The Linguistic Case for the Aiolian Migration Reconsidered [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

HESPERIA JJ (2OO8) Pages43I~4^4

THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION RECONSIDERED

ABSTRACT thepresenceofspeakersofLesbianin 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. wayin whichlanguagesand dialectsmayspread.Moreover,on reexamination,theideaofanAiolicdialectgroupfallsapart.Boiotian,separated bythe and from Lesbian FirstCompensatory Thessalian,appearsas Lengthening a conservative dialect,mostcloselyrelatedto WestGreek.In turn,Lesbian ofGreekthatsharenodemonstrable andThessalianarebotharchaicbranches best viewed as twoseparaterelicareasofa are commoninnovations. They Greek. unaltered early relatively world- an aggregateof streamsdisTo pass fromthislegendary comeintoconfluwhichdo notwillingly tinctand heterogeneous, intermix into the visionafforded forced to cannot be and ence, in the 500s B.C.thewhole byHerodotus,we learnfromhimthat of fromDardanussouthwardto thepromontory coast-region Lektum(includingthetownofIlium),and fromLektumeastward had beenAeolised,orwas occupiedbyAeolic to Adramyttium, Greeks likewisetheinlandtownsof Skepsisand Kebren.1 This papergrewout of theresearchof BrianRose, as setout in theprecedingarticlein thisissueofHesperia?As head of thepost-BronzeAge excavationsat Troy,Rose had long acceptedthe scholarlyconsensusin 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, and the anonymousreviewersforHesperia fordiscussionand clarifications. Certain conventionsand abbreviationscommon in historicallinguistics * are used in this article.An asterisk marksan unattestedor reconstructed form.A daggert marksa formthatwe © 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 by analogy,replacement,or some other nonphonologicalprocess.A dash marks and boundaries. morpheme h3 ht,h2, stand forthe e-ya-yand o-coloring Capital letters laryngeals,respectively. Studies at Athens

markany (or an unknown)representativeof thatclass. So C = any consonant; H = anylaryngeal;Kw - anylabiovelar; P = anylabial; R = any resonant(I, r, myn); T= any dental; V= anyvowel. An apostrophe(C) markspalatalization. Glosses are given in singlequotes ('moon'). Phonological rulesor changes are writtenwith a slash / to indicate the environmentand a blank _ to 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 examinedthearchaeological no good evidence he found remains, however, forthisscenario,and was forcedto concludethatthecommunis opiniowas incorrect. He askedme to contribute a discussionof thelinguisticsituation.As I reexaminedthedata,it becameclearthatthe standardviewof an Aiolic dialectfamilyis faulty, and I too havebeen forcedto conclude, almostreluctantly, thatourearlierideas cannotbe supported.

THE TRIPOD The theoryof an Aiolian migrationrestson threelegs: archaeological, historical,and linguistic(Fig. 1). For the first,Rose concludes:"At no timeduringthe early1st millenniumdo we have evidenceforattacks, forthe arrivalof a new populationgroup,or foranysubstantive change in ceramicproduction."3 Otherscholarshavenoted,ifnotbeen bothered by,the lack of archaeologicalevidence.Gschnitzer,forexample,writes: "The migration toAsia Minor,whichwe couldassumewas a consequence of the driveforcolonization,has apparentlynot yet been successfully dated archaeologically; it musthave occurredbeforethe corresponding, but equallyundated,migrationof the Ionians."4Coldstreamexpressesa similarview:"These Aeolians,accordingto literary sources,had migrated fromtheirformerhomesin Boeotia and Thessalyat leastas earlyas the ofIonians;yetthearchaeological recordcastsverylittle parallelmovement on them before the late ... At light eighthcentury. presentwe have no reliablearchaeological evidenceconcerning thecomingofthefirst Aeolians to Lesbos."5 Nordo theconflicting accountsofthecolonizationofAiolis legendary such accountshavebeenacceptedas sosupplyconvincing support. Though berhistory accounts bysome,Rosehasshownhowtheseandothermythical developedand wereadaptedin the courseof the 6th-5thcenturiesB.C. fora varietyofculturalpurposes.6 In particular, thegenealogicalaccounts are merelyattemptsto connectlocal aristocracies to the royalfamilyof or a father Mycenae putativeancestorAiolos,who servesas a convenient Kw > T/_ e readsas "a labioexample, velarbecomesthecorresponding dental in theenvironment beforee."Language abbreviations: Ark.= Arkadian; Att.Ion. = Attic-Ionic; Boiot.= Boiotian; Cret.= Cretan;Cyp.= Cyprian;Dor. = Doric;Eng.= English;Germ.= German;Horn.= Homeric;Lak. = Lakonian;Lesb.= Lesbian;Myc.= MycePGrk= naean;Pamph.= Pamphylian; PIE = Proto-Indo-EuroProto-Greek; pean;SGrk= SouthGreek;Skt.= 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 followtheauthors use of"must have"here.He giveshisreasons:"as theirterritory to the theyextended northto thecoastoftheA[eolians] Aeolian;Phocaea (Smyrnapreviously on theedgeoftheAeolianhinterland; Aeoliansubstrate in thenorthern Ioniandialects)." I am notsureI see howanyoftheseindicatespriority of settlement. The linguistic evidenceis uselesssincemostscholarsexplainvariousfeatures ofLesbianbyrecourse to Ionicinfluence on it (see below).

5. Coldstream 2003,pp.262-263. 6. Rose2008,pp.401-404.Hammond(1975) usesThucydides' account to producedatessupposedly accurate towithina decade:TrojanWar,ca. 1200 B.C.;Thessalianinvasion, ca. 1140; Aiolicmigration to Lesbos,ca. 1130; Dorianinvasion, ca. 112O.Thessalians andBoiotiansareimaginedas a partof an invading Greeks, groupofNorthwest in Greek originating Epiros.Northwest andDoric aretreatedcorrectly as subfamilies ofWestGreek,which,however,Hammond(1975,p. 703) holdsto be closelyrelatedtoMycenaean.

