Archaisms in Modern Dialects(9,092 words)

Christos Tzitzilis

Article Table of Contents

1. 1. Introductory Remarks
2. 2. Methodological Procedures
3. 3. Modern Greek Dialect Data and Problems in Ancient Greek Dialects
4. 4. Distribution of Ancient Dialect Vocabulary Items in the Modern Greek Dialects
5. 5. Laconian and Tsakonian
6. 6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography

1. Introductory Remarks
The question of the presence of ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek dialects
has not been addressed directly until now. It has usually been alluded to indirectly in the
context of attempts to understand the nature of the Koine or to solve the problem of the
origins of Modern Greek.

The Koine, as is well known, was spoken over a vast area. In part of this area, Ancient
Greek dialects were previously spoken; in the rest of it, other languages. This fact raises
certain questions, such as: Was the form of the Koine the same in areas that had an
Ancient Greek dialect substrate as in those which had another language as a substrate?
Was the form of the Koine affected by the type of Ancient Greek dialect it had as a
substrate? Can the analysis of modern data lead us to conclusions about the type and
density of ancient dialect elements in the Koine in areas with different substrates
(ancient dialect or other language)? The comparative study that would allow us to
answer the first question is not possible today, as the areas in which the Koine had
another language as a substrate have long ceased to form part of the Greek-speaking
world, so that it is impossible to investigate the development of the Greek language
there. In contrast, in most of the areas where the Koine had an Ancient Greek dialect as
a substrate, Greek continues to be spoken, so that, in theory at least, the search for
ancient dialect elements is possible.

The first attempt to investigate the contribution of Ancient Greek dialects to the
development of Modern Greek was unsuccessful. This was the well-known
“Aeolodoric” theory, which claimed to have identified Aeolic and Doric elements in
Modern Greek. Hatzidakis (1892) correctly rejects this interpretation and defines the
relationships between Modern Greek and the Koine, while at the same time determines
the contribution of the ancient dialects to this development. In his opinion, which is
generally accepted today, Modern Greek and its dialects developed from the Hellenistic
Koine, the only exception being Tsakonian, which is derived from the Neolaconian
dialect (Laconian, Messenian). In the other dialects we find sporadic ancient dialect
elements. Hatzidakis implies that the form of the Koine was essentially the same
everywhere and that the local differences that existed in Ancient Greek had almost
disappeared. However, the works of Thumb (1901), Kapsomenos (1938, 1958) and
Tsopanakis (1940, 1955) lead us in the opposite direction, quite correctly placing the
emphasis on the survival of ancient dialect differences in the Koine and in the Modern
Greek dialects.
Questions concerning the presence of ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek
dialects need to address three main issues:

i. Do we find sporadic ancient dialect vocabulary items in the Modern Greek dialects?
The answer to this question is unanimously positive.

ii. Are there phonetic and morphological phenomena with a wider extent that can be
traced back to equivalent Ancient Greek dialect phenomena? This question is not easy
to answer. It is true that the attempts that have so far been made to identify such
phenomena, for example the proposed link between the raising of unstressed /e/ and /o/
in the northern dialects of Modern Greek and the development of /oː/ into /uː/ in
ancient Thessalian , have not been convincing.

iii. Are there dialect zones which are equivalent to the groups of Ancient Greek
dialects? The answer to this question, which is essentially the same as the previous one,
except that it concerns bundles of phenomena rather than isolated characteristics,
presents similar difficulties. The attempt to identify a Doric zone among the Modern
Greek dialects (Tsopanakis 1955) cannot be accepted, at least in the form in which it has
been presented.

The question of the relationship between the Ancient Greek dialects and the equivalent
modern dialects needs to be posed more directly. What elements from particular
Ancient Greek dialects actually exist in the equivalent Modern Greek dialects? What
can these elements tell us about the presence of ancient dialect elements in the Koine,
and to what extent can they supplement our knowledge of the Ancient Greek dialects?

Although on a theoretical level scholars are in agreement concerning the importance of

identifying ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek dialects, the results of this
research have been rather meagre and give a distorted picture of the presence of these
elements, and thus by extension of the relationship between the ancient dialects and
their Modern Greek equivalents. A significant number of ancient dialect vocabulary
items in the Modern Greek dialects are considered of unknown etymology, or else have
been given incorrect etymologies, which have become established through their
inclusion in respectable dictionaries such as Andriotis’s (1974)Lexikon der
Archaismen or the Historical Dictionary of the Academy of Athens. The basic cause of
the existence of a comparatively large number of words in this category is the fact that
the studies in question have not taken into account the Ancient Greek dialects as
possible sources for Modern Greek vocabulary items. This fact deprives these studies of
the interpretative power provided by a knowledge of the phonetic and morphological
characteristics of the various Ancient Greek dialects; on the other hand, the fact that the
authors were unaware of the ancient dialect origin of these words has led to the
underestimation of the number of ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek dialects.
In order to demonstrate the crucial importance of etymology in the identification of
ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek dialects, I present the following example:
In Crete we find the word βρόμος ['vromos] ‘worm’, which is usually linked with the
word βρόμος ['vromos] ‘bad smell’, derived from Hellenistic βρῶμος [brômos] ‘bad
smell of animals’ (Hist. Dict.). However, it is obvious that we are dealing with two
etymologically unrelated homonymous words, with the first being an ancient dialect
form which is derived, like ῥόμος. σκώληξ ἐν ξύλοις [rómos. skṓ lēx en xúlois] ‘worm’
(Hesychius), from PIE *u̯orm-os (or*u̯r̥mos ?), in this case with preservation of the
*u̯- (digamma).
For purely methodological reasons, the investigation of ancient dialect elements in the
Modern Greek dialects must address Tsakonian separately from the other Modern Greek
dialects.

2. Methodological Procedures
2.a. Type of Evidence
The ancient dialect elements that exist in the modern dialects can be divided into the
following categories based on the type of evidence used to identify them:

1.
Those whose presence in the equivalent Ancient Greek dialect is confirmed by
information provided by ancient authors or by their presence in inscriptions
written in that dialect, and which show phonetic or, more rarely, morphological
characteristics of the dialect in question, e.g. Tsakonian ακ́ό [a'kʰo] ‘skinbag’ <
ἀκκόρ [akkór] ‘skin made into a bag’, attested by Hesychius as Laconian, with
the characteristically Laconian assimilation /sk/ > /kk/ and rhotacism -s > -r (cp.
Att.askós).
2.
Those whose presence in the equivalent ancient dialect is confirmed by ancient
attestations, but which do not show phonetic or morphological properties that
are characteristic of this dialect in particular or of related dialects, e.g.
τρικκοπούλι [triko'puli] ‘beautiful wild bird’ (Ladikó, Elis), cf. τρίκκος.
ὀρνιθάριον, <ὁ> καὶ βασιλεὺς ὑπὸ Ἠλείων [tríkkos. ornithárion, (ho) kaı̀
basileùs hupò Ēleı́ōn] ‘a kind of bird, the one also called “king”, by Eleans’
(Hesychius).
3.
Those which show phonetic or, more rarely, morphological peculiarities of
particular Ancient Greek dialects, but whose presence in the dialect in question
is not attested in ancient sources, e.g. Anc. Gk. δίκταμ(ν)ον [díktam(n)on] >
Anc. Cretan *δίτταμον [dίttamon] > MG dial. δίτταμο ['δitamo] (Crete), with the
assimilation /kt/ > /tt/ characteristic of the ancient Cretan dialect.
4.
Those which show phonetic and morphological properties which are not linked
to a particular ancient dialect, but are characteristic of a wider group of Ancient
Greek dialects, and seem to have been widespread in ancient times without
forming part of the Koine, e.g. MG dial. σακός [sa'kos] ‘sheepfold’ (Crete,
Karpathos and other areas) < Dor. σακός [sākós], Att. σηκός [sēkós] ‘pen,
sheepfold’.
2.b. Geographical Distribution
The density of ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek dialects usually
corresponds to the general density of archaic elements in these dialects. Thus, with the
exception of Tsakonian, which belongs to a separate category, being derived directly
from an Ancient Greek dialect, the Modern Greek dialects with the largest number of
ancient dialect elements are those which have the largest number of phonetic,
morphological and lexical archaisms in general: Southern Italian, Cretan, the dialects of
the Dodecanese, particularly those of Karpathos and Rhodes, Cypriot, the dialects of
Kymi and Megara, particularly that of Megara, Maniot, and the dialects of Asia Minor,
particularly those of Pontos and Farasa. The dialects of mainland Greece, particularly
those of central and northern Greece, which generally present smaller numbers of
archaisms, have enclaves that show an increased presence of ancient dialect features and
archaic elements in general. These include the dialects of the Pierian mountains and the
Agrafa (Tzitzilis 2008).

