DOCINFO
AUTHOR "Julián Méndez Dosuna"
TITLE "Review of “Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers” by Horrocks, Geoffrey"
SUBJECT "JGL, Volume 1"
KEYWORDS ""
SIZE HEIGHT "220"
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
274 Book Reviews
Ralli, Angeliki. 1988. Elements de la Morphologie du Grec Moderne: la Structure du Verbe. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. de Montreal. Ralli, Angeliki. 1992. “Compounds in Modern Greek”. Rivista di Linguistica 4. 143–174. Rivero, Maria-Luisa & Arhontο Terzi. 1995. “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood”. Journal of Linguistics 31. 301–332. Roussou, Anna. 1994. The Syntaxof Complementizers . Ph.D. dissertation, University College, London. Seiler, Hans. 1952. L’Aspect et le Temps dans le Verbe Neogrec. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Setatos, Michael. 1974. Φωνολογα της Κοινς Νεοελληνικς [Phonology of Modern Greek Koine]. Athens: Papazisis. Stephany, Ursula. 1985. Aspekt, Tempus und Modalität: zur Entwincklung der Verbal-gram- matik in der Neugriechischen Kindersprache. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra. 1973. Acquisition of nouns by children learning Greek as a native language. MA thesis, Columbus Ohio. Triantafyllidis, Manolis. 1941. Νεοελληνικ Γραµµατικ (της ∆ηµοτικς) [Modern Greek Grammar (of Demotic)]. Αθνα: ΟΕ∆Β. Tsimpli, Ianthi-Μaria. 1990. “The clause structure and word order in Modern Greek”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 226–255. Tsopanakis, Agapitos. 1994. Νεοελληνικ Γραµµατικ [Modern Greek Grammar]. Εστα, Αθνα & Θεσσαλονκη: Αφο Κυριακδη. Tzartzanos, Achillefs. 1946–1953. Νεοελληνικ Σνταξις (της Kοινς ∆ηµοτικς) [Modern Greek Syntax (of Common Demotic)]. Αθνα: ΟΕΣΒ. Veloudis, Ioannis & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1983. “The subjunctive in Modern Greek”. Studies in Greek Linguistics 4. 151–168. Warburton, Irene. 1970. On the Verb in Modern Greek. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Publ.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. London & New York: Longman xvii + 393 pages. 1997. ISBN 0 582 30709–0 (paperback), 0 582 03191–5 (cased). Reviewed by Julián Méndez Dosuna (Universidad de Salamanca)
Geoffrey Horrocks stands out as one of today’s leading linguists in the field of Greek. While most of his colleagues specialize either in Ancient or in Modern Greek, H’s research, focusing mainly on syntactic issues, covers an impressively wide temporal range from the earliest manifestations of Greek, the Mycenaean tablets and Homer’s dialect, to the present-day language. The reviewer must confess a weakness for Horrocks (1985), a little gem dealing with the interaction of aspect and modality in the history of Greek. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (henceforth Greek) comes up to the reader’s expectations.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 275
The book is organized in three sections: I. Ancient Greek: From Mycenae to the Roman Empire (pp.1–127), II. Byzantium: from Constantine I to Mehmet the Conqueror (pp.129–290), and III. Modern Greek: from the Ottoman Empire to the European Union (pp.291–365). Each section consists of several chapters which present us with different aspects of the external history (the history of the speakers) and its impact on internal history (the history of the language). Though Greek is not meant to be read as an historical grammar, H succeeds in drawing a comprehensive picture of the main phonological, morphological, and syntactic developments of each period. Especially welcome is the inclusion of a carefully chosen sample of texts representative of each period, which are accompanied by a phonetic transcription with an interlinear word-by-word gloss and an English translation. The texts and the isolated Greek words cited in sections I and II are accented according to the rules of traditional orthography. The monotonic system of accentuation is used throughout section III (even for texts written in the katharévousa!). The beautiful Christ mosaic from Hagia Sophia on the cover of the paper- back edition is an obvious hint that — to the great distress of many a classicist — Ancient Greek is not the omphalos of H’s book. All said, one must acknowledge that H manages to provide in his 127 pages more, and more precise, informa- tion on the main issues in the history of Ancient Greek (the ancient dialects, the meteoric rise of ‘Great Attic’ and its subsequent evolution into the Koine, etc.) than some longer monographs dealing exclusively with Ancient Greek. H addresses many other issues: the impact of foreign languages on Greek (Latin in the ancient period, the Romance languages in the Middle Ages, and Turkish in the Post-Byzantine period), the Balkan Sprachbund, the rise and fall of modern vernaculars. But the recurring theme which informs Greek is diglossia and the long antagonism between learned archaizing written forms of Greek and the spoken forms that evolved more naturally: Koine vs. local dialects in Antiquity, literary vs. popular Greek in Byzantium, puristic (katharé- vousa) vs. popular (dimotikí) in independent Greece. H’s view of diglossia and the ‘language question’ dispenses with the naiveness and anachronistic bias characteristic of previous accounts. H conceives of Byzantine middle- and high- register styles as the reflex of a continuously evolving tradition rather than as the product of more or less incompetent archaizing. Although H sides unmis- takably with the demoticists, he studies diglossia in its cultural and historical context, trying to identify the reasons — some legitimate, some utterly spurious — that led to the consecration of katharévousa as the official language of the Greek state in the 19th century up to its final dismissal in the aftermath of the
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 276 Book Reviews
fall of the military dictatorship in 1974. With the acceptance of Standard Modern Greek (SMG), a variety of demotic supplemented with elements borrowed from katharévousa, we meet for the first time since the Hellenistic period a “superordinate form of Greek … which offers a choice of registers appropriate to all spoken and written purposes” (p.365). Greek includes a short preface (xv–xvii), a syllabus of Greek orthography and pronunciation (pp.xix– xxi), a list of bibliographical references (pp.366–380), and a useful subject index (pp.381–393). This brief summary can hardly do justice to H’s merits. His book is ex- tremely well written. The issues are presented in a straightforward manner, honestly, with verve but without verbosity. There is very little linguistic jargon. H never loses sight of the data. One can only admire how, e.g., he manages to describe in an intelligible way the complex analogical developments in verbal morphology during the Middle Ages, not to speak of his compendium of the convoluted Byzantine history which reads like a thriller. H has consulted an enormous amount of