sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aorist (Ancient Greek), Demotic Greek, Greek Muslims, Greek orthography, Modern Greek, Modern Greek phonology

19 Greek

Brian D. Joseph

1 Historical Background

The Greek forms, by itself, a separate branch of the Indo-European family. It is one of the oldest attested Indo-European , being attested from c. 1400 BC in the documents found on (and from somewhat later, on the Greek mainland) written in the Linear . Except for a break in attestation between the end of the Mycenaean empire (c. 1150 BC) and roughly 800 BC, a period sometimes referred to as the ‘Dark Ages’ of Greek culture, Greek presents a continuous record of attestation for the linguist, right up to the present day. Commonly called Greek in English, based on the term Graeci used by the Romans to label all the (though originally the name may have properly applied only to a tribe in the north-west of ), the language is also referred to as Hellenic, from the Greek stem ʽΕkkgm-*,1 used in the to refer to a Thessalian tribe but in (and elsewhere) to designate the Greeks as a whole as opposed to ; indeed, the Greeks themselves have generally referred to their language as e9kkgmijή, though contemporary Greeks also use the designation qxlaίija, an outgrowth of their connection historically with the Eastern based in . Using a somewhat outmoded but nonetheless still widely cited putative divi- sion within Indo-European, one can classify Greek as a ‘centum’ language, for it shows a distinct set of reflexes for the Indo-European labio-velars, opposed to a single set of reflexes for the Indo-European palatals and velars combined; thus, Greek shows a root pqia- ‘buy’ (cf. also Mycenaean qi-ri-ja-to ‘bought’ showing the labio-velar preserved w -

as < q > ) from Proto-Indo-European *k riH2- (cf. root krı- ‘buy’), a noun

jqέaς ‘meat’ from Proto-Indo-European *krewH2s (cf. Sanskrit˘ kravis- ‘raw flesh’), and a root jei- ‘lie (down)’ from Proto-Indo-European *kei- (cf.˘ Sanskrit root s´ı-- ‘lie’), in which the plain *k of the proto-language and the palatal *k show a merger while the labio-velar *kw is kept distinct. Greek also shows some particular affinities with Armenian and Indo-Iranian, sharing with these branches, for example, the past-tense morpheme *e- (the ‘’), and the use of the negator *me- (Greek lή), and with Armenian alone the vocalisation of the Indo-European ‘laryngeal’ consonants in initial

347357

15034-0340-019.indd 357 12/15/2017 11:57:07 AM GREEK

position, and some notable parallels in vocabulary (e.g. a' kώpgn ‘fox’ = Arm. ałue-s, where no other Indo-European language has precisely this form, or pqxjsός ‘anus’ = erastank’‘buttocks’). Moreover, Greek preserves the Indo-European system (with long and short *a *e *i *o *u) more faithfully than any other language in the family. Differentiating Greek from the other members of the Indo-European family, though, are several particular features. In , Greek innovated a (past and future) passive marker -hg- and elaborated the infinitival system. With regard to , Greek alone in Indo-European shows voiceless aspirates (in the ancient language) as the continuation of the Indo-European voiced aspirate consonants (e.g. ueq- ‘carry’ from *bher-, cf. Sanskrit bhar-); in addition, Greek lenited Indo-European *s to h in many environments, ultimately losing it intervocalically (e.g. e9psά ‘seven’ from *septm, cf. septem, or cέme-i ‘in, at, to a race, kind (dat. sg.)’ from *genes-i, cf. Sanskrit˚ janas-i ‘in the people (loc. sg.)’). Also, Greek deleted original word-final stops (e.g. lέki ‘honey’ from *melit, cf. Hittite milit ‘honey’). Moreover, although Common Greek preserved the Indo-European labiovelars as such, to judge in part from their preservation in Mycenaean (cf. qi-ri-ja-to above), the ancient language is characterised by a number of complex dialectal developments with *kw, *gw and *gwh. Labial reflexes occur in some environments and in some (e.g. pan-Greek interrogative stem po- from *kwo-, Aeolic (Boeotian) pέssaqeς ‘four’ from *kwetwr-), dental reflexes in other environments, also dialectally conditioned (e.g. sίς ‘who’ from˚ *kwis, and non-Aeolic (Attic) sέssaqeς ‘four’), and even velar reflexes in some dialects when adjacent to *u or *w (e.g. et' -‘wish’ from *ewgwh-). Further Greek-particular developments setting the language off from other Indo-European lan- guages include a number of complex treatments of clusters of + *y and of clusters of resonant (*r *l *m *n *y *w) + *s (examples below in Section 4.1). A final diagnostic feature for Greek within Indo-European is a three-way distinction in reflexes of the laryngeal consonants, represented by e, a and o in Greek; this feature is likely to represent the continuation of a three-way Proto-Indo-European contrast in the laryngeals, but by some accounts it is a significant Greek innovation (perhaps morphologically induced). The early attestation of Greek and the archaic nature of the Homeric epic corpus together serve to make Greek extremely important for the understanding and recon- struction of all aspects of Proto-Indo-European language and culture. In addition, the literary output of writers of Greek has throughout the ages been of utmost importance to Western culture so that Greek has a special place in a variety of humanistic pursuits, including the history of because of the native Greek grammatical tradition developed by the Alexandrians in the Hellenistic era. Finally, the long and relatively continuous attestation of the gives it a significance for general histor- ical linguistics, as it offers a ‘window’ on the nature of language change which few other languages can provide. With such a long historical record for the language, it is convenient, as well as con- ventional, to break the span up into several major periods of development. These peri- ods are defined in part by external, especially political and historical, factors, but also reflect real linguistic developments. These periods are:

(a) Mycenaean Greek (c. 1500–1150 BC) (b) Classical Greek, including (c. 800–300 BC)

358348

15034-0340-019.indd 358 12/15/2017 11:57:07 AM GREEK GREEK - position, and some notable parallels in vocabulary (e.g. a' kώpgn ‘fox’ = Arm. ałues, (c) Hellenistic Greek, including New Testament Greek and the Roman period (c. 300 BC – where no other Indo-European language has precisely this form, or pqxjsός ‘anus’ = AD 300) erastank’‘buttocks’). Moreover, Greek preserves the Indo-European vowel system (d) Middle Greek, comprising Byzantine Greek (c. AD 300–1100) and Medieval (with long and short *a *e *i *o *u) more faithfully than any other language in the Greek (c. AD 1100–1600) family. (e) (c. AD 1600 to the present), actually covering the early Modern Differentiating Greek from the other members of the Indo-European family, though, era (c. AD 1600–1800) and contemporary Greek. are several particular features. In morphology, Greek innovated a (past and future) passive marker -hg- and elaborated the infinitival system. With regard to phonology, With such a long period of attestation for Greek, it is of course natural to find that there Greek alone in Indo-European shows voiceless aspirates (in the ancient language) as are some significant differences between Greek of the fourteenth century BC and Greek the continuation of the Indo-European voiced aspirate consonants (e.g. ueq- ‘carry’ of the twenty-first century AD, and these differences are chronicled in the sections to from *bher-, cf. Sanskrit bhar-); in addition, Greek lenited Indo-European *s to h in follow. At the same time, though, there are some aspects of the language, occasionally many environments, ultimately losing it intervocalically (e.g. e9psά ‘seven’ from isolated ones though some fit into a system, which show remarkable continuity and *septm, cf. Latin septem, or cέme-i ‘in, at, to a race, kind (dat. sg.)’ from *genes-i, cf. stability over some 3,500 years. Among these are the augment e-, still found Sanskrit˚ janas-i ‘in the people (loc. sg.)’). Also, Greek deleted original word-final stops in stressed positions in the modern language, the personal endings in the present active (e.g. lέki ‘honey’ from *melit, cf. Hittite milit ‘honey’). and medio-passive present and past (excepting the third person ), the general Moreover, although Common Greek preserved the Indo-European labiovelars as structure of the nominal and verbal systems, and numerous lexical items, including such, to judge in part from their preservation in Mycenaean (cf. qi-ri-ja-to above), the some which have changed neither phonetic form (excepting the realisation of accent) ancient language is characterised by a number of complex dialectal developments with nor meaning, e.g. amelo! ς ‘wind’. *kw, *gw and *gwh. Labial reflexes occur in some environments and in some dialects (e.g. pan-Greek interrogative stem po- from *kwo-, Aeolic (Boeotian) pέssaqeς ‘four’ from *kwetwr-), dental reflexes in other environments, also dialectally conditioned (e.g. 2 Greek in its Geographic and Social Context sίς ‘who’ from˚ *kwis, and non-Aeolic (Attic) sέssaqeς ‘four’), and even velar reflexes in some dialects when adjacent to *u or *w (e.g. et' v-‘wish’ from *ewgwh-). Further Greek has been spoken in the southern since early in the second millennium Greek-particular developments setting the language off from other Indo-European lan- BC, according to conventional accounts of the coming of the Greeks to the area. guages include a number of complex treatments of clusters of obstruent + *y and of Arriving most likely in waves of different tribes over a period of several centuries, the clusters of resonant (*r *l *m *n *y *w) + *s (examples below in Section 4.1). A final Greeks absorbed some autochthonous groups, traces of whose language(s) can probably diagnostic feature for Greek within Indo-European is a three-way distinction in reflexes be seen in numerous place names and terms for native flora and fauna containing the of the laryngeal consonants, represented by e, a and o in Greek; this feature is likely to sequences -mh- and -rr-, among others (e.g. Кόqimhoς ‘’, lίmhg ‘mint’, represent the continuation of a three-way Proto-Indo-European contrast in the laryngeals, Paqmarrός ‘Parnassus’, etc.), and possibly also in Indo-European-like words with a but by some accounts it is a significant Greek innovation (perhaps morphologically somewhat aberrant phonology if natively Greek (e.g. a' keίux ‘I anoint’ with a prefixed induced). a' - and a voiceless aspirate consonant, both unexpected if the word were inherited The early attestation of Greek and the archaic nature of the Homeric epic corpus directly from Proto-Indo-European into Greek, versus inherited Greek kίpoς ‘fat’, from together serve to make Greek extremely important for the understanding and recon- an Indo-European root *leip-). Greek has remained in the Balkans since that early struction of all aspects of Proto-Indo-European language and culture. In addition, the period, although it has spread to other areas as well. literary output of writers of Greek has throughout the ages been of utmost importance In ancient times, Greek colonies were established in (perhaps as early as the to Western culture so that Greek has a special place in a variety of humanistic pursuits, twelfth century BC) and southern (c. eighth century BC), and there have been Greek including the history of linguistics because of the native Greek grammatical tradition speakers continuously in these places up to the present day. Similarly, colonies estab- developed by the Alexandrians in the Hellenistic era. Finally, the long and relatively lished in western Asia Minor were continuously peopled by Greek speakers up to the continuous attestation of the Greek language gives it a significance for general histor- beginning of the twentieth century, when population exchanges in the 1920s between ical linguistics, as it offers a ‘window’ on the nature of language change which few Greece and led to the relocation of most of the Greeks back to Greece. All of other languages can provide. these settlements were renewed with further Greek speakers throughout the Hellenistic With such a long historical record for the language, it is convenient, as well as con- period, when Greek spread as the lingua franca for all of the eastern Mediterranean, the ventional, to break the span up into several major periods of development. These peri- and into Central Asia as far east as Persia and India. Some of the pockets ods are defined in part by external, especially political and historical, factors, but also of Greek speakers established in that period have remained into the contemporary reflect real linguistic developments. These periods are: period, for example in (). In the Middle Greek period, the geographic domain of Greek became somewhat (a) Mycenaean Greek (c. 1500–1150 BC) more restricted, with important centres still in Constantinople, Asia Minor in general, (b) Classical Greek, including Homeric Greek (c. 800–300 BC) Alexandria, Cyprus and elsewhere in the general eastern Mediterranean area, including

348 349359

15034-0340-019.indd 359 12/15/2017 11:57:07 AM GREEK

Ukraine. The modern era has seen the reduction in the number of Greek speakers in all these areas except Cyprus, but also the expansion of Greek into the ‘New World’. There are now significant Greek-speaking communities in the USA (especially the urban centres of the East), in Canada, in Britain and in . The speakers in Greece, Cyprus and elsewhere in the Mediterranean together with those in the ‘Hellenic diaspora’ number some 13 million today (c. ten million in Greece). Despite the rather widespread geographic distribution of Greek throughout its history, it is Balkan Greek, i.e. Greek of the southern Balkans together with the islands of the and the , including Crete, that is of primary importance here. The dialect diversity in ancient times, with four main dialect groups (Attic-Ionic, Aeolic, Arcado-Cyprian and West Greek (comprising Northwest Greek and Doric)) as well as the earlier Mycenaean Greek (problematic in terms of its connections with these dialect groups), centred more on matters of detail in phonological and morphological development rather than on broad structural aspects. Thus, Attic, the dialect of and the pre-eminent dialect from a cultural and political standpoint, and more generally the Attic-Ionic branch of Greek, constitute theprimaryandcertainlybest-knownrepre- sentative of . Moreover, Attic-Ionic provided the basis for the Hellenistic koine (g9 joimg` diάkejsoς ‘the common dialect’), which showed considerable uni- formity across the whole area of its use. This koine, in turn, provided the basis for the Middle and Modern Greek dialects, with the exception of Tsakonian, spoken in the eastern part of the Peloponnesus, which derives directly from the ancient Doric dialect. Finally, the language of the modern Hellenic diaspora, while incorporating features, mainly lexical items, from the local dominant languages, has nonetheless remained true to its Attic-Ionic origin in terms of general structural characteristics. Focusing on Balkan Greek is important for another reason. This particular geo- graphic setting is crucial for understanding the development of the language in the late Middle Greek and early Modern Greek periods, and especially for understanding many of the differences, to be discussed in more detail below, between these later stages of the language and its earlier stages. Greek in these later stages shows numerous lin- guistic features that are found as well in other languages of the Balkans, such as Albanian, Aromanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Rumanian, Macedonian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romany and,Bulgarian, to a somewhat Romani, Westernlesser extent, Rumelian Serbian. Turkish These and, features to a somewhat include various lesser mergersextent, Serbian. of nominal These case features func- includetions, especially various mergers possessive of andnominal indirect case object functions, functions especially in a single possessive form, the and formation indirect objectof a future functions tense in with a single a form form, of the the formation‘want’ of(e.g. a future Modern tense Greek withh άa fromform earlierof the verbimpersonal ‘want’ h(e.g.έkei Modern‘wants’ Greek+ subjunctive θά from markerearlier impersonalmά), the widespread θέλɛι ‘wants’ use of+ subjunctivefinite com- markerplement νά), clauses the widespread where many use of other fnite languages complement (and clauses indeed, where earlier many stages other of languages the lan- (andguages indeed, in question, earlier forstages the mostof the part) languages would usein question, non-finite for forms, the most and otherspart) would of a more use non-fniteparticular nature.forms, and others of a more particular nature. The exact nature of the relation between developments of this sort in Greek and parallel developments in the other Balkan languages is disputed; some scholars argue that Greek underwent the changes as part of its natural development and that (many of) these changes spread to the other languages from Greek, while others argue that their appearance in Greek is the result of the importation of foreign features into the language through contact with the other Balkan languages. It is more likely, though, that no single explana- tion can be found to be valid for all of these common features, and that some may have begun in Greek and spread from there, others may have made their way into Greek from elsewhere, and others may even be the result of a combination of Greek-internal developments enhanced or guided along a particular path through language contact.

