüte methekteon tön
pragmätön pléosin & pentakiskhillois, kai
toutois hoi an mälista tois te khrémasi kai
tois sémasin öphelein hoioi te ösin
‘Meanwhile their cry in public was that no
pay should be given except to persons serv-
ing in the war, and that not more than five
thousand should share in the government,
and those who were most able to serve the
state in person and in purse’ (Thuc. 8.65.3)
It goes without saying that the -téon forms may
be combined with noun phrases in the > geni-
tive (ex. 18) or dative (ex. 19), according to their
case government (Bishop 189914ff,, Schwyzer
1939-1950 11:810). In that respect, they show the
same combinatory properties as the correspond-
ing finite verb forms (see ex. 20, with double
accusative construction).
(18) eite gen botilei soi karpoüs aphthönous
pherein, ten gen therapeutéon, elte apd
boskemätön oiei dein ploutizesthai, tön
boskemätön epimeleteon
if you want land to yield you fruits in
abundance, you must cultivate that land: if
474 VERBAL ADJECTIVES
you are resolved to get wealth from flocks,
you must care for those flocks’ (Xen. Mem.
2.1.28)
(19) kai tét rhétorikéi houtö khréstéon epi to
dikaion ael, kai téi allei pdséi praxei
‘and that rhetoric is to be used for this one
purpose always, for pointing to what is
just, and so in every other activity’ (Pl. Grg.
527.C3)
alla doket moi, hoitines boilontai, hen an
poiesöntai phillan, taten hös pleiston
khrönon diamenein, didakteon einai allelous
ta aitia tin polémon
‘but it seems to me that men who desire
the friendship which they may establish to
endure for the longest possible time, ought
to point out to one another the causes of
their wars’ (Xen. Hell. 6.3.7)
In comparison with the constructions involving
corresponding finite verb forms, both personal
and impersonal constructions are characterized
by an additional meaning of ‘necessity’, ‘need’,
‘obligation’. Therefore, the -téo- verbal forms may
be considered as complex predicates, in which
a modal predication (+ Mood and Modality),
expressed by the morpheme -téo-, is adjoined
to an ‘initial’ predication, expressed by the lex-
ical basis. Compared with the corresponding
simple verb constructions, constructions with
-téo- forms do not appear to be neutral, as far as
grammatical relations are concerned. The modal
predicate brings about some changes into the
grammatical relations of the (initial) predicate
to which it is adjoined. First, the logical sub-
ject of the initial predicate may never occur as
a grammatical subject of the clause, either in
personal or in impersonal constructions. So, it
may be suggested that the argumental struc-
ture of the modal predication does not really
allow a subject relation to occur (+ Argument
Clause). This difference concerning the argu-
mental structure seems to be correlated with the
addition of modal value to the initial predicate.
From a notional point of view, this modal value
has been labeled by some scholars as ‘necessity’,
as opposed to ‘possibility’ and ‘existence’, As far
as necessity as a notional modality is concerned,
Jespersen (1924) related it to the idea of Gottfried
Hermann who suggested a split of the modality
category labeled ‘necessity’ into ‘objective’ and
‘subjective’ necessity. This difference is expressed
in some languages by different morphosyntactic
expressions: in Greek, the -téo- verbal adjectives
express objective necessity, while + imperatives
belong to subjective necessity. 50, modal predi-
cation seems to “downgrade” the logical subject,
reinitializing it as an ‘objective’ grammatical
relation, and specifically as an indirect object.
This hypothesis is also assumed to explain why
the logical subject of the initial predicate never
occurs as a grammatical subject, but shows up in
the dative case - the so-called ‘agent dative’ or
“concerned person” dative (“datif de la personne
conceme€e”: cf. Christol 1989) - both in personal
and impersonal constructions. Thus, the dative
may express the grammatical relation assigned
to the logical subject by the modal predicate. In
that respect, the modal -téo- form does not differ
from other predicates - some of which express
necessity and obligation alike - which do not
initialize a subject, but an indirect object, e.g.
dei moi ‘there is need to me’, Within another
perspective, the morpho-syntactic peculiarities
of the constructions here concerned have been
explained on account of the adjectival nature of
the predication, which does not allow the logical
subject to achieve the status of grammatical sub-
ject, downgrading it to ‘objective’ grammatical
relations (cf. La Fauci & Tronci 2013).
The second point which ought to be discussed
here is the syntactic difference between per-
sonal and impersonal constructions, Personal
constructions are possible only if the argumental
structure of the initial predicate is transitive, that
is if it embodies two grammatical relations: sub-
ject and direct object. The ‘initial’ direct object
occurs as a grammatical! subject in the so-called
‘personal constructions’, as is e.g. the case with
passive constructions. The logical subject of the
initial predicate does not display the same mor-
phosyntactic behavior as the logical subject of
the simple passive constructions: it only occurs
in the dative case, but never in the form of a
prepositional phrase (+ Adpositional Phrase).
As for the impersonal constructions, they are the
unmarked term of the opposition and may be
correlated with both transitive and intransitive
initial predicates. In impersonal constructions,
there is no argumental item of the lexical predi-
cation which occurs as the grammatical subject.
The subject relation may be covered by a silent
expletive, a so-called ‘dummy’ subject, which
does not show any expressed morphophonologi-
cal features and is only manifested by the lack of
any agreement phenomena whatsoever; hence,
 VERBAL ADJECTIVES
it is represented by the neuter verbal form -teon.
As a tule, the logical subject of the initial predi-
cate appears to be marked by the dative case;
only in a few examples, it occurs in the accusa-
tive case. It should be noted, however, that the
dative appears to be the unmarked term, as the
expression of the logical subject in impersonal
constructions, In literature, the distribution of
the accusative and the dative as expressions of
the logical subject has not been explained. Some
scholars suggest that the accusative expression
of the logical subject derives from the accusative
of the accusativus cum infinitive in constructions
with de? ‘there is need’. The semantic similarity
between the two constructions - in fact, both
constructions express a necessity, an obligation —
would be the reason for the extension of the
syntactic pattern (cf. Schwyzer 1939-1950 IT:410).
Kühner & Gerth (1898:448), Bishop (1899:242ff.)
and Goodwin (1900:343) provide many exam-
ples of impersonal constructions and discuss
them in relation to the parallel gerundive Latin
structures (see among others Ambrosini 1991).
Occurrences of -téo- forms in literary works
have been widely studied: cf. Bishop (1899) for
an analysis of a broad corpus (from Homer to
Aristotle), Allen (1909) for Polybius’ Histories,
Poultney (1963) for Aristophanes’ works, and
Schein (1998) for Sophocles’ dramas. As regards
their origin, the -téo- forms are traditionally con-
sidered to be more recent and possibly non-
inherited formations: as Woodard (2004:642)
underlines, the origin of the suffix is disputed.
It does not occur in Homeric poems, and the
alleged first attested form in alphabetic Greek
(phateidsin Hes. Theog. 310) is difficult to con-
nect with the later -téo- forms, because of cer-
tain morphophonetic and syntactic differences:
these include the + diphthong -ei- instead of
the + vowel -e-, the oxytonic accent instead
of the regular paroxytonic (+ Accentuation),
and an attributive function instead of the usual
predicative, according to Curtius (1880:383ff.),
Stahl (1907:763), Malzahn (2001-2002:136), Willi
(2009:7ff.), and many bibliographical references
therein. Instead, phateiös appears ta be related
to the Mycenaean form ge-te-jo (+ Mycenaean
Script and Language): both are characterized by
the reconstructed *-teyo- affix which may not be
considered as etymologically related to -téo- (cf.
Willi 2009:8). As far as the comparative aspect
is concerned, scholars are inclined to link the
Greek suffix -téo- to the Sanskrit suffix -tavyd-,
475
e.g, Kartavya- ‘to be made (deontic)’ (Chantraine
19337308). This hypothesis was discarded by Cur-
tius (1880:384) and Bishop (1899:1ff.) who agree
in viewing Gk. -téo- and Skt. -tavya- as indepen-
dent morphemes. In addition, Willi (2009:8ff.)
does not seem to accept this hypothesis, consid-
ering the -téa- farms as the products of a reanaly-
sis process of hypothetical sequences such as
*apitewai estin where a non-attested infinitive in
*-téwai (Skt. -tave) is thought to occur. Phonetic
processes such as [i] + [y] / V_V and [y] -+ [@] /
V_V may have yielded sequences such as api-
tea estin (in impersonal constructions); apitéon
estinmay be due to a regularization process
(*kald esti: kalon esti s: *apitéa est: apitéon estt).
Personal constructions may have originated at a
later time, according to Willi (200917ff.). How-
ever, one ought to note here Bishop's argument
(1899:10): “The feeling obtains among some that
the impersonal is the older construction. In the
present condition of the literature this cannot
be proved”. An etymological relationship with
the Skt. affix -tva- (e.g. Skt. kdriva- ‘faciendus’)
has been suggested by Benveniste (1935:71/f.): in
his opinion, Gk. -téo- and Skt. -tva- are thematic
verbal adjectives derived from *-tew-/-tu- suf-
fixed nouns (cf. also Rix 1992:237) (+ Thematic
Vowel, Stem Formation; + Thematic and Ath-
ematic Verbs).
3. FORMS WITH THE SUFFIX -tö-
The points which have been dealt with in the
literature and are discussed in this paragraph
include, on the one hand, the meaning of the
derivatives with respect to their lexical basis,
and, on the other, the different morphological
processes which have given rise to these deriva-
tives (cf. Stahl ı907:761ff., Chantraine 1933:302ff.,
Schwyzer 1939-1950 I:sorff., Rix 1992:236). Con-
cerning the first point, scholars agree that the
value of the -té- forms varies between that of
a past + participle, such as poiétds ‘made’, and
that of an adjectival expression of passive pos-
sibility (similar to Lat. -bilis or Engl. -able/-ible
formations), especially in negative forms, such
as anikétos ‘invincible, undefeated’ (cf. Bishop
1892 who distinguishes between non-modal
and modal meaning). According to Ammann
(1956:uff,), the two different values are not
always easy to identify. The “quasipartizipiale
Gebrauchsweise” characterizes -td- forms whose
lexical basis designates an "activity" (“eine
476 VERBAL ADJECTIVES
schaffende Tätigkeit", Ammann ı956:1) and is
combined as an attribute with an “effiziertes
Objekt”:
(21) keitai par neessi nékus dklaustos dthaptos /
Patroklos [...]
‘There lies by the ships a dead man unwept,
unburied - Patroclus’ (Hom. Il. 22.386-7)
By contrast, -td- forms showing a predicative
function towards an “affiziertes Objekt” tend ta
be translated with a ‘possibility’ meaning:
(22) kai gdr then toutdi tratés khras oxéi khalköi
‘His flesh too, I suspect, may be pierced
with the sharp sword’ (Hom. Il. 21.568)
Thus, the different semantic values appear to be
related to the different syntactic combinations
in which the -td- forms occur and, particularly, to
their syntactic function (attributive vs. predica-
tive), With respect to the -to- forms which are tra-
ditionally translated by means of past participles,
scholars notice that they may have a passive or an
active value: thetds ‘placed, set’ vs. rhutös ‘flow-
ing’ (but cf. Benveniste 1948; for a comparative
perspective, cf. Hahn 1966 and Napoli 2000).
This difference may depend on the syntactic
structures in which the related verb forms occur:
verb forms occurring in intransitive structures
appear to be related to active -td- forms, whereas
verb forms occurring in transitive structures give
rise to passive -td- forms (Ammann 1956:22; see
also Bishop 2892). Concerning morphological
processes, the -td- forms occur extensively as
part of compound words (+ Compound Nouns):
according ta Meillet (1929), compounding is the
specific property of the -£ö- forms that differenti-
ates them from the participles. Evidence for this
hypothesis may come from those forms which
occur as masculine although they refer to ferni-
nine nouns: klutös Amphitrite (Hom. Od, 5.422)
‘the glorious Amphitrite’. Morphological pro-
cesses involving -td- forms are: derivation from
compound verbs (simplicia): periairetds 'remov-
able’ (cf. periaireö ‘1 remove'); derivation from
simple verbs and composition with particles
(> Particles) or prepositions (syntheta): düsba-
tos ‘impassable’ (cf. baind ‘1 walk’); derivation
from simple verbs and composition with nouns
declined as the first member of a compound
(parasyntheta): eg, douriklutos ‘famed for the
spear (cf. kleö ‘I celebrate’). Unlike the -tö- forms,
there is only one -t&o- form, according to Bishop
(1899:6), that belongs to the morphological type
of syntheta, ie, dusmakhétéon ‘one must fight
a losing battle with’. This morphological differ-
ence may be due to the fact that the -td- forms
"have so far lost their predicative office that they,
as mere adjectives, are not held down by the
verb-restrictions” (Bishop 1899:6). For a discus-
sion of the relationships between derivational
processes and different accentual schemes, cf.
Bishop (1892), who particularly discusses the dis-
tribution of the -tö- forms in Sophocles’ dramas,
also accounting for the different values of the
derived forms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Hamilton F. igag. “The verbal In -TEO in Poly-
bius“, CPA 4:52-56.
Ambrosini, Riccardo. 1991. "Gerundin e gerundivo in latino”,
SSE 313-53.
Ammann, Hermann. 1956. “Zum griechischen Verbaladjek-
tiv auf -téc". In: MNHMHE XAPIN, Gedenkschrift Paul
Kretschmer (2. Mai 866-9. März 1956), 10-23. Vienna,
Benveniste, Emile. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en
indo-européen. Paris.
‚1948. Noms d’agent et noms d'action en indo-europeen.
Paris,
Bishop, Charles E, 1892. “Verbals in -TOE in Sophacles”,
AJPh 13171-199, 329-342, 449-462.
.189g. "The Greek verbal in -TEO”, A/Ph 20:1--21, 121-138,
241-253.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1933. La formation des noms en grec
ancien. Paris.
Christo], Alain, 1989. “Pour une typologie de obligation:
IL Dativus auctoris ou personne concernée?’. In: Actes
du Ve Colloque de Linguistique Lutine (Louvain-la-Neuve,
1989), Cahiers de (‘Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 15:
1-4, 67-75.
Curtius, Georg. 1880. Das Verbum der griechischen Sprache
seinem Baue nach dargestellt. Zweiter Band. Leipzig.
Duhoux, Yves. 2000, Le verbe grec ancien. Eléments de mor-
phologie et de syntaxe historiques. Leuven,
Goodwin, William W. 1900. Greek grammar. Boston.
Hahn E. Adelaide. 1966. “Verbal nouns and adjectives in
some ancient languages”, Language 42:37B-398.
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of grammar. Chicago.
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Ilı-2: Satzlehre.
Hannover.
La Fauci, Nunzio and Liana Tronci. 2013. "Categorie e relazi-
oni: morfosintassi di aggettivi verbali in greco antico”.
In: Le lingue del Mediterraneo antice, Culture, mutamenti,
contatti, ed. by Marco Mancini and Luca Lorenzetti, 193-
212. Roma.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2001-2002, “guvyatéov — zum particip-
ium necessitatis des Griechischen‘, Sbornik pract filozo-
fické fakulty brnénské univerzity (Graecolatina Brunensia,
GLB) 6-7135-141.
Meillet, Antoine, 1929. “Les adjectifs grecs en -rac”. In: Ver-
zameling van opstellen door aud-leerlingen en bevriende
vakgenooten opgedragen aan Mgr. Prof: Dr. Jos. Schri-
‚nen (Donum Natalicium Schrijnen), 635-639. Nijmegen -
Utrecht.
 VERBAL ADJECTIVES
Napoli, Maria. zono., “I suffissi *-to- e *-no-: studio sui dever-
bali dei greco”, SSL 38:241-273.
Poultney, James W. 1963. “Studies in the syntax of Attic
comedy”, A/Ph 84:359-376.
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechis-
chen. Laut- und Formenlehre, Zweite korrigierte Auflage.
Darmstadt.
Schein Seth L. 1998. “Verbal adjectives in Saphocles: neces-
sity and morality”, CPA 93:293-307.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939-1950. Griechische Grammatik, 2 vals.
Munich,
Stahl, J. M. 1907. Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen
Verhums der klassischen Zeit. Heidelberg,
Willi, Andreas. 2009. “Zu Ursprung und Entwicklung der
griechischen Verbaladjektive auf -t&oc”, RFIC 137:7-22.
Woodard Roger D. song. “Attic Greek". In: The Cambridge
encyclopedia of the world's ancient languages, ed. by
Roger D. Woodard, 614-649. Cambridge.
LIANA TRONGI
Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood)
1. INTRODUCTION
There is a mountain of descriptive and theo-
retical literature on the issues of tense, aspect
and mood (TAM) systems of world languages.
Suffice it to mention contributions by Binnick
(1991), Bybee et al. (1994), Comrie (1976, 1985),
Dahl (1985), Guillaume (1929/1965), Hewson &
Bubenik (1997), Jakobson (1956/1984) and Valin
(1965). Among the earlier valuable commentar-
ies there are those from such Indo-Europeanists
as Delbrück, Meillet, Kurylowicz, Szemerenyi
and Watkins. Then there are studies devoted
specifically to the morphology and semantics of
tense/aspect/mood of Ancient Greek by Chan-
traine (1961, 1988), Friedrich (1974) and Guil-
laume (1945/1965). Lengthy passages on tense,
aspect and mood are found in all the representa-
tive grammars and various monographs devoted
to Ancient Greek by Goodwin (1879/1959), Küh-
ner & Blass (18g0-2/1992), Meillet (1955), Palmer
(1980), Schwyzer (1953) and others,
There are various realizations of the gram-
matical categories of tense and aspect in the
languages of the world. In terms of their mor-
phology the most notable distinction is that
of synthetic versus analytic morphology; for
instance, in Ancient Greek the category of per-
fect was realized synthetically by partial redu-
plication of the root (accompanied by ablaut
(> Ablaut) as in /eip-6 ‘leave’ > le-loip-a ‘I have
left‘ (Perfect), while in Modern Greek the same
category is realized by means of the auxiliary
477
éyw ['exo] plus infinitive (aparémphato) as in
exw ypdiper ['exo ‘yrapsi] ‘I have written’, The
two categories - tense and aspect - have to be
kept apart even if they are treated as one “tense”
category in numerous traditional descriptions of
Ancient Greek. For instance, on morphological
grounds Goodwin (1879/1959:92) distinguishes
seven tenses in Ancient Greek: present, imper-
fect, perfect, pluperfect, aorist, future and future
perfect. The present, perfect, future and future
perfect are called primary (or principal) tenses;
the imperfect, pluperfect and aorist indicative
are called secondary (or historical) tenses. This
unitary approach to tense and aspect goes all
the way back to the Stoics who had only one
label for this category, namely khrönos ‘tense’
as a terminus technicus in their grammatical
theory. In its non-linguistic sense this word
denoted ‘time’; ‘period’; 'season’ (+ Tense (kArd-
nos), Ancient Theories of).The strict separation
of tense and aspect (> Aspect (and Tense)) is
easier in Slavic languages which are permeated
by a binary aspectual distinction of perfectivity
marked unambiguously by perfectivizing pre-
fixes (indeed the term ‘aspect’ was calqued on
the Slavic word vid ‘view; appearance’ > ‘aspect’).
Very useful working definitions of tense and
aspect are available in Jakobson (1956/1984:45);
according to Jakobson tense is a ‘shifter’, since it
“characterizes the narrated event with reference
to the speech act” whereas aspect character-
izes the event “without reference to the speech
act”. Along the same lines Dahl (1985:25) writes
“tenses are typically deictic categories, in that
they relate time points to the moment of speech.
Aspects, on the other hand, are non-deictic cat-
egories”, and, earlier, Comrie (1976:5) stated that
“aspect is not concerned with relating the time
of the situation to any other time-point, but
rather with the internal temporal constituency
of the one situation”, To distinguish aspect from
tense Valin (1965) coined the terms ‘event time’
and ‘universe time’, the former viewed as the
time contained in the event (aspect) and the
latter as the time which contains the event in
one of its zones. In the Germanic languages
English distinguishes two time zones - either
past or non past — presenting the event time in
terms of four aspectual categories: performative
(unmarked), progressive, retrospective (perfect)
and prospective (future) in Hewson & Bubenik
(1997712):
478 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD)
Table 1: Aspectual and temporal forms of Here A represents the subject in a position before
English (after Hewson & Bubenik 1997:12) the event (prospective aspect); B represents the
subject at the very beginning of the event (incep-
Aspect Non-Past Tense Past Tense
tive aspect); C represents the subject with the
Performative 1! speak I spoke event in progress (progressive or imperfective
Progressive lamspeaking 1 was speaking aspect); D represents the subject in the position
Retrospective | havespoken I had spoken of completing the event (perfective aspect, or
Prospective Iwill speak I would speak aorist); and E represents the subject in a position
after the event (perfect or retrospective aspect).
Of these ive common types English has A, C and
The marked aspectual forms in English are all E; Latin has only B and E. The aspect represented
analytic. The retrospective aspect (perfect) rep- by D is common in Indo-European languages as
resents the subject in a position after the event, the perfective aspect in Slavic languages and the
the progressive aspect in a position in the middle aorist in Greek.
of the event, and the prospective aspect (future) Before turning our attention to the verbal sys-
in a position before the event. tem of Greek suffice it to mention that the carrier
In analytic aspectual systems there is an aux- of the aspectual category of perfectivity in Old
iliary which carries the tense marker and the Slavic was the aorist (both root and sigmatic with
lexical verb appears in an appropriate aspec- s > x) as in Ancient Greek. Unlike Greek, how-
tual form. in synthetic aspectual systems there ever, there was no future tense formed with the
is only a single word marked by suffixes for suffix -s. The Old Slavic verbal system exploited
both tense and aspect as familiar from old Indo- the positions C, D and E as shown in Table 3:
European languages (Greek, Sanskrit, Avestan).
Later systems (Latin, Gothic, Old Slavic) fea-
Table 3: Old Slavic aspectual and temporal
ture in addition to the inherited synthetic forms forms (after Hewson & Bubenik 1997:86)
some analytic formations (prospective aspect in
Latin, modal future in Gothic, and the perfect in Aspect Non-Past Tense Past Tense
Old Slavic). For instance, the Latin verbal system
Impertective nesö (Present) neséaxs
can be portrayed as consisting of three aspectual
‘| carry’ (Imperfect)
categories: unmarked non-perfect (traditionally
‘| was carrying’
called infectum), retrospective (perfect) and an
Perfective —(pri-nesd) nesoxe (Aorist)
analytic inceptive aspect presenting the events
(T will bring’) ‘I carried’
in three time zones as shown in Table 2:
Perfect nesle jesmb nests béaxa
(Perfect) (Pluperfect)
Table 2; Latin aspectual and temporal forms ‘I have carried’ ‘I had carried’
Aspect Present Past tense Future
tense tense
(The future time reference is accomplished by
Unmarked canto cantabam cantabo prefixing the non-past res-ö ‘| carry’ > pri-nesö ‘I
Perfect cantavt cantaveram cantavero will bring’ involving the change in its Aktionsart.
Inceptive cantaturus cantaturus cantätürus The imperfective future is formed analytically
sum eram ero by means of auxiliaries such as imeti ‘to have’ or
xutéti ‘to want’ plus the infinitive.)

These two aspects of Latin and three aspects of
English do not exhaust all the possible aspectual
distinctions, and there are other possibilities
which can be represented in the following dia-
gram (after Hewson & Bubenik 199714):
A|B C DIE
2. THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF ANCIENT GREEK
Following the above theoretical outline, the
Greek verbal system can be portrayed as based
on a three-way aspectual contrast (as in Old
Slavic), exploiting the positions C, D and E and
a two-way opposition of tense: non-past versus
past, as exemplified with the verb /tid ‘loose’ in
Table 4:
 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD) 479

Table 4: Ancient Greek aspectual and Table 5: Suppletive morphology of aspect

temporal forms
Present Aorist Perfect Future
Aspect Non-Past Past
‘speak’ legö eipon eiréka erö
Imperfective lü-6 é-lu-on ‘come’ érkhomai élthon eléloutha eimi
Perfective fi-s-0 é-lu-s-a ‘eat’ esthö «© Ephagon ededoka edomai
Perfect lé-lu-k-a e-le-lu-k-é (< *ed-thi-)
Future Perfect —_/e-/ti-s-6 ‘see’ hordö eidon he'raka | dpsomai
öpöpa
‘carıy pherö enenkon/a enénokha oisö
The “future” could also be formed analytically
by combining the verb meilein ‘intend to do, be
about to do’ with the present or the future infini- There are several ways to portray the overall
tive: méllei toiita poiein (or poiésein) ‘he is about verbal system of Ancient Greek. The crucial dis-
to do it’. Strictly speaking, we are dealing with an tinction is the nature of the aorist which may
analytic inceptive aspect (position B) function- be considered a marked or unmarked category.
ing as a future tense. Similar constructions are Various arguments ofmorphological and seman-
available from any period of Ancient Greek from tic nature can be brought in for either position.
Homer (melleis aphairésesthai dethlon ‘you think In terms of morphology the earlier root aorist
to strip me of the prize’ in the Iliad) to Hellenis- based on the zero-grade can be considered an
tic Greek when this construction was system- unmarked category versus the marked imper-
atized as the analytic future; in Byzantine Greek fect displaying the full-grade (é-lip-on vs. é-leip-
the auxiliary mellei was replaced by thelei ‘wish’ on ‘leave’); however, the later sigmatic aorist is
which ended up as the future tense particle in the marked category displaying the distinctive
Modern Greek @a [8a] (see Markopoulos 2009). marker -s- followed by the personal suffixes -d,
In Modern Greek the contrast of perfectivity -s, -men, -te, which are identical with those of the
in the future is implemented by the s-marked perfect (é-lu-s-a, é-lu-s-a-s cl. lé-lu-k-a, lé-lu-k-a-s,
form (continuing the Ancient subjunctive of the with the difference of the secondary vs. primary
sigmatic aorist); contrast 9a Ave [Ba ‘liso] ‘I will suffix in the 3rd pl.: &-iu-sa-n vs. le-lü-ka-sin). In
loose’ with 8a Adve [da Tino] ‘I will be loosing’. terms of semantic markedness one can highlight
The future perfect (traditionally called Third the completive (perfective) function of the aor-
Future) can express an event before another ist or to define it negatively as non-continuous
event (anteriority) with lasting consequences (etymologically ‘without baundaries; undefined,
in the future: phräze kai peprdxetai ‘speak and indefinite’) versus imperfect, the continuous
it shall have been done’ (i.e., no sooner said category. The latter approach is found in Papa-
and it will be done) in Aristoph. Plut.1o27. If nastassiou & Petrounias (2007:582 = 2001:430)
formed from vocalic stems the perfect marker -k reproduced in Table 6 below, tabulating the
is missing (le-ü-s-6) but it appears with stative tense of the indicative against the axes of ‘time
verbs based on the perfect stem: te-thne-k-a ‘I reference and aspect’:
am dead’, te-thné-k-s- ‘I will be dead’; Aé-sté-k-a
‘I stand’, he-ste-k-s-6 ‘I will stand’. Table 6: Tenses of the indicative
The aspectual triad (imperfective/perfective/ (after Papanastassiou & Petrounias 2007:582)
perfect) can be realized by suppletive morphol-
ogy with some of the commonest verbs such as Present Past Future
‘speak’, ‘come’, ‘eat’, ‘see’, ‘carry’, ‘choose’, ‘live’, Continuous Present Imperfect Future
‘run’ (+ Suppletion). The future can be based on Non- Aorist
either the present stem or the stem of the per- Continuous
fect. These forms are surveyed in Table 5: Perfect Present Past Perfect Future
Perfect Perfect

The former approach which recognizes the

perfective nature of the aorist faces a peculiar
380 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD)
problem in Modern Greek linguistic terminol-
ogy in expressing the notion of 'perfectivity.
The term tetelesmenos ‘completed’ /‘completive’
should not be confused with sun-telesménos
used to describe the aspectual property of para-
keimenos ‘perfect’; unfortunately, the same term
is used to label the ‘future perfect’, tetelesménos
mellön (Papanastassiou & Petrounias 2007:582).
The other term is a lengthy compound teleio-
poiétikds ‘completed'/‘completive’. Its opposite
is the term ‘continuous’, exakolouthétikds (the
aspectual property of the imperfect), while the
aspectual aorist is defined negatively as me
exakolouthetikös ‘non-continuaus’, Labeling the
aorist positively as tetelesménos ‘completed’ is
thus more advantageous (but the ‘future perfect’
should be renamed sun-tetelesménos mellön). In
Ancient Greek the aspectual contrast of per-
fectivity is not found with the future even if
from the morphological point of view the future
features the sigmatic stem employed in the aor-
ist (‘past perfective’): contrast the present di-6
with the future /é-s-o. The aspectual contrast of
perfectivity in the future time zone appeared
later on in the compound future tense forms of
Hellenistic Greek: meil-ö fü-ein (Imperfective)
versus mell-ö lü-s-ein/ai (Perfective), and it is
continued in Modern Greek: 6a Atvw [da ‘lino]
versus Ga Avaw [Ga ‘liso] ‘I'll be loosing’ versus ‘I'll
loose’ (with the particle 8a going back to the verb
thélo ‘I want’).
3. MODAL CATEGORIES
The modal categories of Ancient Greek include
indicative, subjunctive, optative and imperative
(+ Mood and Modality); they are formed in all
three aspectual categories of Imperfective (Pres-
ent), Perfective (Aorist) and Perfect as shown in
Table 7.
In traditional terms, the subjunctive is formed
by lengthening the + thematic vowel: -eis vs.
-éis (2nd sg.), -omen vs. -Omen (ist pl.); the opta-
tive features the o-grade -oi instead of -ei in the
indicative. In the sigmatic aorist the thematic
element is the diphthong -ai (but -of appears in
the asigmatic aorist, e.g. lip-oi-mi, lip-oi-s, etc.).
Both strategies are inherited from PIE (+ Indo-
European Linguistic Background): Sanskrit
bhar-a-si ‘you carry’, bhar-a-s(i) (Subjunctive),
bhar-é-s (< *-ai-s), Avestan bar-di-§ (Optative),
cf. Greek pher-eis, pher-Eis, phér-ois, all from
PIE *bher-e-si (Ind), *bher-e-si (Subj), *bher-oi-s
(Opt), respectively.
It will be observed that the 'sigmatic' subjunc-
tive belongs to the perfective category (Aor-
ist), while there is a contrast in the optative
between the future optative and aorist. optative.
The optative and imperative are rarely found in
the perfect, e.g. the three-way aspectual contrast
is found with the verb apd-thnéi-sk-e (Imper-
fective), apö-than-e (Perfective) 'die!, te-thna-thi
(Perfect) ‘perish!’ (in Homer),

Table 7: Aspectual and Modal Categories of Ancient Greek (Active)

Indicative Subjunctive Optative Imperative
Imperfective (Present) 1st Pers. [ü-0 {u-ö ftt-oi-mi
and Pers, —fi-ei-s lu-éi-s hti-oi-s lit-e
Future ist Pers. lü-s-0 lü-s-oi-mi
2nd Pers, lü-s-ei-s lit-s-oi-s
Perfective (Aorist) ist Pers. é-lu-s-a lit-s-0 lu-s-ai-mi
and Pers. &-lu-s-a-s ltt-s-éi-s lui-s-ai-s lü-s-on
Perfect ıst Pers. [&-Iu-k-a le-lu-k-5 le-tü-k-oi-mi
and Pers (é-lu-k-a-s le-hü-k-Ei-s le-li-k-oi-s (le-lu-k-e)
 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD) 481

4. THEMATIC VERSUS ATHEMATIG In Greek the verbs in (ii) with partial redu-
INFLECTION plication in the imperfective aspect (present.
and imperfect) immobilized their accent on
The binary morphology of thematic and ath- the reduplication; the root displays lengthened
ematic verbs in Greek (+ Thematic and Ath- grade (= PIE full grade) in the singular versus
ematic Verbs) continues the IE state of affairs: full grade (= PIE zero grade) in the plural. As in
(thematic) phéreis < *bhér-e-si, (athematic) didös (i) Vedic preserved the original location ofaccent
< *di-deh,-si, cf. Skt. bhär-a-si ‘you carry’ and on the reduplication in the singular but on the
dada-si ‘you give’. Athematic verbs attach the suffix in the plural:
personal suffixes directly ta the root while the
thematic verbs attach it to the stem consisting Table g: Athematic inflection of the verbs with
of the root plus the thematic vowel. The latter partial reduplication in the imperfective aspect
appears as -e in the and, ard sg. and and pl.,
and -o elsewhere (phéromen/s, phérete, (Doric) PIE Vedic Greek
phér-o-nti). root *deh;- ‘give’
There are three classes of athematic verbs: isg. *de-dehz-mi da-da-mi di-dé-mi
ipl. *di-dhg-més = da-d-mds(i) —di-do-men
i. those without any affix (ei-mi ‘I will go’ and
ei-mi‘l am' based on roots *h,ei- and “h,es-);
ii. those with partial reduplication (dé-d6-mi In (iii) the contrast of long ü in the stem in the
‘T give’); singular (de¢k-nii-mi) versus short u in the plural
ii, and those with nasal suffix (defk-nu-mi (defk-nu-men) goes back to PIE “neu versus “nu.
‘| show’). This alternation is again well preserved in Vedic
Sanskrit (5th conjugation): su-nd-mi ‘I press’ ver-
Athematic verbs were gradually restricted during sus su-nu-mds(i) ‘we press’,
the Hellenistic period and later on were either The same alternation is also found in the root
thematized or replaced by other thematic verbs. aorist of verbs with reduplicating presents edö-ka
Thus in Modern Greek in (i) there is myyalva vs. &do-men, éthé-ka vs. éthe-men., But already in
[pi'yeno] or x&w ['pao] (from older kup-ägö ‘go’) Homeric Greek this alternation was very limited
and the verb ‘to be’ is conjugated as mediopas- and in the 4th c. BCE there are instances of the
sive eluar ['i-me]; and verbs in (ii) and (iii) are full (lengthened) grade in the root in the plural
thematized: dido-mi > 88w/Slvw ['dido/‘Sina], (edö-ka-men, éd6-ka-n), and ultimately it was
tithe-mi > Get-w ['Bet-o], deik-nu-mi > dety-v-w/ replaced by an opposition full grade in the active
Betyvw ['8ix-n-o/'8ixno]. versus zero grade in the middle. Other examples
The athematic inflection of the verbs ‘go’ and include &-be-n 'I walked’, ard dual middle bd-tén;
‘be’ in PTE displayed full ablaut grade in the sin- é-phthé-n '\ anticipated’, middle participle phthd-
gular but the plural had zero grade in the root; menos (see Szemerenyi 1996:280). The same bal-
full grade carried accent on the root while the ancing between the active and the middle took
plural forms had accent on the suffix. This state place in Vedic:
of affairs is preserved in Vedic Sanskrit, while
Ancient Greek fixed accent on the root in ‘go’ Table 10: Redistribution of ablaut in the
and extended full grade to the plural of ‘be’: active and middle voice in the root aorist
in Greek and Vedic
Fable 8: Inflection of ‘go’ and ‘be’ in Greek,
Vedic Greek
Vedic and PIE
Active 1 8g. a-dä-m é-do-ka
PIE Vedic Greek
ipl. dada-ma é-do-men>
root *hyei- ‘go’ 18g. *h,éi-mi é-mi ei-mi e-dö-ka-men
ıpl. *h,i-més i-mds(i) i-men Middle 358. d-di-ta é-do-to
root “/,es- ‘be’ isg. *hres-mi ds-mi _ ei-mi ipL = d-di-mahi e-do-metha
ipl. *hs-mes s-mds(i) es-men
482 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, Moon)

Several relics of the zero-grade in the active are (peith-ö), é-pe-phn-e ‘he killed’ (*g”hen-), e-ké-
found in 3rd pl.: 1 sg. é-bé-n, 3 pl. &-ba-n; 1 sg. kl-eto ‘he called’ (kél-omat), é-(w)eip-on ‘1 said’,
é-thé-ka, 3 pl. é-the-an; cf. Skt. 1 sg. d-ga-m, 3 pl. cf. Skt. d-voc-am, both from PIE *e-we-wk”-om
d-g-an; ı sg. d-dhä-m, 3 pl. d-dhu-r (see Beekes (in Gk. -weuk*- was dissimilated to -weik"- >
1995:236). -weip-).
Unlike the athematic root aorist the thematic Zero-grade forms are also found in the perfect
(asigmatic) aorist features the thematic vowel of stative verbs (in their plural sub-paradigms,
in its stem (with the root mostly in zero grade): imperative, infinitive, participles and pluper-
eidon (< *é-wid-on) ‘I saw’, é-phug-on ‘I fled’, fect): bébéka ‘stand, be in place’, hesteka ‘be
é-drak-on '| saw’. There are also thematic aor- placed, stand’, dedoika 'be afraid’, teihneka ‘be
ists with reduplication: pe-pith-ein ‘to persuade’ dead’:

Table su: Zero-grade forms in the znd (strong) perfect:

Ind. 1 sg. bébeka héstéka dedoika téthnéka
dé-di-a
(by analogy)

Ind. 1 pl. he-ba-men he-sta-men de-di-men te-thna-men

Imperative hé-sta-thi — dé-di-thi té-thna-thi
Participle be-ba-ös he-sta-ös de-di-ös te-thne-Ös
Pluperfect e-be-ba-san he-stasan e-de-di-san e-té-thna-san

Zero-grade forms are also found in the perfect
and imperative of the “defective” verb oida
‘| know’ (< ‘I have seen’) versus ismen (< PIE
*wid-me, cf. Skt. vid-md}. The accented o-grade
~ unaccented zero-grade alternation is well pre-
served in Vedic, while Greek fixed its accent on
the root. In other languages, this alternation is
observed in Hittite (ar-Ai ‘| reach’ versus ist pl.
er-weni) and Gothic wait 'l know’ vs. ist pl. wit-
um); other languages display only one ablaut
variant through the whole paradigm (OCS véd-é
'l know’ and vént-2 < *woid-, Lat. vid-i 'T have
seen’ and vid-imus < *weid-). In Greek the full-
grade forms (< “weid-) appear in the mediopas-
sive eid-omai '| am seen', and the subjunctive,
optative and pluperfect (subj. eid-6 < *weid-
é(s)-6), plupf. éidé < *é-weid-é), Zero-grade forms
appear in their original meaning in the aorist
eidon | saw’ (in Table 5) < *&-wid-om (cf. Skt.
d-vid-am 'T found’). As shown in Table 12, Greek
also introduced o-grade forms into the plural
subparadigm of oid-a.
Certain verbs whose roots with radical -e- end
in approximants (liquids and nasals) form their
and perfect based on o-grade in both singular
and plural: ktein-6 ‘kill’ (< *Aten-j-6) é-kton-a,
phtheir-o ‘destroy’ (< “phthér-j-6) é-phthor-a ‘lam
ruined’. The active perfect é-phthar-k-a (and the
verbal adjective phthar-tö-s) is based on zero
grade which is also seen in the perfect of other
verbs in approximants: stéll-6 (< *stel-j-ö) ‘send’,
perfect é&stal-k-a (< “é-stl-k-a); speir-6 ‘I sow'
é-spar-k-a; tein-6 ‘stretch’ té-ta-k-a (< *te-tn-k-a).
These verbs form their aorist and future by
the sigmatic suffix which undergoes fricative
weakening and ultimate loss (s > h > @): stell-ö,
aorist é-steil-a, Doric é-stel-a (< "&-stel-s-a); future
stel-ö (< “stel-és-d), + Compensatory lengthening
observable in Ionic and Doric is absent in Aeolic
dialects which feature geminates for the clusters

Table 12: Forms of oid-a ‘I know’

PIE Sanskrit Greek analogical forms imperative

15g, *wöid-hze ved-a oid-a
2 Sg. *woid-thee vet-tha ois-tha _—oid-as [s-thi (< *wid-dhi)
3 Sg. *wöid-e véd-a oid-e
ipl. *wid-mé vid-mä is-men old-amen
2 pl. *wid-(h)e vid-d is-te old-ate is-te (< *wid-te)
3 pl. *wid-(&)r vid-ür is-asin oid-asin
 VERBAL. SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD) 483
“ns, “sn, “In, *in and *nj (é-stedl-a). In synchronic Greek inherited the binary distinction of ath-
terms, the verbs whose roots end in an approxi- ematic and thematic inflection from PIE, as did
mant present their roots in three allomorphs as the distinction of primary and secondary per-
shown in Table 13: sonal endings: the primary endings were used in
the indicative present, while the secondary end-
Tabe 13: Verbs with roots in an approximant ings were used in the imperfect, and aorist and
optative. The secondary endings were identical
Present stéil-6 speir-6 tein-ö across both morphological categories while the
Aorist e-steil-a é-speir-a e-tein-a primary endings were originally different in the
Perfect é-stal-k-a e-spar-k.a te-ta-k-a singular.
Future stel-ö sper-ö ten-Ö The classical reconstruction of the ancestral
forms of the 2nd and 3rd pers., -eis and -ei, was
The verbs with radical -i- lose their -n in the based on the assumption that they were identi-
perfect: klin-6 (< *klin-j-ö) ‘make to bend’, aor. cal with their athematic counterparts which in
é-klin-a, Aeolic é-klinn-a (< *é-klin-s-a), fut. klin-ö their turn were based on the secondary (his-
(< *klin-é-s-d), pf. ké-kli-k-a. torically primary!) endings plus the particle
Several verbs with roots in an approximant *i (‘here-and-now’), hence *es-i and *-et-i. To
form the 2nd (strong) aorist with zero-grade root account for their trajectory to the documented
and no -s-: ball-ö ‘throw’, aor. &-bal-on; eyeir-ö forms Kiparsky (1967) proposed a + metathesis
‘awaken’, é-gr-dmén; (kata)kain-ö ‘kill’, é-kan-on. rule inverting word-final -i with preceding den-
Their future forms, however, appear to be based tal consonants which were probably palatalized
on the sigmatic suffix: bal-ö < *bal-es-o. in this position: *-esi > -eis, *eti > -eit > -ei In the
same way the PIE subjunctives in *ésié and *eti
5. PERSONAL SUFFIXES (ACTIVE) could have developed into Greek -éis and -éi.
However, complications arise when the other
Personal suffixes of the 2nd (strong) aorist are two dialectal forms of the grd sg. subjunctive are
identical with those of the imperfect, while the considered: Homeric phereisi and phéré found in
personal suffixes of the sigmatic aorist are iden- Arcado-Cypriot and in the Aeolic group (Thes-
tical with those of the innovative &-perfect (with salian, Boeotian and isolated examples also in
the exception of the 3rd pl.): Lesbian). Schwyzer (1938:661) maintains that
PIE *-ét (cf. Sanskrit badr-dt) was the common
source for all the above forms with Arcado-
Table 14: Personal suffixes of the imperfect,
Cypriot and Aeolic -é being closest to it, and
2nd aorist, sigmatic aorist and k-perfect
explains the Attic form phér-éi by analogy to its
Imper- znd Sigmatic &-Perfect indicative counterpart phér-ei. To account for
fect Aorist Aorist Homeric phér-éisi Kiparsky proposed two ver-
sions of his metathesis rule to explain an optional!
'SE on on a a retention of the final -é It should be noted that
758 “eS - ma teas we encounter the same problem in the Indo-
358. -e(n) ein) sein) kein) Iraniarı data where Vedic features subjunctive
tpl = -omen omen samen Kamen forays both with and without final -i (bhdr-dsi ~
api. -ete ete “sate "Kate bhär-äs, bhär-äti ~ bhär-ät) and Avestan displays
gpl. -on -on -S-an -k-asi(n)

Table is: Primary and secondary personal suffixes in athematic and thematic verbs
Athematic Thematic
Primary Secondary Secondary Primary PIE
1 8g. -mi n -on -Ö < “oH
2 sg. -si -S -e8 -eis < *-ehyl
3 Sg. -ti -O -€ -ei < *e
1 pl. -men/s -men/s -omen/s -omen/s < *(o)mom (?)
2 pl. -te -te -ete -ete < *-et(h,)e
3 pl. -nti N -on -onti(Doric) <*-onti
484 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD)
both metathesized forms with and metathesized
forms without final -i (bar-äiti ~ bar-äit).
In terms of external reconstruction of the
PIE forms the ist sg. with a laryngeal is based
on Hittite hi-verbs (dah-hi ‘I take’ < *dehz-oH)
and Lithuanian -& (versus OCS -g) where *-off >
*.@ > -ü according to Leskien’s Law (cf. Beekes
1995:232; + Laryngeal Changes). In the and sg.
the acute of Lithuanian -i goes back to a laryn-
geal *eh;i, and -s in Greek was extended from
either the secondary thematic or the athematic
conjugation. The 3rd sg. in -e can be argued for
on the basis of Balto-Slavic (assuming that Slavic
-t is a particle; in Baltic *-e > -a) to which Greek
added -i characteristic of the primary ending.
The ending of the ist pl. is problematic. Its ath-
ematic primary form is reconstructed as *-nes
(Skt. -mas(i), Lat. -mus ), its secondary form is
*me (Skt. -ma). In Greek -mes is found in West-
ern dialects and -men in Eastern dialects. In
OCS the thematic primary suffix was -ems (Lith.
-ame) and its secondary counterpart was -om».
Beekes (1995:233) reconstructs their PIE forms as
*amom (primary) and *omo/e (secondary). The
and pl. with a laryngeal can be argued for on the
basis of Skt. bhdr-atha. The classical reconstruc-
tion of the thematic 3rd pl. *onti is based on
Skt. -anti, Hitt. -anzi, West Greek -onti (in lonic >
*-onsi > -ousi, Aeolic -oisi). Its athematic coun-
terpart displayed a full grade *-enti, Summarily,
grd Pl athematic primary *-enti, secondary *-ent
3rd Plthematic primary *-onti, secondary *-ont
According to Beekes (1995:234) the earliest form
of the 3rd pl. primary suffix was *-o (on the basis
of Lithuanian -a and Tocharian A -e < *o) to
which -nti was added later.
The endings of the subjunctive were always
thematic. Their IE ancestry is problematic since
Table 16
Subjunctive of athematic verbs
PIE Vedic Greek
*ei-ä dy-a(ni) [-6
*ei-e-s(i) dy-as(i) [-eis
*el-e-t(i) dy-atfi) (ei
Vedic displays both primary and secondary per-
sonal suffixes in both athematic and thematic
verbs; furthermore, it is only in Vedic that we
observe that the athematic indicative yields the
thematic subjunctive (é-ti ‘he goes’, dy-a-t(i)
‘may he go’; ds-ti ‘he is’, ds-a-t(i) ‘may he be’) with
some significant relics of this state of affairs in
Greek dialects (e.g. Homeric (men ‘we go’, subj.
f-o-men), The thematic indicative yields the long
thematic vowel (-& in Sanskrit and -é/6 in Greek).
Thus it appears that in Greek the morphol-
ogy of the subjunctive was systematized in the
post-IE period, Assuming that the (dialectal ?)
variation between primary and secondary suf-
fixes found in Vedic can be projected back to PIE
we can reconstruct the PIE forms of the subjunc-
tive of ‘go’ (athematic) and ‘carry’ (thematic) as
shown in Table 16,
In Greek the subjunctive forms of 'go' are
built on the zero-grade (unlike in Vedic) but the
full-grade forms appear in the copula ‘be’: ééi
(Homeric) < és-éi < *h,és-et(i); in Latin the same
proto-form was recategorized as a future tense
form er-it.
In the optative both Vedic and Greek display
secondary personal suffixes attached in the athe-
matic verbs to the salient stern-forming element
-ya in Vedic (s-ya-m ‘may I be’, s-ya-ma ‘may
we be’), The optative forms of ‘be’ are best pre-
served in Old Latin s-i(e)-m, s--mus ( < *s-ie-m,
*s--mé) with the full-grade root *A,es- restored
in Greek ei-en, ei-men, but subsequently weak-
ened by s > A > @ (*es-ie-m and “es-i-mé). The
thematic optative features the thematic vowel
-o- followed by the zero-grade of the athematic
suffix *ie/r- through the whole paradigm, In
addition to Vedic and Greek these suffixes are
well preserved in Gothic:
Subjunctive of thematic verbs
PIE Vedic Greek
*bhér-6 bhdr-a(ni) phér-6
*hher-e-s(i) bhär-äs(i) pher-eis
* bhér-é-t(i) bhdr-at(i) pher-ei
 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD) 485
Table 17: Optative of thematic verbs Table 19: Secondary mediopassive
PIE Vedic Greek Gothic personal suffixes

*bher-oy-m bhar-eyam pher-oi-mi bair-au Vedic Greek PIE

*bhér-oi-s bhär-e-s pher-oi-s _bair-ai-s 1 sg. “i -män *.a/-mä
*bher-oi-t bhär-e-t pher-oi bair-ai 2 Sg. -thds -80 *.so
3 Sg. -ta -to *-to
ı pl. -mahi -metha *-medha (-&?)
The syllabic *m should be reflected as -a in
2 pl. -dhvam -(s}the *_dhwe
Greek and indeed there is an Arcadian opta-
3 pl. -nta -nto *-nto
tive form e&-eAavv-or-a /ex-elaun-oia/ ‘drive out’
reflecting an earlier secondary suffix -m.
The simple and the future imperative (indi- The Greek secondary suffixes of the 3rd pers.
cating that the fulfillment of the action was (-ta, -nto) correspond exactly to Vedic -ta, -nta
expected in the near future) can be projected (and Hittite -tat(i), -ntat(i)) and allow us to
back to PIE on the basis of Sanskrit (é-Ad ‘go!’ ver- reconstruct PIE *-to, *nto, and also “so in the
sus é-tat) and Old Latin i versus é-t6 from earlier and sg. (Vedic -thd-s was adopted from the per-
*j-dhi versus *-töd. In Greek the suffix -t5 came fect -tha in Table 13). The primary suffixes *-soi,
to be restricted to the 3rd pers. (i-t6 and i-öntön), “toi, *-ntoi are preserved only in Mycenaean and
while in Sanskrit and Old Latin it is also found in Arcado-Cypriot dialects; elsewhere, the forms
the 2nd pl. (Skt. itd versus état, Lat. rte versus with the diphthong -«i (-sai (> éi), -tai-, -ntai)
i-tö-te). In the mediopassive imperative the 2nd are found, It is likely that in the ist sg. the suf-
sg. -so goes probably back to PIE *-swe (cf. Skt. fix -mai has its -m from the active suffix -m/(i);
-sva); the other forms feature -sth- extended -€ in Vedic can be understood as a full-grade
apparently from the infinitive in -sthai (phér-e- alternant of -ö given the Hittite suffix -ha(ha)ri
sth-e, pher-é-sth-0, pher-é-sth-on vs. Skt. bhdra-a- we may ultimately postulate the PIE form with
dhva(m), bhär-a-täm, bhär-a-ntäm), the laryngeal -A,. The secondary suffix -man
(> men in Attic-lonic) is more difficult to expli-
6. PERSONAL SUFFIXES (MEDIOPASSIVE) cate; its -n is most likely the secondary suffix of
the active conjugation and -ma (or only -@) was
Primary versus secondary mediopassive personal shortened in final position and equipped with
suffixes are found in all modal (subjunctive, the primary -/ could have given -mai (-a/). In the
optative, imperative) and quasinominal catego- ist pl. Beekes (1995:241) reconstructs *medhhz
ries (participles, infinitives) of the imperfective in view of Vedic -mahi. Homeric -mestha and
and perfective (aorist) aspectual categories. Hittite -wasta(ri) allow us to postulate another
PIE variant *mesdhh,. In the and pl. *dhwe ( Gk.
Table 18: Primary mediopassive -sthe) was differentiated in Vedic (Aryan *-dhwai
personal suffixes > -dhvé (primary); Aryan *-dhwa(i) > -dhwam >
-dhvam (secondary)). With an addition of data
Vedic Greek PIE (after
from the languages with the rhotic mediopassive
Szemerenyi
(Hitt., Toch., Lat., Olr.) the reconstruction of PIE
1996:238-9)
could be / has to be modified. Beekes (1995:240-
158, -é -mai *-ai/-mai 241) pinpoints that even Vedic displays suffixes
25g. -sé -sai(Myc., *-soi with -r in the 3rd pl.: -r (active perfect), -re
Arc.-Cypr.) (mediopassive perfect) and -ran (optative), and
358, -tefe ti *-toi assumes that -r spread from this form to others
ipl. -mahe -metha *.medha (-a ?) in the languages with the rhotic mediopassive
2 pl. -dhvé -(s)the *-dhwe or disappeared completely (as in Greek). He
gpl = -nté -ntot (Myc, *-ntoi reconstructs the PIE forms as the exponents of
Arc.-Cypr.) transitivity: intransitive -o (3rd sg.), -ro (3rd pl.)
versus transitive -to (3rd sg.), -ntro (3rd pl.)
486 VERBAL SYSTEM (TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beekes, Robert 5. P, 1995. Comparative Indo-European tin-
guisties. An introduction. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Binnick, Robert 1. 1991. Time and the verb. Oxford.
Bybee Joan, R. Parkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution
of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages uf
the world, Chicago.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1961. Morphologie historique du grec
ancien, and ed. Paris.
. 1988, Grammaire homerique, Vol. 1. Phonétique ef mor-
phologie. 7th ed. Paris.
Christidis, A.-F. ed. 2007. A History af Ancient Greek. From
the beginnings to Late Antiquity, Cambridge (originally
published in Greek in Thessaloniki in 2001).
Comrie, Bernard. 1976, Aspect, Cambridge,
——. 1985. Tense. Cambridge.
Dahl, Osten. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford.
Friedrich, Paul. 1974. On aspect theory and Hameric aspect.
Chicago.
Goodwin, William W. 1879. A Greek grammar. London.
{Repr., 1959).
Guillaume, Gustave. 1929/1965. Temps et verbe. Paris.
. 1945. Architectonique du temps dans les langues clas-
siques. Copenhagen. (Repr., Paris 1965).
Hewson, Jahn and Vit Buhenik. 1997. Tense and aspect in
Indo-European languages: theory, typology. diachrony.
Amsterdam.
jakobson, Roman. 1956. Shifters, verbal categories,
the Russian verb, Cambridge, Mass. (Repr. in Jakobson
1984:41-38).
Kiparsky, Paul. 1967. "A phonological rule of Ancient Greek”,
Glatta 44109-1394.
Kithner, R. & F. Blass. [1890-2]. 1992. Ausführliche Gramma-
tik der griechischen Sprache. Vol. 11. Hannover.
Markopoulos, Th. zoog. The future in Greek. From Ancient ta
Medieval. Oxford - New Yark.
Meillet, Antoine, 1955. Apergu d'une histoire de la langue
grecque, 7th ed. Paris. (8th ed. wich bibliography updated
and enlarged by O. Masson, Paris 1975).
Palmer, Leonard R. 1980. The Greek fanguage. London.
Papanastassiou, G. C. and E, B. Petrounias. 2007. “The
morphology of Classical Greek”, In: A.-P. Christidis
2001/2007:571-589.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1953. Griechische Grammatik, Vol. ı, Laut-
lehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. (Handbuch der Altertumswis-
senschaft 2.1.1). Munich.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar af Greek
and Latin, New York — Oxford.
Szemerényi, OswaldJ. L. 1996. Introduction ta Indo-European
linguistics. Oxford.
Valin, Roch, 1965. "Les aspects du verbe frangais”, In:
Melanges Rosetti, 967-975. Bucharest.
VIT BUBENIK
Verbal Valency
L INTRODUCTION
Verbal valency (or valence) refers to the number
of arguments that are required by the syntax ofa
particular verb. A sentence will generally consist
of a verb and various constituents (often nouns)
dependent on the verb. Depending on the par-
ticular verb, some of these constituents will be
in some sense obligatory (variously called argu-
ments or complements), others will be optional
(+ adjuncts). If a verb is intransitive and takes
only a + subject, then it has a valency of one; if
it is transitive (+ Transitivity) and takes both a
subject and a + direct object, it has a valency of
two; if it is ditransitive and takes an > indirect
object as well, it has a valency of three. One
can also distinguish between syntactic valency
(just described) and semantic valency. Verbs
that have a dummy subject that has no true ref-
erent (it is raining) may be described as having a
semantic valency of zero, while still maintaining
a syntactic valency of one. Conversely, verbs that
normally take a direct object (she is eating the
apple) need not express that object (she is eating
right now), in which case the semantic valency
remains two (something is being eaten, after
and
all), but the syntactic valency is reduced to one
(there is only one argument present).
As this juxtaposition of syntactic and seman-
tic valency would suggest, deciding what counts
as an argument as opposed to an adjunct is not
necessarily straightforward: if one can say she is
eating without an object, in what sense can we
call the object obligatory with this verb? Mat-
thews (1981:123-127) offers five parameters that
help identify arguments: (1) they tend to be par-
ticipants in the event, rather than circumstances;
(2) there are typically more restrictions on which
arguments can collocate with which verbs (e.g.
to drink requires a liquid direct object) than
is the case with free adverbials like yesterday;
(3) even if arguments can occasionally be
dropped, there nevertheless remain contexts in
which they cannot be: she’s eating is grammati-
cal, but she’s getting is not; (4) when an argument
is dropped, it may still be latently understood:
one cannot simply eat in the abstract without
eating something; (5) for something to be an
argument, there must be some verbs (e.g. intran-
sitive verbs) that exclude its presence. In the
Chomskyan tradition, the distinction between
argument and adjunct can be explained in terms
of X-bar syntax: while the verb itself and its
arguments occupy sister nodes, adjuncts attach
higher up on the tree as sisters to the V-bar node.
The same holds true for nouns as well, as history
can be considered an argument in he is a student
 VERBAL VALENCY
of history in the same way that it can in he stud-
ies history (Radford 1988:175-196 (noun phrases)
and 230-41 (verb phrases)).
Until the late twentieth century, grammars
tended to discuss such phenomena under the
heading of ‘transitivity’, but the latter term is no
longer used quite as often with specific reference
to the argument structure of a verb because the
seminal 1980 article of Hopper and Thompson
expanded its reference to a wider range of phe-
nomena related to the extent to which activ-
ity carries over from the Agent to the Patient
(+ Patient and Theme).
2. VERBAL VALENCY AND CASES
Even if there will always be borderline examples,
the distinction between arguments and adjuncts
is a real one, and it plays out in our under-
standing of the Greek cases (+ Case (including
Syncretism)). The Greek + dative, for instance,
is complicated, much like the Latin ablative,
because it represents the syncretism of three
earlier Proto-Indo-European cases, the dative
proper as well as the + instrumental and loca-
tive (+ Indo-European Linguistic Background).
To some extent, these distinct functions can be
teased apart by considering valency: the indirect
object of a verb is part of the valency of the verb,
but an instrument is likely to be an optional
adjunct (Luraghi 2003:63). Use of a prepositional
phrase, instead of the simple dative, as typically
happens in locative expressions in prose (e.g.
ouden allo kakon ergasämenos en téi polei ‘hav-
ing done no other harm in the city’: Xen. Hell.
1.1.20) can be a sign that the recipient does not
belong in the verbal valency, suggesting both
semantic and syntactic ‘distance’ (ibid. 13). But
one should not press this too far. The object
of khrésthai ‘to use’ is an instrumental dative,
and most would probably wish to include it in
the valency of the verb (cf. Lat. utor ‘id.’ with
the ablative). Conversely, “ethical” datives are
true datives, but the ease with which they can
be added to or dropped from sentences with a
variety of different verbs shows that they should
not be included in the verb's valency. Finally,
prepositional phrases can sometimes also be
arguments: in English, except in special idioms,
one never simply puts something; rather one
must put it somewhere, and locative arguments
that indicate where can reasonably included in
the valency of the verb. So too in Greek one
487
usually expects to find a locative argument with
tithémi and many of its compounds:
(1) somata de uutön hekdston puiésas ho theds
éthéken eis tas periphords
‘and having made the bodies of each of them,
God put them in their orbits’ (Pl. Ti. 38c)
That said, while such locative expressions are
common with ¢ithémi, they are certainly not
obligatory as they are with put.
Verbal valency is also relevant to the case-
marking of the object, since not only the + accu-
sative, but also the + genitive and > dative are
in play. Generally speaking, the choice of one
of the latter two cases can be associated with
a lesser degree of affectedness than when the
object is marked by the accusative: for exam-
ple, if one creates an object ex nihilo (poiein
ti) or destroys it altogether (apolesai ti), one
expects the accusative, but if one merely has a
superficial contact with it, then the genitive is
often found (Adptesthai tinos) (Riafio Rufilan-
chas 2006:134-9). This is in line with some of the
morphosyntactic observations made by Hopper
and Thompson: in numerous languages, such
as Finnish, low-transitivity verbs that affect the
object less take a partitive case, not the accusa-
tive which is found after high-transitivity verbs
(1980:262-263).
3. VERBAL VALENCY AND VOICE
The ramifications of verbal valency particular to
Ancient Greek can be understood in reference
not only to the arguments themselves, but also
to both the morphology and syntax of verbs
that govern them. Verbal + voice, for instance,
is tied to valency, with both the > middle and
> passive voice being seen as, at least in part,
strategies for altering the valency of a verb. This
is most obvious with the passive voice, which
reduces the syntactic valency of a verb by one in
that, by promoting an object of the correspond-
ing active construction to become the subject, it
eliminates the requirement that the former sub-
ject be expressed. That said, the latter can still
be present as an adjunct, typically introduced
by hupö + genitive (George 2005). The rela-
tionship between valency and the passive can
also be considered from the standpoint of the
objects that are promoted to become the sub-
jects of passive verbs. In particular, any verbal
488 VERBAL VALENCY
object that can be so promoted is a true argu-
ment, rather than an adjunct. This holds true
in Greek (in contrast to Latin) no matter what
case the verb governs: katapséphizesthai ‘to con-
demn’ takes a genitive object, but the passive
structure ekeinos katepséphisthé ‘he was con-
demned' is grammatical (Xen. Hell. 5.2.36; for
this and other examples, see Kühner & Gerth
1898:124-125; Smyth 1956:§1745). A similar situ-
ation obtains in English, where This job needs
to be worked at by an expert is grammatical (at
this job would be an argument in the active for-
mulation), but This office is worked at by a lot af
people is not (since at this office would be a mere
adjunct) (Radford 1988:233-234). The converse,
of course, is not true, as there are also object
arguments that cannot become subjects of pas-
sive verbs. For instance, verbs that take both a
dative of the person and an accusative of the
thing typically can only promote the accusative
to the subject slot, although there are excep-
tions, such as epitrépd ‘to entrust’ (Kühner &
Gerth 1898:25, Mulder 1988:223-224). Another
example is the dative object of khrésthai, which,
despite being semantically similar to ordinary
accusative objects, was apparently still under-
stood at a syntactic level as an instrumental
(Riano Rufilanchas 2006:346-350).
Some of the functions of the middle voice
have also been understood in terms of valency
(Barber 1975). The direct reflexive middle in
effect changes a verb that would otherwise have
a valency of two (ho pais fovei heautén 'the boy
washes himself’) into one that only has a subject
(ho pais loütai, post-Classical lodetai ‘id.'). So too
the indirect reflexive middle can be described
as incorporating the dative argument of the
active verb into the verb itself, again reducing
the valency by one. First, the active, with an
indirect object:
(2) sophias dé tois mathetaisdöxan, ouk alétheian
porizets
‘you are giving your students the appearance
of wisdom, not the real thing’ (Pl. Phdr. 275a)
Second, the middle, with no indirect object:
(3) fü pithanös legein autoi par’ heautön hoi
mathétai porfzontai
‘the students themselves give themselves
persuasive speech from their own resources’
(Pl. Phdr. 269c, modified)
This description of the middle voice in terms
of valency-reduction carries the additional ben-
efit of linking its function to that of the passive,
with which the middle shares morphology in the
present and perfect systems.
That said, valency reduction is certainly not
the chief effect of the middle. First, even when
the middle voice is chosen over the active, the
reflexive pronouns (+ reflexives) canstill be used:
& kakösai hémds & sphds autoüs bebaiösasthai
'either to harm us or to strengthen themselves’
(Thue. 1.33.3) (other examples at Kühner & Gerth
1898:111; note also Allan 2003:27). Furthermore,
insofar as the datives that are incorporated into
the indirect reflexive examples of the middle
voice are often less true indirect objects than
datives of interest, here too the middle is not
so much reducing the number of arguments
of the verb as eliminating what would other-
wise be an adjunct. Thus, the role of valency
reduction in understanding the middle voice is
relatively limited, especially given that all these
phenomena - and many other uses of the mid-
dle besides — are better subsumed under the
heading of subject-affectedness. But while more
functional-cognitive approaches make clear that
valency reduction is not the central role of the
middle voice (see especially Allan 2003:53-56),
the concept nevertheless remains a useful way to
describe some of the middle’s syntactic effects.
Finally, while the valency is (or can be)
reduced by the middle and passive, it can also
be increased through — causative formations,
when the single argument of an intransitive
verb becomes the object of a new two-argument
transitive verb. While there are no systematic
morphological means of forming causatives
(in contrast to Semitic), certain derivational
patterns (e.g. phébomai ‘to flee’ forms phobeö
‘to cause to flee’, methüo ‘to be drunk’ forms
methüskö 'to make drunk, intoxicate’) can be
understood along these lines. For the diachronic
development of causatives, see Lavidas (2009).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger J, 2003. The middle voice in Ancient Greek: a
study in polysemy. Amsterdam.
Barber, ElizabethJ. W. 1975. “Voice - beyond the passive”. In:
Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Lin-
guistic Society, ed, by Cathy Cogen et al., 16-24. Berkeley.
George, Coulter H. 2005. Expressions of agency in Ancient
Greek, Cambridge.
Hopper, PaulJ. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1986. “Transitivity
in grammar and discourse”, Language 56:251-299.
 VERBAL VALENCY
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2, Teil: Satzlehre,
vol. 1. Hanover.
Lavidas, Nikolaos. zoog. Transitivity alternations in dia-
chrony: changes in argument structure and voice morphol-
agy. Newcastle upon Tyne.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and
cases: the expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek.
Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Matthews, Peter H. ıgBı. Syntax. Cambridge.
Mulder, Hotze. 1988. “Non-accusative second arguments of
two-place verbs in Ancient Greek”, In: /n the footsteps af
Raphael Kühner, ed. Albert Rijksbaron, Hotze A. Mulder,
Gerry C. Wakker, 219-236. Amsterdam.
Radford, Andrew, 1988. Transformational grammar: a first
course, Cambridge.
Riafo Ruflanchas, Daniel. 2006. £l complemento directo en
griego antigua: un estudio sobre los argumentas verbales
de objeto en la prosa del griego antiguo. Madrid.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1956. Greek grammar, revised by
Gordon M. Messing, Cambridge, Mass.
COULTER GEORGE
Verse
In defining the concept of verse in relation to
ancient Greek poetry, one must first distinguish
between what is intended by the term ‘verse’ in
ancient metrical theory, and what is instead the
modern theory of Greek meters.
In the ancient notion of ‘verse’, the cen-
tral concept is that of ‘measure’. As metrics
(metrike tékhné) is the art of measuring, the
‘line’ (or ‘verse’) is primarily a ‘measure’ (+ Met-
ron). Unlike prose phrasing, the aesthetics of
ancient poetic phrasing has established rigor-
ous measures. In the words of Aristotle (Rhet. 3,
140ga), while an essential feature of the rhetori-
cal phrase is that it has a beginning and an end,
which is to say that it has, above all, a gram-
matical and semantic completeness (Demetr.
De Elocut. 2), the defining feature of the ‘metri-
cal phrase’ or ‘line’ is primarily its match to a
given length, which is easily recognizable as well
established in tradition. Furthermore, Aristotle
makes clear the centrality of the measure in
verse, observing that poetry differs from prose
not so much in rhythm, which they both have,
but in meter (Ret. 3, 1408 B 2off.), In the previ-
ous century (5th c. BCE), Gorgias had identi-
fied precisely in the measure the distinguishing
feature between poetry and prose. He called
the poem a “speech in meters” (lögen ékhonta
métron, Hel. Enc. 82 B11, 9, 20-21 DK).
489
The basic unit for all types of verse (recited,
recitative or sung: for the distinction between
these different modes of performance, + Song
and Recitation) was the so-called metron
‘meter’ - that is, a metrical type (dactylic, ana-
pestic, ionic, etc.) or a metrical sequence, usually
consisting of two feet (which also led to the term
‘dipodia’ (‘dipody’)). Ancient theory generally
identified nine fundamental, prototype meters
(the so-called metra prötötupa; the term proto-
typon is amply attested in the Latin grammar-
ians; see M. Vict. |Aphth.], GL VI 52, 21; 69, 7):
iambic (~-~—), trochaic (----), dactylic (-~~),
whose -, unlike that of the other fundamental
meters, was measured for each foot (although
the theory speaks of dactylic ‘hexameter’, and
not of dactylic 'hexapody’), anapestic (~~-~-~—),
antispastic (xx—~), “which pulls in opposite direc-
tions” because it associates an ascending rhythm
with a descending rhythm (in conventional
modern notation, the sign ‘xx’ denotes that the
first foot is free to be realized as a trochee (-~),
an iambic (--), a pyrrich (~~) or a spondee (- -);
then further choriambic (----), ionic a maiore
(— ——-) and ionic a minore (~~- -), and finally
cretic-paeonic (—~—, —-~-~, ~~~, wen, vun),
The grammarian Heliodorus (apud Choerob. ad
Heph. 247, u-15 Consbruch) did not include the
cretic-paeonic among the fundamental meters,
since he considered it essentially as a rhythm,
not a meter. From these basic metrical units
the ancient sources spoke of a stikhos ‘line’ to
indicate a length included between trimeter and
tetrameter, of a kölon ‘component, articulation’
to indicate the length equivalent to a dimeter,
of a kdmma ‘segment’ for a length less than a
dimeter, and finally of a periodos (-+ Period) to
designate the length exceeding the st/khos. The
combination of more basic metric units through
the repetition of the same or combination of
different metric units in accordance with the
extensions of kömma, kölon, stikhos or even of
the periodus was able to explain, in that theory,
all the multiple varieties of Greek versification. It
then consisted essentially of dimeters, trimeters
or tetrameters, with their curtailed (or‘catalectic’,
to use the old term) or expanded forms (‘hyper-
catalectic’ in old terminclogy), or combinations
thereof, to form periods. Take, for example, the
iambic meter. The iteration of more iambic
meters gradually produces the iambic dimeter
(~-~-~-~-), the iambic trimeter (~ w——
499
--), and the iambic acatalectic and catalectic
tetrameter (~—~-~-4 un n ununununn
~~»). The mixture, however, of iambic meter
with, for example, antispastics, gives rise
metric sequences such as xx—~-—~-— (glyconic),
xx----= (pherecratean) and xx-- nt
(asclepiadean), much used by Aeolic poets such
as Sappho and Alcaeus. The association of iam-
bic meter to choriamb generates sequences such
AS -u-unu-, wv, well attested in e.g.
the poetry of Anacreon, Common stikhoi were
the iambic trimeter, which is the typical recited
verse of dramatic tragic and comic dialogue, the
trochaic catalectic tetrameter (-— u
~-) and the anapestic catalectic tetrameter (~~-
ee ewe), which were possibly
rendered in recitative and were quite common
in dramatic poetry, An apparent exception is the
dactylic ‘hexameter’, so called by the ancients,
a stikhos actually made up of six feet, not of six
metra. The last element of each verse recited (or
recitative) can be represented by a syllable pro-
sodically ‘indifferent’ (adidphoros), in the sense
that it can be realized by both a short or a long
syllable, regardless of the abstract pattern. With
regard to its internal workings, each verse in
drama (recited or recitative) has locations where
word-end occurs more regularly. The phenom-
enon is called + caesura (‘incision’), when
word-end falls inside the metron, or diairesis
when the incision coincides with the end of
the metron.
With particular reference to poetry with musi-
cal accompaniment intended for intonation, the
measure of dimeter (kölon in ancient terminol-
ogy) assumes great importance in ancient metri-
cal theory, since it seems to have been the main
component in lyric structures. In the oldest edi-
tions of lyric and dramatic poetry, dating back to
the grammarians of Alexandria, which together
with the ancient scholarly literature on the sub-
ject represent for us the most authoritative evi-
dence of the ancient poetic forms, the verbal text
is not transcribed continuously, i.e., in seriptio
continua, as was the case in most of archaic
inscriptions or poetic papyri first brought
modern attention. Instead, it is lined up accord-
ing to a disposition, or rather an editorial tech-
nique, that in some way highlighted the form of
versification. In this order, which the ancients
on the whole called ‘colometry’, ‘sequences' of
variable length whose end did not necessarily
VERSE
coincide with a full word (in the sense that it
also admitted for splitting up words) were writ-
ten one below the other. Their extension was
to equivalent mostly to dimeters or köla (‘colons’)
in the strict sense, but also trimeters or, more
rarely, monometers or tetrameters (i.e., those
that the theory more accurately calls kömmata
and stikAoi), consistent with the results from
theoretical reflection. The oldest preserved doc-
ument of an Alexandrian edition of a choral lyric
text is the Papyrus of Lille inv. 76th +73, which
preserves the so-called ‘Thebaid' by Stesichorus.
The dating is debated, with hypotheses from the
first half of the third century BCE (in which case
it would be a copy preceding the work of Aris-
tophanes of Byzantium) to the first half of the
second century BCE, if not later.
The modern theory of ancient Greek versifica-
tion does not deviate at all from ancient theory as
far as it pertains to the verses recited or performed
in recitative, that is to iambic trimeters, dactylic
hexameters, and trochaic and anapestic catalec-
tic tetrameters. Yet with reference specifically to
lyric production it does differ, starting from the
end of the eighteenth century, with the influ-
ence of Gottfried Hermann, Chr. Wihlelm Ahl-
wardt and, in a systematic and highly powerful
way, of August Boeckh, whose famous edition of
the the odes of Pindar was published at the begin-
ning of the nineteenth century (181-1821). It was
at that stage of scholarship, in fact, that a new
notion of ‘verse’ emerged in the specific sense of
‘melic verse’, that is to say a musically autono-
mous metric sequence preceded and followed
by a so-called ‘metrical pause’. This definition,
which attempts to rebuild somewhat perfor-
mative aspects of the earliest songs, proceeds
from the assumption that the ‘melic verse’ must
match - in terms of musical performance — a
complete melodic phrase whose border is clearly
distinguishable by certain signs. For example, let
us take a triadic poetic structure, which is very
common in choral] lyric, with the triad consist-
ing of strophe, antistrophe and epode, repeated
for a number of times throughout the song. With
to reference to this structure, Boeckh thought he
could find a sure indication of the verse border
whenever he identified all the occurrences of a
word-end occupying the same metrical position
in all the strophes: in those cases, he posited,
the word-end coincided with the verse border.
This is intuitive: the musical phrase and the
 VERSE
voice of the singer who intoned the song should
agree, and they should break at a complete
word, On this same metrical seat Boeckh
identified other potentially contributory indi-
cators: (i) the presence of a meeting of vowels
(hiatus) between the last syllable of the word
located at the (alleged) verse border and the
initial syllable of the next word; (ii) the inci-
dence, in this same seat of the verse, of the syl-
faba anceps or, in Greek, adidphoros, and (iii)
the presence of a strong syntactic break, marked
in modern notation by punctuation (Boeckh
1811:308—313). As far as its length is concerned,
the 'melic verse’ of Boeckh may coincide with a
single cofon or, more frequently, include more
than one. But the modern theory of ancient
Greek versification is not interested in the ques-
tion of 'measure’ or ‘extension’/‘length’ of the
verse, which lay at the center of the ancient doc-
trine. What distinguishes the melic verse here
is its prosodic and musical autonomy. Here the
colon is not generally represented as an indepen-
dent sequence. Another name for the Boeckhian
‘melic verse’ found in the modern English schol-
arship is '> period’ or ‘minor period’,
The different in approach between the ancient
and modern theories about ‘verse’ can have mac-
roscopic effects on the layout of ancient Greek
lyric texts and, eventually, even on the very per-
ception of the ‘line’. The identification of hiatus,
syllaba anceps and punctuation as indicators of
the border of the ‘melic verse’, for example, has
led modern editors of lyric and (less commonly)
dramatic poetry to change in a number of cases
the colometric layout known from papyri and
medieval manuscripts. Hence there is a clear
divergence between the layout exhibited by
modern editions (in particular, post-Boeckhian
editions) of lyric and dramatic texts, and the pre-
Boeckhian editions which, in principle, are more
conservative and respectful of traditional colom-
etry. It should be noted that the double numbers
which mark the lines in some editions refer pre-
cisely to this dual origin. On the one hand it indi-
cates the Boeckhian ‘melic verses’. On the other,
it indicates (usually by smaller numbers) the
cola of the ancient tradition, In this respect, the
edition of Pindar by Bruno Snell et al. and that
of Bacchylides by Jean Irigoin are typical. The
departure from tradition is more sensitive espe-
cially in the case of choral lyrics, because of the
influence exerted by the authoritative critical
491
edition of Pindar by Boeckh. This gap is some-
what less obvious, though not absent, in the case
of the cantica of classical theater, where such a
powerful theoretical model is missing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ablwardt, Chr, W. 1820, Pindar! Carmina, ed. minor.
Leipzig.
Bacchylide. Dithyrambes, Epiniciens-Fragments. 1993. Ed. by
Jean lrigoin. Paris.
Cavallo, Guglielmo. 1983. Libri scritture scribi a Ercolano
(Suppl. | a Cronache Ercolanesi 13). Naples.
Gentili, Brung and Liana Lomiento. 20087. Metrics and
rhythmics, History of poetic forms in Ancient Greece, Eng-
lish transl. by E. Christian Kopff. Pisa - Rome.
Hephaestionis Encheiridion. 1906 (1971). Ed. by Maximilian
Consbruch. Leipzig.
Hermann, Gottfried. 1799. Handbuch der Metrik. Leipzig.
. 1818. Elementa Doctrinae Metricae. leipzig.
Lomiento, Liana, 20m. "Considerazioni sul valore della
cesura nei versi kata stichon e nei versi lirici della poesia
arcaica e classica”, QUCC 96 (n.s, 67):21-35.
. 2004. “Da prosa a poesia, da poesia a prosa in Dionigi
di Alicarnasso. Riflessioni preliminari”, QUCC 106 (ns,
77)103-17.
Maas, Paul. 1962. Greek metre. (Revised translation of the
German edition Leipzig - Berlin 19293, by Sir Hugh Lloyd-
Jones), Oxford.
Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis, 1987. Pars I: Epinicia, Post
Bruno Snell ed. Herwig Maehler. Leipzig.
Pindari Opera quae supersunt, I-I. ı8u-ıB2ı. Ed. by
August Boeckh. Leipzig.
Nagy, Gregory. 2000. "Reading Greek poetry aloud: evidence
from the Bacchylides papyri”, QUCC 93 (n.s. 64):7-24.
Tessier, Andrea, 2011. Vom Melos zum Stichos. lf verso melico
greco nella filologia tedesca dinizio Ottocento. Trieste.
Turner, Sir Erie G, 1980. “Ptolemaic bookhands and Lille
Stesichorus”, Scrittura e Civilta 4319-40.
. 19872. Greek manuscripts of the ancient world (BiC5
Suppl. 46). London.
West, Martin L. 1982. Greek metre, Oxford,
Liana LOMIENTO
Virtutes Dicendi (aretai léxeés)
+ Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of
Vocative
1. GENERALITIES
The vocative is the grammatical case (+ Case
(including Syncretism)) used to address the per-
son or entity (divinity, animal, seldom object)
the speaker is talking to. Its function is to estab-
lish and identify the addressee within a given
speech act, e.g. Sokrates ‘oh Socrates!. in other
492 VOGATIVE
words, the vocative functions as a 2nd person
marker on nouns, ie. it is a 2nd person deictic
form (> Deixis (including 1st and 2nd Person)),
since it realizes its reference by linking to the
extra-linguistic context in which the speech act
takes place.
In the Stoic tradition, the term for the voca-
tive case is prosagoreutikön, from prosagoreua
‘to greet’ (Belardi and Cipriano i990). From
the Alexandrian grammarian Dionysius Thrax
(and-ıst c. BCE) on, the standard term among
Greek grammarians is kletike (ptösis), from kaleö
'to call’.
2. FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS
The vocative displays specific forms only in some
masculine and feminine nouns when singular.
Otherwise, in the dual, plural, as well as in the
neuter nouns, it always has the same form as the
~ nominative. This case syncretism took place at
an early stage of Proto-Indo-European: in PIE the
vocative plural had the same form as the nomi-
native except for stress. Vocative forms were
atonic except when occurring at the beginning
of an utterance or at the beginning of a verse.
In that case their initial syllable was stressed
(cf. Ved. voc. pl. pitaras/ pitaras ‘oh fathers!’ vs.
Ved. nom. pl. pitdras ‘fathers’ (Sihler 1995:250).
This prosodic differentiation, however, is last in
Greek.
In the masculine and feminine nouns having
specific forms for the vocative singular, vocative
does not have any ending, but consists of the bare
stem. Otherwise, the vocative is, again, identical
to the nominative (which can incidentally be
a bare stem itself), as in other IE languages,
e.g. Latin (Meillet and Vendryes 1979:546-548;
Schwyzer 1950:59ff; Sihler 1995:250ff.). In fact,
the vocative sing. of the o-stems is endingless
and shows the bare stem with e-grade of ablaut,
e.g. daiile ‘oh slave!’. The vocative coincides with
the bare stem in most of the other + inflectional
classes as well, e.g. pdter ‘oh father!', daimon ‘oh
daemon’, geron 'oh old man’, poli ‘oh city! (in
Greek, i-stems generalize, in the vocative case,
the zero-grade of the formative suffix, but PIE
had the e-grade -ei, as in the name of Poseidon,
Posei(daon) ‘oh Lord of the earth!', deriving from
a vocative form, and as the guna-grade of the
Ved, voc. sing. agne ‘oh fire!’ attests), /khthü ‘oh
fish!', nai ‘oh ship!’, Sökrates ‘oh Socrates’. In
d- and jd-stems, the nominative singular form,
which is a bare stem as well, is used for the voca-
tive, e.g, thed ‘oh goddess", Moüsa ‘oh Muse!’
However, in Homeric Greek, @-stems show the
vocative in -d (> “eh, with dropped “A, and
altered short vowel), e.g. nuimphd ‘oh nympht!,
whereas the classical form is the same as the
nominative (Schwyzer 1950:59; Sihler 1995:268).
In the occlusive stems vocative forms are largely
syncretic with the nominative, e.g. Aérux ‘oh
messenger’.
Regarding the PIE vocative case, Winter (1969)
hypothesized that it may be considered a rela-
tively young and secondary form, formed from
the nominative singular by deletion of the case
marker -s (“deletion morphology”); however, as
the author himself points out, this hypothesis
raises several problems in the reconstruction of
the vocative form of o- and d-stems.
As regards prosodic aspects, in PIE the voca-
tive case, if stressed, was stressed on the first syl-
lable, as mentioned above. Stress shift (+ Stress)
on the initial syllable (i.e., barytonesis) is only
residual in Greek: e.g, voc. pater ‘oh father!’ and
söter ‘oh saviour!’ with respect to the nom. pater,
söter (Schwyzer 1950:60; Lazzeroni 1995).
It is significant that in some IE languages like
Sanskrit and Hittite, as well as in Greek, neu-
ter nouns in vocative may shift to the animate
gender by metaplasm, e.g. Hom. voc. tékne ‘oh
child! instead of the expected teknon (Lazzeroni
2002a, 2002b), Something similar can be found
in Sanskrit, where neuter a-stems are subject to
gender metaplasm when they are in the vocative
form. The metaplasm can be seen as a repairing
strategy: neuter nouns are typically inanimate
and inagentive, whereas the vocative case typi-
cally implies animacy and potential agentivity of
the referent (Lazzeroni 2002a, 2002b).
3. THEORETICAL ISSUES
Since the Ancient Stoa, many remarks have been
made un the vocative case (Donati zuug, 2010).
As a matter of fact, the vocative case is an extra-
relational item and does not mark, as other case
values do, semantic-syntactic relations between
noun phrases and other elements in the clause
(cf, also Daniel and Spencer 2009). Its function
is rather pragmatic in nature. Despite this func-
tional difference, however, it can be formally
integrated into the nominal systems as part of the
paradigm. This raises the question whether the
vocative (in Greek as well as in other languages)
 VOCATIVE
can be regarded as a case or not. From the
Stoics and Apollonius Dyscolus on (but several
other remarks are made by Latin authors like
Varro and Priscian, and further on in the Middle
Ages by the Modistae, in the ıgth c. and within
Structuralism until nowadays), it seems evident
that the vocative is syntactically and semanti-
cally peculiar, compared to other cases because
of its extra-relationality and 2nd person deictic
nature, In the Stoic fragments, in particular, its
holophrastic nature as well as its nature of case
emerge as problems (Belardi and Cipriano 1990;
Donati 2009, among others). Beside the Sto-
ics, among Greek authors, Apollonius Dyscolus
points out four peculiarities about the vocative
(> Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of): its con-
nection with the and person, its holophrastic
nature, its contiguity with the nominative, and
its relationship with interjections. Because of its
semantic-syntactic status, the vocative case is
often seen as an anomaly within a case system,
with the result that its actual membership in the
category of case is sometimes denied or, at least,
disputed by ancient as well as modern authors
and linguists (Donati 2009, 2010).
4. VOCATIVE AND NOMINATIVE
OVERLAPPING
From the Archaic period on, sometimes in Greek
a nominative form can occur instead of the
expected vocative also within inflectional classes
which normally maintain the apposition (also in
Latin, Sanskrit, Slavic and Germanic (Svennung
1958)), This functional overlapping and neutral-
ization between vocative and nominative occurs
sporadically as lack of + agreement between a
vocative form and its dependent element and
most frequently bare nominative used with a voc-
ative function (in particular in Homer with the
adjective philos ‘dear’). According to Schwyzer,
only the (Homeric) type in which the vocative
is courdinated to a nominative with a vocalive
function by means of the enclitic -te (e.g, Zeü
pater... Eelios te ‘oh Zeus father... and Helios",
also attested in Sanskrit) and the type philos 6
Menélae ‘oh dear Menelaus!’ are authentic old
instances of nominative forms used for the voca-
tive, whereas any other instance of such nomi-
native forms is interpreted as + apposition or
exclamation (Schwyzer 1950:63-64; Chantraine
1953:36). However, there is the possibility for
vocative forms to be neutralized with the nomi-
493
native (partly also for metrical reasons). These
(marginal) phenomena may be interpreted in
terms of syntactic feature sharing, since voca-
tive and nominative share extra-relationality,
inherent in the vocative and often possible for
the nominative (e.g. nominativus pendens, titles,
exclamations); as they share this structural fea-
ture, it is possible for the nominative, semanti-
cally unmarked, to be used for the vacative,
semantically and pragmatically marked as a 2nd
person form (but not vice versa) (Donati 2009).
In particular, the -te- construction can be inter-
preted in terms of > conjunction reduction: the
second of two conjoined vocatives appears in
nominative form, since only in the first member
of the coordination the semantic-pragmatically
marked case value appears (voc.), with the nom-
inative serving instead as the unmarked case
(Kiparsky 1968). However, the structural conti-
guity between vocative and nominative seems to
be a possible source for the widely attested case
syncretism in JE languages. Finally, it is worth
noting that the demonstrative Aodtos ‘this’ can
be used in the nominative in addresses (Dickey
1996:154-158; Mussies 1998).
5. THE INTERJECTION ö
The particle 6, which may be associated to a
vocative form, is an interjection (attested also
in Lat. 6, Ir, ä) (Schwyzer 1950:60). In Homer
6 is rarely used (ca. 10 per cent of the voca-
tives). Scott (1903, 1904) explains the use of ö in
Homeric Greek, ruling out metrical principles
and rather connecting it to the affective tone of
address. This explanation is not well supported,
since the meter is clearly relevant, and more-
over the use of 6 can be shown to be affected
by the kind of noun in the vocative: only in
ca. 20% of the vocatives having 6 is there a
proper name (e.g. 6 Menélae ‘oh Menelaus!'),
whereas in ca. 80% there is a common noun or
a substantivized adjective (e.g. 6 géron ‘oh old
man!'). As a consequence, apart from the metri-
cal constraints undoubtedly also at work, ö in
Homer can presumably be considered as a “deic-
tic identifiability intensifier’, applied to non-
inherently definite expressions, whose referents
are per se less identifiable, i.e., precisely common
nouns (Lepre 1979; Donati 2009, 2012). Anyway,
the use of 6 is exceptional in Homer (Chantraine
1953:379). However, it increases in frequency dia-
chronically until it becomes almost regular in
494 VOCATIVE
the Attic of the late 5th and qth c.: ca. 60% e.g,
in Sophocles and Herodotus and then more than
95% in Plato, Xenophon and the orators (Scott
1903, 1904; Meillet and Vendryes 1979; Schwyzer
1950:61; Lepre 1979; Dickey 1996; Donati 2009,
2012). Although many authors try to explain the
presence or absence of 6 on the basis of socio-
pragmatic factors concerning affectiveness and
politeness, an affectiveness-based explanation
seems to be impossible (Dickey 1996:203-205),
even for the language of the Classical period,
when the use of 6 has become regular. Apart
from these attempts to attribute specific socio-
pragmatic values to the presence or absence of
ö, the increase in frequency leading to the regu-
lar presence of 6 before vocatives may be ana-
lyzed as a grammaticalization process: because
of its increased frequency, the 6-construction
(+ Construction Grammar and Greek) becomes
the most frequent and regular vocative expres-
sion with common nouns (e.g. in Sophocles and
Herodotus), and then extends its application
contexts also to proper nouns, becoming the
standard coding of the vocative in the late 5th
and 4th c. BCE (Donati 2009, 2012). Alternatively,
one can consider the extension of ö as a case of
an increasingly standardized written register. In
any case, a standardization process is involved.
In the Hellenistic period the particle goes out of
use, and in the Septuagint and the New Testa-
ment, it is normally omitted before the vocative,
converging with the Semitic usage (Blass and
Debrunner 1967:81; Dickey 1996:206).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Belardi, Walter and Palmira Cipriano. 1990. Casus inter-
rogandi. Nigidio Figulu e la teoria stoica della lingua.
Viterbo - Rome,
Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. 1967. A Greek gram-
mar of the New Testament and other early Christian litera-
ture. Chicago.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homeérique, vol. 1, Paris.
Daniel, Michael and Andrew Spencer. 2009. “Vocative:
an outlier case”, In: The Oxford handbook uf case, ed.
by Andıej Malchukuv and Andrew Spencer, 626-634.
Oxford.
Dickey, Eleanor. i996. Greek forms of address from Heradatus
to Lucian, Oxford.
Donati, Margherita. 2009. La categoria del vocativo nelle
lingue classiche: aspetti teorici, diacronici e tipologici,
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rome.
. 20:0. “Per una teoria del vocativo, Persona, sistema e
asimmetria”, Linguistica e Fllaologia 30:1-47.
——. 2012. “La costruzione vocativale dal greco omerico
al greco classico: un caso di grammaticalizzazione”. In:
Grammatica e pragmatica. Atti del XXXTV Convegno della
Societa Italiana di Glottologia, ed. by Franca Orletti, Anna
Pompei, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, 215-222. Rome.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “Tense and mood in Indo-European
syntax”, Foundations of Language 4:30-57.
Lazzeroni, Romano. 1995. “La baritonesi come segna
deil'individuazione: il caso del vocativo indoeuropeo",
SSL 35:33-44.
——. 20023. "Ruoli tematici e genere grammaticale: un
aspetto della morfosintassi indoeuropea?”, AGS 87/1:3-19.
. 2002b. “H nome greco del sogno e iJ neutro indoeu-
ropeo”, AG/ 87/21145-162.
Lepre, Maria Zaffira. 1979. Linteriezione vocativale nei poemi
omerici, Rome.
Meillet, Antoine and Joseph Vendryes. 1979°. Traité de gram-
maire comparee des langues classiques. Paris.
Mussies, Gerard. 1998. “Vocative case and pronoun in
Ancient Greek and Latin”. In: Productivity and creativity,
Studies in general and descriptive linguistics in honor uf
E. M. Uhlenbeck, ed, by Mark Janse, 559-574. Berlin - New
York.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, vol. Il.
Munich,
Scott, John A, 1903. “The vocative in Homer and Hesiod",
AJPh z4/2192-196,
«1904. “The vocative in Aeschylus and Sophocles”, A/Ph
25/1:B1-B4.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. A new comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. New York - Oxford.
Svennung, Josef. 1958. Anredeformen: vergleichende Forsc-
hungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und
zum Nominativ für den Vokativ. Uppsala.
Winter, Werner. 1969. “Vocative and imperative”. In: Sub-
stance and structure af language, ed. by Jaan Puhvel,
205-223, Berkeley — Los Angeles.
Zwolanek, Renée. 1970. "Vdyav Indrasca” Studien zu
Anrufungsformen im Vedischen, Avestischen und Griechis-
chen. Munich.
MARGHERITA DONATI
Voice
1. INTRODUCTION
The verbal grammatical category of voice per-
tains to the relationship between syntactic
roles (+ Subject, + Direct Object) and semantic
roles (agent (+ Agency and Causation), patient
(> Patient and Theme), experiencer (+ Experi-
ential Constructions), + Beneficiary, + Recipi-
ent). Ancient Greek has three morphologically
distinct voice categories (+ Diathesis/Voice
(Morphology of)). The act. voice is marked by
act. endings (-6, -eis, etc.). The + middle voice
is marked by middle endings {-mai, -sai, etc.;
+ Mediopassive). The pass. voice is marked by
the suffix -thé-/-€- (+ Passive (Morphology)). It
is restricted to the + aorist and fut. stems. The
suffix -(th)é- is combined with act. endings in the
aor. stem (-(th)e-n, -(th)e-s, etc.) and with mid,
endings in the fut. stem (-(th)e-so-mai, -(th)é-s-ei,
 VOICE
etc. The terms voice and diathesis (+ Diathesis
(diathesis), Ancient Theories of) are often used
interchangeably, but often also with differing
meanings. Usually, the term voice refers to the
system of formal distinctions of the verb, while
diathesis pertains to semantic distinctions.
Because mid. inflections in the pres. and pf.
stems are also used to express a pass. meaning,
the mid. voice is often also called + mediopas-
sive or middle-passive voice.
The act., mid. and pass. voice express alterna-
tive mappings of syntactic and semantic roles.
The category of voice is intimately connected to
the notion of — transitivity. In the prototypical
act. trans. event (Hopper & Thompson 19860),
the subject has the agent role and the direct
object is a patient. The subject is not affected
by the event. Middle inflections mark a devia-
tion of this prototypical transitive situation in
that the subject is presented as being physically
or psychologically affected by the event. More
specifically, the subject has the semantic role
of patient, experiencer, beneficiary or recipient.
The basic meaning of the mid. voice can thus
be characterized as subject-affectedness (Lyons
1969, Garcia Gual 1970, Barber 1975, Allan 2003).
The opposition between act. and mid. voice
is inherited from Indo-European (> Indo-
European Linguistic Background). The pass.
voice formed with the suffix -(th)é- or -é- is a
Greek innovation. The traditional label ‘pass.
voice’ referring to forms with the suffix -(tA)e- in
the aor. and fut. stems is somewhat misleading
because forms with the suffix -(th}é not only
express a pass. meaning but are also - and in
fact, more frequently — used to convey an intr.
meaning without an external agent. The tollow-
ing section will discuss the act. voice (2), the
mid. voice (3), the pass. voice (4) and mid. voice
vs, pass. voice in the aor. and fut. stems (5).
z, ACTIVE VOICE
The act. voice can be viewed as the unmarked
member in a privative opposition (Garcia
Gual 1970:1-12, 29-32, Ruiperez 1988, Duhoux
2000:114, Allan 2003:19-30). The act, form, in
other words, is neutral with respect to the
semantic feature of subject-affectedness: it does
not signal the absence of subject-affectedness.
This means that act. endings can be used under
certain conditions even if the subject is affected
by the event. An example is the use of the act.
495
form apothneiskö ‘die’. Normally, this verb is
used in the sense of ‘die’, but it also functions as
a suppletive pass. apothneiskö (hupd) ‘be killed
(by)' of apokteine ‘kill’ - the regular formation
*apokteinomai does not exist (more examples in
Kühner & Gerth 1:98-99, Smyth 1956:397-398,
Rijksbaron 2006239). The fact that apothneiskö
has an act. inflection even though its lexical
meaning entails that the subject is affected by
the event (semantic role patient), shows that the
act, form is neutral with respect to the semantic
feature of subject-affectedness.
Another indication of the unmarkedness of
the act. endings is the occurrence of the act.
verbs in alternation with mid, verbs in refer-
ence to the same event (see also Gildersleeve
1900-1911:66, Garcia Gual 1970712), as in (1):
(1) epi tessdrön taxdmenoiyry tds naüs (...).
epi d’ autöl eikosin étaxanacr ta ärista
pléousas
‘after lining up their ships four deep...:
Upon [their right wing] they had placed their
twenty best sailing ships’ (Thuc. 2.90.1-2)
The unmarkedness of the act. endings is also
seen by their appearance in the pass. aor. form.
The act. inflection is used in this formation even
though the subject of pass. aor. form in -(th)e-
is typically an affected patient. (For a different
view, see Bakker 1994, who contends that the
affectedness of the subject is suppressed in the
aor, in -(th)é- due to its punctual aspect), A
number of verbs only appear in the active voice
(> Activa Tantum.)
Many act. verbs can be used both transitively
and intransitively (labile verbs; -+ Causative
Formation), e.g, dgod ‘lead’ (transitive): ‘march’
(intr.), elatino ‘drive’ (transitive): ‘drive, ride, pro-
ceed' (intransitive), nikaö ‘be a victor’ (intransi-
tive): ‘conquer, vanquish’ (transitive). Especially
prolific are the compounds of ballö ‘throw’, e.g.
eis-bdllo ‘throw into’ (transitive): ‘enter, invade’
(intransitive). In some cases, the intr. use is the
result of the ellipsis of the typical direct object.
An example is the verb efauind which can be
used transitively elaund hippon ‘| ride a horse’
as well as intransitively (with no direct object)
elaunö ‘ride’. Cf. also dga (td sträteuma) ‘lead
the army, march’, afrö (ten dnkuran) ‘hoist the
anchor’, teleutän (tön bion) ‘die’. More exam-
ples can be found in Kühner & Gerth I:gı-6,
Smyth (1956:389). For the intr. use of and pers.
496
+ imperative paüe ‘stop’ and égeire ‘wake up’,
see Méndez Dosuna (2006).
3. MIDDLE VOICE
The mid. voice shows a wide diversity of mean-
ings (+ Polysemy). The semantics of the mid.
voice can be analyzed as a complex network of
interrelated meanings (Allan 2003). This wide
range of meanings shows a strong similarity to
the polysemy of reflexive verbs in a number of
modem languages (see Kemmer 1993). The fol-
lowing classification of mid. meanings (i-xi) is
based on Allan (2003:57-124).
i. The Passive middle (Schwyzer & Debrun-
ner [I:236—241). In a pass. clause, the entity
undergoing the event or other second
argument is selected as subject. The agent
remains unspecified or is expressed by a
prepositional phrase or the + dative case
(+ Passive (Syntax)). E.g. hubrizömen (hup'
ekhthroü) ‘I was assaulted (by an enemy)’. In
the aor. and fut. stems, the pass. meaning is
expressed by the formation in -(th)e-. A typi-
cal function of using a pass. construction is
to background (detopicalize) the agent par-
ticipant and to maintain > topic continulty
in the discourse by promoting the patient or
other second argument to subject position
(for the function of the pass. in discourse,
see George 2005:19-42).
The Spontaneaus Process middle. The sub-
ject undergoes a change of state and is a
patient. Unlike the pass. middle (i), the spon-
taneous process middle does not involve an
(implied) external agent: the process takes
place spontaneously, e.g. phuetai autömata
rhéda ‘roses grow of themselves’ (Hdt. 8.138).
Mid. verbs of spontaneous processes typi-
cally refer to physiological processes, (dis)
appearing or happening, eg. (ap)dllumai
‘die, perish’, leukainomai ‘become white’,
phainomai ‘appear’, phiomai ‘grow (intr.)',
rhegnumai ‘break asunder, burst (intr.)',
sépomai ‘rot’, tékomai ‘melt (intr.)', trépho-
mai ‘grow up’. This mid. type is equivalent
to Andersen's (1989, 1994) anticausative and
Rijksbaron's (2006251) pseudo-passive. The
trans, act. forms corresponding to these intr.
mid. verbs have a caus. meaning (+ Agency
and Causation): (ap)öllumi ‘kill, destroy’,
leukaino ‘make white’, phainö ‘shaw’, phuö
VOICE
‘grow (trans,), produce, beget’, rhégnumi
‘break asunder, shatter (trans.)', sépé ‘make
rotten’, t&kö ‘melt (trans.)', trephö ‘cause to
grow, bring up’. + Media tantum may also
designate spontaneous processes, e.g. gigno-
mai ‘be born, happen, become’. The transi-
tion between the Spontaneous Process mid.
and the Pass. middle is gradient. It is often
difficult to tell whether an event is concep-
tualized as initiated by an implicit agent
(i.e., as pass.) or as coming about autono-
mously (Jankuhn 1969:97-98, Garcia Gual
1970:87-88, Allan 2003:63), e.g.
nin öleto pasa (...)/ llios aipeiné
nl
‘now all of steep Ilios has been destroyed’
(passive) or ‘has perished’ (spontaneous
process) (Hom. Il. 13.772-773)
ii. The Middle State/Process middle. The sub-
ject is mentally affected and therefore has
the semantic role of experiencer, Mid. verbs
referring to mental events are verbs of emo-
tion and cognition. These mid. verbs often
have ~ genitive, + dative or (non-affected)
+ accusative complements referring to the
stimulus (> Experiential Constructions),
Examples are ekplettomai + dat./acc. ‘be
astounded, shocked’, hédomai + dat. ‘be
pleased (about)', mimneskomai + gen. ‘recall’,
peithomai + dat. ‘believe, obey’, phobéomai +
acc, ‘be afraid (of). Typically, the present
stem forms of these verbs refer to states,
while the aorist forms express the transi-
tion into these states (ingressive aorist), e.g.
phobéomai ‘be afraid’: ephobethen ‘I became
afraid’. The trans. act. forms corresponding
to these intr. mid. verbs have a caus, mean-
ing: ekplettö ‘astound, shock', hedö ‘please,
amuse’, mimméské ‘remind’, peithö ‘convince,
persuade’, phobeö ‘frighten’. There are also
media tantum denoting mental events, e.g.
aidéomai + acc. ‘be ashamed, respect’, boulo-
mai ‘want, prefer’, epistamai ‘know’, ofomai
‘think, suppose’. In Rijksbaron (2006251),
the spontaneous process mid. (ii) and men-
tal state/process middle (iii) are subsumed
under one usage type called ‘pseudo-pas-
sive’. Garcia Gual (1970) uses the term 'inter-
nal affection’.
The Body Motion middle. The subject voli-
tionally changes their body posture or loca-
tion. Since the subject both performs and
 VOICE
undergoes the action, it is therefore an agent
as well as a patient/theme. Examples are:
andgomai ‘put out to sea, set sail’, apallat-
tomai ‘depart’, Aistamai ‘stand still, stand
up’, hormdomai ‘start off’, (kat)hizomai ‘sit
down’, kinéomai ‘move (intr.)', klinomai
‘lean, lie down’, komizomai ‘journey, travel’,
poreuomai ‘travel, march’, stéllomai ‘set out,
journey’, trepomai 'turn around (intr.)', stre-
phomai ‘turn (intr.)'. The act. trans. forms
corresponding to these intr. middles have
a caus. meaning: andgö ‘lead up to the high
sea’, apallättö ‘remove’, kinéd ‘move (trans.)',
klinö ‘cause to lean, make recline’, komizö
‘carry, convey’, poreud ‘make go’, stellö
‘send’, trepö ‘turn round (trans.)', histemi
‘make stand’, strépho ‘turn round (trans.)'.
There are also media tantum verbs desig-
nating physical motion, e.g. Adllomai ‘jump’,
érkhomai ‘go’, oikhomai ‘go away’. The body
motion middle is equivalent to Rijksbaron’s
(2006:151-152) ‘pseudo-reflexive’ mid. use.
The Collective Motion middle. This mid.
meaning concerns movements which are
necessarily performed collectively by a group
of individuals, i.e., gathering or dispersing.
For example, hoi stratiötai sunelégonto ‘the
soldiers assembled’. Because the subject is
both the performer and the undergoer of the
action, it issimultaneously agent and patient.
Other examples are: ageiromai ‘assemble
(intr.)', Aalizomai ‘assemble (intr.)', lüomai
‘dissolve, break up (intr.)', misgomai ‘mingle,
join‘, skidnamai ‘spread (intr.)'. The trans.
act. forms corresponding to these mid. verbs
have a caus, meaning: ageiro ‘bring together,
assemble (trans.)’, kalizö ‘assemble’, fio 'dis-
solve, break up (trans.)', misgö ‘mingle, join’,
skidnémi ‘spread’.
The Reciprocal middle (Kühner & Gerth
1107-108, Schwyzer & Debrunner Il:233,
Conti 2006). This mid. meaning relates to
actions which naturally have two partici-
pants, A and B: A performs the same action
with respect to B as B with respect to A. The
subject is therefore both agent and patient.
For example, ta stratöpeda agönizetai ‘the
armies fight’. Many reciprocal middles have
a dat. complement, e.g. makhömethamen
toisi hemeteroisi douloisi ‘we fight with our
slaves’. Most reciprocal middles are verbs of
fighting or greeting, e.g. ankalizomai + acc.
‘embrace’, deksidomai + dat./acc. ‘greet with
497
the right hand’, dialégomai + dat. ‘discuss,
converse with’, erizomai + dat, ‘strive,
quarrel with‘, hamiildomai + dat. ‘contend
with’. Virtually all reciprocal mid. verbs are
media tantum, but there are exceptions,
e.g. philéamai 'kiss one another’.
vii. The Direct Reflexive middle. The subjects
volitionally perform the action on them-
selves and are therefore both agent and
patient, eg. aleiphomai ‘anoint oneselt’,
amünomai ‘defend oneself’, apdnkhomai
‘hang oneself’, apomüttomai ‘blow one's
nose’, déphomai ‘masturbate’, gumndzomai
'exercize oneself’, Aénnumai ‘dress one-
self’, kalüptomai ‘cover oneself’, keiromai
‘cut off one’s hair, have a haircut’, Andomai
‘scratch oneself’, köptomai ‘beat oneself (as
an act of mourning)’, Aosmeomai ‘adorn
oneself", xuréomai ‘shave oneself’, loümai
‘bathe oneself’ (note that the often-cited
form douomai is post-class.), nizomai ‘wash
one’s hands/feet’, paraskeudzomai ‘prepare
oneself’, zonnumai ‘gird oneself’. The direct
reflexive middles refer to actions that are
normally performed with respect to oneself
rather than to another, such as activities
concerning personal hygiene. By contrast,
actions which are normally performed with
respect to something or someone else are
expressed with an act. form plus reflexive
pronoun instead of a direct reflexive mid.,
e.g, rhipteiacy hautön eis ten thdlattan ‘he
throws himself into the sea’ (Dem. 32.6). In
cases of contrastive emphasis, both the act.
and mid. form occur in combination with
a reflexive pronoun (heautdn), e.g. gum-
ndsaiacy...heautén te kai tous hippous ‘to
exercize himself and the horses' (Xen. An.
1.2.7), and heauton episphäxasthaimgp ‘to
have killed himself’ (Xen. Az. 1.8.29) (Küh-
ner & Gerth I:u, Gildersleeve 1900-ı1911:68,
Smyth 1956:391-392, Allan 2003:27, 92).
viii. The Perception middle. The subject per-
ceives an object through one of the senses
and is thereby mentally affected. The sub-
ject has the semantic role of experiencer.
The mental affectedness can be charac-
terized either as the subject’s obtaining
information about the perceived object,
or as the subject's emotional involvement
with the object. E.g. akrodomai ‘listen,
obey’, geiomai ‘taste’, dérkomai ‘glance at,
look at', thedomai ‘look at (in wonder)’,
498 VOICE
matomai (Hom.) ‘seek for sth. by touching’,
osphrainomai ‘smell’, sképtomai ‘look at’.
With the exception of geiomai, which has
a caus. act. counterpart geud ‘make taste’,
all perception middle verbs are media tan-
tum, Mid, verbs of perception can be agen-
tive in that subjects volitionally direct their
sensory attention to the perceived object,
e.g. akrodomai ‘listen’, sképtomai ‘look at,
consider.
The verb hordö ‘see’ also occurs with mid.
endings (in Homer, Herodotus and Sopho-
cles}. The mid. voice emphasizes the men-
tal affectedness resulting from the act of
perception (typically feelings of wonder or
grief), e.g. thadma idésthaimen (IL 5.725) 'a
wonder to look upon’ (Bechert 1964, Allan
2006).
The Mental Activity middle. The subject
volitionally performs a mental activity. The
subject is therefore an agent and an expe-
riencer. (Note that in the mental state/
process middle [iii], the subject is not an
agent.) E.g. bouleiomai ‘consider, resolve’,
logizomai ‘calculate, reason’ (medium tan-
tum), médomai ‘consider, devise’ (medium
tantum), mekhandomai ‘contrive, devise’,
sémainomai ‘infer from signs, tekmairomai
‘judge from signs' (medium tantum). Many
mental activity middle verbs are media
tantum.
The Speech Act middle. Since speech acts
are volitional, the subject is an agent. The
subject is often involved in the speech act
in a special way: the subject acquires a
certain benefit as a result ofthe speech act,
is emotionally involved or aims to obtain
information from the addressee. E.g. aitido-
mai ‘accuse’, anainomai ‘refuse, reject’,
ardomai ‘pray’, déomai ‘ask, beg’, eükhomai
‘vow, pray, boast’, hupiskhnéomat ‘promise’;
kelomai ‘command’, floidoréomai ‘revile,
rebuke’, mémphomai ‘blame, reproach’,
olophuromai ‘lament’, punthänomai ‘ask
for information’. In some cases, the specific
semantic contribution of the mid. inflec-
tion appears to have bleached away, e.g.
muthéomai ‘speak’ and the middle forms
of phémi occurring in Homer such as phäto
‘he spoke’. Most speech act middles are
media tantum.
xi. The Indirect Reflexive middle (Kühner &
Gerth I:o5-7, Schwyzer & Debrunner
ll:230-232). These are transitive actions as
a result of which the subject receives some
kind of benefit (i.e., self beneficent mean-
ing). The subject therefore is an agent anda
beneficiary, e.g. stésantomep kröteras ‘they
set up bowls for themselves’ (Hom. Od.
2.431), apo olureön poieüntaimen sitia ‘from
a coarse grain they make bread for them-
selves’ (Hdt. 2.36.2), ploia kai epikoürous
paraskeuasdmenoimep ‘having procured
ships and allies for themselves’ (Thuc.
3-85.3). A detailed study of the indirect
reflexive middle poiéomai‘make/do for one-
self’ is offered by Cock (1981). There also are
indirect reflexive media tantum: dékhomai
‘accept, receive’, Atdomai ‘acquire’, sino-
mai ‘plunder, rob’, öndomai ‘buy’. In most
cases, the subject receives (or takes pos-
session of) the object such that the object
enters the subject’s power sphere. The
subject therefore has the semantic role of
recipient,
A number of grammars distinguish a dynamic (or
intensive) middle (Stahl 1907:57-62, Schwyzer
& Debrunner Il:232) that is described as follows:
“The intensive or dynamic middle designates
an activity that requires the means or powers
of the subject, to which is linked the general
meaning of a committed or deliberate action”
(Stahl 1907:57); “the emotional participation of
the subject in the verbal content that the mid-
die expresses in contrast to the active partially
operates by intensification of the verbal con-
tent: intensive (or dynamic) middle” (Schwyzer
& Debrunner Il:232). The existence of this
mid. type is, however, not generally accepted.
The unclear definition of the category and the
remarkable variety of verbs which are classi-
fied in the literature as dynamic middles (often
mentioned are Aerdomai ‘see’, lambdnomai ‘hold
on to (+ gen.)’, parékhomai ‘supply’, politeomai
‘act as a citizen’, stratedomal 'march') make the
category problematic. The allegedly dynamic
middles can be classified under other head-
ings, e.g. hordomai as perception middle (viii),
lambdnomai (+ gen.) and strateüomai as body
motion middles (iv) (see Gildersleeve 1908:277,
who appropriately calls it the “drip-pan middle
(...), the middle that is put at the bottom to
catch the drippings of the other uses”, Wack-
ernagel 1926127, Marguliés 193017-8, Allan
2003:228-229).
 VOICE
In the same vein, the media tantum (‘middle
only‘) or mid. deponent verbs do not constitute
a semantically homogenous category and should
therefore not be regarded as a separate semantic
class of middle verbs.
Another middle type often mentioned in
grammars is the causative middle. For example,
(3) Themistoklés Kleöphanton tén huön hippéa
(...) ediddxatoyEp agathon
‘Themistocles had his son Cleophantus
taught to be a good horseman’ (Pl, Men. 93d)
The caus. meaning should not be regarded as a
separate mid. meaning, since both act. and mid.
verbs can be used with a caus. meaning (Gilder-
sleeve 1900—1911:67, Kühner & Gerth }:108, Smyth
1956:392, Allan 2003:115-116), e.g.
(4) totitous (...) hippeas (...) edidaxenacy oud-
enos kheirous Athenatön
‘He [Pericles] had them [Ais sons] taught to
be the foremost horsemen of Athens’ (Pl.
Men. 94b)
In such caus. contexts, the mid. endings serve
to make explicit that the subject is also the
beneficiary of the event (i.e,, indirect reflexive
meaning (xi)).
In some cases, the mid. has acquired an idi-
omatic meaning which is not predictable from
the act. meaning, e.g. act. apodidomi ‘give back’:
mid. apodidomai ‘sell’, active gaméé gunaika
‘marry a woman’: mid. gaméomai andri ‘marry a
man’, act. haireö ‘take’: mid. Aairéomai ‘choose’
(Rijksbaron 2006:150, Smyth 1956:393-394).
There are numerous verbs which show varia-
tion between act. and mid. verbs without con-
veying a (salient) semantic distinction. In many
cases, either the act. or the mid. form is restricted
to poetry. Examples are: auddd : auddomai
‘speak’, brémod : brémomai ‘roar’, dakriio : dakrito-
mai ‘cry’, himelrö : himeiromai ‘desire’, nekhö :
nekhomai ‘swim’, oi0 : ofomai ‘think’, phemi :
phäto ‘say’ (Kühner & Gerth I:o2, Chantraine
1927, Schwyzer & Debrunner Il:232-233, Allan
2003:207-208). The inherent lexical meaning of
these verbs involves a subject which is physi-
cally or emotionally affected by the event. The
mid. endings can be seen as a redundant coding
of the inherent subject-affectedness. Whether or
not the semantic nuance between these variant
forms was still felt is uncertain.
499
4. PASSIVE VOICE
The formation with the sufhx -(t#Jé in the aor.
and fut. stems is traditionally called the pass.
voice or pass. form (> Passive (Morphology)). It
should be noted, however, that the pass. voice
does not exclusively express a pass. meaning (cf.
3.1 above) but is also used to convey intr. mean-
ings (cf. 3.ii-v above). There are verbs which
only have aor. forms in -(th)é- and no mid. aor.
forms (+ Passiva Tantum). (For inventories of
attested forms in -(thJé-, see Lautensach 1911
(drama), Prévot 1935 (Homer and a number of
class. authors)).
The suffix -(th)é- is a portmanteau morpheme,
that is, it encodes semantic information about
both voice and aspect. The abstract or core
meaning of the suffix -(t#)é- can be character-
ized as conveying that the subject undergoes a
complete change of state and is therefore fully
affected as a result of the event. The suffix -(th)é-
can thus be insightfully described as a marker of
unaccusativity. The subject of a form in -(th)é-,
even though being a fully affected entity, can
simultaneously be an agent. This is the case with
body motion verbs, e.g. eklin(th)en ‘I lay down’
(mid. type 3.iv). The subjects of sigmatic mid.
aorists (+ Aorist Formation), by contrast, are
marked as less affected agents. The semantic
distinction between the two aor. forms can be
seen in the contrast between verbs designat-
ing directed motion and verbs designating man-
ner of motion. Verbs of directed motion have
an aor. form in -(th)é- which marks that the
subject undergoes a complete change of loca-
tion or position and is therefore a fully affected
patient, e.g. eklin(th)en ‘| lay dawn’, apällägen
'I departed’, eporeüthen 'I went, marched, trav-
eled’. By contrast, mid. verbs designating man-
ner of motion appear to have a sigmatic mid.
aor. form, e.g. helämen ‘I jumped', hippasdmeén
‘I rode’, enéxdmeén ‘I swam’, érkhésdmen Idanced'.
That the formation in -(tA)e- occurs in the aor,
stem but not in the pres. stem can be explained
by the fact that the imperfective semantics of
the present stem (+ Aspect (and Tense)) entail
that the subject's change of state has not (yet)
reached its completion, which means that
the subject semantically diverges from a fully
affected patient (Allan 2003:173-177).
In the aor. stem, the suffix -(th)é- is followed
by act. endings (-7, -s, -@, etc.) that are seman-
tically unmarked with respect to voice (see
800
above). In the fut. stem, the morpheme -(tA)e-
is combined with middle endings (-(th)e-so-
mai, -(th)é-séi (< *-se-sai), -(th)é-se-tai, etc.). In
these forms, the semantic feature of subject-
affectedness is (redundantly) coded both by the
morpheme -(th)é- and the mid. endings. (But
note that the Doric fut. in -(th)é- receives act.
endings (-(th)ese-ö).)
The distribution of the variant forms -thé- and
-€- is partly conditioned phonologically, partly
semantically (> Diathesis/Voice (Morphology
of)). In Homer, forms with suffix -é- predomi-
nantly express an intr. meaning (Smyth 1956:395,
Schwyzer & Debninner 1:758-759). A notable
example of a semantic distinction between the
two variant forms of a single verb is ephdn-thé-n
‘| was shown/discovered’ (pass. meaning):
ephan-é-n 'l appeared’ (intr. meaning), both from
phaino ‘show.
5. MIDDLE VOICE VS. PASSIVE VOICE
IN THE AORIST AND FUTURE STEMS
In the pres. and pf. stems, we find a morpho-
logical opposition between act. and mid. forms.
In these verb stems, the act. functions as the
semantically unmarked member of the opposi-
tion, while the mid. expresses that the subject
is affected. The aor. and fut. stems show a tri-
chotomy of act., mid. and pass. form in -{th)e-
(+ Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of)). In these
stems, mid. and pass. forms have divided up
the semantic space which is occupied by the
mid. form alone in the pres. stem. From a dia-
chronic point of view, one can observe a ten-
dency for forms in -(th)e- to gradually replace
mid. forms.
In the aor. stem, the semantic division of
labor between the sigmatic mid. form and the
form in -(th)e- in Classical Greek can be sum-
marized as follows. Sigmatic mid. forms occur
in the following meanings: indirect reflexive
mid. (eg. epoiesärnen ‘| made (for myself)’,
direct reflexive mid. (e.g. elousamen 'I bathed’),
reciprocal mid. (e.g. emakhesdmén '] fought with
(+ dat.)'), speech act mid. (e.g. eloidoresamen
‘I reviled’), mental activity mid. (e.g. elogisämen
I calculated, reasoned’) and perception mid.
(e.g. egeusdmeén ‘I tasted’). Aor. forms in -(th)e-
occur with the following meanings: pass. (e.g.
epoiéthen '| was made’), spontaneous process
(eg. etäken ‘I melted (intr.)’), mental process
(e.g. ephobethen '| became afraid’), body motion
VOICE
(e.g. apellägen ‘I departed’) and collective motion
(e.g. égérthémen ‘we gathered (intr.)').
In Hom. Greek, the distribution of the sig-
matic mid. aor. and the aor. in -(th)e- is different.
An important difference is that, in Homer, the
sigmatic mid. aor. of verbs of mental process and
body motion have been preserved as metrically
convenient alternatives to forms in -(thJé-, e.g.
sigmatic mid. aor. in:
(5) ton rh’ Oduseüs hetäroio kholösämenos bale
douri
‘him Odysseus, angered for his comrade’s
sake, struck with a spear’ (Hom. Z, 4.501)
Compare the aor. form in -(th)é- in:
(6) toi d’ Oduseus mala thumön apoktaménoio
kholöthe
‘for his killing Odysseus angered mightily at
heart' (Hom. Il, 4.494)
Examples of verbs which display this alternation
are: aasdmén : adsthén ‘was mistaken’, éidésato :
aidesthen ‘respected’, klindmenos : ekli(n)thén
‘lay down’, hörmesato : horméthé ‘set off’. If the
poet had a choice between a metrically equiva-
lent sigmatic mid. and (th)é-aor. forms of these
particular groups of verbs (eg. inf. -sasthai vs.
-thénai), he rarely used the sigmatic mid. alter-
native. This shows that, by Homeric times, the
form in -(th)e- had already become the common
aor. form of these verbs (Allan 2003:148-53).
The root and thematic mid. forms (+ Aorist
Formation) show the older Indo-European pat-
tern of distribution (before the genesis of the
aorist in -(th)é-) in which mid. forms occurred
in all meaning types, including the pass. (i) and
intr. (ii-v) meanings, e.g. bléfo (Hom.) ‘was hit’,
pléto (Hom., Hes.) ‘became filled’, eskhömen ‘was
held’, elipömen ‘was left’, egenömen ‘was born’.
But in this area, too, the aor. form in -(th)é- grad-
ually gains ground on the rool- and thematic aur.
forms (e.g. ebléthén, eplésthén, eleiphthen)
In the fut. stem, the Classical Greek distribu-
tion between mid. forms and forms in -(th)é-
is partly parallel to the distribution in the
aor, stem, i.e, a sigmatic mid. aor. form cor-
responds to a sigmatic mid. fut. form, and an
aor. in -(th)é- corresponds with a fut. in -(th)é-.
E.g. mid. aor. pareskeuasdmén ‘I prepared for
myself (indirect reflexive), I prepared myself
(direct reflexive)’ is parallelled by mid. fut.
 VOICE
paraskeudsomai ‘I will prepare for myself’ or
‘I will prepare myself‘; the aor. form in -(th)é-,
pareskeudsthén, ‘| was prepared’ corresponds
with a fut. in -(th)e- paraskeuasthésomai ‘I will be
prepared’. However, the sigmatic mid. fut. forms
can also be used with pass. (i) and intr. meaning
(ii-v), even if the corresponding aor. is a form in
-(th)é-. E.g. mid. future /isomai'‘I will be released’
(besides futhésomai) but aor. elüthen (Kühner &
Gerth Iniq—n7, Smyth 1956:219-220); mid. fut.
boulesomai ‘I shall want’ but aor. eboulethen ‘I
wanted’. In these cases, the mid. sigmatic fut.
shows the older distributional pattern preceding
the expansion of the fut. in -(th)é- that can still
be found in Homer. In Homer, futures in -(th)é-
are still virtually absent (with the exception of
daéseai ‘you will know’ and migésesthai ‘will
come among’, see Chantraine 1958:447). The mid.
endings of the fut. in -(tA)e- (lutheso-mai) can be
seen as redundant since the affectedness of the
subject is already marked by the suffix -(th)e- (cf.
the non-redundant act. endings of the aor. in
-(th)e-, e.g. elüthe-n and the Dor. act. inflection
of the fut. form in -(th)é-). The mid. inflection of
the fut. in -(th)é- can be explained as due to the
influence of the older mid. fut. forms with pass.
meaning, such as luso-mai.
Many intr. verbs and a number of trans.
verbs that have act. pres. forms show mid. fut.
forms, e.g. Gidé ‘sing’ — aisomai, akoud ‘hear’ —
akoisomai, apothneiskö ‘die’ - apothanoümai,
balnö 'go' — bésomai, gignöskö ‘know, realize’ —
gnösomai, geldö ‘laugh’ - geldsomai, eimi
‘be’ - ésomai, esthiö ‘eat’ - édomai, horad ‘see’ -
öpsomai, theö ‘run’ - theusomai, klaid ‘weep’ —
kiaisomai, lambdné 'take, receive’ — fépsomai,
piptö ‘fall’ — pesoümai, päskhö ‘suffer’ — pelsomai,
pheügö 'flee' - pheuxoümai, tiktö ‘bear a child,
beget’ - tekoümai, Synchronically, the mid. form
ofthe fut. can be explained by the fact that these
verbs generally have a subject which is some-
how affected: as a patient, an experiencer or a
recipient/beneficiary. Histurically, the mid.
inflection of these futures can be seen as a relic
ofthe original desiderative meaning (> Desider-
atives) of the sigmatic fut. (Sihler 1995:507-509).
The mid. inflection ofthe older desiderative pos-
sibly expressed the special mental involvement
(volition) ofthe subject (Rijksbaron 2006).
There has been controversy about whether or
not the opposition between the sigmatic mid.
fut. and the fut. in -(th)é in some cases expresses
an aspectual difference. According to a number
501
of scholars, mid. futures such as phanoümai
are associated with a ‘presentive’ (imperfec-
tive) aspect, while futures in -(thJé- (which are
morphologically related to the aor, stem) such
as phanésomai express an ‘aoristic' (perfec-
tive) aspect (Blass 1892, Kühner & Gerth I:u4,
Wackernagel 1920:202-4, Chantraine 1927:13-14,
Smyth 1956:395, Allan 2003:178-202). The idea is
rejected by Stahl 1907:83--87, Magnien 1912:278-
280, Hartmann 1934 and Schwyzer & Debrunner
ll:265-266.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Rutger J. z003. The middle voice in Ancient Greek. A
study in polysemy, Amsterdam.
. 2006, "Sophocles’ voice, Active, middle and passive in
the language of Sophocles”. In: Sophocles and the Greek
language, Aspects of diction, syntax and pragmatics, ed.
by Irene J. F. de Jong and Albert Rijksbaron, 11-126.
Leiden - Boston.
Andersen, Paul Kent. 194g. “Remarks on the origin of the
term 'Passive'”, Lingua 7941-16.
. 1993. "Zur Diathese”, #5 106177-221.
Bakker, EgbertJ. 1994. "Voice, aspect and aktionsart. Middle
and passive in Ancient Greek”. In: Voice: form and func-
tion, ed. by Barbara A. Fox and Paul J. Hopper, 23-47.
Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Barber, Elizabeth J. W. 1975. “Voice - beyond the passive.”
Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Lin-
guistic Society, ed, by Cathy Cogen et al., 16-24. Berkeley.
Bechert, Johannes. 1964. Die Diathesen von idein und horän
bei Homer. Munich.
Blass, Friedrich. 182. “Demosthenische Studien’, RAM
47:269-290.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1927. “Le röle des desinences moyennes
en prec ancien’, RPh 5153-165.
.1958. Grammaire homérique, |: Morphnlogie, Paris.
Cock, Alwies J, C. M. 1981, "Poledsthai: poiein. Sur les criteres
determinants le choix entre l'actif paiefn et le moyen poi-
eisthai, Mnemusyne 341-62.
Conti, Luz. 2006. “Untersuchung der sogenannten inhärent
reziproken Verben im Altgriechischen. Semantische und
syntaktische Eigenschaften", Historische Sprachforschung
119168-185.
Duhoux, Yves, 2000. Le verbe grec ancien: elements de mor-
phologie et de syntaxe historiques. Deuxieme edition, revue
et augmentée. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Garcia Gual, Carlos. 1970. El sistema diatetico en el verbo
‚griege, Madrid,
George, Coulter. 2005. Expressions of agency In Ancient
Greek. Cambridge.
Gildersleeve, Basil L. 1900-1911. Syntax of Classical Greek,
From Hamer to Demosthenes, 2 vols. New York.
. 1908. “Stahl's Syntax of the Greek verb”, A/P 29:257-
279.
Hartmann, Felix. 1934. “Zur Frage der Aspektbedeutung
beim griechischen Futunum", KZ 62:116-13).
Hopper, PaulJ. and Sandra Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in
grammar and discourse”, Language 56:251-299.
Jankuhn, Harald. i969. Die passive Bedeutung medialer For-
men untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Göttingen.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middie voice. Amsterdam —
Philadelphia.
502
Kühner, Raphael and Bernhard Gerth. 1889-1904. Ausfährli-
che Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 2. Teil: Satalehre,
2 vols, Hannover.
Lautensach, Otto, igu. Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragik-
ern und Komikern. Göttingen.
Lyons, John. 1969. /ntroduction to theoretical linguistics.
Cambridge.
Magnien, Victor. 1912. Le futur grec. 2 Vols, Paris.
Margulies, Alfons. 1930. “Verbale Stammbildung und Verbal-
diathese”, ZVS 37:201-241, 58:79-124.
Méndez Dosuna, Juliän. 2006. “Impératifs actifs anticau-
satifs: puile, égeire”. In: Word classes and related topics in
Ancient Greek. Proceedings of the conference on ‘Greek Syn-
tax and Word Classes’ held in Madrid on 18-21 June 2003,
ed. by Emilio Crespo, Jésus de Ja Villa and Antonio Rh.
Revuelta, 291-312. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Prevat, Andre. 1935. L’aoriste grec en -then. Paris.
Risselada, Rodie. 1987. “Voice in Ancient Greek. Reflexives
and passives", In: /ns and outs of the predication, ed.
by Johan van der Auwera and Louis Goossens, 123-136.
Dordrecht.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2006. The syntax and semantics of the
verb in Classical Greek. An introduction. Third edition.
Chicago.
Ruipérez, Martin 5. 1988. “Sur la structure des oppositions
de voix dans le verbe grec.” In: In the footsteps of Raphael
Kühner. Proceedings of the International Colloquium in
Commemoration of the 15th Anniversary of the Publication
of Raphael Kühner's 'Ausfithrliche Grammatik der griechis-
chen Sprache, I. Theil: Syntaxe‘, ed, by Albert Rijks-
baron, Hotze A. Mulder and Gerry C. Wakker, 255-264.
Amsterdam.
Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner, 1959. Griechische
Grammatik, 2 vols. Munich,
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar af Greek
and Latin. New York - Oxford.
Smyth, Herbert W. 1956. Greek grammar. Revised by
Gordon M, Messing. Cambridge, MA.
Stahl, Johann M. 1907. Kritisch-historische Syntax des yriechis-
chen Verbums der klassischer Zeit. Heidelberg.
Wackernagel, Jacob, 1926. Vorlesungen über Syntax, 2 vals.
Basel. (See English edition by David Langslow, Lectures
on syntax, Oxford 2009}.
RUTGER ALLAN
Voicing
Voicing is a process whereby a > consonant
changes from voiceless to voiced (the reverse is
called devoicing). In Ancient Greek the change
is always due to > assimilation with an adjacent
sound, either a + vowel (a, i, u), sonorant (m,
l, w), or voiced obstruent (b, d, g, v, z). Greek
stop clusters always agree in voicing (Probert
2010:94), so voicing assimilation can be observed
whenever two segments, the first of which is
voiceless and the second voiced, are adjacent (for
one case study see Miller 1976). Thus voiceless
/k/ found in the verb plek-ö 'entwine' becomes
voiced /g/ before another voiced consonant in
VOICE
the adverb plég-dén, ‘entwined’. Lupag (1972:17-
1g) atgues that voicing assimilation took place
even between a prefix and verb (e.g. ek-bällö
‘throw out’ > egbdflé), despite the consistent
orthographic representation of the voiceless /k/.
On the voicing of /s/, see Miller (1976) and Prob-
ert (2010:92—94).
Stops come in three series in Greek: plain
(p, t, k), voiced (b, d, g), and aspirated (ph, th, kh).
All other sounds are redundantly voiced except
for /r/, which is voiceless when it occurs at the
beginning of a word and voiced otherwise. See
further Lupas (1972:133-141), Aitchison (1976).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aitchison, Jean. 1976. “The distinctive features of Ancient
Greek”, Glotta 54:173-201.
Lupag, Liana. 1972. Phonologie du grec attique. The Hague.
Miller, D. Gary. 1976. “Liquids plus s in Ancient Greek",
Glotta 54:159-172.
Probert, Philomen, zoio. “Phonology”. In: A companion to the
Ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert J, Bakker, 85-103.
Boston - Leiden.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Vowel Changes
The main + vowel developments in the (pre)his-
tory of Ancient Greek involved (1) the changes
from PIE to the Proto-Greek five-vowel systems;
(2) long + diphthongs; (3) issues of vocaliza-
tion; (4) + assimilation of vowels to neighboring
sounds; (5) extension of the long-vowel system;
(6) the changes from Proto-lonic to > Ionic and
— Attic; and (7) (post-}Classical development of
vowels and diphthongs (> Indo-European Lin-
guistic Background).
1. The core of the reconstructed PIE vowel system
consists of the short vowels *e, *o and the long
vowels *&, *d. In PIE morphology, apophonic
relations (+ Ablaut) between these four vowels
and zero played an important role. There were
also two short vowels *i, *u; these may be con-
sidered allophones of the + semivowels *{ and
*u (Beekes 2011:119-120; no minimal pairs can be
reconstructed for PIE, constrast Class. astös ‘citi-
zen’ < Proto-Gk. *wastwos < IE *-tu-d- with Class.
ikhthüos ‘fish’ (gen. sg.) < PIE *dg"uH-os). There
is no compelling evidence for PIE long vowels
* *ü (cf. Beekes 2011:119-120, 146ff., pace Meier-
Brügger 2010:213—214). It is traditionally (and still
widely} held that separate phonemes *a and *a