Words belonging to the pastoral vocabulary not only appear in multiple dialects
belonging to the same group, but seem to have spread beyond dialect boundaries. This
explains the fact that the Doric sākós ‘sheepfold’, as well as being present in the dialects
of Crete and the Dodecanese, where Doric dialects were spoken in ancient times, is also
found in Euboea, where Ionic dialects were spoken. Of particular interest is the presence
of Ancient Greek dialect elements belonging to the pastoral vocabulary in the other
Balkan languages, e.g. ΜG dial. καρλίκα [kar'lika] ‘shepherd’s crook’ (< Medieval
καλίκι [ka'lici] < Doric κᾶλον [kâlon] ‘wood’) > Aromanian cîrlig, Bulgarian
dial. karlik (Tzitzilis 1993).

2.c. Levels of Linguistic Analysis

The distribution of ancient dialect elements according to linguistic category on a scale
of increasing frequency presents the following picture:

In the area of syntax, it is difficult to trace the presence of ancient dialect phenomena in
the Modern Greek dialects, insofar as it is generally very difficult to identify archaic
syntactic phenomena in these dialects.

In the area of morphology, the basic isogloss that divides the Modern Greek dialects and
which has not been identified by previous research is the tendency for imparisyllabicity
(that is for nouns that change the number of syllables during inflection) which
distinguishes the Asia Minor dialects from all the other dialects, in which this tendency
is more restricted. This isogloss is evidently the result of an ancient dialect substrate, as
we can easily draw a parallel between the tendency for imparisyllabicity in the modern
Asia Minor dialects and the equivalent tendency in the Ionian and Hellenistic dialects of
the same area.

It is known that in Northwest Greek (Northwest Greek (and Dodona)) there was a
tendency to replace dental stems with velars, or, more correctly, for velar enlargements
to appear where other dialects have dentals. There are examples of this in Modern
Greek dialects too, cf. in Puglia the forms κόρικα ['korika], κόριγα ['koriγa], κόρεκα
['koreka] (Rohlfs 1964:260), which are from an unattested Doric *κόριξ [kórix], gen.
κόρικος [kórikos], while in other Modern Greek dialects we have κόριδα ['koriδa] < AG
κόρις [kóris], gen. κόριδος [kóridos] ‘bug’ (Tzitzilis 2006).

Most of the archaic elements which we can describe with a reasonable degree of
certainty as being of dialect origin belong to the area of phonetics. These are mainly
lexicalized, non-functional phenomena which should be analyzed (also) at the level of
the lexicon. The best-known of these is the so-called Doric ā . This involves the
preservation of PIE *ā, which is observed in all the Ancient Greek dialects with the
exception of Ionic, where it becomes /ɛː/ <η>, and Attic, where it becomes /ɛː/ <η>
except in certain environments where it reverts back to /aː/ <α> (Attic Reversion). The
use of the term ‘Doric ā’ for a phenomenon which was also known in other Ancient
Greek dialects is partly justified in that most of the modern dialects where we find types
with [a] instead of [i] (< /eː/) have a Doric background. The phenomenon is found in
root and derivational morphemes, which can usually be traced back to ancient dialect
forms without difficulty, and in inflectional morphemes, where an alternative
explanation in terms of morphology is often possible. Another well-known phenomenon
is the pronunciation of <Y> as [u] attested in some dialect words in which [u] is
preceded by /k/, /kh/ and /g/, which are not palatalized.

Other phonetic phenomena of ancient dialect origin show a more restricted geographical
distribution, such as:

i. Preservation of the digamma. It is known that in some Ancient Greek dialects the
digamma began to be pronounced as a fricative [v] and merged with <β>, which at that
time was pronounced as [v] rather than [b]. Until recently it was believed that the
survival of the digamma as [v] was restricted to Tsakonian. However, recent research
has shown that the phenomenon is known in other dialects as well, such as those of the
Pierian mountains, the Agrafa, Crete, and possibly Southern Italy (Tzitzilis 2008).

ii. Preservation of double consonants in words where in Attic the equivalent is single,
e.g. Southern Italian όσ-σο ['osso] < AG dial. ὅσσος [hóssos] = Att. ὅσος [hósos] ‘as
great as, as much as’.

iii. Dissimilation of double ll <λλ> to ld <λδ>, which is known to have existed in the
ancientPamphylian dialect (e.g. Peldâs < *Pellâs) and is found in some Dodecanesian
dialects which have double consonants (e.g. σκύλλος [skúllos] ‘dog’ > σ̌ύλdος ['ʃildos]).
It is not certain whether the Modern Greek phenomenon does in fact represent the
continuation of the ancient equivalent, which was quite probably not confined to
Pamphylia but may have extended to neighboring areas, or whether it is a more recent,
independent phonetic development.

iv. Appearance of /o/ (< /oː/) in place of /u/ (< /uː/), which is the result of compensatory
lengthening or contraction of /o/ in words beginning with βω- [bō-] = βου- [bou-] ‘cow’,
e.g. MG dial. βώτυρος ['votiros] < Dor. βώτυρος [bṓturos] = Att. βούτυρος [boúturos]
‘butter’, as well as in a small number of other words, e.g. MG dial. (ν)ωσία [(n)o'sia] <
Doric ōsía = Attic ousía‘substance, essence’.

v. Preservation as [e] of the <ē> that resulted from the contraction of the sequence <ea>
in the Late Antique Doric dialect (basilê ‘king (acc.)’, grammatê ‘secretary (acc.)’), in
the Modern Greek dialect masculines in -ές ['es], e.g. βαφές [va'fes] = βαφέας [va'feas]
‘dyer’ (Crete, Ikaria; see Thumb 1901).

vi. Appearance of /e/ in place of /o/; in Tsakonian and Skyrian /o/ is fronted to /e/ in the
final syllable of the word when preceded by alveolar, dental or /i/, e.g. ἄμπελος
[ámpelos] > Tsak. άμπελε ['ambele] ‘vine’. The phenomenon is mainly attested in the
Thessalian variety of Hestiaeotis and in Laconian (see Méndez Dosuna
2007; Tzitzilis 2014a).

2.d. Semantic Field

The fact that archaisms are found in particular semantic fields that are characterized by
their conservative character explains the fact that they have been preserved until today.
Thus, with the exception of Tsakonian, where archaisms are found in all semantic
fields, in the other Modern Greek dialects most ancient dialect elements belong to the
pastoral vocabulary, body parts, flora and fauna, etc.

3. Modern Greek Dialect Data and Problems in Ancient Greek

Dialects
Although the importance of data from the Modern Greek dialects for the solution of
problems concerning the Ancient Greek dialects is obvious, these data have only very
rarely been used for this purpose (see Méndez Dosuna 2007). I will attempt to show that
there is still a great deal of scope for research in this area, which in reality has only just
begun, using an example from Ancient Cypriot phonetics. One of the most difficult
phonetic problems in Ancient Cypriot is that of the appearance of <ο> in place of <υ>
in some glosses (e.g. thóranas. tò éxō, Páphioi ‘out, outside, Paphians’ (Hesychius),
cf. thúra ‘door’) and in one or two cases in Ancient Cypriot epigraphic material
(Egetmeyer 2010). What is the phonetic value of ο in these examples, and what is the
cause of its appearance? Some researchers (e.g. Neumann 1993:39–40) agree that it was
pronounced as [o] and consider the examples in question to be cases of hypercorrection
owing to the attested tendency for the raising of /o/ to (velar) /u/ in Ancient Cypriot. In
contrast, Egetmeyer (2010, 1:81–2) believes that spellings such as to-ka-i ‘fortune’
instead of tu-ka-i conceal the pronunciation [túkhāi], not [tókhāi], and result from the
neutralization of the opposition between /o/ and /u/, which rendered the two letters
interchangeable and allowed the use of the grapheme <ο> to represent /u/. The Modern
Greek dialect data present a different dimension to the problem of the presence of o in
place of u in Ancient Cypriot. We do in fact find cases where <υ> is pronounced as /o/
in the archaic Modern Greek dialects not only of Cyprus but also of Rhodes and
Karpathos, which are related to the Cypriot dialect and preserve other ancient dialect
elements (see below). In particular, in Rhodes and in the neighboring dialect of Chalki
we find the form κροστάλ-λdιν [kro'stalldin], which confirms the correct and genuine
nature of the pronunciation of the Ancient Cypriot type κρόσταλλος [króstallos]
‘crystal’, while in Karpathos we find the form μόλακας ['molakas] ‘molar’ < *μύλαξ
[múlax] ‘millstone’ which corresponds to the Cypriot μολίτας [mo'litas] ‘molar’ <
*μολίτας [molítās] = Koine μυλίτης [mulítēs]. These forms confirm that the ancient
dialect phenomenon was phonetic; it should not, however, be linked with the raising of
/o/ to /u/, but with the development of <υ> u in the Ancient Greek dialects when they
came into contact with the Koine, in which it was pronounced [y]. For the presence of
the phenomenon in other Modern Greek dialects see Tzitzilis in preparation.

