The Dialect Geography of Ancient Greece (Coleman)

THE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE

By ROBERT COLEMAN RECURRENT REFERENCES

BECHTEL, F. Die Briechischela Dialekte 1-111 (Berlin 19214) . BUCK, C. D. The Breek Dialects (Chicago 1955). PORZIQ, W. ' Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen zu den altgriochische

Dialekte,' 1.F. 61 (1964), 147-169. RISCH, E. 'Die Gliederung dor Griechischen Dialekte in neuer sicht,'

Mus. Helv. 12 (1955), 61-76. RODRUIQEZ ADRADOS, F. La Dialectologia Oriega coma fuente para el estudio

de las migraciones indoeuropeas en Qrecia (Acta Salmaticensia 1952). RUIPEREZ, M. S. Sobre la prehistoria de 10s dialectos Griegos, Emerita 21

SCHWYZER, E. Dialectorurn Graecarum Exenzpla Epigruphica Potiora

THUMB, A. Handbuch der Giechischen Dialekte I (rev. E. Kieckers,

(1963), 263-66.

(Leipzig 1923).

Heidelberg 1932), I1 (rev. A. Scherer, ib. 1958).

1

THE student of morbid dialectology has to contend with a number of difficulties imposed by the actual data that are not shared by his colleagues who work with living dialect material, These are well enough known but their methodological implications are not always sufficiently recognized, and Greek dialect studies are often conducted as if they were dealing with a living language.

In the first place we are severely hampered by the closedness of the corpus. We cannot return to the field to elicit new sets of responses in order to verify or refute our conclusions, nor can we fill out an imprecise or incomplete picture of dialect usage by framing and putting new questions. What we have as our data are a fixed store of potential answers, which determine the range of questions we can usefully ask. We are compelled not by any doctrinaire choice on our part but because no choice is possible to frame our analysis in such a way that the same body of facts will yield answers to the maximum number of questions.

Then there ia the limitation imposed by the geographical * See for example : E. Risch, ' Altgriechische Dialektgeographie,' M Z M .

Helv. 6 (1949), esp. 20-21.

R. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY OP ANCIENT GREECE 59

unevenness of our data. We may find that the dialectal shape of a whole vaguely defined area has to be inferred from the evidence of one or two localities. Where, as in Elean and Phocian, these localities are important centres of pan-Hellenic cults, liable to steady infiltration from other dialects, this difficulty is especially acute. Conversely the material may be widespread over an area but very fragmentary a t any particular point, as in N.W. Greek or in Laconian, where before the Hellenistic period there is scattered material from the surrounding countryside but little enough from Sparta itself. In both cases there is the danger of falsification: either through taking one locality as typical of a region and so presenting a much more clear-cut boundary between dialect groups than could possibly have existed, or else by piecing together the fragments from neighbouring localities into an artificially unified dialect.

Given the nature of the materials and the fact that archaeologists are unlikely to uncover large amounts of new inscriptions, the obstacles are unavoidable. The only way in which our methodology can allow for these difficulties is by operating with as large a number of geographical units as possible, If we persist in talking as if for example Dorian were a monolithic group, then major divergences within the group will be blurred and comparisons with non-Dorian dialects marred in consequence. Thumb-Kieckers for instance divided Greek into seven dialect groups : Dorian, N.W. Greek, Boeotian, Thessalian (subdivided into E. and W.), Lesbian, Arcadian and Ionic ; and this division, with the addition of Linear B and Cyprian, is still adhered to explicitly by Risch and implicitly by most other investigators, As a result we are forced to ascribe the two reflexes of "esmi, +.I and +i!, indiscriminately to Dorian, and even more unsatisfactorily the three reflexes of *pant@, ndvoa m%a naiaa, indiscriminately to N.W. Greek and Dorian. Even Buck's nineteen dialectal divisions are still inadequate to differentiate local variants,

Thumb-Iiieckers, 5s 61, 76 ; Risch, 75. See espccially Buck's Charts I and 11.

60 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1963

for instance as between Rhodes and COB or within Cretan. An examination of the table of contents in Schwyzers Exempla shows that to obtain anything like a precise picture of geographical variation upwards of forty entries would be needed.

The fact that material from most areas is widely scattered in time brings us to the further problem of chronological disparity. There are two quite separate aspects of this. Firstly the diachronic scatter within any given dialect. The earliest central Ionic text is a single-line Naxian inscription from Delos dated to the seventh century (Schwyzer 757) and the first of any substantial length is more than two centuries later (Schwyzer 766). Prom Boeotia we have a few brief inscriptions from the sixth century (Schwyzer 440, Buck 37, 38), but there is nothing extensive till the fourth century (Schwyzer 467). The situation is a t least as bad elsewhere in Greek.

Sometimes this scatter is useful, in providing evidence of the patterns of change within the dialect, e.g. the loss of /w/ generally or of secondary intervocalic /s/ in Laconian. Internal reconstruction could sometimes have enabled us to estimate the earlier forms, as in the Laconian example just quoted, but direct evidence establishes the chronology of the change more exactly. More often however the material from different periods does not correspond in this way. In that case we can occasionally make reasonable inferences from structural considerations. Thus, again in Laconian, our evidence for vowel-contraction is very incomplete before the introduction of the Ionic alphabet. But the falling together of /oo/ with /o*/ attested in fifth century 76 air6 (Schwyzer 12) supports the assumption that /ee/ similarly fell together with /c/, and this is confirmed both by the results of compensatory lengthening a t this period, with o6&, not 066cir (

R. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPIIY OF ANCIENT GREECE 61

reminder that in morbid linguistics as a whole the phonemic system and the range of free variation and allophonic alterna- tion has to be inferred from the written language. We are completely a t the mercy of the discrepancies between writing and speech that are common to all written languages. In Cyprian for instance the syllabic system of writing deprives us of precise evidence on compensatory lengthening or vowel contraction. The problem of opaque graphemes such as rr in Boeotian or L/1 in Arcadian' is too well known to require detailed discussion.

The other chronological problem arises in comparing material of different dates from two or more dialects. No dialectologist of modern English in his right mind would treat material from eiyhteenth century Devon and twentieth century Buchan as equivalent items in a single descriptive account. But in ancient Greek the choice is not ours to make. The earliest evidence from Pamphylian and Cyprian for instance belongs to a period when many of the Aegean dialects were already showing signs of contamination from the Ionic-Attic lcoinz.

In considering the methodological implications of this let us imagine as an extreme example two dialects A and B, where the material from A is exclusively earlier than from B. If we select two equivalent items x1 in A and x2 in B, both derived from an earlier *x in the unified dialect to which A and B had belonged, we have the formula :

Now if x1 represents a stage through which x2 must have passed in the development from *x-thus :

then the contrast between A and B with reference to x1/x2 is useless. But if on the contrary x, represents a stage through which x1 must have passed in its development-thus :

or if x1 and x, are not mutually derivable-thus :

(i) *x(AB) > zl(A) and > x,(B)

(ii) *x(AB) > *xl(B) > z,(B)

(iii) *x(AB) > *",(A) > z,(A)

(iv) *z1> 5 2 , *% > 2 1 1 Buck, 347-349, discusses these and other l0Cd alphabetic variants.

PHILO. TRANS. 1963. E

62 TILANSACTIONF, OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1063

then the contrast between z , (A) and a,(B) is useful, in spite of the chronological discrepancy. To take two specific instances of a less extreme kind. By (ii) the contrast between 6eoO in fifth century Ionic and t e -o jo in Linear B is useless, since the Ionic form derives from *&oio ; but by (iii) the Ionic form can be set beside the third century Thessalian form T O X ~ ~ O C O . Again by (iv) we can admit the contrast of rraiua in fourth century Lesbian with TSua in fifth century Ionic and by (iii) the contrast of both with rrdvoa in third century Thessalian.

This criterion depends upon the diachrony of divergences. Siwdarities between dialects of discrepant dates cannot be subjected to any comparable method and so cannot be admitted in a descriptive account without qualification.

Where two dialects share a common item which is not ruled out by chronological discrepancy, the correspondence may be significant in one of several ways.

Firstly, i t may be genealogical : evidence for the derivation of the two dialects concerned from an earlier conimon dialect. It is important in this connexion to see the individual item in relation to other items characteristic of the two dialects respectively, and also to take account of the isogloss pattern to which the correspondence belongs within the language as a whole. In this way we avoid the dangers on the one hand of setting up a spurious *proto-AB on the basis of atypical agreements between A and B and on the other of misrepre- senting a genuine *proto-ABCD or the like as an exclusive "proto-AB simply because we have not recognized that the agreements are shared by other dialects.

Secondly agreements may be typologically significant : evidence for independent development in a similar direction. There are several conditions under which such similarities may occur. For instance where the speakers of two distinct dialects are racially identical, the physiological determinants of linguistic change will be similar over the whole area. Or again

1 Much still remains to be done in oxploring the character and range of these genetically transmitted determinants by collaborative resoarch in

R. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE 63

within a homogeneous culture-pattern one can expect a priori similar patterns of semantic and lexical change. Even morphology is susceptible to cultural factors. As Meillet and others have pointed out, the dual survived as a living grammatical category much later in predominantly rural dialects (where the social pattern and closer kinship structure presumably made it more useful) than in areas of high urbanization. Moreover otherwise distinct dialects may cover a homogeneous linguistic substrate which produces pressures towards convergence especially a t the phonological level. Finally even widely divergent dialects will share not only a substantial corpus of inherited morphological material but also a prevalent structure, which is after all what we mean by classing them as dialects of the same language : hence purely structural pressures may result in similar innovations quite independently.

Thirdly the agreement may be geographically significant : as evidence for interpenetration between the dialects concerned a t a period when they were contiguous. Although convergence of this kind is often employed as a category of explanation in dialectological studies, some caution is needed. For this interpenetration depends upon a long period of settled bidialectal contact over considerable areas of a t least one of the dialects concerned, or over an area of it that can plausibly be regarded as a focus for the diffusion of the intrusive phenomena. During the immigration of Greek speakers into the Aegaean area, which began in the early Bronze Age and continued into the period of the " Dorian invasions ", there must have been many opportunities for contact between dialects that were subsequently far removed

linguistics, physiology and genetics. The ideas set out by C. D. Darlington, The genetic component of language, Heredity I (1947), 175 ff. have already been developed by L. F. Brosnahan, Tlae Boulacls of Lalagwge (1961). At this stage it seems legitimate at least to distinguish in principle between those factors in linguistic change that can be attributed directly to the structure of the preceding language (linguistic substrate proper) and those that can be attributed directly to the physiological processes in linguistic behaviour that are constant in a population regardless of what language has preceded (physiological determinants).

