Proto-Greek language explained

Proto-Greek language should not be confused with Pre-Greek substrate.

Proto-Greek
Also Known As:Proto-Hellenic
Region:Southern Balkan Peninsula
Familycolor:Indo-European
Ancestor:Proto-Indo-European
Target:Hellenic languages / Ancient Greek dialects

The Proto-Greek language (also known as Proto-Hellenic) is the Indo-European language which was the last common ancestor of all varieties of Greek, including Mycenaean Greek, the subsequent ancient Greek dialects (i.e., Attic, Ionic, Aeolic, Doric, Arcadocypriot, and ancient Macedonian—either a dialect or a closely related Hellenic language) and, ultimately, Koine, Byzantine and Modern Greek (along with its variants). Proto-Greek speakers entered Greece sometime between 2200 and 1900BC, with the diversification into a southern and a northern group beginning by approximately 1700BC.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Origins

Proto-Greek emerged from the diversification of the late Proto-Indo-European language (PIE); a process whose last phase gave rise to the later language families and occurred .[6] Pre-Proto-Greek, the Indo-European dialect from which Proto-Greek originated, emerged, in an area which bordered pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian to the east and pre-Proto-Armenian and pre-Proto-Phrygian to the west, at the eastern borders of southeastern Europe; according to the Kurgan hypothesis. Speakers of what would become Proto-Greek, migrated from their homeland (which could have been northeast of the Black Sea), and reached Greece in a date set around the transition of the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age.[7] The evolution of Proto-Greek could be considered within the context of an early Paleo-Balkan sprachbund that makes it difficult to delineate exact boundaries between individual languages. The characteristically Greek representation of word-initial laryngeals by prothetic vowels is shared, for one, with the Armenian language, which also seems to share some other phonological and morphological peculiarities of Greek; this has led some linguists to propose a hypothetically closer relationship between Greek and Armenian, although evidence remains scant.[8]

According to Filos (2014), the emergence of Proto-Greek was a long and continuous linguistic evolution, as the predecessors of Greek speakers were migrating towards the outskirts of Greece, somewhere to the north(-west) of the Greek peninsula proper, where they eventually merged with pre-Greek populations to form the Proto-Greek language.[9] A. L. Katona (2000) places the beginning of the migration from Ukraine towards the south . Their proposed route of migration passed through Romania and the eastern Balkans to the Evros river valley from where their main body moved west. As such Katona as well as M.V Sakellariou agree that the main body of Greek speakers settled in a region that included southwestern Illyria, Epirus, northwestern Thessaly and western Macedonia.

Older theories like those of Vladimir I. Georgiev placed Proto-Greek in northwestern Greece and adjacent areas (approximately up to the Aulon river to the north), including Parauaea, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania, as well as west and north Thessaly (Histiaeotis, Perrhaibia, Tripolis), and Pieria in Macedonia, during the Late Neolithic.[10] [11] The boundaries are based on the high concentration of archaic Greek place-names in the region, in contrast to southern Greece which preserves many pre-Greek. Radoslav Katičić considered these findings highly significant, and agreed that due to the minimal traces of pre-Greek toponymy in the region, Epirus and western Thessaly must have formed the region of concentration of Proto-Greek speakers, before their spread southwards.[12] However, the dating of proto-Greek in Bronze Age Greece is compatible with the inherited lexicon from the common Proto-Indo-European language, which excludes any possibility of it being present in Neolithic Greece.[13]

In modern bibliography, models about the settlement and development of proto-Greek speakers in the Greek peninsula place it in the region at the earliest around 2200–2000 BC, during the Early Helladic III. Asko Parpola and Christian Carpelan (2005) date the arrival of Proto-Greek speakers into the Greek peninsula to 2200BC,[14] while Carl Blegen (1928) dates it to .[15]

Diversification

Ivo Hajnal dates the beginning of the diversification of Proto-Greek into the subsequent Greek dialects to a point not significantly earlier than 1700BC.[16] The conventional division of the Greek dialects prior to 1955 differentiated them between a West Greek (consisting of Doric and Northwest Greek) and an East Greek (consisting of Aeolic, Arcado-Cypriot, and Attic-Ionic) group. However, after the decipherment of the Linear B script, Walter Porzig and Ernst Risch argued for a division between a Northern (consisting of Doric, Northwest Greek, and Aeolic) and a Southern (consisting of Mycenaean, Arcado-Cypriot, and Attic-Ionic) group, which remains fundamental until today.