THE LINGUISTIC

Figure1. Distributionoftraditional dialectgroupsin theeasternMedi-

terranean. AfterHainsworth 1982,p. 859, map28

7. RE 1,1893,col. 1031,s.v.Aioles (2002,col.228) (E. Meyer).Gschnitzer of the out, points "Regarding statement thattheA[eoofantiquity thescholars lians]hadoncesettledin certainareas ofGreece,thereis,in contrast [toThuc. 3.102.5],notmuchto go on.This is becauseon theone handtheyareconofthe nectedwiththeappearance

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

433

fortheunaffiliated, andcannotbe usedto inferactualtribal, gefigure affiliations. summed or netic, linguistic Meyerin 1893rightly up:"Oneis toconclude thatallGreektribes thatwerenotDoricorIonicwere forced AioHc.'"7 designated is gently corrected Unduepietytoward theclassicalsources byCook: whichalonegivesa precise carries no "Theconnexion withOrestes, dating, . . . As hefurther "the Greek had a conviction." horror notes, antiquarians intoa chronological likethisweredulytranslated vacui Stories system." of "Theschematic traditions the concludes: He sensibly migrations prose to theEastAegeanaftertheTrojanWarseemin generalto havebeen B.C."8 Underthatclearlight, ofthefifth manypretty century compilations thepathsandeventheexactdatesofa complex butfanciful mapsshowing mustdisappear.9 andsackings seriesofmigrations, invasions, ofthis us in thepassagequotedat thebeginning As Grotereminds there is and such after mythological article, history reconstructions, only a singlefact.As attested bySapphoandAlkaios,ataround600 B.C. we mythological personalnameAeolus, theearliestbearerofwhichwasprobas theproablysecondarily interpreted genitoroftheA[eolians],andon the otherhandwiththetheories concerning thedivisionoftheGreeksintoa few thenameA[eolilargetribeswhereby thatcouldnotbe an] coveredeverything ascribedto theDoriansortheIonians."

8. Cook 1975,p. 777. 9. E.g.,Hammond1976,p. 142.An adaptedversionofthismapis stillprereconsented,albeitas a "conjectural in works struction,"introductory such as Cartledge2002,p. 45. See alsosimilarmapsin Grant1994,pp. 12-13; Morkot1996,p. 47.

HOLT

434

N. PARKER

can pushGrotes dateback a bit- peopleon Lesbos werespeakinga distinctiveGreekdialect,one thatmodernlinguistsconsiderto be relatedto thedialectsofBoiotiaandThessaly(Fig. l).The onlysurviving leg ofthe tripod,then,is theidea thatinThessalianand Boiotianwe havea case of a unifieddialectarea splitbylatecomers, in thiscase the Doric speakers of NorthwestGreek,withLesbian as an outlyingprovince.10 That is the of this subject paper.

THE QUESTION OF AIOLIC Chadwickhas observedthat"theancients,fromHesiod on,distinguished threefamiliesofGreek-speaking peoples:Dorians,Ionians,and Aeolians. Modernscholarsacceptedthisas a roughbasis,fortheDoric andIonicdialectswereplainlyrecognizable Aeolicwas lesseasilyidentified."11 There is indeeda problemwiththeAiolic dialect,and it needsreexamination. In antiquity, and derivatives referred AioA,e\) *totsos *tdty-o-s to-so-de (xoaov8e). togo hdtsos (Cretano£o Lesbian *Hydty-os ooooq; butAtticand Arkadianoaoq. > *kwdtsos > Lesbiannooooc,(versusBoiotian6-noixoq, *kwdty-o-s Cretano-rcoxxoq); but SouthGreeknocoq. > *metyos > Lat. (cf. medius)> Proto-Greek*methyos *medh-yo-s > *metsosLesbian ueaaoq (versusBoiotianand Cretanjxexxoq); but SouthGreekueooq,cf.Mycenaeanme-sa-ta'middlequality* = ueo(o)ccxo Proto-Greek*potsi> noaci but South GreekkogL With original-ss-:Proto-Greek*genes-si> yeveaai (theanalogical sourcethenofthethird-declension dativepluralin -eooi) but SouthGreekyeveai. manner,sucha group Despite ourtendencyto thinkin a bifurcating oftheotherdialectsto each other. impliesnothingabouttherelationships A SouthGreekdialectdoes notimplya unitary "NorthGreek"dialector other situation.46 any AlOLIC

WITHIN

THE GREEK

DlALECTS

The Aiolic dialectfamilyis said to be distinguished bya grabbag of features.Hainsworthprovidesa good exampleof the standardlist47and its jumblednature,quotedhere: 1. labialreflexes ofkwe, etc. 2. perfectparticiplein -ovx3. dativepluralin -eoai 4. geminationofliquidsand nasalsas reflexof -ov-etc.(not Boiotian) 5. ice= uioc 6. patronymic adjectivein -ioq It is a muchbetterprocedureto takethelistsin thehandbooks,combinethesignificant and reorderthem,dealingfirst withthephofeatures, then and lexical A nological, morphological, finally isoglosses. moreuseful listwouldlook likethis: Phonological

1. labialreflexes ofkwevenbeforee 2.*r>po/op Morphological 3. dativepluralin -eaai 4. perfectparticiplein -cov,-ovxLexical/derivational 5. i'oc= uia 6. patronymic adjectivein -loq