360350

15034-0340-019.indd 360 12/15/2017 11:57:07 AM GREEK GREEK

Ukraine. The modern era has seen the reduction in the number of Greek speakers in all One final aspect of the social setting of Greek that is vital to an understanding of the these areas except Cyprus, but also the expansion of Greek into the ‘New World’. language concerns the extent to which a high- versus low-style distinction, inherent, There are now significant Greek-speaking communities in the USA (especially the probably, in all languages, has come to pervade Greek language use. In Ancient Greek, urban centres of the East), in Canada, in Britain and in Australia. The speakers in there is evidence for a distinction at least between the in which most Greece, Cyprus and elsewhere in the Mediterranean together with those in the ‘Hellenic of the classical works (drama, , philosophy, etc.) were written and the colloquial diaspora’ number some 13 million today (c. ten million in Greece). language as evidenced in numerous inscriptions; investigations in the 1970s into the Despite the rather widespread geographic distribution of Greek throughout its history, inscriptions of the Athenian a' coqά (‘marketplace’) indicated that colloquial usage was it is Balkan Greek, i.e. Greek of the southern Balkans together with the islands of the marked by pronunciations which came to be more current in later stages of the language, Ionian Sea and the Aegean Sea, including Crete, that is of primary importance here. e.g. [i:] for [e:] and a spirantal pronunciation of the voiced stops, and observations The dialect diversity in ancient times, with four main dialect groups (Attic-Ionic, contained in ’s dialogue Cratylus provide confirmation of this point. Similarly, the Aeolic, Arcado-Cyprian and West Greek (comprising Northwest Greek and Doric)) as Greek of the non-literary papyri of Hellenistic Egypt gives a good indication of what well as the earlier Mycenaean Greek (problematic in terms of its connections with these must have been true colloquial usage through numerous hypercorrections and mistakes dialect groups), centred more on matters of detail in phonological and morphological in approximating ‘correct’, i.e. high-style, . development rather than on broad structural aspects. Thus, Attic, the dialect of Athens In later stages of Greek, though, a consciously archaising tendency on the part of many and the pre-eminent dialect from a cultural and political standpoint, and more generally Middle Greek writers to ‘Atticise’,i.e.emulateClassicalAtticGreekspelling,morphology, the Attic-Ionic branch of Greek, constitute theprimaryandcertainlybest-knownrepre- and usage, served to create a large stylistic rift in the language. Consequently, there sentative of Ancient Greek. Moreover, Attic-Ionic provided the basis for the Hellenistic were writers in the Middle Greek era who wrote in a language not unlike Classical Attic koine (g9 joimg` diάkejsoς ‘the common dialect’), which showed considerable uni- Greek (though it must be noted that mistakes abound!), while others wrote in a form more formity across the whole area of its use. This koine, in turn, provided the basis for the in line with colloquial usage of the day, the result of several centuries of natural linguistic Middle and Modern Greek dialects, with the exception of Tsakonian, spoken in the development from the Hellenistic koine. Even in such a speech form, though, numerous eastern part of the Peloponnesus, which derives directly from the ancient Doric dialect. learned borrowings occur, owing to the prestige enjoyed by the archaising style. Finally, the language of the modern Hellenic diaspora, while incorporating features, mainly Accordingly, even ‘pure’ colloquial Greek, what has come to be called (Greek: lexical items, from the local dominant languages, has nonetheless remained true to its dglosijή), at all times in the post-classical period has incorporated many historically Attic-Ionic origin in terms of general structural characteristics. anomalous and anachronistic elements; this is, of course, an expected development in a Focusing on Balkan Greek is important for another reason. This particular geo- language with a long literary history availabletospeakersandwritersatalltimes(compare graphic setting is crucial for understanding the development of the language in the late the situation in India with regard to Sanskrit and the modern Indic languages, the Middle Greek and early Modern Greek periods, and especially for understanding many and Latin, and the Slavonic languages and Old Church Slavonic). of the differences, to be discussed in more detail below, between these later stages of In the case of Greek, though, with the founding of the Greek national state in the the language and its earlier stages. Greek in these later stages shows numerous lin- 1820s and the desire at the time for a unified form of a national language, this stylistic guistic features that are found as well in other languages of the Balkans, such as rift became institutionalised and politicised. The debate over which form of Greek to Albanian, Aromanian, Rumanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Romany and, to a somewhat use in this context, the consciously archaising so-called ‘puristic’ Greek (Greek: lesser extent, Serbian. These features include various mergers of nominal case func- jahaqeύotra ‘purifying’) or the form more based in the colloquial developments from tions, especially possessive and indirect object functions in a single form, the formation the koine, the , has occupied much of the linguistic and political energy of a with a form of the verb ‘want’ (e.g. Modern Greek hά from earlier of the Greeks since the 1820s; the current official position on the ‘language question’ impersonal hέkei ‘wants’ + subjunctive marker mά), the widespread use of finite com- (Greek: soο` ckxrrijoό` fήsgla) is in favour of the Demotic, with the now-standard plement clauses where many other languages (and indeed, earlier stages of the lan- language being based generally on the southern (i.e. Peloponnesian) dialect. guages in question, for the most part) would use non-finite forms, and others of a more particular nature. The exact nature of the relation between developments of this sort in Greek and parallel 3 Systems for Greek developments in the other Balkan languages is disputed; some scholars argue that Greek underwent the changes as part of its natural development and that (many of) these Greek has been written in a variety of writing systems throughout its history. The ear- changes spread to the other languages from Greek, while others argue that their appearance liest written Greek is found in the syllabic system known as , in which Mycenaean in Greek is the result of the importation of foreign features into the language through Greek documents were written, generally on clay tablets. A syllabic system, related in contact with the other Balkan languages. It is more likely, though, that no single explana- some way to that of Linear B (though the exact details of the relationship are con- tion can be found to be valid for all of these common features, and that some may have troversial) was also used in Cyprus in ancient times to write many of the ancient begun in Greek and spread from there, others may have made their way into Greek Cyprian dialect inscriptions. In addition, Greek in Crete occasionally used the from elsewhere, and others may even be the result of a combination of Greek-internal to write Greek, and Greek Jews in the sixteenth century in Constantinople developments enhanced or guided along a particular path through language contact. used the for the same purpose.

350 351361

15034-0340-019.indd 361 12/15/2017 11:57:07 AM GREEK

GREEK Table 19.1 continued GREEK GREEK TableCapital 19.1 continuedSmall Ancient Usual Modern Usual The most enduring for Greek, though, is the . Adapted letter letter pronunciation transliteration The most enduring writing system for Greek, though, is the Greek alphabet. Adapted Capital Small Ancient Usual Modern Usual from the old North Semitic alphabet (traditionally, according to the Greeks themselves, Pletter qletter [r]phonetics rtransliteration [pronunciationQ]rtransliteration transmittedfrom the old through North Semitic the Phoenicians) alphabet (traditionally, and embellished according with to separate the Greeks signs themselves, for vowel Rr(ς ##) [s] s [s] s sounds,transmitted the throughGreek alphabet the Phoenicians) has served and the embellished Greek language with well separate for some signs 2,800 for vowel years TP sq [t][r] tr [t][Q]rt Rr(ς ##) [s] s [s] s sincesounds, its the introduction Greek alphabet into Greece has served in the the tenth Greek or ninth language century wellBC. for some 2,800 years Y t [y] y, u [i] i h sinceThe its system introduction is basically into Greece a one-letter-to-one- in the tenth or ninth century system,BC though. there are some UuT s [p[t]] tph [t][f] tf YX tv [y][kh] y,, u kh [i][v] ih, x (IPA value) ‘doubleThe system letters’ isrepresenting basically a clustersone-letter-to-one-phoneme and at all stages some system, distinctive though oppositions there are some are h ‘double letters’ representing clusters and at all stages some distinctive oppositions are UuWw [p[ps]] psph [ps][f] psf either not represented at all (e.g. [a] versus [aː] in Ancient Greek) or represented only X v [kh] ch,- kh [v] h, x (IPA value) either not represented at all (e.g. [a] versus [a ] in Ancient Greek) or represented only Xx [Oː] o:, o [o] o secondarily via clusters of letters (as with [d]ː versus [ð], spelled < ms > and < d >, Wwai [ps][aj] psai [ps][e]eps - respectively,secondarily viain Modern clusters Greek). of letters Also, (as diacri withtics [d] to versus represent [ð], pitch spelled accent < ms in Ancient> and < GreekGREEKd >, Xxat [[aw]Oː] auo:, o [av][o] o wererespectively, not introduced in Modern until Greek). Hellenistic Also, diacri timestics (c. to 200 representBC) by pitch the accent Alexandrian in Ancient grammar- Greek ai [aj] ai (/___+)[e]e av wereTable not 19.1 introducedcontinued until Hellenistic times (c. 200 BC) by the Alexandrian grammar- at [aw] au 8 [af][av] ians, and changes in the accentual system, from a pitch accent to a accent, left the > ians, and changes in the accentual system, from a pitch accent to a stress accent, left the < (/___+voice)(/___–voice) avaf writingCapital systemSmall with more diacriticsAncient thanUsual needed for MiddleModern and Modern GreekUsual (though 8 writing system with more than needed for Middle and Modern Greek (though ei [eː] ei > [af][i] i inletter 1982 anletter official orthographyphonetics was adoptedtransliteration with butpronunciation a single accentualtransliteration ). <:> in 1982 an official was adopted with but a single accentual diacritic). et [ew] eu [ev](/___–voice) af Moreover, the phonetic values of the letters have changed over time, so the current ei [eː] ei > (/___+voice)[i] evi Moreover,P theq phonetic values[r] of the letters r have changed[Q]r over time, so the current :> orthography is not as well matched with the phonological system as in earlier stages. et [ew] eu 8 [ef][ev] Rr(ς ##) [s] s [s] s > Tableorthography 19.1 gives is not the as informationwell matched about with the the formerphonological and current system phonetic as in earlier values stages. and < (/___+voice)(/___–voice) evef TableT 19.1s gives the information[t] about t the former and[t] current phonetict values and 8 transcriptionsY t of the letters of[y] the Greek y, alphabet. u [i] i oi [oj] oi > [ef][i] i <:> transcriptionsUu of the letters of[ph the] Greek ph alphabet. [f] f ot [oː] ou (/___[u] –voice) efu h oi [oj] oi > [i] i X v [k ] ch, kh [v] h, x (IPA value) ti [yj] yi, ui :> [i] i Ww [ps] ps [ps] ps cotbefore cvξ [[oŋ]ː] nou (g, kh, x/ks) [[u]ŋ] n(g,u h, x/ks) 4 Structural Features of Greek - ti [yj] yi, ui [i] i 4Xx Structural Features[ ofOː] Greek o:, o [o] o cj [ŋk] nk [(ŋ)g] (medially) (n)g ai [aj] ai [e]e c before cvξ [ŋ] n (g, kh, x/ks)[g] [ŋ] (initially) gn(g, h, x/ks) Although five different periods were distinguished for the purposes of outlining the cj [ŋk] nk  [(ŋ)g] (medially) (n)g Although fiveat different periods[aw] were distinguished au for[av] the purposes of outlining the µp [mp] mp [(m)b] (medially) (m)b internal and external history of the Greek language over the approximately 3,500 years [b][g] (initially) bg (/___+voice) av  ofinternal its attestation, and external for the history purpose of the of Greek giving language the major over structural8 the approximately features of the 3,500 language, years µbp [mb][mp] mbmp [mv][(m)b] (medially)mv (m)b > [af] of its attestation, for the purpose of giving the major structural<> features of the language, [b] (initially) b (/___–voice) af ms [nt] nt  [(n)d] (medially) (n)d µb [mb] mb [mv] mv ei [eː] ei > [i] i [d] (initially) d :>  Table 19.1 Theet Greek Alphabet,[ew] with Transliteration eu and Pronunciation[ev] for Ancient (Attic) Greek and msmd [nt][nd] ntnd [(n)d][nð] (medially) (n)dnd(h) Table 19.1 (Standard)The Greek Modern Alphabet, Greek, with plus Transliteration and and Pronunciation Clusters for Ancient (Attic) Greek and [d] (initially) d (/___+voice) ev sf  [dz] dz (Standard) Modern Greek, plus Diphthongs and Clusters8 [ef] (##)md ʽ [h][nd] hnd [nð] nd(h) Capital Small Ancient Usual > Modern Usual ;; < (/___–voice) ef (##)sf ʼ (absence of #h) [dz] dz letterCapital LetterSmall phoneticsAncient transliterationUsual pronunciationModern transliterationUsual (##)ʽ ;[h] h ;; letter oLetteri phonetics[oj]transliteration oi > [i]pronunciation transliterationi ;; : (##)ʼ (absence of #h) Α oat [a][oː]a ou [u][a] a u ; ;; BΑ tiba [b][a][yj]ba yi, ui [i][v][a] va i CcB cbbefore cvξ [g][b][ŋ]gb n (g, kh, x/ks) [[j](/[v]ŋ] —i, e) yv n(g, h, x/ks) it is more useful to examine the ancient language in contrast with the modern language. Cc [g] g [[j](/ ʝ] —i, e) y cj [ŋk] nk [([cŋ])g] (medially) (n)g In general, then, the relevant distinction is between Classical Greek and Post-Classical 8 [g](elsewhere)[c] (elsewhere) (initially) g(h) g <8 Greek,it is more for useful most to of examine the changes the ancient which language characterise in contrast the difference with the between modern these language. two Ddµp [d][mp]d mp < [(m)b][(elsewhere)ð] (medially)d(h) g(h) (m)b In general, then, the relevant distinction is between Classical Greek and Post-Classical EDde [[d]e]ed : [b] [eð]e] (initially)d(h) b stages of the language were already under way and evident in the koine of the : Greek, for most of the changes which characterise the difference between these two E µeb [e]e[mb] mb [mv] [e]emv . Similarly, the differences between Middle Greek and Modern Greek Z f [zd] z [z] z stages of the language were already under way and evident in the koine of the HZ msgf [[zd]eː][nt] e:,z nt e- [(n)d][i][z] (medially)iz (n)d are not great, and some scholars even date the beginning of the modern era to around h - Hellenistic period. Similarly, the differences between Middle Greek and Modern Greek HhH g [t[eː] the:, e [d][[i]h] (initially)thi d the tenth or eleventh centuries AD. Accordingly, the whole post-classical period can be h  IHhmdi [i][t ][nd]i th nd [n[i][hð]] ith nd(h) treatedare not in great, a uni andfied some fashion, scholars with the even understanding date the beginning that what of is the described modern in era the to modern around I i [i] i [i] i K sfj [k] k [dz][k] k dz languagethe tenth oris the eleventh end-point centuries of a longAD. Accordingly, period of development the whole from post-classical the classical period language, can be KkK (##)j ʽ [l][k][h]lk h [l][k] lk ;; andtreated the in stages a uni offied Hellenistic fashion, with and Middlethe understanding Greek defined that earlier what is represent described way in the stations modern on MKk(##)l ʼ [m][l] (absence of ml #h) [m][l] ml language is the end-point of a long period of development from the classical language, M l [m]; m ;;[m] m the road to Modern Greek; references to individual stages in particular developments, Ν m [n] n [n] n and the stages of Hellenistic and Middle Greek defined earlier represent way stations on Ν m [n] n [n] n though, are made whenever necessary or appropriate. Ξξ [ks] x [ks] ks, x (as in box) the road to Modern Greek; references to individual stages in particular developments, ΟΞξo [o][ks]o x [o][ks] oks, x (as in box) ПΟ po [p][o] po [p][o] po though, are made whenever necessary or appropriate. 353 П it is more usefulp to examine[p] the ancientp language in contrast[p] with the modernp language. In general, then, the relevant distinction is between Classical Greek and Post-Classical 353 352Greek, for most of the changes which characterise the difference between these two 362352stages of the language were already under way and evident in the koine of the Hellenistic period. Similarly, the differences between Middle Greek and Modern Greek are not great, and some scholars even date the beginning of the modern era to around the tenth or eleventh centuries AD. Accordingly, the whole post-classical period can be treated in a unified fashion, with the understanding that what is described in the modern

15034-0340-019.indd language 362 is the end-point of a long period of development from the classical language,12/15/2017 11:57:08 AM and the stages of Hellenistic and Middle Greek defined earlier represent way stations on the road to Modern Greek; references to individual stages in particular developments, though, are made whenever necessary or appropriate.

