Notes on Greek primary comparatives *

Alexander Nikolaev
Boston University, Boston MA
alexander.s.nikolaev@gmail.com

This paper addresses several problems in historical morphology and ety-

mology of irregular comparatives in Ancient Greek, building on the sem-
inal treatment by Leumann [1945] and drawing on recent work on the
Indo-European background of this morphological class. Standard treat-
ments of this subject are out of date [Schwyzer 1939; Seiler 1950], while
two important recent studies warrant disagreement on several occasions
[Dieu 2011; Barber 2013: 145–186]. In his lectures — that I had the privi-
lege of attending in early 2000’s — the honorand of this volume always
emphasized the role of analogy in language change, and I hope that the
present modest contribution that examines the workings of analogy will
meet the austere criteria of Prof. Kazansky’s scholarship.

* * *

1. It will be appropriate to start with Proto-Indo-European antecedents

of Greek primary comparatives [Weiss 2020: 378–379]. In (Inner-)Proto-
Indo-European 1 the comparative form of the adjective was formed with
the suffix *-i̯ ō̆s- ( / ), *-is- ( ) 2:

* In this contribution, transponates are not systematically distinguished from re-

constructions.
1 There is no evidence for *-i̯ os- in either Anatolian or Tocharian, hence it may be

an innovation of Inner-Proto-Indo-European.
2 In the oblique case-forms the Proto-Indo-European suffix may have had an e-grade,
cf. Lith. saldèsnis ‘sweeter’ ( < *-i̯ es-ni-), Latin maies-tās ‘dignity’ ( < *mag-i̯ es-),
and perhaps mulier ‘woman’ < *ml̥ -i̯ es-ih2 ‘the better one’[Klingenschmitt 2008: 207].

© Alexander Nikolaev, 2022

550 Alexander Nikolaev

Early Lat. maiiosibus ‘greater’ (Paul. Fest. p. 323 L.) < *mag-i̯ ōs-
Lat. suāv-ior, suāv-ius ‘sweeter’ < *su̯ eh2d(u̯ )-i̯ ōs-
Goth. sūtiz-(an)- ‘more mild, sweeter’ < *suh2d-is-
MEng. elder < OEng. ieldra < PGmc. *alþiz-an- ‘older’
Ved. svā́ d-ī-yāṃs, . . svā́ d-ī-yas-aḥ ‘id.’ < *su̯ eh2d-i̯ ō̆s-
Av. vax́ iiā̊ ‘better’ < PII *u̯ as-i̯ ās < *h1u̯ o/es-i̯ ō̆s-
OCS boljĭš- ‘larger, more’ < *bol-is- 3
The morphological prehistory of these formations was clarified by Rau
[2014] who analyzed the forms in *-i̯ os- as internal amphikinetic deriva-
tives from s-stem abstract nouns:
*pléth2-u-, *pleth2-éu̯ - ‘broad’ (Ved. pr̥ thú-, Gk. πλατύς)
→ *plóth2-i-, *pléth2-i- ‘broadness’ (adjective abstract)
→ *pléth2-i-, *pl̥ th2-ei̯ - ‘broad’ (adjective)
→ *pléth2-i-s- ‘broadness, breadth’
→ *pléth2-i̯ -os-, *pléth2-i-s ‘the broad one’
According to Rau, *pléth2-i̯ os- ‘the broad one’ developed an elative
sense (‘exceptionally broad’) in which it was pressed into service in com-
parative constructions 4.

3 In Slavic expected *-is- was remade to *-i̯ is- by analogy to full-grade *-i̯ os- [Klin-

genschmitt 2008: 210].

4 It appears that occasionally some steps in the derivational system above could
be circumvented so that an s-stem adjective abstract with an o-grade in the root
could be derived directly from an acrostatic i-stem. This would explain cases like
*bolis- ‘larger’ (>> PSlav. *bolĭjĭ) ← *bo/eli- ‘largeness, strength’ (Lat. dē-bilis) ←
*belo- ‘large’ (Ved. bála- ‘strength’, Gk. βέλτερο- ‘better, stronger’) or *ploh1is-
‘larger’ > Lat. plūs, Gmc. *flaizan- > ON fleire, perhaps Arcad. πλος ‘more’ (ac-
cent?); for these reconstructions see [Klingenschmitt 1982: 259; Widmer 2004:
164–171].
 Notes on Greek primary comparatives 551

