CHS Research Bulletin

A publication of the Center for Hellenic Studies

A N e w H i s t o r i c a l G r a m m a r o f D e m o t i c G r e e k:
Reflections on the in the 19th and 20th Centuries as
Seen through Thumbs Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacula r
Mark Janse and Brian Joseph
November 28, 2014

Introduction
11 In 1895, the German Hellenist, Sanskritist, Indo-Europeanist, and general historical
linguist Albert Thumb (18651915), known also for his more classically oriented scholarship both in
Greek and in Sanskrit,[1] published his Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, an overview of
the state of the Modern Greek language, with reference to then-current usage in what was emerging as
a standard form, to regional dialect forms, and to the general historical development of the language.
A second edition in German came out in 1910, and a translated into English by Samuel Angus was
published in 1912 under the title Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular.[2] There had been
grammars of the modern language before Thumb, e.g. by Robertson (1818), by Sophocles (1857), and
Wied (1893), among others, and Thumb himself begins his 1895 German edition by noting that [t]he
past century witnessed the publication of modern Greek grammars in large numbers; further, some
general scientific studies, e.g. Hatzidakis 1892, had appeared, but Thumbs work, and especially its
English version, made dialect material and historical information on Modern Greek that was based on
careful philological and scientific linguistic principles available to a wider audience. It is a work that
has stood up to the ravages of time and still in this day, some 120 years since its first appearance, it
serves both the Neo-Hellenist and the Classical scholarly audience well.
12 At the time that Thumb first began his account of Greek, i.e. in the late 19th century,
Greece was still in the throes of the debate that had begun earlier in the century concerning the proper
realization of an emblematic connection between a new Greek nation-state, formed in 1830 after the
War of Independence from the Ottoman Empire, and ancient Greece. Viewed abstractly, the issue had
to do with whether directly copying aspects of ancient Greece was the appropriate vehicle for
demonstrating a connection between the modern Greek state and its historical antecedents or instead

whether that connection was to be embodied through a recognition of natural processes of change
acting on ancient institutions. Profound consequences ensued from this often very public discussion,
ultimately affecting a number of areas of Greek scholarship[3] and of Greek life more generally.
13 One far-reaching effect on Greek life had to do with how this debate served in the shaping
of the Greek language. Actually, as far as language was concerned, there were deeper chronological
roots to this question, reaching back to the Atticistic movement of the Hellenistic era with its
orientation towards the Classical form of the language and towards Classical models more generally.
But in the aftermath of the formation of the Greek nation-state, the debate became institutionalized
and eventually politicized in ways that it had not been before.[4] The Modern Greek language in the
19th and into the 20th centuries came thus to be pulled by warring language ideologies. This is the
essence of the Greek language question ( ), which pitted the proponents of the
consciously archaizing puristic katharevousa () variety of Greek against the advocates of
the naturally evolved vernacular demotic () variety.
Thumb and the Language Question
21 Thumb was very much aware of the tensions that the Language Question posed for Greek
and for Greece. And, he was very much aware of the difficulties associated with trying to pin down
what the object of description was for the linguist/philologist aiming at an account of Modern Greek
in the late 19th century. Yet at the same time, he felt comfortable in speaking of a common variety of
Modern Greek that was available to most speakers. In his Foreword to the first German edition of his
work (1895), Thumb states, quoting from Anguss English translation, that his Grammar is above
all a grammar of the vernacular Greek (p. xivxv). He then continues (p. xv):[5]
22 The existence of a common and uniform type of the popular speech (Volkssprache) is,
of course, denied by some, it being maintained rather that beside the affected archaic written language
there exist only dialects. The latter assertion I dispute, and I maintain that we are justified in speaking
of a modern Greek , the language of the folk-songs in the form in which they are usually
published being no more a specific dialect than that type of language of such popular poets as
Christopoulos, Drosinis, Palamas, and many others, can be dubbed dialect. A perfect uniformity is
admittedly not yet to be found, for just as sometimes on the one hand equally correct, i.e. equally
wide-spread, forms occur side by side, so on the other many poets (as, e.g., Vilaras) manifest a marked
propensity for dialect elements; yet in spite of all this we may speak of the vernacular in contrast to
the dialects. Many folk-songs in the course of extensive diffusion, passing from place to place, must
have had their dialectic peculiarities reduced to a minimum, so that by a quite spontaneous process a