existed in PIE (e.g. Rix 1992:29, Meier-Briigger
2010:213, 215), but the case for *a and *a has been
considerably weakened by the laryngeal theory
(see below). If to be reconstructed at all for PIE,
their status was marginal (for arguments see
Lubotsky 1989).
The PIE laryngeals *h,, “hy (> Laryngeal
Changes) caused phonetic coloring of adjacent
*e (but not of *é, *u): *e was lowered to a by *fp,
and rounded to o by *hg. The outcome of *hzo
and “oA, in Greek has been debated; Kortlandt
ig80 (accepted by Ruijgh 1988:448-449) has
argued for o, 6 as regular outcomes. Laryngeal
coloring was probably subphonemic in late PIE;
it was phonemicized when the three larynge-
als merged and were subsequently lost in early
Proto-Gk. Laryngeal loss yielded new long vow-
els *é, *d, *a, *z, *ü by + compensatory lengthen-
ing of a preceding vowel (Ruijgh 1988:452-453).
The changes in the vowel systems from PIE to
Proto-Gk. may be summarized as follows:
PIE *7 *y ~ Proto- *f
p*6 Gk. *e “oe “e
Greek vowel-initial words with consonant-initial
cognates (e.g. dési ‘blows’ ~ Ved. vati, érebos
‘darkness' ~ Ved. rdjas- ‘id.’) are due to vocal-
ized laryngeals, not to ‘prothetic vowels’ (Beekes
1969). The latter term is better reserved for words
like stdkhus ‘ear of corn’ ~ dstakhus ‘id’, where
a- alternating with zero is due to a substrate
phenomenon (Beekes 2010:xxili).
2. Phonologically, + diphthongs can be ana-
lyzed as sequences of vowel-plus-consonant in
PIE and Proto-Gk. For *ei and *ou, + monoph-
thongization occurred as early as the 5th c. BCE
(see below). In word-final position, PIE long
diphthongs lost their second element (PIE *-0é,
*.ou > Gk -ö, eg. peithö < *b*eid*-ai). Subse-
quently, new word-final long diphthongs devel-
oped due to contraction in inflectional endings
with internal hiatus: o-stem dat. sg. *-o-ei > *-of
(Class. <-w>), and d-stem dat. sg. *-ehz-ei > Proto-
Gk. *-aHai > *-äi > Class. <g>, <y>. The originally
disyllabic o-stem ending *-o-i leaves a trace in
the accentuation of loc. sg. oikoi ‘at home’, as
opposed to nom. pl. ofkoi.
Word-medially, early contractions yielded
new long vowels (e.g, subj. *bfer-o-o-me(n) >
pherömen). All inherited word-medial long
VOWEL CHANGES 303
diphthongs were eliminated by + Osthoff’s
Law, which states that a long vowel is short-
ened when followed by liquid, nasal, semivowel
plus another consonant, e.g. nom. sg. *dieus
(Ved. dydus 'heaven’) > Zeus, In historical times,
contractions following the loss of intervocalic
consonants yielded new word-medial long diph-
thongs, e.g. kleis ‘bolt’ < *kläwis.
3. According to Lindeman’s rule, monosyl-
lables with initial *CR- may be realized as *CRR-,
e.g. PIE *Kuön ‘dog’ > Proto-Gk. *kuwön > kön, but
not necessarily, ch. *dieus > Zeüs, not **Di(iJeus.
This optionality of the rule is suspect; > san-
dhi phenomena (Schindler 1977:57) are hard to
prove or disprove for Greek, and kuidn may have
undergone paradigmatic + analogy. Sievers’ Law
states that the glides *, * were realized as *i,
*uu after a heavy syllable. This rule functions on
a large scale in early Indo-Aryan and Germanic,
but there are only sporadic traces in Greek (com-
parative suffix *-ios- (mezön ‘greater') beside
*-iios- (hédion ‘sweeter’), Ruijgh 1992:91-92).
Syllabic nasals and liquids were eliminated in
the course of Greek prehistory (e.g. acc. sg. *-C-m
*6
> Myc. & Hom. -Ca). For the liquids, the color
and location of the epenthetic vowel differs dia-
lectally, e.g. Proto-Gk. *amrte > Hom. & Aeol.
émbrote ‘committed a mistake’, Hom. & Class,
hemarte. o-vocalism seems to occur in > Aeolic
and Achaean dialects, while we find a-vocalism
in + Dorie and lonic (Lejeune 1972:196—7). In
lonic, the regular development is thought to be
-ra-, while -ar- is analogical after forms with full
grade (but some examples remain unexplained).
The syllabic nasals unconditionally yield <a>
in most dialects, but a notable exception are
> Mycenaean forms with /o/, which may be due
to influence of a neighboring labial consonant
(Lejeune 1972:198). For further details, see + Syl-
labic Consonants.
4. An anaptyctic vowel -i-, sometimes referred
to as > 'schwa secundum’, emerged in problem-
atic consonant clusters (> Anaptyxis), e.g. Hom.
skidnatai ‘is scattered’ < *skd-nh,-toi beside aor.
skeddsai < *skedhg-s-. Vine (1999) suggests fur-
ther examples for this phenomenon (ipnös ‘oven’
< *spnd-),
Various phenomena (some dialectal, others
pan-Greek) affected the timbre of a vowel; in
most cases, conditions have not been definitively
established. Vowel raising is dialectally restricted,
and its precise conditions are unclear. It is
sometimes assumed to be due to an adjacent
504 VOWEL
labial sound, as in Myc. é-go ‘horse’, Class. hippos
< PIE *hyekuo-. Note, however, also Lesb. üsdos
beside Class. dzos ‘branch’, without an adjacent
labial. In (monosyllabic) prepositions, vowel rais-
ing is common in various dialects, e.g. Lesb, Thess.
<ov>, Arc.-Cypr. <uv> beside Ionic an(d)- ‘over,
up’. A special case of vowel raising is + Cowgill’s
Law. An adjacent rhotic has a lowering effect
in various dialects: Delph. pharo ~ Class. pherö
‘carry’, Aealic re < ri (Boeot. trepedda ‘table’
< *tri-peddya).
Alternations such as Attic obolös 'obol' beside
Hom. obelös ‘spit’ are traditionally explained by
‘vowel assimilation’ (Schmidt 1893, assuming e >
a before accented rounded vowel). However,
given the heterogeneous nature of the material,
the phonetic background of these ‘assimilations’
is unclear. Moreover, the number of examples
that resist other explanations is small. As argued
in Van Beek zon, at least part of the phenom-
enon is a chimera.
5. As a result of the first and second > com-
pensatory lengthening (henceforth CLi, CL2),
a number of dialects acquired two additional
long vowels, Proto-Gk. *é, *5 were continued in
Ionic-Attic as /é/, /6/ (long open-mid vowels),
but their short counterparts *e, *o were changed
by CLi (and later also CL2) to /é/, /¢/ (long close-
mid vowels). In most epichoric alphabets, the
long vowels due to CLi and CLz were not distin-
guished from their short counterparts (Attic uses
<E> for both, and only later introduced <EI>
for /é/). It is debated how (and if) CLı affected
Mycenaean Greek. Ruipérez (1972) maintains
that the Aeolic geminate outcome was a com-
mon pre-stage of all other dialects, and that it
had been reached alreadyin Mycenaean. Dunkel
(1995), building on Ruijgh, suggests that Hom,
and Class. words with éand 9 may continue
Mycenaean words.
Proto-Gk. Proto-lonic,
many Doric
dialects
oF *F 7 ur
"5 4G *E “5
*a *e *6
CHANGES
Metrical lengthening of a short vowel is common
in epic (> Epic Meter), mainly affecting the first
vowel of a tribrachic sequence (e.g. énemdent-
‘windy’ ~ dnemos). For a review of the earlier lit-
erature on the problem, see Wyatt (1969:21—40).
Metrical shortening of a long vowel, on the other
hand, is highly uncommon and is best avoided as
an explanatory device.
6. Inherited long *a (including *a due to CL1)
was fronted to *“# in the prehistory of Ionic,
eg. *n*ama ‘talk, rumor’ > pheme. This change
in pronunciation preceded the emergence of a
new long @ due to CLz (e.g. pdsa < *pansa). In
the earliest Ionic and Attic inscriptions, these
two changes have already taken place; but *#
remains distinct from *é in early Central Ionic, as
appears from the famous Nikandre-inscription,
which has e.g. kasigneté (xaovyvem) ‘sister’ <
*-gnéta for Hom. <Kaovywyty>. In Eastern lonic,
*# completely merged with *é, but in Attic, a
reversion of *# to @ took place after e, i, and r (for
the complex details of chronology, see > Attic
Reversion).
In pre-classical Attic spelling, the diphthongs
*ei, “ou (written <el, ou>) were distinguished
from the result /é/, /5/ of contractions and com-
pensatory lengthenings (written <e, o>). But in
classical Attic, spellings <eı, ou> for /*é, *9/ are
common already; they point to a + monoph-
thongization of these diphthongs in or before
the 5th c. BCE (see Threatte 1980:238-59 on the
interchange <o> ~ <ov>, which starts in the late
6th c. BCE, and 172ff. on <e> - <ei>, common in
the 5th c.).
Forms containing hiatus emerged in vowel-
final stems (e.g. aor. subj. *stä-o-men), and
became common after the loss of intervocalic
*-A-, *-y- and *-w- (all lost in the lonic ver-
nacular before Homer). The ensuing hiatus was
resolved, in Ionic and Attic, by > contraction
(e.g, *k"imayei > *timdei > Class. timdi ‘honors’)
or by quantitative + metathesis, the traditional
name for the development of *& and *e in con-
tact with o, a. These combinations yielded Ionic
eo and ea (ew, ex). When the second vowel is
long, too (e.g. *#d > ed), the development can be
referred to as ‘prevocalic shortening’. It is often
assumed that the development was shortening
of the first vowel and compensatory lengthening
of the second, but this is phonetically difficult.
Following Bechtel, Méndez Dosuna (1993) there-
fore suggests that a rising diphthong, with desyl-
labification of the frst vowel, would be a more
 VOWEL
natural outcome. This is favored by the practi-
cally regular monosyllabic scansion (with syniz-
esis) of the Homeric result eö (for the differences
between Ionic and Attic, see Haug 2002:107ff.).
7. The change of*u to [y] (and * to [¥]) may
already have occurred in the 6th c. BCE in East-
ern lonic (Allen 1987:66, Bartonék 1966:110ff.). In
view of Boeotian spellings like p]outhiö = Attic
puthiou, the value of Attic <u> had certainly
changed to [y] by 350 BCE (Allen, ibid.). In the
case of the long vowels, the gap in the system
left by <u> was filled up by /ö/ <ou>, which devel-
oped to /i/ during the qth c. BCE.
The pronunciation of <et> as /é@/ was main-
tained before vowels until the znd c. CE (when
confusion between <-tog> and <-elog> starts to
occur), But before consonants, the merger of /é/
and /i/ was taking place already in the qth c. BCE
(Allen 1987:70), although interchanges <eı> ~ <I>
become more common only by the 3rd c., which
may have a sociolinguistic explanation (Threatte
1980:195ff.). There are also pre-classical instances
of this merger (e.g. Attic Khllioi ~ Ion. kheilioi
‘thousand’); these are perhaps conditioned by
the following front vowel (Threatte 1980:194f.).
For the post-classical development of long
diphthongs, see Allen (1987:84ff.); internally
before consonant, <y> and <et> had merged
before the 4th c. BCE (kleis < kleis), but <w> is
preserved considerably longer, as evidenced by
Latin borrowings (tragoedia). For the late- and
post-classical changes, see Allen (1987); Teodors-
son (1974) is somewhat controversial.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. 1987. Vux graeca. Cambridge.
Bartonék, Antonin, 1966. Development of the long vowel sys-
tem in Ancient Greek dialects. Prague.
van Beek, Lucien. 2011. “Vowel assimilation in Greek: the
evidence reconsidered”. In: Indogermanistik und Linguis-
tik im Dialog: Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Induger-
manischen Gesellschaft vom 21, bis 27. September 2008 in
Salzburg, ed. by Thomas Krisch and Thomas Lindner,
49-58. Wiesbaden.
Beekes, Robert. 1969. The development of the PIE laryngeals
in Greek. The Hague.
- 2010, Etymological dictlonary of Greek. Leiden.
——. 2011. Comparative Indo-European linguistics. An intro-
duction. Second edition, (revised and corrected by Michiel
de Vaan}. Amsterdam — Philadelphia.
Dunkel, George. 1995. “More Mycenaean survivals in later
Greek”, In: Verba et structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk
zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich, Wolfgang
Hock, Peter-Amold Mumm, and Norbert Oettinger, ı-21.
Wiesbaden.
Haug, Dag. 2002. Les phases de lEvolutior: de la langue épique:
trois études de linguistigue humerigue. Göttingen.
CHANGES 505
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1980. “Hao and oly", Lingua Posnanien-
sis 231278.
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et
du grec ancien. Paris,
Lubotsky, Alexander. 1989. "Against a PIE phoneme *a”. In:
The new sound of Indo-European. Essays in phonological
reconstruction, ed, by Theo Vennemann, 53-66. Berlin -
New York.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwis-
senschaft. Berlin - New York.
Méndez Dosuna, Julian, 1993. "Metätesis de cantidad en
jönico-ätico y heracleota", Emerita 61:95-134.
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen.
Darmstadt.
Ruijgh, Cornelis J. 1988. “Observations sur les traitements
des laryngales en grec prehistorique”, In: Die Laryn-
gealtheorie, ed. by Alfred Bammesberger, 443-469.
Heidelberg.
. 1992. "Chronologie relative: le grec. Sur les traite-
ments préhistoriques des sonantes”. In: Rekonstruktion
und relative Chronologie, ed. by Robert Beekes, Alexander
Luhotsky, and Jos Weitenberg, 75-99. Innsbruck.
Ruiperez, Martin 5. 1972. “Le dialecte mycénien’, Minos
1736-166.
Schindler, Jochem. 1977. Notizen zuin Sievers’schen Gesetz”,
Die Sprache 23:56-65.
Schmidt, Johannes. 1893. “Assimilationen benachbarter, ein-
ander nicht berührender vocale im griechischen”, KZ
32:321-392.
Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The phonemic system af the
Attic dialect 400-340. Lund.
Threatte, Leslie. 1980. The grammar of Attic inscriptions.
Vol. I: phonology. Berlin - New York.
Vine, Brent. 1999. “Greek 6l@e ‘root’ and "schwa secundum".
In: UCLA Indo-European studies (vol. 1), ed. by Brent Vine
and Vyacheslav Ivanov, 5-30.
Wyatt, William F, 1969. Metrical lengthening in Homer,
Rome.
LUCIEN VAN BEEK
Vowel Fronting
Vowel fronting refers to a shift in the place of
articulation of a + vowel (i.e., the position of the
highest point of the tongue during its pronuncia-
tion) to one further forward in the mouth. Tech-
nically any of the changes which involve the
raising of a front vowel (e.g. that of é [e:] > [e:] >
[i:] in + Koine) could also be classed as fronting,
since height correlates with ‘frontness’ on the
front axis, as it does with 'backness’ on the back,
but two changes in the history of Attic-lonic
stand out as examples of fronting proper.
At an early date in Attic-lonic the phoneme
/a:/, whether inherited or the result of the first
+compensatory lengthening, shifted to the
front axis and slightly raised to [z:], perhaps to
relieve overcrowding on the back axis caused
by compensatory lengthening of short [o] to
506 VOWEL FRONTING
a new close-mid [g:] distinct from inherited
/o:} (so, e.g., Ruipérez 1956). This fronting must
have taken place at a date between the first
and second compensatory lengthenings, since
the second introduced a new [a:] which did
not shift. The development had an important
impact on the writing system, since East Ionic,
which lacked the phoneme /h/, adapted the
redundant sign eta <H> to write the new vowel
/e:/. An early inscription from Naxos (/G xii.5.21,
ca. 650 BCE) preserves this state of affairs in the
spelling <KAZITNETH> = Attic kasignete ‘sister’,
where the epsilon <E> is used for inherited /e:/
and the eta <H> for /a:/ < /a:/. Eventually /e:/
would merge with /e:/ in — Ionic, taking its spell-
ing with it (whence the usual spelling of <H> for
/e:/), and partly also in + Attic, except after e, {
and r where it merged instead with /a:/.
Overcrowding among the back vowels may
also be the motivation for the second main
example, the fronting of [u:] to [y:] (a high front
vowel with lip-rounding), it being ‘pushed’ out
of the way perhaps by the raising of [9:], spelled
ou, to [u:]. If so, the corresponding shift of short
[u] to [y] must have been for reasons of symme-
try between the long and short vowel systems.
Alternatively, the fronting may have happened
first (compare Latin [u:] > French [y]), leaving
a gap into which [9:] was ‘dragged’. From the
6th c. BCE lonic inscriptions sometimes spell
the [au] and [eu] + diphthongs ao, eo instead
of au, eu, perhaps showing that the change had
already taken place. It certainly had by ca. 350
BCE when + Boeotian adopted the Ionic alpha-
bet and used ou rather than u to spell its own [u,
u:] vowels (previously spelled u), but conversely
u for the equivalent of Attic-Ionic oi, a diph-
thong which had probably monophthongized
in Boeotian to [y:]. The original value [u, u:] of
upsilon is preserved in the spellings of presum-
ably onomatopoeic mukdomai 'moo' and kökkux
‘cuckoo’, and in the diphthongs az and eu (and
before + monophthongization also ou).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney, 1987. Vox Graeca. The pronunciation of
Classical Greek, 3rd ed. Cambridge.
Ruipérez, Martin 5. 1956. “Esquisse d'une histoire du vocal-
isme gree”, Word 12:67-8ı.
Thompson, R. J. E. 2006. “Long mid vowels in Attic-lonic and
Cretan”, CC] 52:81:-101.
RUPERT TIIOMPSON
Vowels
The vowel system of late fifth-century Classical
Attic is well known for its asymmetry, as it has
almost twice as many front vowels as back. Con-
siderable debate surrounds this topic, and one
is hard pressed to find any two (synchronic or
diachronic) accounts of the Attic vowel system
that agree in all their details. See Brixhe (1996);
Threatte (1980) for the inscriptional evidence;
Lejeune (1972), Meier-Brügger (1992), Rix (1992).
and Sihler (1995) for diachronic overviews; Stur-
tevant (1940) and Allen (1987) for a wealth of
ideas and data on the phonetic quality of Greek
vowels.
The inventory is comprised of twelve vowels.
There are four high front vowels /i i: y y:/, which
are differentiated by + length (i vs. i:, y vs. y:)
and lip rounding (i vs. y, i: vs. y:). There are three
mid-front vowels, all of which are unrounded:
mid /e:/, which is represented by the digraph
<ei> (and in this context is thus a “spurious
diphthong"), lower mid /e:/ <>, and a final short
mid-vowel <&>, the phonetic status of which is
disputed. It may lie somewhere between /e:/
and /e:/ (in which case it would be a mid-front
/e/), or it may be equivalent in aperture to one
of the long vowels; in light of this uncertainty,
I label it simply /e/. (It should be noted that
there is considerable variation in the description
of these vowels, and in the phonetic symbols
used to represent them; ¢.g., the first and second
mid-front vowels are elsewhere referred to as
“long tense” and “long lax,” respectively, with the
corresponding symbols /e/ and /e/.)
There are three mid-back vowels, all of which
are rounded: mid /o:/ <ou>, lower mid /9:/ <w>,
and the short vowel /o/ <o>, the phonetic status
of which is disputed. As with /e/ above, the height
of /o/ may correspond to /9:/ or /o:/, or may lie in
between (i.e., mid-back /9/), For the most part,
fe/ and /o/ behave as the short counterparts
of /e:/ and /o:/. Strings such as /ee/ or /oo/, for
instance, contract to /e:/ and /o:/, respectively
(elsewhere the details are more complex, and
involve morphological conditioning; see Allen
1959:246-7; Sommerstein 1973:56-59, 102-104;
Probert 2010:97-99). At other times, however, /e/
and /o/ correspond to /e:/ and /9:/: some verbs
with an initial /e/ + augment to /e:/ (e.g. egeirö
‘awaken’, pres. egesra:, impf. exge:ron <Hyeipov>),
while others augment to /e:/ (ékhd, ‘have’, pres.
ek'g., impf. esk*an <elyov>). These two processes
 VOWELS
are not merely a question of phonological fusion,
however, as there are also morphological and
lexical conditions on their operation (see Som-
metstein 1973:10-12, 18, 51, 61-3, 181).
Finally, there are two low-central /a/ vowels,
which are distinguished by length. Both vowels
are written <a>; the difference in length can
be seen in how they affect + syllable weight
in meter.
The vowel system undergoes considerable
change in the course of the 5th century BCE
and the description above is valid only for the
late 5th century. During the 5th c., the most sig-
nificant development is the fronting and round-
ing of earlier /u u:/ to /y y:/ (when exactly
this change takes place is a matter of debate;
Threatte 1980:337, for instance, places it later).
This is followed by a later change in which /o:/,
written <ou>, is raised to /u:/ (see Samuels 2006)
(+ Vowel Fronting; + Vowel Changes).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, W. Sidney. i959. “Some remarks on the structure of
Greek vowel systems", Word 15:240-41.
507
Allen, W. Sidney, 1987. Vox Graeca: the pronunciation of Clas-
sical Greek. 3rd ed. Cambridge.
Brixhe, Claude, 1996. Phonétique et phonatogie du grec
ancien. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Lejeune, Michel, 1972. Phonétique historique de Mycenıen et
du grec ancien. Paris.
Lupas, Liana. 1972. Phonologie du grec attique. The Hague.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 1992. Griechische Sprachwissen-
schaft, vol. 2. Berlin - New York.
Probert, Philomen. 2010, “Phonology". In: A companien to the
Ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert J. Bakker, 85-103.
Boston — Leiden.
Rix, Helmut, 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen:
Laut- und Formentehre. Darmstadt.
Samuels, Bridget. 2006. “Problems in Attic phonology’, Paper
presented at the ath Annual Harvard Linguistics Under-
graduate Colloquium. http://ling.umd.edu/~bridget/pdfs/
attic.pdf.
Sihler, Andrew, 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek
and Latin. Oxford - New York.
Sommerstein, Alan H. 1973. The sound pattern of Ancient
Greek, Oxford.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1940. The pronunciation of Greek and
Latin, and ed. Philadelphia.
Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The phonemic system of the
Attic dialect 400-340 8.C. Lund.
Threatte, Leslie. i980. The grammar of Attic inscriptions,
vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin - New York.
David GOLDSTEIN
Wackernagel’s Law |
1. INTRODUCTION
Wackernagel (1892) observes that, across archaic
Indo-European languages (Greek, Latin, San-
skrit, Gothic, etc.), enclitic and + postpositive
items tend to occur second in their > clause or
+ sentence (depending on the = clitic), as in the
following example from Herodotus (= marks the
host-clitic relationship; the relevant clitic is in
bold):
(1) eiretö=min ho Astuäges
asked-him the Astyages
‘Astyages asked him’ (Hdt. 1.17.2)
The 3rd pers. acc. sg. pronominal enclitic min
is hosted by the first wurd of the clause, eireto
‘asked’ (the presence of the clitic triggers the sec-
ondary accent on the ultima), This is canonical
second-position behavior. Since Wackernagel's
observation regarding archaic Indo-European,
second-position phenomena have been observed
across a wide array of languages: see Kaisse
(1985) for an overview.
Ancient Greek is well known for its rich clitic
and particle lexicon. It is customary in the philo-
logical literature to draw a distinction between
enclitics and postpositives (Dover ıg6o). Enclit-
ics bear no graphic accent, as with min above.
Postpositives behave like enclitics (in that they
cannot occur clause-initially), but they do bear
a graphic accent: to this class belong discourse
particles like men, dé and gdr, as well as the
modal particle dn. As the accentuation system is
the product of the Hellenistic period (its inven-
tion is traditionally ascribed to Aristophanes of
Byzantium, on the evidence of Arcadius 186.4;
see further Laum 1928), there is debate as to how
prosodically real this distinction in the writing
system is, and what exactly it corresponds to
(for further discussion, see Goldstein 2010), As
far as second-position behavior is concerned,
there is (thus far at least) no generalization that
breaks down according to the clitic/postposi-
tive distinction. For instance, the modal particle
dn and the object pronominal enclitics exhibit
strikingly similar (cf. Fortson 2010:161) syntactic
and prosodic behavior (> Prosody). They are
both admitted at Porson's Bridge, for instance
(> Bridges; see Devine and Stephens 1984).
While Wackernagel’s observation commands
widespread belief (for arguments that Wack-
ernagel'’s Law does not exist in Sanskrit, see
the recent work of Mark Hale, e.g. Hale 2008),
there is much that remains unclear. A general
claim that clitics occur in ‘second position’ is
too vague to be of much use. Below, this arti-
cle will describe three dimensions of second-
position behavior that any adequate analysis
must address: the nature of first position, domains
of cliticization, and clitic chains. This is followed
by a brief survey of how second-position behay-
ior is derived between syntax and phonology
(both canonical and exceptional). Comparative
and diachronic aspects of Wackernagel's Law are
briefly considered in conclusion,
2, DEFINING FIRST POSITION
The first question is to consider what counts as
first position. The prevalent claim in the litera-
ture (both in Greek as well as other languages)
 WACKERNAGEL'S LAW I
is that second-position items occur after the first
+ prosodic word of a particular domain. The
modal particle dn and the pronominal clitics, for
instance, occur after the first prosodic word of
their clause:
(2) ho helios=än
‘the sun...’ (Hdt. 2.26.2)
The definite article ho is (typically) proclitic
(Allen 1973:25; Sommerstein 1973:136-139; Prob-
ert 2003:$267(a), §277), so together ho helios
form one prosodic unit, which can be termed
a prosodic word. Thus while the modal particle
is the third lexical item in the clause, it is nev-
ertheless considered to be in ‘second’ position
because it is hosted by the first prosodic word of
its domain.
This generalization predicts that second-
position enclitics occur within syntactic con-
stituents, which is in fact the case:
(3) polloi=de=min ändres isasin
many-DM-it men know(3pl.)
‘and many men know it’ (Il. 6.151)
Here, the postpositive discourse marker (DM)
de and the pronominal enclitic min occur after
the first prosodic word of the clause (pollof) and
within the noun phrase polloi...dndres. This
prosodically-based calculation of second posi-
tion stands in contrast to the V2 phenomenon
in German, whereby finite verbs occur after the
first syntactic constituent in main clauses. For
other clitics (especially men, dé and gar), how-
ever, first position apparently does not correlate
with the first prosodic word of a domain:
(4) he dé Puthté=sphi khräi täde
the-DM Pythia-them(dat.) prophesies this
(acc.pl.)
‘The Pythia prophesies this to them...’ (Adt.
1.66,2)
If we assume that sphi occurs after the first pro-
sodic word of its clause, that then means that hé
dé Puthié constitutes a prosodic word, If this is
the case, then dé seems to be hosted simply by
the first lexical item of the clause. But here we
enter very uncertain territory, as there are at
least three possible explanations, none of which
have been adequately investigated. First, it is
possible that the addition of dé somehow pro-
509
motes hé to a prosodic word. It would thereby
become a licit prosodic host on its own. Such a
view, however, would then face the question of
why sphi is not also hosted by Aé. (The topic of
split distributions like we find in (4) is discussed
further below in relation to clitic domains.) Sec-
ond, it is possible that dé can be hosted by sub-
prosodic words (Agbayani and Golston 2o10a
make just such a claim). Under such a view, the
notion of ‘host’ becomes more syntactic than
prosodic. Lastly, there is reason to believe that
de in cases like (3) is actually proclitic, and that
both Aé and dé are hosted by Puthie. Evidence
for such a view comes from resolution bridges:
in this case, a prosodic word boundary is not
permitted between dé and Puthié (see further
Goldstein 2010:62-63).
A final observation to make about first posi-
tion is that there is variation. To take dé again,
when a prepositional] phrase begins a sentence,
the particle typically occurs immediately after
the preposition, as in ek de tou hetérou ‘from the
other at Hdt. 1.72.2. We do, however, find cases
where the particle does not immediately follow
the preposition: ek toütou de ‘from this one’ (Hdt.
1,157.2). Variation of this sort raises the question
of whether the difference involves any interpre-
tive effect that might influence the prosodic
coding of the preposition or the prepositional
phrase as a whole.
3. DOMAIN OF CLITICIZATION
As noted above, and already illustrated in exam-
ple (3), Ancient Greek is rich in second-position
items, and there is no single ‘Wackernagel's Law’
(i.e, one single generalization) that will cap-
ture the behavior of the entire system. In fact,
no such analysis has yet been attempted. The
clitic lexicon is standardly divided into the fol-
lowing three classes: sentence-connective clitics,
sentential clitics and word-level clitics (Fortson
2010162-163). The argument pronominal clit-
ics and modal particle dn have scope over the
clause, while sentence-connective particle gar
has scope over the entire sentence:
(5) dneu=gar-dé mdgou oli=sphi némos esti
thusias poidesthal
without-for-DM magus{gen.) not-them(dat.)
law is sacrifices(acc.) perform(inf.)
‘For without a magus it is not licit for them
to perform a sacrifice’ (Hdt. 1.132.3)
510 WACKEKNAGELS LAW I
Crucial here is the appearance of gär=de
well before sphi. The prepositional phrase
dneu=gar=dé mägou has been preposed to a
layer of syntax external to that of the nuclear
clause. As gär has scope over the entire sen-
tence, the preposed focus domain is included in
its calculation of second position. By contrast,
sphi, which only has clausal scope, is excluded
from the preposed phrase, and assumes second
position within the nuclear clause. (5) thus illus-
trates the possibility of multiple ‘second’ posi-
tions in a sentence. Word-level clitics scope over
a word or phrase and accordingly appear second
within a nominal domain:
(6) ou gar ekhö toutd=ge eipein atrekéos
not for I hold this-EMPH say(inf) precisely
‘For | am not able to say how much (lit.
‘this’) precisely’ (Hdt. 1.160.2)
The clitic ge scopes solely over its host totite and
thus occurs second within that domain (and not
within the clause). Where possessor clitics fit
into this scheme has yet to be investigated.
4. CLITIC CHAINS
Despite the possibility of split distribution, it
also happens that clitics cluster together, and
thereby create a clitic chain:
(7) ei=pou=tis=tina idoi ekhthron..,
iFever-one-some(acc.) saw(opt.) enemy(acc.)
‘Whenever anyone saw an enemy...’ (Thuc.
4.47.3)
Here the complementizer ei ‘if’ hosts the clit-
ics pou, tis and tina. (In clitic chains, each clitic
receives an accent, except the last one.) Clitic
ordering has received very little attention, and
the studies that do exist focus mostly on Homer
(e.g. Delbrück 1900:51-53; Ruijgh 1990; Wills
1993; Souletis 1998; Scheppers 2011:91-97, how-
ever, is based on Classical Greek prose). Roughly
speaking, it seems that clitic position correlates
with semantic scope: the wider the scope of the
clitic, the earlier it appears (cf. Rice 2000 on
Athapaskan and Agbayani & Golston 2012 on
Hittite). So pou, since it is a discourse marker
that scopes over the entire clause, precedes the
verbal arguments tis and tina. The difficulty in
analyzing clitic chains lies not just in determin-
ing and motivating the standard order, but also
in accounting for the variation. For instance, in
Herodotus we find cases of a relative pronoun
followed by az dé (modal particle dn plus dis-
course particle de; e.g. Hdt. 1138.5) as well as
the opposite sequence d’ dn (with elision of the
vowel e before the initial vowel of dn: e.g. Hdt.
2.65.21). Wackernagel (1892:344, 369) observes
that the internal order of clitics within a chain
can differ according to dialect.
5. DERIVING CLITIC DISTRIBUTION
How one accounts for the complexities of sec-
ond-position distributional patterns is a matter
of considerable debate. While there is as yet no
standard analysis for Ancient Greek, the ques-
tion is essentially to what extent prosody and
syntax each contribute to the surface distribu-
tion. It needs to be emphasized from the outset
that the debate, at least as far as Ancient Greek
is concerned, is not one of syntax versus prosody:
both components are necessary, and the ques-
tion is rather that of to what extent each plays
a role (for a typology of second-position clisis
analyses, see Bo$kovid 2001:9).
Counterexamples, i.e,, cases in which the
clitic is not in surface-second position, offer the
most insight into the nature of clitic distribution.
One possible derivational account for pronomi-
nal object clitics, would run as follows, They are
base-generated in VP, and then raise to adjoin
to TP (or, alternatively, move directly to C°; for
this type of analysis for Sanskrit, see Hale 2007).
If CP is occupied, its occupant becomes the pho-
nological host for the clitic. If CP is empty, how-
ever, then it will undergo ‘prosodic flip’ (Garrett
1989, Halpern 1995), a process by which the clitic
jumps to the right the minimal distance neces-
sary to find a licit prosodic host. This analysis has
the advantage that it can handle cases of prepos-
ing, as these simply involve leftward movement
to some extraclausal layer of the sentence. Else-
where, however, it runs into problems. One of
its predictions is that the clitic appears no more
than one prosodic word from the left edge of
TP. This prediction is violated in examples from
metrical texts like the following:
(8) hötan=d’ hiketai, tenikaüt’ ego kakös
when-DM he arrives, then I bad
me drön=an etén pdnth’ hds’=an deloi theds
not doing-PRT | would be(opt.) as much
as-PRT indicates(opt.) god
 WACKERNAGEL'S LAW |
‘when he gets here, I would be wrong
if 1 didn’t do whatever god indicates’ (Soph.
OT 76-77)
In a canonical situation, tenikaét’ in line 76
would host dn. Unless one were to argue that
ténikait’ ego kakös somehow sits in CP (or some
higher layer of the clause), the modal particle
occurs farther into the clause than is predicted.
A second problem concerns clausal conjunc-
tion. If kai is the head of a phrase ConjP that sits
above CP, it should not be a licit clitic host, and
yet sometimes it is, as in the following example:
(9) kaf=spheas hos oudeis ekdlee ektrépontai ep'
Athénéon
and-them(acc.) as no one called they
turn(hist.pres.) to Athens
‘And since no one invited them, they turned
toward Athens’ (Hdt. 6.34.2)
The pronominal clitic spheas is the object of the
verb ekd/ee, and as such one would expect it to
be hosted by the complementizer hös.
Both of these empirical issues can be circum-
vented, if prosody is allowed to play a greater
role in clitic distribution. For instance, one could
set up a prosody-dominant analysis, in which a
clitic selects for a host that occupies the left edge
of an intonational phrase (as argued for in Gold-
stein 2010; for similar prosody-oriented analyses,
see Frankel 1933 and Taylor 1996). Syntactic con-
straints, such as that the clitic be hosted in an
intonational phrase that correlates with some
part of the nuclear clause, would then play a
secondary role. We could then explain cases like
(g) by arguing that the prosody of the metrical
verse licenses additional positions for clitics that
are not available in non-metrical environments.
(This phenomenon has also been argued to exist
in the Rgveda, e.g. 1165.12cd, 6.27.7ab; see fur-
ther Hale 1987:79-80; Hock 1g92:46—50). (g) also
ceases to present a problem if we can assume the
following prosodic constituency: (kai=spheas
hös oudeis ekdlee) (ektrepontai ep’ Atheneön).
The sentence would then be divided into two
intonational phrases, and clitic spheas would be
hosted at the left edge of the intonational phrase
that encompasses its governing verb. While
prosody-dominant analyses of this type allow
for greater empirical coverage, they do counter
the principle of ‘phonology-free syntax’, which is
considered by many to be a fundamental prop-
zu
erty of the + syntax-phonology interface, as clit-
ics would have access to prosodic information in
the syntactic derivation.
Examples like (g) have led Agbayani and Gol-
ston (2010a, 2012) to a new analysis of second-
position phenomena. As conjunctions like kaf
are assumed to lie between the clauses they con-
join, Agabayani and Golston argue that ‘second-
position’ clitics (such as spheas, in this case) are
actually in first position, at the beginning ofthe
clause. ‘Second-position’ clitics are just postposi-
tives by this analysis, words that cannot occur at
the beginning of a phonological phrase (readers
should be aware that this is an idiosyncratic use
of the term postpositive). In (9), kaishields spheas
from the beginning of the phonological phrase,
and allows it to surface in situ at the beginning
of the clause. When there is no clausal conjunc-
tion, or when the clausal conjunction is itself
postpositive, material from inside the clause is
prosodically moved (Agbayani & Golston 2o10b)
to shield the postpositive from the left edge and
the ‘second-position' clitics remain clause-initial
sensu stricto. This account faces severe theoreti-
cal and empirical challenges.
b. WACKERNAGEL’S LAW FROM A
COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE
As noted at the beginning of this article, second-
position phenomena are nat limited to Ancient
Greek, but found across archaic Indo-European,
including Hittite (Garrett 1989, 1990; Agbayani
& Golston 2012), Sanskrit (Hale 1987a, 1987b,
1996, 2007, 2008; Hock 1992, 1996; Krisch 1990,
1997, 1998, 2000; Keydana 2011; Lowe 2011), Latin
(Adams 19944, 1994b; Bauer 2009: 294-299), and
Gothic (Ivanov 1999). As a result, Wackernagel's
Law is reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European
itself, and is in fact one of the very few claims
made about the syntax of the protolanguage
(Watkins 1964:1036). It is far from clear what the
specifics of second-position phenomena were in
Proto-Indo-European, and which of the daugh-
ter languages it resembled most closely.
As far as the inner-Greek history of Wackerna-
gel’s Law is concerned, it is often claimed, going
back at least to Wackernagel (1892:363, 370), that
the second-position mechanism weakens in the
period between Homer and Classical Greek (see
also Dover 1960: 15-19; Taylor iggo: 30, 131-133;
and Fraser 2001164-166). None of these studies
512 WACKERNAGEL'S LAW |
acknowledges e.g. the preposing construction
mentioned above. In effect, what we have
between Homer and the Classical period is nota
weakening of Wackernagel's Law, but rather an
increase in the use of such constructions. This
increase is conditioned by text-type and does
nat reflect an actual syntactic change.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agbayani, Brian and Chris Golston. 20a. “Second-position
is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal
conjunction’, /Fusa 21.
——. 2o10b. “Phonological movement in Classical Greek”,
Language 86.1133-167.
- 2012. “Clitic order in Hittite." In: Proceedings of the 23rd
Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 1-15. Bremen.
Adams, James N. i9g4a, Wackerntagel’s Law and the place-
ment of the copula esse in Classical Latin. Cambridge.
- 1994b, “Wackernagel's Law and the position of
unstressed personal pronouns in Classical Latin”, TPAS
g2:103-178.
Allen, William 5. 1973. Accent and rhythm. Prosodic features
of Greek and Latin: a study in theory and reconstruction.
Cambridge.
Bauer, Brigitte |. M. 2009. “Word order.” In: New perspectives
on historical Latin syntax: syntax of the sentence, ed. by
Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 241-316. Berlin - New
York.
Bertrand, Nicolas. 2009. “Les pronoems postpositifs dans
lordre des mots en grec: domaines syntaxiques, domaines
prosodiques”, Laties 29:227—-252.
Boskovid, Zeljko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology
interface: eliticization and related phenomena, Amsterdam.
Delbrück, Berthold. igoe. Vergleichende Syntax der indoger-
manischen Sprachen, Dritter Teil, Strassburg.
Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence Stephens. 1984, Language
and metre: resolution, Parson's bridye, and their prosodic
basis. Chico,
Dover, Kenneth J. 1960, Greek word arder. Oxford.
Fortson, Benjamin W. 2o10. Indo-European language und
culture: an introduction, and ed. Malden.
Frankel, Eduard. 1933. “Kolon und Satz, II: Beobachtungen
zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes”, Nachrichten der Göt-
tinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, PhiL-hist., 319-354.
Göttingen.
Fraser, Bruce. zo01. “The clause start in Ancient Greek: focus
and the second position’, Glotta 77138-177.
Garrett, Andrew, 1989. “Ergative case assignment, Wacker-
nagel's Law, and the VP base hypothesis.” In: Proceedings
of the North East Linguistics Society 19, 113-126.
—. 1990. The Syntax of Anatolian pronominal elittes, Ph.D,
Dissertation, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA.
Goldstein, David M. 2010. Wackernaget’s Law in fifth-century
Greek. Ph.D, Dissertation, UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley.
Hajdi, Istvan, 1989. Über die Stellung der Enklitika und Quasi-
Enklitika bet Pindar und Bacchylides. Diss. Lund.
Hale, Mark. 1987. Studies in the comparative syntax of the
oldest Indo-Iranian languages, Ph.D, Dissertation, Har-
vard University. Cambridge, MA.
——- 1987b. "Notes on Wackernagel's Law in the language
of the Rigveda.” In: Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill
(1929-1985): Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-Euro-
pean Conference, ed. by Calvert Watkins, 38-50. Berlin -
New York.
——. 1996. "Deriving Wackernagel's Law: prosadic and syn-
tactic factors determining clitic placement in the lan-
guage of the Rigveda." In: Approaching second: secand
position clitics and related phenomena, ed. by Aaron L.
Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky, 165-198. Stanford.
——. 2007. Historical linguistics: theory and method. Oxford.
—— 2008. "Wackernagel’s so-called Law’, paper presented
at the roth Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference,
Cornell University, 9 August 2008.
Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the placement and morphology of
clitics. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford.
Hock, Hans H. 1992. “What's a nice word like you doing in a
place like this? Syntax vs. phonological form," Studies in
the Linguistic Scienres 22:39-87.
«1996. “Who's on first? Toward a prosodic account of P2
clitics." In: Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.),
Approaching second: second position clitics and related
phenomena, 199-270. Stanford.
Ivanov, Vjateslay V. 1999. “Indo-European syntactic rules
and Gothic morphology.” In: UCLA Indo-European Stud-
tes 1, ed. by Vjateslay V. Ivanov and Brent Vine, 103-120.
Los Angeles.
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected speech: the interaction of
syntax and phonology. Orlando.
Keydana, Götz. 2011. “Wackernagel in the language of the
Rigveda", HSF 124:80-107.
Krisch, Thomas, ı9go. “Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus
heutiger Sicht.“ In: Heiner Eichner & Helmut Rix (eds.),
Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie : Jacob Wackernagel
und die Indogermanistik heute : Kolloquium der indoger-
manischen Gesellschaft vorn 13, bis 15. Oktober 1988 in Basel,
64-81. Wiesbaden.
——. 1997. "Delbrücks Arbeiten zur Wortstellung aus heu-
tiger Sicht,” In: Emilio Crespo & José-Luls Garela Ramén
(eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeurapean hoy.
Actas del Coloquio de ta indogermanische Gesellschaft,
Madrid, 21-24 de septiembre de 1994, 283-309. Wiesbaden.
—. 1998. "Zum Hyperbaton in altindogermanischen
Sprachen." In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur
der Indogermanen: Akten der X, Fachtagung der indoger-
manischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22.-28. September 1996,
351-384. Innsbruck.
——. 2002, “Indogermanische Wortstellung." In: Heinrich
Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Pers-
pektiven, 249-261. Wiesbaden.
Laum, Bernhard. 1928. Das alexandrinische Akzentuations-
system, Paderborn.
Lowe, John J. aan. “Rgvedic clitics and ‘prosodic move-
ment’.” In: Proceedings of the Lexical Functional Grammar
n Conference, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway
King, 360-380. Stanford.
. (forthcoming), “Accented clitics in the Rgveda”, TPRS
Malzahn, Melanie. 2o12. “Position matters - the placement
of clitics in metrical texts of Tocharian B", Tocharian and
Indo-European Studies 1453-162.
Probert, Philomen. 2003. A new short guide to the accentua-
tion of Ancient Greek, London.
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: word
formation in the Athapaskan verb, Cambridge.
Ruijgh, Cornelius J. iggy. “La place des enclitiques dans
l'ordre des mots chez Humére d’apres la loi de Wackema-
gel” In: Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: J. Wackernagel
und die Indogermanistik heute, ed. by Heiner Eichner and
Helmut Rix, 213-233. Wiesbaden,
Scheppers, Frank, 2011, The colon hypothesis: word order, dis-
course segmentation and discourse coherence in Ancient
Greek. Brussels,
 WACKERNAGEL'S
Sommerstein, Alan H. i971. The sound pattern of Ancient
Greek. Oxford.
Souletis, Marie-Ange. 1998. Chaines pronominales dans
!Tliade. Ordre préférentiel, variations d'ordre et fonction de
quelques particules. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ecole pratique des
hautes études. Paris,
Taylor, Ann. 1990, Clitics and configurationalilty in Ancient
Greek, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Phildelphia, PA.
——. 1996. “A prosodic account of clitic position in Ancient
Greek." In: Approaching second: second position clitics and
related phenomena, ed. by Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold
M. Zwicky, 477-504. Stanford.
. 2002. “The distribution of abject clitics in Koine
Greek.” In: Indo-European perspectives, ed. by Mark R. V,
Southern, 285-315. Washington, DC.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. “Uber ein Gesetz der indo-ger-
manischen Wortstellung”, /F 1:333-436.
Watkins, Calvert. 1964, “Preliminaries to the reconstruc-
tion of Indo-European sentence structure”. In: Proceed-
ings uf the gth International Congress uf Linguists, ed. by
H. G. Lunt, 1035-1045. The Hague.
Wills, Jeffrey. 1993. “Homeric particle order", HSF 106:61-81.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN
Wackernagel’s Law II (V’S)
The second member of a compound in Greek
often begins with a long + vowel, where a short
vowel would be expected based on the vowel
of the root. The lengthening (Germ. Dehnung)
of that vowel has come to be known as Wack-
ernagel’s other law, Wackernagel Il, the Law of
Lengthening, or the Dehnungsgesetz, after Wack-
ernagel (1889). Note that long a, &, ö in the sec-
ond member of each Homeric compound below
(aés, etc.) correspond to a short initial vowel in
the related free-standing word (aénai, etc.):
— dus-äes, ‘ill-blowing’< aénai, ‘to blow’
khrus-doros, ‘gold-swarded’ < dor, ‘sword’
phil-éretmos, ‘oar-fond' < eretmön, ‘oar
- eu-énér, ‘manly’ < dnér, ‘man’
— sterop-égeréta, ‘lightning-waker’ < egeirein,
‘awaken’ or ageirein, 'gather together’
- an-önumos, ‘un-named' < énoma, ‘name’
dus-onumos, ‘ill-named’ < önoma, ‘name’
The lengthening is especially motivated and prev-
alent in + meter, where it allows otherwise light
syllables to fit into heavy positions in the verse
+ foot. Wackernagel notes that early poets like
Homer, Hesiod, Simonides, and Pindar regularly
use -agds or -egds ‘leader’ as the second mem-
ber of a compound (e.g. strat-&gös ‘army-leader,
LAW I 513
general’) rather than expected -agös, which
doesn't occur before Herodotus and Sophocles
in the 5th c. BCE (e.g. paid-agögös ‘child-leader,
tutor’), suggesting that the lengthening was a
feature of earlier Greek, possibly even of Indo-
European, since a similar process is found in
Sanskrit (Whitney 1899:§247). According to
Schwyzer (1939:399ff.), the lengthening in Greek
was Originally due to the + contraction of the
final vowel of the first member of a compound
with the initial vowel of the second: strato-agös
> strat-egds (cf. Doric strat-ägös for no change
in vowel quality). If this is true, the resulting
vowel does not fit into the general rules of vowel
contraction according to which o + a yields ö
rather than a (cf. aidö-a > aidö ‘shame, respect
(acc.)’), The contraction hypothesis would imply
that the Law emerged as a result of a (wrong) re-
analysis of e.g. philéretmos (< philo-éretmos) as
phil-€retmos (with automatic lenghening in the
compound) that was then analogically extended
to dus-önumos and others.
Whatever its heritage, it was probably never
productive (i.e., not a Law sensu stricto), Con-
sider the short vowels at the beginning of the
second member of the following compounds, all
from Homer:
andr-dgria, 'man-spoils’ < ägre, ‘chase’
|
pan-äpalos, ‘all tender’ < hapalos, ‘tender’
eu-erkes, 'well-walled' < herkos, ‘wall’
an-dlethros, 'un-destroyed' < dlethros, 'destruc-
tion’
— pan-ustatos, ‘very last' < hüstatos, ‘last’
Later authors also show a mix of long and short
vowels at the beginning of the second member
of the compound, We find cases where the vowel
is long:
strat-Egös, ‘army-leader' < agds, ‘leader’ (Hdt.,
|
Soph.}
— eu-énernus,‘well-winded'<dremos,'wind
(Eur.)
~ an-ömalos, ‘un-even’ < homalös, ‘even’ (Thuc.)
pan-éguris, 'pan-assembly’ < agora, ‘assembly’
I
(Thuc.)
and cases where the vowel is short:
- paid-agogos, ‘boy-guide’ < agogds, ‘guide’ ( Hdt.,
Soph.)
- eu-epés,‘well-spoken' < épos, ‘word’ (Hdt., Xen.)
514 WACKERNAGEL'S LAW 11 (V'S)
- an-omölogos, ‘not-agreeing’ < homdlogos, ‘agree-
ing’ (Pl., Arist.)
- pän-etes, ‘all year long’ < étos, ‘year’ (Pind.)
lf the first member of the compound ends in a
vowel (e.g. amphi 'on both sides, around’), it is
often lost, either with lengthening of the follow-
ing vowel, as expected:
— amph-érephés, ‘covered at both ends'
eréphein, ‘to root over, cover’
— amph-eristos, ‘contested on both sides’
erizein, ‘to contest’
- amph-ekeés, ‘edged on both sides’ < akmé, ‘edge’
or without lengthening:
- amph-Epö, 'be busy about’ < hepö, ‘move, be
busy with’
— amph-arabéo,'clatteraround'<
arabéo, ‘clatter’
- amphi-alos, 'sea-girt' < hals, ‘salt, sea’
(all from Homer), The former case, where the
first vowel is lost and the second lengthens is
clearly related to — crasis across words and to
+compensatory lengthening. An intervening
digamma (w) usually blocks all of this:
- amphi-(w)eléssa, ‘curved at both ends’ < helis-
sein, ‘curve, curl’
- amphi-(w}ennümi,'puton clothing’ < hénnami,
‘put on clothing’
- tri-(w)étés, ‘three years long’ < (w)etos, ‘year’
According to Nagy (2008), we can see the Deh-
nungsgesetz extend within epic, from an early
stage where it applied only to the second mem-
ber of a compound, to a later stage where it
applied to any nominal. If he is right, the follow-
ing doublets in Homer show us earlier and later
stages of the development: the earlier (short
vowel) cases where lengthening did not yet
apply to nominals generally, and the later (long
vowel or diphthong) stages where it did:
aner - äner, ‘man’
I
dlumpos ~ oullumpos, ‘Olympus’
- eands ~ eiands, ‘fine robe’
- önoma ~ ounoma, ‘name’
Note that eiands and ounome differ from phil-
éretmos and dus-önumos in the height of the
lengthened vowel: the spurious diphthongs e/
(et) and ou (ou) in the former represent the mid
vowels [e:] and [o:], while é (n) and 6 (w) in the
latter represent the phonetically lower vowels
[ex] and [a:]. According to Wyatt (1969), this
means that the lengthening is later in eianös and
otinoma than in phil-eretmos and dus-önumos
and artificial, insofar as it is limited to the epic
Kunstsprache (+ Epic Diction). Nagy sees a later
stage yet in epic where vowels are lengthened
< not just in absolute word-initial position, but in
word-initial syllables generally (i.e., after an ini-
< tial consonant). Consider the following Homeric
doublets:
- melan ~ meilani (dat.), ‘black’
- Palu-deukes ~ Poulu-ddmäs (names based on
polu- ‘much, many’)
~ bösis ~ bétor, ‘shepherd (one who feeds)’, food’
When é, v, and 6 in the words at left lengthen
to ef, ou, and ö, they do not do so in absolute
word-initial position; the syllable in which they
occur is word-initial, but the vowels themselves
are not. Nagy sees such lengthening as a further
development of the Kunstsprache. He goes on
to claim that Aeolic extended the lengthening
even more, to explain Homeric doublets like the
following:
- enosi-khthön ~ ennosi-gaios, ‘earth-shaker'
The lengthening now involves not a vowel but a
consonant (r > nn). Either way, the word-initial
syllable is made heavy (see + syllable weight),
either by lengthening the syllable nucleus (vowel
lengthening) or by creating a coda (consonant
gemination); both processes add a > mora to the
syllable, making a light syllable heavy. We might
add that this also occurs word-internally in epic,
as we see with the gemination of consonants
({ > ff) in word-medial contexts:
— Akhileus ~ Akhilleus, ‘Achilles’
It should be pointed out, however, that there is
usually insufficient corroborating evidence for
the dating of these supposedly successive exten-
sions of the Dehnungsgesetz. We may speculate
that lengthening was limited in early Greek to
the initial vowel of the second member of a com-
pound (strat-agés), and later extended to the
initial vowel of any word (äner), extended later
yet to vowels in the initial syllable of any word
 WACKERNAGEL'S LAW II (V‘S}
(bötör), and later still to consonants (ennosi-
gaios) in initial and later even non-initial syl-
lables (Akhilleis); but actual evidence for such a
chronology has yet to be produced.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kurylowiez, Jerzy. 1956, Lapophonie en indoeuropéen.
Wroctaw.
Nagy. Gregory. 2008. Greek: an updating of a survey of recent
work. Electronic publication in the Hellenic Studies series,
Center for Hellenic Studies. Washington, D.C.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik. Bande
Til. Munich.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1889, "Das Dehnungsgesetz der griechis-
chen Komposita”, Programm zur Rektoratsfeier der Uni-
versitäf Busel ı88g9n-65. Reprinted 1955 in Kleine Schriften
H, 897-961. Göttingen.
Whitney, William D. 1879. Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig.
Wyatt, William F. Jr. 1969. Metrical lengthening in Homer.
Rome.
CHRIS GOLSTON
Wheeler’s Law
‘Wheeler's Law’ refers to a phonologically con-
ditioned > accent retraction process recon-
structed for an early pandialectal stage of Greek
by which oxytone words became paroxytone
if they ended in a heavy-light-light > syllable
sequence (‘HLL’), e.g. *poikilös > poikilos ‘multi-
colored’ (HLL), *dedegmends > dedegménos
‘awaiting, expecting’ (LHLL). Note that word-
final syllables ending in a short > vowel followed
by one > consonant (e.g. -es} count as light for
Wheeler's Law, just as they do for the + ‘law of
limitation’. The accent retraction was originally
proposed by Benjamin Ide Wheeler (1854-1927)
in 1885; for further insights, analysis, and refer-
ences, see Probert (2006).
Evidence for Wheeler's Law comes especially
from the comparison of several Greek suffixes
with their Vedic Sanskrit cognates: Gk. -ménos
vs. Ved, -ändh forming pf. mid, — participles;
Gk. -ülos vs. Ved. -urdh or -uläh, and Gk. -ilos vs.
Ved. -irah or -ildh forming — adjectives. There
is a strong case to be made that the Greek
suffixes were originally oxytone as in Vedic,
and that the retraction was phonological. First,
+ language change typically affects classes of
words defined by shared phonological, mor-
phological, syntactic, semantic properties, or a
combination thereof. Most Greek pf. mid./pass.
participles in -menos, and virtually all adjec-
tives in -wlos and -ifos, end HLL, i.e., they have
315
a phonological property in common, whereas
the Vedic suffixes do not. Second, a number of
the Greek formations of this type that did not
meet the HLL condition appear to have escaped
the retraction. For example, pakhulös ‘roughly’
(LLH) presupposes an oxytone adj. *pakhulds
‘rough’ (LLL), which forms a word equation with
Vedic bahuldh ‘thick, broad’. Additionally, > per-
sonal names and appellatives that derive from
participles in -menos, e.g, Orkhomends (HLLL)
and dexamené ‘reservoir’ (HLLH), suggest that at
an earlier stage of the language, all Greek mid./
pass. participles in -menos, regardless of + tense/
aspect, were oxytone, since there is no known
rightward accent shift in the history of Greek by
which a putative *Orkhomenos > Orkhomenös
(cf. Kiparsky 1967:75). Third, the only accentable
segment in the PIE suffix *-mA,nos (Klingen-
schmitt 1975:161-163) is the vawel “o”.
Assuming the validity of Wheeler's Law, it was
followed by analogical changes that promoted
accentual uniformity among related words and
grammatical forms. Speakers avoided accent
alternation within the > inflectional paradigm,
e.g. between the paroxytone masc. nom. sg.
*poikilos (HLL), which underwent retraction,
and the oxytone masc./neut. dat. sg. *poikilöi
(HLH), which did not, by virtually always gen-
eralizing the accent of the (masc.) nom. sg. of
adjectives and nouns to the remaining forms of
the paradigm: poikilos, poikilöi. This may reflect
a base-derivative relationship within the inflec-
tional paradigm, where the accent of the other
+ case forms in the relevant paradigms was
derived from the (masc.) nom. sg. This was the
view of the ancient grammarians, and this rela-
tionship is often assumed for didactic purposes
in modern handbooks (cf. Probert 2003:54-60).
The result was accentual uniformity within
inflectional paradigms.
Speakers also preferred for words formed with
the same suffix to be uniformly accented. Where
Wheeler's Law produced paroxytone suffix vari-
ants such as *dedeg-ménos (LHLL) beside unaf-
fected oxytone variants such as *kekhu-menös
‘having been poured’ (LLLL), *Pelasg-tkos ‘Pelas-
gian’ (LHLL) beside *orphan-ikös ‘orphaned’
(HLLL), they generalized one of the two vari-
ants, perhaps the more frequent one (cf. Probert
2006:93-96): dedeg-menos, kekhu-menos; Pelasg-
ikös, orphan-ikés. These analogical changes
effectively extended and reversed the results of
Wheeler's Law.
516 WHEELER'S LAW
The accent alternations that arose from Wheel-
er's Law are partly preserved in compounds of
the type psükho-pompös ‘soul escorting’, patro-
ktönos ‘father-killing’, where the second member
is the head of the compound, has an “active”
meaning (e.g. ‘killing’ not 'killed'), and consists
morphologically of a verbal root (+ Root Struc-
ture (and Ablaut)), usually with o-vocalism
(e.g. pomp not pemp), followed by the theme
vowel (+ Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation). In
Vedic, this type of compound is oxytone, e.g.
hasta-gräbhäh ‘hand-grasping’, bhuvana-cyavdh
‘world-shaking‘. In Greek, the compounds all
end in a light syllable. They are oxytone if the
penultimate syllable is heavy, i.e., where the HLL
context for retraction did not apply, e.g. psükho-
pompös (HLHL). Where it is light, they are par-
oxytone, both where the HLL context was met,
e.g. teukhes-phöros ‘armor-wearing’ (HHLL), and
where it was not, e.g. feukho-phöros ‘id.’ (HLLL).
We arrive at the attested situation if we assume
that speakers began predicting the accentuation
of these compounds on the basis of the weight of
the penult alone.
The phonetic motivation for Wheeler's Law
remains unclear. As an accent retraction process
sensitive to + syllable weight patterns, it is akin to
+ Vendryes’ Law (Attic only) and > Bartoli’s Law
(chronology and dialectal distribution disputed).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kiparsky, Paul. 1967. “A propos de l'histoire de J'accentuation
grecque", Langages 2:73-93-
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1975. "Tocharisch und Lrindoger-
manisch”. In: Flexion und Wortildung: Akten der V. Fachta-
gung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Regensburg, 9.-14.
September 1973, ed. by Helmut Rix, 148-163. Wiesbaden.
Probert, Philomen. 2003. A new short quide to the accentua-
tion af Ancient Greek, Landon,
‚2006. Ancient Greek accentuation: synchronic patterns,
‚Frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford,
Wheeler, Benjamin Ide. 1885. Der griechische Naminalaccent.
Strassburg.
DETER GUNKEI
Word Classes (mere tou lögou),
Ancient Theories of
1. INTRODUCTION
The expression ‘parts of speech’ is a literal trans-
lation of the Greek term méré toü lögou, which
was calqued by Latin authors as partes oratio-
nis. While it initially referred to the compo-
nents of the sentence (/égos; oratic), the term
acquired, within technical grammaticography, a
morphological-paradigmatic sense, referring to
word classes, i.e,, types of linguistic forms shar-
ing (a) a basic meaning (“substance”, “action”,
“person”, “way of—", etc.), (b) a formal shape
and ‘behavior and (c) a set of (morpho-syntac-
tic) uses. The treatment of these ‘parts of speech’
became the core of grammatical description in
antiquity, especially since syntax was only occa-
sionally and in a very restricted sense dealt with
by ancient grammarians (cf. Schoemann 1862;
Charpin 1986). Starting with the Alexandrian
grammarians, the ‘parts of speech’ were built
into a (sub)model of grammar: this model—
referred to in linguistic literature as the ‘Word-
and-Paradigm’ (or WP’) model (cf. Hockett 1954;
Robins 1957, 1966, 1986) — consists of (a) the
listing of the relevant word classes, constituting
the (basic) morphological paradigms of the lan-
guage; (b) their definition in terms of formal and
semantic characteristics; (c) an account of these
features, especially with reference to ‘extralin-
guistic’ structures/facts/properties.
In what follows, the historical evolution of the
system of parts of speech in antiquity will be pre-
sented; subsequently, the methodological status
and impact of this system will be discussed.
2. HISTORY OF THE WORD CLASS SYSTEM
The historical development of the set of ‘parts
of speech’ was sketched, in a number of ‘doxo-
graphical’ texts, by ancient authors such as Dio-
nysius of Halicarnassus, Quintilian and a number
of scholiasts (for a full inventory of the texts, and
a historiographical meta-analysis, see Wouters
& Swiggers 2010 and Swiggers & Wouters 20114).
While these 'doxographical' accounts constitute
interesting testimonies, they present two main
defects: (a) on the one hand, they are based
on an inadequate chronological perspective and
thus diston the historical lines of development;
(b) on the other, they impose an overall ‘rectilin-
ear’ evolution on a century-long process that was
not unidirectional, but marked by lateral devel-
opments (some of which were successful, others
not) and also by constant interference between
grammatical and philosophical views. The evo-
lution of the concept of ‘parts of speech’ was one
of adaptations, refinements and re-shufflings of
an empirically constituted ‘tool box’ for gram-
matical description (cf. Lallot 1988; Matthaios
 WORD CLASSES (MERE TOU LOGOU), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
1999, 2002). Another observation to be made is
that the authors of doxographical accounts did
not engage in a discussion of an important shift
in the ‘intrinsic loud’ of the term after the initial
period, marked by the dialectic and rhetorical
approach of Plate and Aristotle, and followed by
the establishment of a semantically and gram-
matically based theory of word classes.
The beginnings of the "Word-and-Paradigm”
model are in fact marked by a logician's perspec-
tive on the fundamental structure of the sen-
tence. The sentence, or proposition — the Greek
term /dégos has both (and other) meanings - was
seen by Plato and Aristotle as the locus of truth
or falsity. The principal interest of Plato and Aris-
totle, in dealing with language structure, was ta
account for the possibility of truth and falsity, as
expressed by the same types of verbal sequence.
Their account is based on the decomposition of
the /dgos into components of the sentence (meéré
[tow] fégoz): both Plato and Aristotle identified
the two essential components of the sentence,
viz. Subject and Predicate, but the terms they
used for these components identify their proto-
typical representatives: the name/noun (önoma)
and the verb (rhéma) (+ Noun (önoma), Ancient
Theories of and + Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theo-
ries of). Aristotle, while stressing the necessity
of combining a ‘naming-word’ with a predicative
word in order to obtain a (true or false) state-
ment (Cat. 4, 2a4-10), also laid the foundations
for a classematic/categorical approach. In Cat. 4,
1b25-2a10, Aristotle establishes a link between
thought-contents and types of word forms (for
a translation and commentary, see Swiggers &
Wouters 1997). In this text, Aristotle attempts
to correlate word forms with semantic or noetic
contents; however, his list is not exhaustive,
nor is it a clear-cut inventory of different ‘parts
of speech’, since it lists e.g. different types of
verb forms (according to their semantics, but
also in line with their active/middle/passive
conjugation scheme) and since it not only lists
simple word forms, but also syntagms (such as
en Lukeföi ‘in the Lyceum’).
From two other works of Aristotle, his Rheto-
rics and Poetics, we can infer that his approach
to language was net so much in terms of tracking
the patterns of the language system, but rather
in terms of breaking down the complex orga-
nization of literary-rhetorical expression. The
superordinate term of his analysis of language
is not lögos, but lexis, i.e., (literary) expression
317
or diction. In Ch. 20 of his Poetics, he offers a list
of the parts of the /éxis that includes (a) some of
the traditional word-classes, (b} but also other
units below the ward-level (letter, syllable) and
above the word-level (+ utterance), as well as a
discriminating feature (case). The units at the
word-level are four in number: önoma, rhéma,
sündesmos and ärthron. The relevant passages
from the Poetics reflect Aristotle's interesting,
though problematic attempt to differentiate
among a number of word types (for a detailed
analysis, see Swiggers & Wouters 2002), but
they do not yield operational definitions for
grammatical instruction. The önoma (‘name’,
‘noun’, but also ‘adjective’) is “a composite sig-
nificant sound without [an indication of] time,
no part of which is significant in itself”; the
rhéma (‘verb’) is defined as “a composite sig-
nificant sound with [an indication of] time, no
part of which is significant in itself”; the sändes-
mos (‘combiner'; Aristotle’s examples include
conjunctions and transphrasal particles such
as mén...dé) is defined as “a non-significant
sound (i.e., devoid of lexical meaning), which
neither precludes, nor brings about, the produc-
tion of a single significant sound that by nature
is composed of several sounds, and which can
be used at either the end or in the middle, but
which it is not appropriate to place at the begin-
ning of an utterance on its own”; finally the
ärthron (joint' or ‘joiner’; Aristotle seems to have
included under this class articles, relative pro-
nouns, prepositions (and postpositions), exple-
tive adverbials, phrasal joints such as phemi) is
defined as “a non-significant sound which marks
the beginning of an utterance, the end or the
break-up”.
Aristotle started the move away from the
macro-analysis of the proposition (leading to
the recognition of two major propositional con-
stituents) towards the positing of a set of dis-
tinct word types. His incipient analysis of word
classes was carried further and refined by the
Stoics, whose contributions to grammatical the-
ory extend over several centuries. Unfortunately,
given the extreme paucity of original Stoic tes-
timonies, and in view of the highly inadequate
chronological perspective provided by our indi-
rect sources on Stoic doctrine, any account of
(the evolution of} the Stoic theory of ‘the parts of
speech’ must remain tentative and speculative.
While it is possible that, at an early stage, the
Stoics adopted Aristotle's quadripartite division
518 WORD CLASSES (MERE TOU LÖGOU), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
as offered in the Poetics, our extant sources
inform us that already in the ard c. BCE the Stoic
doctrine of word classes — a doctrine that was
based on a thorough study of a number of mor-
phological phenomena (inflection; case-mark-
ing; tense-distinctions) — included five types of
words: öroma, the proper name; proségoria, the
common name/noun; rhema, the verb; sündes-
mos, the (uninflected) binding word; arthron,
the (case-inflected) article/(relative) pronoun.
The distinction between önoma and proségoria,
made by Chrysippus and Diogenes of Babylon,
was fully in line with Stoic epistemology, which
established a neat distinction between individu-
ality/individual quality and communality/shared
quality (cf. Diog. Laert. VII 57-58 and Prisc.
Inst. 11167), At a later stage, a sixth word type was
added by Antipater, according to the account
of Diogenes Laertius (VII 57): mesötes, ‘middle’,
referring to adverbs. Another Stoic term for this
class was pandektes, ‘all-receiver’, a term possi-
bly indicating a further extension of the original
mesötes class, which may have been restricted to
adverbs ending in -ös.
It should be noted that, next to this set of
word classes, the Stoics developed a theory of the
proposition in accordance with their ontology
and theory of knowledge: a proposition consists
of the combination of a predicate (being general
terms, predicates are ‘incorporeal’ entities for
the Stoics), and of a subject term (a proper name
or a common noun). The subject term is corpo-
real in that it signifies a quality implemented in
one or several things. Therefore, subject terms
show case inflection (for the Stoics, contrary to
Aristotle, the nominative was also a ptésis ‘case’):
cases are the marks of objects ‘falling/occurring
in the world’. As to classificatory terminology, it
seems that the Stoics favored the general term
stoikheion, to refer to parts composing a whole
(or a set), at various levels of linguistic analy-
sis. Diogenes Laertius (VII 192-193) attributes
to Chrysippus a (lost) work Peri tön stoikheiön
tot lögou kai tön legoménon that may refer to
the “parts” of speech, and another one, Peri tés
syntaxeds kal stoikheiön tön legomenön. But the
term meros toü lögou may have been used by
them as well: Diogenes of Halicarnassus (Comp.
Ch. 4) attributes to the same Chrysippus a trea-
tise Peri tes syntäxeös tön toi lägou merön, which
may be an alternative title or a conflation of
titles for one or several works mentioned by
Diogenes Laertius.
The set of ‘parts of speech’ - referring to word
classes, i.e, paradigms of word types charac-
terized by a number of formal and semantic
characteristics ~ was to receive its definitive
organization in the grammatical and philological
practice of the Alexandrian school. This was
certainly not the result of one instantaneous
process. On the one hand, it seems that in
the period stretching from Stoic grammatical
activity (grd/and cent. BCE) to the rather well
attested philological teaching of Aristarchus
(ca 216-144 BCE), there was a continuous tra-
dition of reflection on the units of grammati-
cal description and their classification; one can
assume that such reflection was motivated by
grammatical teaching, as well as by (philosophi-
cal and linguistic) approaches to phenomena
encountered in (literary) texts as well as in the
oral use of the Greek language. We can think
here of linguistic phenomena involving the use
of pronouns, the presence of prepositions (and
postpositions) — Aristotle's examples in the Cat-
egories included prepositional phrases — and the
use of participle constructions. On the other
hand, the Alexandrian doctrine of the parts
of speech was not established as a suddenly
codified system. An interesting case in point
concems the “lateral” conservation of a system
in which the Stoic distinction between dnoma
and proségoria was maintained. In the Tékhné
grammatiké attributed to Dionysius Thrax, a
student of Aristarchus, this distinction is no
longer maintained; the prosägoria is treated as
a subclass under the önoma word class. But
according to the testimony of a scholiast (Schol.
Dion. Thr. 124, 8-14), this was not the authentic
view of Dionysius Thrax, who followed the dis-
tinction between önoma and proségoria as two
separate parts of speech. Whatever the way to
interpret this information — a question which
is directly linked to the often methodologically
ill-conceived (cf. Swiggers & Wouters 1995) issue
of the authenticity of the transmitted text of
the Tékhné grammatike (cf. Law & Sluiter 1995
and Matthaios 2009) — it is clear that, for several
centuries, ancient grammarians did not reach a
consensus about this matter: while Apollonius
Dyscolus (2nd c. CE) defends the unified treat-
ment under the single part of speech önoma (the
view apparently held already by Aristarchus,
and also the one found in the transmitted text
of the Tekhne), we find the distinction between
önoma and proségorfa in grammatical manuals
 WORD CLASSES (MERE TOU LÖGOU), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
on papyrus (P, Yale 1.25, st c. CE; P. Heid. Sieg-
mann, 3rd c. CE; cf. Wouters 1979, texts 1 and 12).
The Alexandrian organization ofthe set of word
classes was the outcome of well-organized philo-
logical activity. For the purposes of text edition,
commentary and related forms of philological
activity and philological-grammatical instruc-
tion, Alexandrian grammarians, starting with
Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca 257-180 BCE),
worked out a terminological and classificatory
frame covering the formal units and series
of elements encountered in the literary texts
studied (> Philological-Grammatical Tradition
in Ancient Linguistics). The Alexandrian doc-
trine of parts of speech/word classes, as it was
established over time, consisted in the distinc-
tion of eight word types: önoma (‘noun’), rhéma
(‘verb’), metokhé (‘participle’), drthron (‘article’),
antonumia (‘pronoun’), pröthesis (‘preposition’),
epirrhéma (‘adverb’) and stindesmos (‘conjunc-
tion’). These were defined (a) in terms of formal
features: morphological characteristics (affecting
the paradigm as such) and positional features;
(b) with reference to their general class-mean-
ing. Most morphological features (parepdmena)
are correlated with (I) semantic-referential prop-
erties (e.g. gender, number); (II) discursive-refer-
ential roles (e.g. person); (IM) syntactic functions
(e.g. case); (IV) referential-cognitive distinctions
(e.g. tense); (V) psychological attitudes (e.g.
mood); (VI) a noetic(-ontological) opposition
(e.g. species, indicating the distinction between
‘primitive’ and ‘derived’ notions). Other mor-
phological features are intrinsically grammati-
cal, such as figure (simple vs. compound), or
conjugation class. Apart from the definition of
the distinct parts of speech, we also find, at least
for the inflected parts of speech (and also for the
adverbs; cf. Wouters & Swiggers 201), a subdi-
vision into formal and/or semantic subclasses;
the subdivision of the dnoma includes e.g. the
distinction between proper names, common
nouns, epithets, relational and quasi relational
nouns, homonyms, synonyms, double names,
nicknames, ethnic names, collective and distri-
butional nouns, generic and specific nouns, ordi-
nals and cardinals, as well as a series of forms
which we today consider ‘pronouns’ (interroga-
tive and indefinite pronouns). For a survey of
the architecture of this system, and for transla-
tions of definitions and technical terminology,
see Swiggers & Wouters (1997).
51g
Some of the ‘doxographical’ texts (see above)
describe the evolution of how the parts of speech
were classified between the Stoic period and
Alexandrian grammar as a process of continu-
ous division (cf. also Robins 1986); this would
account, e.g., for the split of the ancient drthron
class into a class of ‘articles’ /‘articulating forms’
(= the drthron of the Alexandrian grammari-
ans, including the definite article and the rela-
tive pronoun) and into a class of ‘pronouns’
(= the antonwmia of the Alexandrian grammar-
ians, including personal, possessive and rela-
tive pronouns). But this is an oversimplified
picture: taking into account the fluctuations in
(sub)classification found in the papyrological
material, and taking into account the century-
long discussion (cf. Swiggers & Wouters 2008)
concerning the status of the participle (the only
part of speech not defined by a ‘proper iden-
tity’ (idiötes), but by ‘taking part’ in two other
word classes), it is clear that for several centu-
ries there were discussions — probably between
more ‘philosophically-oriented’ grammarians and
more ‘formally-based’ grammar teachers - on
the number, the (sub)classification of the parts
of speech and on the justification of descriptive
procedures and terminology.
The Greek (Alexandrian) system of mere toi
lögou was transmitted to the Roman world. The
number of eight parts of speech was maintained
by the Latin grammarians (cf. Jeep 1893), but
at least two important facts should be noted:
(a) Given the absence of articles in Latin, the
artes grammaticae of the Roman world have no
class of ‘articles’; yet in splitting up the Greek
epirrhéma class into two separate partes oratio-
nis, viz. the adverbium (‘adverb’) and interiectio
(‘interjection’), they also operated with eight
word classes. (b) The order of enumeration of
the partes orationis was not uniform; basically,
three orders can be found in the extant artes
grammaticae (cf. Holtz 1981:64—68).
The Latin model of eight parts of speech
became the standard set of word classes in
Western grammar during the Middle Ages, the
Renaissance and the modern period (cf. Thomas
1949). Occasionally, authors made a number of
changes, adding one part of speech (such as the
gerund or the past participle) or dropping others
(eg. the ‘interjection' or the ‘participle’), Start-
ing in the 16th century, authors of grammars of
Western vernaculars again picked up the ‘article’
as a word class; the positing of the adjective as
520 WORD CLASSES (MERE TOU LOGOU), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
a word class distinct from the substantive was
a later development, as was the uniting of the
article with other + determiners under a single
word class (cf. Swiggers & van Hoecke 1986).
3. METHODOLOGICAL STATUS OF THE
PARTS-OF-SPEECH SYSTEM
From a methodological point of view, the Greek
(or 'Greco-Latin’) system of parts of speech can
be assessed as a ‘Word-and-Paradigm’ model (see
above), consisting in the distinction of a limited
number of word classes, defined by a number
of formal and semantic features (accidentia in
Latin). The focus on ‘paradigmatic’ properties of
word classes testifies to an approach of grammar
which favors the study of elements in isolation
and which focuses on inflectional phenomena.
This is somewhat striking, given that the super-
ordinate notion of lögos/oratio (as well as Aristo-
telian /éxis), highlights the aspect of arrangement
or combination into a larger sequence. Also, this
'WP’ model was hardly suited to deal with the
analysis of linguistic forms in terms of mor-
phemes, i.e., units of form and meaning below
the word level. The division into word classes,
seen as ‘parts’ of the utterance (or speech), con-
forms to the commonly adopted procedure of
merismös in ancient thought, which was applied
in all fields of knowing: the ‘dividing’ procedure
was not meant as a hierarchical taxonomy, but
as a juxtaposing division into (sub)classes of
units that compose a whole, with the resulting
list of (sub)classes having to be memorized by
the student of a particular field of knowledge.
The century-long success of the parts-of-
speech system (which also survives in the label-
ing of phrasal units, such as ‘noun phrase’,
‘verb phrase’, ‘adverbial (phrase)’, ‘prepositional
phrase’) should be explained by the following
properties:
a. the combination of patterning and listing:
the frame of word classes and their features
is organized on the pattern of (a set of) cat-
egories, which serve to capture grammati-
calized and lexicalized features that can be
illustrated with lists of forms and that can
be applied in the parsing of linguistic forms
occurring in texts;
b. the twofold functionality of the categorization
frame, which serves as a frame for integrating
forms and as a frame for memorization;
c. the bidirectional orientation and exploitation
of the frame: the frame can be used to pro-
ceed from classes to categories (of features)
and then to realizations of these features (e.g,
‘masculine’, ‘feminine’, ‘neuter’ as realizations
of the category ‘gender’, or it can be used ina
reverse way, moving from linguistic forms to
categories characterizing word classes;
d. the general flexibility of the frame, allowing
for expansion or reduction of categories, real-
izations, specifications and, of course, illus-
trative materials.
In view of the long-standing central position of
the parts-of-speech system in grammatical and
linguistic description, the ‘WP’ model must be
considered an important scientific and cultural
achievementin the Western approach toe language
(cf. Kramer 2005; Swiggers & Wouters 2oub).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charpin, Frangois. 1986. “L'éclectisme et le dévelappement
de la grammaire hellenistique et romaine: les unites
du discours”, In: Philosophie du langage et grammalre
dans l’Antiguite, ed. by Henri foly, 401-412. Brussels -
Grenoble.
Hockett, Charles F. 1954. "Two models of grammatical
description”, Word 10:210-234.
Holtz, Louis. 1981. Donat et fa tradition de lenseignement
grammatical. Etude sur l'Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe-IX®
siecle) et edition critique. Paris.
Jeep, Ludwig. 1893. Zur Geschichte der Lehre von den Rede-
theilen bei den lateinischen Grammatikern. Leipzig.
Kazansky, Nikolai, Vladimir Mazhuga, Igor Medvedev, Lar-
issa Stepanova, Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters, eds, 2001.
Ancient grammar and its posterior tradition. Leuven -
Paris - Walpole.
Kramer, Johannes. 2005, “Antike Grundlagen europäis-
cher Grammatik: die Wortarten (partes orationis)". In:
Corona coronaria. Festschrift für Hans-Otta Kröner zum
75. Geburtstag, ed. by Sabine Harwardt and Johannes
Schwind, 241-257. Hildesheim.
Lallot, Jean. 1988, “Origine et développement de la theorie
des parties du discours en Gréce", Langages gamı-23.
Law, Vivien and Ineke Sluiter, eds. 1995, Dionysius Thrax and
the Tékhné Grammatiké. Münster.
Matthaios, Stephanos. 1999. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik
Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre.
Göttingen.
——. 2002. "Neue Perspektiven für die Historiographie der
antiken Grammatik: Das Wortartensystem der Alexandri-
ner”. In: Grammatical theory and philosophy of language,
ed. by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters, 160-220.
Leuven - Paris - Sterling.
. 2009. “Aristarch, Dionysios Thrax und die Techne
grammatiké. Zur Echtheitsdiskussion des ersten Lehrbu-
chs über die Grammatik". In: Antiphilesis. Studies on Clas-
sical, Byzantine und modern Greek literature and culture.
In honour of Jahn-Theophanes A. Papademetriou, ed. by
Eleni Karamalengou and Eugenia Makrygianni, 386-400.
Stuttgart,
 WORD CLASSES (M&RE rod LOGQU), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
Robins, Robert H. 1957. “Dionysius Thrax and the Western
grammatical tradition”, Transactions of the Philological
Society 3:67-206.
. 1966. “The development of the word-class system
of the European grammatical tradition’, Foundations of
Language 213-19.
. 1986. “The Techne Grammatiké of Dionysius Thrax
in its historical perspective: the evolution of the tradi-
tonal European word class system”. In: Swiggers and Van
Hoecke 1986, 9-37.
Schoemann, G. F. 1862. Die Lehre von den Redetheilen nach
den Alten, Berlin.
Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters. 1995. “Techné
Empeiria: La dynamique de la grammaire grecque dans
Y’Antiquite a ta lumiere des papyrus grees", Lafies 15:83-101.
- 1997. “Philosophical aspects of the Techné Grammatiké
of Dionysius Thrax”. In: Grammatica e ideologia nella
storia della Linguistica, ed. by Pierangiolo Berrettoni and
Franco Lorenzo, 35-83. Perugia.
. 1998. De Tékhné Grammatike van Dionysius Thrax: de
oudste sprankkunst in het Westen. Leuven — Paris.
——. 2002. “Grammatical! theory in Aristotle's Poetics XX”.
In: Grammatical theory and philosophy of language in
Antiquity, ed. by Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters,
101-120, Leuven — Paris — Sterling.
. 2008. “On the origin of the participle as a part of
speech". In: History of Linguistics 2005, ed. by Douglas
Kibbee, 50-66. Amsterdam,
——. 20na. “Grammatical doxography in Antiquity, The
(hijstories of the parts-of-speech system”. In: /istery
of Linguistics 2008, ed. by Gerda Hassler, 69-91. Amster-
dam - Philadelphia.
——. 2oub. “Grammar: between Bildung and Erinnerungskul-
tur". In: Ancient grammar and its posterior tradition, ed. by
Nikolai Kazansky ef al, 3-25. Leuven - Paris - Walpole.
Swiggers, Pierre and Willy van Hoecke, eds. 1986. Mot et par-
ties du discours/Word and Word Classes/Wort und Wor-
farten. Leuven - Paris.
Thomas, F. W. 1949, “Parts of Speech", Transactions of the
Philological Society 48:117-134.
Wouters, Alfons. 1979. The grammatical papyri from Graeco-
Roman Egypt. Contributions tu the study of the ‘Ars gram-
matica’ ir Antiquity. Brussels.
Wouters, Alfons and Pierre Swiggers. 2010. “Condensed
grammatical knowledge in Antiquity: doxographical
accounts of the parts-of-speech system”. In: Condensing
texts - condensed texts, ed. by Marietta Horster and Chris-
tiane Reitz, 145-163. Stuttgart,
——. 2011. “New papyri and the history of ancient grammar:
the epirrhéma chapter in P. Berol. 9917". In: Ancient schol-
arship and grammar. Archetypes, concepts and contexts,
ed. by Stephanos Matthaios, Franco Montanari and Anto-
nios Rengakos, 313-330. Berlin - New York.
ALFONS WOUTERS
PIERRE SWIGGERS
Word Formation (Derivation,
Compounding)
L INTRODUCTION
Word formation in Ancient Greek comprises
two basic processes: derivation and compound-
521
ing (+ Compounding/Derivation/Construction
Morphology). Both processes have Proto-Indo-
European backgrounds, but show proper devel-
opments in Ancient Greek. These developments
are often grounded in analogical drifts, not
only between separate lexical items, but also
between (paradigmatic) series of derivational
and compounding patterns (+ Analogy). [On
word formation processes in general, see Bauer
et
2001, Booij/Lehmann/Mugdan eds. 2000, Mik-
kolaig71, Scalise /Vogel eds, 2010, Stekauer/Lieber
eds. 2005, Stekauer/Valera/Körtvelyessy eds.
2012. On word formation in Ancient Greek,
see Clackson/Olsen eds. 2004, Meissner 2006,
Meissner/Tribulato 2002, Weiss 2010. On ancient
conceptions concerning word formation, see
Vaahtera 1998, Matthaios 2008. |
Derivation and compounding are interrelated
processes, in the sense that products of a deriva-
tional process can be the input for a compound-
ing process, and, vice versa, the products of a
compounding process can serve as input for
a derivational formation. Derivation and com-
pounding cover various word classes in Ancient
Greek, but their main domain of application
are nouns (substantives and adjectives) and
verbs. Both processes also interact with prosodic
(accentual) patterns, and this interaction has
to be viewed as a unified grammatical process.
[On Ancient Greek — accentuation, see Probert
2006.]
Both derivation and compounding are lexi-
cal processes which serve the general function
of increasing the lexicon of a language. In the
history of the Greek language both processes
have largely contributed to the extension and
differentiation of the lexical inventory, and
more specifically to the creation of specialized
vocabularies (professional terminologies or
sub-languages), especially in the field of poetry,
sciences (medicine, mathematics), liberal arts
(rhetoric, grammar, philosophy), and manual
arts (e.g. architecture). (+ Derivational Morphol-
ogy; + Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of).
In addition, compounding was a very productive
mechanism in the creation of proper names and
surnames, inherited from Proto-Indo-European
(> Personal Names).
When analyzing derivational and compound-
ing processes in Ancient Greek a distinction
must be made between structural and stylistic
aspects. As structural properties the processes
are characterized by a scale of lower to higher
522 WORD FORMATION (DERIVATION, COMPOUNDING)
productivity: next to highly productive deriva-
tional and compounding patterns (cf. §2 and
§3), we find more sporadic (and even idiosyn-
cratic) patterns (e.g, ménis ‘wrath’, a derivation
in which neither the dissimilated root *mnd-, nor
the suffix -ni-, a hapax in Greek, are transparent).
The structural function of derivational and com-
pounding processes correlates with stylistic uses
of these patterns: the more productive processes
are most frequently put to use with unmarked
stylistic intentions, whereas explicit stylistic
effects are often obtained with unusual deriva-
tional or compounding processes. In the latter
case one enters the field of literary idiolects (e.g.
the language of the Homeric poems or the lan-
guage used in Aristophanes’ plays; cf. Taillardat
1965) or specialized technolects (e.g. in medi-
cal vocabulary the suffix -idé is used to signal
pathologies, e.g. ikterido ‘to be ill of the jaundice’
< ikteros ‘jaundice’; — Scientific Vocabulary).
The boundaries between derivation and com-
pounding are not clear-cut (as is also the case
with the distinction between inflection and deri-
vation). This has to do with at least two facts:
(a) On the one hand, both derivation and
compounding yenerally involve non-autono-
mous elements, operating thus either on root
morphemes (- Root Structure (and Ablaut)), or,
more generally, on stem morphemes; and, in
those cases where autonomous (or unbound)
morphemes are involved, there is no formal cri-
terion to make a distinction between a deriva-
tional and a compounding process. We also find
derivational as well as compounding processes
operating on case-forms of nouns.
(b) On the other hand, if we make a distinc-
tion between derivation as involving one lexical
item and a grammatical affix, and composition as
regarding the combination of (at least} two lexi-
cal morphemes, we still have a problem involv-
ing the status of prepositional elements in their
combination with a lexical! morpheme: are these
then to be considered prefixes (i.e., grammatical
affixes), thus giving rise to a derivational result,
or should they be regarded as prepositions (with
some lexical content), forming a compound with
the lexical morpheme?
In the course of history members of a com-
pound can develop into a suffix, e.g. the original
compositional member -poiös developed into a
factitive ‘suffixoide’ (dolopoids ‘treacherous’ and
tuphlopoids ‘blinding’; see also Olsen 2010).
2. DERIVATION
Derivation, as a grammatical module, is a process
by which new word forms are created, in prin-
ciple, through the addition of a (grammatical)
morpheme to a (lexical) base. In the morphology
of the ancient Indo-European languages, and
particularly in Ancient Greek, derivation was an
extremely productive process in the formation
of verbs and, especially, of nouns and adjec-
tives. [For a comprehensive overview of noun
formation processes, see the volumes edited by
Lühr 2008; for Ancient Greek, see the volume
authored by Balles 2008. ]
The process of derivation can be schematized
in the following way:
derivation
input transformation output
lexical base + (derivational) derived word
morpheme> form
Contrary to what happens in the case of inflec-
tion, the grammatical morpheme that is used
in derivation (a) can change the grammatical
category of the base; (b) does not form part of
an extensive paradigmatic set of bound mor-
phemes, and (c) is often conditioned by pho-
netic, morphosyntactic and semantic properties
of the base to which it is added.
In Ancient Greek the derivational addition
can be zero (= zero or null derivational mor-
pheme), or can be a combination of derivational
morphemes; but most frequently, it consists of a
single derivational morpheme.
(1) Zero derivation: phör ‘thief’ (< pherö ‘to
carry/to take’); phlöx ‘flame’ (< phlegö 'to
burn’); pseudes ‘false’ (< pseüdos lie’) with
change of accent and involving ablaut;
(2) Combination of derivational morphemes:
e.g. suffix -ter + suffix -io-, as in kélétérios
‘charming, appeasing’, khresterios ‘oracu-
lar, prophetic’, dikasterion ‘court of justice’
(< dikäzö 'to judge’);
(3) Single derivational morpheme: e.g. with
-io-, as in patrios ‘belonging to one's father
(< patér) or with -ikd-, as in graphikds ‘suited
for writing’ (< graphe).
On the basis of their position derivational mor-
phemes can be distinguished into
 WORD FORMATION (DERIVATION, COMPOUNDING)
- ‘root or stem internal’ (= a zero derivational
morpheme, occurring with a particular Ablaut
alternation of the root): o-grade in phlöx
(< phlegö), lengthened grade 6 in phér 'thief'
(cf. supra), zero grade in nipha ‘snow (acc.)'
(< neiphei ‘it snows');
— ‘prefixal’: prefixal derivational morphemes
are characterized by the fact that they never
change the grammatical category of the input
base; e.g. the privative prefix a- and the inten-
sifying prefixes kata-, pro-, ek, which combine
with adjectival bases and produce negative
or intensified adjectives (apdxios ‘unworthy’,
katddélos ‘manifest’, ékdélos ‘conspicuous’,
prédélos ‘manifest in front’);
- ‘suffixal’:in Ancient Greek this is by farthe larg-
est group of derivational morphemes; some of
the Greek suffixal derivational morphemes
go back to Proto-Indo-European, but many
were formed in Greek, and several of them
are the result of contamination or cumulative
accretion (German term: Suffückonglomerat).
Examples include the suffix -ineos (denot-
ing material composition; contamination of
-ino- and -eo-, e.g.: eldineos ‘of olive-wood’, the
enlargement of -tikd- of the above mentioned
-ikö- (e.g politikds ‘related to the city’, < pölis
‘city’; -ikd- itself being an enlargement of an
original suffix *-ko-) or the abovementioned
suffix -tério-.
- 'circumfixal': here the derivational process
(also called parasynthesis) consists of the
use of a discontinuous sequence formed by
a prefix and a suffix. Cases with circumfixal
derivational morphemes are: ddoxos ‘inglo-
rious’, (< döxa ‘glory’), dgraphos ‘unwritten’
(< graphé ‘writing’): prefix a- + suffix -o-;
akedestos ‘uncared for’ (< kédos ‘care’): prefix
a- + suffix -to- (+ Indo-European Linguistic
Background).
The input (i.e., lexical base) to which the deri-
vational process is applied can be of different
types. The following cases can be distinguished:
(a) derivations applying to a lexical root: this
is the case for inherited Proto-Indo-European
derivational formations, exemplified by forms
suchas désis ‘gift' (with the derivational suffix *-t/-
> -si-), dotér ‘giver (derivational suffix -tér), dotös
‘given’ (derivational suffix -id6-) (PIE *dehg-, zero
grade *dh,- ‘to give‘), drotron ‘plough’, lektron
523
‘bed’ (derivational suffix -tro-) (PIE *Azerhz- ‘to
plough’; *leg*-, ‘to lie’).
(b) derivations applying to a lexical stem:
e.g. polésis ‘production’, poiema ‘product’ (deri-
vations in -si- and -ma on the stem poié-),
dikaiosuné ‘justice’ (derivation with -siiné on the
stem dikaio-); the lexical stem can appear in a
truncated or otherwise modified form, e.g. in
hypocoristic name formations such as Pätrokl-
as (< Patro-klees), Sthénel-os (<Sthenéla-os), or
Kalitt-os (< Kalll-timos),
(c) derivations applied to a case-form or to a
prepositional phrase (= ‘hypostatic’ derivations);
e.g. pedion ‘plain’ (derivation with -on, applied
to the ancient locative case form *pedi), pterötös
‘feathered’ (derivation in -to- on the basis of an
ancient instrumental case form ending in *-oA,),
ephémerns ‘short-lived’ (derivation in -o- from a
prepositional phrase eph’ hemeräi), parddoxos
‘contrary to expectation’ (derivation in -o- on the
basis of the prepositional phrase pard döxan),
(d) derivations on the basis of an utterance
(fragment): these so-called ‘delocutive’ deriva-
tions are (literary) formations taking effect on a
discourse fragment; e.g. skorakizö ‘dismiss con-
temptuously’ (derivation in -iz- on the basis of
es körakas ‘go to the dogs"), khelidonizö ‘to sing
the swallow-song’ (derivation in -iz- on the basis
of the utterance élthe étthe khelidön ‘the swallow
is here!) [See Benveniste 1966: 277-285; Perpil-
lou 1996.]
As to the derivational trajectory, Ancient
Greek shows a wide range of possibilities. In
general, derivation yielding nominal outputs
is more developed and more productive than
derivation yielding a verbal outcome, However,
some endings can be analyzed synchronically
as productive verbal morphemes, e.g. the mor-
pheme -iz- (*-id-{-; +denominal verbs: paizd
‘play’, erizd ‘quarrel’, kithartzö ‘play the cithara’,
hubrizö ‘commit an outrage’, makarizo ‘bless’,
etc; — deverbative verbs: stenakhizo ‘groan’,
akakhizo ‘trouble’, erethizo ‘rouse to anger’, etc,;
+ Present Tense) A second general observation
concerns the pre-eminence of suffixation as a
means of derivation (cf. supra). In fact, prefixes
are +adverbs or prepositions (> Adpositions)
used as lexeme-modifying elements, without
category change of the modified head constitu-
ent. In the case of elements such as prefixed
polu- (used for the expression of an intensi-
fied/increased content), the borderline between
524 WORD FORMATION (DERIVATION, COMPOUNDING)
composition and derivation is very thin (e.g.
poluboiites ‘rich in oxen’, poli(h)ippos ‘rich in
horses’, and compare the opposition between
poluleios ‘with many cornfields’ and aléios ‘with-
out cornlands’, poluktemön ‘with many posses-
sions' and aktémén ‘without property’).
The suffixal derivational processes consti-
tute a foundational dimension of the Ancient
Greek lexicon and onomastic inventory; they
have been dealt with extensively, and in great
analytical detail, in a number of comprehensive
treatments (see, e.g., Debrunner 1917; Chantraine
1933; Schwyzer 1939-1971 1415-544; especially
Risch 1974 and Balles 2008), and in various
monographs dealing with one type of suffixes or
with a single suffix (see, e.g., Bader 1965 and 1974;
Mignot 1972; Perpillou 1973; Meier-Briigger 1975;
De Lamberterie 1990, De Vaan 2009). In what
follows a synthetic, function-oriented, survey
is presented, based on the trajectory between
input and output of the derivational process.
The two major classes that constitute the out-
come of derivational processes are + adjectives
and substantives. These can be derived from
each other mutually, or they can be derived from
verbal elements.
Adjectives derived from substantives can
express — possession, the relation of ‘belonging
to’, material composition (‘consisting of'), or the
fact of being endowed with. Adjectives express-
ing possession and ‘belonging to’ are most often
formed with the suffixes -io- and -ikd-: daimönios
‘belonging to a daimén’, démios ‘belonging to the
people’, skötios ‘in the dark, in secret’, parthénios
‘of a maiden’, thalassios ‘belonging to the sea’,
telikos ‘of such an age’, parthenikés ‘of a maiden’,
Pelasgikös 'Pelasgian’, Troikés ‘Trojan’.
The -io- formations (or their fusional vari-
ants) are well attested with + patronyms and
ethnic names. Adjectives expressing material
composition are generally formed with the suf-
fixes -eo- (Attic -ou-) or -ino-, both inherited.
Selected examples are: /itheos ‘of stone’, khälkeos
‘of copper / bronze’, khrüseos ‘golden’ [for -eo-],
and xulinos ‘wooden’, phéginos ‘oaken’, läinos
‘of stone’, murikinos ‘tamarisk’, bublinos ‘made of
(Egyptian) papyrus’ |-ino- is almost exclusively
used in adjectives derived from plant names}.
For adjectives expressing fullness, or the fact of
being endowed with, the suffix most frequently
used is the inherited morpheme -eis (-oeis
< *-owent-); whereas in Mycenaean this type of
adjective is frequently used (e.g. pi-ti-rjo-we-sa
‘endowed with feathers’, pe-de-we-sa ‘endowed
with feet’), in Ancient Greek this formation is
typical of a more poetical! register (e.g. huléeis
‘woody’, riphöeis ‘snowy’, ikhthudeis ‘full of fish’,
stondeis ‘causing groans or sighs’, dakrudeis 'tear-
ful, causing tears’, etc.; + Epic Diction). Next
to these major types minor derivational forma-
tions yielding adjectives may be mentioned, e.g.
nukterinös ‘by night' or kheimerinos ‘of/in winter
time’, both -ind- formations expressing tempo-
ral distinctions, or the isolated formations with
-edano(s) (three instances in Homer: rhigedanös
‘shivery’, peukedands ‘of pine-wood’, épedands
‘slight'). Adjectives derived from verbal bases
include, apart from the very productive set of
verbal adjectives in -td- (e.g. klutös ‘renowned,
glorious’, tlétds ‘patient’, streptds ‘twisted, bent’,
pektös ‘fixed’, etc.) and -téo- (e.g. tetdos ‘that
must be endured’), adjectives with the deriva-
tional morphemes -tikd-, and to a lesser extent,
with -rd-, -(6- or -nd-. Examples: kubernétikds
‘good at steering’, fampros ‘bright’, deilös ‘cow-
ardly’, deinds ‘terrible’.
Substantives derived from adjectives or sub-
stantives are particularly well attested by nouns
designating female persons (> Gender); the suf-
fixes used in these formations are -é (-d), e.g.
doüle ‘female slave’, koüre ‘girl’, thed ‘goddess’,
next to *-ja, yielding several fusional suffix for-
mations, such as -aina (<*n- ia), -eia (<*es- ja),
-issa (<*-ik- ja), exemplified by melaina ‘black’,
hiéreia ‘priestess’, Phoinissa (p.n.), and next to
*-id-, yielding feminines in -is (Lesbis, patris
‘fatherland’, Thétis, Artemis), Other types of sub-
stantival derivations are represented by diminu-
tive formations, in -isko- or -io-, which are more
typical of informal and lower speech registers
(+ Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and
Morphology)). Apart from the grammatically
functional derivation patterns for the formation
types of feminine nouns, and from the pragmati-
cally motivated patterns (for diminutives and
hypocoristic nouns), there are also well defined
morpho-semantic derivational types of substan-
tives, such as the formation for names of profes-
sions and functions, in which the morphemes
-té- and -eu- are used: e.g. natités ‘seaman’, toxdtés
‘bowman’, oikétés ‘household slave’, hiereus
‘priest’, khalkeis ‘coppersmith’, or formations
for names of locations, with -dn or -elon (e.g.
khalkeön ‘forge’, arkheion ‘town-hall’, Mouseion).
A wide range of formative patterns is used in
the building of abstract nouns: here we find
 WORD FORMATION (DERIVATION, COMPOUNDING)
derivational suffixes such as -tét- (neötes ‘youth’),
-ia (basileta ‘kingship’), -eia in derivations from
adjectives ending in -és (alétheid ‘truth’), -süne
(dikaiostiné ‘justice’), -iké (rhetorike ‘rhetoric’),
or -os (krätos ‘strength’). For the onomastic sub-
class of population names (names for inhabit-
ants of regions) Ancient Greek makes use of a
number of derivational morphemes, principally
-io-, -eu- and -ta(s) / -té(s), added to the name of
the location (cf. Risch 1981).
Substantives derived from a verbal base
express a focal aspect of the activity signified
by the verbal predicate: the action or its result,
the actor or agent, the instrument or means, the
place of action. Nouns for actions or the result of
actions (traditional labels: nomina actionis and
nomina rei actae) present similar derivational
patterns (+ Action Nouns). The derivational
morphemes frequently used to form such nouns
are -0-, -si-/(-ti-}, -tu-, -to-/-té-, -(s)mö- (and the
variants -asmö- and -ismö-)- from verbs in -a26
and -iz6) and feminines in -me, -thmé- and -thmé
(see Balles 2008 for an overview of formative
elements, with a clear distinction between
productive and non-productive suffixes). The
semantics of these nouns can extend to ‘place/
time of action’, or ‘substance liable to activity’.
Examples:
a. for -o- with paroxytonic or oxytonic accen-
tuation: drömos ‘course’, ndmos ‘law’, lopds
‘peel’, dords ‘wallet’, hodös 'way';
b. for -si- (<*-ti-), -ti-: phüsis ‘nature’, stdsis ‘plac-
ing, setting’, basis ‘stepping, step’, fésis 'retri-
bution’, sis ‘release’, pösis ‘husband’, pistis
‘faith’;
c. for -tu-: graptus ‘scratching’, mnéstus ‘courting’;
d. for -to- / -té-: thänatos ‘death’, nostos ‘return
home, journey’, ploütos ‘wealth’, bronte
‘thunder’, melete ‘care’, teleté ‘initiation’;
e, for-(s}mo- /-mé-:dnemos ‘wind’, bömös ‘raised
platform’, potamds ‘river’, thdlamos ‘inner
room! and thaldmé ‘den, hole', desmds ‘chain’,
dasmds ‘tribute’, gnöme ‘thought’, rhémé
‘strength’, mnémé ‘remembrance’;
f. for-thmd- [-thme-:stathmös ‘stable’, rhuthmds
‘rhythm’, porthmös ‘ferry’, klauthmös ‘weep-
ing, wailing’, ephetmé ‘command’,
Derivational patterns tor making nouns that sig-
nify the actor (or ‘agent’) of an action (= nomina
agentis) are also numerous (> Agent Nouns; cf.
Frankel ıgıo). Apart from ancient root forma-
525
tions such as phör (cf. supra), nouns for agents
can be formed with one of the following suffixes:
-6- (with oxytonic accent), -tér, -tör (feminine
forms: -tria / -teira), and the very productive -te
(-tä-). These suffixes have a different time depth
(the root formations and the -ds derivations
are very old, and were no longer productive
in Classical Greek), and their historical devel-
opment is intertwined with semantic differen-
tiation (e.g. between -ter and -tör: according to
Benveniste 1948, the former derivation yields
‘classificatory agent nouns’, whereas the -tör der-
ivation serves to make nouns denoting the actor
of a particular action; the distinction would thus
be one between a type vs. token meaning). Prob-
ably the most recent, and by far the most pro-
ductive agentive suffix is -té(s) (which occurs
in nomina agentis, in denominative formations,
and also in compounds). A very selective list of
examples will serve to illustrate the abovemen-
tioned derivational patterns:
a. -ds: trokhös ‘wheel’, trophös ‘feeder’, sko-
pos ‘lookout-man', aoidds ‘singer’, moikhös
‘adulterer';
b. -tér / -tör: contrasting pair dotér - uötör
(according to Benveniste the difference
between a person who regularly gives some-
thing and an occasional giver) compare boter
and bötär ‘herdsman’; rheter | rhetör ‘public
speaker‘;
c. -tés: dikastés ‘judge’, mathötes ‘student/
scholar’; denominative formations are par-
oxytone, e.g. Aippdtes ‘horserider’, polites
‘citizen’, nautes ‘sailor’.
Derivational formations to make nouns that sig-
nify a tool or means, or the location of an action
(nomina instrumenta and nomina foci) show a
tight connection with the nouns designating the
actor of an action. In some cases the -tér deriva-
tional pattern serves to form the noun for a tool,
utensil, piece of clothing or an object playing
a role in the performing of an activity: Aratér
‘bowl’, zöster ‘a warrior's belt’, statér (‘stater’,
a weight that ‘makes’ the balance ‘stay’ stable)
and, with -ijo- enlargement, potérion ‘cup’. The
large majority of nouns for instruments and
place of action are formed with the derivational
morphemes -tro-, -thro- or -thlo-; the first one,
which is a secondary distinction in -o- on the
basis of nomina agentis formed with -ter, was
highly productive. illustrative examples are:
526 WORD FORMATION (DERIVATION, COMPOUNDING)
a. for -tro-: dretron ‘plough’, féktron ‘bed’,
phér(e)tron ‘litter’, sképtron ‘staff’, téretron
‘borer, gimlet’, and a few masculine and femi-
nine nouns: iatrös ‘physician’, vistros ‘gadfly,
breese’;
b. for -thro- (feminine -thre): dlethros ‘ruin’,
ärthron ‘joint’;
c. for -thlo- (feminine -thle): athlon ‘prize of
contest’, genethle ‘race’.
Derivation was also an important means in
Ancient Greek to enlarge the class of predica-
tional operators (cf. Tucker 1990). New verbs
can be derived from nouns, from other verbs,
or occasionally from phrasal units (cf. supra).
Denominative verbs tend to be either
a. stative / essive: ‘to be N’ (e.g. phileö ‘to love’ <
philos ‘friend’; basilezid ‘to be king’ < basileds
‘king’; euphrainö ‘to cheer < etiphron ‘cheer-
ful’);
b. factitive ‘to make N’ (e.g. kathairö ‘to purify’
< kathards ‘pure’; barind ‘to oppress’ <
barüs ‘heavy’; orthöö ‘to set straight’ < orthos
‘straight’;
c. agentive ‘to do N’ (sigäö ‘ta be silent’ < sige
‘silence’; sémainé ‘to give a sign’ < sému
sign’)
d. ornative 'to provide X with N’ (e.g. stephanoo
‘to provide with a crown; confer glory upon’ <
stéphanos ‘crown’; anthizö 'to strew or to deck
with flowers’ < dnthos ‘flower);
e, instrumental ‘to work with N’ (e.g. mastigöö
‘to whip’ < mästix whip’).
— Deverbative verbs are rather scarce (see e.g,
the + desiderative suffix -seiö in draseid ‘have a
mind to do’ and pheuxeiö ‘wish to flee’).
As will be clear from the preceding over-
view, the description of derivational patterns in
Ancient Greek is a complex issue, because of:
(a) the synchronic ‘conflation’ of patterns with
a different time depth; (b) the formal overlap of
functionally and semantically distinct patterns;
(c) the existence of various ‘fusional suffixes’
(through the combination of two formally dis-
tinct suffixes, or as the result of the interaction
between a stem termination and the following
suffix); (d) fluctuation in meaning (e.g., between
nouns denoting action, or the result of an action,
or place/time of action; see e.g, potérion ‘cup’ ver-
sus dikastérion ‘court of justice’), The difficulty
of describing derivational patterns in Ancient
Greek is enhanced by the existence of zero deri-
vation and by the presence of derivational series
involving an irregular modification of lexical
bases (or extension of a base); the latter phe-
nomenon has been dealt with under the name of
‘Caland’s suffixes’ (+ Caland System and Greek),
a micro-system accounting e.g. for the relation-
ship between the three degrees of adjectives like
kratus ‘strong’ — kraterös/karterös ‘stronger’ -
kratistos ‘strongest’, takhüs ‘swift! — thassön —
fäkhistos, or similar corresponding series (e.g.,
hédus ‘sweet’ - hedistos — hédos ‘delight’; kudrös
‘more lustily’ — Audistos — kudi-dneira — küdos
‘glory’). Further complications arise when one
takes into account — accentuation in deriva-
tional formations. While some derivational mor-
phemes correlate with a stable accent, many
other derivational patterns allow for more than
one accentuation pattern. A categorically based
differentiation opposes the -d- morpheme for
agent nouns and the -# morpheme for nomina
actionis; also, the accentual opposition between
-tör and -tér appears to correlate with a seman-
tic-categorial distinction (cf. supra). Finally, the
insertion of derived formations in compounds
entails additional morphophonological (seg-
mental and suprasegmental) complexities.
3. COMPOUNDING
Greek compounding processes have their roots
in (Proto-)Indo-European, and testify to the pos-
sibility of lexicalizing syntagmatic sequences, i.e.,
of reducing syntagms to single words. Although
word composition is a well attested phenom-
enon crosslinguistically, the definition of a ‘com-
pound’ remains an issue of controversy, or at
least of divergent opinions among linguists; the
terminology relative to compounds and word
composition is also fluctuating.
A comprehensive, linguistically oriented treat-
ment of compounding in Classical Greek is want-
ing; for philologically based overviews of Greek
word compounding one can consult Debrunner
(191715-83), Schwyzer (1939:425-455), Sommer
(1948), and Risch (1974: $67ff.). See also Lindner
(2011). Bauer (2001:695) defines a compound as
“a lexical unit made up of two or mere elements,
each of which shows some phonological and/
or grammatical isolation from normal syntactic
usage”, This definition, however, does not fully
apply to word compounding in Greek, for two
reasons: (a) Greek compounds also include word
 WORD FORMATION (DERIVATION, COMPOUNDING)
formations with a particle as one of its elements,
and particles cannot be considered ‘lexemes’, nor
‘independent elements’; (b) Greek word com-
pounding very often involves lexical bases, and
not lexemes as constitutive elements. Also, in
dealing with (Greek) compounding, it is essen-
tial to define the semantic-syntactic status of
compounds. The majority of Greek compounds
are right-headed as in (Proto-)Indo-European,
but a significant number of left-headed com-
pounds are attested (cf. Tribulato 2007).
Typologically, we have to distinguish at least
three kinds of compounds in Classical Greek
(+ Compound Nouns):
(a) possessive compounds: these compounds
are the lexicalization of a construction ‘N is
(like) p’, and the entire lexicalization is (seman-
tically, though not formally) characterized as a
property 9, possessed by an entity. These com-
pounds (called bahuvrihi in Sanskrit grammar)
typically express features useful for a (poeti-
cal) description of a person or an object; they
are well attested in Indo-European languages
(cf. Uhlich 1997). Possessive compounds thus
behave as adjectives agreeing in gender, num-
ber and case with the word form (or proper
name) designating the ‘possessor’ of the feature
in question. A well-known example of a posses-
sive compound in Homer is the word rhadodak-
tulos ‘(with) finger[s], (red as) rose[s]’, an epithet
qualifying the moming dawn.
(b) dependency compounds or ‘rection com-
pounds’ (German: Rektionskomposita): these
compounds are the lexicalization of a con-
struction X does/makes/achieves 0°; as to the
resulting grammatical status of the lexicalized
outcome, these compounds can function as
adjectives or as nouns. The distinctive property
with respect to the possessive compounds is the
fact that these dependency compounds involve
a valency relationship, which is construed by the
verbal constituent member of the compound.
The latter member appears in its nominalized
status (e.g. -phoro- of the verbal root pher- ‘to
carry, to bear’): misthophöros ‘serving for hire
or pay’, doruphöros ‘spear-bearing’, skeuophöros
‘baggage-carrier’, nikephöros ‘bringing victory’,
leöphöros ‘bearing people: highway’, hoplophdres
‘armed mat’.
The verbal element can at times stand as the
first member of the compound (e.g. age- in Age-
laos; pheré-oikos ‘house-carrier i.e. ‘snail’).
527
(c) adverbial compounds: these compounds
(sometimes called ‘prepositional rection com-
pounds’; German: prdpositionale Rektionskom-
posita) are the lexicalization of a syntagm formed
by a preposition/adverb and its complement (or
adjunct). This type of compound, involves, syn-
tactically speaking, a dependency relation, but
it is used analogously to possessive compounds.
Adverbial compounds such as amphialos ‘with
sea/water around’ or the almost synonymous
éphalos ‘near the sea/water’ (the first with the
preposition amphi, the second with the preposi-
tion/adverb epi (here eph' before an aspirated
vowel) behave as adjectives (and, more spe-
cifically, amphialos is used with a ‘possessive’
meaning: ‘having sea/water all around’), How-
ever, these formations can also be regarded as
belonging to the derivational process of hypos-
tasis rather than to the compositional domain
(see supra, §2).
To these three (major) types, one should add
a fourth kind, distinct from the three preceding
ones in that the resulting compound does not
show a change of the basic conceptual mean-
ing (whereas the three major types all involve a
category shift), This fourth kind of compound is
the lexicalization of a construction ‘head term
+ specification’, and semantically consists of
an additional information concerning the head
term, Some of the (rare) examples include akré-
polis (‘higher city’, the combination of an attrib-
utive adjective and a noun) or patro-kasignetos
(‘father's brother’).
Any study of Greek compounds should take
into account the following descriptive parameters:
(a) the respective position of the (twa) con-
stituent members; as a general rule, the place
of each member corresponds to a fixed pattern,
but a switch of positions can occur, e.g., with
pod-: ökupddes ‘swift-footed' and podäkes ‘swift-
footed’;
(b) the acventualion pattem: to a large
number of compounds applies a general rule of
accentual retreat, but for still many other com-
pounds there are ad hoc rules;
(c) the semantic-syntactic status of each of
the constituent members; Risch (1974: $$77-83)
provides a solid base for such a description, dis-
tinguishing between a Vorderglied (initial mem-
ber) and a Hinterglied (subsequent member).
As a general rule, the Hinterglied is a nominal
(or nominalized) element: the ‘verbal’ rection
528 WORD FORMATION (DERIVATION, COMPOUNDING)
compounds are generally analyzed as involving
a nomen agentis (maintaining the dependency
configuration of the verbal stem);
(d) the semantic-syntactic status of the result
of compounding process, i.e., of the lexicalized
output (in fact, the typology presented above is
based on this parameter).
The important role of compoundingin Ancient
Greek can be observed in the lexicon (+ Greek
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of), where com-
pounds were a major factor in extending the
lexical inventory, and in the onomasticon, since
most Greek proper names are compounds. [See
Beekes (2010), Buck & Petersen (1945), Dornseiff
(1957), Fraser & Matthews (1987), Kretschmer &
Locker (1963), Masson (1990), Mühlestein (1987),
Thompson (1979), von Kamptz (1982). |
4. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the variegated and complex pro-
cesses of derivation and compounding constitute
an important component of the grammar, lexi-
con and onomasticon of Ancient Greek, The two
processes were particularly efficient in the
elaboration of technical vocabularies (e.g., the
‘sub-languages’ of medicine, astronomy, or phi-
losophy; + Scientific Vocabulary), and in the cre-
ation of literary words and expressions (see, e.g.,
Risch 1974 and Chantraine 1958-63 for a study of
derivation and compounding in the language of
Homer). Also, both derivation and compound-
ing not only operate on autochthonous Greek
material, but likewise on borrowings from > Pre-
Greek languages and from languages in contact
with Ancient and Classical Greek (+ Language
Contact). A number of Greek word formation
processes (e.g. with the privative a-prefix or with
the verbal derivative suffix -iz) have been bor-
rowed by (late and medieval) Latin, and became
very productive in modern European languages
(+ Greek Lexicon in Western Languages).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bader, Frangoise. 1965. Les composes grecs du type Demiour-
gos. Paris.
——. 1974. Suffixes grecs en -m-: recherches comparatives sur
Uheteroclisie nominate. Geneva — Paris.
Balles, Irene. 2008. Latein, Altgriechisch (= vol ı of Lühr ed.
2008). Hamburg.
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. “Compounding”. in: Language unrversals
and language typolagy, ed. by Martin Haspelmath et ala,
695-707. Berlin - New York.
Beekes, Robert 5. P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek.
2 vols. Leiden — Boston.
Benveniste, Emile. 1948, Noms d’agent et noms d'action en
indo-européen. Paris.
. 1966. Problémes de linguistique générale. Paris.
Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan, eds.
2000. Morphologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Flex-
ion und Wortbildung. Berlin - New York.
Bornemann, Eduard and Ernst Risch. 1978. Griechische
Grammatik. and ed. Frankfurt am Main,
Buck, Carl Darling and Walter Petersen. 1945. A reverse index
of Greek nouns and adjectives, arranged by terminations
with brief historical introduction. Chicago.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1933. La formation des noms en grec
ancien. Paris.
. 1955-63. Grammaire homérique. 2 vals. Paris.
Clackson, James and Birgit Anette Olsen, eds. 2004. Indo-
European word formation: Proceedings of the conference
held at the University of Copenhagen, October 2ath-22nd
2000, Copenhagen.
Debrunner, Albert. 1917. Griechische Wortbildungslehre.
Heidelberg.
Dornseiff, Franz. 1957. Rückläufiges Wörterbuch der griechis-
chen Eigennamen. Berlin.
Fränkel, Ernst. ıg10. Geschichte der griechischen Nomina
agentis auf -mp, -twp, -ty¢ (-T- ), Strassburg.
Fraser, P. M. and E. Matthews. 1987. A lexicon af Greek per-
sonal names. Oxford - New York.
Kamptz, Hans von. 1982. Homerische Personennamen:
sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation.
Göttingen.
Kretschmer, Paul and Ernst Locker. 1963. Rückläufiges
Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache, and ed. Göttingen.
de Lamberterie, Charles. ıggu. Les adjectifs grecs en -d¢.
Louvain-la-Neuve.
Lindner, Thomas. zon. Indogermanische Grammatik. Band
IV: Wortbildungstehre / Komposition, Heidelberg.
Lühr, Rosemarie, ed. 3008. Nominale Wortbildung
des Indoger-
manischen in Grundzügen: die Wortbildungsmuster aus-
gewählter indogermanischer Finzelsprachen. Hamburg.
Masson, Olivier. 1990, Onamastica Graeca selecta. Nanterre.
Matthaios, Stephanos. 2008. “Théories des grammairiens
alexandrins sur la formation des mots.” In: Reyards craisés
sur les mots non simples, ed. by Barbara Kaltz, 35-50. Lyon.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 1975, -ı&. Zur Geschichte eines
griechischen Nominalsuffixes. Göttingen.
‚1992. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Vola: Wortschatz,
Formentehre, Lautlehre, Indizes. Berlin - New York.
Meissner, Torsten, 2006. S-stem nouns and adjectives in Greek
and Proto-Indo-European: a diachronic study in word for-
mation. Oxford - New York.
Meissner, Torsten and Olga Tribulato. 2002. “Nominal com-
position in Mycenaean Greek”, Transactions of the Philo-
logical Society 100:289—330.
Mignot, Xavier. 1972. Recherches sur les suffixes -mg, -cyto¢
(tac, tates) des origines a la fin du [VE siécle avant j.-C.
Paris.
Mikkola, Eino. 1971. Das Kompositum. 2. Aufl. Helsinki,
Münhlestein, Hugo. 1987. Hnmerische Namenstudien, Frank-
furt am Main.
Olsen, Birgit A. zoo, Derivation and composition: two studies
in Indo-European word formation. Innsbruck.
Perpillou, Jean-Louis, 1973. Les substantifs grecs en -euc, Paris,
.1996. “Verbes délocutifs en grec ancien”. In: Recherches
lexicales en grec ancien. Etymologie, analogie, représenta-
tions, 69-91. Louvain-Paris.
Probert, Philomen. 2006, Ancient Greek accentuation: syn-
chronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford -
New York.
 WORD FORMATION ( DERIVATION, COMPOUNDIN G)
Risch, Ernst. 1974, Wortbtldung der homerischen Sprache,
2. ed. Berlin - New York.
. 1981. "Zur Geschichte der griechischen Ethnika." In:
Kleine Schriften, ed. by Annemarie Etter and Marcel
Looser, 133-144- Berlin - New York.
Scalise, Sergio and Irene Barrie Vogel, eds. 2010. Cross-
disciplinary issues in compounding. Amsterdam — Phila-
delphia.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939-1971. Griechische Grammatik.
Munich.
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1948. Zur Geschichte der griechischen
Nominalkomposita. Munich.
Stekauer, Pavol and Rochelle Lieber, eds. 2005. Handbook of
word-formation. Dordrecht.
Stekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera and Livia Körtvelyessy, eds.
2012. Wurd-formation in the world’s languages: a typalagl-
cal survey. Cambridge - New York.
Taillardat, Jean. 1965. Les images d’Aristophane: études de
langue et de style, Paris.
Thompson, Alexandra Anne. 1979. Studies in Greek personal
names down tn about 400 BC. [Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation Cambridge. |
Tribulato, Olga. 2007. “Greek compounds of the type ioddeos
‘equal to a god’, dEiöAoyog ‘worthy of note’, dnetpdpayos
‘ignorant of war’, etc.”, Mnemosyne Go:527-549.
Tucker, Elizabeth. ı9g0. The creation of morphological regu-
larity: early Greek verbs in -é6, -d6, -d0, -id and -46, Göl-
tingen.
Uhlich, Jürgen, 1997. “Der Kompositionstyp ‘Armstrong’ in
den indogermanischen Sprachen", Historische Sprach-
forschung = Historical linguistics no:zı-46.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2009. “The derivational history of Greek
Innos and Imneis”, Journal of Indn-European studies
37:198—213.
Vaahtera, Jaana. 1998. Derivation: Greek and Reman views on
word formation, Turku.
Weiss, Michael. 2010. “Morphology and word formation”, In:
A companion to the Ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert
Bakker, 104-ug. Chichester - Malden.
ALFONS WOUTERS
PIERRE SWIGGERS
TOON VAN HAL
LAMBERT ISEBAERT
Word Formation (paragöge/
sunthesis), Ancient Theories of
Word formation (+ Word Formation (Deriva-
tion, Compounding)) produces new words either
by compounding or by primary or secondary
derivation, i.e., by derivation from a root or from
an already derived stem (Weiss 2010:109). Word
formation as it appears in ancient Greek lin-
guistics involves compounding (sunthesis) and
secondary derivation (paragöge).
1. INTRODUCTION
Ancient Greek linguistics (+ Philological-Gram-
matical Tradition) did not possess a coherent
529
theory of word formation. Of fundamental impor-
tance in this regard is the lack of the notion of
the ‘morpheme’; the basic unit of ancient gram-
mar is the word, and both inflection and deriva-
tion are seen as changes in the basic form of the
word (Robins 2000). To speak of word formation
in ancient linguistics is misleading, unless we
specify that the sources themselves rarely speak
of compounding or derivation as such. Instead,
they speak of derived and compounded words.
In Ancient Greek grammars there was no sec-
tion on word formation; both derivation and
compounding were integrated into the theory
of parts of speech (+ Word Classes (méré tou
lögou), Ancient Theories of). Consequently, we
find no definition of derivation, whereas that
of compounding comes from the late Byzantine
commentaries on the Tekhne attributed to Dio-
nysius Thrax (Matthaios 2008:37-38). Accord-
ing to this definition, a compound is the union
of two or more words under a single accent
and a single breathing (e.g. Schol. Dion. Thrax
212.14-15).
Word analysis as it appears in the Alexandrian
philologists of the Hellenistic age already had a
long tradition behind it. Analyses of single words
are found well before the first grammatical texts
(see e.g. Lallot 1991135-136; Schmitter 2000; de
Jonge and van Ophuijsen 2010:487-490). The
idea that Greek words can be analyzed and thus
made to reveal their truth and correctness is
apparent already in the early 5th c. BCE, in
the Presocratic philosophers. Indeed, starting
with Homeric epic and continuing in the later
poetry, the readiness to analyze words in order
to demonstrate their truth is seen in the poetic
etymologies of proper names (see e.g. Aesch.
Ag. 682-699 for the association of Helen’s name
with ‘destroying’). Plato's Cratylus, in its search
for the correctness of words, abounds in lexical
analyses. Thus the proper name Astudnax con-
tains the word dnax ‘lord’ (Crat. 393a); Poseidön
was once posidesmon ‘bond of the feet’ (Crat.
4o2d11—403a3); and Thétés is composed of two
verbs meaning ‘rushing through’ and ‘straining’,
thus describing a spring (Crat. 402c-d2).
Etymology was so named by the Stoics, whose
search for ‘first names’ (prötai phönaf) involved
the systematization of etymology (> Etymology
(etumologia), Ancient Theories of). The philo-
sophical study ofsingle words was not concerned
with linguistic word formation, but it did focus
on words as something analyzable. The Stoic
aga WORD FORMATION (PARAGÖGE/SÜNTHESIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
principles of etymology continued to be applied
inthe Alexandrian tradition (see below), although
Alexandrian etymology concentrated on eluci-
dating the meaning and orthography of glössai,
rare and obsolete words (Lallot 1991:135-138).
2. ARISTOTLE
It is in Aristotle that we first find linguistic con-
cepts related to word formation. The contexts
of Aristotle’s ideas, however, have to be kept in
mind: the linguistic discussion in chapter 20 of
his Poetics, for instance, serves the discussion
of poetic composition (Swiggers and Wouters
1996124-125). Aristotle's definition of dnoma
(Poet, 1457a10-14) requires that an dnoma has
no independently signifying parts: in a ‘double
word’ (diploün) the separate elements are not
used with independent signification, and thus
the -doros (cf, déron ‘gift’) in Theodöros does not
signify. Aristotle returns to double words in the
following chapter (Poet. 1457a31-34): an dnuma
is of either simple (Aaploiin) or double (diploün)
kind, the simple, such as gé ‘earth’, consisting
of no signifying parts. The double word consists
of a signifying part (although it does not signify
in the word) and a nonsignifying one, or of two
signifying parts. There is a lacuna in the text, but
preceding it we find the triple (triploün), qua-
druple (tetraploün) and multi-compound word
(pollaploün; Poet. 1457a33-35). The only surviv-
ing example is the proper name Hermokaiköxan-
thos, obviously a triple word.
Aristotle leaves unspecified the character
of the parts of a double word. The nonsignify-
ing part is likely to be an element that cannot
appear alone, such as, for instance, a prefix or an
element like the alpha privativum (see Vaahtera
1998:21-22). The definition of droma found in
the De interpretatione has haploün and pepleg-
ménon ‘compounded’ rather than Aaploin and
diploün (Int. 1Gaig—26). The examples given are
Källippos and epaktrokeles ‘light piratical skiff’,
where -(h)ippos ‘horse’ and -kelés ‘yacht’, accord-
ing to Aristotle, do not signify. It might be said
that peplegménon is the term for a compound,
and that diploün, triploün etc. are kinds of com-
pound. It is clear, however, that Aristotle also
uses diploün of compounds generally, regard-
less of the number of the constituent parts. In
the Rhetorica the issue of compounds comes
up several times, as one of the many types of
words used for stylistic effect (e.g, RA. 1405635;
1404b29; thus also in Poet. 145924-6 and 1459a9;
see Vaahtera 1998:21-24).
Among these word types mentioned by Aris-
totle is the (poetic} neologism (pepoiemenon)
which, at least implicitly, is relevant from the
point of view of word formation (Poet, 1457bi-2,
33-35; Ah. 1404b26-35). It is relevant in the later
Peripatetic tradition of rhetoric and poetics,
where neologisms consist of derived and com-
pound words (see Vaahtera 1997 and 1998:28-31),
On the whole, derived words are less explicitly
present in Aristotle than compounds; they are
implicitly part of his concept of ptösis, ‘case’
(+Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of), refer-
ring to any modification of the noun: Aristotle's
parönumon is a word that differs from the origi-
nal word by means of ptösis (Cat, 1a12), such as
ho grammatikös 'teacher of the rudiments’ from
hé grammatiké ‘elementary teaching of writing
and reading’, or ho andreios ‘the manly one’ from
he andreia ‘manliness’ (see Vaahtera 1998:32-33
and ı18; Lallot 2008:55). By parönimion, Plato
meant a word formed from an existing one with
a slight alteration (e.g. sophös , ‘wise’, sophistikös,
‘sophistical’; Soph. 268b-c; see also Leg. 757d). In
the later grammatical tradition the parönuma
were denominatives. The verb that came to refer
to derivation, pardgö, is used by Aristotle in con-
nection with words that are derived words in our
sense (Metaph. 1033a17—19); Plato (Crat. 398c-d,
400c) used it for referring to the transformations
that words had undergone during their history.
3. ALEXANDRIAN PHILOLOGISTS
Our knowledge of the treatment of word forma-
tion in the early Alexandrian philological tradi-
tion is fragmentary. The term pardgö occurs in
Aristophanes of Byzantium in the broader sense
of both derivation and compounding. Aristo-
phanes may have used the term prötötheton for
primary words (Callanan 1987:42-48). The two
properties ascribed in Greek grammar to word
formation are not attested in the early Alexan-
drian philologists, but the divisions within them
can be found in Aristarchus of Samothrace.
Aristarchusdistinguished between derived words
(pardgoga) and compound words (süntheta)
within the concept of skhematismös ‘configura-
tion’, which also covered inflection (Matthaios
1999:254-257). In keeping with the goals of
the Alexandrian scholarship of elucidating the
words used by a particular author in a particular
 WORD FORMATION (PARAGÖGE/SÜNTHESTS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
passage, Aristarchus’ classification of words as
derived or compound depended on their mean-
ing in a given context (Matthaios 1999:256).
The basic Greek grammatical approach to
lword formation is known from the Tekhne
attributed to Dionysius Thrax. Of the properties
of the parts of speech, two are concerned with
word formation: the type (eidos) of the word
and its shape (schema) (see Matthaios 2008:40
for a detailed discussion of parts of speech and
these properties in Dionysius’ Tekhne; for the
terms, see Lallot 2004:162-164 and Matthaios
2008:38-39). Of the parts of speech, dnoma has
the fullest discussion of type and shape (Dion.
Thrax 25,3-29,4 and 29,5-30,4). They are pre-
sented as two divisions: the shape of a word
is simple (haploün), compound (süntheton) or
decompound (parasäntheton), exemplified by
Memnön, Agamemnön, Agamemmonidés. The
type of the word is primary (prötötypon) or
derived (parägögon), exemplified by Gé ‘Earth’,
Gaiéios ‘sprung from Earth’, Derived words are
thus part of the property of shape as well, since
the decompaund is a word derived from a com-
pound word.
There is no definition of the compound word,
but the Tékhné enumerates four kinds: these
are based on the types and combination of the
constituent parts, which are either intact (teleia)
or deficient (apoleiponta). Judging from the
examples given, an intact part is one that can
occur independently, whether as an inflected
or a basic form. Thus, for instance, the parts of
Kheirlsophos are both intact, while those of
Sophoklés are both deficient (see Vaahtera
1998:58). The definition of a derived word speci-
fies that it has its origin in another word. The
Tékhné enumerates seven subtypes for the noun:
the patronymic (patronumikén), possessive
(ktetikön), comparative (sunkritikén), superlative
(huperthetikén), diminutive (hupokoristikön),
denominative (parönumon) and deverbative
(rhematikön). The definitions specify the formal
and/or semantic characteristics of these types
(see Vaahtera 1998:54-57).
It is certain that Apollonius Dyscolus had
discussed word formation in a comprehen-
sive manner. The approach to word formation
adopted by Priscian undoubtedly gives us quite
a good picture of what Apollonius had written
on the matter (information can also be found
in Choeroboscus and the scholiasts of Diony-
sius Thrax; see Vaahtera 1998:76-78 and 90-91).
5a
Furthermore, the treatises preserved offer many
passages discussing word formation as an aside
to the actual topic. These passages are easily
approached through the indices provided by
Lallot (1997). The following are just two exam-
ples from the Syntax of Apollonius. Apollonius
discusses, among other things, the semantics of
compound words: the proper name Aristarkhos,
was, according to some, not a compound, since it
did not have the meaning of a compound. Apol-
lonius, however, resolves the problem, deciding
that it is the first act of compounding (he pröte
sunthesis) that matters in cases like this, i.e., the
one resulting in the adjective aristarkhos ‘best-
ruling’ (Apoll, Dysc. Synt. 255.4-256,4; see the
notes by Lallot 1997 ad loc. and Lallot 2008:59-60
for discussion). Apollonius employed the classifi-
cation of derived words, such as patronymic and
possessive, in the context of a discussion of the
relation between infinitive and the verbal modes.
Here (Synt. 326,11-327,3) he also proposes that
any derived word (parögmenon) can be analyzed
into its primary word (prötötupon) and a word
that has the meaning of the paragöge (here, the
derivational ending; see the note by Lallot 1997
ad loc.): thus the patronymic Hektorides is Hek-
toros huids, i.e, the genitive of Hektör + ‘son’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amsler, Mark E. 1989. Etyrolugy and grammatical discourse
in late Antiquity and the Middie Ages. Amsterdam -
Philadelphia.
Callanan, Christopher K. 1987. Die Sprachbeschreibung bei
Aristophanes von Byzanz. Göttingen.
de Jonge, Casper C. and Johannes M. van Ophuljsen. 2010,
“Greek Philosophers un Language”. In: A companion to the
ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert}. Bakker, 485-498.
Chichester.
Kaltz, Barbara, ed. 2008. Aegards croisés sur les mots non
simples, Lyon.
Lallot, Jean, 1991. “L'étyinclogie chez les grammairiens grecs:
principes et pratique”, RPA G52135~148.
.1997. Apollonius Dyscole. De la construction. Vol, x: Intro-
duction, texte et traduction, Vol. 2: Notes et index, Paris,
——. 1998. La grammaire de Denys le Thrace. Traduction
annotée, and ed. Paris.
. 2004, “Skhéma chez les grammairiens grecs". In:
Skhema/figura. Formes et figures chez les Anciens. Rhéto-
rique, philosophie, titerature, ed. by Maria 8. Celentano,
Pierre Chiron and Marie-Pierre Noél, 159-168. Paris.
. 2008. “De Platon aux grammairiens: regards precs
sur la structure des mots non simples”. In: Regards
croisés sur les mots non simples, ed, by Barbara Kaltz,
51-63. Lyon.
Matthaios, Stephanos. 1999. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik
Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre.
Gottingen.
——. 2008. “Théories des grammairiens alexandrins sur la
formation des mots”. In: Regards croisés sur les mots nan
simples, ed. by Barbara Kaltz, 35-49. Lyon.
532 WORD FORMATION (PARAGOGE/SUNTHESIS), ANCIENT THEORIES OF
Robins, Robert H. 2000. "Classical Antiquity’. In: Marpholo-
gie/Morphotogy. Ein internationals Handbuch zur Flexion
und Wortbildung, An international handbook on inflection
and word-formation, vol, 1, ed. by Gert Booij, Christian
Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan in collaboration with Wolf-
gang Kesselheim, Stavros Skopeteas, 52-67. Berlin - New
York.
Schmitter, Peter. 2000. “Sprachbezogene Reflexionen im
frühen Griechenland”. In: History of the language sciences.
An international handbook on the evolution of the study of
language frum the beginnings te the present = Geschichte
der Sprachwissenschaften, vol. 1, ed. by Sylvain Auroux,
E, F. Konrad Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe and Kees
Versteegh, 345-366. Berlin — New York.
Swiggers, Pierre and Altons Wouters, ıggb. “Content and
context in (translating) ancient grammar”. In: Ancient
grammar: content and context, ed. by Pierre Swiggers and
Alfons Wouters, 123-161. Leuven - Paris.
Vaahtera, Jaana. 1997. “Aristotle's dvépata meronjeva". In:
Utriusque linguae peritus. Studia in honorem Totvo Vil-
jfamaa, ed. by Jyri Vaahtera and Raija Vainio, 104-10.
Turku.
. 1998. Derivation, Greek and Roman Views on Word
Formation. Turku.
Weiss, Michael 2o10. “Morphology and Word Formation", In:
A companion tu the ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert
|. Bakker. 194-119. Chichester.
JAANA VAAHTERA
Word Order
Ancient Greek is commonly described as a free
word-order language because of the Jarge num-
ber of word-order patterns licensed within the
+ sentence and its constituents. Considerable
attention has been paid to the study of the
principles and rules governing Ancient Greek
word order throughout history up to the present.
Ancient authors were mainly interested in word
order as a device of style (+ Style (/éxis), Ancient
Theories of). Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ De
compositione verborum is the first extant work
specifically devoted to the subject. In investi-
gating how words can be arranged to make a
composition (sünthesis) charming (hédeia) and
beautiful (ka/é), Dionysius touches on the gram-
matico-philosophical view that, for example, the
noun should precede the verb because it indi-
cates the substance {ousia), which by nature
(phüsis) precedes the accident (sumbebekös)
expressed by the latter; or similarly, the adverb
should follow the verb because it signals the
circumstance, which by nature comes after the
verbal action (cf., for example, Demetr. Eloc.
199-201 and Apoll. Dysc. Syrt. 113-27). Although
Dionysius takes such reasoning to be logical, it is
regarded as unreliable, being often disconfirmed
by experience: in fact, nouns may follow verbs,
and verbs adverbs. He argues extensively that
a good word arrangement depends on melody,
rhythm, variety, and appropriateness. Melody
has to do with word pitches (> Pitch) and tunes,
thythm relates to the alternation of light and
heavy syllables (+ Syllable Weight; + Ancient
Prose Rhythm), variety concerns the word-
order change introduced to avoid monotony,
and appropriateness pertains to the relation
between word order and the meaning conveyed
by the utterance.
Dionysius’ treatment of word order relies
heavily on the concepts of comma (kömma, lit.
‘piece’), and, especially, colon (kölon, lit. ‘mem-
ber') and period (periodos, lit. ‘circuit’), The
meaning of such concepts is controversial, but
they very likely refer to prosodic constituents
hierarchically structured, so that the comma
and the colon are subconstituents of the period
(Aristot. RA. 1409b; Demetr, Eloc. 1-35; cf, Dover
1997:37-40). This is of interest to the linguist
because it is in line with the current view that
prosodic/intonational phonology is one of the
two main components of grammar determining
Ancient Greek word order (+ Prosody; + Into-
national Phrase), the other being pragmatics/
information structure (> Information Structure
and Greek). How these two components interact
was first discussed by Weil (1879): he argues that
word order in Ancient Greek and Latin follows
“the march of ideas”, being affected by the point
du depart and the but du discours, which roughly
correspond to modern notions of topic and focus
respectively, whose position within the sentence
relates to two accentuation patterns, ie., accen-
tuation ascendant and accentuation descendant,
Weil's study has laid the groundwork for the field
by showing the connection between word order,
information structure, and intonational phonol-
ogy. He has more or less directly influenced
most current work on Ancient Greek word order,
which I discuss in the following sections.
1. THE POSITION OF PREPOSITIVES
AND POSTPOSITIVES
On the basis of word position, it is possible
to draw a coarse-grained distinction in Ancient
Greek between mobiles, + prepositives, and
+ postpositives (Dover ı960:12-19), Mobiles,
such as arete ‘excellence’, feukds ‘white’, and
hordo ‘see’, are content words, which can occupy
 WORD
virtually any position within the sentence (see
section 2 below). By contrast, pre- and post-
positives correspond to function words, and are
defined with respect to mobiles: the former, such
as the definite article (+ Definiteness/Definite
Article) and prepositions (+ Adpositions (Prep-
ositions)), usually precede mobiles; the latter,
such as the — particles gar and dn and indefinite
tis, follow mobiles. There is some evidence that
some prepositives were not completely atonic
(Devine and Stephens 1994:356-361). Among
prepositives, prepositions can manifest excep-
tional freedom of position, as the following
examples illustrate (NB: all translations in the
article are taken or adapted from the Loeb Clas-
sical Library, most of which are available at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection
?collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman):
(1) aretés peri
‘About valor' (Pl. Symp. 208d)
(2) a. niin d’äge néa melainan erüssomen eis
hala dian | |...] es dhekatambeén / theiomen
‘Let us now drag a black ship to the shining
sea, [...] and place on board a hecatomb’
(Hom. Il. 1141-143)
b. édé men mäla polla mäkhas eiseluthon
andrön
‘Verily full often have I entered ere now into
battles of warriors’ (Hom. Il. 2.798)
(1) is an example of anastrophe: the preposition
retracts its accent (+ Accentuation) and does not
precede but rather follows the noun (see Devine
and Stephens 1994:364-365 for more details).
Anastrophe is rarely employed in post-Homeric
Greek. (2a) shows that prepositions (> Preposi-
tions in Homer) can refer to nouns and be used
as free + adverbs: of the two occurrences of eis/
es, the former is a preposition, the latter a free
adverb. In (2b) eis is bound to the verb, func-
tioning as a + preverb (Luraghi 2010). In prose
preverbs can be separated from their verbs only
in rare cases (+ Tmesis).
Postpositives do not coincide with enclitics
(+ Clitics): for example, particles such as mén and
dé are likely to have had a grave accent in deliber-
ate speech (Devine and Stephens 1994:353-364).
The behavior of postpositives seems to be espe-
cially revealing about how Ancient Greek word
order works. Ever since Wackernagel’s seminal
study (1892) postpositives have been known
to occupy second position (sometimes called
ORDER 5333
‘peninitial position‘) within the + sentence or
-clause (+ Wackernagel's Law I}. Peninitial
position can be defined as the second position
after the first stressed word or constituent (Janse
1990) (+ Stress), or as the second position within
the intonational unit (Janse 2000; Goldstein
2010). It should be noted that peninitial position
varies across time: while in Homeric Greek post-
positives usually cluster together after the first
mobile, later there is a tendency to move some
of them rightward (Dover 1960:14-19; Marshall
1987:7-8). Sometimes, postpositive placement
may be interfered with by style: for example,
Blomgvist’s (1969:11-113) occurrence frequen-
cies of the patterns preposition-connective par-
ticle-mobile and preposition-mobile-connective
particle show that the former disposition is pre-
ferred in the literary prose of the Hellenistic
authors Polybius and Diodorus of Sicily, while
scientists and philosophers, especially Aristotle
and Theophrastus, more often employ the latter.
Frankel (1933) provides a great number of
examples, among which is the following, to show
that the postpositive dn can appear in peninitial
position not only within the sentence/clause but
also within smaller units, called cola:
(3) kai pros men tous trépous tous humetérous |
asthenés dn mou ho lögos eie
‘Against your character any words of mine
would be weak enough’ (Thuc. 6.9.3)
The position of dn in (3) marks a leftward bound-
ary dividing the sentence into two cola, which
are like ‘images’ of the sentence/clause (Frankel
19337319). Marshall (1987) generalizes the behav-
ior of dn to aut-, m-, and tis by proposing that
such postpositives and probably many others
can occupy (i) peninitial position within the
sentence/clause or colon or be (ii) directly after,
but rarely (iii) later than directly after, the verb
or noun with which they are associated. The
formation is unclear. Marshall's (1987:15-16)
figures reveal an increase of wording (ii) between
Homer and Herodotus, which is in line with the
fact that postverbal/postnominal position is the
preferred order for enclitic personal pronouns
in New Testament Greek (Janse 1993b:85-107;
2000:237) (+ Personal Pronouns, Use of).
Cola are to be interpreted as prosodic constit-
uents (Frankel 1964:137-139; Janse 1993a; Devine
and Stephens 1994:422-423; Scheppers 2011):
334 WORD
(4) si de nesteuön | dleipsaisou ten kephalen | kai
to prösöpön sau nipsai
‘But you, when you fast, anoint your head,
and wash your face’ (Mt. 6:17)
(4) shows that while the latter enclitic sou
attaches, as one might expect, to its head
prösöpon ‘face’, the former attaches to the verb
dleipsai ‘anoint’ irrespective of syntax. It is pro-
posed that the postverbal position is determined
by prosodic phrasing: the pronoun placement
in second position helps identify the first two
prosodic units into which the sentence/utter-
ance is divided. By contrast, the motivation for
the postnominal position, which is the most
common one for noun-govemed enclitic per-
sonal pronouns in New Testament Greek (Janse
19938:20), is unclear: it may be due to either syn-
tax or phonulogy or both. Further examination
points to a similar conclusion:
(5) a. (ean midnéis)o (ten särka sou)
‘If you defile your flesh’ (Herm. Sim. 60.2)
b. (kai peisthésontal sou tols rhemasin)®
‘And they will be persuaded by your words’
(Herm. Mand. 46.3)
Taylor (1996:495-496) explains the different
position of enclitic pronouns in (5a) and (5b) as
being due to an optional prosodic restructuring
rule similar to Italian raddoppiamento sintattico.
Such a rule is at work in example (5b), where
the verb functions as the host of the enclitic,
but does nat apply to example (5a), where the
pronoun forms a phonological phrase with the
preceding noun phrase. The prosodic break
occurring between such cola as in (3) and (4) is
likely to have been marked by the lengthening
of the final syllable of the word preceding the
boundary (Ruijgh 1990:229-230) and sometimes
by a pause.
It has been argued that postpositives are
attracted to peninitial position by the accentual
prominence of first position for pragmatic rea-
sons ( Janse 2000), Although this proposal might
account for a variety of examples, a note of cau-
tion is in order. First, not all postpositives are
enclitics. Second, while first position might have
received utterance-level accent, postpositives
can also attach to words, such as the conjunc-
tions alld ‘but’ and epeide ‘for, because’, which
are accented but supposedly not accentually
prominent within the utterance (but see Janse
ORDER
2000:232-237). That is, accentual prominence
at the level of utterance should be kept distinct
from that at the level of smaller prosodic con-
stituents: they may or may not coincide.
This is not to downplay the importance of
accentuation and information structure in post-
positive placement (> Information Structure
and Greek). Whereas the number of - clitics
immediately following coordinating conjunc-
tions, such as kai, decreased progressively and
substantially from Homeric to Hellenistic Greek,
particles, such as gdr, are generally allowed in
such a position (Taylor 1996:498-499). This
seems to suggest that coordinating conjunctions
underwent progressive destressing so as to be
ultimately followed only by postpositives having
some accent (Taylor 1996:496-501). Accentua-
tion then plays a crucial role in the information
structure of Ancient Greek + pronouns: the
difference between null and enclitic pronouns
on the one hand and orthotonic pronouns on
the other clearly relates to + topic and + focus
(or contrastive topic) function respectively (cf.
Devine and Stephens 1994:475-477 and Luraghi
2003; see also section z below). The connection
between postpositives and information struc-
ture also emerges clearly from the possibility for
cola to signal topic or focus constituents (Dover
1960:17; Ruijgh 1990:229—230; Luraghi 1990:47):
(6) kai hé gune | eporäi min exiönta
‘And the woman glimpsed him as he went
out’ (Hdt. 110.2)
The leftward boundary marked by the enclitic
pronoun isolates the topic of the sentence, i.e., he
guné, to which epordi min exiönta is predicated.
A careful analysis of ancient texts reveals that
postpositive placement serves as a powerful cue
for identification of information structure, which
is related to prosodic structure (cf. Devine and
Stephens 1994:475-497). One difficulty with this
account is illustrated by the following example:
(7) lege to pséphismd moi
‘Please read the decree’ (Dem. Or. 18.180)
According to Marshall (1987), (7) is a rare case
of postpositive deferment. Luraghi (1990) argues
that the focality of t6 pséphisma (which, as dis-
cussed below, may have received focus accent)
is ‘highlighted’ by the position of the pronoun; a
colon boundary between /ége and td psephisma,
 WORD
however, seems to be unlikely in that the object
is expected to form a phrase with the preceding
verb. It has been suggested (Celano 2013) that the
pronoun may be in second position with respect
to lége tö psephisma, which might be interpreted
as a case of unit formation (cf. Marshall 1987:n).
However, further research is needed in order to
understand in more detail the reasons underly-
ing postpositive deferment.
2. WORD ORDER OF MAJOR CLAUSE
CONSTITUENTS
Although Weil (1879) showed the crucial connec-
tion between word order and information pack-
aging, there have been later attempts to capture
Ancient Greek word order by means of syntax.
A number of studies have aimed to establish the
unmarked order of, for example, subject, verb,
and object. They have turned out to be rather
inconclusive, however, in that they lack any
explanatory adequacy (see, for example, Dover
1960:25-31). Recently, fresh impetus has been
given to pragmatic studies by Dik (1995; 2007),
who has successfully introduced the issue of
Ancient Greek word order into modern linguis-
tic studies. Within the framework of Functional
Grammar (+ Functional Grammar and Greek),
she argues that the order of content words (ie.,
Dover's mobiles) in Classical Greek clauses can
be accounted for by the following pattern:
(8) (Setting) — Topic - Focus - Verb — Remainder
According to (8) Classical Greek word order is
pragmatically determined and fixed. The Set-
ting slot refers to optional adverbials at the
very beginning of the clause (Dik 2007:36-37)
(> Adverbial Constituents). Next follows the
core of the clause: the first position is occupied
by topic and the second position by focus; the
verb is in the third position, unless it is itself
topic or focus, and is followed by pragmatically
unmarked constituents in an unspecified order.
This is illustrated by the following examples:
(9) a. Histiaie, basileus Dareios täde légei
‘Histiaeus, Darius the king says the follow-
ing’ (Hdt. 5.24.1)
b. ekeina men dé Hekataios élexe, taüta de
Athenaloi légousi
‘That was told by Hecataeus, this is told by
the Athenians’ (Hdt. 6.237.4)
ORDER 535
c. en dé toutéi téi kairöi hoi men Arkddes kai
hoi Argetoi peri ten pdlin ekukloünto
‘At this critical moment the Arcadians and
Argives were circling around the city’ (Xen.
Hell. 7.2.8)
(ga) contains the opening sentence of a mes-
sage sent to Histiaeus by Darius. The constituent
basileus Dareios is the topic, i.e., the ‘point of
departure’ of the sentence, with respect to which
the predicate is informative. The topic is followed
by the focus tdde, i.e., the most salient piece of
information being conveyed, for it announces
the content of the following message. On the
contrary, both pronouns (ekeina and faüta) in
(gb) refer back to two different versions of the
Pelasgians’ departure from Attica: the former
was told by Hecataeus, the latter by the Athe-
nians. The point of the sentence is that Herodo-
tus does not take a position in the controversy,
but it is to Hecataeus and the Athenians that
he assigns the responsibility for the accounts;
accordingly, ekefna and tadta are topics and
Hekatatos and Athénatoi foci. (ga) and (gb) there-
fore show that Classical Greek word order is
sensitive to the pragmatic role that constituents
play within the clause. (gc) is meant to show
that the topic of the clause (Agi Arkddes and
hoi Argeioi) can be preceded by a time-setting
adverbial (en toutoi töl kairdi).
Dik’s pattern works well in a variety of exam-
ples, yet its absolute validity is challenged by
such examples as the following:
(10) (‘Between us and the King is the Tigris, a
navigable river, which we could not cross
without boats...')
... ploia de hemeis ouk ékhomen
'...and boats we have none’ (Xen. An. 2.2.3)
(‘For the rest of Media is everywhere a level
plain [...]’)
...epel ön ho boukdlos spoudéi polléi
kaledmenos apiketo, élege ho Hdrpayus tide
‘...80 when the cowherd came in haste at
the summons, Harpagus said the following’
(Hdt. 1.10.3)
Aristagöres men taüta elexe, Kleomenes de
ametbeto totside
‘Aristagoras said this, and Cleomenes
replied thus’ (Hdt. 5.49.9)
It is difficult to see how (10-12) can fit in with (8).
(10) contains two topics: the clause is about the
536 WORD
relation between boats (ploia) and Clearchus and
his fellow soldiers (Aémefs) in that it informs us
that the latter lack the former (Mati¢é 2003:601).
In (11) Ao Härpagos, who is a resumed topic after
a short digression on Mithridates and Media,
follows, rather than precedes, the verb elege.
Furthermore, the focus pronoun tdde, which
introduces the following speech, is placed not
before but after the verb (cf. Dik 1995235-206).
Postverbal focus position is also illustrated by
the stricture in (12). The contrastive topics
Aristagöres and Kleoménés are related to the
contrastive foci tadta and toiside respectively;
but while taüta is preverbal, toiside follows the
verb (cf. (gb) above). Such examples suggest
that Classical Greek has a much more complex
topic and focus structure than the one proposed
by Dik.
One can distinguish at least three kinds of
topic in Classical Greek:
(13) a. (‘He marched through Phrygia one stage,
a distance of eight parasangs, to Colossae
(1)
...entaütha émeinen héméras heptä
..there he remained seven days’ (Xen. An.
1.2.6)
b. (‘Here Xerxes [...] is said to have built
the palace just mentioned and likewise the
citadel of Celaenae’)
entaütha émeine Küros hemeras triakonta
‘here Cyrus remained thirty days’ (Xen. An,
1.2.9)
c. entaütha Kiros Silanon kalésas |...)
édoken autéi dareikous triskhillous
‘Then Cyrus summoned Silanus [...] and
gave him three thousand darics' (Xen. An.
1.7.18)
As (13a) shows, null pronouns are employed
when the topic of the clause does not change
(+ Null Anaphora). Looser topic continuity is
illustrated by (a3b): the tupic Küros is resumed
and placed directly after the verb because the
narration of Cyrus’ march has been interrupted
by an immediately preceding digression on
Celaenae. Interestingly, the distribution of such
postverbal tapics seems to be similar to that
of enclitic pronouns (Mati¢ 2003:598-599; cf.
Marshall 1987:6-7). In (13c), the topic Küros is
resumed after a sentence on Artaxerxes. The
preverbal position can be explained by the con-
trast between Cyrus and Artaxerxes; for top-
ORDER
ics are in general placed in preverbal position
whenever they need some prominence (see
Mati¢ 2003:588-603 for more details). Further-
more, (13c) shows the anaphoric pronoun autéi,
whose behavior can be associated with that of
the other enclitic personal pronouns: they have
topic function and occupy peninitial position
{see above and Marshall 1987). Notably, there
is evidence that in Classical Greek, information
structure deeply affects the expression not only
of the subject but also of definite referential
objects (Luraghi 2003):
(14) tots men paidas; diasösas tols goneüsin
apedöke @;
‘Andhavingrescuedthechildren, herestored
them to their parents’ (Isoc. Or. 10.28)
(15) 6 ändres, toütö me dein epideixai hos
emoikheuen Eratosthénés ten gunatka; ten
emen kai ekelnen; te diéphtheire kai tous
paidas tots emoüs eiskhune kai emé auton
hübrisen
“But I take it, sirs, that what I have to show
is that Eratosthenes had an intrigue with
my wife, and not only corrupted her but
inflicted disgrace upon my children and an
outrage on myself’ (Lys. 1.4)
In (14) the object of apédoke is omitted because
it is topic and coreferential with the object of the
dependent participle. In (15), however, the full
object pronoun ekeinen is expressed because it
contrasts with tous paidas tous emous and emé
autön (see Luraghi 2003 for more examples and
details; for the pragmatics-dependent omission
of the verb in gapping constructions see Gaeta
& Luraghi 2001). All in all, one can say that the
realization of Classical Greek topic structure is
based on a complex iconicity principle ranging
from full noun phrases to null pronouns, which
involves both phonology (accented pronouns vs.
enclitics) and word order (preverbal vs, postver-
bal position).
Let us turn now to focus structure, As men-
tioned above, (1) and (12) provide evidence
that in Classical Greek focus can also follow
the verb. This is also shown by (13a-c): (13a)
and (13b) inform us of the number of days of
Cyrus’ stay, while (13c) informs us of the sum
of money given by Cyrus. Celano (2013) argues
for the existence of the main sentence accent as
the marker whereby preverbal and postverbal
focus may have been formally identified within

