Rodríguez Adrados-History of The Greek Language PDF

A HISTORY OF
THE GREEK LANGUAGE

From Its Origins to the Present
BY
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ ADRADOS
BRILL
LEIDEN B O S T O N
2005
This book was translatedfrom the Spanish by Francisca Rojas del Canto
Francisco Rodriguez Adrados, Historia de la lengua griega, Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1999.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Adrados, Francisco Rodriguez, 1922A history of the Greek language : from its origins to the present / by Francisco
Rodriguez Adrados.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index.
ISBN 90-04-12835-2 (acid-free paper)
1. Greek languageHistory. 2. Greek language. ModernHistory. 3. Greek
language, Medieval and late^History. I. Title.
PA227.A37 2005
480'.9^dc22
2005047104
ISBN 90 04 12835 2
Copyright 2005 by Koninklijhe Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,
Martinus Mjhqff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriatefees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change
PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS
For Juan Rodriguez Somolinos

for his help with this book
and so many other things
CONTENTS
PROLOGUE
A History o f G r e e k
xiii
Fragmentations and Unifications
xiv
Is a History o f G r e e k Possible?
T h e Present B o o k
xvi
xviii
PART ONE
FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O ATTIC
I. F R O M I N D O - E U R O P E A N T O G R E E K
1. F r o m the steppes o f Asia to G r e e c e
T h e Indo-Europeans and G r e e k
Diverse theories
2. F r o m I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture and l e x i c o n to
Greek l e x i c o n
3. Greek within the I n d o - E u r o p e a n dialects
10
T h e Different Indo-Europeans
10
I n d o - E u r o p e a n I I I A and G r e e k
12
II. G R E E K A T T H E D O O R S O F G R E E C E
16
1. M o r e specifications o n G r e e k
16
2. C o m m o n G r e e k ( C G )
17
3. Essential characteristics
o f c o m m o n Greek
19
III. F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E D I A L E C T S
OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM
22
1. Variants within c o m m o n G r e e k
22
2. F r o m the arrival o f the first G r e e k dialects (East

Greek, E G ) to the arrival o f the D o r i c dialects
(West Greek, W G )
T h e diffusion o f the Greek dialects
25
25
G r e e k in the s e c o n d millennium
29
T h e arrival o f the D o r i a n s
32
3. G r e e k and the n o n - G r e e k languages in the

s e c o n d millennium
Pre-Greek elements a d o p t e d b y G r e e k
34
37
CONTENTS
Vlll
IV. G R E E K IN T H E S E C O N D M I L L E N N I U M
42
1. East G r e e k
42
2. M y c e n a e a n as a G r e e k dialect o f the s e c o n d
millennium
45
W h a t kind o f language is M y c e n a e a n ?
45
Linguistic characteristics
48
3. A c h a e a n epic as a G r e e k language o f the s e c o n d

millennium
V.
50
Diverse theories o n the H o m e r i c language
50
O u r v i e w o f the H o m e r i c language
52
4. P a r a - M y c e n a e a n in the s e c o n d millennium
56
G R E E K IN T H E F I R S T M I L L E N N I U M :
DIALECTAL PANORAMA
59
1. T h e expansion o f the G r e e k dialects
59
T h e first expansion
59
Colonization
61
2. T h e diffusion o f G r e e k
64
T h e alphabet a n d its diffusion
64
Inscriptions, literature and hellenisation
67
3. T h e creation o f the great dialects
72
Generalities
72
Ionic-Attic
75
A r c a d o - C y p r i a n a n d Pamphylian
77
Aeolic
T h e D o r i c dialects
78
81
4. T h e unifying isoglosses
82
5. S e c o n d a r y differences
84
VI. T H E G E N E R A L L I T E R A R Y LANGUAGES:
EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C
87
1. T h e literary languages as general languages
87
2. T*he first general language: epic language in o u r

Homer
Innovations in epic language
89
89
Formulaic diction a n d the renovation o f epic

language
M o r e o n the epic language o f the eighth century
91
95
3. T h e diffusion o f the first general language: the

language o f hexametric poetry after H o m e r
97
General o v e r v i e w
97
T h e different genres
99
CONTENTS
ix
4. T h e s e c o n d general language: the language o f

elegy a n d epigram
102
Elegy
102
Epigram
105
5. T h e third general language: the language o f

choral lyric
106
G e n e r a l ideas
106
Analysis o f the fundamental
elements o f the
language o f choral lyric
Ill
T h e evolution a n d variants o f choral lyric

language
114
VII. T H E SPECIFIC L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S :
LESBIAN, B O E O T I A N A N D S Y R A C U S A N
118
1. General o v e r v i e w
118
2. T h e Lesbian language o f m o n o d i c poetry
119
3. Corinna's B o e o t i a n
121
4. T h e D o r i c o f Syracuse
122
VIII. T H E L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S O F T H E
ARCHAIC A N D CLASSICAL PERIODS:
IONIC A N D ATTIC
126
1. I o n i c in the i a m b o g r a p h e r s a n d in general p o e t r y
2. I o n i c prose
....
126
129
Generalities a n d beginnings
129
Herodotus
135
T h e ancient Hippocratics
3. T h e transformation
140
o f the Attic dialect into a
literary language
142
Attic as an oral dialect
142
Sources
144
Characteristics
145
T h e oldest Attic prose
149
M a t u r e Attic prose
154
Variants within Attic prose
157
4. T h e creation o f the scientific language
161
T h e Presocratics
161
T h e Hippocratics
166
Attic literature
168
E x a m p l e o f a lexical system
170
Conclusion
171
CONTENTS
PART T W O
FROM KOINE T O THE
I. K O I N E A N D I T S R E L A T I O N T O
PRESENT
OTHER
LANGUAGES
175
1. Origin, definition and levels
175
2. T h e diffusion o f koine
180
T h e difnision
180
T h e 'koinisation' o f the dialects
183
3. C o l l o q u i a l koine and its variants
184
Colloquial 'koine'
184
T h e influence o f other languages
185
Variants o f colloquial 'koine'
189
4. C o l l o q u i a l koine: general description
192
5. Literary koine and its stages
196
T h e first stage
196
Atticism
198
6. T h e evolution o f the intellectual and scientific l e x i c o n
203
Sources
203
Description
204
7. G r e e k and Latin in the R e p u b l i c and the Empire
207
T h e contact o f G r e e k with other languages
207
G r e e k in R o m e
209
8. Hellenised Latin and Greek-Latin
.Tr* 213
9. G r e e k and other languages o f antiquity
220
T h e languages revolving a r o u n d G r e e k
220
G e r m a n i c , Slavic and A r a b i c
223
II. B Y Z A N T I N E G R E E K A N D I T S I N F L U E N C E
ON
OTHER LANGUAGES
226
1. Historical context o f G r e e k in Byzantium
226
Historical data
226
Popular a n d higher literature until 1453
229
Literature f r o m 1453
235
2. Description o f Byzantine p o p u l a r Greek

Phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y (until the
century)
Examples o f p o p u l a r texts
237
eleventh
237
240
CONTENTS
xi
Phonetics a n d m o r p h o l o g y (from the twelfth to the

fifteenth century)
Examples o f p o p u l a r texts
242
245
3. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Byzantine l e x i c o n
247
4. B o r r o w i n g s in Bfzantine G r e e k
250
Latin b o r r o w i n g s
250
Borrowings from G o t h i c and eastern languages
252
Borrowings from western languages
254
5. G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in other languages
255
General ideas
255
Borrowings in western languages
257
Borrowings in Slavic
264
Borrowings in A r a b i c
267
III. G R E E K I N T H E E U R O P E A N L A N G U A G E S
269
1. T h e penetration o f Greek-Latin in the E u r o p e a n

languages
269
Generalities
269
Hellenisms in the high M i d d l e A g e s
270
Hellenisms in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries

In Castilian
272
272
In French
275
In Italian
276
In English
278
Hellenisms in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries
278
In Castilian
278
In other languages
280
Hellenisms in the nineteenth a n d twentieth

centuries
281
2. Description o f the place and function o f Greek-Latin

in present day E u r o p e a n languages
284
Origins and characteristics o f this lexicon
284
I m p o r t a n c e for the Spanish l e x i c o n
287
A n international character
289
IV. M O D E R N G R E E K
291
1. T h e history o f M o d e r n G r e e k ( M G )
291
2. Description o f M o d e r n G r e e k
297
3. Borrowings and culture w o r d s in the M o d e r n G r e e k

lexicon
301
xii
CONTENTS
4. T h e M o d e r n G r e e k dialects
304
General considerations
304
Characteristics o f the principal dialects
307
Dialects a n d M G
309
CONCLUSION
312
ABBREVIATIONS
317
BIBLIOGRAPHY
319
INDEX
343
PROLOGUE
H I S T O R Y OF G R E E K
G r e e k and Chinese are the only languages still k n o w n to us
after
three thousand five h u n d r e d years that are still spoken today. T h e y

are n o t the only languages o f culture that have b e e n spoken
and
written for m a n y centuries - s o m e o f w h i c h are still in use today,

others dead, such as Sumerian, Egyptian, H e b r e w o r A r a b i c -
but
they d o have a longer history and have had a greater influence.

T h e r e is n o d o u b t that, if j u d g e d b y the influence it has had o n all
o f the E u r o p e a n languages, and continues to have t o d a y o n all lan
guages, G r e e k can b e regarded as the most important language in
the w o r l d . T h e direct o r indirect influence o f its alphabet,
lexicon,
syntax and literature has b e e n and is i m m e n s e .

T h i s must b e taken into a c c o u n t w h e n embarking o n a n e w his
tory o f the G r e e k language, after those o f Meillet, H o f f m a n , Palmer,
Hiersche and H o r r o c k s and Christidis (ed.), a m o n g others, and
c o p i o u s bibliography. G r e e k arrived in G r e e c e and other parts in

the second and first millennia before Christ and spread with Alexander's
conquests, although its expansion was s o o n c u r b e d b y the resurgence
o f c o n q u e r e d p e o p l e s and, m u c h later, b y invaders such as the Slavs,
A r a b s and Turks.
Earlier, w h e n the R o m a n s h a d c o n q u e r e d the East, G r e e k c o n
tinued to b e spoken there. I n d e e d , f r o m the s e c o n d century BC it had
a great influence o n Latin and consequently, directly o r through Latin,
o n practically every other language. T h i s was a l o n g process, as a
result o f w h i c h t o d a y m a n y o f o u r languages c a n b e seen as a kind
o f semi-Greek o r c r y p t o - G r e e k (as I have n o t e d o n other occasions).
T o d a y , G r e e k is a living language in G r e e c e , but it also has a
s e c o n d life: its alphabet, lexicon, syntax a n d literary genres c a n b e
traced in all languages. In a sense, it is through these n e w forms,
o r avatars, as the Indians w o u l d say, that G r e e k has survived.
A n e w history o f G r e e k must take these matters into account. In
deed, in dealing with Greek in Ancient G r e e c e and Hellenistic G r e e c e ,
it must highlight the literary, cultural and social factors w h i c h have
c o n d i t i o n e d the G r e e k language and in turn are expressed b y it.
xiv
PROLOGUE
In its ancient phase, w e k n o w G r e e k b y two means: through epig

raphy (from the p e r i o d o f M y c e n a e onwards) and through
scripts. T h u s , w e are able to study the fragmentation
manu
o f its dialects
and the unifying features that penetrated them until they were finally
a b s o r b e d b y o n e o f these dialects, Attic. W e c a n also study
the
different languages used in G r e e k literature; the specific languages

used for the different G r e e k literary genres.
I will elaborate. First and foremost, w e must place G r e e k within
I n d o - E u r o p e a n : in a specific phase and dialect, and with
certain
starting points. In this b o o k I will d e v e l o p the ideas that I have

expressed elsewhere: G r e e k as descending from the final phase o f
I n d o - E u r o p e a n expansion in E u r o p e , w h i c h introduced a polythematic Indo-European - the Indo-European traditionally reconstructed.
W i t h i n this polythematic I n d o - E u r o p e a n , G r e e k descends from the
southern g r o u p , w h i c h h a d still not r e d u c e d the verbal stems to t w o ,
and within this still, from the g r o u p that preserved gutturals and a
system o f five cases. It is at this stage that G r e e k b e g a n to d e v e l o p
multiple innovations.
It is important to make a detailed study o f what w e c a n assume to
have been C o m m o n Greek, its fundamental characteristics, from which
it c o u l d transform, m u c h later, into the great language o f culture.
FRAGMENTATIONS AND UNIFICATIONS
T h i s is the starting p o i n t o f the history o f the fragmentation o f Greek

into dialects (perhaps already in progress in C o m m o n Greek), and
o f the successive attempts at unification w h i c h culminated in
the
imposition o f Attic, and its derivative koine, as the c o m m o n language

o f all the Greeks -
a language w h i c h , with s o m e differences, has
survived to this d a y and has influenced all languages.

T h e t w o main dialects o f G r e e k are the eastern dialect, w h i c h
penetrated G r e e c e a r o u n d the year 2 0 0 0 BC, and the western dialect
(Doric), w h i c h penetrated a r o u n d the year
fragmentation,
1200. T h i s is the
first
o c c u r r i n g outside o f G r e e c e and i n t r o d u c e d there
later. But there was a political division at the time (between the
M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s and the later cities) and a dialectal fragmen
tation within the t w o m a i n groups, w h i c h crystallised in the
first
millennium but w h i c h was perhaps already in progress in the sec

o n d millennium.
PROLOGUE
H o w e v e r , this g r o w i n g fragmentation
XV
was a c c o m p a n i e d b y
the
expansion o f certain important c o m m o n isoglosses a r o u n d the year

1000. Indeed, there was tendency towards linguistic unity. Actually,
c o m m o n languages had already b e e n created in the s e c o n d millen
n i u m , linguas francas w h i c h had a specific g e o g r a p h i c origin but
w h i c h later spread throughout G r e e c e : M y c e n a e a n , an administra
tive language, and what I refer to as epic A c h a e a n , the language o f
the epic, w h i c h e v o l v e d , and, in H o m e r in the eighth century B C ,
a b s o r b e d later dialectal elements.
T h u s , there were unifying elements a n d the dialectal
d o n o t s e e m to have b e e n very marked.
differences
But w h e n the
Dorians
arrived they d r o v e wedges between the dialects, isolating the East

G r e e k o f the P e l o p o n n e s e from that o f central G r e e c e ; at the same
time, certain dialects o f East G r e e k e m e r g e d . F r o m this base, differ
ences b e c a m e accentuated: eastern dialects w e r e created w h i c h were
then exported, o r h a d already b e e n e x p o r t e d , overseas; that is, IonicAttic, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n , and A e o l i c T h e s e dialects were infinitely sub
divided during the fragmentation o f political p o w e r a m o n g the Greek
cities. T h e r e was also W e s t Greek, D o r i c , w h i c h in turn was also
fragmented.
H o w e v e r , the unifying tendencies c o n t i n u e d to g r o w . A s already
mentioned, from about the year 1000 certain isoglosses almost entirely
invaded b o t h groups o f dialects, eastern as well as western. A l t h o u g h
the M y c e n a e a n dialect h a d already disappeared, the lingua
franca
o r c o m m o n language o f the epic, the H o m e r i c language, continued

tonexist everywhere in an e v o l v e d f o r m . N e w lingua francas, o r c o m
m o n languages o f poetry, were also created: in particular, that o f
elegy (from the seventh century BC) and choral lyric (from the e n d
o f the sixth century BC). O f course, these languages h a d a specific
g e o g r a p h i c origin, but s o o n they b e c a m e k n o w n and cultivated in
m a n y parts. T h e i r I o n i c element p r o v i d e d the base for the later
diffusion o f I o n i c prose, a n d the latter for that o f Attic prose.
In this w a y , literature was essential to the unification o f Greek.
Prose followed poetry, as I observed earlier: first I o n i c prose b e c a m e
internationally
fifth
k n o w n , then Attic prose, all towards the end o f the
century. A l t h o u g h Athens was unable to i m p o s e its political
h e g e m o n y , having lost the war against Sparta, it d i d m a n a g e

i m p o s e its linguistic h e g e m o n y : Attic b e g a n to infiltrate and
to
substi
tute all the dialects, transforming them into koine o r C o m m o n Greek.

It a b s o r b e d the I o n i c intellectual vocabulary, d e v e l o p e d a n e w o n e ,
xvi
PROLOGUE
and the koine continued in this same path. T h e r e was again a ' C o m m o n
5
G r e e k , the base for all subsequent languages o f culture.

C u r i o u s l y , the p o w e r w h i c h i m p o s e d its p o l i t i c a l h e g e m o n y ,
M a c e d o n i a , p l a y e d a decisive role in the diffusion o f A t t i c T h e polit
ical unity did n o t last, but w h e n it died out, the linguistic unity c o n
tinued. T h i s is essentially the history, albeit in a very abbreviated
form.
Y e t the
history d o e s n o t quite e n d there.
T h e n e w split was
different: that o f educated, literary o r traditional G r e e k as o p p o s e d

to p o p u l a r o r spoken G r e e k . It is k n o w n to us from the Hellenistic,
R o m a n a n d Byzantine periods. B o t h strains continue to this d a y and
are referred to respectively as the 'pure
the ' p o p u l a r '
(icaBape'OO'oaa) language and
(SripmiKri) language. A t s o m e p o i n t (from a r o u n d the
e n d o f the M i d d l e A g e s perhaps, it is n o t k n o w n exactly), the ' p o p

ular' language b e g a n to split into dialects. A n e w a n d final unification
o c c u r r e d , based o n the p o p u l a r language spoken in Athens,
G r e e k i n d e p e n d e n c e . T h i s saw the e m e r g e n c e o f a n e w
after
KOIVT|.
T h e r e are m a n y varieties o f the G r e e k language, a n d the
study
o f their history is fascinating: from their I n d o - E u r o p e a n origins to

Common
Greek, and, subsequently, to the small regional dialects
a n d the literary a n d scientific languages. S o m e t i m e s these languages

n e e d to b e reconstructed, other times they c a n b e studied in a m o r e
o r less c o m p l e t e f o r m . In any case, the task o f interpreting their ori
gins is n o t always easy. I n d e e d , at a particular p o i n t in time, all o f
these Greek languages shared c o m m o n features, such as the Homerisms
a n d Ionicisms o f the literary languages, and, later, the elements from
Attic a n d the scientific a n d intellectual languages as a w h o l e .
Is
A H I S T O R Y OF G R E E K POSSIBLE?
T h e history o f the splits a n d unifications in the G r e e k language is

a rather curious o n e . It is a story o f the expansion o f the
territory
in w h i c h G r e e k was spoken, a n d then its reduction, o f political defeats

a n d linguistic triumphs. T o d a y , G r e e k forms the basis o f a practi
cally international language o f culture.
T h e r e are m a n y conflicting theories regarding the I n d o - E u r o p e a n
origins o f Greek, C o m m o n G r e e k a n d its dialectal fragmentation, as
well as M y c e n a e a n a n d the H o m e r i c language. T h e s e topics c a n n o t
b e i g n o r e d , yet the m a i n emphasis in this study will b e p l a c e d o n
xvii
PROLOGUE
the literary languages, the socio-linguistic levels and the influence o f

G r e e k o n other languages.
I will then attempt to describe the eventful j o u r n e y o f the G r e e k
language through the ages: its influence o n so m a n y other languages,
its role as the language p f the Eastern R o m a n empire and later the
Byzantine empire (as the language o f the C h u r c h and State),
and
finally as the language o f the newly i n d e p e n d e n t G r e e c e .

T h e influence and very existence o f the Greek, within and with
o u t G r e e c e , is fundamentally
d u e to the cultural role that it has
played. I c a n n o t emphasise this e n o u g h . O t h e r languages m a y have

also served as vehicles o f culture
(some o f w h i c h I have
already
cited), but G r e e k was the language that m o s t transcended its o w n

limits, along with the w h o l e culture associated with it. Its a c c e p t a n c e
at the court o f M a c e d o n i a was o f great cultural significance. It w o u l d
later b e c o m e the s e c o n d language o f educated R o m a n s , and it was
used b y K i n g A s h o k a o f India, the khans o f Bulgaria a n d the kings
o f M e r o e in Ethiopia. T o b e sure, Berosus, M a n e t h o , Josephus
and
Fabius Pictor, a m o n g others, preferred to write in G r e e k rather than

in their o w n languages.
G r e e k was often translated into other languages a n d vice versa.
Its presence c a n b e traced in the evolution o f these languages, their
literatures and cultures. I n d e e d , almost f r o m the start, its
alphabet
enabled m a n y agraphic languages to b e written for the very first

time, and it was later adapted to write even m o r e languages, f r o m
Latin to the Slavic languages.
There is also the important t h e m e o f the unity o f Greek, from its
beginnings to the present day. G r e e k has n o d o u b t evolved, but if
w e c o m p a r e the different 'Greeks', f r o m M y c e n a e a n and H o m e r i c
to the ' c o m m o n ' G r e e k o f today, there are n o t so m a n y differences
after all. T h e vocalic system has b e e n simplified (quantities,
diph
thongs and musical accents are g o n e ) , the consonantal system has

evolved slightly, and m o r p h o l o g y has b e e n reduced: there has b e e n
a loss o f the dual, dative, optative and infinitive, a fossilisation o f
the participle, a reduction o f verbal inflection to t w o stems, the devel
o p m e n t o f periphrastic forms, and s o m e formal variations. But the
fundamental
categories and the essence o f the l e x i c o n remain
the
same.
It is possible to write a history o f G r e e k from its beginnings to
the present, whereas it w o u l d n o t b e possible, for instance, to write
a history dealing with Latin and Spanish. In the history o f Latin
xviii
PROLOGUE
there is a strong differentiation with respect to c h r o n o l o g y and g e o g

raphy, while in Greek, a fundamental
unity has prevailed in b o t h
o f these aspects. T h i s was because o f the supremacy o f the educated

language, defended b y ancient tradition and b y the C h u r c h and State
o f Byzantium, while in the W e s t it was Latin that prevailed, and
later b e c a m e fragmented.
T h i s is the history that I will attempt to recount: an internal his
tory o f G r e e k a n d an external history regarding its relation to other
languages. It is a very c o m p l e x history, across so m a n y centuries and
so m a n y 'Greeks'. I will e x p o u n d m y arguments in what I h o p e will
b e a coherent a n d accessible narrative, based, o f course, o n m y o w n
ideas, s o m e o f w h i c h I have presented in other publications. But this
expository phase will occasionally b e c o m p l e m e n t e d with
erudite
notes in small print, p r o v i d i n g information regarding the matter in

question and the hypotheses put forward against it, as well as a
bibliography.
It is n o t easy to write a history o f Greek. T o begin with, the ear
liest written
r e c o r d s are nearly always d o c u m e n t a r y texts in
the
different dialects, ranging from M y c e n a e a n o f the thirteenth century

BC to the various other dialects dating f r o m the eighth and seventh
centuries B C . S o m e t i m e s they are also literary texts, w h i c h have b e e n
h a n d e d d o w n to us in Hellenistic and R o m a n papyri as well as in
Byzantine manuscripts, a n d w h o s e language o r languages are in a
p r o b l e m a t i c relation to the epigraphic dialects. T h e s e texts evolve
and r e s p o n d to various socio-linguistic levels: the l o w e r levels-being
badly d o c u m e n t e d . H o w d o e s o n e g o a b o u t filling in the gaps and
c o n n e c t i n g all o f this with an I n d o - E u r o p e a n origin and the later
tradition? I believe that the main lines can b e traced.
THE
PRESENT
BOOK
T h e justification for writing this b o o k is clear from the a b o v e dis

cussion: to trace the history o f the totality o f the G r e e k language
and its influence o n other languages. T h e histories o f Greek, already
m e n t i o n e d , w h i c h w e have today stop at Hellenistic and
Roman
koine, if not earlier. I n d e e d , H o r r o c k ' s n e w history deals with archaic

and classical G r e e k in a very summary w a y and only goes into depth
in the phase f r o m koine to the present. A n c i e n t G r e e k is treated as
if it was a m e r e p r e c e d e n t , and this is reflected in the b o o k ' s c o v e r
PROLOGUE
XIX
illustration o f a Pantocrator. All o f these works fail to discuss
the
influence o f G r e e k o n o u r languages.
M y aim is to write a b a l a n c e d history o f the G r e e k
language,
leaning neither towards ancient n o r medieval o r M o d e r n Greek. Also,

I will explore the subject o f the diffusion and influence o f Greek,
and its survival in other
languages.
It is important to point out that o n e o f the main purposes o f this

b o o k is to stress the crucial role played b y the literary languages in
the t w o unification processes, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to ancient and M o d e r n
Greek. T i m e and again, these languages have triumphed o v e r cen
trifugal tendencies, transforming
G r e e k into the m o d e l for all
the
languages o f culture.
This b o o k is divided into t w o parts. T h e first part will study the
trajectory
from Indo-European
and C o m m o n G r e e k to Attic,
the
n e w language that b e c a m e the c o m m o n language. T h e s e c o n d part

will study the origin and history o f this koine o r c o m m o n language
derived from Attic, and the history o f its variants from the Hellenistic
p e r i o d until the present day, through the R o m a n and
Byzantine
periods.
H o w e v e r , at times there will b e a special focus o n the
creation
and diffusion o f scientific Greek, w h i c h has penetrated all languages,

whether directly o r through intermediate languages.
S o m e n e w bibliography, collected and c o m m e n t e d b y this author,
will b e f o u n d in m y paper History of the Greek Language
included in M a d r i d , C . S . I . C . (forthcoming).
19832004,
PART ONE
FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O ATTIC
CHAPTER ONE
FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK
1.
F R O M T H E STEPPES O F A S I A T O G R E E C E
The Indo-Europeans and Greek

1. Greek, a rich a n d flexible language w h i c h has served as the m o d e l
for all subsequent languages, is only o n e o f the descendants o f the
I n d o - E u r o p e a n language, o r rather, the c o m p l e x o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n
languages that w e r e b r o u g h t into E u r o p e b y n o m a d i c hordes, from
the fifth millennium BC onwards. T h e s e hordes c a m e from the plains
that extend f r o m the Urals to the T i e n Shan mountains, w h i c h close
the passage to X i n j i a n g a n d the M o n g o l i a n interior (today part o f
China). O t h e r I n d o - E u r o p e a n hordes, m o v i n g south, settled o n the
b o r d e r o f the Caucasus up to Anatolia, while others later continued
towards Iran and India (or else arrived in Iran directly). S o m e went
East, to the other side o f the T i e n Shan mountains and the T a r i m
Basin, in what is t o d a y Xinjiang, w h e r e the T o c h a r i a n language was
later b o r n .
2. Although there is disagreement o n the dates, it is clear that towards
3 5 0 0 B C , these peoples, w h o were already in E u r o p e , destroyed the
s o ^ a l l e d ancient E u r o p e a n
lithic representations
culture, as attested in the Balkans b y
o f phallic g o d s and animals, c o p p e r utensils,
villages and pre-writing.

T r a c e s o f the Indo-Europeans can b e found in the kurgans or tumu
lus burials, w h i c h contain skeletons p l a c e d o n a b e d o f o c h r e beside
sacrificed horses, a n d in their fortified settlements
(for e x a m p l e ,
V u c e d o l in the N o r t h o f Yugoslavia, dating towards 3 0 0 0 BC), a m o n g

others. F r o m the fourth millennium they h a d a b r o n z e culture
and
horse-pulled chariots, w h i c h served as vehicles o f transport and war.

(For m o r e details, see 14 ff.)
It w o u l d seem that the I n d o - E u r o p e a n dialect from w h i c h Greek,
a m o n g other languages, e m e r g e d (the language w e refer to as I n d o E u r o p e a n III) was spoken to the north o f the Black Sea and to the
south o f the Carpathian mountains a r o u n d the year 3 0 0 0 B C . T h e y
C H A P T E R ONE
d o n o t represent the oldest I n d o - E u r o p e a n s . T h e y were a g r o u p o f

peoples w h i c h a r o u n d that time had a b s o r b e d the future T h r a c o Phrygian and A r m e n i a n peoples, and penetrated the South (no d o u b t
along the shore o f the Caspian Sea through the G o r g a n plain), giv
ing rise to Indo-Iranian ~ as attested in Babylonia, Anatolia (Mitanni)
a n d in Palestine a n d Syria towards the m i d - s e c o n d millennium
like the Greeks did in G r e e c e . T h e expansion towards E u r o p e from

the Balkans was m o r e recent.
3. W i t h i n this w h o l e g r o u p o f languages, G r e e k and
Indo-Iranian
are very similar, but they also share c o m m o n features with T o c h a r i a n

and the E u r o p e a n languages. But far m o r e archaic I n d o - E u r o p e a n
languages are k n o w n in Anatolia, w h i c h were certainly separated at
s o m e earlier date: the so-called C a p p a d o c i a n tablets from Ktiltepe
and other places, the oldest dating towards 2 0 0 0 B C , attest to the
existence o f these other languages, w h i c h w o u l d later b e c o m e k n o w n
as Hittite, Luwian, etc., from the end o f the third millennium onwards.
This is I n d o - E u r o p e a n II, prior to I n d o - E u r o p e a n III, from w h i c h
the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages o f E u r o p e , Iran a n d India, as well as
T o c h a r i a n , are d e s c e n d e d .
4. T h u s , within g r o u p III, E u r o p e a n l a n g u a g e s such as Slavic,
G e r m a n i c , Latin a n d Celtic b e l o n g to the g r o u p called I E IIIB: they
are m o r e recent than Greek, T h r a c o - P h r y g i a n , A r m e n i a n a n d I n d o Iranian, w h i c h c o m e from I E IIIA. Its c o m m o n languages can b e
dated, at the earliest, towards 1000 B C , w h i c h does n o t necessarily
m e a n that there w e r e n o I n d o - E u r o p e a n s before that date, from pre
vious waves o f migration concretely, those w h o left their trace o n
the E u r o p e a n h y d r o n y m y studied b y H . K r a h e a n d others (which is
n o t very old, as there are already signs o f a mastery o f the mascu
line a n d feminine opposition), and perhaps the Telasgians', o f w h i c h
traces are trying to b e f o u n d in the pre-Hellenic t o p o n y m y o f G r e e c e
and in b o r r o w i n g s in G r e e k .
5. M o s t scholars agree that G r e e k entered G r e e c e from the N o r t h
a r o u n d 2 0 0 0 ; it is thought that o n e o f its dialects, D o r i c , penetrated
m u c h later, a r o u n d 1200. Actually, it is an indisputable fact that the
invasion was from N o r t h to South in Iran, India, Anatolia, G r e e c e ,
Italy a n d Spain. In addition to this, everything seems to indicate
that E u r o p e underwent invasions from east to west, and Asia from
west to east (by the T o c h a r i a n s ) .
N o t e that, in the historic p e r i o d , I n d o - E u r o p e a n invasions c o n

tinued from Central Asia to the South: Kassites (in Babylonia, fifteenth
century BC), C y m m e r i a n s (Asia M i n o r , seventh century BC), Kushans
(India, first century BC), Parthians (Iran, s e c o n d century A D ) , and to
the west (Scythians). Also^, in Europe, the m o v e m e n t o f Indo-European
peoples (Slavic, G e r m a n i c and Celtic) to the west and south o c c u r r e d
in the midst o f the historic p e r i o d .
T h u s , there is every indication that the I n d o - E u r o p e a n s left from
the plains o f Central Asia. T h e linguistic, archaeological and his
torical evidence c o i n c i d e . T h e same thing applies to other invasions
o f Asian n o m a d s , from the H u n s to the Turks, M o n g o l s , and others.
6, T o d a y w e tend to a c c e p t the hypothesis that postulates the plains
to the east o f the Ural mountains, as o p p o s e d to the plains to the
north o f the Black Sea, as the p o i n t o f departure. T h e north o f the
Black Sea, w h e r e there are so m a n y traces o f Indo-Europeans, was
merely an intermediate
stage o r t e m p o r a r y settlement. T h e h o r d e
that w o u l d introduce the Greeks, T h r a c o - P h r y g i a n s and Armenians

into E u r o p e c a m e from this area, o n c e it h a d separated from
the
g r o u p carrying Indo-Iranian to the east and later to the south. (See

also 25.)
Diverse theories
7. For a more elaborate discussion, with a bibliography, see M . Gimbutas's
thesis on the successive Indo-European invasions, starting from Central Asia
and crossing along the north of the Black Sea, in F. R . Adrados 1979a
and 1998a. These papers also contain a linguistic argumentation on the
migration wave that arrived in Greece around the year 2000 BC. Other
works by M . Gimbutas, such as those o f 1974 and 1989, describe the cul
ture of the 'old Europe', known through discoveries such as those of Gucuteni,
Starcevo and Vinca, among others: a neolithic, agrarian civilisation, with
skills in ceramics as well as copper. See also F. Villar 1996a, p. 73 ff. on
this culture and the Indo-European occupation. Further on in this book,
linguistic arguments in support of this view o f the Indo-European invasions
will be presented.
O f course, the culture o f the 'old Europe' o f the Balkans is closely related
to the neolithic cultures of Greece (Dirnini, Sesklo, Lerna), Cyprus (Khirokitia),
the Aegean islands, Crete (the base o f Minoan civilisation) and Asia Minor
(Qatal Huyiik). All o f these cultures, in the Balkans and in Greece, had a
strong influence on Greek culture: for instance, in the decorative arts and
its representations o f divinities, from phallic to animal (the bull in particu
lar), including the naked goddess o f fertility. They also influenced the Greek
lexicon, which contains many non-Indo-European elements (or, in any event,
C H A P T E R ONE
a pre-Greek Indo-European known as 'Pelasgian', although some think it

is Luwian or Carian).
8. O n the history o f the problem of Indo-European expansion (the hypoth
esis that the Indo-Europeans left from Germania, Lithuania, Scandinavia,
the Central European Danube region, the Balkans, Ukraine, etc.) and its
arguments, cf. F. Villar 1996a, p. 28 ff. Here, it can be seen how the old
arguments in favour o f a Nordic origin for the Indo-Europeans, based on
the names for 'salmon* and 'birch-tree', etc., have been discarded today.
In addition, a localisation o f the Indo-European homeland to the north o f
the Black Sea is accepted (together with the Danubian) by P. Bosch-Gimpera
1960 and (as a stopover) by T h . V . Gamkrelidze~V. V . Ivanov 1995.
Actually, the Balkans is considered a second stopover.
9. See Villar 1996a, p . 56 ff. for a critique o f the hypothesis of the British
archaeologist C, Renfrew (1997, Spanish translation 1990), according to
which the Indo-Europeanisation of Europe represents, quite simply, its neolithisation (without the need of an invasion) by a group that discovered agri
culture in Anatolia in the seventh millennium; see a parallel criticism by
J.J. Moralejo 1990, p . 274 ff., and another by J. de H o z 1992. Renfrew's
hypothesis ignores all linguistic data and adheres to the trend that rejects
the fact of the migration of peoples (contrary to all historical evidence).
That there can be cultural diffusion without migrations does not exclude
that there are migrations, for which there is almost infinite evidence. In
opposition to this trend (also supported by, among others, C. Watkins and
A. Giacalone-P. Ramat, eds., 1995, p. 64 ff.), cf. Adrados 1979a, p. 34 ff.,
Moralejo 1990, p . 272 ff., 284 ff., D e H o z 1992 and Adrados 1998b. Fur
thermore, the identification o f agriculture with an Indo-European influence
is purely a priori arbitrariness.
10. Another recent hypothesis, repeatedly sustained by Th. V . GamkrelidzeV . V . Ivanov (in his book of 1995), localises the area in which the IndoEuropeans originated in the Halaf culture o f upper Mesopotamia, between
the fourth and fifth millennia BC. However, the argument o f cultural bor
rowings (the war and horse chariots, metallurgy) and lexical borrowings
(Semitic and Kartvelian, if true) does not require such a localisation, these
things could have come to them from the north o f the Caucasus; the same
can be said o f possible common features (lexical, again) between Greek and
Iranian, Greek and Tocharian. Also, the specific linguistic (morphological)
arguments are hardly taken into account.
T o be sure, the fact that IE contains borrowings from northern Caucasian
as well as from Uralic, attests to the localisation o f the Indo-Europeans at
a certain point in the Volga region; cf. H . Haarmann 1996 (who proposes
the fifth millennium BC).
Furthermore, Th. V . Gamkrelidze-V. V . Ivanov accept an early sepa
ration o f an Anatolian branch o f IE, as I do (cf. pp. 346 and 761). But
their ideas regarding the migration o f the Greeks (without the Dorians who,
according to them, had gone through the continent) from Anatolia to
Greece - a hypothesis held earlier by V . Pisani 1938 (cf. Adrados 1974,

p. 48) - cannot be sustained. The existence of C o m m o n Greek and its
relation to Indo-Iranian languages rests upon the existence of a continuum
running from Turkestan to the north o f the Black Sea and further to the
west. O n the other hand, there is data available on the incursions and set
tlements of the Mycenaean Greeks in Asia during the second millennium
(the Trojan War occurs in this context), but not regarding movements in
Asia or Europe. O n Mycenaean expansion, cf. M . Fernandez-Galiano 1984,
p. 231 ff; on the Trojan War seen from this perspective, Adrados 1992c.
M . Sakellariou 1980, p. 67 ff. coincides with our thesis on the existence of
an Indo-Greek, which, according to him, would have originated in the
lower Volga region, breaking off later.
11. As Villar clearly demonstrates, the three homelands that are today pro
posed for the Indo-Europeans are not so distant: they are located around
the Caucasus, on either side of it. Both the linguistic and archaeological
arguments favour the first hypothesis. In any case, it seems certain that the
invasion that brought the Greeks into Greece came from the North, towards
the year 2000 BC (see the bibliography in 44). The most recent discrep
ancy appears to come from R . Drews 1989, for whom the tombs o f the
inner circle o f Mycenae, towards 1600, would correspond to the first Greeks;
cf. against this view, J. J. Moralejo 1990, p. 281 ff. For other, former pro
posals of a recent dating of the arrival o f the Greeks, and its refutation,
see M . Sakellariou 1980, p. 32 ff. Although there are no actual linguistic
arguments that are absolutely valid for choosing 2000 or 1600 as the date
of the Greek arrival, archaeology inclines towards the first date. C f Adrados
1998b. Here, I provide a criticism o f the idea o f a separate Dorian inva
sion (proposed, o f course, by J. Chadwick 1973, 1985, which I also argue
against in Adrados 1998b and further on in this book in 53 ff.).
12. I also reject the theses o f A. Hausler (lacking any linguistic argumen
tation whatsoever), which bring up to date the old German thesis propos
ing the origin o f the Indo-Europeans in the plains of eastern Europe: it
denies any relation to the culture o f the steppes to the north of the Black
Sea. In a large series o f works (among others, A. Hausler 1985, 1992a,
1992b), Hausler attempts to refute the movement o f peoples and cultures
in Germany and Greece, and any relation between the Indo-Europeans
and the cultures o f knotted ceramics and combat axes in eastern Europe,
the tombs and stele of Mycenae, the war chariot and the horse in various
places, etc. All is assumed to be indigenous (evolution in situ) or coming
from Asia Minor. Yet, although the war chariot and the horse may have
come from there originally, this does not mean we cannot maintain the
hypothesis o f their extension to the Indo-Europeans. Indeed, one cannot
deny the connection between the Indo-European kurgans and funerary tumuli,
such as those o f the Scythians in the Ukraine, those of Thrace (Kasanlak,
etc.), Macedonia (Vergina) and Phrygia (Gordium), not to mention the trea
sure of Atreus.
C H A P T E R ONE
2.
F R O M I N D O - E U R O P E A N CULTURE AND LEXICON

TO G R E E K LEXICON
13. M u c h o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture survived in G r e e c e , as well as

in the G r e e k lexicon w h i c h also retained s o m e elements that have
l o n g since disappeared o r b e e n forgotten.
If the G r e e k language can b e seen as the continuation o f I n d o E u r o p e a n , o r s o m e o f its dialects to b e m o r e precise, G r e e k culture
can b e seen as a continuation o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture, o r a par
ticular temporal a n d local phase o f this culture. I n d e e d , culture a n d
language g o h a n d in hand. W e need to e x a m i n e h o w a
particular
part o f the G r e e k lexicon is in effect a continuation o f Indo-European

lexicon, and the extent to w h i c h it continues to reflect that same
culture, while adapting its semantics to n e w circumstances. T h e Greek
lexicon was supplemented with a n e w lexicon, b o r r o w e d f r o m other
languages o r especially created in o r d e r to reflect the changing his
torical a n d cultural circumstances.
14. T h i s is n o t the appropriate place for an in-depth l o o k at I n d o E u r o p e a n culture, w h i c h can b e reconstructed to a certain
through a r c h a e o l o g y , through
extent
a comparative study o f the various
peoples d e s c e n d e d f r o m the Indo-Europeans (including the Greeks),

and through a study o f the lexicon. T h e latter study is k n o w n as
linguistic p a l a e o n t o l o g y : the r e c o v e r y o f things through w o r d s . It was
initiated b y A . K u h n in the mid-nineteenth
century, and its latest
results can b e seen in the w o r k previously cited b y T h . V . G a m k r e l i d z e - V . V . I v a n o v 1995, p . 413 ff., a n d in specialised studies (on
I n d o - E u r o p e a n poetry, for example).
T h u s , in very general terms, w e can reconstruct the
characteris
tics o f n o m a d i c , warring tribes that travelled in chariots pulled b y

four horses a n d settled in fortified areas, but never lost their migra
tory instinct. A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, this was a neolithic culture w h i c h
nevertheless h a d k n o w l e d g e o f b r o n z e as well as ceramics, w o o d
working, a n d weaving; it h a d domesticated animals such as the bull,
c o w , sheep, p i g a n d d o g ; it cultivated barley, and hunted a n d gath
ered various fruit.
Its social organisation was based o n the patriarchal family, w h i c h
was united with other, m o r e primary families within phratries and
tribes w h i c h at times c o a l e s c e d under the leadership o f a king with
military, religious a n d judicial p o w e r s , but limited b y an assembly
F R O M INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK
o f warriors. W e have k n o w l e d g e o f their religion, with the g o d o f

day, *Dyeus their sacrifices and libations, and their oral, epic and
y
lyric poetry.
15. After Kuhn, this line of enquiry was followed by A. Pictet, 1859-63.
O . Schrader and A . Nehring codified this science in their Reallexicon
1917-1929. See also later V . Pisani, Pakontologia Linguistics Caligari 1938,
G. Devoto 1962, the volume Pakontologia Linguistica (Brescia 1977), in addi
tion to E. Campanile 1990a and 1990b, p . 27 ff., F. Villar 1996a, p. 107
ff, and Th. V . Gamkrelidze-V. V . Ivanov 1995, p. 413 ff. O n the IndoEuropean epic, see Campanile (cit.) and Adrados 1992c and the bibliog
raphy cited there (among others, H. M . Chadwick 1967, the same and
N. K. Chadwick 1968, C. M . Bowra 1952, J. de Vries 1963, M . Durante
1966, K. V o n See, ed., 1978, R. Schmitt 1967, R. Finnegan 1977).
16. The Greek language inherited most o f the vocabulary that reflects this
culture. For example, the name for fortified city (%6Xi<;); social and famil
ial organisation (yevoc; 'family', 7ioxi<; 'lord, husband', rcoxvia ' o f the hus
band, wife', Tiaxfjp 'father' and various other family names); names for house
(56ucx;), the home (eoxia) and crafts related to working with mud, wood,
clothing, textiles, etc. (xei%o<;, XEKXCOV, eoGfjc;, etc.); verbs such as 'to cook'
(7ieaaco), 'to plough' (dpoco, cf. apoxpov 'plough'), 'to spin' (veoo), 'to milk'
(due^yco). Also, the names for the god o f the sky (Zzvq), domestic animals
(xcropcx;, po\)<;, ot><;, 6i<;, icucov, etc.), 'barley' (eioci), honey (ueAa), and the
names for mediums o f transport and o f war (untoc; 'horse', KX>KXO<; 'wheel',
6%o<; 'chariots'), etc.
17. Several observations should be made. Some Indo-European words that
entered Greek - for instance, the word for 'bull' cited earlier, the word for
'lion' ?i(ov), 'wine' (oivoq), perhaps even the word for 'horse' - are proba
bly 'old words' which both IE and Greek adopted from the Middle East
as -a result o f cultural factors; there are parallels with non-Indo-European
languages (Sumerian, Kartvelian, Semitic, etc.), cf. Th. V . GamkrelidzeV. V . Ivanov, cit. These are considered to be Indo-European words, from
the point of view o f Greek.
However, when cultural circumstances change, some words survive, but
with a change in meaning. Thus, the dp%ixeKxcov can build in stone as well
as wood, the Xi%o<; does not have to be made o f mud, the %aXKEvq 'bronzesmith' becomes a 'smith', the <ppaxf)p is now 'member o f the phratry' and
the 'brother from the same mother' (a$eX<poq) becomes simply 'brother'. If
*bhagos was once 'beech', as it is thought, there was a change in meaning
when it became (pryyo*; 'oak, ilex'. Xopxo<; became simply a 'vegetable gar
den' and lost all relation to 'patio, court', etc.
Yet, IE should not be regarded as a unity. Culturally speaking, it seems
clear that although the domestication of the horse and the use o f the heavy
chariot for transport are very old, the light war chariot pulled by two horses
was probably a recent introduction, from towards the mid-second millen
nium - the same applies to the word for riding. However, in IE, certain
10
C H A P T E R ONE
cultural terms (for example, the name for 'fortress or for 'bronze') appear
to be dialectal. In turn, Greek terms can differ from one dialect to another.
But it is not just a question o f the lexicon. Today it is widely accepted that
the first Greek poetry, mostly epic but also lyric poetry, followed the style
of Indo-European oral poetry, with its formulas, similes, maxims or yvcouai,
and even its metre. See the bibliography cited in 15, and for lyric, Adrados
1984c, and p. 107 ff.
3.
G R E E K W I T H I N T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N DIALECTS
The Different Indo-Europeans

18. G i v e n the current s c o p e o f o u r k n o w l e d g e , w e c a n n o t continue
regarding G r e e k simply as a derivative o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n - that is,
o f the unitary a n d flat I n d o - E u r o p e a n traditionally
reconstructed,
called brugmannian. A t most, s o m e features o f G r e e k were consid

ered to b e evidence o f an evolution o f this language.
T h e r e is not o n e but various forms o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n ,
arranged
chronologically and divided into dialects, also arranged chronologically,

from w h i c h the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages k n o w n to us derive. It is
important to place G r e e k within this scheme, and to establish the dia
lect from which it derives. I have already laid the essential foundations.
In fact, the idea o f a c h r o n o l o g i c a l ladder o f I E is not
entirely
n e w . Meillet, Hirt, Specht and Benveniste, a m o n g others, speculated,

for e x a m p l e , o n the evolution o f roots, the recent character o f the
feminine, the aorist, the thematic declension, and, even earlier, o n
an original non-inflectional I E w h o s e traces can b e found in the pure
stems, the first terms o f c o m p o u n d s , a n d certain adverbs.
Other
scholars l o o k e d for traces o f agglutination o r adaptation in the ori

gin o f certain inflectional forms. H o w e v e r , they continued to r e c o n
struct a single IE,
19. T h e p r o b l e m b e c a m e m o r e pressing with the decipherment o f
Hittite and other Anatolian languages. T h e s e differ in m a n y respects
from the reconstructed IE.
Sturtevant suggested a first solution with his thesis o f 'Indo-Hittite'
(1933,
1 9 6 2 , etc.): Hittite a n d I n d o - E u r o p e a n w e r e seen as t w o

5
different branches o f this ancient Tndo-Hittite . H o w e v e r , there was

n o argument
that referred to a diachronic difference between the
two branches, the characteristics o f which were dealt with very i n c o m

pletely. His hypothesis m a d e hardly an i m p a c t . It was generally
11
believed that Hittite d i d n o t contain certain categories such as the

masculine and feminine gender, the aorist, the subjunctive o r perfect,
5
because it h a d 'lost them. A w h o l e series o f p h o n e t i c and m o r p h o

logical archaisms w e r e n o t taken into a c c o u n t .
F r o m 1962 onwards (in m y article 'Hettitisch u n d Indogermanisch'),
I b e g a n to p o s e the p r o b l e m in a different way: Hittite as p r o c e e d
ing from a stage in I E in w h i c h the following categories had not yet
been created: the masculine/feminine opposition, the adjective's grades
o f c o m p a r i s o n and the c o m b i n a t i o n o f various stems in the verb (the
present,
aorist, perfect and future;
the indicative, subjunctive
and
optative). V e r b a l and nominal inflection was m o n o thematic: as names

and verbs only h a d o n e stem, verbal and n o m i n a l inflections (includ
ing adjectival and p r o n o m i n a l inflections) w e r e d e d u c e d with
the
help o f desinences (including 0).

T h i s m o n o t h e m a t i c IE (IE II) represents a phase before the polythematic I n d o - E u r o p e a n (IE III) that c o r r e s p o n d s to the traditional
reconstruction. O f course, it contains m o r e archaisms: from the laryn
g e a l , the lack in quantity o f vowels o r the frequent identity o f sin
gular and plural forms outside o f N . and A c , and N . a n d G . singular
in the thematic names, to certain features o f the desinential system.
Polythematic I E contains, apart from polythematism, various other
innovations; and there is n o lack o f innovations in Anatolian, o r
rather, its branches (Hittite and other languages). In the same w a y ,
s o m e Hittite archaisms are often f o u n d as such in polythematic I E
(see 22).
It must b e assumed that the Anatolian b r a n c h representative
of
I E II was e v i d e n d y separated at a certain p o i n t f r o m the rest o f IE;

m o v i n g along the Caucasus, it then passed to Asia M i n o r and was
i m m u n e to the innovations o f the rest o f I E to the north o f the
Caucasus (IE III). T h i s coincides with that fact that o u r oldest Greek
a n d Indo-Iranian
texts date from a r o u n d the fifteenth
century B C
a n d those o f Hittite from a r o u n d the twentieth century B C , as stated

a b o v e ( 3). But it is the linguistic argument that is decisive.
20. O f course, a detailed study o f the historical aspect of this matter is not
appropriate here, but it has been dealt with in the following papers:
Arqueologia y diferenciacion del Indoeuropeo' (1979a) and 'The archaic
structure of Hittite: the crux of the problem' (1982b), nor is this the appro
priate place for a detailed argumentation.
A series o f articles on this subject have been collected in my Nuevos estudios de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea (1988a). General expositions can be found in
12
C H A P T E R ONE
my Lingiiistica Indoeuropea (1975) and especially in my Manual de Lingiiistica

Indoeuropea II (1996a). In the work 'The new image o f Indo-European. The
history o f a Revolution', I show, with the aid of an abundant bibliogra
phy, how there are more and more adherents to the new doctrine (often
attributed to W . Meid 1975, who merely plagiarised me), even though the
central character of the monothematism / polythematism opposition is rarely
acknowledged. I must add the following authors to those already cited there,
Th. V . GamkreHdze-V. V . Ivanov 1995, pp. 344 ff, 757 ff.
Recently (Adrados 1998a), I have provided a global vision o f IE differ
entiation. Furthermore, polythematism is not the only IE III innovation:
others include the loss o f the laryngeals, the introduction o f quantity as a
phonological characteristic o f vowels, the demonstrative pronoun *so, *sa
Hod, the personal pronoun *eg(h)d/me, nominal inflection with asigmatic N.
sg. with a long vowel, etc. But there is still much traditionalism in favour
of a unique IE and few innovations in Hittite, and there are still those
who, obviating the bibliography and the data provided there, attempt to
resuscitate the Indo-Hittite hypothesis (A. Lehrmann 1996). He could have
at least read my article o f 1992, published in the same journal in which
he writes.
For the concrete position o f Greek, c f Adrados 1975a.
}
Indo-European Ilia and Greek

2 1 . T h e study o f I E II and its derivative Anatolian, with its various
languages, is n o t d i r e c d y relevant in this context: it is clear that
G r e e k and the other languages considered in the traditional r e c o n
struction d e s c e n d from I E III, the polythematic b r a n c h w h i c h spread
from the year 2 0 0 0 B C through G r e e c e , Iran and India (A), and
m o r e recentiy through E u r o p e and the T a r i m valley (B). It is jjaought
that this type o f I E was f o r m e d during the course o f the third mil
lennium BC: I have identified its expansion with the third o f Gimbutas'
migrations, towards 2 3 0 0 BC. This does not m e a n that previous waves
o f migration h a d n o t m a n a g e d to reach E u r o p e : the p r e - G e r m a n i c
and p r e - G r e e k I n d o - E u r o p e a n remains to w h i c h I have alluded must
b e attributed to these; I will return to them.
I w o u l d like to stress that the linguistic arguments so neglected b y
archaeologists are essential for an understanding o f the originality o f
I E III. T h e s e arguments focus o n innovations and choices, although,
o f course, archaisms identical to those o f IE II remain here
and
there: traces o f the laryngeals, the use o f the pure stem in L. and
other functions, the occasional c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n N . and G , ,
heteroclitic inflection, verbs conjugated b y only o n e stem (such as
dux in G r . ) , the lack o f the subj. (in Baltic and Slavic), the o c c a -
13
F R O M I N D O - E U R O P E A N T O GREEK
sional lack o f the distinction o f the same a n d the had. (in Gr., G e r m . ,
etc.), and so o n .
T h e r e are even archaisms w h i c h Anatolian h a d lost (the distinc
tion o f n o m i n a l stems in *-o and *-a, 1st sg. in *-d without desinence,
etc.). T h e c h o i c e s are also notable: N . pi. in *-6s and not in
1st. sg. mid. in *(m)ai arid n o t in *~a, etc.
2 2 . H o w e v e r , this is insufficient w h e n it c o m e s to establishing
the
genealogy o f Greek: considering it a descendant o f IE III is not an

innovation o n the traditional arguments that simply considered it a
descendant o f IE. W e have only p o i n t e d out that this IE III corre
sponds to a recent phase o f IE.
S o , the task is to specify from w h i c h area o f this IE III G r e e k
descends. By referring to the previous ideas of, for example, R . Birwe
1956, and b y anticipating the most recent discussions, such as that
b y T h . V . G a m k r e l i d z e - V . V . I v a n o v 1995, p . 347 ff., in the pre
viously cited works I p r o p o s e d the existence o f an IE dialect that
forms the base o f Gr., I.-L, and A r m . (also, certainly o f T h r a c o Phrygian). I chose to call this dialect IE I I I A o r I n d o - G r e e k ,
the
o n e w h i c h has b e e n discussed. Cf. M . Meier-Briigger 1992, p . 65 f.

F a c e d with this dialect, languages that have b e e n dated
more
recently, o r m o r e to the W . , i.e. those o f E u r o p e (Bait., Slav., G e r m . ,

Lat., Ital., Celt.) and the E. ( T o e ) , w o u l d represent an IE
w h i c h is something fundamentally
new: the most important
IIIB,
innova
tion w o u l d b e the reduction o f the verbal system to two stems (apart

from the fut.), the i m p f , aor. and perf. m e r g i n g in the second.
This is the fundamental
division: the old division into centum/satdm
languages corresponds to a m o r e recent phonetic p h e n o m e n o n which

intersects with the IE I I I A / B split and other characteristics. A n o t h e r
B innovation is the frequent use o f verbal stems in *-e and -a. Y e t
the presence o f archaic features within g r o u p B is n o t e x c l u d e d (for
e x a m p l e , the desinence *-r in Lat., Ital., Celt, and T o e ; the lack o f
the a c t . / m i d . opposition, o f the subj. and perf. in Bait, and Slav., the
occasional m o n o t h e m a t i s m (as in moli, 2nd~3rd sg. pret.) in Slav., etc.
O f course, the existence o f archaisms in particular groups is not
excluded: apart from those already mentioned, B also preserves semithematic verbal inflection, while A preserves better the sense o f the
r o o t and the derivation o f stems from this r o o t (in this w a y , various
aorists m a y c o r r e s p o n d to a single present and vice versa). A also
preserves the o p p o s i t i o n o f the present and imperfect w h i c h
14
C H A P T E R ONE
+ - - . 0 is m a r k e d solely b y the desinences, and the richness o f the

system o f derivation and c o m p o s i t i o n . Furthermore, there are i n n o
vations and archaisms that are specific to the different languages,
G r . , I.-L and A r m . in the case o f g r o u p A .
23. T h e existence o f c o m m o n innovations in g r o u p A is fundamen
tal. F o r instance, the relative -yo verbal augment (also in A r m e n i a n ) ,
y
the elimination o f semi-thematic inflection, the creation o f the m i d .

perf. a n d p l u s c , the assignment o f m o o d s and participles to verbal
stems, the opposition o f a durative *bhere/o- and a punctual
*tude/o-
stem, the future in -s- (also in Baltic), the tendency ( c o m p l e t e d in

I.-L) to establish four c o m p l e t e series o f desinences (with the dis
appearance o f the use o f the pure stem, except in the thematics),
the loss also (with exceptions in I.-L) o f the des. *-r, the lack o f c o m
p o s e d verbal stems (except for G r . -0n) and o f *-e and
*a stems
(except for G r . -n), etc.

G r e e k also often innovates with respect to Sanskrit: for e x a m p l e
in the assignment o f an infinitive to every verbal stem and in the
almost c o m p l e t e destruction o f the c o m p l i c a t e d system o f present
tenses derived from the same root.
Y e t , with all its innovations, the I I I A dialect is
fundamentally
archaic in its preservation o f the four verbal stems o f the
present,
aorist, perfect and future. T h i s coincides with its older diffusion. It

has p r o d u c e d languages with a continuous, southern localisation: they
spread to Iran and India, to G r e e c e and Asia M i n o r . In c o n n e c t i o n
with this, I have suggested the existence o f a southern horde, (or a
g r o u p o f them), w h i c h penetrated E u r o p e through the south o f the
Carpathian mountains, and certainly a d v a n c e d westwards at an ear
lier date than the hordes w h i c h penetrated through the north o f the
Carpathians, creating various E u r o p e a n languages o f the IIIB type.
W i t h o u t a d o u b t , the predecessors o f the Greeks were at the head
o f the southern h o r d e , w h i c h carried I E IIIA: from the Balkans they
turned southwards, the Thracians trailing b e h i n d them as well as
the Phrygians and A r m e n i a n s , w h o crossed to Asia M i n o r . In c o n
trast, the predecessors o f the Iranians and Indians m o v e d (though
n o t always) to the East and then descended to Iran and India.
24. The establishment o f the fundamental characteristics of IE IIIA is essen
tial for determining the archaisms, choices and innovations o f Greek. But
it must be pointed out that the separation o f the two branches or dialects
into A and B is not absolute: there was certainly contact between the two
15
before the continuity o f the languages was dissolved, in the Russian or

European plains. Sometimes all or part o f the A branch coincides with the
B branch.
T h e more or less complete satemisation o f certain languages o f a par
ticular group, the coincidence in the confusion o f the vowels, etc., are good
examples. As far as morphology is concerned, we can cite, for instance,
the presence o f the superlative suffix *-isto- in Gr., I.-L and Germ.; the
case desinence
belonging to group A, which is also present in Lat,
Celt., etc.; concordance in personal pronouns (G. o f 1st pers. Av. mana,
OSlav. mene, Lith. mane, A c . OIn. mam, OSlav. me), in the prohibitive nega
tion *me (in I.-L, Bait.); the future in -s (Gr., L-L, Bait.); participles in -lo
(Arm. and Slav.); the diffusion o f verbal stems in *-e (Gr., Arm., T o e , etc.);
the creation o f a complete inflection for denominatives and deverbatives
(but not in I.-L); the N. pi. in *-oi in thematic names (in Gr., Lat., OSlav.,
Germ., part o f Celtic); the dual (Gr., I.-L, Balto-Slav. and part o f Germ.),
and so on.
These are thought to be innovations or choices, as the case may be. But
there are also archaisms, such as the nominal system with five cases and
a unique form o f D.-L.-I. (in Gr., Germ., and Celt.) - although some would
consider this an innovation - and heteroclitic inflection, o f which there are
traces in Latin.
All o f this is significant in that it lays the foundations for an examina
tion o f the facts surrounding the Greek language, for it is not only a con
tinuation o f IE IIIA, which is not always unitary, but it also coincides with
particular language o f IIIB, as we shall see. This can be seen as distinct
from its differentiation within group IIIA itself. W e believe that, by lead
ing the IE IIIA hordes, its main contact was with the rearguard o f the IIIB
hordes, especially with the Baltic and Slavic languages: this is revealed in
their common features.
For a more detailed account o f these ideas, see (among other works)
Adrados 1979a, 1990b, 1992c and 1996a.
CHAPTER T W O
GREEK A T THE D O O R S OF GREECE
1.
M O R E SPECIFICATIONS O N G R E E K
25. I w o u l d like to stress the relationship between G r e e k and

Indo-European
the
languages. W e have already p o i n t e d out that the
I n d o - G r e e k g r o u p o r IE IIIA, whether in its entirety o r in a certain

language in particular, often displays similarities with the g r o u p IIIB
languages: whether in archaisms, innovations o r choices. I w o u l d n o w
like to highlight this p h e n o m e n o n , focusing o n the G r e e k language.
S o m e t i m e s G r e e k preserves archaisms that were lost in I . - L : gen
erally, in c o n n e c t i o n with other languages (this is not surprising, given
that an archaism m a y emerge anywhere). For instance, there is declen
sion into five cases (also in G e r m , and Celt.); athematic inflection o f
denominatives and deverbatives in the 3rd pers. pi. -aai, -nai (also
in Lat., G e r m . , e t c , but in G r . only in Aeolic); possibly, the lack o f
the personal G . *mene (in phonetics, the character centum). H o w e v e r ,
sometimes it is I.I. w h i c h displays an archaism
G r e e k , w h i c h innovates
that was lost to
a l o n e o r with other languages: w e
m o n o t h e m a t i c inflection o f d e n o m i n a t i v e s
a n d deverbatives,
find
one
infinitive p e r verb w h i c h is not assigned to the stems, the l a c k o f

verbal stems with the l o n g v o w e l -e o r *-d
etc.
H e r e is a short list o f the forms w h i c h the innovations o r choices

o f Greek, together with other languages, m a y take: the dual, the N .
pi. in *-oi and verbal stems in *-e and *-d, as cited previously; c o m
p o u n d verbal stems (with -0r|, with other variants in Lat.,
G e r m . , Sla., Bait., e.g. Lat. amabam, e t c ) ; G
Ital.,
pi. in *-dsdm (in G r .
and Lat.); the gentilitious adjective in -os (as an archaism in Gr.,

and also present in Lat.), e t c In addition, in phonetics, the vocali
sation o f *<r, *1> with 0, as in Lat. (but in Gr., only in Aeolic); and
the vocalic prothesis before a sonant (only in A r m . ) .
26. G i v e n that the h o r d e from w h i c h G r e e k w o u l d emerge was in
the vanguard o f all the hordes that travelled along the northern coast
o f the Black Sea and penetrated E u r o p e through the south o f the
Carpathian mountains, it is not surprising that, o n o c c a s i o n , G r e e k
17
GREEK A T THE DOORS OF GREECE
should have c o m e into contact with the rearguard o f the northern

h o r d e o f I E I I I B c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the Slavic, Baltic, and
even
G e r m a n i c a n d Latin peoples (which in turn c a m e into contact with

the Italic a n d Celtic peoples).
O f course, all o f this implies, firstly, that the future Greek dialects
could preserve archaisms o r introduce innovations o f their o w n accord,
thereby distinguishing themselves from I . - L T h e y c o u l d also c o m e
into contact, at various points (certainly at a relatively recent point
in time) with the northern hordes.
In other w o r d s , the unity o f I E I I I A was not absolute, and o n e
o f its branches c o u l d evolve at different points in time. Indeed, even
this b r a n c h was n o t absolutely unified, u n d e r g o i n g internal splits in
its contacts with the northern a n d western dialects. Internally,
process o f breaking away or differentiation, w h i c h w o u l d later advance

within G r e e c e , had certainly begun, besides the evolutions that affected
the w h o l e G r e e k dialect.
27. For more details, see various of my publications, especially (among other
earlier works) 'Sanscrito e Indoeuropeo' (1975a), 'La dialectologia griega'
(1984a) and 'Las lenguas eslavas en el contexto de las lenguas indoeuropeas' (1980b), collected in Adrados 1988a; see also 'De la Dialectologia
griega de 1952 a la Dialectologia griega de 1995' (Madrid, 1998b).
2.
COMMON GREEK
(CG)
2 8 . C o m m o n G r e e k flourished shortly before the year 2 0 0 0 B C in

an area o f northern G r e e c e . T h i s was a G r e e k dialect w h i c h did not
display an absolute unity and contained its o w n archaisms and i n n o
vations a n d c h o i c e s , linking it, at certain points, to other
Indo-
E u r o p e a n dialects. T h i s dialect contained various lines o f fracture,

but it also had its o w n exclusive innovations, w h i c h I must discuss.
It was n o r m a l to speak o f ' c o m m o n languages
in w h i c h the image o f the 'genealogical tree
during a p e r i o d
(Stammbaumtheorie) was
d o m i n a n t as regards the evolution o f languages. T h e n c a m e the 'the

o r y o f the waves
(Wellentheorie), w h i c h b r o u g h t expansive waves o f
diverse innovations to o u r attention, with a tendency to c o n v e r g e o n

5
a central nucleus, but to organise into 'bundles o f isoglosses o n the

limits: n o w o n e c o u l d not speak o f c o m m o n intermediate
languages.
A struggle against these was l a u n c h e d in the scientific literature.

Furthermore, with the arrival o f anti-migrationism and the idea that
18
CHAPTER T W O
languages are created through the c o n v e r g e n c e o f various other lan

guages (for Greek, see V . Pisani and T h . V . Gamkrelidze), the theory
o f c o m m o n intermediate languages tended to b e a b a n d o n e d .
F a c e d with this idea, o n a n u m b e r o f occasions (most recently in
A d r a d o s 1998a) I have defended the view that C o m m o n G r e e k and
the other ' c o m m o n languages' did in fact exist. O f course, not as
absolutely closed and uniform dialects, but as lax units, related to a
particular region, and other surrounding regions, in w h i c h there was
an incipient internal fragmentation. In fact, there is n o such thing
as an absolutely uniform dialect: w h y should w e expect there to be
such, in a preliterate p e r i o d with a merely tribal political organisa
tion? M a n y o f us h a d already l o n g anticipated the ideas o f M . B i l e C . B r i x h e - R . H o d o t 1984 regarding the lack o f total unity in dialects.
T h e m o s t curious thing, as far as G r e e k is c o n c e r n e d , is the p r o
gressively increasing popularity o f the idea that its dialectal frag
mentation took place exclusively within G r e e c e . This is perhaps an
understandable (though terribly excessive) reaction to the ideas held
b y K r e t s c h m e r , T o v a r a n d myself regarding the origin o f G r e e k
dialects outside o f G r e e c e .
29. H o w e v e r , in various works (especially 1976a and b , 1984a), w h i c h
culminate in m y b o o k o f 1998b, I have always defended the theory
of a C o m m o n
G r e e k : fundamentally
unitary, b u t with
budding
differentiation. T h i s is in n o w a y incompatible with the later origin

o f certain dialectal characteristics.
T h e idea o f a c o n v e r g e n c e o f dialects (Pisani, Gamkrelidze)'in the
creation o f G r e e k is just as ludicrous as the idea o f M y c e n a e a n as
the c o n v e r g e n c e o f dialects (Georgiev) o r C h a d w i c k ' s idea that there
was only ever o n e G r e e k migration: the D o r i a n peoples w o u l d b e
seen as submitted subjects to the M y c e n a e a n s , and at s o m e p o i n t
revolting against them.
It is evident that the p e o p l e s w h o b r o u g h t the D o r i c dialects to
G r e e c e towards the year 1200 BC f o r m e d a part o f C o m m o n Greek:
there is n o reason to dispute this traditional view. D o r i c is essen
tially an archaic f o r m o f G r e e k that has n o t received the innova
tions a n d choices peculiar to East Greek, w h i c h penetrated G r e e c e
at an earlier date and from w h i c h the other dialects descend. It is
likely that m a n y o f these innovations and choices w o u l d have already
b e e n present, in statu nascendi, in C o m m o n Greek, for example those
that j o i n A e o l i c with the western I n d o - E u r o p e a n dialects, IIIB, as
w e have seen.
19
3.
ESSENTIAL C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F C O M M O N G R E E K
30. H e r e , I will summarise the opinions regarding C o m m o n Greek

w h i c h have b e e n presented in previous publications already cited. I
will start with the essential characteristics and continue with the inter
nal variants that they n o d o u b t entailed. Naturally, I will not l o o k
at those c o m m o n characteristics
o f G r e e k that e m e r g e d later as a
p r o d u c t o f internal evolution, such as the creation o f the
article.
I have p l a c e d G r e e k within I n d o - E u r o p e a n and, m o r e specifically,

within IIIA. But it is n o w essential to present its fundamental
char
acteristics, w h i c h are n o d o u b t present in C o m m o n Greek, in a

schematic w a y . T h e s e characteristics are present in the most ancient
dialects, recent innovations not taken into a c c o u n t . T h e y are
also
the result o f the evolution o f G r e e k as a literary language.

3 1 . G r e e k preserved the musical accent o f I E a n d its system o f five
short and five l o n g vowels. In archaic times, *i and
the semi-vocalic forms o f y,
% c o u l d have
*w, w h i c h w e r e later lost; whereas
the
v o c a l i c forms o f the sonants w e r e lost (although there is a view,

w h i c h I d o n o t h o l d , that < * r > w e r e p r e s e r v e d
in H o m e r
and
M y c e n a e a n ) . T h e laws o f O s t h o f f and Grassmann had b e e n fulfilled.

T h e three laryngeals in a v o c a l i c position had b e c o m e vocalised as
e, a, o (in certain different contexts).
32. For the supposed preservation o f <*r> in Homer and Mycenaean, cf.,
among other bibliography, Heubeck 1972; against this preservation, see
J.J. Moralejo 1973b and my ' M y c e n a e a n . . . ' (Adrados 1976a, compiled
in Adrados 1988a, cf. p. 450). For the dating o f vocalisation in C G , cf.
my work Adrados 1976b, p. 260 ff, and my statements about this vocali
sation in my article o f 1958 (followed by many others). C f also A. Bernabe
1977.
33. W i t h regard to the consonants, it is important to note that in
C o m m o n G r e e k the aspirated v o i c e d consonants had b e c o m e aspi
rated voiceless consonants, and that the labiovelars, j u d g i n g by M y c e
naean, were still preserved: thus C o m m o n G r e e k had three series o f
plosives (voiceless, aspirated voiceless and unaspirated v o i c e d ) , with
four points o f articulation: labial, dental, guttural and labiovelar. But
the a p p e n d i x o f the laryngeals was lost in certain contexts.
T h e s was preserved in groups and final position, but it b e c a m e
aspirated h in initial and intervocalic position (lexical b o r r o w i n g s and
the evolution o f certain groups later enabled the later acceptance o f
s in these positions). Y e t , it is possible that certain later evolutions,
20
CHAPTER T W O
such as that o f -ti> -si and that o f certain groups with s andjy, h a d
already b e g u n . In other words, the p h o n o l o g i c a l system l o o k e d like
this:
Vowels:
Sonants:
Consonants:
a, e, 6 , 1 , u, a, e, I, 6, u
y, w, r, 1, m, n
b , p, ph
d, t, th
g, k, kh
Sibilants:
Aspirates:
s
h
gw
34. M o r p h o l o g y displayed the following characteristics, sometimes in

c o m b i n a t i o n with other languages:
*-s in the N . masc, sg. o f the
stems in *-a\ *-i N . pi. o f the n o u n s in *-e/o a n d -a; G . pi. in

*-som o f these same stems in *-d; the D . pi. in *-si (not *-su) o f the
athematic nouns; declension into five cases and three numbers; the
d e v e l o p m e n t a n d frequent use o f stems in *-eu a n d the limited rep
resentation o f those in *-e a n d * - o ; the c o n v e r g e n c e o f the suffixes
*-tero a n d *-yos in the comparative, a n d the creation o f *-tato in the
superlative; the inflection o f the pi. o f personal p r o n o u n s o n *-sme
and
*us-sme; the opposition o f the p r o n o u n s 65e/o?>Toc/eKivo<;; the
preservation o f athematic and the lack o f semi-thematic inflection

o f verbs; the suffixes -sa- in the aor., -k- in the perfect and the inte
gration o f *-e a n d *-ihe- in the pas. aor.; the loss o f the desinence
*-r; the assignment o f an infinitive to each stem a n d voice; e t c
O n e must also p o i n t o u t the existence o f doublets, s o m e o f w h i c h
have already b e e n m e n t i o n e d .
It should b e stressed that G r e e k maintained the c o m m o n charac
teristics o f I n d o - G r e e k , along with its o w n evolutions, such as: in
general, the preservation o f the significance o f the r o o t a n d the m o r
p h o l o g i c a l use o f accent a n d alternation; in the n o u n , the opposi
tion (though n o t always) o f m a s c and fern, stems, and in the adjective
o f the positive, comparative a n d superlative; in the v e r b , the o p p o
sition o f the four stems o f the pres., aor., perf. and fut., and their
association, in m o s t cases, with the subj. and o p t . m o o d s and the
participles
(also, as m e n t i o n e d , the infinitives); the q u a d r a n g u l a r
system o f the desinences in the four stems, maintaining the middle

ones having a passive value, although the passive is c o m p l e m e n t e d
with special forms (Greek, n o t Indian) in the aor. and fut.; and the
system o f three aspects.
21
35. S o , G r e e k has a clear a n d c o h e r e n t p h o n o l o g i c a l system, as well

as a clear a n d c o h e r e n t system o f interweaving categories and func
tions. T h e p r o b l e m is the irregularity o f the m o r p h o l o g y : allomorphs,
syncretism, amalgams, the p r i m a c y o f irregularity o n regular declen
sions a n d conjugations.
T h i s constituted the essence o f G r e e k , together with a syntactic
system that, j u d g i n g from H o m e r , was similar to that o f V e d i c and
in w h i c h the m o o d s preserved their o w n value in
subordination.
T h e r e was still n o article a n d the resources o f lexical derivation were

still n o t as d e v e l o p e d as they w o u l d b e at a later stage (neither those
o f the transformation
o f n o u n into v e r b , adjective and adverb, n o r
the inverse), yet there was already a rich system o f c o m p o s i t i o n a n d

derivation, w h i c h f o r m e d the base o f the later system.
Indeed, together with its system o f categories and functions, the
d e v e l o p m e n t o f a syntax o f subordination a n d o f a lexicon were the
principal factors o f progress in G r e e k , and those w h i c h contributed
the most to its transformation into the universal linguistic m o d e l for
all languages.
CHAPTER THREE
F R O M C O M M O N GREEK T O THE DIALECTS
OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM
1. V A R I A N T S W I T H I N C O M M O N G R E E K
36. A language, especially o n e that is spoken b y n o m a d i c tribes lack

ing a centralised organisation o r written culture, is never absolutely
uniform. I believe that, despite trends in the current bibliography,
variants w e r e already present in C o m m o n Greek. Indeed, it was in
C o m m o n G r e e k that s o m e o f the characteristics
o f the later East
Greek, w h i c h d e s c e n d e d into G r e e c e towards the year 2 0 0 0 , b e g a n

to disseminate. T h e s e characteristics appear in H o m e r , M y c e n a e a n
and the later dialects (or at least s o m e o f them): for instance, -si for
-ti, oi, od in the pi. p r o n o u n , at), eiai, -(a)av, e t c See 6 9 .
Y e t , there is still the serious p r o b l e m o f whether these
'pan-ori
ental' characteristics w e r e diffused in a part o f C G outside G r e e c e ,

o r only in East G r e e k ( E G ) inside G r e e c e , before the Dorians blocked
c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ; o r perhaps only in a restricted part o f E G inside
o r outside G r e e c e .
T h e n there is the existence o f archaisms in C G , although
these
c o u l d have b e e n displaced within it, in any location. T h e r ^ - i s also

the presence o f doublets, from a m o n g w h i c h there was a tendency
to c h o o s e : often, n o d o u b t , within C G , other times in G r e e c e , where
the d o u b l e t was preserved in certain dialects while in others it was
a choice.
37. But certain archaisms from s o m e o r all o f the dialects o f East
G r e e k clearly c o m e f r o m C o m m o n G r e e k o r part o f it: H o r n . Zfjv,
8cp9ixo, 8 d u v a (with parallels in L e s b . and M y c ) , xoi (also in D o r .
and part o f A e o L ) , case in -pi o r -91 ( M y c , Horn., T h e s . ) , G . in
-010 (Horn,, M y c , traces in T h e s . ) , patronymics in -10c, (Horn., M y c ,
AeoL), desinence in -xo(i) ( M y c , A r c ) . In addition, there are archaisms
in w h i c h the M y c e n a e a n is a c c o m p a n i e d , o r not, b y other dialects:
the preservation o f -w-
sometimes o f -y- and o f -h- descending from
*-s-. I n d e e d , these p h o n e m e s existed in C G and continued to exist

in E G , whether inside o r outside o f G r e e c e .
F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS
23
T h e archaisms did n o t establish the distinction, for they were also

(at s o m e point) present in the part that w o u l d b e c o m e W e s t G r e e k
( W G ) . But their presence enabled innovations in a particular part
o f C G o r in the later dialects.
It is clear that doublets, from a m o n g w h i c h the dialects w o u l d
c h o o s e , existed in C G and certainly in the E G within G r e e c e . It is
difficult to distinguish between the t w o cases. T h e y often represent
an o l d and a n e w f o r m that coexisted for a certain p e r i o d (u.exd/
mSa/zv/evq,
oduva/thematic forms) o r various attempts to find s o m e
thing to mark a n e w category (dv/Ke/ica, a i / d / i ) , j i i v / v i v , - v a i /

-uv, etc.). T h e y could also represent divergent analogical generalisations
(aorists in -a- and -i;-, etc.) o r p h o n e t i c results arising from different
contexts, striving to b e c o m e generalised (ocp/op); o r even simple hes
itations within IE ( D . sg, *-ei/*-i,
2 n d sg. *-es/*-eis).
This was to b e
expected, see A d r a d o s 1952 and 1998b.

T h e s e doublets w e r e subsequently distributed within E G and W G
(-uv/fxec,, -aa-/-â- desinences in the verb), o r within different dialects
o f E G , s o m e a c c o m p a n i e d at times b y W G : the vocalisation ocp (Ion.Att. and Dor.) / o p (AeoL, A r c - C y p . , Horn, and M y c . with fluctuations);
athematic verbs ( M y c , A e o L , at times Horn.) a n d thematic
verbs
(elsewhere, but also in Horn.), in the deverbatives; D . sg. *-ei ( M y c ,

traces in Horn.) / *-i (other dialects); G . sg. -010/-00 (Horn, and else
where) /*-os (identical to N . , in M y c . and Cyp.); the p r o n o u n s ju.iv
(Horn., Ion.) / v i v ( D o r . ) , verbal desinences -eq ( C y p . , D o r . ) /-eiq
(other dialects); infinitive in -vat (Horn., Ion.-At., A r c - C y p . ) /-jnev
(Horn., A e o L , D o r . ) ; the conjunctions ei (Ion.-At., A r c ) / a i (AeoL,
D o r . ) / f | ( C y p . , written B o e o t . ai); the particle dv (Ion., A r c , Horn.)
/icev (AeoL) /KGC (only in D o r . ) ; the preposition ev + A c ( A r c - C y p . ,
Thes., Boeot.) / + D . (other dialects); etc.
Sometimes, archaisms are only f o u n d in M y c : the preservation o f
the groups -pm-, -tm-> o f the p r o n o u n to-to> e t c O r , w e find only
archaic doublets (or doublets consisting o f an archaic f o r m and a
recent f o r m , c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the other dialects): -or- / -or- (vocal
isations o f <*-r-); the prepositions o-pi / e-pi, me-ta / pe-da; thematic
and athematic verbal forms; D . sg. -e (<-ei) /
e t c A r c h a i c forms
m a y also b e present in M y c and other dialects: %%- I %- (in M y c ,

H o r n . , A r c - C y p . ) . S o m e t i m e s , w e find c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s b e t w e e n
A e o l i c and the n o n - G r e e k dialects (the
timbre
o f vocalisations, the
athematic forms o f deverbatives and denominatives).
24
CHAPTER THREE
38. In other w o r d s , b o t h C G and E G contained certain
fluctuations
that w o u l d spread to the w h o l e o r part o f E G . Also, b o t h W G and

E G (or part o f it) w o u l d have to c h o o s e between these
fluctuations,
although it is difficult to give an exact date o f w h e n this o c c u r r e d .

M o r e o v e r , as m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ( 36), s o m e innovations in E G
c o u l d have already taken place in C G , anticipating a future division
between the two dialects. T h o s e innovations in particular that appear
in all o r most o f the E G dialects, w h i c h were separated b y large
intransitable D o r i a n w e d g e s in archaic times, must c o m e from
an
earlier p e r i o d : either from C G or, at least, E G in G r e e c e before the

arrival o f the D o r i a n s (eg., the evolution o f -ti > -si; the N . pi. o f
the demonstrative oi, ai; the personal at), etc.). T h u s , at the most,
it can b e said that the diffusion o f these innovations had
already
b e g u n in C G .
Certainly, C G w o u l d have shown innovatory tendencies and lines
o f fracture in those places where a differentiation
o f dialectal areas
was c o m m e n c i n g b e t w e e n the later E G and W G (certain isoglosses

did not c o i n c i d e with this limit) o r between the later E G dialects.
W i t h respect to these isoglosses, in m a n y cases it is impossible to
determine the extent to w h i c h they c o r r e s p o n d to C G o r E G , and
to trace the dialects w h i c h b e g a n to differentiate
themselves,
and
w h i c h in any case only b e c a m e defined in G r e e c e after the arrival

o f the D o r i a n s , with the help o f n e w innovations.
39. This is but a summary of the doctrine presented in Adrados 1976a and
b, 1984a, 1998a and b (also 1990a on G. = N. in M y c . and Cyp. thematics
and 1990b on the system o f five cases in M y c , as well as in Gr. in general).
Cf. also M . Meier-Briigger 1992, p . 67, on the differences in C G .
For my views on all this and its precedents, see my two works o f 1998
already referred to, as well as the prologue to the reedition in 1997 o f my
book o f 1952, La Dialectologia griega como fuente para el estudio de las migraciones
indoeuropeas en Grecia. In these works, I refer to the stance attributing all
dialectal differentiation to the period after the Dorian invasion in Greece;
it derives from the well-known works o f W . Porzig 1954 and E. Risch 1955.
I do not believe that this in any way prevents us from proposing the start
of differentiation in C G and E G (inside or outside Greece), despite the crit
icism of the view that a dialectal fragmentation had occurred outside Greece
(cf, among others, A. Lopez Eire 1989a). It is typical that, for instance,
J. L. Garcia R a m o n 1975, for example, considers Aeolic to be postMycenaean: in my opinion, on the other hand, it became defined at this
time, but some features are o f an earlier date. The methodological issues
and, more specifically, the concepts o f innovation and choice, are studied
carefully in Adrados 1952 and 1998b.
25
F R O M C O M M O N GREEK T O T H E DIALECTS
O n the critique of J. Chadwick's thesis, in which he denies there was

ever a Dorian invasion, cf. among others, J. J. Moralejo 1977b, pp. 243-267;
also Adrados 1998b.
2. F R O M T H E A R R I V A L O F T H E FIRST G R E E K
(EAST GREEK, EG)
DIALECTS
T O T H E A R R I V A L OF T H E D O R I C
(WEST GREEK,
DIALECTS
WG)
The diffusion of the Greek dialects

4 0 . W e have discarded the idea that there w e r e n o G r e e k migra
tions and that everything o c c u r r e d through simple cultural diffusion
from Anatolia. I n d e e d , although this b o o k is d e v o t e d to the study
o f the history o f the G r e e k language, not the history o f the Greeks
from an archaeological perspective, it is important to fix the date o f
arrival o f the first Greeks in G r e e c e , as well as that o f the last Greeks,
the Dorians. Furthermore, it is necessary to fix the principal dates
regarding the expansion o f the Greeks and Dorians. A history o f the
G r e e k language w o u l d b e badly served without this.
T h e main stages in the evolution o f the G r e e k language can b e
established from this starting point: G r e e k in the s e c o n d millennium,
from the first entry o f the Greeks, w h i c h is k n o w n to us (though
imperfectly) b y w a y o f M y c e n a e a n , H o m e r , and f r o m the
retro
spective conclusions that c a n b e drawn from the G r e e k dialects o f

the first mellennium; and the G r e e k dialect w h i c h penetrated at the
e n d o f the s e c o n d millennium with the D o r i a n s .
T h e n , w e must examine the split o f G r e e k into different dialects
during the first millennium, the external diffusion o f m a n y o f them
and the unifying tendencies that, in a s e c o n d phase, tended to bring
these dialects closer together. W e must also l o o k at the creation,
from here, o f the literary dialects o r languages o f G r e e c e , in w h i c h
the unifying tendencies were also felt; and lastly, w e must examine
the final unification, from Attic - the so-called koine - w h i c h sealed the
fate o f the G r e e k language in the Hellenistic, R o m a n , Byzantine and
M o d e r n periods.
4 1 . T h e G r e e k language n o d o u b t arrived in various waves from
M a c e d o n i a and Epirus, in the transition from
m i d d l e to ancient
Helladic (or M i n o a n ) ; that is, a r o u n d the year 2 0 0 0 B C , as stated
26
CHAPTER THREE
previously (although perhaps s o m e w h a t earlier). T h i s ushered in the

so-called M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d , o f w h i c h m o r e is k n o w n from 1620 B C
onwards, w h i c h c o n c l u d e d with the D o r i a n invasion, from 1200 B C
onwards. It is contemporaneous with o r rather posterior to the destruc
tion o f cities and cultures throughout the East, from Ugarit to G r e e c e
itself as well as Crete. O n l y in Egypt was this invasion o f the sofi
called Sea Peoples' successfully contained, due to Merneptah's efforts.

F r o m the year 2 0 0 0 B C onwards, G r e e c e , b y will o f the Greeks,
was assimilated into the I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture o f the kurgans, with
its tumuli t o m b s , m a c e s and stone axes, o c h r e burials, and
many
other things. A c c o r d i n g to Sakellariou, Balkanic populations related

to the culture o f ' o l d E u r o p e ' also entered with the I n d o - E u r o p e a n
Greeks.
T h i s is the m o m e n t in w h i c h the great M y c e n a e a n kingdoms o f
G r e e c e were created: a b o v e all, M y c e n a e , T h e b e s , Athens, Pylos and
K n o s s o s . It is unclear whether other M y c e n a e a n settlements,
such
as those o f O r c h o m e n o i in Boeotia, Iolcos in Thessaly o r Tiryns in

Argolis consituted i n d e p e n d e n t political units.
4 2 . Nevertheless, at the outset, the military, e c o n o m i c and cultural
d o m i n i o n o f G r e e c e was in the hands o f the M i n o a n s o f Crete, w h o
exerted great influence o n M y c e n a e a n culture, T h e r a and
Athens
itself w e r e , n o d o u b t , what Sakellariou refers to as 'satelite cultures'.

M i n o a n remains have b e e n found in T h e r a , and in ancient
myth
Athens figures as a vasall o f M i n o s , the mythical king o f Crete.

H o w e v e r , the situation o n this island c h a n g e d after the earthtfuakes
o f around
1550 and the v o l c a n i c eruption o f T h e r a o f the
date. It was a terrible explosion, worse than that o f the
same
Krakatoa:
the resulting w a v e o r tsunami devastated the entire A e g e a n littoral.

T h e M y c e n a e a n s o n the continent c a m e to possess the
Cretan
palaces and created a n e w culture, adapting, for example, M i n o a n

script (Linear A , derived in turn from a hieroglyphic script) to the
needs o f the Greeks: in this w a y , Linear B was created. T h i s was
the great climax o f p o w e r for the M y c e n a e a n s : in Crete, with its
centre in K n o s s o s , a n d in G r e e c e in the kingdoms m e n t i o n e d , w h o s e
archives used this script o f Cretan origin. T h e r e is evidence o f Cretan
influence in Pylos 150 years before the destruction o f the palaces,
and it c a n also b e f o u n d o n islands such as Cyprus and R h o d e s . In
addition, cultural elements from the East, which had influenced Crete,
were also present a m o n g the M y c e n a e a n s .
27
4 3 . This is the p h e n o m e n o n o f M y c e n a e a n expansion, the first Greek

e x p a n s i o n . It also r e a c h e d C y r p u s , as I h a v e stated, w h e r e
the
M y c e n a e a n s settled a r o u n d 1400. H e r e , a C y p r o - M i n o a n script had

b e e n created in the sixteenth
Crete
and
century, similar to the Linear A o f
o t h e r islands, f o r an i n d i g e n o u s l a n g u a g e
known
as
Eteocyprian. Its use was continued in A m a t h u s , where the indige

nous population t o o k refuge from the M y c e n a e a n s and, subsequently,
from the Dorians: it was maintained until the fourth century. Classical
Cyprian syllabic script is derived f r o m this script, a n d it is used for
writing G r e e k f r o m the eleventh to the third century B C
A multitude o f M y c e n a e a n remains w h i c h date from the
same
p e r i o d has b e e n discovered in Cyprus and R h o d e s ; particularly
in
the cemeteries o f Camirus and Ialysos, but let us r e m e m b e r the pres

ence o f a R h o d i a n hero in the Iliad; T l e p o l e m u s .
W e have k n o w l e d g e o f M y c e n a e a n expansion in the w h o l e o f the
Levant, where there is not only evidence o f trade, but also o f fixed
trade setdements, especially in Miletus. T h u s , apart from trade, there
w e r e also setdements and military campaigns. T h e royal correspon
d e n c e o f the Hittites and Ugarit
attest to relations b e t w e e n
the
A h h i y a w a o r A c h a e a n s and the k i n g d o m s o f Asia, w h i c h sometimes

asked them for help o r m a d e agreements with them. All this o c c u r r e d
during the reign o f the Hittite king Suppiluliumas ( 1 3 8 0 - 1 3 4 0 ) , then
under
Mursilis II and his son Muwatallis ( 1 3 0 6 - 1 2 8 2 ) and
under
Tuthaliyas I V ( 1 2 5 0 - 1 2 2 0 ) .
T h e A c h a e a n princes, w h o s e names are given o n o c c a s i o n (for
e x a m p l e , Attarasiyas,
o r Atreus), carried out expeditions o f pillage
a n d were sometimes allied with the dissident k i n g d o m s o f the coast

o f Asia, such as A r z a w a , in the southeastern limit o f Asia M i n o r :
this o c c u r r e d during the decline o f Hittite imperial p o w e r in
the
peripheral region a l o n g the shoreline.

A n o t h e r expansion extended to the w h o l e Mediterranean,
ing the Iberian peninsula, b y means o f trade a n d the
includ
establishment
o f emporia, such as that o f Thapsus in Sicily.

44. O n the arrival o f the Greeks and Mycenaean expansion, see in addi
tion to the bibliography previously cited, works by N. G. L. Hammond
1986b, p . 19 ff; F. Schachermeyr 1980; M . Sakellariou 1980; F. Villar
1995, p. 289 ff; J.-P. Olivier 1996. These works are also useful in relation
to the great catastrophe o f around 1200, the invasion of the 'Sea Peoples',
which decimated the Mycenaean kingdoms (see also 47), and in relation
to the arrival of the Dorians. O n the Ahhiyawa, c f L. R . Palmer 1980,
p. 67.
28
CHAPTER THREE
O n Cyprus, see F. R. Willets 1988 and V . Karageorghis 1991, p. 76 ff.

The royal correspondence o f Egypt and the Hittites with the king of Alasia
(Cyprus) refers to armed attacks from the continental peoples, c f V. Kara
georghis 1991, p. 82. O n the Cyprian scripts, which include the Eteocyprian
language (Cypro-Minoan script, from the sixteenth century), Greek (later
Greek, from the eleventh century), cf. R . Schmitt 1977, p. 15 ff, Th. G
Palaima 1991, CI. Baurain 1991, M . Meier-Briigger 1992, p. 52 ff., A.
Sacconi 1991: although it contains elements o f the Cretan Linear A, CyproMinoan may proceed from Syria and especially Ugarit, where evidence of
this has been found. O n Crete, c f C. Davaras 1976. O n Cretan scripts
see, in general, C . Brixhe 1991a and J.-P. Olivier 1996 (who identi
fies inscriptions which are dated earlier and later than the bulk of these,
in the thirteenth century); on the Phaestus disk (Cretan hieroglyphics), see
Y. Duhoux 1977; for Eteocretan, see Y. Duhoux 1982.
O n Rhodes, cf. Ch. Karoussos 1973. O n Asia, apart from FernandezGaliano 1984, J. Boardman 1973, p . 41 ff, and the excellent revision of
the later bibliography by V . Alonso Troncoso 1994. Also, E. Akurgal 1985,
p. 206 ff; and my article Adrados 1992b. With regard to the West, I have
provided a bibliography in my article 'Navegaciones del siglo VIII, navegaciones micenicas y navegaciones en la Odised (1998c).
45. T h e forced expansive m o v e m e n t w o u l d certainly have had lin
guistic implications, so that G r e e k w o u l d have b e e n spoken
and
u n d e r s t o o d in these settlements. In Crete and Cyprus w e can trace

its expansion f r o m the e n d o f the s e c o n d millennium, as in G r e e c e
itself, although in H o m e r , as w e shall see, traces o f n o n - G r e e k p o p
ulations
remain.
G r e e k was certainly spoken in Miletus and other parts, where the

Greek dialects b e c a m e established again in the eleventh century, dur
ing the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d . Indeed, w e are told in the Illiad ( V I 168
ff.) h o w Prcetus, king o f Ephyra in Argolis, sent the hero Bellerophon
to the king o f the Lycians with a letter containing instrucions to kill
the messenger. T h i s letter is described as a dyptich o f tablets (made
o f w o o d , n o doubt) containing M y c e n a e a n signs in Greek, and it is
significant that the king o f L y c i a h a d n o p r o b l e m s understanding it.
A l s o , there d o n o t appear
to have b e e n any linguistic
difficulties
a m o n g the A h h i y a w a a n d the Eastern princes o r a m o n g Greeks and

Trojans.
F o r this p e r i o d , there is archaeological evidence o f the
diffusion
o f M y c e n a e a n ceramics throughout the Mediterranean, even in Spain,

in the Guadalquivir valley; other G r e e k cultural influences are also
attested, along with, inversely, the Asiatic influence in G r e e c e . But
there is n o data o n G r e e k outside o f G r e e c e itself, except for the
29
FROM COMMON GREEK T O THE DIALECTS
M y c e n a e a n tablets o f Knossos and traces o f second-millennium Greek

in the epic that flourished along the Asian coasts in the beginning
o f the first millennium.
Greek in the second millennium
4 6 . O u r k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k during the s e c o n d millennium is scarce
for a n u m b e r o f reasons. O n the o n e hand, there was an oral poetic
tradition w h i c h was r e c o r d e d in writing only m u c h later, in
the
eighth century, m i x e d with several adventitious and recent elements,

and greatly altered, so that it is difficult to isolate the linguistic ele
ments o f the s e c o n d millennium. Linear B c o u l d serve s o m e w h a t as
a c o m p l e m e n t , but it was only used in the palaces, w h e r e it h a d an
administrative function, apart from the marks o n oil jars a n d such
like; as w e shall see, it was a standardised language, with hardly any
differences. T h e s e inscriptions p r o v i d e only partial evidence o f sec
ond-millennium Greek. M o r e o v e r , their interpretation is often difficult
and controversial d u e to the fact that the writing adapted badly to
the G r e e k language, and due to o u r deficient understanding o f the
cultural context. In contrast, the tablets, evidently organised after the
m o d e l o f the eastern palaces and their archives, d o n o t contain lit
erary texts as those o f the palaces did. T h e tablets were not baked,
and were only preserved because o f the fire that destroyed the palaces
at s o m e point during the e n d o f the thirteenth century.
A s far as w e k n o w , it was only in Cyprus that this script p r o d u c e d
something approximating a close derivative. T h e hypothesis attribut
ing the origin o f the Iberian semi-alphabet to a syllabary related to
that o f this script, is almost forgotten today. E v e n if it w e r e true, it
c a n n o t b e d e n i e d that the later G r e e k alphabetic script h a d a very
strong influence. T h e strong influence o f the G r e e k language out
side o f G r e e c e c a n n o t b e detected until the later p e r i o d . It is n o t
even easy to provide an image o f second-millennium Greek in G r e e c e .
Finally, w h e n it c o m e s to reconstructing second-millennium Greek,
the conclusions obtained from the comparative study o f dialects from
the first millennium are not entirely reliable. H o w e v e r , I will refer
to t h e m to s o m e extent. But the situation is as follows: the language
o r languages spoken in the s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m w e r e n o t
written
d o w n . T h e sung o r recited language o f the aoidoi was written d o w n

m u c h later a n d was m u c h altered; the written language was reserved
for very limited administrative purposes a n d possibly was not spoken.
30
CHAPTER THREE
4 7 . It is important first to establish the historical b a c k g r o u n d before

dealing with the linguistic issue in m o r e detail. I w o u l d like to e m p h a
sise the implications o f the pillage, destruction and migrations caused
b y the 'Sea Peoples'. T h e y brought a series o f warrior peoples to
Egypt a r o u n d 1200 B C w h i c h are cited in Egyptian texts: the names
are often interpreted as referring to the Lycians, Sardinians,
Dardanians,
Danaans,
Cilicians, Tyrsenians, A c h a e a n s and Philistines,
among
others. T o the west they b r o u g h t the Sardinians and, I believe, the

Etruscans, w h o in m y view are an I n d o - E u r o p e a n p e o p l e from Asia
M i n o r , and perhaps also the Elymi, w h o settled in Sicily.
After the last G r e e k offensive in Asia, that o f the T r o j a n
the Sea Peoples b r o u g h t about the destruction
o f the
War,
Mycenaean
cities in G r e e c e itself, and in Crete and Cyprus they interrupted, for

an indefinite p e r i o d , trade and relations with the West: this is the
so-called dark age. But that is not all: this vast c o m m o t i o n is linked
with the destruction
o f Hattusas (today Bogazkoi) and the
entire
Hittite empire, w h i c h is attributed to the Phrygians: thus, there were

great m o v e m e n t s o f peoples. Perhaps o n e o f these peoples, also I n d o E u r o p e a n , were the Armenians.
H o w e v e r , Ugarit a n d other cities o f Asia were also destroyed, such
as Mersin, Tarsus and Sidon, and the Philistines advanced, o c c u p y
ing the area w h i c h still today is n a m e d after them: Palestine. A s w e
anticipated and shall s o o n see, the fall o f the M y c e n a e a n kingdoms
is related to the D o r i a n invasion, w h i c h in turn is related to the
emigration o f different G r e e k populations to Asia M i n o r , Cyprus and
Rhodes.
48. See, in general, works such as those previously cited by Hammond
(p. 51 ff) and Villar (p. 296 ff), along with specialised bibliography such
as T . B. L. Webster 1958, p . 136 ff., H . Stubbings 1975, Ch. G. Starr
1964, M . Marazzi 1985, the book Trqffici micenei. . . (ed. By M . Marazzi
and others, 1986), a colloquium in the French School o f R o m e (AA. W .
1995), etc. O n Etruscan as an Anatolian language transported into Italy
(in opposition to the thesis of M . Pallottino and others attributing to it an
indigenous origin in Italy), c f Adrados 1989c, 1994c and 2005. O n the
Elymi, see R. Ambrosini 1983 (among other publications) and St. di Vido
1997.
4 9 . A l t h o u g h syllabic script died out, the Cyprian syllabary, destined
to r e c o r d the G r e e k language, survived from the eleventh to the
third centuries. A p a r t from this, there w o u l d b e n o other w a y o f
r e c o r d i n g G r e e k in writing until the ninth o r eighth century, this
time with the aid o f the alphabet, o r alphabets rather, created from
31
Phcenecian, w h i c h is often related to the c u n e i f o r m e Ugaritic alpha

bet, w h i c h inherited a syllabic script. T h u s , this detour had to b e
accepted, for in G r e e c e there was n o continuous evolution from the
syllabary to the alphabet, as there h a d b e e n earlier in Asia; n o t even
in Cyprus, w h i c h , h o w e v e r , created the n e w syllabary for the local
G r e e k dialect, based o n the previous o n e , related to M i n o a n Linear
A (which in turn inherited the hieroglyphic writing).
S o , the Greeks h a d to a d o p t foreign systems o f writing twice. But
they did m a n a g e to perfect the alphabet, making it a vehicle o f their
literature a n d exporting it to m a n y different p e o p l e s , w h o , modify
ing it, created their o w n alphabets and learned to write. This is h o w
the Greeks contributed in this particular
context. I shall return to
this later.
50. O n the history o f these syllabaries, c f J. Chadwick 1962, p . 17 ff. O n
Ugarit, c f J. L. Cunchillos-J. A. Zamora 1995, p. 15 ff; A. Curtis 1985,
p. 27 ff. The fifteenth century is usually accepted as the date o f the Cretan
tablets in Linear B (all from Knossos). L. R . Palmer has fixed this date
later, in the thirteenth century, the date o f those from Greece, but this has
received little acceptance; the fourteenth century has also been proposed.
For J.-P. Olivier there are many possible dates, as has been mentioned. I
refer to the origin of the alphabet in 100 ff.
C f J. Maluquer de Motes 1968, and J. de H o z 1969 on the cited hypoth
esis regarding Iberian script. See in this same article, hypotheses regarding
the influence of the eastern syllabaries on other Mediterranean scripts.
5 1 . T h e M y c e n a e a n syllabary throws s o m e light o n second-millen
n i u m Greek, but it o n l y allows for a limited understanding
facts already discussed regarding its standardisation
o f the
a n d its solely
bureaucratic use. Literature was oral: it was r e c o r d e d in writing only

from the eighth century o n w a r d s , after the introduction o f the alpha
bet. But it is d e b a t e d to w h a t extent this n e w epic a n d lyric inher
ited the language o f the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d a n d to what extent it
innovated. T h u s , the reconstruction o f second-millennium G r e e k (or
G r e e k dialects) is a difficult task, w h i c h involves c o m b i n i n g data from
M y c e n a e a n , H o m e r (eliminating the later elements) and
extrapola
tions f r o m the G r e e k dialects o f the first millennium.

52. O n Homer and Mycenae cf, among others, T . B. L. Webster 1958,
C. Brillante 1986 and J. Chadwick 1990; on Mycenaean culture in gen
eral, J. T . Hooker 197, J. Chadwick 1976, O . Dickinson 1977 and 1995,
W . Taylour 1983; etc. O n possible Mycenaean traces in lyric, C. Trumpy
1986 and C. Brillante 1987. O n the reconstruction o f second-millennium
Greek, see 68 ff.
32
CHAPTER THREE
The arrival of the Dorians

53. Before attempting this reconstruction, w e must examine the events
o f the e n d o f the s e c o n d millennium - the arrival o f the D o r i a n s
as well as the linguistic scene which the Greeks encountered in G r e e c e

and w h i c h must have had an effect o n their language.
T h e p e r i o d o f instability -
in w h i c h palaces strengthened
their
fortifications and, as r e c o r d e d o n the o-ka tablets o f Pylos, military

units w e r e d e p l o y e d o n the coast (events w h i c h are
simultaneous
with those in Ugarit and the campaigns o f R a m s e s II and M e r n e p t a h

in Egypt) - e n d e d , as stated earlier, with the destruction and aban
d o n m e n t o f the palaces, w h i c h were at s o m e point o c c u p i e d b y the
Dorians.
T h e arrival o f the D o r i a n s is m e n t i o n e d b y the ancient
histori
ans, especially H e r o d o t u s I 5 6 , and also in the myth o f the return

o f the Heraclides, o r sons o f Heracles. F o r a l o n g time, n o b o d y has
d o u b t e d the fact that the D o r i a n invasion was the cause b e h i n d the
destruction o f M y c e n a e a n culture, and this is still the most widely
held view. H o w e v e r , it is suggested that, o n c e the M y c e n a e a n palaces
h a d b e e n destroyed b y the invasions o f the 'Sea Peoples' and their
society h a d b e e n disrupted, the Greeks w h o h a d remained
behind
in M a c e d o n i a and Albania, the D o r i a n s , w o u l d in turn have found

it easier to realise their o w n incursions o f pillage.
But it w o u l d n o t b e so easy for them, given that the same leg
e n d refers to resistance in different parts. Indeed, all the sources
insist that the D o r i a n s did n o t s u c c e e d in c o n q u e r i n g A t t i c a f w h e r e
n u m e r o u s refugees h a d settled, o r the islands o f the A e g e a n and
other places.
54. T h e same g e o g r a p h y allows us to see h o w the D o r i a n s c a m e
from the N . and W . , and were stopped in Attica and the islands;
they s u r r o u n d e d
the P e l o p o n n e s e , unable to penetrate its
centre,
A r c a d i a , but b e i n g able to break the c o n n e c t i o n between the dialect

o f the latter and that o f Cyprus, w h o s e M y c e n a e a n p o p u l a t i o n evi
dently departed f r o m the coast o f the P e l o p o n n e s e before the arrival
o f the D o r i a n s . In any light, the D o r i a n conquest o f M e l o s , Crete,
R h o d e s , C o s and the coast o f Asia M i n o r a r o u n d Halicarnassus
and
Cnidus t o o k place later o n . Historic tradition and archaeological data

support this.
W e must accept the fact that Attica -
'the most ancient land o f
Ionia', a c c o r d i n g to S o l o n (4.2), a region w h i c h h a d p r o s p e r e d and
33
d e v e l o p e d after the fall o f M y c e n a e , as demonstrated b y its remark

able geometric ceramics - t o o k in a considerable n u m b e r o f refugees.
T h e I o n i c colonies o f Asia, dated usually in the eleventh
century,
were f o u n d e d from here. In the same way, n e w waves o f M y c e n a e a n s

m o v e d to Cyprus from ^the P e l o p o n n e s e before the Dorians
p i e d its shores: there is a b r o n z e b r o o c h from the eleventh
occu
century
with a G r e e k inscription in the Cyprian syllabary w h i c h reads O-pele-ta-o '(I am) o f Opheltes'. In addition, Lesbos was colonised from
the continent, as stated b y T h u c y d i d e s III 2.3.
5 5 . In conclusion, w e must e m b r a c e the fact that the Dorians and
the related p e o p l e k n o w n as 'Dorians from the N . W . ' , descended
from the N . , taking advantage
o f the collapse o f the
Mycenaean
kingdoms: they were, in effect, Greeks w h o h a d r e m a i n e d

after the invasion, and led a pastoral existence in the
behind
mountains.
T h e y had an archaic G r e e k dialect, w h i c h had remained
immune
from the innovations o f 'East G r e e k ' w h i c h had entered G r e e c e from

the year 2 0 0 0 and f r o m w h i c h M y c e n a e a n , the language o f H o m e r ,
and the different dialects e m e r g e d . This dialect coincides with these
as far as archaisms are c o n c e r n e d , but n o t as regards innovations.
Y e t , there w e r e n o vacant lands in G r e e c e , so the Dorians
to superimpose themselves o n t o the ancient G r e e k settlements,
had
sub
stituting their dialects - although traces o f these remained at times,

especially in C r e t e o r creating m i x e d dialects in B o e o t i a
and
Thessaly. B y stepping in and driving wedges between the o l d dialects,

s o m e o f w h i c h h a d b e e n transported to the other side o f the sea,
the Dorians contributed to the isolation o f the settlements and, in
short, to dialectal differentiation, w h i c h is not attested (perhaps for
a simple lack o f data) in either M y c e n a e a n o r the A c h a e a n epic o f
the poets. M a n y years must have passed before the unifying ten
dencies re-emerged.
56. As we know, on the basis of a well-known work by J. Chadwick 1973
(see also Chadwick 1985), a kind o f scepticism has taken root in the aca
demic world and for some time it has been trendy to deny the Dorian
invasion. The Dorians are seen as a subjected people who rebelled against
their Mycenaean masters, and Doric is regarded as a type o f Mycenaean.
Elsewhere (Adrados 1998b), supported by other studies, I have made a
complete refutation o f this hypothesis. Cf. also J. J. Moralejo 1977 and
P. G. van Soesbergen 1981 (the 'Dorian invasion' is seen as a secondary
migration of a straggler part o f the Greek migration). W e have precise his
torical and archaeological data whereas Chadwick's linguistic arguments are
34
CHAPTER THREE
insignificant. Cf. among others A. Lopez Eire 1984a R. A. Crossland 1985

and J. Mendez Dosuna 1985, p . 299 ff. See D . Musti 1985b on the way
in which the arrival o f the Dorians should be conceived. O n the archaeo
logical aspect o f this matter, see F. Schachermeyr 1980, p. 240 ff, who
links the Dorians to the ceramics o f the 'circle o f Buboshti' in Macedonia
and distinguishes them from the Dorians of the N. W., who are placed
further to the west. O n the Ionic settlement in Attica, cf. the same author,
p . 374 ff. O n pre-Dorian (Achaean) remnants in Cretan Doric, cf. Y.
Duhoux 1988.
3.
G R E E K A N D T H E N O N - G R E E K LANGUAGES IN T H E
SECOND MILLENNIUM
57. S o , w e see that the Greeks were established in G r e e c e starting

from the year 2 0 0 0 . F r o m the first millennium onwards, w h e n w e
are p r o v i d e d with evidence for establishing these events, G r e e c e itself
is c o m p l e t e l y Hellenised, H o w e v e r , there are very m a n y n o n - G r e e k
elements in its t o p o n y m y and lexicon.
I n d e e d , a series o f G r e e k authors preserved the m e m o r y o f n o n G r e e k settlements o f archaic date: they even indicate that n o n - G r e e k
languages were still spoken in certain parts, especially in the periph
ery o f G r e e c e . T h e information is collected in P. K r e t s c h m e r 1946,
p . 146 ff., and O . H o f f m a n n
1973, p . 25 ff. H o m e r refers to the
Pelasgians in Argolis, Thessaly and Crete (Iliad II 681 ff., 843 ff;
Odyssey X I X 179 ff.), and the m e m o r y o f the Pelasgians o f the heroic
p e r i o d persisted. H e r o d o t u s I 56 refers to the Pelasgians as the first
settlers o f G r e e c e in Thessaly, Attica and A r c a d i a , c f also I 146,
V I I 9 4 s., V I I I 44; he refers to traces o f t h e m in Placia and Scylace,
near the Propontis. But Thucydides I V 109 also refers to the Tyrsenians
o f Athens and L e m n o s , w h i c h H e r o d o t u s calls Pelasgians ( V I 136 S.);
he also mentions the Tyrsenians o r Etruscans w h o m o v e d from Lydia
to Italy (I 94); nevertheless, Thucydides I V 109 distinguishes Pelasgian
from Tyrsenian in the A t h o s peninsula. T h i s is confirmed b y the
well-known L e m n o s inscription, written in a language that is very
close to Etruscan.
S o , the Greeks w o u l d have b e e n found in G r e e c e together with
these Pelasgians o r Etruscans, w h o , with s o m e exceptions, later only
survived in marginal
58. T h e r e are written
territories.
accounts o f Asian settlements
in G r e e c e in
archaic times. H e r o d o t u s I 171, Strabo V I I 3 2 2 , 3 7 4 , X I I I 6 1 1 ,
35
Pausanias III 1, 1, V I 2, 4 and the historian Callisthenes (FrGH 124

F 25) write o f the Pelasgian o c c u p a t i o n o f central G r e e c e , Messenia,
Leucas, E u b o e a a n d the Cyclades, as well as almost the w h o l e o f
Ionia. Sometimes their n a m e is considered to b e s y n o n y m o u s with
that o f the Garians ( o f vjhich there are still linguistic traces in Asia),
o r else they are seen as part o f this g r o u p o r as their vassals. In any
case, T h u c y d i d e s I 8 attests that the ancient t o m b s o f D e l o s were
o f a Garian type; and Callisthenes mentions a Carian emigration to
Greece.
T h e s e neolithic settlements must have left a mark o n the G r e e k
language, something w h i c h I shall address further o n ( 62 f f ) .
5 9 . Besides this, there is archaeological evidence in neolithic G r e e c e
o f settlements o f a northern o r ' E u r o p e a n '
origin, in Sesklo and
D i m i n i (nude female figurines, certain kinds o f ceramics including

those with stripes, spiral and w a v y line designs): see P. Kretschmer
1946, p . 151 ff., a m o n g others. T h e r e is also evidence o f setdements
o f Asian origin (city planning a n d fortifications similar to those o f
T r o y I and II, ceramics that make use o f a varnish known as 'Urfirnis',
the nude goddesses o f C y c l a d i c art).
It is interesting to note that in the peripheral regions w e still c o m e
across n o n - G r e e k settlements in the historic p e r i o d , living m o r e or
less in p e a c e with the Greeks. Aside from the information p r o v i d e d
b y historians a n d the previously m e n t i o n e d L e m n o s inscription it
suffices to recall the C y p r o - M i n o a n script that f r o m the
sixteenth
century onwards r e c o r d e d an indigenous language; it continued to

d o so until the fourth century a m o n g an indigenous population that
h a d sought refuge in A m a t h u s f r o m the n e w M y c e n a e a n invasions
at the end o f the T r o j a n W a r (the myth mentions T e u c e r , founder
o f Salamis) and f r o m the Dorians, w h o h a d arrived in the
twelfth
century and w h o did n o t s u c c e e d in i m p o s i n g their language. T h e

oldest G r e e k inscription - dating f r o m the eleventh century, as pre
viously m e n t i o n e d - is written in a n e w syllabic script and in the
Cyprian dialect, w h i c h is related to A r c a d i a n .
Crete must also b e mentioned, w h e r e the M y c e n a e a n s and then
the Dorians arrived: an island with a highly civilised pre-Greek p o p
ulation, as s h o w n b y the hieroglyphic and Linear A scripts.
The
Odyssey X I X 176 refers to the Eteo-Cretans: their language contin

u e d to b e spoken until the third century B C in Praisos and D r e r o s ,
and from a certain point it b e g a n to b e written in the Greek alphabet.
36
CHAPTER THREE
A l s o , w e must n o t forget Asia, w h e r e o n e n e e d only read H o m e r

to appreciate just h o w m a n y different p e o p l e s were e m b r o i l e d in the
turmoil o f the T r o j a n W a r . But there is n o record, in the s e c o n d
millennium, o f the languages spoken b y the peoples o n the Asian
coast, although there is evidence relating to Hittite and Luwian; only
from the first millennium d o w e have knowledge o f Thracian, Phrygian,
Lycian, Carian, Neo-Hittite,
etc
60. W e can b e certain o f the following: at the close o f the s e c o n d

millennium, with the collapse o f the M y c e n a e a n kingdoms and
the
D o r i a n invasion, G r e e k d o m i n a t e d G r e e c e itself, but it only partially

o c c u p i e d the outer region, in Cyprus, Crete and L e m n o s , and it was
certainly in a minority in Asia and other parts w h i c h h a d
been
r e a c h e d b y the M y c e n a e a n expansion. In the N . it was limited b y

Illyrian and Thracian, in Asia b y Phrygian. These were Indo-European
peoples w h o had arrived in the Balkans at a later date, but w h o
m a y at times have b e e n dragged along b y the Greeks: T h u c y d i d e s
II 29 a n d Strabo I X 25 refer to the Thracians and
Phrygians.
S o m e problems are presented b y M a c e d o n i a n , which was implanted

in a territory w h e r e the Greeks h a d settled before entering G r e e c e ,
It was Hellenised a n d b e g a n to disappear from the fourth
century
B C H o w e v e r , there is still s o m e d o u b t as to whether it was an I n d o E u r o p e a n language distinct from Greek, perhaps o f the I n d o - G r e e k
g r o u p (such as T h r a c i a n o r Phrygian), o r whether it was a Greek
dialect that was left behind.
M a c e d o n i a n is only k n o w n to us through a few glosses that dis
play certain
characteristics,
the principal b e i n g the c o n v e r s i o n o f
v o i c e d aspirated to unaspirated v o i c e d , in contrast to the G r e e k aspi

rated voiceless (Sdvoq for 0dvaxo<;), as seen in Illyrian, Phrygian
Slavic, a m o n g other languages. O t h e r characteristics
c o i n c i d e with
the G r e e k dialects o r with Illyrian o r Phrygian. Furthermore,

tain names, such as P a r m e n o n
having an altered
or
cer
o r Berenice, are Greek, the latter
pronunciation.
F r o m this p o i n t o n , it is generally believed that w e are
dealing
with a language that is different from Greek, In fact, the
Greeks
considered the M a c e d o n i a n s to b e barbaric, cf, D e m o s t h e n e s I X 3 1 .