64 TllANSACTIONS 01 TlIB PHILOLOCilCAI, SOlIlCTY 1OW3

from each other. But these contacts may not have been prolonged enough to produce much dialectal c0ntamination.l On the other hand in the centuries of more stable settlement following the Dorian invasions and the trans-Aegaean migra- tions intercommunication cannot have been so prolonged or extensive in most areas as to permit more than the most super- ficial convergence. The pan-Hellenic literary languages-of the Homeric sagas and the dialectally orientated genres of lyric and iambic verse and of literary prose-could have played some part, though only a very limited one in the processes of diffusion. One thinks for instance of Aeolisms in Alcman like .rraicrai, 28pLrvai, K X E V V ~ , 8am+dvEuui, which are without parallel in epigraphic Laconian. The increase in commercial and cultural communications and the emergence of large religious and political federations like the Amphic- tyonic and Peloponnesian Leagues provided conditions favourable to bidialectalism and convergence. The Koine super-dialects of N.W. Greek, Sicilian Dorian and Ionic-Attic are clear results of this.

Obviously dissimilarities can be classed under the same three headings. Their significance may be genealogical- evidence that two dialects were not inimediately derived from an earlier common dialect ; typological-evidence that the racial composition or the linguistic substrate of the two areas concerned were not homogeneous ; geographical -evidence for prolonged separation between two dialects or the convergence of one of them with a typologically more remote dialect or even with a foreign language.

In attempting to ascertain the significance of any given similarity or dissimilarity in terms of the categories just discussed, we must take account especially of the hierarchy of

1 The immigrations, including the Dorian invasion (see Ruiperez, 202), were probably more complex and less clear-cut events than is often assumed. J. Chadwick, The Greek Dialects and Greek Prehistory, G.R. (1966), aptly reminds us (48-9) that the dialectal differencee in the second millennium B.C. must have been much less marked than in, say, the fifth century. This might have facilitated convergence, but i t makes i t correspondingly harder to detect,.

it. COLEMAN--TISF. DIALECT OEOGILAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE 65

levels. The more highly structured parts of a language system are less susceptible to infiltration than the less structured parts,l and similarities a t the deeper levels therefore more likely to be the result of genealogical relationship.

The pressures to borrow are primarily extra-linguistic in that the deficiencies in the linguistic system become apparent only in the light of new behavioural contexts. A new situation, to which no adequate linguistic response can be made in terms of the existing lexicon-whether by semantic extension, compounding or analogical formation, can only be met by the importation (via bilinguals) of lexical material specifically identified with that situation. As between dialects it is often impossible to distinguish independent possession of a particular lexeme from borrowing, unless there is some phonological or morphological characteristic which reveals the foreignness of the loan in its new setting. It may happen too that a lexeme borrowed from dialect A into dialect B is then lost in A , or- what amounts to the same thing-is not attested in our sources. This raises the whole question of the reliability of lexical evidence in dialect studies.

Although lexicon has been the basis for a great deal of linguistic comparativism, including the statistical study of relationship,Z it is the least satisfactory field for such enquiries especially with morbid material. And that not only because of the problem of borrowing which we have just noted. For there is a natural mortality in the lexical stock of a language, and we do not need to follow the glottochronologists all the way in their fanciful and arbitrary attempts to give precision to this process in order to recognize this neglected truth to which they have rightly recalled our attention.

It is misleading here to point to the apparently dominant

Lexicon is obviously the most susceptible level.

1 See U. Weinreich, Language8 in Contact, New York (1953), 5 2.53 and 54, for a cautious discussion of this matter.

2 See G. Herdan, The Calculus of Linguistic Observations (1962), ch. 11.9, 87 ff., and the use made there of A. S. C. Rosss PIE lexical material from J.B. Stot. Soc. (B) 12 (1960), 39.


place given to lexical matters in modern dialect surveys.' For the eliciting of lexical material direct from native inform- ants in live linguistic contexts automatically reveals a large amount of data a t other levels-phonological, morphological, etc. Moreover as the corpus of a living language is open, it is possible to ascertain whether a particular item forms part of the lexical stock, and if not, whether there is a semantic equivalent for it. But we are completely a t the mercy of morbid material, A long ritual or legal text may yield abundant information a t other levels but hardly a typical sample of the dialect's vocabulary.

To take a specific instance. In the bi-dialectal inscription Schwyzer 731 we find the E. Ionic noun ~ T ~ O K ~ T ~ T ~ P L O V rendered on the Attic portion by halmarov. The former occurs in other Ionic texts e.g. a t Naucratis (SIG 1121) and (in the diminutive form) in Herodotus 1-25, as well as in the North Dorian dialect of Aegina ( IG. IV.39.11, with the expected -&PEP). Later Ionic examples of iakurarov are found, but 6 ~ 0 ~ p a ~ r j p ~ o v ie not recorded at all from Attic. Since the semantic field of the Ionic word, ' that which is placed underneath a bowl ' is much more restricted and so more precisely appropriate to the context here than that of the Attic word, which means simply ' that which is placed upon' or ' that on which something is placed ', we may conclude that the former was indeed unknown to Attic. However, it is only the chance availability of this bidialectal text that enables us to infer this. Where we have no such testimony, more caution is needed. Even where we can say that lexeme x in dialects A B C etc. is the semantic equivalent of lexeme y in dialects M N 0 P etc. (which is not very often), the possibility always remains that in A B C etc. y was retained with a different meaning. We can rarely assert that what has not survived did not occur. This is why isoglosses based on pairs like kkm/(+Aw or 7 q V O S / ( ; ) K & V O S cannot be used

1 e.g. E. Dieth and H. Orton, A Queationnnire for a Linguistic Atlas of Pnglund, (1951).


with much confidence, though of course they need not be dismissed completely.

At the phonological level i t is often difficult to decide among the various possible interpretations of an isogloss. Occasionally the same phonetic change in several dialects can represent independent instances of a general tendency. For instance three stages in the history of initial /h/ can be discerned. The first, represented by Corinthian, Laconian, and West Ionic among others, is the general retention of the phoneme. The second, represented by East Ionic, Cretan, Lesbian, etc., shows general loss prehistorically. A third group, including Thessalian, Boeotian, Pamphylian and probably Achaean shows loss of initial /h/ only in the nominative singular masculine and feminine of the definite article, and there is evidence from Locrian and Phocian that this stage was reached there also within the period covered by our records. Now it is possible that diffusion through bidialectalism explains the distribution in this third group (though Pam- phylian would in any case have to be excluded). But given the likelihood that the situation seen in the second group began precisely with the loss of /h/ in the atonal forms of the article and the fact that the tendency t o loss of initial /h/ was pan-Hellenic, then all these instances of restricted loss could be independent.

Another interesting phenomenon here is the change : /rs/ > /rr/. This is found in Arcadian, Phocian, Attic, W. Ionic, Rhodian and Theran, with traces of both clusters in Laconian, W. Locrian and Megarian. Adrados argued that this was a Dorian change which then spread to Attic and Arcadian. The difficulty with this is that many Dorian dialects, e.g. Messenian, Corinthian, Argive and Coan, do not show the change. However, it is geographically restricted to a band acros8 central Greece (excluding the isthmus !) ; so the occurrences can hardly be independent. Beyond this we cannot say very much: for we have 110 way of deciding whether the change was diffused from a focal area

As Ruiperez, 259, observed against Adrados, 55.

68 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHII,Ol.OC:IC'AL SOCIE'PY 1963

in this band--which for a cluster-reduction of this kind seems a priori improbable-or due to community of linguistic substrate or of physiological determinants. This uncertainty is one that arises again and again in morbid phonology, whenever we pass beyond mere description to attempt to explain the phenomena.

Finally there is the most highly structured level, that of morphology and syntax. Here diffusion is very unlikely. Even the massive infiltration of English lexicon from Romance sources in the centuries following the Norman Conquest had very little effect on the morphological system (e.g. the estab- lishment of -able as an adjectival suffix) and even less on the syntax. Clearly where contiguous dialects exhibit similar developments at this level, contact between them will reinforce these trends. But in general we may start from the hypothesis that similarities here are significant genealogically or typologically rather than for diffusion through geographical contiguity.

A typologically significant example is the spread of thematic forms from the present to the perfect, which is a feature of Aeolic. In Ionic the phenomenon is confined to the participles and occurs only at Chios and Smyrna. We know from the ancient historical tradition that these two areas were originally Aeolic-speaking and subsequently conquered by Ionians : so that a bidialectal situation followed by linguistic substrate has to be reckoned with here, and we can thus connect the geographically limited Ionian use of -wv, -0vros with the generalization of thematic forms in Lesbian, which has not only yeydvovra etc. but also ~ T T ~ G T ~ K E , r&&cr)v, eta.

However the extension of thematic forms to the perfect is not peculiar to Aeolic. Besides Phocian, where forms like clhd+a, & ~ O T E T E I K E V , 6e6wKo&oas could be due t o the influence of Thessalian or Boeotian, we have examples of the spread in Argive, Heraclean, Cretan, Rhodian and Cyprian, where it could not be so explained, unless we substitute for diffusion some vague prehistoric Aeolic substrate (see I1 below). The correct explanation is probably to be seen in terms of structural

It. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGEAPHY OY ANCIENT GREECE 69

pressures operating independently over the whole of Greek. It is well known that the temporal orientation of the perfect in Greek, a t least before the Hellenistic period, is towards the present rather than the past tenses of the verbal system (to which latter of course the pluperfect corresponded). Given the morphological anomaly of the whole perfect paradigm and this semantic-syntactic orientation, it is not surprising that there should be analogical pressures from the present system. In Lesbian and Phocian we have evidence for the wholesale spread of thematic present forms. EIsewhere the data suggest a partial disturbance of the inherited system, e.g. Rhodian yEyOIvEiv, r E r i p & . K E i but 8E8&avri, Argive hda/34KEiv but heha/3rpctds, Boeotian Kara/3e/3&wv but &o&SdavOi. This is precisely the spasmodic pattern of interference between the two tenses that we should expect to find in such circumstances. We need not reject for Chios and Smyrna the possibility of Lesbian in%uence, but we must see it as reinforcing a general tendency operating in different ways a t different places throughout the Greek language.

