Wyatt, The Prehistory of the Greek Dialects

8/12/2019 Wyatt, The Prehistory of the Greek Dialects

1/77

merican Philological ssociation

The Prehistory of the Greek DialectsAuthor(s): William F. Wyatt, Jr.Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 101 (1970),pp. 557-632Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2936072.

Accessed: 02/03/2014 12:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philological Associationand The Johns Hopkins University Pressare collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American PhilologicalAssociation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 85.69.49.76 on Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:52:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2936072?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2936072?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/77

THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTSWILLIAM F. WYATT, Jr.

BrownUniversity

IThose nterestednthe nterrelationshipnddevelopmentftheGreekdialects re confrontedithtwo facts f cardinalmportance.Thefirst act s thatGreekwas one language,ne linguisticystem,ntel-ligible o all who called themselvesEAArwvEsegardlessf how it

*The works o which havemost requentlyeferrednthis aper re:C. D. Buck,TheGreek ialectsChicago,955); R. Coleman, "The DialectGeographyfAncientGreece, Transactionsf he hilologicalociety963: 58-I26; E. Risch," Die Gliederungdergriechischenialekte nneuer icht,"Museum elveticum2 (I955) 6I-76 (reprintedin G. S. Kirk, d., TheLanguagendBackgroundf Homer0-io5 [Cambridge964]).Referenceso theseworks receded y a # efero their ables fdialect eaturesBuckfacing age374,Coleman 07-I3, Risch 5): all other eferencesreto pagenumber.Other mportant orks nthedialectsnclude: .Chadwick 963, "The Prehistoryfthe Greek anguage," ambridgencient istory.39 (I963); Chadwick I956, "TheGreek ialects nd Greek rehistory,"reecendRomeN.S. 3 (I956) 38-50 (reprintedin Kirk I06-I8); W. Porzig, "Sprachgeographischentersuchungenu den alt-griechischenialekten",ndogermanischeorschungeni (I954) I47-69. For generalinformationn thedialects: . Bechtel, Die Griechischenialekte, vols., BerlinI921-1924); Thumb-Scherer,A. Thumb,Handbucher riechischenialekte, ol. 2,revised y A. SchererHeidelberg,959). I have n general ited nscriptionsfter .Schwyzer 1923, Dialectorumraecarumxempla pigraphicaotiora Leipzig 923);IG, Inscriptionesraecae; GDI, H. Collitz nd F. Bechtel, amnmlunger riechischienDialekt-InschrifteGottingen884-19I5); Lesbian yric exts re after LF, E. Lobeland D. Page Eds.),Poetarumesbiorum ragmentaOxford 955). For grammars,havereferredo E. Schwyzer 939, Griechischeranmatikol. I (HandbucherAlter-tumswissenschaftI.i.i, Munich 939) forclassicalGreek nd to Docs., M. VentrisandJ.Chadwick, ocumentsnMycenaeanreekCambridge956) andE. Vilborg,ATentativerammarfMycenaeantreekStudiaGraeca tLatinaGothoburgensia, [G6te-borg 960]) forMycenaean reek. H. Frisk efersoGriechischesEtymologischesorter-buch Heidelberg96o-), and P. Chantraine 968 to Dictionnairetymologiquee lalangue recqueParis 968-). I havealso had occasion o refer osomeotherworks fmine: Wyatt i964, "Arcado-Cyprioteas," Glotta 2 (I964) I7o-82; Wyatt 1971,TheGreek rotheticowel, o bepublishedsamonographytheAmerican hilologicalAssociation;Wyatt 197Ia, "Sonant/r/nd GreekDialectology,"o appearn Studimiceneidegeo-anatolici.

This content downloaded from 85.69.49.76 on Sun, 2 Mar 201412:52:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/77

558 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970was pronouncedn themouthsfAthenians,aconians,hessaliansrCretans; nd regardlessf whetherneGreek sed REV,another HEs-in thefirst erson lural ctive ftheverb;or whetheror take" onesaid (pE'O, anotherypE'o. Thesecond act s that ifferentrands rvarieties f Greekwere spoken n variousgeographicallyircum-scribableocalitiesndnotrandomlyn variousreas r withinhe ameareaeither yone and the sameperson r bymembersf differentstrataf society. Eachdialect iffers,ometimesnly mperceptibly,fromtsneighbor,nd t s from hevariousocal orms fGreek hatwe form urfirstmpressionsoncerninghe nterrelationshipfthedialects. We have no reason o suppose hatearlier tages f thelanguage ifferedromater nthis egard: ialectalifferencesrobablywere lways ocal ndslight.Fromthe first f thesefactswe deriveour first ypothesis:llattestedormsfGreekG) derive rom nearlier,on-attestedormfG which we are in thehabitof labelingproto-GreekPG). Thislanguagemayor maynot havebeendialectallyniform-it robablywasnot-butwemust ssume hatwhateverialectalariationsere obe foundwithint arosewithin t, that s, n Greece, ndwere notimportedntoGreeceby speakers f a laterformof Proto-Indo-EuropeanPIE).' We must every lear bout his ndnot magine,as oldergenerationsf scholarswere sometimes empted o do, aseries f ndo-EuropeanIE) incursionsntoGreece: heGreek ialectsaroseon the soil of Greece Chadwick 963: I0-I7). Since we areforced oassumend reconstructPG,we haveno reason rrightosuppose,ssomehave, hatGarose s anamalgam funrelatedronlydistantlyelatedanguages.2

I A corollary o thisobservation s thatwe must n our reconstructionse careful oreconstructG and notPIE. Thus we want to reconstruct hepta seven" forPG andnot *septm; nd *pansa"each," not *pantya; nd (probably) *totsosso much" fromPIE *totyos. On this last cf. my article"Greek Names in -uosoorrosg-" (Glotta46[I968] 8-I4) in which I tryto show thatPG alreadyhad both *totsosnd *petsj "Icook," and hence that *ty nd *k(w)y ad experiencedpalatalizationbeforetheGreeksarrivednGreece. That is, the ncestor f Greekwas a dialectally istinct ariety fPIEbefore ts arrival n what was laterto become itshome. We mayrefer, roleptically,to this inguistic ystem s theHellenic dialectof PIE, or more simplyHellenicPIE.

2 Such an amalgam,and thepossibilityhat anguagescan arisefromdisparate ources,is not usually ssumed nmodern inguistics. Nonetheless he talian chool,particularlyV. Pisani,has arguedalong these ines. Cf. Pisani in RhM 98 (i955) i-i6 (= Saggi di



4/77

Vol. TOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 559Thesecond act auses stohypothesize,nd hissonlynhypoth-esis, hat hevarious dialectseveloped,ot nlynGreece,ut n

thevery potnwhichheywere pokenn classicalimes. That stosay, more r ess niformGdevelopedocalvariants,ome fwhichxtendedheirnfluenceoneighboringreas ndwhichntimeresultednthe ttestedialectaliversity.We canderivenformalsupportor his ypothesisromhefact hat oleman'smap 125)shows hatn ermsf mere eightingfdialectaleaturesinguistic-ally imilarialectsend lsotobegeographicallylose s well. Weshall f ourse ave omake everalbviousxceptions:orianpeechisclearlyrelativelyecentventnthePeloponnese,ndtheDoriansmust eremovedo the orthf heGulffCorinthuringhe arlystages fdialectalevelopmentnd cannot t that imehavebeencontiguouso Arcadian; oeotiansmaynotalways avebeen nBoeotia;Cypriotesayhavedevelopedertaininguisticraits hilestill esidentn themainland; esbiansmayhave nnovatedin-guisticallyomewherenNortheastreece atherhan n the slandofLesbos; nd Jonians aynot havedevelopedll theiringuistictraitsntheCycladesnd onthe oast fAsiaMinor.We know,however,hat he ea nantiquitynitedatherhan ivided,otheselast opulationhifts-ifuch heywere-howevermportanto thepeoplenvolved, ayhavebeendialectallynsignificant.o beonthe afeide, hough,t sbest orephraseur riginaltatementnd oassume hat hegeographicalelationftheG dialectso each therwas much he ame n classicalimes s itwas inpre-Mycenaeanantiquity,hetherrnot he ialectstthat imewerepokenntheirclassicalocations.Theresnoneed, hough heres ingeneralolinguisticarm n so doing, o assume rehistoricigrationsfGreeks ithin reece.Theusual uestionne asks nG dialectologys: howdid G splitinto he ttestedialects,ndwhich ialectsremore loselyelatedtoone nother? nother ords, owdo we goabout onstructingfamilyreeike hat ivennChadwickI956: 40),whichhowssplit irstnto astvs. WestGreek, henAchaean" s.Attic-Ionic,etc? Theusualmethodf nsweringheseuestionss tomake listlinguisticatorica8i-98 [Turin i959]) and PP I4 (I959) 8T-86; and V. Gusmani,Glotta44 (I966) I9-25.



5/77

56o WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970offeaturesikethatnRisch 75) orColeman107-I3) andseewhichdialectsharewhich eatures.Thosedialects ith hemost eaturesncommonwill be moreclosely elated. Thismethod,which, nci-dentally, havegiven n unfairlyimplifiedorm, ncountersravedifficulties.esbian L), an Aeolic (Ae) dialect, hareswithAttic-Ionic Al) theassibilationf *-ti inL O'potat, I ObE'povat, butwithBoeotianB) andThessalianT) the abializationf*kw eforee/s n7TEU7rTE *penkwe.WithwhichdialectsL more loselyelated? Oragain,CyprioteC) anArcado-CyprioteArC) dialect,hough rdi-narilyhowinghe ame hangessArcadiane.g.,KacgforKai), shareswith heAedialectshe abializationf *kw eforee/7TlcEL insteadfTE'7-El-Schwyzer I923: 679.I2). DoesC belongwithAr or withAe?The answer fcoursesthatn this nefeature belongswithAe,andsimilarlyhat is closer oAI than oT andB in the ssibilationf*-ti,butto Ae and C in the abializationf *k-. The traditionalmethod flooking t dialectal elations,hough, oesnotallowforsimilarityn one feature nly,but demands hatdialects plit rrev-ocably. If onedialect,ay L, showsnon-Ae haracteristics,hen neis forcedoassumenfluencef neighboringialects,sRisch 71) forinstanceoeswhenhe attributes*-ti -si toI influence.Suchan assumptions in general nrealisticnd unnecessary,ndsimply oints ut thedeficienciesf the traditionalpproach o theproblem. Dialects remerelyollectionsffeatures,ome hared ithotherdialects,thers ot,and to refer,.g.,to I, is to indulge n ashorthandayof aying: hat orm fGwhich howsd> -1 ven fterE tp; in which henumberfour" srE'uuEpEs ; n which -tidevelopsto -si, etc. Of these hefirsteature appens o occuronly n I, thesecond lso nAr,the hirdlso nArC,A,L. Hencewe shouldnotaskhow thedialects eveloped, utrather ow the features hichdefinehedialectsrose. Andif we wantto knowhowthedialectsarose,we must irst scertain hat nnovativeeaturesre shared ywhatdialectsnd in whattemporalequence hey rose. In otherwordswewish oestablishhosesoglossesfeatures)hich ividedheoriginally niformG language nto its manyhistoricallyttesteddialects. Sincedialectsre dentifiedybundlesf soglosses,urtaskis todetermineowthevarioussoglossesevelopeduch hat ialectsresulted. n this earchnly haredinguisticnnovationsan, hough



6/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 56ithey eed ot, ave videntialalue. Sharedetentionfanarchaismisnoevidencehatsoever.