certain average speech resulted. This average popular speechwhich readily arises particularly in
the larger centresserves as a means of communication which is intelligible not only in Patras,
Athens, and Constantinople, but also in the country.
23 What is particularly striking about this characterization from a modern perspective is that
it is not unlike what is usually given as the definition of the object of description for contemporary
accounts of Modern Greek; Mackridge (1985:12), for instance, defines Standard Modern Greek, the
language he gives an account of in his book, as the language normally written and spoken today by
moderately educated Greeks in urban centers, i.e. cities such as Athens or Thessaloniki.[6]
24 Given the striking similarities between the abstractions of Thumbs late-19th century
K E and Mackridges late-20th century Standard Modern Greek, it becomes interesting
to examine specific forms to see how they measure up in various ways. Particularly telling are
comparisons between Thumbs and the modern Standard, between these forms and Ancient
Greek, and between these forms and regional dialects. In the following section, we explore a case
study along these dimensions, and then discuss the lessons about the forces shaping the modern
Standard that can be learned from the comparisons that this case study affords.
A Case Study
31 A most revealing case study comes from the nominal system and in particular from various
forms to be found within the sub-classes of neuter nouns in Greek. In the class of neuter nouns in -,
Ancient Greek had a singular nominative/accusative form in - and a genitive singular in -, and
Standard Modern Greek (SMG) has a similar set of forms, as seen in (1):

(1)
Sg
Pl

AG

SMG

Nom/Acc

()

Gen

()

Nom/Acc

()

Gen

()

A comparison of the forms in (1) suggests that little has changed between Ancient Greek and
SMG except for sound changes pertaining to vowel length, the realization of accent, and an apparent
optional weakening of the sound represented by < > (velar stop [g] in Ancient Greek versus velar
fricative [] or zero in the modern language). A consideration of Thumbs , abbreviated here as

EDG, for Early Demotic Greek, as shown in (2), presents a very different picture, however:
(2)
Sg
Pl

EDG
Nom/Acc

Gen

Nom/Acc

Gen

[7]

The differences between Thumbs EDG and Ancient Greek on the one hand and between EDG
and SMG are telling.
32 In particular, the Ancient Greek genitive singular form appears to be retained in SMG and
yet it had already been replaced in EDG, where the ending < - > of the thematic (--) stem nouns
was generalized over the earlier ending < - >. Moreover, the accent placement in is
significant, as it has been pulled toward the end of the word by the ending < - >, as would be
appropriate in such a genitive form with an original diphthong in the final syllable; this suggests that
the generalization of < - > is a relatively old innovation, dating from a time when that accent shift,
whether phonologically triggered as in Ancient Greek or morphologically triggered as in PostClassical Greek, was still alive. It is revealing that these innovative forms are already attested in
Medieval Greek, the only period in the history of the Greek language Thumb had not studied himself.
33 The other type of comparison mentioned above, namely between EDG and contemporary
Greek regional dialects therefore becomes especially interesting, as forms equivalent to are
to be found regionally in Greece today. For instance, several Asia Minor Greek dialects show a
genitive (Pharasiot, Dawkins 1916:164) or (Cappadocian, Dawkins 1916:93), with
the apostrophe here indicating that the high vowel < > has been deleted. It is telling that Dawkins,
in his very brief description of - nouns in Silliot, simply states that the -a neuters of the 3rd decl.
are declined as generally in Modern Greek, e.g. , , (1916:48italics
added).
34 There are a few other isolated neuters inflected like that show the same pattern of a
Classical-like form in SMG but an innovative form with < -() > in the genitive singular in EDG
and regional dialects, and already attested in Late Medieval Greek (LMG):
meat, gen. (SMG) / (EDG & dialects), vs. AG , gen.

; LMG gen. /
salt, gen. (learned), (EDG & dialects), vs. AG , gen.
; LMG gen. /
milk, gen. (SMG), (EDG & dialects), vs. G , gen.
; LMG gen. /
Moreover, some neuter nouns in < - > are occasionally inflected in regional dialects like
in the genitive, e.g. horse, gen. , pl. (already found in LMG, though
analogy with sheep, gen. , pl. , is possible for this word).
35 Overall, then, Thumbs EDG forms for these neuter nouns are more closely aligned with
present-day regional usage while the SMG forms are more closely aligned with Classical forms, even
down to the possible presence of < -- > in ().
Explaining the Difference between AG and EDG and between EDG and SMG
41 The comparisons in section 3 thus lead to the question of what happened between Ancient
Greek and the Thumb-era EDG and between EDG and the present-day Standard form of the language.
It is reasonable to assume here that EDG is the predecessor of, the linguistic antecedent to, SMG, but
the seeming reversion to ancient forms in SMG demands an explanation. It is here that the
recognition of Puristic pressures gives a basis for understanding these developments. In particular,
noun paradigms such as that of () or were affected by a wave of Purism, the equivalent
of a modern-day Atticism, that successfully led to re-shaping of system according to ancient patterns
as far as Standard/ is concerned. But regional dialects, which for Thumbs EDG were part of the
general mix, but which in the prevailing Puristic ideology of the day were considered to be somehow
beside the point, were left out of the re-shaping process, aimed as it was on the emerging standard
usage. That movement forced some forms, such as the genitives, singular and plural
, to the peripheries of the contemporary linguistic scene, surviving only in regional dialects.
Conclusion
51 There are several interesting observations to make based on this comparative exercise
involving Ancient Greek, Early Demotic Greek, Standard Modern Greek, and the contemporary
regional dialects.
52 First, one result is that the regional dialects are the place where innovative forms occur,
while the standard language is conservative. But the conservatism of SMG is really only artificial, due

to what we might refer to as language engineering, the somewhat conscious re-shaping of K

E in the direction of Classical Greek, away from the innovative form that it had taken due to
organic, natural paths of development. This is the reverse of what one often thinks of in connection
with regional dialects, in that regional dialects in many situations involving other languages show
archaisms and retentions whereas a standard form of the language shows innovation. For instance, in
American English, the older construction with a and a present participle, such as John is out a huntin
survives in regional (e.g. Appalachian) usage but is not current in Standard American English usage;
so too with the double modal construction, e.g., It might could be the case, one finds it regionally
restricted (mostly Midwest and South); and two older English constructions, so-called double
negation as in I cant get no satisfaction, and the co-occurrence of a fronted WH (question-like)
word with that as in I dont know why that he left me, are sociolectally restricted, found in the usage
of speakers at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale.[8]
53 Beside the lesson to be learned from this about the role that linguistic purism, the
side of the , played in shaping Modern Greek in the 20th century, there
is also an important methodological point to be made here for historical linguistics and the study of
language change. In particular, if all we had were Ancient Greek and Standard Modern Greek, and
thus only a comparison of and () for the genitive singular, we would be justified
in saying that very little had changed in that area of grammar; it is only when Thumbs Early Demotic
Greek and modern regionalisms are taken into account that the full picture emerges, as confirmed
actually by Late Medieval Greek,[9] namely it is not that SMG has been stable relative to Ancient
Greek, but rather that the vernacular formsand () today truly is vernacular, used by
millions of Greek speakers in everyday interactions that do not smack of Purism at allhave
undergone waves of reshaping by natural analogical mechanisms and also by the sociolinguistic
intervention of Purism. Thus we can never take developments over long periods of time at face value
but always need to view them in their full social context.

Bibliography
Brugmann, K. 1913. Griechische Grammatik. Vierte vermehrte Auflage bearbeitet von Albert Thumb.
Mnchen.
Buck, C. D. 1914. Review of Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular by Albert Thumb. Classical
Philology 9:8596.