I1 In the light of the preceding general discussion we may now

pass on to consider certain hypotheses that have been put forward or restated in recent years regarding Greek dialectal relationships and to examine in detail the arguments on which these are based.

(A) Ionic-Attic and Arcado-Cyprian were in close contact before the Dorian invasions as parts of a sinqle dialect complex.

This view has in one form or another been accepted by a number of modern investigat0rs.l The supporting arguments turn on a number of shared isoglosses :

A. Tovar, Esayo sobre la estratigrafia de 10s dialectos Griegos : I, Emerita 12 (1944), 245ff., esp. 330-331; Porzig, 156-164; Risch, 7 0 ; Chadwick op. cit. 42-3. L. R. Palmer, in A Companion to Homer (ed. tA. J. B. Wace-F. H. Stubbings, London 1962), 88-91, revives the older view of an Achaean group unjting Aeolic and Arcado-Cyprian ageinst Ionic (see below).

70 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PITILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1063

(I) The change */ti/ > /si/ by way of the palatalization of the dental stop : *[ti] > "[tli] > *[tail > [si] ; e.g. +t?povai (Arc.), 2'xoiai (Lesb.), beside &iaouvn (Them), ~ ~ ~ C T O V T L (Cret.).

/si/ here characterizes Linear B, Arcado-Cyprian, Ionic-Attic and Lesbian. We know that this change was also a feature of Anatolian phonology,' so that the Greek phenomenon may be due to some older substrate extending over the areas occupied by the dialects listed. This would support the view that Ionic-Attic and Arcado-Cyprian (with Linear B) formed part of a pre-Dorian complex and would also account for the divergence between Lesbian and Thessalian, without recourse to the assumption of Ionic influence upon the former.

The few examples of /sio/ for /ti./ in West Greek need not be counted against the general retention of /ti/ in that area. For we cannot be certain that the immediate starting point for these was not a positional variant *[tjo], which would then bring these adjectival forms into the orbit of the regular West Greek shift */tj/ > /s/, seen in *nav~~a > ndvaa etc. * 7 0 7 L O S > T ~ U U O S , but with the retention of /i/ by morphological analogy with /ti/. However most of the instances of /sio/ forms are proper names, geographical and religious, e.g. KapvEiCIuiov (Messenian, cf. Kapveidras in Sicyon), Fa8wutw (Boeot., cf. Att. r A 8 ~ u u ~ ~ u ) , AtOfhca (Laconian), 'A+opSiaiius (Pamp.), ~UT&UlOV (Cret.), and so belong to a lexical class that is particularly susceptible to diffusive influences, so that they need not be West Greek a t all in origin.

A special case of diffusion is perhaps t o be found in the variant forms of the god's name, Poseidon.

(a) 1. IloTEi8dluV--Cret., Boeot. 2. I~OTELSEV -Cor., Cret., Rhod., Aet., Phoc., Meg. 3. LlorciSoCv -Them. 4. I ~ O T O L ~ ~ V -Lesb?

See H. Kronaaser, Vergleichcnde Laut- und Fmmenlehre des Retldlschen (1956), 8 72.

R. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE 7 1

(b) 1. Ifouer8dov-Lin. B (po-se-da-o) 2. 1 7 0 ~ ~ ~ 6 6 ~ -lit. Lesb., Arg., Cor., E. Cret., Ther.,

Rhod., Coan, Ach. and Arc. 3. 17oaci8Bv -Att., Ion. 4. I7ouoi86v -Lac. (with /s/ > /h/), Arc.

Presumably the starting point is PoteidGGa, *PotoidGa, with the change of /t/ to /s/ before a front vowel in certain dialects, cf. nduis, which was then generalized in the proper name. The fact that individual dialects often show more than one variant is precisely what we should expect from diffusive influences working across dialect boundaries. There is no justification whatever for arguing that the s-forms are due to pre-Dorian Aeolic substrate in West Greek, especially as only Lesbian among the Aeolic dialects shows /s/ here ! The diffusion is much more likely to have been by way of the pan-Hellenic cults and the Homeric poems.

Another particular instance of the t i /si isogloss that requires special discussion is the words for ' twenty, two hundred ', etc. For these we have the following distribution :

( a ) ( F ) l K a n -West Greek generally (except Ach.), Pamp.,

ZKOUl -Ach. and (beside Z K a r i ) Phoc. EilKoui -Lesb., Arc. and Ion.-Att.

( b ) rpiatcdrioi-West Greek generally (except Ach.), Thess.,

Thess. and Boeot.

etc. Boeot. rpLaKdo~oL-Lesb., Ion.-Att. rpia Kduioi-Arc.

As Adrados rightly pointed out, the community of an inherited feature, implying no change in the dialects concerned, is less significant for relationship than the community of an innovation.' Hence the distribution of Fkari (< *wTkpti, cf. Skt. vimdatih, Lat. Ggint;) is less significant than that of E?KOUl (< *e-wikoti). Although Risch and others have argued for a change */?/ > /o/ in Lesbian, the examples are inconclusive, as we shall see later, A more probable factor in

The relative significance of archaism and innovation is thoroughly discussed and illustrated by Adrados, 15-17, 30-38, 46-59.

72 TJLANXACTIONS OW THX PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1983

the emergence of -0- forms is the influence of T ~ L C ~ K O V T C L (< -*komta), etc. The same analogical spread is seen in TPLCLKOGT~S for * T ~ L ~ K ~ U T ~ S (< -*kpt-to'-, cf. Skt. trimiat- tamah), etc. In Boeotian we find both FLKarL and F L K C L U T ~ S , in Thessalian Z K ~ T L but I K O G T ~ S , with analogical -0- already established in the ordinal. In Lesbian alongside EZKOUL we have ~ Z K O L U T O S with -01 - from T ~ L $ I C O L U T O S , in which -01s- (< -*om) has spread from the cardinal. The details of the analogical extension are thus very varied.

The Arcadian data are interesting. For a t Tegea we find, on the same inscription, the forms ~ I K O U L and Z K ~ U T ~ (or E)IKCLUTCL), which suggest that analogy from the cardinal forms had not yet penetrated the ordinal system: thus providing the complementary situation to Thessalian.

A point that is perhaps insufficiently stressed in the discussion of these forms is the association of the -0- forms exclusively with -01. This means that the doubly innovating EZKOGL is particularly important for gencalogical grouping. Whether or not we attribute the doublets "wzkpti and *ew6koti to proto-Greek and interpret the subsequent situation as due to selection,l the distribution between West and East (viz. non-West !) Greek, with Aeolic overlapping the two, is striking.

The appearance of CZKoaL, r p t a t c d o i o e in Megarian and Corinthian has been ascribed by Porzig (p. 164) to Aeolic substrate a t the Isthmus. As with the -s- forms of Poseidon, this depends on the assumption that it was the Lesbian division of Aeolic, with /ti/ already > /si/, that provided the prehistoric substrate: and this is assuming rather a lot, Moreover there is evidence of -ti- forms a t the Isthmus, not only in Argive FLKarL but also in Megarian ] ~ a r l a ~ s . In fact the -s- forms noted by Porzig are all late enough to be explained in terms of influence from the Koine, thus belonging with Coan - K ~ U L O L and probably Achaean ZKOUL, where -UL is contrary to the general retention of /ti/ in that dialect.

Thus we do not find * ( F ) i K o r i or E Z K ~ U L .

For the use of this concopt and its relation to archaism and innovation see Adrados, 19, 27, 31-39.


(2) The reflexes of */tj/, e.g. o"uor (Attic) o"ouor (Argive). Porzig lays great emphasis on this isogloss, but a closer inspection of it reveals a more complicated picture. We find the following distribution of /tj/ reflexes :

/ss/-Tar., Arg., Cor., El., Phoc., Thess., Lesb., Pamp. /tt/-Boeot. /s/ and /ss/-C. and E. Ion., Arc. /s/ and /tt/-Att., W. Ion.

In Cretan there are some peculiar developments, e.g. o"ooa in Dreros, Itanos, but a t Gortys ~ { o L , later deBdKw, and later still GTTOL. The graphemic conventions of Linear B and Cyprian are opaque, though both show sibilant reflexes of some sort.

There are clearly two distinct aspects of this isogloss. First the phonetic one : whether the development is a stop or fricative cluster. Secondly the phonological one : whether or not the phoneme-cluster was split, i.e. whether /VtjV/ > /VssV/ or /VttV/ exclusively or > partly /VsV/, partly /VssV/ or /VttV/. The split is seen clearly in Ionic-Attic :

(a) * T O - T ~ O S > T ~ U O S , cp. *TOT-;OS > T ~ O U O S (Lesb.), T ~ T T O S (Boeot.)

(Boeot.) *pE-#!Los > ~ & o s , CP. *pee-Los > ~ & T O S (Lesb.), p&OS

(b ) * + T - p > zp&ow (Ion.), KpE)UUwV (Ion.), Kpl!TTWV (Att.)

The phonological junctures here are clearly affected by morphological structure, the demarcation of root from suffix being more prominent in words of type (6) than of type (a).

Thus Attic is phonologically comparable to Ionic with the distinction between simple and geminate, but phonetically comparable to Boeotian in the form taken by the geminate. It is therefore misleading to construct an isogloss solely on the

1 A complete account of these phenomena would also include e.g. npLmw (Att.), n p l j ~ ~ w (Eretr.) < - * K ~ J , ihanov (Oropus) < -*xiov, +UA&TW (Att.) < * - K ~ J . See M. Lejeune, Traite' de Phondttique Grecque (Par is, 1955) 87 ff., Adrados, 5 6 7 , Risch, 66-7.

74 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY lD63

basis of &ros/&ruos, ignoring on the one side the distinction between Attic and Boeotian, and on the other the divergence within Ionic-Attic. The correct pattern of relationship on this isogloss appears as :

t t & S 4- tt

5 ssas4-/ ss

where the top line represents locally restricted phonetic developments (whether due to diffusion or substrate) in contrast to the general tendency towards sibilants represented in the lower line. The left-hand vertical represents a locally restricted phonological development (in this instance no doubt significant genealogically) which overlaps both phonetic developments.