46. ContraRisch1955,p. 71; Chadwick1956,p. 40; 1975,p. 811;Wyatt 1970,p. 626. 47. Hainsworth 1982,pp. 860-861. Forsimilarlists,see Buck1955,p. 147, §201; Scherer1959,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'sno. 4- "geminationof liquids and nasals as reflexof -av- needs "notBoiotian" etc," withtheveryimportant qualification special and is discussedbelow. treatment, The problemis thatnoneoftheseis especially strongas a caseofshared innovation. Hainsworthnotesthatthelast,use ofthepatronymic adjective, indeedProto-Indo-Eurois an archaism.48 InheritedfromProto-Greek, What he,andtheauthorsofmanyhandbooks, pean,itis uselessas evidence. arearchaisms, too. failto noteis thatmostoftheotherfeatures Labiovelars.The default(unconditioned)outcomeof thelabiovelars (stillunchangedin Mycenaean)in all laterGreek dialectsis to a labial: *kw > py *gw > bf *gwb> *kwh> p* (in linguistic shorthand, Kw > P). Many

dialects,however,show a palatalizationof labiovelarsto dentalsbeforee (Kw > T/_ e).49As thehandbooksnote,thischangedoes notoccurin Lesbian,Thessalian,and Boiotian.What has notbeenclearlynoted,however, is thatthischangealso does notoccurin Arkadian>andCyprian.50 is straightforward: ForLesbian,Thessalian,andBoiotian,thesituation arepreserved intactuntillate,whentheysimply labiovelars theProto-Greek Some standardexamplesare: turnintolabialsin all environments. > Atticrcevxe, butLesbian andThessalianrceuTie *kw: *penkwe Doric,etc.,TeA,-exai, (kweA,6u£voi), *kV)el-> Mycenaeanqe-ro-me-no butLesbianneXexai > kowtj,but neioi8iicr|, Mycenaeanqe-te-oy *kwey-: *kwoy-neh2 BoiotianIliaiSdcn (withei > i), AtticTeiai8iKT|,Thessalian etc. a7c-7cei-odTO'o, 'thehollows/butBoiotoanBetapoi so AeAxpoi 'hollow/ gw:*gwe/bhmorecomplicated. ForArkadianand Cyprianthesituationis slightly dialect underwent its then each but their labiovelars too intact, They kept In we and affrication. ownparticular (andverylate)palatalization Cyprian > tsis,spelledsi-se,laterciq (vs. xiq).51 find*kw> tsonlybeforei; so *kwis ElsewhereCyprianshowstheregularlabialdevelopment(evenbeforee)\ > iceioei,spelledpe-i-se-i(Art.xeioei). future*kwei-suntilitsownseparatepalatalizathelabiovelars Arkadianalsopreserves useda special earliest * and e. The tionbeforebothhighvowels, inscriptions s ora, whichspelledonly*kw transcribed signM(a formofsan apparently), and so siva = xiva,eise = ei'-xe, vowels(i and e)>so osei = o-xcp, beforefront on.52Laterspellingssuchas 6£i xiq (this change is post-Mycenaean but are intact wherethe labiovelars not sharedwithArkadian or Cyprian);

the odd Thessalian ki *ou-kiswith the stractedfrom*ou-kwis usual loss of the labial co-articulation beforeor afteru (cf.*ou-kwid[the unaccented enclitic]*noway' > o\>kiHorn, [line end] > oi>k). 50. Lejeune 1972, p. 47, §34. 51. That thiswas a change of inherited labiovelarsis shown by the factthat it did not apply to inherited/,kyetc. 52. E.g., Mantinea, Buck 1955, no. 17. The cases of *gwcome 198, p.

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 influencefromotherdialects(see, e.g., Buck 1955, pp. 174-175), thoughit may also representa regulardevelopmentof the new *ts> t>*dz > d.

HOLT

446

N. PARKER

What we dealingwith,then,is a changethatdid notoccur.Lesbian, Thessalian,and Boiotianescapedthepalatalizationof labiovelarsbefore frontvowels,as did Arkadianand Cyprian.We can imaginethispalatalizationas a change spreadingthroughan alreadydifferentiated dialect 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 ofindechangespreadingthrough in variousbranches.55 The absenceof the changeis pendentinnovations no morereasonto groupLesbian,Thessalian,and Boiotiantogether(and add Arkadianand Lesbian) thanthepresenceofthechangeis a reasonto groupAttic-Ionic,Doric, and Pamphyliantogether. *r>po/op.When we reexaminethechangeof *r> po/opwe findthat theevidenceis lessoverwhelming thanthehandbooksmakeitseem.56 For Lesbianthereareonlysixcertainforms: 1. Ppo%e(a)(Sappho 31.7 ) < *mrgh-u> 2. auPpoxe(Sappho 5.5) < zero-grade*h2mrt(cf.*n-h2mert-esvrmepxriO 3. auppocmq (Sappho 141.1) < *n-mrt(cf.Homericppoxoq,

otuPpoToq) 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 borrowingfromIndo-Iranian*wrd6. oxpoxov(Sappho 16.1; Alk. 372.1, 382.2), and oxpoxocyoi (7GXII.2 5, etc.);propernames po/op.57 The evidenceforBoiotianand Thessalianis verythin.Boiotianhas andIxpox-in propernames,whichseems onlytwoforms:e-aoxpoxet>-a9r| tobe good evidencefora regularchangeof *r> po.The otherformis found in thepropernameswiththerootBpo%-x>XXo etc.,thoughpropernames arealwaysuncertain. There arealso onlytwoformscitedforThessalian,and onlyforEast Thessalian at that,which shows Bpo^ix;as a propername and rcexpoand so may exeipi8a,'periodoffouryears/Botharein a labialenvironment indicatea conditionedreflex, thoughwe cannotbe sure,and it is doubtful thatTcexporeallycontinuesan unalteredzero-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 directionsthatwe cannot recoverthe rules.Further,there appear to be no good cases of */in 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 *r,are uncertain,or are phantoms.So 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 papeuai, but is from(3opacobuilt to popd. yponnaxa (Balbilla) is a hyperAiolism, and shows the dangersof the interventionsof the Alexandrian regularizes (cf.Alk. 129.27 yeypd.f,

