274 Book Reviews

Ralli, Angeliki. 1988. Elements de la Morphologie du Grec Moderne: la Structure du Verbe.

<DEST "the-r24">

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”.

<DEST "the-r25">

Journal of Linguistics 31. 301–332.Roussou, Anna. 1994. The Syntax of Complementizers. Ph.D. dissertation, University College,

<DEST "the-r26">

London.Seiler, Hans. 1952. L’Aspect et le Temps dans le Verbe Neogrec. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

<DEST "the-r27">

Setatos, Michael. 1974. Φωνολογ�α της Κοιν�ς Νεοελληνικ�ς [Phonology of Modern Greek

<DEST "the-r28">

Koine]. Athens: Papazisis.Stephany, Ursula. 1985. Aspekt, Tempus und Modalität: zur Entwincklung der Verbal-gram-

<DEST "the-r29">

matik in der Neugriechischen Kindersprache. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra. 1973.Acquisition of nouns by children learning Greek as

<DEST "the-r30">

a native language.MA thesis, Columbus Ohio.Triantafyllidis, Manolis. 1941. Νεοελληνικ� Γραµµατικ� (της ∆ηµοτικ�ς) [Modern Greek

<DEST "the-r31">

Grammar (of Demotic)]. Αθ�να: ΟΕ∆Β.Tsimpli, Ianthi-Μaria. 1990. “The clause structure and word order in Modern Greek”. UCL

<DEST "the-r32">

Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 226–255.Tsopanakis, Agapitos. 1994. Νεοελληνικ� Γραµµατικ� [Modern Greek Grammar]. Εστ�α,

<DEST "the-r33">

Αθ�να & Θεσσαλον�κη: Αφο� Κυριακ�δη.Tzartzanos, Achillefs. 1946–1953. Νεοελληνικ� Σ�νταξις (της Kοιν�ς ∆ηµοτικ�ς) [Modern

<DEST "the-r34">

Greek Syntax (of Common Demotic)]. Αθ�να: ΟΕΣΒ.Veloudis, Ioannis & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1983. “The subjunctive in Modern Greek”.

<DEST "the-r35">

Studies in Greek Linguistics 4. 151–168.Warburton, Irene. 1970. On the Verb in Modern Greek. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ.

<DEST "the-r36">

Publ.

</TARGET "the">

Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers.

<TARGET "men" 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">

London & New York: Longman xvii + 393 pages. 1997. ISBN 0 58230709–0 (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 ofGreek. While most of his colleagues specialize either in Ancient or in ModernGreek, H’s research, focusing mainly on syntactic issues, covers an impressivelywide temporal range from the earliest manifestations of Greek, the Mycenaeantablets and Homer’s dialect, to the present-day language. The reviewer mustconfess a weakness for Horrocks (1985), a little gem dealing with the interactionof aspect andmodality in the history of Greek.Greek: A History of the Languageand its Speakers (henceforth Greek) comes up to the reader’s expectations.

Book Reviews 275

The book is organized in three sections: I. Ancient Greek: FromMycenae tothe Roman Empire (pp.1–127), II. Byzantium: from Constantine I to Mehmetthe Conqueror (pp.129–290), and III. Modern Greek: from the OttomanEmpire to the European Union (pp.291–365). Each section consists of severalchapters which present us with different aspects of the external history (thehistory of the speakers) and its impact on internal history (the history of thelanguage). Though Greek is not meant to be read as an historical grammar, Hsucceeds in drawing a comprehensive picture of the main phonological,morphological, and syntactic developments of each period. Especially welcomeis the inclusion of a carefully chosen sample of texts representative of eachperiod, which are accompanied by a phonetic transcription with an interlinearword-by-word gloss and an English translation. The texts and the isolatedGreek words cited in sections I and II are accented according to the rules oftraditional orthography. The monotonic system of accentuation is usedthroughout 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 ofmany a classicist—Ancient Greek is not the omphalos of H’s book. All said, one must acknowledgethat 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, themeteoric 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, andTurkish in the Post-Byzantine period), the Balkan Sprachbund, the rise and fallof modern vernaculars. But the recurring theme which informs Greek isdiglossia and the long antagonism between learned archaizing written forms ofGreek and the spoken forms that evolved more naturally: Koine vs. localdialects in Antiquity, literary vs. popular Greek in Byzantium, puristic (katharé-vousa) vs. popular (dimotikí) in independent Greece. H’s view of diglossia andthe ‘language question’ dispenses with the naiveness and anachronistic biascharacteristic of previous accounts. H conceives of Byzantine middle- and high-register styles as the reflex of a continuously evolving tradition rather than asthe product of more or less incompetent archaizing. Although H sides unmis-takably with the demoticists, he studies diglossia in its cultural and historicalcontext, trying to identify the reasons— some legitimate, some utterly spurious— that led to the consecration of katharévousa as the official language of theGreek state in the 19th century up to its final dismissal in the aftermath of the

276 Book Reviews

fall of the military dictatorship in 1974. With the acceptance of StandardModern Greek (SMG), a variety of demotic supplemented with elementsborrowed from katharévousa, we meet for the first time since the Hellenisticperiod a “superordinate form of Greek … which offers a choice of registersappropriate to all spoken and written purposes” (p.365). Greek includes a shortpreface (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 todescribe in an intelligible way the complex analogical developments in verbalmorphology during the Middle Ages, not to speak of his compendium of theconvoluted Byzantine history which reads like a thriller. H has consulted anenormous amount of bibliography (much of it in foreign languages). Theprinting of the book is unimpeachable.