353 GREEK

Table 19.1 continued GREEK Capital Small Ancient Usual Modern Usual Tableletter 19.1 continuedletter phonetics transliteration pronunciation transliteration CapitalP Smallq Ancient[r]Usual r Modern[Q]rUsual letterRrletter(ς ##)phonetics [s]transliteration s pronunciation[s] T s [t] t [t] t GREEK PY qt [r][y] ry, u [[i]Q]ri h RrUu(ς ##) [s][p ] sph [s][f] sf GREEK TXTable 19.1 scontinuedv [t][kh] tch, kh [t][v] th, x (IPA value) GREEK YWwt [y][ps] y,ps u [i][ps] ips GREEK TableCapital 19.1 continuedSmall Ancienth Usual- Modern Usual UuXxletter letter [p[phoneticsOː]] pho:,transliteration o [f][o]pronunciation fotransliteration X vai [k[aj]h] ch,ai kh [ve]e] h, x (IPA value) The most enduring writing system for Greek, though, is the Greek alphabet. Adapted CapitalTable 19.1 continuedSmall Ancient Usual Modern Usual WwPletter atqletter [ps][aw][r]phonetics psau rtransliteration [ps][av][pronunciationQ]rpstransliteration - from the old North Semitic alphabet (traditionally, according to the Greeks themselves, XxRr(ς ##)[ [s]Oː] o:,s o [o](/___+voice)[s] o avs Capital Small Ancient Usual 8 Modern Usual transmitted through the Phoenicians) and embellished with separate signs for vowel TP aisq [aj][t][r] ait r [[af][t][eQ]e]rt letter letter phonetics transliteration > pronunciation transliteration sounds, the Greek alphabet has served the Greek language well for some 2,800 years YRratt(ς ##)[aw][y] [s] auy,s u < [av](/___[i][s] –voice) afis since its introduction into Greece in the tenth or ninth century BC. UuTP eisq [e[p[t][r]ːh]] eitphr > (/___+voice)[i][t][f][Q]r avitf 8:> YXRrettv(ς ##)[ew][y][k [s]h] euy,ch,s u kh [af][ev][i][[s]v] ih,s x (IPA value) The system is basically a one-letter-to-one-phoneme system, though there are some > UuWwT s [p[ps][t]h] phpst < (/___(/___+voice)[ps][f][t] –voice) afevpsft ‘double letters’ representing clusters and at all stages some distinctive oppositions are h - 8 XxXY eivt [e[[k[y]Oːː]]] ei ch,o:,y, u o kh > [i][ef][[o][i]v] ih,oi x (IPA value) either not represented at all (e.g. [a] versus [a ] in Ancient Greek) or represented only h :> ː WwUuetai [ew][ps][aj][p ] eu psaiph < [ev](/___[ps][[f]e]e–voice) efpsf h - secondarily via clusters of letters (as with [d] versus [ð], spelled < ms > and < d >, XxX oatvi [oj][[aw][kOː]] oio:,auch, o kh > (/___+voice)[i][av][o][v] evioh, x (IPA value) 8:> respectively, in Modern Greek). Also, diacritics to represent pitch accent in Ancient Greek Wwoait [o[aj][ps]ː] ouaips [ef][u](/___+voice)[[ps]e]eu avps - > were not introduced until Hellenistic times (c. 200 BC) by the Alexandrian grammar- Xxtiat [yj][aw][Oː] yi,auo:, uio <8 (/___[i][af][av][o] –voice) efio > ians, and changes in the accentual system, from a pitch accent to a stress accent, left the ocaiibefore cvξ [oj][[aj]ŋ] oin ai (g, kh, x/ks)>< [i] [(/___+voice)(/___ŋe]]e–voice)in(g, avaf h, x/ks) :>8 ocjeiatt [o[[e[aw]ŋːk]] ounk eiau > [u][([af][i][av]ŋ)g](/___+voice) (medially) u (n)giav writing system with more diacritics than needed for Middle and Modern Greek (though :> tiet [yj][ew] yi, eu ui < [i][g][ev](/___[af(/___+voice) ] (initially) (/___−voice)–voice) i gafav in 1982 an official orthography was adopted with but a single accentual diacritic). 8 cµeipbefore cvξ [[mp][eŋ]ː] nmpei (g, kh, x/ks)> [[(m)b](/___+voice)[i][af]ŋ] (medially)n(g, (m)biev h, x/ks) Moreover, the phonetic values of the letters have changed over time, so the current :> cjet [[ew]ŋk]nkeu 8< [([b][ef][ev](/___ŋ)g] (initially) (/___+voice)– (medially)voice) (n)gbevaf > orthography is not as well matched with the phonological system as in earlier stages. µeib [mb][eː] mbei <> [g][mv](/___+voice)(/___[ef[i] ] (initially) (/___−voice)–voice) gefmv evi Table 19.1 gives the information about the former and current phonetic values and 8:> µmsoetip [mp][nt][oj][ew] mpnt oieu > [(m)b][(n)d][ef][i][ev] (medially) (medially) (m)b(n)di :> transcriptions of the letters of the Greek alphabet. ot [o ] ou < [b][d](/___[u](/___+voice) (initially)–voice) bdefu ev ː 8 µmdtioib [mb][nd][yj][oj] mbnd yi,oi ui > [mv][n[i][ef]ð] mvnd(h)i :> mssfcotbefore cvξ [nt][[oŋ]ː] nt nou (g, kh, x/ks)< [(n)d][dz] [[u](/___ŋ] – (medially)voice) (n)ddzn(g,uef h, x/ks) (##)cjtioi ʽ [h][[yj][oj]ŋk] hnkyi,oi ui > [d][([i]ŋ)g] (initially) (medially) d (n)gi 4 Structural Features of Greek :> ;; md(##)cotbeforeʼ cvξ [nd][[oŋ(absence]ː] of nd nou #h (g,) kh, x/ks)[n[g] [[u]ŋð]] (initially)nd(h) gn(g,u h, x/ks) sfcjti ;[[yj]ŋk] nkyi, ui  [dz];;[([i]ŋ)g] (medially)dz (n)gi Although five different periods were distinguished for the purposes of outlining the µp [mp] mp [(m)b] (medially) (m)b (##)c beforeʽ cvξ [h][ŋ] h n (g, kh, x/ks)[b][g] [ŋ] (initially) bgn(g, h, x/ks)  ;; internal and external history of the Greek language over the approximately 3,500 years (##)µcjbp ʼ [mb][mp][ŋ(absencek] of mbmpnk #h) [mv][(m)b][(ŋ)g] (medially) (medially)mv (m)b(n)g ; ;; of its attestation, for the purpose of giving the major structural features of the language, ms [nt] nt [(n)d][b][g] (initially) (medially) (n)dbg it is more useful to examine the ancient language in contrast with the modern language. µbp [mb][mp] mbmp [mv][d][(m)b] (initially) (medially)mv d(m)b In general,ms then, the relevant[nt] distinction nt is between Classical [(n)d][b] (initially) (medially) Greek and Post-Classical(n)d b md [nd] nd  [nð] nd(h) Table 19.1 The Greek Alphabet, with Transliteration and Pronunciation for Ancient (Attic) Greek and Greek, forsfµ mostb of the changes[mb] which mb characterise the[dz][d][mv] difference (initially) betweendz dmv these two it is more useful to examine the ancient language in contrast with the modern language. (Standard) Modern Greek, plus Diphthongs and Clusters stages of(##)mdms theʽ language were[h][nd][nt] already hndnt under way and[n[(n)d]ð] evident (medially) in thend(h) (n)d koine of the In general,sf then, the relevant distinction is between Classical;;[dz][d] (initially) Greek and Post-Classicaldz d Hellenistic(##) period.ʼ Similarly,(absence the differences of #h) between Middle Greek and Modern Greek Capital Small Ancient Usual Modern Usual Greek, for(##)md mostʽ of the changes;[h][nd] which hnd characterise the;;[nð difference] betweennd(h) these two letter Letter phonetics transliteration pronunciation transliteration are not great, and some scholars even date the beginning;; of the modern era to around stages of(##)sf theʼ language were(absence already of #h under) way and[dz] evident in thedz koine of the the tenth or eleventh centuries; AD. Accordingly, the whole;; post-classical period can be (##)ʽ ;[h] h ;; Α a [a] a [a] a Hellenistictreated in a period. unified Similarly, fashion, with the thedifferences understanding between that Middle;; what is Greek described and Modern in the modern Greek (##)ʼ (absence of #h) B b [b] b [v] v arelanguageit is not more great, is useful the and end-point to some examine scholars of; the a long ancient even period date language of the development beginning in contrast;; of from with the the modern the classical modern erato language,language. around Cc [g] g [j](/—i, e) y the tenth or eleventh centuries AD. Accordingly, the whole post-classical period can be [c] andIn general, the stages then, of theHellenistic relevant and distinction Middle Greek is between defined Classical earlier representGreek and way Post-Classical stations on 8 treatedtheGreek,it is road more in for to a useful mostuni Modernfied to of fashion, examinethe Greek; changes with references the ancient the which understanding to language characterise individual in that contrast stages the what difference in withis particular described the between modern developments, in the these language. modern two < (elsewhere) g(h) languageIn general, is then, the end-point the relevant of a distinction long period is of between development Classical from Greek the classical and Post-Classical language, Dd [d] d [ð] d(h) though,stages of are the made language whenever were necessary already or under appropriate. way and evident in the koine of the : andGreek,it is the more forstages useful most of to Hellenisticof examine the changes andthe ancient Middle which language Greekcharacterise defi inned contrast the earlier difference with represent the between modern way stations these language. two on E e [e]e [e]e HellenisticIn general, period. then, the Similarly, relevant the distinction differences is between between Classical Middle Greek Greek and and Modern Post-Classical Greek Z f [zd] z [z] z thearestages roadnot of great, to the Modern and language some Greek; scholars were references already even dateto under individual the way beginningand stages evident of in the particular modern in the developments,erakoine to around of353 the - though,HellenisticGreek, for are period. most made of whenever Similarly, the changes necessary the differences which or characterise appropriate. between the Middle difference Greek betweenand Modern these Greek two H g [eː] e:, e [i] i the tenth or eleventh centuries AD. Accordingly, the whole post-classical period can be h stages of the language were already under way and evident in the koine of the Hh [t ] th [h] th treatedare not in great, a uni andfied some fashion, scholars with the even understanding date the beginning that what of is the described modern in era the to modern around I i [i] i [i] i theHellenistic tenth or period. eleventh Similarly, centuries theAD differences. Accordingly, between the whole Middle post-classical Greek and Modern period can Greek353 be K j [k] k [k] k languageare not great, is the and end-point some scholars of a long even period date of the development beginning of from the the modern classical era tolanguage, around andtreated the in stages a uni offied Hellenistic fashion, with and Middlethe understanding Greek defined that earlier what is represent described way in the stations modern on Kk [l] l [l] l languagethe tenth oris the eleventh end-point centuries of a longAD. Accordingly, period of development the whole from post-classical the classical period language, can be M l [m] m [m] m the road to Modern Greek; references to individual stages in particular developments, andtreated the in stages a uni offied Hellenistic fashion, with and Middlethe understanding Greek defined that earlier what is represent described way in the stations modern on Ν m [n] n [n] n though,language are is madethe end-point whenever of necessary a long period or appropriate. of development from the classical language, Ξξ [ks] x [ks] ks, x (as in box) the road to Modern Greek; references to individual stages in particular developments, and the stages of Hellenistic and Middle Greek defined earlier represent way stations on Ο o [o] o [o] o though, are made whenever necessary or appropriate. 353 П p [p] p [p] p the road to Modern Greek; references to individual stages in particular developments, though, are made whenever necessary or appropriate. 353

352 353363

15034-0340-019.indd 363 12/15/2017 11:57:08 AM GREEK

4.1 Phonology The consonant inventory of Ancient Greek included three distinctive points of articu- lation – labial, dental and velar – and three distinctive manners of articulation among the stops – voiced, voiceless unaspirated and voiceless aspirated. As noted above, in Common Greek (c. 1800 BC) and in Mycenaean Greek, there were also labio-velar consonants, which later merged with the labial, dental and velar stops under the con- ditions alluded to earlier. In addition, Greek had a single [s] (with [z] as an before voiced consonants), the resonants [r] (with a voiceless allophone [r] in initial position) and [l], the nasals [m] and [n] (with [ŋ] as an allophone before velar˚ consonants) and the glottal [h]. There may have been an [dz], though most of the evidence concerning the pronunciation of the letter < f > suggests it represented a true cluster of [z+d] not a unitary affricated (cf. such as Diόfosoς for *Dio`ς dosός, literally ‘by- given’). The Common Greek [j] and [w] had been eliminated in many positions by Classical Greek, though they did remain as the second element of several diphthongs in the classical language; moreover, [j] is found in Mycenaean in several positions (e.g. jo-i-je-si ‘so they send’, interpretable ‘alphabetically’ as x9ς i9emri), and [w] occurs in many of the dialects (e.g. Mycenaean wo-i-ko, Doric, Thessalian and Arcadian ϝoijoς, where the letter < ϝ >(‘’) represents [w], to be compared with Attic oi˜' joς ‘house’). By contrast to this relatively straightforward and simple consonant inventory, the vowel system of Ancient Greek was most complex. was distinctive and several degrees of height were distinguished as well; moreover, there were numerous diph- thongs. The system of monophthongs is summarised in Table 19.2 and the diphthongal system is given in Table 19.3. It should be noted that the front rounded ([y] and [y:] of Table 19.2) are characteristic of the Attic-Ionic dialect only; the other dialects had back [u] and [u:] corresponding to these Attic-Ionic vowels. Furthermore, the gaps in the short diphthongs (absence of [ej] and [ow]) are the result of early sound changes by which *ej became [e:] and *ow became [o:]. Finally, the long diphthongs were somewhat rare and had a very low functional load; in fact, early on in the classical period, [e:j], [a:j], [o:j] lost their off-glide and merged with the corresponding long pure vowels. Although there are dialectal differences in the consonants, these tend not to be in the consonantal inventory but rather have to do more with the outcome of the Common Greek labio-velars (e.g. labials generally in Aeolic versus conditioned (before front

Table 19.2 Ancient (Attic) Greek Monophthongs (IPA Symbols)

iiː yyː eeː ooː eː O aaː

Table 19.3 Ancient (Attic) Greek Diphthongs (IPA Symbols)

ew yj eːjeːw aj aw aːjaːw oj oːj

364354

15034-0340-019.indd 364 12/15/2017 11:57:09 AM GREEK GREEK

4.1 Phonology vowels) dental reflexes or (elsewhere) labial reflexes in other dialects, as in pέssaqeς/ sέssaqeς ‘four’ cited above), and the outcome of complex cluster developments The consonant inventory of Ancient Greek included three distinctive points of articu- involving obstruent plus glide combinations and resonant or nasal plus s. For example, lation – labial, dental and velar – and three distinctive manners of articulation among generally speaking – there are several exceptional cases – t+y yielded a geminate -ss- the stops – voiced, voiceless unaspirated and voiceless aspirated. As noted above, in (graphic < rr > ) in Ionic, Doric in general, Arcadian and part of Aeolic, a geminate Common Greek (c. 1800 BC) and in Mycenaean Greek, there were also labio-velar -tt- (graphic < ss > ) in Attic and part of Aeolic (Boeotian), and various spellings < f >, consonants, which later merged with the labial, dental and velar stops under the con- < ss >, < hh >, which may represent developments of something like [ts]), in Central ditions alluded to earlier. In addition, Greek had a single sibilant [s] (with [z] as an Cretan (Doric), as in the feminine adjectival ending (from *-e(n)t-ya)(vaqί-)erra allophone before voiced consonants), the resonants [r] (with a voiceless allophone [r] in ‘ (Ionic), (Pado-)erra (Arcadian), (oimot-)ssa (Attic), (vaqi -)essam (Boeotian), (ea-)rra initial position) and [l], the nasals [m] and [n] (with [ŋ] as an allophone before velar˚ ' ϝ ' (Doric), (ia-)ssam (Central Cretan). Similarly, for certain classes of words and with consonants) and the glottal fricative [h]. There may have been an affricate [dz], though some obscuring of dialect distribution due to analogies and some borrowings, there is a most of the evidence concerning the pronunciation of the letter < f > suggests it major split in the Greek dialects concerning the outcome of t before the vowel i, with represented a true cluster of [z+d] not a unitary affricated segment (cf. spellings such as West Greek and part of Aeolic (Thessalian and Boeotian) preserving t in this context Diόfosoς for *Dio`ς dosός, literally ‘by-Zeus given’). The Common Greek [j] and [w] and the other dialects assibilating it to s, as in Doric ei˜si ‘(s)he goes’ versus Attic- had been eliminated in many positions by Classical Greek, though they did remain as ' Ionic ei˜ri. the second element of several diphthongs in the classical language; moreover, [j] is ' The vowel systems of the ancient dialects, however, show considerable variation, found in Mycenaean in several positions (e.g. jo-i-je-si ‘so they send’, interpretable with alternations of length and quality and the outcome of various contractions serving ‘alphabetically’ as xς iemri), and [w] occurs in many of the dialects (e.g. Mycenaean 9 9 to distinguish the dialects from one another. Particularly notable is the raising and wo-i-ko, Doric, Thessalian and Arcadian oijoς, where the letter < >(‘digamma’) ϝ ϝ fronting of Common Greek *a: to [æ ] and ultimately [e ] in the Attic-Ionic dialect; represents [w], to be compared with Attic oi˜joς ‘house’). : : ' thus one finds Attic-Ionic lήsgq ‘mother’ versus Doric (for example) la-´ sgq from By contrast to this relatively straightforward and simple consonant inventory, the Common Greek *ma:te:r. The fronting of [u] to [y] in Attic-Ionic has already been vowel system of Ancient Greek was most complex. Length was distinctive and several noted. Lengthening (often due to the loss of *s or *y in a cluster with a resonant) and degrees of height were distinguished as well; moreover, there were numerous diph- contraction (of combinations of e and o) gave rise in Attic-Ionic to the long closed ([e ] thongs. The system of monophthongs is summarised in Table 19.2 and the diphthongal : and [o ]) vowels and likewise in parts of Doric (e.g. Corinthian and Delphian) and system is given in Table 19.3. It should be noted that the front rounded vowels ([y] and : Thessalian and Boeotian (both Aeolic), while in Lesbian (Aeolic) and Arcadian and the [y ] of Table 19.2) are characteristic of the Attic-Ionic dialect only; the other dialects : rest of Doric (e.g. Cretan, Laconian) long open vowels ([e ] and [ ]) are found as the had back [u] and [u ] corresponding to these Attic-Ionic vowels. Furthermore, the gaps : Oː : corresponding elements. For example, Attic-Ionic has eili [e mi] ‘I am’ from Common in the short diphthongs (absence of [ej] and [ow]) are the result of early sound changes ' : Greek *esmi, while Doric has glί [e mi]; similarly, Attic-Ionic has sqei˜ς [tre s] ‘three’ by which *ej became [e ] and *ow became [o ]. Finally, the long diphthongs were ' : : : : from Common Greek *treyes, while Doric has sqgς. somewhat rare and had a very low functional load; in fact, early on in the classical Among the peculiarities of Ancient Greek phonotactics, the following are to be period, [e j], [a j], [o j] lost their off-glide and merged with the corresponding long : : : noted: [r] could not occur in initial position; one finds instead the unvoiced allo- pure vowels. phone [r] (which has sometimes been described as an aspirated r). In final position, Although there are dialectal differences in the consonants, these tend not to be in the only [r],˚ [s], [n] and vowels were permitted. Geminate consonants were permitted, consonantal inventory but rather have to do more with the outcome of the Common though geminate labial and velar stops occur most often in onomatopoeic, nursery and Greek labio-velars (e.g. labials generally in Aeolic versus conditioned (before front expressive words. Lastly, Ancient Greek tolerated numerous consonant clusters, includ- ing a variety of initial clusters: any stop plus r or l is permitted (including #sk-); all but *bm-, *bl-, *cl-, *hl-, *pl-, *sm-, *ul- and *vl- are found for stop plus nasal clus- Table 19.2 Ancient (Attic) Greek Monophthongs (IPA Symbols) ters, though um- occurs only in a single onomatopoeic form, and sl-, dm- and jl- are quite rare; two stops are permitted initially if they differ in point of articulation but iiː yyː eeː ooː agree in manner and the second stop is a dental, though the voiced such clusters (bd- eː O and cd-) were found in only a small number of words; and clusters of r plus as aaː many as two consonants occur (e.g. rvίfx ‘cut’, rpkάcvma ‘innards’, rjmίpsx ‘pinch, nip’, etc.). The Ancient Greek accentual system was based on a pitch accent. There were a high Table 19.3 Ancient (Attic) Greek Diphthongs (IPA Symbols) pitch (the acute, Greek o' ξύς, marked with the diacritic < ´ >, a low pitch (the grave, ew yj eːjeːw Greek baqύς; marked with the diacritic < ` >), and a contour pitch (the circumflex, aj aw aːjaːw Greek peqirpolέmoς, marked with the diacritic < ˜ >) which consisted of an acute plus oj oːj a grave on the same and occurred only on long vowels or diphthongs. At most,