The presence of ο in place of u in the words discussed above allows us to interpret a

number of Modern Greek dialect words which may be traced back to corresponding
ancient dialect forms. Thus in Rhodes we find the form οσκλός [o'sklos] ‘wooden rim of
a sieve’. This word is usually thought to be derived from askós ‘skinbag’ (Hist. Dict.;
Andriotis 1974). It is obvious that it is in fact derived from the ancient ὕσκλος (húsklos,
‘1. latchet or eyelets of a sandal, 2. border of a garment’), as shown by the presence in
Karpathos of the form υσκλός [i'sklos] ‘wooden rim of a sieve’. In Cyprus, parallel with
the type σύζουμος ['sizumos] there also exists the form σόζουμος ['sozumos] <
*σύζυμος [súzūmos]. In the dialects of the Dodecanese and the neighboring islands we
find the word κούναυλον ['kunavlon] ‘thin leg’ (Samos), κουναύλια [ku'navʎa] ‘thighs,
calves’ (Karpathos, Halicarnassus), ‘thin legs’ (Kasos). The word is derived from the
ancient *κύναυλος [kúnaulos], which is a compound of kúōn, gen. kunós ‘1. dog, 2.
fetlock of a horse’ and aulós‘hollow tube, pipe’, cf. also μεσοκύνιον [mesokúnion]
‘pastern of a horse’ with preservation of the pronunciation of <υ> as velar [u]. In
Cyprus, it appears in the form κόναυλον ['konavlon] ‘thigh’, i.e., with /ο/ in place of
/u/.

3.a. Semantic Archaisms

In some cases the Modern Greek dialects preserve meanings of words which are only
attested in the ancient dialects. In these cases, especially when the old meaning is
preserved in the corresponding Modern Greek dialect, we can talk about preservation of
semantic archaisms from Ancient Greek dialects. Hesychius’ gloss bounós. stibás
Kúprioi shows that the word βουνός [bounós] ‘hill’ had also developed the meaning
‘pile, stack’. The fact that the word is recorded today with a similar meaning in Cyprus
and in neighboring Rhodes, e.g. ένας βουνός σιτάρι ['enas vu'nos si'tari] ‘a pile/stack of
wheat’ (Rhodes), allows us to suggest that this meaning is of ancient dialect origin.

4. Distribution of Ancient Dialect Vocabulary Items in the Modern

Greek Dialects
As discussed in the monograph Modern Greek Evidence for Ancient Greek
Dialects (Tzitzilis in preparation), the ancient dialect elements in the modern dialects
are significantly more numerous than previous research had led us to believe. In the
following section I will describe some representative examples to give an indication of
the general situation. Their distribution will be examined based on the four groups of
Ancient Greek dialects: Doric, Ionic, Arcado-Cypriot andAeolic. Previous research has
been confined to the identification of Doric and Ionic elements, without any reference to
Arcado-Cypriot or Aeolic.

4.a. Doric Elements

4.a.i. Crete
Most of the ancient dialect words found in the modern Cretan dialect belong to the
pastoral vocabulary.

Doric ā: σακάζω [sa'kazo] ‘wean’ < Dor. σακάζω [sākázō] = Att. sēkázō; λέσκα ['leska]
‘steep place where goats get trapped’ < Dor. λέσχα [léskhā]; λίστας ['listas] ‘board on
which cheese is salted’ < *ἁλίστας [halístās], agent noun derived from halízō ‘to
salten’; σκανέ(α) [ska'ne(a)] ‘unpleasant smell’ and σκανίζω [ska'nizo] ‘stink’,
σκανόγερος [ska'nojeros] ‘stinking old man’ and σκανογραί [skano'γre] < Dor. σκᾶνος
[skânos] = Att. skênos ‘tent’, here in the meaning of ‘leather’, see also Cypriot
πετσόγερος [pe'tsojeros] < πετσί [pe'tsi] ‘leather’ + γέρος ['jeros] ‘old man’; άρκαλος
['arkalos] ‘badger’ < Dor. ἄρκαλος [árkālos] = Att. árkēlos ‘young panther’; Hellenistic
‘badger’.

Digamma: βρόμος ['vromos] ‘worm’ < ΙΕ *u̯ormos (see above).

/o/ (< /oː/) in place of /u/ (< /uː/): ΜG dial. βωστομίδα [vosto'miδa] ‘muzzle for oxen’ <
*βώστομα [bṓ stoma] = Koine boú-stoma ‘cow mouth’ .
Assimilation /kt/ > /tt/ (= [t]): δίκταμ(ν)ον [díktam(n)on] ‘dittany [Origanum
Dictamnus]’ > Anc. Cret. *δίτταμον [dίttamon] > MG dial. δίτταμο ['δitamo].

4.a.ii. Karpathos
Doric ā: κυνόμαλον [ci'nomalon] ‘fruit of sage plant’ < κυνόμᾱλᾱ. τὰ κοκκύμελα
[kunómāla. tà kokkúmēla] ‘plums’ (Hesychius), κυνομαλέα [cinoma'lea] ‘sage’ < Dor.
κυνομαλέα [kunomāléā]; συνομάλικος [sino'malikos] ‘(person) of the same age’ <
Doric συνομᾶλιξ [sunomâlix], and σομάλικος [so'malikos] ‘id.’ derived from ἴσος [ísos]
‘equal’ + Doric ὁμᾶλιξ [homâlix] ‘of the same age’; cf. also άλατρον ['alatron] ‘plough’
< Dor. ἄρατρον [áratron] = Att. ἄροτρον [árotron].

/o/ (< /oː/) in place of /u/ (< /uː/): MG dial. (β)ώτυρος ['(v)otiros] ‘butter’ < Dor.
βώτυρος [bṓ turos] = Att. βούτυρος [boúturos].

/a/ (< /aː/) in place of /oː/: θάμιγγας ['θamiŋgas] ‘short wild olive tree’ < *θᾶμιγξ
[thâminx], probable Doric form of thôminx ‘rope’, cf. also θημίγγι [θi'miŋɟi] ‘thin hemp
rope’ (Symi).

/o/ in place of /u/ (probable Cypriot influence): μόλακας [mólakas] ‘molar’ < *μύλαξ
[múlax] ‘millstone’, cf. with a suffix -r- in múlakros ‘millstone’, plur. ‘molars’; for the
presence of /ο/ in place of /u/ see above.

4.a.iii. Rhodes
Doric ā: λέσκα ['leska] ‘dip in hill, crack in rock, deep plateau’ < Dor. λέσχα [léskhā];
μακωνία [mako'nia] and μακ-κωνία [makko'nia] < *μακωνία [mākōníā] < Dor. μάκων
[mā́ kōn] = Att. μήκων [mḗ kōn] ‘poppy’; σαλαπουρδώ [salapu'rδo] ‘make spasmodic
movements’ < Dor. σιλαπορδῶ [silāpordô]; σμίλα ['zmila] < Dor. σμίλα [smílā]
‘chisel’; cf. also the place names Σακός [sa'kos] < Dor. σακός [sākós]; Μαλώνα
[ma'lona] < Dor. μᾶλον [mâlon] ‘apple’.

Assimilation /sk/ > /kk/: μάττακας ['mattakas] ‘stake’ < *πάτταξ [páttax] < πάσταξ
[pástax], cf. also Modern Greek μπάστακας ['bastakas].

/ο/ in place of /u/ (probable Cypriot influence): οσκλός [o'sklos] ‘wooden rim of a sieve’
< ὕσκλος [húsklos] (see above); κροστάλ-λdιν [kro'stalldin] ‘crystal’ < κρόσταλλος
[króstallos], Cypriot form of κρύσταλλος [krústallos]; σκολόμιν [sko'lomin] ‘a kind of
thistle’ < AG σκόλυμος [skólumos].