the utterance (cf. Weil 1879 and Loepfe 1940).
Such an account of focus structure, however,
raises the major question as to what the dif-
ference is between preverbal and postverbal
focus position. Mati¢ (2003:582-588) relates it
to the expression of narrow and broad focus.
Celano (2013) argues against such an interpreta-
tion and proposes that Classical Greek exhibits
an iconic contrast between two configurations:
(topic/)presupposed information-focus (PF) and
focus-(topic/)presupposed information (FP):
(16) a. alethé légeis
"You are right’ (Pl. Tht. ıgob)
b. /egeis alethé
“You are right’ (Pl. Tht. 16ge)
The contexts of (16a) and (16b) are basically the
same: there are two interlocutars; the former
claims something and the latter answers, ‘You
are right’. The difference in word order is due to
a different communicative perspective: in (16a)
the speaker gives the focus (alethe) precedence
over the presupposed verb (fégeis) in that he
wishes to express the point of his utterance
immediately; in (16b), on the other hand, the
presupposed verb takes precedence over the
focus in that the speaker links the utterance to
the preceding context. Consider also the follow-
ing pair of questions:
(17) a. totin én toüto, 6 Phaidön?
‘Now why was this, Phaedo?' (Pl. Phd. 58a)
b. toßto de de ti estin?
‘This, what is it?’ (Pl. Phd. 58a)
(17a—b) seem to show the same dichotomy as
(16a-b). (17a) exhibits the FP configuration: ¢/
is the focus constituent and én toüto the pre-
supposed constituent. This is the typical con-
figuration for + questions: focus comes earlier,
questions being by nature focus-oriented. In
(17b), however, the reverse order occurs:
topic foüto precedes the focus ti estin, connect-
ing the utterance to the preceding one. (17b)
thus conveys a seemingly less abrupt question.
These examples seem to suggest that the differ-
ence between preverbal and postverbal focus
is operative at various syntactic levels (e.g, the
focus constituent ¢/ esti in (17b) is focus with
respect to foto, but within ¢/ estin the verb estin
seems to be presupposed with respect to ti)
and is motivated by an iconic principle roughly
WORD ORDER 537
definable as: the more prominent focus is, the
earlier it is placed (see also section 3 below).
Linked to such a principle might also be the
puzzling phenomenon of prolepsis. Panhuis
(1984) argues that Ancient Greek tries to preserve
the dichotomy theme-rheme and rheme-theme
to such an extent that constituents of a subor-
dinate clause can be anticipated in the matrix
clause:
(18) kai gar éidei auton höti méson ékhoi toü Per-
sikoü strateiimatos
‘For he knew that the King held the center
of the Persian army’ (Xen. An. 1.8.21)
The pronoun autén in (18) occurs as proleptic to
obey a principle of communicative dynamism. It
is a theme/topic, which is anticipated to harmo-
nize and not to thwart the information flow: for
the matrix clause contains thematic constituents
(the verb has a low degree of communicative
dynamism), while the subordinate clause is what
pushes the narration forward (i.e., the rheme/
focus), It should be noted, however, that prolep-
sis is a complex and multifarious phenomenon,
whose interpretation is still controversial. From
a historical perspective there are good reasons
to analyze it as a syntactic phenomenon (Fraser
2001).
Word order in post-Classical Greek has not
been much explored yet. Most of the studies
on the position of sentence constituents posit
that there exists one ‘basic’ word order, the oth-
ers being derived from it and marked (see, e.g.,
Kwong 2005 and the bibliography therein). Such
an approach, however, should not induce one
to assume that there exist pragmatically neu-
tral word orders. Furthermore, it is to be noted
that statistical analyses often do not allow us to
establish a significantly prevailing word order
pattern (see, e.g., Porter 1993).
the 3. WORD ORDER WITHIN THE
NOUN PHRASE
Word order within the + noun phrase (hereafter
NP) is determined by various grammar com-
ponents. The definite article, if present, always
precedes the noun (or substantivized adjective)
to which it refers. Some adjectives, such as auids,
mesos, and pds, change meaning on the basis of
whether or not they are preceded by the article
(i.e., are in attributive or predicative position).
538 WORD
Most adjectives and other modifiers of the noun,
however, convey no such semantic difference
between attributive and predicative position. In
general, modifiers can be freely placed before or
after their head in both definite and indefinite
NPs. This begs the question of whether there
may be any explanation for prenominal and
postnominal position. For Classical Greek there
is evidence that it is information structure that
determines modifier position after all (Dik 1997;
Viti 2008a, 2008b; Bakker 2009). More precisely,
it has been claimed that the modifier is pre-
nominal when it is the most salient element of
the NP:
(19) a. toutdén de huperoikéousi pros boreen
dnemon Medoi
‘Beyond these to the north are the Medes’
(Hdt. 4.37)
b. kal min [...] hupolabein dnemoan boreen
‘A north wind caught him’ (Hdt. 4,179.2)
In (19a) it is the direction of wind that matters
in that it indicates where the Medes live. By con-
trast, in (igb) the most important information
is that Jason (min) was caught by wind; i.e., the
direction of such wind is not as relevant as the
occurrence itself of wind (Dik 1997:74-75). Viti
(2008a, 2008b) comes to the same conclusion:
(20) a, (‘This Candaules, then, fell in love with
his own wife [...]')
... td eidos tes gunaikös
'... the beauty of his wife’ (Hat, 1.8.1)
bh. gunaikös eidölon
‘The statue of a woman’ (Hdt. 1.51.5)
While the referent of tés gunaikés in (20a) is old
information and hence likely to play a topic role
within the NP, gunaikés in (20b) is new infor-
mation, which plays a focus role in the NP (Viti
2008a:go0—go1). A particular instantiation of the
principle of precedence of the most salient infor-
mation is illustrated by + hyperbaton:
(21) [smegdlas| epéthékan |timörias]
‘They have imposed a heavy penalty’ (Dem.
Or. 47.2)
Hyperbaton is a complex phenomenon involv-
ing the breaking up of a constituent. The NP
megdlas timörias in (21) is interrupted by the
ORDER
head verb epéthékan. When the left element of
the broken NP is an adjective, as in (21), Devine
and Stephens (2000) argue that it often expresses
strong (i.e., exclusive) narrow focus associated
with a presupposed postverbal noun (for a full
listing of the various types of hyperbaton and
their pragmatic values, see Devine and Stephens
2000). Such hyperbata as in (21) show very clearly
that information structure plays such a crucial
role in word-order arrangement as to be able to
disrupt a syntactic constituent: the modifier and
its noun are split because their information sta-
tus is different (Devine and Stephens 2000:58).
Interestingly, it has recently been proposed that
hyperbaton is triggered by phonological move-
ment (Agbayani and Golston 2010). Agbayani
and Golston’s stance is partly consistent with
the thesis presented above that focus structure
in Ancient Greek may have been signaled by the
presence of the main sentence accent (see also
Devine and Stephens 1994:469).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agbayani, Brian and Chris Golston. 2o1a, “Phonological
movement in classical Greek", Language 86133-167.
Bakker, StéphanieJ. 2009. The noun phrase in Ancient Greek:
a functional analysis of the order and articulation of NP
constituents in Herodetus. Leiden - Boston.
Blomgvist, Jerker. 1969. Greek particles in Hellenistic prose.
Lund.
Celano, Giuseppe G, A. 2013. “Argument-focus and predicate-
focus structure in Ancient Greek: word order and phonol-
ogy", StudLung 37(2): 241-266.
Devine, Andrew M, and Laurence D, Stephens. 1994. The
prosody of Greek speech. New York - Oxford.
. 2000. Discontinuous syntax: hyperbaton in Greek. New
York,
Dik, Helma. 1995. Word order in Ancient Greek: a pragmatic
account of word urder variation in Herodotus. Amsterdam,
. 1997. “Interpreting adjective position in Herodotus”.
In: Grammar as interpretation: Greek literature in its lin-
guistic contexts, ed. by EgbertJ. Bakker, 55-76. Leiden —
New York.
. 2007. Word order in Greek tragic dialogue. Oxford -
New York.
Dover, Kenneth J. 1960. Greek word order. Cambridge.
‚1997. The evolution of Greek prose style. Oxford - New
York.
Frankel, Eduard. 1933. "Kolon und Satz: Beobachtungen
zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes, II”, Nachrichten der
Gottinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-
historische Klasse: 319-354.
. 1964. “Nachtrage zu ‘Kolon und Satz, I1’". In: Kleine
Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 1, 131-139. Rome.
Fraser, Bruce. 2001, “Consider the lilies: prolepsis and devel-
opment of complementation’, Glotta 77:7-37.
Gaeta, Livio and Silvia Luraghi. zoo. “Gapping in Classical
Greek prose”, StudLang 25:89-u3.
Goldstein, David M. 2010. Wackernagel’s Law in fifth-century
Greek. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
 WORD
Janse, Mark. 1990. “Wackernagel’s Law". In: Proceedings
of the XTVth international congress of linguists: Berlin,
August 10-August 15, 1987, ed. by Werner Bahner, Joachim
Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger, 2645-2649. Berlin.
——. 19932. “The prosodic basis uf Wackernagel's Law”. In:
Endangered languages: proceedings of the XVth interna-
tional congress of linguists, Québec, Université Laval, 9-14
August 1992, vol. 4, ed. by André Crochetiére, Jean-Claude
Boulanger,and Conrad Quellon,ig—zz. Sainte-Foy, Québec.
—. 1993b. “La position des pronoms personnels encli-
tiques en grec néo-testamentaire 4 la lumiére des dia-
lectes néo-helléniques™. In: La koiné grecque antique I; une
langue introuvable?, ed. by Claude Brixhe, 83-121. Nancy.
—. 2000. “Convergence and divergence in the develop-
ment of the Greek and Latin clitic pronouns”. In: Stability,
variation, and change of word-vrder patterns over time,
ed. by Rosanna Sornicola et al., 231-258. Amsterdam -
Philadelphia.
Kwang, Ivan 5. C. 2005. The word order of the gospel of Luke:
its foreground messages, London — New York.
Loepfe, Alfred. igqo. Die Wortstellung im griechischen
Sprechsutz: erklärt an Stücken aus Platon und Menander.
Ph.D. diss., Universität Freiburg in der Schweiz.
Luraghi, Silvia. 1990. "Osservazione sulla legge di Wackerna-
gel e la posizione del verbo nelle lingue indoeuropee”. In:
Dimensioni della linguistica, ed. by Paolo Ramat, Maria-
Elisabeth Conte, and Anna Giacalone Ramat, 21-60.
Milan.
. 2003. "Dehnite referential null objects in Ancient
Greek”, IF 18169-1968.
——. 2010. “The rise (and possible downfall) of configu-
rationality”. In: Continuum companion to historical lin-
guistics, ed. by Silvia Luraghi and Vit Bubenik, 212-229.
London.
Marshall, M. H. B. 1987. Verbs, nouns, and postpositives in
Attic prose. Edinburgh.
Matid, Dejan. 2003. "Topic, focus, and discourse structure:
Ancient Greek word order”, StudLang 27:573-633-
Panhuis, Dirk. 1984. “Prolepsis in Greek as a discourse strat-
egy”, Glotta 62:26-39.
Porter, Stanley. 1993. "Word order and clause structure in
New Testament Greek: an unexplored area of Greek lin-
guistics using Philippians as a test case”, FNT 6177-206.
Ruijgh, CornelisJ. 1990. “La place des enclitiques dans l'ordre
des mots chez Homere d’apres la loi de Wackernagel”.
In: Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wackernagel
und die Indugermanistik heute. Kolloquium der Indoger-
manischen Gesellschaft vom 13. bis 15. Oktober 1988 in
Basel, ed. by Heiner Eichner and Helmut Rix, 213-233.
Wiesbaden.
Scheppers, Frank. zou. The colon hypothesis: word order, dis-
course segmentation, and discourse coherence in Ancient
Greek, Brussels,
Taylor, Ann. 1996. “A prosodie account of clitic position in
Ancient Greek”. In: Approaching second: second position
clities and related phenomena, ed. by Aaron L. Halpern
and Arnold M. Zwicky, 477-503. Stanford, CA.
Viti, Carlotta. zoo8a. “Rheme before theme in the noun
phrase: a case study from Ancient Greek”, StudLang
32:894-915.
. 2008b. “Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: a
functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun
phrase”, Glotta 84:203-238.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. “Uber ein Gesetz der indoger-
manischen Wortstellung", /F 1:333-436.
ORDER 339
Weil, Henri. 1879. De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anci-
ennes comparées aux langues modernes; question de gram-
maire generale, 3rd ed. Paris.
GIUSEPPE GIUVANMI
ANTONIO CELANO
Written versus Spoken Language
1. INTRODUCTION
Individuals use language differently in writing
and in speech. Since the activity of writing is
a slower process of communication, it affords
greater opportunity for consideration and reflec-
tion and for the formation of an utterance that
can be understood without additional explana-
tion (Dover 198726), The ability to write entails
at least some education (based on the language
of classical literature in the case of Greek) and
some training in how to write well and, hence,
some acquaintance with notions of correct,
appropriate and conventional use of language, if
not a familiarity with the standard variety itself.
A distinction between written and spoken
language(s) is particularly appropriate when
considering the largely illiterate communities
of the Graeco-Roman world, in which several
languages might be used side-by-side in different
functions or domains. Many could only speak
their native language, while others learned to
read and write, but perhaps only enough to read
a few familiar words and to sign for themselves.
Some might use a second language in writing
only (and, perhaps, not write in their first at all),
while others could understand foreign conversa-
tion, but not participate; others could read texts
in another language without being able to speak
or write in that language (Cribiore 2001:175-176).
Languages can exist without ever having a writ-
ten form: we have testimonia that indigenous
languages of Asia Minor continued to be spoken
in Late Antiquity (e.g. Galatian and Phrygian),
but these have left very little impression in the
surviving epigraphic evidence (Clackson 2012).
As Greek developed into its modern forms, a
spoken vernacular was current centuries before
it appeared in writing, while the elite strove to
imitate Classical, Attic Greek (> Atticism). The
coexistence in Modern Greek of the demotiki
and katharevousa varieties reflects a similar phe-
nomenon of diglassia (Browning 1983:4; + Devel-
opments in Medieval and Modern Greek).
540 WRITTEN VERSUS SPOKEN
However, a dichotomy of speech and writing
can mislead in that it polarizes language use by
medium. Spoken and written forms interact: the
former as a source of innovations and the latter
as a conservative control (Bubenik 1989:23-27).
Ancient spoken language is only accessible now
through the evidence offered by written texts.
Further, speech and writing seem not to have
been opposed in Greek culture and practice, For
example, inscribed epitaphs speak in the first
person to passers-by, either in the voice of the
deceased (e.g. GVI 7 [archaic] and 1972 [2nd
c. CE]) or in their own voice (e.g. GVI 112; con-
trast GV7 117). Similarly, objects and dedications
often announce their ownership, as if speaking
themselves (e.g. the 6th-c. BCE W.Ion. IG XIV
865: Tataiés émi lékuthos. Hos d’ dn me klephsei,
thuphlös éstai '| am the lékythos of Tataié. Who-
ever steals me, will go blind’; cf. the 6th-c. BCE
Corinthian /G IV 210-211, 219 and 329). As well as
oral poetry itself, literature was written for per-
formance, to be heard as well as read. Although
silent reading was not unusual (> Orality and
Literacy; Knox 1968 and Gavrilov 1997), read-
ing aloud was common even when reading to
oneself. Teaching and instruction were predomi-
nantly heard, even when using written texts (cf.
Acts 8.30 and Jac 1.22-25).
In particular, letters present themselves as
alternatives to face-to-face conversation, con-
veying the sender's words as if he were pres-
ent (Parsons 1980-1981:9), although they were
regarded as poor substitutes (cf. Trapp 2003:39,
259, 262 and 275). Writing was often the result
of dictation. Letters would be read to their
addressees (cf. ı Thess. 5.27) and their content
translated for those unable to understand Greek
(Bülow-Jacobsen 1978 on SB XVIII 13876). Dicta-
tion and reading aloud account for the aural
comprehensibility of the ubiquitous phonetic
spellings of the documentary papyri that seem to
us to be haphazard orthographic disorder, when
we approach the papyri as silent texts (Youtie
1958:5, 58-59; + Papyri, Language of).
There was a pressure to reflect the correct,
classical written language in one's speech. The
Atticist lexica advocate what (not) to say, draw-
ing on comedies as well as prose. Lucian reports
how he responded to censure from a classical
purist (Lucian. Salt.) for saying hugiainein ‘be
well’ rather than the classical khairein ‘be glad’
by citing examples to defend his spoken greeting
from literature and anecdotes about the spoken
LANGUAGE
practice of good authorities. The bishop Triphyl-
lios, trained at Berytus, substituted skimpous
‘mat’ for krabbaton 'mat’, the word used by the
gospel-writers (Sozom. Hist. eccl. 1.1.9; Browning
1983:47n.34), while preaching but was rebuked
for being ashamed of the word that Jesus was
reported to have used. (This example, of course,
also involves a departure in speech from the
wording of an authoritative text.) The classi-
cally trained John Chrysostom is reported to
have switched in the middle of a sermon from
a classicizing spoken style to a popular one on
demand (Cosmas Vestitor, 153 Dyobouniotes; cf.
Browning 1983:50).
Instead of an opposition of speech and writ-
ing, it is better to describe and analyze language
use along a continuum between several oppo-
sitions: classical/literary versus colloquial/non-
literary, conventional/formulaic/clichéd versus
individual, formal versus informal, conserva-
tive versus innovative, commercial versus ofh-
cial versus private, elite versus popular, and
rural/rustic versus urban(e) (cf. Aristoph. /7.706
PCG). Standard, substandard, superstandard and
hypercorrect varieties could exist in both elite
and popular usage, whether spoken or written.
At any point on this continuum of varieties,
there could be both spoken and written forms,
although a heavily classicizing spoken variety,
for example, would be unlikely to be widespead
outside oratory. Also, spoken language at the
least educated, most informal, and colloquial
extreme would never be committed to any form
of writing (even graffiti). Within these spoken
and written varieties, several registers would be
used depending, for example, on the relative
status of the speaker and addressee.
The spoken and written forms of these variet-
ies may be delineated according to several regis-
ter dimensions (Willi 2010:308-310): the degrees
of interactivity (conversation versus monologue),
of on-line production (in contrast to deliberate
choices and careful planning and structuring),
and of personal and emotional involvement and
commitment (in contrast to detached reporting
or explanation) and the nature of the narration,
the argumentation and means of persuasion.
2, SOURCES
Apart from anecdotal testimonia about spoken
usage, it is grammarians, lexica, bilingual glos-
saries, and hermeneumata (phrase-books) that
 WRITTEN VERSUS SPOKEN
provide information about what was appropri-
ate Greek for writing, speaking and writing, or
for speech only.
Also, some features of Modern Greek reflect
features of post-classical Greek (e.g. the Mod.
Gk aorist éAaBe ['elava] ‘I received’ is found in
papyri, such as BGU II 423.9 [znd c. CE]) and
confirm that these non-classical forms persisted
in the spoken language.
The literary and documentary evidence may
be divided into representations and reflections
of speech. The former category consists of the
texts of tragedy (particularly the speech of non-
elite characters or when someone speaks angrily,
rudely, or flippantly), comedy, and mime (e.g.
Theocritus 14 and 15, Herodas), of dialogues
(e.g, those of Plato, Xenophon, Epictetus, and
Lucian), of speech bubbles in vase-paintings,
and of reported speech in histories (e.g. Xeno-
phon’s characters sometimes speak with dialec-
tal features; cf. Xen. An. 6.6.34 and 7.6.39), in the
novels, and in popular literature, such as saints’
lives, the Apophthegmata Patrum, Moschus’ Pra-
tum Spirituate, and the canonical and apocryphal
gospels and acts. These texts portray conversa-
tion with varying attempts at realism and at
delineation of characters by language use (Dover
1987:18-25), Papyrus copies of records of Roman
court proceedings aimed to report verbatim (to
varying extents, but with a need for authenticity)
what each party said, often in Greek, within an
official (Latin) frame (Coles 1966:15-16, Adams
2003:383-390, 557-558, 561). The corpus of foren-
sic Attic oratory is a special case. The speeches
were to be declaimed and some contain direct
speech (e.g. Lys. 1.16). However, these speeches
were written by logographoi ‘speech-writers’
(logopoioi ‘historians’ or ‘story-tellers’ is a more
general term, but cf. Din. 1.35) for their clients to
deliver and were subsequently revised for publi-
cation. They had to represent the speaker's spo-
ken language plausibly, but also appropriately
for a legal context.
The second category contains texts that pro-
vide a window onto spoken language since their
authors expressed themselves in writing much
as they would do in speech, because they were
either unable or not concerned to follow the
rules of the standard language. The letters and
petitions preserved on ostraca and — papyri
reflect, to varying degrees, how their writers
would have spoken if present. Some papyri
announce explicitly that they were written in
LANGUAGE 541
a hurry without much consideration (Peppard
2008), although others show literary pretensions
(e.g. P. Oxy. XXXI 2603) or evidence of stylis-
tic revision (Luiselli 2010). — Graffiti, private
inscriptions, > curse tablets (beginning katadeö
‘I curse’ or Aatagrdpho ‘I curse in writing’), some
satirical and erotic epigrams, and the + New
Testament epistles may be drawn upon for evi-
dence. The narrative sections of the canonical
and non-canonical gospels and acts of the apos-
tles, saints’ lives, and Byzantine chroniclers (e.g.
Malalas) may offer written reflections of how
a story would be told aloud, inasmuch as they
differ from contemporary, classicising narratives
(Horrocks 2010:223-227).
3. FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH
SPOKEN LANGUAGE AND ITS GENERAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Linguistic descriptions of these non-literary
written varieties (see > Koine, Features of) and
stylistic levels and their spoken counterparts
in relation to their (non-classical) morphology,
word choice, syntax, and word order have been
sketched and exemplified from such sources for
the Hellenistic, Roman, and early Byzantine peri-
ods by Horrocks (2010, with references to more
detailed studies). Thumb & Scherer (1959:306-
310) and Dover (1987:21-22) provide overviews of
so-called Vulgar Attic. Stevens (1976) and Collard
(2005) discuss colloquialisms in tragedy com-
pared with comedy, dialogue and documents.
Written sources are never pure representa-
tions or reflections of spoken language. Although
non-standard morphological forms, peculiar
words, and non-classical constructions became
acceptable in non-literary writing, some features
of such texts suggest by their rarity and odd
character that they continued to belong more to
spoken communication than to writing.
First and second-person forms reflect a
higher degree of interactivity (one of the register
dimensions noted above) that is indicative of
spoken communication. A historian switching
to a first-person comment from third-person
narrative or addressing the reader in the second
person would seem to change from a written to
spoken mode of communication. Note that sec-
ond-person references in + direct speech have
to change person when recast as indirect speech.
Similarly, second-person imperatives are incom-
patible with indirect speech.
542 WRITTEN VERSUS SPOKEN LANGUAGE
+ Diminutives not only provided alternatives
to less familiar patterns of inflection, but also
convey an affectionate or contemptuous tone
(cf. the register dimension of personal and emo-
tional involvement). Similarly, diminutive (cf.
Cribiore 2001:92) forms of names seem out of
place in writing, except as reflections of speech.
Loanwords (from Latin and substrate languages;
~+ Latin Loanwords in Greek) were more read-
ily accepted in those varieties less concerned
about classical purity (many such borrowings
concern everyday items and commodities). Atti-
cistic lexicographers spurned even Greek words
considered beneath the dignity of classicizing
language (e.g. Phryn. 402 Fischer).
Speech is sometimes said to involve shorter,
co-ordinated sentences, more parataxis than
+ subordination, ellipsis, and more anacolutha
(Dover 1987:26-28). However, some speakers
could create intricately structured sentences ex
tempore (or, at least, could attempt to, creat-
ing anacolutha) and some representations of
uneducated speech contain long and involved
sentences (e.g. Acts 10.34-43).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J. N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language.
Cambridge.
Browning, Robert. 1983. Medieval and modern Greek. Second
Edition. Cambridge,
Bubenik, Vit. 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a socio-
linguistic area. Amsterdam - Philadelphia.
Bülow-Jacobsen, Adam. 1978, “Family letter", ZPE 2g:253-258.
Clackson, James. 2012. “Language maintenance and lan-
guage shift in the Mediterranean world during the Roman
empire”. In: Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman worlds,
eds. Alex Mullen and Patrick James, 36-57. Cambridge.
Coles, Revel. 1966. Reports of proceedings in the papyri. Papy-
rologica Bruxellensia IV. Brussels.
Collard, Christopher. 2005. “Colloquial language in trag-
edy: a supplement to the work of P. T. Stevens”, CQ
55.2:350-386.
Cribiore, Raffaella. 2001. Gymnastics of the mind: Greek edu-
cation in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton.
Dover, Kenneth. 1987. “The colloquial stratum in classical
Attic prose”, In: Greek and the Greeks: collected papers, ed.
Kenneth Dover, 16-30. Oxford.
Gavrilov, A. K. 1997. “Techniques of reading in classical
antiquity’, CQ 47.u56-73.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: a history of the language and
its speakers. Second Edition. Chichester.
Knox, Bernard. 1968. “Silent reading in antiquity”, GRBS
9:421-435.
Luiselli, R. 2010, “Authorial revision of linguistic style in
Greek papyrus letters and petitions (AD i-iv)", In: The
language of the Papyri, eds. T. V. Evans and D. D. Obbink,
71-96. Oxford.
Parsons, PeterJ. 1980-1981. "Background: the papyrus letter”,
Didacticu Classica Gandensia 20-21:3-19.
Peppard, Michael. 2008. “A letter between two women, with
a courier about to depart”, ZPE 167162 -166,
Stevens, P. ‘I. 1976. Colloguial expressions in Euripides,
Hermes Einzelschriften, 38. Wiesbaden.
Thumb, Albert and Anton Scherer. ı959. Handbuch der
griechischen Dialekte. Heidelberg.
Trapp, Michael. 2003. Greek and Latin letters: an anthalogy
with transtation. Cambridge.
Willi, Andreas. 2010, “Register variation", In: A companion
to ancient Greek language, ed. Egbert J. Bakker, 298-310.
Malden and Oxford.
Youtie, Herbert Chayyim. 1958. The textual criticism of docu-
mentary papyri: prolegomenra. BICS Suppl., 33. London,
PATRICK JAMES
Yodization
Yodization is any change resulting in a palatal
semivowel /j/, i.e. ‘yod’. In Greek, the phenom-
enon affects particularly /i/ and /e/ in + hiatus
and is best known as > synizesis: theds 'god' >
[t'eds] > Lac. sids [sjös]. The + semivowel /j/
may become a fricative through fortition: Anc.
Gk. iatrös [iastrés} ‘doctor’ > [ja:trös] > Mod. Gk.
yıarpdg [ja'tros], Anc. Gk. heorte [heorté:] ‘feast’
> [eorté:] > [jorti] > Mod. Gk. ytopty [jor'ti].
There is little evidence of yodization affecting
the consonants of Ancient Greek. In late docu-
ments the + spirantization and + palatalization
of intervocalic /g/ before a front vowel, e.g. dgios
‘holy (masc.)' [ayios] > [äjios], épkage ‘(s)he ate
(aor.)' [ephaye] > [éphaje] triggered the occa-
sional spelling <g> for the transitional anti-hiatic
[ j] after prevocalic /i(:)/ (> Glides): p.n. Higerön
= Hierön (Athens, ard c. BCE), arkhigereüs =
arkhiereus ‘chief-priest' (Egyptian papyrus, 3rd c.
BCE), higereön = hier&ön ‘priest (gen, pl.)' (Egyp-
tian papyrus, ist c. BCE). The spelling <éi> for
<gi> in Pamphylian gen. sg. Preifas and dat. sg,
Preiiai < “Pregija- = Att. Pergaia ‘of Perge (fem.)'
(4th c. BCE), probably attests to a pronuncia-
tion [prejia:} or [prejia:] of underlying /pregia:/.
Furthermore, Latin intervocalic /j/ in late papyri
and inscriptions is occasionally written <gi>:
Tragiands (also Traiands) for Lat. Traianus. The
above spellings betray a coalescence of [ j] and
[ j]. Pace Masson 1995:10-1, in Tragilios (Del-
phi, 4th c. BCE) for Trailios ‘of Trailus (masc.)’,
the unexpected <g> is due to folk-etymology
with irdgos ‘he-goat’ and not to yodization (the
alleged pronunciation [trajilios] is unlikely).
According to the prevalent opinion (see Wal-
lace 1983), in a small number of words the frica-
tive intervocalic [y] (< /g/) preceded by /i/ or /e/
became a palatal fricative [j], then [j] and was
eventually dropped: olios = oligos ‘little (masc.)'
(Athens, 4th c. BCE), Phidleia = Phigdleia 'Phi-
galea’ (Arcadia, Hell.), epiones = epigonés ‘descent
(gen. sg.)' (Egyptian papyrus, zrdc. BCE), Boeot.
iéga |jö:ga] = egöga ‘I’ (Aristoph. Ach. 898).
Allegediy the missing link occurs in + Pam-
phylian (Brixhe 1976:86-88). In early documents
<i> for <g> after /e/ occurs, whereas the <i> is
missing in later texts: p.n. gen. sg. Meiaklétus =
Megaklétos (4th c, BCE), p.n. gen. sg. Mealeitus or
Midleitous = Megdlétos (2nd c. BCE), p.n. gen. sg.
Preiwus < *Pregiwus < “Pregéwos (and c. BCE).
However, since a perseverative assimilation
[iyV] > [ijV] or [eyV] > [ejV] is unheard of in
Greek, the above explanation is suspect. The
question merits further research.
Yodization is also an obsolete term for + pala-
talization.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brixhe, Claude. 1976, Le dialecte grec de Pamphyile: docu-
ments et grammaire. Paris,
Masson, Olivier. 1995. “Quelques legendes monétaires
grecques”, SNR 74:5-11.
Wallace, Rudolf. 1983. “An illusory substratum influence in
Pamphylian”, Glotta 615-12.
ALCORAC ALONSO DENIZ
Zoonyms (Names of Mammals)
In the rich Greek zoological terminology two gen-
eral terms are used: zdion ‘living being, animal’,
from the verb 2öö ‘to live’ (*g¥jehs-), and ther
(I), Aeol. phér ‘wild animal' (*G*ueh;r-), perhaps
attested in Myc. ge-ra-jo /K*wéraios/, possibly
connected with the island Théra. The concrete
zoonyms can be classified according to both
zoological key terms (in bold) and etymology,
which reflects + Indo-European heritage, inter-
nal formation, cultural loans (Semitic, Egyptian,
Berber; + Greek and Semitic Languages; + Greek
and Egyptian), while a number of them are of
unknown (substratal?) origin. > Mycenaean par-
allels may also be quoted, including derivatives
(+ Derivational Morphology) and proper names
(> Personal Names).
Insectivora: ekhinos (Archil.) ‘hedgehog’,
cf. Myc. (PY+KN) male name e-ki-no /Ek*inos/
(*hegtino-: ékhis ‘viper’); khér ‘hedgehog’ (*gter-:
khoiros ‘piglet’); hürax (Nic. Alex.) ‘shrew’
(*sur-/*suor-); spdlax/aspatax (Aristot.)/sphdlax
(Paus.)/asphdlax (Babr.) ‘mole’ (*sphzel-?).
Lagomorpha: lagös (IL) ‘hare’ (*lago-Höuso-
‘flabby-eared’).
Rodentia: Adstér (Hdt.) ‘beaver’ (*khod-tor
'gnawer'); müs (Batr.) ‘mouse/rat' (“muH-s);
sminthos | smis ‘mouse’, Myc. (KN) theonym si-
mi-te-u /Smint"eus/ (Latvian smicens ‘shrew(?)’);
skiouros (Opp.) 'squirrel' (*s(K)ri-h,orso-
‘tailed-jumper(?)'}; Austrix (Hdt.) ‘porcupine’
(*ud-d*rig'- ‘high-haired(?)'); heleids (Aristot.)
‘dormouse’, ölios ‘squirrel/dormouse’ (*se/ol-(e)
é-o- ‘jumper(?)’).
Chiroptera: nukteris (Od.) ‘bat’ (nukteros
‘nightly’).
Viverridae-Mustelidae: galéé (Batr.) ‘wea-
sel/marten/polecat/foumart’ (*g/H-V-); énudris
(Hdt.) ‘otter’ (*h,en-udri- ‘in water’); meline
(Edict. Diocl.) ‘badger(?) (*mA,l-/*"mhyel-(?):
Lat. mélés); puktis ‘badger(?)' (puk(i)nds 'solid/
strong’); dktis ‘marten’: ktidee (IL) kunee ‘helmet
of marten skin’.
Felidae: aidlouros (Hdt.)/aflouros (Aristot.)
‘cat’ (*houiselo-h,orso- ‘weasel-tailed’); lünx
(H. Hom. + Eur.) ‘lynx’, cf. Myc. (PY) place-name
ru-ke-wo [Lunkewos/ (*lunk-/*luk(n)-); lé6n (IL)
‘lion’, ef. Myc. (PY) instr.pl. re-wo-pi /lewont-
pri/ (*leuHön ‘hunter or Sem. *lay'u-m ‘lion’);
lis/lis (H.) ‘lion’ (NWSem. *ayit- ‘lion’); pdrdalis
(I.) ‘leopard’ (NWSem. vb-r-d ‘spotted’ + *layit-
‘lion’); feépardos (Gal.) ‘leopard’ (leön+pardalis);
panthér (Hdt.) ‘panther’.
Ursidae: drktos (Od.) ‘bear (*h,rdko-);
knöpeüs/knoupeüs ‘bear’ (Mac. kunoüpes Hsch.).
Canidae; Addn (il.) ‘dog’, cf. Myc. (PY) dat.
pl. ku-si /kunsi/, but also (PY) ku-na-ke-ta-
i /kunageta(h)i/ (or /-ais/) ‘for the hunters’
(*kuudn); likos ‘wolf’, cf. Myc. (PY) male name
ru-ko {Lukos/ (“uk™o-/*ulk4o-}; thös/thöds (IL)
‘jackal’ (*d4ouHo- “choker’); skulax (Od.)/sküllos
(Hsch.)/külla (Hsch.) ‘young dog/puppy’ (Lith.
skalikas ‘hound'/kdlé ‘bitch’); alöpex (Archil.)/
alöpd (Alc.) ‘fox’ (*Aglop-); kfraphos (Hsch.), Lac.
kira (Hsch.) 'fox' (kirrds ‘red/yellow/brown'’).
Equidae: ginnos (Aristot.) ‘stunted mule’, ct.
Innos ‘id.’ (Schol. Ar.); hippos, Dor. ikkos (Tarentum,
Epidaurus) ‘horse’, Myc. (KN+PY) é-go /(h)ikk"öi/
(dat. sg.) (*A,Auo-); kabälles (Plut.+Hsch.) 'work-
horse’ (Khotanese kaba horse‘); kéllés (Od.)
‘riding-horse’ ( *kel-ét- ‘runner’ ); pélos (Il) ‘foal’, cf.
Myc. (KN) po-ro /pölö/ (nom.-acc. du.) (“polH-);
önos (Il), Myc. (KN) o-no /onoi/ ‘asses’ (nom.
 ZOONYMS (NAMES OF MAMMALS)
pl.) (*(H)o[s/no-: HLuw. tarkasna- ‘draught-
ass’); hérmionos (Il.) ‘mule’, cf. Myc. e-mi-jo-no-i
{(h)émionoi(h)i/ (dat. pl.) (*sémi-(H)o[s|no-
‘half-ass’); kelön (Archil.), Dor. kdllon 'stallion-
ass’ (*kehzl- ‘dark(?)'); Phoc. mukhlös (Hsch.)
‘stallion-ass’ (*mukslo-); killos (Poll.+Hsch.) ‘ass’
(killös ‘grey’: *keln/jo-).
Cervoidea: élaphos (H.) ‘deer’ (*h,elnb"v-),
cf. Myc. (PY) e-ra-pe-ja /elap*eja/; ellös (Od.)/
énelos (Hsch.) ‘fawn’ (*h,ef(e)no-); kemds (IL)
‘young deer (*kemh,- ‘hornless’); nebrös (IL)
‘fawn' (“neg#ro- ‘naked’?); zorkds (Hadt.) ‘gazelle’,
dorkds ‘roe’ (Eur.)/‘gazelle’ (Hdt.) (*ork-); pröx
(Od.) ‘roe deer’ (perknös 'spotted').
Caprinae: ai (ll) ‘goat’, Myc. (PY) az-2a
{*aigja/, (KN+PY) a;-ki-pa-ta /aigi-pa(s)tas/ ‘goat-
watcher, goatherd(?)' (*Azeig-); Lac. diza (Hsch.)
(*dig"iehz); Cret. karanö (Hsch.) ‘goat’ (*krh,-
es-n-); khimaira (Il) ‘goat’ (*gimrih,); ériphos
(A.) ‘kid’ (*hy,eri-b%0-); tragas (Od.) ‘he-goat’:
trögöltragein ‘gnaw’; ébros (Hsch.) ‘he-goat’.
Ovinae: dis (IL)/Arg. dwis ‘sheep’ (*Hzeui-),
cf. Myc. (PY) o-wi-de-ta-i /owi-de(r)ta(h)i?/ (dat.
pl.) ‘to/for the sheep-skinners(?)';arén (Il./Gortyn.)
waren ‘sheep’ ( *urh,-én-), cf. Myc. (MY) wo-ro-neja
/wronej( jJa/, (PY) we-re-ne-ja /wrénej(j)a/, (PY)
male name wa-no-jo [Warnoj(j)o/; mélon (Hom.)
‘sheep, goat’ ( *mehylo-); amnds ‘lamb' (*hzeg*no-);
kriés (Od.) ‘ram’ (*kriHuo- “curved(?)'); pröbaton
‘sheep’ (Ar.)/‘cattle’ (Hdt.) (cf. probafnei ‘(it) walks
forward’).
Suidae: Ais (J1,)/sis (Hom.) 'swine/sow/baar’
(*suH-s), cf. Myc. (PY) su-go-ta /sug’otai/ (dat.
sg.) ‘to/for the swineherd'; Lac. sika (Hsch.)
‘swine/sow/boar (*suHkeh,); slots (Hsch.)
‘swine/sow/boar’ (Lith. kiaüle); khoiros (Od.)
‘piglet’, cf. Myc. (TH) ko-ro [kboiröi/ (dat. sg.)
(*grorfo-); käpros (Jt.) ‘(wild) boar’ (*khp-re-
“swallower'); délphax (Hippon.+Hdt.) ‘pig’ (del-
phüs ‘womb’: “g¥elb*-); sialos (IL) ‘fat hag’, cf.
Myc. (PY) si-a3-ro /sihalons/ (acc. pl.).
Bovinae: boils ‘cow/bull/ox’, pl. ‘cattle’, cf. Myc.
(PY) go-o /g’ons/ (acc. pl.) (*g*ehzu-); taüros (Il.)
‘bull’, cf. Myc. (KN) male name ta-u-ro /Tauros/
(“taura- < Sem. “tawru); pörtis (/L)/péris (Od.)
545
‘calf’, cf. Myc. po-ti-pi-ge /portiphi-ke/ (instr. pl.)
(*por(t)i-); ddmalis ‘heifer’ (*dımhzeli- 'tamed');
möskhos (Hdt.) ‘calf’ ( *mosg*o-).
Camelidae: kamelos (Hdt.) ‘camel’ (NWSem.
*gamalu).
Proboscidea: eléphas ‘elephant’ (Hdt.)/‘ivory'
(Il), cf. Myc. (KN+PY) er-e-pa(-t-) /elep*at/ ‘ivory’
(Egypt. jhht/*jzbht /alabhat/ 'tusk’).
Simiformes: pithékos (Archil.), Dor. pithäkos
(Aristoph.) ‘ape’, cf. Myc. (PY) male name
pi-ta-ke-u /Pittäkeus/, pithön (Babr.+Pind.) ‘little
ape’ (Berb. *e-biddaw); kébos (Aristot.) ‘long-
tailed monkey'/képos (Agatharch.), Dor. kdpos
(Pind,) (NWSem. *gap- or Egypt. g(y)/f/gajiy/).
Pinnipedia: delphis (ll) ‘dolphin’ (deiphüs
‘womb’: *g#elb*-): kétos 'sea monster’ (/1.)/‘whale’
(Aristot.) (k&tos Hsch. 'crevice/abyss(?)'); phal-
laina | phailé 'whale' (*sperm-whale(?)': phallds
‘penis'); phöke (Od.) ‘seal’, phökaina (Aristot.)
‘dolphin-like sea-animal', phökos (Hsch.) ‘dol-
phin-like sea-monster’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aura Jorro, Francisco. 1985-1993. Dieciomario micénico, vols.
I-Il. Madrid.
Bartonék, Antonin. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Beekes, Robert (and Lucien van Beek). 2010. Etymolngical
dictionary of Greek, vols. I-Il. Leiden — Boston.
BlaZek, Vaclav. aoa. “Elephant' in Indo-European lan-
guages”. In: Proceedings of the Twefth Annual UCLA Indo-
European Conference (Los Angeles, May 2000), ed. by
M. E. Huld et al., 147-167. Washington,
——. 2005. “Hic erant leones. Indo-European “lion” et alii’,
JIES 33.1-2:63-101
Chadwick, John. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek,
Cambridge.
Frisk, Hjalmar. 1960-1972. Griechisches etymologisches
Wörterbuch, vols. I-IIl. Heidelberg.
Liddell, Henry G. and Robert Scott. 1969. A Greek-English
lexicon. Oxford.
Mallory, J. P. and Douglas Q. Adams, 1997. Encyclopedia of
Indo-European culture. London - Chicago.
Militarev, A, and L. Kogan. 2005. Semitic etymological dic-
tionary, vol. Il: Animal names. Münster.
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indagermanisches etymologisches
Wörterbuch, vols. 1-[1, Bern — Munich.
Wodtko, Dagmar $., Britta §. Irslinger and Carolin Schneider.
2008. Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg.
VACLAV BLAZEK
 Index

Index terms are displayed bold, Proper names begin with a capital letter. Index terms that coincide with entry titles are
marked with an asterisk and begin with a capital letter (Adpositional Phrase").
Foreign and transliterated terms, titles of works, and EAGLL authors are italicized (Wellentheorie; abjad; Corpus
Hippocraticum; Pagani, Lara).
The numbers refer to volume and page where the index term appears, e.g, 3.224 = vol. 3, page 224. NB: the page number
gives the frst occurrence of the index term in the article, which is not necessarily the most significant mention of the term
in the article.