What emerges from all this is that while the isogloss brings Attic and Ionic close together, their relationships outside of this group are too complex to admit easy generalization.

(3) &opa in Ionic-Attic and Arcado-Cyprian against o"vvpa elsewhere. This isogloss is based on inadequate factual evidence. For Cyprian there are apparently no data. Arcadian K ~ E C ~ V O ~ O S , which as a proper name is in any case not decisive, can be contrasted with ]wv6po in the same dialect. Moreover the change /om/ > /urn/ is attested in Arcadian 6polocs, urvpi'ov, as i t is in Lesbian. Even in Ionic-Attic, which thus remains as the only certain area for the survival of o"vopa,l we have also Irr&vvpos, &v&vvp,~s. This isogloss must therefore be rejected as insignificant.

(4) Nominative plural ot in the definite article appears in Ionic-Attic and Arcado-Cyprian as an innovation for inherited 701, which is found generally in West Greek. The innovation is shared by Lesbian and in part by Thessalian (o l in Pelas- giotic, roi in Thessaliotic) and Cretan (o l a t Gortys, ro i a t Itanos). In this last dialect the analogy of the nominative

irvopa turns up in Cretan (Dreros), Rhodian and Aetolian, but earlier instances of bupa are attested in all three areas, so that the -0- forms may be due to the Koine.


singular 6, which accounts for the innovation elsewhere, could have operated independently, though ' Mycenean ' substrate should not be discounted. With this one exception the innovation is confined to East Greek, including Lesbian and partially Thessalian, but not Boeotian.

(5) The athematic infinitive in -Val, - E V ~ L , as against - p w . We find Etvai (Ion.-Att.), +ai (Arc.), cp. Zpp~v (Them.), $ p ~ v (Lac.) ; 8oGvai (Ion.-Att.), 6Gvm (Arc.), cp. 8 d p ~ v (Them., Lac.). The evidence from Cyprian is thin but KvpepZvai, 8oFbai point clearly to - V a l , not - p ~ v , here also. In fact the restriction of -vai and -mai to Arcado-Cyprian and Ionic-Attic is c1ear.l

Lesbian - p ~ v a ~ in Zppwai, Gdpcvai is unique. Porzig argued that it represents a contamination of Aeolic Z p p ~ v , 8dpw (cf. Thessalian) by Ionic EFvai, 8oGvar (or more strictly &ai, GoFCvai). This is not impossible, but against it must be set the equal possibility that -pcvai was inherited. Sanskrit shows among many other infinitive forms both karman and vidmcine. Porzig arbitrarily dismisses the latter as a coinci- dence. It is true that in Sanskrit this form in -mane can be identified with a living paradigm type, whereas - p ~ v a i cannot ; but the same could be said of all the Greek infinitive forms. Moreover, it is strange that only a t this point in the entire verbal system should Lesbian show infiltration from Ionic.

It is better to treat - p ~ v a i as an instance of independent selection from among the group of fossilized case forms which provided the various Greek infinitives. These might well have included pairs such as -*men, -*menai (cf. the Skt. forms cited), -*wen (cf. Hitt. eswan), -*wenai (as in *8F&ai, re- modelled later to give c16CvaiJ and 6oF&ai), -*sen (as in *qkvyrurv > + & y w in Attic, +6yqv in Lesb.) and *-senai (cf. -seni in Skt. bhzi&ni, nesdni). It is even possible to regard Sdp.~vai as a contamination within Lesbian itself of

The isolated 8 a f v ~ r at Troezene, cp. +EU, 8dp~tv, eto.,' elsewhere in Argive, could be an early Ionism. For a different explanation see Thumb- Kieckers, 122.26a.

76 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOQICAL SOCIETY 1003

8dpw and So Fivai, but in view of the Sanskrit parallel selection seems a preferable explanation. The motivation for this isolated retention of an earlier doublet form could well have been the expediency of distinguishing the infinitive and first person plural flexions. The possibility of homonymy here could only arise in Aeolic, since West Greek regularly shows - ~ E S in the first plural alongside - p ~ v in the infinitive. Although Thessalian shows no trace of any attempt to differentiate in this way, this is no reason to reject the possibility that this affected the Lesbian selection.

(6) The appearance of -0- vowels in the verb ' to wish ' marks off Arcado-Cyprian and Attic-Ionic, together with Lesbian from the rest of Greek, where -e- predominates. Typical instances are GEIAopai (Phoc.), /3kAAopub (Thess.), /3dMopaL (Lesb.), /3odAopai (Att.), /3dAopai (Eretrian). The Phocian form is typical of West Greek, including (so far as the vocalism is concerned) Boeotian. An /o*/ is found in Cretan as well as in Attic and Central and East Ionic, /o/ in W. Ionic, Arcadian, Cyprian and perhaps Pamphylian, where the length of the -0- in /3oAtp~vus is uncertain.

The general pattern of distribution is reminiscent of that seen in (4)) and with certain exceptions we may reckon -0- forms as East Greek, -e- forms as West Greek. What makes the isogloss less convincing for affiliation is the problem of derivation. This arises particularly in Aeolic, where it has been argued by some that /3dAAopai (Lesb.) is the original form, and /3lAAopaL (Thess.) due to West Greek influence, and by others that /3kMopaL is original Aeolic and PdMopai due to Ionic influence.

The root is clearly *gwel. For proto-Greek we may recon- struct the following theoretical possibilities :

(a) *gweZ-o-with e-grade and thematic suffix, as in A+, Gixopat, cf. the cognate gdlati (Skt.). No direct Greek reflexes.

(b) *g*el-so- -with e-grade and -so- suffix, as in A&,bopar. This could be reflected in some a t least of the attested forms, with */els/ > /el/ or /ell/.


( c ) *gwj-jo- -with zero-grade and j-suffix as in /3alvwJ cf. the cognate quellan (OHG) with secondary -e-. This would yield /3dhhw and, if we accept */i/ > /ol/ in Lesbian, j3dMopal also.

(a) *gwol-ejeThe iterative-causative suffix with o-grade of the stem, as in $0/3lw. This would give /3oXlw and /3ohlopar, which, transferred to the -pl class, could be the origin of the Pamphylian form.

(e) *gwol-o- -with o-grade and thematic suffix, as in Xdyos, -60x0s would provide substantival forms /3dhos, /3dXii etc., derivative verbs from which (cf. c&Gw) would be indistinguishable from the reflexes of (a).

( f ) *gwol-nE-with o-grade of the stem and -n& suffix, cf. AoMrjs (< -*nes-) beside E&J. This would give etc. whence / ~ O A E & etc. and the denominative /36X~&w etc.

The only unproductive type here is, rather remarkably, (a). Conversely the only attested forms that cannot be derived from this scheme are /36Xopal and fldhopal. It looks therefore as if a t an early stage in Greek *gwelomai was affected by analogical pressure, partly from within its own paradigm, e.g. the perfect *gwegwola, and partly from forms with -0- in the same semantic field, e.g. in (d ) and (e), and so replaced by *gwolomai. The pressure from the very productive Greek class ( f ) might have led to the creation of a verb *gwolnomai as a doublet to *gwolomai ; alternatively the reflexes of (f) /36Ad, /36X~dw might a t a later stage have contaminated /3dAopal to produce /36hopal,

All this is of course very speculative and may seem unduly complex. But the attested forms are complex and do not admit an easy solution. It is perhaps safest to conclude that the distinction between e and o which characterizes broadly West and East Greek (with Aeolic again astride the division) is the result of selection and independent analogical extensions operating within these respective areas.

The distribution is as follows :

(7) The conditional particles E L , 4 as against al. &-Arc.

PHILO. TRANS. 1963. F


4-Cypr. ~ t , 4 (in i t i v < *4 &)-Ion.-Att. at-Dor., N.W. Gk., Aeol.

Here we have once again a clear division between East Greek, with E L (the locative of *o-) and 4 (the instrumental of *o-), and West Greek with at (the locative of *&), Aeolic being aligned with West Greek, This selection from a cluster of synonymous or quasi-synonymous forms is reminiscent of Italic, with Osc. svai and Lat. sei. The original selection within the ' Southern ' group of East Greek is represented by Ionic-Attic, and the further specialization by Arcadian and Cyprian respectively.

(8) The presence of a"v in Ionic-Attic and Arcadian over against Cyprian has been used as evidence for a period of unity among the three following the departure of the Cyprian colonists. This seems plausible. The distribution of the modal particles is :

&--Ion., Att., Arc. KE-cypr., Lesb., Thess. Ka-W. Gk., including Boeot.

The relation between these three is uncertain. It has recently been suggested that K a < *kp beside KEV, and that a"v arises from wrong division of 06 Kav; cf. E ~ K & and ~l 6'a"v in Arcadian and the distribution of Homeric 06 KEV, O ~ K a"v.2 The idea is ingenious ; but there are a number of difficulties. In the first place although KEV is regular before vowels in Lesbian and Homeric texts, the epigraphy of Lesbian, Thessalian and Cyprian shows only KE, This is strange, if KEY was in fact the original form. There is only one instance of W.Gk. KUV beside KU, in Boeotian. Moreover, in literary Dorian KU regularly shows a long vowel, which can hardly

K. Forbes, Qlotta 49 (1958), 179-82, whose argument against tho traditional connexion of dv with Latin and Gothic an seems definitive. See also Palmer, op. cit., 90-91.

a J. van Leeuwen, Enchiridion Dictionis Epicae (1918), 8 326, especially p. 409.


be written off as metrical licence. Finally the alterna- tion of *kp and ken is apparently without parallel in Greek. Thessalian pd beside p b is not strictly comparable, since the two are functionally distinct, p& . . . pcl . . . regularly corresponding to ,U&J . . . 66 in other dialects.

The comparative material adduced for ken, or rather *kern outside Greek is not as impressive as it seems a t first sight. The prepositions kam (Skt.) and ZB (Slavonic) are functionally remote and phonologically suggest *kwem a t least as plausibly as *kern. The Hittite particle kam used in conjunction with nzi, szi and hi seems more attractive as a cognate.