Dawkins, R. M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

Garantoudis, E. 1989. A . .
Padua.
Gignac, F. T. 1976. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol. I:
Phonology. Milan.
Hatzidakis, G. 1892. Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik. Leipzig.
Herzfeld, M. 1982. Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin.
Joseph, B. D. 1985. European Hellenism and Greek Nationalism: Some Effects on Greek Linguistic
Scholarship. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 3:8796.
Mackridge, P. 1985. The Modern Greek Language: A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek.
Oxford.
. 2011. Language and National Identity in Greece, 17661976. Oxford.
Mayser, E. 1970. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemerzeit. Bd. I: Laut und
Wortlehre. I. Teil: Einleitung und Lautlehre. 2. Aufl. bearb. von Hans Schmoll. Berlin.
Meillet, A. 19121913. Brugmann-Thumb: Griechische Grammatik. Bulletin de la Socit de
Linguistique de Paris 18, p. ccxxxvi.
Robertson, H. 1818. A concise grammar of the Modern Greek language, chiefly composed form the
Nova methodus, &c., of Father Thomas; to which are annexed, phrases and dialogues on the most
familiar topics, with extract from Romaic authors. London.
Schwyzer, E. 19391950. Griechische Grammatik. Auf der Grundlage von Carl Brugmanns
Griechische Grammatik. Mnchen.
Sophocles, E. 1857. Romaic, or Modern Greek grammar. Boston.

Thumb, A. 1895. Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache: Grammatik, Texte, Glossar.

Strassburg. (2nd ed. 1910; English translation by Samuel Angus, Handbook of the Modern Greek
Vernacular: Grammar, Texts, Glossary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912)).
. 1901. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Beitrge zur Geschichte und
Beurteilung der . Strassburg.
. 1905. Handbuch des Sanskrit. Eine Einfhrung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des
Altindischen. Heidelberg.
. 1915. Grammatik der neugriechischen Volkssprache. Berlin. (2nd rev. ed. 1928, rev. by
Johannes E. Kalitsunakis).[11]
Wied, K. 1893. Praktisches Lehrbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprach fr den Schul- und
Selbstunterricht. Vienna.
NOTES
[1] He was the author, for instance, of Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (Thumb
1901) and Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Thumb 1909), and editor of the 4th edition of
Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik (Brugmann 1913), which was the basis for Schwyzers
Griechische Grammatik (Schwyzer 19391950). Meillet (19121913) referred to it as BrugmannThumbs Griechische Grammatik. Among Thumbs Sanskritic works, especially noteworthy is
Handbuch des Sanskrit (Thumb 1905).
[2] Thumb also wrote a short grammar of the Modern Greek Vernacular for the Sammlung Gschen
(Thumb 1915).
[3] See Herzfeld 1982 on the effects of this debate on Modern Greek folklore studies, and Garantoudis
1989 on how it affected the realization of Greek metrics in modern renditions of ancient poetry and
drama. Joseph 1985 discusses examples of ideologically driven etymologizing among Greek scholars.
[4] See, for instance, Mackridge 2011 on this issue.
[5] Angus calls attention here to his translation of Thumbs Volkssprache as popular speech even

though he gives vernacular as the translation of this German term elsewhere (e.g. in the title of the
book).
[6] Of course, it is only because of external political events of the 20th century that Constantinople
would not figure in such a characterization in the present day.
[7] The genitive plural form shows the loss of the final nasal < > which is already well
attested in the Ptolemaic (Mayser 1970:169171) and Roman and Byzantine papyri Gignac 1976:111
114). For many nouns, Thumb gives the genitive plural with variants in - and/or -, but does not
give such variants for . We cannot tell if he was just being inconsistent or if he was reporting
what amounts to lexical-item by lexical-item variation. We are inclined to see the - forms as
involving learned influence and the - as taking over (and generalizing) an initial - from a
following word to protect a weak final nasal.
[8] Both double negation and WH-word-plus-that were common in earlier stages of English; cf. for
the latter, the first line of the Canterbury Tales, Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote When
April with its sweet showers.
[9] Following up on Bucks (1914) suggestions for a third edition of Thumbs Handbook, it is our
intention, as we re-work Thumb, to include more historical evidence, particularly from Late Medieval
Greek, and restrict the dialectal evidence to what is relevant for Early Demotic Greek, thus excluding
more exotic variants.
[10] Seated left to right: Albert Thumb (18651915), Giorgios Hatzidakis (18481941), Berthold
Delbrck (18421922); standing left to right: Paul Kretschmer (18661956), Max Vasmer (1886
1962), Hubert Pernot (18701956), August Heisenberg (18691930).
[11] The third edition was published under Kalitsunakiss name in 1963