Aarts, Bas Subordination, 3.335 Acanthos Macedonian, 2,392

abbd Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Acarnania Accommodation, 1.13; Christian Greek
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240 Vocabulary, 1.285; Doric, 1.916; Formation of Doric
abbé d’Aubignac Formulaic Language, 1.608 Koines, The, 1.603; Northwest Greek, 2.518
Abbott, Barbara Information Structure and Greek, 2.239 Acamanian Doric, 1515; Northwest Greek, 2,523
abbreviations Epigraphy, 1.567 Acarnanians Macedonian, 2.393
Ahdera lonic, 2.260; Literary Prose, 2,373 accent Accentuation, 1.7; Root Structure (and Ablaut),
abduction Analogy, 1.104 3.251
abjad Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90 accent, dynamic Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
ablative Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.39; Greek, 1.223
Epic Diction, 1.550; Instrumental, 2,244: Morphological Accentuation® 1.7
Change, 2.465 acceptability Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389
Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation)* 1.1; Indo-European accidentia Word Classes (mer tod lögou), Ancient
Linguistic Background, 2.212; Perfect, Formation of, 3.51 Theories of, 3.520
Schwebeablaut, 3.261: Thematic and Athematic Verbs, Accius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247
3.396; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477: Accommodation* 112; Dialectal Convergence, 1.454
Vocative, 3.492 accompaniment Adverbial Constituents, 1.53
Abney, Steven P. Determiners, 1.443 accomplishment Adjuncts, 1.28: Complementation,
Absalom, Matthew Phonological Phrase, 3.89 2.337; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.333
absolute chronology Relative Chronology, 3.222 Accusative* 113; Gerund (Verbal N oun), 2.10
absolute construction Compound Tenses (Hellenistic accusative absolute Participle, 3.19
Greek), 1.348; Genitive Absolute, 2.7; Greek Laanwords accusative language Functional Grammar and Greek,
in Slavic, 2.123; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 1.617; Transitivity, 3.425
2,224 accusative ofcontent Direct Object, 1.502
absolute infinitive Infinitives (Syntax), 2.234 accusative of direction Accusative, 1.15
absolute nominative Linguistic Variation in Classical accusative ofextent Space (Cases), 3.314; Transitivity,
Attic, 2.365 3.426
absolute tense Consecutio Temporum et Modorum, accusative ofreference Accusative, 1.17
1.367; Tense/Aspect, 3.383 accusative of respect Accusative, 1.14
Abstract Nouns* 1.4; Action Nouns, 1.23; Agency and accusative of result Direct Object, 1502
Causation, 1.67; Assibilation, 1.185; Indo-European accusative of specification Accusative, 1.14
Linguistic Background, 2.223; Tragedy, Diction of, accusative, cognate Accusative, 1.14; Transitivity, 9.426
(3.419; Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding), accusative, double Accusative, 1.15
3.524 accusative, Greek Accusative, 1.14
Abii Bigr Mattä Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1150 accusativus cum infinitive Argument Clause, 1.16;
Abydos Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94; Cypriot Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229; Predicative Constituents,
Syllabary, 1.404 3.132; Subordination, 3.338; Verbal Adjectives, 3.472
Acacius of Melitene Translation of Greek Texts in Late acephaly Lyric Meter, 2.386
Antiquity, 3.440 Achaea Achaean, 1.19; Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Dialects,
Academy of Athens Archaisms in Modern Dialects, Classification of, 1.464
L159 Achaea Phthiotis Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Doric, 1.516
Academy tablets Language and Variation in Greece, Achaean® 1.19; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
2.2.90 Dialectology, 1.118; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Doric,
548 INDEX

1.516; Koine, Origins of, 2.278; Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Thessalian, 3.403; Vowel Changes, 3.503 1.483; Lexicography, History of, 2.351; Metrics (metron),
Achaean League Achaean, 1.19; Ancient Greek Ancient Theories of, 2.434; Proverbs, 3.189
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.122; Formation of administrative language Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Doric Koines, The, 1604 and Dialectology, 1.120
Achaean Pellene Macedonian, 2.392 adnominal possession Possession, 3.121
Achaean Theory Epic Diction, 1.551 adonean Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500
Achaeans = Indo-European Historical Background, 2.210; Adoption of the lonic Alphabet in Attica® 1.3u
Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133 adposition Prepositives, 3.145; Space (Cases), 3.311
achievement Complementation, 1.337; Lexical Aspect Adpositional Phrase’ 1.33
(Aktionsart), 2.333 Adpositions (Prepositions)* 140
Achilles Asianism, 1.180; Epic Diction. 1.55) Adrados, Francisco R. Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Achilles Tatius Greek Novel, Translation, 2.131 and Dialectology, 1.18; Comparative Methud, 1.330;
Ackrill, John L. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.129 Comparison, 1.333; Construction Grammar and Greek,
Acosta-Hughes, Benjamin Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 1.377; Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek,
2.156 1.446; Dialects, Classification of, 1.466: Greek Lexicon,
Acrae Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.605; Sicily, Structure and Origin of, 2.10; Proto-Greek and Common
Dialects in, 3.290 Greek, 3.176; Subordination, 3.336
Acragas Doric. 1.516 adstrate Language Change, 2.297
Acraiphia Boeotian, 1.245 adverbial clause Subordination, 3.335
acrophony Alphabet, The Origin ofthe Greek, 1.94 adverbial compound Word Formation (Derivation,
acrostatic ‘Narten’ Presents, 2.480 Compounding), 3.527
acrostic Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157 Adverbial Constituents” 1.49
act ofnaming Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420 adverbial particle Disjuncts, 1513
Action Nouns* 1.22; Agency and Causation, 1.67; adverbials Adjunets, 1.28; Adverbial Canstituents, 1.49
Derivational Marphology, 1.439 Adverbs* 134; Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.57
Actium Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.155; Papyrology, Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of)" 157
35 adverbs, conjunctional Coordination (includes
Activa Tantum® 123 Asyndeton), 1.388
activation Information Structure and Greek, 2.240 adverbs, correlative Pronominal System, 3.157
Active* 1.24; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290; adversative conjunction Conjunctions (Non-
Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21 Subordinating), 1.363
active typology Impersonal Verbs, 2.198 adversative coordination Coordination (includes
activities Complementation, 1.337; Lexical Aspect Asyndeton), 1.390
(Aktionsart), 2.333 Aegae Macedonian, 2.393
actualization Noun Phrase, 2.531 Aegean Greek and Etruscan, 2.49; Indo-European
Adamantius Translation of Greek Texts in Late Historical Background, 2.210; Phaistos Disc, 3.62:
Antiquity, 3.437 Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133; Toponyms, 3.414
Adamietz, Joachim Asianism, 1.180; Atticism, 1.197 Aegean Islands Attic, 1.187; Indo-European Historical
Adams, DouglasQ. Poetic Language, 3.104 Background, 2.209; Transition from the Local Alphabets
Adams, George Drama Translation, 1.528 to the Ionic Script, 3.422
Adams, James N. Ancient Bidialectalisnı and Aegean Sea Case Syncretism (Morphological Aspects of),
Bilingualism, 1.14; Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.147; 1.273; Doric, 1,516; Lemnian, 2.327; Rhodian, 3.242
Language Policies, 2.911; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317; Latin Aegina Greek and Etruscan, 2.51; Local Scripts, 2.382
Loanwards in Greek, 2.320; Roman Translation of Greek Aelian Attitudes to Language, 1.207
Texts, 3.245: Wackernagel’s Law I, 3.511; Written versus Aelianus Atticism, 1.200
Spoken Language, 3.541 Aelius Aphthonius Translation of Greek Texts in Late
adaptation Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, Antiquity, 3.436
1.u6; Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.593; Koine, Aelius Aristides Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.198; Attitudes
Origins of, 2.277: Postcolonial Translation: Theory and to Language, 1.206; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317
Practice, 3.122 Aelius Dionysius Alphabetical Dictionaries; From
Addison, John Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dictionaries of
addition Adverbia] Constituents, 1.53 Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482;
Addressee* 1.25; Dative, 1.414; Vocative, 3.491 Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Thearles
Ademollo, Francesca Ancient Philosophers on of, 2.364
Language, 1.126 Aelius Donatus Aischrology, 1.77
Adiego Lajara, Ignacio J. Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Aelius Herodianus Accentuation, 1.8; Declension/
Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28, Greek and Carian, Conjugation (Afésis), Ancient Theories of, 1.418; Greek in
2.41: Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.95; Koine, Features of, 2.273;
adjective Adjectives (Morphological Aspects of), 1.25; Linguistic Correctness (hellenismos), Ancient Theories
Caland System and Greek, 1.257 of, 2.361; Orthography (urthagraphia), Ancient Theories
Adjectives (Morphological Aspects of)* 1.25 of, 2.572
adjained relative clauses Relative Clauses, 3,226 Aelius Serenus Dictionaries of Onomastics: From
Adjuncts® 128; Adverbial Constituents, 1.49; Disjuncts, Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484
1.512: Participle, 1.19; Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60 Aelius Theon Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Adler, Ada Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity Antiquity, 3.438
to the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Dictionaries of Aeneas Greek and Etruscan, 2.49
 INDEX 549

Aeneas Tacticus Literary Prose, 2.377; Secret Language/ affix Auxiliaries, 1.218; Classical Greek Morphology
Codes/Magical Language, 3.273 (Survey), 1.286
Aenis Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1,603 affıxation Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.184
Aeolians Indo-European Historical Background, 2.210 affixes, evaluative Dirminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax
Aeolic base Metron, 2.437; Responsion, 3.235 and Morphology), 1.494
Aeolic Dialects* 1.61; Adpositional Phrase, 1.38; Anclent affixoids Compounding/Derivation/Construction
Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.116; Ancient Greek Morphology, 1.351
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.18; Apocope, affricate Cretan, 1,397
1.142; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.288; affrication Attic, 1.189; Palatalizations, 3.6; Synizesis,
Comparative Method, 1.329; Compensatory Lengthening, 3.352
1.334; Dialectology (didiektos), Ancient Theories of, Afghanistan Greek and Indian Languages, 2.59
1.459; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Africa Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.146; Translation in
Byzantine Period, 1.480; Formation of Doric Koines, The, Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.429
1.603; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Nominal System (Gender, Afrikaans Homer, Translation, 2.177
Number, Case), 2.502; Patronymics, 3.45; Phonology Agamemnon Formulas, 1.613
(Survey), 3.90; Questions, 3.206; Relative Clauses, 3.225; Agapenor Arcado-Cypriat, 1155
Syllabic Consonants, 3.344; Vowel Changes, 3.503 Agatharchides of Cnidos Atticism, 1.197
Aeolic doubling (diplasiasmds Aiolikds) Thessalian, Agathias Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
3-403 the Byzantine Period, 1.576; Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.915
Aeolic Kyme Pamphylian, 3.8 Agathias Theophylactus Simocatta Lexicography,
Aeolic Phase Theory Epic Diction, 1.551 History of, 2.351
Aeolic, East Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389 Agathon Literary Prose, 2.378
Aeolicism Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.60; Epic Agbayani, Brian Clitic Group, 1.297; Government Binding
Diction, 1549; Patronymics, 3.45; Thessalian, 3.404 and Greek, 2.24; Prosodic Word, 3.163; Wackernagel's
Aeolis Epic Diction, 1551; [onic, 2.263; Lesbian (and Asian Law 1, 3.509: Word Order, 3.538
Aeolic), 2.328; Local Scripts, 2.381 agency Agency and Causation, 1.65
Aeolodoric theory Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.158 agent Active, 1.24; Agency and Causation, 1.65;
Aeolus Aeolic Dialects, 1,63; Dialects, Classification of, Complementation, 1,336; Dative, 1.415; Mood and
1.462 Modality, 2.452; Non-Canonical Subjects, 2.514; Subject,
Aerts, Willem J. Auxiliaries, 1.218; Compound Tenses 3.331; Transitivity, 3.423
(Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Tense/Aspect, 3.388 agent dative Verbal Adjectives, 3.472
Aeschines Aischrology, 1.77; Attitudes to Language, 1.206; Agent Nouns* 1,72; Cretan, 1.397; Denominal Verbs, 1.434;
History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.163; Derivational Morphology, 1.439; Epic Diction, 1.548
Legal Terminology, 2.325; Literary Prose, 2.378; Roman agent nouns, classificatory Word Formation (Derivation,
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248; Teaching of Ancient Compounding), 3.525
Greek in Italy, 3.365 agentivity Possession, 3,115; Vocative, 3.492
Aeschines Socraticus Atticism, 1.200 Agios Vassilios Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.471
Aeschylus Agent Nouns, 1.73: Ancient Philosophers un Agora Graffiti, 2.25
Language, 1.127; Atticism, 1.200; Comedy, Dietion of, 1.319; Agustiniani, Luciano Greek and Etruscan, 2.50; Greek
Deixis (including ist and znd Person), 1.427; Dependency and Lydian, 2.70; Greek Lexicon in Western Languages,
Grammar and Greek, 1.436; Drama Translation, 1.524; 2.106
Dramatic Meter, 1.530; Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.12; Agrafa Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160
Infinitives (Syntax), 2.235; Intonational Phrase, 2.255; Agreement” 1.73; Indo-European Linguistic Background,
Jewish Greek, 2.269; Language Change, 2.295; Language 2,219; Verbal Adjectives, 3.471
Play and Translation, 2.308; Linguistic Variation in agreement attraction Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.209
Classical Attic, 2.366; Metrics, 2.423; Onomatopoeia, Agricola History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
2.552; Orality and Literacy, 2.569; Particles (Formal Germany, 2.163
Features), 3.27; Poetic Language, 3.110; Prosodic Word, Agrigentum Formation of Dorie Koines, The. 1.605; Greek
3.164; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.329; Tragedy, in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94; Rhodian, 3.242; Sicily,
Dictian of, 3.417; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Dialects in, 3.290
Concepts and Models, 3.432 Ahhiyawa Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134
Aesop History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, Ahl, Frederick Homer, Translation, 2.180
2.168; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts Ahlwardt, Christian W. Verse, 3.490
and Models, 3.431 Ahrens, Heinrich L. Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Ancient Greek
aesthetic syntax Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.118; Choral Poetry,
Ancient Linguistics, 3.74 Diction of, 1.278; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Doric,
Aetolia Achaean, 120; Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Doric, 1.516; 1,518; Doric Accentuation, 1,523: Lesbian Accentuation,
Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603; Northwest Greek, 2.332
2,518; Toponyms, 3.414 Ai Khanum Papyrology, 3.15
Aetolian Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Aigai Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329
Dialectology, 1.122; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Aigeira Achaean, 1.20
Daric, 1.515; Northwest Greek, 2.520; Semivowels, 3.280 Ai-Khanüm Greek and lranian, 2,63
Aetolian League Achaean, 1.20, Formation of Doric Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. Apposition, 1144; Argument
Koines, The, 1.603; Northwest Greek, 2.518 Clause, 1.176
Aetolians Elean (and Olympia), 1.540; Macedonian, 2.293 Ainu Determiners, 1.444
affectedness Direct Object, 1.501; Genitive, 2.5; Voice, Aischrology* 1.76
3.495 Aitchison, JeanM. Patrounymics, 3.45; Voicing, 3.502
550 INDEX

uitiatike Accusative, 1.13 From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Arabic
Ajax Greek and Etruscan, 2.51 Tradition, Translation, 1.147; Atticism, 1.198; Bilingualism
Akesandros Local Scripts, 2.383 in Hellenistic Egypt, 1234; Bilingualism, Diglossia
Akhvakh Space (Cases), 3.30 and Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238;
Akkadian Calques, 1.261; Color Terms, 1.316; Comparative Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries, 1.357;
Methad, 1.329; Language Contact, 2.301; Phytonyms Epigram, Diction of, 1.562; Etymulogical Dictionaries:
(Names of Trees), 3.99; Semitic Loanwords in Greek, From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Greek
3.279 and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.47; Greek and Hebrew,
Aksum Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 2.52; Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129; Greek Writing
Aksumite inscriptions Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 Systems, 2.145; Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.147; Jewish
Akte peninsula Saronic, 3.258 Greek, 2.268; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Language Contact,
Aktionsart Aspect (and Tense), 1.182; Functional 2.302; Lexicography, History of, 2.348; Linguistic
Grammar and Greek, 1.617; Imperative, 2.193; Correctness (hellänismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.361;
Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.201; Lexical Aspect Papyri, Language of, 3.12; Papyrology, 3.15; Philological-
(Aktionsart), 2.392; Tense/Aspect, 3.384 Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.67;
ukurologia Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Septuagint, 3,287; Style (lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327;
Ancient Linguistics, 3.72 Verse, 3.496
Akylos Greek Novel, Translation, 2.134 Alexandrian grammarians Analogy, 1.103; Aorist
AlMina Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98; Local (adristos), Ancient Theories of, 1138; Definiteness/
Scripts, 2.380 Definite Article, 1.421; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2,389;
Alabanda Asianism, 1.180 Papyri, Language of, 3.14; Word Classes (méré toil lagou),
Aland, Kurt Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.478 Ancient Theories of, 1.516
Albanian Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.40; Balkan Alexarchos Language Policies, 2.31
Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.229; Dual, 1.533: Alexis Aischrology, 1.80
Greek and Illyrian, 2.56; Indo-European Historical al-Färäbi Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1150
Background, 2.206; Indo-European Linguistic al-Gähiz Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
Background, 2.212; Language Contact, 2.299; Numerals, Alicante Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91
2.542; Participles (Morphological Aspects of}, 3.23; alienable possession Possession, 3.120
Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.139 Aliphera Arcadian, 1.151; Elean (and Olympia), 2.536
Alcaeus Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Allegory (allegoria), al-Kindi Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1148
Ancient Theories of, 1.88; Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.279; Allan, Keith Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.584
Deixis (including ist and and Person), 1.426; Dialects, Allan, Rutger J. Aorist, 1137; Apposition, 1.146; Causative
Classification of, 1.462; Epic Diction, 1.556; Greek Lyric Formation, 1.275; Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.310;
Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), Functional Grammar and Greek, 1.617; Grounding of
2,229; Lesbian Accentuation, 2.332; Lyric Meter, 2.387; Information, 2.149; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.338;
Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389; Metrics, 2,423; Metron, Media Tantum, 2.403; Middle, 2.441; Polysemy, 3.114; Text
2.497; Prosody, 3.171; Responsion, 3.235; Song and Linguistics and Greek, 3.390; Topic, 3.412; Typology of
Recitation, 3.294; Verse, 3.484 Greek, 3.451; Verbal Valency, 3.488
Alcaeus of Messene = Epigrain, Diction of, 1.563 allegoresis Etymology (etumulogla), Ancient Theories
alchemy Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity of, 1.581
and Byzantine Period, 1.485 allegory Literary Prose, 2.375
Aleman Adpositional Phrase, 1.38; Apocupe, 1.143; Allegory (allégoria), Ancient Theories of” 1.86
Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.169; Choral Poetry, Allen, Hamilton F. Verbal Adjectives, 3.475
Diction of, 1.278; Deixis (including ist and and Person), Allen, James Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.127
1.427; Diatects, Classification of, 1.462; Doric, 1.521; Doric Allen, James T, Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Accentuation, 1523; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, Dictionaries, 1.357
2.125; Laconian, Messenian, 2.287 Allen, W. Sidney Accentuation, 1.8; Attic, 1.189; Bridges,
alemanean Lyric Meter, 2.387 1.247; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.292; Clitic
Aldington, Richard Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127 Group, 1.298; Consonant Changes, 1372; Consonants,
Aldrete, John D. Dissimilation, 1.514 1.374: Epic Meter, 1.558: Erasmian Pronunciation, 1.568;
Manutius, Aldus Erasmian Pronunciation, 1.569; Hiatus, 2.161; Intonational Phrase, 2.254; Koine, Features
Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365 of, 2.273; Kuine, Origins uf, 2.281; Length, 2.328; Merger,
Alexander (the Great) Ancient Bidialectalism and 2.419; Metrics, 2.425; Metron, 2.439; Minima, 2.442;
Bilingualism, 1.115; Asianism, 1.178; Atticism, 1.196; Moras, 2.460; Optimality and Greck, 2.557; Phonetics,
Auxiliaries, 1.219; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.406; Figures 3.79; Phonology (Survey), 3.94; Pitch, 3.100; Psilosis, 4.192;
(skhömate), Ancient Theories of, 1.591: Hellenistic Poetry, Stress, 3.319; Syllable Weight, 3.347: Syllables, 3.349;
Diction of, 2,155; Kaine, Origins of, 2.277: Macedonian, Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.362; Vendryes’ Law, 3.458:
2.392; Medieval Translation of Greek Texts, 2.499; Vowel Changes, 3.505; Vowels, 3.506; Wackernagel’s
Papyrology, 3.15; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328; Law I, 3.509
Tropes (trdpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.444 alliteration Language Play and Translation, 2.306;
Alexander of Aetolia Epigram, Diction of, 1.563 Literary Prose, 2.373; Poetic Language, 3.107
Alexander of Aphrodisias Arabic Tradition, Translation, allomorphy Case Syncretism (Morphological Aspects
1.149; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 of), 1271; Inda-Eurnpean Linguistic Background, 2.220;
Alexander Polyhistor Greek and Indian Languages, 2.61 Language Change, 2.294; Movable s, 2.470; Optimality
Alexandria Accentuation, 1.7; Allegory (alfégaria), and Greek, 2.558; Rhotacism, 3.244; Root Structure (and
Ancient Theories of, 1.88; Alphabetical Dictionaries: Ablaut), 3.251; Suppletion, 3.342
 INDEX sol

allophone Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.96; Amipsias Aischrology, 1.79
Phonological Change, 3.85 Ammaeus Atticism, 1.197
allusion Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.155 Ammann, Hermann Verbal Adjectives, 3.471
Allwood, Jens Conditionals, 1359 Ammonius Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.131;
al-Mahdi Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147 Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.270; Lexicography,
al-Ma’mün Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148 History of, 2.349; Medieval Translation of Greek Texts,
Al-Mina Language Contact, 2.301 2.409; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Almogäver, Joan Bosca i Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Perind, 3.354; Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.362
Translation, 3.127 Amnisos Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.471
Almopia Macedonian, 2.392 Amorgos Adoption of the lontc alphabet in Attica, 130;
al-Mu‘tasim Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148 Attic, 1.189; lonic, 2.261; Local Scripts, 2.383; Phonology
Aloni, Antonio Elegy, Diction of, 1.543 (Survey), 3.93
Alonso Deniz, Alcorac Achaean, 1.21; Laconian, Amory Parry, Anne Formulas, 1615
Messenian, 2.287 Ampelus Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315
Alpers, Klaus Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Amphiareion _lonic, 2.261
Antiquity to the Byzantine Peried, 1.100; Dictionaries amphikinetic ‘Narten’ Presents, 2.48u
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, ampliative inferences Analogy, 1.104
1.480; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to Ampurias Local Scripts, 2.383
the Byzantine Period, 1.483; Dictionaries of Scientific ämredita compounds Reduplication, 3.212
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Amyclai Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157
Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the anaclasis Lyric Meter, 2.386; Metron, 2.438; Responsion,
Byzantine Periad, 1.574; Lexicography, History of, 2.352: 3.235
Onomastica: from Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, anacoluthon Genitive Absolute, 2.9; Hellenistic Literary
2.550; Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, Prose, 2.153; Literary Prose, 2.376; Non-Canonical
2.573 Subjects, 2.517; Topic, 3.412
alpha impurum Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, Anacreon Allegory (allögoria), Ancient Theories of,
2,367 1.88; Declension/Conjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories
alpha privativum Neyation (Morphology), 2.491; Word of, 1.417; Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Dictionaries
Formation (paragöge/sinthesis), Ancient Theories of, of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
3.530 1.480; Epigram, Diction of, 1.560; Greek Lyric Poetry,
alpha purum Tragedy, Diction of, 3.418 Translation, 2.125; Literary Prose, 2.372; Lyric Meter,
alphabet, dark blue Local Scripts, 2.382 2.387; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389; Poetic Language,
Alphabet, Descendants of* 1.89 3.107; Song and Recitation, 3,294; Verse, 3.489
alphabet, green Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98; Anacreontic Metron, 2.438
Local Scripts, 2.382 anacrusis Intonational Phrase, 2.254
Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek* 1.94 anadiplosis Literary Prose, 2.373
Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Anagnostopoulou, Elena Beneficiary, 1.231; Indirect
Byzantine Period* Liou Object, 2.205
alphabets, dark blue Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, Anagnostopulos, Georgios P. Tsakonian, 3.446
1.98 anagram Language Play and ‘Translation, 2.306; Poetic
alpha-thematic aorist stems ‘Thematic and Athematic Language, 3.106; Poetic Language, 3.107
Verbs, 3.394 analogical change Language Change, 2.294
Alpheios Elean (and Olympia). 1.535 analogical creation Language Change, 2.294
al-Qifti Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148 analogical extension Language Change, 2.294
Alston, Richard Translation in Non-Western Traditions: analogy Dual, 1.533; Morphological Change, 2.464;
Concepts and Models, 3.427 Orthography (orthographia). Ancient Theories of,
alternative questions Questions, 3.200 2.573; Pronominal System, 3.150; Rhetarical Tradition in
Amafınius Roman ‘Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248 Ancient Linguistics, 9.238
amalgamation Morphological Change, 2.466 Analogy* 1.103
Amathous Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405; Eteocypriot. 1.571: analogy vs. anomaly Analogy, 1.109; Philological-
Greek Writing Systems, 2.142 Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.72
Ambracia Monophthongization, 2.449 analogy,dynamic Analogy, 1.104
Ambrose ‘Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity. analogy, false Neogrammarians, 2.492
3.436 analytic forms Morphological Change, 2.467
Ambrosini, Riccardo Verbal Adjectives, 3.474 analytic languages Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence
Ameka, Felix Interjections, 2.250 in Greek, 1.224
amelioration Semantic Change, 3.277 Analytic movement Formulaic Language, 1.608
Amenemhat III Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94 Ananius lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.187
Amenta, Luisa Auxiliaries, 1.219 anapest Metron, 2.437
Amerias of Macedonia Dictionaries of Dialects: From Anaphe Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Insular
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Dictionaries of Durle, 2.245; lonic, 2.261; Local Scripts, 2.383
Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, anaphora Anaphoric Processes, 1.107; Deixis (including
1,487; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine ist and znd Person), 1.422; Deixis in Linguistics antl
Period, 3.353 Poetics, 1.429; Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1,510:
Amharic Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 Epanalepsis, 1.546; Government Binding and Greek, 2.23;
Amigues, Suzanne Argument Clause, 1.175; Purpose Literary Prose, 2.373; Reflexives, 3.215
Clauses, 3.195 anaphora, explicit indirect. Anaphoric Processes, 1.111
552 INDEX
anaphoric Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290; Andreas Lopadiotes Lexicography, History of, 2.351
Postpositives, 3.129 Andreas son ofChrysarus Dictionaries of Scientific
Anaphoric Processes” 1.107 Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487
anaphoric resolution Anaphoric Processes, 1.107 Andreiomenou, Angeliki Local Scripts, 2.382
Anaptyxis® 1.113; Archaisms In Modern Dialects, 1.165 Andreou, Stelios Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28
Anastasiades-Symeonides, A. Concordances/Indices/ Andriotis, Nikalaos Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.159;
Reverse Dictionaries, 1.358 Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.225;
Anastasius Sinaites Lexicography, History of, 2.351 Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.110
anastrophe Adpositional Phrase, 1.33; Adpositions Andriscos = Atticism, 1.199
(Prepositions), 1.43; Clitics, 1301; Indo-European Andromenides Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156
Linguistic Background, 2.223; Prepositions in Homer, Andronicus Callistus Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
3.143; Prepositives, 3.145; Tragedy, Diction of, 3.418; Word 3.365
Order, 3.533 Andronicus II Palaeologus Dictionaries of Dialects:
Anatolia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Alphabet, Fram Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482
The Origin of the Greek, 1.98; Code-Switching, 1308; Andros lonic, 2.261; Macedonian, 2.392
Etymological Dictionaries: Theary of Greek Etymology, Androutsopoulou, Antonia Hyperbaton, 2.185
1.578; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27; lambic ANEOYNOC Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Poetry, Diction of, 2.189; Indo-European Historical ANEVND Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Background, 2.208; Linear A, 2.353; Oaths, Curses, animacy Agency and Causation, 1.67; Anaphoric
2.547; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.124; Pre-Greek Substrate, Processes, 1.10; Dative, 1.416; Vocative, 3.492
3.139; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.177: Scribes, Animacy Hierarchy Plural/Pluralia Tantum, 3.102
Mycenaean, 3.265 ani{roots Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.216
Anatollan Etymaological Dictionaries: From the ankhisteta Kinship Terms, 2.271
Renaissance to the zoth Century, 1.573; Formation of Anna Komnene = Atticism, 1.201; Byzantine Phase and
Doric Koines, The, 1.603; Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Greek Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1251
and Lydian, 2.70; Indo-European Historical Background, Annibaldis, Giacomo Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500
2.206; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2,212; anomaly Linguistic Correctness (hellenismäs), Ancient
Koine, Origins of, 2.277; Laryngeal Changes, 2.311: Theories ol, 2.260
Mediopassive, 2.412; Mycenaean Script and Language, Anonymus Crameri Orthography (orthographia),
2.476; Preverbs, 3.149; Reduplicated Presents, 3.209; Ancient Theuries of, 2.575
Reduplication, 3.213 Anouilh, Jean Drama Translation, 1.525; Postcolonial
Anatolian koine Koine, Origins of, 2.277 Translation: Theory and Practice, 3.124
Anatolian languages Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.89; anterior Aspect (and Tense), 1181; Participles
Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27 (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21
Anatolian layer Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.138 anthroponyms Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts),
Anatolian scripts Greek Writing Systems, 2.145 2.32; Inflectional Classes, 2.237; Linguistic Variation In
Anaxagoras Derveni Papyrus, 1.440; Linguistic Classical Attic, 2.370
Correctness (Aedlénismas), Ancient Theories of, 2.361; anticausative Typology of Greek, 3.451; Voice, 3.496
Literary Prose, 2.372; Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Anticlides Greek and Etruscan, 2.49
Theories of, 2.415; Papyrology, 3.15 Antidorus of Cyme Lexicography, History of, 2.349
Anaxilas Sicily, Dialects in, 3.291 Antigonus of Carystus Dialectology (didiektos), Ancient
Anaximander Literary Prose, 2.371 ‘Theories of, 1.459; Lexicography. History of, 2.349
Anaximenes Figures (skhémuta). Ancient Theories of, antibiatic consonant Movable Consonants, 2.468
1.589; Lexical Change, 2.342; Literary Prose. 2.371 Antimachus Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157
anceps Hesponsion, 3.235 Antioch Greek and Aramaic, 2.35; Language Contact,
Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism* 1.114 2.303
ancient grammarians Anaphoric Processes, 1.107; see Antiochus Epic Dictlon, 1.555
all items in the category Ancient Grammatical Theory Antiochus of Commagene Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135
(Thematic Contents); Syllables, 3.350 Antiochus of Syracuse Literary Prose, 2.371
Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology* Antiokhis Epie Diction, 1.556
1.7 Antipater Word Ciasses (méré tod lögou), Ancient
Ancient Philosophers on Language* 1.124 Theories of, 3.518
Ancient Prose Rhythm* 1.133 Antipater of Sidon Epigram, Diction of, 1.563; Roman
Ancyra Greek and Celtic, 2.44 Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247
Andania Laconian, Messenian, 2.287 Antiphanes Aischrology, 1.80
Andersen, Henning Dialectal Convergence, 1.455; Antiphan Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Koine, Origins af,
Diphthongization, 1.498 2.279; Language Policies, 2.310: Legal Terminology, 2.425;
Andersen, PaulK. Diathesis (diathesis), Ancient Theories Literary Prose, 2.375
of, 1.471; Middle, 2.441; Voice, 3.496 Antiphon of Rhamnus Literary Prose, 2.373
Anderson, James M. Phonological Change, 3.85 Antiphon, Against the stepmother Literary Prose, 2.375
Anderson, Stephen A. Moras, 2.460 antiphrasis Etymology (eturnologia), Ancient ‘Theories ot,
Anderson, Warren D. Song und Recitation, 3.294 1,582; Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.583
Andocides Attitudes to Language, 1.205: Legal Antisthenes Allegory (allégaria), Ancient Theorles nt.
Terminology, 2.325; Literary Prose, 2.374 1.87; Atticism, t.200; Dialects, Classification of, 1.461
Andre Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.105 antistoichic Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity
Andreas Divus Homer, Translation, 2.176 to the Byzantine Period, 1.102
 INDEX 553

antistrophe Responsion, 3.236 Apollonius Dyscolus Adverbs, 1.54; Analogy, 1.104;

antithesis Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 2.589; Anaphoric Processes, 1.107; Aorist (aöristos), Ancient
Literary Prose, 2.373; Style (l&xis), Ancient Theories of. Theories of, 1.138; Aorist Formation, 1138; Case (ptösis),
3.327 Ancient Theories of, 1270; Clause, 1.293: Clitics, 1.300;
Anton, Karl Noun Phrase, 2.531 Declension/Conjugation (At(sis), Ancient Thearies of,
Antonius Atticism, 1.197 1.418; Deixis (including ist and znd Person), 1.423; Deixis
antonomasia Etymology (etumelogta), Ancient Theories in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.430; Dependency Grammar
of, 1.582; Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.584 and Greek, 1434; Determiners, 1.443; Dialectology
antonumia Word Classes (méré tod lögou), Ancient (didlektes), Ancient Theories of, 1.459; Dialects,
Theories of, 3.510 Classification of, 1.462; Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient
Antony, Mark Asianism, 1.180 Theories of, 1.468; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories
Anttila, Raimo Indo-European Linguistic Background, of, 1.590; Genitive Absolute, 2.8; Linguistic Correctness
2.216; Reduplicated Presents, 3,210 (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.961; Mood
Anyte of Tegea Epigram, Diction of, 1.563 (énklisis}), Ancient Theories of, 2.450; Onomastica: From
Aorist” 1.136; Aorist (adristas), Ancient Theories of, 1.136; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.549; Orthography
Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.291; Mediopassive, (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Personal
2.410; Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.23 Pronouns, Use of, 3,59; Philulogical-Grammatical
Aorist (aöristos), Ancient Theories of” 1137 Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.67; Sentence/
Aorist Formation* 1,138 Utterance (lögos), Ancient Theories of, 3.285; Syntax
aorist, asigmatic Thematic Vowel, Stern Formation, (stintaxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.358: Tense (khrönos),
3.399 Ancient Theories of, 3.378; Verb (rhéma), Ancient
aorist, complexive Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.337; Theories of, 3.461; Vocative, 3,492: Word Classes (méré
Tense/Aspect, 3.388 ton lögou), Ancient Theories of, 3.538; Word Formation
aorist, first Imperative, 2.192; Orders (imperative; (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theorles of, 3.531
Prohibitives), 2.567 Apollonius Malacos Asianism, 1.180
aorist, k- Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.396 Apollonius Molon Asianism, 1.180; Attitudes to
aorist, second Aorist Formation, 1.139; Present Tense, Language, 1.205
3.146; Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325 Apollonius of Citium Dictionaries of Scientific
aoristicization Perfect, 3.48 Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486
Apamea Language Contact, 2.303 Apollonius of Perga Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.152;
Apel, Hans Jiirgen History of Teaching of Ancient Greek Koine, Origins of, 2.280
in Germany, 2.172 Apollonius of Rhodes Atticism, 1.199; Epigram, Diction of,
Aphaeresis* 1141; Cretan, 1397: Prosody, 3.172; Sandhi, 1.562; Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129; Hellenistic Poetry,
4.258 Diction of, 2.158; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation,
Aphaia Local Scripts, 2.384 3.126; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246
Aphrodisias Graffiti, 2.26 Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica Hellenistic Poetry,
Aphrodite Arcado-Cypriat, 1155; Nestor’s Cup, 2.495 Diction of, 2.157
Aphthonius Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, Apollonius of Tyana Atticism, 1.199
3-438 Apollonius the Sophist Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Aphytis Adoption of the Tonic alphabet in Attica, 1.31 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Lexicography,
apices Epigraphy, 1.566 History of, 2.349
Apion Lexicography, History of, 2.349 apophony Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.1; Language
Apllön /Applön Thessalian, 3.404 Change, 2.292; Nasal Presents, 2.481; Thematic and
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius Greek and Syriac, 2.81 Athematic Verbs, 3.396
Apocope* 1.142: Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), Apostolius, Michael Praverbs, 3.189
1.290: Clitics, 1.301; Cretan, 1.397; Diminutives/ apostrophe Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics,
Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1.488; Epic 9.241
Diction, 1.550; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Macedonian, apotropaic mechanisms Euphemism and Dysphemism,
2.393; Northwest Greek, 2.521; Phonetics, 3.80; 1.584
Thessalian, 3.404 Appadana (Neapolis) Greek and Syriac, 2.81
apocrypha Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284 appellatio Noun (önoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.526
apodosis of conditionals Optative, 2.554 Appian Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114;
apolelponta Word Formation (paragégé/siinthesis), Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90; Koine, Origins
Ancient Theories of, 3.531 of, 2.280; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.318
Apollo Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Etymolagy applicative Tmesis, 3.408
(etumofogia), Ancient Theories of, 1.581; Greek and applicative verbs Beneficiary, 1.233
Celtic, 2.45; Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314; Thessalian, applied linguistics Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
3-404 Methods, 3.367
Apollodorus of Athens Allegory (allegoria), Ancient Apposition® 1.143; Adverbial Constituents, 1.53
Theories of, 1.88; Etymological Dictionaries: From appositive relative clauses Relative Clauses, 3.229
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Etymology appositives Prosodic Word, 3.163
(etumoingfa), Ancient Theories of, 1.582; Orality and Apuleius Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.98
Literacy, 2.563 Apulia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Magna Graecia,
Apollonia Cyrenaean, 1.409; Greek and Illyrian, 2.56; Dialects, 2.399
lonie, 2.260; Language Contact, 2.302 Aquila Greek and Hebrew, 2.54; Roman Translation of
Apollonius Papyri, Language of, 3.14 Greek Texts, 3.249; Septuagint, 3.289
Apollonius ‘Ophis' Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Aquila Romanus Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486 of, L392
554
Arabia Koine, Origins of, 2.283
Arabia Felix Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31
Arabia Petraea Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31
Arabic Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.115;
Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.452;
Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31; Greek and
Aramaic, 2.36; Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.46;
Language Contact, 2.299; Phytonyms (Names of Trees),
3.99; Renaissance, Translation, 3-232; Syllable Weight,
3.946; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts
and Models, 3.429
Arabic meters Metrics, 2.431
Arabic Tradition, Translation*® 1.147
Arabic, Classical Metrics, 2.440
Arabs Papyrology, 3.15
Aramaeans Greek and Etruscan, 2.51
Aramaic Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
1.15; Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147; Bilingualism
in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.234; Bilingualism, Diglossia
and Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239;
Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284; Compound Tenses
(Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Greek and Arabic (Early
Contacts), 2.31; Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and
Carian, 2.40; Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2,47; Greek
and Hebrew, 2.52; Greek and Indian Languages, 2.59;
Greek and Iranian, 2.62; Greek and Latin, 2.66; Greek
and Lycian, 2.67: Greek and Semitic Languages (Early
Contacts), 2.79; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of,
2.113; Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.146; Historical Present,
2.161; Jewish Greek, 2.268; Koine, Origins of, 2.277;
Language Contact, 2.300; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317:
New Testament, 2.497; Phytonyms (Names of Trees),
3.99; Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279; Septuagint,
3.287
Aramaic and Hebrew adaptations Alphabet, The Origin
of the Greek, 1.95
Aramaisms 'Christian’ Greek, 1.281
Aratus Epigram, Diction of, 1.563; Hellenistic
Poetry, Diction of, 2.157; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Translation, 3.126: Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
3,246
Arcadia Achaeanı, 1.19; Aeolic Dialects, 163; Alphabet,
The Origin of the Greek, 1.98; Arcado-Cypriut, 1.154;
Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Dual, 1.534: Koine,
Origins of, 2.280; Local Scripts, 2.381; Names of Months,
2.479: Transition from the Local Alphabets to the fonic
Script, 3.421; Tsakonian, 3.446
Arcadian* 1.151; Accommodation, 1.13; Adpositional
Phrase, 138; Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.96;
Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.16; Ancient
Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.119; Arcado-
Cypriot, 1.154; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.165;
Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.288; Cypriot,
1.402; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; formation of
Daric Koines, The, 1.604; Nominal System (Gender,
Number, Case), 2.502: Syllabic Consonants, 3.344; Verbal
System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.485
Arcadius Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Linguistics, 3.74; Wackernagel's Law 1, 3.508
Arcado-Cypriot® 1.154; Adpositional Phrase. 1.36:
Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.48; Apocope, 1.142;
Arcadian, 1153; Cypriot, 1.401; Formation of Doric Koines,
The, 1.605; Indo-Europe an Historical Background, 2.210;
Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.222: Infinitives
(Morphology of), 2.227; Mycenaean Script and Language,
2.477; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case}, 2.503;
INDEX
Pronominal System, 3.154; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344:
Verbal System (Tense, Aspect. Mood), 3.483
Archagathus Atticism, 1.198
Archaisms in Modern Dialects* 1.158
Archangeli, Diana Optimality and Greek, 2.556
Archelaus Koine, Origins of, 2.279
Archias Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247
Archilochus Aischrology, 1.77; Allegory (allégoria),
Ancient Theories of, 1.89; Declension/Conjugation
(klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.417; Dictionaries of
Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.480; Elegy, Diction of, 1.543; Epigram, Diction of, 1.560;
Lyric Poetry, Diction ol, 2.389; Metrics, 2.423; Metrics
(metran). Ancient Theories of, 2.435; Nestor’s Cup. 2.495;
Song and Recitation, 3.295; Tragedy, Diction of, 3.419
Archilochus of Paros lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.187
Archimedes Attitudes to Language, 1.204; Hellenistic
Literary Prose, 2.152; Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Literary
Prose, 2.371; Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264; Sicily, Dialects
in, 3-293
Archinos Adoption of the tonic alphabet in Attica, 1.31;
Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script,
3-420
Archytas Attitudes to Language, 1.204; Dialects,
Classification of, 1.462
Arend, Walter Formulaic Language, 1.609; Orality and
Literacy, 2.563
Arens, Hans Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.124
Areapagitic Literary Prose, 2.377
aretalogy Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1135
Arethas Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Onomastica:
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.551
Argentina Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Concepts and Models, 3.432
Argilos Macedonian, 2.392
Argive Adpositional Phrase, 1.38
Argolic® 1.171; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Dialectology, 1.119; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.169;
Doric, 1.516; Greek Lexicon in Western Languages,
2.107; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502;
Palatalizations, 3.6; Saronic, 3.258
Argolic, eastern Doric, 1.516
Argolid = Argolic, 1.171; Kple Dictian, 1,550; Koine, Origins
of, 2.282; Saronic, 3.258
Argolid, eastern Koine, Origins of, 2.278
Argos Alphabet, ‘The Origin of the Greek, 1.98;
Argolic, 1.171; Attitudes to Language, 1.204; Dialectal
Convergence, 1.455; Glides, 2.15; Infinitives (Morphology
of), 2.228; Local Scripts, 2.382: Pamphylian, 3.8; Saronic,
3.258; Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic
Script. 3.420
argument Adjuncts, 1.28; Adverbial Constituents, 1.49;
Predicative Canstituents, 3.130; Verb Phrase, 3.462
Argument Clause* Liyz
argument sharing Typology of Greek, 3.452
Ariel, Mira Anaphoric Processes, 1.110
Arion Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389: Tragedy, Diction
of, 3.417
Ariosto, Ludovico Homer, Translation, 2.180
Aristarch Accenmuation, 1.7; Allegory (allégurfa), Ancient
Theories of, 1.88; Aorist (adristos), Ancient Theories
of, 1138; Aorist (aöristos), Ancient Theories of, 1.138;
Declension/Conjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories of,
1.418; Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.469;
Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.479; Epic Diction,
1.548; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
 INDEX 555
the Byzantine Period, 1.575; Etymology (ettmolagia), Arndt, W.F. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.478
Ancient Theories of, 1.582; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Arnim, Hans F.A.von Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Theories of, 1,590: Lexicography, History of, 2,350; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Proverbs, 3.189
Linguistic Correctness (hellénismds), Ancient Theories Arnold, Matthew Greek Historiography, Translation,
of, 2.361; Mood (énklisis), Ancient Theories of, 2.450; 2.92; Homer, Translation, 2.178
Noun (önoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.525; Orality and Aromanian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek,
Literacy, 2.562; Orthography (orthographia), Ancient 1.223
Theories of, 2.573; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Arrian Atticism, 1200; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319;
Ancient Linguistics, 3.67; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Literary Prose, 2.371
Linguistics, 3,241; Syntax (süntaxis), Ancient Theories of, Arrowsmith, William Drama Translation, 1.526
3.359; Tense (khrönos), Ancient Theories of, 3.359; Word arsis Foot, 1.600; Period, 3.53
Classes (méré tod fégou), Ancient Theories of, 3.518; Artaphernes Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
Word Formation (paragégé/stinthesis), Ancient Theories 1.114
of, 3.530 Artemidorus of Tarsus Onomastica: From Antiquity to
Aristeas Linguistic Correctness (hellänismös), Ancient the Byzantine Period, 2.550
Theories uf, 2.362 Artemis Orthia Laconian, Messenian, 2.287
Aristides Quintilianus Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient dirthron Word Classes (méré ted lögou), Ancient Theories
Theories of, 2.417; Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories of, of, 9.516
2.433; Period, 3.53 article Apocope, 1.143; Classical Greek Morphology
Aristocles Linguistic Correctness (hellénismds), Ancient (Survey), 1.290; Cretan, 1.398; Definiteness/Definite
Theories of, 2.362 Article, 1.419; Determiners, 1.442
Aristademus Linguistic Correctness (hellönismös), articulation, secondary Palatalizations, 3.6
Ancient Theories of, 2.362 Artstein, Ron Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392
Aristonicos Atticism, 1.199 Arufat, Anton Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Aristophanes passim (in over 50 articles) Concepts and Models, 3.432
Aristophanes of Byzantium Accentuation, 1.7; Arvanitika dialects Tsakonian, 3.446
Declension/Conjugation (Alisis}, Ancient Theories of, Aryan Language Change, 2.292; Verbal System (Tense,
1.418; Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, Aspect, Mood), 3.485
1.459 Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Arzawa Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134
Byzantine Period, 1.481; Greek Writing Systems, 2.145; Ascalon Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Linguistic Correctness Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238
(hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2,361; Lyric Meter, Ascheri, Paola Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Anuquity
2.386; Metrics (métran), Ancient Theories of, 2.433; to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Etymological Dictionaries;
Northwest Greek, 2.520; Onomastica: From Antiquity to From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575;
the Byzantine Period, 2.550; Philological-Grammatical Orthography (orthographla), Ancient Theories of, 2.575
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.67; Proverbs, 3.189; Asclepiades of Myrlea Linguistic Correctness
Psilosis, 3.192; Verse, 3.490; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.508; (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.362; Orthography
Word Classes (m£re toi lögou), Ancient Theories of, (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Philological-
3.519; Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.68
Theories of, 3.530 Asclepiades of Samos Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
Aristotle passim (in over 50 articles) Asclepiades of Tragilus Riddles, 3.244
Aristotle, De interpretatione Word Formation Asclepius Epigraphy, 1.565
(paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.530 Asensio de la Cruz, Paloma Comitative, 1.926
Aristoxenus of Tarentum Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.133; Ashcroft, Bil Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Metrics (metran), Ancient Theories of, 2.432 Practice, 3.122
Arkalokhori Phaistos Disc. 3.62; Pre-Greek Languages, Asher, Nicholas Anaphoric Processes, ı.n0; Argument
3.133 Clause, 1.176
Armenia Greek and Armenian, 2.37; Language Change, Asia Aenolic Dialects, 1.62; Indo-European Historical
2.292 Background, 2.208
Armenian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.89; Augment, Asia Minor passim (in over 50 articles)
1.215; Contact through Translation, 1.379; Deixis in Asia Minor Greek Language Contact, 2.299
Linguistics and Poetics, 1.430; Greek and Armenian, 2.37: Asia, Central Greek and Syriac, 2.80
Greek and Illyrian, 2.57: Greek and Indian Languages, Asianic alphabet Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90
2.61; Greek and Thracian, 2.87; Greek Loanwordes in Asianism* 1.178
Slavic, 2.123; Indo-European Historical Background, Asianist style Attitudes to Language, 1.205
2.206; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.212; Asklepeion at Pergamon Epigraphy, 1.567
Numerals, 2.539; Participles (Morphological Aspects Ason Local Scripts, 2.383
of), 3.23; Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.100; Poetic aspect Adverbial Constituents, 1.52; Aspect (and Tense),
Language, 3.107; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.139; Prothesis, 1.181; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290; Gerund
3.174; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.175 (Verbal Noun), 2.10; Structural Linguistics and Greek,
Armenian, Classical Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93; 3-324
Dual, 1.533 Aspect (and Tense)” 1.181
Armenoi (Crete) Linear B, 2.357: Mycenaean Script and aspect, grammatical Structural Linguistics and Greek,
Language, 2.471 3.325
Armstrong, David Aorist, 1136; Tense/Aspect, 3.387 aspectual value Aorist (adristos), Ancient Theories of,
Armstrong, James L. Formulaic Language, 1.610 1.136
556 INDEX

Aspendos Pamphylian, 3.8 Epic Diction, 1.556; Epigraphy, 1.564; Graffiti, 2.26; Greek
Aspesi, Francesco Greek and Semitic Languages (Early and Carian, 2.41; Greek Writing Systems, 2.144; Kinship
Contacts), 2.78; Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401 Terms, 2.271; Laconian, Messenian, 2.287; Literary Prose,
Aspiration® 1184; Argolic, 1.171; Cretan, 1.396; Perfect, 2.371; Local Scripts, 2.382; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.498;
Formation of, 3.50 Nestor's Cup, 2.495; Onornastica: Frum Antiquity to
aspiration, expressive Boeotian, 1.245 the Byzantine Period, 2.549; Phonology (Survey), 3.89;
Assibilation® 1.85; Achaean, 1.19; Ancient Greek Tragedy, Diction of, 3.417; Transition from the Local
Sucialinguistics and Dialectology, L119; Arcado-Cypriot, Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.420
2.156; Cypriot, 1.402; Derivational Morphology, 1.439; Atherton, Catherine Figures (skhemata), Ancient
Doric, 1.513; Indo-European Historical Background, 2.210; Theories of, 1.590: Tropes (tröpot), Ancient Theories of,
Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Palatalizations, 3.442
3,6; Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.292; Atilius Fortunatianus Period, 3.53
Southeast Greek, 3.298; Thessalian, 3.403 Atlas Greek and Etruscan, 2.51
Assimilation* 1186; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, Attardo, Salvatore —|.anguage Play and Translation, 2,306
1.160; Cretan, 1.396; Erymological Dictionaries: Fram attendant circumstances Dative, 1.416
the Renaissance to the 2oth Century, 1.573; Internal Attic* 1.187; Adjectives (Morphological Aspects
Reconstruction, 2.251; Koine, Features of, 2.274; Literary of}, 1.26; Agency and Causation, 1.69; Anaphoric
Prose, 2.375; Phonotactics, 3.96; Split, 3.316; Thessalian, Processes, 1.108; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
3.404; Voicing, 3.502; Yodization, 3.543 Dialectology, 1.218; Aorist Formation, 1.139: Aspiration,
assonance Greek and Lydian, 2.71; Hellenistic Poetry, 1.184; Atticism, 1.196; Bartoli's Law. 1.229; Classical
Diction of, 2.155: Language Play and Translation, 2.307 Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.286; Comitative, 1.326;
Assos Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329; Local Scripts, Comparative Method, 1329; Compensatory Lengthening,
2,384 1.334; Derivational Morphology, 1.438; Desideratives,
Assyrian Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279 1-441; Dialectal Convergence, 1.455; Dialectology
Astour, Michael] C. Theonyrns (Names of Gods), 3.402 (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.460; Dictionaries
Astypalaea Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Insular of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Doric, 2.245 1.480; Diphthongization, 1.498; Dual, 1.534; Hellenistic
Aswan = Atticism, 1.197 Literary Prose, 2.153; lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.188;
asyndeton Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.390 Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.217; Infinitives
atelic Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.333 (Morphology of), 2.226; Inflectional Classes, 2.237;
atelic content verbs Perfect, 3.47 Language and Variation in Greece, 2.288; Laryngeal
Athamania Aeolic Dialects, 1.63 Changes, 2.313; Law of Limitation, 2.324; Metathesis,
Athamas Aeolic Dialects, 1.63 2.419; Monophthongization, 2.449; Noun Phrase, 2,527;
Athanasiaduu, Angeliki Conditionals, 1.358 Optimality and Greek, 2.556; Papyri, Language of, 3.1;
Athanasius ll of Balad Greek and Syriac, 2,81 Perfect, Formation of, 3.51; Phonetics, 3.80; Psilosis, 3.192;
Athanasius of Alexandria Atticism, 1.198; Translation of Quantifiers, 3.198; Sotera Rule, 3.297; Syncope, 3.351;
Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436 Vocative, 3.493; Vowel Changes, 3.504
Athanassaki, Lucia Discourse Analysis and Greek, 15u Attic comedy Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to
athematic declension Gender, 2.1 the Byzantine Period, 1.480
athematic presents 'Narten’ Presents, 2.480; Attic Declension® 1194; Classical Greek Morphology
Reduplicated Presents. 3.209 (Survey), 1.289; Inflectional Classes, 2,236; Nominal
athematic verbs Aorist Formation, 1.139; Classical Greek System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.504; Thematic Vowel,
Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Contract Verhs, 1.382; Stem Formation, 3.398
Imperative, 2.191; Indo-European Linguistic Background, Attic dimotiki Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
2.217; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.366; 2,364
Mediopassive, z.qu; Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), Attic figure Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.186
2,566; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.394; Thematic and Attic future Attic, 1.190
Athematic Verbs, 3.394; Thessalian, 3.405 Attic reduplication Laryngeal Changes, 2.313; Perfect,
Athena Lindia Rhodiarı, 3.243 Formation of, 3.49: Reduplication, 3.212
Athenaeus Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Attitudes to Language, Attic Reversion* 1195
1,206; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Attica Adoption of the Ionic alphabet in Attica, 1.30;
Byzantine Period, 1.483; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, Aeolic Dialects, 1,63; Alphabet, The Origin of the
2127; Language Policies, 2.411; Onomastica: From Greek, 1.98; Attic, 1.187; Comedy, Diction of, 1.317;
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550; Riddles, 3.245; Dual, 1534; Elegy, Diction of, 1.544; Epic Diction, 1.555;
Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Epigraphy, 1.564; Graffiti, 2.26; Indo-European Historical
3.353 Background, 2.209; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
Athenian Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 2.365; Monophthongization, 2.449; Personal Names, 3.55:
1.448 Phonology (Survey), 3.92: Schist Fragments from the
Athenian Confederacy Articism, 1.197 Academy, 3.259; Southeast Greek, 3.297
Athens Accommodation, 1.13; Adoption of the tonic Attic-Tonic Action Nouns, 1.22; Apocope, 1.142; Arcadian,
alphabet in Attica, 1.32; Ancient Bidialectalism and 1.15% Argolic, 1171; Attic Reversion, 1.195; Compensatory
Bilingualism, 1.14; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Lengthening, 1.334; Dorie Accentuation, 1.523; Epic
Dialectology, 1.121; Attic, 1.187; Atticism, 1.198; Attitudes Diction, 1.549; Ionic, 2.260; Patronymics, 3.46; Phonetics,
to Language, 1.203; Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.285; 3.79; Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Syllabic Consonants,
Consonant Changes, 1.372; Curse Tablets, 1.400; Dialectal 3-345; Tmesis, 3.409; Vowel Fronting, 3.505
Convergence, 1.455; Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499; Attic-lonic koine Koine, Origins of, 2,278
 INDEX 357
Atticism* 1.196; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity Avianus Vindicianus Translation of Greek Texts in Late
to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Epic Diction, 1.555; Koine, Antiquity, 3.437
Origins of, 2.279; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317; Papyri, Avienus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246
Language of, 3.11; Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Avigad, Nahman Greek and Hebrew, 2.53
Methods, 4.367 Ax, Wolfram Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.129;
Atticists Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity Declension/Conjugation (kiisis), Ancient Theories of,
and Byzantine Period, 1.487; Hellenistic Literary Prose, 1.129; Dialectology (did/ektas), Ancient Theories of,
2.155 1.457; Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.469;
Atticization Koine, Origins of, 2.279 Figures (skhemata), Ancient Theories of, 1.589; Linguistic
Attis Dialects, Classification of, 1.462 Correctness (Aeflénisneds), Ancient Theories of, 2.360;
Attitudes to Language* 1.203 Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theories of,
Attius Labeo Homer, Translation, 2.175; Raman 2.574; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246 Linguistics, 3.63; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
Attraction® 1.208; Patient and Theme, 3.44; Purpose Linguistics, 3.238; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of,
Clauses, 3.195; Relative Clauses, 3.227 3-441
attribute Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.10 Axios Macedonian, 2.392
attributive possession Possession, 3.121 AXGS Cretan, 1.396
Aubrey, Mike Hyperbaton, 2.185
Audollent, Auguste Curse Tablets, 1400 Baben. Alison Computational Linguistics and Greek,
Augello Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.241 1.356
Augello, Irene Style (lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328 Babinietis, Georgios Intralingual Translation into
Augment® 1215; Aorist Formation, 1.139; Aspect (and Modern Greek, 2.257; Macedonian, 2.395; Pronominal
Tense}, 1.182; Attic, 1.190; Classical Greek Morphology System, 3.153
(Survey), 1.286; Greek and Armenian, 2,37; Indo- Babylonia Greek and Aramaic, 2.34
European Linguistic Background, 2.217 Babylonian Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279
augmentative Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and Bacchius of Tanagra, Hippocratic dictionary
Morphology), 1.497 Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and
augmentative suffixes Diminutives/Augmentatives Byzantine Period, 1,486; Lexicography, History of, 2.349
(Syntax and Morphology), 1.497 Bacchylides Bridges, 1.246; Choral Poetry, Diction of.
Augustine Drama Translation, 1.524; Metaphor 1.278; Deixis (including ist and and Person), 1.427;
(metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.417; Roman Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Greek Lyric Poetry,
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249; Translation of Greek Translation, 2.125; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389;
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436 Papyrology, 3.16; Responsion, 3.236; Song and Recitation,
Augustus Attitudes to Language, 1.205: Dialects, 3.295; Verse, 3.491
Classification of, 1.462 Bacharakis, M.1. Indirect Object, 2.204
Aujac, Germaine Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Bachnarovna Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.29
Linguistics, 3.239; Song and Recitation, 3.294 back-formation Aorist Formation, 1.139; Koine, Features
Aulus Gellius Drama Translation, 1,524; Roman of, 2.274; Language Change, 2.295; Toponyms, 3.416
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247 background assumptions Greek Philosophy, Translation,
Aura-Jorro, Francisco Greek Lexicon, Structure and 2.138
Origin of, 2.10 backward span Adverbial Constituents, 1.52
Aurispa, Giovanni Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, Bactria Epigraphy, 1.564; Greek and Indian Languages,
3.365 2.59; Papyri, Language of, 3.12
Aurobindo, Sri Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Bactrian Greek and Iranian, 2.62
Concepts and Models, 3.430 Badawi, Abdurrahman Greek and Arabic (Early
Auroux, Sylvain Philological-Grammatical Tradition Contacts), 2.33
in Ancient Linguistics, 3.63; Syntax (sirtaxis), Ancient Baddeley, Alan D. Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420
Theories of, 3.358 Bader, Frangoise Abstract Nouns, 1.4; Arcado-Cypriot,
Ausonius Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315 1156; Caland System and Greek, 1.258; Poetic Language,
Austin, Reginald P. Epigraphy, 1.565: Gnomes, 2.18; Greek 3.194; Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding),
Philosophy, Translation, 2.137; Mood and Modality, 3.524
2.453; Prothesis, 3.174 Baebius Italicus Homer, Translation, 2.175; Roman
Autenrieth, Georg Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477 Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246
Autolyeus Etymology (etumologia), Ancient Theories of, Baer, Brian]. Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
1.580 Concepts and Models, 3.429
Auxiliaries® 1.218 Baerman, Matthew Case (including Syncretism), 1.263
AV(V)OT Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Bagatti, Bellarmino C. Greek and Aramaic, 2.35
Averroes ‘Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Bagemihl, Bruce Syllable Weight, 3.346
Concepts and Models, 3.434 Baghdad Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147; Translation
Avestan Accentuation, 1.11; Analogy, 1.105; Aorist in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Models,
Formation, 1139; Augment, 1.215; Caland System and 3.434
Greek, 1256; Greek and Iranian, 2.62; Indo-European Baghdad Peripatetics Arabic Tradition, Translation,
Linguistic Background, 2.213; Numerals, 2.540; 1.149
Onomatopoeia, 2.552; Poetic Language, 3.110; Proto- Bagnall, Roger S. Papyri, Language of, 3.12; Papyrology,
Greek and Common Greek, 3.186; Syllabic Consonants, 3.16
3.345; Verba Dicendi, 3.469; Verbal System (Tense, bahuvrihi Adjectives (Morphological Aspects of), 1.27;
Aspect, Mood}, 3.478 Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.527
558 INDEX

Bai, Gang Nominal Systern (Gender, Number, Case), Bamman, David Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393
2.502 Banfi, Emanuele Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
Bailey, Cyril Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.128 Greek, 1.222
Bailey, Nicholas Focus, 1.597; Information Structure and Bannister, James Drama Translation, 1.528
Greek, 2.242 Baüos Banos, Jose M. Functional Grammar and Greek,
Bailly, Anatole Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 1.616
2.110 Bantu Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and
Baines, Paul Homer, Translation, 2.181 Morphology), 1.497
Baird, Jennifer Grafhti, 2.26 Barbantani, Silvia Metrics (metron), Ancient Thearies
Baker, Mark Typology of Greek, 3.452 of, 2.433
Bakhtin, Michael Greek Novel, Translation, 2.131 Barbarigo, Gregory (Cardinal) Teaching of Ancient
Bakker, Egbert Aorist Formation, 1.140; Apposition, Greek in Italy, 3.365
1.146; Augment, 1.216; Classical Greek Morphology barbarism Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2,157
(Survey), 1.290; Conditionals, 1,359; Coordination barbarismds Linguistic Correctness (hellénismds),
(includes Asyndeton), 1.387; Definiteness/Definite Ancient Theories of, 2.360; Philological-Grammatical
Article, 1.421; Deixis (including ıst and and Person), 1.426; Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.72
Determiners, 1.442; Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1,511; Barbaro, Francesco Renaissance, Translation, 3.234
Epic Diction, 1.552; Functional Grammar and Greek, Barbelenet, Daniel Auxiliaries, 1.219
1.617; Genitive, 2,4; Grounding of Information, 2.149; Barber, Elizabeth]. W. Greek and Anatolian
Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.338; Madifiers, 2.445; Noun Languages, 2.30; Middle, 2.441; Verbal Valency, 3.488;
Phrase, 2.527; Particles (Formal Features), 3.28; Particles Voice, 3.495
(Syntactic Features), 3.32; Passive (Morphology}, 3.42; Barca-Ptolemais Cyrenaean, 1409
Possession, 3.121: Prepusitives, 3.145; Relative Clauses, Bardaisan Greek and Syriac, 2.81
3,228; Tense/Aspect, 3.387; Text Linguistics and Greek, Barddal, Jéhanna Onamatopoela, 2.552
3.391; Topic, 3.412; Typology of Greek, 3.452; Voice, 3.495; bards Poetic Language, 3.102
Word Order, 3.537 Barker, Edmund H. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.475;
Balatsos, Panagiotis Attic, 1.192; Language and Variation Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.416;
in Greece, 2.290; Schist ’ragments from the Academy, Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.432
3.259 Barlaam of Calabria Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Balhilla Attitudes to Language, 1.204 Italy, 3.364
Baldassarri, Stefano Renaissance, Translation, 3.234 Barnard, Mary Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
Baldi, Philip Cemparison, 1.332; Post-Homeric Epic Barnes, HarıyR. Caesurae, 1.255; Elegy, Diction of, 1542
Poetry, Translation, 3.126 Barnes, Jonathan Tropes (tröpai), Ancient Theories of,
Baldwin, Barry Puns, 3.193 3.442
Balkan linguistics Balkan Sprachbuni: Early Evidence in Barnes, Timothy G. Syllabic Consonants, 3.345;
Greek, 1.222 Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401
Balkan Romance Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Barney, Rachel Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.126
Greek, 1.223 Barnstone, Willis Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
Balkan Slavic Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Barr, James Septuagint, 3.268
Greek, 1.223 Barrett, David Drama Translation, 1.527
Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek* 1222 Barrett, William $, Intonational Phrase, 2.254
Balkanism Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, Barth, Heinz-Lothar Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient
1.222; Case (including Syncretism), 1266 Thearies of, 1.469
Balkans Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, Barthes, Roland Greek Philasophy, Translation, 2.137
1.222; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.112; Barthalomae’s Law Indo-European Lingulstic
Indo-European Historical Background, 2.208 Background, 2.215
Ballaira, Guglielmo Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Bartol, Krystyna Elegy, Diction of, 1.543
Linguistics, 3,241 Bartoli, Matteo Bartoli's Law, 1.229; Language Change,
Balles, Irene Calarıd System and Greek, 1.257; Word 2.202
Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.522 Bartoli's Law* 1.229; Wheeler’s Law, 3.516
Balmer, Josephine Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128; Bartonék, Antonin Achaean, 1.19; Adpositional Phrase,
Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Methads, 3.368 138; Argalic, 1.171; Case Syncretism (Morphological
Balochi Greek and Iranian, 2,62 Aspects of), 1.275; Clities, 1.902; Doric, 1.519; Formation
Baltic Clause, 1.295; Diminutives/Augmentatives of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; lonic, 2.265; Koine, Origins
(Syntax and Marphology), 1.497; Dual, 1.533; Imperative, of, 2.281; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Local
2.196; [Indo-European Historical Background, 2.206; Scripts, 2.382; Merger, 2.413; Moras, 2.460; Phonology
Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.212; Language (Survey), 3.90; Prosodic Word, 3.162; Proto-Greek and
Contact, 2.301; Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), 2.571; Common Greek, 3.180; Rhodian, 3.243; Saronic, 3.258;
Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.22; Pre-Greek Syllabic Consonants, 3.344; Toponyms, 3.416; Verba
Substrate, 3.139; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), Sentiendi, 3.470; Vowel Changes, 3.505
3.484 Barwick, Karl Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.130;
Balto-Finnish Eteocretan, 1.570 Case (ptdsis), Ancient Theories of, 1.270; Linguistic
Balto-Slavic Accentuation, 1.8; Action Nouns, 1.23; Indo- Correctness (Aellénismds), Ancient Theories of, 2.360;
European Linguistic Background, 2.214; Osthoff's Law, Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.416;
2.576; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.140; Verbal System (Tense, Tropes (trépai), Ancient Theories of, 3.442
Aspect, Mood), 3.484 Barwise,Jon Conditionals, 1.359
 INDEX 559

Bary, Corien Anaphoric Processes, 1.112; Direct/Indirect Numerals, 2.540; Participles (Morphological Aspects
Speech, 1.507 of), 3.21; Passive (Morphology), 3.42; Perfect, Formation
barytone present Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.394 of, 3.50; Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.98; Pronominal
barytone verbs Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to System, 3.150: Prothesis, 3.174; Proto-Greek and Common
Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380 Greek, 3.177; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.253; Semitic
barytonesis Accentuation, 1.11; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, Loanwords in Greek, 3.279; Stative (and Middle/
2.390; Vocative, 3.492 Medium) Verbs, 3.226; Syncope, 3.351; Thematic Vowel,
Basil of Caesarea Atticism, 1.208; Attitudes to Language, Stem Formation, 3.397: Theonyms (Names of Gods),
1.207; Greek and Syriac, 2.81; History of Teaching of 3.400; Toponyms, 3.414; Vowel Changes, 3.502
Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.168; Late Antiquity Prose, Beerden, Kim Riddles, 3.245
2.919; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436; Behaghel, Otto Hyperbaton, 2.184
Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365 Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus) Papyrology, 3.16
Basile, Nicola Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.385 Behr, Inntraud Predicative Constituents, 3,131
Basle Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126 Beirut Greek and Aramaic, 2.35
Basque Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.100 Bekker, Immanuel Lexicography, History of, 2.353
Basset, Louis Argument Clause, 1.175; Coordination Belardi, Walter Declension/Conjugation (Aféis), Ancient
(includes Asyndeton), 1.390; Determiners, 1.443: Theories of, 1.417; Vocative, 3.492
Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.511: Negation, 2.486; Belarussian Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325
Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3,238; Belis, Annie Anaptyxis, 1.114
Subordination, 3.338; Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.390 Bella Coola Syllable Weight, 3.346
Bassett, Samuel Caesurae, 1.253 Belleau, Rémy Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126
Bassnett, Susan Drama Translation, 1.526 Belloc, Hilaire Drama Translation, 1.526
Bassus, Caesius Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, Beltzung, Jean-Mare Moras, 2.460
2.435 Benedetti, Marina Diathesis (didthests), Ancient Theories
Battezzato, Luigi Prosody, 3.170 of, 1.470
Battistini, Yves Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 benefactive Beneficiary, 1.230
Bauer, Walter Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.478; Beneficiary” 1.230; Gomitative, 1.321: Complementation,
Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.110; Impersonal 1.342; Dative, 1.415; Voice, 3.495
Verbs/Constructions, 2.199; Number, 2.336; Possession, Benfey, Theodor Etymological Dictionaries; Fram the
3.16; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.54; Word Formation Renaissance to the zoth Century, 1.572; Etymological
(Derivation, Compounding), 3.521 Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology, 1.578
Baumbach, Lydia Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin Bengali Homer, Translation, 2.177; Intensihiers, 2.247:
of, 2.110 Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and
Baumbach, Manuel Epigram, Diction of, 1561 Models, 3.430
Bäumlein, Wilhelm Cohesion, 1.313; Noun Phrase, 2.592 Benghazi Cyrenaean, 1.409
Beach, Richard Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Bennett, EmmettL. Linear A, 2.355; Linear B, 2.356;
Methods, 3.371 Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.478; Scribes,
Beard, Mary Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Mycenaean, 3.265
Methods, 3.371 Benseler, Gustav E. Personal Names, 3.55
Beardsley, Aubrey Drama Translation, 1.527 Bentein, Klaas Auxiliaries, 1.219; Perfect, 3.46; Tense/
Beaucamp, Joélle Ancient Philosuphers an Language, Aspect, 3.988
1.131 Bentley, Richard Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of
Beazley, John D. Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Greek Etymology, 1.578
Attica, 1.30 Benua, Laura = Truncation, 3.445
Becares Botas, Vicente Diathesis (diathesis), Ancient Benveniste, Emile Abstract Nouns, 1.4; Agent Nouns,
Theories of, 1.468 1.72: Clause, 1.295; Derivational Morphology, 1.439:
Bechert, Johannes Voice, 3.498 Greek and Iranian, 2.69; Greek Lexicon, Structure
Bechtel, Friedrich = Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155; Archaisms and Origin of, 2.11; Heteroclitics, 2.158; Impersonal
in Modern Dialects, 1.165; Argolic, 1.171; Dialects, Verbs/Canstructions, 2.199; Indo-European Linguistic
Classification of, 1.464; Infinitives (Morphology of), Background, 2.215; Infinitives (Morphology of),
2,227; lonic, 2.266; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.330; 2.226; Kinship Terms, 2.271; Language Change, 2.294:
Personal Names, 3.55; Reduplicated Presents, 3.210; Movable s, 2.470; Poetic Language, 3.105; Possession,
Truncation, 3.445: Vowel Changes, 3.504 4,6; Predicative Constituents, 3.131; Proto-Greek and
Beck, Hans-Georg Byzantine Phase and Reception of Common Greek, 3.187; Root Structure (and Ablaut),
Ancient Greek, the, 1.250 3.253; Schwebeablaut, 3.261; Time, 3.407; Verhal
Beek, Lucien van Assimilation, 1.186 Adjectives, 3.475
Beekes, Robert S.P. 'Narten' Presents, 2.480; Calques, Benvenuto, Maria C. Possession, 3.116
1261; Calor Terms, 1.316; Conjunctions (Subordinating), Beowulf Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126
1.364; Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of), 1.473; Berber Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99; Zoonyms
Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477; Dissimilation, 1.515; (Names of Mammals), 3.544
Etymological Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to Berber (Ahaggar) Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99
the zoth Century, 1.573; Grassmann’s Law, 2.27; Greek Berenguer Sanchez, José A. Particles (Syntactic
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.110; Indo-European Features), 3.32
Linguistic Background, 2.218; Infinitives (Morphology Berezan island Local Scripts, 2.383
of), 2.226; Laryngeal Changes, 2.312; Mediopassive, 2.411 Berg, Nils Perfect, Formation of, 3.51; Syllabic
Nasal Presents, 2.481; Negation (Morphology), 2.491; Consonants, 3.945
560 INDEX

Berg, R.M. vanden Ancient Philosophers on Language, bilingual language variety Greek Loanwords in Coptic,
1129 2.119
Bergen, Benjamin Construction Grammar and Greek, bilingualism Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
1.376 1.114; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology,
Bergk, Theodor Fpigram, Diction of, 1.561; Greek Lyric 1.122; Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Poetry, Translation, 2.127 Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240; Code-Switching, 1.308;
Bergs, Alexander Construction Grammar and Greek, Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32; Greek and
1.377 Latin, 2.65; Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129; Greek/Latin
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf Arabic Tradition, Translation, Bilingualism, 2.146; Language Contact, 2.299
1.149; Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33 Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt” 1.234
Berkey, Jonathan P, Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147 Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-Century
Berkowitz, Luci Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392 Jewish Palestine* 1.238
Berlage, Bradley P. Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Billerbeck, Margarethe Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Methods, 3.372 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Dictionaries of
Berlin, Brent Color Terms, 1316 Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo Phonological Change, 2.86 1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity
Bernabé, Alberto Comparative Method, 1.390; Linear B, and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Lexicography, History of,
2.359; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine 2.352; synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Period, 2,549; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344 Periad, 3.353
Bernecker, Roland Etymolagical Dictionaries: From bimoraic Syllables, 3.349
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574 binarity Foot, 1.602
Bernofsky, Susan Homer, Translation, 2.177 binders Sentence, 3.282
Berrettoni, Pierangiola Tense (khrönos), Ancient Binnick, Robert Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229; Verbal System
Theuries of, 3.378 (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
Berschin, Walter Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364 Biondi, Laura Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94
Bertalot, Ludwig Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 Bigäf (Bekaa) valley Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts),
Berthelot, Marcelin Dictionaries of Scientific 2.31
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.488 Biraud, Michéle Comparative Clauses, 1.328;
Berti, Irene Oaths, Curses, 2.547 Determiners, 1.442; Interjections, 2.250; Modifiers,
Bertinetto, PierM. Perfect, 3.48 2.445; Noun Phrase, 2.527; Pronouns (Demonstrative,
Bertrand, Nicolas Apposition, 1.145 Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158; Quantifiers,
Berytus (Beirut) Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 3-199
Besios, Matthaios Nestor’s Cup, 2.496 Birch, Samuel Cypriot Syllabary, 1.406
Bessarion, Basilius (Cardinal) Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Birkenes, Magnus Agreement, 1.74
Translation, 3.127: Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, Birzachechi, Mario Greek and Lydian, 2.70
3.365 Bisaltia Macedonian, 2.392
Besten, H. den Government Binding and Greek, 2.21 Bisetto, Antonietta Compounding/Derivation/
Beta, Simone Aischrology, 177 Construction Morphology, 1.352
Bétant, Elie Ami Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477 Bishop, Charles E. Verbal Adjectives, 3.471
Bethe, Erich Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to Bissinger, Manfred Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
the Byzantine Period, 1482; Onomastica: From Antiquity Methods, 3.368
to the Byzantine Period, 2.551 Bithynia Greek and Celtic, 2.43; Greek and Thracian, 2.88
Bethlehem Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, Bittner, Stefan History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
3-437 Gennany, 2.172
Bever, Thomas G. Anaphoric Processes, 1.10 Bitto, Irma Greek in Sicily in Late Antiguity, 2.98
Beza ‘Christian’ Greek, 1,281 Biville, Frederique Greek Lexicon in Western Languages,
Bezzenberger, Adalbert Etymological Dictionaries: 2.107
Theory of Greek Etymology, 1.578 Björck, Gudmund Auxiliaries, 1.219: Compound Tenses
Bhat, Darbhe N.S. Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.59; (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Hellenistic Literary Prose,
Pronominal System, 3.150; Pronouns (Demonstrative, 2.158; Tragedy, Diction of, 3.419
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158 Black Sea Doric, 1.516; Indo-European Historical
Bible Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Background, 2.208; Ionic, 2.260; Personal Names, 3.55;
Byzantine Period, 1.575; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134 Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134; Proto-Greek and Common
Biblical Greek Ad pusitions (Prepositions), 1.47; Christian’ Greek, 3.177
Greek, 1.282; Contact through Translation, 1.379; Tense Black, David Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389
and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, Black, Jeremy Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99
3.380 Black, Matthew ‘Christian’ Greek, 1,218
biceps Responsion, 3.235 Blake, Barry]. Case (including Syncretism), 1.261
Bickel, Balthasar Agreement, 1.73 Blakolmer, Fritz Color Terms, 1.315
Biddau, Federico Orthography (orthograpfia), Ancient Blank, David L. Analogy, 1.104; Ancient Philosophers
Theories of, 2.574 on Language, 1.191; Declension/Conjugation (Aifsis),
bidialectalism Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, Ancient Theories of, 1.419; Intonational Phrase, 2.255;
1.116; Code-Switching, 1.308 Linguistic Correctness (hellönismös), Ancient Theories
Bilabel, Friedrich Palaeography, 3.5 of, 2.360; Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theories
Bile, Monique Cretan, 1.396; Insular Doric, 2.246; Nominal of, 2.573; Philological-Grammatical Tradition In Ancient
System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502 Linguistics, 3.65; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
 INDEX 561

Linguistics, 3.241; Syntax (suntaxis), Ancient Theories of, Boeotian® 1.241: Adpositional Phrase, 1.36; Adpositions
3.360; Tropes (tröpai), Ancient Theories of, 3.442 (Prepositions), 1.48; Ancient Bidialectalism and
Blänsdorf, jürgen Roman Translation of Greek Texts, Bilingualism, 1.16; Apocope, 1.142; Arcado-Cypriot, 1.157:
3.246 Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.167; Classical Greek
Blass, Friedrich ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Ancient Prose Morphology (Survey), 1.288; Code-Switching, 1.308;
Rhythm, 1.135; Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), Comparative Method, 1,329; Dialectology (didlektox),
1.348; Sandhi, 3.256; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect. Ancient Theories of, 1.459; Dialects, Classification of,
Mood), 3.477; Vocative, 3.493; Voice, 3.501 1.436; Epigraphy, 1.565; Monophthongization, 2.396;
Blass's Law Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135; Literary Prose, Phonology (Survey), 3.95; Pronominal System, 3.150;
2.377 Sotera Rule, 3.297; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345; Syncope,
Blazek, Vaclav Phytonyms (Names of Trees). 3.97 3.351; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.483; Vowel
Blegen, Carl W. Linear B, 2.355; Pre-Greek Languages, Changes, 3.505
3.134 Boeotian league Attitudes to Language, 1.203
Bleich, David Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Boeoticisms Epic Diction, 1.550
Methods, 3.371 Boersma, Paul Optimality and Greek, 2.555
Blevins, James P, Nominal System (Gender, Number, Boethlus Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Roman
Case), 3.501 Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249; Translation of Greek
Blevins, Juliette Anaptyxis, 1.113; Phonotactics, 3.97 Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.437
Blinkenberg, Christian Rhodian, 3.242 Boßazköy Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Pre-
Bloch, Bernard Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.326 Greek Languages, 3.134
Biom, Alderik Papyri, Language of, 3.12 Boge, Herbert Palaeography, 3.1
Blomqvist, Jerker Ancient Bidialectalism and Bohairic Greek Loanwords in Coptic, 2.18
Bilingualism, 1.116: Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Particles Bohairic Pentateuch Greek Novel, Translation, 2.135
(Formal Features), 3.24; Particles (Syntactic Features), Bolleau, Nicolas Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126
3.40; Word Order, 3.533 Boisacg, Emile Databases and Dictionaries [Papyrology
Bloomfield, Leonard Dialects, Classification of, 1.467; and Epigraphy included], 1.413; Dictionaries of Ancient
Haplology, 2.151; Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.323; Greek, 1.477: Etymological Dictionaries: From the
Suppletion, 3.342 Renaissance to the 2oth Century, 1.572
Blürnel, Wolfgang Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Bolelli, Tristano Abstract Nouns, 1.5; Collective/Mass
Diphthongization, 1.498 Nouns, 1.314
Blumenfeld, Lev Minima, 2.442; Optimality and Greek, Bolgar, Robert R. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
2.557 in Germany, 2.163
Blumenthal, Henry J. Ancient Philosaphers on Language, Bolinger, Dwight Auxiliaries, 1.218; Syntax-Phonalogy
1.131: Greek and Illyrian, 2.58 Interface, 3.362
Blusch, Jürgen History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Bolivia Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts
Germany, 2.164 and Models, 3.432
Boardman, John Local Scripts, 2.386 Bolkestein, Machtelt Mood and Modality, 2.454;
Boas, Hans C. Construction Granimar and Greek, 1.376 Predicative Constituents, 3.132
Boatwright, Mary T. Attitudes to Language, 1.205 Bolling, George M. Haplology, 2.152; Reflexives, 3.217
Boccaccio, Giovanni Homer, Translation, 2.176; Bolmarcich, Sarah Oaths, Curses, 2.546
Renaissance, Translation, 3.232 Bolognesi, Giancarla Greek and Armenian, 2.38
Bochart, Samuel Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Bonfante, Giuliano Comparative Method, 1.330
Contacts), 2.78 Ronfante, Larissa Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90
Bock, Kathryn Number, 2.536 Bonifazi, Anna Anaphoric Processes, 1.108; Direct/
Bodel, John Alphabet, Descendants of, 190; Epigraphy, Indirect Discourse, 1505; Text Linguistics and Greek,
1.565 3.390
Bodin, Jean Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90 Bonitz, Hermann Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Bodmer, Johann]. Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Dictionarles, 1.357
Translation, 3.126 Bonner, Stanley, Rhetorical ‘Tradition in Ancient
body motion Media Tantum, 2.403 Linguistics, 3.238; Style (lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.329
body motion middle Voice, 3.496 Booij, Geert Clitic Group, 1.296; Compounding/
Boeckh, August Epigraphy, 1.568; Lyric Meter, 2.386; Derivation/Construction Morphology, 1,350; Prosodic
Period, 3.54; Verse, 2.490 Word, 3.161; Syllable Weight, 3,346
Boegehold, Alan Discourse Analysis and Greek, 15u Boone, Rebeeca Greek Historiegraphy, Translation, 2.90
Buehm, Isabelle Argument Clause, 1.175; Subordination, Bopp, Franz Comparative Method, 1.329; Infinitives
3.338 (Syntax), 2.229; Language Change, 2.291; Phonetic Law,
Boel, Gunnar de Argument Clause, 1.175; Lexical Aspect 3.77
(Aktionsart), 2.438 Hornemann, Eduard Genitive Absolute, 2.8; Syntax-
Boeotia Accommodation, 1.13; Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Phonology Interface, 3.362
Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98; Attirudes Borries, Johann von Dictionaries of Dialects: From
to Language, 1.204; Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482
Dual, 1.534: Indo-European Historical Background, borrowing Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek,
2.210; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.328; Local Scripts, 1.224; Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284; Epic Diction,
2.380; Macedonian, 2.396; Northwest Greek, 2.520; 1.553; Greek Loanwords in Coptic, 2.119; Late Antiquity
Patrunymics, 3.45; Phonology (Survey), 3.92; Transition Prose, 2.317; Neogrammarians, 2.493; Semantic Change,
from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421 3.276
562 INDEX

Borsippa Greek and Carian, 2.40 Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.120;
Bortolussi, Bernard Possession, 3.116; Roman Translation Arcado-Cypriot, 1156; Attitudes to Language, 1.205;
of Greek Texts, 3.250 Consonants, 1.374; Doric, 1515; Elean (and Olympia),
Bortone, Pietro Indirect Object, 2.203; Kaine, Origins 1.536; Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Greek and Phrygian, 2.72;
of, 2.282; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.336; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Laconian, Messenian, 2.287;
Prepositives, 3.145: Recipient, 3.208 Language Policies, 2.310; Linguistic Variation in Classical
Borysthenes Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, Attic, 2.365; Macedonian, 2.396; Northwest Greek, 2.521;
1.114; Local Scripts, 2.383 Pamphylian, 3.8; Phonology (Survey), 3.91; Relative
Boschetti, Federico Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393 Chronology, 3.220; Vowels, 3.506; Yodization, 3.543
Boékovic, Zeljko Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361: broad focus construction Focus, 1.596
Wackernagel's Law I, 3.510 Brock, Sebastian Contact through Translation, 1.380;
Bosnian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, Greek and Aramaic, 2.35; Greek Loanwords in Slavic,
1.223; Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361 2.123; Greek Loanwords in Syriac, 2.124; Septuagint,
Bosporus Literary Prose. 2.373; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.287
3.136 Brockelmann, Carl Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99
Bossi, Francesco Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Broger, Anne Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329
Byzantine Period, 3.353 Broggiato, Maria Linguistic Correctness (Aellénismds),
Bossong, Georg Experiential Constructions, 1.586 Ancient Theories of, 2.362; Philological-Grammatical
Botley, Paul Homer, Translation, 2.176; Renalssance, Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.70
Translation, 3.234 Brenno, Einar Greek and Hebrew, 2.53
Bottiea Macedonian, 2.992 Bronze Age Epic Diction, 1.551; Language and Variation
boukolos-rule Dissimilation, 1.514 in Greece, 2.288; Linear B, 2,355
Bourguet, Emile Tsakonian, 3.447 Brown corpus Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.391
boustropheden Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.95; Brown, Christopher G. Aischrology, 1.77
Cretan, 1.396: Doric, 1.517; Epigraphy, 1565; Gortyn Code, Brown, Dunstan Nominal System (Gender, Number,
2.19; Greek Writing Systems, 2.144; Local Scripts. 2.382 Case), 2.50)
Bouthrotos Greek and Illyrian, 2.57 Brown, Gillian Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.35; Text
Bowersock, Glen W. Atticism, 1.197 Linguistics and Greek, 3.389; Topic, 3.412
Bowie, Angus M. Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329 Brown, H. Paul Aischrology, 1.77
Bowie, Ewen L. Elegy, Diction of, 1.543; Late Antiquity Brown, Penelope Politeness/Courtesy Expressions, 3.n2
Poetry, 2.314 Brown, Roger W. Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic
Bowra, CecileM. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Variation, 1.606
Bozzi, Andrea Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393 Brown, Virginia Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90
Bradford, Annette N. Figures (skhémata), Ancient Browning, Robert Accusative, 1.18; Atticism, 1.202;
Theories of, 1.591 Attitudes to Language, 1,206; Balkan Sprachbund:
Bradley, Katharine Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125 Early Evidence in Greek, 1.228; Byzantine Phase ancl
Brague, Rémi Diathesis (diäthesis), Ancient Theories of, Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.250; Compound
1.468 Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.349; Consonant Changes,
Brams, jozef Medieval Translation of Greek Texts, 2.409 1,373; Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek,
Brandenburg, Philipp Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.59 1.446; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127: Homer,
Brandenstein, Wilhelm Attic Reversion, 1.196; Phonology Translation, 2.175; Koine, Features of, 2.275; Latin
(Survey), 3.94; Toponyms, 3.415 Loanwords in Greek, 2.321; Metathesis, 2.419; Optative,
Brandis, Jahannes Cyprint Syllabary, 1.406 2.554; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.127;
Brann, Eva Adoption of the tonic alphabet in Attica, 1.30 Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334; Tense and Aspect
Branwood, Leonard = Cancordances/Indices/Reverse trom Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.381; Written
Dictionaries, 1.357 versus Spoken Language, 3.539
Brathwaite, Kamau Translation in Non-Western Bruder, CarlH. Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.432 Dictionaries, 1.357
Braun, Alfonsina Choral Poetry, Diction of; 1.279 Brüges Macedonian, 2.396
Braun, Friederike farms of Address and Sociolinguistic Brugman, Claudia Contact through Translation, 1,381
Variation, 1.606 Brugmann, Karl Abstract Nouns, 1.6; Aorist, 2.410;
Braune, Wilhelm Nengrammarlans. 2.492 Causative Formation, 1.275; Collective/Mass Nouns,
Breck, Jolın Chiusm, 1.277 1.314; Detxis (including ist and and Person), 1.427; Doric
Breen, Gavan = Hiatus, 2.160 Accentuation, 1.523; Gluttalic Theory und Greek, 2.16;
Brennan, T. Corey = Graffiti, 2.25 Imperative, 2.196; Impersonal Verbs, 2.198; Infinitives
Brenne, Stephen Adoption of the lonic alphabet in (Syntax), 2.229; Intensifiers, 2.247; Language Change,
Attica, 1.31; Local Scripts, 2,384 2.292: Neogrammarians, 2.492; Orders (Imperative/
brevis in longo Intonational Phrase, 2.255; Metron, 2.438 Prohibitives), 2.571; Phonetic Law, 3.76; Reflexives, 3.216
Briand, Michel Argument Clause, 1.175 Brumfield, Allaire C. Aischrology, 1.77
Briges Macedonian, 2.396 Rrumay, Pierre Drama Translation, 1,528
Brinton, Laurel]. Auxiliaries, 1.218 Bruni, Leonardo Renaissance, Translation, 3.233;
Briona Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy. 3.366
Britain Greek and Celtic, 2.44 Bruno, Carla Abstract Nouns, 1.4
Britannia Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Brust, Manfred Greek and Iranian, 2.63; Nominal System
Brixhe, Claude Aeolic Dialects, 1,62; Alphabet, (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502
Descendants of, 1.91, Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, Bryant, William C. Homer, Translation, 2.180
1.97; Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.116; Bu Njem Papvrolugy, 3.15
 INDEX 563
Bubenik, Vit Adpositional Phrase, 1.33; Adpositions Buxton, Richard R. Ancient Philosophers on Language,
(Prepositions), 1.42; Ancient Bidialectalism and 1125
Bilingualism, 1115; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics Bybee, Joan Case Syncretism (Morphological Aspects
and Dialectology, 1.121; Aorist Formation, 1.141; Aspect of), 1.274; Compounding/Derivation/Construction
{and Tense), 1183; Attitudes to Language, 1.203; Balkan Morphology, 1.350; Hyperbaton, 2.184; Mood and Modality,
Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.225; Classical 2.452: Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290; Definiteness/Definite Byblos Greek and Aramaic, 2.35
Article, 1.419; Desideratives, 1.441; Dialectal Convergence, Bye, Patrick Dissimilation, 1.514; Syllable Weight, 3.346
1.455; Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.201; inflectional Classes, Bynon, Theodora Epanalepsis, 1.546; Phonetic Law, 3.78;
2.237; Koine, Origins of, 2,280; Language and Variation Phonological Change, 3.86
in Greece, 2.288; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, Byron, George G. (Lord) Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation,
2.964; Merger, 2.419; New Testament, 2.497; Optative, 2.125
2,554; Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21; Byzantine Greek Adpositional Phrase, 1.39; Ancient
Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3,60; Phonology (Survey), Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.16; Balkan
3.92; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.186; Space Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.224; Case
(Adpositions), 3.310; Structural Linguistics and Greek, Syncretism {Morphological Aspects of), 1.273; Greek
3.324; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334; Thematic Loanwords in Geez, 2.120; Language Contact, 2.300;
Vowel, Stem Formation, 3,397; Written versus Spoken Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.968; Particles
Language, 3.539 {Formal Features), 3.27: Verbal System (Tense, Aspect,
Buca, Roberto (Father) Databases and Dictionaries Mood), 3.479
[Papyrology and Epigraphy included], 1.4u Byzantine Phase and Reception of Ancient Greek,
Buchner, Giargio Local Scripts, 2.382; Nestor’s Cup, 2.495 the* 1.24
Buck, Carl D, Adpositional Phrase, 1.36: Aeolic Dialects, Byzantium Atticism, 1.200; Doric, 1.516; Personal Names,
1.63; Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.116; 3:55
Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology,
1.18; Attic Reversion, 1.195; Bartoli's Law, 1.229: C(h)alcidius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249;
Compensatory Lengthening, 1.334: Concordances/ Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436
Indices/Reverse Dictionaries, 1.358; Conjunctions Cadbury, Henry]. Pronouns (Demonstrative,
(Subordinating), 1.366; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.160
Doric, 1.517; Grassmann's Law, 2.27; Greek Lexicon, Cadogan, Gerald Cypro-Minoan Syllabary, 1.408
Structure and Origin of, 2.110; History of Teaching af Caecilius of Caleacte Asianism, 1.180; Atticism, 1.198;
Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.163; lonic, 2.266; Nominal Figures (skhemata), Ancient Theories of, 1.591 Jewish
System (Gender, Number, Case), 2,502; Pronominal Greek, 2.269; Lexicography, History of, 2,349: Rhetorical
System, 3.150; Psilosis, 3.192; Rhotacism. 3.244: Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.241: Style (/éxis),
Thessalian, 3.403; Verba Dicendi, 3.469 Ancient Theories of, 3.928
Buckley, Theodore A. Abstract Nouns, 1.6 Caelius Anrelianus Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
Budelmann, Felix Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2,125; 3,250; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity,
Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.431; Postcolonial 3.437
Translation; Theory and Practice, 3.124 Caesar Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92; Asianism, 1.180;
Budge, Wallis Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127 Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Greek Historiography,
Bühler, Karl Deixis (including 1st and 2nd Person), 1.422: Translation, 2.91
Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.431 Caesarea Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Buijs, Michel ‘Tense/Aspect, 3.387; Text Linguistics and Century Jewish Palestine, 1238
Greek, 3.390 Caesura* 1,253; Prosodic Word, 3.164
Bulgaria Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.9; Greek Cairns, Douglas L. Aischrology. 1.78
Loanwords in Slavic, 2.123 Cairo Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts
Bulgarian Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.164; Balkan arıd Models, 3.434
Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.223; Language Calabria Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.95; Magna
Contact, 2.299; Macedonian, 2.392 Graecia, Dialects, 2.400; Renaissance, Translation, 3,232
Bülow-Jacobsen, Adam Written versus Spoken Calame, Claude Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128;
Language, 3.540 Song and Recitation, 3.294; Transition from the Local
Bunt, HarryC. Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.313 Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3,42:
Burchard, Christoph Greek Novel, Translation, 2.133 Caland System* 1.256; Adverbs (Murphological Aspects
Burke, Brendan Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.30 of), 1,57; Derivational Morphology, 1.440; Word
Burke, Peter Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.526
Burridge, Kate Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.584; New Caland, Willem Caland System and Greek, 1.256;
Testament, 2,498 Derivational Morphology, 1.440
Busa, Roberto Concordances/Indices/Reverse Caland's Law Caland System and Greek, 1.256
Dictionaries, 1.357 Calboli, Gualtiero Metaphor (metaphorä), Ancient
Butcher, Samuel H. Film Adaptation and Translation, Theories of, 2.417; Tropes (frdpat), Ancient Theories of,
1,593; Homer, Translation, 2.179 3.443
Buthrotum Language Contact, 2.302 Calhoun, George M. Formulas, 1,614
Butler, Jonathan L. Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax Callanan, Christopher K. Linguistic Correctness
and Marphology), 1.493 (hellénismds), Ancient Theories of, 2.361; Philological-
Butler, Samuel Aischrology, 1.76; Homer, Translation, Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.67;
2.177 Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories
Butt, Miriam Case (including Syncretism), 1.262 af, 3.530
564 INDEX

Callimachus Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Carians Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114;
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Bridges, 1.246; Language Contact, 2.302; Lemnian, 2.327; Pre-Greek
Dialectology (diälektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.459; Substrate, 3.138
Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Caribbean Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice,
Period, 1.481; Dictionaries of Onomastics: Fram Antiquity 3.124; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts
to the Byzantine Period, 1.483; Epigram, Diction of and Models, 3.429
1.563; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156; Lexicography, Carinci, Filippo Phaistos Disc, 3.62
History of, 2.349; Metrics, 2.423; Onomastica: From Carla, Filippo Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.594
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550; Post-Homeric Carlson, Marvin Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Epic Poetry, Transtation, 3.126; Roman Translation of Concepts and Models, 3.434
Greek Texts, 3.247 Carman, Bliss Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Callinus lambic Poetry, Diction uf, 2.188 Carneades Atticism, 1.199
Callistratus Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, Carnie, Andrew Government Binding and Greek, 2.22
1.469; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Carnoy, Albert J. Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.130: Topunyms,
Linguistics, 3.69 3.414
Calques* 1260; Contact through Translation, 1.379; Greek Carpathos Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604: Insular
and Hebrew, 2.53: Greek and Latin, 2.66; Jewish Greek, Doric, 2.245
2.268; Language Contact, 2.304; Late Antiquity Prose, Carpinato, Caterina tomer, Translation, 2.175
2.317; Lexical Change, 2.340; Translation of Greek Texts Carrell, Patricia Cohesion, 1.313
in Late Antiquity, 3.436 Carruba, Onofrio Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Pre-
Calvus Atticism, 1.197 Greek Languages, 3.136
Calymna Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604 Carson, Anne Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125
Calymnos = Insular Doric, 2.245 Carstairs, Andrew Case Syncretism (Morphological
Camarina Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94; Sicily, Aspects of), 1.272; Suppletion, 3.342
Dialects in, 3.290 Carter, Ronald Language Play and Translation, 2.306
Camerarius, Johann History of Teaching of Ancient Carthage Greek and Etruscan, 2.51
Greek in Germany, 2.163 Carthaginians Secret Language/Codes/Magical
Cameron, George C. Greek and Carian, 2.49; Late Language, 3.273; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.291
Antiquity Poetry, 2.314 Cartledge, Paul Accommodation, 113
Caminia Lemnian, 2.327 Carus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248
Campania Greek and Etruscan, 2.49; Toponyıns, 3.414 Carystos onic, 2.261
Campanians Magna Graccia, Dialects, 2.398 case Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Nominal
Campanile, Enrico Poetic Language, 3.103 System (Gender, Number, Case}, 2.500
Campbell, Constantine R. Tense and Aspect from Case (including Syncretism)* 1.261
Hellenistic ta Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380 Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of* 1.268
Campbell, David A. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 case attraction Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.210
Campbell, Lyle Phonetic Law, 3.77 case syncretism Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
Canaan) Greek and Hebrew, 2.52: Late Antiquity Poetry, Greek, 1.224; Vocatıve, 3.492
2.315 Case Syncretism (Morphological Aspects of)* 1.271
Canali De Rossi, Filippo Greek and Iranian, 2.63 cases, ‘grammatical’ Case (including Syncretism), 1.263
Canegem, van Conditionals, 1.359 cases, ‘syntactic’ Case (including Syncretism), 1.263
Canisius, Peter History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in cases, concrete (‘semantic’) Case (including Syncretism),
Germany, 2.169 1.263
Cannadine, David Translation in Non-Western Caskey, JohnL. Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28
Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.433 Casmenae Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290
Canon of Ten Legal Terminology, 2.325 Casos Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Insular
canonical counter-discourse Postcolonial Translation: Daric, 2.245
Theory and Practice, 3.122 Caspian Sea Indo-European Historical Background, 2.208
Cantrall, William R. Intensifiers. 2.246 Cassander Language Policies, 2.31
Cape Maleas Tsakonian, 3.446 Cassin, Barbara Sentence/Utterance (lögos), Ancient
capital script Epigraphy, 1.564 Theories of, 3.284
Cappadocia Language Contact, 2.300: Pre-Greek Cassio, Albio C. Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.279; Comedy,
Substrate, 3.138 Diction of, 1.319; Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient
Cappadocian Developments in Medieval and Modern Thearies of, 1.458; Epic Diction, 1.555: Greck and Iranian,
Greek, 1.449; Indirect Object, 2.205 2.63; Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.104;
Capua Greek and Latin, 2.66 Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153; Linguistic Variation in
Caratzas, Stamatis C, Tsakonian, 3.446 Classical Attic, 2.366
Cardona, George Nasal Presents, 2.482 Cassioderus Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Carey, Chris Aischrology, 1.77 Ancient Linguistics, 3.66: Translation of Greek Texts in
Carla Asianism, 1180; Greek and Cartan, 2.40; Greek und Late Antiquity, 3.436
Lycian, 2.69: Koine, Origins of, 2.284; Rhodian, 3.242 Cassius Felix Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Carian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90: Greek and Antiquity, 3.437
Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and Carian, 2.40; Greek Castilian Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
and Lycian, 2.68; lonic, 2.260; Language Contact, 2,305; Concepts and Models, 3.432
Lexical Change, 2.341; Literary Prose, 2.372; Pre-Greek catachresis Etymology (etumufogia), Ancient Theories ol,
Languages, 9.194 1.582: Tropes (tröpei), Ancient Theories of, 3.444
 INDEX 565
catalexis Lyric Meter, 2.385; Metron, 2.438: Responsion, Chaeroneia Koine, Origins of, 2.280
3.236; Verse, 3.489 Chafe, Wallace L. Grounding of Information, 2.148;
catalogi Epigraphy, 1.567 Information Structure and Greek, 2.240; Intonational
catalogues Orality and Literacy, 2.563 Phrase, 2.253; Topic, 3.411
Catana (Catania) fonic, 2.261; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290 Chailley, Jacques Song and Recitation, 3.295
cataphora Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.429; chain reaction Koine, Features of, 2.273
Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.510 chain shifts Neogrammarians, 2.494; Phonological
categorial periphrasis Auxiliaries, 1.219 Change, 3.86
Catius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248 chain-effects Dialectal Convergence, 1.455
Cato the Elder Internal Reconstruction, 2.252; Puns, 3.193 Chalcedon Doric, 1.516
Catsimali, Georgia Government Binding and Greek, 2.22 Chalcidian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Epigraphy,
Catullus Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Metrics, 1.565
2,423; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247 Chalcidice Peninsula Boeotian, 1.24; Doric, 1.516; tonic,
Caucasian Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.142 2.260; Language Contact, 2.301; Language Policies, 2.311:
Caucasian, East Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.97 Macedonian, 2.392
Caucasus Indo-European Historical Background, 2,208 Chalcis Adoption of the Jonic alphabet in Attica, 1.32;
Caulonia Achaean, 1.19; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398 lonic, 2.261; Macedonian, 2.392
causation Agency and Causation, 1.65 Chalcondyles, D. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
causative Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of), 1.474; Nasal in Germany, 2.168
Presents, 2.483; Present Tense, 3.147; Reduplicated Chalki Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1162; Formation of
Presents, 3.210; Verbal Valency, 3.488 Doric Koines, The, 1.604
Causative Formation® 1.275 Champollion, Jean-Francois Etymolngical Dictionaries:
causative middle Voice, 3.499 Theory of Greek Etymology, 1.578; Rosetta Stone, 3.254
causative/frequentative Contract Verbs, 1.383 chancellery dialect Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.271
Cause Adverbial Constituents, 1.53; Agency and chancellery language Variation in Mycenaean Greek,
Causation, 1.68; Dative, 1.416 3-457
Caussin, Jean-Jacques A. Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, chancery style Palaeography, 3.3
Translation, 3.126 Chandler, Robert Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2128
Cavallo, Guglielmo Palaeography, 3.5 Chanet, Anne-Marie Argument Clause, 1.175
Cavenaile, Robert Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.322 Chang, Nancy Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.376
Cayley, Charles B. Homer, Translation, 2.180 Chaniotis, Angelos Graffiti, 2.26
Cechetto, Carlo Infinitives (Syntax), 2.233 Chantraine, Pierre passim (in over 50 articles)
Celano, Giuseppe Topic, 3.412 Chapman, George Homer, Translation, 2.176; Post-
Gelebi,E. Tsakonian, 3.446 Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126
Celsus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250 characterization Noun Phrase, 2.531
Celtiberian Numerals, 2.543 Charisius Figures (skhémate), Ancient Theories of, 1.59:
Celtic Aorist Formation, 1,139; Dual, 1.539; Greek and Noun (énoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.526; Philological-
Celtic, 2.43; Indo-European Historical Background, Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.72
2.206; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.212; Chariton Greek Novel, Translation, 2.191; Late Antiquity
Language Change, 2.292; Language Contact, 2.292; Prose, 2.319
Mediopassive, 2.412; Osthoff's Law, 2.576; Structural Charpin, Frangois Word Classes (mere toi lögou),
Linguistics and Greek, 3.325; Thematic and Athematic Ancient Theories of, 3.516
Verbs, 3.395 Chaucer, Geoffrey Atticism, 1.202
Celtis History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, Cheimonas, G. Intralingual Translation into Modern
2.163 Greek, 2.259
Centering theory Anaphoric Processes, 1.111 Chen, Matthew Y. Comparative Method, 1.330; Prosodic
centum language Consonant Changes, 1.372; Indo- Word, 3.161
European Linguistic Background, 2.213 Chersonesos Doric, 1.516
Ceos = Attic, 1.189; Ionic, 2.261; Local Scripts, 2.382 Chian Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek,
Cephallenia Achaean, 1.19 1.449; Epic Diction, 1556
Ceresa-Gastaldo, Aldo Contact through Translation, Chiasm* 1.277
1,980 chiastic repetition Chiasm, 1.277
Cervenka-Ehrenstrasser, Irene-Maria Latin Loanwords chiastic structure Chiasm, 1.277
in Greek, 2,321 Chila-Markupvuluu, Despuina Government Binding aud
Cesaretti, Paolo Byzantine Phase and Reception of Greek, 2.22
Ancient Greek, the, 1.249 Chile Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts
Cesnola collection Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405 and Models, 3.432
Chadwick, John Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and China Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts
Dialectology, 1.120; Augment, 1.216; Cypriot Syllabary, and Models, 3.429
1.405; Dialects, Classification of, 1.464; Dictionaries of Chinese Homer, Translation, 2.177; Translation in
Ancient Greek, 1.475; Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500; Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.431
Epic Diction, 1551; Etymological Dictionaries: Theory Chios Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.605; Ionic, 2.260;
of Greek Etymology, 1.578; Lexical Fields Theory and Lesbian (and Asian Aeclic}, 2.331; Local Scripts, 2.384;
Greek, 2.343; Linear B, 2.355; Nominal System (Gender, Transition from the Local Alphabets to the [onic Script,
Number, Case), 2.502; Phaistos Disc, 3.62; Prosodic 3.420
Word, 3.162; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.176; Chiron Style (l&xis), Ancient Theories of, 3.329
Thessalian, 3.403 Choerilus Tragedy, Diction of, 3.417
566 INDEX
Choeroboscus, Georgius Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories Gierium Thessalian, 3.403
of, 1.270; Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, Cignolo, Chiara Metrics (metrun), Ancient Theories ol,
1.460; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to 2.435
the Byzantine Periad, 1.576; Lexicography, History of, Cilicia Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98;
2.352; Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Anctent Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-Century
Theories of, 2.363; Mood (énftisis), Ancient Theories of, Jewish Palestine, 1.238; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404;
2.450; Orthography (orthagraphia), Ancient Theories af, Pamphylian, 3.8; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.135; Toponyms,
2.574; Tense (khrönos), Ancient Theories of, 3.378; Word 3.414
Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, Cilicia, East Koine, Origins ol, 2.284
3.531 Cimolos Insular Doric, 2.245; lonic, 2.261
Chomsky, Noam Dependency Grammar and Greek, cinematic adaptations Film Adaptation and Translation,
2.435; Government Binding and Greek, 2.21; Hyperbaton, 1.593
2,184; Retlexives, 3.215 Cinesias Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.432
Choral Poetry, Diction of* 1.278 Cipriano, Palmira Greek and Iranian, 2.63; Vocative,
Chorasmian Greek and Iranian, 2.62 3.492
Christian Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315 Circe Project Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
Christian Arabic Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.121 Methods, 3.373
‘Christian’ Greek* 1.280 Civilleri, Germana O, Abstract Nouns, 1.4; Space
Christian Greek Vocabulary" 1.284 (Adpositions), 3.310
Christianity Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284; Greek Clackson, James "Narten' Presents, 2.480; Alphabet,
Writing Systems, 2.145 Descendants of, 1.93; Attitudes to Language, 1.205;
Christians Septuagint, 4.287 Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of), 1.473; Mediopassive,
Christidis, A.-Ph. Northwest Greek, 2.524 (et passim) 2.412; Neogrammarians, 2,494; Phonetic Law, 3,78:
Christie, William Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Phonological Change, 3.87; Prothesis, 3.174; Protu-Greek
Christodarus of Coptus Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314 and Common Greek, 3.179; Written versus Spoken
Christol, Alain Lexical Change, 2.339 Language, 3.539
Christomanos, Konstantinos Intralingual Translation cladistics Indo-European Historical Background, 2,207
into Modern Greek, 2.258 Clairis, Christos Pronominal System, 3.153
chronology Relative Chronology, 3.223 Clarisse, Willy Language Policies, 2.310
Chronopoulou, Christina-Eleni Optimality and Greek, Clark, Ann M. Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
2.558; Personal Names, 3.57 Methods, 3.370
Chrysippus Allegory (afegoria}, Ancient Theories of, Clark, Matthew Epic Meter, 1.560
1,87; Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.134; Case (ptösis), Ancient Clarysse, Willy Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.235;
Theories of, 1.269; Declension/Conjugation (klisis), Papyri, Language of, 3.12; Rosetta Stone, 3.254
Ancient Theories of, 1.418; Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Classical Greek Morphology (Survey)” 1.286
Theories of, 1.469; Etymological Dictionaries: From classical reception Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Etymology Practice, 3.122
(etumologia), Ancient Theories of, 1.581; Figures classifier Apposition, 1.144
(skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590; Linguistic Claudius Papyri, Language of, 3.14
Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 3.361; Clause* 1293
Noun (dnome), Ancient Theories of, 2.525; Proverbs, clause-mate condition Reflexives, 3.216
3.189; Syntax (sdntaxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.359; clauses of fearing Üptative, 2.554
Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401; Word Classes (nteré clay sealings Linear A, 2.359
toa fégou), Ancient Theories of, 3.518 Clazomenai ionic, 2.260
Chrysocephalus, Macarius Proverbs, 3.189 Cleanthes Allegory (aflögoria), Ancient Theories of,
Chrysolaras, Manuel History of Teaching of Ancient 1.87: Etymology (etuwmolog/a), Ancient Theories of,
Greek in Germany, 2.163; Renaissance, Translation, 9.233 1.581
Chrysoloras, Emmanuel ‘leaching of Ancient Greek in Clearchus of Soli. Proverbs, 3.189; Riddles, 3.245
Italy. 3.364 Clement of Alexandria Atticism, 1.201; Dialectology
church organization Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 (dialektas), Ancient Theories of, 1.458; Dictionaries
Churchill, Winston Epanalepsis, 1546 of Ancient Greek, 1.478; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319;
Ciccolella, Federica Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, Lexicagraphy, History of, 2.349
3.364 Cleonai Local Scripts, 2.384
Cicero, Marcus Tullius Allegory (allögaria), Ancient Cleupatra VII Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
Theories of, 1.88; Ancient Bidialectalism and 1.114; Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Bilingualism in
Bilingualism, 1.114; Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.133; Hellenistic Egypt, 1.234; Papyrology, 3.15
Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.197; Attitudes to Language, climaxes Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.334
1.205; Contact through Translation, 1,380; Drama cline Syntactic Change, 3.355
Translation, 1.524; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories Clinquart, Fabienne Consecutive Clauses, 1.369
of, 1.591; Greek and Latin, 2.66; Greek Lexicon in cliticchain Wackernagel's Jaw I, 3.510
Western Languages, 2.104; Greek/Latin Bilingualism, Clitic Group* 1.296; Prosodic Word, 3.161
2.147; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, cliticization Auxiliaries, 1.218
2.167; Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.417; Clitics* 1.300; Aphaeresis, 1,141; Balkan Sprachbund: Early
Renaissance, Translation, 3.293; Rhetorical Tradition in Evidence in Greek, 1.224; Tmesis, 3.410
Ancient Linguistics, 3.241; Roman Translation of Greek Clonas Song and Recitation, 3.294
Texts, 3.246; Style (féxis}, Ancient Theories of, 3.327; cloze exercises Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
Tropes (tröpai), Ancient Theories of, 3.443 Methods, 3.372
 INDEX 567
Cnaeus Matius Homer, Translation, 2.175; Roman Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Dictionaries of Dialects:
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246 From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Doric,
Cnidos Doric, 1.517; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.515; Elean (and Olympia), 1.541; Greek and Lycian, 2.68;
1.505; Oaths, Curses, 2.548 Linguistic Variation in Classica] Attic, 2,365; Psilasis,
Cnossos Doric, 1.516; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 3.192; Rhotacism, 3.244; Thessalian, 3.403
2.28; Local Scripts, 2.384 Comanus of Naucratis Diathesis (diäthesis), Ancient
coalescence Merger, 2.413 Theories of, 1.469; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Coates Mood and Modality, 2.452 Ancient Linguistics, 3.69
Cochrane, James 1. Homer, Translation, 2.180 Comedy, Diction of* 1.317
Cock, Alwies J.C.M. Voice, 3.498 Cometas Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
coda Syllables, 3.347 the Byzantine Period, 1.576
code Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.275 comic discontinuity Comedy, Diction of, 1,318
Code Mixing’ 1.307; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Comitative’ 1.320; Dative, 1.416
Dialectolagy, 1.122 Commodus (Romanemperor) Onomastica: From
Code Switching” 1.308; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.551
and Dialectology, 1.122; Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129 common gender Gender, 2.2
codex Palaeography, 3.4; Papyrolugy, 3.15 common ground Information Structure and Greek, 2.239
Coele-Syria Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31 Comotti, Giovanni Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories
Cognitive Construction Grammar Construction of, 2.432
Grammar and Greek, 1.376 Companion Metaphor Agency and Causation, 1.69
Cognitive Grammar Construction Grammar and Greek, Company Complementation, 1338; Transitivity, 3.426
1.376 Comparative Clauses’ 1328
Cognitive Linguistics and Greek? 1.308 Comparative Method“ 1.329; Indo-European Linguistic
Coguitive Models, Idealized Cognitive Linguistics and Background, 2.212; Internal Reconstruction, 2.253;
Greek, 1.309 Neogrammarians, 2.494; Structural Linguistics and
Cohen, David = Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99 Greek, 3.326
Cahen’s kappa coefficient Corpus Linguistics and Greek, comparative of equality Comparison, 1.331
1.392 comparative of majority Comparison, 1.331
Coherence* 1.311; Cohesion, 1.312; Discourse Analysis and comparative of minority Comparison, 1.331
Greek, 1511; Text Linguistics and Greek, 3,389 Comparison“ 1.331; Adjectives (Morphological Aspects
Cohesion* 1.312; Anaphoric Processes, 1.107; Discourse of), 1.26
Analysis and Greek, 1.509; Text Linguistics and Greek, compensation Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.139
3-389 Compensatory Lengthening* 1.334; Boeotian, 1.243;
Cohn, Leopold Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Cretan, 1.396; Epic Diction, 1.549; InDectional Classes,
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Etymological 2.237; lonic, 2.262; Laryngeal Changes, 2.312; Lyric Poetry,
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Diction of, 2.390; Monophthongization, 2.449; Moras,
1.574; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine 2.460; Palatalizations, 3.7; Phanology (Survey), 3.90;
Period, 2.550 Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.182; Synizesis, 3.352:
coins Greek and Lydian, 2.70 Vowel Fronting, 3.505
cola Responsion, 3.235 compensatory lengthening, first Moras, 2.461;
Cole, Susan G. Oaihs, Curses, 2.546 Morphological Change, 2.464; Phonology (Survey), 3.9:
Coleman, Robert G.G. Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.321; compensatory lengthening, second Moras, 2.460;
Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502 Morphological Change, 2.464
Coles, Revel Written versus Spoken Language, 3.541 compensatory lengthening, third ‘Tragedy, Diction of,
Colish, Marcia L. Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories 3.418
of, 1.590; Tropes (tröpai), Ancient Theories of, 3.442 complement Adjuncts, 1.28; Adverbial Constituents,
Collard, Christopher Intonatienal Phrase, 2.255; Written 1.49; Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.57; Gerund
versus Spoken Language, 3.541 (Verbal Noun), 2,10
Collective/Mass Nouns* 1313 Complementation* 1335
Collinge, Neville E. Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.2: complementizers Clitic Group, 1.296
Grassmann's Law, 2.26; Osthoff’s Law, 2.576; Phonetic complements, circumstantial Adjuncis, 1.28; Disjunets,
Law, 3.78; Prota-Greek and Common Greek, 3.179 1.513
Collins, Billie). Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.29 completion Aorist Formation, 1.138
Collins, Derek Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389 Completive Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21;
Callombier, Anne Marie Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325
and Dialectology, 1.122 Complex Network Category Model Cognitive Linguistics
Colluthus of Lycopolis Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.316; Post- and Greek, 1310
Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.127 Compound Nouns” 1.344
colometry Verse, 3.490 Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek)* 1.347
colon Epigraphy, 1.567; Lyric Meter, 2.386; Word Order, Compounding/Derivation/Construction
3.532 Morphology* 1.350; Denominal Verbs, 1.433;
colonists Koine, Origins of, 2.278 Derivational Morphology, 1.436; Deverbative Verbs, 1.453
Colonna, Giovanni Greek and Etruscan, 2.5) compounds Adjectives (Morphological Aspects of), 1.27;
Colophon lonic, 2.260 Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.57; Agent Nouns,
Color Terms” 1.315 172; Aspiration, 1.184; Caland System and Greek, 1.257;
Colvin, Stephen Accommodation, 1.13; Ancient Greek Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.292; Compound
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.121; Classical Greek Nouns, 1.344; Compounding/Derivation/Construction
Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Comedy, Diction of, 1.918; Morphology, 1.351; Elision, 1.545; Hellenistic Poetry,
568 INDEX

Diction of, 2.155; Indo-European Linguistic Background, Constantine Hermoniakos Homer, Translation, 2.175
2,220; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.251; Wheeler's Law, Constantine Lascaris Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
3.516; Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3-365
3.521; Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Constantine Manasses Homer, Translation, 2.175
Theories of, 3.529 Constantine of Sicily Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
compounds, copulative Greek Lexicon, Structure and 3.364
Origin of, 2.17 Constantine Vli Porphyrogenitus Dictionaries of
compounds, governing Law of Limitation, 2.324; Proto- Onomastics; From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Greek and Common Greek, 3.185 1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity
compromise’ forms Attitudes to Language, 1.204 and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Lexicography, History of,
Computational Linguistics and Greek* 1.354 2.352
Comrie, Bernard Agency and Causation, 1.67; Aspect Constantinople Byzantine Phase and Reception of
{and Tense}, 1.181; Attractian (Mood, Case etc.), 1.212; Ancient Greek, the, 1.248; Cypriot, 1.403; Etymological
Reflexives, 3.215; Relative Tense, 3.231; Space (Cases), Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
3.311; Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.324; Tense/ 1976; Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314
Aspect, 3.385; Time, 3.406; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Constituency Grammar Corpus Linguistics and Greek,
Mood), 3.477 1.392
conative usage Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335; constituent questions Questions, 3.200
Morphological Change, 2.465: Tense/Aspect, 3.986 Constitution of the Athenians Literary Prose, 2.374
concession Adverbial Constituents, 1.53 Constitution of the Lacedaemonians Literary Prose,
conclusion Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264 2.378
Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries* 1.356 construal Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.310
Conditionals* 1.358; Adverbial Constituents, 1.51: Cretan, constructio ad sensum Literary Prose, 2.374
1,398; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334 constructio praegnans Space (Adpositions), 3.305
conditionals, distributive-iterative Conditionals, 1.361 construction Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264
Condoravdi, Clea Clitic Group, 1.297 Construction Grammar* 1350; Compounding/
Confederacy of Delos Koine, Origins of, 2.278 Derivation/Construction Morphology, 1.350
configurational syntax Definiteness/Dehnite Article, Construction Morphology* 1.350: Compounding/
1,419; Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Verb Phrase, 3.463 Derivation/Construction Morphology, 1.350
Conjunction Reduction" 1.362; Dual, 1.534; Indo- constructional idiom Compounding/Derivatiun/
European Linguistic Background, 2.224 Construction Morphology, 1.351
conjunctions Clitic Group, 1.296; Cohesion, 1.913; Papyri, constructional schema Compounding/Derivation/
Language of, 3.13 Construction Marphology, 1.351
Conjunctions (Non-Subordinating)* 1363 contact Greek and Latin, 2.65; Greek and Syriac, 2.80;
Conjunctions (Subordinating)* 1.364 Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.278
conjunctions, coordinating Particles (Syntactic Contact through Translation® 1.379
Features), 3.31 coniamination Language Change, 2.295; Linguistic
conjunctions, copulative Conjunctions Variation in Classical Attic, 2.364; Literary Prose, 2.378
(Non-Subordinating), 1.363 Conte, Gian B. Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
conjunctive force Aorist Formation, 1.139 3.246
conjunctive particles Greek and Syriac, 2.82 content word Syntactic Change, 3.355
conjunctives Adjuncts, 1.29; Adverbial Constituents, 1.51; context Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.509
Disjuncts, 1.514 Conti, Luz. Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.46; Agency
conjuncts Disjunels, 1.514 and Causation, 1.66; Attraction (Mood, Gase etc.),
Conley, Thomas Figures (skhömata), Ancient Theories of, 1.210; Dative, 1.415; Direct Object, 1.502; Disjuncts, 1.514;
1.591; Trapes ({rdpod), Ancient Thearies of, 3.444 Genitive, 2.5; Indirect Object, 2.203; Passive (Syntax),
connectives Coherence, 1.312 3.43; Subject, 3.392; Subordination, 3.341; Voice, 3.497
connectors Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.385; contiguity Analogy, 1.103
Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.32 Continental Greece Dual, 1.534
Conrad, Lawrence I. Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147 Contract Verbs* 1.382; Action Nouns, 1.22; lonic, 2.262
Consani, Caro Accommodation, 1.13; Aeolic Dialects, Contraction* 1.383; Adjectives (Morphological Aspects
1.61; Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.116; of), 1.26; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.288;
Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Cypriot, 1.403; Dialectulogy Contract Verbs, 1.382; lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.188;
(didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.457; Greek in Sicily in Inflectional Classes, 2.236: lonic, 2.262; Merger, 2.413;
Late Antiquity, 2.94; Language and Variation in Greece, Metron, 2.438; Morphological Change, 2.464; Nominal
2.288; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.142; Syllables, 3.350 System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502
Consbruch, Maximilian Metrics (#étron), Ancient contrarium Metaphor (metaphorä), Ancient Theories of,
Theories of, 2.441; Verse, 3.489 2.416
Consecutio Temporum et Modorum* 1.366: contrast Adverbial Constituents, 1.53
Subordination, 3.340 contrastive discourse markers Particles (Formal
Consecutive Clauses* 1.369 Features), 3.25
consequence Adverbial Constituents, 1.53 contrastive focus Hyperbaton, 2.184
conservatism Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.368 contro! = Possession, 2.15
Consonant Changes* 1.372 convention Etymulogy (etumologta), Ancient Theories
Consonants* 1.374; Kaine, Origins of, 2.282 of, 1.580
Constantine Contact through Translation, 1.379; convergence Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek,
Erasmian Pronunciation, 1.469; Greek Loanwords in 1.222; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Linguistic
Slavic, 2.123; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Variation in Classical Attic, 2,366; Saronic, 3,258
 INDEX 569
conversational register Linguistic Variation in Classical Cos Doric, 1.516; Elean (and Olympia), 1.535; Formation
Attic, 2.369 af Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Infinitives (Morphalogy
conversio ad sententiam Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 of), 2.228; Insular Doric, 2.245; Koine, Origins of, 2.278;
conversio ad verbum Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 Literary Prose, 2.371; Moras, 2.461; Syncope, 3.351;
Cook, Guy Language Play and Translation, 2.306 Toponyms, 3.414; Transition from the Local Alphabets to
Cook-Wilson, Jahn Noun Phrase, 2.532 the lonic Script, 3.422
Cooper, Craig Epigraphy, 1.567 Cuseriu, Eugenio Auxiliaries, 1.220; Greek Lexicon in
Cooper, Edith Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125 Western Languages, 2.107; Language and Variation in
Cooper, Guy L. Agreement, 1.75; Aorist, 1.136; Attraction Greece, 2.288; Language Change, 2.291; Particles (Formal
(Mood, Case etc.), 1.209; Consecutio Ternporum et Features), 3.25
Modorum, 1.367; Number, 2.537 Cosgrove, CharlesH. Pitch, 3.100
Cooper, John M. Questions, 3.205 Cosmas Indicopleustes Alphabet, The Origin ot the
Cooper, Robert L. Language Policies, 2.310 Greek, 1.94
Coordination* 1384; Null Anaphora, 2.534 Cosmas Vestitor Written versus Spoken Language,
coordinationtest Verb Phrase, 3.466 3.540
coordinators Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.384 Costabile, Felice Northwest Greek, 2.518
Coptic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.89; Byzantine Phase Costakis, Th. Tsakonian, 3.446
and Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.248; Compound Cöte, Marie-Héléne Phanntactics, 3.97
Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Contact through Cotterill, Henry Bernard Homer, Translation, 2.180
Translation, 1.379; Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.46; Cotton, Hannah H. Papyralogy, 3.15
Greek loanwords in Coptic, 2.118; Greek Loanwords Coulie, Bernard Concordances/Indices/Reverse
in Geez, 2.121; Greek Novel, Translation, 2.135; Greek/ Dictionaries, 1.357
Latin Bilingualism, 2.146; Information Structure and Coulmas, Florian Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.504
Greek, 2.241: Jewish Greek, 2.268; Koine, Origins of, count noun Number, 2.538
2.283; Language Contact, 2.300; Papyri, Language of, 3.13; counterfactual Conditionals, 1.360; Mood and Modality,
Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279; Translation of Greek 2.453
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.439 Cuurtuey, Edward Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
copula Greek and Syriac, 2.82 ‘Translation, 3.126; Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
Corax Literary Prose, 2.373 2,246
Corbett, Greville G. Agreement, 1.73; Attraction (Maud, Covington, Michael Dependency Grammar and Greek,
Case etc.), 1.208; Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.313; Dual, 1.434
1.534; Gender, 2.2; Plural/Pluralia Tantum, 3.102 Cowgill, Warren Auginent, 1.216; Consonant Changes,
Corcyra Indo-European Historical Background, 2.210; 1.373: Cowgill's Law, 1.394; Dialects, Classification
Local Scripts, 2.383 of, 1.464; Laryngeal Changes, 2.312; Mediopassive,
Cordier, Henri Translation in Non-Westem Traditions: 2,412; Palatalizations, 3.7; Perfect, Formation of, 3.51;
Concepts and Models, 3.431 Reduplicated Presents, 3.210
Corinna Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Dialectology (didfektas), Cowgill's Law* 1.394
Ancient Theories of, 1.460; Epic Diction, 1.550; Lyric Cowley, Abraham Greek and Aramale, 2.35; Greek Lyric
Meter, 2.387; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2,389; Semantic Poetry, Translation, 2.126; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Change, 3.276 Translation, 3.127
Corinth Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98; Attic, Cowper, William Homer, Translation, 2.177
1487; Atticism, 1198; Attitudes to Language, 1205; Choral Cox, Edwin M, Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Poetry, Diction of, 1.278; Dialectal Convergence, 1.455; Crane. Gregory Computational Linguistics and Greek,
Elean (and Olympia), 1.535; Formation of Doric Koines, 1.354; Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.437
The, 1.604; Language Contact, 2.301; Loca! Scripts, Crannon Thessalian, 3.403
2.381; Macedonian, 2,392; Monophthongization, 2.448; Crasis® 1.395; Aphaeresis, 1.142; Clitics, 1.302: Prosodic
Oracular Language, 2.560; Phonology (Survey), 3.91; Word, 3.163; Prosody, 3.170; Sandhi, 3.256
Saronic, 3.258 Crates of Mallus Allegory {allögoria), Ancient Theories
Corinthia Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Formation of Daric of, 188; Comedy, Diction of, 1.317; Epigram, Diction of,
Koines, The, 1.604; Koine, Origins of, 2.278 1.563; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590;
Corinthian Argolic, 1.171; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Linguistic Correctness (hellönismös), Ancient Theories
Doric, 1.516; Semivowels, 3.280 uf, 2.362; Philological-Grammatical Tradition In Ancient
Comelius Nepos Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.147; Roman Linguistics, 3,67; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of,
Translation of Greek ''cxts, 3.250 3.442
Cornutus Allegory (ullegoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.88 Crateuas Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity
Corpus Hippocraticum Attitudes to Language, 1.207; and Byzantine Periud, 1.487
Literary Prose, 2.971; Medical Vocabulary, 2.404 Cratinus Comedy, Diction of, 1.317; Linguistic Correctness
Corpus Linguistics* 1.391; Computational Linguistics and (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.363
Greek, 1.254 Crawley, Richard Greek Historiography, Translation,
correctness of names Etymology (etumologia), Ancient 2.91
Theories of, 1.580 Cree Hyperbaton, 2.185
correption Epic Dictton, 1.553; Hiatus, 2.161 Creider, ©. Subject, 3.333
correption, Attic Comedy, Diction of, 1.318; Syllables, Creissels, Denis Beneficiary, 1233; Diminutives/
3.348 Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1.493; Space
correption, epic Prosody, 3.170 (Cases), 3.311
Corvinus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248 Creousa Dialects, Classification uf, 1.462
570 INDEX