However the doubtful status of the -m in Greek is still troublesome. If we assume ke, not ken as the original form, then we could connect this with the Latin deictic particle ce, a flexionless pronominal stem, with k6 as the corresponding feminine and ka, if it existed a t all1 as the reflex of k6 in hiatus. Then we might also adduce the Hittite particles ha and ki (e.g. in the combination ki-nu-un) and kan in nu-kan. A deictic particle would correspond functionally to the locatives E L and al, and KC could even be interpreted as a feminine instrumental, parallel to the neuter 4. The addition of -n could be in part ephelcystic, though there are other instances of particles with doublet forms in -n, e.g. T O M ~ K L (Horn.) beside TOM~KLV (Cret., Lac.) and T O M ~ K K (Ion.), vd beside v h . It is tempting to relate the conjunction ~ a l / ~ c l s to the same deictic root, Kai being either the feminine locative or ~6 + deictic - L , and K ~ S being analysed as ~d + s.

None of these speculations of course disturbs Forbes's plausible derivation of a"v from K ~ V . If it is accepted, however, then it does mean that K C ~ V survived in Arcadian right through to the historical period. Hence a"v in itself cannot be used to support an association of Arcadian, Ionic and Attic in prehistoric times. Instead it is the acquisition of -n, following the selection of KU as against KE, that is significant for this hypothesis.

1 ~d is perhaps supported by Phocian hivrr K ' & O T ~ U ~ ~ L (Schwyzer 323B), though one could wish for an example where the following vowel was not /&/.

80 TRANSdCTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 11M3

(9) &E, T ~ T E as against &a, T ~ K U (W. Greek) &a, ZAAOTU (Lesb.). Porzig used this isogloss plausibly to isolate Arcado- Cyprian and Ionic-Attic from West Greek. &a seems to be original in Aeolic. &a turns up in Boeotian, but there are too many West Greek features in this dialect to justify our separating this one from West Greek. Thessalian d ~ is opaque, but in view of Lesbian GTU probably represents ~ T U also.

The connexion between these three forms is obscure. Adrados (p. 33) suggested that &a and d r ~ contain reflexes of the labiovelar *Ico/e-. This is very plausible for GTE, more difficult for &a. Por the latter Ionic ~ K W S , ~ K O ~ U , etc., would provide a parallel, and indeed it is tempting to regard ~ K U and ~ K W S as fossilized case forms of the same pronominal root, the former a neuter plural, the latter an instrumental with secondary additions of -s. The labio-velar hypothesis makes both - K a and - r e relatives in origin, which is appropriate functionally. This still leaves &a. Remembering that in Lesbian and Thessalian the article (or deictic pronoun) is regularly employed as a relative, we can analyse &a as *jo + the neuter plural of the article. It would then be functionally a precise equivalent of W. Greek &a.

The results of this section may be briefly summarized as follows : A close association between Ionic-Attic and Arcado- Cyprian is demonstrated by the exclusive isoglosses (5), (7) and (9), and supported by (1) and (6), which include also, in particular, Lesbian, Linear B agrees with the four on (l), the only one of these isoglosses for which it shows any clear evidence. (a), (3), (4) and (8) do not support the association, though it is fair to add that they cannot be used to overthrow it either. As we shall see, the results of factorial analysis strengthen the hypothesis considerably.

(B) lhe divergence within Aeolic between Thessalian and

Some of the isoglosses relevant to this topic have already been discussed in A : KaTLyViTOS (Thess.)/tcaa/yvq.ros (Lesb.)

1 See Porzig, 149-155 ; Risch, 70-71 ; Chadwick, op. cit., 46.

Lesbian.1


and ~'KUTL (Thess.)/ei'Koui (Lesb.) in (I), 8 d p v (Thess.)/Sdpvai (Lesb.) in (5), /3&lopui (Thess.)//3dMopai (Lesb.) in (6). We must now consider the other items cited in this connexion.

(1) The reflexes of *.rravqu : ~IT$vuu (Thew.), .rraiua (Lesb.),

This pattern of distribution was used by Porzig to support his view that the Lesbian divergences from Thessalian were due to Ionic influence. In considering the evidence it is important to take account of the reflexes of */entj/ and */ontj/ as well as of */antj/.

No dialect, not even Linear B, shows -*Vnti- in any of these contexts.

/Vns/ is probably concealed by Lin. B pa-sa and is clearly attested in early Thessalian, in parts of Crete, and in Argive and Arcadian. As all the other dialects must have passed through this stage, this part of the isogloss is of limited importance though it does serve to illustrate the conservatism of the dialects which exhibit it.

.rrG:aa (Ion.-Att. and W. Gk.).

Three distinct reflexes of this /Vns/ are attested : (a) /V,.s/, with simplification of the cluster and com-

pensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, which in the case of */e/ and */o/ falls together with the inherited long- vowel phonemes, e.g. @puua. Examples occur in Laconian, Heraclean, Theran, Elean, Boeotian and Pamphylian (in part a t least).

(b) /V,.s/, where the resultant long vowel in the case of original */e/ and */o/ is kept distinct from the inherited long-vowel phonemes, e.g. ( ~ Q O V U U . Examples occur in Corinthian, Megarian, Rhodian, Coan, N.W. Greek, Attic and Ionic.

This development is peculiar to Lesbian. Its appearance in the text of Alcman is interpreted by some as a genuine Laconism, but this is improbable in view of the subsequent appearance of /V,.s/ in tho epigraphic material. The only other occurrence of -Viu- epigraphically is a t Cyrene. It is not a feature of the mother-dialect Theran,

(c ) /Vis/, e.g. qGpoioa.


and so could be an independent development in the colony. However there are other Lesbian features too in Cyrene (see Thumb-Kieckers 0 146) which could be due to the participation of a Lesbian group in the sixth century re-colonization.

The reflexes of original */ns/ in final position are comparable in many respects to those of */ntj/, though there is a greater range of variants :

(a ) /Vns/ unchanged, e.g. rdvs : a t Troezene (Arg.) and Gortys (C. Cret.).

( b ) /V,-s/, e.g. &s, 7;s : Lac., Tar., Boeot., Pamp. ( c ) /V,.s/, e.g. 706s : Cor., Meg., Rhod., Aetol., Phoc.,

(d) /Vis/, e.g. 701s : Lesb., Elean. Att., Ion.

The Elean situation can hardly be due to Lesbian influence in view of the remoteness of the two dialects from each other and the relatively recent character of this pattern of change in Greek. Moreover, as */Vntj/ reflexes in Elean do not show this form, whereas they do in Lesbian, it seems best to regard the shift as independent in the W. Greek dialect. This is confirmed by the early orthography of Elean which shows -0s in this context, as distinct from -os, perhaps denoting a nasal vowel or some other intermediate stage between /om/ and /oh/.

( e ) /Vs/, e.g. T ~ S : Thess., Arc., Coan, Theran. In many dialects, e.g. Arg., Cret., Rhod., and Phoc., there is evidence for this treatment alongside one of those noted above. The distribution of 769, T ~ V S , T& must in origin have been determined phonologically , 76s before consonants, T ~ V S before vowels (cf. 2s E)VS is), with subsequent generalization resulting in the situation seen in Thessalian, etc.

Both these changes are thus pan-Hellenic. The realization of a general trend in the language most probably occurred in each dialect independently. Contacts with nearby dialects might confirm a trend already in existence, but there is no justification for assuming that the contrast between, say, the conservative situation in Thessalian and the innovatory one in Lesbian is due to any external influences.

R. COLEMAN-TEE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE 83

(2) The genitive singular of the thematic declension: The divergence of Lesbian -w from Thessalian -010 has been attributed to the influence of Ionic, which shows -ow, viz. -0. Here as in (1) the argument is vitiated by concentrating attention on too restricted a sector, via. Thessalian, Lesbian, Ionic, without taking account of the pattern of variation over the whole Greek area.

In the inherited genitive -*/osjo/ [s] was lost prehistorically. -/ojo/ is already attested in Linear 13 -0-jo, and later in Thessalian and Homeric -010. In all of these the phonetic value is probably [ojjo]. For all the other forms of the Greek 0- stem genitive the immediate starting point seems to have been [ojo]. This was replaced first by [ O O ] , a stage attested only in the -00 forms restored on metrical grounds in some Homeric passages, and then by the contract reflexes set out below. The diachronic relationship between [ojo] and [ojjo] is uncertain. Loss of [s] from */osjo/ could have been accompanied by compensatory lengthening of the semivowel, and the resultant [ojjo] later reduced to [ojo]. Alternatively loss of [s] could have led directly to [ojo], with [j] thereafter either lost (as in most dialects) or lengthened to [jj].

Two reflex types result from the contraction of [OO] : (a) a vowel identical with inherited /o-/, e.g. 8 4 beside

OrGv. This development is seen in Lac., Her., Mess., Arg., Cret., El., W. Locr., Boeot., Lesb., Arc. and perhaps Cypr.

(b) a vowel distinct from the inherited /o./, e.g. 8eoC beside 8cGv. Examples are found in Cor., Meg., Ther., Rhod., Coan, Ach., Aet., Phoc., Pamp., Att., Ion.

The pattern is very similar to that for compensatory lengthening in (1) and (2) above and can be interpreted as the independent realization in all dialects of a general Greek tendency. In fact even Thessalian shows a reduction of /ojo/ within the historical period : in Pelasgiotic we find /oi/, e.g. MvaacpaXdoL beside noX+oio (Larissa), MEVEUT~IOL beside @ ~ h d y p o ~ o (Gyrtun), in Thessaliotis /o,/ as in (a) above, e.g. ZwudvGp6, later Aapa~pclov (Kierion). For the change


*/ojo/ > /o-/ in Lesbian the influence of Ionic-or any other dialect-is thus wholly redundant.

(3) The dative plural of -6- and -0- stems shows Thessalian -ais and -OK, e.g. FoiKLdraLS, Lesbian -aim, - o m , e.g. cip+orkpami, ZAAoiui. This has been claimed as an example of W. Greek influence in Thessalian, but in fact the distribution of the two types is more complex than this reasoning implies :

-s forms-Lac., Meg., El., W. Locr., Boeot. ( T O X ~ T ~ S < -*ars,

-si forms-Pamph., Lcsb. Both types are attested in Corinthian, Cretan (where -si belongs mainly but not exclusively to the central region) and in Ionic.