etc.). The ypdrcxa, epigraphicypdqniv, formscited fromthe grammariansare withoutidentification, even if their etymologieswere certain.So Hsch. k 3669 (Latte): Kopxepd-Kpaxepd, ia%upd;\i.1679 uopvd|ievo *petrow-es in Homer://.16.857:ovrcoxuov yoocooa (Skt. catvdras)> *petwores where Kai iipr|v, Aircova' seenin Myc. withthesamemetathesis avSpoxfjxa ElseRuijgh(1995,pp. 85-91) andWest spellingkwetorwes. qe-to-wo-rey whereThes.showsonlyIxpaxo-( to-)in names.These,however, mightbe thesisof-nr-> -ndr-,seenalreadyin The handinfluence. duetoAttic/koine = *6tv5pidvxei cite'Epoxo-icAiaq bookssometimes Myc.a-di-ri-ja-te ofa man' with the Dialektder '[inscribed] figure (e.g., Sammlung griechischen < of a man/ similar and forms, -ocvxoq *anros> butgenitive Boiot.likewisehas a namein'Epox-Ccov. > dvf|p, *h2nr-6s 59.This is one ofthemainreasons (Sihler1995,p. 212, §224). dvSpoc; takeAiolicandArka- Also//.14.78 (verseinitial)vk£dpporn whysomescholars sub-branch (lx). This clearlyisjusta spellingat"Akhaian" an as do-Cyprian ofGreek:e.g.,Hoffmann duppoxri 1891-1898, temptto accountfora v\)£ thatdoesnotscan(cf.theusualending vol.1,p. vii;Chadwick1956,pp.39a vb£ vx>Q.This reflects duppoairi 41; 1975,p. 810. Fora reviewofthe > *r durxa considers data that (< *n-mr-to-). po/op Ark.-Cyp. 62. Buck1955,p. 89,§107.3;Morlabial on a preceding as conditioned w-)yseeMorpurgo1968. purgoDavies 1976. (specifically to of-tw-pointsrather development oftheordinal*kwetw6res theinfluence

63. Finkelberg (1994,p. 19; 2005, pp. 129-130),themostrecentto revive ofPamtheidea,makesno mention orWyatt's1973 Kyrenaian, phylian, the demolishes whicheffectively article, notion. 64. See MorpurgoDavies 1976for themechanism. Wyatt1973,p. 39: "Thereis no needto assumean Aeolic in orderto explainthespread substrate ofthe ofthishighlyusefulallomorph dativeplural."Ruijgh(1996,pp.486from 487) seesitas a simpleborrowing withCorintheneighboring dialects, itsreplacement. thianlaterreplacing 65. Lesb.:masc.taA,d6-cov, neq>x>yyetc.;fern. cov,yevov-ovxa, jcap-eaxaKThes.:masc. oiaav; inf.xeOvaK-riv. erc-eoxdic-ovxa, etc.;inf.e£aA,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.

HOLT

448

N. PARKER

Since theperfectactivemovesin lockstep wayas in thethematicverbs.67 withtheaoristactive,I suspectthattheanswerlies in thethirdsingular, wherea proportional analogycouldbe establishedbetweentheaoristand the perfect:ekin-e : Xin-dw: : XeXaQ-z: X = XekaQ-tov.

in variousformsofDoric We findsimilarperfectthematicinfinitives East Island Doric: (Crete, Kos, Nisyros).There is an Argolis,Phokis, at isolatedthematicperfect participle Kyrene,and Delphi showsa similar butconfined formsintheinfinitive, andin theparticiple spreadofthematic tothefeminine.68 but This is thestrongest evidencefora sharedinnovation, thefactthatotherdialectssuccumbto thetemptation of thematicforms fortheperfect weakensthecase somewhat.69 m = jiia. What thehandbooksusuallypresentas thesole lexicalitem Aiolic,ia intheplaceofuiocfoundin otherdialects,is theresultof defining paradigmatic leveling.There arethreepointsto bearin mindabout'one': 1. Though it is sometimesnotclearfromthehandbooks,we havea fullparadigmof elq,10c, ev (to givetheLesbian forms).That is, thefeatureis notreallya lexicalitemat all,buta morphological one.70 2. A modelfromwithina paradigmof 1110c, etc.,is hardto jLLiaq, GarciaRamon and for justify. Ruijgh, example,thoughtthat theu- of uiochad beenlostsomehowto bringtheparadigm intoalignment withthevowelinitialeiq and ev.But thereis no proportional analogicalmodel;Atticand otherdialectshaveno with theirregular to see problem paradigm;and it is difficult whyan attemptto regularizethepatternwouldstopthereand notproduce,forexample,elq,tea, ev.71 - thatwe havethefeminineof 3. The othercommonexplanation an ioq meaning'thatone/foundin theGortynLaw Code and a fewotherplaces- willnotdo.72The formis foundonlyin the feminine(no fioq attestedforLesbian,etc.),and it is clearlynot thematic(no fia, ti&v).73 The answer,therefore, is phonologicaland thebasicoutlinewas given Schmidt.74 We are longagoby dealingwitha paradigmthathasbeenexten> 6\ioq) *som-d-s sivelyremodeled.The PIE root*sem(as in Latin semely had an originalrootnounparadigmwithmasculine*sem(extendedgrade) recharacterized as *sems,75 and a proterokinetic devi feminine, withfull67. Hodot 1990, p. 159: "Au parfait, de la finale Tadoptionpour l'infinitif 'thematique'-tivest correlativede remploi du suffixe-ovx-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 finiteformsof the perfectare inflectedlike the present,and those in which the infiniteformsare inflectedlike 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 (7GXII.2 82, line 12).Thes. fern.ace. iav (IG IX.2 6, line 12); neut. ev (SEG XXVI 672, line 50). Boiot. masc. ace. eva (DialectorumGraecarumExempla 485.43); fern.gen. taq (SEG III 359, line 10); neut.gen. evo bends(evoq);neut.nom.ace.*sem> ev. afterCRy 76. Forthedevelopment cf.*trih2> (Skt.patnt)> xpia;*potn-ih2 > e-Tipia-xo (cf.Skt. Tcoxvia, *e-kwih2n. 80; See Peters 132, 1980, kri-td-). p. is best This 162. 2004, p. Gippert viewedas thenormaldevelopment to Siever'sLaw; see Schindaccording ler1977,p. 57; Peters1980,pp. 127132,esp.p. 132,n. 80; Ringe2006, showsthesame p. 16.Armenian > mi'one'(Darms changein *smiya Peters 1980,p. 132,n. 80). 1976,p. 13; 77. ForSiever'sLaw,see n. 76, above.A similarlossofnasalis seenin 'stone'(collective 'sharp')but *h2e'km6 > dsmanVedic (stem), gen.*h2k-mn-es with ds'nas 161, 2004, p. (gen.)(Gippert in versusthetreatment references), > Semxoq. > 8eica,*dekmt-o-s *dekmt This lawhelpsaccountfora puzzling