354 355365

15034-0340-019.indd 365 12/15/2017 11:57:09 AM GREEK

one high pitch, either an acute or circumflex, occurred per word (except for some spe- cial developments with enclitics), and all non-high were considered grave. Accent placement was predictable (for the most part – some exceptions exist) only in finite verb forms and in declined forms of certain nouns, e.g. those with ante- penultimate accent in their lexical form; for such forms, the accent is said to be ‘recessive’, i.e. as far from the end of the word as permitted. Also, the placement of accent was predictable in certain morphologically definable formations, e.g. compounds with et' - ‘well, easy’ had recessive accent, verbal in -soς were accented on the final syllable, etc. In other contexts, accent placement was unpredictable and was therefore an element of the underlying (lexical) form of the word in question, though there were some regularities in the realisation of the accent (e.g. circumflex if the accent fell on a long penultimate syllable when the ultima was short). Thus, accent was distinctive in the Ancient Greek phonological system, for some words were dis- tinguished only by the type of accent on a given syllable (e.g. locative adverbial oijoi! ‘at home’ versus nominative plural oi˜' joi ‘houses’) and others only by the placement of the accent (e.g. silά ‘two honours’ versus sίla ‘(you) honour!’). An overriding principle in the placement of the pitch accent in Ancient Greek is the so-called ‘Dreimorengesetz’ (Law of Three Morae, more usually referred to in English as the ‘Law of Limitation’), by which the accent could only occur on the ante- penultimate, penultimate or ultimate syllable and never earlier in the word than that. With a few exceptions, this restriction can be stated in terms of morae (hence the name ‘Dreimorengesetz’), so that Ancient Greek was probably a -timed language (note also that syllable quantity mattered for purposes of the ancient poetic metres). This restriction gave rise to certain of the predictable aspects of the placement of accent, especially in those forms which had recessive accent. For example, a noun such as hάkassa ‘sea’ was lexically accented on the antepenultimate syllable, as indicated by the citation form (nominative singular); in the genitive singular, though, the final syl- lable is long (hakάssgς) and as a result, the accent cannot stand on the antepenultimate syllable. Instead, it predictably is pulled forward to the penultimate, so that it does not stand more than three morae from the end. Similarly, a finite verb form such as jekeύx ‘I order’ was predictably accented on the penultimate syllable because the ultima is long and finite forms have recessive accent; the first person plural present form jekeύolem and the first person singular past form e' jέketra, however, are both accented on the antepenultimate syllable because the ultima is short. By contrast, the middle of this verb, a non-finite form, had penultimate accent (e.g. in the nominative singular masculine form) even though the ultima was short, i.e. jejeketlέmoς. In this way, therefore, accent placement in the verb serves also as a correlate of the morphosyntactic category of finiteness; recessive accent correlates with the presence of person and number markings on the verb, but not with the absence of such markings, in general. With regard to the morphophonemics of Ancient Greek, three types of alternations must be distinguished: vowel alternations that represent a remnant – by then fully morphologically conditioned – of the Indo-European ablaut patterns (see pages 14–15), alternations caused by the sound changes that separate Greek from Proto-Indo- European and that distinguish the individual dialects of Greek itself, and alternations due to natural processes such as . Within paradigms, except for a few irregular (e.g. ei˜' -li ‘I go’ versus i-! lem ‘we go’) with alternations between e-grade and zero-grade retained from the proto-language,

366356

15034-0340-019.indd 366 12/15/2017 11:57:09 AM GREEK GREEK one high pitch, either an acute or circumflex, occurred per word (except for some spe- the vowel alternations one finds in Greek are those of length. This situation occurs in a cial developments with enclitics), and all non-high syllables were considered grave. few verbs (e.g. dί-dx-li ‘I give’ versus dί-do-lem ‘we give’, actually a remnant of Accent placement was predictable (for the most part – some exceptions exist) only in Proto-Indo-European full-grade/zero-grade ablaut transformed in Greek into simply a finite verb forms and in declined forms of certain nouns, e.g. those with ante- length distinction) and in a large number of nominal forms of the consonant stem penultimate accent in their lexical form; for such forms, the accent is said to be (e.g. nominative singular sέjsxm ‘carpenter’ versus genitive singular sέjsom -o ς, ‘recessive’, i.e. as far from the end of the word as permitted. Also, the placement of nominative singular poilήm ‘shepherd’ versus genitive singular poilέm-oς, masculine accent was predictable in certain morphologically definable formations, e.g. compounds a' kghής ‘true’ versus neuter a' kghές, etc.). with et' - ‘well, easy’ had recessive accent, verbal adjectives in -soς were accented on Across paradigms, between derivationally related forms of the same root, one finds the final syllable, etc. In other contexts, accent placement was unpredictable and was alternations in vowel quality as well as quantity. For example, the inherited e/o-ablaut therefore an element of the underlying (lexical) form of the word in question, though is found in numerous Greek pairs of related forms, such as kέc-x ‘I say’ versus kóc-oς there were some regularities in the realisation of the accent (e.g. circumflex if the ‘word’, uέq-x ‘I bear’ versus uόq-oς ‘tribute, (tax) burden’ (and compare also the accent fell on a long penultimate syllable when the ultima was short). Thus, accent was related form uώq ‘thief (i.e. one who bears off something)’ for a length alternation); distinctive in the Ancient Greek phonological system, for some words were dis- moreover, it has a grammatical function still in forms such as keίpx tinguished only by the type of accent on a given syllable (e.g. locative adverbial oijoi! ‘I leave’ versus perfect kέ-koip-a ‘I have left’ (and note the zero-grade reflex in past ‘at home’ versus nominative plural oi˜' joi ‘houses’) and others only by the placement of e-! kip- ‘I did leave’). This e/o-ablaut interacts with the development of the labio-velars the accent (e.g. silά ‘two honours’ versus sίla ‘(you) honour!’). to give etymologically related (but probably synchronically unrelated) pairs such as An overriding principle in the placement of the pitch accent in Ancient Greek is the heίmx ‘Istrike’ from *gwhen-yo: versus uόmoς ‘murder’ from *gwhon-os.Transformations so-called ‘Dreimorengesetz’ (Law of Three Morae, more usually referred to in English of the Indo-European ablaut due to sound changes are also to be found, such as in the as the ‘Law of Limitation’), by which the accent could only occur on the ante- masculine stem sέjsom- ‘carpenter’ versus the feminine sέjsaima ‘carpentress’,wherethe penultimate, penultimate or ultimate syllable and never earlier in the word than that. -o-/-ai- alternation results from an alternation which in pre-Greek terms would have been With a few exceptions, this restriction can be stated in terms of morae (hence the name *-on- versus *-n-ya (with -aim- from *-ny-). ‘Dreimorengesetz’), so that Ancient Greek was probably a mora-timed language (note Among; the sound˚ changes that left˚ traces in morphophonemic alternations, one also that syllable quantity mattered for purposes of the ancient poetic metres). This noteworthy one that operates in noun paradigms is the loss of final stops. Thus one finds restriction gave rise to certain of the predictable aspects of the placement of accent, such alternations as cάka ‘milk’ (nominative singular) versus cάkajs-oς (genitive sin- especially in those forms which had recessive accent. For example, a noun such as gular), or kέxm ‘lion’ (nominative singular) versus kέoms-oς (genitive). Similarly, the hάkassa ‘sea’ was lexically accented on the antepenultimate syllable, as indicated by loss of medial *s created paradigmatic alternations such as cέmoς- ‘race, kind’ (nomi- the citation form (nominative singular); in the genitive singular, though, the final syl- native singular) versus cέme-a (nominative plural), from *genes-a. Across; paradigms, the lable is long (hakάssgς) and as a result, the accent cannot stand on the antepenultimate developments of clusters with *y gave rise to derivational alternations, since *-ye/o- was syllable. Instead, it predictably is pulled forward to the penultimate, so that it does not an especially common present tense formative – compare saqav-ή ‘trouble, disorder’ stand more than three morae from the end. Similarly, a finite verb form such as jekeύx with the related verb saqάss-x (Ionic saqάrr-x) ‘disturb, trouble’ from *tarakh-yo:, ‘I order’ was predictably accented on the penultimate syllable because the ultima is for example – and since *-y- figured in other derivational processes, as with the for- long and finite forms have recessive accent; the first person plural present form mation of certain comparative adjectives (e.g. lέc-aς ‘big’ versus leίfxm ‘bigger’ from jekeύolem and the first person singular past form ejέketra, however, are both *meg-yo:n). Furthermore, in dialects with the assibilation of t to s before i, one finds ' ‘ accented on the antepenultimate syllable because the ultima is short. By contrast, the such alternations as pkots-oς ‘wealth’ versus pkoύr-ioς ‘wealthy’ (and note the pre- perfect middle participle of this verb, a non-finite form, had penultimate accent (e.g. in dictable accent-realisation difference, with circumflex in the noun versus acute in the the nominative singular masculine form) even though the ultima was short, i.e. adjective, due to the distance of the (long) accented syllable (the root) from the end of jejeketlέmoς. In this way, therefore, accent placement in the verb serves also as a the word). In addition, the *-s- formative, which appeared in some past tense forms, correlate of the morphosyntactic category of finiteness; recessive accent correlates with created alternations in vowel quality with the dialectal resolution of resonant plus the presence of person and number markings on the verb, but not with the absence of s clusters, e.g. mέl-x ‘I distribute’ e-! meil-a versus ‘I distributed’ (Doric e-! mgl-a, both such markings, in general. from *e-nem-s-a). With regard to the morphophonemics of Ancient Greek, three types of alternations Finally, many morphophonemic alternations result from more or less natural pro- must be distinguished: vowel alternations that represent a remnant – by then fully cesses that take effect when certain segments come together as the result of word for- morphologically conditioned – of the Indo-European ablaut patterns (see pages 14–15), mation processes. For example, assimilation in voicing is common, as seen in the pair alternations caused by the sound changes that separate Greek from Proto-Indo- ac! -x ‘I lead’ versus aξ! -x (i.e. ak-s-o:) ‘I will lead’ where -s- is the marker for future European and that distinguish the individual dialects of Greek itself, and alternations tense, or in the pair jqύp-sx ‘I hide’ versus jqύb-dgm ‘secretly’. Similarly, deaspira- due to natural processes such as assimilation. tion before -s- occurs, as in cqάu-x ‘I write’ versus cqάw-x (i.e. grap-s-o:) ‘I will Within paradigms, except for a few irregular verbs (e.g. ei˜' -li ‘I go’ versus i-! lem ‘we write’, and assimilation in aspiration to a following aspirate is found as in sqίb-x ‘I rub’ go’) with alternations between e-grade and zero-grade retained from the proto-language, versus e' -sqίu-hgm ‘I was rubbed’ (cf. also sqίw-x ‘I will rub’). 356 357367

15034-0340-019.indd 367 12/15/2017 11:57:09 AM GREEK

The phonology of Ancient Greek has been described in such detail here because it provides the appropriate starting point for a discussion of Post-Classical Greek phonology. The relation is not merely chronological here, for in Post-Classical Greek and on into Modern Greek, one finds that many of the same general phonological characteristics occur in the language, but with different realisations. For example, by the Hellenistic period, systematic shifts in the consonant inventory were under way – to be completed later in Post-Classical Greek – which nonetheless preserved the earlier three-way con- trast but with new distinctive oppositions established. The voiced stops became voiced spirants and the voiceless aspirates became voiceless spirants, while the voiceless plain stops remained the same (in general). Thus one finds in Post-Classical Greek the system:

vpf ð t h c k v

replacing the earlier bpph/d t th/g k kh system. In addition, z became a distinctive sound (with phonemic status) and h was lost. A [j] reentered the language, originally as an allophone of [c] before front vowels and of unstressed [i] before vowels, but now it (probably) has phonemic status in the modern language and in any case is more fricated than the simple glide it presumably once was. Similarly, throughout the post-classical period, new voiced stops (b, d, g) arose, first as of voiceless (and original voiced) stops after homorganic nasals, and later as distinctive segments (although their synchronic status is still some- what controversial) through further sound changes that obscured the original con- ditioning factors. Thus the verb e' msqέpolai ‘I feel misgivings about’ has yielded Modern Greek msqέpolai [drepome] ‘I feel ashamed’ through the stages endrep- > edrep- (with reduction of nasal-plus-stop clusters, a process still present in the but now sociolinguistically and stylistically conditioned, and still found in many of the regional dialects) > drep- (with loss of unstressed initial vowels, a of Middle Greek), though conceivably the sequence was endrep- > ndrep- > ndrep- > drep-. In addition, borrowings have provided new instances of voiced stops in the language (e.g. more recently lpάq ‘bar’, msάla ‘queen (in cards)’, cjaqάf ‘garage’, etc., but some even as early as Hellenistic times). Finally, in Middle Greek a ts and a dz were added to the language, partly through dialectal affrications and borrowings from other languages. These sounds probably represent unitary sounds () in the modern language, but a cluster analysis cannot be ruled out entirely for them. The major changes in the vowel system were also beginning in the Hellenistic period, though, as noted above, some of the innovative pronunciations may have been associated with an originally non-standard sociolect of Attic Greek in the late classical period. The principal changes are as follows: length became non-distinctive; the diphthongs monophthongised, with [aj] becoming [e], [yj] and [oj] becoming [i] (presumably through a stage of [y], still present probably as late as the tenth century AD), and the off-glide in [e(ː)w] and [aw] becoming fully consonantal, realised as [f] before voiceless sounds and as [v] before voiced ones; and several of the height distinctions were neu- tralised with a tendency for vowels to move to [i]. The result is that the Modern Greek vowel system (and that of late Middle Greek as well) consists of five short ‘pure’