From inscriptions dated to the fifth century or earlier we find, e.g. ~rjis a t Paros, $ULV at Naxos, $pkpprliuiv a t Chios and ripais a t Erythrae. From the same period we have in -0- stems kpoiuiv a t Miletus, vBpo~s a t Oropus. Most of these variants are attested in MSS. of Ionic authors as well.

Both Sanskrit and Latin show syncretism of the dative and ablative cases in the plural, e.g. uivvebhyah, equis. In Greek the syncretism of ablative and genitive, found in Sanskrit only in the (non-thematic) singular, was extended to the plural, where the ablatival functions are taken over by the genitive forms. The Greek dative plural is a mixture of inherited locatival and instrumental forms, corresponding to the functional syncretism of the case.

-01 in 0-, ci-, consonant-stems reflects the inherited locative. For -OLOL cf. Skt. uivqu, for -auc cf. uivcisu. The Greek - L may be due to analogy with the dative singular, but the possibility of an inherited variant cannot be ruled out, in view of Avestan hafs'i, tanus'i (not attested however in vocalic stems).

-01s reflects the inherited instrumcntal -*/o.is/, cf. Skt. aivuih, with the regular Greek reduction of the long diphthong in this position. -ais seems to have been formed on analogy with -01s. The inherited &stem instrumental -*/a*bhi/,

rrpo&~vs < - *OK), Thess., Arc., Cypr., Att.

Ionic shows a remarkable diversity.

R. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPBY OF ANCIENT GREECE 85

attested in Skt. aivvdbhih (where the final -*/s/ is perhaps secondary) is found only in the Linear B instrumental, e.g. a-n.i-ja-pi = hzniciiphi, and in the fossilized multi-functional -41 of Homeric.

In Linear B dative and instrumental cases are still distinct. Beside a-ni-ja-pi we find e-re-pa-te-jo = elephantewis, etc. as instrumentals, and the datives te-o-i = theoi(h)i, e-qe-ta-i = hepetd(h)i or (by analogy with o-stems already) heqetai(h)i, which reflect the inherited locative formation. The lost intervocalic s was later restored by analogy with the consonant stems e-ke-si-qe = enkhessi-qe, pa-si = pan(t)si, etc. Con- sonant stems here apparently included those with -/e. w/- suffix, e.g. Ica-he-u-si = khalhwsi, which might well have provided the starting point for the restoration of s in purely vocalic stems. Both dative in -si, -(h)i and instrumental in -pi also exhibit locative functions in Linear B.

It is interesting to note the greater variety of :-stem than o-stem datives in Ionic. In the latter paradigm the prehistoric reduction of the long diphthongs had brought the reflexes of inherited instrumental -*/o * is/ and locative -*/oisi/ closer together, viz. -OK, -0iui. Phonetic change within Ionic itself produced, in contrast, a greater disparity between the corresponding &stem forms, viz. -air, -7oi (< -*aai). The possibilities of analogical influence here are therefore more numerous. Besides -aim, showing pressure on -*tior both from -ais and -oiai, we find -71s and -7iai.

The presence of datives in -s and -UL side by side in Ionic and in Cretan must represent a situation once common to the whole Greek area, and the distribution pattern noted above provides an admirable instance of the effects of selection. The nearest parallel to Lesbian in this particular item is not Ionic, where the ultimate selection over the whole region favoured -ais and -OK, but Pamphylian. However the pressure to avoid homophony with the accusative forms -air and -OK (< -*avs, -*ovs) in Lesbian cannot have been a factor in the Pamphylian selection. (4) The sigmatic tenses of verbs in -5w. The significance of

86 TILANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOOICAI, SOCIETY 1983

the distribution of this isogloss has been much discussed, Kretschmer long ago argued that - f - was an 'Achaean', -u- an Ionic feature. Poraig maintained that Thessalian $a&fapkvas, 2pydfaro were due to West Greek, Lesbian zpdvr iaav to Ionic influence. The correct interpretation of the isogloss depends once again on two considerations : the historical origin of -5- and -a- in these forms and the pattern of dialectal distribution.1

-5w verbs comprise two types of denominative suffix: voiced dentals, with -5w < -*8kw, e.g. 2 h i s 2ArI8os : &l[w, and voiced velars, with - [w < -*y-iw, e.g. QraE gprayos : Aprdlw. The unvoiced stops yielded -rrw/-auw, e.g. 2p+s : 2pkrrwJ rp&xos : rpdr rw. The geminate in these latter forms must, originally a t least, have denoted the unvoiced equivalent of 5 : viz. *[tj] > *[ts] > [tt]/[ss], beside *[dj] > [dz] > [dd] in some areas /[zz].

The voiced-stops in sigmatic tenses (future and aorist) would originally show two distinct developments : *[ds] > *[ts] > [ss] ([tt] in Boeotian), "[gs] > [ks]. No dialect exhibits this precise distribution. A number show both types of reflex, but not distributed etymologically. This situation must have been intensified, if not actually caused, by the fact that -5w was extended to stems where there were no supporting stop-final forms, e.g. 8apd[w, 8 i ~ d [ w , vop~cw. Examples include : Arg. uxluas rapeve$&& GiKdfauBai but E'8l~au~av ; Coan 2pydfaa%ai, 8iKauakw, Boeot. &r~t,ba$haro &opifdpeBa, Thess. 2ppyd[uro, ~ p o v ~ [ l a ] a ~ i v (late enough, a t Larissa, to be due to the Koine),2 Arg. ~61KdUUatLVJ rapherafd- ~ E V U S , Ion. 2rieaav, T L E X B ~ V T ~ S , Horn. ;praaa,

B. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE 87

(including Pamphylian) the trend was towards -I-, though Argive and Coan, as we have just seen, preserve an earlier stage.

While interdialectal contacts here as in other cases would reinforce existing trends, the distribution pattern is most plausibly explained in terms of independent development, the result OP amalogical extension and selection. Within Aeolic all three historically attested types are found : Boeotian like Argive (but not N.W. Greek) shows both -&and -m-(-uu-) forms, Thessalian like most West Greeks shows predominantly -f-, Lesbian like Attic (but not Ionic) shows -a-.

(5 ) 2v + acc. (Thess.), is , cts (< *&s) + acc. (Lesb.). Porzig (p. 150) regarded this divergence as also due to Ionic

influence. Indeed he argued that

88 TRAKSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1063

phonetic shift from /Vns/ in all the dialects concerned, as Risch rightly saw, placing the innovation itself in the period 1200-900 B.C. However the wide diffusion that has to be assumed (affecting all the dialects save those in (a) above) is so improbable that one is prompted to seek an alternative explanation.

The addition of -s to adverbial and prepositional forms is well known in Greek e.g. aiWi, ad%is; 0;17w, ov"rws, Elean &v:vrvs for ZVVEV, Dor. +rCv beside &mas, and in prepositions +$I, a'&s ; r p d , rpds, where the variants were semantically differentiated (see below) and 2 ~ , Zt, where they were not. We may conclude therefore that the doublets Zv and Zvs were both used originally in Greek with the accusative-though not with the locatival dative, since no dialect shows Zvs + dative. The pattern of distribution set out above would then result from independent selection, some dialects retaining both forms with the accusative function (cf. ZK and 2( + gen.), others showing differentiation of function, with 2vs + acc., E)v + dat., others again levelling out Zvs and employing Zv with both cases.

Different structural pressures would operate in different dialects. Thus in Ionic thc use of rpds with the accusative in a similar semantic function would favour the exclusive use of ZVS, in Argive the change of 26 to 2s in certain contexts would lend to homophony with 2s (< *Zvs), and this would favour 2v. The selection hypothesis seems much more satisfactory here than the assumption that an isolated morpheme was exported from one dialect, especially as there was no functional gap for i t to fill in the other dialects. We may therefore reject the idea of diffusion on this item before the Koine period, when the appearance of Ionic ~ l s in many dialects is accompanied by the intrusion of a host of other Ionic forms.

(6) The preposition TOT/ in Thessalian corresponds to irpds

This divergence has been used on the one hand to associate Thessalian with W. Greek against Lesbian and on the other Lesbian with Ionic against Thessalian, cf. (4) above.

in Lesbian.


Again we must consider both the distribution and the

(a ) m-rl-W.Gk. generally, Boeot., Thess. (6) roi-before dentale in some W.Gk., generalized in Arg.,

Phoc. This looks like dissimilatory loss of /t/, but the possibility of an original *PO-; cannot be ruled out.

(c) po-si-Lin. B, with /si/ < */ti/. (d ) rids-Arc.-Cypr. Presumably < * r o u l , with the apocope

that is common in Arc., though it could represent original *PO-s.

( e ) ~porl-in Homer. Some of the examples could conceal Tori, e.g. /3ij G'haL n p o d v;ias but others must be genuine, e,g. cklpovro rrpo-rl &pas. Homeric - 7 6 here and in no71 must reflect an old Aeolic substrate in the dialect (we do not know a t what date Lesbian */ti/ > /si/). r p o d could in theory represent an artificial contamination of nor1 and rpds, but there are also tracea of i t elsewhere. rp07' occurs once in Argive, where i t is supported by Apollonius Dyscolus's testimony that ~ p o ~ l was a Dorian form.

(f) rop.rl-beside n o d in C. Crete. The latter cannot be a derivative of 7 ~ 0 ~ 7 1 since the change */ort/ > /ot/ is not otherwise attested for Cretan (or for any other dialect, e.g. in (a ) above). r rop~ l < *p$i is also phonologically improbable for this dialect. However the metathesis of op, ap for PO, pa in Cretan is attested in 'A+opGira, araprds, KC~PTOS, so that we can derive rrop71 from 1 ~ ~ 0 7 1 in ( e ) .

(9) vpds-Ion., Att., Lesb. In Lesbian, where apocope of prepositions is common, npds < * ~ p o u ~ < pod is possible. In Attic and Ionic apocope is almost unknown, so we cannot assume the Lesbian pattern of change, Attic ~ p d s therefore < *po-s .

Metathesis of the Cretan type is attested in 'A$opGlra, I lp~rlas beside I l ~ p y l a s . Pamp. mp7l therefore < *pre-ti,

derivation of the relevant forms :

(h) mp7l-Pamp. TEPT&OKE.