ofthepronouns: detailoftheinflection butdat.*tosm-ey/ nom.*so/*seh2/*tod> As Ringe(2006, *tosy-eh2-ey/*t6sm-ey. has beensuspected notes: "It 55) long p. thatthe-sm-ofthemasc.andneut.sg. is a reducedformof 'one.'. . . If thatis true,itshouldfollowthatthesyeh2thecorreofthefern. sg.formsreflects thefact ofthenumeral; spondingfern, *-m-hasbeen thattheroot-final thansyllabified might droppedrather an earlierpre-PIEphonothenreflect (inwhichcasethisinlogicalsystem wouldbe veryarchaic),orthe flection clustermightsimplyhavebeenreduced Schmidt(1898, byallegrophonology." tietheformant p. 399) did notdirectly demto thewordfor'one,'butcorrectly See also Szethephonology. onstrated 1996,p. 206; Gippert2004, merenyi esp.pp. 156,161,nn.6, 22,25; Hackstein2005,p. 178. 78.That is,thereis no needto invokeLesbianpsilosisto explainthe see Lejeune1972, form.For-sy-> -yy-, of pp. 132-133,§127. A development > ruled out seems to *hiby *yy- *yithefactthatitviolatestheusualvoca-

lizationrule(clearlystatedbyRinge a hypotheti2006,pp. 15-16). Further, wouldhaveto be createdfairly cal *yids latewithinGreekitselfto escapethe of*y-> C,-(theunusualdevelopment conditioned outcome),sinceh-develis from ops only *Hy-.This difference in orincorporated notfullyunderstood Rix1992,one ofthe mosttreatments. unfortumostup-to-date handbooks, reversed the situation has nately (pp.60, 70, §§68, 80); see Peters1976 fordetails.PIE contains(as farI can find)onlyone lexemewith*sy-:*syuH'sewn,'syU-ma 'sew,'Skt.syu-td'strap.' withrough In Greekwe havex>\ri\v butall Greekwordswith breathing, initiald haveroughbreathing (thereabutitmaybe a regular sonis unclear, change;Lejeune1972, phonological pp.280-281,§320; Sihler1995, p. 173). HereI suspecta lossofy simiandLat. larto thatseenin Vedicsutray subula'awl',thatis,a regular suo>sutusy (loss)beforeu in Greek. development Schmidt(1898) explainedtheinitial he vowelbythetypeofepenthesis > *iyds. > so for io9i, posited *syds *isyds

HOLT

45O

N. PARKER

creatingioc,iaq.79Again, agreementon paradigmlevelingis not good evidenceforsubgrouping, sincethespreadoftheiceformsno moreunites and Boiotian thanthespreadoftheuiocformsunites Lesbian,Thessalian, and Doric. Attic-Ionic,Pamphylian, branchof To sumup so far,Aiolic appearsto be a veryconservative it does not for the sound Greek,distinguished undergo. changes primarily In fact,Aiolicunderscrutiny thana relicarea,and appearslessa subfamily Rischcouldfindno sureisoglossseparating AiolicandWestGreekbefore ca. 1200 B.C.80 within Divisions Lengthening

Aiolic:

The First

Compensatory

We can go further. Ratherthana unity, Aiolic is splitbyone oftheearliestGreeksoundchanges,theFirstCompensatory Lengthening(1CL).81 This is Hainsworth's no. 4 (see above,p. 444), withthetellingpoint"not a poorcandidatefora definingqualityofAiolic. Boiotian,"and therefore A properformulation of the FirstCompensatory Lengtheningis crucial to understanding thedevelopmentof the Greekdialects,and so requires a certainamountof space. Those whose eyes glaze over at linguistics (but have stuckwithme so far)maywish to skipthe followingdetailed The importantfactto be bornein mindis thatthe forms presentation. attestedin Lesbian and Thessalianwithdoubleresonants(e.g.,Lesbian) theoriginal Pan-Greek Boiotian, represent stage;all otherdialects,including haveundergonea laterchange,theFirstCompensatory Lengthening:so Boiotianand Doric oeA,otva, and Attic-IonicaeA,f|VTi.That is,once again, LesbianandThessalianaredistinguished notbyan innovation butmerely bya failureto undergoa changeseenelsewhere. The presentations in mosthandbooksare necessarilyscatteredand failto captureseveralgeneralrules.The basic sequenceof eventsin the FirstCompensatory was thata resonant+ sys + resonant, or Lengthening resonant+ y all becamedoubleresonants in all dialects,butthenin certain dialectsVRR > VR, whichone can viewas a compensatory lengthening or a simpleshiftof mora/assimilation. More precisely, a vowelis lengthenedas a resultof thesimplification of a followingnonpalataldoubleresonantcluster.82 In brief,VRR > VRy 79. Forthisoriginalparadigm with nom.u(ot,gen.ia *sy)I *(m)midsy respec-

The resulting ia Zfiv(a).