* * *

2. Mycenaean Greek faithfully preserves the original s-stem (> -h-stem)

declension of comparative stems [Казанский, Казанскене 1986: 54–55;
Bartoněk 2003: 269, 303; Bernabé, Luján 2006: 169–170]:
<me-zo> [medzōs], <me-zo-e> [medzohe(s)], <me-zo-a2> [medzoha]
‘larger, older’ (< *meg̑ -i̯ os-)
<me-wi-jo>, <me-u-jo> [meiu̯ i̯ os] ‘smaller’ (< *mei̯ u̯ -i̯ os-) 5
<ka-zo-e> [katsohe(s)] ‘worse’ (< *kak-i̯ os-) 6
While relics of original s-stem declension are fairly well attested
in Homeric Greek 7 and in Attic dialect (both in inscriptions and in ora-
tory), this type is by and large on decline in the 1st millennium Greek and
is gradually yielding to an innovative formation, namely, n-stem -ī̆hon-
> -ίων ( / ), -ιον ( ): *katsoh- ‘worse’ was remade as κακίων, .
κακίονος, resulting in a comparative stem which is clearly relatable to pos-
itive κακός. This remodeling must have been prompted by sound changes
such as palatalizations, loss of *i̯ , and loss of *h (< *s) which greatly ob-
scured the morphological structure of primary comparatives in Greek,
as the following sample derivations show:

5In theory, . . in -o (<me-zo>, <me-u-jo>) may represent either [ōs] (-ως)

or [ōn] (-(ι)ων), but in view of the complete lack of n-declension of comparatives
in Mycenaean the former interpretation is to be preferred.
6 The suffix *-tero- (> comparative -τερο- in 1st millennium Greek) is attested
in Mycenaean only in its original contrastive function (as in δεξιτερός ‘on the right’),
e.g. <wa-na-ka-te-ro> [u̯ anaktero-] ‘of the wanax’. The suffix *-isto- (> superla-
tive -ιστο-) is absent in Mycenaean, unless . <po-ro-wi-to-jo> PY Tn 316 head-
ing a list of ritual activities should be interpreted as a month name [Plōu̯ istoi̯ o] ‘(better)
for navigation’, quasi ‘the navigabler (month)’ (see [Казанский, Казанскене 1986:
157]).
7Including at the verse-end: ἀμείνω Γ 11 ( ), Δ 400 ( ), Ι 423 ( ), ἀρείω γ 250,
Κ 237, ἀρείους β 277, ι 48, Π 557.
552 Alexander Nikolaev

PIE *su̯ eh2d-i̯ ō̆s-> PGk. *hu̯ ād-i̯ ō̆s > *hu̯ ādzō̆h- ‘sweeter’
. *hu̯ ādzōs > Att. (expected) †ἥζως
. *hu̯ ādzoh-os > Att. †ἥζους
. *hu̯ ādzoh-a > Att. †ἥζοα > †ἥζω 8
. . / *hu̯ ādzoh-es > Att. †ἥζοες > †ἥζους 9
.- . . *hu̯ ādzoh-a > Att. †ἥζοα > †ἥζω 10
It is widely agreed upon that the innovative suffix -ihon- contin-
ues the comparative suffix in the zero-grade (IE *-is-) enlarged with the
individualizing suffix *-on- of the same type that we find in στραβός
‘squinting’ → στράβων ‘the squinting one’, Στράβων (see e.g. [Rix
1992: 167; Sihler 1995: 361; Tichy 2009: 319 n. 26]). As has long been
recognized, the same conglomerate *-is-on is the basis of Germanic
comparative (cf. Gmc. *hardizan- > Goth. hardiza, MEng. harder) and
is also continued by Lithuanian comparative in -esnis. It is not unrea-
sonable to speculate that the “weak” declension of the comparative, re-
flected in three branches, should be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean where, for instance, next to *pleh1-i̯ ōs ‘more numerous’ there would
be *pleh1-is-ōn ‘the more numerous one’, possibly with suffix ablaut
(e.g. . *-i̯ es-n-m̥ > PBalt. *-i̯ es-ni- > Lith. -esnįs) 11. The absence
of the n-declension in Mycenaean would under this theory have to be
viewed as an attestation gap.
The vacillating quantity in the Greek comparative suffix -ίων/-ίoν
remains troubling: Homer and Pindar have only -ῐ (except for a hand-
ful of obvious metrical lengthenings), in other poetic texts beginning
with Archilochus we find alternation between -ῐ- and -ῑ-, and Attic poetry

8 Cf. Att. . ἥττω ‘weaker’ < *hek-i̯ oh-a.

9 Cf. Att. . μείζους ‘greater’ (< *me(i̯ )g-i̯ oh-es), Dor. . ἐλάσσως (Ar.
Lys. 1260) ‘smaller’ (< *elakwh-i̯ oh-es < *h1ln̥ gwh-i̯ os-).
10 Cf. Att. .- . . μείζω.
11 This is the approach adopted by Klingenschmitt [2008: 208–210].
 Notes on Greek primary comparatives 553

has -ῑ- nearly throughout (with some exceptions in - . . -ῐον).