From llthathave aid hus ar,t sclear hatproposeoreplacethe tammbaumfamilyree)model f G dialectologynfavor ftheWellentheoriewave heory)f inguisticiversificationirstroposedbyJ.Schmidtn I872 (Die Verwandtschaftsverhdltnisseer ndogermani-schenSprachen,Weimar). According o this theory linguisticinnovation,hatevert maybe,usually riginatesn a given reaofaspeech ommunity,nd if that rea is linguisticallyrestigious,heinnovations likely o spread o other ontiguousreasuntil teitherembraces he entirepeech ommunityrmeets esistance,inguisticand/oreographic,n an several)rea(s) ndceases o spread.Numer-ous casesofthis henomenonredocumentednthe inguisticitera-ture. Familiar ndaccessiblexamplesfrom loomfield'sanguage)include322): Eng. vixen eside ox. It isclear hatoxdirectlyon-tinuesheOldEnglish ormndthat ixen oesnot. Somehowvixenmade tswayinto tandardnglish rom dialectnwhich/f/ egu-larly assed o /v/:foxwas unaffected. erhaps betterxample sthat of Netherlandshouse" and "mouse" fromearlyGermanic[hu:s] [mu:si (Bloomfield28-3I). Therearethree ialectal reas,in two ofwhichthewords repronouncedhesame,while n thethirdhey repronouncedifferentlyI have implifiedhedata):western [my:] [hy: ]central [mu: ] [hy: ]eastern [mu: ] [hu: ]The innovation learly onsistsn frontinghe back vowel and,accordingto Bloomfield,may have originated n Flanders. tsucceedednembracingllofwestern olland ndBelgium, ut nacentralreaaffectednlyolder hu: ]. It didnotreach heeasternregions t all, and theearlier tageof the anguagewas there re-served.3 I do not, n adopting hewave-theory odel oflinguisticchange,wish o deny hat hangesmayaffectnebranchlone- theBoeotian owelsystemBuck 53-54) is sufficientodisoroveuch n3For discussion of the "Wellentheorie" cf. Porzig I950: 23-27 (W. Porzig, DieGliederung es indogermanischesprachgebiets,eidelberg), Lehmann I40-4I (W. Leh-mann, Historical inguistics:n IntroductiotnNew York I962]), Pedersen 314-I8 (H.Pedersen,Linguisticcience n theNineteenthenturytrans.J. W. Spargo, CambridgeI93I], Bloomfield 3II-19 (L. Bloomfield, Language [New York '933]). And for



7/77

562 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970assertion-, ut do feel hatwithin ne rathermall inguisticom-munityuch swas ancientGreece,4t ishighlyikely hat changeoriginatingn perhaps ne small ocale will spread o neighboringareas swell ndperhapso thewholeGreekworld.5To takeup againoneof the soglosseslreadymentioned: -ti -si.dialect geography n general: Bloomfield 32I-45, Lehmann II5-35, Hockett 47I-84(C. Hockett,A Course nModern inguisticsNew York I958]).4 There should be no need to argue that Greece was a single inguistic ommunity.Nonetheless inguistic iscussions eem to assume often nough that Greeks of differentareas and differentialectsdid not conversewith mutual understanding nd enjoymentthat evidence forHellenic linguistic nitymightwell be adduced here. The two mostimportant its of evidenceare: I) the Greek dialects,however widely and wildly theymay diverge n pronunciation nd morphology, re verysimilar n the deeper evel oflanguage, namely n syntax Buck I36); 2) similarly n matters f vocabulary, ne ofthemore unstable reas of anguage,Greek was uniform o a veryhigh degree. These twofactors nsured mutual intelligibility etween any two Greek speakers. On a non-linguistic evel we may pointto the fact hat, t eastfrom776, the Greeks-all Greeks-indulged nathletic ndartistic ontests: risticwas one aspectofthe Greekway. Greeksgenerally arried n these onteststpan-Hellenic hrinesuch as Delphi and Olympia towhich all Greeks could go. Alliances between Greek states, though perhaps theexceptionrather hanthe rule,do at least argue forHellenicunity. Finally, nd perhapsmost mportantly,heGreeks hought f themselves s a singlepeople as opposed to the3apfapot,as is proved by the popularityof the Homeric poems and perhapsmostimpressively y thegenealogicalbit in Hesiod Fr. 9 (Merkelbachand West):

"'EAXpvos o' Eye'vovTo 0Ao7rToAE',ov laocAXyos-ZIcpos, TE Z-oQoVs TE Kac AXoAos oT7rtoXdp,tq,s5Examples of diffusion nd purely areal extension of linguistic nnovations arefrequent within the ancient Greek dialectal world. The following-convincingprobably n varyingdegrees-may serve as examples. Phonology: I) in a geographi-cally but not dialectally solable area (Attic,W. Ionic, Phocian, Arcadian,Locrian,

Megarian plus Rhodian and Theran) /rs/was assimilated o /rr/Coleman 67-68); 2)palatalizedA (Buck 64) occursonly in islandD dialects Coan, Melian, Thasian) plusAsiaMinor Cnidian: thechangeprobablyoriginatedn Cos orCnidos; 3) AT ndAApassto vT ndv0 only n D dialects ndAr Buck 64-65); 4) LtN]< *ty*ky*tw)develops stoparticulation nly in A B and Euboean I; 5) -otn -ot in much the same areaas that nwhichATAA> vT v@, .e., inAr B Elean, and in general, nnorthern ialects Buck 88)this s in partthe area inwhichOr& u-T (Buck 72). Morphology: I) only ntheDode-canese hexapolis (and Sicily) was the perfect ndicative nflected hematically BuckII8); 2) somewhat the same area,but this time includingThera and Central Crete, sembracedby theactive nflection fthe future assive Buck II 7); 3) themiddleparticipleof -E'Wverb ends in -ElfLEvos (-?lxEvos) only in Northwest Greek and B (Buck 124).Syntax: I) E7T plus dative withnames of the dead occurs only in Phocian, Locrian,BandL (Buck 109); 2) -rapa withtheaccusative nstead fthedative, ccasionalelsewhere,occurs regularly n Northwest Greek and T, B (Buck i08-9). Onomasticon: I)personalnameswith first lement n Tt-qa- (Ttri--) occur only in I, Cnidian,Rhodian(Buck I33); 2) names in -KAE'as (-KAI'as)appear in T, B, Locrian, Phocian,Aetolian,Megarian. In all of thesecases areas rather han dialects re involved.



8/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 563It squite lear hat si is the ater orm,orwe knowbothfrom therG dialectsndfromomparison ith therE languages,hat hemarkofthe hird ersonn theverb fprimaryenses as *-ti. Hence si san nnovation. t s alsoclear hat hisnnovationffectedyprus,hepre-Dorian eloponnese, ttica,ndtheAsiaMinorcoast. It isnotcertainhat taffectedll these reas t thesametime, utthemostreasonableypothesissthat tdid. If o,L speechwasalreadyocalizedonLesboswhen his hange ookplace, ndthat, romhe vidence fMycenaean,must avebeenbefore200.6 We should ike n allcasesto be able to be as precise s this, ut we cannot. Ideally urgoalshould e toprovide relativehronologyfchangeshowingtepbystephowtheGreekworld plit pdialectally.We willfall omewhatshort f that oal.We canapproacht,though. In whatfollows shall ssume hatlinguistichangesccur, orwhatevereason,nagiven eographicallyrestrictedocaleand then endto spread rom here o neighboringareas. I shallnot, herefore,emand hat ll Ae dialects hare ll andonlyAe changes, oric (D) dialects hare ll and onlyD changes.Therewill bemany ases foverlap rom ne areatoanother,houghprobably ot, xcept n the ase ofarchaisms,fnoncontiguousreaswith one another. Our taskwill be to determine hathappened(e.g., assibilation f *-ti); where t happenedPeloponnese,tc.);when thappenedafterettlementfAsiaMinor?);and, fpossible,how ithappenedprobablyti] [tsi] [si]). Thisparticularnstanceis straightforwardndeasytofollow. In other ases t maynot beclearwhich s the nnovation,sually ecauseof our ignorance fwhat hePG formwas. One suchrelativelynimportant)ase sthatofAI o0vo/avs. ovv/a of apparentlyll-Buck 27,Coleman 4) otherdialects. The PIE nominativefthiswordwas*nomn,ndas a resulttheAI formsgenerallyeldtopreserveheoriginal ocalism, hileallother ialects averaised o/ o/u/. But infact, I has nnovatedinthismatterndhas ssimilatedhe uality fthe econd owel othatofthefirst.This sproved ytwofacts. i) Incompounds-wvvposremains ven nAI, thus ndicatinghat 'vvpa developed o o'vo/a

6 Unless ndeed hechangewas inauguratednthePeloponnesend ater pread oAI L. It spossible,utperhaps ot ikely,hat ubstratumnfluenceasat workhere.Seebelow.



9/77

564 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970in thefree orm: fAI preservedhe original uality f o'votta,wewouldbe hard ut oexplainhe u/f vvuos. 2) Thequality ftheprotheticowel nthisword s explicablenly nthe ssumptionhatoriginal a/was rounded o /o/by a following u/: c. *anuma>*onumaWyatt97I): the G formf his ordwas*onuma.Itwillbehelpful,nsome ases t east, o have maponwhich hechangesmay be plottedn order o showthearea andextent fthevarious inguistichanges.7The map neednotbe accuraten everydetail,nd ndeed anbehighlychematic,rovidednly hattplacethe variousocalforms fG (moreor less) n their ctuallyttestedpre-Dorian omain. I slightheD and NorthwestN) dialects,s iscommonly one,bygroupinghem ogethernd consideringhemcoordinate ithT, B, A, etc. Though hererenumerousnterestinginnovationsnddevelopmentsnthese ialects,heymust emain utofconsideration,or hey refor hemost art ate, rarerestrictedoDN, andhence reofno importanceordialectal istory.Themap,includinghe raditionalialectal roupings, illshow:

DoricNorthwest AeolicTB LD N A IAr

CArcado-Cypriote Attic-Ionic

7 This has beenmy procedure nworkingon thispaper,usingColeman's list I07-I3)of fifty-onehangesas a basis and adding to it fromBuck's Grammarof theDialects(3-I40).



