HESPERIA JJ (2OO8) Pages43I~4^4

THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION RECONSIDERED

ABSTRACT
thepresence ofspeakers ofLesbianin thenortheast AegeandurAscribing from mainland times to the of Aiolian tribes Greece historical migration ing is not or even from the receives nosupport Migration only primary linguistics. on reexaminaand dialects Moreover, mayspread. wayin which languages falls theideaofanAiolicdialect Boiotian, tion, bythe group apart. separated and as from Lesbian FirstCompensatory Thessalian, appears Lengthening In Lesbian mostclosely related to WestGreek. turn, a conservative dialect, ofGreek that share nodemonstrable areboth archaic branches andThessalian relicareasofa innovations. common Theyarebestviewedas twoseparate Greek. unaltered early relatively - an of streams disworld thislegendary To pass from aggregate comeintoconfluwhichdo notwillingly tinct and heterogeneous, - intothevisionafforded to intermix ence,and cannotbe forced himthatin the500s B.C.thewhole we learnfrom byHerodotus, of to thepromontory from Dardanussouthward coast-region Lektumeastward thetownofIlium),and from Lektum(including had beenAeolised,orwas occupiedbyAeolic to Adramyttium, theinlandtownsof Skepsisand Kebren.1 Greeks likewise of BrianRose, as setout in thepreThis papergrewout of theresearch As head of thepost-Bronze in thisissueofHesperia? Age cedingarticle in consensus Rose had long acceptedthe scholarly at Troy, excavations
1. Grote 1888, vol. 1, p. 305, referringto Hdt. 1.149-151. 2. Rose 2008. My thanksare due to Brian Rose, Don Ringe, Ronald Kim, forHesand the anonymousreviewers clarifications. and discussion for peria Certain conventionsand abbreviationscommon in historicallinguistics * are used in this article.An asterisk or reconstructed marksan unattested A daggert marksa formthatwe form. The American School of Classical mightexpectfromthe rulesbut does not occur.The sign > means "develops to" (and the sign < means "develops from")an earlierformby regularsound changes.The sign -> means "is replaced by,"i.e., develops froman earlierform or some other by analogy,replacement, A process. dash marks nonphonological and boundaries. morpheme h3 ht,h2, stand forthe e-y a-yand o-coloring Capital letters laryngeals, respectively. Studies at Athens markany (or an unknown)representativeof thatclass. So C = any consonant; Kw - anylabiovelar; H = anylaryngeal; P = anylabial; R = any resonant(I, r, my n); T= any dental; V= anyvowel. An apostrophe(C) markspalatalization. Glosses are given in singlequotes ('moon'). Phonological rulesor changes are written with a slash / to indicate and a blank _ to the environment show where the phoneme stands:for

432

HOLT N. PARKER

whichIron Age settlements in the northeastern Aegean were founded colonists from in an area mainland Greece.When he by Aiolic-speaking examined thearchaeological no good evidence he found remains, however, for thisscenario, and was forced to concludethatthecommunis was opinio incorrect. He askedme to contribute a discussion situaof thelinguistic tion.As I reexamined thedata,it becameclearthatthe standard viewof an Aiolic dialectfamily is faulty, and I too havebeen forced to conclude, almostreluctantly, thatourearlier ideas cannotbe supported.

THE TRIPOD
The theory of an Aiolian migration restson threelegs: archaeological, and For the first, Rose concludes:"At no historical, linguistic (Fig. 1). timeduringthe early1st millennium do we have evidenceforattacks, forthe arrival of a new population or foranysubstantive group, change in ceramic Other scholars have if not been bothered noted, production."3 evidence.Gschnitzer, forexample, writes: by,the lack of archaeological "The migration toAsia Minor, whichwe couldassume was a consequence of the driveforcolonization, has apparently not yet been successfully dated archaeologically; it musthave occurred before the corresponding, but equallyundated, of the Ionians."4 Coldstream a migration expresses similar view:"These Aeolians,according to literary had migrated sources, from their former homesin Boeotia and Thessalyat leastas earlyas the movement ofIonians;yetthearchaeological record castsvery little parallel on them before the late ... At we have no light eighthcentury. present reliable evidence thecoming ofthefirst Aeolians archaeological concerning to Lesbos."5 Nordo theconflicting accounts ofthecolonization ofAiolis legendary such accounts have been as sosupply convincing support. Though accepted berhistory Rosehasshown howthese andother accounts bysome, mythical B.C. developedand wereadaptedin the courseof the 6th-5thcenturies fora variety ofcultural In the accounts purposes.6 particular, genealogical are merely to connectlocal aristocracies to the royalfamily of attempts or a ancestor as a convenient father Aiolos,who serves Mycenae putative
Kw > T/_ e readsas "a labioexample, velar becomes thecorresponding dental in theenvironment before e."Language abbreviations: Ark.= Arkadian; Att.Ion. = Attic-Ionic; Boiot.= Boiotian; Cret.= Cretan; Dor. = Cyp.= Cyprian; Germ.= GerDoric;Eng.= English; Lak. = Lakoman;Horn.= Homeric; = Lesb. nian; Lesbian; Myc.= Myce= PGrk= naean;Pamph. Pamphylian; PIE = Proto-Indo-EuroProto-Greek; Skt.= pean;SGrk= SouthGreek; = Thes. Thessalian. Common Sanskrit; abbreviations ofgrammatical terms are alsoused. nom., ace, (e.g., sing., pl.) 3. Rose2008,p. 420. 4. Gschnitzer 2002,cols.227-228. I failto follow theauthor s use of"must have" here. He gives hisreasons: "as extended their to the they territory north to thecoastoftheA[eolians] Phocaea Aeolian; (Smyrna previously on theedgeoftheAeolianhinterland; Aeoliansubstrate in thenorthern Ioniandialects)." I am notsure I see howanyofthese indicates of priority settlement. The linguistic evidence is useless sincemostscholars varexplain iousfeatures ofLesbianbyrecourse to Ionic influence on it (see below). 5. Coldstream 2003,pp.262-263. 6. Rose2008,pp.401-404.Hammond(1975) usesThucydides' account to produce datessupposedly accurate towithin a decade: ca. War, Trojan 1200 B.C.; Thessalian ca. 1140; invasion, Aiolicmigration to Lesbos,ca. 1130; Dorianinvasion, ca. 112O.Thessalians andBoiotians areimagined as a part of an invading ofNorthwest Greeks, group in Epiros. Northwest Greek originating andDoric aretreated as correctly subfamilies ofWestGreek, howwhich, Hammond ever, (1975,p. 703) holdsto be closely related toMycenaean.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

433

oftraditional Figure1. Distribution Mediin the eastern dialectgroups

Hainsworth terranean. After 1982,p. 859, 28 map

actual for theunaffiliated, andcannot be usedto infer tribal, gefigure in affiliations. 1893 summed or netic, linguistic Meyer rightly up:"Oneis were notDoricorIonicwere toconclude that allGreek tribes that forced AioHc.'"7 designated sources is gently corrected Undue toward theclassical byCook: piety which alone a carries no "Theconnexion with Orestes, gives precise dating, . . . As hefurther "the Greek had a conviction." horror notes, antiquarians into a chronological like this were translated vacui Stories system." duly of "Theschematic traditions the concludes: He sensibly migrations prose to havebeen theTrojan Warseemin general to theEastAegeanafter clear B.C."8 Under that ofthefifth light, many pretty century compilations ofa complex andeven theexact dates the butfanciful showing paths maps must andsackings ofmigrations, series invasions, disappear.9 at thebeginning ofthis us in thepassage As Grote reminds quoted there is and such after mythological article, history reconstructions, only - we ataround 600 B.C. andAlkaios, fact. As attested a single bySappho
nameAeolus, mythological personal ofwhich wasprobtheearliest bearer as theproablysecondarily interpreted andon the oftheA[eolians], genitor thetheories handwith other concerning intoa few oftheGreeks thedivision tribes thenameA[eoliwhereby large that couldnotbe an] covered everything to theDoriansortheIonians." ascribed 8. Cook 1975,p. 777. 9. E.g.,Hammond 1976,p. 142.An ofthismapis still version preadapted albeit as a "conjectural reconsented, in introductory works such struction," as Cartledge 2002,p. 45. See alsosimilarmapsin Grant1994,pp. 12-13; Morkot 1996,p. 47.

Aioles 7. RE 1,1893,col. 1031,s.v. col. Gschnitzer 228) (2002, (E. Meyer). of thestatement out, "Regarding points that theA[eoofantiquity thescholars in certain areas lians]hadoncesettled in contrast there ofGreece, [toThuc. is, to go on.This is 3.102.5],notmuch areconon theone handthey because ofthe theappearance with nected

434

HOLT

N. PARKER

can pushGrotes dateback a bit a dispeopleon Lesbos werespeaking tinctive Greekdialect, one thatmodern consider to be related to linguists thedialects of ofBoiotiaandThessaly(Fig. l).The onlysurviving the leg is theidea thatinThessalianand Boiotianwe havea case of then, tripod, a unified in thiscase the Doric speakers dialectarea splitbylatecomers, of Northwest with Lesbian as an That is the Greek, outlying province.10 of this subject paper.

THE QUESTION OF AIOLIC

Chadwickhas observed that"theancients, from Hesiod on,distinguished three families ofGreek-speaking Dorians, Ionians,and Aeolians. peoples: Modernscholars this as a for the Doric andIonicdiabasis, accepted rough lects wereplainly identified."11 There recognizable Aeolicwas lesseasily is indeeda problem withtheAiolic dialect, and it needsreexamination. In antiquity, and derivatives referred AioA,e\)<;, AioAaicoq, onlyto the inhabitants ofAiolisproper and the shores of Asia (Lesbos Minor) adjacent andtheir The useof "Aiolic" torefer to a family madeup ofAiolian speech.12 and Boiotianis a modern creation in 1839.13 Thessalian, proper, byAhrens In thisarticle, I use theterm "Lesbian"to refer to thedialectoftheisland and Asia Minor, "Aiolic" to refer to theconventionally of accepted family and "Aiolian" to refer to theconventionally dialects, acceptedtribes. Cook gives a goodstatement ofthestandard from argument linguistics: "Thereis atpresent no goodground for the belief that theGreek disputing citiesoftheSouthern Aeolis (on theAsiaticmainland) werefoundations oftheDark Age. In later times thedialectofLesbos and theAeolisborea closeresemblance toThessalianand Boeotian, andin thefifth B.C. century theAeoliansofLesbos andCymerecognized a kinship withtheBoeotians. The new settlers from theseregions."14 maywellhavecome mainly
10. This scenariois cited as a standardexample in linguistictextbooks; see, e.g., Hock and Joseph 1996, pp. 346-365. 11. Chadwick 1956, pp. 38-39. See Hes. fr.9 MW: "EMtivo; 8' eyevovxo xe /Acopoq <pita)7tToAiuou paaiA,fio<; 5oi)66<;xe mi Aiotax;unuo%dpuTi<; (The sons of war-lovingking Hellen were Doros and Xouthos and Aiolos the chariot-fighter). Xouthos is the ancestorof the Ionians. See also Chadwick 1975, p. 811, where he refers to the ambiguouspositionof the Aiolic group.Hainsworth (1982, p. 861) also notes thatdifficult problemsare posed by the developmentof Aiolic. 12. Rose (2008, pp. 402-403) discusses the contradictory claims thatan area of mainland Greece was called Aiolis at some earlierpoint. Hdt. 7.176.4: Thessaly,probablyspecifically Thessaliotis;Thuc. 3.102.5: Aiolis located at Kalydon and Pleuron,on the Aitolian coast; Apollod. 1.7.3: Aiolos was king of the regionsabout Thessaly and named the inhabitants Aiolians; Paus. 10.8.4: the Boiotians,who in more ancienttimesinhabitedThessaly and were then called Aiolians; Diod. Sic. 4.67.2: "whatwas thenAiolis and is now called Thessaly."The scholia on Pindar (Ol. 1.162, 164) reportthatthe Aiolians inhabitedThebes, but thisis no more than a guess to explainwhy Pindar talksabout the Aiolian mode of music (xwe<;8e cpaaivoti avcoGev 6 n(v8apo<;); cf.Schol. AioXeix;to yevo<; Nem. 3.136, which refers to the Aiolians settling in Thebes. Furtherafield is Hdt. 7.197, which locates Athamas, son of Aiolos, in Alos in Akhaia. In sum, a vague idea existedthat somewherein the northan area was once called Aiolis, but whether Thesor Aitolia is Boiotia, Akhaia, saly, unclear.All of these seem to be backprojections.So Meyer (RE I, 1893, col. 1030, s.v.Aioles) wrotedryly that "the onlypeople who bore this name were the Aiolians of Asia Minor from Lesbos, Kyme,etc.These tracedthemselvesback to an eponymousAiolos, who as the father of the Aiolian heroes must Athamas, Kretheus, etc.,naturally have lived in Thessaly."He goes on: "however, undoubtedlythe home of the Aeolians is to be soughthere." 13. Ahrens 1839-1843, vol. 1, p. 3. See also Thumb and Kieckers1932, pp. 49-50, 60. 14. Cook 1975, p. 777. He gives no sourceforthe supposed kinshipand I am unable to findone: Mela 1.90, Veil. Pat. 1.4.4, and VitaHomeri1.2 give no support.Strabo 13.3.6 shows

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

435

This scenario, is notwithout its troubles. Cook also notes however, thattheHomerictradition Greek ofLesbos before recognized occupation theTrojanWar.15 His rightly cautiousconclusion is thatone cannotassumethattheDark Age migrations werethefirst Greekor Aiolic settlementofLesbos,butonlythatGreeksettlement there is notlikely to have occurred before 2300 or after 1000 B.C.The two scenarios, are however, neverreconciled. We seem to have Greeks(presumably Aiolic speakers) on Lesbos before theTrojanWar,butwe need a secondmigration from around and Boiotia to the Asian mainland. Thessaly people In sum,as Rose has shownin thepreceding thecase forthis article, rests almostentirely on thelinguistic evimigration supposedprehistoric denceofthethree whicharethought tobe closely related. We have dialects, ofthree thentwoquestions before us:Is thepresence related butgeographdialects best the of from icallyseparated explained by migration speakers in factrelated? And arethedialects theone dialectareato theother?

HOW LANGUAGES SPREAD

thefirst three basicpointsneedto be made:(1) there To answer question, between connection is no necessary groupsand language;(2) population culture and language; is no necessary connection betweenmaterial there betweenchangesin languageand connection (3) thereis no necessary in changes population.16 ifoften Once theyare actwopointsare obvious, The first ignored. to that we are forced state however, quitefirmly all claimsto link cepted, in prehistory areforms of specialpleading.17 culture languageto material Before themodern a little elaboration. The third deserves period, point encounfrom face-to-face all changesin a languageor dialectproceeded is not the of peoplesoverlong distances mass movement ters.However, A new languageor dialectcan,of of suchencounters.18 onlymechanism This scenario, ofthatlanguage ordialect. withnewspeakers arrive course,
thatany notionof kinshipin historical of Hesiod's timeswas just an outgrowth fromKyme tale of his father migrating to Boiotia (and not the otherdirection): Hes. Op. 635-638. 15. Hymn.Horn. Ap. 37. Achilles had sacked Lesbos (//.9.129 = 9.271) and his bootyincluded a woman bearing a Greek name and patrilineage, Diomede daughterof Phorbas. Incidental characters, however, usuallyhave Greek names (Hainsworth 1993, ad loc.) and thereis a Trojan Phorbas as well (//.14.490). Odysseus has a matchon Lesbos with a wrestling Philomeleides(Od. 4.342-346 = 17.133-135). His people are there with the Akhaians and, for contrasted with the Hellenes by what it is worth, Hellanikos of Lesbos {FGrHA F10). 16. See Pejros 1997, pp. 155-156: between the two "A directcorrelation and archaeological] accounts [linguistic is theoretically impossible . . . the sole linkbetween them is the community itself.. . . Members of two communities can speak the same language(s) yethave or materialcultures, totallydifferent cultures theycan havingsimilarmaterial different languages. speak absolutely does not Change in one characteristic in others." necessarily implychanges Mallory and Adams (2006, pp. 449453) discussin detail the theoretical of what theycall "retrospeclimitations tive"and "prospective" archaeology. 17. Crossland 1973, p. 7, is a good example. Cf. Chadwick 1975, p. 815: forthereis "We mustadvance warily, no directconnexionbetween the culturesdistinguished by the archaeologist and the linguistic groupsdistinguished There is forinby the dialect-historian. which stance no archaeologicalfeature can be used as a certaintestforDorian occupation.None the less ..."A common ploy is to rejectany modernevidence, on the (oftenunstatedand algroundsthat"things ways incorrect) were simplerback then."Once historiall cal examples are rejected, however, thatremainsare unprovableprehistoric The dangerof telling reconstructions. is clear. ourselves"just-so stories" 18. For a theoretically sophisticated discussionof the roles thatboth the "human vector"and the "social vector" mayhave played in the spreadof IndoEuropean, see Mallory and Adams 2006, pp. 456-460.