4.a.iv. Southern Italy

The ancient dialect elements in the Southern Italian dialects can be divided into two
groups: (a) those which are already attested in ancient times in the local dialects, and
which are of particular importance as confirmation of the theory that the Modern Greek
dialects of Southern Italy represent the continuation of their Ancient Greek equivalents,
since both in ancient and modern times these words are unknown in the other Greek
dialects; this category includes the preposition αν [an] ‘from’, cf. AG ἀν [an] ‘from’; (b)
elements which are characterized as being of ancient dialect origin for phonetic and
morphological reasons:
Doric ā, e.g. άσαμο ['asamo] ‘(for goats) without mark’ < Dor. ἄσαμος [ásāmos] = Att.
ἄσημος [ásēmos]; νασίδα [na'siδa] ‘piece of cultivated land next to a river’ < Dor. νασίς
[nāsís] = Att. νησίς [nēsís]; ᾿πίτζαλο ['pidzalo] ‘very beautiful’ < Dor. ἐπίζαλος
[epízālos] ‘enviable’; κασέντολο [ka'sendolo] ‘worm that lives in the soil’ < γᾶς ἔντερον
[gâs énteron]; πετανό [peta'no] ‘[something] that flies’ < Dor. πετανός [petānós] = Att.
πετηνός [petēnós]; morphemes with Doricā, e.g. μύλα ['mila] ‘molar’ < Dor. μύλα
[múlā]; -ώτας ['otas] < Dor. -ώτας [-ṓtās] = Att. -ώτης [-ṓ tēs]; cf. also the place name
Νάσος ['nasos] < Dor. νᾶσος [nâsos] ‘island’.

Double /ss/ in place of Attic single /s/, e.g. όσ-σο ['osso] < AG dial. ὅσσος [hóssos] =
Att. ὅσος [hósos] ‘as much as, as great as’.

/o/ (< /oː/) in place of /u/ (< /uː/): MG dial. νωσία [no'sia] ‘ουσία’, ‘substance’ < Doric
ὠσία [ōsía].

Morphology: ἀράω [aráō] instead of ἀρόω [aróō] ‘to plough’, as confirmed by the
modern Southern Italian Greek άρατος ['aratos] ‘uncultivated’ < *ἀρατός [aratós]
‘ploughable’ < ἀράω [aráō] ‘to plough’ (Heraklea), cf. Att. ἀροτός [arotós] < ἀρόω
[aróō] (Tzitzilis 2004).

4.a.v. Elean
The data at our disposal on the modern Elean dialect are meagre. The word τρικκοπούλι
[triko'puli] ‘beautiful wild bird’ (Ladikó, Elis) stands out, the presence of which in the
ancient Elean dialect (Elean (and Olympia)) is confirmed by the Hesychian gloss
τρίκκος· ὀρνιθάριον, (ὁ) καὶ βασιλεὺς ὑπὸ Ἠλείων [tríkkos. ornithárion, (ho) kaı̀
basileùs hupò Ēleı́ōn] ‘a kind of bird, also called “king”, by Eleans’.

4.a.vi. North-West Greek

Particular significance may be accorded to the presence of larger than usual numbers of
ancient dialect and more generally archaic elements in two areas of mainland
(specifically Central and Northern) Greece: the area of Agrafa and the mountains of
Pieria (Tzitzilis 2008). Their importance lies in the fact that they are probably linked to
two Ancient Greek dialects, Epirot and Macedonian respectively.

Agrafa

Doric ā: μαλόκεδρος [ma'loceδros] ‘type of cedar’ < Dor. μᾶλον [mâlon] ‘apple’ +
κέδρος [kédros] ‘cedar’, cf. MG dial. μηλόκεδρο [mi'loceδro]; πανίδα [pa'niδa] ‘thread’
< *πανίς [pānís], diminutive of Dor. πᾶνος [pânos] = Attic πῆνος [pênos]; χειρολάβα
[çiro'lava] ‘handle of wooden plough’ < Dor. *χειρολάβα [kheirolábā] = Att. χειρολάβη
[kheirolábē] ‘handle’; βρόνταμα ['vrondama] ‘thunder’, cf. Tsakonian βρόνταμα
['vrondama] = βρόντημα ['vrondima].

Pronunciation of <υ> as (velar) [u]: κούνταλου ['kundalu] ‘stick for beating walnut
trees’ < κύνδαλος [kúndalos], pl. κύνδαλα [kúndala] ‘wooden peg’ etc.

Preservation of the digamma: καταχόβια [kata'xovja] ‘in gusts’ < κατά [katá] + χοϝά
[khowā́ ] = χοή [khoḗ ] ‘pouring out’.
Macedonia

In the dialect of the Pierian mountains, which is rich in archaisms, we find a number of
archaic elements, unknown in the other Modern Greek dialects, which should be
considered to be of Ancient Macedonian origin.

Doric ā: αλικία [ali'cia] ‘age’ < Dor. ἁλικία [hālikíā], cf. in the dialect of Karpathos
συνομάλικος [sino'malikos] (see above); υλατόμος [ila'tomos] ‘woodcutter’ < Dor.
ὑλατόμος [hūlātómos] = Att. ὑλητόμος [hūlētómos]; σμάλα ['zmala] ‘carpenter’s tool’ <
Dor. *μάλα [mā́ lā] = Att. μήλη [mḗ lē]; ζdάν’ ['zdaɲ] ‘breast’ < Doric *στάνιον [stā́ nion]
= στήνιον· στῆθος [stḗ nion. stêthos] ‘breast’ (Hesychius).

Preservation of the digamma: βρόζος ['vrozos] < ΙΕ *u̯r̻ədi̯ os ‘branch, root’, cf. MG
ρόζος ['rozos]; κουλουβάρδακος [kulu'varδakos] ‘short’, cf. Tsakonian κολοβέρδικο
[kolo'verδiko] ‘very short’, Maniot κολόβερδος [ko'loverδos] < *κολόϝερδος
[kolówerdos] < κόλος [kólos] ‘hornless’ + *ϝέρδα [wérda] ‘tail’ < ΙΕ *u̯erd- ‘raised
part’; the word φρούτα ['fruta] ‘plaited/knitted decoration at the border of a textile’,
which in Bulgarian is rendered by žveždica, diminutive of žvežda ‘eyebrow’, is most
probably connected with Macedonian ἀβροῦτες· ὀφρῦς Μακεδόνες [abroûtes. ophrûs.
Makedónes] ‘eyebrow, Macedonians’ (Hesychius).

For further ancient dialect elements in the dialects of the Agrafa and the Pierian
mountains, seeTzitzilis (2008).

4.b. Ionic Elements in the Modern Greek Dialects of Asia Minor

The search for Ionic elements in the Modern Greek dialects has generally been confined
to the dialects of Asia Minor, and the number of elements that have been ascribed to this
category is particularly small. The following elements are usually considered of certain
Ionic origin: (a) the negative particle ’κι [ci] (< οὐκί [oukí]), and (b) the word
(α)χάντ(ιν) [(a)'xand(in)] (< Medieval αχάντιν [ahándin], which exists in the northern
group of Asia Minor dialects (Pontic, Crimean-Azov) in place of ἀκάνθιον [akánthion].

Based on phonetic criteria, and specifically the presence of the compensatory

lengthening of /o/, the following forms should also be considered Ionic: κούρος ['kuros]
‘son’ (< Ion. κοῦρος [koûros] < *kórwos) (Pontic); μούνος ['munos] ‘alone, single’ (<
Ion. μοῦνος [moûnos] < *mónwos) (Pontic, Medieval Crimean-Azov). The word ούλος
['ulos] (< Ion. oὖλος [oûlos] < *hólwos) should be considered an Ionic form, and its
extensive distribution in the Modern Greek dialects should be attributed to Ionic
influence on the Koine. The form σεύτελον ['seftelon] (< σεῦτλον [seûtlon] ‘beet’, cf.
Att. teûtlon) and σεύτελος ['seftelos] ‘idiot’ should also be considered Ionic, as well as
the aorist ήγκα ['iŋga] of φέρω ['fero] (< ἤνεικα [ḗ neika]; Papadopoulos 1958), which
Andriotis (1974) derives from ἤνεγκα [ḗ nenka].