10/77

Vol. OI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 565On this rawinghave nclosedhemap norderoindicatehat,though oubtlessnfluencedrom heoutside, reekwasa singleentity. uch traditionalapwill erve, ut twould e betterndmore ccurate,hilekeepingheoutline f themap, o omit heintersectingines, nd, nsteadfdialectalesignations,ointroducedirectionaloordinates:

Nort hTBL

West D N A EaEastArC

So u thThusAe becomesNortheastreekNEG), AI becomes outheastGreekSEG), tc. Earlierhanges,t east, illbeshown y hadingthose reas ffectedyan innovation:ater, ost-Dorian,hanges,involvingndividual andN dialects,illhave obedrawn nactualrepresentationsfGreecen the lassicaleriod.Myprocedureillbeto ist he arioussoglosses,ryo determinehere hennovationlay, nd o drawwhat hope re he roperialectologicalnferences.It willbe most onvenientirsto take ome fthemoremportantofRisch'swentysoglossesndseewhat onclusionsmerge.Wecanthenreatfothersoglossesntermsfthe ramey thenstab-lished. In so doing tis importantonstantlyo bearn mind hattheestablishmentf an isogloss,.e.,a linguisticnnovation,oes



11/77

566 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970not precludeommunicationnd common inguisticnnovationamong eople ividednlyby that sogloss:heytill ll spoke hesameanguage.i) *-ti> *-si (Coleman#I0, Buck#I)

Thisnnovation,hared yArC,Al andL, and hus estrictedothesouthernnd asternartsftheGreek orld,ailed oaffectN, TandB, generallypeakinghenorthernialects.Thechangemay edueto the nfluencefa substrateanguagecf.Hittitezi for ti:Coleman0), nd f o, s rrelevantor ialectologicalurposes.Weshall ee ater,hough,hat n innovatingrea mbracingrC,AIand L is reinforcedy numerousthersoglosses.f itis a com-mon nnovation,t antedates200 (because f MycenaeanMyc.)-si),as Rischcorrectlyaw,andprobably ad itsorigin n thesoutheast. peakersfNEG L) must lreadyavebeenpresentnAsiaMinor.8

T

D. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V

*. :.

8 T B have -v&t,, nd in general-v-r- -v@- in the verb in thosedialects. Hencethereoccurred relaxationof articulationfter v- similar o thatseenin Skt. panthahfromPIE *pontos. This changemaytherefore otbe of the samenature s theassibila-tion of -[ti] which did not require-but allowed-a preceding-[n]-. NonethelessLmayhave had -vOt n the thirdpluralactive. See below NEG 6.



12/77

Vol. OIJ THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 5672) Vpo'S vs. oTt "near" (Coleman#3)

Risch merely pposesthese wo forms nd does not attemptodecidewhich s the nnovationnd which he elic. In factt s usu-ally ssumedRisch 6,Coleman o)that oth ormsre nherited,ndthat hevarious ialects ave ndependentlyhosen neor theotherform. This s indeed ossible, utfrom considerationf the map,it appears hatvoTor4 ommon oDN T B (andHomer), s the lderform, nd that rpOrt is a developmentf Tor4, ossibly nder heinfluencef-rpoand rpO'cTOEVbefore." Coleman orrectlybservedthat hereretwo soglossesere: he nsertionf-p-and the ssibila-tion f*-ti.9 Assibilationakes lace s n ) above, husnArC A I L,while he nsertionf-p-occurs nly nA I L, and inCretanvoprt)and Argolic 7fpot': once,Schwyzer923: 84, 3, in an inscriptionmediatingetweenCnossos ndTylissos, wo Cretan owns)besideiroriandifoi. t thus eems hat po-rt> rpo'S' is an nnovationftheAsiaMinor oastSEGplusL) whichpread, erhapshroughecitationof theHomericpoems, poradicallyo Argosand morefirmly oCrete, nlessheCretan ormsa parallelnd ndependentnnovation.SinceArC isnotaffected,ndArgolic nd Cretan re, hisnnovation

Locr.Phoc.Ach.EleanLac.C

TB

Cor.* .*

East T

Meg.Arg.Theran CoanRhod.

9FromMyc.po-siwe now knowthatwe havehere o do with ssibilationndnotwith he dditionf-s9 o rpo sheldbyBuck 58)andColeman89).



13/77

568 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970musthavc taken lace afterhe solation fArC,hence fter oriansettlementf the Peloponnese.Hence, too,we cannotutilize urfirstchematic ap,butrequire mapwhich epresentsreece uringthe lassical eriodn order o displayhis nnovationorrectly.Thepresencer absence f-p-cannot eutilizedndeterminingronze gedialectal elations.IO3) *totios> ro'uoS (Coleman #I2)

This change s broader hanRisch and Coleman ndicate, or taffectedll casesof-ss-which xisted t thetimeregardlessf theirorigin: EVEut < yEVEuut < *genes+ si; 7rouL< Touui< *pod+si; aswell as zo'oroS< oaos' o


14/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 569exclusivelyyArCandAl,createdutofa unifiedreek divisionbetweennnovatingouth nd conservativeorth.IIFromthis(possiblyre-Mycenaean)ointn, lmostll nnovationsriginatenthe outh.Thefact hat N andAe are ogethern notundergoingthis hange rovesnothingbouttheir elationo one another:commonnnovations,otpreservedrchaisms,lone anbeevidenceof inguisticelationship. T

B L%: ~I::

5.

4) Athematicnfinitive:vat vs. -tLEv(at) (Coleman#48, uck#43)AgainRischmerely tates heisogloss nd does not attempt odeterminehere hennovationies; nd ndeed n this ase here eems

little eed:-vat characterizesrC Al L, thus he amedialectal reawe foundn ) and ) above,while ,uEv sshared y DN T B L. Lbelongs oboth roups,ndprobablyhereforeeveals he hronologyofthe hanges:I) developmentf-,uEv2) additionf at"Homer hasbothro'aaosand&roaoS,and fwe identify yc.to-sowith hisatter,shorter,orm,henweareforcedoconcludehat omer reservespre-I200inguisticform. Though lementsnthepoemsmaybe that ld, t seems o meunlikelyhatany inguisticorms. Hence feel hatMyc.to-sorepresentstosson]ndthathe woSG changesfPG *tsare tobe dated sfollows:

pre-I200 *ts> *sspOSt-I200 *ss> *s



15/77

570 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [1970Risch orrectlyawthathe istributionfthesendingsemandeddateprior otheDorian resencen thePeloponnese,houghMyc.evidence,hichlone ould rove date efore200, isyet acking.A splitntonorthnd outhike hateenn3) above sclearlyre-supposedythedevelopmentf -puEV,'2 andthe nclusionfL ininnovatingreek y the dditionf-at. In this asewe seem ofindwo nnovations,ndhencewogroupingsn themap: hadingwillas usualdenoteArCAI L, while ross-hatchingilldenoteDNTBL.

Thismuchs all thatsrequireds far sdialecteographyscon-cerned,ut t is importantlsoto attempto determinehat heoriginalituationas. If am correctnassuminghatnthe outh-atof he oristnfinitiveas dded othe thematicnfinitivending,itfollowshathatnding as (e)n, ossibly,houghotnecessarily,from -hen< -sen,hus he ame s the hematicnfinitive.t isthereforelear hatn thenorthhis -enwasextendedndrenderedmorphologicallylearerythensertionf ,- betweenhe thematicstemand theending n its ongerform-Ev. This -st-, like the -a- oftheaorist assive ndthe K- of theperfect,adno meaningnditsI2 This tatementsprobablyoostrong.As shall rgue elowthe nsertionf pt-mayhavebeen G (cf.ts ccurrencenHomer) ndhence nheritedySG butdiscardedtheren favor f -vat.



16/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 57Isolefunctionastoprotecthemorphologicalntegrityfthe the-maticnfinitive.uch eing he ase,t s ikelyhathe ource f he-s- willnever edetermined,ut t seems ome mostikelyhat tsomehowrose n the nfinitiveftheverb to be." Either e:n(< *esen),omophonousnDN at eastwith he hirdlural ftheimperfectfthe ame erb, e:n,wasfelt obetoo short,ndwasagain infinitivizedy adding -en: *rqvEvthenpassed to '1 eV Et.LEV,Ev) by dissimilation: dissimilationn the case of 'lqJEvseemsdifficult,nd rendershis xplanationubious); r i- wasfeltnsomewayto characterizehe erb tobe,"andthenfinitiveas built nthesupposed tem*em-. It is difficulto knowwhen and where thisinnovation ad itsorigin-itmust avebeen constantemptation-,but tprobablyookplaceprior othepassage f-RR- (R = resonant)to-:R- inall dialectsave those f thenortheast#9below). Ifthisis the ase, hentwasa very arly hange ndeed.Thedialectsfthe outh ither ever new he nnovativeorm1tEv(which s unlikely ecauseof theHomericsituation), r, thoughknowing t,preferred singtheold infinitives*e: n " to be," *titb6nor*titb6:n) "to place," *hista: (or *hista'n)to stand") extended yanotherlearmark fthe nfinitive,he at ofthe orist, o inserting-p-,anunclearmorphological ark, hich ad he ddeddisadvantageofcreating disturbingearhomonymy ith hefirsterson luralactive nding fthe ameverbs. Thischange robably asaidedbythe presence f -at already n all middle nfinitives. hus it ispossible,though perhapsnot likely,that EretrianEtvTtl5EWVtsoiv,ChianEtv,directlyeflecthePG situation,s mayalso CyrenaeanKa'r'rtl&Ev&8cov beside 15EEv &0'JLEvBuck 25). L clearly s eitherdoubly nnovativen adding at to already emodeledptEv;or isconservativenpreservinguEV, nnovativenadding at.'3 Rhodianand Cretan later nnovateby extendincyhe onantitv of thethemati

13 L -v in the infinitive f contractverbs Kipvav o',uvvvKcLAIv) causessomeslighttrouble f one holds that uchverbs areconjugated thematicallyBuck I23): we shouldexpect *KLpvac4evaL *odLuvv1,uevatKaA47/EvaL. In factformsof thissortdo occur inHomer:KaA7)(LevaL IL. O.I25, StX?7,LEvaLI. 22.265, andprove hat his ption id xistatone ime,ut ailedocatch n. TheL forms,owever, erelyreservehe Gsituation,nd ndicatehathese erbs ere ot onsideredo be ofthe ame ypesotherthematicerbsuchs-r&9%qjut.ut notheray, he rule ead: dd-atto-juev.&ucov Schwyzer30.I5) seems oindicatehat n L &$'ouuhad nteredheratevorv of n-contracts.