Y e t ultimately, in the context o f the debate about the Hellenism o f
M a c e d o n i a , Greek scholars have claimed the Hellenicity o f its ancient
language. M a c e d o n i a n w o u l d b e a Greek dialect that was left behind,
a b r a n c h that stands in opposition to the language that a d v a n c e d
37
towards G r e e c e and gave rise to the first dialects considered to b e

Greek. It is difficult to c o m e to a clear decision o n this matter, given
the scarcity o f information available to us.
61. O n Macedonian, after O . Hoffman 1906 see E. Schwyzer-A. Debrunner
(1st ed.) 1939, p. 69 ff. TJhe new pro-Hellenic position is presented by
authors such as N. J. Kalleris 1954, B. Dasakalakis 1960, L. A. Giundin
1987, A. Panayotis 1992 and J. K. Probonas 1992. The interesting inves
tigations of A. G. Tsopanakis 1993, which look for a Macedonian lexicon
in Walachian dialects of Macedonia, do not resolve the problem. In any
case, it is clear that the Greek that spread towards the S. left an empty
space for this other language - a 'retarded' Greek or a different IndoEuropean language - to occupy, which only became Hellenised from the
fourth century onwards.
Pre-Greek elements adopted by Greek
6 2 . T h e fact is that most o f the t o p o n y m y o f G r e e c e and the islands,
n o t to m e n t i o n the coast o f Asia M i n o r , is n o t actually Greek. T h e
same applies to part o f the G r e e k lexicon, w h i c h sometimes displays
the same kind o f suffixation as the t o p o n y m y , a n d sometimes dis
plays p h o n e m e s in positions that originally were n o t allowed in Greek.
A g o o d part o f these p r e - G r e e k t o p o n y m s find parallels in Asia
M i n o r . Let us examine them from various perspectives.
a) Suffixation. N o u n s in -nvoq, -y\vr\ ('AGdvoc, MvKr\vax Ileipdva,
y
npifrvn, M-uTiA,f]vr|, the T o p a n v o i that emigrated to Italy); in

-(G)GOC,,
-(T)TO<;
and its feminines a n d plurals
(ADKOCPTJTTOC,,
KriquGGoq, AdpiGGa, IlapvaGGOc,, TjuntToc,, etc.; in

Kvcoaaoq, 'AUVI(G)6<;,
TDAIGGOC;;
in Asia
KOAOGGOCI,
Crete
TeAurjGGoc,,
rvfi)KccA,r[GG6<;, TepjinGGOc;, 'AAucccpvaGGOC,, SaYaAxxGGoq, nepyccGTi,
MuAaGCc, maybe Kopi)KriGiov); in -vBoq, -vQoq (KopivSoq, ndpvnc,,

-n9o<; (T(p'uv(;/-iv0oc, in Asia HdvGog)); -Gxoq in Oouoxoc, is n o
d o u b t a variant; in -ocv8a, -ivSa (perhaps related to the pre
vious, only in Asia: 'AAava, 'AAapdv8a, 'ApuKdv8a, KaAivSa,
Kapudvoa, AaPpdvSa, IliyivSa), also "AGTtevSoq; in -pvcc (MuKocpva
in Aetolia; also in Asia: Sjmapva; in Crete: OaAccGapva; in
Cos:
'AA-ccGapva).
b) Phonetics. T h e r e are various cases o f n o n - G r e e k phonetics: ini

tial G - (locyoctaxGGoq, EaAocLnc,, Sdp5eiq, XiXXxov); the alterna
tion o f spiritus lenis/asper (but perhaps this has something to
d o with G r e e k transcription: 'AA,i/oc-, 'AA-t/oc-), the G - and the
lack thereof; the alternation o f a/i (examples previously cited),
38
CHAPTER
pA
THREE
(TeA^noao^/TepjiinGGOc;),
y / K , -aa-/-a-. This marks the
start o f a different p h o n e t i c system. It seems that certain

suffixes previously took a K> ('Api>K-dvSa, 'AAi-K-apv-aaaoc,,
KoDpu-K-fiorov): the transcription o f a laryngeal?
c) Derivation. Sometimes w e come across two derivatives
from
the same root o r o n e derived from another: with the roots

f
A5u/oc-, 'AAi/oe-, in nepyn/nepYaôv/nepivGo^/nepyaori, KoAo-
aaai/KoAocpcov, MuKaAn/MuKaAnaaoq, KopivGoq, Koptucrjcnov,

napvaaao<;/ndpvn<;/napva>v,
be
etc. Sometimes there seems to

(
an accumulation o f suffixes: AA,iK-apv-aaa6<;, M-uK-dAn/
Mi)K-aAr|-aa6(; (maybe the K is phonetic, as I have said).

d) Morphology. T h e r e are m a s c , fern., and n., sg. and pi. forms
w h i c h display G r e e k m o r p h o l o g y . This m a y b e
new
something
o r m a y just b e covering something old.
e) Roots. W e can deduce the existence o f various roots, some

c o r r e s p o n d i n g to Greek, n o d o u b t as a result o f borrowings
(although sometimes a common I n d o - E u r o p e a n origin can b e
postulated). F o r example, 'A?u- and variants, rapu- (cf. G r .
KapDa?), Kop- ( c f G r . Kopix;?), AccPp- (Gr, Adpp-uc,), rcapv-, Ttepy(the root o f G r . Tcopyoq?), TepLiVxeAu- (cf. Celtic Termes?), 018(Gr.
ai&n), aja-op- (in Euupvn, cf. Gr. auupva?), cpda- (cf. Odatc,,
OdanAiq),
%CCA,K-
(in XaAicn8cav,
ECCAKIC,,
cf. Gr. Xahcoq). In addi
tion, there are t o p o n y m s common to G r e e c e and Asia which

are neither Greek n o r appear to b e Indo-European: "OXX)\XKO<;,
0TJp<xi).
As n o t e d a b o v e , the most striking thing is that these formations
are
analogous o r identical to those o f theonyms such as 'AGdva, the god

c
dess, o r common nouns such as Kvnapxaaoq, the cypress', dadjuivGoq,

'the bath', PoAivGoq, 'wild bull', epePtv0o<;, 'chickpea', e t c O n e must
l o o k for etymologies, in whatever sense, which are parallel to n o n Indo-European Greek words such as GdAocjioc,, 'the b e d r o o m ' , jaiyapov,
'living-room', (pdAaaaa, 'the sea', religious o r p o e t i c terms such as
SiGupocujioc,, iccjj,po<;, Gpiceujio*;, AaP^pivGoq, pdic%o<;, etc.
Sometimes w e find common terms with n o n - G r e e k e t y m o l o g y and
phonetics, such as aixoc,, 'grain, wheat', aiSnpoi;, 'iron', aiSn, ' p o m e
granate', PaorAetx;, 'king'; o r simply with a n o n - G r e e k etymology,
such as XfiK-oGoq, 'a vessel', KiGdpa, 'zither' and theonyms such as
'ATIOAACOV,
"Apxeuic;, Ki)pf|pr|, etc.
FROM COMMON GREEK T O T H E
63.
39
DIALECTS
T h e r e are evidently three possibilities: (i) that these w o r d s were

5
a d o p t e d in the Balkans from the culture o f ' o l d E u r o p e ; (ii) that

they were a d o p t e d in G r e e c e itself o r in Asia; (iii) that they were a
result o f the cultural influence o f p e o p l e s f r o m the ancient East. It
is not necessary to p r o p o s e a unitary solution. Cultural elements such
as the bath o r Mediterranean
plants c o u l d c o m e f r o m G r e e c e , o r
sometimes m o r e specifically from Crete (AxxpupivBoc,, ACKTUVVCG); 'iron'

c o u l d c o m e from Asia M i n o r , where it was introduced; the n a m e o f
A p o l l o seems to c o m e from Lydia, and C y b e l e from Phrygia. R e m o t e
e t y m o l o g y is another matter.
64.
T h r e e theories c o m e to light w h e n w e see b e y o n d the
F o r the first theory, this v o c a b u l a r y is I n d o - E u r o p e a n
details.
but
with
'Pelasgian phonetic alterations different to those o f Greek: a different

evolution o f the sonants w o u l d explain, for e x a m p l e , tvuPoc, (Gr.
xdcpoq), a consonantal mutation
w o u l d explain the forms in -ivBoc,
(from -nt-, in daduivGoq, with the preservation

time and satemisation, cf. G r .
OCKLICOV),
o f -s- at the
same
(poc?tA,6<; ( o f *bhel-\ xauiocc; (of
*dom~, with the alteration o f the v o w e l at the same time), etc. This
explains ouc, beside ox;, Foptax; o f *ghrdh, *ghordh (cf. O S l a v . *gordu
5
'city , Phryg. Manegordum and the city o f G o r d i u m ) . F o r the s e c o n d

theory the terms are considered to b e Hittite-Luwian o r Anatolian,
having emigrated to G r e e c e before the arrival o f the Greeks. T h e
third theory postulates a substratum o f n o n - I n d o - E u r o p e a n terms. I
will refrain f r o m adopting any position here.
65. O n the Telasgian' hypothesis see, among others, V . Georgiev 1941,
A. J. van Windekens 1952, W . Merlingen 1955; and further information
and bibliography in R. Hiersche 1970, p. 33 ff, M . Meier-Briigger 1992,
p. 69 f O n the hypothesis of Minoan, Luwian, and the rest, A. Heubeck
191, L. R. Palmer 1958, G. Huxley 1961. O n Semitic borrowings in
Greek, some o f them very old, see 66 and O . Masson 1967; on Egyptian
borrowings, see J. L. Fournet 1989.
66.
Nevertheless, at least part o f this v o c a b u l a r y was already incor
porated into G r e e k in the s e c o n d millennium B C . T h e M y c e n a e a n

vocabulary contains theonyms such as the names o f Artemis, Athena,
Dionysus and Ilitia (e-re-u-ti-jd); p h y t o n y m s such as ku-pa-ro and kori-ja-da-no (lcurceipoq and KopiocvSpov), ku-pa-ri-so (in a toponym); cultural
5
words such as si-to, da-pu-ri-to, a-sa-mi-to and qa-si-re-u, 'grain , 'labyrinth ,

5
'bath , and 'king . A l s o , o f course, t o p o n y m s such as, a m o n g those
40
CHAPTER THREE
described, a-mi-ni-so (Amnisos) and ko-no-so (Knossos) in Crete; and

a n t h r o p o n y m s such as a-ki-re-u (Achilles). N o t to mention w o r d s from
the Semitic, such as ' g o l d ' (ku-ru-so) o r 'tunic' (ki-to), o r from Egyptian,
such as 'elephant'
(e-re-pa-)
o r the g r o u p o f ' o l d travelling' w o r d s
discussed earlier w h i c h , n o d o u b t , already existed in IE before enter

ing the G r e e k dialects in G r e e c e .
H o m e r represents,
in m a n y cases, a testimony c o n c o r d a n t with
M y c e n a e a n : with regard to t o p o n y m s , anthroponyms and c o m m o n

names. Recall, for e x a m p l e , daduivGoc,, fiaoiXevq, Kvnapioooq, orioq,
crir|poc,. O f course, there are certain M y c e n a e a n terms w h i c h are
lacking in H o m e r , and in turn certain terms w h i c h are lacking in
M y c e n a e a n , for e x a m p l e , ep8(3w6o<;, GdAaaooc, jjiyapov; and in both
sources w o r d s are missing w h i c h appear m u c h later (for example,
5i6t)pcqx(3oc, in A r c h i l o c h u s , seventh century). This does not
mean
that n o n e o f them already existed in the s e c o n d millennium, what

ever their path o f entry m a y have b e e n .
T h u s , p r e - G r e e k e t y m o l o g y is not always certain, cf. for example,
for
Auxc; and
AiocKog, A .
G.
Tsopanakis
1979.
67. It is certain that during this p e r i o d G r e e k a d o p t e d a n e w v o c a b

ulary o f different origins in order to give n a m e to n e w cultural cir
cumstances, n e w gods, plants, animals, products, and metals.
But
even the names o f ancient institutions were replaced b y n e w names,

whether I n d o - E u r o p e a n o r n o t (fiaaxXexx; 'king', <pvXr\ 'tribe', xaXxoq
' b r o n z e ' ) . A n d o f course, with the introduction o f a n e w political
and cultural system, n e w w o r d s were introduced, generally b y d e r i v a tion from the G r e e k (eKKAnata, ap%a)v, ecpopog, $ovXr\, e t c ) .
T h e G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y was fundamentally
important
Indo-European;
most
o f all, its m e t h o d s o f derivation and c o m p o s i t i o n w e r e
Indo-European. T h e additions from this period and the periods before

and after, taken from other languages, are important culturally but
not structurally. I n d e e d , this subject has never b e e n
systematically
studied. T h e great d e v e l o p m e n t o f the G r e e k vocabulary t o o k place

m u c h later.
T h e m o r p h o l o g i c a l and syntactical borrowings from this p e r i o d
were o f even less i m p o r t a n c e , perhaps even o f n o importance. T h e r e
was n o great advance in this respect from C o m m o n G r e e k to the
beginning o f the great d e v e l o p m e n t o f the beginning o f the seventh
century. It was o n l y later that G r e e k m a d e a giant leap, b e c o m i n g
the international m o d e l for all languages. U p to this point it was
41
merely another I n d o - E u r o p e a n language that h a d arrived in a ter

ritory d o m i n a t e d culturally b y Crete and Asia, although it did have
a well-developed m o r p h o l o g y , as explained, w h i c h e n a b l e d
advances.
f
future
CHAPTER FOUR
G R E E K IN T H E S E C O N D M I L L E N N I U M
1.
EAST GREEK
68. East G r e e k is sometimes referred to as southern Greek, but h o w

ever it is called it represents the G r e e k that entered G r e e c e a r o u n d
the y e a r 2 0 0 0 a n d left its m a r k in the
second millennium,
in
M y c e n a e a n a n d whatever is archaic in H o m e r . It was also the base

from w h i c h the great eastern dialects o f the first millennium w o u l d
spring, that is, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n , Ionic, a n d A e o l i c . A t o n e point, until
the arrival o f the D o r i a n s , it o c c u p i e d a continuous geographical
area extending f r o m the S. o f M a c e d o n i a to L a c e d a e m o n , as well
as to Crete, Cyprus, R h o d e s , and to other islands and certain parts
o f Asia.
A s I have stated, t o d a y it is thought that the principal innova
tions
o f G r e e k are o f a m o r e recent date, the first millennium, as
o p p o s e d to the o l d view in w h i c h the three principal dialects were

thought to have c o m e from outside o f G r e e c e . T h u s , w e have IonicAttic features w h i c h are o n l y half o r partially achieved in certain
places, for e x a m p l e the c o n v e r s i o n o f a into n, contractions
and
metathesis o f quantity, u > u, the treatment o f the groups of**^- and

sonants and o f -ss-> -ts-, -ty-, o r the loss o f the d i g a m m a , etc.; A e o l i c
characteristics such as those resulting from the groups o f s and sonants
m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , the D . p f in -eaoi, the part. perf. in -vx-, etc. (we
consider others to b e archaisms o r choices); a n d others from A r c C y p . , as for e x a m p l e innovations such as ev > iv, - o >
assibi-
lated labiovelar before e, i, dvoc> 6v o r choices such as o v o , ovi, ove.

69. Despite this, I have insisted in m y review o f the b o o k b y G a r c i a
R a m o n ( A d r a d o s 1979b) a n d elsewhere that other
characteristics
found in o n e o r various o f the dialects o f the first millennium are

really either innovations f r o m the s e c o n d millennium, o r choices
within doublets also f r o m the s e c o n d millennium: here a n d
there,
remnants o f the archaic f o r m o r the form not chosen are often found.
T h e p r e s e n c e o f s o m e o f these characteristics in m o r e than o n e
dialect o r in M y c e n a e a n o r H o m e r is a strong argument. Sometimes
43
T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM
only a few eastern dialects have maintained the archaism, o r s o m e

times only o n e : M y c e n a e a n , H o m e r , Cyprian, etc.
F o r instance, innovations like -si, but with traces o f -ti (in M y c ,
Horn., A e o L , Pam.), o r the 3rd s e c o n d a r y pi. in -(a)av (Ion.-At.,
A r c - C y p . , Horn.), o r even \\\xz\q and TJV and their uncontracted forms
(Ion.-At., Horn.), o r ano > dcTru ( A r c - C y p . , Lesb., Pamph.), w h i c h g o
b a c k to the s e c o n d millennium. Indeed, also archaisms such as the
p a t r o n y m i c -xoq (AeoL, M y c , Horn.) o r forms o f an o l d doublet: dv
(but K 8 in A e o L and Horn.), -ocp- (but -op- in A e o L , sometimes in
M y c . a n d Horn., and a bit everywhere). T h u s , as I m e n t i o n e d pre
viously, the three principal dialect groups b e c a m e defined in the first
millennium, in isolation, although m a n y o f their characteristics
are
o f an earlier date.
O f course, s o m e characteristics o f E G g o b a c k m u c h further, to
C G : as in the oppositions m e n t i o n e d , -jiev/-u<;, - ^ a - / - o a - , and n o
d o u b t m a n y o f the ones w e have referred to, at least in their initial
state. O t h e r characteristics n o d o u b t o n l y g o b a c k to the p e r i o d in
w h i c h E G was in G r e e c e : to b e sure, its great diffusion and
political fragmentation
the
o f G r e e c e into different k i n g d o m s favoured
dialectalisation.
70. It is difficult to establish exactly to what extent the first-millen
n i u m dialects w e r e anticipated in C G o r in E G . T h e r e are very
different isoglosses w h i c h c o u l d b e traced b a c k to E G dialects, but
w h i c h d o n o t c o i n c i d e . Further o n , I will e x a m i n e those o f M y c
and H o m e r . H o w e v e r , there are also isoglosses linking Ion.-At. with
A r c - C y p . , and excluding A e o L (-vcu, dv, et, -(G)OCV, -xe e t c ; but -ccv
is f o u n d in A e o L , and -xoc is f o u n d in Attic); others link A r c - C y p .
a n d A e o L , as s h o w n b y -op-, 7ce8cc, noxx, athematic verbs instead o f
the contracted ones, e t c O n occasion, there is fragmentation: xeaaepec,
in Ion. and A r c . (but At. xeaaocpeq seems to b e analogical). Sometimes
the correlation extends to Horn, o r M y c , but it can also only affect
o n e dialect (uv in A t . and M y c , p a t r o n y m i c -10c. in A e o L , M y c ,
a n d Horn., -xo(i) in M y c and A r c - C y p . , -91 in Horn, and T h e s . ,
thematic G . sg. in -o in M y c and C y p . , as I have p r o p o s e d ) . T h e r e
is euiv in D o r . a n d Horn.; also, P a m p h y l i a n presents
similarities
with M y c . and A r c - C y p . , cf. M . G a r c i a Teijeiro 1984 and A . L o p e z

E i r e - A . Lillo 1982 and 1983. But what d o w e think a b o u t the pre
vious extension o f an archaism such as this, a n d o f other m o n o dialectal p h e n o m e n a , such as the preservation o f -pm-, -tm- in M y c ,
that o f Zf\v in Horn., that o f the thematic G . -o-ne in C y p . ?
44
CHAPTER FOUR
I will not repeat the facts that I have presented in so m a n y other

works, w h i c h sometimes are m o r e significant (the innovations
and
choices) sometimes less (the archaisms). T h e truth is, it is difficult

for us to establish t o d a y whether there existed a dialect later split
in Ion.-At. a n d A r c - C y p . , to what extent these two groups b e c a m e
isolated, a n d h o w this d e v e l o p m e n t was related to A e o l i c . But w e
will return to this matter.
7 1 . T h e archaic characteristics
o f M y c , w h i c h were
subsequently
lost, must b e attributed to E G ; for e x a m p l e , the preservation o f the

labiovelars, solutions o f the rh type for groups o f liquids + $ o r y.
W e must a c c o u n t for the transition phase in w h i c h certain isoglosses
b e c a m e generalised in E G a n d W G , o r part o f these, as a result o f
c o n t a c t with the W G w h i c h c a m e to G r e e c e towards the year 1200
(I stress this in 127 ff.). All o f this means that E G , a c c o r d i n g to
the dates a n d locations, must have b e e n markedly different from o u r
current idea o f G r e e k a n d its dialects.
T h r o u g h o u t the s e c o n d millennium, within G r e e c e , this E G w o u l d
have u n d e r g o n e a d o u b l e process: o n the o n e hand, it b e c a m e unified
to a great extent; o n the other hand, it b e c a m e m o r e differentiated.
T h e c o n t a c t with D o r i c contributed to b o t h processes. T h i s different
iation created a m o r e o r less germinal base dialect o f Ion.-At. a n d
A r c - C y p . , with transitions to a germinal A e o l i c t o o , w h i c h was later
invaded b y D o r i c isoglosses. Y e t , this split was m o r e o r less c o m
pleted, a n d there w e r e other - partly different - dialects close b y ,
w h i c h have left traces in M y c e n a e a n and in H o m e r . But here a n d
there, archaisms c o u l d have existed, later to b e lost, hesitations where
later doublets b e c a m e simplified, innovations w h o s e limits o f diffusion
later c h a n g e d , e t c A l s o , o f course, archaisms coexisted with so m a n y
later dialectal innovations.
72. O n the recent character o f the dialectal innovations, I would like to
recall the works o f W . Porzig 1954 and E. Risch 1955, to which one can
add the works of A. Lopez Eire 1989a and A. Negri 1982a and 1982b.
The latter denies the dialectal units preceding or contemporaneous with
Mycenaean. These, however, are supported in works such as Adrados 1995,
Palmer 1980, p. 39, F. W . Householder 1972, p. 59 f, A. Lopez Eire
1978b, A. Lopez Eire and J. Mendez Dosuna 1971, A. Bartonek 1979,
1991, 1996, etc. Today the identifications are refuted: Mycenaean is not
seen as the direct ancestor o f any dialect, c f , for example, E. Risch 1979,
p. 97, and 1990 (on Cyprian). The subject o f dialectal differentiation in the
second millennium is examined more closely in the works cited and in
39. Above all, see A. Morpurgo 1984b and hesitant positions in K. Strunk
1997, p. 143 ff
45
2.
M Y C E N A E A N AS A G R E E K D I A L E C T O F T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM
What kind of language is Mycenaean?

73. A description o f M y c e n a e a n , to a d d to the m a n y , will not b e
attempted here: instead, w e will examine those elements o f M y c e n a e a n
that make s o m e contribution to second-millennium G r e e k and to
attempt to establish the position o f M y c e n a e a n within the latter. A s
m e n t i o n e d earlier, M y c e n a e a n was an administrative language, w h i c h
presents important lacunae for those attempting a description o f the
G r e e k language. It is almost uniform from K n o s s o s a n d K h a n i a to
Pylos, T h e b e s , M y c e n a e and Tyrins (the o n l y places in w h i c h it has
b e e n preserved): although this uniformity is due m o r e to the fact
that it was an official language that did n o t reflect the linguistic
differentiations o f the real language. It was the administrative
lan
guage o f the palaces, n o t a language o f the streets.

But it seems clear that the differences b e t w e e n the language o f
Pylos and that o f K n o s s o s are minimal, a n d that the proposals b y
R i s c h and others to distinguish a ' n o r m a l M y c e n a e a n ' and a 'spe
cial M y c e n a e a n ' must b e rejected.
I believe that it was an error to focus o n the history o f M y c e n a e a n
from the perspective o f the differences b e t w e e n the dialects o f the
first millennium in an attempt to establish w h i c h o f these was related
to it. H o w e v e r , c o m m o n sense seems to b e gaining g r o u n d and the
n e e d to identify M y c e n a e a n with any o f t h e m appears to have dis
appeared. T h e fact is, the dialects o f the s e c o n d millennium c a n n o t
b e interpreted in the light o f the first-millennium dialects.
I n d e e d , M y c e n a e a n contains linguistic elements preserved in the
dialects o f the eighth century and sp,, but it d o e s not exactiy pre
c e d e any o f these dialects, w h i c h essentially derive from a later frag
mentation o f East Greek, although some o f their characteristics already
h a d a dialectal character in the s e c o n d millennium. T h e subsequent
introduction o f W e s t G r e e k was a d d e d , as well as the interaction o f
s o m e dialects. All o f this, o f course, was alien to M y c e n a e a n . T h e r e
w e r e also pan-dialectal innovations affecting a w i d e range o f dialects.
But this m u c h is evident: M y c e n a e a n was first r e c o r d e d in writ
ing in Crete with the help o f a syllabary derived from that used b y
the M i n o a n scribes. I f scribes, t o o , o f the M y c e n a e a n p a l a c e o f
K n o s s o s r e c o r d e d the G r e e k language for the first time with the help
o f a Cretan syllabary, it seems logical that they w o u l d have used
the Cretan dialect that was familiar to the palace
administrators.
46
CHAPTER FOUR
M y c e n a e a n is the
G r e e k dialect o f C r e t e that was
subsequently
b r o u g h t to the continent as an administrative language, in addition

to writing; n o d o u b t , the first copyists w o u l d have c o m e from there.
O f course, it is neither a p o p u l a r n o r a literary language, filled
as it is with standard phrases and administrative
formulas, the per
fect understanding o f w h i c h w o u l d require an understanding o f the

cultural and e c o n o m i c context (which is not o u r case, since w e must
d e d u c e this from the tablets). Even so, M y c e n a e a n is an invaluable
testimony o f o n e o f the dialects o f G r e e c e in the s e c o n d millennium.
A n d it is natural for a specialised language, whether
administrative
o r literary, to have a particular geographical dialect as its base.

75. O n Mycenaean as an administrative or bureaucratic language, cf.
M . Lejeune 1968, M . Durante 1968 and A. Bartonek 1996. The differences
between Mycenaean from Knossos and Mycenaean from Pylos have been
noted, yet they are minimal: c f M . Lejeune 1976 and the bibliography in
Adrados 1998b. I do not believe in the two dialects proposed by E. Risch,
the 'normal' and the 'special' (E. Risch 1966, cf. also, among others,
R. D . Woodward 1986), for they are based on mere hesitations or on dou
blets; and to consider 'special' Mycenaean as that corresponding to the sup
posed rebel Dorians is nothing but pure fantasy. See a bibliography and
arguments in Adrados 1998b and C. Consani 1989 (despite the adminis
trative character o f Mycenaean, there is 'affiorare sporadico' o f some forms
of the spoken language), C . J . Ruijgh 1996, K. Strunk 1997, p. 137 ff and
recently A. Bartonek 2003.
Indeed, Mycenaean displays some slight variants (-e and -i in the D . sg.,
a and o as vocalisations o f < > , etc.), which is normal: it was, after all, a
living language, which grew through variants and innovations. This pro
vides even less justification for its interpretation as a 'mixed' language, as
proposed by Georgiev 1964 (and also A. Negri 1981 and, if I understand
him correctly, A. Bartonek 1987).
O n the Cretan origin o f Mycenaean c f some clarifications in J. P. Oliver
1996.
O n the proposals attributing Mycenaean to a particular dialectal group
of the first millennium, generally to Ionic-Attic, a bibliography has already
been provided in 72. But what the first-millennium dialects do display
are isoglosses o f various extension: whether in the whole o f the Southern
E G or only in A r c - C y p . (and sometimes Pamph., cf. M . Garcia Teijeiro
1984) or Ion.-At., often reaching some part of Aeol. (for example, there is
correspondence with Lesbian in KO-, OXZIC, (OTTK;), -sue, cf. A. Lopez Eire 1987b).
However, there are rarely any c o m m o n innovations (cf. nevertheless E.
Risch 1991, p. 233), most often we are dealing with archaisms and choices
(sometimes o f a recent date, common to W G ) . I must stress that the asso
ciation of Mycenaean with a certain group is more that doubtful; see 79.
See also the bibliography in K. Strunk 1997, p . 143 ff.
47
With regard to its relation with Doric, as proposed by G. R o c c a 1984,

this is really a question o f common archaisms. Furthermore, an inheritance
of Mycenaean in the language o f choral lyric, as proposed by C. Trumpy
1986, does not seem credible, cf. C . J . Ruijgh 1989, p. 85 ff
For the study o f Mycenaean archaisms, see my previously cited works,
some o f which deal with tjie vocalisation of the sonants, starting with my
1958 article (also A. Morpurgo 1968).
76. Before embarking o n the study o f M y c e n a e a n f r o m this per
spective, two points n e e d further attention. First is the fact that the
M y c e n a e a n graphic system contains ideograms a n d signs for numer
als, weights, and measures in addition to the syllabary, and that it
leaves m a n y dark areas so that its interpretation is often controver
sial. T h e r e is n o distinction between the quantities o f the vowels, o r
b e t w e e n voiceless and v o i c e d occlusives, while there are various syl
labic signs with a doubtful interpretation.
T h e r e are also p r o b l e m s
and irregularities in the transcription o f the consonantal groups; atten

tion is hardly ever p a i d to final -n, -r, a n d -s. I even think that the
mark o f final diphthongs is asystematic, a n d in o u r transcriptions w e
are sometimes unsure whether a v o w e l is p h o n e t i c o r graphic, etc.
See, for e x a m p l e , M . M e i e r - B r u g g e r 1992, p . 47 fF. S e c o n d l y , such
i n c o m p l e t e texts with so m a n y gaps simply serve to bring to o u r
attention the presence o f certain forms in M y c e n a e a n . M a n y other
forms are simply lacking, such as verbal, n o m i n a l , adverbial a n d lex
ical forms, so that w e c a n n o t d r a w a c o m p a r i s o n with subsequent
dialects o r with H o m e r . W e d o not k n o w whether its m o d a l parti
cle was ke o r an, whether the conditional c o n j u n c t i o n was ei o r ai
W e are ignorant with regard to the athematic infinitive, etc. W h o l e
paradigms are missing. I n d e e d , statements such as ' M y c e n a e a n has
5
lost the augment , 'the article a n d demonstrative w h i c h p r e c e d e d it

5
are missing , etc., simply c o u l d b e due to o u r lack o f information,

77. O n the characteristics o f M y c e n a e a n in relation to other dialects,
see A d r a d o s 1976a, 1984a and
1 9 9 8 b . Specifically, o n the
archaic
system o f five cases, see A d r a d o s 1 9 9 0 b (regarding syncretism the

ory, cf. for e x a m p l e , H . Hettrich
1985).
F r o m the perspective o f the originality o f M y c e n a e a n , the facts

presented in detail in these works suggest that, in the first place,
M y c e n a e a n is characterised b y a series o f archaisms that are p e c u
liar to M y c e n a e a n a n d that o n e supposes must c o m e f r o m C G o r
E G , as the case m a y b e . T h e y are either I n d o - E u r o p e a n
archaisms
o r evolutionary stages anticipating the w h o l e subsequent evolution.
48
CHAPTER FOUR
In these archaisms,
M y c e n a e a n is either isolated from the
Greek
dialects w e k n o w , o r else a c c o m p a n i e d b y s o m e o f them. But I insist

that w e must assume that these archaisms existed in all o f the dialects
at a certain point before the phase in w h i c h w e k n o w them.
Linguistic characteristics
78. A l t h o u g h n o attempt has b e e n m a d e here to p r o v i d e an exhaus
tive list, w e can p o i n t out the following I n d o - E u r o p e a n archaisms in
M y c e n a e a n , whether isolated o r a c c o m p a n i e d b y other dialects:
Phonetics: the preservation o f the labiovelar series; partial preser
vation o f y; lack o f v o w e l contraction; preservation o f the -pm-, -tmgroups; pt- beside p- (as in Horn, and A r c - C y p . ) . In the s + sonant,
sonant + s and sonant + y groups, M y c e n a e a n displays the begin
nings o f a solution with h o r 0 w h i c h precedes that o f the later
dialects, as I have p r o p o s e d .
N o u n : N . sg. in -a o f the
1st. m a s c decl. (uncertain); G . sg. in
-0 o f the 2 n d (= C y p . ; there is also *-o-yo = Horn., Thes.); D . - L . - I .

sg.
-e < * -ei ( = Horn., seldom; but there is also the c o m m o n -i),
p i -a~i (< *-dsi) ( = Horn., Ion., archaic At.), -oi < *-oisi ( = Horn.,
archaic I o n . and archaic At.); a pure anumeric stem followed b y an
agglutinated particle (po-pi) (= Horn., Thes.).
P r o n o u n : the demonstratives to-to ( = At.), mi ( = Horn., Ion.), the
reflexive pei ( = Horn.).
Adjective: the p a t r o m y m i c in -io ( = Horn., A e o L ) , the numeral
e-me,
the comparative o n l y in -yo.
V e r b : athematic forms in -a, (te-re-ja; there are also thematic forms)

(= Horn., A e o L ) , des. -to(i) ( = A r c - C y p . ) ; p e r f part, in *-wosa: a-raru-wo-a.
Prepositions: ku-su (6v = Horn., archaic At.), me-ta (also, pe-da =
A e o L , A r c ) , o-pi (remnants in Ion.-At., also T h e s . ; e-pi, the c o m m o n
form, is also present), pa-ro.
L e x i c o n : a m o n g o t h e r s , the w o r d s
*owosI *owesos ' e a r ' ,
i-ja-ro
(= H o r n . , Ion., e t c before the variant with -e-)\ u-ju ( = *i)vuc,); de-reu-ko
that is, *8A,ei)K0(;, yX- in other dialects; me-re~u-ro dê^pov in

y
other dialects; a b u n d a n t vocabulary, c o m m o n to Horn, and s o m e

times other dialects, o f the type wa-na-ka (dva^), i-ja-te (iaxrip, also
in C y p . ) , e t c
79. All o f these archaic elements, in certain cases, c o u l d have o c c u
p i e d all o f C G a n d E G (or the latter, at least), o r part o f it. W e
49
can see that, besides archaism, M y c e n a e a n contained variants that

were also present in other dialects. In s o m e cases there are
relative
archaisms: G . -o-yo, w h i c h is IE, but here it was m o r e recent than

the N . - G . -os; and I w o u l d like to recall the sonant + s or y groups
mentioned a b o v e
S o , n o n e o f this indicates a special relation between M y c e n a e a n

and any other dialect, even w h e n M y c e n a e a n preserves a doublet
o f G r e e k date: 0/a
or/ar in the vocalisation o f the sonants, or w h e n
it presents a c h o i c e : -eus and not -es (in nearly all o f Greek, except
for A r c - C y p . ) ; G . in -oyo a n d not -00 (of *-osyo, in Horn, and Thes.,
as mentioned). O f course, this d e m a n d s b r o a d explanations, which
I have p r o v i d e d in other works.
I f what I say is correct, then these choices w o u l d also be o f n o
use to us in classifying M y c e n a e a n . In a p e r i o d that predates our
k n o w l e d g e , the distribution c o u l d have b e e n
different.
T h e innovations remain. T h e y are very rare: the creation o f a

secondary yod ($u-za o f auKeai; there are close examples in Horn,
and C y p . ) ; irregularities in the treatment o f primary yod after
the
occlusive (ka-zo-e < *kafyoses); the dual to-pe-zo; the loss o f augment.
80. T h u s , M y c e n a e a n was an extremely conservative dialect, with
hardly any innovations o f its o w n , although with a few choices, it
is true, in c o m m o n o r n o t with other dialects. It preserved its archaic
forms in a time w h e n all o r part o f these other dialects had either
lost t h e m o r h a d c h o s e n from a m o n g the doublets: this is the most
remarkable thing. W e c a n n o t establish its exact relation to the paraM y c e n a e a n dialects, apart from the fact that it is m o r e archaic and
p r o c e e d s in an original w a y with s o m e c h o i c e s and innovations. Y e t .
the picture is incomplete without a study o f its relation to the H o m e r i c
dialect.
Before turning to this, the impression w e get is that M y c e n a e a n ,
a bureaucratic f o r m o f the Cretan dialect predating the tablets from
the continent, maintained
an archaism that, n o doubt, was
absent
in the spoken language. This w o u l d have contained variants (what

w e have referred to as p a r a - M y c e n a e a n dialects) w h i c h presaged the
future dialects o f the first millennium. A n official, archaic
language
o f remote origin and antiquity w o u l d have co-existed with the spo

ken dialects, s o m e w h a t like the co-existence o f Latin with the ger
minal R o m a n c e languages at the start o f the M i d d l e Ages.
50
CHAPTER FOUR
3.
A C H A E A N EPIC AS A G R E E K L A N G U A G E O F T H E
SECOND MILLENNIUM
Diverse theories on the Homeric language

81. T h e r e is a s e c o n d source for the k n o w l e d g e o f Greek in the sec
o n d millennium: the epic language o f H o m e r and his succesors. T h e
p r o b l e m is that this language r e a c h e d its definitive form
through
H o m e r ' s writing o f it (directly o r b y dictation) in the eighth century

B C . M o r e o v e r , as it is universally agreed, it was an artificial language
that was renovated in the mouths o f the aoidoi from the s e c o n d mil
lennium o n , and even earlier, from C G and certainly from IE.
T h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n epic has similar characteristics: it mixes o l d
and recent linguistic forms, and o l d and recent historical data. This
occurs within a formulaic system that c o m e s from the I n d o - E u r o p e a n
epic and that reinforces a partly artificial language b y using doublets
and other artifices. It is, in effect, a system o f formulas and stan
dard phrases within fixed metrical schemes: it m a y admit
different
forms o r it m a y adapt t h e m to the linguistic evolution; or, in c o n

trast, it m a y modify the formulas and create n e w ones.
82. K. Witte 1913 and K. Meister 1921 studied the formulaic and artificial
character o f the Homeric language. After this, M . Parry 1928 studied the
formulaic system, and a clear presentation o f the subject is provided by
A. Parry 1971. I would like to distinguish J. B. Hainsworth 1968 and
A. Hoekstra 1969a among the later works that explain how the formulas
modified and adapted themselves to the evolution o f the language. The
study o f formulaic diction in Serbian poetry began from the study o f Homer,
and was undertaken by A . B. Lord 1960. A general picture of formulaic
diction in the epic o f different Indo-European languages is provided in
Adrados 1986d.
These studies show that the Homeric formulaic system, despite being
modified at the end o f the Mycenaean age, descends from Mycenaean and
from Indo-European. So, in the second millennium we can also postulate
general characteristics o f the language o f the Greek epic that are similar
to those known to us through its renovation, its admission o f doublets, etc.
It definitely remains a literary language, whatever the geographic base. See
also A. Heubeck 1981.
Furthermore, see the following works on the general characteristics of
epic poetry, which are reflected in Homer: H. M . Chadwick 1967 and (in
collaboration) 1968, and C. M . Bowra 1952; also, Adrados 1986d and
1992b.
8 3 . T h u s , the p r o b l e m is to distinguish what is ancient from what
is recent in the H o m e r i c language: what c o m e s from the s e c o n d mil-
51
lennium a n d from the first millennium, that is, from the dialects o f
the latter (Aeolic, Ionic-Attic, a n d a c c o r d i n g to s o m e , also A r c a d o Gyprian). It is not an easy distinction to make. T h e fact is that the
language o f the s e c o n d millennium, w h i c h n o d o u b t h a d its o w n
g e o g r a p h i c base (but n o t the same as M y c e n a e a n , j u d g i n g from the
discrepancies b e t w e e n them), later o n received various additions from
the different generations o f aoidoi in an age in w h i c h the dialects
k n o w n to us already existed. T h e formulaic system adapted to the
n e w needs and admitted this n e w linguistic material.
T h e H o m e r i c language did n o t yet exist in the f o r m in w h i c h w e
k n o w it in the s e c o n d millennium. I n d e e d , it is very clear that I o n i c
elements such as n instead o f a, and A e o l i c elements such as ocu|ie,
KeKX-nyovxeq b e l o n g e d to recent strata o f Greek, o f the first millen
nium. H o w e v e r , it has never o c c u r r e d to a n y o n e that certain forms
that c o u l d actually b e D o r i c , such as xoi o r the inf. in -uv, were
in fact D o r i c : they are simply passed o f f as b e i n g archaisms.
N o t even a f o r m such as 9ed is considered to b e Attic: it is sim
ply regarded as another archaism. In H o m e r there are n o innovated
D o r i c forms o f the type ejneoc,, n o r innovated Attic forms such as
&7ioxiv8xo)oav. F o r this reason, the interpretation o f the H o m e r i c lan
guage as a c o n g l o m e r a t e o f dialects o f the first millennium is a colos
sal error o f investigation, o n c e w e a c k n o w l e d g e the existence in this
language o f s o m e simple archaisms (such as ecpGixo, akxo, KeXaai,
TC(pi8ea9ca, Zfjv, o r certain terms o f the lexicon), and s o m e artificial
forms (verbal forms with diectasis, metrical extensions, etc.).
T h i s reflects an uncritical continuation o f the interpretations o f
the o l d grammarians, w h o in turn reflected the dialectal interpreta
tion o f the Greeks in general o n the basis o f the dialects they k n e w
and not o f the linguistic situation in the s e c o n d millennium, w h i c h
they o f course i g n o r e d .
F o r instance, H o m e r occasionally preserved forms such as the
archaisms just m e n t i o n e d ; and h e preserved fluctuations w h i c h E G
in general subsequently eliminated, such as -aa/-a- (without regular
simplification), x o i / o i , x w n / o i ) . H o m e r also preserved doublets that
h a d b e e n eliminated even from M y c e n a e a n , as n o t e d earlier
(fj'ov/
a w , etc.).
84. T h e traditional theory is that a first A e o l i c ' phase was s u c c e e d e d
5
b y a s e c o n d T o n i c phase. Beside elements from the first millennium,

w h i c h w e r e clearly A e o l i c a n d I o n i c , elements f r o m the s e c o n d
52
CHAPTER
FOUR
millennium, w h i c h c a n n o t b e considered A e o l i c o r I o n i c , were c o n

sidered as b e l o n g i n g to their dialects. T h e same goes for the socalled A c h a e a n (or rather, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n ) elements, w h i c h other
authors consider to b e earlier than the former: these elements tend
to b e simple archaisms, nearly always o f a lexical type (atacc, 8S)jia,
d v a ^ , etc.); cf. R . Hiersche 1970, p . 9 0 .
A c c o r d i n g to this theory, a generation o f A c h a e a n
aoidoi w o u l d
have b e e n followed b y another generation o f A e o l i c ' aoidoi, and this

b y a third generation o f ' I o n i c ' aoidoi Hardly anything is said about
archaisms, nothing at all a b o u t Doricisms o r about artificial forms,
e x c e p t to attribute them to very recent phases. Apart from that,
there c a n b e n o d o u b t whatsoever a b o u t the artificial character o f
the H o m e r i c language, its capacity to c h o o s e o r create forms a c c o r d
ing to metre, etc.
Our view of the Homeric language
8 5 . T h e key p r o b l e m is that certain characteristics
that were, for
instance, I o n i c o r A e o l i c in the first millennium, were not yet so in

the s e c o n d millennium before the dialects w e k n o w were shaped. In
H o m e r , there is -ti, an archaism, and -si, East G r e e k in general;
there is -ap- and -op-, dv and K 8 , w h i c h co-existed, they were not
yet T o n i c ' and A e o l i c ' , in the same w a y that tpv
yet A t t i c
and
Tonic
and ovv were not
a n d TCT- was n o t A c h a e a n
but simply an
archaism. In addition, characteristics that b e g a n to spread - such as

-GCCV
in the 3rd sec. p f , w h i c h later b e c a m e I o n i c (but there' is -ccv
in Arcadian) - were innovations w h i c h had success in certain dialects,

for they were n o t yet marked dialectally in any sense. Others, such
as the D . pi. -eaor, never even h a d the c h a n c e to assign themselves
to any o n e dialect.
W e o n l y k n o w o f other forms through M y c e n a e a n o r H o m e r him
self: there is n o reason to assign them to the dialects o f the first mil
lennium.
Indeed, if certain
w o r d s are p r e s e n t
in H o m e r
and
A r c a d o - C y p r i a n o r M y c e n a e a n , for e x a m p l e , then this means that

they also existed in s o m e part o f E G from the s e c o n d millennium.
If -q>i is present in Thessalian, this only means that it existed in the
s e c o n d millennium ( M y c e n a e a n is another witness), etc.
O f course, w e must also attribute to the G r e e k o f that p e r i o d the
labiovelars, n o t their later evolutions, the p, the vowels in hiatus
without contraction, the groups o f s and sonant, and inversely (cf Horn.
53
xekaov),
o r o f sonant and y (or a phase with h still partially pre
served in M y c e n a e a n ) and not their later evolutions in I o n i c o r

Aeolic.
5
In other w o r d s , the supposed archaic Tonicisms , A e o l i c i s m s , etc.

o f H o m e r (later, true Ionicisms a n d Aeolicisms w e r e introduced),
were simply forms that w o u l d later b e c o m e part o f these dialects, as
I explain in A d r a d o s 1 9 8 1 . A c c o r d i n g to H o o k e r 1983, the epic lan
guage should b e studied without 'dialectal p r e c o n c e p t i o n s ' : the c o n
cepts o f ' I o n i c ' and A e o l i c ' are inadequate, as demonstrated b y TOI
w h i c h does not fit into the system, C h a d w i c k himself (1990) acknowl
edges that 'the four main dialectal groups c a n n o t b e projected o n t o
the s e c o n d millennium'.
86. T h e fact is, certain H o m e r i c characteristics descend, indeed, from
the dialects o f the first millennium, that is, from I o n i c and A e o l i c ,
in w h o s e sphere epic poetry continued to g r o w (perhaps in the region
o f Asia in w h i c h they crossed paths, as p r o p o s e d b y W i l a m o w i t z ; cf.
also C . J. Ruijgh 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ) . But it is a mistake to assign a dialectal
label o f the first millennium to archaic H o m e r i c characteristics, from
a p e r i o d in w h i c h these dialects did n o t exist. It is true that these
characteristics were understood in this way: dv, vca w e r e understood
b y later Greeks as Ionicisms; K 8 , -jnev as Aeolicisms, and m o d e r n
linguists c o n t i n u e d this tradition in error. But they did not k n o w
what to make o f TOI o r Bed whereas the reconstructed d i g a m m a o r
the p a t r o n y m i c in -ioq, simple archaisms, w e r e attributed to A e o l i c .
T h e y also called ccp forms Ionic, and op forms A e o l i c . Furthermore,
v
the 5e- solution o f *g e- was considered I o n i c , and the pe- solution

A e o l i c : this is correct, but they are referring to recent transcriptions
o f ancient *ê-, as TÛ- and djuu- are recent transcriptions o f <*n$m>,
etc.
T h u s , certain archaic forms or the characteristics o f certain archaic
dialects were secondarily interpreted as I o n i c o r A e o l i c , for the sim
ple reason that they were I o n i c o r A e o l i c in the eighth century and
later o n were always interpreted so; they attracted recent Ionicisms
and Aeolicisms to the epic language, w h i c h was always in a state o f
evolution. In the same w a y , the p r e s u m e d ' A c h a e a n i s m s ' o f H o m e r ,
that is, certain m o r p h o l o g i c a l and lexical c o i n c i d e n c e s with A r c a d o Cyprian, are simply archaisms; but these did not attract recent archaic
forms, it was a non-literary dialect neglected b y the aoidoi
54
CHAPTER FOUR
87. O n the ancient grammarians view o f the dialects, see J. B. Hainsworth

1967; also G. Scarpat 1952, R . Hiersche 1970, p . 80 (with a quote by Dio
Chrysostomus X I 23), and C. Consani 1993.
O n the bibliography o f the traditional interpretations of the Homeric
language, see, for example, R . Hiersche 1972 and Adrados 1981, p. 13; a
standard presentation can be found, for example, in the Grammaire Homerique
by P. Ghantraine 1942. The truth is, there has been no real progress since
then. O n the polemic surrounding the existence of Aeolicisms, or the lack
thereof, cf. K. Strunk 1957, A. Wathelet 1970, as well as M . Durante 1968,
G. C. Horrocks 1987. R . Hiersche 1970, p. 83 ff, is sceptical about a large
series o f proposed Aeolicims (-op-, v < p, -eaai,
which he regards as
only 'passing for Aeolicisms). O n a possible, older layer of Achaean archaisms
(based on Arc-Gyp.), c f G. J. Ruijgh 1957 and later works (against this,
M . Peters 1986); on possible Myceaneanisms, J. Chadwick and G. P. Shipp
in G. S. Kird (ed.) 1964. Shipp opposes Chadwick in the same volume by
doubting the Mycenaeanisms, which to him are archaisms. Cf. also in the
same vein, R . Lazzeroni 1969. See another theory (a Palaeo-Aeolic stra
tum followed by an Arcado-Cyprian one) in A. Negri 1981b and C. Brillante
1986. O n the 'non-Ionic elements without a clear definition' cf. R . Hirsche
1970, p . 91. Other studies include: C . J . Ruijgh 1984 and 1995-1996, B.
Forssmann 1991, O . Panagl 1992.
5
The theory presented here is supported in Adrados 1976a (with much

more detail regarding Achaean Epic) and 1981 (the theoretical foundation).
These ideas are strongly supported by J. T. Hooker 1983 and also by
J. Chadwick 1990 (without quoting me, perhaps by coincidence he arrived
at the same conclusion); they are ignored by K. Strunk 1997, p. 149 f
Actually, they are an ineluctable consequence o f the thesis o f the recent
character o f most o f the innovations o f the dialects: the strange thing is
that there is a continuous and routine repetition o f the same ideas that
were proposed when those dialects were projected onto the older"tiate.
88. S o , there was an epic language before the dialectal
differentiation,
at a time w h e n the labiovelars w e r e still preserved, there was n o

contraction o f vowels, a n d archaisms a n d doublets, later reserved to
certain
dialects, survived. I n d e e d , the
epic language
favoured
the
existence o f doublets, w h i c h h a d existed earlier in E G (although s o m e

w e r e created artificially), but w e r e maintained
in places w h e r e
the
dialects tended later to c h o o s e b e t w e e n the t w o forms. F o r instance,

oio/-6o/-oi),
-Ti/-at
-XG-
ccp/op, - v c u / - u e v , Jjuv/auv/ai/ei (previously q u o t e d ) ,
(archaic a n d
recent forms), - a c / - a in the first
declension,
(archaism) / forms with a lengthening o f the v o w e l , forms with
o r without d i g a m m a , e t c , n o r m a l o r artificial forms, e t c All o f this

represented
n o t h i n g b u t an exploitation o f the variation
between
archaic a n d recent forms o r a m o n g parallel forms (phonetic o r other

wise) in E G .
55
I a m not attempting a study o f the H o m e r i c language as it is rep

resented in o u r manuscripts, but a study o f its predecessor, the epic
language o f the s e c o n d millennium. It coincides to a large
extent
with M y c e n a e a n as to the archaisms (patronymics in -10c,, the f o r m

in -cpi, the d o u b l e t a p / o p j etc.) and also with the archaisms that can
b e d e d u c e d from the study o f the first-millennium dialects (TO(, TO,
e t c ) . H o w e v e r , it must b e granted that, o n occasion, this language
(to the extent that it is k n o w n to us) has lost certain M y c e n a e a n
archaisms; o r else has preserved doublets w h e r e M y c e n a e a n
had
simplified in a different way. I have p r o v i d e d examples.

T h e H o m e r i c language also h a d its o w n archaisms o f the type
Zfjv, ecpGiTO, xzkoov,
e t c Sometimes, the lack o f M y c e n a e a n data
allows us to establish a relation. But, o n o c c a s i o n , M y c e n a e a n and

H o m e r i c archaism, o r its c h o i c e , o n l y spread to certain
dialects:
-s\)q (-eq in A r c - G y p . ) , jxera (except for a g r o u p with rceSoc in A r c 5
and Lesb.), etc.; or else H o m e r (or 'our H o m e r ? ) chose in a c c o r d a n c e

with all the dialects, against M y c . ( D . sg. in -i, with exception) o r
against M y c and A r c - G y p . (verbal des. -xai). A t times, archaism is
preserved in an isolated dialect, against the rest, including H o r n , a n d
M y c ( D . sg. in C y p . -o-ne).
M y c e n a e a n archaisms such as the preservation o f the labiovelars
o r the preservation o f h p r o c e e d i n g f r o m s have b e e n lost in the
epic language: but perhaps this is just something peculiar to 'our
H o m e r , not that o f the s e c o n d millennium.

W i t h regard to innovations, apart f r o m those that are clearly from
the first millennium, H o m e r shares some (which are not in Mycenaean)
with the southern g r o u p : -(G)OCV in I o n - A t . - A r c . - C y p , , c o n c o r d a n c e
with Ion., A t . , and A r c in the treatment o f the groups o f -ss-, -tsand
e t c H o m e r also has s o m e innovations o f his o w n , but these
are not significant e n o u g h to establish dialectal relations.

89. In short, the ancient b a c k g r o u n d o f H o m e r ' s language c o m e s
from a conservative dialect o f the s e c o n d millennium w h i c h is not
exactly M y c e n a e a n , for its archaisms are partly different. A s far as
its choices and innovations are c o n c e r n e d , sometimes it follows nearly
all o f n o n - M y c e n a e a n E G , sometimes it follows the I o n . - A t . - A r c C y p . g r o u p (against M y c e n a e a n ) . But it preserves doublets identical
to those o f M y c , w h i c h the different dialects, including A e o l i c , have
simplified (at times in a contrasting w a y ) .
56
CHAPTER FOUR
W e c a n n o t establish the geographical base o f this language, n o r

to what extent an older epic language was renovated afterwards b y
various additions. W e can o n l y claim that it was an archaic lan
guage closely related to M y c e n a e a n and to the language that is s o m e
times at the base o f the w h o l e o f
first-millennium
E G , sometimes at
the base o f just a part o f it (that is, to the p a r a - M y c e n a e a n dialects).

T h e o n l y thing left for us to d o is to attempt to set aside those ele
ments that were a d d e d to the epic language in the first millennium
in the course o f its evolution.
A c h a e a n epic, an archaic language, n o doubt comes from a different
g e o g r a p h i c area than M y c e a e a n , w h i c h c o m e s from Crete. It has
b e e n p r o p o s e d that variants in this language left traces in H e s i o d
a n d lyric, see 151 f.
It was an area in w h i c h a peculiar dialect o f E G b e g a n to take
shape, w h i c h did n o t take part in the tendency to differentiate preIonic from pre-Aeolic. But, because the archaic forms and the doublets
o f this dialect often c o i n c i d e with those o f the later dialects, I o n i c
and Aeolic -
or, to b e m o r e exact, Asian I o n i c and A e o l i c -
the
epic admitted forms o f these dialects secondarily. H e r e , the epic lan

guage c o n t i n u e d to evolve.
T h u s , w e k n o w the G r e e k o f the s e c o n d millennium, directly,
through a dialect that was b r o u g h t from Crete to the continent in
the s e c o n d millennium with an administrative purpose; and through
a dialect b r o u g h t f r o m a certain place to Asia as a p o e t i c language
in the first millennium (but w h i c h , perhaps, h a d b e e n developing in
Asia since the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d ) .
H o w e v e r , w e c a n also to a certain extent reconstruct what w o u l d
have b e e n the spoken language o f the p e r i o d : the p a r a - M y c e n a e a n
dialects.
4.
P A R A - M Y C E N A E A N IN T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM
90. T h u s , w e have a very i n c o m p l e t e k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k in the

s e c o n d millennium. O n the o n e hand, w e can d r a w s o m e c o n c l u
sions f r o m C G a n d E G as to h o w m u c h in them is unified a n d frag
mented.
O n the other h a n d , w e have a direct k n o w l e d g e o f an
administrative
language, M y c e n a e a n , w h i c h provides us with lacu
nae a n d p r o b l e m s , a n d a reconstructed epic language that w e can

d e d u c e from the epic language o f the first millennium. Both lan
guages definitely have very concrete geographical origins.
THE
SECOND
MILLENNIUM
57
T h e s e archaic languages are o f very special and r e d u c e d uses, and

their relation to the spoken languages the archaic forms o f east
ern dialects, w h i c h I call p a r a - M y c e n a e a n - is difficult to establish
in any c o n c r e t e w a y . Evidently, throughout the w h o l e o f G r e e c e
there must have b e e n a spoken language that was beginning to frag
ment, just as the political p o w e r was fragmenting: s o m e information
about this has already b e e n p r o v i d e d .
I w o u l d like to highlight certain views. N o n e o f the previously
m e n t i o n e d innovatory characteristics o f Ion.-At. is present in the sec
o n d millennium: they appear later. T h e same applies to those o f
A e o l . o r A r c . - G y p . T h e innovations that are c o m m o n to all o f them
c o m e from E G , as w e have seen. A l s o , there are s o m e archaisms o f
Ion.-At. (the prepositions without a p o c o p e ) o r o f Attic (^v, noXei).
N o n e o f this tells us m u c h . But the series o f choices c o m m o n to
Ion.-At. and A r c - C y p . are important: w e c a n recall the examples
o f ei, TeaGBpec,, -vcti, av, -xe, -ap-,
EIKOGI,
etc. T h e y evidently g o b a c k
very far, before these dialects w e r e entirely constituted. It seems that

there was a linguistic territory with c o m m o n characteristics
that
extended from Attica to the Peloponnesus, b y w a y o f the Corinthian

isthmus. T h e fact that there was not always c o m p l e t e unity (archaisms
in Attic o r Cyprian o r remnants o f divergent choices) does not under
m i n e this argument. But I d o believe it is possible to speak o f a first
hint o f Ionic-Attic and even A r c a d o - C y p r i a n a n d A e o l i c before the
e n d o f the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d .
9 1 . Sometimes, a characteristic that in principle corresponds to the
c o m p l e x f o r m e d b y the later Ionic-Attic and A r c a d o - C y p r i a n dialects
extends b e y o n d these frontiers
\xeia in T h e s . ,
-(G)OCV
and is f o u n d in an A e o l i c dialect:
in B o e o t , , and I have already t o u c h e d u p o n
those o f Lesbian. But the opposite is m o r e frequent: c o i n c i d e n c e

b e t w e e n A r c a d i a n - C y p r i a n (or o n e o f the t w o dialects) and A e o l i c
as a w h o l e o r part o f it, always as regards choices: the p r o n o u n s 6Vu,
ove, ovi, the prepositions 7ce5d, TCOT{, the p r o n o m i n a l element - G U C
In short, s o m e (innovatory) isoglosses o f the first-millennium dialects
reflect something that was peculiar to E G as a w h o l e ; s o m e (choices,
archaisms) e x c l u d e d the territory that later b e c a m e A e o l i c ; s o m e
reached it in part; and s o m e e x c l u d e d the d o m i n i o n o f the later
Ionic-Attic
It must b e stressed that a great differentiation did not exist. T h e r e
were n o great dialectal innovations. H e r e and there, archaisms and
choices survived w h i c h were also present in distant territories. Indeed,
58
CHAPTER FOUR
archaisms and doublets which were present in H o m e r and M y c e n a e a n

m a y have survived in P a r a - M y c e n a e a n , o r part o f it, in contrast to
what c a n b e d e d u c e d from the later dialects. A n d there are p r o b
lems with A e o l i c : the d o u b t as to whether certain c o i n c i d e n c e s with
Ionic-Attic are not an effect o f a recent influence, as p r o p o s e d b y
Porzig; whether certain coincidences o f Boeotian and Thessalian with
D o r i c were not an effect o f the influence o f the latter. If these two
hypotheses were true, the dialectalisation o f E G in the s e c o n d mil
lennium w o u l d b e m u c h clearer than w e n o w think.
T h e s e p r o b l e m s will b e discussed in the context o f the study o f
the first-millennium
dialects, w h i c h , as w e have seen, d e e p e n e d the
dialectal differences after the arrival o f the Dorians, w h o isolated the

different
territories: the territory o f the P e l o p o n n e s e ( r e d u c e d to
A r c a d i a a n d to the emigration
to Cyprus), that o f Attica (and its
emigration to the islands and Asia), and that o f Thessaly and Boeotia
(with emigration to Asia and Lesbos). T h e later dialects c o r r e s p o n d
to these territories, w h i c h were M y c e n a e a n kingdoms o r groups o f
M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s . It appears that there was already a hint o f
them, to a certain extent. V a r i o u s authors, including myself,
p r o p o s e d this.
have
CHAPTER FIVE
G R E E K IN T H E FIRST M I L L E N N I U M :
DIALECTAL
1.
PANORAMA
T H E EXPANSION O F T H E G R E E K D I A L E C T S
The first expansion

9 2 . I have specified the circumstances surrounding the
fragmenta
tion, in the first millennium, o f the relatively unified East G r e e k that

was spoken in G r e e c e during the s e c o n d millennium. T h i s topic must
b e l o o k e d at m o r e closely, but to d o so it is useful first to examine
the expansion o f the G r e e k dialects f r o m the arrival o f the Dorians
onwards, inside a n d outside G r e e c e , and also to l o o k at the diffusion
o f the alphabet a n d script.
T o b e g i n with, the D o r i a n invasion b r o u g h t to G r e e c e an archaic
language lacking the innovations o f East Greek, w h i c h had
entered
G r e e c e towards the year 2 0 0 0 and h a d Hellenised it during the sec

o n d millennium. A p a r t from destroying the earlier culture, the inva
sion also isolated the three regions w h i c h h a d b e e n spared
during
the invasion. T h e s e regions d e v e l o p e d three dialects Thessalian

and Boeotian, Attic and A r c a d i a n - w h i c h w e r e later e x p o r t e d to
Asia a n d the islands. In their fully d e v e l o p e d state, these
dialects
b e c a m e k n o w n as A e o l i c , Ionic-Attic and A r c a d o - C y p r i a n .
I n d e e d , f r o m the ninth century o n w a r d s , G r e e c e b e g a n to re
invent itself. It d e v e l o p e d a g e o m e t r i c and later oriental style o f art.
T h i s was the age o f the cities, o f the great sanctuaries, c o m m e r c e ,
and advances in architecture, sculpture, ceramics and painting. T h e
aristocracies d e v e l o p e d an international w a y o f life, the alphabet was
i n t r o d u c e d and links w e r e established a m o n g the eastern dialects and
with D o r i c , w h i c h enabled the c o n v e r g e n c e o f dialects a n d o f Greek
cultural forms, including oral and written literature. But this was to
b e expected, and it will b e e x a m i n e d later o n . First, I must e m p h a
sise the dialectal
differentiation.
9 3 . A s I have explained, not so l o n g a g o it was customary in dis

cussions o n G r e e k dialectology to p r o p o s e that the three great dialects
60
C H A P T E R FIVE
(apart from D o r i c ) h a d entered G r e e c e from the N o r t h in an already

fully f o r m e d state a r o u n d the year 2 0 0 0 . Kretschner a n d T o v a r ,
a m o n g others, p r o p a g a t e d this theory and I myself was not i m m u n e
to it. But from the 1950s onwards, it b e c a m e increasingly evident
that the main innovations o f these dialects should o n l y b e dated
starting from the year 1200 B C (in 1952 I h a d stated that the i n n o
vations w e r e essential in tracing the dialectal history). T h e relevant
bibliography has b e e n p r o v i d e d .
T o b e sure, s o m e scholars have g o n e further, presenting C o m m o n
G r e e k a n d s e c o n d - m i l l e n n i u m G r e e k as absolute units: this is unre
alistic, as w e have s h o w n . Y e t the great fragmentation o c c u r r e d , in
effect, after the year 1200.
9 4 . T h i s expansion o f the G r e e k language was resumed, as w e have
seen, after the great catastrophe
that was the destruction o f the
M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s a r o u n d 1200; and, a b o v e all, from the ninth

century o n w a r d s , w h e n the Greeks, in rivalry with the Phoenicians,
o n c e m o r e b e g a n to e x p l o r e the Mediterranean, to trade there and
to establish colonies. Different cities with different dialects intervened
in these processes after the arrival o f the Dorians.
Actually, the islands and the w h o l e western coast o f Asia M i n o r
b e c a m e a n e w G r e e c e through the efforts o f the Aeolians, Ionians
a n d D o r i a n s ; even the southern coast between Lycia and Cilicia,
Pamphylia. N e w 'contingents' o f G r e e k dialects from the
eastern
groups b e c a m e established in these parts a n d in C y p r u s . W i t h i n

G r e e c e itself the D o r i a n s o c c u p i e d , as is well k n o w n , Phocis and the
territories to the west; the w h o l e area surrounding the Peloponnesus,
f r o m C o r i n t h a n d Argolis to Elis a n d Messenia; Crete and neigh
b o u r i n g islands o f T h e r a , R h o d e s and C o s ; and also the I o n i c islands
were o c c u p i e d b y the Ionians. In m o s t o f these places the dialects
were grafted o n t o the earlier setdements. All o f this took place around
the eleventh century B C , w h i c h is the starting date for the estab
lishment o f the three great dialects Ionic-Attic, A e o l i c and D o r i c
a n d also for the implantation o f the isoglosses that tended to either
m e r g e t h e m o r fragment them.
In G r e e c e itself, the city was n o w the political centre, whether
unifying vast territories
under its rule (syncecisms such as that o f
Attica); j o i n i n g confederations (such as that o f the Boeotians); c o n

quering territories a n d subduing their populations (as L a c e d a e m o n
did in Messenia, Athens in O r o p u s a n d Eleutherae); o r p r o m o t i n g
61
T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM
wars (between Eretria and Chalcis, Athens and M e g a r a ) . All o f this

h a d linguistic c o n s e q u e n c e s , the main o n e b e i n g that the
dialects
(and alphabets) tended to c o i n c i d e with the cities. But this is n o t

always the case; see 131 o n the I o n i c dialect o f Asia.
Colonization
9 5 . T o w a r d s the eighth century the dialects were practically fully
f o r m e d . T h e colonisation o f M a g n a G r a e c i a was just beginning, with
Sicily and southern Italy d o m i n a t e d b y the Greeks, and this p e r i o d
is also marked b y the origin and diffusion o f the alphabet. T h i s is
the point in w h i c h the great diffusion o f the G r e e k language b e g a n .
Outside M a g n a Graecia, in their colonisation the Greeks gener
ally only f o u n d e d isolated cities in the coastal region a r o u n d
Black Sea and almost the w h o l e o f the Mediterranean:
the
they w o u l d
setde o n small islands o r o n a p r o m o n t o r y o n the coast, and s o m e

times they w o u l d extend their d o m i n i o n to a nearby region o n the
continent.
T h e regions d o m i n a t e d b y the Phoenicians and Carthaginians were
an exception: that is, the N . o f Africa to the W . o f C y r e n e , the W .
o f Sicily, the islands o f the western Mediterranean
and the S. o f
Spain. T h e Greeks were driven o u t o f all these places after the battie o f Alalia in 5 3 5 . T h e Phocaeans h a d b e e n the first to arrive in
this region, a c c o r d i n g to H e r o d o t u s (I 165 f f , I V 152), but
their defeat in Alalia against the Etruscans a n d Carthaginians,
after
the
western Mediterranean was closed to the Greeks.

9 6 . W i t h this e x c e p t i o n , the cities o f the Greeks e x t e n d e d along the
entire coastal region, a n d were like frogs a r o u n d a p o n d , to use
Plato's expression {Phaedo 109 b). V a r i o u s G r e e k dialects, but prin
cipally D o r i c and I o n i c , were spoken there.
T h e Greeks left inscriptions very early o n : the p h e n o m e n o n o f
colonisation follows o n l y a little later that o f the diffusion o f the
alphabet. T h e inscription o n the c u p o f Pithecusa f r o m the eighth
century is perhaps the oldest G r e e k inscription, followed b y that o f
the oinokhoe f r o m the Dipylon in Athens, s o m e w h a t later. Also, liter
ature arrived f r o m G r e e c e and a n e w literature was created, from
the eighth century onwards in Asia and f r o m the seventh
century
in Sicily, and the arts flourished. T h e s e G r e e k cities w e r e in constant

contact with the indigenous peoples o f the interior w h o , from here,
b o r r o w e d so m u c h from G r e e k culture, the alphabet b e i n g o n e o f the
62
C H A P T E R FIVE
most important cultural loans (but this will b e e x a m i n e d further on).

T h e founding o f the G r e e k colonies marked the culminations o f
the resumption o f the travels o f exploration and c o m m e r c e . In Pontus,
Asia and the West, the Greeks h a d followed in the footsteps o f the
M y c e n a e a n s and the exploration myths o f the Argonauts, o f Heracles
a n d Odysseus. T h e Odyssey described the navigations o f Odysseus in
the western Mediterranean,
linking the M y c e n a e a n navigations
those o f the eighth century ( c f A d r a d o s 1998c). Stesichorus
and
intro
d u c e d the a c c o u n t o f Heracles's v o y a g e to the W e s t to Tartessus,

w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n familiar to Greeks o f that period, w h o traded
there. It is even possible that in places such as Miletus o r Thapsus,
the G r e e k dialects f r o m the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d w o u l d have survived
and served as a base for the n e w G r e e k dialects.
T o d a y w e have a better understanding o f trade in the
p e r i o d , w h i c h in effect continued the former trade routes
archaic
through
Pontus a n d the East. Between such distant locations as al-Mlna, Tell

Sukas, Pithecusae and Naukratis w e c a n find traces o f Greek trade
from the ninth century onwards, where Greeks later coexisted with
the Phoenicians and the local populations. Subsequendy, Greek e m p o ria p r o p e r e m e r g e d , a n d later real cities.
A c o m m u n i t y o f Greeks and Phoenicians existed in m o r e archaic
times; a ship c o u l d transport m i x e d merchandises.
O n l y later was
there a strong rivalry b e t w e e n them, and even war (I have discussed

the a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f the Mediterranean
above).
97. It is a c o m p l i c a t e d p h e n o m e n o n . T h e oldest o f the cittes that

f o u n d e d colonies w e r e E u b o e a , Chalcis and Eretria, w h i c h estab
lished colonies in C o r c y r a , the gulf o f Naples (Pithecusae, C u m a e ) ,
the E. o f Sicily a n d Italy ( N a x o s , Leontini, Catana, R h e g i u m ) and
C h a l c i d i c e ( T o r o n e , M e n d e , M e t h o n e ) ; Corinth, w h i c h displaced the
Chalcidians in C o r c y r a and f o u n d e d Potidaea and Syracuse (the lat
ter t o g e t h e r with the L a c e d a e m o n i a n s ) ; M e g a r a , w h i c h f o u n d e d
M e g a r a Hyblaea in Sicily a n d B y z a n t i o n a n d
C h a l c e d o n at
the
entrance to the Black Sea; the cities o f Asia M i n o r , Miletus (which

c o l o n i z e d the Black Sea) and P h o c a e a (which c o l o n i z e d the West);
and afterwards
T h e r a (Cyrene), L a c e d a e m o n (Tarentum), etc.
S o m e colonies, in turn, founded other colonies, for example Massilia,

the Phocaean c o l o n y ; and sometimes, t w o cities united to found o n e
c o l o n y (I have cited the case o f Syracuse). T h e r e was even an entire
city, P h o c a e a , w h i c h towards the year 5 4 0 displaced itself to Corsica,
63
to Alalia (which had b e e n f o u n d e d a r o u n d 5 6 0 ) , fleeing from
the
Persians. In short, m o s t frequently, o n e o r various cities f o u n d e d a

c o l o n y in a p l a n n e d w a y , in o r d e r to relieve the strain o f an excess
population o r to create a fulcrum for their trade o r p o w e r .
This is not the appropriate
place for a detailed l o o k at
Greek
colonisation and its e n o r m o u s cultural repercussions in G r e e c e itself.

T h e oldest colonies in the mid-eighth century are those o f Pithecusae
(really an emporium) and Cumae (757) in Italy, N a x o s in Sicily (734),
followed b y Syracuse (733) a n d later b y m a n y m o r e . T h e colonies
o f Miletus and other cities a r o u n d the Black Sea are almost c o n
temporary; Naukratis, a trading post in Egypt, dates from the seventh
century; m o r e recent are the colonies o f the W . , first Massilia, cited
previously, towards 6 0 0 , and f r o m there E m p o r i o n in Spain
and
others.
98. For an echo o f the colonization in the Odyssey, cf. my article, previ
ously cited, 'Navegaciones. . ( 1 9 9 8 c ) ; on Stesichorus and Tartessus, Adrados
1978, p. 261 ff. O n Greek trade and the founding o f colonies see, among
various works, the book by J. Boardman 1973 and other works previously
cited; the collaborations o f T . F. R. G. Braun and o f J. M . Cook in the
re-edition of Cambridge Ancient History, 1982, and of A. J. Graham in the
same work, 1983; G. Pugliese Garratelli 1985; F. G. Fernandez Nieto 1983;
S. Deger-Jalkotzy (ed.) 1983 and 1992; P. G. Descoeudres (ed.) 1990;
P. Rouillard 1991; G. Tsetskhladze-F. de Angelis (eds.) 1994; etc. The book
by N. G. L. Hammond, as cited previously, contains not only a good expo
sition on p. 109 ff, but also an impressive account o f the Greek colonies
in the eighth to the seventh centuries (p. 657 ff). V . Alonso Troncoso 1994
provides more references. O n the Greek vocabulary o f the colonisation, see
M . Casevitz 1985.
9 9 . T h e colonisation should b e regarded as a n e w G r e e k expansion,
w h i c h went far b e y o n d that initiated in the M y c e n a e a n period. It
should also b e seen as the start o f the expansion o f G r e e k culture arts, a w a y o f life - and o f the G r e e k language, w h i c h to us is par
ticularly
reflected in writing. Y e t this was b u t a repetition
on a
grander scale o f the M y c e n a e a n expansion and the continuation o f

the diffusion o f the eastern G r e e k dialects and o f the western dialects
in G r e e c e itself, w h e r e the n e w dialects were f o r m e d . T h e
intro
duction o f the alphabet in the mid-eighth century in G r e e c e and

Asia, as well as in the large islands o f the A e g e a n and in Ionia,
Sicily, and Italy, along with all the colonies, marked the start o f a
great diffusion o f Greek, o r o f different
Greeks.
64
C H A P T E R FIVE
2.
T H E DIFFUSION O F G R E E K
The alphabet and its diffusion

100. T h e different G r e e k dialects o f the first millennium are k n o w n
to us from the eighth century BC onwards, whether directly, through
inscriptions in stone and ceramics in particular, o r indirectly, through
the literary tradition w h i c h is reflected in the manuscripts. T h e r e are
two kinds o f texts: those in the Greek that was spoken in the different
cities, w h i c h has b e e n transmitted to us mainly through inscriptions;
and those in literary Greek, the c o m m o n languages that have b e e n
transmitted to us through inscriptions to some extent and also through
manuscripts.
T h i s is based o n a fundamental fact: the invention o f the G r e e k
alphabet, a derivative o f northern Semitic alphabet, to w h i c h , as w e
k n o w , it adds the vowels. It was p r o b a b l y the invention o f only o n e
person (or if there were various alphabets, then only o n e was diffused)
for trade purposes. It must have originated in a place where Greeks
a n d P h o e n i c i a n s coexisted: A l - M m a has b e e n p r o p o s e d (perhaps
ancient Posideion, o n the coast o f Syria), R h o d e s and Crete, in par
ticular.
T r a d e is better c o n d u c t e d with the aid o f written d o c u m e n t s ,
and w e have e v i d e n c e o f such, although o f a later date, and also o f

the transmission o f the G r e e k alphabet to the West.
H o w e v e r , the hypothesis that the G r e e k alphabet was introduced
in o r d e r to write the p o e m s o f the aoidoi is entirely unlikely; although
it is true to say that it was used in the same century (eighth) for
poetic inscriptions (dedicatory, funerary). This must have b e e n a stage
p r e c e d i n g its systematic use b y the aoidoi.
T h e fact is, it is thought today that from the e n d o f the ninth
century the G r e e k alphabet was spread out over the w h o l e o f the
Greek w o r l d and was beginning to penetrate the neighbouring regions.
I have referred to the most ancient inscriptions o f Pithecusae
and
Athens from the eighth century. Thereafter, very early inscriptions

are found in Thera, Crete, Naxos, Kalymnos, Aegina, Boeotia, Argolis,
C o r i n t h and C o r c y r a ; a n d also derived alphabets in Etrutia, Caria
and Phrygia.
101. It is widely a c c e p t e d that the G r e e k alphabet derived from the
Phoenician alphabet: the ancients k n e w this, c f H e r o d o t u s V 58,
and Tacitus, Annates X I 14, (poivucriioc 'letters' in an inscription in
T e o s (Schwyzer 710.B.37) and the verb rcoiviKdêv 'write' in Crete, c f
65
SEG 2 6 . 6 3 1 . A 5 (there are related forms). In effect, it is very close

to the Phoenician alphabet, w h i c h w e k n o w from the
thirteenth-cen
tury inscription in the sepulchre o f K i n g A h i r a m o f Byblos. T h e r e

is s o m e debate regarding the relation b e t w e e n this alphabet and the
cuneiforme alphabet o f Ugarit, w h i c h was created in the fourtheenth
century. A s far as the date is c o n c e r n e d , most authors incline towards
s o m e p o i n t in the eighth century, although an older date is often
still p r o p o s e d .
It is also believed that the Greek alphabet differs from the Phoenician
in that it derives the five vowels: a e> o f r o m the three laryngeals,
}
u a n d i from wau and yod. A n o t h e r difference is that it possesses only

o n e sibilant p h o n e m e . Its most archaic f o r m c a n also b e f o u n d in
the alphabet o f Crete, T h e r a , M e l o s a n d Sikinos, w h i c h lacks the
letters to mark the labial and guttural aspirated occlusives and the
d o u b l e letters (\|/ a n d Q, w h i c h w e r e i n t r o d u c e d b y later alphabets;
likewise, s o m e o f them lack the marking o f the quantities o f the e
and o, have other uses o f d o u b l e consonants, etc. T h e I o n i c a n d
western alphabets are the most evolved.
In any case, it is clear that the G r e e k alphabet was created b y a
speaker o f a dialect that was not psilotic a n d did n o t lack p. It is
also evident that it was diffused through Crete in various directions,
a m o n g others, b y w a y o f Corinth, towards the west. It seems that
the variants o f Eretria and A e g i n a arrived in Attica a n d were c o n
taminated
there.
102. The principal work on the history of the alphabet is by L. H . Jeffrey

1990 (2nd ed.): it proposes that the Greek alphabet was taken from the
Phoenician in Al-Mma, as cited previously. Other proposals are Rhodes
and Crete or Rhodes through Crete, or Crete proper (Rh. Carpenter in
G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp. 1-39, M . Falkner, ibid., pp. 143-171, M . Guarducci,
ibid., pp. 197-213); M . G. Amasdasi 1991 refers more vaguely to Syria
and Asia Minor. Cyprus (where Greeks and Phoenicians coexisted in Citium)
seems to be excluded because the syllabary continued to be used there (but
there are those who think that it was precisely the mark o f the vowels in
this syllabary that was the source o f inspiration for the creator o f the
alphabet).
With regard to the date, the eighth century is generally considered the
most probable, as sustained by Carpenter and Jeffrey in the works cited
and by R . Wachter 1989; also, I. B. S. Iselin 1991 and M . G. Amadasi
1991. J. de H o z (forthcoming) adheres to the end o f the ninth century.
However, there are those who propose older dates, even the twelfth century
or earlier: for instance, B. L. Ullmann (in G. Pfohl 1968b, p. 40 ff.) and
J. Naveh 1982. O n the Ugarit and Phoenician alphabets, see O . Eissfeldt
66
C H A P T E R FIVE
(in G. Pfohl 1968b, pp. 214 ff and 221 ff.), M . Dietrich and O . Lorentz
1991, and A. R. Millard 1991.
It is also generally accepted that the alphabet was acquired first and fore
most for trade purposes, although the data available is o f a later date: mate
rials such as lead, wooden tablets, ostraca, etc. were used. But B. B. Powell
1991 thinks that its primary purpose, in view o f the frequency o f verse epi
grams in archaic times, was to record Homeric poetry. See, in contrast, R.
Schmidt, Kratylos 37, 1992, p. 69 ff A secondary use, such as that of sepul
chral, honorific and even ludic inscriptions, was followed by a tertiary use:
by the aoidoi.
The subject of the discovery of the vowels by the Greeks can be con
sidered as completely elucidated. Various factors contributed to this: the
knowledge o f the marking o f vowels in Cyprian and Ugaritic; the need to
write syllables of the type V C - , nonexistant in Phoenician, and the non
existence, in turn, o f the glottal attack (the laryngeals) in Greek; and the
existence of certain Phoenician inscriptions which transcribe Luwian names
using aleph and wow to mark the vowels and initial % aleph and yod to indi
cate vowels o f internal syllables. The road ahead was prepared, there was
a need and there were models. For more details on the adaptation, see C f
Brixhe 1991b.
103. T h e fact is, as s o o n as the practice o f trade and politics was
resumed, w h e n intellectual life b e g a n to flourish and the
diverse
dialects were almost fully constituted, the alphabet spread very quickly,
enabling the r e c o r d i n g and archiving o f c o m m e r c i a l transactions
as
well as o f political and private documents and literary works, although

the m e t h o d s o f oral diffusion did not disappear. This was a huge
advantage for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f G r e e k life, language and culture,
a n d for its diffusion a m o n g neighbouring peoples, G r e e c e itself, and
i n d e e d the w h o l e G r e e k w o r l d .
F o r a s e c o n d time, the Greeks, in this relaunching o f their his
tory ( m o r e d y n a m i c a n d with a greater projection than the
first)
a d o p t e d a graphic system from a foreign p e o p l e . But they w o u l d use

it in a m o r e general w a y and n o t just as an administrative
instru
ment. T h i s w o u l d enable scholars o f the G r e e k language to gain

direct access to the geographical and literary dialects through inscrip
tions and the manuscript tradition. Indeed, the indirect k n o w l e d g e ,
through H o m e r a n d the dialects o f the first millennium, o f a dialect
from the s e c o n d millennium is possible thanks to this script.
T h e dialects o f so m a n y p e o p l e s w o u l d b e c o m e alphabetised as a
result, at this p o i n t o r during the Hellenistic period, thus o p e n i n g
the w a y for the diffusion o f G r e e k language and culture.
67
Inscriptions, literature and hellenisation

104. Let us make a few observations o n the inscriptions (including
graffiti) and the literary texts that w e r e p r o d u c e d o r created
from
this p o i n t o n , from w h i c h w e obtain o u r k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k lan

guage and culture. Here,Kve are dealing with private o r public texts;
whether in prose, in the local alphabets and dialects, in verse, o r in
the p o e t i c languages o f G r e e c e (literary prose dates from the sixth
century, as w e know). T h e s e texts have b e e n preserved in m a n u
scripts and inscriptions o n various materials (stone, c e r a m i c , metal,
w o o d , even ivory; the oldest papyri are from the fourth century).
Y e t the manuscript tradition does not shed any light o n the official
d o c u m e n t a t i o n that was kept in the archives, only the inscriptions
are able to d o so. A n d there is an almost c o m p l e t e lack o f data o n
the e c o n o m i c use o f the n e w script.
It must b e stressed that the Phoenician inscriptions (followed b y
the Punic inscriptions) offered a m o d e l for the G r e e k ones, not just
with regard to letters but also the writing o f the text. A m o n g the
oldest are the sepulchral inscriptions such as that o f K i n g A h i r a m ,
expository inscriptions b y kings a b o u t their wars a n d exploits (for
e x a m p l e , king M e s h a o f M o a b ) , dedicatory inscriptions such as that
found o n the b r o n z e helmet discovered in Cyprus; and others. T h e
Greeks dispensed n o t only with the syllabic scripts b u t also with the
use o f m u d o r brick tablets. T h e introduction o f p a r c h m e n t
com
pletes the picture.

B o o k s such as that b y Jeffrey
1 9 9 0 , p r e v i o u s l y cited, a n d b y
G u a r d u c c i 1967, n o t to m e n t i o n the large collections, illustrate the

e n o r m o u s diffusion o f Greek inscriptions, their n u m e r i c increase from
century to century and the immense variety o f their content. Individuals
c o u l d engrave sepulchral epitaphs, dedications to the g o d s , there are
inscriptions denoting ownership (such as the Pithecusae cup), inscrip
tions o f artists, lovers, and w e find school excercises o r simple lists
o f names such as those o f the G r e e k soldiers w h o engraved their
names in the colossi o f A b u Simbel a r o u n d 668 B C .
H o w e v e r , p u b l i c inscriptions from cities o r temples are m o r e fre
quent: these include all kinds o f lists ( o f archons, priests, ephori, war
casualties, etc.; inventories o f temples, etc.) decrees and laws, c o n
cessions o f h o n o u r s and priviledges, texts relating to sport c o m p e t i
tions, to festivals o r sacrifices, o r to the erection o f m o n u m e n t s ,
official letters and even chronicles such as that o f L i n d o s o r the
Marmor Parium.
68
C H A P T E R FIVE
Cities o r individuals c o u l d also engrave literary texts, as for e x a m

ple Archilochus's passages in a heroon w h i c h the p e o p l e o f Paros d e d
icated to h i m , o r S a p p h o ' s ostracon. T h e variety o f content increased
as time went o n .
Cities, sanctuaries, and mere individuals n o w had an instrument
with w h i c h they c o u l d use the G r e e k language in their daily lives,
w h i c h they c o u l d m a k e accessible to p e o p l e in other cities and ages,
and to n o n - G r e e k p e o p l e s t o o . T h e utility o f the script accounts for
its sudden, great success.
105. H o w e v e r , it is important to note that the use o f the script in
literature was o n l y gradual. H e r e , the papyrus had a m o r e i m p o r
tant role to play, despite the fact that w e only have samples from
the fourth century o n w a r d s . But w e must assume that, from
the
archaic p e r i o d o n w a r d s , it was greatiy used in the private, public

and literary spheres.
T o b e sure, the b o o k as such did n o t exist until the fifth century
and the diffusion o f literature was mainly oral. But private copies
existed, w h i c h w e r e c o p i e d for use b y aoidoi w h o recited epic p o e m s
o r b y performers o f lyric, including the c o m m e n s a l s w h o sang ele
gies and skolia in particular. O f course, there is s o m e debate about
w h e t h e r H o m e r a n d H e s i o d , in the eighth century, either w r o t e
p o e m s o r dictated them; in any case, from this p o i n t o n , writing was
at the service o f the transmission and diffusion o f literature. H o m e r
was k n o w n e v e r y w h e r e , a n d elegy and choral lyric w e r e
written
everywhere in the appropriate dialect.

T h e best illustration o f this can b e found in the inscriptions and
epigrams in verse, w h i c h h a d such a great diffusion from the very
start o f writing: the t w o oldest G r e e k inscriptions, o f Pithecusae and
Athens as cited, are in verse. A collection such as that o f Hansen
1983, w h i c h contains inscriptions in verse from the eighth to the
fifth century, demonstrates their w i d e diffusion and a b u n d a n c e . T h e y
are mainly sepulchral a n d votive, but also honorific, agonistic, relat
ing to ownership, constructions o r foundations, artists, etc.
106. F r o m the language perspective, it is important to emphasise
that inscriptions partly reflect the local dialects, but that, particularly
in the case o f inscriptions in elegiac distichs, the most numerous b y
far, the international
mosdy imposed.
language o f elegy o f w h i c h I have spoken is
69
T h e diffusion o f the great dialects (Ionic a n d D o r i c , A e o l i c in Asia)

a n d their local variants, sometimes modified in the colonies, is i m p o r
tant in the inscriptions. W e k n o w the variants represented b y P a m phylian, Syracusan o r for e x a m p l e the language o f C y r e n e , variants
w h i c h are n o t always ea^y to interpret with respect to origin.
W e w o u l d hardly k n o w o f these variants without the inscriptions,
for only a few o f the G r e e k dialects cultivated literature. T h e y were
languages for daily life and for registering official and private
doc
uments, w h o s e use was thus n o t m u c h wider than that o f M y c e n a e a n .

S o , the case o f prose inscriptions written in the dialect o f each
city, a n d o f inscriptions in literature is different. T h e latter used, o n
the o n e hand, the local dialects, w h i c h w e r e hardly diffused exter
nally: the iambi used I o n i c (but S o l o n ' s is in Attic); A l c m a n used
L a c o n i a n ; S a p p h o and Alcaeus used Lesbian; C o r i n n a used Boeotian;
Epicharmus a n d S o p h r o n used Syracusan, always with a generally
strong H o m e r i c a n d literary influence. It was o n l y later, from the
sixth century o n w a r d s , that I o n i c prose was created a n d diffused into
all regions; and towards the e n d o f the fifth century, Attic prose.
Y e t , the w o r l d o f literature - w h i c h was cultivated in a few cities
f r o m the e n d o f the eighth century onwards, a n d particularly in the
seventh a n d sixth centuries was an international w o r l d that prin
cipally cultivated international languages: the H o m e r i c language, first
a n d foremost, w h i c h w e believe to b e an evolution o f the epic lan
guage o f the previous millennium in Asia M i n o r ; subsequentiy, the
language o f elegy, w h i c h contains m a n y H o m e r i c a n d I o n i c elements;
a n d the language o f c h o r a l lyric, b a s e d o n D o r i c , but also very
H o m e r i c i s e d . W e must turn o u r attention to these languages.
T h u s , it c o u l d b e said that to a certain extent the linguistic situ
ation in the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d was repeated here. L o c a l dialects
existed, s o m e o f w h i c h at times h a d a literary cultivation. But inter
national p o e t i c languages also existed. Poets attended the great fes
tivals -
in Sparta, D e l p h i , D e l o s , Athens -
o r w e r e called to the
courts o f kings a n d tyrants - Corinth, S a m o s , Syracuse - a n d there

they sang in these international languages. Poetry contributed to the
reunification o f the G r e e k dialects, a n d also established
relations
b e t w e e n the different dialects, thereby making t h e m intelligible.

107. O n Phoenician inscriptions, cf. Rh. Carpenter 1968, previously cited.
A general overview of Greek inscriptions can be found in the book by
Jefferey 1990 and also in M . Guarducci 1967 and Hansen 1983.
70
C H A P T E R FIVE
For the diffusion o f Greek literature, see Adrados 1953b. The script of
the Homeric text and its oral character is discussed in 140 ff; on orality in general, among an abundant literature, see J. A. Fernandez Delgado
1983, W . Kullmann and M . Reichel (eds.) 1990 and E. A. Havelock 1986,
1990.
It is important to stress that the alphabet was first used to write down
local dialects, presenting local variants too. Its use in the international
diffusion of literature represents a second phase, which gave privilege to
the alphabets in which the literature was expressed and, of course, to the
literary languages we have referred to above.
108. T h e r e was a proliferation o f G r e e k inscriptions throughout the
Mediterranean. E v e n n o n - G r e e k peoples wrote in Greek, while oth
ers b o r r o w e d the G r e e k alphabet, in a m o r e o r less modified form,
to write their o w n languages, following the G r e e k m o d e l in every
w a y (as regards the type o f inscription, formulas, syntax and certain
lexicon).
T o cite the p o i n t furthest from G r e e c e and least Hellenised, the
Iberian peninsula, w e find in Ampurias and its surrounding areas
(Pech M a h o , in France) a r o u n d the year 5 0 0 c o m m e r c i a l letters and
d o c u m e n t s written in lead (there is also a defixio) o r terracotta, in
addition to inscriptions o f the private kind (such as a donation) in
c e r a m i c vases. T h e r e are n u m e r o u s inscriptions o n ceramic vases in
Huelva, M a l a g a a n d Alicante, indicating the o w n e r , a dedication o r
other data; a n d other inscriptions o n oil amphoras b r o u g h t directly
o r indirectly from Attica.
This is n o t all. Iberian inscriptions were written in GreekJetters
(as, similarly, Celtic inscriptions were so written in Gallia). O f course,
different alphabets o r semi-alphabets were created to r e c o r d Iberian,
Tartessian and Celto-Iberian, with a great p r e d o m i n a n c e o f G r e e k
letters, although this is a c o m p l i c a t e d topic. T h e Greeks definitely
alphabetised Hispania and c o m m e r c i a l reasons p r o b a b l y m a d e this
expansion necessary and inevitable, as in the case o f Italy.
109. See the edition o f the Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae Iberiae by
H. Rodriguez Somolinos 1998b and the article by D e H o z 1970 on Attic
inscriptions. For the Greco-Iberian inscriptions of Alicante, see the same
author 1987 (but they correspond to the fourth century). With regard to
the origins o f the scripts of the pre-Roman languages, there is an abun
dant bibliography, c f a summary in de H o z 1969, who dates some of these
back to the eighth century (p. 113), as well as another work of 1979. In
addition, see the two recent works by the same author, 1991 and 1996, in
which he places the Phoenician alphabet before the Greek as regards the
origin o f the Hispanic semi-alphabets.
71
110. T h i s is but a m i n o r e x a m p l e o f what was h a p p e n i n g through

out the Mediterranean. T h e r e were similar events in E u r o p e a n d
Asia. In Phrygia, for instance, inscriptions have b e e n discovered dat
ing from the eighth century onwards in an alphabet that is derived
from the Greek, and o n e notices b o t h G r e e k influences in Phrygian
a n d Phrygian influences in G r e e k (there is also a trilingual GreekLycian-Aramaic). T h e same goes for T h r a c i a n , for w h i c h w e have
inscriptions with G r e e k letters in g o l d rings a n d silver vessels from
the sixth to fifth centuries B C ; for Garian, for w h i c h w e have inscrip
tions in a semi-Greek alphabet from the the seventh century onwards;
a n d for Lydian, k n o w n from the same date, and m a n y others.
In Sicily and Italy the case is similar. T h e G r e e k origin o f the
Etruscan and Latin alphabets is well k n o w n ; they are believed to b e
independent o f each other, although s o m e think that the Latin alpha
bet derives from the Etruscan. In any case, w e are dealing with
alphabets o f the western kind, taken from the Chalcidians o f E u b o e a ,
p r o b a b l y in Cumae. T h e Etruscan alphabet is k n o w n to us from the
seventh century, the Latin alphabet from the sixth century.
T h e alphabet h a d b e c o m e established in Etruria before the arrival
o f the Corinthian Demaratus, father o f the first Etruscan king o f
R o m e , Tarquinius Priscus ( a c c o r d i n g to ancient sources, Dionysius
o f Halicarnassus, A.R.
I l l 4 6 , Livius I 34). Demaratus h a d arrived
through Pithecusae, a c c o m p a n i e d b y three Corinthian craftsmen w h o

displayed their art in Italy. Y e t , it is n o t only the Etruscan
(from
Etruria) and Latin alphabets that derive from the G r e e k alphabet o f

Cumae, but also the Etruscan alphabets o f C a m p a n i a , the O s c a n
alphabet and the U m b r i a n . Cf. G . D e v o t o 1968, p . 8 9 .
T h i s is but o n e o f the m a n y examples o f p r o f o u n d Hellenisation
in Etruria from the seventh century onwards a n d s o m e w h a t later in
R o m e : from the fifth century onwards, G r e e k terracotta (or terra
cotta o f G r e e k inspiration), G r e e k cults and G r e e k w o r d s (sometimes
with an Etruscan influence, such as triumpe, amurca, sporta, persona) are
f o u n d in R o m e . T h e t w o languages w e r e penetrated with G r e e k (In
the case o f Etruscan, particularly as regards t h e o n y m s a n d the names
o f heroes, but also c o m m o n names). In Latin, there are G r e e k b o r
rowings from archaic times: w o r d s such as those cited and other o l d
b o r r o w i n g s such as camera, gubernare, oleum, Pollux.
111. For Phrygian, see C. Brixhe in E. Vineis (ed.) 1983, pp. 109-133; for
Thracian, V . Georgiev 1981, p . I l l ff; for Lycian, G. Neumann in E.
72
C H A P T E R FIVE
Vineis (ed.) 1983, pp. 135-151; for Garian, I. J. Adiego 1993 and M . E.
Giannotta, et al. (eds.) 1994. For the languages of Asia Minor in general,
G. Neumann 1980 and the corresponding chapters in F. Villar 1996a. O n
the Etruscan alphabet c f G . and L. Bonfante 1985, p . 60 ff., and
D . Briquel 1991 (where it is considered as being introduced by nobles, as
an object of prestige); on Latin, F. Sommer, 3rd ed., 1948, p. 23 ff. A large
series o f Greek borrowings in Etruscan can be found in M . Pittau 1994,
p. 257 ff; for older Greek borrowings in Latin, see 291 ff. Yet there
are also inscriptions of various pre-Latin languages o f Sicily (those o f the
Sicani, Siculi and Elymians) with Greek letters, c f R. Ambrosini 1979,
1983.
3.
T H E C R E A T I O N OF T H E G R E A T DIALECTS
Generalities
112. T h e three dialectal groups k n o w n to us as Ionic-Attic, A r c a d o C y p r i a n and A e o l i c were created within E G ; W G , w h i c h is not part
o f this g r o u p , arrived later and tends to distinguish between D o r i c
and N . W . Greek.
A s w e have seen, there w e r e differences within this E G , perhaps
before it entered G r e e c e , but certainly within G r e e c e . Characteristics
that affected all o f E G o r a particular part o f it are reflected in Ion.Att. and A r c - C y p . , o r in the latter and A e o L Y e t these
character
istics d i d n o t always affect all o f the dialects within each g r o u p ,

although w e are uncertain whether this is an o l d o r a m o r e recent
d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e differences between D o r i c and N . W . G r e e t pre
sent similar p r o b l e m s .
H o w e v e r , turning o u r attention to E G , w e have said that the char
acteristics referred to are actually archaisms that have b e e n preserved
or c h o i c e s b e t w e e n doublets, a n d not innovations. Innovations were
d e v e l o p e d a n d the dialects finished forming themselves in the postM y c e n a e a n p e r i o d , w h e n the D o r i a n invasion h a d isolated the cen
tral nuclei o f these dialects: Attica (but see 118), A r c a d i a
T h e s s a l y , the r e g i o n s f r o m w h i c h a m i g r a t i o n
to Asia and
and
the
islands w o u l d depart. But they should not b e regarded as unitary

dialects, for w e find archaisms, choices and innovations only in parts
o f them.
A s I have repeatedly s h o w n , the attribution o f a p o s t - M y c e n a e a n
origin to the three great dialects has b e c o m e a general
doctrine,
based o n the works o f Porzig and Risch in the 1950s. Garcia R a m o n
73
has m a d e a strong case for A e o l i c in particular.
I insist that this
view is correct, but only if o n e accepts an earlier base, and the start
o f the differentiation in the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d .
T h e key m e t h o d for the study o f this 'dialectal g e n e a l o g y ' (for
b o t h E G and W G , in g e n p a l ) lies in demonstrating the ancient sim
ilarity o f the t w o dialects because they share innovations; the choices
also have a p r o b a t i o n a r y character, but to a lesser degree. T h e m o r e
serious p r o b l e m is that o f establishing w h i c h characteristics are i n n o
vations and w h i c h are not; in doublets o n e must also determine
whether o n e o f the t w o forms is an innovation. Furthermore,
in
s o m e cases, a relative c h r o n o l o g y must b e established.

T h e r e has b e e n m u c h progress in this field as regards the estab
lishment o f relative and absolute c h r o n o l o g i e s . But doubts remain,
as in the case o f the secondary extension o f the isoglosses.
113. In my small book La dialectologia griega como fuente para el estudio de las
migraciones indoeuropeas en Grecia, published for the first time in 1952 (2nd ed.
1997), I still followed the old theory of Kretschmer and Tovar, perhaps
due to a traditional inertia, which proposed that Ionic, the most evolved
dialect, was the first to penetrate Greece. However, I established two prin
ciples which I believe have been essential to all subsequent investigation:
the existence o f an E G with three main dialects and o f a W G (in addition
to the criteria o f supporting this investigation on the different probationary
value of the innovations, choices and archaisms, and in the chronology).
This book is at the base o f subsequent investigations, such as those o f
Porzig and Risch, cited previously, and others. Sometimes I am frequently
cited, as in R. Schmitt 1977, p. 125, E. Risch 1979, p. 94, and A. Lopez Eire
and J. Mendez Dosuna; sometimes not at all, as in W . Porzig and E. Risch
in the works cited, and J. Chadwick 1956, who nevertheless follows my
doctrine. In the prologue to a re-edition o f my book, cited above, I pro
vide the proper base for the whole theory o f innovations and choices, and
trace the history o f the investigation. At times, surprising discoveries are
made: R . Hodot 'discovers' (in E. Crespo 1993, p. 207) that av and KE
coexisted in ancient times, something which I have been saying since 1952.
In the prologue cited, I also draw attention to my criticism o f certain
modern currents of thought that attempt to undermine the genealogical
study o f dialects. Although a very detailed and exact study of the data is
essential, it must be added that without this other study the history o f the
Greek language cannot be written. See also my observations in Adrados
1994e.
The chronology o f the dialects has been examined by A. Bartonek 1979
and 1987 in particular, as well as A. Lopez Eire 1977, 1989a, etc. But
today, practically every study on these subjects is based on chronology,
which is essentially linguistic in nature; the archeological arguments (the
lack of Dorian remains in Attica, etc.) and those o f ancient tradition are a
secondary support.
74
C H A P T E R FIVE
For the evolution of the studies on Greek dialectology, see Adrados 1998b;
also R. A. Santiago 1997. For tendencies that insist on the importance of
description - that is, sociolinguistic description (which is relevant, but not
if it involves a hypercritique o f the genealogical study), c f M . Bile 1990a
and b, and Gl. Brixhe 1990a and b . The distance that is sometimes pro
posed between the Greek o f the second and the Greek of the first millen
nium, and between Mycenaean and subsequent dialects is excessive.
114. Certainly, p r o b l e m s persist with regard to the three great dialects
o f E G , not just regarding
to what extent they were prefigured
in
second-millennium E G and to what extent they were o n c e unitary.

T h e r e are also p r o b l e m s that affect W G .
O n e p r o b l e m is the origin o f certain differences within the dialects.
S o m e scholars even d e n y A r c - C y p . ever existed, and there are diver
gent opinions regarding the relation between D o r i c and N . W . Greek.
W i t h respect to A e o l i c , Lesbian s o m e t i m e s c o i n c i d e s with I o n i c ,
B o e o t i a n and Thessalian
(or parts o f them) with D o r i c A r e these
recent p h e n o m e n a through a secondary diffusion o f isoglosses, or, in

s o m e cases, a result o f the superimposition o f peoples? This has also
b e e n p r o p o s e d with regard to Cretan D o r i c , w h i c h seems to have
retained A c h a e a n characteristics;
and with regard
w h e r e today the existence o f D o r i c characteristics
to
Pamphylian,
are
nevertheless
denied, see 120.

Characteristics
w h i c h are considered to b e D o r i c m a y b e found
outside these dialects. T h e facts must b e e x a m i n e d carefully because

sometimes, as in the case o f Pamphylian, w e are dealing with archaisms
o r c o i n c i d e n c e s in the c h o i c e w h i c h m a y not b e related but inde
p e n d e n t o f each other. It serves to recall the theoretically possible
Doricisms in H o m e r .
O f c o u r s e , this makes the definition o f the four great
dialects
difficult, as d o e s the establishment o f their ancient limits and o f p o s

sible m o d e r n m o v e m e n t s o f borders.
In a n y case, w e will schematically divide the study o f the dialects
into three parts, w h i c h follow a m o r e thematic than c h r o n o l o g i c a l
scheme: first, the differentiation
Pamphylian,
o f Ionic-Attic, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n a n d
A e o l i c a n d D o r i c ; s e c o n d , the characteristics
which
helped to bring them closer together at s o m e point; third, the n e w

differentiations. T h e first part is studied in this section o n ' T h e cre
ation o f the great dialects'; the other t w o parts are considered in the
following sections.
75
115. A very complete overview (though somewhat outdated today) of Greek

dialectology and the particular aspects cited can be found in R. Schmitt
1977 and J. L. Garcia Ramon (1999). The great traditional treatises are
by F. Bechtel 1921-1924, A. Debrunner-A. Scherer 1969 and, within Greek
grammar in general, E. Schwyzer 1939 ff. W e will provide the most recent
bibliography o f note with regard to each dialect.
The reader should not expect a detailed study in this book. This pur
pose is served by the general treatises of dialectology, which not only pro
vide the relevant data but also the sources and bibliography, in addition
to historical interpretations. Here, we are interested in outlining the char
acteristics of the linguistic history o f Greece, with its successive processes
of dialectal differentiation and unification and the interplay of the spoken
and literary dialects peculiar to it.
Ionic-Attic
116. Ionic-Attic o c c u p i e d Attica, the islands, the coast o f Asia M i n o r
facing G r e e c e and the colonies o f the cities situated there. It is k n o w n
to us from ancient inscriptions o f the eighth and seventh
centuries
B C , but n o d o u b t it originates from an earlier date. It continued the

old M y c e n a e a n d o m i n i o n in Athens and in parts o f Asia M i n o r , such
as Miletus.
Athens possessed a M y c e n a e a n palace in the A c r o p o l i s , but myth
presents the city as a vassal o f M i n o s . It must have b e e n m o r e i m p o r
tant in the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d itself and, j u d g i n g b y the
logical remains,
especially in the p o s t - M y c e n a e a n a n d
archaeo
geometric
p e r i o d ; a vase from this p e r i o d contains a very ancient G r e e k alpha

betic inscription, to which I referred earlier. T h e r e is n o trace, whether
in a r c h a e o l o g y , myth, o r history, o f a D o r i a n invasion. Isolated f r o m
the Dorians, with w h o m they did n o t even share a c o m m o n b o r d e r
(Boeotia was A e o l i c territory, another derivation o f para-Mycenaean),
Athens d e v e l o p e d its o w n dialect. Athens was also isolated
Peloponnesian para-Mycenaean,
from
from which Arcado-Cyprian de
scended. T h u s , what c o u l d have constituted the beginnings o f a paraM y c e n a e a n dialect c o m m o n to Attica and the P e l o p o n n e s e b e c a m e
fragmented.
117. H o w e v e r , the dialectal c o m p l e x did not just extend to Attica
but also to the islands and Asia M i n o r , F o l l o w i n g Sakellariou, I have
already discussed the great emigration to Asia b y the Greeks from
the P e l o p o n n e s e , w h o h a d b e e n i n v a d e d b y the Dorians. Y e t S o l o n ,
as w e saw, describes Athens as 'the oldest land o f Ionia' and Herodotus
(VTI 2) refers to emigration f r o m Attica to the Asian Ionia.
But
76
CHAPTER
FIVE
H e r o d o t u s himself depicts other traditions regarding the Ionians w h o

departed to Asia f r o m central G r e e c e and the Peloponnese: O r c h o menus, E u b o e a , Messenia, Phocis, etc. In the Peloponnese, t o p o n y m s
and various mythical names can b e found that recall the n a m e o f
the Ionians.
T h e fact is, there is a series o f innovations o f Ionic-Attic, partic
ularly p h o n e t i c ones, w h i c h were transmitted b y sea from s o m e point
a n d w e r e n o t always totally consolidated in the seventh
century.
A c c o r d i n g to A . Bartonek 1977, p . 121 ff, they only b e c a m e diffused

from 9 0 0 B C onwards.
A list o f the main innovations and choices can b e found in Adrados
1976b, p . 2 7 2 s., R . Schmitt 1977 o r in A . L o p e z Eire 1977 and
1989: a > r| (incomplete in the I o n i c o f the islands in the sixth and
seventh centuries), ephelcistic -v, lengthenings o f the type -eou- >
-81JLI-, vocalism and the prothesis o f eiKocu, PO\)A,OLXOCI, etc., the ei, ox>
lengthening b e f o r e a sonant plus f, the hiatus abbreviation
and
metathesis o f quantity, fiueec, and v\i&ec, (and contractions), exepoc;, in

addition to the innovations that the dialect shares with others.
In this way, the Ionic-Attic dialect was formed o n a c o m m o n paraM y c e n a e a n base but with innovations that b e c a m e diffused b y sea
and w h i c h w e c a n n o t date before the ninth century B C .
Nevertheless, apart from the differences in Eretria and
Oropus
(see 118) there are also differences between I o n i c and Attic. T h e

latter dialect preserved archaisms such as 6v,
KQ\ZI>
the
aspiration
and the dual, and there are choices w h i c h have b e e n b r o u g h t to

the very e n d (xeaaocpeq, iepoc,, the metathesis o f quantity). Also, its
o w n i n n o v a t i o n s : the return o f n to a after
p, i, e; the G . sg.
veavioi), certain innovations in the lexicon, etc. A progressive differen

tiation u n d o u b t e d l y t o o k p l a c e , perhaps in an archaic phase, within
Attica (cf. A . L o p e z Eire 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 and 1985). Also, Attic shares
s o m e innovations with neighbouring dialects, as in the creation o f
re, pp.
118. O n the ancient traditions relating to the origin of the Ionians, c f
A. Tovar 1994, p. 289 ff. Bonfante 1984, p. 205 states that Homer 'hides'
the name o f the Ionians (he only mentions them once, in relation to Attica),
as well as that o f the Dorians (he also mentions them only once, in rela
tion to Crete).
O n Ionic-Attic, in addition to the bibliography cited, c f A. Lopez Eire
1971 (with J. Mendez Dosuna), 1972-1973, 1984a, 1985, 1987b and 1989,
M . Negri 1981a and 1982a and b , and W . S. Allen 1987: different con-
THE
77
FIRST MILLENNIUM
tacts must be added to its innovations. Elsewhere, there are those who see
Ionic-Attic as a synthesis o f two dialects rather than a differentiation. For
the elimination in Attic o f the common lexicon o f other dialects, c f Adrados
1953a and 1957. There is a clear relation between Attica, the islands, and
the Asiatic continent in archaic times, symbolised by the role of the Delos
sanctuary (from the seventh century onwards, it is believed) and the Attic
colonisation of Troas (from the sixth century onwards).
Naturally, the problem o f Lesbian should not be forgotten, as well as
that o f the subdialects (Eretria, Oropus) and o f the isoglosses with central
Greece (we must return to this, in particular). Also, o f course, there is the
problem o f whether there were different dialects within Ionic; and of the
'Atticisation' o f Ionic, which led to the creation of koine. There is no trace
of differences within Attic, as a result o f the strict unification of the terri
tory under Gleisthenes (and before him, mythically, under Theseus).
See, for Aeolic in Asia, C. J. Ruijgh 1995-1996, who postulates the exis
tence of Ionic influences in Aeolic; for example, the inf. in -vcu would be
due to a contamination with the inf. in -uevca.
Arcado-Cyprian and Pamphylian
119. Clearly, Arcadian was left isolated in the centre o f the Peloponnese
b y the D o r i a n invasion, and before it was entirely carried out, p e o
ples from the P e l o p o n n e s e settled in Cyprus, w h e r e M y c e n a e a n set
dements had already b e e n established; and, n o d o u b t , in Pamphylia,
j u d g i n g b y similarities in the dialects. T h i s is supported b y myth,
w h i c h present the hero T e u c e r , founder o f Salamis o f Cyprus, g o i n g
to Cyprus. Perhaps this dialect e x t e n d e d to R h o d e s a n d Crete before
the arrival o f the D o r i a n s (cf. 131 f ) .
The
existence o f an A r c a d o - C y p r i a n dialect g r o u p , t h o u g h dis
p u t e d at times, is generally accepted; so t o o is its link to the g r o u p

that also included Ionic-Attic, w h i c h has b e e n discussed.
Aside f r o m the archaisms, innovations, and choices c o m m o n to
other dialects, w e c a n p r o v i d e s o m e specific A r c a d o - C y p r i a n mate
rial along with the characteristics that g o b a c k to E G . I w o u l d like
to recall archaisms such as the preservation o f the p o r o f the ver
bal desinence -to(i); choices such as the names in -nc, (instead o f
-euq), the C y p . p r o n o u n o-ni/Arc.
ove, e t c But, a b o v e all, innova
tions such as v > iv, - o > -v (also in Pamphylian), the
sibilant
solution o f the labiovelar before the vowels e, i, dvoc > 6v, the c o n
j u n c t i o n s and prepositions po-se/noq,
ka-selK&C,.
O f course, this also
applies to archaisms in only o n e dialect ( C y p . pt-, G . sg. -o, o-ne,

dual in A r c ) o r innovations also in o n l y o n e dialect ( A r c -Kpeinc,,
Cyp.
alXoq).
78
C H A P T E R FIVE
In fact, the innovations o f A r c a d o - C y p r i a n are n o t so n u m e r o u s

c o m p a r e d to those o f Ionic-Attic, w h i c h are m o r e c o n s p i c u o u s t o o .
It often hesitates w h e r e the latter c h o o s e s in a decisive w a y : for
e x a m p l e , in the aor. a n d fut. o f verbs in -co (Ion.-At. -aa, -aco, here
sometimes occurs). A r c a d o - C y p r i a n is a relegated dialect, w h i c h
did n o t have a literary d e v e l o p m e n t a n d even a d o p t e d an
archaic
script in Cyprus, the C y p r i a n syllabary. I n d e e d , Ionic-Attic was the

dialect that s t o o d out from the rest a n d m a d e its mark,
whereas
A r c a d o - C y p r i a n c a n b e seen as the archaic remnant that remained

isolated, although it does contain s o m e characteristics o f its o w n .
Ionic-Attic, with a series o f ancient c o m m o n characteristics,
sep
arated f r o m the rest, and in its Attic variety c a m e to f o r m the c e n

tre o f the G r e e k language.
120. For Arc.-Cyp., see, in addition to the bibliography cited, A. Lillo 1979,
who (like A. Lopez Eire and J. Mendez Dosuna 1971 and myself since
1952) considers it a derivative o f the group that it formed part of at an
earlier date, together with Ionic-Attic (as we have seen, for some authors
there are pre-forms o f both dialects in the second millennium). J. Chadwick
1988 and E. Risch 1988 tend to understate - excessively, I believe - the
links between Arcadian and Cyprian.
With respect to Pamphylian as a derivative o f the same group, but with
later elements, I have already cited the works o f A. Lopez Eire and A.
Lillo 1982 and 1983, and o f M . Garcia Teijeiro 1984. Pamphylian may
preserve certain archaisms alien to Arc.-Cyp., such as -ti. Possibly, it comes
from an area o f the Mycenaean world related to the dialect that we call
Mycenaean and with the later Arcado-Cyprian dialect; but it does not
appear to be influenced by Doric or Aeolic, the coincidences with these
are archaisms. However, in the phase in which it is known to us, it does
contain influences from the koine.
Aeolic
121. A s w e have seen, the A e o l i c dialects Thessalian,
Boeotian
a n d L e s b i a n c o n t i n u e various isoglosses o f the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d ,

s o m e o f w h i c h they share with w h a t w o u l d later b e c o m e the I o n i c Attic dialects, a n d s o m e w h i c h are their o w n . H o w e v e r , it is difficult
to establish a c h r o n o l o g y for A e o l i c , o r resolve the p r o b l e m o f its
partial c o i n c i d e n c e with D o r i c .
Before w e e x a m i n e this, let it suffice to say that B o e o t i a ( T h e b e s ,
O r c h o m e n u s , etc.) as well as Phthia a n d Iolcos, in Thessaly, have a
strong M y c e n a e a n tradition, as attested b y a r c h a e o l o g y and
myth;
and that tradition recounts h o w the c o n q u e s t o f Lesbos was under-
79
taken b y Achilles from Phthia. T h e r e are strong links b e t w e e n the

dialect o f Lesbos and that o f eastern Thessaly, Pelasgiotis, a n d also
b e t w e e n the dialects o f Thessaly and Boeotia.
It seems that the centre o f this dialect was in Thessaly, w h e r e ,
a c c o r d i n g to myth, K i n g Aeolus ruled and w h e r e the n a m e o f Aeolia,
given to the Asian coast in w h i c h this dialect was spoken, originates.
T h u c y d i d e s I 12 writes that the B o e o t i a n s w e r e expelled b y the
Thessalians w h o , a c c o r d i n g to H e r o d o t u s V I I 176, had c o m e from
Thesprotia
(which T h u c y d i d e s III
102 calls A e o l i a ) , in the N . W .
Balkans. W e r e the Thessalians G r e e k Dorians, later p a r d y Aeolicised,

as p r o p o s e d b y R . Schmitt 1977, p . 74? D i d the Boeotians bring a
second-millennium dialect to B o e o t i a that was m o r e o r less evolved
in Thessaly, and did they superimpose themselves o n t o the M y c e n a e a n
d o m i n i o n o f that region? O r was it, in contrast, the D o r i a n s w h o
superimposed themselves o n t o the A e o l i a n d o m i n i o n o f Thessaly (in
the W . , Thessaliotis) and B o e o t i a (especially in the S.W.)? O r did
these isoglosses o n l y penetrate b y peaceful means?
W e will return to this, showing the great diversity that exists within
and a m o n g these dialects, resulting, n o d o u b t , f r o m b o t h
external
influences and the absence o f a political unity b e t w e e n these regions.

H o w e v e r , there are s o m e isoglosses that unify t h e m , although
it
remains doubtful to what extent they result from a M y c e n a e a n dialect

in the w h o l e area o r f r o m the m o d i f i e d version o f the same appear
ing in Thessaly a n d later e x p o r t e d to B o e o t i a and L e s b o s .
122. A s I have explained, citing the b o o k b y J. L. G a r c i a R a m o n
1975, for this author a n d others A e o l i c has a p o s t - M y c e n a e a n ori
gin. Personally, I have dealt with this t o p i c in depth in A d r a d o s
1 9 7 6 b and I have discussed it earlier ( 39). I believe that, despite
the existence o f recent characteristics
(although most o f them
are
peculiar to the different dialects), the principal c o m m o n feature found

in A e o l i c is that o f the ancient isoglosses consisting o f archaisms o r
choices, whether b e l o n g i n g to the w h o l e o f E G o r only to
these
dialects (or o n e o f them).

Sometimes, these A e o l i c characteristics are also f o u n d in H o m e r
a n d / o r in M y c e n a e a n , and they are not A e o l i c in these sources: they
are simply c o m m o n to s o m e A e o l i c archaisms and choices.
There
are also archaisms c o m m o n to D o r i c , as well as c o m m o n charac

teristics, o f an older date it seems, with Ionic-Attic and A r c a d i a n ,
as has b e e n m e n t i o n e d ; other, recent c o m m o n characteristics
o n e dialect with a part o f D o r i c o r Attic.
unite
80
C H A P T E R FIVE
I consider the characteristics c o m m o n to all o f A e o l i c , which are

rare, to b e almost entirely m a d e up o f archaisms or ancient, Mycenaean
choices: I c a n n o t repeat the argumentation in detail, so I refer the
reader to m y previous publication as cited. T h e s e characteristics are
mainly: the vocalisation op, oA,; the c h o i c e o f -Lxev as desinence o f
the 1st pL; and the p a t r o n y m i c in -10c,. T h e y are characteristics that
put A e o l i c a n d D o r i c in opposition, and approximate, a c c o r d i n g to
each case, A e o l i c to E G in general, o r to M y c e n a e a n o r H o m e r .
Archaisms and choices, w h i c h c o u l d b e c o m m o n , are a d d e d only
in certain dialects: athematic instead o f thematic inflection in the
verb ( m o r e o r less diffused in A e o l i c , as in A r c - G y p . and H o m e r ) ,
thematic inf. -fxev (eastern Thes., Boeot., Horn.), ice (Thes. and Lesb.),
neda (Boeot., Lesb. and T h e s . , but here also uexd), -(pi (Thes.), nxoXiq
(Thes.), - o ( o , o v - / a v - , uCT7io8i (eastern Thes.), ove (Thes. and A r c Gyp.), ev + A c . (Boeot., Thes.).
123. W i t h regard to innovations, I have considered those o f the sec
o n d millennium: *ke > Tie-, pe > pi, the perf. part, in -OVT-, and
the D . pi. in -eoor (going far b e y o n d Aeolic); see m y
argumentation
in A d r a d o s 1976b, p . 261 ff., and for the last form also J. J. M o r a l e j o

1984 and P. Wathelet 1991. T h e r e are also partial innovations, such
as the evolution o f the nasal o r liquid g r o u p with s o r y > gemi
nate ( T h e s . , Lesb.), -vx- > -v0- (Thes., Boeot.). N o t to m e n t i o n those
o f the different dialects.
In other w o r d s , during the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d the A e o l i c dialects
h a d already either a c c e p t e d the archaisms and choices o f the -pest o f
E G o r a d o p t e d n e w ones. Later o n , they introduced s o m e c o m m o n
characteristics through archaism, c h o i c e o r innovation. But it was
never a matter o f a perfectly defined dialect, whether in relation to
other dialects o r internally.
124. Specifically, the D o r i c innovations (see 125) did n o t penetrate
A e o l i c Certain characteristics c o m m o n to D o r i c and all o r part o f
A e o l i c (-xi, -GG-, *êl-,
inf.-jiev in athematics, the conditional ai, spir-
itus asper, ev + A c , e t c ) are but c o m m o n archaisms (although they

c o u l d have b e e n introduced secondarily b y D o r i a n peoples o r D o r i a n
isoglosses). I have p r o p o s e d this hypothesis as b e i n g the most p r o b
able due to the fact that the real innovations o f D o r i c did not p e n
etrate A e o l i c (although m u c h earlier, in A d r a d o s 1952, I had referred
to transition dialects).
81
In conclusion, a very divided A e o l i c dialect was created o n the

foundations o f p a r a - M y c e n e a n , whether
through
d e v e l o p m e n t s in
Boeotia and Thessaly o r through developments in Thessaly and later

diffusion. It was simultaneously related and in opposition to the rest
o f the dialects d e s c e n d e d from East Greek.
T h e s e dialects are k n o w n almost exclusively through
inscriptions,
except for the case o f Lesbian a n d recent Boeotian (Corinna). F o r

reasons that are not entirely clear, a part o f these dialects are close
to D o r i c (Boeotian and Thessalian o f the Thessaliotis) o r to I o n i c
(Lesbian).
The Doric dialects
125. O n c e the reality o f the D o r i a n invasion has b e e n
established,
as it has b e e n in this v o l u m e , and o n c e the type o f G r e e k language

that it brought with it has b e e n defined as an archaic Greek, little
remains to b e said a b o u t the D o r i c dialects. It is clear that if there
is a c o i n c i d e n c e with H o m e r in TOI, - X I , euiv, e t c o r with
others
with different dialects based o n the archaism, this is only a reflection

o f the c o m m o n preservation o f an archaism, and nothing else. T h e
m a i n p r o b l e m is whether D o r i c as such and the so-called N . W .
G r e e k (from P h o c i a n to Elean) are secondary fragmentations
G r e e c e o r whether they are a p r o d u c t o f older
within
differentiations.
A . Bartonek 1972 attempted to demonstrate this for a few cases.

But the majority v i e w (E. R i c h 1985, A . L o p e z Eire a n d J. M e n d e z
D o s u n a 1982, J. M e n d e z D o s u n a 1985, and various o f m y o w n p u b
lications) inclines towards the contrary thesis.
I n d e e d , the innovations o f these dialects are rare: euioc,, euiv,
a\)xoaai)x6v, xfjvoc,, the w o r d order in caxlqiax, the generalisation o f
in the fut. and aor. o f the verbs in -co (a choice), perhaps
the
act. v o i c e o f the pas. fut. (Cret. dvaypacprioei), the so-called D o r i c

fut. Sometimes, there are p r o b l e m s regarding the origin o f an i n n o
vation, as in the case o f the D . pi. - e o o i ( D o r i c and A e o l i c dialects).
T h e r e are also very clear and emphatic examples o f choices in
the D o r i c dialects, as c o m p a r e d with E G , n o d o u b t m a d e outside
G r e e c e : des. 1st p f
-JLLEC;,
inf. -uev,
KCC;
other choices leave traces o f
the least favoured f o r m , as for e x a m p l e uexd, 68e, rcoxi, *gels, at.

T h e N . W . dialects sometimes created clear differentiations,
with
innnovations such as those o f Elean o r L a c o n i a n . T h e y were devel

o p e d within G r e e c e , and the same surely applies to those o f N . W .
82
C H A P T E R FIVE
Greek: characteristics such as - G 9 > GT, ep > ocp in addition to others

that invaded A e o l i c ( D . sg. them. -01, the same and the D . pi. athem.
-oi<; in Boeot.).
126. It should b e n o t e d that the arrival o f the Dorians gave rise to
three different linguistic
situations:
(a) A clear, sharp linguistic b o r d e r , p r o o f o f a recent and sec

o n d a r y encounter: as between Attic and Megarian.
(b) P h e n o m e n a o f the substratum, such as those in Cretan; ear
lier forms can b e seen underlying D o r i c .
(c) Permeable borders, whether as a result o f invasions o r sim
ple advances o f certain isoglosses (the case o f W . T h e s . and
Boeotian).
T h e fact is, the D o r i c dialects barely had a literary d e v e l o p m e n t
(with exceptions, as w e shall see), but the peoples that spoke these
dialects w e r e artistically and, a b o v e all, politically important in rela
tion to the Ionians. Y e t , despite the defeat o f Athens in the P e l o p o n nesian W a r , the
city w a s able to i m p o s e its dialect t h r o u g h
c o m p l i c a t e d process, thus unifying G r e e c e .
4.
T H E UNIFYING ISOGLOSSES
127. F r o m the 1950s onwards, it was increasingly demonstrated that,

along with the differentiating isoglosses o f Greek (of the great dialects
and, subsequendy, other local dialects), unifying isoglosses b e g a n to
diffuse: b e t w e e n D o r i c and Ionic-Attic in general, but also b r o a d e r
o r m o r e r e d u c e d isoglosses than these, as well as others that crossed
local dialectal borders.
T h i s tension b e t w e e n differentiation
and unification
characterises
the evolution o f the G r e e k language from its beginnings. T h e first

unifying e x a m p l e is the d e v e l o p m e n t , in the languages spoken in
G r e e c e , o f isoglosses that p a r d y unified D o r i c with all o r s o m e o f
its rivals.
T h i s is due to the fact that the c o m m o n existence o f the Greeks,
in spite o f the brutal c h a s m caused b y the fall o f the M y c e n a e a n
kingdoms and the D o r i a n invasion, was slowly restored. I have dis
cussed h o w the alphabet was diffused almost instantaneously
in the
eighth century, o r perhaps earlier. Dorians and Ionians were rivals

in the f o u n d i n g o f c o l o n i e s and in trade. C e r a m i c styles, from g e o -
83
metric to orientalising and the later ones, reached every point o f the
g l o b e that was accessible to the Greeks. Styles o f architecture and
o f sculpture were diffused and influenced e a c h other in a reciprocal
way. F r o m the eighth century onwards, certain sanctuaries and local
oracles b e g a n to attract a^ll o f the Greeks. Pilgrims, artists and poets
b e g a n to travel, aristocrats visited each other and established
close
relations with e a c h other, thereby uniting families: for example, the

Alcmseonidae family and the tyrants o f Sicyon. Cities began to overflow
with exiles and metics, and their armies sometimes fought side b y
side: in the M e d i c W a r s , the Peloponnesian W a r s , and others. T r a d e
t o o , and so m a n y other things, enabled close relations to develop.
T h e n there was literature. Epic was sung everywhere, later iamb o s , elegy, and lyric, always in languages o r dialects penetrated by
H o m e r and with c o m m o n musical instruments.
In short, there were generally c o m m o n types o f society and pol
itics, although the solutions attempted often varied. M y t h and reli
g i o n also had a unifying function. T h u s , G r e e c e , despite its divisions,
confrontations a n d peculiarities, b e c a m e a cultural unit which sought
in vain for a degree o f political unity, just like medieval
Europe.
Historical facts and anecdotes point to a very high degree o f recip

rocal intellegibility in the sanctuaries, cities, kings' courts (it serves
to recall the a n e c d o t e a b o u t the c o m p e t i t i o n for the w e d d i n g o f
Agariste in S i c y o n , in H e r o d o t u s V I 126 f f ) , and in other places
in w h i c h various dialects a n d literary languages w e r e spoken o r
heard.
128. H o w , in such a situation, c o u l d there not b e a c o n v e r g e n c e o f
the dialects, particularly w h e n they contained identical o r approxi
mate forms? N o t just literature, but also administrative d o c u m e n t s
d e m a n d e d s o m e kind o f standardisation c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the recip
rocal a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f the dialects, since there was a similarity in
the f o r m and formulas o f the d o c u m e n t s .
In the l o n g run, this led to the birth o f the international lan
guages, w h i c h culminated in the koine. But, earlier, it had led to the
diffusion o f unifying isoglosses that crossed all the dialects.
129. M y b o o k o f 1952, p . 4 5 , E. R i s c h 1955, J. C h a d w i c k 1956 and
the later bibliography ( a m o n g others, A d r a d o s 1 9 7 6 b , p . 2 5 1 , and
1984a, p . 2 3 6 ; A . L o p e z Eire and J. M e n d e z D o s u n a 1984) c o n c u r
with the following: the existence o f a series o f characteristics
com
m o n to D o r i c and E G (and sometimes only to Ion.-Att.) that can
84
CHAPTER FIVE
only b e attributed to recent innovations o r choices. Dates around

1000 BC have been proposed.
For instance, the following characteristics were chosen: oep (not op)
in Ion.-At. and D o r . , the derivatives o f *ens> -TOU not -TOI (this choice
reaches A e o L , n o t A r c . - C y p . ) , the types -evq a n d -68e (the same
observation applies), the thematic conjugation o f the denominatives
(as in Ion.-At.), etc. Apart from penetrations in the border zone o f
A e o L , the part o f E G which D o r i c most easily made contact with
was Ion-At. (and less frequently, Arc.-Cyp.). W e cannot determine
exactly through which route this occurred, but it could have been
a maritime route o r through coexistence in the international world
that was being created. It is significant that the same date is attrib
uted to innovations that created inner fragmentations within each o f
the three great dialects. Included were innovations that crossed bor
ders and created isoglosses shared b y dialects that were located in
close proximity to each other: the -TT- o f Attic and Boeotian, the
fjvGov o f D o r i c o f the Peloponnese
in Arcadia
and
Delphi,
the
before ae in D o r i c , Aeolic and Boeotian, etc.: I studied these and

other examples in Adrados 1952. In addition, there are the Aeolicisms
o f Asian Ionic, derivatives from the bilingualism o f the speakers o f
these languages. Cf. M . P. Hualde 1997.
O f course, sometimes there are doubts, for instance, about the
relation between Doric, o n the one hand, and Boeotian and Thessalian,
o n the other; o r regarding the proposals b y Porzig in favour o f bor
rowings from Ionic to Lesbian (-TI > -or, etc,, npoq; c f against this,
a
A . L o p e z Eire 1 9 7 8 b , p. 4 6 5 , a n d J. J.
Moralejo
1996). D o u b t s
increase in cases where there is a wider diffusion o f the isoglosses,

such as the D . pi. in -eaor and the evolution o f -pa- > -pp-, which
I discussed in m y b o o k o f 1952.
It should b e noted that physical contact, as it were, between the
dialects is not essential for the diffusion o f isoglosses: o n e has to take
travel culture into account, as well as relations in general, politics
and the epigraphic models.
5. SeCONDARY
DIFFERENCES
130. A l o n g with the unifying currents, particularising currents also

existed in G r e e c e . A s w e have seen, neither E G n o r W G were per
fectly defined a n d unitary dialects; nor, generally speaking, were
85
Ionic-Attic, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n , Aeolic, o r D o r i c . T h e differences b e c a m e

m o r e m a r k e d as time w e n t b y , w h e n the different dialects emigrated
to the other side o f the sea and w h e n all kinds o f oppositions and
confrontations e m e r g e d (Ionians, then Athenians, and Dorians; within
these, Spartans a n d Argjves, etc.). It can b e said that in
general
terms, the m o s t important differences o c c u r r e d after the expansion

o f the I o n i c - D o r i c isoglosses a r o u n d the year 1000; but general rules
cannot be provided.
In places with highly organised states, such as Athens, Corinth o r
Sparta, dialectal units t e n d e d to f o r m w h i c h , in turn, tended
differentiate
to
themselves strongly f r o m their neighbours. W h e n this
was not the case, internal differences emerged: as in Boeotia, Thessaly

in particularly, but also in Crete a n d other parts. T h e existence o f
a c o m m o n dialect has even b e e n the object o f debate, as in the case
o f Saronican. A t any rate, G r e e c e b e c a m e fragmented into a mul
titude o f m o r e o r less differentiated
dialects, with all kinds o f tran
sitions. T h e y tended to b e written in different alphabets. A s w e have

seen, most o f these dialects never b e c a m e literary dialects, they were
mainly used for internal, colloquial and official purposes.
T h e w h o l e subject o f dialectal fragmentation, w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d
the diffusion o f the unifying isoglosses, has often b e e n the subject o f
great discussion,
131. C h r o n o l o g y is o n e o f the p r o b l e m s : determining whether N . W .
G r e e k is differentiated
secondarily f r o m D o r i c , within G r e e c e , o r
whether some differential characteristics c a m e from outside o f G r e e c e .