There are several more words of Ionic origin to be found in the Modern Greek dialects,
which have been overlooked by previous research in the area. These are words that are
found in the works of Ionic authors (see Bechtel 1921–1924) and are used today only in
the dialects of Asia Minor, for example: ἰχώρ [īkhṓ r] ‘the watery part of blood, milk,
etc.’ (Hippocrates and others), cf. (ι)χώρ(ιν) [(i)'xor(in)] ‘bone marrow, egg yolk and
pith of plants’ (Pontic); κρώπιον [krṓ pion] ‘scythe’ (Pherekydes), cf. κρωπίν [kro'pin]
and κρωπή [kro'pi] ‘type of pickaxe’ (Pontic); δίκραιος [díkraios] ‘two-headed’
(Hippocrates), cf. δικρό [δi'kro] ‘two-pronged pitchfork’ (Crimean-Azov).

Doubtfully or mistakenly ascribed to Ionic origin are the pronunciation of <η> as [e],
the use as relative pronouns of the forms τον [ton], την [tin], το [to], τα [ta], the
articulatory dissimilation /sf/ > /sp/, and isolated forms with /i/ (< /eː/) in place of /a/ (<
/aː/), such as φορή [fo'ri] = φορά [fo'ra] ‘time, turn’, τώρη ['tori] = τώρα ['tora] ‘now’,
etc.

The most important Ionic element in the Asia Minor dialects, however, which has been
overlooked by previous research, is a morphological feature, namely the strong
tendency for imparisyllabicity, which represents the continuation of the similar
tendency in Ionic (see above).

4.c. Arcado-Cypriot Elements

Cyprus

As stated already, in the research of the past there is no mention of Arcado-Cypriot

elements in the Modern Greek dialects. However, the Ancient Cypriot elements that
have survived into Modern Cypriot should be considered survivals of Arcado-Cypriot
elements, especially given the fact that most of these possess characteristics that are
peculiar to Arcado-Cypriot or Ancient Cypriot. The ancient dialect words that survive in
the modern Cypriot dialect can be divided into three categories:

i. Those which are referred to as Cypriot by ancient authors:

κίλλης ['cillis] ‘small donkey’; the word is derived from the ancient κίλλος· ὄνος καὶ
τέττιξ πρωϊνὸς ὑπὸ Κυπρίων [kíllos. ónos kaı̀ téttix prōinòs hupò Kuprı́ōn] ‘donkey and
cicada by Cypriots’ (Hesychius). Although it does not have any of the particular
characteristics of Arcado-Cypriot, there is no doubt that it belongs in this group, as apart
from the attestation in Hesychius confirming the presence of this word in Ancient
Cypriot, we also have the name Κίλλων [kíllōn] in Arcadian. The word also exists today
in the dialect of Mani in the form κρίλλος ['krilos] ‘donkey’ with the development of
non-etymological /r/, or rather, with anticipatory anaptyxis of /l/ and dissimilation: AG
κίλλος [kíllos] > *κλίλλος ['klilos] > MG dial. κρίλλος ['krilos]. Its presence in this
dialect can be interpreted as a Laconian element in Maniot, as coming from an Achaean
substrate in Messenian, or as an Arcadian loan in this area.

ψιντρός [psi'ndros] ‘thin’. Loukas (1979:519) with some reservations traces this word
back to the ancient ψυδρός [psudrós] ‘false’. This interpretation, accepted by
Chatziioannou (1977) and Andriotis (1974), presents semantic difficulties. The Cypriot
word derives from the ancient ψαιδρόν· φαιδρόν Κύπριοι [psaidrón. phaidròn Kúprioi],
cf. also ψαιδρά· ἀραιότριχα [psaidrá. araiótrikha] ‘with thin hair’ (Hesychius). The
change of ending is through analogy with its antonym χοντρός [xo'ndros] ‘fat’.

ii. Those which for phonetic reasons should be traced back to Ancient Cypriot:

μολίτας [mo'litas] ‘molar’; as stated above, this word corresponds to the ancient μυλίτης
[mulítēs] ‘molar’. The presence of /o/ in place of /u/ and /a/ (< /aː/) in place of /i/ (< /eː/)
leaves no doubt as to the ancient origin of the word.
έπ-παλαι ['eppale] ‘since old times’; the ancient ἔκπαλαι [ékpalai] exists in Cypriot in
the forms έχπαλι ['expali] and έπ-παλαι ['eppale]. The form έπ-παλαι ['eppale] probably
comes from the ancient dialect form ἔσπαλαι [éspalai], which is preserved as έσπαλι
['espali] in the dialect of Lefkas. έπ-παλαι ['eppale] is a development
from ἔσπαλαι [éspalai] with assimilation /sp/ > /pp/. ἐς [es] = ἐξ [ex] before consonants
is one of the characteristics common to Arcado-Cypriot and various other dialects.

iii. A third category of ancient dialect words in Modern Cypriot consists of words which
have a wider distribution in the Modern Greek dialects. These words are evidently
derived from ancient dialect words that were already in widespread use in ancient times,
and for this reason should be considered dialect elements of the Koine rather than
specifically Arcado-Cypriot forms. In this category we find words such as χαλίν [xa'lin]
‘piece of farming equipment which ends in an iron point’; μαλ(λ)αφώ [mal(l)a'fo]
‘touch’ < Dor. μαλαφῶ [mālaphô] = Att. μηλαφῶ [mēlaphô], φτανός [fta'nos] ‘thin’ <
AG πτανός [ptānós], Attic πτηνός [ptēnós].

Sporadic Achaean elements are found in the Greek dialects of Southern Italy: πίσερα
['pisera] ‘bran’ < Achaean πίσιρα [písira], cf. πίσιρα· πίτυρα Ἀχαιοί [písira. pı́tūra
Akhaioı́] ‘bran by Achaeans’ (Hesychius; according to Latte, πίσυα· πίτυρα Ἀχαιοί
[pı́sua. pı́tūra Akhaioı́]).

Asia Minor

Recent research has shown that the so-called Neo-Phrygian inscriptions are actually
written in an ancient Achaean dialect which we may refer to conventionally as Asia
Minor or Phrygian Achaean. Elements of this dialect are found in the modern Asia
Minor dialects: preposition ας [as] ‘from’ < ἐς [es] = ἐξ [ex]; κόνωμα ['konoma] <
κένωμα [kénōma], cf. κόνομα [kónoma] ‘tomb’; ρατσ̌ή [ra'tši] (Silli), cf. ιανατερα
[i̯ anatera] ‘wife of husband’s brother’ < ΙΕ *i̯ enə-tēr (Tzitzilis 2012;Greek and
Phrygian).

4.d. Aeolic Elements

No Aeolic elements have been found in areas where the Aeolic dialect was spoken in
ancient times. However, one Aeolic element has been identified in the dialect of the
Pierian mountains, where, as we have said, we find a number of archaic elements that
should be considered to be of Ancient Macedonian origin. The element in question is
the morpheme πατρα- [patra-] / πατρο- [patro-], which functions as an intensifier in the
words πατράγγουλους [pa'traŋgulus] ‘very unripe’, πατραχείλας [patra'çilas] ‘with big
lips’, πατρουγύνικα [patru'jinika] ‘stout or masculine woman’ and corresponds to τετρα-
[tetra] ‘very’. The morpheme is linked to the Aeolic πετρο- [petro-], with the peculiarly
Aeolic development of the labiovelar /kʷ/ to /p/ (Labiovelars); it could be explained
either as a Thessalian loan in Ancient Macedonian, due to its expressive character, or,
more probably, as evidence of a dialect zone in Macedonian where the development of
the labiovelar /kʷ/ before /e/ was the same as in Thessalian (Tzitzilis 2008).

5. Laconian and Tsakonian

As said already, the investigation of ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek
dialects must address Tsakonian separately from the other Modern Greek dialects. The
great majority of experts agree that Tsakonian is the only Modern Greek dialect which
is not derived from the Koine, but may be traced directly back to an Ancient Greek
dialect, namely Laconian (Laconian, Messenian). Despite this general agreement,
however, previous research has underestimated the presence of Laconian elements in
Tsakonian, particularly in crucial areas such as morphology. There are a great number
of Laconian elements in Tsakonian which have not been recognized by previous
research; the same applies to Doric elements, whose presence in Tsakonian confirms
their existence in Laconian too, despite the fact that they are not attested in the available
written sources. Some representative examples follow: Tsakonian βδιμάδα [vδi'maδa]
and βδιμά [vδi'ma], acc. ταν εβδιμά [tanevδi'ma] ‘week’ is usually considered to be
derived from ἑβδομάς [hebdοmás]; it is, however, obvious that it is in fact derived from
ἕβδεμος [hébdemos] ‘seventh’, which is attested in the derived form hεβδεμήκοντα
[hebdemḗkonta] ‘seventy’ in Heraklea and in north-western dialects, but not in
Laconian; the raising of unstressed /e/ is due to the influence of the nasal. Similarly, the
Tsakonian άτερε ['atere] ‘different’ is not derived from ἕτερος [héteros] ‘the other of
two’, but rather from ἅτερος [háteros], the Doric form of ἕτερος [héteros], which is
attested in Messenian and in other Doric dialects, but not in Laconian.