368358

15034-0340-019.indd 368 12/15/2017 11:57:09 AM GREEK GREEK

The phonology of Ancient Greek has been described in such detail here because it vowels: ieaou. Sequences which are -like, though perhaps still to be provides the appropriate starting point for a discussion of Post-Classical Greek phonology. analysed as true sequences of vowels, have arisen through the loss of intervening con- The relation is not merely chronological here, for in Post-Classical Greek and on into sonants, as with kέei ([leï]) ‘(s)he says’ from Ancient Greek kέcei through the Middle Modern Greek, one finds that many of the same general phonological characteristics (and careful Modern) Greek pronunciation [léji], and through borrowings (e.g. srάϊ occur in the language, but with different realisations. For example, by the Hellenistic ‘tea’, kaoύso ‘lute’, etc.). Nonetheless, there are some words that are probably best period, systematic shifts in the consonant inventory were under way – to be completed analysed as having underlying diphthongs, e.g. cάϊdaqoς ‘donkey’, which would later in Post-Classical Greek – which nonetheless preserved the earlier three-way con- underlyingly violate the modern equivalent of the ‘Dreimorengesetz’ if it were trast but with new distinctive oppositions established. The voiced stops became voiced /cáiðaros/. spirants and the voiceless aspirates became voiceless spirants, while the voiceless plain Since vowel length came to be non-distinctive in the later stages of Greek, it is stops remained the same (in general). Thus one finds in Post-Classical Greek the not surprising that the principles upon which accent placement was based would system: change, inasmuch as vowel quantity mattered for Ancient Greek accent placement. Modern Greek generally has accent placed in the same positions in words as Ancient vpf Greek, and the ‘Dreimorengesetz’ still holds now though as a ‘three-syllable rule’. The ð t h realisation of accent has changed, though, and Modern Greek now has a stress accent, c k v not a pitch accent, with prominent stress corresponding to the earlier high (acute or circumflex) pitch (and note that by Middle Greek, the basis for poetic metre was syl- replacing the earlier bpph/d t th/g k kh system. In addition, z became a distinctive lable counting, with a 15-syllable line being the preferred metrical pattern). Modern sound (with phonemic status) and h was lost. Greek thus has some of the same accent shifts as Ancient Greek, as for example in A [j] reentered the language, originally as an allophone of [c] before front vowels άmhqxpoς ‘man’ (nominative singular) versus amhqώpot (genitive), but because of the and of unstressed [i] before vowels, but now it (probably) has phonemic status in the absence of a phonological motivation for them, numerous levellings have occurred, modern language and in any case is more fricated than the simple glide it presumably resulting in stable stress throughout a paradigm (as in pqάrimoς ‘green’ (nominative once was. Similarly, throughout the post-classical period, new voiced stops (b, d, g) singular masculine) versus pqάrimot (genitive) from Ancient Greek pqάrimoς/ arose, first as allophones of voiceless (and original voiced) stops after homorganic pqarίmot, and in dialectal forms such as άmhqxpot for standard amhqώpot). The nasals, and later as distinctive segments (although their synchronic status is still some- recessive accent rule for finite verb forms no longer holds in general, but is valid for what controversial) through further sound changes that obscured the original con- the simple past and tenses of verbs which are stem-stressed (as opposed to ditioning factors. Thus the verb emsqέpolai ‘I feel misgivings about’ has yielded ' end-stressed) in the present (e.g. molífx ‘I think’ versus mólifa ‘I was thinking’, Modern Greek msqέpolai [drepome] ‘I feel ashamed’ through the stages endrep- > molίfale ‘we were thinking’, mólira ‘Ithought’, molίrale ‘we thought’). Stress place- edrep- (with reduction of nasal-plus-stop clusters, a process still present in the standard ment, though, is distinctive, as shown by pairs such as jopή ‘cutting’–jópoi ‘troubles, language but now sociolinguistically and stylistically conditioned, and still found in reward’, jύqioς ‘master’–jtqίxς ‘above all, chiefly’, among others. many of the regional dialects) > drep- (with loss of unstressed initial vowels, a sound The major change in phonotactics concerns new final sequences which have entered change of Middle Greek), though conceivably the sequence was endrep- > ndrep- > the language through borrowings (e.g. final [l] in cjók ‘goal’ from English, final [z] in ndrep- > drep-. In addition, borrowings have provided new instances of voiced stops in cjaqάf ‘garage’ from French, final [p] in (the perhaps now somewhat dated) pίj-ap the language (e.g. more recently lpάq ‘bar’, msάla ‘queen (in cards)’, cjaqάf ‘garage’, ‘record-player’ from French, etc.). One noteworthy change in allowable clusters, etc., but some even as early as Hellenistic times). though, affected combinations of voiceless stops and combinations of Ancient Greek Finally, in Middle Greek a ts and a dz were added to the language, partly through voiceless aspirated stops. Both types of clusters, e.g. ps and uh, have converged, dialectal affrications and borrowings from other languages. These sounds probably through what has been described as a manner dissimilation, on the combination of represent unitary sounds (affricates) in the modern language, but a cluster analysis voiceless fricative plus voiceless (unaspirated) stop. Thus earlier ps has yielded us [ft], cannot be ruled out entirely for them. as in pseqόm ‘feather’ > useqό (with regular loss of final n as well), and earlier uh has The major changes in the vowel system were also beginning in the Hellenistic also yielded [ft], through a stage of [fh], as in uhάmx > usάmx ‘I arrive’. The effects of period, though, as noted above, some of the innovative pronunciations may have been the alluded to above can be seen especially clearly in this aspect of the pho- associated with an originally non-standard sociolect of Attic Greek in the late classical nology, for in many words of learned origin, the non-dissimilated clusters remain and period. The principal changes are as follows: length became non-distinctive; the diphthongs both cluster types occur as stylistic variants within one and the same speaker’s idiolect monophthongised, with [aj] becoming [e], [yj] and [oj] becoming [i] (presumably even, because of the stylistic mixing induced by the diglossic situation. through a stage of [y], still present probably as late as the tenth century AD), and the For the most part, the later stages of Greek preserved the same types of morpho- off-glide in [e( )w] and [aw] becoming fully consonantal, realised as [f] before voiceless ː phonemic alternations as Ancient Greek, though again with different phonetic realisa- sounds and as [v] before voiced ones; and several of the height distinctions were neu- tions. Thus one now finds alternations such as cqάu-ole ‘we write’ versus cqάw-ale tralised with a tendency for vowels to move to [i]. The result is that the Modern Greek ‘we wrote’ with an f/p alternation (Ancient Greek ph/p alternation), amoίc-x ‘I open’ vowel system (and that of late Middle Greek as well) consists of five short ‘pure’ versus άmoin-a ‘I opened’ with a c/k alternation (Ancient Greek g/k alternation), where

358 359369

15034-0340-019.indd 369 12/15/2017 11:57:10 AM GREEK

the structure of the alternations is the same but the segments involved have changed in part. Various morphological changes in the noun in particular have undone many of the Ancient Greek nominal alternations, as with Ancient Greek ukέw (i.e. [phlep-s]) ‘vein’ (nominative singular) versus ukέba (accusative) being remade to a paradigm with ukέba [fleva], the continuation of the old accusative form, serving as the nominative and accusative form. One can still find the Ancient Greek alternations preserved rela- tively intact, though, in the archaising linguistic forms of early Post-Classical Greek on through Middle Greek and into Modern Greek; such forms are not – and probably never were – in current colloquial usage, however. A final point about Post-Classical Greek phonology concerns some of the major differ- ences that characterise the Modern, and to a large extent the Middle, Greek dialects. Characteristic of the northern dialect zone (north of on the mainland, though excluding the urban dialect, and the islands of the northern Aegean including Thasos, Samothraki, and , and also the more southerly ) is the raising of unstressed mid vowels and the deletion of unstressed high vowels. Thus one finds paradigms such as present [pirmén] ‘(s)he waits’ (cf. standard peqilέmei), imperfect [pirímini] ‘(s)he was waiting’ (cf. standard peqίleme). This syncope has also given rise in these dialects to consonant clusters not found in the standard language and the more southerly and eastern dialects (e.g. [éstla] ‘I sent’ for standard έrseika). Another isogloss distinguishing the regional dialects is the presence of palatalisations (especially [cˇ] for [k] before front vowels) in the southeastern dialects (of , the Dodekanese islands including , and Cyprus), in Cretan and in Old Athenian (the dialect of Attica before the establishment of the standard language in the 1820s, which survived into the early twentieth century in a few isolated pockets in and elsewhere), but not in the northern dialects (in general, though [š] for [s] before front vowels is common) nor in the standard language, based as it is on the Peloponnesian-Ionian (Island) dialect.

4.2 Morphology It is safe to say that the general character of Greek morphological structure has remained fairly stable over the 3,500 years of our knowledge of the language, though, of course, there have been numerous significant changes as well. Greek has been a fusional language throughout all stages in its development; in Middle and Modern Greek, though, there is a distinct tendency in the direction of analytic expressions, examples of which are given below passim. To illustrate the fusional character of the language, one need only consider the nominal ending -otς (Ancient Greek [-oːs], Modern Greek [-us]), for it marks , plural number and masculine gender, all in a single unanalysable unit, for the so-called o-stem nouns. Moreover, even though there is a nominal ending -ot and another nominal ending -ς, so that one might attempt to analyse -otς as -ot plus -ς, such an analysis cannot work: -ot marks genitive singular for masculine o-stem nouns and -ς marks nominative singular for certain masculine and feminine consonant stem nouns in Ancient Greek and for masculine nouns in general in Modern Greek. The relevant morphological categories for the Greek nominal system, comprising nouns, adjectives and pronouns, are as follows. In Ancient Greek, there were five cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative and vocative), three numbers (singular, dual and plural), and three genders (masculine, feminine and neuter). In Modern Greek, by

370360

15034-0340-019.indd 370 12/15/2017 11:57:10 AM GREEK GREEK the structure of the alternations is the same but the segments involved have changed in contrast, there are four cases (nominative, accusative, genitive and vocative), two part. Various morphological changes in the noun in particular have undone many of the numbers (singular and plural), and the same three genders. The loss of the dative began Ancient Greek nominal alternations, as with Ancient Greek ukέw (i.e. [phlep-s]) ‘vein’ as early as Hellenistic Greek, though this change was not completed until well into the (nominative singular) versus ukέba (accusative) being remade to a paradigm with Middle Greek era (in part because of the pressure from the learned language in which ukέba [fleva], the continuation of the old accusative form, serving as the nominative the dative was retained). In Modern Greek, the has assumed some of the and accusative form. One can still find the Ancient Greek alternations preserved rela- typical functions of the earlier , e.g. the expression of indirect objects, but tively intact, though, in the archaising linguistic forms of early Post-Classical Greek on one also finds, in keeping with the analytic tendency noted above, indirect objects through Middle Greek and into Modern Greek; such forms are not – and probably expressed in a prepositional phrase (r(έ) ‘in, at, to’, from Ancient Greek ei' ς ‘in, into’, never were – in current colloquial usage, however. plus accusative). It is worth noting as well that the genitive plural is obsolescent in A final point about Post-Classical Greek phonology concerns some of the major differ- Modern Greek for many nouns and for many speakers, with periphrases with prepositions, ences that characterise the Modern, and to a large extent the Middle, Greek dialects. especially a' pό ‘from’, plus accusative generally being used instead. Characteristic of the northern dialect zone (north of Attica on the mainland, though In both Ancient and Modern Greek, these nominal morphological categories were excluding the urban Thessaloniki dialect, and the islands of the northern Aegean realised in different ways depending on the class of noun involved. In Ancient Greek, including Thasos, Samothraki, Lemnos and Lesbos, and also the more southerly Samos) is the assignment to inflectional class was based on phonological characteristics of the the raising of unstressed mid vowels and the deletion of unstressed high vowels. Thus nominal stem, so that one finds o-stem nouns, a:-stem nouns and consonant stem nouns one finds paradigms such as present [pirmén] ‘(s)he waits’ (cf. standard peqilέmei), (including i- and u-stems as consonantal); within these stem classes, all three genders imperfect [pirímini] ‘(s)he was waiting’ (cf. standard peqίleme). This syncope has also were represented, though feminine o-stems were rare as were masculine a:-stems (and given rise in these dialects to consonant clusters not found in the standard language and neuter a:-stems were non-existent). In Modern Greek, the assignment to inflectional the more southerly and eastern dialects (e.g. [éstla] ‘I sent’ for standard έrseika). class is by and large based on gender, not phonological stem shape, so that in general, Another isogloss distinguishing the regional dialects is the presence of palatalisations the masculine nouns are inflected alike, especially in the singular, with -s in the nomi- (especially [cˇ] for [k] before front vowels) in the southeastern dialects (of Chios, the native singular versus - in the accusative singular and - in the genitive singular, and Dodekanese islands including Rhodes, and Cyprus), in Cretan and in Old Athenian the feminines are inflected; alike, again especially in the; singular, with a - ending in (the dialect of Attica before the establishment of the standard language in the 1820s, the nominative and accusative singular versus -s in the genitive singular. As; with most which survived into the early twentieth century in a few isolated pockets in Euboea and changes between Ancient and Modern Greek, the beginnings of this shift in inflectional elsewhere), but not in the northern dialects (in general, though [š] for [s] before front class assignment can be seen early in the post-classical period. In the chart given vowels is common) nor in the standard language, based as it is on the Peloponnesian-Ionian here the inflection of six nouns is given for Ancient and Modern Greek by way of (Island) dialect. illustrating the basic patterns for these stages and of highlighting the differences between the two. 4.2 Morphology Nominal Inflection in Ancient and Modern Greek It is safe to say that the general character of Greek morphological structure has Feminine Masculine Neuter Feminine Masculine Neuter remained fairly stable over the 3,500 years of our knowledge of the language, though, a:-stem o-stem o-stem Consonant stem cmxla:- kόcο- dx˜ qο- ukέb- uύkaj- rxlas- of course, there have been numerous significant changes as well. Greek has been a ‘opinion’‘word’‘gift’‘vein’‘watchman’‘body’ fusional language throughout all stages in its development; in Middle and Modern Ancient Greek Greek, though, there is a distinct tendency in the direction of analytic expressions, Nom. sg. cmώlg kόcος dx˜ qοm ukέwuύkan rx˜ la examples of which are given below passim. To illustrate the fusional character of the Acc. sg. cmώlgm kόcοm dx˜ qοm ukέba uύkaja rx˜ la language, one need only consider the nominal ending -otς (Ancient Greek [-oːs], Modern Gen. sg. cmώlgς kόcοtdώqοt ukebός uύkajος rώlasoς Dat. sg. cmώlgi kόcxi dώqxi ukebί uύkaji rώlasi Greek [-us]), for it marks accusative case, plural number and masculine gender, all in a Voc. sg. cmώlg kόce dx˜ qοm ukέwuύkan rx˜ la single unanalysable unit, for the so-called o-stem nouns. Moreover, even though there Nom. du. cmώla: kόcx dώqx ukέbe uύkaje rώlase is a nominal ending -ot and another nominal ending -ς, so that one might attempt to Acc. du. cmώla: kόcx dώqx ukέbe uύkaje rώlase analyse -otς as -ot plus -ς, such an analysis cannot work: -ot marks genitive singular Gen. du. cmώlaim kόcοim dώqοim ukebο˜im utkάjοim rxlάsοim for masculine o-stem nouns and -ς marks nominative singular for certain masculine and Dat. du. cmώlaim kόcοim dώqοim ukebο˜im utkάjοim rxlάsοim feminine consonant stem nouns in Ancient Greek and for masculine nouns in general in Voc. du. cmώla: kόcx dώqx ukέbe uύkaje rώlase Modern Greek. Nom. pl. cmx˜ lai kόcοi dx˜ qa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa The relevant morphological categories for the Greek nominal system, comprising Acc. pl. cmώla:ς kόcοtς dx˜ qa ukέbaς uύkajaς rώlasa nouns, adjectives and pronouns, are as follows. In Ancient Greek, there were five cases Gen. pl. cmxlx˜ mkόcxm dώqxm ukebx˜ m utkάjxm rxlάsxm Dat. pl. cmώlaiς kόcοiς dώqοiς ukewί uύkani rώlari (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative and vocative), three numbers (singular, dual Voc. pl. cmx˜ lai kόcοi dx˜ qa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa and plural), and three genders (masculine, feminine and neuter). In Modern Greek, by

360 361371

15034-0340-019.indd 371 12/15/2017 11:57:10 AM GREEK

Feminine Masculine Neuter Feminine Masculine Neuter Modern Greek Nom. sg. cmώlg kόcος dώqο ukέba uύkajaς rώla Acc. sg. cmώlg kόcο dώqο ukέba uύkaja rώla Gen. sg. cmώlgς kόcοtdώqοt ukέbaς uύkaja rώlasος Voc. sg. cmώlg kόce dώqο ukέba uύkaja rώla Nom. pl. cmώleς kόcοidώqa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa Acc. pl. cmώleς kόcοtς dώqa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa Gen. pl. cmxlώmkόcxm dώqxm ukebώm utkάjxm rxlάsxm Voc. pl. cmώleς kόcοidώqa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa

Notes: Accentuation in Modern Greek forms follows current official monotonic orthography, with a single accentual diacritic. The (:) for length in the Ancient Greek forms is given here only to indicate pronunciation; it was not a part of the Ancient .