17/77

572 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [1970infinitiveenalsoto theathematic,n innovation hichdidnot getfar. The innovationntheopposite irection,xtendingVuevlsotothethematicnfinitivesas restrictedo theNE portion f mainlandGreece (and to Homer?) save for the one isolated TpoFEUTE'1LLEVfromLyttosBuck I22). I feel thatherewe should followKing90-92 (R. D. King, Historicalinguisticsnd Generative rammar[Englewood liffs969]) andassume hat andB show generaliza-tion f an mproperlynderstoodrammaticalule, ndthat herefore-p1Ev s an athematicnding riginatedlsewhere,ithern NWG orindeedn PG itself,nd wasintroducedandmisunderstood)n T B.Since DN was generally onservativen morphologicalmatters,particularlyn theverb, prefero assume hatmenoexisted ith enalready nPG, but was discardedn SG infavor f -en, ubsequentlyextendedy -ai. Ifthiss the ase,we regain ur familiar apsof )and ) above shadingor at) and of 3) (cross-hatchingor en):

D N

5) EL vs. ac "if" (Coleman#34,Buck#4I)AgainRischmerelyists heisogloss nd does not endeavor o

determinehich sthe nnovationnd which he rchaism:s a resultthis xample annotbe usedas evidence orprehistoricroupingfdialects. Or, ess ositivelytated,tcannot e usedunequivocallyndwithoutnarbitraryecisionsto which orms the lder. EtoccursinArAl,ai inDN Ae.



18/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 5736) (av vs. KE and Ka, themodalparticle (Coleman#3 ,Buck#42)

The dialectal istributions much he ame sfor if," withAr Alshowing 'v, and thenorthernialects howing ormswith -: KE inL T, and n thismatteroined also by southern , Ka inB ND. BothAe and ArC here howdivergencesithinwhathave nthepastbeenconsiderednited amilies. We againneed oknow he riginal orminorder o decidewhich sthe nnovation,ndthough isch eems ofavor 'v as the nnovation,e doesnotundertakeo showbywhatroute v arose. In pastdiscussionsf this roblem,tems ) and6),because bviously aving o do withdifferentords,havegenerallybeentreateds separatematterso be discussedeparately. proposeinstead hatwe treat hem ogetherndhold that hetwo developedas they idbecause heywere ofrequentlyncontact. The questionthen ecomes:whatwas the riginalollocation hich iesbehindheattestedorms?It musthavecontainedK- because f the greementof theNG forms ithArdK, and ndeed ecause fthe greementfAe andC KE, itmust ave ontainedE. Suchbeing he ase,we maypresumehat andL (togetherithHomer)havepreservedhe arliersituation ith if" aswellandthat he riginalollocation as tKEV.All other ialects ave nnovatedn onewayoranother,N B onlyslightlyn oweringhefinal owel to -a: this atternnovationeednotbe, andprobably asnot, ontemporaryith he G change.In SG there eveloped tendency-for hatevereason-to inter-change hequality fthe wo vowels uch hat L av resulted,formstill reservedccasionallynAr (Schwyzer923: 656passim). Thistendency,owever, idnotaffect, either ecauseC had osttouchwith hemain endenciesfSG.orbecause had lreadynnovated yreplacingt with , and the xchangefvowel qualitywas no longerpossible here. There s no reason o be surprisedhatC fails oparticipate ithAr in this nnovation,or urely t is frequentlyhecase that change-particularly morphologicalhange-does notspread o as to embracen entirerea. Only thosewho impose heunrealisticequirementhat veryinguisticallyefinedrea dialect) elinguisticallyniformwill find C KE hard to accept. That thistendencyo interchangeow-front ithfront-lowas notbeen n-ventedolely oaccount or his ne relations proved y the at east)



19/77

574 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970SG tendencyo replace hethird erson lural f the orist ptative-atEv with -Etav, s well as by certainmore solated ases such as'P'4vEta esideP'qvatEV'5ndHeracleanTpoTEpEt`a forA lTpoTEpfxta.Clearly ll dialects f the outhsaveC, which s no longer elevantnthismatter)edividedheresultingomplex LKav, probably n theanalogyof the frequentV3Kav,and came up with the new Et av(>Eav inAI). We thus ind hatAr AI innovate ere n their reat-ment f tKEV, and thatAl, at east, urthernnovatesn itsreanalysisof the omplex nd ts reation fE' and6'v.I4 Ae and DN B, to thelatter fwhichwe turnn thenext ection,were eft ehind, nd didnotexperiencehis hange. Again this act aysnothing bout anycloser elationshipetweenAe andDN since gainbothhavemerelypreservedhe riginalituation. Our map willshow:

B LD

C7) OTE'-- ofa-- oKa "when" (Coleman#36,Buck#7)OTe occurs nArCAl andpossibly (T o'T'-Schwyzer923: 565.2is ambiguous); srain L (and possibly ); o'Ka in DN B, thus nthat'4I here follow Palmer 90-92 (L. R. Palmer in: A Companion oHomer,A. J. B.Wace andF. H. Stubbings, ds. [London I962]) and K. Forbes Glotta 7 [I958] I79-82)

in assuming*eikan s the ancestor f theSG forms. I cannot,however,followthem nassumingthatKa(v) is the zero-gradeof KEV. Ablautrelationse-grade, -grade, erograde) are not phonologicallyconditionedalternantsn IE languages,but are ratherfunctionallyonditioned, egardless f whatthe situationnPIE mayhave been. Sincethere s no functional ifferenceetweenKE andKa, andsinceKEV > Ka(v) isnotaphono-logical rule of G, I do not feel hat blautcan be invokedtoexplaintherelation fKE(V)to (K)a(v).



20/77

Vol. OI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 575area generallyWG) that asKa for hemodalparticleE. Wemayassumehat'Ka alsoreplacesarlierO'KE withthe inal owel gainlowered o/a/, lowering een lso n7upoo-nabefore" Buck o4-5,Coleman#37).'5 Thissame owering eems o have affectedll ofNG (againwith hepossibilityhatT is an exception),orL haso'Ta(Schwyzer923: 634.33) nddAAo-randTo'-ra (Alc. LG 38A II): L,before hefinal owelwas lowered, ad o'TE. Thuswe see that ordialectal rouping nlytheconsonantndnot thevowel srelevant.ArC AI L T (andMyc.?) are in agreementn havingorE as theirstartingoint s againstNWG *O'KE. Thuswe find grouping fdialectshatwe have notseenbefore. The questionhen s who hasinnovated nd who has retained heearlier orm. Dependingonwhich reawechoose sthe nnovator e willhaveone orthe ther fthetwomaps:

B~~~~~~~D tV

ArI5A et'Ira Tczrea,which seem to obey theNWG rule,beside I etre bTetreT as thesecondvowel dissimilated y the first: 4-re eStra; cf. t'Kev > cec"av.



21/77

576 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970In generalwe have seen hat nnovationsend omovefrom outh onorth nd we are thus ather redisposedo feel hatDN B are con-servativegain n thismatter.Only the ituationn T causes ne tothinkwice bout uch conclusion,orT elsewhere as beenamongthemost onservativefdialects. A final ecisionwaits urfindingothersoglosseshatwould end ithero confirmrexclude generallyEG groupingsagainst he onservativeW.Atpresent e are hamperedlsoby thefact hatwe are not clearaboutthehistoryf thesewords. There re in fact, believe, nlyfour ossibilities:

i) *O'KE andO'TE oexistednPG2) *OKE > OTE3) rE > * KE (> 'Ka)4) X> 6KE inDNB> OTE lsewhere

Ifwe adopt ), wethenmust upposehat woforms ere ompetingnPG, and that oKEmeaningwhenever"vel im.)was generalizednNWG, while ?TE (< *hokwe?),nd meaning when" in a correlativesensewith tokwethen"wasgeneralizednallotherreas. This s notimpossible,utseemsunlikely. ) satisfiesll requirements,houghit sperhaps eak emantically,fwe canassume change k/ /t/-/e/inwordfinal ositionnall areas fGreece ave n NWG (andpossiblyinHomeric ' E inthephrasess o' KE). 3) likewise ouldsatisfyllrequirements,ut eems xcluded othphonologically:change f/t/to/k/ efore palatalizingowel seems ighly nlikely;nd dialecto-logically,f we may prematurelyssumewhat s to be proved:wewould haveto assume n innovationn a generallyonservativerea.4) maybe merely variant fanyof theother hree. x mayhavedevelopedotho 'IEand o KE inPG;O'KEmay exorJmEmay ex.But ifwe requirehat be neither'TEnor KE, itseems lear hat tmust e *hokwe,possibilitynvisionedyColeman80) and Schwyzer(I939: 629) amongothers,ndone which eems emanticallyppro-priate. The phonological evelopmentsill have beensimple ndstraightforward,hough onethe essofa rare nd nfrequentaturesuch stoseem xceptions.*hokweassed o*hoken all ofGreek saresult f dissimilationf labializationccasionedby theprecedingrounded owel/o/, arallelsorwhich an befoundn OKW 0 OKOta.



22/77

Vol. IOIJ THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 577In alldialects,hough,aveforDN B (andpossibly omeric 'KE), thephonologically egular hokewas replaced y themorphologicallyclearer hokwe hich hendeveloped s did -kwenall other asesto-_TE.I6 Orwe canoperatewithoutssuming replacementysimplyholding hat hokweas feltnallof Greece xceptNWG to be com-posed of *ho kwe, wo morphemeseparated y a morphemeboundary, hile nNWG themorphologicalompositionfthewordwas gnored,ndphonologicalrocesses,lockednthe est fGreece,allowed to operate. The preservedor restored)morphologicallyintact hokweenderslear hefact hat hiswordcontains herelativepronoun plus kwewhichmakes hewhole correlative ith*tokwe"then" in a semanticallyatisfyingay. It seemstherefore ostlikelythata pan-Greekmorphologicalnnovation or reanalysis)failedo reachNWG, a conservativerea mbracingN plusB. Werequirehefirstf the womapsgiven bove:

D i

16 There reobstaclesnthewayof ssuminghokwe. i) Myc.has -te PY Ta7II.I)forwhichwe should xpect o-qe. 2) C has "e (Schwyzer79.I) forwhichwemightratherxpect 07Te. 3) L hasora insteadfexpectedrra. TheL example,hough,iseasilyakenare f, or kwe>-E even nAe inthewordfor and." We may ssumethat,houghhis evelopmentidnot ake lace nMyc. and," tdid ake lace lreadyin"when." Thesamedevelopmentillclearly aveobtainednC. Thepalataliza-tion f*kweforee/eemsohave pread radually,ffectingirstncliticndenclitic-likewords. Hence: ) *hokwe>*hote; ) -kwe and" > -TE; 3) *kwe> *teelsewhere(only nArAI DN).



23/77

578 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I9708) /3oA-/,-eA-SeA-"want" (Coleman #38)

Inthisnstance isch, gnoringhe nitialonsonant,eems oregardthe/o/ ocalism ftheverb s the nnovation,or f t s not, hefactthatArC AI L again gree sof no importance. cansee no wayofproving his, ut it is interestinghatL again sideswith SG, as innearly ll cases onsideredhus ar. We will have to assume hatarrivednAsia Minor n possessionf both*gvel- nd *gwol-in thisfamily f words, ndthat he nnovationf replacinghe/e/ f thepresentndicativeubsequentlyeached t,causing t to discard hecompeting gvel-. Once again,though,we are hampered y ourignorancef thePG form nd the xacthistoryf thisword. In anyevent do notregard his sogloss s beingvery mportant,he essso sinceEast CretehasfidAcWvraLSchwyzer 923: I99.I6), and isnot tobe given s muchweight s someof theother hanges. Nonethelessthemap sthat f ) and ) above:

TD Av

Summing p this ection f Risch'stable, hen,we find heclearsplitbetweenNG and SG postulatedyhim confirmed.Thissplitdoesnotmean, hough,hat ommunicationbruptlyeased,nd s nall probability erely n indexof thefact hatGreek peechnowextendedrom hessalyothePeloponnese.SG as definedyRischappearsn itspurest,most anonical, orm nly n 3 (-/ss/->/s/-),f



24/77

Vol. OI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 579indeedC sharedn this hange; ndin 4a (-Evas theending f theathematicnfinitive). lsewhere G includes lso L: I (*-ti>-si),2 (p(r)oti>pros), 4b (add at tothe thematicnfinitive),(foA-n'want'); or does not includeC: 5 (El for"if"), 6 (av as themodalparticle). In NG we findbut one innovation,he owering ffinal-/e/o-/a/nadverbial ords, changewhich n the aseofKE failedoreachT and L, though t seems o have n thecase ofoer'. In NG,therefore,e needno dialect oundaries,s Rischcorrectlyaw,saveinthe aseofKa vs. KE andKa vs.T(a), nd heseslight)ifferencesdemand distinctionetween N B on theone hand nd TL on theother, otbetween N andAe. Allother soglossesepresentharedarchaisms,or preferoregardVEvofthe thematicnfinitivesanarchaismecause ftheHomeric ituation:,/LEvas probably resentoriginallyn all areasofGreecebutwas discardedn innovatingG.-o "when") includesotonlyArC AI L butT aswell. It doesnotfit n quite comfortablyith the other hanges f i-8, and I shallpostpone iscussionf ttill ater.

In SG mattersremore omplex, ut ven here heres no needfordialectal istinctionsf the traditionalort. Some changes ffectedonlyArC AI, and did not reach (3,4a); others ffected rAI, butfailed oreach ither or C (5,6); but he argestmajorityI, 2, 4b, 8)reached oth C and L. We thereforeequire hree ifferentxtentsofthe reaof nnovation:

TB L

D~ *



25/77

58o WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970

TB L

D..... ..

D~~ X

Map 2 showsthe nnovatingrea at its smallest, ) at its argest.We mayhypothesizehat he riginalnnovatingrea ) firstxpanded(to3) andthen ontractedto ). There s no needfor his ypothesis,but fwe wish otiedialectalnnovationsohistory,e must upposesome uchdevelopment.MapsofNG are either lankbecause herewasno changeI, 2, 3,4, 5, 8); or showaninnovationommon o thewholearea 7: -/e/-/a/); r an nnovationestrictedoDN B (6: -/e/ -/a/).



26/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 58i

.~~~~~.S

A I

AArCa)may eolder han),thoughuch snot necessaryssumption,ndb)may eroughlyontemporaryith ):i.e., andBmay ave tthesame ime,r t bouthe ame ime,ecomeeparatedrom,whichismerelynother ay ofsayinghat at about his ime ecameisolatedromhe est fGreek.It is nterestingonote hat earlyllofRisch'ssoglossesreSGinnovations,ndperhapsremoreparticularlyEG characteristics,i.e., eatureshichriginatednwhateverhe re-Dorianome fAIwas. To thesewe canadd severalmorewhichmbracehe ntireinnovatingrea.

SEG ) *tu> su (Coleman 7II)This hange, hateverhe recisehoneticranalogicaletailsre(Lejeune 6), seems ohaveaffectedhe ame rea nwhich tipassedto Si (Buck8),thoughknowfnoevidenceor .



27/77

582 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970SEG 2) (Epo'.S, tpos', lpo's., vs. (apo's' "holy" (Coleman#20, Buck#6)

?EpoS is ArC AI, and its aterdevelopmentpos and ipo'& appearrespectivelynL and sporadically)nAI. The PGform f thisword,tapo's, ispreservedn all other ialects.'7SEG 3) ELKOULvs. (F)iKart (Coleman#22, Buck#2)

Cypriotevidencesagain acking, utwe areprobablyustifiednassuminghat talso possessedCKOcr. Thereare three nnovationshere:

i) */wiy/-*/ewiy/-2) /a/ /o/n numerals3) -/ti/-/si/The first hanges purely honologicalnd ndicates hatwe alreadyknew,namely hat rothesisoesnot occurbefore /wl-innon-SG

dialectsWyatt 97I). The secondchange s partly honological,but salsopossiblynalogical:nalogywith he o/f he ndingKov-rain" 30 etc.,musthave been at work Coleman 72,Buck 96-97). 3) isRisch#i above.SEG 4) -Ko'cnOt vs. -Kac-tLotor -KaULOL "hundred"

Clearly his hange lso nvolves) and3) of SEG 3), butherewefind surprise:hough I L have Ko'orotasexpectedorNG -KacTcot,Ar takes p a middlepositionnhavingK&OrfoC. We can fwe likeassumeAr-Ka'-rto > -KOCfLOL (with G) -Kccrto under he nfluenceofneighboring dialects, ut to me this eems strangeinguisticevent. I thereforerefero assume hat a/ /o/n KO'O'co is a laterdevelopmenthan tito-si,andthat ttookplacewhenArC was nolonger art f nnovating , namely fterheDorianpresencenthePeloponnese.We do not know thenumeralsn C, but I would

17 cEpOS iScognatewithSkt. isirahFrisk .7I3, Chantraine 968: 458), and in generalG /a/n an unaccented yllablecorresponds o Skt./i/:G /e/,whether ccentedornot,generally orresponds o Skt./a/. It is for thisreasonthat consider apo's the earlierform. On G/a/ Skt./i/ f. my Indo-Europeana/ 5-4I, 56-59 (= Haney FoundationSeries Monograph 7 [Philadelphia 970]).



28/77

Vol. OI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 583ventureo predictKac'cot (andpossiblyven *EdKacn). A similardevelopmentnd xtensionccurs ith twentieth":lKOaTOS, inAI,ElKOLUToS inL,but cKauTainAr Schwyzers4gI3). Inthis ase he/o/hasspread lso to T lKOUTO'S' (Schwyzer I7g=IG IX 2,506,47)probablynder I nfluence.SEG5) dative luralf o-and a-stemsn at (Coleman 24)

-atoccursn -uat L (regularatut inthenoun) ndA (sporadic-atort); I L (regular) (sporadic)otort. utforms o occur lsewhere(Pamphylian-Schwyzer923: 686.i, 3) and Cretan rarely-Bechtel2.729-30, possibly under epic influence), nd Coleman (84-85) maywell be rightn assumingndependentelection.Otherwise e willassume n Ionia-basednnovation hich pread,n thenounat least,firmlyo L butonlytentativelyoA, to be replaced here y -ats,_oLs'.I8 There are a number f otherSG changeswhichfailed tospread eyond heoriginalAI) area ofinnovationither o L or toArC. They all are tobe consideredateand of ittlemportanceordialectallassificationave hathey o ustifyhe raditionalesignationofAI as one ofthefour ialects fancient reek. It is to be noticedthat t sonlybymeans f ate hanges hatwe candefine I, again sRisch orrectlyaw. Ourabilityodefine I with s manysoglossesas we can s due n arge art o thewealth f iteraryndepigraphicalmaterial rom his reaoftheworld.I9

18It is generallyeldthat si n thedative ontinuesIE locatival su,while-otscontinuesnstrumental-Jis. I feelthatmatters ereprobablymorecomplicatedthan hat, nd that houghA -&at (--gac)mayreflectIE *-asu, nd-oisreflectsIE*-ois, hat owla s remodeledftera:t, and-asgafterols. In mostG dialects&atwasreplacedy ats, andhence hereppearedats, -otS. Itwasaninnovationf AlL (and ndependently?)PamphylianndCretan)ocreateatat, -oLat. It isgenerallybelievedDocs.84-85 ndVilborg 6-7)that he raditionaliew ssupportedyMyc.0-i anda-iwhich re taken o representoihi] nd a:hi]respectively.hisview s, nmyopinion,ncorrect,nd believe hatMyc.spellingsepresentots- nd -abs (cf.C.J.RuijghMnemosyneeriesv, i (I958) 97-I I6, particularlyii-i-2; Atudes6-78=AStudesur agrammairet evocabulaireu recmyce'nienAmsterdam967) andmyreviewof this atter ork:Language4 I968) 66-2I.I9 Other SEG changeswhichmightbe mentioned nclude: SEG 6) a+epos >'7zepos-(Buck 24-25); SEG 7) ovvua > ovo,ua (Buck 27 Coleman 74); SEG 8) [u] > [U] (?) (Buck28); SEG 9) metathesisfquantityBuck37-38, I); SEG io) v movablenverbalformsBuck84); SEG ii) -eS, -as- n thenominativendaccusativeespectivelyf



29/77

584 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970I have supposedhus ar hat ll SG innovationsriginatednSEGand pread romhere ometimeso encompassWG alone, ometimes

SWG plus L, sometimesmerely . It is now time to investigateSWG to see whethert nnovatedn anyway orwas merely hemoreor less nert eceptaclef changes riginatinglsewhere.Of courseSWG did nnovate,nd becauseMyc. was a SWG dialect, e areherein the xcellentosition fbeing ble to date he nnovations: e dateprior o 200 thosennovationsharedyMyc.,fter200 thoseharedby Arc butnot Myc.20 Mostof them re of course hose haracter-istics f ArC listede.g.) by Buck I44). Since,however, uck wasunable o consider yc.evidence,ndbecause etreatedeatures oreatomicallyhan s thefashion hese ays, feel t will be profitableodiscuss omeof these haracteristicsere.SWG i) midvowels high owels/l(n)#

Thisrule tates hat e/nd/o/ ecome/i/nd/u/ espectivelyitherbefore inal n/r nabsolute inal osition. Itaccounts or iv rom v(Ar vVElvaE-Schwyzer 923 :676) and lV from E'V (SchwyzerI923: 66i.i, etc.,Coleman#7), thesefromAr; vvEv6a'(uEvos'(Schwyzer82.I2) l(v) (Schwyzerbid. )from . Also ccounted or ythis ule re: -av of thegenitiveingularf a-stemsnAr (a,u'pav654.i6), masculine-stemslonenC ('Ovauayo'pav 79.I); the hirdperson ingularmiddle nding f secondaryenses f the verb:Ar'o'AovtvBuck#I6.4), C EvFpEraaa-rv (Schwyzer923: 679.4); theprepositionscv < aro': Ar a'rvTvavo'vrcv (Schwyzer6I.32) C acv'(Schwyzer79.8); 07TV < V7T0 with issimilatoryoweringf the irstvowel Schwyzer64.I 5,2I); Karv' < Ka-ro Ka-rabyrule (Schwyzer656.29); andfinallyAAvSchwyzer56.38); thererenoC examplesfor heseast hreeases. Therule lso pread,omewhatporadically,tothe nteriorf theword nArwith heresult hatwegetoccasionalformsuch s: ai7TEX0b'VoSvtc. Schwyzer6i.20) fromMantinea;71.,E-andvl5E'-Buck98); adverbsfplace where" n -ov Buck 02); iv fors inthethirdingularfthe mperfectftheverb to be" (Buck 28). Noneofthesehangesspread ntil heformationf thekoine n thebasis fAI.

20 We cando thiswith ompleteustificationbecause fMyc.)only or WG. It sa theoreticalbutprobably otpractical)bjectionoRisch's cheme hathe dates llchangesn theGreekworld oprior o 200 and ater han200. Somechangesmayhavebegun rior o 200 inoneareabutnotreachednotherreauntilmuchater.



30/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 585'EpXopuviotssSchwyzer 65 A 3), and before-/m/-, rvu'EOV(Schwyzer64.2I) and61o0o0ts'Schwyzer65A 5)from rchomenos.Of the bove,Myc.hasonly crv (PY Ta64I.I, a-pu-do-si,requent),thusuggestinghat he hange ookplacefirstnprepositionsndthenspread. Allthe ther ormsre ikelyobeearly utpost-Myceneaean.

rrC1SWG 2) /a/> o//#(C) VC[ (i)]Condition: ogrammaticalnformationsconveyedy/a/Thisruleprovides hat/a/s raised nd rounded o /o/ efore r/inallpositionsave nitiallyndfinally; eforeinal i/;nd nabsolutefinal ositionnwords fmore han nesyllable,rovidedhat a/ oesnot conveygrammaticalnformation. he reasonfor this is-restrictingystselfnlyto Ar-thatwe want to have Ivat (Buck

#I6.I), not *Evot;Eaua (ibid.3),not *Eaco; FEcEa (ibid.6), not*F&Eo; atya (Schwyzer654.2), not *atyo; Ot &lKaaacrati (Schwyzer66I.I9), not *8&KaUaTro; & caaaco5at (ibid. 7), not *aucraurOot. Inall ofthese ases he/a/ onveysomegrammaticalnformation:eu-terpluralnominative-accusativeFETEa); accusativeingular f con-sonant temsatya); and/ors supportedy other orms fthe amecategorywith/a/not subject o raising: caaa, nominativeingularfeminineeside'aucadg; KaCUTaI, nominativeluralfmasculine-stems;vat and auacna&a bothnfinitivesith he a/upportedythe/a/ fthe orist. Itdoes,however,llow/a/ opassto/o/ efore/r/n: Ar ETopTav (Schwyzer56g04),2ETop7Tao652), avayo'pac(654.26);CKacTEFopyov (679.J),tc.Wyatt97ia); beforeinal/i/n hethirdingularmiddle rimarynding f theverb:Ar/o'ArTOl(654.9),yEV7jTOL (656.2); C KE?TVl (683.6)with urtherpplicationfrule )extendedo/-i#:finallyn E'KO seen nAr VOEEKO (654.2I),whencealso EKO'TaV (IG v 2 282.2) and KOTO'V (Schwyzer54.4); andinKaTac> KaTo, whence o aTV1bySWG i) above.

All ofthe boverule ogether ithts onditionspplieslso nMyc.,thus howing hat his uleat least ntedates200: before r/: o-no"chair"PY Ta707. I)-cf. va- VToro'8tovHsch.), o-pe-zatable"(PY Ta642.I),wo-ze works" PY Ep6I7.4); before,also nthe hirdsingularmiddle: di-do-to= didontoi) Y Ng319.2, e-u-ke-to-qe



31/77

586 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970(= eukbetoiq"e)Y Eb3s; and finallyn numerals: -ne-wonine"(PY Ta642.I), whichsuggests lso thatthenumber ten" wouldhavebeen pelled de-ko. It may eemstrange-it oes to me-thatrule ) shouldprecede ule ), for wouldhaveexpected ule ) toneedrule ) as a preconditionor tscomingntobeing. Forhaditbeenotherwise,would haveexpected pellings ith-u- in Myc.(e.g.) nthe econdaryensesfthemiddle nd nthegenitiveingularmasculine.Such s notthecase,however, ndas a resultwe mustassume hatMyc.spellingmasks wodifferentypes f -o,onewhichlaterpassedto -/u/Ar 'o'Aovrv), nd one whichremained /o/(Ar8'Ko).2ISWG 3) *kwis> t'is aug

Therewas a rule ofearlyGreekwhichwe will discussngreaterdetail n connection ithRisch#io) in accordancewithwhichthelabiovelarkwwaspalatalized2 tosomethingike t']when tappearedbefore i/, hich t'] was in all dialectsaveArC identified ith n-heritedt]. In ArC this dentificationailed o takeplace,and thedevelopmentowardss] continued.ThusinAr we find peculiarcharacter\ n Mantineatobe transcribed,ollowing uck I98, as ain forms fsr: orLSSchwyzer923: 66I.23, 25), oduEoL ibid. 4);andspelledwithC in anearlynscriptionrom leitor r Lousoi,Oc'st(Buck#i6.4). InC we find: LrsSchwyzer79.23, 29) and at = TfromHesychius.InlaterAr nscriptionshe dentificationf t8]witht/wasmade, s elsewherenG, perhaps nder he nfluencefsur-roundingDN dialects. Clearlyall developmentsnvolvingabio-velars ookplaceafter200, sinceMyc.preserveshem ntactnmostpositions;ndclearly,oo, [t']> [s] (orwhatever)mustpostdatehedevelopmentf t']. Thequestionhens,whohas nnovated,rCintendlinpro identifyt'lwith/s/.r therest fG which dentifiedt'W

21 Myc. forms uchaspe-moPY Ebi 52) besidepe-ma PY Er3 2.2) "seed" (= sperma)and a-mo KN So7485) "wheel" (= harmo) how thatMyc. did not consistentlypplytheconditionthat/a/ /o/ nlywhen it conveysno grammaticalnformation.

22 There is some questionas to what the actual phoneticchange was in thiscase.W. S. Allen (Lingua7 [I958] II3-I33) speaksof palatalizationof *kw o a labiopalatal,whileL. Hyman Language 6 [I970] 7I), if understand imcorrectly,eels hat abiali-zation and palatalizationare incompatible. In any event *kw>t in a palatalizingenvironmentbefore/i/), nd did so in a way reminiscentf otherpalatalizations.



32/77


33/77

588 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970example-vo'Eor-rLor rouEcrt (Schwyzer57.I2)-which Buck 56)preferso regard s a special aseofdissimilatoryoss of thefirst.Sucha loss eemshighly nlikelyome, and feel hatwehaveto doherewith hesurfacingf an inheritedinguisticendencylsewhereavoided, examplesnclude:TOEXO0LEVOVSchwyzer 79.I9), 'OvUjos'(Schwyzer83.3), qpovE'O- (Schwyzer85.4), and nsentenceombina-tion:Ka ac(v)'t Ta- vX`p6v Schwyzer79.5),otherxamplesnWyattI964: VyvE/aS Aafr4Hsch.)shows hat hechangeoccasionallyaffectedven nitial s/. Ifwe plot on a mapofclassicalGreece heareas nwhich he hange ccurs.

Loc r.Phoc.Ach.

TB

Cor.East TA

Mea.LI

*i:..:.:*...-.,..[...-. ..,....,. .....

Cret. Theran CoanRhod.

wefindhat, ut orCyprus,he hangesrestrictedo the eloponnese,and especiallyo those reas f thePeloponnesenwhichMycenaeansettlementnd civilization ere mostfirmlystablished. thereforeregard his hange s a peculiarlyub-Mycenaeaneature hichwas acharacteristicf the peech f those eopleswho wereoverrun,r atleast utnumbered,yspeakersf NWG idiom. It s a featurefthesubstrateverwhichNWG speechwaslaid. Furthermore,ince hetendencyowards oss of /s/s mostpronouncedn LaconianandCypriote, ventureo suggesthatCypriotesmost losedialectally,and may ndeed e a development,f that arietyfSWG whichwasspokenn Laconia.23

23 Otherfeaturesf Lac. EleanArg. e.g.,rhotacism-Buck6-57,passage f [w]to [L]-Buck 47, > a-Buck 59)areprobablylsoattributableothe WGsubstrate,



34/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 589SWG5) Kas'forKal "and"

Kas occurs n C (e.g., Schwyzer 79.I) besideKa before owels(ibid.-a completeollectionnWyatt964: I73), and nMantineanAr Schwyzer6I.I9), Kd (ibid.7); elsewheren Aronly at occurs.It is now quite lear hatKas- erives rom arlier dart,ndthe nlyquestion s whatis its relation o Kaal. There re threeuggestionsknowntome: Ka-t < Kat+ Et (Wyatt964); *Ka'Trt iS original,ndKat< *Katr< *Kai-t withmetathesisf thefinalwo ounds;as"KaTit asbyrule ) aboveKiparsky:lotta4 [I967] I33): *Ka't iSoriginalndKat < *Kai-t bydissimilatoryoss f t/as nArgolicnot'besidero-it C.J.Ruijgh,Atudesur agrammairet e vocabulaireu recmycenien3I-33 [Amsterdam967]). I nowfeel hat uijghsright,and thatthereforehepreservationf *kati >Kac) in ArC is anarchaisticeature f thosedialects. Ar replacementf Kasg by Kacneednotbe influencedyD neighbors,utmayrepresentventherethe hoice f ompetingat. If o,C has gain ailedomoveforwardwithAr. We cannotknowwhetherMyc.had *katior *kasi).SWG 6) Dativewithprepositionsnsteadfthegenitive

It isa featureommon oArandC to usethedative nsteadf thegenitive ith heprepositions&rt 7rEpt ivrep vio' 7rapa 7TE&a Evti(Buck IO8). This changefrom hesituationrevalentn all otherdialectspparentlyepresentsn ArC a merger fdative nd genitiveintoone" locative" asewhichsused fterrepositions,ndwhich sopposed o both he ccusative, hich ontinueso beusedwith rep-ositions o denote actiondirected owardan object, and to thegenitive,which is no longer a prepositionalase. Clearly thistendency o simplify hegrammar-like heLatin-representsninnovation.Whether rnot hennovations to beattributedo Myc.aswell syetuncertain,nddepends ponhow onechooses o inter-pretexpressionsontaininga-ro. I prefero holdwiththosewhofeel hat he nnovations ofMycenaean ate.24andwere et nmotion ythe ossof-/s/. Since, owever,heyffectndividual Ndialectsnddo not ffectrC,they elong othehistoriesfthese ialects,ndarenotto be listedsSWG characteristics.

24In so doing followVilborgI22) andDocs. go)as against ouseholderGlotta38 [I959] i-io), thoughnotwithouthesitation. A number fthefeaturesisted yBuck



35/77

590 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [1970Of theSWG characteristicsustmentioned,, 2, 4 (?) and 6 areinnovations.And ofthese nly , with 7rv utnotwithv, nd are

definitelyf Myc. date. 3 and4 arecertainlyater,we cannot nowabout5,and about6 opinionswill differ.The cases n 2 areperhapssurprisingndmostworthyfnote. Every ase, rtype,n aterArCismatchedy case nMyc.:both ave r ar, toi -tai, E'KO < &SKa.Not one of these WG changes pread o therest f theGreekworld.And yet,given whatmusthave beenthe mmense restige f thedialect fPylos ndMycenae,we should ave xpected therGreeksohave emulated heiringuisticsage. Thattheydidnot,and in factthat hey id adopt nnovationsriginatingnSEG, maywellrank soneof thegreaterurprisesf G dialectal istory.25II

All of the innovations iscussed hus faroriginatedn SG, andparticularlyEG. Most of the other hanges istedby Risch as atleastpotentially arly are eithergeneralGreek tendencies,nd/or(i44) ascharacteristicf ArC are n fact reservedrchaismsndhence reonlynegativecharacteristics.hey nclude:SWG 7) ovv foro'SE - see below MG 8.SWG 8) -Kp5ErSg for KpaT27g-seebelowNEG ii.SWG 9) arv-see belowMG II.SWG o) Ov-see belowMG ii.SWG ii) -kt inflectionfcontracterbs-Risch 8.

SWG I2) sv==LSE-Risch I2.SWG I3) X for ompensatorilyengthened. This snot n archaismeally,ut snot featuref themoreprogressive dialects. Seebelow MG I.SWG I4) E'S= E' /-C. This was the regular honetic evelopmentn thosedialects hich ailed o create reconsonantal


36/77

Vol. OI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 591arerestrictedo a small reaof the Greekworld. Theisoglossesinclude:

g) *RR> :R -RR (*esmi imi -em-mi)io) *ke >Te -reII) Ot -rotnnominativeluralI2) ev > 'v&with ccusativeI3) a >?1I4) ns :s-isIS) a >ar}I6) -ua {a inaorist f ~c verbsI7) -uev - -lESi in firstluralctiveI8) 4Ew -7,&incontracterbsI9) *r>pa-po20) -W &o infuturefverbs

9, 10, II, I7, I8 involve eneralGreek endencies hichmerelyailedto reach ertainreasofGreece, ence re ngeneral nlocalizablestopoint forigin. 13, I5 (?) (Al)20 (DN) arerestrictedo small reasof theGreekworld.2-Is are ate, sRischpointsut; 6 is ndetermi-natebutseems atherate;and I9 is no isogloss t all butrepresentspast ncorrectnterpretationsfthedata.9) RR>:R

Thischange ffectsllofGreece aveforT andL, and sthereforepan-Greekhonologicalendency,tendencyhat ailed oaffecthemost ortheasterlyreas fGreece, houghtdidreach oeotia. Rischdates hechange littleater han hefirstight, hough till rior oI200; forwhatreasons do notknow. It seems o meimpossibleodate his hange-itcouldbe quite ate-, but ince t failed o affect,I suspect-thoughhiss notnecessaryor he rgument-thatttookplaceat a timewhenL was notyet nthe nnovatingreaofGreek,thoughater hantheestablishmentfNEG speech n Boeotia. Cevidences lacking, nd ifC also failed o undergo hechange,wewould be free, hough otforced,o assume dateposterioro theisolation f Cyprus,henceperhaps fterDorian settlementf thePeloponnese.It would thenhave affectednly themore or lessculturallydvanced ndcentralreas fGreece.



37/77

592 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970

S~~

Thismap epresentshe onflationitherfmaps) and )orof ) andb) above. This actmaynotbeaccidental,ndourview fthedateof he hange illdepend ponwhetherechoosemap ) ormap 2),thatstosay,whetherefeel hat experiencedhishangernot,Io) *kwe Te e (Coleman#9,Buck#57)Rischputs his hangefter aoowherehe videncefLinearandC demandshattgo. A mapdisplayinghishange-assunmingIt/to bethennovation--shows:

B L

Developmentsnvolvingabio-velarsnallprobabilityost-dateheDorian resencen the eloponnese,ndhence ould edisplayedna mapofclassicalGreece. They probably riginatedithern SEGor ingeometricraPeloponnese.It isperhapsurprisinghatB did



38/77

VVo. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 593notgoalongwith N andhencewith ll the est fGreek,ndthereasonrobablys thatntheNE the abio-velareries asgiven pearlierhanlsewhere.n thatvent ewillhave n sensennovated,while willhavebeen eft ehindndnot harednthe ommontendencyopalatalizeeforee/swell sbeforei/cf. ote 8below).We must eas clear spossiblebout he ourse hichhese ar-ticularhangesook. There re wo hingsfwhichwecanbe sureandwhichre haredyalldialectsf G: *kwiverywhereields i(save n ArCinpart), nd*kw>pI- a everywhere;heencliticparticle-kweverywhereppearss Te (Lejeune I, Buck,62). Wethereforeeed two rules on theunderstandinghat*-kwes to beincludednthe irstule):

I) kw t/ [i]2) kw>pf la]Theonly ivergenceccurs eforee/,nwhich osition ost fGappliesule), while EG nd applyule), hence:ia) kw> t/[i]2a) kw>p/[aj

or,rephrased:ia) kw t/liront vowels2a) kw p/Aow vowelsClearly,norder o accountor he ttestedistributionfthe so-glosses,we needonly tate hatmost f G applied a) and2a) inthatorder,with2a) applying acuously efore e/,whileNEG and Capplied hem nthereverserder. Somelinguists ould be contentwith hisolutions s,but amnot ompletely.Thought sneat nd

accounts or hedata, tdoesnotexplain hedistributionfthedataandhistoricalevelopmentsnvolving hem ndseemsnsufficientsaresult. I prefer,herefore,oassume hat he ommonG (for ecauseofMyc.itcannot e PG) tendency,xpressednruleform,was andwe nolonger eed odistinguishworules):



39/77

594 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970*kw> t'/-[i]> p/-elsewhere26

Theserules ppliedwithoutnterruptionn NEG andC, and accountfordevelopmentsn those reas. In therest f Greece, hough,ninnovationookplace, ndrule newasunderstoodo applynotonlybefore i/,ut o allfront owels, hus ausing hepalatalizationf *kwto [t'] alsobefore e/. Therulesn allthesereas, hen,were:*kw t'/_frontowels> p/_elsewhere

We may now expandthe chronology f linguistichanges ndhistoricalvents iven bove nconnection ith WG innovation 3:I) *kw t'/4[i]> kw/-elsewhere2) Dorian resencenPeloponnese~e3a) *kw tp e [Peloponnese]

> p/ elsewhere3b) *kw t'/_[i] NEG> p/_elsewhere4) [t'] > /t/everywhereavenCThischronologymplieshat kw, houghntactnall other ositions,hadbegun o undergo heprocess fpalatalizationhileDN speechwasnotyetpresentn thePeloponnese.The reason or oassumingsthedivergencen treatmentf *kwe-betweenAr and C. If thisdivergencean nanywaybegotaround r can be ignored,hen hetie-in ithDoriansnthePeloponneseanbegiven p. Inany nd lleventst is at leastclearthat he nnovationies withthose reasofGreecewhichpalatalized kw efore e/,nd that hat act lone sofimportanceordialectology.27

26 *kw ould not appearbeforeor after u/, nd any casesof *kwwhichhappened tofall in eitherof thesepositionswere perceivedalready n pre-Mycenaean imesas /k/,as in KvcAo& < *kwukwlos*kwekwlos. f. Lejeune, Traite' ephonetiquerecque 6 2ndEd., (Paris I955) and Memoires e philologiemyce'nienne.285-3I7, especially293-7(Paris 958).27 It is for nstance ossiblethatthe abialization ule originatedn NEG, and that herestofGreekstillpreserved he abio-velars t a time whentheywereno more nNEG.We would then ssumethat hepalatalizing rendwasbrought oSG, affectingkwi irst,



40/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 595iI) ot's-ortOinnominativelural (Coleman#28,Buck#5)

Ol occursnArC Al T L andCretan, hile o0isconfinedo DN BandtheThessalian fThessaliotis.Onceagainwe areforced o choosebetween womapsLocr.Phoc.Ach.EleanLac.

TB

Cor..:A-:..:

* **.*... @@ss* * . .* . *s-

Meg.Arg.Theron Coan

Rhod.East T L

?. . . . . . .APIn.og ..... BA IAch: .. M .gElea Ar A.Lac. ..: Cret. The:rar. iSnC Ri:Rh6d

and then he therollocations. nthemeantimewothingsappened: ypruswascutoff romhemainstreamf heGreekworldand ndependentlyevelopedre naccord.ancewith heNEG rule); nd henhe nvironmentf*kw [t']wasextendedo ncludeallfrontowels.



41/77

596 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970dependingponwhichorm e feels the nnovation. or houghtisclear hat IE had*toi, t s not lear hat G must avehad*toi:it s ust s ikely hat IE *toiwasreplacednPG by *hoi,ndthatincertainialectshe ressuref hemany -formsf he emonstra-tiveoperatedo replace dat with rot rat, husrecoveringhe PIEsituation. o' couldnotpassto-ro-ecause fthehomophonouseuterTo. Nonethelessnthewhole t s best o adopt he tandardiewandassumehat, hough d eached N B, itreached N at east nly ate,and failed o prevail here ave in that reaofDN whichprovidedsettlerso Crete.28SinceCretan s in general atheronservative,presumehat heDN choice f nheritedot' vernewly ntroduced'was effectednly ate, ndthat hefinal nd total xpulsionf o' fromtheDN realmfailed o reachCrete, nd as a result ostdated othDorianpresence n Crete and in the Peloponnese.For the earlyspread fotwe can useour chematic ap,butfor hetriumphf-rotweneed he lassical ap.29

A.

28 Coleman 74-75)mentionshepossibilityf Cretan nnovationn thismatter.Such s ndeed ossible,ndwould implify atters,ut sprobablynnecessary.29 Withoutwishing nduly oindulgenmentalisticndpsychologicalxplanationsofpurelyinguistichenomena,findtdifficultoexplainhe act hat retanlone fDN has od,unless neassumes consciousxpulsionf oc'asun-Doriann theotherareas ftheDorianworld:one would xpecthatfoneDN dialect as given eature,oneor anotherftheother N dialects ouldhave t as well. There re, .g.,thecasesofE'vs(Risch#i2) andthedistinctionetween oris mitiorndDoris severiornthevowelsystem. f amright. heexpulsionfo1 willhavetaken lace afterhe



42/77

VoI. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 597East T L

9 . .' ~Cret. n.. an anI2) E >' gVwithccusativeColeman#33, uck#2,3)We need he lassical apfor his evelopmentince he hange

took lace nlynAegean-facingreas. Itmayndeed ave egunnLocr. T East TPhoc. BAch ....Elean :A,,,Str

~~~~~~~~~~~.C..N..

settlementfCrete) ta timewhen peakers fDN became ware hat ther ialectsexisted,ndthat hepeople peakinghemlways sed Zwhere heywere ccustomedtousing othof andoto. Theythereforexpelled hisntrusivendforeignt in theinterestsfDoriansolidarity.Thismaybe true lso ofother features,articularlyconservativenes, or t s tomea strikingeaturefD andonethat equiresxplanation,that t s n tsmain utlinesomonolithic,articularlynmorphological atters.



43/77

598 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970Argolicnd preadhence,rmoreikelynAI Porzig5o). Coleman(88)regardspreadsunlikelyivenhe arly ate nd avorsndepen-dent nnovation. fcoursendependentnnovationspossible,utthe nifiedrea ffectedseemap) omeratheravorsorzig'sdeaofspread. ngeneralvs'ppearsn hoserea fGreece hichulturallywere entralnd dvanceduringhe rchaiceriod.Risch's atesas usualikelyobe correct.I3) a > zq (Coleman# , Buck#36)

Rischdates his hange obetween2oo-900 but learlyn inguistic(phonological)easoningndnotondialectologicalrounds. Sincepasses o-q nly nonesmall reaofGreeceAI),a small reawhichweknowfrom ther ases o far onsiderednd others etto comewaslinguisticallyeryhomogeneousto a very atedate), t couldhavetaken lace t anytimeafterhe arly assage fRR to :R-#9) andsimply avefailedo spread.30 tsfailureospreadwas dueto the actthat twaspreventedrom oing o by thepresencefAe speechnLesbos ndD speechn both hePeloponnesendAsiaMinor. Thereisno needof a map toshowthe xtentfthis nnovation.This sectionhas not been so satisfactorys thefirstn that essdefuliteroupingsfdialectseem oemerge. Apparently(RR>:R) movedtowardNEG, having riginatedithern SWG or SEG.I0 (*kve te)wasrelativelyate-probablyater han ,at east n someareas fGreece-andwasalsorelativelyeak nthattfailed o reachandfailedlso topenetrateEG even smuch s9 did. ii (ot)was apan-Gtendency hichfailed omakeheadwayn NWG whichre-jected tand retainedheolder ystem:t was in allprobabilityela-tively arlier han o, and was certainlyarlier han 2 (6VS) whichrequires oriansettlementn thePeloponnese,ndearlier,oo,thanI3 (a-> 'q) which, swe shall ee, slater han, rapproximatelyon-temporaryith, 4: *pantia> [pansa]> [pasal> miva raTua. Itisalso highlyrestrictedeographically,ffectings it does onlyAI.

30 Of coursehis ependsn what ne means.Thefrontingf[a:] to [oe:]-afrontingike hat eennBostonnglishar= [ka])-probablyook lace eryarlyinSEG,but he dentificationfthisat:]withnheritedE:] couldnothave aken laceuntil new [a:]= /a/ rose. Andthishappened nly fter awa/ /a/or [pansa][pasa] [pa: al /pa:a/.



44/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS S99One featurefthisection,o whichwewill ome ack ater,sthatphoneticnnovations9, io) failed o reachNEG,while hemorpho-logicalnnovationii) faced esistancenNWG. B took middleposition,oining N in9and i, butAe n o.It sperhapsnterestinghathe 'v Evs' rea#I2) includes,ut snot oterminousith,he rea nwhich appearsn rpo's (#2), andfurthermorencludeshe reanwhichRW/ assedo/:R/ Coleman#i6,Buck 9-50). It isclear hathesehangesre ate nd rere-strictedo Aegean-facingialects:hey robablyll originatednIonia. It s furthernterestinghatmany f these ame ialectsavein common/e:/spelled l) as thecontractionroduct f E+ E (and/1/,pelledv, rom+ o),whetherrnot hey adEl and v)astheresultfcompensatoryengtheningrom#9. Less mpressive,utstillnteresting,sthe act hat OcoEL-ccursntheea-god'samenmany fthese ialectsColemanI), andthat 'qv- ppearsnthegenitivend ativef Ev'Sn omeColeman 26,Buck 3). H7oaEL-occurslso nAchaeanndAr, ntheatternherited,-rv-orZav-)also nElean. Homericndgenerallyultnfluenceeemsikely,tleastntheseast wo ases. Thetable isplayshe acts.

TABLEEVs. wrpo :R Et HocTE- Z'qv-I + + + + + +A + + + + +Argive + + + + +Theran + + + + +(E)Cretan + + + (+) +Coan + + + +Rhodian + + + +L + + ? +Corinthian + + +Megarian + ?Laconian +

Ofmorenteresto meatleasts i i (rot)which asthesamegeographicalxtensions#6Ka) and#7 0Ka), if, hats,wechoosetoregardhe onsonantsthe ecisiveactoratherhanhe owelntheatterase. Inboth#7 nd#iIwe findn nnovationommonoallGfailingomaketswaynDN B. And,nterestingly,herere tleastwo therasesnwhich efindN B operatingsaunit.



45/77

600 WILLIAM F. WYATT, JR. [I970DN B #i 7Tpo'a5a vs. lrpo'o?2E(v) (Coleman#37)

irpoa'a and other dverbsn -tka ccuronly nDN, though otalways,or fk,7pocTooEirETto5 appeartTroizenend Tpo'uJE atMegara(Buck 04-5): for heseast orms e canprobablyoldAttic nfluenceresponsible. ,TpOfE(v) etc. occursnAl L. AboutArC we cannotbe absolutelysure,but Ar does have Ov'aUEv (Schwyzer654.23) andpeocraKo5EV (Schwyzer664.7); Schwyzer I939: 628) also mentions7Tpoo5 which havebeenunable o ocate,rpouor9ayEvE'sSchwyzer66i.33, 35), theonlypossible bstacle o our assumptionf 7Tpo'o-2Ealso in ArC, is too uncertaino providecounter-evidence. n-fortunatelye haveno evidence orB, butsincet wentwithDN in#6and#7 n oweringhefinal owel,wemayassume hatt didsohereas well. It was a tendencyf NWG to lower final /e/ nadverbialwords, tendency e see alsowithya beside E ofotherdialectsBuck 24).3IDN B #2 7TpaTrogvs.-7TpCJ0roColeman#27,Buck#9)

As isfrequentlyhecasewhendealingwithDN B we areembar-rassed your gnorancefthePG form ndare onsequentlynable odecidewhichsthe nnovation.Opinions ifferidely n thehistoryofthesewords Schwyzer939: 595, Frisk .609-I0), but t is at leastclear, rshould e nspite fBuck 94),that othwords erive romsingle ncestor,nd that negroupof dialectsorarea ofGreece)hasinnovatednd theother reservedheoriginal orm: o askthat negroup f dialectshoose nevariantallomorph),nothernotherstoask oomuch. Themore osince he ialectalines re osimilarothosedrawn or ot lroandothers. Furthertmust ethe ase hatrpJroSderives rom proatosprobablyot*prowatos),ndthatTpairoS annotso derive,t leastnotdirectly. t seems herefore ost imple ndeconomical o assume n earlier1Tpda-roSfor rTpdrog.This olutionis elegantn itssimplicity,utfails o getus completelyutof thewoods,forwe are as ignorants everwe were boutwhat he arlierformwas: we caneasilymotivate7rpoa-rosg after TporEpos),butnot*nrnaaToC. and the etvmolooriaimiciliorould seemto dictate hat

31 Schwyzer I939: 628) is inclined, houghreluctantlycf. 627 n. 4) to identifyhe-Oa of DN B with E *-dhawhichmayoccur in e ia E'v6a9TE. ClearlyI feel thatheis wrongin this, nd thatwe need assumeforPG onlythe suffixa2E(v)n -Trpo'afE.



46/77

Vol. IOI] THE PREHISTORY OF THE GREEK DIALECTS 6oi*wpoaTog beananalogicaleshapingf 7TpaaTos, as ndeedtmaybe.A numberfconsiderationsrgeus to assume proatossthePG form:i) we cando nothingwith *7apaaTog, canconnectt withnootherwordin any E language;2) [r]notoriouslyas a loweringffectnmany anguages, nd did so quitedefinitelylater) n the NW ofGreeceBuck23-24): it mayhavehappened arliern thisword; 3)wehave lreadyeen lsewhere#6, N B #i) that nNWG there asa lowering fmidvowels ncertainositions.Itseems est o assumethe samehere lso,andposit proatos>*praatos>7rpaTos for N B.The question s stillopen,though,whetherrp6-roSmaynotbe anetymologicaleshapingfphonologicallyreated praatos. Since adiscussionf this ointwould takeus toofar field t present, e mayleave topenfor he ime eing.3ZThesetwoseemtobe theonlychangeshared y DN B alone inaddition fcourse o Risch#6, , I), andbothnvolve he oweringfa mid-vowel. This is notmuch,butwe shall ee later nstancesfNWG features hichB failed o adoptand NEG innovationshichfailed o reach N orB.

mThereseems ittle oint n discussingn greatdetailRisch's tems

I4-I6 since hey reallrecentevelopments:aavaa (I4) isan archaismwherevertoccurs; /ae/-> a:/- I5) seems estrictedoAI, though thassometimes eensupposed orArC aswell Wyatt964: I79-80);thedetails faoristso-4w verbsi6) are ocomplex hatittle efinitecanbesaid bout hismatter.I4) 7Tacvora> 7Taora 7TaZua (Coleman #I3)

Bot

Wyatt, The Prehistory of the Greek Dialects

Documents

Transcript of Wyatt, The Prehistory of the Greek Dialects