Laconian elements are not confined to the areas of phonetics and vocabulary, but are in
fact present in all linguistic categories.

5.a. Phonetics
The most important Laconian phonetic elements in Tsakonian are the following:

Doric ā

The preservation of the Doric ā in place of Attic ē (<η>) is one of the basic
characteristics of the historical phonetics of Tsakonian. Previous research gives us an
imprecise picture of the presence of Doric ā in the Modern Greek dialects, and
particularly in Tsakonian. It is usually stated in fairly general terms that /a/ (< /aː/) is
found: (a) In root morphemes, e.g. κάλι ['kali] ‘wood’ (< κᾶλον [kâlon]); μάλι ['mali]
‘apple’ (< μᾶλον [mâlon] = μῆλον [mêlon]); μάτη ['mati] ‘mother’ (< μάτηρ [mā́ tēr] =
μήτηρ [mḗ tēr]). (b) In derivational and inflectional morphemes. A more careful analysis
of the distribution of ā shows (Tzitzilis 2014a) that its appearance is regular in
paroxytone masculines in -a [a] (< -ας [-ās]), while in oxytones we find the ending -ή
([i]) (< -ής [éːs]). The situation today, i.e., the fact that Doric ā seems to be preserved in
certain morphemes, because of its morphological status, is the result of role
redistribution during the successive restructurings that resulted from periodic contacts
between the two systems, i.e., that of the dialect with the Doric vocalism and that of the
standard variety of the time with ē in place of ā.

Two different pronunciations of <Y>

In the Tsakonian dialect of the Peloponnese <Y> is generally pronounced as [u]

following /k/, /γ/, /x/, /p/, /v/, /f/, /m/ and as [ju] following /t/, /δ/, /θ/, /l/, /r/, /n/, e.g.
γυνή [gunḗ ] > γουναίκα [γu'neka] ‘woman’; ἄχυρον [ákhuron] ‘chaff, bran’ > άχουρε
['axure]; following a labial, e.g. μυρταλίς [murtalís] ‘myrtle’ > μουνdαλ́ία [munda'ʎιa];
<υ> = [i̯ u] following a dental, e.g. τύ [tú] ‘you’ > *τιού [ti̯ u] > εκιού [e'cu]; τυρός
[tūrós] ‘cheese’ > *τιουρός [ti̯ u'ros] > κιουρέ [cu're]; θυρίς [thurís] ‘window’ > θi̯ ουζ́ίδα
[θi̯ u'žiδa]; ἔνδυμα [éndūma] ‘garment’ > *ένδιουμα ['endi̯ uma] > όνgιουμα ['oɲɟuma];
after a sonorant, e.g. λύκος [lúkos] ‘wolf’ > λιούκο ['ʎuko]; νύκτα [núkta] ‘night’ >
νιούτ́α [ɲútʰa].

Chatzidakis (1901:550–53) links the existence of two different pronunciations of <υ> in

Tsakonian with the similar phenomenon in Boeotian , and considers that the split into
[u] and [i̯ u] in particular environments should be considered as a characteristic of
Laconian which has survived into Tsakonian. A different situation obtains in the
Tsakonian dialect of the Propontis, where <υ> is pronounced as [u] in all environments
(see Tzitzilis 2014a).

Apocope

The apocope of /a/ in the prepositions aná > an-, katá > ka(t)-, pará > par- is a
phenomenon known not only in Laconian but also in other Ancient Greek dialects. In
Tsakonian it is found in several words, such as: κ̔ακίνου [kʰa'cinu] (< καταπίνω
[katapī́ nō] ‘swallow’); κ̔ακ̔ούχου [kʰa'kʰuxu] (< καταχώννυμι [katakhṓ nnūmi] ‘bury’);
κ̔αμbαίνου [kʰa'mbenu] (< καταβαίνω [katabaínō] ‘come down’, cf. κάβασι· κατάβηθι
Λάκωνες [kábasi. katábēthi Lákōnes] ‘come down by Laconians’ [Hesychius]);
καγγιούνdα [ka'ɟunda] (< καταδύω [katadúō] ‘sink, set’); bαίνου ['benu] ‘I go up’ (<
ἀναβαίνω [anabaínō]); έτ̔α ['etʰa] ‘get up (imp.)’ (cf. ἄττασι· ἀνάστηθι Λάκωνες [áttasi.
anástēthi Lákōnes] ‘go up by Laconians’ [Hesychius]).

Preservation of the digamma

In Tsakonian the digamma survives as /v/ in the word βάννε ['vane] ‘lamb’ (from Lac.
ϝάρνον [wárnon]) and its derivatives βαννατσία [vana'tsia], etc., as well as in the words
dαβελέ [dave'le] ‘torch’, cf. δαβελός· δαλός Λάκωνες [davelós. dalós Lákōnes] ‘torch
by Laconians’ (Hesychius); βίλε ['vile] ‘snail’ (< *ϝίλλος [wίllos] < *ϝίϝλος [wíwlos];
cf. βειλαρμοστάς [veilarmostā́ s] (Hesychius); the name was evidently given because of
its spiral shell). It is worth noting that all forms that preserve the digamma as [v] in
Tsakonian are attested in Hesychius or in the inscriptions with <β> in place of the
digamma (<ϝ>).

Rhotacism

The change of final -s to -r appears in Laconian from the 2nd century BCE onwards,
e.g. σιόρ [siór] = θεός [theós] ‘god’. In Tsakonian, the rhotacized -s is deleted at the end
of a phonological word and within a phonological word (liaison) before a consonant,
e.g. καλός [ka'los] > *καλέρ [ka'ler] > καλέ [ka'le]; τους κεράμους [tusce'ramus] >
*τουρ κεράμουρ [turce'ramur] > του τσεράμου [tutse'ramu]. It is preserved: (a) for
reasons of morphological transparency, specifically in order to distinguish between the
2nd and 3rd person singular of the aorist, and the present and aorist subjunctive, e.g.
2sg. εγράβερε [e'γravere] ‘you wrote’ and 3sg. εγράβε [e'γrave] ‘he/she wrote’; (b) in
specific morphological environments, when the [r] precedes a vowel in phonological
word-internal position: in articles, e.g. ταρ αμερί [tarame'ri] ‘the day (gen.)’; τουρ
αμbέλε [tura'mbele] ‘the vineyards (acc.)’.

Change of /θ/ > /s/

This is found in a relatively small number of words: σάτη ['sati] (< θυγάτηρ [thugátēr]
‘daughter’); σέρι ['seri] (< θέρος [théros] ‘summer’); σερίνdου [se'rindu] (< θερίζω
[therízō] ‘reap’); σ̌ουλάτσι [šu'latsi] (< θυλάκιον [thūlákion] ‘little sack’; σελέ [se'le] (<
θαλός [thalós] ‘young shoot’); σηλίνdου [si'lindu] (< *θηλίζω [thēlízō] = θηλάζω
[thēlázō] ‘suckle’). Diachronic investigation reveals that many of these words are
already attested in Laconian with /s/ in place of /θ/ (< /tʰ/): Tsakonian σάτη ['sati] –
Laconian συγάτηρ [sugátēr]; Tsakonian σ̌ουλάτσι [šulátsi] – Laconian παρσουλακίρ
[parsulakír] (< *παραθυλακίς [parathūlakı́s]) ‘worn garment’; Tsakonian σελέ [se'le] –
Laconian σαλία [salía] ‘hat’.

Aspiration and subsequent deletion of intervocalic /s/

The aspiration of intervocalic /s/ in Laconian begins in the 5th century BCE. When we
start to see the influence from Koine, the dialect forms with /h/ alternate with those that
preserve intervocalic /s/. Later, the intervocalic /h/ is deleted, e.g. νικάας [nīkā́ as] <
νικάhας [nīkā́ has] < νικάσας [nīkā́ sas] (= νικήσας [nīkḗ sas]). It appears, however, that
in some cases, before this deletion process came into effect /h/ had been replaced by
<χ>, which was no longer pronounced as the aspirated stop [kh], but had acquired its
modern pronunciation [x]. This replacement may be observed in the Laconian word
τραύχανον ['trauxanon] < *τραύhανον ['trauhanon] < τραύσανος [traúsanos]. The
correctness of the spelling is confirmed by the existence of Tsakonian τσ̌ώχανε
['tšoxane] (< τρώχανον [trṓxanon] < τραύχανον ['trauxanon] (cf. personal name
Τρωχάνης [tro'xanis]; see Tzitzilis 2014a and in preparation). Cf. also Laconian
γερωχία [gerō'xia] (< γερωσία [gerōsía]). In Tsakonian we also find the third stage of
the development /s/ > /h/ > Ø, which appears in particular forms of the verb, for
example the present participle, e.g. ορούα [o'rua] (< ὁρῶσα [horôsa]), the aorist
subjunctive, e.g. οράου [o'rau], οράρε [o'rare], οράει [o'rai] (< *ὁράσω [horásō], etc.),
the aorist imperative, e.g. *ὅρασε [hórase] > *όραε ['orae] > όρα ['ora], and in the
endings -αϊ [ai] (< -ασι [-asi]) and -ωι [-oi] (< -ωσι [-ōsi]).