bibliography (much of it in foreign languages). The printing of the book is unimpeachable. The criticisms that follow should be taken as a sign of my respect for H’s achievement. Most of my comments will have to do with phonological issues. As stated above, for every single Greek word he quotes, H gives a phonetic transcription of what he believes to be its pronunciation at a given moment, in a given dialect or style. This decision is both honest and risky, since many details of the pronunciation of Ancient and Medieval Greek are speculative and open to dispute. Most of the inaccuracies observed can be easily rectified in the second edition.1 H falls occasionally in the traps set by conventional orthography. Thus in ancient texts where a pitch accent is assumed, H regularly transcribes grammat- ical words like articles, relatives, prepositions, and conjunctions as accented, in accordance with traditional practice: e.g. κατ τ ν ν µον [katà tòn nómon] ‘according to the law’ (p.38), πως µ" φαν#σιν [hópo˜smè˜ phanô˜sin] ‘to the effect that they shall not appear’ (p.44), $κτεν% κα& φιλικν [ektenê˜ kaì philiké˜n] ‘long and friendly (fem.sg)’ (p.47), ' φρονες [hà phronî˜s] ‘what you mean’ (p.54–55), etc. Yet, to judge from the evidence found in spoken languag- es, these grammatical words — or at least most of them — must have been proclitic also in Ancient Greek. This intuition is corroborated by some internal evidence: a. Some words falling in these categories (all monosyllables) are nonaccented: the articles ( [ho], ) [h7˜], ο* [hoi], α* [hai] (as against ‘accented’ τ+ [to], τ,
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 277
[ta], τ+ν [ton], τν [t7˜n], etc.), the prepositions ε-ς [e˜s] (also $ς [es]) ‘into’, $ν [en] ‘in’, $ξ [eks] (also $κ [ek] before a consonant) ‘out of’, and /ς [hf˜s] ‘towards’ (as against ‘accented’ ξ0ν/σ0ν [(k)syn] ‘with’, πρ+ς [pros] ‘towards’, πρ+ [pro] ‘before’, 1ν, [ana] ‘upwards’, 1π+ [apo] ‘from’, etc.), the negative ο2(κ)[o˜k] (as against µ [m7´˜]), and the conjunctions ε- [e˜] ‘if’, /ς [hf˜s] ‘as’ (as against e.g. $,ν [ean] or 3ν [a˜n] ‘if’, τι [hoti] ‘that’, τε [hote] ‘when’, πως [hopf˜s] ‘in order that’, 4ως [heÛf˜s] ‘as long as’, etc.). The current rule, which was established at a late date (probably by Theodoros of Alexandria, 5th c.AD), is largely artificial. Accents — or rather the lack of them — serve as diacritic marks to distinguish monosyllabic homophones beginning with a vowel (and consequently with a breathing mark indicating the beginning of a new word): ) ‘the-nom.fem.sg’ vs. 5 ‘who-nom.fem.sg’ (cf. also 6 ‘who- dat.fem.sg’) and 7 ‘or’; ο* ‘the.nom.masc.pl’ vs. ο8 ‘who-nom.masc.pl’ and ο9 ‘whither’,‘he-irefl.dat.sg’; α* ‘the.nom.fem.pl’ vs. α8 ‘who-nom.fem.pl’; ε- ‘if’ vs. ε: ‘be-2sg’ or ‘will go-2sg’; /ς ‘to’ (preposition) and ‘as, that’ (conjunction) vs. ;ς ‘so’ (adverb, orthotonic). Note also ε-ς ‘into’ vs. ε9ς ‘one-nom.masc.sg’ (cf. also ε<ς or ε:ς ‘be-2sg’ in Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, etc.), $ν ‘in’ vs. 4ν ‘one-nom.acc.neut.sg’, $ξ ‘from’ vs. 4ξ ‘six’, ο2 ‘not’ vs. ο= ‘who- gen.masc.sg’, ‘where’. This seems to indicate that, at the time when the rule was established, h- was no longer pronounced: [en], [eks], [u]. For reasons of orthographic coherency, the lack of an accent mark in ε-ς, $ξ, and ο2 was generalized to their variants $ς, $κ, and ο2κ, ο2χ. b. Prepositions usually combine with accented pronouns (e.g. ε-ς $µ? [e˜s emé] ‘to me’, πρ ς $µ? [pros emé] ‘towards me’). The lower frequency of combina- tions like ε<ς µε [é˜s me], πρ+ς µε [prós me], with an enclitic pronoun and an accented preposition, suggests strongly that this was at variance with the typical intonational pattern of prepositional phrases like ε-ς θεο0ς [e˜stheó˜s] ‘to the gods’, πρ ς βορ?αν [pros boréan] ‘northwards’. In SMG, prepositions, always proclitic, combine exclusively with orthotonic personal pronouns: απ+ µ?να [apo Ámena] ‘from me’, απ’ α0τ+ν [ap afÁton] ‘from him’, not *απ+ µε *[aÁpo me], *απ+ τον *[aÁpo ton]. c. The proclitic character of prepositions is also consistent with their tendency to undergo apocope of the final vowel: e.g. *προσ (cf. Hom. προτ) >Ion.-Att. πρ+ς [pros] ‘toward’,Hom. πρ (=παρ) ποταµ+ν ‘along the river (bank)’, κπ (=κατ) πεδον ‘across the plain’, etc; cf. also SMG απ+ τον κ0ριο [ap to] Á:irjo] ‘from the gentleman’. d. As a rule, [a˜o], [a˜o˜] sequences remained uncontracted in Boeotian.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 278 Book Reviews
However, contraction applied regularly to the genitive plural feminine of the article τAν (cf. τAν Mωσ,ων [ta˜nmfsá˜f˜n] ‘of the Muses’=Att. τ#ν Mουσ#ν) and to the conjunction Bς [a˜s] ‘as long as’ (< *Bος =Att. 4ως). This is indicative of proclisis since, otherwise, accented lexical bisyllables are known to offer resistance to contraction: Att. θε+ς [theós] ‘god’ as against $νθουσι,ζειν [entho˜siázde˜n] ‘to be possessed by a god’. e. In some of the archaic inscriptions which make use of interpuncts, the domain represented by punctuation is unequivocally the phonological word, i.e. a lexical host word + its surrounding grammatical clitics (Morpurgo Davies 1987; Devine & Stephens 1994:326–329). Thus in the curses of Teos (Dirae Teiae, DGE 710; ca. 475–450 BC): • $π& TηDοισιν • τ ξυν ν • E$π’ -διFτηι [epi t7˜íoisin to ksynòn e˜ ep idif´˜t7˜i] ‘against the Teans as a community’ (a 2). The same principle obtains usually for word division in the syllabic Cyprian inscriptions (e.g. ICS 217; Idalion, ca. 475 BC): ka-se-ap-o-to-li-se (=κς G πτ+λις) [kas (h)a˜ ptólis] ‘and the city’. For further arguments on proclitics, cf. Devine & Stevens (1994:358–361). In the transcription of texts of the late Antiquity, H — quite correctly — dispenses with the mark of stress (Á) in the words at issue, but only if they are monosyllables: e.g. πρ ς τ ν θε+ν [pros to(n) theÁo(n)] (sic) ‘to God’ (p.94). Conversely, bisyllabic prepositions and conjunctions remain stressed: e.g. HπIρ α2τοJ τοJ πρ,γµατος [iÁper aφÁtu tu Ápra>matos] ‘concerning this matter’ (p.93), περ& τοJ φωτ+ς [peÁri tu phoÁtos] ‘concerning the light’ (p.94), µετ χρ+νον τιν, [meÁta Ákhronon dina] ‘after a while’ (p.96), 1λλ χ,ριν ε-δ?ναι [alÁla Ákharin i˜Ádenai] ‘but the expression “kharin eidenai (thanks)”’ (p.94), ο2χ [7λπ]ιζον τι 1ναβ?νις (=1ναβανεις) [ukh Áilpizon Áoti anaÁvenis] ‘I was not expecting you to be going up’ (p.120), ε8να (=8να) $νπρως (=$µπερως) κοπL [Áina emÁbiros koÁpi] ‘so that (the trees) may be cut skilfully’ (p.114), etc. The same rule is adopted for Byzantine texts: cf. Hπ τοJτον τ ν χρ+νον [iÁpo Átuton to]Áxronon] ‘around this time’ (p.170), 1µφ& τL µετ,ξM [amÁfiti meÁtaksi] ‘about the silk’ (p.170), µετ γραµµ,των [meÁta >raÁmaton] ‘with letters’ (p.184), ;σπερ α2τ#ν [Áosper afÁton] ‘as (if) to them’ (p.173), δι+τι $κεNσε [ðiÁoti eÁkise] ‘because there’ (p.195), καθOς κα& ( θεNος α2τοJ [kaÁθos ke o Áθios aÁtu] ‘just as his uncle’ (p.198), 1λλ π,ντες ο* κ+µητες [aÁla Ápandes i Ákomites] ‘but all the counts’ (p.198), 8να φυλ,ττM [Áina fiÁlati] ‘to keep-2sg his faith’ (p.198), $πε& ( µIν 1ριθµ+ς [eÁpi o men ariÁθmos] ‘since, on the one hand, the number’ (p.200), 1φοJ δI γ?γονα [aÁfu ðe Áje>ona] ‘when I became’ (p.267), etc. The accent of monosyllabic ν, in Pδ0νη ν µI σφ,ζM [oÁðini Ána me Ásfazi]