A s I have noted, s o m e scholars (A. L o p e z Eire a n d A . Negri) believe
that Attic a n d I o n i c were t w o dialects that later unified, w h i c h is
the opposite o f what o n e w o u l d normally think. I have also discussed
Pamphylian. T a k e the doubts regarding the language o f O r o p u s , a
place in Attica affected b y Attic, Eretrian and B o e o t i a n influences:
to what extent are the Eretrian characteristics o l d o r a p r o d u c t o f
recent contacts? T h i s is n o d o u b t the case o f dialectal 'mixtures' as
in the D o r i c region o f Asia M i n o r .
T h i s brings us to the subject o f dialectal substrata, w h i c h tend to
differentiate
certain dialects (approximating them, certainly, to oth
ers). T h e r e are conflicting o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g D o r i c elements
in
Boeotian and Thessalian and I o n i c elements in Lesbian (cf. 121

f. and 132); and also regarding M y c e n a e a n o r A c h a e a n elements, as
the case m a y b e , apparently
unquestionable,
in certain parts o f
86
C H A P T E R FIVE
Crete; I w o u l d like to a d d the Lesbianisms o f I o n i c in

Phocaea, Erithrae and C h i o s , and, allegedly, C y r e n e .
Smyrna,
Nevertheless,
there is a d o m i n a n t scepticism today with respect to the I o n i c ele

ments (or A c h a e a n elements, as w e w o u l d say today) in the D o r i c
dialect o f the P e l o p o n n e s e , as p r o p o s e d b y A . T o v a r 1944, but per
haps it is w o r t h restating the
question.
It is impossible to e x a m i n e these topics in any depth here, I only

wish to m e n t i o n them. T h e influece o f n o n - G r e e k languages w o u l d
have to b e a d d e d , as in the I o n i c o f H i p p o n a x o f Ephesus, and o n e
w o u l d have to s h o w that, due to o u r limited sources, o u r k n o w l e d g e
o f not only the history o f the dialects, but also o f the dialects them
selves, is very
fragmentary.
T h e case o f I o n i c demonstrates
this most effectively. T h e r e is a
statement b y H e r o d o t u s I 142 that the I o n i c o f Asia was divided

into four dialects: but this is not confirmed b y literature o r the inscrip
tions, w h e r e w e o n l y find small differences due to archaism o r c h o i c e
a n d a few minimal innovations in C h i o s and Erithrae, and
in C h i o s a n d Miletus. O r h a d a c o m m o n written language
others
already
b e e n created? Y e t , w e c o m e across differences between I o n i c o f Asia,

o f the islands and, naturally, Attic and
Euboean.
132. I will not touch upon the subject o f the Doric (or supposedly Doric)
elements o f Thessalian and Boeotian, the Ionic elements of Lesbian, or the
subject o f Pamphylian.
For the dialectal fragmentation in Thessaly, see R . van der Velde 1924
and J. L. Garcia Ramon 1987; for Saronican (which is questioned), M . E.
Perez Molina 1986; for the problems o f Cretan, E. Rizzi 1981, "Si. Bile
1988, I. Hajnal 1987 and 1988, Y. Duhoux 1988, C. Brixhe 1991a; for
those o f Lesbian, J. J. Moralejo 1996, C . J . Ruijgh 1995-96; for those o f
Cyrene, A. Striano 1987 (who questions the substratum); for those of Euboean
and Oropus, M . L. del Barrio 1987, 1988, 1994; for the Doric of Asia,
W . Blumel 1993; for the subject o f the Ionic dialect o f Asia, K. Stiiber
1996, M . P. Hualde 1997.
Also o f useful reference are: for Aeolic, W . Blumel 1982 and R. Hodot
1990a; for Arcadian, A. Lillo 1979, L. Dubois 1983 and C. Cosani 1989;
for western Argolic, P. Fernandez Alvarez 1981; for N . W . Doric, J. Mendez
Dosuna 1985; for Delphian, J. J. Moralejo 1973a; for Aeolic, J. Mendez
Dosuna 1980, J. Garcia Blanco 1988 and A. Thevenot-Warelle 1988; for
western Locrian, R. Garcia del Pozo 1983; for Laconian, E. Bourguet 1927;
for the Doric o f Sicily, U. Sicca 1924; For the Ionic o f Magnesia, E.
Nachmanson 1903; for that o f Miletus, B. Bondesson 1936; for that o f
Erithrae, K. A Garbrach 1978; for Attic, L. Threatte 1980-1996.
CHAPTER SIX
THE GENERAL LITERARY LANGUAGES:
EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L
LYRIC
1. T H E L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S AS G E N E R A L L A N G U A G E S
133. T h e unifying tendencies within the G r e e k dialects, o f a very

ancient date, have b e e n discussed; so t o o , the social and cultural
forces that stimulated this a p p r o x i m a t i o n , w h i c h g r e w progressively
until the Attic dialect was i m p o s e d , in its koine variant, as the gen
eral language o f the Greeks.
S o , a factor w h i c h contributed decisively to the mutual
under
standing o f the Greeks and to the approximation o f the dialects was

the creation o f m o r e o r less general literary languages that w e r e
u n d e r s t o o d b y e v e r y o n e in the cultural sphere. First, there w e r e
poetic general languages: the H o m e r i c language, that o f elegy and
choral lyric. T h e n , the particular languages that were
nevertheless
understood in all parts: I o n i c , Lesbian and s o m e others. Finally, the

languages o f prose, first I o n i c (which was o n the brink o f b e c o m i n g
a general language), then Attic (which s u c c e e d e d in d o i n g so).
T h e r e are degrees o f generality, so to speak. I f a p o e t from any
part o f G r e e c e , a speaker o f any dialect, sat d o w n to c o m p o s e poetry
o f the epic kind, o r o n e o f the related genres, he w o u l d d o so in
the H o m e r i c language. F r o m a certain p o i n t in history, any p o e t
w h o c o m p o s e d elegies w o u l d d o so in the language o f elegy; and
the choral poets, in the language o f choral lyric. In contrast,
other
p o e t i c genres were written only in restricted territories, mainly in the

local language, whereas the genres o f w h i c h I have just spoken were
c o m p o s e d , sung, heard and imitated everywhere. T h e same o c c u r r e d
with the diffusion o f I o n i c and Attic prose.
134. H e s i o d , a Boeotian, wrote in the epic language o f H o m e r , as
did the authors o f the Epic C y c l e p o e m s , such as Stasinus o f Cyprus
or Arctinus o f Miletus, and the poets o f the so-called H o m e r i c H y m n s ,
recited in D e l o s , D e l p h i and other parts. I n d e e d , H o m e r was recited
in the Athens o f Pisistratus, in the Sicyon o f Cleisthenes and practically
88
C H A P T E R SIX
everywhere. C e r a m i c pottery attests to the k n o w l e d g e o f H o m e r at

least from the ninth century onwards, and the oldest
inscriptions
starting f r o m the o n e o n the c u p o f Pithecusae, are influenced b y

h i m ( c f , Iliad X I 6 3 2 - 6 3 7 ) .
Similarly, epigraphy gives evidence that elegies were written every
where: sometimes, first in the local dialects and then in the general
language
o f elegy. I n d e e d , the Sicilian Stesichorus,
the
Boeotian
Pindar, the Ionians Simonides and Bacchylides, and the Attic trage
dians all c o m p o s e d their p o e m s in the language o f choral lyric.
O f course, these languages admitted modifications and evolutions,
as well as major o r m i n o r influences from the language o f the poets:
for e x a m p l e , the case o f the tragedy from Attic. But they were essen
tially unitary. It is notable that the oldest language - the H o m e r i c
language, as it was written in the eighth century - influenced
them
all. It influenced elegy, i a m b o s , choral lyric, the m o n o d y o f S a p p h o

a n d A l c a e u s , e v e n the I o n i c o f H e r o d o t u s .
Subsequently,
Ionic
influenced literary Attic.

135. It should b e n o t e d that H o m e r , with the I o n i c and A e o l i c lin
guistic forms that h a d penetrated his language (and the o l d forms
that were interpreted in this way), helped to make certain dialects
comprehensible. Likewise, these dialects were penetrated b y Homerisms
as a natural d e v e l o p m e n t , in so far as they l o o k e d like a continua
tion o f H o m e r .
E v e n the I o n i c philosophers w e r e influenced b y H o m e r w h e n cre
ating their n e w intellectual lexicon. T h u s , due to his diffusion
and
influence in the various literary languages, H o m e r was an important

factor in the linguistic unification o f G r e e c e . G i v e n that A e o l i c was
relegated to Lesbos and a small region o f Asia, first I o n i c and later
Attic, as o p p o s e d to D o r i c , b e c a m e the true successors o f H o m e r ,
H o m e r gave Attic legitimacy, for instance in the case o f the M a c e
donians and even the D o r i a n s , a n d he helped to i m p o s e it.
F r o m different g e o g r a p h i c areas in G r e e c e the literary languages,
w h i c h modified the local dialects with the aid o f linguistic forms with
great diffusion, o p e n e d increasingly larger areas to intellectual
and
cultural c o m m u n i c a t i o n , as well as just plain c o m m u n i c a t i o n between

the Greeks. T h e r e was a cumulative process, w h i c h relegated
dialects to simple languages for internal use.
many
89
All o f this resulted in the imposition o f Attic, favoured b y histor

ical circumstances, although not as the general language o f prose
(the o l d forms r e m a i n e d in use for poetry) but as the general lan
guage in the everyday life o f the Greeks. T h e unity that had b e e n
b r o k e n within East Greelf in the s e c o n d millennium was n o w r e c o n
structed.
2.
T H E FIRST G E N E R A L L A N G U A G E :
EPIC L A N G U A G E IN O U R H O M E R
Innovations in epic language

136. A s w e have seen, there is an epic language o f the s e c o n d mil
lennium, p r o c e e d i n g f r o m a l o n g evolution o f the
Indo-European
epic language a n d subjected to an evolutionary process o f w h i c h

w e k n o w very little, and another epic language o f the eighth cen
tury, w h e n H o m e r wrote o r dictated his p o e m s . It is significant that
the epic language tradition, k n o w n to us through H o m e r , was not
the only o n e that existed. H e s i o d , the H o m e r i c H y m n s and even the
lyrics b r i n g oral traditions to m i n d that are
Furthermore,
somewhat
different.
o u r H o m e r o f the eighth century suffered s o m e alter
ations in transmission w h i c h to a certain extent have disfigured h i m

in o u r eyes.
H o w e v e r , leaving the b a c k g r o u n d , parallels and later alterations
aside for a m o m e n t , the fact is that the literary language o f the
eighth century, o f o u r H o m e r , was s o o n k n o w n and imitated in the
entire G r e e k w o r l d .
137. It is a well-known fact this epic language was an artificial lan
guage, n o t the actual dialect o f a particular place, and that it was
m u c h c o n d i t i o n e d b y metre and formal diction. Traditionally, it has
b e e n analysed b y t w o , not always clear, schemes: the first opposes
archaic/recent/artificial
times,
forms, and the s e c o n d o p p o s e s A e o l i c (some
earlier, A c h a e a n ) / I o n i c . O u r analysis will b e a bit
different:
the forms that descend from the second millennium cannot b e classified
as A c h a e a n , A e o l i c o r I o n i c , This has b e e n c o n s i d e r e d in a previous
chapter, and the relevant bibliography was also p r o v i d e d .
W e can only classify them as archaic forms, sometimes occurring
in doublets, w h i c h are sometimes artificial
and, i n d e e d , are very
90
CHAPTER
SIX
c o n d i t i o n e d b y metre, w h i c h forces the c h o i c e b e t w e e n

CXV/KE,
~G-/-GG-,
etc.
In contrast, forms (phonetic o r m o r p h o l o g i c a l ) that were only c o n

solidated in the first millennium are I o n i c and A e o l i c : such as the
evolution o f *ke- > m (Aeolic) o r xe (Ionic), the pers. p r o n . o f the
2 n d A c . pi. ujxjLie (Aeolic)/ujjice<; (Ionic, but aspirated), the evolution
o f a > t| (Ionic, like the contractions, metathesis o f quantity, etc.),
with the observation that a and the previous forms are not Aeolicisms
but archaisms.
138. Naturally, the exact date o f an innovation c a n n o t b e fixed in
all cases, but it is clear that Aeolicisms and Ionicisms did exist: they
are the innovations o r choices o f these dialects in the first millen
nium. I have presented m y theory: if in this recent date the archaic
forms Ke, -op-, - E G G I , the f (and its occasional derivative -u-) were
interpreted as Aeolicisms, this w o u l d o p e n the w a y for the entry o f
5
m e w Aeolicisms ; at first, w h e n e v e r they were n e e d e d , since the c o n

temporary language rejected certain archaisms; then, indiscriminately.
For it is a characteristic o f epic language and o f epos in general to
absorb recent cultural and linguistic forms, without shrinking before
doublets o r contradictions.
T h e same applies to the Ionicisms, given that, as m e n t i o n e d ear
lier, forms such as ocv, ei, -voci and so m a n y others were interpreted
as Ionicisms. But it is significant that, as I also m e n t i o n e d earlier,
s o m e forms from epic language o f the s e c o n d millennium could, in
themselves, b e classified as Achaeanisms (especially lexical forms) o r
Doricisms: xo(, inf. -jiev, etc. Nevertheless, 'recent
forms o f A r c . -
C y p . o r D o r i c (for e x a m p l e , juioc,) have not entered o u r H o m e r .

This means that the H o m e r i c language g r e w in an environment
in w h i c h only A e o l i c (essentially, that o f Lesbian and o f Asia) and
I o n i c (also o f Asia: there are but a few rare Atticisms, n o d o u b t as
a result o f the transmission) were k n o w n and a c c e p t e d as literary
languages; perhaps in the region o f Asia M i n o r a r o u n d
Smyrna,
w h e r e the t w o dialects coexisted, as p r o p o s e d b y W i l a m o w i t z and

supported b y C . J . Ruijgh 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 , w h o proposes the existence o f
I o n i c influences in A e o l i c .
F r o m o u r p o i n t o f view, the important
thing is that the local
dialects w e r e rejected in the entire G r e e k w o r l d w h e n it c a m e to

writing a b o u t elevated, mythical o r philosophical themes, in favour
o f this artificial and traditional language with greater prestige. T h e
91
H o m e r i c language was associated with these themes, without
any
Umitations o f time and space. Since each dialect, including the D o r i c

dialects, found s o m e o f its o w n forms in the H o m e r i c language, it
was at the same time b o t h familiar and strange to them, intelligible
and obscure, like all religjous and literary languages in general. T h u s ,
differing f r o m the everyday language, it p r o v i d e d a base for the cre
ation o f the general literary languages w h i c h shall b e discussed.
139. A n o t h e r t o p i c o f interest is the relative c h r o n o l o g y o f A e o l i c
and I o n i c elements. A m o n g the latter, there are very recent e x a m
ples, such as the n e w a that penetrated the H o m e r i c language after
the a > n evolution h a d taken place: naq, Kakoq; and there is a lack
o f recent Lesbianisms such as 7taiaoc.
T h i s is not a conclusive fact. Nevertheless, there are arguments to
suggest that although the successive strata o f the s e c o n d millennium
are pure fantasy, the A e o l i c forms o f the first millennium generally
entered before the I o n i c forms. T h e A e o l i c forms replaced the archaic
forms; the I o n i c forms replaced the archaic forms preserved (or not)
b y A e o l i c , and often the A e o l i c forms, although they also m i x e d
indiscriminately at a certain point. A l s o , at times, neither o f them
w e r e sufficient, so that artificial forms w e r e introduced. But I will
return to this.
Formulaic diction and the renovation of epic language
140. I must first a d d something to what has already b e e n stated
a b o u t the formulaic diction that dominates the tradition o f the I n d o E u r o p e a n and G r e e k epic. In principle, there is a criterion o f e c o n
o m y : a single person o r action requires the same formula in
same metrical space, a n d different formulas in different
the
metrical
spaces; and actions o r things (behaviour, w e a p o n s , locations, etc.)

c a n have identical formulas wherein w o r d s having the same metri
cal s c h e m e substitute each other. O n e formula has other parallel for
mulas w h e n w e g o from the N . to other cases, f r o m o n e person to
another, etc. T h u s , it w o u l d seem to b e a closed, mechanical sys
tem, w h i c h is h o w Parry described it; a system that is, in principle,
barely p e r m e a b l e to linguistic evolution.
In fact, sometimes linguistic evolution d o e s n o t affect the formu
laic system: for instance, w h e n the labiovelar is substituted b y labial
o r dental results o r w h e n ^cpGepyco is substituted b y (pOeppco o r (pGeipco
o r -uav b y jif)v o r -ee- b y -ei- (where metre accepts d o u b l e short as
92
C H A P T E R SIX
well as long) o r Ur[hr{iaba *A%iA,fjoc, b y rir|Xr|id88co 'A%iA,fjoc.. W h e t h e r

an A e o l i c o r I o n i c f o r m is introduced depends o n criteria that have
nothing to d o with the formulaic system. O n the condition that nei
ther the formulaic system n o r the metre is altered; a preferred lin
guistic element is i n t r o d u c e d because it is c o n t e m p o r a r y . Indeed, a
mixture o f archaism and innovation is preferred in the epic.
In contrast,
recent forms w h i c h destroyed this system o r
metre
were, in principle, b l o c k e d : for e x a m p l e , -aav o f the 3rd pi. sec. in

I o n i c . But if certain c o n t e m p o r a r y forms that were not b l o c k e d b y
the formulaic system m a n a g e d to enter, this p r o d u c e d a tension w h e n
other m o d e r n forms were unable to enter.
141. In effect, the formulaic system was subjected to the pressure o f
n e w lexical and grammatical forms, and also o f the forms that were
not accepted into the formulaic transformations: a formula in N . naxpxq
apoupa cannot b e transformed into a formula o f G . ^rcaxpiooq apouprjc,
because the metre d o e s n o t allow it (the p o e t must say naxpidoq
ai'ac,). Also, transforming a formula which contains a verb in a certain
tense o r m o o d to another with a different tense o r m o o d , o r chang
ing the adjective o f a n o m i n a l formula o r elaborating, reducing, o r
c h a n g i n g the metrical position o f a formula can p r o d u c e p r o b l e m s
because certain c o n t e m p o r a r y forms and w o r d s are avoided.
T h i s was gradually resolved through
the adaptation o f the
for
mulas: the creation o f n e w formulas that favoured b o t h p o e t i c cre

ation a n d the introduction o f n e w linguistic material. A . Hoekstra
1969 described recent formulas for forms without d i g a m m a 6*r with
ephelcystic -v o r with various linguistic, stylistic and metrical p e c u
liarities. J. B. Hansworth 1968 has written extensively o n the flexibility
o f the formula: it c a n c h a n g e position, b e reduced, w i d e n e d , can
divide into two, etc. T h e b o o k b y P. Chantraine 1942 acutely describes
the p r o b l e m o f the n e w forms and metrical schemes, showing that
there is adaptability.
142. Yet, the formulaic system is not absolutely economic, as alternative
formulas can be created, see P. Edwards 1971, p. 55 ff Also, authors such
as H. Patzer 1972, G. S. Kirk 1976, J. M . Bremer 1987, B. Peabody 1975
have shown very clearly that the poet uses the formulaic system very skill
fully, and that it is not simply mechanical. This applies equally whether
we accept that Homer dictated his poems or believe that he wrote them.
In any case, this modification o f the formulaic systems and the introduc
tion of new forms into them has been a gradual process, a continuation of
a very old evolution, not just a case o f one individual poet. C f also
93
P. Ghantraine 1942, p. 27 ff., L. Palmer 1980, p. 80 ff, M . Leumann

1950.
143. T h e epic language o f o u r H o m e r , the e n d p o i n t o f that l o n g
evolution, is recognisable o n c e w e take away the thin covering that
the later tradition left o n jt. It displays a fundamentally I o n i c aspect,
and includes A e o l i c forms, as well as s o m e artificial ones, others
archaic. It must b e emphasised that the latter should not b e given
dialectal denominations, in spite o f the fact that they were
under
stood in this w a y b y the poets w h o i n t r o d u c e d the true Aeolicisms

and Ionicisms and, without d o u b t , b y their listeners; the same applies
to the ancient grammarians (and, sometimes, m o d e r n linguists).
This fundamentally Ionic character, as I explained in 135, o p e n e d
the w a y in G r e e c e for the prestige and understanding o f I o n i c and
for the subsequent expansion o f Attic.
But in this context, it should b e recalled h o w the innovations o f
these t w o dialects penetrated the epic language o f the s e c o n d mil
lennium, as it passed into the first millennium, without forgetting the
archaisms and doublets w h i c h c o u l d b e interpreted as being from
o n e or the other dialect.
O b v i o u s l y , w h e n e v e r the p h o n o l o g i c a l system h a d b e e n trans
f o r m e d (a p h o n e m e o r a g r o u p was n o l o n g e r admissible), it h a d to
b e replaced b y the n e w o n e , as in the case o f the labiovelars. In
H o m e r , w e find I o n i c phonetics in xeaaepec,, xeioxxi, xekoq, etc. (and
x- is c o m m o n to the t w o dialects in xiq, xeo) b u t A e o l i c phonetics in
rceXoop (xA,cop is just a gloss o f Hesychius), neko\iai
(beside xeAXojicu,
etc.), KiaupeQ (beside xeaaepeq). F r o m the *ghw- g r o u p , w e have Or|p

and (pfjp (in relation to centaurs). It is clear that I o n i c and A e o l i c
c o m p e t e d with each other to impose their phonetics w h e n a p h o n e m e
o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f p h o n e m e s was n o longer possible. Similarly, in the
results o f %m-: aujaec/fijueic; (metrical equivalents before a consonant).
H o w e v e r , sporadically, an archaism alternating with an innova
tion could b e preserved: eicepaev, but aTteicelpaxo (Ionic) and 6(peM,eiev
(Aeol. opt. aor.).
144. T h e p r o b l e m is the relation b e t w e e n archaic forms, o n the o n e
hand, and A e o l i c and I o n i c forms, o n the other. T o begin with, it
is evident that the archaic forms ( p s e u d o - A c h a e a n o r p s e u d o - A e o l i c )
w e r e difficult to substitute for A e o l i c o r I o n i c forms w h e n they did
not coincide metrically and,
additionally, w h e n they were t o o
representative o f epic poetry. F o r instance, in the case o f p s e u d o -
C H A P T E R SIX
94
A c h a e a n o r p s e u d o - A r c a d o - C y p r i a n lexicon (avcci;, ouaoe, (pdayavov,

etc.) and in p s e u d o - A e o l i c m o r p h o l o g i c a l forms such as ice, Gupacov,
rccdSeaoi, eooxxca, etc.: that is, in the remnants o f second-millennium
E G , w h i c h did n o t n e e d adjectives. H e r e , neither I o n i c n o r A e o l i c
forms (the real ones, from the first millennium) c o u l d enter w h e n
they differed.
In the case o f non-alteration o f the metre, a c h o i c e c o u l d b e m a d e
between an A e o l i c o r Ionic form, as w e have seen: the reasons for this
are not exactly k n o w n , there was certainly in s o m e cases an ancient
A e o l i c tradition, as in (pfjpec,, 'centaurs', and perhaps in other forms.
T h e case o f I o n i c forms, b y far the most frequent, is different, as
w e k n o w . Examples have b e e n p r o v i d e d in w h i c h they replaced other
identical archaic forms from a metrical and formulaic perspective;
and others in which the metre did not allow them (there is IloaeiSawv,
but n o t rioaeiSeoov) o r in w h i c h they w o u l d f o r m a doublet with
other forms (archaic o r Aeolic) w h e n they were metrically equiva
lent ( d v / K 8 , i)|aei(;/a^|ie^, - a - / - a a - ) .
T h e most interesting case, h o w e v e r , is w h e n an archaic form is
replaced b y nothing other than an equivalent I o n i c form, whether
regularly o r not. F o r e x a m p l e , n is introduced for a (but not always:
there is xXaoq, noXmXaq); A c . pi. in -ouc, (< -ovc,): in this case, with
out an A e o l i c alternative.
But recent A e o l i c forms c o u l d in fact enter w h e n this did not
involve an alteration o f the metre, as in s o m e examples already m e n
tioned
a n d a%e\)E (for a%eff e), perf. part, -ovxec, (for -xec;), pc- (for
*dya-).
1 4 5 . Nevertheless, sometimes the Ionicisms involved metrical alter
ations that w e r e tolerated: if two breves are contracted, this means
that n o w the foot is an spondee and not a dactyl (uncontracted forms
still existed). But b e y o n d this the fall o f a d i g a m m a m a y p r o d u c e
the creation o f a hiatus in principle antimetric (similarly, for e x a m
ple, 01, ai instead o f xoi, xcd); the metathesis o f -no- (which is s o m e
times preserved, ai^noq) in -eoo- involves the alteration o f the metre;
etc. A l t h o u g h , o n o c c a s i o n , the restitution o f the ancient form has
b e e n p r o p o s e d : for example, in the case o f nrjA,r|ia8ecD (for -a, as
;
cited previously) a n d those o f / / . V 21 &8eA,(peio o Kxocjjivoio (for

-eoo), Od. X
60
AioXou
oKpuoexoq (for - { o o Kp-).
KXUXOC
Scbjiaxa (for - o o ) , / / . I X
64
kn\by\\do\)
95
T h e most serious are those cases in w h i c h , as m e n t i o n e d earlier,

the Ionicisms implied a clear alteration in metre and, therefore,
need for n e w formulas. I cited the 3rd pi. sec. -oocv beside the archaic
form -ev. M a n y other forms c a n b e a d d e d : apart f r o m those related
to the contractions, metathesis and other p h e n o m e n a relating to v o w
els (which left n u m e r o u s examples o f archaic use), m o r p h o l o g i c a l
forms o f the type N . pi. i)u.eic,, fijueic. w h e n f o l l o w e d b y a v o w e l
(against *yusmes o r *yuhmes, A e o l . uujiec, and similarly in the 1st pers.),
and A c . pi. in -eac,.
It w o u l d s e e m then that at a certain p o i n t there was conflict
between, o n the o n e hand, the archaism and the n e w form, and o n
the other hand, in this s e c o n d case, between A e o l i c i s m and Ionicism.
A t o n e point, certainly in a m o r e archaic date, b o t h dialects c o m
peted with each other and sometimes o n e , sometimes the other w o u l d
triumph, although A e o l i c generally h a d the advantage
(but m i x e d
forms were created o f the type f]uPpoxe); A e o l i c (that is, the
recent
A e o l i c , w h i c h is the true Aeolic) does not seem to have altered metre.

Later, I o n i c b e g a n to triumph with greater frequency, but without
eliminating the archaic o r A e o l i c forms completely. This process was
linked to the renovation o f the formulas. T h e frequency o f I o n i c , its
stronger corrosive effect o n the formulaic tradition, a n d its inclusion
o f very recent forms shows that i f A e o l i c i m and Ionicism had c o e x
isted at s o m e point, it was Ionicism that later i m p o s e d itself.
More on the epic language of the eighth century
146. T h e history o f epic language can b e studied f r o m the succes
sive renovations, w h i c h together with the archaic c o r e , introduced
c o n t e m p o r a r y forms. H o w e v e r , it is an entirely different thing to
establish h o w the language as a w h o l e was understood b y c o n t e m
poraries (of the eighth century, that is), ancient grammarians and b y
m o d e r n linguists.
It was u n d o u b t e d l y k n o w n that the e p i c language, apart from
purely I o n i c forms, contained anomalies, a m o n g w h i c h there were
all kinds o f hesitations and doublets. T h e s e a n o m a l o u s forms were
usually interpreted as Aeolicisms, s o m e as Achaeanisms b y certain
m o d e r n linguists; this interpretation was m a r r e d b y the idea that
H o m e r displayed a mixture o f dialects o f the first millennium. I n d e e d
m a n y o f his forms, the most archaic, w e r e neither Ionicisms n o r
96
C H A P T E R SIX
Aeolicisms in the s e c o n d millennium, although they w o u l d have b e e n

so in the first millennium.
Nevertheless, it must b e stressed that m a n y o f these a n o m a l o u s
forms (whether archaic o r recent) were really artificial forms, result
ing f r o m the adaptation to metre o f forms that did not fit into it.
Actually, the date o f s o m e o f these artificial adaptations is s o m e
times difficult to establish: as, for instance, f|vio%fja (for -%ov), TTOVTorcopeuco (for -eco), dvocmjioc, (for avoaxoc,); or metrical enlargements
such as dGdvaxoc,, SDGOXOC,, drceipecuoc,, oupecc, etc. S o m e presuppose
certain recent p h e n o m e n a : for instance, diectasis (fjpobovxec;, f|(3daa9e)
represents a transaction between the contraction and the desire to
maintain the ancient metrical s c h e m e .
In any case, there is an attempt to a v o i d the tribrach (three short
syllables) and the cretic (long-short-long), w h i c h d o not fit into the
hexameter. T h e epic tradition d o e s n o t hesitate in introducing false
forms. I have s h o w n h o w , at times, beneath these forms there c o u l d
be
archaic regular forms: for e x a m p l e , (poiviKoeic, with I p r o b a b l y
substituted (poivncp evx-.

147.
Furthermore,
the epic poets c o u l d misinterpret
the w o r d s o f
their ancestors: this was highlighted b y M . L e u m a n n 1950 with regard

to the interpretation
o f H o m e r b y the Hellenistic poets, and also
with regard to misinterpretations within the epic tradition. For e x a m

ple,
terms such as ic6jj,pa%o<; 'the top o f the helmet' (//. X V 536),
later u n d e r s t o o d as ' o f the h e a d ( o f a person, //. V 586); o r 7iocpf|opoc,

5
'tied at the side , referring to the exterior carthorse (//. X V I 471),

later interpreted as 'scattered, with outstretched arms
(//. V I I 156).
All o f this is e v i d e n c e o f an evolution within the epic tradition.

For
the listeners, these forms, together with the archaisms (inter
preted sometimes as I o n i c o r A e o l i c , but also simply as epic) and

the doublets merely f o r m e d part o f the characteristics o f the epic
language. T h e exercise o f c h o i c e was n o t entirely free, for metre and
the formulas m a d e their presence and influence felt; but they were
rather susceptible to modification. A n I o n i c that was b l e n d e d and
modified in this w a y was understood as an epic language and, as
such, was recited a n d listened to in all the corners o f G r e e c e . W e
have an idea o f what it was like in the s e c o n d millennium and what
it must have l o o k e d like in the first millennium.
148. H o w e v e r , the epic language o f the eighth century, the language
o f H o m e r , has not r e a c h e d us intact. A t the very least, w e should
97
draw attention to the effects o f the shift f r o m the initial G r e e k alpha

bet to the later I o n i c alphabet; and to its j o u r n e y through the Attic
tradition and Alexandrine editions.
A m o n g other things, the letters E and 0 in the primitive
alphabet designated
Greek
each^ what w o u l d later b e c o m e three vowels:
e / e i / n and o / o u / c o . T h u s , lengthenings such as those m e n t i o n e d ear

lier c o u l d b e p r o s o d i c , but not graphic. EOE c o u l d b e interpreted in
various ways: r\oq, eioq, ecoc,. Furthermore, êivoq, fjyvoiaev were not
written with -ei- a n d n-, nor there w e r e forms with diectasis. Indeed,
since gemination went unnoticed, it is doubtful whether I o n i c forms
such as Keipoo, dt^yeiovoc, and A e o l i c forms such as ocpeMxo, epavvoc,
were introduced b y the p r e - H o m e r i c poets o r simply b y subsequent
copyists.
T h e n w e have the Atticisms (which are rare and m u c h debated)
that must have penetrated the text during the p e r i o d in w h i c h it
was c o p i e d and diffused in Athens (after Pisistratus, a c c o r d i n g to tra
dition). T h e following forms are generally considered to b e Attic:
KEIVTO
against I o n i c Keioa'; also, (pepoin, (ptAmri and a few others.
Nevertheless, these and a few other forms, including the prolifer

ation o f contractions, metathesis o f quantity, lengthenings,
diectasis,
etc. can also b e attributed to the editions b y Aristarchus and

other Alexandrine philologists. T h i s subject will not b e
the
examined
here. In any case, the fundamental characteristics o f the epic lan

guage from H o m e r ' s o w n m o u t h , so to speak, in the eighth
century
are very clear. H e r e , w e have attempted, o n the o n e h a n d , to estab

lish their origin, and o n the other h a n d , the interpretation
they
received.
3. T H E DIFFUSION O F T H E FIRST G E N E R A L L A N G U A G E :
THE LANGUAGE OF HEXAMETRIC P O E T R Y A F T E R H O M E R
General overview
149. H o m e r represents a key, divisive m o m e n t in the evolution o f
the G r e e k epic, in w h i c h it achieved a written f o r m and p r o d u c e d
great p o e m s o f a dramatic kind in the language that w e have stud
ied. E p i c p o e t r y h a d existed b e f o r e H o m e r , a n d p o e m s such
as
Memnoneia o r Achilleid and Meleagria have even b e e n cited as having

influenced the Iliad. It is important to note that the h u m a n
and
divine epic (the conflict between the gods) is a c c o m p a n i e d in H o m e r
98
C H A P T E R SIX
b y traces o f c o s m o g o n i c poetry (II X I V 200 ff. and 2 7 4 ff, X V

185 ff.), b y h y m n s and prayers to the gods, and b y maxims
and
didactic elements (cf. / / . X X I I I 5 4 2 , Od. I 132 ff, etc.).

After H o m e r , still within the archaic and classical p e r i o d , there is
a continuation o f hexametric poetry:
(a) Firstly, there is H e s i o d , w h o is p l a c e d in the same
century
(eighth), a little after H o m e r (he is p l a c e d before the Odyssey

b y some) and w h o , in his principal p o e m s , Theogony, Works
and Days, The Shield, and Catalogue of Women, writes c o s m o g o n i c
poetry, genealogy, divine and heroic epic, hymns, with the
first t w o genres
predominating.
(b) S e c o n d l y , the epic, w h i c h is brought together under the c o n

cept o f the Epic Cycle: a series o f p o e m s with various themes
(above all, T h e b a n and T r o j a n themes, themes relating to
the return o f heroes, Heracles, etc.) w h i c h are dated between
the seventh a n d sixth centuries: the most cited being the
Cypria b y Stasinus o f Cyprus, the Aethiopis b y Arctinus o f
Miletus, the Little Iliad b y Lesches o f Pyrrha o r Miletus, and
the works o f Eumelus o f Corinth, Panyassis o f Halicarnassus
a n d Choerilus o f S a m o s . T h e p r o b l e m for the study o f the
l a n g u a g e is the terribly fragmented
state in w h i c h these
p o e m s have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n to us.
(c) Thirdly, the hymns: the so-called a n o n y m o u s Homeric Hymns,
w h i c h are dated from the seventh century onwards. Also,
the hexametric prayer o f S o l o n 28.
(d) Fourthly, the philosophic hexametric p o e m s , derived from
c o s m o g o n i c and didactic poetry: b y X e n o p h a n e s o f C o l o p h o n
( V I / V ) , Parmenides ( V ) , E m p e d o c l e s ( V ) ; also, the maxims o f
Phocylides (VI). In sum, a relatively small number o f hexameters.
(e) Finally, p a r o d y is represented
b y the Batracomyomachia, the
battle o f the frogs and the m i c e , w h i c h today is often attrib

uted to the Hellenistic p e r i o d . Cf. also H i p p o n a x 135.
150. All o f these genres, including the last, continued to b e culti
vated in the Hellenistic period; and the epic a b o v e all during
the
R o m a n p e r i o d , although p h i l o s o p h y b e g a n to b e written in prose in

the same century (the sixth). S o , all this hexametric poetry follows
the language o f H o m e r very closely, and this also applies to m i x e d
hexametric p o e t r y (a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the hexameter and pentameter
in the elegy, with the catalectic trochaic tetrameter in the Margites,
99
various combinations o f dactylic elements in Archilochus, etc.), w h i c h

will b e discussed in 155 ff. T h e great diffusion o f H o m e r i s m s
throughout
G r e e k poetry and even I o n i c prose c o m e s from these
genres.
B y focusing only o n p y r e hexametric poetry, it can b e said that
it maintained the essence o f the H o m e r i c language and that it was
a fundamental element in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f G r e e k p o e t r y
and
thought. T o a large extent, it continued H o m e r i c themes, as w e have

seen, although H e s i o d and other authors place greater emphasis o n
particular themes.
Nevertheless, there are sufficient differences to warrant s o m e expla
nation, especially since theories have e m e r g e d a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h
the language o f H e s i o d and the H o m e r i c H y m n s has a different ori
gin, at least in part, from that o f H o m e r . In general, I w o u l d say
that the characteristics o f the n e w epic language display a degree o f
modernisation, an adaptation to themes, and a slight approximation,
at times, to the local dialects o f the poets.
All o f this p o e t r y - like H o m e r himself, w e assume -
proceeds
from Asia M i n o r : from there it spread to B o e o t i a ( H e s i o d c a m e from

C y m e ) , Sicily ( X e n o p h a n e s c a m e from C o l o p h o n ) , Corinth (Eumelus),
Athens (Solon, perhaps the Hymn to Demeter).
The different genres
151, T h e r e is a w h o l e theory p r o p o s i n g that H e s i o d and the Homeric
Hymns
c o r r e s p o n d to a western,
n o t H o m e r i c , epic tradition: the
H o m e r i s m s w o u l d b e a result o f a later transmission. T h e r e has b e e n

m u c h discussion regarding a series o f H e s i o d i c forms, in particular,
w h i c h are considered Boeotian, D o r i c , o r simply 'western';
some
times this tradition is identified with o n e that is thought to have also

b e e n at the base o f A e o l i c poetry. But I will return to this later.
T h e discussion centres o n s o m e forms that are rather
Ac
pi. -de;, -oc, in the
1st and 2 n d declensions
doubtful:
(ante-consonantal
forms preferred in T h e s . , A r c , and the western dialects); athematic

A e o l i c ' verbs, absent f r o m H o m e r (for e x a m p l e , aivnui), Tetopce
(the only clear D o r i c i s m ) , d\jnv (supposedly A e o l i c ) , G . pi. jneAadv
( D o r . o r A e o L ) , e8ov, r\v (supposedly D o r i c , but p r o b a b l y archaisms),
KaXoq (At. o r western). T h e degree o f modernisation
o r avoidance
o f archaisms is great, but sometimes there is a d r o p in frequency.
100
C H A P T E R SIX
A s m e n t i o n e d before, there is m u c h debate a b o u t this and today

there is a tendency to incline towards scepticism. For m e , these n o n H o m e r i c forms are a recent introduction whether from A e o l i c (in
w h i c h territory H e s i o d originated), Boeotian o r the W e s t -
and a
slight local influence, such as that o f Ionic in H o m e r , w o u l d not

have b e e n strange; nor, for example, w o u l d it have b e e n strange
h a d H e s i o d preserved s o m e archaism not found in H o m e r .
T h e most characteristic feature o f the language o f H e s i o d is its
modernisation: the reduction o f the frequency o f archaisms. T h e loss
o f the d i g a m m a , for e x a m p l e , is m o r e frequent than in H o m e r , even
though it is preserved in Boeotian.
152. For the precedents o f Homer, see Adrados in A A . W . 1984, p. 80 ff
For an analysis o f the work o f Hesiod see Adrados 1986c. The Cycle is
edited by A. Bernabe 1996, and Antimachus o f Colophon (fifth and sixth
century) must be added in particular.
As far as the system o f formulas is concerned, it is logical that Hesiod
uses a different series than Homer: formulas linked to cosmogonic and
genealogic but also didactic topics. Curiously, some o f them coincide with
those of the Homeric Hymns. There is a good collection o f data in F.
Kraft 1963 and a series o f conclusions in J. de Hoz 1964; I drew my own
conclusions in an article (Adrados 1986c), in which I proposed the exis
tence o f this kind o f oral poetry in Greece (cosmogonic, genealogic, reli
gious, didactic, poetry) which was thematically influenced by well-known
models from Eastern literature (Mesopotamic and Egyptian), but which had
developed those formulaic systems within Greece.
Evidendy, hexametric oral poems flourished. Our Homer followed the
central epic line, but others could contain formulaic and lexical systems
that were pardy different. O f course, the poets o f the first millennium could
broaden or modify these systems and also copy each other. It is very clear,
with respect to the lexicon, that Hesiod included much colloquial and tech
nical agricultural lexicon, cf. H . Troxler 1964, p. 240 ff. There is also
another lexicon that coincides with that of the Hymns, cf. R. Hiersche 1970,
p. 101. T h e philosophical poets had to create a vocabulary fit to express
their thought, cf. R. Hiersche 1970, p. 104 ff. I will return to this subject
when I look at the creation o f the Greek intellectual lexicon.
The history o f the subject o f the language o f Hesiod and the Hymns can
be found in H. Rodriguez Somolinos 1998a, p. 15 ff The idea o f a 'con
tinental epic' (with a confused mixture o f Doric and Aeolic elements) comes
from A. Hoekstra 1957, and was elaborated, in exaggerated terms, by
C. O . Pavese 1972 and 1974 (but see p. 111 ff on the recent elements).
A very clear and decisively sceptic study is provided by G. P. Edwards
1971, cf. also R . Hiersche 1970, p. 99 ff. and L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 101 ff.
For R. Janko 1982, Hesiod is purely Homeric. For a rejection of 'Doricisms',
c f A. Morpurgo 1964. For the language o f the oracles, c f J. A. Fernandez
Delgado 1986.
101
There are parallel conclusions regarding the Hymns, in which the mod
ernisation of the language predominates. According to A. Hoekstra 1969,
the language and style of the Homeric Hymns is essentially derived from
Homer, although it may contain some archaisms. There are even misun
derstood Homeric expressions. Also, the Atticisms are centred on the Hymn
to Demeter, perhaps o f Attic prigin. C f O . Zumbach 1955.
153. S o , this and the succeeding poetry inherited certain themes, a
lexicon and formulaic expressions from the second millennium: whether
the same as in H o m e r o r different. H o w e v e r , the small differences
that c a n b e found in the language are the result o f a recent evolu
tion w h i c h tended to reduce archaisms and, in rare cases, introduced
local forms, as had o c c u r r e d in H o m e r , In short, it was the H o m e r i c
language, in a m o r e o r less updated form, w h i c h b e c a m e the liter
ary language in the w h o l e o f G r e e c e b y means o f hexametric poetry
and the elegy derived from it.
T h e s e conclusions, based o n H e s i o d and the Hymns, can hardly
b e modified with the study o f the minimal remains o f the Cycle. In
these and in the Hellenistic epic and that o f the R o m a n p e r i o d , the
language o f H o m e r remained m o r e o r less intact.
W i t h respect to philosophical hexametric poetry, it must b e stressed
that it essentially offered the same language, nearly always elimi
nating exclusively H o m e r i c and not I o n i c forms. H o w e v e r , modifica
tions are admitted, and not just in the l e x i c o n and the formulas.
T h e philosophers take great liberties: in X e n o p h a n e s , w e find the
D . pi. Gneaxeoox,
the infinitive cpuv; E m p e d o c l e s prefers yevTo (Hes.),
creates QaXeioxq from 0dA,eia, etc. S o m e t i m e s , archaic and
recent
forms alternate; and as m e n t i o n e d earlier, n e w meanings are given

to the lexicon, as in cases such as eov (Parm.) and (piûSinc, (Emp.).
154. T h e language o f these authors was essential for the later e v o
lution o f the philosophical and intellectual lexicon, b u t w e will deal
with this in a later section, c f 227 f f ; but also with the rhetor
ical language and the Attic prose o f G o r g i a s , cf. A . Traglia 1952,
p . 41 ff., o n E m p e d o c l e s . T h e s e poets, following H o m e r i c phraseol
o g y to a large exent, w e r e at the same time great creators.
102
C H A P T E R SIX
4.
T H E SECOND GENERAL L A N G U A G E :
T H E L A N G U A G E O F E L E G Y A N D EPIGRAM
Elegy
155. T h e study o f the first general language o f the first millennium
has b e e n c o m p l e t e d : H o m e r i c and epic language. T h e s e c o n d gen
eral language, that o f elegy, is derived from the first.
O f course, this are not the appropriate place to study the origins
o f elegy, w h i c h are in any case m u c h debated. It is a fact that from
the seventh century o n w a r d s w e c o m e across - in the I o n i c w o r l d
but also in the D o r i c and subsequently in all o f G r e e c e p o e m s in
elegiac distics, a slight variation o f the hexametric rhythm given that
the hexameter is followed b y a pentameter: this is called the elegeion,
a derivative o f the elegos, w h i c h for s o m e scholars means a 'lament'
and c o m e s from Phrygia.
I n d e e d , because there is variation in the metre there is also vari
ation in the language, although n o t o f a radical kind: w e are deal
ing with an Ionicised epic language, o r I o n i c language influenced b y
epic; a n d with p o e m s sung to the music o f the flute. F o r instance,
in Callinus and A r c h i l o c h u s in the seventh century. T h e r e is also
variation in the content. W e have a mythic o r mythic-historic elegy
in M i m n e r m u s and Antimachus, a m o n g others, but usually it is a
lyric in the first person w h i c h adresses a s e c o n d person: urging them
to war, politics o r a particular c o n d u c t , thinking o r expressing feel
ings - all o f this t o o k place at banquets, at funerary rituals o r var
ious events (for e x a m p l e at the Pythian G a m e s ) , before an assembly
o r the army, e t c T h u s , there was a n e e d for a m o r e agile rhythm
and a m o r e agile a n d m o r e accessible language as well.
It was in Ionia, as m e n t i o n e d , that, from the middle o f the sev
enth century onwards, various p o p u l a r genres passed into the hands
o f the poets, receiving the n e w rhythms, execution and language:
the Ionicised epic, as I m e n t i o n e d . Tyrtaeus in Sparta, S o l o n in
Athens, T h e o g n i s in M e g a r a and others (allegedly Sacadas in Argolis
in the seventh/sixth century, but n o fragments remain) followed this
m o d e l : the language o f the elegy b e c a m e , I must stress, the s e c o n d
'general language' o f G r e e c e . S o m u c h so that elegiac distics were
c o m p o s e d b y all kinds o f personalities. In the fifth century, elegiac
distics w e r e c o m p o s e d n o t o n l y b y elegiac poets such as Euenus o f
Paros, I o n o f C h i o s , A n t i m a c h u s o f C o l o p h o n , Dionysius Chalcus
103
LYRIC
a n d Critias o f Athens, but also b y Simonides, Bacchylides, A n a c r e o n ,

Aeschylus, S o p h o c l e s , Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Grates (at times, o f
dubious authenticity). A n d there is a legion o f elegiacs in the Hellenistic
period.
156. T h e r e is s o m e confusion b e t w e e n elegy a n d epigram. T h e lat
ter term simply indicated an inscription, such as those at the e n d o f
the eighth century, as w e saw, whether in prose o r verse: the aim
was to transmit news o r a message (an epitaph, dedication, o w n e r ,
etc.) in a short and succinct form. In H o m e r , w e find evidence o f
funerary steles o r dedications o f weapons to a g o d , but the Phoenician
inscriptions, with their content as well as their alphabet,
had
the
greatest influence in G r e e c e .
T h e most ancient inscriptions in verse are hexametric: H o m e r was
the m o d e l in h a n d w h e n it c a m e to writing in a solemn way. But
from the year 5 0 0 onwards, elegiac distic predominates;
are a n o n y m o u s until a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 5 0 B C , although
already
composed
epigraphs
Simonides
e p i g r a m s as d i d , later, the p o e t s p r e v i o u s l y
mentioned.
W i t h respect to the language, it has to b e said that the e p i g r a m
was first written in the local dialects, always with the influence o f
the H o m e r i c language; but s o o n it b e c a m e c o n t a m i n a t e d with the
language o f elegy and, at a certain point, there was n o longer any
linguistic distinction (since the borders between the t w o genres are
blurred).
157. For archaic elegy, see Adrados 1990a, B. Gentili-C. Prato 1979-85,
M . L. West 1989 (E. Diehl 1950 is still useful today); for epigram see
P. A. Hansen 1983 and the great collection o f metrical inscriptions o f
W . Peek 1955, as well as various other collections. O n the origin o f the
genres, see, in addition to what I say in the Introduction to Adrados 1990a,
the various dissertations included in the volume by A A . W . 1969; among
them, that by A. E. Raubitschek regarding 'Das Denkmal-Epigramm' and
that by B. Gentili, 'Epigramma ed elegia' (against the threnetic origin o f
the latter and about the blurred limits with the epigram). O n the language,
different works in this volume, in A A . W . 1963 on Archilochus (above all,
A. Scherer and D . Page) as well as B. Kock 1910, B. Snell 1969, O .
Hoffmann 1973, p. 102 ff, R. Hiersche 1970, p . 106 ff, L. R . Palmer
1980, p. 105 ff, among others.
158. Let us begin with the elegy, whose prime representative, C a l l i n u s w h o differs little from Archilochus transformed the H o m e r i c heroes'
discourses into exhortations
to his citizens to
fight
against
the
104
CHAPTER
SIX
C i m m e r i a n s . It should b e p o i n t e d out that the elegies o f b o t h writ

ers are essentially epic, although the features that are distant from
I o n i c have generally b e e n eliminated. In contrast, other features are
perfectly preserved, such as those w h i c h are at the same time b o t h
epic and I o n i c , for e x a m p l e , uouaecov a n d other forms without c o n
traction,
Em\
dv, the loss o f d i g a m m a leaving a hiatus, etc. Y e t
Aeolicisms such as maupec;, dpyevvoc,, dufieq d o n o t appear. Certain

n o n - I o n i c H o m e r i c forms are, exceptionally, found linked to H o m e r i c
formulas and metre: for e x a m p l e , the G . in -010,
TOGGOV,
K&XXIKOV
(Arch.), Kev, taxcp, onnoxe (Call.). Yet archaic forms and words disappear.
C o n t e m p o r a r y I o n i c rarely enters: KOT' and KGX; appear in Callinus,
and there is m u c h discussion regarding 8opi ( < * - p f - ) in Archilochus,
w h i c h is considered to b e Attic b y s o m e , also insular I o n i c b y others.
-e7iovr|0r|,
8GK,
etc. and m u c h o f the l e x i c o n is not epic.
It is very clear that Archilochus's elegies are full o f epic formu

las, as has b e e n clearly s h o w n b y D . Page 1963 and L. R . Palmer
1980;
but
the
latter d e s c r i b e s the i n t r o d u c t i o n
of new
popular
vocabulary.
159. W e d o not c o m e across great differences in the case o f Tyrtaeus,
who
We
exhorted the L a c e d a e m o n i a n s to fight against the Messenians.

d o n o t k n o w whether he was L a c o n i a n or, as others w o u l d have
it, Milesian o r Athenian, but in any case, his language was under
stood in Sparta. H e uses I o n i c -n, s o m e recent Ionicisms such as
\|/u%8cov, m o s t times ignores f (which was preserved in Laconian!),
uses epic forms such as pocGiAxjocc,, KccA-d, cpeuyov (and s o m e ''which
are also L a c o n i a n , such as Xaoq), but there is o n c e again a lack o f
archaic o r A e o l i c epic forms that are absent from I o n i c . A small
n u m b e r o f D o r i c i s m s enter, particularly in the A c . pi. in -de, o f the
1st deck and Kaioceiuevoc;.
C o n s e q u e n d y , Tyrtaeus is full o f H o m e r i c formulas, s o m e o f w h i c h
have sometimes altered in meaning, as in A r c h i l o c h u s .
T h e scene is always the same: an epic language in w h i c h the most
archaic o r strange elements
are eliminated,
apart f r o m
formulaic
exceptions, and in w h i c h small samples o f the local language
are
introduced: I o n i c in M i m n e r m u s , D o r i c in T h e o g n i s , Attic in S o l o n .
S o m e t i m e s , strange elements are introduced in S o l o n and X e n o phanes, such as - e G G i , formular - o i o , dcov, ice in X e n o p h a n e s , etc.;
in S o l o n , epicisms such as KaMi7toiui,
not ice o r -ceo.
OGGOV,
and fi?iu0e enter, but
105
W e can find traces o f the local dialects in Semonides (the Ionicisms

OKODj K O T ' ,
etc.), T h e o g n i s (Doricisms such as the G . Ei) parrot, the inf.
(peuyev and r|uev, etc.), S o l o n , although the manuscript

unreliable. Atticisms such as
'Iaoviac;, uftepncpaviav,
6ppiLT07tcVcpri, a H o m e r i s m ) ueaov, a n d
tradition is
fjuepa,
(but
s o m e I o n i c i s m s such
as
(popeujuevoq) w e r e n o d o u b t i n t r o d u c e d secondarily. Atticism d o m i

nates o v e r Ionicism o r H o m e r i s m : -a- against a single oaoo<;, -ou(against -eo-, perhaps archaic), in addition to a substantial Attic lex
i c o n , cf. A d r a d o s 1953a, p . 138 ff.
T h u s , a slightly different I o n i c language was formed, with some
unobtrusive H o m e r i c remnants, but increasingly fewer, and with min
imal c o n t e m p o r a r y dialectal forms. All o f this tended to
disappear
in elegy and epigram from the fifth century onwards. W h a t remained

fixed was this quasi-Ionic w h i c h was cultivated and understood e v e n where: an updated H o m e r , but still remote from the local dialect;
or an I o n i c dialect p r o v i d e d with b o r r o w i n g s and
internationalism
by epic diction.
T h i s was the route o f general diffusion o f the I o n i c dialect into
very c o m m o n poetic genres. T h e r e was another route, m o r e advanced
in Ionicisation but less diffused, that o f the i a m b o s , w h i c h o p e n e d
the w a y for I o n i c prose (which in turn o p e n e d the w a y for Attic,
and Attic for koine).
Epigram
160. T h e language o f epigram underwent the reverse process, but
in the end there was a c o n v e r g e n c e . Instead o f a H o m e r approxi
mated to the I o n i c dialect, w e are dealing with inscriptions in n o n literary dialects which, w h e n written in elegiac distics, were influenced
b y the language o f H o m e r and elegy. It was a process which led to
the assimilation o f the epigram's language into that o f elegy (and
often to the practical confusion o f the genres).
In the beginning, epigrams in distics used H o m e r i c formulaic lan
guage, translating it into the local dialect; this is best illustrated w h e n
an epigraphic version a n d a version o f the manuscrit
tradition are
available for the same epigram, as in the case o f the well-known

c o m m o n burial o f the Corinthians in Salamis, Hansen 131 (for exam
ple, 7COK' evaioii.ec, instead o f TCOT' evcdojuev). S o , KepotMrjvocq ueyaGuuoDt;
in / / . 631 b e c o m e s KeyaXkavaq jneyaBujiioq in Hansen 3 9 1 ; formulaic
Koupn (Aioc, y^ctt)K07ci8i K.) b e c o m e s Kopei (Hansen 215); other well-
106
C H A P T E R SIX
k n o w n formulas see the introduction o f IloTeSdpovi (Corinth, Hansen

357), KXzfoq,
a7i0iTov (Crisa, Hansen 344), etc.
161. In other cases, H o m e r i s m s entered these formulas, w h i c h had

b e e n imitated from H o m e r : as in Hansen 145 (Corcyra) e V 'Apd00oio
pnofcaor, T h e fact is, Ionicisms such as êivoc,, eiveica. etc. entered
the D o r i c dialects through H o m e r .
It should b e n o t e d that, occasionally, the archaism o f the D o r i c
dialects in these inscriptions allows us to rediscover H o m e r i c forms
which are older than those present in our manuscripts: as, for instance,
in H a n s e n
367 r | i A i f o [ i 9u]jnio, with d i g a m m a (or êvpoc,, beside
êivoc,, as w e have seen, also in D o r i c inscriptions). But an Ionic

p o e t such as S e m o n i d e s , in his epigram a b o u t the seer Megistias
( H e r o d o t u s V I I 228), written in pure I o n i c , nevertheless preserved
the H o m e r i s m Kxeivav.
Consequently, as w e have seen, the influence o f elegy was great.
In the w o r k b y Gentili 1969, p . 69, there is a list o f loci similes c o m
m o n to epigram and elegy. T h e language o f elegy and that o f epigram
eventually b e c a m e unified: although this o c c u r r e d at a point in w h i c h
the I o n i c o f i a m b o s and o f prose, freed o f H o m e r i s m s to a greater
extent, h a d b e c o m e the most widely used literary language. It w o u l d
b e dethroned b y Attic, w h i c h it h a d helped to diffuse.
5.
T H E T H I R D GENERAL L A N G U A G E :
THE LANGUAGE OF CHORAL LYRIC
General ideas
162. C h o r a l lyric was a religious lyric sung in large public festivals,
in contrast to melic lyric, w h i c h was sung in festivals o f hetairiai, thiasoi o r groups, o r in special circumstances in w h i c h a city or an army,
e t c , asked for the arrival o r intervention o f the gods.
A t the start, the s o n g o f the choregos o r chorus leader was i m p r o
vised, as w e are told b y A r c h i l o c h u s 219; the chorus responded to
h i m , a b o v e all with refrains, w h e n they w e r e not just marking time
o r dancing. Later, b o t h the song o f the choregos and that o f the c h o
rus b e c a m e literary, the w o r k o f a p o e t . This corresponds to the
m i x e d lyric, as attested in A l c m a n and Stesichorus, I believe. But at
s o m e point, the chorus b e g a n to sing the w h o l e song, multiplying
EPIC, E L E G Y A N D
CHORAL
107
LYRIC
groups o f s t r o p h e / a n t i s t r o p h e / e p o d e : this corresponds to choral lyric,

w h o s e main representative is Pindar.
A n o t h e r variant is p r o v i d e d b y dialogic lyric (between two choregot o r t w o choruses) or, within o n e chorus, in the multiplication o f
the unit f o r m e d b y a s o n ^ b y the c h o r e g o s followed b y a song b y
the chorus. T h e r e are traces o f all this in p o p u l a r lyric and also in
theatre l y r i c
T h e fact is that improvised lyric, with its variety o f possibilities,
was just as o l d as epic, and also oral; there are clear allusions to it
in H o m e r and H e s i o d , w h o occasionally adapted it to their h e x a m
eters, in literary lyrics and in other authors. Parallels exist, such as
the Hymns of the Veda, w h i c h attest to its antiquity; and traces have
b e e n preserved o f o l d p o p u l a r lyric, often in various re-elaborations.
O n the other h a n d , the rhythms o f choral lyric (and o f m o n o d y or
A e o l i c melic too) are inherited, and were not invented by the poets
w h o transformed
this w h o l e lyric, starting from the eighth
century
(Eumelus o f Corinth), b u t a b o v e all during the seventh century, into

the personal p o e t r y written b y the 'poets' o r creators. I have dealt
with the origins o f the lyric in detail elsewhere.
163. H o w e v e r , with regard to the language, it must be said that w e
are in a worse situation n o w than w h e n w e spoke o f H o m e r
and
epic language in general. W i t h it w e were able to establish
with
s o m e degree o f certainty what the epic language o f the s e c o n d mil

lennium must have l o o k e d like and to understand h o w , from this
language, the language o f eighth century was created; and, further
m o r e , h o w the latter e v o l v e d into elegy and i a m b o s . H e r e , we are
practically limited to the literary lyric o f the seventh century onwards.
V e r y litde remains o f p o p u l a r lyric, and the little that has
reached
us is very influenced b y the lyric o f the great authors.

Indeed, the attempts that have b e e n m a d e to link the
language
o f choral lyric with M y c e n a e a n have not attracted m a n y followers.

A n e x a m p l e is the theory o f Pavese and others, cited earlier in ref
erence to H e s i o d , w h i c h proposes the existence o f a western poetic
language to w h i c h n o n - H o m e r i c p h o n e t i c and m o r p h o l o g i c a l char
acteristics o f H e s i o d and the H o m e r i c H y m n s are attributed, as well
as s o m e others o f choral lyric and the language o f the
(monodic)
Lesbian lyric, a n d even o f oracles, cf. J. A . Fernandez D e l g a d o 1986.

T h e H o m e r i c elements o f all this poetry are recent.
108
CHAPTER
SIX
A l t h o u g h it is evident through the study o f phraseology that n o n H o m e r i c traditions existed -
this can b e seen in H e s i o d and
the
Hymns but also in the rich formation o f w o r d s in choral lyric - for

phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y things are m o r e complicated, but w e will
return to this later. It is also clear that H o m e r i c influence was essen
tial in choral lyric as a w h o l e and in Lesbian m o n o d y .
T h e most w e c a n venture to say is that, evidentiy, a D o r i c p o p
ular lyric existed w h i c h a v o i d e d b e c o m i n g t o o similar to the local
dialects and also to I o n i c . It possibly united certain characteristics
that w e r e widely diffused in D o r i c and N . W . Greek, such as the A c .
pi. in -oc, a n d the D . pi. in -eoai (some were also Aeolic), with the
elimination o f D o r i c characteristics which were t o o specific and which
distanced the city dialects from each other as well as from H o m e r .
Y e t H o m e r must have exerted an influence from an early date, for
k n o w l e d g e o f H o m e r is attested in the few fragments o f popular lyric
and in metrical inscriptions from the very outset.
164. S o , it w o u l d seem that w e are facing a continuation o f the oral
lyric o f W e s t Greek, w h i c h was continued in the continent where it
received contributions w h i c h were also diffused in the A e o l i c dialects
o f B o e o t i a a n d Thessaly (from w h i c h they went o n to Lesbos) and
others descending from H o m e r . F r o m this point o n , n e w forms were
able to enter, a m o n g t h e m Aeolicisms. T h e s e gave rise to the entry
o f p o s t - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms, such as
-OIGOC.
T h e oldest choral lyric should b e c o n c e i v e d as a minimal lyric,

brief invocations to the g o d s , extremely brief refrains: thei*e is n o
reason w h y it should b e c o m b i n e d with H e s i o d o r the Lesbian poets.
It was influenced f r o m the start b y H o m e r , as I noted, but
also
u n d o u b t e d l y b y Lesbian m o n o d y , j u d g i n g from the Lesbianisms in

choral lyric as a w h o l e . I have referred to this in 162 ff. All this
is d e d u c e d from a c o m p a r i s o n o f the language o f different
lyric poets, w h o share a 'generic
choral
D o r i c , minimal continental
ele
ments w h i c h are difficult to define, a lack o f Ionicisms and H o m e r i c

and Lesbian
elements.
In contrast, n o I o n i c o r A e o l i c choral lyric has b e e n
preserved:
w e c a n only point this out. It is possible that it m a y have existed

as A r c h i l o c h u s w o u l d have sung his dithyrambs in I o n i c : his ' H y m n
to Hercales and Iolaus' has I o n i c and H o m e r i c resonances and its
m o n o d i c strophes - which unite dactylic, iambic and trochaic rhythms presupposes the previous existence o f chorals, just like those o f Sappho
LYRIC
109
a n d Alcaeus; in this case, in addition, w h a t w e have are the r e m

nants o f the epithalamium sung in Lesbian b y choregoi a n d choruses,
at least, this is m y theory. But the o n l y o n e that has b e e n preserved
for us is D o r i c choral l y r i c
165, T o gain a better understanding o f this, it is important to study the
origins o f Greek lyric, to which I have dedicated a book, Adrados 1986a.
Fragments of popular and ritual Greek hymns can be found in the Poetae
Melici Graeci by D . Page 1967 and 1974, in J. U. Powell 1970 and in H .
Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons 1983, among others; in translation, with bib
liographic information and notes, in Adrados 1980. O n the metre, c f
A. Meillet, 1975, p. 145 ff. T h e dependency o f the language o f lyric on
Mycenaean has been studied, recently, by G. Triimpy 1986, see the cri
tique by C . J. Riujgh 1986 and that by G. Brillante 1987 (who provides
bibliographic precedents).
With regard to the theory o f the western poetical language', refer back
to 163. This theory is supported by, for example, Gh. Verdier 1972 with
respect to the non-epic Aeolicisms o f Pindar. I believe (see 169) that, on
a base o f Homeric Aeolicisms, new Aeolicisms were progressively incorpo
rated into the lyric ones from an Aeolic tradition which evidently existed,
but which must not be confused with the continental Doric choral (which,
I insist, displays hardly any specific characteristics; there are hardly any
Boeotisms, for example), and is not really Doric. Another point is that ele
ments such as ai, the inf. in -|iev, D . pi. -eaai, o r uzha go beyond the
limits of Aeolic: these are choices within a wider dominion. Above all, this
theory does not take sufficiendy into account the role played by the influence
of epic language and the progressive character o f the incorporation o f
Lesbianisms and other elements.
For the different Doric dialects, see the works cited in the bibliography.
For the language o f the choral lyric, see, among others, A. Meillet 1975,
p. 208 ff.; O . Hoffman 1973, p. 125 ff; R . Hiersche 1970, p . 128 ff; L. R .
Palmer 1980, p. 119 ff; M . Nothiger 1971. For Pindar, see, specifically,
B. Forssmann 1968; Gh. Verdier 1972; P. Hummel 1993 (on syntax in par
ticular). For Simonides, see O . Poltera 1997. O n the role o f the language o f
choral lyric in tragedy, F. R . Adrados 1953a and 1975c, also G. Bjork 1950;
on phraseology, compounds, e t c , in the language of theatre choruses, F. R .
Earp 1970 and 1972, A. Long 1968; and W . Breitenbach 1934.
166. T h e fact is that in the eighth century with Eumelus, and then
in the seventh century with A l c m a n , in the seventh/sixth
century
with A r i o n , in the sixth century with Stesichorus a n d Ibycus, in the

sixth/fifth with S i m o n i d e s , Pindar and Bacchylides, w e see the full
flourishing o f c h o r a l lyric, c o n t i n u e d b y tragedy, w h i c h is k n o w n to
us beginning with The Persians b y Aeschylus, f r o m 4 7 2 . T h e n c o m e
s o m e m i n o r poets and ritual lyric, a n o n y m o u s o r not, w h i c h was
sung at various celebrations.
110
CHAPTER
SIX
It should b e n o t e d that very little b y Eumelus has been transmitted

to us (a very small fragment, which combines D o r i c a, H o m e r i c enXexo
and t w o Lesbianisms in -oiaot), that nothing has survived b y A r i o n ,
and that the textual tradition o f the authors w h o transmit quota
tions from these poets is often suspicious, a n d vastly different from
that o f the papyri w h i c h have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n to us. T h e same
was n o t e d with regard to the epigrams transmitted through literary
quotations and their epigraphic versions. This complicates o u r task.
T w o things should b e pointed out. First, that the great festivals
where this poetry flourished t o o k place in D o r i a n countries: Delphi,
Corinth, Sparta, Argolis, Sicyon and only secondarily (since Pisistratus),
Athens; whereas the poets, with the exception o f Eumelus, are not
D o r i a n unless A l c m a n is taken to b e D o r i a n ; w e are told that he
c a m e to Sparta f r o m L y d i a . Stesichorus
and Ibycus c a m e
from
H i m e r a a n d R h e g i u m , respectively, the former city having a m i x e d

language (Ionic and D o r i c , cf. T h u c y d i d e s , V I 5), the second, I o n i c .
Simonides and Bacchylides were I o n i c and c a m e from C e o s . Pindar
was Boeotian.
S o , neither the native dialects o f the poets n o r those o f the cities
in w h i c h they lived o r p e r f o r m e d (Stesichorus in Sparta, Ibycus in
S a m o s , Simonides, after having b e e n in Syracuse with Pindar and
Bacchylides, in Thessaly, etc.) m a n a g e d to influence the language o f
their p o e m s . T h e s e w e r e internadonal artists w h o sang for an inter
national public in an international language with a D o r i c base, w h i c h
was a c c o r d e d prestige and intelligibility b y a very strong H o m e r i c
c o m p o n e n t . In substance, it was a 'diminished' D o r i c with H o m e r i c
and, to a lesser extent,
Lesbian elements. T h e r e are hardly
any
Laconisms in A l c m a n , Boeotisms in Pindar, etc.; I o n i c hardly entered

(except w h e n it c a m e from H o m e r ) , with s o m e exceptions in Ibycus
and Bacchylides.
In short, w e are dealing with an artificial p o e t i c language
filled
with a p o l y m o r p h i s m w h i c h offered doublets and even triple forms

from w h i c h the poets c o u l d c h o o s e . It is the D o r i c counterpart o f
the other literary language, epic, w h i c h was succeeded b y elegy, also
international. Quite simply, it was m e a n t for another type o f poetry,
other kinds o f festivals and ceremonies, wherever it was practiced
and whatever the native origin o f the p o e t . Both lines o f the poetic
language shared a H o m e r i c and, in part, Lesbian c o m p o n e n t : they
differed because o f the I o n i c accent in the former, and the D o r i c
accent in the latter.
EPIC,
ELEGY
AND
111
CHORAL LYRIC
167. In summary, the language o f choral lyric contained an enor

m o u s a m o u n t o f p o l y m o r p h i s m , w h i c h included:
(a) H o m e r i c elements, with I o n i c and A e o l i c doublets (but n o t
all), including those w h i c h can also b e interpreted as D o r i c
(b) N o n - H o m e r i c D 6 r i c (or continental) elements.
(c) N o n - H o m e r i c A e o l i c elements.
T h u s , the difference with respect to the e p i c language is that, o n
the o n e hand, it was restricted (as in elegy), o n the other hand, it
5
was extended with ' n e w D o r i c i s m s and ' n e w Lesbianisms
justified
b y the existence in H o m e r o f forms w h i c h can b e interpreted as

D o r i c o r A e o l i c , to w h i c h other n o n - H o m e r i c forms were added.
T h e r e must have b e e n an interplay b e t w e e n a D o r i c o r continental
language and a H o m e r i c language w h i c h displayed c o m m o n forms
and, through these, justified the introduction o f n e w forms, as for
e x a m p l e that o f n e w Lesbianisms.
S o , this language was not absolutely uniform. In general terms, it
should b e p o i n t e d out that the D o r i c element tended to b e c o m e
r e d u c e d and the I o n i c element to e x p a n d (forms w h i c h were at the
same time H o m e r i c , with exceptions, as m e n t i o n e d above). T h i s e v o
lution m a y b e followed f r o m A l c m a n to tragedy.
Analysis of the fundamental elements of the
language of choral
lyric
168. A general revision will b e p r o v i d e d , eleborated later with ref

erences to the evolution o f this language and its peculiarities in each
author. I think it is m o r e practical to start with the D o r i c elements.
1. N o n - H o m e r i c D o r i c i s m s , understood in the general sense: they
appear frequentiy in the various dialects o f W e s t Greek, and even
in those o f N . W . Greek; s o m e are at the same time A e o l i c T h e list
5
is all encompassing - s o m e o f these ' D o r i c i m s are lacking in s o m e

poets - but it is certainly n o t a c o m p l e t e list.
S o , w e have the contractions o x > n a n d oco/co > oc (in the stems
in -a, the G . sg. -a, pi. - a v ) ; the preservation
o f - T I in 8i8coxi;
pi. -vxi; the accent Tcai8a; the p r o n o u n s ajLiec,, xu, xiv, xo(, viv; the
verbal forms evxi, r\q; the adverbs
OKOC,
TCOKOC;
forms such as yXecpapov,
opvi%a, (Jbpavoc,.
T o reduce the impression o f anti-Homerism, it can b e said that
in Horn, there is xuvn and nouns that preserve -xi; that in the m o r e
112
CHAPTER
SIX
archaic script there was n o accent and AMOX was so written, the
addition o f accents and writing ano<; o r auôc, c a m e later. T h e same
can b e said for ox*/-.
It is important
to p o i n t out that certain characteristic D o r i c i m s
w e r e a v o i d e d (in a general sense): the aor. in -oc- o f dental stems,

the fut. in -Geco, the desinence -jnec;, KOC, the p r o n o m i n a l G . as in
xeoc,, eixeog. Specific 'western' forms are also absent, such as -pa- >
-pp-, D . pi. -oiq, and in all this there are sometimes differences with
respect to certain local dialects, including L a c o n i a n and Boeotian,
w h i c h w e r e spoken b y A l c m a n and Pindar.
2. D o r i c i s m s (in the same sense) w h i c h are found in H o m e r i c d o u
blets: as in a s p i r a t i o n / o , f/
poets),
KOCXOC;/Kakoq,
-OIGI/-OI<;,
0, a/r\
(the first being c o m m o n in o u r
c d / e i , u e a c o c / u i a o c ; , x o i / o i , D . pi. - o r /
-EGGI,
-aiai/-cac,, e{3av, inf. in - | i e v / - u e v a i / - v a i , Lxexd/7i:85a.
H e r e , o u r poets occasionally preferred (but there is variation) forms

within the H o m e r i c doublets w h i c h were identical to the D o r i c ones,
although this is n o t the case in H o m e r : their presence there serves
as a support for their use. It is evident that a goes far b e y o n d its
use in H o m e r (but in the choruses o f the tragedy it is restricted in
turn) a n d the use o f n is m u c h m o r e limited. It is also clear that f ,
although it was maintained
in the D o r i c dialects, was rarely
pre
served in o u r poets; that I o n i c variants such as -vai tended to b e

rejected; and that, in contrast, other forms were accepted, such as
-eoai and 7te5d, qualified as A e o l i c , but really b e l o n g i n g to conti
nental G r e e k . T h e r e is -eaor w h e r e metrically it w o u l d n o t fiVin the
hexameter. A t any rate, the use o f certain forms is justified b y their
presence in H o m e r .
3. O t h e r D o r i c i m s w h i c h appear in doublets. I a m referring to forms
such as M S a a / M o u o a / M o i a a , to the inf. (pepeiv/cpepryv, cpepev, and
the A c , pi. -ac/-a<;, -wc /-ox><;/-Qq. O n c e again, it must b e observed
>
that the o l d graphia did not distinguish w h e r e w e n o w distinguish

and it is difficult to establish what was ancient, later there was a
t e n d e n c y towards ' D o r i c ' forms; and to the p o s t - H o m e r i c A e o l i c
forms o f the type M o i a a , including fern, participles in -oioot, 3rd pi.
-oiat. It seems clear that the existence o f A e o l i c forms in H o m e r ,
interpretable as such, attracted n e w Lesbianisms: a process that ran
parallel to others w e l o o k e d at in the H o m e r i c language.
169.
A r c h a i c , A e o l i c , and I o n i c forms (or forms o f another type),
EPIC,
ELEGY
AND CHORAL
LYRIC
113
have entered b y m e a n s o f H o m e r i c p o l y m o r p h i s m . S o m e t i m e s , the

p o l y m o r p h i s m continues a n d b o t h forms are a c c e p t e d .
In the case o f archaisms w e are presented with, for e x a m p l e , the
alternation b e t w e e n verbal forms with o r without a u g m e n t o r o f the
G . in -010 (rare, but present in the lyric); Lesbianisms, K E V alternating
with dv, a|H|ic/fiuic;, (potevvoq/cpaeivoc,, M o i o a a n d others. In
the
case o f Ionicisms (although the term m a y b e rather narrow), w e are

presented with ore, êivoc/êvoc,. Pure H o m e r i s m s m a y substitute a
D o r i c form, as in the case o f -010 o r the n a m e o f the goddess "Apxeinq.
But these are rare, just as the n o n - H o m e r i c Ionicisms, as m e n t i o n e d
earlier.
T w o things must b e stressed with respect to (potevvoc; first, that
the graphia with geminate is not o l d a n d that the a c c e n t m a y o r
m a y n o t b e so; s e c o n d , that, nevertheless, this p h o n e t i c treatment
has a w i d e r diffusion in choral lyric than in H o m e r . In effect, it has
eliminated certain Aeolicisms o r archaisms ( G . in -oco, -dcov), but has
w i d e n e d the d o m i n i o n o f A e o l i c i s m , o n a base o f Aeolicisms from
H o m e r , including those w h i c h , as w e have seen, w e r e D o r i c o r c o n
tinental at the time.
170. This m u c h is definite: a general a n d diminished D o r i c , justified
b y H o m e r o r n o t i n c o m p a t i b l e with it in general, dominates
the
w h o l e scene; the choral lyric certainly goes further than H o m e r in

certain details, in others there is variation d e p e n d i n g o n the poets.
Aeolicisms are also justified b y H o m e r -
w h e n they are not, it is
d u e to their presence in ' D o r i c ' dialects - a n d they increase in n u m

ber; Ionicisms are also justified in this w a y , but they hardly increase
in n u m b e r . This is the general definition o f this language, a Doricising
variant o f the language o f epos.
Y e t , c o m p o u n d s , p h r a s e o l o g y a n d syntax must b e e x a m i n e d , as
well as phonetics a n d m o r p h o l o g y . H e r e , H o m e r i c influence is c o n
siderable, although hexametric formulas d o n o t often exactiy fit. But
there is a proliferation o f n e w c o m p o u n d w o r d s , n e w p h r a s e o l o g y
a n d a daring syntax, full o f interruptions a n d stylistic uses, with lit
tle subordination: cf, for e x a m p l e , M . N o t h i g e r 1 9 7 1 , p . 162 ff. a n d
P. H u m m e l 1993. All this differs markedly f r o m the H o m e r i c lan
guage, as H e s i o d also differed in part. It is b e l i e v e d that there are
also traces here o f an i n d e p e n d e n t tradition, that o f the oral type
o f choral lyric f r o m continental G r e e c e , m o s t fully d e v e l o p e d b y o u r
poets, culminating with Pindar.
114
CHAPTER SIX
It must b e p o i n t e d out that, from what w e can see, this language

is m o r e o r less the same as p o p u l a r choral lyric and ritual lyric. T h e
former is k n o w n to us through quotations from later authors w h o
have sometimes disfigured it; nevertheless, D o r i c a and other char
acteristics m a y b e f o u n d in the song o f the Elean w o m e n (PMG 871),
in the o l d m e n ' s h y m n to A p h r o d i t e (PMG 8 7 2 ) , in the h y m n o f the
C h a l c i d i a n s in h o n o u r o f G l e o m a c h u s (PMG
8 7 3 : together
with
tax%ex' without a u g m e n t and a H e s i o d i c epithet o f Eros, Xvoi\iEfa(\q),

in the L o c r i a n song o f adultery in PMG 8 5 3 (there is b o t h a
and
djLUi'), etc. S o m e o f these passages are m o n o d i c .

H o w e v e r , there is obviously less regularisation: the R h o d i a n song
o f the swallow (PMG 848) repeatedly makes use o f the 1st pi. in -u.ee,.
Similarly, w e find ritual lyric in engraved inscriptions in temples,
to b e sung b y the faithful, in Delphi, D i o n , Palaikastro, e t c , from
the fifth to the s e c o n d century. T h e s e are 'editions', as it were, o f
the same texts, often a c c o m p a n i e d b y musical notation (in the trea
sury o f the A t h e n i a n s
-ouc/ -oq,
IIOOTIMV,
in D e l p h i ) . T h e y take a, -oiai/ - O K ; / -eacu,
7iaidv/7iaicov, forms lacking augment such as yeivaxo,
e t c , and always 1st pi. in -ixev and H o m e r i s m s such as obpae, %6Xi\oq.

The evolution and variants of choral lyric language
171. T h e evolution o f this language is r e c o r d e d from A l c m a n to
Bacchylides. It consisted in m o r e H o m e r i s m , m o r e Ionicism (but in
H o m e r i c terms, barring exceptions) and less D o r i c i s m (but while cer
tain D o r i c i s m s f r o m A l c m a n decrease in n u m b e r ,
others
increase
with H o m e r i c support); while L e s b i a n elements, in general,
also
increase. T h i s is particularly well illustrated in M . Nothiger's statis

tics, but also in the rest o f the bibliography cited.
T h i s evolution is often reflected in the doublets a c c o r d i n g to the
statistics p r o v i d e d b y M . Nothiger: for example, the preference for
ei after Stesichorus a n d Ibycus, for Ttpoc, increasingly, until Pindar,
the progressive increase o f the p r o p o r t i o n in favour o f -oic,, the p r o
gressive t e n d e n c y towards oxe; f r o m S i m o n i d e s onwards, there is
almost only uexd, etc. F o r m s from I o n i c a n d even Attic (including
Boeotian) increase in n u m b e r , but only w h e n they are supported b y
H o m e r . F r o m A l c m a n onwards, there is a reduction in Doricisms.
Ionic-Homeric variants increase in number from Simonides onwards,
so that even -vou enters; little o f D o r i c is left in Simonides
and
Bacchylides (-a, -av, viv, xiv, rare -ôc-, and not m u c h else), -ev and
EPIC,
- a i disappearing;
ELEGY AND
CHORAL
115
LYRIC
and Pindar also inclines towards ei, rcpoc,, -ovq,
wtXoq. H o w e v e r , earlier in Stesichorus, Doricisms from A l c m a n such

as f-, - T I and the D o r i c p r o n o u n s are absent (but s o m e epic forms
are present: -010, o%ea(piv, a hybrid (bpotvoGev). S o , there was
an
increase in pure H o m e r i s m s , w h i c h were hardly present in A l c m a n .

A t the end o f the evolution, a few n o n - H o m e r i c Ionicisms entered:
G . -ecov in Ibycus,
O I K E U O T ,
xkzooq,fiopryioqin Bacchylides. S o m e m o r e
Lesbisms also entered o f the type 7ioeivrj|Lii and o f those with -oic,and -vv-.
T h e recent b o o k b y O . Poltera
1997 allows the study o f the
differences (which in any case are slight) between the choral poets.
Simonides is closer to Pindar in language
a n d phraseology, b o t h
b e i n g m o r e ' D o r i c ' a n d H o m e r i c than Bacchylides. S i m o n i d e s is

m o r e a d v a n c e d than the latter, for example, in his use o f K 8 and the
G . sg. in -ou. Exceptionally, he introduces I o n i c n ('AQnvoucoi). Y e t ,
the differences b e t w e e n the papyri and manuscript tradition as well
as textual p r o b l e m s often m a k e it difficult to r e a c h
any
exact
conclusions.
172. T h e process o f leaving a m i n i m u m o f Doricisms a n d increas
ing H o m e r i s m s and even Ionicisms has a d v a n c e d the m o s t in the
choruses o f tragedy, studied b y Bjork 1950. A is limited to a few
traditional roots and suffixes; n is also present a n d there are hybrid
forms ((pf}ua). O t h e r D o r i c forms include G . in - a , -av and -oc, xoi.
Besides these, there are
also H o m e r i c f o r m s (eiv, eue0ev, epccv,
-jneoGa, i|AA)0ov, apeicov, verbals forms without augment), H o m e r i c A e o l i c forms (aujii, eujuev) and H o m e r i c - I o n i c forms (êivoq, Soupaxoq).
In this way, w e have a useful p o l y m o r p h i s m (vaoq/vecoq, êvoc/^rivoc,,
ajxui/ajLiiv, - o i o / o u , etc.). H o m e r i c v o c a b u l a r y a n d p h r a s e o l o g y is
added.
Atticisms also entered, as they h a d earlier in S o l o n , and these are
studied in m y articles A d r a d o s
1953a and
1957: - a i m , f]v, S w n ,
OTComa, yfipax;, phonetics that are archaic Attic a n d H o m e r i c at the

same time (-pa-, -aa-), and an abundant archaic vocabulary. This
tends to distinguish the sacred language o f Attic choral song (which
was m o r e o r less c o m m o n , but also elevated), from the trimeters.
Y e t , there is a clear evolution in phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y in an
approximation to the c o m m o n language. Nevertheless, the phraseology
and n e w lexicon in poets such as Pindar and Aeschylus create
environment that is very distant from that o f prose.
an
116
CHAPTER
SIX
173. M e n t i o n must also b e m a d e o f ritual lyric, to w h i c h I have

alluded earlier a n d for w h i c h w e have epigraphic evidence from the
fourth century B C onwards (and from the fifth century in later copies).
It is important to n o t e that a similar language was used
the
G r e e k w o r l d : the
throughout
'diminished' D o r i c , previously discussed, in
addition to s o m e H o m e r i s m s .
T h e same o c c u r s w h e n it c o m e s to engraved p o e m s in Delphi, in
Epidaurus, Palaikastros (Crete) o r in Athens. H e r e , for e x a m p l e , the
h y m n o f M a c e d o n to A p o l l o and Asclepius in an inscription in the
temple
o f A s c l e p i u s , c o n t a i n s , a l o n g with D o r i c f o r m s s u c h
as
eixpapexpafv, H o m e r i c forms such as yeivaxo, oveiap, uepOTieaai, a i i v ;

and doublets such as Koupoi/KOpoi. Doricisms such as (3B(3(XKC;, xeov,
Kaxfj%e,
Tiovxocpopoc, ( A c . pi.), but -u^v,
to Diktaian
Z e u s o f Palaikastro.
KOup, are present in the h y m n
In the h y m n o f P h i l o d a m u s o f
Scarphea to Dionysus, in D e l p h i , the same mixture appears, in addi

tion to a v o c a b u l a r y with H o m e r i s i n g c o m p o u n d s such as dA,ioq>YYfi<;.
174. T h e r e was a g a p through w h i c h the c o m m o n language o f the
p o e t a n d his audience c o u l d enter, as in the case o f H e s i o d , Tyrtaeus
and T h e o g n i s , a m o n g others. This also o c c u r r e d in older choral lyric,
but o n l y to a small degree, for the c o m m o n and international lan
guage w h i c h w e have b e e n discussing was always dominant.
S o , w e d o n o t c o m e across any o f the typical L a c o n i a n forms
w h i c h w e might expect, such as aspirated -a-, yet w e d o c o m e across
aioq. Also Boeotian phonetics, which have a large presence in Corinna,
are absent in Pindar, for e x a m p l e , des. -ovGi, p a v d , 7Cxxapec; "in this
and so m a n y other things, such as the lack o f attention to d i g a m m a ,
Pindar follows H o m e r instead o f the local dialect. F e w forms
attributed to the latter, and even these are uncertain,
xd
'such as', Ttep,
KOCV,
are
for e x a m p l e
vouov, 5i8oi, T h e native I o n i c poets o n l y
rarely i n t r o d u c e d this dialect in places w h e r e it differed from H o m e r .

T h u s , w e have seen that there is a gradual distancing from purer
D o r i c a n d an a p p r o x i m a t i o n to I o n i c (and to s o m e extent, Lesbian)
w h e r e it c o i n c i d e s with H o m e r . T h i s means that the t w o p o e t i c lan
guages o f G r e e c e i a m b o s (with gradual
the Ionicising language o f H o m e r , elegy and

differences), a n d the D o r i c i s i n g language o f
choral lyric - apart f r o m sharing c o m m o n elements, tended to c o n

verge. T h e m o r e abrupt epicisms, D o r i c i s m s and Lesbianisms dis
appeared, a n d the c o m m o n nucleus g r e w increasingly larger.
EPIC, E L E G Y A N D
117
CHORAL LYRIC
O n this base, o n e o f the subdialects, the I o n i c o f i a m b o s (which

w e have not yet discussed and w h i c h , to a large extent,
dominated
both) w o u l d gradually b e c o m e the c o m m o n language o f prose, fol

l o w e d b y o n e o f its variants, already k n o w n to us, w h i c h had
pen
etrated into S o l o n and the theatre: the s o m e w h a t Ionicised Attic.
CHAPTER SEVEN
T H E SPECIFIC L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S :
1.
GENERAL
OVERVIEW
175. W e have seen h o w the majority o f the Greek dialects are not
literary in f o r m , and h o w general literary languages emerged: the
epic language in its various states and languages with either an I o n i c
o r D o r i c base, but very influenced b y H o m e r and very evolved.
T h r e e literary dialects d e v e l o p e d alongside these, and they origi
nated in particular territories, although the literary works w e r e often
c o m p o s e d in different parts o f G r e e c e . T h e m o s t important
was
Lesbian, that is, the A e o l i c dialect that was transplanted to the island
o f Lesbos f r o m Thessaly and the language used in the m o n o d i c lyric
o f Alcaeus and S a p p h o .
It only survived in this area, aside from later imitations b y Theocritus
and Balbila. N e x t to it was the B o e o t i a n dialect, used b y the p o e t
ess C o r i n n a ; and the Syracusan
dialect used b y Epicharmus
and
S o p h r o n , T h e o c r i t u s a n d in the prose o f A r c h i m e d e s and b y s o m e

Pythagoreans
and Sophists. T h e s e dialects w e r e created to
satisfy
local needs, although their influence spread to the rest o f G r e e c e .

T h e s e literary dialects, although they inherited m u c h from H o m e r
(and the two latter dialects, also from Lesbian), are o n a very different
level to the 'general' literary dialects previously discussed. T h e i r g e o
graphic and p o p u l a r 'base' is clear; all that was d o n e was to elevate
it to a literary level with the help o f foreign influences. T h e r e f o r e ,
they c a n b e qualified as 'artificial' o r international dialects only to
a very small degree. W h a t e v e r the secondary diffusion o f this liter
ature, it is clear that it was intended for very c o n c r e t e , m o n o l i n g u a l
populations.
T h e s e 'specific' literary languages are mere episodes within
the
evolution o f the G r e e k language, w h o s e central line passes, as dis

cussed earlier, through the 'general' literary languages.
O f course, w e must distinguish them from the use o f certain dialects
in literature for d o c u m e n t a r y o r p a r o d i c purposes: as, for e x a m p l e ,
119
in Aristophanes ( M e g a r i a n and T h e b a n in Achamians and Laconian

in Lpsistrata); and from their r e n e w e d use from the Hellenistic p e r i o d
onwards, w h e n the geographic dialects had, o r were about to, b e c o m e
extinct.
2.
THE
LESBIAN
LANGUAGE OF MONODIC POETRY
1 7 6 . A l t h o u g h the Lesbian literary language is k n o w n to us only

through Alcaeus a n d S a p p h o a r o u n d the year 6 0 0 B C , it originated
in the local Lesbian dialect w h i c h is clearly m u c h older; even m o n
o d y is older.
T h e Lesbian language must have arrived from Thessaly after
the
fall o f the M y c e n a e a n kingdoms. It supposes the existence o f an oral

p o e t i c tradition
within East Greek: actually, m o n o d y broke away
from the choregos/chorus
c o m p l e x , extending the m o n o d i c interven
tion o f the former. Its metre, the so-called A e o l i c metre, has been
c o m p a r e d b y Meillet to the metre o f the Veda. Indeed, we have seen
h o w the H o m e r i c language and the language o f the choral lyric soon
c a m e under the influence o f the A e o l i a n dialect.
Furthermore, T e r p a n d e r , at the beginning o f the seventh century,
diffused Lesbian m o n o d y in Sparta and D e l p h i (not to mention the
epic p o e t Lesches o f Pyrrha o r Mytilene). H e played an
essential
role: the invention o f the bdrbitos, a kind o f lyre in seven chords, has
b e e n attributed to h i m , as well as the creation o f the structure o f
the nomos, the lyric m o n o d y , and the adaptation o f hexametric c o m
positions to music.
In the time o f Archilochus, the Lesbian 'paean' was already famous
(cf. A r c h i l o c h u s 2 1 8 ) , and S a p p h o 1 0 6 refers to the Lesbian singer
w h o travelled in strange lands.
Therefore,
L e s b i a n p o e t r y w a s b a s e d o n a tradition
o f oral
poetry o f the East Greek, but it s o o n achieved its i n d e p e n d e n c e and

exerted the aforementioned influences. It did not identify this tradi
tion with the D o r i a n o r Western tradition, although it is clear that
B o e o t i a and Thessaly b e c a m e linguistically and poetically closely
related to the West, and that the Lesbian language o f poetry w o u l d
subsequendy influence all literary languages. It w o u l d influence choral
lyric later than H o m e r : an increasingly greater n u m b e r o f Lesbian
(and even p o s t - H o m e r i c ) forms entered it from A l c m a n o n .
120
CHAPTER
SEVEN
It is believed that m o n o d y was able to d e v e l o p in D o r i c and I o n i c

territtory in a parallel manner,
but few traces remain, e x c e p t in
A n a c r e o n and in other places, w h i c h will b e discussed later ( 190).

T h u s , the p o e t i c genres w e r e d i v i d e d b e t w e e n dialects, with few
exceptions:- there was Ionic iambos, Doricising choral lyric and Lesbian
m o n o d y . T h e first two genres were diffused throughout G r e e c e while
the latter was limited to L e s b o s , although its influence
extended
b e y o n d the island. E a c h genre is linked to o n e o f the three afore

m e n t i o n e d literary languages, themselves being closely related to each
other through the influence o f H o m e r .
177. For the Lesbian dialect in general and that of the inscriptions in par
ticular, see W . Blumel 1986 and R. Hodot 1990; for the Lesbian dialect
of the poets, see G. A. Mastrelli 1954 and E. M . Hamm 1957. For the
history o f the interpretations of the Lesbian dialect o f the poets, c f J. J.
Hooker 1977 and A . M . Bowie 1981, but in particular, H. Rodriguez
Somolinos 1998a. See the relevant pages o f the repeatedly cited manuals
on the history of the Greek language: A. Meilet 1970, p. 206 ff, O . Hoffman
1973, p . 84 ff., R . Hiersche 1970, p . 118 ff. and L. R. Palmer 1980,
p. 113 ff. For Terpander, cf. A. Gostoli 1990. The points o f discussion are:
the alleged Aeolic or Aeolic-continental lyric; the alleged Homeric origin
of certain forms; and the existence o f two types o f poems in Sappho (as
proposed by Lobel), one being more Homerising than the other.
178. T h e language o f Lesbian poetry was not quite the equivalent
to the p o p u l a r Lesbian w h i c h is k n o w n to us, to s o m e extent, from
the inscriptions. N o t a b l e examples o f H o m e r i s m s should b e a d d e d
with respect to phonetics, m o r p h o l o g y and vocabulary. H o w e v e r , this
study will n o t e x a m i n e the issue o f whether, in certain
narrative
p o e m s such as the M a r r i a g e o f H e c t o r and A n d r o m a c h e b y S a p p h o

(44 v.), H o m e r i s m s appear in greater n u m b e r o r the issue o f h o w
they w e r e assimilated. Additionally, there are other forms and w o r d s
that create s o m e p r o b l e m s .
It is n o t a question o f listing all the characteristics o f Lesbian that
are k n o w n to us f r o m o u r study o f the dialects and o f H o m e r : the
(partial) preservation o f p, the treatment o f the labiovelars and vocalic
sonants, the treatment o f the groups -ee-, -a- + nasal and -pa-, the
peculiarities o f the p r o n o u n s and o f certain verbal and lexical forms.
P o s t - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms should also b e added, for instance, inter
nal -a8-, -auog, the feminine participles in -otaoc and the A c . pi.
-oiq, -ouc,, Zovvaaoc,, OTutara. Furthermore,
s o m e w h i c h are rare in
H o m e r but c o m m o n here, such as baritonesis, verbs in -r\\i\ instead

o f contracted forms, the D . pi. -eaai o r the perf. part, in -ovt-.
LESBIAN,
121
BOEOTIAN A N D SYRACUSAN
It should b e n o t e d that s o m e o f these forms g o b e y o n d the lim

its o f Lesbian, as w e have seen, and that s o m e ' H o m e r i s m s ' m a y b e
Lesbian archaisms (a, G . -010, -arov, perhaps D . pi. -oic,, -ccic, and
verbal forms without augment;
and, o f course, a n o r m a l
Lesbian
form such as - O G - whicri o n l y c o n t i n u e d the H o m e r i c phase. T h i s

' c o i n c i d e n c e ' , o n c e again, enabled the fusion o f the t w o dialects with
the acceptance o f n o n - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms.
Certainly,
o t h e r f o r m s u s e d b y the L e s b i a n p o e t s are
H o m e r i c : for instance, metric enlargements
clearly
such as ocGdvaioc;, the
occasional l o n g e o r o before - v / p - p (faced with the normal Sepa,

yova), the G . nf|A,eoc,, the I o n i c forms n6Xr\oq, eooicocv, etc. Indeed,
it was only through H o m e r that ' I o n i c ' forms w e r e able to penetrate.
179. H o w e v e r , H o m e r i c influence is most noticeable in the lexicon
and phraseology, and the same applies to H e s i o d ' s influence
and
even that o f the Homeric Hymns ((pouvoîc,, euatparcoc,). In spite o f this,

as the study b y R o d r i g u e z S o m o l i n o s demonstrates,
a third o f the
total n u m b e r o f w o r d s in the Lesbian poets appear for the first time.

S o m e o f these w o r d s (which n u m b e r a r o u n d five hundred, o f w h i c h
100 hapax) m a y b e archaisms w h i c h were preserved here.
T o b e sure, it is easy to find traces o f the A e o l i c tradition
we
have b e e n discussing w h e n certain phrases k e e p appearing: oc%co

Qeomoia,
%puGoaTe<pavo<; (of Aphrodite). It should b e noted that s o m e
times the Lesbian poets consciously depart f r o m H o m e r : divvococ,,

d%co, 6%0oc, instead o f devvococ,, f)%f|, 6%0a.
All the same, other w o r d s c o m e f r o m the p o p u l a r and colloquial
language o r f r o m the
'technical' language relating to trades and
everyday life.
S o , the agreements b e t w e e n Lesbian and H o m e r enabled the for
m e r to b e used for literary purposes, with the preservation o f only
a few H o m e r i s m s and the elimination o f others. In this w a y , a local
dialect was elevated to the status o f a literary language.
3.
CORINNA'S
BOEOTIAN
180. Perhaps it was this m o d e l that was a d o p t e d b y C o r i n n a , the

Boeotian poetess o f the fifth century o r perhaps earlier, in order to
transform the p o p u l a r feminine poetry o f certain rituals into a per
sonal and literary written
p o e t r y in the dialect o f her
homeland
(another poetess, Myrtis, is only k n o w n to us b y name). After all,
122
CHAPTER
SEVEN
the case o f S a p p h o is n o different; other poetesses, such as Praxilla

o f S i c y o n , d o not appear to have attempted such an undertaking
(but w e d o n o t have sufficient data o n this).
H o w e v e r , Telesilla o f Argos wrote m o n o d i c p o e m s in the Doricising
language o f choral lyric: xdv jiotxepa, obpavco, but H o m e r i c
KOCX'
oiipea,
Lesb. (peuyoiaa. Similarly so with T i m o c r e o n o f R h o d e s ; and w e

c o m e across the same language in small m o n o d i c fragments such as
the s o n g o f the Elean w o m e n and others m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ( 170).
M o n o d i c lyric followed different paths in each location (it serves to
recall the I o n i c o f A n a c r e o n and w e will l o o k at the Attic o f the
Attic scholia, w h i c h display s o m e D o r i c features).
181. O n popular feminine poetry, see E. Gangutia 1994 and my books,
Adrados 1986a and 1995a. Unfortunately, as with the rest of popular poetry
(collected, with introductory studies, in Adrados 1980), the pitiful state in
which it has been handed down to us prevents us form forming any con
clusions about the language.
182. C o r i n n a ' s principal fragment, about the dispute between M o u n t
H e l i c o n and M o u n t Cithaeron, has been transmited to us in a papyrus
with B o e o t i a n o r t h o g r a p h y f r o m a r o u n d 2 0 0 B C , a n d not in
the
o r t h o g r a p h y that she must have used a r o u n d 5 0 0 B C . All the same,

the language used was the Boeotian dialect, w h i c h had gready altered
phonetics and m a n y notable characteristics w h i c h distance it from
D o r i c a n d A e o l i c , with w h i c h it nevertheless shared m a n y features,
c
as w e k n o w . It c o n t a i n e d pccvd w o m a n
for yuvri,
TCOKOC
for note,
0icov for 0ecbv, 7ipdxoi for rcpcbxcp, -xx- for -aa-, -v0i, -v0n for -vxi,
-vxooi, viv, <pepeuv, etc. C o r i n n a goes b e y o n d the limits o f choral
lyric b y using the G . with the -q o f the p r o n o u n s (xeouq).
It is true that C o r i n n a ' s
dialect is n o t less interspersed
with
Homerisms than the rest: xoaov, &0avdxa)v, D . pi. in -oici, -ouai, forms
without augment, ephelcystic -v, epic words o f the type dyKoi)ta>jieixao;
as w e l l as n e w w o r d s b a s e d o n the
H o m e r i c m o d e l , such
as
tayoupoKcbxiJtoc,. O n c e again, it is the existence o f ambiguous H o m e r i c Boeotian forms that justifies the use o f this dialect. Y e t it r e m a i n e d
isolated a n d did n o t influence the future o f the G r e e k language.
4.
THE
DORIC
OF
SYRACUSE
183. Syracuse was the only city in western G r e e c e that m a n a g e d to

use its language for literary purposes. Elsewhere in the West, written
LESBIAN, B O E O T I A N A N D
123
SYRACUSAN
literature used the same literary languages with w h i c h w e are already

familiar. W e have mentioned the poets Stesichorus and Ibycus. Pindar,
Simonides, Bacchylides and Aeschylus w o u l d c o m e to the court o f
H i e r o n in Syracuse.
H o w e v e r , Syracuse was a great city w h i c h e x p e r i m e n t e d with its
o w n language in m i m e and c o m e d y , created here b y S o p h r o n a n d
Epicharmus, respectively, e n c o u r a g e d b y the establishment o f d e m o c
racy after the death o f H i e r o n in 4 7 8 . O n l y fragments remain, but
e n o u g h to give us s o m e idea o f what this language was like: essen
tially, a stricter D o r i c than that o f choral lyric, but n o t strictiy the
Corinthian o n e might expect, given the foundation o f the city. W e
are certainly dealing with a p o p u l a r kind o f D o r i c koine w h i c h used
the p o p u l a r i a m b i c a n d t r o c h a i c r h y t h m s in parallel with I o n i c
a n d Attic. It was, in effect, a local p h e n o m e n o n w h i c h influenced
n e w Attic c o m e d y , yet it was not, in the l o n g run, its rival o r a rival
o f Attic language in general.
The fragments o f Epicharmus and Sophron can be found in A. Olivieri
1930. O n their language, see A. Meillet 1975, p. 223 ff. and R . Hiersche
1970, p . 159 ff. For the language o f the Sicilian inscriptions, see V . Sicca
1924.
184.
T h e w e l l - k n o w n D o r i c p h e n o m e n a are n o t w o r t h
repeating
here. But it is useful to stress the presence o f D o r i c i s m s w h i c h are

absent o r practically absent in choral lyric, such as the des. o f the
1st pi. -ueq o r personal p r o n o u n forms such as ejieoc,, duec,, uuec,,
5
\|/iv, w o r d s such as Afjv 'to wish . Less c o m m o n forms include ioa\xx

5
'I k n o w , the inf. in -ixeiv (apparentiy from R h o d i a n ) , xdppcov, TjvGec;,

KEKOG%E,
e t c . A l l o f this p o i n t s to a m i x e d a n d
evolved
Doric
dialect.
As always, it must b e p o i n t e d out that s o m e D o r i c i s m s such as a
or -GO- or -eaai are shared b y H o m e r , a n d that, in this way, other
H o m e r i s m s entered, n o t the m o r e characteristic ones but rather those
that w e r e at the same time Ionicisms, such as -eo- (not -10- as in
D o r i c ) , -a- next to -aa-, ot next to xo(, ephelcystic -v, youvaor (but
KOpoq). Ionicisms o r Atticisms such as rcctpfjaav, euou, (if w e can rely
o n tradition) entered through this route.
O f course, the H o m e r i c l e x i c o n and p h r a s e o l o g y was a c c e p t e d , as
w e l l as w o r d s i m i t a t e d
TOÔ%VCCOV8C,,
8pocaTO%ociToc
from
H o m e r , often c o m i c
or parodic:
(applied to Poseidon). T h e r e is a prolific,
p o p u l a r creation o f c o m p o u n d w o r d s such as eJiaiocpiAocpdyoc, ' w h o
124
CHAPTER
SEVEN
likes to eat olives', jjxxKpOKairjiuXauxnv 'with a l o n g twisted neck',

yuvctiKdvSpeeai ' w o m e n - m e n ' , etc.
Until the third century, there continued to b e representations o f
the phlyakes, a type o f m i m e that is f o u n d o n characteristic
vases.
Lexicographers preserve s o m e words with D o r i c forms, such as e%coaoc,

Kcuvav, (pocivoâv (formerly, in the Homeric Hymns and in S a p p h o ) ,
beside KoGocpoc, (in inscriptions) and the vulgarism bXioxaxv: in all
cases, the same p h e n o m e n o n .
185. But it was not just the c o m e d i a n s (in the general sense) w h o
m a d e the dialect o f Syracuse literary. T h e o c r i t u s , the creator o f
b u c o l i c p o e t r y in the third century B C , wrote idylls not only in epic
and Lesbian dialects, but also in the D o r i c o f Syracuse. This was
d e p e n d e n t o n the influence o f the p o p u l a r origins o f the genre, as
in the a d o p t i o n o f the song o f the Sicilian shepherds,
or on
the
influence o f Hellenistic realism, as in the presentation o f Syracusan

hetairai trying to w i n b a c k the l o v e r w h o a b a n d o n e d
her
('The
Witches'), o r o f the t w o w o m e n o f Syracuse w h o attend A d o n i s ' s

festival in Alexandria ( ' T h e Syracusan W o m e n ' ) . All o f this was imi
tated b y B i o n and M o s c h u s .
O f course, realism was not absolute, Theocritus is tinged with epic
a n d Lesbian poetry. In the first o f his idylls, "Thyrsis\ w e find, a m o n g
other forms:
(a) D o r i c i s m s such as a, ee > n, xav, Kcopa, o a a o v ;
TCOKCC;
T O ,
KCC,
dv-,
Ttoti,
xr)va, toi; I7iv5co, raupcoc,, 7iap08voc, ( A c pi.); eao;i, 2 n d
sg. -ec,, 1st pi. -u.ee,, inf. -ev, fut. 5caaS, Xr\\\ff\.
(b) H o m e r i s m s
ADKCCOVISCCO,
such
as 7toto:uoio,
a X a e a , Xim,
a i , duiia, copeoq ( D o r i c i s e d ) ,
eyevxo.
(c) N o n - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms: jneAaa8eToci, Moiaou, yeXcuaa.

(d) Ionicisms: (pepeu.
O n c e again, w e are faced with a local dialect that is influenced b y
the great literary currents w h i c h spread t h r o u g h o u t
G r e e c e : the
H o m e r i c , Lesbian a n d I o n i c currents. H o w e v e r , it was a discovery

w h i c h h a d minimal i m p a c t outside o f Syracuse.
186. Finally, w e should take note o f the attempt b y A r c h i m e d e s ,
w h o was living in Syracuse at the same time as Theocritus, to cre
ate a scientific prose in Syracusan D o r i c . A l t h o u g h he also wrote in
koine (in the text f o u n d in a Jerusalem palimpsest), the works that
have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n to us through manuscripts are in Syracusan
LESBIAN,
Doric -
BOEOTIAN AND
SYRACUSAN
though very altered, it must b e said, whether due to
125
the
influence o f koine o r through medieval transmission. S o m e Pythagoreans

and Sophists also wrote in D o r i c , as previously mentioned (the dialexeis).
This romantic attempt was d o o m e d to fail. Attic koine, w h i c h h a d
b e g u n to penetrate early o n and w o u l d b e c o m e universal in
the
fourth century, was strictly and persistently i m p o s e d in Syracuse, as

it h a d b e e n in Lesbos, Cyprus, L a c o n i a and the entire G r e e k w o r l d .
S o o n , Sicily w o u l d b e c o m e R o m a n .
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE LITERARY LANGUAGES OF THE ARCHAIC AND
CLASSICAL PERIODS: IONIC A N D ATTIC
1.
IONIC
IN T H E I A M B O G R A P H E R S A N D
IN GENERAL P O E T R Y
187. After the language o f epic and elegy, the third general lan
guage o f the Greeks, a literary language with a dialectal base, is the
I o n i c o f the i a m b o s . It is not an updated
and Ionicised epic lan
guage, but an I o n i c language with epic ingredients, although this is

n o t always easy to see. In contrast to the language o f elegy, this lan
guage is only r e c o r d e d in Ionia, although Stesichorus n o d o u b t also
used it in his iamboi. But Ionia also refers to Attica, for the literary
Attic o f S o l o n and o f d r a m a is a variant o f I o n i c , and it is the pre
decessor o f an I o n i c language w h i c h h a d a greater diffusion: that o f
I o n i c prose, w h i c h , as discussed earlier, in turn o p e n e d the w a y for
Attic prose.
T h e term iambos, certainly not a G r e e k w o r d , is used to refer to
a series o f genres in either i a m b i c rhythm (a foot containing t w o syl
lables, short and long) o r trochaic rhythm (the reverse). T h e i a m b i c
trimeter h a d a great diffusion, as well as the c h o l i a m b i c (the, same,
but with a l o n g penultimate syllable), the catalectic trochaic tetra
meter, e p o d e s o r distics w h i c h c o m b i n e i a m b i c o r trochaic kola o r
' m e m b e r s ' with dactylic o r other kola.
This p o p u l a r poetry was cultivated b y Archilochus o f Paros (sev
enth century), S e m o n i d e s o f A m o r g o s , H i p p o n a x o f Ephesus
and
S o l o n o f Athens (sixth century), and subsequendy b y Attic c o m e d y

(from Susarion in the sixth century onwards, allegedly). It
flourished
in certain p o p u l a r cults, like those o f Dionysus and D e m e t e r , in the

c o n t e x t o f j o k e s a n d free conversational language. A l t h o u g h
the
themes are partly similar to those o f elegy, there is m o r e freedom

here in the treatment o f the same themes and in the language. F o r
the first time, w e e n c o u n t e r a language o f the p e o p l e in a register
that is a cross between the colloquial and satirical, and is sometimes
even vulgar.
IONIC
188.
AND
127
ATTIC
This, in general terms, constituted
the I o n i c dialect, only it
received a literary character with the help o f epicisms w h i c h were

not so remote from conversational
language.
I will not deal with the I o n i c o f Stesichorus's i a m b o i , w h i c h is

difficult to reconstruct because the material w e have is Atticised (cf.
A d r a d o s 1982a). Archilochus, to begin with, used contracted froms
(particularly - e u - for -eo-), crasis, so-called Attic declension
forms o f the type
etc.
OKOIUV,
(nXmq),
D . (predominandy) in -oiai, thematic oXXvo),
T h e r e is n o G . in -oco, -acov, a p o c o p e o f the type
K & X X U T O V ,
infinitives in -jnev, -uivou, case in -(pi, A e o l i c forms with - L X U - n o r K

(with o n e exception), e t c ; only in p a r o d i c o r cultural contexts d o w e
find AuDvuooi', loXaoq, Xim.
T h e r e are H o m e r i c forms, but these
are assumed to b e archaic I o n i c before contraction, such as oce0A,ov,

or before metathesis (7tocpf|opoc;).
It is interesting to see the innovations o f the l e x i c o n : o l d w o r d s
with a n e w meaning, p o p u l a r vocabulary, sometimes o b s c e n e (adGn,
uuicnc,, 'prick ) o r from the countryside (A,uiepvf|XC,, ' p o o r ) or bur
5
lesque (Kepo7tA,doTnc, 'with a hairstyle in the form o f a horn', pdpocJ;

'charlatan ), occasionally o f n o n - G r e e k origin (Lrupxov 'mirth', u/opov
5
'unguent').
A n d yet, A r c h i l o c h u s ' s i a m b o i , as d e m o n s t r a t e d
by
D . Page 1963, are full o f H o m e r i c formulas and e c h o e s , sometimes

with a change in meaning.
Similar observations can b e m a d e with respect to Semonides. F o r
instance, there is n o - e a o r , - o i o , w e find
OKCGQ
and related forms,
forms without contraction (sometimes with synizesis), e t c But there

are sporadic H o m e r i s m s such as eemev, ynpaoxuev, a w , oupeaiv. A
new
vocabulary appears,
sometimes p o p u l a r (oavXa Pocivcov, 'walk
ing effeminately', doP6?ir| 'ash', Poucicdpi 'Lydian unguent', Aaxocpyoc,

'who
runs quickly , e t c ) .
H i p p o n a x is clearly Ionic ('AxxdJteo), Kpeaaov,
OKOD);
are p a r o d i c (duuopoq). T h e r e is an a b u n d a n c e
the Homerisms
o f popular
words
(Tiuyecav 'ass', Kaxcou6%ocvo<; ' h o m o s e x u a l ' ) o r b o r r o w i n g s from Lydian

or Phrygian
(K&X\XV<;
' c h i e f , rauric, 'priest', PeKoq 'bread'). Here, instead
o f a lexicon o f the G r e e k substratum w e have a substratum from

other languages. But, instead o f the colloquial I o n i c o f the
other
iambographers, here w e find a b o v e all a truly vulgar Ionic, full o f

foreign w o r d s and o b s c e n e terms.
189.
S o l o n presents an even m o r e interesting case, because in his
w o r d s w e see h o w , with slight modifications, the language o f the
128
CHAPTER
EIGHT
i a m b o s has b e c o m e Attic, something w h i c h w o u l d d e v e l o p into t w o

different varieties: c o m e d y and tragedy. H e r e , w e find pure -a and
the contraction -eo- > -ou-; but there is also Ionic n through H o m e r i c
reminisence (dvayKairiq) and a contraction -eu- (1, 45), p r o b a b l y cited
from an I o n i c i a m b o g r a p h e r ; there are also the Ionic forms uouvov,
eepSov, n o d o u b t from H o m e r , as well as archaic Attic vocabulary,
as o n e w o u l d e x p e c t (cf. A d r a d o s 1953a).
T h e fact is that within the I o n i c territory, including Attica, the
p o p u l a r language b e c a m e literary for the very first time, albeit with
certain epic touches (hardly ever archaic o r Aeolic). In Ionia itself
this type o f poetry was s o o n exhausted, but it continued in Attica
in c o m e d y ; and, with less popularity, in tragedy. This limited route,
together with that o f I o n i c prose, w h i c h s o o n spilled o v e r Ionian
borders, contributed to the creation o f literary Attic, otherwise favoured
for historical reasons linked with the c o m m e r c i a l and political expan
sion o f Athens.
I w o u l d like to d r a w attention to the e n o r m o u s i m p a c t o f the cre
ation, for the very first time, o f a literary Attic in Solon's work, as
a variant o f the I o n i c o f the i a m b o s . It was an innovation o f enor
m o u s transcendence, as its political creation h a d been, d e m o c r a c y .
For, w h e n tragedy was created - an Attic invention in w h i c h the
chorals o f lyric o r ' D o r i c ' language were a c c o m p a n i e d b y iambic
dialogue there was a m o d e l to write these iamboi in Attic: S o l o n .
Subsequently, the m o d e l o f tragedy and also o f satyrical d r a m a m a d e
an Attic i a m b o s possible in c o m e d y w h e n it was created in 4 8 5 .
This was o n e o f the precedents for Athenian prose at the end o f
the fifth century.
T h e r e is another precedent: the Attic skolia. T h e collection w h i c h
is preserved dates b a c k to between the e n d o f the sixth century and
an indeterminable
date in the fifth century. H o w e v e r m u c h
they
depend o n the language o f choral lyric, containing D o r i c and H o m e r i c

forms (especially a, emiev, K ' , eyevx', d v a a a a , etc.), they also contain
forms w h i c h are either Ionic-Attic o r simply Attic: contracted forms
(oivo%oeiv, KccTeoGieiv, eABeiv, Em^fjGoD, nXovieiv,
cppoveiv) alternat
ing with uncontracted forms, D . pi. -oic,/-oiai, -ueaGcc, and, a b o v e

all, the dual (KTotvernv, %ocipTov, etc.).
T o b e sure, m o d e l s o f Attic o r semi-Attic prose were created in
a rather surreptitious m a n n e r .
IONIC A N D
190.
129
ATTIC
It is still w o r t h recalling that melic poetry was also c o m p o s e d
in literary I o n i c : concretely, in A n a c r e o n o f T e o s , w h o fought in

A b d e r a , T h r a c e , lived in the courts o f Polycrates o f S a m o s
and
Hipparchus o f Athens, and died in Thessaly. His poetry travelled to

all these places.
A n a c r e o n ' s poetry was written in a purely I o n i c language
uncontracted
with
forms (ejiiCTpecpeai, ouiAicov, but also the I o n i c c o n
traction Aeuvuae), n (jcopcpupfi), D . pi. in -not, crasis
(K&KOTCOV),
variants such as TroAafixnc,. It a c c e p t e d m u c h satirical a n d
and
popular
v o c a b u l a r y , as in the p o e m against A r t e m o n ( P M G 4 3 ) . But, o f

course, it also contained s o m e rare H o m e r i s m s : ttTepx>Yaai, 6%dvoio,
SocKpuoeaaav, also in the lexicon, with p o e t i c o r H o m e r i c c o m p o u n d s
created o n the latter. T h e r e are also rare Lesbianisms such as KoiXoq,
Xpuoocpaevvcov. In short, w e are faced with an I o n i c that is slightly
c o l o u r e d with archaisms o r H o m e r i c a n d Lesbian forms, as in the
lyrical tradition in w h i c h A n a c r e o n is included.
2.
IONIC
PROSE
Generalities and beginnings

191.
Prose for literary purposes b e g a n to b e written in G r e e c e from
the mid-sixth century B C onwards (this should b e distinguished from

the diverse types o f prose m e n t i o n e d a b o v e used in inscriptions). T h e
writings were either philosophical (including c o s m o g o n i c ) o r histori
cal.
T h e y have b e e n preserved in a very i n c o m p l e t e f o r m , in small
fragments,
with the e x c e p t i o n o f the last
flowering
o f this p r o s e ,
w h i c h has b e e n transmitted to us through the medieval manuscripts

o f Herodotus and the Corpus Hippocraticum. T h e transmission is defficient
and there are serious doubts a b o u t the origin o f the Attic forms
f o u n d in it.
Evidentiy, the origins o f the prose c a n b e traced b a c k to a c h a n g e
o f mentality. T h e d o c u m e n t a r y prose o f inscriptions was set aside,
as the n e w individualistic and rationalistic culture sought to create
an entirely different w a y o f thinking and a history that consciously
departed from the ancient myths. Occasionally, p o e t r y also aspired
to this (in X e n o p h a n e s o r P a r m e n i d e s ) . T h i s w a s a c c o m p a n i e d
by
an a p p r o x i m a t i o n to the e v e r y d a y c o l l o q u i a l language a n d
rejection, at least in part, o f the o l d m o d e l s (although those m o d e l s
130
CHAPTER
EIGHT
c o n t i n u e d to exert an influence, in their distance from the everyday

and the trivial).
192. It should b e a d d e d that this I o n i c prose was universal,
being
the only existing G r e e k prose at the time, and was a d o p t e d b y writ

ers o f D o r i c origin o r b y others, whatever their origin, w h o lived
and w o r k e d in n o n - I o n i c speaking cities.
T h a t is, there w e r e I o n i c writers: a m o n g others, the logographers
w h o wrote in the Asian cities and in the islands (Hecataeus o f Miletus
is the m o s t well-known), Pherecydes o f Syros (the author o f a cos
m o g o n y ) , the Milesian philosophers, Heraclitus o f Ephesus, Democritus
and Protagoras o f A b d e r a .
But there were also writers w h o were b o r n outside this linguistic
region: as is the case, as is well k n o w n , o f H e r o d o t u s , w h o was b o r n
in the D o r i a n city o f Halicarnassus (he later m o v e d to the
Ionian
island o f S a m o s , then to Athens and other parts), and in the case

o f H i p p o c r a t e s and the physicians o f the D o r i a n island o f C o s , s o m e
o f w h o m w e r e travelling physicians. But there is also the case of,
for e x a m p l e , Acusilaus o f A r g o s (author o f a genealogy), Hellanicus
o f Mytilene (author o f a history o f Attica) and Pherecydes o f Athens
(author, t o o , o f a genealogy), a m o n g the logographers. O n the other
h a n d , m a n y writers w h o were Ionian
o r w r o t e in I o n i c lived in
Athens: Democritus, Hellanicus, Anaxagoras o f Clazomenae, Protagoras

and other philosophers and Sophists.
H o w did all this o c c u r ? T h e m o v e m e n t in favour o f G r e e k prose
evidently originated
in I o n i a , w h e r e p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d
historians
d e c i d e d to dispense w i t h those p o e t i c dialects w h i c h w e r e
also
Ionicising. T h e shift from a mythical to a rational mentality is reflected

in the shift from hexametric poetry (iambic poetry was also inade
quate) to prose. But there was an essential precedent: apart from
the official I o n i c o f the inscriptions, there was also a p o p u l a r I o n i c
o f the i a m b o s . A n o t h e r leap, and the m o v e to prose was m a d e .
T h e s e thinkers travelled throughout G r e e c e and h a d an influence
everywhere, particularly in Athens. But at a certain point, in the last
third o f the fifth
century, it was certainly in Athens w h e r e
they
realised that if they were to w i d e n their influence in a city w h i c h

had b e c o m e , intellectually-speaking,
the main city o f G r e e c e , they
w o u l d have to write in Attic.

