chapter 8 Subtractive Imperative Forms in Bithynian Greek Nikos Koutsoukos and Nikolaos Pantelidis 1 Introduction Pursuing the goals of this volume, in this chapter we deal with Bithynian Greek. Bithynian Greek is not one of the well-studied varieties of Modern Greek, un- like Cappadocian or Pontic. However, it offers a number of interesting phe- nomena at the level of morphology. This variety was spoken in the area of Bithynia and later on was preserved by immigrants who moved to various places in the mainland of Greece, such as Nea Kios (Νέα Κίος, Peloponnese) and Nea Triglia (Νέα Τρίγλια, Chalkidiki), after the exodus of the Greek population in 1922–1923. There are three ques- tions regarding the linguistic context of this area: (a) the relationship between the Bithynian sub-varieties and the hypothesis of a well-defined distinct Bithynian dialect group, (b) the relationship between the Bithynian varieties (or the possible dialect group) and other Modern Greek varieties, and (c) the relationship between Greek and other languages spoken in this region, espe- cially Turkish (see also Manolessou, this volume). These questions show that the study of Bithynian Greek is intriguing and deserves a closer look. Within this context, we describe the verbal system of this variety. In gen- eral, the variety follows the same patterns as most of the Modern Greek va- rieties with respect to the structure of the verbal system. In our description, we focus on the formation of the imperative. Imperatives in Bithynian Greek are characterized by subtraction in the perfective of the active voice in verbs with the formatives -ών(ω) [ono] and -άζ(ω) [azo]. Since subtraction has not been discussed with respect to Modern Greek varieties, we analyze the cases of subtraction in Bithynian Greek and we compare it with two other varieties, namely Standard Modern Greek (SMG) and the Peloponnesian variety. Subtraction as a morphological process per se also raises a number of the- oretical questions. For instance, an interesting question is what the limits of subtraction are and how it is differentiated from other processes which share an abbreviatory mechanism. Subtraction is also connected with the question of the relationship between form and meaning in morphological processes, since ‒ contrary to most of the common processes ‒ subtraction consists in the shortening of the shape of a word form and not in the addition of some © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004394506_010 255-283_Ralli_09-Koutsoukos-Pantelidis.indd 255 13-Feb-19 6:10:26 PM 256 Koutsoukos and Pantelidis material (e.g. affix) which signals the process and the new meaning. The analy- sis of subtractive forms in Bithynian Greek revolves around two basic issues: first, the examination of the morphological context of this change, namely why subtraction appears only in verbs which show these two formatives (-ών(ω) [ono] and -άζ(ω) [azo]); and second, the motives behind this process. To cover these issues, the structure of this chapter is as follows: after this in- troduction, we explore the linguistic context of the Bithynian dialect (section 2) and we describe the relevant data (section 3). In this section, we start with some preliminary notes on the verbal system of the dialect (section 3.1) and we focus on the subtracted verbal forms in comparison to similar data from other varieties (section 3.2). After that, we explore the notion of subtraction (section 4.1) and we analyze the subtracted forms in Bithynian (section 4.2). Conclusions are presented in the last part of this chapter (section 5). 2 Linguistic Context of Bithynia 2.1 Sociohistorical Notes on the Variety Geographically, Bithynia occupies the northwest of Asia Minor, on the south- ern shores of the Propontis (see map in Annex). In antiquity, it bordered on Mysia (to the west-southwest), Paphlagonia (to the northeast along the Black Sea coast), and Phrygia (to the south-southeast towards the interior of Asia Minor). However, the borders of this region have not been very rigid (Sakellariou, 1990–1991). Modern Bithynia comprises ancient Mysia and the western part of the ancient region and Roman province of Bithynia.1 Several important cities were (re-)founded there in various epochs from the begin- ning of the Greek colonization (around 700 BC), among others: Kios (Κίος or Gemlik), Chryssoupolis (Χρυσούπολις or Üsküdar), Nicomedea (Νικομήδεια), Nicaea (Νίκαια or İznik), Bursa (Προύσα), Chalcedon (Χαλκηδών or Kadiköy). Bithynia was one of the linguistically most complex areas of Asia Minor. A process of Hellenization, which started with the conquest of the region by Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BC, led to the gradual extinction of the indigenous languages, among others, Phrygian and Mysian, and their replacement by Koine Greek. It is estimated that this process lasted several centuries, since some languages, such as Phrygian, seem to have survived in enclaves as late as the 7th century AD (Brixhe, 2008, p. 72; Brixhe, 2010; Hawkins, 2010, p. 215). Greek was the dominant language of western, central, and northern Anatolia until at least the end of the 11th century AD (Vryonis, 1971, pp. 42–55). It has 1 See map in Brixhe (2010, p. 229 Fig. 16.1) and Manolessou (in this volume). 255-283_Ralli_09-Koutsoukos-Pantelidis.indd 256 13-Feb-19 6:10:27 PM SUBTRACTION IN BITHYNIAN 257 been in recession since the Turkish invasions and the beginning of Turkish settlement in Asia Minor (11th–14th centuries AD), but it survived in parts of western Asia Minor, in the north of Asia Minor, and in enclaves in Cappadocia and Lycaonia. During the time of the Ottoman Empire, Bithynia was ethnically and lin- guistically heterogeneous. Turks and Greeks made up the majority of the pop- ulation, while Jews, Armenians, Circassians, Slavs, and Tatars were also present in the same area. Parts of the Greek population were Turkish-speaking or Greek-Turkish bilinguals, a fact that seems to have had an impact on the Greek varieties of the respective settlements (Konstantinidou, 2005a, pp. 125–126; Konstantinidou, 2005b, pp. 337–338). Greek ceased to be spoken in Bithynia after the exodus of the Greek population in 1922–1923. Within this context, one of the most interesting issues is the relation be- tween Greek and other languages spoken in this region, especially Turkish. However, except for short discussions in Konstantinidou (2005a, p. 146; 2005b), this issue remains unexplored. In the pre-1923 period, Bithynia displayed a considerable degree of dialectal diversity, which was most probably connected with the fact that ‒ beside the older Greek-speaking population which can be traced back to Byzantine, Roman and Hellenistic times – up to the 19th cen- tury the region was a “melting pot” of Greek speakers from many Grecophone areas (including the Aegean islands, see Konstantinidou, 2005b, p. 337 and ref- erences therein). 2.2 General Linguistic Features Important questions raised in the research on the linguistic features of the Bithynian varieties involve (a) the interrelation between Bithynian (micro-) varieties and their classification into groups, (b) the question of whether there is a distinct, locally differentiated, Bithynian Modern Greek dialect group, and (c) the possible genetic links between Bithynian varieties (or the possible dia- lect group) and other Modern Greek varieties. Regarding the first question, according to Papadopoulou (2010, p. 21), Bithynian varieties can be classified into three groups: (a) varieties of the “northern Greek” type which are characterized by raising of unstressed mid vowels and deletion of original unstressed high vowels, for example, πουτάμ’ [putám] for ποτάμι [potámi] ‘river’, (b) varieties of the “southern Greek” type which are characterized by the absence of the above phenomena,2 (c) varieties of the “semi-northern Greek” type which stand in-between. 2 The phenomena typical of the “Northern” varieties are not completely absent from the “Southern” varieties. They may occur, but not in a systematic way; otherwise they are re- stricted to specific (phonological/morphological) contexts and lexical items. 255-283_Ralli_09-Koutsoukos-Pantelidis.indd 257 13-Feb-19 6:10:27 PM 258 Koutsoukos and Pantelidis Due to the absence of a contrastive analysis of the different varieties of Bithynian Greek, a full listing of all their shared features is not feasible. However, below we list a number of important morphological phenomena, quoted in Danguitsis (1943) and Konstantinidou (2005a, b), that may consti- tute an interesting platform for discussion of this variety:3 (a) Leveling of the formal distinction between the masculine and feminine definite article in: – Nominative singular, η άντρας [i ádras] ‘man’ vs η γυναίκα [i ʝenéka] ‘woman’ (instead of ο άντρας [o ádras] vs η γυναίκα [i ʝenéka]) – Accusative plural τι αθρώπ’ [ti aθróp] ‘human beings’ vs τι μέρες [ti méres] ‘days’ It should also be mentioned that all three genders display the same form of the definite article in the genitive singular, e.g. τη άντρα [ti ádra] (masculine), τη γυναίκας [ti ʝenékas] (feminine), and τη παιδιού [ti peðʝú] (neuter). (b) Leveling of the formal distinctions in the singular of the masculine nouns which results in two forms, one for nominative and one for genitive/ac- cusative, e.g. η άθρωπος [i áθropos] nom.sg ‘man’ vs τη άθρωπο [ti áθropo] gen.sg, το(ν) άθρωπο [to(n) áθropo] acc.sg. (c) Masculine nouns concord with adjectives in the feminine form, e.g. ώρ’μες [órmes] adj.f.nom.pl ‘ripe’ χουρμάδες [xurmáðes] noun.m.nom. pl ‘date’ (instead of ώρ(ι)μοι χουρμάδες [ór(i)mi xurmáðes]). (d) Use of the suffix -εύ(ω) [evo]/(-εύγω) [evɣo] for the coining of verbs on the basis of Turkish nominals (nouns and adjectives), e.g. ζαbουνεύγω [zabunévɣo] ‘lose weight’ < zebun, zabun ‘slim’.4 (e) Addition of the suffix -ίσκ(ω) [isko] in some verb forms in the paradigm of the imperfective (present and imperfect tense).