Crespo, Emilio Achaean. 1.20: Adverbs, 1.56; Agreement, Croton Achaean, 1.19: Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398;
1.76; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, Rhodian, 3.243
1121; Argument Clause, 1.172; Attic, 1.190; Attraction Crowhurst, Megan Minima, 2.442
(Mood, Case etc.), 1.210; Case (including Syncretism), Crowther, Samuel Ajayi Translation in Non-Western
1.266; Comitative, 1.320; Comparative Clauses, 1.328; Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.433
Consecutive Clauses, 1.371; Coordination (includes Cruse, D. Alan Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.376;
Asyndeton), 1,385; Dative, 1.414; Direct/Indirect Lexical Fields Theory and Greek, 2.345; Polysemy, 3.114
Discourse, 1.505; Disjuncts, 1.514; Functional Grammar Cruttenden, Alan [ntonational Phrase, 2.253; Pitch, 2.101
and Greek, 1.617; Genitive, 2.4; Infinitives (Syntax), cryptography Palaeography, 3.1; Secret Language /Codes/
2.232; Language Change, 2.297; Linguistic Variation in Magical Language, 3.272
Classical Attic, 2.366; Manner, 2.400; Negation, 2.484; Crystal, David Language Play and Translation, 2.306
Northwest Greek, 2.323; Personal Names, 3.57; Pronouns Csapo, Eric Local Scripts, 2.380
(Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), Ctesias Greek and Iranian, 2.63
3.158; Prote-Greek and Common Greek, 3.186; Purpose Cuba Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts
Clauses, 3.194; Relative Clauses, 3.224; Subordination, and Models, 3.432
3.335; Temporal Clauses, 3.375; Tense/Aspect, 3.388; Cubberley, Paul Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93
Attraction (Mood, Case etc.}, 1.210 Cufalo, Domenico Onomastica: From Antiquity to the
Crestonia Macedonian, 2.392 Byzantine Periad, 2.551
Cretan® 1.396; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Cumae lonic, 2.261; Language Contact, 2.304; Magna
Dialectology, 1.118; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160; Graecta, Dialects, 2.397; Nestor's Cup, 2.496; Sicily,
Attic, 1.189; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.288; Dialects in, 3.290
Developments In Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.448; cuneiform tablets Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134
Doric, 1.516; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case}, Cunich, Raimondo Homer, Translation, 2.177
2.502; Psilosis, 3.192; Rhotacism, 3.244 Cunliffe, Richard J. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477
Cretan Hieroglyphic Script” 1.398 Cunningham, lan C. Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Cretan, Central Phonology (Survey), 3.91 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Lexicography,
Crete Adpositional Phrase, 136; Alphabet, The Origin History of, 2.3950
of the Greek, 1.98; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Cuny, Albert Dual, 1.534; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.136
Dialectology, 1.119; Archaisıns in Modern Dialects, Cupane, Carolina Byzantine Phase and Reception of
1.160; Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Cretan, 1.396; Ancient Greek, the, 1.248
Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.398; Cypro-Minoan Curione, Alessandro Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
Syllabary, 1.408; Cyrenaean, 1.409; Desideratives, 1.441; 3.365
Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.447; curse inscriptions Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
Doric, 1.516; Epigraphy, 1564; Eteocretan, 1.570; Greek 2,966
and Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Indo-European Historical Curse Tablets" 1.400
Background, 2.210: Insular Doric, 2.245; Koine, Origins curses Oaths, Curses, 2.545
of, 2.282; Language Contact, 2.301; Linear A, 2.353; Lacal Curtius, Georg Etymological Dictionaries: From the
Scripts, 2.380; Monophthongization, 2.449; Mycenaean Renaissance to the zoth Century, 1.572; Etymological
Script and Language, 2.471; Northwest Greek, 2.520; Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology, 1.578; Lexical
Phaistos Disc, 3.62; Phonological Phrase, 3.88; Phonology Aspect (Aktionsarı), 2.336; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart),
(Survey), 3.89; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133; Pre-Greek 2.336; Phonology (Survey), 3.95; Verbal Adjectives, 3.471
Substrate, 4.198; Questions, 3.206; Scribes, Mycenaean, Cushing, 5. Quantifiers, 3.198
3.265; Southeast Greek, 3.297; Toponymis. 3.424 Cuyckens, Hubert Cognitive Linguistics and Greek,
Cribiore, Raffaella Homer, Translation, 2.175; Papyri, 1.308
Language of, 3.12; Written versus Spoken Language, 3.539 Cuzzolin, Pierluigi Adjuncts, 1.29; Adpositional Phrase,
Crimean-Azov Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.165 1.39; Adverbs, 1.55; Contact through Translation, 1.380:
Crimisa Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398 Disjuncts, 1.514; Functional Grammar and Greek, 1.617;
Crisci, Edoardo Palaeography, 3.5 Impersanal Verbs/Canstructions, 2.199
Crist, Sean]. Compensatory Lengthening, 1.334 CVRMI Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Cristofani, Mauro Greek and Etruscan, 2.51 Cyclades Epic Diction, 1.548; Indo-European Historical
Cristofaro, Sonia Argument Clause, 1.175; Construction Background, 2.210; lonic, 2.260; Language Contact, 2.301;
Grammar and Greek, 1.377; Subordination, 3.335 Phonology (Survey), 3.90
Critias Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.95; Attieism, Cycladic Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek,
L200 1,449; Insular Doric, 2.246
Croatia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93 Cycladic islands Koine, Origins of, 2.278; LinearA, 2.353
Croatian Bulkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, Cyme Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329
1.223 Cynics Atticism, 1.199; Euphemism and Dysphemism,
Croation Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361 1.582; Koine, Origins of, 2.280
Croce, Benedetto Greek Novel, Translation, 2.132 Cypria = Cypriot, 1.401
Crocius History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Cypriot’ 1.4901: Adpositional Phrase, 1.38; Ancient Greek
Germany, 2.166 Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.119; Arcadian, 1.153;
Croesus Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273 Arcado-Cypriot, 1154; Archaisms in Modern Dialects,
Croft, William Abstract Nouns, 14; Agency and 1.160; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.288; Code-
Causatlon, 1.71; Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.376: Switching, 1.308; Developments in Medieval and Modern
Dative, 1.414; Polysemy, 3.114 Greek. 1.449; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Greek
Cromwell, Oliver Drama Translation, 1.526 and Semitic Languages (Early Contacts), 2.79; Particles
 INDEX g71
(Formal Features), 3.28; Psilosis, 3.192; Syntactic Change, Dahl, Osten Anaphoric Processes, 1.10; Perfect, 3.46;
3.357 Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
Cypriot script, Classical Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404 Daitz, Stephen G. Erasmian Pronunciation, 1.569; Puns,
Cypriot Syllabary* 1.404 3193
Cypro-Minoan Syllabary* 1.408 Dale, A.M. Lyric Meter, 2.387
Cyprus Alphabet, The Origin ofthe Greek, 1.98; Ancient Dalimier, C. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.129
Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1120; Arcado- Dalman, Gustaf Greek and Aramaic, 2.36
Cypriot, 1.154; Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Code- Dalmatian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek,
Mixing, 1.307; Code-Switching, 1.308; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.223
1.404; Cypro-Minoan Syllabary, 1.408; Developments Daly, Lloyd W, Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.447; Dialectal Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Dictionaries of
Convergence, 1.456; Dual, 1.534; Epigraphy, 1.565; Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Eteocypriot, 1.571; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.605; 1.485
Greek and Anatolian |.anguages, 2.28; Greek and Carian, Daman of Athens = Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.133
2.40; Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Contacts), 2.79; Damon ofOa Metrics (metron), Ancient Thecries of,
Indo-European Historical Background, 2.210; Language 2.432
Contact, 2.301; Local Scripts, 2.380; Pre-Greek Languages, Damonon Laconian, Messenian, 2.287
3,133; Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279 Damrosch, David Translation in Non-Western
Cyrenaean® 1409; Phonology (Survey), 3.91 Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.429
Cyrenaic Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99 Danaoi Plural/Pluralia Tantum, 3.101
Cyrenaica Attitudes ta Language, 1.204; Bilingualism. Daniel Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Diglossia and Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine, Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239; Greek and Hebrew, 2.55;
1.238; Cyrenaean, 1409 Vocative, 3.492
Cyrene Cyrenaean, 1409; Doric, 1.516; Formation of Danielewicz, Jerzy Deixis (including ist and and Person),
Doric Koines, The, 1.605; Local Scripts, 2.382; Maras, 1.426
2.461 Danker, Frederick W. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek,
Cyril Greek Loanwaords in Slavic, 2.123; Lexicography, L478
History of, 2.350 Dankoff, R, Tsakonian, 3.446
Cyril of Alexandria — Atticism, 1.201; Greek and Syriac, 2.81; d’Ansse de Villoison, Alexandre Formulaic Language,
Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 1.608
Cyril of Scythopolis Greek and Celtic, 2.46 Dante, Alighieri Formulas, 1.614; Greek Lexicon in
Cyrillic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.89; Atticism, 1.201; Western Languages, 2.106; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Greek Writing Systems, 2.145 Translation, 3.126
Cyrill-lexicon Orthography (orthagraphia), Ancient Danube Language Contact, 2.302; Toponyms, 3.414
Theories of, 2.575 Danubian layer Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.138
Cythnos Ionic, 2.261 Dares the Phrygian Homer, Translation, 2.176; Roman
Cyzicos onic, 2.260 Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250
Czech Negation, 2.488; Participles (Morphological Daris, Sergio Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.321
Aspects of), 3.21; Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325 Darius Greek and Lycian, 2.69
Czecho-Slovakia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93 Dark Ages Epic Diction. 1.551
Darms, Georges Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.2
d'’Ablancaurt, Nicolas Perrot Greek Historiography, Darnell, J. Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94
Translation, 2.91 Dart, Joseph H. Homer, Translation, 2.180
d'Alembert, Jean le &. History of Teaching of Ancient Dasher, R.B. Semantic Change, 3.276
Greek in Germany, 2.169 Databases and Dictionaries | Papyrology and Epigraphy
D'Alessio, Giovan B. Deixis (including ist and and included]* 14u
Person), 1.426 Dative* 1.414; Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2,10; Morphological
Da Rios, Rosetta Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, Change, 2.465
2.431 dative absolute Participle, 3.19
Dacia Greek and Thracian, 2,86 dative ofagent Agency and Causation, 1.68; Hellenistic
Dacian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Greek and Literary Prose, 2.153
Thracian, 2.85; Language Contact, 2.301 dative ofinterest Dative, 1.415; Transitivity, 3.426
Dacier, Anne Le F. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translatlon, 2.126 dative of reference Dative, 1.5
Dace-Mysian Language Contact, 2.301 dative pruper Dative, 1.414
Daco-Romanian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in dative, ethic Verbal Valency, 3.487
Greek, 1.223 dativus ethicus Case (including Syncretism), 1.268;
dactylic hexameter Elegy, Dictian of, 1.542; Epic Diction, Dative, 1.415
1.551; Epic Meter, 1.558; Homer, Translation, 2.180; Lyric dativus iudicantis Case (including Syncretism), 1.268;
Meter, 2.385; Metrics, 2.423; Metron, 2.439; Period, 3.33; Indirect Object, 2.204
Responsion, 3,236; Verse, 3.490 dativus limitationis Case (including Syncretism), 1.268;
dactylic meter Literary Prose, 2.373; Metron, 2.438 Dative, 1.416
dactylic pentameter Elegy, Diction of, 1.542 dativus sympatheticus Dative, 1.415; Possession, 3.122
Daebritz, Rudolf Etymalogical Dictionaries: From Datta, Michael M. Translation in Non-Western
Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad, 1.574 Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.430
Daghestanian Space (Cases), 3.311 Daux, George Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
Dagron, Gilbert Byzantine Phage and Reception of lonic Script, 3.422
Ancient Greek, the, 1.250 Davenport, Guy Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
372 INDEX

David the Invincible Translation of Greek Texts in Late Decapolis Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Antiquity, 3.439 Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238
De Angelis, Alessandro Adpositional Phrase, 1.37 decategorization Auxiliaries, 1.218; Syntactic Change,
De Beaugrande, Robert A. Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.355
3.389 Decker, Rodney J. Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to
De Chene, B, Moras, 2,460 Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380
de Foucault, Jules-Albert Attitudes to Language, Declension/Conjugation (klists), Ancient Theories
1.205; Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153; Lexical Aspect of* 1.417
(Aktionsart), 2.335 declensional system Nominal System (Gender, Number,
De Franciscis, Alfonso Northwest Greek, 2.518 Case), 2.400
de Frauville, Claude B. Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, declensions Analogy, 1.103
Translation, 3.127 Declerck, Renaat Mood and Modality, 2.457
de la Crespeliere, Du Four Greek Lyric Poetry, Decree of Kanöpos Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129
Translation. 2.126 decreta Epigraphy, 1.567
De la Villa, fests Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), Deduction Analogy, 1104
1.57; Agency and Gausation, 1.66: Beneficiary, 1.230; Deecke, Wilhelm Cypriot Syllabary, 1.406
Dative, 1.416; Manner, 2.401 Deffmer,M. Tsakonian, 3.446
de Lacy, Paul V. Prosodic Word, 3.163 definite article Anaphoric Processes, 1.107; Balkan
de Lagarde, Paul Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.224;
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484 Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.419; Epic Diction, 1.553;
de Lamberterie, Charles Caland System and Greek, 1.258; Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.12; Greek and Lycian, 2,69;
Elean (and Olympia), 1.437; Greek and Armenian, 2.37; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.500
Word Formation (Derivation, Compaunding), 3.524 Definiteness/Definite Article* 1.419; Quantifiers,
de Lebrixa, Antonio Erasmian Pronunciation, 1.569 3.240
de Longepierre, Baron Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, defixiones Curse Tablets, 1.400; Secret Language/Codes/
2.126 Magical Language, 3.274
de Luynes, Duke Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405 Degani, Enzo Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity
de Luynes, Honoré-Th.-P.-J.d'A. Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405 to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dictionaries of Dialects:
de Marivaux, Pierre Greek Historiography, Translation, From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480;
2,90 Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and
de Martino, Francesco Deixis {including ıst and and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Synonymica: From Antiquity to
Person), 1.429 the Byzantine Period, 3.353; Teaching of Ancient Greek
de Mauro, Tullio Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.269 in Italy, 3.365
de Ronsard, Pierre Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126 degemination Developments in Medieval and Modern
de Sainte Maure, Benoit Homer, Translation, 2.176 Greek, 1.449
de Saussure, Ferdinand Greek Novel, Translation, 2.191; degrammaticalization Language Change, 2.297;
Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.214; Internal Typology of Greek, 3.451
Reconstruction, 2.251; Language Change, 2.291; Metrics, deictic distances Pronominal System, 3.152
2.423; Nasal Presents, 2.481; Neogrammiarians., 2.492; deictic identifiability intensifier Vocative, 3.493
Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.252; Structural Linguistics Deinarchos Attitudes to Language, 1.205
and Greek, 3.324 Deiotaros Greek and Celtic, 2.46
de Seyssel, Claude Greek Histuriography, Translation, Deissmann, Gustav A. ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281: Jewish
2.90 Greek, 2.268
De Simone, Carlo Greek anid Etruscan, 2.49; Greek deixis Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.510; [Information
Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.103 Structure and Greek, 2.240
de Sponde, Jean Homer, Translation, 2.176 Deixis (including ist and and Person)* 1.422
De Stephani, Aloysius Lexicography, History of, 2.352 deixis ad oculos Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1511
de Vries, Keith Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91 Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics* 1.429
Dead Sea Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31 deixis, emotional Deixis (including ist and 2nd Person),
deadjectival nouns Abstract Nouns, 1.6 1.423
deaspiration Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.215 deixis, gestural Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.511
Debrunner, Albert Accusative, 1.14; Adpasitions deixis, imagination-oriented Deixis in Linguistics and
(Prepositions), 1.46; Aorist, 1.136; Argument Clause, Poetics, 1431
1.172; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.292: del Burrio, Maria Luisa lonic, 2.265;
Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Monophthongization, 2.449; Rhotacism, 3.244
Consecutive Clauses, 1369; Coordination (includes Del Monte, G. Greek and Carian, 2.40
Asyndeton), 1.384; Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of}, del Olmo Lete, Gregorio Theonyms (Names of Gads),
1.473; Genitive, 2.5; Genitive Absolute, 2.8; Koine, 3.401
Features of, 2.275; Linguistic Variation in Classical Delabastita, Dirk Language Play and Translation, 2.307
Attic, 2.366; Media Tantum, 2.403; Mediopassive, 2.411; Delamarre, Alexandre J.-L. Declension/Conjugation
Negatton, 2.487; Noun Phrase, 2.532; Optative, 2.554; (klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1418
Particles (Formal Features), 3.24; Passive (Morphology), Delamarre, Xavier Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Phytonyms
3.42; Passive (Syntax), 3.42; Questions, 3.207; Subject, (Names of Trees), 3.98
3.331; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334; Vocative, Delboeuf, Joseph Noun Phrase, 2.532
3.493; Voice, 3.496; Word Formation (Derivation, Delbrück, Berthold Abstract Nouns, 1.6; Adpositlonal
Compounding}, 3.524 Phrase, 1.35; Case (including Syncretism), 1.261; Clause,
 INDEX 573
1.295; Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.314; imperative, 2,60; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157; Lexical Change,
2.196; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.224; 2.342; Linguistic Correctness (hellénismds), Ancient
Intensifiers, 2.247; Intonational Phrase, 2.254; Language Theories of, 2.361; Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories
Change, 2.291; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.336; of, 2.431; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Neogrammarians, 2.492; Number, 2.537; Orders Period, 2.549
(imperative/Prohibitives), 2.571; Personal Pronouns, Use Demon Proverbs, 3.189
of, 3.59; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477; Demosthenes Agreement, 1.75; Aischrology, 1.77;
Wackernagel's Law I, 3.510 Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135; Atticism, 1.197; Attitudes
Delbrück, Hans Reflexives, 3.216 to Language, 1.203; Byzantine Phase and Reception of
Delian Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Ionic Ancient Greek, the, 1.250; Epanalepsis, 1.546; Epigram,
Script, 3.421 Diction ol, 1.563; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
Delian League Dialectal Convergence, 1.415; Language in Germany, 2.163; Indirect Object, 2.203; Infinitives
Policies, 2.310; Lesbian {and Asian Aealic), 2.328 (Syntax), 2.235; Legal Terminology, 2.325; Lexicography,
deliberative Literary Prose, 2.377; Subjunctive History of, 2.349; Linguistic Correctness (Hellénismds),
(Morphology of}, 3.334 Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Linguistic Variation in
deliberative subjunctive Questions, 3.201 Classical Attic, 2.367; Literary Prose, 2.377; Macedonian,
Deligianni, Efrosini Hyperbaton, 2.185 2.393; Particles (Formal Features), 3.28; Roman
Della Corte, Francesco Metrics (métren), Ancient Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248; Sandhi, 3.257; Style
Theories of, 2.435 (lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328; Teaching of Ancient
della Fonte, Bartolomeo Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Greek in Italy, 3.365; Topie, 3.412
Translation, 3.126 demotic (Greek) Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94;
della Valle, Niccola Homer, Translation, 2.177 Alticism, 1,201; Attitudes to Language, 1.205
delle Colonne, Guido Homer, Translation, 2.176 Demotic script, cursive Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92
delocutive derivations Word Formation (Derivation, dendronyms Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.97
Compounding), 3.523 Denham, John Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation,
Delos Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 130; 3.127
Attitudes to Language. 1.203; Epigraphy, 1.565; Ionic, Denis, Albert-Marie jewish Greek, 2.269
2.261; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Psilosis, 3.192; Transition Deniz, AlcoracA. Syllable Weight, 3.346
from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421 Denizot, Camilie Negation, 2.486; Predicative
Delphi Arcado-Cypriot, 1.157; Choral Poetry, Diction ol, Constituents, 3.131
1.278: Epigraphy, 1.566: Formation of Doric Koines, The, Denniston, John D, Classical Greek Morphology
1.604; Greek and Illyrian, 2.58; Indo-European Historical (Survey), 1,290; Cohesion, 1.313; Conjunctions (Non-
Background, 2.210; Language Contact, 2.302; Local Scripts. Subordinating), 1.363; Coordination (includes
2,984; Lytic Meter, 2.386; Northwest Greek, 2.518; Secret Asyndeton), 1.385; Epanalepsis, 1.546; Particles (Formal
Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273; Transition Features), 3.24; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.31;
from the Local Alphabets to the Ionic Script, 3.421 Postpositives, 3.129; Questions, 3.202
Delphian Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1287; Denominal Verbs* 1.433
Epic Diction, 1.556; Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, denominative (denominal) verbs Contract Verbs,
2.97 1.983; Denominal Verbs, 1.433; Deverbative Verbs,
Delphic oracle Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314 1.453; Scientific Vocabulary, 3,262; Word Formation
Demaratus Greek and Etruscan, 2.50 { Derivation, Compounding), 3.523
Demeter Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1,285 denominatives Agent Nouns, 1.72; Denominal Verbs,
Demetrias Achaean, 1.20 1.433; Derivational Morphology, 1.438; Diathesis/Voice
Demetrius Allegory (alléyuria), Ancient Theories of, 1.87; (Morphology of}, 1.474; Word Formation (paragoge/
Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1134; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction stinthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.530
uf, 2.156; Metaphor (metaphorä), Ancient Theories Dent. R.J, Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
of, 2.417; Period, 3.54; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient dependency compounds Word Formation (Derivation,
Linguistics, 3.238; Style (fexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327 Compounding), 3.527
Demetrius Chlorus Philological-Grammatical Tradition Dependency Grammar” 1.434; Computational Linguistics
in Ancient Linguistics, 3.66 and Greek, 1.355; Corpus Linguistics and Greek. 1.392
Demetrius Ixion Etymological Dictionaries: From dephonologization Language Change, 2.293:
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Etymulogy Phonological Change, 3.84
(etumalogir), Ancient Theories of, 1.582 deponent verbs Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
Demetrius of Magnesia Dictionaries of Onomastles: 1.292; Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.201; Middle, 2.443; Voice,
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; 3.498
Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and derivation Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.292;
Byzantine Period, 1.486 Compounding/Derivation/Construction Morphology,
Demetrius of Phalerum Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.197; 1.351; Typology of Greek, 3.451; Word Formation
Literary Prose, 2.971 (Derivation, Compounding), 3.421; Word Formation
Demetrius Poliorcetes Achaean, 1.20 (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Demetrius Triclinius Byzantine Phase and Reception derivational morphemes Denontinal Verbs, 1.433
of Ancient Greek, the, 1.250; Metrics (metron), Ancient Derivational Morphology* 1.438: Compounding/
Theories of, 2.434 Derivation/Construction Morphology, 1.353
Democritus Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.127: derivatives, feminine Agent Nouns, 1,72
Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Etymology (etumotogia), Derrida, Jacques Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137
Ancient Theories of, 1.580; Greek and indian Languages, Derveni Derveni Papyrus, 1.440; Papyrology, 3.15
574 INDEX
Derveni Papyrus® 1.440 dialectisms, elimination of Attitudes to Language,
desemanticization Auxiliaries, 1.218; Syntactic Change, 1.204
3.355 Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of* 1457
desententialization Genitive Absolute, 28 Dialects, Classification of* 1.461
Desideratives® 1.441; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), didlektus Dialectology (didéektos), Ancient Theories of,
2.935; Optative, 2.554; Reduplicated Presents, 3.208; 1.457; Dialects, Classification of, 1.461
Reduplication, 3.212 Dialogue on Fate Greek and Syriac, 2.81
Desmond, Marilynn Homer, Translation, 2.176 diamesic dimension Language Change, 2.291
Destination Space (Cases), 3.311 dianoia Asianism, 1.180; Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
determination Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264 Theories of, 2.415
determinative compounds Greek Lexicon, Structure and diaphasic variation Language Change, 2.291
Origin of, 2.117: Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.185 diastratal diffusion Attitudes to Language, 1.204
determinatives Alphabet, The Origin ofthe Greek, 1.94 diastratic variation Language Change, 2.291
Determiners® 1.442: Modifiers, 2.445; Quantifiers. 3.199 diasystem Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.148
Detschew, D. Greek and Thracian, 2.85 diathesis Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290
Deuteronomy Greek and Hebrew, 2.52 Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of* 1.468
Deutscher, Guy Internal Reconstruction, 2.251 Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of)" 1.471
Dev, Amiya Translation In Non-Western Traditions: diatopic varieties Language Change, 2.291
Concepts and Models, 3.430 Diaz de Cerio, Mercedes Comitative, 1.320; Functional
Devarius,M. Concordances/Indices/Reverse Grammar and Greek, 1.617; Subordination, 3.337
Dictionaries, 1.357 Diaz Tejera, A. Purpose Clauses, 3.195
Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek* 1.446 Dicaia lonic, 2.261
deverbative (deverbal} nouns Abstract Nouns, 1.4; Dickey, Eleanor Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Thearies of, 1.471; Greek Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Ancient
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.14 Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.15; Byzantine
deverbative stems Present Tense, 3.147 Phase and Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.249:
Deverbative Verbs* 1.453; Word Formation (Derivation, Deixis (including ist and 2nd Person), 1.427; Diathesis
Compounding), 3.523 (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.468; Dictionaries of
deverbatives Agent Nouns, 1.73; Derivational Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period,
Morphology, 1.438; Elean (and Olympia), 1.596 1.486; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
Devine, Andrew M. Accentuation, 1.8; Apposition, 1.146; the Byzantine Period, 1.575: Forms of Address and
Bridges, 1.246: Caesurag, 1.256; Clause, 1.295; Clitics, Saciolinguistic Variation, 1.606; Latin Loanwords
1.301; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.419; Determiners, in Greek, 2.320; Onomastica: From Antiquity 10 the
1.443: Epic Meter, 1.558; Government Binding and Byzantine Period, 2.551; Orthography (orthographia),
Greek, 2.24; Hyperbaton, 2.183; Information Structure Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Papyri, Language of, 3.1;
and Greek, 2.242; Intonational Phrase, 2.253; Language Patronymics, 3.45; Philological-Grammatical Tradition
Change, 2.295; Law of Limitation, 2.324; Length, 2.328; in Ancient Linguistics, 3.74; Politeness/Courtesy
Movable Consonants, 2.468; Optimality and Greek, Expresstons, 3.113; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the
2.558: Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60; Phonological Byzantine Period, 3.454; Vocative, 3.493
Phrase, 3.87; Phonatacties, 3.97; Pitch, 3.100: Possession, Dickinson, Patric Drama Translation, 1.527
3.121; Postpasilives, 3.130; Prepositives, 3.145; Prosodic Dictionaries of Ancient Greek* 1.455
Ward, 3.161; Questions, 3.201; Sotera Rule, 3.297; Stress, Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
3.319: Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.362: Typology Period” 1.480
of Greek, 3.452; Utterance, 3.454; Verb Phrase, 3.463; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to the
Wackernagel’s Law 1, 3.508; Word Order, 3.532 Byzantine Period* 1.483
Devlamminck, Bernard Greek Lexicon, Structure and Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and
Origin of, 2.110 Byzantine Period* 1.485
devoicing G)ottalic Theory and Greek, 2.17; Internal Dietys of Crete Homer, Translation, 2.176; Roman
Reconstruction, 2.251 Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250
Devoto, Giacomo Greek and Latin, 2.65 Didasqalya Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120
Dewald, Carolyn Deixis (including ist and 2nd Person), Didot, A.F, Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.475
t42B Didyma, temple of Apollo Epigraphy, 1.567
Dexippus Metaphor (metaphurd), Ancient Theories of, Didymus Chaleenterus Dictionaries of Scientific
2.407 Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487;
dextrograde Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.95 Proverbs, 3.189
Di Benedetto, Vincenzu Philological-Granımatical Didymus the Blind Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.66 Antiquity, 3-437
Diachronic Construction Gransmar Construction Diebold, Richard A. Jr Indo-European Linguistic
Grammar and Greek, 1.377 Backpround, 2.224
diachronic variation Language Change, 2.291 diectasis Elegy, Diction of, 1.544
diaeresis Caesurae, 1.253; Palaeography, 3.5; Synizesis, Diehl, Ernest Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
3.352; Tsakonian, 3.447: Verse, 3.489 2.365
diagrammatic iconicity Hyperbaton, 2.183 Diels, Hermann Ancient Philosophers on Language,
dialect Semivowels, 3.280 1.126: Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.476; Dictionaries
Dialectal Convergence” 1.454 of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
dialectics History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in 1.480; Greek and Indian Languages, 2.60; Metaphor
Germany, 2.163 (melunhura), Ancient Theories of, 2.415
 INDEX
Diessel, Holger Deixis (including ist and 2nd Person).
1.424; Determiners, 1.444; Pronouns (Demonstrative,
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158
Dieterich, Karl Developments in Medieval and Modern
Greek, 1.448; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early
Byzantine Greek, 3.3Bo
Diethart, Johannes M, Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.321
Dietrich, Wolf Auxiliaries, 1,219
Diewald, Gabriele Construction Grammar and Greek,
L377
Diffusion Theory Epic Diction, 1.551
digamma Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.159; Boeotian,
1.241; Cretan, 1.396; Epic Diction, 1549; Etymological
Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology, 1.578: Greek
Writing Systems, 2.144; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic),
2.329; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.506;
Phonological Change, 3.84; Semivowels, 3.280
diglossia Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.16;
Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.122;
Attic, 1.191; Attitudes to Language. 1.204; Bilingualism,
Diglossia and Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine,
1,240; Code-Switching, 1308; Developments in Medieval
and Modern Greek, 1.448; Greek Lexicon in Westem
Languages, 2.104; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317; Linguistic
Variation in Classical Attic, 2.365
Dihle, Albrecht Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.136; Atticism,
1.197
Dijk, Teun, van Poetic Language, 3.103; Text Linguistics
and Greek, 3.389
Dik, HelmaJ.M. Caesurae, 1256; Focus, 1.595;
Functional Grammar and Greek, 1.615; Genitive, 2.4;
Information Structure and Greek, 2.240; Intonational
Phrase, 2.254; Language Change, 2.295; Possession, 3.123;
Postpositives, 3.129; Prepositives, 3.145; Topic, 3.41; Word
Order, 3.535
Dik, Simon C. Adjuncts, 1.29: Apposition, 1.146:
Beneficiary, 1.230; Comitative, 1.323; Conditionals, 1.358;
Conjunctions (Non-Subordinating), 1.363; Disjuncts,
1.513; Mood and Modality, 2.454; Particles (Syntactic
Features), 3.31; Topic, 3.411
Dillmann, August Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120
Dilthey, Wilhelm Teaching of Ancient Greek, ‘l'eaching
Methods, 3.369
dimeter Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500
diminutive formations Word Formation (Derivation,
Compounding), 3.524
diminutive nouns Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin
of, 2.14
diminutives Agreement, 175; Diminutives/
Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1.489: Gender,
2.2; Koine, Features of, 2.274
Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and
Morphology)” 1.488
Dinimendaal, GerritJ. Grassmann’s Law, 2.20
Dinarchus of Corinth Legal Terminology, 2.325; Literary
Prose, 2.377
Dindorf, Wilhetm Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101
Dines, Jennifer Asianism, 1.180; Septuagint, 3.288
Dio Cassius Atticism, 1.200; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.918;
Particles (Formal Features), 3.28
Dio Chrysostom = Asianism, 1.180; Atticism, 1.200;
Attitudes to Language, 1.207
Diocles Verb {rhéma), Ancient Theories of, 3.461
Diocles of Carystus Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487; Synonymica:
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 3.353
575
Diocles of Magnesia Ancient Philosophers on Language,
1.130; Declension/Conjugation (Al/sis), Ancient Theories
of, 1.418; Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.469
Diodorus Siculus Attitudes to Language, 1.204; Greek
and Indian Languages, 2.61; Hellenistic Literary Prose,
2,152; Historical Present, 2.161; Koine, Origins of, 2.282;
Language Contact, 2.304; Local Scripts, 2.380; Oracular
Language, 2.561; Papyri, Language of, 3.13; Particles
(Formal Features), 3.27; Word Order, 3.533
Diogenes Acritas Atticism, 1.201
Diogenes Laertius Allegory {a/fégoria), Ancient Theories
of, 1.138; Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.130; Case
(ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 126g; Diathesis (didthesis),
Ancient Theories of. 1.469; Literary Prose. 2.374;
Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
2.549; Proverbs, 3.189; Sentence/Utterance (lögos),
Ancient Theories of, 3.286; Syntax (stintaxis), Ancient
Theories of, 3.358; Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of,
3.460; Word Classes (mer? tod lögow), Ancient Theories
of, 3.518
Diogenes Oenoandensis Ancient Philosophers on
Language, 1128
Diogenes of Apollonia Derveni Papyrus, 1.440
Diogenes of Babylon Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient
Theories of, 1.457; Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Etymological
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.574; Linguistic Correctness (Aeflénismds), Ancient
Theories of, 2.361; Metaphor (metuphord), Ancient
‘Theories of, 2.416; Noun (drama), Ancient Theories
af, 2.525; Style (/éxés), Ancient Theories of, 3.329; Verh
(rkéma), Ancient Theories of, 3.460; Word Classes (méré
toi fogow), Ancient Theories of, 3.518
Diogenianus Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad, 1.101; Dictionaries
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad,
1.482; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to
the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486;
Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Onomastica: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550; Proverbs, 3.189
Pioınedes Grammaticus Figures (skhémata), Ancient
Theories of. 1,591
Dionysius Exiguus ‘Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Antiquity, 3.437
Dionysius lambus Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.48)
Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ancient Prose Rhythm,
1.133; Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.197; Attitudes to
Language, 1.205; Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of,
1.269; Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.469;
Erasmian Pronunciation, 1.469; Figures (skhémata),
Ancient Theories of, 1.590; Greek and Etruscan, 2.49;
Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Ilellenistic Poetry,
Diction of, 2.156; Historical Present, 2.161; Late Antiquity
Prose, 2.318; Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Mood
(énktisis), Ancient Theories of, 2.450; Oracular Language,
2.561; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Linguistics, 3.71; Pitch, 3.101; Rhetorical Tradition in
Ancient Linguistics, 3.239; Sentence/Utterance (lögos),
Ancient Theories of, 3.286; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories
of, 3.328; Syntax (suntazis), Ancient Theories of, 3.359:
Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient ‘Theories of, 3.443; Word Classes
(méré toüt [égou), Ancient Theories of, 3.516; Word Order,
3.532
Dionysius of Sidon Linguistic Correctness (heilenismös),
Ancient Theories of, 2.362
376 INDEX

Dionysius ofSyracuse Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398 discourse markers Coherence, 1.312; Particles (Formal
Dionysius Thrax Adverbs, 1.54; Aorist (aöristos), Ancient Features), 3.25
Theories of, 1.137; Aorist Formation, 1.138; Case (ptösis), discourse markers, elaborative Particles (Formal
Ancient Theories of, 1.269; Coordination (includes Features), 3.25
Asyndeton), 1.390; Declension/Conjugation (A/ésis), discourse referents Anaphoric Processes, 1.112
Ancient Theories of, 1.417; Dialects, Classification Discourse Representation Theory Anaphoric Processes,
of, 1.463; Diathesis (diäthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.112
1.469; Etymology (etumofogfa), Ancient Theories of, discourse-level evaluation Diminutives/Augmenlatives
1.582; Figures (skkémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590; (Syntax and Morphology), 1.489
Linguistic Correctness (hellénismds), Ancient Theories Dishington, James Caland System and Greek, 1.257
of, 2.362; Mood (Enklisis), Ancient Theories of, 2.450; Disjunctive coordinators Coordination (includes
Noun (dnoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.525; Orthagraphy Asyndeton), 1.389
{orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Particles Disjuncts* 1512; Adverbial Constituents, 1.50; Fartlelple,
(Formal Features), 3.24; Philnlogical-Grammatical 3.19
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.65; Rhetorical disjuncts, content Adverbial Constituents, 1.51
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.239; Sentence/ disjancts, enunciation or style Adverbial Constituents,
Utterance (lögos), Ancient Theories of, 3.286; Syntax 151
(stintaxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.358; Tense (khrönos), disjuncts, evaluative content Adverbial Constituents,
Anctent Theories of, 3.378; Translation of Greek Texts in 1.51
Late Antiquity, 3.438; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories Dissimilation* 1.514; Archalsms in Modern Dialects,
of, 3.442; Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of, 3.461; 1.165; Attic Reversion, 1.196; Cretan, 1.396; Etymological
Vocative, 3.492; Word Classes (méré tart lögou), Ancient Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the zoth Century,
Theories of, 3.518; Word Formation (paragégé/stinthesis), 1.573
Ancient Theories of, 3.529 distal deixis Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.430
Dionysus Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315 Distal Demonstrative Pronominal System, 3.153
Diophantus Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264 distance Adverbial Constituents, 1.52
Dioscorides Atticism, 1.200; Dictionaries of Scientific distension Epic Diction, 1.554
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487: Greek Disterheft, Dorothy Infinitives (Morphology of), 2.226
and Celtic, 2.45; Lexicography, Histary of, 2.349; Roman distichon Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250 distinctive feature Structural Linguistics and Greek,
Dioscorides ‘Phacas' Dictionaries of Scientific 3.325
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486 distributional syntax Noun Phrase, 2,529
Dioscorides “the younger’ Dictionaries of Scientific disyliabic roota Indo-European Linguistic Background,
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487 2.216; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.253; Schwebeablaut,
Dioscorus Papyrology, 3.16 9.261
Dioscuros of Aphrodito Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.316 ditbyramb = Tragedy, Diction of. 3.417
Diphilus Aischrology, 1.80 ditransitive verbs Indirect Object, 2.202
diphthong Argolic, 1.171; Coniraction, 1.383: Glides, 2.15; divergence Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.366
Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Monophthongization, 2.448; Dixon, Robert M.W. Comitative, 1.322; Direct Object,
Morphological Change, 2.464 1.501
Niphthongization* 1.498; Cyrenaean, 1.410; Epic Dictlon, Dobree, Peter. Synonymica: From Antiquity to the
1.556; lonic, 2.419; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.390 Byzantine Period, 3.353
Diphthongs* 1.498 Dobrov, Gregory Government Binding and Greek, 2.23
dipinti Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.30; Dodecanese Archaisms in Modem Dialects, 1.160: Indo-
Graffiti, 2.25 European Historical Background, 2.210
diplasiasmös see Aeolic doubling Dodecanesian Developments in Medieval and Modem
diptoiin Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Greek, 1.449
Theories of, 3.530 Dodecapolis lanic, 2.260; Literary Prose, 2.371; Local
Dipylon Gate Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499 Scripts, 2.381
Dipylon Vase Inscription” 1.499; Attic. 1.187; Orality and Dodge, Bayard Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148
Literacy, 2.562 Dodena Macedonian, 2.393; Northwest Greek, 2.518
Direct Object* 1.501 domains ofagreement Agreement, 1.74
Direct/Indirect Discourse’ 1.504 Dominguez, Adolfo Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91
Direct/Indirect Speech” 1.506 Darati, Margherita Vocative, 3.492
Direction Adverbial Constituents, 1.52; Adverbs Donatianus Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
(Morphological Aspects of), 1.59; Complementation, Ancient Linguistics, 3.72
1.338; Dative, 1.414; Space (Cases), 3.310 Donatus Figures (skhemata), Ancient Theories of, 1.591
Diringer, David Alphabet, Descendants of, 190 Donne, Jahn Greek Lyric Poetry. Translation, 2.125
Dirven, Rene Intensifiers, 2.246 Donner, Herbert Language Contact, 2.303
discontinuous morpheme Prepositions in Homer, 3.143 Donner, J.J.C. Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation,
Discourse Analysis and Greek” 1.509 3.126
discourse cohesion Anaphoric Processes, 1.107; Cohesion, Doolittle, Hilda Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125
1.313; Questions. 3.205 Dophitis Local Scripts, 2.384
tliscourse connectives Anaphoric Processes, 1.107 Dorian Literary Prose, 2.372
discourse connectors Particles (Syntactic Features), Dorians Arcadian, 1.151; Indo-European Historical
3.32 Background, 2.209; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133
 INDEX
Doric* 1.515; Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.1;
Adpositional Phrase, 1.38; Ancient Bidialectalism and
Bilingualism, 1,116; Aorist Formation, 1.139; Apocope,
1.142; Arcado-Cypriot, 1.156; Choral Poetry, Diction of,
1.278; Classical Greek Morpholopy (Survey), 1.288; Code-
Mixing, 1307; Dialectal Convergence, 1.457; Dialectology
(didiektas), Ancient Theories of, 1.460; Dictionaries
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.480; Diphthongs, 1.499; Elision, 1.545; Greek Lexicon
in Western Languages, z.107; Hellenistic Literary Prose,
2,153; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.219;
Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.367; Nominal
System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502; Patronymics,
3.46; Phonetics, 3.82; Phonological Change, 3.84;
Pronominal System, 3.150; Relative Clauses, 3.225; Sotera
Rule, 3.297; Tmesis, 3.409; Vowel Changes, 3.503
Doric Accentuation* 1,522
Doric alpha Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.161;
Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.458
Doric contractions Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.998
Doric future Achaean, 1.20; Cretan, 1.397; Desideratives,
1.441; Epic Diction, 1.551; Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity,
2.94; Macedonian, 1,394; Northwest Greek, 2.519
Doric Koina Elean (and Olympia), 1.540: Formation of
Doric Kaines, The, 1604
Doric, mild (Doris mitior) Achaean, 1.20; Choral Poetry,
Diction of, 1.278; Contraction, 1.383; Desideratives, 1.44%,
Doric, 1.518; Elean (and Olympia), 1.536; Greek in Sicily in
Late Antiquity, 2.94; Koine, Origins of, 2.278; Language
Contact, 2.302; Northwest Greek, 2.521; Phonology
(Survey), 3.91: Rhodian, 3.243; Saronic, 3.258
Daric, strict (Doris severior) Achaean, 1.20; Attitudes
to Language, 1.203; Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278;
Contraction, 1.383; Desideratives, 1.441; Doric, 1518; Elean
(and Olympia), 1.536; Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity,
2.95; Laconian, Messenian, 2.287; Northwest Greek, 2,521;
Phonological Change, 3.83; Phonology (Survey), 3.90;
Rhodian, 3.243; Saronic, 4.258
Dorion Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Period, 2.550
Doris Doric, 1.516; Northwest Greek, 2,518
Doris media Doric, 1.518; Rhodian, 3.243
Dorival, Gilles Septuagint, 3.290
Dornseiff, Franz Greek Lexicon in Western Languages,
2.101; Word Formation (Derivation, Compaunding),
3.528
Doras Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Dialects, Classification of,
1.462
Dositheus Noun (dnoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.526
double flop Moras, 2.461
Douglas, A.E. Tropes (frdpo/), Ancient Theories of, 3.441
Doukas, Neophytas Attieism, 1.201
Dover, Kenneth]. Clitics, 1.302; Comedy, Diction of, 1.319;
Informatiun Structure and Greek, 2.241; Pustpusilives,
3.128; Prepositives, 3.144; Questions, 3.201; Typology of
Greek, 3.452; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.508; Word Order,
3.532: Written versus Spoken Language, 3.539
Downing, Brice T, Relative Clauses, 3.229
Dowty, David Experiential Constructions, 1.586;
Recipient, 3.208
Drachmann, Gaberell Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Antiquityto the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Language
Change, 2.296; Optimality and Greek, 2.556
Drakon Epigraphy, 1564
Drama Translation” 1.523
Dramatic Meter* 1530
Drandakes, P. Asianism, 1.180
577
Dravidian Language Contact, 2,299; Predicative
Constituents, 3.130
Dreros Cretan, 1.396; Epigraphy, 1.564; Eteocretan, 1.570;
Local Scripts, 2.384
Dressler, Wolfgang U. Case Syncretism (Morphological
Aspects of), 1.273; Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax
and Morphology), .496; Language Change, 2.296;
Reduplication, 3.212; Suppletion, 3.342; Text Linguistics
and Greek, 3.389; Typology of Greek, 3.451
Drews, Robert Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.29;
Pre-Greek Languages, 3.136; Proto-Greek and Common
Greek, 3.176
Driessen,Jan Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Nialectology, 1120
Drinka, Bridget Aorist Formation, 1.139; Auxiliaries, 1.219;
Language Contact, 2.299
druid Greek and Celtic, 2.44
druidés Greek and Celtic, 2.44
Drummen, Annemieke Discourse Analysis and Greek,
1,51
Drummond, Clara Drama Translation, 1.525
Drux, Rudolf = Tropes (tröpof), Ancient Theories of, 3.441
Dry, Helen A. Grounding of Information, 2.148
Dryden, John Drama Translation, 1.524; Greek Lyric
Poetry, Translation, 2.127; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Translation, 3.126
Dryer, Matthew S, Information Structure and Greek, 2.240
Du Cange, Charles du Fresne Dictionaries of Ancient
Greek, 1.479; Greek and Thracian, 2.87
du Toit, H.C. Government Binding and Greek, 2.24
Dual* 1.533
dualia tanfum Number, 2.538
Dublin Drama Translation, 1.525
Dubois, Laurent Achaean, 1.20; Arcado-Cypriat, 1.154;
Elean (and Olympia), 1.539; Greek in Sicily in Late
Antiquity, 2.95; Macedonian, 2.393; Transition from the
Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421
Dubuisson, Michel Ancient Bidialectalism and
Bilingualism, 1.115; Attitudes ta Language, 1.205;
Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Language Policies, 2.311; Latin
Loanwards in Greek, 2.320; Nominal System (Gender,
Number, Case), 2.502
Dueat, jean Transition fram the Local Alphabets to the
Ionic Script, 3.421
Duchene, Herve Local Scripts, 2.384; Transition from the
Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.422
Ducrey, Pierre Transition from the Local Alphabets to
the Ionic Script, 3.421
ductus Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.266
Dugan, J. Asianism, 1180
Duhows, Yves Active, 1.24; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
and Dialectology, 1.120; Aorist, 1.136; Argument Clause,
1.175; Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.213; Auxlliarles, 1.219;
Causative Formation, 1270; Consecutio Temporum el
Modorum, 1.367; Consecutive Clauses, 1.369; Contract
Verbs, 1.382; Cypriot, 1.401; Dialects, Classification of,
1.464; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Infinitives
{Morphology of}, 2.226; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.231;
Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Linear A,
2.353; Linear B, 2.359; Morphoiogical Change, 2.468;
Particles (Formal Features), 3.25; Passive (Morphology),
3.42; Phaistos Disc, 3.62; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133;
Reduplicated Presents, 3.209; Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270;
Tense/ Aspect, 3,385; Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation,
3.398; Verbal Adjectives, 3.471: Voice, 3.495
Dumezil, Georges Indo-European Historical Background,
2.21
578 INDEX
Dunbar, H, Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries, Effe, Bernd History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
1.357 Germany, 2.167
Duncan, Starkey Utterance, 3.454 Egenolff, Peter Orthography (orthographia), Ancient
Dunkel, George E. Cowgill’s Law, 1.394; Glottalic Theory Theories of, 2.573
and Greek, 2.17; Perfect, Formation of, 3.51; Prote-Greek Egetmeyer, Markus Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek,
and Common Greek, 3.176; Vowel Changes, 3.504 1.98; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology,
Dunn, Graham Pitch, 3.101 1.122; Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155; Archaisms in Modern
Düntzer, Johann H.J. Formulaic Language, 1.609 Dialects, 1.162; Cypriot, 1.401; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405
Dura-Europos Graffiti, 2.26; Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Eggs, E. Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of,
Language Contact, 2.303; Papyri, Language of, 3.12; 2.417
Papyrology, 3.15 Egli, Urs Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1130;
Durante, Marcello Greek and Etruscan, 2.51; Greek Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590
Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.104; Orality and Egypt Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94; Ancient
Literacy, 2.563; Poetic Language, 3.104 Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, Lu4; Arabic Tradition.
duration Adverbial Constituents, 1,52; Complementation, Translation, 1.147; Byzantine Phase and Reception of
1.337 Ancient Greek, the, 1.248; Compound Tenses (Hellenistic
durational theory Bridges, 1.247 Greek), 1.348; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404; Dictionaries of
Duridanov, I. Greek and ‘Thracian, 2.85 Ancient Greek, 1.476; Epigraphy, 1.564; Eteocypriot,
Durnford, Stephen Greek and Lydian, 2.71 1,571; Graffiti, 2.25; Greek and Carian, 2.40; Greek and
Dusanié, Slobodan Transition from the Local Alphabets Celtic, 2.46; Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.47;
to the Ionic Script, 3.421 Greek and Etruscan, 2.48; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52:
Dutch Compounding/Derivation/Construction Greek Loanwords in Syriac, 2.125; Greek Lyric Poetry,
Morphology, 1.351; Prosodic Word, 3.161: Translation in Translation, 2.126; Greek Writing Systems, 2.142; Greek/
Non-Westem Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.431 Latin Bilingualism, 2.146; Indo-European Historical
Dutt, Romesh Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Background, 2.209; Jewish Greek, 2,268; Koine, Features
Concepts and Models, 3.430 of, 2.273; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Late Antiquity Prose,
Dutta, Indranil Utterance, 3.454 2.317; Macedonian, 2.392; Orality and Literacy, 2.562;
Dutta, Michael M. Translation in Non-Western Palaeography, 3.1; Papyri, Language of, 3.12; Papyralopy,
Traditions: Concepts and Madels, 3.430 3.15; Patranymics, 3.45; Postcolonial Translation:
Duvanli Greek and Thracian, 2.84 Theory and Practice, 3.123; Rosetta Stone, 3.2543
Dyce, Alexander Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.265; Translation in Non-Western
3.26 Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.434
Dyck, Andrew R. Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Egyptian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92; Ancient
Antiquity to the Byzantine Pertod, 1.100; Dictionaries Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.115; Bilingualism in
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Hellenistic Egypt, 1.234; Code-Switching, 1.308; Contact
1.480; Etymelogical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the through Translation, 1.379: Cretan Hieroglyphic Script,
Byzantine Period, 1.574; Lexicography, History of, 2.951; 1,398; Etymological Dictionaries; Theory of Greek
Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories Etymology, 1.578; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603;
of, 2.363; Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theories Greek and Carian, 2.40; Greek and Egyptian, and Captic,
of, 2.574 Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient 2.46; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.13; Koine,
Linguistics, 3.69 Features of, 2.273; Language Contact, 2.300; Papyri,
Dyme Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604 Language of, 3.13; Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.280;
dynamic (or intensive) middle Voice, 3.498 Zoonyms (Names of Mammals), 3.344
Dyobouniotes Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 Egyptian, Classical Rosetta Stone, 3.254
Dyrrachium Greek and Illyrian, 2.56 Egyptians Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114
Ehrenfellner, Ulrike Consecutive Clauses, 1.371
Ebert,J. Elean (and Olympia), 1.541 Eichner, Heiner Greek and Illyrian, 2.56; Greek and
Echembrotus Elegy, Diction of, 1.543; Song and Lycian, 2.67; Greek and Lydian, 2.71
Recitation, 3.294 Eickhoff, E. Color Terms, 1.916
Eck, Werner Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Eickhoff, Randy L. Homer, Translation, 2.179
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238 Eideneier, Hans Developments in Medieval and Modern
ECKITTOPEIE Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Greek, 1.446
Edessa Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147; Greek and eidos Word Formation (purayöge/sünthesis), Ancient
Syriac, 2.80; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, Theories of, 4.531
3.437 Eirenaeus of Alexandria Lexicography, History of, 2.349
Edgerton, Franklin Movable s, 2.470 El Bostany, Soliman ‘Translation in Non-Western
edges Syllables, 3.347 Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.434
Edict of Milan Attitudes to Language, 1.207 El Kanais Graffiti, 2,26
Edlow, R. Blair Figures (skhemata), Ancient Theories of, El Tahtawy, Rifa'a Rab Translation in Non-Western
1.589 Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.434
Edmondson, Jerold A. Intensifiers, 2.246 Elamite Greek and Carian, 2.40; Greek and iranian, 2.62
Edmunds, Lowell Deixis (inchiding ıst and 2nd Person), elative Comparison, 1.333
1.428; Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.510 Elean* 1535; Adpositional Phrase, 1.36; Analogy, 1.105;
Edom Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31 Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, Lug;
Edwards, Glyno P, Epic Diction, 1.555 Attic, 1189; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290;
Edwards, Mark W. Caesurae, 1.255; Formulas, 1.615 Dialectal Convergence, 1.456; Diphthongization, 1.498;
 INDEX 579

Doric, 1516; Greek and Llyrian, 2.58; Nominal System endophoric reference Deixis (including ıst and
(Gender, Number, Case), 2.502; Psilosis, 3.192 znd Person), 1.423; Determiners, 1.444; Discourse
Eleatic philosophers Ancient Philosophers on Language, Analysis and Greek, 1.510; Pronouns (Demonstrative,
1,126 Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158
elegeion Elegy, Diction of, 1.543 Endress, Gerhard Arabic 'l'radition, Translation, 1.147
elegiac couplet Elegy, Diction of, 1.542; Late Antiquity Enea Piccolomini Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
Poetry, 2.315; Metrics, 2.423; Responsion, 3.236 3.365
elegy Elegy, Diction of, 1.543; lambic Poetry, Diction of, Engels, Johannes Macedonian, 2.392
2.187 English passim (in over 50 articles)
Elegy, Diction of* 1.542 enigmas Oracular Language, 2.561
Eleisms Elean (and Olympia), 1.536 enklisis, eperméné Mood (Enklisis), Ancient Theories of,
Eleusis Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.285; Linear RB, 2.450
2.357 Enkomi Cypro-Minoan Syllabary, 1.408
Eleutherna Cretan, 1.396 Ennius, Quintus Greek and Latin, 2.66; Homer,
Elimeia Macedonian, 2.392 Translation, 2.180; Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
Eliot, T.S. Drama Translation, 1.528; Greek Novel, 3.246; Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364
Translation, 2.134 Entella Formation of Doric Kaines, The, 1.605; Greek In
Elis Achaean, 1.19; Aeolic Dialects, 1.63: Archaisms in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94; Rhodian, 3.243
Modern Dialects, 1.160; Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; entities Adverbial Constituents, 1.50
Elean (and Olympia), 1535; Formation of Doric Koines, entrenchment Perfect, 3-47
The, 1,604: Koine, Origins of, 2.282; Local Scripts, 2.381; enunciation Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264
Northwest Greek, 2.520; Rhotacism, 3.244; Transition epanalepsis 1.546
from the Local Alphabets te the Ionic Script, 3.421 epanaphora Epanalepsis, 1.546
Elisaeus Greek and Armenian, 2.38 Epaphos Etymology (etuniologfa), Ancient Theories ol,
Elision* 1.345; Aphaeresis, 1.141; Caesurae, 1.255; Cretan, 1.580
1.397; Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.154; Phonological Epeioi Elean (and Olympia), 1535
Phrase, 3.87; Prosody, 3.171; Sandhi, 3.257 Epenthesis” 1.547; Metathesis, 2.419
Elisson Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic epenthetic vowel Schwa Secundum, 3.260
Script, 3.421 Ephesus Graffiti, 2.26; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; loniec, 2.260;
Elladios, Al. Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek, Local Scripts, 2.384; Names of Months, 2.479; Transition
2,257 from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.420
Ellendt, F. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477 e-philology Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392
ellipsis Adjuncts, 1.28; Clause, 1.294; Cohesion, 1.312; Ephippus Aischrology, 1.77
Comparative Clauses, 1.328; Coordination (includes Ephorus of Cyme Late Antiquity Prose, 2,318; Literary
Asyndeton), 1.388; Cretan, 1.398; Discourse Analysis Prose, 2.378: Pamphylian, 3,8
and Greek, 1.51; Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1,583; ephphatha Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60; Written versus Spoken Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240
Language, 3.542 Ephrem Greek and Syriac, 2.81
elöi elöi lema sabakhthani Bilingualism, Diglossia and Epic Cyele Epic Meter, 1.558; Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315
Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240 Epic Diction® 1.548
eloquentia History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in epic formulas Formulas, 1.613; Lyric Poctry, Diction of,
Germany, 2.164 2.390
Elordieta, Gorka Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.363 epic language Preverbs, 3.149
Eltynia Cretan, 1.397 Epic Meter* 1.557
embedding Anaphoric Processes, 1.107 Epicharmus Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.279; Classical
Embodied Construction Grammar Construction Greek Morphology (Survey), 1,290; Comedy, Diction
Grammar and Greek, 1376 of, 1.317; Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of,
embodiment Cognitive Linguistics anc Greek, 1.310 1.460; Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Particles (Formal
Emde Boas, Evert van Adverbial Constituents, 1.49; Features), 3.29; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.293
Optative, 2.554; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334 epichoric alphabets Local Scripts, 2.381
Emmett L. BennetJr Linear B, 2.356 epicisms Elegy, Diction of, 1.544; Epic Diction, 1.544
empathy Possession, 3.115 Epicles of Crete Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Empedocles Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.126; Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486
Derveni Papyrus, 1.440; Lexical Change, 2.343; Linguistic Epictetus Attitudcs to Language, 1.207; Koinc, Origins of,
Correctness (Aeflénismds), Ancient Theories of, 2.361; 2.283; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319; Papyri, Language of,
Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.415 3.13; Written versus Spoken Language, 3.541
emphasis Anaphoric Processes, 1.110; Epanalepsis, 1.546; Epicurean school Metaphor ({metaphord), Ancient
Negation, 2.486; Verb Phrase, 3.463 Theories of, 2.416
emphatic reduplication Reduplication, 3.213 Epicureans Koine, Origins of, 2.280
Empiricists Dictionaries of Scientific Vacabulary: Epicurus Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.128;
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486 Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153; Metaphor (metaphord),
Emporiae lonic, 2.260 Ancient Theorles of, 2.416
Emporion Local Scripts, 2.380 Epidamnus Greek and Illyrian, 2.56; Language Contact,
enallage Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.591 2,302
‘Enanisho' Greek and Syriac, 2.81 Epidaurum Greek and Illyrian, 2.57
enclitics Clitics, got; Pronominal System, 3.155: Epidaurus = Argolic, 1.171; Dialectal Convergence, 1.455;
Wackernagel's Law I, 3.508; Word Order, 3.533 Epigraphy, 1.565; Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.97;
580 INDEX

Transition from the Local Alphabets to the [onic Script, Erythrae lonic, 2.260; Leshian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.931;
3.420 Local Scripts, 2.384
epigram Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Esposito, Elena Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Script, 3.421; Written versus Spoken Language, 3.541 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Dictionaries of
Epigram, Diction of* ı.5bo Dialects; From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481;
epigrams, dedicatery Epigram, Diction of, 1.562 Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and
Epigraphy* 1.564 Byzantine Period, 1.487; Song and Recitation, 3.294
Epiphanius of Salamis Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Essen, M.H.N. von Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 Dictionarles, 1.357
Epiphanius Scholasticus Translation of Greek Texts in Estienne, Henri Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126:
Late Antiquity, 3.437 Homer, Translation, 2.175
Epirotic Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.164; Greek and estimate Adverbial Constituents, 1.54
Illyrian, 2.56; Northwest Greek, 2.523 Estonian Syllable Weight, 3.346
epirrhema Word Classes (mere tel lögeu), Ancient Eteocretan* 1.570; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133
Theories of, 3.519 Eteocypriot™ 1.571, Cypro-Minoan Syllabary, 1.408
Epirus Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, Ethiopia Greek and Syriac, 2.80; Greek Loanwords in
1.448; Doric, 1316; Formation of Doric Koines, The, Geez, 2.120
1.603; Language Contact, 2.302; Northwest Greek, 2.518; Ethiopic Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120; Translation of
Thessalian, 3.403 Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.440
epistrophe Epanalepsis, 1.546 Ethiopic, Classical Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120
epitaph Cypriot Syllabary, 1.407; Epigram, Diction of, ethnic boundary model Accommodation, 1.12
1,563; Greek and Celtic, 2.45; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; ethnic names Word Formation (Derivation,
Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 Compounding), 3.524
epithesis Language Change, 2.294 ethnenyms Denominal Verbs, 1.434; Plural/Pluralia
epithets Formulas, 1,613 Tantum, 3301
epode Responsion, 3.236 ethopoeia Literary Prose, 2.377
Epona Greek and Celtic, 2.44 Etman, A. Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Epstein, Melissa A. Utterance, 3.454 Concepts and Models, 3.434
epyllia Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.316 Etruria Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Greek and
Erasistratus Scientific Vocabulary, 3.263 Etruscan, 2.49
Erasmian Pronunciation* 1.568 Etruscan Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Greek and
Erasmus, Desiderius ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Erasmian Etruscan, 2.49; Greek and Latin, 2.65; Greek Lexicon
Pronunciation, 1.568; History of Teaching of Ancient in Western Languages, 2.101; Lemnian, 2.327; Linear A,
Greek in Germany, 2.163: Renaissance, Translation, 2,353; Pre-Greek Substrate, 9.197
3.233 Etruscans Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Lemnian,
Eratosthenes Onomastica: From Antiquity to the 2.327; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133
Byzantine Period, 2.550: Philological-Grammatical Etymologica Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.65 io the Byzantine Period, 1.573; Etymology (etumelogia),
Erbse, Hartmut Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Ancient Theories of, 1.582
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dictionaries Etymological Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period. zoth Century” 1.372
1.482; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the
Byzantine Period, 1.574; Synonymica: From Antiquity to Byzantine Period* 1574
the Byzantine Period, 3.354 Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Greek
Erechtheus Dialects, Classification of, 1.462 Etymology* 1.577
Eresos Lesbian (and Asian Aealic), 2.329 Etymologicum Genuinum Alphabetical Dictionaries:
Eretria Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 131; From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.103;
Arcadian, 1,152; Attitudes to Language, 1.203; Ionic, 2,261; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and
Local Scripts, 2.380; Macedonian, 2.392; Nestor's Cup, Byzantine Period, 1.486; Etymological Dictionaries: From
2.496; Northwest Greek, 2.520; Rhotacism, 3.244 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575
Eretrian Rhotacism, 3.244 Etymologicum Parvum Etymological Dictionaries: From
Eriksson, Karl Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.154 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1575
Erinna Epigranı, Diction of, 1.563 etymology Etymolagical Dictionaries: From the
Eritrea Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 Renaissance to the zoth Century, 1,572; Etymology
Ernesti, Johann A. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek (etumologia), Ancient Theories of, 1.579; Linguistic
in Germany, 2.169 Correctness (hellönismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.360;
Ernle, George Homer, Translation, 2.180 Semantic Change, 3.275; Word Formation (paragöge/
Ernout, Alfred Greek and Etruscan, 2,50 sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Erotian Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to Etymology (etumologia), Ancient Theories of* 1.579
the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dictionaries of Scientific Euaimon Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; lonie Script, 3.421
Lexicography, History of, 2.349 Euboea Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Alphabet, The Origin of
Erp Taalman Kip, A. Maria van Discourse Analysis and the Greek, 1.98; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160;
Greek, 1.501 Attic, 1.187; Epic Diction, 1.548; Greek and Etruscan,
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi Focus, 1.595; Information Structure 2.49; lonic, 2.260; Language Contact, 2.301; Local Scripts,
and Greek, 2.240 2.380; Northwest Greek, 2.520; Phonological Change,
 INDEX 581

3.86; Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290; evaluation Adjuncts, 1.29; Diminutives/Augmentatives
Syncope, 3.351 (Syntax and Morphology), 1.488
Euboean Aeolic Dialects, 162; Ancient Greek Evans, Arthur (Sir) Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.398;
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.119; Epic Diction, Linear A, 2.353; Linear B, 2.355
1.549; Glides, 2.15; lonic, 2.261; Koine, Origins of, 2.278; Evans, Trevor V. Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.235;
Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.397: Nestor's Cup, 2.495; Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.349; Papyri,
Northwest Greek, 2.518; Phonclogy (Survey), 3.95; Language of, 3.12; Septuagint, 3.290; Tense and Aspect
Rhotacism, 3.244 from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380
Euclid Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.31; Evans, Vyvyan Time, 3.405
Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.152; Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Evelyn-White, H.G. Aeolic Dialects, 1.63
Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264 eventschemas Auxiliaries, 1.218
Euclidean spelling reform Ancient Greek event time Time, 3.406; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect,
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.18; Developments in Mood), 3.477
Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.447; Linguistic Variation events Adverbial Constituents, 1.50
in Classical Attic, 2.368 evidentiality Direct/Indirect Discaurse, 1.505
euepeia Asianisın, 1.179 evidentials Mood and Modality, 2.453
Eumelus of Corinth Choral Poetry, Diction ol, 1.278; exophora Deixis (including 1st and 2nd Person), 1.422
Lyric Meter, 2.387 exophoric reference Determiners, 1.444; Discourse
euphemism Aischrology, 1.80; Language Change, 2.294; Analysis and Greek, 1.510; Pronouns (Demonstrative,
Semantic Change, 3.277 Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158
Euphemism and Dysphemism* = 1.582 experiencer Active, 1.24; Adverbial Constituents, 1.53;
euphony Ancient Prose Rhythm. 1.133; Literary Prose, Agency and Causation, 1.66; Complementation, 1.342;
2.377: Phonetic Law, 3.77: Rhetorical Tradition in Dative, 1.414; Direct Object, 1.501; Impersonal Verbs/
Ancient Linguistics, 3.238 Constructions, 2,199; Non-Canonical Subjects, 2.514;
Euphorion of Chalcis Dictionaries of Scientific Passiva Tantum, 3.41; Transitivity, 3.424; Voice, 3.495
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; experiencer argument Experiential Constructions, 1.586
Epigram, Diction of, 1.563; Lexicography, History of, Experiential Constructions* 1.585
2.349 extension Aorist (adristos), Ancient Theories of, 1.138;
Euphrates Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Teponyms, 3.414 Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284; Semantic Change,
Eupolis Comedy, Diction of, 1.317; Linguistic Correctness 3.277
(hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.363 external accusative Accusative, 1.14
Euripides Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.127; external object Accusative, 1.14
Atticism, 1.200; Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278; external responsion Responsion, 3.235
Comitative, 1.326; Deixis (including ast and and Person), Eythörsson, Thörhallur Construction Grammar and
1.427; Drama Translation, 1.524; Dramatic Meter, 1.531; Greek, 1377
Elegy, Diction of, 1.544: Film Adaptation and Translation, Ezechiel the Tragedian Jewish Greek, 2.269
1.594; Foot, 1.601; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.30; Ezerovo Language Contact, 2.301
History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.165; Ezerovo inscription Greek and Thracian, 2.84
Homer, Translation, 2.175; Intonational Phrase, 2.255; Ezra-Nehemiah (Bible) Greek and Hebrew, 2.53
Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Linguistic Variation in Classical
Attic, 2.366; Literary Prose, 2.375; Lyric Meter, 2.388; Fabb, Nigel Compounding/Derivation/Construction
Mediopassive, 2.411; Metrics, 2.423; Moras, 2.463; Orality Morphology, 1.352
and Literacy, 2.564; Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Facella, Antonina Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94
Practice, 3.123; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247; factitive Aorist Formation, 1.140; Contract Verbs, 1.383:
Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.329: Topic, 3.412; Benominal Verbs, 1.433
Tragedy, Diction of, 3.417 factitive-causative aspect Deverbative Verbs, 1453
Europe Agency and Causation, 1.69; Balkan Sprachbund: Fagles, Robert Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128;
Early Evidence in Greek, 1.242; Indo-European Historical Homer, Translation, 2.178
Background, 2.208 faithfulness constraints Optimality and Greek, 2.555
Eusebius (of Caesarea) Atticism, 1.201; Dictionaries of Faliscan Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90
Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Falk, Y.N. Drama Translation, 1525; Subject, 3.331
1.485; Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Greek Historiography, Faltz, Leonard M. Reflexives, 3.215
Translation, 2.90; Greek Novel, Translation, 2.134; family tree indo-European Historical Background, 2.207
Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.437 Fanning, Buist M. Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.332;
Eusebius of Emesa Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Translation of Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine
Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 Greek, 3.380
Eustathius Aeolic Dialects, 3.64; Atticism, 1,201; Fanshawe, Richard (sir) Post-Homerie Epic Poetry,
Byzantine Phase and Reception of Ancient Greek, the, Translation, 3.127
1.249; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Fantham, Elaine ‘Tropes {trdpoi), Ancient Theories of,
Byzantine Period, 1.482; Lexicography, History of, 2.349; 3-443
Northwest Greek, 2.521; Synonymica: From Antiquity to Faraone, ChristopherA. Elegy, Diction of, 1.542; Nestor's
the Byzantine Period, 3.354 Cup, 2.496; Oaths, Curses, 2.545; Responsion, 3.237
Euthalius Rhodios Concordances/Indices/Reverse Farber, Yael Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Dictionaries, 1,357 Concepts and Models, 3.433
Evagrius of Pontus Greek and Syriac, 2,81; Translation of Faure, Richard Consecutio Temporum et Modorum, 1.369
Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.437 Faustus of Byzantium Greek and Armenian, 2.38
582 INDEX
Favorinus Asianism, 1.180 Fischman, Joshua Aititudes to Language, 1.204
Fawkes, Francis Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, Fish, Stanley Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137;
3.126 Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Methods, 3.371
Fayyum Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.97; Greek Fiske, Donald W. Utterance, 3.454
and Armenian, 2.39; Papyrology, 3.16 Flaccus, Valerius Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation,
fear-clauses Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334 3.126
Fedriani, Chiara Experiential Constructions, 1.585 Flangini, Lodovico Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Fehling, Detlev Linguistic Correctness (hellenismes), Translation, 3.126
Ancient Theories of, 2.360: Philological-Grammatical Flaux, Nelly Abstract Nouns, 1.4
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.72; Tropes (tripai), Fleischer, U, Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Ancient Theories of, 3.442 Dictionaries, 1357
Felson, Nancy Deixis (including 1st and znd Person), Fleischman, Suzanne Grounding of Information, 2.149
1.426 Flemish Homer, Translation, 2.177
female speech Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic. Fletcher, Judith Oaths, Curses, 2.545
2.365 Florence Renaissance, Translation, 3.232
Fenelon, Francois Translation in Non-Western Floyd, Edwin D. Causative Formation, 1.276
Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.434 Fluid Construction Grammar Construction Grammar
Fenik, Bernard Formulaic Language, 1.609 and Greek, 1.376
Ferguson, Charles A, Attic, 1.191; Attitudes to Language, Flydal, Leiv Language Change, 2.291
1.204 focality Possession, 3.116
Fernandez Alvarez, M. Pilar Argolic, 1.172 focalization Functional Grammar and Greek, 1.617,
Fernandez Garrido, Regla Determiners, 1.442 Negation, 2.486
Fernandez Marcos, Natalio Greek Novel, Translation, focalizers Clities, 1,301
2.134 Focus’ 1.595; Comitative, 1,325; Information Structure
Ferrara, Alessandro Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137 and Greek, 2.240: Particles (Syntactic Features), 3,31;
Ferri, Rolando Politeness/Courtesy Expressions, 3.113 Prepositives, 3.144; Topic, 3.412; Verb Phrase, 3.464; Ward
Ferrua, Antonio Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94 Order, 3.532
Fertig, David Suppletion, 3.342 focus particles Intensifiers, 2.247
Festa, Niccola Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127 focusing expressions Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.31
Feuillet, Jack Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Foley, Helene Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Greek, 1.223 Practice, 3.123
Fichte, }.G. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Foley, John M. Formulas, 1.615; Homer, Translation, 2.178
Germany, 2.169 folk etymology Language Change, 2.294; Personal
Fick, August Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99; Pre- Names, 3.57; Yodization, 3.543
Greek Substrate, 3.136 Foot* 1.599: Period, 3.53
Fielding, Henry Drama Translation, 1.327 force Non-Canonical Subjects, 2.514
Fiesel, Eva Greek and Etruscan, 2.49 Ford, Andrew Homer, Translation, 2.178
Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of* 1.589 foreground/background Grounding of Information,
figures of speech Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of, 2.148
3.441 foreigners Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.370
figures of thought Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories forensic Literary Prose, 2.377
of, 1.590; Tropes (tréput), Ancient Theories of, 3.441 Formation of Doric Koiues, The* 1.603
Fihrist Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148 forms of address Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic
Fillmore, Charles Construction Grammar and Greek, Variation, 1.606
1.375 Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic Variation* 1.606
Film Adaptation and Translation® 1.592 Formulaic Language” 1.608
Filos, Panagiotis Agent Nouns, 1.73; Byzantine Phase Formulas* 1613; Elegy, Diction of, 1.342; Oracular
and Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.250; Language Language, 2,560; Orality and Literacy, 2.563; Poetic
Contact, 2.304 Language, 3.110
Finch, Anne Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126 ‘formula-switching’ Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.148
Finkelberg, Margalit Doric, 1.517; Greek and Anatolian Fornaro, Pierpaolo Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Languages, 2.27; Linear A, 2.355: Proto-Greek and Translation, 3.128
Common Greek, 3.176; Toponyms, 3.414 Forsgren, Mats Predicative Constituents, 3.130
Finnegan, Ruth Orality and Literacy, 2.562 Forssman, Bernhard Calques, 1,261; Cowgill’s Law, 1.394;
Finnish Quantifiers, 3.199; Space (Cases), 3.311; Verbal Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.177
Valency, 3.487 Fortenbaugh, William W. Figures (skhemata), Ancient
Finno-Ugric Intensihers, 2.247 Theories of, 1.590: Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
Firmicus Maternus Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.99 Thearies of, 2.416; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
First Intermediate Period Alphabet. The Origin of the Linguistics, 3.238: Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327
Greek, 1.94 Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. Diathesis/Voice (Morphology
Fischer, Eitel Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity of), 1.473; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28;
to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dictionaries of Dialects: Labiovelars, 2.286; Mediopassive, 2.41; Merger, 2.413;
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period. 1.482: Written OsthofPs Law, 2.576; Passive (Morphology), 3.42: Proto-
versus Spoken Language, 3.541 Greek and Common Greek, 3.182; Schwa Secundum,
Fischer, Wolfdietrich Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 3.260; Stative (and Middle/Medium) Verbs, 3.316;
2.33 Subordination, 3.337; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344:
 INDEX 583
‘Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.397; Wackernagel's Friedman, Victor A. Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence
Law I, 3.508 in Greek, 1.222
forward span Adverbial Constituents, 152 Friedrich, Paul Tense/Aspect, 3.385; Typology of Greek,
forward-looking center Anaphoric Processes, i. 3.452; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
Foucauld, Charles Eugene de Phytonyms (Names of Friedrich, Rainer Aischrology, 1.78
Trees). 3.99 Friedrich, R Formulas, 1.615
Fournet, J.L. Papyri, Language of, 3.13 Frisch, Stefan A. Dissimilation, 1.514
Fournier, Henri Argument Clause. 1.174 Frischlin, Nicodemus Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Fowler, Robert L. Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133 Translation, 4.127
Fox, Anthony Intonational Phrase, 2.253 Frisk, Hjalmar Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477;
Fraccaroli, Giuseppe Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, Etymological Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the
3-365 zoth Century, 1.573: Etymological Dictionaries: Theary
Fradinger, Moira Postcolonial Translation: Theory and of Greek Etymology, 1.577; Greek and Thracian, 2.84;
Practice, 3.124: Translation In Non-Western Traditions: Greek Lexicon, Stricture and Origin of, 2.11% Inflectional
Concepts and Models, 3.432 Classes, 2.237; Negation (Morphology), 2.491
Frain, Rose Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Fritz, Matthias Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.46; Indo-
France Greek and Celtic, 2.44 European Linguistic Background, 2.224
Francian Dialectal Convergence, 1454 Fuchs, Anne Deixis (including ıst and and Person),
Francklin, Thomas Drama Translation, 1.528 1.423
Francois, Jacques Predicative Constituents, 3.13) Fudge, Eric C. Phonotactics, 3.97
Franke, Friedrich Notn Phrase, 2.532 Fugard, Athol = Postcolonial Translation: ‘Theory and
Fränkel, Eduard Caesurae, 1.255; Clitics, 1.303; Practice, 3.124
Intonational Phrase, 2.254; Postpositives, 3.128; Syntax- Fuhrmann, Manfred Dictionaries of Scientific
Phonology Interface, 3.362; Wackernagel's Law |, 3.311; Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1,486:
Word Order, 3.533; Postpositives, 3.128 History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.169
Fränkel, Hermann Epic Meter, 1.560; Prosodic Word, full grade Agent Nouns, 1.72; Schwebeablaut, 3.261
2.161 Fumaroli, Marc Formulaic Language, 1.608
Frankfurter, David Papyrology, 3.16 functional approaches Cognitive Linguistics and Greek,
Fraser, Bruce Particles (Formal Features), 3.25; Personal 1,308
Pronouns, Use of, 3.60: Word Order. 3.537 Functional Discourse Grammar = Functional Grammar
Fraser, P.M. Word Formation (Derivation, and Greek, 1.615; Noun Phrase, 2.527
Compounding), 3.525; Atticism, 1.198 Functional Grammar* 1.615: Mood and Madality, 2.457:
Frazer, James Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.582 Subordination, 3.335; Word Order, 3.535
Frede, D. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.130 functional load = Phonological Change, 3.84
Frede, Michael Case (ptösts), Ancient Theories uf, 1.269; functional logic 9 Conditionals, 1359
Declension/Conjugation (Alisis), Ancient Theories of, functional paradigm Functional Grammar and Greek,
1.417; Syntax (sintaxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.360 1.616
Freeman, Philip Greek and Celtic, 2.44 functional semantics Noun Phrase, 2.529
Frei, Peter Alphabet, Descendants of. 1.91: Greek and funerary inscription see epitaph
Carian, 2.41 Furnee, Edzard J. Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.142; Toponyms,
French Analogy, 1.104; Coordination (includes 3.414
Asyndeton), 1.387; Definiteness/Detinite Article, 1.440; Furukawa, Naoyo Predicative Constituents, 3.132
Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.452: future Aorist (agristos), Ancient Theories ol,
Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1.138; Classical Greek Morpholagy (Survey), 1.291;
1,495; Focus, 1.599: Greek and Indian Languages, Mediopassive, 2.412; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect,
2.61; Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.101; Mood), 3.478
Homer, Translation, 2.177; Inchoatives/Inceptives, future perfect Participles (Morphological Aspects of),
2.201; Information Structure and Greek, 2.241; 3.23; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
Language Contact, 2.299; Modifiers, 2.445: Predicative Fyfe, Hamilton Style (/éxés}, Ancient Theories of, 3.428
Constituents, 4.130; Pronominal System, 3.156; Pronouns
(Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), Gabalas, Manuel Homer, Translation, 2.175
3.159; Split, 3.316 Gabii [Latium] Local Scripts, 2.382
frequency Adverbial Constituents, 1.52: Phonological Gadara Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Change, 3.85 Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238
frequency, fundamental Pitch, 3.100 Gaeta, Livia Word Order, 4.536
frequentative-intensive aspect Deverbative Verbs, 1.453 Gagnepain, Jean Abstract Nouns, 15
Fresina, Claudio Etymology (etumologia), Ancient Gaide, Francoise Diminutives/Augmentalives (Syntax
Theories of, 1579 and Morphology}, 1.497
Fretheim, Thorstein Topic, 3.41 Gail, Jean B. Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.93
Frey, Karl Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Gaisford, Thomas Lexicography, History ol, 2.352
Methods, 3.370 Galand, Antoine Formulaic Language, 1.608
fricative Yodization, 3.543 Galatia Greek and Celtic, 2.43; Koine, Origins of, 2.284
fricative weakening Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Galatian Written versus Spoken Language, 3.539
Mood), 3.482 Galen Allegory (ullegoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.88;
fricativization Developments in Medieval and Modern Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the
Greek, 1.449 Byzantine Period, 1.100; Atticism, 1.200; Attitudes to
Friedman,
Jay Heteroclitics, 2.158 Language, 1.207; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
584 INDEX

Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Greek and Gelzer, Thomas Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation,
Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33; Greek and Syriac, 2.81; 3.127
Homer, Translation, 2.176; Koine, Features of, 2,276; geminate Syllables, 3.348: Thessalian, 3.403
Kaine, Origins of, 2.280; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319; gemination Boeotian, 2.449; Syllables, 3.348; Synizesis,
Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Medical Vocabulary, 3.352
3.405; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250; Scientific gemination, expressive Lesbian (and Asian Acolic),
Vocabulary, 3.263; Translation of Greek Texts in Late 2.330; Personal Names, 3.57: Phonology (Survey), 3.95
Antiquity, 3.437 Gemistos Plethon Atticism, 1.201
Galilean Aramaic Greek and Aramaic, 2.34 Gender" 2.1 Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.287;
Galilee Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and Hebrew, Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.500; Plural/
2.52; New Testament, 2.497 Pluralia Tantum, 3.102
Gallia Narbonensis Greek and Celtic, 2.43 genealogies Orality and Literacy, 2.563
Gallicisms Atticism, 1.201 general truth Gnomic Aorist, 2.18
Gallo-Etruscan Greek and Celtic, 2.45 generic fact Gnomic Aorist, 2.18
Gallo-Greek inscriptions Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Genesis Greek Novel, Translation, 2.135
Gallo-Latin inscriptions Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Geneva School Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.38
Gallo-Romance Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and Genitive* 2.4; Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.10; Morphological
Morphology), 1.497 Change, 2.465
Gambarara, Daniele Etymology (efumologia), Ancient Genitive Absolute* 2.7: Cretan, 1.398; Greek and
Theories of, 1.579 Armenian, 2.39; Nominative, 2.510
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. Glottalic Theory and Greek, Geniudiené, Emma _ Reflexives, 3.215
2.16; Poetic Language, 3.104; Schwebeablaut, 3.261 Genizah of Cairo Greek and Hebrew, 2.54
gapping Clitics, 1302; Coordination (includes Gennadius of Massalia Translation of Greek Texts In
Asyndeton), 1.388 Late Antiquity, 3.437
gap-type Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.212 Genthe, H. Dictionurles of Ancient Greek, 1.477
Garcia Gual, Carlos Active, 124; Middle, 2.441; Voice, Gentili, Bruno Epigram, Diction of, 1.561; Metrics
3-495 {metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.432; Prosody, 3.168; Song
Garcia Ramön, JoseL Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Argument and Recitation, 4.293
Clause, 1.172; Dialects, Classification of, 1.466; Elean {and Gentner, Dedre Lexical Fields Theory and Greek, 2.343
Olympia), 1536; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229; Language and geographicalterms Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120
Variation in Greece, 2.290; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), geography Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
2.334; Pamphylian, 3.8; Personal Names, 3.55; Proto- Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.485
Greek and Common Greek, 3.177; Southeast Greek, Georgakopoulos, Thanasis Cognitive Linguistics and
3.298; Subordination, 3.339; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345: Greek, 1.310
Tense/Aspect, 3.386; Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401: George of Callipolis Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
Toponyms, 3.415 3.364
Garcia Teijetro, Manuel Language Policies, 2.311 George of Pisidia Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Gardiner, Alan (Sir) Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, Antiquity. 3.439
1.94 George, Coulter H. Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.42;
Gardner, Emest A. Epigraphy, 1.566 Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.291: Construction
Garlan, Yvon Graffiti, 2.26 Grammar and Greek, 1.377; Coordination (includes
Garrett, Andrew Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.17; Asyndeton), 1.385; Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153:
Grassmann's Law, 2.27: Law of Limitation, 2,324; Particles (Formal Features), 3.25; Passive (Syntax), 3.43:
Phonological Phrase, 3.88; Proto-Greek and Common Voice, 3.496
Greek, 3.176; Relative Chronology, 3.222; Wackernagel's Georgiev, Vladimir Greek and Thracian, 2.84; Pre-Greek
Law I, 3.510 Substrate, 3.137: Toponyms, 3.414
Garrison, Daniel H. Epigram, Diction of, 1.561 Ger Conditionals, 1.319; Noun Phrase, 2.533; Perfect, 3.47;
Garzaniti, Marcello Contact through Translation, 1.379 Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine
Gascou, J. Papyri, Language of, 3.12 Greek, 3.981
Gast, Volker Intensifiers, 2.246 Gerard, Raphaé] = Greek and Lydian, 2.70
Gates, H. Phelps Attic Reversion, 1.195 Gerber, Albrecht ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281
Gaulish Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92; Greek and Gerber, Douglas E. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477;
Celtic, 2.44; Numerals, 2.542; Phytonyms (Names of Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Lyric Poetry,
Trees), 3.98 Diction of, 2.389
Gavrilov, A.K. Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 German Abstract Nouns, 1.5; Agreement, 1,74; Atticism,
Gayler, Christoph Noun Phrase, 2.532 1.202; Comparative Method, 1.329; Determiners, 1.444;
Gaza Asianism, 1.180; Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy Greek and Indian Languages, 2.61; Greek Lexicon in
in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238 Western Languages, 2.101: Greek Philosophy, Translation,
Ge'ez Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 2.137; Homer, Translation, 2.177; Intensifiers, 2.247:
Ge’ez Bible Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.121 Internal Reconstruction, 2.251; Time, 3.405
Gebel Akhdar Cyrenasan, 1.409 Germanic Accentuation, 1.9: Adpasitions (Prepositions),
Geeraerts, Dirk Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.308; 1.40; Analogy, 1.105; Augment, 1.215; Caland System and
Lexical Fields Theory and Greek, 2.345; Polysemy, 3.114 Greek, 1,257; Causative Formation, 1275; Contact through
Gehman, Henry S$. Jewish Greek, 2.268 Translation, 1.381: Dual, 1.533: Inchoatives/Inceptives,
Gela Doric, 1.516; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.605; 2.202; Indo-European Historical Background, 2.206;
Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94; Rhodian, 3.242: Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.212; Internal
Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290 Reconstruction, 2.251; Language Change, 2.291; Language
 INDEX 585
Contact, 2.301; Movable s, 2.470; Neogrammarians, 2.493; Gildersleeve, Basil L, Aorist, 1.136; Consecutio
Osthoffs Law, 2.576; Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.59; Temporum et Modorum, 1.367; Determiners, 1.442; Voice,
Phonetic Law, 3.77; Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.100; 3-495
Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.137; Preverbs, 3.149; Structural Giles, Howard Accommodation, 1.12
Linguistics and Greek, 3.325; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345; Giles, Peter Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.41
Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395; Verb Phrase, Gillespie, Stuart Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.92;
3.464; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477; Homer, Translation, 2.181
Vocative, 3.493; Vowel Changes, 3.503 Gillieron, Jules Neogrammarians, 2.493
Gennanicrunes Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92 Gilman, Albert Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic
Germanicus Caesar Roman Translation of Greek Texts, Variation, 1.606
3.245 Gingrich, F. William Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.478
Gerö, Eva-Carin Conditionals, 1359; Noun Phrase, 2.533; Giordano, Manuela Oaths, Curses, 2.548
Perfect, 3.47; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic ta Early Givén, Talmy Anaphoric Processes, 1.110; Ancient
Byzantine Greek, 3.381 Philosophers on Language. 1.129; Auxiliaries, 1.218;
Gerth, Bernhard Agreement, 1.75; Argument Clause, Beneficiary, 1.230; Direct Object, 1.502; Grounding of
1.172: Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.292; Information, 2.149; Hyperbaton, 2.184; Information
Complementation, 1.335; Consecutive Clauses, Structure and Greek, 2.240; Internal Reconstruction,
1.369; Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.385; 2.251; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.35; Possession,
Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.505; Impersonal Verbs/ 3.18; Temporal Clauses, 3.375; Topic, 3.412
Constructions, 2.199; Modifiers, 2.447; Negation, 2.484; Gladstone, William E. Color Terms, 1.315
Optative, 2.554; Particles (Formal Features), 3.26; Passive Glagalitic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93
(Syntax), 3.42; Space (Adpositions), 3.305; Subjunctive Glagolitic-Cyrillic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92
(Morphology of), 3.334; Tense/Aspect, 3.384; Verbal Glare, P.G.W. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477
Adjectives, 3.471; Verbal Valency, 3.487; Voice, 3.495 Glaucias of Tarentum Dictionaries of Scientific
Gerund (Verbal Noun)* 2.0 Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486;
Gerundive (Verbal Adjective)* 2.13 Lexicography, Histury of, 2.349
Gesenius, Wilhelm Greek and Semitic Languages (Early glide Doric, 1518
Contacts), 2.78 glide formation Tsakonian, 3.447
Gesner, Johann M. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek glide-lenition Monophthongization, 2.449
in Germany, 2.169 Glides* 2.15
Geus, Klaus Onomastica: From Antiquity to the giobal literature Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Byzantine Period, 2.550 Concepts and Models, 3.429
Gévaudan, Paul Tropes (irdpoi), Ancient Theories of, gléssai Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Dictionaries
3.444 of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Ghana Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice, 1.480; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157; Lexicography,
3.124 History of, 2.348; Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis),
Gheg Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, Ancient Theories of, 3.530
1.223 glussaries Etymology (ettmologia), Ancient Theories of,
Giacomelli, Roberto Achaean. 1.20: Greek Lexicon in 1582
Western Languages, 2.104 glossographers Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity
Giangiulio, Maurizio Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories to the Byzantine Period, 1.480
of, 2.432 glossography lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2188
Giannakidou, Anastasia Determiners, 1.444 Glottalic Theory and Greek* 215
Giannakis, Georgios K. Causative Formation, 1.276; glottochronology Indo-European Historical Background,
Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.310; Euphermism and 2.207
Dysphemism, 1.584; Haplology, 2.151; Language Change, Glykys, John Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
2.293; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.333; Metaphor, Ancient Linguistics, 3.74
2.414; Personal Names, 3.57; Phonology (Survey), 3.91; Gnedich, Nikolai Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Reduplicated Presents, 3.209 Concepts and Models, 3.429
Giannini, Pietro Flegy, Diction of, 1.542 Guomes* 2.17
Giannopoulos, Theodoros G. Proto-Greek and Common Gnomic Aorist* 2.18; Aorist Formation, 1.138; Tense/
Greek, 2.176 Aspect, 3.384
Gibson, Diana Causative Formation, 1.276 gnomic aspect Gnomic Aorist, 218
Gibson, James J. Time, 3.405 gnomic future Gnomic Aorist, 2.18
Gibson, Sophie Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories of, gnomic perfect Gnomic Aorist, 2.18
2.433 gnomic present Gnomic Aorist, 2.18
Gigante, Marcello Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, gnomic topics Epigram, Diction of, 1.562
3.364 gnomic value Aorist, 1.136
Gignac, Francis T. Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Goad, Heather Phonotactics, 3.97
Greek), 1.348; Developmentsin Medieval and Modern goal Adverbial Constituents, 1.52; Adverbs (Morphological
Greek, 1.448; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, Aspects of), 159; Complementation, 1.336
2.116; Koine, Features of, 2.273; Koine, Drigins of, 2.283; Gobl, Christer Utterance, 3.454
Papyri, Language of, 3.11 Godart, Louis Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.398: Phaistos
Gil, Luis Koine, Features of, 2.274 Disc, 3.62
Gilbert, Helen Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Godley, A.D. Deixis (including ist and and Person), 1.428;
Practice, 3.122 Local Scripts, 2.379
585
Goethe, Johann W. von History of Teaching al Ancient
Greek in Germany, 2.169
Goettling, Karl W. Orthography (orthogruphia), Ancient
Theories of, 2.574
Goff, Barbara Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Practice, 4.123; Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Concepts and Models, 3.433
Goldberg, Adele E, Compounding/Derivation/
Construction Morphology, 1.351; Construction Grammar
and Greek, 1376
Goldin-Meadow, S. Lexical Fields Theory and Greek,
2.343
Goldstein, David M. Clitic Group, 1.296; Clitics, 1.301;
Personal Pronouns, Use af, 3.60; Postpositives. 3.129;
Prepositives, 3.145; Word Order, 3.533
Golston, Chris Accentuation, 1.10; Foot, 1.601;
Government Binding and Greek, 2.24; Intonational
Phrase, 2.255; Law of Limitation, 2.324; Lyric Meter,
2.388; Metron, 2.437; Moras, 2.459; Optimality and Greek,
2.557: Phonological Phrase, 3.87: Phonology (Survey),
3.94; Prosodic Word, 3.163; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.509;
Word Order, 3.538
Gonda, Jan Auxiliaries, 1.219; Poetic Language, 3.105
Gundésapir = Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147
Gonis,N. Palaeography, 3.5
Gonzalez, Mike Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Concepts and Models, 3.432
Good, Roger Septuagint, 3.2qu
Goodman, L.E. Homer, Translation, 2.176
Goodspeed, Edgar]. Verba Dicendi, 3.463; Verba
Sentiendi, 5.470
Goodwin, William W. Addressee, 1.25: Argument Clause,
1.175; Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.210; Campensatary
Lengthening, 1.334; Consecutio Temporum et Modorum,
1.967; Consecutive Clauses, 1.369; Definiteness/Definite
Article, 1.419; Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.201; Indirect
Object, 2.203; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335; Mood
and Modality, 2.454; Negation, 2.486; Optative, 2.554;
Pronouns (Demonstrative, Literrogative, Indefinite,
Relative), 3.158: Purpose Clauses, 3.194; Relative Tense,
3.231; Sandhi, 4.256; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334;
Verbal Adjectives, 3.471; Verbal Systern (Tense, Aspect,
Mood), 3-477
Goody, Jack Orality and Literacy, 2.562
Gordium Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Alphabet, The
Origin of the Greek, 1,98; Greek and Phrygian, 2.72
Gordon, Matthew K. Osthuffs Law, 2.576: Syllables, 3.349
Gorgianic figures Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories
of, 1.589
Gorgias Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.194; Asianism, 1.179;
Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.155; Linguistic Varlation
in Classical Attic, 2.370; Literary Prose, 2.373, 2.375:
Metaphor {metaphord), Ancient Theories uf, 2.415;
Onumastica: Frum Antiquity to Uae Byzantine Period,
2.549; Style (lexis}, Ancient Theories of, 3.327; Verse.
3.484
Gorgias the Younger Figures (skhemata), Ancient
Theories of, 1.589
Gortyn Cretan, 1.396; Doric, 1.517; Epigraphy, 1565;
Gortyn Code, 2.19; Local Scripts, 2.384; Rhotacism, 3.244
Gortyn Code* 2.19
Gospel of Luke Historical Present, 2.161
Gospel of Mark Historical Present, 2.161
Gospels Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to
the Byzantine Period, 1.485
Gothic Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.40; Alphabet,
Descendants of, 1.89; Augment, 1.215; Comparative
Method, 1.329; Contact through Translation, 1.379:
INDEX
Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420; Greek Lexicon in
Western Languages, 2.106; Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.202;
Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.224; Numerals,
2.540; Phonetics, 3.80; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345;
Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395; Verbal System
(Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.478; Wackernagel’s Law I, 3.508
Gathic alphabet Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92
Göttling, Karl W. Accentuation, 1.8; Law of Limitation,
2.323
Gottschalk, Hans B. Etymological Dictionaries: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1574; Metrics
(metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.435
government Adpositional Phrase, 1.37: Case (pfösis),
Ancient Thenries of, 1.270
Government Binding and Greek* 2.21
Gow, A.S.F. Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
gradation Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.1
Gradenwitz, Otto Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Dictionaries, 1.358
Grady, Joseph Time, 3.405
Graeven, Hans Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135
Graf, Fritz Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155; Oaths, Curses, 2.545
Graffiti* 2.25: Adoption of the Ionic alphabet in Attica,
1.30; Dipylun Vase Inscription, 1.499; Greek and Lydian,
2.70; Nestor's Cup, 2.495; Papyri, Language of, 3.12
grammarians Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.390; Orthography
(orthagraphia), Ancient Theories of, 2.574; Synizesis, 3.352
grammatical aspect Structural Linguistics and Greek,
3.325: Tense/Aspect, 3.384
grammatical comments Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.39n
grammatical figures Poetic Language, 3.103
grammatical syntax Philological-Grammatical Tradition
in Ancient Linguistics, 3.74
grammatical variation Formulaic Language, 1.609
grammatical word Apocope, 1.142; Assibilation, 1,186;
Elision, 1.546; Prosodic Word, 3.161; Syntactic Change,
3.355
grammaticalization Adpositional Phrase, 1.34;
Auxiliaries, 1,218; Comitative, 1.327; Determiners, 1.445;
Deverbative Verbs, 1.453; Direct Object, 1503: Language
Change, 2.297; Morphological Change, 2.464; Particles
(Syntactic Features), 3.38; Perfect, 3.47; Pronouns
(Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative),
3.160; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.184; Purpose
Clauses, 3.195; Questions, 3.206; Relative Clauses, 3.225;
Relative Tense, 3,291; Semantic Change, 3.278; Space
(Cases), 3.310; Syntactic Change, 3,355: Tense/Aspect,
3.388; Typology ol Greek, 3.451; Vocative, 3.493
grammatike (tékhaé) Philological-Grammatical
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.65 (ef passim)
grammatikes Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Ancient Linguistics, 3.65
Grandi, Nicola Compounding/Derivation/Construction
Morphology, 1.352
Gras, Michel Greek and Etruscan, 2.51
Grassmann, Hermann Dissimilation, 1.514; Grassmann’s
Law, 2.26; Phonetic Law, 3.77
Grassmann's Law* 2.26; Linguistic Variation in Classical
Attic, 2.370
Great Attic Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Dialectology, 1.121; Attic, 1.190; Dialectal Convergence,
1.455; Kaine, Origins of, 2.279; Language and Variation
in Greece, 2,290; Language Change, 2.297; Linguistic
Variation in Classical Attic, 2.364; Literary Prose, 2,375;
Macedonian, 2.392; Written versus Spoken Language,
3.541
Great Library Greek Writing Systems, 2.145
Greco-Iberian script Alphabet, Descendants of, 1,91
 INDEX 587
Greco-Roman koine Koine, Origins of, 2,283 Gregory ofNyssa Atticism, 1.201; Attitudes to Language,
Greece, Central Transition from the Local Alphabets to 1.207; Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319;
the Ionic Script, 3.421 Translation of Greek Texts In Late Antiquity, 3.437
Greek and Anatolian Languages* 2.27 Grenfell, Bernard P. Papyrology, 3.16
Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts)" 2.31 Grice, H.F. Conditionals, 1.259
Greek and Aramaic* 2.34 Grice's Maxim of Relation Mood and Modality, 2.457
Greek and Armenian* 2.37 Griffith, R. Drew Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.910;
Greek and Carian* 2.40 Metaphor, 2.414
Greek and Celtic® 2.43 Grift, Michel, vande Anaphoric Processes, Luu
Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic” 2.46 Grimm, Jacob Comparative Method, 1.330;
Greek and Etruscan* 2.48 Neogrammiarians, 2.493; Phonetic Law, 3.77
Greek and Hebrew* = 2.52 Grimm, Scott Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.21;
Greek and Illyrian* 2.56 Experiential Constructions, 1.586; Optimality and Greek,
Greek and Indian Languages* 2.59 2558
Greek and Iranian* 2.62 Grimm's Law 'Narten’ Presents, 2.480; Neugrammarians,
Greek and Latin* 2.65 2.493 Phonetic Law, 3.77
Greek and Lycian* 2.67 Groden, Suzy Q. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
Greek and Lydian* 2.70 Groningen, B. A. van Atticism, 1.202; Dictionaries of
Greek and Phrygian* 2.72 Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period,
Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Contacts)” 2,78 L486
Greek and Syriac* 2.80 Groot, Albert W.de Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135
Greek and Thracian* 2.83 Groote, Geert History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Greek Anthology Epigram, Diction of, 1,563; Late Germany, 2.164
Antiquity Poetry, 2.315 Gross, Adolf Intonational Phrase, 2.255
Greek Historiography, Translation* 2.89 Grosu, Alexander Relative Clauses, 3,2249
Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity* 2.94 Grosz, Barbara Anaphoric Processes, 1.11
Greek Lexicon in Western Languages" 2.101 Grotefend, Georg Friedrich Etymological Dictionaries:
Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of* 2.110 Theory of Greek Etymology, 1.578
Greek Loanwards in Coptic’ = 2.118 Grounding of Information® 2.148
Greek Loanwords in Geez* 2.120 Gruber, Markus A. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
Greek Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic* Greek and in Germany, 2.173
Aramaic, 2.35 Grundy, Peter Deixis (including ast and and Person), 1.422
Greek Loanwords in Slavic* 2.123 Gryparis,G. Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek,
Greek Loanwords in Syriac* 2.124; Greek and Syriac, 2.82 2.259
Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation” 2.25 Gschnitzer, Fritz Aeolic Dialecıs, 1.63
Greek Novel, Translation" 2.129 Gualandri, I. Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Greek Philosophy, Translation* 2.136 Dictionaries, 1.357
Greek Writing Systems* 2.140 Guardiano, Christina Determiners, 1.442
Greek, Central Dialects, Classification of, 1.463 Guarducci, Margherita Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499;
Greek, Common Dissimilation, 1514; Proto-Greek and Epigraphy, 1.564
Common Greek, 3.175 Guarini, Giovanni B. Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
Greek/Latin Bilingualism” 2.146; Greek and Latin, 2.65 3.365
Greeklings Atticism, 1.199 Guarino da Verona Greek Historiography, Translation,
Greekness Dialects, Classification of, 1.461 2.91; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany,
Green, Alexander Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.377 2.163; Renaissance, Translation, 3.234; Teaching of
Green, Peter Drama Translation, 1.528 Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365
Greenbaum, Sidney Adjuncts, 1.29; Disjuncts, 1.514 Guarino, Battista History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
Greenberg, Joseph H. Conditionals, 1.361; Structural in Germany, 2.164
Linguistics and Greek, 3.325 Gudeman, Alfred Dictionaries of Onomastics: From
Greene, Edward Burnaby Greek Lyric Poetry, Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Metrics
Translation, 2.127; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, {métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.431
Translation, 3.126 Guillaume, Gustave Structural Linguistics and Greek,
Greenwood, Emily Postcolonial Translation: Theory and 3.323; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
Practice, 3.123; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Guilleux, Nicole Possession, 3.116
Concepts and Models, 3.432 Güldemann, Tom Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.504
Gregory of Corinth Byzantine Phase and Reception Gulf of Alexandretta Pre-Greek Languages, 3.136
of Ancient Greek, the, 1.250: Dialectology (didiektos), Gulf of Corinth Northwest Greek, 2.518
Ancient Theories of, 1.457; Dialects, Classification Gulf of Euboea Northwest Greek, 2.518
of, 1.462; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to Gulick,C.B. Aeolic Dialects, 1.62
the Byzantine Periad, 1.482; Linguistic Correctness Gumperz, John J. Code-Switching, 1.308
(heilenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Philological- guna-grade Vocative, 3.492
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.74 Gundel, Jeanette K. Anaphoric Processes, 1.110; Null
Gregory ofÜyprus Proverbs, 3.189 Anaphora, 2,535; Subject, 3.333; Topic, 3.411
Gregory of Nazianzus Atticism, 1.201; Attitudes to Gurkel, Dieter Stress, 3.220
Language, 1.207; Greek and Syriac, 2,81; History of Güntert, Hermann Poetic Language, 3.108; Schwa
Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.173; Late Secundum, 3.260
Antiquity Prose, 2.319; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Gusmani, Roberto Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Greek
Antiquity, 3.437 and Lycian, 2.67; Greek and Lydian, 2.70
588 INDEX

Gussenhoven, Carlos Intonauona! Phrase, 2.254; Pitch, Hall, Arthur Homer, Translation, 2.176
3.100 Hall, Edith Drama Translation, 1.525; Postcolonial
Gutas, Dimitri Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147; Greek Translation: Theory and Practice, 3.124; Translation In
and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32 Non-Western Traditions; Concepts and Models, 3.428
Güterbock, HansG. Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27 Hall, John Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Guthrie, W.K.C, Ancient Philosophers on Language, Hall, Jonathan Doric, 1.515; Proto-Greek and Common
1.126 Greek, 3.176
Gutt, Ernst-August Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.138 Hall, Nancy Anaptyxis. 113
Gvozdanovié, Jadranka Indo-European Linguistic Hall, Tracy A. Prosodic Word, 3.161
Background, 2.220 Hallager, Erik Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1398
Gyblos/Byblos Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279 Halle, Morris Clitic Group, 1.298; Optimality and Greek,
Gymnosophists Greek and Indian Languages, 2.60 2.559
Gypsy Language Contact, 2.299 Halliday, Michael A. K. Coherence, 1.312; Cohesion, 1.313;
Intonational Phrase, 2.253; Text Linguistics and Greek,
Haas, Otto Code-Switching, 1.308; Greek and Phrygian, 3.389
2.72; Numerals, 2.541; Philological-Grammatical Halliwell, Stephen Aischrology, 1.76; Figures (skhemauta),
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.70; Pre-Greek Ancient Theories of, 1.489: Metaphor (metaphord),
Substrate, 3.139: Toponyms, 3.434 Ancient Theories of, 2.415; Metrics (métron), Ancient
Haas, Willem G.de Crasis, 1.395; Phonology (Survey), Theories of, 2.432; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of,
3.93; Prosodic Word, 3.163 2.415; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3,441
habitual action Gnmomice Aorist, 2.18 Hallock, R.T. Greek and Carian, 2.40
Hachlili, Rachel Greek and Ilebrew, 2.53 Halpern, Aaron L. Clitics, 1.306; Phonological Phrase,
Hackett,]. Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94 3.88; Wackernagel’s Law 1, 3.510
Hacksteln, Olav Epic Diction, 1.549; Nestor’s Cup, 2.495: Hamilton, Edith Drama Translation, 1.526
Perfect, Formation of, 3.5m; Sandhi, 3.256; Syllabie Hamm, Eva-Maria Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329;
Consonants, 3.345; Truncation, 3.445 Lesbian Accentuation, 2.332
Haddour, A. Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Hammer-Purgstall, Josef von Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405;
Concepts and Models, 3.434 Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405
Hadrian Attitudes to Language, 1.204 Hammerstein, Notker History of Teaching of Ancient
Haegeman, Liliane Government Binding and Greek, 2.22 Greek in Germany, 2.168
Hagedorn, Ursula Lexicography, History of, 2.350 Hamp, Eric P. Abstract Nouns, 1.4; Theonyms (Names of
Hagel, Stephan Metrics (metron), Ancient Theorles of, Gods), 3.401
2.432; Song and Recitation, 3.293 Handel,J. Keine, Origins ol, 2.278
hagiographers Greek and Hebrew, 2.52 Hankins, James Renaissance, Translation, 3.233;
Hahn, E. Adelaide Apposition, 1.145; Declension/ Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364
Conjugation (Alisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.419; Verbal Hannay, Mike Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.35
Adjectives, 3.476 Hansen, Mogens H. Saronic, 3.258
Haider, Hubert Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.17 Hansen, Peter Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500;
Haiman, John Reflexives, 3.218 Lexicography, History ol, 2.350; Nestor’s Cup, 2.495
Haines, C.R. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127 Hansen, Petrus A. Epigram, Diction of, 1.561
Hainsworth,J.B. Dialectolugy (diälektos), Ancient Hanson, Ann E. Etymological Dictionaries: From
Theories of, 1.458; Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575
Formulas, 1,615 Hansson, Gunnar QO. Movable Consonants. 2.468
Hajek, john Phonological Phrase, 3.89 hapax legomena Epigram, Diction of, 1.561; Greek and
Hajié,Jan Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436 Hebrew, 2.53; Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.95;
Hajnal, Ivo Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Greek Loanwords is Geez, 2.120: Homer, Translation,
Dialectology, 1.120; Case Syncretism (Morphological 2.179; lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.1.88; Lexical Change,
Aspects of), 1.273; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 2.340; Literary Prose, 2.376
1.290; Gender, 2.1; Instrumental, 2.244; Nominal System Haplology* = 2.15)
(Gender, Number, Case}, 2.501; Phonology (Survey), haploin Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient
3.90; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.177; Schwa Theories of, 3.530
Secundum, 3.260; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344 Hardarson, Jon A. Passive (Morphology), 3.42
Halaesa Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94; Rhodian, Harder, Richard History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
3.243; Sicily, Dialects in, 4.291 Germany, 2.162
flale, Kenneth Hyperbaton, 2.184; Language Change, Hardwick, Lorna Drama Translation, 1.525; Postcalonial
2.295; Minima, 2.442: Nasal Presents, 2.483; Typology of Translation: Theory and Practice, 3.12.4; Teaching of
Greek, 3.452 Ancient Greek, Teaching Methads, 3.370
Hale, Mark Wackernagel's Law 1, 3.508 Harl, Marguerite Septuagint, 3.290
Haley, joseph B. Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134 harmonic Mood and Modality, 2.455
Hallacmon Macedonian. 2.392 Harpocration of Argos Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Halicarnassus Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.162; lonic, Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Atticism, 1.200,
2.260; Koine, Origins of, 2.278; Literary Prose, 2.372; Lexicography, History of, 2.349
Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, Harris Delisle, Helga Conjunction Reduction, 1.362
3.422 Harris, Wilson Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Walid ibn Yazid Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147 Concepts and Models. 3.432
 INDEX 589

Harris, Zellig S. Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.509; Hebraisms ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Greek and Hebrew,
Imperative, 2.196; Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), 2.571 2.52
Harrison, §.P. Comparative Method, 1.331 Hebrew 'Christian’ Greek, 1.280; Adpusitions
Harrison, Tony Drama Translation, 1.524 (Prepositions), 1.47; Atticism, 1201; Bilingualism,
Hartmaan, Felix Voice, 3.501 Diglossia and Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine,
Hartung, Johann A, Cohesion, 1.313; Noun Phrase, 2.532 1.238; Calques, 1.260; Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284;
Hartung, Johannes Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Clause, 1.295; Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek),
Translation, 3.126 1.348; Contact through Translation, 1.379; Epenthesis,
Harvey, A.E. Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389 1547: Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52;
Hasan, Rugaiya Coherence, 1.312 Greek and Indian Languages, 2.61; Greek and Latin,
Hase, Karl Benedict Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.475 2.66; Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Contacts),
Haser, Verena Manner, 2.400 2.79: Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.97; Greek
Haspelmath, Martin Agency and Causation, 1.66; Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.113; Greek Loanwords
Auxiliaries, 1.219; Conjunction Reduction, 1.363; in Geez, 2.121: Greek/Latin Bilingualism. 2.146; Historical
Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.385; Genitive, Present, 2,161; Jewish Greek, 2.268; Kaine, Origins of,
2.4; Perfect, 3.47; Polysemy, 3.114; Possession, 3.121; 2.279; Language Change, 2.295; Language Contact,
Pronouns (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, 2.299; New Testament, 2.497; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.136;
Relative), 3.159; Reflexives, 3.218; Tense and Aspect from Septuagint, 3.287; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to
Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380 Early Byzantine Greek, 3.381
Hattußa Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27: Internal Hebrew Bible Septuagint, 3.287
Reconstruction, 2.253; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134 Hecataeus Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Literary Prose, 2.371;
Hatzidakis, Georgios N. Archaisms in Modern Dialects, Word Order, 3.535
1.167: Atticism, 1.201; Developments in Medieval and Hecatompedon Local Scripts, 2.384
Modern Greek, 1.448; Macedonian, 2.395; Nominal Hector Asianism, 1.180
System (Gender, Number, Case}, 2.501; Pronominal hedera distinguens Epigraphy, 1.567
System, 3.152; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early Hedylus ofSamos Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
Byzantine Greek, 3.380; Tsakonian, 3.446 Hegesias of Magnesia Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135;
Hatziioannou, K. Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1265 Asianism, 1.178; Atticism, 1.198; Attitudes to Language,
Hatzilysandros, Athenodoros Tropes (fröpof), Ancient 1.205
Theories of, 3.442 Hegesias of Salamis Cypriot, 1.401
Hatzimavroudi, Eleni Teaching of Ancient Greek, Hegesippus Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity,
Teaching Methods, 3.367 3.436
Hatzopoulos, Miltiades B. Macedonian, 2.304: Hegius History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Spirantization, 3.315 Germany, 2.164
Hatzopoulou, Katerina Negation, 2.487 Heidegger, Martin Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.196
Haug, Dag Adpositional Phrase, 1.37; Computational height dissimilation ‘T'sakonian, 3.447
Linguistics and Greek, 1.355; Corpus Linguistics and Heijmans, Shai Greek Loanwords in Hebrew and
Greek, 1.392; Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436; Aramaic, 2,122
Epic Diction, 1.550: Formulaic Language, 1,611; Perfect, Heine, Bernd Auxiliaries, 1,218; Comitative, 1.327:
3.47; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345; Tmesis, 3.409; Vowel Possession, 2.115
Changes, 3.504 Heinze, Richard Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of,
Hauser, Joseph History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in 2.435
Germany, 2.164 Heitsch, Ernst Synonymica: From Antiquity to the
Havelock, Eric A. Formulaic Language, 1.609; Orality and Byzantine Period, 3.353
Literacy, 2.562 Helen Etymology (etumologia), Ancient Theories of,
Haverling, Gerd V. M. Consecutio Temporum et 1,580
Modorum, 1.366 Heliodorus Case (ptésis), Ancient Theories of, 1.270;
Havers, Wilhelm Anaphoric Processes, 1.108; Dative, Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.470; Greek
1.415; Possession, 3.121 Novel, Translation, 2.130; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319;
Hawkins, John A. Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.363 Lexicography, History of, 2.350; Metrics (metron),
Hawkins, Shane Greek and Lydian, 2.70: Lexical Change, Ancient Theories of, 2.434; Philological-Grammatical
2.340; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502 Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.72; Verse, 3.489
Hawthorne, John G. Drama Translation, 1.525 Helius Eobanus Hessus Homer, Translation, 2.177
Ilayes, Bruce Clitic Group, 1.296; Compensatory Helladius Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
Lengthening, 1.334; Metron, 2.439; Moras, 2.460 the Byzantine Period, 1.575
head Adverbial Constituents, 1.49 Hellanicus Greek and Etruscan, 2.49; Literary Prose, 2,371
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Computational Hellen (Helfen) Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Dialects,
Linguistics and Greek, 1.355 Classification of, 1.462
headedness Foot, 1.601 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia Papyrology, 116
heads Complementation, 1.338 Hellenicity Dialects, Classification of, 1.461
Healey,J. F. Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.99 Hellenism Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135; Orthography
Heaney, Saemus Drama Translation, 1.524 (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 3.573
heaviness principle Noun Phrase, 2.527 Hellenistic Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek,
heavy bases Schwebeablaut, 3.261 1.227; Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284; Language and
Hebbo, A.}. Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32 Variation in Greece, 2.288; Vocative, 3.493
590 INDEX