During this period of, South Greek-speaking tribes spread to Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese, while North Greek was spoken in Epirus, Thessaly, parts of Central Greece, and perhaps also Macedonia.[17]

Phonology

Proto-Greek is reconstructed with the following phonemes:

Consonants
Type Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Labiovelar Glottal
Nasal m n ɲ
Plosive p b pʰ t d tʰ ť ď k g kʰ kʷ gʷ kʷʰ
Affricatets dz
Fricatives h
Liquidl r ľ ř
Semivowelj w
Vowels
Type Front Center Back
Close i ī u ū
Mid e ē ə o ō
Open a ā

Proto-Greek changes

The primary sound changes separating Proto-Greek from the Proto-Indo-European language include the following.

Consonants

Changes to the aspirates

Major changes included:

Grassmann's law was a process of dissimilation in words containing multiple aspirates. It caused an initial aspirated sound to lose its aspiration when a following aspirated consonant occurred in the same word. It was a relatively late change in Proto-Greek history, and must have occurred independently[18] of the similar dissimilation of aspirates (also known as Grassmann's law) in Indo-Iranian, although it may represent a common areal feature. The change may have even been post-Mycenaean:

  1. It postdates the Greek-specific de-voicing of voiced aspirates;
  2. It postdates the change of pronounced as //s// > pronounced as //h//, which is then lost in the same environment: ékhō "I have" < *hekh- < PIE *seǵʰ-oh₂, but future heksō "I will have" < *heks- < Post-PIE *seǵʰ-s-oh₂;
  3. It postdates even the loss of aspiration before *y that accompanied second-stage palatalization (see below), which postdates both of the previous changes (as well as first-stage palatalization);
  4. On the other hand, it predates the development of the first aorist passive marker -thē- since the aspirate in that marker has no effect on preceding aspirates.
Laryngeal changes

Greek is unique among Indo-European languages in reflecting the three different laryngeals with distinct vowels. Most Indo-European languages can be traced back to a dialectal variety of late Proto-Indo-European (PIE) in which all three laryngeals had merged (after colouring adjacent short pronounced as //e// vowels), but Greek clearly cannot. For that reason, Greek is extremely important in reconstructing PIE forms.

Greek shows distinct reflexes of the laryngeals in various positions:

Proto-Indo-European Greek Vedic Sanskrit Latin
  • dʰh₁s- "sacred, religious"
θέσφατος (thésphatos) "decreed by God" धिष्ण्य (dhíṣṇya-) "devout" fānum "temple" < *fasnom < *dʰh̥₁s-no-
  • sth₂-to- "standing, being made to stand"
στατός (statós) स्थित (sthíta-) status
  • dh₃-ti- "gift"
δόσις (dósis) दिति (díti-) datiō

All of the cases may stem from an early insertion of pronounced as //e// next to a laryngeal not adjacent to a vowel in the Indo-European dialect ancestral to Greek (subsequently coloured to pronounced as //e//, pronounced as //a//, pronounced as //o// by the particular laryngeal in question) prior to the general merger of laryngeals:

A laryngeal adjacent to a vowel develops along the same lines as other Indo-European languages:

Palatalization

Consonants followed by consonantal *y were palatalized, producing various affricate consonants (still represented as a separate sound in Mycenaean) and geminated palatal consonants. Any aspiration was lost in the process. The palatalized consonants later simplified, mostly losing their palatal character. Palatalization occurred in two separate stages. The first stage affected only dental consonants, and the second stage affected all consonants.

=First palatalization

=The first palatalization replaced sequences of dental stop + *y with alveolar affricates:

Before After
  • ty, *tʰy
  • t͡s
  • dy
  • d͡z

The affricate derived from the first palatalization of *ty and *tʰy merged with the outcome of the inherited clusters *ts, *ds and *tʰs, all becoming *t͡s.[19]

=Restoration

=After the first palatalization changed *ty and *tʰy into *t͡s, the consonant *y was restored after original *t or *tʰ in morphologically transparent formations. The initial outcome of restoration may have been simply *ty and *tʰy, or alternatively, restoration may have yielded an affricate followed by a glide, *t͡sy, in the case of both original *t and original *tʰ. Either way, restored *t(ʰ)y would go on to merge via the second palatalization with the reflex of *k(ʰ)y, resulting in a distinct outcome from the *t͡s derived from the first palatalization. There may also have been restoration of *y after original *d in the same circumstances, but if so, it apparently merged with the *d͡z that resulted from the first palatalization before leaving any visible trace.

However, restoration is not evident in Mycenaean Greek, where the reflex of original *t(ʰ)y (which became a consonant transcribed as ⟨s⟩) is consistently written differently from the reflex of original *k(ʰ)y (which became a consonant transcribed as ⟨z⟩ via the second palatalization).

=Second palatalization

=The second palatalization affected all consonants. It took place following the resolution of syllabic laryngeals and sonorants, and prior to Grassmann's law.

The following table, based on American linguist Andrew Sihler, shows the outcomes of the second palatalization.

Before After
  • py, *pʰy
  • pť
  • ty, *tʰy (or *t͡sy)
  • ťť
  • ky, *kʰy
  • kʷy, *kʷʰy
(*d͡zy)
  • ďď
  • gy
  • gʷy
  • ly
  • ľľ
  • my, *ny
  • ňň
  • ry
  • řř
  • sy > *hy
  • yy
  • wy
  • ɥɥ > *yy

Sihler reconstructs the palatalized stops (shown in the above table as *ť *ď) with a degree of assibilation and transcribes them as *č *ǰ.

The resulting palatal consonants and clusters of Proto-Greek were resolved in varying ways prior to the historical period.

Proto-Greek Attic Homeric West Ionic Other Ionic Boeotian, Cretan Arcadian Cypriot Lesbian, Thessalian Other
  • pť
pt
  • t͡s
after short vowel s s, ss s tt s ss
final, initial, after *n,
after long vowel or diphthong 		s
  • ťť
medial intervocalic tt ss tt ss tt ss
  • d͡z, *ďď
zd dd zd
  • ľľ
ll i̯l ll
  • ňň
after α, ο i̯n unattested i̯n
after ε, ι, υ ːn nn ːn
  • řř
after α, ο i̯r
after ε, ι, υ ːr unattested rr ːr
  • yy
i̯

The restoration of *y after original *t or *tʰ (resulting in *ťť) occurred only in morphologically transparent formations, by analogy with similar formations in which *y was preceded by other consonants. In formations that were morphologically opaque, the restoration did not take place and the *t͡s that resulted from the first palatalization of *ty and *tʰy remained. Hence, depending on the type of formation, the pre-Proto-Greek sequences *ty and *tʰy have different outcomes in the later languages. In particular, medial *t(ʰ)y becomes Attic -s- in opaque formations but -tt- in transparent formations.

The outcome of PG medial *ts in Homeric Greek is s after a long vowel, and vacillation between s and ss after a short vowel: tátēsi dat. pl. "rug" < tátēt-, possí(n)/posí(n) dat. pl. "foot" < pod-. This was useful for the composer of the Iliad and Odyssey, since possí with double s scans as long-short, while posí with single s scans as short-short. Thus the writer could use each form in different positions in a line.

Examples of initial *t͡s:

Examples of medial *t͡s (morphologically opaque forms, first palatalization only):

Examples of medial *ťť (morphologically transparent forms, first and second palatalization):

For comparison, examples of initial *ť from *k(ʰ)y by the second palatalization:

For words with original *dy, no distinction is found in any historically attested form of Greek between the outcomes of the first and second palatalizations, and so there is no visible evidence of an opposition between *d͡z and a secondary restored cluster *d͡zy > *ďď. However, it is reasonable to think that words with *dy originally underwent parallel treatment to words with original *ty and *tʰy.[21] The reflex of *dy also merged with the reflex of *g(ʷ)y, with one of the two word-initial reflexes of PIE *y-, and with original *sd, as in PIE *h₃esdos/osdos > όζος 'branch' or PIE *si-sd- > ἵζω 'take a seat'.[22] The merger with *sd was probably post-Mycenaean, but occurred before the introduction of the Greek alphabet.[23]

Vowels

Cowgill's law

In Proto-Greek, Cowgill's law says that a former pronounced as //o// vowel becomes pronounced as //u// between a resonant (pronounced as //r//, pronounced as //l//, pronounced as //m//, pronounced as //n//) and a labial consonant (including labiovelars), in either order.

Examples:

Note that when a labiovelar adjoins an pronounced as //o// affected by Cowgill's law, the new pronounced as //u// will cause the labiovelar to lose its labial component (as in Greek, Modern (1453-);: núks and Greek, Modern (1453-);: ónuks/ónukh-, where the usual Greek change *pronounced as //kʷ// > pronounced as //p// has not occurred).

Prosody

Proto-Greek retained the Indo-European pitch accent, but developed a number of rules governing it:

Post-Proto-Greek changes

Sound changes that postdate Proto-Greek, but predate the attested dialects, including Mycenaean Greek, include:

The following changes are apparently post-Mycenaean because early stages are represented in Linear B:

Note that pronounced as //w// and pronounced as //j//, when following a vowel and not preceding a vowel, combined early on with the vowel to form a diphthong and so were not lost.

Loss of pronounced as //h// and pronounced as //w// after a consonant was often accompanied by compensatory lengthening of a preceding vowel.

The development of labiovelars varies from dialect to dialect:

The results of vowel contraction were complex from dialect to dialect. Such contractions occur in the inflection of a number of different noun and verb classes and are among the most difficult aspects of Ancient Greek grammar. They were particularly important in the large class of contracted verbs, denominative verbs formed from nouns and adjectives ending in a vowel. (In fact, the reflex of contracted verbs in Modern Greek, the set of verbs derived from Ancient Greek contracted verbs, represents one of the two main classes of verbs in that language.)

Morphology

Nouns

Proto-Greek preserved the gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and number (singular, dual, plural) distinctions of the nominal system of Proto-Indo-European. However, the evidence from Mycenaean Greek is inconclusive with regard to whether all eight cases continued to see complete usage, but this is more secure for the five standard cases of Classical Greek (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative) and probably also the instrumental in its usual plural suffix -pʰi and the variant /-ṓis/ for o-stem nouns. The ablative and locative are uncertain; at the time of Mycenaean texts they may have been undergoing a merger with the genitive and dative respectively. It is thought that the syncretism between cases proceeded faster for the plural, with dative and locative already merged as -si (the Proto-Indo-European locative plural having been *-su-).[26] This merger may have been motivated by analogy to the locative singular -i-. Nevertheless, seven case distinctions are securely attested in Mycenaean in some domain, with the status of the ablative unclear.[27]

Significant developments attributed to the Proto-Greek period include:

The Proto-Greek nominal system is thought to have included cases of gender change according to number, heteroclisy and stem alternation (ex. genitive form húdatos for húdōr "water").

The superlative in -tatos becomes productive.

The peculiar oblique stem gunaik- "women", attested from the Thebes tablets is probably Proto-Greek. It appears, at least as gunai- in Armenian as well.

Examples of noun declension

  • agrós, agrójjo (field), m.

!Case!Singular!Dual!Plural

Nom.
  • agrós < PIE *h₂éǵros
  • agrṓ < PIE *h₂éǵroh₁
  • agrói < PIE *h₂éǵroes
Gen.
  • agróyyo < *h₂éǵrosyo
  • agróyyun < ?
  • agrṓn < *h₂éǵroHom
Dat.
  • agrṓi < *h₂éǵroey
  • agróyyun < ?
  • agróis < *h₂éǵromos
Acc.
  • agrón < *h₂éǵrom
  • agrṓ < *h₂éǵroh₁
  • agróns < *h₂éǵroms
Voc.
  • agré < *h₂éǵre
  • agrṓ < *h₂éǵroh₁
  • agrói < *h₂éǵroes
Loc.
  • agrói, -éi < *h₂éǵroy, -ey
?
  • agróihi < *h₂éǵroysu
Instr.
  • agrṓ < *h₂éǵroh₁
?
  • agrṓis < *h₂éǵrōys
  • pʰugā́, pʰugā́s (fugue), f.

!Case!Singular!Dual!Plural

Nom.
  • pʰugā́ < PIE *bʰugéh₂
  • pʰugáe < PIE *bʰugéh₂h₁(e)
  • pʰugái < PIE *bʰugéh₂es
Gen.
  • pʰugā́s < *bʰugéh₂s
  • pʰugáyyun < ?
  • pʰugā́ōn < *bʰugéh₂oHom
Dat.
  • pʰugā́i < *bʰugéh₂ey
  • pʰugáyyun < ?
  • pʰugáis < *bʰugéh₂mos
Acc.
  • pʰugā́n < *bʰugā́m
  • pʰugáe < *bʰugéh₂h₁(e)
  • pʰugáns < *bʰugéh₂m̥s
Voc.
  • pʰugā́ < *bʰugéh₂
  • pʰugáe < *bʰugéh₂h₁(e)
  • pʰugái < *bʰugéh₂es
Loc.
  • pʰugā́i? < *bʰugéh₂i
?
  • pʰugā́hi < *bʰugéh₂su
Instr.
  • pʰugā́ < *bʰugéh₂h₁
?
  • pʰugā́is < *bʰugéh₂mis
  • dzugón, dzugójjo (yoke), n.

!Case!Singular!Dual!Plural

Nom.
  • dzugón < PIE *yugóm
  • dzugṓ < PIE *yugóy(h₁)
  • dzugá < PIE *yugéh₂
Gen.
  • dzugóyyo < *yugósyo
  • dzugóyyun < ?
  • dzugṓn < *yugóHom
Dat.
  • dzugṓi < *yugóey
  • dzugóyyun < ?
  • dzugóis < *yugómos
Acc.
  • dzugón < *yugóm
  • dzugṓ < *yugóy(h₁)
  • dzugá < *yugéh₂
Voc.
  • dzugón < *yugóm
  • dzugṓ < *yugóy(h₁)
  • dzugá < *yugéh₂
Loc.
  • dzugói, -éi < *yugóy, *-éy
?
  • dzugóihi < *yugóysu
Instr.
  • dzugṓ < *yugóh₁
?
  • dzugṓis < *yugṓys

("Yoke" in later Proto-Hellenic and both Classical and Modern Greek is masculine due to a gender shift from *-ón to *-ós).

Pronouns

The pronouns hoûtos, ekeînos and autós are created. The use of ho, hā, to as articles is post-Mycenaean.

!Pronoun!Proto-Hellenic < PIE
I
You
  • tú < *túh₂
He
  • autós < *h₂ewtos (from *h₂ew, "again", and *to, "that")
She
  • autā́ < *h₂ewtéh₂
It
  • autó < *h₂ewtó
We two
  • nṓwi < ?
You two
  • spʰṓwi < ?
They (two)
  • spʰо̄é < ?
We
  • əhmé(e)s < *usmé [accusative of *yū́(s)]
You (all)
  • uhmé(e)s
They (m.)? (Attic Greek: autoí)
They (f.)? (Attic Greek: autaí)
They (n.)? (Attic Greek: autá)

Verbs

Proto-Greek inherited the augment, a prefix e-, to verbal forms expressing past tense. That feature is shared only with Indo-Iranian and Phrygian (and to some extent, Armenian), lending some support to a "Graeco-Aryan" or "Inner PIE" proto-dialect. However, the augment down to the time of Homer remained optional and was probably little more than a free sentence particle, meaning "previously" in the proto-language, which may easily have been lost by most other branches. Greek, Phrygian, and Indo-Iranian also concur in the absence of r-endings in the middle voice, in Greek apparently already lost in Proto-Greek.

The first person middle verbal desinences -mai, -mān replace -ai, -a. The third singular phérei is an innovation by analogy, replacing the expected Doric *phéreti, Ionic *phéresi (from PIE *).

The future tense is created, including a future passive as well as an aorist passive.

The suffix -ka- is attached to some perfects and aorists.

Infinitives in -ehen, -enai and -men are created.

An example of verb in Proto-Hellenic

  • ágō (I drive), thematic

!Pronoun!Verb (present)

I
  • ágō < PIE *h₂éǵoh₂
You
  • ágehi < *h₂éǵesi
He, she, it
  • ágei < *h₂éǵeti
We two
  • ágowos < *h₂éǵowos

(*ágowes, *ágowen)

You two
  • ágetes < *h₂éǵetes

(*ágetos, *ágeton)

They (two)
  • ágetes < *h₂éǵetes

(*ágetos, *ágeton)

We
  • ágomes < *h₂éǵomos

(*ágomen)

You (all)
  • ágete < *h₂éǵete
They
  • ágonti < *h₂éǵonti
  • ehmí (to be), athematic

!Pronoun!Verb (present)

I
  • ehmí < PIE *h₁ésmi
You
  • ehí < *h₁ési
He, she, it
  • estí < *h₁ésti
We two
  • eswén? < *h₁swós
You two
  • estón < *h₁stés
They (two)
  • estón < *h₁stés
We
  • esmén < *h₁smós
You (all)
  • esté < *h₁sté
They
  • ehénti < *h₁sénti

An example of adjective in Proto-Hellenic

  • néwos, -ā, -on (new)

!Case(singular)!PIE(singular)!PE(singular)

Nom.
  • néwos, néweh₂, néwom
  • néwos, néwā, néwon
Gen.
  • néwosyo, néweh₂s, néwosyo
  • néwoyyo, néwās, néwoyyo
Dat.
  • néwoey, néweh₂ey, néwoey
  • néwōi, néwāi, néwōi
Acc.
  • néwom, néwām, néwom
  • néwon, néwān, néwon
Voc.
  • néwe, néweh₂, néwom
  • néwe, néwa, néwon
Loc.
  • néwoy/ey, néweh₂i, néwoy/ey
  • néwoi/ei, néwai, néwoi/ei
Instr.
  • néwoh₁, néweh₂h₁, néwoh₁
  • néwō, néwā, néwō
!Case(singular)!PIE(singular)!PE(singular)
Nom.
  • néwoes, néweh₂es, néweh₂
  • néwoi, néwai, néwa
Gen.
  • néwoHom, néweh₂oHom, néwoHom
  • néwōn, néwāōn, néwōn
Dat.
  • néwomos, néweh₂mos, néwomos
  • néwois, néwais, néwois
Acc.
  • néwoms, néweh₂m̥s, néweh₂
  • néwons, néwans, néwa
Voc.
  • néwoes, néweh₂es, néweh₂
  • néwoi, néwai, néwa
Loc.
  • néwoysu, néweh₂su, néwoysu
  • néwoihi, néwāhi, néwoihi
Instr.
  • néwōys, néweh₂mis, néwōys
  • néwois, néwais, néwois

Numerals

Proto-Greek numerals were derived directly from Indo-European.

Summary of numerals in Proto-Hellenic

!Number!PIE!PE
One (1)
  • h₁óynos
  • óynos
Two (2)
  • dúwō
  • dwóh₁
Three (3)
  • tréyes
  • tréyes
Four (4)
  • kʷétwores
  • kʷetwóres
Five (5)
  • pénkʷe
  • pénkʷe
Six (6)
  • hwéks
  • swéḱs
Seven (7)
  • heptə́
  • septḿ̥
Eight (8)
  • oktṓ
  • (h₁)oḱtṓw
Nine (9)
  • ennéwə
  • h₁néwn̥
Ten (10)
  • dékə
  • déḱm̥
One hundred (100)
  • hekətón
  • heḱm̥tóm or *h₁ḱm̥tóm

(*ḱm̥tóm: "100")

One thousand (1000)
  • kʰehliyoi
  • ǵʰesliyoy (< *ǵʰéslom, "1000")

See also

References

Further reading

Notes and References

  1. Book: Hall, Jonathan M.. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. 1997. 978-0-521-78999-8. 160. en. 2021-02-11. 2023-03-26. https://web.archive.org/web/20230326113549/https://books.google.com/books?id=F4Am6gcP0GsC&pg=PA160. live.
  2. Book: Woodard, Roger D.. The Ancient Languages of Europe. Cambridge University Press. 2008. 978-1-139-46932-6. 52. en. 2021-02-11. 2023-03-26. https://web.archive.org/web/20230326113548/https://books.google.com/books?id=aPEENAEp938C&q=north%20versus%20south&pg=PA52. live.
  3. Book: Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. John Wiley & Sons. 2010. 978-1-4443-1892-0. 19–20. en. 2021-02-11. 2023-03-26. https://web.archive.org/web/20230326113548/https://books.google.com/books?id=BwHPKIUXKGsC&q=east%20greek&pg=PA19. live.
  4. Parker. Holt N.. 2008. The Linguistic Case for the Aiolian Migration Reconsidered. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 77. 3. 443–444. 10.2972/hesp.77.3.431. 40205757. 161497388. 0018-098X.
  5. A comprehensive overview is in J. T. Hooker's Mycenaean Greece ; for a different hypothesis excluding massive migrations and favoring an autochthonous scenario, see Colin Renfrew's "Problems in the General Correlation of Archaeological and Linguistic Strata in Prehistoric Greece: The Model of Autochthonous Origin" in Bronze Age Migrations by R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, eds. (1973).
  6. .
  7. Book: Demand . Nancy . The Mediterranean Context of Early Greek History . 2012 . Wiley . 978-1-4051-5551-9 . 49 . 2020-08-20 . 2023-03-26 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230326113548/https://books.google.com/books?id=Z6rsLG3NbSgC&pg=PA49 . live .
  8. .

  9. "The emergence of Proto-Greek happened during a long, continuous linguistic process which involved numerous changes in all major linguistic fields (phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon), as a migrating population of (soon-to-become) Greek speakers were en route to/on the outskirts of Greece, i.e., somewhere to the north(-west) of the Greek peninsula proper. But Proto-Greek was practically formed after the arrival of its speakers in Greece and their merger with pre-Greek populations (Pre-Greek Languages; Pre-Greek Substrate), as is indicated, inter alia, by the high number of loanwords (e.g. sûkon 'fig') and suffixes (e.g. -nthos, -s(s)os/-ttos) which were borrowed into Proto-Greek (see (6), (7) below)."

  10. .
  11. Book: Feuer . Bryan . Mycenaean Civilization: An Annotated Bibliography through 2002, rev. ed. . 2 March 2004 . McFarland . 978-0-7864-1748-3 . 67 . en . Supports an interpretation of Marija Gimbutas' Kurgan theory involving the migration of a proto-Greek population which arrived in Greece during the Early Helladic period. . 28 September 2020 . 26 March 2023 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230326113552/https://books.google.com/books?id=3SQTBQAAQBAJ . live .
  12. Book: Katicic, Radoslav . Ancient Languages of the Balkans (Part 1) . . 978-3-11-156887-4 . Winter . Werner . Werner Winter (linguist) . Trends in Linguistics: State-of-the-art Reports . 4 . 2012 . 1976 . 122–123 . en . Radoslav Katičić.
  13. Book: Mallory . J.P. . Blench . Roger . Spriggs . Matthew . Archaeology and Language I: Theoretical and Methodological Orientations . 2003 . Routledge . 1-134-82877-2 . https://books.google.com/books?id=H9qJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 . The Homeland of the Indo-Europeans . 101 . 2020-08-20 . 2023-03-26 . https://web.archive.org/web/20230326113619/https://books.google.com/books?id=H9qJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 . live .
  14. Book: Asko Parpola. Christian Carpelan. The cultural counterparts to Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan : matching the dispersal and contact patterns in the linguistic and archaeological record. Edwin Bryant. Laurie L. Patton. The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. https://books.google.com/books?id=fHYnGde4BS4C&pg=PA131. 2005. Psychology Press. 978-0-7007-1463-6. 107–141. 2020-08-21. 2023-03-26. https://web.archive.org/web/20230326113550/https://books.google.com/books?id=fHYnGde4BS4C&pg=PA131. live.
  15. Book: Drews . Robert . The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East . 1994 . Princeton University Press . 0-691-02951-2 . 14 .
  16. Book: Hajnal . Ivo . Hajnal . Ivo . Stefan . Barbara . Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden. Akten des Kolloquiums, Freie Universität Berlin, 19.–22. September 2001 . 2007 . Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck . Innsbruck, Austria . 136 . de . Die Vorgeschichte der griechischen Dialekte: ein methodischer Rück- und Ausblick . 2020-05-06 . 2021-10-28 . https://web.archive.org/web/20211028232020/https://www.academia.edu/2382692 . live .

  17. "In sum, the most likely scenario is as follows (see the tentative tree in). In the first centuries of the second millennium, Proto-Greek was undifferentiated, although there was no doubt some variation, as well as affinities with other Balkan languages. Around 1700, South Greek-speaking tribes penetrated into Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese, while North Greek was spoken roughly in Thessaly, parts of Central Greece, and further North and West (up to Epirus, and perhaps also Macedonia). During the early Mycenaean period, South Greek diverged by the assibilation of *ti, the simplification of word-internal *ts and *ss, and a number of morphological innovations. Scholars often date the immigration into the Peloponnese to the end of the third millennium, but I would prefer a later date coinciding with the beginning of Late Helladic, in the seventeenth century BCE (cf. Hajnal 2005). This would fit the linguistic data best, as reconstructible differences between South Greek and North Greek in the late Mycenaean period are relatively small."

  18. Book: 227. Benjamin W. Fortson IV. Indo-European Language and Culture. 2004. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  19. .
  20. Lengthened -ei due to Attic analogical lengthening in comparatives.
  21. .
  22. .
  23. Teodorsson . Sven-Tage . 1979 . On the Pronunciation of Ancient Greek Zeta . Lingua . 47 . 4 . 323–332. 10.1016/0024-3841(79)90078-0 .
  24. .
  25. .
  26. Book: 226. Benjamin W. Fortson IV. Indo-European Language and Culture. 2004. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  27. Ramón, José Luis García (2017). "The morphology of Greek". In Klein, Joseph and Fritz (2017), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Page 654.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Proto-Greek language".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.