Evidentiy, the Sophists and philosophers in Athens spoke in Attic.
It was a diglossia, for they spoke in Attic and wrote in I o n i c . But
IONIC A N D
ATTIC
131
at least o n e o f them, Gorgias, w h o h a d arrived from Leontini, Sicily,

in 4 2 7 , broke with this habit and started to write in Attic. H e did
this precisely at a m o m e n t in w h i c h Attic was invading I o n i c . H e
h a d the c o u r a g e to break away, thereby o p e n i n g the w a y for the
Athenians and later for others. I n d e e d , the triumph o f Attic in a
w o r l d where it coexisted with I o n i c marked the start o f the creation
o f koine: Attic with certain I o n i c o r general variants o f Greek.
193. T h e shift from hexametric p o e t r y to prose (still a v o i d e d b y
philosophers such as X e n o p h a n e s , E m p e d o c l e s a n d Parmenides) was
not easy psychologically speaking: literature was strictly poetic. It was
helpful, just as for the formation o f the different p o e t i c languages,
that precisely these languages were full o f Ionicisms: they were a
mixture o f Ionicisms and epicisms o f various origins, sometimes also
o f Lesbianisms. I o n i c prose continued this process to a certain extent,
insofar as it c o n t i n u e d to a d d epic elements to the I o n i c elements,
albeit in a m o r e restricted way.
T h e relation b e t w e e n spoken I o n i c and I o n i c prose presents a real
p r o b l e m . T o b e g i n with, the former is hardly k n o w n to us. W e k n o w
only the language o f the inscriptions, w h i c h d o e s not support
the
assertion b y H e r o d o t u s I 42 that there were four dialects in Ionia:

very small differences are found, particularly certain innovations in
C h i o s and Erythrae, and other c o i n c i d e n c e s in C h i o s and Miletus.
B y contrast, in H e r o d o t u s , w h o is the most studied author, i m p o r
tant sections o f vocabulary are found w h i c h are lacking in the inscrip
tions.
Indeed, in all these authors w e find H o m e r i s m s , to a greater
o r lesser degree, as well as the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e w paratactic

syntax and stylistic features destined for success: alliterations and
repetitions,
a n e w w o r d o r d e r , the historic p r e s e n t rejected
by
H o m e r , etc.
194. O n the Ionic dialect o f the inscriptions, see Ch. Favre 1914, A. Lopez
Eire 1984b, p. 340 ff. and K. Stiiber 1996. O n the language of Ionic prose
in general, cf. above all E. Norden 1898, K. Deichgraber 1962, H. Haberle
1938 and S. Lilja 1968. O n Herodotus, G. Steinger 1957, M . Untersteiner
1949, H. B. Rosen 1962, E. Lamberts 1967, I. Beck 1971 and D . G. Miiller
1980. O n the whole subject in general, R. Hiersche 1970, p. 198 ff.,
O . Hoffmann 1973, p . 168 ff, L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 142 ff.
The remarks o f the ancient critics are not very coherent. The statement
by Strabo I, 2, 6 that the most ancient prose only differs from poetry in
its lack o f metre is contradicted by Cicero, De oral II 12, 53, and Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, De Thuc. 23, who refer to its lack o f ornament; Hermogenes,
132
CHAPTER
EIGHT
De id. II 399 contrasts Hecataeus (who is 'pure and clear', and 'uses pure
Ionic') and Herodotus, whom he calls 'mixed and 'poetic'.
For the language and style o f the older works o f the Corpus Hippocraticum,
c f among others, P. Fabrini-A. Lanni 1979, A. Lopez Eire 1984b and
1992, O . Wenskuns 1982 and A. Lopez Ferez 1987. As regards the cre
ation o f a scientific vocabulary and the actual structure o f the treatise, I
provide references in the chapter on the creation o f the scientific language.
5
195. W e find ourselves before a series o f writers, the first o f w h o m

w e r e active in the s e c o n d half o f the sixth century
(Anaximander,
Pherecydes o f Syros, Acusilaus o f Argos); at the turn o f the
sixth
and fifth centuries (Hecataeus, A l c m a e o n , Heraclitus); in the first half

o r m i d d l e o f the fifth century ( C h a r o n o f Lampsacus, A n a x i m e n e s ,
Herodotus); and
finally,
in the s e c o n d h a l f o f the
fifth
century
(Pherecydes o f Athens, D e m o c r i t u s , Hellanicus, and the older writ

ers o f the Corpus Hippocraticum).
It should b e observed that the I o n i c writers w h o w e r e active in
Athens in the fifth century n o t only had H o m e r and lyric at their
disposal, but also Attic tragedy and c o m e d y ; and those w h o were
active at the e n d o f the century, Attic prose. A t any rate, f r o m the
p e r i o d o f the Persian wars, Attic was k n o w n to all o f them. I have
discussed this with respect to the Sophists.
I n d e e d , towards the mid-fifth century w e find Atticisms in I o n i c
inscriptions, as well as Ionicisms in the Attic ones, c f A . L o p e z Eire
1984b, p . 3 4 0 ff. This is the c o r e o f the matter, a century after Ionic
prose h a d tried to i m p o s e itself in the sixth century, dispensing as
far as possible with epic influence. Indeed, it was in the s e c o n d half
o f the fifth century
that it r e c e i v e d a great universalist
b e i n g already i n v a d e d b y Attic elements. In the mid-fifth
impulse,
century,
Athens d o m i n a t e d G r e e k politics and also, through theatre, G r e e k

poetry.
Y e t it is difficult, as I have stated, to make detailed j u d g e m e n t s
a b o u t the language o f writers o f w h o m w e k n o w so litde. But let us
begin with the older authors, w h o predate the m o m e n t in w h i c h
Athens peaked.
196. N o literal fragments
have survived o f the works o f Thales,
Pythagoras, A n a x i m a n d e r and A n a x i m e n e s , a m o n g others, and there

are only minimal fragments o f A l c m a e o n . W e are better served b y
Pherecydes o f Syros, thanks to a papyrus o f s o m e fifteen lines, and
Heraclitus, w h o s e literal quotes are numerous (but almost invariably
in the f o r m o f maxims); the same applies to D e m o c r i t u s , w h o is from
IONIC A N D
the A t h e n i a n
133
ATTIC
a g e , but for w h o m there are serious p r o b l e m s o f
authenticity.
Let us deal with a previous p r o b l e m regarding the Atticisms that
appear in I o n i c writers in the fifth century, such as Pherecydes o f
Athens and Hellanicus, jput especially, as w e shall see, H e r o d o t u s
and Hippocrates. It is sometimes postulated that these Atticisms c o m e
from the later textual tradition, other times that they were already
present in the original texts o f these authors.
T h e real answer is
p r o b a b l y a mixture o f the two: the later tradition multiplied the orig

inal Atticisms. W h e n citations c o m e f r o m a variety o f sources, as is
frequently the case, w e can clearly see the hesitation between Ionicism
a n d Atticism.
It c o u l d b e said that, at least until the Persian wars, these writ
ers w o u l d have h a d a c o m m a n d o f an I o n i c without Atticisms, w h i c h
w o u l d have gradually entered as the two dialects b e g a n to c o n t a m
inate each other; and w o u l d have increased in the manuscript tra
dition, particularly in s o m e o f its later branches.
197. T h i s p r o b l e m aside, and before dealing with the central sub
j e c t o f epic forms, w e should d r a w attention to two important
char
acteristics o f this prose:

(a) Philosophic prose, a b o v e all, has an a b u n d a n c e o f abstracts
(particularly in -ir| a n d substantivised neuters with o r with
out an article). M a n y are semantic innovations o r pure a n d
simple creations based o n c o m m o n or, at times, epic lan
guage. T h i s is a subject that must b e c o n s i d e r e d separately,
w h e n w e discuss the creation o f the G r e e k scientific lan
guage (also in philosophical poetry). F o r the first time, a lin
guistic instrument h a d b e e n created that was able to serve
abstract thought. T h i s i n c l u d e d the creation o f n e w c o m
positional structures, m o s t certainly that o f the scientific
treatise.
(b) T h e r e is a proliferation o f a series o f figures o f speech, w h i c h
were later c o n t i n u e d in the first Attic p r o s e , in o r d e r to
c o m p e n s a t e for the lack o f dactylic rhythm a n d to elevate
the level o f the prose ('the style should b e clear a n d solemn',
aeuvoc,, a c c o r d i n g to D i o g e n e s o f A p o l o n i a B l ) . E, N o r d e n
in 1898 already r e c o g n i z e d this and subsequentiy it has b e e n
confirmed b y all scholars.
134
CHAPTER
EIGHT
T h e s e figures o f speech are alliteration, repetition, w o r d play,

parallelism, chiasmus and paratactic constructions (the so-called
Xeîq eipouevrt, a l t h o u g h w e h a v e f e w e x a m p l e s outside o f
Herodotus). W i t h all this, a narrative prose was created w h i c h
was
b o t h clear and capable o f establishing relations, and, also,
expressive and capable o f enhancing these elements.

To
cite a few examples:

Alliterations and repetitions: Pherecyd. Syr. 1, eyevexoyfj . . . yf]v yepac,;
Heraclit. B 53, noXeyLoq Tidvxcov îevraxxripeaxi, ftdvxow 8e paaiAeuc,;
A n a x a g . B 12, yvwurrv ye Ttepi navxoq nacav i'a%ei; Pherecyd Ath.
e'Gue xa> rioaeiScovi 6 UeXiaq,
105,
K a i Jipoeute naox 7iapeivai,
Hellanic. 5 4 , dvco xr\q dcKavBou xou dvGeoc,. . . a t e ! avGeo-ocu.

Word play: Heraclit. B 25, M,6poi ydp [xetpvec, \xeC,ovaq [loipaq Xay%avouai.
Parallelism: H e r a c l i t . B 1, K a i xouc, \XEV Qeovq eSeiê, xovq
8e
eXeuGepouc,; A n a x a g . B 12, K a i dixoKpvvexai ano ye xov d p a i o u xo

7UUKV6V K a i ano xou \j/u%pou xo Gepjxov.
Chiasmus: A n a x a g . B 12, e m ok
EKi
KXEOV
rcepixcopei Kai
7repixcopf|aei
KXEOV.
Paratactic style: it c o m b i n e s the previous resources with clauses

united b y 8e, Kat, ydp, etc.; cf. for example, H e c a t . 15, Heraclit
1, D e m o c r i t 191.
T h e s e figures o f speech are rarest in Hecataeus and the logogra
phers, a n d in D e m o c r i t u s . T h e s e authors went the furthest in their
search for a style without adornment.
198. W e still have to deal with the subject o f epic's influence, w h i c h
is derived from its penetration in all the literary languages and from
the fact that b o t h history and philosophy originate in H o m e r , Hesiod,
and the rest o f H e x a m e t r i c poetry.
To
b e g i n with, w e certainly c o m e across hexametric
remnants,
although s o m e are clearer than others and s o m e m a y b e acciden

tal. F o r instance, those that appear in Hecataeus o r Pherecydes o f
Athens. W e also find, for example, in Heraclit. 1, Kai ercecov Kai epyoov,
eupog TtoSoc, dv0po)7ie{ou; 35, eu \iaXa izoXX&v; Hellanic. 26, eu \iaXa
ei86|j,evoi; Pherecyd. Syr. 1, Zaq \XEV Kai Xpovoc, fjaav; etc.
But the lexicon and phraseology is o f greater significance: frequently,
the two g o hand in hand, as in the start o f the w o r k b y Hecataeus:
'HKaxaioc, Mi^rjaioq obSe jiroGeixai (and in D e m e t r . De eloc. 2).
IONIC A N D
Yet,
135
ATTIC
p h r a s e o l o g y aside, the harvest o f epic w o r d s (or c o m m o n
w o r d s with epic forms) o r o f epic expressions is i n d e e d great. S o m e

times, w e are dealing with poetic w o r d s in general. S o m e examples:
Acusilaus: f]ev, TioXefjeeaKev.
Heraclit.: deiôooc,, dGupjuoc, dpnicpaxoc,,
KXEOC,
d e v a o v , ij/euScov,
TKTOVC,.
D e m o c r . : d-rnpoc,, 8ari|ia>v, o u o q , 6A,ooiTpo%oc;, 7ioXir|Tnc,.
Hecat.: dpriyeiv, ouvojia, oupea.
Pherecyd. Ath.: dxeoq, dmaq, epuKei, ouSoc,.
Thus, there is n o doubt about the influence o f epic and poetry, unequal
as it m a y b e , and a b o u t the ' n e w style' (with earlier precedents) o f
parallelism, antithesis, repetition, etc. w h i c h w o u l d reach its peak in
Attic prose with Gorgias.
Herodotus
199.
Let us n o w turn to H e r o d o t u s , w h o , with the physicians, suc
c e e d e d in diffusing I o n i c as the l a n g u a g e o f culture
throughout
G r e e c e , starting from a few small cities and a small island in Asia

(Halicarnassus, Gnidus and C o s ) .
T h e writers m e n t i o n e d a b o v e p r o v i d e d a precedent. T h e y were
Ionians w h o s e w o r k was diffused throughout
G r e e c e , especially in
Athens, where m a n y o f them lived, and non-Ionians, such as Acusilaus

o f A r g o s , Hellanicus o f Mytilene and A l c m a e o n o f C r o t o n , w h o also
wrote in I o n i c .
W i t h such precedents, before the writers o f I o n i c m a d e the m o v e
to Attic, another generation o f writers from a small c o r n e r o f Asia H e r o d o t u s , Ctesias, Hippocrates and other physicians - h a d
made
the m o v e from D o r i c to Ionic, converting it into the o n l y prose-style

o f G r e e k culture. All o f them were c o s m o p o l i t a n individuals, b o r n
after the Persian wars. Exiled from Halicarnassus, H e r o d o t u s lived
in S a m o s , an I o n i c island, and later travelled in Athens, the Persian
empire, Italy, and Sicily. H e lived until the first years o f the P e l o p o n nesian W a r . Ctesias was a physician in the Persian court and, like
Hippocrates, lived until at least the e n d o f the fifth century. It is
believed that Hippocrates h a d contact with the main intellectuals o f
his time. In any case, the physicians travelled and received students
from all parts.
136
CHAPTER EIGHT
It is n o t strange that m e n such as these should have l o o k e d for

a dialect that was accessible to all the Greeks, as their predecessors
h a d d o n e so before them. H e r o d o t u s represents a shift from a myth
ical to a critical and historical mentality, from localism to universalism: o n the basis o f small logoi o n a particular city o r village, from
periegeseis o r peripluses and from novelistic narratives, H e r o d o t u s artic
ulated (without violating any o f these) a universal history directed at
all the Greeks. In turn, the physicians also addressed all m e n . T h e i r
doctrine was based o n the study o f h u m a n nature and broke with
traditional magical beliefs regarding the origin o f disease.
It should b e emphasised that a universal language was as neces
sary as it had b e e n in the case o f the language o f epic o r elegy,
only n o w it h a d to b e a prose language. T h e c h o i c e was clear: the
oldest prose h a d e m e r g e d in Ionia, and it was in Ionia o r its p r o x
imities w h e r e these authors lived and where their audience c o u l d b e
found. I o n i c was u n d e r s t o o d in Attica and the w h o l e o f G r e e c e , and
it linked up with the artificial, Ionicising languages o f poetry. A n d
it entered into ever greater symbiosis with Attic, w h i c h w o u l d end
up displacing it as the literary language.
In this w a y , the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the literary languages w e n t h a n d
in h a n d
w i t h the p h e n o m e n o n o f G r e e k i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m ,
the
Panhellenic character o f this culture. T h e only step that remained

to b e taken was the replacement o f I o n i c b y Attic.
2 0 0 . But to return to I o n i c and, firsdy, H e r o d o t u s . T h e logographers
w h o p r e c e d e d h i m w r o t e o n the themes to w h i c h I have
referred
and w r o t e in I o n i c , w h i c h contained certain epic echoes. H e r o d o t u s

followed their e x a m p l e . H o w e v e r , he was still closer to epic than
they h a d b e e n : the c o m p o s i t i o n o f his history imitates that o f the
Iliad, and his p u r p o s e in writing it (I, 1), to ensure that 'great and
5
admirable events w e r e n o t forgotten, provides a further parallel with

5
the epic p o e m s w h i c h narrated the 'glory o f the heroes . T h e r e is

m u c h o f epic in H e r o d o t u s , and also o f tragedy, as I have discussed
in other works (Adrados 1966, p . 317 ff., 1994d, p . 83 ff).
T h e r e f o r e , it is n o t surprising that Herodotus's language should
have given the ancient critics the impression o f b e i n g m i x e d , p o e t i c
and H o m e r i s i n g , something w h i c h was discussed earlier ( 134 and
193): H e r m o g e n e s , De id. II 399 regards Herodotus's language as
5
' m i x e d and 'poetic', as o p p o s e d to that o f Hecataeus; Longinus 13, 3
IONIC
AND
137
ATTIC
describes it as V e r y H o m e r i c ' . T h e r e was n o d o u b t a difference in

degree with s o m e o f his predecessors.
A g o o d part o f this is attested in H e r o d o t u s ' s text: w e find archaic
a n d recent Ionicisms, Atticisms, w o r d s o f various origins and,
in
effect, epicisms. T h e p r o b l e m is that the text displays incoherences

o f w h i c h w e are unsure to what extent they c o m e from H e r o d o t u s
himself o r f r o m the manuscript
tradition (including the
papyrus
tradition).
201. In our manuscripts o f Herodotus, there is a coexistence o f archaic
and recent as well as Ionic and Attic variants, whether epic or not. It is
believed that the archetypes o f the two principal families date from the first
or second century A D , so that their coincidencies should date from at least
the Hellenistic period; sometimes the papyri coincide, whereas other times
they contain a purer text, but not exempt from the same doublets. For more
details, see the books by M . Untersteiner 1947 and H. B. Rosen 1962.
It is clear that the Greek of Ionic inscriptions is partly different, yet it
is difficult to establish linguistic use in contemporary Ionia in any decisive
way. C f Gh. Favre 1914 and K. Stuber 1996. According to H. B. Rose
1962, p. 253, the dialect o f Cos and Halicarnassus is closest to Herodotus:
but this is not certain. A. Lopez Eire 1984b, previously cited, insists on the
penetration of Attic elements from the middle of the century, p. 336 ff.
(and o f Ionic elements in Attic inscriptions, p . 341 ff).
2 0 2 . It is believed that a g o o d part o f H e r o d o t u s ' s 'anomalies', par
ticularly those o f the archaic o r epic type, are d u e to
Herodotus
himself; and, n o d o u b t , also s o m e Atticisms, although it is likely that

the later tradition reinforced this. But to assume that
always used a uniform language -
Herodotus
for e x a m p l e , with always c o n
tracted o r uncontracted vowels, with the A c . sg. o f the masc, o f the

1st d e c l i n a t i o n always in -nv, the D . p i . o f the
2 n d always in
-oxen, the A c . pi. o f nouns in -ic, always in -iq is to ignore the fact
that in all G r e e k literary languages there have always existed p h o
netic variants and p o l y m o r p h i s m , as well as an alternation o f the
archaic and the c o n t e m p o r a r y .
T h e r e are cases in w h i c h the o r t h o g r a p h y o f the p e r i o d , that is,
the ancient I o n i c alphabet, indicates that the ouvoucc o f the
manu
scripts o r the hesitation oupoc/opoc, are recent: this alphabet
wrote
O , and did not distinguish ou from o and, o f course, did not have
a sign at its disposal to mark the spiritus asper. C o n t r a d i c t o r y
ten
dencies - epicising, Ionicising, Atticising - were operative while not

evident in every step. O f course, without c o h e r e n c e . But they n o
138
CHAPTER
EIGHT
d o u b t maintained certain features o f Herodotus's language, for w e

certainly encounter epicisms a n d Atticisms, n o t to mention Ionicisms,
which predominate.
It is useful to study the language o f I o n i c inscriptions, but this
does n o t solve all o f o u r p r o b l e m s : as I have already p o i n t e d out,
it offers c o i n c i d e n c e s with Ionic. F o r e x a m p l e , in the inscriptions w e
generally find -oiai in D . pi. o f the 2 n d , but w e also find -oic, in
Halicarnassus in the fifth century: this therefore confirms H e r o d o t u s ;
and also other Ionicisms such as the G . sg. in -ou o f p r o p e r nouns
in -nc.. O n the other hand, this language writes Ejii, rcoiEv, w h i c h
attests to the existence o f a contraction that sometimes appears in
H e r o d o t u s , sometimes does not: h e has -ee, -eeaGai, -eev. T h e r e are
hesitations too in other vocalic groups. N o doubt, Herodotus archaicised
on the m o d e l o f H o m e r o r o f the survival in I o n i c o f certain v o w
els in hiatus, such as -eo- (but in H e r o d o t u s there are also contracted
forms, I o n . -eu-, A t . -ou-). H e also certainly archaicised in using vnoc,
'temple' a n d in various forms with -n- o f the n o u n for 'ship'; there
is fluctuation in H o m e r himself, whereas in H e r o d o t u s it is the manu
scripts that fluctuate.
Fluctuations m a y b e I o n i c , such as that o f the A c . sg. o f the masc.
o f the 1st, already cited, between -nv a n d -ea: these are n o t attested,
but the
G .
sg. -eccAe-Dc, is. In A c , pi. w e find
TCOAIC,
beside noXxaq in
the literary texts, n o t just in H e r o d o t u s ; this c o u l d b e old, b u t there

are doubts c o n c e r n i n g A t , noXexq, perhaps a recent introduction.
T h e s e are n o t the only cases in which there is a fluctuation between
I o n i c a n d Attic forms, cf. for example, R . Hiersche 1970, p . 189 f f ,
A . L o p e z Eire 1984b, p . 3 3 7 .
T h u s , I believe that the c o n c e p t i o n o f Herodotus's language as
m i x e d a n d p o e t i c , with Attic elements, is correct. But it means that
in the course o f transmission, the presence o f these elements b e c a m e
accentuated, although w e c a n n o t fix any exact limits.
203. T h u s , w e c a n speak in terms o f various sectors o f Herodotus's
language, including the lexicon.
(a) I o n i c sector. T h i s is the m o s t frequent, a n d it includes the almost
o m n i p r e s e n t n f o r a (there are s o m e e x p l i c a b l e cases o f a, cf.
R . Hiersche 1970, p . 203), the p r e d o m i n a n c e o f the D , pi, -oicn,
inflection in - i c / - I O C , , the perf. a n d plusq. 3 r d pi.
-CCTCCI,
-OCTO,
psilosis
(only in remnants), the l e x i c o n a n d so m a n y other things. I have dis

cussed the possible variants a n d archaisms w h i c h rely u p o n epic.
IONIC
AND
139
ATTIC
(b) Epic and H o m e r i c i s i n g sector. Obviating to what extent this sec

tor m a y have b e e n extended b y tradition, it exists, o f course, and is
justified b y the reasons m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . But the H o m e r i s m s are
m u c h m o r e limited than they are in poetry; for e x a m p l e , there is
no G . in -010 except in transcribed oracular hexameters, n o 'Aeolicisms'
o f the Kev type, o r outdated archaisms. It is a question o f a light
H o m e r i c hint o r taste.
In m o r p h o l o g y , w e can attribute the very rare D . pi. in
-EGGI
to
this influence, as well as the apocopated preposition and pre verb dv-,
iteratives such as 8%eaK, formations such as 7ioXiT)Tnc, (but also itoXiv(\<$,
and, a b o v e all, n u m e r o u s w o r d s a n d expressions: see note, djieiPeTo,
djKpiTcoXoc,, dTpeicecoc,, KocTceAii;, euxe, QvîaXyia ejrea, etc.
T h e r e is also H o m e r i c influence in phraseology, as for example
w h e n Syagrus replies to the pretensions o f G e l o n o f Syracuse ( V I I
159,
cf. / / . V I I 125) o r w h e n the Lydian king Pittheus replies to
X e r x e s ( V I I 28).
(c) T h e Attic sector (justified b y the fact that Herodotus, w h o admired
the city, resided there, cf. V I I 139, and b y the g r o w i n g confluence
o f b o t h dialects). I have already discussed the contraction -ou, and
I w o u l d have to add aspiration instead o f psilosis in oupec,, etc., voaeco
beside vouaoq, s o m e particular rare duals, a contaminated f o r m such
as Gcouua (from Ion, Gcoucc and A t . Gocuucc), the lexicon, for e x a m p l e ,
drcoXoyeouou, vauKpapoi, ooopoooKeco, ETC' auxocpcopq), KapaooKeco; and
the inclusion o f tragic w o r d s , such as Seiuccioo), Spdjanua. This antic
ipates not only the arrival o f Attic as a literary dialect, but also the
creation o f koine.
(d) T h e foreign sector. Being a traveller with an impenitent curios
ity, H e r o d o t u s introduced w o r d s o f various origins: Egyptian (Tupcoîc,
'gentleman',
KDAATIGTIC,
'bread', KataxGipic, 'dress'), Persian (dyyapoc,
'post', aKivdicnc,, 'scimitar'), M e d i a n (GTcdica 'dog'), Scythian
(aG%u,
'a fruit'), Lybian (êyepieq, 'hill'), Phrygian (Pexoc, 'bread'). H e was

also familiar with various technical terms from the G r e e k dialects.
204,
W e must c o n c l u d e that Herodotus's dialect restricted epicism
m u c h m o r e than the previous literary language, that o f elegy. It fol

l o w e d the path initiated in this respect b y i a m b o s a n d yet it d o e s
not represent the totality o f the I o n i c language. W i t h i n it, there are
less H o m e r i s i n g sectors, as represented b y s o m e o f the logographers
a n d also medical writers, see 205 ff. A s regards Atticism, Herodotus
140
CHAPTER
EIGHT
is associated with the g r o u p that introduced it in a m o d e r a t e way,

within the cultural and political climate k n o w n to us, although
the
later tradition n o d o u b t reinforced this feature. Hippocrates, as w e

shall see, inclined m o r e towards Attic.
H e r o d o t u s represented real progress with regard to the construc
tion o f the phrase within the so-called paratactic style or Xefyq eipouivn,
w h i c h , for the earlier I o n i c literature, only rare examples
remain.
Y e t , for H e r o d o t u s w e c a n p r o v i d e a m p l e examples because his

w o r k has b e e n preserved. In fact, there are entire volumes dedicated
to this t h e m e , such as those o f G . Stinger
E. Lamberts
1957 (epic elements),
1967 (parataxis), I. Beck 1971 (ring composition) and
D . G . Miiller 1980 (sentence construction in general). A d v a n c i n g o n

a base o f parataxis, participles o f various construction, ring c o m p o
sition and constant reference to terms o f the p r e c e d i n g phrase,
as
well as a certain degree o f subordination, Herodotus's prose departed

from the artificial m e t h o d s o f s o m e o f his I o n i c predecessors: the
parallelisms, alliterations, etc. But w e should add that H e r o d o t u s was
capable o f constructing a hypotactic p e r i o d where necessary: w e only
n e e d to l o o k at the first paragraph o f his work, in w h i c h a main
clause is followed b y a final clause organised into antithetic m e m b e r s .
H o w e v e r , H e r o d o t u s never m a n a g e d to break with the traditional
epic construction based o n digressions and constant changes in set
ting. O n l y with T h u c y d i d e s w o u l d w e arrive at a c o m p o s i t i o n o b e y
ing a strict c h r o n o l o g y and
organisation.
But his organisation o f the paragraph constituted a break in w h i c h

he was certainly following authors such as Hecataeus
anticipated
and w h i c h
the break that w o u l d b e m a d e b y Attic prose at s o m e
point, surpassing G o r g i a n prose. T h e s e were the origins o f narrative

a n d scientific p r o s e , in w h i c h the physicians, in addition to
the
philosophers and Sophists, p l a y e d an important role. W e will briefly

refer to the physicians b e l o w , but the subject will b e dealt with in
a separate chapter.
The ancient Hippocratics
205. T h e case o f Ionic in the oldest writings o f the Corpus Hippocraticum,
from the last part o f the fifth century B C , differs to a certain
extent,
but n o t in essence: fundamentally, w e are dealing with the writings

On Airs, Waters, Places, On Ancient Medicine, On the Sacred Disease, Epidemics
IONIC A N D
141
ATTIC
IIII and Prognostic. T h e r e is a consensus o f scholarly o p i n i o n against

the attempts o f editors such as K u l h e w e i n to c o m p l e t e l y Ionicise the
language o f these treatises, and it is widely a c k n o w l e d g e d that the
mixture o f I o n i c and Attic forms in the manuscripts is certainly due
to s o m e extent to the authors themselves, although in this case t o o
there is an increase in Atticisms in the
manuscripts.
F o r a general o v e r v i e w see, for e x a m p l e , R . Hiersche
1970, p .
188 ff. and A . L o p e z Eire 1984b, p . 338 ff. and 1992. Herodotus's
epicisms are absent: forms without augment, iteratives in
-EOKOV,
f]ViKa. W e find, though m o r e rarely, doublets based o n the preser

vation o f forms f r o m earlier literature: there is meeiv beside Seircveiv
(but m o r e rarely). T h e r e are also similar alternations b e t w e e n I o n i c
and Attic forms (-oicn, - a i a i / o i q , -aic,; avv/^vv;
jneôv/ueiôv; ovXoq
but oXoq; vovaoq but vooxco) and there are Attic forms such as eocuxov,
Seîa, etc.
N o w , the degree o f Atticisation in the texts o f the ancient physi
cians is greater than in H e r o d o t u s . T h e r e is m o r e contraction in
-ei-, ouv, yovv (not obv, ySv), eOeoav (not forms with - K - ) , des. o f the
3rd pi. in -aai (before the type ieicu), G . pi. o f the 1st -iSv, noXvq
and not noXXoq, dcTioSeiîc, (not -Seîc,), jneyeGoq (not jneyaBoq), aparrv
(not eponv), iepoc, is frequent, etc. S o m e n e w formations are based
o n Attic, such as vocnuaa.
T h u s , w e are dealing with the same m i x e d dialect that linked the
triumph o f I o n i c with the g r o w i n g influx o f Attic, as seen in the
inscriptions a n d in H e r o d o t u s . A . L o p e z Eire 1992 has studied cer
tain passages in w h i c h I o n i c and Attic are closely related.
As w o u l d b e expected, a few D o r i c elements entered: Ttoxi, ocuxoc,,
auxov, etc. It is certain
that a standardised I o n i c prose was n o t
formed, but there was a clear shift from a pure I o n i c towards

Atticised I o n i c . T h e last step was that taken b y Gorgias: the
an
for
mation o f an Attic language.

But, aside f r o m the essential feature o f Hippocrates's language
a scientific l e x i c o n a n d a scientific c o m p o s i t i o n a l structure, w h i c h

shall b e discussed later - w e find here for the very first time (given
that o u r k n o w l e d g e o f the earlier I o n i c prose is incomplete) what
R . Palmer 1980, p . 142 refers to as 'the first fully d e v e l o p e d prose
style'. Its features d o not differ so m u c h f r o m those o f H e r o d o t u s :
ring c o m p o s i t i o n , anaphoric recapitulations,
o f parataxis, cf. O . Wenskuns 1982.
repetitions,
dominance
142
CHAPTER
EIGHT
In other w o r d s , in H e r o d o t u s and in the first Hippocratics, prim

itive prose based o n alliterations, parallelisms and diverse figures o f
speech was replaced b y a broader, essentially paratactic prose based
o n ring c o m p o s i t i o n and continuous references to the future and to
the past. This p h e n o m e n o n later o c c u r r e d in Attic, w h e n G o r g i a n i c
prose, related to primitive I o n i c prose, gave w a y to the
extended
p e r i o d , whether paratactic o r hypotactic.
3.
THE
TRANSFORMATION OF THE A T T I C
A
DIALECT
INTO
LITERARY LANGUAGE
Attic as an oral dialect

2 0 6 . A s w e have seen, a dialect to w h i c h w e refer as Ionic-Attic
existed within southern Greek. A r o u n d the year 1000 B C , this dialect
received s o m e isoglosses f r o m D o r i c . Its innovations, a m o n g w h i c h
the m o s t notable is the shift from a to n, are from a later date. T h e
shift f r o m -rjcov to -ecov and the metathesis o f quantity vnoc, > vecoc,
are dated even later.
But a certain
amount
o f isolation a n d differentiation
occurred
b e t w e e n the I o n i c o f Ionia, the I o n i c o f the islands, Attic, and the

dialect o f E u b o e a . F o r e x a m p l e , this dialect did n o t convert u > u;
w h e r e Attic contracted the vowels, I o n i c did not d o so. It did n o t
lengthen vowels p r e c e d i n g groups o f sonant and d i g a m m a (êvoq,
not i;eivoc,), it c o n v e r t e d - p a > -pp-, converted the a b a c k to n after
p, t, e, a c c e p t e d B o e o t i a n - T T - for - G O - , etc. It maintained
(although
not without exceptions) peculiar forms such as ^6v beside G U V , eiq

beside eq. Furthermore,
it distanced itself increasingly in the course
o f its internal history: it e n d e d up preferring (after initial hesitations)

exq to eq, -oic, to
-OIGI,
etc. Indeed, in an older w o r k o f m i n e (Adrados
1953a~57) I thought I c o u l d indicate a series o f Attic
differentiations
in the lexical area.

Attic was a species o f provincial I o n i c , with s o m e very special
characteristics
w h i c h even the Atticist writers, m u c h later, w o u l d
avoid. Athens was a small city w h i c h only began to gain recogni

tion a b r o a d with S o l o n a n d Pisistratus, a recognition w h i c h increased
w h e n it f o u n d e d a d e m o c r a c y a n d liberated
itself f r o m
Spartan
influence; and especially w h e n it acquired an essential role in the

Persian wars and, later, led the Maritime League, from 477 onwards.
IONIC A N D
143
ATTIC
F r o m this m o m e n t o n , Athens b e c a m e very closely related to the

I o n i c w o r l d , so that there was a reciprocal influence between
the
two dialects: w e have seen h o w from the mid-fifth century o n there

were Atticisms in I o n i c inscriptions and Ionicisms in Attic ones: I
will elaborate o n this in 2 4 3 . Koine was definitively formed: an Attic
held together b y s o m e of* its m o r e peculiar characteristics
certain
Ionic, pan-Greek
a n d even D o r i c features.
and with
After its
split,
Ionic-Attic underwent a n e w unification.

Y e t , h o w e v e r politically important Athens m a y have been, partic
ularly from the Persian wars onwards, and h o w e v e r attractive it was
to the G r e e k intellectual w o r l d , Attic was not yet the language o f
prose. Athenians such as Pherecydes wrote in Ionic: Attic was not
yet 'salonfahig' as J. Niehoff-Panagiotidis
1994, p . 199 puts it (the
atre is another matter, see 209). Indeed, foreigners living in Athens

and all those w h o wrote prose did so in I o n i c . As m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ,
they certainly w o u l d have spoken in Attic in the streets, just like
Socrates and the orators at the Assembly and the tribunals, but they
wrote in I o n i c : for instance, Pherecydes, D e m o c r i t u s , Protagoras
presumably
Leontini -
the rest o f the
and
Sophists. T w o foreigners, G o r g i a s o f
already m e n t i o n e d ~ and T h r a s y m a c h u s
o f Chalcedon,
put an e n d to this a n o m a l y w h e n they created Attic prose in the

twenties o f the fifth century. H o w e v e r , this did n o t m e a n that Ionic
disappeared entirely, for it was cultivated in the fourth century by
the physicians M e t r o d o r u s d e C h i o s and
Ctesias, a m o n g
others,
although they w e r e in the minority.

207. O n the Attic dialect, see 117f. and A. Lopez Eire 1984a, 1985 and
1987b; also, my early work o f 1953a~57 already cited. W e now have good
descriptions on the Attic of the inscriptions: on phonology, the first vol
ume o f L. Threatte 1980, A. Lupas 1972 and S. Theodorsson 1974; on
morphology, see the second volume of Threatte, 1996. A. Lopez Eire 1994
provides a description o f the evolution o f Attic through the inscriptions. In
addition, see A T h u m b - A . Scherer II 1959 (with many references). On
vulgar Attic, see P. Kretschmer 1894 and W . Rabehl 1906 (the tabellae
defixionis). O n the strata o f Attic, A . T h u m b 1974, p . 202 ff. and
J. Niehoff-Panagiotidis 1994, p. 195. O n literary Attic, R. Hiersche 1970,
p. 207 ff, 152 ff, V . Bers 1983, besides the monographic studies. E. des
Places 1934 is interesting. O n double forms in Attic, see in particular
A. Lopez Eire 1986, 1991 (Aristophanes) and 1984 (Thucydides). These
double forms sometimes anticipate koine, see 226 for their presence in
Xenophon, the late Plato and in Aristotie.
144
CHAPTER
EIGHT
Sources
2 0 8 . F r o m what base did Gorgias and T h r a s y m a c h u s
make their
transcendental leap? O f course, from the normal dialect o f the period,

filled with p o e t i c a n d intellectual influences, s o m e o f w h i c h w o u l d
have b e e n very m u c h at hand and unavoidable in Athens. But, apart
from that, there existed a written Attic that was spread o v e r three
different sectors:
(a) Inscriptions. T h e s e were usually official or, at any rate, written
in a formulaic and standard language, although w e also encounter
graffitti and different manifestations
o f vulgar Attic, as in the vase
inscriptions studied b y P. K r e t s c h m e r
1894. H e r e , w e find forms
used b y the l o w e r sectors o f the population, as well as b y foreign

craftsmen.
But it is important to note that, the m o r e elevated official o r pri
vate inscriptions, despite their formalism, d o not display a unified
language: they contain multiple variants, see for example the data
o n doublets such as ec/eic,, ^ u v / a u v , -oior(v)/-oic,, -rjor/-ouc;, y e y o v a /
yeyevrjucci, -vufxi/-vuco, eoouev/eScbicocuev, etc., and they only corre
s p o n d to c h r o n o l o g y in part. All o f this is in a c c o r d a n c e with the
variants f o u n d in various writers: for e x a m p l e , Aristophanes
and
T h u c y d i d e s (see the works o f A . L o p e z Eire referred to in the pre

vious n o t e ) . But the inscriptions w e r e n o t very n u m e r o u s :
many
dialects w e r e used for epigraphic, n o t literary, purposes.

(b) T r a g e d y . T h i s is i n d e e d a precedent: it is Attic i a m b o s (with cer
tain H o m e r i s m s and Ionicisms) c o m i n g f r o m Solon, and even from
Attic skolia. H e r e there definitely existed a literary Attic, a contin
uation o f the literary I o n i c o f the i a m b o s : a language
definitely
intended to b e recited.
M y theory (see, in particular, A d r a d o s 1983a), w h i c h is o f course
impossible to argue in any great length here, is that certain mimetic
and dramatic choruses, specialised in the mythic themes w h i c h were
later referred to as tragic, had b e c o m e an itinerant spectacle w h i c h
presented various themes: the m e m b e r s o f the chorus were o c c a
sionally transformed into actors and entered into dialogue with each
other. T h e s e w o u l d b e the Doricising choruses that Thespis brought
to the Panathenaea festivals, at the request o f Pisistratus in the year
534; with just o n e actor (a specialised chorus singer) in the beginning,
w e are told.
IONIC
AND
145
ATTIC
T h e r e was n o fusion o f the D o r i c chorus a n d the I o n i c i a m b o s ,

n o artificial fusion o f two independent genres, as has sometimes b e e n
suggested. In Athens, if o n e chorus singer o r actor a b a n d o n e d the
5
song (in ' D o r i c ) to recite iamboi (very few in the beginning, but m o r e
w h e n two a n d then three actors were introduced) he w o u l d have
had a obvious m o d e l in S o l o n . It was a great innovation. It is clear
that an archaic Attic o f the sixth century, with p o e t i c influences, was
used. I will p r o v i d e details later.
(c) C o m e d y (perhaps earlier, in satyrical drama). T h e i a m b o s o f c o m
edy and I o n i c i a m b o s have the same spirit, b o t h having
flourished
in similar festivals. It is not surprising that in the festive pendant o f

the tragedy that is c o m e d y , created fifty years later in 4 8 5 , iamboi
were recited in the colloquial and, at times, vulgar style o f those fes
tivals. It was a literary language w h i c h c o u l d adapt itself to various
dialects: also to Syracusan, a n d in this case, to Attic. Indeed, w h y
l o o k further afield for something that c o u l d b e f o u n d within? Y e t
this was not a prose language but rather a p o e t i c language o f a col
loquial kind.
Characteristics
2 0 9 . It should b e stressed that this did not yet constitute prose as
such, but it p r o v i d e d a base for those w h o w o u l d g o o n to create
it. T h i s base consisted o f two different levels o r registers: the solemn
and remote register o f tragedy and the colloquial a n d familiar (even
vulgar) register o f c o m e d y . W h e n prose was created there was s o m e
hesitation
a b o u t w h i c h register to follow: the hesistations w h i c h ,
after Gorgias, gave rise to the different literary levels o f Attic, as w e

shall see.
W e have seen h o w the choruses o f tragedy o n l y preserved a few
remnants o f the traditional language o f choral lyric, and that they
already displayed an Attic influence. G . Bjorck 1950 and particu
larly R . Hiersche 1980, p . 147 ff., have stressed this. Y e t , the iamboi
(and trochaic trimeters) o f tragedy are closer to the c o m m o n Attic
language, although they are very distant from colloquial, n o t to m e n
tion vulgar language, displaying as they d o a distance
appropriate
to a religious language. I have discussed this in A d r a d o s 1975c.

S o , the theories regarding the I o n i c origin o f tragedy's dialogue
have not always p r o v i d e d us with valuable perspectives. I refer the
146
CHAPTER
EIGHT
reader to R . Hiersche, as cited previously, with regard to the issue

5
o f the 'elevated language o f tragedy, its p o l y m o r p h i s m , the influence

o f epic language and the scarcity o f I o n i c elements.
T h e fact is that w e are dealing fundamentally
with Attic. I have

5
p r o p o s e d (Adrados 1953a~57) that certain 'glosses and
anomalous
forms w h i c h are qualified as H o m e r i c or Ionic are simply archaic

Attic, dating from the birth o f tragedy. W h y should a form such as
-OIOT
b e necessarily H o m e r i c o r I o n i c , w h e n it is also present in Attic
inscriptions? W h y , t o o , should Beaunc, b e necessarily so, w h e n used

by Solon, or
w h e n used b y D r a c o ? I have emphasised this
OCTEOIVOC,
point in the article cited previously, cf. A d r a d o s 1957, p . 116. N o

d o u b t , these terms were later eliminated from Attic prose, but s o m e
survived in p o p u l a r language and passed into koine, as p r o p o s e d b y
A. T h u m b
1974. I believe in the 'subterranean
existence, so to
speak, o f a series o f w o r d s , often I o n i c at the same time, w h i c h

w o u l d e m e r g e in the late Plato and in X e n o p h o n and w o u l d spread
into koine; o r w o u l d otherwise enter it directiy.
5
This 'subterranean l e x i c o n is only a part o f conversational Attic,

w h i c h w a s able to
flourish
in the tragedy,
the c o m e d y , a n d
in
T h u c y d i d e s , but was n o t admitted into Attic prose (or even the lit
erary transcription o f the language o f Socrates). It undoubtedly formed
part o f the great Attic dialect, w h i c h will b e discussed further o n ,
and then entered the koine.
It is notable that part o f that lexicon was at the same time archaic,
dating f r o m a p e r i o d in w h i c h the subsequent regularisation h a d not
yet o c c u r r e d . F o r this reason, it h a d the prestigious allure o f high
poetry, w h i c h was even m o r e reason for it to b e rejected b y prose.
It also p r o v i d e d tragedy with a p o l y m o r p h i s m w h i c h was not only
useful but also similar to that o f all G r e e k poetry.
H o w e v e r , it is clear that certain Attticisms that were felt to b e
provincialisms did n o t have prestige, as for e x a m p l e - T T - and -pp-,
w h i c h tended to b e a v o i d e d in poetry. T h e language
o f tragedy,
b e i n g Attic, functioned in the w a y that all G r e e k p o e t i c languages

functioned.
T h e same applies with respect to the different syntactic features
o f tragedy, also shared b y other poetry, w h i c h are also at the same
5
time Attic archaisms: the use o f n u m b e r (the 'poetic plural ), m o o d s

without av, etc. C f , V . Bers
A d r a d o s 1992d, p . 285).
1983 (and A
C . M o o r h o u s e 1982,
IONIC
AND
147
ATTIC
T h e p r o b l e m lies in the fact that the oldest tragedy dates from

4 7 2 , sixty years after the birth o f the genre. But the conclusion seems
clear.
Naturally,
the language o f tragedy e v o l v e d f r o m A e s c h y l u s to
Euripides, a n d was a b l e , . at times, to a d o p t colloquial tones
and
nuances w h i c h were m o r e o r less c o m p a r a b l e to those o f s o m e prose

writers. T h i s has b e e n studied in Euripides b y P. T . Stevens 1976,
but it was already referred to b y Aristode, Rhetorica 1404 b 24. Indeed,
it is evident that the theatre, starting with tragedy, was a m o d e l for
the oldest Attic prose and for Socratic dialogue.
210, T h e study o f the language o f c o m e d y encounters an even greater
obstacle than that o f the tragedy: the oldest preserved c o m e d y , the
Acharnians b y Aristophanes, dates from the year 4 2 5 and is c o n t e m
p o r a r y with the oldest prose. Nevertheless, Aristophanes is essential
for the study o f the colloquial and vulgar registers o f Attic and its
p h o n e t i c , m o r p h o l o g i c a l , lexical and syntactic variants; also, for the
study o f the c o m i c resources o f the language. I have cited t w o works
b y A . L o p e z Eire, to w h i c h I add another o f 1996a o n colloquial
language in Aristophanes; and a b o o k b y A n a g n o s t o p u l o s (1923) as
well as a thesis, published in a summary, b y E. R o d r i g u e z Monescillo
(1975).
Aristophanes ( w h o for us, in practice, is almost the sole repre
sentative o f the c o m e d y ) was an artist in his use o f language, w h o
used a p a r o d y o f different p o e t i c languages and dialects,
different
registers, and o f the p o l y m o r p h i s m that was permitted b y Attic. H e

gave the use o f the latter such flexibility that he n o d o u b t s m o o t h e d
the w a y for prose writers w h e n , rejecting the poeticizing rigidity o f
a writer like Gorgias, they tried to a p p r o a c h the c o m m o n language
and all its resources. T h i s was something n e w , without precedent in
G r e e c e , but it should again b e stressed that Aristophanes reflected
a p o p u l a r language that was not yet regularised in prose.
2 1 1 . This is the scene that the creators o f the Attic language e n c o u n
tered. O f course, o n e should not forget the k n o w l e d g e o f the Attic
that was spoken in the Assembly and in the tribunals, as well as in
the sophistic debates: although here, it seems, with the n e w resources
o f the antilogical style and the n e w intellectual lexicon w h i c h passed
into prose. T h i s is the Attic w h i c h is m o r e o r less accessible to us
through the routes I have outlined; but also, although it m a y appear
148
strange,
CHAPTER
through
EIGHT
another route, n a m e l y through
Socrates: a c o m
parison o f the different Socratic sources makes his language acces

sible to a certain extent, c f A d r a d o s 1992a. A l t h o u g h n o w I believe
that not all his language is m a d e accessible: a certain degree o f defor
mation b y Plato a n d X e n o p h o n , in o r d e r to adapt it to c o n t e m p o
rary prose, is highly plausible, although I believe very rare.
T h e sources through
w h i c h w e k n o w Socrates (mainly Plato,
X e n o p h o n and Aristophanes) filter his ideas in different directions,

yet this d o e s not apply so m u c h to his language, j u d g i n g b y the sim
ilarities b e t w e e n them. For instance, they share the feature
o f the
dialogue, instead o f the m o n o l o g u e ; although n o t literary dialogue,

such as that o f the Socratics, but rather a dialogue o f free c o n v e r
sation w h i c h j u m p s f r o m o n e topic to the other in cUfferent contexts.
It is a colloquial language, avoiding b o t h the vulgar and the 'ele
vated' style o f the Sophists, w h i c h Socrates p a r o d i e d
(particularly
the G o r g i a n i c ) . It is also a l a n g u a g e displaying a uniformity o f

register.
Socrates, as he himself tells us in the Platonic Apology (17), spoke
in the same language that he used in the agora and the counters o f
the m o n e y c h a n g e r s . A distinguishing feature o f his language is the
question and answer m o d e l rather than uninterrupted discourse; also,
paraenesis (the use o f the voluntative a n d imperative), exclamations,
the constant vocatives with which he directs himself to his interlocutor;
and there is not a lack o f emotional m o m e n t s .
C o m m o n w o r d s are always used, comparisons and similes, ironic
and p a r o d i c m o m e n t s , anecdotes, fables and myths, paradoxes. In
addition, there is the use o f polite attenuation: its constant 'perhaps',
its potential instead o f indicative, parenthesis with verbs o f o p i n i o n ,
the replacement o f assertion with interrogation, excuses, impersonal
forms.
A l m o s t invariably, w e are dealing with short phrases, with m i n o r
hypotaxis; o n l y rarely d o e s a conditional lead the phrase, o r does a
final clause c o n c l u d e it; clauses that are temporal o r o f another type
are i n t r o d u c e d asymmetrically, as well as s o m e genitive absolutes.
T h e r e are interruptions and
anacolutha.
T h u s , the language o f Socrates is very representative
o f the lan
guage o f the street, and is n o t far r e m o v e d from m a n y passages b y

Aristophanes. It n o t only avoids vulgarism, but also preciosity, p o e t icism, antilogy and l o n g hypotactic periods. It was the starting p o i n t
o f educated conversation in Athens: colloquial spoken language, not
IONIC
AND
149
ATTIC
prose. But often his very m e t h o d o f discovery led h i m to d e v e l o p

special uses o f c o m m o n w o r d s such as (ppovnaic; (the n e w Socratic
virtue), 7riaô|iiai 'to take care of, o r o c c u p y oneself with , BepocTieia
5
'the care' (especially o f the soul), Ekey%(d 'refute, c o n v i n c e ' , eêraô)

' e x a m i n e ' , etc.
Beside this, there was vulgar Attic, w h i c h w e k n o w f r o m the lan
guage o f the vases studied b y P. K r e t s c h m e r and referred to b y
A . T h u m b - w h i c h was filled with haplologies, dissimilations, and
other p h o n e t i c accidents (some anticipating koine, such as oXioq) and
admitted m a n y foreign w o r d s . P s e u d o - X e n o p h o n , in the Constitution
o f Atenas II 8, acknowledges this mixture. It passed into koine to a
certain
extent.
T h u s , spoken Attic had set aside the literary Attic o f the i a m b o s ;

and it was n o t unitary, for it contained different strata, o f w h i c h w e
have little k n o w l e d g e . Attic prose largely maintained a series o f c o n
current forms. Indeed, it sometimes rejected Atticisms such as - T T 5
and accepted 'international ,
I o n i c and especially poetic phonetics,
m o r p h o l o g y o r lexicon.
The oldest Attic prose
212. Socrates explored, he did not theorise: he was n o t tempted to
write treatises. In fact, h e lived in a context o f oral literature p e c u
liar to Athens, w h e r e poetry was heard in the theatre, in banquets,
schools; w h e r e the discourses in the Assembly and the tribunals were
neither written n o r read; where a visiting foreign philosopher such
as Z e n o (as recounted b y Plato in Parmenides 126 b - c ) w o u l d gather
s o m e friends together to read them o n e o f his writings, and w h e r e
w e are told (by Eusebius in his Chronicle I 78) H e r o d o t u s m a d e his
History k n o w n through a reading.
It is true that in this p e r i o d o n e c o u l d b u y a tragedy o r a b o o k
b y A n a x a g o r a s , but it was strange to have a library, a c c o r d i n g to
Euthydemus (cf. X e n o p h o n , Mem. I V 2, 1), and the fact that Euripides
h a d o n e ( c f Athenaeus 3 A ) was considered s o m e w h a t eccentric.
T h e orality o f Athenian literature and its taste for debate is related
to its culture o f democracy, as I have shown in a recent b o o k (Adrados
1997a). It left its mark o n the later written literature: o n orations,
discourses within history b o o k s , the Socratic dialogues, etc.; and, o f
course, o n theatre. It also forms the base o f the first Attic prose,
that o f the Sophists and rhetoricians.
150
CHAPTER
EIGHT
It should b e n o t e d that these Sophists and rhetoricians
represented
a n e w culture, the culture o f the b o o k . T h e y debated and dialogued,

but they also tended to write discourses that w o u l d serve as m o d
5
els, rhetoric 'arts and treatises o n theoretical themes. T h e y followed,

as w e k n o w , the line o f the ancient philosophers w h o authored their
o w n writings, and the physicians, all o f w h o m wrote in Ionic; they
also followed the Sicilian rhetoricians C o r a x and Tisias (although w e
d o not k n o w in w h i c h dialect they wrote).
I n d e e d , they w e r e important for the continuation o f Athenian lit
erature: for oratory, n o d o u b t , but also for historiography, in w h i c h
T h u c y d i d e s was very influenced b y them; and for the T8%voci and
various essays, from ' O n the C h o r u s
b y S o p h o c l e s to the
different
essays o r discourses o n the theme o f love in the Platonic Symposium.

Socratic dialogue was the only purely Athenian genre, with its o w n
singular
characteristics.
213. A s w e saw, I o n i c was also used in Athens in the beginning.

W e have anticipated that in the twenties o f the fifth century Gorgias
o f Leontini, an Ionian city o f Sicily, and Thrasymachus o f C h a l c e d o n ,
a M e g a r i a n c o l o n y in the Bosporus, were inspired both b y that lit
erature a n d b y what the Attic o f Athens had to offer for the writ
ing o f fictitious discourses, rhetorical 'arts
Athenian
and treatises, all in the
dialect, Attic. T w o Apologiae b y Gorgias have b e e n pre
served, that o f Palamedes and that o f Helen; fragments o f an Epitaphius;

and the treatise On Not Being. H e also wrote s o m e works w h i c h have
b e e n lost, namely, speeches such as the Olympian, Pythian, Eulogy of
the Eleans and a rhetorical Art. A n o t h e r Art, also lost, was written b y
Thrasymachus, to w h o m a treatise is also attributed, On the Constitution.
In this context, the language o f these writings is o f interest: b o t h
with respect to the p h o n e t i c and m o r p h o l o g i c a l characteristics
of
their Attic and to the figures o f speech and phrase construction, as

well as to the l e x i c o n . A l s o , fundamentally, the language o f the epi5
deictic works, the ' e c o n o m i c .

Gorgias and T h r a s y m a c h u s created a m o d e l o f Attic prose w h i c h
different authors s o o n struggled to surpass, creating what I will refer
to as the s e c o n d Attic prose. H o w e v e r , the first Attic prose, influenced
certainly b y
figures
o f speech and other resources o f I o n i c prose
m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ( 197 f ) , includes Gorgias and

b u t s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d , to s c h e m a t i s e
Thrasymachus,
s o m e w h a t , the
historian
T h u c y d i d e s , w h o o n his return to Athens from exile in the year 4 0 4
IONIC
AND
151
ATTIC
wrote in a style strongly influenced b y Gorgias in his youth. This

prose also influenced the orator A n t i p h o n , w h o s e Tetralogies (fictitious
discourses in w h i c h an accusser and defender take turns) clearly fol
l o w the line o f Protagoras and Gorgias. T h e s e w e r e possibly writ
ten a r o u n d the year 4 1 5 ^ c . But T h u c y d i d e s and A n t i p h o n , as well
as the orator A n d o c i d e s , fought strongly to free themselves
from
Gorgianism: they constitute a kind o f transition to mature Attic prose,

w h i c h in Lysias is decidedly anti-Gorgianic. F o r only in epideictic
oratory d o G o r g i a n i c characteristics appear here and there. See, o n
the genre, V . Buchheit 1960.
T h e small treatise, with o l i g a r c h i c o v e r t o n e s , ' C o n s t i t u t i o n
of
Athens', dated before the Peloponnesian war, is n o t included in the

first Attic prose: it constitutes a first, rather clumsy attempt, before
G o r g i a n i c prose. Atticisms such as -TT- are present, and the
sub
stantivisation o f the neuters in intellectual prose is still absent.

Also, w e have not included the two writings b y the Sophist Antiphon,
Concord and Truth (some papyrus fragments still survive o f the latter).
His identification with A n t i p h o n the orator, d e f e n d e d a m o n g others
b y W . A l y 1987, is dubious, just as the c h r o n o l o g y p r o p o s e d , a r o u n d
the year 4 3 9 . Concord belongs to the epideictic genre and displays an
Ionic-poetic language, with the - G G - and ûv o f the first Atticism;
Truth is m o r e Atticistic (-XT-, o i v , Attic vocabulary), but it follows
the m o d e l o f the Presocratic treatises, with badly organised and short
members.
Nevertheless, these w e r e the first buddings o f Attic prose. T h e
great transformation,
its actual creation, was really in the hands o f
Gorgias and Thrasymachus:
s o m e believe that, in the l o n g run, it
was m o r e in the hands o f the latter w h o , a c c o r d i n g to the Suda,

introduced 'the current style o f oratory' ( c f J. D . Denniston 1970,
p . 14).
2 1 4 . Let us n o w l o o k at s o m e o f the characteristics
o f what w e
regard as b e i n g the oldest Attic prose and the transitional prose.

H o w e v e r , it s h o u l d b e n o t e d b e f o r e h a n d
that it contains
many
irregularities a n d n u m e r o u s doublets in its phonetics and m o r p h o l

o g y ; also, with r e g a r d
to
figures,
construction,
and
vocabulary,
there are differences between the authors. T h u c y d i d e s is a special

case, in w h i c h elements o f the G o r g i a n i c tradition are c o m b i n e d with
various others; similarly with A n t i p h o n . T h u s , it is better to treat
them
separately.
152
CHAPTER
EIGHT
215. See in particular R. Hiersche 1970, p. 208 ff. and the books o f A.
Thumb 1974 and J. Niehoff-Panagiotidis 1994 as cited; for the lexicon, see
my articles Adrados 1953a and 1957. O n Thucydides, see B. Rosenkranz
1930, C. Roura 1971, F. R. Adrados 2003, p . 50 ff, O . Hoffmann 1973,
p. 176 ff, J. Gaveney 1978, L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 152 ff A joint study
is lacking, after that by E. Norden 1898; for Gorgias I can cite the (unpub
lished) bachelor thesis of A. Duran 1966. The connections between the
Gorgianic figures and those o f Heraclitus can be seen in G. Rudberg 1942;
for links with certain magical texts, see M . Garcia Teijeiro 1988; for other
influences, including that of Protagoras, c f G. Zuntz 1939. O n the figures
themselves, cf. J. Martin 1974, p. 270 ff O n their place in the history of
Attic rhetoric and literary language, see the books cited by V . Buchheit,
W . Aly and J. D . Denniston.
There are problems regarding the hesitations o f manuscripts and editors,
along with problems o f interpretation: it has been customary to regard as
Ionic certain forms which today are clearly seen to be archaic Attic, espe
cially in Thucydides.
216. T h e great leap toward writing in Attic prose was not m a d e
without concessions: actually, similar concessions were m a d e b y the
tragedians.
T h e forms -xx- and - p p - o n l y rarely appear
in
these
authors, I o n i c and p o e t i c forms (or simply the general forms in the

literary dialects) - G O - and - p a - dominating. T h e p o i n t was not to iso
late the n e w literature t o o m u c h (which w o u l d not have b e e n a p r o b
lem for c o m e d y or, indeed, for m o r e recent Attic prose). Perhaps
the desire to maintain the dignity o f the prose can b e seen in the
p r e s e n c e o f a r c h a i c forms such as edv, 6v, ec,, ouveica,
eveicev,
rcaAxxioxepoc,, although these sometimes alternate with m o d e r n forms.

T h e same o c c u r s with at least part o f the so-called p o e t i c v o c a b
ulary f o u n d in tragedy, p r o c e e d i n g from poetry as well as the archaic
Attic base. T h i s was discussed a b o v e .
In contrast, the proliferation o f abstracts in
-JLIOC
and -ore,, w h i c h
c o m e s f r o m I o n i c prose, is the sign o f a n e w age. Also, in particu

lar, the 'figures
w h i c h I have discussed in this c o n n e c t i o n , w h i c h
attempt to c o m p e n s a t e for the lack o f verse.

217. Gorgias went further than the Ionians: his small periods (kommata) w e r e integrated
b y tiny units
(KSXCX)
organised in antithetic
pairs, linked b y an equal n u m b e r o f syllables (rcccpiGcocnc,) and e n d

rhyme
(TCCCPOLXOIOOOTC,,
OLioioxeXeuxov). T h u s , a very artificial style c a m e
into b e i n g w h i c h was later rejected with the creation o f longer peri

ods organised o n the basis o f hypotaxis. Aristotle (Rhetorica 1404 a
IONIC A N D
153
ATTIC
26 ff.) criticises G o r g i a s b y saying that prose is n o t the same
as
poetry. H e describes this style as ' p o e t i c ; n o d o u b t , the l e x i c o n c o n

tributed to this impression, as well as the continued use o f m e t o n y m y
and metaphors,
alliteration a n d verbal e c h o e s . A p a r t f r o m this,
there is the artificial imposition o f a 'corset
w h i c h is antithetic to
its content.
T h r a s y m a c h u s w e n t a step further with his use o f metric clauses
at the beginnings and endings o f periods: p a e o n i c rhythms
the beginnings and
( a t
at the endings), and also trochaics and cretics.
In fact, all o f later Attic prose g r e w out o f the modification o f the

Gorgianic style and that o f Thrasymachus b y Thucydides and Antiphon
and its critique b y later writers: Plato in the Gorgias 4 6 7 b , 4 7 9 c,
Menexenus 235 a, Symposium 198 a ff.; Isocrates V 2 7 , I X 10, etc. N o t
to m e n t i o n the criticism o f Euripides o f ' t o o beautiful
words and
b y Aristophanes against the y o u n g enthusiasts o f sophistry and Rhetoric

in Clouds 961 f f , a m o n g others.
T h i s criticism was justified b y the success that G o r g i a n i c rhetoric
enjoyed for s o m e time. Isocrates and Aristode s h o w this clearly. Plato,
for his part, reflects this success in small examples that he includes
in his works: various in the Symposium, especially the discourse b y
A g a t h o n ; the erotic discourse o f Lysias recited b y Phaedrus in the
dialogue o f the same n a m e ; etc. Also, a b o v e all, it is clearly reflected
in Plato's o w n criticism.
218. T h e Gorgianic and Thrasymachean
construction o f periods
r e m a i n e d important for A n t i p h o n and also left traces in T h u c y d i d e s .

In particular, its a b u n d a n c e o f antithetic expressions, whether used
in parallel o r oppositionally. S o m e t i m e s , it is a c c o m p a n i e d b y w o r d
play, with an exploitation o f s y n o n y m y .
H o w e v e r , T h u c y d i d e s is an entirely different case. Elsewhere, I
have studied his main characteristics (Adrados 2 0 0 3 , p . x x x f f ) . H e
does not display any c o m p l e t e p h o n e t i c o r m o r p h o l o g i c a l regularisation, he can c h o o s e archaisms o r Ionicisms (which are sometimes
the same thing). T h e r e is a lack o f short and rhythmic periods and
he has n o t yet acquired the l o n g and well-structured periods o f the
later prose, w h o s e d e v e l o p m e n t c a m e later, d u e to his exile b e t w e e n
4 2 4 and 4 0 4 . His prose is full o f parentheses and anacolutha,
of
syntactic imprecision. It preserves archaic syntactic uses and, in par

ticular,
exploits nominal expression: this c o m e s f r o m the
intellectual
154
CHAPTER
EIGHT
base o f his work, as does the proliferation
o f abstracts.
Certainly,
with s o m e awkwardness, his prose manages to construct

periods, c h a r g e d with
extended
thought.
S o , in T h u c y d i d e s w e find the unification
o f particular Attic
archaisms, a flight from m o r e local Atticism, the influence o f the

p e r i o d i c and antithetical style o f Gorgias and Thrasymachus, and an
attempt to create n e w m o d e s o f expression adapted to the n e w thought
and to the needs o f prose d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e antitheses, with s o m e
exceptions, are a d d e d to the thought, not the reverse, as in Gorgias.
T h e s e needs w e r e also felt b y a series o f writers w h o extended
the intellectual lexicon o f Attic and created extended and c o m p l e x
periods based o n hypotaxis used in a regular w a y w h i c h b e c a m e
characteristic o f a n e w style, although there were differences between
the various schools. A n t i p h o n himself introduced a n e w style in the
c o m p o s i t i o n o f the periods.
Mature Attic prose
2 1 9 . A s p o i n t e d out earlier, T h u c y d i d e s and A n t i p h o n should b e
regarded as authors o f a transitional prose that led direcdy to the
great Attic prose style, w h i c h only really began to
flourish
in
the
fourth century. O n the o n e hand, this prose is decidedly Attic, with

out any o f the concessions to I o n i c phonetics, m o r p h o l o g y and lex
i c o n o f w h i c h w e have spoken. O n the other h a n d , it
gradually
renounces G o r g i a n i c trappings and even rhetorical pomposity, as well

as vulgarism. It d o e s n o t always avoid colloquialism, but it has a
5
'written style w h i c h is essentially different from the oral style. This

Attic prose was o p e n to evolution, w h i c h begin in the fifth century
and lead to the formation o f koine.
It is important
to n o t e that the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Attic prose is
closely related to the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Athenian literature and
the
spirit that inspired it. T h u c y d i d e s , to b e sure, was not after bril

liance, but after a rigorous exposition o f the facts and a rigorous
theory: w h e n h e p r o p o s e s that his w o r k is 'a posession for all time
and not a competitive p i e c e to b e heard for the m o m e n t
(I 22), he
is, in effect, criticising the rhetoricians, Sophists and historians w h o

aim to please with their mythical and poetical fantasies, whereas he
is o n l y after the truth.
T h e s e criticisms are shared b y Plato w h e n , in the
Gorgias, he
opposes p h i l o s o p h y and rhetoric, and in the Symposium, p h i l o s o p h y
IONIC
AND
155
ATTIC
a n d poetry: his Socrates searches for the truth b y means o f a dis

course rid o f all artifice. This explains his criticism o f Gorgianism.
Isocrates is n o clifferent w h e n he describes his stylistic evolution
( X I I 2) and offers his o w n criticisms (cf. 217). H e is after sapheneia,
clarity o f exposition, in w h i c h everything fits.
But to return to T h u c y d i d e s , w h o was o n the same path. T h e r e
is a d o m i n a n c e o f narration and argumentation in the
impressive
part o f the proems and epilogues in the same discourses, cf. F. R o m e r o

1988. W i t h regard to A n t i p h o n , G . Z u n t z 1939 has noted the d o m
inance o f the narrative and argumentative part over Gorgianic 'adorn
5
ments , and h o w for the former he d e v e l o p e d his o w n version o f the

lexis eiromene o r a c o o r d i n a t i v e version b e f o r e the katestrammene o r
hypotactic version; but always without a forced regularisation, and
avoiding G o r g i a n i c schematism.
Both in T h u c y d i d e s and A n t i p h o n w e occasionally encounter
lexicon w h i c h is rather I o n i c and poeticising, and w h i c h sometimes

turns out to b e archaic A t t i c This w o u l d later b e rectified in a gen
eral way.
2 2 0 . T h e Athenian spirit is responsible for three great literary inven
tions
(besides theatre, w h i c h I have discussed):

(1) T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f written oratory, mainly forensic
and
political in nature b u t also epideictic, with the purpose o f

5
persuasion (Gorgias's m o t o ) , although through a 'middle lan

guage, as it were, w h i c h was neither vulgar n o r poeticising.
(2) T h e creation o f the Socratic dialogue, w h i c h is k n o w n to us
a b o v e all through Plato and X e n o p h o n . A l t h o u g h it includes
mythical and rhetorical passages, it essentially raises spoken
dialogue to the literary level. O f course, there are differences:
there is true dialectic dialogue in the first p e r i o d , dialectic
and
d r a m a t i c d i a l o g u e in the s e c o n d (Protagoras,
Gorgias,
Symposium, Phaedrus, Phaedo, etc.) and in the late Plato there

is a species o f fictitious dialogue, in w h i c h the 'yes
o f the interlocutor d o not hide the fact that w e are
replies
really
dealing with an expository treatise.

(3) T h e creation o f a n e w history, w h i c h c o n t i n u e d the line o f
the I o n i c histories but aimed for exact narration o f political
and military facts, without mythical o r ethnographic excursi
or digressions. Also, occasionally, discussing their interpretation.
156
CHAPTER
EIGHT
T h u s , the mature Attic prose was created, a n d it was d e v e l o p e d

mainly in the fourth century, during a p e r i o d in w h i c h Athens was
a secondary p o w e r and w o u l d s o o n b e c o m e a small city within the
Hellenistic w o r l d . Despite this, a mature prose style d e v e l o p e d , dis
playing an ingenious regularisation, w h i c h distances it from the c o l
loquial language o f Aristophanes and what remains o f it in Thucydides.
U n d e r l y i n g the m o r e formalised p r o s e , a freer Attic was stirring
w h i c h w o u l d evolve and give rise to koine, e x p a n d i n g throughout the
Greek world.
2 2 1 . A few characteristics o f this prose:
(1) T h e elimination o f the excessively vulgar a n d o f certain
archaic forms, without r e n o u n c i n g the forms c o m m o n
to
Attic, w h i c h are not replaced b y the Ionic forms. EHmination,

t o o , o f certain poeticisms.
(2) A degree o f c h o i c e in the m o r p h o l o g y a n d syntax (in, for
e x a m p l e , Aristophanes a n d T h u c y d i d e s ) , w h i c h renounces
forms w h i c h often e m e r g e d later in koine (and even earlier,
as m e n t i o n e d previously).
(3) C h o i c e in the lexicon, t o o , w h i c h I studied in m y earlier
articles: this ' p u r g e d
lexicon survived in the p o p u l a r lan
guage a n d was reintroduced in koine. It was a 'subterranean
lexicon, e m e r g i n g at the e n d o f the Attic p e r i o d and in koine.

Attic prose definitely distanced itself from conversational language:
b y resorting to Ionicisms, poeticisms, rhetorical
figures,
etc.; and,
subsequendy, to various types o f choices. Cf. A d r a d o s 1981b, p . 314 ff.

T h e r e is n o difference b e t w e e n the language o f the accused and the
accusers in Lysias, a n d there is n o attempt to categorise them b y
their l a n g u a g e (the same applies in the case o f Aristophanes
or
Socrates with respect to conversational language). In short, Attic

prose maintained the distinction b e t w e e n literary and conversational
language w h i c h h a d existed f r o m the beginnings o f G r e e c e itself,
and in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods the same antinomy c o n
tinued. Similarly, in the m o d e r n p e r i o d , a distinction w o u l d b e m a d e
between a katharevusa o r 'pure
language and a dimotiki o r 'popular
language.
222. O n the role o f prose within Athenian culture, I refer the reader to
the works mentioned above (cf 215) and especially my book o f 1997.
For rhetoric, see in particular V . Buccheit 1960 and J. Martin 1974, as
157
IONIC AND ATTIC
cited previously, as well as O . A. Baumhauer 1986. O n the intellectual

aspects o f Socratic and Platonic philosophy, see various works of mine col
lected in Adrados 1992d; also, the book cited, Democracia y literature, en la
Atenas cldsica, o f 1997. For the style o f Attic prose in general, the book by
J. D . Denniston 1970 is very important. For the composition of the Platonic
dialogues, c f a m o n g others, V . Goldsmith 1963, H . Thesleff 1967,
P. Badenas 1984 (and my Prologue, Adrados 1984d). O n the rhythm o f
Demosthenes, see D . M c C a b e 1981. O n the occasional impact of the col
loquial language, see E. des Places 1934, in general; D . Tarrant 1946 and
1958, on Plato; compare also P. T . Stevens 1976, on Euripides. O n the
composition o f Thucydides, see A. Momigliano 1930 (and my Introduction
to my translation, Madrid 1984b). The bibliography on the language, style
and composition of Attic prose is more scarce than might be expected.
Histories o f the Greek language, such as those of O . Hoffmann, R. Hiersche
and L. R. Palmer, abundantly cited here, go up to Gorgias, Thucydides
and Antiphon, and later surprisingly jump to Xenophon.
It should be noted that relatively little remains o f Athenian prose of the
fourth century. It is true that a large part o f oratory has been preserved,
but as far as history is concerned, we have only Xenophon and some frag
ments o f Theopompus and Ephorus; so many others are missing. With
regard to the Socratics, we are only left with Plato and Xenophon, and
precious little of the other thinkers of the fourth century. Also, very little
has survived o f comedy. Note that the latter as well as the historians and
philosophers were not often Athenians at all, only the orators were. But
Attic was the language o f prose: first in Athens, written by Athenians and
non-Athenians, and later in all other parts.
Variants within Attic prose
2 2 3 . T h e r e are e n o r m o u s internal differences in Attic prose, within
the c o m m o n characteristics w h i c h have b e e n discussed.
F o r instance, with regard to oratory, there is firsdy the style o f
Lysias, in w h i c h the l o g o g r a p h e r has to adapt to the simplicity o f
his clients, w h o are uncomfortable in the tribune; secondly, there is
the style o f certain passionate, political discourses, b y D e m o s t h e n e s ;
thirdly, the style o f the c o m p l e x o f the grand epideictic discourses
b y Isocrates the Panegyricus, Panathenaicus, Areopagiticus and the rest
-
with their l o n g hypotactic periods, w h o s e clauses contain
others
like Chinese b o x e s ; their a v o i d a n c e o f the hiatus; and their clauses

with p a e o n i c rhythm.
5
In certain passages - the 'climactic m o m e n t o f the discourse On

the Crown b y D e m o s t h e n e s , o r the passage
souls a n d
the
d i s c o u r s e b y D i o t i m a in the
o f the p r o c e s s i o n o f
P l a t o n i c Phaedrus
the p o e t i c style can resurface in the lexicon, phraseology and the kola.
158
CHAPTER
EIGHT
In any case, n e w and subtle rules o f c o m p o s i t i o n - w h i c h the ora

tor can break, as flagrandy demonstrated b y D e m o s t h e n e s in On the
Crown with his s e c o n d narration
the possibility o f turning to the
colloquial or, in contrast, o f introducing rhetorical emphasis, as well

as the possibility o f constructing rather elaborate periods, j o i n s in
the service o f exposition, argumentation
and persuation.
Rhetoric
was at the centre o f Athenian life, and all literature (including the
atre and history) was influenced b y it. Y e t only e c h o e s survive o f
ancient G o r g i a n i c rhetoric.
T h e same can b e said o f the Socratic dialogues, w h i c h transformed
dialogue (with varying themes) into literature. I have pointed out
that the Socratic dialogues c o u l d consist o f various elements
and
c o u l d b e divided into different subgenres, w h i c h is clearly d e m o n

strated in Plato. But there is always a pre-established
organisation
underlying their apparent freedom, leading to a conclusion.

T h e dialogues o f the m i d d l e p e r i o d o f Plato's life - starting with
the Protagoras and the Gorgias, towards the year 390 - gave rise to
the dramatic dialogue, w h i c h can take the f o r m o f a c o m e d y o r
tragedy. W i t h o u t g o i n g into t o o m u c h detail about its construction
(I already cited the bibliography), I w o u l d say that w e are faced with
a n e w genre in w h i c h the dramatic makes use o f prose expressions
and in w h i c h the style is flexible a c c o r d i n g to need. H . Thesleff 1967
discusses Plato's styles.
O f course, the colloquialism o f Socratic discourse, w h i c h I dis
cussed, is o v e r c o m e , but this does not exclude the occasional pres
ence o f colloquialisms as appropriate, cf. D . Tarrant 1946 and 1958.
Indeed, w h e r e necessary (I referred to the Phaedrus above), the style
c a n b e elevated without resorting to G o r g i a n i c artifice.
Similar observations c o u l d b e m a d e with respect to history, had
m o r e works b e e n preserved for us. I have discussed T h u c y d i d e s ,
although something should b e a d d e d with regard to his c o m p o s i t i o n ,
c f for e x a m p l e , A . M o m i g l i a n o 1930. A s regards his successors, w e
are acquainted with the simplicity o f diction and compositional organ
isation o f X e n o p h o n a n d the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, and perhaps also
o f T h e o p o m p u s , whereas a m o r e rhetorical and moralising aspect is
attributed to Ephorus. It w o u l d seem that, in this way, the two essen
tial lines o f Hellenistic historiography were presaged.
2 2 4 . J. D . Denniston 1970 has p r o v i d e d us with a magesterial w o r k
o n the multiple possibilities o f Attic prose and its supreme flexibility.
IONIC
AND
ATTIC
159
F o r instance, he looks at the different ways o f introducing abstract

expressions; the use o f w o r d order, for emphasis and rhythm;
the
structure o f periods, whether strict o r lax, o r organised o n the basis

o f antithesis o r hendiadys, containing repetitions, anaphoras, anacolutha and asyndeton; augmenting o r reducing the subordinates, w h i c h
call for others, using genitive absolutes and predicative participles,
etc. Short m e m b e r s d o m i n a t e within the periods. T h e aim is always
towards clarity o f exposition and emphasis w h e n the author deems
necessary.
T h e c o n c e p t o f Attic, in c o n n e c t i o n to prose, is multiple, ranging
from the elevated to the colloquial, the formally c o m p l e x to the
apparendy casual, from the interminable periods o f Isocrates to shorter
ones. Because o f this, the Latin orators c o u l d chose b e t w e e n Lysias
and D e m o s t h e n e s and the subsequent Atticists c o u l d follow different
models. In any case, the loosely organised periods as well as the
artificially constructed periods based o n antithesis and assonance were
discarded. Consequently, the well-organised but flexible p e r i o d d o m
inated b y hypotaxis c a m e into being, w h i c h was decisive for all sub
sequent literary languages, starting with Latin. Attic prose was directiy
o r indirectly the m o d e l for all later prose.
225. Emphasis should be placed on the variants o f Attic prose, within cer
tain limits, and the existence o f doublets, as in any language, which the
constant presence o f Ionians and other foreigners reinforced. This subject
has been studied by A. Lopez Eire in three works (1986b, 1991 and 1996a)
on Aristophanes and one work on Thucydides (1984c). This is very appro
priate, for Aristophanes was colloquial and Thucydides was a pioneer o f
prose; both precede the regularisation of written prose. Xenophon and the
late Plato were both influenced by koine.
A. Lopez Eire provides many examples o f certain Aristophanic forms
which would later belong to koine. For example, the plural next to the dual,
the voc. Ixpe\jria8e(; as though one were dealing with a stem in -s, diminu
tives tending to replace the base word (ueip&Kiov, which required the cre
ation of the diminutive ueipaicoXAaov), superlatives transformed into mere
positives, the replacement of vavq &pf|v and 6pvi<; by rctauov, &uvo<; and
opveov,
ti as atenuant, etc. He also points out some coincidences in
the syntax.
Similarly with Thucydides, as mentioned earlier: A. Lopez Eire points
out, among other things, the intense use of diminutives, the loss o f the
difference between o<; and oatic;, the use of prepositional phrases instead of
cases, the confusion of ei<; and ev, the use of the active voice instead of
the middle voice, the loss of the resultative value of the perfect, temporal
periphrasis with eivoti, the construction o f oxi with the infinitive, etc. I think
that these doublets remained in use in Attic, although, later, one of the
y
160
CHAPTER
EIGHT
forms would prevail in prose, while the other would surface in koine. O n
the 'freedom' o f Thucydides, see also R. Hiersche 1970, p. 215.
226. In effect, I believe that w e are dealing with a somewhat artificial
regularisation o f Attic prose, beneath w h i c h strong forces were stir
ring w h i c h w o u l d e n d up creating koine. I will c o m e b a c k to this.
H e r e , I w o u l d like to emphasise t w o important points: that at a cer
tain p o i n t this regularity tended to b e broken and that this b e g a n
to b e admitted:
(1)
It is a well-known fact, after the w o r k b y L. Gautier 1911, that
X e n o p h o n is littered with non-Attic forms: not so m a n y with respect

to phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y , but m a n y in his vocabulary.
They
tend to b e attributed to the agitated life o f the writer, warring out

side Athens and subsequently exiled, a n d consist o f Doricisms and
Ionicisms, as well as o f various hesitations and, a b o v e all, a lexicon
foreign to the standards o f Attic prose.
His p r o s e is often interpreted as containing Doricisms, Ionicisms
and poeticisms, and s o m e w o r d s have also b e e n pointed out as being
simply from koine (cf. for e x a m p l e , O . H o f f m a n n 1973). In fact, s o m e
o f these w o r d s c o u l d also b e l o n g to the p o p u l a r Attic base to which
I have referred. T h i s merits s o m e research. In any case, it is clear
that X e n o p h o n anticipated koine, especially in his lexicon, whatever
its origin.
(2)
W h e n writing m y Estudios sobre el lexico de las fdbulas
esopicas
(Adrados 1948) I was able to confirm time and again the existence
o f n u m e r o u s lexical forms o f koine in the last dialogues o f Plato, in
Laws and
Timaeus in particular. This was used b y A . D i a z
Tejera
1961 for his study o f Plato's c h r o n o l o g y .

A writer w h o was active for almost fifty years c o u l d n o t help but
reflect the linguistic changes o f his p e r i o d . S o , w e have first-rate d o c
umentation o f the evolution o f Attic vocabulary in the direction o f
koine, although
w e c a n n o t discard the hypothesis that, very
w o r d s f r o m this infra-literary origin to w h i c h I have referred
often,
were
gradually generalised a n d in the middle o f the fourth century were

eventually accepted into the literature.
IONIC A N D
4.
THE
CREATION
161
ATTIC
OF T H E SCIENTIFIC
LANGUAGE
The Presocratics
227\ T h e Presocratics - w h o wrote in hexameters and in elegiac dis
tics from the sixth century B C onwards (and in I o n i c prose, from the
same date) - were primarily responsible for laying the foundations
for the creation o f a scientific G r e e k language. T h e philosophical
and technical writings o f the Attic and Hellenistic periods w o u l d fol
l o w . Indeed, whereas other languages, from Latin to the m o d e r n
E u r o p e a n languages, created a scientific language that was essen
tially a continuation, adaptation and expansion o f the G r e e k scientific
language, G r e e k created a scientific language based o n the c o m m o n
G r e e k language with all its bits and pieces. T h i s distinguishes it from
all the w o r l d ' s languages.
Y e t this is true, n o t only with respect to the v o c a b u l a r y , although
this is perhaps the most fundamental
aspect, but also with respect
to the creation o f a prose capable o f linking ideas in a rational m a n

ner, and the creation o f scientific texts organised in a systematic w a y .
T h i s was briefly discussed in 197 ff.
T h i s does n o t m e a n to say that the beginnings o f a scientific lan
guage had not existed before o r h a d n o t e m e r g e d in other places:
for example, in B a b y l o n i a for astronomy, o r in India for grammar.
But in G r e e c e , things p r o c e e d e d in a m o r e systematic w a y and, most
i m p o r t a n d y , a scientific language was created that w o u l d influence
all o f later languages. T h e s e langages, as I have stated in various
works, are a species o f semi-Greek o r c r y p t o - G r e e k , due to a series
o f G r e e k terms used with the f o r m and sense o f the originals o r
with others; or, indeed, used in translation through semantic caiques.
W h e n w e say conciencia in Spanish (Lat. conscientia) o r Gewissen in
G e r m a n , w e are in effect translating the G r e e k auvemncuc,. T h e cre
ation o f this scientific language is inextricably linked to the creation
o f different philosophical and scientific systems.
In this chapter w e will l o o k at the origins o f this language in the
I o n i c and Attic periods; it c o n t i n u e d to d e v e l o p in the Hellenistic
p e r i o d , in the R o m a n p e r i o d and, subsequently, in the m o d e r n lan
guages until the present day. Indeed, the Greeks constituted a m o n o
lingual w o r l d : thus, in creating their science, they h a d to express it
in their o w n language, specialising and e x p a n d i n g it where neces
sary. Naturally, this did not o c c u r all at o n c e . T h e Presocratics and
162
CHAPTER
Ionic-prose writers contributed
EIGHT
o n l y in the first phase, w h i c h was
i n c o m p l e t e and hesitant, and w h i c h later g r e w e n o r m o u s l y in Athens.

228. There is no global monographic study o f the Greek scientific language
or o f its influence in the later scientific language: only partial studies of
words, suffixes, etc. I refer the reader to Adrados 1997b, where I provide
a general overview o f this topic, along with the most important bibliogra
phy (my own works and those o f others) on the characteristics o f this lan
guage; and to Adrados 1996b, a summary o f the role o f Greek in this
respect. Data is provided in A d r a d o s - D . Lara (1998e) and A d r a d o s J. Rodriguez Somolinos 1995-96, on the treatment o f this vocabulary in
the Diccionario
Griego-EspanoL
For the Presocratic origins o f this vocabulary, cf. in particular Adrados

1995b, which is followed here, as well as R. Hiersche 1970, pp. 182, 184 ff,
190. O n medical vocabulary, see 232. For Heraclitus, cf. Adrados 1973a.
Note that the new lexicon is not only derived from the new thought but
is also better understood as a result o f the new thought.
For the study o f the development o f the diferent suffixes, c f , in partic
ular, P. Chantraine 1933 and 1956; there is a specialised bibliography for
the various suffixes, based on E. Frankel 191012.
A very complete bibliography o f the lexicon o f scientific Greek can be
found in P. Boned Colera-J. Rodriguez Somolinos 1998.
2 2 9 . It is evident that G r e e k literature and
thought represent
an
authentic 'departure' in the direction o f rationality and science; par

ticularly,
as m e n t i o n e d previously, in the hands o f the
Presocratics,
in verse o r p r o s e , a n d in I o n i c prose. It was a c c o m p a n i e d b y the

linguistic revolution discussed earlier. Y e t , b o t h thought a n d language
were based o n what h a d g o n e before: the poetic, particularly H o m e r i c
language, o r conversational language. T e r m s , whether p o e t i c o r c o m
m o n , a c q u i r e d a n e w meaning; others w e r e also created b y deriva
tion o r c o m p o s i t i o n .
Characteristics o f this language include, a b o v e all, n e w t a x o n o m i e s
and terminologies, n e w abstracts, a n d n e w lexical networks in w h i c h
nouns, verbs, adjectives a n d adverbs c o r r e s p o n d to each other. T h e r e
are
also other aspects o f the language,
m e n t i o n e d previously:
the
creation o f a scientific style a n d syntax and o f a w o r d c o m p o s i t i o n

w h i c h is also characteristic o f scientific writing.
T o return to the v o c a b u l a r y , the p r o c e d u r e s used, whether in iso
lation o r in c o n j u n c t i o n ,
are:
(a) T h e specialisation o f the p o e t i c a n d I o n i c vocabulary.

(b) T h e creation o f n e w terms for derivation o r verbal c o m p o
sition; this includes the creation
o f abstracts from neutral
IONIC A N D
163
ATTIC
adjectives o r adjectives with o r without article: A n a x i m e n e s ,

TO SIKOCIOV;
A n a x a g o r a s , xo Bepjuov; D e m o c r i t u s , xoc
KCCAXX, TO
Seov.
(c) T h e creation o f systems o f opposition, whether
formalised
(containing one o f the two paired terms with d~, 8uc-,
CCDTO-,
etc.), o r not (the type eiui/YiYvoum, Yveorc/(p9opd, |3ioc/0dvaxoq); this involves the existence o f synonyms o r semi-syn
o n y m s in each term, as I have studied in Heraclitus
(nvp
-ev, dûveToi -oc7C8ipov8(; -euSovxec,, taSyoc,-, uexpov-SiTcn).

(d) T h e creation o f networks o f n o u n / a d j e c t i v e / v e r b / a d v e r b , as
stated earlier.
O f course, the Presocratics a d v a n c e d relatively little; there is a d o m
inance o f abstracts in -in o v e r the later ones in -uov, adjectives in
-IKOC,
(characteristic o f the Sophists) are rare, their opposites and their
lexical networks were later sometimes continued and e x p a n d e d (or

not, as the case m a y b e ) . In addition, there are deficiencies and dis
crepancies a m o n g certain authors.
230. A s has b e e n p o i n t e d out, there is a tendency to use p o e t i c lan
guage as a starting point, f r o m w h i c h changes in m e a n i n g are m a d e
or parallel forms are created. S o , for instance, avcavuuoc,, Od. V I I I
552,
and dvonxoc,, H. Merc. 8 0 , w e r e given a philosophical m e a n i n g
in Parm. 8, 17 and 16; dvcbtaBpoc, ( A n a x i m a n d . 3) was created o n

c
this base. OiXoxnc, and Neucoc,, 'love' and hate in H o m e r , were trans
f o r m e d into c o s m i c principles in E m p e d o c l e s ; and K6CT|LIO<; 'frame' in
Od. V I I I 4 9 2 b e c a m e ' w o r l d ' .
T h i s c o n t i n u e d in H i p p o c r a t e s , w h e r e , for e x a m p l e
H o m e r i c ' b l o o d o f the g o d s ' , was c h a n g e d into
ixcbp,
the
'serum'.
Concretely, the c o s m o g o n i e s and theogonies were a source o f inspi

ration for the creation o f the n e w vocabulary: this is n o t
surprising,
since the investigation o f the dpxn o r 'beginning' o f the w o r l d was

b u t a rational continuation o f the c o s m o g o n i e s and theogenies.
In effect, the 'beginnings' o f the Presocratics w e r e in H o m e r the
names o f the corresponding elements used in the c o m o g o n i e s ('water',
etc.). Presocratic uses such as the drceipovoc yf|c, pd0ri o f E m p . 39,
sprang from H o m e r i c and H e s i o d i c uses, in c o s m o g o n i c
passages
(77. X I V 2 0 0 and 301 rceipaxa ycanc,, a m o n g others) and from Trepaq,

ocTteipOQ, drceipcov w h i c h indicate a lack o f limits; the substantivisa
tion o f obteipov 'the indefinite' in Pythagoras and A n a x i m a n d e r was
an advance.
164
CHAPTER
EIGHT
In the H o m e r i c passage cited w e also find yeveaiq: II. X I V 201

'QKEOCVOV
xe, Gecov yeveorv is n o d o u b t the source o f the use o f this term
in Parmenides, Aristophanes and Plato to indicate the 'origin' o f the

5
gods; and f r o m H o m e r w e obtain the later uses o f (pucuc; 'nature : in

H o m e r the w o r d o n l y referred to the magical quality o f a plant, c f
O d . X 303 and P. Chantraine 1933, p . 2 3 8 . T h e r e is a precedent
in Pherecydes o f Syros, 3, with regard to xoc evavxia 'the
contraries'.
2 3 1 . M o r e clarity is n e e d e d with regard to the Presocratics, w h o

inspired the creation o f lexical systems and meanings w h i c h were
often maintained.
We
should c o n s i d e r those that w e rather anachronistically
call
abstractions, such as the series o f semi-divine principles: earth (Irj),

love ("Epcoc,), etc. A l s o , principles such as cmeipov o r A,6yoc, w h i c h
function o n their o w n , are automatically included. T h e s e terms were
in the vanguard o f the rich w o r l d o f abstraction o f later philosophies.
A n o t h e r important p o i n t for the first thinkers was the unity o f
Nature, M a n and
G o d . Certainly,
G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y and science
attempted to break this unity, but traces o f it remained in ancient

time, and are reflected in the vocabulary. T e r m s related to the sphere
o f h u m a n life passed into the sphere o f nature: for instance,
SIKU,
uexpov, vojôq, used n o w to refer to c o s m i c law o r regularity.

Inversely, a natural o r physical term such as
KOGUOC,
entered
the
h u m a n sphere.
It s h o u l d b e p o i n t e d out that the scientific v o c a b u l a r y o f the
Presocratics was achronical. Its principles, o r dp%a{, refer to atemp o r a l realities: xd evavxia 'the contraries', xd ovxa 'being', xo 0ep^6v
'heat', etc. In Heraclitus, A-oyoq refers to b o t h a structural, organi
sational l a w o f the universe a n d a law o f evolution.
A n o t h e r p o i n t w o r t h considering is that in the Presocratics cer
tain w o r d s were still m i d - w a y (depending o n the passages) between
a mythico-religious and a philosophical conception. T h e w o r d avdyicn
refers to necessity, e x p e r i e n c e d as a religious force, but also to nat
ural law (Hdt. II 22) a n d physical o r logical necessity (Parm, B 8,
30; 10, 6; E m p . B 15, 1). T h e w o r d vouoc, means divine law (Heraclit.
B 114), but also (in the same text) the law o f the city.
O n the other h a n d , the lexical networks discussed (oppositions,
c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s between different classes o f words) c o u l d b e i n c o m
plete in the Presocratics: o n l y Plato, Aristode and the
philosophers c o m p l e t e d them.
Hellenistic
IONIC
AND
165
ATTIC
Y e t there is a serious p r o b l e m : sometimes, uses w h i c h are absent

in the B fragments (the literal ones) appear in the A fragments, w h i c h
are mainly citations in the source language but c o u l d also often b e
faithful transmitters o f the original text. F o r example, the philosophical
use o f 8iapeco, Siaipeorc, ('lp distinguish', 'distinction') appears in Plato
a n d Aristotle, but h a d also a p p e a r e d earlier in the A fragments o f
Leucippus, Parmenides, E m p e d o c l e s , Archytas, etc. T h e r e f o r e , cer
tain doubts exist regarding the history o f the scientific vocabulary.
2 3 2 . T h u s , the n e w v o c a b u l a r y offers various possibilities:
(a) S o m e t i m e s it only represents a semantic specialization o f the
o l d meaning: ccicov 'eternity',
a i a B d v o u a i 'to perceive with
the senses', yiyvouai 'to evolve', xd ovxa 'being', cpuorc, 'nature',

etc. I have already m e n t i o n e d Oxk6xr\q
a n d NeiKoc,, 5iicn,
vouq, vouoc,, etc.

(b) N e w terms
are created, as e x p e c t e d : frequently,
they
are
derived forms (with prefixes o r suffixes) o r substantivisations.

For instance, drceipov 'the infinite', the principle o f A n a x i
m a n d e r ; cf. m o r e details in A d r a d o s 1995b, p . 15. O r , n e w
w o r d s such as aioGnorc; (Anaxag. B 2, D e m o c r . B 9), in addi
tion to those already cited, oify\aiq
(Parm. B 1, 3 2 ; 4, 2),
v o n u a ( X e n o p h . B 2 3 , 2; Parm. B 16, 4 ; E m p . B 105, 3;

e t c ) . Sometimes, as mentioned previously, doubts exist regard
ing the date o f n e w formations such as Siaipeaic,
O c c a s i o n a l l y , b o t h the adjective a n d
noun make
their
a p p e a r a n c e in the Presocratics for the first time: for e x a m

ple, dxojxoq 'indivisible', dxojuov 'the indivisible'.
(c) Irregularities
survive, as e x p e c t e d ; s o m e related to different
uses b y the different authors, others related to different sys

tems. F o r e x a m p l e , A n a x a g o r a s o p p o s e s vouc, to i)A,T|, X e n o phanes o p p o s e s di\iaq to vonjia (and likens vouc, to (pprjv),
the n e w a n d multiple oppositions o f Heraclitus are well d o c
u m e n t e d , as well as Parmenides' c o m p a r i s o n o f (ppoveiv a n d
eivou.
T h e Presocratics ushered in the start o f the G r e e k philosophical lex
i c o n , w h i c h , o n the o n e hand, w o u l d b e c o m e simplified, a n d o n the
other hand, w o u l d b e c o m e specialised a n d w o u l d proliferate. Its roots
c a n b e f o u n d in the p o e t i c a n d in the I o n i c language. T h e n u m b e r
o f substantivisations
o f the neuter adjective (with o r without article)
166
CHAPTER
EIGHT
w o u l d increase, as w o u l d the abstracts created b y means o f a famil

iar series o f suffixes. A m o n g them, -in, -jnoc, -cue;, H o m e r i c and Ionic
suffixes, establish their presence in the n e w terminology, and -uoc, is
preferred b y the physicians. T h e diffusion o f adjectives derived from
nouns is still relatively small.
The Hippocratics
233. In Herodotus and Hippocrates we come across the same tendencies
which advance the cultural lexicon o f Greek, particularly the scientific lex
icon. But it is the work o f the latter author in particular that we should
study; that is, the Hippocratic treatises considered to be older. The dis
cussion by R. Hiersche 1970, p. 190 is useful, along with works specially
focused on Hippocrates, such as those by G. Maloney 1980, P. Fabrini and
A. Lanni 1979, J. Irigoin 1980 and 1983, D . Lanza 1983, J. ZaragozaA. Gonzalez Senmarti 1989, C. Despotopoulos 1986, G. Santana 1991, A.
Lopez Eire 1992. Other works regarding medical lexicon in general are
also importantant, such as those of N. van Brock 1961 and F. Skoda 1988.
For the composition o f the treatises, the best work is by D . Lara 1984.
The book by van Groningen 1958, p. 247 ff. and the article by A. Bernabe
are also useful.
2 3 4 . T h e Hippocratics, starting with the first ones, created a spe
cialised m e d i c a l l e x i c o n . T h e lexicon d e v e l o p e d with the specialisa
tion o f H o m e r i c w o r d s , and o f c o m m o n I o n i c o r Attic ones: w e have
seen that these authors used these dialects simultaneously. T h u s , in
the first H i p p o c r a t i c treatises, 7cd9r|, 7rd6r||na, o r rcdGoc, refer to ' c o n
ditions': the first t w o w o r d s are I o n i c and appear in H e r o d o t u s , but
with the d o u b l e m e a n i n g o f ' c o n d i t i o n ' and 'suffering' (in Aristoteles,
rccc0r|uceTa is later 'passions'); the third w o r d is Attic. S o , there are
various sources and a specialised treatment; as w h e n , for instance,
epic and Ionic vouaoc, coexist with the n e w forms vocrnpoc, and voorjua,
created o n the Attic base voaoq.
T h e r e is an interesting study b y N a d i a van B r o c k 1961 about the
specialisation o f m e d i c a l terms from the H o m e r i c l e x i c o n , preferring
irjTpoq rather than irjifip, for example, giving Gepomeuco specialised
uses, e t c
T h e m e d i c a l language is the first specialised scientific language,
although it naturally followed existing paths and operated within ten
dencies w h i c h were in turn followed b y the rest o f the scientific lan
guages later created: there was n o interruption in medicine o r in
any o f the other fields. It is worth noting the study b y F. Skoda
IONIC A N D
167
ATTIC
1988 o n h o w m e t a p h o r was used in a conscious w a y to create a

n e w medical and anatomical lexicon.
235. In parallel, medicine was the first science to create its o w n lit
erary instrument: the scientific treatise. Its precedents can b e
found
in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f didactic poetry, w h i c h I have studied in H e s i o d

(cf. A d r a d o s 1986c): a p r o l o g u e w h i c h looks forward to the content
is followed b y parts that m o r e or less respond to it, but with notable
i n c o h e r e n c e s a n d digressions, although
unified b y the
continuity
p r o v i d e d b y the ' e c h o ' o f key w o r d s . T h e presence o f maxims is

important.
This prologue somewhat followed the m o d e l provided b y Parmenides
and, as far as w e k n o w , Heraclitus, w h o s e p r o l o g u e is k n o w n to us
but was n o d o u b t disfigured through
the m a n n e r
in w h i c h he is
cited: w e are nearly always p r o v i d e d merely with isolated maxims.

In the literary c o m p o s i t i o n o f these authors, A . Bernabe 1979 sees
a great influence o f epic and poetic models and, a b o v e all, o f g n o m i c
literature; although I believe that this latter aspect has b e e n exag
gerated b y o u r transmitters.
S o , the first H i p p o c r a t i c treatises, followed later b y the
others,
offer schemes w h i c h , although still imperfect, are m u c h closer to the

later scientific treatises. T h e y contain a p r o l o g u e , a nucleus, and an
epilogue, w h i c h are all somewhat differenciated. T h e r e are p r o c e
dures in place to distinguish
them.
T h e p r o l o g u e anticipates and, occasionally, indicates the organi

sation o f the nucleus into various parts; the epilogue summarises and
provides advice. T h e nucleus o r its parts b e g i n with clear exposi
tions, w h i c h at times b e c o m e unthreaded and are centered o n details
o r examples. T h e r e w e r e clear procedures for articulating all o f this
through formulas for o p e n i n g and closing, a n d ring c o m p o s i t i o n (cf.
the reference in 203 to the b o o k b y O . Wenskuns
1982); and
sometimes it is simply the content that establishes the divisions.

5
All o f this influenced the %%vax o r diverse 'arts o f the fifth cen
tury, in sofar as they are attested today; in turn, these c o u l d also
exert s o m e influence. T h e treatises o f the Hellenistic and
periods were also influenced, as I m e n t i o n e d
Roman
earlier.
It is n o t surprising that w e should encounter p r o b l e m s here regard

ing c o m p o s i t i o n . After all, literary units are linguistic units, w h i c h
are the most subjective and adaptable. T h e n e w m o d e l s m a d e their
first appearance in I o n i c and later in Attic, a n d they w o u l d have a
168
CHAPTER
EIGHT
great success in the later literatures. A scientific lexicon, a coherent

syntax with l o n g periods and literary c o m p o s i t i o n g o h a n d in hand
in the creation o f the n e w educated language particularly in phi
l o s o p h y a n d science, w h i c h w o u l d serve as the m o d e l for all the
later ones.
Attic literature
236. T h e same tendencies were carried over into Attic literature philosophy, primarily, but certainly not exclusively. A s m e n t i o n e d
previously, even Socrates, w h o b y definition used the colloquial lan
guage, created specialised w o r d s such as <pp6vno"ic, (the Socratic virtue
par excellence), erciuiôum 'to take care o f , eêxdôo 'to examine',
ekeyxay 'to test', (ppovxi^co 'to think', etc., in o r d e r to express n e w
concepts. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a specialised lexicon in Plato is well
d o c u m e n t e d . I have l o o k e d at the subject in various articles, such
as A d r a d o s 1971 a n d 1992a. T h e r e are two distinct phases.
In the first phase, the c o m m o n lexicon acquires a n e w meaning.
W h e n Socrates (or Plato) attempt to define the m e a n i n g o f certain
words in the Socratic dialogues, they provide them with a n e w mean
ing, eliminating, at the very least, s o m e conventional aspects o f these
w o r d s . F o r instance, the following terms were moralised and prac
tically m a d e synonymous: dyccGoc,,
KOCXOC,
and Sucocioc,; a generic mean
ing o f desire o r search was created for epooc,; n e w meanings were

created for ei8oc,, (Sea o r Kvvnaic, or, in Aristode, for Kaxnyopia o r
opyavov. W o r d s a n d meanings that have b e e n transmitted to all o f
the languages o f the w o r l d .
T h e s e c o n d phase constitutes the creation o f n e w terms, such as,
in Aristotle, 0IK6<;, zvxeXexeia
o r Kivrijiia, w h i c h have had
substan
tial success. W h e n in Spanish w e speak o f organo, entelequia, categoria,

especie (and its derivatives) w e are still speaking in Aristotelian terms.
A t times, these authors have c o m p l e t e d lexical networks, although,
as w e have seen, there is sometimes d o u b t as to whether Plato is
the creator o r whether the A fragments o f the Presocratics reflect a
n e w kind o f use. In any case, oppositions such as \j/u%f)/ao)jLia, Ccorj/
Gdvaxoc,, uXn/vouc,, yiyvwaKco/aioGdvojiai, 7iiaxf|jir|/xe%vr|, euTieipia,
which still dominate thought and the c o m m o n lexicon (sp. alma/cuerpo,
vida/muerte, materia/ espiritu, conocer/percibir, ciencia/ arte, empiria) were only
consolidated from this date o n w a r d s , although there w e r e earlier
precedents.
169
IONIC A N D ATTIC
This study o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Attic l e x i c o n is not c o m

plete. But w e c a n obtain m u c h information f r o m the progress o f the
different suffixes: o n the o n e hand, from those that create abstract
w o r d s (alongside the other system, w h i c h consists in the abstract use
o f neuter adjectives, with o r without an article); o n the other hand,
from those suffixes that derive adjectives f r o m nouns, adverbs from
adjectives (frequently, w e are dealing with ancient plural neuters or
forms in -CGC,), verbs from nouns a n d nouns from verbs, creating the
lexical networks to w h i c h I have referred w h i c h enable a free c o n
struction o f the phrase. Sometimes, different suffixes introduce
possibility o f different
g r o u p s o f m e a n i n g in the
noun and
the
in
the verb.
It should b e n o t e d that it was not just the philosophers ( w h o
e x p a n d e d the l e x i c o n o f the I o n i c philosophers), but also Attic prose
in general w h i c h diffused these models, although they w o u l d finally
end up being used b y the Sophists and, later, the philosophers. T h e
Hellenistic language w o u l d follow the same path.
237.
It is curious to study (in P. Chantraine 1933, for example) the
d e v e l o p m e n t in I o n i c a n d later in Attic, especially a m o n g
the
philosophers - o f the different suffixes o f abstract nouns o r nouns

o f action in -(a, -org, -oc,, -uxx, -auvn, -TUT-, etc. Sometimes these
suffixes have values w h i c h are practically s y n o n y m o u s (7id9r|u<x and
TCOCGOC,,
tions
aTroôynucc and a7roA,oyioc); sometimes they offer clear o p p o s i
(SCSayuxx and SiSa^xc,, noir\\ia and Tiovnaic,; result a n d action).
T h e poets preferred - o w n , the philosophers -TUT-, a n d the physicians

-one, to designate diseases o r their symptoms.
T h e most d e v e l o p e d suffix - adjectival, naturally, although it c o u l d
o f course b e substantivised/nominalised
-tooKoc,,
-TIKOC,, - I G T I K O C ;
was -IKOC,, followed b y
a suffix that was hardly used b y H o m e r but
was very p o p u l a r a m o n g the y o u n g disciples o f the Sophists; see the

well-known passage b y Aristophanes, Knights 1 3 7 1 - 8 1 , where he intro
duces a classification, a ' b e l o n g i n g t o ' list, as it were; it f o r m e d the
r
basis for the systems, still surviving today, o f -OC/-IK6C,, -IGUTJC,/ -ioTr|c/
-IOTIKOC,
T h e use o f the suffix grew enormously in Herodotus and Thucydides

(ayobv yujuviKoq, jnouaiKoq/papPapiKoq/TA-A.riviKoc;); in Plato it appears
no less than 3 9 0 times. It is worth noting the use o f substantivisa
tion in -Hen to n a m e sciences and techniques, as well as the use o f
adjectives derived from adjectives (eA.euOepoq/eXeuOspioq/eX.euOepiKoq).
170
CHAPTER EIGHT
T h e suffix was destined for great success: in the Reverse Index o f

G. D . Buck and W . Petersen there are 4,627 examples (and
examples o f
-IOCKOC,).
156
I will discuss its diffusion in Latin further o n .
T o d a y , it dominates in all languages.

Example of a lexical system
238. Perhaps the clearest way o f illustrating the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the
intellectual vocabulary o f G r e e k - from H o m e r to the
Presocratics
and I o n i c , f r o m the latter to Attic and, subsequently,
Plato
and
Aristotle, to arrive at late Hellenistic G r e e k - is b y resorting to the

e x a m p l e o f a root's derivatives. H e r e , I shall p r o v i d e a brief descrip
tion o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the derivatives o f the r o o t o f vooc,, voeco.
O n l y five forms appear in H o m e r : the verbs voeco and Tipovoeco,
the nouns vooc; and vor||na, and the adjective avooq.
W e should also
a d d dvorjToc, in H. Merc, and d v o i a in lyric. F r o m here, there is a

superb d e v e l o p m e n t in two paths that c o m p l e m e n t each other:
(a) W i t h the help o f various prefixes, the main ones being d-,
duxpi-,
dva-,
dm)-, 5ia-, Sua-, eK-, ev-,
Ttepl-, TipO-, TtpOG-,
U7Cp-,
erci-,
raxa-,
7capa-,
U7T-0.
(b) W i t h the help o f derivative elements w h i c h tend to f o r m a

network in w h i c h various nouns c o r r e s p o n d to various verbs
and adjectives, and to these, various adverbs.
Aside from these forms (in -ox; o r adverbial neuters, o r in -ei), w e
have the case in w h i c h the v e r b voeco corresponds to the nouns vooc;,
vorjLra a n d vofjcuc, (these are simple, the derivatives o f the former are
adjectives); vonTriq, simple o r c o m p o u n d ; only c o m p o u n d s -vonora,
-voice. W i t h regard to the adjectives, there are vooc; c o m p o u n d forms
(avoocj, etc.), f r o m vonLta w e obtain vorjucov; and the following are
also related (with the verb too): vorjToq (and dvonToq, etc.) and voepoq;
from the first w e obtain
VOT]TIK6CJ,
and from vonuec,
VOULUXCIKOC,.
With
regard to the verbs, in addition to voeco (and its c o m p o u n d s ) , there

is dvontaivo) and dvonxeo).
T h i s network is irregular and not absolutely symmetrical with all
the preverbs; it gradually reached its c o m p l e t i o n after the H o m e r i c
a n d lyric periods. S o m e forms w e r e in turn a b a n d o n e d ,
such
as
dvorijuoov (only in Democritus). T h e r e were various types o f devel

o p m e n t . T h e s c h e m e is as follows:
IONIC
AND
171
ATTIC
(1) Horn., the lyric poets a n d all prose: cases previously cited
from H o m e r , H. Merc, a n d lyr. (dvonxoc, a n d dvoioc).
(2) Presocr., PI a n d Arist.; for example voepoc, a n d vonxoc,.
(3) Ionic prose, Attic, PI and Arist.: Sidvoux, SiavorjjLia, Siavonorc,,
rcapdvoia, Kpovoia; evvoeco, ejuvoea); raxocvoeco, \movoeco.
(4) Attic, sometimes in G o r g . and Antiph., in addition t o P. and
Arist.: evvoioc, emvoicc, ouavoioc, uicovoia; 8uavooc, (not in
Arist.).
(5) D i o g . A p o L , PI, Arist.: voncuc;; Siotvoeco.
(6)
PI, Arist.:
evvoricuc,, KaxavorjLxa (Epin.),
KOCXCCVOUGIC;,
7iepivoia
(Ax.); SiavouTiKoq; 7iapavoeco, dvonxaiva).

(7) Arist.: eicvoioc, evvoonua,
VOTJXIKOC,,
Sxavonxoc,.
T h e great v o l u m e o f Hellenistic a n d late vocabulary, o r only late,

should b e added: for e x a m p l e , adjectives in -vouc, are Hellenistic o r
late: eKvouq, duxpivouc,, nepivovq;
-vofjLrcov, -vonxiKOC, a n d
as w e l l as m a n y adjectives i n
-vonuccTiKoc,; nouns in
-vonai<;, -vonxfj^; the
verbs dvonxeuco, dvonxeco; etc.

T h u s , this c o m p l e x l e x i c o n w a s gradually created,
introducing
classifications in the n o u n (abstract, action, a n d agent nouns) a n d

other c o r r e s p o n d i n g classifications in the adjective, subordinating all
o f this to the other classification introduced f o r the preverbs. T h e
successive periods o f the Presocratics, o f I o n i c a n d Attic prose, a n d
the different philosophies are clearly displayed.
Conclusion
239.
S o , Ionic-Attic clearly created a prose capable o f expressing
everything related t o thought, its process a n d organisation, with the

help o f a specialised v o c a b u l a r y a n d a syntax in w h i c h hypotaxis
dominates. T h e most important thing t o r e m e m b e r is that w e are
dealing with a n o p e n , flexible language, capable o f increasing o r
modifying its l e x i c o n a n d syntax t o the needs of the w h o l e intellec
tual a n d scientific universe. Indeed, it achieves this without rigidity,
w h i c h makes it possible for the c o m m o n m a n to follow all o f sorts
o f specialisations and lines of thought, with extremely b r o a d nuances
and possibilities.
PART T W O
FROM KOINE T O THE PRESENT
CHAPTER ONE
K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R L A N G U A G E S
1.
ORIGIN,
DEFINITION A N D LEVELS
2 4 0 . Attic prose at s o m e point j o i n e d the ranks o f the literary lan

guages that b e l o n g e d to a literary genre, w h i c h is exactly what was
occurring in the other literary languages o f G r e e c e d e s c e n d e d f r o m
the H o m e r i c language. This literary language was not identical to
spoken Attic. Attic was used in inscriptions to the same extent
as
the other spoken dialects, also, like Syracusan, for the dialogue o f
c o m e d y and, o f course, for the dialogue o f Socrates and his inter
locutors in the streets and plazas o f Athens.
But here w e c o m e across something that is n e w and original: it
was not just literary Attic that was diffused across the entire G r e e k
w o r l d as almost the unique language o f prose (Ionic a n d D o r i c prose,
exceptionally, continued to exist for a time), b u t also spoken Attic,
w h i c h was diffused throughout Alexander's empire, to b e g i n with,
and later b e y o n d it. In s o m e cases, the Attic was, o f course, rather
modified and was s o m e w h a t split u p into variants.
This Attic is customarily called koine, C o m m o n Greek. T h e term
is ambiguous: here it is used to refer to C o m m o n G r e e k as a w h o l e ,
with its p o p u l a r o r conversational (sometimes vulgar) and literary
variants. F r o m the beginning, reciprocal influences and relations were
established b e t w e e n these variants: the first filtered o r a v o i d e d certain
features o f the s e c o n d , w h i c h rejected features o f the p o p u l a r variant
but was subjected to its influence. Both underwent fragmentation
evolution: w e shall consider them
or
separately.
O f course, b o t h variants have m a n y elements in c o m m o n , although

neither is unitary. Conversational o r popular koine was always a s o m e
what Ionicised Attic, rather e x e m p t f r o m the regularisations o f prose;
a n d rather submitted
to a process o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l simplification
and p h o n e t i c and syntactic, as well as lexical, evolution. Literary

koine approaches it but it is m o r e influenced b y Attic prose, and this
literary influence g r e w with time. H e r e w e definitely find the roots,
as established l o n g a g o b y N . Hatzidakis and K . K r u m b a c h e r , o f
176
CHAPTER
ONE
the two m o d e r n G r e e k languages, the dimotiki o r 'popular
language
and the katharevusa o r 'pure language, to which I have already referred.

2 4 1 . This oaffusion o f a written but also spoken language, w h i c h
unified vast areas formerly o c c u p i e d b y various dialects, is something
new, although the g r o u n d w o r k was prepared,
as m e n t i o n e d previ
ously, b y the earlier literary languages, especially Ionic (whose diffusion

had b e e n , in turn, prepared b y the c o m m o n o r literary languages
o f poetry).
This process o f universal diffusion can be explained b y historical
circumstances, starting with the creation o f the Athenian
Maritime
L e a g u e in 477 B C (and the s e c o n d L e a g u e in 377 B C ) . T h e k i n g d o m

o f M a c e d o n i a , the empire o f Alexander, the kingdoms o f the Diadochi,
the Aetolian and A c h a e a n Leagues, together with other alliances o r
h e g e m o n i e s , required c o m m o n languages. T h e main language, nat
urally, was the Ionic-Attic koine that w e have b e e n discussing, but it
was not the o n l y language. T h e r e were various D o r i c koinai, m o r e
o r less established: that o f the east o f the A e g e a n (with a centre in
R h o d e s ) , that o f the G r e e k o f the N . W . , that o f the D o r i c o f the
A c h a e a n L e a g u e , the Syracusan w h i c h for a p e r i o d d o m i n a t e d
in
Sicily (from the start o f the fourth century B C until it was gradually
displaced b y the I o n i c - A t t i c koine and s u b s e q u e n d y b y Latin,
cf.
C . C o s a n i 1993, p . 118 ff.).

But all the koinai and all o f the G r e e k dialects e n d e d u p being
displaced b y the Ionic-Attic koine after a p e r i o d o f diglossia. Koine
also h a d to struggle with different n o n - G r e e k languages
(Egyptian,
A r a m a i c , Lycian, Latin, etc.), admitting elements o f theirs, provid

ing t h e m with b o r r o w i n g s , o r making them
disappear.
2 4 2 . A s w e can see, the history o f koine is rather c o m p l i c a t e d . O n e

has to distinguish the origin o f koine f r o m its later diffusion. Let us
start with the former t o p i c
It has b e e n said that b o t h literary Attic (from around the e n d o f
the fifth century into the fourth century and then converted into lit
erary koine) a n d p o p u l a r
o r s p o k e n koine are descendants
Maritime L e a g u e or, if preferred, the Athenian
o f the
empire.
I have already l o o k e d at the creation o f liteary Attic: the Athenians

and foreigners w h o lived in Athens, precisely through the
initiative
o f s o m e o f the latter, stopped writing in Ionic at s o m e p o i n t
and
b e g a n writing in Attic (although there are exceptions). T h e political

and intellectual p o w e r o f Athens led to the conversion o f its lan-
KOINE AND
ITS R E L A T I O N T O
OTHER LANGUAGES
177
guage into a literary language. T h e same o c c u r r e d in the case o f

Castilian, Florentine, and the French o f the He de France.
T h e creation o f popular, spoken koine is m o r e c o m p l e x , besides
w h i c h there are discrepancies in the interpretation o f the facts. But
w e can b e certain o f o n e thing: Attic and I o n i c had already begun
approximating e a c h other in the fifth century. This is not surpris
ing, given the p o w e r , political and otherwise, w h i c h Athens had over
the Ionians o f the Maritime L e a g u e , b o t h those o f the islands and
the continent, and the constant I o n i c presence in Athens.
W a r , politics, c o m m e r c e , the tribunals, everything worked to approx
imate them. It was a process that culminated in the adoption by
Athens o f an I o n i c alphabet in the year 403 (and it was not long
before its use b e c a m e generalised in all parts).
It should b e n o t e d that since Antiquity, diverse circumstances o f
h u m a n and c o m m e r c i a l mobility h a d acclimatised all kinds o f Greek
speech in Athens. T h i s is stated b y b o t h S o l o n (24, 31 f.) and Pseudo
X e n o p h o n (II 8).
2 4 3 . I have already l o o k e d at the influence o f I o n i c in
fifth-century
Attic literature. I o n i c forms are also f o u n d in Attic inscriptions from

4 5 0 onwards: the lengthened D . p f , a w , etc. A l t h o u g h sometimes
w e are really dealing with Attic archaisms, o r with the 'subterranean'
Attic w h i c h I discussed.
T h e penetration o f Attic in Ionia after the same p e r i o d is m o r e
decisive, creating the so-called Great Attic (Gran Atico, Grossattisch),
the predecessor o f koine.
W e have seen it in H e r o d o t u s and Hippocrates. It is present in
inscriptions f r o m the fifth century onwards, c f A . L o p e z Eire 1996b:
OIKICCV,
ovxac,, EKyovoic,, etc. Indeed, certain Hellenistic forms such as
vaoc, 'temple' appeared in the 'Great Attic' o f the islands m u c h earlier

than in Athens (in the fourth century in D e l o s , circa 250 in Athens).
This 'Great Attic' is, as stated, an anticipation o f koine, w h i c h is
fundamentally Attic, with -pa, -ta, -oic,, -cue,, etc., but with certain
I o n i c forms and other general o r D o r i c forms (-co-,
-pp-, etc.). It
also contains Attic variants such as can b e found in Aristophanes

and X e n o p h o n , and s o m e o f the vulgar Attic as studied b y P. Kretschmer
1894, W a h r m a n n
1907, a n d E. N a c h m a n s o n
1910; and,
a b o v e all, it contains a large dose o f lexicon that is poetic, Ionic,

and, very often, n o d o u b t 'subterranean' Attic. Apart from the authors
previously cited ( X e n o p h o n , the late Plato), Aristotie and the Hellenistic
authors were also invaded b y it.
178
CHAPTER
S o , koine is fundamentally
ONE
Attic, although it contains I o n i c ele
ments a n d v o c a b u l a r y (for example, the declension in - a c / - a S o c j and

has eliminated Atticisms such as - T T - , -pp- and certain
inflectional
types. It displays Kopn, êvoc,, oXoc,, etc.

