EnCyCLOpEdiA Of AnCiEnt GrEEK LAnGuAGE And LinGuiStiCS

Encyclopedia of
Ancient Greek Language
and Linguistics
Volume 2
G–O
General Editor
Georgios K. Giannakis
Associate Editors
Vit Bubenik
Emilio Crespo
Chris Golston
Alexandra Lianeri
Silvia Luraghi
Stephanos Matthaios
Leiden • boston
2014
This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV
Table of Contents
Volume One
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................
vii
List of Contributors ........................................................................................................................................
xi
Table of Contents Ordered by Thematic Category ................................................................................
xv
Transcription, Abbreviations, Bibliography ............................................................................................ xxi
List of Illustrations .......................................................................................................................................... xxiii
Articles A–F ......................................................................................................................................................
1
Volume Two
Transcription, Abbreviations, Bibliography ............................................................................................
Articles G–O .....................................................................................................................................................
vii
1
Volume Three
Transcription, Abbreviations, Bibliography ............................................................................................
Articles P–Z .......................................................................................................................................................
Index ...................................................................................................................................................................
This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV
vii
1
547
latin loanwords in greek
3.b.iv. Some imported Latin suffixes display
remarkable similarity to pre-existing Greek ones,
which were thus ‘revived’ (e.g. Gk. -tōr/-tor ~ Lat.
-tor: e.g. dṓtōr ‘giver’ vs. lector ‘reader’; cf. also Gk.
-inos ~ Lat. -īnus, Gk. -ikós ~ Lat. -icus, Gk. -anós
~ Lat. -ānus, etc.). In general, it is rather natural
to find in Greek (esp. in documentary papyri) a
form consisting of a Greek stem + Latin suffix
(e.g. mēkhanários from mēkhan-ḗ + -arius) next
to a form of the type Latin(ate) loan stem + Greek
suffix (e.g. kastellítēs from castellum + -ítēs ‘camp
soldier’). Obviously such forms could well have
been coined within Latin first, as mentioned
above in the case of Lat. dromedarius vs. Gk.
dromedários ‘camel-driver’. Sometimes, we may
even find composite Graeco-Latin suffixes, an
epitome of Graeco-Latin morphological fusion,
e.g. besti-ar-ítēs ‘clothes-bearer, etc.’ (from uestiarius + -(í)tēs); but conversely, note also meth(e)
l-it-ários ‘butcher(?)’ (cf. Palmer 1945:6–8; Cavenaile 1952:199–202).
323
Filos, Panagiotis. 2010. “Greek papyri and Graeco-Latin
hybrid compounds”. In: The language of the papyri, ed.
by Trevor V. Evans & Dirk D. Obbink, 221–252. Oxford –
New York.
Hofmann, Herbert. 1989. Die lateinischen Wörter im Griechischen bis 600 n. Chr. Inaugural Dissertation. Erlangen –
Nuremberg.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek. A history of the language and
its speakers. 2nd ed. Malden – Oxford.
Mason, Hugh J. 1974. Greek terms for Roman institutions. A
lexicon and analysis. Toronto.
Meyer, Gustav. 1895. Neugriechische Studien. III. Die lateinischen Lehnwörte im Neugriechischen. IV. Die romanischen
Lehnwörte im Neugriechischen. Sitzungsberichte der kais.
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophischhistorische Klasse. Band 72. Vienna.
Palmer, Leonard R. 1945. A grammar of post-Ptolemaic papyri
I.1: the suffixes. London.
Rochette, Bruno. 2010. “Greek and Latin bilingualism”. In: A
companion to the ancient Greek language, ed. by Egbert J.
Bakker, 281–293. Malden – Oxford.
Viscidi, Federico. 1944. I prestiti latini nel greco antico e
bizantino. Padua.
Zilliacus, Henrik. 1935. Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im
oströmischen Reich. Helsinki.
Panagiotis Filos
Bibliography
Adams, James N. and Simon Swain. 2002. “Introduction”. In:
Bilingualism in ancient society. Language contact and the
written word, ed. by James N. Adams, Mark Janse & Simon
Swain, 1–20. Oxford.
――. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge.
Browning, Robert. 1983. Medieval and modern Greek. 2nd
ed. Cambridge.