Scholars have directly compared Greek comparatives in -ῑον- with Indo-
Aryan comparatives in -īyaṃs-, but any there is no direct connection
between the -ī-’s in these forms; for an inner-Indo-Aryan explanation
of Vedic -ī- see [Schindler 1986: 386]: Indo-Iranian *u̯ arH- ‘broad’, com-
parative *u̯ arH-i̯ as-> *u̯ arH-ii̯ as- (Sievers’ Law) > *u̯ arīi̯ as- (with la-
ryngeal metathesis). Sihler [1995: 362] suggested that the origin of the -ῑ-
in comparatives should be sought in the expectable Ionic-Attic oblique
stem *-ihn- > *-īn-; the problem with this theory is that we have no ev-
idence that *-ihon ever ablauted in Greek, nor is there any evidence for
†
-ῑν-/ Aeol. ινν-. As to the ingenious (albeit artificial) analogical propor-
tion -i̯ os- : -ii̯ os- = -ii̯ on- : -īi̯ os- posited by Rix [1992: 168], it crucially
depends on the validity of Sievers’ Law in Greek and the synchronic avail-
ability of both *-i̯ os- and *-ii̯ os- in Proto-Greek, the latter after a heavy
syllable. As Kuryłowicz has seen, analogy might be the likeliest expla-
nation: since in Attic the suffix -ων was frequently preceded by a syllable
with a long vowel (μείζων, μᾶλλον, etc.), the pattern “long vowel plus ων”
was transferred to -ιων remade as -ῑων [Kuryłowicz 1956: 275–276, fol-
lowed by Szemerényi 1968: 32].
Some primary comparatives were not fully remade as stems
in -ιων, but instead became -on-stems: *kret-i̯ ō̆s- ‘stronger’ > *kretsoh-
(quasi *κρέσσω, *κρέσσους, *κρέσσω) >> *kretson- > Ion.
κρέσσων, -ονος, κρέσσον . A possible starting point for this devel-
12

opment is .- . . *kret-i̯ os > *kretsoh: a form like *κρέσσος /

*κρέττος would not be perceived by the speakers as a neuter adjecti-
val form and could easily be “fixed” by replacing the final -ος with -ον,
hence / -ων by analogy:
κρέσσον : / X = εὔδαιμον : / ευδαίμων,
where X is resolved as κρέσσων
In some cases, the remodeling as n-stem only affected the nomina-
tive, hence such “mixed” paradigms as . μείζων: . μείζους.

Some dialects have zero-grade in the root: *kr̥ t-i̯ ō̆s- > *kǝrtsoh- >> *kǝrtson- >
12

Dor. κάρρων.
554 Alexander Nikolaev

We can now take stock. Among primary comparative stems in 1st mil-
lennium Greek we find three categories:

(a) relics of original *-i̯ oh- declension (Att. . ἥττω, .

μείζους, etc.)
(b) remodeled -i̯ on-stems in . -ων, . -ονος
(κρέσσων, -ονος)
(c) remodeled -i(h)on- stems in . -ίων, . -ίονος
(κακίων, -ίονος)

Under this analysis there is no need to invoke Sievers’ Law or oper-

ate with a nebulous notation “-(i)i̯ os-” in order to explain the Greek data:
scattered forms like . βελτῐ́ω can be explained as type (a) remod-
elled by analogy to type (c). Type (a) was clearly on its way out in 1st
millennium Greek and type (b) was often replaced by productive (c): for
instance, θάσσων ‘quicker’ from ταχύς was replaced by ταχίων (Hp.+),
probably by analogy to its antonym βραδίων. In some instances, how-
ever, type (c) was remodelled after type (a), generating “mixed” forms
like . κακῐ ́ους:
. μείζων : . μείζους = . κακίων (analyzed
as κακί-ων): . X
where X is resolved as κακί-ους

* * *

3. In 1st millennium Greek we find several primary comparatives with -ει-

in the root: μείζων ‘bigger’, κρείσσων / κρείττων ‘stronger’, ἀρείων ‘bet-
ter’, ἀμείνων ‘more excellent’, χερείων ‘worse’, ὀλείζων ‘fewer’, μείων
‘smaller’ and πλέων ‘more’ 13. The origin of the diphthong in some of these
forms is unclear.

13 Contrary to some earlier analyses κρείων ‘lord’ is not a substantivized compar-

ative [Tichy 2009; van Beek 2014] and was hardly perceived as such by speakers
of Ancient Greek, so it does not belong on this list.
 Notes on Greek primary comparatives 555