The criticisms that follow should be taken as a sign of my respect for H’sachievement. Most of my comments will have to do with phonological issues.As stated above, for every single Greek word he quotes, H gives a phonetictranscription of what he believes to be its pronunciation at a given moment, ina given dialect or style. This decision is both honest and risky, since manydetails of the pronunciation of Ancient andMedieval Greek are speculative andopen to dispute. Most of the inaccuracies observed can be easily rectified in thesecond edition.1

H falls occasionally in the traps set by conventional orthography. Thus inancient texts where a pitch accent is assumed, H regularly transcribes grammat-ical words like articles, relatives, prepositions, and conjunctions as accented, inaccordance with traditional practice: e.g. κατ� τ�ν ν�µον [katà tòn nómon]‘according to the law’ (p.38), �πως µ" φαν#σιν [hópo˜s mè˜ phanô˜sin] ‘to theeffect that they shall not appear’ (p.44), $κτεν% κα& φιλικ�ν [ektenê˜ kaìphiliké˜n] ‘long and friendly (fem.sg)’ (p.47), ' φρονε�ς [hà phronî˜s] ‘what youmean’ (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 beenproclitic also in Ancient Greek. This intuition is corroborated by some internalevidence:

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,

Book Reviews 277

[ta], τ+ν [ton], τ�ν [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 negativeο2(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, 5thc.AD), is largely artificial. Accents — or rather the lack of them — serve asdiacritic marks to distinguish monosyllabic homophones beginning with avowel (and consequently with a breathing mark indicating the beginning of anew 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 rulewas established, h- was no longer pronounced: [en], [eks], [u]. For reasons oforthographic coherency, the lack of an accent mark in ε-ς, $ξ, and ο2 wasgeneralized 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 anaccented preposition, suggests strongly that this was at variance with the typicalintonational pattern of prepositional phrases like ε-ς θεο0ς [e˜s theó˜s] ‘to thegods’, πρ�ς βορ?αν [pros boréan] ‘northwards’. In SMG, prepositions, alwaysproclitic, combine exclusively with orthotonic personal pronouns: απ+ µ?να[apo Ámena] ‘from me’, απ’ α0τ+ν [ap afÁton] ‘from him’, not *απ+ µε *[aÁpome], *απ+ τον *[aÁpo ton].

c. The proclitic character of prepositions is also consistent with their tendencyto undergo apocope of the final vowel: e.g. *προσ� (cf. Hom. προτ�) > Ion.-Att.πρ+ς [pros] ‘toward’, Hom. π�ρ (=παρ�) ποταµ+ν ‘along the river (bank)’, κ�π(=κατ�) πεδ�ον ‘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.

278 Book Reviews

However, contraction applied regularly to the genitive plural feminine of thearticle τAν (cf. τAνMωσ,ων [ta˜n mfsá˜f˜n] ‘of the Muses’=Att. τ#νMουσ#ν)and to the conjunction Bς [a˜s] ‘as long as’ (< *Bος =Att. 4ως). This is indicativeof proclisis since, otherwise, accented lexical bisyllables are known to offerresistance 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, thedomain represented by punctuation is unequivocally the phonological word, i.e.a lexical host word + its surrounding grammatical clitics (Morpurgo Davies1987; Devine & Stephens 1994:326–329). Thus in the curses of Teos (DiraeTeiae, DGE 710; ca. 475–450 BC): • $π& TηDοισιν • τ� ξυν�ν • E $π’ -διFτηι [epit7˜íoisin to ksynòn e˜ ep idif˜t7˜i] ‘against the Teans as a community’ (a 2). Thesame principle obtains usually for word division in the syllabic Cyprianinscriptions (e.g. ICS 217; Idalion, ca. 475 BC): ka-se-ap-o-to-li-se (=κ�ς Gπτ+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 aremonosyllables: 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. HπIρα2τοJ 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 (=1ναβα�νεις) [ukh Áilpizon Áoti anaÁvenis] ‘I was notexpecting you to be going up’ (p.120), ε8να (= 8να) $νπ�ρως (=$µπε�ρως) 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 [amÁfi timeÁtaksi] ‘about the silk’ (p.170), µετ� γραµµ,των [meÁta >raÁmaton] ‘withletters’ (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 keo Áθios aÁtu] ‘just as his uncle’ (p.198), 1λλ� π,ντες ο* κ+µητες [aÁla Ápandes iÁkomites] ‘but all the counts’ (p.198), 8να φυλ,ττM [Áina fiÁlati] ‘to keep-2sg hisfaith’ (p.198), $πε& ( µIν 1ριθµ+ς [eÁpi omen 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]

Book Reviews 279

‘that my agony may slay me’ (p.282) is probably unintentional since otherwiseν, is consistently transcribed as unstressed.

In the Modern Greek section, transcriptions like κατ, νουν [kaÁta nun] ‘inmind’, αλλ, µη χρω παντελFς αυτα�ς [aÁla mi xro pandeÁlos afÁtes] ‘but do notuse them at all’, ,παξ � δις εχρ�σαντο [Áapaks i ðis eÁxrisando] ‘they used (them)once or twice’ (p.325) correspond closely with the conventions of monotonicorthography (monosyllables are nonaccented), but are at odds with realaccentuation: [kata Ánun], [ala Ámi Áxro pandeÁlos afÁtes], [Áapaks i Áðis eÁxrisando].Cf. also λεβ?ντη, που παγα�νεις; [leÁvendi pu paÁjenis] ‘young man, where areyou 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 thefinal syllable (or more accurately, the loss of their true lexical accent and theacquisition 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: thus 8να ’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 grammaticalwords were nonaccented renders unnecessary such a deus ex machina: [ina toÁmaθo] > [na to Ámaθo]. The same explanation accounts also for the ‘accentshift’ in Ancient Greek prepositions like e.g. παρ,. The original paroxytoneaccentuation π,ρα is preserved in tmesis (1a), in anastrophe (1b), and inexistential constructions with no explicit verb (1c). Oxytone παρ, (used as acitation form) resulted from enclisis in connected speech (1d).

(1) a. π,ρα γ�ρ θεο� ε-σι κα& )µNν

pára gar theoí e˜si kai h7mí˜nnear for gods be-3pl also we-dat

‘for the gods are on our side as well’ (Il. 3.440)b. Q δ’ $ς ν%ας 8κανε θεοJ π,ρα

h7˜ d es n7˜as híkane theó˜ párashe 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

tf˜i d aieì pára hê˜s ge thef˜nhe-dat and always near one emph god-gen.pl

‘and one of the gods did stand always by him’ (Il. 5.603)

280 Book Reviews

d. παρ, τε κλισ�M κα& νηS µελα�νM

pará te klisí7˜i kai n7˜ì melaín7˜inear 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’ > AGk 1λλ,[alla] ‘but’ (oxytone [allá] as a citation form). Cf. Late Latin per hoc [per Áfc] ‘forthis 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 wantsit may have it’. The stress shift in +ποιος is usually attributed to the influenceexerted 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 AGkparoxytone (π+τε [hopóte] ‘as’ and SMG οπ+τε [oÁpote] ‘so that’). But thewords at issue can be proclitic in connected speech.

H’s rules of syllabication — indirectly inferable from the position of theaccent marker in phonetic transcriptions — depend also to a large extent onorthography. For instance, tautosyllabic [f]/[v] + liquid clusters usuallycorrespond to the spellings φρ, φλ/βρ, βλ as in $τυφλFθην [etyÁfloθin] ‘I wasblinded’ (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’. Forsimilar reasons the cluster [ft] is heterosyllabic in α2τ+ς [afÁtos] ‘this’ (p.214 etpassim), but tautosyllabic in λεφτ, [leÁfta] ‘money’ (p.215).

The criteria of transcriptions are not always consistent. In modern texts theallophone of /x/ before front vowels is transcribed with the specific IPA symbolof [ç]: e.g. ψυχ� [psiÁçi] ‘soul’ σχ�µα [Ásçima] ‘shape’ (p.347); but the corre-sponding stop is represented by [k] with a diacritic indicating palatality: υλικ�ν[iliÁkin] ‘substance-acc.sg’, κατασκευασµ?νον [kataskevazÁmenon] ‘made-neut.acc.sg’ (p.347), και [ke] (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 ink + yod clusters: και απ+ [kj apo] ‘and from’, γλυκει, [>liÁkja] ‘sweet-fem.sg’

Book Reviews 281

(p.349); an exception is και αν δFσει [kj an Áðosi] ‘and if (he) grants’ (p.331).This is especially inappropiate since yod, the palatalizing environment, tends toabsorb into the palatalized consonant: γλυκει, [>liÁca], βρ,χια [Ávraça] ‘rocks’.Consistency would have us expect either ‘broad’ transcriptions of ‘underlyingphonemes’ /x/, /k/ or ‘narrow’ transcriptions of ‘surface’ [k], [x] or [c], [ç], butnot a mixed system.

In a similar vein, H transcribes l + yod clusters as [ˆ]: e.g. τα µαλλι, [tamaÁˆa] ‘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 youngman’ (p.318) καταχνι, [kataxÁnja] ‘mist’, σε µαρµαρ?νι’ αλFνι [se marmaÁrenjaÁloni] ‘on (the) marble threshing-floor’ (with [n] representing the dialectalpalatalization of /ni/!), but cf. φ?ρνει [Áferni] ‘(he)’s wearing’, παγα�νεις[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 onthe works of Teodorsson (1974, 1977, 1978) and Gignac (1976). He acceptsTeodorsson’s hypothesis that most of the changes that contributed to the ‘GreatVowel Shift’ in Attic had already taken place in the classical period in the morepopular styles. This is quite possible, indeed probable. But, as H himself (p.105)acknowledges, ‘much inevitably hinges on the interpretation of what remains afairly small number of documents exhibiting the relevant errors’. In thereviewer’s opinion, the documentary evidence is too flimsy to confirm the‘radical’ chronology espoused by Teodorsson and especially by his epigoni. Likeother 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 tomark a popular and/or allegro pronunciation [j] in that position” (p.111). Thisis quite likely in cases like e.g. κυρ, (for κυρ�α ‘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-κοκυρ�α), τρακ+σα (colloquial for τριακ+σια [trjaÁkosja]). In othercontexts we must be dealing with simple mistakes. Gignac tells us e.g. that the

282 Book Reviews

omission of ·ιÒ is especially frequent after a liquid or nasal, but I can hardly seehow a spelling like κονχ0λον for κογχ0λιον ‘shell’ (AD 213) could be meant torepresent synizesis ([ko]Ákhyljon]?) or the palatalization of the consonant cumyod-absorption ([ko]Ákhyˆon]?). Would a speaker of SMG have recourse tospellings like *παλ,, *καµ,, or *παν, in order to represent more accurately thepalatals of παλι, [paÁˆa], καµι, [kaÁm\a], and πανι, [paÁ\a]? Mies van derRohe’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. r in Czech, a typo-logical rarity) and [w] is not an indispensable precondition for the loss of [-j-]resulting from synizesis: τριακ+σια [triaÁkosia] > [trjaÁkosja] > 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 myknowledge, there is no articulatory or acoustic reason why a yod (or an /i/ vowelfor 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 aboutsynizesis or about the pronunciation of ·δÒ. The fact that the interchange of ·ζÒand ·δÒ occurs almost exclusively before an [i] vowel (e.g. Σαρ,πιζι for Σαρ,πιδι‘Serapis-dat’ or τραπεδNται for τραπεζNται ‘money-changers’; cf. also the typeζακοσ�ας for διακοσ�ας) — if not purely accidental owing to the high frequencyof /i/ vis-à-vis the other vowels — could indicate that /i/ favoured a confusionof [z] and [ð], but not spirantization proper.

The omission of σ [s] before τ [t], θ [th] and µ [m] in Phrygia can hardly beconsidered to reflect a characteristic of the phonology of Greek as spoken inPhrygia (p.64). Cross-linguistically /s/ is more prone to undergo weakeningbefore labial and velar stops than before homorganic dental stops. The reasonfor the omission of σ being relatively frequent in στ and σθ clusters must bepurely 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 especiallyclose 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 underwentsynizesis: e.g. θε+ς [theós] ‘god’ > Boeot. θι+ς [thiós] > [thjós] (example mine).Once again, I fail to see any cogent reason why tongue-tip [i.e. dental and

Book Reviews 283

alveolar] articulations should encourage a dramatically closer articulation of aneighbouring [e» ] (p.110). As to prevocalic /e/, its raising to /i/ is just an opticalillusion. 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 aspecific notation was represented— just as in SMG—with the spelling ·ιÒ: θε+ς[theós] > [theÛós] > θι+ς [thjós] (or for that matter [theÁos] > [ÁtheÛos] > θι+ς

[Áthjos]). Misspellings like θει+ς (for θε+ς) are not indicative of the presumptiveclose quality of prevocalic /e/. They result from hypercorrection since prevocalic/e˜/ and /7˜/ were liable to abbreviation and synizesis: cf. AGk 1λ�θεια [aléθe˜a]‘truth’ > SMG 1λ�θεια [aÁliθça]. The accent shift in e.g. AnGk γραNα > SMGγρι, [>riÁa] provides undeniable evidence for an earlier stage with nonsyllabic[j]: AnGk γραNα [graîa˜] ‘old woman’ > [Á>rea] > [Á>reÛa] > [Á>rja] > [>riÁa]. Forfurther 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 ancientdialects and in the Koine: e.g. ’ΑντFνιος ‘Anthony’ > ’ΑντFνις (SMGΑντFνης[anÁdonis]); cf. also Late Laconian Α2ρ�λιν, ’Αριστοτ?ληρ (< Α2ρ�λιον

‘Aurelius-acc’, ’Αριστοτ?λεος ‘Aristoteles-gen’. Like other scholars, H(pp.117–118) believes that “the loss of [o] must be assumed to antedate thesynizesis of antevocalic [i].” So he clings to the unlikely hypothesis that -ις and-ιν originated in “hypocoristic forms of masculine names and neuterdiminutives used as names.” Actually, a change [joC#] > [iC#] with revocali-zation of [j] (samprasarana) is perfectly acceptable in the light of evolutions likeLat. vespa ‘wasp’ > MedSp. aviespa [aÁöjespa] > MnSp. avispa [aÁöispa]. Lat.Florentiae>MedIt. Fiorenze [fjoÁrentse] >MnIt. Firenze, [fiÁrentse]. The genitivesingular π+λης > [Ápolis] of SMG (cf. already spellings like πρ,σις [Áprasis] (forπρ,σεως [ÁpraseÛos] ‘sale-gen’) in PMich. 121 V 1, 4, etc. (AD 42)) need not beexplained as the result of four-part analogy (e.g. ν�κην [Ánikin] ‘victory-acc’:ν�κης [Ánikis] ‘victory-gen’= π+λιν [Ápolin]: x) (p.220), but as the regularphonetic 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 accentwas 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 accentinduced vowel weakening in unstressed vowels, particularly in final syllables.This weakening in turn was a catalyst for the substitution, frequently attested inEgyptian papyri, of 3rd declension nominative plural [-es] for the accusative[-as] via an intermediate stage [-6s]: cf. π,ντες τοVς φ�λους [Ápand6s tus Áfilus](H’s transcription) ‘all-acc.pl the-acc.pl friends-acc.pl’.

284 Book Reviews

But not all the relevant misspellings found in the Egyptian papyri must betaken 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 isa more probable explanation. The experience of any teacher who has to readdozens of student exercises each year indicates that mechanical misspellings ofthis type are not rare. Again, many of the instances of an interchange betweenE and O (cf. Wτι for �τι ‘that’ pronounced [6ti] according to H (p.116)) can beattributed 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 achange, one has the right to doubt whether vowel weakening was not anexclusive 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 isunlikely on several counts: (a) The earliest instances of such a change areattested 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 laterdate. (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 lostdirectly: cf. SMG ,σε µε [Áase me] ‘leave me (alone)’ vs. ας τον [Áas ton] ‘leavehim (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 explanationin terms of a purely analogical levelling. Significantly, Ancient Greek attests toother 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’, τοVςβασιλεNς (for earlier βασιλ?ας).

According to H (p.117), stress would also account for the simplification ofdouble consonants: e.g. πρ+γραµα [Ápro>rama] in POxy. 1155 (AD 104) forπρ+γραµµα ‘affair’. But this is contradicted i.a. by the evidence of modernSouth-Eastern dialects, which preserve geminate consonants: cf. Cypriotπρ+γραµµαν [Ápro>ramman] ‘programme’.

The following comments concern particular questions:

H (p.15) interprets the suffix -µεναι of the Lesbian infinitive of athematic verbsas a blend ofWest 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 thata segmentation -µεν-αι seems to be more to the point.

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 [kf˜s] ‘how?’, PκοNος[okoîos] ‘of whatever sort’ vs. Att. π#ς [pf˜s], (ποNος [hopoîos] (/p/ is theregular outcome of PIE *kw before an o-vowel, there are various alternativehypotheses to explain unexpected /k/). At first sight, this seem to contradict theevidence of the inscriptions, which with a few— but crucial — exceptions (seebelow), exhibit forms of the (P)π-series. H (p.22) interprets this as evidencethat the literary standard of Ionic prose was somewhat closer to local speech, orat least to one variety of it, than the standard of official documents and thelanguage of poetry (for the most part). Yet the (P)π- series in inscriptions showsup 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 ofthe Pκ- type: cf. Pκ+σο [okóso˜] (=Att. (π+σου) ‘(saying) at what price’ on alead letter from Emporion (Spain), a colony of Phocaea (SEG 37, 838.13; c. 500BC?), Xκο (=Att. �που ‘where(ever)’) at Sigeion (Pech-Maho, France), a colonyof 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 beconsidered a local feature, but just one among the numerous features whichofficial Ionic incorporated during the 4th century B.C. as a result of theoverpowering influence of Attic (Stüber 1995:73).

In IG 13 40, a treaty between Athens and Chalcis (446 BC), H (p.29), whocites 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) andthat 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):Yθενα�οισι (l. 25),Yθενα�οισιν (l. 26) [ath7˜naíoisi(n)]‘Athenian-dat.pl’, and (b) the preverb ξυν- (here written χσυν-) [ksyn-] ‘co-’:χσυλλ Øεφσοµαι (= ξυλλ�ψοµαι [ksyll7˜psomai]) ‘(I’)ll arrest’ (ll. 7–8),χσ0µµαχος [ksýmmakhos]) ‘ally’ (l. 27). Conversely, the additional clausespresent us with innovative variants in line with the more ‘modern’ IonicizedAttic, already well-established in educated discourse: (a) ‘short’ dative plurals in-οις:Yθενα�οις [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-]:συνεπιµελοσθον [synepimelf˜sthf˜n] ‘let them have joint charge of ’ (l. 68). Thismay well be so, but the document is not as probative as López Eire andH think.On the one hand, they fail to mention the occurrence of an unwarranted ‘short’

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+γνετοςε: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’, γ�γνοµαι ‘I become’ must standfor [-]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 representingallophonic []] before velar stops: cf. the preverb συν- ‘co-’ in e.g. συγγρ,φω[sy]gráphf˜] ‘I compose a writing’, συγκρ�νω [sy]krí˜nf˜] ‘I compare’, συγχα�ρω[sy]khaírf˜] ‘kinship’. Similarly, it is not altogether clear whether AnGk πρAγµα‘thing’, the forerunner of (Medieval) Cypriot πρAµµαν [Ápramman] and SMGπρ,µα [Áprama], was pronounced [Ápra>ma] (so H p.288) or what seems morelikely, [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, thisreconstruction was first postulated by the reviewer (Méndez Dosuna 1988,1989). All earlier accounts assumed an intervening stage [y˜] (supposedlyrepresented 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 trulydialectal δ#νθι) in place of expected τ [t] (cf. Doric ζ#ντι]) is not due to anoccasional phonetic process of aspiration (p.39). The ending -νθι owes its θ tothe analogy of middle 3pl -νθαι, -νθο (Att. -νται, -ντο), which in turn hadborrowed it from 1pl -µεθα and 2pl -σθε. In addition, [zd-] and [d-] inaforementioned ζ#σι and δ#νθι must be alternative outcomes of *gwj- ratherthan successive steps in an unlikely evolution [zd-] > [d-].

H (pp.44–45) accepts the standard view that ο2θε�ς [u˜thé˜s] ‘no one-masc’,the form that competes with ο2δε�ς ([u˜thé˜s]) in postclassical times, is theultimate outcome of the phrase ο2δI ε9ς [oudè hê˜s] ‘not even one’ via anevolution [u˜dè hê˜s] > [u˜d hê˜s] > [u˜t hê˜s] > [u˜thé˜s]. Yet a change [-d h-] >[-t h-] remains unparalleled in Greek. To mymind, the phrase ο[τε ε9ς ‘neitherone’ is a more likely starting point: [oúte hê˜s] > [ó˜t hê˜s] > [o˜thé˜s] > [u˜thé˜s];cf. κατ� 4να [kata héna] > καθ’ 4να [kathéna] ‘one at a time’. The feminineο2δεµ�α [u˜demía] remained unaltered due to its morphotactic transparency.Note the rare variant ο2θεµ�αν attested in a honorary decree found at Priene(IvPr 106.28; end of 2nd c.BC), which indicates that morphotactically opaqueο2θε�ς [u˜thé˜s] could be interpreted as ο2θε + ε9ς.

Book Reviews 287

H (pp.116, 118) transcribes the aorist-perfect $µ?λκε (for (µ)εµ?ληκε[(m)eÁmelike] ‘it has concerned’) as [eÁmelke]. But why should the (apparent)syncopation of unstressed [i] trigger the palatalization of /l/? Does Hmean thatthe 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 arÁkhi in o Álo>os, ke o Álo>os imbros to(n) theÁo(n), ke theÁos in o Álo>os] ‘in the beginning was the Word, andthe Word was with God, and the Word was God’. This is groundless. Only theforms of the present tense of copulative ε-µ� were enclitic: e.g. θε+ς $στ�ν (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 autf˜n éstin éti en t7˜i póle˜] ‘the family of theirs still livesin the city’ (Th.1.126.6).

H (p.108) believes that the old diphthong /7˜i/ (-ηι) ‘simply lost its finalelement and merged with /7˜/’ in conservative Athenian Attic while in EgyptianGreek /7˜i/ > /ei/ > /e˜/ (-ei). Actually the evolution of Attic is somewhat morecomplex. In the early 4th c. BC, the vowel of /7˜i/ tended to undergo shortening:dat.sg βουλ%ι [bo˜l¥ε˜i] > βουλεN [bo˜leî] or [bo˜lê˜] ‘council-dat.sg’ and(βο0λεαι >) βο0ληι > βο0λει ‘want-2sg’, which survives in the standardorthography. Later on, analogy succeeded in reversing partially the shift fromca. 200 BC in word-final position. Eventually, restored -ηι [e˜i] lost its secondmember (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 (inother circumstances, the shift of an article into a relative pronoun seemsunlikely). But it would be worthwhile to consider the alternative possibility thatthese article-like forms — especially in medieval texts — may be reducedvariants 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 andmany ancient dialects) arose out of anaphoric pronouns; cf. alsoE. that in e.g. That book and The book that H wrote.

288 Book Reviews

H (p.167) hints at Turkish as a possible source for the postposed definitearticle found in most languages of the Balkan Sprachbund (Albanian, Bulgari-an/Macedonian, and Romanian). This is unlikely. On the one hand, Latinadmitted 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 accusativesuffix (-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) fordefinite nouns, which is not quite the same thing (Enç 1991). Cf. the examplesunder (2):

(2) a. adam-lar gör-dü-lerman-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 andcase marking which is mediated by topicality (referential prominence). Subjectsare prototypically topical and (referentially prominent) topics tend to bedefinite. For this reason definite NPs turn out to be better candidates for therole of subject so that they are more likely to receive case marking when theyassume the role of an object, a less topical case-role (2c). Importantly the objectmarker 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 thepresence of a in example (3b) favours a [+specific] readingwhile its absence (Ø)in (3c) is an indication of a [−specific] object (see e.g. Bruggè & Brugger 1996).

Book Reviews 289

(3) a. Vi a la mujersee-perf.1sg om the-fem.sg woman‘I saw the woman’

b. Vi a una mujersee-perf.1sg om a-fem.sg woman‘I saw a woman (specific)’

c. Vi una mujersee-perf.1sg Ø a-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 factthat in some Romance vernaculars of Southern Italy (partly spoken in formerlyGreek-speaking territory) the infinitive with control verbs has yielded to finiteconstructions even when the subjects of the main and the subordinate clausesare identical (4).

(4) a. Ancient Greek$θ?λω κοιµηθ%ναι

ethélf˜ koim7˜th7˜naiwant-1sg sleep-past.perf.inf

b. Standard Modern Greekθ?λω να κοιµηθF

Áθelo na cimiÁθowant-1sg part sleep-past.perf.subj.1sg

c. Calabrian GreekÁθelo na cumiÁθowant-1sg part sleep-past.perf.subj.1sg

d. Calabrian Romance vernacularÁvoddŠu mu Áddormuwant-1sg part sleep-1sg

d. Standard Italianvoglio dormireÁvf‡‡o dorÁmirewant-1sg sleep-inf

‘I want to sleep’

SMG πλ0θηκα ‘I washed (reflexive)’ is not a valid example of the loss of a nasalbefore a fricative (p.207). Classical Greek had $πλ0θην, not **$πλ0νθην.

H (p.229) remains uncertain as to whether the indeclinable gerund of

290 Book Reviews

Medieval andModern Greek in -οντα(ς) [-onda(s)] goes back to themasculineaccusative singular or to the neuter nominative-accusative plural, both formsbeing homophonous. On p.123 he leans towards the latter. Participles in -οντα[-onda], being “essentially adverb-likemodifiers”, have to be connectedwith thefact that “neuter plural adjectives in in -α [-a] had been used adverbially sinceclassical times”: cf. SMG τα καλ, σπ�τια [ta kaÁla Áspitja] ‘the good houses’ andπ,µε καλ, [Ápame kaÁla] ‘we’re getting along well’ (examples mine). But to mymind three arguments seem to speak for the masculine accusative singular:

a. The gerund is nearly always subject-oriented, i.e. it functions as a modifierof the subject: a sentence like τους βρ�καµε πηγα�νοντας σπ�τι [tus ÁvrikamepiÁNenondas Áspiti] ‘them found-1pl going home’ is more likely to be interpretedas ‘we found them as we were going home’ than as ‘we found them as they weregoing home’. Now prototypical subjects tend to display higher agentivity thanother 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], andconsequently, [−agentive]. Thus, other things being equal, a subject-orientedcategory ismore likely to have developed out of amasculine than out of a neuter.b. In generic statements involving an AcI construction like the one in (5),participles— like othermodifiers— 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˜nperson-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˜s symphére˜ autoísalso word-dat.sg pointing-out-acc.sg that.is convenient they-dat.pl

πε�θεσθαι

pé˜thesthaipersuade-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 advantageto obey’ (X. Oec. 13.9)

c. The oldest instances of motionless participles are masculine (Langholf 1977and Petersmann 1979). H himself (pp.124–125) quotes a relevant example in

Book Reviews 291

a letter addressed to a lady on a late 4th c. papyrus (POxy. 1683) ε[χωµαι τRκυρ�^ θεR… �πως H» [ι?]ν» οντα σο& κα& ε2θυµοJντι 1πωλ,βης (sc. ε[χοµαι τRκυρ�^ θεR… �πως Hγια�νουσα σV κα& ε2θυµοJσα 1πολ,βMς) ‘I pray to the lordgod … that you receive my letter in good health and in good spirits’ (H’stranslation), where υ*?νοντα (acc.masc.sg) and ε2θυµοJντι (dat.masc.sg)stand for expected Hγια�νουσα and ε2θυµοJσα (nom.fem.sg).

Contrary to what H believes (p.214), there is no mystery in the fact thatAnGk σφ [sph] evolved intoMnGk σφ [sf] (AnGk σφ�ξ [sph7˜ks] ‘wasp’ > SMGσφ�κα [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)MGακο0στηκα [aÁkustika], µ+σκος [Ámoskos]. The sibilant blocked thespirantization 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 frequentlyassociated with a regression of the accent if the first of the two vowels wasstressed: e.g. $πο�ηκα [eÁpiika] ‘I made/did’ […] > ($)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 δε�χνει [Ádixni] ‘(he) shows’. Actually the accent shift was not triggeredby contraction, but by analogy: δε�χνει follows the model of the common typeκρ�νει [Ákrini] ‘(he) judges’. Likewise the aorist Wποικα was reaccented after themodel of e.g. Wδωκα [Áeðoka] ‘(I) gave’. A similar backshift is found in caseswhich have nothing to do with vowel contraction: cf. AGk $τελε�ωσα [etelé˜f˜sa]> SMG τ?λειωσα [Áteˆosa] ‘(I) finished’ (competing with learned τελε�ωσα[teÁliosa]) in place of regularly expected *τελειFσα [teÁˆosa] (for the accent shiftconcomitant with synizesis, cf. AnGk βαρεNα [barê˜a˜] ‘heavy-fem.sg’ > SMGβαρι, [vaÁrja]). Aor. τ?λειωσα arose through four-part analogy: e.g. δηλFνω[ðiÁlono] ‘(I) declare’: ($)δ�λωσα [(e)Áðilosa] ‘(I) declared’=τελειFνω [teÁˆono]:x. Similarly late AnGk 1τελε�ωτος [ateÁliotos] > SMG ατ?λειωτος [aÁteˆotos]‘endless’ (side by side with learned 1τελε�ωτος) for *ατελειFτος [ateÁˆotos] afterthe model of e.g. ζευγαρFνω [zev>aÁrono] ‘(I) match’: αζευγ,ρωτος[azevÁ>arotos] ‘uncoupled’. Also AnGk 1φ%κα (the accent could not recedebeyond 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’ (< AGk ε-ς) isan “epenthetic final vowel added after aphaeresis to aid pronunciation.” In fact,σε is the product of resegmentation in contexts like AGk ε-ς $µ? > ByzGk (ε-)ς