80. Risch1955,p. 71. 81. So calledbecauseitprecedes boththeAttic-Ionic changeofa > r\, andtheSecondCompensatory whichappliesto new Lengthening, (orunchanged) groupsof-ns-.The formulations ofBlumel(1982),as themostcomprehensive treatment ofAiolicto date,deserveseparate consideration andcannotbe pursued

here.Unfortunately, someofhisrules forthesoundchangesareproneto as a resultoftheuseofa error, partially framework, synchronic, generative whichdoesnotdistinguish between andlater,dialectical, Proto-Greek soundchanges.He failsto capturethe oftheFirstCompengeneralization andhiscomsatoryLengthening (pp.78-79,95-96, plexexplanations §§108-109) callforseveraldifferent rules,nonewithouttheirdifficulties, whichin factproduceincorrect forms. 82.This formulation of1CL is based on thatofmyteacher WarrenCowgill 1967).Though (modifying Kiparsky

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

451

Figure3. Chartofthedepalatalizaclusters tionofresonant in cases of mm> m>nn > nyrr> r,//> /,and ww > w, but notin cases of *yyor *IT (whichcomesfrom*/yand laterdepalatalizesto XXonlyafter This changeis foundin all GreekdialectsexceptLesbian 1CL is over).83 andThessalian,whichmerelyretainthePan-Greekstage.84 There arethreesourcesforthesenew doubleresonantclusters: > RR (eitherbymetathesis 1. *Rs/sR> *hR/RA or simpleassimilation). 2. A depalatalized-RR- from-Ry-.ForRy > R'R',whathappens nextdependson theprecedingvowel.If thevowelis non-high and back (i.e., as unpalatalas possible),namelya or o, then a new diphthongis created:*ann > ayn,*oriri> oyny i.e.,*ri merelyloses itsnasalityand turnsintothehomorganicresonant *n is depalatalized.Similarly*arY > ayr> y, and theremaining *orY> oyr.But ifthevowelis highor frontft,eyu)>thenR'R! depalatalizes> RR and eitherstaysinThessalianand Lesbian or elsewherefeedstheFirstCompensatory Lengthening(see two treatto note that these It is 3). differing Fig. important mentsof R'R' arepresentin all dialectsand so arePan-Greek.85 Lesbian andThessalianalone of Greekdialectssimplymaintain theresulting -RR-,butBoiotianshowsthecompensatory long vowels.86 an outlinecanbe neverfully published, foundin Cowgill1969 andin Crist counter2001,pp.76-77.The putative ofRR, clusters examplesaresurface mostofwhichareeasilyexplained. ofhR Manyarefromthetreatment in quasi-initial position:#sR-> hRspelledFH, PH, etc.,whencetherough > > *hpofo afterthe1CL is over.So: *srew-o> peco, etc.Note butmxappeco, *hrewothatseveralsuchformsin Homerare

corthephonologically likelyto reflect > eppeov; so:*e-srew-on rectPGrkreflex; > uei5-idco but(piA,oun.ei8r| t|.The newroughbreathing seenin Art.,Boiot.,andDoriccomesfrom2. is recharacpl.\)ue-.In Att.this*f|ueterizedwiththeace.pl. endingfiue-cx fjuaq(Sihler1995,p. 380,§369). 91. NotethatGrassmann's Law ofaspirates) doesnot (dissimilation *hR> apply,thatis,theassimilation RR precedesGrassmann's Law,which againshowsthatwe arenotdealing withthemerecompensatory lossofh butthesimplification ofdouble resonants.

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

453

-sn-

> cpdoq> (pcoq)> Lesb. cpdewoq, butBoiot. (cf.*phawos *pbdwes-nothe Boiot. Odevoq(laterOdevvoq,following collapseofthe Ark.Oocr|va. diphthongs), " 'shiner'> Lesb. aeAxxwa,butBoiot.,Dor. oetaxva, *selas-nd Art.-Ion. G6Xf|VT|.92 -sw*nas-wo-s'dwelling'(cf.*nas-yo> vaico) > *nawwds> Lesb. vawq, > Art.vecoq Ion. vi\6 Boiot.votoq, metathesis). (withquantitative and so on: For -Rs- therearenumerousexamplesin j-aorists,futures, -h-

> *arjgelTd but (in all dialectsand so not 1CL) > dyye^Xco *arjgel-yo > Boiot. but firstaor.*ayyeX-aa Lesb.,Thes. dyYeAAd-uevoq, Art.inf.dy/eTAm (1CL withhighvowel). dyyei^auevcoq, -nsbutBoiot. ueivdxco, *men-sa-> Thes. part.gen.pl. cruu-U£wdvT-oi)v, Art.eueiv-e. Thes. ueiw-oq;in the 1CL *mens-os: gen.'month'> Lesb. UT^vv-oq, dialectsthelengthening appliesvacuouslyto thelongvowel,but the show RRyso: Boiot. ueiv-oq,Art.uriv-oq.93 simplified they The -nn-formsshowthatRs musthavepassedat leastto Rh (> RR) beforePan-GreekOstoffs Law applied. It is especiallyimportantto note herethatthe FirstCompensatory Lengtheningis cruciallyorderedafterthe changeof sonant*r> pa. So > > Tpotpcov > *trarron > *trahron *tfs-ro-Hon'possessingfear'> *tfs-ron TpT|pCOV.94

therearemanyexamplesin Lesbian(though Forthesecondsource,Ryy • fewerattestedin aftera/o: Boiotian).For thetreatment > *gwann6> > *gwany6 (Lat. venio)> PGrk *gwamy6 *gwm-y6 Pan-Greekpaivco. > *hmorYa> Pan-Greekuoipot.95 *smor-ya *

ghr-ye-> *k*ar-ye-> kharYe-> xccipei.96

But aftere: > *awerYo> Pan-Greek*awerro, whichremainsin Lesb. *awer-yobut > Boiot.,Art.deipco(1CL). deppco, 92. The initiala- is an old and unsolved problem,possiblyinfluencedby linguistictaboo. 93. Att. back-formsnom. uf|v.Ion. shows originalnom. *mens> *mens (OstofFs Law) > ml2s= |iei Att. va\>-Kpapo *krarros > *krahros

> v-kA,tipo preformof PIE krh2s-r-6-> *krdsro > with 1CL *krdrro -Kpapo^ > -icA,T|po *aryoha> *aryoa)[see above, n. 89], 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

' fayro-spelled presumablyt a-ro-a or the like). The problemis thatthe expected faipcovdoes not show up anywhere.Instead we have Att. dpeicov with some typeof extensiveremodeling (Sihler 1995, p. 362, §354.4b). A similar recombinationmightalso account forthe Myc. form. 96. Again cruciallyorderedafter *r> ap but before1CL, which it bleeds.

HOLT N. PARKER

454

Figure4. ChartoftheFirstCompensatoryLengthening *kten-yo> *kteririo> Pan-Greek ktenno,remains in Lesb. Kievvo),but ktt|vcoDor., KiewtflAtt. (1CL; not attestedforBoiot.). Compare afteri: *krin-yo> *kriririo> Pan-Greek krinno,remains in Lesb. Kpiwco > KpivcoAtt. (1CL; not attestedforBoiot.). 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 > *gwole-(a regularmetathesis) in PIE *gwelh3'will,wish/ *gwe/oArk., Cyp., Pamph., and West Ion. p6A,oum;with a nasal infix > *gw/-no-> remodeled to a full-grade pres. *gwl-ne-h3-/*gwl-n-h3on the thematic root present.98This 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.Fortheinitiallaryngeal, > © theAeolicelements ofthesedialects"; Schmitt1977,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; Schmitt1977,p. 77,no. 18. Blumels to explainawaythethematic attempt formsis notconvincing (1982,pp.208210, §§223-224). 131. See thelistin Buck1955, §153. See Cowgillsclearre122, p. markson principles ofgrouping: 1966,

THE LINGUISTIC

CASE FOR THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION

459

The bestcandidatefora sharedinnovationis a puzzlingchangeconwhere0 showsup in theplace finedto thethird-person pluralverbendings, for of x,so -v0ifor-vxi,-v0cofor-vxco, -v0T| -vxai,and -a0rifor-ocxou.132 Garcia-Ramon assumesthe change is commonAiolic and explainsits Ionic influence.133 absencein Lesbianbythefamiliarmoveofpostulating we have a case of Rather, clearly analogicalspread,althoughthelocus is dates beforeboththedecipherment ofMyuncertain. The usualexplanation wherea hypothetical cenaeanandtheriseoflaryngeal theory, third-person > then threw its *senti which *henti, anomalously aspirationbackto plural createev0i,fromwhicha new -0i endingwas abstracted.134 However,no suchformexisted.The PIE rootbeganwiththe^-coloringlaryngealand > *ehenti, the originalGreekformwas *t>1s-enti nicelyattestedin Mycecorrectin locatingthe Blumelis almostcertainly naeane-e-si= efijensi.135 sourcein a secondaryassibilationo(-(n)ti- thatspreadbyanalogyin the to assignsucha secondarypalatalizationto It is difficult verbalsystem.136 in eitherBoiotian a proto-Aiolicstageand theprocessis farfromuniform and case ofdialectborrowing, orThessalian.This seemsa straightforward the same formsare foundin NorthwestGreekat Steirisin Phokis,over thepass throughMt. Parnassos.137

CONCLUSIONS thedialectsalonga databyarranging We mightsummarizethelinguistic on theleftandthosewitha greaternumber linewiththemostconservative of significant changeson theright: Thessalian| Lesbian | Boiotian | Doric | SouthGreek SouthGreek(Mycenaean,Arkadian,Cyprian,Attic-Ionic)sharesthe > ss > sywhileBoiotian,Doric,and the earlyassibilationofti > si and *t(b)y historicaldialectsof SouthGreeksharetheFirstCompensatory Lengthto be and Lesbian Thessalian consider we In this lineup, might ening. us to that view. but relatedconservative Rather, dialects, nothingcompels to their itmightbe betterto arrangethemin a linecorresponding roughly geographicpositionin historicaltimes: Thessalian| Boiotian | Doric | SouthGreek | Lesbian dialectsappearnot the two mostconservative In thisarrangement, and thefar as relateddialectsbutratheras relicareasin thefarnorthwest can be used withanyconfidenceto northeast. However,no arrangement dialectgeography. reconstruct prehistoric the Attic-Ionic, p. 83. So, forexample, Lokrian of northern part Thessalian, Greek),Corinthian, (Northwest Megarian,andRhodian(Doric) all sharethe inf.in -e-en,whileArkadian thematic andmostoftherestofDoric show-en to thestem.See Sihler 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: principea rangerce traitparmiles traits notingitsabsencein Lespaneoliens," ofPhokianforms. bianandthepresence 134. Schulze1933,p. 399; followed byScherer1959,p. 39, §237.14;Blumel1982,p. 156,n. 148; Schmitt1977, (1975, p. 71,no. 15. Garcia-Ramon to see an analogyfrom p. 65) prefers

-ueBa,-o0e,butno proportional analogycanbe made. 135.Fordetailsandfurther complications,seeSihler1995,pp.548-549,§492. 136.Blumel1982,pp. 155-158, beside §§171-173. Cf.MeA,dve-io po) and thelabiovelars(withthe defaultchangeto labials),and whichunderwent various laterminorchangesof its own. Lesbian and Thessalianare both archaic branchesofGreekthatdid notundergotheFirstCompensatory Lengthcommoninnovations, and nothingarening.Theyshareno demonstrable betweenthem.They are bestviewedas two relic gues fora relationship areasof a relatively unalteredearlyGreek. ofLesThessalians, Boiotians,andAioliansproper(i.e.,theinhabitants bos and theadjacentpartofAsia Minor) werenotpartof an Aiolic tribe or dialect;theyweresimplyvariouspeopleswho wereseen to be neither Dorians norIonians.138 In theabsenceof anyarchaeologicalor linguistic evidenceforsuch a group,we are betteroffavoidingthe term"Aiolic" altogether.

of 138.Cf.thesensibleremarks citedon p. 433 MeyerandGschnitzer andin n. 7, above.One consequence is thatthewholetopic ofthisresearch in Homerneedstobe of"Aiolisms" reexamined.

THE

LINGUISTIC

CASE

FOR

THE

AIOLIAN

MIGRATION

461

REFERENCES Adams, D. 1981. "The Pre-Historyof Tocharian PreteriteParticiples," in Bono Homini Donum: Essaysin HistoricalLinguisticsin Memoryof J.AlexanderKerns,ed. Y. L. Arbeitman and A. R. Bomhard,Amsterdam, pp. 17-24. Ahrens,H. 1839-1843. Degraecae linguae dialectis,2 vols., Gottingen. Aikhenvald,A. Y., and R. M. W. Dixon, eds. 2001. Areal Diffusion Problemsin and GeneticInheritance: ComparativeLinguistics,Oxford. Bartonek,A. 2003. Handbuchdes Griechisch, Heidelberg. mykenischen Beekes, R. S. P. 1969. TheDevelopment LarynoftheProto-Indo-European geals in Greek,trans.T. S. Preston, The Hague. Bellwood, P. 2001. "Early Agriculturalist Population Diasporas, Farming, Languages, and Genes," Annual Review ofAnthropology 30, pp. 181207. . 2005. FirstFarmers:The OriSocieties,Oxgins ofAgricultural ford. Blumel,W. 1982. Die aiolischenDialekte:PhonologieundMorphologieder Texteaus generativer inschriftlichen Sicht(Zeitschriftfurvergleichende Erganzungshefte Sprachforschung, 30), Gottingen. Bryant,E. 2001. The Questfor theOrigins ofVedicCulture:TheIndo-Aryan MigrationDebate, Oxford. Buck, C. D. 1955. The GreekDialects: GlosGrammar,SelectedInscriptions, sary,2nd ed., Chicago. Cartledge,P., ed. 2002. The Cambridge IllustratedHistoryofAncientGreece, Cambridge. Chadwick,J. 1956. "The Greek Dialects and Greek Pre-History,"GaR 3, 2nd ser.,pp. 38-50 (repr.in The Language and BackgroundofHomer, 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 theAegean:Archaeological in Greek Problems Prehistory, guistic ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, London, pp. 254-255.

. 1975. "The Prehistoryof the Greek Language," in CAH3 II.2, Cambridge,pp. 805-819. Chantraine,P. 1961. Morphologiehistoriquedu grec,Paris. . 1999. Dictionnaireetymologique de la languegrecque,Paris. Chapman, J. 1997. "The Impact of Modern Invasions and Migrations on Archaeological Explanation,"in Migrationsand InvasionsinArchaeologicalExplanation (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 Explanation,"in Migrationsand InvasionsinArchaeological 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," TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety,

pp.58-126.

Collis,J.2003. The Celts:Origins,Myths, Inventions,Stroud. 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 AncientIndo-European Dialects,ed. H. Birnbaumand J.Puhvel,Berkeley,pp. 77-95. . 1969. "On Resonant Clusters in Ancient Greek,"MeetingHandbook,44thMeetingoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica,pp. 22-26 (abstract). Crist,S. 2001. "Conspiracyin HistoricalPhonology"(diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania). Crossland, R. A. 1973. "Linguisticsand Archaeologyin Aegean Prehistory," in BronzeAge Migrationsin theAeand Linguistic gean:Archaeological Problemsin GreekPrehistory, ed. R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, London, pp. 5-15. Darms, G. 1976. "Urindogermanisch *semi,"MunchenerStudienzur 35, pp. 7-32. Sprachwissenschaft

HOLT

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

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

. 2005. Greeksand Pre-Greeks: and GreekHeroic 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 indogermanischenPronominalflexion,"in Perasperaad asteriscos: in honorem Studia indogermanica JensElmegdrdRasmussen(InnsbruckerBeitragezur 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

8,pp.41-60.

Grant,M. 1994. Atlas ofClassicalHistory,5th ed., Oxford. Grote,G. 1888. HistoryofGreece,4th ed., 10 vols., London. Gschnitzer,F. 2002. "Aeolians,"in Brill'sNew Pauly 1, cols. 226-230. Hackstein,0. 2005. "Archaismusoder historischerSprachkontakt:Zur Frage westindogermanischtocharischerKonvergenzen,"in und Sprachwandel. Sprachkontakt AktenderXI. FachtagungderIndo17.-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. Hamm, E.-M. 1957. Grammatikzu SapphoundAlkaios(AbhBerl1951:2), Berlin. Hammond, N. G. L. 1975. "The LiteraryTraditionforthe Migrations,"

N. PARKER

in CAW II.2, Cambridge,pp. 678712. . 1976. Migrationsand Invasions in Greeceand AdjacentAreas,Park

Ridge,NJ.

Hausler,A. 1998. "Archaologie,das Indogermanenproblemund der Ursprungder Hellenen," in Die derhellenischen Geschichte Sprache und Schrift:Vom2. zum l.Jahrtausendv. Chr.:BruchoderKontinuitat? ed. N. Dimoudis and A. Kyriatsoulis,Altenburg,pp. 79-128. . 2003. Nomaden,Indogermanen, Invasionen:Zur Entstehungeines Mythos(Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 5). Halle. Heubeck, A. 1984. "Zum Volksnamen derThessaler,"in KleineSchriften zurgriechischen SpracheundLiteratur,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.

Language History,Language Change, An Introand Language Relationship: ductiontoHistoricaland Comparative Linguistics(Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 93), Berlin. Hodot R. 1974. "Les noms en -Kpdxris, et -Kepxr|