436

HOLT N. PARKER

oftheDark Ages as withtheRomanEmpireand the Volkerwanderungen Historical of underlies most reconstructions models, implicit prehistory. and his Max Miiller has longdisplayed a prejudice, evenbefore linguistics invasion as itsprimary model.19 formilitary Aryaninvasion, In an important Nichols distinguishes threemechanisms review, by and miwhichlanguages demographic spread: languageshift, expansion, in thenumber ofmobilepeople The mechanisms differ gration. primarily in thelanguagespread: involved in response is normally to thepresence of at leasta Languageshift some fewinfluential involves immigrants; demographic expansion and of rather than extermination; absorption previous population leads to shift to or from the (either migration language immigrants' The terms and language). language shifty demographic expansion, that refer to the contributor with no claim predominant migration it is exclusive. Almostall literature on languagespreads at assumes, leastimplicitly, either as or demographic expansion migration [the] basicmechanism, butin factlanguageshift is themostconservativeassumption and shouldbe thedefault There is no assumption. reasonto believethatthemechanism of spreadhas anyimpacton thelinguistic ofthespread.20 geography This lastremark can be turned around:equally, can linguistic geography offer no information on themechanism oflanguagespread. Though a nucleusof people speakinga formof Greek presumably cameto Lesbos from at sometime, thenumbers neednothave somewhere, beenlargeand theforms oflanguagespreadaremorevarious thansimply one population another. We can use Nichols'soutlineto make displacing a fewimportant points. Languages and dialectscan spreadinto a new area Languageshift. without anymajorchangein thepopulation. Languagesmaybe replaced in thecourse ofonlya fewgenerations ofprestige dialects bytheinfluence andlanguages, interritorial boundaries (so theslowlossofBalinese byshifts to Bhasa Indonesia), networks ofHausa (so therecent byexchange spread or theancient of or extensive spread Aramaic), by bilingualism in short, rather thanphysical bycultural imperialism.21
19. See Chapman andHamerow 1997andChapman1997for general accounts oftherise, andriseof fall, andinvasion as preferred migration models in archaeology. Forlinguistic see especially Olender1992. history, Forthetroubled oftheAryan history invasion see Bryant 2001. hypothesis, Warriors benton conquest still seem thebestanswer to Schlerath (1981, (2003,p. 68). p. 199) andMeier-Briigger 20. Nichols1997,p. 372. Bellwood that "historical (2005,p. 191) claims dataindicate that shift alone, language without movement orsome population ofdispersal degree bythepopulation thetarget hasnever carrying language, created anything remotely equaling those vastintercontinental genetic oflanguages with which we groupings arehereconcerned. . . . Imperial conwithout and questbyitself, large-scale settlement of permanent bymembers theconquering population, generally little loanwords in from imposes apart thelongterm. Tradealsois generally of little as a factor behind significance Whether large-scale language spread." these observations areapplicable to the of Greek or a dialect of Greek spread theAegeanis uncertain. across His own this data,in anycase,do notsupport He citesthelossofLatin statement. "in those closeto the except regions intenheart oftheempire favored for sivesettlement byLatinspeakers" was not"lost," however, (p. 192). Latin, "heart ofthe itsimply and the changed, from to extended Portugal empire" Romania. 21. See Renfrew 1987,pp. 120-144, an account for directed at archaeoloEssential arethetwolitgists. reading erature reviews ofNichols1997 I putno trust in glottochronol(though and Bellwood 2001 (whois skepogy) ticalofall factors see except migration; n.20, above).Foran excellent account

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

437

ofspeakers Changesin theactualpopulations Demographic expansion. occur without mass Dixon to a number of known migration. may points reasonsforone groupof speakers to fadeor flourish: natural such causes, as drought, such as new innovations, flood, disease;material earthquake, in or in tools,weapons,meansof transportation, techniques production social such as state in causes, formation, agriculture; changes hierarchy, and especially and linguistic such as prestige revolution, religion; factors, and complexity.22 Evenwhenlanguage withpopulation changeis associated Migration. is not the a new of invasion change, onlyoption: group speakers mayaror slowinfiltration, and each processmight or rivebypeaceful migration in record. the new arrivals not leave traces the Further, archaeological might or driveout anyformer livein contained settlements, inhabitants, might In invasions can and do sometimes and occur, short, migrations intermarry.23 sometimes with little effects on thepreexisting withcatastrophic languages, in or invasion the absence of clear effect at all,butto presuppose migration error.24 or archaeological data is a methodological historical about the spreadof we have been Furthermore, talkingprimarily to developby a languageare muchmorelikely Dialectswithin language. than thespreadofinnovations bypopulation change.Dialect (isoglosses) for thesudoccur of contact (witness, example, can, course, bymigration the in the mainland Anatolian Greek arrival of den following population in theform ofdifofthe1920s),butchangecomesmoreoften exchanges centers to smaller in speechfrom ofan innovation fusion larger population withthe areas(theso-calledgravity to morerural onesand thence model), "the influenced and rateof changeheavily extent itself, by phenomenon and socialstructure/'25 communication distance, time, networks, the presenceof a feature In earlierperiodsof historical linguistics, was usually of one dialectin another deemedcharacteristic by explained some40 wrote as movements. However, Cowgill optimistically population dialect across canspread that innovations existing years ago,"therealization viewsofprehistoric has led to soberer boundaries migrations."26
distininAfrica, oflanguage spread canbe accomtrade (which guishing "trade andsimplified bypidgins plished a cultural vs. "generalized languages") see Nettle 1996,esp.p. 412. exchange," ofprestige Fortheinfluence dialects, see Dixon1997,pp.22-25,79-80, 104-114,145-148. 22. Dixon 1997,pp.22-24,75-83. seeVersteegh ofArabic, Forthespread 1997,esp.pp. 71-72,93-98,102-113. offer a good 23.The Normans whocompletely ofa group example Old their (from language replaced within Norseto Gallo-Romance) perwithno discernhapstwogenerations, record. in thearchaeological ibletraces theinter24. Rhodes(2006) studied ofCreeandOjibwe-Potawaactions over in theGreatLakesregion tomi that 500 years, "every logically noting is of spread type language possible allbutone inin thisarea, attested In this only hunter-gatherers. volving intounoccupied areawe find migration one population with migration territory, a number and then another, replacing with ofspreads intermingling populato bothwithmigrators tions switching andwithmigrators' thelocallanguage, thelocallanlanguage supplanting of areinstances there andfinally guage, without migration, moving languages shift." i.e.,language a seemsto favor Modernconsensus model, explicequilibrium" "punctuated basedon Goulds modelofevoluitly tionandspeciation (e.g.,Dixon 1997, andDixon2001, Aikenvald 67-86; pp. and See 2003, 9-11). Janda Joseph pp. theintellectual history. pp.50-58,for Watkins (2001,pp.48-49),however, to Indoitsapplicability questions "To speakofpunctuation European: theissuerather by'invasion' prejudges of the severely; Indo-Europeanization areasseems to other Italyandmany andin havetaken placebothgradually a woeful labChinaprovides driblets." invaand of mass migrations oratory times: thelinguistic sionsin historical effects aresurveyed byLaPolla2001. and Schilling-Estes 25. Wolfram article for 2003,p. 727; see theentire Hock andJoseph overview. an excellent (1996,pp.346-365) setoutthedetails ofdialect andproblems geography as one oftheir "Aiolic" and use clearly, examples. 26. Cowgill1966,p. 78.

438

HOLT

N. PARKER

THE ORIGIN OF AIOLIC

The questionof the "origin" of Aiolic, therefore, is alreadysomewhat It is closely tiedto thequestion ofthe"coming oftheGreeks," misstated. an Indo-European whichis in turntied to whereeach scholarpictures is largely A west-to-east, Urheimat.21 mainland-to-island, theory migration whichviewsthe theunexamined residue oftheold "ThreeWave"theory, intomainintroduction ofGreekas a series ofmigrations from thenorth ancestors of land Greeceof first the Ionians,then"Akhaians" (including theAiolians),and finally The exclusive focuson themainland Dorians.28 leavestheGreekpresence in northern Anatoliaand alongthecoastto be in theform of"refugees" movements, explained bylater usually population from the"Dorian Invasion." In truth, we haveno idea wheretheGreekscamefrom, or evenifthat is theproper Balkans can be to ask. As Nichols the question pointsout, and havebeen entered from thenorthwest, thatis,CentralEurope (so in historical the Pontic times,Slovene,Serbo-Croat);fromthe northeast, and from the Anatolia and Roeast, (so Turkish, steppe(so Bulgarian), She aptly summarizes: "Forno ancient oftheBalkansdo many). language we have evidenceas to whether it entered from Asia Minor or from the to In the north. ... there is no either short, evidence, steppe compelling orarchaeological, for Greektoitsattested location either linguistic bringing from thenorth or from Anatolia."29 The Aiolic migration is based on manyunexamined theory presupThe histories of are more positions. languagespread vastly complicated thana succession ofinvasions, and we can pointto at leastthree different factors thatmustbe determined in orderto explainthe presence of the Lesbian dialectin thenortheast situation, Aegean:theoriginal linguistic theprocess oflanguagespread, and thesourceofLesbian.Foreach factor a number ofpossibilities exist. Herewe mustadmit that we haveno strong evidence for We do notknowtheoriginal situation, anyofthese. linguistic theprocess oflanguage orwhatform ofGreekwas first spread, spokenon Lesbos and the adjacentcoast.I thusproposethe following possibilities forconsideration: A. Situation 1. The earlier inhabitants of spokeanyone or anynumber non-Greek form languages. They thenadoptedsomeearlier of Greek(Proto-Greek) as their of which choice, language evolved intoLesbian locally. 2. The earlier inhabitants of spokeanyone or anynumber non-Greek evolved languages. They thenadoptedan already Lesbian as their languageofchoice. 3. The earlier inhabitants spokesomeotherdialectof Greek. then Lesbian as their dialectof choice. They adopted B. Process. The earlier whatever inhabitants, speaking languageor dialect, adoptedLesbian through 1. language a changein a political or cultural shift, elite; involving

an excel27. See Mallory 1989for alsoMallory 1997.Fora lentsurvey; more theoretical shorter, approach, seeMallory andAdams2006,pp.4421981on theo463. See also Schlerath overviews retical issues. Forhistorical ofinvasion as an a priori critical explasee Hausler1998 and2003, nation, I cannot hisconclusion accept though that was always Proto-Indo-European over thevastareas present, spread in occupied byIndo-European speakers historical times. See thecriticisms of (1989,pp.254-257).The same Mallory ofmigration/invasion has assumption dominated thenotion of"thecoming oftheAryans" (see n. 19,above).So, see oftheCelts"; too,in"thecoming 1999,Collis2003.Morse(2005, James pp. 179-180) sumsup:"Archaeologists arenowdebating itis useful whether to saythat theCeltsin fact cameto Britain If research intopre-Roman Britain wereto start scratch, againfrom itis hardto imagine that theterm Celticwouldplaya significant role." 28. First articulated by clearly Kretschmer (1909); see alsoChadwick 1975,pp. 812-817. 29. Nichols1998,pp.249-250.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

439

2. demographic expansion through changesin local population groups; 3. migration, colonization, diffusion; 4. invasion. whatever C. Source. The earlier inhabitants, speaking languageor from whatever dialect, Lesbian, by adopted process, 1. mainland GreeceacrosstheAegean; 2. theBalkansacrosstheDardanelles; 3. inlandAnatolia. and possibilities. It is obvious factors One couldeasilypointto other of 36 we face a minimum list that,mathematically, fromthe foregoing Proto-Greek the Troad from invade scenarios (Aiolians Thessaly/Boiotia; Lesbian the north; a new princebrings arrives as a tradelanguagefrom has any the east,etc.).None of thesescenarios as a courtlanguagefrom over the others. superiority linguistic andarchaeoofconnecting Giventhedifficulties linguistic prehistoric s of Chadwick the multiplicity possiblescenarios, logicaldata,and given withdue advanced to sumup:"Myownopinion, comment mayserve pithy 'Wheredid theGreekscome butfirmly caution held,is thatthequestion, ill thequestion is certainly from?' is meaningless."30 Or,ifnotmeaningless, the not about should be We and unanswerable. formed coming thinking arethuswhenand howdid Our specific butof Greek ofGreeks, questions coast Lesbian Greekon Lesbos and the north start speaking people first before to whencan onlybe, sometime ofAsia Minor?Our honestanswer to how mustbe,we cannotbe sure. 600 B.C.,and theanswer

DATA AND METHODOLOGIES

betweenthe dialectsis complicated of the relations Our understanding Of the and of our analyses. themselves of the data nature the messy by intotwomain divided ofAiolic,Thessalianis traditionally three branches need to At leastfive and Thessaliotis. however, areas,Pelasgiotis regions, and Magnesiain the in thenorth; Perrhaibia be distinguished: Pelasgiotis in West. Of these the Phthiotis and Thessaliotis and east; onlyPelasgiotis "Thesthat It maybe suspected Larissa)is at all wellattested. (principally of different for a number term a convenient is merely itself salian" covering thatshareno commoninnovations. dialects but and epigraphically, bothliterarily well attested Boiotianis rather of Sappho and Alkaios,in addiThe fragments Lesbian is problematic. to an weresubject of timeand transmission, theravages tionto suffering attested Lesbianisvery standardization. Alexandrian poorly Epigraphically, from known is Lesbian mainland and the5th century before B.C., onlya the4thcentury. before ofinscriptions handful muddied is further on theground facts ofthelinguistic Interpretation such as "borrowing," "mixture," (1) a loose use of terms by threefactors: between like to the and dialects, "substratum," isoglosses differing explain

30.Chadwick 1973, p.255.

440

HOLT N. PARKER

as though each dialectvisited a smorgasbord of features;31 (2) a loose use ofdiffering of derifeatures to so that types groupdialects, phonological, into the same and lexicalsimilarities are all thrown vational, inflectional, "innovasuchas "older," (3) a loose use ofterms "conservative," hopper;32 and so which leads to the view that a "conservative" tive," on, "progressive," - which dialect tomeannothing more thanonewith fewer ought significant - is somehow or "older" thana dialect phonological morphological changes withmoresound changes. This usage in turnleads to theviewthatthe "conservative" dialectis therefore dialect. ancestral to the"innovative" This last beliefoftencarries withit a further unexamined assumptionthatthe"older" dialectmustbe the one to have stayed home,while the"innovators" This notionis central to the assumption that migrated. mainland Greece (Thessaly, which Boiotia) mustbe the homelandfrom Aiolic speakers fannedout to Lesbos and the Troad.33 Such a pattern, is instances. An obviousexampleis however, contradicted by numerous AmericanEnglish.Migrationwas followedby the migrants' language various in isolation, innovations butin fact American undergoing English is moreconservative thanBritish features. Forexample, Englishin certain in phonology AmericanEnglishhas retained [r] (lost in preconsonantal standard British English)and [ae] in wordssuchasfast,ask, path,dance, and so on. In morphology, AmericanEnglishretains (vs.got,regotten tainedonlyin ill-gotten), dove(vs. dived), and so on.The same is truefor Icelandic versus andthesituation is commonly seenin isolated Norwegian, communities immigrant (e.g.,Amishin the United States,Doukhobors in Canada).34 In trying to determine ancestral or lanrelationships amongdialects three shouldbe bornein mind.Dialects and guages, important principles in innovations archaisms (new soundsand forms), languagescan differ in some but lost in others), retained and selections (sounds and forms between sounds andforms).35 The first is that shared (choices principle only
31.The basicnotion behind invokis to attribute features inga substratum characteristic ofone dialect thought -eaoi datives inAiolic) (for example, butfound in another in (for example, Northwest of Greek)to theinfluence thepeoplewhousedto livethere (so Schmitt 1977,p. 29). Thus,e.g.,an substratum is invoked Arkado-Cyprian to explain in Lakonian anomalies and Cretan (Garcia-Ramon 2002b, col. 1016).However, substrate effects into another's (onepopulation moving areaand"overlaying" thenatives) cannot be distinguished from borrowin contact). ings(populations Only evidence ofmovement independent allows us to determine thescenario. evenin casesofcontact, exFurther, occur communicachange may through tionnetworks as wellas geographical See thestrictures ofRix proximity. crit(1994,pp. 18-19). Fora detailed icism oftheexplanatory ofsubpower in thiscontext, strata see Hock and 1996, Joseph pp.382-387;a pithy (2000,p. 329); anda critique byTrask casestudy ofCastilian inTrask 1997, pp.415-429. 32.This is a persistent bad habit. See,e.g.,Risch1955,p. 75,witha chart of20 random 1970, isoglosses; Wyatt witha different 20 plus29 other subrules to arrive at a final 25; Finkelberg a different setof20; and 1994,for a 2005,pp. 115-117,with Finkelberg revised listof21. Coleman(1963) tops thelistwith51 features to a subjected correlation coefficient Each analysis. author combines derivaphonological, andlexical differtional, inflectional, andfails to distinguish ences, rigorously between selecinnovations, retentions, andindependent tions, parallel changes. 33. See,e.g.,Wyatt 1970,p. 627; MendezDosuna 2007,p. 460. 34. Sihler, is 2000,p. 173:"There aboutthis: innovanothing mystical tions in theisolated willbe limgroup itedto those that arise locally. Bycona in contact with other simtrast, group ilarforms ofspeech willbothmakeits owninnovations andbe influenced by elsewhere." Retenchanges originating tionis not, ofcourse, a necessary feature ofcolonies; thepoint is merely that neither is "progress." The phrase "coloniallag"coined (1958, byMarckwardt beenmisapplied; p. 80) hassometimes see Gorlach1987;Trudgill 1999. 35. See Rodrfgues Adrados 1952for a clearexplanation; also Karali 2007, p. 389.

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR

THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

441

Shared archaisms cannotpoint to innovations show any relationship.36 a The point selections from common stock. nor can different groupings Both fishand catsretain their can be made clearby a biologicalanalogy. humansdo not.That is not,however, a tailsfrom theancestral creatures; rather thancatsand and cats(who sharetails)together reasonto classfish thatdifofbeingmammals). humans(who sharetheinnovations Further, to is one cannot a reliable selections guide grouping perhaps provide fering To takea linguistic ofdialectology. overlooked ofthemostoften principles words for 'one': theregular has two *sem-> Proto-Indo-European example, 'alone' or the like. ordinaland *oyGreek, Tocharian, meaning probably B sey Armenian inherited *semand Armenian mek; (Greekeiq,Tocharian > Sanskrit chose *dywithvarioussuffixes: see below).All others *dy-kos > Old Irishden, > Avestanaeuuo,Old Persianaiva; *dy-nos eka;*6y-wos Latin unus,Gothic ainsy Englishone.But Greek and Tocharianare not Choice from sister among anymorethanareLatinand English. languages tellsus nothing.37 alternatives theinnovato provide Second,fora sharedinnovation anyevidence, must be that it tionmustbe truly shared, is, Again,a biological genetic. both birdsand bats have wings.But a bird's examplecan be provided: so in dialects thana bats.Just innovation different wingsarea completely not to thespread are often due similar features or languages, remarkably innovabutindependent butbyparallel thatis,bycontact, ofan isogloss, each branch. tionswithin in Greekis a good examThe Second Compensatory Lengthening the First to so not Final -ns (and LengthCompensatory subject ple(Fig.2). in accusative stayedas xovq pluraltons, ening,see below),forexample, Older Cretan(the consonants. before to xo<; butdeveloped before vowels, butthexoqforms this for Law distribution, Code, example)keeps Gortyn in Thessalian(but not Lesbian or Boiotian)as well as in aregeneralized and Koan, but not and withinDoric in Theran, Kyrenaian, Arkadian, whichis either thetov<; dialects All theother elsewhere. form, generalize
36. So Wyatt (1970,pp.560-561): shared "In thissearch linguistic only neednot, innovations can,though they retenvalue.Shared haveevidential is notevidence tionofan archaism Hainsworth whatsoever." (1982,p. 857) a weak conservation to grant is willing as of "Puttogether value: evidentiary of manner all were equalimportance (a) ofcertain innovation, (b) generalization ofothat theexpense features inherited These must and(c) conservation. ers, of order as ofdescending be regarded innovation shared And importance. if relation ofgenetic is indicative only of to thegeneral itconforms pattern isoglosses." bedevils still 37.This problem ProtoForexample, Greek dialectology. ofwaysto say'if: had a variety Greek of The first, ei,is thelocative ei,ai, r\. *e-/othepronominal (cf.elxa):so 'when/ 'where,' temporally spatially of 'if; ai is thefeminine conditionally theold 'where/when thesame;r\ Adrados instrumental 1952, (Rodrfgues 1992,vol.1, pp.31-32; Meier-Bnigger 1999,p. 316, p. 67,E 305; Chantraine thesemantic s.v.ei); all haveroughly -> 'if 'when youdo this' development distribution The differing youdo this.' -Ion.andArk.ei,Aiol.andDor. ofArt. as an and ai, Cyp.T|hasbeentaken if disturbing, isogloss important, but (Rischsno.5 [1955,p. 75,chart]; withDoric? doesAiolicagree why with notagree WhydoesCyprian inherited Yet,Attic-Ionic Arkadian?). ei themost all three: r\ generalized; 1939av > ea"v with Schwyzer (rightly alone 1953,vol.2, p. 680,n. 1,which thelongalpha;see explains adequately noted thedifficulties byLejeune1972, for theconventional 232, 374, p. ei + av); andai in ai yap explanation obin epicdiction. Another only kept found is thedifference, viousexample no.7 [1955, lists(Risch's on all these of6-xe (Art., Ion.,Myc, p. 75,chart]), Ark., Cyp.)vs.6-xa (Lesb.,Thes.) vs.ora (Boiot., Dor.).Yetevenwithin we haveArt. Attic-Ionic ercei-xa, ei-xa, The sameholds ercei-xe. vs.Ion. ei-xe, Ka (Rischsno.6 themodals for av, ice, All ofthese are [1955,p. 75,chart]). various usesofdifferent pronominal andeachdialect orparticles, adverbs None is a reliable selected one ormore. basisfor subgrouping.

442

HOLT N. PARKER

Figure2. ChartoftheSecond Compensatory Lengthening

retained theSecond Compensatory (as in Argolic)or undergoes Lengthto in or Lesbian and Elean changesto zoiq (witha ening totx;or xcbq, further final rhotacism in Elean to xoip!).Despite thesimilarity ofresult, no dialect dialect or unites mixture, substratum, spread, isogloss, migration Lesbos and Elis.38In short, a number of thingsthathave been labeled but parallel isoglossesare nothingof the kind.They are independent innovations. to theabove,evengenuinely sharedinnovations Third,as a corollary not an infallible to dialectgeogramay alwaysprovide guide preexisting between phy.Sound changesand lexical or morphological borrowings areascan be blockedbygeographical features mountain contiguous (e.g., canproceed ofcommunicarivers). ranges, Equallyso,they alonga variety tionpathsleavingintervening or (uninhabited sparsely populated)areas untouched.39 relatively
38. Or Thessalian, and Arkadian, scattered ofDoric.Cf.Chadwick forms 1975,p. 806. 39. It is a failure to takethese diffactors into account that vitiates fering much ofFinkelbergs to recreattempt atea Greek "dialect continuum" (1994; features are 2005,pp. 109-139).Shared notnecessarily a goodguideto geoTalkof"bridge" graphical proximity. is unhelpful unless each dialects, etc., individual is given itsdue isogloss So Hainsworth 1982,p. 862: weight. "Aeolic as a ofWest appears medley andEast Greek. ... It is thusan early ofa bridge Garciadialect." example Ramon2002b,col. 1016:"Trotowhich Aeolic/ sprang up inThessaly andhad East-and,in particular, West-Greek underwent a features, series ofprobably post-Mycenaean there andthenspread to changes Boeotia(around 1250) andAeolis (around 1000)."

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

443

THE GREEK DIALECTS

We now turnto the second main questionof thispaper:Are Lesbian, and Boiotiandialects related as members ofan Aiolic family? Thessalian, Is theresuch a thingas "Aiolic"at all? Each of thesedialectsundergoes butthere innovations is no reasonto groupanytwoof many independent a stemma. In short, I find no themtogether as a higher node on cladistic and Boiotianhaving forLesbian,Thessalian, anycommon good evidence on a stemma than Proto-Greek itself.40 ancestor higher is confused modelsofhowthe The picture ofconflicting bya number overviews of arerelated. Greekdialects Cowgilland Schmitt giveexcellent in theories whichhas itsorigins thatdatewell oftheproblem, thehistory in the ofLinearB and thathaveleft thedecipherment before deepfurrows remain Rischs1949 and 1955 articles andCowgills 1966work literature.41 The mostimportant fact to emerge to a clearunderstanding. fundamental is thatthereexisteda South Greekdialectgroup, including Mycenaean, marked assibilation of and Attic-Ionic, Arkadian, early bya very Cyprian, > *ts.42 This assibilation was sufficiently both*Has wellas of*ty/t(b)y early thatit fedanother changein South Greekof *ts> ss > s (in all positions, a groupseparatenot onlyfrom even aftershortvowels),thus forming Three important and Boiotian. from but also Lesbian,Thessalian, Doric, > ts is a should be made. First,*{t, th] /_{y,i] singlephonological points assibilation rule.43 (bled) thelaterPan-Greek Second,thisearly preceded casesofneworrestored (see below).44 Third, including *t+y palatalizations, > of *ti but not a laterand entirely Lesbianunderwent si, change separate

> ss> 5.45 of*t(*)y

40. Ringe (pers. comm.) has performeda similarstudyon ArkadoCyprianand foundno secureshared South Greek appears to innovations. into fourdifferent have split,therefore, dialects:Myc, Ark.,Cyp., and Att.Ion. Wyatt (1970, p. 627) also doubts the existenceof an Aiolic family. He, sees the dialectsin purelysohowever, ciological terms:"Indeed, we nevercan to Ae[olic] as a whole, and have refer insteadalwaysto thinkof L[esbian] T[hessalian] B[oiotian] as separateentities, L[esbian] a low-class P[roto-] G[reek] dialectwhich latermoved into the innovating sphereof G [reek]; T[hessalian] a low-class P[roto-] G[reek] dialectwhich remainedout of touchwith the restof the G[reek] world fromthe veryearliesttimes; B[oiotian], a low-class P[roto-]G[reek] the conservatism dialectwhich affected of N[orth-]W[est] characteristic G[reek]." See also Wyatt 1973, p. 43. 41. Cowgill 1966; Schmitt1977.

42. The South Greek dialect group is also called East Greek or sometimes Akhaian, but as these termshave been of ways,it is betterto used in a variety adopt Rischs (1955, p. 70) and Cowgills (1966, pp. 79, 93) label of South the Greek. Because of the syllabary, Mycenaean evidenceis clear only for cases of ti > si, showingthe palatalization and change to -s(s)- but not ss > s. necessarily 43. Failure to grasp thispoint,or the use of -ti > -si as a typeof shorthand forthe change (e.g., Hainsworth 1982, p. 860), can lead to severemisunderstandings.So Wyatt (1970, p. 563; cf. p. 566) writes:"Hence -si is an innovation.It is also clear thatthis innovation affected Cyprus,the pre-Dorian Peloponnese,Attica,and the Asia Minor coast. It is not certainthatit all these areas at the same time, affected is but the most reasonablehypothesis thatit did. If so, L[esbian] speech was alreadylocalized on Lesbos when this

change took place, and that,fromthe evidence of Mycenaean, musthave been before1200." That is, he is lumping Lesbian in withMycenaean and others. However,since Lesbian shows onlya > ss > s change of ti > si, and not *t(h)y foundin South Greek,Wyatt (p. 568) is forcedinto a contradictory picture wherebyLesbian is alreadyin Lesbos duringthe Mycenaean period,but also in Lesbos afterthe change of arrives > ss> s. *t(h)y 44. That is, the change removed (bled) sourcesof/ and ththatwould have undergonethe laterpalatalizations. 45. This, again, is usuallyascribed to Ionian influence(e.g., Risch 1955, p. 71), as if the Lesbians had asked to borrowa cup of third-person singulars, new sound but is in facta regular, change of ti > si in all positionsthat of feedsthe curiousLesbian treatment the Second CompensatoryLengthenpluralthematic: ing; so in third-person *-o-nti> -onsi > -oysi> -oiai.

444

HOLT N. PARKER

Some standard are: examples > *totsos > xoaaoq; but SouthGreek (cf.Lat. tot< tot'i) *tdty-o-s to-so-de (xoaov8e). togo<;, Mycenaean > hdtsos lateroxxoq)> Lesbian (Cretanoo<;, -ts-\ spelling *Hydty-os ooooq; butAtticand Arkadian oaoq. > > *kwdtsos Lesbian Boiotian6-noixoq, (versus nooooc, *kwdty-o-s Cretano-rcoxxoq); but SouthGreeknocoq. > Proto-Greek > *metyos > (cf.Lat. medius) *medh-yo-s *methyos > *metsosLesbian ueaaoq (versus Boiotianand Cretanjxexxoq); but SouthGreekueooq,cf.Mycenaeanme-sa-ta 'middlequality* = ueo(o)ccxo<;. > Proto-Greek > noaci but South With original *-ts-: *pod-si *potsi GreekkogL * > yeveaai (theanalogical With original -ss-:Proto-Greek genes-si sourcethenofthethird-declension dativepluralin -eooi) but SouthGreekyeveai. to think in a bifurcating sucha group manner, Despite ourtendency abouttherelationships oftheother dialects to each other. implies nothing A SouthGreekdialectdoes notimply a unitary "NorthGreek" dialector other situation.46 any
AlOLIC WITHIN THE GREEK DlALECTS

The Aiolic dialectfamily is said to be distinguished bya grabbag of features. Hainsworth a of the standard list47 and its provides good example here: jumblednature, quoted 1. labialreflexes ofkwe, etc. 2. perfect in -ovxparticiple 3. dativepluralin -eoai 4. gemination ofliquidsand nasalsas reflex of -ov-etc.(not Boiotian) 5. ice= uioc 6. patronymic in -ioq adjective It is a muchbetter to takethelistsin thehandbooks, comprocedure binethesignificant and reorder first with the features, them, dealing phothenmorphological, and finally lexicalisoglosses. A moreuseful nological, listwouldlook likethis: 1. labialreflexes ofkw evenbefore e 2.*r>po/op Morphological 3. dativepluralin -eaai 4. perfect in -cov, -ovxparticiple Lexical/derivational = uia 5. i'oc 6. patronymic in -loq adjective
Phonological

46. Contra Risch1955,p. 71; Chadwick1956,p. 40; 1975,p. 811;Wyatt 1970,p. 626. 47. Hainsworth 1982,pp. 860-861. Forsimilar see Buck1955,p. 147, lists, 201; Scherer 1959,pp.4-5; Schmitt 1977,p. 121; Garcia-Ramon 2002a; 2002b,col. 1014;MendezDosuna 2007,pp.461-463.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

445

Hainsworth's no. 4- "gemination of liquids and nasals as reflex of -avwith the "not Boiotian" needs etc," very important qualification special and is discussed below. treatment, The problem is that noneofthese is especially as a caseofshared strong innovation. Hainsworth notesthat thelast, use ofthepatronymic adjective, indeedProto-Indo-Eurois an archaism.48 Inherited from Proto-Greek, What he,andtheauthors ofmany as evidence. handbooks, pean,itis useless arearchaisms, too. features failto noteis thatmostoftheother outcomeof thelabiovelars Labiovelars. The default (unconditioned) in in dialectsis to a labial: all later Greek (stillunchanged Mycenaean)
> p* (in linguistic shorthand, Kw > P). Many *kw > py *gw > bf *gwb> *kwh

of labiovelars to dentalsbefore e show a palatalization however, dialects, > in does not occur Leshandbooks this As the T/_ note, e).49 (Kw change and Boiotian. What has notbeenclearly noted, however, Thessalian, bian, is thatthischangealso does notoccurin Arkadian >and Cyprian.50 thesituation is straightforward: andBoiotian, ForLesbian, Thessalian, until whenthey arepreserved intact labiovelars theProto-Greek late, simply are: Some standard intolabialsin all environments. turn examples > Atticrcevxe, butLesbian andThessalianrceuTie *kw: *penkwe Doric,etc.,TeA,-exai, (kweA,6uvoi), *kV)el-> Mycenaeanqe-ro-me-no butLesbianneXexai > kowtj, but neioi8iicr|, Mycenaeanqe-te-oy *kwey-: *kwoy-neh2 Thessalian BoiotianIliaiSdcn (withei > i), AtticTeiai8iKT|, etc. a7c-7cei-odTO'o, butBoiotoanBetapoi 'thehollows/ so AeAxpoi 'hollow/ gw:*gwe/bhmorecomplicated. thesituation is slightly and Cyprian ForArkadian dialect underwent its then each but their labiovelars too intact, They kept In we and affrication. ownparticular late)palatalization (andvery Cyprian > tsis, > tsonlybefore laterciq (vs. xiq).51 find*kw i; so *kwis spelledsi-se, labialdevelopment showstheregular Elsewhere (evenbefore e)\ Cyprian > iceioei, *kwei-sfuture (Art. xeioei). spelled pe-i-se-i itsownseparate until thelabiovelars alsopreserves Arkadian palatalizauseda special earliest * and e. The tionbefore both inscriptions highvowels, *kw s ora, whichspelled transcribed ofsan apparently), only signM(a form and so siva = xiva,eise = ei'-xe, front vowels(i and e)>so osei = o-xcp, before = oa-xiqshowthatthistoowas somekind suchas 6i<; Laterspellings on.52 labiothesurviving these twopalatalizations, ts.53 After ofaffricate, probably in Greek, becamelabials.54 as elsewhere and Arkadian, in Cyprian velars
48. Hainsworth 1982, p. 862. See also Mendez Dosuna 2007, p. 462. 49. We are almost certainly dealing vowels with a palatalizationbeforefront an precededby earlypalataligenerally, zation beforei. The situation, however, is complicatedand cannot be discussed the point. here,but it does not affect Aiolic sharesthe earlychange of kwi-> xiq (this change is post-Mycenaean but are intact wherethe labiovelars not sharedwithArkadian or Cyprian); the odd Thessalian ki<;has been ab> *ou-kis with the from*ou-kwis stracted usual loss of the labial co-articulation beforeor afteru (cf.*ou-kwid [the unacHorn, cented enclitic]*noway' > o\>ki [line end] > oi>k). 50. Lejeune 1972, p. 47, 34. 51. That thiswas a change of inherited labiovelarsis shown by the factthat etc. it did not apply to inherited/,ky 52. E.g., Mantinea, Buck 1955, come p. 198, no. 17. The cases of *gw fromthe glosses. 53. Lejeune 1972, pp. 50-52, 3840. 54. Later Arkadian shows the dental in all formsof ogtk;,as well as Ttevxe, eo-diXX-ovzec, (pdMxo), odekoq. See Schmitt1977, p. 86. This is due to fromotherdialects(see, e.g., influence Buck 1955, pp. 174-175), thoughit a regulardevelopmay also represent mentof the new *ts> t>*dz > d.

446

HOLT

N. PARKER

What we dealingwith, is a changethatdid notoccur.Lesbian, then, and Boiotian of labiovelars before Thessalian, escapedthepalatalization front as did Arkadian and We can this vowels, Cyprian. imagine palatalizationas a change spreading an alreadydifferentiated dialect through and all the continuum, Attic-Ionic, Doric, Later, affecting Pamphylian. labiovelars to labials. we can This, too, remaining changed image as a a dialect continuum or as a natural set ofindechangespreading through in variousbranches.55 innovations The absenceof the changeis pendent no morereasonto groupLesbian,Thessalian, and Boiotiantogether (and add Arkadian and Lesbian) thanthepresence ofthechangeis a reasonto Doric, and Pamphylian groupAttic-Ionic, together. *r> When we reexamine thechangeof *r> po/op we findthat po/op. theevidence is lessoverwhelming thanthehandbooks makeitseem.56 For Lesbianthere areonlysixcertain forms: 1. Ppo%e(a)(Sappho 31.7 ) < *mrgh-u> 2. auPpoxe(Sappho 5.5) < zero-grade (cf.*n-h2mert-es*h2mrtotuPpoToq) 4. euuopuevov (Alk. 39a.7) < *se-smr-men-on (cf.Att.eiuocpuevov) 5. Pp68ov, and compounds (Sappho 2.6, 53.1, 55.2, 94.13) a borfrom Indo-Iranian *wrdrowing 6. oxpoxov Alk. 372.1, 382.2), and oxpoxocyoi (Sappho 16.1; names <*str-to(7GXII.2 5, etc.);proper The first five all showa labialenvironment, butaxpoxov is good evidence fora regular of *r> po/op.57 development The evidenceforBoiotianand Thessalianis verythin.Boiotianhas twoforms: andIxpox-in proper whichseems e-aoxpoxet>-a9r| names, only > tobe good evidence for a regular *r of The other form is found po. change in theproper nameswiththerootBpo%-x>XXo<;> names etc.,though proper arealways uncertain. There arealso onlytwoforms citedfor and onlyforEast Thessalian, Thessalian at that,which shows Bpo^ix;as a propername and rcexpooffour Botharein a labialenvironment and so may exeipi8a, 'period years/ indicate a conditioned we cannotbe sure, and it is doubtful reflex, though thatTcexpocontinues an unaltered really zero-grade.58
55. The changes in Arkadian and Cyprianpoint to the latter. 56. For basic accounts,see Lejeune 1972, pp. 195-198, 199-202; Sihler 1995, pp. 92-96, 95-98. The original conditionsdetermining *r> po/op probablydepended on root shape and accent,but the patternhas been so disturbedby paradigmaticand analogical levelingin both directions thatwe cannot recoverthe rules.Further, there to be no cases of */ in appear good Lesbian, Boiotian, or Thessalian. 57. The othercases cited by Hamm (1957, p. 28, 57.1), Scherer(1959, p. 19, 236.1, pp. 54-55, 245, p. 87, 255.2b), Schmitt(1977, pp. 70, 75, 80-81), and othersare eithernot from or are phantoms.So *r,are uncertain, inf.Tporcf|v (Alk. 70.9) is not necessarily but is zero-gradeaor. (Att. tpotrceTv) So too likelyto be fromxpoTceco. Poprixai(Sappho 96.17) does not equal built to papeuai, but is from(3opaco popd. yponnaxa (Balbilla) is a hyperAiolism, and shows the dangersof the interventions of the Alexandrian regularizes (cf.Alk. 129.27 yeypd.f, etc.). The ypdrcxa, epigraphicypdqniv, formscited fromthe grammarians are withoutidentification, even if their were certain.So Hsch. etymologies k 3669 (Latte): KopxepdKpaxepd, ia%upd;\i.1679 uopvd|ievo<;uaxoThe sometimes-cited uevo<;. 8poaeco<; and 7tTopuo<; are foundonlyin the third KepiSiaXeKanonymousCompendium xcov attributed to JohannesGrammaticus (ed. Hoffmann1891-1898, vol. 2, pp. 215, 221). 58. Further, althoughJiexpomight continuedirectly a *kwetwr-, the

vrmepxriO 3. auppocmq (Sappho 141.1) < *n-mrt(cf.Homericppoxoq,

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

447

In sum,thechangeof *r> po/op is notcompelling, since*ris a rather stablesoundin Greek(there arecleartraces ofitssurvival in thescansion of Homer), and the same (or at least a similar)changeoccursin Arkaand Mycenaean.59 As Cowgillnotes:"Atmostone can say dian,Cyprian, of op and ccpis notvery thatthe contrast forgrouping Greek important > V dialects."60 To putthematter is a late differently, po/pcc comparatively in various Greek dialects.61 there seem to be no cases of Further, change *r> po/op Boiotian, feeding byThessalian, anylatersoundchangeshared and Lesbian. Dativepluralin -eooi. The new dativepluralsin -ecci have caused They are foundnotjust in Lesbian,Boiotian,and Thessalian, difficulty. butalso in Pamphylian, and in varieties of Doric (Delphian and Lokrian in Kyrenaian in the north; Elean in thePeloponnese), plus outcroppings from Lakonia via and Corinthian colonies Thera) (but not at (colonized Their presence has been usually Corinth).62 explained by an "AiolicsubforthePeloponnese, moredifficult still whichis hardtojustify stratum," In the and to for creation of for next fact, impossible Kyrene.63 Pamphylia, is an easyanalogicalchangethatoccursin variousdialects, -eaai datives as a basisforgrouping.64 and as suchis valueless A stronger case can be made forthe in -ovr-. Perfect participle -cov, in *-o-ntformant forthe inherited of a participle substitution perfect as full which is found *-wos-/*-us-y onlyin Lesbian,Thessalian, paradigm sincethemiddleis kept This is a bitmysterious, and Boiotian.65 especially root.Chantraine to the with -menattached perfect directly unchanged, and of of the present it to the influence attributes meaning the perfect, of in Doric and the inflection withpresent certain forms endings literary and Knidosareprobably in Syracuse, as a present theperfect Karpathos, sinceit is not thisfactis almostalways due to this.66 misstated, However, is inflected thesame infinitive as well that the but the perfect just participle
60. Cowgill1966,p. 82. ofthe*rstage 61.Therearetraces > *petrow-es 16.857:ovrcoxuov in Homer://. yoocooa (Skt. catvdras)> *petwores where Kai iipr|v, Aircova' seenin Myc. with thesamemetathesis avSpoxfjxa Else(1995,pp. 85-91) andWest Ruijgh spellingkwetorwes. qe-to-wo-rey thescansion Thes.shows where (1988, (<*strIxpaxop. 156) areright: only before theepenmust reflect be *anrtdta> These,however, to-)in names. might in seenalready thesis of-nr-> -ndr-, The handinfluence. duetoAttic/koine = cite'Epoxo-icAiaq bookssometimes Myc.a-di-ri-ja-te *6tv5pidvxei ofa man' withthefigure Dialektdergriechischen '[inscribed] (e.g., Sammlung < of a man/ similar and forms, -ocvxoq <xv8pid<;, 569.20) 'figure Inschriften = instrumental ofa outcome is notthedirect butthis pl.a-di-ri-ja-pi < So PGrk'r^rh-to- > PGrkepoc-xo-. *dv8piau-(pi*dv8piavx-(pl. *h2nir > > *anros butgenitive has a namein'Epox-Ccov. > dvf|p, Boiot.likewise *h2nr-6s 59.This is one ofthemainreasons (Sihler1995,p. 212, 224). dvSpoc; 14.78 (verse AiolicandArka- Also//. take somescholars initial) vk dpporn why atisjusta spelling This sub-branch "Akhaian" an as (lx). clearly do-Cyprian for a to account Hoffmann ofGreek: duppoxri 1891-1898, v\) tempt e.g., that doesnotscan(cf.theusualending vol.1,p. vii;Chadwick 1956,pp.39a vb This reflects ofthe vx>Q. duppoairi 41; 1975,p. 810. Fora review > *r durxa considers data that (< *n-mr-to-). po/op Ark.-Cyp. 62. Buck1955,p. 89,107.3;Morlabial on a preceding as conditioned Davies 1976. 1968. seeMorpurgo w-)y purgo (specifically to rather of-tw-points development *kwetw6res oftheordinal theinfluence 63. Finkelberg (1994,p. 19; 2005, recent to revive pp. 129-130),themost ofPamno mention theidea,makes orWyatt's 1973 Kyrenaian, phylian, the demolishes which article, effectively notion. Davies 1976for 64. See Morpurgo themechanism. 1973,p. 39: Wyatt an Aeolic "Thereis no needto assume thespread in order to explain substrate ofthe useful ofthishighly allomorph dative (1996,pp.486Ruijgh plural." from 487) seesitas a simple borrowing withCorintheneighboring dialects, itsreplacement. later thian replacing 65. Lesb.:masc.taA,d6-cov, neq>x>yyetc.;fern. cov, jcap-eaxaKyevov-ovxa, Thes.:masc. oiaav; inf. xeOvaK-riv. erc-eoxdic-ovxa, etc.;inf. eaA,oi)K-e-uev. dn-eiA,8e{Boiot.:masc.dv-xe-9e(-ovxa, inf. attested. etc. No ovxec;, pf. 66. Chantraine 1961,pp. 184-185, 211,p. 278, 329.

448

HOLT

N. PARKER

verbs.67 activemovesin lockstep Since theperfect wayas in thethematic I suspect withtheaoristactive, thattheanswer lies in thethird singular, and wherea proportional between theaorist couldbe established analogy in various ofDoric We find similar thematic infinitives forms perfect is an East Island Doric: There (Crete, Kos, Nisyros). Argolis,Phokis, similar at and shows a isolated thematic perfect participle Kyrene, Delphi intheinfinitive, butconfined ofthematic forms andin theparticiple spread tothefeminine.68 for a shared but This is thestrongest evidence innovation, forms thefactthatotherdialects succumb to thetemptation of thematic fortheperfect weakensthecase somewhat.69 m = jiia. What thehandbooks as thesole lexicalitem usually present in in of ia the of found other is theresult uioc Aiolic, dialects, defining place three to in mind about 'one': There are bear paradigmatic leveling. points 1. Though it is sometimes notclearfrom thehandbooks, we havea fullparadigm of elq,10c, That is, ev (to givetheLesbian forms). thefeature is notreally a lexicalitemat all,buta morphological one.70 2. A modelfrom within a paradigm of 1110c, etc.,is hardto jLLiaq, GarciaRamon and for that justify. Ruijgh, example, thought theu- of uioc had beenlostsomehow to bring theparadigm intoalignment withthevowelinitial is no eiq and ev.But there Attic and other dialects have no model; proportional analogical with the and it is difficult to see problem irregular paradigm; to regularize thepattern wouldstopthere and whyan attempt notproduce, forexample, elq,tea, ev.71 - thatwe havethefeminine 3. The other commonexplanation of an ioq meaning 'thatone/found in theGortyn Law Code and a fewother The form is foundonlyin the places willnotdo.72 feminine forLesbian,etc.),and it is clearly not (no fioq attested thematic (no fia, ti&v).73 The answer, is phonological and thebasicoutline was given therefore, Schmidt.74 We are with a that has been extenlongagoby dealing paradigm > remodeled. The PIE root*sem *som-d-s 6\ioq) (as in Latin semely sively had an original rootnounparadigm withmasculine *sem (extended grade) recharacterized as *sems,75 and a proterokinetic devi feminine, withfull67. Hodot 1990, p. 159: "Au parfait, de la finale Tadoptionpour l'infinitif de rem'thematique'-tivest correlative -ovxploi du suffixe pour le participe." 68. Thumb and Kieckers 1932, pp. 166, 181, 202, 275-276; Buck 1955, p. 199, 147a; Schmitt1977, p. 48. One needs to be preciseabout the dialects in which finite formsof the perfectare inflected like the present, and those in which the infinite formsare inflected like thematics(presentsand aorists). 69. There is a similarspread of the aor. -nt- to the perf.part,but onlyin the ace. sing,and pl. in Tocharian. See Adams 1981. 70. Attestations: Lesb. masc. elq in [ejia-raiekoiaxos (7GXII.2 82, line 17), etc.; fern. ot>8' lav (Sappho 56.1; scansion uncertain),uri8eia ace. (7GXII.2 82, line 12).Thes. fern. iav (IG IX.2 6, line 12); neut. ev (SEG XXVI 672, line 50). Boiot. masc. ace. eva (Dialectorum Graecarum Exempla 485.43); fern. gen. taq (SEG III 359, line 10); neut.gen. evo<;(ArchDelt 2, A' [1916], p. 218, line 34). 71. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 65; Ruijgh 1991, p. 601 (and cf.p. 674). 72. Chantraine 1999, p. 466, s.v.io<;. Sihler (1995, p. 405, 389.1Aa) takes to the pronomial io<;as built directly stem**-,seen in Lat. is, ea, id. 73. The singleHomeric nonfeminine formicp(neut.) is an in-house creation.See Ruijgh 1991, p. 601. 74. Schmidt 1898; see also Gippert 2004. 75. Giving us the usual paradigm: -> *sems > *hens masc. nom. *sem (evq by OstofFs Law) > his (ei<;by the Second

the perfect:ekin-e : Xin-dw: : XeXaQ-z: X = XekaQ-tov.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