Although the nominal system of Greek, especially the ancient language, shows a goodly number of inflectional categories and markers, it is the verbal system that pre- sents the greatest morphological complexity in the language. Moreover, despite a number of reductions in this complexity between Ancient and Modern Greek, espe- cially in the realm of non-finite verbal forms, Modern Greek still has a verbal system that is, in basic character, very like its ancient source. Ancient Greek, for instance, distinguished three persons in verbal inflection, and three numbers (singular, dual and plural), although the combination of first person with dual number was not generally realised inflectionally in the language at all (being restricted to a handful of middle voice forms only). A significant distinction was made in the verbal system between finite and non-finite forms, with the relevant morpholo- gical distinction for finiteness being the presence of person and number markings; as noted above in the section on accentuation, though, recessive accent placement also served to distinguish finite from non-finite forms. Among the non-finite forms were several different infinitives and several different , as enumerated below, dif- fering in voice, aspect and tense, and two verbal adjectives (denoting capability and obligation, respectively). As indicated, there were inflectional categories for voice, with active, passive and middle voice being distinguished. The middle voice indicated reflexive action (though there were also available in the language overt reflexive pronominal forms), or more generally, action one undertook on one’s own behalf or to one’s own benefit. For example, the active botkeύx means ‘to take counsel’ while the middle botkeύolai means ‘to take counsel with oneself, to deliberate’, and the active koύx means ‘to wash’ while the middle koύolai means ‘to wash oneself, to bathe’. The passive was formally distinct from the middle only for future tense and simple past () forms. In addition, there were four moods, an indicative, a subjunctive, an (used in the expression of potentiality and for past time in indirect discourse, for example) and an imperative, all fully inflected for all the voice, number and person categories, as well as most of the temporal/aspectual categories described below. Finally, Ancient Greek is usually described as having seven ‘tenses’, a present, a future, a (present) perfect, a pluperfect, a (which is usually passive), an imperfect past and a simple past (known as the aorist). In actuality, these ‘tense’ forms encoded two different types of distinctions – a purely temporal one of present time versus future time versus past time, and an aspectual one of action that is continuous

372362

15034-0340-019.indd 372 12/15/2017 11:57:10 AM GREEK GREEK

Feminine Masculine Neuter Feminine Masculine Neuter (imperfective) versus action that is completed (perfective) versus action that is simply Modern Greek taking place (aoristic). The three-way distinction is realised fully in past time forms Nom. sg. cmώlg kόcος dώqο ukέba uύkajaς rώla only, incompletely in the present, and via a formal merger of two categories in the Acc. sg. cmώlg kόcο dώqο ukέba uύkaja rώla future. These relations are summarised in Table 19.4 below (adapted from Goodwin Gen. sg. cmώlgς kόcοtdώqοt ukέbaς uύkaja rώlasος and Gulick 1958). Voc. sg. cmώlg kόce dώqο ukέba uύkaja rώla Illustrative examples are: present cqάux ‘I am writing’, perfect cέcqaua ‘I have Nom. pl. cmώleς kόcοidώqa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa written’, imperfect ecqauom! ‘I was writing’, aorist ecqawa! ‘I did write, I wrote’, plu- Acc. pl. cmώleς kόcοtς dώqa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa Gen. pl. cmxlώmkόcxm dώqxm ukebώm utkάjxm rxlάsxm perfect e' cecqάug ‘I had written’, future cqάwx ‘I will be writing (continuous aspect), Voc. pl. cmώleς kόcοidώqa ukέbeς uύkajeς rώlasa I will write (simple occurrence)’, and future perfect cecqάwesai ‘it will have been written’. Notes: Accentuation in Modern Greek forms follows current official monotonic orthography, with a single The non-finite forms show the aspectual nature of the category oppositions especially accentual diacritic. The colon (:) for length in the Ancient Greek forms is given here only to indicate clearly, for one finds a present infinitive and participle, an aorist infinitive and parti- pronunciation; it was not a part of the Ancient Greek orthography. ciple, and a perfect infinitive and participle, corresponding to the continuous, simple and completed aspectual distinctions in the finite verbal system. In addition, though, Although the nominal system of Greek, especially the ancient language, shows a there is a future infinitive and participle, so that the non-finite system too shows some goodly number of inflectional categories and markers, it is the verbal system that pre- purely temporal as well as aspectual distinctions. As with the different moods, the non- sents the greatest morphological complexity in the language. Moreover, despite a fnitefinite formsforms occuroccur inin allall voices, voices, so so that that there there are are 11 as different many inasfi 13nitival different types andinfnitival a like number of reductions in this complexity between Ancient and Modern Greek, espe- typesnumber and of a participles. like number of participles. cially in the realm of non-finite verbal forms, Modern Greek still has a verbal system Many of the complexities of this system are retained in Post-Classical Greek and on that is, in basic character, very like its ancient source. into Modern Greek, though in some instances, there is only apparent, and not actual, Ancient Greek, for instance, distinguished three persons in verbal inflection, and continuity. Some of the differences are the result of responses to system-internal pres- three numbers (singular, dual and plural), although the combination of first person with sures, as for example, with the changes in the voice and aspect categories, while others dual number was not generally realised inflectionally in the language at all (being may have been, at least in part, induced by external factors, as with the changes in the restricted to a handful of middle voice forms only). A significant distinction was made non-finite system and the future tense. Many, however, are in keeping with a tendency in the verbal system between finite and non-finite forms, with the relevant morpholo- towards analytic expressions where Ancient Greek had synthetic ones. gical distinction for finiteness being the presence of person and number markings; as The only difference in person and number categories is that, as in nominal inflection, noted above in the section on accentuation, though, recessive accent placement also the dual number category has been eliminated, its demise evident as early as Hellenistic served to distinguish finite from non-finite forms. Among the non-finite forms were Greek. The moods too have been altered. The optative began to fall into disuse in the several different infinitives and several different participles, as enumerated below, dif- Koine period, partly as a result, no doubt, of sound changes leading to partial fering in voice, aspect and tense, and two verbal adjectives (denoting capability and homophony (in four of eight forms) with the subjunctive and (less so) with the indica- obligation, respectively). tive. Similarly, it is a matter of some debate even today as to whether Greek now has a As indicated, there were inflectional categories for voice, with active, passive and distinct , for there is no formal difference between the continuation middle voice being distinguished. The middle voice indicated reflexive action (though of the old present indicative and present subjunctive due to various sound changes, and there were also available in the language overt reflexive pronominal forms), or more virtually all ‘subjunctive’ uses are marked with the element mά, giving an analytic generally, action one undertook on one’s own behalf or to one’s own benefit. For counterpart to the Ancient Greek synthetic subjunctive (e.g. ma cqάweiς versus example, the active botkeύx means ‘to take counsel’ while the middle botkeύolai ancient cqάwgiς ‘that you (might) write’). Finally, where Ancient Greek had synthetic means ‘to take counsel with oneself, to deliberate’, and the active koύx means ‘to forms for non-second person imperatives, Modern Greek has, again, analytic forms, wash’ while the middle koύolai means ‘to wash oneself, to bathe’. The passive was marked by the particle aς! , though distinct (synthetic) second person imperative forms formally distinct from the middle only for future tense and simple past (aorist) forms. remain. In addition, there were four moods, an indicative, a subjunctive, an optative (used in the expression of potentiality and for past time in indirect discourse, for example) and an imperative, all fully inflected for all the voice, number and person categories, as well Table 19.4 Ancient Greek Tense Aspect Relations as most of the temporal/aspectual categories described below. Tense Present Past Future Finally, Ancient Greek is usually described as having seven ‘tenses’, a present, a Aspect future, a (present) perfect, a pluperfect, a future perfect (which is usually passive), an imperfect past and a simple past (known as the aorist). In actuality, these ‘tense’ forms Continuous present imperfect future encoded two different types of distinctions – a purely temporal one of present time Simple occurrence (no realisation) aorist future Completed perfect pluperfect future perfect versus future time versus past time, and an aspectual one of action that is continuous

362 363373

15034-0340-019.indd 373 12/15/2017 11:57:10 AM GREEK

Post-Classical Greek maintains an opposition among active, middle and passive voices, though from a formal standpoint, the middle voice and are never distinct; the cover term medio-passive or even nonactive is thus perhaps more appropriate. This development seems to be a natural outgrowth of the Ancient Greek system in which the distinction was realised formally only in the aorist and future tenses but in no others. Thus in Modern Greek, and earlier stages of Post-Classical Greek as well, a form such as pkύhgja, a medio-passive aorist of the verb pkύmx ‘wash’, can mean ‘I was washed (by someone)’ or ‘I washed myself’, with the context of the utterance generally being the only determinant of which of these interpretations is preferred. The Ancient Greek tenses all remain in Modern Greek, but here the continuity is apparent only. In the Koine period, the perfect tense system was eliminated, with the simple past (aorist) taking over some of the old perfect functions and various peri- phrastic (i.e. analytic) constructions (e.g. ei' lί ‘be’ plus the perfect participle) taking over other of its functions. Thus there was a period in the post-classical language in which there was no formal perfect tense system. By the middle of the Middle Greek period, approximately the tenth century, though, a pluperfect arose, formed with the aorist of ‘have’ plus one continuation of the Ancient Greek infinitive (e.g. ei˜' va cqάwai ‘I had written’, later ei˜' va cqάwei); this construction was originally used, in late Hellenistic and early Middle Greek, as a conditional but later passed over into a true pluperfect meaning. The relation between it and the habeo- + infinitive/participle for- mations found in and Romance (see page 168) is uncertain, but some influence through Balkan Romance cannot be discounted. From that pluperfect, a new perfect system, with the full range of inflectional categories, was spawned; a present perfect was created consisting of the present of ‘have’ plus this continuation of the old infinitive, and later a future perfect was formed with the Middle and Modern Greek future formants, an imperative perfect arose, etc. The Modern Greek perfect system, therefore, represents a considerable elaboration within the Post-Classical Greek verbal system, and though only indirectly connected with them, parallels the Ancient Greek perfect system forms. Similarly, Modern Greek has a future tense, just as Ancient Greek had, but again one finds an analytic expression in place of the earlier synthetic one, with only an indirect connection between the two forms. In the case of the future, though, as opposed to the perfect, there seems never to have been a period in which the future tense failed to exist as a formal category in the language. Within the Hellenistic period, the use of the older synthetic future, e.g. cqάwx ‘I will write’, became obsolescent, with various peri- phrases arising to compete with it, including the present of ‘have’ plus a continuation of the infinitive and other quasi-modal constructions (e.g. lέkkx ‘be about to’ plus infinitive). With the passage of the ‘have’ forms into the incipient perfect system, as just described, a new future periphrasis arose, by the tenth century, completely ousting the earlier synthetic form. This was a future based on the verb ‘want’ (hέkx); as with the perfect, the relation between this form and similar ones found in virtually all the Balkan languages is controversial. In the medieval period, an unusual variety of future formations with this verb can be found, consisting of combinations of inflected forms of hέkx plus uninflected (infinitival) main verbs, uninflected (i.e. invariant third person singular) forms of hέkx plus inflected forms of main verbs, inflected forms of hέkx plus inflected forms of a main verb, the optional use of the subordinating marker mά and so forth; representative examples of these patterns would be hέkx cqάwei(m)

374364

15034-0340-019.indd 374 12/15/2017 11:57:11 AM GREEK GREEK

Post-Classical Greek maintains an opposition among active, middle and passive (infinitive), hέkei (invariant) (ma`) cqάwx, hέkx (ma`) cqάwx, all meaning ‘I will write’. voices, though from a formal standpoint, the middle voice and passive voice are Ultimately, the formation of the type hέkei (ma`) cqάwx won out, and through various never distinct; the cover term medio-passive or even nonactive is thus perhaps more reductions involving regular sound changes and various analogies, the modern standard appropriate. This development seems to be a natural outgrowth of the Ancient Greek and widespread dialectal future marker ha (e.g. ha cqάwx ‘I will write’) was created. system in which the distinction was realised formally only in the aorist and future Going along with these future formations were parallel conditional formations con- tenses but in no others. Thus in Modern Greek, and earlier stages of Post-Classical sisting of a past tense of the auxiliary-like verb plus a form of the main verb (compare Greek as well, a form such as pkύhgja, a medio-passive aorist of the verb pkύmx the evx! ‘have’ plus infinitive future and ei˜' va plus infinitive conditional of early Post- ‘wash’, can mean ‘I was washed (by someone)’ or ‘I washed myself’, with the context Classical Greek). These conditional formations have no formal category correspondent of the utterance generally being the only determinant of which of these interpretations in Ancient Greek (the modal particle am! with the is the Ancient Greek is preferred. potential/conditional expression), so that here too one finds an elaboration within the The Ancient Greek tenses all remain in Modern Greek, but here the continuity is earlier tense/mood system. apparent only. In the Koine period, the perfect tense system was eliminated, with the The aspectual system too has undergone various rearrangements from the Ancient simple past (aorist) taking over some of the old perfect functions and various peri- Greek system. In this case, the internal pressures within the system, partly as a result of phrastic (i.e. analytic) constructions (e.g. ei' lί ‘be’ plus the perfect participle) taking the incomplete realisation of the aspect system within the tense system (see Table 19.4) over other of its functions. Thus there was a period in the post-classical language in were a major factor in the developments. The basic opposition of continuous versus which there was no formal perfect tense system. By the middle of the Middle Greek punctual aspect has been maintained throughout the development of Post-Classical period, approximately the tenth century, though, a pluperfect arose, formed with the Greek and, with the new periphrastic formations, has been extended to the future tense aorist of ‘have’ plus one continuation of the Ancient Greek infinitive (e.g. ei˜' va cqάwai as well (e.g. ha cqάux ‘I will be writing’ versus ha cqάwx ‘I will write’, in Modern ‘I had written’, later ei˜' va cqάwei); this construction was originally used, in late Greek, or hέkx cqάuei(m) versus hέkx cqάwei(m) in Middle Greek). The completed Hellenistic and early Middle Greek, as a conditional but later passed over into a true aspect category now finds expression in the new perfect system, though one can still pluperfect meaning. The relation between it and the habeo- + infinitive/participle for- find uses of the simple past (aorist) which signal completed action as opposed to simply mations found in Vulgar Latin and Romance (see page 168) is uncertain, but some past action, as with the ‘pro futuro’ use of the aorist (e.g. έutca ‘I’m about to leave’ lit. influence through Balkan Romance cannot be discounted. From that pluperfect, a new ‘I (have) left; my leaving is over and done with’). perfect system, with the full range of inflectional categories, was spawned; a present Finally, Modern Greek, as well as Post-Classical Greek in general, maintains the perfect was created consisting of the present of ‘have’ plus this continuation of the old Ancient Greek distinction of finite versus non-finite forms, though this opposition has infinitive, and later a future perfect was formed with the Middle and Modern Greek undergone perhaps the greatest series of restructurings of any part of the verbal system. future formants, an imperative perfect arose, etc. The Modern Greek perfect system, In particular, the realisation of the opposition has changed considerably. In Ancient therefore, represents a considerable elaboration within the Post-Classical Greek verbal Greek the imperative patterned with the finite forms in terms of accent placement and system, and though only indirectly connected with them, parallels the Ancient Greek person/number markings, while in Modern Greek it patterns instead with the non-finite perfect system forms. forms; like the participles (and unlike, for example, the indicative), the imperative Similarly, Modern Greek has a future tense, just as Ancient Greek had, but again one allows only postposed weak object pronouns and not preposed ones, and like the par- finds an analytic expression in place of the earlier synthetic one, with only an indirect ticiples (and again unlike the indicative), it is arguably marked only for number and not connection between the two forms. In the case of the future, though, as opposed to the for person (cf. singular dές ‘(you (alone)) see!’ versus plural dέr-se ‘(you (all)) see!’ perfect, there seems never to have been a period in which the future tense failed to exist where the only formal difference is - versus -se and the only semantic difference sin- as a formal category in the language. Within the Hellenistic period, the use of the older gular versus plural) – recall that non-second; person imperative forms of Ancient Greek synthetic future, e.g. cqάwx ‘I will write’, became obsolescent, with various peri- gave way to analytic expressions with the marker aς in later Greek. Moreover, the phrases arising to compete with it, including the present of ‘have’ plus a continuation number of participles has been reduced, so that Modern Greek has only a present of the infinitive and other quasi-modal constructions (e.g. lέkkx ‘be about to’ plus (continuous aspect) medio-passive participle (e.g. cqauólemoς ‘being written’) and a infinitive). With the passage of the ‘have’ forms into the incipient perfect system, as present (continuous aspect) active participle, also called a gerundive, which generally just described, a new future periphrasis arose, by the tenth century, completely ousting serves only as an adverbial adjunct modifying the surface subject of a sentence (e.g. the earlier synthetic form. This was a future based on the verb ‘want’ (hέkx); as with cqάuomsaς ‘(while) writing’). the perfect, the relation between this form and similar ones found in virtually all the Similarly, the category of infinitive has been eliminated entirely from the language, Balkan languages is controversial. In the medieval period, an unusual variety of future although the indications are that it was maintained until approximately the sixteenth formations with this verb can be found, consisting of combinations of inflected forms century as at least a marginal category. The details of this development are discussed of hέkx plus uninflected (infinitival) main verbs, uninflected (i.e. invariant third person more in the following section on syntax. The only remnant of the earlier infinitive is in singular) forms of hέkx plus inflected forms of main verbs, inflected forms of hέkx the new perfect system, for the second part of the perfect periphrasis (cqάwei in evx! plus inflected forms of a main verb, the optional use of the subordinating marker mά cqάwei ‘I have written’) continues a Middle Greek analogical replacement for the and so forth; representative examples of these patterns would be hέkx cqάwei(m) Ancient Greek aorist infinitive (so also in the medio-passive, e.g. evei! cqauhei˜ ‘it has 364 365375

15034-0340-019.indd 375 12/15/2017 11:57:11 AM GREEK

been written’ from Middle Greek evei! cqauhg˜m(ai)). There is no synchronic justifica- tion, though, for treating these remnants as categorically distinct within the morphol- ogy, and they perhaps are to be considered now as the punctual aspect counterparts to the continuous aspect participles (thus cqάwei versus cqauhei˜ as cqάuomsaς versus cqauόlemoς). In both the case of the reduction of the participle and the case of the demise of the infinitive, the Modern Greek situation represents the end-point of a long and gradual process whose roots are to be found in Hellenistic Greek usage of the non-finite forms.