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 279
‘that my agony may slay me’ (p.282) is probably unintentional since otherwise ν, is consistently transcribed as unstressed. In the Modern Greek section, transcriptions like κατ, νουν [kaÁta nun] ‘in mind’, αλλ, µη χρωπαντελFς αυτας [aÁla mi xro pandeÁlos afÁtes] ‘but do not use them at all’, ,παξ δις εχρσαντο [Áapaks i ðis eÁxrisando] ‘they used (them) once or twice’ (p.325) correspond closely with the conventions of monotonic orthography (monosyllables are nonaccented), but are at odds with real accentuation: [kata Ánun], [ala Ámi Áxro pandeÁlos afÁtes], [Áapaks i Áðis eÁxrisando]. Cf. also λεβ?ντη, που παγανεις; [leÁvendi pu paÁjenis] ‘young man, where are you going?’ (p.319) for [leÁvendi Ápu paÁjenis] with stressed interrogative που ‘where?’. H (p.208–209) accepts the commonly admitted “shift of the accent to the final syllable (or more accurately, the loss of their true lexical accent and the acquisition of a secondary ‘phrasal accent’)” in 8να, πως, που. The justifica- tion for this accent shift is the loss of the unstressed initial vowel in SMG να, πως, που:thus8να ’το µ,θω [Áina to Ámaθo] ‘that I may learn it’ > *ν, ’το µ,θω [iÀna to Ámaθo] > ν, το µ,θω [na to Ámaθo]. But accepting that grammatical words were nonaccented renders unnecessary such a deus ex machina: [ina to Ámaθo] >[na to Ámaθo]. The same explanation accounts also for the ‘accent shift’ in Ancient Greek prepositions like e.g. παρ,. The original paroxytone accentuation π,ρα is preserved in tmesis (1a), in anastrophe (1b), and in existential constructions with no explicit verb (1c). Oxytone παρ, (used as a citation form) resulted from enclisis in connected speech (1d). (1) a. π,ρα γρ θεο ε-σι κα& )µNν pára gar theoí e˜si kai h7mí˜n near for gods be-3pl also we-dat ‘for the gods are on our side as well’ (Il.3.440) b. Qδ’ $ς ν%ας 8κανε θεοJ π,ρα h7`˜ desn7´˜as híkane theó˜ pára she and into ship-acc.pl come-imperf.3pl god-gen.sg near ‘and she came to the ships sent by a god (lit. from near a god)’ (Il. 19.3) c. τR δ’ α-ε& π,ρα ε9ς γε θε#ν tˆf˜i d aieì pára hê˜sge theˆf˜n he-dat and always near one emph god-gen.pl ‘and one of the gods did stand always by him’ (Il.5.603)
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 280 Book Reviews
d. παρ, τε κλισM κα& νηS µελανM pará te klisí7˜i kai n7˜ì melaín7˜i near and tent-dat.sg and ship-dat.sg black-fem.dat.sg ‘near the tent and the black ship’ (Il.1.329) A similar ‘accent shift’ is found in 3λλα [álla] ‘other-neut.pl’>AGk1λλ, [alla] ‘but’ (oxytone [allá] as a citation form). Cf. Late Latin per hoc [per Áfc] ‘for this reason’ >It. però [perÁf] ‘however >Sp. pero [pero] ‘but’ (paroxytone [Ápero] when cited in isolation and relexicalized as a noun meaning ‘objection’; cf.E. no ifs, ands, or buts). Note further AGk (ποNος [hopoíos] ‘of whatever sort’ >SMG [ Áopjos] ‘whoever’ (also proclitic [opjos]): e.g. ας το φ,ει +ποιος θ?λει [as to Áfai opjos Áθeli] and, more emphatic, [as to Áfai Áopjos Áθeli] ‘whoever wants it may have it’. The stress shift in +ποιος is usually attributed to the influence exerted by +που [Áopu] ‘wher(ever)’, +πως [Áopos] ‘just as, in whatever way’, +ταν [Áotan] ‘when’ (AGk που [hópo˜] ‘where’, πως [hópf˜s] ‘as’, ταν [hótan] ‘when’). Note also SMG +ποτε [Áopote] ‘whenever’ (as against AGk paroxytone (π+τε [hopóte] ‘as’ and SMG οπ+τε [oÁpote] ‘so that’). But the words at issue can be proclitic in connected speech. H’s rules of syllabication — indirectly inferable from the position of the accent marker in phonetic transcriptions — depend also to a large extent on orthography. For instance, tautosyllabic [f]/[v] + liquid clusters usually correspond to the spellings φρ, φλ/βρ, βλ as in $τυφλFθην [etyÁfloθin] ‘I was blinded’ (p.186), ε2καταφρ+νητα [efkataÁfronita] ‘insignificant-nom.neut.pl’ (p.195), ( Mυροβλ0της [o miroÁvlitis] (p.203); an exception is παρευρ?θης [pareÁvreθis] ‘you were there’ (p.195). Conversely [vr] is transcribed as hetero- syllabic in Λαυρ?ντιος [lavÁrendios] ‘Laurence’ (p.193), ε2ρ0ς [evÁris] ‘broad- masc.nom.sg’ (p.222). From an orthographical point of view, αυ [av/af] and ευ [ev/ef] behave as inseparable units, i.e. as if they still were ‘diphthongs’. For similar reasons the cluster [ft] is heterosyllabic in α2τ+ς [afÁtos] ‘this’ (p.214 et passim), but tautosyllabic in λεφτ, [leÁfta] ‘money’ (p.215). The criteria of transcriptions are not always consistent. In modern texts the allophone of /x/ before front vowels is transcribed with the specific IPA symbol of [ç]: e.g. ψυχ [psiÁçi] ‘soul’ σχµα [Ásçima] ‘shape’ (p.347); but the corre- sponding stop is represented by [k¸] with a diacritic indicating palatality: υλικν [iliÁk¸in] ‘substance-acc.sg’, κατασκευασµ?νον [katask¸evazÁmenon] ‘made- neut.acc.sg’ (p.347), και [k¸e] (p.347), or — inadvertently? — as [k] on p.355: cf. δοτικ%ς [dotiÁkis] ‘dative-gen.sg’, ελληνικ [elliniÁki] (sic) ‘Greek-fem.sg’, κοιν+ν [kiÁnon] ‘public’, και [ke] ‘and’.Surprisingly, palatalization is ignored in k + yod clusters: και απ+ [kj apo] ‘and from’, γλυκει, [>liÁkja] ‘sweet-fem.sg’
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 281
(p.349); an exception is και αν δFσει [k¸j an Áðosi] ‘and if (he) grants’ (p.331). This is especially inappropiate since yod, the palatalizing environment, tends to absorb into the palatalized consonant: γλυκει, [>liÁca], βρ,χια [Ávraça] ‘rocks’. Consistency would have us expect either ‘broad’ transcriptions of ‘underlying phonemes’ /x/, /k/ or ‘narrow’ transcriptions of ‘surface’ [k¸],[x¸] or [c], [ç], but not a mixed system. In a similar vein, H transcribes l + yod clusters as [ˆ]: e.g. τα µαλλι, [ta maÁˆa] ‘the hair’ (p.320), στην σπηλη,ν [sti(n) spiÁˆa(n)] ‘in the cave’ (p. 331), λιο [Áiˆo] ‘sun-acc.sg’ (p.349) (an exception is δουλει, [ðuÁlja] ‘work’ (p.354)). But n + yod clusters are represented as [nj]: ο νι+ς [o Ánjos] ‘the young man’ (p.318) καταχνι, [kataxÁnja] ‘mist’, σε µαρµαρ?νι’ αλFνι [se marmaÁrenj aÁlon¸ i] ‘on (the) marble threshing-floor’ (with [n¸ ] representing the dialectal palatalization of /ni/!), but cf. φ?ρνει [Áferni] ‘(he)’s wearing’, παγανεις [paÁjenis] ‘you are going’, etc., all with [ni], in the same text) (p.319), µι, [mnja] ‘a-fem’, ορφ,νια [orÁfanja] ‘orphanhood’, παρανι, [paraÁnja] ‘very- young-fem.sg’ (p.320), µι,ν [m(n)ja(n)] ‘a-acc.fem’, γονηFν [>onÁjon] ‘parent-gen.pl’ (p.331). As to the phonological development of Ancient Greek, H relies mainly on the works of Teodorsson (1974, 1977, 1978) and Gignac (1976). He accepts Teodorsson’s hypothesis that most of the changes that contributed to the ‘Great Vowel Shift’ in Attic had already taken place in the classical period in the more popular styles. This is quite possible, indeed probable. But, as H himself (p.105) acknowledges, ‘much inevitably hinges on the interpretation of what remains a fairly small number of documents exhibiting the relevant errors’. In the reviewer’s opinion, the documentary evidence is too flimsy to confirm the ‘radical’ chronology espoused by Teodorsson and especially by his epigoni. Like other scholars, I prefer to stick to the more ‘conservative’ dating postulated e.g. by Threatte (1980). On the other hand, the interpretation of some of the data is questionable. Thus, for instance, H reports that “the frequent omission of prevocalic /i/ [properly speaking, of the letter ·ιÒ in prevocalic position] is standardly taken to mark a popular and/or allegro pronunciation [j] in that position” (p.111). This is quite likely in cases like e.g. κυρ, (for κυρα ‘lady’) (4th c. AD) possibly [kyÁra](<[kyÁrja]) or τριακ+σα (for τριακ+σια ‘three hundred-neut.pl’ (3rd/4th c. AD) possibly [trjaÁkosa] (examples from Gignac 1976:302–304), which are confirmed by the fate of yod in SMG νοικοκυρ, [nikociÁra] ‘house- wife’ (< ο-κοκυρα), τρακ+σα (colloquial for τριακ+σια [trjaÁkosja]). In other contexts we must be dealing with simple mistakes. Gignac tells us e.g. that the
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 282 Book Reviews
omission of ·ιÒ is especially frequent after a liquid or nasal, but I can hardly see how a spelling like κονχ0λον for κογχ0λιον ‘shell’ (AD 213) could be meant to represent synizesis ([ko]Ákhyljon]?) or the palatalization of the consonant cum yod-absorption ([ko]Ákhyˆon]?). Would a speaker of SMG have recourse to spellings like *παλ,,*καµ,,or*παν, in order to represent more accurately the palatals of παλι, [paÁˆa], καµι, [kaÁm\a], and πανι, [paÁ\a]? Mies van der Rohe’s minimalist dictum ‘less is more’ has little application to the representa- tion of segmental phonology. Incidentally, contrary to what H (p.290) suggests, the thoroughgoing palatalization of /r/ and /s/ to [rj] (cf. ˇr in Czech, a typo- logical rarity) and [w] is not an indispensable precondition for the loss of [-j-] resulting from synizesis: τριακ+σια [triaÁkosia] >[trja Ákosja] > τρακ+σα [traÁkosa] with no intermediate step *[trjaÁkowa]. H (p.112) presents us with another improbable scenario for the diffusion of the spirantization of /d/ (inspired by Gignac 1976:75–76): “the pronuncia- tion [ð] occurring first before [j], i.e. prevocalic /i/, from the first century AD, then before /i/ generally from the third century, and eventually in all positions, other than after nasals, from the fourth century onwards”. To the best of my knowledge, there is no articulatory or acoustic reason why a yod (or an /i/ vowel for that matter) should favour spirantization. The omission of ·ιÒ in e.g. δακ+σια (for διακ+σια ‘two hundred-neut.pl’) tell us nothing either about synizesis or about the pronunciation of ·δÒ. The fact that the interchange of ·ζÒ and ·δÒ occurs almost exclusively before an [i] vowel (e.g. Σαρ,πιζι for Σαρ,πιδι ‘Serapis-dat’orτραπεδNται for τραπεζNται ‘money-changers’; cf. also the type ζακοσας for διακοσας) — if not purely accidental owing to the high frequency of /i/ vis-à-vis the other vowels — could indicate that /i/ favoured a confusion of [z] and [ð], but not spirantization proper. The omission of σ [s] before τ [t], θ [th] and µ [m] in Phrygia can hardly be considered to reflect a characteristic of the phonology of Greek as spoken in Phrygia (p.64). Cross-linguistically /s/ is more prone to undergo weakening before labial and velar stops than before homorganic dental stops. The reason for the omission of σ being relatively frequent in στ and σθ clusters must be purely statistical: στ and σθ are much more frequent than σπ, σκ and σφ, σχ. H accepts (pp.39, 109, 110) the traditional view that /e/ had an especially close articulation in some contexts (prevocalically and before liquids, nasals and /s/). In some ancient dialects like Boeotian and later on in the Koine this [e] (especially in prevocalic position) was raised to an [i], which in time underwent synizesis: e.g. θε+ς [theós] ‘god’ >Boeot. θι+ς [thiós] >[t hjós] (example mine). Once again, I fail to see any cogent reason why tongue-tip [i.e. dental and
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 283 alveolar] articulations should encourage a dramatically closer articulation of a neighbouring [e» ] (p.110). As to prevocalic /e/, its raising to /i/ is just an optical illusion. The sequences [eo], [ea] underwent synizesis into [eÛo], [eÛa]. In time [eÛ] (i.e. nonsyllabic /e/) evolved into a protypical [j]-glide which for lack of a specific notation was represented — just as in SMG — with the spelling ·ιÒ: θε+ς [theós] >[t heÛós] > θι+ς [thjós] (or for that matter [theÁos] >[ ÁtheÛos] > θι+ς [Áthjos]). Misspellings like θει+ς (for θε+ς) are not indicative of the presumptive close quality of prevocalic /e/. They result from hypercorrection since prevocalic /e˜/ and /7˜/ were liable to abbreviation and synizesis: cf. AGk 1λθεια [aléθe˜a] ‘truth’ >SMG 1λθεια [aÁliθça]. The accent shift in e.g. AnGk γραNα >SMG γρι, [>riÁa] provides undeniable evidence for an earlier stage with nonsyllabic [j]: AnGk γραNα [graîa˜] ‘old woman’ >[ Á>rea] >[ Á>reÛa] >[ Á>rja] >[ >riÁa]. For further details see Méndez Dosuna (1993). A related issue is the shift of -ιον,-ιος (also -εον,-εος) into [-in], [-is] (variously written as -ιν,-ις,-ειν,-εις or -ην,-ης) abundantly attested in ancient dialects and in the Koine: e.g. ’ΑντFνιος ‘Anthony’ >’ ΑντFνις (SMG ΑντFνης [anÁdonis]); cf. also Late Laconian Α2ρλιν,’Αριστοτ?ληρ (< Α2ρλιον ‘Aurelius-acc’, ’ Αριστοτ?λεος ‘Aristoteles-gen’. Like other scholars, H (pp.117–118) believes that “the loss of [o] must be assumed to antedate the synizesis of antevocalic [i].” So he clings to the unlikely hypothesis that -ις and -ιν originated in “hypocoristic forms of masculine names and neuter diminutives used as names.” Actually, a change [joC#] >[iC#] with revocali- zation of [j] (samprasarana) is perfectly acceptable in the light of evolutions like Lat. vespa ‘wasp’ >MedSp. aviespa [aÁöjespa] >MnSp. avispa [aÁöispa]. Lat. Florentiae >MedIt. Fiorenze [fjoÁrentse] >MnIt. Firenze,[fiÁrentse]. The genitive singular π+λης >[Ápolis] of SMG (cf. already spellings like πρ,σις [Áprasis] (for πρ,σεως [ÁpraseÛos] ‘sale-gen’) in PMich. 121 V 1, 4, etc. (AD 42)) need not be explained as the result of four-part analogy (e.g. νκην [Ánikin] ‘victory-acc’: νκης [Ánikis] ‘victory-gen’= π+λιν [Ápolin]: x) (p.220), but as the regular phonetic outcome of AnGk π+λεως [póleÛf˜s] >[ ÁpoleÛos] >[ Ápoljos] >[ Ápolis]. There can be little doubt that the shift from a pitch accent to a stress accent was a major change in the phonology of Greek. Still, H is probably overestimat- ing its explanatory potential. Thus he believes (p.67) that a strong stress accent induced vowel weakening in unstressed vowels, particularly in final syllables. This weakening in turn was a catalyst for the substitution, frequently attested in Egyptian papyri, of 3rd declension nominative plural [-es] for the accusative [-as] via an intermediate stage [-6s]: cf. π,ντες τοVς φλους [Ápand6s tus Áfilus] (H’s transcription) ‘all-acc.pl the-acc.pl friends-acc.pl’.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 284 Book Reviews
But not all the relevant misspellings found in the Egyptian papyri must be taken at face value. I doubt that πρ,γαµατος (for πρ,γµατος ‘matter-gen.sg’) on a letter dating from AD 104 may represent a (hypercorrect?) pronunciation [Ápra>6matos] (p.116). A repetition of the letter ·αÒ in the adjacent syllables is a more probable explanation. The experience of any teacher who has to read dozens of student exercises each year indicates that mechanical misspellings of this type are not rare. Again, many of the instances of an interchange between E and O (cf. Wτι for τι ‘that’ pronounced [6ti] according to H (p.116)) can be attributed to the similarity of O and lunate E rather than to phonetic reasons. Finally, even accepting that a part of the evidence is demonstrative of such a change, one has the right to doubt whether vowel weakening was not an exclusive peculiarity of Egyptian Greek not to be found in other varieties. In the specific case of the 3rd declension acc.pl -ες, H’s suggestion is unlikely on several counts: (a) The earliest instances of such a change are attested in ancient dialects (cf. 6th c. Elean τ?τορες [tétores]=Att. τ?τταρας [téttaras] ‘four-acc’) where no evidence for vowel weakening is available. (b) Instances of 1st declension accusative plural in -ες occur only at a much later date. (c) In SMG -ες is [-es]. Since a phonetic change [-6s] >[-es] is unheard- of, the step *[-6s] must be dispensed with. (d) In fact, a vowel can be lost directly: cf. SMG ,σε µε [Áase me] ‘leave me (alone)’ vs. ας τον [Áas ton] ‘leave him (alone)’ (no intermediate *[Áas6]); likewise απ(+) ‘of, from’ in απ+ µ?να [apo Ámena] ‘from me’ vs. απ+ τον κ0ριο [ap to]Ágirjo] ‘from the gentleman’ (no intermediate *[ap6]). (e) There is nothing implausible about an explanation in terms of a purely analogical levelling. Significantly, Ancient Greek attests to other instances of nominative plural serving the function of an accusative: e.g. recent Att. ο* βασιλεNς (for earlier βασιλ%ες, βασιλ%ς) ‘the king-nom.pl’, τοVς βασιλεNς (for earlier βασιλ?α¯ς). According to H (p.117), stress would also account for the simplification of double consonants: e.g. πρ+γραµα [Ápro>rama] in POxy. 1155 (AD 104) for πρ+γραµµα ‘affair’. But this is contradicted i.a. by the evidence of modern South-Eastern dialects, which preserve geminate consonants: cf. Cypriot πρ+γραµµαν [Ápro>ramman] ‘programme’. The following comments concern particular questions: H (p.15) interprets the suffix -µεναι of the Lesbian infinitive of athematic verbs as a blend of West Greek/Aeolic -µεν [-men] and East Greek -ναι [-nai]. In fact, the ending -αι, whatever its original function, occurs in other infinitives (cf. -σαι [-sai] in the sigmatic aorist and -σθαι [-sthai] in the middle voice) so that a segmentation -µεν-αι seems to be more to the point.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 285
A characteristic feature of Ionic of scientific and literary prose (e.g. Hero- dotus) is the use of (P)κ- in some pronominal and adverbial forms in place of (P)π- of Attic and the other dialects: e.g. lit. Ion. κ#ς [kˆf˜s] ‘how?’, PκοNος [okoîos] ‘of whatever sort’ vs. Att. π#ς [pˆf˜s], (ποNος [hopoîos] (/p/ is the regular outcome of PIE *kw before an o-vowel, there are various alternative hypotheses to explain unexpected /k/). At first sight, this seem to contradict the evidence of the inscriptions, which with a few — but crucial — exceptions (see below), exhibit forms of the (P)π-series. H (p.22) interprets this as evidence that the literary standard of Ionic prose was somewhat closer to local speech, or at least to one variety of it, than the standard of official documents and the language of poetry (for the most part). Yet the (P)π- series in inscriptions shows up only in the second half of the 4th c.B.C. in texts teeming with Attic features. Though admittedly few, the earliest epigraphical occurrences are invariably of the Pκ- type: cf. Pκ+σο¯ [okóso˜] (=Att. (π+σου) ‘(saying) at what price’ on a lead letter from Emporion (Spain), a colony of Phocaea (SEG 37, 838.13; c. 500 BC?), Xκο¯ (=Att. που ‘where(ever)’) at Sigeion (Pech-Maho, France), a colony of Miletus (SEG 38, 1036.7; ca. 450–400), and PκοNα [okoîa] ‘whichever things’ at Erythrai (IEryth 205.11; c. 380–360 BC). Consequently, (P)π- must not be considered a local feature, but just one among the numerous features which official Ionic incorporated during the 4th century B.C. as a result of the overpowering influence of Attic (Stüber 1995:73). In IG 13 40, a treaty between Athens and Chalcis (446 BC), H (p.29), who cites López Eire (1993) as his source (see also López Eire 1997 [1999]:98), perceives a contrast between the language used in the formal oath (ll. 1–39) and that of the additional clauses proposed by two Athenian citizens (ll. 40–80). Two features found in the oath are considered diagnostic of the traditional ‘conservative’ official Attic of administrative documents: (a) the thematic ‘long’ dative plurals in -οισι(ν): Yθε¯ναοισι (l. 25), Yθε¯ναοισιν (l. 26) [ath7˜naíoisi(n)] ‘Athenian-dat.pl’, and (b) the preverb ξυν- (here written χσυν-) [ksyn-] ‘co-’: χσυλλ Øεφσοµαι (= ξυλλψοµαι [ksyll7´˜psomai]) ‘(I’)ll arrest’ (ll. 7–8), χσ0µµαχος [ksýmmakhos]) ‘ally’ (l. 27). Conversely, the additional clauses present us with innovative variants in line with the more ‘modern’ Ionicized Attic, already well-established in educated discourse: (a) ‘short’ dative plurals in -οις: Yθε¯ναοις [ath7˜naíois] ‘Athenian-masc.dat.pl’ (ll. 48–49, 52, 73, 79), τοNς [tois] ‘the-masc.dat.pl’ (l. 60); (b) phonetically reduced συν- [syn-]: συνεπιµελο¯σθο¯ν [synepimelf´˜sthf˜n] ‘let them have joint charge of’ (l. 68). This may well be so, but the document is not as probative as López Eire and H think. On the one hand, they fail to mention the occurrence of an unwarranted ‘short’
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 286 Book Reviews