292 Book Reviews

$µ?να (cf. SMG σε µ?να [se Ámena] ‘to me’ as against e.g. εµ?να το ε�πε [eÁmenato Áipe] ‘(s)he told it to me’). A similar explanation holds for 1π?, a variant of1π+ ‘from’ occurring in medieval works, especially before the article. Cf. alsoSMG 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 theSMG 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 thecorresponding 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 prototypicallymasculine: 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, thefeminine plural [i] arose as a prevocalic variant [j] in connected speech: α*1δελφα� [e aðelÁfe] ‘the sisters’ > [eÛ aðelÁfe] > [j aðelÁfe] (cf. παλαι, [paleÁa] >[paÁlja] > SMG παλι, [paÁˆa] ‘old-fem.sg’). For a similar alternation, cf. SMGκαι [ce] vs. κι [c(j)] ‘and’: και σ�µερα [ce Ásimera] ‘and today’ vs. κι α0ριο [cjÁavrio] ‘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 allcontexts: ο* µητ?ρες [i miÁteres] ‘the mothers’. In some varieties of ApulianGreek [e] is used not only for the nominative plural feminine, but also for thenominative plural masculine (SMG οι [i]) and for the nominative femininesingular (SMG η [i]): cf. [e Álivi],[e jiÁneka] (SMG οι λ0κοι [i Álici] ‘the wolves’, ηγυνα�κα [i NiÁneka] ‘the woman’). Significantly, in Apulian Greek the outcomeof word-internal prevocalic /e/ and /i/ is more often than not an [e] vowel: cf.AnGk παλαι, > ApGk. [paÁlea], AnGk φασκ�α (Lat. fascia) > ApGk [fawÁwea](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] waslost phonetically in κ,τι ‘something’, κ,ποιος ‘someone’, κ,που ‘somewhere’,κ,ποτε ‘sometime’ < AnGk κ3ν τι ‘even something’, κ3ν ποιος ‘even of somesort’, κ3ν που ‘even somewhere’, κ3ν ποτε ‘even sometime’. The κα- elementwas analogically taken from κανε�ς, καν?νας ‘any(one)-masc’ (< κ`ν ε9ς ‘evenone’) where syllabication ([ka.Ánis]) induced resegmentation: καν-ε�ς > κα-νε�ς;cf. also καµ�α [ka.Ámia], καµι, [ka.Ám\a] ‘any(one)-fem’ < καµµ�α < κ`ν µ�α.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

Book Reviews 293

[Áenesti]/[Áenisi] ‘there is/there are’, but an adverb ‘there’ which eventually wasreanalyzed as a verb.

In the transcription of a passage from the romance of Phlórios and Plátzia-Phlóre (p.282) ν0κτες να κλα�ω, να θλ�βοµαι (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 ÁkleÛo na Áθliome].Incidentally, for the reasons stated above, the synizesis of prevocalic [e] is notbe the same thing as yod formation so that θε+ς ‘God’, πλε+ν ‘more’, and κλα�ωmust 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-songKharos and the Shepherd, ll. 14–15: κι αν µε νικ�σεις,Χ,ρο µου, να π,ρεις την ψυχ� µου /κι αν σε νικ�σω, Χ,ρο µου, να π,ρω τηνψυχ� σου [cj an me niÁcisis Áxaro mu na Áparis tim bziÁçi mu cj an se niÁciso Áxaromu na Áparo tim bziÁçi su] (my transcription) While να π,ρεις is interpreted asa subjunctive (‘and if you beat me, Kháros, youmay take my soul’), να π,ρω isconsidered an archaizing instance of a να-future (‘and if I beat you, Kháros, Iwill take your soul’) (emphasis mine). The difference is not immediatelyobvious to me. Both subjunctives — the identity of function is underlined byformal parallelism — are examples of the ordinary hortative use expressing asuggestion or a request (να π,ρεις την ψυχ� µου ‘you may take my soul’, ναπ,ρω την ψυχ� σου ‘let me take your soul’). Although suggestions and requestsare intrinsically future-oriented, they are clearly distinct from a future properwhich denotes sheer prediction: θα π,ρω/π,ρεις ‘I’ll/you’ll take’.

Proof-reading has been carried through very proficiently. Inevitably, a smallquantity of misprints remains. Most of them are self-correcting. Let me notejust 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 bµιση in the text of POxy. 1683 (late 4th c.) (p.124) read bµισυ (this isthe reading of the papyrus for correct 5µισυ).

H (p.178) compares the style of Anna Komnené (1083–c. 1153) to that ofProkópios (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 fewlines earlier.

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 andR. Scott.

Petty criticism is an easy task. Writing a book like H’s is a goal that very fewcan achieve. The secret recipe for his success is the author’s admiration for theGreeks 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 yearstudents taking courses in the history of Greek, Classical civilization, Byzantineand Modern Greek Studies, and historical linguistics”, but full-fledged, weath-er-worn hyper-specialists desiring to broaden their horizons will not bedisappointed.

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�

δι�λεκτον. Atti del III Colloquio Internazionale di Dialettologia Greca (Napoli — Fiaianod’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.

Book Reviews 295

Méndez Dosuna, Julián. 1989. “Ο δ�φθογγος /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 deDialectología Griega (Miraflores de la Sierra, Madrid, 17–21 de Junio, 1991), ed. by EmilioCrespo 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 imGriechischen.” Die Sprache 25.144–166.

Stüber, Karin. 1996. Zur dialektalen Einheit des Ostionischen. Innsbruck, InnsbruckerBeiträge 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: ActaUniversitatis 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, NewYork: de Gruyter.

</TARGET "men">