UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Archaisms and Innovations in the Songs of Homer A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies by Jesse Lundquist 2017 © Copyright by Jesse Lundquist 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Archaisms and Innovations in the Songs of Homer by Jesse Lundquist Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Brent Harmon Vine, Chair This dissertation comprises three case studies on the history and prehistory of Homeric language, focusing on the ways in which archaic forms are preserved, and innovated forms created. In the first study I examine Homeric accentuation, together with related issues of morphology and morphophonology, in the u-stem adjectives. Beginning from the archaic oxytones θαμειαί ‘close-set’ and ταρφειαί ‘thick’, I outline the historical developments leading to the paradigmatic feminines in -εῖα, which are based on the masculine/neuter stems, and to the recessively accented adjectives θάλεια ‘abundant’, λάχεια ‘wooded’, λίγεια ‘sweetly sonorous’. I propose that the recessive accent results from the morphological isolation of these words (i.e. they lack a masculine/neuter base), coupled with a subsequent re-accentuation to the default, recessive accent of the language. Turning to Vedic, I will examine its cognate class ii of adjectives, whose accent is unequivocally oxytone; for instance svād-áv- ‘sweet’ is the masculine/neuter stem to svād-v-ī,́ the feminine. But the morphophonology of the u-stem adjectives requires further study, I argue, and must be set in the broader context of Vedic accentuation. Returning to Greek, I look into a few nouns arguably going back to substantivized adjectives, arguably reflecting zero-grade ablaut of the suffix. Such nouns would correspond precisely with Vedic, where zero-grade ablaut of the suffix is the rule (Ved. –vī)́ : ὄργυια ‘fathom, span of the arms’, ἄγυια ‘street’, and possibly a few others. Taken together, these accentual classes chronicle the history of u-stem morphophonology in Greek. In the next case study I treat how innovations and archaisms developed within one morphological category, the compound s-stem adjectives. In particular, I investigate anew questions of accents and of ablaut grades: which are archaisms, which innovations? To do so, I offer a revised philological account concerning the various accentual classes of s-stem adjectives, then argue that the recessively s-stem adjectives agree most closely with the largely overlooked Indo-Iranian evidence. Re-examining the evidence for Greek accentuation offers in turn an opportunity to look again at the evidence for archaisms and innovations in Greek ablaut. Greek evidence from iii zero-grade ablaut in the root of second compound members, such as αἰνοπαθής ‘terribly suffering’, sometimes understood to reflect ancient PIE derivational processes, reflects rather a highly significant innovation in Greek morphology: the class of s-stem adjectives transforms from a denominal to a deverbal class. I will demonstrate that the zero-grade ablaut in the second member reflects the verbal bases from which the adjective derives (in this case the aorist παθεῖν ‘to experience; suffer’). Why the aorist, opposed to the present or perfect stem, so often serves as the verbal basis in deverbal derivation will be a question I can pose, but cannot fully answer. Finally, I will work through the Indo-Iranian– effectively just Vedic– evidence for accent and ablaut in the cognate class of s-stem adjectives. I will establish first a philologically sound position for the varying accentual classes in Vedic, then will ask in what ways the Indo-Iranian evidence corresponds to the Greek. This re-examination of the combined evidence of Greek and of Vedic leads to a substantially revised picture of the derivational morphology of s-stem adjectives in the protolanguage. The last study casts a wider net, turning to issues in the transmission of Homeric poetry across Greek dialects and across generic boundaries. I focus the case study on one form found in one formula, φρασί ‘in mind’ in the hemistich φρασὶν ἄλλα iv μενοινῶν, incontestably the older form of the dative plural of φρήν (for Cl.Gk. φρεσί), but only contestably “Homeric”. The hemistich with φρασί is inscribed on a funerary monument in Attica, but paradoxically may not be evidence for the Attic dialect at all: φρασί with a-vocalism closes a Homeric verse-end formula (Hom. φρεσὶν ἄλλα μενοινῶν), but in Homer only φρεσί is ever found; and φρασί is unknown to all other Attic documents, while found abundantly– and more abundantly than the lexica and handbooks let on– in texts of the Doric West (Pindar, Stesichorus, and the Orphic leaves). In our study, complications of language and genre come to the fore: Why use a Doric form in an Attic epigram? Why use a Homeric formula in an elegiac couplet inscribed upon a funerary monument? v The dissertation of Jesse Lundquist is approved. Michael Haslam Stephanie Jamison Jeremy Rau Brent Harmon Vine, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2017 vi To Calvert Watkins, in memoriam vii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction . 1 1.1 Praefatio: Purpose; Plan of the Dissertation . 1 1.2 Plan of the Dissertation . 3 1.3 Morphophonology of PIE . 5 1.3.1 PIE lexical accent: The Basic system . 6 1.3.2 PIE lexical accent: Expanding the analysis . 12 1.3.2.1 Reconstructing PIE ablaut . 17 I Case Studies 22 2 Archaisms and Innovations in Homeric Accentuation . 23 2.1 The Problem: -υιαί, -αιαί; -εια, -εῖα, and -ειαί . 23 2.1.1 Archaic Accentuation in the Homeric Tradition . 24 2.1.1.1 Excursus: A Further Note on the Accentuation of ἀνδροτῆτα . 27 2.2 Oxytone Archaisms in Homeric Greek: θαμειαί, ταρφειαί 29 2.2.0.1 θαμειαί ‘in close sets; thick’ . .30 2.2.0.2 ταρφειαί ‘thick’ . 31 2.2.1 Prehistory of Greek Accentuation in Feminine Inflection to UStem Adjectives . .32 2.2.2 Prehistory of Greek Ablaut in Feminine Inflection to U-Stem Adjectives . .36 2.2.3 Conclusions on the Oxytones in -ειαί . .38 2.3 Oxytones in Zero-Grade -αιαί, -υιαί . 39 2.3.0.1 Πλαταιαί . 41 2.3.1 -υιαί . .45 2.3.1.1 ὄργυια, ὀργυιαί . .45 2.3.1.2 ἄγυια, γυιαί . .49 2.3.1.3 Other Words in -υια? . .52 2.3.2 Conclusions on Words in -αιαί, -υιαί . .53 2.3.2.1 Excursus: Diachrony Forwards . 54 viii 2.4 Recessives: λάχεια, λίγεια, θάλεια . 55 2.4.1 Diachrony . 56 2.5 Conclusion: A Revised History of Greek -εια, -εῖα, -ειαί, -υιαί 58 3 On the Accent and Ablaut of Compound s-Stem Adjectives in Greek and Vedic 60 3.1 The Problem: Does Ved. sumánās = Gk. εὐμενής? . .60 3.2 GREEK ACCENTUATION . .62 3.2.1 GREEK ACCENTUATION: Recessively Accented s-Stem Adjectives 64 3.2.1.1 Conclusions on Recessively Accented s-Stem Adjectives 71 3.2.1.2 Excursus: -ετης, a Difficult Case . .72 3.2.2 GREEK ACCENTUATION: Persistently Paroxytone s-Stem Adjectives 73 3.2.2.1 GREEK ACCENTUATION: Oxytones . 76 3.2.3 Conclusions on Greek Accent . 78 3.3 GREEK ABLAUT: αἰνοπαθής, an Archaism or an Innovation? 78 3.3.1 αἰνοπαθής is Deverbal . .80 3.3.2 αἰνοπαθής is an Innovation . .83 3.3.3 -βαθής, -θαρσής, -κρατής, -παθής are Innovations . .86 3.3.3.1 -βαθής . .86 3.3.3.2 -θαρσής . .87 3.3.3.3 -κρατής . 88 3.3.3.4 Excursus: Ablaut “Alternations” of the Simplex . .89 3.3.4 -βαθής, -θαρσής, -κρατής, -παθής are Deverbal . 90 3.3.5 Conclusions on Ablaut in S-Stem Adjectives . .92 3.4 On the Accentuation of the Vedic s-Stem Adjectives . .93 3.4.1 VEDIC ACCENTUATION: First Member Accented, Type prá-śravas 94 3.4.1.1 VEDIC ACCENTUATION: Second Member Accented in Its Natural Place . .95 3.4.1.2 Excursus: Exceptions to the Exceptions . .99 3.4.1.3 Excursus: Looking Forward . .104 3.4.2 Discussion of the Evidence . .106 3.5 CONCLUSIONS . 108 4 ΦΡΑΣΙΝ in Attica and the Prehistory of the Epic Tradition . 109 4.1 Introduction to the Problem . 109 ix 4.2 ΦΡΑΣΙ . 109 4.3 φρασί in Doric Sources . .114 4.3.1 Pindar . .114 4.3.2 Stesichorus . .115 4.3.3 φρασί in the Orphic West . 115 4.4 Prehistory of φρασί . .118 4.4.1 Whence? . .119 4.5 Conclusions on ΦΡΑΣΙ in Attica . .121 5 Conclusions . .123 5.0.1 Conclusions: A Revised History of Greek -εια, -εῖα, -ειαί, -αια, -αιαί, -υια, -υιαί . .123 5.0.2 Conclusions: A Revised History of Accent and Ablaut in S-Stem Adjectives . 124 5.0.3 Conclusions: Wandering Hexameters, φρασί in Attica . 126 Bibliography . .143 x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gratiarum actio: My scholarly debts are many. It is my pleasant duty to thank first friends, colleagues, and teachers at my home institution, UCLA. Calvert Watkins opened his early opus– the legendary “Blue Book” – by claiming in his turn that “no student was ever so fortunate in his teachers.” I must do the same. Brent Vine served as committee chair for my dissertation, as well as mentor during my years in the Program. He has been nothing but generous with his time and his scholarly expertise; I owe to his critical acumen many of the finer points of my dissertation. Although the present work takes on a topic in Ancient Greek, I am greatly indebted to my Sanskrit teacher, Stephanie Jamison, for years of thoughtful, patient, dedicated teaching. But my debt extends far beyond scholarship and her instruction in Sanskrit: leaving UCLA, I will sorely miss her wit, wisdom, friendship, and just sound common sense.