244. H o w e v e r , authors such as V . Bubenik 1989 and A . L o p e z Eire
1993a insist that the participation o f vulgar Attic in koine was rare
(not accepting forms such as nax>$ and that the diffusion o f the
middle-class, administrative and bureaucratic Attic o f the inscriptions
was significant. T h e y stress the similarity between the language o f
Attic and M a c e d o n i a n public inscriptions, in the period after Phillip II,
the father o f A l e x a n d e r . T h i s Attic, in effect, w o u l d have
been
a c c e p t e d b y the M a c e d o n i a n court and, subsequently, b y the courts

o f the D i a d o c h i . T h e influence o f the Attic o f the M a c e d o n i a n s in
the expansion o f G r e e k in Asia, particularly through the foundation
o f cities, has recently b e e n gready emphasised.
T o be sure, the Attic o f the M a c e d o n i a n inscriptions and o f the
official inscriptions o f the Hellenistic p e r i o d is the 'Great Attic' which
has b e e n discussed, in its official o r literary version (later reinforced
b y the role o f the Athenian school and the Attic literature w h i c h
was read inside and outside Athens). But this is just o n e aspect o f
the p r o b l e m . T h e other means o f diffusion was through the p o p u
lar 'Great Attic', w h i c h was diffused in Ionia during fifth and fourth
centuries, and through that o f the soldiers and colonists, M a c e d o n i a n s
o r otherwise, w h o arrived in Asia. This view is held b y C . Brixhe
1 9 9 3 b . I n d e e d , the continuity o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l and lexical Attic
Variants' in koine as a w h o l e , as discussed previously, and even o f
vulgar forms, points in the same direction.
S o , in the same w a y that there is a p o p u l a r Attic (colloquial o r
vulgar) a n d a literary Attic, so there is also a popular, conversational
koine and a literary koine. Neither is unitary, and I will elaborate o n
this further o n ; they share m a n y c o m m o n elements and exchange
m a n y elements. T h i s situation did not change until m o d e r n G r e e c e .
2 4 5 . W e have greater k n o w l e d g e o f literary koine: not just
through
the inscriptions, but, a b o v e all, through prose literature (at this time,
p o e t r y was written in the ancient dialects that had b e e n
resuscitated
for this purpose), although w e shall see that in the literary koine, there
w o u l d b e a shift from Atticism to poetism and that, for the oldest
ones, o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n is very scarce. Apart from the inscriptions,
for the vulgar register w e mainly have the Cynics and separate fea-
KOINE
AND
OTHER
LANGUAGES
179
lures adopted b y various authors; for the middle register, after Aristode,
M e n a n d e r , Epicurus, w e have fragments
o f various philosophers,
Philo o f Byzantium, Aristeas, Polybius, certain parts o f the L X X ,

s o m e papyri, s o m e a p o c r y p h a l texts such as the Definitions, attibuted
to Plato, o r the De decentia, attributed to H i p p o c r a t e s (cf. U . Fleischer
1939), and a few m o r e .
W i t h regard to popular, spoken koine, w e have to make d o with
the 'mistakes' o f written
texts, all o f those m e n t i o n e d a b o v e and
others such as private papyri, the L X X (literature o f translation; but

s o m e b o o k s c o r r e s p o n d to a higher level) and the N e w Testament
(these t w o texts have special features); the Life of Aesop and
texts such as the fragments
cynic
o f B i o n o f Borysthenes m a y also b e
included. N o t e that a written text, h o w e v e r 'popular', always aspires

to propriety, to the literary. Also, literary texts, as w e have seen,
contain 'mistakes' o f spoken koine. In any case, there is a great c o r
respondence b e t w e e n b o t h koinai, h o w e v e r m u c h literature m a y par
tially correct the m o r p h o l o g y , syntax, and l e x i c o n ; a n d it almost
entirely covers p h o n e t i c evolution.
A valid description c a n b e p r o v i d e d for b o t h koinai. But it is only
partial: for e x a m p l e , the disappearance o f the D . and the construc
tion ev + D . c a n rarely b e followed in the literary texts, w h i c h intro
d u c e the dual, optative, and so m a n y other forms w h i c h h a d b e e n
lost. For m o r e details, see 261 f f , 275 ff.
I must stress the existence o f t w o koinai, interrelated a n d divided
into different levels; I will discuss their local a n d temporal differences
in 2 5 4 ff, 259 ff.
246. For koine in general see, among others: K. Dieterich 1898, A. Thumb
1974, A. Meillet 1975, p. 253 ff, L. R. Palmer 1980, p . 174 ff, V . Bubenik
1989, p. 180 ff, R . Browning 1993, p . 19 ff, CI. Brixhe 1993b, A. Lopez
Eire 1993, p. 41 ff, J. Niejoff-Panagiotidids 1994, p. 195 ff, G. Horrocks 1997,
p. 32 ff. O n the role o f Macedonia in the origins o f koine, see Gl. Brixhe A. Panayotis 1988, A Panayotis 1992 and G. Horrocks 1997, p. 42 ff. For
the levels of koine in written texts, see F. R. Adrados 1948 and 1981b. For
vulgar Greek, see K. Dieterich 1898, P. Wahrmann 1909, E. Nachmanson
1910 and H. Ljungvik 1932. For the Doric koinai, V . Bubenik 1989, p. 227 ff,
G. Vottero 1996, C. Consani 1996, M . Bile 1996, etc.
It should be pointed out that the theory followed here is that which is
commonly accepted, although, as I mentioned earlier, there are discrepan
cies with regard to the role of the popular Attic language. It goes against
the idea o f koine as a mixture o f dialects, as held by P. Kretschmer 1901,
cf. A. Thumb and others; for koine as a 'pidgin' or 'creole , cf. J, Frosen
1974 (and the critique in V . Bubenik 1989, p . 180 ff).
5
180
CHAPTER
2.
THE
ONE
DIFFUSION
OF KOINE
The diffusion
247. T h e triumph o f Attic is quite remarkable. It b e c a m e the general
language o f all the Greeks after the two great defeats o f Athens: that
o f 4 0 4 against Sparta and 338 (and 322) against M a c e d o n i a . Indeed,
Castilian and French, for example, b e c a m e general languages o f m o r e
extensive nations, not only due to their literary significance, but also
due to the political p o w e r o f Castilla and the He de France: b o t h
factors w e n t h a n d in hand. But not here: o n e w o u l d have to c o m
pare the diffusion o f the Florentine dialect in Italy and the language
o f Luther in G e r m a n y , and even then it does not bear c o m p a r i s o n .
T o b e m o r e exact, in the fifth century Attic b e g a n to convert, in
a slighdy modified w a y , into a lingua franca o f the Athenian empire:
political p o w e r and trade a c c o u n t for this because, literarily speak
ing, Athens continued to b e a p r o v i n c e o f Ionia. Later, Attic i m p o s e d
itself as a literary language.
W h e n the political p o w e r o f Athens was eclipsed, the foundations
laid in the fifth century - that is, Attic as a lingua franca outside o f
Athens a n d the literary Attic w h i c h even non-Athenians were begin
ning to write - were maintained. Linguistically speaking, the victory
o f the Spartans and their allies was meaningless. T h r o u g h o u t
the
fourth century their dialects w e r e implacably invaded b y Attic, and

this also applied to the D o r i c koinai w h i c h attempted to resist. Indeed,
nearly all the intellectual life o f G r e e c e , w h i c h expressed itself in
Attic and later koine, c o n v e r g e d o n Athens, the free city.
A s e c o n d factor was decisive: the adaptation o f Attic (Great Attic)
b y the c o u r t o f M a c e d o n i a in the fifth century. Great Attic was
a c c e p t e d b y enemies as well as friends. Consequently, the
military
defeat against M a c e d o n i a constituted a linguistic victory for Athens:

it accelerated a process w h i c h had already b e g u n . Athens, having
attempted to establish its h e g e m o n y in G r e e c e in the fifth
century,
failed in this attempt despite its intitial success. But failure in the
political field translated into success in the linguistic field. H e r e ,
Athens was the great victor. T h i s is the p a r a d o x , w h i c h I think has
n o parallels in linguistic history.
T h e triumph o f Attic was merely o n e aspect o f the intellectual tri
u m p h o f Athens, w h i c h c o n d i t i o n e d all o f literature and later thought
(although pre-Attic literature, written in the diverse literary languages
KOINE
AND
OTHER
LANGUAGES
181
w h i c h c o n v e r g e d in I o n i c , also strongly influenced later
literature).
F o r the educated Hellenistic public, all o f this meant a reinforce

m e n t o f unity: the G r e e k tradition, w h i c h they were attempting to
continue.
248. Let us study the difftision o f koine m o r e closely. V a r i o u s points
can b e noted:
( 1 ) T h e gradual conversion o f Attic and Great Attic into koine:
in Attica, in the Ionian cities o f the islands, Asia M i n o r ,
and M a c e d o n i a .
(2) T h e conversion o f the I o n i c o f exportation into koine: for
e x a m p l e , in Caria and Lycia, where it was cultivated,
least as a written language, from the fifth century
at
onwards;
and in the colonies o f Italy, Sicily, and the West. See Part
I o f this v o l u m e o n the colonies o f G a u l and Hispania; the
G r e e k alphabet was used to write the Celtic and
Iberian
languages.
(3) T h e direct implantation
o f Great Attic and koine in n o n -
G r e e k territories b y means o f the M a c e d o n i a n conquest and

the politics o f the D i a d o c h i . M a c e d o n i a n s and Greeks o f
various origins were established in recently f o u n d e d cities, in
w h i c h they essentially survived isolated from the easterners;
where as children they attended schools in which they studied
G r e e k letters a n d literature; although this did not, however,
prevent the reciprocal influence o f the languages, see 2 5 4
ff, 2 8 6 ff. In spite o f the Lesbian w h i c h continued to be
spoken and written in Lesbos, koine was spoken in Pergam u m f r o m the beginning, and in all o f the M a c e d o n i a n
setdements.
(4) T h e penetration o f different dialects (Aeolic, Boeotian, D o r i c ,
etc.) b y koine, w h i c h supposes a gradual p e r i o d o f bilingualism, a 'koinisatiori* o f the dialects and a gradual loss o f their
active d o m i n i o n , although they w o u l d b e partly preserved
and w o u l d continue to b e written in certain circumstances.
T h i s is discussed in m o r e detail b e l o w . In a r e m o t e corner
o f the G r e e k w o r l d , in Pamphylia, local characteristics o f
koine penetrated into the local dialect, whereas in other parts,
under m o r e conservative influence, it t o o k m u c h longer for
these local characteristics to i m p o s e themselves.
182
CHAPTER
ONE
(5) T h e expansion o f koine outside the strict d o m i n i o n s o f the

G r e e k w o r l d . F o r instance, in R o m e , partiy due to the effect
o f a Greek-speaking immigrant population (including Syrians,
Jews, etc.), and partly to the fact that it was the s e c o n d lan
guage o f educated R o m a n s . In this way, the G r e e k language
b e g a n to influence the Latin language, and, similarly, G r e e k
literature b e g a n to influence Latin literature. This c o m p e n
sated for the fact that Greek had b e e n displaced in the W e s t
b y Latin.
249. T h e cultural and universal value o f the Greek language resulted
in d o c u m e n t s being written in this language b y kings and dignitaries
w h o spoke other languages: K i n g A s h o k a (third century BC) trans
lated into Greek the edicts that he placed in what is today Afghanistan;
edicts o r important d o c u m e n t s were written in G r e e k b y the kings
o f the k i n g d o m o f A x u m in Ethiopia during and after the Hellenistic
p e r i o d (cf. E. Bernand a n d others 1991), b y the Sasanid K i n g S a p o r
(third century B C ) , as well as, m u c h later, the khans o f Bulgaria
(eighth a n d ninth centuries A D ) .
T h e same is true o f literature: R o m a n s such as Fabius Pictor wrote
in Greek, as well as j e w s such as Flavius Josephus, Ghaldians such
as Berosos, Egyptians such as M a n e t h o (not to m e n t i o n those o f a
later date). G r e e k b e c a m e the language o f the Christian C h u r c h in
the East a n d the official language o f Byzantium from the
Danube
to the Euphrates and the Nile, and also o f its conquests in the West.
O n the other hand, there is the exportation o f the G r e e k alpha
bet and its essential role in the creation o f different alphabets (con
tinuing an already ancient process). Also, the clifmsion o f linguistic
characteristics and literary and cultural m o d e l s to all the
surround
ing w o r l d . In this w a y , a small c o n g l o m e r a t e o f dialects w h i c h o c c u

p i e d a r e d u c e d geographical area, that o f G r e e c e , was converted into
a universal language, a m o d e l for all the others. Indeed, G r e e k c o n
tinued to b e s p o k e n in G r e e c e (although in a g e o g r a p h i c a l area
equally reduced), as well as in an important diaspora, until today.
T h u s , G r e e k originated in G r e e c e and eventually found refuge again
in G r e e c e , but it m a d e a p e r m a n e n t i m p a c t o n all languages.
But this is another topic, w h i c h w e will c o m e b a c k to later. T h e
fact is that Greek, in its koine phase, whether colloquial o r literary,
gradually extended throughout the Mediterranean w o r l d and b e y o n d .
F r o m C o r d o b a to K a n d a h a r , from M e r o e to Bulgaria.
KOINE
AND
183
OTHER LANGUAGES
The 'koinisation* of the dialects

2 5 0 . Let us n o w turn to the subject o f the 'koinisation' o f the G r e e k
dialects. It is widely k n o w n that the m o d e r n G r e e k dialects d o not
c o m e from the ancient dialects, with the e x c e p t i o n o f Tsakonian in
Messenia and Pontic in particular; there are doubts about the G r e e k
o f Calabria, w h i c h is rather m o r e Byzantine, cf. D . M i n n i t i - G o n i a
1992. In general, M o d e r n G r e e k derives from koine, w h i c h absorbed
all o f the G r e e k dialects.
T h i s subject has b e e n studied in m u c h detail b y a n u m b e r o f
scholars: after A . T h u m b 1901, p . 2 8 2 , b y A L o p e z Eire, V . Bubenik,
G . H o r r o c k s , and the French
s c h o o l o f C . Brixhe, M . Bile
and
R . H o d o t , a m o n g others, always o n the basis o f inscriptions w h i c h

allow us to make out the influence o f spoken koine in the local dialects.
T h e r e is variation
from dialect to dialect. Dialectal
inscriptions
often stop a r o u n d the beginning o f o u r era, but dialectal inscriptions

o r dialectal features in koine inscriptions sometimes survive up to the
third century A D . In the l o n g run, the resistance o f the D o r i c koinai
m e n t i o n e d a b o v e p r o v e d useless, as d i d s o m e conservative dialects
such as those o f Boeotia, Messenia and Cyrenaica, in addition
to
artificial resurrections, for political reasons, in Lesbos, L a c o n i a , Elis

and Cyprus.
T h e public a n d private inscriptions o f the local dialects, w h i c h are
m o r e conservative, are a different case altogether. In the former, cer
tain cases have b e e n studied in w h i c h political reasons
the preservation
motivated
o f the local dialect, for e x a m p l e , in Larissa (cf.
L. R . Palmer 1980, p . 189 ff.), Boeotia (cf. G . V o t t e r o 1996, p . 5 6 ff,

G. Horrocks
1997, p . 37 ff.), L e s b o s and C y p r u s (cf. R . H o d o t
1990c). Koine was preferred in foreign relations o r for various polit

ical uses, whereas the dialect was used within the territory for var
ious purposes and particularly to highlight nationalist attitudes. Y e t
the dialect eventually w o u l d b e penetrated b y koine a n d w o u l d even
contain hypercorrections w h i c h reflect just h o w unfamiliar it was to
its speakers.
251. After A. Thumb, a very informative general perspective, from dialect
to dialect, can be found in V . Bubenic 1989, p. 73 ff, cf. also P. Wahrman
1907, J. Niehoff-Panagiotidids 1994, p . 273 ff. and G. Horrocks 1997.
A very good up-to-date study is provided by A. Lopez Eire 1996b. For
the penetration o f the koine in certain dialects, there are monographs by
E. Nachmanson 1903 (Magnesia), E. Kieckers 1910 and M . J . Barrios 1996
184
CHAPTER
ONE
(Crete), R. Nehrbass 1935 (Epidaurus), J. J. Moralejo 1973 (Delphi), R. Hodot

1990a (Asian Aeolic), A. Panayotis 1990 (Chalcidice), C. Brixhe 1993c (Caria
and Licia; Laconia), G. Vottero 1996 (Boeotia), C. Consani 1996 (southern
Italy). For the late preservation o f some dialects, c f L. Zgusta 1980, p. 123
ff For the Greek-speaking Eastern population in Rome, see J. Kaimio 1979,
p. 21 ff and I. Kajanto 1980, p. 89 ff For Greek in the East, see the
book by J. Kaimio and H. B. Rosen 1980, as well as the references already
cited.
3.
COLLOQUIAL KOINE AND
ITS V A R I A N T S
Colloquial 'koine'
2 5 2 . It c o u l d b e said that literary koine has a general n o r m : that o f
Attic r e d u c e d b y certain innovations o f the koine and later progres
sively a d d e d to b y m e a n s o f the p h e n o m e n o n o f Atticism. T h e
differences are o f a temporal and scholarly nature, as well as being
differences b e t w e e n individual authors. In contrast, colloquial o r spo
ken koine, also referred to as popular, c a n n o t b e regarded as unitary
except to the extent that the literary koine served as a support, elim
inating the m o r e o b v i o u s deviations.
But deviations did exist. O n the o n e hand, they were a p r o d u c t
o f the influence o f other languages: a b o v e all, Egyptian in Egypt and
A r a m a i c o r H e b r e w , although there is s o m e d o u b t about the latter.
O n the other hand, they were a p r o d u c t o f an evolution that w e
c a n only partly follow and date, since it is c o v e r e d up b y the fact
that all o u r d o c u m e n t s are written and therefore, in a certain sense,
literary.
Frequentiy, p o p u l a r koine c a n only b e d e d u c e d from the mistakes
o f the literary texts. W e are still left with the p r o b l e m o f differences
in level within the spoken language, that is, between colloquial and
vulgar language. T h e r e are also c h r o n o l o g i c a l differences, w h i c h I
will discuss later, c f 2 6 4 f f
S o , the attempts to define the dialects o f koine ( o f Egypt, Asia, e t c )
are not often very productive and tend to b e abandoned, c f A . T h u m b
1974, p . 167 ff. A l t h o u g h , at times, they have b e e n undertaken again
with the aid o f n e w m e t h o d s , as in the 'essay
b y C . Brixhe 1984
o n Anatolian Greek from the beginnings o f the period under discussion.

253. It is almost impossible to describe literary and spoken koine sep
arately, and the latter's social, local o r temporal dialects.
KOINE A N D
185
ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R L A N G U A G E S
Focusing for a m o m e n t o n spoken, p o p u l a r o r conversational koine,

we
can only make a p a n - c h r o n i c and pan-dialectal description deal
ing with certain characterisctics f o u n d here and there, with greater

or lesser frequency and regularity, which o n e tries to date and localise.
T h e s e characteristics must b e obtained from all kinds o f texts, includ
ing those o f literary koine w h e r e they penetrate to a greater o r lesser
extent, whether in a n o r m a l w a y o r as mistakes. S o m e have sur
vived, in a m o r e generalised form, in M o d e r n Greek.
Before making such a description I will p o i n t out the variants
within spoken koine, insofar as this is possible. T h e y c a n b e studied
from various perspectives, since w e are n o t l o o k i n g at them
from
the perspective o f the existence o f strict dialects. T h e n I will deal

with these, insofar as they result from the influence o f languages
with w h i c h G r e e k c a m e into contact; I will e x a m i n e the 'social' vari
ants o f a vulgar type; and w h e n w e attempt a description o f the
koine in the next chapter, I will p r o v i d e examples o f most o f the vari
ants, resulting from its evolution, although it is often fortuitous
fix
to
their c h r o n o l o g y and diffusion.

The influence of other languages
254.
Starting with the variants resulting from the influence o n G r e e k
o f the languages with w h i c h it c a m e into contact, I will indicate the

principal variants o f these languages.
T h e clearest conclusions refer to Egypt, doubtless because it is
here w h e r e o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n , thanks to the papyri, is m o r e abun
dant. Sometimes, w e have exaggerated: for instance, cases such as
the confusion o f o and co, ei and i, the p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f -u in ecu
and eu as a semi-vowel, the later loss o f difference in quantity, the
loss o f inter-consonantal y and o f final -v o r the A c . Gtiyaxepav, are
general in koine and n o t specifically Egyptian. In contrast, the inter
change o f voiceless and v o i c e d occlusives (they are n o t distinguished
in C o p t i c ) and, in certain positions, the voiceless and aspirated (these
no
d o u b t lost their aspiration) are features o f the G r e e k o f Egypt.
g o o d description o f the G r e e e k koine o f Egypt can b e found in
C.
Consani 1993, p . 27 ff.

O f course, G r e e k received linguistic b o r r o w i n g s from Egyptian, cf.
P. W a h r m a n n
1907 and J. L. Fournet
1989.
Little o f this is f o u n d in Syria a n d Palestine. T h e A r a m a i c sub

stratum has b e e n held responsible for the occasional spelling o instead
o f a (TIOVSO%{O), the loss o f nasals in groups o r in intervocalic position
186
CHAPTER
(NucpiKoc,), s o m e prothesis
(eioicoxXa
ONE
= Lat. scutella) and little else.
O t h e r characteristics, such as the elimination o f the diphthongs ecu

and eu, the fricativisation o f aspirated consonants, the A c . pi. Koixeq,
e t c are general. R e g a r d i n g Anatolian koine, cf. W . Dressier
C. Consani
1993, p . 30 ff. (and, earlier, A
Thumb
1963,
1974 [ 1 9 0 1 ] ,
p . 139 f f ) . T h e trilingual inscription o f X a n t h u s reflects an influence

o f L y c i a n in the Greek: sometimes the article is missing, there is
m u c h Kai, KoeGiepoco with G . O n the other hand, the G r e e k o f D u r a E u r o p o s is very altered, n o d o u b t through A r a m a i c influence (the
prothetic v o w e l , G . instead o f D , N . pi. instead o f A c p i , indec
linable eva, the thematisation o f athematic nouns, nouns in -iv). Y e t ,
there was influence f r o m the l o c a l dialects ( L y c i a n , Pisidian)
in
Pamphylian: the tonic accent, frequent apheresis and metathesis,
the
glide after i and u in hiatus, the neutralisation o f final o/u, the frica
tivisation o f intervocalic g and d. A t any rate, these are very mar
ginal cases.
255, N o t h i n g very definite is found in other regions. But w e should
at least recall the vexata quaestio o f the Semitisms in the G r e e k ver
sion o f the O l d Testament (that o f L X X ) and the N e w Testament.
In general, after the works o f A . D e i s m a n 1923 (cf. F. R . A d r a d o s
1948, p . 132) and J. H , M o u l t o n - G . Milligan 1 9 1 4 - 2 9 , it has b e c o m e
clear that these texts are practically koine and are very close to p o p
ular o r conversational koine, despite the notable differences between
them. Luke writes in a m o r e literary G r e e k than the other evange
lists. T h e ' G r e e k o f the J e w s
is n o t sufficientiy k n o w n , if it existed
at all, and s o m e o f the characteristics f o u n d in the two
Testaments
c o m e f r o m the H e b r e w literary tradition; only s o m e can b e attrib

uted to the A r a m a i c that was spoken there.
M a n y alleged Semitisms have b e e n rejected; as, for instance, b y
A . T h u m b 1974, p . 121 ff. Indeed, this has b e e n the line followed
b y , a m o n g others, the well-known manual b y F. BlassA. D e b r u n n e r
1949, p . 3 f f : m a n y alleged Semitisms are simply koine, the clearest
Semitisms b e i n g those o f pure translation from the H e b r e w in the
L X X (and citations o f these in the N T ) , and those o f Jewish c o n
cepts translated into Greek. D . Hill 1967 has written a b o o k a b o u t
5
these ' G r e e k w o r d s with a H e b r e w meaning . But these authors are

in a minority: for J. A . L. L e e 1983, after a detailed lexical study
o f the G r e e k Pentateuch, 'the G r e e k o f the L X X should b e consid
ered as b e i n g essentially o f its time
p . 146.
KOINE AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
187
T h i s is the m o s t c o m m o n view, although there is n o lack o f p r o

posals regarding Hebrewisms and Aramaicisms. But true Aramaicisms
from the c o n t e m p o r a r y language are rarely cited and they are sur
rounded by doubt.
256. For the influence o f jndigenous languages on koine, see in general
A. T h u m b 1974, p . 102 ff, V . Bubenik 1989, p . 198 ff, J. NiehoffPanagiotidis 1994 and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 60 ff With regard to the
Greek o f the L X X and New Testament (for descriptions see, for the N T ,
H. Pernot 1927, F. Blass-A. Debrunner cit. and B. Gonsani 1994), and,
in addition to the references already cited, see works that stress the syn
tactic and stylistic features derived from the Hebrew bible: for instance,
D . Tabachovitz 1956, K. Beyer 1962, C. F. D . Moule 1968 and H. B.
Rosen 1979. O n the New Testament as koine, see also L. Zgusta 1980,
p. 126 ff. O n the more educated Greek used by Luke, see among others,
L. R . Palmer 1980, p. 174; on the more popular character o f Mark, see
J. Gh. Doudna 1961 (who places much emphasis on Semitisms). O n the
wide use of Greek in Palestine and the minimal presence o f Aramaicisms
in the inscriptions, cf. H. B. Rosen 1963, 1979 and 1980; for its scarcity
in the N T , see V . Bubenik 1989, p . 67 (but they are more frequent in
later Jewish literarure, as, for instance, in Flavius Josephus or the Shepherd
of Hermes, cf. A. Hilhorst 1976). For the L X X in general, c f N . Fernandez
Marcos, 1973.
L. Rydbeck 1967 represents a different sort of critique: one cannot strictly
speak o f a 'popular language', for the N T has many similarities with the
technical Greek language of the first century A D .
2 5 7 . T h e influence o f Latin o n G r e e k also failed to crystallise into
the creation o f local o r regional dialects. O n l y in Egypt d o s o m e
technical terms o f the R o m a n army o r administration appear to b e
translated b y a particular w o r d , but this c o u l d just b e accidental.
C o m m o n translations were often m a d e : consul is w a x o q , senator is avyKXTITIKOC,,
frumentarius is
OTTVKOC,,
potestas is eôuoia, etc.
T h e inscriptions, papyri a n d literary texts offer us an abundant

mass o f Latin v o c a b u l a r y o f the type m e n t i o n e d . F o r example, for
the N e w Testament see the great n u m b e r o f terms relating to mil
itary, judicial and administrative
life as summarised b y F. Blass-
A . D e b r u n n e r . T h e r e are studies in w h i c h all o f these elements c a n

b e found, although the m o r e cultivated writers, such as Plutarch,
tended to avoid this. In fact, the direction o f b o r r o w i n g s generally
w e n t in the opposite direction, f r o m G r e e k to Latin.
For the lexicon, S. Davis 1991 collects some eight hundred Latinisms
from all periods in the papyri, but for the Hellenistic p e r i o d he points
out that w e are dealing with a superficial p h e n o m e n o n limited to
188
CHAPTER
ONE
the w o r l d o f the military and administration; and only in cases where

satisfactory
G r e e k translations did not exist (these have b e e n c o l
lected b y H . J . M a s o n 1974). Subsequently, in the age o f Diocletian,

there was another w a v e o f Latinisms relating to administration and
functionaries, but equally superficial. See 258.
258. F o r other aspects o f the language, the most productive o r use
ful texts are the senatus consulta, treatises, laws, e t c , w h i c h , for the
eastern half o f the empire, were often written in G r e e k (or G r e e k
translations were p r o v i d e d ) from translated Latin texts. T h e s e have
b e e n studied particularly b y E. Garcia D o m i n g o 1973 and
others.
In these translations (and in inscriptions in general), as well as in

the b o r r o w i n g s collected b y Davis, w e c o m e across certain
charac
teristics affecting phonetics and other aspects o f Latin; but also char
acteristics
h e l p i n g to distinguish
the G r e e k f r o m koine w h e n , for
example, i is p r o n o u n c e d instead o f ei, and a fricative (Lat. f)
instead
o f an aspirated (Gr. <j>). Sometimes, it is a question o f the adapta

tion o f the Latin inflection o f nouns (and adjectives, pronouns) to
the Greek.
T h e syntactic characteristics
include: f o r c e d translations o f the
gerundive (Seauiouc;. . . dvajn<p0f|voci ecppovxiaev for uinctos. . . remittendos

curauit); the A c o f extension (%a>pocv 7tpoax{0r||jii. . . %68aq %iX{ouc, for
agrum addo . . . mille pedes)] the indication o f the father AeuKiou uioq;
the D . o f place (evedcrjaa
rcapaxaêi
for uici. . . acie); the m a n n e r o f
making a v o w (ouvueiv etc, xov OuixeAAiov); the jussive

(8ouvai KeXeuan for dare iubeat); certain subjunctives in
subjunctive
subordinates
(oic, . . . e^nyfjacovxai for quibus . . . exponant). T h e n there are
clear
semantic caiques, w h i c h translate eligo for eicXeyca, colligo for auMteycQ,

dilectio for Kaxa?loyr|.
H o w e v e r , it is dangerous to attribute the presence o f these o r
other koine characteristics in the G r e e k to a Latin influence. T h e sub
junctive o f wish is already present in the L X X (with earlier p r e c e
dents); the
subjunctive
of subordination
without
orccoc, also
has
precedents. A n d the confusion o f the perfect and aorist, w h i c h has

sometimes b e e n seen as a Latinism, has its o w n history.
2 5 9 . T h e influence o f Latin o n G r e e k is negligible with regard to
the formation o f w o r d s a n d m o r p h o l o g y . It has b e e n p r o p o s e d that
nouns and adjectives in -iq, - w in Greek, where -toe,, - I O V is old, is
a Latin influence; but it seems to b e m o r e a question o f a p h o n e t i c
KOINE
AND
OTHER
LANGUAGES
189
p h e n o m e n o n . H o w e v e r , the suffix -ocpioc, o r -ocpic, is indeed a Latinism.

In spite o f everything, the l e x i c o n h a d a significant influence: it
reached Byzantium and M o d e r n G r e e k a n d all its dialects. T h e r e
are certain formal changes, such as ?ULHTOV f r o m limes, Snvdpiov f r o m
denarius, Kopiri f r o m cohors. But sometimes the transfer o f a w o r d from
Latin into G r e e k p r o d u c e d a semantic c h a n g e : for instance, calamarium is 'writing reeds', but KocXauxxpiov is 'inkpot'; and Constantine's
Xdpocpov c o m e s f r o m a m o r e general laureum. T h e p h e n o m e n o n was
repeated in Byzantium.
H o w e v e r , the influence o f G r e e k o n Latin in the lexicon and for
mation o f w o r d s was m o r e significant, giving rise, in Latin, to a spe
cial nucleus that w e call G r a e c o - L a t i n , w h i c h h a d an
enormous
influence o n later languages. See m o r e about this in 2 9 4 ff.

S o , all in all, the influence o n koine o f the different languages in
c o n t a c t with G r e e k w a s quite negligible. O r , rather, it is b a d l y
reflected in the inscriptions, given that it mainly c o r r e s p o n d e d to
pronounciations w h i c h rarely figure in the inscriptions, a n d to mis
takes that the written texts eliminate in most cases. I f subdialects o f
the koine were created at all, n o d o u b t in a small measure, these are
barely k n o w n to us and w e r e not important for the later tradition.
260. In general, see A. Thumb 1974, p. 152 ff, and, for the New Testament,
F. Blass-A. Debrunner 1949, p . 4. For the subject o f Latin borrowings in
general, cf. F. Viscidi 1944 and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 75 ff; for the Greek
of official use among the Romans, see P. Viereck 1888, H . J . Mason 1974
(administrative, political and military terminology). Also, L. Zgusta 1980,
p. 131 ff For the Latin lexicon in the papyri, c f B. Meinersmann 1927,
R. Cavenaile 1951 and especially Cerveka-Ehrenstrasser, I. M . Diehart, J.
1996. For the inscriptions, see A. Cameron 1931. The circumstances sur
rounding Latin and Greek in the R o m a n empire will be studied more
closely in a later chapter.
Variants of colloquial 'koine*
2 6 1 . Attempts have b e e n m a d e to reach conclusions o n the local
variants o f the koine from what has survived o f it in M o d e r n Greek.
F o r instance, after A . Hatzidakis
by A
Thumb
1977 (1892), attempts w e r e m a d e
1974 (1901), p . 190 ff., a n d J.
Niehoff-Panagiotidis
1994, p . 311 ff.

It is evident that characteristics o f koine, whether in the Hellen
istic o r R o m a n p e r i o d , survive in M o d e r n Greek: the
pronuncia
tion o f certain vowels and diphthongs (examples o f iotacism and the
190
CHAPTER
ONE
elimination o f eu, ceo, in particular), the fricativisation o f aspirated

voiceless occlusives ( L a t . / f o r G r . cp); forms such as the N . sg. depac,,
A c sg. yuvouKav, A c . pi. yuvaucec,, N . pi. ypcupfic;, verbs in -wto, evi
( m o d . G r . eivca), thematics instead o f athematics
(icrrdvo), axdvco,
OTTJKCQ, dcpiaxouuev), aor. eXapot; the loss o f the dative (confusion o f

D . a n d A c ) , the dual, the perfect and the optative, the extension o f
the use o f the subjunctive in the main clause (sometimes equivalent
to the future), i v a + subj. instead o f inf., the defective inflection o f
the participle, etc. M o r e details are p r o v i d e d b e l o w , cf. 3 3 0 ff,
4 2 5 ff. T h e difficulty is in fixing the dialects locally and temporally.
T h e attempts that have b e e n m a d e have taken into a c c o u n t the
varieties within koine (in Italy, Crete, C a p p a d o c i a , Cyprus, R h o d e s ) ,
varieties which descend at least in part from the old dialects (Tsakonian
and Pontic). Certain
differences in the p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f
the
maintenance (or lack thereof) o f the o l d geminates, the palatalisa

tion (or lack thereof) o f the gutturals, the preservation o f the 3rd
pi. -ouor (for -ouv) a n d the extension o f -occu to the 3rd pi. o f the
aorist -
are all attributed to o l d developments, from Attic to the
R o m a n age.
It c a n n o t b e d e n i e d that this c o u l d b e true, but it is far t o o c o n
jectural. S o , as I anticipated, there is n o other solution w h e n defining
the general lines o r the p o p u l a r o f conversational koine (including its
i m p a c t o n literary koine) than to provide a synchronic and spatially
unitary type o f description. T h e data can b e extracted from all kinds
o f texts, including the literary texts.
2 6 2 . Let us first l o o k at a variant that w e have already discussed,
w h i c h is easier for us to understand, although w e are dealing with
a social, n o t a geographical o r temporal, dialect: vulgar koine.
W e have already looked at the vulgar register in Ionia (in H i p p o n a x
and others) and general references have b e e n p r o v i d e d o n Attica, It
is n o w interesting to see h o w s o m e vulgarisms, apart from those that
seem to b e mistakes, seem to have b e e n consciously introduced b y
s o m e authors in o r d e r to distance themselves from literary and ele
vated prose. I will refer to the Cynics.
I refer the reader to a previous w o r k o f mine (Adrados 1981),
w h i c h is in turn based o n another w o r k b y J. F. Kinstrand
1975 o n
B i o n the Borysthenite, a n d an unpublished thesis b y P. Peran o n

the Life of Aesop, w h o s e cynical characteristics I have emphasised in
various works. In b o t h cases, vulgarism is definitely and consciously
KOINE
AND
ITS
RELATION TO
OTHER LANGUAGES
191
sought for. Furthermore, since this is c o m m o n in literary texts, h o w

ever l o w their level m a y b e , Hellenistic phonetics is m u c h less obvi
ous
than in the 'mistakes', w h i c h authors such as E. N a c h m a n s o n
1910
263.
and K . Dieterich 1898 have researched.

Bion displays some characteristics o f Hellenistic phonetics (yivouca,
yivobaKco, ouGeiq,
neiva)
and m o r p h o l o g y (rcocuGdcGcoaav, lack o f the
dual, a b u n d a n c e o f the diminutive and vocative); as well as syntac

tic and lexical characteristics.
The
Life of Aesop contains traces o f Hellenistic phonetics (iotacism,
m o n o p h t h o n g i s a t i o n o f diphthongs, the confusion o f l o n g and short

o, -toq > -iq, confusion in aspiration, etc.), and contains an
abun
d a n c e o f expressive terms for physical defects a n d o f Hellenistic

v o c a b u l a r y in general. F o r m o r p h o l o g y , w e c a n note the following:
A c . %eipocv, euyvf|v, N . n. fJccGw, numerals o f the type 5eica.Tvxe,
lack o f augment (e7uxexd%ei, eupov), inf. onAmv, dvapeiv, the c h a n g e
from o n e contracted f o r m to another, from athematic to thematic
(exiGovxo, SiSouvxoq, oxpcovvueaGai), aor. evjta, -aq, ei)paxe, p e r f o i 8 a ,
-aq, in the verb 'to b e ' rjq, fern. part. eiScbq, etc. In syntax, the A c .
is used instead o f another case, the G . instead o f D . (GOV euvoei,
also substituted b y rcpoq + A c ) ; the Hellenistic use o f idxi, orccoq,
iva:
o f the m o o d s and tenses (ind. instead o f s u b j , perf. instead o f
p r e t , periphrasis).
Short and interrupted dialogue is characteristic; mixture o f tenses,
with neutralised uses (historic present and praesens pro futuro); the K C U
style; expressions such as
8COGOO
yvco^mv x( eaxou, oval
xcp Aiaco7U(p.
M a n y o f these characteristics are also f o u n d in colloquial koine in

general, but the agglomeration a n d special uses in vulgar koine dis
tinguish
it from the colloquial.
It serves to b e r e m i n d e d that the difference b e t w e e n the p o p u l a r

and the vulgar is n o t always easy to define: b o t h share m a n y fea
tures, although literature does a v o i d certain w o r d s , expressions and
turns o f phrase, n o t to m e n t i o n p h o n e t i c s . T h e vulgar
language
should b e seen as a subterranean substratum w h i c h only emerges

by
mistake o r as a conscious literary resource. It also emerges in
the tabellae defixionis and other vulgar inscriptions, and, at the begin
ning o f the Byzantine p e r i o d , in a remarkable text from the sixth
or
seventh century: the prose o f the a n o n y m o u s collection o f the
Aesopic Fables, referred to as the V i n d o b o n e n s i s , w h i c h consciously

vulgarises a m o r e educated earlier prose. C f F. R . A d r a d o s 1948,
192
CHAPTER
ONE
p . 67 ff. A similar case is that o f J o a n n e s Malalas, a c o n t e m p o r a r y

o f o u r collection, o f w h o m m o r e will b e said later.
4.
C O L L O Q U I A L KOINE: GENERAL
DESCRIPTION
264. T h e koine that was c o m m o n l y spoken is referred
to as collo
quial o r p o p u l a r koine. Its phonetics is k n o w n particularly

the
'mistakes
o f texts without any literary pretensions;
through
the
other
areas o f the language are k n o w n through these same texts and other
m o r e literary texts, particularly
o f the Hellenistic p e r i o d . Literary
texts, especially the oldest ones, c o i n c i d e in m a n y aspects o f syntax

and l e x i c o n , in particular with conversational koine.
Since w e are l o o k i n g for c o m m o n characteristics, let us eliminate
those that w e have registered
as c o m i n g from contact with
other
languages. I w o u l d like to stress that, as w e shall see, it is not a

question o f a temporally unitary language, for different
character
i s t i c s e m e r g e in different dates, while others (or the same but in an

earlier period) are o n l y registered as a tendency (which sometimes
culminates in M o d e r n Greek). Indeed, s o m e m a y begin as vulgarisms
5
o r as 'mistakes , and e n d up as regular
characteristics.
265. Descriptions of koine can be found in general works, such as those by

A. Meillet 1975, p . 253 ff, E. Schwyzer-A, Debrunner 1975 (passim) and
R. Browning 1993, p . 19 ff Specific works on certain aspects of koine (apart
from the works cited previously on its origins and internal differences, and on
the L X X and N T ) include, on Greek papyri, E. Mayser 1926 ff. (Ptolemaic
period), H. Ljungvik 1932, L. R. Palmer 1945, T . Gignac 1976 and 1981
(Roman and Byzantine periods), S. G. Kapsomenos 1958 (id.), B. G.
Mandilaras 1973 (the verb); on phonetics. H. Pernot (1921); on the dative,
J. Humbert 1930 and W . Dressier 1965; on the perfect, P. Chantraine
1927, p . 214 ff; on syntax, F. R. Adrados 1988c and 1992e (passim). C f ,
in general, L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 174 ff. and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 65 ff.
An elementary description is provided by W . R . Funk 1977. For certain evo
lutionary features, c f H. Ljungvik 1932 and St. Wahlgren 1995. R. Browning
provides an interesting comparison of the lexical use o f N T and Atticists
such as Phrynichus and Moeris.
For the lexicon, see in general, F. R. Adrados 1948, p. 31 ff and 199 ff.
(only words in koine). For Ionicisms' cf. for example, E. Mayser 1926, I,
p. 20 ff (a list following from papryri), F. R. Adrados 1948, p. 160 ff. (id.
from the Aesopic fables and from numerous texts used in the comparison).
For Attic words which are absent in koine, c f for example, F. BlassA. Debrunner 1954, p . 70 (particles) and, for individual authors, the ref
erences given in 277. Lucian, Rhet mag. 16 and Lexiph. 1 reproaches the
pedantic use of a series of Atticisms.
KOINE
AND
ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R L A N G U A G E S
193
2 6 6 . A description o f p o p u l a r koine must start from what w e already

k n o w . It is fundamentally
Attic, with s o m e rare I o n i c o r general
forms, a n d an abundant non-Attic lexicon, also I o n i c and general.

H o w e v e r , it is not always the standard Attic o f prose but very often
the popular types o f Attic. Y e t , it should b e p o i n t e d out that from
the start, o r gradually,
n e w features e m e r g e d : s p o r a d i c
features,
reflecting n e w tendencies, or features generalised earlier o r later.

267. Phonetics. D u r i n g the R o m a n p e r i o d the opposition o f long and
short vowels was lost, something w h i c h was presaged b y the confu
sion o f n and e, co and o in Egypt f r o m the third century B C , but
with even earlier traces. A r o u n d the year A D 100, the p o e t Babrius
disregarded the quantity o f the penultimate in his choliambs, as he
was m o r e interested in the presence o f the n e w tonic accent.
T h e vocalic system was totally transformed,
w h i c h are rarely found in
fifth-century
following tendences
Attic (examples o f iotacism
in inscriptions from the A c a d e m y : ' A 0 w a , "Apic,) and w h i c h greatly

penetrated fourth-century Beotian (closure o f n into ei, m o n o p h t h o n g i sation o f a i , etc.). In the Hellenistic p e r i o d , the p h e n o m e n o n o f
iotacism was clearly a d v a n c e d (i for n, ei) as well as the
pronun
ciation o f 01 as u; the elimination o f the diphthongs eu (> ef ev) and

y
ecu ( > af, av) is difficult to date; the m o n o p h t h o n g i s a t i o n o f cu dates

from the Imperial p e r i o d ; a n d the evolution u > i is Byzantine.
T h e s e p h e n o m e n a gradually c a m e to create M o d e r n Greek, but left
little mark o n the literary texts.
In short, the disappearance o f the differences in quantity, iotacism,
and the elimination o f diphthongs are key, although these p h e n o m
ena did not quite reach c o m p l e t i o n .
T h e consonantal system also underwent a drastic evolution. Aspirated
voiceless occlusives b e c a m e fricatives in the Hellenistic period; the
v o i c e d ones also b e c a m e fricatives, except after a nasal; b e c a m e a
v o i c e d sibilant; g was lost in cases such as oXioq. T h e s e p h e n o m e n a
b e c a m e regulated from the fourth century B C , the fricativisation o f
the aspirated stops c a m e later, after Christ. See H . Pernot 1921 and
E. S c h w y z e r - A . D e b r u n n e r
1975.
268. Morphology. Let us l o o k at s o m e notable characteristics.
There
is the sporadic appearance o f A c rcocxepav, from w h i c h in M o d e r n

G r e e k the N , Ttaxepocc, was created (depocc, in the third century A D ) .
A b o v e all, there is the disappearance o f the D , following a sort o f
flourishing during the Hellenistic p e r i o d (cf. A d r a d o s 1992e, p . 219),
and in the Imperial p e r i o d (cf. J. H u m b e r t
1930 and W . Dressier
194
CHAPTER
ONE
1965); it has culminated in M o d e r n Greek. But from an earlier date

o n w a r d s w e e n c o u n t e r the e x c h a n g e o f ev + D . and eiq + A c . T h e r e
is also an A c . pi. yuvottKec,, N . pi. ypacpric,, G . in -ou in the 3rd d e c l ,
all in the Imperial p e r i o d . A l s o , the dual was lost.
V e r b a l inflection also contained s o m e novelties. Since the Hellenistic
era, the use o f athematic verbs in -ui was m o r e and m o r e r e d u c e d
in p o p u l a r texts, as they tended to b e c o m e thematic o n -co (Seucvueic,,
e^covvuec,, ouvueiv, 8(8(0,
iaravG)); sometimes athematic verbs w e r e
replaced b y other thematic verbs (%opTaa> replaced b y Kopevvuui).

T h e r e is an aoristic influence o n the present (KpuPco), a n e w inflection
o f the aorist o f the type e(3aâ, -ec, (etSa, rjpGa), the replacement o f
thematic aorist b y the sigmatic (icaTA,i\|/a, s e c o n d century A D ) ;
confusion o f a u g m e n t a n d reduplication; regularisations
the
o f the type
0fiKa(ii8V, oiSaiiev, i\[ir\v; a reduction o f the optative, almost limited

to stereotyped expressions o f wish, c f statistics in A . Meillet 1975,
p , 2 8 9 ff.; the value o f the subjunctive future; the contamination, at
times, o f aorist a n d perfect ( o f the type ejniaGcoKajnev) w h i c h presaged
the loss o f the perfect in M o d e r n G r e e k (except for s o m e w h i c h were
left as aorists,
such as Ppfjica);
the extension o f the passive
aor.
(dcTreKpCGnv) instead o f the middle; the b e g i n n i n g o f the part, with

defective inflection, as in M o d . Gr.; the increase in periphrastic ver
bal inflections.
In c o n c l u s i o n , there was a t e n d e n c y to reorganise the declensions,
with a p r e d o m i n a n c e o f the v o c a l i c stem and a reduction o f the
dative; and, in the v e r b , the elimination o f the inflection in -ui, the
disappearance
o f the
optative
and
the perfect (or a fusion
with
the aor.), the confusion a n d even elimination o f augment and redu

plication, regularisations
o f the desinential system, etc.
2 6 9 . Syntax. T h e system o f cases evolved. A s I explained in A d r a d o s

1 9 8 8 c 1 9 8 9 b a n d 1992e, the A c tended to b e c o m e a general rule,
eliminating s o m e special uses, and the G . tended to focus o n the
function o f determining the n o u n . A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, the D . dis
appeared, but m u c h later o n , a n d the use o f prepositions increased.
W e have seen h o w the frequency o f use o f the optative was almost
totally r e d u c e d to stereotyped expressions o f wish. T h e potential and
the imperative tended to b e substituted b y futures. T h e subjunctive
tended to b e r e d u c e d to subordinate clauses, although its jussive use
in m a i n clauses was important in the Hellenistic p e r i o d . A s far as
tenses w e r e c o n c e r n e d , the perfect almost always b e c a m e resultative,
KOINE AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
195
its intransitive use with a present value b e i n g rare; it b e c a m e almost

the equivalent o f the aorist, w h i c h presaged its eventual loss, as w e
have seen. H o w e v e r , the historic present is absent. T h e system o f
voices focused o n the opposition o f active and passive, the m e d i u m
was reserved almost exclusively for reflexive and reciprocal use as a
variant o f the active. W e have discussed the participle. Sometimes,
w e c o m e across an infinitive with a subject, even if the subject is
the same as that o f the main clause. T h e frequency o f subordina
tion decreased, but there was an increase in the use o f i v a + sub
junctive, instead o f the infinitives d e p e n d e n t
o n verbs o f will and
others.
2 7 0 . Lexicon. First, there is the characteristic
elimination o f a large
n u m b e r o f Attic terms and their replacement b y other terms, whether

n e w o r from various origins. Sometimes, they are the I o n i c terms
w h i c h w e have p r o p o s e d as b e i n g at the same time Attic, b e l o n g
ing to the 'subterranean' o r popular language. T h e s e and other terms
also a p p e a r
in the late Plato ( c f A . D i a z T e j e r a
X e n o p h o n ( c f L. Gautier
1961) a n d
in
1911), a m o n g other authors: s o m e were
perhaps traditional terms from the same subterranean language w h i c h

was n o w beginning to surface; others were n e w creations.
T h e r e is also a large n u m b e r o f w o r d s that are only found in
koine'. Ionicisms and n e w creations, a b o v e all. O f course, the
fre
q u e n c y o f abstracts and adjectives related to t h e m is l o w e r in p o p

ular as o p p o s e d to literary koine, but it increased considerably due
to transfers b e t w e e n the two. Furthermore, there are w o r d s that can
only b e f o u n d in a particular region o f the Hellenistic w o r l d (for
example, in Egypt xhxokoyoq 'administrator o f private property'
or
Gaâixnyoc, 'a vessel'); but this m a y b e accidental a n d in any case, it

is a m i n o r difference.
I w o u l d like to recall s o m e conclusions w h i c h I presented in a
very early w o r k (Adrados 1948), but have not b e e n picked up o r
considered b y other scholars, o r replaced with other studies. Indeed,
this field has b e e n largely ignored.
T h e point is, within the koine that dates before ca. A D 100 there
is very little difference b e t w e e n the l e x i c o n o f the spoken and o f the
literary language (with the exception o f vulgarisms a n d technicisms).
B o t h the elimination o f certain Attic terms and the admission o f
I o n i c o r other terms p r o b a b l y o f a p o p u l a r origin (and o f certain
abstracts and adjectives) are p h e n o m e n a that affect the w h o l e o f the
196
CHAPTER
ONE
language k n o w n to us. T h e most 'popular' texts, m e n t i o n e d earlier

( 245), and authors such as Polybius o r Philo c o i n c i d e fundamen
tally as far as the l e x i c o n is c o n c e r n e d . All o f the written language
displays the same extraordinary
d e v e l o p m e n t o f the suffixes
-ia,
-uoc,, -r|, -eia, etc. a n d their corresponding adjectives; and o f verbs

with preverb; etc.
T h e n there is the case o f special lexicon within popular koine (the
p h e n o m e n o n is without d o u b t m o r e important in literary koine), as
well as the
'hiding' o f w o r d s (conventional synonyms) and w o r d s
without meaning, a n d magical w o r d s in magical texts. Cf. M . Garcia

Tejeiro 1996.
5.
LITERARY KOINE AND
ITS S T A G E S
The first stage

2 7 1 . H o w e v e r m u c h every written text o f koine reveals a literary
intention
and hides, as far as possible, p o p u l a r phonetics and lan
guage, it is clear that texts such as the L X X o r the N T , n o t to m e n

tion the defixiones o r private d o c u m e n t s in papyrus, were directed at
a n o n - e d u c a t e d public and were looking for a means o f c o m m u n i
cating with it; the writers tried not to distance their language t o o
m u c h f r o m their audience. A s regards the vulgar G r e e k o f the Life
of Aesop and other texts, w e are dealing with a conscious and liter
ary vulgarism.
Y e t the majority o f the prose texts written from the beginning o f
the s e c o n d half o f the fourth century B C onwards-I a m not refer
ring to p o e t i c texts, w h i c h artificially resuscitated the o l d dialects
were a i m e d at an educated, international public, an elite within the
different Hellenistic kingdoms and leagues o f cities. T h e cultural back
g r o u n d for prose was r o o t e d in Attic, w h o s e literary genres (philos
o p h y , history, c o m e d y , erudition, sometimes oratory) still survived.
N e w genres such as the novel o r the diatribe were added.
T h e idea was not to w i d e n the cultural gap with Athens, w h i c h
existed all the same. T h e r e f o r e , p e o p l e wrote in a language w h i c h
was an intermediate so to speak, between Attic prose and c o n v e r
sational koine, with all sorts o f gradations. It contained elements o f
b o t h , w h i c h is w h y w e have b e e n able to use it to describe the c o n
versational koine, particularly as regards the lexicon, h o w e v e r different
it m a y have b e e n in s o m e respects, its similarities with Attic being
m o r e significant.
KOINE A N D
OTHER
LANGUAGES
197
T h i s is the prose w e refer to as literary koine o r literary Hellenistic

koine, the first stage o f its evolution in the Imperial p e r i o d . Let us
l o o k at this in m o r e detail.
272. T h e p r o b l e m is that very few texts o f the first literary koine
have b e e n preserved and even studied to the degree that they deserve.
It was precisely the increase in the m o r e Atticist prose from the start
o f this era, along with the increase in works o f erudition and sci
ence in the p e r i o d o f the R o m a n empire, w h i c h led to the loss o f
the majority o f Hellenistic literary prose. W e have h a d to make d o
with a few scattered
remains.
A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, the beginning o f the first stage was marked

by the late works o f Plato, X e n o p h o n , and Aristotle. Aristode's works
are, firstly, written in various registers; the esoteric b e i n g m o r e lit
erary, the exoteric being m o r e popular and at the same time scientific.
S e c o n d l y , Aristotle has barely b e e n studied from a linguistic p o i n t
o f view, and the same applies to his disciple Theophrastus and others,
w h o s e writings have b e e n preserved in fragments.
The
texts w h i c h are useful for the study o f literary koine o f the
Hellenistic p e r i o d have b e e n m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ( 245). W e can a d d

D i o d o r u s o f Sicily and Strabo, o f a m o r e recent date, in the Augustan
period. Additionally, there are studies o n specific points, b u t n o n e
o f a general
character.
273. For Menander, c f D . B. Durham 1969 (1913, very partial, only deals
with the lexicon); for Philo, M . Arnim 1912; for Aristeas G. H. Meecham
1935; for Epicurus, H. Widmann 1935 and P. Linde 1906; for Polybius,
J. A. Foucault 1972; for the late Hippocratic writings, U. Fleischer 1939
and J. Mendoza 1976; for Diodorus, J. Palm 1955. The book by S. Wahlgren
1995 is also useful, cf. 277 and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 48 ff.
274. Unfortunately,
n o study has b e e n m a d e o n the w h o l e o f this
type o f koine: i.e. literary Hellenistic koine in its first stage. T h e works
cited place particular emphasis o n the lexical aspects: the lack o f
Attic terms, the appearance o f I o n i c ' o r recent terms, as m e n t i o n e d
previously. A l t h o u g h a general o v e r v i e w is lacking, s o m e observa
tions can b e m a d e o n various aspects o f the language.
T o begin with, it should b e p o i n t e d out that the writers o f this
p e r i o d were very conscious o f the existence o f the t w o levels corre
sponding to literary and p o p u l a r koine. S o , in the G o s p e l s , Luke uses
traditional Attic w o r d s as o p p o s e d to the p o p u l a r w o r d s used b y the
other evangelists: Kpocvtov for ToXyoGav, (popoc, for icfyvaov, anb xou
vuv for an apxi, acoixa for rcxcouet, eaOico for xpcbyco, 8epco for KoXacpi^co.
198
CHAPTER
ONE
But the w h o l e o f the Gospels makes frequent use o f a lexicon w h i c h

was rejected b y Atticists such as Phrynichus and M o e r i s , w h o drew
5
attention to the A t t i c ' and 'Hellenistic words. C f R . Browning 1983,

p . 47 ff.
W e k n o w , from the b o o k b y H . W i d m a n n , that Epicurus displayed
a series o f non-Attic characteristics: frequent substantivisation o f the
participle, reduction o f the difference between active and middle,
periphrastic verbal forms, confusion o f the aorist and perfect, use o f
the subjunctive in subordinate clauses, a reduction in the use o f the
optative, an increase in the use o f prepositions, etc.
S o m e observations o n the characteristics
o f Polybius and
other
authors (Strabo and Diodorus) can be added. A . Meillet 1975, p . 290 f.

provides statistics o n the rare use o f the optative. J. Palm 1955 makes
the following observations for D i o d o r u s (apart from the large n u m b e r
o f fluctuations due to the influence o f his sources): strengthening o f
the cases with the help o f prepositions; scant use, as mentioned, o f
the optative; rarity o f the historic present; neuter pi. with sg. verb.;
infinitives with the same subject as that o f the main clause; periphrastic
conjugation; etc.
Indeed, the first literary koine is characterised b y rather negative
as o p p o s e d to positive aspects: the lack o r rarity o f Attic and Atticist
lexicon a n d grammar; the entry o f n e w koine characteristics (in the
lexicon and grammar), s o m e o f w h i c h were later eliminated.
But w e should stress that Hellenistic literary G r e e k was n o t uni
tary. It c o n t a i n e d the poeticising rhetoric o f Hegesias o f Magnesia,
studied b y E. N o r d e n 1958 (1898), filled with a p o e t i c lexicon and
Gorgianic figures, as well as with Attic grammar: dismissed b y C i c e r o ,
it nevertheless h a d a great i m p a c t o n posterity. Also, w e should point
out the presence o f technical and scientific prose, w h i c h was signifi
cant for the lexical d e v e l o p m e n t o f G r e e k and w h i c h shall b e fur
ther discussed.
Atticism
275. T o w a r d s the start o f the imperial age, in the p e r i o d o f Augustus
and Tiberius, there was a change in literary taste w h i c h steered the
literary p r o s e o f koine in an archaistic direction. T h i s m o v e m e n t ,
k n o w n as Atticism, was marked b y the revaluation o f Attic culture,
and also h a d an i m p a c t o n sculpture (and contributed to the loss o f
the f o r m e r prose).
K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R
LANGUAGES
199
This m o v e m e n t found its origins a m o n g theorists o f style such as

Caecilius o f Galeaete, L o n g i n u s and D i o n y s i u s o f Halicarnassus,
although, earlier, Aristophanes o f Byzantium had written about words
w h i c h should b e repudiated.
S o m e b e l i e v e it was r o o t e d in
the
Asianism o f Hegesias and other rhetoricians, while others (Philostratus

in his Life of the Sophists)' believe it originated with the rhetors o r
'Sophists' (the ' S e c o n d Sophistic') w h o were m a k i n g declamations o r
meletai in p u b l i c a r o u n d this p e r i o d , particularly o n historic o r imag
inary themes: for e x a m p l e , a certain Nicetas, o f w h i c h nothing has
b e e n preserved, and his successors such as P o l e m o n (in the times o f
Trajan) and those that c a m e later, starting with H e r o d e s Atticus. A t
any rate, the n e w style d o m i n a t e d in educated prose and f o u n d its
practical exponents in authors o f dictionaries w h o , like Phrynichus
and M o e r i s , d r e w attention to the p r o s c r i b e d w o r d s .
T h e r e is n o d o u b t that the imitation o f the ancients sought to ele
vate the Greeks to a superior cultural level than the R o m a n s , and
to p r o v i d e t h e m with a sense o f identity. It is interesting to note
that, as regards Christian Greek, this b e g a n at a p o p u l a r level, but
w h e n Christianity reconciled with the R o m a n empire in the fourth
century, its main representatives Synesius, Basil, the t w o Gregories
and J o h n Chrysostom, a m o n g others - a d o p t e d Atticism (to the same
extent as the last great pagans, Libanius and Proclus). W i t h the c l o
sure o f the A c a d e m y o f A t h e n s b y Justinian (529), the
balance
definitely shifted towards the Christians, w h o were given the formidable

task o f continuing the Attic level o f G r e e k prose and rescuing ancient
G r e e k literature from obscurity.
2 7 6 . It c o u l d b e said that Atticism was a d o p t e d b y the G r e e k higher
classes, w h o n e e d e d a strong sense o f identity to face R o m e
and
n e e d e d to distinguish themselves from the populations w h o spoke a

p o p u l a r Greek. A l t h o u g h they often c o o p e r a t e d with R o m e ,
they
retained a feeling o f cultural superiority, also regarding their value

as a nation.
In general, there was a gradual reintroduction o f an Attic lexicon
and g r a m m a r . But the authors did n o t form a h o m o g e n o u s w h o l e .
S o m e preferred the Attic o f prose, and there w e r e those w h o filled
it with p o e t i c w o r d s , even taken from
S a p p h o (Himerius). T h e r e
were 'Sophistic' professionals, such as D i o Chrysostomus, the t w o

Philostratuses, Aristeides and Favorinus, cf. the b o o k b y W . S c h m i d
1964 ( 1 8 8 7 - 9 6 ) , the fundamental w o r k o n the subject, and writers
200
CHAPTER
ONE
influenced b y them o r 'part-time' Sophists, such as Dionysius o f Hali

carnassus, D i o Cassius, Arrian (editor o f the work b y Epictetus), Lucian,
Aelian, etc. T h e r e is n o c o m p l e t e study: the b o o k b y W . S c h m i d
deals with Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Aristeides, Lucian, and Aelian,
and is important but incomplete in certain respects, c f A d r a d o s 1948,
p . 36.
T h i s is n o t all. W i t h the task o f creating archaism, s o m e authors
imitated H e r o d o t u s , as for instance Dionysius o f Halicarnassus
and
Josephus, o r simply w r o t e in I o n i c (as Arrian in his Indike). Besides,

there was the technical o r scientific literature, w h i c h was somewhat
Atticising, and Christian literature, w h i c h adapted itself to the m o v e
m e n t from the fourth century onwards.
277. O n the Atheists, c f the book by W . Schmid previously cited, and my
contribution in F. R. Adrados 1948, p. 31 ff. For precedents, c f L. Zgusta
1980, p . 127. For Herodotisms, c f S. Ek 1942 and 1946. For Christian
literature, c f for example, P. Gallay 1933.
The important book by S. Wahlgren 1995 draws a systematic compar
ison - for a series o f characteristics such as the dual, anomalous conju
gated forms, prepositions, particles, final and consecutive constructions between the situation o f classical and pre-classical Greek, the koine ( L X X ,
Letter o f Aristeas, Polybius and Diodorus) and o f the early Imperial prose
(Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Nicolaus o f Damascus, Strabo and Philo o f
Alexandria). The latter clearly displays the progress of Atticism, which rein
troduced Attic forms or increased their frequency, always with differences
according to the author and to the different linguistic features.
2 7 8 . T h e fundamental
thing is that the Atticisms (and poetisms)
entered progressively. In m y b o o k o f 1948, I established that from

a r o u n d the year 100, in the times o f Trajan, then o f Hadrian
and
H e r o d e s Atticus, a n e w phase in literary koine began. Purism was all

the rage, as reflected in the lexicon o f Phrynichus and M o e r i s , m e n
tioned previously, w h o distinguished what was Attic and Hellenistic.
It was also reflected in certain satires, such as that o f the
character
w h o in Athenaeus is called Kevxouiceixoc, because o f his repeated ques

c
tion Keixou TI OU Keixca; i.e., Is it d o c u m e n t e d o r not?'. W e have seen

h o w Lucian, himself an Atticist, also satirizes the excesses o f the Atticists.
Let us take the example, from the b o o k b y W . Schmid (I, p . 226 f f ) ,
o f Atticisms in Lucian, w h o is not the most exaggerated o f the Atticists:
(a) Morphology. A m o n g other things: pi, 8eaud, vecbq, axepoc,, of
as indirect reflexive, f]8uvdur|v, impv. -ovxcov, jiocvxeun besides
Hellenistic forms.
KOINE AND
(b) Syntax. Substantivisation
OTHER LANGUAGES
201
o f neutral, dual, plural adjectives o f
the abstacts, certain G . partitives, G . o f agent, D . o f relation,

historic present, perf. with present value, imperative o f middle
perfect, final o r consecutive infinitive, optative in subordinate
clauses; etc., besides Hellenistic uses.
i
In m y b o o k cited a b o v e , I established (p. 195 ff.), while studying the

lexicon o f the Augustan collection o f A e s o p i c fables, certain groups
o f Atticisms w h i c h did not enter the n e w literature until a certain
date -
for e x a m p l e , until the s e c o n d o r the fourth
centuryand
w h i c h , because o f this, can b e used to date a n o n y m o u s texts such

as these (which c a n n o t b e assumed to have b e e n written before the
fourth century). O f course, o n e has to distinguish between Atticisms
as such, prosaic Atticisms, and the poetisms o f particular rhetori
cians, w h i c h also increased with time. O n e also has to consider that
technical literature is m o r e moderate as regards Atticism. Furthermore,
it w o u l d b e useful to study other types o f literature, as, for e x a m
ple, the n o v e l o r the different types o f Christian literature.
In any case, Atticism is m a d e up o f m a n y stages, as is the devel
o p m e n t o f abstract v o c a b u l a r y , w h i c h can b e seen, for e x a m p l e ,
w h e n c o m p a r i n g Polybius and Plutarch. H e r e , terms from the pre
vious koine were admitted, but m a n y m o r e w e r e a d d e d , usually o f a
literary type. It is particularly difficult to separate p o p u l a r from lit
erary koine in this p e r i o d , the latter remaining almost h i d d e n f r o m
us. T h e r e is also a difference between Atticising and poeticising lit
erary koine, w h i c h is seen, for example, w h e n c o m p a r i n g the Augustan
Collection o f fables and A p h t h o n i u s , b o t h f r o m the fifth century A D .
279. H o w e v e r , in the fables as in other literature, it was only at the
start o f the fourth century A D that Atticism b e g a n to retreat, faced
with the fashion for p o p u l a r and even vulgar language. This battle
continued with varying results throughout the Byzantine and m o d e r n
periods.
I w o u l d like to stress that w e find ourselves in u n e x p l o r e d terri
tory here, for w e lack any systematic studies o n the evolution o f
Hellenistic and R o m a n G r e e k (I have n o t e d s o m e exceptions) and
especially o n the variants o f the different schools o f Atticism and the
Atticism o f the different genres. In certain cases, w e c o u l d b e look
ing at a mixture o f prosaic Atticisms and poeticisms, as in the c o l
lection o f fables already referred to. Indeed, the same author c o u l d
202
CHAPTER
ONE
change his style a c c o r d i n g to the genre he was using, something

w h i c h is illustrated in Lucian and
Plutarch.
T h e fact is that prose language progressively b e g a n to distance

itself from conversational language, w h i c h b e c o m e s m o r e and m o r e
difficult to define. This o c c u r r e d w h e n e v e r mannerisms were intro
d u c e d for literary purposes, as with the Spanish imitators o f G o n g o r a
o r the French Symbolists: a series o f steps had to b e created to rennovate resources w h o s e effect had b e e n overused.
Consequendy, Greek literature b e c a m e increasingly elitist and aimed
at a closed circle o f readers, until the arrival o f the M e d i e v a l period.
280. Before this, Greek had developed a remarkable literature through
this artificial l a n g u a g e (and the even m o r e artificial language o f
poetry), in w h i c h Christian literature must b e included. It laid the
foundations for its survival as a language o f culture. But m o r e i m p o r
tant was the growth o f the literary lexicon and its influence o n Latin.
This Graeco-Latin l e x i c o n m a d e its way, through numerous obsta
cles, to arrive at the m o d e r n languages in w h i c h it survives as an
essential element. W e shall l o o k at this in m o r e detail further o n ,
c f 2 9 4 ff.
T o m o v e o n from the subject o f the lexicon, it is worth looking
at the m o d e r n study o n the syntax o f fifth- and sixth-century liter
ature; I a m referring to the w o r k b y K . Hult 1990. By c o m p a r i n g
various authors, b o t h p a g a n and Christian,
from the centuries in
question, this scholar m a n a g e d to distinguish a g r o u p o f four m o r e

'literary
authors (Eunapius, T h e o d o r e t , Marinus and Procopius) from
t w o m o r e 'popular
authors (Palladius and Callinicus). T h e r e is a
series o f points in w h i c h they differ. F o r example:

Literary variants: hno and npoq as agents, in final sentences with
<bc,, (be, av,
OTCGOC;
av, a future participle indicating intention, an absolute
infinitive, an indicative in consecutives, xuyxavco with participle in

nominative case, D . o f agent, etc.
Colloquial variants: purpose expressed b y an infinitive with a p r e p o
sition, direct instead o f indirect style, oxi after verbs o f thought and
vision, impersonal passive, consecutive i v a and after verbs o f willing,
impersonal xu%e with A c . and infinitive, etc.
A s w e c a n see, there is a series o f subde variations, but from the
year A D 100, it b e c o m e s difficult to gain access to p o p u l a r koine: w e
only have access to different variants o f literary koine, influenced b y
various tendences o f Atticism, and to less influenced texts.
KOINE
6.
THE
AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
EVOLUTION OF THE INTELLECTUAL AND
203
SCIENTIFIC L E X I C O N
Sources
2 8 1 . T o continue from where w e left o f f ( 237), let us l o o k at the
d e v e l o p m e n t o f the G r e e k întellectual and scientific language in the
Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. W e are partly dealing with special
terms (semantically modified o r newly created) relating to
different
philosophies and sciences, and partly with a v o c a b u l a r y with a gen

eral diffusion, at all levels, and in all the periods: the w o r d s them
selves o r the types o f formation, derivation a n d c o m p o s i t i o n passing
into the w h o l e literary sector o f the later languages.
A t the outset, it is important to make t w o observations. First, that
there are n o b r o a d o r up-to-date studies o n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this
lexicon, so that w e have to make d o with approximations.
Second,
that the collection and study o f the G r e e k l e x i c o n in dictionaries and

special works is i n c o m p l e t e , o r has b e e n until n o w , because o f a lack
o f lexicons, c o n c o r d a n c e s and indexes o f authors, and through the
absence, even in the general dictionaries, o f data that appear in the
m o r e specialised publications.
H o w e v e r , there are specialised dictionaries ( o f botany,
geometry,
rhetoric, etc.) w h i c h m a y b e o f use (see D . Lara 1997 and F. R .

A d r a d o s - D . Lara,
1998e). But dictonaries
o f philosophical terms,
such as those o f F. E. Peters 1967 and J, O . U r m s o n
1990, focus
o n content a n d neglect the lexicographic aspects. T h e same thing

happens in specialist studies like that o f D . Tsekourakis
ancient
1974 o n
Stoic t e r m i n o l o g y (Koc0r|KOVTa, KaTopOobjuaxa, T O xekoq,
aipexd, etc.). Fortunately, the
recent p u b l i c a t i o n
TOC
o f the Repertorio
bibliogrdfico de la lexicografia Griega b y P. B o n e d - J . R o d r i g u e z S o m o l i n o s

(1998) provides us with a very c o m p l e t e list o f all that has b e e n p u b
lished in this field, w h i c h is a great aid to research.
N o w , because o f the data p r o v i d e d in the Thesarus Linguae Graecae
(Irvine, California), and the Diccionario Griego-Espanol (IVI, M a d r i d
1 9 8 0 - 2 0 0 2 ) , the situation is starting to c h a n g e . A s regards the latter,
I refer the reader to t w o works:
(a) F. R . A d r a d o s - D . Lara (1998e), w h i c h provides an overview
o f the l e x i c o n o f different specialities and sciences and
the
c o r r e s p o n d i n g bibliography, as well as its collection in the

DGE. It also points out s o m e p r o b l e m s : the difficulty o f dis
tinguishing
b e t w e e n c o m m o n and specialised use, the lack
204
CHAPTER
ONE
o f precision (at times) as regards the taxonomies, the lack

o f data, the transitions b e t w e e n normal o r specific uses, etc.
In addition, examples are p r o v i d e d o f advances m a d e in this
area.
(b) F. R . A d r a d o s - J . R o d r i g u e z S o m o l i n o s 1998d and
2002"
2 0 0 3 , w h i c h provides data o n the e n o r m o u s advance o f the

D G E V a n d V I c o m p a r e d to the dictionary b y Liddel-ScottJ o n e s , as regards n e w w o r d s o r n e w technical and scientific
meanings o f k n o w n w o r d s , w h i c h are exemplified with arti
cles such as 8eKac;, Sfjjuoc, o r 8ucn. It also points out, with
respect to these volumes, hapax legomena that cease to b e so
and n e w w o r d s that were not collected until n o w .
Description
282. T h e scope o f the intellectual and scientific Greek lexicon, whether
w e are dealing with specific w o r d s o r meanings o f others, with tran
sitions ranging from the most specialised to c o m m o n and conversa
tional language, is i m m e n s e . T h e ability to f o r m n e w w o r d s is also
without parallel; where w e w o u l d form n e w phrases, the Greeks could
f o r m n e w w o r d s . It serves to recall the observation b y V e n d r y e s :
'there was never such a beautiful tool to express h u m a n
thought'.
Cf. F. R . A d r a d o s 1968.
T h r o u g h o u t the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods, the lexical net
works w h i c h w e discussed a b o v e ( 227) - created b y the Presocratics
and c o n t i n u e d b y the Socratics with repercussions o n the c o m m o n
languagewere perfected. T h e y contained different kinds o f nouns
(abstract, action, agent, etc.), adjectives related to these as well as
verbs a n d adverbs; in addition, variants functioning as preverbs,
prefixes, and first elements o f c o m p o u n d s . T h u s , an infinitely flexible
intellectual tool was created.
P. Chantraine p r o v i d e s a detailed study o f the extension o f the
different formations across the centuries; for koine and later Greek,
cf. for example, p . 190 fT. (-jua), 289 ff. (-cue,), 320 ff. (-rnq). Specialised
studies exist o n s o m e o f these, m a n y o f w h i c h are cited in m y w o r k
Adrados
1 9 9 7 b . In fact, they originate from the I o n i c a n d Attic
p e r i o d , as I have explained in the appropriate context: but
during
the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods they reached an unrivaled level.

In s o m e o f the examples o f suffixes and different derivatives w h i c h
I offered earlier, I p l a c e d m u c h emphasis o n this.
K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R
205
LANGUAGES
A b o v e all, it is a question o f abstract a n d action n o u n s in -d,

-r| - ( a , -act, -|J,6c,, -aic,, - a w n , agent n o u n s in -xr|c,, etc.; adjectives in
-toe,, -(X)IKOC;; a n d a series o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g verbs. A l s o , c o m p o u n d s
a n d derivatives with prepositions. T h e r e was a t e n d e n c y to
create
systems in w h i c h nouns, adjectives, adverbs a n d verbs c o r r e s p o n d ,

systems w h i c h h a d parallels with others with initial prepositions o r
with c o m p o u n d forms. T h i s was subsequently
imitated
in all
the
w o r l d ' s languages.
M a n y o f the w o r d s f r o m w h i c h these lexical networks are f o r m e d
did
not e m e r g e until the fifth o r fourth century B C and w e r e later
diffused, sometimes b e c o m i n g specialised a n d c h a n g i n g in semantics,

in the Hellenistic p e r i o d o r later. F o r e x a m p l e , anaBia and 8 i d v o i a
d e s c e n d from H e r o d o t u s , avrdpiceia a n d Siacpopd f r o m D e m o c r i t u s ,
al'c0rioT<; f r o m A n a x a g o r a s , arcdBeia f r o m Aristotle; they w e r e then
widely diffused, with various meanings, along with their derivatives.
F o r instance, if, in the eighth century ( H o m e r ) w e find cdpeco, only
in the fifth century d o w e find the abstract otipeorc, ( H d t ) , w h i c h
later survived in various literary genres a n d with various
specialisations; in the
fifth/fourth
semantic
century odpeoruoc, ( X . ) , in the fourth
century aipexoc, (pi., I s o c ) , in the fourth/third century aipxiaxr|c,

(Philem.), aipr(GiXi%r|c, (Diph.), in the third century a i p e o i a (Delos
inscription), -etioc, (Chrysipp.), -dxnc, ( L X X ) , -exiâ) ( H p . , Ep., L X X ) ,
-etiKoc, (pi., Def),
-STUTOOC,
( L X X ) , in the first century Bc/first c e n
tury A D a i p e a i o ^ d x o q (Ph.), in the s e c o n d century A D aipcndp%r|c,

(S.E., Gal.), in the third century A D aipeaiobxrjc, (Porph.), in the fourth
century A D ocipeoiccpxeco (Gr. Naz,), aipeaitaxxpicc ( D i d . ) . T h e lexical
network g r e w across the centuries, across literary genres, a n d across
b o t h pagans a n d
Christians.
T h e same applies in the case o f prepositional c o m p o u n d s , for

e x a m p l e , those with Sux-: Sioupeaic, appears in H d t . , in the fifth c e n
tury, as does the v e r b Sicap&o; then there is 8iatpx6<; and Siaipexucoc,
in p f , Siapexrjc, in an inscription f r o m the third century B C , Siapexrjp
in Philod. (first century B C ) a n d 8iaipexoq, 8iaipr|jLia in T h e m , a n d
Dam.
respectively (fourth and fifth century A D ) . F o r the documentation,
as in the previous case, see the DGE.

283.
T h e c o n c l u s i o n is analogous.
T o b e sure, the G r e e k language created lexical systems w h i c h
s o o n b e g a n to proliferate, such as ôyio)/-ia|ia/-ioxf|<; (from w h i c h

we
obtain -IOXIKOC,, -ioxia)/-iK6c/-i|ioc,; pot>A,uco/-xfi(;/-jj,a/-xr|pxov;
(pi?io(;/-Go/-r|iia/-ia/-iK6<;; 8pdco/8paai<;/8pajia (from w h i c h w e obtain
206
CHAPTER
-TIKOC,)
ONE
/ 8pcWr|c;; etc. H o w e v e r , the derivatives f r o m prefixes are n o
less prolific (dva-,
OCTCO-,
K-,
TU-,
m i c e - , Tiapoc-, etc.) and c o m p o s i
tional elements ( d - / d v - , ccuxo-, e i > , <piA,o-, dp%i-, etc.). In the

there are a r o u n d 8 0 0 w o r d s with am
DGE,
and a u t o , a r o u n d 1,750 with
d7io-, 50 with dyocGo-, 2 5 0 with dp%i- (dp%e-, dp%-). N o t e that most

o f this type o f v o c a b u l a r y is present in all the written language.
284.
A n o t h e r line o f enquiry in the study o f G r e e k lexicon, c o m
plementing the previous o n e , deals with formative elements: terms

w h i c h enter into c o m p o u n d s and derived words, like suffixes. W e
have briefly l o o k e d at the treatment o f the lexicon in the
and
archaic
classical p e r i o d , b u t there w e r e e n o r m o u s a d v a n c e s in
the
p e r i o d that w e are studying. I refer the reader to m y w o r k A d r a d o s

1997b a n d its bibliography. F o r the extension o f certain suffixes, cf.
R . B r o w n i n g 1983, p . 38 ff.; for the n e w meanings o f s o m e words,
p. 42.
B e l o w , I p r o v i d e s o m e statistics (which also include even the most
ancient
Greek, as there are n o studies based o n dates o r genres)
regarding n o u n and adjective suffixes. T h e y c o m e from the reverse

index of Greek b y C . D . B u c k - W . Petersen 1944. S o m e frequencies:
-105, -iov: 12,000
-ia, -in, -la: 7,500
-jioc,, -jwSv,
-fxa,
-GJHOC,,
-\o\ibq:
4,000
-ccajna, -ia|xa: 3,300
-TT|<; (-Tac,)/-Tr|Toc,, -TOCTOC,:
500
-TUG, (-Tac,)/(-Tou), etc., -iGTfjc; 5,400

-oic,, -îc,, -xj/ic,, -TIC; 5,400
-KOC,,
-KOV,
-IOCKOC,,
-TIKOC,:
7,200
It w o u l d b e interesting to distribute the frequencies chronologically,

as there was a continuous increase.
285.
I think that this c a n give us s o m e idea o f the v o l u m e , the char
acteristics a n d the evolution o f the intellectual v o c a b u l a r y o f Greek.

Using I n d o - E u r o p e a n resources for w o r d formation, it represented a
remarkable a d v a n c e c o m p a r a b l e to that o f science, philosophy, and
thought in general.
It laid the foundations for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this type o f lexi
con
in the c o m i n g periods, although this o c c u r r e d largely
through
an intermediate stage, still to b e studied, w h i c h w e refer to as the

G r a e c o - L a t i n l e x i c o n . It is simply the last o f the G r e e k grafts w h i c h
KOINE
AND
OTHER
LANGUAGES
207
Latin received from Plautus onwards, w h i c h enabled it to b e c o m e a

language o f culture, a base for those w h i c h followed and continued
to receive G r e e k grafts.
7.
GREEK AND
L A T I N IN T H E R E P U B L I C
AND THE
EMPIRE
The contact of Greek with other languages

286. G r e e c e and the Hellenistic k i n g d o m s w e r e c o n q u e r e d b y R o m e
in the third century B C T h e process extended through the conquest
o f southern Italy and Sicily ( T a r e n t u m fell in 2 7 2 , A g r i g e n t u m in
2 6 2 , Syracuse in 212) to the defeat o f the M a c e d o n i a n king Perseus
b y Aemilius Paulus in 167 B C (Greek resistence c a m e to an e n d with
the fall o f Corinth in 146) and the collapse o f the Hellenistic king
d o m s ( P e r g a m u m was legated to the R o m a n e m p i r e in 133 B C ,
P o m p e y c o n q u e r e d Syria in 6 4 B C , and Caesar c o n q u e r e d Alexandria
and Egypt in 30 B C ) . A t this time, and later, R o m e seized almost
all o f the countries o n the Mediterranean, culminating its advance
in the p e r i o d o f Trajan
(AD 9 8 - 1 1 7 ) : its d o m i n i o n extended from
England to the Euphrates, from the D a n u b e (and b e y o n d , in D a c i a )

to the Sahara.
Latin i m p o s e d itself wherever it c a m e into contact with languages
o f m o r e primitive cultures (in Italy, Gaul, England, Hispania, Germania,
Pannonia, Illyria, Africa), and in G r e e k cities in s o m e o f these places,
the o l d colonies o f the Mediterranean coast.
H o w e v e r , R o m e ' s e n c o u n t e r with the Greeks from the third cen
tury B C onwards (following another encounter o f lesser intensity from
the seventh century onwards) h a d a rather u n e x p e c t e d o u t c o m e : the
Hellenisation o f R o m e . It was a Hellenisation o f the culture, literature
and language o f R o m e . A c o n q u e r e d G r e e c e in turn c o n q u e r e d its
fierce victor, o r as H o r a c e puts it: Graecia capta ferum cepit uictorem
(Epist
II 1, 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 ) .
2 8 7 . H o w e v e r , the o u t c o m e was different in the East. H e r e , G r e e k

was maintained, n o t just in G r e e c e but also in the Hellenistic king
d o m s o f Asia, w h e r e it h a d only b e e n a superstratum o n the indige
nous languages.
G r e e k was maintained for a l o n g p e r i o d in Sicily and in Marseille,
but it s u c c u m b e d in the end. In Africa it e n j o y e d a p e r i o d o f splen
d o u r after the fall o f Carthage, then after Justinian's invasion, but
it did n o t s u c c e e d in i m p o s i n g itself. In G r e e c e a n d the East, Latin
208
CHAPTER
ONE
was the official language, but Aemilius Paulus spoke in G r e e k with

Perseus; Licinius Crassus delivered his p r o n o u n c e m e n t s in
Greek;
A g r i p p a , king o f the Jews, was allowed to speak before the R o m a n

senate in Greek; a n d the R o m a n s themselves c o m m u n i c a t e d with
the Phoenicians, J e w s , a n d Syrians in Greek. In Egypt,
Romans
allowed G r e e k to b e used from the very start, as o p p o s e d to the

i n d i g e n o u s l a n g u a g e . In fact, n o t even the generalisation
o f the
R o m a n citenzenry u n d e r Garacalla was able to i m p o s e Latin in any

generalised way. In short, G r e e k was the language o f the educated
and urban populations a n d the international language o f the East.
Indeed, Latin only m a n a g e d to impose itself in the newly c o n q u e r e d
territories, in Pannonia, T h r a c e and D a c i a , with the help o f the n e w
colonists.
T h e military, judicial, and part o f the administrative vocabulary,
as m e n t i o n e d previously, b e c a m e generalised. In Byzantium, it was
the official language until Justinian, and it was used a b o v e all in
inscriptions and titles o f h o n o u r . H o w e v e r , from a m u c h earlier date,
discourses were p r o n o u n c e d in Latin, followed b y translations; edicts
and other inscriptions w e r e published in b o t h languages (such as the
Res gestae b y Augustus) o r simply in Greek (as many edicts b y Hadrian).
H . Zilliacus and J. K a i m i o have m a d e a very detailed study o f the
use o f G r e e k in p u b l i c inscriptions, political life, legal language, and
its role in private life and as a language o f culture.
In fact, there was never any kind o f anti-Greek policy, and although
this l a n g u a g e
h a d great prestige o n the o n e h a n d , a n d yet was
considered inferior o n the other hand, a state o f bilingualism was

r e a c h e d in the East and the West, and was resolved in two different
directions.
T h e result was two-fold. O n the o n e hand, Latin b e c a m e filled
with G r e e k expressions, w o r d s and constructions, derived f r o m the
Hellenising culture w h i c h it e n c o u n t e r e d
and f r o m the fact that
R o m a n society, at the higher level, b e c a m e bilingual. O n the other

hand, geographically speaking, Latin h a d to share its territory with
Greek, w h i c h was maintained,
as w e mentioned, in the East (and
sometimes m o v e d to the W e s t through cultural means o r carried b y

the Eastern diaspora).
Furthermore,
within the Eastern empire there were p e r i o d
and
local differences. Latin was the preferred official language o f Gonstantine and later o f T h e o d o s i u s and Justinian, w h o maintained it, as I
KOINE AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
209
stated, as the official language. A t the most, translated versions o f

d o c u m e n t s were published in Greek; Latin was also the language o f
law and jurisprudence, so that w h e n e v e r translations were m a d e they
were full o f Latinisms, cf. L. B u r g m a n n 1991. H o w e v e r , the e m p e r o r
Julian, for instance, preferred
Greek, Arcadius allowed the use o f
b o t h languages before the tribunals, a n d s o o n legal texts were para

phrased and translated into Greek. In Egypt, the use o f G r e e k d o m
inated, with a few exceptions.
288. S o m u c h for the official use: it is clear that in the East, G r e e k
was the language
o f the higher and m i d d l e classes, as well as o f
most writers, w h i c h explains w h y it e n d e d up i m p o s i n g itself in all

fields.
T h e R o m a n empire therefore b e c a m e bilingual in two ways. In
the West, G r e e k was at the same time the language o f l o w e r class
immigrants and the language o f educated society; in the East, G r e e k
was the language c o m m o n l y spoken b y the e d u c a t e d classes
and
Latin held sway o v e r the administrative and official sectors (this was
lost, h o w e v e r , in the Byzantine p e r i o d ) . This rather c o m p l e x situa
tion was a c c o m p a n i e d b y a love-hate relationship,
in w h i c h
the
R o m a n s a d m i r e d the Greeks for their culture b u t despised their

weakness and d e c a d e n c e , while the Greeks despised the R o m a n s for
their lack o f culture and arrogance but admired their discipline and
p o w e r . Y e t there were also G r e e k R o m a n o p h i l e s a n d R o m a n Greekophiles, and all sorts o f intermediate positions,
Greek in Rome
2 8 9 . Let us g o b a c k to the origins. G r e e k influence o n Latin resulted
in a total renovation. First in literature: the Saturnian was replaced
b y the hexameter; the fescennini and the Atellana b y a G r e e k type
o f c o m e d y ; annales and the elogia b y the Hellenising epic, history and
lyric; even tragedy was a d o p t e d and, later o n , p h i l o s o p h y and ora
tory. D u r i n g the Augustan p e r i o d , the first influence o f c o n t e m p o
rary Hellenism was substituted b y that o f earlier literature, w h i c h
was classic and still archaic: classic oratory and history, archaic lyric
and epic. T h e first Latin literature was a translation from the G r e e k
(Livius A n d r o n i c u s translated the Odyssey) o r was written in G r e e k
(Fabius Pictor, C i n c u s Alimentus); and m u c h later, R o m a n authors
such Suetonius and M a r c u s Aurelius c o n t i n u e d to write in Greek.
210
CHAPTER
ONE
W h e n this n e w Latin literature e m e r g e d , it contained original fea

tures, o f course, but in s o m e ways it was also a continuation o f the
Greek.
Certain factors must b e taken into a c c o u n t in o r d e r to fully under
stand this. Firstly, something w e have already t o u c h e d u p o n , namely,
the influence o f G r e e k o n all the languages o f the
Mediterranean,
from the archaic p e r i o d to, a b o v e all, the Hellenistic period, due to

wars a n d conquests as well as trade. Subsequently,
an
enormous
Greek-speaking population (Greeks, Jews, Syrians, e t c ) b e c a m e estab

lished in R o m e , as extensively attested in the inscriptions. Juvenal
scornfully refers to the Graecam urbem (III 61). Secondly, the factor
o f the m o d e r n i t y and the strength o f influence exerted b y G r e e k lit
erature, w h i c h e n d e d up erasing ancient Latin literature and replac
ing it with a n e w , very Hellenicised literature to w h i c h I have just
referred. Thirdly, the bilingualism o f the R o m a n educated classes,
w h o learned G r e e k and finished their training o r education in G r e e c e
(although m a n y o f the G r e e k also learned Latin). Indeed,
Roman
c o n q u e r o r s f r o m the s e c o n d century BG, such as Aemilius Paulus

(who a n n e x e d M a c e d o n i a after his victory in Pydna in 168) o r the
Scipios w e r e fervent Hellenisers. Even the hostage Polybius m a n a g e d
to introduce Hellenism to the R o m a n aristocracy.
2 9 0 . In the letters o f C i c e r o and in m a n y anecdotes relating to
Caesar and the conspirors w h o m u r d e r e d h i m , to Augustus, Tiberius
and so m a n y other personalities, the Latin text is interspersed with pas
sages o r replies in Greek. It was in G r e e k that Caesar delivered his
famous p r o n o u n c e m e n t to cross the R u b i c o n ('the dice are thrown');
that Caesar spoke to Brutus w h e n he was assassinated ('you t o o , m y
son?'); that Augustus reproached Asinius Pollio for admitting Timagenes
into his house ( you are feeding a wild beast'); and that Tiberius
spoke w h e n he d r e w s o m e o n e into his confidence.
Greek was also used as the language o f love, as attested in Lucretius
I V 1160 ff. and criticised b y Juvenal V I 196 ff. A l t h o u g h c i r c u m
stances later c h a n g e d in the West, for in the fourth century only the
higher classes a n d technical writers had a c o m m a n d o f Greek.
A b o v e all, G r e e k was an intellectual language and the
language
o f literature and science: these were either written in G r e e k o r in

Latin filled with a G r e e k vocabulary w h i c h was m o r e o r less assim
ilated, a n d
e v e n with G r e e k w o r d s written in G r e e k
characters.
Cicero's letters and Ausonius's p o e m s are littered with Greek phrases.
KOINE AND
ITS R E L A T I O N
TO
OTHER
LANGUAGES
211
T h o s e o f Augustus, Claudius and T i b e r i u s are filled with G r e e k

w o r d s , although this d o e s n o t include oratory o r political works, n o r
the Acts (but Claudius did speak G r e e k in the Senate, a c c o r d i n g to
Suet., Claud. 42).
T h u s , a part o f Latin âbsorbed so m a n y G r e e k elements that it
turned into what I have referred to as Graeco-Latin, w h i c h w o u l d
play a decisive role in the diffusion o f ancient cultures and languages
in the M i d d l e A g e s and indeed in all the succeeding periods until
the present day.
2 9 1 . T h e origin o f this p h e n o m e n o n is in the early influence o f the
G r e e k language o n the Latin language, w h i c h was essential for fac
ing n e w cultural circumstances. W e are particularly familiar with this
p h e n o m e n o n from the Hellenistic p e r i o d o n w a r d s .
T h e influence t o o k place in various stages: in the archaic, r e p u b
lican a n d imperial periods; and b y various means: oral,
literary,
scientific and ecclesiastical I believe I have p r o v i d e d sufficient data

o n this.
It should b e o b s e r v e d that at the e n d o f Antiquity, familiarity with
G r e e k diminished: in R o m e it was still very m u c h alive in p h i l o
sophical and theological circles and a m o n g the aristocracy, but it
was hardly k n o w n outside the city. Y e t , cultivators o f G r e e k c o n
tinued to exist. T h e e m p e r o r Gratian officially established its teach
ing in G a u l (376), w h e r e Ausonius's circle was active in B o r d e a u x ;
the British Pelagius assisted the s y n o d o f D i o s p o l i s in 4 1 5
and
impressed everyone with his mastery o f Greek. T h e councils, always

celebrated in the East, enlightened the western bishops o n the i m p o r
tance o f Greek.
Let us stop here for a m o m e n t . T h e Neoplatonists, particularly
Plotinus and Porphyry, h a d the greatest influence o n western thought
during the fourth and fifth centuries. T h e r e were those w h o h a d a
g o o d mastery o f Greek, such as M a c r o b i u s , Calcidius (translator o f
the Timaeus) o r Hilary o f Poitiers; and those w h o h a d mastered it to
a lesser extent, such as Saint Augustine, w h o c a m e to Platonism
through the Hortensius o f C i c e r o . T h e n there w e r e the Hellenising
poets, such as Ausonius, Claudian and Dracontius.
Translations played an important role. In the third to the fourth
centuries w e have the Hermeneumata o f Ps. Dositheus, w h i c h include
translations o f G r e e k fables into Latin (the w h o l e fabulistic genre
consists o f adaptations o f Greek). A m o n g the Christian
translations,
212
CHAPTER
ONE
w e must m e n t i o n the oldest translations o f the Bible (Vetus Latino)^

which were very non-literary, literal translations; the Vulgata b y J e r o m e ,
which, for the O l d Testament, also translates f r o m H e b r e w and is
relatively literary; and the translations o f the Acts o f the councils.
Rufinus and J e r o m e translated Eusebius and Origen, the Gappadocian
Fathers, etc. T h e style gradually i m p r o v e d in the direction o f Atticism:
as s h o w n in the translation b y Evagrius o f the Life of Saint Anthony
b y Athanasius, w h e n c o m p a r e d with a previous translation.
2 9 2 . All in all, G r e e k was cultivated to a lesser extent in this p e r i o d .
It flourished, h o w e v e r , in Italian court circles under the Ostrogoths
o f T h e o d o r i c ( 4 9 3 - 5 2 6 ) , w h o were familiar with it due to its culti
vation in the East, w h e r e Ulfila translated the Bible into G o t h i c .
T h e Hellenised p h i l o s o p h y o f S y m m a c h u s and Boethius date from
this p e r i o d ; the w o r k o f the latter being very prodigious, although
he was unable to c o m p l e t e his translation o f the entire works o f
Plato and Aristotle into Latin. Also from this p e r i o d is Priscian, w h o ,
while living in Constantinople, wrote his Grammatica o n the G r e e k
m o d e l . S o m e w h a t later, in the sixth century, Cassiodorus lived in
gothic Italy a n d wrote o n historical and theological subjects.
M a n y translations from the Greek into Latin date from this period,
s o m e b y Dionysius Exiguus and Saint Martin o f Braga (monastic
writings). S o m e w h a t later, in the seventh century, w e have Isidore,
w h o in Visigothic Spain, in his Etymologiae and other works, left a
kind o f testament o f the w h o l e o f Antiquity.
T h i s cultivation o f G r e e k is reflected in Latin Hellenisms, w h i c h
will b e emphasised here (not just lexical Hellenisms, but Hellenisms
in general).
293. O n Latin expansion and its relation with Greek in general, see R . J .
Bonner 1930, H. Zilliacus 1935, J. Marouzeau 1949, p . 125 ff., J. Kaimio
1979 and L. Zgusta 1980, F. Bivillee 1990, p . 21 ff., S. A. Tovar 1990,
p. 41. More specifically, see, on the situation in Rome, H. Kajanto 1980;
in Palestine, H. B. Rosen 1980; on the border of Greek and Latin in the
Balkans, see B. Gerov 1980. O n the bilingualism of the educated classes
in Rome, see J. M . Pabon 1939, L. Zgusta cit, p. 138 ff. O n the emergence
of Latin literature, see Adrados 1994b. O n the relations between Greeks
and Romans in general, and their estimation of each other, see S. Swain
1986 (and my review in Emerita 65, 1997, pp. 374-75). O n late Hellenism,
see W . Berschin 1969-70. O n the concept o f 'Sprachbund' or the GraecoLatin linguistic league, J. Kramer 1983. This author proposes the existence
of a series o f characteristics in the evolution o f Greek and Latin during the
Republican and Imperial periods, resulting from the intense contact between
KOINE A N D
ITS R E L A T I O N
TO
OTHER
LANGUAGES
213
these two languages. Thus, in phonetics, we have the lenition of intervo

calic occlusives, the palatalisation of velar occlusives before a preceding e
or i, the fricativisation o f intervocalic 4, the loss of aspiration and o f the
differences in quantity and the monophthongisation of diphthongs; in mor
phology, the introduction in Latin o f new types o f declension, the transfer
of Greek suffixes into Latin, and Latin suffixes into Greek and the reduc
tion of the case system (with the advance o f the A c ) ; in syntax, the decline
of constructions with infinitive, the dative absolute o f Greek, the different
periphrastic verbal forms, the tendency in vulgar Latin towards a central
positioning o f the verb, as in Greek, etc. Gf. G. Horrocks 1997, p. 73 ff.
O n Greek and Romance, Gf. W . Dietrich 1995.
8.
HELLENISED
LATIN AND GREEK-LATIN
2 9 4 . T h e Hellenisation o f Latin can b e followed from the s e c o n d

century BG onwards, together with the Hellenisation o f literature.
T h e social circumstances described p r o v i d e an adequate explanation
o f this process: the influence o f spoken G r e e k w h e r e the t w o p o p u
lations were in contact o r interrelated,
the cultural influence o f lit
erary and scientific Greek. It was a process that was continued, with
increasing intensity, throughout Antiquity.
Phonetic and m o r p h o l o g i c a l adaptation varied d e p e n d i n g o n the
route o f entry o f the G r e e k elements a n d o n their date.
W i t h regard to phonetics, a classic transcription exists in w h i c h ,
for instance, the voiceless aspirated are transcribed in Latin as such:
ph, th, ch. But, particularly in the archaic p e r i o d , diverse transcrip
tions were p r o d u c e d (for example, ampulla, purpura. Poems, etc.), w h i c h
shed light o n the phonetics o f G r e e k a n d Latin at the time o f the
loan. F o r instance, there are G r e e k w o r d s that w e r e taken before
the alteration o f the Latin vocalic system and others after it. Similarly,
there are transcriptions o f (p as p and as ph, and later others as f o r
b (Orpheus, baselus); there is P transcribed as b a n d u, etc.
Linguistic b o r r o w i n g s also p r o v i d e information o n various details,
such as the origin o f certain b o r r o w i n g s in the G r e e k dialects o f
Italy and Sicily (machina with D o r i c a, Achiui, Argiui, oliua with digamma,
Ulixes, sc(h)ara, etc.) o r o n the languages o f m e d i a t i o n (especially
Etruscan, it is thought, in cases such as Proserpina o r persona, from
KpOGCGTCOV).
2 9 5 . Systems o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l adaptation
w e r e also created. F o r
instance, the first Greek declension, in -a, -n and -aq, -nq was reduced
in Latin to -a: nauta, poeta. But alterations o f the type Tarentum for
214
CHAPTER
Tdpaq,
ONE
Agrigentum for 'AKpocyctt;, bracchium for |3pa%iG)v, trigonus for
tp-oycov, aulona for oaoXcbv are frequent, as is the mixture o f inflections

(Piraea). H o w e v e r , sometimes the strict G r e e k f o r m was respected
(Achates, Pelides, agon, andron), depending o n the level and style o f the
language.
Nearly all verbs passed into the first conjugation: not just machinari from |ia%ccv&a0ott but also exanclare from eâviêtv, hilarare from
iâpoco, tornare from topveueiv. But it is important to note that, e x c e p
tions aside, sometimes w e are dealing with Latin derivatives: coaxare
(from KodQ, paedicare (from xa rccciSnca), stomachari (from o%6\ia%o<;),
pausare (from the aor. o f Tcoueiv).
But I will not g o into further detail o n aspects relating m o r e to
Latin than Greek. T h e significant thing is the absorption o f the Greek
vocabulary, whether o n the cultural level o r o n other levels. T h e
Latin language was enriched b y a p a n o p l y o f roots and
formative
elements; it even altered its phonological system, permitting, for exam

ple,
finals in -n, a n d its m o r p h o l o g i c a l and syntactic systems, admit
ting constructions identical to the Greek.

296. The fundamental work continues to be that of O . Weise 1882. One
should add the various works by F. Biville cited in the bibliography and,
among many others, the works o f J. Marouzeau 1949, J. Andre 1971,
A. Ernhout 1954, M . Leumann 1948 and 1968, G. Devoto 1968, pp. 86 ff,
117 ff., 147 ff., 184 ff., H. Liidtke 1974, p. 37 ff., 59 ff., G. Lagunz 1995
and my work o f 1997b. For fourth century pagan authors, see R . Moes
1980. Suffixes with a Greek origin can be found in L. Delatte and others
1981. For the Greek influence on vulgar Latin, see E. Goseriu 1977.
I also use two papers by L. Perez Castro 1997 (on Quintilian) and
F, Hernandez Gonzalez 1997 (on Faventinus). All the same, the subject
deserves a new systematic study to define the different tendencies, accord
ing to date and author, in the acceptance or rejection (by means o f caiques,
etc) o f Greek lexicon and syntax. N o systematic study has ever been made.
297.
In continuation, I will sketch the fundamental
lines o f G r e e k
influence o n Latin in the different areas o f language, starting with

the l e x i c o n .
T o take a few examples, w e find Greek lexicon in the Carmen Auvale
(triumpus), Livius Andronicus (cothurnus, purpureus), Naevius (barbarus, mebs,
nauta), Plautus (absinthium, basilica, comoedia, emporium, peplum), T e r e n c e
(musicus, scaenicus), Catullus (ambrosia, astrum, satyrus), Lucretius (cycnus),
Virgil (calthus, magicus, narcissus), C i c e r o (astrologia, bibliotheca, epigramma,
geometria, schola), Tertullian (apostolus), A m m i a n u s (geographus), etc.
KOINE AND
The
OTHER
LANGUAGES
215
oldest b o r r o w i n g s were oral and c a m e from conversational
language: they referred to the sea and maritime trade; they included
the vocabulary o f luxury, games a n d pleasure; domestic conversation;
and the arts and sciences. Later, the poets played a decisive role,
particularly since the Alexandrine school.
I have only cited a few examples, in w h i c h there is a d o m i n a n c e
o f things w h i c h were unfamiliar to the R o m a n s and c a m e from the
intellectual vocabulary.
The
introduction o f Hellenisms h a d b e g u n in the fifth century BG,
with terms that were influenced b y Etruscan, as w e have seen

umpe, amurca, sporta, persona) or otherwise (camera, gubernare, oleum,
itri-
Pollux)]
it increased after the Samnite wars, starting from 330 (mina, dracuma,
techna, talentum, balineum, catapultd) and was stepped up through
the
literary and scientific route m e n t i o n e d .

O f couse, there w e r e reactions against this, such as the expulsion
o f rhetoricians and philosophers in the years 173, 161 and 154; the
rejection o f G r e e k words in official oratory; and the efforts b y C i c e r o ,
QuintiHan, etc., to create Latin equivalents o f Greek words, see 300.
T h i s Hellenistic lexicon b e c a m e increasingly larger in bulk in the
later literature, w h i c h included Christian literature. E n o r m o u s incre
ments are r e c o r d e d in Plautus, the R e p u b l i c a n and Augustan poets,
the Rhetorica ad Herennium, C i c e r o , Tertulian, the Historia Augusta
J e r o m e . T h e s e and other data, along with the distribution
and
o f the
lexicon in semantic areas, c a n b e f o u n d in the b o o k b y R . M o e s

1980,
w h i c h records the Hellenisms in J e r o m e , the Letters, the b o o k
De rebus bellicis, A m m i a n u s , Claudian, and the Historia Augusta. D e v o t o ' s

statistics, p . 193, for literary authors from Catullus to Persius (via
O v i d , Tibullus, Propertius, H o r a c e , Ep. and Sat, Juvenal), reveal that
the p r o p o r t i o n o f Hellenisms oscillates between 10 and 20 percent.
298.
Christian Hellenisms are very important. W e are dealing with
w o r d s w h i c h , with a change in meaning, have remained fixed in the

Latin language (words like angelus, baptisma, euangelium, christus,
ecclesia,
episcopus, liturgia, monacus, presbyter, monasterium, etc.) and with words,

such as eremita, w h i c h were created f r o m Greek. T h i s is because, at
a certain point, Latin was c o n v e r t e d in the W e s t into the language
o f the C h u r c h , w h i c h nevertheless inherited m u c h from its Greek
phase, w h i c h continued in the East. It should b e noted that w e are
not just dealing with direct borrowings (sometimes with morphological
adaptation), but also with caiques, such as spiritus for %vzv\ia
(but
216
CHAPTER
ONE
sometimes a caique was attempted and failed, as w h e n tingere gave

way
to pccTmêiv).
O . W e i s e records a total seven thousand Latin Hellenisms in his

b o o k o f 1882, the p i o n e e r w o r k o n this subject. Clearly, this n u m b e r
should b e increased.
Latin Hellenisms are useful for the understanding o f Greek; not
just the phonetics, but also the lexicon: in Latin there are
Greek
w o r d s a n d a c c e p t a n c e o f G r e e k w o r d s w h i c h are d o c u m e n t e d there
before they are in G r e e k (cf. for e x a m p l e , df|p 'atmosphere', 'air' in
the DGE, fifth century II 1).
299.
O n the other hand, it is not just a matter o f borrowings, but
also semantic caiques, resulting in the creation o f n e w w o r d s . Both

tended to r e m e d y what Lucretius (I 832) referred to as patrii sermonis egestas, the p o v e r t y o f the m o t h e r
t o n g u e . Plautus translated
(piA,oyuvaioc, for mulierosus, C i c e r o transformed
crov{8r|0ic,, 7coa6xr|c,
and TtoioTnc, into conscientia, quantitas and qualitas. H e used conuenientia

instead o f 6|K)ôyia, aequilibrietas instead o f iaovouioc; sometimes he
hesitated (notitia rerum, cognitio o r intellegentia for evvoioc). Frequently, it
t o o k s o m e time to find an equivalent: 7id0oc, is not passio until Saint
Augustine. T h e process continued: accentus for rcpoocpSia, e t c
T h e bilingualism o f the educated classes o f R o m e and, at
times,
o f the p o p u l a t i o n that coexisted with Greeks and Eastern peoples

established in R o m e , and o f the traders and artisans explains G r a e c o Latin 'monsters' such as sescentoplagus, Pompeiopolis, cistophorus, e t c This
system o f w o r d formation continues to this d a y (sp. automovil, e t c ) .
300.
It is necessary to study in greater detail (and it must b e stressed
that n o such study has yet b e e n realised) the behaviour o f the different
authors with regard to the a c c e p t a n c e o r rejection o f the G r e e k lex
i c o n , d e p e n d i n g o n factors relating to date, literary genre and per
sonality. See L. Perez Castro 1997.
T o take an e x a m p l e , in the Institutiones Oratoriae b y Quintilian there
is m e n t i o n and sometimes criticism o f G r e e k adaptations to Latin
by authors such as Plautus o r C i c e r o ( w h o in the Acad. post. I 7, 25
states 'I will make an effort to speak in Latin'), as well as his o w n
numerous proposals. H e accepts, for example, essentia for ouaia because
'there is n o Latin n a m e ' (III 6, 23) and conclusio for emXoyoc, (in the
Rhet ad Her. 1, 4); he translates KaGoAaicd for uniuersalia 'ut dicamus quo
modo possumus" (II 13, 14); he prefers uis for Suvajiic, to other p r o
posals, potestas, facultas (II 15, 3); etc.
KOINE AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER LANGUAGES
217
But Hellenisms were not i n c o r p o r a t e d to the same extent b y all

authors, and not all Hellenisms w e r e the same. C i c e r o often reacted
against t h e m (see Orator 4 9 , 164, De qfficiis I 111 a n d the
afore
mentioned passages) and used them m o r e restrictively than the Rhetorica

ad Herennium. S o m e ancient Latin voices remained definitively fixed
by h i m as the equivalent o f the Greek: sapienta for Goqnoc (cf. Afranius
299),
ars for T%vr|, casus for
TTCCOGK;,
ratio for AxSyoq, causa for aixia.
S o m e terms c a l q u e d from G r e e k c o m p o s i t i o n a l m e t h o d s (altitonans,

horrisonus, c o m p o u n d s in -ficus, -gena, -gradus, etc.) were reserved for
poetry. Similarly, s o m e exact transcriptions
o f the N . o f the
first
declension in -e, the A c . and the s e c o n d declension in -n> etc.

Faventinus,
w h o p r o d u c e d an abbreviated
edition o f Vitruvius,
struggled with his G r e e k t e r m i n o l o g y (sometimes leaving the Greek,

other times suggesting Latin caiques), adapting it to a ' h u m b l e lan
g u a g e ' for private use.
301.
In the long run, a large proportion o f the Greek lexicon remained
firmly
established in Latin and, m o r e importantly, formative G r e e k
elements such as -Tn<;, - U X X , -xpxa ( > -ta, -ma, -tria) and so m a n y

m o r e w h o s e diffusion has b e e n studied b y J. A n d r e
are also verbal elements, such as
M.
Leumann
-IGD
( >
-izare),
-IGOCO
1 9 7 1 ; there
( >
-issare), cf.
1948. In addition, suffixes related to Greek, such as
-icus, -men, -mentum, etc. were diffused. In fact, all these suffixes c a m e
to f o r m a single system, in w h i c h other Latin suffixes w e r e also
admitted, such as -osus, sometimes with shades o f differences a m o n g
them. Similarly, there was a t e n d e n c y towards a unique system o f
prefixes and preverbs, w h i c h were at the same time G r e e k and Latin:
a-/in-,
hiper-/super-, peri-/circum-, in addition to those w h i c h were only
G r e e k o r Latin.
Yet
G r e e k suffixes have a lesser s c o p e for use in Latin than they
d o in Greek: for the 9 2 0 cases o f -\o\ioq
in Buck-Petersen, there are
65 examples o f -ismus in Latin. But it m a r k e d the start o f the enor

m o u s diffusion o f -ismo, -isme, etc. in the m o d e r n languages. O n the
other h a n d , G r e e k prefixes and suffixes w e r e often linked to w o r d s
o f G r e e k origin (for e x a m p l e , a-, eu-, epi-, cata-) and only gradually
b e c a m e freed (mainly the suffixes). Nevertheless, Latin contained a
lesser p r o p o r t i o n o f G r e e k elements than the E u r o p e a n
languages
today: it only p r o v i d e d the m o d e l , the starting point, as it w e r e , for

these languages to d e v e l o p .
T h i s is the G r a e c o - L a t i n I have b e e n referring to, w h i c h displayed
syntactic features similar o r identical to those o f G r e e k and, a b o v e
218
CHAPTER ONE
all, a l e x i c o n that was already to a large extent c o m m o n to the t w o

languages. This m i x e d Latin, w h i c h began to spread at the e n d o f
Antiquity and to w h i c h Christianity also contributed, served as the
vehicle o f transmission o f the intellectual vocabulary o f G r e e k during
the M i d d l e A g e s in the West, despite the fact that this language was
practically i g n o r e d at the time. Later o n , in the fifteenth
century,
b o t h languages o n c e again c o n v e r g e d in the West, so that G r a e c o Latin grew and continued to develop within the languages o f Europe.
W e should r e m e m b e r that Graeco-Latin was not just an educated
and ecclesiastical p h e n o m e n o n . In the same w a y that in the archaic
p e r i o d a series o f b o r r o w i n g s c a m e from the spoken language, so it
was in the later p e r i o d . In studies o n vulgar Latin, such as that b y
Grandgent
1928, it is said to contain Hellenisms such as amygdalum,
cited;
cata ' e a c h , colaphus, dactylus; the verbal suffix -izare, already
adjectival suffixes such as -o<; -rj, -ov ( > -us -a, -urn) and, in partic
ular, nouns adapted
to Latin: -aq (lampa), -rj<;, -%r\q (tructa, boletus),
-i (piper, sinapsis/sinape, gumma/gummis/gummi),
-xq (pausa), -\xa (cima),
-po<; (Alexander), -o>v (leo). Sometimes, the starting point is a case other
than the N . (elephantus, magida) o r phonetic alterations are introduced
(ceresus, cithern, scopulus, spatula).
3 0 2 . But w e n e e d to p a y closer attention to the influence o f G r e e k
syntax o n Latin to w h i c h w e have already referred o n several o c c a
sions. This influence was to b e expected given the contact between
b o t h nations and the fact that the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Latin literature
o n the G r e e k m o d e l s called for the d e v e l o p m e n t in the former o f
the syntax as well as the lexicon.
T h e fact is that the oldest surveys o f G r e e k syntactic influence o n
Latin were followed b y m o r e restrictive ones - t o o restrictive, in m y
view. Strange prejudices e m e r g e d ; for instance, if a construction was
present in C i c e r o , then this p r o v e d that it was Latin.
N o t m a n y Hellenisms are referred to in the treatises o n Latin syn
tax: s o m e in classical prose a n d in particular in classical poetry. F o r
e x a m p l e , quod mihi uolenti est (Sallustius, Livius, Tacitus), cf, G r .
TOVXO
eaxiv ejiol (3(n)A,ouv(p; partitives G . and others related, such as dea

dearum (Ennius), opportuna moenium (Livius), cuncta curarum (Tacitus); A c .
o f relation as in traiectus lora, sacra comas (Virgil); A c . o f the w h o l e
and a part (Deiphobum tibiam ferit, Dictys Cretensis); part, equivalent
to a subordinate (sensit medios delapsus in hostes, Virgil); G . dependent
o f a verb as in regnauit populorum ( H o r a c e ) , also with gratulator, gaudeo,
219
miror, etc.; G . absolute, as in eius praeteriti temporis (Bellum Hispaniense)

and o f time, as in huius temporis ( J e r o m e ) ; ille as art., as in ille mortuus (Itala); inf. o f preterite with aoristic value, as in insidiam non timuisse
debet (Tibullus); inf. d e p e n d e n t o n the adjective, as in concedere digna
(Catullus); inf. clauses with ellipsis o f subject a n d predicated in N . ,
as in uxor inuicti louis esse nescis (Horace). T h e abundance o f periphrastic
forms o f the verb in late Latin has b e e n attributed to Greek influence.
5
In short, sometimes w e are dealing with 'literary and p o e t i c c o n

structions a n d sometimes with vulgar and late constructions.
3 0 3 . T h e influence o n phrase construction in general is m o r e i m p o r
tant. F o r e x a m p l e , the construction o f verbs o f understanding and
l a n g u a g e with quod, w h i c h is frequent
in Plautus (scio iam, filius
quod amet meus istanc meretricem in Asin. 5253), only appears later in
5
'incorrect passages o f the Bellum Hispaniense (36: renuntiaueront quod. . .)

o r Justin (I 7, 9 cognito quod. . . ) , but m u c h later it was n o r m a l in
vulgar Latin and has passed into the R o m a n c e languages. T h e c o n
clusion that c a n b e drawn is that a 'submerged
construction b e c a m e
non-literary. T h i s , n o d o u b t , was a result o f G r e e k influence, w h i c h

i m p o s e d the generalisation
o f the subordinate
with infinitive, also
possible in Latin from the very beginning.

Y e t , this is but a m i n o r detail. A l t h o u g h the same c a n n o t b e said
for the creation o f the c o m p l e x p e r i o d based o n subordinates
and
determinations o f these, as imitated b y C i c e r o f r o m the G r e e k ora

tors (Isocrates, Demosthenes) and subsequently practiced b y the ora
tors and throughout prose. A s stated b y W . K r o l l 1935, p . 33:
I am not speaking o f Greek influence in the construction o f discourse
and of the Latin period, which, through this, obtained a clear and
lucid form for the first time. W e can appreciate the form that the lan
guage o f the old laws and the Umbrian tablets used to have, Varro
always preserved something of this burden. The great service provided
by Cicero consists in that he completely rid himself o f this.
K r o l l also c o m p a r e s the transformation
o f G e r m a n prose (or any
E u r o p e a n prose, for that matter) through Latin influence from the

fourteenth
century onwards.
Classical G r e e k syntax remained very m u c h alive in Latin and,

today, in o u r languages.
220
CHAPTER
9.
GREEK AND
ONE
OTHER LANGUAGES OF ANTIQUITY
The languages revolving around Greek

304. Latin was, o f course, the language w h i c h was most influenced
b y G r e e k a n d w h i c h was largely responsible for introducing
the
language and culture o f the Greeks to the M i d d l e Ages and, indeed,

modernity. But G r e e k influence was not limited to Latin: w e have
discussed its contact with the languages o f Gaul a n d Hispania, with
Etruscan, D e m o t i c and C o p t i c o f Egypt, with the languages o f the
Balkans, Asia M i n o r , Syria, and Palestine. M o s t o f these languages
disappeared precisely because o f the impact o f G r e e k (or Latin, for
others).
I n d e e d , within the limits o f the R o m a n empire, o n l y H e b r e w ,
A r a m a i c a n d A r a b i c survived; also C o p t i c in Egypt, w h i c h at s o m e
p o i n t was r e d u c e d to a sacred language. Subsequently, at the e n d
o f the R o m a n empire, A r m e n i a n and Syriac created a literature, as
did, m u c h later, G o t h i c and Slavic always under the influence o f
Greek.
G r e e k did n o t m a n a g e
to i m p o s e itself in Egypt, for
Egyptian
( D e m o t i c at this point, but later called C o p t i c ) continued to b e the

language
o f the masses. It also m a n a g e d
to influence G r e e k ,
as
already discussed. T h e r e existed a bilingualism, as attested b y the

famous Rosetta Stone.
H o w e v e r , D e m o t i c was in turn enormously influenced b y Greek.
W . Clarysse 1987 links 9 6 G r e e k w o r d s to D e m o t i c texts:
particu
larly honorific titles, p r o p e r names, official titles, administrative terms

(especially from the sphere o f finance) and objects o f everyday life.
T h i s influence increased from the m o m e n t in w h i c h , beginning in
the s e c o n d century A D , D e m o t i c began to b e written in G r e e k char
acters, first in local magical texts. This language is referred to as
C o p t i c . F r o m the year 3 0 0 onwards, translations into C o p t i c were
p r o d u c e d o f Biblical, Gnostic and M a n i c h e a n texts -
always from
Greek, w h i c h increased its influence. It has b e e n calculated that up

to 2 0 percent o f the C o p t i c l e x i c o n is o f G r e e k origin, adapted
to
this language. T h e m o r p h o l o g y was also adapted: for example, there

were changes in gender, a c c o r d i n g to G r e e k synonyms o f the nouns.
Also, c o m p o u n d s a n d derivates were created w h i c h did not corre
s p o n d with the n o r m a l use in C o p t i c , a n d n e w meanings to s o m e
w o r d s were introduced t h o u g h G r e e k borrowings. T h e r e were also
syntactic influences.
K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N
305.
T O OTHER
LANGUAGES
221
I have already discussed h o w various languages o f the Balkans
( T h r a c i a n ) , Syria a n d Asia M i n o r (Phrygian, P h o e n i c i a n , Lydian,

Lycian, e t c ) w e r e subjected to G r e e k influence a n d b e g a n to disap
pear in different periods, at the very latest during the R o m a n empire.
This entire region was forâ time bilingual: numerous bilingual inscrip
tions have survived.
H o w e v e r , a c c o r d i n g to Strabo, the majority o f the languages o f
N.
W . Asia M i n o r h a d d i e d out in his lifetime; the same can b e
said o f other languages, such as P h o e n i c i a n , w h i c h survived until the

first century A D , in C y p r u s until the s e c o n d century. T h e r e are bilin
gual inscriptions a n d others, such as that f r o m Piraeus dating a r o u n d
96 B C , w h i c h are a caique o f the G r e e k .
A r a m a i c as well as G r e e k was spoken in Syria and Palestine: this
is seen in Babatha's
archive, dated A D 132. Palmyra was multilin
gual: the higher class spoke G r e e k and A r a m a i c , others also A r a b i c .

H e r e w e find decrees in A r a m a i c a n d Greek, with Aramaicisms ( N .
for A c , etc.). T h e r e are also decrees in G r e e k , Latin a n d Palmyric
(Aramaic). G r e e k was also written, in a very altered f o r m , in D u r a
E u r o p o s , in the Euphrates.
G i v e n such circumstances, it is n o t strange to find G r e e k influence
in the rare examples w e have o f these languages, w h i c h s o o n d i e d
out; for e x a m p l e , in Phrygia,
KOCKODV
in sepulchral inscriptions.
H o w e v e r , this influence is best demonstrated in r a b b i n i c H e b r e w ,

studied b y X . S z n o l 1989 based u p o n the works o f S. Krauss, H . B.
R o s e n , D . Sperber and others, cited in the b i b l i o g r a p h y , in addition
to his o w n study o f the rabbinical text Genesis Rabba (Galilee, third
to fifth century A D ) . T h e sources o f these texts c a n b e f o u n d in other
writings in H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c , f r o m the destruction o f the sec
ond
temple to the Byzantine p e r i o d .
T h e r e are m a n y lexical b o r r o w i n g s f r o m Greek: terms relating to

everyday life, trade, p u b l i c administration
a n d the military, religious
a n d philosophical currents. T h e s e w o r d s are c o m m o n in koine and

are also f o u n d in Egypt, Syria a n d Asia M i n o r . T o m e n t i o n a few:
5
dvaôyrj 'bill, receipt , Xoxnaq ' a d d e d tax , (piaXn, 7coxr|piov. T h e r e

are also n e w w o r d s :
dvxiKaiaap, 58iy|a,aTfipiov,
8i<ppviov, a n d
new
formations: KepauaSoc, Tcpcbxaxa, apôvxaq ( o f the A c . pi.).
306.
A p a r t from the languages w h i c h gradually died out in Antiquity
and those w h i c h survived, albeit rather precariously, such as A r a m a i c

a n d C o p t i c , w e should n o t forget the languages w h i c h b e g a n
to
be written towards the e n d o f the Imperial p e r i o d : f r o m the third
222
CHAPTER
ONE
century A D (Ethiopic) o r the fourth century (Syriac, A r m e n i a n ) . This

is significant, for u p until then, these were languages without writing
(although Syriac is actually a derivative o f A r a m a i c ) even though
they were spoken early r e m o t e Antiquity. Galatan, spoken in Asia
M i n o r in the third century BG, has left neither inscriptions nor writings.
All these languages b e g a n to be written as a result o f diverse kinds
o f contact with the Greeks and G r e e k culture. For Ethiopic w e have
inscriptions in the k i n g d o m o f A k s u m from the third century A D ,
inscriptions in Ethiopic and A r a b i c , but also in Greek. W e are told
that the e m p e r o r Zoskales, at the start o f the century, was an expert
in Greek. A n o t h e r e m p e r o r , from the fourth century, Ezana, c o n
verted his p e o p l e to Christianity and i n t r o d u c e d vowels, a c c o r d i n g
to the G r e e k m o d e l , into the former alphabet, introduced from Saba
in Y e m e n . T o w a r d s the year 5 0 0 the Bible was translated
from
G r e e k a n d there was a v o l u m e o f literature w h i c h b o r r o w e d m a n y

words from Greek, o f the type notawfy) < vouTnc;, mangel < eâyyeA-iov,
zomo < co|n6<;, etc.
W e have examples o f Syriac from the s e c o n d century A D , and it
p r o d u c e d an entire literature from the fourth century A D , coincid
ing with its Christianisation. This was initiated b y the bishop Ephraim,
the great writer w h o w r o t e commentaries to the Bible and
other
apologetic works. A very important Syriac literature developed, largely

translated f r o m Greek; Syriac was also the intermediate
language
between original Pahlavi texts and the G r e e k language (as in the

case o f Syntipas) and also A r a b i c . This literature also included p r o
fane G r e e k works, starting with Aristotle. O n c e again, the forces o f
Hellenism together with those o f Christianity initiated the c o n v e r
sion o f a n e w language into writing.
Syriac is full o f G r e e k w o r d s : êskema < a%fju.cc, hjule < iS&n, 'aksenjo
< ev(a, ^qftord < (pQopd, etc.
T h e case o f A r m e n i a n is s o m e w h a t similar, only here w e are deal
ing with an I n d o - E u r o p e a n language w h o s e alphabet was exactly
adapted from the G r e e k . A t the start o f the fourth century,
the
A r m e n i a n king Tiridates III c o n v e r t e d to Christianity and declared

it the state religion b e f o r e R o m e did. A century later, the m o n k
M e s r o p invented an alphabet based o n the G r e e k alphabet,
thirty-eight
with
letters a n d very adapted to A r m e n i a n p h o n o l o g y : the
p u r p o s e b e i n g to enable the A r m e n i a n p e o p l e to follow the Christian

liturgy. T h i s invention was followed b y translations o f Christian writ
ings b y the same m o n k and m a n y o f his successors in the fifth cen-
KOINE AND
tury. It is a fundamentally
OTHER LANGUAGES
223
religious and historical literature, w h i c h
was continued, in rather closely related dialects, until the middle o f

the nineteenth century; afterwards, it continued in m o d e r n dialects.
N u m e r o u s G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s were also introduced here, o f the
type oyer < df|p, argiuron < dpyupiov, zom < êuyjaoc, rawdos < pdpSoq;
and s o m e through Pahlavi. T h e r e w e r e also b o r r o w i n g s f r o m G r e e k
syntax.
T h e s e were the peoples w h o e m e r g e d a n d established n e w cul
tures in the o l d territory o f the R o m a n empire a n d its b o r d e r zones.
T h e influence o f G r e e k o n the Iranian language o f the Parthians
and Sasanians should also b e a d d e d , as well as that o f the Celts,
after the first contacts with the Greeks in Marseille a n d the colonies
o f Hispania. In effect, w e have s o m e seventy Gallic inscriptions in
the G r e e k alphabet f r o m the third century B G onwards (along with
m a n y ostracd). Cf. P.-Y. L a m b e r t
1994, p . 81 ff.
See 109 for the Iberian inscriptions in the G r e e k alphabet

the creation o f alphabets and semi-alphabets, based o n the
and
Greek
m o d e l , to r e c o r d Iberian, Tartessian, a n d Celtiberian. H e r e w e g o

b a c k in time again, for most o f these inscriptions date f r o m
the
fourth century BG onwards.

307. O n Demotic and Coptic, c f A. Bohling 1960, W . Clarysse 1987 and
V. Bubenik 1989, pp. 257-64. O n other languages, cf. E. Liiddekens in
Neumann-Untersteiner 1980, pp. 2 4 1 - 6 5 , V . Bubenik 1989, pp. 2 6 4 - 8 3 .
For Palestine, see H. B. Rosen 1963 and 1980, D . Sperber 1984, S. Krauss
1898 and X . Sznol 1989. Also, for other languages, see the different sec
tions in E. Schwyzer 1939, p. 161 ff. and F. Villar 1996. For Ethiopic,
see F. Altheim-R. Stiehl, I, 1971, pp. 393-473. For Armenian, A. Thumb
1916 and A. Meillet 1936, p. 8 ff
Germanic, Slavic and Arabic
308. A t the close o f Antiquity, the peoples w h o i n v a d e d the ancient
R o m a n and Byzantine empire b e c a m e the protagonists o f the n e w
era: G e r m a n s , Slavs and Arabs. T h e y were all influenced in s o m e
w a y o r another b y the G r e e k language.
I will not attempt to examine the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f the pressure
exerted b y the G e r m a n i c tribes o n the Mediterranean
w o r l d (the
invasions o f the Cimbrians and Teutonics), from the s e c o n d century

B C onwards, but I think it is useful to l o o k briefly at the
Goths.
T h e s e G e r m a n i c tribes, w h i c h h a d established themselves next to the

D n i e p e r , clashed with the R o m a n s in the third century A D (with the
224
CHAPTER
ONE
incursions into Maesia and Thessalonika, the defeat against Aurelian).

Subsequently d i v i d e d into Visigoths a n d
O s t r o g o t h s , the
former
invaded various R o m a n provinces, especially in the West, but also

m a d e treaties with the R o m a n s (under Constantine), and b e c a m e
their allies in the East.
T h e turning p o i n t was the Christianisation o f the G o t h s , w h o c o n
verted to Arianism, and the translation o f the Bible (which has not
c o m e d o w n to us in a c o m p l e t e form) b y the bishop Ulfilas, w h o
c a m e from a Christian family in C a p p a d o c i a and whose grandparents
had b e e n taken as prisoners b y the Goths. O n c e again, the reason
for translating the Bible was to enable p e o p l e to b e c o m e acquainted
with the sacred writings in their o w n language.
F o r this purpose, Ulfilas created an alphabet o f twenty-seven letters
(nineteen Greek, six Latin and two runic letters). O f course, he also had
to introduce some Greek words (hairaisis < ccipeoic;, aikkksjo <
praisbytairein <
rcpeapWipiov,
8KKA,T|G{OC,
etc.), as well as G r e e k syntax.
Nevertheless, the majority o f the G e r m a n i c tribes pressed o n into

the W e s t and were civilised and Christianised b y the Western R o m a n
empire, a n d b y Latin. T h e r e f o r e , Greek influence there was indirect.
C h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , the next invasion was b y the Slavs. This I n d o E u r o p e a n p e o p l e , sometimes allied with alien tribes, c a m e to the
D a n u b e f r o m the N . and E. towards the year A D 5 0 0 . A t o n e point,
they were allied with Byzantium against the Goths, but in the sixth
century they b e g a n their incursions; in the seventh century they p e n
etrated G r e e c e , T h r a c e , and M a c e d o n i a . Y e t , an important z o n e o f
the Byzantine empire did not definitively c o m e under the Slavs: in
turn, it received a very strong G r e e k influence (see m o r e o n this in
3 7 9 ff.).
309. But the great catastrophe for the Byzantine empire (and later
for the West) was the A r a b invasion in 6 3 2 : in a very short p e r i o d
o f time it m a n a g e d to o c c u p y Palestine, Syria and Egypt, as well as
Persia, part o f India, R o m a n Africa and Spain. U n d e r the attack o f
the U m a y y a d dynasty the Byzantine empire collapsed, except for
Asia M i n o r and the E u r o p e a n continent, w h i c h was under
Turkish
attack from the eleventh century onwards, culminating in the c o n

quest o f Constantinople in 1453.
Nevertheless, the A r a b s were from the outset strongly influenced
b y Byzantine civilisation and received m a n y b o r r o w i n g s from
G r e e k language. W e will l o o k at this subject in 383 ff.
the
225
In addition, there was G r e e k influence o n Nubian: G r e e k w o r d s

in the inscriptions o f the Cathedral o f Faras (in the tenth century).
Cf
M . Krause
1971 (citing K . M i c h a e l o w s k i 1938).
3 1 0 . T h u s , the
Slavs w e r e definitely the first -
f o l l o w e d b y the
Armenians and, later, oth&r peoples o f Asia and, a b o v e all, the A r a b s

from the seventh century onwards - to reduce the extent o f the the
Byzantine empire and, consequently, o f the G r e e k language. Later,
in the eleventh century, the T u r k s w o u l d c o n q u e r almost all o f
Anatolia, and a large part o f the Balkans in the fourtheenth
century.
But all this was to a certain extent c o m p e n s a t e d for b y the par

tial Hellenisation o f the languages o f these p e o p l e s , w h i c h extended
to regions very distant from Byzantium: in the case o f the Slavs to
the w h o l e o f Eastern E u r o p e , a n d in the case o f the A r a b s
and
Turks to vast dominions. In 1453, as mentioned above, Constantinople

fell to the Turks, although s o m e Byzantine cities and places remained
w h i c h w e r e gradually lost, such as T r e b i z o n d a n d later Crete.
H o w e v e r , G r e e k led a rather subterranean existence during
the
Turkish d o m i n a t i o n , a circumstance w h i c h favoured its diffusion as

the language o f the newly liberated G r e e c e at the start o f the nine
teenth century. W e must examine this.
Byzantium defended E u r o p e in the East for s o m e time, then it
retreated; and it defended the G r e e k language, w h i c h was preserved,
although in a r e d u c e d area, m o r e o r less that o f ancient G r e e c e .
But G r e e k m a n a g e d to have an e n o r m o u s influence in E u r o p e , espe
cially through
l o w i n g pages.
Hellenised Latin: this will b e e x a m i n e d in the
fol
CHAPTER T W O
B Y Z A N T I N E G R E E K A N D ITS INFLUENCE O N
OTHER
1.
HISTORICAL
LANGUAGES
CONTEXT OF G R E E K
IN B Y Z A N T I U M
Historical data
311. W e have referred to the Hnguistic situation in the Eastern R o m a n
empire before and after the great historical events from the
fourth
century onwards: the a d o p t i o n o f Christianity b y Constantine
and
the p r o c l a m a t i o n o f the f r e e d o m o f cults (324), the transfer o f the

capital o f the e m p i r e to Byzantium (330); the prohibition o f pagan
cults b y T h e o d o s i u s (394); the division o f the empire (395); the sack
o f R o m e b y Alaric (510); and the closure o f the A c a d e m y o f Athens
b y Justinian (529).
Greek was n o w de facto the official language o f the Eastern R o m a n
empire, w h i c h in a few years b e c a m e the last remaining
Roman
empire: the Byzantines referred to themselves as ' R o m a n ' . W e have

seen h o w Latin maintained
a symbolic role for a time, and then
practically died out, b e i n g barely left as the language o f jurists.

T h e Greek C h u r c h also b e c a m e independent in practice, the schism
o f the ninth century having b e e n foreseen for quite a l o n g time. It
had a d o p t e d Atticist G r e e k as its language, while p o p u l a r koine c o n
tinued
to b e spoken in the streets in an increasingly altered form.
In this w a y , a situation o f diglossia was inherited, w h i c h has c o n

tinued,
indeed, until the present day.
3 1 2 . G r e e k was n o w the c o m m o n language o f the Byzantine empire,

strongly centralised a r o u n d Constantinople. It was also the language
o f the C h u r c h . T h i s was a c o n s e q u e n c e o f an imperceptible transi
tion, w h i c h h a d started a l o n g time before.
Y e t there was an internal p r o b l e m , that o f diglossia. In theory,
the situation was similar to that in the W e s t (Latin confronted with
national languages), but in pratice, the strong centralisation o f Byzan
tium and the prestige o f the empire and the C h u r c h reduced the
p o p u l a r language to the subliterary level for a l o n g time, and truly
BYZANTINE
G R E E K A N D ITS I N F L U E N C E O N O T H E R
LANGUAGES
227
n e w literary works were not created in this language until the twelfth
century; even then, only in marginal genres a n d always m i x e d with
the literary language. T h e western risk o f dialectal
fragmentation
was absent. T r u e M o d e r n G r e e k did n o t e m e r g e until the nineteenth

century as a unitary language.
O n the other hand, there were terrible swings - retreats, r e c o n quests, n e w retreats - w h i c h have already b e e n discussed a n d w h i c h
culminated in the sack o f Constantinople b y the Turks in 1453,
w h i c h forced G r e e k into a subterranean existence until i n d e p e n d e n c e
a n d international recognition in 1830. G r e e k , as w e have seen, dis
appeared first from the W e s t and then from the territories c o n q u e r e d
b y the Slavs a n d Arabs, and later b y the Turks. Let us e x a m i n e this
in m o r e detail.
313. T h e p e r i o d o f the western barbaric invasions h a d its counter
part in the East with the G o t h i c invasions, from the fourth to the
sixth centuries A D : from the defeat o f A d r i a n o p l e to the G o t h i c king
d o m o f T h e o d o r i c and the final destruction o f the Ostrogoths in
5 3 6 . But at least there was a favourable result: the
Christianisation
o f the G o t h s a n d the creation o f their writing based o n Greek, as

discussed earlier.
T h e last date falls within the rule o f Justinian ( 5 2 7 - 6 5 ) , w h o r e c o n
q u e r e d vast territories in Italy, N o r t h Africa, a n d Spain for the
empire. H e consolidated Byzantine culture, something w h i c h T h e o dosius II ( 4 0 8 - 5 0 ) h a d g o n e a l o n g w a y towards achieving b y reor
ganising the A c a d e m y o f Athens, with chairs o f G r e e k and
Latin
( C h o e r o b o s c u s , w h o w r o t e o n G r e e k g r a m m a r , was a titular there

in the time o f Justinian). R o m a n law was codified (the Corpus Theosianum
and Corpus Iuris) and the whole culture b e c a m e founded o n Christianity
a n d the study o f the G r e e k classics.
T h e R o m a n empire e x p e r i e n c e d a rebirth, with the G r e e k a n d
Christian cultures as its foundations. O f course, Atticist G r e e k d o m
inated. Justinian was decisive: h e b r o u g h t the pride b a c k to the
empire a n d reorganised its culture. T h e Cathedral o f H a g i a S o p h i a
was a s y m b o l o f this a n d served as an inspiration a n d e x a m p l e in
the b a d times to c o m e .
314. Indeed, a n e w series o f misfortunes w e r e to c o m e . T h e Slavs,
united with the Avars, a Turkish p e o p l e (and later assimilated b y
them), crossed the D a n u b e a r o u n d 5 0 0 a n d clashed with Justinian
in 5 5 8 . Later o n , they went o n to plunder the Balkans, f o u n d e d
228
CHAPTER TWO
their o w n k i n g d o m in Bulgaria (with the khan Kubrat, in 581), o c c u

pied territories around Thessalonika and the Peloponnese and besieged
Constantinople (626). T h i s at least had the virtue o f expanding Greek
culture to the Slavic w o r l d , w h i c h w e shall discuss.
A n o t h e r focus o f tension was in the East, w h e r e the
Persian
Sasanians w e r e making terrible incursions into the empire: K h o s r o w

I c o n q u e r e d A n t i o c h (540), w h i c h was then reconquered b y Belisarius;
K h o s r o w II c o n q u e r e d Syria, Palestine, and Egypt and threatened
Constantinople (615); in the end, he was defeated b y the e m p e r o r
Heraclius (627). H e r e , w e are fortunate that asylum was given to
the G r e e k thinkers w h o had fled w h e n Justinian closed the A c a d e m y
o f Athens, and that G r e e k literature arrived in Persia b y w a y o f the
Syriac translators o f Edessa.
F r o m the time o f Justinian, the empire h a d b e e n in a constant
state o f alert and h a d b e e n weakening, w h i c h was fatal o n the eve
o f the A r a b invasion. It c o u l d not c o u n t o n any help from the West.
Byzantium was even m o r e w e a k e n e d b y the religious conflicts within
C h r i s t e n d o m inherited f r o m the past: the M o n o p h y s i t e s were p o w
erful in Egypt and Syria, the Nestorians here, and all were o p p o s e d
to the o r t h o d o x y o f the N i c e n e creed, w h i c h had b e e n a d o p t e d b y
Constantinople after m u c h
hesitation.
All o f this will b e outlined so that w e can gain a better under

standing o f the cultural decline during these centuries. T h e great
c o d e s in p a r c h m e n t ceased to b e written, those that remained b e i n g
left to gather dust in the libraries until the ninth century, w h e n they
b e g a n to b e c o p i e d in the n e w minuscule. Also, literature was barely
p r o d u c e d (we shall return to this).
3 1 5 . All o f the previous p r o b l e m s and fears materialised with
the
A r a b invasions: in 6 3 4 , Bosra, the capital o f Arabia, fell; the great

defeat at the river Y a r m u k , in Palestine, o c c u r r e d in 636; D a m a s c u s
fell in that same year; Jerusalem and A n t i o c h fell in 638; M e s o p o t a m i a
in 6 3 9 ; and Alexandria in 6 4 6 . M e a n w h i l e , the A r a b s c o n q u e r e d
C y r e n a i c a and Tripolitania, R h o d e s , C o s , and C h i o s and launched
annual incursions into Asia M i n o r , w h e r e they c o n q u e r e d numerous
cities, such as C y z i c u s and Smyrna. T h e y m a n a g e d an attack o n
Constantinople
in 6 7 4 . In a d d i t i o n ,
Spain
a n d Italy w e r e lost.
B y z a n t i u m was r e d u c e d to little m o r e than the limits o f ancient

G r e e c e . But it never r e n o u n c e d its past: in the ninth century it ini
tiated a reconquest a n d cultural renaissance at the same time.
BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 229

H o w e v e r , in the m e a n t i m e , cultural
circumstances remained
unfavourable. F r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f the eighth century, various

emperors h a d j o i n e d the ranks o f those calling for the prohibition
o f the cult o f images. A d o r e r s o f images were persecuted and images
were destroyed in the churches, until 8 4 3 , w h e n the cult o f images
was finally restored. T h i s marked the start o f the Byzantine cultural
renaissance, a r o u n d the Patriarch Photius. But, until that time, these
unfortunate events did not favour literary production, w h i c h remained
just as stagnant as before.
Popular and higher literature until 1453
3 1 6 . Let us quickly review literary a n d subliterary p r o d u c t i o n in
these centuries.
F o r the first p e r i o d , until the tenth century, few texts are avail
able, s o m e o f w h i c h reflect the p o p u l a r language to s o m e extent,
though always m i x e d with the literary language. T h i s was a c c o m
panied b y the m o r e formal and literary language of, for e x a m p l e ,
P r o c o p i u s , Paul the Silentiary, Ioannes Lydus, Agathias a n d C o s m a s
Indicopleustes in the sixth century, T h e o p h y l a c t u s Simocattes a n d
G e o r g i o s Pisides in the seventh century, J o h n D a m a s c e n e a n d T h e o phanes the Confessor in the eighth century.
S o m e examples o f p o p u l a r language have b e e n preserved, such as
the acclamations to the emperors in the Constantinople h i p p o d r o m e ,
s o m e o f w h i c h contain satyrical traits such as that to the e m p e r o r
M a u r i c e in 6 0 2 ; as well as other short p o e m s w h i c h are just as satyri
cal, for e x a m p l e , the p o e m to the empress T h e o p h a n o in 9 7 0 ; and
s o m e w h i c h are simply erotic (the theme o f the a b a n d o n e d girl). In
the seventh century there were also Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions, writ
ten in vulgar G r e e k a n d c o m m i s s i o n e d b y the Bulgarian K h a n s .
T h i s is all subliterary. A n example o f sixth-century literature c o n
taining vulgarisms is the chronicle o f J o h n Malalas ('the rhetorician'),
a Hellenised Syrian w h o s e attempt to write a history in the vulgar
language was s o o n a b a n d o n e d . But w e must also m e n t i o n the Paschal
Chronicle in the sixth century, the Pratum Spirituale b y J o h n M o s c h u s
in the seventh century, the Breviarium b y the Patriarch N i c e p h o r u s
in the eighth century, the Chronology b y T h e o p h a n e s a n d the Chronicle
b y G e o r g e the M o n k in the ninth century, as well as the lives o f
the saints (Saint J o h n the Charitable, c a . 6 3 0 , a n d Saint Philaretos,
in the ninth century).
230
CHAPTER TWO
I w o u l d like to a d d a text that is n o t m e n t i o n e d in the histories

o f Byzantine literature: the collection o f A e s o p i c fables called the
V i n d o b o n e n s i s (after a manuscript from Vienna) and the versifications
o f the Bodleian Paraphrasis o f the included in the same manuscripts.
T h e r e is also a certain p o p u l a r air in L e o the W i s e ( 8 8 6 - 9 1 2 ) and
Gonstantine V I I Porphyrogenitus (emperor from 944). Yet, w e should
stress that these are n o t texts written in p o p u l a r Greek, for such
texts did n o t e m e r g e until the eleventh o r twelfth century, and even
then m i x e d with literary Greek.
317. T h e m a i n p r o b l e m with this literature is dating the stages o f
the language. For, indeed, most o f the p o p u l a r characteristics it dis
plays are f o u n d already in papyri, inscriptions, and texts from
the
Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. It is difficult to k n o w w h e n they

were actually diffused, a n d whether the literary characteristics w h i c h
are m i x e d with the p o p u l a r in o u r texts were also m i x e d in the lan
guage o f the street, o r whether w e are dealing with contaminations
b y semi-educated writers. For, evidently, the representatives o f the
truly p o p u l a r language did not write.
318. For the Byzantine history, see, in particular, A. A. Vasiliev 1946,
G. Ostrogorsky 1984, J. M . Hussey (ed.) 1996. For the literature, K. Krumbacher, 2nd ed., 1897, H.-G. Beck 1971, S. Impellizeri 1975, H. Hunger
1978b, I. Sevcenko 1982, U. Albini-E. V . Maltese 1984 (introductions),
L. Politis 1994 and J. A. Moreno Jurado 1997 (introductions); also, S. A.
Tovar 1990, p . 41 ff. For the older literature, o f a vulgar type, cf. J. M .
Egea 1987a (with more detail than is here provided, cf. p. 268 ff.) and
1990 (Anthology), P. Badenas 1985b (edition o f the Acclamations), V . Ursing
1930 (on the Vindobonensis fables) and K. Weierholt 1963 (on Malalas).
In general, see G. Horrocks 1997, p. 179 ff.
319. Great events o c c u r r e d in Byzantium in the ninth century. U n d e r
M i c h a e l III ( 8 4 2 - 6 7 ) , Cyril and M e t h o d i u s p r e a c h e d in M o r a v i a and
in 8 6 5 , k i n g B o r i s o f B u l g a r i a w a s b a p t i s e d , u s h e r i n g
in
the
Hellenisation o f the Slavs, w h i c h w e have already discussed. A n d

after the victory over the emir o f Melitene (863), a Byzantine offensive
was launched in Asia, w h i c h continued under the M a c e d o n i a n dynasty
( 8 6 7 - 1 0 5 6 ) ; it was initiated b y Basil I ( 8 6 7 - 8 8 6 ) .
T h e r e w e r e successes and reconquests in Italy (Benevento, Bari),
in the islands (Crete), a n d in Asia ( A l e p p o , Cilicia, Syria). U n d e r
Basil II ( 9 7 6 - 1 0 2 5 ) , Bulgaria was transformed
into a Byzantine
p r o v i n c e , and there was an advance o n Asia, followed b y the c o n

quest o f A r m e n i a .
BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES
231
O n the other hand, u n d e r the Patriarch Photius, Byzantine sep

arated from R o m e (867) and Photius himself, together with other
scholars (the b i s h o p Aretas o f Caesarea in particular, in the ninthtenth centuries) initiated the great Byzantine renaissance, w h i c h led
to the proliferation o f writings in the literary language (katharevusa).
T h e ancient manuscripts were c o p i e d in the n e w minuscule, and a
literature emerged which was derived from the ancient Greek (Photius,
Constantinos V I I Porphyrogenitus, Ioannis Kameniatis, the Accursiana
collection o f A e s o p i c fables) -
always in the literary language, as
stated.
F r o m the time o f Photius, a reorganisation o f learning had b e e n
under w a y w h i c h culminated in the schools o f L a w and Philosophy
f o u n d e d b y Gonstantine I X (the first, in 1046). W e also k n o w o f a
patriarchal school in the twelfth century. T h e prelates a n d large c o n
vents favoured the p r o d u c t i o n o f copies and the study o f the ancient
writings, as well as intellectual w o r k . T h i s m o v e m e n t involved per
sons in the court itself o r p r o t e c t e d b y it.
H o w e v e r , under the next dynasty, that o f the D u c a s ( 1 0 5 9 - 7 8 ) ,
d e c a d e n c e set in with the great defeat o f Manzikert, w h i c h o p e n e d
Asia M i n o r to the Seldjuq Turks: o n c e again, Byzantium was left to
defend itself. Nevertheless, the C o m n e n i ( 1 0 8 1 - 1 1 8 5 ) u n d e r t o o k a
hard struggle to defend the empire in Asia, with setbacks such as
the rights they had to c e d e to the Venetians, the start o f the Crusades
(in 1096), and the defeat o f the e m p e r o r M a n u e l in M y r i o c e p h a l o n
against the Seldjuqs (1176). T h i s laid the g r o u n d w o r k for the great
est defeat o f all: the conquest o f Constantinople b y the fourth Crusade,
in 1204.
320. Such dangerous times w e r e splendid for the Byzantine culture.
T h e Atticist language had the advantage: united with Byzantine patri
otism and the Church, it was diffused from the court o f Constantinople
as though it w e r e a s y m b o l o f its majesty. This was a reaction against
so m a n y Barbarian attacks, the dispersion o f the empire, and provin
cialism. It was also an honorific tide that linked Byzantium not only
with R o m e but also with ancient G r e e c e .
W i t h the start, already summarised, o f the literary renaissance in
the ninth and tenth centuries, it was history in particular that flourished
(in the eleventh and twelfth centuries): Scylitzes, Psellus, K e k a u m e n o s ,
Bryennius, A n n a C o m n e n a , Eustathius, Nicetas Choniates; but also
p h i l o s o p h y (Psellus), erudition (Eustathius) a n d the genres that were
232
CHAPTER TWO
translated o r derived from the East: the translation o f the Panchatantra

in the eleventh century (by S i m e o n Seth), o f the Syntipas in the twelfth
century (by A n d r e o p o u l u s ) , etc.
T h e remarkable thing is that under the C o m n e n i a truly p o p u l a r
literature e m e r g e d for the very first time, even though it was m i x e d
with characteristics o f the literary language and had s o m e special
characteristics
o f its o w n . T h i s p o p u l a r literature was r e d u c e d to
marginal genres that cultivated satire, didactics and fantasy. Its p o p

ular characteristics w e r e not so different from those o f the
earlier
p e r i o d , as w e shall see in m o r e detail. But the p r o b l e m remains o f

indicating to what extent this mixture o f w h i c h w e speak was a
response to aspects o f the spoken language and to what extent it
was a result o f artificial contamination. Furthermore, the differences
b e t w e e n the different authors
must b e attributed to literary,
not
chronological, reasons. Indeed, the copyists tended to introduce forms

o f literary Greek.
3 2 1 . T h e p o p u l a r literature w e are referring to in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries consisted fundamentally of:
(a) B o r d e r p o e t r y - the fight b e t w e e n the Byzantines and A r a b s
o n the Euphrates b o r d e r - d o c u m e n t e d in the ninth cen
tury b y Aretas and represented, a m o n g others, b y the eleventh
a n d twelfth century p o e m s o f The Death of Digenis, The Sons
of Andronicus, The Song of Armuris, Porphyris and Digenis Akritas
(El Escorial manuscript),
(b) V a r i o u s p o e m s -
the
T r o d r o m i c poems' by Theodore
P r o d r o m u s o r P t o c h o p r o d r o m u s , o n the themes o f b e g g a r y
a n d satire, using the contrast b e t w e e n the t w o types o f lan
guage; the p o e m b y M i c h a e l Glycas, w h o defends himself,
attacks and pleads from prison; the so-called Spaneas, c o n
taining advice to the prince; the Judgement of the Fruit; and
p o e m s o f animal epics inspired b y the W e s t .
322. For more details, see the works cited by H . - G . Beck, p . 48 ff.,
R. Browning 1983, p. 72 ff., J. M . Egea 1987a, p . 269 ff. (and the Anthology
of 1990, p . 44 ff). See also J. M . Egea 1987b (explanation o f the weight
of classical tradition on the language o f Constantinople) and 1990-91 (expla
nation o f the literary character o f the historiography o f the Comnenian
period); and P. Badenas 1985a, p . 7 ff. For the Digenis see the edition of
M . Castillo Didier 1984. Note that the authors o f this 'popular' literature
were erudite and sometimes also wrote literature in the Atticist language
(Prodromus and Glycas).

323. Pressure f r o m the crusades b e g a n to b e felt towards the
233
end
o f the eleventh century, and in 1176 the defeat suffered b y M a n u e l

I in M y r i o c e p h a l o n p l a c e d the Byzantines in a very b a d positon in
Asia M i n o r . T h i s culminated in the c o n q u e s t o f Constantinople, in
1203 and later in 1204 under the Angelus dynasty, b y the Franks
o f the Fourth Crusade
aicled b y the Venetians. Earlier, the latter
along with the G e n o v e s e and various western communities had set

tled in the coastal cities w h e r e they had a c o m m a n d i n g influence
o v e r trade.
All this was decisive for the history o f Byzantium and, indeed, for
the history o f the Greek language. T h e Latin k i n g d o m o f Thessalonika
was founded, and the Venetians seized the islands o f the A e g e a n ,
Ionia and Crete, a m o n g other areas; R i c h a r d the L i o n - H e a r t in turn
seized p o w e r in Cyprus, and the Hospitallers t o o k in R h o d e s . T h e
Franks controlled the P e l o p o n n e s e . M e a n w h i l e , the Greeks created
successor states in Epirus (with the Angelus dynasty), in N i c a e a ( N . E.
Asia M i n o r , with the Lascaris dynasty) a n d in T r e z i b o n d (along the
Black Sea, with the C o m n e n o s dynasty).
In Asia M i n o r , the situation o f Byzantium was precarious, for the
different G r e e k d o m i n i o n s had b e e n left isolated. In spite o f every
thing, a d e e p - r o o t e d belief in the value o f Hellenism h a d
remained
very m u c h alive, so that the repeated attempts to unite the G r e e k

C h u r c h with the Latin C h u r c h were destined to fail.
324. H o w e v e r , things w e r e never the same again, despite the r e c o n quest o f Constantinople in 1261 and the political and cultural restora
tion that c a m e with the Palaeologus dynasty. O n c e Constantinople
and later Thessalonika h a d b e e n liberated, the Franks o f the Villehardouin family c o n t i n u e d to control the P e l o p o n n e s e ( n o w called
M o r e a ) and the Lusignans, Cyprus; and towards the e n d o f the thir
teenth century, the Catalan A l m o g a v a r e s f o u n d e d the duchies o f
Athens and
Neopatra.
A r o u n d this time, the Turks disembarked in E u r o p e : in 1354 they

c o n q u e r e d Gallipoli and after the battle o f K o s o v o (1389),
Serbia
and later Bulgaria fell under their control.

3 2 5 . In fact, at o n e point, only the regions o f Constantinople
Thessalonika (until their fall in 1430) c o n t i n u e d u n d e r the
and
depen
d e n c y o f the e m p e r o r ; whatever remained o f the G r e e k language in

Asia M i n o r a n d Italy was left isolated, w h i c h favoured dialectal frag
mentation (the dialects w h i c h have b e e n preserved c o m e from these
regions).
234
CHAPTER TWO
T h e influence o f the western languages o n the G r e e k language

(especially in the lexicon) was significant; western literature also exerted
an influence, p r o v i d i n g m o d e l s for the n e w G r e e k literature (the
chronicle, novel, a n d erotic poetry). But the principal m o d e l was
5
p r o v i d e d b y the 'vulgar western languages with a literary use, w h i c h ,

through imitation, stimulated a similar p h e n o m e n o n in G r e e c e .
A n d yet, with the Palaeologi, in the t w o centuries from the recov
ery o f Constantinople to its definitive fall in the hands o f the Turks
(1453), literary cultivation was significant in the region that was still
free.
I n d e e d , for the (official) Atticist language w e can cite, in N i c a e a ,
N i c e p h o r u s Blemmides, G e o r g e Pachymeres and G e o r g e Acropolites;
in Constantinople, the scholars o f N i c a e a w h e n the capital was lib
erated, and others such as J o h n Cantacuzenus, Alexius Macrembolites,
D u c a s , etc. But, a b o v e all, the c o p y i n g o f ancient manuscripts was
resumed: at a certain point, in minuscule and paper, w h i c h m a d e
them c h e a p e r a n d thus easier to diffuse. O n the other hand, m o n a s
tic schools e m e r g e d , such as those in w h i c h Planudes, N i c e p h o r u s
Gregoras a n d M i c h a e l Apostolius, a m o n g others, taught. T h e r e was
also a series o f learned m e n , s o m e o f w h o m m o v e d to Italy
after
the city was taken, w h e r e they b r o u g h t their manuscripts, a n d c o n

tinued to teach.
326. T h i s was important for the preservation and transmission o f
ancient G r e e k . But for the understanding o f p o p u l a r M o d e r n G r e e k
from the twelfth century onwards, the n e w literature that used it is
essential, h o w e v e r m i x e d it m a y have b e e n with Atticist Greek. I
have described the reasons for the appearance o f this literature: the
isolation o f certain regions w h i c h were under western p o w e r , and
the western m o d e l o f p o p u l a r literature and s o m e o f its genres.
Perhaps the first written text in a generally p o p u l a r language is
the C h r o n i c l e o f the M o r e a , dating from around 1300, w h i c h is a
narrative o f the c o n q u e s t b y the Franks from a favourable p o i n t o f
view; it was p r o b a b l y the w o r k o f a Frank o r a descendent o f o n e .
A l t h o u g h it was written in Byzantine political verses and reproduces
Byzantine formulas, it is actually a western epic p o e m written in a
cross b e t w e e n the p o p u l a r and Atticist language. For m o r e details,
see J. M . E g e a 1988, p . 11 ff.
Prose d o c u m e n t s such as the Assizes (feudal laws o f Cyprus) also
have a western base, a l o n g with other chronicles, such as that o f
C y p r u s b y M a c h a e r a s , those o f D u c a s , M o n e m v a s i a , and T o c h o s .

T h e Cyprus chronicles (the o n e already cited and s o m e later ones)
were written in a dialect o f that island.
But w e must refer in particular to the knightly p o e m s o f an erotic
type, true novels containing echoes o f the G r e e k novel but with addi
tions o f a western type. T h e y date from the fourteenth century and
a m o n g t h e m w e c a n cite Lybistros and Rhodamne,
Callimachus and
Chrysorrhoe, Belthandros and Chrysantza, etc. T h e s e are the most wellk n o w n works. T h e r e are also historical songs and threnodies, a trans
lation o f the Iliad into Byzantine Greek, fabulistic p o e m s (The Book
of Birds, of the Quadrupeds, etc.), love songs, religious a n d m o r a l poetry,
satires, etc.
It is remarkable h o w the western o c c u p a t i o n , b y isolating certain
G r e e k territories from the great cultural centre o f Constantinople
and p r o v i d i n g t h e m with other m o d e l s , contributed - but only to a
certain extent - to the liberation o f the p o p u l a r G r e e k language from
the d o m i n i o n o f Atticism (although always in marginal genres, as in
the previous period).
T h e r e is s o m e d o u b t about whether o n e ought to speak o f Byzan
tine
G r e e k o r M o d e r n Greek: I have c h o s e n to reserve the latter
term for the national language after the liberation.

Literature from
1453
327. T h e o c c u p a t i o n o f Constantinople in 1453 (and subsequently

that o f T r e b i z o n d in 1 4 6 1 , and Lesbos in 1462) represented a bru
tal shock at a time w h e n the principal characteristics o f M o d e r n
G r e e k w e r e already present, but there hardly existed any literature
in this language outside the marginal zones and genres, and always
with a linguistic mix. T o b e sure, o n c e the empire was left without
its h e a d and without an imperial court, this situation in principle
favoured the e m e r g e n c e o f a n e w literature; but other circumstances
w e r e n o t favourable to this.
In the z o n e o c c u p i e d b y the Turks, culture was in the hands o f
the clerics w h o lived a c c o r d i n g to the o l d tradition; if they wrote, it
was in the Atticist language. M o r e o v e r , the Patriarchy o f Constantinople
and the idea o f a lost empire that h a d to b e r e c o v e r e d was pre
served. Nevertheless, oral poetry did exist although w e k n o w very
litde a b o u t it; for instance, the klephtic ballads w h i c h narrate the
adventures o f the bandits w h o fought against the Turks in the m o u n
tains. Little else remains. T h e p o p u l a r language gives the impression
o f having b e e n well established, although it did take certain lexical
236
CHAPTER TWO
b o r r o w i n g s f r o m the Turkish language, w h i c h also b o r r o w e d from

Greek.
328. N o w , as previously mentioned, there were indeed s o m e terri
tories that w e r e , at least for a time, free from the p o w e r o f the
Turks. H e r e , western p o w e r , generally Venetian, was m u c h
more
tolerable. A n e w literature t o o k root. It serves to b e r e m i n d e d that

R h o d e s was in the hands o f the Hospitallers until 1522; Nauplia and
M o n e m v a s i a were in the hands o f the Venetians until 1540, Crete
until 1569, Cyprus f r o m
1489 to 1566. Also, the islands o f Ionia
and the G r e e k regions o f Italy never fell into the hands o f the Turks.
It is in these territories that the n e w literature took root. In Cyprus,
besides the chronicles already mentioned, such as that b y Machaeras,
there w e r e also love p o e m s in the style o f Petrarch in an
almost
pure C y p r i a n dialect (sixteenth century), and also in R h o d e s (The

Alphabet of Love, Love Trial).
But it was a b o v e all in Crete where n e w literature e m e r g e d : the
p o e m b y M a n u e l Sclavos o n the earthquake o f 1504, a series o f
tragedies (Erophile, The Sacrifice of Abraham, etc.) and comedies (Katzurbos,
Stakis, Fortunato), the narrative p o e m Erotokritos, the b u c o l i c The Beautiful
Shepherdess, etc. S o m e o f these works are b y well-known authors:
Cuortatzis, w h o d i e d in 1610, wrote Katzurbos and Erophile; Foscolos
wrote Fortunato (1660); K o r n a r o s wrote The Sacrifice of Abraham
and
Erotokritos (1635 o r later). S o m e t i m e s their b o o k s w e r e printed in

V e n i c e and circulated in the continent. T h e dialect used was Cretan,
with purist forms.
In these works w e encounter, for the first time, and with few inter
ferences from the literary language, a post-Byzantine
Greek which
is almost M o d e r n Greek.
T h e I o n i c islands also p r o d u c e d p o p u l a r literature. Sometimes,
these works w e r e translations; although
there was also a tradition
that remained alive and was continued b y the p o e t S o l o m o s . Corfu

p r o d u c e d the first G r e e k g r a m m a r , b y Nikolaos Sophianos. It was
written in V e n i c e towards the year 1540, but remained
unpublished
until 1870.
T h e s e are the f o u n d a t i o n s
upon which M o d e r n Greek would
e m e r g e as the national language, see 417 ff.

329. See the works by R . Browning 1983, p. 69 ff., 88 ff., J. M . Egea
1987a, p. 270 ff. and 1990 (introduction), P. Badenas 1985a, p. 5 ff. For
the Chronicle o f the Morea, cf. J. M . Egea 1988; for the novel Callimachus
237
and Chrysorrhoe, P. Apostolopoulos 1984. For the literature, see the references
in 318. For the literature o f Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus, see P. Stavrianopoulou (ed.) 1996, with an edition and translation of the texts.
It should be noted that Byzantine literature developed almost without
the influence o f Latin literature. In highly sophisticated authors we find
quotations from Latin authors and references to a few translations, almost
always by later and medieval authors, and mostly of a juridicial or theo
logical type. It was only in the fourteenth century, largely through the work
of Maximus Planudes, that many Latin classics were translated. Nevertheless,
from the thirteenth century onwards, but particularly in the fourteenth cen
tury, many Latin and French novelistic texts were translated: for example,
the Latin novel about Apollonius King of Tyros, the French Gyron le Courtois
(from the Arthur cycle), Boccaccio, the fables o f Reynard the Fox, the novel
Flora and Blancaflora (Tuscan version), etc. Cf. A. Lumpe 1970 and Adrados
1979-87, II, p. 704 ff. of the english edition. All of this (along with the
direct knowledge o f French and Italian literature) had a great influence on
Byzantine literature and facilitated the entry o f a lexicon from western lan
guages, as we shall see further in 362 ff. But this together with the
Turkish lexicon entered mainly by means of human contact, from the period
of the Crusades onwards.
2. DESCRIPTION OF BYZANTINE POPULAR GREEK
Phonetics and morphology (until the eleventh century)

3 3 0 . W e c a n identify a first phase, f r o m the sixth to the
eleventh
century. But let us not forget that m a n y o f its characteristics
were
already present in the G r e e k o f the Hellenistic o r R o m a n periods;

that they c a n n o t b e dated within this p e r i o d , with few exceptions,
although it c a n n o t b e e x c l u d e d that s o m e w h i c h are d o c u m e n t e d in
the later p e r i o d already existed in this p e r i o d ; a n d that the
true
differences b e t w e e n the few p o p u l a r texts available to us consist in

the p r o p o r t i o n o f the always present mixture o f p o p u l a r terms and
literary o r Atticist terms. F o r this reason, the description that fol
lows is an abstraction, based u p o n the ' p o p u l a r ' forms w h i c h appear
alongside the literary forms a n d hypercorrections.
3 3 1 . T h e v o c a l i c system o f koine -
with its lack o f distinction o f
quantity, iotacism, elimination o f diphthongs a n d its six vowels
r e m a i n e d intact until, in the tenth century, t> (that is, u) was p r o

n o u n c e d i, with w h i c h the shift was m a d e to a system o f five vowels
w h i c h is still current. But initial atonal vowels, with the e x c e p t i o n
o f &-, w e r e d r o p p e d (as in onixi
' h o u s e ' , jnepa 'day', pcoxS 'I ask',
238
CHAPTER TWO
5
jLLotxt ' e y e , \|/dpi 'fish , etc.). Y e t , through an influence o f the Atticist

language, EXzvBepia and XevxEpia, for example, were restored. This
led to the loss, o n occasion, o f atonal
augment.
A s regards the consonants, the fricativisation o f v o i c e d occlusive

and aspirated voiceless was generalised, as well as the simplification
o f geminates (with hypercorrections such as noXXvq in Malalas) and
the loss o f -v (except before a vowel). T h e latter p h e n o m e n a did not
reach all o f the dialects.
3 3 2 . A s regards the n o u n , w e must point out the definitive loss o f
the D . (except in formulas such as 56tqa xfi 0e> and in Atticisms):
in its place, w e have A c , G . , o r eiq + A c ( n o ^ a i o xov Geov, eircev
amovt). T h r e e systems d o m i n a t e (in the sg.) for the N . , G . , and A c
cases, all with stems ending in a vowel. In the first system, the o l d
m a s c in -ac; entered, as well as part o f the o l d third declension; in
the s e c o n d , the o l d feminines in -a and another part o f the third
declension; in the third, the o l d 2 n d declension:
1. N . noXix^q, naxepaq, fiaGiXzaq
A c rcoAixriv, rcaxepav, p a a i A i a v
G . TDOMTTJ, TCaxepa, P a a i A i a
2. N . rcopxa, K6X% 'EXXaSa
A c Kopxav, 7t6A,r|v, 'EXXabav
G.
7t6pra<;,
n6Xr\q, 'EXXaSaq
3. N . Xoyoq
Ac
Xoyov
G . Xoyov
W i t h the loss o f the -v, types 1 and 2 were left with t w o forms. O n
the other hand, some residues o f the old consonantal system remained:
yivoq/yivovq,
aSjua/awjxocToq, etc. T h e r e was also a t e n d e n c y to
modify stems using -o<; in m a s c , -n in fern. (6 i|/fj(po<;, r\ 7cap0evr|). In

the adjective, those with t w o desinences in -o<;, -ov n o w had three
(-oq, -n, -ov).
All o f this (as well as changes in gender o r stem) is c o n n e c t e d
with analogous processes and with the simplification o f the declension,
w h i c h h a d the tendency to reduce the stems to t w o and to gener
alise the A c . as a d e p e n d e n t o f the verb and the G . o f the n o u n , a
process w h i c h was already under w a y in the Hellenistic period.
In the plural, w e also find the types mentioned, o n three stems.
N o t a b l e examples are the N . in -zq in the systems 1 and 2 (naiepeq,
239
%cope<; but also still %capai), and those in -dSec;, -{Sec; (icacpeSec;, nannovSeq,
on (pDydSeq, SaKxuAiSeq).
333.
T h e article and p r o n o u n present a very different case, result
ing in part f r o m the p r e c e d i n g p e r i o d . F o r instance:

Article: fern. pi. N . 01; A c . xec;.
Personals: along with the o l d forms, in the sg. w e find hypercharacterisations
and in the pi., equivalences with the sg.: 1st
A c . que, euiv, ejnevot, quevccv; 2 n d N . eav; A c . eoe, eoev, eoevoc,

eaevav; G . icov;
2nd
N.
pi. 1st N . ejieiq; A c . euxx<;, juaq; G . euxov, LJXDV;
eaeic;, cEiq;
Ac.
eaac;, aac;;
G.
eacov, acov. A l s o ,
there
are atonal forms jiaq, aac;. F o r the 3rd, an atonal f o r m was cre
ated xov, xnv, xo, etc., derived from
Demonstratives: o8e disappears, avioq
avioq.
is replaced b y iSioq, I5IK6<;,
the stem xcvux- is generalised in ovxoc;.

Relatives: oc, tends to b e replaced b y oaxiq, and b y the inter
rogative XIQ, x(; also, b y OTOI),
334.
T h e most important
bnoloq.
thing with regard to the verb is the fol
lowing. In the present, verbs in -jii disappear and the following stems
are widely diffused: -x^co, -d^co, -eoco, - v o , -vco, -dpco: for example,
there is cpepvoo, Kepvco, dcpivco. By analogy, there is Kpvpco,
KXEPCO.
W i t h these presents there is a tendency to create a system o f t w o

stems, insofar as the aorist and perfect are confused or mixed: eTtoiKccq,
djidbêKac;, etc. T h e normal system thus b e c o m e s that o f dcpivoo/dcprjccc,
\|/rjvco/e\j/r|aa, etc.
T h e system o f the middle v o i c e is also d r o p p e d , while that o f the
passive voice develops. In the latter, forms o f the type (pepGrjica impose
themselves.
F o r the future tense, e'xco 4- inf. is normally used; other periphrases
are also diffused. O n the other hand, augment is in decline, as m e n
tioned earlier, as well as reduplication.
T h e system o f desinences innovates, but with a confused mixture
with the previous system. W e can p o i n t out the m i d d l e inflection o f
eijLii (eijuai, e i a a i . . . ) , with a 3rd sg. evi, the o l d adverb later b e i n g
written as eivcu. T h e mixtures o f o l d and m o d e r n desinences referred
to are frequent (3rd pi. pres. -ox>v/-ovoi,
Yet,
aor. -otv/-ov, e t c ) .
with the loss o f the optative and, in part, the
subjunctive
(with a short v o w e l it b e c a m e identical to the indicative), the infinitive

a n d participle
are in d e c l i n e . T h e f o r m e r survives, but tends to
240
CHAPTER TWO
b e c o m e r e d u c e d to certain constructions: the V i n d o b o n e n s i s collec

tion o f fables mostly eliminates the infinitives o f the completive clauses
o f the Augustana, its m o d e l T h e participle is used in a confused
way, with errors o f g e n d e r and construction: dAxorceKa . . . 8eXedaaaa,
"RXxoq . . . Tipoêvcyovxa (which anticipates the later indeclinable par
ticiple in -vra [<;]).
Examples of popular texts
335. It is useful to make s o m e observations o n prepositions and c o n
junctions (u for jnexd, cbadv, i;e-, câva-, OTOV etc.); and the
advances in certain suffixes such as -ITÎV, -aioq,
great
as well as the n e w
lexicon. T h i s will b e discussed in m o r e detail in 352 ff.

W i t h regard to syntax, w e must stress the frequent substitution o f
the subordinates b y coordinates with KOU.
F o r clarification, it m a y b e useful to provide examples o f the Greek
o f s o m e o f these texts (I will not deal with phonetics and orthography).
336. Acclamations of the stadium and other small poems. A n o m a l o u s forms
are in the minority:
Lexicon: djuovi 'anvil', yepdia 'falcon', uo'uAxx 'mule', oeXXa 'chair',
oXoq for naq,
O%V\KOVOX.
Nominal inflection: N . dXeKTopw, yepdiav, Mccupdac;; A c . yofivav.

Anomalous form: 8epuecv, hypercorrected.
Lack of augment: (pepe, vorjaec;.
Pronoun: enclitic
TOD, TO,
Trjv, relative
OKQX>.
Prepositions: 0T6V,
eioe (contamination o f the o l d f o r m with the n e w f o r m ae).

337. Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions. T h e same observation applies here.
Lexicon: yopevco 'to search', Xaoq 'army', okoq, KaXa adv.
Prepositions: a%6 + A c , d v d ^ e o a , em = eox;, eco<; + A c , eacoOev,
{<; + A c . = 'in', a i .
Nominal inflection: A c .
fiaoiXiav.
Verbal: pres. eiv(oa), subj. = ind.
iva . . . i)7iojivr|aKeTe, f)va Siajiivo-oai (with fut. value), aor. e(pxdaxia a v (with - 0 0 - >
-ax-).
Parataxis to a v o i d the inf.: eSoicev (perf. for aor., but there is

also 86aoc<;), ice eprjuoaev (without augment).
338. Malalas. C o l l o q u i a l and paratactic style, but Byzantinisms are
rare: inflection is almost always classical, but see, for example:

Lexicon:
XOVKOV
241
5
'onwards , 7tidoou 'to catch , pfjya (Ac.) 'king ,
lAAouaxpioq, etc.
Prepositions: eiq xov depa 'in
and the hypercorrection ev 'Iepo-
GoMuxnc; 'towards .
Relative: abundant usp o f OGXK; for oq.
Verbal inflection: dta)xdp%rjaocv
without a u g m e n t ,
aor. eipeKox;,
periphrastic perf. r|v 7ipoxp8\]/d|LL8voc;, piuAj/ac; rjv pas. v. enavQr{.

Various constructions: dxpeiXcov + inf. with fut. value, e5oêv . . . 6
âaiXzvq, final construction npbq xo
87uxA,eiG0ai, f|Gi>%aGv . . .
xot> Tioieiv xapa%dc;, ano (agent).

339. Fables from the Vindobonensis collection and the Bodleian paraphrasis.
M o s t vulgarisms c a n b e f o u n d in these fables, f r o m the sixth and
seventh centuries. I follow the study b y Ursing o n the M o s c o w c o d e x :
Nominal inflection: A c . sg. o f the 3rd cpAxSyccv, 7i68av, N . pi. o f the
1st Qipeq, dypoxeq; forms o f the 2 n d decl. in w o r d s w h i c h were
originally o f the 3rd: 6pv(0oic;, SeAxptvoi); changes in gender. In
the adjective, the use o f the comparative with the same value
as the positive.
Pronouns. T h e article as a relative, equivalent amov
possessive
and ocmou,
\8ioq.
Verbal inflection: lack o f augment in 6p%oi)vxo, Tcerccoiceiv; id. o f

reduplication in dvocTtexaauivai; perfect for aorist, and pluper
fect for perfect (ei<; xotx; pp6%0D<; 7C7n;a)Ki).
Prepositions and conjunctions: a%6 + A c , du.cc 4- G . , interchange o f
ev/eiq; woe xi, edv + ind., yi&xpiq, 00c; + dv and ind.
Syntax: anomalous A c .
(8EXXOV
ae (pepa, dTcrivxnaev ccoxov,
rcai5a KXavdiivpi^wv); a n o m a l o u s G : (pi)5idôjiiai G O D ,
TIKOUGE
ojnoiov
dv5po<;; hypercorrect D . : xoiq aXXoiq ^r\Xo\)vxzq, 7tr|pcbxrjGv at>xa>;

5
verbs o f ' p r o m i s e , etc. with present infinitive; final infinitive

with article; a v o i d a n c e o f the inf. in completives with various
constructions (rcapfiveae .
. .
OTCCOC; .
. . ,
Xiyow oxi. . . d7toSa>Giv, (*)<;
dv . . . GDvGXdaai); a n o m a l o u s uses o f the participle, cf. 334.

340. F o r m o r e data see the references already cited, cf. 318, 3 2 2 ,
329; and in G . H o r r o c k s 1997, p . 205 ff. F o r the V i n d o b o n e n s i s , I
insist o n U . Ursing 1930: it is a shame that this area has escaped
the attention o f scholars studying the Byzantine language. But this
is n o t all, for w e still n e e d to study, for e x a m p l e , the Byzantine cor
rections o f the classics in the manuscripts o f this p e r i o d through the
eleventh century.
242
CHAPTER TWO
S o m e t i m e s w e are faced with difficulties. In the Life of Aesop, w h i c h

I have studied (cf. A d r a d o s 1993), w e n e e d to determine,
firstly,
whether w e should correct in the Atticist sense as the editors d o ;

and secondly, whether o r not the non-Atticist terms o f a manuscript
such as the G (a Gryptoferrantensis o f the tenth century) are Hellenistic
o r Byzantine.
Phonetics and morphology from the twelfth to the fifteenth century)
3 4 1 . Let us n o w turn to the next p e r i o d , w h i c h dates from
the
twelfth to the fifteenth
the
century. V o c a l i s m is kept as it was at
e n d o f the previous p e r i o d , o n c e t> has b e c o m e i: it is a system o f

five vowels. In the consonants, the evolution KX, %0 > %x, %%, cp0 >
cpx, G 0 , G% > OK b e c o m e s d o m i n a n t ; but traditional
orthography
results in the preservation, alongside this, o f old forms o f the type

aa%r\\ioq. Final -v is d r o p p e d , a p h e n o m e n o n b e g u n earlier, w h i c h
results in h o m o p h o n o u s cases o f the 1st and 2nd declension, with
the p r e s e n c e o f n o n - e t y m o l o g i c a l extensions (we have seen s o m e
examples); -ea, -(a b e c o m e -id (rapSid). T h e geminates are simplified
(but n o t in s o m e dialects).
H o w e v e r , dialectal variations are k n o w n in this period, such as
those preserving final -v (in Cyprus, D o d e c a n e s e and Italy), those
giving other treatments to the c o n s o n a n t groups (in southern Italy),
those palatalising the K before preceding vowels (in Cyprus), o r closing
the vowels e, o. W e shall discuss these dialects further o n ( 4 3 4 ff.)
in c o n n e c t i o n with M o d e r n Greek.
3 4 2 . In nouns, the main difference, as n o t e d earlier, is that with the
loss o f -v, the N . and A c . o f the fern, o f the 1st declension b e c a m e
identical ( N . A c . %a>poc/G. %cbpa<;) and the same applies to the A c .
and G . o f the m a s c . ( N . Kêqnriq/Ac. G . K?i(pxr|). T h e rest stays the
same, including the remnants o f declensions in -oq/-ovq,
-\ia/-|naxo<;,
-tc;/-eax;, plurals in -dSsc;, -iSeq, adjectives with three desinences (those

in -r\q/-eq
a n d others h a d to adapt in various ways); there are also
other regularisations
such as uitaxvo<;, jneydAxx;.
343. T h e subjunctive, w h i c h as w e k n o w is constructed o n two stems,

ends up being assimilated to the indicative, and the participle b e c o m e s
indeclinable in -ovxoc(<;).
T h e future is m a r k e d b y the periphrasis with w h i c h w e are already
familiar, with %G) + infinitive o r %co v d + subjunctive; i%a in the
BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 2 4 3

same constructions is p o t e n t i a l Nevertheless, with the a d v a n c e o f the
p e r i o d , there is preference for periphrasis with 6e?uo + infinitive, 0eX
vd
+ sunjunctive, the previous ones passing into the perfect
(ex)
and pluperfect (el%a); in the Chronicle of the Morea, w e c o m e across

b o t h uses, as well as the periphrasis with 0e?t (from w h i c h the m o d
ern future with 9 d is obtained). In twelfth-century C y p r u s w e find 0e.
T h e r e is a large variety o f personal desinences. In the 3rd p i w e
find the present -oi)v(e)/-oi)Gi, pret. - a v ( e ) / - a a i , -GCCV. Contracted c o n
jugations have developed, w h i c h in the active voice sometimes confuse
the o l d forms in -d and -e, while in the m i d d l e v o i c e w e find b o t h
(pofkro^cu, (po|3daai, (po(3axai a n d forms with - { e u m , -leaoci, -iexai. In
the m i d d l e v o i c e (or the deponents), w e find n e w forms alongside
the traditional: -ODJLIO'OV, -OUGODV, -oxocv, -oêaxa, -eaxe, - o w x a v .
In verbs with a c c e n t o n the last syllable an imperfect is created,
-croGa, etc. a n d -ayoc, etc. T h e desinence o f passive aorist -Gnv is
replaced definitively b y -GrjKa. In the imperative, the desinence -e o f
the present extends to the aorist.
344.
P r o n o u n s systematise the n e w forms, for e x a m p l e , N . pi. eiieiq.
Similarly with prepositions. H e r e , with the generalisation o f the use

with A c , the o l d distinctions in m e a n i n g b e t w e e n p r e p . + A c / p r e p .
+
D . disappear:
u.e(xd) + A c is 'with' ('after'
is ikrcep' drco); ev
+ D . is replaced b y \xeoa ei<;. O t h e r prepositions either disappear o r

are retained as sophisticated w o r d s (dvd, em, raxd, rcepi, 7cpo, rcpoq,
Gt>v, weep, 0)7c6).
The
vocabulary also evolves, as a result o f borrowings from Turkish
and the western languages, as well as internal d e v e l o p m e n t s (deriva

tion, c o m p o s i t i o n , semantic c h a n g e ) . T h i s subject will b e dealt with
in another
345.
chapter.
L o o k i n g b a c k at ancient G r e e k a n d I n d o - E u r o p e a n , w e find
that w e n o w e n c o u n t e r a very different language w h i c h nevertheless

retains traces o f its inheritance. In phonetics, the v o c a l i c system is
f o r m e d b y the five vowels a, e> % o> u, without diphthongs; the c o n
sonantal system is f o r m e d b y a system o f voiceless and v o i c e d o c c l u
sives with three points o f articulation and a system o f voiceless and
v o i c e d fricatives with the same three points o f articulation; with the
liquids a n d nasals p, X, ji, v; a n d a voiceless a n d v o i c e d sibilant (writ
ten Q. I will n o t deal with c o m p o u n d consonants.
N o m i n a l inflection has b e e n simplified: the D . is lost a n d the A c .
a n d G . tend to have well-defined general functions; they can, for
244
CHAPTER TWO
instance, b e used as determinants o f the verb o r n o u n . T h e gender

o f o l d G r e e k (diffused in the adjective in a regular m o r p h o l o g i c a l
manner) has b e e n maintained, as well as the sg. and pi. numbers
(the o l d dual was lost m u c h earlier). Formally, there is a p r e d o m i
n a n c e o f v o w e l stems, w h i c h frequently a d o p t the same f o r m for the
N . and A c . o r the A c . and G . , as mentioned. T h e adjective has
taken forms that are analogous to those o f the noun. In the desinences,
there are also analogous generalisations. But exceptions remain in
f o r m and content.
T h e article and p r o n o u n are essentially the same, with differences
w h i c h are almost invariably o f a formal nature. For instance, w e
find the extension o f the sg. to the pi. stem o f the personals; n e w
demonstratives, invariably based o n the o l d three stages, and n e w
possessives o f the 3rd pers,; a tendency for various kinds o f elimi
nation o f the o l d relative. T h e r e are also changes in inflection. T h e
creation o f atonal personals o f the 3rd pers. is newer, enabling the
creation in M o d e r n G r e e k o f an objective conjugation w h i c h is sim
c
ilar to the Spanish ( o f the type se lo dire todo a tu madre').

346. In the v e r b , there is a reduction o f the present stems and a
fusion o f aorist and perfect, w h i c h form a s e c o n d stem. T h e future
and perfect are n o w expressed with periphrastic forms. In the m o o d s
o f the v e r b , with the early loss o f the optative, the
subjunctive,
identified with the indicative, is n o w lost, and also the participle,

transformed into an indeclinable adverbial form; at the e n d o f this
p e r i o d the infinitive is at the p o i n t o f b e i n g lost.
S o , the marking o f tense is r e d u c e d to the o p p o s i t i o n o f pre
sent/preterite and to the indicative; the other tenses and the sub
junctive are expressed b y atemporal periphrases o f a subjective kind.
But the aspect o f present and aorist is kept very m u c h alive, even
b e i n g carried outside the indicative.
W e are dealing with a simplified Greek, w h i c h partly follows ten
dencies that are similar to those in the I E that w e call IIIB (polythematic IE o f the European languages and Tocharian), which reduces
verbal inflection to t w o stems and regularises it significantly, almost
eliminating athematic inflection; and w h i c h also reduces the m o o d s ,
the participle a n d infinitive a little, a n d makes a b u n d a n t use o f
periphrasis for the future and perfect.
S o m e t i m e s the n e w G r e e k resembles a certain b r a n c h o f IE: for
instance, with respect to details o f verbal inflection (such as the ere-
245
ation o f a n e w imperfect and others referred to earlier) and n o m i

nal inflection (such as the loss o f the D . and the creation o f inflections
with only t w o stems). T h e r e is a parallel for the loss o f the infinitive
in Balkan languages such as R u m a n i a n and
347.
Bulgarian.
Consequendy, the tendencies o f koine are carried o n into Byzantine
Greek, in that the latter simplifies verbal m o r p h o l o g y , w h i c h is only

used to mark three persons, t w o numbers, two tenses (in ind.) a n d
two
aspects. T h e older G r e e k system was evidently far t o o refined
and c o m p l e x , and so it was r e d u c e d and c o m p l e m e n t e d with peri

phrastic forms. T h i s also applies to the n o u n a n d adjective. Y e t it
survived, and the rich system o f n o m i n a l and verbal derivation and
c o m p o s i t i o n c o n t i n u e d to d e v e l o p .
It is useful to p r o v i d e , as w e did for the G r e e k o f the previous
period, examples o f the language o f s o m e o f the representative authors
o f this period. W e will l o o k at texts in w h i c h there is a contamina
tion o f the t w o levels o f Greek. Pure, o r almost pure, p o p u l a r G r e e k
is f o u n d in the p o p u l a r p o e m s dated b e t w e e n the fifteenth and sev
enteenth centuries, m e n t i o n e d a b o v e in 3 2 8 .
Examples of popular texts
348.
Prodromus. See the b e g i n n i n g o f the verses to the
emperor
M a n u e l . S o m e , expressly addressed to the e m p e r o r ( 1 4 1 - 4 4 ) ,
are
in a purely literary language; in the rest, there is sporadic literary

language. F o r e x a m p l e , w e find D . yepovxncoic;, 7iocxpiKoi<;, Coyote; A c .
yeixovcc, impf. rcepteTidxei, aor. eôcGov, pas. aor. eKXv{a0r|, i m p v .
7t{a0rjTi, uxd and K + G . , anb
(xiKp60v, ovdev,
EKâXke,
some
infinitives in -iv, e t c
But there is also an a b u n d a n c e o f m o d e r n elements: for example,
in the l e x i c o n (PAircG) 'see', y|xara 'full', yopeoco 'search', xaayydpr|<;
'shoemaker; xcopa ' n o w ' , cbadv ' h o w ' , the suffixes -ixaioq, -axoq). In
the n o u n , there is a frequent
use o f N . - A c . in -iv (TCOU8IV), A C .
yovcciKocv (and erroneously -v in dva0}iav). T h e r e is also a frequent

use o f enclitics: xo-o (6 KoXnoq XOD, 7cox TOD) and xov (P^7ti<; xov),
the relative bnov, and the pers. e o e v a . T h e accusative o f a n o m a l o u s
syntax is very frequent
(vnipnvpa
there are n e w forms o f the present
yUi, arc' Kiva). In the verb,
(d7tXcbvco,
x o p x a i v o ) , the
aorist-
perfect (ETTOIKCCV, ni)piaKa), the subjunctive, w h i c h is identical to the

indicative (napaQeaovGi,
viyexoci), the indicative o f ei\ii (evx). A b o v e
all, there is abundant periphrasis with vd + subjunctive with values
246
CHAPTER TWO
o f prospective, future (vd TOV euro), v d ovojudaouv, v d ixaQr\q), o r pre

sent (npbq TO v d |iid0co ypdjiiuxrca).
349.
Digenis Akritas. It is sufficient to l o o k at the first verses o f the
p o e m in the manuscript o f El Escorial edited b y Castillo Didier. T h e

first impression is o f an entirely classical text: for example, w e have
a N . pi. amxXax,
A c . sg. KCCTdpav, pi. nXvâq,
o l d verbal forms such
as iir\ (poprjGfiq, p r e p . + G . Ttccpd unTpoq, etc. But there is m o d e r n

lexicon (eicapaAiiceDGev, with o l d inflection, doTepaxov with the famil
iar suffix, dpyupoTadTtcDToc, a hybrid form). In the noun, the diminutives
%epia, 6vD%ia (from w h i c h w e obtain the forms o f M o d e r n Greek),
jLieTcbjiiv. In the p r o n o u n , w e find iiaq a n d the enclitics TOD, TTJV. In
the v e r b , the n e w subjunctive KocTccTUTofiaoDv (with a classical c o n
struction, jifi a e , in the first verse); it also appears with aq a n d dv
with a prospective o r future value (iced TOT8 aq TTIV 87tdp0DV, 6 0e6<;
vd
\xb\q PoT|8fiar|).
W e c o u l d continue. A few verses further o n w e c o m e across ofircpoc;
etv(ai), fjBeAxxaiv, ejHTifJKav, ooadv, relative xaq, ox yv%q, etc.

350.
Egea
Chronicle of the Morea. H e r e , w e c a n refer to the study b y J. M .

1988. W e n e e d only l o o k at the beginning o f the p o e m to
appreciate the same mixture. In the first t w o lines, w e find o l d ele

ments indisolubly linked with the n e w elements: 6eA,oo, %Xzxq + sub
junctive, OTOCV + imperfect ryzovz, anb KTiaeco<; KoajKn) (a perfectiy
classical, ecclesiastical influence) but jne SDvaunq (the m o d e r n form
o f the preposition a n d inflection). T h e r e is a m o d e r n use o f p r e p o
sitions in zxq TOD X p i a x o D xov Tacpo (with the loss o f -v), GTOV in';
c
and a m o d e r n use o f the relative (ooxxq,
OKOV).
T h e system o f per
sonal p r o n o u n s is almost that o f M o d e r n Greek. N e w verbal forms

include, a m o n g others, imperfects such as dcpevTEDocv (Byzantine lex
i c o n ) , D\J/COV8V, spputTotv, TijjxopoDccv, the aorists 8K?ia\j/ev, epapeGrixev
(but eX-D7ifiGr|v), the participle I56VTCC<;; and, a b o v e all, very diverse
and hesistant periphrastic
uses.
In contrast, the stems o f the future a n d perfect a n d the optative,

a m o n g other things, have
disappeared.
Indeed, it w o u l d seem that popular Greek dominates: Atticist forms

are often the result o f corrections in various manuscripts, a n d often
the p o p u l a r language is written with Atticist spelling, w h i c h makes
it possible for us to discover Atticist forms in the phonetics as well
as m o r p h o l o g y .
F r o m verse 7 5 4 onwards, there is a notable presence o f false lit-
247
erary words and hypercorrections: the participles dKxroaoov, Siapovxa,

A c . O-oydxrip; other forms are correct, such as eTrdpcojiev, anb xr\q
PcbjLiriq xfjj; EKKkr\oiaq,
anb xov vt>v, fiaoxXzvq, xiveq. Y e t , alongside
this w e find m o d e r n forms such as paaiXea<;, xov eSa)Kev oe ypdcpco,

xrjpfiaexe, the p r o n o u n e|xioc(;/jia(;/|Lia(;, dv (pdyouai, etc.
3 5 1 . Callimachus and Chrysorrhoe. This novel brings us to the fourteenth
century. T h e study o f Ph. A p o s t o l o p o u l o s 1984 is very c o m p l e t e :
here, w e p r o v i d e only a few data.
In the n o u n , w e find a i f | | j i p a i / c u fjuipec;;
rcaiSt/rcaiSdia,
%epi,
A c . sg. yepovxav, N . pi. 01 xe%vixai/oi dcpBevxec; (also A c , alternat

ing with -aq). W e should note that the D . still appears with s o m e
frequency.
In the p r o n o u n s , w e find all the forms w e have already discussed,
including the enclitic forms: iiov, iiaq, xov, xovq (beside eucm, f]|iSv,
e t c ) , the type 6
ISIKOQ HOD
' m i n e ' , demonstrative avxoq, e t c ; archaic
indefinites (xxq, o\)8ei<;, 7tocvxo8oc7i6c;, naq) beside the m o d e r n (Kaveic;,

xinoxe). Similarly, w e find classic relatives and bnov, in addition to
the article (xovq yvXaKaq xovq eiSe). T h e inflection o f the two per
sonals is quite classical, with i\iiE\<;, e t c and forms in D . , but along
side
and enclitic forms.
EIIEV
T h e r e is a significant advance in the frequent
lack o f augment.
T h e imperfect eftXena and aorist 2 n d pers. sg. eypct\|/e<; are
gener
alised, along with the aorist imperative o f the type yvcopioe, the aorists
with -K- such as ercoiKa, d(pfJKa (but also dcprjaa); also, the forms o f
the middle v o i c e o f eijxi. T h e system o f desinences is quite conser
vative (but, Aiyo-ov). T h e particles aq, dv, and periphrasis with e%co
and eBeA-CG function normally but, curiously, very often with the old
subjunctive
(aq Spdjj.coju.ev). F u r t h e r m o r e ,
ue Keipdâi) a n d the participle
the infinitive
(|ULr| Oe^rit;
are retained, a l t h o u g h
with l o w
frequency.
This novel displays a very m i x e d , rather archaising
language
proof, o n c e m o r e , that c h r o n o l o g y is not always the deciding factor.
3. T H E DEVELOPMENT OF THE BYZANTINE LEXICON
3 5 2 . It is useful to dedicate a separate chapter to the growth o f the

lexicon in Byzantine Greek; to b e c o m p l e m e n t e d b y a further c h a p
ter in which, b y describing the influence o f Byzantine lexicon in the
East and West, w e m a y b e able to shed s o m e light o n other data.
248
CHAPTER TWO
T h e fact is, since I have already paid special attention to the growth
o f the G r e e k l e x i c o n - particularly o f the educated language, in the
Classical, Hellenistic and R o m a n periods -
and since I intend
to
deal with its diffusion and growth in the West, it is impossible to

leave this important intermediate stage u n t o u c h e d .
T h e facility o f G r e e k to create n e w derived and c o m p o u n d w o r d s
(see A d r a d o s 1968) is a fundamental
w h i c h c o n t i n u e d to o p e r a t e
characteristic o f this language,
d u r i n g the Byzantine p e r i o d , while
different parts o f the g r a m m a r were innovating in a p r o f o u n d way.

T h i s did not m e a n that the o l d lexicon was preserved (though this
did o c c u r , particularly in Atticist o r 'pure' prose) o r that n e w w o r d s
were i n t r o d u c e d through b o r r o w i n g o r semantic variation, but
the
m e t h o d s o f derivation and c o m p o s i t i o n , w h i c h were essentially the

same, continued to e x p a n d the Byzantine lexicon.
T h e fact is that the Byzantine lexicon has never b e e n systemati
cally studied in its entirety, and w e d o not even possess c o m p l e t e
dictionaries. A p a r t f r o m the o l d lexicons, w h i c h are incomplete, b y
Stephanus, S o p h o c l e s , Dimitrakos, and L a m p e (a partial w o r k ded
icated o n l y to the patristic lexicon), w e have to make d o with c o n
temporary works w h i c h are also incomplete: our Greek-Spanish Dictionary
(Diccionario Griego-Espanot), w h i c h only goes upto the year 600), the
Dictionary b y Kriaras and that b y Trapp-Horandner-Diethart
(apart
from partial studies).

I n d e e d , the study o f the Byzantine lexicon should deal with two
very important issues: the b o r r o w i n g s it received f r o m different lan
guages, and its diffusion into different languages (sometimes diffusing
w o r d s o f non-Byzantine origin). All o f this will b e dealt with before
w e l o o k at the diffusion o f Graeco-Latin into western languages. For,
although w e c a n n o t d r a w clear divisions, w e c a n distinguish between
Byzantine influence through a p o p u l a r route, preferrably from an
earlier date, a n d the influence o f classical G r e e k (usually
through
Latin) through a literary route, particularly from the twelfth century

onwards a n d even m o r e so during the p e r i o d o f H u m a n i s m .
353. For a general overview o f the matter in question, see E. Trapp 1988.
For compounds and borrowings from Greek, see R. Browning 1983, pp.
67 ff.. and 84 ff., and 1997; and A. Steiner-Weber 1991. For the relation
between the Atticist and popular lexicon, see Adrados 1948, p . 67 ff. For
borrowings adopted by Byzantine Greek, see H. and R. Kahane 1970 ff.
And 1979; also, L. Burgmann 1990 (Latin borrowings). Furthermore, see
M . A. Triantaphylides 1909.
249
For French and Italian borrowings, cf. H . and R . Kahane 1970 ff.,
p. 501 ff.; for Turkish borrowings, see R. Browning 1983, p. 97 ff.
354.
Nearly all o f the suffixes o f ancient G r e e k continued to b e
productive in Byzantium, but w e should d r a w attention to suffixes

w h i c h were either n e w o r m o r e frequent: -&<;, -GIUO, -uoc, -IGGCC, the
diminutives -tov, -dpiov, -dSiov, {8iov, -CXKIOV, -(KIOV, the n e w suffix
-xi(v), -(xi(v), the Latin suffix -axoc;, those o f Italian origin -omai(ov),
-ox>TGiKoq; w e have already p o i n t e d out w h i c h o f the verbal suffixes
are m o s t frequent.
Consequently, derivation was very s m o o t h ; an
adjective could b e obtained from practically every n o u n , as, for e x a m

ple
MavoriX-cxToq f r o m Mavt>r|A,.
C o m p o s i t i o n was extremely rich. Although m a n y o l d nominal c o m
pounds o f the elevated language, disappear, as well as m a n y verbs with

prepositions, m a n y n e w forms o f all the traditional types were created.
Copulative c o m p o u n d s are present, such as dpioxoSetTivov T o o d
and meal', dvSpoyovoQ ' m a n and w o m a n ' ; adjectival c o m p o u n d s such
as ppcxxDjiocKpoc; 'short a n d l o n g ' (and Ppax\)jnaKp6ppa%D(; 'short, l o n g
a n d short'); determinative c o m p o u n d s o f various kinds: yopyoyA-coxxiot
'great o r a t o r y skill', TiayKêrjq ' v e r y g l o r i o u s ' , 7covxopducov ' w h i c h
5
m o v e s in Pontus , etc; QeoftXaoxoq ' b o r n o f G o d ' ; and possessives:

dypioTipoacoixoq 'with a fierce expression'. T h e r e are also verbal c o m
p o u n d s , with n o u n (unpoKA-d^co 'to break a leg', Gi8rjpo8eco 'to chain
up')
and with preverbs (KocxocTiayexeco 'to freeze', imoâvxi^co 'to die
a light b l o n d ' ) ; also, with d o u b l e o r triple preverb (eytcocOomoypdcpco

'to sign in', TCocpeKemxeivco 'to extend even m o r e ' ) . V e r b a l c o m p o u n d s
with the preverb ^ccva- 'again' are
frequent.
As I have stated throughout, G r e e k has preserved that marvellous

trait w h i c h enables a n y o n e to create a n e w w o r d . M a n y o f these
new
w o r d s are individual discoveries m a d e b y writers o f the elevated
language. T h e total numbers are very high and have n o t yet b e e n

properly calculated, cf. A . Steiner-Weber 1 9 9 1 , p . 2 4 5 .
355.
T h e n e w Byzantine lexicon represents to a large extent a ren
ovation, in that the p o p u l a r language, in particular,
loses a sub
stantial part o f the o l d vocabulary. T h e r e is cdaxpoq and daicrijioq,

against duopqxx;; otKoq against GTUXI; KaXoq n o longer refers to phys
ical beauty, etc. T h e r e are innumerable examples. But classical w o r d s
c o u l d continue to b e used in the literary language. Consequently,
we
find
purposes.
doublets o f the type PaaiA-euq/paaiXtdq, used for stylistic
250
CHAPTER TWO
T h i s subtle g a m e is particularly well illustrated w h e n a text is car

ried from o n e o f the t w o main registers to the other. I have studied
this in c o n n e c t i o n with the p o p u l a r Byzantine collection o f fables,
the V i n d o b o n e n s i s , w h i c h rewrites its o l d m o d e l , the Augustana c o l
lection, w h i c h is a cross b e t w e e n an Atticistic and a poeticising lan
guage. I have studied the m e c h a n i s m in A d r a d o s 1948, p . 67 ff.,
and have s h o w n h o w Attic and poetic terms are almost systematically
substituted b y terms w h i c h are c o m m o n to koine, or rather, to popular
and sometimes vulgar koine. T h e n u m b e r o f c o m p o u n d verbs with
preverbs is reduced.
T h e stylistic study o f the Byzantine texts is threfore rather c o m
plicated. Cf, for e x a m p l e , the study o f the Alexias b y A n n a C o m n e n a
in E. D i a z R o l a n d o 1989.
4. BORROWINGS IN BYZANTINE G R E E K
Latin borrowings
356. T h e Byzantine l e x i c o n also grew, as w e have seen, b y means o f
linguistic borrowings from peoples and cultures with w h i c h Byzantium
had contact. Let us l o o k at o n e p e o p l e o r culture at a time.
W e have already discussed the Latin b o r r o w i n g s in East G r e e k in
the first periods. It was p o i n t e d out h o w Latin only gradually ceased
to b e the official language and h o w k n o w l e d g e o f Latin literature in
Byzantium was negligible. W e also n o t e d the huge importance o f
the trace it left in law.
H . M i h a e s c u 1993, p . 3 5 0 ff. has established that s o m e 3,000
Latin terms entered Byzantine G r e e k , o f w h i c h s o m e 2 0 0 w e r e
retained in M o d e r n Greek, A v o i d e d b y the educated, they were not
o f m i n o r i m p o r t a n c e for the public; not just with regard to legal
and administrative t e r m i n o l o g y but also military terminology.
In the legal and administrative fields it was inevitable that a great
n u m b e r o f Latin terms w o u l d enter into translations and c o m m e n
taries. T h e r e is a g o o d study o n this subject b y L. B u r g m a n n 1990.
Sometimes, Latin terms in Latin letters were included, sometimes
they w e r e transcribed into G r e e k (of the type juayKircioDin), B u r g m a n n
indicates that in the paraphrase o f the Institutiones, s o m e 1,000 Latin
w o r d s appear, each o n e a b o u t ten times. T h e y also appear in pri
vate a n d official d o c u m e n t s .
It is clear that there were certain currents that sought to Hellenise
251
the legal texts. A t times, authors limited themselves to altering the

Latin terms, adapting them to G r e e k inflection (dScmxdkiv) o r else
glossing them; while other times, they translated o r c a l q u e d
them.
H o w e v e r , m a n y w o r d s from the legal language w e r e carried into the

p o p u l a r language; for instance, Tioaasoicov, dKK7txiA,ocxicov 'receipt',
xeaxa(uevxov, eêpeSaxeutoJ EurxyKiTtaxeuco ^mydxcop, Tioiva, uoSepdxcop
KT|V0\)CO, etc.
Now,
the creation o f G r e e k terms from Latin was important in
the p o p u l a r language from the start o f the Byzantine period: it was

the
continuation
o f the p r o c e s s w h i c h w e h a v e
studied for
the
R e p u b l i c a n and Imperial R o m a n periods. G i v e n the rather limited

influence o f Latin literature in Byzantium, it was the p o p u l a r lan
guage that exerted the most influence and not the elevated language
(with the e x c e p t i o n , as w e k n o w , o f the legal a n d
administrative
vocabulary). T h i s p o p u l a r language created w o r d s w h i c h in
many
cases were reexported to the West: occasionally, they display specific

p h o n e t i c o r m o r p h o l o g i c a l alterations; indeed, there are even m i x e d
'monsters'
357.
(anXonaXXxov).
Let us quickly review the principal elements o f this vocabulary:

Imperial
court, titles, functionaries,
professions: Kccioocp, [idyiaxpoq,
TtaxpiKioc;, oqwadAaoq, K-ueaxcop, npaxnoaixoq;
xa(3oi)X,dpioq, A,nyd-
xoq, peaxi07cpdxr|(; 'silk trader', juaiceXXdpux;, etc.

Military: see in particular H . M i h a e s c u 1993, w h o examines the
G r e e k terms o f Latin origin relating to uniform and
equipment
(KaTuroc, KaXiyco, xevxcc), transport (Ka$aXXxKzx>(o, oiXfax), w e a p o n r y

(dpudxoc;, dpKdxoq, ocxyixxoc, onaQa),
organisation
(opStvocxicov,
cruexpavoq, KCDVCOV, E^TCESTXOI), v i g i l a n c e (e^TiXopdxcop), ranks

(rcpiuoc;, KopviKoi)Xdpio<;), insignia (fi^xXXov,
egy
<p?iaô\)A,tov), strat
(KipKeiieiv, Kcmpadxcop), rewards a n d punishment (d8copea,
Snaepxcop), signals (POUKIVOV,rcpaiKcov),settiements a n d fortifications

(Kdaxpa, dyeaxa), means o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n (oxpaxoc), etc.
Daily life: Kojn|jipKiov, vot>|jno<;, ouyida, KaXdvSai, t o w toe;; U^JIPpavdpioq, PpaKapioq, Pavidxcop, xaPeAAicov, ooxidpioq; OGTUXIOV,
oeXXa, (poopva^, aKpCviov, paKôv, juaKeX^dpiov; Kajiuoiov, aayiov,
ppaKiov.
The world of the circus: the h i p p o d r o m e played a fundamental
in Byzantine life a n d h a d its o w n vocabulary, nearly
role
always
taken f r o m the Latin. Cf., for e x a m p l e , the seats o f places

reserved for the emperor and magistrates (oevôv < sessus, oeXXiov,
252
CHAPTER TWO
xevxa); carts, flags, c r o w d s (pfJYtx,
TIOCVIV
'team insignia , pn^dpiv
'flag to signal the start , (potKxicov, opva 'urn for drawing lots ,
5
ocopvydpiv 'tunic o f the auriga\ XovnepKaX 'end o f the year race ,

5
(pcxKTiovdpioc; 'president o f a circus team , juaîXXdpioq 'he w h o

5
puts the cushions o n the seats ).

358. W e c o u l d easily g o o n . Clearly, part o f this vocabulary was
lost, along with the institutions it served; but another part survived
into M o d e r n Greek. O n the other hand, f o r m and meaning in this
v o c a b u l a r y are at times Latin, while other times there is derivation
(particularly with -axoc;) o r semantic change. In addition to the pre
vious examples, w e c a n point to others such as xpovXXa
(from Lat. trulla 'serving s p o o n ' ) , aK&Xa
'cupula'
'port' (Lat. 'stair'),
ii&Xoq
(from Lat. moles), KccXccudpiov 'inkpot' (from Lat. calamarium 'writing

reeds case'), etc.
It should also b e noted that derivation can b e from the A c (dovKaq
from A c Sowcx, in turn, from Lat, ducem); in the first two declen
sions w e c a n n o t see whether they originate in the N . o r the A c
Also, modifications in f o r m can b e m o r e p r o f o u n d than the
mere
addition o f a suffix: sometimes the n e w w o r d b e c o m e s semi-Greek,

like KEViapxoq (for centenarius), diaeKxoq
(for bisextus). T h e original Latin
can also turn out to b e hypothetical; for instance, KocA,a<pdxr|<; must

c o m e f r o m a *calefa(c)tor, but this remains a hypothesis. Sometimes,
the original Latin c o m e s f r o m the spoken Latin o f the
as for instance mxt,i\ievxov
Balkans,
(impedimentum), with fricativisation.
Cf.
H . M i h a e s c u 1993, p . 3 5 4 .
Borrowings from Gothic and eastern languages
3 5 9 . Let us n o w l o o k at the m u c h rarer b o r r o w i n g s f r o m
other
languages.
F o r instance, b o r r o w i n g s f r o m Pahlavi, the Persian language o f
the Sasanian p e r i o d , given that the contact between the two p e o
ples was, as w e k n o w , intense (mostly o f a bellicose nature but also
cultural). T h e Byzantines s u c c e e d e d the R o m a n s as defendors o f the
Euphrates frontier, suffering terrible invasions in Syria and Palestine,
and achieving great victories under the e m p e r o r Heraclius, o n the
eve o f the A r a b expansion. This conflict weakened b o t h peoples and
left t h e m defenseless before the n e w c o n q u e r o r s . But there was also
an important cultural e x c h a n g e , as reflected in the G r e e k influence
o n Sasanian art and the spread o f M a n i c h e a n i s m to b o t h sides o f
253
the border. G r e e k literature m e r g e d with the Pahlavi literatures o f

the Persians, w h i c h had b e e n previously influenced b y the Greeks: the
Sasanian court h a d w e l c o m e d G r e e k philosophers w h o had
emi
grated w h e n Justinian closed the A c a d e m y o f Athens (529), such as

Simplicius, as w e noted previously; and G r e e k elements entered into
Pahlavi versions o f the ânchatantra,
such as that w h i c h ,
through
A r a b i c , served as the base for the Castilian Calila and Dimna. I have
dealt with this elsewhere (cf. for example, A d r a d o s 1983b).
Consequently, w e find G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in Pahlavi and Pahlavi
b o r r o w i n g s in Greek, A m o n g these, w e can cite *tv8aviKov (mid.
Lat. andanicum 'a type o f steel'), from kindawdni 'Indian'; %iPidpiov
'caviar', from kapi 'fish' and ya ' e g g ' (?).
360. A s regards the Goths, w e have discussed their conflicts with
the Byzantine empire as well as the Ostrogothic empire o f T h e o d o r i c .
T h e eastern Goths had received Christianity (in its Arrian sect) from the
Greeks and were very Hellenised. It was in the G r e e k East that the
G o t h i c bishop Ulfilas o r Wulfilas created G o t h i c writing based o n
G r e e k and translated the Bible into G o t h i c , as m e n t i o n e d previously.
T h e Gr, rcoDyytov (attested in the sixth century a n d even in the
dialects o f today), from the G o t h , puggs ' b a g ' , was also carried into
Rumanian.
Y e t the m a i n influence was in the opposite direction.
T h e same o c c u r s in the case o f Slavic, w h i c h h a d a very close

belie, but also cultural, relationship
with B y z a n t i u m , as w e have
seen. I will explore this subject w h e n I discuss G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in

Slavic.
3 6 1 . In the case o f A r a b i c , in contrast, lexical b o r r o w i n g s o c c u r r e d
in t w o directions, and, frequendy, those w h i c h G r e e k received from
A r a b i c w e r e later re-exported in various directions. In general,
it
c o u l d b e said that A r a b i c b o r r o w i n g s in Greek result from relations

at the p o p u l a r level from the time o f the A r a b conquests that w e
have referred to; whereas the b o r r o w i n g s w h i c h the A r a b s t o o k from
the G r e e k result from relations at the literary as well as
popular
level. But this subject will not b e dealt with n o w . I will limit myself
here to a few observations o n A r a b i c b o r r o w i n g s in Greek, w h i c h
sometimes later re-exported them, as mentioned.
T h e r e are very concrete examples o f terms from military and polit
ical life, o r relating to plants and animals. F o r instance, w e have
amir, w h i c h b e c a m e G r . djuipcxc; with various derivatives, rizq 'that
w h i c h Providence provides', from w h i c h G r . piîKov (and from this
254
CHAPTER TWO
Sp. riesgo, etc.) was obtained; targaman, from w h i c h Spayojiicxvoq with

m a n y derivatives was obtained; badingan, from w h i c h G r . u ^ i v x ^ d v a
(and from this S p . berenjena, etc.) was obtained; babga, from w h i c h
G r . nanayaq
(Sp. papagayo, etc.) was obtained.

Borrowings from western languages
3 6 2 . Let us n o w turn to the b o r r o w i n g s from western languages,

w h i c h was the p r o d u c t o f a history that is already familiar to us.
T h e r e were relations with Italy early o n , but the oldest relations with
the Byzantine Italy o f Justinian did n o t result in Italian borrowings,
only Latin ones. T h e n , from the eleventh century, V e n i c e , G e n o a ,
Amalfi, a n d other cities established close relations with Byzantium,
w h e r e there were colonies o f their citizens; there was also a V e n e t i a n
d o m i n i o n in Crete and other parts, and Turkish conquests in the
sixteenth a n d seventeenth centuries, to w h i c h I have already referred.
Furthermore, the Franks passed through Byzantium from the e n d
o f the eleventh century onwards as crusaders, c o n q u e r e d the city,
and when they later lost it, remained there as l o r d s ' o f the Peloponnese
and Cyprus. In the fourteenth century it was the turn o f the Catalans
and A r a g o n s . I have referred to the Turkish conquests in the Balkans
in the fourteenth century, the sack o f Constantinople and later the
Byzantine cities.
T h e Italians and French left their mark o n Byzantine literature,
as w e m e n t i o n e d earlier. I n d e e d , they even left a mark o n the lan
guage. G r e e k contained b o r r o w i n g s from the Italian languages, from
Provengal, French, Catalan, etc. but n o longer from Latin.
363. Titles and feudal terminology, in particular, were taken from
French: KaPaTtdpoq 'knight', jxiaip 'lord', poi 'king', yinapovq ' b a r o n ' ,
aipyevxr|<; 'sergeant'; q>ie = Fr. fief mpA,au{x<; 'parliament', Kcropxeaia
'courtesy'; Ko-oyKeaxi^co 'to conquer', etc. Also, military terms (Kouyiceaxa
'conquest', xpe(3a 'truce'); and eccleciastical terms (naaoaxlp
'passage
to the H o l y L a n d ' , cppe 'friar', Tiapxofiv ' p a r d o n ' ) .

In the G r e e k dialect o f Cyprus, m a n y French and Provengal words
have been preserved: PocAXevxiôc 'bravery', Koupowoc ' c r o w n ' , izkaîpxv
'pleasure', yccpevxid^co 'to guarantee', xîjuufoc ' c h i m n e y ' , aoiâ
provision' (asize)
'legal
etc.
364. C o m m e r c i a l and naval terms, in particular, were taken from

Italian. In the oldest p e r i o d , the naval lexicon had b e e n carried over
from the Greeks into Italy; but from the eleventh century onwards
255
(and later, the sixteenth century) the reverse was true; also, suffixes
such as
-exxo, - e o o a , -ivoq
-EXXO,
w e r e carried over. T h e
majority
are Venetian, but w e shall not g o into this n o w .

A m o n g the o l d Italianisms,
from the eleventh century
onwards,
w e c a n cite: in the navy and in war, noboxaq < pedotta, xpaixo-ovxdva

< tramontana, naxoq < pako; in fashion and daily life:
cappuccio, ypxtpq
< gris, Kovxriq < conte, jnepKocxdvxoc;
KOCTWCOVTÎV
<
<
mercatante,
Tâujiouvoc < zampogna.

T h e r e are n u m e r o u s borrowings in the m o r e recent Italian. F o r
example: titles (So-UKeaooc, noozoxaq); public life (oaXfto 'safe-conduct',
vxodvoe 'customs'); c o m m o n terms (ypdx^tcc 'grace', Pe(v)5exxa 'revenge',
dpevxofipa 'adventure'); from religion (nxoq, (pe, cpeaxoc); cultural life,
music, poetry (voPeAxx, fhotax, xpo-oujJexac;, KpovocKa); fashion, profes
sions (pdôv 'satin', pepexxa < berretta, p65a
wheel',
\mpovv^xvoq
' b r o n z e ' ) ; w a r , w e a p o n r y (yo^PepvaSopoq, TiepiKO'uA.ov, cpopxexâ,
Tiavxiepa); etc.
N a v a l terms w e r e particularly
important:
<povxo<; ' d e p t h ' , pevoc
'sand', dpjad8oc, (poika, dvxeva, KooPepxa, Karcexdvoc;, etc.

M a n y o f these w o r d s were carried into M o d e r n Greek.
365. Finally, w e must m e n t i o n the Turkish
w h i c h have survived to the present
borrowings, many o f
,
day. F o r instance, 7ia7io uxaia
'shoes', rcitaxqn 'rice', yiaoupxi 'yoghurt', Kaq>e<; 'coffee', xoi)q>8Ki 'rifle .

5
W e find -oytan) in the patronymics. Turkish influenced w o r d order

in the dialects o f Asia M i n o r .
5.
G R E E K BORROWINGS IN OTHER LANGUAGES
General ideas
366. W e are n o w dealing with a decisive m o m e n t in the history o f
the G r e e k language. O n the o n e hand, it continued to survive, as
such, in Byzantium and from there into m o d e r n G r e e c e , while o n
the other hand, it influenced and implanted itself into all the sur
rounding languages. This process has already b e e n e x a m i n e d for the
Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. In R o m e , specifically, a type o f Latin
w h i c h w e call G r a e c o - L a t i n was created. E n o r m o u s advances fol
l o w e d , so that G r e e k remains a m o n g us until today.
It should b e n o t e d that G r e e k penetrated o u r languages
through
multiple routes. Let us review a few o f the observations w e have

already m a d e :
256
CHAPTER TWO
(a) T h r o u g h Byzantium, whether through contact between indi
viduals and p e o p l e s o r through a cultural and ecclesiastical
route.
(b) T h r o u g h the Latin that was kept alive in the M i d d l e Ages
as the language o f culture, and w h i c h a b s o r b e d G r e e k terms
f r o m classical and especially late Latin.
367. Later o n , classical Latin, w h i c h was progressively discovered

and studied in the age o f H u m a n i s m , b e c a m e the source for extract
ing Hellenisms; in the fifteenth century t o o , they b e g a n to b e directly
extracted f r o m the ancient G r e e k that was b r o u g h t to Italy b y schol
ars fleeing from the Turks.
It is n o t always easy to stick to this classification: Byzantine terms
passed into Latin and the languages that were just starting to b e
written, but sometimes the entry o f these predates Latin d o c u m e n
tation. V e r y often, it is difficult to fix a date o r route o f entry for
these Hellenisms. Y e t , at a certain point, G r e e k roots and formative
elements b e g a n to b e freely used within the m o d e r n languages, o n c e
they h a d b e e n fully i n c o r p o r a t e d into them.
A t any rate, there are t w o fundamental
routes. First, the route o f
medieval G r e e k and Latin (which shall b e l o o k e d at in this chapter),

consisting o f B y z a n t i n e
G r e e k a n d m e d i e v a l , late Latin m o d e l s .
Second, the route consisting o f classical Greek and Latin models (which
shall b e l o o k e d at in the next chapter). Indeed, with the arrival o f
the Renaissance and H u m a n i s m in the W e s t there was a shift o f
perspective in the western p e r c e p t i o n o f G r e e k culture: the old, clas
sical phases o f G r e e k and Latin n o w served as the m o d e l to follow.
It is p a r a d o x i c a l that the learned Byzantines, b y taking refuge in
Italy, w o u l d bring there classical G r e e c e , w h i c h was m u c h
more
appreciated b y the W e s t than c o n t e m p o r a r y G r e e c e . A l o n g time

w o u l d pass before Byzantium and even the E u r o p e a n M i d d l e Ages
w o u l d b e studied a n d
appreciated.
368. Y e t , if w e return to the e n d o f Antiquity and the M i d d l e A g e s ,

Byzantium was the centre o f the w o r l d , the true continuation o f the
R o m a n empire. Its literature, with the exceptions w e shall give, was
barely k n o w n in the W e s t . But its State, C h u r c h , military organisa
tion,
art, a n d industries were imitated b y all.
Indeed, it was a centre o f the w o r l d w h i c h , with Justinian, o c c u

p i e d all the area extending f r o m the D a n u b e to the Euphrates and
the Nile, in addition to N o r t h Africa and a g o o d part o f Italy and

Spain. Its influence did n o t diminish after the loss o f the Byzantine
possessions in Italy (the exarchate o f R a v e n n a in the eighth century,
Sicily in the ninth century, southern Italy in the eleventh century),
Africa, and Spain (in the seventh century). N o r did it diminish after
the successive conflicts with the Slavs and Arabs: only from the thir
teenth century onwards <iid the current b e g i n to c h a n g e and west
ern influence started to increase in Byzantium.
A s the centre o f the w o r l d and the greatest cultural and political
authority, Byzantium -
and with it the G r e e k language -
exerted
the greatest influence o n the surrounding p e o p l e s , whether through

force o r d i p l o m a c y .
W h o were these peoples? T o the north, the G o t h s , and later the
Slavs; to the east and south, together with those already m e n t i o n e d ,
first the Sasanians, then the Arabs, and later the Turks. Byzantium
had a influence o n all o f them. Similarly, in the West, a m o n g the
Latin, G e r m a n i c , and Celtic peoples.
I will e x a m i n e the G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s received b y the various lan
guages o f these p e o p l e s in the first half o f the M i d d l e Ages, until
the thirteenth century: with this, I continue the parallel study w h i c h
I b e g a n for the p e r i o d o f Antiquity. T h e n , I will e x a m i n e the other
area referred to, the influence o f literary G r e e k in E u r o p e , through
the classics, from this same p e r i o d in the thirteenth century.
H o w e v e r , before exploring the linguistic issue and G r e e k influence
o n these different languages, it will b e useful to give an overview o f
the historical-cultural context. In this w a y , w e will e x p l o r e , succes
sively, G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s through Latin; those that entered directly
into the R o m a n c e languages; those that entered the G e r m a n i c lan
guages (through G o t h i c ) ; b o r r o w i n g s t h r o u g h Slavic and
through
A r a b i c (at times, the transmitter o f b o r r o w i n g s into other languages).

F o r each case I will give the historical context.
Borrowings in western languages
369. I will b e g i n with the W e s t . T h e G e r m a n i c e m p e r o r s were pri
marily interested in b e i n g recognised b y the e m p e r o r s o f Byzantium
as e m p e r o r s o f the R o m a n s , from C h a r l e m a g n e to O t t o III. T h e y
sought equality -
as two emperors c r o w n e d b y the P o p e and
the
Patriarch - w h i c h the Byzantines had denied them, even though they

c
did call the e m p e r o r o f the W e s t patricius o r 'king' o f the R o m a n s .

T h e d r e a m o f unity remained alive: C h a r l e m a g n e attempted
to
258
CHAPTER TWO
w e d the w i d o w e m p e r e s s I r e n e ,
O t t o II m a r r i e d
the
princess
T h e o p h a n o , w h o gave birth to the e m p e r o r O t t o III. But this was

an impossible d r e a m to realise, for w h e n the p o w e r o f the p a p a c y
b e c a m e t o o strong, Byzantium's response was the Photian schism.
This led n o t o n l y to a political but also to a religious division.
T h e u n i o n was impossible, and the W e s t knew very little about
Byzantine culture, as the Byzantines in turn knew little about Latin
culture. T h e G r e e k language was even less k n o w n in the West.
But G r e e k still h a d prestige, as attested b y certain residues in the
liturgy (the Kyrie eleison, the trisagiori) and b y the tradition o f bilingual
Bibles that were still b e i n g c o p i e d . G r e e k was better preserved b y the
Irish and English monks w h o were active in the court o f Charlemagne,
and later in France a n d the monasteries o f St. Gall, R e i c h e n a u , and
others. A l s o , b y the G r e e k m o n k s themselves, w h o were present in
the c o u r t o f O t t o I, and were n u m e r o u s in R o m e in the eighth and
ninth centuries, and even m o r e so in southern Italy: first, as refugees
from the A r a b invasions, and later from the iconoclasts, they founded
monasteries and cultivated Greek,
370. Translations, h o w e v e r , were not very numerous. T h e transla
tions, particularly in Italy, o f the lifes o f the saints are from an early
period. Later, Dionysius the Areopagite entered in favour, with trans
lations o f Hilduin (abbot o f St. Denis) and Scotus Erigena in the
eighth and ninth centuries. In the latter century, Anastasius trans
lated hagiographic a n d ecclesiastical literature in R o m e .
S o m e texts w e r e translated in St. G a l l ( H i p p o c r a t e s ,
Galen,
Dositheus). Aristotle and others w o u l d have to wait until the twelfth

century, with the translations b y Aristippus, in Sicily, and Grosseteste,
in England. In the thirteenth century, w e have the translations o f
Guglielmus o f M o e r b e c k e and the T o l e d o school o f translators, w h o
worked from Arabic, as w e know. Also, there was the Greek Grammatica
b y R o g e r B a c o n , translations o f Nicholas o f Otranto,
etc
S o , although R o g e r B a c o n himself referred to the scant knowl

edge o f G r e e k in E u r o p e , and philosophers such as Albertus M a g n u s
and T h o m a s A q u i n a s studied the Greeks through Latin translations,
there is n o d o u b t that the G r e e k language had prestige. This pres
tige was linked to the prestige o f Antiquity and o f Byzantium itself,
with w h i c h there was m u c h contact in the councils and
numerous
embassies f r o m the time o f C h a r l e m a g n e .

W e should also note that the influence o f Byzantine art was enor-
BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 2 5 9

m o u s in E u r o p e : in architecture,
painting, textile, ivories. F r o m at
least the ninth century onwards, it served as a vehicle, n o t only for

G r e e k literature, but also for Eastern art w h i c h was i n t r o d u c e d into
E u r o p e through this route.
I have studied this subject in detail in c o n n e c t i o n with the fable,
in A d r a d o s 1984a. There' is a G r e e k fable tradition, for instance, in
one manuscript o f St. Gall from the ninth century: the same monastery
in w h i c h , a r o u n d that p e r i o d , G r e e k authors were b e i n g translated.
3 7 1 . In fact, as w e shall see, there are m a n y G r e e k lexical b o r r o w
ings dating from the medieval p e r i o d . T h e y m a y sometimes turn out
to b e Latinisations o f G r e e k w o r d s that penetrated the n e w R o m a n c e
and G e r m a n i c languages, but mostly the opposite seems true. T h e r e
w e r e various routes o f entry: through cultural o r personal contact in
the West, o r other routes through Byzantine Italy and the A r a b s .
A t any rate, Latin was the language o f culture a n d religion in the
West: from here, the lexicon o f G r e e k origin, together with the resid
ual Latin lexicon, penetrated into the n e w languages o f E u r o p e .
372. For the historical relations between Byzantium and the West, in addi
tion to the historical works already cited, see W . Berschin 1970 and S. A.
Tovar 1990. For Byzantium as the transmitter of the fable tradition to the
West, see Adrados 1984e. For borrowings in western languages, H. and R.
Kahane 1970 ff., p. 349 ff., F. Brunot 1966, I, p . 121 ff., M . Gortelazzo
1970, A. Ewert s. a., p. 288 f., W . Stammler (ed.), 1957, p. 733 ff., K. M .
Pope 1973, p . 30 ff., H . Liidtke 1974, p . 160 ff., A . de la Cruz and
A. Caflete 1992, p . 109 ff.; and, for Spain, M . Fernandez-Galiano 1966
and J. Berguz 2002.
3 7 3 . W e shall n o w l o o k at the influence o f Byzantine G r e e k o n the
western
languages.
H o w e v e r , it is very difficult to dissociate this
influence from that o f the older b o r r o w i n g s : for e x a m p l e , if auvoSoq

'meeting o f the b i s h o p s ' is attested from the fourth
difficult to d e c i d e w h e t h e r
different
western
century, it is
Lat. synodus and its derivatives in
languages
is f r o m the
same
date o r f r o m
the
the
Byzantine period (the same applies for Kocujtf|, xapxapotixoc;, 7U(pav[e]ia,

Powupov, etc.). Just as it is difficult, as w e m e n t i o n e d previously, to
establish whether
there was an intermediate Latin in G r e e k b o r
rowings, o r a direct link from Byzantine G r e e k to the m o d e r n lan

guages, through o n e o f these.
T h e r e is also the question o f whether
the b o r r o w i n g is i n d e e d
p o p u l a r o r literary, a n d not strictly Byzantine: sometimes it is the
260
two,
CHAPTER TWO
from monasterium w e obtain p o p u l a r as well as elevated deriva
tives (Sp. monasterio) in the western languages, and similarly with ecclesia, etc. Sometimes, from a single w o r d w e obtain a derivative through
the Byzantine route and another through the n o r m a l Latin route:
from djroGriicri w e obtain Sp. botica (with Byzantine iotacism) and
bodega (without it).
It w o u l d seem m o r e appropriate here to p r o v i d e actual Byzantine
terms w h i c h infiltrated the W e s t through Latin transcriptions (keep
ing in m i n d the d o u b t expressed in 371).
T h u s , I will p r o v i d e a summary o f actual Byzantine w o r d s (by
date o f a p p e a r a n c e o r b y semantics) w h i c h infiltrated
the western
languages. T h e y will b e classified b y date o f appearance in Byzantium:

the date o f the Latin f o r m m a y b e c o n t e m p o r a r y to o r posterior to
this date (even anterior to o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f the Greek). C h r o n o
logical groups will b e established, and I will indicate whether
the
Latin term and, very briefly, the western forms are o f interest. But
we will o n l y b e dealing with a few examples.
374.
In the following, I will indicate the date o f the w o r d ' s o r the
meaning's first a p p e a r a n c e in Byzantium:

Fifth-sixth centuries:
Xov
KavoviKoq,
judvSpoc 'cloister', 'cell';
'first leaf o f a roll o f papyrus', Xuaveia
'litany', *Tpiadyiov 'tris-
agion', 8KTIK6(; 'consumptive fever', Kapa|3o<; 'rapid b o a t ' ,

'receipt',
rai8iov
TCPCOTOKOX-
anodeifyq
' v o y a g e ' . T h e Latin transcriptions are attested in
general, although in s o m e cases they have to b e reconstructed. A s

regards the derivatives in the Western languages, w e n e e d only refer
to,
for e x a m p l e , in S p . tetania, trisagio, hetico, carabela; in other lan
guages, for e x a m p l e , O F r . etique, Port, karavo, Ital. polizza (from w h i c h

we
obtain S p . poliza), Ital. tasseggio.

Seventh-eighth centuries: eiKoov ' i m a g e ' ( M L a t . icona, eighth cen
tury), dpxoq ' c o n s e c r a t e d b r e a d ' ( M L a t . artona, seventh century),

KataSynpoc; ' m o n k ' ( M L a t . calogerus), JLIO-OGTCXKIOV, TraAAnKapiov 'young
m a n ' . See derivatives such as: S p . canonigo, Cat, calonge, Ital. (dialects)
ancona, icona, cona> V e n e t . mostacci, S p . mostacho.
Ninth-tenth centuries: vaoq
'temple', pumo<; 'pilgrim', cujaxpoovia
'musical instrument', rcepyajurjvri 'parchment', pdjipoci; ' c o t t o n ' , Xzlvio^

'snail', duipaq ( M L a t . amiras) 'admiral', p-o^dvTi(ov) 'a Byzantine c o i n ' ,
jnocicdpi 'perhaps', EapaKr|v6<; 'muslim' (before, ' A r a b ' ) , yaXza
'small
battle-ship', Kovxotipoc 'ship with a short tail', %copa 'region' ( M L a t .

hora), GKXafioq. T h e r e are derivatives, generally through Latin, such as
261
Sp. nave, Fr. nef, S p . romero, zampona, parche, besante, maguer, sarraceno,
galera, eslavo; M F r . amirail, O l t a l . saracino, V e n e t . gondola.
Eleventh-twelfth centuries: 7iapd5eiao<; 'paradise', %apiGXtoc 'scarcity',
pi. dpyaXeiov (Lat. argalia) 'catheter', *(3povxiov ' b r o n z e ' ,
'cadastre',
8(JLLIXOV
'a tissue',
^dutxov
KoexdGXixov
'another type o f tissue', *d|3poxd-
pi%ov (Lat. butaricum) 'salted fish', OKaXa 'port'. T h e r e are derivatives

such as Ital. paradiso, S p . paraiso, carestia, bronce, Ital. algalia, Fr. algalie,
V e n e t . catastico (Sp. catastro), Ital. (dialects) buter, boder (Eng. butter), S p .
botarga, and escala.
Thirteenth-fourteenth centuries: *7ip6%iov 'pitcher' ( M L a t . broccus),
*7iXf|xpia 'funnel',
|xaKapcbvia 'funeral
s o n g ' f r o m 'funeral
food'.
F r o m here, forms through Latin such as Ital. (dialects) brocca, O P r o v .

broc> Ital. (dialects) pledria, plera, plero, Ital. maccheroni, S p . macarrones,
Ital. arcipelago, Fr. archipel, S p . archipielago. S o m e w o r d s passed directly
into French during the Crusades, such as boutique, chaland, dromond.
375. A few observations should b e a d d e d to the a b o v e :
1. Byzantine phonetics appears frequently: Sp. botica, pergamino,
Himosina (pressupposed for Opisan. mozina, etc.), Ital. bisante,
icona, Sp. sdndalo, etc.
2. Sometimes, w e find the A c . (Ital. duca, limaca) o r a change
in n u m b e r (Ital. algalia, S p . botarga) o r declension ( o f the type
despotus) o r an adaptation with a particular suffix (Ital. fanale
from (potvdpiov) o r a verbal unification {*galamateus, S p . gali
matias, f r o m
Kocxd
MaxGaiov) o r a semantic c h a n g e (such as
that o f archipielago).
3. T h e r e are contaminations: ^petroleum f r o m 7txp?iaiov o n the
Lat. oleum, trepalium from xpucdaGCcôv 'instrument o f torture',
o n the Lat. palus.
4. T h e r e are semantic caiques: f r o m anoKpeoyq w e obtain M L a t .
carnelevare, from w h i c h w e obtain S p . carnaval.
5. Latin Hellenisms, as Latinisms in general, passed n o t only
to the R o m a n c e languages, but also the G e r m a n i c and other
languages ( O H G . pergamin, M H G . tievel < diabolus, etc., and
w o r d s o f diverse origins, cf. al. Kirsche < cerasus, Pfirsich < persicus, Quitte < cydoneus, ^wetschge < damascenus). In other lan
guages t o o , for example, Basque and Albanian, cf. H . Liidtke
1974, p p . 181 ff., 186 ff.
6. Occasionally, w e can follow the route b y w h i c h words derived
from the G r e e k penetrated from o n e language to another.
262
CHAPTER TWO
F o r e x a m p l e , in Spanish w e have influences o f French H e l
lenisms, as in cisne, cofre, monje, golpe, tapiz, ants; from Italian,
calma, chusma, gruta (but these are p r o b a b l y w o r d s that c a m e
f r o m B y z a n t i u m through other Italian languages, without
Latin as an intermediate language - w e shall discuss these
later). In English there is a series o f Hellenisms w h i c h have
entered through French: abbey, baptism, blasphemy, chair, charity,
clergy, govern, homily, parish, parliament
In G e r m a n , in parallel, Hellenisms entered through French, as for

instance, O H G . Prestar < O F r . prestre < Lat. presbyter < Gr. 7ipeo|3i)Tpo<;;
other times, there are semantic caiques ( O H G . salmsang 'psalter').
376. Let us n o w l o o k at the Hellenisms w h i c h entered through a
p o p u l a r route, through the Byzantine d o m i n i o n s in Italy. A l t h o u g h ,
as I have said, it is n o t always easy to make a distinction. A s before,
I will p r o v i d e a brief historical introduction.
Byzantine influence was particularly important in R a v e n n a , V e n i c e
and G e n o a , as well as in southern Italy, Amalfi, Naples, Sicily, and
even R o m e . F r o m these centres, a series o f Byzantine w o r d s were
diffused throughout the western
Mediterranean.
R a v e n n a was, as w e k n o w , the capital o f the Byzantine exarchate

o f Italy, from the mid-sixth century to the mid-eighth century. It
possessed G e n o a until the mid-seventh century; and also V e n i c e ,
w h i c h after the fall o f the exarchate b e c a m e a d u k e d o m with a loose
dependence o n Byzantium in the ninth century, b e c o m i n g independent
and even a rival in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Subsequendy,
f r o m the thirteenth c e n t u r y o n w a r d s , V e n i c e h a d settlements
in
Constantinople, as well as G e n o a , and even possessions in the islands

m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . Until a b o u t the year
1000, Dalmatia was also
under Byzantine rule and there was an analogous e x c h a n g e between

the t w o .
In short, a close relationship existed, as reflected in the introduction
o f Italianisms in Byzantium (as w e have seen) and in the acceptance
o f G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y , w h i c h was later diffused into other languages,
in V e n i c e , G e n o a and other regions. T h e Hellenisms o f R a v e n n a
are almost invaribly related to daily life, industry, and clothing; those
o f V e n i c e , to trade a n d navigation, the C h u r c h , technology, banking
and fashion. Similarly with those o f Dalmatia, w h i c h diffused these
Byzantisms in the Slavic w o r l d .
Southern Italy was c o n q u e r e d b y Justinian and from the seventh

century onwards received m a n y immigrants w h o w e r e fleeing from
Islam; in the eighth century, immigrants fleeing f r o m the Iconoclasts,
and in the ninth century, m a n y m o r e from Sicily, w h i c h was lost to
the Muslims, previously having b e e n c o n q u e r e d b y Justinian.
M a n y G r e e k convents were f o u n d e d in southern Italy and also in
R o m e . G r e e k culture flourished in these convents (and later even in
Sicily, u n d e r the N o r m a n s ) , as discussed in 369 f.
T h u s , Italy was a centre o f diffusion for the G r e e k l e x i c o n , not
just o f the l e x i c o n w h i c h entered through a cultural route, but also
o f that w h i c h entered b y means o f trade, and personal and political
relations. Let us l o o k at s o m e examples.
377.
T o illustrate, I will provide examples o f s o m e Byzantisms w h i c h
penetrated the Italian dialects and sometimes, f r o m here, other West

ern languages b y means o f trade and other means, in the Middle Ages.
F r o m the R a v e n n a exarchate, f r o m the ninth century: in various
dialects, delta 'rim o f a triangular well
church
< SeA/rcc, ardica 'hall o f the
< ocpQrjKoc, butinus ' h o l e ' < P60DVO<;, buter 'butter' < Poi>xi)pov,
angaria ' c u c u m b e r ' < dyyoupxov, bronzo ' b r o n z e ' < *ppovxiov, deuma
' m o d e l ' < 8eiy|ia.
F r o m G e n o a : cintraco, centrego 'inferior functionary'
< Kevxocpxoq.
F r o m V e n i c e : dromo 'fence' < 8p6uo<;, liago ' b a l c o n y ' < fjAactKoc;,

prostimo 'fine' < rcpooxijiov, messeta 'broker, currency e x c h a n g e agent'
< jieaixriq, agio 'charter' < dycoyiov, staria 'firm land' < axe pea, stradioto
'soldier' < oxpaxubxnc;, gripo 'small ship' < ypiTioq, gondola < Kovxcmpoc.
F r o m Dalmatia: inchona < eiKova, condura < Kovxo-upa.
F r o m southern Italy and Sicily: ana < d v d 'in equal parts', parabisu < *7capdpeiao<; < 7capd8eiao<;, romeus 'pilgrim' < pcojjxxioc;, malanzana 'aubergine' < u^Xivx^dva.
It is frequent for the same w o r d to appear, with variants, in the
different Italian d o m i n i o n s ; and Latin forms o f m a n y o f them
are
found, whether created from the dialectal forms o r as intermediate

forms: it is often difficult to tell, but the literary route is favoured
in cases such as Sp. paraiso, Cat. paradis, whereas the Italianism is
evident in other cases.
O n the other h a n d , m a n y o f these w o r d s h a d a w i d e diffusion
outside Italy, as stated earlier: they were i m p o r t e d through the Italian
forms, w h e n n o t directly through Latin. F o r instance, Sp. anchoa (Gr.
d<p{>r|), brujula (nvfyq), calma (Kccfijxa), grata (xpvnxr\), poliza (drcoSei^K;).
In o l d French, w e c a n cite examples o f Italianisms o f G r e e k origin
264
CHAPTER TWO
(sometimes through Provengal), such as bourse, Fr. chiere ( < mpce, cf.
Sard., Prov., Cat., S p . , Port., card), falot
(cpdpcx;), golfe, calme, casse
(Koc\|/a), medaille (jieraAAov), moustache, magasin, page (< pagio < 7iai8{ov),
risque, etc.; others infiltrated
through
an intermediate
A r a b i c (for
instance, carat, G r . Kepcmov) or, usually, from Latin (with a classical

p r o n o u n c i a t i o n , as in chemeil ' c a m e l ' o r Byzantine, as in tapis).
T o cite a w o r d o f general extension: the w o r d for 'admiral', from
the G r . djuipaq (in turn, from the Arabic) w h i c h , contaminated with
the Latin ad-, has extended to all the languages from N o r m a n Sicily
through G e n o a .
378. Let us n o w turn to the eastern Byzantine contacts. W e have
discussed the relation b e t w e e e n Byzantium and the G o t h s , Slavs and
A r a b s . In all these cases, the G r e e k l e x i c o n found an o p e n i n g in the
respective languages.
W e have l o o k e d at G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in G o t h i c . T h e G o t h s were
a G e r m a n i c p e o p l e w h o h a d direct contact with Byzantium, as w e
k n o w ; but this was mainly the b r a n c h o f the Ostrogoths, w h o dis
appeared
f r o m history in the sixth c e n t u r y .
Christianisation
and alphabetisation,
Nevertheless,
their
together with their translation
o f the Bible into their language, placed them above the other Germanic
peoples to w h o m they transmitted s o m e Hellenisms c o m p l e m e n t i n g
those w h i c h entered through
Latin.
F o r e x a m p l e , w e find icoptaKov 'house o f the lord', w h i c h was the

n a m e for c h u r c h in various G e r m a n i c languages (Ger. Kirche, Eng.
church with the Scottish variant kirk); nanaq, nanaq (Goth, papa, O H G .
pfqffb, G e r . Pfqffe); 7tevTr|KOGTf| (Ger. Pfingsten); "Apeox; fjuipa (Aust. and
Bav. Ertag); %i\m%r[ (Aust. and Bav. IJinztag); adppcxTOv ( G o t h . *sambat,
G e r . Samstag).
O t h e r Hellenisms, through ecclesiastical Latin, penetrated in ancient
times into the G e r m a n i c languages: for instance, A N o r d . tollr, O H G .
tol, f r o m V u l g . Lat. toloneum (Gr. xetaoveTov), O H G . Biscqf ' b i s h o p ' ,
Miinster
'monastery'.
Borrowings in Slavic
379. W e still n e e d to l o o k at G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in O l d
Bulgarian
(and the other Slavic languages) a n d in A r a b i c . T h r o u g h the
first
route, Hellenisms penetrated all the Slavic world, and through
the
s e c o n d route, they increased their presence in the western w o r l d . A s

before, I will start b y giving a brief historical introduction.
265
380. For the relations between the Greeks and other Indo-European peoples
in general, see the book by F. Villar 1996a. For Gothic, see W . Streitberg
1919, M . H. JeUinek 1926, pp. 19 ff. and 186 ff., W . P. Lehmann 1986
(see Greek borrowings on p . 537 ff.). For Slavic, see F. Dvornik 1956 and
Adrados 1987.
For the relations between the Arabs o f the Caliphate o f Baghdad
and Byzantium, as well as for translations from Greek, see J. Vernet 1978
and my book Adrados 2001, p. 21 ff. For the Greek lexicon which entered
Spanish through Arabic, cf. R . Lapesa 1980 (8th ed.), p . 131 ff. and
M . Fernandez-Galiano 1966, p 57 f. For its entry into French, see Ewert
s. a., p. 296.
3 8 1 . W e are familiar with the m a i n episodes o f the meeting between
Byzantium and the Bulgarians and with the relations between them.
Let us n o w focus o n the language.
T h e Slavic language was not written: instead, the Slavs used G r e e k
in their inscriptions, starting with the great inscription o f the khan
K r u m in M a d a r a . In Greek, the khan was called ap%oov o r fiamXzxx;.
After the foundation o f the Bulgarian state b y khan K u b r a t
in
6 8 1 , the conversion to Christianity, o n c e again, initiated the process

o f alphabetisation and increased G r e e k cultural influence. T h i s was
undertaken b y K i n g Boris (852~89), after a c o m p l e x history in w h i c h
the G e r m a n i c empire, R o m e and Byzantium disputed religious and
political d o m i n i o n over the Slavs, leaving the latter s o m e r o o m to
m a n o e u v r e : in the end, the pressure exerted b y the e m p i r e and the
p a p a c y forced Boris to seek protection with Byzantium.
T h e influence o f Byzantium was great, as reflected in the c o n
struction o f palaces (in Preslav and Pliska) a n d in close relations o f
all kinds: K i n g S i m e o n , for e x a m p l e , studied in Constantinople. T h i s
relationship was n o t interrupted with the destruction o f the Bulgarian
k i n g d o m b y the Byzantines (1018), w h o o c c u p i e d the country, o r
with the creation o f the s e c o n d Bulgarian k i n g d o m (11851396).
F r o m our perspective, the most interesting thing was the creation
o f Slavic writing, based o n the Greek, b y the m o n k s o r missionaries
Cyril and M e t h o d i u s - t w o G r e e k brothers f r o m Salonika w h o were
very familiar with Slavic at a time w h e n the Slavic tribes were sur
r o u n d i n g the city.
A s I stated earlier, the history is rather c o m p l e x . T h e r e was a
p o w e r struggle b e t w e e n the Byzantine a n d G e r m a n i c empires
w h i c h was reflected in these missionaries b e i n g sent to B o h e m i a

and M o r a v i a - with the p o p e s o f R o m e playing an often adverse,
often a m b i g u o u s role with regard to petitions for the creation o f an
266
CHAPTER TWO
autocephalous Bulgarian C h u r c h with a Slavic liturgy. T h e
Photian
schism ( c o n c l u d e d in 863) favored this idea, although in the
end,
B o h e m i a and M o r a v i a (where Cyril and Methodius had first preached)

were left under the sphere o f influence o f the R o m a n o - G e r m a n i c
empire.
T h e fact is, the Slavic alphabet had b e e n invented for this evan
gelisation, and it was implanted,
f r o m the year 8 8 5 , in
Bulgaria,
when Boris accepted Methodius's disciples, w h o had fled from Moravia.