OAtt. μείζων ‘bigger’ cannot possibly be a regular outcome of *meg̑ -

i̯ ōs- >> *meg̑ -i̯ ō̆n-: one would expect μέζων which is in fact well attested
̆
in Ionic, Arcadian, Doric, and Aeolic (Lesb. μέζων, Boeot. μέδδων). Sim-
ilarly, Homeric κρείσσων ‘stronger’ cannot possibly be a regular outcome
of *kret-i̯ ō̆s >> *kret-i̯ ō̆n: one would expect κρέσσων/κρέττων which is well
attested. Metrical lengthening is out of the question here, since κρείττων is
well entrenched in Old Attic inscriptions. The diphthong in the root of μείζων
and κρείσσων/κρείττων must be due to analogy, presumably to another
comparative form, yet to be identified. The situation with other primary
comparatives is less straightforward and requires more detailed discussion.
ἀρείων ‘better’ differs markedly from its near certain cognate in My-
cenaean: a-ro2-a [a(rj)rjoha] ‘of a special (good?) quality’ (used of clothes
and wheels) 14. Seiler [1950: 118–119], followed by Francis [1983: 83–
84], argued that ἀρείων is a faux comparative, viz. a remodeling of (*)
ἄρειος ‘useful, helpful’ derived from an s-stem ἄρος (Aesch. Suppl. 885,
Hsch. α 7370 ἄρος· ὄφελος ‘profit, advantage’) which is usually viewed
as a derivative of ἄρνυμαι. But it is hard to believe that the form ari̯ ō̆s-
(Myc. a-ro2-a) vanished without a trace only to be replaced in its func-
tion as a suppletive comparative to ἀγαθός by an uncannily similar form
ἀρείων of a different origin altogether.
In my opinion, the root of ἀρείων, ἄριστος is that of ἄρχω ‘to be
the first; to begin; to rule’ derived by Klingenschmitt [1974: 274 n. 1]
from *h2r̥ -ske/o- 15. Semantically, Klingenschmitt’s etymology is impec-
cable, and formally nothing stands in the way of positing a comparative
*h2er-i̯ ō̆s- > *ari̯ ō̆s- > Myc. a-ro2-a, remade in post-Mycenaean times
as *arei̯ ō̆s- by the same analogy that converted μέζων to μείζων and
κρέσσων to κρείσσων; later *arei̯ ō̆s- was remodeled as *arei̯ ō̆n- by the
process described in section (2) above 16.

14Ἀρίων/Ἀρείων, the name of Adrastus’ divine horse, probably does not belong
here, in view of the variant Ἐρίων on the coins.
15 Arm. ark‘ay ‘king’ is probably from the same root, see the discussion by Matzinger

[2000: 287-8 n. 27].

16 According to Klingenschmitt, *ari̯ ō̆s- was remade as *arei̯ ō̆s- (whence ἀρείων)

by analogy to a putative s-stem positive *h2erés- (quasi *ἀρής, *ἀρέος). But there is
556 Alexander Nikolaev

The relationship between Ion.-Att. χείρων and Hom. χερείων ‘worse’

has not been given a definitive explanation. In his seminal treatment
of Greek comparatives Leumann [1945 (1959): 216] proposed an ana-
logical proportion superlative ἄριστος: comparative ἀρείων = superla-
tive *χέριστος: X, where X is resolved as comparative χερείων. One po-
tential problem here is that *χέριστος is not actually attested. A different
approach is warranted.
What may the positive degree of this adjectival stem have looked
like in Proto-Greek? A plausible cognate is found in Ved. hrasvá- ‘short,
small, insignificant’ which can be back-reconstructed as *ghres-u̯ ó- (with
expectable Schwebeablaut vis-à-vis comparative *ghers-i̯ ō̆s-, the source
of Gk. χείρων) 17. PIE *ghres-u̯ ó- > PGk. *khresu̯ ó- would first develop
into *khrehu̯ ó- and then give Ion. †χρηός > †χρεώς > †χρεός, Att. †χρᾱός,
Aeol. †χρέυος. None of these forms are attested which is not too surpris-
ing in view of other homophonous Greek roots of the shape χρη/ε/α-. But
if a reflex of IE *ghres-u̯ ó- was available in Greek at some point (prior
to being lost and replaced by the Balkan innovation κακός 18), one may
propose a Proto-Greek contamination between positive *khresu̯ ós and
comparative *khersi̯ ō̆n leading to the replacement of the latter by a new
form *kheresu̯ ōn (> χερείων), *kheresu̯ on (> χέρειον, χερείονα). For
the rest we may broadly follow Leumann: neuter *kheresu̯ on is reinter-
preted as a thematic form, to which *kheresu̯ a > χέρεια is back-formed;

no comparative data allowing to reconstruct simplex s-stem adjectives for Proto-Indo-

European, and the now standard assumption is that these arose individually in the re-
spective languages. Greek uncompounded sigmatic adjectives are of late and second-
ary origin [Meissner 2006: 206–210]. While simple τὸ ἄρος is in fact (feebly) attested
(see above), there is no evidence for †-αρης. [Sihler 1995: 362] reconstructs the root
as *h2erh1- and derives *arei̯ ō̆s- directly from *h2erh1-i̯ ō̆s- with vocalization of the
medial laryngeal. Pinault’s Law would probably not allow that (why not *meg̑ h2-i̯ ō̆s-
>> †μεγαίων?).
17 According to Volkmar Schmidt apud [Meier-Brügger 2002: 303], another adjecti-

val derivative from the same root may be sought in Gmc. *gerna- ‘desirous’ (if from
earlier meaning ‘lacking’ vel sim.).
18 Cf. NPhryg. κακο- (hardly a loanword from Greek) and Alb. i keq ‘bad’ < *ka-
kii̯ o-; see [Matzinger 2012: 146].
 Notes on Greek primary comparatives 557

*kheresu̯ a, in turn, is reinterpreted as an athematic form, which explains

. χέρηϊ, . χέρηες 19. Hom. χερείων (with [ē ̣] before the com-
parative suffix) is thus a product of analogy, while Att. χείρων is a regu-
lar reflex of inherited comparative stem *ghers-i̯ ō̆s- 20.
ἀμείνων ‘better’ does not have a universally accepted etymology
on the books 21, but one may compare Toch. B maiwe ‘young’, mai-
yyāu (adjective) ‘powerful, strong’, maiyya ~ maiyyo ‘strength, power’
under the assumption that the original meaning of IE *h2moi̯ -u̯ o- was
‘strong’ and it could be used to refer to youthful vigor, hence the mean-
ing of Toch. B maiwe 22. If this etymology should be correct, ἀμείνων <
*h2mei̯ non- would contain a real diphthong (as Lesbian and Thessalian
personal names in Ἀμειν- suggest anyway) but would still have to be
analyzed as a faux comparative, viz. a derivative of adjective *ἀμεινος
(< *h2mei̯ no-) secondarily pressed into service as a suppletive compara-
tive to ἀγαθός.
μείων ‘smaller’ remains difficult and Mycenaean spellings <me-
wi-jo>, <me-u-jo> are ambiguous and not well understood 23, but given
the standard etymological connection with Vedic mināti ‘lessen’, mī́yate
‘withers’ it appears quite certain that the form contains an inherited diph-
thong. Heubeck [1963: 201–202] further compared the Greek form with
Anatolian *mei̯ u- “4”, Hitt. mieu-, miu- (< *mei̯ u- ‘little’, hence ‘little

19*kheresu̯ es > *kherehu̯ es > *kherē ̣u̯ es > *kherē ̣es > *kherę̄es with a dissimilatory
change ē ̣ >ę̄ before a front vowel [Brugmann 1898].
20 The analogical explanation advanced here, albeit complex, still seems superior to di-
rect comparison between the <ει> of ἀρείων and χερείων and the ē of Balto-Slavic com-
paratives (e.g. OCS novějiš- < *-ē-i̯ is-) proposed by Klingenschmitt [2008: 210–211].
21 For an overview of usage and semantics as well as for further bibliography see

[Dieu 2011: 29–47].

22 A competing school of thought assumes that the original meaning of the Tochar-
ian words was ‘young’ < ‘small’, and compares ON mjór ‘slender, delicate’ < *moi̯ u̯ o-
‘little’, following [Lane 1938: 24].
23For instance, Ruijgh [2011: 270] calls . me-u-jo-a2 [mewyoha] a reduced
form of *mei̯ u̯ ioha (cf. . me-wi-jo-e [meiwiohes]) by dissimilation (presum-
ably meaning a dissimilatory loss of the first one of two i̯ ’s).
558 Alexander Nikolaev

hand (without a thumb)’, ‘four fingers’): if Heubeck’s plausible proposal

is right and the <w> in the Mycenaean forms should be identified with
the stem vowel of *mei̯ u- ‘little’ 24, then *mei̯ u̯ i̯ ō̆s- vel sim. would contain
comparative morphology added to the stem suffix of the positive rather
than directly to the root, which would make μείων yet another faux com-
parative (similarly [Barber 2013: 176–177]).
ὀλείζων ‘fewer, less numerous’ is attested in inscriptions from Eleusis
written in the Old Attic alphabet: ὀλείζοσι IG I3 6.B36-7 (ante 460 BCE),
ὀλείζο IG I3 78.8 (423 BCE) [Threatte 1996: 309–10] 25.<ΕΙ> in these
forms stands for a real diphthong that should continue PIE *ei̯ , and there
is no morphological difficulty in positing a comparative stem *h3lei̯ g-
i̯ os- with a full grade vis-à-vis the positive ὀλίγος (< *h3lig-o-): in Pro-
to-Indo-European comparatives were primary stems, just like superla-
tives, and were made directly to the root; their accent and ablaut grade
are independent of the apophonic properties of the positive, as the fol-
lowing examples show: Ved. dīrghá- ‘long’ (< *dl̥ h1ghó-) vs. drā́ ghīyaṃs-
‘longer’(< *dleh1gh-i̯ os-); Gk. κρατύς ‘strong’ (< *kr̥ tú-) vs. κρέσσων
‘stronger’ (<< *kret-i̯ os-); Gk. ἐλαφρός ‘nimble’ (< *h1ln̥ gwhró- ‘light
(in weight)’, cf. OEng. adverb lungre ‘quickly’) vs. YAvest. rǝṇjišta-
‘fleetest’ (< *h1léngwhisto-), Ved. gurú- ‘heavy’ (< *gwr̥ h2u-) vs. gárīyas-
‘heavier’ (< *gwerh2-i̯ os-) 26. Therefore, *h3lei̯ g-i̯ ō̆s > *olei̯ dzō̆h- > ὀλείζω
(remade as *olei̯ dzō̆n -> ὀλείζων) is entirely in order and Barber’s state-
ment “ὀλείζων cannot represent an original Indo-European pattern of ab-
laut” [2013: 176] lacks conviction 27.