4.3 Syntax A considerable amount of has been spent on the phonology and morphology of Greek, both from a synchronic standpoint for relevant periods and from a diachronic standpoint, in part because it is possible to give a fairly complete picture of these components of a language in a relatively short space. With regard to the syntax, it is of course impossible to do justice to any stage of the language in anything less than a full- sized monograph (and it is worth noting that there are numerous lengthy works dealing with individual constructions in single periods of the language). Nonetheless, a few of the especially noteworthy aspects of the syntactic combinations of the language can be mentioned, along with a sketch of their development over the centuries. Perhaps one of the most elaborate parts of the Ancient Greek syntactic system was the system of verbal complementation. Not only were there so many non-finite forms – infinitives and participles – available which were utilised in forming complements to main verbs, but there was also a large number of finite forms, differing, as has been described, in aspect and mood, which could combine with a variety of subordinating conjunctions to form verbal complements. Thus a major part of the description of Ancient Greek syntax must deal with the question of how the moods, aspects and non- finite forms were actually used. Not surprisingly, there is a fairly complex set of sequence of tense conditions governing allowable combinations of main verb and dependent verb, especially in indirect discourse and in conditional sentences. One significant development in the verbal complementation system in later stages of Greek is the demise of the infinitive, mentioned above in its purely morphological context. From as early as Hellenistic Greek, finite clause complements can be found in places in which Classical Greek had used an infinitive (or even participle). For exam- ple, in the New Testament, a finite clause complement competes with an infinitival complement with the adjective aξ! ioς ‘worthy, deserving’, a context in which only an infinitive could appear in Classical Greek:

‘ (a) ot˜9 ot' j ei' li` aξ! ioς so` t9pόdgla sx˜ m podx˜ m ktrai whose not am/1sg. worthy the-sandal the-feet/gen. loosen/infn.(Acts 13.25) whose‘(One) of not whom am/1sg. I am not worthy worthy the-sandalto loosen the sandal the-feet/gen. from his loosen/infeet’ fin. ‘(One) of whom I am not worthy to loosen the sandal from his feet’ (Acts 13.25) ‘ ‘ (b) ot˜9 ot' j ei' li` e' cx` aξ! ioς ima# kύrx at' sot so`mi9lάmsa sot t9podήlasoς I/nom. that loosen/ his the-thong/acc. of-the-sandal(Jo. 1.27) I/nom. that 1sg. loosen/ subj. his the-thong/acc. of-the-sandal 1sg. subj. (Jo. 1.27)

376366

15034-0340-019.indd 376 12/15/2017 11:57:11 AM GREEK GREEK been written’ from Middle Greek evei! cqauhg˜m(ai)). There is no synchronic justifica- The spread of finite complementation, most usually introduced by the subordinating tion, though, for treating these remnants as categorically distinct within the morphol- conjunction ima# (later Greek mά through an irregular stress shift and regular sound ogy, and they perhaps are to be considered now as the punctual aspect counterparts to changes) but also with true complementisers such as the neutral os# i (comparable the continuous aspect participles (thus cqάwei versus cqauhei˜ as cqάuomsaς versus to English that), at the expense of infinitival complements continued throughout the cqauόlemoς). In both the case of the reduction of the participle and the case of the post-classical era, working its way through syntactically defined classes of construction demise of the infinitive, the Modern Greek situation represents the end-point of a long type (e.g. like-subject complements versus unlike-subject complements) and within and gradual process whose roots are to be found in Hellenistic Greek usage of the each such class diffusing across the range of governing lexical items. By Middle Greek, non-finite forms. the only productive uses of the infinitive were with the verbs evx! and hέkx in the perfect and future periphrases, respectively, though a few sporadic uses of the infinitive with other verbs (e.g. (g)lpoqx˜ ‘can’) and as an adverbial adjunct are to be found 4.3 Syntax ' as well. A considerable amount of space has been spent on the phonology and morphology of The spread of finite complementation is complete, though, in Modern Greek, and Greek, both from a synchronic standpoint for relevant periods and from a diachronic there are no instances of non-finite complementation remaining. Thus from the stand- standpoint, in part because it is possible to give a fairly complete picture of these point of typology, Modern Greek, unlike its predecessors, is a language in which all components of a language in a relatively short space. With regard to the syntax, it is of complement verbs are fully finite, marked for person, number and tense/aspect. Greek course impossible to do justice to any stage of the language in anything less than a full- thus now diverges considerably from the Indo-European ‘norm’, but interestingly, as sized monograph (and it is worth noting that there are numerous lengthy works dealing noted earlier, converges on this point with the other languages of the Balkans; in fact, with individual constructions in single periods of the language). Nonetheless, a few of Greek, along with Macedonian, shows the greatest degree of infinitive loss among all the especially noteworthy aspects of the syntactic combinations of the language can be the Balkan languages. As with the other Balkan areal features, the extent to which the mentioned, along with a sketch of their development over the centuries. developments with the infinitive represent an internal development in Greek (and the Perhaps one of the most elaborate parts of the Ancient Greek syntactic system was other languages) or a contact-induced one is debated; in this case, a combination of the system of verbal complementation. Not only were there so many non-finite forms – internal and external factors seems to provide the best account for this phenomenon infinitives and participles – available which were utilised in forming complements to within each language, Greek included, and within the Balkans as a whole. main verbs, but there was also a large number of finite forms, differing, as has been It is to be noted, moreover, that the replacement of the infinitive by finite expressions described, in aspect and mood, which could combine with a variety of subordinating with a verbal marker ties in with the general trend towards analytic constructions seen conjunctions to form verbal complements. Thus a major part of the description of in the morphology. Other syntactic reflexes of this move towards analysis include Ancient Greek syntax must deal with the question of how the moods, aspects and non- comparison productively via the particle piό with an adjective in Modern Greek versus finite forms were actually used. Not surprisingly, there is a fairly complex set of sequence a bound suffix-seqoς in Ancient Greek (e.g. a' ξiώseqoς ‘more worthy’ > pió aξ! ioς), of tense conditions governing allowable combinations of main verb and dependent verb, and the expression of indirect objects with a prepositional phrase (r(e) plus accusative) especially in indirect discourse and in conditional sentences. versus the Ancient Greek dative case alone. One significant development in the verbal complementation system in later stages of The developments with the moods and the tenses and the infinitive between Ancient Greek is the demise of the infinitive, mentioned above in its purely morphological and Modern Greek show also a trend towards the development of a system of preverbal context. From as early as Hellenistic Greek, finite clause complements can be found in markers, especially, for the future hά, for the subjunctive and infinitival replacement mά, places in which Classical Greek had used an infinitive (or even participle). For exam- and for non-second person imperatives aς (from earlier άugre ‘let’, itself an impera- ple, in the New Testament, a finite clause complement competes with an infinitival tive). A further reflection of this development is to be seen in the pronominal system of complement with the adjective aξ! ioς ‘worthy, deserving’, a context in which only an Modern Greek as compared with that of Ancient Greek. While Ancient Greek had both infinitive could appear in Classical Greek: strong forms of the personal pronouns and weak forms, the weak forms were restricted to the oblique (non-nominative) cases only, and use of the weak genitive forms in the ‘ expression of possession was somewhat limited; true possessive adjectives were sub- (a) ot˜9 ot' j ei' li` aξ! ioς so` t9pόdgla sx˜ m podx˜ m ktrai (Acts 13.25) stitutable for the weak forms in all persons and numbers and were the preferred variant whose not am/1sg. worthy the-sandal the-feet/gen. loosen/infin. in the first and second person plural. In Modern Greek, by contrast, there is now a set ‘(One) of whom I am not worthy to loosen the sandal from his feet’ of nominative weak pronominal forms (though they are restricted just to the third person and just to use with the deictic predicate mά ‘here (is)!’ and the interrogative ‘ ‘ predicate poύ(m) ‘where (is)?’), and the primary means of expressing possession is (b) ot˜9 ot' j ei' li` e' cx` aξ! ioς ima# kύrx at' sot so`mi9lάmsa sot t9podήlasoς (Jo. 1.27) with weak genitive forms of the personal pronouns for all persons and numbers. Thus I/nom. that loosen/ his the-thong/acc. of-the-sandal in Ancient Greek one finds both o9 ro`ς a' dekuός (lit. ‘the your brother’) and o9 a' dekuός 1sg. subj. rot (lit. ‘the brother of you’) for ‘your brother’, while Modern Greek has only the latter type.

366 367377

15034-0340-019.indd 377 12/15/2017 11:57:11 AM GREEK

Similarly, the weak object pronouns (both accusative and genitive) of Ancient Greek have been expanded in use in Modern Greek. In particular, they are now quite commonly used to cross-index definite and specific objects, as in:

(a) som eίda som Гiάmmg him/acc. weak saw/1 sg. the-John/acc. ‘I see John.’

(b) sοt (so) έdxra soГ tiάmmg so bibkίo him/gen. weak it/acc. weak gave/1 sg. the-John/gen. the-book/acc. ‘I gave the book to John.’

This feature represents another way in which Modern Greek diverges from Ancient Greek in the direction of the other Balkan languages (though again the causes for the divergence and convergence are subject to debate). For some speakers of Greek, this pronominal doubling is obligatory at least for indirect objects, while for others it is an optional process with a an pragmatic emphatic (focusing function. or topic-marking) function. All of these preverbal markers are amenable to analysis as prefixes (and not more independent elements), though this is controversial. Under such an analysis, the gram- matical apparatus of the modern language has expanded considerably and the nature of the grammatical marking has changed from that found in earlier stages. Two relatively stable elements of the syntax of Greek over the centuries are to be found in the syntax of the nominal system – the use of the definite and adjectival position. The development of a definite article took place within the , for in Homeric Greek, the form which became the Classical definite article is generally used as a demonstrative pronoun, and a few traces of this usage survive in the classical language. The definite article in classical times came to be used also as a means of substantivising virtually any part of speech or phrasal category, including (e.g. soi˜ς sόse ‘to the (men) of that time’ (lit. ‘the (dat. pl. masc.) then’), infinitives, whether alone or in a verb phrase (e.g. so` dqa˜ m ‘the acting, action’, so` bίai pokίsxm dqa˜ m ‘acting in defiance of citizens’), and so on. Moreover, virtually any type of modifier, whether , prepositional phrase, noun phrase or adjective, could be placed between the article and a modified noun. This construction with the definite article and modified nominals is to be found throughout the history of Greek, so that in Modern Greek in place of the ‘articular infinitive’ one finds nominalised finite clauses (e.g. so ma eίmai Ε/ kkgmaς ‘the (fact of) being a Greek’), extended prenominal modifiers (though these can have a bookish feel, e.g. o9 loquolέmoς rsό Paqίri ceisomάς lot ‘my educated-in- neighbour’), etc. As just noted, adjectives could in Ancient Greek, and still can in Modern Greek, appear prenominally. Throughout the history of Greek, there has been an important contrast in the position of an adjective based on its function. An adjective standing outside the article had, and still has, a predicative function, determining a clause with- out the necessity for an overt copular verb, e.g.:

(a) jako`ς o9 a' dekuός (b) o9 a' dekuo`ς jakός good (nom. sg. m.) the-brother (nom. sg.) ‘The brother is good.’

378368

15034-0340-019.indd 378 12/15/2017 11:57:11 AM GREEK GREEK

Similarly, the weak object pronouns (both accusative and genitive) of Ancient Greek When the adjective occurs between the article and the noun or if no article is present, have been expanded in use in Modern Greek. In particular, they are now quite then the adjective has attributive function, and a noun phrase is determined: commonly used to cross-index definite and specific objects, as in: (a) o9 jako`ς a' dekφός (b) jako`ς a' dekφός (a) som eίda som Гiάmmg ‘the good brother’‘a good brother’ him/acc. weak saw/1 sg. the-John/acc. ‘I see John.’ For the most part, other aspects of Greek word order have remained more or less stable throughout its development. In particular Greek has always enjoyed a relatively free (b) sοt (so) έdxra soГ tiάmmg so bibkίo ordering of the major constituents of a sentence, with grammatical relations and rela- him/gen. weak it/acc. weak gave/1 sg. the-John/gen. the-book/acc. tions among constituents being encoded in the inflectional morphology, although cer- ‘I gave the book to John.’ tain patterns seem to be preferred in particular contexts (e.g. verb–subject–object order in the modern language in sentences presenting wholly new information). One area of This feature represents another way in which Modern Greek diverges from Ancient difference, however, is in the placement of weak object pronouns, which were posi- Greek in the direction of the other Balkan languages (though again the causes for the tioned relative to the clause in Ancient Greek (generally in second position) but are divergence and convergence are subject to debate). For some speakers of Greek, this now positioned relative to the verb (with finiteness of the verb apparently mattering for pronominal doubling is obligatory at least for indirect objects, while for others it is an pre- versus post-positioning). optional process with an emphatic function. All of these preverbal markers are amenable to analysis as prefixes (and not more independent elements), though this is controversial. Under such an analysis, the gram- 4.4 Lexicon matical apparatus of the modern language has expanded considerably and the nature of At all points in its history, the Greek lexicon has incorporated a large number of native the grammatical marking has changed from that found in earlier stages. (inherited) lexical roots and stems. As noted earlier, some of these have remained more Two relatively stable elements of the syntax of Greek over the centuries are to be or less intact over the years, e.g. amelo! ς ‘wind’, akko! ς ‘other’; more usually, though, found in the syntax of the nominal system – the use of the definite article and adjectival words in Modern Greek show the effects of regular sound changes, e.g. cqάux ‘I write’ position. The development of a definite article took place within the history of Greek, (with [c] and [f] for earlier [g] and [ph]), lέqa ‘day’ (Ancient Greek g9lέqa), changes for in Homeric Greek, the form which became the Classical definite article is generally in form and meaning, e.g. vx˜ la ‘bank, mound (Ancient Greek); soil (Modern)’ and mor- used as a demonstrative pronoun, and a few traces of this usage survive in the classical phological reshapings (e.g. uύkajaς versus uύkan – see the chart of nominal inflec- language. The definite article in classical times came to be used also as a means of tion). Finally, many words in the later language are built up out of native elements but substantivising virtually any part of speech or phrasal category, including adverbs (e.g. with no direct ancestor in the ancient language, e.g. pirsopoίgrg ‘guarantee’, and the soi˜ς sόse ‘to the (men) of that time’ (lit. ‘the (dat. pl. masc.) then’), infinitives, whether many modern scientific terms built out of Greek morphemes by non-Greek speakers alone or in a verb phrase (e.g. so` dqa˜ m ‘the acting, action’, so` bίai pokίsxm dqa˜ m and reborrowed back into Greek, e.g. asloruaίqa ‘atmosphere’. ‘acting in defiance of citizens’), and so on. Moreover, virtually any type of modifier, At the same time, though, there has always been also in Greek a significant number whether adverb, prepositional phrase, noun phrase or adjective, could be placed of foreign elements. Ancient loans from Semitic (e.g. visώm ‘tunic’, racήmg ‘large between the article and a modified noun. This construction with the definite article and drag-net’), Anatolian (e.g. jύamoς ‘dark blue enamel’, jύlbavoς ‘crown of a helmet’), modified nominals is to be found throughout the history of Greek, so that in Modern and other languages of the ancient Near East can be identified, and as noted in Greek in place of the ‘articular infinitive’ one finds nominalised finite clauses (e.g. so Section 2 above, there may be numerous words in Ancient Greek taken over from the ma eίmai Ε/ kkgmaς ‘the (fact of) being a Greek’), extended prenominal modifiers languages indigenous to Greece before the arrival of the Greeks proper. During the (though these can have a bookish feel, e.g. o9 loquolέmoς rsό Paqίri ceisomάς lot Hellenistic period, a major source of loanwords into Greek was Latin. During the later ‘my educated-in-Paris neighbour’), etc. periods, one finds first an influx of Venetian (Italian) words and somewhat later an As just noted, adjectives could in Ancient Greek, and still can in Modern Greek, admixture of some Slavonic and Albanian words but mainly Turkish lexical items and appear prenominally. Throughout the history of Greek, there has been an important phrases. More recently, loans from French and especially English have entered the contrast in the position of an adjective based on its function. An adjective standing language in great numbers. One final important source of borrowings in Greek has outside the article had, and still has, a predicative function, determining a clause with- always been Greek itself; due to the long literary record of the language and the out the necessity for an overt copular verb, e.g.: importance placed from a sociolinguistic standpoint on the literary language (recall the discussion of Greek diglossia in Section 2), there has always been pressure to (a) jako`ς o9 a' dekuός (b) o9 a' dekuo`ς jakός borrow from the literary language into the colloquial language, so that Modern Greek good (nom. sg. m.) the-brother (nom. sg.) now has an internal lexical stratification parallel to what is found in Slavonic or ‘The brother is good.’ Romance.