The problem of the aspirates

A basic characteristic of the Tsakonian dialect is the existence of the series of aspirated
stops /pʰ/, /kʰ/, /tʰ/. These consonants originate from: (a) double consonants in inherited
words, e.g. κόκκος [kókkos] ‘grain, seed’ > κόκ̔ο ['kοkʰo]; (b) double consonants in loan
words, e.g. Lat. sagitta‘arrow’ > σαγίττα [sajítta] > σαΐτ̔α [sa'itʰa]; (c) double
consonants that arose through assimilation of /s/ with the voiceless stops /k/, /p/, /t/, e.g.
ακ̔ό [a'kʰο] (< ἀκκόρ [akkór] < ἀσκός [askós]); (d) double consonants that developed
from the clusters /skh/ and /sth/, e.g. -σχω [-skhō] > -ίκ̔ου [íkʰu]; ἐσχάρα [eskhára]
‘hearth’ > κ̔άρα ['kʰara]; (e) double consonants that arose through assimilation of the
cluster /kt/ > /tt/, e.g. νύκτα ‘night’ [núkta] > *νύττα [ni̯ útta] > νιούτ̔α ['ɲutʰa]; (f) the
clusters <νθ> /nth/, <μφ> /mph/, <γχ> /nkh/: /nth/ > /tʰ/, e.g. γρόνθος ‘fist’ [grónthos] >
γρότ̔ε ['γrοtʰe].

The intermediate stages of these developments are already attested in Laconian, e.g.
Laconian ἀκκόρ [akkór] (< ἀσκός [askós]) > Tsakonian ακ̔ό [a'kʰo]. It is probable that
the assimilation /kt/ > /tt/, which is attested in Cretan although not in Laconian, is also
to be traced back to this period.

Pronunciation of <ζ> as [nd]

This phenomenon may be observed in the root morphemes of a small number of words,
and in a significant number of verbs in -zō, e.g. σ̌ίνdα ['šinda], cf. ῥίζα [rhίza] ‘root’;
σεζ̌ίνdου [se'žindu], cf. θερίζω [therízō] ‘reap’; φωνιάνdου [fo'ɲandu], cf. φωνάζω
[phōnázō] ‘cry out, call’; χένdου ['çendu], cf. χέζω [khézō] ‘to ease oneself’. Tsakonian
/nd/ goes back to Laconian δδ /dd/.

5.b. Morphology
The article

The article of Tsakonian is the only one in any Modern Greek dialect to preserve the
Doric forms of the feminine singular: α [a] (< ἁ [hā]), τα(ρ) [ta(r)] (< τᾶς [tâs]), τα(ν)
[ta(n)] (< τάν [tā́ n]). For the possibility that the forms τω [to] (masculine and neuter
gen. sg.) and τω(ρ) [to(r)] (masculine and feminine acc. pl.) in the dialect of the
Propontis originate from Laconian τῶ [tô] = Attic τοῦ [toû] and τώς [tṓs] = Attic τούς
[toús] respectively, see Tzitzilis 2014a.

Pronouns

The pronominal system of Tsakonian is rich in Laconian elements, and Doric elements
more generally.

Personal pronouns

1st person: gen./acc. sg. εμίω [e'mio], μίου ['miu] and ενίου [e'niu] (< Lac. ἐμίω [emíō]);
gen./acc. pl. νάμ(ου) ['nam(u)] (< Lac. ἁμῶν [hāmôn]).

2nd person: nom. sg. εκιού [e'cu] < Lac. τύ [tú], gen./acc. sg. τίω ['tio], τίου ['tiu] and
ετίου [e'tiu] (< Lac. τίω [tíō]), gen./acc. pl. νιούμ(ου) ['ɲum(u)] (< Lac. ὑμῶν [hūmôn])

3rd person: acc. sg. ν́ι [ɲi] < Lac. νιν [nin].

To these the following forms should be added: 3pl. weak personal pronoun σι [si], e.g.
άφε σι ['afesi] ‘leave them’; 3sg. weak possessive pronoun σι [si], e.g. α μάτη σι
[a'matisi] ‘his/her mother’; 3pl. weak possessive pronoun σου [su], e.g. α μάτη σου
[a'matisu] ‘their mother’.

The solution to the problem of the origin of the 3pl. form σι [si] may be found in Doric
σφίν [sphín], regarding which Hesychius gives the following information: σφίν· αὐτοῖς,
ἢ αὐτούς, ἢ αὐτάς [sphín. autoı̂ s, ḕ autoús, ḕ autás] ‘sphıń . to them [dat. pl masc. or
them [acc. pl. masc.] or them [acc. pl. fem.]’ (cf. ψίν· αὐτοῖς, αὐτόν [psín. autoı̂ s, autón]
‘psıń . to them [dat. pl. masc., him’). For the development /sph/ > /sf/ > /s/,
see Tzitzilis (2014a). The genitive plural σου [su] of the 3rd person possessive pronoun
is derived from the ancient σφῶν [sphôn] with change of /sf/ > /f/, regular deletion of
final /n/ and pronunciation of <ω> as /u/. Finally, the genitive singular σι [si] of the 3rd
person possessive pronoun can easily be recognized in the allegedly problematic
Hesychian gloss σφί· ἑαυτοῦ ἢ ἑαυτῆς [sphí. heautoû ḕ heautês] ‘sphı.́ of himself or of
herself’, whose meaning becomes clear when seen in the context of Tsakonian σι [si] (<
σφί [sphí]), cf. Tsakonian α μάτη σι [a'matisi] = Laconian ἁ μάτηρ σφι [hā mā́ tēr sphi]
= Attic ἡ ἑαυτοῦ, ἑαυτῆς μήτηρ [hē heautoû, heautês mḗtēr] = MG η μητέρα του/της
[imi'teratu/tis] ‘his/her mother’.

Demonstrative pronouns
ετήνε [e'tine] ‘that’ < Lac. τῆνος [tênos].

The verb

Recent research (Tzitzilis 2014a) has shown that elements of the Tsakonian verbal
system were already present in Laconian. These include:

Periphrastic present and imperfect

The first attestation of this phenomenon is recorded by Hesychius; this is the gloss
ἐξηλημβώρ· ἔβλεπε Λάκωνες [exēlēmbṓr. éblepe, Lákōnes] ‘exēlēmbṓr. ‘(he) was
looking, Laconians’. The form ἐξηλημβώρ [exēlēmbṓr] corresponds to Attic ἐξειληφώς
[exeilēphṓs]. For the use of the perfect participle in the formation of verbal periphrases
equivalent to the imperfect, see Tzitzilis(2014a). The date at which this phenomenon
first appeared can be moved further back if we accept as the first example of the
periphrastic imperfect in Laconian the following line from Alcman: ἦσκέ τις Καφεὺς
ϝανάσσων [ êské tis kapheús wanássōn = ên tis kapheús anássōn ] ‘a certain Capheus
was ruling’ (Tzitzilis 2014a).

The active aorist

The active aorist of labial stems, velar stems and dental stems verbs can be traced back
to “Doric” perfect forms, i.e., to forms which show voiced stops in place of the Attic
voiceless aspirates, e.g. Tsakonian εκρέβα [e'kreva] ‘I stole’, cf. Messenian κεκλεβώς
[keklebṓs] = κεκλοφώς [keklophṓs]; Tsakonian εγράβα [e'γrava] ‘I wrote’, cf. γέγραβα
[gégraba] = γέγραφα [gégrapha] and Argolic γεγράβανται [gegrábantai]
(see Tzitzilis 2014a).

Indeclinable forms

Adverbs: σάμερε ['samere] ‘today’ (< σάμερον [sā́ meron]); σάτσ̌ι ['satši] ‘this year’ (<
σάτει [sā́ tei]), etc.

5.c. Vocabulary
In the old Doric stratum, together with grammatical words such as the articles α [a] = η
[i], ταρ [tar] = της [tis], ταν [tan] = την [tin], and the pronouns νάμου ['nαmu] < ἁμῶν
[hāmôn], as well as items of basic vocabulary such as μάτη ['mati] ‘mother’ (< μάτηρ
[mā́ tēr]), we also find:

i. A number of words which the ancient lexicographers, especially Hesychius, or their

editors characterize as Laconian:

Hesychius
ἀκκόρ· ἀσκός. Λάκωνες [akkór]
ἄττασι· ἀνάστηθι (Λάκωνες)
[áttāsi]
ἀχράδα· ἄπιον (Λάκωνες) [akhráda]
Tsakonian
ακ̔ό [a'kʰο] ‘skinbag’
έτ̔α ['etʰa] ‘get up (imp.)’
αχρά [a'xra] ‘pear’
 δαβελός· δαλός. Λάκωνες
[davelós]
δαβεῖ· καίηται. Λάκωνες [daveî]
ἐμβαλεῖν· κατακλῖναι. Λάκωνες
[embaleîn]
κάβασι· κατάβηθι. Λάκωνες [kábāsi]
κουανᾶ· μέλανα. Λάκωνες [kouanâ]
μυρταλίς· ἡ ὀξυμυρρίνη, ὡς Λάκωνες μουνdαλ́ία [munda'ʎia] ‘myrtle’
[murtalís]
τούμα· στόμα [toúma]
τούνη· σύ. Λάκωνες [toúnē]
also cf.
dαβελέ [dave'le] ‘torch’
να δαεί [naδa'i] ‘that he burn’
απομbαλού [apomba'lu] ‘fall asleep’
κάμbα ['kamba] ‘get down (imp.)’
κουβάνα [ku'vana] ‘black’
τ̔ούμα ['tʰuma] ‘mouth’
(ε)κιού, ετού και εκιούνε, ετούνε [(e)'cu],
[e'tu],[e'cune], [e'tune] ‘you’

ὀξύμαλον (Aristophanes Grammaticus) [oxúmālon] τσ̌ούμαλε ['tšumale] ‘damson’.

ii. Words whose phonetic form bears witness to their Doric and more specifically
Laconian character, e.g. μάλι ['mali] ‘apple’ < Doric μᾶλον [mâlon] = μῆλον [mêlon],
κράκα ['kraka] ‘key’ < Doric κλᾴξ [klā́ ix] = κλείς [kleís], as well as words that were
already known as Doric in ancient times, e.g. ψιλέ [psi'le] ‘eye’ < Doric ὀπτίλος
[optílos] ‘eye’.

6. Conclusion
The attempt to identify ancient dialect elements in the Modern Greek dialects requires
an in-depth knowledge of the Ancient and especially the Modern Greek dialects, as well
as the application of strict methods of analysis, as the ground is slippery and can easily
lead us to erroneous conclusions. However, these difficulties should not discourage
researchers, as it is certain that future research in this field will provide important
evidence concerning the history of the Greek language, and particularly that of its
dialects.

Christos Tzitzilis

Bibliography
Andriotis, N. 1974. Lexikon der Archaismen in neugriechischen Dialekten. Vienna.

Bechtel, F. 1921–1924. Die griechischen Dialekte. 3 vols. Berlin.

Dieterich, K. 1898. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der
hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Leipzig.
Egetmeyer, M. 2010. Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. 2 vols. Berlin.

Hatzidakis, G. 1892. Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik. Leipzig.

Hatzidakis, G. 1901. Γλωσσολογικαί μελέται [Linguistic studies]. Athens.

Hatziioannou, K. 1977. Η αρχαία Κύπρος εις τα ελληνικάς πηγάς. Vol. ΙΙΙ-2: Κυπρίων
γλώσσα[Ancient Cyprus in Greek sources. Vol. III-2: the Cypriot language]. Nicosia.

Kapsomenos, S. 1938. Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammatik der Papyri der

nachchristlichen Zeit. Munich.

Kapsomenos, S. 1958. Die griechische Sprache zwischen Koine und Neugriechisch.

Munich.

Karatzas, S. 1958. L’origine des dialectes néo - grecs de l’Italie méridionale. Paris.

Kretschmer, P. 1896. Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache. Göttingen.

Loukas, G. 1979. Υλικά διά την σύνταξιν ιστορικού λεξικού της κυπριακής διαλέκτου.
Μέρος Α´: Γλωσσάριον Γεωργίου Λουκά [Material for compiling a historical dictionary
of the Cypriot dialect. Part I: the Glossary by Georgios Loukas], ed. by Th. D. Kupres.
Nicosia.

Méndez Dosuna, J. 2007. “Ex praesente lux”. In: Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen
und Werden. Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Universitat Berlin (19–22 September 2001),
ed. by I. Hajnal 355–83. Innsbruck.

Neumann, G. 1993. “Beiträge zum Kyprischen XIV (40. o statt u in Stammvokalen, 41.
to-pa-la-ne ICS 167, 42. ta-wa-ki-si-jo, 43. Ἐρύσθεια, 44. ICS 385, 1)”, Kadmos 32:39–
49.

Papadopoulos, Anthimos A. 1958. Historikon lexikon tēs Pontikēs dialektou. Athens.

Rohlfs, G. 1964. Lexicon graecanicum Italiae inferioris. Etymologisches Wörterbuch

der unteritalienischen Gräzität. Tübingen.

Thumb, Albert. 1901. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus.

Beiträge zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der Koine. Strassburg.

Tsopanakis, A. 1940. Essai sur la phonétique des parlers de Rhodes. Athens.

Tsopanakis, A. 1955. “Eine dorische Dialektzone im Neugriechischen”, Byzantinische

Zeitschrift48:49–72.

Tzitzilis, Chr. 1993. “Die Ableitungen des griechischen κάλον “Holz” in den
Balkansprachen”,Linguistique Balkanique 36:263–69.

Tzitzilis, Chr. 2004. “Das Mittelgriechische in Süditalien und das Problem der Herkunft
der neugriechischen Dialekte Süditaliens”. In: Wiener Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik:
Beiträge zum Symposion Vierzig Jahre Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik der
Universität Wien im Gedenken an Herbert Hunger, 464–81. Vienna.
Tzitzilis, Chr. 2006. “Secondary dental and velar enlargements in Ancient Greek
Dialects (based on evidence from Modern Greek Dialects and Greek loanwords in other
languages)”, Linguistique Balkanique 45/3:477–86.

Tzitzilis, Chr. 2008. “Τα αρχαία μακεδονικά στοιχεία στο ιδίωμα της Ορεινής Πιερίας
και οι σχέσεις της μακεδονικής με τη θεσσαλική και τις βορειοδυτικές δωρικές
διαλέκτους” [Ancient Macedonian elements in the dialect of upperland Pieria and the
relations of Macedonian with Thessalian and the north-west Doric dialects]. In: Θέρμη
και Φως. Αφιερωματικός τόμος στη μνήμη του Α. - Φ. Χριστίδη. Licht und W ä rme. In
Memory of A. - F. Christidis, ed. by M. Theodoropoulou, 225-244. Thessaloniki.

Tzitzilis, Chr. 2012. “Balkan and Asia Minor languages of fragmentary attestation in
the light of Modern Greek dialects: the case of ‘New Phrygian’”. Paper presented in
the Workshop on Ancient Greek Dialects, Thessaloniki, 12–13 October
2012 (forthcoming in Studies in Ancient Greek dialects, ed. by G. K. Giannakis and E.
Crespo).

Tzitzilis, Chr. 2014a. “The Tsakonian dialect”. In: Chr. Tzitzilis ed., Modern Greek
dialects. Thessaloniki.

Tzitzilis, Chr. 2014b. “The Asia Minor dialects”. In: Chr. Tzitzilis ed., Modern Greek
dialects. Thessaloniki.

Tzitzilis, Chr. Forthcoming. “Byzantine and Modern Greek Evidence for Ancient Greek
Dialects”. In: A. Bartonek, Chr. Tzitzilis eds., Ancient Greek dialects. Thessaloniki.

Tzitzilis, Chr. Forthcoming. Modern Greek evidence for Ancient Greek dialects: the
case of Megara.

Tzitzilis, Chr. In preparation. Modern Greek evidence for Ancient Greek dialects.

Tumb, A. 1901. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Beiträge zur
Geschichte und Beurteilung der Κοινή. Strassburg.