Another derivative of PIE *mei̯ u- ‘little’ is PGmc. *mai̯ u̯ a- ‘slender’ (> ON mjór),
24

mentioned above in n. 22.

25 Seiler [1950: 102] argued that <ὀλειζ-> [olei̯ dz] in Old Attic is later than <ὀλέζ->
[olē ̣dz] and therefore linguistically secondary (according to him, analogical to μείζων
[mē ̣dzōn]), but this argument falls in view of the form ὀλείζοσι.
26 The position of accent in comparatives, too, could be different from its place

in positive adjectival stems, witness the absence of Verner’s Law in Goth. iusiza ‘bet-
ter’ and waírsiza ‘worse’, see [Schaffner 2001: 348].
27Beekes [2010: 1068] doubts that ὀλίγος is inherited from Proto-Indo-European
and only gives Arm. ałk‘at ‘poor’ as a potential cognate, but in fact ὀλίγος finds
 Notes on Greek primary comparatives 559

The final form to be discussed is πλέων / πλείων ‘more numerous’.

There is a panoply of variant forms some of which have been plausibly
explained as innovations by Leumann [1945] (Hom. . πλέες, Lesb.
. πλέας, . πλέα, Cret. πλίες, πλίας, πλία), while others may be
old and interesting for reconstruction purposes 28. The variant πλείων has
been convincingly argued to be secondary with the diphthong imported
from the superlative πλεῖστος = Av. fraēšta- < *pleh1isto-. This leaves
πλέων which can be plausibly explained from *pleh1-is-on-, a derivative
of neuter *ploh1-is- /*pleh1-is-. We have seen in section 2 that the “weak”
n-stem declension of comparative stems may be reconstructed for the pro-
to-language, as it is found in three IE languages, and it is at least within
the realm of possibility that Greek inherited both the strong comparative
*pleh1-i̯ ō̆s- (= Av. frāiiah-, Skt. (adverb) prāyaḥ) and the weak compara-
tive *pleh1-is-on- (Gmc. *flaizan-) 29.
We can now sum up the results of this examination of primary compar-
atives in Ancient Greek. We have seen that two forms with inherited diph-
thongs can be posited for Proto-Greek: *plei̯ hō̆n- (< *pleh1-is-on-) ‘more
numerous’ and *olei̯ dzō̆h- (<*h3lei̯ g-i̯ ō̆s) ‘less numerous’, later remade
as *olei̯ dzō̆n-. This pair was joined by two “faux comparatives”, namely,
*amei̯ nō̆n- ‘better’ (< ‘stronger’) and *mei̯ u̯ i̯ ō̆s- ‘fewer; smaller; infe-
rior in strength’ 30. I propose that these were the forms that provided the
model for analogical introduction of diphthong *-ei̯ - in *medzō̆n ‘bigger’,

a cognate in Tocharian A lykäly, B lykaśke ‘small’ which show a reflex of PToch. *lyäk-
(< IE *h3lig-), enlarged with different suffixes in two dialects of Tocharian. Further
cognates may include Lith. líegti, ligóti ‘to be ill’ and, within Greek itself, λοιγός ‘ruin,
havoc’ (< *h3loi̯ gó- with “Saussure’s effect”). As an explanation for the paroxytone
accentuation of ὀλίγος (instead of expected †ὀλιγός) Martin Peters apud Neri [2017:
226] suggests analogy to comparative ὀλ(ε)ίζω(ν), superlative ὀλίγιστος.
28On Arcad. πλος and Att. πλεῖν ‘more’ see Widmer [2004: 164–171] who explains
these forms as reflexes of analogically remodeled *plo/eh1-is- (Gmc. *flaiz-, Lat. plūs).
29 The comparative of πολύς is not attested in Mycenaean.
30Although the Mycenaean spelling me-u-jo- may suggest that *mei̯ u̯ i̯ ō̆s-was al-
ready losing the first glide and developing into *meu̯ i̯ ō̆s- to be remade as *meu̯ i̯ ō̆n-
whence regularly *mei̯ u̯ ō̆n- (for metathesis cf. *au̯ i̯ eto- > *ai̯ u̯ eto- > αἰβετός· ἀετός).
560 Alexander Nikolaev

*kretsō̆n ‘stronger’, *ari̯ ō̆n- ‘better’ and perhaps some other comparatives
in post-Mycenaean times.

Abbreviations and symbols

> or < — change by sound laws; >> — remodelling; → — morphological derivation;

* — form reconstructed for an earlier stage of the language (“protoform”); † — form
that would be expected but are not actually attested.; — accusative; Aeol. — Aeo-
lic; Aesch. Suppl. — Aeschylus. Supplices = [West 1998]; Alb. — Albanian; Ar. Lys. —
Aristophanes. Lysistrata = [Henderson 1987]; Arcad. — Arcadian; Arm. — Armenian;
Att. — Attic; Av. — Avestan; Boeot. — Boeotian; BCE — Before Common Era; Cret. —
Cretan; — dative; Dor. — Doric; — feminine; — genitive; Gk. — Greek;
Gmc. — Germanic; Goth. — Gothic; Hitt. — Hittite; Hom. — Homeric; Hp. — Hip-
pocrates / Corpus Hippocraticum; Hsch. — Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon = [Cun-
ningham 2009]; IE — Indo-European; IG — Inscriptiones graecae = [Kirchhoff et al.
1873–]; Ion. — Ionic; Lat. — Latin; Lesb. — Lesbian; Lith. — Lithuanian; — mas-
culine; MEng. —Modern English; Myc. — Mycenaean; — neuter; — nomina-
tive; NPhryg — New Phrygian; OAtt. — Old Attic; OEng. — Old English; OCS — Old
Church Slavonic; ON — Old Norse; Paul. Fest. — Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum
significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome = [Lindsay 1913]; PBalt. — Proto-Bal-
tic; PGk. — Proto-Greek; PGmc. — Proto-Germanic; PIE — Proto-Indo-European;
PII —Proto-Indo-Iranian; — plural; — personal name; PSlav. — Proto-Slavic;
PToch. — Proto-Tocharian; PY Tn — Pylos tablets, series Tn = [Melena, Firth 2021];
— singular; Skt. — Sanskrit; Toch. B. — Tocharian B; Ved. — Vedic; YAvest. —
Younger Avestan

References

Казанский, Казанскене 1986 — Н. Н. Казанский, В. П. Казанскене. Предметно-

понятийный словарь греческого языка. Крито-микенский период. Л.: Наука, 1986.
Barber 2013 — P. J. Barber. Sievers’ Law and the history of semivowel syllabicity
in Indo-European and Ancient Greek. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Bartoněk 2003 — A. Bartoněk. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg:
C. Winter, 2003.
Bernabé, Luján 2006 — A. Bernabé, E. R. Luján. Introduction al Griego Micéni-
co. Gramática, selección de textos y glosario. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias
de Zaragoza, 2006.
 Notes on Greek primary comparatives 561

Brugmann 1898 — K. Brugmann. Dissimilatorische Veränderung von ē im

Griechischen und Aristarchs Regel über den homerischen Wechsel von
η und ει vor Vokalen // Indogermanische Forschungen. 1898. Bd. 9. S. 153–178.
Cunningham 2009 — I. C. Cunningham (ed.). Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Vol. 1.
Α–Δ. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2009.
Dieu 2011 — É. Dieu. Le supplétisme dans les formes de gradation en grec ancien
et dans les langues indo-européennes. Genève: Droz, 2011.
Beekes 2010 — R. S. P. Beekes. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2010.
Francis 1983 — E. D. Francis. Virtue, folly and Greek etymology // C. A. Rubino,
C. W. Shelmerdine (eds.). Approaches to Homer. Austin: UT Press, 1983. P. 74–
121.
Henderson 1987 — J. Henderson (ed.). Aristophanes, Lysistrata. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1987.
Heubeck 1963 — A. Heubeck. ‘Digamma’-Probleme des mykenischen Dialekts // Die
Sprache. 1963. Bd. 9. S. 193–202.
Kirchhoff et al. 1873– — Inscriptiones graecae, post A. Kirchhoff, W. Dittenberger,
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, F. Hiller von Gaertringen, R. M. Errington ed.
K. Hallof. V. 1–. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1873–.
Klingenschmitt 1974 — G. Klingenschmitt. Gr. παρθένος // M. Mayrhofer, W. Meid,
B. Schlerath, R. Schmitt (Hrsg). Antiquitates Indogermanicae: Studien zur Indo-
germanischen Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der indo-
germanischen Völker. Gedenkschrift für Hermann Güntert zur 25. Wiederkehr
seines Todestages am 23. April 1973. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
der Universität Innsbruck, 1974. S. 273–278 (reprinted in Aufsätze zur Indoger-
manistik. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac, 2005. S. 117–123).
Klingenschmitt 1982 — G. Klingenschmitt. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden:
L. Reichert, 1982.
Klingenschmitt 2008 — G. Klingenschmitt. Erbe und Neuerung bei Akzent und Ab-
laut in der litauischen Morphologie // D. Mikulėnienė (red.). Kalbos istorijos ir
dialektologijos problemos. T. 2. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2008.
P. 180–215.
Lane 1938 — G. S. Lane. Problems of Tocharian phonology // Language. 1938. Vol. 14.
P. 20–38.
Leumann 1945 — M. Leumann. Unregelmässige griechische Steigerungsformen //
Museum Helveticum. 1945. Bd. 2: Ferdinand Sommer zum 70. Geburtstag.
S. 1–14 (reprinted in Kleine Schriften, Zürich: Artemis Verlag, 1961. S. 214–229).
Lindsay 1913 — W. M. Lindsay (ed.). Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu
quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913.
562 Alexander Nikolaev

Matzinger 2000 — J. Matzinger. Armenisch arkʿay ‘König’: Ein etymologischer Ver-

such // Historische Sprachforschung. 2000. Bd. 113. S. 283–289.
Matzinger 2012 — J. Matzinger. ‘Zwischensprachen’ — Areallinguistische Bemerkun-
gen aus dem Bereich des Balkanindogermanischen // V. Sadovski, D. Stifter
(Hrsg.). Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem
Schindler (1944–1994). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 2012. S. 137–159.
Meier-Brügger 2002 — M. Meier-Brügger. Zu griechisch χορός // M. Fritz, S. Zeil-
felder (Hrsg.). Novalis Indogermanica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80.
Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam, 2002. S. 297–303.
Melena, Firth 2021 — J. L. Melena (ed.), R. Firth (col.). The Pylos tablets. Vitoria:
Universidad del País Vasco, 2021.
Neri 2017 — S. Neri. Wetter. Etymologie und Lautgesetz. Perugia: Università degli
Studi di Perugia, 2017.
Rau 2014 — J. Rau. The history of the Indo-European primary comparative // N. Oet-
tinger, Th. Steer (Hrsg.). Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Sub-
stantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogerman-
ischen Gesellschaft vom 14. bis 16. September 2011 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 2014. S. 327–341.
Rix 1992 — H. Rix. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenleh-
re. 2. Ausg. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992.
Ruijgh 2011 — C. J. Ruijgh. Mycenaean and Homeric language // Y. Duhoux, A. Mor-
purgo Davies (eds.). A companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek texts and their
world. Vol. 2. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. P. 253–290.
Schaffner 2001 — S. Schaffner. Das Vernersche Gesetz und der inner-paradigmatische
Grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck: In-
stitut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, 2001.
Schindler 1986 — J. Schindler. Zum jüngstavestischen: die femininen Komparative
auf -iiaiiā̊ // Die Sprache. 1986. Bd. 32: Festgabe Manfred Mayrhofer. S. 384–390.
Schwyzer 1939 — E. Schwyzer. Griechische Grammatik. Bd. 1: Allgemeiner Teil,
Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. München: Beck, 1939.
Seiler 1950 — H. J. Seiler. Die primären griechischen Steigerungsformen. Hamburg:
Hansischer Gildenverlag, 1950.
Sihler 1995 — A. L. Sihler. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Threatte 1996 — L. Threatte. The grammar of Attic inscriptions. Vol. II: Morphology.
Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter, 1996.
Tichy 2009 — E. Tichy. Zwei vor-hexametrische Formeln: (εὐρὺ) κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων
and ζείδωρος ἄρουρα // E. Pirart, X. Tremblay (eds.). Zarathushtra entre l’Inde
 Notes on Greek primary comparatives 563

et l’Iran: études indo-iraniennes et indo-européennes offertes à Jean Kellens

à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 2009. P. 313–326.
Weiss 2020 — M. Weiss. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin.
Second ed. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 2020.
West 1998 — M. L. West (ed.). Aeschyli tragoediae. Stuttgardiae et Lipsiae, Teub-
ner, 1998.
Widmer 2004 — P. Widmer. Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Interne Derivation, Deriva-
tionskette und Flexionsklassenhierarchie: Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung
im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Univer-
sität Innsbruck, 2004.
 Российская академия наук
Институт лингвистических исследований РАН

VERUS CONVICTOR,
VERUS ACADEMICUS

К 70-
Н Н К

Санкт-Петербург
2022
 УДК 80(082)
ББК 80я434
V51
Ответственный редактор
М. Л. Кисилиер
Р е д ко л л е г и я
Н. А. Бондарко, Г. М. Воробьев (секретарь), Е. Д. Высоцкая, А. А. Есе-
лева, И. Д. Попова, А. Ю. Русаков (заместитель ответственного редактора),
Н. Л. Сухачев, М. Е. Шляхтер
Рецензенты
д. ф. н. М. Б. Попов, к. ф. н. С. С. Сай
Утверждено к печати
Ученым советом Института лингвистических исследований РАН

V51 Verus convictor, verus academicus. К 70-летию Николая Нико-

лаевича Казанского / М. Л. Кисилиер (отв. ред.). СПб.: ИЛИ РАН,
2022. — 696 с., 5 с. вклейки.
ISBN 978-5-6047998-2-6
Сборник статей посвящен юбилею академика РАН Н. Н. Казан-
ского — выдающегося филолога-классика и индоевропеиста, много-
летнего директора и научного руководителя ИЛИ РАН. Тематическая
направленность статей в целом отражает широкий спектр научных ин-
тересов юбиляра — от индоевропеистики и классической филологии
до малых языков России.
УДК 80(082)
DOI 10.30842/9785604799826 ББК 80я434

В оформлении обложки использован фрагмент из стихотворения

Иосифа Бродского «Подражание Горацию»

© Авторы, 2022
© ИЛИ РАН, 2022