368 369379

15034-0340-019.indd 379 12/15/2017 11:57:12 AM GREEK

Bibliography

With the possible exception of English, there has probably been more written on the Greek language than on any other language. Consequently, giving references for information on Greek in its various aspects is difficult. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify a number of basic and representative works on the language. Mention must be made first of the monumental comprehensive encyclopedic volume covering the history of the language up through ancient times, Christides 2007. Specifically for the Ancient language, grammars abound, and the most detailed available, though a bit difficult to use because of a somewhat odd arrangement of facts, is Schwyzer (1939) and Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950). This work, moreover, contains much information on the historical develop- ment of the language and on the ancient dialects. For practical purposes, the more pedagogically oriented grammars of Smyth (1920) or Goodwin and Gulick (1958) contain sufficient information for the understanding of the structure of the language. Vilborg (1960) offers a grammatical sketch of Mycenaean Greek, as does Ventris and Chadwick (1973). More specialised works include Lejeune (1972) (on the historical phonology in general, including Mycenaean), Sommerstein (1973) (a gen- erative treatment of Attic phonology), Teodorsson (1974) (also on Attic phonology), Chantraine (1973) (on the morphology, especially diachronically), and Rijksbaron (2002) (on the syntax and semantics of the verb). The basic treatment in English of the dialects is Buck (1955). For the Hellenistic period, the best grammars available are Moulton (1908) and Blass and Debrunner (1961), both of which deal primarily with New Testament Greek. For Greek of the Byzantine and Medieval periods, unfortunately no standard grammar is currently available. Perhaps the best general statements on Greek of that period are the (relatively brief) description found in Browning (1982) and the somewhat more comprehensive Tonnet (1993) and Horrocks (2010). Note also specialised studies such as Pappas (2004) on weak pronouns in the Medieval period. More is available on the modern language, and many of the historically oriented works fill in some of the gaps in the on Middle Greek. Mirambel (1939, 1959) are standard structuralist treatments of Modern Greek, and Householder et al. (1964) provides a useful account in English. More recently, there are general grammatical descriptions, following modern linguistic principles, such as Joseph and Philippaki- Warburton (1987) and Holton et al. (1997), and two large dictionaries, by Babiniotis (1998) and by the Triandafilidi Instituto (1998). Though now a bit outdated, however, Thumb (1964) is the best general work available in English, providing much on the dialects and general historical development of Modern Greek. as well as numerous sample texts. Newton (1972) is a study within the generative framework of Greek dialect phonology, including, to a certain extent, the dialect bases of the standard language, and Tzitzilis (2007) offers a fine survey of the different dialects of the modern language. Warburton (1970) and Sotiropoulos (1972) provide a modern treatment of the verb and noun respectively. As yet there is no full-length generative study of Greek syntax and semantics, though there is a growing body of such literature (especially in the pages of the Journal of Greek Linguistics, where other relevant studies are to be found as well; see Kalmoukos and Phillipaki-Warburton (1982) for some references, many in English, and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2000 for an updated survey). Joseph 2000 offers an annotated bibliography of important works in Greek linguistics written in English up to the mid-1990s. ItFinally, should there be noted are several too that general there are surveys several of general the Greek surveys language, of the covering Greek language, all or most covering of the stagesall or mostin its of development. the stages Meilletin its development. (1920) and PalmerMeillet (1980)(1920) focusand Palmer more on(1980) the earlierfocus stages,more on though the earlier both stages,treat Middle though and both Modern treat GreekMiddle as and well. Modern Browning Greek (1982) as well. focuses Browning primarily (1982) on the focuses later stages, primarily but ongives the the later necessary stages, backgroundbut gives the on necessary the early stagesbackground too. Mention on the canearly also stages be madetoo. Mention of Costas can (1936), also beAtkinson made of (1933), Costas Thomson (1936), (1966)Atkinson and (1933), Householder Thomson and (1966) Nagy (1972).and Householder and Nagy (1972). Finally, for those interested in studying the language itself, there are numerous books one might turn to for the various stages of the language, in particular Hooker (1991) for Mycenaean Greek, HansenNote and Quinn (1992) and Balme et al. (2016, a two-volume text with accompanying workbooks) for Classical Greek, Croy (2011) for Greek of the Hellenistic period and especially New Testament Greek,1 Greek and forms Bien areet citedal. (2004, throughout with a in workbook) the Greek alphabet.and Watts See (2004, Table with 19.1 downloadable for the pronounciation audio) for of Modernthe letters. Greek.

380370

15034-0340-019.indd 380 12/15/2017 11:57:12 AM GREEK GREEK

Bibliography NoteReferences

With the possible exception of English, there has probably been more written on the Greek language 1Alexiadou, Greek forms A. andare cited Anagnostopoulou, throughout in the E. Greek 2000. alphabet.‘Greek Syntax:See Table A 19.1 Principles for the pronunciation and Parameters of than on any other language. Consequently, giving references for information on Greek in its various Perspectivethe letters.’, Journal of Greek Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 171–222 aspects is difficult. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify a number of basic and representative works Atkinson, B.F.C. 1933. The Greek Language (Faber and Faber, ) on the language. Babiniotis. G. 1998. Kenijό sgς mέaς ekkgmijής ckώrraς. Athens: Kendro Leksilogias Mention must be made first of the monumental comprehensive encyclopedic volume covering the ReferencesBlass, F. and Debrunner, A. 1961. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian history of the language up through ancient times, Christides 2007. Literature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; translated and revised by R. Funk from the Specifically for the Ancient language, grammars abound, and the most detailed available, though a Alexiadou,9th–10th A. edn and ofAnagnostopoulou,Grammatik des E. neutestamentlichen2000. ‘Greek Syntax: Griechisch A Principles, Vandenhoeck and Parameters and Perspective’, Ruprecht, bit difficult to use because of a somewhat odd arrangement of facts, is Schwyzer (1939) and Schwyzer JournalGöttingen) of Greek Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 171–222 and Debrunner (1950). This work, moreover, contains much information on the historical develop- Atkinson,Browning, B.F.C. R. 1982. 1933.Medieval The Greek and Language Modern Greek (Faber(Cambridge and Faber, UniversityLondon) Press, Cambridge) ment of the language and on the ancient dialects. For practical purposes, the more pedagogically Babiniotis.Buck, C.D. G. 1955. 1998.The Λεξικό Greek της Dialects νέας,revisededn(UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,reprinted1973) ελληνικής γλώσσας. Athens: Kendro Leksilogias oriented grammars of Smyth (1920) or Goodwin and Gulick (1958) contain sufficient information for Balme,Chantraine, M., Lawall, P. 1973. G.Morphologie and Morwood, historique J. 2016. du Athenaze: grec, 2nd An edn Introduction (Klincksieck, to Paris) Ancient Greek (Oxford the understanding of the structure of the language. Vilborg (1960) offers a grammatical sketch of Christides,University A.-Ph. Press, (ed.) Oxford) 2007. History of the Greek Language: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity Mycenaean Greek, as does Ventris and Chadwick (1973). More specialised works include Lejeune Bien,(Cambridge P., Gondicas, University D., Rassias, Press, J., Cambridge) Karanika, A., and Yiannakou-Bien, C. 2004. Greek Today: A Course (1972) (on the historical phonology in general, including Mycenaean), Sommerstein (1973) (a gen- Costas,in the P.Modern 1936. LanguageAn Outline and of theCulture History (University of the Greek Press Languageof New England, with Particular Hanover, EmphasisNH) on the erative treatment of Attic phonology), Teodorsson (1974) (also on Attic phonology), Chantraine Blass,Koine F. and Debrunner, the Subsequent A. 1961. Periods A Greek(reprinted Grammar by of the Publishers, New Testament Chicago, and 1979) Other Early Christian (1973) (on the morphology, especially diachronically), and Rijksbaron (2002) (on the syntax and Goodwin,Literature W. (Cambridge and Gulick, University C. 1958. Press,Greek Cambridge; Grammar translated(Blaisdell, and Waltham, revised by MA) R. Funk from the 9th–10th semantics of the verb). The basic treatment in English of the dialects is Buck (1955). Holton, D., Mackridge, P. and Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of edn of Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen) For the Hellenistic period, the best grammars available are Moulton (1908) and Blass and the Modern Language (Routledge, London) Browning, R. 1982. Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Debrunner (1961), both of which deal primarily with New Testament Greek. Horrocks, G. 1997. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (Longman, London) Buck, C.D. 1955. The Greek Dialects, revised edn (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, reprinted For Greek of the Byzantine and Medieval periods, unfortunately no standard grammar is currently Householder, F. and Nagy, G. 1972. Greek. A Survey of Recent Work (Mouton, The Hague) 1973) available. Perhaps the best general statements on Greek of that period are the (relatively brief) description Householder, F., Kazazis, K. and Koutsoudas, A. 1964. Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki Chantraine, P. 1973. Morphologie historique du grec, 2nd edn (Klincksieck, Paris) found in Browning (1982) and the somewhat more comprehensive Tonnet (1993) and Horrocks (Mouton, The Hague) Christides, A.-Ph. (ed.) 2007. History of the Greek Language: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (2010). Note also specialised studies such as Pappas (2004) on weak pronouns in the Medieval period. Joseph, B. 2000. ‘Selected Titles on Language and Linguistics’, in S. Constantinidis (ed.) Greece in (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) More is available on the modern language, and many of the historically oriented works fill in some of the Modern Times (An Annotated Bibliography of Works Published in English in 22 Academic Costas, P. 1936. An Outline of the History of the Greek Language with Particular Emphasis on the Koine gaps in the literature on Middle Greek. Mirambel (1939, 1959) are standard structuralist treatments of Disciplines during the Twentieth Century) (Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD), pp. 441–74 and the Subsequent Periods (reprinted by Ares Publishers, Chicago, 1979) Modern Greek, and Householder et al. (1964) provides a useful account in English. More recently, there Joseph, B. and Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. Modern Greek (Croom Helm, London) Croy, N. 2011. A Primer of Biblical Greek (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI) are general grammatical descriptions, following modern linguistic principles, such as Joseph and Philippaki- Kalmoukos, X. and Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1982. ‘Βibkiocqauijό rgleίxla sxm eqcariώm Goodwin, W. and Gulick, C. 1958. Greek Grammar (Blaisdell, Waltham, MA) Warburton (1987) and Holton et al. (1997), and two large dictionaries, by Babiniotis (1998) and by the rvesijά le sgm rύmsang jai sgm loquokocίa sgς ΝέaςΕkkgmijής pot έvotm ejpomgheί Hansen, H. and Quinn, G. 1992. Greek: An Intensive Course, 2nd edn (Fordham University Press, Triandafilidi Instituto (1998). Though now a bit outdated, however, Thumb (1964) is the best general jasά so pqόstpo sgς cemesijής lesarvglasirsijής cqallasijής’ (‘Bibliographic Notice of New York) work available in English, providing much on the dialects and general historical development of Modern Works Concerning the Syntax and Morphology of Modern Greek which have been Produced Holton, D., Mackridge, P. and Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Greek. as well as numerous sample texts. Newton (1972) is a study within the generative framework of According to the Model of Generative-Transformational Grammar’), Mantatoforos, vol. 20, pp. 8–17 Modern Language (Routledge, London) Greek dialect phonology, including, to a certain extent, the dialect bases of the standard language, and Lejeune, M. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien (Klincksieck, Paris) Hooker, J. 1991. Linear B: An Introduction (Bloomsbury Academic, London) Tzitzilis (2007) offers a fine survey of the different dialects of the modern language. Warburton (1970) Meillet, A. 1920. Aperçu d’une histoire de la langue grecque, 2nd edn (Hachette, Paris) Horrocks, G. 2010. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, 2nd edn (Blackwell, Oxford) and Sotiropoulos (1972) provide a modern treatment of the verb and noun respectively. As yet there is Mirambel, A. 1939. Précis de grammaire élémentaire du grec moderne (Société d’Édition ‘Les Belles Householder, F. and Nagy, G. 1972. Greek. A Survey of Recent Work (Mouton, The Hague) no full-length generative study of Greek syntax and semantics, though there is a growing body of such Lettres’, Paris) Householder, F., Kazazis, K. and Koutsoudas, A. 1964. Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki literature (especially in the pages of the Journal of Greek Linguistics, where other relevant studies are ——1959. La Langue grecque moderne: description et analyse (Paris) (Mouton, The Hague) to be found as well; see Kalmoukos and Phillipaki-Warburton (1982) for some references, many in Moulton, J. 1908. A Grammar of N.T. Greek (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh) Joseph, B. 2000. ‘Selected Titles on Language and Linguistics’, in S. Constantinidis (ed.) Greece in English, and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2000 for an updated survey). Joseph 2000 offers an Newton, B. 1972. The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Times (An Annotated Bibliography of Works Published in English in 22 Academic Disciplines annotated bibliography of important works in Greek linguistics written in English up to the mid-1990s. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) during the Twentieth Century) (Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD), pp. 441–74 Finally, there are several general surveys of the Greek language, covering all or most of the stages Palmer, L. 1980. The Greek Language (Humanities Press, Atlantic Heights, NJ) Joseph, B. and Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. Modern Greek (Croom Helm, London) in its development. Meillet (1920) and Palmer (1980) focus more on the earlier stages, though both Pappas, P. 2003. Variation and Morphosyntactic Change in Greek. From to Affixes (Palgrave Kalmoukos, X. and Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1982. ‘Βιβλιογραφικό σημείωμα των εργασιών σχετικά με treat Middle and Modern Greek as well. Browning (1982) focuses primarily on the later stages, but Macmillan, Houndmills) την σύνταξη και την μορφολογία της Νέας Ελληνικής που έχουν εκπονηθεί κατά το πρότυπο της gives the necessary background on the early stages too. Mention can also be made of Costas (1936), Rijksbaron, A. 2002. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction, 3rd γενετικής μετασχηματιστικής γραμματικής’ (‘Bibliographic Notice of Works Concerning the Syntax Atkinson (1933), Thomson (1966) and Householder and Nagy (1972). edn (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) and Morphology of Modern Greek which have been Produced According to the Model of Generative- Schwyzer, E. 1939. Griechische Grammatik, I: Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion (C.H. Beck, Munich) Transformational Grammar’), Mantatoforos, vol. 20, pp. 8–17 Schwyzer, E. and Debrunner, A. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik Lejeune, M. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien (Klincksieck, Paris) (C.H. Beck, Munich) Note Meillet, A. 1920. Aperçu d’une histoire de la langue grecque, 2nd edn (Hachette, Paris) Smyth, H. 1920. A Greek Grammar for Colleges (American Book Co., New York) Mirambel, A. 1939. Précis de grammaire élémentaire du grec moderne (Société d’Édition ‘Les Belles Sommerstein, A. 1973. The Sound Pattern of Ancient Greek (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) 1 Greek forms are cited throughout in the Greek alphabet. See Table 19.1 for the pronounciation of Lettres’, Paris) the letters. Sotiropoulos, D. 1972. Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek (Mouton, The Hague)

370 371381

15034-0340-019.indd 381 12/15/2017 11:57:12 AM GREEK

——Teodorsson, 1959. La S.-T. Langue 1974. grecqueThe Phonemic moderne: System description of the et Attic analyse Dialect (Paris), 400–340 BC (= Studia Graeca et Moulton,Latina GothoburgensiaJ. 1908. A Grammar XXXVI, of N.T. Göteborg) Greek (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh) Newton,Thomson, B. G. 1972. 1966. TheThe Generative Greek Language Interpretation, 2nd edn of (Heffer, Dialect: Cambridge) A Study of Modern Greek Phonology Thumb,(Cambridge A. 1964. UniversityA Handbook Press, of Cambridge) the Modern Greek Language: Grammar, Texts, Glossary (Argonaut, Palmer,Chicago; L. 1980. translated The Greek from theLanguage 2nd edn (Humanities of Handbuch Press, der Atlantic neugriechischen Heights, NJ) Volkssprache. Grammatik. Pappas,Texte. P. Glossar 2004. ,Variation Karl I. Trübner, and Morphosyntactic Strassburg) Change in Greek. From Clitics to Affxes (Palgrave Tonnet,Macmillan, H. 1993. Houndmills)Histoire du grec moderne. La formation d’une langue (Éditions L’Asiathèque, Paris) Rijksbaron,Triandafilidi A. Instituto.2002. The 1998.Syntax andKenij Semanticsό sgς joimof theής Verbmeoekkgmij in Classicalής Greek:(Idrima An Manoli Introduction Trianda, 3rdfi lidi,edn (UniversityThessaloniki) of Chicago Press, Chicago) Schwyzer,Tzitzilis, C. E. (ed.)1939. 2007.GriechischeHandbook Grammatik, of Modern I: Lautlehre, Greek DialectsWortbildung,(Centre Flexion for the(C.H. Greek Beck, Language, Munich) Schwyzer,Thessaloniki) E. and Debrunner, A. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik Ventris,(C.H. M.Beck, and Munich) Chadwick, J. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Smyth,Press, H. Cambridge) 1920. A Greek Grammar for Colleges (American Book Co., New York) Sommerstein,Vilborg, E. 1960. A. 1973.A Tentative The Sound Grammar Pattern of Mycenaean of Ancient Greek (Basil(= Studia Blackwell, Graeca etOxford) Latina Gothoburgensia Sotiropoulos,IX, Göteborg) D. 1972. Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek (Mouton, The Hague) Teodorsson,Warburton, I. S.-T. 1970. 1974.On the The Verb Phonemic in Modern System Greek of(Mouton, the Attic TheDialect, Hague) 400–340 bc (= Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia XXXVI, Göteborg) Thomson, G. 1966. The Greek Language, 2nd edn (Heffer, Cambridge) Thumb, A. 1964. A Handbook of the Modern Greek Language: Grammar, Texts, Glossary (Argonaut, Chicago; translated from the 2nd edn of Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache. Grammatik. Texte. Glossar, Karl I. Trübner, Strassburg) Tonnet, H. 1993. Histoire du grec moderne. La formation d’une langue (Éditions L’Asiathèque, Paris) Triandafilidi Instituto. 1998. Λεξικό της κοινής νεοελληνικής (Idrima Manoli Triandafilidi, Thessaloniki) Tzitzilis, C. (ed.) 2007. Handbook of Modern Greek Dialects (Centre for the Greek Language, Thessaloniki) Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Vilborg, E. 1960. A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek (= Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia IX, Göteborg) Warburton, I. 1970. On the Verb in Modern Greek (Mouton, The Hague) Watts, N. 2004. Colloquial Greek: The Complete Course for Beginners, 2nd edn (Routledge, New York)

382372

15034-0340-019.indd 382 12/15/2017 11:57:12 AM