Hellenistic age Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Hermagoras Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.198
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486 Hermann, Eduard Internal Reconstruction, 2.253;
Hellenistic Greek Accusative, 118 Syllables, 3.349
Hellenistic Koine Government Binding and Greek, 2,24; Hermann, Gottfried Length, 2.328; Lyric Meter, 2.387;
Koine, Origins of, 2.277 Noun Phrase, 2.531; Verbal Adjectives, 3.474; Verse, 3.490
Hellenistic Literary Prose* 2.152 Hermann’s bridge Bridges, 1.246
Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of* 2.155 hermeneutics Greek Novel, Translation, 2.133
Hellespont Greek and Thracian, 2.87; Ionic, 2.260 Hermes Greek and Lydian, 2.70
Hellwig, Antje Negation (Morphology), 3.491; Particles Hermion Argolic, 1171
(Syntactic Features), 3.32 Hermippus of Athens Comedy, Diction of, 1.317; Iambic
Helly, Bruno Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Macedonian, 2.395 Poetry, Diction of, 2.187
Heloron Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1,605; Sicily, Hermocrates Literary Prose, 2.976
Dialects in, 3.290 Iiermogenes Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.127;
Helots Laconian, Messenian, 2.287 Frymalngy (efumnlogia), Ancient Thenries of, 1.580; Style
hemiepes Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500 (féxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328
Henderson, Jeffrey Aischrology, 1.76; Drama Translation, Hermolaus Lexicography, History of, 2.352
1,527 Hermonax Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to
Henderson, John Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Lexicography, History of,
Methods, 3.371 2.349; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Hendrickson, Georgel. Asianism, 1.180 Period, 3.353
Hendriks, 1,H.M. Papyrology, 3.15 Hernandez de la Fuente, David Past-Homeric Epic
Hengel, Martin Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and Poetry, Translation, 3.127
Hebrew, 2.52 Hero Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264
Hengeveld, Kees functional Grammar and Greek, 1.615; Hero(n)das Written versus Spoken Language, 3.541
Information Structure and Greek, 2.241; Modifiers, 2.445; Herodes Atticus Atticism, 1.200; Attitudes to Language,
Mood and Modality, 2.453; Particles (Syntactic Features), 1,206; Late Antiquity Prose, 2,318
3.40; Predicative Constituents, 3.131 Herodian Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.270;
Henry, AlanS. Movable Consonants, 2,469 Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.459;
Henry, O. Greek and Carian, 2.41 Dialects, Classification of, 1462; Dictionaries of
Hense, Otto Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.434 Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Hephaestion Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.133; Metrics 1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity
(metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.434 and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Epic Diction, 1.556;
Heptanesian Developments in Medieval and Modern Etymelogical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the
Greek, 1.449 Byzantine Period, 1,575; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319;
Heraclea Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.167; Archaisms Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.330; Lexicography, History
in Modern Dialects, 1.167; Doric, 1.516; Laconian, of, 2.350; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.364;
Messenian, 2.287; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398 Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Heraclea Pontica Dorie, 1.516 2.549; Orthography (orthagraphia), Ancient Theories of,
Heraclean Apocope, 1.142; Aspiration, 1.184; Formation of 2.572; Phitological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Daric Koines, The, 1.603 Linguistics, 3.67; Syllables, 3.350
Heracleodorus Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156 Herodotus passim (in over 50 articles)
Heracles Epic Diction, 1.550 heroic couplet Hamer, Translation, 2.180
Heraclides Criticus Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135 Heroninus Papyrology, 3.16
Heraclides of Pontus Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Etymological Herophilus Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Scientific
1.574; Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.435 Vocabulary, 3.262
Heraclides of Tarentum Dictionaries of Scientific Herrick, Robert Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486 Herrmann, Peter Local Scripts, 2.379
Heraclitus Allegory (allegoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.86; Hermonax, Cretan glosses Dictionaries of Dialects:
Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.125; Etymalogy From Antiquity to the Byzantine Perind, 1.481
(etumtolog(a), Ancient Theories of, 1.580; Greek Herschel, John #,W. Homer, Translation, 2.180
Philosophy, Translation, 2.136; Linguistic Correctness Hesiod Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Ancient Philosophers on
(hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.361; Literary Prose, Language, 1125; Deixis (including ıst and and Person),
2.374 Oracular Language, 2.560; Oralily and Literacy, 2.564; 1.426; Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436; Dialects,
Sentence/Utterance (lögos), Ancient Theories of, 3.284 Classification of, 1.462; Epic Diction, 1.548; Etymology
Herbig, Gustay Greek and Etruscan, 2.50 (etumologia), Ancient Theories of, 1.579; Gerundive
Herculaneum Palaeography, 3.3; Papyrology, 3.15; Tropes (Verbal Adjective), 2.13; Greek and Anatolian Languages,
{trépot), Ancient Theories ol, 3.443 2.29; Greek and Etruscan, 2.51; Greek Philosophy,
Herder, Johann G. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek Translation, 2.136; History of Teaching of Ancient
in Germany, 2.169 Greek in Germany, 2.167; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.235;
Herennius Philo of Byblus Dictionaries of Onomastics: Metrics, 2.423; Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.474;
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Names of Months, 2.479; Orality and Literacy, 2.562;
Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Particles (Formal Features), 3.30; Patronymics, 3.46;
Byzantine Period, 1.486; Lexicography, Histary of, 2.349; Poetic Language, 3.105; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Translation, 3.126; Riddles, 3.244; Tragedy, Diction of,
3.354 3.419; Verba Dicendi, 3.469; Wackernagel's Law II (V’S),
Heringa, Hermann Apposition, 1.143 3.513
 INDEX
Hesiod, Catalogue ofWomen Epic Diction, 1.555
Hesk, Jon Language Play and Translation, 2.307
Hesse, Mary B. Analogy, 1.103
Hester, D. A. Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.139
Hestiaeotis Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.161;
Thessalian, 3.403
Hesychius Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.2;
Aischrology, 1.80; Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Archaisms
in Modern Dialects, 1.160; Argolic, 1.171; Dictionaries
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.482; Dictionaries of Onemastics: From Antiquity to
the Byzantine Period, 1.483; Doric, 1.522; Elean (and
Olympia), 1.535; Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Greek and
Etruscan, 2.51; Greek and Indian Languages, 2.59; Greek
and Lydian, 2.70; Greek and Phrygian, 2.72; Greek and
Semitic Languages (Early Contacts), 2.78; Koine, Origins
of, 2.284; Laconian, Messenlan, 2.287; Language Contact,
2.302; Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Lexicography,
History of, 2.349: Macedonian, 2.393; Mycenaean Script
and Language, 2.476; Onomastica: From Antiquity to
the Byzantine Period, 2.551; Palatalizations, 3.6; Poetic
Language, 3.110; Reduplicated Presents, 3.209; Septuagint,
3.289; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Period, 3.353; Tsakonian, 3.446
heteroclisy Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.181
ITeteroclitics® 2.158; Indo-European Linguistic
Background, 2.218
Hettrich, Heinrich Agency and Causation, 1.68;
Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.377; Tense/Aspect,
3.387: Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.390
Hetzron, Robert Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361
Heubeck, Alfred Greek and Illyrian, 2.58; Greek and
Lydian, 2.70; Nestor’s Cup, 2.495; Pre-Greek Languages,
3.135; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.199; Syllabic Consonants,
3.344: Taponyms, 3.414
hetresis History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Germany, 2.163
Heusinger, Klausvon Quantifiers, 3.199
Hewitt, Mary Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125
Hewson, John Adpositional Phrase, 1.33; Adpositions
(Prepositions), 1.42; Classical Greek Morphology
(Survey), 1.290; Optative, 2.554: Personal Pronouns,
Use of, 3.60; Prato-Greek and Common Greek, 3.186;
Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334; Thematic Vowel,
Stem Formation, 3.397; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect,
Mood), 3.477
hexameters Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314
Heyne, Christian G, History of Teaching of Ancient
Greek in Germany, 2.169
Hiatms* 2.160; Boeotian, 11.249; Caesurae, 1.255;
Contraction, 1.383; Elision, 1.345; Hellenistic Literary
Prose, 2.154; Prosodic Word, 3.162; Prosody, 3.169; Sandhi,
3.256; Verse, 4.490
hiatus, heterophonic Marphological Change, 2.465
Hickey, Raymond language Contact, 2.299
Hidber, Th. Atticism, 1197
Hierapytna Attitudes to Language, 1.204; Formation of
Doric Koines, The, 1,605
Hierocles Asianism, 1.180; Attitudes to Language, 1.205
Hieronymus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249
Hiersche, Rolf Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.270
Hildebrand, August Causative Formation, 1.275
Hill, Timothy Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
Methods, 3.373
Hiller, Eduard Orthography (orthographia), Ancient
Theories of, 2.574
591
Hillgruber, Michael Elean (and Olympia), 1541
Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2,416;
Tropes (fröpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.444
Himera lonic, 2.261; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290; Transition
from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.422
Himerius Asianism, 1.180
Himmelmann, Nikolaus Deixis (including 1st and and
Person), 1.424
Aina-infinitive Infinitives (Syntax), 2.232
Hinge, George Assibilatlon, 1.185; Doric, 1.521; Laconian,
Messenian, 2.287; Sotera Rule, 3.297
Hipparchus Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33
Hippias of Elis Elean (and Olympia), 1.340; Metrics
(metron), Ancient Theories of, 2,431
Hippisley, Andrew Nominal System (Gender, Number,
Case), 2,501
Hippocrates Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.165;
Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Diathesis (didthesis),
Ancient Theories of, 1468; Dictionaries of Scientific
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486;
Koine, Origins of, 2.278; Lexical Change, 2.341; Literary
Prose, 2.371; Particles (Formal Features), 3.27; Scientific
Vocabulary, 3.262; Tmesis, 3.410; Translation of Greek
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.437
Hippocrates apud Galenum Theonyms (Names of Gads),
3.401
Hippolytus of Rome Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Antiquity, 3.439
Hipponax Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Dictionaries
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.480; Greek and Lydian, 2,70: Greek Lexicon, Structure
and Origin of, 2.13; lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.187:
Lexical Change, 2.341; Literary Prose, 2.373; Lyric Poetry,
Diction of, 2.391; Semantic Change, 3.276; Tmesis, 3.410
Hipponion Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398; Northwest
Greek, 2.518
Hippotes Aeolic Dialects, 1.63
historical infinitive Infinitives (Syntax), 2.235
historical linguistics Internal Reconstruction, 2.231;
Language Change, 2.291
Historical Present* 2.161; Cohesion, 1.313; Grounding
of Information, 2.149; Historical Present, 2.161; Lexical
Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.337; Tense/Aspect, 3.384
History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany” 2.162
Hitti, Philip Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32
Hittite 'Narten’ Presents, 2.480; Adpositions
(Prepositions), 1.40; Augment, 1,215; Clitic Group, 1297;
Clitics, 1.304: Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.398; Dipylon
Vase Inscription, 1.499; Dual, 1.533; Eteocretan, 1.570;
Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology,
1.578; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and
Carian, 2.40; Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Heteroclitics,
2.158; Indo-European Historical Background, 2.209;
Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.213; Infinitives
(Morphology of), 2.226; Internal Reconstruction, 2.253;
Laryngeal Changes, 2.311; Number, 2.536; Personal
Pronouns, Use of, 3.59; Phonology (Survey), 3.90;
Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.100; Plural/Pluralia
Tantum, 3.102; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.136; Preverbs, 3.149;
Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.177; Reduplication,
3.213; Subordination, 3.337; Verba Sentiendi, 3.470;
Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.482; Vocative,
3.492
Hittites Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134
Hjelmslev, Louis Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.269
Hobbes, Thomas Greek Historiography, Translation,
2.91
992 INDEX

Hock, Hans H. Consonant Changes, 1372; Consonant homoeoteleuton Asianism, 1.178; Figures (skhémata),
Changes, 1.372; Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.16; Moras, Ancient Theories of, 1.589; Literary Prose, 2.375; Style
2.460; Neogrammarians, 2.493; Onomatopoeia, 2.553; (lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328
Utterance, 3.454; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.511 homonymy Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.127;
Hockett, Charles F. Dialects, Classification of, 1.467; Polysemy, 3.114
Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325; Word Classes homosexuality Aischrology, 1.84
(méré toü lögou), Ancient Theories of, 3.516 Honigmann, Ernet Dictionaries of Onomastics: From
Hodot, René Aeolic Dialects, .64; Ancient Greek Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Dictionaries of
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.121; Arcado- Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period,
Cypriot, 2.155; Dialectal Convergence, 1.455: Dialectal 1.486
Convergence, 1.455; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Lyric Poetry. Hoogeveen, Hendrik Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Diction of, 2.390 Dictionaries, 1.358; Noun Phrase, 2.531
Hoecke, Willy van Word Classes (mer? tou lagou), Hooker, James T. Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329; Lyric
Ancient Theories off 3.520 Poetry, Diction of, 2.390: Proto-Greek and Common
Hoekstra, Arie = Formulas, 1.615 Greek, 3.176; Verba Dicendi, 3.469
floenigswald, Henry M. Language Change, 2.292; Hoop, Helende Quantifiers, 3.199
Neogrammarians, 2.494: Osthoffs Law, 2.576: Split, 3.316; Hopkinson, Neil Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314
Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395 Hopper, Paul J. Auxiliaries, 1218; Direct Object,
Hoey, Michael Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389 1.501; Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.16; Grounding
Huffmann, Gustav Aischrology, 1.78 of Information, 2.149; Middle, 2.443; Perfect, 3.47;
Hoffmann, Karl Aorist Formation, 1.139; Lexical Aspect Transitivity, 3.423; Voice, 3.495
(Aktionsart), 2.336 Horace Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Homer,
Hoffmann, Otto Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Translation, 2.175; Metaphor (metuphord), Ancient
Dialectology, 1.08; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405; Dialects, Theories of, 2.418; Metrics, 2.423; Renaissance,
Classification of, 1.463; Dictionaries of Scientific Translation, 3.233: Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487: 3.245
Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.366: Pronominal Hörander, Wolfram Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.136
System, 3.150; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Hornblower, S. Greek and Carian, 2.40
Byzantine Period, 3.353 Horne, Merle Phonological Phrase, 3.87
Hofmann, Herbert Koine, Features of, 2.276; Latin Horrocks, Geoffrey C. Accusative, 1.14: Addressee, 1.25;
Loanwords in Greek, 2.321 Adpositional Phrase, 1.33; Adpositions (Prepositians),
Hofmann, J.B. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477: 1.42; Adverbs, 1.56; Ancient Bidialectalism and
Etymological Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the Bilingualism, 1.115: Ancient Greek Socialinguistics and
2oth Century, 1,573; Greek and Latin, 2.65 Dialectology, 1.122; Attic, 1.192; Attitudes to Language,
Hogg, Richard M. Phonvlogical Change, 3.86 1.205; Augment, 1.216; Balkan Sprachbund: Early
Holjer, Harry Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325 Evidence in Greek, 1.225; Case (including Syncretism),
Hölderlin, Friedrich History of Teaching of Ancient 1,266; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Clitic
Greek in Germany, 2.169 Group, t.297; Developments in Medieval and Modern
Holland Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Methods, Greek, 1.446; Dialectal Convergence, 1.455; Doric, 1.521;
3.371 Epic Diction, 1.548; Epic Meter, 1.559; Formation of Doric
Holt, Jens Abstract Nouns, 1.4; Collective/Mass Nouns, Koines, The, 1.605; Government Binding and Greek,
1,314 2,22; Greek Writing Systems, 2.144; Hellenistic Literary
Holton, David Comparison, 1.332; Balkan Sprachbund: Prose, 2.153; Indirect Object, 2.205; Koine, Origins of,
Early Evidence in Greek, 1.225; Developments in 2.278; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Late
Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.448; Personal Pronouns, Antiquity Prose, 2.317; Linguistic Variation in Classical
Use of, 3.59 Attic, 2.364; Mood and Modality, 2.456; Negation, 2.484;
Holtz, Louis Word Classes (mdré tou lögou), Ancient New Testament, 2.497; Optative, 2.554; Papyri, Language
Theories of, 3.519 of, 3.0; Psilosis, 3.192; Recipient, 3.208; Septuagint,
Homer passim (in over §0 articles) 3.290: Space (Adpositions}, 3.300; Spirantization, 4.315;
Homer, /liad Agent Nouns, 1.72; Agent Nouns, 1.72: Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334; Tmesis, 3.409;
Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114; Written versus Spoken Language, 3.541
Farmulas, 1.613; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389; Tmesis, Horsley, Greg H.R. Jewish Greek, 2.268
3.410 Horst, Pieter van der Greek and Aramaic, 2.35; Jewish
Homer, Odyssey Formulas, 1.613; Lyric Poetry, Dictlon of, Greek, 2.269
2,389; Tmesis, 3.410 Hortensius Asianism, 1180; Atticism, 1197
Homer, Translation* 2.175 Aéti-infinitive Infinitives (Syntax), 2.232
Homeric Encyclopedia Farmulaic Language, 1.609 Houben, J.L. Conditionals, 1.359
Homeric epic Formulas, 1.613 Householder, Fred W. Ancient Philosophers on
Homeric Epimerisms Fiymological Dictionaries: From Language, 1.130; Clause, 1.293
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575 Howard, W.F, Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek),
Homeric Greek Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.41: Aorist, 1.348
1.136; Determiners, 1.442; Infinitives (Morphology of), Hrozny, Bedfig Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of
2.227; Preverbs, 3.149; Syncope, 3.351: Vocative, 3.492 Greek Etymology, 1.578; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134
Homeric Hymns Epic Diction, 1.556 Hualde Pascual, Maria P. tonic, 2.263
Homeric Question Homer, Translation, 2.178 Hübschmann, Heinrich Greek and Armenian, 2.38;
Homeristae Homer, Translation, 2.178 Neogrammarians, 2.492
 INDEX 593
Hudson, R. Subject, 3.332 Prepositives, 3.145; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
Hughes, Ted Drama Translation, 1.524 Linguistics, 3.290; Verb Phrase, 3.464; Word Order, 3.538
Hugonnard-Roche, Nenri Arabic Tradition, Translation, hyperbole Semantic Change, 3.277
1.149 hypercatalectic meter Responsion, 9.236; Verse, 3.489
Huitink, Luuk = Optative, 2.554; Subjunctive (Morphology hyper-characterization Morphological Change, 2.465
of), 3.334 hypercorrection Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.162:
Huld, Martin Etymulogical Dictionaries: From the Aspiration, 1,184; Attitudes to Language, 1.206; Dialectal
Kenaissance to the zath Century, 1.572; Etymological Convergence, 1.456: Linguistic Variation in Classical
Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology. 1.577 Attic, 2.369
Hülser, Karlheinz Ancient Philosophers on Language, Hyperides Attitudes to Language, 1.206; Legal
1.127: Noun (dnoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.525 Terminology, 2.325; Linguistic Variation in Classical
Humanism History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Attic, 2.367; Literary Prose, 2.378: Style (/éxis), Ancient
Germany, 2.162 Theories of, 3.327
Humbert, Jean Accusative, 1.14; Addressee, 1.25; hyperkoineisms Elean (and Olympia), 1.540
Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.41; Agency and Causation, hyphaeresis Apocope, 1.142; Crasis, 1.395; Cretan, 1.397;
1.68; Agreement, 1.75; Aorist, 1.136; Attraction (Mond, fonic, 2.262; Macedonian, 2.393; Magna Graecia, Dialects,
Case etc.), 1.209; Case (including Syncretism), 1.266; 2.398: Syncope, 3.35% Synizesis, 3.352
Case Syncretism (Morphological Aspects of), 1.273; hypocoristic Boeottan, 1.245; Diminutives/Augmentatives
Comparative Clauses, 1.328; Comparison, 1.333; (Syntax and Morphology), 1.494: lonic, 2.264; Word
Conjunctions (Non-Subordinating), 1.363; Consecutiv Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.523
Temporum et Modorum, 1.366; Construction Grammar hyponymy Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and
and Greek, 1.377; Coordination (includes Asyndeton), Morphology), 1.495
1.385; Dative, 1.414; Direct Object, 1.502; Direct/Indirect hypotactic style Literary Prose, 2.378
Discourse, 1.505; Formation af Doric Koines, The, 1,603; hypotaxis Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.369;
Genltive, 2.4; Indirect Object, 2.205; Infinitives (Syntax), Literary Prose, 2.378; Scientific Vocabutary, 3.264
2.232; Koine, Features ol, 2.274; Negation, 2.486; Noun
Phrase, 2.532; Optative, 2.554; Purpose Clauses, 4.194; lalysos Local Scripts, 2.380; Rhodian, 3.242
Recipient, 3.208; Space (Cases), 3.912; Subjunctive iambic meter Lyric Poctry, Diction of, 2.389; Metron,
(Morphology of), 3.334; Subordination, 3.336; Suppletion, 2.439
3.343; Verb Phrase, 3.462 iambic poetry lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.187
Humboldt, Wilhelm von Dialectology (dialektos), lambic Poetry, Diction of* 2.87
Ancient Theories of, 1.458; History of Teaching of iambic trimeter Metrics, 2.423; Responsion, 3.236
Ancient Greek in Germany. 2.169 iambos Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389
Hummel, Pascale Aeolic Dialects, 1.61 latridou, Sabine Conditionals, 1.359
Hunayn ‘workshop’ Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149 Ibas of Edessa Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Hunayn b. Ishaq Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149; Antiquity, 3.438
Greek and Arable (Early Contacts), 2.33; Greek and Iberia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Greek and Celtic.
Syriac, 2.82; Homer, Translation, 2.176 2.45
Hungarian Focus, 1.598; Information Structure and Ibn Abi Usaybi‘ah Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148
Greek, 2.24) Ibn al-Bitriq Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
Hunger, Herbert Orthography (orthographia}, Ancient Ibn Na‘imah al-Himsi Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.144
Theories of, 2.573 ibn Näfima Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33
Hunt, Arthur S. Papyrology, 3.16 Ibn Rud (Averroes) Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.150;
Hunter, Richard Style (/éxis}, Ancient Theories of, 3.339 Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and
Huntley, David Contact through Translation, 1.379 Models, 3.434
huperthetikén Word Formation (paragagé/ninthesix). Ibn Zur‘ah Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.150
Ancient Theories of, 3.531 Ibrahim al-Dimaigi Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
hupokeimenon Clause. 1.293 Ibycus Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278; Dialects,
hupokoristikén Word Formation (paragégé/sunthesis), Classification of, 1.462; Doric Accentuation, 1.522; Greek
Ancient Theories of, 3.53) Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Poetic Language, 3.110;
Hurrian Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99 Song and Recitation, 3.294
Husayn, Taha Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Idalion Arcadu-Cypriot, 1.157: Cypriot, .qu2; Cypriot
Concepts and Models, 3.434 Syllabary, 1.405; Language Contact, 2.303
Husic, Brooke Optimality and Greek, 2.557 identity Pronominal System, 3.154
Hutcheon, Linda Postcolonial Translation: Theory and idiolects Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.967
Practice, 3.123 ididtés Word Classes (meré tot lögou), Ancient Theories
hybrids Attitudes to Language, 1.204; Dialectal of, 3.519
Convergence, 1.456; Greek Loanwords in Slavic, 2.124 Idomeneus floman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250
Hyde, Brett Optimality and Greek. 2.557 fdyll Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156
Hymettos Graffiti, 2.26 Idyma Greek and Carian, 2.40
Hymna to Aphrodite Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.390 Ifa divination Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
hypallage Literary Prose, 2.373 Practice, 3.124
hyperarticulation Cretan, 1.396 Ige,J.O. Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Hyperbaton* = 2.183; Clitic Group, 1.298; Determiners, Concepts and Models, 3.433
1.443; Literary Prose, 2.378; Optimality and Greek, 2.558; Ikaria Archaisms in Modem Dialects, 1.161
594 INDEX

Ikarian Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, Indo-Aryan see Indo-Iranian

1.448 Indo-European passim (in over 50 articles)
Ikarion Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.32 Indo-European Historical Background* 2.205
Ildefonse, Frédérique Adverbs, 1.54; Declension/ Indo-European homeland Indo-European Historical
Conjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.418 Background, 2.207
Ilias Latina Homer, Translation, 2.175 Indo-European Linguistic Background” 2.212
illocutionary acts Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137 Indo-Iranian ‘Narten’ Presents, 2.480; Ablaut (Apophony,
illocutionary conditionals Conditionals, 1.361 Gradation), 1.2; Apposition, 1.144; Augment, 1.215;
{ilacutionary disjuncts Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.32 Caland System and Greek, 1.257; Causative Formation,
illocutive dynamics Mood and Modality, 2.453 1.275; Desideratives, 1.441; Dual, 1534; Greek and
Illyrian Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2,112; Armenian, 2.37; Imperative, 2.196; Indo-European
Language Contact, 2.300; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.137 Historical Background, 2.208; Indo-European Linguistic
Illyrian question Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.138 Background, 2.213; Language Change, 2.292; Language
image schemas Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309 Contact, 2.299; Nominative, 2,513; Number, 2.536;
Imbros Greek and Etruscan, 2.49 Numerals, 3.104; Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives),
immediate constituents Complementation, 1.338 2.571; Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Poetic Language, 3.104:
Immerwahr, Henry R. Adoption of the Ionic alphabet in Preverbs, 3.149; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.175;
Attica, 1.30; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.367 Reduplication, 3.213; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.252;
imparisyllabicity Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160 Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395; Verbal System
Imperative* 2.190: Classical Greek Morphology (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.483; Vowel Changes, 3.503
(Survey), 1.291; Cretan, 1.398; Indo-European Linguistic induction Analogy, 1.104
Background, 2.222; Optative, 2.554 infectum Aspect (and Tense), 1.181; Structural Linguistics
imperative ofcommand Imperative, 2.190 and Greek, 3.324
imperative ofresignation Imperative, 2.190 inferential discourse markers Particles (Formal
imperfect Aorist (adristos), Ancient Theories of, 1.137; Features), 3.25
Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.291 infinitive Aorist Formation, 1140; Balkan Sprachbund:
imperfective Aspect (and Tense), 1.181; Participles Early Evidence in Greek, 1.224; Classical Greek
(Morphological Aspects of}, 3.21 Morphology (Survey), L2gt; Epic Diction, 1.549:
imperfective aspect Classical Greek Morphology Infinitives (Morphology of), 2.226; Participles
(Survey), 1.291 (Morphological Aspects of), 3.22
impersonal construction Gerundive (Verbal Adjective), infinitive, declarative Infinitives (Syntax), 2.232
2.13; Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.154; Non-Canonical infinitive, dynamic Infinitives (Syntax), 2.292: Tense/
Subjects, 2.514 Aspect, 3.387
impersonal Verbs* 2,197 infinitive, imperatival Infinitives (Syntax), 2.234
Impersonal Verbs/Constructions” 2,198 Infinitives (Morphology
of)* 2.226
inagentive Vocative, 3.492 Infinitives (Syntax)* 2.229
inanimate Vocative, 3.492 infix Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.286
inceptive Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.201; Participles infixation Typology af Greek, 3.450
{Morphological Aspects of), 3.21 inflection Typology of Greek, 3.451
inceptive aspect Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), Inflectional Classes* 2.236; Gender, 2,1
3-478 information structure Information Structure and Greek,
inchoative Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.201; Lexical Aspect 2.238
{Aktionsart), 2.335; Nasal Presents, 2.482; Structural informativity Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389
Linguistics and Greek, 3.325 ingressive Aorist, 1.137; Aorist Formation, 1138; Lexical
Inchoatives/Inceptives* 2.201 Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335; Stative (and Middle/Medium)
incompletive Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21 Verbs, 3.318; Tense/Aspect, 3.386
India Greek and Syriac, 2.80; Language Contact, 2.299; Ingria, Robert Compensatory Lengthening, 1.334
Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice, 3.123; inherent reciprocals Comitative, 1.322
Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and initial position Prepositives, 3.144
Models, 3,429 injunctive ‘Narten’ Presents, 2.480; Aorist Formation,
Indic Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.43; Aorist 1.139; Augment, 1.215; Epic Diction, 1.552; Imperative,
Formation, 1139; Greek and Illyrian, 2.57; Greek 2.191; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.222;
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.113; Indo-European Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), 2.566; Proto-Greek and
Historical Background, 2.206; Indo-European Linguistic Common Greek, 3.183
Background, 2.212; Intensifiers, 2.247; Language Contact, Inkelas, Sharon Clitic Group, 1.296; Prosodic Word, 3.161;
2.300; Phonetic Law, 3.77: Poetic Language, 3.109; Syllabic Reduplication, 3.212; Syntax-Phonalogy Interface, 3.361
Consonants, 3.344 Innes, Doreen C. Atticism, 1.197; Figures (skhémata),
indicative Aspect (and Tense), 1.181; Classical Greek Ancient Theories of, 1.591; Metaphor (metaphord),
Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Participles (Morphological Ancient Theories of, 2.418; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories
Aspects of), 3.22 of, 3.327; Tropes (tropoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.442
indices Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries, 1.356 input reduction Phonological Change,3.86
indirect anaphora Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.510 inscriptions Epic Diction, 1.548; Epigraphy, 1.564; Papyri,
indirect attraction § Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.211 Language of, 3.11
indirect discourse Optative, 2.554 inscriptions, dedicatory Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Indirect Object" 2.202 instrument Adverbial Constituents, 153; Adverbs
indirect reflexive middle Voice, 3.498 (Morphological Aspects of), 1.58; Agency and Causation,
indirect speech act Mood and Modality, 2.453 1.68: Complementation, 1.337; Dative, 1.416
 INDEX 595
Instrumental* 2.243; Adverbs (Morphological Aspects Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.107; lambic
of}, 1.57; Comitative, 1.321; Morphological Change, 2.465 Poetry, Diction of, 2.187; Indo-European Linguistic
instrumental dative Agency and Causation, 1.71; Dative, Background, 2.219; Inflectional Classes, 2.237; Law of
1.416 Limitation, 2.324; Metathesis, 2.419; Nominal System
instrumentative Denominal Verbs, 1.433 (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502; Noun Phrase, 2.527;
insular Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, Papyri, Language of, 3.13; Phonetics, 3.79: Preverbs, 3.149;
Lug Pronaminal System, 3.150; Sotera Rule, 3.297; Vowel
Insular Doric* 2.245 Changes, 3.503
insults Aischrology, 1.78 lonic alphabet Cretan, 1.396; Palaeography, 3.1
Intensifiers* 2,246; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.166; Ionic confederacy Koine, Origins of, 2.278
Vocative, 3.493 Ionic Dedecanese Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98
intensive Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335 fonic script Aspiration, 1.184
intensive perfects Perfect, 3.47 Ionic, ‘koineized’ Koine, Origins of, 2.278
intensives Reduplicated Presents, 3.208 Ionic, East Psilosis, 3.192; Vowel Fronting, 3.505
intentionality Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389 lonie-Attic Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.1; Ancient
interaspiration Consonants, 1.375 Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.118; Infinitives
interdialectal borrowing Assibilation, 1.185 (Morphology of}, 2.227; Thematic and Athematic Verbs,
interdialectal contact Ancient Bidialectalism and 3-396
Bilingualism, 1.116 lonicisms Language Change, 2.297; Linguistic Variation
interference phenomena Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics in Classical Attic, 2.367
and Dialectology, 1.121 los Tonic, 2.264
Interjections* 2.250; Vocative, 3.492 iotacism (lotacismus) Attic, 1.191; Greek and Aramaic,
interlingual translation Septuagint, 3.287 2.35; Greek in Sicilyin Late Antiquity, 2.95; Language
intermediary Adverbial Constituents, 1.53; Agency and and Variation in Greece, 2.290; Latin Loanwords in
Causation, 1.68 Greek, 2.322; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2,369;
intermediate deixis Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, Morphological Change, 2.465; Phonetics, 3.83; Vowel
1.429 Fronting, 3.505
intermediate phrase [ntonational Phrase, 2.253 iotacistic pronunciation [Language Change, 2.297
Internal Reconstruction” 2.250 Ippolito, Antonella Etymological Dictionaries: From
internal reduplication Reduplicated Presents, 3.209; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Metrics
Reduplication, 3.213 (metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.434
internal responsion Responsion, 3.235 Iran Greek and Iranian, 2.62
internal sandhi Sandhi, 3.256 Iranian Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.43; Augment, 1.215;
interpuncts Epigraphy, 1.567 Greek and Thracian, 2.87; Greek Lexicon, Structure and
interrogative Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.289: Origin of, 2.113; Indo-European Historical Background,
Pronominal System, 3.154; Pronouns (Demonstrative, 2.206; Language Contact, 2.300; Lexical Change, 2.341;
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158 Numerals, 2.540; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.139
interrogative sentence Mood and Modality, 2.453 Iranian, Ancient Partieiples (Morphological Aspects of),
intertextuality Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389 3.21
intonation unit Intonational Phrase, 2.253 Ireland Drama Translation, 1.525
Intonational Phrase* 2.253; Clitic Group, 1.297 Irenaeus Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity,
intralingual translation Homer, Translation, 2.175 3.436
Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek* 2.256 Irigaray, Luce Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.139
intransitive Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of), 1.473; Irigoin, Jean Adpositional Phrase, 1.37; Verse, 3.491
Verbal Adjectives, 3.474 Irish Poetic Language, 3.104
introflectionaJ morphology Abstract Nouns, 1.5 irony Tropes (trdpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.444
inverse attraction Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.20 Isaac, Benjamin Greek and Hebrew, 2.54
invocation Oaths, Curses, 2.545 Isaeus Attitudes to Language, 1.203; Kinship Terms, 2.270;
Iolkos-Pherae Aeolic Dialects, 1.63 Legal Terminology, 2.325; Literary Prose, 2.377; Style
lon Dialects, Classification of, 1.462 ({éxis}, Ancient Theories of, 3.338
lonia Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.97: Dual, 1.534: Isaiah Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Epigram, Diction of, 1.561; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; lambic Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239
Poerry, Diction of, 2.187; Indo-European Historical Ischia Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499; Graffiti, 2.25;
Background, 2.210; Monophthungizatiun, 2.449; Tragedy, Nestor's Cup, 2.495
Diction of, 3.417 Isebaert,1. Consecutive Clauses, 1.369
Ionian Alphabet, Descendants al, 1.90; Literary Prose, Iser, Wolfgang Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
2.372 Methods, 3.371
lonian philosophers Ancient Philosophers on Language, Ishaq Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33
1.126 Ishäq ibn Hunayn Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
lonians Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, L114; Ishaq ofNineveh Greek and Syriac, 2.82
Indo-European Historical Background, 2.209 Isidore ofSeville Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
lonic* 2.260; Agency and Causation, 1.67; Ancient Ancient Linguistics, 3.66
Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.16; Ancient Greek Isis from Maroneia Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135
Sociolinguistics and Dialectalogy, 1.118; Bartoll's Law, isocolon Asianism, 1.178; Figures (skhémata), Ancient
1.229; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.287: Theories of, 1.589
Comparative Method, 1.329; Compensatory Lengthening, Isccrates Agreement, 1.75; Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.134;
1.334; Dialectology {didfektos), Ancient Theories of, Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Chiasm, 1,277; Epanalepsis,
1.459; Elegy, Diction of, 1542; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; 1.546: Figures (sthémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590;
596
Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.152;
Hiatus, 2.160; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
in Germany, 2.164; Legal Terminology, 2.325;
Literary Prose, 2.377; Macedonian, 2.393; Metaphor
(metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.415; Sandhi, 3.257:
Style (lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327; Topic, 3.412;
Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and
Models, 3.428
isogless Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.161; Cypriot,
1.401; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Language
Change, 2.293
Israel Palaeography, 3.3
Istria Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114
Istro-Romanian Balkan Sprachhund: Early Evidence in
Greek, 1.223
Istros lonic, 2.260
Hacism see iotacism (iotacismus)
Italian Agency and Causation, 1.67; Atticism, 1.201;
Compounding/Derivation/Construction Morphology,
1.351; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420; Developments
in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.452; Diminutives/
Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1489; Greek
and Indian Languages, 2.61; Greek/Latin Bilingualism,
2.148; Homer, Translation, 2.177; Inchoatives/Inceptives,
2.201; Pronominal System, 3.156; Prosodic Word, 3.161
Italic indo-European Historical Background, 2.206; Indo-
European Linguistic Background, 2.212; Mediopassive,
2.412; Osthaff's Law, 2.576; Schwa Secundum, 3.260;
Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395
Italy Achaean, 1.21; Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90;
Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404; Dipylon Vase Inscription,
1.499; Epigraphy, 1.564; Greek and Etruscan, 2,49: Greek
and Lydian, 2.70; Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.146:
Lemnian, 2.327; Local Scripts, 2.380; Nestor's Cup, 2.495;
Palaeography, 3.3; Papyri, Language of, 3.12; Pre-Greek
Substrate, 3.137
iterative Aorist Formation, 1.138: Augment, 1.215; Lexical
Aspect {Aktionsart), 2.335
iterativity/habituality Anaphoric Processes, 1107; Lexical
Aspect {Aktionsart), 2.338
Ithaca Achaean, 1.19; Orality and Literacy, 2.564
itkonen, Esa Analogy, 1.104
ftä, Junka Minima, 2.456
Itsumi, Kiichiro Lyric Meter, 2.387
Ittzes, Maté Augment, 1.216
Ivanov, Vjaéeslav V. Glattalic Theory and Greek,
2.16; Poetic Language, 3,104; Schwebeablaut, 3.261;
Wackemagel's Law |, 3.511
Jackendoff, Ray Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.313;
Compounding/Derivation/Construction Morphology,
1.350: Government Binding and Greek, 2,21
Jackson, Peter Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.400
Jacaby, Felix Dialects, Classification of, 1,462; Kinship
Terms, 2.272; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the
Byzantine Period, 2.549
Jacquinod, Bernard = Accusative, 1.15; Apposition, 1145;
Argument Clause, 1.172; Particles (Formal Features), 3.29
Jaeger, Werner History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Germany, 2.162
Jaffa Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-Century
Jewish Palestine, 1.238
Jahn, T. Lexical Fields Theory and Greek, 2.344
Jakabi, R. Elean (and Olympia), 1.541
Jakobson, Roman Aspect (and Tense), 1.181; Deixis
(including ist and and Person), 1.422; Film Adaptation
and Translation, 1.593; Greek Philosophy. Translation,
INDEX
2.136; Hiatus, 2.160; Language Change, 2.293; Language
Play and Translation, 2.306; Poetic Language, 3.103;
Stroctural Linguistics and Greek, 3.323; Verbal System
(Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
James, Alan Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126
Jameson, Michael H. Adoption of the Ionic alphabet in
Attica, 1.31; Dialectal Convergence, 1.455; Local Scripts,
2.384
Jamison, Stephanie Syllabic Consonants, 3.344
Janda, Michael Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.400;
Toponyms, 3.414
Jani, Christian D. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Janko, Richard Consonant Changes, 1.372; Epic Diction,
1.551; Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.152; Philological-
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.70;
Puns, 3.193; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345; Tmesis, 3,410
Jankuhn, Harald Voice, 3.496
Jannaris, Antonius N, Accusative, 1.17; Atticism, 1.197;
Auxiliaries, 1.219; Clitic Group, 1.296; Developments
in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.448; Diminutives/
Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1.496; Indirect
Object, 2.203; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229; Nominal System
(Gender, Number, Case), 2,500; Noun Phrase, 2.532;
Optative, 2,554; Phonetics, 3.82; Pronominal System,
3.150; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334
Janni, Pietro Greek Lexicon in Western Languages,
2.109
Janse, Mark Clitic Group, 1.297: New Testament, 2.497;
Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.245; Word Order,
3.533
Japanese Information Structure and Greek, 2.241;
Intensifiers, 2.247; Translation in Non-Western
Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.431
Jardine, Lisa History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Germany, 2.63
Jasanoff, Jay H. 'Narten' Presents, 2.480; Ablaut
(Apophony, Gradation), 1.2; Accentuation, 1.11; Cowgill’s
Law, 1.394; Mediopassive, 2.412; Perfect, Formation of,
3.52; Stative (and Middle/Medium) Verbs, 3.316
Jastrow, Marcus Greek and Aramaic, 2,36; Greek
Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122
Jaumann, Herbert History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
in Germany, 2.164
Jauss, HansR. Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.139
Jebb, Richard C. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127;
Pronouns (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite,
Relative), 3.160
Jeep, Ludwig Word Classes (mere toi lögou), Ancient
Theories of, 3.519
Jeffers, Robert J. Indo-European Linguistic Background,
2.223; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229
Jeffery, A. Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32
Jeffery, Lilian H. Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek,
1.47; Epigraphy, 1.565; Lucal Scripts, 2.379; Psilosis, 3.192;
Transition from the Local Alphabets ta the lonic Script,
3.422
Jeffreys, Elizabeth Homer, Translation, 2.175
Jeffreys, Michael Byzantine Phase and Reception of
Ancient Greek, the, 1.230
Jenniges, Wolfgang Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90
Jensen, Minna $, Attic, 1.1488; Homer, Translation, 2.178
Jerome Contact through Translation, 1.379; Dictionaries
of Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.484; Drama Translation, 1.5243 Greek and Celtic,
2.44; Greek and Hebrew, 2.53; Roman Translation of
Greek Texts, 3.249; Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Antiquity, 3.437
 INDEX 597
Jerusalem Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Jorro, Francisco A. Linear B, 2.359
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.298; Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Joseph, Brian D. Analogy, 1.105; Augment, 1.216; Balkan
Greek and Hebrew, 2,52; Jewish Greek, 2.269; Koine, Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.223; Clitics, 1.306;
Origins of, 2.283 Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.16; Government Binding
Jespersen, Otto Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.313; Deixis and Greek, 2.22; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.30;
(including ıst and and Person), 1.422; Verbal Adjectives, Infinitives (Syntax), 2.230; Onomatopoeia, 2.553; Relative
3.474; New Testament, 2.497 Chronology, 3.223; Subordination, 3.337; Tense and
Jesus Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Aspect from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.379;
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238; Late Antiquity Poetry, Truncation, 3.445; Utterance, 3.454
2.315; New Testament, 2.497 Josephus, Flavius Ancient Bidialectalism and
jeweled style Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.416 Bitingualism, 1.115; Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy
Jewish Greek” 2.268 in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1,238; Dictionaries of
Jewish Palestine Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238 1.485; Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31; Greek and
Jews Septuagint, 3.287 Hebrew, 2.52; Greek Loanwords in Slavic, 2.124; Jewish
Jiménez Delgado, José M. Metaphor, 2.414 Greek, 2.269; Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Language Contact,
Jiménez Lopez, Maria D. Functional Grammar and 2.304; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.318; Translation of Greek
Greek, 1.617; Purpose Clauses, 3.195 Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436
Joannes Grasso Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, Jost. Madeleine Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155
3.364 Jowett, Benjamin Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.92
Jobes, Karen H. Septuagint, 3.289 Joyal, Mark Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364
Jobn Charax Dialectology (dialektos), Ancient Theories Juba of Mauretania Metrics (metran), Ancient Theories
of, 1.460; Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.435
of, 2.574 jucquois,Guy Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of,
John Chrysostom Atticism, 1.200; Attitudes to Language, 2.110
1.207; Greek and Armenian, 2.39; History of Teaching of judaeo-Spanish Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.168; Late Antiquity Prose, Greek, 1.223
2.319; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436: Judea Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238; Greek and Aramaic, 2,34}
john Lascaris Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52; Jewish Greek, 2.269; Papyri,
History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.168 Language of, 3.12
John Malalas Agreement, 1.75; Atticism, 1-201; Written Judean desert Papyri, Language of, 3.12
versus Spoken Language, 3.541 Judezmo Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek,
John Mauropous Etymological Dictionaries: From 1.223
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576 Judge, Edwin A. ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.282
john Moschus Translation of Greek Texts in Late Julia Balbilla Graffiti, 2.25
Antiquity, 3.439 Julian (Roman emperor) Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1136
john ofNikiu Translation of Greek Texts in Late Julian, Lexicon of words occurring in the ten
Antiquity, 4.440 orators Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
John Philoponus Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487
Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories Julien, Jacques Diathesis (dirithesis), Ancient Theories
of, 2.363; Philological-Granımatical Tradition in Ancient of, 1.470
Linguistics, 3.74 Julius Pollux Lexicography, History of, 2.349: Linguistic
Jehndal, Marius L. Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1392: Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.363;
Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436 Onomastica; Fram Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Johnson, Mark Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309; 2.549
Metaphor, 2.413; Space (Cases), 3.312; Time, 3.405 Julius Rufinianus Figures (skhernata), Ancient Theories
Johnston, Alan W. Local Scripts, 2.380 of, 1591
jokes Language Play and Translation, 2.306 Julius Valerius Alexander Polemius Roman Translation
Jokl,N. Greek and Illyrian, 2.57; Greek and Thracian, 2.85 of Greek Texts, 3.250
Jonasson, K, Predicative Constituents, 3.130 Jurafsky, Dan Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and
Jones, Frank P. Predicative Constituents, 3.132 Murphology), 1.493
jones, H.L. Aealic Dialects, 1.62 Jürgensen, Helmut Metaphor (metaphara), Ancient
Jones, William (Sir) Comparative Method, 1329: Theories of, 2.418
Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology, Justeson, John $. Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.271
1.577; Indo-European Historical Background, 2.205; Justus of Tiberias Jewish Greek, 2.269
Translation in Non-Western Traditions; Concepts and Juvenal Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.105
Models, 3.430
Jonge, Casper C.de Atticism, 1.197; Diathesis (diathesis), Kaczko, Sara Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153
Ancient Theories of, 1.470; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Kaczor, Idaliana Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401
Theories of, 1.590; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Kafızin Code-Mixing, 1.307; Cypriot, 1.402; Cypriot
Linguistics, 3.239; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.330; Syllabary, 1.405
Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis}, Ancient Theories Kafizin pottery Ancient Greek Socialinguistics and
of, 3.529 Dialectology, 1.122
Jordan Palaeugrapby, 3.3: Kager, René = Metron, 2.439; Optimality and Greek, 2.555;
Jordan, DavidR. Curse Tablets, 1.400 Stress, 3.322
598 INDEX
Kahane, Henry Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, Keenan, EdwardL. Anaphoric Processes, 111; Attraction
1.115; Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.106; {Mood, Case etc.), 1.212; Subject, 3.331
Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364 Keil, H. Period, 3.53
Kahn, Charles H. Possession, 3.116 Keitoükeitos Atticism, 1.202
Kaimio, Jorma Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Grafhti, 2.26 Kekatimenos Atticism, 1.201
Kaisse, Ellen M. Wackernagel's Law I, 3.508 Keller, Wolfram R. Homer, Translation, 2.176
Kajanto, liro Greek and Etruscan, 2.50 Keltoi Greek and Celtic, 2.44
Kakridis, 1.T. Intralingual Translation into Modern Kemball-Cook Homer, Translation, 2.180
Greek, 2,259 Kemmer, Suzanne Intensifiers, 2.246; Middle, 2.441;
Kalen, T. Purpose Clauses, 3.195 Rellexives, 3.215; Voice, 3.496
Kalkatungu (aboriginal) Hyperbaton, 2.185 Kennedy, George A. Atticism, 1.197; Figures (skhemata),
Kallierges, Zacharias Lexicography, History of, 2,352 Ancient Theories of, 1.589; Rhetorical Tradition in
kalés graffiti Graffiti, 2.26 Ancient Linguistics, 3.238; Style (féxis), Ancient Theories
Kamp, Hans Time, 3.407; Anaphoric Processes, 1.112; of, 3.326; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories af, 3.441
Conditionals, 1.359 Kennelly, Dover Drama Translation, 1.524
Kamptz, Hans von Topunyms, 3.415; Truncation, 3.445; Kerameikos Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499; Local
Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.528 Scripts, 2.384
Kandahar Greek and Indian Languages, 2.59 Kerswill, P. Dialectal Convergence, 1.454
Kant, Immanuel History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Keydana, Götz Perfect, Formation of, 3.50; Wackernagel's
Germany, 2.169 Law I, 3.511
Kaouarei Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Keyser, 8. J. Nasal Presents, 2.483
Kapsomenos, 5. Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.158 Khotanese Zoonyms (Names of Mammals), 3.544
Kapuécinski, Ryszard Greek Historiography, Translation, khresmoi Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language,
2.92 3-273
Karamanalis, G.E. Ancient Philnsaphers on Language, Kieckers, E. Dialects, Classification of, 1.464: Nominal
1131 System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502
Karantzola, E. Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365 Kilani-Schoch, M. Nominal System (Gender, Number,
Karavites, Peter Oaths, Curses, 2.545 Case), 2.500
Kdres Toponyms, 3.414 Kilise Tepe Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98
Karlk, Petr Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.391 Kim, Lawrence Attitudes Lo Language, 1,206
Karlsson, L. Greek and Carian. 2.41 Kimball, Sarah E. Ablaut {Apophony, Gradation), 1.3
Karnak Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404 Kind, Friedrich E. Etymological Dictionaries: f‘tom
Karpathos Archaisıms in Modern Dialects, 1.160 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575
Karstien, Hans Movable s, 2,470 Kindicircle Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148
Karttunen, Lauri Anaphoric Processes, 1.112 King Alexander! Koine, Origins of, 2.279
Kartvelian Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129 King of Caunus Greek and Lycian, 2.67
Karvounis, Christos Attic, 1.191 King, D.A. Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33
kata sänesin Number, 2.536 Kings Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to the
Katdadesmoi Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, Byzantine Period, 1.485
3.274 Kinship Terms* 2.271; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.251
katäkhresis Metaphor (metaphorä), Ancient Theories of, Kiparsky, Paul Phonology (Survey), 3.91; Accentuation,
2.316 1.9; Bartoli's Law, 1.229; Clitic Group, 1.297; Conjunction
kategorema Clause, 1.293 Reduction, 1-362; Dual, 1.534: Epic Diction, 1,550;
katharevousa Atticism, 1.201; Altitudes to Language, Government Binding and Greek, 2.22: Indo-
1.205; Koine, Origins of, 2.282: Papyri, Language of, 3.13 European Linguistic Background, 2.224; Moras, 2.459;
Katicid, R. Language Contact, 2.301 Neogrammarians, 2.494; Number, 2.538; Optimality and
Katupha's Law Grassmann's Law, 2.26 Greek, 2.556; Palatalizations, 3.7; Stress, 3.320; Syllable
Katz, Joshua T. Indo-European Linguistic Background, Weight, 3.346; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood),
2,219; Perfect, Formation of, 3.52 3.483; Vocative, 3.493: Wheeler's Law, 3.515
Katz, Lilian Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Kipf, Stefan History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Methods, 3.370 Germany, 2.165
Kaufman, Terrence Language Contact, 2.299 Kirby, Joho T. Metaphor Imetaphorä), Ancient Thearies
Kaviié, Jerneja Infinitives (Syntax), 2.232 of, 2.415
Kay, Paul Color Terms, 1.316; Construction Grammar Kircher, Athanasuis ‘Translation in Non Western
and Greek, 1.376 Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.431
Kazakhstan Indo-European Historical Background, Kirchhoff, Adolf Alphabet, The Origin of the Greck, 1.97:
2.208 Epigraphy, 1.565; Local Scripts, 2.381
Kazantzakis-Kakridis Intralingual Translation into Kirk, G.5. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1125;
Modern Greek, 2.259 Caesurae, 1.255
Kazazis, loannisN. Atticism, 1.202; Teaching of Ancient Kiss, Katalin £. Focus, 1.598; Information Structure and
Greek, Teaching Methods, 3.367 Greek, 2.241
Kea LinearA, 2.355 Kition Cypriot Syllabary, 1.407
Keaney, John J. Alphabetical Dictionaries: from Kitromilidis, Paschalis M. Intralingual Translation into
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101 Modem Greek, 2.257
Kearsley, Rosalinde A. Ancient Bidialectalism and Kittilä, Seppo Beneficiary, 1.230
Bilingualism, 1.16 Kitts, Margo Oaths, Curses, 2.547
 INDEX 599
Kiyomi, 5. Reduplication, 3.212 Koppers, Bertha Noun Phrase, 2.532
Klaffenbach, Gimther Epigraphy, 1.564 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria Quantifiers, 3.199
klange Onomatopoeia, 2.552 Koraés, Adamantios Atticism, 1.201
Klatt, DenisH. Utterance, 3.454 Kornfilt, Jacquline Quantifiers, 3.199
Klavans, Judith Clitics, 1.301 Kertlandt, Frederick Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.17;
Klein, Ernest Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401 Numerals, 2.542; Vowel Changes, 3.503
Klein, Jared Augment, 1.216; Laryngeal Changes, 2.313 Kortmann, Bernd = Purpose Clauses, 3.194
Kleist, Heinrich Etymological Dictionaries: From Korzenfewski, Dietmar Dramatic Meter, 1.53)
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574 Kostäkis, A. Dialectal Convergence, 1.454
klötike Vocative, 3.492 Koster, Willem]. W, Atticism, 1.196: Metrics (rrétren),
Kliandres Thessalian, 3.404 Ancient Theories of, 2.432
Klingenschmitt, Gert Numerals, 2.542; Wheeler's Law, Kotsonas, Antonis Nestors Cup, 2.496
3.515 Koumanoudes, Stephanos N. Local Scripts, 2.382
Klockhorst, Alwin Greek and Carian, 2.42: Numerals, Kourinou-Pikoula, Eleni Transition from the Local
2.544; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.253 Alphabets to the fonic Script, 3.421
Klostermann, Erich Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Kourmoulis,G, Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.485 in Greek, 1.225; Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Knoepfler, Denis Transition fram the Local Alphabets ta Dictionaries, 1.358
the lonic Script, 3.421 Kovacs, David Pronauns (Demonstrative, Interrogative,
Knossos Ancient Greck Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158
1.120: Cowgill’s Law, 1.394; Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, Kévecses, Zoltan Cognitive Linguistics and Greek. 1.309
1.398; Linear A, 2.355; Linear B, 2.355; Mycenaean Kozani Macedonian, 2.395
Script and Language, 2.471; Phonology (Survey), 3.89; Kraft, Robert A. Greek and Hebrew, 2.54
Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.266; Variation in Mycenaean Krahe, Hans Toponyms, 3.414
Greek, 3.457 Krahmalkov, Charles Theonyms (Names of Gods),
Knox, Bernard M.W. Intralingual Translation into Modern 3.402
Greek, 2.258; Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 Kramer, Johannes = ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.282; Word Classes
Kobayashi, Masato Osthoff's Law, 2.576 (mere to’ lögou), Ancient Theories of, 3.520
Koch, Peter Gender, 21 Kranz, Walther Greek and Indian Languages, 2.60;
Kock, Theodor Participle, 3.19 Metaphor (metaphord}, Ancient Theories of, 2.415
Kodrikas, Panagiotis Atticism, 1.201 Krasuchin, Konstantin G. Abstract Nouns, 1.5
Koenig, Jean-Pierre Compounding/Derivarion/ Kratzer, Angelika Conditionals, 1.359
Construction Morphology, 1.350 Krauss, Samuel Greek and Aramaic, 2.36; Greek and
koimésis Intonational Phrase, 2.254 Hebrew, 2.55; Greek Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic,
Kolne Accommodation, 1.13; Ancient Bidialectalism and 2.122
Bilingualism, 1.116; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Krebs, Franz Adverbs, 1.56
Dialectology, 1.117; Aorist Formation, 1.141; Aspiration, Krestena Elean (and Olympia), 1.535
1.184; Balkan Sprachhund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.224: Kretschmer, Paul Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Cretan, 1,397: Dialectology, 1.119; Dialects, Classification of, 1.464; Greek
Dialects, Classification af, 1.462: Greek Loanwords in Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.110; Language Change,
Syriac, 2.125; Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129; Hellenistic 2.293; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134; Pre-Greek Substrate,
Literary Prose, 2,152; Linguistic Variation in Classical 3.136; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.175; Southeast
Attic, 2.364; Papyri. Language off 3.11; Sotera Rule, 3.297: Greek, 3.297: Topanyms, 4.494
Vowel Fronting, 3.505 Kretzman,N. Ancient Philosophers on Langnage, 1.129
Koine, Biblical Koine, Origins of, 2.283 Kriaras, Emmanouil Atticism, 1.201; Byzantine Phase and
Koine, Egyptian (Ptolemaic) Koine, Origins of, 2.277 Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.251; Dictionaries of
Koine, expanded Koine, Origins of, 2.278 Ancient Greek, 1.479
Koine, Features of* 2.273 Krifka, Manfred Focus, 1.595
Koine, high-register Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317 Krisch, Thomas Wackernagel's Law [, 3.511
Koine, Origins of* 2.277 Kristeva, Julia Greek Novel, Translation, 2.191
koineization Dialeetal Convergence, 1.454: Formation of kritikoé Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156
Doric Koines, The, 1.603; Koine, Origins of, 2.277 Kritzas, Charalambos Local Scripts, 2.385; Transition
koinoi töpoi History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in from the Local Alphabuts to the lonie Script, 3.420
Germany, 2.104 Kriveruchko, Julia Greek Loanwords in llebrew and
Koller, Hermann Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.337 Aramaic, 2.122
Kölligan, Daniel Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), Kroch, A. Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436
1.291; Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of), 1.474: Indo- Kronasser, H. Greek and Illyrian, 2.57
European Linguistic Background, 2.221; Lexical Aspect Kroning, H. Predicative Constituents, 3.130
(Aktionsart), 2.336; Present Tense, 3.148 Kroon, Caroline H. Functional Grammar and Greek,
kélon Verse, 3.4Bg 1.617; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.32; Text Linguistics
Kommos Local Scripts, 2.380 and Greek, 3.38a
König, Ekkehard Intensifiers, 2.246: Particles (Syntactic Kruger, Loren Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Features), 3.31; Possession, 3.121 Practice, 3.124
Kontorini, Vassa Rhodian, 3.243 ktétikén Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient
Kontos, Konstantinos Atticism, 1.201 Theories of, 3.531
Konuk, K. Greek and Carian, 2.41 Kuéera, Henri Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.391
600 INDEX

Kuehne, Wilhelm Causative Formation, 1.275 Labov, William Attitudes to Language, 1.203;
Kuhlmann, Peter Pronouns (Demonstrative, Comparative Method, 1.330; Language Change, 2.297;
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3159 Neogrammarians, 2.494; Phonetic Law, 3.78; Semantic
Kuhn, Adalbert Poetic Language, 3.102; Theanyms Change, 3.276
(Names of Gods). 3.400 Labyad phratry Transition from the Local Alphabets to
Kühn, Carl G. Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: the lonic Script, 3.421
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Alphabetical Labyadae inscription Northwest Greek, 2.523
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Lachares Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1135
1101 Lachmann, Karl Greek Novel, Translation, 2.133
Kühn,}.H. Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries, Laconia Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Alphabet, The Origin of
1.357 the Greek, 1.98; Attitudes to Language, 1.203; Greek
Kühner Raphae) Accusative, 1.24: Active, 1.24; Adverbial and Illyrian, 2.58; Koine, Origins of, 2.282; Laconian,
Constituents, 1.49; Agreement, 1.75; Anaphoric Processes, Messenian, 2.287; Local Scripts, 2.383; Pamphylian, 3.8;
1,110; Argument Clause, 1.172; Classical Greek Morphology Pre-Greck Substrate, 3.141; Transition from the Local
(Survey), 1292; Complementation, 1.335; Consecutio Alphabets to the lanic Script, 3.421; Tsakonian, 3.446
Temporum et Modorum, 1.368; Consecutive Clauses, Laconian Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
1.369; Coordinatian (includes Asyndetan), 1.385; Lu6; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology,
Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.505: Impersonal Verbs/ 1121: Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160; Argolic,
Constructions, 2.199; Manner, 2.402; Modifiers, 2.447; 1.171; Attic, 1.189; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
Negation, 2.484; Noun Phrase, 2.532; Optative, 2,554; 1.249; Comparative Method, 1.329; Compound Tenses
Particles (Formal Features), 3.26; Passive (Syntax), 3.42; (Hellenistic Greek), 1.347: Developments in Medieval
Relative Tense, 3.231; Sandhi, 3.256; Space (Adpositions), and Modern Greek, 1.447; Dialectal Convergence,
3.405; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334: Tense/Aspect, 1.456; Dialectology (didlektos}, Ancient Theories of,
3.384: Verbal Adjectives, 3.471; Verbal System (Tense, 1.460; Dialects, Classification of. 1.463; Doric, 1.516: Epic
Aspect, Mood), 3.477: Verbal Valency, 3.488; Voice, 3.495 Diction, 1.350; Greek and Hlyrian, 2.58; Greek Lexicon,
Kujore, Obafemi Nasal Presents, 2.483; Present Tense, Structure and Origin of, 2.110; Inflectional Classes,
3.148; Reduplicated Presents, 3.210 2,237; Laryngeal Changes, 2.313: Palatalizations, 3.6;
Kulikov, Leonid Causative Formation, 1.276; Reilexives, Phonetics, 3.80; Phonology (Survey), 3.91; Rhotacism,
3.215 3.244; Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic
Kulnefl-Eriksson, Karin Possession, 3.116 Script, 3.421
Kümmel, Martin Accentuation, 1.21; Stative (and Middle/ Laconian, Messenian® 2.287
Medium) Verbs, 3.916 Laconiuns Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157
Kunnert, U. Greek and Carian, 2.41 Ladd, D. Robert Pitch, 3.101
Kuno, Susumu Information Structure and Greek, 2.241; Ladiké Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.164
Reflexives, 3.215: Topic, 9.411 Ladino, see Judaeo-Spanish
Kuppevelt, Jan van Grounding of Information, 2.149 Laird, Andrew Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Kurdish Greek and Iranian, 2.62 Practice, 3.124
Kurgan solution [Indo-European Historical Background, Laird, Arthur Noun Phrase, 2.532
2.208 Lakoff, George Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
Kurylowicz, Jerzy Abstract Nouns, 1.5: Case (including Theories of, 2.416; Agency and Causation, 1.66; Cognitive
Syncretism), 1.263; Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Linguistics and Greek, 1.309; Construction Grammar and
Greek Etymology, 1.578; Internal Reconstruction, 2.253; Greek, 1.376; Metaphor, 2.413; Space (Cases), 3.312; Time,
Movable Consonants, 2.468; Perfect, Formation of, 3.50: 3.405
Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.252: Space (Cases), 3.31; Lakoff, Robin Deixis (including ıst and and Person),
Typulogy of Greek, 3.451; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, 1.423; Politeness/Courtesy Expressions, 3.112
Mood), 3.477 Lallier, Francois Homer, Translation, 2.177
Kurzova, Helena Argument Clause, 1.175; Infinitives Lallot, jean Abstract Nouns, 1.4; Argument Clause, 1.172;
(Syntax), 2.232 Case (pfösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.270: Cohesion,
Kuteva, Tania Auxiliaries, 1.218; Comitative, 1.327 1.313; Declension/Conjugation (klisis}, Ancient Theories
Kwapisz, jan Riddles, 3.245 of, 1.417; Determiners, 1.443; Dinlectalogy (didlektos),
Kwong, Ivan 8.C. Word Order, 3,537 Ancient Theories of, 1.459; Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient
Kymi Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160 Theories of, 1.470; Figures (shhémata), Ancient Theories
Kyriakidis, Evangelos Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270 of, 1.590; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.337; Mood
Kyrieleis, H. Elean (and Olympia), 1.541 (enklisis), Ancient Theorics of, 2.450; Philological
Kyustendil Greek and Thracian, 2.84 Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.65;
Tense/Aspect, 3.384; Word Classes (meré tua lögou),
La Roche, Jacob Appositian, 1.145 Ancient Theories of, 3.516; Word Formation (parugage/
La Rosa, Vincenzo Phaistos Disc, 3.62 sunthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Laar, Henri, vande Causative Formation, 1.276 Lalonde, Gerald Adoption of the lonic alphabet in
Labiano Ilundain, J. M. Interjections, 2.250; Purpose Attica, 1.32
Clauses, 3.195 Lambert, Frédéric Diathesis (diathesis), Ancient
labile verbs Active, 1.24; Causative Formation, 1.276; Theories of, 1468; Syntax (süntaxis), Ancient Theorles
Voice, 3.495 of, 3.359
Labiovelars® 2.286; Boeotian, 1.241; Doric, 1.518; Lambert, M. Translation In Non-Western Traditiuns:
Greek and Lydian, 2,70; Palatalizations, 3.7; Relative Concepts and Models, 3.433
Chronology, 3.220 Lambert, Pierre-Yves Greek and Celtic, 2.44
 INDEX 601

Lambrecht, Kaud Focus, 1.595; Hyperbaton, 2.185; Lass, Roger Phonetic Law, 3.77: Comparative Method,
Information Structure and Greek, 2.238; Topic, 3.411 1,331; Language Change, 2.296
Lamontagne, Greg Syllable Weight, 3.346 Lasserre, L. Lexicography, History of, 2.352
Lampe, Geoffrey W.H. Byzantine Phase and Reception of Lasso de la Vega, JoseS. Morphological Change, 2.468
Ancient Greek, the, 1.251; Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, Lasus of Hermione Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories
1.475; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.110 of, 2.431
Lampsacus Tonic, 2.260 Latacz,Joachim Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28;
Landau, Oscar Truncation, 3.445 Lexical Fields Theory and Greek, 2.344
Landman, Fred Relative Clauses, 3.229 Late Antiquity Poetry* 2.314
landmark Formulaic Language, 1.611; Space Late Antiquity Prose* 2.317
(Adpositions), 3.300; Space (Cases), 3.310 Late Egyptian Koine, Origins of, 2.277
Lanérés, Nicole Predicative Constituents, 3.131 latent segments Movable Consonants, 2.468
Lang, A. Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.593; Homer, Later Attic Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.364
Translation, 2.179 tatin = passim (in over 50 articles)
Lang, Mabel L Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, Latin adverbs Adjuncts, 129
1.31 Latin inscriptions Epigraphy, 1.567
Lang, Paul Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Latin Loanwords in Greek* z.320
Period, 3.353 Latin script Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Lang, Robert H. Cypriot Syllabary, 1.406 Latin, Archaic Imperative, 2.191; Orders {Imperative/
Langacker, Ronald W. Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, Prohibitives), 2.566
1.309; Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.313; Construction Latin-America Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Grammar and Greek, 1.376; Lexical Fields Theory and Concepts and Models, 3.429
Greek, 2.344; Possession, 3.15; Space (Adpositions), Latinate Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.320
3-300; Space (Cases), 3.310 Latinisms Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
Langdon, Merle K. Adoption of the lonie alphabet in 1.15; Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Greek and Latin, 2.67;
Attica, 1.30; Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500; Graffiti, 2.26; Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Latin Loanwords in Greek,
Local Scripts, 2.383 2.320
Langslow, David R. Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, Latinitas Linguistic Correctness (heilenismös), Ancient
1.234; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.224 Theories of, 2,361
Language Accommodation Theory Accommodation, 1.12 Latium Greek and Etruscan, 2.49
Language and Variation in Greece* 2.288 Latte, Kurt Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.166;
Language Change* 2.291; Internal Reconstruction, 2.251 Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the
language consistency principle Internal Reconstruction, Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient
2.251 Theories of, 1.459; Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Language Contact* 2.299; Greek and Syriac, 2.82; Roman Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Lexicography,
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.245 History of, 2.350; Oaths, Curses, 2.547: Onomastica: From
language didactics Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550; Synonymica:
Methods, 3.367 From Antiquity ta the Byzantine Period, 3.353
language planning Language Policies, 2.310 Lattimore, Richmond Homer, Translation, 2.179
Language Play and Translation” 2.306 Latvian Participles (Morphological Aspects of’), 3.23;
Language Policies* 2.310: Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics Phytanyms (Names of Trees), 3.98; Zoonyms (Names uf
and Dialectology, 1.121 Mammals), 3.544
language question Atticism, 1.201 Lau, Dieter Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Thearies of.
Laodicea Language Contact, 2.303 2.416; Tropes (trdpof), Ancient Theories of, 3.444
LaPolla, Randy J. Agency and Causation, 1.66; Lauerbach, G. Conditionals, 1.359
Beneficiary, 1.230 Laum, Bernhard Pitch, 3.100; Wackernage!'s Law 1, 3.508
Lardinois, Andre Deixis (including ist and znd Person), Laus Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398
1.426; Song and Recitation, 3.294 Lausberg, Heinrich Chiasm, 1,277: Figures (skhémata),
Larisa Accommodation, 1.13; Ancient Greek Ancient Theories of, 1.589; Metaphor (:etaphard),
Sociolinguistics and Dialectolopy, 1.121; Attitudes Ancient Theories of, 2.414; Puns, 3.193; Rhetorical
to Language, 1.205; Code-Mixing, 1.307; Infinitives Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.241; Style ({éxis),
(Morphology of), 2.228; Syncope, 3.351; Thessalian, 3,403 Ancient Theories of, 3.326; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient
Laroche, Emmanuel Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Pre-Greek Theories of, 3.441
Languages, 3-135 Lauteusach, Oulo Passive (Morphology), 3.42; Voice,
Larson, R. K. Indirect Object, 2,202 3.499
laryngeal Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Lavidas, Nikolaos Causative Formation. 1.275; Indirect
Etymology, 1578; Indo-European Linguistic Background, Object, 2.205; Verbal Valency, 3.488
2,213; Internal Reconstnuction, 2.251; Morphological Lavintum Greek and Latin, 2.65
Change, 2.464; Reduplicated Presents, 3.209; Root law Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and
Structure (and Ablaut), 3.252; Verbal System (Tense. Byzantine Period, 1.485
Aspect, Mood), 3.484 law egöge, see law of properispomena in Attic
Laryngeal Changes* 2.301 law of indifference Epic Meter, 1.559
laryngeal theory Etymological Dictionaries: From the law of initials Syllables, 3.350
Renaissance to the 2oth Century, 1.573 Law of Limitation? 2.323; Accentuation, 1.8; Indo-
Lascarides, Alex Anaphoric Processes, 1.10 European Linguistic Background, 2.215; Syllables, 3.35m%
Lasnik, Howard Government Binding and Greek, 2.21 Wheeler's Law, 3.515
602 INDEX

law of properispomena in Attic Vendryes' Law, 3.458 Leleges Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133; Pre-Greek Substrate,
Law, Vivian Word Classes (méré toü lögeu), Ancient 3.138; Toponyms, 3.414
Theories of, 3.518 Lemaréchal, Alain Predicative Constituents, 3.130
Lawall, Gilbert Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Lemnian* 2.327
Methods, 4.368 Lemnius, Simon Homer, Translation, 2.177
Lawrence, T.E. Homer, Translation, 2.179 Lemnos Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.30:
Layton, Bentley Information Structure and Greek, 2.241 Greek and Etruscan, 2.49; Lemnian, 2.327; Pre-Greek
Lazarou, A.G. Atticism, 1198 Languages, 3.133; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.140
Lazarus Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315 Length* 2.328
Lazzeroni, Romano Abstract Nouns, 1.7; Greek Lexicon lengthening by position Phonological Phrase, 3.87
in Western Languages, 2.104; Linguistic Variation in Lennox, Charlotte Drama Translation, 1.528
Classical Attic, 2.366; Poetic Language, 3.108; Vocative, Lenoble, Muriel Noun (dzoma), Ancient Theories of,
3.492 2.526
Le Fevre, Tanneguy Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation. Lentz, Augustus Syllables, 3.350
2.126 Leo the Mathematician Etymological Dictionaries: From
Le Goffic, Pierre Pronouns (Demonstrative, Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.159 Leo, Friderich Metrics {metron), Ancient Theories of,
Lebanon Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279 2.435
Lebedus Ionic, 2.260 Leonardo Bruni Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365
Leben, William Haplology, 2.151: Phonulogy (Survey), Leonhardt, Jürgen Metrics (m&tron), Ancient Theories
3.92 of, 2.435
Ledra Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404 Leonidas of Tarentum Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
lee,JayH. Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.309 Leontini lonic, 2.261; Literary Prose, 2.374; Onomastiva:
Lee, John A.L. Computational Linguistics and Greek, From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550; Sicily,
1.355; ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Jewish Greek, 2.268 Dialects in, 3.290
Lee, Sang-Il Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Leontius Pilatus (Leonzio Pilato) Homer, Translation,
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238 2.182; Renaissance, Translation, 3.232; Teaching of
Lefevere, André Drama Translation, 1.526: Greek Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364
Philosophy, Translation, 2.139 Leopardi, Giacomo Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Lefkandi Local Scripts, 2,380 Translation, 3.128
Lefkas Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.166 Lepontic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Pre-Greek
Lefkowitz, Mary Deixis (including ist and and Person), Substrate, 3.138
1.426 Lepre, Maria Z. Vacative, 3.493
left-distocations Prepositives, 3.145 Lesbian Accentuation, 1.9: Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Legal Terminology* 2.325 and Dialectology, 1.119; Apocope, 1.143; Attic, 1.189;
Legrand, Emile Homer, Translation, 2.175; Philological- Bartoli's Law, 1.229; Classical Greek Morphology
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.66 (Survey), 1.288; Compensatory Lengthening, 1334;
Legras, Bernard Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236 Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Diphthongization,
Lehmann, Christian Abstract Nouns, 1.5; Adpositional 1.498; Doric Accentuatlon, 1.523; Epic Diction, 1.549;
Phrase, 1.37; Argument Clause, 1.176; Attraction (Mood, inflectional Classes, 2.237; Lyric Poetry, Diction ol, 2.389;
Case etc.), 1.212; Beneficiary, 1.230; Genitive Absolute, 2.8; Moras, 2.461; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case),
Glottalie Theory and Greek, 2.16; Possession, 3.115 2.502; Optimality and Greek, 2.557; Phonology (Survey),
Lehmann, Winfred P. Neogrammarlans, 2.492; 3.91: Pronominal System, 3.150; Syllabic Consonants.
Phonetic Law, 3.76; Reflexives, 3.216; Typology of Greek, 3.345; Tmesis, 3.409; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect,
3.452 Mood), 3.483
Leibniz, Gottfried W. History of Teaching of Ancient Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic)* 2.328
Greek in Germany, 2.169 Lesbian Accentuation* 2.332
Leiden system Epigraphy, 1.568 Lesbonax Genitive Absolute, 2.8
Leipzig Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127; Language Lesbos Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Dialects, Classification of,
Change, 2.291 1.462; Dual, 1.534; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Indo-European
Leisi, Ernst Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.313 Historical Background, 2.210; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic),
Leiwo, Martti Politeness/Courtesy Expressions, 3.113 2.328; Lyric Meter, 2.385; Lyric Poetry, Dictiun af, 2.389;
Lejeune, Michel Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155; Assimilation, Pamphylian, 3,8; Patrunymics, 3.45; Phonetics, 3.80
1286; Attic, 1.189; Attic Reversion, 1.196; Case (p£ösis), Lesches Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389
Ancient Thearies of, 1.270; Concordances/Indices/ Lesher, James H. Ancient Philosophers on Language,
Reverse Dictionaries, 1.358; Consonant Changes, 1.373; 1.125
Consonants, 1.374; Cowgill's Law, 1.394; Dissimilation, Leskien, August Neogrammarians, 2.492; Phonetic Law,
1515; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Grassmann’s 3.77
Law, 2.26; Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Greek and Phrygian, Leskien's Law Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood),
2.72; Linear B, 2.359; Morphological Change, 2.464; 3.484
Movable s, 2.470; Osthoff's Law, 2.376; Palatalizations, Leslau, Wolf Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120; Phytonyms
3.6; Phonology (Survey), 3.91; Pronominal System, 3.150: (Names of Trees), 3.99
Prosodic Word, 3.162; Prosody, 3.170; Proto-Greek and Leto Greek and Lycian, 2.67
Common Greek, 3.176; Relative Chronology, 3.220; Letöon Trilingual Greek and Lycian, 2.67
Rhotacism, 3.244; Schwa Secundum, 3.260; Syllabic Létoublon, Francoise Argument Clause, 1.175; Auxiliaries,
Consonants, 3.344; Syncope, 3.351; Vowel Changes, 3.503; 1.220
Vowels, 3.506 letters Papyri, Language of, 3.12
 INDEX 603
Letters of Bar Kokhva Creek and Hebrew, 2.54 Ancient Theories of, 3.326; Word Classes (mere toü
Leuctra Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Ionic {dgou), Ancient Theories of, 3.517
Script, 3.421 lexis katestramméné Literary Prose, 2.377
Leumann, Manu Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, Lhöte, Eric Northwest Greek, 2.518
2.105 Lianeri, Alexandra Drama Translation, 1.526
Leutsch, Ernst L.von Proverbs, 3.190 Libanius Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1,136
Leuven Database of Ancient Books Papyrology, 3.16 Liberman, Mark Optimality and Greek, 2.557
Levant Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133; Proto-Greek and Libya Cyrenaean, 1.409
Common Greek, 3.177; Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.265 Lichtenberk, Frantisek Reflexives, 3.215
levelling Assibilation, 1.185; Internal Reconstruction, Licymnius Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient. Linguistics,
2.252; Koine, Features of, 2.275; Koine, Origins of, 2.277 3.238; Style (l&xis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327
Levesque, Pierre-Charles Greek Historiography, Liddell, H.G. Computational Linguistics and Greek,
Translation, 2.91 1.355; Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.475; Etymological
Levin, Beth Comitative, 1.322; Indirect Object, 2.202; Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the zoth
Recipient, 3.208 Century, 1.572; Nasal Presents, 2.483; Pronominal
Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Analysis and Greek, System, 3.156
1.509; Null Anaphora, 2.536; Subject, 3.333; Text Lieber, Rochelle Compounding/Derivation/Construction
Linguistics and Greek, 3,389 Morphology, 1.353
Levinson, Stephen C. Deixis (including ist and znd Liebermann, Saul Greek and Aramaic, 2.34
Person), 1.422; Politeness/Courtesy Expressions, 3.12; Liebermann, W.L. Ancient Philosophers on |anguage,
Space (Cases), 3,313 1127
Leviticus Greek and Hebrew, 2.52 Lifshitz, Baruch Greek and Aramaic, 2.95; Jewish Greek,
Levy, Carlos Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.329 2.269
Lewandowska-Tomaszezyk, Barbara Perfect, 3.47 ligatures Epigraphy, 1.567
Lewis, David K. Conditionals, 1359 light blue alphabet(s) Alphabet. The Origin of the Greek,
Lewis, Naphtali Papyrology, 3.15 1.98; Local Scripts, 2.382
Lewy, Heinrich Calques, 1.261; Greek and Semitic Lightfoot, David Argument Clause, 1.177;
Languages (Early Contacts), 2.78; Theonyms (Names of Complementation, 1.335; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.232:
Gods}, 3.402 Optative, 2.554; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334
lexical archaisms Assibilation, 1.185 Ligurian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Pre-Greek
Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart)" 2.332; Aspect (and Tense), Substrate, 3.138
1.182; Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.201; Indo-European Ligurians Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Linguistic Background, 2,221; Structural Linguistics and Lihyänite Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31
Greek, 3.325; Tense/Aspect, 3.384 Lillo Alcaraz, Antonio Arcado-Cypriot, 1156
lexical borrowing Language Contact. 2.299 Lillo, Antonio Arcadian, 1151; Subordination, 3.339
Lexical Change* 2.339 Lilybaeum, see Marsala
lexical cohesion Cohesion, 1.312 limericks Language Play and Translation, 2.306
lexical diffusion Language Change. 2.297: limiting infinitive Infinitives (Syntax), 2.231
Neogrammarians, 2.494; Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270 Lindeman, Fredrik OÖ. Laryngeal Changes, 2.312; Proto-
lexical diffusionist models Comparative Method, 1330 Greek and Commm Greek, 3.179
Lexical Fields Theory and Greek* 2.343 Lindeman's Law Vowel Changes, 3.503
Lexical Functional Grammar* 2.345; Computational Lindner, Thomas Caland System and Greek, 1.257:
Linguistics and Greek, 1.355 Toponyms, 3.414
lexical negation Negation (Morphology), 2.492; 2.484 Lindos Language Policies, 2.310; Rhodian, 3.242
lexical passive Agency and Causation, 1.67 Lindos Chronicle Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.193;
lexical quantifiers Quantifiers, 3.199 Rhodian, 3.242
lexical semantics {nclo-European Linguistic Background, Lindstedt, Jouko Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
2.224 Greek, 1.223; Perfect, 3.48
lexicalization Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.314; Language Linear A* 2.353; Phaistos Disc, 3.62
Change, 2.297; Phonology (Survey), 3.92 Linear B* 2.355; Dissimilation, 1.514; Greek Lexicon,
lexicalization, congruent Code-Mixing, 1.307 Structure and Origin of, 2.110; Language and Variation in
lexicography Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Greece, 2.289; Orality and Literacy, 2.562; Phaistos Disc,
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.485 3.62
Lexicography, History of* 2.348 lingua franca Kaine, Origins of, 2.277: Scribes,
lexicology Semantic Change, 3.275 Mycenaean, 3.271
lexicon Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.111 linguistic area Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
Lexicon Haünodein Etymological Dictionaries: From Greek, 1.222
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575 linguistic categorization Cognitive Linguistics and
Lexicon on gold fabrication alphabetically Greek, 1.309
arranged Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: linguistic correctness Philological-Grammatical
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.488 Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.64
lexicostatistical methods Indo-European Historical Linguistic Correctness (Aellénismds), Ancient Theories
Background, 2.207 of* 2.360
léxis Hellenistic Poetry, Diction af, 2.155; Metaphor linguistic paleontology Indo-European Historical
(metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.417; Rhetorical Background, 2.207; Indo-European Linguistic
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.238; Style (lexis), Background, 2.224
604 INDEX
linguistic register Papyri, Language of, 3.12 locatum-location verbs Nasal Presents, 2.483
linguistic time Time, 3.405 loci communes History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic™ 2.364 Germany, 2.164
Linke, Konstanze Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Locke, John History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Ancient Linguistics, 4.70 Germany, 2.169
Linnaeus Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.105 Locker, Ernst Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of,
Liosis, N. Tsakoniarı, 3.446 2.10
lipogrammatic Odyssey Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Locri Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Doric, x.316;
Translation, 3.127 Epigraphy, 1,565; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398
Lippert, Julius Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148 Locri, Epizephyrian Northwest Greek, 2.518
Liptak, Anika Relative Clauses, 3.226 Locrian Achaean, 1.20; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
liquids Syllables, 3.348 and Dialectology, 1.119; Aspiration, 1.184; Classical Greek
Lissus Greek and Illyrian, 2.56 Morphology (Survey), 1.290; Doric, 1.515; Magna Graecia,
Lister, Bob Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Dialects, 2.398; Northwest Greek, 2.518; Semivowels, 3.281
Methods, 3.372 Locris Aeolic Dialects, 1.63: Formation of Doric Koines,
listing connectors Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.33 The, 1.603; Local Scripts, 2.382; Transition from the Local
literary idiolects Word Formation (Derivation, Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421
Compounding), 3.541 Locris, eastern Epic Diction, 1.556; Northwest Greek, 2.518
Literary Prose* 2.371 Locris, eastern and western Doric, 1.516
literary theory Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137 Locris, Epicnemidian, Hypocnemidian,
Lithuanian Numerals, 2.540; Verbal System (Tense, Opuntian Northwest Greek, 2.518
Aspect, Mood), 3.484 locus amoenus Literary Prose, 2.378
litotes Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.584; Noun Phrase, Loepfe, Alfred Word Order, 3.536
2,533; Semantic Change, 3.277 Löfstedt, Einar Curse Tablets, .qvo
liturgy Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 logic operators Noun Phrase, 2.531
Livadaras, Nikolaos Lexicography, History of, 2.352 logical syntax Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Livissi Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, Ancient Linguistics, 3.74
1.449 logograms Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94;
Livius Andronicus Greek and Latin, 2.66; Homer, Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.399; Linear B, 2.355
Translation, 2.175; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, logophorics Pronominal System, 3.150
3.246; Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364 logophors Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.505
Livy Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Macedonian, 2.393 fégos Clause, 1.293; Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of,
Lloyd, Geoffrey E.R. Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient 3.459: Word Classes (méré toi (égou), Ancient Theories
Theories of, 2.416 of, 3.516
Lloyd-Jones, Hugh Questions, 3.202 Logue, Christopher Homer, Translation, 2.178
loan translation Calques, 1.260; Christian Greek Lohndal, Terje Government Binding and Greek, 2.21
Vocabulary, 1.286; Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, Lombardo, Stanley Homer, Translation, 2.178
2.01; Greek Loanwords in Slavic, 2.123; Latin Loanwords Lomienta, Liana Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of,
in Greek, 2.320; Renaissance, Translation, 3.234 2.433; Prosody, 3.168
loanblends Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.321 London Cypriot Syllabary, 1.406; Linear B, 2.355
loans Monophthongization, 2.449; Zoonyms (Names of Long, Anthony A. Ancient Philosophers on Language,
Mammals), 3.544 1.128; Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.416
loanwords Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32; Longacre, Robert E. Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.3849
Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and Armenian, 2.38; Longane Sicily, Dialects in, 3.291
Greek and Etruscan, 2.49; Greek and Indian Languages, Longinus Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125;
2.61; Greek and Latin, 2.66; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.240; Style
Greek Loanwords in Coptic, 2.18; Greek Loanwords (féxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328; Tropes (trdpui),
in Syriac, 2.124: Jewish Greek, 2.268; Koine, Features Ancient Theories of, 3.443
of, 2.274; Language Change, 2.295; Language Contact, Longus Greek Novel, Translation, 2.132
2.304; Lexical Change, 2.340; Papyri, Language of, 3.13; long-vowel subjunctives Indo-European Linguistic
Prato-Greek and Common Greek, 3.175; Renaissance, Background, 2.222
Translation, 3.234; Semantic Change, 3.276; Translation Loock, Rudy Relative Clauses, 3.229
of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436 Lépez Eire, A. Dialectal Convergence, 1.456: Ionic, 2.266
Lobel, Edgar Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128; Lyric Löpez Eire, Antonio Language and Variation in Greece,
Poetry, Diction of, 2.391 2,290; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.365
local nomenclature Dictionaries of Dialects; From Loprieno, Antonio Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek,
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Onomastica: 1.94; Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.235
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550 foquendi peritia Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
local particles Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.43 Ancient Linguistics, 3.66
Local Scripts* 2.379 Lord Byron Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125
local varieties Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Lord, Albert B. Formulaic Language, 1.610; Formulas, 1.615;
Dialectology, 1122 Homer, Translation, 2.180; Orality and Literacy, 2.563
lucalistic model Space (Cases), 3.310 Lorente, Paula Tense/Aspect, 3.385
location Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.59; Lorenzo de’ Medici Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
Dative, 1.415; Space (Cases), 3.310 3.365
locative Agency and Causation, 1.69; Morpholagical Lorenzo Valla Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90;
Change, 2.465 Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365
 INDEX 605

Loriaux, Robert Consecutio Temporum et Modorum, Luther, Martin History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
1.367 Germany, 2.162
Löschhorn, Bernhard Linguistic Variation in Classical Luwian Greek and Carian. 2.42; Greek and Lycian,
Attic, 2.368 2.67; Greek and Lydian, 2.71; Indo-European Historical
Luschi, Antonio Renaissance, Translation, 4.233 Background, 2.209; Indo-European Linguistic
Lotman, Juri Contact through Translation, 1.380 Background, 2.209; Language Contact, 2.301; Linear A,
Louden, Bruce Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.310; 2.353; Pamphyliarı, 3.8; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133;
Metaphor, 2.414 Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.141; Proto-Greek and Common
Loukanis, Nikelaos Homer, Translation, 2.175 Greek, 3.187
Loukas, G. Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.165 Luwian, Cuneiform Greek and Anatolian Languages,
low varieties Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and 2.27; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133
Dialectology, 1.121 Luxor Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94; Attitudes
Löw, Immanuel Greek and Hebrew, 2.55 to Language, 1,204
Lowe, John]. Caland System and Greek, 1.257; Luz, Christine Riddles, 3.244
Wackernagel’s Law I, 3.511 Lycacnia Kaine, Origins of, 2.284
Lowell, Robert Drama Translation, 1.524 Lycia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Greek and Lycian,
Lower Macedonia Macedonian, 2.392 2.67; Koine, Origins of, 2.284; Orality and Literacy, 2.564;
low-register Koine Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317 Pamphylian, 3.8; Toponyms, 3.414
Lubotsky, Alexander Greek and Phrygian, 2.72; Lycian Alphabet. Descendants of, 1.90; Greek and
Numerals, 2.541; Vowel Changes, 3.502 Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and Carian, 2.42; Greek
Lucania Toponyms, 3.414 and Iranian, 2.64; Greek and Lycian, 2.67; Language
Lucian of Antioch Septuagint, 3.289 Contact, 2,300; Linear A, 2.353; Pre-Greek Languages,
Lucian of Samosata Aischrology, 1.80; Ancient 3.134; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.137
Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114; Asianism, 1.180: Lycian B Greek and Lycian, 2.67
Atticism, 1.199; Attitudes to Language, 1.207; Greek and Lycophron Hellenistic Poetry, Dictian of, 2.157; Riddles,
Syriac, 2.81; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in 3-245
Germany, 2.164; Indirect Object, 2,203; Koine, Origins of, Lycurgus Attitudes to Language, 1.206; Legal
2.280; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317; Song and Recitation, Terminology, 2.325; Literary Prose, 2.377; Secret
3.295; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273
3.438; Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 Lydia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Asianism, 1179;
Lucillius of Tarrha = Proverbs, 3.183 Greek and Carian, 2.40; Greek and 'I'hracian, 2.87; Secret
Lucius Aemilius Paulus Koine, Origins of, 2.280 Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273
Lucretius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248 Lydian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Ancient
Ludwich, Arthur Orthography (erthographia), Ancient Bidlalectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114; Greek and
Theories of, 2.575 Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and Carian, 2.42; Greek
Ludwig, Walther Fpigram, Diction of, 1.562 and Lydian, 2.70; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin
Lugano script Greek and Celtic, 2.45 of, 2.13; lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.189; Indo-European
Lühr, Rosemarie Word Formation (Derivation, Historical Background, 2.209: lonic, 2.260; Language
Compounding), 3.522 Contact, 2.300; Poetic Language, 3.110; Pre-Greek
Lubtala, Anneli Syntax (stintaxis), Ancient Theories of, Languages, 3.134; Semantic Change, 3.276
3.360 Lydian alphabet Greek and Lydian, 3,70
Lujdn, Eugenio Syllabic Consonants, 3.344 Lydianisms Greek and Lydian, 2.70
Lumley, Jane Drama Translation, 1.528 Lydians Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Greek and
lunate sigma Epigraphy, 1.566 Etruscan, 2.49; Greek and Thracian, 2.87
Lupag, Liana Clitic Group, 1.297; Consonants, 1.375; Koine, Lyncestis Macedonian, 2.392
Origins of, 2.280; Phonotactics, 3.96; Voicing, 3.502 Lynch, John P, Language and Variation in Greece, 2.290
Luppe, W. Elean (and Olympia), 1.541 Lyons, Christopher Determiners, 1.442
Lupus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248 Lyons, John Abstract Nouns, 1.6; Adverbial Constituents,
Luraghi, Sifvia Abstract Nouns, 1.5; Accusative, 1.13; 1.49; Color Terms, 1,315; Deixis (including 1st and and
Addressee, 1.25; Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.46; Person), 1.422; Middle, 2.441; Modifiers, 2.445; Mood and
Adverbial Constituents, 1.54; Agency and Causation, 1.66; Modality, 2.452; Questions, 3.200; Time, 3.406; Voice,
Anaphoric Pracesses, 1.109; Apposition, 1.145; Argument 3-495
Clause, 1.175; Beneficiary, 1230; Case (including Lyric Meter” 2.385
Syncretism), 1.262; Clause, 1.295; Cagnitive Linguistics lyric poetry Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation of, 2.125;
and Greek, 1.310; Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.314; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389
Comitatiye, 1.320; Complementation, 1.337; Construction Lysander Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language,
Grammar and Greek, 1.377; Contact through Translation, 3.273
1.380; Coordination {includes Asyndeton), 1.388; Dative, Lysias Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Deixis (including
1.414; Direct Object, 1.502; Functional Grammar and ist and 2nd Person), t.427; Dictionaries of Scientific
Greek, 1.617; Genitive, 2.4; Language Change, 2.295; Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487;
Manner, 2.401; Metaphor, 2.414; Nominal System Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.511; Epanalepsis, 1.546;
(Gender, Number, Case), 2.501; Null Anaphora, 2.534; Grounding of Information, 2.149; Indireet Object, 2.203;
Passive (Syntax), 3.43; Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60; Language Change, 2.297; Legal Terminology, 2.325;
Polysemy, 3.114; Possession, 3.119; Quantifiers, 3.199; Literary Prose, 2.377; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.32;
Recipient, 3.208; Space (Adpositions), 3.300; Space Perfect, 3.48; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327;
(Cases), 3.310; Verb Phrase, 3.465; Word Order, 3.533 Topic, 3.412
606 INDEX

Lysippos ‘Transition from the Local Alphabets to the mdgos Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.274
Tonic Script, 3.421 Mahoney, Ann Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
Lyttos Cretan, 1.396 Methods, 3.373
Maiden, Martin Suppletion, 3.341
Maamouri, Mohamed Dependency Grammar and Greek, Maier, Emar Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.506; Direct/
1.436 Indirect Speech, 1.507
Maas, Paul Bridges. 1.246; Lyric Meter, 2.386; Metrical Maiocco, Marca Genitive Absolute, 2.8; Participle, 3.19
Laws, 2.419; Metron, 2.438; Responsion, 3.236 Mairs, Rachel Graffiti, 2,26
Maassen, Hedde Movable Consonants, 2.469 major period Period, 3.54
Macarius Chrysocephalus Proverbs, 3.189 major phrase Intonational Phrase, 2.253
Macaulay, Thomas B. Homer, Translation, 2.178 Makhuwa Grassmann’s Law, 2.26
Maccabees (Bible) Greek and Hebrew, 2.53 Makrinos, Antony Homer, Translation, 2.175
MacDonough, James Databases and Dictionaries Malchukov, Andrej L. Case (including Syncretism),
[Papyrology and Epigraphy included], 1.411 1.261
Macedonia Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Archaisms in Modern Maleci, Stefano Etymological Dictionaries: From
Dialects, 1.164; Atticism, 1.197; Attitudes to Language, Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576
L204; Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, malefactive Beneficiary, 1.230; Dative, 1.415
1.448; Language Contact, 2.302; Language Policies, Malia Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.399: Greek and
2.311; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317; Macedonian, 3.492: Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Linear B, 2.357; Mycenaean
Papyrology, 3.15 Script and Language, 2.471
Macedonian“ 2,392; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki Optimality and Greek,
1.164; Consonant Changes, 1.372: Dictionaries of Dialects: 2.558; Personal Names, 3.57
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Greek Malis Doric, 1.516; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603
and Illyrian, 2.58; Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.98; Malkin, Irad Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27
Southeast Greek, 3.298 Mallory, J.P. Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2,28:
Macedonian, Ancient Language Contact, 2.301 Heteroclitics, 2.159; Poetic Language, 3.104
Macedonians Dialectal Convergence, 1.455 Maloney, Elliot C. Greek and Aramaic, 2.36
Macintosh, Fiona Drama Translation, 1.525 Malta Language Contact, 2.303
Maclntyre, A Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Malzahn, Melanie Verbal Adjectives, 3.475
Concepts and Models, 3.433 Mamelouko Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.471
Mackay formula Cypro-Minoan Syilabary, 1.408 Mancini, Augusto Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy,
Mackenzie, }. Lachlan Functional Grammar and Greek, 3-365
1.615; Information Structure and Greek, 2,241; Modifiers, Mancini, Marco Greek and Lranian, 2.63
2.445; Mood and Modality, 2.453; Particles (Syntactic Mandaic Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99
Features), 3.40 Mandarin Intensihers, 2.247
Mackridge, Peter Developments in Medieval and Mandelbaum, Allen Homer, Translation, 2.180
Madern Greek, 1.448 Mandilaras, BasilG. Infinitives (Syntax), 2.232; Perfect,
MacNeice, Louis Drama Translation, 1.524 3.48; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early
Macqueen, j.G. Language Contact, 2.301 Byzantine Greek, 3.381
Macrobius Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364 Manetho Aischrology, 1.76; Bilingualism in Hellenistic
macroclass Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), Egypt. 1.234
2.501 Manetti, Daniela Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Madame Dacier Formulaic Language, 1.608 Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486
Maddieson, lan Syllables, 3.347 Manetti,G. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1,129
Madvig, Johann Noun Phrase, 2.592 Manganaro,Giacomo Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity,
Maeander Asianism, 1.179 2.94
Maeander valley Greek and Carian, 2.40 Maniot Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160;
Maehler, Herwig Palaeography, 3.5; Responsion, 3.297 Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.448
Maeonian Greek and Lydian, 2.70 Mankin, David Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of,
Maffei, Raffaello Homer, Translation, 2.177 3-443
magic Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.274 Mann, William C. Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.38
Maginn, William Homer, Translation, 2.178 Manner* = 2,400; Adverbial Constituents, 1.52; Adverbs
Magna Graecia Achaean, 1.21; Atlitudes to Language, (Morphological Aspects of), 1.60; Dative, 1.416
L204; Daric, 1516; Dual, 1534; Epigraphy, 1565; Greek Manolessou, lo Pronominal System, 3.156
in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.95; Tonic, 2.260; Latin Manos, K. Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek,
Loanwords in Greek, 2.320; Literary Prose, 2.371; 2.258
Northwest Greek, 2.518 Manthos, Antonis D. Local Scripts, 2.383
Magna Graecia, Dialects* 2.397 Mantinea Arcadian, 1.151; Arcado-Cypriot, 1.157;
Magnaura school Etymological Dictionaries: From Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Ionic Script,
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576 3-421
Magnesia Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Attitudes to Language, Manuel Moschopoulos Dictionaries of Dialects: From
t.204; Greek and Iranian, 2.63; Kaine, Origins of, 2.284; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482
Thessalian, 3.403 Manutius, Aldus Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126
Magni, Elisabetta Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax Maquieira, Helena Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.210;
and Morphology), 1.493 Disjuncts, 1.514
Magnien, Victor Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Marcellus, Comte de Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380; Voice, 3.501 Translation, 3.127
 INDEX 607

Mardonius Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, mathematical language Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264
Lu4 Mathiesen, Thomas]. Metrics (metron), Ancient
Marek, Christian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91: Theories of, 2.434
Greek and Carian, 2.41 Mathieu, Eric Government Binding and Greek, 2.24;
margins Syllables, 3.347 Hyperbaton, 2.185
Marguliés, Alfons Causative Formation, 1.275; Voice, 3.498 Matié, Dejan Focus, 1.595; Information Structure and
Marie, Michel Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.593 Greek, 2.239; Language Change, 2.295; Text Linguistics
Marini, Nicoletta Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.329 and Greek, 3.391: Topic, 3.413; Word Order, 3.536
Marion-Arsinoe Cypriot Syllabary, 1407 Matisoff, James A. Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax
Maritime League, First Koine, Origins of, 2.278 and Morphology), 1.493
Marius Plotius Sacerdos Figures (skhémata), Ancient Matthaios, Stephanos Declension/Conjugation (At/sis),
Theories of, 1.591 Ancient Theories of, 1.418; Diathesis (didthesis),
Marius Victorinus Period, 3.53; Roman Translation of Ancient Theories of, 1.468; Dictionaries of Dialects:
Greek Texts, 3.249; Translation of Greek Texts in Late From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Figures
Antiquity, 3-436 (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590; Linguistic
markedness Phonalogical Change, 3.85 Correctness (hellönismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.361;
markedness constraints Optimality and Greek, 2.555 Noun (önoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.525; Orthography
Markopoulos, Theodore Balkan Sprachbund: Early (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Rhetorical
Evidence in Greek, 1.227; Tense and Aspect trom Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.241; Tense (khrönos),
Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.381; Verbal Ancient Theories of, 3.378; Word Classes (méré tod
System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.479 lögou), Ancient Theories of, 3.516; Word Formation
Markovic, Daniel Hyperbaton, 2.185 (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Marlowe, Christopher Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Matthaiou, Angelos P, Transition from Ihe Lacal
Translation, 3.127 Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421
Maroneia lonic, 2.260 Matthews, E. Word Formation (Derivation,
Maronitis, Dimitrios N. Intralingual ‘'ranslation into Compounding), 3.528
Modern Greek, 2.259; Teaching of Ancient Greek, Matthews, Peter Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
Teaching Methods, 3.369 1.286; Suppletion, 3.342; Typology of Greek, 3.450
Marot, Clement Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, Matthiae, Auguste Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
3.127 Mattingly, Harold B, Adoption of the lonic alphabet in
Marrou, Henri-Irönee Chiasm, 1.277; Rhetorical Tradition Attica, 1.31
in Ancient Linguistics, 3.238 Matzinger,J. Greek and Phrygian, 2.72
Marsala Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.95; Sicily, Maurer, Karl Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90
Dialects in, 3.291 Maule, Jeremy Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Marshall, M.H.B. Postpositives, 3.129; Prepositives, 3.144; Mauri, Caterina Conjunctions (Non-Subordinating),
Word Order, 3.533 1.363
Marsiliana d’Albegna Alphabet, Descendants of, 190 Mauropous, John Etymological Dictionaries: From
Martelli, Matteo Dictionarles of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.488 Maxim of Quantity Conditionals, 1.359
Martial Epigram, Diction of, 1.562 maxims Aorist, 1.136
Martin, Richard P. Epic Meter, 1.558 Maximus Planudes Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of,
Martinet, André Language Change, 2.296 1.271; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Martinez Ferndndez, Angel Epigram, Diction of, 1.561 Linguistics, 3.74
Martinez Vasquez, Rafael Comitative, 1.321; Functional Mayan Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.398
Grammar and Greek, 1.617; Manner, 2.402; Metaphor, Mayer, Hermann Synonymica: From Antiquity to the
2.414; Relative Tense, 3.231; Time, 3.407 Byzantine Period, 3.353
Martino, Paolo Greek and Etruscan, 2.51 Mayer, Marial. Greek and Semitic Languages (Barly
Maslov, YuriyS. Perfect, 3,47 Contacts), 2.78
Masoretic Hebrew Bible Septuagint, 3.288 Mayhew, R Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.126
Masoretic Text Greek and Hebrew, 2.52 Mayrhofer, Manfred Assimilation, 1.186: Augment, 1.216;
Masorets Greek and Hebrew, 2.52 Laryngeal Changes, 2.311; Root Structure (and Ablaut),
mass noun Number, 2.538 3.252; Schwa Secundum, 3.260
Massalia Greek and Celtic, 2.45; Ionic, 2:26n Mayser, Edwin Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236:
Masson, Emile Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Papyri, Language of, 3.1
Contacts), 2.78 Mazarakis, Ainian Local Scripts, 2.382
Masson, Emilia Language Contact, 2.301; Nominal System Mazi Elean (and Olympia}, 1.535
(Gender, Number, Case), 2.502; Semitic Loanwords in McCabe, Donald F. Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135
Greek, 3.278 McCarter, P. Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94
Masson, Oliver Apocope, 1.142; Arcado-Cypriot, 1.156; McCarthy, John Minima, 2.442; Moras, 2.459; Optimality
Etymological Dictionaries: From the Renaissance and Greek, 2.555
ta the zoth Century, 1.573; Greek and Carian, 2.40; McCone, Kim Greek and Celtic, 2.44
Personal Names, 3.56; Word Formation (Derivation, McDevitt, Arthur Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
Compounding), 3.528; Yodization. 3.543 McDonald, Marianne Databases and Dictionaries
Mastandrea, Paolo Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392 [Papyrology and Epigraphy included], 1.412; Drama
Mastronarde, Donald}. Augment, 1.215 Translation, 1.525
Matasovi¢, R. Poetic Language, 3.103 McElduff, Siobhan Homer, Translation, 2.175; Roman
material Adverbial Constituents, 1.54 Translation of Greek Texts, 3.245
GoB INDEX

McGillivray, Barbara Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393 1.139: Apposition, 1.146; Comparative Method, 1.329;
McGrath, Campbell Language Play and Translation. Consecutio Temporum et Modorum, 1367; Dialertal
2.306 Convergence, 1.455: Dialects, Classification af, 1.467;
McKay, Kenneth L. Classical Greek Morphology Dual, 1.534; Epic Meter, 1.558; Formulaic Language, 1.611;
(Survey), 1.291; Perfect, 3.47 Formulas, 1.614; Greek and Armenian, 2.38; Greek and
McKenzie, Rederick Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, Semitic Languages (Early Contacts), 2.78; Greek Lexicon,
1.477 Structure and Origin of, 2.111; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229;
McKnight, Katherine S. Teaching of Ancient Greek, Koine, Features of, 2.273; Language and Variation in
Teaching Methods, 3.372 Greece, 2.288; Language Change, 2.292; Literary Prose,
McLean, B. Hudson = Epigraphy. 1,567 2.37% Lyric Meter, 2.388; Nominal System (Gender,
MeNeil, 1. Greek and Lydian, 2.71 Number, Case), 2.500; Phonology (Survey), 3.90: Pre-
means Agency and Causation, 1.71 Greek Substrate, 3.196; Pronouns (Demonstrative,
measure Verse, 3.489 Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158; Semantic
Media Tantum* 2.403; Voice, 3.496 Change, 3.278; Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.323;
medial demonstrative Pronominal System, 3.153 Syllabic Consonants, 3.344; Verbal Adjectives, 3.476;
Medical Vocabulary® 2.404 Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477; Vocative,
medicine Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity 3.492
and Byzantine Period, 1.485 Meineck, Peter Language Play and Translation, 2.307
Medieval Greek Accusative, 1.18; Adpositions Meineke, Augustii Lexicography, History ol, 2.352
(Prepositions), 1.47: Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence Meiser, Gerhard Case (including Syncretism), 1.264:
in Greek, 1.225; Developments in Medieval and Modern Mediopassive, 2.412; Nasal Presents, 2.482
Greek, 1.453; Indirect Object, 2.205; Koine, Origins Meissner, Torsten Caland System and Greek, 1.257;
of, 2.282; Language Change, 2.294; Metathesis, 2.419; Prosodic Word, 3.162; Proto-Greek and Cammon Greek,
Syntactic Change, 3.357 3.185
Medieval Translation of Greek Texts* 2.407 Meister, Richard C. Ancient Greek Sociolinguisties
Mediopassive* 2.410; Classical Greek Morphology and Dialectology, 1.18; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463;
(Survey), 1.290; Participles (Morphological Aspects of), Lesbian Accentuation, 2.332
3.21; Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334 Meisterhans, Konrad Attic, 1.189
Mediterranean Palaeography, 3.3 Mel'cuk, Igor Dependency Grammar and Greek. 1.434:
Mediterranean Sea Proto-Greek and Common Greek, Suppletion, 3.342
3177 Melanchthon, Philipp History of Teaching of Ancient
Mediterranean, eastern Koine, Origins of, 2.279: Greek in Germany, 2.164
Lemnian, 2.327 Melanippides Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278; Metrics
Medma Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398; Northwest Greek, (metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.432
2,518 Melazzo, Lucio Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories
Mec, Erin Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice, of, 1.457
3.123 Melchert, H. Craig Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91: Greek
Meecham, Henry G. Septuagint, 3.287 and Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and Carian, 2.42;
Megalopolis Arcadian, 1.151; Koine, Origins of, 2.280 Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Linear A,
Megara Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160; Formation 2.355; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134
of Doric Koines, The, 1.605; Local Scripts, 2.382; Saronic, Meleager of Gadara Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy
3.258; Syncope, 3.351: Transition from the Local in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238; Epigram, Diction
Alphabets ta the lonic Script, 3.421 of, 1.563
Megara Hyblaea Doric, 1.516; Formation of Doric Koines, Meleager's Garland Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
The, 1.605; Local Scripts, 2.383; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290 melic verse Verse, 3.490
Megarian Argolic, 1.171; Developments in Medieval and Melito of Sardis Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Modern Greek, 1.448; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Antiquity, 3.436
Doric, 1.516; Macedonlan, 2.396: Saronic, 3.258 Melos Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.97; Doric.
Megaris Koine, Origins of, 2.278 1,517; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Insular
Megasthenes Greek and Indian Languages, 2.60 Doric, 2.245; lonic, 2.261; Linear A, 2.355; Local Scripts,
Megleno-Romanian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence 2.380
in Greek, 1.223 Memnon Attitudes to Language, 1204
Meld, Wolfgang Greek and Celtic, 2.46; Poetic Language, memorial deixis Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1511
Kat Memphis Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236;
Meler-Brügger, Michael Ancient Bidialectalism Language Policies, 2.310; Rosetta Stone, 3.254
and Bilingualism, 1.116; Consonants, 1.374; Crasis, Memphis Decree Rosetta Stone, 3.254
1.395; Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of), 1.473; Indo- Memphis-Saqgara Greek and Carian, 2.41
European Linguistic Background, 2.224; Mediopassive. Menander Aorist Formation, 1.141: Compound Tenses
2.411; Negation (Morphology), 2.491; Numerals, (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Dialects, Classification of,
2.540; Pamphylian, 3.8; Passive (Morphology), 3.42: 1.462; Drama Translation, 1.525; Epigram, Diction of,
Phonological Change, 3.87: Proto-Greek and Common 1.563; Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic Variation,
Greek, 3.179; Stative (and Middle/Medium) Verhs, 1.606; Greek and Indian Languages, 2.60; Linguistic
4.316; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344; Theonyms (Names of Variation in Classical Attic, 2.366; Papyrology, 3.16
Gods}, 3.401; Vowel Changes, 3.502; Vowels, 3.506; Word Menander Protector Etymological Dictionaries: From
Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.524 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576; Lexicography,
Meillet, Antoine Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and History of, 2.351
Nialectology, 1.08; Aorist, 1.136; Aorist Formation, Mende tonic, 2.261; Macedonian, 2.392
 INDEX G0g

Méndez Dosuna, Jullän Apocope, 1.142; Archaisms in Mester, Armin Minima, 2,442; Stress, 3.320; Syllable
Modern Dialects, 1.61; Assibilation, 1.185; Consecutio Weight, 3.347
Temporum et Modorum, 1.367; Direct/Indirect metdlépsis Metaphor (metaphori), Ancient Theories of,
Discourse, 1.505; Doric, 1,515; Elean (and Olympia), 1.535; 2.416
Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Language and Metaphor* 2.413; Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.42;
Variation in Greece, 2.289; Monophthongization, 2.449; Aischrology, 1.80; Cognitive Linguistics and Greek,
Northwest Greek, 2.520; Pamphylian, 3.10; Personal 1.309; Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.584; Hellenistic
Names, 3.57; Spirantization, 3.315; Subordination, 3.340; Poetry, Diction of, 2.155; Literary Prose, 2.375; Scientific
Syllables, 3.350; Synizesis, 3.352; Tsakonian, 3.447; Voice, Vocabulary, 3.263; Semantic Change, 3.277; Tropes
3.495: Vowel Changes, 3.504 (tröpai), Ancient Theories of, 3.441
Mendoza, Julia Comparative Method, 1.330; Relative Metaphor (metaphorä), Ancient Theories of* 2.414
Clauses, 3.226 metaphor, conceptual Metaphor, 2.413
Menecles of Alabanda Asianism, 1.180; Attitudes to metaplasm Vocative, 3.492
Language, L205 Metapontum Achaean, 1.19; Magna Graecia, Dialects,
Menestheus of Stratonicea Dictionaries of Scientific 2.398
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487 Metathesis* 2.418; Cretan, 1.396; Figures (skhemata),
Menippus Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Ancient Theories of, 1.591; Inflectional Classes,
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238 2.238; Language Change, 2.293; Palatalizations, 3.7;
mental activities Media Tantum, 2.409 Present Tense, 3.147; Reduplicated Presents, 3.210:
mental activity middle verbs Voice, 3.498 Schwebeablaut, 3.261; Syllabie Consonants, 3.345;
mental state/process middle Voice, 3.496 Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation, 3.399
mental states/processes Media Tantum, 2.403 metathesis test Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156
Menze, Clemens History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Metaurus Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398
Germany, 2.169 meterdrya Metrics, 2.430
Mercado, Angelo O. Greek and Lydian, 2.71 Methana Local Scripts, 2.383
Mercier, Charles Greek and Armenian, 2.38 Methodius Alphabetical Dictionaries; From Antiquity to
Merger® 2.413; Epic Diction, 1.551; Internal the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Contact through Translation,
Reconstruction, 2.25); Split, 3.316 1.379; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the
merismés Word Classes (mere tov lögou), Ancient Byzantine Periad, 1.574; Greek |oanwords in Slavic, 2.123;
Theories of, 3.520 Lexicography, History of; 2.352
Meritt, B.D. Adaption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.31 Methone lonic, 2.261; Local Scripts, 2.382
Merkelbach, R. Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1,284 Methymna Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329
Merkouris, Panos Language Play and Translation, 2.308 metokhé Word Classes (méré tod lögou), Ancient
Merle, Jean-Marie Predicative Constituents, 3.130 Theories of, 3.519
Merlingen, Weriand Fre-Greek Substrate, 3.139; metonynty Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309;
Toponyms, 3.414 Cretan, 1,398; Etymology (etumologia), Ancient Theories
Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia Diminutives/Augmentatives of, 1.582; Language Change, 2.296; Semantic Change,
(Syntax and Morphology), 1.496 3.277: Syntax (suntaxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.359
Merrick, James Post-Horneric Epic Poetry, Translation, metonymy, conceptual Cognitive Linguistics and Greek,
3.127 1.369
Mertz, Georg History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in metousia Metaphor (metaphurd), Ancient Theories of,
Germany, 2.168 2.416
Mervis, Carolyn B, Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309 metra Responsion, 3.235
Mesembria Doric, 1.516 Metrical Laws” 2.419
mesode Respunsion, 3.236 metrical phrase Verse, 3.489
Mesopotamia Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147; metrical position Foot, 1.601
Greek and Lydian, 2,70; Greek and Syriac, 2.80; Greek Metrics* 2.423; Poetic Language, 3.103
Loanwords in Syriac, 2.125; Orality and Literacy, 2.562: Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of* 2.44)
Scribes, Mycenaean, 3,265 Metrodorus of Lampsacus Allegory (allögoria), Ancient
Mesopotamian Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Theories of, 1.86
Greek Etymology, 1.578 Metron* 2.436
Messapic Greek and Illyrian, 2.57; Greek Lexicon in Metropolis hessalian, 3.404
Western Languages, 2.104; Numerals, 2.541 Mette, Hans]. Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Messapii Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Dictionaries
Messenia Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Laconian, Messenian, of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
2.287; Language Contact, 2.301 1.481; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Messenian Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Linguistics, 3.70
Dialectology, 1.11.9; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.165; Meursius, J. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.479
Doric, 1.516; Laconian, Messenian, 2.287; Phonology Mexican Language Contact, 2.299
(Survey), 3.91 Meyer, Gustav Latin Loanwards in Greek, 2,321
Messenians Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Meyer, Leo Etymological Dictionaries; From the
lonic Script, 3.421 Renaissance to the zoth Century, 1.572
Messina Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity. 2.98; Tonic, Meyer, Mary C. Pitch, 3.100
2.261; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290 Meyer, Wilhelm Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.136
Messing, GordonM. Contract Verbs, 1,382; Greek Meyer's bridge Bridges, 1.246
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.10; Thematic Vowel, Meyers Law Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.136
Stem Formation, 3.397 Michael Psellos Atticism, 1.201
610 INDEX

Michael Syncellus Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Minima* 2.442

Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Philolagical-Grammatical minimalism Government Binding and Greek, 2,21
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.74 Minnen, Peter van Papyrology, 3.15
Michaelidou-Nicolaou, Ino Cypriot, 1.401; Cypriat Minoans Eteocretan, 1.571; Mycenaean Script and
Syllabary, 1.495 Language, 2.471
Michaelis, Laura A. Information Structure and Greek, Minoic-Minyan Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.141
2.239) Topic, 3.412 Minon, Sophie Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
Michelakis, Pantelis Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.116; Doric, 1.520: Lacal Scripts, 2.384; Rhotacism, 3.244
1.594 minor period Period, 3.54
Michelson, Karin Utterance, 3.454 Minos Eteocretan, 1.571
Mickey, Katherine Dialectology (didfektos}, Ancient Minton, W. Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries,
Theories of, 1.458; Elegy, Diction of, 1,544 1.357
microclass Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), Minucius Pacatus Irenaeus, Atticnames Alphabetical
2.501 Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period.
Middle* 2.440 1.101; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to
middle deponents Media Tantum, 2.403 the Byzantine Period, 1.482; Linguistic Correctness
Middle East Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147: Dialectal (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.362
Convergence, 1.455 minuscule and cursive Epigraphy, 1.564
Middle High German Internal Reconstruction, 2.252 minuscule writing Epigraphy, 1.566
Middle Indian Greek and Indian Languages, 2.61 Minyans Lemnian, 2.327
Middle Iranian Greek and Iranian, 2.62 Mioni, Alberto M. Language Change, 2.291
Middle Kingdom Alphabet, ‘he Origin of the Greek, 1.94 Mirambel, André Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic tu
Middle Persian Greek and Iranian, 2.62; Translation of Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380
Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 mirative speech acts Mood and Modality, 2.454
middle voice Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.310; Mishnaic Hebrew Greek Loanwords in Hebrew and
Mediopassive, 2.410 Aramaic, 2.122
Middle Welsh Greek and Celtic, 2.44 Misra Greek and Hebrew, 2.54: Greek Loanwords in
middle, collective motion Voice, 3.497 Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122
middles, direct reflexive Voice, 3.497 Missailidou-Despotidou, Vasiliki Ancient Greek
Midea Linear B, 2.357 Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.123
Midrasim Greek Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, Mistriotis,G. Atticism, 1.201; Intralingual Translation into
2.122; Language Contact, 2.903 Modern Greek, 2.258
Migliorini, Bruno Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, Mitchell, E.A. Tsakonian, 3.447
2.109 Mitchell, Stephen Homer, Translation, 2.178;
Migne, Jacques Paul Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.479 Pamphylian, 3.8
Mignat, Xavier Word Formation (Derivation, Mitford, Terence B. Cypriat, 1.402; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405
Compounding), 3.524 Mithraic mysteries Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.285
Miheve, Erica Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early mixed speech Direct/Indirect Speech, 1.507
Byzantine Greek, 3.380 mixing Koine, Origins of, 2.277
Milan Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity. 3.436 Mnasalcas of Sicyon = Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
Miletus Attitudes to Language, 1.204; Epigraphy, 1.565; mobile Prepnsitives, 3.144
Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27; lonic, 2.260; Kuine, mobiles Word Order, 3.532
Origins of, 2.284: Linear A, 2.355; Linear B, 2.957; Literary modal assimilation Attraction (Mood, Case ete.). 1.213
Prose, 2.971; Local Scripts, 2.384; Secret Language/Codes/ modal attitude Adjuncts, 1.29
Magical Language, 3.272; Transition from the Local modal verbs Mood and Modality, 2.452
Alphabets to the ionic Script, 3.420 modality Anaphoric Processes, 1,107: Gerund (Verbal
Milik, J.T. Greek and Aramaic, 2.35 Noun), 2.10
Milizia, Paolo Nasal Presents, 2.482 modality, deontic Gerundive (Verbal Adjective), 2.13:
Millar, Fergus Epigraphy, 1.564 Mood and Modality, 2.452: Particles (Syntactic Features),
Miller, Walter Homer, Translation, 2.180 3.32
Miller, Andrew M. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127 modality, dynamic Mood and Modality, 2.452
Miller, D. Gary Assimilation, 1.186; Infinitives (Syntax), modality, epistemic Mood and Modality, 2.452; Particles
2.230; Osthoff's Law, 2.376; Phonology (Survey), 3.95; (Syntactic Features), 3.42
Relative Chronalogy, 3.222; Voicing, 3.502 modalizers Adverbial Constituents, 1.51
Miller,M. Kinship Terms, 2.271 Modern English Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic
Miller, Philip H. Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3,361 Variation, 1.606; Government Binding and Greek, 2.23;
Milligan, George ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.28: Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.59
Milne, H.J.M. Palaeography, 3.1 Modern Greek passim (in over 50 articles)
Milton, John Formulas, 1.614 Modern High German Adpositional Phrase, 1.37
Milyan Greek and Lycian, 2.67: Numerals, 2.540 Modern Persian Participles (Morphological Aspects of),
Mimbrera-Olarte, S. Formation of Doric Koines, The, 3.21
1.605 Modifier” 2,445; Adverbial Constituents, 1.49; Participle,
Mimnermus Elegy, Diction of, 1543; Literary Prose, 2,372 3.18
Minchin, Elizabeth Orality and Literacy, 2.563 Modistae Vocative, 3.492
Miniatis, E, Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek. Modrak, D.K.W. Ancient Philosophers on Language,
2.257 1.129
 INDEX su

modus infinitivus Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229 Morphological Doubling Theory Reduplication, 3.212
Moeschler, Jacques Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.33 morphological levelling Morphological Change, 2.466
Mohawk Hyperbaton, 2.185 morphological transparency Syllables, 3.349; Tsakonian,
Mohrman, Christine Contact through Translation, 1.381 3.447
Mommasen, Tycho Adpositional Phrase, 1.34; Comitative, morphology Koine, Origins of, 2.278
1326 morphology, concatenative Abstract Nouns, 1.5
Monemvasia Tsakonian, 3.446 morphology, evaluative Diminutives/Augmentatives
monodic lyric Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389 (Syntax and Morphology), 1.493
monodic poetry Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.391 Morpurgo Davies, A. Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.41;
monomoraic Syllables, 3.349 Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Monophthongization* 2.448; Attic, 1.192; Boeotian, 1.242; and Dialectology, 1.121; Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155; Attitudes
Koine, Featuresof, 2.273; Koine, Origins of, 2.281; Linguistic to Language, 1.203; Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Variation in Classical Attic, 2.370; Phonology (Survey), Dictionaries, 1.958; Cypriot, 1402; Cypriot Syllabary,
3.94; Syntactic Change, 3.356; Vowel Fronting, 3.506 1.404; Dialectal Convergence, 1.456; Dialectology
monophtbongs Cretan, 1.396; Morphological Change, (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.457; Dictionaries
2.465 of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
monosemy Palysemy, 3.14 1.480; Epic Diction, 1.556; Greek and Lycian, 2.68;
Monrs, David B. Argument Clause, 1,177; Determiners, Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.210; Laconian,
1.445; Space (Adpositions), 3.310 Messenian, 2.287; Language Change, 2.291; Linear B,
Montana, Fausto Dictionaries of Onomastics: ram 2.359; Local Scripts, 2.379; Particles (Formal Features),
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Metrics 3.26; Personal Names, 3.57; Proto-Greek and Common
(métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.433 Greek, 3.176; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345; Syllables, 3.350;
Montanari, Franco Databases and Dictivnaries Tmesis, 3.409; Truncation, 3.445
[Papyrology and Epigraphy included|, 1.413; Dictionaries Morrel, KennethS. Verb Phrase, 3.463
of Ancient Greek, 1.479; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Morris, Charles W. Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361
Origin of, 2.110; Homer, Translation, 2.175 Morris, Sarah Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28
Monteil, Pierre Adverbs, 1.56; Conjunctions Moschus Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Post-Homeric
(Subordinating), 1.364; Pronouns (Demanstrative, Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126; Tmesis, 3.410; Written
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.159: Purpose versus Spoken Language, 3.541
Clauses, 3.195 Moses of Chorene Greek and Armenian, 2.37
Montermini, Fabio Diminutives/Augimentatives (Syntax Moulton, James H. ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Compound
and Morphology), 1.494 Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Jewish Greek, 2.268
mood Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290 Mounin, G. Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek,
Mood (énklisis), Ancient Theories of* 2.449 2.256
Mood and Modality* 2.452 Mount Sipylus Asianism, 1.179
mood attraction Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.213 Mousaios Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
mood, extended Mood (énkiisis), Ancient ‘Theories of, Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239
2.450 mouvance Greek Novel, Translation, 2.133
Moore, R. W, Verba Dicendi, 3.469 Movable Consonants* 2.468
Moore, Thomas Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126 Movable s-" 2.469; Indo-European Linguistic
Moorhouse, A.C. Negation, 2.486 Background, 2.215
Mopsus Pamphylian, 3.8 movement Verb Phrase, 3.463
Moralejo, Juan}. Southeast Greek, 3.298; Syllabic Moving Ego Model Time, 3.405
Consonants, 3.344 Moving Time Model Time, 3.405
Moras* 2.459; Doric Accentuation, 1.522; Font, 1.600 Moyer, lan S. Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.234
Moravesik, Edith Adpositional Phrase, 1.37; Intensifiers, Moyne, John A. Intensifiers, 2.246
2.246; Reduplication, 3.212 Mozer (Moser), Amalia Perfect, 3.46; Tense and Aspect
Morell, Thomas Drama Translation, 1.528 from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380: Tense/
Morelli, Giuseppe Metrics (mefron), Ancient Theories Aspect, 3.383
of, 2.434 Mu’awiyah Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147
Morgan, Kathryn A, Ancient Philosophers on Language, Muchnovd, Dagmar Argument Clause, 1.175:
1.125 Subordination, 3.339
Morgan, Teresa Homer, Translation, 2.175; Rhetorical Münhlestein, Huge Word Formation (Derivation,
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.238: Teaching of Compounding), 3.528
Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364 Mulder, Hotze Beneficiary, 1.230; Passive (Syntax), 3.43;
Morgantina Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94 Verbal Valency, 3.487
Morley, Neville Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.93 Müller, August Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148;
morpheme Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.286; Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Contacts), 2.78
Morphological Change, 2.464 Müller, F. Max Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity
morpheme, circumfixal derivational Word Formation to the Byzantine Period, 1.48); Philological-Grammatical
(Derivation, Compounding), 3.523 Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.65; Proverbs, 3.189
Morpheus Computational Linguistics and Greek, 1.354 Müller, Hans-Eric Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of,
morphological aspect indo-European Linguisuc 1.269
Background, 2.221 Müller, Matthias Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.46
Morphological Change” 2.464 Müller, Maximilian Synonymica: From Antiquity ta the
morphological class Thematic and Athematic Verbs, Byzantine Period, 3.353
3,396 Miiller, Mogens Sepiuagint, 3.288
612 INDEX