Cavenaile, Robert. 1952. “Quelques aspects de l’apport linguistique du grec au latin d’ Égypte”, Aegyptus 32:191–203.
Cervenka-Ehrenstrasser, Irene-Maria and Johannes M. Diethart.
1996–2000. Lexikon der lateinischen Lehnwörter in den
griechischsprachigen dokumentarischen Texten Ägyptens.
Mit Berücksichtigung koptischer Quellen. 2 fasc. (Α; Β-Δ).
Vienna-Purkersdorf.
Coleman, Robert G. G. 2007. “Greek and Latin”. In: A history
of ancient Greek. From the beginnings to late antiquity, ed.
by Anastasios-Foivos Christidis, 792–799. Cambridge.
Daris, Sergio. 1991. Il lessico latino nel greco d’Egitto. 2nd ed.
Barcelona.
Dickey, Eleanor. 2003. “Latin influence on the Greek of
documentary papyri: an analysis of its chronological
distribution”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
145:249–257.
Dickey, Eleanor. 2012. “Latin loanwords in Greek: a preliminary analysis”. In: Variation and Change in Greek
and Latin, ed. by Martti Leiwo, Hilla Halla-aho & Marja
Vierros, 57–70.
Diethart, Johannes M. 2008. “Beobachtungen zu den lateinischen Zeitwörtern im Griechischen”. In: Lexicologica
Byzantina. Beiträge zum Kolloquium zur byzantinischen
Lexikographie, ed. by Erich Trapp and Sonja Schönauer,
15–36. Bonn.
Dubuisson, Michel. 1985. Le latin de Polybe. Les implications
historiques d’ un cas de bilinguisme. Paris.
Filos, Panagiotis. 2009. Studies in the morphology of Latin
loanwords into Greek: evidence from the papyri. Unpublished DPhil thesis (2 vols.), University of Oxford.
Law of Limitation
The ‘Law of Limitation’ refers to a phonological process that limits how far from the end of
a word an accent may be located: if the wordfinal syllable is light (→ Syllable Weight), the
accent may be located as far from the end of
the word as the antepenult, e.g. heurḗmata
‘discoveries (nom./acc. n. pl.)’, eboúleue ‘(s)he
was deliberating (impf. 3 sg.)’; if the word-final
syllable is heavy, the accent may be located as
far from word-end as the penult, e.g. heurēmátōn
‘discoveries (gen. n. pl.)’, bouleúō ‘I am deliberating (pres. 1 sg.)’ (Göttling 1835:21–28; Steriade 1988:273–275). For the Law of Limitation,
a single word-final consonant does not affect
weight. Final syllables ending in a short vowel
(-V#) and those ending in a short vowel followed
by a single consonant (-VC#) both count as light,
e.g. basíleia ‘queen (nom. sg.)’, basíleian ‘queen
(acc.)’. All other syllable rhymes count as heavy,
e.g. -VCC# in astútrips ‘always living in the city’.
Word-final diphthongs pose a slight complication. As for the → Sotera Rule, word-final -oi
and -ai are treated as light rhymes in -VC#,
e.g. philósophoi ‘philosophers’ like philósophos
‘philosopher’, basíleiai ‘queens (nom. pl.)’ like
basíleian, with the exception of 3 sg. opt. act.
-oi and -ai, which are treated together with all
This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV
324
law of limitation
other word-final long vowels and diphthongs
as heavy -VV# rhymes, e.g. paideúoi, paideúsai
like paideúō ‘I am educating’. Note that the -oi of
locatival adverbs such as oíkoi ‘at home’ are also
treated as -VV# rhymes, but the evidence comes
from the non-application of the Sotera Rule, not
the Law of Limitation.
A small class of exceptions to the Law of
Limitation arose in Attic and Ionic when speakers retained the proparoxytone → accentuation
of words in which quantitative → metathesis
produced a heavy final syllable. These include
genitives of i- and u-stems, e.g. pólēos (Homer)
> póleōs ‘(of the) city’, *ástēos > ásteōs ‘(of the)
town’, some nouns and adjectives belonging
́
́
to the ‘→ Attic Declension’, e.g. *hī�lēos
> hī�leōs
‘propitious’, and → Ionic first declension gen.
sg. forms of the type *Atreídēo > Atreídeō ‘son
of Atreus’; taken at face value, pólēos shows that
the Law of Limitation was already active before
the last compositional phase of the Homeric
epics (Wackernagel 1893:31–33).