dative in the official part: πειθοµ?νοις [peithoménois] ‘trusting-masc.dat.pl’ (l. 15). On the other hand, the formal oath was not made up in some public office, but by another citizen just like the additional clauses: cf. the formula ∆ι+γνετος ε:πε [dió]netos eîpe] ‘Diognetos said’ (l. 2) entirely identical to ’ΑντικλεZς ε:πε [antikl7´˜s eîpe] (l. 40) and ’Αρχ?στρατο[ς] ε:πε [arkhéstratos eîpe] (l. 70). The combination γν in γιγνFσκω ‘I know’, γγνοµαι ‘I become’ must stand for [-]n–] rather than for [-gn–] as assumed by H (p.35). This accounts for the — otherwise unexplainable — use of the letter γ as a means of representing allophonic []] before velar stops: cf. the preverb συν- ‘co-’ in e.g. συγγρ,φω [sy]gráphf˜] ‘I compose a writing’, συγκρνω [sy]krí˜nf˜] ‘I compare’, συγχαρω [sy]khaírf˜] ‘kinship’.Similarly, it is not altogether clear whether AnGk πρAγµα ‘thing’, the forerunner of (Medieval) Cypriot πρAµµαν [Ápramman] and SMG πρ,µα [Áprama], was pronounced [Ápra>ma] (so H p.288) or what seems more likely, [Ápra]ma]. H (p.39) reports that in Boeotian the monophthongization of the diph- thong /oi/ led to /e˜/ through a series of shifts [-oi-] >[-øi-] >[-ø ˜-] (written υ) >[-e ˜-] (written ει). H presents this as if it were common lore. Actually, this reconstruction was first postulated by the reviewer (Méndez Dosuna 1988, 1989). All earlier accounts assumed an intervening stage [y˜] (supposedly represented by υ) leading to [i˜] (supposedly represented by ει). The θ [th] in Boeotian ζ#νθι ‘they may live’ (a blend of Koine ζ#σι and truly dialectal δ#νθι) in place of expected τ [t] (cf. Doric ζ#ντι]) is not due to an occasional phonetic process of aspiration (p.39). The ending -νθι owes its θ to the analogy of middle 3pl -νθαι,-νθο (Att. -νται,-ντο), which in turn had borrowed it from 1pl -µεθα and 2pl -σθε. In addition, [zd-] and [d-] in aforementioned ζ#σι and δ#νθι must be alternative outcomes of *gwj- rather than successive steps in an unlikely evolution [zd-] >[d-]. H (pp.44–45) accepts the standard view that ο2θες [u˜thé˜s] ‘no one-masc’, the form that competes with ο2δες ([u˜thé˜s]) in postclassical times, is the ultimate outcome of the phrase ο2δI ε9ς [oudè hê˜s] ‘not even one’ via an evolution [u˜dè hê˜s] >[u ˜dhê˜s] >[u ˜thê˜s] >[u ˜thé˜s]. Yet a change [-d h-] > [-t h-] remains unparalleled in Greek. To my mind, the phrase ο[τε ε9ς ‘neither one’ is a more likely starting point: [oúte hê˜s] >[ó ˜thê˜s] >[o ˜thé˜s] >[u ˜thé˜s]; cf. κατ 4να [kata héna] > καθ’ 4να [kathéna] ‘one at a time’. The feminine ο2δεµα [u˜demía] remained unaltered due to its morphotactic transparency. Note the rare variant ο2θεµαν attested in a honorary decree found at Priene (IvPr 106.28; end of 2nd c.BC), which indicates that morphotactically opaque ο2θες [u˜thé˜s] could be interpreted as ο2θε + ε9ς.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 287
H (pp.116, 118) transcribes the aorist-perfect $µ?λκε (for (µ)εµ?ληκε [(m)eÁmelike] ‘it has concerned’) as [eÁmel¸ke]. But why should the (apparent) syncopation of unstressed [i] trigger the palatalization of /l/? Does H mean that the loss of the (supposedly) palatalizing environment led to the phonemici- zation of an /ˆ/? H (p.94) transcribes as unstressed all the instances of \ν (3sg.impf of ε-µ) in the beginning of the Gospel according to John:’Εν 1ρχL \ν ( λ+γος, κα& ( λ+γος \ν πρ ς τ ν θε+ν, κα& θε ς \ν ( λ+γος [en arÁkhiinoÁlo>os, ke o Álo>os im bros to(n) theÁo(n), ke theÁos in o Álo>os] ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’. This is groundless. Only the forms of the present tense of copulative ε-µ were enclitic: e.g. θε+ς $στν ( λ+γος [theós estin ho Álogos] ‘and the Word is God’. The imperfect was ortho- tonic. Moreover the present tense of existential ε-µ (as in $ν 1ρχL \ν ( λ+γος) is accented as orthotonic in standard orthography: e.g. τ γ?νος α2τ#ν Wστιν Wτι $ν τL π+λει [to génos autˆf˜n éstin éti en t7˜i póle˜] ‘the family of theirs still lives in the city’ (Th.1.126.6). H (p.108) believes that the old diphthong /7˜i/ (-ηι) ‘simply lost its final element and merged with /7˜/’ in conservative Athenian Attic while in Egyptian Greek /7˜i/ >/ei/ >/e ˜/ (-ei). Actually the evolution of Attic is somewhat more complex. In the early 4th c. BC, the vowel of /7˜i/ tended to undergo shortening: dat.sg βουλ%ι [bo˜lε¥˜i] > βουλεN [bo˜leî] or [bo˜lê˜] ‘council-dat.sg’ and (βο0λεαι >) βο0ληι > βο0λει ‘want-2sg’, which survives in the standard orthography. Later on, analogy succeeded in reversing partially the shift from ca. 200 BC in word-final position. Eventually, restored -ηι [e˜i] lost its second member (βουλ%ι [bo˜lê˜i] > βουλL [bo˜lê˜]) along with [a˜i] >[a ˜]: χFρ] [khó˜ra˜] ‘country-dat.sg’) and [o˜i] >[o ˜](λ+γ^ [lógo˜] ‘reason-dat.sg’). H refers to the use of the article (, ), τ+, almost always in oblique cases (i.e. with forms beginning with τ-), as a substitute for the classical relative pronoun ς, 5, in the Egyptian papyri (p.127) and in Byzantine Greek (p.225): cf. 1π τ#ν Wχις [aÁpo (sic) ton Áeçis] ‘from what you have’ (POxy. 1683, late 4th c.). This may be so in view of the formal similarity of the words in question (in other circumstances, the shift of an article into a relative pronoun seems unlikely). But it would be worthwhile to consider the alternative possibility that these article-like forms — especially in medieval texts — may be reduced variants of the anaphoric pronoun: e.g. α2τ+ν ‘him’ >SMG τον [ton]. In fact, the relative pronouns of Ancient Greek ς, 5, and (, ), τ+ (in Homer, Herodotus and many ancient dialects) arose out of anaphoric pronouns; cf. also E. that in e.g. That book and The book that H wrote.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 288 Book Reviews
H (p.167) hints at Turkish as a possible source for the postposed definite article found in most languages of the Balkan Sprachbund (Albanian, Bulgari- an/Macedonian, and Romanian). This is unlikely. On the one hand, Latin admitted of both ille homo ‘that man’ and homo ille ‘man-that’.These construc- tions are in the origin of e.g. It. l’uomo ‘the man’ and Rom. omul ‘man-the’ respectively. Thus, at least in the case of Romanian, the postnominal position of (proto-)article must antedate the arrival of the Turks by more than a millenni- um in the area. Even more importantly, Turkish has no article. The accusative suffix (-i [-i], -ı [-Y], -u [-u], -ü [-y] as dictated by the rule of vowel harmony) is not a “definiteness marker of object nominals”, but an object marker (om) for definite nouns, which is not quite the same thing (Enç 1991). Cf. the examples under (2): (2) a. adam-lar gör-dü-ler man-pl see-past-3pl ‘The men saw’ or ‘Some men saw’ b. adam-lar gör-dü-m man-pl see-past-1sg ‘I saw some men’ c. adam-lar-ı gör-dü-m man-pl-om see-past-1sg ‘I saw the men’ d. sen-i gör-dü-m 2sg-om see-past-1sg ‘I saw you’ Arguably, there exists a cross-linguistic connection between definiteness and case marking which is mediated by topicality (referential prominence). Subjects are prototypically topical and (referentially prominent) topics tend to be definite. For this reason definite NPs turn out to be better candidates for the role of subject so that they are more likely to receive case marking when they assume the role of an object, a less topical case-role (2c). Importantly the object marker is added also to pronouns, which are intrinsically definite (2d). This is reminiscent of the situation in Spanish where the ‘preposition’ a ‘to’ serves as a marker of some animate objects (3). The om is obligatory with a [+determinate] animate object in (3a). With [−determinate] objects the presence of a in example (3b) favours a [+specific] reading while its absence (Ø) in (3c) is an indication of a [−specific] object (see e.g. Bruggè & Brugger 1996).
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 289
(3) a. Vi a la mujer see-perf.1sg om the-fem.sg woman ‘I saw the woman’ b. Vi a una mujer see-perf.1sg om a-fem.sg woman ‘I saw a woman (specific)’ c. Vi una mujer see-perf.1sg Øa-fem.sg woman ‘I saw a woman (unspecific)’ Regarding the role of Greek in the progressive demise of infinitival construc- tions in the languages of the Balkan area, H (p.167) does not mention the fact that in some Romance vernaculars of Southern Italy (partly spoken in formerly Greek-speaking territory) the infinitive with control verbs has yielded to finite constructions even when the subjects of the main and the subordinate clauses are identical (4). (4) a. Ancient Greek $θ?λωκοιµηθ%ναι ethélf˜ koim7˜th7´˜nai want-1sg sleep-past.perf.inf b. Standard Modern Greek θ?λωνα κοιµηθF Áθelo na cimiÁθo want-1sg part sleep-past.perf.subj.1sg c. Calabrian Greek Áθelo na cumiÁθo want-1sg part sleep-past.perf.subj.1sg d. Calabrian Romance vernacular ÁvoddŠumuÁddormu want-1sg part sleep-1sg d. Standard Italian voglio dormire Ávf‡‡odorÁmire want-1sg sleep-inf ‘I want to sleep’ SMG πλ0θηκα ‘I washed (reflexive)’ is not a valid example of the loss of a nasal before a fricative (p.207). Classical Greek had $πλ0θην, not **$πλ0νθην. H (p.229) remains uncertain as to whether the indeclinable gerund of
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 290 Book Reviews
Medieval and Modern Greek in -οντα(ς) [-onda(s)] goes back to the masculine accusative singular or to the neuter nominative-accusative plural, both forms being homophonous. On p.123 he leans towards the latter. Participles in -οντα [-onda], being “essentially adverb-like modifiers”, have to be connected with the fact that “neuter plural adjectives in in -α [-a] had been used adverbially since classical times”: cf. SMG τα καλ, σπτια [ta kaÁla Áspitja] ‘the good houses’ and π,µε καλ, [Ápame kaÁla] ‘we’re getting along well’ (examples mine). But to my mind three arguments seem to speak for the masculine accusative singular: a. The gerund is nearly always subject-oriented, i.e. it functions as a modifier of the subject: a sentence like τους βρκαµε πηγανοντας σπτι [tus Ávrikame piÁNenondas Áspiti] ‘them found-1pl going home’ is more likely to be interpreted as ‘we found them as we were going home’ than as ‘we found them as they were going home’. Now prototypical subjects tend to display higher agentivity than other participants. Prototypical masculines (i.e. semantically, syntactically, and, morphologically masculine: e.g. AnGk βασιλε0ς ‘king’, ο=τος ‘this one’) are [+human] and, consequently, [+agentive]. Conversely, prototypical neuters (e.g. AnGk αγ,λµατα ‘statues’, ταJτα ‘this-neut.pl’) are [−human], and consequently, [−agentive]. Thus, other things being equal, a subject-oriented category is more likely to have developed out of a masculine than out of a neuter. b. In generic statements involving an AcI construction like the one in (5), participles — like other modifiers — usually stand in the accusative singular (cf. $πιδεικν0οντα) in agreement with the subject of the infinitive, i.e. an indefinite (or generic) pronoun τινα [tina] ‘anyone-acc.sg’,which is commonly omitted. (5) 1νθρFπους δ’ Wστι πιθανωτ?ρους ποιεZιν anthrf´˜po˜s d ésti pithanf˜téro˜s poiê˜n person-acc.pl and be-3sg more obedient-acc.pl make-imperf.inf κα& λ+γ^, $πιδεικν0οντα /ς συµφ?ρει α2τοNς kai lógf˜i epide˜knýonta hf˜ssymphére˜ autoís also word-dat.sg pointing-out-acc.sg that.is convenient they-dat.pl πεθεσθαι pé˜thesthai persuade-past.imperf.inf ‘And in the case of human beings it is possible to make them more obe- dient merely by word of mouth, pointing out that it is to their advantage to obey’ (X. Oec. 13.9) c. The oldest instances of motionless participles are masculine (Langholf 1977 and Petersmann 1979). H himself (pp.124–125) quotes a relevant example in
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 291 a letter addressed to a lady on a late 4th c. papyrus (POxy. 1683) ε[χωµαι τR κυρ^ θεR … πως H» [ι?]ν» οντα σο& κα& ε2θυµοJντι 1πωλ,βης (sc. ε[χοµαι τR κυρ^ θεR … πως Hγιανουσα σV κα& ε2θυµοJσα 1πολ,βMς)‘Ipraytothelord god … that you receive my letter in good health and in good spirits’ (H’s translation), where υ*?νοντα (acc.masc.sg) and ε2θυµοJντι (dat.masc.sg) stand for expected Hγιανουσα and ε2θυµοJσα (nom.fem.sg). Contrary to what H believes (p.214), there is no mystery in the fact that AnGk σφ [sph] evolved into MnGk σφ [sf] (AnGk σφξ [sph7´˜ks] ‘wasp’ >SMG σφκα [Ásfika]) while σθ [sth] and σχ [skh] evolved into στ [st] and σκ [sk]: AnGk _κο0σθην [7˜kó˜sth7˜n] ‘I was heard’, µ+σχος [móskhos] ‘calf’ >(S)MG ακο0στηκα [aÁkustika], µ+σκος [Ámoskos]. The sibilant blocked the spirantization of a following partially or completely homorganic aspirated stop, but failed to do so in the case of nonhomorganic /ph/. H (p.215) states that the contraction of two like vowels “was frequently associated with a regression of the accent if the first of the two vowels was stressed: e.g. $ποηκα [eÁpiika] ‘I made/did’ […] >( $)ποNκα [(e)Ápika] or Wποικα [Áepika].” Similarly for the 2/3sg of the verbs in -(ν)ν0ω (AGk -(ν)νυµι), H (p.235) posits contraction -(ν)ν0εις/-(ν)ν0ει [−Ániis]/[−Ánii] >[−nis]/[−ni] followed by “a shift of the accent back one syllable”: cf. AGk δεικν0ει [de˜knýe˜] >SMG δεχνει [Ádixni] ‘(he) shows’. Actually the accent shift was not triggered by contraction, but by analogy: δεχνει follows the model of the common type κρνει [Ákrini] ‘(he) judges’. Likewise the aorist Wποικα was reaccented after the model of e.g. Wδωκα [Áeðoka] ‘(I) gave’. A similar backshift is found in cases which have nothing to do with vowel contraction: cf. AGk $τελεωσα [etelé˜f˜sa] >SMG τ?λειωσα [Áteˆosa] ‘(I) finished’ (competing with learned τελεωσα [teÁliosa]) in place of regularly expected *τελειFσα [teÁˆosa] (for the accent shift concomitant with synizesis, cf. AnGk βαρεNα [barê˜a˜] ‘heavy-fem.sg’ >SMG βαρι, [vaÁrja]). Aor. τ?λειωσα arose through four-part analogy: e.g. δηλFνω [ðiÁlono] ‘(I) declare’: ($)δλωσα [(e)Áðilosa] ‘(I) declared’=τελειFνω [teÁˆono]: x. Similarly late AnGk 1τελεωτος [ateÁliotos] >SMG ατ?λειωτος [aÁteˆotos] ‘endless’ (side by side with learned 1τελεωτος) for *ατελειFτος [ateÁˆotos] after the model of e.g. ζευγαρFνω [zev>aÁrono] ‘(I) match’: αζευγ,ρωτος [azevÁ>arotos] ‘uncoupled’. Also AnGk 1φ%κα (the accent could not recede beyond the augment) >MedGk 3φηκα/3φησα ‘(I) left’ (with the prefix reinter- preted as part of the root). H (p.216) states that the [e] of the SMG preposition σε ‘to’(
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 292 Book Reviews
$µ?να (cf. SMG σε µ?να [se Ámena] ‘to me’ as against e.g. εµ?να το επε [eÁmena to Áipe] ‘(s)he told it to me’). A similar explanation holds for 1π?, a variant of 1π+ ‘from’ occurring in medieval works, especially before the article. Cf. also SMG κ,θε [Ákaθe] ‘each, every’ (from καθ’ 4να [kaθ Áena] < AnGk καθ’ 4να [kathéna] ‘one at a time’). H (p.220–221) believes that the i-vowel in the feminine plural forms of the SMG article οι [i] ‘the-nom.fem.pl’ (for α* [e]) and τις [tis] ‘the-acc.fem.pl’ (for MedGk τες [tes] < AnGk τας [ta˜s]) is due to the analogy exerted by the corresponding singular forms. ) [i] ‘the-nom.fem.sg’, τ(ν) [ti(n)] ‘the- acc.fem.sg’, τ%ς [tis] ‘the-gen.fem.sg’. This is objectionable if only because an [−i] ending in the nominative plural must have been perceived as prototypically masculine: cf. nom.pl µ,στοροι [Ámastori], µαστ+ροι [masÁtori] (nom.sg µ,στορας [Ámastoras], µ,στορης [Ámastoris] ‘master workman’), nom.pl κοκ+ροι [koÁkori] (nom.sg κ+κορας [Ákokoras] ‘cock’). To my mind, the feminine plural [i] arose as a prevocalic variant [j] in connected speech: α* 1δελφα [e aðelÁfe] ‘the sisters’ >[eÛ aðelÁfe] >[j aðel Áfe] (cf. παλαι, [paleÁa] > [paÁlja] >SMG παλι, [paÁˆa] ‘old-fem.sg’). For a similar alternation, cf. SMG και [ce] vs. κι [c(j)] ‘and’: και σµερα [ce Ásimera] ‘and today’ vs. κι α0ριο [cj Áavrio] ‘and tomorrow’.Later on, the rule /e/ Æ [j]/___#V was reanalysed as /i/ Æ [j]/___#V so that the variant [i] (conventionally spelt as ο*) spread to all contexts: ο* µητ?ρες [i miÁteres] ‘the mothers’. In some varieties of Apulian Greek [e] is used not only for the nominative plural feminine, but also for the nominative plural masculine (SMG οι [i]) and for the nominative feminine singular (SMG η [i]): cf. [e Álivi],[e jiÁneka] (SMG οι λ0κοι [i Álici] ‘the wolves’, η γυνακα [i NiÁneka] ‘the woman’). Significantly, in Apulian Greek the outcome of word-internal prevocalic /e/ and /i/ is more often than not an [e] vowel: cf. AnGk παλαι, >ApGk. [pa Álea], AnGk φασκα (Lat. fascia) >ApGk [fa wÁwea] (SMG φασκι, [fasÁc(j)a] ‘band’). For details see Méndez Dosuna (1995). From H’s presentation (p.223–224) one could wrongly infer that [n] was lost phonetically in κ,τι ‘something’, κ,ποιος ‘someone’, κ,που ‘somewhere’, κ,ποτε ‘sometime’ < AnGk κ3ν τι ‘even something’, κ3ν ποιος ‘even of some sort’, κ3ν που ‘even somewhere’, κ3ν ποτε ‘even sometime’. The κα- element was analogically taken from κανες, καν?νας ‘any(one)-masc’(<κ`ν ε9ς ‘even one’) where syllabication ([ka.Ánis]) induced resegmentation: καν-ες > κα-νες; cf. also καµα [ka.Ámia], καµι, [ka.Ám\a] ‘any(one)-fem’<καµµα < κ`ν µα. For regular retention of [n], cf. κ`ν π+σος >SMG κ,µποσος [Ákambosos] ‘(quite) a lot’ (also dial. κ,ποσος [Ákaposos]). Properly speaking Wνι [Áeni] is not a reduced version of Wνεστι/Wνεισι
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access Book Reviews 293
[Áenesti]/[Áenisi] ‘there is/there are’, but an adverb ‘there’ which eventually was reanalyzed as a verb. In the transcription of a passage from the romance of Phlórios and Plátzia- Phlóre (p.282) ν0κτες να κλαω, να θλβοµαι (1st hemystich of a political verse) is transcribed as [Ániçtes (sic) na Ákleo na Áθliome] ‘to weep by night and suffer’. This will not scan. One has to assume synizesis: [Ánixtes na ÁkleÛonaÁθliome]. Incidentally, for the reasons stated above, the synizesis of prevocalic [e] is not be the same thing as yod formation so that θε+ς ‘God’, πλε+ν ‘more’,and κλαω must be transcribed as [ÁθeÛos], [ÁpleÛon], [ÁkleÛo] rather than as [Áθjos], [Ápljon], [Ákljo]. Note that [Ániçtes] (for ν0χτες [Ánixtes]) reappears on p.320. H (p.319–321) attributes different values to the instances of ν, + subj occurring in the folk-song Kharos and the Shepherd, ll. 14–15: κι αν µε νικσεις, Χ,ρο µου, να π,ρεις την ψυχ µου /κι αν σε νικσω, Χ,ρο µου, να π,ρωτην ψυχ σου [cj an me niÁcisis Áxaro mu na Áparis tim bziÁçi mu cj an se niÁciso Áxaro mu na Áparo tim bziÁçi su] (my transcription) While να π,ρεις is interpreted as a subjunctive (‘and if you beat me, Kháros, you may take my soul’), να π,ρω is considered an archaizing instance of a να-future (‘and if I beat you, Kháros, I will take your soul’) (emphasis mine). The difference is not immediately obvious to me. Both subjunctives — the identity of function is underlined by formal parallelism — are examples of the ordinary hortative use expressing a suggestion or a request (να π,ρεις την ψυχ µου ‘you may take my soul’, να π,ρωτην ψυχ σου ‘let me take your soul’). Although suggestions and requests are intrinsically future-oriented, they are clearly distinct from a future proper which denotes sheer prediction: θα π,ρω/π,ρεις ‘I’ll/you’ll take’. Proof-reading has been carried through very proficiently. Inevitably, a small quantity of misprints remains. Most of them are self-correcting. Let me note just a few. The word Hπαγροικοτ?ραν [hypagroikotéra˜n] is glossed (p.30) as ‘rather- subrustic’, which is evidently a conflation of ‘subrustic’ and ‘rather-rustic’ (cf. ‘rather countrified’ in the English translation). For µιση in the text of POxy. 1683 (late 4th c.) (p.124) read µισυ (this is the reading of the papyrus for correct 5µισυ). H (p.178) compares the style of Anna Komnené (1083–c. 1153) to that of Prokópios (1st half of the 5th c.) “some 900 years earlier”. Obviously he means “some 600 years earlier”. The error in counting must have been induced by the “the Atticists of old” (i.e. of the Second Sophistic in the 2nd c.) mentioned a few lines earlier.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access 294 Book Reviews
For ‘ideosyncrasies’ (p.352) read ‘idiosyncrasies’. The Studies on John Malalas (Melbourne, 1990) were not edited by E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott (p.371), but by E. Jeffreys, B. Croke and R. Scott. Petty criticism is an easy task. Writing a book like H’s is a goal that very few can achieve. The secret recipe for his success is the author’s admiration for the Greeks and his long-term (infectious) fascination for their language in all forms (p.xvi). As indicated on the back cover, the book aims at “second and third year students taking courses in the history of Greek, Classical civilization, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, and historical linguistics”, but full-fledged, weath- er-worn hyper-specialists desiring to broaden their horizons will not be disappointed.
Notes
1. Abbreviations of grammatical categories are self-explanatory. Note, however, emph = emphasis, irefl = indirect reflexive, imperf = imperfective (or imperfective past = imper- fect), perf = perfective (or perfective past = aorist), part = particle.
References
Bruggè, Laura and Gerhard Brugger. 1996. “On the Accusative a in Spanish.” Probus 8.1–51. Devine, A.M. & Laurence D. Stephens. 1994. The Prosody of Greek Speech. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. “The Semantics of Specificity.” Linguistic Inquiry 22.1–25. Gignac, Francis T. 1976. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol.I. Phonology. Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica. Horrocks, G. 1995. “On Condition: Aspect and Modality in the History of Greek.” PCPhS 41.153–173. Langholf, Volker. 1977. “Unmovierte Partizipien im Griechischen.” Hermes 105.290–307. López Eire, Antonio. 1993. “De l’Attique à la Koiné.” La Koiné grecque antique, ed. by C. Brixhe, 41–57 Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. López Eire, Antonio. 1999. “Nouvelles données à propos de l’histoire de l’Attique.” Κατ διλεκτον. Atti del III Colloquio Internazionale di Dialettologia Greca (Napoli — Fiaiano d’Ischia, 25–28 settembre 1996), ed. by Albio Cesare Cassio, 73–107 (= Annali dell’Isti- tuto Universitario Orientali di Napoli, Sezione filologico-letteraria 19, 1997). Méndez Dosuna, Julián. 1988. “La evolución del diptongo oi en beocio.” Emerita 56.25–35.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access
Book Reviews 295
Méndez Dosuna, Julián. 1989. “Ο δφθογγος /oi/ στα βοιωτικ, και στην κοιν.” Μελ τες για την Ελληνικ Γλ σσα/Studies in Greek Linguistics 9.19–36. Méndez Dosuna, Julián. 1993. “El cambio de ·εÒ en ·ιÒ ante vocal en los dialectos griegos: ¿una cuestión zanjada?” Dialectologica Graeca. Actas del II Coloquio Internacional de Dialectología Griega (Miraflores de la Sierra, Madrid, 17–21 de Junio, 1991), ed. by Emilio Crespo et al. 237–259. Madrid: U.A.M. Méndez Dosuna, Julián. 1995. “The Origin of Feminine ο*”. Μελ τες για την Ελληνικ Γλ σσα/Studies in Greek Linguistics 15.78–89. Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1987. “Folk-linguistics and the Greek Word.” Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. by G.F. Cardona and N.H. Zide, 263–280. Tübingen: Narr. Petersmann, Hubert. 1979. “Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der motionslosen Partizip im Griechischen.” Die Sprache 25.144–166. Stüber, Karin. 1996. Zur dialektalen Einheit des Ostionischen. Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The Phonemic System of the Attic Dialect (400–340). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The Phonology of Attic in the Hellenistic Period. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine. Göteborg: Acta Universita- tis Gothoburgensis. Threatte, Leslie. 1980. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Vol. I: Phonology. Berlin, New York:deGruyter.
Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 12:24:45PM via free access