Mullins, T.Y. Papyri, Language of, 3.0 Nabataea Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31
Malroy, David Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Nachmanson, Emst Dictionaries of Scientific
multilingualism Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486
Greek, 1.222; New Testament, 2.497 Nachtgall, 0. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
MultiWordNet Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393 Germany, 2.164
mummy-labels Papyri, Language of, 3.12 Nacona Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94
Mundt, Lothar History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Naerebout, Frederick G. Riddles, 3.245
Germany, 2.163 Naevius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247
Muradyan, Gohar Greek and Armenian, 2.39 Nag Hammaditexts Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Murcia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91 Antiquity, 3.439
Murko, Matija Formulas, 1.614 Nagel, Peter Language Contact, 2.302
Murray, A.T. Homer, Translation, 2.179; Gnomatopoeia, Nagler, Michael Formulaic Language, 1.609; Formulas,
2.553 1.615
Murray, Gilbert Drama Translation, 1.528 Nagy, Gregory Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Murray, Jackie Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, Dialectology, 1.120; Formulaic Language, 1.610; Homer,
3.126 Translation, 2.178; Intonational Phrase, 2.255; Orality and
Murry, Furio Case (ptäsis), Ancient ‘Theories of, 1.270 Literacy, 2.562; Palatalizations, 3.7; Scribes, Mycenaean,
Musaeus Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.127 3.270: Wackernagel's Law II (V’S), 3.514
Muscio Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250 Nahal Hever Greek and Hebrew, 2.54
Muses Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315 Named Entity Recognition Computational Linguistics
musical accent Song and Recitation, 3.293 and Greek, 1,356
Muss-Arnolt, William Greek and Semitic Languages Names of Months* 2.479
(Early Contacts), 2.78; Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99 names of plants Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120;
Mussies, Gerard Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt. 1.235; Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.97
Vocative, 3.493 Nauumides, Mark Alphabetical Dictionaries: Fram
muta cum liquida Epic Diction, 1.548; Syllables, 3.348 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100
Muysken, Pieter Code-Mixing, 1.307 Naples Greek Writing Systems, 2.145; Magna Graecia,
Mycenae Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialects, 2.397; Nestor’s Cup, 2.495
Dialectology, 1.120: Argolic, 1.171; Doric, 1.516; Greek and Napoli, Maria Anaphoric Processes, 1.108; Aorist, 1.146;
Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Linear B, 2.357; Local Scripts, Consecutio Temporum et Modorum, 1.367; Determiners,
2.984; Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.471; Phonology 1.442; Direct Object, 1,503; Genitive, 2.5; Impersonal
(Survey), 3.89: Variation in Mycenaean Greek, 3.457 Verbs/Constructions, 2.199; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart),
Mycenaean Greek Action Nouns, 1.22; Adjectives 2.334; Quantifiers, 3.199; Tense/Aspect, 3.385; Verbal
(Morphological Aspects of), 1.26; Adpositianal Adjectives, 3.476
Phrase, 1.38; Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.43; Ancient Narbonese Gaul = Greek and Celtic, 2.44
Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.116; Arcadian, 1.153; narrative modes Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.390
Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Color narrative progression Anaphoric Processes, 1.112
Terms, 1.315; Comparative Method, 1.329: Compensatory Narrog, Heiko Case (including Syncretism), 1.263
Lengthening, 1.334: Cancordances/Indices/Reverse narrow focus construction Focus, 1.597
Dictionaries, 1.372: Consonant Changes, 1372: Narten ablaut ‘Narten’ Presents, 2.480
Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477: Grassmann's Law, ‘Narten' Presents* 2,480
2.27: Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Contacts), Narten, johanna ‘Narten’ Presents, 2.480
2.79; Indo-European Historical Background, 2.209; nasal assimilation Prosadic Word, 3.163
Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.214; Infinitives Nasa) Presents® 2.48); Stative (and Middle/Medium)
(Morphology of), 2.226; Language Contact, 2.300; Verbs, 3.317
Names of Months, 2.479; Nominal System (Gender, nasal sonorants Phonetic Law, 3.77
Number, Case), 2.500; Palatalizations, 3.6; Patranymics, nasal suffix Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.481
3.45; Personal Names, 3.55; Phonological Change, nasals Syllables, 3.348
3.84; Preverbs, 3.149; Relative Clauses, 3.230; Semitic nativized Koine Koine, Origins of, 2.278
Loanwords in Greek, 3.279; Subordination, 3.338: Syllatric natural morphology Nominal System (Gender, Number.
Consonants, 3.344; Thessalian, 3.403; Tmesis, 3.409; Case), 2.500; Suppletion, 3.342
Toponyms, 3.414; Truncation, 3.445; Typology of Greek, natural phonology Language Change, 2.296
3.451: Verb Phrase, 3.467; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect. natural sciences Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Monod), 3.485: Vowel Changes, 3.503: Word Formation Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.485
(Derivation, Compounding), 3.524 nature Etymology (etumalogia), Ancient Theories of,
Mycenaean scribes Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.265 1.580
Mycenaean Script and Language* 2.471 nature vs. convention Ancient Philosophers on
Mycenaean, ‘special’ Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270 Language, 1.127
Mygdonia Macedonian, 2.392 Nauck, A. Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries,
Myres, john L. Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133 1.357: Questions, 3.202
Mysia Asianism, 1.180; Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315: Naucratis Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.47:
Toponyms, 3.414 Language Contact, 2.302
Mysians Greek and Thracian, 2.87 Naupactus Local Scripts, 2.384
Mytilene Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329: Lyric Poetry, Navajo Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.136
Diction of, 2.389; Psilosis, 3.192 Naxos Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.30;
Myus lonic, 2.260 Attic, 1.189; lonic, 2.261; Local Scripts. 2.381; Phonology
 INDEX 613

(Survey), 3.93; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290; Transition from Nestos Macedonian, 2.392
the Local Alphabets to the Ionic Script, 3.422; Vowel Neue, Christian F. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Fronting, 3.505 Neumann, Günter Archaisıms in Modern Dialects, 1.162;
Nazareth Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Greek and Illyrian, 2.58; Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Nominal
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239 System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.503; Theonyms
Nea Paphos Cypriot, 1.401 (Names of Gods), 3.401
Neanthes of Cyzicus Atticism. 1.197 neutralization Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.162;
Neapolis Eteocretan, 1.570; lonic, 2.261 Argument Clause, 1175; Conjunction Reduction, 1.362;
Near East Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, Internal Reconstruction, 2,251; Language Change,
1.14; Greek and Etruscan, 2.49; Greek and Iranian, 2.62; 2.295; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.503;
Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.146; Palaeagraphy, 3.3 Vocative, 3.493
Near Eastern Etymological Dictionaries: From the New Comedy Drama Translation, 1.527; Papyri, Language
Renaissance to the zoth Century, 1573; Etymolagical of, 3.13
Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology. 1.578 New Dithyrambographers Metrics (metron). Ancient
Nebenüberlieferungen Greek Loanwards in Syriac, 2.125 Theories of, 2.432
Negation (Morphology)* 2.491 New Egyptian Koine, Origins of, 2.279
negative comitatives Comitative, 1.325 New Iranian Greek and Iranian, 2.62
negative command Lmperative, 2.190 new literacies Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
negative concord Negation, 2.488 Methods, 3.373
negative prefixe Negation (Morphology), 2.491 New Phrygian Numerals, 2.543
negators Negation (Morphology), 2.491 New Testament* 2.497; ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281;
NEG-raising Negation, 2.487 Adpositional Phrase, 1.39; Adpositions (Prepositions),
Negri, Mario Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and 1.47; Anaphoric Processes, 1.108; Ancient Bidialectalism
Dialectology, 1.120 and Bilingualism, 1.115; Aorist Formation, 1.138;
Nehring, Alfons Thytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99; Aspect (and Tense), 1.183; Atticism, 1.200; Attitudes to
Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.402 Language, 1.207; Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence
Nemea Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278 in Greek, 1226; Chiasm, 1277; Concordances/Indices/
Nemesius Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, Reverse Dictionaries, 1.357; Consecutio Temporum
3.439 et Modorum, 1.367; Contact through Translation,
nemeton Greek and Celtic, 2.44 1.379; Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393; Drama
Nenci, Giuseppe Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.97 Translation, 1.524; Epanalepsis, 1.546; Forms of Address
Neo-Assyrian Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99 and Sociolinguistic Variation, 1.606; Gerundive (Verbal
Neo-Babylonian Greek and Carian, 2.40 Adjective), 2.13; Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and
Neogrammarian manifesto Neogrammarians, 2.492 Latin, 2.67; Greek Loanwords in Slavic, 2,123; Historical
Neogrammarian Regularity Principle Phonetic Law, Present, 2.161; Koine, Features of, 2.275; Koine, Origins
3.78 of, 2.283; Language Contact, 2.302; Papyri, Language
Neogrammarians” 2.492; Language Contact, 2.299 of, 3.13; Politeness/Courtesy Expressions, 3.112; Roman
Neo-Humanism History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249; Teaching of Ancient
Germany, 2.162 Greek in Italy, 3.365; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic
Neolaconian Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.15% to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380; Verb Phrase, 3.465;
nen-Latin Renaissance, Translation, 3.234 Vocative, 3.493
neologisms Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284; Greek and New Testament Greek Dictionaries of Ancient Greek,
Aramaic, 2.35; Lanpuage Change, 2.295; Lexical Change. 1.478; Gnomic Aorist, 2.19; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart),
2.341; Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient 2.332; Null Anaphora, 2.535; Subject, 3.333; Text
Thearies of, 3.530 Linguistics and Greek, 3.389; Word Order, 3.533
Neo-Phrygian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91: Archaisms Newton, Brian Developments in Medieval and Modern
in Modern Dialects, 1.166 Greek, 1.448; Stress, 3.319
Neo-Platonists Metaphor {metuphord), Ancient Theories Ngugi Wa Thiong’o Translation in Non-Western
of, 2.417 Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.429
Neoptolemus of Parium Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Nicander of Colophon Elean (and Olympia), 1.535:
Antiquity tu the Byzantine Period, L100; Dialectology Epigram, Diction of, 1.563; Onomastica: From Antiquity
(didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.459; Dictionaries of to the Byzantine Period, 2.550; Post-Homeric Epic
Dialecis: From Antiquily to (he Byzantine Period, 1.481; Poetry, Translation, 3.126
Lexicography, History of, 2.349 Nicanor Stigmatias Intonational Phrase, 2.255
Neri, Camillo Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Nicarchus Riddles, 3.244
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486 Nicephorus Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity
Nero Atticism, 1.198 to the Byzantine Period, 1.576
Nespor, Marina Clitie Group, 1.296; Intonational Phrase, Nicetas of Smyrna Asianism, 1.180
2.253; Phonological Phrase, 3.87; Syntax-Phonology Nicholas of Damascus Jewish Greek, 2.269
Interface, 3.362; Utterance, 3.454 Nichols, Johanna Agreement, 1.73
Nessana Papyri, Language of, 3.12; Papyrology, 3.15 Nickau, Klaus Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.362;
nested-double epanalepsis Epanalepsis, 1.546 Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity ta the
Nestle, Eberhard Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), Byzantine Period, 1.100; Dictionaries of Dialects:
1.348 From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.483;
Nestorius Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
3.438 3.354
Nestor’s Cup" 2.495; Attic, 1.187; Graffiti, 2.25 Nicolas of Damascus Particles (Formal Features), 3.28
614 INDEX

Nicomedes Greek and Celtic, 2.43 Nonnus of Panopolis Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315; Post-
Nicopolis Attitudes to Language, L205 Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126
Nida, Eugene A. Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.509 Nonnus, Dionysiaca Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315
Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Johannes Attic, 1.191 Nonnus, Paraphrase Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315
Nielsen, Inge Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.29 Nonpast Gnomic Aorist, 2.18
Nielsen, Thomas H. Saronic, 3.258 Noonan, Michael Argument Clause, 1.176
Niepokuj, M. Reduplication, 3.212 Norde, Muriel Typology of Greek, 3.451
Nieto Izquierdo, Enrique Argalic, Lı7ı; Dialectal Norden, Eduard = ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Ancient Prose
Convergence, 1.455; Saronic, 3-258 Rhythm, 1.133; Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.197; Hellenistic
Nifadopoulos, Christos Linguistic Correctness Literary Prose, 2.153
(hellénismds), Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Philotogical- Nergaard, Lars Homer, Translation, 2.175
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.74 North Africa Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147
Nigeria Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice, North Syria Pre-Greek Languages, 3.135
3.124 North-Eastern Iberian Peninsula lonic, 2.260
Nikiforidou, Kiki Case (including Syncretism), 1.265; Northern Aegean islands Developments in Medieval and
Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.377; Genitive, 2.4; Modern Greek, 1.448
Space (Cases), 3.310 Northern Pelasgiotis Macedonian, 2.395
Nikolaev, S.L. Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.97 Northern Picene Alphabet, Descendants ol, 1.90
Nilus of Sinai Translation af Greek Texts in Late North-West Phonology (Survey), 3.90
Antiquity, 3.438 North-West Doric Northwest Greek, 2.518
Nims, John Frederick Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, Northwest Greek* 2.518; Adpositional Phrase, 1.96;
2.128 Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.119;
Ninnius Crassus Homer, Translation, 2.175; Roman Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.288; Pronominal
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246 System, 3.150
Nisbet, Gideon Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.592 Nossis Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
Nisibis Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147 Nöthiger, Markus Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.279; Doric
Nisyros Formation of Borlc Koines, The, 1604; Insular Accentuation, 1.523
Doric, 2.245 Notley, R. Steven Dictionaries of Qnomastics: From
Nivre, Joakim Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.434 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.485
Nobili, Cecilia Elegy, Dietion of, 1.543 Noun (drama), Ancient Theories of* 2.524
nodules Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.266 Noun Phrase* 2.527; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.419
nomen Noun (dneme), Ancient Theories of, 2.526 novel Greek Novel, Translation, 2.130
romina actionis Action Nouns, 1.22: Infinitives (Syntax), Nowicki, Helmut Caland System and Greek, 1.258
2,229; Ward Formation (Derivation, Compounding), Noyer, Rolf Clitic Group, 1.298; Optimality and Greek,
3525 2.556; Stress, 3.320
nomina agentis Agent Nouns, 172; Ancient Greek nu ephelkustikön Epic Diction, 1.548; lonic, 2.262;
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.120; Greek Movable Consonants, 2.468
Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.105; Greek Lexicon, Nubla Greek and Cartan, 2.41
Structure and Origin of, 2.113; Indo-European Linguistic Nuclear Predication Functional Grammar and Greek,
Background, 2.223; Personal Names, 3.55; Proto-Greek 1.616
and Common Greek, 3.185; Word Formation (Derivation, nucleus Syllables, 3.347
Compounding), 3.525 Null Anapbora* 2.534
nomina instrumenta Word Formation (Derivation, null expression Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60
Compounding), 3.525 Number* 2.536; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
nomina loci Word Formation (Derivation, 1.287: Plural/Pluralia Tantum, 3.102
Compounding), 3.525 numbers Greek and Hebrew, 2.52
nomina reiactae Word Formation (Derivation, Numenius Allegory (allögoria), Ancient Theories of, 189
Compounding), 3.525 Numerals* 2.539; Linear B, 2.355
nominal anaphora Anaphoric Processes, 1.107 Nünlist, René Style (féxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327
nominal clause Verbal Adjectives, 3.472 Nussbaum, Alan]. Caland System and Greek, 1.257; Epic
nominal functions Genund {Verbal Noun), 2.10 Diction, 1552; Osthoffs Law, 2.576
nominal sentences Nominative, 2.512 Nussbaum, M.C. Ancient Philosophers on Language,
nominal system Nominal System (Gender, Number, 1125
Case), 2.500 Nuyts, Jan Mood and Modality, 2.452
Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case)* 2.500 Nyangutnarda Hyperbaton, 2.185
nominalization Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153
Nominative* 2.509; Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.10 O'Connell, Peter Deixis (including ist and and Person),
nominative of appellation Nominative, 2,512 1.427
nominative of exclamation Nominative, 2.513 O’Connor, Catherine Construction Grammar and Greek,
nominativus pendens Nominative, 2.509; Non-Canonical 1.37
Subjects, 2.517; Participle, 3.20; Vocative, 3.493 O'Neil, James L. Macedonian, 2.396; Syllabic Consonants,
non-articular modifiers Noun Phrase, 2.528 3.345
Non-Canonical Subjects* 2.514 O'Sullivan, Neil Style (féxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.329
non-configurational Verb Phrase, 3.463 Oakley, Todd Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309
non-durative Aorist, 1.196 oath formula Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.367
non-harmonic combinations Mood and Modality, 2.456 oaths Linguistic Variation in Classica] Attic, 2.367; Oaths,
non-iterative Aorist Formation, 1.138 Curses, 2.545
 INDEX 615

Oaths, Curses* 2.545 Old Latin Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case),
Obbink, Dirk Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389; Papyri, 2.500; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249; Verbal
Language of, 3.13 System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.484
objects Adjuncts, 129 Old Persian Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
obligatorification Syntactic Change, 3.355 1.115; Augment, 1.215; Greek and Carian, 2.4u; Greek
obligatory complement Adverbial Constituents, 1.52 and Indian Languages, 2.61; Greek and Lranian, 2.62;
Obligatory Contour Principle Haplology, 2.151; Lexical Change, 2.340; Secret Language/Codes/
Phonology (Survey), 3.92 Magical Language, 3.274; Thematic and Athematic
obligatory predicative complement Adverbial Verbs, 3.395
Constituents, 1.52 Old Phrygian Alphabet, Descendants of, Lg:
oblique optative Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.214; Old Prussian Action Nouns, 1.23
Consecutia Temporum et Modorum, 1.367; Direct/ Qld Slavic Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mond), 3.478
Indirect Discourse, 1.505; Relative Clauses, 3.230; Relative Old Smyrna Greek and Carian, 2.41
Tense, 3.231; Tense/Aspect, 3.383 Old Testament Concordances/Indices/Reverse
obscene aischrology Aischrology, 1.80 Dictionarles, 1.357; Contact through Translation,
Occam's Razer Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.16: Interna] 1.379; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
Reconstruction, 2.251 the Byzantine Period, 1575; Gnemic Aorist, 2.19; New
Oceanic Predicative Constituents, 3.130 Testament, 2.497; Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
ocular deixis Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.431 3-249
Odessos Tonic, 2.260 Olivier, Jean-Pierre Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.398;
Odysseus Epic Diction, 2550: Etymology (eturolugia), Cypro-Minoan Syllabary, 1.408; Phaistos Disc, 3.62;
Ancient Theories of, 1.580 Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270
Oehler, K. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.129 Olivier, Masson Cypriot, 1.401; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.405
oenochoe Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499 Ollett, Andrew Metrics, 2.430
Oettinger, Norbert Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.29; Olsen, Mari]. ‘Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early
Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Stative Byzantine Greek, 3.380
(and Middle/Medium) Verbs, 3.316 Olshanskaya, N. Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Ogden, C.K. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.129 Concepts and Models, 3.429
Ogden, Richard Utterance, 3.454 Olson, §.D. Intonatianal Phrase, 2,254
Ognenova, L. Greek and Illyrian, 2.57 Olus Code-Switching, 1.308
Oguse, André Negation, 2.486; Participle, 3.19 Olympia Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278; Elean (and
Ohala, john Anaptyxis, Lug; Assibilation, 1.185; Olympia), 1.535; Local Scripts, 2.384; Lyric Meter, 2.385;
Epenthesis, 1.547; Grassmann’s Law, 2.26; Syllables, 3,347 Mood (énklisis), Ancient Theories of, 2.451; Sicily,
Öhtert,K. Riddles, 3.244 Dialects in, 3.291; Transition from the Local Alphabets to
Dikonomos Atticism, 1.201 the lonic Seript, 3.421
oikos Kinship Terms, 2.271 Olympieion Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398; Northwest
Ojibwa Hyperbaton, 2.185 Greek, 2.518
Olander, Thomas Accentuation, 1,8 Olynthus Tonic, 2.26:
Olbia lonic, 2.260 omissibility Adjuncts, 1.28
Old Attic Attic, 1.190; Inflectional Classes, 2.238; omnipredicative Predicative Constituents, 3.130
Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.364 Ong, Hughson Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy
Old Breton Greek and Celtic, 2.44 in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238; Orality and
Old Church Slavic Action Nouns, 1.23 Literacy, 2.562
Old Church Slavonic Contact through Translation, 1.379: Ong, WalterJ. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Dual, 1.534; Greek Loanwords In Slavic, 2.123; Internal Germany, 2.164
Reconstruction, 2.251; Number, 2.536; Schwa Secundum, Oniga, Renato Infinitives (Syntax), 2.233
3.260 önoma Word Classes (meré toil idgou), Ancient Theories
Old Comedy Drama Translation, 1.526 of, 3.517; Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient
Old Cornish Greek and Celtic. 4.44 Theories of, 3.530
Old Czech Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.97 onomasiology Semantic Change, 3.275
Old Egyptian Language Contact, 2.300 onomastica Ünomastica: From Antiquity to the
Old English Analogy, 1.104; Definiteness/Definite Article, Byzantine Period, 2.549
1.420 onomastica sacra Dictionaries of Onomastics: From
Old French Grounding of Information, 2.149; Homer, Antiquity to the Ryzantine Period, 1.484
Translation, 2.176 Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Old Germanic Onomatopoeia, 2.552 Period* 2.549
Old Greek Septuagint, 3.287 onomastics Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity
Old High German Internal Reconstruction, 2.252 to the Byzantine Period, 1.483; Greek and Aramaic, 2.35;
Old Hittite Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.43 Indo-European Historical Background, 2,207; Indo-
Old Indic (Indian) Action Nouns, 1.23; Augment, 1.215; European Linguistic Background, 2.224
Greek and Indian Languages, 2.61; Infinitives (Syntax), Onomatopveia* 2.552; Language Play and Translation,
2.229 2.307
Old Iranian Greek and Iranian, 2.62; Indo-European onomatopoeic DenominalVerbs, 1.434; Interjections, 2.250
Linguistic Background, 2.212 onomatopoeic formations Etymology (etumologla),
Old Irish Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.40; Numerals, Ancient Theories of, 1582; Reduplication, 3.213;
2.540: Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.305 Reduplicated Presents, 3.211
616 INDEX

unser Syllables, 3.347 orthography Morphological Change, 2.465; Orthography

Opelt, Ilona Aischrology. 1.78: Dictionaries of torthograpkia), Ancient Theories of, 2.574
Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Perlod, Orthography (erthographia), Ancient Theories
1.484; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the uf" 2572
Byzantine Period, 1.574 Urus of Alexandria = Dictionaries of Dialects: From
operators Functional Grammar and Greek. 1.616; Mood Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad, 1.482: Dictionaries of
and Modality, 2.456 Onomastics: From Antiquity ta the Byzantine Period,
Ophuijsen, Jan M. van Courdination (includes 1.482; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Anuquity
Asyndeton)}, 1.385: Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient Theories and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Dictionaries of Scientific
of, 1.470; Metrics (meétron), Ancient Theories of, 2.434; Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486;
Particles (Formal Features), 3.26; Particles (Syntactic Lexicography, History of, 2.351; Linguistic Correctness
Features), 3.40; Period, 3.53; Word Formation (paragogé/ (heilenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Orthography
stinthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529 (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573
Oppian Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126 Orus of Alexandria, On Ethnies Dictionaries of
Optative® 2.554; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period,
1.291; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.222; 1.486
Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.22 Osborn, Percy CGireek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
optative, cupitive Negation, 2.484 Oscan Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Laryngeal
optativus obliquus Direct/Indirect Speech, 1.507 Changes, 2.313; Numerals, 2.540
Optical Character Recognition Corpus Linguistics and Osco-Umbrian Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.40; Greek
Greek, 1.391 and Etruscan, 2.49
Optimality and Greek* 2,555 Osofisan, Femi Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
optimality theary Phonological Change, 3.86 Practice, 3.124; Translation In Non-Western ‘Traditions:
Oracular Language* 2.560 Concepts and Models, 3.433
oral poetry Formulaic Language, 1.609; Orality and Osroéme Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32
Literacy, 2.563 Ossian Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126
vral-formulaic theory Formulas, 1.614 Osthoff, Hermann Neogrammarians, 2.492; Osthoff's
oralist school Homer, Translation, 2.178 Law, 2.576; Phonetic Law, 3.76; Suppletion, 3.341
Orality and Literacy* 2.562 Osthoffs Law® 2.576
oratory Literary Prose, 2.377 Ostia Graffiti, 2.25
oratory, demonstrative Literary Prose, 2.377 ostraca Papyri, Language of, 3.12
Orchomenus Arcadian, 1.151; Linear B, 2.957; Names of otherness Pronominal System, 3.154
Months, 2,479; Transition from the Local Alphabets to ou adherescent Negation, 2.487
the lonic Script, 3.421 Oudlkoi Greek and Celtic, 2.45
ordering Adverbial Constituents, 1.53 Ouranopolis Language Policies, 2.311
Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives)* 2.565 Ovid Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Metrics,
Oréal, Elsa Tense/Aspect, 3.387 2.423: Orality and Literacy, 2.562
Orestis Macedonian, 2.392 Owen, William B. Verba Dicendi, 3.469; Verba Sentiendi,
organicism Neogrammurians, 2.492 3.470
Oricum Greek and lilyrian, 2.56 Oxyrhynchus Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126;
Origen Atticism, 1.201; Christian Greek Vocabulary, Papyrology, 3.16
1.286; Dictionaries of Qnomastics: From Antiquity to the oxytone present Thematte and Athematic Verbs, 3.394
Byzantine Period, 1.484; Fitymological Dictionaries: Fram OYIPIAAIO[C] Greek and Celtic. 2.45
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575; Etymology
(etumolagia), Ancient Theories of, 1.581; Greek and Phjetthaivi Thessalian, 3.404
Hebrew, 2.54; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.319; Roman Pachomius Translation of Greek Texts In Late Antiquity,
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249; Septuagint, 3.289; 3-437
Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.437 Packard, David W. Computational Linguistics and Greek,
Origen, Hexapla Greek and Hebrew, 2.54 1.354: Databases and Dictionaries [Papyrology and
arigin Adverbial Constituents, 1.52; Transitivity, 3.426 Epigraphy included], 1.41
urigo Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.430 Pacuvius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247
Orion of Thebes Etymological Dictionaries: From Pade, Marianne Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.91;
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Lexicography, Homer, Translation, 2.176
History of, 2.319 Paelignian Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.104
Orman Quine, Willard van Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.314 Paeonia Macedonian, 2.392
Oromo Dual, 1.534 paeonic Literary Prose, 2.373
Oropus = Arcadian, 1.152; Attitudes to Language, 1.204; pagan Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315
lonic, 2.261; Local Scripts, 2.382; Northwest Greek, 2.520; Pagan Cänovas, Cristöbal Cognitive Linguistics and
Rhotacism, 3.244 Greek, 1.310
Orpheus Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Pagani, Lara Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to
Period, 2.549; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Philological-Grammatical
2.126 Tradition m Ancient Linguistics, 3.66; Synonymica: From
Ocriens, Sander Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.511; Text Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad, 3.353
Linguistics and Greek, 3.390 Page, Denys L. Aphaeresis, 1.142; Declension/Conjugation
orthoepy (orthogpeia) Asianism, 1.179; Dialects, (klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.417; Choral Poetry, Diction
Classification of, 1.462; Linguistic Correctness of, 1.279; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128; Lyric
(kellenismos), Ancient Theories of, 2.361 Poetry, Diction ol, 2.389
 INDEX 617
Pagliuca, William Mood and Modality, 2.452 Pamphilus of Alexandria, On glosses and words
Pagmiello, Frederick]. Augment, 1,217 Dictionaries of Dialects; From Antiquity to the
Palace of Nestor Linear B, 2.357 Byzantine Period, 1.481; Onomastica: From Antiquity to
Palaeography* 4.1 the Byzantine Period, 2.550
Palaepaphos Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155 Pamphilus of Caesarea Translation of Greek Texts in
Palaephatus Allegory (allegoria), Ancient Thearies of, Late Antiquity, 3.437
187 Pamphilus, On plants Dictionaries of Scientific
Palaic Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487
Carian, 2.42; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134 Pamphilus, Onomasticon Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Palaima, Thomas G. Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480
Dialectology, 1.120; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404 Pamphylia Cypriot, 1.401; Formation of Doric Koines,
palatal fricative Yodization, 3.543 The, 1.605; Glides, 2.15; Pamphylian, 3.8
palatalization lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.188; Pamphylian* 3.8 ; Adpositional Phrase, 1.38; Alphabet,
Palatalizations, 3.6: Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Prato- Descendants of, 1.90; Cypriot, 1,401; Greek Lexicon,
Greek and Common Greek, 3.178; Relative Chronology, Structure and Origin of, 2.110; Koine, Origins of, 2.283;
3.221; Yodization, 3.543 Southeast Greek, 3.298; Yodization, 3.543
palatalization, first Palatalizations, 3.6 Panaetius Allegory (allögoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.88
palatalization, second Palatalizations, 3.6 Panagiotopoulos, N. Intralingual Translation into
palatalization, third Palatalizations, 3.7 Modern Greek, 2.259
Palatalizations* 3.6 Panagl, Oswald Verb Phrase, 3.467
Paleohispanic scripts Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91 Panathenaic Literary Prose, 2.377
Palermo Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.98 Panayotou, Anna Cypriot, 1,401; Koine, Origins of, 2.279;
Palestine Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147; Compound Language and Variation in Greece, 2.290; Macedonian,
Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Greek and Aramaic. 2.392; Pamphylian, 3.9
2.34; Jewish Greek, 2,268; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Pandie Epic Diction, 1556
Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317; Macedonian, 2.392; New Panduro, Herväsy Comparative Method, 1.329
Testament, 2.497; Septuagint, 3.287 Panegyric Literary Prose, 2.377
Palestinian Aramaic Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek Panhellenion Attitudes to Language, 1.205
Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122 Panhuis, Dirk Word Order, 3.537
Palestinian Syriac Greek and Aramaic, 2.34 Panini Greek and Indian Languages, 2.61
Pali Greek and Indian Languages, 2.60 Pannonia Greek and Illyrian, 2.57; Greek Loanwords in
palindromes Language Play and Translation, 2.306 Slavic, 2.123; Toponyms, 3.414
Palladas Epigram, Diction of, 1562 pan-Semitism Greek and Semitic Languages (Early
Palladius Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, Contacts}, 2.78
3-437 Panther, Klaus-Uwe Cognitive Linguistics and Greek,
Pallantium Arcadian, 1.153 1.309
Pallis, A, Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek, Pantiglioni, Massimo Diathesis (didthesis), Ancient
2.258 ‘Theories of, 1.470
Palm,Jonas Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153 Paoli, Bruno Foot, 1,602
Palmer, Frank Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.505; Mood Papadopoulos, Anthimos A. Archaisms in Madern
and Modallıy, 2.452 Dialects, 1.165
Palmer, George H. Homer, Translation, 2.179 Papakonstantinou, Theodoros Teaching of Ancient
Palmer, Leonard R. Action Nouns, 1.23; Agent Nouns, Greek, Teaching Methods, 3.369
172; Aorist Formation, 1.139; Augment, 1.215; Compound Papanastassiou, George C. Augment, 1.216; Nominal
Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Dialects, Classification System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.501; Verbal System
of, 1.466; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Greek (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.479
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.10; Koine, Features Papanikolaou, D, Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135
of, 2.276; Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.322: Names of Papathomopoulos. M. Homer, Translation, 2.176
Months, 2.479; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case}, Papazoglou, Ph. Atticism, 1.198
2.501; Patronymics, 3.45; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.136; Pape, Wilhelm Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395: Tsakonian, 3.447; Dictionaries, 1.358; Databases and Dictionaries
Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477 [Papyrology and Epigraphy included], 1.413; Personal
Palmer, Michael Verb Phrase, 3.465 Names, 3.55
Palmieri, Vincenzo Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Paphian Cypriot, 1.401
Byzantine Period, 3.354 Paphian syllabary Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404
Palmyra Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32; Greek Paphlagonia Pre-Greek Languages, 3.134
and Aramaic, 2.35: Language Contact, 2.303 Paphos Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155: Cypriot, 1.401; Cypriot
Pamphilus of Alexandria Alphabetical Dictionaries: Syllabary, 1.404; Dialectal Convergence, 1.456
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Pappas, Panayiotis Clitic Group, 1.297
Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the papyri Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.476; Epic Diction,
Byzantine Period, 1.480; Dictionaries of Scientific 1.548; Homer, Translation, 2.175; Koine, Features of,
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487; 2.273; Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.390; New Testament,
Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.497; Papyri, Language of, 3.11
3.550; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Papyri, Language of” 3.1
Period, 3.353 Papyrology* 3.14
618 INDEX

Papyrus ofLille Verse, 3.490 parsing Computational Linguistics and Greek, 1.355
papyrus rolls Palaeography, 3.4 Parsons, Peter]. Papyri, Language of, 3.1; Written versus
parabasis Dramatic Meter, 1.530 Spoken Language, 3,540
paradigm Morphological Change, 2.466 Partee, Barbara Anaphoric Processes, 1.12; Time, 3.407
paradigm fusion Morphological Change, 2.465 Parthian Greek and Armenian, 2.37; Greek and Iranian,
paradigmatic relationships Compounding/Derivation/ 2.62
Construction Morphology, 1.351 partial loans Lexical Change, 2.340
pardgo Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient partial merger Phonological Change, 3.85
Theories of, 3.530 partial reduplication Reduplication, 3.212; Truncation,
paragoge (paragöge) Anaptyxis, 1.113; Word Formation 3.445
(paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529 participants Complementation, 1-346
parakataloge Dramatic Meter, 1.530 Participle* 3. 17: Aorist Formation, 1.140; Classical Greek
parallelism Anaphoric Processes, 1.111; Language Play Morphology (Survey), 1.291; Cretan, 1.397; Epic Diction,
and Translation, 2.307; Literary Prose, 2.376; Style (lexis), 1.550
Ancient Theories of, 3.327 Participles (Morphological Aspects of)* 3.21
parameter marker Comparison, 1.331 participles, conjunct Null Anaphora, 2.534
parameters Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.324 particle comparative Comparison, 1.333
parasuntheton Word Formation (paragagé/sunthesis), particles Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290;
Ancient Theories of, 3.531 Mood and Modality, 2.454; Questions, 3.204
parasynonymy Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Particles (Formal Features)* 3.24
Ancient Theories of, 2.360 Particles (Syntactic Features)" 3.31
paratactic style Literary Prose, 2.376 particles, focus Intensihers, 2.247
parataxis Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.385; partitive Greek and Armenian, 2,39; Space (Cases), 3.314
Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499; Epic Diction, 1554; partitive alignment Quantfiers, 3.199
Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2,369; Mycenaean partitive genitive Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.153; Non-
Script and Language, 2.474; Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264; Canonical Subjects, 2.5315; Transitivity, 3.426
Septuagint, 3.289 partitive genitive objects Indirect Object, 2.203
parechesis Asianism, 1178 parts ofspeech Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
parégménon Ward Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Linguistics, 3.69; Word Formation (paragöge/
Ancient Theories of, 3.531 sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Parente, Isnardi Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Pashto Greek and Iranian, 2.62
Byzantine Periad, 3.353 Pasolini, Pier P. Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.594
parenthesis Literary Prose, 2.376 Pasquali, Georgio Greek Novel, Translation, 2.193
Parenti, Alessandro Determiners, 1.444 Passa, Enzo Doric, 1.522; Synizesis, 3.352
parison Asianism, 1.178; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Passarotti, Marca Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393;
Theories of, 1.589; Style (/éxis}, Ancient Theories of, 3.328 Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436
parisosis Literary Prose, 2.373; Style (/éxis), Ancient Passiva Tantum” 3.41
Theories of, 3.327 passive Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1,290
Parium = fonic, 2.261 Passive (Morphology)* 3.42
Parker, Holt Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Passive (Syntax)* 3.42
Relative Chronology, 3.221 passive deponents Passiva Tantum, 3.41
Parker, Robert C. Oaths, Curses, 2.546 passive voice Mediopassive, 2.410; Passive (Morphology),
Parkinson, Richard Rosetta Stone, 3.254 3.42
Parlama, Liana Adoption of the lonic alphabet In Attica, passivization Government Binding and Greek, 2.22;
1.32 Indirect Object, 2.202
Parmenides Ancient Philosophers on Language, passivization test Verb Phrase, 3.466
1.126; Derveni Papyrus, 1.440; Linguistic Correctness Passow, Franz Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.475
(hellénismés), Ancient Theories af, 2,361; Metaphor pasttense Aorist (adristos), Ancient Theories of, 1.136
(metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.415 path Adverbial Constituents, 1.52; Complementation,
Parmeniscus Linguistic Correctness (Ae/énismds), 1.341; Space (Cases), 3.310
Ancient Theories of, 2.362 Pathyris Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236
Parmentier, Leon Caland System and Greek, 1.257 patient Active, 1.24; Complementation, 1.336; Dative,
Parnell. Thomas Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 1.415; Direct Object, 1501; Non-Canonical Subjects, 2.515;
3.128 Patient and Theme, 3.44; Transitivity, 3.423; Verbal
parody Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.128 Adjectives, 3.473; Voice, 3.495
paronomasia Puns, 3.193 Patient and Theme* 3.44
paronumia Puns, 3.193 Patillon, Michel Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
parönumon Word Formation (paragdgé/stinthesis), Theories of, 2.417; Tropes (trdpoi}, Ancient Theories of,
Ancient Theories of, 3.530 3.444
Paros Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.97; lambic patois Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603
Poetry, Diction of, 2.188; lonic, 2.261; Local Scripts, Patristic Greek Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.478
2,381 patronumikén Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis),
Parry, Adam Epic Meter, 1.560; Formulas, 1.613 Ancient Theories of, 3.591
Patry, Milman Formulaic Language, 1.609; Formulas, Patronymics* 3.45; Derivational Morphology, 1.438; Epic
1.613; Homer, Translation, 2.180; Orality and Literacy, Diction, 1.550; Eteacypriot, 1.571; Greek and Lycian, 2.68;
2,563 Personal Names, 3.55
 INDEX 61g

Paul ofCallinicus Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Translation of peninitial position Word Order, 3.533
Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 Penn Treebank Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1,393
Paul, Gregor Metron, 2.436 Penny, Ralph Doric, 1.517
Paul, Hermann Analogy, 1.104; Neogrammarians, 2.492 Pensalfini, Rob Hiatus, 2.160
Paulsen, Friedrich History of Teaching of Ancient Greek Pentateuch Allegory (aflégorfa), Ancient Theories of,
in Germany, 2.165 1.88; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to
Paulston, Christina B. Bilingualism, Diglossia and the Byzantine Period, 1.485; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52:
Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240 Septuagint, 3.287
Pausanias Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to Peperkamip, Sharon Clitie Group, 1296; Scribes,
the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135; Mycenaean, 3.27)
Arcado-Cypriot, 1.155; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Pépin, Jean Medieval Translation of Greek Texts, 2.410
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482; Dictionaries of peplegménon Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis),
Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Ancient Theories of, 3.530
1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity pepoiéménon Word Formation (paragäge/sünthesis),
and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Elean (and Olympia), Ancient Theories of, 3,530
1,535; Greek and Celtic, 2.44: Late Antiquity Prose, 2.318; Peppard, Michael Papyri, Language of, 3.12; Written
Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Linguistic Correctness versus Spoken Language, 3.541
(heilenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.963; Poetic perception Media Tantum, 2.403
Language, 3.104; Thessalian, 3.403 perception middle verhs Voice, 3.497
Pausimachus Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156 Percival, W. Keith Dependency Grammar and Greek,
Pavese, Carlo O. Elegy, Diction of, 1.544; Epigram, Diction 1.434
of, 1561 Perdicoyianni Paléologou, Helen Deixis (including ist
Payne, John Negation, 2.484 and and Person), 1.428
Payne, Thomas Beneficiary, 1.233 Perfect® 3.46; Aorist Formation, 1.139; Aspect (and
Peacock, Thomas L. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, Tense), 1.181; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
2.128; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.127 1.291} Mediopassive, 2.410; Participles {Morphological
Pearson, Lionel Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, Aspects of), 3.21; Semantic Change, 9.276; Subjunctive
2.432 {Morphology of}, 3.334
Pedanius Dioscorides Synonymica; From Antiquity to perfect tense Aorist (adristas), Ancient Theories ol, 1.157
the Byzantine Period, 3.353; Synonymica: From Antiquity perfect, anterior Perfect, 3.47
to the Byzantine Period, 3.353 Perfect, Formation of* 3.49
Pedersen, Holger Pre-Greek Languages, 3.135 perfect, ka- Aorist Formation, 1.140
Peek, Werner Epigram, Diction of, 1.561 perfective Aarist, 1.136; Aorist (adristos), Ancient
Peirce, Charles S, Metaphor (metapkora), Ancient Theories of, 1.136; Aspect (and ‘lense), 1.181; Gnomic
Theories of, 2.415; Deixis (including ıst and and Person), Aorist, 2.18; Participles (Morphological Aspects of}, 3.21
1.422 perfective aspect Aorist, 1.136; Classical Greek
pejoration Semantic Change, 3.277 Morphology (Survey), 1.291; Passive (Morphology), 3.42;
Pelagonia Macedonian, 2,392 Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.478
Pelasgian Greek and Illyrian, 2.58; Language Contact, 2,301 perfectum Aspect (and Tense), 1.181: Structural
Pelasgian theory Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.137 Linguistics and Greek, 3.324
Pelasgians (Pelasgoi) Arcadian, 1.151; Greek and Pergamon Allegory (aifégoria}, Ancient Theories of,
Etruscan, 2,49; Lemnian, 2.327; Pre-Greek Languages, 1.88; Atticism, 1.198; Koine, Origins of, 2.244; Lesbian
3.133; Toponyms, 3.424 (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329; Linguistic Correctness
Pelasgiotis Aevlic Dialects, 1.63; Ancient Greek (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.329; Metrics
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.122; Thessalian, 3.403 (metron), Ancient Thearies of, 2.435; Philalogical-
Pelekidis,C. Language Contact, 2.301 Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.67
Pella Macedonian, 2.393 Perge Pamphylian, 3.8
Pella curse Macedonian, 2.393 Perl Hüpsous Atticism, 1.180
Pelliccia, Hayden N, Indo-European Linguistic Pericles Literary Prose, 2.376
Background, 2.222 Perilli, Larenzo Alphabetical Dictionaries; From
Pelopids Epic Diction, 1.550 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dictionaries of
Peloponnese Accommodation, 1.13; Achaean, 1.19; Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period,
Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics 1.486
and Dialectology, 1.19; Arcado-Cypriot, 1.154; Argolic, Perinthos Tonic, 2.260
1171; Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1347: Period* 3.52; Word Order, 3.532
Cyrenaean, 1.409; Developments in Medieval and periodic Literary Prose, 2.377
Modern Greek, 1.447; Dialectal Convergence, 1.454; periods Responsion, 3.235
Dialects, Classification of, 1.465; Doric, 1.316; Dual, 1.534; Periaikot Laconian, Messenian, 2.287
Elean (and Olympia), 1.535; Indo-European Historical Peripatetic tradition Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
Background, 2.209; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 3.328; Theories of, 2.417; Word Formation (paragagé/stinthesis),
Linear A, 2.355; Local Scripts, 2.382; Lyric Meter, 2.385; Ancient Theories ol, 3.530
Northwest Greek, 2.518; Southeast Greek, 3.297 Peripatetics Orthography (erthographia), Ancient
Peloponnesian Developments in Medieval and Modern Theories of, 2.573
Greek, 1.449 Peripatos Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the
Peneios Elean (and Olympia), 1.535 Byzantine Period, 1.480
G20 INDEX

periphrasis Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.583; Petrounias, Evangelos B. Nominal System (Gender,
Language Change, 2.297 Number, Case), 2.501; Phonetics, 3.79; Verbal System
periphrasticity Tsakonian, 3.446 (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.479
perispomena Inflectional Classes, 2.237 Pfeiffer, Rudolf Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Perkins, Revere Mood and Modiality, 2.452 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Analogy, 1.103;
perlative Accusative, 1.15; Space (Cases), 3.314 Declension/Conjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories of,
Pernier, Luigi Phaistos Disc, 3.62 1.417; Dialectology (didfektos), Ancient Theories of,
Pernot,H. Tsakonian, 3.446 1.459; Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.475; Dictionaries
Perotti, Niccolé Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365 of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Perpillou, jean-Louis Etymological Dictionaries: From 1.480; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to
the Renaissance to the zath Century, 1.573 the Byzantine Period, 1.483; Dictionaries of Scientlfic
Perrhaebia Macedonian, 2.395; Thessalian, 3.403 Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486;
Persepolis Greek and Carian, 2.40; Greek and Iranian, 2.63 Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity te the
Perses Plural/Pluralia Tantum, 3.101 Byzantine Period, 1.574; Metrics (métron}, Ancient
Perseus Digital Library Computational Linguistics and Theories of, 2.433; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the
Greek, 1.392; Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392 Byzantine Period, 2.549; Philological-Grammatical
Perseus Project Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393 Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.65; Synonymica: From
Persia Arabie Tradition, Translation, 1.147; Secret Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 3.353
Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273 Pfeiffer, Stefan Language Policies, 2.310
Persian Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114; Pfifig, Amros Greek and Etruscan, 2.51
Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147: Greek and Hebrew, Pfister, Friedrich Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
2.35; Greek and Iranian, 2.62; Greek Lexicon, Structure 2.365
and Origin of, 2.129; Intensifiers, 2.247; Language Contact, Phaestus Cretan, 1.396; Greek and Anatolian Languages,
2.299; Lexical Change, 2.341; Semitic Loanwords in 2.28; Local Scripts, 2.382; Phalstos Disc, 3.62
Greek, 3.280 Phaistos Disc* 3.62
Persian Empire Macedonian, 2.392 Phalanna Thessalian, 3.403
Persians Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, Pharaoh Psammetichus Ancient Bidialectalism and
3.272 Bilingualism, 1.14
Persius Homer. Translation, 2.175; Roman Translation of Pharasa Greek and Phrygian, 2.77: Language Contact,
Greek Texts, 3.246 2.300
person Complementation, 1.339; Definiteness/Definite Pharsalus Thessalian, 3.403
Article, 1.420 phasal verbs Auxiliaries, 1.220
personal construction Gerundive (Verbal Adjective), 2.13 Phaselis Adaption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.33;
Personal Names” 2,55 Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.605; Koine, Origins of,
personal pronouns Anaphoric Processes, 1.108; Epic 2.284
Diction, 1.549; Pronominal System, 3.150; Typology of Phaselites Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
Greek, 3.451 Tonic Script, 3.421
Personal Pronouns, Use of* 3.359 Pheneus Arcadian, 1151
perspectivization Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1,310 Pherae Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Ionic
Pertusi, Augustino Homer, Translation, 2.176; Script, 3.421
Renaissance, Translation, 3.232 Pherecydes of Syros Allegory (allégaria), Ancient
Peruzzi, Emilio Greek and Etruscan, 2.48; Greek Lexicon Theories of, 1.86; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.165;
in Western Languages, 2.103 Literary Prose, 2.973
Pessinus Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Koine, Origins of, 2.284 Phigalia Arcadian, 1.151; Transition from the Local
Pestman, Pieter W. Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, Alphabets to the Ionic Script, 3.421
L295; Papyrelogy, 3.16 Phika Epic Diction, 1556
Petelia Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2,398 Philemon Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity
Peters, Martin Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.3; Attic to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Linguistic Correctness
Reversion, 1.196; Osthoffs Law, 2.576; Perfect, Formation (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Onomastica:
of, 3-51 From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.551
Petersen, Walter Concordances/Indices/Reverse Philinus of Cos Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Dictionaries, 1.358; Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Lexicography,
and Morphology}, 1.493; Greek Lexicon, Structure and History of, 2.349
Origin of, 2.u0 Philinus of Cos, Treatise Dictionaries of Scientific
Petersmann, Hubert Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401 Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486
Peterson, David A. Beneficiary, 1233 Philip of Side Asianism, 1.180
Petersson, Herbert Heteroclitics, 2.158 Philip M Greek and Celtic, 2.45; Koine, Origins of, 2.279;
Petit, Daniel Poetic Language, 3.103; Reflexives, 3.216 Macedonian, 2.392
petitions Papyri, Language of, 3.12 Philip V Accommodation, 113; Ancient Bidialectalism
Petra Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31; Papyri, and Bilingualism, 1.116; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Language of, 3.12; Papyrology, 3.15 and Dialectology, 1.122; Attitudes to Language, 1.205
Petrarca, Francesca Homer, Translation, 2.176: Philippaki-Warburton, Irene Government Binding and
Renaissance, Translation, 3.232 Greek, 2.22
Petras Cretan Hieroglyphic Script, 1.398 Philis Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Jonic
Petrie, William F. (Sir) Alphabet, The Origin of the Script, 3.422
Greek, 1.94 Philitas ofCos Alphabetical Dictionartes: From Antiquity
Petronius Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.107; to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Dialectology (didfektos),
Greek Novel, Translation, 2.130 Ancient Theories of, 1.458; Dictionaries of Dialects:
 INDEX 62)

From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Epigram, Phoenician alphabet Epigraphy, 1.564
Diction of, 1.480; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157; Phoenicians Greek and Semitic Languages (Early
Lexicography, History of, 2.348 Contacts), 2.78; Palaeography, 3.1
Philitas of Cos, Ataktoi glossai/Atakta (Disorderly Pholegandros [nsular Doric, 2.245; lonic, 2.261
Words) Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the phoneme Morphological Change, 2.464; Semivowels,
Byzantine Period, 1.481 3.281
Phillips, Ambrose Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126 phonetic erosion Syntactic Change, 3.355
Philo of Alexandria Allegory (ullögoria), Ancient phonetic figures Poetic Language, 3.103
Theories of, 1.88; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Phonetic Law" 3.76
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Etymological phonetic naturalism Ancient Philosophers on Language,
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.128
1.575; Greek and Armenian, 2.39; Jewish Greek, 2.269; Phonetics* 3,79
Particles (Forma! Features), 3.27; Translation of Greek phonograms Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.439 phonological alteration Euphemism and Dysphemism,
Phila of Byzantium Scientific Vocabulary, 3.265 1.584
Philodemus Allegory {allögoria), Ancient Theories of, Phonological Change* 3,83
1.86; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156; Metaphor Phonological Phrase* 3.87
{metaphora), Ancient Theories of, 2.416; Philological- phonological reduction Syntactic Change, 3.355
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.70; Phonological Split Phonological Change, 3.85
Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327; Tropes (tröpoi), phonological time Moras, 2.460
Ancient Theories of, 3.443 phonological word = Clitic Group, 1.296
Philolaus Metrics (métren), Ancient Theories of, 2.431 phonologization Phonological Change, 3.83; Split, 3.316
Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Phonology (Survey)* 3.89
Linguistics" 3.63 Phonotactics* 3.96; Indo-European Linguistic
philologists Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Background, 2.215
Ancient Theories of, 3.529 Photius Atticism, 1.201; Byzantine Phase and Reception of
Philoponus Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.270; Ancient Greek, the, 1249; Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Medieval Translation of Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482; Dictionaries of
Greek Texts, 2.409 Onomastics: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
philosophical dialogue Literary Prose, 2.378 1.483; Homer, Translation, 2.175; Lexicography, History
Philostratus Atticism, 1.200; Attitudes to Language, of, 2.351; Proverbs, 3.189
1.206; Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314; Late Antiquity phrasal compounds Linguistic Variation in Classical
Prose, 2.318; Translation of Greek Texts in Late Attic, 2.368
Antiquity, 3.436 phrasal discontinuity Hyperbaton, 2.183
Philoxenus of Alexandria Atticism, 1.197; Dialectology Phrase Structure Grammar Dependency Grammar and
(didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.459; Etyınological Greek, 1.435
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Phrygia Asianism, 1.180; Code-Switching, 1.308; Greek and
1.575: Etymology (etumolngla), Ancient Theories of, 1.582; Celtic, 2.43; Koine. Origins of, 2.284; Phytonyms (Names
Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of Trees), 3.100
of, 2.362; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Phrygian Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Alphabet, Descendants of,
Linguistics, 3.72 1.89; Augment, 1.215; Code-Switching, 1.308; Consonant
Philoxenus of Cythera Metrics (metron), Ancient Changes, 1.372; Dialectology (diäfektas), Ancient
Theories of, 2.432; Metrics (meätren), Ancient Theories. ‘Theories of, 1.459; Eteocretan, 1.570; Etymological
of, 2.432 Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the zoth Century,
Philoxenus of Mabbug Greek and Syriac, 2.81; 1.572; Greek and Armenian, 2.37; Greek and Carian, 2.42;
‘Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 Greek and Illyrian, 2.58; Greek Lexicon, Structure and
Phinney, Edward Homer, Translation, 2.176 Origin of, 2.112; Indo-European Historical Background,
Phocaea tonic, 2,260; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.391 2.208; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2,215;
Phocaean Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Language Change, 2.292; Lexical Change, 2.34);
Dialectology, 1119; Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Mediopassive, 2.412; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.135;
Phocidian Doric, 1.515 Prothesis, 3.174; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.175;
Phocis Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Doric, 1.516; Epigraphy, 1.565; Semantic Change, 3.276
Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603; Northwest Greck, Phrygian glosses Dictionaries of Dialects: From Anuquity
2.518; Syncope, 4.351 to the Byzantine Period, 1.481
Phocylides History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Phrygian graffiti Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek,
Germany, 2,168 1.98
Phoebammon Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, Phrygians Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114
1.59% Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328 Phrynichus Arabius Aischrology, 1.76; Alphabetical
Phoenicia Language Contact, 2.303; Macedonian, 2.392: Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279 1.101; Atticism, 1.197; Attitudes to Language, 1.206;
Phoenician Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Alphabet, Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
The Origin of the Greek, 1.95; Ancient Bidialectalism and Periad, 1.482; Koine, Features of, 2.276; Lexicography,
Bilingualism, 1.115; Attic, 1188; Code-Switching, 1.308; History of, 2.350; Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös),
Cypriot, 1.401; Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499; Greek Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Orthography (orthographia),
and Carian, 2.40; Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Ancient Theories of, 2.575
Contacts), 2.79; Language Contact, 2.301; Phytonyms Phrynichus of Bithynia Lexicography, History of, 2.349
(Names of Trees), 3.99; Semitic Loanwords in Greek, Phrynichus, Praeparatia Sophistica Dictionaries of
3.278 Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad, 1.482
622 INDEX

Phrynichus Tragicus Tragedy, Diction of, 3.417 Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Phrynis Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.432 2.549; Word Formation (paragégé/stinthesis}, Ancient
Phthiotis Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603 Theories of, 3.529
phulaktéria Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, Plautus Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.430; Drama
3.274 Translation, 1.526; Greek and Latin, 2.66; Greek/Latin
physical time Time, 3.405 Bilingualism, 2.147; Metrics, 2.523; Roman Translation of
Phytonyms (Names of Trees)* 3.97 Greek Texts, 3.247
Piata, Anna Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.310 pleonasmés Figures (sthémata), Ancient Theories of,
Piccolomini, Enea Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 1.59)
3.365 Plescia, Joseph Oaths, Curses, 2.546
Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur Song and Recitation, 3.295 Pliny the Elder Greek Lexicon in Western Languages,
Pierce, C.5. Hyperbaton, 2.184 2.105; Papyrology, 3.15
Pieria Macedonian, 2.392 Pliny the Younger Drama Translation, 1.524
Pierian mountains Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160 Plotinus Allegory (allögeria), Ancient Theories of, 1.89;
Pierrehumbert, Janet intonational Phrase, 2.253 Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.131; Greek and
Pierson, W. Tmesis, 3.409 Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33; Metaphor (metaphord),
Pilides, Despo Cypriot Syllabary, 1.407 Ancient Theories of, 2.417; Roman Translation of Greek
Pinault, Georges-Jean Adpositional Phrase, 1.33; Texts, 3.249
Numerals, 2.539; Poetic Language, 3.103 Pluperfect* 3.101; Aorist (adristos), Ancient Theories
Pinborg, Jan Declension/Conjugation (Klisis), Ancient of, 1.136; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.291;
Theories of, 1.418 Subjunctive (Morphology of}, 3.334
Pindar Agent Nouns, 1.72; Byzantine Phase and Plural/Pluralia Tantum® 3.101, Number, 2.538
Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.249: Choral Poetry, pluralis majestatis Plural/Pluralia Tantum, 3.102
Diction of, 1.278; Deixis (including 1st and and Person), pluralis poeticus Number, 2.538
1.426; Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.431; Dialects, Pluta, Kevin Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.265
Classification of, 1,462; Dorie Accentuation, 1.523; Forms Plutarch Allegory (allgoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.86;
of Address and Sociolinguistic Variation, 1.607; Greek Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.14; Atticism,
Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Lyric Meter, 2.387; Lyric 1.200; Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.234; Compound
Poetry, Diction of, 2.389; Particles (Formal Features), Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Film Adaptation and
4.29; Period, 3.53; Poetic Language, 3.109; Responsion, ‘Translation, 1,593; Greek and Armenian, 2.37; Greek and
3.226; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.240: Syriac, 2.81; Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.89;
Schwa Secundum, 3.260; Song and Recitation, 3.294; Hiatus, 2.160; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Verbal Adjectives, 3.471; Verse, 3.490; Wackernagel’s Law Germany, 2.164; Indirect Object, 2.203; Indo-European
I (VS), 3.513 Historical Background, 2.211; Koine, Origins of, 2.280;
Pindus Macedonian, 2.392 Language Contact, 2.304; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.317;
Pinkster, Harm Comitative, 1.323; Adjuncts, 1.29; Adverbs, Renaissance, Translation, 3.233; Roman Translation of
1.54; Complementation, 1.335; Coordination (includes Greek Texts, 3.248; Secret Language/Cades/Magical
Asyndeton), 1.385: Disjuncts, 1,514 Language, 9.273; Song and Recitation, 3.295; Translation
Pino Campos, LM. Purpose Clauses, 3.195 of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438; Verba Dicendi,
Piraeus Language Contact, 2.303 3.469
Pires, Francesco M. Greek Historiography, Translation, Plutarch of Athens Ancient Philosophers on Language,
2.90 1,191
Pisatans Elean (and Olympia), 1.595 Po-chia Hsia, R. Renaissance, Translation, 3.233
Pisidia Koine, Origins of, 2.284 Poesio, Massimo Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392
Pisidian Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Code-Switching, poetic etymologies Word Formation (paragöge/
1.308; Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and sunthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Carian, 2.42; Language Contact, 2.305 Poetic Language” 3.102; Indo-European Linguistic
Pisidian hinterland Pamphylian, 3.8 Background, 2,224
Pitch* 3.100; Syncope, 3.351 poetics Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient
pitch accent Cretan, 1.397; Erasmian Pronunciation, Theories of, 3.530; Poetic Language, 3.102
1.569; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.214; poets Poetic Language, 3.103
Length, 2.328 Pohlenz, Max Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of,
Pithecussae Attic, 1.188; Ionic, 2.261; Local Senpts, 2.980; 1.269; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the
Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.397; Nestor's Cup, 2.497; Byzantine Period, 1.480
Orality and Literacy, 2.563 Pöhlmann, Egert Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.362
pivet Comparison, 1.331 Pokorny, Julius Nasal Presents, 2.483; Phytonyms
place Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.59 (Names of Trees), 3.98; Theonyıns (Names of Gods),
Planché, James R. Drama Translation, 1.525 6.401
Plank, Frans Intensifiers, 2.246 Poland Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93
Platacans Literary Prose, 2.376 Polanyi, Livia Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.33
Plath, Robert Grassmann's Law, 2.27 polarization Dialectal Convergence, 1.456
Platnauer, Maurice Intonational Phrase, 2.254 Polemon Asianism, 1.180
Plato passim (in over 50 articles) Polish Cretan, 1.396; Hyperbaton, 2.185; Participles
Plato, Apology of Socrates (Apologia Sökrdtou) Literary (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21; Structural Linguistics
Prose, 2.978 and Greek, 3.325; Syllable Weight, 3.346
Plato, Cratylus Clause, 1.293; Dictionaries of Dialects: politeness Papyri, Language of, 3.13
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480: Pollteness/Courtesy Expressions* 3.112; Forms of
Etymology (etumofogia), Ancient Theories of. 1.580; Address and Sociolinguistic Variation, 1.606
 INDEX 623

Politis, L. Homer, Translation, 2.175 Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and

Poliziano, Angelo Homer, Translation, 2.177; Teaching of Models, 3.434
Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.965 Porphyry Allegory (allögoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.86;
Polkas, Lampros Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.131; Greek and
Methods, 3.373 Syriac, 2.81; Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories
pollaploün Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), of, 2.417; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249;
Ancient Theories of, 3.530 Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436
Pollux ofNaucratis Aischrology, 1.76; Dictionaries of Porson, Richard Dramatic Meter, 1.531; Metrical Laws,
Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482; 2.420
Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Porson's Bridge Bridges, 1.426; Wackemagel’s Law I,
3.353 3.508
Pollux, Qnemasticon Dictionaries of Dialects: From Porson's Law Elision, 1.546; Metrical Laws, 2.420
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480 Porter, H.N. Caesurae, 1.253
Polo Arrondn, fesis Functional Grammar and Greek. Porter, James Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics.
1.617; Temporal Clauses, 3.376 3.238
Polos Figures (skhémata), Ancient ‘Iheories of, 1.589; Porter, Stanley E. Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy In
Style (féxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327 First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239; Compound Tenses
Polybius Adpositions (Prepositions), 1,47; Ancient (Hellenistic Greek), 1.349; Perfect, 3.46; Tense and Aspect
Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.15; Atticism, 1.200; from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380; Word
Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Compound Tenses Order, 3.537
(Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Greek and Celtic, 2.44; portmanteau morpheme Classical Greek Morphology
Hellenistic Literary Prose, 2.154; Homer, Translation, (Survey), 1.286; Passive (Morphology), 3.42
2.175; Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Latin Loanwords in Greek, Portuguese Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.421:
2.320; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335; Literary Prose, Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology),
2.372; Particles (Formal Features), 3.27; Renaissance, 1.495; Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60; Translation in
Translation, 3.233; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.431
3.246; Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273; Porzig, Walter Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Verbal Adjectives, 3.475; Word Order, 3.533 Dialectology, 1.119; Dialects, Classification of, 1.464;
Polydeuces Atticism, 1.200 lonic, 2.264; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289;
Polymnestus Elegy, Diction of, 1.543: Song and Language Change, 2.293; Southeast Greek, 3.297
Recitation, 3.294 Poseidon Laconian, Messenian, 2.287: Vocative, 3.492
polymorphism Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Poseidonia Achaean, 119
Tragedy, Diction of, 3.419 Poser, William J. Minima, 2.442
polyonymy Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.127; Posidippus of Pella Epigram, Diction of, 1.563
Etymology (etumolagia), Ancient Theories of, 1.580 Posidonia Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398
polyptoton Declension/Gonjugation (Afisis}, Ancient Posidonius Allegory (aflégoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.88;
Theories of, 1.417; Poetic Language, 3.107 Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135; Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Polysemy* 3.124; Auxiliaries, 1.218; Cognitive Linguistics position Adverbial Constituents, 1.49; Complementation,
and Greek, 1.909; Etymology (etumolegia), Ancient 1.338; Elegy, Diction of, 1.544; Epic Diction, 1.348
Theories of, 1.580; Genitive, 2.4; Palysemy, 3.14; Space Posner, Rebecca Dissimilation, 1.514
(Cases), 3.310 Possanza, D. Mark Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
Polyzelos ‘I'ransition from the Local Alphabets to the 3.246
Tonic Script. 3.422 possesive prononms Epic Dielion, 1.550
Pompei, Anna Adpositional Phrase, 1.35; Abstract Nouns, possessee Dative, 1.415
1.6; Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.210; Compounding/ Possession* 3.115; Adverbs (Morphological Aspects. of},
Derivation/Construction Morphology, 1.352; Participle, 1.58
3.19; Pronouns (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, possession constructions, external Possession, 3.121
Relative), 3.160; Verb Phrase, 3.468 possession, inalienable Possession, 3.117
Pompeii Graffiti, 2.26; Phonetics, 3.80 possessive compounds Adjectives (Morphological
Pompeo, Flavia Possession, 3.5¢ Aspects of), 1.27; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin
Pontic Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.165; of, 2.117; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.185; Word
Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.439: Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.527
Indirect Object, 2.205; Kuine, Origins of, 2.284 possessive predicatiun Possession, 3.121
Pontic Greek Language Contact, 2,300 possessive pronouns Pronominal System, 3.152
Pontus Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.14; possessor Dative, 1.415
Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.15; Developments in post-classical Greek Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.447; Imperative, 2.196; Dialectology, 1121
Orders (Imperative/Probibitives), 2.571 Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice* 3.122
Poole, Adrian Drama Translation, 1.526; Greek Lyric Poste, Arthur Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Poetry, Translation, 2.127 Postgate, John Noun Phrase, 2.532
pop particle Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.33 Past-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation* 3.25
Pope, Alexander Homer, Translation, 2.177; Post- postpositions Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.43; Cretan,
Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126 1.398; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.223;
Pope, Maurice Linear A, 2.353 Prepositives, 3.145
Pormann, Peter E. Homer, Translation, 2.176; Postpositives* 3.128; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.508
Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice, 3.124; potential Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.22
624 INDEX

potential optative Negation, 2.484 Prellwitz,M.W. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1,477:

Potidaea Doric, 1.516; Macedonian, 2.392 Etymological Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the
Pott, August F. Comparative Method. 1.330: Language 20th Century, 1.572
Change, 2.291 pre-Masoretic Hebrew ftoman Translation of Greek
Patter, Rev, Robert Drama Translation, 1.528 Texts, 3.249
Pottier, Bernard Adverbs, 1.55 Prendergast, G.L. Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Pouilloux, jean Local Scripts, 2.384; Transition from the Dictionaries, 1.357
Local Alphabets to the Ionic Script, 3.422 prepositional phrase Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.41;
Poultney, James Dissimilation, 1.515; Verbal Adjectives, Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.55; Agency and
3473 Causation, 1.66; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.419;
Pound, Ezra Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Koine, Origins of, 2.282
Powell, ).U. Song and Recitation, 3.294 prepositions Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.40;
Powell, Barry Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98; Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.57; Classical
Attic, 1.187; Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499: Nestor's Cup. Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290; Definiteness/
2.495 Definite Article, 1.419; Elision, 1.545; Epic Diction,
Powell, J. Enoch Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477 1.550; Thessalian, 3.404; Word Formation (Derivation,
Powell, Jim Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Compounding), 3.522
Power, Timothy Epic Meter, 1.558 Prepositions in Hamer* 3.143
Prag, Jonathan R. Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.98 prepositions, ‘improper’ Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.46:
pragmatic resources in old Indo-European Koine, Origins of, 2.282
languages Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393 Prepositives® 3.144
pragmatic saliency Possession, 3.16 prescriptivism Attitudes to Language, 1.206
pragmatico-cognitive salience Possession, 3.115 present Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.291
pragmatics Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic Present Tense* 3.146
Variation, 1.606; Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137 Presocratic philosophers Word Formation (puragage/
Prague Dependency Grammar Corpus Linguistics and stinthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Greek, 1.393 Presocratics Orality and Literacy, 2.564; Scientific
Prague Dependency Treebank Corpus Linguistics and Vocabulary, 3.262
Greek, 1.392 Prestianni Giallombardo, Anna M. Greek in Sicily in
Prague School Topic, 3-411 Late Antiquity, 2.94
Praisos Eteocretan, 1.570 prestige Accommodation, 112; Ancient Greek
Prakrit Greek and Indian Languages, 2.59; Metrics, 2.430 Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.121; Phonetic Law,
Prandi, Michele Subordination, 3.335 3.78
Pratinas Tragedy, Diction of, 3.417 Pretagostini, Roberto Metrics (metron), Ancient
Prauscello, Lucia Metrics (meétron), Ancient Theories of, Theories of, 2.432
2.433 Preuschen, Erwin Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.478
precious stones Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 Preuss, S. Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries,
predicate Adverbial Constituents, 1.49: Adverbs 1.357
(Morphological Aspects of), 157; Disjuncts. 1.512: preventive Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), 2.170
Predicative Constituents, 3.130 preverbation Adpositional Phrase, 1.37
predication, double Predicative Constituents, 3.132 Preverbs’ 3.149: Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
predicational conditionals Conditionals, 1.360 1,290: Cretan, 1.398
Predicative Constituents" 3.130 prevocalic shortening Vowel Changes, 3.504
predicative frame Functional Grammar and Greek, Prévot, Andre Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of}, 1.474;
1.616 Voice, 3.499
predicative participle Subordination, 3.338 price Adverbial Constituents, 1.53
predicative possession Possession, 3.116 Priene lonic, 2.260; Koine, Origins of, 2.284
prediction techniques Teaching of Ancient Greek, primary Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of), L471
Teaching Methods, 3.372 primary endings Indo-European Linguistic Background,
pre-Doric substrate Assibilation, 1.185 2.221; Mediopassive, 2.411; Present Tense, 3.146;
preference clauses Temporal Clauses, 3.376 Reduplicated Presents, 3.209; Subjunctive (Morphology
prefixal derivational morpheme Word Formation uf), 3.334; Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395; Verbal
(Derivation, Compounding), 3.523 System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.483
prefixes Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.286; primary interjections Interjecliuns, z.25u
Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.522 primary prepositions Adpositional Phrase, 133
Pre-Greek Analogy, 1.104: Greek and Thracian, 2.85; primary split Phonological Change, 3.85; Split, 3.316
Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.12; Indo- Primavesi, Oliver Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories ol,
European Linguistic Background, 2.224; Proto-Greek 1.269; Declension/Cunjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories
and Common Greek, 3.175; Toponyms, 3.414; Word of, 1.418
Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.528 Prince, Alan Clitic Graup, 1,298; Minima, 2.442: Moras,
Pre-Greek Languages" 2.133 2.459; Optimality and Greek, 2.555
Pre-Greek Substrate* 3.136 Prince, Elen Information Structure and Greek, 2.238;
Pre-Hellenic Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.471 Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.35
pre-Indo-European ‘Narten' Presents, 2.480 Prineipate Asianism. 1.180; Atticism, 1.199
pre-Koine stage Koine, Origins of, 2.278 principle of moraic preservation Moras, 2.460
pre-Latin substrate Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence principle of phonology-free syntax Syntax-Phonology
In Greek, 1.224 Interface, 3.361
 INDEX 625

Principles and Parameters Government Binding and pronouns, demonstrative Classical Greek Morphology
Greek, 2.24 (Survey), 1.289; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420;
Prins, Yopi Drama Translation, 1.4525 Pronominal System, 3.150; Pronouns (Demonstrative,
Prisciau Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.434; Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158
Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient pronouns, indefinite Classical Greek Morphology
Linguistics, 3.74; Vocative, 3.492; Word Formation (Survey), 1.289; Pronominal System, 3.150; Pronouns
(paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.531 (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative),
Privitera, G. Aurelio Metrics (méfron), Ancient Theories 3.158
of, 2.431 proode Responsion, 3,236
pra(s)thesis Language Change, 2.294 proof Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264
Probert, Philomen Accentuatton, 1.7; Bartoli's Law, proper prepositions Koine, Origins of, 2.282
1.229; Caland System and Greek, 1.258; Clitic Group, Prophets Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to
1.296; Clitics, 1301; Dialectology (dialektos), Ancient the Byzantine Period, 1.485; Greek and Hebrew, 2,52
Theories of, 145g; Epic Meter, 1.559; Law of Limitation, Propontis Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1167; Doric.
2.924; Lesbian Accentuation, 2.332; Linguistic Variation 1.516; lonic, 2.260; Tsakonian, 3.446
in Classical Attic, 2.364; Proto-Greek and Common proportion Analogy, 1.103
Greek, 3.179; Sandhi, 3.256; Sotera Rule, 3.296; Stress, propositional conditionals Conditionals, 1.361
3.320; Thessalian, 3.403; Voicing, 3.502; Vowels, 3.506; propositional content Adjuncts, 1.29
Wackernagel's Law I, 3.509; Wheeler's Law, 3.515 propositional disjuncts Particles (Syntactic Features),
processual analogy Analogy, 1.105 3.31
Proclus Allegory (allégoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.89; prosagoreutikön Vocative, 3.492
Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1127; Medieval Prose Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.133; Hellenistic Literary
Translation of Greek Texts, 2.409; Post-Homeric Epic Prose, 2.152; Literary Prose, 2.371
Poetry, Translation, 3.126 prosodic foot Foot, 1.601
Proconessus Tonic, 2.260 prosodic hierarchy Clitic Group, 1.296; Foot, 1.601;
Procopius of Caesarea Atticism, 1.201; Etymological Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, prosodic inversion Phonological Phrase, 3.88
1576; Lexicography, History of, 2.351 Prosodic Word” 3.161; Prosody, 3.170; Syntax-Phonology
Procopius of Gaza Homer, Translation, 2.175 Interface, 3.361
prodelision Aphaeresis, 1.141; Prosody, 3.172 prosodic/intonational phonology Word Order, 3.532
Prodicus of Ceos Ancient Philosophers on Language, prosodification Prosodic Word, 3.161
1.126; Dictionaries of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Prosody* 3.165; Deixis (including ist and and Person),
Byzantine Period, 1.480; Etymological Dictionaries: From 1.424
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Etymology prospective Aspect (and Tense), 1.181; Participles
{etumolegfa), Ancient Theories of, 1.580; Linguistic (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21
Correctness (kellönismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.361; prospective aspect Verbal System (Tense, Aspect,
Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Mood), 3.478
3.353 Protagoras Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.126;
pro-drop language Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60 Asianism, 1.179; Declension/Conjugation (klisis),
profane aischrology Aischrology, 1.78 Ancient Theories of, 1418; Dictionaries of Dialects: From
profane language Aischrology, 1.76 Antiquity to the Byzantine Periud, 1.480; Etymology
pro-form substitution Verb Phrase, 3.466 (etumologia), Ancient Theories of, 1.580; Linguistic
progressive Aorist Formation, 1138 Correctness (hellénismdés), Ancient Theories of, 2.361;
progressive or imperfective aspect Verbal System Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.370; Literary
(Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.478 Prose, 2.373; Style (féxis), Ancient Theories ol, 3.327
prohibitions Imperative, 2.190 prétal phénai Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis),
prohibitive Orders (imperative/Prohibitives), 2.570; Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Subjunctive (Morphology af), 3.334 proté sünthesis Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis),
prohibitive infinitive Negation, 2.486 Ancient Theories of, 3.531
prohibitive optative Thessalian, 3.404 proterodynamic 'Narten' Presents, 2.480
PROIEL corpus Computational Linguistics and Greek, Prothesis* 3.173; Anaptyxis, 1.113; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.136
1355 pröthesis Word Classes (mere tod lögou), Ancient
project method Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Theories of, 3.519
Methods, 3.370 prothetic vowel Etymological Dictionaries: Theury
prolepsis Argument Clause, 1.174; Direct/Indirect of Greek Etymology, 1.578; Indo-European Linguistic
Discourse, 1.505; Prepositives, 3.145; Word Order, Background, 2.215; Language Contact, 2.313; Laryngeal
3.537 Changes, 2.313; Prothesis, 3.174; Proto-Greek and
Prometheus Etymology (eturnologia), Ancient Theories Common Greek, 3.175; Root Structure (and Ablaut),
af, £580 3.254; Vowel Changes, 3.503
pronominal object doubling Balkan Sprachbund: Early Proto-Attic-lonic Compensatory Lengthening, 1.334
Evidence in Greek, 1.224 Proto-Canaanite Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.95
Pronominal System* 3.150 Proto-Celtic Poetic Language, 3.104
pronoun Epic Diction, 1549 Proto-Greek Accentuation, 1.11: Alphabet, The Origin
Pronouns (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, of the Greek, 1.96; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Relative)” 3.158 and Dialectology, 1.118; Attic, 1189; Classical Greek
pronouns, correlative Pronominal System, 3.156 Morphology (Survey), 1.289; Compensatory Lengthening,
626 INDEX

1.934; Epic Diction, 1.549; Greek Lexicon, Structure and Psigriechisch Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.140
Origin of, 2.112: Indo-European Linguistic Background, Psilosis* 3.192; Cretan, 1.396; Lyric Poetry, Diction of,
2.214; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229; inflectional Classes, 2.390; Thessalian, 3.403
2.237; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.289; Law of psilotic dialects Aspiration, 1.184
Limitation, 2,324; Macedonian, 2.395; Nomina] Systern Psycharis, G. Intralingual Translation into Modern
(Gender, Number, Case}, 2.502; Numerals, 2.542; Perfect, Greek, 2.258
Formation of, 3.50; Phonetics, 3.80; Phonological psychological factors Morphological Change, 2.464
Change, 3.85; Phonology (Survey), 3.92; Proto-Greek and Psychoundakis, Georgios Homer, Translation, 2.178
Common Greek, 3.175; Relative Chronology, 3.222; Sotera Ptochoprodromes Auticism, 1.201; Byzantine Phase and
Rule, 3.297; Southeast Greek, 3.297: Syllabic Consonants, Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.250
3.345; Syllables, 3.348; Thessalian, 3.403; Variation in Ptolemaic papyri Kaine, Origins of, 2.282
Mycenaean Greek, 3.457; Vowel Changes, 3.502 Ptolemais Koine, Origins of, 2.279: Language Contact,
Proto-Greek and Common Greek® 3.175 2,302
Proto-Indo-European passim (in over 50 articles) Ptolemy Euergetes II Language Policies, 2.310
Proto-Kartvelian Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.142 Ptolemy ISoter Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236;
prota-language Indo-European Historical Backgraund, Greek and Indian Languages, 2.59; Papyrology, 3.15
2.206 Ptolemy II Philadelphus Septuagint, 3.287
Protosinaitic inscriptions Alphabet, The Origin ofthe Ptolemy ofAscalon Lexicography, History of, 2.349;
Greek, 1.94 Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Thearies
Prote-Slavie Poetic Language, 3.105 of, 2.362; Philologicat-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
prététheton Word Formation (paragäge/sünthesis), Linguistics, 3.72; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the
Ancient Theories of, 3.530 Byzantine Period, 3.354
prototype Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309 Ptolemy Philometor Language Policies, 2.310
prototype theory Lexical Fields Theory and Greek. 2.345; Ptolemy Pindarion Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös),
Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.390 Ancient Theories of, 2.362; Orthography (orthogruphia),
prototypical categories Agency and Causation, 1.67 Ancient Theories of, 2.573
Proverbs® 3.189 Ptolemy XIE Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
Provost, Michel Greek and Celtic, 2.45 LES
proximal deixis Deixis in Linguistics and Poetics, 1.430 ptösis Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of, 3.460; Word
proximate demonstrative Pronominal System, 3.152 Formation (puragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of,
Prüfer, Ernst Noun Phrase, 2.532 3.530
Prussian Numerals, 2.541 Pucci, Pietro Puns, 3.193
Psalms Jewish Greek, 2.268 Puddu, Nicoletta Intensifiers, 2.247; Reflexives, 3.216
Psaltes, Stamatios Developments in Medieval and Puglia Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1161
Modern Greek, 1.448 Puhvel, Jaan Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.27;
Pseudo-Aelius Aristides Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99; Reduplicated
of, 3.329 Presents, 3.210; Theonyms (Names of Gods}, 3.401
Pseudo-Aristotle Translation of Greek Texts in Late pull shifts Phonological Change, 3.86
Antiquity, 3.438 Pulleyn, S.J. Conditionals, 1.361
Pseudo-Demetrius Figures (skhemata}, Ancient Theories Pulleyn, Simon Oaths, Curses, 2.547
of, 1.591 Pullum, Geoffrey K. Syntax-Phonalogy Interface, 3.361;
Pseudo-Dicaearchus Dialects, Classitication of, 1.462 Truncation, 3.445
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite Translation of Greek Pulvermüller, F. Lexical Fields Theory and Greek, 2.343
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438 punctual Aorist, 1.136; Aorist Formation, 1.138; Lexical
pseudoepigraphical literature Christlan Greek Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.334
Vocabulary, 1.284 Punic Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.98; Greek/Latin
Pseudo-Herodian Declension/Conjugatian (Alisis), Bilingualism, 2.146; Semitic Loanwords in Greek, 3.279
Ancient Theories of, 1.417: Etymological Dictionaries: Puns* 3.193; Language Play and Translation, 2.307
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575 purpose Adverbial Constituents, 1.49; Complementation,
Pseudo-Hippolytus of Rome Translation of Greek Texts 1,337; Dative, 12415
in Late Antiquity. 3.439 Purpose Clauses® 3.94; Consecutive Clauses, 1.37%
Pseudo-Isocrates Translation of Greek Texts in Late Optative, 2.554; Papyri, Language of, 3.13
Antiquity, 3.438 purpose/final clauses Subjunctive (Morphology of}, 4.334
Pseudu-Longinus Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135: Delxis push chain Language Change, 2.293
(including 1st and 2nd Person), 1.428; Figures (skhémata), push particle Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.33
Ancient Theories of, 1.591 push shifts Phonological Change, 3.86
pseudo-metathesis Metathesis, 2.419 Pylos Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology,
Pseudo-Nonnus Translation of Greek Texts in Late 1.120; Consonant Changes, 1.373; Doric, 1.516; Greek and
Antiquity, 5-439 Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Linear A, 2.355; Linear B,
pseudo-passive Voice, 3.496 2.357; Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.471; Names
Pseudo-Plutarch Allegory (allögoria), Ancient Theories of Months, 2.479; Particles (Formal Features), 3.26;
of, 1.88; Song and Recitation, 3.295; Tropes (tröpal), Patronymics, 3.45; Phonology (Survey), 3.89; Scribes,
Ancient Theories of, 3.441 Mycenaean, 3.266; Variation in Mycenaean Greek, 3.457
Pseudo-Theodosius Orthography (orthographia), Pyrgos Elean (and Olympia), 1.535
Ancient Theories ol, 2.574 Pyrrha Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories ol, 3.442
Pseudo-Zonaras Lexicography, History of, 2.350 Pythagoras Literary Prose, 2.373
 INDEX 627

Pythagorean schoo) Literary Prose, 2.371 of, 1.589; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics,
Pythermus Syntactic Change, 3.356 3.238; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327
Pythia Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273 Radford, Andrew Verbal Valency, 3.486
radial sets Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309
Qadesh Greek and Carian, 2.40 Radical Construction Grammar Construction Grammar
Qedar Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31 and Greek, 1.376
goppa Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.96; Cretan, Ragavis, A,R. Intralingual Translation into Modern
1.396; Greek Writing Systems, 2.144; Northwest Greek, Greek, 2.256
2.518 Rahmani, Levi Y. Greek and Hebrew, 2.54
quadripertita ratio Linguistic Correctness (Aellénismuis), Raimy,E. Reduplication, 3.212
Ancient Theories of, 2.360 raising Cypriot, 1.402; Koine, Origins of, 2.281
qualitas Noun (önama), Ancient Theories of, 2.526 Raison, Jacques Linear A, 2.353
quality Adverbial Constituents, 1.54 Ramat, Paolo Adverbs, 1.54; Language Change, 2.297;
Quantifiers* 3.198; Relative Clauses, 3.225 Negation, 2.484
quantitative metathesis Attic Declension, 1.195; Classical Ramminger, Johann Renaissance, Translation, 3.234
Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.288; Epic Diction, 1.553 Ramus, Petrus History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
quantity Adverbial Constituents, 1.52 Germany, 2.164
quasi-infinitives Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229 Randolph, Thomas Drama Translation, 1.526
question test Verb Phrase, 3.466 Rankin, Robert Comparative Method, 1.330
Questions” 3.200 Rapaport Deixis (including ast and and Person), 1.422
Quincey, John H. Paliteness/Courtesy Expressions, 3.113 Rapp. Christof Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories
Quintilian Allegory (allegoria), Ancient Theories of, of, 2.415
1.86; Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.133; Drama Translation, Ras Shamra Cypro-Minoan Syllabary, 1.408
1.524; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590; Rasenna Greek and Etruscan, 2.48
Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.104; History of Rashed, Roshdi Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148
Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.168; Metaphor Rask, Rasmus Comparative Method, 1.329;
{metaphard), Ancient Theories of, 2.417; Noun (dnoma), Neogrammarians, 2.493
Ancient Theories of, 2.526; Philological-Grammatical Rasmussen, Jens E. Nasal Presents, 2,482: Numerals,
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.66; Rhetorical 2.542
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.238; Teaching of ratio loquendi Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364; Tropes (trdpui), Ancient Ancient Linguistics, 3.66
Theories of, 3.443; Word Classes (mere toü lögou), Rau, Jeremy Caland System and Greek, 1.257;
Ancient Theories of, 3.516; Onomatopoela, 2.552 Compensatory Lengthening, 1.334; Indo-European
Quintus Aurelius Symmachus Translation of Greek Linguistic Background, 2.218; Morphological Change,
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436 2.464; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.179;
Quintus of Smyrna Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334
Translation, 3.126 Raumer, Rudolfvon Neogrammarians, 2.493
Quirk, Randolph Adjuncts, 1.29; Adverbial Constituents, Raven, David 8. Dramatic Meter, 1.532
1.49; Comitative, 1.321; Complementation, 1.335; Rawlinson, George Greek Historiography, Translation,
Disjuncts, 1.513; Purpose Clauses, 3.194 2.92
Oumran ‘Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- Ray, John Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236; Greek
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239; Bilingualism, Diglossia and Carian, 2.40; Language Contact, 2.302
and Literacy in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239; Rayor, Diane Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
Greek and Aramaic, 2.35; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52; Greek Razzetti, Francesca Metrics (me£tran), Ancient Theories
Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122; Papyrology, of, 2.434; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
3.15 Period, 3.353
quotations Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.390 Rea, John Graffiti, 2.25
Qustä ibn Lügä Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.150 reader response Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
Methods, 3.372
Rabbinic Hebrew Greek Loanwords in Hebrew and reallocation Kaine, Origins of, 2,277
Aramaic, 2,122 reanalysis Analogy, 1.104; Augment, 1216; Denominal
Rabbula of Edessa Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Translation of Verbs, 1.433: Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax
Greek Texts in Late Anuquity, 3.438 and Morphology), 1.496; Greek Lexicon, Structure
Rabe, Hugo Orthography (orthographia), Ancient and Origin of, 2.115; Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.148;
Theories of, 2.574 Infinitives (Morphology of), 2.226; Language Change,
Rabin, Chaim Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in 2.297
First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240 Reardon, B.P. Asianism, 1.180; Atticism, 1.202
Rabirius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248 Reble, Alfred History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Race, William Deixis (including ıst and 2nd Person), Germany, 2.172
1.426; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125 rebus principle Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94
Racine, jean Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125 Recasens, Daniel Epenthesis, 1.547
Radden, Günter Agency and Causation, 1.71; Cognitive recessive accent Indo-European Linguistic Background,
Linguistics and Greek, 1.309 2.215; Law of Limitation, 2.324; Lesbian (and Asian
Rademaker, Adriaan Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, Aeolic), 2.330
1.410 Recipient" 3.208; Dative, 1.414; Voice, 3.495
Radermacher, Ludwig Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient reciprocal middies Voice, 3.497
Theories of, 2.415; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories reciprocality Pronominal System, 3.154
628 INDEX

reciprocals Media Tantum, 2.403 Relative Tense* 3.231; Consecutio Temporum et

recognitional demonstratives Deixis (including ist and Modorum, 1.367; Tense/ Aspect, 3.383
and Person), 1.424 relative time Time, 3.406
rection compounds Word Formation (Derivation, relative, head-internal Relative Clauses, 3.228
Compounding), 3.527 relativization Attraction (Mund, Case etc.), 1.212
red alphabet Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98: religious terminology Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120
Local Scripts, 2.382 Remmius Palaemon Philolngical-Grammatical Tradition
reduction Monophthongization, 2.448 in Ancient Linguistics, 3.69
Reduplicated Presents* 3.208 Renaissance, Translation® 3.232
Reduplication* 3.212; Aorist Formation, 1141; Classical Renan, Ernest Greek and Semitic Languages (Early
Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.286; Diminutives/ Contacts), 2.78
Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1.488; Renberg, Gil H. Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt. 1.236
Inchoatives/Inceptives, 2.202; Lexical Aspect Renou, L. Poetic Language, 3.10
(Aktionsart), 2.336: Metrics, 2.424: Perfect, Furmation of, repetition Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.155
3.49; Tense/Aspect, 3.385; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, rephonemization Phonological Change, 3.84
Mond}, 3.477 rephonologization Koine, Origins of, 2.282; Language
Reece, Steve Formulas, 1.615; Phonalogical Phrase, 3.88 Change, 2.293
Reed, Jeffrey Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.509 reported discourse Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.504
reference Cohesion, 1.312; Discourse Analysis and Greek, reported speech Direct/Indirect Speech, 1.506
1.510 requests Imperative, 2.190
Reference Time Time, 3.406 resegmentation Movable s, 2.470; Proto-Greek and
rellexive pronouns Pronominal System, 3.151 Common Greek, 3.182
reflexive strategies Reflexives, 3.215 resemantization Medical Vocabwary, 2.404
Reflexives* 3.215; Epic Diction, 1.550; Mediopassive, 2.412; resolution Metron, 2.438; Responsion, 3.235
Transitivity, 3.425 respect Complementation, 1.338
reformulation Adverbial Constituents, 153 Responsion" 3.235
Kegali, Mario Onomastica: From Antiquity to the restrictive relative clauses Relative Clauses, 3.229
Byzantine Period, 2.549 result Adverbial Constituents, 1.53; Complementation,
register Coherence, 1.312; Linguistic Variation in Classical 1.340; Patient und Theme, 3.44; Transitivity, 3.423
Attic, 2.364 resultative Aorist Formation, 1.138: Aspect (and Tense),
regular quantifiers Quantifiers, 3.199 1.181; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335
Regularity Hypothesis/ Principle Indo-European resultative perfect Perfect, 3.47
Historical Background, 2.206; Neogrammarians, 2.492 resyllabification Caesurae, 1.255
Rehm, Rush Postcolonial Translation: Theory and retrospective Aspect (and Tense), 1.181; Participles
Practice, 3.124 (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21; Structural Linguistics
Rehm, Walter History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in and Greek, 3.324
Germany, 2.162 retrospective aspect Verbal System (Tense, Aspect,
Reichenbach, Hans Time, 3.406 Mood), 3.478
Reichmann, V. Dictionaries af Ancient Greek, 1.478 Retsö, Jan Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2,31
Reinach, Salomon = Epigraphy, 1.565 Reuchlin, Johannes History of Teaching of Ancient
Reinhardt, K. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Greek in Germany, 2.163
Germany, 2.173 reverse attraction Relative Clauses, 3.228
Reinhart, Tanya Grounding of Information, 2.148: Topic, reverse dictionaries Concordances/Indices/Reverse
3.411 Dictionaries, 1.358
Reinke, Edgar C. Palaeography, 3.1 Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio Adverbs, 1.56; Argument
reinterpretation Analogy, 1.106 Clause, 1.175; Comparative Clauses, 1.328: Discourse
Reitzenstein, Richard Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Analysis and Greek, 1.511; Particles (Formal Features), 3.25;
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Etymatogical Purpose Clauses, 3.195; Subordination, 3.336; Topic, 3.412
Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, Rexius, Johannes B, Homer, Translation, 2.177
1.574: Lexicography, History of, 2.352; Orthography Reynolds, Gregorio Translation in Non-Western
(erthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Synonymica: Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.432
Fram Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 3.354 rhabbi Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
relational coherence Coherence, 1.312 Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240
relations Possession, 3.115 rhabbouni Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
relative Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.289; Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240
Pronouns (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indehnite, Rhaetian Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.138
Relative), 3.158 Rhaetic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90
relative adverbials Relative Clauses, 3.226 Rhamnous Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.32
Relative Chronology" 3.219 Rhegium lonie, 2.261: Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.397:
Relative Clauses” 3.224; Optative, 2.554 Uracular Language, 2.561; Rhodtan, 3.243: Sicily, Dialects
relative clauses, embedded Relative Clauses, 3.226 in, 3.291; Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
relative clauses, free Relative Clauses, 3.227 lonic Script, 3.422
relative clauses, headed Relative Clauses, 3.227 rhéma Word Classes (méré tod ldgau), Ancient Theories
relative clauses, head-external Relative Clauses, 3.228 of, 3.517
relative pronoun Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.418; rhematikön Word Formation (paragdgé/uinthesis),
Pronominal System, 3.155 Ancient Theories of, 3.531
 INDEX Gag
rheme Verb (rhema), Ancient Theories of, 3.461 Asyndeton), 1.390; Diathesis (disthesis), Ancient
Rhetoric to Herennius Tropes (tröpof), Ancient Theories Theories of, 1,469: Direct /Indirect Discourse, 1,504;
of, 3.442 Direct/Indirect Speech, 1.508; Functional Grammar and
rhetorical figures Literary Prose, 2.376 Greek, 1.617; Indo-European Linguistic Background,
rhetorical school of Rhodes Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135 2.224; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.232; Lexical Aspect
rhetorical structures Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.38 (Aktionsart), 2.333; Manner, 2.402; Media Tantum, 2.403;
Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics* 3.238 Mediopassive, 2.411: Negation, 2.485; Participle, 3.18:
rhetorical translation Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.40; Passive (Syntax),
Rhetors of the Canon Asianism, 1.179 3.42; Perfect, 3.47: Reflexives, 3.218; Relative lense, 3.231:
Rhine Greek and Celtic, 2.44 Tense/Aspect, 3.385; Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.390:
Rhinton Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.399 Voice, 3.495
Rhodes Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Alphabet, The Origin of Rilke, Rainer M. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125
the Greek, 1.98; Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160; Ringe, Donald A. Internal Recanstruction, 2.252;
Asianism, 1.480; Attitudes ta Language, 1.204; Christian Taryngeal Changes, 2.913; Root Structure (and Ablaut),
Greek Vocabulary, 1.285; Cyrenaean, 1.409; Desideratives, 3,252
1.441; Doric, 1.516; Epigram, Diction of, 1.562; Formation Rips, Lance]. Canditionals, 1.360
of Doric Koines, The, 1.604; Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Risaleh Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
Infinitives (Morphology of), 2.228; Insular Doric, 2.245; Risch, Ernst Passive (Morphology), 3.42; Adverbs
Koine, Origins of. 2.284; Language Contact, 2.303; Local (Morphological Aspects of), 1.57; Agent Nouns, 1.72;
Scripts, 2.380: Moras, 2.461; Pamphylian, 3.8; Rhadian, Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.119;
3.242; Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Bartoli’s Law, 1.229; Caland System and Greek, 1.258;
Seript, 3.422 Dialects, Classification of, 1.464: Epic Diction, 1.548;
Rhedian* 3.242 Genitive Absolute, 2.8; lunic, 2.264; Language and
Rhodian Peraea Rhodian, 3.242 Variation in Greece, 2,289; Language Change, 2.293;
Rhéne Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92; Greek and Celtic, Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.366; Nestor's
2.45 Cup, 2.495; Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Proto-Greek
Rhotacism* 3.244; Comparative Method, 1.330; Dialectal and Common Greek, 3.185; Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270;
Convergence, 1.456; Internal Reconstruction, 2.252; Southeast Greek, 3.297; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344;
lonic, 2.261; Laconian, Messenian, 2.287; Magna Graecia, Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.362; Word Formation
Dialects, 2.398; Tsakonian, 3.447 (Derivation, Compounding), 3.524
thymes Language Play and Translation, 2.306 Risselada, Rodie Beneficiary, 1.233; Functional Grammar
rhyming “fourteener” Homer, Translation, 2.180 and Greek, 1.617; Middle, 2.441; Time, 3.407
Rhys Roberts, W. Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories ol, 3.327 Ritschl, Friedrich Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Rhythmical Treatise Period, 3.53 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.102
Riad, Tomas Accentuation, 1.10; Intonationa/ Phrase, ritual taboos Aischrology, 179
2.255; Law of Limitation, 2.324; Lyric Meter, 2.388; Moras, Rix. Helmut Arcado-Cypriot, 1.156; Attic, 1.189; Consonant
2,462; Optimality and Greek, 2.557; Phonological Phrase, Changes, 1.372; Consonants, 1.374; Contract Verbs,
3.87; Stress, 3.320 1.382; Crasis, 1.395; Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of),
Hialland, A, Moras, 2.460 1.473; Grassmann's Law, 2.26; Greek and Etruscan,
Riano Epigram, Diction of, 1.563 2,50; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.217;
Riano Rufilanchas, Daniel Verbal Valency, 3.488 Infinitives (Morphology of), 2.226; Laryngeal Changes,
Ricca, Davide Adverbs, 1.54; Deixis (including ist and and 2.913; Length, 2.328; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.334;
Person), 1.427; Manner, 2.401 Mediopassive, 2.41; Movable s, 2.470; Nasal Presents,
Ricci, Bartolomeo ‘Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 2.482; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.500;
3.365 Osthoffs Law, 2.576; Passive (Morphology), 3.42; Perfect,
Richards, LA. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.129 Formation of, 3.50; Proto-Greek and Common Greek,
Richardson, N.J. Formulas, 1.615 3.179; Reduplicated Presents, 3.210; Reduplication, 3.214;
Rico, Christophe Abstract Nouns, 1.4 Schwebeablaut, 3.261; Stative (and Middle/Medium)
Ricoeur, Paul Metaphor (metaphorä), Ancient Theories Verbs, 3.316; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344; Thematic
of, 2.415 and Athematic Verbs, 3.395; Thematic Vowel, Stem
Riddiford, R. Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Formation, 3,397: Verbal Adjectives, 3.475; Vawel
Concepts and Models, 3.430 Changes, 3.502: Vowels, 3,506
Riddles* 3.244; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction ol, 2.157 Rix’ Law Laryngeal Changes, 2.314
Ridgway, David Nestors Cup, 2.495 Rizzu, F.P. Greek in Sieily in Late Antiquity, 2.94
Riehemann, Suzanne Compounding/Derivation/ Rizzo, Silvia Renaissance, Translation, 3.234
Construction Morphology, 1.350 Robert, Louis Epigraphy, 1.564; Greek and Thracian,
Rieken, Elisabeth Agreement, 175 2.87
Rieu, E.V. Homer, Translation, 2.179 Roberts, Deborah H. Drama Translation, 1.527
Rigvedic Accentuation, 1.1; see also Vedic Sanskrit Roberts, Ernest $. Epigraphy, 1.564
Rijkhoff, jan Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.313; Punctional Roberts, lan Government Binding and Greek, 2,22
Grammar and Greek, 1.618; Modifiers, 2.445 Roberts, Michael Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.216
Rijksbaron, Albert Activa Tantum, 1.23; Active, 1.24; Robins, Robert H. Case (ptdésis), Ancient Theories of,
Adjuncts, 1.29; Auxiliaries, 1.219; Beneficiary, 1.233; 1.271; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420; Noun (önoma),
Causative Formation, 1.275; Classical Greek Morphology Ancient Theories of, 2.525; Philological-Grammatical
(Survey), 1.290: Complementation, 1.335; Consecutio Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.63; Word Classes
‘Temporum et Modorum, 1.367: Coordination (includes (méré tow légou), Ancient Theories of, 3.516; Word
630 INDEX

Formution (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, root nouns Caland System and Greek, 1.258; Classical
3.529 Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.286
Robinson, Douglas Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.139 root presents ‘Narten' Presents, 2.480; Aorist Formation,
Robinson, Mary Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125 1.140; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.291; Indo-
Robson, James Language Play and Translation, 2.308 European Linguistic Background, 2.221; Reduplicated
Rocca, Samuel Greek and Hebrew, 2.54 Presents, 3.209; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.251;
Rocconi, Eleonora Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories Thematic and Athematic Verbs, 3.395
of, 2.432 Root Structure (and Ablaut)* 3.251
Roche, Paul Drama Translation, 1.527 root theory Schwebeablaut, 3.261; Root Structure (and
Rochette, Bruno Ancient Bidialectalism and Ablaut), 3.395
Bilingualism, 1.114; Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy root-based (athematic) inflection Nominal System
in First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238; Greek/Latin (Gender, Number, Case), 2.500
Bilingualism, 2.146; Language Policies, 2.311; Latin roots Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.286
Loanwords in Greek, 2.320; Nominal System (Gender, Rosch, Eleanor Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309
Number, Case), 2.502; Teaching of Ancient Greek in Rose, Valentin Proverbs, 3.189
Italy, 3.364 Rose, Sarah Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.22
Rocio, Vitor Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436 Rosen, Haiim BB Language Contact, 2.301; Jewish Greek,
Rodriguez Somolinos, Helena Lesbian (and Asian 2,269; Koine, Origins of, 2.283; Semitic Loanwords in
Aeolic), 2.329 Greek, 3,279
Rohlfs, Gerhard Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.161: Rosen, Ralph M. Aischrology, 1.77
Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.98; Greek Lexicon In Rosenblatt, Louise Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching
Western Languages, 2.108 Methods, 3.371
Rohrer, Christian Time, 3.407 Rosenthal, Franz Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147:
Rohrer, Tim Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.310 Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.91
Röllig, W. Language Contact, 2.303 Rosetta Rosetta Stone, 3.254
Rollinger, Robert Greek and Iranian, 2.63 Rosetta Stone* 2,254
Rollo, Antonia Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364 Rösler, Wolfgang Deixis (including ist and 2nd Person),
Rom (Deux-Sévres) Greek and Celtic, 2.46 1.426
Roman Language and Variation in Greece, 2.288 Rossberg, C. Adpositional Phrase, 1.39
Roman alphabet Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.89; Greek Rossi, Luigi E, Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories of,
Writing Systems, 2.145 2.433; Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365
Roman Atticists Attitudes to Language, 1.205 Rossi, Tiziano Homer, Translation, 2.176
Roman Empire, eastern Greek Loanwords in Syriac, 2.125 Rostuvtzeff, M.I. Language Contact, 2.303
Roman Translation of Greek Texts* 3.245 Rothstein, Marian Homer, Translation, 2.176
Romance languages Analogy, 1.105; Balkan Sprachbund: Rotimi, Ola Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Early Evidence in Greek, 1.224; Contact through Practice, 3.124
Translation, 1.381; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420; Rotolo, V. Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364
Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), Kotstein, Andrea Epic Meter, 1.557
1.497; Greek and Latin, 2.66; Greek Lexicon in Western Rougemont, Georges Greek and Iranian, 2.63
Languages, 2.101; Intensifiers, 2.247; Latin Loanwords Roulet, Eddy Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.33
in Greek, 2.320; Nominal System (Gender, Number, roundels Linear A, 2.353
Case), 2.501; Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60; Politeness/ Rouse, W.H.D. Homer, Translation, 2.179: Post-Homeric
Courtesy Expressions, 3.113; Pronominal System, 3.153; Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.127
Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325; Time, 3-405 Rousseau, jean]. Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.93;
Romani Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.169
1.223; Language Contact, 2.299 Roussou, Anna Argument Clause, 1172; Government
Romanian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, Binding anıl Greek, 2.22
1.223; Inchoatives/Lnceptives, 2.201 Rubach, Jerzy Syllable Weight, 3.346
Romans Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114 Rubinstein, Lene Oaths, Curses, 2.547
Rome Atticism, 1.197; Attitudes to Language, 1.205; Rufinus of Aquileia Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Greek and Latin, 2.66; Greek/Latin Bilingualism, 2.147; Antiquity, 3.437
Language Contact, 2.304; Latin Loanwords in Greek, Ruge, Hans Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic ta Early
2.320; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.399; Style (/éxis), Byzantine Greek, 3.381
Ancient Theories ol, 3.327; Tropes (fröpoi}, Ancient Ruijgh, CornelisJ. Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Apocope, 1.143;
Theories of, 3.443 Argument Clause, 1.175; Classical Greek Morphology
Roncador, Manfred von Direct/Indirect Discourse, (Survey), 1.291; Conditionals, 1.361; Conjunctions
1.504 (Subordinating), 1.364; Cansecutio Temporum
Ronconi, Filippo Byzantine Phase and Reception of et Modorum, 1.367; Consecutive Clauses, 136g;
Ancient Greek, the, 1.249 Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.389; Cyrenaean,
root Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation, 3.397: Word 1.410; Deixis (including 1st and and Person). 1.427;
Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.523 Dialects, Classification of, 1.464; Epic Diction, 1.551:
rootaccent Agent Nouns, 1.72 Formulaic Language, 1.611; Laryngeal Changes, 2.313;
root aorist Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation)}, 1.2; Aorist Moras, 2.462: Particles (Formal Features), 3.30:
Formation, 1.139; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), Passive (Morphology), 3.42: Perfect, 3.47; Perfect,
1.291; Nasal Presents, 2.482; Tense/Aspect, 3.386; Verbal Formation of, 3.52; Phonology (Survey), 3.90; Pronouns
System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.479 (Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative),
root modality Mood and Modality, 2.452 3.160: Prosodic Word, 3.162; Southeast Greek, 3.208;
 INDEX 631
Subordination, 3.338; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344; Tense Sais Greek and Carian, 2.41; Rosetta Stone, 3.254
and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, Saka Greek and Iranian, 2.62
3.380; Tense/Aspect, 3.387; Vowel Changes, 3.503; Sakellariou, Michel B. Aeolic Dialects, 1.63
Wackernagel's Law I, 3.510; Word Order, 3.534 Salamis Cypriot, 1.401; Cypriot Syllabary, 1.407; Local
Ruipérez, Martin Active, 1.24; Attic, 1192; Dipylon Scripts, 2.384
Vase Inscription, 1.499; Koine, Features of, 2.273; Sale,M. Formulas, 1.615
Morphological Change, 2.464; Phonolagy (Survey), 3.91; Salel, Hugues Homer, Translation, 2.176
Tense/ Aspect, 3.385; Voice, 3.495; Vowel Changes, 3.504; Sales, Juan R. Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Vowel Fronting, 3.505 Concepts and Models, 3.432
Ruiz Yamuza, Emilia Adverbs, 1.56; Functional Grammar Saliba, George Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
and Greek, 1.617; Mood and Modality, 2.455 saliency principle Noun Phrase, 2,527
rule addition Phonological Change, 3.86 Sallust Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.248
rule loss Phonological Change, 3.86 Salmoneus Aeolic Dialects, 1.63
Rule of Blocking = Diminutives/Angmentatives (Syntax Salmons, Joseph C. Glottalic Theory and Greek, 2.17;
and Morphology), 1.495 Phonological Change, 3.86
rule reordering Phonological Change, 3.86 Salomies Greek and Etruscan, 2.50
rule reversal Phonological Change, 3.86 Sdlues Greek and Celtic, 2.45
rule simplification Phonological Change, 3.86 Samaria Greek and Hebrew, 2.52
rule-based morphology Compounding/Derivation/ Samos Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.162; lanic, 2.260;
Construction Morphology, 1.351 Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script,
rules Phonological Change, 3.86 3.420
Rumpel, Johannes Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477 Samosata Attitudes to Language, 1.207
Runge, Steven Historical Present, 2.161 Samothrace Greek and Thracian, 2.84; Language Policies,
Runicalphabet Alphabet, Descendants ul, 1.92 2.310; Linear A, 2.355
Ruppel, Antonia Genitive Absolute, 2.8; Indo-European Samuels, Bridget Attic Reversion, 1.196: Compensatory
Linguistic Background, 2.224; Proto-Greek and Common Lengthening, 1.334: Vowels, 3.507
Greek, 3.186 Sanders, Ted Coherence, 1.312; Cohesion, 1.313
Russell, Donald A, Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Sandfeld, Kristian Balkan Sprachbund: Karly Evidence in
Linguistics, 3.238; Style (fexis), Ancient Theories af, 3.328; Greek, 1.222; Language Contact, 2.299
Tropes (trdped), Ancient Theories of, 3.443 Sandhi* 3.256; Caesurae, 1.255; 3.256
Russia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93; Indo-European Sandys, ].E. Asianism, 1.180; Atticism, 1.198
Historical Background, 2.208; Translation in Non- Sane Macedonian, 2.392
Western Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.429 Sanmartin,J. Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401
Russian Clause, 1.295; Contact through Translation, Sanskrit passim (in over 50 articles)
1.379; Hyperbaton, 2,185; Negation, 2.488; Participles Sansone, David Determiners, 1.442
(Morphological Aspects of}, 3.21; Phytonyms (Names of Sapphic stanza Metrics, 2.423
Trees), 3.97; Predicative Constituents, 3.130; Quantifiers, Sappho Adpositional Phrase, 1.38; Attitudes ta Language,
4.199; Reflexives, 3.215; Structural Linguistics and Greek, 1.204; Choral Poetry, Diction of. 1.279: Dialects,
3.325 Classification of, 1.462; Epic Meter, 1.558; Greek Lyric
Russn, J.A. Formulas, 1.615 Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Lesbian (and Asian Aeclic),
Russu,1.I. Greek and Thracian, 2.85 2.329; Lesbian Accentuation, 2.332: Lyric Meter, 2.387;
Rutherford, lan Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Style (/éxis), Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389: Metrics, 2.423; Metron,
Ancient Thenries of, 3.329 2.437; Papyrology, 3.16; Particles (Formal Features), 3.29;
Rutherford, William G. Koine, Features of, 2.276; Tropes Poetic Language, 3.105; Prasody, 3.171; Responsion, 3.235;
{fröpot), Ancient Theories of, 3.442 Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247; Song and
Rutilius Lupus Figures (skhömata), Ancient Theories of, Recitation, 3.294; Stative (and Middle/Medium) Verbs,
1.591 3.318; Verse, 3.489
Ryan, Kevin Foot, 1.600 Saqqara Greek and Carian, 2.40
Rydbeck, Lars Attic, 1.192 Sardinian Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and
Rydberg-Cox, Jeffrey A. Subjunctive (Morphology of), Morphology), 1.497
3.334 Sardis Greek and Carian, 2.41; Greek and Lydian, 2.70
Saronic* 3.258; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Sahigren, Magnus Corpus Lingulstics and Greek, 1.393 Dialectology, 1.119; Argolic, 1.171; Dialectal Convergence,
Saami Syllable Weiglu, 3.346 1.455; Doric, 1516; Koine, Origins of, 2.278; Saronic, 3.258;
Sabellian Glides, 2.15; Greek Lexicon in Western Southeast Greek, 3,297
Languages, 2.104 Sasse, Hans-Jiirgen Coordination (includes Asyndeton),
Sacadas Elegy, Diction of, 1.543; Song and Recitation, 1.385; Hyperbaton, 2.185
3.294 Sassetti, Filippo Comparative Method, 1.329
Saetta Cottone, Rossella Aischrology, 1.77 satellites Adjuncts, 1.28; Adverbial Constituents, 1.49;
Safäitic Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31 Functional Grammar and Greek, 1.616
Sag, Ivan A. Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.376 Saussure's Law Laryngeal Changes, 2.313
Sahidic Greek Loanwards in Coptic, 2.18 Sauzet, Patrick Clitic Group, 1.298; Law of Limitation,
Sailhamer, John A. Septuagint, 3.288 2.324; Moras, 2.460; Optimality and Greek, 2.557; Stress,
Saint Aristides Translation of Greek Texts in Late 3.320
Antiquity, 3.438 Sauzet, Paul Accentuation, 110
Saint Cyril Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93 Scaffai, Marco Homer, Translation, 2.175; Roman
Saint Mesrop Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93 Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246
632 INDEX

Seala, Andrea Greek and Armenian, 2.39 Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E. Teaching of Ancient
scalarity Particles (Formal Features), 3.30 Greek, Teaching Methods, 3.369
Scalise, Sergio Compounding/Derivation/Construction Schlenker, Philippe Direct/Indirect Discourse, 1.506
Morphology, 1.352; Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax Schlesinger, Izchak Comitative, 1.320
and Morphology), 1.495 Schmid, Walter Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.134; Atticism,
scansion Synizesis, 3.351 1.200; Attitudes to Language, 1.207
Scaurus, De ortkographia Orthography (urthographia), Schmidt, Gullelmus Jewish Greek, 2.269
Ancient Theories of, 2.574 Schmidt, Hans Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
$cha,Remka Comitative, 1324; Particles (Syntactic Schmidt, Johannes Abstract Nouns, 1.5; Language Change,
Features), 3.33 2,292; Language Contact, 2.299; Vowel Changes, 3.504
Schachermeyr, Fritz Toponyms, 3.414 Schmidt, Karl Horst Impersonal Verbs, 2.198
Schachter, Albert Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389 Schmidt, Mauricius Consonants, 1.375
Schadewaldt, W. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Schmidt, Moritz Onomastica: From Antiquity to the
Germany, 2.173 Byzantine Period, 2.550
Schaefer, C. Reduplication, 3.213 Schmidt, Moriz Cypriot Syllabary, 1.406
Schaller, Helmut W. Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence Schmidt-Biggemann, Wilhelm History of Teaching of
in Greek, 1.222 Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.164
Schäufele, Steven Clitics, 1.304 Schmitt, Arbogast Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
Schein, SethI. Verbal Adjectives, 3.475 Theories of, 2.416
schéma Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Schmitt, Riidiger Greek and Armenian, 2.37; Greek and
Theories of, 3.591 Carian, 2.40; Greek and Iranian, 2.62; Language and
schemata Gorgieia Literary Prose, 2.375 Variation in Greece, 2.289; Orality and Literacy, 2.563;
schematic networks Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, Personal Names, 3.55; Poetic Language, 3.103
1.309 Schmitter, Peter Ancient Philosophers on Language,
schematicity Perfect, 3.47 1127; Linguistic Correctness (Aeflenismdés), Ancient
Schenkeveld, Dirk M. Declension/Conjugation Theories of, 2,361; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
(klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.418; Figures (skhémata), Ancient Linguistics, 3.63; Word Formatiun (paragagé/
Ancient Theories of, 1.590: Metaphor (metaphord), sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529
Ancient Theories of, 2.416; Particles (Formal Features), Schmitz, T. Attitudes to Language, 1.207
3.24; Philalogical-Gram matical Tradition in Ancient Schneider, Jean Orthography (orthographia), Ancient
Linguistics, 3.66; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Linguistics, 3.241; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of, Anclent Linguistics, 3.72
3.442 Schneider, Johann G. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1475
Scheppers, Frank Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.133; Schneidewin, F.G. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Intonational Phrase, 2.255; Topic, 3.411; Wackernagel’s Schoeler, Gregor Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.150
Law I, 3.510; Word Order, 3.533 Schoemann, G.F. Word Classes (méré tott logo),
Scherer, Anton Arcadian, 1.153; Dialects, Classification Ancient Theories of, 3.516
of, 1.464; lonic, 2.266; Pamphylian, 3.8; Questions, 3.207; Schoenemann, Julius Onomastica: From Antiquity to the
Written versus Spoken Language, 3.541 Byzantine Period, 2.550
Scherer, Wilhelm Neogrammarians, 2.492 Schöpsdau, Klaus Tense (khrönus), Ancient Theories of,
Scheuer, H.J. Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.378; Declension/Conjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories
3.241 of, 1.419
Schiappa, E. Ancient Philosophers on Language. 1.126 Schow, Nicolaus Papyrology, 3.15
Schiffrin, Deborah Time, 3.407 Schrader, Hermann = Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories
Schiller, Friedrich History of Teaching of Ancient Greek of, 3.442
in Germany, 2.169 Schrader, Otto Phytonyms (Names of Trees}, 3.99;
Schilling, D. ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281 Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401
Schindel, Ulrich Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, Schrijuen,
Jos Movable s, 2.470
1591; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, Schrijver, Peter Perfect, Formation of, 3.52; Phytonyms
2.169 (Names of Trees), 3.98
Schindler, Jochem Schwa Secundum, 3.260; Vowel Schröter, Robert Etymological Dictionaries: From
Changes, 3.503 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575
Schindling, Ulrich History of Teaching of Ancient Greek Schubart, Wilhelm Palaeography, 3.5; Pitch, 3.100
in Germany, 2.167 Schuchardt, Huge E. Neogrammarians, 2.493; Language
Schironi, Francesca Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Change, 2.292; Language Contact, 2.299; Phonetic Law,
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, L100; Dictionaries of 3.78
Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Schultz, H. Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity
Lexical Change, 2.341; Linguistic Variation in Classical to the Byzantine Period, 1.483
Attic, 2,367 Schultz, Wolfgang Riddles, 3.245
Schirren, Thomas Tropes (trdpoi), Ancient Theories of, Schultze-Berndt, Eva Hyperbaton, 2.185
3-443 Schulz, Katrin Conditionals, 1.360
Schist Fragments from the Academy* 3.259 Schulze, Wilhelm Greek and Etruscan, 2.50; Greek
Schlegel, Friedrich History of Teaching of Ancient Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.106; Linguistic
in Germany, 2.169 Variation in Classical Attic, 2.369
Schleicher, August Comparative Method, 1.330; Schürr, D. Greek and Carian, 2.41
Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Etymology, Schiirt, Diether Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Greek and
1577; Language Change, 2.291 Lydian, 2.70
 INDEX 633
Schütze, Carson Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361 secondary prepositions Adpositional Phrase, 1.38
schwa Language Change, 2.292 secondary split Phonological Change, 3.85; Split, 3.316
Schwa Secundum* 4,260 secondary tenses Optative, 2.554
Schwabe, Ernst Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language* 3.272
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101 Sedley, David Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.128;
Schwabe, M. Greek and Aramaic, 2.35 Metaphor (metaphard), Ancient Theories of, 2.416: Puns,
Schwartz, £. Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity 3.193
to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific Seele, Astrid Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250
Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486: seers Poetic Language, 3.102
Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Segonds, A. Ph. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1131
Byzantine Period, 1.574 Segre, Mario Furmation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604
Schwarz, W. Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 Seidensticker, B. Intonational Phrase, 2.255
Schwebeablaut® 3.261; Indo-European Linguistic Seider, Richard Palaeography, 3.1
Background, 2.216; Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.253 Seiler, Mark A. Conditinnals, 1.360
Schwinge, Ernst-Richard Intonational Phrase, 2.255 Seiler, Hansjacob Case Syncretism (Morphological
Schwyzer, Eduard passim (in over 50 articles) Aspects of), 1.273; Gender, 2.1; Nominal System (Gender,
Scibona, Giacomo Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, Number, Case), 2.501; Possession, 3.115
2.94 Sekerina, Irina Hyperbaton, 2.185
Scientific Vocabulary* 3.262 Sela Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.31
Scione Macedonian, 2.392 Selene Epic Diction, 1.555
Scipio Aemilianus Koine, Origins of, 2.280 Seleucia Language Contact, 2.303
Scopelianus Asianism, 1.180 Seleucia-Ctesiphon Greek and Syriac, 2.61
Seott, John Vocative, 3.493 Seleucid kingdom Koine, Origins of, 2.279
Scott, R. Etymological Dictionaries: From the Selencus of Alexandria Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Renaissance to the 2oth Century, 1,572; Pronominal Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Etymological
System, 3.156 Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Scatussa Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and 1.575; Linguistic Correctness (Ael/énismds), Ancient
Dialectology, 1.123; Code-Mixing, 1.307 Theories of, 2.362; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the
sctibal hand Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.266 Byzantine Period, 2.550: Philological-Grammatical
scribes Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.72; Proverbs, 3.189;
1.120 Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Scribes, Mycenaean® 3.265 3.353
script, Demotic (Egyptian) Bilingualism in Hellenistic self-curse Oaths, Curses, 2.545
Egypt, 1.234; Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.46; Greek self-orientation Semantic Change, 3.278
Novel, Translation, 2.129; Rosetta Stone, 3.254 Selinous (Selinunte} Doric, 1.516; Formation of Doric
script, hieratic Alphabet. The Origin of the Greek, 1.94 Koines, The, 1.605; Local Scripts, 2.384; Sicily, Dialects
script, hieroglyphic/pictographic Alphabet, The Origin in, 3.290
of the Greek, 1.94; Linear B, 2.355; Phaistos Disc, 3.62 Selinuntian Semivowels, 3.280
script, hieroglyphic Cretan Eteocretan, 1.571 Selkirk, Elisabeth O. Clitic Group, 1.296; Intonational
script, hieroglyphic Luwian Greek and Anatolian Phrase, 2.253; Phonological Phrase, 3.87; Prosodic
Languages, 2.27: Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133 Word, 3.161; Quantifiers, 3.199: Syllables, 3.448; Syntax-
script, lonic Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Phonology Interface, 3.362; Utterance, 3.454
fonic Script, 3.420 Selle, Hendrik Elegy, Diction of, 1.543
script, local Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Selymbria Koine, Origins of, 2.284
lonic Script, 3.420 semantic bleaching Syntactic Change, 3.355
scriptio cantinua Epigraphy, 1.567 Semantic Change* 3.275
Seutt,C. A. Tsakonian, 4.446 semantic deficiency Deixis (including tst and znd
Scythian Calques, 1.261 Person), 1.422
Seythians Ancient Bidlalectalism and Bilingualism, Lu semantic drift Medical Vocabulary, 2.405
sealings Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.266 semantic extension Polysemy. 3.14
seals Greek and Lydian, 2.70 semantic fields Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Searle, John R. Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1100; Dictionaries
Mood and Modality, 2.453 of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Seaton,R.G. Collective/Mass Nouns, 1.314 1.48); Etymological Dietiunaries: Frum Antiquity to
Sebaste Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Indo-European Linguistic
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238 Background, 2.224; Lexical Fields Theory and Greek,
Second Sophistic Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135; Asianism, 2.344; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
1.181; Attitudes to Language, 1.206; Formation of Doric Periad, 2.549
Koines, The, 1.603; Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314; Late semantic loans Calques, 1.260; Latin Loanwords in Greek,
Antiquity Prose, 2.318 2.321
secondary endings Aorist Formation, 1141; Augment, semantic narrowing Semantic Change. 3.277
1.215; Imperative, 2.191; Indo-European Linguistic semantic role Active, 1.24; Adjuncts, 1.28; Adverbial
Background, 2.221; Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), Constituents, 1.49: Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of),
2.567; Present ‘l'ense, 3.146; Thematic and Athematic 4.57; Agency and Causation, 1.65: Complementation,
Verbs, 3.396; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 1.336; Predicative Constituents, 3.130; Relative Clauses,
3.483 3.224; Space (Cases), 3.310; Voice, 3.495
secondary interjettions Interjections. 2.250 semantic shift Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.284
634 INDEX

semantic valency Verbal Valency, 3.486 Sergius of Resh’aina Translation of Greek Texts in Late
semantics,dynamic Anaphoric Processes, 1.112 Antiquity, 3.438
semelfactive Consecutive Clauses, 1.370; Lexical Aspect Seriphos Tonic, 2.261
(Aktionsart), 2.333 Seréani, fia A. Quantifiers, 3.199
semiotic triangle Ancient Philosophers on Language, setroots Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.216
1129 sets Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.266
semiotics Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.136 setting Topic, 3.412
semioticsin Antiquity Ancient Philosophers on setting-out Scientific Vocabulary, 3.264
Language, 1.124 Sevéenko, hor Byzantine Phase and Reception of
Semites Atticism, 1.201; Koine, Origins of, 2.283; Language Ancient Greek, the, 1250
Contact, 2.301 Sevdali, Christina Infinitives (Syntax), 2.233
Semitic Adpasitions (Prepositions), 1.47; Alphabet, Severus of Antioch Greek and Syriac, 2.81; Translation of
Descendants of, 1.90; Calques, 1260; Contact through Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438
Translation, 1.379; Eteocretan, 1.570; Etymological Severus Sebokht Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33
Dictionaries: From the Renaissance to the zoth Century, Sextus Empiricus Ancient Philosophers on Language,
1.573; Greek and Etruscan, 2.51; Greek and Latin, 2.66; 1.130; Linguistic Correctness (hellerismös), Ancient
Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.12; Greek Theories of, 2.362; Orthography (orthographia), Ancient
Loanwords in Geez, 2.120; Greek Loanwords in Hebrew Thenries of, 2.573: Philological-Grammatical Tradition
and Aramaic, 2.122: Historical Present, 2.161; Indo- in Ancient Linguistics, 3.66; Syntax (suéaxis), Ancient
European Historical Background, 2.207; Intensifiers, Theories of, 3.959
2.247; Laryngeal Changes, 2.311; Lexical Change, 2.341; Sextus Propertius Metrics, 2.423
Linear A, 2.353; Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.476; sexual metaphors Aischrology, 1.81
Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.136; Semitic Loanwords in Greek, Seyer, Martin Greek and Lycian, 2.68
3.278; Verbal Valency, 3.488; Vocative, 3.493; Zoonyms Sezer, E. Moras, 2.460
{Names of Mammals), 3.544 Sgall, Petr Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.434
Semitic Loanwords in Greek” 3.278 Sgarlata, Mariarita Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity,
Semitisms Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.115; 2.99
Koine, Origins of, 2.283; New Testament, 2.497 Shakespeare, William Drama Translation, 1.526;
Semivowels* 3,280; Yodization, 3.543 Epanalepsis, 1.546
Semonides of Amorgos lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.187; Shannon, Richard Formulaic Language, 1.610
Literary Prose, 2.373: Psilosis, 3.193 Shapiro, Michael Tropes (tröpai), Ancient Thearies of,
Seneca Roman Translation of Greek ‘Texts, 3.246 3.441
Sentence* 4,25) Shar-i-kuna Greek and Indian Languages, 2.59
sentence adverbials Adjuncts, 1.29; Adverbial Sharypkin, Sergei Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.271
Constituents, 1.50; Disjuncts, 1.513 Shattuck, Roger Drama Translation, 1.526
sentence adverbs Adverbial Constituents, 1.50; Manner, Shawcross, Teresa Byzantine Phase and Reception of
2,401 Ancient Greek, the, 1.250
sentence meaning Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.137 Shelley, Percy B. Drama Translation, 1.526; Greek Lyric
Sentence/Utterance (/dgos), Ancient Theories of* 3.284 Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
sentence-connective clitics Wackemagel's Law I, 3.509 ‘Translation, 3.126
sententiae Lexicography, History of, 2.349 Sherburne, Edward Post-Homeric Epic Poetry,
sentential clitics Wackemagel’s Law I, 3.599 Translation, 3.127
sentential complementation Complementation, 1.335 Sheridan, Thomas Drama Translation, 1.528
separative comparative Comparison, 1.332 Sherk, R.L. Language Contact, 2.304
Septimius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250 shibboleths Attitudes to Language. 1.206; Northwest
Septuagint® 3.287; ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.280; Christian Greek, 2.520
Greek Vocabulary, 1.284; Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Shields, Kenneth Heteroclitics, 2.158
Greek), 1.349; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From shifters Deixis (including ist and and Person), 1.422;
Antiquity ta the Byzantine Period, 1.485: Greek Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
and Aramaic. 2.34; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52; Greek Shih, Stephanie Syntax-Phonulogy Interface, 3.362
Loanwords in Geez, 2.121; Greek Loanwords in Slavic, Shipp, George P. ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Greek Lexicon,
2.123; Historical Present, 2.161; Jewish Greek, 2.268; Structure and Origin off au
Onomatopoeia, 2.552; Papyri, Language of, 3.13; Tense Shive,D. Formulas, 1.615
and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Greek, short-vowel subjunctives Indo-European Linguistic
2.380; Vocative, 3.493 Background, 2.222
septuagintisms Christian Greek Vocabulary, 1.285 Shuckburgh, Evelyn Greek Histarivgraphy, Translation,
sequential aspect Tense/Aspect, 3.384 2.92
Serabit el-Khadim region Alphabet, The Origin of the Sibaris Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398
Greek, 1.94 sibilant Assibilation, 1185
Serbia Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93 Sicca, Umberto Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94
Serbian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, Sicel Laryngeal Changes, 2.311
1.223; Language Contact, 2.299; Syntax-Phonology Sicilian Doric Koina Sicily, Dialects in, 3.292
Interface, 3.361 Sicily Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Attitudes to
Serbo-Croatian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Language, 1.204; Code-Mixing, 1.307; Comedy, Diction
Greek, 1.223; Hyperbaton, 2.185 of, 1.319; Curse Tablets, 1400; Doric, 1.516; Formation of
Serbo-Croatian heroic poetry Formulas, 1.614 Dorie Koines, The, 1.605; Greek and Etruscan, 2,50; lonic,
Sergius of Resh‘ayna Greek and Syriac, 1.81 2.260; Latin Loanwords in Greek, 2.320; Literary Prose,
 INDEX 635
2.373; Local Scripts, 2.982; Rhodian, 3.243; Sicily, Dialects Passive (Morphology), 3.42; Perfect, Formation of, 3.50;
in, 3.290; Tense/Aspect, 3.384; Toponyms, 3.414 Phonotactics, 3.96; Pronominal System, 3.150; Prosodic
Sicily, Dialects in* 3.290 Word, 3.163; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.179:
Sicking, C.M. J. Consecutio Temporum et Madorum, Reduplication, 3.214; Sandhi, 3.256; Stative (and Middle/
1.367; Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1.390; Medium) Verbs, 3.316; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344;
Grounding of Information, 2.149; Historical Present, 2.161; Syncope, 3.351: Tense/Aspect, 3.385; Thematic Vowel,
Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.333; Lyric Meter, 2.388; Stem Formation, 3.398; Verba Sentiendi, 3.470; Vocative,
Particles (Formal Features), 3.26; Particles (Syntactic 3.492; Voice, 3.501; Vowels, 3.506
Features), 3.40; Perfect, 3.47; Tense/Aspect, 3.385; Time, Sikinos Insular Doric, 2.245; Local Scripts, 2,383
3.407 Silk, Michael Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.279; Metaphor
Sicyon Achacan, 1.19; Formation of Doric Koines, The, (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.415
1.604 Silli Language Contact, 2.300
Sicyonia Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604 Sillyon Koine, Origins of, 2.284; Pamphylian, 3,8
Side Alphahet, Descendants of, 1.92; Pamphylian, 3.8 Silva, Moisés Jewish Greek, 2.268; Septuagint, 3.289
Sider, David Papyrology, 3.15 Sim, M.G. Purpose Clauses, 3.195
Sidetic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Greek and Simaristus Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Anatolian Languages, 2.27; Greek and Carian, 2.42; Period, 3.353
Language Contact, 2.305; Pamphylian, 3.8 Simcox, Edwin W. Homer, Translation, 2.180
Sidetic inscriptions Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92 Simias of Rhodes Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Sidney, Philip Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Lexicography.
Sidon Greek and Aramaic, 2.35; Language Contact, 2.303 History of, 2.948
Sidonius Apollinaris Roman Translation of Greek similarity Analogy, 1.103
‘Texts, 3.249; Translation of Greek Texts in Late similes Orality and Literacy, 2.564
Antiquity, 4.437 similitudo Metaphor (metuphord), Ancient Theories ol,
Siebenborn, Elmar Etymological Dictionaries: From 2.416
Antiquity to the Byzantine Perind, 1.574; Linguistic Simmias Epigram, Diction of, 1.563; Hellenistic Poetry,
Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.360; Diction of, 2.157
Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.416; Simone, Raffaele Abstract Nouns, 1.4
Orthography (erthagraphia), Ancient Theories of, Simonides Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278; Epigram,
2.573; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Diction of, 1.560; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125;
Linguistics, 3.68; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Song and Recitation, 3.295; Wackernagel's Law Il (VS),
Linguistics, 3.238; Tropes (tröpni), Ancient Theories uf, 3.513
3.442 Simplicius Medieval Translation of Greek Texts, 2.409
Siegel, Jeff Dialectal Convergence, 1.454; Koine, Origins simplification Koine, Origins of, 2.277
of, 2.277 Simpson, Michael Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Siemund, Peter Intensifiers, 2.246 Practice, 3.123
Sievers, Eduard Nasal Presents, 2.481; Neogrammarlans, Simpson, R.S. Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.235;
2.492 Rosetta Stone, 3.254
Sievers’ Law Vawel Changes, 3.503 Sinai Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.34; Homet,
Siewert, P. Elean (and Olympia), 1.541 Translation, 2.175
Siewierska, Anna Hyperbatnn, 2.185; Pronominal System, singularia tantur Number, 2.538
2.150 sinistrograde writing Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek,
Sigea Anctent Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.116 1.95
sigmatic aorist Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.2; sinistrorsum Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.499
Aorist Formation, 1.139; Classical Greek Morphology Sinope Tonic, 2.260
(Survey), 1.291; Cretan, 1.397; Imperative, 2.193; Linguistic Sintians Lemnian, 2.327
Variation in Classical Attic, 2,367; ‘Narten' Presents, Siphnos — lonic, 2.261
2.480; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.183; Thematic Siris Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.397
and Athematic Verbs, 3.396; Verbal System (Tense, Sitaridou, loanna Government Binding and Greek, 2.24;
Aspect, Mood), 3.479; ‘Narten’ Presents, 2.480 Hyperhaton, 2.185
Sign-Based Construction Grammar Construction Sitia Eteocretan, 1.570
Grammar and Greek, 1.376 Sittig, Ernst Case (ptäsig), Ancient Theories of, 1.270
Signes-Codofer, Juan Diathesis (diäthesis), Ancient situationality Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389
Thevries of, 1.470 situative Participles (Murphological Aspects of}, 3.21
Sigonio, Carlo Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365 skhema attikön Agreement, 1.75; Auxiliaries, 1.219
Sihler, Andrew L. Dissimilation, 1.515; ‘Narten' skhéma Pindarikén Agreement, 1.75
Presents, 2.480; Aorist Formation, 1.138; Assimilation, skhematismös Word Formation (paragdégé/stinthests),
1.186; Attic Declension, 1.194; Augment, 1.215; Causative Ancient Theories of, 3.530
Formation, 1.275; Consonants, 1374; Contract Verbs, Skillous Elean (and Olympia), 1.535
1,382; Cowgill's Law, 1.394; Diathesis/Voice (Morphology skins Papyri, Language of, 3.12
of}, 1.473; Grassmann’s Law, 2.26; Greek Lexicon, Skjzrve, ProdsO. Augment, 1.217
Structure and Origin of, 2.111; Indo-European Linguistic Skoda, Francoise Reduplicated Presents, 3.211
Background, 2.214; Infinitives (Morphology of), 2.226; Skopeteas, Stavros Adpositional Phrase, 1.35; Adpositions
Labiovelars, 2,286; Language Change, 2.296; Lesbian (Prepositions), 1.46; Adverbs, 1.56; Space (Adpasitions),
Accentuation, 2.332; Mediopassive, 2.412: Merger, 2.413; 3.305; Space (Cases), 3.310
Metathesis, 2.419; Movable s, 2.470; Nominal System Skoufos, F. Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek,
(Gender, Number, Case), 2.500: Osthoff's Law, 2.576; 2.257
636
skutdlé Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.273
Skyrian Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.161
Slater, William J. Metrics (m£tron), Ancient Theories
of, 2.433; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Period, 2.550; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Ancient Linguistics, 3.72; Proverbs, 3.189; Databases and
Dictionaries [Papyrology and Epigraphy included), 1413;
Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.477; Dictionaries of
Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481
Slavic ‘Narten! Presents, 2.480; Alphabet, Descendants
of, 1.93; Aspect (and Tense), 1.182; Atticism, 1.201;
Augment, 1.215; Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
Greek, 1.223; Causative Formation, 1.275; Clause, 1.295:
Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.452:
Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology),
1.497; Epenthesis, 1.547; Greek Writing Systenis, 2.145;
Hyperbaton, 2.185; Imperative, 2.196; Indo-European
Historical Background, 2.206; Indo-European Linguistic
Background, 2.212; Intensifiers, 2.247; Language
Contact, 2.299; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2,332:
Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.501;
Number, 2.536; Numerals, 2.541; Onomatopoeia, 2.552;
Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), 2.573; Participles
{Morphological Aspects of), 3.21; Pre-Greek Substrate,
3.139; Pronominal System, 3.151; Structural Linguistics
and Greek, 3.325; Tense/Aspect, 3.385; Verbal System
(Tense, Aspect, Mood}, 3.477; Vocative, 3.493
Slavo-Macedonian Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence
in Greek, 1.223; Language Contact, 2.299
Slings, Simon Apposition, 1.146; Focus, 1.598; Genitive
Absolute, 2.9; Participle, 3.20; Particles (Formal
Features), 3.29; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.40;
Perfect, 3.47; Topic, 3.412
Slovak Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325
Slovenian Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99
Sluiter, Ineke Aischrology, 1.78; Ancient Philosophers
on Language, 1.126; Linguistic Correctness (hellenismös),
Ancient ‘Theories of, 2.361; Particles (Formal Features),
3.24; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Linguistics, 3.74; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
Linguistics, 3.240; Word Classes (mere tod lögou),
Ancient Theories of, 3.518
Smikon Local Scripts, 2.383
Smith, Carlota Aorist, 1136; Lexical Aspect {Aktionsart),
2.333; Time, 3.406
Smith, Caroline Utterance, 3.454
Smith, George Cypriot Syllabary, 1.406
Smith, Joanna Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270
Smith, Martin F. Ancient Philosophers on Language,
1.128
Smith, Ole L, Homer, Translation, 2.175
Smith, Sameul Drama Translation, 1.527
Smith, William Databases and Dictionaries | Papyrology
and Epigraphy included|, 1.413
Smith, William B. Homer, Translation, 2.175
Smolensky, Paul Optimality and Greek, 2.555
Smollett, Tobias Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125
Smyma lonic, 2.260; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329
Smyth, Herbert W. Accusative, 1.13; Active, 1.24;
Adverbial Constituents, 1.53; Ancient Greek
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.18; Argument
Clause, 1.172; Attic Declension, 1.194; Attraction (Mood,
Case etc.), L209; Augment, 1215; Auxiliaries, 1.218;
Clitic Group, 1.296; Conjunctions (Non-Subordinating),
1.363; Contract Verbs, 1.382; Coordination {includes
Asyndeton), 1.385; Diathesis/Voice (Morphology of),
1.474; Diphthongization, 1.498; Direct Object, 1.502;
INDEX
Direct/Indirect Speech, 1.507; Epanalepsis, 1.546; Greek
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.111; Haplology, 2.15);
Inchnatives/Inceptives, 2.201; Indirect Object, 2.203;
Infinitives (Syntax), 2.230; lonic, 2.266; Language Play
and Translation, 2.308; Media Tantum, 2.403; Metathesis,
2.419; Movable Consonants, 2.468; Negation, 2-487; Noun
Phrase, 2,532; Onomatopoeia, 2.553; Optative, 2.554;
Passive (Syntax), 3.42; Pronominal System, 3.155; Purpose
Clauses, 3.195; Reflexives, 3.216; Sandhi, 3.256; Space
(Cases), 3.312; Subject, 3.333; Thematic Vowel, Stem
Formation, 3.397; Verba Dicendi, 3.469; Verba Sentiendi,
3.470; Verbal Valency, 3.487; Voice, 3.495
Snell, Bruno Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.476;
Responsion, 3.237: Verse, 3.491
social psychology Accommodation, 1.12
sociative Dative, 1.416
sociolinguistic Language and Variation in Greece, 2.288
sociolinguistics Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic
Variation, 1.606; Language Contact, 2.299 (see Thematic
Table of Contents)
Socrates Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.126;
Asianism, 1.180; Etymology (etumologia), Ancient
Theories of, 1,580; Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Antiquity, 3-437
Soden, Wolfram von ‘Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401
Sogdian Augment, 1.217; Greek and Iranian, 2.62
Sokoloff, M. Greek and Aramaic, 2.36
Solé, Maria-Josep Assibilation, 1.185
solecism Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics,
3.241
Solin, Heikki Greek and Etruscan, 2.50; Jewish Greek,
2,269
Selmsen, Felix fonic, 2.265
solaikismös Linguistic Correctness (Rellönismös), Ancient
Theories of, 2.360; Philological-Grammatical Tradition in
Ancient Linguistics, 3.72
Salomon, Jon Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.592
Solomos, D, Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek,
2.257
Solon Attitudes to Language, 1203; Elegy, Diction of,
1.543; lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.187; Orality and
Literacy, 2.564
Sommer, Ferdinand Movable Consonants, 2.469; Word
Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.526
Sommer, Florian Agreement, 1.74
Sommerstein, Alan. Drama Translation, 1.527;
Questions, 3.205; Clitic Group, 1.298; Oaths, Curses, 2.545;
Vowels, 3.506; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.509
Somolinos, Juan R. Greek Lexicon, Structure and Origin
of, 2.10
Song and Recitation* 3.293
song culture Epic Meter, 1557
Sonority Hierarchy* 3.296; Plionvtattics, 3.97
Sonority Sequencing Principle Syllables, 3.347
sonorous harmony Heilenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.156
Sophianos, Nikolaos — tntralingual Translation into
Modern Greek, 2.257; Philological-Grammatical
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.66
Sophists Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.124;
Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the
Byzantine Period, 1.574; Etymology (etumofogia), Ancient
Theories of, 1.580; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.155:
Language Play and Translation, 2.307; Onomastica: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.549; Synonymica:
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 3.352
Sophocles Aischrology, 1.78; Atticism, 1.200; Deixis
(ineluding 1st and and Person), 1.427; Desideratives, 1.491;
 INDEX 637
Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.479; Drama Translation, Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1524; Dramatic Meter, 1.530; History of Teaching of 2.550
Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.168; Infinitives (Syntax), Sparta Accommodation, 1.13; Ancient Bidialectalism
2.235; Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek, 2.257; and Bilingualism, 1.114; Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.366; Medical and Dialectology, 1.121; Kinship Terms, 2.271; Northwest
Vocabulary, 2.405; Metrics, 2.423; Particles (Formal Greek, 2.520; Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
Features), 3.27; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.32; Ionic Script, 3.421
Prosodic Word, 3.164; Puns, 3.193; Roman Translation Spartan Palatalizations, 3.6; Transition from the Local
of Greek Texts, 3.247; Song and Recitation, 3.295; Style Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421
{lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.330; Topic, 3.412; Tragedy, Spartans Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.114:
Diction of, 3.417; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Literary Prose, 2.376; Secret Language/Codes/Magical
Concepts and Models, 3.432; Verbal Adjectives, 3.475; Language, 3.273
Vocative, 3.493; Voice, 3.498; Wackernagel's Law I1 (V’S), Spartiates Laconian, Messenian, 2.287
3-513 Specht, F. Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.400
Sophron Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290; specification Noun Phrase, 2.531
Dialectology (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.460; speech act Declension/Conjugation (Atisis), Ancient
Sicily, Dialects in, 3.293 Theories of, 1.418: Mood and Modality, 2.453
Sorabji, Richard Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.131 speech act middJes Voice, 3.498
Soranus of Ephesus Etymological Dictionaries; From Speech Time Time, 3.406
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575; Roman spelling Glides, 2.15; Monophthongization, 2,449
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.250; Translation of Greek spelling mistakes Anaptyxis, 1.113
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.437 Spencer, Andrew Case (including Syncretism), 1.261;
Satéra Rule* 3.296: Doric Accentuation, 1.523 ‘Trancation, 3.445; Vocative, 3.492
Sotimides Local Scripts, 2.483 Spencer, Diana Roman Translation of Greek Texts,
Souletis, Marie-Ange Wackernagel's Law I, 3.510 3.247
sound change Internal Reconstruction, 2.251; Spengel, Leonhard Declension/Conjugation (klisis),
Neogrammarians, 2.493 Ancient Theories of, 1.417; Figures (skhemata), Ancient
sound change in progress Neogrammarians, 2.494 Theories of, 1.591; Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
soundlaw Language Contact, 2.299; Phonetic Law, 3.76 Theories of, 2.417; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
source Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.58; Linguistics, 3.241; Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328;
Complementation, 1.338; Dative, 1.414; Space (Cases), Tropes (tröpat), Ancient Theories of, 3.441
3.310 Spensithios Cretan, 1.396
South Africa Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Sperber, Alexander Greek and Hebrew, 2.55
Practice, 3.124 Sperber, Daniel Greek and Aramaic, 2.36; Greek
South America Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122
Practice, 4.124 Speusippus Epigram, Diction of, 1.563; Synonymica; From
South Italian Developments in Medieval and Modern Antiquity ta the Byzantine Period, 3.353
Greek, 1.449 Sphinx Epic Diction, 1.556
South Italy Developments in Medieval and Modern Spirantization® 3.315; Cretan, 1396; Glottalic Theory and
Greek, 1.447; Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603; Latin Greek, 2.16
Loanwords in Greek, 2.320 Split* 3.316
Southeast Greek* 3.297 split agency Agency and Causation, 1.70
Sauthern France Greek and Celtic, 2.43; Jonic, 2.260 split causativity Causative Formation, 1.276
Southern Gaul Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92 split construction Hyperbaton, 2.183
Southern Greek dialects Assibilstion, 1.185 Spolsky, Bernard Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in
Southern, Mark R. Indo-European Linguistic First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240; Language Policies,
Background, 2.215; Movable s, 2.470 2.310
Soutsos, P. Atticism, 1.201; Intralingual Translation into spondee Metron, 2.438
Modern Greek, 2.257 spondee zeugma Bridges, 1.246
Sowerby, Robin Homer, Translation, 2.176 spontaneous gemination Developments in Medieval and
Soyinka, Wole Drama Translation, 1.525; Postcolonial Modern Greek, 1.449
Translation: Theory and Practice, 3.123 spontaneous process middle Voice, 3.496
Suzomen Translation uf Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, spontaneous processes Media Tantum, 2.403
3437 Spooner, Joseph Homer, Translation, 2.175
Space (Adpositions)* 3.300 Sprachbund language Contact, 2.299
Space (Cases)* 3.310 spurious diphthongs Compensatory Lengthening,
Spain Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.91; Local Scripts, 2.383; 1.334; Diphthongs, 1.499; Merger, 2.413; Northwest
Toponyms, 3.414 Greek, 2.521; Phonology (Survey), 3.91; Sandhi, 3.421;
Spanish Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.347: Vowels, 3.506
Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420; Diminutives/ Spyroponlos, Vassilios Government Binding and Greek,
Augmentatives (Syntax and Morphology), 1495: 2.22; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.233
Homer, Translation, 2.177; Language Contact, 2.299; Squartini, Mario Perfect, 3.48
Phonological Phrase, 3.88; Pronouns (Demonstrative, Squitier, Karl A. Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.159; Prothesis, 3.173; Stacpoole, H. de Vere Greek Lyrie Poetry, Translation,
Stress, 3.318 2.127
Spanoudakis, Konstantinos Dictionaries of Dialects: Staden, Heinrich von Dictionaries of Scientific
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486
638 INDEX

Stagirus Macedonian, 2.392 stenography Palaeography, 3.1

Stahl, Johann Consecutive Clauses, 1.371; Noun Phrase, Stephanus of Byzantium ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281;
2.532; Verbal Adjectives, 3.473; Voice, 3.498 Alphabetical Dictionaries: Fram Antiquity to the
Stalnaker, Robert C, Conditionals, 1.359; Grounding of Byzantine Period, 1.102; Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories
Information, 2.149; Information Structure and Greek, of, 1.270; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity
2.239 to the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific
Stamatakos, I. Pronominal System, 3.150 Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486;
Stammbaumtheorie Language Change, 2.293 Greek and Illyrian, 2.58; Lexicography, History of, 2.352;
standard Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Numerals, 2.541; Tense (kArdénos), Ancient Theories of,
Dialectology, 1.121; Papyri, Language of, 3.11 3.378; Toponyms, 3.415
Standard Attic Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, Stephens, Laurence D. Accentuation, 1.8; Apposition,
2,364; Syntactic Change, 3.355 1,146; Bridges, 1.246; Caesurae, 1.256; Clitics, 1.301;
Standard Greek Language Contact, 2.300 Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.419; Determiners, 1.443;
standard language Koine, Origins of, 2.277; Language and Epic Meter, 1.558; Government Binding and Greek, 2.24;
Variation in Greece, 2.288 Hyperbaton, 2.183; Information Structure and Greek,
Standard Modern Greek Tsakonian, 3.446 2.242; Intonational Phrase, 2.253; Labiovelars, 2.286;
standardization Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, Language Change, 2.295; Law of Limitation, 2.324;
2.368 Length, 2.328; Merger, 2.413; Movable Consonants,
Standards Decree Language Policies, 2.310 2.468; Optimality and Greek, 2.558; Osthoffs Law, 2.576;
standards of textuality Text Linguistics and Greek, Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.60; Phonological Phrase,
3.389 3.87; Phonotactics, 3.97; Pitch, 3.100; Possession, 3,121;
Stanley, Thomas Drama Translation, 1.527; Greek Lyric Postpositives, 3.130; Preposttives, 3.145; Prosodic Word,
Poetry, Translation, 2.126 3.161; Questions, 3.201; Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.271; Sotera
Stapyltan, Robert Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, Rule, 3.297; Stress, 3.319; Syntax-Phonology Interface,
3.127 3.362; Typology of Greek, 3.452; Utterance, 3.454; Verb
Stark, Jürgen Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32 Phrase, 3.463; Wackernagel’s Law I, 3.508: Word Order,
Starobinski,J. Poetic Language, 3.108 3.532
Starostin, S.A, Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.97 Steriade, Donca Accentuation, 18; Clitic Group, 1.298;
Stasinus Cypriot, 1.401 Compensatory Lengthening, 1.334: Intonational Phrase,
Stassen, Leon Comitatlve, 1.321; Comparison, 1.332: 2.255; Law of Limitation, 2.323; Minima, 2.442; Moras,
Conjunctions (Non-Subordinating), 1.363 2.459; Phonology (Survey), 3.94; Phonotactics, 3.96;
states Adverbial Constituents, 150; Complementation, Stress, 3.920; Syllables, 3.950
1.337 Stesichorus Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278; Dialects,
Statius Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.247 Classification of, 1.462; Doric Accentuation, 1.522; Greek
stative Agency and Causation, 1.68; Aorist Formation, Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Local Scripts, 2.379; Lyric
1.140; Contract Verbs, 1.383: Media Tantum, 2.403; Meter, 2.987; Song and Recitation, 3.295; Verse, 3.490
Mediopassive, 2.411; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic. Stevens, P.T. Written versus Spoken Language, 3.54
to Early Byzantine Greek, 3.380 Stewart, Andrew Lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389
Stative (and Middle/Medium) Verbs* 3.316 Stewart, Gordon Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.393
stative meaning Passive (Morphology), 3.42 stichic meter Metron, 2.436
stative verbs Activa Tantum, 1.24; Verbal System (Tense. stikhos Period, 3.53
Aspect, Moad), 3.482 Stielana Sicily, Dialects in, 3.291
Stavropoullos, Phivos Schist Fragments from the Stiernhielm, Georg Coamparative Method, 1.329
Academy, 3.259 Stiewe, Barbara History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Stavrou, Melita Accusative, 1.14 Germany, 2.172
Stechow, Arnim von Perfect, 3.47 stigmatization Dialectal Convergence, 1.456
Steel, Luc Construction Grammar and Greek, 1.376 stimulus Dative, 1414; Non-Canonical Subjects, 2.515
Steele, Susan Agreement, 1.73 stimulus argument Experiential Constructions, 1.586
steganography Secret Language/Codes/Magical Stoa Vocative, 3.492
Language, 3.272 Stobaeus Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127
Steinepigramm Epigram, Diction of, 1.561 Stoic Tense (khrdnos), Ancient Theories of, 3.378
Steiner, George Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.139; Stoic theory Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories
Hoiner, Translation, 2.177; Intralingwal Translation into of, 2.416
Modern Greek, 2,258 Stuic tradition Vucalive, 3.492
Steiner, T.R. Post-Homeric Epic Poetry. Translation, Stoichades Scientific Vocabulary, 3.263
3.127 stoichedon Epigraphy, 1.565
Steinthal, Heymann Atticism, 1.202; Diathesis (diathesis), Stoics Adverbs, 1.54; Analogy, 1.103; Ancient Philosophers
Ancient Theories of, 1469; Philological-Grammatical on Language, 1.127; Aorist (aöristos), Ancient Theories
Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.63 of, 1138; Atticism, 1.199; Case (including Syncretism),
stelae Epigraphy, 1.567 1262; Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.269; Clause,
Stele of Xanthos Greek and Lycian, 2.67 1293; Declension/Conjugation (4/ésis), Ancient Theories
stem Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1,286; of, 1.418; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420; Diathesis
Thematic Vowel, Stem Formatton, 3.397; Word (didthesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.469; Dictionaries
Formation (Derivation, Compounding), 3.523 of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
stem formation Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation, 3.397 1.480; Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
stem-basedness Nominal System (Gender, Number, the Byzantine Period, 1574; Etymology (etumologla),
Case), 2.500 Ancient Theories of, 1.581; Euphemism and Dysphemism,
 INDEX 639
1.582; Figures (skhemata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590; Style (lexiz), Ancient Theories of* 3.326
Koine, Origins of, 2.280; Linguistic Correctness stylistic Poetic Language, 3.103
(hellönismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.360; Noun stylus Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.266
(önoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.525; Onomastica: From Stymphalos Achaean, 1.20; Arcadian, 1.151
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.549; Orthography Stymphalus, Law of Formation of Doric Kotnes, The,
(orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Philological- 1.604
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.69; stikhos Verse, 3.489
Predicative Constituents, 3.130; Sentence/Utterance subelass Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.501
((dgos), Ancient Theories of, 3.285; Style (l&xis), Ancient subiectum Clause, 1.293
Theories of, 3.327; Syntax (süntaxis), Ancient Theories Subject* 4.331; Adjuncts, 1.28; Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.10
of, 3.359; Tropes (trdpo/}, Ancient Theories of, 3.442; subject antecedent condition Reflexives, 3.216
Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of, 3.460; Verbal System subject-affectedness Activa Tantum, 1.24; Cognitive
(Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477: Word Classes (méré tui Linguistics and Greek, 1.310; Voice, 3.495
fégou), Ancient Theories of, 3.517: Word Formation subjectification Semantic Change, 3.278
(paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.529 subject-matter Adverbial Constituents, 1.54;
Stoltenberg, HansL. Greek and Etruscan, 2.50 Complementation, 1.338
Stolz, Thomas Comitative, 1.320 subjunctive Aspect (and Tense}, 1.181; Classical Greek
Stoppard, Tom (Sir) Drama Translation, 1.525 Morphology (Survey), 1.291; Indo-European Linguistic
Storer, Edward Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127 Background, 2.222; Optative, 2.554; Participles
Stork, Peter Grounding of Information, 2.149; Historical (Morphological Aspects of), 3.23; Subjunctive
Present, 2.161; Perfect, 3.47 (Morphology of), 3.334
Stowell, Tim Government Binding and Greek, 2.21 Subjunctive (Morphology of)* 32.334
Strabo Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Dialects, Classification of, subjunctive, hortatory Questions, 3.201; Subjunctive
1.462; Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Antiquity to (Morphology of}, 3.334
the Byzantine Period, 1.484; Dictionaries of Scientific subordinate clause Consecutive Clauses, 1.369; Optative,
Vacabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; 2.554
Greek and Celtic, 2.44; Greek and Ulyrian, 2.56; Greek Subordination* 3,335; Coordination (includes
and Thracian, 2.87; Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.127; Asyndeton)}, 1.384; Predicative Constituents, 3.132
Indo-European Historical Background. 2.21; Language subordinators Temporal Clauses, 3.375
Contact, 2.305; Literary Prose, 2.372; Onomatopoeia, substandard Papyri, Language of, 3.13
2.552; Pamphylian, 3.8; Particles (Formal Features), 3.27; sub-standard Attic Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
Rhotacism, 3.244; Toponyms, 3.415 2.370
Stracca, Palumbo Laconian, Messenian, 2.287 substantivization Greek and Phrygian, 2.75
Strassler, Robert Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.91 substantivized infinitive Determiners, 1.445
Strattis Macedonian, 2.394 substitutability Etymology (etumologia), Ancient
Strawson, P.F. Conditionals, 1.359 Theories of, 1.58a
Stray, Christopher Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching substitution Cohesion, 1312
Methods, 3.370 substrate Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.163; Contact
Stress" 3.318 through Translation, 1.379; Elean (and Olympia), 1.535;
stress accent Cretan, 1.397; Erasmian Pronunciation, Greek and Thractan, 2.84; Indo-European Linguistic
1.569; Syncape, 3.351: Thessallan, 3.403 Background, 2.224; Language and Variation in Greece,
Striano, A. Elean (and Olympia), 1.535; Tsakonian, 3.447 2.288; Language Change, 2.293; Southeast Greek, 3.298:
Strockis, Mindaugas Doric Accentuation, 1.523 Vowel Changes, 3.503
Stroh, Cornelia Comitalive, 1.320 substratum Epic Diction, 1.551; Greek and Anatolian
Strömberg, Reinhold = Proverbs, 3.190 Languages, 2.28; Pre-Greek Languages. 3.134
strong focus Hyperbaton, 2.184 Suda Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to the
strophes Responsion, 3.235 Byzantine Period, 1.102; Lexicagraphy, History of, 2.351;
Stroud, R.S. Schist Fragments from the Academy, 3.259 Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of, 2.415:
Strozzi, Franceso diS. Greek Historiography, Onemastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
Translation, 2.90 2.549
Strubbe, Jahan Oaths, Curses, 2.547 Sudhaus, Siegfried Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
structural analogy Analogy, 1.105 Theories of, 2.416; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories ol,
structural borrowing Language Contact, 2.299 3.443
Structural Linguistics and Greek* 3.323 Suetonius Doric, 1.521; Rhodian, 3.243; Teaching of
structuralism Language Change, 2.296; Structural Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.364
Linguistics and Greek, 3.326: Suppletion, 3.341; Vocative, Suffix® 2.341: Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
3.492 1.286
Strunk, Klaus Epic Diction, 1.552; Nasal Presents, 2.482 suffixal derivational morpheme Word Formation
Stuart-Smith,
Jane Spirantization, 3.315 (Derivation, Compounding), 3.523
Stiiber, Karin Caland System and Greek, 1.258 sumbama Clause, 1.293
Stump, GregoryT. Diminutives/Augmentatives (Syntax Sumerian Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99
and Morphology), 1.497 Sumero-Akkadian Chiasm, 1.277
Sturtevant, Edgar H. Caesurae, 1.253; Consonants, 1.374; sundesmos Word Classes (méré tod lögau), Ancient
Intonational Phrase, 2.264; Phonetics, 3.79; Vowels, 4.506 Theories of, 3.517
Sturtevant's Paradox Analogy, 1.104; Phonetic Law, 3.78 sunkritikén Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis),
Sturz, Friedrich W. Etymological Dictionaries: From Ancient Theories of, 3.531
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1575; Lexicography, stinthesis Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient
History of, 2.352 Thearies af, 3.529
640 INDEX

stintheta Word Formation (paragöge/süunthesis), Ancient Symeonidis, Charalambos Balkan Sprachbund: Early
Theories of, 3.530 Evidence in Greek, 1.222
superheavy syllables Syllables, 3.349 Symi Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.163
superlative Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.219 Symmachus Greek and Hebrew, 2.54; Greek Novel,
superstandard Papyri, Language of, 3.13 Translation, 2.134; Homan Translation of Greek Texts,
superstition Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.582 3.249; Septuagint, 3.289
superstrate Language Change, 2.297; Southeast Greek, symmetric predicates Comitative, 1.322
3,298 symmetry Literary Prose, 2,376
Suppletion® 3.343; Analogy, 1.104; Aorist Formation, 1.141; symploke Epanalepsis, 1.546
Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290 symposium Elegy, Diction of, 1543
suppletive indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.219; Synagoge Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity
Voice, 3.495 to the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Dictionaries of Dialects:
suppletive morphology Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.482
Mood), 3.479 synaloephe Crasis, 1395
suppletive verbs Indo-European Linguistic Background, syncopation Lyric Meter, 2.386
2.221 Syneope” 3.351; Boeotian, 1243; Cretan, 1.397; Greek and
supradialectal contact Ancient Bidialectalism and Lydian, 2,70
Bilingualism, 1.116 syncretism Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Susa Greek and iranian, 2.63 Dialectology, 1.120; Attic Declension, 1.195; Case
Sutherland, Efua Postcolonial Translation: ‘Theory and (including Syncretism), 1262; Classical Greek
Practice, 3.124 Morphology (Survey), 1.287: Dative, 1.414; Dual, 1.533;
Süvern, Johann W. History of Teaching of Ancient Greek Genitive, 2.4; Language Change, 2.294; Morphological
in Germany, 3.171 Change, 2.465; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case),
Suzuki, Keiichiro Dissimilation, 1.514 2.500; Proto-Greek and Common Greek, 3.185
svarabhakti Anaptyxis, 1.113 synecdoche Etymology (eiumologia), Ancient Theories
Svenbro, Jesper Deixis (including ist and and Person), of, 1.582; Semantic Change, 3.277
1.428; Greek and Lydian, 2.70 synecphonesis Prosody, 3.170
Svennung, Josef Forms of Address and Sociolinguistic Synizesis* 3.351: Clitics, 1.302; Crasis, 1,395; Prosody, 3.170
Variation, 1.608; Vocative, 3-493 synoecism Arcadian, 1.151
Svoronos, Nikos Intralingual Translation into Modern Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Greek, 2.259 Period* 3.952
Svorou, Soteria Space (Cases), 3.301 synonyms Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries,
Swain, Simon Attitudes to Language, 1.207; Byzantine 1.357; Etymology (etumologia), Ancient Theories of, 1.580
Phase and Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.250; Latin synonymy Etymology (etumologia), Ancient Theories of,
Loanwords in Greek, 2.320; Linguistic Correctness 3.214
(hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.360; Roman syntactic calques Jewish Greek, 2.268
Translation of Greek Texts, 3.245 Syntactic Change* 3.355
Swan, Joan Language Play and Translation, 2.306 syutactic function Complementation, 1.336
Swiggers, Pierre Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; syntactic reduplication Pronominal System, 3.154:
Epigraphy, 1.564; Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Reduplication, 3.214
Ancient Theories of, 4.530 syntactic roles Active, 1.24: Voice, 3.494
Swinburne, Algernon C. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, syntactic transference Negation, 2.487
2.127 syntactic valency Verbal Valency, 3.487
Sybaris Achaean, 1.19; Ancient Bidialectalism and syntax Koine, Origins of, 2.282; Word Formation
Bilingualism, 1.16; Local Scripts, 2.384 (paragöge/süntkesis), Ancient Theories of, 3.531
Sykoutris Intralingual Translation into Modern Greek, Syntax (särtaxis), Ancient Theories of* 3.358
2.259 syntax—lexicon continuum Construction Grammar and
syllabary Eteocypriot, 1.571; Glides, 2.15; Linear B, 2.355 Greek, 1.376
syllabary, common Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404 Syntax-Phonology Interface* 3.361
syllabic Cretan, 1.396 Syracusan Dialectology (dielektos), Ancient Theories of,
Syllabic Consonants* 3.344 1,460; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463
syllabic resonants Indo-European Linguistic Syracusans = Literary Prose, 2.376
Background, 2.213 Syracuse Choral Poetry, Diction al, 1.278; Code-Mixing,
Syllabic Sonority Principle Syllables, 3.347 1.307; Doric, 1.516; Formation of Doric Koincs, The, 1.605;
syllabification Orthography (orthographia)}, Ancient Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.94; Keine, Origins of,
Theories of, 2.573; Prosodic Word, 3.161; Syllables, 3.348 2.280; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.290; Transition from the Local
Syllable Contact Law Epenthesis, 1547 Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.422
Syllable Weight* 3.346; Maras, 2.459 Syria Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1147; Compound
Syllables* 3.347 Tenses (Hellenistic Greek), 1.348; Cypro-Minoan
syllabograms Linear B, 2.355 Syllabary, 1.408; Greek and Syriac, 2.80; Greek Loanwords
symbolic reduplication Reduplication, 3.213 in Syriac, 2.125; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Late Antiquity
Symeon Synonymica; From Antiquity to the Byzantine Prose, 2.317; Local Scripts, 2.380; Palaeography, 3.3;
Period, 3.354 Papyri, Language of, 3.12
Symeon Metaphrastes Byzantine Phase and Reception Syriac Byzantine Phase and Reception of Ancient Greek,
of Ancient Greek, the, 1.251 the, 1.248; Contact through Translation, 1.379; Greek
Symeonides Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries, and Aramaic, 2.36; Greek and Armenian, 2.38; Greek
L358 and Illyrian, 2.57; Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.121; Greek
 INDEX 64)

Luanwords in Slavic, 2.123; Homer, Translation, 2.176; Targümim — Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Language Contact, 2.300; Phytonyms (Names of Trees), Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240; Greek Loanwords in
3.99; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122
and Models, 3.434; Renaissance, Translation, 3.232 Ta’rih al-hukama’ Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148
Syrian Renaissance, Translation, 3.232 Tarquinians Greek and Etruscan, 2.50
Syro-Palestine Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.95; Tarsus Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First-
Cypriot Syllabary, 1.404 Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238
Syro-Palestinian Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.603 Tataie Local Scripts, 2.483
Syros Adoption of the lonic alphabet in Attica, 1.40; Local Taucheira-Arsinoe Cyrenaean, 1.409
Scripts, 2.383 Tauriscus Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.442
system Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.324 Tauromenium Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.605;
system-level evaluation Diminutives/Augmentatives Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.95; onic, 2.261;
(Syntax and Morphology), 1.489 Rhodian, 3.243; Sicily, Dialects in, 3.291
Szemerényi, Oswald 'Narten' Presents, 2.480; Ablaut Taurus mountains Pre-Greek Languages. 3.135
(Apophony, Gradation), 1.1; Aorist Farmation, 1.138; Tavoni, Mirko Greek Lexicon in Western Languages,
Attic Reversion, 1196; Augment, 1.215; Auxiliaries, 2.106
1220; Calques, 1.261; Case {including Syncretism), L261; Taylor, Ann Clitic Group, 1.297: Clitics, 1.303; Dependency
Haplology, 2.153; Indo-European Linguistic Background, Grammar and Greek, 1.436; Government Binding and
3.220; Participles (Morphological Aspects uf), 3.21; Greek, 2.24; Hyperbaton, 2.183; Language and Variation
Passive (Morphology), 3.42; Perfect, Formation of, 3.50; in Greece, 2.289; Language Change, 2.295; Phonological
Phonology (Survey), 3.93; Pronouns (Demonstrative, Phrase, 3.88; Verb Phrase, 3.462; Wackernagel's Law |,
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.160; Prothesis, 3.174; 3.543; Word Order, 3.534
Proto-Greek anıl Common Greek, 3.186; Root Structure Taylor, John Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309;
(and Ablaut), 3.252; Schwebeablaut, 3.261; Syncope, 3.351: Utterance, 3.454
Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401; Time, 3.406; Verbal Taylor, R. Possession, 3.15
System (Tense, Aspect, Mond), 3.477 Te Riele, Gérard-Jean Arcadian, 1.152; Transition from
the Local Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421
Tabitibn Qurra Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.150 Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy” 3.364
tablets Papyri, Language of, 3.12 Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Methods" 3.366
taboo Language Change, 2.295; Semantic Change, 3.277 Tebben, J. Concordances/Indices/Reverse Dictionaries,
taboo words Euphemism and Dysphemism, 1.582 1.357
tachygraphy Palaeography, 3.1 technolects Word Formation (Derivation,
Tacitus Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.95; Greek Compounding), 3.521
and Etruscan, 2.50; Greek Historiography, Translation, technopaegnia Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.157
2.92 Tegea Accommodation, 1.13; Arcadian, 1.151; Arcado-
Tagalog Predicative Constituents, 3.130 Cypriut, 1.155; Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
Tagliavini, Carlo Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, lonic Script, 3.421
2.106 Tegean Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604
Tahtsis, Kostas Intralingual Translation into Modern Tel Haror Linear A, 2.355
Greek, 2.259 teleia Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient
tail Topic, 3.412 Theories of, 3,531
Taillardat, Jean Etymological Dictionaries: From the Telephus Greek and Etruscan, 2.49
Renaissance to the soth Century, 1.573: Reflexives, 3.216: Telephus of Pergamon Synonymica: From Antiquity to
Root Structure (and Ablaut), 3.253; Song and Recitation, the Byzantine Period, 3.353
3.293 telic Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.333
Tainaron (Taenarum) Transition from the Local telic content verbs Perfect, 3.47
Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.421 telic verbs Aorist, 1.137
Taita,j. Elean (and Olympia), 1.535 telicity Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.333; Preverbs, 3.149
talithakoum Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in Telos Formation of Doric Koines, The, 1.604
First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1,240 Temple Hill Greek and Hebrew, 2.54
talking inscriptions Greek and Lydian, 2.70 temporal augment Aorist Formation, 1.139
Talmud Greek Luanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122; Temporal Clauses” 3.374
Language Contact, 2.303 temporality Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.0
Talmy, Leonard Space (Cases), 3.312 Tenedos Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.329
Tamassos Arcado-Cypriot, 1.157; Cypriot, 1.403 Tennyson, Alfred Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125
Tanagra lyric Poetry, Diction of, 2.389 Tenos lonic, 2.261
Tanner,J. Translation in Non-Western Traditions: tense Aorist (adristos), Ancient Theories of, 1.137: Aspect
Concepts and Models, 3.431 (and Tense), 1.181; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
TANOTALIKNOI Greek and Celtic, 2.45 1.290; Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.324
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa Coherence, 1.312; Cohesion, Tense (khrönos), Ancient Theories of* 3.377
L313; Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389 Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic ta Early Byzantine
Tarentum Doric, 1.516; Greek and Latin, 2.66; Laconian, Greek® 3.379
Messenian, 2.287; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398 Tense/Aspect® 3.382
targets ofagreement Agreement, 1.74 Teodorsson, Sven-Tage Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
Targum Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and Hebrew, and Dialectology, 1.121; Cypriot, 1403; Koine, Features of,
2.52; Language Contact, 2.303 2.273: Koine, Origins of, 2.283; Language and Variation
h42 INDEX

in Greece, 2.290; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, Thematic and Athematic Verbs* 3.394
2.364; Syncope, 3.351; Vowel Changes, 3.505 thematic aorist Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.338
Teos lonic, 2.260; Local Scripts, 2.379; Lyric Poetry, thematic declension Gender, 2.1
Diction of, 2.389 thematicroles Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.271
Terence Atticism, 1.199; Drama Translation, 1.526; Greek thematic stems Subjunctive (Morphology of}, 3.334
and Latin, 2.66; History of Teaching of Ancient Greek thematic verb Imperative, 2.191; Linguistic Variation in
in Germany, 2.166; Metrics, 2.423; Roman Translation of Classical Attic, 2.366; Thematic and Athematic Verbs,
Greek Texts, 3.247 3.394; Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation, 3.399
Terentianus Maurus Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories thematic vowel Indo-European Linguistic Background,
of, 2.435 2.217; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.500;
Terina Achaean, 1.19; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398 Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation, 3.397
Terkourafi, Marina Construction Grammar and Greek, Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation* 3.397
1.377 thematization Action Nouns, 1.23; Deverbative Verbs,
terminative Aorist, 1.137 1.454; Koine, Features of, 2.274; Nasal Presents, 2.481;
terminative aspect Deverbative Verbs, 1.453 Present Tense, 3.147
Termini Imierese Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.98 theme Complementation, 1.340; Patient and Theme, 3.44;
terms of address Papyri, Language of, 3,12 Topic, 3.4n; Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of, 3.461;
terms of relationship Greek and Lycian, 2.69 Verbal Adjectives, 3.473
Terpander Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.279; Lyric Meter, theme andrheme Predicative Constituents, 3.130; Word
2,387; Lyric Poetry, Diction af, 2.389 Order, 3.537
Terrasson = Formulaic Language, 1,608 themes Poetic Language, 3.103
Tertullian Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.105; Themistius Greek and Syriac, 2,81; Medieval Translation
Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436 of Greek Texts, 2.409; Translation of Greek Texts in Late
Tesniére, Lucien Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.434 Antiquity, 3.436
Tessier, Andrea Metrics (meéfror), Ancient Theories of. Theobald, Lewis Drama Translation, 1.527
2.433 ; Theocritus <Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Attitudes to Language,
tetraploün Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), 1.204; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), 1.290:
Ancient Theories of, 4,530 Dialects, Classification ol, 1.462; Doric Accentuation,
Tetrarchy Papyri, Language of, 3.13 1.523; Epigram, Diction of, 1.563; Hellenistic Poetry,
Text Encoding Initiative Corpus Linguistics and Greek, Diction of, 2.156; Palatalizations, 3.6; Post-Homeric Epic
1392 Puetry, Translation, 3.126; Responsion, 3.236: Sicily,
text grammar Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.3849 Dialects in, 3.293; Written versus Spoken Language,
Text Linguistics and Greek* 3.389 3.541
text syntax Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389 Theodectes Khetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics,
text-centered approach Teaching of Ancient Greek, 3.239
Teaching Methods, 3.369 Theodore of Mopsuestia Greek and Syriac, 2.81;
textual deixis Pronominal System, 3.153 Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.438
textual reconstruction Poetic Language, 3.103 Theodore Studites Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.478
textual-communicative approach Teaching of Ancient Theodoret Atticism, 1.201; Greek and Syriac, 2.81;
Greek, Teaching Methods. 3.368 Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.437
Thackeray, Henry 5]. Compound Tenses (Hellenistic Theodoridis, Christos Etymological Dictionaries; !'ram
Greek), 1.248; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52; Jewish Greek, Antiquily ta the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Lexicography,
2.268; Septuagint, 3.288 History of, 2.351
Thales Literary Prose, 2.371 Theodorus of Byzantium Figures (skhémata), Ancient
Thamüdic Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.33 Theories of, 1.589
Thasos lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.188; lonic, 2.261; Local Theodosius! Attitudes to Language, 1.207
Scripts, 2.383; Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Theodosius of Alexandria Declension/Conjugation
Tonic Script, 3.422 (klisis), Ancient Theorles of, 1.419; Dialectology
The Chronicle of Morea — Atticism, 1.201 (didlektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.460; Diathesis
Theagenes of Rhegium Allegory (allegoria), Ancient (diathesis), Ancient Theories of, 1.469; Linguistic
Theories of, 1.86 Correctness (hellönismös), Ancient Theories of,
Theater Translation and Performance* 3.392 2.363; Philolugical-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Thebans Literary Prose, 2.376 Linguistics, 3,73
Thebes Alphabet, The Origin of the Greck, 1.94; Theodosius of Syracuse Teaching of Ancient Greek in
Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, Italy, 3.364
1.120; Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236; Cypriot Theodotion Greek and Hebrew, 2.54; Greek Novel,
Syllabary, 1.404; Epic Diction, 1.550; Greek and Anatolian Translation, 2.134; Septuagint, 3.288
Languages, 2.28; lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.188; Theognides lambic Poetry, Diction of, 2.188
Linear B, 2.357: Local Scripts, 2.379; Local Scripts, Theognis Elegy, Diction of, 1.543; History of Teaching
2.379; Mycenaean Script and Language, 2.471; Scribes, of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.168; Verbal Adjectives,
Mycenaean, 3.271; Transition from the Local Alphabets 3.471
to the lonic Script, 3.421 Theognostus Lexicography, History of, 2,532;
thematic Aorist Formation, 1.13% Classical Greek Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.575
Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Diathesis/Voice Theon Asianism, 1.180
(Morphology of), 1.471; Indo-European Linguistic Theonyms (Names of Gods)* 3.400; Etymology
Background, 2.217; Orders (Imperative/Prohibitives), (etumotogia), Ancient Theories of, 1.581; Zoonyms
2.566; Reduplicated Presents, 3.209; Thessalian, 3.404 (Names of Mammals), 3.444
 INDEX
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra Government
Binding and Greek, 2.21
Theophilus of Edessa Homer, Translation, 2.176
Theophrastus Aischrology, 1.77; Ancient Prase Rhythm,
1134; Figures (sthémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590;
Greek and Semitic Languages (Early Contacts),
2.79; Hellenistic Poetry, Diction of, 2.155; Linguistic
Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.361;
Metaphor {metaphorä), Ancient Theories of, 2.416;
Proverbs, 3.189; Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
Linguistics, 3.238; Style (lexis), Ancient Theories of, 3.327:
Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
3.353; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.441; Ward
Order, 3.533
Theophylact Simocatta Etymological Dictionaries: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576
Theopompus Literary Prose, 2.378
Thedsdotos/Thidzotos Epic Dictiun, 1.556
Thera Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.98;
Cyrenaean, 1.409; Doric, 1.516; Epigraphy, 1565;
Formation of Doric Koines, The. 1.604; Insular Doric,
2.245; lonic, 2.261; Linear A, 2.355; Local Scripts, 2.380;
Monuphthongization, 2.449; Moras, 2.461
Theran Aspiration, 1.184
Thermaic Gulf Macedonian, 2.392
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Computational Linguistics
and Greek, 1354: Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392
thesis Foot, 1,600; Period. 3.53
Thesleff, Holger Adverbs, 1.56; Ancient Prose Rhythm.
1.135
Thespiai Boeotian, 1.245; Transition from the Local
Alphabets to the lonic Seript. 3.421
Thespis Tragedy, Diction of, 3.47
Thesprotia Thessalian, 3.403
Thessalia Indo-European Historical Background, 2.210
Thessalian* 3.403; Adpositional Phrase, 1.36; Adpasitions
(Prepositions), 1.48; Apocope, 1.142; Archaisms in
Modern Dialects, 1.159; Classical Greek Morphology
(Survey), 1.288; Code-Mixing, 1.307; Code-Switching,
1.303; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Epic Diction,
1.549; Greek and Illyrian, 2.58; Macedonian, 2.394; Moras,
2.461; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502;
Optimality and Greek, 2.557: Phonology (Survey), 3.91;
Pronominal System, 3.150; Rhotacism, 3.244; Syncope,
3.351; Verbal System (‘l'ense, Aspect, Mood), 3.483
Thessaliotis Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Thessalian, 4.403
Thessaloniki Derveni Papyrus, 1.440; Greek Loanwords
in Slavic, 2.123
Thessaly Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Dialectology, 1.122; Attitudes to Language, 1.205;
Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.448;
Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Dual, 1.534; Formation
of Doric Koines, The, 1.605; Greek and Etruscan, 2.49;
Infinitives (Morphology of), 2.227; Local Scripts, 2,384;
Macedonian, 2.392; Patronymics, 3.45; Pronominal
System, 3.154; Syncope, 3.351; Thessalian, 3.403;
Transition from the Local Alphabets to the Ionic Script,
3.421
Thettalot Thessalian, 4.404
Theurillat, Thierry Local Scripts, 2.380
Theutis Arcado-Cyprlot, 1.155
Thiel, Helmut van Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Dictionaries, 1.357
Thieme, Paul Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401
Thiermann, Peter Homer, Translation, 2.176
Third Humanism History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
in Germany, 2.162
Thomas Aquinas Concordances/Indices/Reverse
Dictionaries, 1.357; Databases and Dictionaries
[Papyrology and Epigraphy included], 1.4u
Thomas Magister Alphabetical Dietionaries: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.102; Dictionaries
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.482
Thomas, F.W. Word Classes (méré tou lögou), Ancient
Theories of, 3.519
Thomason, Sarah G. Balkan Sprachbund; Early Evidence
in Greek, 1.222; Language Contact, 2.299
Thompson, Alexandra A. Dictionaries of Ancient Greek,
1.477; Word Formation (Derivation, Compounding),
3.528
Thompson, Anne Personal Names, 3.56; Truncation,
3-445
Thompson, Dorothy]. Language Policies, 2.310
Thompson, EdwardM. Pulaeography, 3.5
Thompson, Rupert Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics
and Dialectology, 1.120; Dialectal Convergence, 1,455;
Dialects, Classification of, 1.464; Dissimilation, 1.514;
Grassmann's Law, 2.27; Morphological Change, 2.464;
Scribes, Mycenaean, 3.270; Syllabic Consonants, 3.344
Thompson, Sandra Agency and Causation, 1.67; Direct
Object, 1303; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.38; Perfect,
3.47; Transitivity, 3.423; Voice, 3.495
Thompson, Steven = ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281
Thomson, G. Questions, 4.201
Thorason, Robert Greek and Armenian, 2.38
Thorley,jobn Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.332
Thornburg, Linda Cognitive Linguistics and Greek, 1.309
Thorp, John Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.269
Thrace Developments in Medieval and Modem Greek,
1.438; Greek and Thracian, 2.84; Macedonian, 2.392;
Secret Language/Codes/Magical Language, 3.274
Thrace, eastern Developments In Medieval and Modern
Greek, 1.447
Thracian Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Alphabet, Descendants of,
1.91; Greek and Illyrian, 2,58; Greek Lexicon, Structure
and Origin of, 2.112; Ionic, 2.260; Language Contact,
2,300: Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.139
Thracians Lemnian, 2.327
Thraco-Phrygian Macedonian, 2.392
Thrall, Margaret E, Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.40
Thrasymachus of Chalcedon Ancient Prose Rhythm,
1.194; Literary Prase, 2.377; Style (lexis), Ancient Theories
ol, 3.327
Threatte, Leslie Diphthongs, 1.499; Spirantization,
3.315; Adoption of the Ianic alphabet in Attica, 1.30;
Assimilation, 1,186; Attic, 1.188; Consonant Changes, 1.372:
Consonants, 1.375; Dissimilation, 1515: Koine, Origins of,
2.281; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.290; Linguistic
Variation in Classica! Attic, 2.365; Mediopassive, 2.411;
Movable Consonants, 2.469; Phonology (Survey), 3.95;
Prosody, 3.170; Psilosis, 3.192; Vowel Changes, 3.504;
Vowels, 3.506
Thucydides Aeolic Dialects, 1.62; Ancient Bidialectalism
and Bilingualism, 1.114; Ancient Prose Rhythm. 1.135;
Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.200; Byzantine Phase and
Reception of Ancient Greek, the, 1.249; Classical Greek
Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Coardination (includes
Asyndeton), 1.389; Deixis (including ist and and Person),
1428; Dialects, Classification of, 1.462; Discourse Analysis
and Greek, 1513; Epanalepsis, 1.546; Greek and Etruscan,
2.49; Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.89; Grounding
of information, 2.149; Historical Present, 2.161; Indirect
Object, 2.203; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.235; Koine, Origins
644 INDEX

of, 2.279; Language and Variation in Greece, 2.290: 2.412; Numerals, 2.539; Verba Sentiendi, 3.470: Verbal
Language Change, 2.297; Late Antiquity Prose, 2.318; System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.484
Lexicography, History of, 2.349; Linguistic Correctness Tod, Marcus N. Movable Consonants, 2.469
(heilönismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.363; Linguistic Tomaschek, W. Greek and Thracian, 2.87
Variation in Classical Attic, 2.365; Literary Prose, 2.372; tomb inscriptions Greek and Syriac, 2.80
Macedonian, 1.393; Medical Vocabulary, 2.404; Noun Tomié, Olga Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
Phrase, 2.529; Numerals, 2.542; Phonology (Survey), 3.95; Greek, 1.224
Renaissance, Translation, 3.233; Rhetorical Tradition in Tomlin, Russel $. Grounding of Information, 2.149
Ancient Linguistics, 3.240: Roman Translation of Greek Tompkins, Joanne Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Texts, 3.248; Sandhi, 3.257; Style ((éxis), Ancient Theories Practice, 3.122
of, 3.328; Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365; tone unit Intonational Phrase, 2.253
Thessalian, 3.403; Topic, 3.412; Tragedy, Diction of, 3.418; Tonnet, Henri Developments in Medieval and Modern
Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Greek, 1.448; Tense and Aspect from Hellenistic to Early
Models, 3.428; Vendryes’ Law, 3.458 Byzantine Greek, 3.980
Thumb, Albert ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281; Ancient Greek Topic* 3.414 Word Order, 3.532
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.18; Arcadian, 1.153; topic framework ‘Topic, 3.411
Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.158; Argolic, 1.171; topic, hanging Nominative, 2.513
Atticism, 1.197; Dialects, Classification of, 1.463; Greek topicality Anaphoric Processes, 1.110; Possession, 3.16
and Armenian, 2.38; lonic, 2.266; Language and Variation topicalization Functional Grammar and Greek, 1.617:
in Greece, 2.289; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335; Verb Phrase, 3.466
Literary Prose, 2.375; Nominal System (Gender, Number, topicalizations Prepositives, 3.145
Case), 2.502; Pamphylian, 3.8: Written versus Spoken topicalizing devices Topic, 3.412
Language, 3.541 Lopie-comment Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of,
Thurii Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.398 3.462
Tiberius Figures (skhemata), Ancient Theories of, 1.591; topic-focus Topic, 3.412
Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.241; Style Topintzi, N. Moras, 2.460; Optimality and Greek, 2.558
(éxis}, Ancient Theories of, 3.328 Toponyms” 3.414; Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.137; Typology of
Tichy. Eva Mediopassive, 2.411; Reduplicated Presents, Greek, 3.451
3.211; Reduplication, 3.213; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345 Toporov, V.N. Poetic Language, 3.108
Tigre Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 Torah Chiasm, 1.277; Greek and Aramaic, 2.34; Greek and
‘Tigrinya Greek Loanwords in Geez, 2.120 Hebrew, 2.52; Septuagint, 3.287
Till, Walter Language Contact, 2.302 Torallas Tovar, Sofia Ancient Bidialectalism and
Timaeus Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to Bilingualism, 1.11.4; Greek and Egyptian, and Coptic, 2.47:
the Byzantine Period, 1.101 Palaeography, 3.1
Timagenes Atticism, 1.199 Torlak Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek,
Time* 3.405: Adverbs (Morphological Aspects of), 1.59; 1.223
Dative, 1.416 Torlone, Z.M. Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
time-based model Time, 3.405 Concepts and Models, 3.429
time-position Adverbial Constituents, 1.52 Torone lonic, 2.261
Timm, Stefan Dictionaries of Onomastics: From Torop, P. Contact through Translation, 1.380
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.485 Torrance, I. Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Timotheus Laconian, Messenian, 2.287 Concepts and Models, 3.432
Timotheus of Gaza = Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Torrego, Esperanza Complementation, 1.335;
Theories of, 2.575 Coordination (includes Asyndeton), 1385; Functional
Timotheus of Miletus 1.yric Meter, 2.388; Metrics Grammar and Greek, 1.616
(métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.432; Song and Torthynion Transition from the Local Alphabets to the
Recitation, 3.293 Ionic Script, 3.421
Timothy Aelurus Translation of Greek Texts in Late Torzi, Maria Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.444
Antiquity, 3.437 Töseflä Greek Loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, 2.122
Tiryns Argolic, 1171; Dorie, 1.516; Glides, 2.15; Greek and Tosi, Renzo Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity
Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Linear B, 2.357; Local Scripts, to the Byzantine Period, 1.100; Dialectology (didiektos),
2.384 Ancient Theories of, 1.458; Dictionaries of Dialects; From
Tischler,J. Greek and Carian, 2.40; Reduptication, 3.212 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.480; Dictionaries of
Tislas of Syracuse — Literary Prose, 2.373 Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period,
Tissaphernes Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.486; Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
1.124 Period, 2.549; Synonymica: From Antiquity to the
Tittmann,J.A.H. Lexicography, History of, 2.351 Byzantine Period, 3.353
titulikonorari Epigraphy, 1.567 Tosk Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.223
tituli sepulchrales Epigraphy. 1.567 totalloans Lexical Change, 2.340
Titus of Bostra Translation of Greek Texts in Late totality Adverbiaj Constituents, 1.54
Antiquity, 3.437 Toufexis, Notis Developments in Medieval and Modern
Tmesis* 3.408; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), Greek, 1.448
1.290; Word Order, 3.533 Touloumakos,j. Atticism, 1.199
Tobit Jewish Greek, 2.269 Touratier, Christian Coordination (includes Asyndeton),
Tocharian Adpositions (Prepositions), 143; Dual, 1.533: 1385
Indo-European Historical Background, 2.206; Indo- Touwaide, Alain Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
European Linguistic Background, 2.212; Mediopassive. Antiquity and Byzantine Period. 1.487
 INDEX 645

Tov, Emanuel Calques, 1260; Greek and Hebrew, 2.52 Triphiodorus Late Antiquity Poetry. 2.316; Post-Homeric
traditional grammar Adjuncts, 128; Disjuncts, 1.513 Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.127
tragedy Aorist Formation, 1.138 Triphylian Elean (and Olympia), 1.535
Tragedy, Diction of* 3.417 Triphyllios Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540
Traina, Alfonso Contact through Translation, 1380 triploin Word Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient
trajector Space (Adpositions), 3.300; Space (Cases), Thearies of, 3.530
3.g10 trisyllabicity law, see Law of Limitation
Tralles Greek and Carian, 2.40 trivium History of Teaching of Ancient Greek tn
Transalpine Gaul Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Germany, 2.167
transfer Morphological Change, 2.465 Troad Aenlic Dialects, 1.62; Ancient Bidialectalism and
transformational grammar Phonological Change. 3.86 Bilingualism, 1.116; Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.328
trunsgressio/transcensio Hyperbaton, 2.185 trochaic Literary Prose, 2,373
Transition from the Local Alphabets to the lonic trochaic stress Stress, 3.921
Seript* 3.420 trochee Metron, 2.439
transitive Agency and Causation, 1.66; Preverbs, 3.149; Troezen Argolic, 1.171; Transition from the Local
Typology of Greek, 3.451; Verbal Adjectives, 3.474 Alphabets to the lonic Script, 3.420
Transitivity* 3.423; Aorist Formation, 1.140; Case (ptösis), Troizenia Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99
Ancient Theories of, 1.270: Cognitive Linguistics and Trojan War Pamphylian, 3.8
Greek, 1.310; Direct Object, 1.501; Impersanal Verbs, Trojans Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.14
2.198 Tromm, Abraham Concordances/Indices/Reverse
transitivization Perfect, 3.47 Dietionaries, 1.357
translation Film Adaptation and Translation, 1.592; Tropes (tröpoi), Ancient Theories of* 3.441
Greek and Syriac, 2.80 Trouillard, j. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.131
Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Troy Arcado-Cypriot, 1.255; Greek and Anatolian
Mudels® 3.427 Languages, 2.28
Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity" 3.436 Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Intonational Phrase, 2.254;
translation, cultural Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 Language Contact. 2.299
translation, culture of Roman Translation of Greek Truckenbrodt, Hubert Phonological Phrase, 3.87; Syntax-
Texts, 3.450 Phonology Interface, 3.361
translation, homometrical Homer, Translation, 2.1.80 Trudgill, Peter Developments in Medieval and Modern
transparency of morphological components Greek, 1.448; Dialectal Convergence, 1.454; Dialects,
Morphological Change, 2.466 Classification of, 1.467; Koine, Origins of, 2.277
transphonologization Phonological Change, 3.84 Truncation” 3.445
transposition Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, Trypho, On orthography and its matters of
1.427; Ancient Philosaphers on Language, 1.127 inquiry Orthography (orthographia), Ancient Theorles
Trapezus fonic, 2.a6u of, 2.572
Trapp, Erich Byzantine Phase and Reception of Ancient Tryphon Dialectology (did/ektos), Ancient Theories
Greek, the, 1.251; Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1.479 of, 1.459: Dialects, Classification of, 1.462: Figures
Trapp, Joseph B. Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, (skhémata), Ancient Theories of, 1.590; Linguistic
2.106 Correctness (hellenismös), Ancient Theories of, 2.362;
Trapp, Michael Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 Noun (droma), Ancient Theories of, 2.525; Orthography
Traugott, Elizabeth Adverbs, 1.96; Ausdiliaries, 1.218; {arthographia), Ancient Theories of, 2.572; Philological-
Conditionals, 1.459; Semantic Change, 3.276 Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.67;
Trebolle Barrera, Julio Septuagint, 3.287 Syntax (süntaxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.359; Tropes
treebank Computational Linguistics and Greek, 1354: (trdpoi}, Ancient Theories of, 3.441; Verb (ritéma),
Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392; Dependency Ancient Theories of, 3.461
Grammar and Greek, 1.436 Tsagalis, Christos Epigram, Diction of, 1.562
trees, names of Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.97 Tsagarakis, Odysseus Deixis (including 1st and and
trema Palaeography. 3.4 Person), 1.426
Tresham, Aaron Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in Tsakonian® 4.446: Consonant Changes, 1.373;
First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.238 Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, 1.447;
Treveri Greek and Celtic, 2.44 THalectal Convergence, 1.454; Language and Variation in
Triantaphyllidis, M. Intralingual Translation into Greece, 2.288; Phonetics, 3.82
Modern Greek, 2.254 Tsungulidis, A. Analogy, 1105; Balkan Sprachbund: Early
Tribulato, Olga Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and Evidence in Greek, 1.227
Dialectology, 1.121; Prosodic Word, 3.162; Proto-Greck Tserepis,G.N. Classical Greek Morphology (Survey),
and Common Greek, 3.185; Word Formation (Derivation, 1.292; Suppletion, 3.344
Compounding}, 3.521 Tsipopoulou, Metaxia Cretan Hieroglyphic Script,
tricolon Epigraphy, 1.567 1,398
Trier, Jost Lexical Fields Theory and Greek, 2.344 Tsupanakis, A. Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.158
Trieste Greek and Illyrian, 2.57 Tsunoda, T. Agency and Causation, 1.65
triglossia Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in First- ‘Tucker, Elizabeth Causative Formation, 1.275; Nominal
Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240 System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502
trilingual Greek and Arabic (Early Contacts), 2.32 Tucker, R. Whitney Attic, 1.189
trilingualiem Greek Novel, Translation, 2.129 Tueller, Michael Epigram, Diction of, 1.562
Trioson, Anne-Louis G. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, Tumo ofHargel Greek and Syriac, 2.81
2.126 Tuomy, Martin Drama Translation, 1528
646 INDEX

Turkey Developments in Medieval and Modern Greek, unaccusativity Voice, 3.499

1.447; Greek Writing Systems, 2.145 undergoer-subject Passiva Tantum, 3.41
Turkic Intensihers, 2.247 underlying representations Phonological Change, 3.86
Turkish Atticism, 1.201; Balkan Sprachbund: Early uniformitarian principle Neogrammarians, 2.492
Evidence in Greek, 1.224; Developments in Medieval uniformitarianism Neogrammarians, 2.492
and Modern Greek, 1.452; Intensifiers, 2.247; Language univerbation Dialectal Convergence, 1.456; Language
Contact, 2.299; Prepositfves, 3.145 Change, 2.297; Predicative Constituents, 3.131: Proto-
Turner, EricG. Palaeography, 3.5; Papyrology, 3.15 Greek and Common Greek, 3.185; Tmesis, 3.409
Turner, Nigel ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.282; Jewish Greek, Universal of Word Order Conditionals, 1.361
2.268 universe time Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood),
Tuscany Lemnian, 2.327 3.477
Tuscarora Determiners, 1.444 unrounding Monophthongization, 2.449
Tylissos Local Scripts, 2.384 Untermann, jürgen Greek and Etruscan, 2.50
typical scenes Formulaic Language, 1.609; Orality and Untersteiner, Mario Metrics (métran), Ancient Theories
Literacy, 2.563 of, 2.4gt
typology Internal Reconstruction, 2.251 Upper Macedonia Macedonian, 2.392
Typology of Greek” 3.450 Ural Indo-European Historical Background, 2.208
Tyrannion Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Uralic Indo-European Historical Background, 2.207
Ancient Linguistics, 3.67; Verb (rhéma), Ancient Urda Homer, Translation, 2.177
Thearies of, 3.461 Urfa Greek and Syriac, 2.80
Tyre Greek and Aramaic, 2,35; Language Contact, 2,303 Usher, Stephan Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
Tyrrhenian Sea Aeolic Dialects, 1.63 Linguistics, 3.239; Style (l&xis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328
Tyrrhenians Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133 Ustat Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
Tyrrhenus Greek and Etruscan, 2.49 Utterance* 3.454; Sentence/Utterance (/dgos), Ancient
Tyrtaeus Elegy, Diction of, 1.544 Theories of, 3.285
Tytler, Alexander Drama Translation, 1.527
Tzetzes, Isaac Metrics {metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.434 Vaahtera, Jaana Rhetorical Tradition in Ancient
Tzetzes, Joho Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Atticism, 1.201; Linguistics, 3.239; Word Formation (paragégé/sunthesis),
Byzantine Phase and Reception of Ancient Greek, the, Ancient Theories of, 3.530
1.249; Homer, Translation, 2.175 Vaan, Michiel de Word Formation (Derivation,
Tzialalias, A Accommodation, 1.13; Ancient Greek Compounding), 3.524
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.13; Code-Mixing, Vagelpohl, Uwe Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.149
1.307 Vaison Greek and Celtic, 2.44
Tzifopoulos. Yannis Local Scripts, 2.382; Nestor's Cup, valency Middle, 2.441
2.496 Valente, Stefano Dictionaries of Dialects: From
Tzitzilis, Christos Archaisms in Modern Dialects, 1.160; Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Orthography
Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in Greek, 1.222; (orthagraphia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573
Language Contact, 2.302: Macedonian, 2.396: Nominal Valerius Diodorus Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Systern (Gender, Number, Case), 2.502; Tsakonian, 3.446 Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487
Valerius Harpocration, Terms of the ten
Ucciardello, Giuseppe Dictionaries of Dialects: From orators Dictionaries of Scientific Vacabulary:
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.481; Dictionaries ol Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487
Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, Valgiglio, Emesto Contact through Translation, 1.480
1.487: Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Valin, Roch Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood), 3.477
Period, 2.551 Valla, Lorenzo Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90;
Ugarit Cypro-Minoan Syllabary, 1.408; Greek and Homer, Translation, 2.176; Renaissance, Translation,
Anatolian Languages, 2.28; Pre-Greek Languages, 3.133 3.233; Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365
Ugaritie Chiasm, 1.277; Greek and Semitic Languages Vallduvi, Enric Information Structure and Greek, 2.240
(Early Contacts), 2.79; Language Contact, 2.301; Vallois, René Oaths, Curses, 2.547
Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.99; Semitic Loanwards in Valpy, Abraham = Dictionaries of Ancient Greek, 1475
Greek, 3.278 Vamvouri Ruffy, Maria Deixis (including tst and and
Uhlich, Jürgen Word Formation (Derivation, Person), 1.427
Compounding). 3.527 Van Valin, Robert D. Agency and Causation, 1.66;
Uhlig, Gustav Anaphoric Processes, 1.107: Tmesis, 3.409; Beneficiary, 1.230; Focus, 1.596
Deixis (including ist and znd Person), 1.423; Dependency Van Way, John Attraction (Mood, Case etc.), 1.210
Grammar and Greek, 1.435 Vandaele, Jeroen Language Play and Translation, 2.308
Ukraine Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.93; Indo-European Vanderkam, James Greek and Aramaic, 2.35
Historical Background, 2.208; Local Scripts, 2.383 Vandorpe, K. Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236;
Ukrainian Structural Linguistics and Greek, 3.325 Papyti, Language of, 3.12
Ullmann, Manfred Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.147 Vari Local Scripts, 2.383
Ullmann, R. Deixis (including ist and znd Person), 1.426 variables Ancient Greek Sociclinguistics and
Ulpian Atticism, 1.202; Attitudes to Language, 1.206; Dialectology, 1.120
Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 4.439 Varias, Carlos Ancient Greek Sociolinguistics and
Ulrich, Eugene Greek and Hebrew, 2.52 Dialectology, 1.120
Umbrian Alphabet, Descendants ol, 1.90; Numerals, 2.540 variation Literary Prose, 2,376; Variation in Mycenaean
Umbrians Greek and Etruscan, 2.49 Greek, 3.456
Umgangsprache Scribes, Mycenaean, 4.271 Variation in Mycenaean Greek® 3.456
 INDEX 647
variationist Comparative Method, 1.330 Verba Sentiendi* 3.470
variationist analysis Linguistic Variation in Classical verba vocalia Lesbian (and Asian Aeolic), 2.330
Attic, 2.364 verbal adjective of obligation Gerundive (Verba!
Varmazis, Nikolaos Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching Adjective), 2.13
Methods, 3.367 Verbal Adjectives* 3.471; Adverbs, 1.54; Participle, 3.17
Varro Analogy, 1.104; Case (ptösts), Ancient Theories verbal cases Mood (énklisis), Ancient Theories of, 2.450
of, 1.269; Declension/Conjugation (Afisis), Ancient verbal noun Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.10; Infinitives
Thearies of, 1.418; Etymological Dictionaries: From the (Morphology of), 2.226; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229
Renaissance to the goth Century, 1.572; Interjections, verbal system Aorist (aöristos), Ancient Theories of, 1.136
2.250; Metrics (métron), Ancient Theories of, 2,435; Verbal System (Tense, Aspect, Mood)* 3.477
Noun (énoma), Ancient Theories of, 2.526; Philological- Verbal Valency* 3.486; Manner, 2.400
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.70; Verbeke, G. Ancient Philosophers on Language, 1.129
Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126; Structural verbs of motion Activa Tantum, 1.24
Linguistics and Greek, 3.324; Tense (khrönos), Ancient Verdier, Christian Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.279
Theories of, 3.378; Vocative, 3.492 Vergil Aıticism, 1199; Dependency Grammar and Greek,
Varro Atacinus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 1.436; Formulas, 1.614; Homer, Translation, 2.177; Late
3.246 Antiquity Poetry, 2.315; Metrics, 2.423; Orality and
Varvaro, Alberto Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.98 Literacy, 2.563; Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation,
Vasilaros, Georgios Genitive Absolute, 2.8 3.126; Renaissance, Translation, 3.233; Roman
Vasunia, Phiroze Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Translation of Greek Texts, 3.246
Practice, 3.124; Translation in Non-Western Traditions: Vergil, Aeneid Formulas, 1.614
Concepts and Models, 3.430 Vergina Macedonian, 2.395
Vedic Sanskrit 'Narten' Presents, 2.480; Accentuation, Vergote, Joseph Bilingualism in Hellenistic Egypt, 1.236
18; Action Nouns, 1.23; Agent Nouns, 1.72; Analogy, Verhasselt, G. Pre-Greek Substrate, 3.142
1.196; Aorist Formation, 1.139; Augment, 1.215; Causative Verhoeven, Elisabeth Experiential Constructions, 1.585
Formation, 1.275; Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), Verity, Anthony Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
1.287; Clause, 1.293; Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500; Epic Verkuyl, HJ. Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.333
Diction, 1.552; Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Verlinsky, Alexander Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient
Greek Etymology, 1.577; Haplology, 2.151; Indo-European Theories of, 2.416
Linguistic Background, 2.219: Infinitives (Morphology Verner, Karl Neogrammarians, 2.492; Phonetic Law, 3.77
of), 2.226; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.231; Intonational Phrase, Verner's Law Neogrammarians, 2.493; ‘Narten’ Presents,
2.254; Language Change, 2.292; Law of Limitation, 2.324; 2.480
Lyric Meter, 2.388; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Verse* 3.489; Period, 3.52
Case), 2.500; Numerals, 2.539; Personal Pronouns, Use Versnel, Henk Oaths, Curses, 2.548
of, 3.59; Phonetic Law, 3.77; Pitch, 3.100; Reflexives, Versteegh, Cornelis (Kees) Declension/Conjugation
3.215; Subordination, 3.337; Thematic and Athematic (klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.418; Linguistic Correctness
Verbs, 3.396; Verb Phrase, 3,464; Verba Sentiendi, 3.470: {hellénismas), Ancient Theories of, 2.360
Wheeler's Law, 3.515 Veselinova, Ljuba Suppletion, 3.342
Vekerdi, J. Present Tense, 3.148 Vespasian Atticism, 1.198
Velia lonic, 2.260; Magna Graecia, Dialects, 2.397 Vestinus Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Antiquity to
Velkova, 7. Greek and Thracian, 2.84 the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Onomastica: Fram Antiquity
Velsen, Arthur von Philological-Grammatical Tradition ta the Byzantine Period, 2.550
in Ancient Linguistics, 3.71 Vettius Agorius Praetextatus Translation of Greek Texts
Vendler, Zeno Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.332; Time, in Late Antiquity, 3.436
3.407 Vian, Francis Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315; Post-Homerie
Vendryes, Joseph Accentuation, 1.9; Apposition, Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126
1.146; Present Tense, 3.147; Pronouns (Demonstrative, vicinitas Metaphor (metaphord), Ancient Theories of,
Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.158; Reduplicated 2.416
Presents, 3.209; Vendryes’ Law, 3.458; Vocative, 3.492 Vickers, Brian Figures (skhémata), Ancient Theories of,
Vendryes' Law" 3,458 1,590
Venetic Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Eteocretan, 1.570: Victorinus Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249
Greek Lexicon in Western Languages, 2.104 Vilborg, Ebbe Phonology (Survey), 3.89; Prosodic Word,
Venice Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.126 3.162
Vennemann, Theo Reduplication, 3.212; Epenthesis, Viljamaa, Tovia Linguistic Correctness (hellerismös),
1.547: Syllables, 3.350 Ancient Theories of, 2.360
Ventris, Michael Augment, 1.216; Epic Diction, 1.551; Villelaure Greek and Celtic, 2.45
Etymological Dictionaries: Theory of Greek Erymology, Vindabonensis med, gr.1 Dictionaries of Scientific
1.578; Indo-European Historical Background, 2.209; Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487
Linear B, 2.356; Mycenaean Seript and Language, 2.478; Vindolanda Papyrology, 3.15
Phonology (Survey), 3.89; Prosodic Word, 3.162 Vine, Brent Ablaut (Apophony, Gradation), 1.2;
Venuti, Lawrence Film Adaptation and Translation, Anaptyxis, 1.113; Dissimilation, 1.515; Epenthesis, 1.547:
1,593; Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.91; Greek Vowel Changes, 3.503
Philosophy, Translation, 2.139 Vineis, Eduardo Clause, 1.293
Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of* 3.459 violation of digamma Tmesis, 3.410
Verb Phrase* 4.462; Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.421 Viredaz, Remy Palatalizations, 3.7
Verbe Dicendi* 3.469 Virgil see Vergil
648 INDEX

VIRILIOS Greek and Celtic, 2.45 Vulgar Latin Balkan Sprachbund: Early Evidence in
Virus Nichomachus Flavianus Translation of Greek Greek, 1.226; Greek and Latin, 2.66
Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.436 vulgar register Aischrology, 1.76
virtutes dicendi (areté löxeös) Linguistic Correctness Vulgate Contact through Translation, 1.379; Gnomic
(hellénismds), Ancient Theories of, 2.361; Style (lexis), Aorist, 2.19; Roman Translation of Greek Texts, 3.249
Ancient Theories of, 3.328
Vis, Jeroen Phonology (Survey), 3.92 Waanders, Frits M. jf. Proto-Greek and Common Greek,
Viscidi, Federico Koine, Features of, 2.276; Latin 3.1B2
Loanwords in Greek, 2.321 Wachter. Rudolf Dipylon Vase Inscription, 1.500:
Viteau, Joseph ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281 Epigraphy, 1.567; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
Vitelli, Girolamo Teaching of Ancient Greek in Italy, 2.367: Nestor's Cup, 2.495; Rhotacism, 3.244
3-365 Wackernagel Postpositives, 3.128
Yiti, Carlotta Adpositional Phrase, 1.37; Conjunction Wackernagel, Jacob Adpositions (Prepositions), 1.40;
Reduction, 1.362; Focus, 1.598; Genitive, 2.4; Possession, Caland System and Greek, 1.256; Causative Formation,
3.121; Space (Adpositions), 3.300; Tmesis, 3.408; Word 1.276; Clause, 1.295; Clitic Group, 1.297; Clitics, 1.303;
Order, 3.537 Dialectology (didiektos), Ancient Theories of, 1.459;
Vivante, P, Formulas, 1.614 Dissimilation, 1.515; Greek and Anatolian Languages,
Viachopoulos, Dimitrios Teaching of Ancient Greek, 2.30; Indo-European Linguistic Background, 2.224;
Teaching Methods, 3.373 Infinitives (Syntax), 2.229; Intonational Phrase, 2.254;
vocabulum Noun (dnenie), Ancient Theories of, 2.526 Law of Limitation, 2.324; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart),
Vocative* 3.491 2.335: Mood and Modality, 2.454; Number, 2.536;
Voegelin, C.F. Tsakonian, 3.446 Optimality and Greek, 2.558; Particles (Formal Features),
Vogel, Irene Clitie Group, 1.296; Intonational Phrase, 4.25; Perfect, 3.47; Personal Pronouns, Use of, 3.59;
2.253; Phonological Phrase, 3.87; Synıtax-Phonology Plural/Pluralia Tantum, 3.102; Predicative Constituents,
Interface, 3.362; Utterance, 3.454 3.132; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345; Theanyms (Names of
Vogel, PetraM. Abstract Nouns, 1.5; Collective/Mass Gods), 3.400: Tmesis, 3.409; Voice, 3.498; Wackernagel's
Nouns, 1.314 Law I, 3.508; Wackernagel's Law II (V'S), 3.513; Word
Voice* 3.494; Active, 1.24; Classical Greek Morphology Order, 3.533
(Survey), 1.290; Cretan, 1.398: Gerund (Verbal Noun), 2.10 Wackemagel's Law Il* 3.508; Postpositives, 3.128
voiceless stops Assibilation, 1.185 Wackernagel’s Law I (V'S)" 3.513
Voicing® 3.502 Wade-Gery, Henry T. Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek,
Voigt, Eva-Maria Diphthongization, 1.498; Greek Lyric 1.98
Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Wadi el-Höl Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94
Volanakis, M. Intralingual Translation into Modern Waerzeggers,C. Greek and Carian, 2.40
Greek, 2.258 Wahlgren, Staffan Augment, 1.216; Hellenistic Literary
Volger, Heinrich F.M. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, Prose, 2.153; Particles (Formal Features), 3.27
2.127 Waite, Stephen Databases and Dictionaries [Papyrology
Voskos, Andreas Teaching of Ancient Greek, Teaching and Epigraphy included), tau
Methods, 3.369 Wakhi Phytonyms (Names of Trees). 3.98
Voss, Johann H. Homer, Translation, 2.177; Post-Homeric Wakker, Gerry Adverbs, 1.56; Classical Greek Morphology
Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126 (Survey), 1.290; Cohesion, 1.313; Coordination (includes
Vottéro, Guy — Aeolic Dialects, 1.61; Doric, 1.517; Asyndeton), 1.384; Discourse Analysis and Greek, 1.513;
Monophthongization, 2.449; Transition from the Loco! Functional Grammar and Greek, 1.617; Particles (Formal
Alphabets to the Ionic Script, 3.421 Features), 3.27; Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.40;
Voula Local Scripts, 2.383 Purpose Clauses, 4.196; Questions, 3.203; Tense/Aspect,
Voulgaris, Eugenios Atticism, 1.201 3-387; Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.394
Voutiras, Emmanuel Language Cuntact. 2.301; Walbank, F. Greek and Illyrian, 2.56
Macedonian. 2.393 Walcott, Derek Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
vowel anaptyxis Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, Practice, 3.12% Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
2.369 Concepts and Models, 3.432
Vowel Changes* 3,502 Walde, Alois Greek and Latin, 2.65
vowel coalescence Prosodic Word, 3.163 Waldis, Joseph Ancient Prose Rhythm, 1.135
vowel deletion Prosodic Word, 3.163 Wallace, Daniel Pronouns (Demonstrative, Interrogative,
vowel elision Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.364 Indefinite, Relative), 3.158
Vowel Fronting® 3.505 Wallace, Rex Glottälle Theory and Greek, 2.17
vowel harmony Language Contact, 2.300 Wallace, Robert Metrics (metron), Ancient Theories of,
vowel syncope Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic, 2.432
2.369 Wallace, Rudolf Yodization, 3.543
vowel weakening Thessallan, 3.404 Walsh Dickey, Laura Attic Reversion, 1.196
Vowels” 3.506; Anaptyzis, 1.113; Koine, Origins of, 2.279; Walters, Peter Greek and Hebrew, 2.52
Semivowels, 3.2Bu Walton, }. Michael Language Play and Translation, 2.307
Vox, Onofrio Deixis (including 1st and and Person), 1.428: Walzer, Richard Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.148
Dipyton Vase Inscription, 1.500 Wanderwörter Greek and Indian Languages, 2.61
yrddki formations Ablaut (Apophany, Gradation}, 1.2 Wang, William $.Y. Comparative Method, 1.330
Vries, Mark de Relative Clauses, 3.229 Warburton, D.A. Color Terms, 1.315
Vulgar Attic see Great Attic Warburton, Irene Clitic Group, 1.298
 INDEX
Wardy, Robert Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Concepts and Models, 3.431
Warekena Dual, 1.594
Warlpiri Typology of Greek, 3.452
Wase, Christopher Drama Translation, 1.528
Wasserstein, Abraham Septuagint, 3.287
Waterfield, Robin Greek Philosophy, Translation, 2.138;
Language Play and Translation, 2.308
Wathelet, Paul Epic Diction, 1.550
Watkins, Calvert Aorist Formation, 1.139; Dipylon Vase
Inscription, 1.499; Greek and Anatolian Languages,
2.29; Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Indo-European Linguistic
Background, 2.221; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart),
2,336: Nestor’s Cup. 2.495; Orality and Literacy, 2.563;
Participles (Morphological Aspects of), 3.21; Poetic
Language, 3.103; Reduplicated Presents, 3.208; Reflexives,
3.216; Syllabic Consonants, 3.345: Verbal System (Tense,
Aspect, Mood), 3.477; Wackernagel's Law I, 3.5u
Watson, Lindsay Oaths, Curses, 2.545
Watt, Jonathan Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in
First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.240
wave model see Wellentheorie
Way, A.S. Post-Hameric Epic Poetry, Translation, 3.126
weak focus Hyperbaton, 2.184
weakening Cypriot, 1.402; Greek Lexicon in Western
Languages, 2.107; Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic,
2.369
weather verbs Impersonal Verbs/Constructions, 2.199
Wehrli, Fritz Etymological Dictionaries: From Antiquity
to the Byzantine Period, 1.574; Metrics (métron), Ancient
Theories of, 2.435: Proverbs, 3.189
Weidemann, 8. Ancient Philosophers an Language, 1.129
weight Law of Limitation, 2.323
weight-by-position Moras, 2.459
Weil, Henri Word Order, 3.532
Weinreich, Uriel Language Contact, 2.299
Weiss, Michael Greek and Lydian, 2.70; Laryngeal
Changes, 2.313; Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart), 2.335;
Morphological Change, 2.464; Psilosis, 3.192;
Renaissance, Translation, 3.234: Rhotacism, 3.244;
Subjunctive (Morphology of), 3.334; Syllabic Consonants,
3.344; Thematic Vowel, Stem Formation, 3.397; Word
Formation (paragöge/sünthesis), Ancient Thearies of,
3529
Weitenberg, JJ. Greek and Armenian, 2.39
Wellentheorie Indo-European Historical Background,
2.204; Language Change, 2.293; Language Contact, 2.299
Wellmann, Max Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Onomastica:
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550;
Synonymica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
3353
Welsh Homer, Translation, 2.177; Phytonyms (Names of
Trees), 3.98; Poetic Language, 3.104; Schwa Secundum,
3.260
Wendel, Carl Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.101; Dictionaries
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,
1.491; Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary: Antiquity
and Byzantine Period, 1.487; Etymological Dictionaries:
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.575; Metrics
(métron), Ancient Theories of, 2.434; Onomastica: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad, 2.549; Orthography
(orthugraphia), Ancient Theories of, 2.573; Synonyrnica:
From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 3.352
Wennerstrom, Ann Intonational Phrase, 2.254
649
Wentzel, Georg Dictionaries of Onomastics: From
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.483; Onomastica:
Fram Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 2.550
Werlich, Egon Text Linguistics and Greek, 3.389
Werner, Jürgen Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
1.14
West Argolic Phonology (Survey), 3.91
West Germanic Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420
West Greek Action Nouns, 1.22; Archaisms in Modern
Dialects, 1.164; Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278;
Phonology (Survey), 3.90
West Ionic Rhotacism, 3.244
West Locrian — Elision, 1.546
West or Ozolian Locris Northwest Greek, 2.518
West Rumelian Turkish Balkan Sprachbund: Early
Evidence in Greek, 1.223
West Semitic language Alphabet, The Origin of the
Greek, 1.94
West, Martin L. Accentuation, 1.8; Alphabet, The Origin
of the Greek, 1.95: Anaptyxis, 1.119; Attitudes to Language,
1.203; Bridges, 1246; Caesurae, 1.253; Declension/
Conjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.417; Dialects,
Classification of, 1462; Elegy, Diction of, 1.543; Epic
Diction, 1.548; Epic Meter, 1.560; Foot, 1.600; Greek and
Anatolian Languages, 2.29; Greek and Lydian, 2.71;
Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.125; Haplology, 2.151;
Homer, Translation, 2.178; Indo-European Linguistic
Background, 2.222; Length, 2.328; Lesbian Accentuation,
2.332; Lyric Meter, 2.385; Lyric Poetry, Diction of,
2.389; Metrics {metron), Ancient Theories of, 2.432;
Metron, 2.436; Oaths, Curses, 2.548; Palaeography, 3.1;
Poetic Language, 3.104; Prosody, 3.172; Psilosis, 3.192;
Responsion, 3.235; Stress, 3.319; Synizesis, 3.352; Syntax-
Phonology Interface, 3.362; Trapes (frdpoi), Ancient
‘Theories of, 3.441
West, Stephanie Nestor’s Cup, 2.495
Westering, L.G. Ancient Philosophers on Language. 1.13)
Western Argolic Doric, 1.516
Western Argos Moras, 2.461
Wetmore, Kevin]. Postcolonial Translation; Theory and
Practice, 3,124
Wettstein, JohannesJ. ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281
Whallon, W. Formulas, 1614
Wheeler, Benjamin Wheeler's Law, 3.515
Wheeler's Law* 3.515; Bartoli's Law, 1.229
Wheelwright, Charles Drama Translation, 1.527
Whigham, Peter Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128
Whitaker, Richard Homer, Translation, 2.177; Translation
in Non-Western Traditions: Concepts and Models, 3.433
Whitby, Mary Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.315
Whitman, Cedric Post-Homeric Epic Poetry, Translation,
3.127
Whitmarsh, Tim Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314
Whitney, William Augment, 1.217; Moras, 2.460; Present
Tense, 3.148; Wackernagel’s Law II (V’S), 3.513
Wierzbicka, Anna Plural/Plurelia Tantum, 3.102
Wiesehiifer, Josef Greek and [ranian, 2.62
wilamowitzianus Lyric Meter, 2.387
Wilamowitz-Millendorff, Ulrich von Asianism, 1.179;
Attic, 1.192; Atticism, 1.197; Attitudes to Language, 1.206;
History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.172;
Metrics (metron). Ancient Theories of, 2.435
Wilcox, Max ‘Christian’ Greek, 1.281
Willi, Andreas Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism,
1.115; Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1279; Classical Greek
Morphology (Survey), 1.287; Coherence, 1.312; Laconian,
650 INDEX

Messenian, 2.287; Linguistic Variation in Classica] Attic, word-breaks Metrical Laws, 2.419
2.365; Oaths, Curses, 2.448; Proto-Greek and Common word-level clitics Wackernagel’s Law 1, 3.509
Greek, 3.186; Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.400; Verbal ‘Words and Things’ Indo-European Linguistic
Adjectives, 3.475; Written versus Spoken Language, 3.540 Background, 2.224
Wiliams, William C. Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, working memory Definiteness/Definite Article, 1.420
2.125 world literature Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
Willmott,Jo Imperative, 2.195; Mood and Modality, 2.452: Concepts and Models, 3.429
Negation, 2.489; Optative, 2.554; Orders (Imperative/ Worman, Nancy Aischrology, 1.77
Prohibitives), 2.570 Worp, Klaas A. Palaeography, 3.1; Papyrology, 3.16
Wills, Jeffrey © Wackernagel’s Law I, 3.510 Wärrle, Michael Greek and Lycian, 2.69
Wilson, Nigel Byzantine Phase and Reception of Worstbrack, Franz History of Teaching of Ancient Greek
Ancient Greek, the, 1.249; Dictionaries of Dialects: From in Germany, 2.163
Antiquity to the Byzantine Periad, 1.482; Intonational Wouters, Alfons Alphabetical Dictionaries: From
Phrase, 2.254; Teaching nf Ancient Greek in Italy, 3.365 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1100; Declension/
Wilson, RogerJ. Greek in Sicily in Late Antiquity, 2.99 Conjugation (klisis), Ancient Theories of, 1.417; Noun
Wilusa Greek and Anatolian Languages, 2.29 (önama), Ancient Theories of, 2.526; Philological-
Winckelmanon, Johann Joachim History of Teaching of Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.711
Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.169 Tense (AArénos), Ancient Theories of, 3.379
Windekens, Albert van Etymological Dictionaries: Wright, Georgvon Mood and Modality, 2.452
From the Renaissance ta the zoth Century, 1.573: Greek writing Greek Writing Systems, 2.140
Lexicon, Structure and Origin of, 2.110; Pre-Greek Written versus Spoken Language* 3.539
Substrate, 3.139; Toponyms, 3.414 Wulfila Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.92
Windfuhr, Gernot Greek and Iranian, 2.62 Wünsch, Richard Curse Tablets, 1.400
Winer, Georg BE. 'Christian' Greek, 1.281 Wurzel, Wolfgang Gender, 2.1; Nominal System (Gender,
Winter, Werner Numerals, 2.542; Vocative, 3.492 Number, Case), 2.500
Winterbottom, Michael Tropes (tröpot), Ancient Wyatt, William F. Pronouns (Demonstrative,
Theories of, 3.443 Interrogative, Indefinite, Relative), 3.160; Prothesis, 3.173;
wisdom literature Orality and Literacy, 2.563 Southeast Greek, 3,298
Wisdom of Sirah Bilingualism, Diglossia and Literacy in
First-Century Jewish Palestine, 1.239 Xanthos Ancient Bidialectalism and Bilingualism, 1.116;
Wisse, Jakob Asianism, 1.180; Atticism, 1.197; Tropes Greek and Carian, 2.40; Greek and Lycian, 2.67
(trdpoi), Ancient Theories of, 3.443 Xenocrates of Afrodisias Dictionaries of Scientific
Witczak, Krzysztof Phytonyms (Names of Trees), 3.98; Vocabulary: Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.487
Theonyms (Names of Gods), 3.401 Xenocritus of Cos Dictionaries of Scientific Vocabulary:
Witt, Ronald Renaissance, Translation, 3.233 Antiquity and Byzantine Period, 1.486; Lexicography,
Wodhull, Michael Drama Translation, 1.528 History of, 2.349
Wodtko, Dagmar 5. Abstract Nouns, 14 Xenodamus of Cythera Choral Poetry, Diction of, 1.278
Wolanin, Hubert Case (ptösis), Ancient Theories of, 1.269 Xenophanes Allegory (allegoria), Ancient Theories of,
Wolf, Friedrich A. Formulaic Language, 1.608 1.86
Wolff, Hans-Julius Papyrology, 3.16 Xenophon Aischrology, 1.76; Ancient Bidialectalism and
Woodard, Roger Alphabet, Descendants of, 1.90; Bilingualism, 1114; Ancient Philosophers on Language,
Alphabet, The Origin of the Greek, 1.94; Ancient Greek 1,125; Asianism, 1.179; Atticism, 1.200; Attitudes to
Sociolinguistics and Dialectology, 1.120; Dialects, Language, 1.203; Clause, 1.294; Comitative, 1326; Dialects,
Classification of, 1.464; Labiovelars, 2.286; Merger, Classification of, 1.462; Elean (and Olympia), 1.535;
2.413; Nominal System (Gender, Number, Case), 2.501; Epanalepsis, 1.546; Greek and Armenian, 2.37; Greek
Pronominal System, 3.150; Verbal Adjectives, 3.475 and Celtic, 2.44; Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.90:
Woodbury, Anthony Utterance, 3.454 History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany, 2.163;
Woodhead, Arthur Epigraphy, 1.565 Indirect Object, 2.203; Infinitives (Syntax), 2.235; Koine,
Wooten, Cecil Style (/éxis), Ancient Theories of, 3.328 Origins of, 2.279; Late Antiquity Prose, 2,318; Lesbian
word class Particles (Formal Features}, 3.24; Philological- Accentuation, 2.332; Lexical Change, 2.341; Linguistic
Grammatical Tradition in Ancient Linguistics, 3.67; Variation in Classical Attic, 2.367; Literary Prose, 2.378;
Word Classes (méré tod lögow), Ancient Theories of, 3.517 Noun Phrase, 2.529; Particles (Formal Features), 3.29;
Word Classes (mere tod fégou), Ancient Theories Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.33; Song and Recitation,
of 3,516 3.295; Space (Adpositions), 3.305; Style (/éxis), Ancient
word formation Classical Greek Morphology (Survey), Theories of, 3,330; Topic, 3-412; Vendryes' Law, 3.458;
1.292 Verb (rhéma), Ancient Theories of, 3.459; Vocative, 3.493;
Ward Formation (Derivation, Compounding)* 3.521 Written versus Spoken Language, 3.541
Word Formation (paragög@/sünthesis), Ancient Theories Xenophon of Ephesus Greek Novel, Translation, 2.131
of* 2.5329 Xenophon, Anabasis Clause, 1.294; Literary Prose, 2.378
word formation schemas Compounding/Derivation/ Xenophon, Cyropaedia Literary Prose, 2.378
Construction Morphology, 2.35) Xenophon, Hellenica Literary Prose, 2.378; Papyrolugy,
Word Order* 3.532; Greek and Lycian, 2.68; Information 3.16
Structure and Greek, 2.241 Xenophon, Memorabilia Literary Prose, 2.378
Word-and-Paradigm Analogy, 1104; Verb (rhéma), Xirolimni Macedonian, 2.395
Ancient Theories of, 3.461; Word Classes (mere tod Xuthus Aeolic Dialects, 1.63; Dialects, Classification ol,
{ögou), Ancient Theories of, 3.516 1.462
 INDEX 651

Yaghnöbi Augment, 1.127 1.481; Epic Diction, 1.552; Lexicography, History of,
Yahyä ibn 'Adi Arabic Tradition, Translation, 1.150 2.349} Philological-Grammatical Tradition in Ancient
Ya'qub of Edessa Greek and Syriac, 2.81 Linguistics, 3.67
Yaska Poetic Language, 3.106 Zenon papyri Papyri, Language of, 3.13; Papyrology, 3.16
yes/no questions Questions, 3.202 zero derivational morpheme Word Formation
YeSua‘ ben Sira, Siracides (Ecelesiasticus) Greek and (Derivation, Compounding), 3.522
Hebrew, 2.43; Jewish Greek, 2.269 zero grade Schwebeablaut, 3.261
Yiddish Homer, Translation, 2.177: Language Contact, zetacism Elean (and Olympia), 1.536
2.299 zeugma Literary Prase, 2.378
Yidiny Hyperbaton, 2.185 Zeus at Labraunda Epigraphy, 1.567
Yudization* 3.543 Zeuxippus Late Antiquity Poetry, 2.314
Yoruba Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice, Zeyl, Donald]. Questions, 3.205
3.124 Zgusta,L. Greek and Carian, 2.40
Young, Douglas Greek Lyric Poetry, Translation, 2.128 Zhukovskii, Vasily A. Translation in Non-Western
Young, Elizabeth Roman Translation of Greek Texts, Traditions; Concepts and Models, 3.430
3.247 Ziebarth, E. Curse Tablets, 1.400; Oaths, Curses, 2.547
Young,J. D. Latham Homer, Translation, 2.175 Ziegler, Konrat Onomastica: From Antiquity to the
Young, Rev. William Drama Translation, 1.527 Byzantine Period, 2.549
Youtie, Herbert C. Written versus Spoken Language, Zilliacus, Henrik Byzantine Phase and Reception
3.540 of Ancient Greek, the, 1.250; Forms of Address and
Yuhanon of Tella Greek and Syriac, 2.81 Sociolinguistic Variation, 1.607; Politeness/Courtesy
Yule, George Particles (Syntactic Features), 3.35; Text Expressions, 3.112
Linguistics and Greek, 3.389; Topic, 3.412 Zoilus Figures (skhemata), Ancient Theories of, 1,590
Zoll,C. Reduplication, 3.212
Zacharias Rhetor Translation of Greek Texts in Late Zonaras Alphabetical Dictionaries: Fram Antiquity to the
Antiquity, 3.438 Byzantine Period, 1.102; Etymological Dictionaries: Fram
Zajko, Vanda Drama Translation, 1.526 Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.576
Zakynthos Achaean, 1.19 Zoonyms (Names of Mammals)* 3.544
Zamagna, Bernardo Homer, Translation, 2.177 Zopyrion Onomastica: From Antiquity to the Byzantine
Zancle see Messina Period, 2.550
Zamcke, Friedrich Neogrammarians, 2.492 Zorell, Franciscus Contact through Translation, 1.381
Zec, Draga Clitic Group, 1.296; Prosodic Ward, 3.161; Zuber, Roger Greek Historiography, Translation, 2.91
Syntax-Phonology Interface, 3.361 Zumthor, Paul Greek Novel, Translation, 2.133
Zemänek, Petr Dependency Grammar and Greek, 1.436 Ziniga, Fernanda Beneficiary, 1.230
Zeno Allegory (affégoria), Ancient Theories of, 1.87; Zurli, Loriano Corpus Linguistics and Greek, 1.392
‘Translation of Greek Texts in Late Antiquity, 3.439 Zwicky, Arnold Adpositional Phrase, 1.37; Clitics, 1.301;
Zenobius Proverbs, 3.189 Syntax- Phonology Interface, 3.361; Truncation, 3.445
Zenodotus of Ephesus Alphabetical Dictionaries: From Zwolanek, Renée Nominative, 2.513
Antiquity to the Byzantine Period, 1.100 Dialectology Zyl Smit, B. van Translation in Non-Western Traditions:
(didlektos}, Ancient Theories of, 1.459; Dictionaries Concepts and Models, 3.433
of Dialects: From Antiquity to the Byzantine Period,