In 9 2 5 , S i m e o n m a n a g e d to establish a patriarchy in Bulgaria: this
was the G o l d e n A g e o f Bulgaria. Later, the Slavic liturgy spread to
Pannonia, Croatia and
Dalmatia.
3 8 2 . It is significant that an important s c h o o l o f Bulgarian literature

was f o r m e d at this point, with C l e m e n t o f O c h r i d and others: from
here, Slavic literature spread to the Ukraine and other Slavic c o u n
tries. In the principality o f K i e v , K i n g V l a d i m i r ( 9 7 8 - 1 0 1 5 ) took the
initiative to convert. It should b e p o i n t e d out that in Bulgaria, as in
the Ukraine, the translation o f sacred and profane Greek texts formed
the c o r e o f the n e w literature: liturgical writings, J o h n C h r y s o s t o m ,
J o h n D a m a s c e n e , Malalas, C o s m a s Indicopleustes, the Physiologies, etc.
T h e r e was an undeniable continuation o f Byzantine literature, o r lit
erature a d o p t e d b y the Byzantines.
Indeed, there w e r e t w o forms o f script, Glagolitic and Cyrillic,
derived respectively f r o m the G r e e k alphabet in minuscule and in
uncial. T h e latter i m p o s e d itself and continues to serve the Slavic
languages, e x c e p t for those that fell under western influence.
T h e r e w e r e lexical b o r r o w i n g s from the start: in names o f persons,
in t o p o n y m i e s , and in w o r d s like pinix < (poTvt, ankjura < dyicopa,
dijavol < SidpoXoq, myro < jxtipov, e t c , all f o u n d in the translation o f
the Gospels; and, o f course, the creation o f a syntax and prose based
o n the G r e e k m o d e l .
N o w , w e are not just dealing with O l d Bulgarian o r eccleciastical Slavic. T h r o u g h o u t the first p e r i o d o f the M i d d l e Ages, Greek
w o r d s f r o m the Byzantine territories entered into the different Slavic
languages (sometimes through Latin, see H . Mihaescu 1993, p . 430 f f ) .
F o r e x a m p l e , from G r . eiicova w e obtain O S e r b . icona; from pdaov
5
'coarse w o o l e n cloth , O S e r b . rasa; from naxoq 'floor' w e obtain Serb.C r o a t , patos; f r o m 5idicovo<;, iakan;
f r o m Kepocaoc; 'cherry',
OSlav.
cersa, Bulg. cresa. T h e s e w o r d s were often also carried into R u m a n i a n

and Albanian.

In short, if G r e e k influence in the W e s t was exerted,
fundamen
tally, through Latin, in the East it was exerted through Slavic.

Borrowings in Arabic
3 8 3 . It should b e p o i n t e d out that the A r a b s , emerging from the
desert
as c o n q u e r o r s o f Syria, Palestine,
E g y p t , Persia,
western
India, North Africa and Spain, were enormously influenced b y G r e c o Byzantine culture, as well as Persian a n d R o m a n culture, in art and
architecture (including o f a military type), literature, p h i l o s o p h y and
science. I n d e e d , from a certain perspective, the A r a b conquest c o n
stituted a re-Hellenisation: part o f the G r e e k legacy was introduced
in the M i d d l e A g e s through the A r a b s , the other part being intro
d u c e d through
Rome.
T h e y were not the only route, but the translations from G r e e k

(and from Sanskrit, Pahlavi, C o p t i c , and Syriac) into A r a b i c during
the A b b a s i d dynasty in B a g h d a d , w e r e o f fundamental
importance.
A w h o l e school o f Syriac translators w o r k e d in Edessa o n the trans

lation o f G r e e k (and Pahlavi) texts into Syriac and A r a b i c , and o f
A r a b i c texts (often o f Pahlavi and r e m o t e Sanskrit origin) into Greek;
this activity was later continued in B a g h d a d with H u n a y n I b n Ishak,
towards 8 5 0 .
T h e Arabs w e r e m o r e interested in p h i l o s o p h y a n d the sciences
than in poetry. M o s t o f their literature and thought reflected this:
from the philosophers influenced b y Aristotle o r the Platonists
Gnostics, to the physicians, botanists, astrologists,
and
mathematicians,
and others. Subsequentiy, part o f this literature was translated into

Latin in the thirteenth century in T o l e d o : the t w o routes o f trans
mission o f G r e e k culture c a m e together. But there were older trans
lations in Italy, such as those o f H i p p o c r a t e s a n d G a l e n b y a m o n k ,
Constantine o f M o n t e Cassino.
384. Personally, I feel that A r a b i c p o e t r y o w e s m u c h to erotic G r e e k
poetry, especially in its p o p u l a r versions f r o m Alexandria and Syria,
with w h i c h w e are s o m e w h a t familiar, a n d to the ideas o f the Epi
cureans, C y n i c s , and Sceptics, reflected in authors such as
Omar
K h a y y a m , Hafiz, B e n C u z m a n and m a n y A n d a l u c i a n poets.

O f course, n o t only the Arabs but also the Jews w e r e influenced
b y the Greeks: for example, Moses o f L e o n , influenced b y the Gnostics,
and S e m T o b , b y the sapiential tradition. W e have already discussed
the introduction o f the G r e e k lexicon into R a b b i n i c literature.
268
CHAPTER TWO
385.
R e t u r n i n g to the Arabs, w e k n o w a b o u t their cultural under
taking in great detail: h o w the Caliphs al-Mansur and al-Ma^mum

obtained G r e e k manuscripts through their conquests o r embassies to
Byzantium, o r as ransom: so that, at the e n d o f al-Mansur's life, w e
find A r a b i c translations o f Plato, Aristotie, Hippocrates, Galen, Euclid,
and later o f Vettius V a l e n s , D i o s c o r i d e s , etc. O r , indeed, h o w a
manuscript o f D i o s c o r i d e s was sent b y R o m a n u s to A b d e r r a m a n III,
and n o b o d y in C o r d o b a c o u l d understand it so the Byzantine e m p e r o r
h a d to send a translator, etc.
As always, the influence o f the G r e e k language reached the Arabs
through a t w o - w a y route: through the spoken language (in the East,
in Sicily, Africa, a n d Spain), w h i c h p r o v i d e d terms relating to the
realities o f the Mediterranean
w o r l d and Byzantine life and prac
tices; and through the literature, w h i c h was translated and
imitated
and w h i c h i n t r o d u c e d the A r a b s to the intellectual w o r l d o f the

Greeks.
386.
H e r e are s o m e examples o f A r a b i c terms derived from Greek,
w h i c h later penetrated the western languages. I will cite examples

w h i c h give a Spanish derivative: KouaapeTov > qaisariya (Sp. alcaiceria);
%apxr\q > qaritas (Sp. carta); xeXeoiia > tilasm (Sp. talisman); oiyxXXaioc,
(from Lat. sigillatus) > siqirldt > Sp. escarlata; iiaXXmi]
Sp.
> malluta >
marlota; 7ieptp6A,ouov > M o z a r . fir(i)wil > S p . ferreruelo.
A l s o , here follows a list o f Spanish w o r d s d e r i v e d f r o m A r a b

w o r d s o f G r e e k origin, taken from the Historia de la Lengua Espanola
by D . Rafael Lapesa 1980:
A m o n g the plants, fruits, fish, etc.: acelga (oiKeXoq),
adelfa (8d<pvr|),
albaricoque (PepiKOKKov), alberchigo (rcepaiKov), alcaparra (KdrcrcapK;), alfostigo

(TciaxdcKri), almdciga (u.acru%r|), altramuz
(Gupjucx;), arroz (opuâ), atitn
(Qvvvoq), cazuz 'ivy (KIGCO<;), jibia (anTcia), zumo (a)ji6<;). Scientific and
5
technical terms: alambique (du.pi4), albeitar (iKKiaipoq), adarme (8pa%ur|),

alquimia (xDjueioc). F r o m daily life and luxury: abalorio (prjpi)A,A,o<;), ebano
(ePevoq), fondac fonda,
y
alhondiga (7cav8o%etov), guitarra (KiOdpa), quilate
(Kepdtiov).
To
s h o w that this is n o t just a Spanish p h e n o m e n o n (although it
was certainly widespread here), I will give examples o f French w o r d s

derived f r o m A r a b w o r d s taken from the Greek: alchimie, amalgame,
alcooly alambicy ambre, coton, elixir, gazelle, harem, jupe, nadir. S o m e o f these
w o r d s penetrated into other languages: Spanish (algalife, papegai, abrico,
pasteque), Portuguese (epinard); Italian (arsenal, chiffre, girafe).
CHAPTER THREE
G R E E K IN T H E E U R O P E A N L A N G U A G E S
t
1. T H E PENETRATION OF GREEK-LATIN IN THE
EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Generalities
3 8 7 . G r e e k d i d n o t e n d with G r e e k o r R o m a n Antiquity o r with the
Byzantine M i d d l e A g e s . Its agitated life always the same, yet always
different - c o n t i n u e d until the present d a y with M o d e r n Greek.
Y e t , w e have seen h o w in Antiquity as in the M i d d l e A g e s , Greek its l e x i c o n a b o v e all, but also its m o r p h o l o g y , syntax and even its
literary genres - b e g a n to infiltrate different languages, including the
E u r o p e a n languages (Slavic, R o m a n c e , G e r m a n i c ) w h i c h b e g a n to
take shape during the ninth century.
W e have already studied part o f this process. T h e G r e e k w o r d s
sometimes c o m e f r o m Byzantium, sometimes f r o m M e d i e v a l Latin,
w h i c h c o n t i n u e d the o l d G r a e c o - L a t i n w e have discussed a n d w h i c h
as w e k n o w was the language o f the C h u r c h and. o f culture in the
M i d d l e A g e s . W e left o u r study a r o u n d approximately the
twelfth
century, stressing that it is n o t always easy to establish a c h r o n o l o g y

for the b o r r o w i n g s , o r their Byzantine o r Latin source. N o w w e shall
place emphasis o n Hellenisms taken f r o m a literary source f r o m the
twelfth century o n w a r d s , with s o m e older precedents. W e will find
that there is a steady escalation in the n u m b e r s o f Hellenisms enter
ing E u r o p e a n languages, w h i c h continues all the w a y u p until the
present day.
388. Let us m a k e s o m e preliminary observations.
1. O u r study is focussed o n Spanish, with references to French,
Italian, English a n d G e r m a n , a b o v e all, b u t with the aware
ness that m a n y Hellenisms also m a d e their w a y into m a n y
other languages, and indeed, today, all the languages o f the
world.
270
CHAPTER THREE
2. O n the other h a n d , o u r study intends to offer general ideas,
as well as s o m e examples. A b r o a d , up-to-date study with a
general focus has n o t really existed until n o w .
3. U p to the sixteenth century, Hellenisms nearly always entered
through Latin (except for those from Byzantium); from then
o n , they also entered directly from G r e e k texts.
4. W e should recognise the i m p o r t a n c e o f this: from
ancient
times, but later to an ever greater degree, Hellenisms were

originally not just foreign w o r d s w h i c h were later assimilated
into the different languages, but also a source o f formative
elements (roots, suffixes, prefixes, methods o f compostition
a n d derivation) w h i c h were very fertile within each language,
creating n e w w o r d s . In this sense, w e can say that G r e e k
survives in o u r languages as a dynamic, integral part o f them.
5. Finally, I should also stress that, although studied here to a
lesser extent, G r e e k g r a m m a r (particularly syntax) and liter
ature, d i r e c d y o r indirecdy b e c a m e constituted
as models:
they have continued to d e v e l o p and are still very m u c h alive.

In view o f this, I have stated o n a n u m b e r o f occasions that
o u r E u r o p e a n languages (which are in turn m o d e l s o f others
in this respect) are in fact a semi-Greek o r crypto-Greek. A t
times, the G r e e k element is remote and difficult to describe
w h e n it has p r o v i d e d semantic caiques and words w h i c h have
b e e n fully integrated with p h o n e t i c and semantic
variations.
389. For Spanish, see in particular M . Fernandez-Galiano 1966 (much used

in the following discussion) J. Berguz 2002 and the bibliography given on
p. 65, n. 11, in addition to R. Lapesa 1980; for French, F. Brunot 1966;
for German, W . Stammler (ed.) 1952; for English, A. Ewert s. a., A. G.
Baugh 1971 and F. Fernandez 1982; for Italian, B. Migliorini 1968.
Hellenisms in the high Middle Ages
390. W e begin o u r discussion with s o m e elaborations o n the intro
duction o f Hellenisms through Latin in the M e d i e v a l p e r i o d . T h e
Carolingian renaissance o f the ninth century, with similar p h e n o m e n a
in countries such as Ireland and Spain, p r o d u c e d waves o f Latinisms;
a m o n g t h e m were G r e e k w o r d s (whether o f ecclesiastical origin o r
not) w h i c h h a d b e e n integrated into Latin.
After so m a n y m e d i e v a l Hellenisms f r o m Latin (which existed
already in Latin in the p e r i o d in w h i c h the R o m a n c e languages were
271
GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
derived from it, and very often even earlier), w e also find Latin cul
tural w o r d s , often o f Hellenic origin, in the first texts in Castilian.
In the Poema de Mio
Cid w e find mirra, tus 'incense ; in the Auto de
los Reyes Magos, retoricos, gramatgos.

In the thirteenth century, Latinism, and with it Hellenism, b e c a m e
accentuated:
B e r c e o usei abysso 'abyss , epistolero, evengelistero (mixed
formations); the Apollonius uses idolo; the Alexandre uses prologo, silogismo,
elemento. Naturally, this increased in the prose o f Alfonso X the W i s e ,
w h i c h required a technical language w h i c h sometimes b o r r o w e d from
A r a b i c , sometimes from Latin o r Graeco-Latin.
O n o c c a s i o n , the
Latin o r G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y was a c c o m p a n i e d b y its interpretation in

Castilian: for instance, in the case o f teatro ('a large a n d r o u n d yard').
I will give s o m e examples o f these w o r d s . Scientific and technical
terms such as alegoria, apoplejia, aritmetica, dtomo, autentico, clima, cronica
(coronica), dialectica, filosojia, geometria, glosa, gramatica (gramatgo), historia
(estoria), logica, musica, planeta, poeta, policia ('politics'), retorico (retoligo),
silaba, sqfisma, teologia, teorica. Mythical beings, exotic plants and ani
mals, ancient cultural elements: aloe, Amazona, amomo, bdlsamo, ballena,
bufalo (bubalo), camello, centauro, ceptro (cetro), cocodrilo, draco (drago, dragon),
elefante (elifant), gigante, grifo, pergamino, tesoro, trono.
It should b e n o t e d that sometimes there is a R o m a n c e adaptation,
a n d sometimes a pure Latinism. A l s o , there are m i x e d forms such
as bigamo. Recall t o o h o w Latin w o r d s that already gave rise to deriv
atives in the R o m a n c e languages, w e r e reintroduced
and p r o d u c e d
semi-literary forms, as in the case o f monasterium and ecclesia.

3 9 1 . T o p r o v i d e an e x a m p l e , let us briefly discuss the Hellenisms o f
French, introduced through a cultural route, recalling h o w s o m e o f
these, resulting f r o m the N o r m a n conquest, w e r e carried into English.
In writings from the p e r i o d o f C h a r l e m a g n e w e already c o m e across
w o r d s such as element, angele, chrestien; and the following are also o f
ancient
date, f r o m an ecclesiastical context: abisme, anateme, apostle,
baptisier, baptistere, basilique, diacre, eglise, estatue, heretique, idee, idole, isope,
pope, paradis, scisme, sinagoge, throne, timpan. In works o f M e d i e v a l science:
allegorie, aloes, amesthyste, aromatiser, astronomien, basilisc, element, embleme,
nigromance, zone.
It is easy to see h o w , as in Castilian, there is sometimes adapta
tion to the R o m a n c e language, and even derivation.
3 9 2 . Similar observations c a n b e m a d e with regard to the
German
language. In addition to the Latin borrowings from the ancient period,
272
CHAPTER THREE
which I have already discussed, a n e w wave o f cultural words entered,

p a r d y o f G r e e k origin, from the ninth century onwards, w h i c h the
A n g l o - S a x o n missionaries h e l p e d to diffuse: O H G . scuola, prestar,
pergamin, arzat (< archiater), postolik. T h e r e were also semantic caiques,
such as O H G . forasako for profeta, gotspel and cuatchundida for evangelium,
w h i c h was also present. Later, in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries,
w e find poete, zepter and, in scientific writings, the terms grammatica,

dialectica, physica, etc. T h e n , in the thirteenth century,
metaphysica,
melancholisch, musica.
In parallel with this, in English w e find the w o r d s allegory, mechan
ical, polite, zephyr, a m o n g others. But the principal influence o n English
in these centuries c a m e from French, which often introduced Latinisms
and Hellenisms.
Hellenisms in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries
In Castilian
393. In the p e r i o d from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries, w o r d s
descending f r o m Latin (and stylistic resources such as hyperbaton)
were i n t r o d u c e d into the western languages, first gradually, then in
great numbers; these included a considerable n u m b e r o f Hellenisms.
O t h e r Hellenisms c o n t i n u e d to enter f r o m French o r Italian through
a cultural or, m o r e frequently, colloquial route. Others finally b e g a n
to enter directiy through G r e e k literature from the fifteenth
century
onwards, w h e n it b e c a m e k n o w n in the West. W o r k s such as the

translation o f D i o s c o r i d e s b y A n d r e s L a g u n a (155) were a source o f
Hellenisms (mosdy o f a scientific type, alongside the literary Hellenisms).
T h e Hellenisms w e r e adapted in f o r m to Latin transcription and
sometimes m o d e r n language use, there w e r e also hypercorrrections.
C h a n g e s in m e a n i n g w e r e also introduced w h e n necessary.
It should b e n o t e d that this p e r i o d is characterised b y two, often
opposing, often c o n v e r g i n g tendencies. O n the o n e hand, Antiquity
and its authors were a d o r e d and considered as models: Juan de M e n a
c
considered the Iliad a sancta e serdphica ohra\ and the r o m a n c e rudo

y desierto\ In the fourteenth
century, w e have translations o f G r e e k
b y Fernandez de H e r e d i a and from Latin b y the chancellor Ayala.

Hellenisms such as olligarchia, politico, theremotu, ypocrita, astralobio,
entered the works o f these authors. Authors such as the marquis o f
Villena a n d the marquis o f Santillana, J u a n de M e n a and
Fernando
d e R o j a s followed the ancient m o d e l s , as w o u l d Garcilaso, Fray Luis,
273
H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a , and so m a n y others. T h e same was true for

the other E u r o p e a n
nations.
394. O n the other h a n d , this was also the p e r i o d in w h i c h the n e w

languages w o u l d acquire their definitive f o r m a n d gradually w o u l d
b e c o m e the only language^ o f literature (although Garcilaso and Fray
Luis, a m o n g others, continued to write in Latin). W i t h his Gramdtica
and his Latin-Spanish and Spanish-Latin Diccionarios o f 1492 (fol
l o w i n g the
Universal Vocabulario o f 1490 b y A l f o n s o Fernandez
Palencia), Nebrija laid the foundations
de
for the use o f Castilian o r
Spanish as a language o f culture just like G r e e k and Latin; almost

half a century w o u l d pass before the appearance
dictionary b y R o b e r t
o f a Latin-French
Etienne.
T h e Castilian language, n o w integrated into Spanish, was extolled

b y Luis Vives, as Italian was b y B e m b o , French b y D u Bellay, o r
English b y Mulcaster.
T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f the G e r m a n
language
was slower, p r o m o t e d b y Luther: until 1680 the majority o f b o o k s

were edited in Latin.
Y e t , this advance o f national languages was n o t an obstacle for
the introduction o f literary words: o n the contrary, they were n e e d e d
n o w m o r e than ever, and the Latin language, serving as a m o d e l ,
functioned as a huge deposit o f w o r d s that c o u l d b e introduced (and
used, at times, for the expression o f n e w concepts) - m a n y o f these
w o r d s having, o f course, a G r e e k origin.
It was not just a question o f words, but also o f prefixes and suffixes
w h i c h functioned freely, perfectly assimilated within Latin from the
ancient period. In English, for example, a m o n g the l e a r n e d prefixes'
w e find, amphi-, a(n)-/an(a)-,
archfi)-, aut(o)-, cata-, di-, hyper-, hypo-,
mono-, pant(o)-, prot(o)-, syn-, w h i c h are also f o u n d in other languages;

a n d suffixes such as -ism, ist, -ite, ize, e t c
(the same
observation
applies). T h e r e are others m o r e .

395, F r o m the fifteenth century, Hellenisms from the field o f botany,
in a literary o r R o m a n i s e d f o r m , were i n t r o d u c e d into Spanish: for
e x a m p l e , acacia, celidonia, cerfollo ( < Lat. caerefolium < G r . xccipeqyoAAov,
then perifollo), dragontea, eleboro, jacinto; also, Hellenisms f r o m exotic
animals, such as dspid, delfxn, dromedario, hiena, lince, tigre; from medicine,
such as agonia, arteria, cardiaco, colico, diarrea, frenesi, gangrena, mania,
pronostico, tisico; from chemistry or p h a r m a c y , such as amoniaco, arsenico;
from mathematics, astronomy and other sciences, such as drtico, boreal,
caos, catarata, estadio, cilindro, cono, cubo, giro, matemdticas, nauta, polo,
274
CHAPTER THREE
tropico, zona; from g r a m m a r , music and literature, such as academia,

alfabeto, apocope, armonia, biblioteca, comedia, diptongo, elegia, etimologia, metro,
oda, ortografia, proemio, prologo, ritmo, sintaxis, tragedia; from thought, lit
erature, and politics, such as cinico, didlogo, enigma, fantastico, heme, pedagogia, periodo, politico, sqfista, tirano; from mythology, such as ambrosia,
laberinto, musa, sdtiro, sirena.
W e should also recall the Hellenisms imported through
French
(page, ddtil), Italian (galea, golfo, porpdo), A r a b i c in the fifteenth century

(we have already mentioned a few, w e can add alambique, alcaparra,
almoraduj (djudpctKcx;), bodoque ( <
Catalan and Portuguese.
TCOVUKOV,
a type o f nut). Also through
But from the sixteenth century onwards,
Byzantinisms rarely entered directly.

In contrast, the n u m b e r
o f scientific Hellenisms increased.
For
instance, from botany, such as acanto, achicoria (< cichoria < Ki%6piov),
amaranto, anemona, asfodelo, camomila (< chamaemelon < %auociur|A,ov),
crisantemo, ebano, iris, menta, mirto, opio. F r o m medicine: antidoto, asma,
cataplasma, colirio, diafragma, dosis, laringe, narcotico, pancreas, tisana, etc.
F r o m zoology: fenix, hipopotamo. F r o m chemistry: cdnstico, colqfonia. F r o m
construction: arquitecto, aula, maquina, mecdnico. F r o m mathematics, g e o
graphy, sailing: dbaco, atlas, estadio, escdlamo, eter, horizonte, istmo. F r o m
g r a m m a r and literature: andstrofe, apologo, catdlogo, encyclopedia, erotico,
frase, lira. F r o m thought and politics: aristocracia, asilo, catdstrofe, despota,
didlogo, idea, teoria. F r o m mythology and the ancient world: atleta, nectar,
ninfa, obelisco.
396. Cultural words, as indicated previously, were adapted in various
ways. By means o f v o c a l i c changes: oregano, laudano, rumbo; b y changes
in suffix (poesia, hipocresia, amatista, didfano); b y haplology (idolatria); b y
change in gender (diadema). Also, by other means: achicoria ( < Ki%6piov),
5
algalia 'catheter (epyaXetov), cornisa (< Kopcoviq), panadizo (< 7iapcovu%iov),

perlesia, pocima ( < drcoêu-a), tericia, almorranas, pdrrafo, teulogia and iproquesia in Saint Teresa. Naturally, educated forms very often appear
together with vulgar forms.
T h e r e are also changes in meaning. T h e following words acquired
values related to religion o r the C h u r c h : cimborio (Ki(icbpiov, the fruit
o f the waterlily and a c u p o f a similar form), clew, cripta, dogma, jerarquia, liturgia, ortodoxo, presbitero, pompa, tiara; and other values, for
example, chisme (from a%ia(iia), quimera.
T h e r e was a definite acceleration in the growth o f Graeco-Latin
w h i c h was never quite forgotten and which n o w b e c a m e G r a e c o Spanish (and G r a e c o - F r e n c h , etc.). This literary and scientific Greek
275
vocabulary was i m p o s e d in o r d e r to serve a c o m m o n culture. W i t h

it c a m e an increase in prefixes and suffixes, w h i c h were increasingly
transformed
into the elements o f the n e w languages, w h i c h w o u l d
use them in their o w n formations.

This was because these languages lacked an adequate vocabulary
for the n e w culture and especially the n e w science, w h i c h were b o t h
intimately c o n n e c t e d to Antiquity.
T h e same p h e n o m e n o n that had o c c c u r r e d in Latin, w h e n , under
similar circumstances,
its lexical p o v e r t y (patrii semonis egestas) was
o v e r c o m e with the help o f Greek, was n o w r e p r o d u c e d here, with

the help o f the Graeco-Latin w e have b e e n discussing and, o n o c c a
sion, with the help o f G r e e k directly.
In French
3 9 7 . Similar conclusions can b e extracted from the study o f French.
In the thirteenth century w e find w o r d s w h i c h have b e e n taken from
Latin, often with a French
derivation,
such as austerite, authentique,
bigame (mixed G r a e c o - L a t i n form), machination, margarite, physician, poli

tique, practicien, rhetorique, along with m a n y w o r d s that are m o r e purely
Latin.
This increased in the fourteenth century w h e n kings and princes
e n c o u r a g e d translations o f Latin. T o take a few examples o f the b o r
rowings: agronome, allegorique, anarchie, anatomic, antipode, apoplectique, apostasie, apostat, apostumeux, apostumer, architectonique, aristocratic, asthmatique,
astronomique, barbarie, boreal, catalogue, cataplasme, catechisms, cautere, cephalique,
cithare, climat, colerique, colon, comedie, coriandre, critique, cyclope, cynique,
cynocephale, declinable, democratic, diabetique, diaphane, diaphoretique, diaphragme,
diarrhee, economie, empirique, effimere, epigramme, etymologic, fantasie, farmacie,
heretique, hierarchie, historien, hypotheque, maniache, mathematique, mecanique,
medecin, monopole, oligarchic, pedagogie, periode, peritoneon, phlegmon, poeme,
pompeux, poreux, pronostique, regmatique, spermatique, spherique, spasme, spongiosis,
spongieux, tragedie, tetragone, thorax, triumphete, tyrannique, ydrophobique.
This list, though i n c o m p l e t e , reveals a series o f facts:
1. T h e variable degree o f assimilation into the French language.
2. T h e p r e d o m i n a n c e o f v o c a b u l a r y f r o m the fields w e have
discussed: sciences (particularly medicine), politics, literature,
etc,
3. T h e diffusion o f desinences a n d suffixes derived from G r e e k
(from -a, -oq, -iKoq) and Latin (-osus, -anus, -bilis, -tas); also,
prefixes such as cata- and dia-; the elimination o f neuters in
276
CHAPTER THREE
-iia, w h i c h passed into feminines in -me, the derivation o f
verbs (apostumer), etc.
In the fifteenth century, with the Renaissance rage for classical Antiq
uity, there was an invasion o f such terms: agaric, angeliser, apologetique,
bachique, boree, caducee, fantasien, eteroclite, satire, to n a m e a few.
O f course, this was intensified in the sixteenth century, w h e n the
kings favoured b o t h the classical languages and French. T h e sciences,
in particular, were filled with G r e e k and Latin formative
elements
and terms: whether in a crude Latin a n d even G r e e k form, o r in

an a d o p t e d form. But there was still s o m e controversy. A b e l Mathieu
criticised literary w o r d s and preferred to replace elegie and hymne with
complainte a n d chant a dieu ou aux choses saintes respectively; D u Perron
used accord de naturel instead o f sympathie, and contrenaturel instead o f
dvTurdGeicx. In contrast,
R o n s a r d c o m p l a i n e d that in F r e n c h
one
c o u l d not, as in Greek, say ocymore, dispotme, oligochromien.

T h e r e was an intermediate solution, but it c o u l d b e said that
Greek-Latin
triumphed.
M a n y w o r d s entered from b o t h late and
classical Latin, such as, to cite a few, Academic, acromion, anagramme,

anodyn, apophtegme, charite, chiliandre, disque, embleme, enthousiasme, epilepsie,
heptagone, hydraulique, hygiene, hysterique, lythargue, magnes, metaphrene, neoterique, ode, pericarde, philogue, phlebotomie, sympathie, trachee, trapeze and
many more.
O n c e again,
derivations
a n d m i x e d forms must b e taken into
account: academkien, archicoupeur, clisteriziste, diabliculer, gigantal, sumbolisation,

theatrique, etc. This indiscriminate mixture o f w o r d s with a Greek o r
Latin r o o t a n d suffixes derived from b o t h languages, all as an exten
sion o f the French vocabulary, is a reflection o f the literary language,
with the strong G r e e k and Latin stamp w e have b e e n discussing.
A g a i n , this is displayed mostiy in the field o f science and rather
strange natural elements.
In Italian
398. Similarly, in Italy, from the thirteenth century onwards,
the
vulgar language was filled with Latinisms: not just ancient but also
medieval Latinisms. In the sphere o f culture (often centered
around
the University o f B o l o g n a ) and religion, these Latinisms were often

actually Hellenisms: postolo, arismetica, canonista, clima, codicillo, diavolo,
epiciclo, grammatica, martire, melodia, profeta, rettorica, sfera, sinfonia, zodiaco.
D a n t e ( w h o writes in the vulgar language and justifies this with 'the
277
natural love o f o n e ' s o w n language', although he considers it infe

rior to Latin) adds G r e e k w o r d s taken f r o m his sources: perizoma,
latria, tetragono and the false entomata. O n the other hand, m a n y o f the
Latinisms are Greek caiques: conszienza (awetSoq), conoscienza (ht\Gxi\iir[),
dottrina (86y|ia), sostanza (tytoiceiiaevov), accidente (aujipePnicog), etc.
T h e case was similar during the fourteenth century, in w h i c h poets
such as Petrarch and writers such as B o c c a c c i o flourished and in
which the translation or edition o f philosophical and theological works
required a G r a e c o - L a t i n lexicon. W o r d s such as the following were
i n t r o d u c e d : ambrosia, antropofago, autentico, austero, discolo, energumeno,
eunuco, sofistico. Also, w o r d s w h i c h h a d b e e n asssimilated for a l o n g
time regained their Latin form, such as vangeo o r evangelfijo for guagnello,
gigante for giogante.
T h e fifteenth century displays the same features in Italy as in the
other E u r o p e a n countries, but with m o r e emphasis o n
Humanistic
culture, particularly towards the e n d o f the century with the intro

duction o f printing and the arrival o f learned Greeks. T h e Humanists
were conscious o f the fact that they were elevating the Italian lan
guage, in prose and verse, with the help o f G r a e c o - L a t i n borrowings.
Furthermore,
there was a symbiosis o f Latin
a n d the
vulgate:
authors such as Sannazaro and Poliziano, as D a n t e a n d B o c c a c c i o

before them, wrote in b o t h languages, Poliziano and L o r e n z o d e '
M e d i c i praising the T u s c a n vulgate. T h e mixture o f b o t h languages
is also frequent in the d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f the p e r i o d , w h i c h includes
letters. T h e massive entry o f Latinisms (which are sometimes Hellenisms)
was thus inevitable, as was the a d o p t i o n o f Latin orthography
in
w o r d s w h i c h had acquired Italian orthography.

T o cite a few examples o f Hellenisms w h i c h seem to date from
this period: amaranto, calamo, cataratta, onomatopea, paraninfo, plettro, tragelafo. T h e r e are also caiques such as insetto, for evrojiov.
In the sixteenth century, in the p e r i o d in w h i c h Spain,
France,
the P o p e , and V e n i c e w e r e the main p o w e r s , the T u s c a n
vulgate
m a d e substantial progress: even p h i l o s o p h y and mathematics, various

d o c u m e n t s and history b e g a n to b e written in this language. T h e r e
can b e said to have b e e n a rebellion, led b y academies and poets,
against tradition and the exclusive use o f Latin b y the
universities.
But, at the same time, the advance o f Latinism in the vulgar lan
guage continued, albeit with various differences with respect to ortho
graphic and m o r p h o l o g i c a l adaptation.
278
CHAPTER THREE
Within this a d v a n c e , the Hellenisms are nearly always, as custom

ary, taken from the scientific and literary spheres: assioma, clinica,
crisalide, ecatombe, entusiasmo, gimnico, omonimo, ottica, parafrasi, parossismo,
rapsodia, scenogrqfia, tripode. A s in other parts, there w e r e
reactions
against this, such as the attempt to i m p o s e errante instead o f planeta;

and n o t all Latinisms and Hellenisms were maintained, s o m e disap
p e a r e d with the writers that introduced them, such as bibliopola o r
elego.
In English
399. W e shall l o o k rather briefly at the case o f English, w h i c h is
similar to the others; let us recall that s o m e Hellenisms entered from
French after the N o r m a n conquest, and later from Italian.
O n c e again, Latin was the source o f Hellenisms. T h e p r o b l e m o f
d e c i d i n g to what extent this n e w v o c a b u l a r y should b e a c c e p t e d
arose, here t o o , in the sixteenth
century, w h e n T h o m a s W i l s o n
attacked it in his Art of Rhetorique. D r y d e n and Mulcaster took inter

mediate positions; as in the other cases, this was the solution adopted.
In Elyot, w e find anachronism, analogy, encyclopedia, autograph; in M o r o ,
monopoly, monosyllable, paradox; in Shakespeare, antipathy, apostrophe, cat
astrophe, emphasis, misanthrope, pathetical. A t times, the Latin f o r m was
retained
(climax, epitome), at times, the English
adaptation.
Perhaps this has served to give s o m e idea o f the progress o f the

G r a e c o - L a t i n l e x i c o n a n d the formative elements o f Graeco-Latin in
this p e r i o d . It w o u l d b e useful to a d d u c e other languages, such as
G e r m a n , w h i c h lagged b e h i n d a bit. But in the end, this lexicon,
from w h e r e v e r it m a y have originated, reached all languages.
Hellenisms in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
In Castilian
4 0 0 . D u r i n g the next centuries, Hellenism c o n t i n u e d to g r o w in
Spanish in the scientific and educated language in general.
In the seventeenth
c e n t u r y , the p o e t s assimilated,
within
the
Latinisms, a r e d u c e d n u m b e r o f Hellenisms, largely relating to myth

and various aspects o f Antiquity o r w h i c h were used b y the
Latin
poets (antro, aspid, himeneo, musa, ninfa, pdnico, palestra, pira, rima, etc.).
A l t h o u g h a prose writer such as Q u e v e d o was able to enrich Spanish
with his use o f G r e e k prefixes; for e x a m p l e , archipobre o r protomiseria:
this w o u l d receive a large following in m o r e recent times.
279
But the other field, w h i c h was always g r o w i n g , is m o r e important.

H e r e , as before, I will p r o v i d e s o m e examples o f the n e w w o r d s that
w e r e introduced, divided into separate fields:
Z o o l o g y : anfibio, foca, pardsito, rinoceronte. Chemistry and m i n e r o l o g y :
fosforo, amianto. M e d i c i n e : alopecia, embrion, epidemia, reuma, sintoma, trdquea.
Mathematics: astronomy, geography, nautics: cateto, cometa, didmetro, elipse,
estrobo, geografia, hipotenusa, meteoro, ndutico, paralelo, pirata. G r a m m a r , lit
erature, music: apostrqfe, critico, dialecto, ditirambo, drama, encomio, episodio, jilologia, idilio, lexico, lirico, metafora, museo, palinodia, paradoja, pleonasmo,
sindnimo, tropo. T h o u g h t and politics: andlisis, anarquia, antagonista, democracia, diploma, economia, entusiasmo, emporio, epoca, etnico, genesis, hipotesis,
ironia, lirico, metamorfosis, metodo, monarca, patriota, problema, poligamia,
sindico, simbolo, simpatia, tests. Religion: ateo, carismo, mistico, proselito, sarcofago. A n c i e n t w o r l d : esfinge, falange, gimnasio, mausoleo.
Sometimes, derivatives were created: cetdceo, diagonal, hipocondria.
4 0 1 . L e t us n o w m o v e o n to the eighteenth
century, w h e r e w e
encounter a n e w environment in the fields o f illustration and science.

Latin was still important as the intellectual language: Leibnitz and
N e w t o n wrote their main works in Latin, a n d Linneus used Latin
to give scientific n a m e s to plants, a n d the Spanish Diccionario de
Autoridades used it to define the meanings o f w o r d s .
Certainly, the R o m a n c e languages h a d an absolute d o m i n i o n as
literary languages, b u t Latin c o n t i n u e d to supply n e w v o c a b u l a r y
w h i c h , in the field o f science, was very often Greek. O n the other
hand, G r e e k was n o w accessible to scientists, w h o d i d n o t hesitate
to use it in creating the n e w lexicon w h i c h b e c a m e necessary.
In short, the g r o w t h o f science required the introduction o f n e w
waves o f Latin terms, m a n y o f them Hellenisms, a n d o f Hellenisms
taken directly f r o m Greek. T h i s was in o r d e r to express concepts
w h i c h w e r e already present
in G r e e k science, o r to express n e w
things o r concepts with the help o f G r e e k terms w h i c h were able to

express something m o r e o r less approximate, o r w h o s e elements c o u l d
b e used for n e w formations. Often, this n e w v o c a b u l a r y arrived in
Spain through other m o d e r n languages, particularly
French.
T h i s p e r i o d is characterised b y the fact that, alongside the true

Hellenisms that b e l o n g e d mostiy to the traditional fields o f science
and thought, great numbers
o f neologisms were introduced.
The
f o r m and often m e a n i n g o f the G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y h a d always, even

from Latin, u n d e r g o n e alterations.
But n o w , radically n e w w o r d s
280
CHAPTER THREE
with G r e e k elements w e r e increasingly created. This has s o m e p r e c e

dents, as for e x a m p l e in the w o r d s c o m p o s e d o f b o t h G r e e k
and
Latin w h i c h have b e e n discussed, but n o w the p h e n o m e n o n
had
added importance.
M a n y Hellenisms as such w e r e i n t r o d u c e d : for e x a m p l e , aorta,
autonomia, autopsia, base, bibliogrqfia, botdnica, ciclo, clepsidra, coriza, criterio,
despotismo, diastole, dicotomia, diddctico, esceptico, exantema, fase, fenomeno,
fildntropo, jiltro, hidrdulico, hipodromo, isosceles, mecanismo, miope, misdntropo,
mitologia, neumdtico, parodia, periferia, periodico, perone, rombo, simetria, sinfonia,
sistema, tirania, trapecio. N o t e that there are changes in suffix (heterogeneo
< exepoyevfi^) o r in m e a n i n g (diatribe 'violent discourse o r writing',
polemica 'discussion') and that French sometimes acts as an intermediary
(automata, poliglota with -a due to a b a d interpretation o f Fr. -e).
T h e most important thing, as m e n t i o n e d previously, was the g r o w
ing n u m b e r o f neologisms d e m a n d e d b y the n e w sciences and scientific
concepts, machines, etc. T h e r e is the e m e r g e n c e o f n e w sciences (or
arts), such as hidrostdtica, mecdnica, ornitologia, paleogrqfia, pirotecnia, psicologia, zoologia (and sociologia, etc.); machines and instruments such as
barometro, microscopio (and others in -scopid), termometro, the
machine
pneumdtica, the g l o b e aerostdtico; fluids and concepts such as electricidad,

the logaritmos, etc., as well as related adjectives and nouns, such as
electrico, escepticismo; verbs such as electrizar. N e w systems were created
o n the m o d e l o f the o l d systems: there is aristocracia/ aristocrdtico, but
also estoicismo/estoico, electricidad/electrico, etc. In a recent article (Adrados
1996c) I have indicated that the eighteenth
century saw the intro
duction o f Fr, acrobate, Eng. acrobat, Sp. acrobata, G e r m . Akrobat, at a

time in w h i c h G r , aKpopdxrjq was not attested (today it is): but it
was easy to d e d u c e from ocKpoPaxeco, aicpoPaxiKoq.
In other languages
4 0 2 . In other E u r o p e a n languages w e see almost the same things
occurring. O n l y G e r m a n , to a certain extent, differs somewhat due
to the systematic cultivation o f the semantic caique: the
negative
prefix un-; abstract suffixes -heit, -keit, -nis; -kunde instead o f -logia,
-grqfia; adjectives with -reich; indigenous terms for concepts such as
equality
(Gleichheit), Being (Sein), k n o w l e d g e (Erkenntnis), c o n s c i e n c e
(Gewissen) and the grammatical terms, instead o f familiar G r e e k terms

such as
Despot/Despotismus.
T o a v o i d devoting t o o m u c h space to this, I will limit myself to

a brief description o f the facts with regard to Italian.
281
In the seventeenth century w e c o m e across Hellenisms in the most

diverse disciplines. For example, acrostico, analjabeto, apogeo, conoide, hiperbole, molecula, panegirico, parergo, parodia, sinoride, sintassi, sintesi, patologia,
pleura, prisma, scheletro, taumaturgo, tesi. N o t e that sometimes the o l d
form is r e c o v e r e d instead^ o f another e v o l v e d f o r m (chirurgo instead o f
cerusico, clistere instead o f cristeo o r cristero, emmorroidi instead o f moroide).
W e also c o m e across neologisms, often o f an international type
(selinografia in B a c o n and Galileo).
O f course, in the eighteenth century the introduction o f scientific
Hellenisms continued: monopetalo, polipetalo, rizotomo, stalagmite, clinico,
diagnosis, prognosis, patema, elissoide, sometimes with a n e w derivation.
S o m e Hellenisms that entered at a later date but were rarely used,
were incorporated definitively into the language: miriade, erotico.
It is also important to note that s o m e Hellenisms entered through
foreign languages, most notably French: analisi, aneddoto, biografo, cosmopolita, epoca. F r o m G e r m a n w e obtain dicaster(i)o, estetica, etere (in the
chemistry sense).
W e also find that the p h e n o m e n o n o f n e o l o g i s m is o n the increase:
aeronautica, aerostato, anglomania, bibliqfilo, bibliomane, eliocentrico, scqfandro
and others, w h i c h did n o t prosper. T h e r e was then a great diffusion
o f -ismOy -ista, -izzare, a d d e d b o t h to Latin a n d G r e e k terms: botanista,
cambista, capitalista, caratterizzare, dispotismo, elettrizzare, tranquilizzare.
Hellenisms in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
4 0 3 . In these centuries, Hellenisms w h i c h had n o t b e e n previously
taken as b o r r o w i n g s w e r e c o n s t a n d y introduced: often with alter
ations in the formation o r meaning, as in the previous examples.
T h e y are mostiy c o m m o n to all the E u r o p e a n languages, so that it
is not always easy to establish through w h i c h language they
have
entered.
Let us, o n c e again, take a few Spanish examples from the various
sciences and disciplines: abulia, afonia, anacoluto, anemia, aneurisma, aporia,
apoteosis, arcaico, asceta, autarquia, autoctono, asindeton, asteroide, astenia, batracio, biografia, clinico, colofon, cosmos, crater, diabetes, elitro, epidermis, ecumenico,
encefalo, esquema, estetico, estigma, fonetica, hemiplegia, homeopatia, marasmo,
necrologia, neumonia, palimpsesto, pederastia, peripecia, plutocracia, pornograjia,
programa, prostata, quiste, sinopsis, taquigrafo, triptico. S o m e terms change
in meaning, such as dnodo, bacteria, baritono, cloro, estoma, higiene, pldstico, tonico. T h e ability to f o r m small systems b y means o f familiar
suffixes has increased.
282
CHAPTER THREE
4 0 4 . But m o s t significant is the increasing n u m b e r o f neologisms to

satisfy the d e m a n d s o f the n e w sciences, techniques and currents o f
thoughtwhether through derivation o r through the c o m b i n a t i o n o f
G r e e k and Latin elements (prefixes, roots and suffixes). T h e y tended
to b e international, with slight differences in form, phonetics
orthography. In effect, they constituted the n e w E u r o p e a n
w h i c h coexisted with e a c h o f the m o d e r n languages, a
and
language
Greek-Latin
w h i c h was alive within them. Therefore, it is not very useful to study

this subject language b y language, although w e are often left with
the p r o b l e m o f where and w h e n these w o r d s were invented, and b y
w h i c h means they w e r e diffused. A t times, certainly, there can be a
lack o f formal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e : Sp. mdquina de escribir translates Eng.
typewriter, G e r . Fall translates Lat. casus (and this translates G r . nt&oiq),
G e r . Fernsprecher translates forms o f other languages with tele- and
-phono.
T h e s e neologisms, w h i c h pass from o n e language to another, o c c a
sionally c a n b e dated with s o m e precision. Fr. voiture automobile dates
from 1875, then w e find automobile, and f r o m there the S p . automovil,
auto. T h e w o r d cinema is dated towards 1899 (from Fr. cinematographe,
from w h i c h w e also obtain Eng. cinema, G e r . Kino). T h e w o r d telefono dates from the last quarter o f the nineteenth century, maraton
from 1896 onwards (the resumption o f the O l y m p i c s ) , aeroplano from
the start o f the twentieth century, and later television. S o m e w o r d s
descend from others, sometimes with a c h a n g e in m e a n i n g o f o n e
o f their elements: in fotogrqfia, foto- is still 'light', but in fotocopia etc,
it is ' i m a g e ' . Auto-
is n o l o n g e r 'the s a m e ' in Ital. autostrada, Sp.
autopista o r autovia.
N e o l o g i s m s r e s p o n d most frequentiy,
scientific language
as w e pointed out, to
the
(sometimes existing with other meanings). C o n -
sequendy, they supply the names o f various sciences: arqueologia, binomio,

biologia, geologia, histologia, morfologia, numismdtica, ontologia, ortopedia, psiquiatria, psicoandlisis, etc. T h e y also refer to m e d i c i n e : anestesia, asepsia,
astigmatismo, blenorragia, colitis, Jlebitis, metabolismo, microbio, neuralgia, organismo, quirqfano, etc.; to the natural sciences: eucalipto, cromo, glucosa,
hidrogeno, hormona, organismo, orquidea, oxigeno, proteina, etc.; to various
techniques: aerodromo, aeroplano, astronauta (and c o m p o u n d s with -nauta),
automovil (and c o m p o u n d s with auto-), batiscqfo, cine (cinema, cinematogrqfo), clonico, endocrinologia, filatelia (and derivatives with fil[o]-), hermeroteca (and c o m p o u n d s with -teed), hipoglucemia (and derivatives with
283
hipo-), megaterio (and c o m p o u n d s with mega-), metro (metropolitano), microfono
(and c o m p o u n d s with micro-), ortodoncia (and c o m p o u n d s with
orto-), pancromdtico (and c o m p o u n d s with pan-), paranoico (and c o m

p o u n d s with para-), pediatra (and c o m p o u n d s with ped- and deriva
tives in -iatra), taxi (taximetro), telefono (and c o m p o u n d s with
tele-),
termostato (and c o m p o u n d s with termo-), etc. Others b e l o n g to less spe

cialised fields: melancolia, nostalgia, panorama.
4 0 5 . T h i s is but a short list o f examples, w h i c h c a n b e extended
easily in b o o k s such as those b y Eseverri 1945 o r G o n z a l e z Castro
1994 o r Bergua 2 0 0 2 . Y e t , w e d o n o t have a c o m p l e t e repertory,
either for Spanish o r the other languages w h i c h indicates the date
o f first appearance, diffusion and frequency.
It is clear that a G r e e k lexicon appears in o u r languages in t w o
ways:
(a) Assimilated, from different dates and through different means.
It has b e c o m e an integral element o f the lexicon o f o u r lan
guages, a n d is felt b y speakers to b e part o f them.
(b) F o r m i n g part o f the stratum o f the cultural and scientific
lexicon: from a Greek-Latin that forms a special stratum
within each language, accepting characteristics o f the lan
guage, but remaining essentially the same in all o f them. It
consists o f intact G r e e k w o r d s , others that are formally o r
sematically altered, o r various neologisms; always alternat
ing o r c o m b i n i n g with the Latin lexicon, with w h i c h it forms
an integrated w h o l e . T h e r e is an a b u n d a n c e o f hybrid for
mations o f the type binomio, monocorde, etc.
T h i s is the Greek-Latin w e have b e e n discussing, w h i c h was created
in gradual stages through the ages, but w h i c h culminated in o u r age
and is advancing towards the future. It is the m o s t living and active
lexical element that exists: its original c o m p o s i t i o n a l elements c o m
bine with those o f the n e w languages; a n d the n e w w o r d s pass from
o n e language to another: for e x a m p l e , burocracia from French, and
autocar from English. It is curious that a n e w w a v e o f G r e e k and
Latin terms should b e arriving through the latter language (tecnologia,
macro, base de datos, etc.), as well as transcriptions with ch and th.
N e x t , I shall deal with the place o f this Greek-Latin in o u r lan
guages today. A s I have stated, it is n o t a fossil element, such as
284
CHAPTER THREE
the lexicon f r o m A r a b i c o r other languages, including s o m e G r e e k

elements. It is a linguistic stratum o f e n o r m o u s vitality, making it at
the same time a unifying agent o f all the cultural languages
and
today, indeed, o f all the w o r l d ' s languages.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE AND FUNCTION OF GREEK-LATIN IN
PRESENT DAY EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Origins and characteristics of this lexicon

4 0 6 . W e have described the essential features o f the Greek-Latin o f
Antiquity a n d have s h o w n h o w after a l o n g p e r i o d o f decline, the
lexicon o f the m o d e r n languages was slowly reconstructed with the
aid o f G r a e c o - L a t i n terms incorporated into the n e w medieval lan
guages through different means - particularly through Latin litera
ture a n d later G r e e k literature, but also directly f r o m the
Greek
lexicon.
W e have also indicated, although m u c h m o r e detail is n e e d e d , to
what extent Greek-Latin is today the most d y n a m i c element in our
languages. A l s o , h o w it essentially forms a unique language
within
the western languages (and i n d e e d all the world's languages). Let us

make s o m e specific observations.
407. In general, there are simple and regular correspondences between
the different m o d e r n languages: for example, Sp. democracia/Fr. d e m o c
ratic/Eng. democracyy'GerDemokratie/Itai.
democrazia/Rus.
.neMOKparaa,
have innumerable parallels with exact correspondences in phonetics,

o r t h o g r a p h y and suffix; the same is true o f other series, such as those
with Eng. -ty, Fr. -te, S p . -dad, Ital. -td, and with series with the same
prefixes.
But there are variations w h i c h are sometimes a p r o d u c t o f his
torical accidents, such as the splitting o f a w o r d o r element into two
o r m o r e : S p . cdtedra/cadera, musicalmurga> arce-/archi-/arqui-/arz<
tinely,
rou
the p o p u l a r forms are left out o f the Graeco-Latin system.
T h e y m a y also b e a result o f lexical variations (Ger.

autostrada!'Sp.
Autobahn/\\A.
autopista, autovid) o r o f external influences,
including
errors o f transcription (Sp. -ie and n o t -ia in hematie, due to a b a d

interpretation o f Fr. Vhematie, les hematics). Also, o n e w o r d m a y b e
b o r r o w e d directiy, through another language, resulting in two forms
and two meanings
[crater/ cratera, f r o m Fr., with the same
error).
285

Variations m a y also result from formal hesitations in the
transcrip
tion o f b o r r o w i n g s . T h e r e are irregularities in transcription even in

m o d e r n times, see the b o o k s already cited b y Eseverri and G o n z a l e z
Castro, as well as Fernandez-Galiano 1969 and J. Berguz 2 0 0 2 .
4 0 8 . A s w e have seen, Gueek-Latin coincides to a large extent with
the c o n c e p t o f the scientific language, although there are also n o n G r a e c o - L a t i n w o r d s . T h i s c o n c e p t and even that o f the cultural lan
guage in general, goes b e y o n d its limits. It has b e e n used to create
small lexical systems o f very varied values, o f the type hijolfilial hermano/fraternal, ojo/ocular/dptico,
dedo/dactilar/digital and so m a n y others
in w h i c h the adjective is o f a cultural type. O n the other hand, the

limits are difuse: a technical term m a y b e c o m e c o m m o n , and vice
versa.
4 0 9 . G r a e c o - L a t i n elements are often used with n e w meanings, as
w e have seen with regard to foto-.
T h i s is inevitable w h e n w e are
dealing with n e w professions, as in cases such as -nauta (cosmonauta,

aeronauta, astronauta). W h a t w o u l d the Greeks have said about these
w o r d s o r a b o u t hemeroteca, videoteca, cinemateca, taximetro, o r dinamometro?
A n d w h o w o u l d ever imagine that ion c o m e s from the pres. Part, o f
the v e r b eijitt? T h e same is true in the case o f suffixes and prefixes,
as w e have seen: for e x a m p l e , in chemistry -ico and -oso (sulflrico/' sulfuroso) take specific values. G r e e k and Latin prefixes and
suffixes
sometimes b e c o m e s y n o n y m o u s and try to o c c u p y the same field (for

instance, sidoso/siddtico),
s o m e t i m e s they b e c o m e specialised (Gr.
-ma is favoured to Lat. -mm in linguistic and medical terminology,

and a distinction is drawn b e t w e e n hipermercado and supermercado).
4 1 0 . A l s o , the types o f formation are often different from the ancient
ones and very u n o r t h o d o x from the p o i n t o f view o f Greek and
Latin: the Utopia b y T o m a s M o r o was rather u n o r t h o d o x , and today,
true monstrosities are sometimes created. V e r y often, as we have
seen, n o t only are G r a e c o - L a t i n hybrids created, but also hybrids of
the m o d e r n language a n d G r e e k o r Latin suffixes (naturismo/naturista,
turismo/turista, o f French origin). Y e t the systems are optional, not
c o m p u l s o r y (there is n o *nazista, *bandolerista).
O n the other hand, the small lexical systems o f M o d e r n GreekLatin are, in principle, the same as those w e have seen within Greek
and Latin, but they occasionaly e x c e e d themselves in creating m o r e
than o n e n o u n / a d j e c t i v e / v e r b / a d v e r b system from the same root:
286
CHAPTER THREE
and with greater o r lesser symmetry o r asymmetry with respect to

the parallel systems. A n d m a n y forms are only used in c o m p o s i t i o n .
S o , from (pcovf) w e obtain the nouns -fonia (zampona < oDjjxpcovia is
an o l d R o m a n c e w o r d w h i c h was left out o f the system), fonema,
fonetica (substantivisation); the adjectives -fono (substantivised from telefond) fonico, fonetico, fonemdtico and neither verbs n o r adverbs; all with
y
various semantic specialisations within the different scientific fields.

F r o m 7id9o<; w e obtain: the nouns -pata, -patia, patologo, patologia;
the adjectives -pdtico, patetico, patologico. F r o m nXaooay. the nouns plasma,
-plastia, plasta, pldstica, pldstico; the adjective pldstico; the verb plasmar.
In short, the situation o f irregularities and lacunae found in the sys
tem in G r e e k continues here, within a g r o w i n g v o l u m e o f lexicon.
But the e x p a n s i o n o f the various formations a n d their semantic
diversification is steadily increasing.
411. The truth is, a systematic study of the cultural lexicon with a GraecoLatin base has never been attempted: today it is possible thanks to the new
information systems of databases and data processing. But, of course, we
can still count on studies such as those cited in 389: works by R . Lapesa,
M . Fernandez-Galiano, F. Brunot, A. Ewert, A. C. Baugh, F. Fernandez,
W . Stammler, B. Migliorini, H. Ludtke, J. Berguz. The direct study o f
dictionaries is particularly significant. W e shall refer later to the D R A E ,
the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (Real Academia Espafiola) 2001, and
that o f C. Eseverri and J. F. Gonzalez Castro, previously cited; also, to the
inverse Spanish dictionary by I. Bosque-M. Perez Fernandez 1987.
For the problems o f scientific and technical language, cf. Adrados 1973b,
1986b and 1997b (with bibliography) and M . A. Martin Zorraquino 1997.
For the lexical systems in general, see Adrados 1969, I, p. 490 ff, E. Coseriu
1977; for some concrete lexical systems in Spanish, see Adrados 1995. For
the quantifying o f this lexicon, K. Psomadakis 1995 (and the data that I
extract directly from various sources).
4 1 2 . I n fact, these n u a n c e s , w h i c h c o u l d b e e x t e n d e d
almost
indefinitely, d o n o t negate the central importance in o u r languages

o f the stratum o f the cultural and scientific language w h i c h w e have
called Greek-Latin. T h i s stratum is a practically international c o n
tinuation
o f scientific G r e e k and Latin, without w h i c h today w e c o u l d
hardly speak in terms o f culture and science.

It has totally renovated the languages w h i c h were f o r m e d in the
M i d d l e A g e s f r o m the o l d I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages and
others,
bringing t h e m closer together. W e are dealing with a Graeco-Latin

cultural universe, w h i c h is m o r e alive today than it ever was. T h u s ,
G r e e k and Latin continue to b e living languages in the present day.
287
A s an e x a m p l e , let us try to quantify in s o m e measure the i m p a c t

o f this type o f language in m o d e r n Spanish. I say 'as an e x a m p l e
because the circumstances are strictly c o m p a r a b l e in other E u r o p e a n

languages and because, as I m e n t i o n e d before, exhaustive studies o n
this subject d o n o t exist.
Eseverri's dictionary o f Spanish Hellenisms, already outdated and
incomplete, serves as a starting p o i n t (it contains s o m e 17,000). If
w e c o m p a r e the 2,500 Latin Hellenisms collected b y W e i s e , w e can
see that the n u m b e r has increased considerably. A n d it continues to
d o so: the p r o p o s a l for n e w w o r d s presented to the plenary sessions
o f the Royal Spanish A c a d e m y (Real Academia Espanola) b y the Technical
V o c a b u l a r y C o m m i s s i o n (Comision de Vocabulario Tecnico), contains hun
dreds and hundreds o f words w h i c h are, for the most part, Hellenisms
o r formations with elements from G r e e k lexicon. T o b e sure, in the
recently published (1998) collection o f e m m e n d a t i o n s a n d additions
to the DRAE
(only for the letters a and c), w o r d s with a G r e e k base
a p p e a r in a v e r y great n u m b e r . F o r e x a m p l e : there are 6 with

aero-, 10 with aero-, 17 with anti-, 12 with bio-, 14 with cat(a)-,
13
with cine-.
T h e s e elements are Spanish p r o p e r , and they j o i n for the m o s t
part with Spanish words: antiimperialismo, antiniebla, antinuclear, antipartkula,
etc. (but also antihelmintico, antipatia, antipoda, e t c , with G r e e k elements,
antihidtico, antimisil, e t c with Latin elements).
Importance for the Spanish lexicon
4 1 3 . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f these elements for the Spanish lexicon can
b e seen b y studying the DRAE.
In m y article A d r a d o s 1997b I indi
cate, for e x a m p l e , that there are s o m e 100 w o r d s with auto-, 80 with

hiper-, 25 with filo-; there are also abundant
Latinisms with circum,
hiper, etc.
I have studied a list, m a d e b y the Institute o f L e x i c o g r a p h y o f the
R o y a l Spanish A c a d e m y (Instituto de Lexicografia de la Real Academia
Espanola), containing prefixes o r initial formative elements that appear
in the DRAE
- s o m e 2 0 0 - and the p r o p o r t i o n o f Hellenisms and
Latinisms is astonishing: a b o u t 95 percent. In the first page, w h i c h

contains 4 8 , there are 22 Hellenisms; a-, aden-, adeno-, aero-, alo-,
an-, ana-, anarco-, ami-, aniso-, anti-, antropo-, arce-, archi-, arqui-, arz~,
auto-, baro-, biblio-, bio-, bradi-, cata- (we c a n see that sometimes there
are variants o f the same element). Alongside this, w e have 22 Latinisms
288
CHAPTER THREE
and 4 elements o f other origins. In other pages, the p r o p o r t i o n o f

Hellenisms is even greater.
T h i s m e a n s that Greek-Latin covers all o f the cultural language
and is a fundamental element o f Spanish. But n o t just the prefixes.
In the Diccionario inverso de la lengua espanola b y I. BosqueM. Perez
Fernandez
1987, w e find, as I indicate in the article cited, a r o u n d
6 0 0 w o r d s with -tico, 5 0 with -sico-> 8 0 0 with -ismo
11 with -asmo.
T h e s e are just s o m e samples.

T h e study o f the DRAE
list leads to analogous conclusions with
respect to suffixes: whether from G r e e k (like those m e n t i o n e d and

others) o r from other origins: Latin (-ario, -ano> etc.), originating from
the former o r latter (-ia, -ico, etc.), o r from Spanish (-able, -ador, etc.).
T h e Greek element is strong, although not as m u c h as in the prefixes.
It is also strong in the s e c o n d terms o f c o m p o u n d s (which s o m e
times also appear in the first): see series such as -fib, -fobo, -fugo,
-genesis, -genia, -geno, -gono, -grafia, -grama, -hidrico, -iatria; o r such as
-plastia, -podo, -ptero, -rragia, -rrea, -rro, -scopia, -scopio, -statico, -teca,
-tecnica, -termo, -tomia, -tomo, -trofia, -trofo.
N o t e that in these relations w e are only dealing with G r e e k ele
ments (and Latin elements such as -cultura, -forme) o f m o r e frequent
use, w h i c h have b e e n assimilated into Spanish and have practically
b e c o m e part o f it. F r o m this, w e can d e d u c e that o u r qualification
o f the m o d e r n languages o f E u r o p e as semi-Greek o r c r y p t o - G r e e k
is not an exaggerated o n e .
4 1 4 . A n o t h e r resource for evaluating the importance o f the cultural
language is the study o f the growth o f the lexicon through the cen
turies. In a report presented recently to the R o y a l Spanish A c a d e m y ,
the p r o p o r t i o n o f w o r d s that have entered in each historical p e r i o d
is established, b a s e d o n a study o f 1,000 pages o f the
Diccionario
Historico de la lengua Espanola. T h e s e periods are:

T h e M i d d l e A g e s (until 1501), 1,060 (14 percent).
T h e G o l d e n A g e (until 1701), 1,148 (15.4 percent).
T h e eighteenth-twentieth
centuries, 5,242 (70.3 percent).
T h i s impressive increase is mainly due to the cultural and scientific

v o c a b u l a r y a n d derivatives within Spanish, created a c c o r d i n g to ten
dencies o f this v o c a b u l a r y . It is clear that in passing from Latin to
Castilian, the l e x i c o n h a d b e e n extremely reduced, with very few
abstracts a n d hardly any derivatives and lexical paradigms. O n l y the
289
cultural lexicon o f Greek-Latin, a n d that created in its likeness, was

able again to p r o d u c e a rich and flexible language with a b r o a d e r
lexicon than Latin.
Similarly, an impoverished syntax gave w a y to a m o r e flexible and
rich syntax which was abl^ to express abstract thought. Again, through
imitation o f the ancient models: Latin syntax, w h i c h had d e v e l o p e d
under the influence o f G r e e k syntax.
An international character
4 1 5 . W e have repeatedly indicated that w e are dealing with a gen
eral p h e n o m e n o n , w h i c h is not restricted to Spanish. I w o u l d like
to c o n f i r m this b y referring
to a study b y K . Psomadakis
already cited in 4 1 1 , in w h i c h he summarises
1995,
Greek words and
formative elements (or o f G r e e k origin) in seven E u r o p e a n languages.

T h e first is M o d e r n Greek, w h i c h has often received these words
from other E u r o p e a n languages, without this affecting its original
G r e e k character.
T h e first part o f this study draws a list o f 120 words o f the cul
tural and scientific language w h i c h are almost identical in the seven
E u r o p e a n languages in question: G r e e k (modern), Russian, English,
French, G e r m a n , Italian and Spanish. This is the case in the w o r d
democracy (cf. 4 3 6 ) .
It is impossible to treat these 120 w o r d s and their seven versions
here, so I will limit myself to the beginning o f the list in
Spanish
(alphabetisation is a c c o r d i n g to Greek, naturally): estetica, etiologia, alegoria, amnistia, anemia, andlisis, anarquia, anecdota, aritmetica, harmonia, arqueologia, astronauta, atmosfera, dtomo, automata, bardmetro, base, bibliogrqfia,
biologia, galaxia, genetica, geogrqfta, decdlogo, democracia, demagogia, diagnosis,
dicta, didlogo, didmetro, diqfragma.
T h e s e c o n d part o f the study draws a list o f a series o f c o m p o s
itive elements w h i c h are c o n s i d e r e d to b e c o m m o n to these lan
guages (I will also give these in Spanish, the correspondences are
obvious):
Initial elements: (a) prepositions, anfi-, ana-, anti-, apo-, cata-,
dia-, ec-, en-, hiper-, hipo-, meta-, para-, peri-, pro-, sin-; (b) numer
als, mono-, proto-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, pento-, hexa-, hepta-, octo-,
deca-, dodeca-, hecto-, kilo-; (c) n o u n s , adjectives and
adverbs,
aero-, astro-, auto-, bio-, cromo-, crono-, dis-, ecto-, electro-, endo-, eu-,
exo-, geo-, gramo-,
hemo-, hemato-,
hetero-,
holo-,
homo-,
homeo-,
290
CHAPTER THREE
hidro-, higro-, iso-, macro-, micro-, meso-, neuro-, nefro-, orto-, paleo-,
pan-, pango-, filo-, fono-, foto-,
poll-, pseudo-, psico-,
tele-, termo-,
uro-, xero-, zoo-.

Final elements: (a) suffixes, -oide, -ista, -ico, -ismo, -osis; (b) n o m
inal elements, -cracia, -gnosis, -gnostico, -grqfia, -grdfico, -logico, -logia,
-metro, -metrico, -metria, -morfo, -morfico, -morfismo, -nauta,
-patia,
-patetico, -fono, -fonico, -fonia, -plasma, -plasia, plastico, -rrea, -scopio,

-scopia, -topo, -topico, -tropo, -trofico, -trofia.
4 1 6 . In most cases, w e are just dealing with examples. But I believe
that, given the aforementioned data, the act o f including the life o f
G r e e k in other languages in the history o f G r e e k is justified.
This
stratum belongs to these languages, but it is at the same time inter

national a n d also Graeco-Latin. It is an entirely living stratum w h i c h
is constantly developing.
T h u s , G r e e k not o n l y p r o v i d e d the m o d e l for scientific v o c a b u
lary and prose, but also survived to the present day in very diverse
languages, actively serving this vocabulary. It is not just a fossil ele
ment o r o n e a m o n g other elements: it is an element w h o s e history
still continues.
CHAPTER FOUR
MODERN GREEK
1. T H E HISTORY OF M O D E R N GREEK ( M G )
4 1 7 . T h e G r e e k language has always p r o v i d e d surprises: in A n c i e n t

G r e e c e , its differentiation a n d then unification through the c o n v e r
g e n c e o f literary a n d political factors; subsequently, in the R o m a n
p e r i o d , its uninterrupted existence in the East u n d e r R o m a n rule;
a n d in Byzantium, its continuity as the language o f the C h u r c h a n d
State. A n d then, o f course, its 'invasion' o f all languages, making
t h e m suitable for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f culture a n d science.
Finally, after the fall o f Byzantium a n d the Turkish p e r i o d , G r e e k
was resurrected in the f o r m o f t w o sociolinguistic strata a n d a m y r i a d
o f dialects; it then unified them, a r o u n d A t h e n s , as in Antiquity, a n d
in a s o m e w h a t parallel
manner.
S o m e h o w , the language o f a small g r o u p o f p e o p l e h a d m a n a g e d ,

in extremely unfavourable circumstances, n o t o n l y to survive a n d
achieve unity twice, b u t also to b e c o m e the m o d e l w h i c h all lan
guages w o u l d follow.
H e r e , w e shall deal with its last adventure: the creation o f M o d e r n
Greek.
4 1 8 . W e have seen h o w , during the Turkish p e r i o d , only
certain
marginal dialects o f the I o n i c islands (which w e r e never o c c u p i e d

p e r m a n e n d y b y the Turks), a n d o f C y p r u s a n d Crete (which main
tained their i n d e p e n d e n c e for a time), w e r e cultivated in a literary
w a y . In the o c c u p i e d z o n e , continental G r e e c e , the dialects w h i c h
e m e r g e d h a d , with f e w exceptions, a purely oral character.
T h e C h u r c h , u p o n w h i c h the Greeks b a s e d their sense o f iden
tity, m a d e use o f the Atticist language. T h e previously m e n t i o n e d
attempts m a d e in the Byzantine p e r i o d , to use p o p u l a r language in
literature (only in v e r y c o n c r e t e genres a n d without a mixture o f o l d
elements) w e r e a b a n d o n e d .
T h i s brings us b a c k to the subject o f the t w o G r e e k linguistic
strata. W e have seen that in the periods o f the Byzantine a n d R o m a n
292
CHAPTER FOUR
e m p i r e s , there h a d b e e n t w o languages w h i c h h a d
a reciprocal
influence o n each other: spoken o r p o p u l a r language and literary or

Atticist language. I n d e e d , in m o d e r n G r e e c e , from the
liberation
o n w a r d s , there has b e e n a rivalry b e t w e e n these t w o languages,

5
k n o w n respectively as KocGotpeuouaa 'pure' and 8r||ioTtKr| 'popular ,

the former b e i n g derived from Atticist G r e e k and the latter from
p o p u l a r o r spoken Greek. A . Hatzidakis, in his b o o k o f 1892, estab
lished the g e n e a l o g y o f M G as descending from the o l d koine, and
not, in general terms, f r o m the o l d dialects. T h e M o d e r n G r e e k
dialects, w h o s e origins have b e e n discussed, also descend from koine
(although these dialects m a y have inherited features o f the old dialects,
see 4 4 0 ) .
T h e history o f M G resumes with an evolutionary tendency: the
disappearance o f the t w o linguistic strata and o f the different dialects
in favour o f a single, almost unified M G (which has also, o f course,
received influences f r o m different languages).
MG
has r e d u c e d its s c o p e to a relatively r e d u c e d geographical
area, close to that o f A G (Ancient Greek). It o c c u p i e s nearly all o f

G r e e c e , w h e r e 95 percent o f the population speak it (more than
10,000,000 p e o p l e ) a n d the G r e e k part o f Cyprus (some 6 0 0 , 0 0 0
people). In G r e e c e , the n u m b e r o f Slavic, A r m e n i a n , Albanian and
R u m a n i a n speakers has diminished drastically and the majority
are
bilingual; L a d i n o o r Judeo-Spanish practically disappeared after the

persecutions o f the S e c o n d W o r l d W a r . T h e r e are about
150,000
Turkish speakers left in T h r a c e .

Besides this, the n u m b e r o f G r e e k speakers in Egypt (Alexandria)
and Asia M i n o r has diminished incredibly as a result o f anti-western
backlash: the lost war in Anatolia and the exchange o f population
groups (1923), nationalist regimes in Egypt (from 1956). T h e i r n u m
b e r has d e c r e a s e d in Istambul.
T h e s e G r e e k s , a n d those o f the
Caucasus and Ukraine, have withdrawn to G r e e c e . By contrast, there

are
flourishing
G r e e k c o m m u n i t i e s in western E u r o p e , A m e r i c a and
Australia.
419. For the bibliography relating to M G in general (until 1972), c f D . V .
Vayacacos 1972. The linguistic study o f M G was initiated by A. Hatzidakis
in his book o f 1892, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, and was con
tinued by other works outlined in our bibliography. Here, one can also
find references to the grammars and linguistic studies of J. Psichari 1886-89,
A. Thumb 1895, H. Pernot 1921 and A. Mirabel 1959a as weU as the
works o f M . Triandaphyllidis, whose Grammatiki o f 1941 had a profound
293
MODERN GREEK
influence. See also F. W . Householder and others 1964, O . Elefteriadis

1985 and (today, the more complete Grammatiki) A. Tsopanakis 1994. For
the various areas o f grammar, see H.-J. Seiler 1952, A. Koutsoudas 1962,
P. H . Matthews 1967 and D . Sotiropoulos 1972; for the lexicon, see
P. Mackridge 1985, p. 307 ff. and 432 ff.
For the most essential points regarding the history o f M G , the 'linguistic
question' in Greece and the state o f the current language see: in this work,
p. 70 ff., and in R. Browning 1983, p . 100 ff, D . V . Vayacacos 1972,
p. 81 ff. and P. Mackridge 1985, p . 1 ff. See also, on these subjects,
A. E. Megas 1925-27, A. Mirambel 1937, 1957 and 1959, V . Rotolo 1965,
C. D . Papadatos 1976, E. Petrounias 1978, G. Babiniotis 1979, R. Brown
1982, S. C. Caratzas 1957-58, I. P. Walburton 1980 and G. Horrocks
1997, p. 334 ff.
4 2 0 . G r e e k m a n a g e d to maintain its prestige in the East in
the
Turkish p e r i o d , despite the terrible b l o w s it received. A small elite

regarded it as the descendant o f the glorious past; many m o r e regarded
it as the language o f the true religion, centered o n the
patriarchy
o f Constantinople. H e r e and in other parts o f the Turkish empire,

there were many Greek speakers w h o were generally tolerated although
there were periods o f persecution. I n d e e d , a small G r e e k aristocracy
h e l d official posts in the e m p i r e , particularly
the P h a n a r i o t s o f
Constantinople, w h o held important administrative and political posts

and g o v e r n e d W a l a c h i a a n d M o l d a v i a for the Sultan.
In the West, h o w e v e r , the only reference for G r e e k was Classical
Antiquity. In its n a m e (or using it as a pretext), Frederick II o f
Prussia rejected Voltaire's proposals to help liberate the Greeks from
the Turks. T h e Greeks were considered undeserving, debased, and
their language corrupt. A n exception was Catherine o f Russia, n o
d o u b t because o f the d e e p b o n d s between her country and Byzantine
culture.
H o w e v e r , towards the e n d o f the century, after the
Enlighten
m e n t and the French R e v o l u t i o n , efforts to help the Greeks slowly

b e g a n to g r o w , as they b e c a m e identified m o r e o r less with
the
ancients: for e x a m p l e , L o r d B y r o n and the Philhellenes w h o fought

in the G r e e k w a r o f liberation f r o m 1821 onwards. T h i s was c o m
p l e m e n t e d b y the fact that the Greeks, w h o w e r e subjects o f the
Turkish empire, b e g a n to relate to E u r o p e as partners in foreign
trade o r as m e m b e r s o f the G r e e k communities w h i c h were being
f o r m e d in Russia and the W e s t . A l s o , b y the diffusion o f E u r o p e a n
ideas o f i n d e p e n d e n c e and f r e e d o m , w h o s e ancient g e n e a l o g y was
admitted b y all.
294
CHAPTER FOUR
U n d e r liberal and nationalistic influence, groups o f G r e e k i m m i

grants p r o m o t e d the creation o f i n d e p e n d e n c e groups in G r e e c e and
a b r o a d (in O d e s s a a n d in the West), w h i c h were supported b y the
Phanariots o f Constantinople and the G r e e k C h u r c h .
O n the other h a n d , G r e e c e was a g o o d support base for the
Russians and westerners in their desire for expansion at the expense
o f the Turks. All o f this resulted in aid to the Greeks w h e n they
tried to liberate themselves from the Turks. T h e events unfolded as
follows: the revolt o f 1821, a war with disputable results; the sup
p o r t o f Great Britain, Russia and France (the treaty o f L o n d o n and
the battle o f N a v a r i n o , 1827); G r e e k i n d e p e n d e n c e (the treaty o f
Adrianopolis o f 1829 and the L o n d o n C o n f e r e n c e o f 1830).
4 2 1 . G r e e c e thus f o u n d itself liberated, but there was still the lin
guistic issue. T h e minority that was able to write did so in KaOapewuoa
( K G ) , the continuation o f the old, Byzantine koine; the rest spoke
SnôxiKti ( D G ) , divided further into dialects, a language w h i c h was
not written. T h e western m o d e l and a little rationality required a
single language, a language that w o u l d also b e capable o f satisfying
the needs o f E u r o p e a n civilisation. But h o w w o u l d this be achieved?
T h e task was undertaken b y A d a m a n t i o s Korais ( 1 7 4 8 - 1 8 3 3 ) , a
G r e e k from S m y r n a w h o h a d b e e n sent to A m s t e r d a m b y his father
as a c o m m e r c i a l representative, and had later studied medicine at
the University o f M o n t p e l l i e r . H e h a d lived through the
French
R e v o l u t i o n and saw in the expedition to Egypt the beginning o f the

e n d o f the O t t o m a n empire. In his last years, he witnessed the lib
eration o f G r e e c e .
K o r a i s was an excellent classical philologist. H e b e g a n b y trans
lating Strabo, at N a p o l e o n ' s request, and later translated and edited
(with numerous notes) the classical authors: Aristotle, Plato, Thucydides,
Isocrates, a n d m a n y others.
H e c o n s i d e r e d G r e e k as a c o n t i n u u m , believing that Polybius,
Plutarch, a n d the rest h a d followed the p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f M o d e r n
Greek. Y e t , if, for Korais, 8njioTi.cn, was the continuation o f A n c i e n t
Greek, he w a n t e d to 'purify' it, b y adding s o m e elements o f the old
language in o r d e r to c o n v e r t it into a language o f culture, adminis
tration, and education. H e was treading an intermediate
territory
b e t w e e n the pure 5r|jnoTiKf| and the 'pure' language a d v o c a t e d b y

the m o r e traditional sector, led b y Codrikas, a representative o f the
Phanariots o f Constantinople.
295
MODERN GREEK
5
F o r e x a m p l e , against the d e m o t i c yapx 'fish , he p r o p o s e d its ety

mological f o r m o ^ d p i o v , whereas Codrikas w a n t e d to return to the
A G ixfaq.
T h e poets o f the I o n i c islands were m o r e radical. T h e s e islands
were the only place where a dialect continued to b e cultivated in
written f o r m , after the conquest o f Cyprus and Crete b y the Turks.
We
have m e n t i o n e d the p o e t S o l o m o s , the m o s t well-known o f the
g r o u p . But it was a local language and n o w , attempts were being

m a d e to create a national language suitable for administration
and
prose in general.
422.
In these circumstances, a provisional government was established
in Nauplion in 1828, and later, in 1833, the capital was m o v e d to what

really was a small city but with an illustrious n a m e , Athens. T h e clas
sicist interpretation prevailed (although making Athens into a monar
chy
was hardly classical) and the city b e c a m e filled with neoclassical
buildings. This orientation also prevailed with regard to language.

H o w e v e r , from the outset, the hard facts o f reality b e g a n to impose
themselves. T o g e t h e r with the Athenians, an influx o f foreign peoples,
mainly Peloponnesian, invaded the small city o f Athens. A spoken
dialect b e g a n to f o r m , w h i c h was m o r e o r less c o m m o n , based o n
'southern G r e e k ' , m o r e conservative than that o f the N o r t h but with
certain
archaisms
p r o c e e d i n g f r o m the dialect s p o k e n in Attica,
M e g a r a and A e g i n a . It h a d (and still has) the forms avOpcorco*; (not

avQpovnovq),
\IVTT\
'nose' (not u m ) , jxeonuepi ' m i d d a y ' (not jLuauip).
It a c c e p t e d s o m e features f r o m the G r e e k o f the I o n i c islands ( A c .

pi. fern, TIC; o f the article) and
Constantinople.
H o w e v e r , o n c e the G r e e k g o v e r n m e n t h a d b e e n installed,
pres
sure from classicism was very strong, so that the Ka8apenoi)aa under
went a renovation and was taken a step further. T h e r e were certainly
extremists (such as P. Soutsos, w h o attempted to renovate o l d Attic)
and moderates (such as K . Asopios). O n the other hand, there was
also hypercorrection and the creation o f n e w words: instead o f Kocoaa
' b o x ' , %pr||iaTOKiPa)Tiov was used; instead
o f TCCXTOVCCC, yeoburiXov (a
caique from Fr. pomme de terre).

T h e D e m o t i c language ( D G ) was referred to as 'long-haired' and
riots b r o k e o u t in A t h e n s w h e n , in
1 9 0 1 , A . Rallis published
translation o f the N e w Testament into D G (he h a d previously trans

lated the
Iliad).
296
423.
CHAPTER FOUR
Nevertheless, the situation h a d b e g u n to change in 1888 w h e n
J. Psicharis, a G r e e k writer w h o lived in Paris, published his novel

To ra,i8i ( ' M y v o y a g e ' ) in D G . H e attempted to create a regularised
D e m o t i c (too regularised), w h i c h admitted, it is true, literary w o r d s
from K G . Y e t , in spite o f everything, the language o f journalism,
law,
a n d science c o n t i n u e d to b e K G , and until 1909 it was the
only language taught in the schools.

Gradually, h o w e v e r , it b e g a n to lose the most extreme features o f
Atticism: the o l d G r e e k future, the optative, Attic declension, imper
atives in -0i. But the 1911 Constitution still considered G K the official
language o f G r e e c e .
Nevertheless, the r e n o v a t i o n b e c a m e stronger w h e n , in 1 9 1 0 ,
M . Triandaphyllidis f o u n d e d the association k n o w n as the 'Education
Society' ( 'EKTICXISCDTIKCX; "OUIAAX;). T h i s b o d y influenced the legisla
tion o f the Liberal Party o f E. V e n i z e l o s , w h o in 1917 introduced
DG
into elementary education. T h e language a d v o c a t e d b y Trian
daphyllidis was described in his Grammar o f 1941, w h i c h was a kind

o f prescriptive linguistics.
Certainly, his c o n c e p t i o n was m o r e o p e n than that o f Psicharis:
it preserved certain
d o u b l e forms and purist forms, such as -KT-
instead o f -cpx- in w o r d s o f ancient origin (7iepi7iTpo). But,
unfortu
nately, the linguistic 'issue' b e c a m e politicised, and the supporters o f

DG
w e r e at times a c c u s e d o f pro-Russian and even pro-Bolshevik
sympathies.
F r o m 1923 to 1964 D G continued to b e the language o f the first
levels o f school education (except during the g o v e r n m e n t o f Tsaldaris
in 1 9 3 5 - 3 6 ) ; in 1964, the Centre Party p l a c e d b o t h languages o n
an equal footing, although D G was rarely studied b y students older
than 14. Later, during the g o v e r n m e n t o f the C o r o n e l s , K G was
o n c e again declared the official language (1969), D G b e i n g restricted
to the first four levels o f primary education. T h e r e was a reaction
against this with the c h a n g e o f regime: in 1976, D G was declared
the official language o f education and
administration.
Subsequently, the triumph o f the PAS O K
party saw the
intro
duction o f the so-called m o n o t o n i c system in 1982: an orthographic

reform w h i c h abolished the spiritus, allowed monosyllables to b e writ
ten without accents (with exceptions) and polysyllables with only an
acute accent.
424.
H o w e v e r , the path towards the imposition o f D G turned out
to b e longer than expected. For a l o n g time, and despite everything,
MODERN GREEK
KG,
297
liberated f r o m extremisms, c o n t i n u e d to b e the language o f the
tribunals, army a n d C h u r c h . It was the language o f culture, while

DG
slowly b e g a n to b e i m p o s e d (from genre to genre) and with
errors, p r o d u c i n g an often artificial and confused prose. This situa

tion was only m a d e worse b y the decline in the standard o f teach
ing o f the classics a n d b y h e w p e d a g o g i c a l trends w h i c h constantly
l o w e r e d the level o f the
All
students.
the s a m e , D G n o w triumphs
in G r e e c e . But rather than
Demotic, w e should simply call it, at least in its written form, C o m m o n

Greek. Indeed, there are various types o f D G , a m o n g t h e m the socalled KaGojiiTtoDuivr), with a b u n d a n t elements o f Ka9ocpe\>um)aa
w h i c h were culturally indispensable. C o n s e q u e n d y , what w e normally
refer to as M o d e r n G r e e k ( M G ) is n o t exactly unitary: it preserves
elements o f the ancient language in its phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y ,
and especially in its lexicon. T h e r e is 7t6A,r|/.T;6Aa<; ( G . -nq o r -ecoq),
-6Ta/-6xr)<;, G . o f the first declension in -a (modern)/-nc; (ancient),
8eo7ioiviSa/8eG7ioiv{<;, 'EAAd8a/'EA,A,d<;; the N . pi. o f the first in -at
(xoDpiaxai) is sometimes preserved; from the adj. pcc0\><; there is G .
sg.
poc9icnVPa0eo<;, N . pi. (3a0ioi/pa0ei<;. A n d there are still m a n y
compositive elements o f A G , as well as infinite variations w h i c h are

m o r e o r less s y n o n y m o u s in the lexicon, o f the type KOKKOCAX)/OOTOUV
5
' b o n e . T h e language w e call M G therefore c o m b i n e s different vari

eties o f D G .
2. DESCRIPTION OF M O D E R N G R E E K
425.
T h u s , a n e w koine, w h i c h is M o d e r n Greek, was created and
diffused,
a m i d the debates o f the p r o p o n e n t s o f diverse
official
interventions and solutions. It is not entirely uniform (although nei

ther was the ancient koine), but it is fundamentally based o n a dialect,
as the o l d koine h a d b e e n : in Peloponnesian Greek, in this case. A
new
element has b e e n added: the resolution o f the inherited diglos
sia, w h i c h had b e c o m e increasingly aggravated. A l s o , the absorption

o f lexical elements from the western languages, w h i c h shall b e dis
cussed later.
The
principal characteristics
are k n o w n to us f r o m the D G o f
various Byzantine texts, particularly from the twelfth century onwards

(and in later dialects o f Cyprus and Crete, a m o n g others). W e have
discussed these. But it is useful to present an o v e r v i e w o f D G as a
w h o l e , adding data o n K G .
298
CHAPTER FOUR
4 2 6 . Phonetics. T h e following characteristics are found: iotacism and

the elimination o f diphthongs, w h i c h provokes various graphias o f
the same p h o n e m e ; the elimination o f the opposition o f short and
l o n g vowels (but there are t w o graphias o f o), o f the accent o f inten
sity, a n d o f the t w o o l d tonal accents; a system o f voiceless and
v o i c e d occlusives and fricatives, in the three points o f articulation,
with graphic distinction; an opposition o f the sibilants G / , also in
certain contexts o f v o i c e l e s s / v o i c e d a; o f the affricates
XG, x; the
loss o f -v (except before occlusives and affricates, but sometimes pre

served in K G ) ; %x, (px (sometimes KX,TCXin K G ) ; the palatalisation
o f consonants before i (y); and a fixed accent in adjectives (vecoxeprj,
but not in K G ) .
4 2 7 . Noun and adjective. T h e n o u n has a simplified m o r p h o l o g y , with
the three cases o f N . , G . a n d A c . (rarely a separate V . ) and the two
numbers sg. and pi. T h e r e are isosyllabic w o r d s o f two types: the
first, with t w o forms in sg. and another t w o in pi. (masc. sg. N .
rcaxepac/G.-Ac.
Tcaxepa, pi. N . - A c . Ttaxepeq/G. rcaxepcov; fern. N . - A c .
K a p 5 i a / G . Kapoiac;, pi. N . - A c . Kocpoiiq/G. KapSicov, and close types);

the second, with three forms in sg. and pi. ( m a s c sg. N . 8d0KaXoc;/Ac.
SdaKocAo/G. SccGKaAm), pi. N . SdGKocAoi, A c . SccGKatanx;, G . 8CXGK&AG)V),
but t w o in the neuters (sg. N . - A c . 7rpoGC07io/G. upoGcoTun), pi. N . - A c .

rcpoGGma, G .rcpoGcoTCcov,cf. also jnepo(;/(xepoi)<;/|j,epr|/jLiepSv).
In addition, there are anisosyllabic w o r d s , w h o s e masc. and fern,
have t w o forms in the sg. ( N . / A c . - G . , but there are three in
the
case o f Popidq), and another t w o in pi, ( N . - A c , / G . ) , pi. ones having

o n e syllable m o r e thanks to the desinence -8e<;, w h i c h w e have dis
cussed. A l s o , the neuters have t w o forms with the same
distribution
and o n e pi. in -ocxoc (ovoâ/ovojuaxcc), o f ancient origin.

T h e adjective has generalised the triple inflection
masc./fern./n.
(with few exceptions). It has maintained three degrees, but the c o m

parative and superlative, together with the synthetic forms o f ancient
origin, have analytic forms with nio/b
nw.
A s w e c a n see, inflection has b e e n greatly altered and simplified;

w e saw h o w in K G ancient desinences are sometimes
preferred.
4 2 8 . Pronouns and articles. T h e p r o n o u n s o f the 1st person (eycb) and

2 n d person (EGV, GX>) continue to exist, while the 3rd is n e w (the old
is a\)xoc;, 'the same'). T h e unification o f forms in the pi. is notable
( N . ejieiq; 8G8i<;; G . eiiaq, jiaq; ioaq,
oaq) and the preservation,
with
formal variants, o f the o l d opposition between full forms (1st G . - A c .
299
MODERN GREEK
euivcc, uivoc, 2 n d eoevct,
GEVCC,
a m o n g others) and clitics (which are
n o t necessarily atonal, the majority b e i n g b o t h enclitic a n d proclitic):

for
instance, G . uxyo, GOU, XOV ( m a s c ) , A c ui, oL O n l y the A c . TO,
TT|,
TO,
the
3rd,
o f the 3rd is enclictic a n d atonal. K G has

DG
has
TOOV
as G . pi. o f
TOD<;.
S o m e systems are important: the demonstratives avxoq,

EKeivoq;
xexoxoq, xoaoq; possessives w h i c h are the G . eiiov,
xovxoq,
etc.; the
reflexives 6 kavxoq urn), etc.; the indefinite Kccvevaq, pi. |xspiK0i; the
interrogatives TIOI6<;,
but also 07i;oio<;,
TI,
noaoq;
the relative
OTIOIOC;, O G o q , OGTIC;
rcoi),
without inflection,
(in K G ) .
In the article, together with the traditional
definite article (with
slight variations in inflection, fern. pi. N . o i , A c . x i q ) , there is an

indefinite evocc;.
429.
Verbs. T h e m o s t important
characteristics have already b e e n
m e n t i o n e d : the reduction to t w o stems, the s e c o n d c o m i n g from the

aorist and perfect, the loss o f the dual and optative, a n d the unification
o f the indicative a n d subjunctive in the present stem (not in that o f
the aorist), the loss o f the future (replaced b y 9 a a n d the ind.), perfect
(replaced b y a periphrastic form), infinitive (usually, replaced b y v d
and subjunctive), the participle (made indeclinable in
-OVTCCC;,
-(ovxaq;
but the middle-passive is maintained); an a b u n d a n c e o f periphrastic

forms. In addition, the o l d verbal system, although simplified, is
essentially maintained: three persons, t w o voices (the m i d d l e v o i c e
also acting as a passive), three tenses, three m o o d s (with the imper
ative), t w o aspects (opposition extended to the future).
The
modifications are a b o v e all formal: the reduction o f suffixes
in the present stem, various ways o f f o r m i n g the aorist stem (we

have discussed this), n e w multi-stem verbs; the middle-passive aorist
-9r|Koc; the loss o f atonal augment (but it is maintained in K G ) ; the
verb d u i inflected as a middle (eijuou); considerably altered desinences.
S u c h alteration is notable a n d sometimes gives rise to variants.
For
those that c o m e from A G , there are notable forms such as the
act. pres. ind. 2 n d sg. Aiq, aicovc;, naq, 1st pi.

3rd 8V0i)v, d i c o w e ; impf. 1st sg.
pres. ind. 1st
mid.
-ojunv,
dyaTtisfLiai.
dyomoftGa;
SEVODU^
for 8evo|ie,
aor. 2 n d sg. eSeGeq; m i d .
A t times, before n e w desinences such as
1st pi. -OJJXXGTE, K G preserves the o l d -6|i9a; in the imperfect,

-Go,
-T0 c a n b e maintained instead o f
-OJIODV, - O G O W ,
-OTOCV.
In the imperfect o f contract verbs in the active v o i c e , the o l d forms

- c o v , e t c c a n b e used in K G instead o f -OUGCC, e t c , the aorist passive
300
CHAPTER FOUR
-0r|v c a n b e maintained instead o f -9r|Ka, the articular infinitive, etc.

But the optative, the o l d aorist, and future, etc., a n d a large series
o f forms have definitively b e e n lost.
4 3 0 . Invariable words. A d v e r b s are to a large extent those o f A G ;
adverbs in -a p r e d o m i n a t e o v e r those in -coc;, w h i c h are
maintained
particularly in K G .
Prepositions are practically those o f A G , sometimes with an altered
form: yid,
ae
JLIE,
(GTOV
in D G , eiq
in K G ) , sometimes main
TOV
tained; there are n e w prepositions, such as Sixcoc;, %o>pic; 'without',

o d v ' h o w ' , xaaiiz 'the same as'; they are constructed with the A c ,
s o m e with the G . o r N . But only s o m e o f them function as preverbs
(dvii, dTto, Kara, uexd, Tcapd, rcpoq), alongside the o l d prepositions
w h i c h alone preserve this function even though they are used as
prepositions in r e a d y - m a d e phrases and in K G (8td,
Kept, 7ip6, bnip,
EK/EJ;,
ev,
mi,
bno). W e should a d d the preverbs, ê- (from e) and
i;ocvoc- (also an adverb, from e^-ava-).

As far as conjunctions are c o n c e r n e d , w e must distinguish between
c o o r d i n a t i n g and subordinating conjunctions. T h e former are not
very different from those o f A G : copulative KCC{; disjunctive r\. . . r\. . .,
eixe .
. EIXE
.,
OUXE
. . . ovxe
.,
UTJXE .
UT|T
. . . The
importance
o f the latter has g r o w n since the disappearance o f the infinitive, as

well as the genitive absolute. Apart from relative clauses with 7 1 0 - 0
and other relatives, already m e n t i o n e d , there are clauses o f c o m pletives foq, 9<o<; and oxt (particularly in K G ) , interrogatives with xi,
causal and temporal with yiccxx, depot), 7iei8f|, E V S , Sioti, c o n s e c u tives with
COOTE,
finals with woe, yid v d , those o f fear with \xr\, ur|v,
those o f m o o d with
KCC9CO<;,
a d v , etc.
4 3 1 . Suffixes, lexicon. Suffixation closely resembles that o f A G , but

there are far m o r e suffixes, whether n e w (some o f foreign origin, as
w e saw), o r ancient: f r o m abstracts such as
-GIJXO
-Tjxo ((pocynxo 'meal'), -ot>poc (aicowupa 'confusion'),
(TPEÎJLLO
-E(OC,
'race'),
-id (8o-oA,id
'work'); f r o m diminutives such as -dici, -{81, -ovXa and augmentatives

such as -dpec, -dpoq; f r o m ethnics such as -dvoq, -ivo<;, - E ^ o q ; from
the derivation o f adjectives taken f r o m nouns such as -aKoq, -dpnc;,
-dtoc; o r other adjectives such as -ot)Ari<; (da7Cpot>Ar|<;) o r verbs such
as -po<; (OAtfipoc;). In 3 3 4 w e saw the preferred suffixes for verbs
from the Byzantine p e r i o d onwards.
T h e important thing is that the richness o f derivation and c o m
position is preserved, functioning in a w a y similar to that o f A n c i e n t
Greek, but with constant innovation.
301
MODERN GREEK
T h e l e x i c o n continues that o f A G to a large extent, but it has

b e e n renovated; w e shall deal separately with this subject, for it is
an area in w h i c h foreign influence has b e e n considerable. It serves
to d r a w attention to the existence o f a D G l e x i c o n that is different
from
that o f K G , w h o s e terms,
nevertheless,
occasionally can b e
i n t r o d u c e d in D G . Examples o f pairs with the o p p o s i t i o n D G / K G

5
are the following (some were m e n t i o n e d previously): zvaq/ziq ' o n e ,

u^ydAoc;/'uiyou; 'big', KOKKaAo/oaxouv ' b o n e ' , \|/api/i%8n<; 'fish', umrj/piq
' n o s e ' , vep6/u5cop 'water', etc.
3. BORROWINGS AND CULTURE WORDS IN THE

M O D E R N GREEK LEXICON
4 3 2 . W e have seen h o w , in the history o f Greek, the partial difference

b e t w e e n D G a n d K G presented the greatest obstacle for unification.
Later, h o w e v e r , m a n y w o r d s f r o m K G , a l o n g with the lexical base
o f D G , w o u l d aid in the formation o f M G . G r e e k has
absorbed
m a n y b o r r o w i n g s from other languages, a m o n g t h e m western b o r

rowings (sometimes o f G r e e k origin) w h i c h have enabled it to b e c o m e
i n c o r p o r a t e d into the universal cultural a n d scientific m o v e m e n t .
T h i s was a late i n c o r p o r a t i o n , given that G r e e c e h a d n o t partic
ipated in the m o v e m e n t o f H u m a n i s m a n d m o d e r n science because
o f Turkish d o m i n a t i o n . Y e t , the facility o f its language for deriva
tion a n d c o m p o s i t i o n , inherited
f r o m the A n c i e n t language,
this i n c o r p o r a t i o n possible: it easily a d m i t t e d
made
lexical elements o f
A n c i e n t G r e e k origin o r those derived from them.

N o t e that the ' n e w ' w o r d s are a b u n d a n t in the p o p u l a r language
today, whereas w e c a n write a b o u t abstract o r scientific subjects with
a v o c a b u l a r y that is practically that o f A n c i e n t G r e e k with
forms
derived f r o m it.
A c c o r d i n g to the statistics presented b y P. M a c k r i d g e a n d extracted
from van Dijk-Wittop K o n i n g , 324 out o f 1,148 w o r d s studied b y
this author are w o r d s f r o m A G w h i c h have r e m a i n e d u n c h a n g e d in
form and meaning; 148 are substantially the same, with s o m e changes
in m o r p h o l o g y o r phonetics (ACyoq for 6A,{yo<;, Oexco for x(0r|jii); 129
are w o r d s f r o m A G that have b e e n 'resuscitated'
in m o d e r n
time;
2 0 2 are w o r d s derived f r o m A G from the fourth century BC onwards

(awe%i^co, dKaxaTia-oaxoi;, etc.); 252 are w o r d s derived in m o d e r n time
from others c o m i n g f r o m A G ; o n l y 50 w o r d s are true b o r r o w i n g s .
302
CHAPTER FOUR
433. O n the Modern Greek lexicon in general and its problems, see
P. Mackridge 1985, p. 306 ff. On borrowings of various origins, A. Tsopanakis
1994, p. 629 ff. For the borrowings from Slavic, Albanian and Rumanian,
G. Meyer 1894; for borrowings from Turkish, K. Kazazis 1972; and from
French, A. A. Papadopoulos 1926 and N. G. Kontospoulos 1978. For a
fuller bibliography (until 1972), see D . V . Vayacacos, p. 215 ff.
4 3 4 . G r e e k continues to have m a n y w o r d s o f Latin origin, taken in
loan in different periods: dcKouupcb < accumbo, darcpoc; < asper, ppa%i6Ai
< bracchiolum, lcdaxpo < castrum, etc. T h e majority o f these w o r d s
have adapted to the G r e e k system o f inflection and from them very
productive suffixes are obtained, such as -dpoo, -dvoq, -ot>Ai.
Greek maintains m a n y w o r d s o f Italian origin, mostly Venetian,
such as poAxoc, yovoxo,
KapauiAot, Koaxoi>jii,
KOD^VVOC, UTCCCGXOUVI,
aap8eAAa, xapexoa, xaijjivxo, etc. These are assimilated into the Greek
lexicon a n d its inflection. T h e y are a p r o d u c t o f medieval contacts
with the peoples o f Italy, in s o m e cases also in the m o d e r n period.
A series o f b o r r o w i n g s are a p r o d u c t o f the o c c u p a t i o n b y neigh
b o u r i n g peoples and from other contacts. R u m a n i a n borrowings are
quite frequent: PeAivx^ce 'cloak', yKccPoq 'blind m a n ' , etc. Slavic b o r
rowings are numerous: Pccyevi 'barrel', AOUXGCC 'marsh', pou%o 'dress',
etc. T h e r e are also Russian borrowings, s o m e are old, but others
date from the eighteenth century (jiTcaAaAaiKa, uxyo(Ko<;, etc.), and
s o m e A l b a n i a n b o r r o w i n g s (icoKopexat, a kind o f 'hen guts', Tudxanco
' a r m e d incursion', etc.) and A r a b i c borrowings (icapapdvi, jxayaî,
aowpdpx, etc.).
But this is n o t as important as the Turkish vocabulary that was
left in G r e e c e , especially relating to material objects, f o o d ,
dress,
hierarchical ranks, etc.: dcpevxnq, yAivxi 'party', jxeAix^dvoc 'aubergine',

p,7cocKdAr|<; 'shopkeeper', xadvxa 'bag', xoercrj 'pocket'. T h e r e are m a n y
frequendy occurring words, despite efforts to replace them with Greek
words; w e even encounter formative elements such as the -oyAoi) o f
the patronymics.
4 3 5 . Borrowings from the western languages were the most i m p o r
tant in shaping the G r e e k language: there are very few from Spanish
(KOCWIPCCAXX;,
Kaoxaviexeq, Tiaxdxa) and Portuguese (icojmpa 'snake'),
but an abundant n u m b e r from French; there are also borrowings

from English and
German.
F r o m French, apart from literary terms and borrowings from the

e n d o f the M i d d l e A g e s , w h i c h w e have already considered, w e find,
a m o n g others: dyicaê < engage, yraAepi < galerie, ypapdxa < cravate,
303
MODERN GREEK
KOCGKO^ < cache-col, X-iKep < liquer, jnocKiyid^ < maquillage, [inXi < bleu,
VXZKOXXZ
< decollete, Goq>p < chauffeur, etc. V e r y often, they are words
from the w o r l d o f fashion, f o o d , and social life. All o f this reflects

the e n o r m o u s French cultural influence in G r e e c e from
nineteenth
century onwards. T h e s e w o r d s are routinely left undeclined and are

sometimes entirely assimilated (KouA/roupa, nXox>paXia\i6q).
English (and A m e r i c a n ) terms, apart f r o m derived and c o m p o u n d
literary words, mostiy refer to the n e w civilisation a n d w a y o f life:
YKdvyKGiep, yicotap, KiXoftax, KTUXUTI, K?idôv, Koujuoikep, judvaTîLievT,
ujcdp, 7udua, GTOK TG8K, xiouuop, etc. T h e i r p h o n o l o g y adapts badly
to Greek, or hardly at all if they are altered: they are
transcribed
with the original phonetics, with o r without inflection. Sometimes,

there is an effort to a v o i d t h e m , b y i n t r o d u c i n g , f o r e x a m p l e ,
bnoXoyi<5xr\q instead o f KojLuuouxep, eTcixayri instead o f TGEK.
G e r m a n b o r r o w i n g s are o f less significance: \mipa,
ovuoeX,
etc.
4 3 6 . This v o c a b u l a r y partly links the G r e e k p e o p l e with their east

ern neighbours, but insofar as it originates from the W e s t a n d is o f
a recent date, it has gradually introduced the G r e e k p e o p l e to the
w o r l d o f m o d e r n culture. Nevertheless, the entry o f what w e refer
to as Greek-Latin is o f greater significance in this field the lexicon,
nearly always f o r m e d f r o m derivatives a n d c o m p o u n d s , a n d nearly
always o f a G r a e c o - L a t i n origin, w h i c h has b e c o m e the international
language o f culture a n d science. W e have l o o k e d at examples based
o n the w o r k o f K . Psomadakis 1995,
Indeed, these are often w o r d s w h i c h already existed in A G , a n d
w h i c h have returned to M G through French o r English: a c c o r d i n g
to Tsopanakis, they can b e seen as w o r d s w h i c h h a d
'emigrated
a n d later returned to their native land, sometimes with a change in

meaning. O r , as I have p o i n t e d out, w o r d s f o r m e d with elements o f
A G . G r e e k has reconstructed its form, eliminating the p h o n e t i c o r
inflectional accidents o f the m o d e r n languages. F r o m Fr. anecdote it
has created dveicSoTov, f r o m necrologie, veKpoJioyia; from Eng. telephone
it has created TT|X(pcovo, from G e r . Leukamie, A,u%cupia.
A n o t h e r o f the paradoxes o f the G r e e k language has to b e that,
after providing the western languages with so m a n y elements, a n d
losing them itself, it later r e c o v e r e d t h e m from these same languages.
Thus, it has b e c o m e incorporated into the field o f European languages,
previously enriched b y Greek, and the culture expressed b y them.
O f course, sometimes the r e c o v e r e d ancient w o r d s have taken o n
304
CHAPTER FOUR
a n e w meaning: dAArjAoypacpia is ' c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , and n o longer

'writing o f amoebaei verses', vuaXk^koc,
is ' e m p l o y e e . This is partic
ularly the case w h e n G r e e k w o r d s are created to translate m o d e r n

vocabulary that is not always entirely Greek: Fr. automobile is awoidvriTo,
bicycle is
TCOOTIAOTO,
journalist is SrjjLiooioYpdcpoq, universite is Ttavemcrcfijiio,
G e r . Eisenbahn is aiSrjpoSpouoc;, Weltanschauung is KoajxoGecopioc.

H o w e v e r , w e are still left with s o m e errors o r imprecisions. G r .
SnjuoKpotTicc does not distinguish between ' d e m o c r a c y ' and 'republic',
dxojLLiKoq is b o t h 'individual' and ' a t o m i c ' ,
KnPepvnxiKoq is b o t h ' g o v
ernmental' a n d 'cybernetic'. T h e new concepts are expressed in Greek

with w o r d s that used to express other concepts and that c a n n o t b e
r e n o u n c e d . But p r o b l e m s such as these o c c u r in all languages.
T h e G r e e k l e x i c o n thus portrays a bizarre i m a g e , filled as it is
with all kinds o f b o r r o w i n g s and w o r d s w h i c h m a y l o o k Greek, but
either never existed or, if they did, then with a different
meaning.
It has not always m a n a g e d to resist the influence o f foreign lexicon

w h i c h is to a large extent o f G r e e k origin; it has only assimilated it as
far as possible. H o w e v e r , Greek has definitively incorporated the same
layer o r stratum o f cultural vocabulary -
o f definite G r e e k origin
and international through its diffusion - which w e have been discussing.
4. T H E M O D E R N GREEK DIALECTS
General considerations
4 3 7 . W e saw in o u r treatment o f medieval G r e e k h o w the devel
o p m e n t o f the p o p u l a r language and, specifically, o f the dialects, was
p r o d u c e d mainly in places that were distant from the unifying p o w e r
o f Constantinople. Y e t , very little is k n o w n a b o u t the dialects o f that
p e r i o d , except for what w e have n o t e d about Cyprus, R h o d e s , Crete,
and the I o n i c islands.
M u c h m o r e is k n o w n a b o u t the current dialects, w h i c h almost
invariably arose in similar conditions o f isolation, but w h o s e history
is for the m o s t part a matter o f pure conjecture. It is generally
thought that they descend from Byzantine Greek, not from A n c i e n t
Greek: this was established b y Hatzidakis. But w e also find residues
o f the ancient dialects, see 4 4 0 .
438. A general treatment o f these dialects can be found, especially, in
R. Browning 1983, p. 119 ff, in N. G. Kontosopoulos 1995 and G. Horrocks
305
MODERN GREEK
1997, p. 299 ff.; also, R . M . Dawkins 1940 and A. Tsopanakis 1994,

p. 62 ff. For Tsakonian, see H. Pernot 1934 and S. Caratzas 1976; for
Gappadocian, R . Dawkins 1916; for Pontic, D . E. Oeconomidis 1908, A. A.
Papadopoulos 1955, D . E. Tobaidis 1988 (and A. Semenov 1935 for the
southern Russia); for the dialects o f Northern Greece, A. A. Papadopoulos
1927; for the dialect o f Cyprus, B. Newton 1972; for that o f Crete, A. A.
Papadopoulos 1948, N. G. Iôntosopoulos 1970, 1980 and 1988 and M . I.
Kaukala 1992; for the dialect o f Mani, D . V . Vayacacos 1972b; for that
of Chios, H. Pernot 1946; for the dialects o f southern Italy, G. Rohlfs 1950
and 1962; for that o f Cargese, in Corsica, G. H. Blanken 1951. See more
references in D . V . Vayacacos 1972, p . 160 ff. and N. G. Kontosopoulos
1994, p. 199 ff. Our current knowledge o f the dialects is incomplete; a
good part of the bibliography deals with local aspects, vocabularies, etc.
4 3 9 . T h e n e o - G r e e k dialects are in decline. O n the o n e hand, this
is a result o f the increasing diffusion o f the m o d e r n koine, w h i c h w e
call M o d e r n Greek; o n the other hand, it is due to the
constant
retreat o f Hellenism, d u e to the Slavic and A r a b invasions at the

start o f the M i d d l e A g e s , the invasions o f the Seldjuqs f r o m
the
eleventh century onwards and the O t t o m a n s in the fourteenth
and
fifteenth
centuries, to the population m o v e m e n t s in o u r century to
w h i c h w e have referred: the e x c h a n g e o f populations with T u r k e y

in 1923 (and earlier with Bulgaria) and the almost c o m p l e t e disap
pearance o f the Greeks in Alexandria, Constantinople, and southern
Russia. T h e s e communities found refuge in the G r e e k continent, par
ticularly in Athens.
Indeed, since Antiquity itself, G r e e k has b e c o m e almost eliminated
from the ancient colonies in Italy, Sicily, and the West; if any G r e e k
speakers were left, as p r o p o s e d b y Rohlfs a n d Caratzas as regards
southern Italy, it was in a b a n d o n e d and isolated areas. In G r e e c e
itself, the occupation o f part o f the territory b y the Slavs and Albanians
during l o n g periods o f time and, o f course, Turkish rule, gave rise
to parallel isolations, to which w e attribute the preservation o f Laconian
features in the T s a k o n i a n dialect, in the S. E. P e l o p o n n e s e , o n the
eastern side o f Parnon.
Occasionally, the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a certain island o r place
with a certain dialect is attributed to migrations in the
Byzantine
period: for e x a m p l e , the G r e e k dialect o f Cargese, in Corsica, o f

Peloponnesian origin ( M a n i o t i c , to b e m o r e exact), o r the fact that
the dialect o f S a m o s is o f a northern and n o t sourthern type (due
to a migration from Lesbos); o r the existence o f a Tsakonian c o l o n y
in Propontis. In Asia M i n o r , the isolation o f G r e e k
communities
306
CHAPTER FOUR
during the Turkish p e r i o d was responsible for the special character

o f the Pontic dialect, a m o n g others (in C a p p a d o c i a , Pharasa
and
Silla); they also received Turkish influence. A n a l o g o u s circumstances

o f isolation are responsible for the dialects o f southern Russia.
A s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ( 4 1 8 ) , the most widely accepted view, taken
from Hatzidakis, is that the koine o f the R o m a n and Byzandne periods
provides the base for these neo-Hellenic dialects. H o w e v e r , Rohlfs
and Caratzas have p r o p o s e d that in the G r e e k o f southern Italy
s o m e small nuclei centered o n L e c c e and B o v a -
residues o f the
ancient dialects remain: otherwise, it w o u l d b e impossible to explain

their archaisms. Y e t , the subsequent invasion b y Justinian must have
h a d an influence o n the language. Similarly, Tsakonian received ele
ments f r o m koine, in addition to L a c o n i a n elements.
4 4 0 . A t any rate, this is a m u c h debated subject. After A . T h u m b
1885, A . Tsopanakis
1994 has p r o p o s e d that the northern Greek
dialects, characterised b y the loss o r closure o f atonal vowels, were

influenced b y Thessalian
a n d other A e o l i c dialects: this is rather
doubtful, for w e have n o exact date for the differenciation, w h i c h

in any case appears to b e medieval. T h e r e is m o r e clarity surrounding
the persistence
o f dialectal archaisms preserved in certain
places,
especially in dialects o f the periphery: this proves that the implantation

o f koine was never as absolute as the literary and epigraphic texts
w o u l d have us believe. O n the other hand, koine features w h i c h were
lost in the later G r e e k were sometimes preserved in particular places.
H e r e , I give s o m e examples o f different kinds o f archaisms:
Tsakonian: preserves the d i g a m m a ((3avve < *&pvo<;), also the distinc
tion b e t w e e n l o n g and short vowels (ov for co, o maintained) and the
Doric a
(TOCV
a u i p a ) ; as in L a c o n i a n , it makes 0 > a (oepoq) and loses
the a b e t w e e n vowels (opoua < opSaoc). It preserves the active eui.

Euboea, Megara, ancient Athens: v b e c o m e s t, not xov.
Cyprus, Dodecanese, Pontic, etc.: they retain -v ( C y p . rcaiSiv).
Cyprus, Dodecanese, S. Italy: they retain geminate consonants (akXoq).
Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, S. Italy: 3rd pi, in - o w i .
Pontic and other dialects of Asia Minor, preserve the e timbre o f the
n (as e), the negation ' K I , the possessives e\xoq, ejneTepoq.
Pontic, S. Italy: i m p v .
CXKOI)GO(V).
T h e s e are just a few examples. T h e y attest to the resistance o f the

ancient dialects and ancient koine in marginal areas to the
tendencies, n o t just with regard to K G , but also D G .
unifying
MODERN
307
GREEK
Characteristics of the principal dialects

4 4 1 . A detailed study o f the n e o - H e l l e n i c dialects is not pertinent
here. T h e important thing is to establish that these dialects can b e
divided into t w o groups, northern and southern; within the latter,
w e find the archaising and at the same time innovatory dialects w e
have referred to, and from this g r o u p w e derive the D e m o t i c dialect
w h i c h forms the base o f M o d e r n Greek.
T h e t w o large G r e e k dialect groups are separated b y a line that
runs through the entire gulf o f C o r i n t h and the Isthmus, climbing
north and leaving Attica to the South, continuing through the S. o f
E u b o e a , the South o f S a m o s (a recent extension, as w e saw, C h i o s
being a southern dialect) and arriving in Asia M i n o r . Thus, the Greekspeaking regions o f Italy, the I o n i c islands, Attica, the Peloponnese,
and most o f the Cyclades (the case o f the G r e e k o f Asia is m o r e
c o m p l i c a t e d ) c o m p r i s e the southern dialect; the n o r t h e r n
dialect
embraces the w h o l e o f northern G r e e c e , including M a c e d o n i a . This

dialect has m o r e innovations. T h e y are mainly p h o n e t i c and relate
to atonal vowels, as m e n t i o n e d previously: e and o b e c o m e i and u
respectively, while i a n d u are lost: avGpowiouq, urn
' n o s e ' , Xein
'leaves', etc. T h e r e is also palatalisation o f consonants before atonal

i, fricative p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f s, velar /, etc. In short, these dialects
deviate considerably from the n o r m and, specifically, f r o m A n c i e n t
Greek. A s regards the relation o f M G with this dialect, w h i c h c o n
tinues to b e preserved, it is fortunate that southern G r e e k has imposed
itself, effacing the peculiarities o f the marginal
dialects. N o t e that
southern G r e e k has a system o f five vowels (as well as that o f Crete);

northern G r e e k has o n e o f five vowels in tonic position and o n e o f
three in atonal position; and various marginal dialects
(Tsakonian,
Pontic, C a p a d o c i a n ) have systems o f six o r seven vowels. T h e y are

hardly c o m p r e h e n s i b l e to the speakers o f M G .
4 4 2 . I c a n n o t engage here in a detailed description o f the
different
dialects. Indeed, their classification and mutual relations are
often
very unclear. But let us note the principle dialects.

In Asia M i n o r , until the interchange o f populations, w e find Pontic
(in the Black Sea coast, from Inepolis to Athens o f the Colchis); in
the interior, w e find isolated nuclei o f C a p p a d o c i a n and the lan
guages o f Pharasa and Silla; G r e e k dialects were also spoken in Livisa
and Makri, o n the S. W . coast. O n the other hand, w e find Pontic
dialects in the Ukraine,
the most notable b e i n g that o f M a r i u p o l
(whose population c a m e from the C r i m e a ) .
308
We
CHAPTER FOUR
also find G r e e k dialects in the C y c l a d e s , the D o d e c a n e s e ,
Cyprus, Crete: the last t w o b e i n g particularly d y n a m i c . In C h i o s , w e

find three dialectal varieties.
On
the
continent,
mention should be made
o f the
normal
Peloponnesian dialect, w h i c h differs from the dialects o f M a n i and

Tsakonia; to the N . o f the Isthmus, the archicising and already extinct
dialects o f Athens, M e g a r a , and Aegina; and then there are the living
northern dialects o f Thessaly, M a c e d o n i a , and T h r a c e , a m o n g others.
The
dialects o f Apulia and Calabria remain to be mentioned, two
small nuclei, and the dialect o f Cargese in Corsica.

As regards their p h o n e t i c , m o r p h o l o g i c a l and lexical characteris
tics, I will not present an overview here, as I have already stated.
But perhaps it is useful to provide s o m e loose data, to give the reader
a general idea.
In Tsakonian, apart from the archaisms mentioned, there are frica
tives instead o f occlusives, a a like the sh in English (the fricative s),
the K b e c o m e s xo after a vowel; nouns in -oq are c h a n g e d to -e;
there are remnants o f participles.
In C a p p a d o c i a , Pharasa and Silla, together with archaisms such
as the retention o f the e timbre o f the n, there is strong
Turkish
influence, w h i c h imposes v o w e l h a r m o n y and the opposition o f ani

mated and unanimated
nouns. T h e r e are coincidences with G r e e k
o f the N . , for instance atonal e > i, along with m o r e serious alter

ations o f the consonantal system and, for example, the use o f oov
and n o t GXOV. In Pontic, besides archaisms such as the preservation
o f -v, w e find the fricatives / and z, a very o p e n e and vocalic features
that c o i n c i d e with the G r e e k o f the N . ; the x and K are seriously
altered (LXOVCUX > LX&KIOC, OKvXXoq > xoovXXoq).
T h e article is routinely
o m m i t t e d , the N . in -o<; b e c o m e s -ov, there is 0oc<pKow8av
instead
o f Gdjupovxcu.
The
southern
type o f C y p r i a n is notable, it preserves -v (and
extends it: TcpoypaLniav) and the geminates; it maintains the 3rd pi.
in - O D O I , -aat. But it innovates consonantism: K b e c o m e s the affricate
c before e, i; there is also / (from % before e, i, o r a before y)
Z (from Q. In the Cretan
and
dialect, it is notable that the x is p r o
n o u n c e d as 0 before y, the vx as 8 (jidOioc, dp%o8id); and that -v0is r e d u c e d to -0- (dOpomoq, the loss o f the nasal in groups occurs in
various dialects). T h e r e are variations in the article (xoi = xovq, xiq),
QX(o in the fut. (vd (pajie 0eX,ei), and v d is lost before the verb in
the negation context (8ev e%0) nov Ttdco).
MODERN GREEK
309
M a n y differences exist f r o m island to island and there are three

varieties in Chios, as I stated earlier. For example, in the Masticochora,
the % before e, % is p r o n o u n c e d as a fricative (s), GK before e b e c o m e s
s, the b e c o m e s vxC,; in Phita the G before y b e c o m e s % (eicicA,i%id).
In the C y c l a d e s , w h e r e the southern dialects d o m i n a t e , there is o n e
northern dialect in part of* A n d r o s and in T e n o s ; M i k o n o s is shared
between the t w o .
W e k n o w o f the situation in the P e l o p o n n e s e , but w e should note
that, apart from the a n o m a l o u s dialect o f Tsakonia, there is also that
o f M a n i , w h i c h p r o n o u n c e s the K as xo (affricate) before e, i It was
diffused into C o r s i c a , as m e n t i o n e d .
A s regards the G r e e k o f southern Italy, apart f r o m the archaisms
already m e n t i o n e d , s o m e innovations should b e noted. In Apulia, 0
and 5 are u n k n o w n , x is generally p r o n o u n c e d , as well as G (TEO,
djiEGOcvE) and occlusive d; in Calabria, ax is p r o n o u n c e d for KT, %0, nx.
T h e s e are just a few notes, mainly p h o n e t i c , w h i c h w o u l d have
to b e supplemented b y multiple data. Palatalisations and fricativisations are, as w e can see, routine, as in the R o m a n c e languages.
In m o r p h o l o g y , o n e w o u l d have to a d d n u m e r o u s data relating
to declension and, in the verb, to the limitations o r exclusions that
o c c u r here and there in stems o f the present o r aorist. Pontic lim
its aspect to the indicative, C a p p a d o c i a n only obtains a subjunctive
and future from the the aorist, etc.
Dialects and MG
443. Dialects are being lost in G r e e c e b y the diffusion o f M G through
education, means o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , administration, etc. O f course,
the forced migrations from Asia, Constantinople, a n d Egypt have
had an e n o r m o u s influence: having arrrived in continental G r e e c e
with the immigrants, the ancient dialects s o o n b e g a n to decay. T h e
same o c c u r r e d in the small localities and islands where there was
large-scale immigration. In the N . o f G r e e c e and the large islands
(Crete, R h o d e s , Chios), dialects are s o m e w h a t better preserved. In
the large cities they are lost.
T h u s , the centrifugal tendencies w h i c h led to the growth o f the
dialects ( o f w h i c h only a few w e r e given prestige b y literature and
regarded as fixed dialects), and w h i c h h a d considerable strength at
the e n d o f the Byzantine empire and later in places w h e r e Turkish
p o w e r was felt the least o r not at all, were extinguished with the
creation o f the n e w G r e e k state.
310
CHAPTER FOUR
A n e w centre had emerged, Athens, which in a first phase attempted

to i m p o s e K G a n d in a s e c o n d phase, gradually a c c e p t e d a D G
tainted with K G : w h a t w e refer to as M G o r M o d e r n Greek. G r e e c e
has always h a d a strong nationalist a n d centralist sentiment, p r o b a
bly because o f the m e m o r y o f historical misfortunes and the c o n
stant pressure from the Turks and Slavs. T h i s has b e e n reflected,
t o o , in the creation a n d diffusion, from the dialects just m e n t i o n e d ,
o f a c o m m o n language: a language w h i c h , based a b o v e all o n the
Peloponnesian dialects, has remained relatively close to A G , without
u n d e r g o i n g the v o w e l and consonantal alterations o f other dialects,
n o r their great m o r p h o l o g i c a l innovations. This has allowed for a
fluid relation b e t w e e n D G and K G , a n d the arrival at M G , in w h i c h
d e m o t i c has received, through K G , elements from A G w h i c h were
indispensible for its transformation into a language o f culture.
4 4 4 . N o t e that in M o d e r n G r e e k the vocalic system has remained
intact, although the same c a n n o t b e said o f p r o s o d y , accentuation,
o r the use o f diphthongs (the dialects have p r o d u c e d m o r e p r o f o u n d
alterations). T h e consonantal system has not varied too m u c h , although
aspirated voiceless consonants have b e c o m e fricatives and in addi
tion there are other fricativisations (though m u c h less than in the
dialects).
T h e m o r p h o l o g i c a l s c h e m e is fundamentally the same as that o f
A G , although with simplifications not dissimilar from s o m e in the
n o r t h e r n I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages (IIIB) and, within this,
from
G e r m a n i c a n d R o m a n c e languages: the elimination o f the dual, the

reduction o f the causal system (without dative) a n d the m o d a l (with
out optative a n d with a subjunctive with limited use); the elimina
tion o f the synthetic perfect a n d future,
the creation o f a verbal
system based o n t w o stems. S o m e developments are also c o m p a r a

ble to those in other languages: the creation o f futures, perfects and
other analytic forms, a n d the opposition o f a definite and an indefinite
article. M G has created analytic comparatives a n d superlatives, along
with the synthetic.
T h e s e w e r e n o d o u b t , as with certain p h o n e t i c evolutions, general
tendencies o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n , w h i c h t o o k s o m e time to reach
the
different languages; they are also reflected in the history o f Indie.

By contrast, the disappearance o f the infinitive finds a parallel in the
Balkan languages (the extension o f its use was r e d u c e d in G e r m a n i c
and R o m a n c e ) .
MODERN GREEK
All the same, M G has maintained its inflection, fundamental
311
gram
matical categories, derivation, and c o m p o s i t i o n ; and it has d e v e l o p e d

a great capacity to create abstracts, to easily transform certain classes
o f w o r d s into others, and to assimilate foreign lexica (very often o f
G r e e k origin). T h e s e conditions are all necessary for it to continue
being an intellectual language, the inheritor o f the ancient language.
Athens has acted as the n e w Byzantium a n d its role has not b e e n
so different from the role it had in Antiquity. A l t h o u g h , then, w e
were dealing with a cultural triumph w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d and fol
l o w e d a political defeat, whereas here, it is the political role o f Athens
in G r e e c e w h i c h has favoured the unifying tendencies as regards lan
guage strata a n d dialects.
CONCLUSION
4 4 5 . T h e remarkable history o f the G r e e k language is an adven

turous o n e , w h o s e writings can b e followed across 3,500 years (only
Chinese, as w e stated, is c o m p a r a b l e ) a n d w h i c h , through
direct
o r indirect influence, has transformed all E u r o p e a n languages, and

indeed, all the w o r l d ' s languages, into languages o f culture.
G r e e k b e g a n its life as o n e o f the various languages o f the last
phase o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n . Within this, it b e l o n g e d to the m o r e archaic
southern g r o u p w h i c h preserved, in the n o u n and verb, inflections
o n various stems and h a d n o t u n d e r g o n e the inflectional reductions
o f the northern g r o u p . H o w e v e r , this was an innovatory g r o u p in
various aspects. In short, G r e e k is a derivative o f the g r o u p o f p e o
ples that, with Persian, A r m e n i a n and the Indo-Iranian
languages,
d e s c e n d e d into G r e e c e , Asia M i n o r , Iran a n d India: the so-called

I n d o - E u r o p e a n IIIA.
Its first nucleus, C o m m o n Greek, was implanted in s o m e area o f
the Balkans. It was only relatively unitary. Its eastern g r o u p descended
into G r e e c e towards the year 2 0 0 0 . T h e western g r o u p , m u c h later,
towards
1200. F r o m it, t w o groups derived. T h e speakers o f the
eastern g r o u p setded o n the neolithic and b r o n z e cultures,
from
w h i c h they t o o k m a n y elements; those o f the western g r o u p (the

Dorians) settled p a r d y o n t o p o f the speakers o f the eastern g r o u p .
In G r e e c e , b o t h g r o u p s tended to b e c o m e m o r e differentiated
and
to split internally.
T h i s was the process that w e believe East G r e e k was u n d e r g o i n g
during the s e c o n d millennium. It is p r o b a b l e that a
fragmentation
was already initiated within it, w h i c h tended to distinguish an A e o l i c

a n d an I o n i c g r o u p , and, a m o n g them, a g r o u p k n o w n as A r c a d o Cyprian.
In any case, it is clear that t w o special languages were created in
the s e c o n d millennium: M y c e n a e a n , the language o f the bureaucracy
o f the M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s ; a n d A c h a e a n Epic, the language o f
epic poetry, w h i c h was, o f course, oral. T h e y h a d a lot in c o m m o n
with the dialects referred to a b o v e , from w h i c h the later dialects
w o u l d e m e r g e ; a n d differentiating features t o o .
In the first millenium, with the disappearance o f M y c e n a e a n , the
313
CONCLUSION
fragmentation process o f East G r e e k continued; also o f W e s t Greek,

n o w within G r e e c e . V a r i o u s dialects w e r e created within the groups.
E a c h valley, e a c h small region tended to created its o w n dialect;
even its o w n alphabet, w h e n , from the ninth century onwards, a
n e w script e m e r g e d , derived from Phoenician.
T h u s , this is a story of* diversification, o f an ever greater rupture
o f unity. It deals with what w e call the epigraphic dialects (because
it is principally through inscriptions that w e k n o w them), although
s o m e b e c a m e literary and in most o f t h e m o n e c o u l d write verse
inscriptions, influenced b y H o m e r i c poetry.
Y e t the creation, a r o u n d the year 1000, o f isoglosses that partly
unified the eastern and western dialects, or at least most o f them,
was an event o f great significance. After this, diversification contin
ued. T h e unity o f G r e e k seemed to b e definitively lost, although the
Greeks considered themselves as the descendants o f c o m m o n ances
tors, with a c o m m o n culture.
4 4 6 . H o w e v e r , the calling o f Greek, after so m a n y adventures, was
unity. W h a t is so unique a b o u t this is that it should have
been
achieved through the literary languages.

First, the H o m e r i c language. A s the inheritor o f o l d A c h a e a n epic,
it a b s o r b e d A e o l i c and in particular I o n i c elements b y means o f o l d
features w h i c h w e r e interpreted as A e o l i c o r I o n i c (from their dialec
tal assignment in a later date). I n d e e d , this literary, artificial
guage was sung a n d u n d e r s t o o d in all parts. It thus
lan
contributed
towards the unity o f the Greeks.

M o r e o v e r , it strongly influenced the subsequent literary languages
w h i c h were also international and w h i c h received a strong epic and
a b o v e all I o n i c influence. It was received b y the language o f elegy,
i a m b o s , and even b y languages with an A e o l i c base (the language
o f the Lesbian poets) and D o r i c base (the language o f choral lyric).
A n y p o e t w h o w r o t e in any o f these genres, whatever his
native
land, wrote in the language appropriate to the particular genre: these

were international languages. All o f t h e m contained, first, a strong
epic influence; secondly, a strong I o n i c influence - especially those
w e refer to as the 'general' literary languages o f elegy, i a m b o s , and
even choral lyric.
T h u s , H o m e r i c e p o s was j o i n e d with the later literary languages,
w h i c h were sung and u n d e r s t o o d everywhere. I o n i c was the d o m i
nant language, so that w h e n prose arrived in the sixth century
I o n i c prose - everyone c o u l d write and understand it.
314
CONCLUSION
T o b e sure, I o n i c prose was but a forerunner o f Attic prose. Athens

h a d b e c o m e a centre o f p o w e r and a b o v e all the cultural centre o f
G r e e c e and a place o f freedom. T h e G r e e k intellectuals, w h o wrote
in I o n i c , flocked to Athens. O n e o f them, Gorgias, b e g a n to write
in Attic, w h i c h was n o t so different. A n d Attic, because o f its cul
tural force, triumphed everywhere. It was adopted b y the Macedonians,
w h o w o u l d later c o n q u e r G r e e c e . S o , Athens m a y have lost the war,
but its c o n q u e r o r s generalised the use o f Attic.
This n e w Attic was koine. T h u s , there can b e n o d o u b t that the
literary languages, b y means o f the last o f them, Attic, unified the
G r e e k language. T h e epigraphic dialects s o o n disappeared
entirely,
o r almost entirely.
This was the first unification o f Greek. It coincided with the promis
ing creation first in I o n i c , later in Attic, and finally in koine o f
a cultural and scientific language, w h i c h was the first o f its kind.
G r e e k spread throughout the East, and to a great extent also in
the West, w h e r e the sophisticated m e n o f R o m e were bilingual. It
b e c a m e the language o f the R o m a n empire in the East.
447, But, after unification c a m e diversification. This o c c u r r e d with
the creation o f t w o strata, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the p o p u l a r
language
and the literary language. T h i s distinction prevailed in the Hellenistic,

R o m a n , Byzantine, a n d M o d e r n periods, almost until the
present
day. In the case o f the literary language, the g r o w i n g relevance o f

Greek, w h i c h Latin b o r r o w e d , was extremely important for the expan
sion o f the cultural and scientific language. T h i s was the Greek-Latin
I have referred to, w h i c h h a d such a great influence o n so m a n y
languages.
F r o m the fourth century AD, Greek was the language o f the R o m a n
empire o f the East; in the M i d d l e Ages it was the language o f the
Byzantine e m p i r e and the eastern C h u r c h . Literary o r 'pure
Greek
d o m i n a t e d . N o t m u c h is k n o w n a b o u t the p o p u l a r o r d e m o t i c G r e e k
and its dialects: it was written rarely and in limited genres, partic
ularly from the twelfth century onwards. But subsequentiy the Greeks
w o u l d b e d o m i n a t e d b y the Slavs, Franks, Venetians, and Turks
a sad state o f affairs.

Y e t , in the m e a n t i m e , literary G r e e k m a n a g e d to influence
the
European languages through Ancient and Medieval Latin, and through

Byzantine Greek.
315
CONCLUSION
4 4 8 . But w h e n G r e e c e finally lifted itself out o f this sad situation

b y gaining its i n d e p e n d e n c e in 1830, G r e e k was o n c e again
frag
m e n t e d into t w o sociolinguistic strata and into geographical dialects.

It was again the language o f Athens that w o u l d end up imposing
itself, a dialect based o n the Peloponnesian dialects without the weak
nesses and losses o f v o w e l s ' o f the northern dialects, or the palatali
sations and other features o f the various dialects.
T h i s dialect, the n e w Attic, w o u l d assimilate lexical features
par
ticularly from the 'pure language'. T h u s , the n e w G r e e k was created:

the so-called M o d e r n Greek, w h i c h is essentially D e m o t i c , but with
literary elements. Greek-Latin had a decisive influence o n it.
F o r a s e c o n d time in the history o f Greek, unification had
fol
l o w e d a differenciation. A n d o n c e again, it had o c c u r r e d in Athens.

W i t h o n e difference: the first time around, a cultural triumph had
a c c o m p a n i e d a political defeat; the s e c o n d time a r o u n d w e were
dealing with a political triumph w h i c h , h o w e v e r , was founded on
the m e m o r y o f ancient Athens.
In e a c h case, b y whatever
means, G r e e k m a n a g e d
to b e c o m e
unified. S o , it is significant that although in its worst m o m e n t s , Greek

m a y have b e e n in decline, the educated Greek-Latin language, still
m a n a g e d to invade all the w o r l d ' s languages. D e f e a t e d at h o m e ,
albeit provisionally, G r e e k w e n t o n to c o n q u e r the world.
ABBREVIATIONS*
OHG.
= Old High
German
Cyp.
= Cypriot
A c . = accusative
Cret. = C r e t a n
act. active v o i c e
D.
adj.
D . - L . - I . = dative-locative-
= adjective
decl. = declension
O F r . = O l d French
= Old High
dative
instrumental
O S l a v . = O l d Slavic
OHG.
German
des.
= desinence
O I n . = O l d Indie
Dor.
O l t a l . = O l d Italian
eg. = e x a m p l e
OSerb = Old
AeoL = Aeolic
Ger. =
Serbian
Sp.
German
= Doric
Spanish
O N o r . = O l d Norse
fern. = feminine
aor. =
Fr. =
aorist
French
O P r o v . = O l d Provencal
Phryg. -
Arc.
fut. = future
= Arcadian
Arc.-Cyp, = Arcado-Cypriot
Arm.
= Armenian
Phrygian
E. = East
G.
= genitive
AG
= Ancient Greek
CG
= C o m m o n Greek
DG
= Demotic Greek
atem , = athematic
GK
= G r e e k katharevusa
Austr. =
MG
= M o d e r n Greek
art. =
article
OSerb. = Old
At.
Serbian
= Attic
Austrian
av. = avestico
WG
Bait. = Baltic
EG
Balto-Slav. = Balto-Slavic
Goth. = Gothic
Bav.
Gr. = Greek
Bavarian
= West Greek
= East G r e e k
Boeot. = Boeotian
Horn. = H o m e r i c
Bulg. =
I.-L -
Indo-Iranian
c. = circa
IE =
Indo-European
Cat. = Catalan
impers. =
Celt. = Celtic
impf. = imperfect
Bulgarian
impersonal
* Abbreviations for the names of authors and works are those of the Diccionario
Griego-Espanol
318
ABBREVIATIONS
i m p v . = imperative
part. = participle
ind. = indicative
pas. = passive v o i c e
inf. = infinitive
perf. = perfect
Eng. -
pers. = person
English
Ital. Italian
pi. = plural
Ion. = Ionic
plu. = pluperfect
Ion.-At. = Ionic-Attic
Port. -
L. locative
p r e p . = preposition
Portuguese
Lat. = Latin
pres. = present
Lesb. = Lesbian
pret. = preterite
lyr. lyric
pron. = pronoun
Lith. = Lithuanian
Prov. ~ Provengal
M H G , = Middle High German
S. = South
m a s c = masculine
S. E. = South East
mid. = middle voice
S. W . = South W e s t
M F r . = M i d d l e French
sec. = secondary
Myc
Serb.-Croat. = Serbo-Croatian
= Mycenaean
M L a t . = M i d d l e Latin
sg. = singular
mod. = modern
subj. = subjunctive
N . = nominative (also North)
them. =
N. W . = North West
T h e s . = Thessalian
thematic
W . = West
T o e = Tocharian
West. = Western
Voc
opt. = optative
vulg. = vulgar
Pam. =
Pamphylian
vocative
BIBLIOGRAPHY
J. Pouilloux et al., 1963: Archiloque, Vandoeuvres-Geneva.

A. E. Raubitschek et al., 1968: Uepigramme grecque, Vandoeuvres-Geneva.
Istituto lombardo-accademia di scienza e lettere, 1977: Pakontologia linguistica, Brescia,
Adrados, et al., 1984 (2nd ed.): Introduction a Homero, Barcelona, 2 vols.
A A . W . , 1995: Les grecs et ['Occident, Rome.
A A . W . , 1996: Filhelenismo e tradizionalismo nei primi due secoli deWimpero, Rome. Actes
de la premiere recontre intemationale de dialectologie grecque, 1987: in Verbum 10, no. 1-3,
Nancy.
A.A.V.V., 1999: Les completives en grec ancien, Saint Etienne.
Adiego, I. J., 1993: Stadia Carica, Barcelona.
Adrados, F. R., 1948: Estudios sobre el lexico de las Jdbulas esopicas, Salamanca.
, 1952: La dialectologia griega como juente para el estudio de las migraciones indoeuropeas
en Grecia. Salamanca 1952 (2nd ed., Madrid 1997).
, 1953a and 1957: 'Sobre los origenes del vocabulario atico', Emerita 21, pp.
123-162; 23, pp. 81-121.
-, 1953b: 'Como ha Uegado a nosotros la literatura griega', Revista de la Universidad
de Madrid 1, pp. 527-552.
, 1955: 'Achaisch, Ionisch und Mykenisch', IF 62, pp. 240-248.
, 1958: 'La vocalizacion de las sonantes indoeuropeas', Emerita 26, pp. 249309
(in Estudios sobre las sonantes y larengales indoeuropeas, 2nd ed., 1973, pp. 3-79,
enlarged).
, 1962: 'Hettitisch und Indogermanisch', in / / . Fachtagung ftir Indogermanische und
allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 145-151, Innsbruck.
, 1966: Ilustracion y politica en la Grecia cldsica, Madrid.
, 1968: 'Ideas para una tipologia del griego', EC 54, pp. 25-258 (in Estudios
de Lingiiistica General, 2nd ed., Madrid, 1969, pp. 111-135).
, 1969a: Lingiiistica Estructural, Madrid.
, 1969b: 'El Banquete platonico y la teoria del teatro', Emerita 37, pp. 1-28 (in
Adrados 1992d, pp. 353-389).
, 1971: 'Lengua, ontologia y logica en los sofistas y Platon', Revista de Occidente
96, pp. 340-355 and 99, pp. 285-309 (in Estudios de Semdntica y Sintaxis, Madrid
1975, pp. 209-246).
, 1973a: 'El sistema de Heraclito: estudio a partir del lexico', Emerita 41, pp.
1-43 (in Estudios de Semdntica y Sintaxis, Madrid, 1975, pp. 237-313).
, 1973b: 'La lengua en la Ciencia contemporanea y en la Filosofia actual',
RSEL 3, pp. 297-321 (in Estudios de Semdntica y Sintaxis, Barcelona 1975, pp.
43-67).
, 1974 (2nd ed.): Evolution y estructura del verbo indoeuropeo, Madrid.
, 1975a: 'Sanskrit and Indoeuropean', in Proceedings of the first international Sanskrit
Conference 111, New Delhi, pp. 436-444 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 421-428).
, 1975b: Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, Madrid.
, 1975c: 'La lengua del teatro griego', in Estudios sobre los generos literarios,
Salamanca, pp. 29-48.
, 1976a: 'Micenico, dialectos paramicenicos y aqueo epico', Emerita 44, pp.
65-113 (in Adrados 1988a, pp. 429-472).
, 1976b: 'La creacion de los dialectos griegos del primer milenio', Emerita
44, pp. 245-278 (in Adrados 1988a, pp. 473-503).
320
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 1978: 'Propuestas para una nueva edition e interpretation de Estesicoro',

Emerita 46, pp. 251-299.
, 1979-87: Historia de la fdbula greco-latina, Madrid, 3 vols. (English transl., Leiden,
Brill, 1999-2003).
, 1979a: 'Arqueologia y diferenciacion del Indoeuropeo', Emerita 47, pp.
245-278^(in Adrados 1988a, pp. 19-38; German vers., Innsbruck, 1992).
, 1979b: review of J. L. Garcia Ramon, 'Les origenes postmyceniennes du
groupe dialectal eolien', Emerita 47, pp. 471-472.
, 1980a: 'La teoria del signo linguistico en un pasaje del Banquets platonico',
RSEL 10, pp. 331 337 (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 61-69).
, 1980b: 'Les langues slaves dans le contexte des langues indoeuropeennes', in
Supostabitelno ezykosnanie, pp. 3-14 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 541-557.
, 1980c: Lirica griega arcaica, Madrid.
, (dir.), 1980 2002: Diccionario Griego-Espanol, Madrid (6 vols.).
, 1981a: 'Towards a new Stratigraphy of the Homeric Dialect', Glotta 59, pp.
13-27 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 505-518).
, 1981b: 'Sociolmgiiistica y griego antiguo', EC 11, pp. 311-329 (in Adrados
1988b, pp. 34-45).
, 1982a: 'Neue jambische Fragmente aus archaischer und klassischer Zeit.
Stesichorus, Semonides (?), Auctor incertus', Philologus 126, pp. 157-179.
, 1982b: 'The archaic structure of Hittite: the crux of the problem', JIES I 1,
p. 135 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 391-420).
, 1983a (2nd ed.): Fiesta, Comedia y tragedia, Barcelona.
, 1983b: 'Siria, cruce de caminos de la narrative bizantina y la oriental', Aula
Orientalis 1, pp. 1729.
, 1983c: 'Las categorias gramaticales del griego antiguo', in Estudios metodologicos
sobre la lengua griega, pp. 85-97, Caceres (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 139-149).
, 1984a: 'La dialectologia griega', in A. Martinez (ed.), Actualizacion Cientifica en
Dialectologia griega, pp. 219-237 (in Adrados 1988a, pp. 519-539).
1984b: Origenes de la lirica griega, Madrid.
, 1984c: 'Prologo' to P. Badenas, La estructura del didlogo platonico, Madrid, pp.
I X - X I (in Adrados 1992d, pp. 349-351).
, 1984d: 'The earliest influences of Greek Fable on Medieval Latin Writing',
Classica et Mediaevalia 35, pp. 243-263.
, 1986a (2nd ed.): Origenes de la lirica griega, Madrid.
, 1986b: 'Scientific Language: Instrument and Obstacle. Examples from the
Field of linguistics', in Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschqft, Th. Bungarten (ed.),
Hamburg, pp. 13-21 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988b, pp. 46-52).
, 1986c: 'Las fuentes de Hesiodo y la composition de sus poemas', Emerita 54,
pp. 1-36.
-, 1986d: 'La epica romance a la luz de la epica indoeuropea', in Adas del
Congreso de la Juglaresca, Madrid, pp. 722 (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 309-322).
, 1987: 'Cultural Contacts between Byzance and the Roman Germanic Empire
in the time of Methodius', in Kirillo-Methodievski Stydii 4, Sofia, pp. 52~56.
, 1988a: Mievos estudios de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, Madrid.
, 1988b: Nuevos Estudios de Lingiiistica General y Teoria Literaria, Barcelona.
, 1988c: 'Sistema y sistemas de los casos en Griego antiguo', in Homenaje a
Maria C Giner, Salamanca, pp. 143-147 (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 170-174).
-, 1989a: 'De la paideia tragica a la socratico-platonica', in Paideia y Humanitas,
Santiago de Chile, pp. 119-135 (in Adrados 1992d, pp. 159-182).
, 1989b: 'Anticipos de una nueva teoria del sistema casual del griego antiguo ,
in Adas del VII Congreso Espanol de Estudios Cldsicos \, pp. 23-278, Madrid (in
Adrados 1988b, pp. 158-162).
y
BIBLIOGRAPHY
321
, 1989c: 'Etruscan as an IE Anatolian (but not Hittite) Language', JIES 17,

pp. 363-383.
, 1990a (3rd ed.): Liricos griegos. Elegiacos y yambografos arcaicos, Madrid.
, 1990b: 'Sincretismo de casos en micenico?', Menos 24, pp. 169-185.
, 1990c: 'El genitivo tematico en -o en micenico y chipriota', in Stadia Indogermanica
et Palaeohispanica en honorem A. Tovar et L. Michelena, Salamanca, pp. 175-181.
, 1992a: 'La lengua de Socrates y su filosofla', Methexis 5, pp. 29-52 (in Adrados
1992d, pp. 251-278).
, 1992b: 'Mito e historia en la Epopeya', in 3er Coloquio de Estudiantes de Filologia
Cldsica, Valdepenas, pp. 217-227.
, 1992c: 'The new Image of Indoeuropean. The History of a Revolution', IF
97, pp. 1-28.
, 1992d: Palabras e Ideas, Madrid.
, 1993: review of M. Papathomopoulos, Aesopus revisitatus and '0 pio<; xox> AiocbflOD
Gnomon 65, pp. 660-664.
, 1994a: 'De la literature helenistica a la literature latina', in Adas del VIII
Congreso Espanol de Estudios Cldsicos, I, pp. 855-862. 1994c: ('More on Etruscan as
an IE-Anatolian Language', Historical Linguistics 107, pp. 54-76.
, 1994b (2nd ed.): Rakes griegos de la cultura moderna, Madrid.
-, 1994c: Nueva Sintaxis del Griego antiguo, Madrid.
, 1995a: Sociedad, amor y poesia en la Grecia antigua, Madrid.
, 1995b: 'Human vocabulary and naturalistic vocabulary in the Presocratics'
Glotta 72, pp. 182^195
, 1995c: 'Problemas lexicos y lexicograficos del espanol actual', Donaire 4, pp.
52-58.
, 1996a: Manual de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, II. Morfologia nomenal y verbal, Madrid.
, 1996b: "la eXfoivnca, r\ nXeov TcayKoauia yXcbaaa', in E^Xrjvucfi Ai8vf|<;
TAxoaaa 7, pp. 275-277.
, 1996c: 'Esp. acrobata o de como quince diccionarios pueden equivocarse ,
in Adas del IV Congreso de Hispanistas de Asia, Seoul, pp. 1-5.
, 1997a: Democracia y literatura en la Atenas clisica, Madrid.
, 1997b: 'Los origenes del lenguaje cientifico', RSEL 27, pp. 299-315.
, 1997c: "More on the Diccionario Griego-Espanol", en A Festschrift for Ladislav
Zgusta, Berlin-Nueva York, Mouton-de Gruyter, pp. 221-231.
, 1998a: 'La reconstruction del Indoeuropeo y su diferenciacion dialectal', in
Manual de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, III, pp. 144-205. Madrid.
, 1998b: La 'Dialectologia Griega', hoy (1952-1995). Madrid.
, 1998c: 'Navegaciones del siglo VIII, navegaciones micenicas y navegaciones
en la Odisea (in Greek) OMHPIKA, Ithaca,, pp. 13-29.
, 1998d: and Rodriguez Somolinos, J., 1995-96 [1997]: 'Diccionario Griego-Espanol
Vol. V , Museum Criticum 30-31, pp. 301-317.
, 1998e: and D. Lara: 'El Vocabulario tecnico en el Diccionario Griego-Espanol',
in Atti del II Seminario . . . sui Lessici, Messina, pp. 13-25.
, 1998f: "Escisiones y unificaciones en la historia del Griego", en Classica Boli
viano, 61-68.
, 1999a: Manual de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea III (en colaboracion), 'La reconstruc
tion del Indoeuropeo y de su diferenciacion dialectal', pp. 249-284.
, 1999b: 'El etui de Conchita' Miscelenea lexica en memoria de Conchita Serrano,
Madrid, CSIG, pp. 3-9.
, 1999c: 'Ambiente y lexico egipcico en Esquilo, Las Suplicantes: (3api<; (839,
etc.); oivSovia (121); %&UTiaa (878); Iai (848)', in Eikasmos 10, pp. 46-55.
, 1999d: "Hacia una tipologia de las combinaciones de rasgos linguisticos", en
Language Change and Typological Variation, II, Washington 1999, pp. 387-396.
5
322
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 2000a: 'Homero y las lenguas poeticas de Grecia como via hacia la unidad
del griego', in Poesia e religione in Grecia. Studi in onore de G. Aurelio Pnviterra, Perugia,
pp. 3-12.
, 2000b: '^Como describir el Indoeuropeo y sus variantes?', in Europa et Asia
Polyglotta, Dettelbach, pp. 1-6.
, 2000c: 'La Semantica en el Diccionario Griego-Espanol', in Cien anos de inves
tigation semdntica: de Michel Breal a la adualidad, La Laguna, pp. 99-110.
, 2000d: 'Towards a Syntax of Proto-Indo-European', IF 105, pp. 60-67.
, 2000e: 'Griego y Latin, vivos en la lengua culta international', Revista de
Lengua y Literatura Espanolas 1, pp. 9-22.
, 2000f: "Toponimos griegos en Iberia y Tartessos", Emerita 68, 2000, 118.
, 2001: Modelos gtiegos de la prosa castellana y Europea. Madrid, Real Academia
Espanola.
, 2001a: 'Lexicographical Studies and Publications in Madrid', in Praktikd, Tomos
A, Athens, pp. 1-14.
, 2001b: 'Introduction a "El verbo Esslavo'", in Paleobulgaristika i Starobulgaristica,
Veliko Turnovo, pp. 147-157.
, 2001c: 'The reconstruction of the most ancient Indo-European at the School
of Madrid', in Cinquant' ami di ricerche linguistiche, Milan 2001, pp. 89-95.
, 2001 d: "Mas sobre Iberia y los toponimos griegos", Archivo Espanol de Arqueobgia,
25-33.
, 200 le: "La composition de los poemas hesiodicos", Emerita 69, 197-224.
, 2002a: "Sobre Botorrita IV", Emerita 70, 2002, pp. 1-8.
, 2002b: "Los eslavos: de los origenes a la helenizacion y la integration en
Europa", en Espana y el Mundo Eslavo, Madrid 2002, pp. 27-40.
, 2002c: "Hacia una teoria de la Ciencia Toponimica", RSEL 32, 2002, pp.
33-51.
, 2002c: "La Lingiiistica griega en Espana (1983-2000)", en Adas del II Congreso
de la RSEL, Madrid 2002, I, pp. 215-231.
, 2002d: 'Tipologia de las lenguas indoeuropeas modernas', Stadia Indoeuropaean,
pp. 9-29.
, 2002e: "El lexico espanol y el diccionario de la Academia", in 2002. Central
Nuclear Trillo 1. Encuentros Culturales, pp. 103-122.
2 0 0 2 f (en colaboracion): Diccionario Griego-Espanol VI. Madrid, C.S.I.C.
, 2003 (new ed.): Tucidides. Historia de la guerra del Peloponeso, Madrid.
-, 2003a: "Grecia en los origenes de la prosa castellana", en Grecia y Espana.
Los confines de Europa. Madrid 2002 (2003), pp. 13-23.
and Rodriguez Somolinos, J., 2003b: Diccionario Griego-Espanol, vol. VI, in Illinois
Classical Studies 27-28, pp. 115-130.
, 2004a: "Griego y Latin, ^lenguas muertas?", Estudios Cldsicos, 125, 2004, pp.
7-16.
Agud, A., 1980: Historia y teoria de los casos. Madrid, Gredos.
Agud, A. and others (eds.), Las lenguas de corpusy sus problemas linguisticos, Madrid, 1996.
Akurgal, E., 1985: Ancient civilizations and ruins of Turkey, Istambul.
Albini, U. y Maltese, E. V., 1984: Bizanzio nella sua Letteratura, Milan.
Allen, W. S., 1987: 'The Development of the Attic Vowel System. Conspiracy or
catastrophe?', Minos 20-22, pp. 21-32.
Alonso Troncoso, V., 1994: El comercio griego arcaico, La Corufla.
Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R. (eds.), 1971: Christentum am Roten Meer, Berlin and New
York.
Aly, W., 1987 (1st ed. 1929): Formprobleme der alteren griechischen Prosa, New York.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., 1991: 'The shadow Line. Reflexions sur l'introduction de
Palphabet en Grece', in Baurain, CI., and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 293-309.
Ambrosini, R., 1970: 'Problemi e ipotesi sulla lengua dei graffiti di Segesta', in
Rendiconti, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, 25, pp. 461-464.
323
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 1979: 'Le iscrizioni sicane, sicue, elime', in Le iscrizioni pre-latine en Italia, Rome,
pp. 57-104.
, 1983: 'Lengue nella Italia pregreca', in Tre Millenni di Storia Linguistica, Pisa,
pp. 13-35.
Anagnostopulos, C , 1923: 'The language of Aristophanes', Athena 36, pp. 1-60.
Andre, J., 1971: Emprunts et suffixes nominaux en latin, Geneve-Paris.
Apostolopoulos, Ph., 1984: Lafatiguedu roman byzantin Callimaque et Ch?ysorrhoe , Athens.
Arnim, M., 1912: De Philonis Byzantii genere dicendi, Gryphia.
Aura Jorro, F., 1986-1996: Diccionario Micenico, 1-11, Madrid.
Babiniotis, G. A., 1972: To pfjjua rfjg 'EXXrfviKrjg, Athens.
, 1978: NeoeXXrjvucrf Koivrj. Ylipa rf\g KaOapevjiovarjg xal rfjg SrjfioTiicfjg, Athens.
, 1985: ZvvomiKr) iotopia rfjg EXXrfviicfjg yXwaarfg, Athens.
, 1999: H rXwaaa cog celiac. Athens, Gutenberg, 1999.
Bach, A., 1949: Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, Heidelberg.
Badenas, P., 1984: La estructura del didlogo platonico, Madrid.
, 1985a: 'La lengua griega en la baja Edad Media', Erytheia 6, pp. 5-41.
, 1985b: 'Primeros textos altomedievales en griego vulgar', Eiytheia 6, pp.
163-183.
Barrio, M. L. del, 1987: El dialecto de Eubea, Madrid.
, 1988: 'La position dialectal del euboico', Emerita 56, pp. 255-270.
, 1994: 'Relation dialectal entre colonia y metropoli: ^herencia o proximidad
geografica? Eretria y Oropo', RSEL 24, pp. 315-328.
Barrios, M. J., 1996: El dialecto cretense. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Seville.
Bartonek, A., 1972: Classification of the West Greek Dialects, Brno.
, 1979: 'Greek Dialects in the second millenium b . g . ' , Eirene 9, pp. 49-66.
, 1987: 'The Greek Dialects between 1000 and 300 b . g . ' , SMEA 26, pp. 7-20.
, 1991: 'L'evoluzione dei dialetti greci nella dimensions geografica delle eta
oscure', in Musti, D. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 241-250.
, 1996: 'The Mycenaean Language and Dialect', in De Miro, E. and others
(eds.) 1996, pp. 7-23.
, 2003: Handbuch der Mykenischen, Heidelberg, Winter.
Baugh, A. C. 1971 (2nd ed.): A History of the English Language, London.
Baumhauer, O. A., 1986: Die sophistische RhetoriL Eine Theorie sprachlicher Kommunikation,
Stuttgart.
Baurain, C , 1991: 'L'ecriture syllabique a Chipre', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.),
Phoenikeia Grammata. Lire et ecrire en Mediterranee. Actes du Colloque de Liege, 15-18
novembre 1989, Namur, pp. 389-424.
Bechtel, F., 1921-1924 (2nd ed. 1963): Die griechischen Dialekte, IIII, Berlin.
Beck, H.-G., 1971: Geschichte der byzontinischen Volksliteratur, Munich.
Beck, I., 1971: Die Rings/composition bei Herodot und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Beweistechnik,
Hildesheim.
Bergua Cavero, Jorge, 2002: Introduction al estudio de los hellenismus del espanol, Zaragoza.
Bernabe, A., 1977: 'La vocalization de las sonantes indoeuropeas en griego', Emerita
45, pp. 269-298.
, 1979: 'Losfilosofospresocraticos como autores literarios', Emerita 47, pp. 357-394.
, 1996 (2nd ed.): Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta, pars I, Stuttgart and
Leipzig.
, 2004: Poetae Epici Graecii Testimonia et Fragmenta, pars II, fasc. 1, Miinchen &
Leipzig.
,
Bernand, E. and others, 1991: Recueil des Inscriptions de I'Ethiopie pre-axoumite et axoumite,
Paris.
Bers, V., Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age, New Haven.
Berschen, W., 1969-70: 'Literatur und Sprache. III. Literatur. Griechisches im
lateinischen Mittelalter', in Reallexikon der Byzantinistik 3-4, cols. 227-304.
Beyer, K., 1961: Semitische Syntax im neuen Testament, Gottingen.
(
324
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bile, M., 1988: Le diakcte cretois ancien, Paris.

, 1990a: 'Dialectologie et chronologies*, Lalies 9, pp. 7-16.
, 1990b: 'L'apport de la linguistique a la dialectologie', Lalies 9, pp. 17-39.
, 1996: 'Une koina est-egeenne?', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 133-146.
Brixhe, C. and Hodot, R., 1984: 'Les dialectes grecs, ces inconnus', BSL 79, pp.
155-203.
Birwe, 1956: Griechisch-Arische Sprachbeziehungen im Verbalsystem, Waldorf.
Biville F. 1987: Graphie et pronontiation des mots grecs et latin, Louvain.
, 1990-1995: Les emprunts du Latin au Grec. Approche Phonetique, 1-11, LouvainParis.
, 1993: 'Grec des romains ou latin des grecs? Ambiguite de quelques proces
sus neologiques dans la koine', in Brixhe, G. (ed.) 1993a, pp. 129-140.
Bjork, G., 1950: Das alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache, Uppsala.
Blanken, C. H., 1951: Les grecs de Cargese, Leiden.
Blass F, and Debrunner A., 1949 (8th ed.): Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch,
Gottingen.
Blumel, W., 1982: Die aiolischen Dialekte, Gottingen.
, 1993: 'Dialekte und Dialektmischung im siidwestlichen Kleinasien', in Grespo,
E. and others (eds.) 1993, pp. 29-35.
Boardman, J., 1973: Los griegos en Ultramar: comercio y expansion colonial antes de la era
cldsica, Madrid.
Bohling, A., 1960: 'Griechische Elemente im Koptischen als Zeugniss fur die
Geschichte der griechischen Sprache', in Akten des XI. intemaiionalen Byzantmistenkongresses,
Munich.
Bondesson, B., 1936: De sonis et formis titulorum Milesiorum Didymaeorumque, Lund.
Boned Golera, P. and Rodriguez Somolinos, J., 1998: Repertorio bibliogrqfico de la
Lexicografia griega, Madrid.
Bonfante, G., 1984: / / miceneo, il greco storico e Omero, Rome.
and L., 1985: Lengua e cultura degli etruschi, Rome.

Bonner, R. J., 1929-30: 'The conflict of Languages in the Roman World', CJ 25,
pp. 579-92.
Bosch-Gimpera, P., 1960: El problema indoeuropeo, Mexico.
Bosque, I. and Perez Fernandez, M., 1987: Diccionario inverso de la lengua espanola,
Madrid.
Bourguet, E., 1927: Le dialecte laconien, Paris,
Bowie, A. M., 1981: The poetic Dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus, New York.
Bowra, C. M., 1952: Heroic Poetry, London.
Braun, T. F. R. G., 1882: 'The Greeks and the Near East' and 'The Greeks in
Egypt', in the reedition of the Cambridge Ancient History, III 3, pp. 1-31 y 32-56.
Bravo Garcia, A., Signes Codoner, J., Rubio Gomez, E., 1997: El Imperio Bizantino,
Madrid.
Breitenbach, W., 1934: Untersuchungen uber die Sprache der Euripideischen Lyrik, Stuttgart.
Bremer, J. M. and others, 1987: Homer: Beyond oral Poetry, Amsterdam.
Brescia, C , 1955: Ricerche sulla lingua e lo stilo di Epicuro, Naples.
Brillante, C , 1986: 'Sul dialetto miceneo e la lengua epica', QUCC 22, pp. 145-151.
, 1987.: 'Sulla lingua della lirica corale', QUCC 23, pp. 145-153.
, Cantilena, M., Pavese, C. O. (eds.), 1981: I poemi epici rapsodici non omerici e
la tradizione orale, Padua.
Briquel, D., 1991: 'L'ecriture etrusque. D'apres les inscriptions du VIP s. av.
J.-Ch.', in Baurain, G. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 615-63 1.
Brixhe, C , 1983: 'Epigraphie et grammaire du phrygien: etat present et perspec
tives', in Vineis, E. (ed.), Le lingue indoeuropee di frammentaria attestazione, Pisa, pp.
109-133.
, 1984: Essai sur le grec anatolien au debut de notre ere, Nancy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
325
, 1990a: 'L'apparentement des dialectes grecs', Lalies 9, pp. 27-39.

-j 1990b: 'Dialectologie et ideologic', Lalies 9, pp. 41-53.
, 1991a: Sur la Crete antique. Histoire, Ecriture, Langues, Nancy.
, 1991b: 'De la phonologie a Pecriture. Quelques aspects de l'adaptation de
l'alphabet caneen au grec', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 313-356.
, 1991c: 'Du mycenien aux dialectes du ler millenaire. Quelques aspects de la
problematique', in Musti, D. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 251-272.
, 1992: 'Du "datif" mycenien aux protagonistes de la situation linguistique', in
Olivier, J. P. (ed.) 1992, pp. 129-157.
(ed.), 1993a and 1996a: La koine grecque antique, 111. Nancy.
, 1993b: 'A chacun sa koine?', in Brixhe, G. (ed.) 1993a, pp. 7-21.
, 1993c: 'Le Grec en Carie et Lycie au IV siecle', in Brixhe, G. (ed.) 1993a,
pp. 59-82.
, 1996b: 'Le IP et le I siecles de Phistoire linguistique de la Laconie et la
notion de koina', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 93-111.
, 1996c: Phonetique et Phonologie du Grec ancien, 1, Louvain-la-Nueve.
and Panayotis, A., 1988: 'L'hellenisation de la Macedonie, Pune des sources
de la koine', Verbum 11, pp. 245-260.
Browning, R., 1982: 'Greek diglossia yesterday and today', Int. Journal of Sociology of
Language 35, pp. 49-68.
, 1983 (2nd ed.): Greek transl. Athens 1996. Medieval and Modem Greek, Cambridge.
1 9 9 7 : 'Von der Koine bis zu den Anfangen des modernen Griechisch', in
H.-G. Nesserath (ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, Stuttgart and Leipzig,
pp. 156-168.
Brunot, F., 1966: Histoire de la langue frangaise, III vols., Paris.
Buchheit, V., 1960: Untersuchungen zur theorie des Genos Epideiktikon von Gorgias bis
Aristoteles, Munich.
Buck, C. D. and Petersen, W., 1944: A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives,
Chicago.
Bubenik, V., 1989: Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area, Amsterdam.
Burgmannn, L., 1991: 'Aeêic; pCGjxaiicai. Lateinische Worter in Byzantinischen juristischen Texten', in W. Horandner and E. Trapp (eds.) 1991, pp. 61-79.
Cadell, H., 1981: "Papyrologie et information lexicologique", en Scritti Motevecchi,
Bolonia, pp. 73-83.
Cameron, A., 1931: 'Latin Words in the Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor', AJPh
52, pp. 232-262.
Campanile, E., 1990a: La riconstruzzione delta cultura indoeuropea, Pisa.
, 1990b: 'Antigiiedades indoeuropeas', in A. Giacalone - P. Ramat (eds.), Las
lenguas indoeuropeas, Madrid, pp. 27-56.
Cantilena, M., 1982: Ricerche sulla dizione epica. I. Per uno studio della formularieta degli
Inni Omerici, Rome.
Caratzas, S., 1957-58: 'Die Entstchung der neugriechischen Literatursprache', Glotta
36, pp. 194-208.
, 1958: Uorigtne des dialectes neo-grecs de Vltalie meridionale, Paris.
, 1976: Les Tzacones, Berlin.
Carpenter, Rh., 1968: 'Das Alter des griechischen Alphabets', in G. Pfohl (ed.)
1968a, pp. 1-39.
Casevitz, M., 1985: Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en Grec ancien, Paris.
Cassio, A. C , 1996: 'La prose ionienne postclassique et la culture de I'Asie Mineure
a Pepoque hellenistique', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 147-170.
Castillo Didier, M., 1994: Epopeya de Diyenis Akritas, Santiago de Chile.
Cavenaile, R., 1951: 'Influence latine sur la vocabulaire grec de PEgypte', Chronique
d'Egypte 51, pp. 391-404.
Caveney, J., 1978: Verbal Variation and Antithesis in the Narrative of Thucydides, Ann Arbor.
e
er
326
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cervenka-Ehrenstrasser, I. M. and Diethart, J., 1996: Lexikon der lateinischen Lehwdrter

in den griechischen Texten Aegyptens, 1, Vienna.
Chadwick, H. M., 1967 (1st ed. 1912): Vie Heroic Age, Cambridge.
and Chadwick, N. K., 1968 (1st ed. 1936): The Growth of literature, Cambridge.
Chadwick, J., 1956: 'The Greek Dialects and Greek History', Greece and Rome 3, pp.
38-50.
, 1958: El enigma micenico, Madrid.
, 1964: 'Mycenaean elements in the Homeric Dialect', in G. S. Kirk (ed.), The
Language and Background of Homer, Cambridge, pp. 38-50.
, 1973: 'Who were the Dorians?', PP 103, pp. 103-117.
, 1976: The Mycenaean World, Cambridge.
, 1985: 'I dori e la creazione dei dialetti greci', in D. Musti (ed.) 1985a, pp.
3-12.
, 1988: 'Differences and similarities between Cypriot and the other Greek
Dialects', in The History (Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O., eds.), 1988, pp. 55-66.
, 1990: 'The Descent of the Greek Epic', JHS 110, pp. 174-177.
Chantraine, P., 1927: Histoire du Parfait Grec, Paris.
, 1933: La formation des noms en grec ancien, Paris.
, 1942: Grammaire Homerique (Phonetique et Morphologic), Paris.
, 1956: Etudes sur le vocabulaire grec, Paris.
Christidis, A. Ph. (ed.), 2001: laxopta xr\<; *EXkr\viKr\<; rtaoaaaq, I., Thessaloniki.
Clarysse, W., 1987: Greek loan Words in demotic, Louvain.
Conejero, V., 1973: El lenguaje coloquial griego, Barcelona.
Consani, C , 1989: 'Storia e preistoria dei dialetti antichi: a proposito di una recente
pubblicazione', QJJCC 62, pp. 157-167.
, 1993: 'La koine et les dialectes grecs dans la documentation linguistique et
la reflexion metalinguistique des premiers siecles de notre ere', in Brixhe, C. (ed.)
1993a, pp. 23-39.
-, 1996: 'Koina et koine dans la documentation epigraphique de l'ltalie meridionale' in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 113-132.
Cook, J. M., 1982: 'The Eastern Greeks', in reedition of the Cambridge Ancient History,
III 3, p. 196 ff.
Corsani, B., 1994: Guida alio studio del Nuovo Testamento, Rome.
Cortelazzo, M., 1970: Uinflusso linguistico greco a Venezia, Bologna.
Cortes Gabaudan, F., 1986: Formulas retoricas de la oratoria judicial dtica, Salamanca.
Coseriu, E., 1966: 'Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire', in Actes du
Premier Colloque International de Linguistique Appliquee, Nancy, pp. 175-272.
, 1977: 'Influencia griega sobre el latin vulgar', in Estudios de Lingiiistica romdnica,
pp. 264-280.
Costas, P. S., 1979: An Outline of the History of the Greek Language with particular Emphasis
on the Koine and the subsequent Periods, Chicago.
Crespo, E. and others, 1992: Homerica. Estudios lingilisticos, Madrid.
, (eds.), 1993: Dialectologica Graeca. Adas del II Coloquio International de Dialectologia
Griega (Miraflores de la Sierra [Madrid], 19-21 de junio de 1991), Madrid.
Crespo, E., Conti, L., Maquieira, H., 2003: Sintaxis del Griego Cldsico. Madrid, Gredos.
Crossland, R. A., 1985: 'La tradizione greca suila migrazione dorica', in Musti, D.
(ed.) 1985a, pp. 235-240.
Cruz, A. de la y Canete, A., 1992: Historia del ingles. Malaga.
Cruz, J. de la and Trainor, P., 1989: Gramdtica inglesa, Madrid.
Cunchillos, J. L. and Zamora, J. A., 1995: Gramdtica Ugaritica, Madrid.
Curtis, A., 1985: Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Cambridge.
Dagron, G., 1969: 'Aux origines de la civilisation Byzantine: langue de culture et
langue d'Etat', Revue Historique 241, pp. 23-56.
Daris, S., 1991 (2nd ed.): 77 lessico latino nel greco d'Egitto, Barcelona.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
327
Daskalakis, B., I960: 'O 'EXXrfvicjfiog vfjg dpxcciag MaKs5oviag, Athens.

Davaras, C , 1976: Guide to Cretan Antiquities, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Dawkins, R., 1916: Modern Greek in Asia Minor: a Study of Dialect of Silly, Cappadocia
and Pharasa, Cambridge.
, 1940: T h e Dialects of Modern Greek', TPHs pp. 1-38.
Debrunner, A., 1933: Nahklassisches Griechisch, Berlin.
, and Scherer, A., 1969^(11, 2nd ed. by A. Scherer): Geschichte der griechischen
Sprache, Berlin.
Deger-Jalkotzy. S. (ed.) 1983: Qiechenland, die Aegais und die Levante wdhrend der Dark
Ages vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Vienna.
Deichgraber, K., 1962: 'Rhythmische Elemente im Logos des Heraklit', AWLM,
Abh. des Geistes und Sprachwiss. Klasse, pp. 477-552.
Deissmann, A., 1923 (4th ed.): Licht von Osten, Tubingen.
Delatte, L. and others, 1981: Dictionnaire frequentiel et inverse de la langue latine, Liege.
Denniston, J., 1970 (1st ed. 1952): Greek Prosa Style, Oxford.
Descoeudres, P. G. (ed.), 1990: Greek Colonists and Native Populations, Canberra and
Oxford.
De Miro, E. and others (eds.), 1996: Atti e Memorie del secondo Congresso Internationale
di Micenologia, Rome.
Des Places, E., 1934: 'Style parle et style oral chez les ecrivains grecs', Mel. Bidez,
I, 267-286.
Despotopoulos, C , 1985-86: 'Hippocrate et la philosophic', Philosophia 15-16, pp.
145-155.
Devoto, G., 1962, Origini indo-europee, Florence, 1962,
, 1968 (trans.): Geschichte der Sprache Roms, Heidelberg.
Di Vido, St., 1997: GH elimi. Storie di contatti e di rappresentazione, Pisa.
Diaz Rolando, E., 1989: La Alexiada, Seville.
Diaz Tejera, A., 1961: 'Ensayo de un metodo linguistico para la cronologia de
Raton', Emerita 29, pp. 241-286.
Dickinson, O., 1977: The Origins of mycenaean Civilization, Goteborg.
, 1995: The Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge.
Diehl, E., 1950: Anthologia Lyiica I 1-2, Leipzig.
Dieterich, K., 1898: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der hellenistischen eit bis zum 10. Jahrhundert nach Christ, Leipzig.
Dietrich, M. and Lorentz, O., 1991: 'Die Keilalphabete aus Ugarit', in Baurain,
C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 49-67.
Dietrich, W., 1995: Griechisch und Romanisch. Divergenzen und Parallelen, Munster.
Dimitrakos, D. B., 1933-51: Meya AEÎKOV T % 'EXXr}viKr\<; yXoiccrqg, Athens, 9 vols.
Doudna, J. Ch., 1961: The Greek of the Gospel of Mark, Philadelphia.
Dressier, W., 1963: Einfluss epichorischen Sprachen auf die griechischen Inschriften Kleinasiens,
Vienna.
, 1965: 'Der Untergang des Dativs in der Anatolischen Grazitat', WS 78, pp.
83-107.
Drews R., 1989: The coming of the Greeks, Princeton.
Dubois, L., 1983: Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, Paris.
Duhoux, Y., 1977: Le disque de Phaestos. Archeologie, Epigraphie, Edition Critique, Lou vain.
, 1982: Ueteocretois. Les textes. La langue, Amsterdam.
, 1983: Introduction aux dialectes grecs anciens Louvain-la-Neuve.
, 1987: 'Lineaire B cretois et continental: Elements de comparaison', in Ilievski,
P. H. and Crepajac, I. (eds.) 1987.
, 1988: 'Les elements grecs non doriens du cretois et la situation dialectale
grecque au IF millenaire', Cretan Studies, 1, pp. 5772.
, 2000: Le verbe grec ancien. Louvain la Neuve.
Duran, A., 1966: La lengua de Gorgias. Unpublished bachelor thesis, Madrid.
K
328
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Durante, M., 1966: Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca, Rome.
, 1968: 'Vicende linguistiche della Grecia fra l'eta micenea e il medioevo
ellenico', in Atti del T Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia. Roma 27 settembre3 ottobre 1967, Rome, vol. II, pp. 744-755.
Durham, D. B., 1969 (1st ed. 1913): The Vocabulary of Menander, Amsterdam.
Dvornik, F., 1956: The Slavs. Their Early History and Civilization, Boston.
Earp, F. R , 1972 (1st ed. 1944): The Style of Sophocles, Cambridge.
, 1970 (1st ed. 1948): The Style of Aeschylus, New York.
Edwards, G. P., 1971: The Language of Hesiod in its traditional Context, Oxford.
Egea, J. M., 1987a: 'El griego de los textos medievales', Veleia 4, pp. 255-284.
, 1987b: 'La lengua de la ciudad en el s. xii', Eiytheia 8, pp. 241-262.
, 1988: Gramdtica de la Cronica de Morea, Vitoria.
, 1990: Documenta selecta ad historiam knguae Graecae inlushandam II (medioaevi), Vitoria.
, 1990-91: 'La lengua de la historiografia bizantina tras el cambio linguistico',
Erytheia, 11-12, pp. 21-32.
Eissfeldt, O., 1968: 'Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung unseres Alphabets', in G. Pfohl
(ed.) 1968a, pp. 214-220.
Ek, S., 1942: Herodotismen in der Archaologie des Dionysius von Halicarnassus, Lund.
, 1946: Herodotismen in der judischen Archaologie des Josephus, Lund.
Eklund, B.-L., 1976: Modern Greek. Verbal Aspect and Compound Nouns. Two Studies,
Gothenburg.
Elefteriadis, O., 1985: Modern Greek. A contemporary Grammar, Palo Alto, California.
Ernout, A., 1954: Aspects du vocabulaire latin, Paris.
Eseverri, C , 1945: Diccionario Etimologico de Helenismos Espanoles, Burgos.
Ewert, A., s. a.: The French Language, London.
Fabrini, P. and Lanni, A., 1979: 'II problema della lengua nello scritto ippocratico
De arte', RSF 34, pp. 123-133.
Falkner, M., 1968: 'Zur Fruhgeschichte des griechischen Alphabets', in G. Pfohl
(ed.) 1968a, pp. 143-171.
Favre, Ch., 1914, Thesaurus verborum quae in titulis ionicis leguntur cum Herodoteo sermone
comparatus, Lund.
Fernandez, Francisco, 1982: Historia de la lengua inglesa, Madrid.
Fernandez Alvarez, P., 1981: El argolico occidental, Salamanca.
Fernandez de Palencia, Alfonso, 1490: Universal Vocabulario, Seville.
Fernandez Delgado, J. A., 1983: 'Los estudios de poesia oral cincuenta afios despues
de su "descubrimiento"', Anuario de Estudios Filologicos 6, pp. 63-90.
, 1985: Los ordculos y Hesiodo. Poesia oral mdntica y gnomica griegos, Caceres.
Fernandez Marcos, N., 1973: La Septuaginta en la investigation contempordnea, Madrid.
, 1979: Introduction a las versiones griegos de la Biblia, Madrid.
Fernandez Nieto, F. G., 1983: 'La colonization griega' and 'Los griegos en Espana',
in Historia de Espana Antigua, Madrid, pp. 527-558 and 559-591.
- 1 9 9 2 : 'Griegos y colonization griega en la peninsula iberica', in Chaves
Tristan, F. (ed.), Griegos en Occidente, Seville, pp. 129-145.
Fernandez-Galiano, M., 1966: 'Helenismos', in Enticlopedia Lingiiistica Hispdnica II,
pp. 51-77. Madrid.
, 1969: La transcription castellana de los nombres propios griegos, Madrid.
, 1984: 'El marco historico de la epopeya', in R. Adrados-Fernandez-Galiano,
Gil and Lasso de la Vega, Introduction a Homero, pp. 197-234, 2nd ed., Barcelona.
Ferrari, F., 1997: Romanzo di Esopo. Introduzione e testo critico, Milano.
Finnegan, R., 1977: Oral Poetry, Cambridge.
Fleischer, U., 1939: Untersuchungen zu den pseudohippokratischen Schriften, Berlin.
Forssmann, B., 1968: Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars, Wiesbaden.
; 1991: 'Schichten der Homerischen Sprache', in Latacz, J. (ed.), ^weihundert
Jahre Homerforschung, Stuttgart-Leipzig, pp. 259-288.
Foucault, J. A., 1972: Recherches sur la langue et le style de Poly be, Paris.
329
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Foumet, J. L., 1989: 'Les emprunts du grec a Tegyptien', BSL 84, pp. 55-80.
Frankel, E., 1910-12: Geschichte der griechischen Nomina Agentis aitf -Tt)p -reap, -%r\g
(-T-), Strasbourg.
Frosen, J., 1974: Prolegomena to a Study of the Greek Language in the first Centuries A.D.,
Helsinki.
Funk, R. W., 1977 (2nd ed.): A beginning-intermediate Grammar of the Hellenistic Greek,
Missoula, Montana.
Gallay, P., 1933: Langue et styih de Saint Gregoire de Nacianze dans sa cortespondance, Paris.
Gamkrelidze, Th. - V. Ivanov, V. V., 1995: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans,
Berlin-New York.
Gangutia, E., 1994: Cantos de mujeres en Grecia, Madrid.
Garbrach, K. A., 1978: A Grammar to the Ionic Inscriptions from E?ythraea, Meisenheim.
Garcia Blanco, J., 1988: Gramdtica de las inscripciones eleas. Unpublished doctoral
thesis. Madrid.
Garcia Domingo, E., 1979: Latinismos en la koine (en los documentos epigraficos desde el
212 a. J. C hasta el 14 d J. C), Salamanca.
Garcia del Pozo, R., 1983: Las inscripciones del locrio occidental, Madrid.
Garcia Teijeiro, M., 1984: 'Reflexiones sobre la clasifkacion dialectal del panfilio',
in Athlon. Satura grammatica in honorem Francisci R. Adrados, I, Madrid, pp. 191-197.
, 1988: 'Retorica, oratoria y magia', in G. Morocho (ed.), Estudios de drama y
retorica en Grecia y Roma, Leon, pp. 143-153.
, 1996: 'Sobre la lengua de los documentos magicos griegos , in A. Agud and
others (eds.), Las lenguas de corpus y sus problemas lingiiisticos, Salamanca.
Garcia-Ramon, J. L., 1975: Les origines postmycennienes du groupe dialectal eolien, 1975.
, 1987: 'Geografia intradialectal tesalia: la fonetica, Verbum 10, pp. 101-153.
, 1999: 'Griechische Dialekte', in Gancik (ed.), Der Neue Pauly.
Gautier, L., 1911: La langue de Xenophon, Geneva.
GentiH, B., 1969: 'Epigramma ed elegia', in A A . W . 1969, pp. 37-81.
and Prato, C , 1979-85: Poetae Elegiaci, Stuttgart-Leipzig, 2 vols.
Georgakas, D. and Kevxpov 'EAAnviicfjc; Ytabacrn<;, 1998: AEÎKO tfjg Neag EXXrfviicfjg
yXmaaag. Vol. 1, Salonika.
Georgiev, V., 1941: Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschqft, Sofia.
-, 1964: 'Mycenaean among the other Greek Dialects', Wingspread Colloquium,
pp. 125-129.
, 1981: Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages, Sofia.
Gerov, B., 1980: 'Die lateinisch-griechische Sprachgrenze auf der BalkanhalbinseP,
in Neumann, G. and Untermann, J. (eds.) 1980, Bonn.
Giacalone, A. - Ramat, P. (eds.), 1993: Las linguas indoeuropeas, Madrid, Catedra.
Giannotta, M. E. and others (eds.), 1994: La detifrazione del cario, Rome.
Gignac, F. T., 1976: A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods.
Vol 1. Phonology, Milan.
, 1981: A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol. II
Morphology, Milan.
Gimbutas, M., 1974: The Gods and Goddeses of Old Europe, London.
, 1989: The Language of the Goddess, San Francisco.
Giundin, L. A., 1987: 'A propos du statut de la langue des macedoniens de
l'Antiquite', EBalk 23, pp. 19-27.
Goldsmith, V., 1963 (2nd ed.), Les dialogues de Platon. Structure et methode dialectique,
Paris.
Gonzalez Castro, J. F., 1994: Palabras castellanas de origen griego, Madrid.
Gostoli, A., 1990: Terpandro. Introduzione, testimonianze, testo critico, traduzione e commento,
Rome.
Graham, A. J., 1982: 'The colonial expansion of Greece' and 'The Western Greeks',
in the reedition of the Cambridge Ancient History, III 3, pp. 83 ff. and 183 ff.
Grandgent, D. A., 1928: Introduction al latin vulgar, Madrid.
3
330
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Guarducci, M., 1967-78: Epigrqfia Greca, I-TV, Rome.

, 1968: 'Die Geburt des griechischen Alphabets', in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp.
197-213.
, 1987: UEpigrqfia greca dalle origini al tardo impero, Rome.
Haberle, J., 1938, Untersuchungen ilber den ionischen Prosastil, Munich.
Haarmann, H., 1996: 'Aspects of early Indo-European contacts with the neighbor
ing cultures', IF 101, pp. 1-14.
Hainsworth, J. B., 1967: 'Greek Views of Greek Dialectology', TPHS 1967, pp.
62-76.
, 1968: The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula, Oxford.
Hajnal, L, 1987 and 1988: 'Zur Sprache der altesten kretischen Inschriften', IF 92,
pp. 58-84 and 93, pp. 62~87.
, 1995: Studien zum Mykenischen Kasussystem, Berlin and New York.
Hamm, E.-M., 1957: Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios, Berlin.
Hammond, N. G. L., 1986 (3rd ed.): A History of Greece, Oxford.
Hansen, P. A., 1983: Carmina Epigraphka saeculorum VIII- Va. Chr. n., Berlin-New York.
Hatzidakis, G. N. 1905-7: MeaaimviKa xai Nea 'EXXr)viKa, Athens, 2 vols.
, 1947 (1st ed. 1915): ZvvTOjioq iaiopia %r}<; 'EXXrjviicrjg yXaaarfg, Athens.
, 1977 (1st ed. 1892): Einleitung in die neugrkchische Grammatik, Hildesheim (Greek
transl, Athens 1976).
Hausler, A., 1985: 'De Anfange von Rad und Wagen in der Kulturgeschichte
Europas', in Produktivkrqfte und Produktionsverhaltnisse, Berlin, pp. 121-133.
, 1992a: 'Zum Verhaltnis von Ockergrabkultur und Schnurkeramik', in
Schnurkeramik Symposium, Prague, pp. 541-548.
, 1992b: 'Zur kulturgeschichtiichen Einordnung griechischer Stelen. Ein Beitrag
zur Frage nach dem Ursprung der Griechen , in Heinrich Schliemann. Grundlagn und
Ergebnisse. . . . Berlin, pp. 253-266.
, 1994: 'Archaologische Zeugnisse fiir Pferd und Wagen in Ost- und MittelEuropa', in Die Indogermanen und das Pferd, Budapest, pp. 217-257.
, 1995: 'Ueber Archaologie und Ursprung der Indogermanen , in Whither
ArchaeologkP, Prague, pp. 211-229.
Havelock, E. A., 1986: La Musa impara a scrivere, Bari.
, 1996: Alle origini della filosqfia greca. Una revisione storica, Bari.
Heisenberg, A., 1934: Neugrkchische diakkttexte, Heidelberg.
Hernandez Gonzalez, F., 1997: 'Apuntes lexicales sobre Faventino', Ckn anol de inves
tigation semdntica, II, pp. 1611-1625.
Hettrich, H., 1985: 'Zum Kasussynkretismus im Mykenischen', MSS 46, pp. 111-122.
Heubeck, A., 1961: Praegraeca, Erlangen.
, 1972: 'Syllabic r in Mycenaean Greek?', Acta Mycenaea II, pp, 55-79, Salamanca.
, 1981: 'Zum Problem der homerischen Kunstsprache', MH 38, pp. 65-80.
Hiersche, R., 1970: Grundzuge der griechischen Sprachgeschkhte, Wiesbaden.
, 1972: Dk Sprache Homers im Lichte neuerer Forschungen, Innsbruck.
Hilhorst, A., 1976: Semitismes et latinismes dans k Pasteur dHermas, Nijmegen.
Hill, D., 1967: Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, Cambridge.
Hodot, R., 1990a: Le diakcte eolien dAsie, Paris.
, 1990b: 'Dialecte et koine', Lalies 9, pp. 55-62.
, 1990c: 'Inscriptions et litterature dialectales', Lalies 9, pp. 63-70.
Hoekstra, A., 1957: 'Hesiode et la tradition orale', Mnemosyne 10, p. 193 ff.
, 1969a: Homeric Modifications of formulaic prototypes, Amsterdam.
, 1969b: The sub-epic stage of the formulaic tradition, Amsterdam.
Hoffmann, O. and others, 1973: Historia de la lengua griega, Madrid.
Hofinger, M., 1981: Etudes sur k vocabulaire grec archaique, Leiden.
Hooker, J. T., 1976: Mycenaean Greece, London.
, 1977: The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets, Innsbruck.
5
331
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 1983: 'The Homeric Dialect', in Concilium Eirene XVI, III, pp. 75-79.
, 1991: 'Mycenology in the 1980Y, Kratylos 36, pp. 32-72.
Horandner, W. and Trapp, E. (eds.), 199 1: Lexicographica Byzantina. Beitrage zum Symposion zur byzantinischen Lexikographie (Wien, 1-4.3.1989), Vienna.
Horrocks, G., 1987: 'The Ionic-Epic tradition: Was there an Aeolic Phase in its
Development?', Minos 20-22, pp. 269-294.
, 1997: Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers, London and New York.
Householder, F. W., 1972: Greek. A Survey of Recent Work, The Hague-Paris.
and others, 1964: Reference Grammar of Literary Dimotiki, Bloomington.

Hoz, J. de, 1964: 'Poesia oral independiente de Homero en Hesiodo y los himnos
homericos', Emerita 32, pp. 283-298.
, 1969: 'Acerca de la historia de la escritura prelatina en Hispania', AEA
119-120, pp. 104-117.
, 1970: 'Un grafito griego de Toscanos y la exportation de aceite ateniense
en el siglo VIP, Madrider Mitteilungen 11, pp. 102-109.
, 1979: 'On some Problems of Iberian Script and Phonetics', in Adas del II
Cobquio sobre lenguasy culturas prerromanas de la Peninsula Iberica, Salamanca, pp. 257-271.
, 1987: 'La escritura greco-iberica', Stadia Palaeohispanica, pp. 285-298, Vitoria.
, 1991: 'The Phoenician Origin of the early Hispanic Scripts', in Baurain, C.
and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 669-682.
, 1992: 'Arqueologia del lenguaje sin lagrimas . . . y sin lenguaje', Arqritica 3,
pp. 11-14.
, 1996: 'El origen de las escrituras paleohispanicas quince aflos despues', in
Actas del VI Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Peninsula Iberica, Salamanca,
pp. 171-206.
Hualde Pascual, M. P., 1997: 'Eolismos en Jonia: revision de un problema de
geografia intradialectaP, Emerita 65, pp. 221-256.
Hult, J., 1990: Syntactic Variation in Greek of the 5th Century A.D., Goteborg.
Humbert, J., 1930: La disparition du datif grec, Paris.
, 1972 (1st ed. 1945): Syntaxe grecque, Paris.
Hummel, P., 1993: La Syntaxe de Pindare, Louvain.
Hunger, H., 1978a: 'Stilstufen in der Byzantinischen Geschichtschreibung des 12.
Jh. Anna Kommene und Michael Glykas', Byz. Studies 5, pp. 139-170.
, 1978b: Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, Munich.
Hussey,J. M. (ed.), 1966: The Cambridge Medieval History IV. Byzantium and Its Neighbours,
Cambridge.
Huxley, C , 1961: Crete and the Luwians, Oxford.
Ilievski, P. H. y Crepajac, I., 1987: Tradata Mycenaea, Skopje.
Impellizzeri, S., 1975: La letteratura bizantina da Costantino a Fozio, Florence-Milan.
Irigoin, J., 1980: 'La formation du vocabulaire de l'anatomie en grec: du mycenien
aux principaux traites de la Collection Hippocratique', Hippocratica. Ades du Colloque
hippocratique de Paris (4-9 Sept 1978), Paris, pp. 247-257.
, 1983: 'Paralleles linguistiques a Interpretation de termes techniques attestes
dans la Collection Hippocratique', in Lasserre, F. y Mudry, P. (eds.), Formes de
penste dans la Collection hippocratique. Ades du IV Colloque International hippocratique
(Lausanne, 23~26 septembre 1981), Geneva, pp. 173-180.
Iselin, I. B. S., 1991: 'The transfer of the Alphabet to the Greeks: the state of doc
umentation', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 283-291.
Isenring, H. C , Die lateinischen Adjediva auf -icus und -ticus, Zurich 1955.
Janko, R., 1982: Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, Cambridge.
Jeffery, L. H., 1990 (2nd ed.), The local scripts of archaic Greece, Oxford.
Jellinek, M. H., 1926: Geschichte der gotischen Sprache, Berlin.
Kahane, H. y R., 1979: 'Les elements byzantins dans les langues romanes', in Graeca
et Romanica, Scripta Selecta, Amsterdam, pp. 67-73.
e
332
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1970 ff.: 'Abendland und Byzanz. III. Literatur und Sprache. B. Sprache',
in Reallexicon der Byzantinistik, cols. 345-640.
Kaimio, J., 1979: The Roman and the Greek Language, Helsinki, 1979.
Kajanto, I., 1980: 'Minderheiten und ihre Sprachen in der Hauptstadt Rom', in
G. Neumann and J. Untermann (eds.), 1980, pp. 83-101.
Kalleris, J. N., 1954: Les anciens macedoniens. Etude historique et linguistique, Athens.
Kapsomenakis, S. G., 1938: Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammatik der Papyri aus der
nachchristlichen êit, Munich.
Kapsomenos, S. G., 1958: Die griechische Sprache zwischen Koine und Neugriechisch',
in Berichte zum XL Internationalen Byzantinistenkongress, II 1, Munich.
Karageorghis, J. y Masson, O. (eds.), 1988: The History of the Greek Language in Cyprus.
Proceedings of an International Symposium sponsored by the Pierides Foundation. Larnaca,
Cyprus, 8~13 September- 1986, Nicosia.
Karageorghis, V., 1991: Les anciens Chipriotes. Entre Orient et Occident, Paris.
Karoussos, Gh., 1973: Rhodos, Athens.
Katicic, R., 1976: Ancient Languages of the Balkans, The Hague, 2 vols.
Kaukala, M. I., 1992: Mvr}fi6ovvo Kprftucfjg diaXsKTOv, Athens.
Kazazis, K., 1974: 'The status of the Turkisms in the present-day Balkan languages',
in Birnbaum, H. and Vryonis, S. (eds.), Aspects of the Balkans, The Hague, pp.
87-116.
Kieckers, E., 1910: 'Das Eindringen der Koine in Kreta', IF 21, pp. 72-118.
Kinstrand, J. F., 1975: Bion of Borysthenes, Uppsala.
Kirk, G. S. (ed.), 1964: The Language and Background of Homer, Cambridge.
, 1976: Homer and the Oral Tradition, Cambridge.
Kock, B., 1910: De epigrammatum Graecorum dialectis, Gottingen.
Kontosopoulos, N. G., 1970: "H armepivT] yA,G)acn,icri Kaxdaiaaxc;
ev KpT|TT| KOU f|
Y^coaaa TCDV ev 'ABrrvau; Kpr|Teov', KprjriKr) XpoviKa 22, pp. 144-278.
, 1978: Uinfluence du frangais sur le grec, Athens.
1980: "H yhhaaa avyxpovoi) netpv KpiyctKoi) Keuxevot)', in Mvrjfia
Koupjuook,
Athens, p. 19 ff.
, 1988: r^coaaiKoq "AxXac, tfjc; KpT|Tr|c,, Iraklio.
, 1994 (2nd ed.): AKXXEKTOI Km iSicofiam xr\g viae, EXXr\viKr)g, Athens.
Koutsoudas, A., 1962: Verb Morphology of Modem Greek: A Descriptive Study, Bloomington,
Indiana.
Krafft, F., 1963: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Homer und Hesiod, Gottingen.
Kramer, J., 1983: 'Der kaiserzeitliche griechisch-lateinische Sprachbund', in Zjele
und Wege der Balkanlinguistik, Berlin, pp. 115-131.
Krause, M., 'Inschriften aus Faras', in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, Christentum am Roten
Meer, Berlin-New York, 1971.
Krauss, S., 1898: Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum,
Berlin.
Kretschmer, P., 1894: Die griechischen Vaseninschrifien Hirer Sprache nach untersucht, Gutersloh.
, 1901: Die Entstehung der koine, Vienna.
, 1909: 'Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte. I', Glotta 1, pp. 9-59.
, 1946: Introduction a la Lingiiistica griega y latina, Madrid.
Kriaras, E., 1968 ff.: AEÎKO rfjg MsaaicoviKfjg eXXriviicfjg 8rffid>6ovg
ypaâreiag
(1110-1669),
Thessalomiki, vols. I-XIII.
Kroll, W., 1935: La sintaxis cientifica en la ensenanza del latin, Madrid.
Krumbacher, K., 1897 (2nd ed.): Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, Munich.
Kullmann, W. and Reichel, M. (eds.), 1990: Der Uebergang von der Miindlichkeit zur
Literatur bei den Griechen, Tubingen.
Laguna, G., 1995: 'Influencia lingiiistica del griego sobre el latin', Tempus 9, pp.
5-32.
c
BIBLIOGRAPHY
333
Lambert, P.-Y., 1994: La langue gauloise, Paris.

Lamberts, E., 1967: Untersuchungen zur Parataxe bei Herodot, Vienna.
Lampe, G. W. H., 1961: A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford.
Lanza, D., 1983: 'Quelques remarques sur le travail linguistique du medicin', in
Lasserre, F. and Mudry, P. (eds.), Formes de pensee dans la Collection hippocratique.
Actes du IVe Colloque International hippocratique, Geneva, pp. 181-185.
Lapesa, R., 1980 (8th ed.): Historia de la lengua espanola, Madrid.
Lara, D., 1984: Estudio sobre la composition de los tratados hipocrdticos, Madrid.
, 1997: Initiation a la lexicografia griega, Madrid, 1997.
Latacz, J. (ed.), 1991: ^weihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung, Stuttgart.
Lazzeroni, R., 1969: 'Correnti linguistiche nel greco letterario', in Studi e saggi lin
guistics suppl. a Ultalia diakttale 33, pp. 111-138.
Lee, J. A. L., 1983: LAX. A lexical Study of the Septuagenta Version of the Pentateuch,
Chico, California.
Lehmann, W. P., 1986: A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, Leiden.
, 1992: Die gegenwdrtige Richtung der indogermanischen Forschung, Budapest.
Lehrmann, A., 1996: 'Indo-Hittite revisited', IF 101, pp. 73-88.
Lejeune, M., 1968: 'Rapport sur le grec mycenien', Atti del 1 Congresso Intemazionale
di Micenologia. Roma 27 settembre - 3 ottobre 1967, Rome, vol. II, pp. 726-731.
, 1976: 'Pre-mycenien et proto-mycenien', BSL 71, p. 193 ff.
, 1993: 'D'Alcoy a Espanca: Reflexions sur les ecritures paleo-hispaniques', in
Michel Lejeune. Notice biographique et bibliographique, Louvain, pp. 53-86.
Leumann, M., 1948: 'Griechische Verba in 4eiv im Latein', in Melanges Marouzeau,
Paris, pp. 371-389.
-, 1950: Homerische Worter, Basilea.
, 1968: 'Die Entgliederung entlehnter griechischer Verben ins Latein', Studii
Clasice 10, pp. 7-12.
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., 1940 (9th ed., there are two Supplements of
1968 and 1997): Greek-English Dictionary, Oxford.
Lilja, S., 1968: On the Style of the Earliest Greek Prose, Helsingfors.
Lillo, A., 1979: El dialecto arcadio, Salamanca.
Linde, P., 1906: De Epicuri vocabulis ab optima Atthide alienis, Bratislava.
Ljungvik, H., 1926: Studien zur Sprache der Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, Uppsala.
, 1932: Beitrage zur Syntax der spdtgriechieschen Volkssprache, Uppsala.
Lloyd-Jones, H. y Parsons, P., 1983: Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin and New York.
Long, A., 1968: Language and thought in Sophocles, London.
Lopez Eire, A., 1966: 'Dislocacion sintactica y atico coloquial en la comedia
aristofanica', in Agud, A. and others (eds.), pp. 167-197.
, 1972-1973: 'Los jonios y el jonico-atico', Zepty 23-24, pp. 197-207.
, 1977: 'Nuevas perspectives metodologicas en dialectologia griega', Helmantica
28, pp. 315-329 (in Lopez Eire 1986a, p. 289 ff.)
. 1978a: 'El retorno de los Heraclidas', J&pkyrus 28-29, pp. 287-297.
-, 1978b: 'Problematica actual de la Dialectologia griega', in Adas del V Congreso
Espanol de Estudios Cldsicos, Madrid, pp. 457-479.
, 1984a: 'Genealogia del Atico', EC 26, pp. 43-46.
, 1984b: 'En tomo a la lengua del Corpus Hippocraticum', Emerita 52, pp. 325-354.
, 1984c: Tucidides y la koine', in Athlon. Saturn grammatica in honorem Francisci
R. Adrados, 1, Madrid, II, pp. 245-261.
, 1985: Jonico y Atico', in Melena, J. L. (ed.), Symbolae Ludovico Mitxelena septuagenario oblatae, I, Vitoria, pp. 81-93.
, 1986a: Estudios de Lingiiistica, Dialectologia e Historia de la lengua griega, Salamanca.
, 1986b: 'La lengua de la comedia aristofanica', Emerita 54, pp. 237-274.
, 1987a: 'Sobre los origenes de la oratoria', Minerva 1, pp. 13-31.
334
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-, 1987b: 'Geographie intradialectale de Pionien-attique', Verbum 10, 155-178.

, 1989a: Las invasiones griegas y la dialectologia', Homenaje a Marcelo Vigil,
Salamanca, pp. 147-169.
, 1989b: 'Sobre las innovaciones del jonico-atico', in Borrego Nieto, J. and
others (eds.), Philologica I. Homenaje a D. Antonio Llorente, Salamanca, pp. 191-1998.
, 1991: Atico, koine y aticismo. Estudios sabre Aristqfanes, Murcia.
, 1992: 'Algunos aspectos de la lengua de los tratados hipocraticos mas antiguos',
in Adas del VIE Congres Hippocratique, Madrid, pp. 351-364.
, 1993a: 'De PAttique a la koine', in Brixhe, C. (ed.), 1993a, pp. 41-57.
, 1993b: 'Estructuras linguisticas recurrentes en las inscripciones dialectales grie
gas', in Crespo, E. and others (eds.) 1993, pp. 221-227.
, 1994: 'Historia del atico a traves de sus inscripciones', êphyrus 47, pp. 157-188.
, 1996a: La lengua coloquial de la comedia aristofdnica, Murcia.
, 1996b: 'L'influence de Pionien-attique sur les autres dialectes epigraphiques
et Porigine de la koine', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 7-42.
and LiUo, A., 1982: 'Pannlia y el dialecto pannlio', Zephyrus 34-35, pp. 243-248.
and Lillo, A., 1983: 'En torno a la clasifkacion dialectal del pannlio', Emerita
51, pp. 5-27.
and Mendez Dosuna, J., 1971: 'En busca de la situation dialectal del jonicoatico', in Simposio de Colonizaciones, pp. 247-278, Barcelona.
and Mendez Dosuna, J., 1980: 'El problema de los dialectos dorios y nordoccidentales', Emerita 48, pp. 15-30 (in Lopez Eire 1986a, p. 273 ff.)
Lopez Ferez, J. A., 1987: 'Problemas linguisticos en los escritos hipocraticos: el
tratado Sobre los Humores', Emerita 55, pp. 253-263.
Lord, A. B., 1960: The Singer of Tales, Cambridge (Mass.).
Louw, J. P., 1982: Semantics of the Mew Testament, Chico (California).
LiAddekens, E., 1980: 'Aegypten', in Neumann, G. and Untennann, J. (eds.) 1980,
pp. 241-265.
Liidtke, H., 1974: Historia del lexico romdnico, Madrid.
Lumpe, A., 1970: 'Abendladisches in Byzanz', in Reallexicon der Byzantinistik, 4.
Amsterdam, pp. 305-306.
Lupas, L., 1972: Phonologie du grec attique, The Hague.
McCabe, D., 1981: The Prose-rhythm of Demosthenes, New York.
Mackridge, P., 1985: The Modern Greek Language, Oxford.
Maloney, G., 1980: 'L'emploi des particules dans les oeuvres d'Hippocrate', RELO
1, pp. 1-20.
Maluquer de Motes, J., 1968: Epigrqfia prelatina de la Peninsula iberica, Barcelona.
Mandilaras, B. G., 1973: The Verb in the Greek non-literary Papyri, Athens.
Marazzi, M., 1985: 'TrafBti Minoici e Micenei d'Oltremare: una rassegna su recenti
incontrP, QUCC 50, pp. 107-116.
and others (eds.), 1986: Trqffici micenei net Mediterraneo. Problemi storici e documentazione archeological, Tarento.
Marouzeau, J., 1949: Quelques aspects de la formation du Latin litteraire, Paris.
Marschall, M. H. B., 1987: Verbs, Nouns and Postpositives in Attic Prosa, Edinburgh.
Martin, J., 1974: Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode, Munich.
Martin Zorraquino, M. A., 1997: 'Formation de palabras y lenguaje tecnico', RSEL
27, pp. 317-339.
Martinez Hernandez, M., 2000: Semnantica del Griego antiguo. Madrid, Ediciones
Clasicas, 2000.
Martinez Vazquez, R. - Ruiz Yanmuza, E., 1999 et alii: Gramdtica funcional-cognitiva
del griego antiguo. Sevilla.
Mason, H. J., 1974: Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto.
Masson, O., 1967: Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts semitiques en Grec, Paris.
, 1988: 'Le dialecte de Paphos', in Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O. (eds.)
1988, pp. 19-30.
c
BIBLIOGRAPHY
335
Mastrelli, C. A., 1954: La lengua di Alceo, Florence.

Mateo, J., 1977: El aspecto verbal en el Nuevo Testamento, Madrid.
Matthews, P. H., 1967: 'The main features of Modern Greek Verb inflection', FL
3, pp. 262-284.
Mayser, E., 1926 ff. (2nd ed., 1970): Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit,
Leipzig.
Meecham, H. G., 1935: The Letter of Aristeas, Manchester.
Megas, A. E., 1925-27: 'Iarojyw TOV yXmooiKov fy]%r)iiaxog, Athens, 2 vols.
Meid, W., 1975: 'Probleme der raumlichen and zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen', in Rix, H. (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9-14 September 1973, Wiesbaden, pp. 204219.
Meier-Brugger, M., 1992: Griechische Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin-New York.
Meillet, A., 1936: Esquisse d une Grammaire comparee de Farmenien classique, Vienna.
, 1975 (7th ed.): Apergu d une histoire de la langue grecque, Paris.
Meinersmann, B,, 1927: Die lateinischen Worter und Namen in den griechischen Papyri,
Leipzig.
Meister, K., 1921 (reed. 1965): Die Homerische Kunstsprache, Stuttgart.
Mendez Dosuna, A., 1980: 'Clasifkacion dialectal y cronologia relativa: el dialecto
eleo' SPHS 4, pp. 181-201.
, 1985: Los dialectos dorios del Noroeste. Gramdtica y estudio dialectal, Salamanca.
Mendoza, J., 1976: 'Aportaciones del estudio de la lengua a la determination de
la cronologia de dos tratados del Corpus Hippocraticum", Emerita 44, pp. 171-195.
Merlingen, W., 1955: Das vorgriechische und die sprachwissemchqftlichvorhistorischen Grundlagene,
Vienna.
Meyer, G., 1894: Die slavischen, albanischen und mmddnischen Lehworter im Neugriechischen,
Vienna.
Michalowski, K., 1938: Storia de la Nubia cristiana, Rome.
Migliorini, B., 1968: Historia de la lengua italiana, Madrid.
Mihaescu, H., 1993: La romanite dans le sud-est de VEurope, Bucarest.
Millard, A. R., 1991: 'The uses of early Alphabets', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.)
1991, pp. 101-114.
Minniti-Gonia, D., 1992: 'Les theories sur l'origine du dialecte grec de Calabria',
Parousia 8, pp. 117-124.
Mirambel, A., 1937: Les etats de langue dans la Grece actuelle, Paris.
, 1957: 'La doctrine linguistique de Jean Psichari', La nouvelle Clio 3, pp. 78-104.
- , 1959: La langue greque moderne, Paris (Greek transl., Thessalonika 1978).
Momigliano, A., 1930: La composizione della Storia di Tucidide, Turin.
Moes, R., 1980: Les Hellenismes de Fepoque Theodosienne, Strasbourg.
Moorhouse, A. C , 1982: The Syntax of Sophocles, Leiden.
Moralejo, J. J., 1973a: Gramdtica de las inscripciones delfcas, Santiago.
, 1973b: 'Sonantes y griego micenico', Emerita 41, pp. 409-426.
, 1977a: 'Dialectos y niveles de lengua en griego antiguo', RSEL 7, pp. 57-85.
, 1977b: 'Los dorios: su migration y su dialecto', Emerita 45, pp. 243-267.
, 1979: Recent contributions to the History of the Greek Dialects, Santiago.
, 1984: 'Nota al dativo eolico', EC 26, pp. 61-66.
, 1990: 'Griego antiguo: migraciones y dialectos', RSEL 20, pp. 271-308.
, 1996: 'Position del dialecto lesbio', in Agud, A. and others (eds.), 1996, pp.
111-127.
Moreno Jurado, S. A., 1997, Antologia de la Poesia Griega (siglos XI 4 sigs.), Madrid.
Morpurgo Davies, A., 1964: '"Doric" Developments in the Language of Hesiod',
Glotta 62, pp. 138-165.
, 1968: 'The treatment of *r and */ in Mycenaean and Arcado-Cyprian', in
Atti del 1 Congresso Intemazionale di Micenologia. Roma 27 settembre - 3 ottobre 1967,
Rome, vol. II, pp. 791-812.
y
336
BIBLIOGRAPHY
5
, 1984b: 'Mycenaean and Greek Language , in Morpurgo Davies, A. and

Duhoux, Y. (eds.), 1984, pp. 75-125.
, 1992: 'Mycenaean, Arcadian, Cyprian and some questions of Method in
Dialectology , in Olivier, J. P. (ed.) 1992, pp. 415-431.
, and Duhoux, Y. (eds.), 1984a: 'Linear B: A 1984 Survey , Louvain-la-Neuve,
pp. 75-125.
Moser, H., 1957: 'Deutsche Sprachgeschichte der allteren Zeit , in W. Stammler
(ed.), Berlin.
Moule, C. D. F., 1968: An Idiom-Book of the New Testament, Cambridge.
Moulton, J. H. y Milligan, G., 1914-29: The Vocabulary of the New Testament illus
trated from the Papyri and other non-literary Sources, London.
Mugler, Ch., 1938: Uevolution des subordonnees relatives complexes en grec, Paris.
Mulller, D. G., 1980: Satzbau, Satzgliederung und Satzverbindung in der Prosa Herodots,
Meisenheim.
, 1982: Homer and the Ionian Epic Tradition, Innsbruck.
Musti, D. (ed.), 1985a: Le origini dei Greci. Dori e mondo egeo, Rome.
, 1985b: 'Continuita e discontinuity tra Achei e Dori nelle tradizione storiche ,
in Musti, D. (ed.) 1985a, pp. 37-71.
and others (eds.), 1991: La Transizione dal Miceneo aWalto arcaismo. Dal palazzo
alia citta. Atti del Convegno Intemazionale, 1988, Rome.
Nachmanson, E., 1903: Laute und Formen der Magnetischen Inschriften, Uppsala.
, 1910: Beitrage zur Kentniss de?- altgriechishen Volkssprache, Uppsala-Leipzig.
Nagel, P., 1971: 'Die Einwirkung des Griechischen auf die Intstehung der koptischen Literatursprache , in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl (eds.), Christentum am Roten
Meer, Berlin.
Nagy, G., 1970: Greek Dialects and the transformation of Indoeuropean Process, Cambridge.
Narr, G. (ed.), 1971: Griechisch und Romanisch, Tubingen.
Naveh, J., 1982: Early History of the Alphabet, Jerusalem/Leiden.
Nebrija, A. de, 1592: Lexicon hoc est Dictionarium ex sermone latino in hispaniensem,
Salamanca.
-, 1592: Dictionarium ex hispaniensi en latinum sermonem, Salamanca.
Negri, A., 1981a: 'La straficazione delfattico , K95, pp. 61-65.
, 1981b: Miceneo e lengua omerica, Florence, 1981.
, 1982a: 'L'unita intermedia ionico-attica , Acme 35, pp. 7-17.
, 1982b (1984): 'II problema delle unita intermedie e 1'unita intermedia ionicoattica , ASGM, 23.
Nehrbass, R., 1935: Sprache und Stil der Iamata von Epidaurus, Leipzig.
Nenci, G. and Vallet, G. (eds.), 1977 ff.: Bibliogrqfia topogrqfica de la colonizzazione greca
in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche, Pisa-Rome,
Neumann, G., 1980: 'Kleinasien , in Neumann, G. and Untertnann, J. (eds.) 1980,
pp. 167-185.
and Untermann, J. (eds.), 1980: Die Sprachen im rbmischen Reich der Kaiser zeit,
Cologne.
Newton, B., 1972: Cypriot Greek. Its Phonologie and Inflexion, The Hague-Paris.
Niehoff-Panagiotidis, J., 1994: Koine und diglossie, Wiesbaden.
Norden, E., 1958 (5th ed.; 1st ed. 1898): Die antike Kunstprose, Stuttgart.
Nothiger, M., 1971: Die Sprache des Stesichorus und des Ibycus, Zurich.
Oeconomidis, D. E., 1908: Lautlehre des Pontischen, Leipzig.
Olivier, J. P. (ed.), 1992: Mykenaikd. Actes du IX Colloque international sur les textes
myceniens et egeens organise par le Centre de VAntiquite Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation
Hellenique des Recherches Scientifiques et Fecole Frangaise d Athenes (Athenes, 2-6 octobre
1990), Athens-Paris.
, 1996: 'Les ecritures cretoises: sept points a considered, in Baurain, C. and
others (eds.) 1991, pp. 11-123.
5
BIBLIOGRAPHY
337
Olivieri, A., 1930; Frammenti della comedia greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella Magna
Grecia, Naples.
Ostrogorsky, G. 1983 (original ed. 1963): Historia del estado bizantino, Madrid.
Pabon, J. M , 1939: 'El griego, lengua de la intimidad entre los romanos', Emerita
7, pp. 126-131.
Page, D. L., 1963: 'Archilochus and the oral tradition', in A A . W . 1963, pp.
117-163.
, 1967 (2nd ed.): Poetae Alelici Graeci, Oxford.
, 1974: Supplementum Lyricis Graecis, Oxford.
Palaima, Th. G., 1991: 'The advent of the Greek Alphabet in Cyprus: a competi
tion of scripts', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 449-471.
Palm, J., 1955: Ueber Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien, Lund.
Palmer, L. R., 1945: A Grammar of the post-Ptolemaic Papyry. Vol. I, London.
, 1958: 'Luwian and Linear A', TPhS, pp. 75-110.
, 1980: The Greek Language, Oxford.
Parry, A., 1971: The Making of Homeric Verse, Oxford.
Parry, M., 1928: Uepithete traditionelle dans Homere, Paris.
Panagl, O., 1992: 'Mykenisch und die Sprache Homers: Arte Probleme, neue
Resultate', in J. P. Olivier (ed.) 1992, pp. 499-513.
Panayotis, A., 1990: 'Des dialectes A la koine: l'exemple de la Chalcidique', Poikila
10, pp. 191-228.
, 1992: "tf yXmoaa roov emypaq&v %r\g Maxedoviag', Athens.
Papadatos, C. G., 1976: 'H &votTO|Lua xfj<; 'EXkT|vticfj<; yXoxjoaq, Athens.
Papadopoulos, A. A., 1927: FpawiaiiKY] %<bv popeicov iSicop-drcov rfjv Neag 'EXXrjviicfjg
yXcbaaag, Athens.
, 1930: 'Oi yaMuajioi zr^q 'EAA,r|viKn.<; yX<ho<yr\<;\ 'A&rfva 42, pp. 3-33.
, 1948: H Kprjvrf VKO xovg ZapK7]vovg\ Athens.
, 1955: 'IoTopiKt) Fpap,fiai;iKr) rfjg IIovTiKfjg SiaXeiccov', Athens.
Patzer, H., 1972: Dichter und poetisches Handwerk im Homerischen Epos, Heidelberg.
Pavese, C. O., 1972: Tradizioni e generi poetici delta Grecia arcaica, Rome.
, 1974: Studi sulla tradizione epica rapsodica, Rome.
Peabody, B., 1975: The winged Word, New York.
Peek, W., 1955: Griechische Versinschrfkn, I, Berlin.
Peran, P., 1985: La lengua de la Vida de Esopo\ Unpublished bachelor thesis, Madrid.
Perez Castro, L., 1997: 'Vocabularios cientifico-tecnicos y lexico comun en latin
ciasico', RSEL 27, pp. 107-114.
Perez Molina, M. E., 1986: 'El Ilamado dialecto saronico. Revision critica', Myrtia
1, pp. 107-115.
Pernot, H., 1921: D'Homere, a nos jours, Paris.
1927: Etudes sur la langue des Evangiles, Paris.
, 1934: Introduction a Vetude du dialecte tsaconien, Paris.
, 1946: Morphologie des parlers de Chios, Paris.
Peters, F. E., 1967: Greek Philosophical Terms, New York-London.
Peters, M., 1986: 'Zur Frage einer achadischen Phase des griechischen Epos', in Etter,
A. (ed.), O-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift fur Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburstag, Berlin, pp. 303-319.
Petrounias, E., 1978: 'The modem Greek language and diglossia', in S. Vryonis Jr.
(ed.), The Past in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture, Malibu, pp. 193-220.
Pfohl, G. (ed.), 1968a: Das Alphabet, Darmstadt.
, 1968b: Elemente der griechischen Epigraphik, Darmstadt.
Pictet, A, 1859-1863: Les origines indoeuropeennnes ou les Aryas primitifs. Essai de paleontologic linguistique, Paris.
Pisani, V., 1938: 'Paleontologia Linguistica', in Annali della Fac. di Lettere e Filosofa
delta R. Universitd di Cagliari.
, 1954: Breve historia de la lengua griega, Montevideo.
l
338
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pittau, M., 1984: Lessico Etrusco-Latino, Sassari.

Pohl, W. (ed.), 1997: Kingdoms of the Empire. The integration of the barbarian in late
antiquity, New York.
Politis, L., 1994: Historia de la Literatura griega moderna, Madrid.
Poltera, O., 1997: Le langage de Simonide, Berne.
Pope, K. M., 1973 (1st ed. 1934): From Latin to Modern French, Manchester.
Porzig, W., 1954: 'Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen
Dialekten', IF 6\, pp. 147-169.
Powell, B. B., 1991a: Homer and the origin of the Greek alphabet, Cambridge.
, 1991b: 'The Origins of the alphabetic Literacy among the Greeks', in Baurain,
C. (ed.), 1991, pp. 357-70.
Powell, J. U., 1925 (reimpr. 1970): Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford.
Probonas, J. K., 1992: H EXXr^viKoxi^xa xr\g Mamdoviag
\xeoa arovg
amvag,
Athens.
Psichari, J., 1886-89: Essais de grammaire historique du neo-grec, Paris.
PsomadaMs, K., 1995: 'YlapaoxaxiKr\ npoopoXr) rfjg EXXrjviicfjg cog BisBvovg TXcoaaag',
in EXXr]viKr] SieOvrjg FXmaaa 2.
Pugliese Carratelli, G., 1985: Magna Grecia. II Mediterraneo, le metropoleis e la fondazione
delle colonic, Milan.
Rabehl, W., De sermone defixionum atticarum, thesis, Berlin, 1906.
Raderenacher, L., 1947: Koine, Vienna.
Raubitschek, A. E., 1969: 'Das Denkmal-Epigramm', in A A . W . 1967, pp. 1-26.
Real Academia Espanola, 2001 (22nd ed.): Diccionario de la lengua espanola, Madrid.
, 1998: Enmiendas y adiciones al Diccionario de la Real Academia Espanola aprobadas
por la Corporation. Letters A - C , Madrid.
Regard, P., 1924: 'La version grecque du Monument d'Ancyra', REA 26, pp.
147-161.
Renfrew, G , 1987: Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indoeuropean Origins, Cambridge
(Sp. transl., Barcelona, 1990).
Risen, E., 1955: 'Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekten in neuer Sicht', MH
12, pp. 61-76.
, 1966: 'Les differences dialectales dans le mycenien', in Cambridge Colloquium,
Cambridge, pp. 150-157.
, 1974: Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache, Berlin.
, 1979: 'Die griechische Dialekte im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend', SMEA 20,
pp. 91-101.
, 1985: 'La posizione del dialetto dorico', in Musti, D. (ed.) 1985a, pp. 13-35.
, 1988: 'Le developpement du chipriote dans le cadre des dialectes grecs anciens',
in Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O. (eds.) 1988, pp. 67-80, Nicosia.
, 1991: 'La contribution de la langue mycenienne au probleme de la transi
tion du palais a la cite', in Musti, D. (ed.) 1991, pp. 231-240.
Rix, H., 1992: Historische Grammatik des Griechischen, Darmstadt.
Rizzi, E., 1981: 'II dorico di Creta: aspetti e problemi della struttura fonematica',
Studi italiani di linguistics teorica ed applicata, pp. 251-282.
Rocca, G., 1984: Continuitd micenee nel dorico, Milan.
Rodriguez Monescillo, E., 1975: Estudios sobre la lengua de Aristqfanes, Madrid.
Rodriguez Somolinos, H., 1998a: El lexico de los poetas lesbios, Madrid.
(1998b): 'Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae Iberiae', in Gangutia Elicegui,
E., Testimonia Hispaniae Antiqua, Madrid, II. pp. 335-363.
Rohlfs, G., 1950: Historische Grammatik der unteritalischen Grdzitat, Munich.
, 1962: Neue Beitrage zur Kenntnis der unteritalischen Grdzitat, Munich.
Romero Cruz, F., 1988: 'En tono a los proemios y epilogos de Tucidides', in
G. Morocho (ed.), Estudios de Dramay Retorica en Grecia y Roma, Leon pp. 155-167.
Rosen, H. B., 1962: Eine Laut- und Formenlehre der Herodoteischen Sprachform, Heidelberg.
r
BIBLIOGRAPHY
339
, 1963: 'Palestinian KOIVTJ in Rabbinic Illustration', JSS 8, pp. 56-72.

, 1979: Uhebreu et ses rapports avec le monde classique, Paris 1979.
, 1980: 'Die Sprachsituation im romischen Palastina', in Neumann, G. and
Untermann, J. (eds.) 1980, pp. 215-239.
Rosenkranz, B., 1930: 'Der lokale Grundton und die personliche Eigenart in der
Sprache des Thukydides', iF 35, pp. 127-178.
Rotolo, V., 1965: A, Korais e la questione della lengua en Grecia, Palermo.
Roura, C , 1971: 'La indeterminacion sintactica en Tucidides y los problemas de
la traduction', Emerita 39, pp. 121-127.
Rudberg, G., 1942: 'Herakleitos und Gorgias', Serta Eitremiana, Oslo, pp. 128 140.
Ruijgh, C. J., 1957: Uelhnent acheen dans la langue epique, Assen.
, 1967: Etudes sur la Grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec Mycenien, Amsterdam.
, 1984: 'Le mycenien et Homere', in Morpurgo, A. and Duhoux, Y. 1984, pp.
75-125.
, 1995: 'D'Homere aux origines de la tradition epique', in Crielaard, J. P. (ed.),
Homeric Questions, Amsterdam, pp. 196.
, 1995-96: 'La genese de l'eolien d'Asie', Verbum 18, pp. 289-297.
, 1996: 'Sur la position dialectale du mycenien', in De Miro, E. and others
(eds.) 1996, pp. 115-124.
Rydbeck, L. 1967: Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und JSfeues Testament, Uppsala.
Sacconi, A., 1991: 'I sistemi grafici del monde egeo tra la fine del II e l'inizio del
I millennio a. C.', in Musti, D. (ed.) 1991, pp. 43-52.
Sakellariou, M., 1980: Les proto-grecs, Athens.
Santana Henriquez, G., 1991: 'En torno a la composition en la prosa medica griega
antigua', Emerita 59, pp. 123-132.
Santiago, R. A., 1997: 'La dialectologia griega, hoy', in Bosch, M. G. and Fornes,
M. A. (eds.), Homenatge a Miquel Dole. Actes del XII Simposi de la Seccio Catalana i de
la Seccio Balear de la S.E.E.C., pp. 13-30.
Scarpat, G., 1952: / dialetti Greci in Omero secondo un grammatico antico, Milan.
Schachermeyer, F., 1980: Griechenland im êitalter der Wanderungen, Vienna.
Schrader, O., y Nehring, A., 1917-29: Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde,
I-II, Berlin-Leipzig, 1917-1929.
Scherer, A., 1963: 'Die Sprache des Archilochos', in A A . W . 1963, pp. 89-116.
Schmid, W., 1964 (1st ed. 1896-97): Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern, Hildesheim,
5 vols.
Schmift, R., 1967: Dichtung und dichtersprache im idg. eit, Wiesbaden, 1967.
, 1977: Einfuhrung in die griechischen Dialekte, Darmstadt.
Schwyzer, E., and Debrunner, A,, 4 vols., 1975 (4th ed., 1st ed. 1939 ff.): Griechische
Grammatik, Munich.
See, K. von (ed.), 1978: Europdische Heldendichtung, Darmstadt.
Semenov, A., 1935: 'Der nordpontischen Dialekt des Neugriechischen', Glotta 23,
pp. 96-107.
Seiler, H.-J., 1952: Vaspect et le temps dans le verbe neo-grec, Paris.
, 1958: 'Das Problem der sogenanten Geminaten in den neugriecmschen
Dialekten . . .', Glotta 36, p. 209 ff.
Sevcenko, I., 1982: 'Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose', JOB 31, pp. 281-312 and
32, pp. 220-233.
Shipp, G. S., 1964: 'Mycenaean Evidence for the Homeric Dialect', in G. S. Kirk
(ed.), The Language and Background of Homer, Cambridge, pp. 1-14.
Shipp, G. P., 1972 (2nd ed.): Studies in the Language of Homer, Cambridge.
Sicca, U., 1924: Grammatica delle Iscrizioni Doriche delta Sicilia, Arpino.
Skoda, F., 1988: Medicene ancienne et metaphore. Le vocabulaire de Vanatomie et de la pathologie en grec ancien, Paris.
Snell, B., 1969: Tyrtaios und die Sprache des Epos, Gottingen.
340
BIBLIOGRAPHY
c
Soesbergen, P. G. van, 1981: The coming of the dorians', Kadmos 20, pp. 38-51.
Sommer, F., (3rd ed.), 1948: Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut und Formenlehre, Heidelberg.
Sophocles, E. A., 1914 (3rd ed., reprint, 1975): Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine
Periods (B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100), Cambridge.
Sotiropoulos, D., 1972: Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek, The Hague.
Sperber, D., 1984: A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature, Bar
Ilan.
Stammler, W., (ed.), 1952: Deutsche Philologie im Aifriss, I, Berlin.
Starr, Ch. G., 1964; Gli origini della civiltd greca, Rome.
Stavrianopulu, P. (ed.), 1996: TIio Kovrd c%r\v EXXdSa 11, Madrid.
, 1997: riw Kovxd oxr\v EXXdba 12 13, Madrid.
, 1998: TIw Kovxd orr]v EXXdSa 14, Madrid.
, 1999: Ilid Kovrd arrfv EXXdSa 15, Madrid.
Steiner-Weber, A., 1991: 'Merkmale der byzantinischen Wortbildung anhand der
Komposition', in Horandner, W. and Trapp, E. (eds.) 1991, pp. 235-248.
Steinger, G., 1957: Epische Elemente im Redestil des Herodot, Kiel.
Stephanus, H., 1831-65 (reprint, 1954): Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Paris.
Stevens, P. T., 1976: Colloquial expressions in Euripides, Wiesbaden.
Stichel, R., 1991: 'Die Bedeutung der mittelalterlichen slavischen Uebersetzungliteratur
fur die byzantinische Lexicographies in Horandner, W. and Trapp, E. (eds.) 1991,
pp. 249-282.
Streitberg, W., 1919 (2nd ed.): Die gothische Bibel, Heidelberg.
Striano, A., 1987: 'Sobre los supuestos lesbismos del dialecto cirenaico , Emerita 55,
pp, 335-344.
Strunck, K., 1957: Die sogenannte Aeolismen der homerischen Sprache, Koln.
, 1997: 'Vom Mykenischen bis zum klassischen Griechisch', in H.-G. Nesselrath
(ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, Stuttgart-Leipzig.
Stubbings, F. H., 1963: The Rise of Mycenaean Civilization, Cambridge.
, 1975: The recession of Mycenaean Civilization, Cambridge.
Stiiber, K., 1996: J?ur dialektalen Einheit des Ostionischen, Innsbruck.
Sturtevant, E. H., 1933 (2nd ed. New-Haven-London 1942): A Comparative Grammar
of the Hittite Language, Philadelphia.
- , 1962: T h e Indo-Hittite Hypothese', Language 38, pp. 101-110.
Swain, S., 1996: Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World,
Oxford.
Sznol, X., 1989: 'Ejemplos del griego rabinico a traves del tesoro lexicografico del
DGE\ Emerita 57, pp. 329-343.
Tarrant, D., 1946: 'Colloquialisms, Semi-proverbs and Wordplay in Plato , CQ40,
pp. 109-117.
, 1958: 'More Colloquialisms, Semi-proverbs and Wordplay in Plato', CQ
N. S. 8, pp. 158-160.
Taylour, W., 1983 (1st ed. 1964): The Mycenaeans, Cambridge.
Theodorsson, S., The phonemic System of the Attic Dialect 400-340 B.C., Lund, 1974.
, 1977: The Phonology of the Ptolemaic Koine, Lund.
TheslefT, H., 1967: Studies in the Styles of Plato, Helsinki.
Thevenot-Warelle, A., 1988: Le dialecte grec d'Elide. Phonetique et Morphologie, Nancy.
Thompson, D. W., 1928: 'On Egyptian Fishnames used by Greek Writers', The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 14, 1928 III.
Threatte, L., 1980-1996: The Grammar of Attic inscriptions, Berlin, vols. 1-11.
Thumb, A., 1885: Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, Strassbourg.
, 1916: 'Die griechischen Lehnworter im Armenischen', B% 9, p. 388 ff.
, 1974 (1st ed. 1901): Die griechische Sprache im êitalter des Hellenismus, Strassbourg.
and Kieckers, E., 1939: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, I, Heidelberg.
and Scherer, A., 1959: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, II, Heidelberg.
5
341
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(
Tobaidis, D. E., 1988: H %ov%xaKr\ SidXeKxog, Athens.

Tovar, A., 1944: 'Ensayo sobre la estratigrafia de los dialectos griegos. I. Primitiva
extension geografica del Jonio', Emerita 12, pp. 245-335.
Tovar, S. A., 1990: Biografia de la lengua griega, Santiago de Chile.
Traglia, A., 1952: Studi sulla lengua di Alceo, Bari.
, 1952: Studi sulla lengua di Empedocle, Bari.
Trapp, E. and others, Studien {zur Byzantinischen Lexicographic, Vienna 1988.
, 1988: 'Stand und Perspektiven der mittelgriechischen Lexicographic \ in
E. Trapp (ed.), Studien zur Byzantinischen Lexicographic, Vienna, pp. 11-46.
, Horandner, W. and Diethart, J., 1994 ff.: Lexikon zur byzantinischen Grdzitat
(besonders des 9.-12. Jahrhunderts), Vienna.
Triandaphyllidis, M., 1909: Die Lehnworter der mittelgriechiscfien Vulgarliteratur, Strassbourg.
, Kcxi 7iixpo7rf|(^, 1941: NoeXXi)viKf\ rpafifiaxiKT)
(rfjg ArjporiKrjg), Athens.
, 1981 (1st ed., Athens, 1946): NeoeXXrjviKX] rpafifiamcr) ('loxopiKX] Eiaay<&yr\\,
Thessalonica.
Troxler, H., 1964: Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods, Zurich.
Trumpy, C , 1986: Vergleich des Mykenischen mit der Sprache der Ghorlyrik. Frankfurt am
Main and New York.
Tsekourakis, D., 1974: Studies in the Terminology of early Stoic Ethics, Wiesbaden.
Tseskhladze, G. and de Angelis, F. (eds.), 1994: The Archaeology of Greek Colonization.
Oxford.
Tsopanakis, A., 1994: NeoeXXriviKr) Tpa\i\iaxiKr],
Athens.
Tsopanakis, A. C , 1979: 'Onomatologia omerica', QUCC, N. S, 1, 1979, pp. 83-90.
, 1993: "AvafYnicn KatatanTtwv i% ap%aia<; MaK5ovncfj<; 'EM,T|VIKTJ<; in
EXXriviKfj AiaXexxoXoyia 3, pp. 61-82.
Ullmann, B. L., 1968: 'Wie alt ist das griechische Alphabet , in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a,
pp. 214-220; Ein Beleg fur die Buchstabenfolge unseres Alphabets aus dem 14.
Jahrhundert vor Christus', ibid., pp. 221-32.
Unterenann, J., 1987: Einfuhrung in die Sprache Homers, Heidelberg.
Untersteiner, M., 1949: La lengua di Erodoto, Bari.
Urmson, J. O., 1990: The Greek Philosophical Vocabulary, London.
Ursing, U., 1930: Studien zur griechischen Fabel, Lund.
Van Brock, N., 1961, Recherches sur k vocabulaire medical du grec ancien, Paris.
Van der Velde, R., 1924: Thessalische Dialektgeographie, Nijmegen.
Van Groningen, B., 1958: La composition litteraire archaique grecque, Amsterdam.
Vasiliev, A. A., 1946 (original ed. 1928-29): Historia del imperio bizantino. De Constantino
a las Cruzadas, Barcelona.
Vayacacos, D. V., 1972a: Le grec moderne, les dialectes neohelleniques et le dutionnaire historique de la langue grecque de lAcademie dAthenes, Athens.
, 1972b: rôoaoncT) avyyeveia Kprixn*; m i Mavni;, AeîxoypacpiKov SeXriov, pp.
3-42.
Verdier, Ch., 1972: Les eolismes non-epiques de la langue de Pindare, Innsbruck.
Vemet, J., 1978: La cultura hispano-arabe en Oriente y Occidente, Barcelona.
Viereck, P., 1888: Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque romanus magistratusque popuh romani
usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem utebantur, Gotemburgo. Vilborg, E., 1960: A tenta
tive Grammar of mycenaean Greek, Gotenburg.
Villar, F., 1996a (2nd ed.): Los indoeuropeos y los origines de Europa. Lenguaje e historia,
Madrid.
and d'Encarnagao, J. (eds.), 1996b: La Hispania prerromana, Salamanca.
Vineis, E. (ed.), 1983: Le lingue indoeuropee di frammentaria attestazione, Pisa, pp. 135-151.
Viscidi, F., 1944: I prestiti latini nel greco antico e bizantino, Padua.
Vottero, G., 1996: 'Koines et koinas en Beotie a Pepoque dialectale , in Brixhe, C.
(ed.) 1996a, pp. 43-92.
Vries, J. de, 1963: Heroic Song and heroic Legend, London.
5
342
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wachter, R., 1989: 'Zur Vorgeschichte des griechischen Alphabets', Kadmos 28, pp.
19-78.
Wahlgren, St., 1995: Sprachwandel im Griechischen der friihen Kaiser zeit, Gotenburg.
Wahrmann, P., 1907: Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der griechischen Dialekten im êitalter
des Hellenismus, Wien.
Walburton, I. P., 1970: 'Greek Diglossia and the true aspects of the Phonology of
Common Modern Greek', JL 16, pp. 45-54.
Wathelet, P., 1970: Les traits eolien dans la langue de Vepopee grecque, Rome.
, 1991: 'Les datifs analogiques en -eaoi', REG 104, pp. 1-14.
Watkins, C , 1995: 'El protoindoeuropeo', in Giacalone, A. and Ramat, P. (eds.),
Las lenguas indoeuropeas, Madrid, pp. 57-117.
Webster, T. B. L., 1958: From Mycenae to Homer, London.
Weierholt, K., 1963: Studien im Sprachgebrauch des Malalas, Oslo.
Weise, O., 1882: Die griechische Wb'rter in Latein, Leipzig.
Wenskuns, O., 1982: Ringskomposition, anaphorisch-rekapitulierende Verbindung und anknupfende
Wiederholung im Hippokratischen Corpus, Frankfurt.
Widmann, H., 1935: Beitrage zur Syntax Epikurs, Stuttgart-Berlin.
Willets, F. R., 1988: 'Early Greek in Cyprus', in Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O.
(eds.) 1988, pp. 39-54.
Windekens, A. J. van, 1952: Le pelasgique, Louvain.
Witte, K., 1913: 'Homer, Sprache', in RE VIII 13-47.
Woodward, R. C , 1986: T h e Dentalization of the Labiovelars in Greek', 7F 91,
pp. 129-154.
Zaragoza, J. and Gonzalez Senmarti, A., 1989: 'Reflexions sur le lexique dans les
Epidemies II, IV, V, VI, VIP, in Die hippokratischen Epidemien. Theorie, Praxis, Tradition.
Verhandlungen der V Colloque International Hipporcratique (G. Baader et al. eds.), Stuttgart.
Zgusta, L., 1980: 'Die Rolle des Griechischen im romischen Kaiserzeit', in G. Neumann
and J. Untermann (eds.) 1980, pp. 121-145.
Zilliacus, H., 1935: um Kampf der Weltsprachen im ostromischen Reich, Helsinfors.
Zumbach, O., 1955: Neuerungen in der Sprache der Homerischen Hymnen, Winterthur.
Zuntz, G., 1939: 'Earliest Attic Prosa Style (On Antiphon's second Tetralogy)',
Classica et Medievalia 2, pp. 121-144.
e
INDEX
The numbers in this index refer to paragraph numbers, not to page numbers.
acclamations of the stadium: language,

336
Achaean epic: 81 ff.; origin, 89
Aeolic: 121 ff.; in Homer, 144 ff.
Alcaeus and Sappho: language, 176 ff.
alphabet: Greek, 100 ff; Etruscan, 110;
derived from Greek, 110 f; Iberian,
306; Gothic, 308
Antiphon: language, 213, 217
Arab: 309, 314; invasion, 315;
borrowings from Greek, 386 ff.
Aramaic: influence in koine, 254;
influence from Greek, 305
Arcado-Cyprian: 119 f; precedents, 90
Aristophanes: language, 225
Armenian: influence of Greek, 306
Attic lexicon: scientific vocabulary,
236 ff.
Attic scholia: language, 189
Attic: in Ionic inscriptions, 195; oldest
Attic prose, 212 ff.; mature prose,
219 ff; variants in prose, 223 ff;
scientific lexicon, 234 ff; diffusion,
247
atticism: 275 ff.
Bacchylides: language, 171
biblical Greek: 255 f.
Boeotian: 180
Bulgarian: 381
Byzantine Greek: popular language,
330 ff, 341 ff; Latin borrowings,
356 ff; borrowings from Gothic
and the easten languages, 359 ff;
borrowings from western languages,
363 ff; borrowings in other
languages, 366 ff; borrowings
in western languages, 369 ff;
borrowings in Slavic, 379 ff;
borrowings in Arab, 383 ff.
Byzantine lexicon: 352 ff.
Byzantium: historical context of Greek,
311 ff; literature, 316 ff, 327 ff.
Callimachus and Chrysorrhoe:
language, 351
Callinus: language, 158

Cicero: 297
colonization: 95 ff.
colloquial koine: 252 f.; local variants,
261 f; vulgar koine: 262 f; general
description, 264 ff.
comedy: language, 208, 210
Common Greek: his existence, 28 f;
essential characteristics, 30 ff;
variants, 36 ff
Coptic: 304
Corinna: language, 180 ff
Chios: modenr dialect, 442
choral lyric: language, 162 ff
Chronicle of the Morea: language, 350
Demotic: influence of Greek, 304
Digenis Akritas: language, 349
Dorian: 125 f.
Dorians: arrival, 53 ff.
East Greek: 68 ff; precedents in CG,
38 f; variants, 90, 112 ff.
Egyptian: influence in koine, 254
elegy: language, 155 ff
epic: v. Achaean epic, Homer
epigram: language, 160 f.
Eteo-Cretan: 59
Ethiopian: influence of Greek, 306
Etruscan: alphabet, 110
Fables from the Vindobonensis
collection: language, 339
Germanic: 308; hellenisms, 378
Gorgias: language, 213, 217
Gothic: alphabet, 308
Greek inscriptions: 108 ff.
Greek: in the 2nd millenium, 46;
Pre-Greek elements, 62 ff;
expansion in the first millenium,
92 ff; inscriptions, 104 ff; unifying
isoglosses, 127 ff; differences in
the first millenium, 130 ff; general
literary languages, 133 ff; specific
literary languages, 175 ff; Ionic
344
INDEX
and Attic literary languages, 185 ff.;

influence of Latin, 257 ff; contacts
with other languages, 286 ff;
coexistence with Latin within the
empire, 287 f; in Rome, 289 ff;
influence of othe languages, 304 ff.
Greek-Latin: 387 ff., 406 ff.; in
Spanish lexicon, 413 ff; international
character, 415 f.
Greeks: expansion and arrival to
Greece, 40 ff
hellenisms: in western languages in
the high middle ages, 390 ff; in
Castilian (centuries xiv-xvi), 393 ff;
in French (centuries xiv-xvi), 397;
in Italian (centuries xiv-xvi), 398; in
English (centuries xiv-xvi), 399; in
Castilian (centuries xvi-xviii), 400 f;
in German (centuries xvii-xviii),
402; in Italian (centuries xvii-xviii),
402; in Castilian (centuries xix-xx),
403 ff.
Herodot: language, 199 ff
Hesiod: language, 151 f
hippocratics: language, 205, 231 ff
Homer: language, 85 ss, 136 ff;
formulaic diction, 140 ff;
dialectal forms, 143 ff; artificial
forms, 146; problems of
transmission, 148
Homeric Hymns: language, 153
Iambographers: language, 187 ff.
Iberian: alphabet, 306
Indo-European: monothematic (IE II),
19; polithematic (IE 111), 19; IIIA,
23 f, 26; IIIA and Greek, 21
Indo-Europeans: origins, 1 ff;
invasions, 5 ff; point of departure,
6 ff; theories about home and
expansion, 7 ff; culture, 13 ff;
cultural vocabulary, 16 f.
Ionians: origin, 118
Ionic-Attic: 116 ff; precedents, 90
Ionic: in Homer, 144 ff; prose, 191 ff;
Iambographers, 187 ff;
inscriptions, 194; in Attic prose, 242
koine: origin, definition, levels, 240 ff;
diffusion, 247 ff; influence in
dialects, 250 ff; influence in other
languages, 254 ff.
Latin: influence in koine, 257 ff;

Hellenization, 110, 294 ff; in the
East and Byzantium, 287 f. christian
hellenisms, 298
Lesbian: 118, 122, 177 f, 183
literary koine: the first stage, 271 ff
literary Syracusan: 183 ff
Macedonian: 60 f.
Malalas: language, 338
Minoans and Mycenaean expansion:
42 ff
Modern Cyprian: 442
Modern Greek: general panorama,
417 ff, 443; description, 425 ff;
borrowings and culture words,
432 ff; dialects, 437 ff, 443 ff.
Mycenaean: 73 If; texts, 76; linguistic
features, 77 ff
Neolithic in Greece: 59
Nubian: 309
oral Attic: fuentes, 208; general
features, 206 ff; characteristics,
209 ff
Para-Mycenaean: 90
Pelasgian: 57, 64 f
Phrygian: 110; influjo del griego, 305
Plato: language, 221, 270
post-Homeric epic: language, 149 ff.
Pre-Greek languages: 57 ff
Prodromos: language, 348
Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions: language,
337
rabbinic Hebrew: influence of Greek,
305
ritual lyric: language, 173
Sappho: v. Alcaeus
scientific Greek lexicon: presocratics,
197, 227 ff; hippocratics, 233 ff;
Attic literature, 236 ff; example of
a system, 238; sources, 281; general
description, 282 ff.
Sea Peoples: 47
semitisms in Greece: 255
Semonides: language, 159
Simonides: language, 171
Slavic: 379 ff; borrowings from
Greek, 382
INDEX
Socrates: language, 211
Solon: language, 189
syllabaries: 49 ff.
Syriac: influence of Greek, 306
Thucydides: language, 218, 225

tragedy: language, 172, 208
Tsaconian: 440, 442
Tyrtaeus: language, 159
Theocrit: language, 185

Thrasymachus: language, 213, 217
West Greek: 53 ff., 125 ff.

Xenophon: language, 226
04:0

Rodríguez Adrados-History of The Greek Language PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodríguez Adrados-History of The Greek Language PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A HISTORY OF

THE GREEK LANGUAGE

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ ADRADOS

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 2005 by Koninklijhe Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

For Juan Rodriguez Somolinos

Fragmentations and Unifications

1. F r o m the steppes o f Asia to G r e e c e

3. Greek within the I n d o - E u r o p e a n dialects

2. F r o m the arrival o f the first G r e e k dialects (East

3. G r e e k and the n o n - G r e e k languages in the

3. A c h a e a n epic as a G r e e k language o f the s e c o n d

Diverse theories o n the H o m e r i c language

1. T h e expansion o f the G r e e k dialects

T h e alphabet a n d its diffusion

Inscriptions, literature and hellenisation

3. T h e creation o f the great dialects

1. T h e literary languages as general languages

2. T*he first general language: epic language in o u r

Formulaic diction a n d the renovation o f epic

3. T h e diffusion o f the first general language: the

4. T h e s e c o n d general language: the language o f

5. T h e third general language: the language o f

Analysis o f the fundamental

language o f choral lyric

T h e evolution a n d variants o f choral lyric

2. T h e Lesbian language o f m o n o d i c poetry

o f the Attic dialect into a

Attic as an oral dialect

T h e oldest Attic prose

Variants within Attic prose

4. T h e creation o f the scientific language

1. Origin, definition and levels

T h e 'koinisation' o f the dialects

3. C o l l o q u i a l koine and its variants

T h e influence o f other languages

Variants o f colloquial 'koine'

4. C o l l o q u i a l koine: general description

5. Literary koine and its stages

6. T h e evolution o f the intellectual and scientific l e x i c o n

7. G r e e k and Latin in the R e p u b l i c and the Empire

T h e contact o f G r e e k with other languages

8. Hellenised Latin and Greek-Latin

9. G r e e k and other languages o f antiquity

1. Historical context o f G r e e k in Byzantium

Popular a n d higher literature until 1453

2. Description o f Byzantine p o p u l a r Greek

Phonetics a n d m o r p h o l o g y (from the twelfth to the

Borrowings from G o t h i c and eastern languages

Borrowings from western languages

Borrowings in western languages

1. T h e penetration o f Greek-Latin in the E u r o p e a n

Hellenisms in the high M i d d l e A g e s

Hellenisms in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries

Hellenisms in the seventeenth and eighteenth

Hellenisms in the nineteenth a n d twentieth

2. Description o f the place and function o f Greek-Latin

Origins and characteristics o f this lexicon

I m p o r t a n c e for the Spanish l e x i c o n

3. Borrowings and culture w o r d s in the M o d e r n G r e e k

Characteristics o f the principal dialects