( i ) rpis-Lesb. shows the Ablaut alternant of (9) . cf. epi

This welter of variants can be derived from the following and opi (Lin. R).

basic forms : *Po-ti and perhaps *PO-i, *PO-s

To these may be added the semantically differentiated *pro and perhaps *PO, since .rrd occurs in a number of the ~ 0 7 1 - dialects, where it may not always be due to apocope. We thus have *PO and with some a t least of the suftixes zero, 4, -s, -ti. How many of these were inherited it is hard to say. For *pos there are parallels in Lith. pds = at, Italic *posti with additional *ti (Lat. post and perhaps postid, Osc. pzist and perhaps pzistin, Umbr. posti) ; for *poti Av. pa%, OPers. patiy ; for *pro Lat. pro, Skt. p r a ; for *proti Skt. prati, OCS. protiva.

There is a double isogloss here : pro/po in the root and a t least ti/s in the suffix. It is difficult to see how the complexity of variation and distribution can be anything but the result of independent selection from a number of such compounds with overlapping functions in pGk. Thessalian seems to go along with W. Greek ; Lesbian with East Greek but with a t least one peculiarity of its own ( r p i s ) . This means nothing more than that in this as in so many features Aeolic does not as a group fit neatly into one division or the other. (7) The suffix of the adverbs .rrpdo%ev etc. (Lesb.) contrasts

with that of Thessalian a[ov^Ba. This too has been used to establish a connexion between Lesbian and Ionic. The isogloss need not detain us long. For 1~pdo6c without -v is the epigraphic form in Lesbian ; .rrpduOev, which is regular in Attic and Ionic, also occurs in Aetolian and in Thessalian ( ~ p d u r r v ) ! The relation between these two forms and .rrpduBa etc. in Heraclean, Cretan, Phocian and Arcadian is obscure. There is a great variety of adverbial suffixes observable in most dialects : Thessalian has ~ ~ p d a r r v but E'eov^Ba, Argive ZprpouBa, +.rrpoo%a, Boeotian etrcv, &ra, Ionic 2mua, t 'nm-w, &Ba, &Btv, Arc. BV'oBev (= outside), Cypr. i;Ba. Not only does this

*prO/l,-ti and *pro/e-s

See Palmer, op. oit., 89.

R. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY O F ANCIENT GREECE 91

isogloss not divide Aeolic neatly but it fails to characterize any of the Greek dialects.

In general it is clear that, where Thessalian and Lesbian diverge, Lesbian is the innovating, Thessalian the conservative dialect, e.g. A (1)) B (1) and (2) and perhaps A (6). Most of these innovations are shared either wholly or in part by other dialects, e.g. Kaolyqros, PdMopai, though in some instances the particular development is peculiarly Lesbian, e.g. raicra. A (5 ) and (8)) B (3), (4)) (5) and (6) are all examples of selection, and again we may distinguish those features shared by other dialects, e.g. the dative in -OLUL and the preposition ~ V S , from those peculiar to Lesbian, e.g. S d p v a r , rp&. Even with Eikoai we cannot assume Ionic influence, since the form is not confined to these two dialects, and it is better to see this and other items as uniting Lesbian (more closely than Thessalian) to a loosely-knit East Greek complex, As for Thessalian itself) the items that it shares with W. Greek are either ones originally common to all the dialects and so inconclusive genealogically and unlikely to be due to convergence, or else they can be plausibly ascribed to independent selection. Nevertheless the fact that Thessalian is more " westward-looking ') than Lesbian remains significant.

We may now summarize this part of the discussion.

(C) The dtffUsi0.n of Aeolic features in non-Aeolic dialects. This argument has appeared in various though not mutually

exclusive forms. The commonest is the setting up of a prehistoric ' Central Greek ' or ' Achaean ) ) with a considerable Aeolic content. Adrados in fact used the term ' Aeolic' almost as a synonym for ' Achaean '.l In addition to ' Aeolic ) substrate of this kind there are also occasional instances of

Thumb-Iiieckers, 8 76, follow Kretschmer in setting up a Central Greek group (Aeolic, Old Achaean) between Ionic-Att,ic and West Greek, com- prising Arc.-Cypr., Boeot. and Lesb.-Them So too Palmer, op. cit., 88-91. Adrados, M-61, etc., divides Aeolic from Arc.-Cypr., but his use of the notion of ' Aeolic ' substrate is rightly chastised by Ruiperez, 261. Porzig, 161-168, postulates a southward migration of Pelasgians in the middle Bronze Age.


more recent change in non-Aeolic areas that have been ascribed to diffusion from an Aeolic source.

Two relevant items have already been examined : L'oa~r6Gv in A (l), and the -8- signatic tenses of -50 verbs in B (4). Further examples are :

(1) The close-vowel reflexes of the contraction of */ee/ and */oo/ which Porzig saw as the result of diffusion southwards from Thessaly a t a relatively recent date (uncontracted forms appear still in early Boeotian, Argive and Cretan).

As with the reflexes of */tj/ considered in A (l), it is essential to distinguish in our pattern of distribution between phonetic and phonological aspects of the isogloss. Phono- logically two types of development are attested :

viz. no distinction between the contract reflexes and the inherited long vowels, both being represented by c, 0 (later 7, w ) , e.g. Lac., Her., Mess., Arg., Meg., Cret., Ther., El., Boeot., Thess., Lesb., Arc. and probably Cypr.

(b) */ee/ > Q: /e/, */oo/ > 4 /w/. vie. the contract reflexes and inherited long vowels are kept distinct, the former as EL, ouJ the latter as 7, w . e.g. Cor., Rhod., Coan, Ach., Aet., Phoc., W. Locr., Pamp., Att., Ion.

In Thessalian both /el/ and /o./ were raised prehistorically, e.g. SOUK KC, dvd8ecrcc. It is therefore impossible to say whether the contract reflexes (also denoted by E L and ou) fell together with the long vowels before or after this change occurred. On either diachrony the Thessalian contract reflexes in E L and ou must be kept phonologically separate from the phonetically similar 1 and ou of other dialects, which were structurally contrasted with 7 (or i ) and w (or 6). Hence Thessalian is placed in (a).

In ( b ) it is hard to be certain of the precise phonetic interpretation of the digraphs. They could represent either diphthongs resulting from end-closure, viz. *[eel > [ei], *[oo] > [ou] ; or the ' spurious ' diphthongs, established for Attic and Ionic, viz. [y] and [y], which could of course be

(a) */ee/ > < /v/, */oo/ > < /w/.

R. COLEMAN-TEE DIALECT QEOQRAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE 93

related in some instances to an original diphthongal stage, as *[eel > *[ei] > [+,I. It is possible that (a) represents phonologically a later stage than (b) ; with the loss of distinction between the reflexes of /ee/ and /e./, /oo/ and /o./. Now it is worth remembering that the distinction between EL and q as [y] and [E'], which we are familiar with in Attic and Ionic, need not have been so marked in other dialects, where /a*/ and /e./ had not fallen together. The probable phonetic values E L = [e.], Z or q = [e.] in these dialects would present a more favourable context for the merging of the two phonemes in question.

We must also take note here of the change that resulted from the introduction of the Ionic alphabet into the areas listed in (a). Very Boon the Ionic graphemic distinction of a / q , ov/w began to appear in some places, e.g. Argos, Thera and perhaps Megara (though the original situation is not certain there), while in others, like Laconia, the previous situation remains, 2 and 0 being replaced by q and w in both contexts. It is of course possible that the epichoric graphemic conventions really concealed a phonemic distinction, and that some of the dialects classified under (a) above properly belong to (b) . More probably however the phonemic distinction was introduced along with the Ionic spellings. This intrusion would not be violent, since by the fourth century, when i t occurred, the Ionic long vowels /e* 9 . 0- ?./ (7 EL w ou) were already becoming raised from [c y 3' 9'1 towards [e, i. 0' u.3 and the difference between the Ionic original long vowels and contract reflexes slightly reduced in consequence.

The raising of the contract reflexes in (b) was far too widespread to be due to Thessalian, which even vis-8-vis Central and South Greece was for centuries too isolated and remote to be a focus of diffusion. The fact that the dialects listed in (b) form a band right across central Greece suggests the possibility either of diffusion, though hardly from Thessalian, or else of substrate of one kind or the other, though again in view of the Lesbian divergence from Thessalian unlikely to be Aeolic.

PHILO. TRANS. 1903. a

94 TRANSACTIONS 01' TlIE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1003

On the other hand the early raising of /e./ as a whole was confined to Thessalian, Boeotian and Cyprian. The shift in Boeotian could be due to Thessalian influence, though if 80, it is strange that /o./ in Boeotian was not similarly affected, since both phonemes were raised in Thessalian. The Cyprian change must be independent. It is tempting to see the raising of /v/ in these three (or two) areas as an independent early realization of the general tendency to iotacism throughout Greek. Subsequently Ionic and Attic also exhibit the shift, and diffusion through the Hellenistic Koine of which Ionic- Attic was the focus no doubt hastened the development in other regions too.

(2) The occurrence of -VV- as a reflex of */sn/ in Laconian has been taken as an instance of pre-Dorian Aeolic substrate.

For the reflexes of */Vsn/ we have the following distribution :

(a) /Vl.n/ where for */V/ = */e/ or */o/ /Vl,/ > < /e./ or /o,/. Lac., Tar., Mess., Arg., Cret., Ther., Rhod., Coan, El., Boeot., Arc.

( b ) /V,m/ where for */V/ = */e/ or */o/ /V,,/ > < /e*/ or /o*/. Cor., Meg., Ach., Phoc., W. Locr., Aet., Att., Ion.

Thess., Lesb. The Laconian examples : @cij3~vvos, @a&va and Alcman's &vva are anomalous in view of e.g. +EV < "esmen, and not very serious ones at that, since two are proper names and the other occurs in a literary genre which shows a number of Aeolic features. We may therefore dismiss Aeolic substrate in Laconian, so far as this item is concerned.

Risch (p. 71) used this isogloss (o~Adv6 in his table) to establish a contact between Ionic and Dorian a t the time of the Dorian invasion, Given that all the dialects apart from Thcssalian and Lesbian show a similar kind of change, (a) and (b) above, and that Dorian dialects are evenly distributed in both (a ) and (b) , Attic and Ionic were bound to be aligned

(4 /Vnn/.

It. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE 95

with some Dorians. However, as in other changes resulting in long vowels, e.g. in B (i) and C (i), Attic and Ionic belong to a Central Greek band, so diffusion or substrate including N.W. Greek, North Dorian and Ionic-Attic remains a real possibility.

( 3 ) dv for dvd occurs in Lesbian dvEleEKc etc., Thessalian dv&IKat.v etc. beside dv&lKarv, Arcadian liv&lvac etc., Cyprian 6vEleEKr. The ' Aeolic ' hypothesis here rests on several very dubious assumptions. The first is that dv and olvd are strict doublets. There appear to be no instances of dv or dvd standing alone (the compounds cited above are typical) and the only example of dvd at all is in Cyprian dva40pcil where contamination of dv and dvd has been suggested. dv could equally well be regarded as an Ablaut alternant of &, though its original relation to dvd remains obscure. The second assumption is that */$/ would give in ' Aeolic ' /on/ or /o/ instead of the usual Greek /an/ or /a/. Lejeune is rightly sceptical about this change, for which the examples cited from Arcadian and Lesbian, e.g. 8dKoros hacordv, are too easily explicable by analogy from other numerals to be convincing. It is better to avoid building one vague hypothesis upon another, and instead to regard dv in Aeolic and Arcado- Cyprian as an instance of common selection as between dv and dvci a t a time in the history of E. Greek when both forms were living alternatives. (4) The apocope of prepositions has been interpreted by

Porzig as an Aeolic feature. In fact apocope of these proclitics is widespread everywhere except in Ionic-Attic. Thus hv, K a r l Tap, TOT are common in all other regions, with sandhi forms like KA T ~ V (Her.), T ~ K K U T ~ T T U ~ (Boeot.), K a pqva (Arc.) and KdMmcv (Lesb.) ; rep is attested in Messenian, Phocian, Cretan, etc. Thessalian, which is most affected by apocope, shows d ~ , &, GT, which are almost unknown elsewhere. In some of these we may wonder whether the apocopated forms are not in fact the older ones : e.g. &rl < k + I, cf. Lat. ob, Osc. zip, m p I < rep + I, cf. Latin per. But in

1 Lejeune, op. cit., 169.

96 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY lees

any case the phenomenon serves only to isolate Ionic-Attic and is too pan-Hellenic otherwise to be attributed to any particular dialect substrate .

( 6 ) The simplification of if to i s before a following consonant has also been considered to be due to Aeolic substrate.

Examples include i s TOCV beside if cipxlis (Them.), ioydvor and even 20s i&'@v beside i x s 'Epxop [evG], (Boeot.), ia6CMowes but E'fZvac (Arc.), 2s 7~08' (Cypr. : Hesychius), i s rdhcos, i .&&/as (Arg.), iaydvois and even is6cKaKaeS (C. Cret.). Clearly the phenomenon entails not only the phonetic change [eks] > [es] but also, in part a t least, an initial selection as between if and G K . In Attic and other dialects that retained both, the distribution was phonetically determined: 2f before vowels, E)K before consonants. In Thessalian, Boeotian, Arcadian, Cyprian and Central Cretan only if (> i s ) is attested. In Argive and Phocian i~ is also found alongside i s : e.g. b ~ ~ p d f a u ~ a ~ and K{a?rpafd [UTW] (Phoc.).

The reduction of [eks C] to [es C] is an expected change, so it is highly probable that in those widely scattered dialects where selection had eliminated E'K the change occurred independently.

(6) The dative plural of consonant stems e.g. 7~oXl~oac (Lesb.), K~TOCKCWECTUL (Them.), a"vSpcaac (Boeot.). -EUUC forms are also found in Phocian, E. Locrian, Corinthian colonies, Elean (+~ydSeoac ), Cyrenaean and Pamphylian (SiKaurtpcao~ ) . Although 'EmreXiSEouc is cited from Argive, the last three letters here are a restoration. Ot/laaai in a metrical inscription (Schwyzer 102) may be relevant, but other Argive datives like Odovoc, V V ~ A L U L make the restoration inconclusive. Aeolic (or ' Achaean ') substrate has been claimed for this form.

The origin within the paradigm system is still disputed. Its motivation is presumably the phonetic disruption of the stem final before the datival-si. e.g. #2powes, c$kp~?oc iXnlSt.s, ~ X ~ T L ' U L etc. Heraclean Zvracrar represents an independent remodelling of the dative to bring it into line with the


remainder of the paradigm. -EUUL appears to be extracted from the -s- stems e.g. ykvea-ul, T ~ A E U - U L (Att. etc. ykveoc, .r&hcui), and this seems to be the source (perhaps independently in each dialect) of Attic rdhcol for *rdAcul, Rhodian N ~ ~ E U L and Arcadian 2u8dueac-in all of which the older -L- forms were not in fact anomalous ! Another influential factor may have been the relation of nominative to dative in ~MoL, &loiuL, whence e.g. Bv8pes, &dpeouc, though this could only happen in dialects with - o m , -ULUL in the -0- and -a- stem paradigms, e.g. in Lesbian, Corinthian and Pamphylian. Given that the anomalous forms of the dative plural were common to all dialects and that more than one formative factor might have produced -EUUL, the innovation could have been independent in some areas, e.g. Pamphylian.

With regard to the rest we may ask : was the innovation due to Aeolic substrate or diffusion 1 Now within Aeolic Lesbian, which has - o m and -acuc datives is (like Pamphylian) a likely place to look for the independent extension of -coal. But Lesbian on the other side of the Aegaean seems too remote to be a source of diffusion, unless this took place before the migration and so formed a substrate in areas later occupied by other dialects. Here however we encounter a difficulty. Thessalian shows beside KUTOLK~VTCUUL (Larissa) 6rdpXoual (in the same locality) and Xptpaaw (Thetonion), which suggests that -cum is recent in this dialect. In spite of this it is tempting to explain the emergence of these forms in Thessalian, Boeotian, Phocian, Locrian and Elean in terms of diffusion of some sort, though not from Aeolic. And we have a parallel in the later spread of -01s in consonant stems (another independent replacement of the anomalous dative plural : + k p o v m +pdwocs supplanting r p k p o ~ e s +kppoul) from N.W. Greek to Boeotian, Elean and even Laconian. Our conclusion is that -EU (u )c emerged independently in several areas of Greek, along with -auui, -OK, to replace the older dative case, and in N.W. Greek and Continental Aeolic was diffused from an undefined source. There is no need in all this to assume any pre-Dorian Aeolic substrate.

98 TRANSACTIONS OF THK PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1963

(7) The athematic conjugation of verbs with vocalic suffix ( contract verbs ), e.g. +caXqp-bwu (Lesb.), beside KaXro- plvwv, etc. (Ion.-Att.), yaopyeiprv (Thess.) beside y r w p y ~ i v (Ion.-Att.) q5iXapL (Boeot. : grammarians) beside +ch& (Ion.-Att.).

A number of scholars have held that where this paradigm- type occurs outside Aeolic it is due to Aeolic substrate. Risch (p. 71) saw the community of i w etc. in Dorian and Ionic as evidence for contact between these two groups at the time of the Dorian invasion.

Once more we must start from the pattern of distribution. Three groups emerge :

(a ) - l w etc.-Cor., Rhod., Att., Ion. Laconian shows ~ K / ~ ~ V T B S from i ~ i 3 & ~ , but only in a literary text.

( b ) -qpc etc.-Arg., El., Pamp., Arc., Cypr. ( c ) Both -do and - q p ~ types: Her., Ther., Coan, Phoc.,

Cret., Aet., to which must be added Boeot., e.g. 2iroX+ov and dirLmr+avw&rv (with thematic -cpcv but -w- ) , Thess. hvX?ipcowos and Lesb. ciypcdpcvo~ (for all of which cp. the athematic forms cited above).

Relevant here is the reverse tendency, aided by inherited doublets like -vi ip/-Vuw, to extend -rw, etc., to inherited - p paradigms, e.g. Phocian ciroKa6mrdovrrs , Cyrenean 6cSdv, Lesbian dpvav , Euboean T L ~ E ~ V , KaBLu76V. The distribution in (a) , (b), (c ) , is clearly more complex than the neat divisions in Rischs table suggest.

Contract verbs in -EW, -ow, -aw reflect the inherited denominative (-*o/~-, -*Ii- + -*j6) and iterative-causative (-*ej6) types, while their doublets in - q p J -up, -+L represent analogical extensions from inherited root-class verbs with long final : r & p , 816wp~, ZurEp. Several possible factors can be discerned in this analogical extension. Firstly denomi- natives from the -a- stem declension like rrpdw would originally have /a./, with a long vowel comparable to tartip. Secondly the generalization of the long vowel in the paradigms of inherited -pi verbs, e.g. 8iSwu6ai for 6i6ouBaL in Lesbian,

R. COLEMAN-THE DIALECT GEOGRAPEY OF ANCIENT GREECB 99

would lead to similarities in some dialects with contract vowel reflexes, e.g. *{apidEuBai > {apiBuBai. Moreover patterns resulting from contraction in one class, e.g. SovAov^v (< -*o-EV) : 8ovAodp~vos (< -*o-op~vos) might be extended to give &kiv : +~helpevos in place of ~#tAo&p~vos.

Some of these structural pressures through internal analogy and the like would be operative in all dialects, so that in view of the evidence of a two-way analogy mentioned above, the complex pattern of distribution, cutting across the usually defined major groups and including all three stages of development, is best explained in terms of independent change in each dialect. In any case, given the occurrence of both -Cw and -qpi types in all the Aeolic dialects, we can hardly explain -7pc elsewhere as an Aeolism (however we define that term). The fact that Ionic-Attic and some Dorians agree in showing -&, etc. is insignificant, in view of the fact that this is the inherited type of conjugation for stems with vocalic suffix.

(8) The form Cu is used as the feminine of ECS in Boeotian, Thessalian and Lesbian, in contrast to pia elsewhere. A form Ids turns up in Messenian (if rdv ytdv 2vtavrdv is the right reading) and Cretan. Porzig, rightly connecting this with la, regarded it as an Aeolism surviving as a substrate feature in Dorian.

Ids in both the Messenian and Cretan texts and in the unique Homeric example Iwi . . . +ari (Iliad 6.422) seems to have a deictic force equivalent to 2tceivos. It is probably connected with C

Documents

The Dialect Geography of Ancient Greece (Coleman)