The Law of Limitation essentially determines
the domain of the word within which an accent
is phonologically licit. Where the accent is
located within that domain depends primarily on morphological and lexical factors. Words
whose accent always falls at the left edge of that
domain, such as those cited above, are referred
to as exhibiting ‘recessive’ accent. These include
entire classes of words, e.g. virtually all finite
verbs, athematic neuter nouns, feminine verbal
́
nouns in -sis (e.g. mī�mēsis
‘imitation’; → Action
Nouns), left-headed verbal/prepositional governing compounds (e.g. philokólax ‘fond of flatterers’; → Compound Nouns), etc. While it is
possible that the accentable domain is independent of other rhythmic phonological structure (Devine & Stephens 1994:154), it is more
likely (aligned with) a phonological constituent reflected elsewhere in the grammar (→ Prosody). A number of suggestions have been made
(cf. Probert 2010 with refs.), including equating the span between the accent (´) and wordend (#), which consists of two light syllables
(LL, e.g. heurḗmata), a heavy syllable (H, e.g.
heurēmátōn), or a heavy-light sequence (HL#,
e.g. heúrēma) – in other words, ´LL# or ´H(L)# –
with a quantity-insensitive trochaic foot (Sauzet
1989) or a quantity-sensitive one (Golston 1990).
This prosodic-phonological constituent may also
be reflected in word formation (Gunkel 2011)
and meter (Golston & Riad 2000; 2005; Gunkel
2010:43–75).
The Law of Limitation either arose in ProtoGreek (→ Proto-Greek and Common Greek) or
spread across all of the dialects for which we
have accentual evidence (Probert 2006:72–74).
Until that point, the phonologically accentable
domain consisted of the entire word, as in Vedic.
The Law of Limitation is thus a distinctive feature of Greek. From a phonological point of
view, the change took place when speakers regularized the post-accentual fall in pitch by aligning it with word-end (Garrett 2006:141), or with a
constituent such as a foot that was itself aligned
with word end. The regular falling pitch at wordend may have facilitated the merger of wordfinal *m and *n > n and the loss of word-final
stops, e.g. acc. sg. *-om > *-on, 3pl. *-ont > -on
(Garrett 2006:141). It has recently been argued
that the change was itself facilitated by the fact
that the location of the accent in a high proportion of early Greek words (by type and token)
already obeyed the Law of Limitation before it
arose (Probert 2012).
Bibliography
Devine, A. M. and L. D. Stephens. 1994. The prosody of Greek
speech. Oxford.
Garrett, Andrew. 2006. “Convergence in the formation of
Indo-European subgroups: phylogeny and chronology.”
In: Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages,
ed. by P. Forster and C. Renfrew, 139–151. Cambridge.
Golston, C. 1990. “Floating H (and L*) tones in Ancient
Greek.” In: Proceedings of the Arizona Phonology Conference, ed. by J. Myers and P. E. Perez, vol. 3, 66–82.
Tucson.
Golston, C. and T. Riad. 2000. “The phonology of Classical
Greek meter”, Linguistics 38.1:1–69.
――. 2005. “The phonology of Greek lyric meter”, Journal of
Linguistics 41:77–115.
Göttling, K. W. 1835. Allgemeine Lehre vom Accent der
griechischen Sprache. Jena.
Gunkel, D. 2010. Studies in Greek and Vedic prosody, morphology, and meter. Ph.D. diss., University of California,
Los Angeles.
――. 2011. “The emergence of foot structure as a factor in the
formation of Greek verbal nouns in -μα(τ)-”, Münchener
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 65:77–103.
Probert, P. 2006. Ancient Greek accentuation: synchronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford.
――. 2010. “Ancient Greek accentuation in Generative Phonology and Optimality Theory”, Language and Linguistics
Compass 4:1–26.
――. 2012. “Origins of the Greek law of limitation.” In: Laws
and rules in Indo-European, ed. by P. Probert and A. Willi,
163–181. Oxford.
Sauzet, P. 1989. “L’accent du grec ancien et les relations
entre structure métrique et représentation autosegmentale”, Langages 24:81–111.
This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV
law of limitation
Steriade, D. 1988. “Greek accent: a case for preserving structure”, Linguistic Inquiry 19:271–314.