449

TABLE 1. DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOINDO-EUROPEAN *sem-ih2

and Remodeling Reduction Proto-Indo-European (nom.)*sem-ih2 (gen.) *sm-yeh2s (dat.) *sm-yeh2-ey (ace.) *sem-ih2-m > *sm-ih2 *sm-yeh2s >*syeh2s *sm-yeh2ey >*syeh2ey > *sm-ih2-m Proto-Greek *smiya > *iyds *syds > *iydy *sydy *smiyan Pan-Greek uia > Horn.if|q i<x<; ia > ip jiiav

These and a zero-gradegenitive grade nominative *sm-yeh2s. *sem-ih2 the as the of root wereremodeled (with generalized) *sm-ih2 zero-grade vocalizedto *smiya The nominative and *sm-yeh2s. (the usual de*sm-ih2 tobecome to *(m)mia in Greek), and thispassedthrough *hmia velopment The obliquecases,however, u(oc(see belowfor*sm> mm).76 the familiar was simplified cluster of *smyeh2s The initialconsonant ranintotrouble. not to Siever s Law),77 so PIE sound to (and subject change *syehs by a of -sy-is The intervocalic whichthenbecameGreek*syds. development > > an We to -yyxoTo, etc.). vocico, expect initial *tosyo (*nas-yo- *nayyo, the usual vocalize which would to (following right-to-left *syds give*yydsy of PIE *sem-ih2 The development etc.78 iterative rule)as theattested i&<;, inTable 1. is summarized the paradigmof uia, iaq, ia (and so Each dialectthenregularized theform ofthenominative, Most in its own on) creating way. generalized theoblique, and Boiotian jiia, uxaq,butLesbian,Thessalian, generalized
The Lengthening). Compensatory masc.andneut., too,haveundergone theoriMyc.shows leveling. paradigm other diaall the but -mof root, ginal the-n-ofthenom. havespread lects > *he-> *sem-ds So gen.*sme's andneut. = e-me in hemei mos dat.)-> (seen Myc. > ev. *sem ace. nom. neut. bends (evoq); after 76. Forthedevelopment CRy cf.*trih2> (Skt. xpia;*potn-ih2 patnt)> > e-Tipia-xo (cf.Skt. Tcoxvia, *e-kwih2n. 80; See Peters 132, 1980, kri-td-). p. is best This 162. 2004, p. Gippert viewed as thenormal development to Siever's Law; see Schindaccording ler1977,p. 57; Peters 1980,pp. 127132,esp.p. 132,n. 80; Ringe2006, thesame shows p. 16.Armenian > mi'one'(Darms in *smiya change 1980,p. 132,n. 80). 1976,p. 13; Peters 77. ForSiever's Law,see n. 76, lossofnasalis seenin A similar above. but 'stone' (collective 'sharp') *h2e'km6 > dsmanVedic (stem), gen.*h2k-mn-es ds'nas 2004,p. 161,with (gen.)(Gippert in thetreatment versus references), > Semxoq. > 8eica, *dekmt-o-s *dekmt for a puzzling This lawhelpsaccount ofthepronouns: detail oftheinflection butdat.*tosm-ey/ nom.*so/*seh2/*tod> As Ringe(2006, *tosy-eh2-ey/*t6sm-ey. has beensuspected notes: "It 55) long p. ofthemasc.andneut. that the-smsg. is form of 'one.'. . . If that is a reduced the follow that it should true, syeh2reflects thecorreofthefern. sg.forms thefact fern, ofthenumeral; sponding *-mhasbeen that theroot-final thansyllabified rather might dropped reflect an earlier then pre-PIEphonocasethisin(inwhich logicalsystem orthe wouldbe very flection archaic), reduced have been cluster simply might Schmidt (1898, byallegro phonology." tietheformant p. 399) did notdirectly dembutcorrectly to thewordfor 'one,' See also Szethephonology. onstrated 2004, 1996,p. 206; Gippert merenyi esp.pp. 156,161,nn.6, 22,25; Hackstein 2005,p. 178. is no needto in78.That is,there the to explain vokeLesbianpsilosis > -yy-, see Lejeune1972, For-syform. of pp. 132-133,127. A development > ruled out seems to *hiby *yy- *yitheusualvocaitviolates that thefact stated lization rule(clearly byRinge a hypotheti2006,pp. 15-16). Further, wouldhaveto be created cal *yids fairly Greekitself to escapethe latewithin of*y-> C,usualdevelopment (theunsinceh-develconditioned outcome), This difference is from ops only *Hy-. in orincorporated understood notfully Rix1992,one ofthe treatments. most unfortumost handbooks, up-to-date reversed the situation has nately 1976 (pp.60, 70, 68, 80); see Peters I can PIE contains for details. (as far with one lexeme find) only *sy-: *syuHSkt.syu-td'sewn,' 'sew,' 'strap.' syU-ma with In Greek we havex>\ri\v rough words with butall Greek breathing, initial d haverough (thereabreathing be a regular butitmay sonis unclear, change; Lejeune1972, phonological 1995, pp.280-281,320; Sihler a lossofy simip. 173). HereI suspect andLat. seenin Vedicsutray larto that subula sutusy 'awl',that is,a regular suo> u in Greek. (loss)before development theinitial Schmidt (1898) explained he the of vowel by type epenthesis > *iyds. > so for io9i, posited *syds *isyds

45O

HOLT

N. PARKER

on paradigmlevelingis not good ioc,iaq.79Again, agreement creating evidence forsubgrouping, sincethespreadoftheiceforms no moreunites forms unites and Boiotian than the of the uioc Lesbian, Thessalian, spread and Doric. Attic-Ionic, Pamphylian, branchof To sumup so far, Aiolic appearsto be a veryconservative it does not for the sound Greek, undergo. changes distinguished primarily In fact, thana relicarea,and Aiolicunderscrutiny lessa subfamily appears Rischcouldfind no sureisogloss AiolicandWestGreekbefore separating ca. 1200 B.C.80 within Divisions Lengthening Aiolic: The First Compensatory

We can go further. Rather thana unity, Aiolic is splitbyone oftheearliestGreeksoundchanges, theFirstCompensatory (1CL).81 Lengthening This is Hainsworth's no. 4 (see above,p. 444), withthetelling point"not and therefore a poorcandidate ofAiolic. fora defining Boiotian," quality A proper formulation of the FirstCompensatory is crucial Lengthening to understanding thedevelopment of the Greekdialects, and so requires a certainamountof space. Those whose eyes glaze over at linguistics detailed (but have stuckwithme so far)maywish to skipthe following The fact be borne in to mind is that the forms presentation. important in Lesbian and Thessalianwithdoubleresonants attested (e.g.,Lesbian) theoriginal Pan-Greek all other Boiotian, dialects, represent stage; including haveundergone a later the First so change, Lengthening: Compensatory Boiotianand Doric oeA,otva, and Attic-Ionic once aeA,f|VTi.That is, again, LesbianandThessalianaredistinguished notbyan innovation butmerely to undergo a changeseenelsewhere. bya failure The presentations in mosthandbooksare necessarily scattered and failto capture several rules. in The basic of events the general sequence + + FirstCompensatory was thata resonant sy or s resonant, Lengthening + y all becamedoubleresonants resonant in all dialects, butthenin certain dialectsVRR > VR, whichone can viewas a compensatory lengthening or a simpleshift of mora/assimilation. More precisely, a vowelis lengthened as a result of thesimplification of a following doubleresonant cluster.82 In brief, VRR > VRy nonpalatal
79. Forthisoriginal with paradigm nom.u(ot, 1898; gen.ia<;,see Schmidt Peters 1980,p. 132,n. 80 (crediting Eichner); 1992,vol.1, Meier-Briigger Hackstein 60; 2005, p. pp. 178-179, whoshows thesamedevelopment in Tocharian A si andTocharian B sana. This analysis differs somewhat from that ofMeier-Briigger (1992,vol.1, (2004,pp. 162p. 60) andGippert with free Lindemanns 163),whostart Law variants within theparadigm
I *sm-iyeh2s, which Meier*sm-yeh2s sees as developingto h(i)yds Briigger > *sy)I *(m)midsy (with*smy respec-

and uux<; then form psilosis) analogical nominatives ictand uia. Lindemanns Law variants within Greekaredoubtandwe expect thePGrk ful, however, > to follow the *syds pattern o*dyiws 80. Risch1955,p. 71. 81. So calledbecauseitprecedes boththeAttic-Ionic ofa > r\, change andtheSecondCompensatory which to new Lengthening, applies of-ns-. The (orunchanged) groups formulations ofBlumel (1982),as themost treatment comprehensive ofAiolicto date, deserve separate consideration be pursued andcannot
> Zfiv(a). Zevq, *dyem

The resulting Lesbian ia<;(with tively.

here. someofhisrules Unfortunately, for thesoundchanges areprone to as a result oftheuseofa error, partially framework, synchronic, generative which doesnotdistinguish between andlater, Proto-Greek dialectical, He fails the soundchanges. to capture of the First generalization CompenandhiscomLengthening satory (pp.78-79,95-96, plexexplanations several different 108-109) callfor none without their difficulties, rules, in fact which incorrect forms. produce 82.This formulation of1CL is based on that ofmyteacher Warren Cowgill 1967).Though (modifying Kiparsky

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

451

ofthedepalataliza3. Chart Figure clusters tion ofresonant > /,and ww > w, but notin cases of rr> r,// in cases of mm> m>nn > ny or *IT comes from and to XXonlyafter (which *yy */y laterdepalatalizes This changeis foundin all Greekdialects 1CL is over).83 exceptLesbian whichmerely retain thePan-Greekstage.84 andThessalian, sources forthesenew doubleresonant clusters: There arethree > *hR/RA > RR (either 1. *Rs/sR or simpleassimilabymetathesis tion). -RR- from 2. A depalatalized -Ry-.ForRy > R'R',whathappens vowel.If thevowelis non-high nextdependson thepreceding a or o, then as possible), and back (i.e., as unpalatal namely > oyny is created: *ann > ayn,*oriri a new diphthong i.e.,*ri intothehomorganic resonant loses itsnasality and turns merely > ayr> *arY *n is and the Similarly remaining depalatalized. y, But ifthevowelis highor front *orY> oyr. ey ft, u)>thenR'R! > RR and either inThessalianand Lesbian stays depalatalizes feedstheFirstCompensatory or elsewhere (see Lengthening two treatto note that these It is 3). differing Fig. important in all dialects and so arePan-Greek.85 ments of R'R' arepresent maintain Lesbian andThessalianalone of Greekdialects simply theresulting -RR-,butBoiotianshowsthecompensatory long vowels.86
canbe an outline never fully published, in Cowgill1969 andin Crist found counter2001,pp.76-77.The putative ofRR, clusters aresurface examples areeasily ofwhich most explained. ofhR thetreatment are from Many > hR#sRin quasi-initial position: whence therough FH, PH, etc., spelled > > *hpofo<;, on p-.So *srdwos breathing In Horn, pooq(povq). quasi-initial posito lateenough hR-is still tion, present a secondary-change (at morundergo to -RR-,butonly boundaries) pheme > So: *srew-othe1CL is over. after > peco, etc.Note butmxappeco, *hrewoin Homerare several suchforms that corto reflect thephonologically likely > eppeov; so:*e-srew-on rect PGrkreflex; > uei5-idco but(piA,oun.ei8r|<; *smeydfondofsmiles' (Sihler1995,pp. 170classofputa171,171). The other wouldbe derivativecounterexamples > ypa\L\iaf etc. tives suchas *Ypd(p-n.<x that Thereis goodevidence, however, continued unassimilated these groups until late;so,e.g.,Ion. surprisingly from dissimilated eoxe6uevoi *GT<p-ua; cf.Hsch.axe9|iaxa axe^jxaxa (I owe see Scherer to Don Ringe; thisexample 1959,p. 263). ewea, ofwhatever remodelshows considerable source, PIE *newn. ingfrom > *IT > U in all dialects. So 83. *fy > *yy in all dialects. and*sy too*wy inMycenaean 84.The state is,of to tell. course, impossible makes itclearthat 85.This change in had already beendepalatalized stops find vowel umlaut PGrk.We never any PGrk theputative orthelikebefore reconofcc, thatSihler clusters etc., structs (1995,p. 192,198),though similar havebeena may something which thesound mid-stage through change passed. 86. Garcia-Ramon 1975,pp.44-46, 5.3.1.

452

HOLT N. PARKER

3. The third sourceis thegroup*-ln-(closely in articulation), related whichbecomes-//in particular not Note (crucially palatal).87 that*-In-> -II- feeding theFirstCompensatory Lengthenof as a reduction ingmeansthatthelaw mustbe formulated RR and notsimpleloss ofsy ory.Though somescholars hy > -II-y havequestioned thechangeof*/n theevidence is clear.88 a attests where *-/nhad Mycenaeannicely stage already assimilated to -//for*-rs-y is cloudedbythe (theevidence *-ryspelling system).89 ofthediffering outcomes oftheFirst Examples Compensatory Lengthare for the first source (sR): ening > *esmi > *ehmi > PGrk emmi in Lesb. ejifii, preserved *h1es-mi Thes. euui,butBoiot. euxin thearchaic Att.-Ion. alphabet, ejii laterspelledeiui (withtheso-calledspurious diphthong). In Cretanand other ofDoric,wheree and T|wereat the types sameheight, thenewlongvowelsarethesame as inherited e and 6 and so spelledf|ui. > *asme > *ns-'we' (cf.Germ,uns,Eng. us) in ace. *ns-me PGrk *amme, in Lesb. Lesb. recessive (with aji^ie preserved > *dme butBoiot. and Dor. aue. In Att.then*amme accent), > fine-.90 > uoTpoc, > euuope *smer'appoint': 0-grade pf.*se-smor-e *smor-ya > *hehmartai (Horn,withLesb. psilosis)butpf.pass.*se-smr-tai > *hemmartai (RR) > Att.hi2martai (1CL) = duapTai. pf.pass, > *se-smr-men-on Lesb. euuopuevov, butAtt.eiuapuevov part. (1CL).91
87. Lejeune1972, 152. pp.153-154, 88. See,e.g.,Sihler 1995,pp.212are 213, 224.2b.Surface exceptions dueto analogy andlater recomposition, a (1975) provides e.g.,7uA,-vaui. Slings clearoverview ofthestages. See below for Not all commonly offered examples. evidence is secure, however. The only form Sihler discusses is arr|A,T|, which is taken as from *stel-/*stlusually 'equip,' (Bartonek 2003,p. 146).Myc.doesnot indicate doubleconsonants. normally Much depends on theinterpretation of thero2 and ra2 signs: spells etymoro2 = in thecomp. logical *ryo a-ro2-a(cf.ap-iato<;), aryoa< *aroha< *ar-yos-a

-sm-

etc.,andsecondary (syncopated) -ryo= 7cop(p/6p(i)o(;, = mpo-pu-ro2 tu-ro2 dim.'little as wellas rop(i)ov, cheese,' = inpi-ti-ro2-we-sa secondary -lyo> *stalnd> Lesb. aiotMxx, so *stl-neh2 of (no example primary ptilyo-we(s)sa Dor.axdXa, Att.(5rr\kr\. Risch(1974, in spells lyo-). etymological *-ryara2 derived it most butspells *-rsp. 110,39f) had already cases, etymological = *ager-safrom with the in thefirst aor.a-ske-ra2-te 'stand'), *sth2sleh2 (*stf>2-slasuffix, seenin Lat. >* nt-es infrequent (cf.3. agerhantesl* agerrantes * > scdla. = *skand-sla to a-ke-re cf. However, pointing sing. pres. ageryeil* agerrei; *stl-nais Old Saxonstollo, Lesb.dyeppco, butAtt.dyeipco). showing Again, boththezero-grade andan /z-stem. an *agersantes wouldbe spelled fa-kea connection with the sa-nt-es the Further, The though by usualconventions. rootfor 'stand* is appealing, the has been taken as both sign spelling ra2 semantics arelessattractive: -slarY andrr, butthisis unlikely, sincenot to be an instrumental formant is a separate double appears only signfor which one consonants in LinearB, ('that climbs'). by unparalleled - 6(peMxov/6(peAxov, buta signfor 89. So o-pe-ro rra(Ila,rro, necessar116) sincean *6<peA,vcov wouldbe spelled overa syllable break ilyextending violates theprinciples ofthesyllabic bytheusualconventions fo-pe-no

The likeliest writing system. explanationis that for original signs rya/Iya, andryo/lyOy whether from or primary continued (< etc., secondary *rya *riya)> tobe usedevenwhen*rya hadbecome andso wasusedfor newrra -rra-, etc., < *rsa, from in a waysimilar *rha to the use oftheAttic "spurious diphthong." See Bartonek 2003,pp. 105-106,146theevidence. 147,for 90. A goodexample of1CL precedthe Att.-Ion. ofa ing(feeding) change > t|.The newrough seenin breathing 2. Art., Boiot.,andDoriccomesfrom In Att.this*f|ueis recharacpl.\)ue-. terized with theace.pl. ending fiue-cx<; > fjuaq(Sihler1995,p. 380,369). 91. Notethat Grassmann's Law ofaspirates) doesnot (dissimilation that *hR> is,theassimilation apply, RR precedes Grassmann's Law,which that we arenotdealing againshows with themere lossofh compensatory butthesimplification ofdouble resonants.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

453

> (pcoq) > Lesb. cpdewoq, > cpdoq butBoiot. (cf.*phawos *pbdwes-nothe Boiot. Odevoq(laterOdevvoq, following collapseofthe Ark.Oocr|va. diphthongs), " > Lesb. aeAxxwa, butBoiot.,Dor. oetaxva, 'shiner' *selas-nd Art.-Ion. G6Xf|VT|.92 -sw> vaico) > *nawwds > Lesb. vawq, *nas-wo-s (cf.*nas-yo 'dwelling' > Art.vecoq > Boiot.votoq, Ion. vi\6<; butwith1CL: Lak. votpoq metathesis). (withquantitative in j-aorists, and so on: arenumerous For -Rs- there futures, examples > *arjgelTd but and so not 1CL) > dyye^Xco (in all dialects *arjgel-yo > Boiot. but first aor.*ayyeX-aa Lesb.,Thes. dyYeAAd-uevoq, Art.inf. (1CL withhighvowel). dy/eTAm dyyei^auevcoq, -ns> Thes. part.gen.pl. cruu-UwdvT-oi)v, butBoiot. ueivdxco, *men-saArt.eueiv-e. > Lesb. UT^vv-oq, Thes. ueiw-oq;in the 1CL *mens-os: gen.'month' but to thelongvowel, thelengthening dialects appliesvacuously Art. so: Boiot. the show RRy uriv-oq.93 ueiv-oq, simplified they showthatRs musthavepassedat leastto Rh The -nn-forms s Law applied. Pan-GreekOstoff (> RR) before to note herethatthe FirstCompensatory It is especially important the changeof sonant*r> pa. So after ordered is Lengthening crucially > > Tpotpcov > *trarron > *trahron > fear' *tfs-ron *tfs-ro-Hon'possessing in Lesbian(though aremany there Forthesecondsource, examples Ryy fewer a/o: after in Boiotian).For thetreatment attested > > *gwann6 > *gwany6 (Lat. venio)> PGrk *gwamy6 *gwm-y6 Pan-Greekpaivco. > Pan-Greekuoipot.95 > *hmorYa *smor-ya
* > kharYe-> xccipei.96 > *k*ar-yeghr-yeTpT|pCOV.94

-sn-

-h-

e: But after in Lesb. > *awerYo> Pan-Greek*awerro, whichremains *awer-yobut > Boiot.,Art.deipco (1CL). deppco,
92. The initiala- is an old and unsolved problem,possiblyinfluenced by taboo. linguistic nom. uf|v.Ion. 93. Att. back-forms > *mens shows originalnom. *mens = > (OstofFs Law) ml2s |iei<;by the Second CompensatoryLengthening. 94. A further example is suggested by Lejeune^ derivation(1972, p. 122, ('head,' 'in 115) PGrk *krs-ro-s > Kepva) *kers-na full cf. grade charge,' > Att. va\>-Kpapo<; > *krarros > *krahros > v<xi>-kA,tipo<;. However,see Nussbaum 1986, pp. 24, 167, 221, 244-245, forthe > > *krdsro of PIE * krh2s-r-6preform > with 1CL *krdrro -Kpapo^ > -icA,T|po<;, applyingvacuously. 95. The comparative *ar-yos-a (cf.dp-iaxoq),Myc. a-ro-a (*aryosa> > *aryoa)[see above, n. 89], *aryoha seems to show thatMyc. is stillat the before stage of*aryo-/*arYo-/*arro-y the diphthonghas formed(i.e., we have a-ro2-a aryoaand not the expected ' t a-ro-a or fayro-spelled presumably the like). The problemis thatthe expected faipcovdoes not show up anywhere.Instead we have Att. dpeicov with some typeof extensive remodeling (Sihler 1995, p. 362, 354.4b). A similar recombination mightalso account forthe Myc. form. orderedafter 96. Again crucially *r> ap but before1CL, which it bleeds.

454

HOLT N. PARKER

Figure4. ChartoftheFirstComLengthening pensatory > *kteririo > Pan-Greek ktenno, remains in Lesb. Kievvo),but *kten-yo Att. (1CL; not attestedforBoiot.). ktt|vco Dor., Kiewtfl Compare afteri: > *kriririo > Pan-Greek krinno, remains in Lesb. Kpiwco > *krin-yo Att. not attested for (1CL; Boiot.). Kpivco For the thirdsource, -In- clusters,there are excellent examples from inheritedand remodeled nasal presents: > Lesb. PIE *h3bhe'l'owe' formsa Greek nasal present*opbe/-nobut Doric and and Boiot. Att.-Ion. ocpeMxo, 6(pt|Xco, ocpeiAxo (1CL).97 > *gwolePIE *gwelh3'will,wish/ *gwe/o(a regularmetathesis) in with a nasal infix Ark., Cyp., Pamph., and West Ion. p6A,oum; > remodeled to a full-grade pres. *gwl-ne-h3-/*gwl-n-h3*gw/-no-> on the thematic root present.98 This in turn *gwe/no-/*gwolnoshows the various outcomes of*-In- and labiovelars before e: Lesb. p6M,oum,Thes. peAAouai, with retained -XX-, but Att.Ion. Pot>A,ouai, Dor. 8r|A,o|iou, and Boiot. peiA,our| (1CL).99 97. See theexcellent summary by Slings1975.Fortheinitial laryngeal, > <p^-ov cf.aor.*e-h3bhl-e/o(Myc. and the o-po-ro)y neg.vco(peA,T|<; (Myc. Beekes1969,pp.56,225no-pe-re)\ 256.Theseverbs cannot reflect -Resince this would result in presents, -XXin all dialects, andtheonly other source wouldbe phonologically possible in *-se/so-, a suffix which is impossible tojustify orsemantimorphologically see Slings (i.e.,a desiderative); cally 1975,pp.3-4: "I failto see howanycondition wouldbe bodyinwaking ableto term a verb 'towish' a meaning 'desiderative.'" see 98. Fortheshapeoftheroot, Sihler 1995,pp.498-500,453-454; Rixet al. 2001,p. 17. Boiotian shares the 99. Noticethat are as well;pcuA.fi, Doric -grade etc., built to theverb. See Rixet al. directly 208-209. 2001,pp.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

455

PIE *w/-new/nu-y in Greekwithsecondary *wel'roll/ ^-grade > Lesb. eXXeco, butDor. fr\ke.(oy Att.ei^eco(1CL);100 *wel-new> Lesb. aoXfoy; cf.thezero-grade *sm-wl-nes'rolledtogether' > ol and Lesbian psilosis), and thezero-grade adv.in ( with*/ form (Hsch. a 2761 [Latte]).The ^-grade &AAt|<; ot^avecoq > *hawelles > *sm-wel-nes is attested at //. 3.13 and underlies to Att. (with1CL) contracting aki\q. *aeikr\q The sourcesand outcomesof the FirstCompensatory Lengthening in Figure4. aresummarized The Position of Boiotian

100.Rixetal.2001,p.675. 101. See Garcia-Ramon 1975,p. 70, 6.2.1,whoputsitdownto a Boiotian ofgeminates. Although simplification he be dated, cannot thechange he says ca. 1125,the nonetheless placesitafter Boiotian for datehe proposes splitting off from (p. 110). "proto-thessalien" ofthe no examples 102.1 canfind First Lengthening Compensatory in Boiotian to *r> po/op (but applying arevery forms thepo/op few). 103.Hainsworth (1982,p. 862) "thegeminathat itbysaying explains was toolate andnasals tionofliquids the he takes that to affect is, Boeotian," > a late to be of *sn -nn-, etc., changes to see Lesbian-Thessalian affair, failing Proto-Greek. that itis in fact "West for 104.The usualmarker in -ue<;. It is is the1. pl.ending Greek" shared Boiotian that stated sometimes is buttheending with -uev Lesbian, ofkoine thespread before notattested has 1959,p. 18).Thessalian (Scherer Lafrom a single (-uev), example only
Graecarum rissa (Dialectorum Exempla

as a laterand independent difference thisstriking changeof Explaining it splitoff a ProtoBoiotianafter from VRRto longvowelplusR within oftheFirstCompensatory The examples Aiolic cannotwork.101 Length-RR- clusters and there Proto-Greek eningin Boiotiancome onlyfrom sourcesfordouble resonants no cases of any secondary are apparently That a later Boiotian rule should apply treatment. this is, undergoing should for and without givefa^oq; the new exception, dtXkoq, example, > shouldhavegiven as such IlekoKoc-vx\oo<; Uekonow^Goq, assimilations, etc. trietamcbvTiGoq, cuts Boiotian since the First Compensatory Further, Lengthening thatare said to all the otherfeatures Aiolic family, offfroma putative - the > Pin all positions, of*Kwe Aiolic characterize changes phonological in -eaai, perfect ofdative innovations *r> po/op; themorphological plural - musthavebeen = and in ioc uia -cov, -ovx-, early exceptionally participle This is not a conhave precededthe FirstCompensatory Lengthening. that theFirst Comoutbythefact anditseemstobe ruled scenario, vincing after thechangeof*f> po/op ordered is crucially Lengthening pensatory dialects.102 in other seemsto be clearthatBoiotianbelongsto a different The conclusion which do notundergo thanLesbianandThessalian, ofGreekdialects group it No earlyisoglossesseparate the FirstCompensatory Lengthening.103 e to dentalsbefore of labiovelars West Greekuntilthe innovation from of branch viewBoiotianthenas a conservative We may Doric.104 marks off branch Boiotianfrom Doric, although beinga separate nothing prevents of Greekaltogether. Other Claimed Subgroupings of Aiolic

to 214 b.c. Lesbianat590.13)dating understandin thepoetsbut, -uev tests areno epigraphic there examples. ably, 105.Garcia-Ramon 1975,p. 80, "les that thedateon thefact basing historiens les and archeologistes ca. 1000la s'accordent pourdater andciting dite'eolienne,'" migration we Here 69. 1972,p. Desborough base see thedanger: archaeologists of their dateson thereconstructions dateson the whobasetheir linguists, ofarchaeologists. reconstructions

of Boiotianleavesjust Thessalianand Lesbian. Is it posThe departure a family? sible thatat least thisgroupsomehowforms Again,thereare Thessalianand for and I see no evidence sharedinnovations, no securely itself. Proto-Greek other than Lesbian having anycommonancestor holds ofthequestion, treatment GarciaRamon,in themostdetailed from a ProtothatBoiotiansplitoff Aiolic,whichhe rather tendentiously laterLesbian migrated and thatabouta century labels"proto-thessalien," with thisview,however, There are problems "thessalo-lesbien."105 from lack of theFirstCompensatory that the out and he himself points rightly reason to groupthetwo is not a Thessalian and in Lesbian Lengthening

456

HOLT

N. PARKER

sincethisis merely a retained archaism from theCommonGreek together of -RR-.106 As of he points evidence of a shared stage period development, His to a number ofcommon newfeatures ofgreater orlesser importance.107 > *metsos bestevidence is the changeof *-ts-> -ss-(e.g., PGrk *metA-yos > uggo<;) in bothThessalianand Lesbian,versus *-ts-> -tt-in Boiotian the group*-ts-is quite stablein thevariousdialects, However, (uTTO<;). > and thesame*-ts- -tt-l-ssvariation is foundin Atticand theIonic of forms Euboia and Oropos (vs.therestofIonic), and in Cretan(vs. other of Doric).108 Boiotianinnovates a of assimilation by showing progressive the retained *-ts-> -tt-,but *-ts-> -ss-in Thessalianand in Lesbian is a case ofparallel theregressive assimilation common simply development, in mostGreek,109 an original and nota sharedinnovation unity implying ofThessalianand Lesbian.110 Garcia-Ramonsothercases are shakier still.He claims a common rorafand of a consonantal from i between a vowelin hiatus development y notethata ruleapplying {riV > ryV)}n First, onlyto r and d is difficult to motivate. Lesbianhas Second,thedata showno parallel developments. two cases: only special > ty-y 1. diV- > *dyVwordinitially in 8id > d,and in only, > These in thepoets, forms are Aiowuooq Zowoaoq. frequent buttheinscriptional form is 8id.112 This palatalization is not uncommon and showsup in Phokaiaand Cyprusas well. 2. A limited number ofcases of ri > ry> rr, buttheseareoftwoori> One is late in the so rcepi-oxoq rcepi-, gins. by syncope preverb theinscriptional (= Att.7tepi-e%oi)oa); jceppoxoq, *7tep<p>e%oio' is always The other is foundonlyin the form, however, rcepl.113 > Ileppauoq(Alk. 42.2, besidea metrinamenpiocuoq proper convenient name Ilepauoq,Sappho 44.16) and themonth cally = xS Ayeppavto) This ufiwoq(late3rdcentury) Aypiavioq.114 > to a rule *CriV> (*C9rr'V-> points possible whereby *CryVwitha palatalr thatthencolorsan anaptyctic vowel) > CerrV-. In all other cases -ri-is retained.115
106. Garcia-Ramon 1975, pp. 4446, 69, 5.3.1, 6.2.1. 107. Garcia-Ramon 1975, pp. 8191. 108. The -ts- stage is retainedin Cretan untilquite late (spelled -- in older inscriptions): Schmitt1977, p. 52, no.5.M.12. 109. The situationof Boiotian is more complicatedthan is commonly It is usuallysaid thatoriginal presented. *T+s > -tt-in Boiotian and Cretan Doric. However,Boiotian shows the Proto-Greekchange of *t-s> -ss in finalposition;so *wanakt-s> *wanakss > F<xvax<; (Buck 1955, p. 227, no. 37.4). Boiotian shows -tt-onlyin Further, cases: morphologically transparent kouiS-gcxetc. It is (aor.) > koijaxx[t|, hard to believe thatthe dat. pl. was ever *pod-si> fnovtiin Boiotian. It seems more likelythat*-t+s-> -ss- is general Greek and then -T-s- was restored in Boiotian in j-aorists,etc.,where it then underwentthe laterBoiotian regressive assimilationto -tt-.See Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 84. 110. Furthermore, Thessalian is less uniform than usuallypresented.GarciaRamon (1975, p. 83) correctly rulesout the propernames Koxxixpot;, Ooutto*;, Howetc.,as of uncertainetymology. ever,the veryname of the Thessalians, foundin BoioIlexOaXoq(< OeTTaA,6<;, tian,beside Att. GeoaaXoq, and so indiattestedat both catinga labiovelar*gwh), Larissa and Kierion,and Gdtaxxxa, cited as Thessalian, point to the rcixxa, forms withinboth presenceof -//Pelasgiotisand Thessaliotis. Proper names are oftenanomalous and the etymologies proposed by Heubeck (1984) and Weiss (1998, pp. 56-61), are not withoutdifficulties. I doubt thatthe ethnonym is Indo-European. 111. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 82. 112. Also 8id in Sappho 1.12; Sappho vel Alk. SLG S276(l), col. 2, line 17. mp8ia > mp^a is cited by Etym.Magn. 407.21 as Aiolic (not speLesbian as sometimesstated), cifically but thisis of littlevalue. 113.Hodotl990,p.l50. 114. The grammarians cite as Aiolic (again, not specifically Lesbian) for uexeppoqforuixpux;,Korceppa and possiblydA.A,6xep(p)o<; for Korcp(a, For a fulldiscussion,see dA,A,6xpio<;. Hodot 1974, pp. 126-128.

115.Hamm1957,p. 25, 52.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

457

on thecontrary, showsa fullsetof doublepalatalconsoThessalian, notonlyprecednants. The new*-yVand duplicates (< -iV-) palatalizes but stopsas well (examples onlyfor/,d, n, s, and the rule ing resonants to dentals), whichare thenspelledwithor without an maybe confined = for thepalatalization. -1-to indicate include, Examples -r(V)y-:KVppov = for Kt>ppiov, dpyvppoi (gen.sing.) dpyupioi); -l(V)y:noXXioq (gen.sing.) = rcoAaoq; for-t(V)y-:e^amixioi = e^aicooioi;for-d(V)y-:i88iav,vc8iav = rcpo^evuov; = i5iav;116 for-n(V)y-:Tcpo^evviow for-s(V)y-:eKKtaiooia ' We clearly havea late ruleof [R, T] > {R'R, T T] I besideyvuaaaov.117 innovation withLesbian. _y and thechangeis nota shared Garcia-Ramon For sharedmorphological changes, pointsto datives see above, thisis also Boiotian(and foundelsewhere; in -eaai, although in but that this is an innovation He concludes Boiotian, rightly p. 447). about a can imply failsto see thatit therefore nothing supposedperiodof To thishe addspatronymics inThessalianand Lesbian.118 shared changes in the ofaorist, material and of in -eioq, eGriicav -loq, though type adjectives thespread all ofthesearecommonGreek.Boiotianinnovates byshowing besidethe dv-e-0i-K-ocv to thethird-person ofthe-K-forms pluralaorist a feature notfoundin Lesbian orThessalian. new analogicaldv-e-Ge-ocv, in twodialects as ifitwere a retained feature is to treat The mistake again a sharedinnovation. inLesbianandThessalian, verbs ofcontract The athematic conjugation claimedas a commoncharacteristic.119 but notin Boiotian,is sometimes Hock and Garcia-Ramon, however, rejectit as a sharedinnovarightly and Cyprian; in Arkadian is found the same tion.120 second, First, pattern inThessaliotis.121 in but not are found forms theathematic only Pelasgiotis butthemostimportant offactors,122 The dataarecomplicated bya number verbsis a verymixedbag Atticclass of contract factis thatthe familiar Forthe-dco and thematic formations.123 bothathematic verbs, continuing arethefollowing: sources theprincipal suchas in *-h2builtto thematic factatives 1. athematic adjectives, -> 'makenew,renewa field byplowing'; *new-e-h2-mi ved-co suchas xiudo) builtto a-stemfeminines, denominatives 2. thematic to xi|if|.
is anoma116. The roughbreathing lous. 117. See Blumel 1982, pp. 55-56, 64, fordetails,thoughhis rule (under > -VrYs > Vss>Vs/_C 64.4) of -Vrysis betterexplainedby simple syncopation followedby assimilation. 118. Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 84. 119. E.g., Buck 1955, p. 148, 202.4. examinedby The data are exhaustively the resultsare Hock (1971); however, vitiatedby the factthathe believed that to e ratherthan a, and by a+e contract of the his incompleteunderstanding of PIE. verbalsystem 120. Hock 1971, p. 514; GarciaRamon 1975, pp. 71-72, 6.2.3. 121. See Scherer1959, p. 69, for discussionof the forms. 122. These are as follows:in the literarytexts(Sappho and Alkaios), (a) the usual vagariesof transmission, (b) the tendencyof Hellenistic editors "Aiolic"color; in to impose a uniform (c) the paucityof attestainscriptions, tion in both Lesbian and Thessalian; in all texts, (d) the formsare verylimited since in Lesbian at least,the 2. sing, reand 3. sing,have been extensively but modeled so thatwe findcp(X.r|jxi, yduei (and so indistinguishable Aajtctic;, fromregularthematiccpepei); (e) furthermore, only a veryfewformsgive clear evidence,since manyof the forms imin -a-yas well as manyinfinitives, middles and subjunctives, peratives, could be the resultof regularthematic contractions (e.g., apduai could be fromathematicapa-uou or equally Bliimel's fromthematic*&poc-o-uai). attempt(1982, pp. 76-77, 168, 172173, 88, 182, 187) to explainthe apthematiccpi^ei,etc.,by regular parently phonological developments(beginning with a typeof Kiparskysmetathesisof > *-ei > *-ei) founders on -e-ti > *-eyt in Lesbian inheritedathematictCBtigi and (so thatwe should expectt<P&TiGi) the the factthat,whateverits origins, thematicending in -ei is Pan-Greek. see Sihler 123. For an overview, 1995, pp. 513-514, 462.1; pp. 521524, 468-469; see also Ringe 2006, pp. 28-29.

458

HOLT N. PARKER

Thereareevenmoresources for-eco verbs: 1. athematic in *-eh2such statives made to zero-grade Caland roots, cpiXeco; in -e-yo-y 2. thematic denominatives builtto thematic nominals, > oiiceco; suchas *woik-e-ydin -eyo-> in 3. thematic withtherootoften causative/frequentatives > (popeco; the0-grade, suchas *bhor-eyo4. plainthematics builtto stemsendinginy, wy or s (whichthen > peco; between such as *srew-ovowels), disappears 5. thematic in -yo-builtto s-stems, denominatives suchas *teles-yo> teleyyo> xe^eico, laterxe^eco.124 In short, all thedialects haveamplematerials tobuildanalogical forms and to regularize thevarying Most dialects(including Thesparadigms. havechosenthemorenumerous butArkadian, saliotis) thematics, Cyprian, showvarying ofathematic forms. Lesbian Lesbian,andPelasgiotis spreads showsinherited statives like<p(A,Tiiu, besidedenominatives likeoikt|ui, and iterative causatives like<popf|ue0<x; butfor thelasttwocategories theforms remain and numerous attestations of thematic, 7U7i^eovTa, e.g., peovxoc, of xeX,eico.125 forms That is, at the time(s)the old thematics wererecast as athematics and xeXeico werestill (at leastin some of their forms), peco in theform of*pep-co and *xetayy-co. The Thessaliandata showonlynine forms withclearathematic but Sie-aoccpei-uevoc seemsto point inflection, to thespreadof athematic forms to *-es-yoverbsas well.126 to link the mainlanddialects, Thessalian and Equally,any attempt as a does notwork, eventhough aretheonlypair Boiotian, subgroup they to whicha version of a dialectgeography Not onlyareThesapplies.127 salianand Boiotianseparated by the FirstCompensatory Lengthening, share no common innovation. Of thethree features listed they commonly in handbooks,128 ThessalianandBoiotianti(medially andfinally) is merely retained from whileLesbianundergoes a later soundchange Proto-Greek, to si.129 The spreadof theathematic infinitive endingin -jievto thematic stems(e.g.,(pep-e-uev) is found latein Boiotian, butinThessalianapparin and Perrhaibia, whiletheother ently only Pelasgiotis partsofThessaly show*-e-en> -en.mIn short, the further Boiotia the awayone is from morethethematic -e-uev seemsto flourish. That thecreation ofsuchnew forms does notindicate shared is shown eut-e-uev. ancestry byCretannpof Greek inherited a wide variety of infinitive formants and created Rather, stillmore;whichof themwerechosenor generalized variesgreatly from dialectto dialectand provides no firm basisforgrouping.131
124.Possible ofKaAico, explanations andthepurely Greek -6- classare etc., outside thescopeofthis paper. 125.Forthedata,see Blumel1982, pp. 172-178,187-191,pp.222-223, 236; Hodot 1990,pp. 192-198. 126.Lesbianevepyei-e-VT-eoai besideThes. e\)epYex-e-<; in the (< *-nt-s) derived is unlikely to repcompound > resent a directly inherited -es-yobutsimply Attic evepyeTTn;, euep-eyyoto thenewpatterns. Yeteco subjected 127. See,e.g.,Rodrigues Adrados 1956. 128.Buck1955,p. 148,204,who notes that in inf. one,thethematic only "which is Homeric, to -men> belongs theAeolicelements ofthese dialects"; Schmitt 1977,pp. 75-78. 129.Cowgill1966,p. 80; Schmitt 1977,p. 76. See above, p. 443,n. 45. 130.Buck1955,p. 122,155.1; Garcia-Ramon 1975,p. 66, 6.1.8; Schmitt 1977,p. 77,no. 18. Blumels to explain thethematic attempt away forms is notconvincing (1982,pp.208210, 223-224). 131. See thelistin Buck1955, 153. See Cowgillsclearre122, p. marks on principles ofgrouping: 1966, -> ep-oGe-co > y\to\\i\ -> as *h1rudh-eh2-mi 'be red'; *bhil-eh2-mi

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

459

fora shared is a puzzlingchangeconThe bestcandidate innovation where fined to thethird-person verb 0 shows endings, plural up in theplace for-vxco, for of x,so -v0ifor-vxi, -v0co and -a0rifor-ocxou.132 -v0T| -vxai, Ramon assumesthe change is commonAiolic and explainsits Garciamoveofpostulating Ionic influence.133 absencein Lesbianbythefamiliar we have a case of thelocus is Rather, clearly although analogicalspread, dates before both the ofMyuncertain. The usualexplanation decipherment where a hypothetical cenaeanandtheriseoflaryngeal theory, third-person > then threw its *senti which backto *henti, anomalously aspiration plural whicha new -0i endingwas abstracted.134 no createev0i,from However, The PIE rootbeganwiththe^-coloring and suchform existed. laryngeal > *ehenti, in Myceattested was *t>1s-enti the original Greekform nicely in locating correct the Blumelis almostcertainly naeane-e-si= efijensi.135 in that assibilation sourcein a secondary o(-(n)tispreadbyanalogy the to to assignsucha secondary It is difficult verbalsystem.136 palatalization in is from uniform either Boiotian and the far a proto-Aiolic process stage and case ofdialect This seemsa straightforward orThessalian. borrowing, Greekat Steirisin Phokis,over are foundin Northwest the same forms Mt. Parnassos.137 thepass through

CONCLUSIONS
thedialects databyarranging thelinguistic summarize We might alonga number andthose witha greater on theleft linewiththemostconservative of significant changeson theright: Thessalian| Lesbian | Boiotian | Doric | SouthGreek shares the SouthGreek(Mycenaean, Attic-Ionic) Arkadian, Cyprian, > > > and the while ss ti si and of assibilation sy Doric, Boiotian, *t(b)y early dialects of SouthGreeksharetheFirstCompensatory historical Lengthto be and Lesbian Thessalian consider we In this lineup, might ening. us to that view. but conservative related Rather, dialects, nothing compels to their themin a linecorresponding to arrange be better itmight roughly times: in historical position geographic Thessalian| Boiotian | Doric | SouthGreek | Lesbian dialectsappearnot the two mostconservative In thisarrangement, and thefar as relicareasin thefarnorthwest butrather dialects as related to can be used withanyconfidence no arrangement northeast. However, dialect reconstruct geography. prehistoric
the Attic-Ionic, example, p. 83. So, for Lokrian of northern part Thessalian, Corinthian, Greek), (Northwest Megathe andRhodian (Doric) all share rian, Arkadian while in -e-en, inf. thematic ofDoric show-en oftherest andmost See Sihler to thestem. addeddirectly 1995,p.608,552A.l.a. 132.Blumel (1982,pp. 155-158, theevidence. 171-173) surveys 133. Garcia-Ramon (1975,pp.65en "On hesiterait 66, 6.1.7) writes: les traits ce trait a ranger parmi principe in Lesitsabsence noting paneoliens," forms. ofPhokian bianandthepresence 134. Schulze1933,p. 399; followed 1959,p. 39, 237.14;BlubyScherer mel1982,p. 156,n. 148; Schmitt 1977, (1975, p. 71,no. 15. Garcia-Ramon from to see an analogy p. 65) prefers -ueBa, -o0e,butno proportional canbe made. analogy andfurther 135.Fordetails complicaseeSihler 492. 1995, tions, pp.548-549, 136.Blumel1982,pp. 155-158, beside 171-173. Cf.MeA,dve-io<; MeA,dvT-ac. vol.1, 137. Schwyzer 1939-1953, Garcia-Ramon 1975, p. 353,A.18,43; p. 66.

460

HOLT N. PARKER

In conclusion, the presence of speakers of Lesbian in the ascribing times to the ofAiolic tribes northeast historical migration Aegeanduring and from mainland Greecereceives no support from Migration linguistics. invasion are not the onlyor even the mostlikely mechanisms bywhich solid evidence for a and dialects No languages speaks spread(by spread. thanthe to theTroad,rather whatever theGreekmainland means)from from the other or forbothThessalianand Lesbian arriving wayaround, in situ. or forbothdeveloping north, close the idea of an Aiolic dialect examination, Furthermore, upon related itself falls Boiotian is an archaic mostclosely dialect, group apart. to West Greek,whichunderwent the FirstCompensatory Lengthening *r (withlaterindependent butretained changeof *r> po) and thelabiovelars(withthe default various changeto labials),and whichunderwent laterminorchangesof its own. Lesbian and Thessalianare both archaic branches ofGreekthatdid notundergo theFirstCompensatory Lengthcommon and nothing arinnovations, ening. Theyshareno demonstrable for a between them. are best two relic viewed as gues relationship They areasof a relatively unaltered Greek. early andAiolians ofLesThessalians, Boiotians, (i.e.,theinhabitants proper bos and theadjacent partofAsia Minor) werenotpartof an Aiolic tribe or dialect;they weresimply variouspeopleswho wereseen to be neither Dorians norIonians.138 In theabsenceof anyarchaeological or linguistic evidenceforsuch a group, we are better offavoidingthe term"Aiolic" altogether.

remarks of 138.Cf.thesensible cited on p. 433 andGschnitzer Meyer andin n. 7, above. One consequence is that thewholetopic ofthisresearch in Homerneedstobe of"Aiolisms" reexamined.

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR

THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

461

REFERENCES
Adams, D. 1981. "The Pre-Historyof Tocharian Preterite Participles," in Bono Homini Donum: Essaysin in Memory Historical Linguistics of Kerns,ed. Y. L. ArbeitJ.Alexander man and A. R. Bomhard,Amsterdam, pp. 17-24. Ahrens,H. 1839-1843. Degraecae lin2 vols., Gottingen. guae dialectis, Aikhenvald,A. Y., and R. M. W. Dixon, eds. 2001. Areal Diffusion Problems in and Genetic Inheritance: Oxford. Comparative Linguistics, Bartonek,A. 2003. Handbuchdes Griechisch, Heidelberg. mykenischen Beekes, R. S. P. 1969. TheDevelopment LarynoftheProto-Indo-European trans.T. S. Preston, geals in Greek, The Hague. Bellwood, P. 2001. "Early Agriculturalist Population Diasporas, Farming, Languages, and Genes," Annual Review ofAnthropology 30, pp. 181207. . 2005. FirstFarmers: The OriOxSocieties, gins ofAgricultural ford. DiaBlumel,W. 1982. Die aiolischen der und lekte: Phonologie Morphologie Texte aus generativer inschriftlichen furvergleichende Sicht(Zeitschrift Erganzungshefte Sprachforschung, 30), Gottingen. E. 2001. The Quest Bryant, for theOriCulture: TheIndo-Aryan gins ofVedic MigrationDebate, Oxford. Dialects: Buck, C. D. 1955. The Greek GlosSelected Grammar, Inscriptions, 2nd ed., Chicago. sary, Cartledge,P., ed. 2002. The Cambridge AncientGreece, Illustrated History of Cambridge. Chadwick,J. 1956. "The Greek DiaGaR lects and Greek Pre-History," in 38-50 2nd ser.,pp. 3, (repr. The and ofHomer, Background Language ed. G. S. Kirk,Cambridge 1964, pp. 106-118). . 1973. "Discussion" to V. I. Georgiev,"The Arrivalof the Greeks in Greece: The Linguistic Evidence,"in BronzeAge Migrations and Linin the Aegean:Archaeological in Greek Problems Prehistory, guistic ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, London, pp. 254-255. . 1975. "The Prehistory of the Greek Language," in CAH3 II.2, Cambridge,pp. 805-819. histoChantraine,P. 1961. Morphologie Paris. riquedu grec, . 1999. Dictionnaire etymologique de la languegrecque, Paris. Chapman, J. 1997. "The Impact of Modern Invasions and Migrations on Archaeological Explanation,"in and InvasionsinArchaeoMigrations logicalExplanation (BAR-IS 664), ed. J. Chapman and H. Hamerow, Oxford,pp. 11-20. Chapman, J.,and H. Hamerow. 1997. "On the Move Again: Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological and InExplanation,"in Migrations vasionsinArchaeological Explanation (BAR-IS 664), ed. J.Chapman and H. Hamerow, Oxford,pp. 1-10. Greece, Coldstream, J.2003. Geometric 900-100 B.C., 2nd ed., London. Coleman, R. 1963. "The Dialect Geographyof Ancient Greece," TransactionsofthePhilological Society,

Collis,J.2003. The Celts:Origins, Myths, Stroud. Inventions, Cook, J.M. 1975. "Greek Settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia Minor,"in CAW II.2, Cambridge, pp. 773-804. Cowgill, W. 1966. "AncientGreek Dialectology in the Light of Mycenaean," in Ancient Indo-European Dialects,ed. H. Birnbaumand J.Puhvel,Berkeley, pp. 77-95. . 1969. "On Resonant Clusters in Ancient Greek,"MeetingHand44thMeetingoftheLinguisbook, ticSociety pp. 22-26 ofAmerica, (abstract). Crist,S. 2001. "Conspiracyin HistoricalPhonology"(diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania). Crossland, R. A. 1973. "Linguisticsand Archaeologyin Aegean Prehistory," Aein BronzeAge Migrationsin the and gean:Archaeological Linguistic in Greek Problems Prehistory, ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, London, pp. 5-15. Darms, G. 1976. "Urindogermanisch Studienzur Munchener *semi," 35, pp. 7-32. Sprachwissenschaft

pp.58-126.

462 Dark Desborough, V. 1972. The Greek Ages,London. Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall ofLanguages,Cambridge.

HOLT

N. PARKER

M. 1994."The Dialect Finkelberg, ofAncient Continuum Greek," //SCP96,pp.l-36.

in CAW II.2, Cambridge,pp. 678712. and Invasions . 1976. Migrations in Greece and Adjacent Areas,Park das Hausler,A. 1998. "Archaologie, der und Indogermanenproblem Ursprungder Hellenen," in Die derhellenischen Geschichte Sprache 2. zum l.Jahrtauund Schrift: Vom sendv. Chr.:BruchoderKontinuitat? ed. N. Dimoudis and A. Kyriatsoulis,Altenburg, pp. 79-128. . 2003. Nomaden, Indogermanen, eines Invasionen:Zur Entstehung Mythos(Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 5). Halle. Heubeck, A. 1984. "Zum Volksnamen derThessaler,"in KleineSchriften undLiterazurgriechischen Sprache tur,ed. B. Forssman,S. Koster,and E. Pohlmann, Erlangen,pp. 306314. Hock, H. 1971. "The So-Called Aeolic Inflectionof the Greek Contract Verbs"(diss. Yale Univ.). Hock, H., and B. D.Joseph. 1996.

Ridge, NJ.

and Pre-Greeks: . 2005. Greeks Heroic and Greek AegeanPrehistory Tradition, Cambridge. Garcia-Ramon,J. 1975. Les origines postmyceniennes dugroupedialectal eolien(Minos Suppl. 6), Salamanca. . 2002a. "Aeolic (Lesbian)," in Brills New Pauly 1, cols. 231-232. . 2002b. "Greek Dialects," in Brills New Pauly2, cols. 1011-1018. Gippert,J.2004. "Ein Problem der Pronominalindogermanischen in Perasperaad asteriscos: flexion," in honorem Studia indogermanica Rasmussen (InnsJensElmegdrd bruckerBeitragezur Sprachwissenschaft112), ed. A. Hyllestedet al., Innsbruck, pp. 155-165. Gorlach, M. 1987. "Colonial Lag? The Alleged ConservativeCharacterof American English and Other 'Colonial' Varieties," English World-Wide Grant,M. 1994. Atlas ofClassicalHis5th ed., Oxford. tory, 4th Grote,G. 1888. History ofGreece, ed., 10 vols., London. F. 2002. "Aeolians,"in Gschnitzer, Brill'sNew Pauly 1, cols. 226-230. oder Hackstein,0. 2005. "Archaismus historischer Zur Sprachkontakt: Frage westindogermanischtocharischer in Konvergenzen," und Sprachwandel. Sprachkontakt AktenderXI. Fachtagung derIndo17.-23. germanischen Gesellschaft, Halle an derSaale, 2000, September ed. G. Meiser and O. Hackstein, Wiesbaden, pp. 169-184. Hainsworth, J.B. 1982. "The Greek Language and the Historical Dialects,"in CAH2 III.l, Cambridge, pp. 850-865. . 1993. TheIliad, a Commentary 3: Books9-12, Cambridge. zu Hamm, E.-M. 1957. Grammatik SapphoundAlkaios(AbhBerl1951:2), Berlin. Hammond, N. G. L. 1975. "The LitTraditionforthe Migrations," erary

8,pp.41-60.

Language History, Language Change, An Introand Language Relationship: toHistorical and Comparative duction (Trends in Linguistics: Linguistics Studies and Monographs 93), Berlin. Hodot R. 1974. "Les noms en -Kpdxris, et -Kepxr|<; dans Tonomas-Kpexrn;, zur tique de Lesbos," Beitrage 9, pp. 115-131. Namenforschung eoliend'Asie: . 1990. Le dialecte VIIe s. La languedesinscriptions, a.C.-IVes.p.C.,Vms. Hoffmann,0. 1891-1898. DiegriechDialekte in ihrem ischen historischen mit den wichtigsten Zusammenhange ihrer Quellen,3 vols., Gottingen. James,S. 1999. TheAtlanticCelts: Ancient PeopleorModernInvention? Madison. Janda,R. D., and B. D.Joseph. 2003. "On Language, Change, and Language Change Or, of History, and Historical LinguisLinguistics, tics,"in TheHandbookofHistorical ed. B. D.Joseph and R. D. Linguistics, Janda,Maiden, Mass., pp. 2-180. Karali,M. 2007. "The Classificationof the Greek Dialects," in A History of to AncientGreek: FromtheBeginnings

THE LINGUISTIC LateAntiquity yed.A.-F. Christidis, Cambridge, pp.387-394. P. 1967."Sonorant Clusters Kiparsky, in Greek," 43,pp.619Language 635. P. 1909."ZurGeschichte Kretschmer, Glotta dergriechischen Dialekte," 1, pp. 1-59. LaPolla,R. 2001."The RoleofMigrain the tionandLanguage Contact of the Sino-Tibetan Development in Aikhenvald Family," Language andDixon2001,pp.224-254.

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

463

M. A. 2005.How theCelts Came Morse, D. 1996."Language Nettle, Diversity inWestAfrica: An Ecological Ap15,pp.403-438. JAnthArch proach," Ancient Nichols, J.1997."Modeling Structures andMovePopulation in Linguistics," ments Annual Reviewof 26,pp.359Anthropology 384. . 1998."The Eurasian Spread Zone andtheIndo-European
and LanDispersal," in Archaeology 2: guage Correcting Archaeological and Linguistic ed. Hypotheses, toBritain:Druids,AncientSkulls, and Stroud. theBirthofArchaeology,

Grammatik des Rix, H. 1992. Historische Laut- undFormenlehre, Griechischen:

. 1974. Wortbildung der homerischen 2nd ed.,Berlin. Sprache,

der Rix,H., et al. 2001.LW.Lexikon Wiesbaden. F. 1952.La diaAdrados, Rodrigues

2nd ed., Verben, indogermanischen

Incontri 17, pp. 13-29. linguistici

2nd ed.,Darmstadt. . 1994."Latein undSabellisch,"

Lejeune, M. 1972. Phonetique historique et du grecancien,Paris. du mycenien MalloryJ.P. 1989. In SearchoftheIndoEuropeans: Language,Archaeology, and Myth,London.

andM. Spriggs, R. Blench London, 93-121. pp. J.P.,andD. Q^ Adams.2006. Mallory,

to ProtoIntroduction The Oxford Indo-Europeanand theProto-IndoOxford. European World,

and and Language 1: Theoretical ed. Orientations, Methodological

ofthe . 1997."The Homelands in Indo-Europeans," Archaeology

R. BlenchandM. Spriggs, London, pp.220-266. A. J.1986.HeadandHorn Nussbaum, M. 1992. TheLanguages Olender, of

in Indo-European, Berlin. Paradise:Race, Religion, and Philoltrans. in the Nineteenth Century, ogy

enGrecia, Salamanca. . 1956."Achaisch, und Jonisch, IGForsch 62,pp.240Mykenisch," 248. Fact Rose,C. B. 2008."Separating in theAiolianMifrom Fiction 11,pp.399gration," Hesperia 430. C. J.1991-1996.Scripta minora Ruijgh,
ad linguam graecam pertinentia,

lectologia griegacomo fuente para el estudio de las migraciones indoeuropeas

A. H. 195S.American Marckwardt, NewYork. English, M. 1992.Griechische Meier-Briigger, trans. C. Gertmenian, guistics, Berlin. MendezDosuna, J.2007."The Aeolic ed.A.-F. Christidis, Antiquity, Cambridge, pp.460-474.
Dialects," in A History ofAncient toLate FromtheBeginnings Greek: 2 vols., Berlin. Sprachwissenschaft, Lin. 2003. Indo-European

A. Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass. be1. 1997."Are Correlations Pejros, tween and Archaeological Linguisin ticReconstructions Possible?" ed. R. BlenchandM. Spriggs, tions, London, pp. 147-157. Die M. 1976."Artisch hlemi," Peters, 22, pp. 157-161. Sprache
. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Verder Laryntretung indogermanischen {SBWien 377)y gale im Griechischen and Language 1: TheoArchaeology Orientaretical and Methodological

2 vols., Amsterdam. . 1995."D'Homereauxorigines de la tradition proto-myceniennes du epique:Analyse dialectologique avec un excursus langage homerique, surla creation de l'alphabet grec," ed.J.P. Crielaard, Amsterdam, ogy, pp. 1-96.
in HomericQuestions: Essaysin PhiAncient and ArchaeolHistory, lology,

A. 1959. HandbuchdergriechScherer, Dialekte2, 2nd ed., rev., ischen Heidelberg. Schindler, J. 1977. "Notizen zum SieversschenGesetz," Die Sprache 23, pp. 56-65.

Vienna.

Morkot, R. 1996. The PenguinHistoriLondon. calAtlas ofAncientGreece,

and LanC. 1987'.Archaeology Renfrew, Puzzle The ofIndo-European guage:

of A. 1968."TheTreatment Morpurgo, andArcadorand/inMycenaean 25), Rome, graeca logia(Incunabula pp.791-814. Davies,A. 1976."The -eaai Morpurgo andtheLesbian Aeolic-ss-, Datives,
del T Cyprian,"in Atti e memorie de micenointernazionale Congresso

ein Raum/ZeitB. 1981."1st Schlerath, Modellfur einerekonstruierte Cambridge. Origins, R. 2006."OjibweLanguage Rhodes, moglich?" Sprache Zeitschrift fiir Shift: 95, 1600-Present," Sprachforschung http://lingweb. vergleichende eva.mpg.de/HunterGathererWork- pp. 175-202. uia, Schmidt, (acJ.1898."Das Zahlwort shop2006/participants.html cessed 1'a,"Zeitschrift 24,2007); June fur vergleichende
History of Ringe, D. 2006. A Linguistic English1: FromProto-Indo-EuroOxford. pean to Proto-Germanic,

R. 1977.Einfuhrung indie Schmitt,

36, pp. 391-399. Sprachforschung

Italic,and Poets,"in Studiesin Greek, to Offered Linguistics Indo-European LeonardR. Palmeron theOccasion of His Seventieth (Innsbrucker Birthday

zurSprachwissenschaft Beitrage Daviesand A. ed. 16), Morpurgo W. Meid,Innsbruck, pp. 181-197.

DialectE. 1949."Altgriechische Risch, MusHelv 6, pp. 9-28. geographie?" der . 1955."Die Gliederung in neuer Dialekte griechischen MusHelv12,pp.61-76 Sicht,"
(repr.in TheLanguage and BackgroundofHomer,ed. G. S. Kirk,

Dialekte,Darmstadt. griechischen Schulze,W. 1933. KleineSchriften,

Gottingen. E. 1939-1953.Griechische Schwyzer, 4 vols., Munich. Grammatik,

1964,pp.90-105). Cambridge

GramA. 1995. New Comparative Sihler, marofGreek and Latin, Oxford. An . 2000. Language History: Amsterdam. Introduction,

464 R. S. 1975."The Etymology of Slings, BOYAOMAI andOOEIAQ," Mnemo28, pp. 1-16. syne 0. 1996.Introduction to Szemerenyi, Oxford. Indo-European Linguistics, 1932. Thumb, A., andE. Kieckers. 2nded.,rev. E. Kieckers, Heidelberg. R. L. 1997. TheHistory Trask, of London. Basque, . 2000. TheDictionary Hisof torical andComparative Linguistics, Edinburgh. P. 1999."AWindowon the Trudgill,
Dialekte 1, Handbuchdergriechischen

HOLT N. PARKER Past:'ColonialLag' andNew ZealandEvidence for thePhonology ofNineteenth-Century English," American 74,pp.227-239. Speech Arabic LanK. 1997. The Versteegh, New York. guage, C. 2001."AnIndo-European Watkins, AreaandIts CharacterisLinguistic ArealDiffutics: Ancient Anatolia. sionas a Challenge to theCominAikhenvald Method?" parative andDixon2001,pp.44-63. On thePreM. 1998."Erotica: Weiss, of HSCP 98, Greek Desire," history 31-61. pp. M. L. 1988."The Riseofthe West, GreekEpic," JHS 108,pp. 151172. Wolfram, W., andN. Schilling-Estes. andLinguistic 2003."Dialectology in Handbook The Diffusion," of ed. B. D. Historical Linguistics, andR. D. Janda, Maiden, Joseph Mass.,pp.713-735. W. E, Jr. 1970."The Prehistory Wyatt, TAPA oftheGreek 101, Dialects," pp.557-632. . 1973."The AeolicSubstrate in thePeloponnese,"^^5 94, pp.37-46.

HoltN.Parker
University of Cincinnati department of classics
4IO BLEGEN LIBRARY CINCINNATI, OHIO 4522I-O226

holt.parker@uc.edu