Wackernagel, J. 1893. Beiträge zur Lehre vom griechischen
Akzent. Basel. (Reprinted in Wackernagel 1955–1979, vol. 2,
1072–1107.)
――. 1955–1979. Kleine Schriften, 3 vols. Göttingen.
Dieter Gunkel
Legal Terminology
Unlike Rome, Ancient Greece did not produce
jurists, so the nature of its legal documents is
more akin to commentaries than casebooks.
Classical Athenian law is the best documented,
while information on the laws of other citystates is scarce and is often preserved only in
Athenian texts. Most of our knowledge of Athenian legal terms and procedures comes from the
works of the great Athenian orators of the 4th
and 5th centuries BCE, collectively known as the
‘Canon of Ten’: Aeschines, Andocides, Antiphon,
Demosthenes, Dinarchus, Hyperides, Isaeus, Isocrates, Lycurgus, and Lysias.
Ancient Greek legal terms themselves are
often not specifically coined to describe a particular process, person, or legal body, but are
often, rather, more general terms that are given
a specific meaning in a legal context. Indeed, the
word for ‘law’ itself, nómos, is also the word for
‘custom’ and this creates a degree of ambiguity,
even within legal texts. There are many examples of such ambiguity in Athenian legal terminology, however, which is no doubt due in part
to the lack of a juridical tradition, mentioned
above. For example, ekklēsía (‘assembly’; a collective noun of those who were ékklētoi, ‘selected
to judge’ < verb ekkaléō, ‘call out’) in the context
of the Athenian legal system came to refer to the
assembly held on the Pnyx, at which all citizens
could comment and vote upon proposals. The
term boulḗ, which literally means ‘will’, ‘design’,
or ‘counsel’ (cf. verb boúlomai, ‘wish, be willing’)
came to refer to the council of citizens, which
(after the reforms of Cleisthenes in 508/7) prepared the agenda for the ekklēsía and, among
other administrative duties, decided whether
indictments brought against public officials (cf.
the concept of impeachment in American politics) would be heard by the ekklēsía or another
body called the dikastḗrion. So too, hoi héndeka,
or ‘The Eleven’, came to refer to the committee
in charge of Athens’ state prison and which oversaw all executions.
325
There were also terms borrowed from other
sources or that described a social relationship
that took on a legal dimension as the Athenian legal system developed. An example is the
kinship term kúrios, or ‘lord, master’ (‘sovereign’ in certain contexts), which was adopted
into Athenian legal language to denote a woman’s legal representative. In Athens, women
were legally minors and so could not represent
themselves in court, own property in their own
names, or participate in an official transaction.
Thus, a male kúrios (often rendered as ‘guardian’ in this context) would oversee these affairs
for her. A married woman would have her husband act as kúrios, while an unmarried woman
would have either her father or, if he had died,
a paternal uncle as her kúrios. Such situations
were the norm, although there are recorded
instances of an adult son acting as his mother’s
kúrios.
Just as the names for different bodies or individuals often existed prior to the legal entities
they came to name, the terms for the different
kinds of legal actions one could take took their
names from the processes themselves. Let us
begin with díkē, a term with many meanings
derived from the verb deíknumi (‘show, bring to
light’). Generally, it is rendered as ‘right’, ‘good
order’, ‘justice’, or ‘judgment’. If used specifically
as a legal term, it can refer to the process by
which a settlement is reached: thus ‘trial’, ‘the
case a person pleads (i.e., at trial)’, and ‘lawsuit’. It also may refer to a specific kind of lawsuit, that is, a ‘private suit’ or one that could only
be brought by the injured person or that person’s
immediate representative.
There were many different kinds of díkai or
private suits, depending upon the nature of the
legal action required by the circumstance. For
example, the díkē émmēnos, or ‘monthly suit’
(really, ‘month-long suit’), could be used to negotiate most financial cases by the second half
of the fourth century BCE. It was thought that
the term émmēnos (‘month-long’) referred to the
maximum length of time allowed in the prosecution of the case, but some scholars have recently
suggested that the term émmēnos refers instead
to the fact that there was an opportunity to file
a case of this type every month. A suit involving
a merchant who imported goods is called an
emporikḕ díkē, where emporikḗ refers specifically
to one who imports goods.
This is a digital offprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV